No report that has been issued in recent times in
India has become so much a source of controversy as the Report of The
Linguistic Provinces Commission appointed by the President of the Constituent
Assembly to go into the question of the demand for the new Provinces of Andhra,
Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra. The demand for such Provinces has been made
on the ground that Provinces which as far as possible are mono-lingual can be
better and more efficiently administered than those which are multi-lingual and
this is the reason why the Commission itself came to be known as the Linguistic
Provinces Commission. The Report however has become a subject of controversy
not only because of the recommendations it contains but also because of the
unconvincing nature of the arguments put forward in support of these
recommendations and the confusion or issues on which the conclusions are based
on the whole. No report is so full of mutually contradictory statements as
this. It also contains a number of propositions which ignore completely the
trend of events and public policies in the country at the present day. It is
therefore desirable that the public should get themselves acquainted with the
Report so that they might be in a better position to appreciate the action, if
any, that may be taken upon it by the three-man committee appointed by the
Indian National Congress at the Jaipur session and later on by the Constituent
Assembly for whose enlightenment the Commission was originally appointed.
Four questions were referred to it for
consideration and report. They are:
(1)
What are the new
Provinces that should be created?
(2)
What broadly should
be their boundaries?
(3)
What would be the
administrative, economic, financial, and other consequences in each Province so
created?
(4)
What would be the
consequences in the adjoining territories?
The Commission reported that no new Provinces
should be formed for the present; and in view of this finding they did not
answer the other three questions though they made a cursory reference to them
in the course of their report.
Although they arrived at this conclusion there are
certain points in the arguments of those that have been demanding the formation
of linguistic Provinces which the Commission found it necessary to concede.
Among these are the following: (1) The existing Indian Provinces are
administrative units of British imperialism. They came into existence in a
somewhat haphazard way and were not designed to work democratic institutions;
they are certainly susceptible of more scientific and rational planning (Para
130). (2) The existing Provinces of Madras, Bombay, and the Central Provinces
and Berar hold together within their respective territories large linguistic
groups which are unequally matched for the struggle for existence or for
the struggle for political power. In the struggle for political power, which
British imperialism and subsequently democracy under British rule introduced in
this country, these heterogeneous elements were not completely successful in
producing harmonious governments, with the result that the demand grew up in
course of time on the part of the groups, which felt that they had suffered in
the struggle, for a separate Government of their own (Para 121). It is true that
these linguistic groups, who are clamouring for separate Provinces, are not
happy in their present surroundings and the friction and differences which
subsist between them constitute a serious threat to good government. This has
already become a major administrative problem. (Para 139). The clash and
conflict which exists between them has brought the administration in Madras to
a breaking point, and in C.P. and Berar are also showing signs of going the
same way” (Para 135). (3) These linguistic Provinces make a strong appeal to
the imagination of many of our countrymen and there exists a large volume of
public support in their favour....The non-fulfillment of a demand of this
nature may easily lead to a sense of frustration, and there is a grave risk in
turning it down (Para 146). (4) The demand for linguistic Provinces has an
early association with the struggle for Indian independence. Since 1921 the
Congress has discarded British administrative Provinces for its work and has
created Provinces many of which are more or less linguistic…..In 1928 the Nehru
Report fully endorsed the Congress view. And since then the Congress has
included in its election manifesto the formation of linguistic Provinces as one
item of its programme and various Congress legislatures have passed resolutions
in support of the demand. And lastly on November 27, 1947, in the Constituent
Assembly the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government accepted the principle
underlying the demand for linguistic Provinces.
In spite of the recognition by the Commission that
the existing Provinces are not rationally planned and are not designed to work
democratic institutions, that they are making government unworkable and leading
to an administrative break-down, that the Congress is pledged to the principle
of linguistic Provinces and that the Government will be taking a great risk in
not redistributing Provinces on a linguistic basis, the Commission has coolly
recommended that such Provinces should not be formed. It has not drawn from the
premises the only conclusion that has to be logically drawn. But the Commission
has even gone a step further. It has laid down that, not only for the present
but also for all time to come, Provinces should not be formed on exclusively or
mainly linguistic considerations, and that oneness of language should not be
the decisive or even the main factor in the formation of the new Provinces.
Herein lies the difference between the Commission and several other critics of
linguistic Provinces–critics like Pandit Nehru–who have been contending not so
much against the principle as against putting it into effect in the immediate
future. If the Government and the Constituent Assembly are to be guided by the
findings of the Commission, there is no hope at all of homogeneous linguistic
Provinces ever coming into existence. It has dealt a fatal blow to the
linguistic movement round which centred the aspirations of the Andhras, the
Kannadigas, the Keraliyas, and the Maharashtrians for a whole generation.
The grounds put forward by the Commission for this
conclusion are numerous although they are not of a convincing character.
Provinces based on linguistic homogeneity will serve as focii for the growth of
sub-nationalism (?) and retard the growth of national unity. They do this in several
ways. National unity needs a strong Central Government and a common national
language. The linguistic principle however–it is contended by the Commission
would bring into existence Provinces with a sub-national bias at a time when
nationalism is yet in its infancy and is not in a position to bear any strain”
(Para 129) “Nationalism and sub-nationalism are two emotional experiences which
grow at the expense of each other. In a linguistic Province sub-nationalism
will always be the dominant force and will always evoke greater emotional
response; and, in a conflict between the two, the nascent nationalism is sure
to lose ground and will ultimately be submerged” (Para 137). “If India is to
live, there simply cannot be an autonomous State (?) anywhere in India for any
group, linguistic or otherwise; and no national sub-province can be formed
without preparing the way for ultimate disaster” (Para 141). These statements
from the Report make it clear that the Commission was dominated by the view
that while the existing multilingual provinces are no obstacle in the way of
nationalism and a strong Centre, mono-lingual Provinces will constitute such an
obstacle. Referring to the conflict between a national language and regional
languages the Report observes: “Indian nationalism is deeply wedded to its
regional languages; Indian patriotism is aggressively attached to its
provincial frontiers” Para 133). “The only good that we can see in a linguistic
Province is the possible advantage it has in working the Legislature in the
regional language. But this is more than counterbalanced by the obstruction the
linguistic Provinces will inevitably cause to the spread of national language
or national feeling in the country.” Evidently the idea of the Commission is
that even for purposes of provincial administration the national language and
not the regional language should be used. And they think that it is only when a
Province is multi-lingual and when people suffer from the disadvantage of
having too many languages being used in the Legislature that they will
reconcile themselves to the use of national language even for provincial
purposes. The attack on linguistic Provinces is thus a veiled attack on the use
of regional languages even in provincial administration and a veiled plea for
forcing Hindi or Hindustani in a sphere where it is not needed and where it
will prove injurious. Let it be noted that Hindi is culturally not superior to
any of the other Indian languages. Because some common language is needed for
purposes of national administration, and because Hindi is already spoken by a
fairly large section of the people, the non-Hindi speaking sections of the
people have reconciled themselves to its being adopted as the language carrying
on the government and administration of the Centre. To try to make it the
language of provincial administration is to repeat with less excuse what the
British imperialists did in the past in forcing their language on the people.
The excuse is less, because while English has a cultural value Hindi has no
claim to it. Sanskrit would have been an ideal national language but very few
have been its advocates.
In the conflict ascribed by the Commission between
sub-nationalism and nationalism there are several fallacies. The first fallacy
is to think that what the Commission means by sub-nationalism is a special
characteristic of linguistic Provinces and there will be no scope for it in a
multilingual province. This is not a correct line of thought. Every
Province–whatever be the basis of its organisation–creates a sub-national
feeling which is merely a feeling of attachment to the Province. This is a
natural instinct of man and is of the same character as his attachment to his
village and to his district. It is born out of the advantages which he gets
from the Province, the district or the village as the case might be. And it is
impossible to eradicate this. The so-called sub-nationalism of a linguistic
Province is only of this type. Even today there is a Madrasi feeling, and there
is a Bombay feeling. The second fallacy lies in the assumption that, because we
are attached to our Province or to our sub- nation, we are not attached to the
country as a whole. The attachment to the Province is not exclusive. It is only
when it becomes exclusive that it becomes a disruptive force. There is nothing
however to indicate that such exclusive loyalties are developing, and even if
they develop they will be the outcome not of linguistic Provinces but of other
and deeper forces. To love the whole country, to respect her traditions and
culture, it is not necessary to cease to be loyal to the provincial cultures or
traditions. And it is a very-serious mistake to suppose that all sub-national
attachment should be killed for nationalism to thrive. Each stands for certain
essential values and any attempt to destroy the one for fostering the other is
a hopeless task. We are at the same time Andhras and Indians, or Kannadigas and
Indians. Of course this is not the first time when we meet with this fallacious
argument. The revolutionary philosopher Rousseau was of the opinion that no
groups or bodies should intervene between the State and the individual, and all
such groups and bodies should be put an end to in order that the citizen might
be wholly loyal to the national community. It was on this that he based his
distinction between the General Will and the Particular Will. But all attempts
at destroying the intermediary groups ended in failure and the nineteenth
century saw a much more vigorous and varied development of group life –Trade
Unionism, Churches, Chambers of Commerce, Professional Associations etc.,–than
at any other time in the modern age and gave rise to the doctrine of pluralism.
