Mysore after 1940 (Part 1)
[[Mysore after 1940 (Part 1) Source: prekshaa]]
In this survey of history, l have touched all the frontiers I had intended to. It is a wheel of time spanning sixty years between 1880 and 1940.* The historical events after 1940 is not relevant to my present purpose.
After Mirza saheb, the person who assumed power as the Dewan was Pradhāna Śiromaṇi Sir Nyapathi Madhava Rau. After him, Dewan Bahadur Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar took charge. With his tenure, the position of ‘Dewan’ came to an end. Mudaliar came in as the Dewan, and later went on to become the first Chief Minister of the Responsible Government before retiring. During his administration, Śrīmān Kyasamballi Chengalaraya Reddy had worked as his colleague for a few months. Thereafter, Reddy himself became the Chief Minister during the rule of the Responsible Government. Everybody knows the people who became the Chief Ministers after him. I believe I don’t have enough authority to talk about them. I am ancient, they are modern. If I am told that my mind is prejudiced, I cannot deny it. It might be a fact. I lack the courage to claim that I am the purest and that my mind is the most uncontaminated.
In the year 1940, my contact with public organizations such as the Legislative Assembly came to an end. Thereafter, there was no direct communication between me and the government. Since then, I have been merely a witness – a witness from afar.
Nyapathi Madhava Rau
It will be untruthful to say that I did not know Śrīmān Nyapathi Madhava Rau. Since his tenure as the Secretary of the Government, I had closely observed his method of working; I had also earned his affection. If anyone feels that my opinion about him is biased, it is not possible for me to prevent that. However, hiding my opinion fearing what people will say is not the manner in which truth should be upheld. My earnest opinion about Nyapathi Madhava Rau is that he was venerable in all aspects.
Rau was a brilliant thinker with all-round awareness and a man of integrity. He was a person who had earned his position of authority purely based on his intellectual capabilities. He worked in different regions of the State, and through experience he learnt about the challenges and testing situations that lay in front of the government. He immersed himself into the lives of the common people, and understood their character and behavioural traits; he was a man with genuine empathy.
In this manner, although his nature won the affection of the people, it wasn’t the sort of affection bereft of culturing. Madhava Rau had studied law in depth with a keen eye. He was a legal expert who had critically examined and understood the nuance of the discipline of law – be it the expanse of jurisprudence, interpretation of legal terminologies, and the fundamental principles of its regulations. I have felt many a time that if he had chosen the judicial department over administration, he would have gone on to become a renowned judge. His knowledge of law was that sharp and well-rounded. He had been recognized as a talented individual even as a student. Around 1907, he cleared his Mysore Civil Service Examination securing the highest rank in the Princely State and started his career as a Probationary Assistant Commissioner. In 1909, in addition to graduating with a BL degree from the Madras University with a first rank, he secured many awards and medals like the Carmichael Prize.
Nyapathi Madhava Rau worked in various departments of the Mysore Government and the Mysore Municipal Corporation; as the Chief of many organizations such as the factory at Bhadravati [Iron and Steel Plant]; and in several high positions such as Revenue Commissioner, Muzarai Commissioner, and Trade Commissioner of Mysore in London. He presided over several government organizations such as the Mysore Representative Assembly, the Legislative Council, and Bangalore Urban Development Authority and served as the member of the Constituent Assembly as well as foreign delegations constituted by the Government of India. In all these capacities, Madhava Rau earned repute for his competence and long-term vision.
Madhava Rau was a man of few words. He would speak only as much as he felt was sensible and necessary; his speech would neither be too less nor too much. It was his nature to speak cautiously and weigh his words while talking.
Downfall of the Public Decorum
Although Madhava Rau’s legal acumen and his love for people had been widely embraced by everyone, the social environment was not very conducive for him. Even during the tenure of his predecessor Mirza Ismail, public decorum and dignity of office had slackened while mob furore had started. During Madhava Rau’s tenure, the age-old practices of public decorum degraded further. I vividly remember – one evening, he asked me for my suggestion. It was around the time when a British minister by name Cripps (Sir Stafford Cripps) was slated to visit India. When Sir Cripps visited India to deliberate upon the political affairs of the country, K T Bhashyam indicated to me to be a part of a delegation that required a few people with the citizens’ perspective to discuss the future of the Princely States with him [Cripps]. However, I communicated to Bhashyam that I was not qualified to take on the responsibility since I was not representing any public organization. Instead, given that Bhashyam was a Congress leader, I pointed out that he was competent to take up the task himself. I suggested to him that he could propose this idea to Dewan Madhava Rau. Accordingly, when Bhashyam spoke to Madhava Rau (over telephone), the Dewan apparently expressed his desire to meet me. Subsequently, when I called upon him, the first question he asked me was this: “How do we make our people follow the Assembly’s decorum?”
