BVK in Rajya Sabha :: ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿವಿಕೆ

ಮದ್ರಾಸ್ ಅಸೆಂಬ್ಲಿಯಿಂದ 1952ರಲ್ಲಿ  ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಭೆಗೆ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯಾದ ಬಿ ವಿ ಕಕ್ಕಿಲ್ಲಾಯರು ಎಪ್ರಿಲ್ 3, 1952ರಿಂದ ಎಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2, 1954ರವರೆಗೆ ಅದರ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗಿ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದರು. ಆ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ ಚರ್ಚೆಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 140. ವಿವರಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲಿವೆ.

Sri BV Kakkilaya was elected to the first Rajya Sabha from the Madras Assembly and he remained a member from April 3, 1952 to April 2, 1954. During this period, he participated in as many as 140 debates. Details are here.

19-May-1952: Motion of Thanks on The President’s Address

AMENDMENT No. 18
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): Sir, I beg to move: That at the end of the motion the following be added, namely :

“but regret that the President’s Address does not contain any reference to the Policy the Government propose to pursue to develop industry like tiles and handloom, boodies, etc. and safeguard the interests of the workers engaged in such industries.”

AMENDMENT NO. 19
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir, I also beg to move: That at the end of the motion the following be added, namely :

“but regret that no mention was made in the President’s Address of the steps the Government propose to take to protect the rights and interests of Indians living in South Africa, Ceylon and Malaya.”

Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590598/1/PD_01_19051952_3_p51_p150_4.pdf

21-Jul-1952: Government Resolutions: Discussion on Resolution Reformation of Andhra State

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): Sir, I rise to support the Resolution for the formation of an Andhra Province. I do so not because I feel that the problem of Andhra is based on a special footing as the Prime Minister declared. I support the formation of the Andhra Province because I come from a Province where also the people suffer from the same disadvantages and the same difficulties as the Andhra people are suffering from today. My province, i.e. Karnataka, is cut into pieces. One or two pieces are in Madras where we are a minority. Some four or five districts are added on to Bombay where again we are a minority. One piece is in Hyderabad State where again we are a minority and there is Coorg which is a small unit, which cannot sustain itself, which is not self-sufficient and which cannot run its administration efficiently with the resources that it has. There is Mysore which of course is industrially and agriculturally advancing. Now if the Karnataka province is formed, if all these various parts of Karnataka are brought together, certainly Karnataka would be selfsufficient. It would materially progress. It would culturally advance and it will have all the advantages of a good province.

But now here we hear that the formation of the linguistic provinces or formation of the Andhra Province or the Karnataka Province or any other Province for that matter will be detrimental to the unity of India. I do not understand how it will be detrimental to the unity of India. Some hon. Members here even went to the extent of saying that they are indebted to the British rulers for having brought about the unity of India that we are having today. Yes, if we continue as we are today, if we continue the present set-up of the country, certainly we will become more and more indebted not only to the British imperialists but also to the American imperialists. Let us see how the British imperialists ruled here. Now we see that in India there is a bureaucratic superstructure which appears to be a united Administration of the whole country. But it is only a semblance of unity and not real unity. What is at the bottom of it ? At the bottom of it we see that everything— every nationality—people speaking every language in India are divided, are divided artificially, are divided into small bits here and there and these divisions have obstructed them in developing their economic resources, their natural resources, their industries, their agriculture, their culture, their language and their education. In every aspect of life their advancement is obstructed. Not only the present division of these linguistic units, the cutting into pieces obstructs the development of these nationalities, but also the manner these pieces are put together in an artificial way. The present States are formed by the conglomeration of all these various pieces put together. Now for example take the Bombay State. There are people speaking four or five languages in that State put together and these people are always quarrelling against one another. The same is the case with Madras. They think that the interests of Tamilians are being submerged by the people who speak Telugu and vice versa. Thus these disputes are going on between different people in different States.

If we really want a united India, an India which ls really united from the bottom to the top and not an India which is full of disruptive forces bickering and internal struggle, then India must be divided into provinces on a linguistic basis into States based on the language and culture of the people. We do not mean to say that States must be formed entirely on the basis of language. Certainly not. Language, culture, economic stability, administrative convenience, all these things must be taken into consideration. But even taking all these things into consideration, nothing can be said against the immediate formation of the Andhra province, or the immediate formation of the Karnataka province or the immediate formation of the Kerala province, or for that matter any other linguistic province in India, because the provinces are already there. Taking Karnataka for instance Mysore State is there, and the other parts of Karnataka in the Madras and Bombay States can be incorporated with it. We have a capital there ; the administrative machinery is there. We can certainly have a Karnataka province. Similarly, an Andhra State can be formed, and a Kerala State can be formed. All the objections, all the difficulties mentioned are merely excuses to put off this demand for the formation of linguistic provinces. Many of the Members who have spoken on this subject on the floor of this House have spoken in two voices. They supported the Resolution ‘and at the same time they opposed the Resolution. There is inconsistency in what they say. The Congress, before it came into power, supported the formation of linguistic provinces but after it came to power, it is opposing the formation of linguistic provinces. Our learned friend, Dr. Ramaswami Mudaliar, said that consistency is the virtue of an ass ; perhaps it is to prove that they are not what they really are that these friends show inconsistency so much. Because of these supposed difficulties, how can we refuse to meet this demand which is made throughout the country ? Today, the Andhra province, the Kerala province, the Karnataka province, all these provinces can be formed without any difficulty. They will certainly be self-sufficient. Administration can be run very efficiently in all these States. There are so many States in India today which are smaller in size, smaller in population and smaller in natural resources and other facilities. Sir, the creation of these States does not mean the disintegration of India. On the other hand, today we are not having just one Central Government, administering the whole country. We are having so many States in India, and where is the harm in readjusting the boundaries of these provinces and forming States on the basis of the language, culture and traditions of the people ? Sir, I support this Resolution wholeheartedly because I feel it is in the interest of the unity of India and the material and cultural advancement of the various peoples inhabiting India.
Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590609/1/PD_01_21071952_19_p1519_p1612_3.pdf

4-Aug-1952: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Bill, 1952

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Mr. Chairman, prevention of corruption is no doubt a laudable object, but my fear is only this : Are we going to put down corruption by adding a few pages to the Statute Book. Sir, my hon. friend, Mr. Reddy, said that dogs may bark but the caravan will pass on. If this is the attitude of the Government and their supporters …………………

SHRI GOVINDA REDDY : That cap seems to fit some Members here.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : ………………… I am afraid, they are not going to put down corruption. Dogs may bark but the caravan will pass on, it is true but there are a few wretched dogs also following the caravan hoping to pick a few crumbs falling from the bags of those on the saddle.

