The question of Linguistic States and its Historical Setting

The question of Linguistic States and its Historical Setting
K Veeraiah


The state of Andhra Pradesh plunged in to severe political crisis followed by the center’s mishandling of the developments. The statements made by the Home Minister fueled the a prolonged agitations in the state with a demand of separate Telangana on one side and on the other side demand for continuation existing state Andhra Pradesh as it is. With the occasional statements about the viability and validity of a new commission for reorganizing the states, all these developments prompted political commentators and observers to react on the basic question of linguistic states. Number of arguments are being aired which are questioning the linguistic basis for carving out a state and its sanctity. Some of these opinions are specific to the context and other are general in nature. In this background, it is useful to go through the process and circumstances in which the concept of linguistic states emerged and the role of the then Congress governments to get a proper perspective about the ongoing developments.

The language question in India goes back at least to the last decade of 19th century when people agitated against the Act of 1894 and a viceroy’s notification curtailing the freedom of expression via vernacular languages. Forerunners of freedom movement, inspired by the role language played in the emergence of nationalism in European countries, grasped the efficiency of Indian languages as means of mass communication in the early phase of freedom movement. European nationalism by carving out the mono-lingual nation states helped for the speedy expansion of and integration in to capitalist system of economy. Capitalism found language as a key to unite such a vast swaths of land in to one administrative territory. At the same time it has its own democratic offspring. Due this uninterrupted linguistic linkages helped to mass mobilizations to develop in to militant revolutionary movements of mid 19th century. Here also language provided a key link to mobilize the people towards their common cause and to share grievances. Lokmanya Tilak may perhaps the first national figure to appreciate the diversity of languages and boasted Congress to commence work in vernacular languages and also advocated reorganization of the provinces on a linguistic basis. He wrote as early as in 1891 in Kesari, “the present administrative division of India is the result of certain historical process and in some cases purely result of accident…if they are replaced by units formed on a linguistic basis, each of them will have some measure of homogeneity and will provide encouragement to the people and languages of the respective regions.”

Unity of nationalities in freedom movement laid a strong foundations not only for the success of freedom movement but also for the consolidation of multi-national mosaic of India in to Indian nationalism. In this process language of each region played an important element in defining nationality in Indian context. As defined by Stalin, “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” In pre colonial India , all these elements of nationhood are developed gradually each linguistic region and got consolidated during the freedom movement, thus laying the foundations for demands of linguistic states. That is why CPI(M) in its note submitted to National Integration Council at its Srinagar meeting reminded the government, “ our country comprises of several developed and developing nationalities with their distinct and separate languages and corresponding cultural frames of mind.”

The importance of linguistic statehood was realized by the first generation of freedom fighters at the time of the partition of Bengal in 1905. As we mentioned above, European colonialism has good experience of democratizing effect of linguistic based administrative units. As they don’t want to go through the same as that of European militant proletarian struggles and national liberation struggles of mid 19th century, first the Company rule and later the British colonial rule skillfully crafted a policy of multi-lingual administrative territories in India. In pursuit of this policy, followed by the H S Risely, the then Home Secretary moving a note to the Crown in December 1903, suggesting the division of Bengal, Curzan devided Bengal which was linguistically homogenous unit into religiously heterogeneous units to stem the militant freedom movement. This colonial administrative action helped the Bengali speaking people to learn to think in terms of linguistic unity. The movement for reunification of Bengal basically turned out to be a large scale movement to reorganize the provinces based on language in the eastern region of India. Reflecting this popular sentiment Indian National Congress in 1905 at its Culcutta sessions opposed Curzan’s decision. The resolution also stated, “This congress recommends the adoption of some arrangement which would be consistent with administrative efficiency and would place the entire Bengali speaking community under undivided administration.”

Finally colonial administration was forced to undo the bifurcation of Bengal on religion basis but at the same time carved out Assam and Bihar as separate provinces in 1911 on linguistic basis. However, the acceptance of federalism by the Indian National Congress in 1916 at the Lucknow Congress inspired the demands for several such states. This was reinforced on April 8, 1917, when the AICC proposed to carve out a Telugu-speaking state from the Madras Presidency on the basis of the recommendation of the Lucknow Congress. Similarly Home Rule movement also emphasized the need for creation of linguistic provinces. Home Rule movement served as an important milestone in recognizing linguistically homogenous areas. Mrs. Besant in her presidential address in Culcutta sessions of Congress, in 1917 said, “Sooner or later, preferably sooner, provinces will have to be re-delimited on a linguistic basis.” Subsequently, the Congress in its 1920 Nagpur Session accepted in principle the creation of linguistic states. With this spirit only first Congress and later Communist Party during the freedom movement took initiatives to organize people under the provincial committees.

Emerging federalism in India forced the colonial administration to appoint Indian Statutory Commission on Linguistic Reorganization of Provinces headed by John Simon in 1927. Diverse claims were put forward before the Commission to redistribute the provincial territories on linguistic basis. But, following the legacy of colonialism, the commission observed, “ in no case the linguistic or racial principle can be accepted as the sole test”. Followed by all these developments, in 1928, in the Report of the Nehru Committee (consisting of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Ali Imam, Subhash Chandra Bose etc under Motilal Nehru Chairmanship) representing various trends in freedom movement, reiterated, for the first time incorporated, a demand for linguistic re-organisation of provinces. The report also provided an elaborated justification as, “Partly geographical and partly economic and financial, but the main considerations must necessarily be the wishes of the people and the linguistic unity of the area concerned…Hence, it becomes most desirable for provinces to be regrouped on a linguistic basis.” Meanwhile at the ground level, the aspirations for such independent states within the territory of India caught the imagination of people. “This principle was subsequently officially adopted by the Congress and included in its election manifesto. On November 27, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) Prime Minister Nehru on behalf of the Government of India accepted the principle underlying the demand for linguistic provinces.” as it was observed by BN Rao, member of constitutional assembly and who drafted the most part of our constitution under the guidance of Dr. B.R. Ambekdar.

In the interregnum the movement for Ayikya Kerala, Samyukta Maharashtra and Vishalandhra picked up momentum. Communist Part of India took the lead in the case of these movements and popularizing the concept of linguistic states in India and its effect in democratization of independent India. Always, Andhra as a separate linguistic state turned out to be a political issue. Even in Constituent Assembly, government of India made a statement that Andhra could be mentioned as a separate unit in the new constitution prompting the Drafting Committee to constitute a separate committee to inquire in to demands of linguistic regions. Thus the Dhar Commission came in to existence with a mandate of examine and report on the formation of new provinces of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra. The commission submitted its report on December 10th, 1948. The Committee stated in its recommendations, “The formation of provinces on exclusively or even mainly linguistic considerations is not in the larger interests of the Indian nation and should not be taken in hand.” The commission went on to say, “ bilingual districts in border areas, which have developed an economic and organic life of their own, should not be broken up and should be disposed of on considerations of their own special needs.” Dhar commission asked government of India to reorganize the states on the basis of geographical continuity, financial self sufficiency, administrative convenience, capacity for future’s development. At the same time Nehru, Vallabhai, Pattabhi committee appointed by Congress shifted the emphasis from language as basis to security, unity and economic prosperity, thus backtracking its own election manifesto. This was perhaps influenced by the prevailing situation immediately after the partition. The three member committee of Congress felt that supporting “such federal demands will come in the way of growth of India as a nation” in Patel’s words.

That was the time when the then Communist Party of India mobilizing the masses against the Nizam rule in the name of Andhra Mahasabha. Formation of separate state Vishalandhra, consisting of all Telugu speaking people scattered across the regions was one of the slogan of Andhra Mahasabha. As the movement progressed, this slogan caught the imagination of people. People like Ramananda Teertha, Boorgula Ramakrishna Rao, the first elected chief minister of Hyderabad State supported the demand for Vishalandhra. In fact during Ramakrishna Rao’s tenure as chief minister followed by Police Action Nizam domain was trifurcated and Telangana was clubbed with Andhra Rashtram which is already existing. Though in his letter to the then Congress president U.N.Debhar in 1953, he desisted himself from expressing his personal views, as chief minister he piloted a resolution for merger of Telangana with Andhra to become Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the notion, Telangana was always separate and was unified with Andhra against the will of people is a misnomer and false propaganda. Majority of land lords and razakars opposed Vishalandhra and supported Hyderabad commissionary as it protects their proprietary interests. The Telangana struggle brought back the key issues of land reform and linguistic states in to the national agenda which finally the central government had to reckon with.

This was proved very costly for the Congress. In first general elections that were held in 1952, Telugu people supported those who fought for Vishalandhra with thumping majority. In Madrass legislative assembly of 140 seats in Andhra region, Congress was reduced to 43 while Communist Party bagged as many as 40 out of 60 seats they contested. Communists who allied with Tanguturi PRakasam and formed United Democractic Front bagged 163 seats and Prakasam became the majority leader and congress could manage to muster the support of 152. But Congress appointed Rajagopalachari as CM, thus scuttled the chances for the formation of first non Congress government came to power in undevided Madras assembly. Backed by the tremendous support from Telugu people for a Vishalandhra, in 1952, July 16th, Sundarayya proposed a private member’s bill seeking the formation of linguistic Andhra state. In this speech Sundarayya said, “ Rather than with these kind of multi-lingual states, the country will be more united once the linguistic reorganization of states is done...If these demands are not met, the situation will be more volatile…Even for the time being, the central government accepted the demand of Andhra State, that is not the end of the matter. As my friend Kotamraju Rama Rao said, we won’t relent until and unless Vishalandhra is formed with Hyderabad as its capital.” Sundarayya also tried to assuage Nehru’s fears about security and integrity of newly independent India by saying “ The linguistic states, instead of threat to integrity of the country, can support and consolidate national security and integrity in a much more effective way.” But Nehru and the Congress was not convinced and Nehru was on record refusing the demand.

On the other side dissatisfied by Congress inaction on linguistic states demand, prominent Congress leader from Andhra region, Potti Sri Ramulu died after 58 days in to his fast. Sri Ramulu death engulfed entire Andhra in chaos. The spontaneous protests were so wide spread and intense that the central government was forced to give to the demand. To this effect a bill was introduced in parliament on 2nd September, 1953. The government at that time took enough caution not to use the word “ linguistic state” for known reasons. Speaking in Rajya Sabha on that occasion, Sundarayya criticized Nehru government severely. He told parliament, “ even after 30 years of experience, the government is trying to negate the principle of linguistic states by merely refuting it. People will succeed in getting the linguistic states formed….Government announced that they will be appointing another commission on this issue. Now the issue is whether the government will announce the formation of Andhra state on 1st of October or not ? Noting short will solve the problem.” Finally Nehru, coming to terms with the announced on the floor of Lok Sabha on 15th December the formation of Andhra Rashtram with undisputed 14 districts. Thus on October 1, 1953, new state of Andhra came in to being by bifurcating Madrass state. Emergence of Andhra Rashtram strengthened the struggle for Vishalandhra and also for other linguistic states such as United Kerala, Samyukta Maharashtra under the leadership of undivided Communist Party. Communist waged struggle inside the parliament and also out side the parliament to see that the demand for linguistic states be realized. During this struggles Sundarayya gave a clarion call for Vishalandhralo Prajarajyam. With the same name, he published a book substantiating the party’s argument for Vishalandhra in particular and also for linguistic states in general.

In line with these arguments Communist Party of India in its fourth conference in 1956 April 19-29th at Palghat passed a resolution demanding linguistic reorganization of states calling, “the struggle for linguistic states is is an integral part for better life and democracy.” The resolution warned, “under no circumstances, therefore, can the masses be allowed to be divided by such disruptive activities. Such disruptive activities not only weaken the cause of linguistic reorganization of states, but disrupt the unity of our people so essential of democratic and economic advance.” Yielding to all these pressures and mass mobilizations, Nahru government set up States Reorganisation Commission, popularly known as Fazal Ali Commission. The commission went into the details of various demands pertaining to the clubbing of Telangana and Andhra in to a single unit. In Paragraphs numbered 369-389 , commission dealt about the problems and advantages of both Andhra, Telangana as independent states as well as united state.

The advantages of Vishalandhra , in the own words of the SRC , are as follows. In para 371 commission felt, “ The advantages of a larger Andhra state including Telangana are that it will bring into existence a State about 32 millions with a considerable hinterland, with large water and power resources, adequate mineral wealth and valuable raw materials. This will also solve the difficulty and vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra, the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundarabad are very well suited to be the capital of Vishalandhra.” And also the commission went on saying, “ The creation of Vishalandhra is an ideal to which numerous individuals and public bodies, both in Andhra and Telangana, have been passionately attached over a long period of times and unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, this sentiment is entitled to consideration.” The commission also said, “ The advantages of the formation of Vishalandhra are obvious. The desirability of bringing the Krishna and Godavari rivers basis under unified control, the trade affiliations between Telangana and Andhra and the suitability of Hyderabad as the capital for the entire region are in the brienf the arugments.” ( para 381)

At the same time. Fazal Ali commissions recommendations in favor of Vishalandhra are not with out a word of caution. The report in its observations in a chapter titled “ The case for Telangana” dealt in details the probable apprehensions that may become a hurdle. The report said, “What ever the explanation may be, some Telangana leaders seem to fear that the result of unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that which Andhra is now faced.” ( Para 376) “Telangana does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilization of the waters of Krishna and Godavari” ( para 377) “ One of the principle causes of opposition of Vishalandhra also seems to be the apprehension felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana” ( para 378) At the same time, they warned central government saying, “ any thing short of supervision by the Central government over the measures intended to meet the special needs of Telangana will be found ineffective, and we are not disposed to suggest any such arrangement in regard to Telangana.”

The commission also suggested way out in favor of vishalandhra by recommending, “ we have come to conclusion that it will be in the interest of Andhra and Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute in to a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with a provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two third majority the legislature of the residency of Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification.” It also explained the advantages of this arrangement, “ while the objective of the unification of the Andhras will neither be blurred nor impeded during a period of five or six years, the two governments may have stabilized their administrative machinery and, if possible, also reviewed their land revenue systems, etc, the object in view being the attainment of uniformity. The intervening period may incidentally provide an opportunity for allaying apprehensions and achieving the consensus of opinion necessary for a real union between the two States.” Thus neither commission disposed completely in favor of separate Andhra or separate Telangana. It favored Vishalandhra with necessary caution and care.

But as usual, Nehru government preferred Telangana as a separate state. Protesting this, Communist party members of Hyderabad assembly threatened to resign. Not only the Communist Party legislators, even majority of the Hyderabad assembly supported the cause of Vishalandhra. This is the background in which the first Telugu Chief Minister Boorgula Rama Krishna Rao was forced to pass a resolution for the merger of State of Hyderabad with that of Andhra Rashtram forming in to new Andhra Pradesh. Thus, Andhra Pradesh came in to existence with effect from November 1st 1956. Though criticized the linguistic states as union law minister, Dr. B.R Ambedkar, in 1955, December, in a book “ Thoughts on Linguistic States” in the fag end of his life supported strongly the idea of linguistic states saying “The idea of having a mixed State must be abandoned. Every State must be an unilingual state.” He went on to say, “ When ever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a danger to the State. The illustration of the mixed States are to be found in the old Austrian Empire and the old Turkish Empire. They were blown up because they were multilingual States will all that a multilingual State means. India can not escape this if it continues to be a congregation of mixed States”

Formation of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka firmly based on language propelled powerful militant movement supporting the demand for Samyukta Maharashtra and Gujarat separately. This unleashed second generation movement for linguistic states. Refusing to see the reasoning behind such an upsurge, the government tried to suppress the second generation movement by killing 90 agitators in a single day in the city of Mumbai. Indian bourgeoisie supported Nehru’s idea of keeping Mumbai as a separate state reflecting the interests of consolidating bourgeoisie of Maharashtra and Gujarat. After settling this issue, Punjab problem cropped up finally resulted in formation of Haryana and Punjab as separate states. Sundarayya as first general secretary of Communist Party of India ( Marixst) in his note to National Integration Council meeting in 1968 at its Srinagar sessions, strongly demanded the government to complete the process of linguistic reorganization of India and also warned against the clubbing and denouncing of democratic demands of nationalities as for linguistic states as forces of national disruption and disunity by clubbing the with that of casteism and communalism and The linguistic reorganization of India come to a complete end only after the separation of north eastern states on the basis of language and ethnicity.