I replied, “Sir, it appears that the time to teach decorum has passed. Our people had inherited the practice of reverence and dignity as a saṃskāra [sacrament, self-refinement] for thousands of years. Due to this saṃskāra, our people had developed respect for the government quite naturally. People respected government authorities for a certain set of reasons. The first reason was decorum. The second was their adherence to truth. The third was their scholarship. The people who assumed authority earlier were well known for their conduct, integrity, education, and intelligence. Due to those traits, people willingly revered them. Now, that treasure-trove of qualities has turned deficient. You are well aware yourself as to the kinds of people who have gained power in the State. Fearing such powerful people, if the government starts promoting them indiscriminately, how will the citizens—who know their real worth—show respect to them? This is the situation today. Realizing the fact that there is no choice but to take shelter under random unworthy individuals, the people merely show as much respect to them as is necessary, in a superficial manner. These days, the work of the government has become particularly difficult!”
This is the first part of an English translation of the thirteenth chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.
* The period of ‘sixty years’ is significant since it is the period of the traditional saṃvatsara-cakra (sixty-year time cycle) of India.
Mysore after 1940 (Part 2)
[[Mysore after 1940 (Part 2) Source: prekshaa]]
Helplessness of the Government
I have mentioned earlier a statement that M N Krishna Rao used to repeat quite often: “When observed from one standpoint, the government is the most omnipotent body in a country. There is no other entity as strong or as independent as that. When seen from another angle, there seems to be no other entity as weak or as parasitic as the government. The government can rule only if people support it.”
During Mirza Ismail’s tenure, the citizens themselves had begun slackening the government’s regulations. The śāstras may declare ‘Dharmo rakṣati rakṣataḥ.’ Dharma can protect us only if we protect Dharma. How can dharma retain its capacity to protect us if it is crippled? Only if the people protect the decorum of the government will the government be able to protect the interests of the people. What if the people themselves turn against the government? What can any government do?
This is why the State could not wholesomely benefit from Madhava Rau’s honesty or competence.
During the tenure of Sir Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, this discord intensified further.
As for the events that took place afterwards, I do not wish to critique them here.
Rise of the Democratic Era
We can consider the year 1947 as a line of partition in our country’s history. That year was a mountain range that stood tall between independent and dependent India. In this manner, it did not merely bifurcate the political scene in our history but also from the point of view of society, the period before 1947 was vastly different from the one thereafter. Even the structure of the government before 1947 was different from the structure of the government now. Similarly, the fundamental objectives of the State used to be something then and are something else now. Even the system of measurement was different. The earlier era was that of annas (āṇè) and pies (called dammaḍi or kāsu); now it is of Paise.* There is neither anna nor pie today. Earlier, inches and feet were in use; now it is kilometres. The days of seers (seru) and maunds (maṇa, equal to forty seers) have passed; today it is measured in kilograms and quintals.** Previously, it was a period of kings whereas now it is the era of ministers and touts. In this way, the external lives of the citizens from all aspects have become stranger than before.
Had these transitions occurred as a result of people’s willingness and efforts, nobody would have said anything about it. In the history of our society, changes have occurred often. Things have changed several times. A number of massive changes have also occurred; they have taken place right since the era of the Manusmṛti. But never had anyone ever sensed a feeling of revolution in the State when such changes took places. The changes during the past had come into effect in tandem with the situations of the State around that period.
Change is something that only happens naturally. It is like our bodily transformation. It keeps happening second after second. A child’s physical body would have changed in many ways by the same day a year later. A mouth without teeth would have developed teeth. In another few years, the teeth that had grown will have fallen. It is similar on a plant’s body as well. The changes in the society are no different. They need to happen without any noise or commotion, without attracting the attention of others. There should be no external constraints. The sattva, or inner essence, of the human body quite spontaneously adapts to an external situation. This sort of a change is neither dangerous nor troublesome. In our society, the transformations that occur in the lives of the citizens should be such. In other words, the sattva of the people should blossom.
What I would like to mention here is the fact that the changes that occurred in the last twenty to twenty-five years have come into effect through artificial constraints rather than in a manner that would aid the people’s sattva to blossom. The more artificial a change is, the more difficult it will be, and that much more unstable.
‘Svarājya’
It is true that the leaders of our country requested for ‘Svarājya.’ It is also a fact that everyone in the country was involved in seeking it. In that idea of svarājya, however, the most prominent intent was ‘the expulsion of foreigners.’ What sort of people should replace the foreigners was a thought that was never clear in people’s mind. Let the outsiders leave, let us rule our country by ourselves! This was the only objective that was definite. Now, let us assume that the slogan “Let us rule our country by ourselves” had the undercurrent of the idea of democracy. In such a case, how should the structure of the democracy be, how should its organs function, how should the relationship amongst those organs be, these details weren’t resolved as yet. Let us now look at an example.
In the year 1917, the leaders of our country thought of sending a delegation to England to impress upon the British gentlemen India’s fervour to claim svarājya. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was heading the meeting concerning the same. It was around the time when the venerable Annie Besant was running an organization called the Home Rule League; it was the time when the fundamental objective of Home Rule had been endorsed by Tilak.
That delegation had come to Madras on the way. Tilak’s committee was welcomed in Madras by Annie Besant, Sir S Subramania Iyer, and many other leaders; they organized a public lecture. I had been to Madras to attend that event. A massive crowd had gathered. Tilak and a few others delivered discourses. Just a few days prior to the event (in August 1917), the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu had made a declaration in favour of the British in their parliamentary session. That declaration was one of the most prominent phases in our country’s recent political history. During the course of that, the term ‘Responsible Government’ appears. While giving his speech that day, Tilak brought up this phrase and said, “What is this ‘Responsible Government’? What we demanded is Swarajya – Self Government. The British are offering to give us something called ‘Responsible Government.’ Is what they offer the same as what we seek, or are they different from each other?” Presenting his arguments thus, Tilak sparked both laughter and doubt among the audience.
It was only after several days that people realized that ‘Responsible Government’ was one of the many forms of a democratic system.
To be concluded…
This is the second part of an English translation of the thirteenth chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.
* Twelve pies made an anna and sixteen annas made a rupee.
** Based on the region, the measurement of the seer varied but officially it was defined as equal to 1.25 kg.
Mysore after 1940 (Part 3)
[[Mysore after 1940 (Part 3) Source: prekshaa]]
‘Responsible Government’
A ‘Responsible Government’ or an ‘Answerable Government’ can be briefly described thus: The country should be ruled by the citizens; however, lakhs of people cannot rule at the same time. Therefore, they will elect their representatives. These representative convene an Assembly, which is what is known as a ‘Legislative Assembly’ or ‘Parliament.’ Many people will come up seeking to be elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly. They will be made to stand as ‘candidates’ or ‘aspirants’ and in their support, parties get established. In this manner, a person who would have become a people’s representative would, in real sense, become a representative of his party. Whichever political party has more people, the leader of that party becomes the Chief Minister, and he will select people from his party into his cabinet of ministers. A government run by the cabinet of ministers formed in this manner may remain in power for a period of four or five years. However, it can be toppled from its seat of power by the Legislative Assembly whenever it decides. Either by passing a ‘No-confidence Motion’ or by rejecting a prominent issue raised by the government, the cabinet of ministers can be defeated. Since this opportunity exists, the parties that do not obtain the power of the government will always yearn to climb to power; as a result, signs of ‘No Confidence’ and display of opposition occurs on a weekly basis. Thereafter, it becomes rather common for the other parties to rake up gossips and rumours across the State about the previous cabinet, accuse them of lapses, and try to deny the previous party from getting an opportunity to contest in the forthcoming elections.
In this manner, since different political parties in the State battle for ministry, it was called a ‘Government of Ins and Outs’ or ‘Flipping Government.’ In that country, there were two political parties. If one party was within the government, the other would be outside. The decision of which party will be inside and which will be out, is solely dependent on the voter’s mind-set on that particular day.
Unnatural System of Governance
‘Responsible Government’ was an extremely new kind of system that our common people had not understood. The people in England and Canada might have been aware of it. As far as India was concerned, it was completely new. Even in the continent of Europe, the system of ‘Responsible Government’ was rather uncommon in the olden days. England is the original home of this system of administration, and it is quite normal for that region. For our nation, it was artificial.
Indian leaders embraced this unnatural, alien system without examining it thoroughly and without any basis in experience. That system was suitable for their theoretical, bookish, and merely logical brains. But in many instances, experience at work and dry, textual logic do not follow one another. A music recital by somebody who has learnt music only from books, the cooking of a person who has learnt the culinary arts purely from reading – these illustrate the deficiency in theoretical education. The intellectuals and pundits who drafted the Indian Constitution were scholars of books.
Let that be so. One must admit that their undertaking was extremely challenging. After the British left India, they had to choose some system of governance, isn’t it? In such a difficult situation, let us assume that they formed the current system. Let us also assume that the system is largely convenient. But was it the common men and women of Mysore who requested for that system of governance to be brought to their region? No. Around that time, a majority of people in Mysore did not know what a ‘Responsible Government’ was and were unaware of its various pros and cons. Today, even after twenty years, I cannot be sure that the inner sense of that phrase ‘Responsible Government’ has been understood. A foreign sentiment, which is alien to people, was approved for this State by a few leaders. They came forward and stood as though they were the State’s representatives, and as if their words stood for the whole citizenry, they agreed to Delhi’s terms – and according to their instructions, annexed Mysore. I was one of their followers.
In this manner, the system of ‘Responsible Government’ came to Mysore unnaturally; it came from outside. It didn’t grow from within us. Since it was far too alien to us, we have not understood its character and nature.
Rule of the Parties
It is difficult for something that is not ours to suit us. How would we look if we wore the coat and turban of some random wealthy fellow, just because someone said they looked regal? How will it be if a giant shirt tailored for someone like Bhīmasena is worn by somebody thin and weak? How will it be if Hiḍimba’s turban was worn by Hanumayya? Such is our plight.
We wanted the rule of the people (a democratic State); what we got instead is the rule of the parties.
What we wanted was a trouble-free government. The government has to accommodate the peace of mind necessary to lead our lives according to our will. Peace of mind is indeed kṣema (wellness). In the oft-repeated phrase ‘yoga-kṣema,’ which we employ casually, there are two expressions – ‘yoga’ and ‘kṣema.’ Yoga means gain – i.e., earning the things that we need, acquiring what we desire. Kṣema means the wellness or the peace of mind we require, to enjoy what we have earned and acquired. The summary of the śloka
rājā dhārmiko bhavatu
deśo’yaṃ nirupadravo’stu
that is recited in the devālayas after offering the mantra-puṣpam is as follows:
May the king be virtuous!
May the country be free from misery!
The land should be free from distress. However, it is our experience that the State that we have brought upon ourselves has been constantly distressful for the last twenty-five years. What is the reason behind this misery? I am not competent to say that it is because of democracy. The reason for this agony seems to be the peculiar form of democracy that we have brought upon ourselves, which gives greater prominence to the party and is an organization—or disorganization—called the ‘Responsible Government.’ Competition between parties, mutual hatred and envy, divide that forms between citizens, confusions, and constant conflicts – these are the most prominent evils in today’s politics. This is the best illustration for the Tamil proverb ‘Kettāṇḍapaṭṭiyār ku kalahame kalyāṇam’ (loosely translates into: ‘For those hailing from Kettandapatti, rebellion is [as joyous an occasion as] marriage’).<> The Congress party, which began with achieving unity, has now attained its completion through people’s disunity, fights, and scuffles.
The politics of clashes and dilemmas doesn’t suit the temperament of Indians. It is not appropriate for their lives and lofty goals.
Concluded.
This is the third part of an English translation of the thirteenth chapter of D V Gundappa’s Jnapakachitrashaale – Vol. 4 – Mysurina Diwanaru. Edited by Hari Ravikumar.