______________________________________________
Article on Linguistic States
From: The Times of India, dated
23rd April, 1953
____________________________________________________________
The British who ruled India for more than 150 years never thought of
creating linguistic States although the problem was always there. They were
more interested in creating a stable administration and maintaining law and order throughout the country than in
catering to the cultural craving of people in multi-lingual areas. It is quite true that towards the end of their
career they did realise that the administrative set-up which they had built
required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations, at any rate in cases where the
conglomeration was very glaring. For instance, they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as
linguistic States before they left. It is difficult to say whether if they had
continued to rule, they would have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion.
But long before the British thought of creating linguistic provinces the
Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already
in the year 1920 framed a constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic
provinces. Whether the ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as
framed in 1920 was a well thought out ideology or whether it was a sop to draw
people inside the Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is,
however, no doubt about it that the British did realise that linguistic
considerations were important and they did give effect to them to a limited
extent.
Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of course, not
called upon to face the responsibility which it had created for itself by its
constitution of 1920. It was only in the year 1945 when it assumed office that this
responsibility dawned upon the Congress. Looking into the recent history of the
subject the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament
by moving a resolution for the creation of
linguistic provinces in India.
The duty of answering on behalf of the Government to the debate fell on
me. Naturally I took the matter to the higher authorities in order to ascertain
what exactly their point of view was. Strange as it may appear, it became clear
to me that the High Command was totally opposed to the creation of linguistic
provinces. In these circumstances, the solution
that was found was that the responsibility to answer the debate had better be
taken over by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to the debate
made statement promising the creation of an Andhra
State immediately. On the basis of the statement made by the Prime Minister,
the resolution was withdrawn. The matter rested there.
Second
Time
As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had to deal with the matter a
second time. When the draft Constitution was completed, I wrote a letter to the
Prime Minister asking him whether I could include Andhra as a separate State in
Part A States of the Constitution in view of what he had said in the course of
the debate on the Resolution. I have nothing with me here to refresh my memory
as to what exactly happened. But the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad,
appointed a Committee to investigate into the
formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.
People will remember the Dhar Committee for one thing if not for any
other. The Committee said that under no circumstances should Bombay City be
included in Maharashtra if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State. That report was then considered by the
Jaipur session of the Congress. The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three-Man
Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai
Patel and Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya. They produced a report, the gist of
which was that an Andhra province should be created immediately but the city of
Madras should remain with the Tamils. A committee was appointed to go into the
details. It produced a more or less unanimous report. But the report was
opposed by substantial elements among the Andhras
including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to
relinquish their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there.
After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had
to sacrifice his life for the sake of an Andhra province. It is a sad
commentary on the ruling party that Mr. Sriramulu should have had to die for a
cause the validity of which was accepted by all Congressmen. The creation of a
new Andhra province now being thought of is only a pindadan
to the departed soul of Mr. Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such
action on the part of the Government would have been tolerated in any other
country is a matter on which there is no use speculating.
There are, in my opinion, three conditions which must be satisfied before
a linguistic State is brought into being. The first condition is that it must
be a viable State. This rule was accepted as absolute when the question of the merger of the Indian States
was under consideration during the making of the Constitution. Only those
Indian States which were viable were allowed to
remain as independent States. All others were merged into the neighbouring
States.
A Sahara ?
Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State ? Mr. Justice Wanchoo
had very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is
possible for the proposed Andhra State to reduce this gap either by increase of
taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras
must face this question. Is the Centre going to take the responsibility of
meeting this deficit ? If so, will this responsibility be confined to the proposed Andhra
State or will it be extended to all similar cases ? These are questions which are to be considered.
The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidentally say that
I have never heard of the creation of a State without a capital. Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest
Tamilian tribesman) will not show the Government of the proposed Andhra State the courtesy of allowing
it to stay in Madras city even for one night—courtesy which is prescribed by
the Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi. The
new Government is left to choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own
hutments to transact its business. What place can it choose ? With what can it construct its hutments ? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If
it chooses some place in this Sahara it is bound
to shift its quarters to a more salubrious place, and the money spent on this
temporary headquarters would be all a waste. Has the Government considered this
aspect of the case ? Why not right now give them a
place which has the possibility of becoming their permanent
capital.
It seems to me that Warangal is best suited
from this point of view. It is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a
railway junction. It has got quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within
that part of Andhra which is part of Hyderabad
State. As a matter of principle Hyderabad State which is a monstrosity should
have been broken up and a complete Andhra State might have been created. But if
the Prime Minister has some conscientious objection
to the proposal, can he not create an enclave in the Andhra part of Hyderabad
and join it to the new Andhra State and make a way to Warangal
? An enclave is not a new
thing in India. But the Prime Minister wants to
work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in Kashmir. I am sure he
will very soon learn the
consequences of it.
This is just incidental. My main point is
that a linguistic State must be viable. This is the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic
State. The second consideration is to note what is
likely to happen within a linguistic State.
Unfortunately no student has devoted himself to a demographic survey of the
population of India. We only know from our census
reports how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews, how many
Christians and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge we get as to how
many religions there are this information is of no value. What we want to know
is the distribution of castes in different linguistic areas. On this we have
very little information. One has to depend on one's own knowledge and
information. I don't think it would be contradicted if it is said that the
caste set-up within the linguistic area is generally such that it contains one
or two major castes large in number and a few minor castes living in
subordinate dependence on the major castes.
Let me give a few illustrations. Take the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats dominate
the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Andhra—there are two or three major communities
spread over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis
or the Kammas and the Kappus.
They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business. The untouchables
live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Maharashtra.
The Marathas are a huge majority in every
village in Maharashtra. The Brahmins, the Gujars,
the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate
co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived without fear. But times have changed.
After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the Brahmins and
the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have run away to the
towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables, the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny of the Maratha
communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-up will do so at his
peril.
In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to look to ? Can they
hope to be elected to the Legislature ? Can they
hope to maintain a place in the State service? Can they expect any attention to
their economic betterment ? In these circumstances, the creation of a
linguistic State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority. What
an end to Mr. Gandhi's Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of the
problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of
linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.
Third Issue
The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation
of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people speaking one language into one State. Should all
Maharashtrians be collected together into one Maharashtra State ?
Should all Andhra area be put into one Andhra State ?
This question of consolidation does not merely relate to new units. It relates
also to the existing linguistic provinces such as U.P,
Bihar and West Bengal. Why should all
Hindi-speaking people be consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P. ? Those who ask for
consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other
States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in
course of time an India very much like what it was after
the break-up of Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving
us towards it ?
This does not mean that there is
no case for linguistic
provinces. What it means is that there must be definite checks and balances to
see that a communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic State.