SHRI M. L. PURI : Caravan means good men.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : That is also true. Now, the worst part of the situation in our country today is that the policies and practices of the Government themselves are giving rise to corruption. It is no use simply passing a few measures here and adding them to the statute book and then keeping quiet. If we expose corruption, then we are called all sorts of names. This morning one hon. Member said, “These Communists have no other business. I hey come here, they talk of corruption and they accuse the Ministers. It is because these Communists want to create confusion in the county.” It is not with a view to creating chaos in the country that we come here and expose these corrupt practices that are going on in the country in the Administration from top to bottom. Today corruption is not there only in the lower ranks. We know it is in the very high ranks, in the highest parts of the administrative machinery and if we are to clean the big structure, this administrative structure, I mean we have to begin — it is commonsense that we should, if we are serious about leaning the structure, begin from the innermost recess of the topmost floor of the structure and not from the bottom. We suggest to the Government that if you are serious about putting down corruption, you direct the searchlight on the Government themselves; on the topmost quarters nearest to themselves. Then only you will be able to put down corruption and not by tinkering with the problem, not by catching hold of a few clerks or petty officers here and there. One hon. Member said in the morning that ‘these people want to malign the Ministers and they want to create dishonesty in the country. They want to give an impression to the lower officials of the Administration that they also must become dishonest or corrupt because the Ministers are corrupt.’ It is not with a view to creating dishonesty or creating corruption that we make this suggestion. Already there is corruption from top to bottom, we need not create it in this country. We have enough of it already. The problem is how to put it down.. If you are serious about putting it down, you must begin it from yourselves ; you must begin from the top levels of your administrative structure. I will give you one example. In 1946, our paper Deshabhimani of Kozhikode published a news item exposing the corruption that was rampant in one remote village in Kasargod Taluk. Then what happened was that instead of enquiring into the corrupt practices of the Revenue Inspector and the village officials there, the Editor of the paper was prosecuted. Then we had to take some Members of the Madras Legislature to that village, conduct enquiry in their presence and go to so many houses and people came voluntarily and gave evidence before them that ‘ this village official and this Revenue Inspector came here and while procuring paddy, they threatened us and collected from us Rs. 2 and Rs. 4 per head.’ Then in the court we had to fight for 4 or 5 months and we had to dance up and Sown the court and get acquittal for the Editor. Such things are going on and if the Ministers and Government shield these officials who are corrupt, then no amount of legislation will put down corruption. Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590505/1/PD_01_04081952_30_p2889_p2943_5.pdf

11-Aug-1952: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: The Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Bill, 1952

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras) : Sir, I move : That at page 1, line 9, for the words and figures ’31stDay of December 1954, the words and figures ’31st day of December 1952′ be substituted.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I feel that as long as this Preventive/ Detention Act exists on our Statute Book there can be not even an iota of democracy in our country. We know how this Act has been working in our country for the last two or three years. My leader Shri Sundarayya in his speech gave a vivid picture of the excesses committed by the police, by the military and by the officials in Hyderabad, in Telangana and in Andhra during the last several years when the Preventive Detention Act was in force and was being used in that part of the country. In the State of Madras when this Act was first put into force and warrants were issued against hundreds of people there, we know to what great difficulties our people were subjected. The mother of a detenu, a sixty years old mother, was arrested and prosecution was launched against her simply because she gave shelter and food to her son against whom there was a warrant. In our country’, it is said and it is being preached by our hon. Ministers and others, that there are great traditions. They speak of the traditions of India and say that in India we have got the great traditions of love, of freedom and all these things. But when a mother offers food to her son, when a mother offers shelter to her own son, and that too an old mother of sixty, she is arrested and taken to the police lockup, tortured and prosecution is launched against her. This is what happened in a district neighbouring mine—Malabar. I know what happened in my own district of South Kanara. Warrant was issued against me. It was kept pending and the story was given out that I was underground. Later on of course, I was arrested and when I was released recently during the election days, they again brought the charge against me and prosecuted me for absconding for some months. Sir, this is the state of affairs. If you give unlimited power to the executive, unlimited power to the Government, then you cannot expect democracy to exist in the country.

We know why this Act is being enacted and why the Government want to extend the life of the Act for the next two years. The hon Home Minister told us that this Act is necessary because there are some people who have arms in their hands, because there is trouble in Saurashtra and there is violence in some other parts of the country. But I say it is not for these reasons that the life of this Act is being extended. For the last so many years this Act was there in the Statute Book and it was being used ruthlessly against the people. They have not put down blackmarketing in the country. They have not put down corruption in the country. They have on the other hand used this Act, this obnoxious Act, against the workers, against the peasants, against the students and against those sections of the people which demanded food, which demanded work and a living wage from their employers and from Government. We know what is happening in this country. Factories are being closed. Thousands of workers are being thrown out of employment. The Government knows that the situation is not going to be very peaceful for some years to come. When workers demand jobs, when they demand a living wage ……………….

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please speak about the duration of the Act.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Yes, Sir, I am speaking on it. When they make these demands, the Government come down upon them and help the capitalists to carry on their exploitation. That is why they want this Act to continue. That is why they want to extend the life of this Act, and they want these unlimited powers to be continued in the hands of the executive.

I may mention another thing. In this Act it is said that any person who does anything or says anything against the interests of friendly relations with foreign States or anything affecting our foreign relations can be detained. What is the meaning of this ? We know that recently there was a question in the other House about the recruitment of Gurkhas into the British army. The Prime Minister the other day denied the report. Recently again the Prime Minister came forward and made a statement in that House and though he had denied it at one time during the course of another debate and had said that Gurkhas were not being recruited as soldiers into the British army in our country, he had to admit it in that statement. Sir, it is to cover such activities and it is to allow foreigners to come here and recruit our countrymen into the British army, to recruit soldiers on our soil, it is to cover these things that the Government want this Act to be extended. It is to barter our country, to barter our freedom and to suppress democracy in our country that they want to extend the life of this Act. I submit that the life of this Act should not be extended even by a single day. I would request the hon. Minister to bring forward a Bill to repeal this Act and not a Bill to extend its life. However, if they are so keen on extending its life, let the hon. Minister extend it till the end of this year and not a day more than that. Let us not carry the dead weight of this nefarious Act into the year of Grace 1953. Let us enter 1953 with a clean slate and let us afford all opportunities to our people. Let the life of this Act end with 1952. So my amendment is this that the existing words may be changed and you may say that the life of this Act be extended only upto the 31st of December 1952.

MR. CHAIRMAN : There are amendments to clause 3. Clause 3 was added to the Bill..
MR. CHAIRMAN : The motion is : That clause 4 stand part of the Bill. There are a series of amendments here.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, line 20, for the words ‘ twelve days’ the words ‘seven days’ be substituted.
SHRI B. GUPTA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, lines 26-27, for the words ‘as soon as may be’ the words ‘within five days’ be substituted.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, lines 26-27, after the words ‘as soon as may be’ the words ‘but not later than seven days after making the order’ be inserted.
SHRI B. GUPTA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, line 29, the words ‘in the opinion of the State Government’ be deleted.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, line 29, for the words ‘as in the opinion of the State Government’ the words ‘in the possession of the State Government as’ be substituted.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I also move : That at page 1, line 30, the words ‘the necessity for’ be deleted.
Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590549/1/PD_01_11081952_36_p3733_p3830_4.pdf

The Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Bill, 1952— Continued.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Mr. Kakkilaya may move bis amendment.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move : That at page 1, line 35 for the word ‘every’ the word ‘no’ be substituted.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move : That at page 2, line 3, for the word ‘five days’ the words ‘two days’ be substituted.

Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590547/1/PD_01_11081952_36_p3831_p3898_6.pdf

16-Dec-1952: Government Resolutions: Resolution Re Five Year Plan

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras) : Sir, I move : That in the Resolution for the words “records its general approval of” the words “having considered” be substituted ; and at the end of the Resolution the following be added, namely : “regrets that the Plan does not premise the ending of the exploitation of British capital which is one of the main causes of India’s backwardness and poverty .”
Sir, I also move : That in the Resolution for the words “records its general approval of” the words “having considered” be substituted; and at the end of the Resolution the following be added, namely : “regrets that the Plan does not promise any democratic transformation, political, administrative or economic, but on the contrary seeks to perpetuate the present state of affairs.
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA : Sir, I move: That in the Resolution for the words “records its general approval of” the words “having considered” be substituted, and at the end of the Resolution the following be added, namely : “regrets that the Plan does not seek to develop transport and communications between different parts of regions speaking the same language but separated under different State Administrations and that the Plan does not contemplate unification of such linguistic regions.”

11-Dec-1952: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: The Industrial Finance Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 1952

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras) :

Sir, amendment No. 17, the last one, moved by Mr. Gupta, is a very simple amendment and it is absolutely innocent.

It reads : ” No accommodation shall be given to the director or his nominees or to any concern with which he or his relations or his nominees may have any connection.”

We have seen, in the course of the debate, several complaints coming from various quarters that the funds of the Industrial Finance Corporation have not been properly utilised for the development of small scale and medium scale industries. We have also heard several hon. Members speaking here of the Directors of those gentlemen at the head of the institution utilising these funds not in the proper way, but, to advance their own personal ends. So, in this connection, it is quite necessary that such things are not allowed to continue and that they are put an end to. Of course, the hon. Minister has given us several assurances: he has said that nepotism and favouritism will be put an end to if they are brought to his notice. It is very difficult for us, Members of this House, to bring any such things specifically to his notice, especially when we do not know who the loanees are, what are the dealings of the Finance Corporation in respect of giving accommodation etc. So, if the Government really means what it says, if it means to really put an end to nepotism and favouritism, it should be easy for the hon. Minister to accept this amendment and to guarantee that such things will not be allowed in the future. If they really want to implement the assurance that they have given on the floor of this House, they must incorporate this amendment in the Bill itself and guarartee that by law such things will not be allowed to be done. With out making any more remarks, I request the Lon. Minister to accept this amendment
Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/590010/2/ID_02_11121952_13_p1432_p1536_6.pdf

14-May-1953: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: The Air Corporations Bill, 1953

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): Mr. Deputy Chairman, the hon. Mr. Rama Rao whom I do not find here just now, yesterday started his speech by expressing his surprise at the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Communists towards nationalisation of air transport. I am sorry the hon. Member does not know that Communists are not so very gullible. Communists do not take in anything and everything as nationalisation, simply because it is declared to be so by the hon. Minister or a Bill is claimed to be for that.

It is a matter of common knowledge that air transport in our country, ever since the war was over, was gliding down an inclined plane and year after year air transport companies were incurring heavy losses. But immediately after the war the-“leaders of the industry”—as the hon. Minister chose to call them— still hoped that they could make profit just as during the war. They went in a rush, they went against each other. They set intense competition going on. They purchased as many planes as possible. They cornered as much of spares as possible. Because of this, huge capital was locked up. Today so many planes are lying idle. So many spare parts are lying idle. The industry is finding itself in a crisis. When the Government proposed to nationalise the industry in 1947 these very same leaders of the industry opposed it and to-day when the same leaders of the Industry want the Government to take over the concerns and to run the air transport, then the Government obligingly comes forward with this measure to take over the concerns and run them.

We know. Sir, from the very beginning of the air transport industry in our country, it has been developed with the taxpayer’s money. The hon. Minister was pleased to pay glowing tributes to Mr. Tata and the other leaders of the industry but he has not a single word to say about the work done by the technicians, by the workers and the sacrifice made by the common people to run and develop this industry.

SHRI JAGJIVAN RAM: It is a complete misrepresentation of my speech.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: I am referring to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister delivered yesterday here. He had not a single word to say about the taxpayer whose money has been spent to maintain this industry, even to keep this industry alive. In this connection I will refer. Sir, to the speech made by the then hon. Minister for Communications, Mr. Rafi Ahmed Kidwai who said, “What is the history of this Airline?” (That is the Airline which was managed by Mr. Tata). “I was told that the Company was started as a private concern of Tatas in 1932 or 1933. No accounts are available for those years but from the fact that they had three planes costing Rs.20,000 each and may have set aside a lakh for running expenses, it may be presumed that the capital they invested was Rs. two lakhs. We have got the accounts of the huge amounts that were paid to them for postal carriage at the rate of Rs. 5 a pound. Later on in 1944 they submitted their accounts for the first time to the Director-General of Civil Aviation because they intended to convert the concern into public limited liability. At that time the capital was shown to be a little over Rs. 10 lakhs. In 1944 and 1945 they earned a profit of Rs. 12 lakhs.”

Sir, from the very beginning these air transport companies were running here not on the basis of the earnings they made from commercial services, but on the basis of the freight en mails they were carrying, the war efforts they were rendering the subsidy that the Government was giving them and the rebate on petrol duty and all the other things like that based on the exchequer. The Government spent lakhs and lakhs of rupees to help these air companies and today the Government comes forward to pay huge compensation also to these companies. If at all there is anyone who is to be compensated, it is the tax-payer, for the huge loss he has sustained. The money that the tax-payer has paid to keep these companies alive has been wasted. Not a single pie has been used properly and the common man has not received any benefit out of these air companies.

Now, Sir, I won’t dwell on that point any further because the time at my disposal is very short. But I will come to one point which has been missed during the course of this debate in these two days. The measures that the Government proposes to take under this Bill will not help to solve the crisis of the air transport in our country, because, as everyone knows, the crisis in the air transport industry is not due primarily to inefficiency of management or to the amount they spend for maintaining staff and their employees. The primary cause for this crisis is the huge drain of the resources of these companies—the revenue they earn—for buying fuel and oil. for insurance charges, for spares and for other items which go out of our country. Unless the Government decides to reduce these items of expenditure, no amount of Government control over this industry will solve the crisis. The Government does not propose to do anything in the matter. I would have welcomed any step proposed by the Government for reducing the cost of fuel. You know, Sir, here in India—it was said yesterday also—that 37 per cent, of the cost of operation is accounted for by tne cost of fuel. Now the British and American concerns which supply us fuel and oil are being given various concessions in our country. The Government has entered into several agreements with these companies for establishing oil refineries and so many other things, but the Government does not think it fit to force these companies to get fair terms from them in order that we may get oil and fuel from these companies at cheap rates. Even according to the figures given by the Air Transport Enquiry Committee’s Report, the price that we pay for fuel is Re. 1-7-3 per gallon whereas in Australia it is Re. 1-4-6. To this we have to add transport charges— for transporting this aviation fuel from Calcutta and Bombay to interior aerodromes—and that comes to reven to eight annas per gallon. Then we have to pay customs duty which is about fifteen annas per gallon, whereas the customs duty in Australia is only eight annas. On the whole the price that the operators have to pay here— the net price—comes to Rs. 2-14-0, while in Australia it is Re. 1-12-6. Now the only measure that Government took all these years to help the operators was to give them a rebate on the import duty on petrol. What does this mean? The Government, instead of trying to persuade the supplying concerns to reduce the price here and to bring it to the same level at least as it is in Australia, is trying to give the operators some sort of help by way of rebate. This means that the Government is allowing the foreign concerns to drain away huge sums from our country by allowing them to charge as high prices as possible from our operators, and at the same time meeting a part of it from the tax-payer’s money. So what I suggest is that Government must take immediate steps to reduce the price of aviation fuel and oil.

Another thing is the question of spares. Spares also, we are not manufacturing in our country. According to the Report of the Air Transport Enquiry Committee it is said that the Hidus-than Aircraft Factory was at one time manufacturing certain spares for their own use. But even today we are importing even such ordinary spare parts as split pins from abroad and these operating companies have acquired so much of extra spares parts that their capital is also locked up there. Huge amounts are also being drained out of our country in purchasing these spares. Even if the Government runs this air transport industry without trying to manufacture these spares in our country—in the Hindustan Aircraft Factory or in any other factory wherever it, is possible—unless Government takes immediate steps to manufacture spares in our country, the corporations are not going to make any headway.

Another item which involves huge expenditure is Insurance. These insurance companies charge high rates. The incidence comes to 7 to 9 per cent, of cost of operation. Once the planes are insured with the Indian companies, they re-insure them with world Insurance companies and huge amounts are drained out of our country by way of premium for this insurance. Most of our Indian companies, for example, the Bharat Airways and the Tatas have their own insurance companies—their sister companies. These monopolists in our country have a number of branches of different industries and commercial concerns. They have insurance companies also and they can insure these aircrafts and other machinery and they can pool the insurance business and share the risk involved in that, instead of allowing the foreign concerns to drain away our money to their countries. Thus we can prevent that drain by pooling the insurance business and dividing the risk among the insurance companies in our own country.

Another thing I want to say in this connection is this. In our country— and it is mentioned in the Air Transport Enquiry Committee Report also — the foreign airlines enjoy the right to pick up passengers for intermediate countries. According to international conventions, the third and fourth freedoms that are enjoyed by all the concerns throughout the world are that traffic is allowed only to those planes which belong either to the country of origin or to the country of destination. Now. American planes today pick up passengers from India to, say, Hong Kong. These American planes either belong to the country of origin nor to the country of destination, but our Government allows this freedom to foreign air companies. This fifth freedom which is allowed to these companies also accounts for a huge drain on our national resources and it is a big loss to our own companies. So in the Air Transport Enquiry Committee Report also reference was made to this and the attention of the Government was drawn to this aspect of the crisis in the air transport industry. Unless the Government takes steps to prevent this huge drain of our money abroad and to make this money available for the development of the industry in our country, this Bill is not going to help the industry in any way, nor is it going to develop air transport, in our country.

I want to make one more point only. Much has been said here about the treatment that would be meted out to the employees of the air transport companies who will be now transferred to these corporations. The hon. Minister was pleased to assure the other House that he would take steps to see that retrenchment would not be there to any large extent, but at the same time he failed to give a categorical assurance to that effect. Now. Sir, these air transports companies have been carrying on retrenchment ever since 1947-48. Air India, for example, retrenched 646 workers between 1948 and 1951. Air Services of India also retrenched nearly 300 workers during the same period. Not only did they retrench workers, but they also withheld the increments of salaries of the employees.

PROF. G. RANG A: One set of workers were retrenched, and another set of workers were recruited?

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: No. I am giving the net result. Some workers have been retrenched, and some have been taken. But the net result is that 646 have been thrown out in one company, and 300 in another. These men lost their jobs. Not only that, but even those who were kept in employment were refused increments in wages which were due to them even according to conditions of employment. The reason given, of course, was that the companies did not make any profits. Now, Tatas are managing two concerns—Air India, which runs internal services, and Air India International, which runs international services. Air India International makes profits, while Air India runs at a loss. But they are two concerns. The profits earned by one company will not be available, naturally, to the company which is running at a loss. So, the company which is running at a loss is withholding increments and is carrying out retrenchment of workers. Taking this as an example, they are doing the same thing in the other company also. And now, when the hon. Minister proposes to establish two Corporations, we are afraid the same example will be followed by the hon. Minister in regard to increments, in regard to continuity of service, and in regard to other benefits that naturally should go to the workers. (Time bell rings.) With these words, I should say that we are not at all enthusiastic about this Bill, though we welcome the step taken by the Government to control the air transport industry. We are not at all enthusiastic about this Bill, because this Bill does not propose to take any step to solve the basic problem, the basic causes which are responsible for the crisis in the air transport industry.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The amendment and the clause are now open for discussion.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir, the Air Transport Enquiry Committee report has itself admitted that large stocks of  equipments are accumulated. I will just quote one sentence from that. It says:
“It is clear that what actually happened was that with the spirit of intense rivalry then, (that is, immediately after the war) afoot and in its anxiety to secure as many licences as possible, each company set about equipping itself to the extent its financial resources would allow. The situation was facilitated in this regard by easy availability from disposal stocks of Dakota Aircraft at cheap prices.”
Again they say:
“One important consequence of this sort of scramble was that there was no proper planning by the operating companies. Because of the intensity of competition to obtain route licences, those who got themselves equipped first seem to have thought that they stood the greatest chance of acquiring a licence. Thus the capital resources of the companies were drained and they were also burdened with heavy current expenses even before their applications for licences were heard.”

Here it is said in the Bill that the Corporation would take steps to improve aircraft and equipment. That will be one of the functions of the Corporation. Before going to improve the type of aircraft and before going to acquire new equipment and machinery, we must make sure that what we have at present at our disposal are put to the maximum use. The Enquiry Committee also says that utilisation of these aircraft and equipment in our country is very low. The dakotas are used even for less than 1,000 hours. Because of the low utilization of these craft, the cost per hour of flight becomes very high. So it is necessary even for economising the current running expenses that we utilize the existing aircraft and equipment to the maximum extent possible. In other countries the dakotas and other planes are used for nearly 2,000 hours per year. That is what we understand from various reports that we read in this connection. These dakotas which we have, have been used for 12,000 to 12,500 hours so far, whereas these dakotas can be used for 40,000 to 50,000 hours. Unless we fully utilize these aircraft and other equipment it will be criminal on our part to go in for new equipment and craft especially when we have to depend upon foreign monopoly concerns for the supply of aircraft aiid spare parts. That is why I propose this amendment and I request the hon. Minister to kindly accept this.

Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/589847/1/PD_03_14051953_49_p5806_p5924_3.pdf

14-Apr-1953: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: Government Bill -Consideration & Passing/Return/Withdrawal: The Khadi And Other Hand-Loom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty On Cloth) Bill, 1953.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Amendment moved:

“That at page 2, after line 30, the following new sub-clause be inserted, namely ‘(h) providing of relief schemes for
those engaged in the handloom industry.'”

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir. I beg to move:
“That at page 2, after line 30. the following new sub-clauses be inserted, namely:

‘(b) assisting handloom industry by providing long-term cheap credit facilities to the manufacturers; (i) helping the speedy disposal of handloom cloth by organising purchase and sale co-operative societies and subsidising them; 0) supplying yarn to handloom manufacturers at cheap rates; (k) providing free rations and other benefits to handloom weavers if and when they are unemployed involuntarily due to non-availability of yarn or accumulation of stock or both.'”

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does not 4(e) cover your point? ‘

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: No, Sir, it is said in a general way.

Sir, it is admitted by all that the main problem confronting the hand-loom industry is the problem of disposing of the stocks. Even the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at Madras in October last said that the main problem today is not that of production but that of disposing of the stuff that has been already produced. Now in my part of the country in South Kanara and Malabar handloom industry is run on a factory basis. There are factories employing hundreds of weavers. What is happening there actually is this. These handloom manufacturers have very little capital resources. Once they produce handloom cloth and dump the goods with the middlemen who are mostly monopoly dealers, they accumulate there. They are not sold speedily. The factory owners then are not able to continue the industry and they are not able to run the factories. They either cut the wages of the weavers or close down the factories completely and throw the workers completely on the streets. That is what is happening. Even the weavers who own their own looms are not able to continue their profession when their products are not sold readily. So the main problem today is to help the handloom weavers and the manufacturers to dispose of their stocks immediately after production. It is said that in Madras State alone the Provincial Weavers Cooperative Society has stocks worth four crores of rupees. Now the government must immediately take steps to clear these stocks. Unless these stocks are cleared the industry will not survive. The first problem is to make the industry survive. Then only the question of development comes. So I suggest here that immediately assistance must be given to the handloom manufacturers to speedily dispose of their goods. Assistance must be given to the factory owners or the weaver owners also by way of cheap credit facilities to run their industry when their articles accumulate. Unless this is done the weavers will not be able to tide over the difficult times through which they are passing today. Secondly the difficulty with the handloom industry even today is the difficulty in getting yarn. For the last several years weavers were finding it very difficult to get their yarn requirements. There was shortage of yarn and also the price of yarn was very exorbitant. Now also the difficulty is there to a great extent 50 to 60 per cent, of the cost of production of hand-loom cloth is accounted for by the cost of the yarn. So if the Government is serious about helping the handloom industry they must see that the hand-loom weavers and manufacturers get cheap yarn. It is said that in some places they were being supplied free yarn and that has been stopped now. But in my part of the country I have never heard of this free supply of yarn. Even if the Government are not able to supply free yarn to all and always, Government must somehow procure the yarn required by the handloom industry and supply it at cheap rates. It may be that Government will suffer some loss on this account but they can make up that loss by utilising a part of this cess that they are going to collect.

Then after supplying cheap yarn to the handloom industries. Government must buy over the stocks manufactured in handlooms and then arrange for their speedy sale. Even there it may be necessary to subsidise the sales and a portion of this as proceeds must be utilised for subsidising the industry. Lastly I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister that any measure to help the handloom industry must also help the handloom weavers who are working in the factories and who are today unemployed or are paid low wages. Minimum wages and human living conditions must be guaranteed to them. In Rayalaseema and other places they were providing gruel kitchens to unemployed weavers. Now they have been closed. Even if gruel kitchens cannot be opened in all places, in some places at least where famine conditions prevail, the Government must supply free rations through gruel kitchens or otherwise. In other places they must give all the benefits that a factory worker is entitled to get according to the various labour legislations. Unless these steps are taken bv Government, all talk of helping the handloom industry and of further developing handloom industry will only be tall talk and the money that is collected here, I am afraid, will be wasted on fantastic schemes. Perhaps so many experts are already on their way to this country to man these researches and other schemes.

SHRI T. T. KRISHNAMACHARI: Sir, the first amendment moved by Mr. Rajagopal Naidu and the amendment of Mr. Kakkilaya to (h) and also to (k) are more or less out of the scope of the provision ….The intention of Mr. Kakkilaya’s amendment also is to assist handloom industries by providing long-term cheap credit facilities to the manufacturers, by helping the speedy disposal of handloom cloth by organising purchase-and-sale co-operative societies and subsidising them, supplying yarn to handloom manufacturers at cheap rates; providing free rations and other benefits to handloom weavers if and when they are unemployed etc. etc… We are supplying all these types of aid and they are all covered by
(a).
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: And Mr. Kakkilaya?
SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: I would like to withdraw it, Sir.
Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/589846/1/PD_03_14041953_27_p2738_p2902_4.pdf

04-Mar-1953 Part 2(Other than Question and Answer) Budget (General) The Budget (General), 1953-54 General Discussion

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): Sir, many speakers on the other side have claimed that the reactions of the stock exchanges prove that the people as a whole welcome this Budget. But for us who know the real position that exists in the country, those who know that the stock exchange in our country does not reflect the opinion of the general mass of our people, or even of the medium and small scale industrialists and commercial men, who know that the stock-exchange in our country is nothing but an organisation of tiny section of the monopolists and speculators in our country, we know that the people in the stock-exchange are the only people who welcome this Budget. And the very fact that they welcome it shows that the overwhelming majority of our people, workers and peasants and the middle-classes and even small industrialists and businessmen have reacted very badly towards this Budget.

This Budget does not offer anything to the people. This Budget has given relief only to the richest. Ever since 1947, as my Deputy Leader Mr. Bhupesh Gupta said yesterday, this Government has been giving tax relief to the monopolists, to the speculators and to those people who have been gathering large amounts of income but, at the same time, this Government has been going on increasing the tax burden on the ordinary people of this land. So, this year again, our Government has given more tax relief to the rich and to compensate that, even more than to compensate that, they have increased the tax burden on the poor people of our country.

Now, instead of going into the generalities of the Budget, I will confine myself to certain very specific grievances which I want to place before this Government and the House. Shrimati Lilavati Munshi just now said that when Shri Bhupesh Gupta referred to queues of death and hunger, she was surprised. She does not see any death due to hunger or starvation in our country. But, the hon. Member from Maharashtra, who spoke immediately after that, said how thousands of people, lakhs of people, were caught in the grip of hunger. It is not only in Maharashtra Sir; in the Karnataka Part of Bombay, according to the Revenue Minister of Bombay himself, ten lakhs of people are today in the grip of hunger. There, during the last four consecutive years rains have failed. In Bijapur District, especially where there are five rivers, if Government spends money there to improve irrigation facilities, if they spend money there to utilise the waters of these five rivers, the whole area, which is chronically famine sfricken district can be converted into a granary; but our Government would not consider such areas and, because of that, once in five or ten years famine visits that district and our people are starving. Take Mysore State. There are three districts, Chitradrug, Tumkur and Kolar where for the last four years rains have failed and people are starving; cattle are dying for want of fodder and what is our Government doing? Our Government, instead of rushing foodstuffs there, instead of reducing the price of foodgrains, have stopped the subsidy and today, ration shops are being closed and, therefore, food prices have increased. In Mysore State, even Congressmen I and members of all parties have joined together and have protested against this increase of price in foodstuffs but our Government does not pay any heed to the voice of the people. They go on saying that they do not have any money for their projects and so they cannot waste funds for feeding the people. In the district of Kolar, thousands of people are starving. In the same district, we have got the Kolar Gold Fields and this concern, the British concern of John Taylor & Co., has been, for the last several years exploiting not only the gold but thousands of workers there and our Government,—the Mysore Government—instead of at least trying to prevent the remittance of the profit of this John Taylor & Co abroad and utilising that for helping the people in that District, have made a present of Rs. 40 lakhs per
annum to John Taylor & Co. by repealing the Gold Duties Act. This is how our Government is serving the interest of the people.

