Skip to main content

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata

[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]

Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.

The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey was hampered by separatist movements like Tamil Nationalism, Khalistan, and Kashmir etc.

It is indeed a wonder that India has managed to stay united despite many differences. The masterstroke that ensured this was the decision to create linguistic states in 1956. This appears contradictory. How can division enable unity?

To understand this one must move beyond theoretical understanding that single-identity of being Indian is better than multi-layered identity. Since differences cause problems, some argue, we must suppress all identities except that of being Indian. [of course few post-modernist friends of mine argue further that we must forget all identities except being human. Well! ]

Yes, in an ideal world, this ought to be the norm. No discrimination should exist. Yet, we live in a world far removed from this utopia. Differences exist, and they’ll remain. Even if we’re able to eliminate one, another would be created. As I argued elsewhere, equality in theory translates to uniformity in practise.

Linguistic States fostered Federal Spirit

Telugu-speaking people in the former Madras Presidency were apprehensive about their representation in the combined state where Tamilians may dominate & sought separation on grounds of proportionate representation. Potti Sreeramulu, a Gandhian fasted to death forcing a vacillating Nehru to declare a separate state of Andhra in 1953. In 1956, the Telugu-speaking region of Hyderabad Nizam, Telangana, was merged with Andhra to form Andhra Pradesh.

Nehru felt that young India fresh from communal riots and partition cannot afford to encourage regionalism and instead a homogenous pan-Indian identity should be built by burning other identities. He wasn’t happy when circumstances forced him to declare the first linguistic state. However, with the benefit of hindsight we can safely conclude that his understanding was wrong and recognizing the heterogeneous identity of Indians in fact strengthened unity.

Had a Telugu state not been carved out of Madras Presidency, managing the people would have been a tumultuous affair frequently resulting in mass-scale tensions. Now that both are separated, each has its own identity well-represented and bears no ill-will against the other for they seldom cross paths.

To North Indian politicians of 1960s, making Hindi a national language was intended to unite India. However, they failed to note that while the move hardly affected them, to South Indians who barely knew Hindi it entailed a hardship of learning a new language and competing with others having home-turf advantage.

Creating linguistic states helped each state to officially patronize its language. People, now assured that their culture & language were secure, had no problem in learning other languages or appreciating other cultures out of their own free-will.

By accepting diversity instead of seeking to level it, India had indirectly strengthened the federal fabric of the nation and forestalled escalation of region-centric grievances into violent forms. Regional representation ensured that all genuine grievances are channelized through democratic means and addressed.

The force that unites India is not centripetal – that coerces regions. Instead, it is fear of centrifugal forces running amok throughout a nation weakened by divisions that nurtures goodwill for India.

Tamil Nationalism lost its impetus after the Indo-China war when they realized that they were securer under India than otherwise. Likewise once the radical elements of Khalistan movement were suppressed, the genuine grievances of Sikhs were addressed to considerable extent in India that detached the fuel from the movement.

This all-inclusive federal character is legacy of Hinduism to India. Hinduism comprises various traditions, each distinct, yet belonging to the commonwealth of Hindu religions. Likewise, India is populated by people of different cultures and traditions, all of whom are assured freedom to remain distinct while they are simultaneously absorbed in the assimilative nature of Indian identity.

Thus without armies to quell regional separatism constantly, India remained united in spirit as it recognized the need of different communities to retain their identity and did not attempt to homogenize it. Instead it allowed the heterogeneous composition of India to remain intact while weaving them together with Indian soul.

But problems remain?

Accepted, this hasn’t solved all problems. But the problems could have been greater otherwise. One may ask, if creating linguistic states was wise, how demand for smaller states like Telangana, Vidarbha are cropping up. This only proves that language alone may not be the deciding factor to match today’s complexity – moreover these demands were initially based on economic backwardness as against rest of the state; cultural imposition is not the principal grievance.  

Granting genuine demands of separate states will not be detrimental to India; they’ll improve the representation of the region at national level, dissipate their resentment and reinforce their commitment to the Indian Union.

Comments

  1. hmm..nice one Madhav..I think as we already have states divided based on linguistics, factors like administrative obstacles, political instability, grant of center's funds, dispute with neighboring states in terms of water/power distribution etc., should be included in these complex circumstances, as we have seen states like Jharkhand which have had 8 CMs since it's formation 12 years ago...determining the ingenuity is indeed a tough task!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dhan13:

    Thanks for commenting.

    It would be nice if India is politically mature enough to grant new states or redesign states on theselines. ie.......<>

    BUT, regional sentiment for separation may or may not depend on these. For eg. one among the grievance of Telangana movement has been disproportionate distribution of water wrt Andhra & Telangana.

    Usually larger states attract larger center grants. However this is not the case with AP and TN. TN is easily granted more funds than AP.

    Karnataka too had rapid CM change in past few years. That hasn't prevented the development of Karnataka. Regarding Jharkhand, I don't the data, but I assume that is definitely not doing worse than before when it was a part of Bihar.

    Genuineness of state-demand can be a tough task. But they need to be considered and consequent decisions have to be taken. We cannot escape them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. excellent piece of information, I had come to know about your website from my friend kishore, pune,i have read atleast 8 posts of yours by now, and let me tell you, your site gives the best and the most interesting information. This is just the kind of information that i had been looking for, i'm already your rss reader now and i would regularly watch out for the new posts, once again hats off to you! Thanx a lot once again, Regards, all Indian govt jobs

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Malli Ganadi,

    Thanks for your comment.

    BTW, I don't recollect any Kishore from Pune. Could you pls elaborate? Does Kishore know me personally or he has just come across this blog?

    Anyway, thanks for your kind words again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. can you pls tll me how making of linguistic states had not weakned the dmocrcy..?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what the whole post was about ! Accepting differences doesn't weaken unity, it upholds unity.

      Delete
  6. Loved your style of writing (and the content). You have a way of being scarce with words.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …