Linguistic Regionalism in India

Linguistic Regionalism in IndiaAuthor(s): Marshall WindmillerReviewed work(s):Source: Pacific Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 291-318Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British ColumbiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2753073 .Accessed: 03/10/2012 11:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Pacific Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ubc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2753073?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Linguistic Regionalism in India Marshall Windmiller

THE MAJOR problem confronting the newly independent countries of South and Southeast Asia today is national unity, and in many

of them one of the great impediments to the achievement of that unity is language. Throughout this area the demand for linguistic autonomy has challenged the authority of central governments and threatened their stability. It has been encountered by the Government of Burma which has been forced to concede a separate Karen state, and by the Pakistanis whose Bengali-speaking population in April i954 elected a provincial ministry that spoke openly of secession until the central government suppressed it.

It would not be accurate to describe this phenomenon as linguistic nationalism for rarely do these linguistic groups demand a completely independent status. Linguistic regionalism is a better term. It is not a new phenomenon nor is it peculiar to this part of Asia. Belgium and Switzerland, to cite the best Western examples, have both had to con- tend with it. The largest world power to face this problem within its borders has been the Soviet Union, and the integration of the various linguistic and national groups within the USSR is an accomplishment about which Soviet propaganda never ceases to boast. The Soviets claim to have found the solution to linguistic regionalism in the dialectics of Marxism-Leninism, and Stalin's writings on nationalities and linguistics are supposed to contain the key to this problem wherever it is found. It is this key which the Chinese Communists claim to have used with "brilliant success" in dealing with the sixty national minorities in China,1 and which was responsible for the formation of the so-called Thai People's Republic in the border areas of South China, Burma and Indochina. Other Asian Communist parties also offer it as the answer to linguistic regionalism in Asia.

In India today the problem has reached an acute stage, and all the resources of her parliamentary system are being taxed to cope with it. Although the agitation in India has shown no evidence of political separatism (as has the Bengali agitation in East Pakistan), it is safe to

'See Liu Chun, "National Minorities Enjoy Regional Autonomy," People's China. No. i,

(January i, I954), pp. 9-I4.

291

Pacific Affairs say that for magnitude and complexity India's linguistic problem is the greatest in the world, not only because of India's size and population and the great number of languages and dialects spoken within her borders, but also because she has chosen to solve the problem within the framework of parliamentary democracy.

India has eleven major languages, each with speakers numbering in the millions.2 In addition there are forty-seven other languages, dialects and tribal tongues, each of which is spoken by over ioo,ooo persons. The i95i census also lists 720 languages and dialects spoken by less than ioo,ooo. The situation is not quite so chaotic as these figures would indicate, for many of the languages and dialects are closely related and their speakers can be mutually understood. There is, moreover, a substantial amount of bilingualism, particularly in areas where language groups overlap and in the big cities like Madras and Bombay. But the diversity is still enormous.

The main language cleavage in India is between the North and the South. Most of the languages of North India constitute the so-called Indo-Aryan group. These languages have either evolved out of Sanskrit or been influenced by it, and their vocabularies share Sanskrit derivatives. The South Indian languages, the so-called Dravidian group, have great similarities, but (except for a scattering of Sanskrit words) are completely foreign to the languages of the North. The Dravidian languages are no more mutually intelligible than those of the North, but a long- standing fear of northern domination has produced a curious sense of Dravidian solidarity among the southern people. This Dravidian group- identification is of political significance only in relation to the North; generally it is offset by linguistic rivalries among the Dravidians themselves. The movement for the establishment of a "Dravidistan," including all of South India, is of no great import though it occasionally attracts public notice because of its identification with the anti-Brahmin movement.

The present state boundaries in India have little relation to the dis- tribution of language groups. The Telugu-speaking area, for example, overlaps Hyderabad and Andhra, the Kannada region extends into Madras, Hyderabad, Bombay, Mysore and Coorg, and Marathi speakers are found in Bombay, Hyderabad and Madhya Pradesh. The fact that state boundaries cut across linguistic regions can be traced to the se-

2 Census of India 1951, Paper No. i, Languages.

292

Linguistic Regionalism in India

quence of British conquests in India. The British annexed territory without regard to language considerations and thus created such unwieldy administrative units as the Presidency of Madras which included Tamils, Telugus, Kannadas and Malayalees, and sprawled over an area of 142,000 square miles. After independence Madras Presidency became Madras State and its multi-lingual composition and unwieldy size remained fixed until I953 when the Telugu portion was detached to form Andhra, the first new state to be created in response to linguistic agitation. Indians charge, not without some justification, that it was the principle of "divide and rule" that determined provincial boundaries under the British Raj. At any rate, the British provincial demarcations seem to have been much more suitable to India's colonial status than to the functioning of parliamentary democracy.

The process of government in such a large and multi-lingual country as India demanded the development of a lingua franca, and it was only natural that the British should choose their own tongue in prefer- ence to a native language. English therefore became the vehicle of administration and the medium of instruction in the universities. The result was the development of an English-speaking Indian elite and a large corps of English-speaking civil servants. English, moreover, bridged the gap between North and South and became the medium of the nationalist movement which was ultimately to expel the British. No Indian language has attained this universality, although the Govern- ment is now committed to substituting Hindi eventually wherever English is used at present.

Like so many political movements in India, the agitation for linguistic states had its origin in Bengal. Prior to i905 the British had grouped Bengal with Bihar, Orissa and Chota Nagpur into one province, but it soon became apparent that this tremendous area was ad- ministratively cumbersome. In i905 Lord Curzon, then Governor General, partitioned the area, the eastern portion being joined with Assam and the western portion with Bihar and Chota Nagpur. Admin- istration, from the British point of view, was made easier for a time, but the action set in motion political forces which ultimately vitiated any administrative improvements.

The partition of Bengal was a blow to the influence of the Bengali- speaking Hindus. This large and vigorous community was divided into two parts, each of which constituted only a minority in the new prov-

293

Pacific A/lairs

ince to which it had been assigned. Thus in the two Legislative Coun- cils the Bengalis did not have the representation to which they believed they were entitled by virtue of the size, wealth and importance of their community. The situation was made worse by the fact that in East Bengal the Bengali Hindus were outnumbered by the Muslim population, and it was thus inevitable that Bengali politics should take an anti-Muslim turn.

The Bengalis were not long in launching a vigorous agitation for reuniting Bengal. This agitation took all forms, including violence, and ultimately the British were forced to make concessions. On August 25, i9ii, the Government of India, over the signature of Lord Hardinge, then Governor General, sent a dispatch to the Secretary of State for India in London recommending that His Majesty's Government reunite the province of Bengal and separate it from Assam, Orissa and Chota Nagpur. It was suggested that simultaneously the capital of India be removed from Calcutta to Delhi, the historic seat of Hindu and Mogul empires. Whitehall agreed to the proposal and the decision was announced at George V's great Durbar in Delhi in December of that year.

The success of the Bengalis in their agitation for linguistic unifica- tion was noted by other linguistic groups in India. If this had not been made clear by the events themselves, it was certainly implicit in Lord Hardinge's dispatch, which said in part:

"The opposition to the partition of Bengal was at first based mainly on sentimental grounds, but . . . the grievance of the Bengali has become much more real and tangible, and is likely to increase instead of diminish. Everyone with any true desire for the peace and prosperity of this country must wish to find some manner of appeasement, if it is in any way possible to do so...

"No doubt sentiment has played a considerable part in the opposition offered by the Bengalis, and in saying this, we by no means wish to underrate the importance which should be attached to sentiment even if it be exag- gerated."3

It is not surprising that this dispatch when published was interpreted by other linguistic groups as indicating the efficacy of agitation based on sentiment and the amenability of the Government of India to it. To some it also became apparent that linguistic agitation could be a useful tool with which to harass the foreign ruler.

3 Dispatch of the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India, August 25, i9,i I,

British and Foreign State Papers i9ii. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, I9I5. pp. 224-226.

294


The first important linguistic movement to develop after the Bengal agitation appeared in South India in the Telugu-speaking area of Madras known historically as Andhra or Andhradesha. Inspired by local writers and orators from Bengal, Andhra intellectuals in May I9I3 convened a conference from which an organization known as the Andhra Mahasabha emerged. Although the advancement of Telugu culture was its primary aim, the Andhra Mahasabha ultimately became a political organization dedicated to the formation of a separate Telugu- speaking state.

It was natural that the Andhra people should seek to have their aims endorsed by the major Indian political party, the Indian National Congress. Consequently in i9i5 they called upon the Congress to recog- nize Andhra's ambitions by granting it separate status in the adminis, tration of Congress affairs. Both Gandhi and Annie Besant opposed the proposal, but it was finally accepted by the Congress in I9I7, and Andhra and Sind became separate "Congress Provinces."

In i9i8 the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, went to India to examine the workings of the Government of India and to propose constitutional changes in line with the British commitment of the previous year to establish responsible government in India. The prospect of extensive constitutional changes suggested to linguistic advocates that this was an opportune time to propose the redrawing of provincial boundaries. Thus in February i9i8 a resolution on redistribution was introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council by Rao Bahadur B.N. Sarma, a representative from Andhra. Only one speaker supported the motion, while arrayed in opposition to it were such great Indian statesmen of the period as Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru and Surendra Nath Banerjee. They argued that constitutional reform was India's main need at the moment. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was ultimately to become responsible for the partition of India on religious grounds, referred to the proposal as "a most mischievous Resolution." The resolution did not pass.4

Later in the year Montagu, in collaboration with the Governor General, Lord Chelmsford, rendered the report on which the famous Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were based. This important document contains a significant passage on provincial reorganization. It reads:

4 Proceedings of the Imperial Legislative Council. Vol. LVI, (April 1917 to March i9i8), PP. 483-508.

295

Pacific Affairs

while we discard as impracticable the idea of calling into existence new provincial states as part of our own constructive scheme, we are impressed with the artificial, and often inconvenient character of existing administrative units. We have seen how historical reasons brought them about. We cannot doubt that the business of government would be simplified if administrative units were both smaller and more homogeneous; and when we bear in mind the prospect of the immense burden of government in India being trans- ferred to comparatively inexperienced hands, such considerations acquire additional weight. It is also a strong argument in favour of linguistic or racial units of government that, by making it possible to conduct the business of legislation in the vernacular, they would contribute to draw into the arena of public affairs men who were not acquainted with English. We believe emphatically that redistribution of provincial areas cannot be imposed upon the people by official action; and that such a process ought in any case to follow and neither to precede nor accompany constitutional reform. But we are bound to indicate our own clear opinion that wherever such redistribu- tions are necessary and can be effected by process of consent the attempt to do so should be made; and therefore we desire that it should be recognized as one of the earliest duties incumbent upon all the reformed provincial Governments to test provincial opinion upon schemes directed to this end."5

It was not in the legislatures but in the Congress Party that the principle of linguistic redistribution first met with wholesale acceptance. As has been mentioned, the Congress in 19I7 constituted Andhra and Sind as separate Congress Provinces. At the 1920 annual session of the Congress in Nagpur it was decided to apply this principle on an all- India basis. Thus the new Congress constitution adopted at Nagpur divided India for party administrative purposes into twenty-one Con- gress Provinces including separate Provincial Committees for the cities of Delhi and Bombay and for Burma which at that time was still part of India. The principle still operates today but the number of provinces has increased to twenty-six.

Following this action by the Congress Party, further attempts to secure provincial reorganization were made in the central and state legislatures. They were opposed by the government and generally received very little support. However, in 1927 the Legislative Council of Madras passed a resolution by a vote of forty to thirty-two which called upon the Governor General to constitute a separate Andhra Province.6

5 Edwin Montagu and Chelmsford, Report on Indian Constitutional Rejorms. n.d., n.p., [i9i8], pp. ii8-ti9.

6Proceedings of the Third Madras Legislative Council, First Session. Vol. XXV, (March 1927), pp. 62-87.

296


When, late in 1927, the British Government announced the appointment of a commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon to review the progress of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, public opinion in India was angered to note that the commission had no Indian member. All parties unanimously decided to boycott the commission, and when it arrived in Bombay in February of I928 it was greeted with black flags and demonstrations.

Despite the hostility of the Indian public the Simon Commission gathered its evidence and ultimately published a voluminous report. Like Montagu and Chelmsford, the Simon Commission was not unfavorable to the idea of linguistic redistribution. Its report stated:

"There is a considerable body of opinion in India which calls for some readjustment of boundaries and redistribution of areas, and we entirely share the views of those who think that the present arrangement is not altogether satisfactory. The existing provincial boundaries in more than one case embrace areas and peoples of no national affinity, and sometimes separate those who might under a different scheme be more naturally united. There are, however, very great difficulties in the way of redistribution, and the his- tory of the partition of Bengal stands as a warning of the caution needed before undertaking any operation so likely to run counter to old associations or to inflame suspicion and resentment." 7

At the time of Simon's visit the opinion was current among linguistic advocates that if they cooperated with him they would be granted their provinces. This opinion is widely held in India now. But in I928, as in i9i8, the demands of the nationalist movement were paramount. Whereas in i9i8 Sapru and Banerjee had opposed the linguistic demand in order not to divert Montagu's attention from constitutional reform, in I928 the issue of provincial reorganization was submerged in the united protest against Simon. It is significant that in both cases the demands of nationalism triumphed over provincial sentiment. When the British Parliament, acting on the recommendations of the Simon Commission, passed the Government of India Act of I935, it created the new provinces of Sind and Orissa, but the areas in which the linguistic demand was strongest were ignored.

Under the Act of I935 new legislatures were set up which, in I938, became the scene of further linguistic agitation. In March, Konda Venkatappayya Pantulu introduced a resolution into the Madras Legis-

7Report of the Indian Statutory Commission. Vol. II. London: HMSO, I930. p. 24.

