Why Linguistic States Need To Be Preserved

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

BECAUSE of the known position of the main ruling party at the centre, the BJP, the concept of linguistic states, which materialised in the country after a long series of struggles, is facing a challenge anew. Slogans in favour of new states with the bifurcation of certain existing states are being raised in some parts of the country. The way the BJP led regime created three new states has only fuelled such demands further.

A PRODUCT OF FREEDOM STRUGGLE

ONE has to stress here the fact that the idea of linguistic states was a product of our very struggle for independence. It is known that after conquering a large part of the country, the British reorganised their administration not on any sound principle but on the basis of their own convenience. This caused a lot of trouble to the people speaking various languages, most of which were well developed even before the British came here. As language is the thread that binds people together in their day to day intercourse, this artificial break-up of the people of a linguistic group hampered their coming together. This only served the interests of British imperialism.

The leaders of our independence struggle clearly recognised the importance of linguistic principle for drawing the people into a common struggle against imperialism. This was why, as early as 1922, the Indian National Congress organised its branches not in line with the British system of presidencies and provinces but on the basis of linguistic groups. Then, when the Nehru committee, with Motilal Nehru as chairman and Jawaharlal Nehru as secretary, submitted its report in 1928, it clearly laid down that, after independence, the country would be reorganised on the basis of languages. One may recall that all major parties at that time endorsed the idea of linguistic states, even though they differed on certain other recommendations of the report.

But after independence, the bourgeois-landlord regime, now presided over by the Indian National Congress, went back on its word and refused to implement the idea of linguistic states. The reason was clear. Once in power, the Congress had no love lost for the aspirations of various nationalities inhabiting India, nor did it care for their unity or for the unity of diverse nationalities in a federal set-up. Though the idea of federalism was incorporated in our constitution, the earlier system of provinces was kept by and large intact, with minor changes here and there. The difference was that, under the pressure of struggles launched by the All India States People’s Conference, many princely states were merged in neighbouring provinces and these provinces were then divided into Group A, B and C states. Even then, the PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union), Hyderabad, Travancore, Cochin and some other princely states were maintained as separate entities.

HYDERABAD AND KASHMIR

THE merger of the princely states in India, in itself, did not pose much of a problem. The former autocratic rulers of most of these 560-odd princely states, some of whom did not stretch beyond four or five kilometres, saw which way the wind was blowing and also felt the pressure of the states’ people’s struggles. They, therefore, merged into the Indian Union without resistance --- on the condition that their privy purses (perks and privileges etc) would be maintained. (These privy purses were later abolished in 1969, under the pressure of the then obtaining political situation.)

At this stage, only three states refused to merge with India; these were Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir. They all wanted to take advantage of a mischievous provision in the Mountbatten award that after the British left India, the princely states could merge with either Indian Union or Pakistan, or remain independent. This was a clever move on part of British imperialists to have a foothold in the subcontinent even after they left.

But while Junagarh yielded only after a bit of pressure, the merger of the other two was not so easy. The communists were already fighting an armed struggle against the Nizam of Hyderabad, and one of their demands now was that the state should merge with the Indian Union. But the ruler was adamant on remaining independent. Finally, in the name of forcing the Nizam to merge, the Nehru government sent its forces into the state, though one of its aims was to break the growing strength of the Communist Party and Andhra Mahasabha. The Nizam finally yielded.   

The ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, too wanted to maintain his separate rule even though the people wanted to merge with India. But then the events took an unexpected turn. Soon after independence, rulers of the newly carved out Pakistan took the flimsy plea that the state had a Muslim majority population and therefore should come to Pakistan. Nay, to force the state’s merger with Pakistan, they sent into the Kashmir valley armed raiders who soon reached the vicinity of the state’s capital, Srinagar. But, led by the National Conference, the state’s people rose like one man against the raiders and fought them for months together. Pressed between the Pak-backed raiders on the one hand and the people’s movement on the other, the Maharaja sent an SOS to the Nehru government which then sent its forces into the state. The raiders were repulsed, though Pakistan was by now able to occupy a good part of the state, which it still holds. The Maharaja felt forced to sign a treaty of accession to India, and the people’s dream of becoming a part of secular India became a reality.

An undeniable part of this history is that, at that time, the RSS was active in the state under the guise of Praja Parishad, and this so-called nationalist outfit was unashamedly supporting the Maharaja’s bid to remain independent. Nay, for this purpose, the Praja Parishad men were not fighting the raiders but murdering those who were engaged in this fight.

A NEW WAVE OF STRUGGLE

BUT even then the new rulers of the country refused to reorganise the country on linguistic lines. This now gave rise to a new wave of struggles in various parts of the country to get the states reorganised on the basis of language. The period was marked by slogans like Aikya Kerala, Vishalandhra and Samyukta Maharashtra. How genuine these demands were, can be gauged from just one example. In the British days, the Malayalam speaking people were divided into three parts --- while many were living in the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, one part of them was living in Madras presidency. Needless to say, this could only hamper their development as a distinct nationality. The situation continued even after independence. Hence the slogan of Aikya Kerala. Similarly, the Marathi and Gujarati speaking people were forced to remain in one entity, the Bombay presidency, which was the creation of the British rulers.   

These struggles for linguistic reorganisation of the country were powerful ones, and several of them were led by the Communist Party. EMS and his comrades played a leading role in the formation of Kerala, P Sundarayya and other communists had a no less notable role in the formation of Andhra Pradesh, while Dange and other leaders were in the forefront of the Samyukta Maharashtra struggle. One will note here that while the glorious armed struggle of Telangana arose in the pre-independence days, one of its important demands was that the Telugu speaking people --- scattered in the princely Hyderabad state, Madras presidency and Bombay presidency --- must be brought together into a distinct unit. It is true that the changed situation in the country after independence necessitated the withdrawal of the Telangana struggle in October 1951. But the fact is that this struggle not only forced the recalcitrant Nizam of Hyderabad to merge with India, it also brought the issue of India’s reorganisation on linguistic lines on the country’s agenda with such force that the demand could no longer be given a short shrift. The Congress rulers were now constrained to constitute a States Reorganisation Commission whose recommendations led to the formation of linguistic states. The task was by and large completed in 1956, and many of the newly reorganised states went to the assembly polls for the first time in 1957, along with the general elections in the country. After these polls, a communist government, led by late Comrade EMS, came to power in Kerala.

THE PARIVAR AT ITS GAME AGAIN

THUS the formation of linguistic states was a product of numerous sacrifices made by the people; during the Samyukta Maharashtra agitation, for instance, a police firing claimed more than three dozen lives on a single day. But the RSS (which never took part in the freedom struggle) and its political platform (the Jan Sangh, which was the BJP’s precursor) never recognised this identity of the people, as it interfered with their unitarian concept of nationhood. It also meant that they never recognised the unity in diversity for which India has always been known. As we all know, ours is a country with numerous languages, religions, ethnic groups, cultures, festivals, dressing and food habits, etc, and that was why the framers of our constitution incorporated federalism and secularism as the very pillars of our body politic.

But all this is anathema to the Sangh Parivar that advocates the imposition of a contrived unity on this diversity, without realising what dangers the consequent killing of the aspirations of any section of our people may pose to our unity. Little do they realise that real unity can grow only out of our diversity, when all sections of our people get an equal opportunity to develop and thereby feel that they all are parts of a single great whole. The Parivar’s undifferentiated Hindutva can only prove fatal to our national unity and harmony.

And the Parivar is now at its game again. After coming to power, the BJP sought to achieve its objective of dismantling the linguistic states through far reaching changes in the constitution and, for this purpose, the union government led by it appointed a constitution review commission which is yet to submit its report. It is another thing that the party’s game is bound to face tremendous resistance. To make the goings easier for it, the party has cloaked its game under the idea of administrative convenience, which in reality means convenience for a totalitarian centre in controlling the whole country. But the fact is that such administrative convenience can only be at the cost of aspirations of various linguistic groups that constitute India. It also seems the party’s hope is that in case smaller states are there, it would be all the easier for it to win polls there by mobilising people on caste and communal lines.

Here, a sad fact is that some of the secular and democratic parties seem eager to lend their weight behind the slogans of a separate Telangana or a separate Vidarbha, little realising the dangers of the saffron game plan. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, the CPI is unfortunately talking of contesting the coming assembly elections in alliance with the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) that is raising the slogan of a separate Telangana. Moreover, the Congress is also seeking an alliance with the TRS in Andhra Pradesh. So far the Congress has been opposed to any bifurcation of Maharashtra, but of late it has showed signs of vacillation on this issue.

In this regard, we have to note that the CPI still claims to adhere to the legacy of the united Communist Party that fought and led the struggle for reorganisation of states on linguistic basis. The CPI’s plea is that there must be widest possible unity among the state’s opposition parties in order to defeat the TDP-BJP combine. We of the CPI(M) are fully aware of the need to defeat the TDP-BJP combine in Andhra Pradesh, but it does not mean that we should give up our principled stand and sacrifice the interests of future for the sake of some temporary gain at present. The linguistic states are a product of long struggles and a must for preserving the country’s unity, and that is why the need of their preservation cannot be overlooked.