THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES
_______________________________________________
PART II
_______________________________________________
PART II
THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM
THE PROS AND CONS OF A LINGUISTIC STATE
" One State, one language " is a universal feature of almost every State.
Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France,
examine the constitution of Italy, examine the constitution of England, and
examine the constitution of the U.S.A. " One
State, one language " is the rule.
Wherever 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
multi-lingual States with all that a multi-lingual State means. India cannot
escape this fate if it continues to be a congery
of mixed States.
The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a
multi-lingual State unstable are quite obvious. A State is built on fellow
feeling. What is this fellow-feeling ? To state briefly it is a
feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which
makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This
feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a
feeling of fellowship for ones own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those
who are not one's own kith and kin. It is a feeling of " consciousness of kind " which on the one hand, binds together those
who have it so strongly that it over-rides all differences arising out of
economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from
those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other
group.
The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation
of a stable and democratic State.
This is one reason why a
linguistic State is so essential. But there are other reasons why a State
should be unilingual. There are two other reasons why the rule " one State, one language " is necessary.
One reason is that democracy cannot work without friction unless there is fellow-feeling among
those who constitute the State. Faction fights for leadership and
discrimination in administration are factors ever present in a mixed State and
are incompatible with democracy.
The present State of Bombay is the best illustration
of the failure of democracy in a mixed State. I am amazed at the suggestion made by the States Reorganisation Commission
that the present Bombay State should be continued as it is to enable us to gain
experience of how a mixed State flourishes. With Bombay as a mixed State for
the last 20 years, with the intense enmity between the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis,
only a thought less or an absent-minded person could put forth such a senseless
proposal. The former State of Madras is another illustration of the failure of
democracy in a mixed State. The formation of a mixed State of United India and
the compulsory division of India into India and Pakistan are other illustrations
of the impossibility of having democracy in a mixed State.
Another reason why it is necessary to adopt the rule
of " one State, one language " is that it is the only solvent to racial and
cultural conflicts.
Why do Tamils hate Andhras
and Andhras hate Tamils ?
Why do Andhras in Hyderabad hate Maharashtrians
and Maharashtrians hate Andhras ? Why do Gujaratis
hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Gujaratis ?
The answer is very simple. It is not because there is any natural antipathy
between the two. The haired
is due to the fact that they are put in juxtaposition and forced to take part
in a common cycle of participation, such as Government. There is no other answer.
So long as this enforced juxtaposition remains, there
will be no peace between the two.
There will be people who would cite the cases of
Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. It is true
that these cases of bilingual States exist. But it must not be forgotten that
the genius of India is quite different from the genius
of Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. The genius of India is to divide—the
genius of Switzerland, South Africa and Canada is to unite.
The fact that they have been held together up till now is not in the natural course of things. It is due to the fact that both of
them are bound by the Congress discipline. But how long is the Congress going
to last ? The Congress is Pandit Nehru and Pandit
Nehru is Congress. But is Pandit Nehru immortal ?
Any one who applies his mind to these questions will realise that the Congress
will not last till the sun and the moon. It must one day come to an end. It
might come to an end even before the next election. When this happens the State
of Bombay will find itself engaged in civil war and not in carrying on
administration.
We therefore want linguistic
States for two reasons. To make easy the way to democracy and to remove racial
and cultural tension.
In seeking to create linguistic States India is treading the right road. It is the road which
all States have followed. In the case of other linguistic
States they have been so, from the
very beginning. In the case of India she has to put herself in the reverse gear
to reach the goal. But the road she proposes to travel is well-tried road. It
is a road which is followed by other States.
Having stated the advantages of a linguistic State I
must also set out the dangers of a linguistic State.
A linguistic State with its regional language as its
official language may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road
between an independent nationality and an independent
State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be Modern India we
have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States
indulging in rivalry and warfare.
This danger is of course inherent in the creation of
linguistic States. There is equal danger in not having linguistic States. The
former danger a wise and firm statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed
State are greater and beyond the control of a statesman however eminent.
How can this danger be met ?
The only way I can think of meeting the danger is to provide in the Constitution that the regional language shall not be the
official language of the State. The official language of the State shall be
Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose English. Will Indians accept
this ? If they do not, linguistic States may
easily become a peril.
One language can unite people. Two languages are sure
to divide people. This is an inexorable law. Culture is conserved by language.
Since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the bounden duty of all Indians to own up Hindi as their
language.
Any Indian who does not accept this
proposal as part and parcel of a linguistic State
has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent Maharashtrian, a hundred per
cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi, but he
cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word except in a geographical
sense. If my suggestion is not accepted India will
then cease to be India. It will be a collection of different nationalities
engaged in rivalries and wars against one another.
God seems to have laid a heavy curse on India and
Indians, saying ' Ye Indians ye shall always
remain divided and ye shall always be slaves ! '
I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher, so to say, of
Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only by partition
that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India and Pakistan had
remained united in one State Hindus though independent would have been at the
mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India would not have been a free
India from the point of view of the Hindus. It would have been a Government of
one country by two nations and of these two the Muslims without question would
have been the ruling race notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh. When the partition took place I felt that God
was willing to lift his curse and let India be one, great and prosperous. But I
fear that the curse may fall again. For I find that those who are advocating
linguistic States have at heart the ideal of
making the regional language their official language.
This will be a death kneil
to the idea of a United India. With regional languages as official languages
the ideal to make India one United country and to make Indians, Indians first and Indians
last, will vanish. I can do no more than to suggest a way out. It is for
Indians to consider it.
MUST THERE BE ONE STATE FOR ONE
LANGUAGE ?
What does a linguistic State mean ?
It can mean one of two things. It can mean that all
people speaking one language must be brought under the jurisdiction of one
State. It can also mean that people speaking one language may be grouped under
many States provided each State has under its jurisdiction people who are
speaking one language. Which is the correct interpretation ?
The Commission took the view that the creation of one
single State for all people speaking one and the
same language was the only rule to be observed.
Let the reader have a look at map No. 1. He will at
once note the disparity between the Northern and Southern States. This
disparity is tremendous. It will be impossible for the small States to bear the
weight of the big States.
How dangerous this disparity is, the
Commission has not realised. Such disparity no
doubt exists in the United States. But the mischief it might cause has been prevented by the
provisions in the Constitution of the United States.
One such safeguard in the Constitution of the United
States has been referred to by Mr. Pannikar in his dissenting minute to the
Report (See Table No. 2).
I give below the following extract from his minute
"I consider it essential for the successful
working of a federation that the units should be fairly evenly balanced. Too great a disparity is likely to create not only suspicion and resentment but
generate forces likely to undermine the federal structure
itself and thereby be a danger to the unity of the country. This is clearly
recognised everywhere. In most federal constitutions, though wide variation
exists in respect of the population and resources of the unit, care is taken to
limit the influence and authority of the larger States. Thus in the United
States of America, for example, though the States are of varying population and
resources and the Slate of New York has many times the population, say of
Nevada, the constitution provides for equal representation of every State in
the Senate."
" In the Soviet Union also, in which
great Russia has a larger population than most other units of the Federation
taken together, representation in the House of Nationalities is weighed against
her so that the other units of the Federation may
not be dominated by the larger unit. In the Bismarckian
Reich again, though Prussia had a dominant position from the point of view of population, she was
given less representation in the Reichsrat or the house representing the states than she was
entitled to (less than one-third) and the permanent presidency of that body was
vested in Bavaria, clearly demonstrating that even here—where there was concentration of political, military and
economic power in one State—it was considered necessary, in the interest of the
union, to give weightage to the smaller units and
also to reduce Prussia to the position of minority in the Reichsrat, States Council, which enjoyed greater powers than the Reichstag or the House of the
People."
Mr. Pannikar has however not mentioned one other safeguard in the
Constitution of the United States against the evils of disparity. In our
Constitution the two Houses are not co-equal in authority. But the position in
the Constitution of the United States is quite different. In the U.S.A. the two
Houses are co-equal in authority. Even for money bills the consent of the Senate is necessary. This is not
so in India. This makes a great difference to the disparity in the population.
This disparity in the population and power between the
States is sure to plague the country. To provide a remedy against it is most
essential.
THE NORTH VERSUS THE SOUTH
What the Commission has created is not a mere disparity between the States by
leaving U.P. and Bihar
as they are, by adding to them a new and a bigger Madhya Pradesh with Rajasthan it creates a new problem of North versus South.
The North is Hindi speaking. The South is non-Hindi
speaking. Most people do not know what is the size of the Hindi-speaking
population. It is as much as 48 per cent of the total population of India.
Fixing one's eye on this fact one cannot fail to say that the Commission's
effort will result in the consolidation of the North and the balkanisation of the South.
It may now not be a breach of a secret if I revealed
to the public what happened in the Congress Party meeting when the Draft
Constitution of India was being considered, on the issue of adopting Hindi as
the national language. There was no article which proved more controversial
than Article 115 which deals with the question. No article produced more
opposition. No article, more heat. After a
prolonged discussion when the question was put,
the vote was 78 against 78. The tie could not be resolved. After a long time
when the question was put to the Party meeting the result was 77 against 78 for
Hindi. Hindi won its place as a national language by one vote. I am stating
these facts from my personal knowledge. As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I
had naturally entry to the Congress Party enclosure.
These facts reveal how much the
South dislikes the North. This dislike may grow into hatred if the North
remains consolidated and the South becomes disintegrated and if the North
continues to exercise a disproportionate influence on the politics of India (See Map 1).
To allow one State to have such preponderating
influence in the Centre is a dangerous thing.
"The consequence of the present imbalance, caused
by the denial of the federal principal of equality of units, has been to create
feelings of distrust and resentment in all the States outside Uttar Pradesh. Not only in the Southern States but
also in the Punjab, Bengal and elsewhere the view was generally expressed
before the Commission that the present structure of government led to the
dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India matters. The existence of this feeling
will hardly be denied by anyone. That it will be a danger to our unity, if such feelings are allowed to exist and remedies are not sought and found now, will
also not be denied."
There is a vast difference between the North and the
South. The North is conservative. The South is
progressive. The North is superstitious, the South is rational. The South is
educationally forward, the North is educationally backward. The culture of the
South is modern. The culture of the North is ancient.
Did not Prime Minister Nehru on the 15th of
August 1947 sit at the Yajna performed by the
Brahmins of Benares to celebrate the event of a Brahmin becoming the first
Prime Minister of free and independent India and wear the Raja Danda given to him by
these Brahmins and drink the water of the Ganges brought by them ?
How many women have been forced to go Sati in recent days and immolate themselves on the
funeral pyre of their dead husbands. Did not the President recently go to
Benares and worship the Brahmins, washed their toes and drank the water ?
The North still has its
Satis, its Nanga Sadhus.
What havoc the Nanga Sadhus made at the last Hardwar Fair! Did anyone
in U.P. protest against it ?
How can the rule of the North be tolerated by the
South ? Already there signs of the South wanting
to break away from the North.
Mr. Rajagopalachari has
made a statement on the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission
which has appeared in the Times of India of
the 27th November. 1955. This is what he says :
" If it is impossible to put the
States Reorganisation Schemes in cold storage for the next 15 years, the only
alternative is for the Centre to govern India as a unitary state and deal with
district officers and district boards directly,
with regional commissioners' supervision.
" It would be utterly wrong to
fritter away national energy in dispute over
boundaries and divisions conceived in the drawing room and not on the
background of conditions that have resulted historically.
" Apart from the general convictions
of mine, I feel that a large southern State is
absolutely essential for preserving the political significance of that part of
the country. To cut the South up into Tamil, Malayalam
and other small States will result only in complete insignificance of everybody
and, in the net result, India as a whole will be the poorer."
Mr. Rajagopalachari has not expressed himself fully.
He did do so fully and openly to me when he was the Head of the State and I was
the Law Minister in charge of drafting the constitution. I went to Mr. Rajagopalachari
for my usual interview which was the practice of the day. At one such interview Mr.
Rajagopalachari, referring to the sort of constitution which the Constituent
Assembly was making, said to me, "You are committing a great mistake. One
federation for the whole of India with equal representation for all areas will
not work. In such a federation the Prime Minister and President of India will
always be from the Hindi speaking area. You should have two Federations, one
Federation of the North and one Federation of the
South and a Confederation of the North and the South with three subjects for
the Confederation to legislate upon and equal representation
for both the federations."
These are the real thoughts of Mr. Rajagopalachari. They came to me as a revelation
coming as they did from the innermost heart of a Congressman. I now regard Mr.
Rajagopalachari as a prophet predicting the break-up of India into the North
and the South. We must do everything to falsify Mr. Rajagopalachari's
prophecy.
It must not be forgotten that there was a civil war in
the U.S.A. between the North and the South. There may also be a civil war
between the North and the South in India. Time will supply many grounds for
such a conflict. It must not be forgotten that there is a vast cultural
difference between the North and the South and cultural differences are very
combustible.
In creating this consolidation of the North and balkanisation of the South the Commission did not
realise that they were dealing with a political and not a merely linguistic problem.
It would be most unstatesman
like not to take steps right now to prevent such a thing happening. What is
the remedy ?
Comments
Social Counter