THOUGHTS ON
LINGUISTIC STATES
_______________________________________________
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."
On this point Mr. Pannikar
also refers to the Soviet Union and old Germany. This is what he says :
" 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.
Can the South tolerate the dominance of the North?
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.
Mr. Pannikar has
referred to this aspect of the case. In his dissenting minute he says:
"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
?