sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bombay Presidency

Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science Paper Name Indian Politics: II

Module Reorganistaion of States: Language, Religion, Name/Title Region and Culture

Module Id Pre-requisites

Objectives  To know the concept of reorganization of states.  To know the linguistic bases of demands of

states in India.

 To discuss the role of state reorganization commission  To analysis the different movements for separate statehood.

Keywords Reorganisation of State, linguistic states, State Reorganisation Commission, Movement.

Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Professor Ashutosh Kumar Panjab

University, Chandigarh Paper Coordinator Prof. Sanjay Lodha; MLS,University, Udaipur

Delhi Prof. Rekha Saxena University,

Delhi Content Writer/Author Abhay datar (CW)

Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Asha Sarangi JNU, New Delhi

Language Editor (LE) Professor Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab University,

Chandigarh

Module: Reorganisation of States: Language, Religion, Region and Culture

The reorganization of the states on the basis of language, a process that began with the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 and in a sense concluded with the tripartite division of in 1966, did not only alter the internal geographical boundaries of India, but also altered the established structures and patterns of politics at the sub-national level. The provincial boundaries inherited by an independent and partitioned India in 1947 were largely a legacy of colonial rule.

The provincial boundaries during British rule were largely a consequence of the manner and the sequence in which the acquired or conquered territories. Later, administrative convenience of the colonial rulers was the prime factor governing these boundaries. Territories were transferred from one province to another as on a largely ad-hoc basis. As a consequence, in the early 20th century, a majority of the British Indian provinces were multi-lingual. The population of both the Bombay Presidency and the consisted of four major linguistic groups. The , the and the Punjab too were linguistically diverse. Only the United Provinces (the Uttar Pradesh of today) could be reasonably described as being linguistically homogenous.

The uniformity of the administrative apparatus and the use of English as a common medium of higher education under British rule fostered the development of a sense of a common Indian identity. However, concurrently, the use of Indian languages in primary and secondary education, the introduction of these languages as a separate area of study in the universities, the development of the newspaper and publishing industries as well as the spread of the printing press beyond the large urban centers helped sharpen the sense of regional identities which in turn were largely constructed around the regional languages. With the colonial rule came employment opportunities and the development of new professions like that of the lawyers. As education spread through a wide-cross section of Indian society, competition sharpened among various social groups to derive benefits from the opportunities being offered by the Raj. In multi-lingual provinces, this competition became one between the various linguistic groups. If some groups believed that the others were monopolizing the resources being made available by the colonial state and hence stepped up demands for a large share, others, who had been the first to have access to these same resources sought to retain their dominant positions.

Early Demands

The first demands for separate administrative units on linguistic lines came from eastern and southern India. Demands were made in the early years of the 20th century for Bihar to be separated from the huger province of Bengal. Bihar had been administered from Calcutta (now ) since the mid-18th century after it had passed under the control of the East India Company. There was an element of resentment against the domination of public life and the professions in Bihar by individuals who came from Bengali backgrounds. Demands also arose for a separate province of Orissa, largely on similar lines. These demands received

a fillip with the creation of a separate province of Bihar and Orissa in 1912 with the annulment of the partition of Bengal. In the Madras Presidency, demands were made for separate province for the Telugu speakers, which was to be named Andhra. This demand also was actuated by feelings that the Telugu speakers were losing out to the Tamil speakers, and hence a separate province was a necessity.

The , while promoting national unity and thus by extension deprecating claims for separate provinces, however, did realize by the first two decades of the 20th century to concede the strength that lay behind these demands. As a result, initially Bihar, and then later Andhra and were accorded the status of separate provincial units as far the Congress organization was concerned. But the nationalist elites were not unanimous on this count. A resolution introduced in the Viceroy’s Legislative Council in 1918 was defeated with stalwarts like Surendranath Banerjea, Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.A. Jinnah ranged against it. The opponents believed that this would divert attention from the forthcoming constitutional reforms, which they believed was the more important question. The position of the was on the other hand ambivalent. The Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms or the Montagu-Chelmsford report supported the idea of reorganization of provinces on the basis of language since that would make the resultant administrative units more compact and homogenous and thus easy to govern. It also pointed out that such reorganization would enable the local administration to be carried out in the local language and further draw into politics individuals not familiar with English. However, the report left it to the provincial governments to test public opinion before any such reorganization was seriously considered.

By 1920, the Congress moved a step ahead on this issue. It decided to restructure its organization structure on the basis of language, which increased the number of provincial Congress units. However, by establishing separate Congress organizations for the city of Bombay and the rest of the Marathi speaking areas of the Bombay province, it did sow the seeds of a future problem. Furthermore, the principle of language was not consistently follower. In the Marathi speaking areas of the Central Provinces and Berar, two separate Congress provincial organizations were created, reportedly to accommodate the political ambitions of the regional leadership. Later in 1928, the All-Parties Conference’s Report, known as the Nehru Report, appointed to draft a constitution for a future free India, also recommended the reorganization of provinces on linguistic lines, though it refrained from

making definite statements in almost all cases. It argued that such reorganization would be conducive to rapid progress.

One of the first concrete moves towards using language as a basis for redrawing provincial boundaries came with the Government of India Act, 1935. It separated Sindh from the Bombay Presidency, and Orissa from Bihar to form separate provinces. The separation of Sindh, a Muslim majority region in Hindu majority Bombay, had more to do with communal considerations though language was one of the relevant factors. The formation of Orissa was however primarily governed by linguistic considerations. The Congress during this period continued to support the demand for linguistic provinces. Resolutions were passed in some provincial assemblies, where the Congress enjoyed a majority, asking for the creation of new provinces. Yet, not all Congress leaders were convinced of wisdom of such demands. Even Mahatma Gandhi, under whose leadership the Congress had restructured its provincial organizations on the basis of language, urged caution. His cautiousness on the issue increased as time went by. On the other hand, provincial leaders also made efforts to create unanimity among themselves on the issue. The leaders from the coastal Andhra and the Rayalseema region signed an agreement known as the Sri Bagh Pact in 1937 which promised balanced regional development in any future Andhra province.

Independence and After

With independence, came partition. On the eve of the achievement of freedom and also immediately after it, there were renewed demands for linguistic states. However, on the backdrop of the partition of the country, the national leadership was now naturally concerned about the fissiparous potential of such demands. It was believed that linguistic states could pose a danger to the unity of the newly independent country by encouraging regional identities at the expense of an over-arching national one.

However, insistent demands for the formation of linguistic states continued which were not only supported by leading intellectuals and litterateurs from various linguistic groups, but also by several Congress leaders. Attempts were once again made to arrive at a consensus within particular linguistic groups and reassure those who felt that they might lose out in a linguistic state since they belonged to a backward area. The Akola Pact, signed between the

Marathi speaking leaders and leading public figures belonging to the Bombay province and the Central Provinces and Berar in 1947 was one such attempt.

The national Congress leadership was disinclined to concede these demands and hence resorted to stalling tactics. A three member Linguistic Provinces Commission was appointed by the Constituent Assembly under the chairmanship of Justice S.K. Dar, a retired High Court judge to enquire into these demands. It was asked to consider the issue of the formation of linguistic states in southern India and thus considered demands for the formation of Andhra, , and . The Commission, in its report, while acknowledging the strength of the demands, argued that these could pose a danger to the growth of nationalism and hence rejected them. Perhaps, the Commission took a cue from the unspoken position of the central leadership of the Congress.

However, the resultant protests from within the Congress against the Dar Commission’s report forced its national leadership to resort to even more desperate attempts at buying time. A three member committee was appointed by the party. The members of the committee were such that it would certainly force any average Congress think at least ten times before even considering opposing its recommendations. It consisted of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, the Congress President, Pandit , the Prime Minister, and Sardar , the Deputy Prime Minister. The Committee, popularly referred to as the JVP Committee, reiterated the overall approach adopted by the Dar Commission. It conceded the strength of the demands of linguistic states but argued that the fulfillment of these demands should await opportune times. However, the Committee further noted if these demands had strong public support, it would agree to them.

Meanwhile, by 1950 the process of the integration of princely states into independent India was over. This however further complicated the linguistic scene. Some former princely states retained their separate existence or found themselves clubbed together to form distinct units. This meant that some linguistic groups found themselves divided among separate states, while some states like Hyderabad retained their multi-lingual character.

The logic of linguistic states

The proponents of linguistic states proposed that these states be formed on the basis of the principle of ‘One Language, One State’. This meant that each linguistic group was to have only one state for itself thus making it linguistically homogenous. Many arguments were advanced in support of these demands. Linguistic homogeneity would naturally entail that the local language would be the official language of any given province. The local language would obviously bring the administration closer to the people thus facilitating accountability. It was further argued that linguistic states would be more democratic for they would be small in size than the multi-lingual colonial provinces and hence would draw in more and more sections of society into political activity. The widespread use of the local language in administration and education would naturally also contribute to the further cultural development of the relevant linguistic group.

It was further argued that homogeneity would also assist in economic development and that it would enable the people to develop emotional attachment and loyalty to the provincial government. Linguistic states were also demanded as a matter of right. This was based on the assumption that linguistic groups in India had a distinct identity that had continuously existed over centuries. It was further argued that these groups were nationalities, if not separate nations, and hence had a right to separate provinces within India.

But more importantly, rivalries between competing linguistic groups were the driving force behind these demands. Those who had been compelled to live together due to historical factors no longer wished to do so. The Maharashtrians believed that the Gujaratis dominated the larger Bombay province and deprived them of their fair share of economic resources and hence wanted a separate state of Maharashtra. The Marathi-speakers of the Central Provinces had lost their leading position in politics and were being rapidly overtaken by the Hindi- speakers and hence wanted a division of the province. But they were apprehensive of being dominated by the Marathi-speakers from the Bombay province in any future state of Maharashtra and hence desired a separate state of Vidarbha. One of the important reasons for the demand for a separate Andhra state was that the Telugu-speakers simply did not want to live with the Tamil-speakers in a large Madras province.

Ambedkar and linguistic states

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was perhaps the only national leader who gave serious thought to the issue of linguistic states. He did support the demands for a linguistic reorganization of India

but with many qualifications. But like the national leadership of the Congress, Ambedkar also was concerned about the divisive potential of such demands. But at the same time he conceded their merits. He agreed with the arguments that reorganization on the basis of language would create linguistically homogenous provinces which in turn would prove conducive to development and strengthen democracy. Ambedkar also warned that the continuation of multi-lingual states would encourage linguistic rivalries which could prove dangerous.

Dr. Ambedkar also put forth a number of suggestions to counter what he believed to be the dangers of linguistic states. He was apprehensive that the numerically strong community in any given linguistically homogenous state would monopolize positions of power. Hence he suggested a form of proportional representation to safeguard the rights of the minorities. He also suggested the principle of ‘One State, One Language’ as an alternative to that of ‘One Language, One State’. According to Ambedkar’s scheme, while each state was to be linguistically homogenous, each linguistic group however was to be divided across two or more states which of course would be linguistically homogenous. This, according to Ambedkar, would protect the minorities as well as minimize the dangers of linguistic states developing a feeling of separatism.

The States Reorganization Commission

The delaying tactics adopted by the central leadership satisfied no one. However it was the Telugu speakers who first resorted to direct political agitation against the central government’s dilly-dallying and in support of their demand for a separate Andhra stat. Potti Sri Ramulu, a respected freedom fighter, went on a fast-unto-death in support of the demand in late 1952. The central government chose to ignore the fast, with the result that Sri Ramulu lost his life His death sparked off widespread violence which forced the central government to capitulate and announce the formation of a new state of Andhra Pradesh. The new state, formed in 1953, consisted of the Telugu speaking areas of the old multi-lingual Madras state. In doing so, the principle of ‘One State, One Language’ was followed since for the Telugu speaking areas of Hyderabad were not included in the new state. Andhra Pradesh thus became the first state to be explicitly established on linguistic lines in the post independence era.

The formation of Andhra Pradesh renewed demands for linguistic states in other parts of the country as well. The central government in response appointed a three member States Reorganization Commission in 1953, headed by Justice S. Fazal Ali with Sardar K.M. Panikkar and Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru as the other members, to comprehensively examine the issue of reorganization of the states in India. The Commission extensively toured the country, met scores of individuals and received thousands of memoranda, and finally reported in 1955.

The Commission while generally adhering to the principle of ‘One Language, One State’ in southern India, rejected demands for Maharashtra and Punjab. In the case of the former, it recommended that the Marathi speaking areas of Bombay and Hyderabad be combined along with the Gujarati speaking areas of the former and the states of Saurashtra, itself formed by merging the princely states of Kathiwar, and Kutch, to form a larger bilingual . The Marathi speaking areas of Madhya Pradesh should form a separate state of Vidarbha in deference to regional feelings. In the case of the Punjab, it recommended that the state be expanded by merging Himachal Pradesh as well as the Patiala and the East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) into it to create a large Punjab. The report claimed that the demand for a Punjabi speaking state lacked substantial popular support and argued that the creation of such a state would not lead to increased communal harmony, and hence rejected it. In the case of other states it recommended minor territorial adjustments to prevent a particular linguistic group that dominated a given area from becoming a linguistic minority. However, some similar demands like that of the exclusion of the Belgaon district and some adjacent areas in the state of Karnataka were rejected. This issue lingers on even today with the Maharashtrian dominated areas demanding that they be merged into Maharashtra.

The rejection of the demand for Maharashtra was solely motivated by concerns over the future of the city of Bombay, the industrial and financial capital of the country. The capitalist class of Bombay was largely Gujarati, while the working class and the middle class was largely Maharashtrian. The Marathi speakers formed a bare majority in the city, while the Gujarati speakers came a near second. The Gujarati dominated business community was naturally apprehensive about its own future prospects in any state dominated by the Marathi speakers. Their fears were aggravated by the fact the political leadership in Maharashtra was passing from the hands of urban and educated professionals, with whom they had a cordial relationship, into those of the rural landed elites who were believed to unsympathetic to

industry and commerce. The middle path of combining all the Marathi and Gujarati speaking areas into a larger bilingual Bombay state also was rejected, presumably on the grounds that it would give the Maharashtrians a decisive role in the state’s politics. The Bombay state that would be formed as per the Commission’s recommendations would ensure that the Gujaratis would enjoy an important position in the state’s politics.

The Samyukta Maharashtra movement

The Commission’s rejected of the demand for Maharashtra sparked off a storm of protests, especially in the Marathi speaking areas of the Bombay state. The central government’s ham- handed and inept handling combined with the Bombay government’s heavy-handed handling of the situation inflamed public opinion. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister, in an attempt to douse public anger, announced the three-state formula by which Bombay would form a city state, while Maharashtra and would be separate states. This further outraged Maharashtrian sentiments and sparked off the popular movement for the formation of unified state of Maharashtra that was to consist of all the Marathi speaking areas in India. There were violent protests in Bombay which in turn led to police firing and the inevitable deaths thus tarnishing for ever the image of , the then Chief Minister and Home Minister, in the eyes of the Maharashtrians.

Once again, it was Bombay which was at stake. The metropolis had long provided employment opportunities for both the Marathi speaking middle class and the working class. In fact, it was the Marathi speaking migrants who made up the bulk of the textile mill workers in Bombay. The Maharashtrians feared the establishment of a city state of Bombay would permanently deprive them of the access to these opportunities, and that the massive revenues generated by the city would no longer be available for the development of the rest of the Marathi speaking areas.

The opposition parties in the Marathi speaking areas Bombay, Hyderabad and Madhya Pradesh directed the public anger against the Congress which was seen as the party bent on separating Bombay from its natural Marathi speaking hinterland. The Congress party, especially in the Marathi speaking areas of Bombay was on the defensive. Its leaders were confused as to their next course of action. Siding with public opinion would have meant

defying the decision of the central leadership, while supporting the latter’s decision would have meant courting unpopularity. They chose to remain loyal to the party. Almost all the non-Congress parties ranging from the (CPI), the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) to the Jana Sangh and the along with leading non-party public figures formed an electoral alliance named the Samyukta

Maharashtra Samiti.

Meanwhile, after intense behind the scenes haggling and negotiations, the Congress leadership came up with the idea of a large bilingual Bombay state which would include all the Marathi speaking areas of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madhya Pradesh plus the Gujarati speaking areas of Bombay and the states of Kutch and Saurashtra. It was this solution that was included in the States Reorganization Act of 1956 that translated most of the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission into reality. But this did not satisfy public opinion.

In the general elections of 1957, the Samiti inflicted a severe defeat on the Congress both in the Lok Sabha and the state assembly elections particularly in Western Maharashtra. The non-Congress parties displayed a rare sense of unity by putting forth a single candidate to oppose the Congress in most constituencies. The Congress could form a government in the state thanks to its successes in Vidarbha and Gujarat. Soon the Congress central leadership realized, after persuasion by the state leaders, that maintaining the bilingual Bombay state would entail a certain defeat in the next general elections scheduled for 1962. Finally, the state was divided on linguistic lines into Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960. Bombay became the capital of the latter.

The Samyukta Maharashtra movement is significant for many reasons. It combined popular agitation and mass mobilization with electoral politics. If Andhra Pradesh was created due to fears of further violence, Maharashtra was created due to the spectre of electoral defeat. The Samiti, in which almost all opposition parties participated, was a precursor to the non- Congress alliances that destroyed the Congress’ electoral dominance in the 1960s.

The Demand of a Punjabi Suba

On the eve of independence with the imminent on religious lines, strong demands were made for an independent Sikh-majority country to consist of the central regions of the undivided British Indian province of the Punjab. However, neither the departing British nor the Congress that was to inherit power from the former as far as the rest of India was concerned were inclined to concede this demand. Both were concerned to prevent any further division of the sub-continent.

After independence, the demand for an independent country died down. It now took the form of the one for a Punjabi Suba or a state where the Punjabi speakers would form a majority. Though the demand was being couched in terms of language, it was in reality one which asked for a state where the Sikh community would form a majority and thus occupy a significant position in politics. The second aspect was reinforced by the fact the demand was vociferously pressed forward by the Akali Dal, the political vehicle of the Sikh community. The linguistic reorganization of states in 1956, ironically, gave a fillip to this demand for it not only rejected it but also added the predominantly non-Sikh areas and non-Punjabi of Himachal Pradesh to create a large state of Punjab. The merger of the PEPSU, where the Sikh community was numerically largest one, did not ease the concerns of the Sikh leaders, who were apprehensive that it would be difficult to maintain their religious and linguistic identity in the new state. In the early 1960s, there were demands for a division of Punjab to form new states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. These demands were however dampened by a political settlement among the Hindu and Sikh leaders of the Congress which sought to allay the concerns of the two communities.

With the demand for a Punjabi Suba, many issues came to the fore. One of them was whether Punjabi was a distinct language or merely a dialect of Hindi. The other was whether Punjabi was solely the language of the Sikhs, who wanted a Punjabi Suba, or also of the , who did not for they feared Sikh domination. The concerns of the Hindus led to a concerted movement among the community on the eve of the 1961 Census to have Hindi, instead of Punjabi, declared as their mother tongue. This, it was thought, would lead to an increase in the proportion of Hindi-speakers in Punjab, reducing the Punjabi speakers to a bare majority even in the areas demanded for the Suba thus undercutting that demand. Thus, gradually, the issue was communalized with the demand assuming the colour of a Sikh versus Hindu contest.

The demand became even more strident in late 1965 with Master Tara Singh and Sant Fateh Singh taking the lead. The 1965 war with led to the issue being sidelined, albeit temporarily. But the central leadership realized the dangers of letting such a sensitive issue smolder in a strategically crucial border state. Similarly, the Sikh leadership too started to emphasize the linguistic aspect of their demand and deemphasizing the religious angle. It has been argued that it was this shift of focus that finally led the central government in 1966 to trifurcate Punjab to form Punjab, a Punjabi speaking state with the Sikh community forming a slight majority, Haryana, a Hindi-speaking Hindu majority state, and Himachal Pradesh, consisting mainly of the hilly areas that had been merged into the Punjab in 1956. However, this did not resolve all issues. The new city of Chandigarh was created in the 1950s to serve as the capital of the undivided state of Punjab. With the state’s trifurcation, both Punjab and Haryana staked claim to the city. Wary of favouring any one of the two states, the central government devised a seemingly bizarre but typically India formula to deal with the knotty question of Chandigarh, which while does not satisfy any one prevents the issue from flaring up. Chandigarh is a Union territory with the of Punjab as its administrator and serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana. Mercifully, the two states have a common High Court, otherwise the Indians would have been entertained by the spectacle of two High Courts, each of them serving a separate state, being physically located in a Union territory.

Conclusion

With this division of Punjab, one phase of the process of the redrawing of the map of India came to a close. Language was the governing principle of this reorganization. It was widely believed that with the linguistic reorganization of the states there would be no further demands for new states. But that did not happen.

The tribal areas of demanded separate states and the states of Mizoram and Meghalaya came into existence in the 1970s. In the last decade of the 20th century, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh were carved out of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. There are many demands of varying intensity and backed by differing levels of public support for new states. The most vociferous of them has been that of forming the state of Telengana by dividing Andhra Pradesh. This demand seems ironical given that Andhra Pradesh was the first Indian state to be created on the basis of language. These demands have in fact sparked of talk of a second States Reorganization Commission.

The recent demands for new states are qualitatively different from the earlier ones. Language is no longer the criterion for a new state. In fact the proponents of new states often argue that common identities are sought to be created on the basis of linguistic commonalities to evade complaints of economic backwardness. Thus, the formula of ‘One Langauge, One State’ is being sought to be abandoned in favour of Ambedkar’s one, that of ‘One State, One Language’. While regional identities, and in the case of Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand social identities were deployed in support of the demand for new states, the driving force was economic. It is being argued that each of the Indian state consisted of backward regions, whose backwardness was a consequence of neglect on part of that state’s political leadership, and that a separate state would rectify the problem of lack of economic under-development. One could argue that this shift in the basis of demands signals a ‘modernization’ of India politics, for they are no longer being made on a ‘primordial basis’, that of language, but the ‘modern’ ones of economic issues.