Linguistic Units and Bi-Lingual Areas
By
D. V. RAM A RAO, M.A., LL.B.
Although
the problem of linguistic States has been intermittently discussed during the
past nearly four decades, the approach tended on the
whole to be superficial rather than profound; nor has the closely allied
problem of bi-lingual areas received adequate attention.
The
nature of the problem can be appreciated if it is borne in mind that most of
the provinces were formed during the British regime, not on any conceivable
rational principle but mostly as a result of historical accident, without
reference to considerations of linguistic or cultural homogeneity or the wishes
and the common aspirations of the people concerned. The same set-up with
similar wide disparities continues to this day, with tiny units like Coorg and Himachal Pradesh and
very much bigger units like U.P.,
If
the States were to be reorganised, what would be the
most desirable, convenient and rational basis? One suggestion is that they
should be merely geographical zones, somewhat on the lines of the Railway
zones, say a dozen, each centering round a big city or a river valley. But that would require far more drastic
administrative adjustments than reorganisation on the
linguistic basis, because while linguistic reorganisation
would be practically confined to the southern region, roughly about one third
of the area of the country, reorganisation on a zonal
basis would affect the whole country. Reorganisation
on a zonal basis, irrespective of considerations of language, though it might
be practicable at some distant future, would be at present unrealistic and not
likely to satisfy the people generally.
Another
proposal is to organise the component units on a
bi-lingual basis, i.e., each State to be composed of two linguistic groups.
Apparently it cannot be applicable so far as the large Hindi speaking area is
concerned, which is contiguous and big enough to form four or five units by itself. As regards the non-Hindi area, W. Bengal and Assam
might form one unit; similarly, Andhra and Orissa, Tamilnad
and Kerala, Maharashtra and Karnataka, Sourashtra and
Rajasthan, and E. Punjab, PEPSU and Himachal
Pradesh, might be grouped to form bigger units. No doubt, this would reduce the
number and make each a fair-sized unit. But the difficulty is that
The
alternative, therefore, is either to leave the States as they are, but for
minor adjustments and mergers here and there in consonance with the wishes of
the concerned people, or to complete the process of reorganisation
broadly on the linguistic basis. Let us consider the arguments of those who favour continuance of the status quo and disapprove
linguistic redistribution. The most familiar argument is that linguistic
redistribution is tantamount to balkanisation and
division of the country on the analogy of
Another
argument is that linguistic re-distribution would lead to provincialism and
isolationism. Whatever the element of truth in the argument, it may be pointed
out that the large majority of the present units, in fact all except Bombay,
Madras, Hyderabad and Madhya Pradesh, already happen to be of a linguistic
pattern, and if these did not lead to any serious fissiparous or isolationist
tendencies, neither will the completion of the process already in force and
applied also in the merger of ex-Rulers’ States. Mr. V.P. Menon, the then
Political Adviser to the States Ministry, was reported at the time to have
admitted that linguistic affinity was given main consideration in the matter of
merger of most of the ex-Rulers states with neighbouring
units.
As
for charges like that of Rajaji that linguistic re-distribution is a ‘tribal’
idea, this writer pointed out in an article (‘Swatantra’
of Jan. 31, 1953) that all talk, about Tamil culture and interests insistence
on certain territories as part and parcel of Tamilnad,
and threats that Andhras would not be allowed to burn
or bury their dead in Madras city, also indicate an equally, if not worse,
‘tribal’ mentality which, however, evoked no protests from the stalwart
opponents of linguistic reorganisation; and that it
was strange that while Rajaji raised no objection to the Congress constitution
of Pradesh Committees on linguistic basis, he now finds it a tribal idea
although Gandhiji himself had favoured the principle.
With due respect to Rajaji it may not be out of place to point out also that
when in 1948, Rajaji, the then Governor-General, visited Madras, he was hailed
at various functions as the noblest gift of the South to the North and as the
embodiment of Tamil culture. Not only were Tamil songs, instead of more
befitting all-India national songs, sung at the solemn functions attended by
the Governor-General at the Capital of a multi-lingual State like Madras, but
Rajaji never thought it odd to leave a farewell message to the people of Tamilnad instead of to the citizens of Madras State.
It
is hoped that the above references will not be taken amiss. They are mentioned
only to show that community consciousness based on language is
noticeable among opponents as well as advocates, of
linguistic re-organisation.
