CHAPTER - IV Merger and Anti-merger...
Transcript of CHAPTER - IV Merger and Anti-merger...
138
CHAPTER - IV
Merger and Anti-merger Alignments
Negotiations between the French and Indian governments over the future of
French India were carried on through diplomatic channels over a long period of time.
Throughout the diplomatic manoeuvrings, India placed emphasis on the legality of her
rights in French settlements in India and the illegality of France’s claims. France,
arguing at a different level of abstraction, laid great weight on its long years of
cultural collaboration. After discussions between the two governments, as has been
already discussed in the previous chapter, both the governments of India and France
had agreed that a referendum would decide the future of the French settlements in
India.
A referendum is a regular feature in the political process of many nations.
Under democratic conditions, the voters are provided with the opportunity to express
a choice between alternatives. In the French case the referendum is an
institutionalized political process. Well-defined procedures exist for its uses which are
written into the constitution of the nation. Article 27 of the French Constitution is
significant. According to this article, treaties “that involve the cession, exchange or
addition of territories shall not become final until they have been ratified by a
legislative act” and “no cession, no exchange and no addition of territory shall be
valid without the consent of the populations concerned.”1 The French demand for a
referendum can be seen as an attempt to remain in sovereignty and to gain legitimacy
through constitutional method. In the case of India, the British did not have recourse
1 Journal officiel de l’Inde français dans l’Inde, 1948, p.780.
139
to a referendum to transfer power to the Indian people. In free India a referendum was
not a case of regular occurrence. There was no constitutional provision for its use as
its constitution was still in a premature stage. Moreover there was no referendum in
India for British withdrawal from India. These difficulties India had to face, especially
when the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan recommended the
conduct of a plebiscite in Kashmir.2
The basic issue of the French Indian problem was not whether, or not, a
referendum should be held but how a referendum should be held. However the terms
of a referendum were not yet settled and difficulty was expected in designing
mutually satisfying methods and controls. For example, what should be done with
regard to Indian nationals living in French India and how to determine the opinion of
French Indian citizens living in the other French colonies? Should a single majority
dispose of the whole settlements, or should the vote be on a regional basis to make
merger possible in the event of conflicting trends in different settlements? Such
matters were to be determined by the political climate existing between India and
France and when the question of settling these details was taken up, differences began
to widen. It was surprising that the government of India entered into such an
agreement which was full of pitfalls and which was so vague in details. It is necessary
to note here that it was the French Constitutional requisite that made India accepts the
French proposition for a referendum.
However, the Indo-French agreement was concretized by exchange of letters
between the two governments. Daniel Levi, the French Ambassador in New Delhi,
wrote to Indian Prime Minister Nehru on 29th June 1948 that, “ the date of
2 Another problematic territory, as both India and Pakistan claimed their succession over Kashmir (Talbot Phillips, “Kashmir and Hyderabad,” World Politics, vol-I, No.3, April 1949, p.331).
140
consultation will be fixed for Chandernagore by the Municipal assembly of the free
town; for the four other establishments by their Municipal councils grouped in one
single assembly. To this end these Municipal assemblies will be entirely renewed and
new elections will be held at dates to be fixed as soon as possible.”3 Prime Minister
Nehru replied to the Ambassador on the same day that,
My Government note with satisfaction that the principles embodied in the Declaration (made in the French National Assembly on June 8, 1948) are in agreement with their view that the future of French establishments in India should be determined at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the freely expressed desire of their inhabitants… My Government cordially share the French Government’s desire that the referendum by which the people of French India are to be consulted should be held in an atmosphere free from passion or hatred and without application of internal or external pressure.4
Immediately after this the government of India, in a communication of 1st July
1948, drew the attention of French government to the necessity of ensuring that the
forthcoming elections should be held in an atmosphere free from passion or hatred
and without the apprehension of internal or external pressure and suggested to the
French government to make a public announcement guaranteeing complete freedom
of press and speech in French India during the elections. For this, the government of
India urged the French government to suspend the operation of the French India
Décret no. 46-432 until the elections were over.5 At the same time it requested the
French government to “repeal or suspend any other legislation or executive measures
which might prejudice the holding of free and fair elections.”6 As regards the
referendum itself the government of India, proposed that the referendum should be
conducted jointly by the French and Indian observers. The French government 3 Cited in N. V. Rajkumar. The Problem of French India. New Delhi: All- India Congress Committee, 1951, p.26. 4 Cited in N. V. Rajkumar. The Problem of French India. New Delhi: All- India Congress Committee, 1951, p.26. 5 This act restricted activities which had as their object “the injuring of national territory” (Journal officiel de l’Inde Français, 1948). 6 Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol.8, p.308
141
remained indifferent to the Indian government’s suggestions and had given only
verbal assurance through Levi to Nehru of free and fair elections and of neutrality on
the part of the French authorities. In accordance with the general Indo-French
agreement on the future of the settlements, elections to the Municipal assemblies in
French India were to be held immediately. The electoral roll needed revision.7 The
Municipal assemblies thus elected would fix the date of consultation and the
modalities of referendum.
French India at the Crossroads
Indo-French declaration earned mixed reactions from the press and the French
Indian political elite. Most of the Indian press welcomed the 8th June 1948 Indo-
French agreement because they considered that there was no other feasible alternative
solution for the existing nebulous and unhappy position.8 It also observed that in
French India elections were always violent and accompanied by rigging, terrorization
and such being the case how under these unusual conditions free and fair elections
could take place in the settlements. However, they appealed to the people of French
India to vote in favour of Indian Union.9 The Assemblée Représentative which met at
Pondicherry on 9th June 1948 unanimously accepted the French parliamentary
declaration prepared on the basis of the Indian accord.10 The French India National
Congress considered India’s move with regard to referendum in French India as
“unwise and uncalled for”, and strongly disapproved of the very idea of holding a
referendum as it was an insult and a challenge to the moral right of the people to
7 A minimum period of six months was necessary for the execution of this work. 8 The Hindu, 12 June 1948. 9 Dinamani, 11 June 1948. 10procès –verbaux etablishments français dans l’ Inde Assemblée Représentive de l’inde Française, 9 Juin 1948, de la session extraordinaire, pp.225-226.
142
rejoin their own kith and kin (India).11 To quote R. L. Purushotama Reddiar, “French
India does not like her freedom to be put in auction between Paris and Delhi by a
handful of local mercenaries performing a dilatory gamble.”12 It set up a committee
consisting of R. L. Purushothama Reddiar, S. R. Subramaniam, K. Sivaprakasam, C.
E. Bharathan and Nagarajan on deputation to the Indian government to explain their
sympathy and to seek clarification regarding the future status and position of French
India.13 The Mahe Socialist Party (a wing of Indian National Congress) had criticized
the Indo-French agreement of 8th June 1948 as “a fraudulent trick performed by
French Imperialism to retain its rule with the assistance of local hangers-on.”14
Whatever it might be, the French Indians immediately concerned were not consulted
by either of the governments. The French Indian population were never really given
any choice to determine their future by the French and Indian governments, except to
choose between the French and the Indian Unions. People were already tired of the
very long protracted negations which proceeded between the two governments. In the
following days they were becoming impatient, the press was highly critical and the
internal conditions of French Indian settlements worsened.
Following the Indo-French agreement and the subsequent declaration of 8th
June 1948, vast changes had taken place within the French India. As political chasm
between India and France widened, local political movements for ‘pro-merger’ and
‘anti-merger’ ideologies gained in momentum. These ‘pro-merger’ and ‘anti-merger’
ideologies were neither popular uprisings nor natural struggles against the repressive
French colonialism and love of French rule. Both the merger and anti- merger
11 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 12 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 13 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 14 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry and also J. B. P. More. Freedom Movement in French Indian: The Mahe Revolt of 1948. Tellicherry, IRISH, 2001, p.112.
143
movements were staged respectively by the Indian government and the French
government through local political elite. William F.S. Miles points out that both ideas
of the pro-merger movement as a manifestation of Indian nationalism and anti-merger
as the expression of French administration are myths.15 As for as France was
concerned, French India must be retained whatever be the cost as the loss of French
India would have great repercussions in Indo-china. The two main groups involved in
the agitation were described as ‘pro-mergerists’ and ‘anti-mergerists’, representing
competition among elite groups in order to gain control over men and matter. The
merger politics was utilized by political elites to gain authority and influence over
politics to retain their political power and to safeguard their personal interests that
they had been enjoying for quite sometime. They wielded their power by a
manipulation of the elections through falsification of the electoral lists and corruption
of all sorts, backed by money and muscle. Caste and religion were important sources
of social cohesion for political parties in French India. This concept of politics does
not preclude the role of ideas; many men were inspired, stirred into action by some
great ideas, but they all aimed at gaining power, if only to implement their ideas. They
waged agitations, through the press, pamphlets, public meetings, and petitions to
settle public issues. Militants of various parties clashed against each other violently
and as a result French Indian people were forced to live in the situation of growing
violence.
However, the Indian government never really took into confidence the
political elite of French India. They were in their own way trying to find the best
15 William F.S. Miles. Imperial Burdens-Countercolonialism in Former French India. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995, pp.57-58
144
solution to the problem of French India and the future of the French Indians. The local
political elite had the potential to take sides with foreign policies and national
interests and push people of these territories to decide either against joining India and
or joining with the Indian Union. As such the French administration was fully geared
in favour of their interested parties with the aim of mobilizing anti-colonial sentiment
among the general public. Thus the appreciation of French civilization was tied at the
same time to the rejection of French colonialism.
Different political parties of French India held different views on the merger
issue. The French India National Congress and different wings of the Indian National
Congress, the Indian government firmly behind it, wanted immediate merger of five
French settlements with the Indian Union and even to unite these territories with the
adjacent Indian districts. They considered that no referendum was necessary for this
purpose.16 The French India Socialist Party advocated autonomy within the French
Union so as to use it as a bargaining chip in holding power in its hands. It was ready
to go for a referendum, if necessary, on this issue.17 Members of the party wanted to
maintain French India’s separate identity, The India Unionil Sera Maruppor Kazaham
(an Association of those who were against merger with the Indian Union) who
adopted the ideology of the Dravidian movement in South India held a different
view.18 It demanded autonomous status for French India within the French Union for
the time being in order to prevent its merger with the Indian Union, so that when
Dravidasthan becomes a reality, French India can merge with it.19 The French India
16 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 17 R.L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 18 The Dravidian movement under the leadership of Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, they advocates the very first idea of separation of South India from the Indian Union and clamoured ‘Dravidian land for the Dravidians’ and they opposed the domination of the North Indians and the Brahmins in the Indian politics and the imposition of Hindi (language) over the southern states. (Viduthalai, 8 October 1947). 19 Kouyil, 12 October 1948.
145
Communist Party expressed its opinion that French India should get independence
from the French rule first, and then by stages should decide whether to join the Indian
Union or not. It felt that the government of India under Nehru was anti-Communist
and pro-Anglo-American. This ideological difference led the French India Communist
Party to support the Dravidian point of view. Altogether there were three views
proposed by various sections of the population:
(i). The French possessions must continue under the rule of France and French Union.
(ii). The French possessions must merge with independent India.
(iii). The French possessions must be a separate entity and a separate country.
The French Indian political movement began to centre on these political
views. The merger politics had brought into existence a crop of new political parties.
There arose every kind of political party and personal passion, thereby driving the
people towards hostile camps and dividing them further. A number of political parties
started to crystallize, with a view to changing the political status of French India.
Accordingly the French Indian political parties can be divided into the ‘pro-merger’
and “anti-merger” parties:
146
Table 4.1 Pro-merger and Anti-merger Political Parties
Pro-merger Parties: Anti-merger parties:
French India National Congress. French India National Congress Committee. French India Student Congress. Pondicherry Town Congress. Pondicherry Merger Committee. National French India liberation Committee. French India Assembly Congress. Indian Socialist Party.
Republican Party. National Liberation Front. (Pondicherry) Democratic Party.
National Liberation Committee. Pro-Merger Committee.
Pondicherry Youth Congress. Saint Therase Street Congress.
Labour Federation. (Lambert Saravane) Bharat Yuvak Sangh. Pondicherry Bar Association. Vanniar Sangam.
Karaikal Communist Party. Karaikal National Congress. Karaikal Congress. Karaikal Jawahar Youth League. Karaikal Merger Congress. Karaikal Student Congress.
French India National Congress. (Karaikal) Karaikal Merger League.
Youth Congress.(Karaikal) M.R.P. Party: (Karaikal) Thirumalrayanpttinam National Congress. Netaji Kazhagam. (Karaikal) Karaikal Fishermen Federation. Tamil Student’s Association. (Karaikal)
National Liberation Front. (Chandernagore)
French India Dravidar Kazagam. French India Socialist Party. French India Communist Party. Progressive Democratic Party. French India Muslim League. Catholic Party. India Unionianil Sera Marupoor Kazhagam. Federation des Anciens Militaires de l’Inde Française. Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Anti-Indian Union Merger Front. Progressive Democratic Party.
Pro-French Communist.
French India Independent Socialist Party. French India Labour Federation. (Edouard Goubert) French India Labour Union Federation. ( V. Subbiah) French India Patriots Sangam. Emmanuel TETTA Party.
Comite Francophil (Renonçants). Karaikal Muslims Union.
French India Socialist Party. (Karaikal) Karaikal French Union Committee. Karaikal Muslim Educational Society. French India Socialist Party . (Mahe) French India Communist Party. (Mahe) French India Socialist Party. (Yanam) Indian Communist Party. (Chandernagore) French India People’s Welfare Protection Party. Comite Francophile Party.
147
Congress Karma Parishad Party. (Chandernagore) National Democratic Front (Chandernagore). Forward Bloc (Chandernagore). Mahajana Sabha. (Mahe)
Indian Socialist Party. (Mahe)
Jaiprakash League. (Mahe) Young Socialist League. (Mahe)
Indian Socialist Students (Mahe)
Student Congress (Mahe)
Public Workers Association (Mahe)
Weavers Association (Mahe)
Fishermen’s Union (Mahe)
Praja Party. (Yanam) Yanam Merger Congress French India Central Merger Congress. Indian Socialist Party. (Yanam)
It was under these conditions that the Municipal assembly election of
Chandernagore was announced to be held on 25th July 1948.20 The grave situation in
the settlement urged French India administration to conduct an early poll in
Chandernagore. It always posed a problem to France that the French Overseas
Ministry considered the case of Chandernagore as being “totally different from that of
the other French Indian settlements.”21 Even if Chandernagore voted in favour of
integration with the Indian Union, the French hoped that at least four of the south
Indian settlements could be preserved under the French Union. As this Municipal
assembly was going to play a significant role in the forthcoming referendum the
contesting parties (the Karma Parishad, the Congress, the National Democratic Front
and the Forward Bloc) pulled up all their resources to win the election and naturally it
20 Originally the date for holding the Municipal assembly election of Chandernagore was fixed on 16th May 1948, but it was postponed due to the incompletion of voters’ list (Journal Officiel de l’Inde Française 1948, p.99). 21 The Hindu, 18 June 1948.
148
generated an unprecedented enthusiasm among the people. The election was held
under quite peaceful conditions and the results were announced on 1st August 1948.
The Chandernagore election (25th July 1948) attained special significance because for
the first time in the annals of French Indian democracy the voting was held on the
basis of universal adult suffrage. The pro-merger Karma Parishad swept the poll and
it bagged 22 out of 24 seats.22 Deben Das the leader of Karma Parishad Party became
the President of the Municipal assembly of the free city of Chandernagore.
The dates for elections in other south Indian settlements were yet to be
announced, but the political elite and political parties of French India were getting
ready for it. As mentioned earlier these elections were important, because their
success would be a prelude to the success of the referendum which would decide the
future of the French Indian settlements. Moreover, the party which obtained majority
in the Municipal elections was inclined to get the approval of the population for pro-
or anti-merger, the political parties wished to capitalize on the election and use it as
the base for formation of an ideology to contest and win the forthcoming referendum.
So both the pro-merger and anti-merger groups and more importantly political elite
had planned to manipulate the forthcoming elections to serve their interests. Press
played an important role in the war that was waged between rival groups, agitating for
and against the respective governments. Outside French India the Indian newspapers
carried on a campaign of vilification against France, while in French India the French
India Socialist Party attacked the pro-mergerists with equal vigour. This party
dominated French Indian politics through a reign of terrorism. The party had a private
army of paid henchmen who found employment in the local Municipal bodies,
22 Francis Cyril Antony, ed. Gazetteer of India: Union Territory of Pondicherry. Vol.I, Pondicherry, 1982, p. 254.
149
government departments and the three textile mills. The slightest semblance of
opposition was ruthlessly crushed by murder, arson, loot and intimidation and a reign
of terror was perpetually maintained.23 A reign of terror was unleashed by the
Socialist Party under the leadership of Edouard Goubert, primarily against the
Communists and secondarily against the pro-mergerists rallying around the banner of
Congress and the Merger Committees.
Sensing the outbreak of violence and to curb the violent activities of political
parties’ henchmen, Baron, the French India Governor, passed orders banning “all
public meetings, processions, campaigns of notices and pamphlets and propaganda by
vehicle, cycle or loud-speakers” in Pondicherry with effect from 22nd July 1948.24
Similar orders were also passed by the Administrators of other French Indian
settlements. After strong protest from the Indian government and Indian press the ban
order was later relaxed by an Arrêté of 18th September 1948, which stipulated banning
on processions and public meetings, except electoral gatherings, in French India.25
The Governor had also pleaded with the Overseas Ministry of France for special fund
of one million francs which he proposed to spend for eliciting information about “our
adversaries.” He also asked from Paris the presence of a French war-ship at
Pondicherry between 8th and 15th September (long before the date for elections was
announced), assuming the outbreak of violence at the time of elections and in order to
show the strength of France among the people of the settlements.26
23 File No. D.1467/50, R&I branch, Ministry of External Affairs, 1950, N.A.I., New Delhi. 24 The Hindu, 25 July 1948. 25 Journal officiel de l’Inde français, 1948, p.256. 26 Ajit K. Neogy. Decolonization of French India: Liberation movement and Indo-French Relations 1947-54. Institut Française de Pondichéry, 1997, p. 98.
150
Pro-merger and Anti-merger Propaganda
Meanwhile the long expected announcement was made for the holding of
Municipal elections in the four southern French Indian settlements on 10th October
1948.27 It created a situation prejudicial to the pre-poll climate and inflaming the
passion of the people. The political parties of French India became very active, the
tempo was mounting and propaganda fever increased. The French India National
Congress maintained that the real wishes of the people could only be ascertained if the
elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner by the French Indian
government. Its members had no faith in the assurances given by the French Indian
government. Yet, it decided to participate in the Municipal elections to prevent the
French from attempting to get their stooges elected through fraudulent means.28 There
were requests to the government of India insisting on sending observers who would
supervise the electoral proceedings and ensure that no malpractice was indulged in by
any party.
A large-scale propaganda was carried on by both the pro-mergerists and anti-
mergerists to influence the voters. The French India National Congress placed before
the people the spirit of Indian nationalism and the ideal of complete merger with
Indian Union. However, the French Indian National Congress faced the problem of
disunity as rival Congress groups were formed on the eve of Municipal elections.
Actually there were no ideological differences between the rival groups. All stood, for
immediate merger with Indian Union. Many corrupt and opportunist elements within
the Congress divided them into factions. Because of the intervention of the Indian
Consul General at Pondicherry and leaders of the Madras Provincial Congress, all the
27 Journal officiel de l’Inde français, 1948, p.247. 28 V. Subbiah. Saga of Freedom of French India: Testament of my life. Madras: New Century Book House, 1990, pp. 227-230.
151
pro-merger groups planned to work together in the elections and agreed to resolve
their differences afterwards.29
To counter the pro-merger elements and to avoid merger of the settlements with
the Indian Union, an intensive propaganda campaign was inaugurated primarily by the
French India Socialist Party, French India Communist Party and by the Progressive
Democratic Party. Some alternative solution was developed within the anti-merger
groups. Muthukumarappa Reddiar, a leader of the French India Socialist Party and an
associate of Edouard Goubert held the view that merger with the Indian Union was
inevitable but that there should be a fairly long period of transition before it was
accomplished. The Communists were unlikely to win the support of the people of
French India because their influence was at the low ebb. This probably was due to the
anti-Communist measures taken by the Indian Union government. The party went
underground everywhere. Similar kind of treatment was meted out to the French India
Communist Party by the French India Socialist Party and its leader V. Subbiah went
into exile. The Communist Party’s survival was at stake. According to a press report
of September 1948, there were about 150 Communists in the Pondicherry central
prison kept as political prisoners.30 A large number of Indian Communists had taken
shelter in Mahe too. Under pressure, V. Subbiah expressed his willingness to remain
within the French Union.31 By taking such a pro-French stand, the Communists
believed that they could persuade the French government to extend the civil liberties
and laws of the constitution of the Fourth Republic to French India. In a letter to the
Minister for Overseas Empire V. Subbiah reaffirmed his support for the French Union
and assured to work for the retention of the French Indian settlements within the
29 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry. 30 Kouyil, 30 September 1948. 31 The Hindu, 9 July 1948.
152
French Union. He also appealed to the Minister for Overseas Empire to postpone the
elections till November 1948 on the ground that growing atrocities were perpetrated
by the French India Socialist Party under Edouard Goubert and Muthu Pillai.32
The anti-merger groups were trying to manipulate the Municipal elections in order
to maintain the existing conditions in their favour. For this they resorted to all sort of
violence and intimidation and methods were adopted to coerce and cripple the pro-
merger groups The French administrative machinery was also used to suppress all the
pro-merger activities and to propagate pro-French propaganda.33
Vigorous propaganda was carried on among the government servants, ex-
service men, and pensioners’ beneficiaries of social service doles and dependants of
persons employed in French overseas colonies to the effect that their substantial
pensions would be stopped and they would be left in the streets if French rule were
withdrawn. The dissatisfaction of the student community points out those facilities of
French scheme of free education, scholarships and medium of education would be lost
if the merger took place. The differences between the French and Indian system of
judicial administration were also cited as a further argument against the merger. It was
put out by lawyers who had a considerable influence with the middle classes of
population, that the change over to Indian law would be a detrimental to the interests
of the people. A special appeal was directed towards the middle classes and the
mercantile community. The absence of the sales tax and the low rates of income tax
were offered as bait to the merchants. The common people were warned that the price
of all consumer goods especially rice will shoot up if French India became a part of
the Indian Union. Most importantly the peasant’s communities living in the villages
32 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry.. 33 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry.
153
who occupied 70 percent of the total population were the target of the anti-merger
propaganda. Until then they remained as illiterate and innocent inhabitants of the
settlements who could not ever exercise their right to vote for right cause and were
continuously exploited by the political elite. Propaganda was carried among them by
highlighting the merit of the great efficiency in bureaucracy and administration under
the French sovereignty and warning was given to them that they would lose all
material advantages once French Indian settlements were absorbed with neighbouring
Indian territories. Another powerful propaganda which the French used to attract the
people, especially the Francophile community, was the cultural argument. According
to them the people of French India stood to benefit greatly from French culture if they
remained with French Union.34
However, the French administration came under heavy criticism from the pro-
mergerists on several grounds. Primarily, the time and circumstances in which the
Municipal elections were proposed to be conducted was unfavourable. Lord
Mountbatten, who had directed the transfer of power from Britain to the governments
of India and Pakistan, failed to resolve the princely states issues. When India attained
independence, the princely states were given the right to join either India or Pakistan.
The states of Pudducottah and Hyderabad in south India wished to remain
independent. The Indian government wanted to integrate these territories without any
troubles. But the controversies over the power readjustment inevitably accompanied
the relations between India and the princely states finally ending in the annexation of
these territories with the Indian Union by the use of repressive methods on the part of
the Indian government. The conduct of Municipal elections in four south Indian
34 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry and The French India Socialist Party manifesto in the 0.P.Ramaswamy Reddiar Papers, Nehru Memorial Library and Museum, New Delhi.
154
settlements was announced under these circumstances so that situation becomes
naturally volatile in the French Indian settlements. A few days before the
announcement of Municipal elections in French India (11th September 1948), the state
of Pudducottah was annexed with the Indian Union.35 Another important event
occurred in the month of 13th September 1948 when Nehru resorted to ‘police action’
to annex the princely state of Hyderabad in spite of some international opposition.36
These incidents had repercussions in French India. The Pudducottah and
Hyderabad invasions had an adverse effect on people of the French India. Though
India determined to solve the French India problem through the non-violence method,
the people feared that French India might go the Pudducottah and the Hyderabad way.
The French India press reacted very sharply against the actions of the Indian
government. The anti-mergerists used to capitalize the whole situation especially to
win the sympathies of Muslim population. A religious minority, who were already in
search of protection and safeguards in the changing atmosphere, eventually the
Muslims were turned against the Indian Union because both the annexation of
Hyderabad and Kashmir problems made deep confusions in their minds. Without
knowing in advance the nature of the treatment that they would face in the Indian
Union the Muslims hesitated to join blindly with the newly independent Indian Union.
Moreover the Indian constitution had not yet decided to safeguard the minorities. The
Muslims of French India became staunchly pro-French and against the immediate
merger of French India with the Indian Union. Calculating all these facts the French
administration strongly believed that the whole situation might turn to their favour
and it would reflect in the upcoming elections.37
35 Kouyil, 17 September 1948. 36 Kouyil, 14 September 1948. 37 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry.
155
Baron and the Anti-merger Politics
The French administration came under attack due to the modality of electoral
arrangements, made on the vicinity of Municipal elections. Baron, by his Arrêtés of
20th June and 15th September 1948, dissolved the existing Municipal assemblies of
south Indian settlements so as to conduct fresh elections.38 According to the electoral
laws and procedures of French India it was necessary to nominate temporary
committees to run the Municipal affairs. The Commissaire de la République used his
influence with the ruling elites, nominated them in the committees and retained their
support to the French administration. He thus used all the pro-French elements to
conduct the forthcoming elections. This led to manipulation of electoral process by
the ruling clique, for instance uneven distribution of electoral identity cards,
nomination of electoral officers in the polling booths etc. The controversies over the
distribution of voters’ identity cards turned into a peoples’ riot in Mahe in October
1948 which evicted the French from Mahe and brought about the fall of the French
administration in the settlement. To add fuel to fire, the electoral arrangement Arrêté
of 18th September 1948, replaced the existing single constituency system (one
candidate per constituency) by the group constituency otherwise called the ‘List
System’. Accordingly several multiple constituencies and voters were grouped into
one which elected a list of candidates from the contesting political parties.39 For
instance, the Pondicherry Municipality of several wards was grouped into two sectors
of nine each and voters would have to vote from a list of nine candidates. Actually
these measures were taken by the French administration to simplify and reduce the
electoral expense in French India. Eventually in Karaikal under the new proposed
system of grouping, 99% of the Muslim voters were placed in a group which was to
38 Journal officiel de l’Inde français, 1948, pp.104 & 247. 39 Journal officiel de l’Inde français, 1948, pp. 257-264.
156
elect eight Councillors.40 This measure was taken by the French administration on the
long pending demands of the Muslim minorities for separate reservation of legislative
seats and separate electorates as done to the Renonçants in the past.41 The pro-
mergerists saw all these measures taken by the French Indian administration as a
deliberate attempt to divert the pro-merger voters and to divide the local population in
the name of religion in favour of anti-merger parties.42
The pro-merger parties were largely backed by the Indian National Congress, the
Indian Consul General at Pondicherry and the Indian press decided to fight against
forces hostile to their policy and programme and their first task was to defy the
restrictions imposed on processions and public meetings by Baron. In spite of the
warning from Mahe Administrator, the Mahajana Sabha and Indian Socialist Party of
Mahe organized a series of meetings in August and October 1948. On 9th August 1948
several leaders of the Indian Socialist Party were condemned to six months
imprisonment and a fine of 1000 francs for defying a ban on holding public meetings
which were also attended by Indian leaders.43 In Karaikal there was a disturbance at a
meeting held on 17th August 1948 which was addressed by the Indian leaders like
Subbarayan, Kamaraj and others.44 Following these incidents the French government
launched a prosecution against S. Srikanta Ramanujam, President of the Karaikal
National Congress and A. M. Sambukesan on the alleged ground that they had written
scurrilous article attacking the Karaikal police in the Dinasari (18-8-48) a daily
newspaper published from Madras exposing their atrocious behaviour during the
40 Dinamani, 28 September 1948. 41 Kouyil, 20 September 1948. 42 The Hindu, 27 September 1948. 43 Journal officiel des etablissements français dans l’Inde, 1948, p.203. 44 Kouyil, 14 September 1948.
157
clashes at the meeting.45 Troubles broke out in Pondicherry as the Communists came
to be attacked by the Socialist Party. Clashes occurred between Socialists and
Communists sponsored rival unions of workers at textile mills. Political rivalry
assumed its worse form when the Socialists fatally stabbed and wounded Nandagopal,
one of their arch enemies and the leader of the Communist Workers’ Federation.46
Under these tense situations the French Ambassador in India, Daniel Levi visited
Pondicherry and Karaikal from 24th and 27th September 1948. He had discussions
with French administrators regarding election arrangements and the modalities of
conducting Municipal election in south Indian settlements. Levi in a press meet in
Pondicherry assured the determination of the French government to conduct
Municipal elections in French India on a peaceful, democratic manner. In reply to a
question regarding the Indian observers at the time of elections, he responded that he
was unaware of the situation and remarked “whether observers come from the Indian
Union or the Sun or Moon, we (the French) would set an example to the whole world
by conducting the elections and the referendum with absolute fairness and in the best
democratic manner.” He also denied possibilities of any Indian observers during the
Municipal elections.47 While answering another question as to why the French did not
withdraw from India as the British had done, the Ambassador jokingly said because
no “Quit India” slogan had come from French India.48
Very next day, on 25th September 1948 about 150 Students’ Congress activists
gathered in Pondicherry, demonstrated against Daniel Levi and took out a procession
shouting slogans like “Nehru Government is our Government,” “merger with Indian
45 The Madras Mail, 6 October 1948 and Kouyil, 8 October 1948. 46 La Voix du peuple, 5 December 1948. 47 Kouyil, 27-28 September 1948. 48 The Hindu, 27 September 1948.
158
Union” and “Quit India” in defiance of the banning orders of Baron. This resulted in
clashes between police and the activists. Several of them were arrested and they were
removed from the military barracks and released at 5 to 10 miles away from
Pondicherry. In the afternoon some of the senior Congress leaders appeared in the
market places and forced the merchants to close their shops in order to protest against
the arrests of Congress activists.49 Next day, Paramel, President of Students Congress
and Munussamy, the editor of Jeunesse and six others were prosecuted and removed
to the central jail of Pondicherry.50 This seems to have had some repercussions in
Mahe. A few days later I. K. Kumaran and some other members of the Mahajana
Sabha Party were sentenced to jail for having conducted processions and meetings in
violation of the banning orders.51
However, the French administration registered its complaints with the Indian
government about the infiltration of Indian Congress volunteers from the adjoining
territory and the disturbances fomented by them in August 1948 in French Indian
settlements. The French authorities complained against the Indian press campaign
which carried out a dangerous anti-French propaganda aimed at making people
believe that the Municipal elections in French India were not a sincere expression of
the will of the people. Moreover allegations were made against the militants of the
pro-merger groups such as Perumal of Pondicherry Congress and Venkatachalapathy
of Karaikal Congress for pleading with the Indian government to provide arms, force
and financial supports to fight against the henchmen of anti-merger parties.52
49 Kouyil, 27 September 1948. 50 The Hindu, 28 September 1948. 51 The Hindu, 30 September 1948. 52 Kouyil, 8 and 22 September 1948.
159
The general violence and tense atmosphere that prevailed in French India led to an
increasing fear among the pro-merger parties that the elections would be accompanied
by violence. There was thus a wide-spread apprehension that the elections, if held in
present circumstances would not be free and fair and would not reflect real public
opinion. Thus demands for cancellation or postponement of the elections were
gathering momentum. The French India Communist Party asked for postponement of
the elections on the ground that elections would be accompanied by violence. The
pro-mergerists demanded for cancellation or the presence of Indian observers at the
time of Municipal elections.53 Previously on 30th August 1948 Nehru had stated in the
Indian parliament that there would be no observers on behalf of the government of
India in the Municipal elections. However India drew the attention of the French
government to the unsatisfactory nature of the elections in these settlements in the
past as the people of these settlements were never given free choice to do as they
liked.54 After serious appeals from the pro-mergerists and the Indian press, the
government of India found that the situation was going beyond control, and so called
on the French government to postpone the elections till peace and order was restored
and suggested the presence of the Indian and neutral observers to supervise the
elections. In this regards Jugol Kishore, the Indian National Congress General
Secretary, issued the following statement at a press conference55:
It is clear that in the disturbed atmosphere which exists at present in French settlements, no fair elections are possible. The least that the French authorities can do in these circumstances is to order the postponement of these elections to a later date when proper arrangements can be made to ensure that no undue pressure is brought to bear on these peaceful people to vote in a particular manner. Judging from the events that have happened, we feel it is essential that the French Government should agree to have some Observers from India at the time the elections come off.
53 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N.A.I., Puducherry. 54 Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol.8, p.308. 55 N. V. Rajkumar. The problem of French India. New Delhi: AICC, 1951, pp. 29-30.
160
Around the same time Nehru, who was then in Paris requested the French Foreign
Minister to postpone the Municipal elections and proposed the appointment of
observers for the Municipal elections as well as for the referendum.56 The government
of France was initially inclined to postpone the elections and announced on 1st
October 1948: “The Municipal elections shall take place when the external pressures
shall cease and the necessary atmosphere of complete security and total liberty of
conscience was restored”.57 Regarding the question of having observers at the time of
Municipal elections, though initially the French government raised no objection but
later refused the presence of observers at the time of Municipal elections.
At this juncture the French India administration issued the Arrêté of 8th
October 1948 to announce that the postponed elections would be held on the 24th
October 1948.58 Though, it was not a unanimous decision, the decision to hold the
election on 24th October was taken at a meeting of the Conseil du gouvernement
(other wise called as Council of Ministers) held at Pondicherry on 7th October 1948.
The Conseil was equally divided on the decision of fixing the date. Three of the six
Councillors - André, Counouma and Lakshmanaswami were opposed to holding the
elections under the present circumstances. However, the other group consisting of
Goubert, Deivasigamony and Sivasoubramania Pillai insisted on holding the elections
at the earliest. Baron exercised his casting vote in favour of Goubert’s group. This had
given rise to serious repercussions in the Conseil du gouvernement as well as among
the public. The government of India was taken by surprise on the French
government’s decision to hold the Municipal elections on 24th October in the south
Indian settlements. Lambert Saravane, the French Indian Député accused Baron of
56 N. V. Rajkumar. The problem of French India. New Delhi: AICC, 1951, p.30. 57 Kouyil, 4 September 1948. 58 Journal officiel des établissements français dans l’Inde, 1948, p. 295.
161
violating “all democratic norms” by using his casting vote and remarked that there
was no real democracy in French India.59 When the differences were further widened
within Conseil du gouvernement three of the Councillors André, Deivasigamony and
Sivasoubramania Pillai led by Lambert Saravane had sent their resignation letters on
21st October, on the ground that they considered “team work has become impossible”
and that Baron’s voice was becoming “decisive” on every case.60 The French
administration delayed announcement of the resignation of the Councillors until the
elections were over due to the consideration that it might have an adverse effect on
the upcoming elections. The withdrawal of Saravane group was a great blow to the
French India administration. Since the former already possessed the support of the
intellectuals and government officials and the Communist lineage of Lambert
Saravane having a large influence among the working class (since the French India
Communist Party was in a disarray, the support of Worker’s Unions was considerably
divided between the French India Socialist Party and Saravane) the later ran over the
risk of losing ground when elections were around the corner.61 To counter this loss
Baron floated a new anti-merger party known as Progressive Democratic Party, which
consisted of pro-French Communists, Dravida Kazhagam, government servants,
retired military personnel and businessmen.
Riot in Mahe
When Municipal elections were around the corner and the election fever
reached its peak, troubles broke out in Mahe. The pro-merger parties like Mahajana
Sabha under I. K. Kumaran and Indian Socialist Party under the leadership of
Mangalat Ragavan were strong, well organized and more united. Since the time of the 59 The Hindu, 9 October 1948. 60 Journal officiel des établissements français dans l’Inde, 1948 p. 341 and The Hindu, 23 October 1948. 61 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N.A.I, Puducherry.
162
signing of the Indo-French agreement (June 1948), they spearheaded their pro-merger
propaganda. On the merger issue the Mahajana Sabha at the very outset, demanded
plebiscite and not a referendum. It pleaded for holding the plebiscite not only under
the auspices of the French and Indian governments, but also demanded observers
during the elections, during preparation of the voters’ list, distribution of identity
cards and during the counting of votes in order to prevent the French administration
from intervening in the electoral processes in one form or the other.62 Since the
announcement of Municipal elections, these pro-merger parties were highly vigilant
and tense as elections in French India always were tainted with fraudulent electoral
practices and the candidates in the past were elected from Mahe with the connivance
of the French administration through electoral malpractices.63
The French Indian authorities, from July 1948 onwards, formally prohibited
all the public meetings and gatherings especially with the participation of speakers
from the Indian Union and strictly enforced it. The pro-merger parties decided to defy
the ban of Indian nationals participating in the meetings in Mahe, which was issued
earlier by Baron. It appears that in October 1948 both the Mahajana Sabha and Indian
Socialist Party organized a series of meetings. They carried out serious anti-French
intimidation campaigns in and out of Mahe with the collaboration of the Malabar
Congress and Indian Socialist Party. These measures annoyed the French
administration and defaulters were severely dealt with. Moreover the surge of large
number of Indian Communists into Mahe from the adjoining Indian territories in
search of safety and refuge actually strengthened the anti-merger forces and created
62 The Indian Express, 4 July 1948 and 4 February 1949. 63 J.B.P. More. Freedom Movement in French Indian: The Mahe Revolt of 1948. Tellicherry: IRISH, 2001, p.115.
163
troubles to the pro-mergerists. Naturally tension mounted in Mahe and the situation
was highly volatile.64
Under these circumstances worse things happened in Mahe on 21st October
1948. The problem started because of the failure of the local administration to
distribute identity cards to a great number of people. Actually the distribution of
identity cards was started ten days before the date of election. House to house
distribution was done during the first seven days and undistributed cards were to be
collected from the Municipal office during the last three days. There were complaints
that a large number of people (who held pro-merger views) were denied identity cards
during house to house distribution. The names of hundreds of voters allegedly
belonging to the pro-Indian fishermen community were missing in the voters’ list and
this infuriated them further. Hundreds of voters and party workers led by I. K.
Kumaran assembled before the Municipal office on 21st October 1948 and they went
on insisting on the distribution of the cards and received an unhelpful answer from the
Mahe Mayor.65 When arguments between I. K. Kumaran and the Police
Commissioner went uncontrollable the later became violent and assaulted Kumaran
and his colleagues66. There arose a very tense situation which was getting out of
control and degenerated into rioting.
A crowd ransacked the Municipal office, seized the electoral rolls and other
records and burnt them. Events followed in quick succession. Records of civil and
criminal cases were removed from the Mahe Court which was located contiguous to
the Municipal office building and they were destroyed. The Police Commissioner was
64 J.B.P. More. Freedom Movement in French Indian: The Mahe Revolt of 1948. Tellicherry: IRISH, 2001, pp.115-158. 65 File No: D.356/50, R&I Branch, Ministry of External Affairs, N.A.I., New Delhi. 66 La Voix du Peuple, 5 December 1948.
164
roughed. The militants went in procession to the police stations to disarm the armed
police and Indian national flags were hoisted on the police stations. The armed guards
of the French Administrator’s office surrendered and the Administrator and his family
became prisoners. The administrative machinery collapsed and militants took over the
police stations, the treasury and the revenue offices. The arms and ammunitions taken
away from police stations and the cash money, taken away from the treasury, were
deposited at the Mahajana Sabha office (later returned to the French administration
when order was restored).67 On the next day, i.e., 22nd October 1948, Indian national
flags were hoisted triumphantly in all administrative buildings, police stations and the
Administrator’s residency. I. K. Kumaran proclaimed the integration of Mahe with the
Indian Union. A Peoples’ Defence Committee was formed to run the administration.
Mahe members of the French Indian Assemblée Représentative, including P.
Counama, a member of the Conseil du gouvernement resigned. Five other Municipal
Councillors of Mahe also resigned.
The leaders of Mahe People’s Defence Committee sent telegrams to the Indian
national leaders asking them to take over the administration of Mahe, as the French
administration had collapsed.68 The Government of India expressed regret for the
Mahe affairs and it did not recognize the integration of Mahe as proclaimed by the
Peoples’ Defence Committee. The cruiser Duguay Trouin which was on its way to
Pondicherry from Ceylon (Sri Lanka)69 was directed to Mahe for rescuing the French
officials and their families and re-conquers Mahe and re-establishes French
sovereignty there. The cruiser reached Mahe on 26th October 1948 and anchored two
67 La Voix du peuple, 5 December, 1948. 68 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N.A.I., Puducherry. 69 It has been discussed earlier that the both Baron and Levi were in favour of dispatching a French man-of-war along the coast of Pondicherry and Karaikal on the eve of Municipal elections (chapter IV, p.12).
Comment [g1]: Cross foot note pp.
165
miles off Mahe. The arrival of the French navy had created a panic in Mahe and was
followed by an exodus of inhabitants of Mahe who left the settlement with their
families fearing reprisal from French troops. The leaders and workers of the Peoples’
Defence Committee also left the place. French naval troops, accompanied by French
Indian police landed and paraded the streets of Mahe. The Captain lowered the Indian
national flag and hoisted the French flag again on the administrative office. The
Administrator was released without any damage being done to him and his family.
Mahe was re-occupied and Baron asked the people to return to their homes but it took
some time for Mahe to return to normalcy. French Indian police arrested some leaders
of the Mahajana Sabha and Socialist Party, others continued to live in Indian
territories. Some of them were sentenced to imprisonment, fines were imposed and
property confiscated.70
However, the Mahe Administrator described the riot in Mahe as a coup
d’état.71 The French officials blamed outside Indian elements for the flare-up in
Mahe. They laid the blame for those troubles squarely on the Indians, who penetrated
in large numbers into Mahe, encouraged by the Indian leaders of Madras or the
Malabar Congress Committee. The Aide-Mémoire of the Indian government rejected
the French contention that the Mahe incidents were “inspired by thousands of Indian
subjects who invaded Mahe” and considered them as a purely domestic one between
the French government and its people and asserted that the Indian Union people had
nothing to do with it.72
70 File No.D.356/50, R&I Branch, Ministry of External Affairs, N.A.I., New Delhi 71 File No. D. 658/50, R&I Branch, Ministry of External Affairs, N.A.I., New Delhi. 72 File No. D. 658/50, R&I Branch, Ministry of External Affairs, N.A.I., New Delhi.
166
The French government was surprised at the takeover of Mahe by the pro-
merger activists and reacted to the riot in Mahe with great cautiousness. Baron made
the following declaration:
In the face of the bad faith of the Congressmen and the violent pressure exercised by these so-called votaries of non-violence, especially in Mahe, from where we have been systematically cut off, I insist on reminding knowing fully well of the violation of a friendly treaty, that we will respect the clauses of this (June 1948) accord, but we will act with the greatest firmness73.
Elections in Mahe were postponed indefinitely, until electoral consultation could take
place in dignity and order. Further more the Mahajana Sabha and Indian Socialist
Party was banned from participating in the Municipal elections which were held on
27th February 1949.
The Municipal elections and reactions:
Municipal elections in Pondicherry, Karaikal and Yanam were held as
scheduled on 24th October 1948. In Pondicherry 250 candidates contested the
elections, the French India National Congress put up 84, the French India Socialist
Party decided to contest all the Municipal seats and fielded 102 and the Progress
Democratic Party and Independents 64. Suddenly Lambert Saravane declared that his
“Republican Party” would denounce the elections since his efforts to have a common
front against reactionary and non-progressive forces have failed, he had decided to
keep away.74 Lambert Saravane’s withdrawal from the elections at the last moment
resulted in great advantage to the anti-mergerists under the banner of the French India
Socialist Party.
The Indian National Congress appointed its observers N.V. Rajkumar,
Secretary, Foreign Department, All India Congress Committee, and P. Subbarayan, a 73 Procès- verbaux des délibérations de l’Assemblée Représentative de l’Inde Française, deuxième session, 20 Nov. 1948. 74 The Hindu, 23 October 1948.
167
former Minister of the Madras government to supervise the Municipal elections in
Pondicherry. The Provincial Congress Committees of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra
Pradesh were also instructed to send their representatives to Yanam and Karaikal and
to watch and report on the elections. Paris authorities sent Laugenie, as a special
political envoy to Pondicherry to observe and to make a report on the elections to
them.
The election was conducted during a time of increasing violence and disorder
within the French Indian settlements and the duration between the announcement of
the election and its execution was very short. It was observed that in many places the
French India Socialist Party activists were involved in booth capturing, malpractices
and intimidation of voters.75 The situation in Karaikal was so uncomfortable that the
Karaikal Congress had decided to boycott the elections.76 In Yanam, Giri
Madhavarao, a government Pleader and one of the candidates belonging to the
Congress Party was stabbed by the militants of the French India Socialist Party.
Overall, the modalities of the conduct of elections were far from satisfactory. The
Indian press and political observers were highly critical of the severe intimidation of
the electorate and a serious lack of sincerity on the part of the French authorities to
conduct a free and fair election. In any case the results of the elections were a
foregone conclusion and the French India Socialist Party scored a massive victory.
The French India National Congress and French India Communist Party filed their
cases in the Conseil de contentieux (Local Administrative Court), for the annulment
of the election results.77 The following tables and figures show the results of the
Municipal elections:
75 The Hindu, 25 October 1948 and The Indian Express, 26 October 1948. 76 Dinamani, 25 October 1948. 77 R.L.Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N.A.I., Puducherry.
168
Table 4.2 Overall Results of the Municipal Elections
Settlements Population Total voters
Total seats
Voted Seats won by Parties
Pondichéry 59835 12669 18 7551(60%) Ariancoupam 35311 5303 12 4254(80%) Bahour 27991 7008 12 5379(77%) Modeliarpet 20591 7016 12 4305(61%) Nettapacom 18793 6996 12 6175(88%) Oulgaret 22396 13632 12 10491(77%) Mannadipeth 23232 10351 12 8411(81%) Po
ndic
héry
Villenour 14423 6121 12 4257(70%)
French India Socialist Party-(102) 82
French India National
Congress-(84)
Progressive Democratic Party-(64)
14. Independents-6
Karikal 23008 5421 14 4249(78%) Cotchéry 8297 3998 12 3138(78%) Grand’Aldée 9477 4087 12 3349(81%) Nédouncadou 7001 1541 12 1184(76%) Néravy 8126 3434 12 2712(78%) K
arik
al
Tirnoular 14632 4749 12 2445(51%)
French India Socialist Party-(74) 64.
Congress group-
(74)10.
Chandernagor*
44786
12840
24
-
Karma Parishad-22 Forward Bloc, NDF,
and CPI -2
Mahé*
18293
2000
12
-
French India Socialist Party-12.
Yanaon
5853
1504
12
1107(74%)
French India Socialist Party-9.
Praja Party-3. * Election was held at Chandernagor on 1st August 1948. * Election was held at Mahé on 27th February 1949. Source: Journal officiel des etablissements français dans l’Inde, 1948.
169
Table 4.3 Election Results in Pondicherry Commune
Section One: 9members to be elected
Section Two: 9member to be elected
Total Voters:6,649 Total voted: 4,375
Required Majority: 2,188
Total Voters:6,220 Total voted: 3,176
Required Majority: 1,589 Socialist Party (elected) Socialist Party (elected)
H.CASSIME E.GOUBERT A.ROGER K.MOUTOUSSAMY V. SANGUERRE M.RATTINASSABADY A.RATTINAM G.TITUS P.PAJANIDICHETTIAR
4,197 4,073 4,071 4,071 4,071 4,069 4,069 4,065 4,037
C.BALASSOUPRAMANIEN V.DEIVASSIGAMANY E.TETTA R.DORERADJOU S.JAMODARIN D.AROQUIANADIN A.CARNINDRAMODELIAR R.VARADARSSOUCHETTIAR P.KICHENAPPANAIKER
2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,153 2,152 2,151 1,758 1,119
Progressive Democratic Party (lost) Progressive Democratic Party (lost) RADJANEDASSE MADRID A.FLORY A.ANNASSE L.MARIETTE MOUROUGOPPA A.LAPORTE VAIJILINGAM PANADE J.APPANOU
153 127 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
PEROUMAL PERIMALAME C.GAST VARADARADJALRAMANY J.LATOUR SOUPRMANIEN KICHENASSAMYRAMANY POUNNOUSAMY V.SOUBAYA
726 726 726 726 726 726 726 726
1 Congress Party (lost) Congress Party (lost)
R.S.MANY D.PANJANYDOURESSAMY E.THAMBY SOUPAQUIRY VENOUGOBALOU PAREMANADA F.ANNASSE S.ANDRE POUROUCHAMARATTIAR A.MAGNIFIQUE
152 121 150 150 150 150 150 150
7 14
A.POUROUCHETIMAMATERRIAR DOURAIMOUNISSAMY A.NARAYANIN Mme. M.LERNIE Mme. CONDAPPA Mme. M. T. ANNAMALAI D.MARIAPPIN MOUNISSAMY DOURAI L.SAMY
293 293 293 293 293 292 292 292 291
Source: Journal officiel des etablissements français dans l’Inde, 1948.
170
171
172
These elections were an organic part of the whole process for deciding the
future of the French settlements in India. They were not ordinary elections as the
results of the Municipal elections would determine the trends of the referendum. More
importantly the newly elected Municipalities would decide the date and the modalities
of the referendum, but complications arouse on the question of election results as
charges and counter-charges of malpractice vitiated the whole referendum process.
N. V. Rajkumar in his report maintained: “It is unsafe to be guided by the results of
the elections. It was, to say the least, nothing but the prostitution of a democratic
device to ascertain popular will.”78 Therefore, he refused to believe that the Municipal
elections served the purpose for which they were held and so opined that they should
not be recognized as first steps towards referendum. After getting an adverse report
from their representatives the All India Congress Committee too criticized the
decision of the Indian government on referendum and advised it against taking the
Municipal elections seriously.79 Nehru also expressed his dissatisfaction over the
methods in which elections were conducted in the south Indian settlements.80 Sensing
that the elections of 24th October 1948 were full of lapses and irregularities, Laugenie,
special political envoy sent to Pondicherry by the Paris authorities made a statement
on 25th October 1948: “Yesterday’s Municipal elections, whatever the procedure and
the results may be, are quite insignificant, as the French government shall resume
negotiations with the Indian government in a most healthy and cordial atmosphere”.
He also emphasized that the ensuing meeting of the French India Assemblée
Représentative should adopt a resolution favouring three-party conference, not
referendum, since “the issue cannot be decided by any particular party winning in the
78 N. V. Rajkumar. The problem of French India. New Delhi: AICC, 1951, p.59. 79 N. V. Rajkumar. The problem of French India. New Delhi: AICC, 1951, pp.1-3 and 41. 80 Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol.8, p. 308.
173
Municipal elections.”81 However, the results of the Municipal elections were looked
upon by the French Indian authorities as a verdict in favour of French Union and a
victory of the Francophiles. Coste-Floret, the Minister for Overseas France interpreted
the election results to mean that the four south Indian French settlements appear
determined to remain an integral part of the French Union and issued a statement that
“France has no intention of giving up a single portion of their colonial empire whether
in India or else where.”82
Immediately after the Municipal elections an important approach on the
question of merger with Indian Union had emerged among the political elite. The
French India National Congress stood for no other alternatives and demanded the
immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the French sovereignty from all the five
French settlements in India. A split had developed among the pro-mergerists on the
necessity of a long transitory period ranging from 5 to 30 years for the adaptation of
French institutions and administrative departments with the Indian situation. This new
approach was formulated possibly with a view to clarify the long pending doubts
gathering in the minds of the French Indian people about the consequences of sudden
change over from existing French system to the Indian system. They feared that
immediate merger with the Indian Union might cause inconvenience to the merchants,
land holders, workers, government employees and pension-holders and they might
have to face difficulty by losing current privileges and fiscal advantages. One group
consisting of Leon St. Jean, Pakkirisamy and others appealed to the people to think
whether they could decide to merge immediately or after a few years following a
temporary convention.83 Already the anti-mergerists organized under one banner by
81 The Hindu, 26 October 1948. 82 Bulletin de presse Vol -II, N.A.I., Puducherry. 83 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N. A. I, Puducherry.
174
the French authorities had spread the fear among the people that they would lose all
the benefits of French rule like the pension holder would be deprived of his pension,
merchants and traders would have to pay higher taxes, landholders would be
subjected to higher assessment, house-owner would have to pay house tax at an
enhanced rate and importantly the old cultural heritage would be severed etc., in the
event of fusion with Indian Union.84
The Indian National Congress fully appreciated the new approach of a
transitory period before merger and lent support to it by adopting a resolution on the
same line in its Jaipur session on 19th December 1948. This resolution stated:
The Congress realizes that during this long period, administrative, cultural, educational and judicial systems have grown up in these foreign possessions, which are different from those prevailing in the rest of India. Any change over therefore must take these factors into consideration and allow for a gradual adjustment which will not interfere with the life of the people of the areas concerned. The Congress would welcome the present cultural heritage of these possessions to be continued in so far as the people of those possessions desire and for a measure of autonomy to be granted, wherever possible, so as to enable the people of those possessions to maintain their culture and institutions with the larger frame-work of free India.85
The Jaipur resolution also strongly denounced that with the establishment of
independence in India the continued existence of foreign possessions in the country
had become anomalous, that the political incorporation of these territories with India
had become inevitable and therefore it becomes necessary for these possessions to be
politically incorporated in India. The Congress trusted that this change would brought
about soon by peaceful methods and the friendly cooperation of the governments
concerned. The Jaipur resolution clearly defined the policy of the government of
India towards the colonial powers and gave the clear answer to the tendentious
propaganda by the anti-mergerists. 84 The French India Socialist Party manifesto in the 0.P.Ramaswamy Reddiar Papers, Nehru Memorial and research centre, New Delhi, pp.1-8. 85 R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N. A. I, Puducherry.
175
Meanwhile, Baron brought a new proposal in his opening speech to the French
India Assemblée Représentative on November 1948. He said, “Pondicherry in the
Indian Union is exactly a dead loss for the world. Pondicherry – I say Pondicherry to
signify an Indian town within the Indian Union-is as much for India as for France, a
link for friendship and progress.”86 This new proposal purely aimed to recoup all the
anti-mergerists under one umbrella and to strengthen the French rule in India.
Reactions came quickly, R. L. Purushothama Reddiar in a press statement said that
“the people of French India or Indians first and Indians last”, Deploring Baron’s
attitude, he retorted that “It is a pity to see the Governor pleading for the acceptance
by the French Indians of the masked sovereignty of France, under cloaks of ‘friendly
links’ and ‘cultural contacts’, in the same breadth in which he says ‘the time of
domination is over’, surely, as it appears, not meaning it.” He demanded an
immediate withdrawal of the French rule from India.87 Before his experiment could be
worked out, Baron had to vacate office and return to France.
In the final analysis, the farcical Municipal elections and its aftermath clearly
induced the pro-mergerists to harbour doubt about the sincerity of the French
government to hold the referendum in an impartial manner and led them to believe
that France was destined to delay the process under one pretext or another. So they
began to suggest the referendum should be avoided in any case. The Municipal
assembly of Chandernagore shared a similar view in a meeting on held on 4th
December 1948. A referendum, in their opinion, might cause a rift in the better
relations existing between France and India and prayed to both the governments to
86 Procès- verbaux des délibérations de l’Assemblée Représentative de l’Inde Française, deuxième session, 20 Nov. 1948, pp.6-7. 87 The Hindu, 25 November 1948 and R.L.Purushothama Reddiar Papers, N.A.I., Puducherry.
176
solve the problem through conversations.88 Laugenie’s suggestion for a tripartite
discussion for solving the vexed problem might also have induced the anti-mergerists
to exploit the existing situation and drive benefits from both India and France to serve
their purpose. Accordingly, from the French side the French India Socialist Party
which claimed to represent the population, demanded total autonomy to the four south
Indian settlements guaranteed jointly by India and France. For this purpose, the party
lent its support to Pakkirisamy in the election held on 16th November 1948 to elect a
member from French India to the Conseil de la République and Maurice Gaudart in
the election held on 19th December 1948 to elect a member from French India to the
Assemblée de l’union française.89 At the same time the same French India Socialist
Party passed a resolution in the French India Assemblée Représentative welcoming
the All India Congress Committee’s Jaipur resolution on foreign possessions.90 The
resolution stated, “The Representative Assembly has noted with satisfaction the
statement made at Jaipur by Pandit Nehru in regard to foreign possessions in India. It
expresses confidence in the Prime Minister and desires that the question of the French
territories in India may be settled in the best interests of all by the two interested
Governments, after consultation with the delegates of the Representative Assembly
elected under Universal Franchise.”91 Thus the French India Socialists manifested
their capability of exploiting the situation under the nationalist garb. The necessity of
a transitory period of 5 to 30 years virtually realigned the local political elite and
delayed the merger process further.
88 The Hindu, 25 November 1948. 89 Journal officiel des établissements français dans l’Inde, 1948, p. 369 and 1949, p. 15. 90 Among the 44 members of the Assembly, 24 belonging to the Socialist Party voted for the welcome resolution (R. L. Purushothama Reddiar Paper, N. A. I., Puducherry). 91 Procès- verbaux des délibérations de l’Assemblée Représentative de l’Inde Française, deuxième session, 20 Nov. 1948.