Abstract
This work under review is Volume VI (1937–1939) of the selected works of C. Rajagopalachari, edited by R. K. Mishra and N. Shukla. The importance of this collection is signified by its dates which cover the first provincial government, which was formed in the wake of the 1935 Act. While the volume, including letters, speeches and addresses in the assembly, begins in 1936, much of it concerns the administration of the Madras province, thereby giving one an insight into the challenges and achievements of the Congress in its new role. The limits of both the basis of this government (property franchise, communal electorates) as well as its power (the superordinate authority of the Governor in the larger imperial framework), however, always needs to be kept in mind.
While the volume covers a diverse range of subjects including a few of a purely personal nature as revealed in letters, in this review, particular attention will be paid to certain running themes in this period. Such themes would involve the question of legislating on religion and language as well as the perceived threats from demonstrations and agitations on socio-economic or linguistic grounds.
It is perhaps ironic that while there are several references to Rajagopalachari’s misgivings about the overriding powers of the Governor in the colonial administration, which might well find echoes in the politics of today several decades after independence and democracy, a much more persistent theme in these early years of limited governance is Rajagopachari’s criticism and suspicion of agitational politics.
In what might strike many as a disturbing episode, in a letter that he writes to Rajendra Prasad, Rajagopalachari expresses displeasure with the fact that the current legal framework did not give sufficient powers to repress agitators, who according to him were making (his) governance impossible. He bemoans the fact that such demonstrations could not be construed as amounting to a ‘public nuisance’ or ‘breach of peace’ and therefore attract the relevant sections of the penal code. He writes that he was capable of devising a law ‘by which various sections of the penal code are amended suitably to protect parliamentary institutions against such vulgar attacks, and also amend the Criminal Procedure Code to make all such offences cognizable and satisfactorily brought under police investigation and suitable penalties. But such a measure would be immediately called a repressive measure and examined and criticized profusely’ (p. 299). Not principles, but pressure is clearly what worked.
Revealingly, the above letter mentions the anti-Hindi/Hindustani agitations as one example of the kinds of demonstrations that his government faced in the light of its language policy, and against which he wished to act. This volume documents both Rajagopalachari’s attempts to encourage Hindustani, 270–271 for instance, as well as the widespread protests against this. EVR Naicker, also known as Periyar, was sent to prison in one such demonstration, and there is some discussion of this in the volume (pp. 375–376). Needless to say, the issue does not die down and erupts in the period after Independence too, exhibiting the long-term continuities and fault lines in Indian history.
Apart from the language agitation, Rajagopalachari’s deep suspicion of Communism and Socialism is on display in several contexts. In an exchange with Gandhi, he insists on the danger of lifting the colonial ban on the Communist party, arguing that violent activity was germane to communist politics. From this letter, it is clear that Gandhi had a different view, according to which the colonial ban ought to be lifted because the government could always proceed if ever there was violence on the ground. This was a perspective Rajagopalachari was unwilling to accept. In another exchange with Kriplani, he does not wish to involve himself in the imprisonment of a socialist leader, who was incarcerated for not registering under the provisions of the press and publishing ‘periodical literature on the kisan movement’ (p. 407). In letters to Patel, he similarly does not wish to interfere in the imprisonment of Batliwala, a member of the Congress Socialist Party for sedition (p. 214), and complains bitterly about the Congress and Kisan Sabha leader N. G. Ranga’s anti-zamindari politics as ‘ungraceful’ and ‘highly mischievous’ (pp. 294–295). In another incident where lives were lost in a police lathi charge in response to a labour strike, Rajagopalachari lends his unstinting support to the judicial report that had exonerated the police (p. 280).
The other pressing issue that emerges time and again in these crucial years of early governance is the question of Temple entry for the Scheduled Castes, whom Rajagopalachari, following Gandhi, continuously refers to as Harijans. He makes it clear more than once that he is not in favour of legislating in matters of religion (p. 187). Even while strenuously critical of untouchability, for Rajagopalachari, it was only through persuasion and propaganda, not legislation per se, that such practices could be reformed. In his letter to K. Natarjan, he asks ‘do you suggest that I should introduce a bill that temples shall be opened to the harijans irrespective of present custom and not leave it to the present worshippers to decide the question…a clear lead should be given by people who are place in authority, I agree. But the government cannot claim this leadership in a matter concerning Hindu religious practice’ (p. 303).
In this context, his deep reverence towards the traditional Hindu dharmasastras and the ancient Hindu past is exhibited on different occasions. In a speech specifically addressed to advocates, Rajagopalachari remarks that he hoped that ‘lawyers would come out one day and tell these people [legislative reformers] how great a man Manu was’. Praising the hygienic practices that were to have characterised the ancient Hindus, he states that ‘if I could bring back the old religious code into effect with all its segregation and isolation laws, I would certainly have asked Dr Rajan to withhold the bill [on public health] as unnecessary. But it is impossible. They had a high sanitary conscience just as much as they had high religious ideals’ (p. 348). Clearly, Ambedkar’s acute critique, and even Gandhi’s willingness to be critical of certain scriptural tenets by this time, had left Rajagopalachari untouched.
It is perhaps a matter of some consolation that Rajagopalachari’s views outlined above did not carry through in the making of the Constitution, which took a clear interventionist stance on matters of religious discrimination. Notwithstanding constitutional guarantees of non-violent protest, the desire to empower the executive with a crushing legal apparatus against those marked out as agitators, have had, and will continue to have many takers today. The intellectual and ideological struggle in the colonial period, whether on the powers of the state or its role in religion, marked the making of our Constitution and continues to haunt the political landscape with an intensity that does not seem to have abated. One cannot but fail to remember Ambedkar’s prescient warning about democracy as being but a ‘topsoil’.
Many will no doubt find certain admirable qualities in Rajagopalachari as they study this volume. Illustrations would include his detailed knowledge of history, governance and the nitty-gritty of administration. One sees this in his speeches in the Assembly, where in one such address, he demonstrates a deep knowledge of the land revenue and its history going back to the Shore-Cornwallis controversies of the 18th century (pp. 330–344), which is mobilised as a critique of zamindari property. But perhaps most impressive is his forceful articulation and defence of the decision of the Congress to resign in the light of the British government’s unilateral declaration of war on Germany. As Rajagopalachari argues, Congress merely demanded of the British government that some consultation with the elected governments and a statement of intent be made regarding the formation of a Constituent Assembly. And while entirely sympathetic to the Congress position, his astute grasp of the prevailing social and political situation is indicated in a letter to Mahadev Desai, where he expresses the fear that since a genuine cleavage between the Muslims and the Hindus was unmistakable, any popular agitation launched against the British might only serve to widen it (p. 469).
A study of this volume is a sobering experience in that so many fundamental issues continue to haunt us today. The paradox of a national party becoming suspicious of the very politics of protest that enabled it to acquire power is perhaps best indicated by Rajagopalachari’s complaint to Gandhi: ‘like the scientists that discovered truths and gave weapons to the war mongers, you have given “Satyagraha” to the world, to the curer of social and political diseases, as well as mischief makers’ (p. 324).