U. Muthuramalinga Thevar – Parliamentary Speech on Foreign Policy (Part II)
Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, true to his principle that nationalism and spirituality are the two eyes of a man, didn’t hesitate to point out the farce that the government of the day committed in the name of secularism and Ahimsa. In his maiden parliamentary speech itself, he questioned the government’s stand on advocating Ahimsa when it came to westerners but unleashing the army on Nagas of the North East.
He spoke about the behaviour of Pakistan along the border and criticised the government for failing to make a clean cut during partition and awarding Indian territories on a platter to Pakistan contradicting not only the views of patriotic people but even the constitution. A part of his brutally honest speech is as follows:
“Just because you have the majority in Lok Sabha, how can you dare to do things pertaining to the welfare of the nation on your own? This border issue doesn’t seem to be a one day affair either. It’s panning out to be an eternal problem. I’m devastated to hear such answers from the mouths of great men. We can respect such great men; but cannot give up one’s principles that are greater than life just because they’re elders. Pakistan using fire arms across the border would seem inconsequential. But the fact is that Pakistanis are creating a big incident through these small inconsequential ones. I need to point out that we are at the point where the small danger grows big.
This year, 1959 has become very important. I’m feeling that this year will be the recreation of 1939 that saw World War II. Both the government and the country may even consider this to be a warning. Many think that the second world war is over. They are made to think so through the news reports and statements. The second world war has ended only in terms of statements but not on the field. The first war that began in 1914 ended in 1918. After the Versailles peace treaty was signed, the armies of both the parties returned home. The second world war began in 1939 and is said to have ended in 1945. Peace treaties have been signed as well. But the armies haven’t returned to their countries like after the first world war ended. They remain where they are.
But the peace treaties have been signed. In the name of mutual help, guarding occupied territory, peace teams, etc armies are placed where there is no need for them, even after the treaty was signed. We are in love with the West. We have means to show that love. We believe that we will be safe because of such things. At the same time, we say that our relationship with the West has nothing to do with their principles and that we haven’t signed any agreement that says our ways should be similar to theirs. If this is how it is in general, then how long would we be able to walk the rope of Ahimsa on this slippery slope? We have decided that our path is Ahimsa. We say that our plans and policies are based on that. But our relationship is with the West which has plans of using its military power. Our policy that defines our path based on Ahimsa for us but on Himsa for the West doesn’t stop here. Even though we say that the working policy, plans and actions are prepared with the independent feature of our culture in mind, we allocate crores and crores of rupees for the military in the budget.
If our path is indeed Ahimsa, then why allocate this much for the military? Can’t we spend such a huge amount on something worthwhile on the national welfare schemes? One may ask shouldn’t we be protecting our country? I agree. But then we should stock up modern weapons. If we stock up on modern weapons befitting the situation, we may prevent us from facing dangerous situations. But what do we do in the name of security? We buy old weapons, that too, from a British company. I cannot understand this. I’m unable to comprehend this kind of strategy/diplomacy that drags us down. One nation transgressing the borders of another isn’t diplomacy- it’s treachery.
We talk someway, plan some other thing and something else happens. We strongly speak of unity. But we don’t know how to achieve it. We pleasantly talk about living together peacefully. Going further, we are even going to advise countries that possess atom bombs and hydrogen bombs of peaceful co-existence. But we are not even showing any signs of coexisting peacefully with our own people who have a difference of opinion with us in politics. On the contrary we do not hesitate to open fire on our political opponents and snub their lives. This is a grim situation. We set aside the so-called Ahimsa and opened fire which cost many lives. We rejected the demand for a judicial inquiry into the unforgettable incident.”
Some MPs rose on hearing this and noted that the government opened fire at people in Ahmedabad and Bombay as well. Thevar continues, “We have suppressed such news from reaching the public. If we say this is our policy – this is how we’ll do it- this is the truth and Ahimsa, then I don’t know, to where it will take this great nation and Congress. We don’t fail to speak of such a wonderful philosophy to think of. But we most definitely do not want to put it into action. Forget keeping the standards of democracy at least to an extent, it would actually be a service, sacrifice and blessing if we restrain from compromising humanity.
There can be differences of opinion between political parties. But when it comes to the welfare of the nation every individual has responsibility. Men of great sacrifices are a part of this congregation. So are newcomers with noble thoughts and principles. They may be Congressis or not but everyone has a principle and the right to have an opinion. If some member for example talks about the integrity of Hinduism, you easily dismiss him as a communalist. If another member comes forward to speak about the economy, you stamp him as a communist. Even after this, if some other member dares to talk you put him in charge of some committee and pull him to your side. With such a terrible attitude, how would there be a powerful opposition? Never! If you want a powerful opposition then you should change your attitude. I’m not saying you don’t want a proper opposition. But that you deliberately avoid having one.
When the issue of Pakistanis using firearms was raised by a member of the house this morning in this assembly, our respected Prime Minister was not in the right state to answer properly. Instead of being bold and descriptive, his answer is rather one of mourning making one tearful. Our PM says that the situation is indeed as described by the members of the house and that the resolution is also necessary. But he questions why the member brought the resolution saying that it would have no use. You say that our army will give a befitting reply to Pakistan. But the power in your words is not present in your actions. Our army is indeed mighty, intelligent and resolute. Whether you boast or not we know, the country and even the world knows the might of our army. But the problem arises when it comes to providing them with the latest technology and modern weapons. Just as it is true that our army is mighty, so is the power of the modern weapons in the hands of the Pakistan army. Pakistan possesses weapons thousand times more powerful than what our army does. It’s devastating that the army that is mighty enough to defeat any powerful army doesn’t have such modern weapons. While the situation is like this, I don’t know how you say that our army will give a befitting reply to Pakistanis. If we raise the issue of demand for such modern weapons, then you shut our mouths saying that it’s a military secret. Do you honestly believe that we can manage this grim situation put forth by Pakistan with the use of the weapons we have in hand now?”.
How tragic that this situation prevails even today. While our politicians sweet talk about Gandhi’s Ahimsa in international forums our soldiers have to fight using the old MiGs even when the Pakistanis have relatively better fighter planes. Thevar’s words of wisdom in imploring the government of the day to produce powerful modern weapons indigenously instead of depending on foreign nations and that too, for outdated technology also rings true even today.