I will give, Sir, one small example of how the Government is thoroughly irresponsible towards the workers and the ordinary people. There is the Hindusthan Aircraft Factory in Bangalore the whole capital of which is owned by the Central Government and the Mysore Government. But, neither the Central Government nor the Mysore State
Government owe any responsibility towards the workers. The same is the case with the management of the factory. We know, Sir, machines are lying idle; the full productive capacity of the factory is not being fully utilised. Not only that, the workers there have no security of service. Thousands of workers who have put in service for years are “even now treated as temporary workers. Ever since 1947 this concern has been earning lakhs of rupees as profit but only once and that too in honour of the visit of the Prime Minister were the workers paid one month’s pay as bonus. Whenever the workers put forward their grievances, Government says that they have nothing to do with that as it is an autonomous factory. This is how our Government treats our workers. The Association of the Employees is not  allowed to hold their general body meetings inside the colony; though the Union is registered and a recognised Union, it is not allowed to hold its meeting in the colony near the Factory. I will tell you one interesting story. The Union held its General Body Meeting and no less a
person than the Chief Minister of Mysore State presided over that meeting but the Managing Director of the Factory had the affrontery to refuse permission to the Employees’ Union to hold that General Body Meeting in the factory premises. You can imagine, Sir, the meaning of the policy of the Government of converting all the state-owned factories into private limited companies. This is a measure taken by Government to cheat the workers, to shirk all responsibility towards the workers and the public.

Then, Sir, I have to refer to one important question. You know that Mr. Justice Wanchoo has made a report to the Government as regards the formation of Andhra. Now, there is very grave concern in the minds of the people
in Karnatak and in the South as a whole. Karnatak, you know, is a region which is inhabited by nearly 2J crores of people. Two districts of Karnatak, which are separated from one another, are in Madras State; four districts are in Bombay and 2  districts are there in Hyderabad. There is, of course, Mysore State and there is Coorg. We are consigned to two Part A States, two Part B States and one Part C State. On the whole, Karnatak is a Part D State, we should say; that is, we have no State of our own. Karnatak has very fertile land; we have got rich forests; we are very rich in minerals; we have got very
great scope for development of hydroelectric power; we can develop very good industries. Sir, in spite of all that, Karnatak serves as a hinter-land to the big capitalists of Bombay and Madras. Today, all the parties in Karnatak have joined together and are united in this demand for the immediate formation of Karnatak, but, the Central Government has put forward so many pleas to postpone the formation of Karnatak, to deny this legitimate demand of the Karnatak people. In the Hyderabad Congress session, they said that unless Andhra is stabilised, we cannot think of forming any other province. They also’ said that if Karnatak or any other linguistic state was formed then, the implementation of the Five Year Plan will be affected. This is nothing but a false plea on the part of Government because, even if this Five Year Plan is to be implemented, even if we are to get the slightest improvement in our culture and economic standards, certainly we can have it only if linguistic provinces are formed. Andhra people are capable enough to stabilise their State.

(Time bell rings.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak on the Budget.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Yes, I am speaking on the Budget because the Budget has made no provision for this nor has it been based on the re-organisation of the States on a linguistic basis.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Two minutes more.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Simultaneously with the formation of the Andhra Province, I also urge upon the Government to take up this matter of the formation of Karnatak Province. I have one more point to place before the House.

SHRI ABDUL RAZAK (Travancore-Cochin): May I know whether the hon. Member has ascertained the wishes of the
people in Mysore State?

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Yes, people of Mysore are also in favour of it. 56 members of Mysore Assembly have signed a memorandum and have forwarded it to Government for the formation of the Karnatak Province.

SHRI C. G. K. REDDY (Mysore): Quite right.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Recently, Sir, there was a by-election in Mysore State in the Bangarpet constituency of Mysore State.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned with that, Mr. Kakkilaya. Your time is up.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: I will show how we are concerned. I am going to show a letter wntten by the Deputy Food Minister. We are concerned because the Deputy Food Minister belongs to this Central Government. This Deputy Minister has written to the village officials in Bangarpet asking them to work for the Congress candidates and to support them. He has not only written letters to these village officials, but, he has used Government stationery to write, these letters. I have got one letter here. I am going to place it on the Table of the House. It is written on Government stationery. He has despatched it in service envelopes and used service stamps. This is the way our Ministers behave and with this they are going to work this Five Year Plan and this Budget. With these words, Sir, I conclude my speech and I place the letter on the Table of the House.
Source: http://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/589751/1/PD_03_04031953_16_p1700_p1790_5.pdf

7 and 8-Sep-1953: Government Bill – Consideration & Passing/Return/ Withdrawal: The Andhra State Bill,1953

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): Mr. Chairman, in 1928 the Nehru Committee Report stated that everyone knew that the division of provinces in India had no rational basis. I am surprised to hear some of my friends today defending the present distribution of States in India. Even the British imperialists admitted in the Montegu-Chelmsford Report that “the map of British India was shaped by military, political or administrative exigencies of the moment with small regard to the actual affinities or wishes of the people”.

[MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.]

Sir, I do not know how our hon. friends here can defend this division of India into these irrational provinces. The demand for the redistribution of provinces on the basis of language and culture of the people was born out of the consciousness and struggle of the people against British imperialism. The movement for linguistic provinces developed along with and as a part of  the struggle for independence of our country. Never in the history of our national movement did this demand for the redistribution of provinces work against the interests of the general struggle for the independence of our country. That being the case, to come here today and say that the reorganisation of the States will jeopardise the unity of the country, is nothing but to give a lame excuse to put off this just demand of the people. We know that ever since 1947 the Government of India began sliding back and betraying every pledge that they had made during the course of our independence struggle. My hon. friend, Mr. Rajagopalan, just referred to the J.V.P. Report, and he said that if at all we are to reorganise the States in India, we should do so with due consideration, with prime consideration, to the unity, stability and security of the country. I am unable to understand how the formation of linguistic States in India is going to jeopardise the unity, stability and security of the country. In fact, the demand for the formation of linguistic provinces in India is based on the fact that real democracy and lasting unity in India can be achieved only by forming linguistic States and enabling the people to participate in the day-to-day administration of the country. So the formation of linguistic provinces is not against the unity, stability and security of India. On the contrary, that is going to reinforce the unity, stability and security of the country.

Now, Sir, coming to this Bill. I welcome this Bill. I do so for two chief reasons. Firstly, it is stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that this Bill is intended to establish an Andhra State consisting of the Telugu speaking areas of the present Madras State, and secondly, it is intended to merge Telugu-Kannada-speaking taluks of Bellary district into the adjoining State of Mysore, which, we ought to remember, is a Part B State. So this Bill recognises two principles; firstly, the formation of linguistic provinces, i.e., the formation of provinces on the basis of language, and secondly, adding a part of a Part A State to a Part B State. Now, the Central Government, having accepted these two principles, cannot, even for a day, delay the formation of the Karnataka province. After all the formation of Karnataka province today will only mean the addition of Kannada portions of the Part A States of Bombay and Madras, the Kannada-speaking parts of the Part B State of Hyderabad and the Part C State of Coorg to Mysore. The hon. Minister while introducing this Bill said that they had to, overcome so many difficulties with regard to the capital of Andhra State, and that various other difficulties were there. But as far as Karnataka is concerned, none of these difficulties exists. We have capital; we have High Court: we have University. The only thing lacking is willingpess on the part of the Central Government. Only if the Central Government is willing to extend i those principles already accepted by them to a neighbouring area of Karnataka, certainly they can form the Karnalaka Stale without any difficulty or delay.