Lastly
fears, such as expressed by Mr. Nehru, that linguistic reorganisation
might lead to multiplication of States, seem to be unfounded as it would
actually lessen the number of States, besides making them more uniform in size
etc., than at present. Linguistic redistribution is practically confined to the
present nine units of
Neither
our leaders nor the leading sections of the Press have shown so far any clear
or deep understanding of the reason for the increasing urge for linguistic
units or the nature of the closely allied problem of bi-lingual areas. Simply
to decry the agitation for linguistic States as born of narrow provincialism
while allowing, at the same time, the pursuit of narrow and unsound language
and domicile policies in some of the States, shows no understanding nor has it
helped the country in any way. Why was it, for instance, that the Andhras and Oriyas were the
earliest to agitate for linguistic States? Contiguous Oriya speaking tracts,
until the formation of Orissa, were lying in the three provinces of Bihar and
Orissa,
No
doubt, Urdu should have a legitimate place, and be given all legitimate
facilities, in regions where it is the mother-tongue of considerable numbers,
but so too should have been fostered the much more widely prevalent regional
languages. It may be asked why Urdu should not have been acceptable in a
multi-lingual area like the
Agitation
for linguistic units is not the cause but the result of the natural
community-consciousness based on language among language groups scattered in
divergent units and less favourably placed than
others due to historical accident. It is not as if advocates of linguistic
units like Dr. Pattabhi, Mr. Gadgil,
Mr. Sankar Rao Deo and Dr. Jayakar, not to speak of Gandhiji who approved the
principle, were not mindful of over-all national interests, while opponents who
mostly belong to language groups whose advantage lay in continuance of the status
quo, were broad-minded. It is not unoften that we
find a leader or journal condemning the agitation for linguistic units as
spelling ruination to the country and in the same breath vehemently demanding
the inclusion of such and such a territory in a particular State on grounds of
language.
It
appears to be the case that quite often a good many that decry linguistic reorganisation are actuated by no more lofty motive than
that of fear of losing the advantageous position of their own language group or
community in an altered set-up.
Although
there are some who genuinely apprehend that complete linguistic reorganisation might adversely affect the present
cosmopolitan nature, equipoise, better atmosphere, better administration and
better Press generally, of at least some areas in the country, especially
cities like Bombay and Madras, a close analysis would reveal that opposition
for the most part arises out of more or less local or sectional considerations.
Bihar’s opposition to linguistic reorganisation is
largely opposition to part with any portions to Bengal or Orissa; Tamilian
opposition mainly opposition to non-Tamil claims to Madras city; so also,
opposition on the part of certain sections or communities of Bombay city is due
to apprehensions regarding the future status and interests of their own
communities. Similarly, Hindi speaking people look askance at the movement, out
of fear lest the important place Hindi occupies might be affected in a
linguistic set-up. Not that there is anything wrong or narrow necessarily about
such apprehensions, but the right thing would be to frankly express them
instead of trying to create the impression that advocates of linguistic units
are narrow and provincial minded while the opponents are broad-minded. Nehru
spoke the truth when he said that all of us were clannish enough, whether
advocates or opponents of linguistic units.
Instead of facing the issue frankly and squarely, the tendency hitherto has been to postpone it or to make a vague and confused approach. For instance, Dr. Katju, who as Governor of Orissa pleaded for the inclusion of some outlying areas in Orissa in his address to the Orissa Legislative Assembly (apparently on linguistic grounds) was hardly consistent when he expressed the opinion a short time after at Visakhapatnam that the formation of linguistic units was a grave misfortune. Mr. Nehru has been repeatedly and rightly decrying parochialism and narrow mindedness in any sphere, but when he said (some time ago) that he did not understand why the transference of a district from one State to another should make any difference, he hardly took note of the oft pointed out unfair and unsound domicile and language policies obtaining in some States which would make a lot of difference, so long as such policies are pursued, to the people of the transferred area if they belonged to a different language group from that of the main language of the State to which it is transferred. A boundary adjustment between U. P. and Bihar might not make any appreciable difference to the concerned people but certainly the inclusion of Seraikella and Kharswan in Bihar and portions of Ganjam and Koraput in Orissa has made a lot of difference to Oriyas and Andhras respectively of the concerned areas–essentially because of the wrong policies based on linguistic discrimination pursued in these States. So, Rajaji too committed an error when he declared some time ago that provincial barriers had disappeared. Far from disappearing, they have become more acute than in the past, due to most States tinkering with language and domicile policies according to their whims. As long as English continued to be the medium, at least there was a clear, cut policy, maintenance of a certain standard, and young pupils were not saddled with as many as five languages, as is the case now in some bi-lingual areas like those in Ganjam and Koraput, much to the detriment of educational standards and even proficiency in any language, as has been pointed out by Mr. W. Bharata Rao, an experienced Head-master in his lucid and thoughtful articles (‘Hindusthan Standard’ June 12, ’49 and ‘Swatantra’, August 11 ’51).
How
the lack of a clear, sound and comprehensive language policy with regard
especially to bi-lingual areas, has been responsible for the
growing friction and has given rise to the problem of linguistic minorities has
been persistently pointed, out by this writer (‘Triveni’, Sept 1946, ‘The
Hindu’, ‘Social Welfare’ ‘Swatantra,’ ‘Bihar Herald’,
etc. etc,) The Congress has, no doubt, been making somewhat feeble and
piecemeal attempts by passing resolutions whenever an ugly situation arose
(Vide Bardoli Resolution of Jan. 13,
1939, the resolutions of Aug. 5, 1949, May, 17. 1953, and the recent resolution
of April 4, 1954 with regard to the bi-lingual problem
particularly.) But its approach, though sober and well-meant, has not been
comprehensive, forth-right and thorough-going. For instance, even when it was
pointed out that the Central Educational Advisory Board’s resolution of Aug.
14, ’48 with regard to the medium of instruction was either entirely ignored or
most reluctantly and half-heartedly implemented in some States, both the
Congress and the Centre appeared to be helpless. Either the Congress on the organisational level or the Central Government on the
official level could have devised an effective agency to ensure proper
implementation of the enunciated policies. A standing central bi-lingual
advisory Committee or Commissioner may be a necessity–for some time to
come.
It has often been pointed out that the problem of bi-lingual areas and linguistic minorities requires even prior attention to that of linguistic reorganisation, because, unless this problem is satisfactorily solved, there can be no harmony in the country, whether linguistic units are formed or not. But if it is satisfactorily solved, there would be no harm even if linguistic reorganisation is proceeded with: further, such a solution would lessen the intermittent boundary controversies. The Indian population is so spread that, however rationally or justly boundaries may be drawn, there are bound to be bi-lingual areas on the borders of most States. If the people could be made to feel that they will have equal educational, and other facilities and could be equally happy on whichever side of a State boundary they might find their permanent habitation, much of the present friction and apprehensions regarding boundaries is likely to disappear. But, if people were to feel that their habitation on this or that side of a State boundary would mean a huge difference in citizenship status, language facilities etc., there is danger of interested parties trying to influence the decisions of boundary committees (in case of their appointment) even by unfair means and agitation. So, viewed from whichever angle, the problem of bi-lingual areas and linguistic minorities assumes primary importance and should have been tabled and solved much earlier.
In
this connection the following oft-made suggestions may be briefly summed up:
(1)
No State, even if linguistic, should be viewed as the exclusive homeland of a
particular language group. Language groups are neither separate races nor
nationalities, and history does not warrant the assumption, on the basis of
definite boundaries, that any State or territory should be viewed as the
exclusive homeland of a particular language group. Although, for certain posts,
a working knowledge of the main language (or one of the main languages in a
non-linguistic State) may be considered a requisite qualification, there is no
need for a language test for a mere residential or such other qualification as
obtaining now in some States. It is worthwhile considering whether domicile
rules should not be scrapped entirely and a single Indian citizenship,
irrespective of State barriers, substituted.
(2)
Bi-lingual areas should be, irrespective of boundaries, clearly demarcated and
both the languages of such areas should be recognised
as ‘regional’ for purposes of educational facilities, grants, aids, courts,
registration, public notices, electoral rolls etc. In multi-lingual cities or
industrial centres, subject to a minimum number or
percentage, the same rules should be applicable to all such language groups of
the region.
(3)
In appointments in bi-lingual areas, preference be
given generally to persons possessing a working knowledge of both the
regional languages.
(4)
A suitable central agency be set up to see to the fair
implementation of the policy, as well as to study the nature of the
difficulties that might arise in practical implementation–at least for some
time to come.
(5)
Lastly, a common terminology, numerals, standards, measures etc., be adopted on
an all-India basis. It would be definitely advantageous to retain as far as
possible internationally current scientific terminology, Arabic numerals etc.,
instead of adopting local numerals, coining laborious and ridiculous
terminology which is the case in some States and which would only mean
additional burden to the pupils, as Dr. Paranjpye in
a scholarly article (‘Selected Writings and Speeches of Dr. R. P. Paranjpye’ Edited by B. M. Gore) pointed out. A knowledge of the internationally current terms and
numerals would be essential at the stage of higher studies. After all, numerals
and technical terms should be universal, as they have hardly any literary significance.
To conclude: Had the bi-lingual problem been soundly
and satisfactorily solved in time and had Hyderabad been disintegrated, adding
the Andhra, Kannada and Maharashtrian areas to Madras, Mysore and Bombay
respectively, quite possibly the agitation for linguistic States and the
boundary controversies would have largely subsided. But the opportunity has
been lost. Mr. Nehru’s contention that the disintegration of
1 In
fact, the Biharees were the earliest to agitate for a
linguistic State; they resented the domination of the Bengalees
in the old composite
–Ed.
TRIVENI