Tyranny of Languages

Demand for New States

SCAPISM is not a virtue in tic basis. Congress commitment to States were grouped under Sau- E politics. But Congress conti­ linguistic States can be traced back rashtra. Patiala and East Punjab nues to adopt an escapist attitude to 1921, when Congress Commit­ States were merged into Pepsu, towards the problem of linguistics tees were formed, more or less, on Central Indian States were inte­ states. At the session the basis of linguistic area. In grated into . In of Congress a resolution has been 1928 the Nehru Report endorsed the south, in the north-east and in endorsed to the effect that "Any the Congress demand for linguistic the west of the opportunity further step in the direction of re­ States. was missed, The Dar Commission organisation of states on the basis admitted that the integration of of language, or other basis, will Post-independence history of the the former Indian States into the naturally depend on the stabilisa­ campaign for linguistic States can Indian Union, and merger of some tion of Andhra State". All the be easily told. In the Constituent of them with the existing states members of the Congress Working Assembly, on November 27, 1947, had created administrative problems Committee do not support this Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister, needing action by the Centre. But policy of inaction. But, under accepted on behalf of his Govern­ it concluded that the time was not Pandit Nehru's pressure and influ­ ment the principle underlying the ripe for the creation of new states. ence, Congress has decided to post­ demand for linguistic States. In The JVP Committee concurred pone its decision on linguistic States December, 1948, the Dar Commis­ with this conclusion. in the hope that the campaign sion, appointed by the Constituent may subside in turn. Congress is Assembly submitted its report. It Both the Dar Commission and hoping against hope. was against the creation of linguistic the JVP Committee furnished States, "in the larger interests of some arguments against the linguis­ It would be wrong to presume the Indian nation". It admitted tic States which art' no longer that demand for linguistic States the need for "new provinces" for applicable. Rayalseema districts is recent, although independence administrative convenience. It con­ have no longer any objection, has revived it. Its origin is rooted ceded that " oneness of language " though the Dar Commission empha­ deep in history. "At one time, in was a question to be taken into sised it, to co-operating with the more or less distant past ", the Dar consideration when, and if. such coastal areas in forming a separate Commission prefaces its investiga­ "new provinces " were created, but Andhra State. Travancore has tion of the problem of linguistic that should not he the decisive or now integrated with Cochin. And States, " the areas in which these the main factor. In April, 1949, the advocates of United (Telegu, Marathi, etc) languages the Committee, composed of Sardar can no longer be told, as the Dar were spoken bore their names, and Patel, Shri and Commission told them, that Kerala also formed sovereign states. Thus Shri Pattabhi Sitaramayya, appoint- could not come into being without Andhra, Kerala, Karnataka, Maha­ ed by the Jaipur Congress submit­ the merger of Travancore-Cochin. rashtra, Tamil-Nad and Gujerat ted its report. The JVP Commit­ With the Government's decision to are the ancient names and areas tee accepted the principle of lin­ form Andhra State out of Madras, of the states in which T elegu. guistic Stales, but was against the the advocates of United Karnataka Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi, creation of new states immediately. ran no longer be told that they Tamil and Gujarati languages were " Taking a broad and practical must await formation of other lin­ spoken. Vidarbha is the ancient view, therefore ", the JVP report guistic States (that is Andhra) out name of modern Berar ". concludes, " we feel that the pre­ of Madras before Madras could be sent, is not an opportune time for further parcelled out to form Unit­ From the time the the formation of new provinces ". ed Karnatak. assumed direct control over India from the until Sardar Patel wrote a glorious There are still difficulties in the the end of the century the country chapter in India's history by inte­ formation of linguistic States. was divided for administrative pur­ grating the former princely stales Travancore-Cochin may not be poses into three main areas. There with the Indian Union. That eager to coalesce with Malabar to was Madias in the South. There Chapter had an abrupt end. Later form United Kerala. United Kar­ was Bombay in the west. And the additions created more complica­ natak must necessarily mean rest of India which was neither tions. Bombay is now an unwieldy 's merger with Coorg, and Bombay nor Madras, was grouped state with the incorporation of the. Karnataka districts. Vishala for administrative purposes with Baroda, the Deccan and Gujerat Andhra, United Karnatak, and Bengal. By the beginning of this States, and Kolhapur. Orissa and United Maharashtra raise the prob­ century, many new provinces were the Central Provinces have absorb­ lem of contiguous linguistic areas created. There was more than one ed the Eastern States. Mysore, of . Mahavi- reason for carving out NWF, Travancore-Cochin and Hyderabad darbha is not keen on joining Assam, Bihar, Sind and Orissa as complicate the administrative prob­ Bombay Maharashtra. There is new provinces. But it was at about lems of adjoining states. Integra' still lack of unanimity among the this time that the need for lin­ tion created serious administrative advocates of linguistic States. Some guistic States was conceded. Both problems. In North-Central and bilingual pockets will remain after the Mont-Ford Report and the North-Western India the oppor­ the formation of linguistic States. Simon Report recommended the tunity was seized to create new There are many difficulties in the formation of provinces on a linguis­ administrative units. Kathiawad formation of Samyukta Maha-

79 February 26, 1953 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY rashtra as Berar or Vidarbha and Andhra cannot come into existence. weigh with Congress in postponding Nagpur may not like to coalesce Deliberations at the Hyderabad a decision on linguistic States. with that part of Maharashtra session of the Congress strongly Economic and financial viability of which now falls within Bombay indicate that the campaign for lin­ such a State is relevant, but not an State. guistic States will not subside, over-riding consideration. Advo- despite the decision of the Congress cates of linguistic States must be But, it is abundantly evident that to hasten slowly. Advocates of told firmly that they will have to Congress has been forced to adopt Andhra State are now reconciled pay in taxation the price for what an inconclusive attitude to linguis­ to partitioning the City of Madras. they want. But it is difficult to tic States because it is reluctant to But they argue that the City should appreciate how the creation of lin­ reach a final decision about the be the temporary capita! of Andhra guistic States can endanger " unity institution of Rajpramukh, and State, pending the formation of of Indian national security, and about the future of Mysore and Vishala Andhra. Both the Praja defence". There is the Army of Hyderabad. Of these problems the Socialist Party and the Communists the Indian Union to ensure the Re­ issue of Rajpramukh is not as intri­ are in favour of disintegration of public's territorial integrity. There cate as it seems. Part B States are Hyderabad. Some important Con­ are the Federal Parliament, the destined to blossom into adminis­ gressmen, including Shri Rafi Federal Government and the Sup­ trative entities with equal rights as Ahmed Kidwai, Swami Ramanand reme Court to maintain law and those enjoyed by Part A States. Tirth and Shri B S Hirey, have order. It is better to warn the This transformation would not be openly supported the demand for advocates of linguistic States about complete without the replacement disintegration of Hyderabad. For what they can now hope to receive. of Rajpramukhs by Governors. a proper assessment of this issue it To make linguistic States is not to Rajpramukhs enjoy certain powers is necessary to bear in mind the accept the principle of multi- over and above those exercised by dual role of the Nizam. He is not nationalism. Linguistic States are Governors. These additional powers only the Nizam, but also the Raj­ not anti-national. They are mere of Rajpramukhs must be curtailed pramukh of Hyderabad State. He administrative units. On all vital, as the democratic policy of con­ can remain the Nizam, without, all-India issues the authority rests verting Part B States into Gover­ at the same time, functioning as with New Delhi. Linguistic States nor's states is completed. Congress the Rajpramukh. With a proper are entitled to internal autonomy. is committed to this democratic assessment of the dual role of the They cannot have financial or poli­ transformation. It is not the insti­ Nizam, some of the difficulties in tical autonomy beyond that enjoy­ tution of Rajpramukh, but the relation to disintegration of Hyder­ ed by Part A States under the privy purse of the Rajpramukh abad State into separate linguistic Constitution. States resolve themselves. which is delaying a decision by There have been occasions when Congress. New Delhi is under a There was a time when the some advocates of State Rights contractual obligation as regards have openly challenged the autho­ the privy purse of each Rajpra­ campaign for linguistic States could be shorn of its undesirable political rity of New Delhi. Constitutional mukh. Contracts are inviolable for experts are inclined to the view- the duration. But this is an item associations by redrawing the map of India for administrative conve­ that the Constitution provides ela­ which may not prove difficult of borate safeguards to ensure the solution through the co-operation nience. This was the main prob­ lem before the Dar Commission. Federal Government's s u p r e m e of the people, the government and authority. Even so recent political the Rajpramukhs. It admitted the need for the crea­ tion of new administrative units, developments suggest that the time These problems are not serious but pleaded political stability and may come to take a decision whe­ obstacles to formation of Kerala settlement, of the problem of the ther the Constitution needs suit­ and Karnatak. Neither the Raj­ former Indian States for delaying able amendments to incorporate the unitary conception of the Re­ pramukh of Mysore nor the Raj­ the establishment of new States. public. Evidently, the Congress pramukh of Travancore-Cochin is These were also the main consi­ has doubts that, despite its coun­ unaware of the Government pledge derations which led the JVP Com­ try-wide party organisation, it may to transform Part ' B' States into mittee to adopt a cautious attitude. not always expect disciplinary obe­ Part ' A' States. Kannadiyas But the demand for linguistic States dience from its rank and file in would prefer to have a Karnataka could be conceded with grace. every part of the Union. No other State even with the of New Delhi hesitated. When it political party has such a wide net­ Mysore as the Rajpramukh of yielded to the demand it seemed work of party organisation. It, United Karnatak. Both the Malaya- that it had been coerced into accepting the demand by the therefore, becomes all the more lees and the Kannadiyas hope that necessary for constitutional experts the Rajpramukh concerned would Telugu-speaking people. Even now Congress hopes to delay its pledge to concentrate on fundamental not stand in their way to thwart problems like suitable modification their aspirations. It is, however, of creating linguistic States in the hope that the advocates of linguistic of the Constitution, so that linguis­ widely believed that the dismember­ tic States can be formed without ment of Hyderabad is a more seri­ States would appreciate the argu­ ment that immediate formation of any evil consequences. Behaving ous problem. This is the main like an ostrich does Congress no reason why Congress has decided, such States would hamper the pro­ gress of the Five-Year Plan. But credit. Statesmanship demands that at the Hyderabad session, to post­ t h e fundamental constitutional pone the creation of more linguis­ experience suggests that Congress is hoping against hope. problems be solved with vigour and tic States. firmness, instead of adopting a policy of inaction in the pious hope Without the dismemberment of Arguments stressed in the resolu­ tion passed by the Hyderabad Con­ that the campaign of linguistic Hyderabad, United Karnatak, Unit­ States will subside. ed Maharashtra and V i s h a 1 a gress confirm the real motive which 80