297

Pacific A/lairs

lative Assembly calling for the creation of separate Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam provinces. Supported by C. Rajagopalachari, the Chief Minister, the resolution carried.8 In Bombay the next month a resolution was proposed in the Legislative Assembly calling for the creation of a Karnatak province. It was also adopted.9 The Bombay Legislative Council passed a similar resolution.

After this the linguistic provinces movement lapsed into a state of suspended animation while the nation's attention was focused on the struggle for independence. During World War II popular movements were suppressed by the British and any constitutional approach was out of the question.

In December i946, when the Constituent Assembly met for the first time to draft an independent India's constitution, the movement for linguistic provinces sprang to life again. Conventions were called, meet- ings were held all over India and the Madras legislature passed a resolution calling upon the Constituent Assembly to regard the principle of linguistic provinces as "a necessary requisite in the framing of a constitution for India." Reflecting the bitter Hindu-Muslim relations in North India, the opposition to this resolution centered among Muslim members who objected to the reference to the Constituent Assembly, the legality of which they did not concede."0

Not the least among the weighty problems which the Constituent Assembly had to solve were the questions of the national language and the organization of states. India was not yet independent, Pakistan had not come into existence, and the fate of the many princely states had not yet been decided. The Assembly met all through the hectic days of partition and integration and concluded its deliberations in November 1949.11 To deal with the question of linguistic states it appointed in June I948 a Linguistic Provinces Commission under the chairmanship of S. K. Dar. The Commission tendered its fifty-six-page report on December io, i948.12

While the Dar Commission acknowledged that the idea of linguistic states made "a strong appeal to the imagination of many of our

8Madras Legislative Assembly Debates. Vol. 6, (March 14-30, I938), pp. ii86-1209. 9 Bombay Legislative Assembly Debates. Vol. 3, (April 2-May 7, 1938), pp. i686-I770. 10 Madras Legislative Assembly Debates. Vol. 5, (March to April, 1947), pp. 64Iff. 11 See summary in speech by Dr. Ambedkar, Congress Bulletin. No. 7, (November-Decem-

ber, 1949), pp. 6f. 12 Constituent Assembly of India, Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission. New

Delhi: Government Press, I948. 56 pp.

298


countrymen" and that there existed "a large volume of public support in their favour", it concluded that a state of national emergency existed in India which gave a higher priority to other problems. "The first and last need of India at the present moment is that it should be made a nation," said the Commission. "Everything which helps the growth of nationalism, has to go forward, and everything which throws obstacles in its way has to be rejected. . . . We have applied this test to linguistic provinces also, and judged by this test, in our opinion, they fail and cannot be supported."'3

The Dar Commission concerned itself only with the four proposed states of South India: Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra. In each of these cases it presented detailed financial arguments against their creation. Of the specific recommendations of the Commission, the most significant were those regarding the cities of Bombay and Madras. Both of these cities have large multilingual populations and are hotly contested by the predominant groups. (In i95i Bombay had an estimated i,236,900 speakers of Marathi and 523,I00 speakers of Gujerati.)14 Each group claims the city for its state. The Dar Commission supported neither. Said the report:

"We are of the opinion that bilingual or multilingual areas should be dis- posed of having regard to their own economic or administrative interests.... they should not be broken up and alloted to various linguistic groups or to a single linguistic group....

"The best fortune that we can see for the city of Bombay is that it should continue as it is today, the meeting-place of all communities, their source of pride and affection and a convenient center for their joint labour and enter- prise. It will be incongruous to make this multilingual, cosmopolitan city the capital of a unilingual province."'5

For Madras the Commission's recommendations were less definite. Although it conceded a stronger claim on the part of the Tamil community by virtue of numerical superiority in and around the city, it suggested that some sort of independent status might also be desirable.

The widespread opposition which greeted the publication of the Dar Commission's Report prompted the Congress Party, meeting in its

'5lbid., P. 36. 14 Census of India 1951. Paper No. I, Languages. Section 9, p. I. These figures, of course,

were not available to the Dar Commission in 1948. Earlier figures showed less difference between the number of Marathi and Gujerati speakers.

15 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission. p. 13.

299

Pacific Affairs

annual session in Jaipur in December I948, to appoint its own Linguis- tic Provinces Committee. The committee consisted of Jawarharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, and its report, known as the JVP Report after the initials of its authors, was submitted on April I, I949. This report was only slightly less unfavorable to the linguistic idea than the Dar Report. It stated:

"Taking a broad and practical view . .. we feel that the present is not an opportune time for the formation of new Provinces. It would unmistakably retard the process of consolidation of our gains, dislocate our administrative, economic and financial structure, let loose, while we are still in a formative state, forces of disruption and disintegration, and seriously interfere with the progressive solution of our economic and political difficulties....

"However, if public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as demo- crats, have to submit to it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole...."16

Regarding the fates of the cities of Bombay and Madras the JVP Report did not differ substantially from the Dar Report. "Bombay should be constituted into a separate political unit," it stated. "Madras City is smaller and is closely linked with provincial life and activities. We are of the opinion, therefore, that if an Andhra Province is to be formed, its protagonists will have to abandon their claim to the City of Madras."" The obvious implication was that it should go to Tamil- nad. This ambiguous wording, however, was later interpreted by Pat- tabhi Sitaramayya, himself an Andhra and a long-time advocate of Andhra State, as not giving Madras City to Tamilnad, but as leaving the issue undecided. It can be seen that the JVP Report did no more to satisfy the proponents of linguistic states than the Dar Report which preceded it. Indeed it appears only to have increased the confusion and added fuel to the controversy.

Neither the JVP nor the Dar Report was popular in Andhra, for both asked the Andhras to give up Madras City. Moreover, their general tone was one of postponement. Emotions in Andhra began to simmer. It was not long before India's unique political weapon, the fast, was brought into the fight for a separate Andhra State.

On August i6, i95i, Swami Sitaram (a respected Gandhian) and several of his followers undertook a "fast to death" for the creation of

16 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committee. New Delhi: AICC, 1949. pp. 9-IO, I5.

"7Ibid., p. 14.

300


Andhra State. As the fast wore on, tension mounted and national leaders manifested increasing uneasiness. Although several of his followers broke their fasts earlier, Swami Sitaram continued his until September 20th when, after thirty-five days, he broke it at the request of Vinoba Bhave. In taking food the Swami denied himself the martyrdom that was to come a year later to another Telugu-speaking Gandhian."

On December i5, i952, a fifty-six day fast claimed the life of Potti Sriramulu, an equally passionate Andhra patriot. The reaction in Andhra was electric. Violence broke out in several places. The police fired on a mob at Nellore, killing three and wounding several others. In Madras several Andhra legislators resigned their seats in protest, but the attempt by Andhra members to raise the issue in the central parliament was without success. However, on December i9 the Government of India announced that it would go ahead with the creation of the new state. Despite official protestations to the contrary, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it was neither the merits of the issue nor the suffering of Sriramulu that moved the government to action, but rather the widespread violence the latter inspired. The danger remains that the technique by which the Andhras secured their state may constitute a precedent for other linguistic advocates.

The Andhra State Bill was debated in the House of the People during the summer I953, and on October i the hew state was inaugurated.

Andhra makes an interesting case study for several reasons. To begin with, it is the first state to be set up in response to linguistic agitation, an agitation that had been going on longer than any other. Second, in spite of its linguistic homogeneity, the state is cursed with caste and regional tensions which its new status has tended to exacerbate. Third, the Government of India intends to view Andhra as an index to the advisability of further linguistic redistribution.

There were some 33 million people in India in i95i who considered Telegu their mother tongue.'9 Most of them are located in the eleven districts of Andhra State and in the eastern portion of Hyderabad State known as Telengana. It is customary to think of Andhra State as divided into two parts, the five coastal districts in the north being known as

18 The fast is not always a perfect political technique as the Swami discovered in the spring of 1954 when, during his fast for the retention of prohibition in Andhra, the public and press paid little attention and appeared quite willing to let him starve to death. He consequently called it off.

19 Census of India i95i. Language Paper, p. 6.

30I

Pacific Affairs

the Circars and the five southern districts as Rayalaseema. The coastal district of Nellore, which lies between, shares many characteristics of both. The Circars region includes the rich rice-growing deltas of the Krishna and Godavari rivers, the port and shipyards of Vizagapatam, the important towns of Vijayawada, Guntur and Rajamundry, and the bulk of Andhra's population. Rayalaseema on the other hand is arid, less densely populated and is visited by famine on the average of one year out of five.20 Rayalaseema is the homeland of the Kapu caste group, better known as the "Reddys" because of the title they use when writing their names.2' They are probably the most numerous single caste in South India. In the Circars the predominant caste group is the Kamma which tends to look down upon the Reddys.

Cash crops and minerals play a dominant part in Andhra's economy, and great quantities are exported abroad. Andhra's overseas exports, in fact, amount to an estimated Rs. 400 million per year, ten per cent of the national total.22 This places a high premium on convenient port facilities, and in recent years the port of Madras has handled the bulk of Andhra's overseas exports. By virtue of its proximity, Madras has been the natural and most economical outlet for the goods of Rayalaseema to a much greater extent than for the products of the Circars. Under the circumstances there were bound to be strong commercial ties between the people of RayAlaseema and the commercial community of Madras.

The growth of Telugu culture and intellectual life has centered in the Circars, particularly around the great population centers of Guntur and Vijayawada. It was mainly from this area that the Telugu-speaking aspirants to the legal profession and government service came. Thus it was in the Circars that discontent first developed over the dominance of the Tamil community in these professions in Madras Province. It was also a source of irritation to the Circars lawyers that much of the lucrative legal business of Rayalaseema was in the hands of Tamils.

Until I926 Andhra was without a university of its own. The various colleges of Andhra were affiliated for purposes of examination (under the Indian system) to Madras University. When Andhra University

20 George Kuriyan and V. L. S. Prakasa Rao, "The Andhra State: Its Regional Setting," Silver jubilee Souvenir. Madras: Andhra Chamber of Commerce, n.d. [Is53]. pp. 53-59.

21 See J. H. Hutton, Caste in India. Bombay: Oxford University Press, I95I P. I I. 22 P. Suryanarayana, "Trade and Commerce of Andhra," Silver Jubilee Souvenir. loc. cit.

p. 288.

302


was eventually set up in Waltair (Circars), the colleges of Rayalaseema declined to change their affiliations and continued to remain associated with Madras. This peculiar situation continues today, and rather than affiliate their colleges with Andhra University the people of Rayala- seema have demanded and received authorization for a university of their own. Since Andhra finances are precarious, it is reasonable to argue that the state cannot afford two universities. Such an argument, however, does not impress the people of Rayalaseema whose fear of Circars domination is not without foundation.

Thus it can be seen that the two areas of Andhra have great economic, geographical and cultural differences which have had important consequences in Andhra politics. All the above-mentioned factors mili- tated against unity among the Telugu-speaking people of the old Madras Province, and the suspicion and distrust between the people of the Circars and the people of Rayalaseema precluded a unified demand for the creation of Andhra State. Nevertheless, there was among all Andhras the feeling that their area was suffering discrimination at the hands of the Tamils who dominated Madras provincial politics. There is little doubt that the Tamil areas received more governmental as- sistance than did the Andhra areas. In fact, the Madras Government reported officially to the Simon Commission: "On the whole, the interests of the Tamilians in the province have in fact been better attended to than those of the Telugus. One reason which perhaps helped in starting the Andhra movement was the fact that the Goverment serv- ices in the Telugu districts were largely manned by Tamilians."2' More- over, the Report admitted that "the income from land revenue derived from the Telugu districts is nearly half of the total for the Presidency". Under such circumstances Andhra discontent was inevitable.

The reasons for the neglect of the Andhra areas are complex and difficult to assess. The Andhras tend to ascribe this neglect to the machinations of the Tamils and the "divide and rule" policy of the British. Although evidence is available to support these charges, it is difficult to balance it with such factors as the backwardness of the Telugu-speaking people, their emotional volatility and the geographical conditions in Andhra which eat up developmental expenditures with-

23 Memoranda of the Madras Government on the Working of the Reformed Government, Submitted to the Indian Statutory Commission. Madras: Superintendent of the Government Press, 1930. p. 580.

303

Pacific Aflairs out commensurate visible results. If the British neglected the Andhras or allowed the Tamils unfair advantages, it was probably because they found the latter easier to do business with and inhabiting an area which gave a better return on investments. It is true that District Officers and administrative appointees in the Andhra area were, more often than not, non-Andhras, but this was frequently due to the lack of qualified Andhra personnel. The Andhra explanation that their inability to pro- duce qualified applicants for government jobs was the result of the in- adequate educational facilities available to them is partially valid. How- ever, they did not take to Western education nor aspire to governmental service with the same enthusiasm as the Tamils, and as a consequence their community occupied a less important position in India's English- speaking elite.

The great bane of the Andhra community has been and is its dis- unity. ITe British were able to insist on agreement between the Circars and Rayalaseema before a separate Andhra Province could be considered. Similarly, after independence, the new Government of India demanded the same impossible consensus before it would agree to form Andhra State. The Andhras were particularly vulnerable to such delaying tactics. When the people of the Circars were willing to accept an Andhra Province on the basis of the JVP recommendations (i.e. without Madras City), the Rayalaseema leaders refused to agree. Thus when in i950 T. Prakasam, known as the "Lion of Andhra" for his long-time leadership of Andhra politics, wrote a minute of dissent to a partition committee report which had excluded Madras City from Andhra, controversy raged again between the Circars and Rayalaseema, and the creation of Andhra State was once more postponed.

The location of the capital and the High Court of the new state was a question which was bound to magnify the irritations existing between Rayalaseema and the Circars. If one adopted the principle that they should be located closest to the bulk of the population, then the Guntur- Vijayawada area would be the natural choice. But such a choice is not possible in the political climate of Andhra. The leadership of Rayala- seema was unwilling to support the demand for a separate state unless it was given a guarantee regarding the capital and the High Court. Consequently, an agreement known as the Shri Bagh Pact was negoti- ated in 1937 between the Congress Party leaders of the Circars and Rayalaseema. It provided that "the High Court and the Metropolis be

304


located in suitable places in the coastal districts and the Rayalaseema, the choice being given to the Rayalaseema".24 As a result of this Pact, the capital of Andhra was located temporarily at Kurnool when the state was created in October I953. The new state was barely a month old when a dispute developed over moving the capital to Vijayawada, almost resulting in the downfall of the ministry. Kurnool is eminently unsuitable as a capital. Its climate is abominable, and it has a great shortage of public buildings and accommodations for legislators and government personnel. When the Kurnool weather became unbear- able in I954 the legislature moved to Waltair for its deliberations. No decision on a permanent capital has yet been taken.

Aside from the Rayalaseema-Circars dispute the Andhras are re- luctant for another reason to decide on a permanent capital. They hope for the eventual establishment of Vishalandhra which in effect means the annexation of the Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad State. In such an eventuality Hyderabad City with its more comfortable climate and its many public buildings would become the state capital. Visha- landhra is not a new demand, but it was never taken seriously in the days before independence because of the treaty commitments of the British with the Nizam to preserve Hyderabad intact. It became a genuine possibility only after the Indian "police action" which in I948 brought Hyderabad into the Indian Union.

Hyderabad is in fact the keystone to the entire linguistic states movement in South India, for the formation of United Maharashtra and United Karnataka as well as Vishalandhra depends upon its disintegration. This would involve a basic change in the Government of India's policy toward the institution of the Rajpramukh, a sort of governorship which was bestowed upon the former Indian princely states in return for their accession to the Indian Union.

Another factor complicates the formation of Vishalandhra-the apparently growing sentiment among the people of Telengana (the nine Telugu-speaking districts of Hyderabad) against union with Andhra. This question came to a head in the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) early in I954 and was resolved in favor of Vishalandhra in March. Subsequently, however, the Party's Hyderabad leadership came out in favor of a separate Telengana state. The problem has also arisen in the Congress Party, and in June I954 a resolution was passed by a

24 Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission. Appendix III, p. 40.

305

Pacific Afairs

meeting of Congress Party delegates from Telengana favoring separate status for the area. 25

Most of this anti-Andhra agitation can be traced to the period of the police action which brought Hyderabad into the Indian Union. During those violent days a number of Hyderabad refugees went across the border into Andhra territory, and many of them returned with stories of inhospitable treatment. Moreover, in Telengana at that time the Government of India was obliged to replace the Nizam's old district administrators, revenue and police officers with Telugu-speaking administrators recruited hastily from Andhra. Many of these were not especially distinguished, either by ability or honesty, and they inspired considerable discontent among the people of Telengana. This discontent was particularly bitter among the student population which re- sented the recruitment of teachers in Andhra who deprived local graduates of jobs. A student agitation which started in Warangal City eventually spread to every district in Telengana and ultimately to Hyderabad City where a hartal (a protest closing of shops) was ob- served in September I952. On the second day of the hartal the attempts of the Communists and ex-Razakars (a militant Muslim organization) to capitalize on the situation led to violence and police firings in which four people were killed. Such events have not helped to create a climate in Telengana favorable to the formation of Vishalandhra.

Political stability is not one of the notable characteristics of the new Andhra State, and at this writing the government is in danger of being defeated on the issue of prohibition. Since the state's inauguration in October I953, a shaky minority Congress government has remained in power only because of the wide splits in the opposition. The Com- munists who constitute the next largest party provide an ever-present threat. It is difficult to estimate the political consequences for Andhra should Telengana be annexed. At present Telengana is represented in the Hyderabad legislature by thirty-eight Congressmen, eleven Social- ists, seven independents, three members of the Scheduled Castes Federa- tion and thirty-six members of the People's Democratic Front, the Communist-dominated front organization which has lately shown signs of cracking up. With these members added to the Andhra legislature it is not likely that stability would be improved. Nor does it appear that the Communist position would be substantially enhanced. At any rate, linguistic reorganization in India is not likely to take place

25 Times of India (Delhi), June io, I954.

306


much before the next general elections, and at that time the entire political picture will change.

Next to Andhra the Maharashtrian movement is the largest and most important. The problem of the creation of Samyukta Maharashtra (United Maharashtra) can be divided into four parts. The first concerns Bombay City to which reference has already been made. The second concerns eight Marathi speaking districts of Madhya Pradesh and Berar which are known collectively as Vidarbha. This is a rich cotton growing area which is, nevertheless, somewhat backward in education and politics. The attitude of the people of Vidarbha toward the Marathas of the Poona area is somewhat similar to that of the Reddys of Rayalaseema toward the Kammas of the Circars. Poona is tradition- ally the cultural center of Maharashtra and the center of gravity of Maharashtrian politics, and the people of Vidarbha fear its domination. Thus there is a movement in Vidarbha against joining any Maharash- trian State, although public opinion in the area still seems to be fluid on this issue.

The third part of the Maharashtrian problem concerns Hyderabad and its disintegration, already mentioned, and the fourth deals with the question of Goa, the Portuguese colony on India's west coast. This latter is an international issue which must be handled from Delhi.

The proposed states of Karnataka and Kerala are slightly less com- plicated than Vishalandhra and Samyukta Maharashtra. The Kerala agitation is somewhat unique in that it voices the demand for the inclusion of certain Tamil speaking areas without which, it is claimed, the state would not be economically viable. Leading protagonists of a Kerala State have even stated that unless certain clearly non-Malayalee speaking areas were included in the new state, they would prefer the status quo. Thus the Kerala demand tends to run counter to the general linguistic principle.

In North India the problem of the Punjab attracts the most attention. A glance at the map will show the absurd geographical organization of the states of Punjab, PEPSU and Himachal Pradesh. Since this area borders on Pakistan it is critical in India's defense, and therefore administrative stability is particularly important. Three main languages are found in the area: Hindustani, Punjabi and Pahari. The inter-state boundaries do not correspond to the language groups but are the result of the integration of a number of feudal princedoms, notably Patiala. Many conflicting claims for reorganization have recently originated in

307

Pacific Afairs

the area, and some of them are the result of communal frictions between the Hindus and the Sikhs.

The other North Indian linguistic problem of consequence is the border dispute between West Bengal and Bihar. In May of I952 a resolution was introduced in the West Bengal legislature by the Chief Minister, B. C. Roy, which called upon the Government of India to increase the area of Bengal by adding to it certain allegedly Bengali speaking sections of Bihar. The resolution, as can be imagined, did not meet with a favorable response in Bihar, and after much vitriolic oratory was summarily rejected. The controversy has continued to develop and will constitute another problem for the Government of India in the years to come.

The movement for the creation of linguistic states has had a considerable impact on India's political parties and in recent years has subjected them to abnormal stresses and strain. The Congress Party has naturally felt the heat of controversy most keenly.

As has been shown, it was the Congress Party which gave the linguistic movement its first important filip by reorganizing the party machinery along linguistic lines in I920. Between I920 and independence in I947 the Congress several times reiterated its advocacy of the linguistic principle. For example, in July of i938 the Working Committee, meeting at Wardha, endorsed the linguistic resolutions passed in the Madras and Bombay legislatures adding these words: "This Committee desires to assure the people of the area concerned that the solution of this question would be undertaken as part of the future scheme of the Government of India as soon as the Congress has the power so to do.. . ."" In July i939 the All India Congress Committee (AICC) passed an unofficial resolution in its Bombay meeting. "The All India Congress Committee," stated the resolution, "is strongly of [the] opinion that immediate steps should be taken for the formation of a separate Andhra province."27 And the Congress Party election manifesto of I946 stated that the Congress

.... has also stood for the freedom of each group and territorial area within the nation to develop its own life and culture within the larger framework, and it has stated that for this purpose such territorial areas or provinces should be constituted, as far as possible, on a linguistic and cultural basis."28

26 Congress Bulletin, No. 4, (August i6, I938), p. 2-3. 27 Congress Bulletin, No. 3, (July 9, I939), p. II. 28 Congress Bulletin, No. 2, (January 24, 1946), p. i5-i6.

308


A party in power generally sees things differently than it did while it was in opposition, and on this issue the Congress Party has been no exception. In the tumultuous days following independence, it was not surprising that Nehru and Patel felt that the linguistic issue should be postponed while other more pressing matters-integration, refugees, economic reconstruction-were taken up first. Thus the Congress began to change its position and adopt the attitude expressed by the Dar Commission, namely, that "Congress stands relieved of all past commitments". The Party's program for the i95i elections stated that although the policy of the Congress had been "clearly and unequivo- cally in favor of the formation of linguistic provinces", still the Con- gress would stand by the conclusion of the JVP Report that the time was not opportune.29

The decision to allow the Andhras to separate from Madras was the signal for linguistic groups all over India to increase their agitation. In North India, linguistic groups which had not previously expressed a desire for separate status began to agitate with extraordinary vigor. New organizations and pressure groups dedicated to the linguistic idea sprang up all over India.

It became apparent to the Congress Party as well as to the Govern- ment of India that the mounting sentiment in favor of linguistic states had to be appeased if order was to be preserved. When the annual Congress was held in Hyderabad in January I953, the resolution on linguistic states confirmed the policy of the Government of India in agreeing to create Andhra State.

Not long thereafter the Government of India announced that it would set up a commission to examine the linguistic states issue on an all-India basis and recommend a suitable solution. The announcement was expected to diminish the agitation, but such hopes were misplaced. Within the Party itself Congressmen from various provinces went on record in favor of boundary lines which neighboring Congressmen were by no means willing to accept. Moreover, they joined and actively participated in the various ad hoc organizations set up to promote indi- vidual state interests. Several times in I953 the Party center had to appeal to Congressmen to desist from such activities.

One Congressman, S. K. Patil, an M. P. from Bombay and Chair- man of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee, has heeded the

29 Vote Congress; Linguistic States. n.d., n.p. [AICC, I95I], p. 27.

309

Pacific Afairs

appeal and has organized, ostensibly with Nehru's endorsement, an organization known as the National Unity Platform. In Patil's words it is "neither a party, nor a group nor an agitation," but is dedicated to postponing the linguistic issue for twenty-five years.30 Though a number of important personages, mostly Congressmen, are associated with Patil's group, the organization is not likely to exert much influence on the final solution of the problem.

The state Congress organizations in recent years have been subjected to considerable strain as a result of friction and jealousy between the Congress ministers and the leaders of the Party organization. In many cases the personal intervention of Prime Minister Nehru has been the only thing to save a state organization from a serious split. The linguistic problem is adding to these strains, and until it is solved it will be a continuous source of trouble for the governing party.

The linguistic states issue has also created problems for the Com- munist Party of India (CPI). The CPI first became seriously concerned with this question in the days before independence when the issue of a separate Pakistan was still in doubt. Taking their cue from Soviet writings on the nationality question, the Communists at that time divided India into several nations to each of which they proposed granting the form of autonomy and the right of secession allegedly available to the various nationalities of the Soviet Union. Thus, instead of endorsing the Pakistan idea as such, they endorsed "what was just" in the Pakistan demand, namely, the right of self-determination for the Pathan nation, the Punjabi nation, the Baluchi nation, the Sindi nation, and so forth. They also gave nation-status to the Telugus, Tamils, Maharashtrians and other important language groups of South India.

Indian public opinion failed to appreciate the subtle difference between supporting Pakistan and supporting "what was just" in the Pakistan demand, and the Communist Party itself ultimately came to realize that its policy had been weighted slightly on the Pakistan side. When this line was repudiated at the Calcutta Congress in i948 its author, G. M. Adhikari, one of the top Party theorists, was thoroughly criticized and since that time has enjoyed little influence in the Party.3'

It was natural that after independence the CPI would attempt to capitalize on the growing linguistic sentiment in India, for it was an

30 See Times of India (Delhi), November 22, I953. Free Press Journal (Bombay), December 3I, I953. Hindustan Times (Delhi), May 25, I954. Also S. K. Patil, "Have We National Unity Yet?" Hindustan Times (Delhi), January 26, I954.

31 See G. M. Adhikari, Pakistan and National Unity. London: Labour Monthly, I943. 32 pp.

3IO

Linguistic Regionalism in India ideal issue with which to embarrass the government. Thus in 1948 the Party organ, People's Age, stated:

". . . we support the demand for linguistic provinces because we know that through it the people of the various linguistic units are taking their first step against the central bourgeois leadership and its policy of suppression of national groups."32 The importance which the Party attached to the issue was indicated by the Central Committee resolution of January 1953 which stated:

"The Communist Party calls upon all its members to immediately take initiative in uniting the broad sections of the people and build a powerful and irresistible movement round this issue. The Communist Party desires to emphasize that the demand can become really irresistible only if the organized working class, peasants, students and other sections of the people are actively rallied in the movement and the United Front is built around this core."33 In line with this policy the Communists have taken an active part in the linguistic agitation and have infiltrated into the various ad hoc organizations set up to promote linguistic causes.

In June I954 the Central Committee of the CPI published the memorandum which it has submitted to the States Reorganization Commission."4 This calls for a redivision which would reduce the number of states from twenty-eight to twenty, the state borders to be determined by the linguistic principle. The document dodges the thorny boundary problems by acknowledging the need for "necessary boundary adjustments" in eleven of the proposed states. Whereas the I953 statement tended to favor the case for the inclusion of portions of Bihar in West Bengal, this emphasis is missing from the memorandum. More significantly, a merger of Himachal Pradesh with PEPSU and the Punjab into a Punjabi speaking state, advocated in i953, is now abandoned in favor of separate status for Himachal Pradesh. These changes, coupled with the Party's advocacy of separate provincial status for Tripura and Manipur (two tiny states in north-east India where the CPI is strong) tend to support the allegation that the Party is shift- ing its strategical emphasis to the border areas of North India.

Unlike the democratic parties, disagreement within the CPI is generally concealed from the public; decisions are made in secret. Thus

32 People's Age. Vol. VII, No. io, (September 5, I948), p. i6. 33 "Unite People for Linguistic States Here & Now," Crossroads, Vol. IV, No. 38, (January

25, I953), pp. 8-9. 34Memorandum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India to the States

Reorganization Commission. Delhi: CPI, I954. 9 pp.

3"1

Pacific Affairs

it is difficult to assess the strains which the linguistic states question has imposed upon the Party. There are indications that serious disagree- ments exist within the CPI on this issue, but the Communist Party with its severe discipline and well-indoctrinated membership seems adequately equipped to resolve or suppress them. The Communists are more likely to profit than to suffer from the controversy.

Moderation has characterized the attitude of the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) on this question of linguistic states. The PSP has recognized the need for some reorganization, but it has not favored a hasty decision on a purely linguistic basis. When the Socialists held their special convention at Betul in June 1953 they adopted a resolution on linguistic reorganization which continues to be the Party policy. It welcomed the decision to appoint a commission and recognized "the overwhelming desire of the various regions of the country to have States as far as possible on [a] linguistic basis".35 It continued:

"The Convention wishes to emphasise that the redrawing of the administrative map on linguistic basis should be confined to the major languages enumerated in the 8th Schedule to the Constitution. The Convention is further of the opinion that the conditions precedent to the creation of a new state are economic viability and development and administrative efficiency."36

The Socialists argue for a cautious approach, giving primary consideration to the problem of national unity.

Among the right-wing communal parties, the two most important, the Jan Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha, agree that some form of reorganization is necessary. The Mahasabha "does not regard language as the only basis for re-formation of States even though it recognizes language as the most important basis for such reformation".37 The Jan Sangh says language is important but should not be the sole criterion. It argues for a unitary form of government and favors the disintegration of Hyderabad.38

The main opposition to the linguistic principle comes from con- servative economic interests. Both the All India Manufacturers Organi- zation and the All India Exporters Association have presented memoranda to the States Reorganization Commission opposing linguistic reorganization. Whereas the latter wishes to retain the status quo, the

35 Report of the Special Convention of the Praja Socialist Party (Betul). Bombay: PSP, I953. p. I23.

36 [bid. 37 Hindustan Times (Delhi), June i, I954. 88 Times of India (Delhi), May 28, 1954.

3I2


former agrees that some reorganization is necessary but that it should be based on economic and political principles rather than language.39

It is impossible to consider the problem of linguistic regionalism in India without dealing with the question of a national language, because both are important facets of the larger issue of national unity. It has been apparent for years that India would have to promote one language as an all-India language if it were ever to meet the complex problems of administration in a twentieth century world and promote the educational and cultural advancement of its people. On this there has been general agreement; the disagreement comes in deciding which language. And the disagreement is violent.

Among the hundreds of Indian languages Hindi is spoken by the greatest number of people. In the census of i95i, over io8,ooo,ooo people claimed Hindi as their mother tongue. Even before independence the nationalist movement recognized that Hindi was most likely to become the national language.

Hindi traces its source back to Sanskrit and bears closer similarities to that ancient language than does any other. It is written in the San- skrit or Devanagari alphabet, a precise but complex and cumbersome system of writing. When the Islamic peoples began invading India around the eleventh century they brought with them the Persian language. Persian became a court language and efforts were made to Persianize the Hindi of the local inhabitants. Ultimately a new language developed, written in the Persian script but bearing many Hindi features. Today it is known as Urdu and is the official language of Pakistan.

One element of the Hindu-Muslim conflict of pre-independence India was the fact that Hindi became known as a Hindu language and Urdu as a Muslim tongue. Communal bitterness invaded the field of linguistics. To minimize these difficulties Mahatma Gandhi used the term Hindustani to describe a language which combined both Hindi and Urdu, and he persuaded the Congress to accept this term to describe the national language. The device met with little success and after Gandhi's death his followers adopted a constitution which speci- fied Hindi as India's national language. The Hindi-Urdu controversy still continues with unabated bitterness. In March I954 the Minister for Education, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, upon whom rests the responsibility for the propagation of Hindi, was vigorously attacked in

39 Hindustan Times (Delhi), June Io and I6, 1954.

3I3

Pacific Agairs the House of the People for having conspired to promote Hindustani instead of Hindi. The leader of this attack was Purshottamdas Tandon, former Congress President and best known of the extremist, Hindu- minded right-wingers in Congress. Azad is a Muslim and also an ex-Congress President. He denied Tandon's allegations and replied to them with great bitterness. "The chief obstacle in the development of Hindi," he said amid cheers from the House, "is this narrow mind of the so called lovers of Hindi."40

It is not only the proponents of Urdu and Hindustani that cheer when Hindi protagonists are attacked. Even greater hostility to Hindi is found in the South. Much of this hostility can be traced to the debates in the Constituent Assembly when the proponents of Hindi, after securing agreement on Hindi in the Devanagari script as the national language, tried to force the acceptance of the Devanagari numerals as well. Such a lack of appreciation of the problems of the Southerners who were being asked to adjust to both a new language and a new script prompted Prime Minister Nehru to say:

". . . in some of the speeches I have listened [to] here and elsewhere there is very much a tone of authoritarianism, very much a tone of the Hindi- speaking area being the center of things in India, the center of gravity, and others being just the fringes of India.""4

The Constitution provides that English will be the official state language for fifteen years, that is until i965, at which time it will have been replaced by Hindi. It would be difficult to overstate the immensity of this task. English has been the language of administration in India since the days of the East India Company, it has been the medium of instruction in the higher schools and universities, and it was the language which enabled the North to unite with the South in the movement for India's independence. People who speak English are found in every corner of the country.

Statistics on the number of people in India who understand English have not been compiled, and therefore the importance of this language is difficult to assess on a numerical basis. Although the i95i census was concerned with bilingualism and counted those who spoke a second Indian language, it asked no questions about English. It is difficult to explain the failure to assess such an important national resource except in terms of chauvinism or xenophobia. But the importance of English

40 The Hindu (Madras), March 30, I9,54. 41 Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol. IX, p. I4I4.

314


can be measured without recourse to statistics by inquiring into its role in India's social, political and economic institutions.

English was the only language which was understandable to all of the delegates to the Constituent Assembly, and when they concluded their English language debates they adopted an English language text which remains the most authoritative version. English was the major language of the Indian National Congress and remains so today. In India's Parliament the member who wants to be understood by the largest number of delegates speaks English. English still dominates the courts, official correspondence and government publications. India's English language press is the only national press and it is paramount in the world of Indian journalism.

Nevertheless, English had been the language of foreign domination, and nationalistic pride dictated that it must go, whatever its utility. If English were to be retained, argued one delegate to the Constituent Assembly, "What will other people say? What will the ghost of Lord Mecauley [sic] say? He will certainly laugh at us and say, 'Old Johnnie Walker is still going strong'."42 It is this psychology that has dominated the discussion of the national language issue. Thus when the Con- stituent Assembly was debating whether to adopt Devanagari or international numerals the proponents of the international numerals found it necessary frequently to point out that the numerals had their origin in India and thus were not foreign.

A few kind words were said about English in the Constituent As- sembly, notably by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar and R. K. Chaudhuri, but the overwhelming sentiment was that English must be replaced by an Indian language. Prime Minister Nehru expressed the majority view when he said:

". . . I think it is perfectly right to say that English had done us a lot of good and we have learnt much from it and progressed much-nevertheless no nation can become great on the basis of a foreign language. Why? Because a foreign language can never be the language of the people, for you will have two strata or more-those who live in thought and action of a foreign tongue and those who live in another world. So he [Gandhi] taught us that we must do our work more and more in our own language....

"However good, however important English may be, we cannot tolerate that there should be an English knowing elite and a large mass of our people not knowing English. Therefore we must have our own language."43

42Ibid p. 1349. 43Ibid., pp. I4I0, 1414.

3I5

Pacific Affairs

The fact remains that Hindi is also a foreign language to most Indians and that their fears of a Hindi-speaking elite are frequently greater than their abhorrence of English.

The question of Hindi's adoption by the Constituent Assembly was never in doubt. There was some sentiment in favor of Sanskrit, but it was never a serious contender.44 Nor was there any real battle over the Devanagari script, although the Roman script was proposed. The Roman script had been used for Urdu by the British in the Indian army with considerable success, and aside from the script's international importance there were other factors which might have prompted its consideration. It is less cumbersome in typesetting and more efficient for use with a typewriter. Forty words a minute with a Devanagari typewriter is considered maximum, and these machines are still a com- parative rarity in India. But sensitive India was not prepared to follow the examples of Turkey and Indonesia, and the Roman script was abandoned. It is, however, interesting to note that on April 7, I954, a motion for a constitutional amendment authorizing the Roman script as an alternative to Devanagari was introduced in the West Bengal State Legislative Council. Although backed by the majority it was withdrawn on the Chief Minister's suggestion that an expert committee be appointed.45

The assault against English in recent years has resulted, not from a national eagerness to learn Hindi, but from local desires to promote the regional languages. Thus all over India schools and universities which have used English as a medium of instruction are switching over to the regional languages, not to Hindi. In January of 1954 the Bombay State Government went so far as to issue a circular prohibiting children whose mother tongue was not English from attending schools in which the medium of instruction was English. This action met with a strong public outcry and was ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Bombay incident may prompt some rethinking on the question of English. There is already some evidence of this. In January of 1954 M. C. Chagla, Chief Minister of Bombay, pointed out that it was not Hindi that was replacing English but the regional languages. "For heaven's sake," he said, "let us not make the mistake of giving up the official language which has helped us to bring about

44The Union Home Minister, K. N. Katju, said as recently as November 1953, that he favored Sanskrit as the national language. Hindustan Times (Delhi), November 4, 1953.

45 The Mail (Madras), (Dak edition), April 9, 1954.

3i6


administrative, political and linguistic unity and substitute in its place different regional languages which may sacrifice and undermine our unity." 46

The Government of India stands firmly committed to the replace- ment of English by Hindi by i965. By i96i the work of the central administration is to be carried out in both languages together. Then in i965 English is to be dropped. It is an ambitious program, and judging by present trends it will not reach fruition. Linguistic regionalism is too strong and Hindi is a weak antidote.

On December 29, 1953, the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Govern- ment of India set up a three-man commission to inquire into the linguistic states question. The Commission, known as the States Reorgani- zation Commission, is composed of three distinguished Indian statesmen, Saiyid Fazl Ali, Governor of Orissa, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Mem- ber of the Council of States, and Kavalam Madhava Panikkar, previously Ambassador to Egypt and to China. The Commission has been directed to make its final report not later than June 30, 1955.

The Home Ministry statement which set up the commission out- lined for it terms of reference which were not enthusiastically received among linguistic advocates. It read:

"The Commission will investigate the conditions of the problem,-the historical background, the existing situation and the bearing of all important and relevant factors thereon. They will be free to consider any proposal relating to . .. reorganization. The Government expect that the Commission would, in the first instance, not go into the details, but make recommendations in regard to the broad principles which should govern the solution of this problem and, if they so chose, the broad lines on which particular States should be reorganized, and submit interim reports for the consideration of the Government."47

Thus the Commission is not a boundary Commission as some had hoped, and, since it is directed to make recommendations concerning only the "broad principles", many linguistic states proponents view the entire operation as merely another delaying tactic.

Certainly the Government has not yet embraced the linguistic principle. The Home Ministry concedes that "the language and culture of an area have an undoubted importance," but "the first essential consideration is the preservation and strengthening of the unity and security

46 Times of India (Delhi), January 23, 1954. 47 Ministry of Home Affairs, Resolution, New Delhi, 29 December 1953, New Delhi: Govern-

ment of India, I954. I p.

3I7

Pacific Afairs

of India. Financial, economic and administrative considerations are almost equally important. ...48 With language ranking so far down on the list it is hardly surprising that the appointment of the Com- mission did little to stem linguistic agitation. Agitation has, in fact, increased since December because of two contradictory attitudes: one is the fear that the Commission will do nothing and must, therefore, be prodded; the other is the fear that it will redraw the map of India and, therefore, agitation is necessary to see that it is done properly.

The new Commission is faced with an enormous responsibility, for the report it submits will have tremendous consequences. The size of the task is equally great-already over seven hundred memoranda have been received. In addition to examining all of these memoranda, the Commission is making statistical and other studies of its own, drawing upon the experience of India and other nations in the whole broad field of public administration, finance and nation building. Hearings are being held in all parts of India where the views of local leaders are solicited. The fact that these hearings are held in camera has aroused some criticism and a strong suspicion that certain public figures have deviated from their published views when talking to the Commission.

Dean Paul Appleby (of Syracuse University), who surveyed public administration in India in i953 at the government's request, focused a disturbing light on the problem of Indian unity when he said in his report that "the new national government of India is given less basic resource in power than any other large and important nation... ." "The power that is exercised organically in New Delhi is the uncertain and discontinuous power of prestige. It is influence rather than power."49 There is no doubt that without rapid and bold action by the government the movement for linguistic states may develop into a threat to that power, to national unity and to India's very existence as a single nation state. It is, therefore, a tribute to Indian democracy that the free play of ideas on this question has had the fullest scope. Opportunism and irresponsibility exist on both sides of the issue, but sober minds with imagination and foresight are also at work. The outcome will have profound significance for the future of democracy in Asia.

Bombay, July I954

48 [bid. 49 Paul H. Appleby, Public Administration in India, Report of a Survey. Delhi: Cabinet

Secretariat, I953. pp. i6, I7.

3i8

Linguistic Regionalism in India

Documents

Transcript of Linguistic Regionalism in India