To embark therefore on a policy of destroying sub-nationalism in the interests
of nationalism is to intensify the former without correspondingly strengthening
the latter. No well-wisher of nationalism will embark on such a policy. He
will, in its pursuit, only be behaving like the mad King Lear who wanted that
his daughter Cordelia should have no divided loyalties, should not love her
husband but concentrate all her affection on her father. What deserves to be
condemned is exclusive loyalty but not a plurality of loyalities.
There are a number of unilingual Provinces–U.P.,
Behar, West Bengal, and Orissa–now existing in the country. The Commission has
not been able to demonstrate that there is more of sub-nationalism in them than
in the multi-lingual Provinces. It has not also recommended that they should be
made multi-lingual. The fact is that the members of the Commission all hail
from Provinces which are unilingual and therefore do not know what the
difficulties of multi-lingualism are. More-over they are all Hindi-speaking and
believe in the enforced spread of Hindi over the whole country.
Other grounds put forward by the Commission against
the formation of new linguistic Provinces may be briefly noted. (1) They will
bring into existence a new kind of minority problem which did not exist
before….“The best illustration of this tendency is to be found in the
Telugus of Orissa and the Tamils of Southern Tranvancore, and, in a minor
degree, in the complaints of minorities in all border districts.” The kind of
minority problem referred to here exists whether the Provinces is in the main unilingual
or multi-lingual. Even in multi-lingual Provinces there are areas where it is
difficult to say what the administrative language should be, as people speaking
a particular language may be small in numbers. Questions regarding the medium
of instruction in schools also arise in such areas. There is such a problem
today in the City of Madras and in some of the taluks bordering the City. In a
big country with people speaking different languages, and with complete freedom
for them to go and live anywhere and carry on business anywhere, linguistic
minorities will be inevitably found. There are such South Indian minorities in
Calcutta, Delhi, and Bombay. In the second place what happened in Orissa was
the injustice done to the Telugus when even the Telugu majority areas were
incorporated into that Province. It is this injustice that has to be repaired
and when this is done the acuteness of the situation will become eased. In the
third place it is just to remedy the situation created by the presence of linguistic
minorities that fundamental rights of a justiceable character have been
incorporated into the new Constitution. And this will give to the minorities
concerned a great deal of relief. The minority problem is not therefore
peculiar to linguistic Provinces. (2) There will be difficulties in settling
the boundaries of the new Provinces. The answer to this is that these
difficulties are not insuperable. Disputes regarding boundaries between one
Province and another within the same State are not like disputes between two
independent sovereign States. They do not lead to war and what is needed is to
settle them through judicially minded tribunals and not through political
influence. (3) There is no unanimity of opinion in favour of the formation of
the proposed linguistic Provinces. For instance, the Commission points out that
“there can be no doubt that one section of Rayalaseema opinion is definitely
opposed to the formation of the proposed Andhra Province.” (Para 21). Similar
differences regarding Maharashtra exist between the Maharashtrians of Berar,
Konkan, and Desh. Two comments have to be made on this. In a matter like this
it is difficult to get unanimity of opinion. It is just like the old British
argument that Swaraj could not be granted unless there was complete agreement
among all the communities in the country. In the second place there is no
reason why weight should be attached only to the opinion of those who oppose
the formation of the Province and why the opinion of the supporters should be
completely neglected, especially as the Commission observe that they are not in
a position to judge the relative strength of these opinions. (4) There are
difficulties about settling the future of Bombay and Madras cities. This, in
the view of the Commission, is a very strong argument against the formation of
linguistic Provinces. Here again the point to be noted is that the difficulties
are not insuperable and suggestions have been made as to how they might be
overcome. One of these suggestions may be accepted–their constitution as Chief
Commissioner’s Provinces under the direct control of the Centre.
The Commission has also pointed out that
financially the linguistic Provinces will not be self-supporting. They will
have a deficit and will have to depend on the Central Government for
subventions even for running the ordinary routine administration. They will
therefore not be in a position to undertake the work of nation-building and
economic development. They will have to incur huge expenditure in building their
capital cities at a time when money is urgently required for defence and other
essential services. Any such expenditure is also bound to intensify the evils
of inflation. This is perhaps the strongest argument against the creation of
linguistic Provinces.
