Sri BV Kakkilaya in Rajya Sabha on Re-unification of Karnataka State

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 self sufficient. 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 is 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.

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 willingness 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 Karnataka State 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 state 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, Gujarat, 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.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 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 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 ashamed of what was going on in Karnataka. Really speaking Sir, whatever is happening in Karnataka 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 on 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 their 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:

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.’

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.

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.

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?

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

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 that 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 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 cooperation 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 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 Karnataka 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 the 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.

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.

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.

Mr. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, amendment No. 20 is consequential and so it automatically goes. The question is:

“That clause 4 stands part of the Bill.

The motion was adopted.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill.