अभिनंदन ग्रंथ - (इंग्रजी लेख)-९३

New Role as Leader

For more than two years the new leader struggled with his job. He tackled it as best as he could. But feelings between Maharashtrians and Gujaratis had become strained and every­where there was an undercurrent of resentment over the creation of the new State. Then there was the Opposition in the Legislature, more numerous and powerful than ever before, deter­mined to break up the bilingual Bombay State and ready for that purpose to exploit every oppor­tunity. The responsibility was an unenviable one and according to Chavan himself, "it took its toll of any vitality." He suffered both mentally and physically, but somehow with consummate tact he carried on the task. He disarmed the Opposi­tion by being good and nice to them. He refused to be provoked and showed such mastery of human psychology that even his bitterest critics were silenced. However, as the months passed and the Congress lost one by-election after another Chavan's confidence in the new set-up became shaky. He lost faith in his viability. He was convinced that either the State must be broken up or the Congress would lose its hold in Maharashtra. In reply to a question as to when he came to the conclusion that the bilingual State should be broken up, Chavan said, "Personally in my own mind it became clear to me sometime at the end of 1958; successive defeats of the Congress in various by-elections and the reports received from various authentic and im­partial sources led me to that conclusion."

True, Chavan did not discuss the matter with his colleagues—"Had I done so the administrative machinery would have collapsed;" but, nor did he volunteer to advise the leaders at the Centre to break up the bilingual State. However, as he put it, "When they asked me for my opinion, I was duty bound to tell them the truth. That my opinion weighed heavily with them I cannot deny." His opinion apart, few could deny that Chavan ran the bilingual State as it should have been run—smoothly, without rancour and in a spirit of give and take. He, however, had no con­viction about it. Always a believer in unilinguism he undertook the responsibility of running the bilingual State, because he was charged to do so by the national leadership. But his approach to the formation of a unilingual State of Maharashtra had never been parochial. To quote his words: "Our purpose in making the demand was to bring the administration closer to the people. That is one advantage. There are other advantages too. There is a large scope in such a State for the development of indigenous literature, cultural advancement of the people and rapid social pro­gress. These are its positive sides." Of course there are some negative sides particularly the sectarian and communal spirit which it might generate in some people; no one is more conscious of them than Chavan. As he remarked: "Linguistic States have now come into existence. With proper leadership they can become the cementing bond. Being satisfied with their lot there is no reason why they should not look for­ward and help in the building up of a united India which must be no less dear to their hearts. . . . I have faith in the robust commonsense of our people. They know what is good for them. Now and then, they may falter, but eventually they always do the right thing. As to the most practi­cal solution of this problem I say, let people be made conscious of their economic problems. That provides the strongest bond of unity."