SHRI ABDUL RAZAK (Travancore-Cochin): But Mysore is not willing.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Now, coming to that, Sir, I would like to point out that in the J.V.P. Report and in the Dhar Commission’s Report the only argument that was advanced against the immediate formation of Karnataka State was the existence of Mysore as a Part B State. They said that unless Mysore agreed to go into Karnataka the formation of a Karnataka State would not be a feasible proposition. Now, it is made quite clear that Mysore is willing to welcome any part of the neighbouring areas, any part of Kannada speaking areas, in the Mysore State and to form the Karnataka State. It has been made quite clear in the course of the debate on this very same Bill in the Mysore Assembly—all the elected representatives of the Mysore people and the Government of Mysore have made it very clear—that it is not Mysore that
stands in the way of the formation of Karnataka State, but it is the Central Government which stands in the way of its formation. (Interruption.) When the Prime Minister went to Belgaum immediately after making the statement on the formation of Andhra here, he declared there that if Mysore was willing to come into Karnataka, the Central Government would not stand in’ the way. But today when the Mysore Government and the Mysore people have unequivocally stated that they would welcome all the Karnataka areas into Mysore, the Central Government is shifting its position. Now the Central Government states that if Karnataka State is to be formed, the great State of Bombay will have to be disintegrated, the great State of Hyderabad will have to be disintegrated. I cannot understand why they give one excuse after another to evade the issue. After all, they are disintegrating the State of Madras. Then why can they not disintegrate the State of Bombay? Why can they not disintegrate the btate of Hyderabad? The Bombay Assembly and the Madras Assembly, Sir, even as far back as 1938. passed resolutions recommending the disintegration of those States into their component parts. Sir, I need not go as far back as 1938. Even in 1947, when the. Constitution of India was being drafted here in Delhi, the Legislative Assemblies of Madras and Bombay passed resolutions recommending to the Constituent Assembly to disintegrate those States’ and to carve out the provinces of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujerat, Kerala, Tamil Nad and Andhra. That being the case, it is quite clear that it is the Central Government alone that stands in the way of Karnataka State. Now, they may say that Hyderabad is there. The hon. the Prime Minister once stated that if Hyderabad was disintegrated, that would mean a calamity for the whole of South India, that would mean destruction of the South Indian culture. I do not know what the Prime Minister meant by that. I cannot understand how the Nizam of Hyderabad is considered to be the representative of the South Indian culture. If at all any meaning, can be given to this declaration of the Prime Minister, it can only be this, that the Central Government wants to maintain the State of Hyderabad to hold the balance between the Telugus, the Kannadigas and the Maharashtrians. If the Central Government is really a national Government, it need not have such a State there to maintain the balance of power, as the imperialists were doing in their
days. Imperialists created the native States in order to divide the people, to create ill feelings between them, and to create a base for their own rule over India. I do not think the Central Government today need have any such base in any part of the country to maintain their power. The Central Government should be a real representative of the willing cooperation and association of the free peoples of our country. Now. Sir, my hon. friend Mr. Hegde,while speaking the other day, said that he was shamed of what was going on in Karnataka. Really speaking Sir, whatever is happening in Karnatakka is a matter. of shame for him. I am glad that his sense of shame is not dead. The Action Committee of the Akhand Karnataka Rajya Nirman Parishad was to meet on the 8th of August to reconsider their former decision to launch satyagraha on the 9th of August, but the members of the Action Committee were arrested and detained without trial on the 6th of August, I would ask the hon. Minister and the hon. Member Mr. Hegde, was it not shameful on the part of the Government to have arrested those leaders? I would also ask them: Was it not shameful for them to have arrested all the supporters of the candidate who was opposing the Congress candidate in the bye-election in Hubli, and at the same time for Minister after Minister going to Hubli to support the Congress candidate? But the candidate who opposed the Congress on the issue of the formation of Karnataka got elected. Is it not shameful for the Congress? Perhaps Mr. Hegde was referring to these things when he said that he was ashamed of what was happening in Karnataka. He said that fish-plates were removed and the train was delayed. But Mr. Hegde reached here safely’. I also reached here. Several other members have reached here. There was not a single accident; there was not a single incident of derailment in any part of Karnataka. There ate so many accidents happening in the country. We read about goods trains being derailed. Perhaps the hon. Minister will lay the blame nn the Karnataka people. We were very careful to see that no such incidents took place in Karnataka because we knew perfectly well that these people would lay the blame on us and make it an excuse to put our people behind bars. We have taken very good care to see that the party men of Mr. Hegde do not succeed in doing some acts of sabotage themselves to implicate us and thus to sabotage ther realisation of the long cherished aspirations of the Kannadigas. I would tell the hon. Minister that it is high time that he gave an assurance to the Kannadiga people that their long-cherished goal of unification of their homeland will also be realised as soon as the formation of the Andhra State takes place. I would remind the hon. Minister that this demand for a Karnataka province took shape as early as 1903 and that it became a real people’s movement by 1915 or 1916 along with the movement for the formation of an Andhra State. A few months ago when a resolution was being discussed in this House, on the formation of an Andhra Province, the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to consider the question of Andhra as a special case. He also said that each case would be considered separately on merits. If they take up each case on merits, certainly they cannot deny the formation of a Karnataka State. Then today they say that they do not want to take up this question in a piecemeal manner. Even then the formation of Karnataka cannot be delayed. I would appeal to the hon’ble Home, Minister, and especially to the Deputy Home Minister who comes from Karnataka and who had been at one time the leader of the movement, for a separate province of Karnataka, to give this solemn assurance that the Karnataka State will be formed at least within one year after the formation of the Andhra State, that the Karnataka State will come into existence on the 1st October 1954. Let him take steps to see that the boundaries are fixed properly, and if there is a Boundary Commission appointed simultaneously with the formation of the Andhra State, this question can be settled peacefully; the dispute between the Mysore State and the Andhra State in respect of Bellary District or the Kolar District or for the matter any other dispute can be settled satisfactorily and we can satisfy the aspirations of the people in the South. I hope that the hon. the Home Minister, when he replies to the debate, will make this declaration and assure the people of Karnataka that their long-cherished aspiration for the unification of their homeland into a separate State will be satisfied.

[Later on….]

SHRI GOVINDA REDDY: No, but this Boundary Commission has got strings and qualifications and, therefore, as the amendments are today, I have to oppose them. Excepting Mr. Rajagopal Naidu’s, the other amendments raise a fundamental question, Sir, the question of reopening the demarcation of the boundary of the areas which now, according to the Bill, are included in the Andhra State and in the residuary State of Madras, and two of the amendments at least go to open up the question of demarcating the areas in Mysore State also. Mr. Rajagopal Naidu, while explaining his amendment, has stated what the question of re-opening the demarcation of areas means When we peruse both the reports of Mr. Justice Wanchoo and Mr. Justice Misra, so much of what we desire to know comes to light in this regard, that is, the people are very keenly divided on these questions. Regular parties are formed and bickerings go on and such bitterness as nobody in this House or anywhere would like in the country to prevail is generated. Sir, if there is a Kannadiga in Bellary, he refuses to sit in a bus run by a Telugu man and a Telugu man refuses to sit in a bus run by a Kannadiga; Kannadigas’ buses are set on fire and Telugu buses are set on fire.

Shri B. V. KAKKILAYA (Madras): What is the `Kannadiga bus’ and `Telugu bus’?

SHRI RAMA RAO (Madras): Andhras are manufacturing buses nowadays!

SHRI GOVINDA REDDY: If an Andhra runs a bus, he runs the risk of losing the bus and he has already run the risk of losing passengers.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir I move: “That at page 2, for lines 17 to 22, the following be substituted, namely:

4.  Transfer of territory from Madras to Mysore.—(1) As from the appointed day, there shall be added to the State of Mysore the territories which immediately before that day were comprised in the taluks of Bellary district other than Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug and in the taluks of South Kanara district other than the Hosdrug sub-taluk of Kasaragod taluk in the State of Madras and the said territories shall thereupon cease to form parts of the State of Madras.’

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Amendment No. 16 is barred—disallowed. Amendment No. 19 is disallowed.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir I move: “That at page 2, for lines 23 to 26, the following be substituted, namely:  ‘(2) Without prejudice to the power of the State Government to alter hereafter the extent, boundaries and names of districts, the transferred territories shall form separate districts to be known as Bellary district and South Kanara district respectively.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Clause 4 and the amendments are open for discussion.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: Sir, I need not make a long speech to explain the amendment standing in my name because it is self-explanatory. It is evident that South Kanara district has no place in the Madras State any more. There are only two districts in Madras, South Kanara and Bellary, which are Kannada speaking. After removing Bellary from Madras and joining that to Mysore, South Kanara has no place in Madras. If you go into ‘the historical reason also, South Kanara was a part of Mysore for a long time and it was only the British imperialists who when they came here and created the present Mysore State they detached it from Mysore and added it to Madras. South Kanara district has very close economic association with Mysore State and the economic development of South Kanara district as well as that of Mysore State depend upon each other to a great extent.

1 P.M.

You know Sir, how the very simple question of a rail link between Hassan and Mangalore has had to wait for more than half a century, even though the Mysore Government had conducted the survey for the line falling within their territory. The question of developing a major port on the west coast either at Mangalore or Malpe or Bhatkal also has had to wait for 25 or 30 years and yet it has not been done. Mr. Hegde will agree with me when I say that South Kanara has been neglected in the matter of capital investment, by Madras.

DR. K. N. KATJU: On a point of order, Sir. We must have some relevance in the topics we discuss, Can we have a discussion about South Kanara and Mangalore being included in the Mysore State?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You are extending the area of the Mysore State in this Bill and so this is relevant.

DR. K. N. KATJU: I beg your pardon, I withdraw my objection.

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: As I was saying, Mr. Hegde will agree with me when I say that South Kanara has been neglected by the Government of Madras in the matter of capital investments. Mr. Hegde nods his head in assent and so I shall read out his own statement made before the Linguistic Provinces Commission. He has said: “We Kannadigas have a legitimate complaint as regards the capital investments made. A survey of the investment made either by Madras or Bombay Government will disclose that we have been entirely neglected.” Therefore, I submit economically and culturally South Kanara’s development depends on its re-joining Mysore State. In the residuary State of Madras it will have only a very small number of Members in the Legislature and while all the others will be speaking in their own language—and that is something to be welcomed—these few representatives from South Kanara will sit blinking being unable to follow anything that is said in Tamil. Similarly when these Members from South Kanara stand up and speak in their own language, the rest of the House will not follow what they say.

AN HON. MEMBER: How have you got on here?

SHRI B. V. KAKKILAYA: So I request that my amendment saying that South Kanara may be added to Mysore State as a first step towards the formation of the Greater Karnataka may please be accepted.

Shri K. S. HEGDE: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I am opposing the amendment in question. In fact I am entirely in agreement with my friend Mr. Kakkilaya that both geographically and economically we are a part of Mysore and it is also our ambition in the immediate future to become a part of the State on which Mysore will be associated. But for the time being we will scuttle ourselves economically if we are immediately removed from the Madras State and passed on to the Mysore State. If my learned friend Mr. Kakkilaya would study the economic programme that is being carried out in the district he himself would not probably have tabled this amendment. I may say for the information of the House that we have a number of plans that are being implemented either at provincial level or at Central level in co-operation with the State. For example we have got the Cape Comorin Highway that is running from the Cape to Bombay which runs through the entire District. It is on a 50 : 50 basis between the Madras State and the Central Government. Also we have got the water supply scheme for the Mangalore town and big electrical expansion scheme. There are a large number of other economic problems before the district. Within the coming three years the Madras Government has undertaken to spend a sum of nearly three crores of rupees in the district. We cannot think of going to Mysore at this stage. There is no equivalent provision for the completion of these very programmes and works of water supply, etc. in Mysore. As such we will suffer seriously if we are to go to Mysore at present and our economic position will be very much affected. There is no financial provision so far as the Mysore State is concerned. I am talking from the economic point of view. Of course I agree that in the larger context of the formation of the Karnatak State we shall be there as a part of Mysore. Mr. Kakkilaya was also pleased to quote my evidence before the Dhar Commission in 1948. Of course I gave evidence before that Commission complaining about the treatment meted out to the district by the Madras State. Much water has flowed under the bridge after 1948. If only Mr. Kakkilaya opens his eyes and sees what is happening in the district today he will agree with me that the Congress Government after assuming power in 1948 has done an enormous lot for the district. They realised it was a backward part of the country. They realised the past omission; they realised it had been neglected. So far as the past omission is concerned, the Dhar Commission itself has made reference to it. It was mentioned there that South Kanara had not been properly treated and that the Madras Government has been ignoring it. I am not blaming anybody. It was the Britishers who were ruling at the time. South Kanara is far away from the city of Madras. Today the politicians have directed their attention to the injustice done to the district and they are trying to repair ihe wrongs done. Just at this hour my friend Mr. Kakkilaya and his party are anxious that nothing should be done there. If the present programme continues, they know that that district will be economically benefited. They do not want anything of that sort to happen.

SHRI. B. V. KAKKILAYA: You yourself criticised the way in which the Community Projects were working there.

Shri K. S. HEGDE: I will deal with it. Now, nobody desires that we should be torn away from the economic structure at the present juncture and it is in the interest of the district itself to which both of us belong that it should continue in the present context.

Dr. K. N. KATJU: Sir, I beg to oppose the amendment. I have got a feeling that it has been moved simply for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public and that of the Government

Shri B. V. KAKKILAYA: To draw your attention.

DR. K. N. KATJU: and not with any serious object. If my impression is incorrect, then I oppose it because I maintain that we have not this problem before us in our mind. After all the Boundary Commission will go into it at great length and further it will not be fair to the Madras Legislature and to the Mysore Legislature if this House were to entertain it.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is: “That at page 2, for lines 17 to 22, the following be substituted, namely: ‘4. Transfer of territory from Madras to Mysore.—(1) As from the appointed day, there shall be added to the State of Mysore the territories which immediately before that day were comprised in the taluks of Bellary district other than Alur, Adoni and Rayadrug and in the taluks of South Kanara district other than the Hosdrug sub-taluk of Kasargod taluk in the State of Madras and the said territories shall thereupon cease to form parts of the State of Madras.’

The motion was negatived.

Me. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, amendment No. 20 is consequential and so it automatically goes. The question is:
“That clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

The motion was adopted.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill.

Sources:

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *