Linguistic Frontiers

Prof. M. T. PATWARDHAN, M. A.

(The Rajaram College, Kolhapur)

The National Congress has recognised the wholesome principle that provinces should be re-grouped on a linguistic basis; and so far as the Congress machinery is concerned India has already been roughly divided into linguistic provinces. The formation of Sind and Utkal as separate provinces is now an established fact; and agitation is being carried on for the formation of Andhra and Karnatak as separate provinces. It is impossible not to sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of Andhras and Karnatakis. The sooner the question of re-distribution of provinces is settled "by a few general rules governing all cases" the better will it be not only for provincial progress but also for Indian nationalism. It is easy to misunderstand linguistic provincialism and to denounce it as un-national; but this provincialism is but a manifestation of the new awakening. Fortunately it is non-religious and non-communal. The cause of nationalism will be served only by respecting this provincialism and by removing at the same time all grounds for linguistic jealousy. The national spirit cannot be fostered by a vague visionary idealism that, while appearing to support Indian living languages, seeks to cut the ground under their feet by forcing upon all a language regarding the nature and future of which there are very divergent views and ambitions.

Even where the separation and formation of some provinces has been accepted in principle, there appears a reluctance to face facts and to formulate principles which should govern all cases. The question of re-distribution of provinces will not be solved by merely creating one or two more provinces. The Editor of The Modern Review has already voiced a complaint that "far from unifying Bengal the British Government have dismembered it by severing from it some fringe areas which are Bengali-speaking and which formed part of Bengal up till recent times." Similar complaints are bound to come up from different parts of India, and if linguistic jealousies are to be laid to rest for ever, a serious attempt has got to be made for securing unanimity for certain general principles which should then be made applicable to all linguistic frontiers. In this matter I have some suggestions to offer.

The Nehru Committee, in their famous reports presented to the all parties Conference, rightly attach greater importance to linguistic than to racial, or geographical or historical considerations. "The main considerations," they observe, "must necessarily be the wishes of the people and the linguistic unity of the area concerned." But the wishes of which majority are to be held as determinative is the question. A large province may not like that a part of it should be sliced for bringing into existence a new province; and it is quite possible that the aspirations of the prospective new province, however legitimate in themselves, may be stifled by the majority vote. We reject therefore the majority vote of the province and take the district as a unit for the expression of self-determination. It will be seen that this smaller unit is equally unreliable. The Nehru Committee observe that the present distribution of provinces in India has no rational basis and that it is merely due to accident and the circumstances attending the growth of the British power in India. The same applies to the distribution of districts and even of talukas. Perhaps that is the reason why the Nehru Committee admit that they cannot suggest the exact limits of the new province of Karnatak. "It may be," they observe, "that some of the border tracts are bilingual and an inquiry will have to be made on the spot…..On behalf of the Maharashtrians in some of the border districts a fear was expressed that their language might suffer, but safeguards for this might be provided for."

This fear of encroachment by one language on the legitimate field of another is not quite unfounded. The Karnatakis loudly complain that the Andhra University, with an utter disregard of the feelings of the local people, included Bellary a predominantly Karnatak district, in its jurisdiction; and the Maharashtrians complain that the Belgaum District Local Board has systematically tried to discourage the learning of Marathi by refusing to grant the Maharashtrians even the ordinary facilities. Safeguards thus will certainly have to be provided for.

But safeguards have something unwholesome and suspicious about them. Boundaries should be so exactly determined that as far as possible no safeguards need be provided for. In determining provincial boundaries a dialect should be included in that language to which it most conforms; and the language of the agricultural population should be the determining factor for rural areas. Boundaries should be so laid down that contiguous villages in which a particular language is spoken preponderatingly should be joinedto the province of that language. District census figures are useless for this purpose. We shall require for this figuresnot only for talukas but preferably for villages separately. Then and then only can boundaries be determined with some justice and exactitude.

An illustration willmake my position clear. Those who have been agitating for the unification of Karnatak seem to take it for granted that the whole districtof Belgaum and six talukas of Sholapur ought to be included in the proposed province. Now as a district Belgaum may be said to form a part of Karnatak; but why should those parts of it which are almost purely Marathi speaking be joined to Karnatak? For instance, in the Chandagadpeta, according to the census figures for 1901, there are 30,145 Marathi speaking persons with 233 Konkani speaking, as against 951 speaking Kannada. To include this peta in Karnatak is palpably unjust. It willnot make Karnatakis and Maharashtrians peaceful neighbours at all.

 Mr. D. R. Kelkar of Halyal, in his article on the unification of the Marathi speaking talukas of Belgaum and Karwar, published in the Kesari of the 9th Nov. 1937, has from the census figures for 1901 pointed out that the western parts of Athani, Chikodi and Hukeri talukas being Marathi speaking and contiguous, can be united into a big taluka and that it is possible to draw a line across the three talukas, thus separating Marathi speaking areas from Kannada speaking ones. He pleads moreover that these Marathi speaking areas joined to the preponderatingly Marathi speaking talukas of Belgaum, Khanapur, Halyal and Karwar can and ought to be united into a separate Marathi district. But even a taluka, because it is preponderatingly Marathi speaking or Kannada speaking, should not therefore be as a whole joined to Maharashtra or to Karnatak. The geographical distribution of the languages within a taluka ought to be considered and all contiguous Marathi speaking parts should be joined to Maharashtra and the rest should be joined to Karnatak. This principle is such as could be applied to all languages and frontiers. The Andhra-Karnatak question with regard to Bellary can be solved on the same lines.

But in some tracts it may be impossible thus to draw a line across a bilingual taluka, because villages speaking two languages may be hopelessly mixed up. To whatever province that tract be joined, there is bound to be great injustice, suffering and consequent bitterness even in spite of safeguards. Under such circumstances the area should be carefully but irrevocably divided according to the population basis into the two provinces; for then at least the ends of justice will have been served. When boundaries are so determined no safeguards should be provided for on either side. This proposal will appear cruel; but it will eliminate further linguistic and provincial jealousy. The Government of a province then should not, at least in rural areas, provide for primary education in any language other than that of the province. The case of cities with their workmen and businessmen population stands on a different footing. There, even if the medium of instruction, of business, and of affairs must uncompromisingly be the language of the province, provision for primary education in other provincial languages will have to be made in the case of substantial minorities; for they too contribute to the revenues of the province.

Determination of provincial boundaries is, as will be seen from the foregoing, a difficult task requiring a careful, patient and detailed survey; but it ought to be achieved by us Indians in a spirit of justice and co-operation and without the intervention of any outsider.