Unity, Democracy, and the All India Phenomenon, 1940-1956 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Emily Esther Rook-Koepsel IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ajay Skaria August 2010 © Emily Rook-Koepsel 2010 Acknowledgements We are in the habit of thinking of a dissertation as something done in isolation, each idea and phrase being the author’s alone. Yet, the impressive list of people and organizations who have supported my education, research, and writing is so long as to finally disrupt this farcical image. Without the guidance and patience of my advisor, Ajay Skaria, I would certainly never have made it to this day. He has never failed to respectfully push me to think more seriously and carefully about my ideas. In expecting me to be more and better then I thought I could be, Ajay has made me a better and more thoughtful scholar. Although not officially my advisor, Simona Sawhney has nevertheless been an unfailing source of support, critique, and care. From my first days at the university until now, she has asked me to, ‘say more,’ and with such interest that I have been motivated to try to do just that. At least as importantly, Simona has always demanded not only academic rigor, but a reason for doing the work. That I am as motivated by project as I am can be attributed in large measure to her asking me to defend my project’s purpose. I would also like to thank the remaining members of my committee, Thomas Wolfe, who encouraged me to think about intellectual history, media, and the nation, Cathy Asher, for being a fervent supporter of South Asia scholarship at the University, and Helena Pohlandt-McCormick, who agreed, despite being very busy, to think about my project with me. In addition, I would like to thank Rick Asher and the Consortium for Asian Studies whose support of the South Asia Seminar has made the University of Minnesota infinitely richer for graduate students studying South Asia. I would also like to thank Allen Isaacman, who got me into the MacArthur Scholar group, which has been the source of funding, academic support, and good colleagues. I want to thank Katie Levin and N’Jai-An Patters for being excellent sounding blocks, and generally for helping me jumpstart my writing. I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the help of the university funding including the Hedley Donovan Fellowship, the Graduate Research Partnership Program, and FLAS summer language funding. I am especially grateful to the i American Institute of Indian Studies for helping organize my research trips, and always being a helpful source of knowledge. I also want to especially thank the librarians and scholars at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, which served as my institution home while in Delhi, and Ranajit Hoskote, the General Secretary at the All India PEN, who against his first inclination, allowed me to riffle through the organization’s papers. I have been exceedingly lucky to find not one, but two groups of excellent women who have supported me in my graduate school career. Aditi Chandra, Pritipuspa Mishra, Julietta Singh, and Papori Bora have been my support, sounding block, and my co- conspirators in the watching of Hindi films. Having such a great group of junior scholars devoted to similar academic pursuits is rare, and I am lucky that I met them and that they let me hang around. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my writing group, Aeleah Soine, Rachel Neiwert, Tovah Bender, Kira Robison, and Elizabeth Swedo, who in addition to providing excellent food and company, have diligently read every word of this dissertation more than once. They made my work and my life so much better than it could have been that I cringe to think of what would have happened if they hadn’t invited me to join. Finally, I want to thank my family. My parents have always pushed me to achieve my goals in the gentlest way possible, and have never failed to be proud of me, even when I just really deserved job. My sister has always been loving, fun, and helpful, and her insight, even when unwittingly given, has promoted me to rethink many things. Most importantly, I want to thank my husband Abe, who is my best cheerleader, my toughest questioner, and my kindest and most loyal friend. He knows when to prop me up, when to leave me alone, and when to just be there through my craziness, and I know I could never thank him enough for being part of my life. ii Dedication To Abe for his support and love iii Table of Contents Introduction India’s Crisis of Unity: Defining the All India Phenomenon 1 Chapter 1 Listening to the Nation: Local and National Valences of All India Radio 28 Chapter 2 National Unity, Freedom of the Press, and All India Organizing: The Rise and Fall of the All India Newspaper Editors Conference 80 Chapter 3 An All India Organization for All Indian Women: The All India Women’s Conference and Federated Unity 141 Chapter 4 The Unmade Nations of the All India Progressive Writers Association 198 Conclusion The Goals and Ends of Indian Unity 242 Bibliography Bibliography 251 iv Introduction: India’s Crisis of Unity: Defining the “All India” Phenomenon India has been an independent country for more than sixty years and yet the question of Indian unity continues to be a matter of almost universal concern. In March of 2008, in the midst of attacks on people from the northern state of Bihar living in Mumbai, The Hindu newspaper printed a cartoon depicting a map of India with the states demarcated and inside each state was a map of India. In the cartoon one man asks another, “and you want to remove Bihar from Maharashtra?!”. 1 The cartoon was attempting to argue that each Indian state both existed as part of the Indian nation and also fully and fundamentally encompassed the unity of the Indian nation. It argued for a cessation of the violence against Biharis in Mumbai by claiming that because each state inseparable from the nation, it would be impossible to remove what was Bihar from what was Maharashtra and the characteristics of Marathis from the characteristics of Biharis. Yet that the question of separating out one state or identity from another could be raised, indicates the strength of regional identities in India and the uncertainty of the national identity, which could allow for the possibility of the separation of “essential Bihari-ness” from the quality of being that describes the Marathi. 2 Moreover, if there is something that defines Maharashtra as fundamentally different from Bihar—a regional identity that cannot be 1 “National Unity,” The Hindu , March 10, 2008. The harassment and violence toward Biharis in Mumbai is almost endemic at this point, with stories about continued harassment in 2010 in India Today . See, for example, “Won’t Allow Bar on Migrants in Maharashtra: Rahul,” India Today , (February 2, 2010); “Rahul Attacks Sena, MNS for Tirade against North Indians,” India Today , (February 1, 2010). While the problem of harassment against North Indians is almost entirely blamed on Marathi chauvinists attempting to stir up trouble in Mumbai, it has historic precedents in the fight to define Maharashtra, Bombay, and Gujarat in the 1950s and 60s. See Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 197-208. 2 And perhaps even what defines this essential Bihari-ness is hard to understand, as the state itself has recently been refigured with the creation of Jharkhand state in late 2000. The question certainly becomes more difficult when the city of Mumbai (one of the world’s largest metropolises) is the site of defining Marathi identity, despite its ambivalent historical relationship with Maharashtra, and which includes permanent residents from not only every state in the Indian nation, but many other countries as well. 1 easily reconciled with the national identity—then the concept of a unifying Indian identity that holds both Bihar and Maharashtra must be more complicated than merely declarative. Indian unity continues to be a nearly universal watchword in Indian politics, although the meaning of that unity is, as it was just before independence, uncertain. In its sixty years of independent existence, India has never been able to articulate a singular vision of what it means to be Indian, though it has tried. Nothing about the national presentation of itself has remained static. In addition to wars with Pakistan and China that have resulted in the changing of international borders, there are several regional movements looking for some kind of division either from the states the area belongs to or from the nation entirely. 3 There are active separatist movements in the Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Kashmir. Sikh movements for an independent Khalistan, although small, are still active both in India and abroad. It is possible, based on Indian Government announcements, that by the end of 2010 a separate Telangana state, carved out of the inland areas of Andhra Pradesh (including Hyderabad), may finally be accomplished. 4 The Telangana movement, as much a socio-economic movement as a linguistic one, has been agitating for separate statehood since before the advent of the Indian nation—first fighting the Hyderabad princely state, and later fighting the government of India. 5 Excluding territorial disagreements about the structure of Indian national unity, religious and caste-based organizations have sought to define Indian unity 3 Indeed the borders with China and Pakistan are both still disputed with no nation agreeing to make the ‘lines of control’ permanent demarcations of national territory.