But here also there are certain circumstances which
considerably modify the strength of the argument. (1) The correctness of the
figures of revenue and expenditure utilised by the Commission has been
questioned. With respect to Andhra, for instance, there is the evidence given
by S. V. Ramamurty, one of the most distinguished members of the Indian Civil
Service, formerly Adviser to the Governor of Madras and acting Governor of
Bombay. He has been able to show that so far as Andhra is concerned the deficit
is not six crores as estimated by the Commission but only about Rs. 168 lakhs,
that the deficits caused by the introduction of prohibition will have to be
made good not merely in the linguistic but also in all the Provinces by new
taxation, that so far as taxable capacity is concerned there are potential
resources which will enable the deficit to be met, and that the proposals of
the Secretary of the Commission in regard to adjustments in the Andhra budget
are one sided and based on a lack of full understanding of the position.
Moreover there is nothing unsound under a federal system in the Centre making
subventions to the units–a feature found in all federation. The Centre has no
stronger claim over the private purse of the citizen than the units. It is only
to maintain uniformity that certain taxes are levied by the Centre.
There are numerous observations made by the
Commission in the course of its Report which show how reactionary their general
outlook is and how confused are their political ideas. They do not have any
clear idea about terms like sub-nationalism, autonomy, State, etc. They do not
realise that there is no analogy between the creation of a new Province and the
creation of a new State, independent and sovereign. They have made a number of astounding
statements regarding the nature of linguistic Provinces and the effects their
formation will produce, and some of these statements do not make much sense.
Take for instance the statement that an autonomous linguistic Province means an
autonomous linguistic State and autonomous linguistic State means that its
territories are inviolate. How can a Province mean a State? How can territories
be kept inviolate when the new Constitution contains articles for the creation
of new Provinces? The Commission also has no idea whatever of the present trend
of events in Constitution-making. It has lost sight of the fact that there is a
Constituent Assembly sitting in Delhi and engaged in framing a federal
Constitution, the essence of which is the creation of autonomous States
independent of the Centre in a sphere of their own. But still the Commission
speaks of a period of transition, a period of trial and error during which
India will have to prepare for its destiny, and during which the Centre must
possess large overriding powers of control and direction….Till nationalism has
acquired sufficient strength to permit the formation of autonomous Provinces,
the true nature and function of a Province under our Constitution should be
that of an administrative unit functioning under delegated authority from the
Centre and subject to the Centre’s overriding powers in regard to its
territory, its existence and its functions….” This is taking the country back
to the Charter Act of 1833 and the over-centralisation which it brought about.
That a Commission in 1948 should seriously speak of this kind of centralisation
shows how blind it is to the moving forces of the present day. But the
Commission considers that without such powers the Centre cannot mitigate the
rigour of government by linguistic majorities of today, prevent a breakdown of
administration on account of disputes amongst linguistic groups, check
fissiparous tendencies and strengthen national feeling, and above all to build
up an Indian State” (Para 134). The Commission has not cared to consider
whether there is any prospect of such an overriding Centre being tolerated at
the present day. Its faith in a strong Centre is almost religious, and in its
zeal for this it has not refrained from suggesting that the pledges given by
the Congress in the past in favour of linguistic Provinces need not be honoured
today. It observes: “In view of the dangers which now surround our country, and
in the circumstances that now exist, Congress stands relieved of all past
commitments.” (Para 140).
Although the Commission has laid down that, in any
rational and scientific planning that may take place in regard to the Provinces
of India in the future, emphasis should be primarily placed on administrative
convenience it has not cared to suggest what factors and elements go to
determine this convenience, and it has not at all considered whether it is not
a very important matter of administrative convenience that the language of the
Legislature and of administration should be the language spoken by the people
in the Province. After all it is on this that the demand for linguistic
Provinces is based primarily. It has ignored the administrative difficulties
inevitable in any attempt to work democracy through a multilingual Legislature.
Even the formation of Provinces on administrative
grounds has in the view of the Commission to wait for decades. For the
conditions which the Commission considers it necessary to exist before such
work may be undertaken are conditions which are not likely to be fulfilled in
the near future and there are no objective criteria by which one can judge
whether they have been fulfilled at all. India should be physically and
emotionally integrated (whatever this may mean), the Indian States problem
should be solved, and the national sentiment should be strengthened before the
scientific, planning of existing Provinces can be taken on hand. “However
urgent the problem of redistribution of provinces may be it is not more urgent
than the defence problem, the inflation problem, the refugee problem, the food
problem, the production problem, and many other problems with which India is
burdened today. All these must get priority.” It is in this strain that the
Report has been drawn by the Commission.
No sane-minded person with an eye to the realities
of political life in the country today will attach much weight to the
conclusions of a Commission so reactionary, so given to the worship of the status
quo and so confused in considering the relevant issues in the problem. The
best course will be to ignore the Report and proceed on the basis of the
principles accepted for a generation by the Indian National Congress and
blessed by Gandhiji himself, form linguistic provinces, and include them in the
Schedule of the new Constitution.