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., Madras and Bombay.

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 Assam, Orissa, Kerala and Himachal Pradesh, for instance, might feel that their status would be reduced to that of junior partners of W. Bengal, Andhra, Tamilnad and E. Punjab respectively. Nor is it likely to meet with popular approval especially by those linguistic groups who would be a minority if added to another bigger language group. So, it too is not feasible, at any rate, for the present.

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 Pakistan. On the face of it, the argument is absurd since, administratively and constitutionally, linguistic units would be on the same footing as are the present units. If the mere existence of provincial units amounts to division, our country is already divided. One can understand arguments in favour of a single unitary government for the whole country, but one fails to understand the criticism that a mere readjustment of boundaries, especially when the concerned people desire it, amounts to division of the country. The argument is not only misleading but smacks of insincerity.

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 ofPradesh 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 Madras, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra, Hyderabad. Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Sourashtra and Coorg, and would reduce the number to six fair-sized units of a more uniform and homogeneous nature, namely, Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnad, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Coorg exercising the option of choosing to join Kerala or Karnataka. And since the northern units are already largely linguistic, they require only a minor adjustments such as the rational fixation of the boundaries of Bihar-Bengal, Bihar-Orissa, and Andhra-Orissa which can be entrusted to impartial committees for a final decision. The contiguous Hindi areas comprising U.P., Bihar, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and the Mahakosal portion of Madhya Pradesh too could be reduced to some four well-knit units. Thus instead of so many utterly disproportionate units as at present, they could be reduced to just some sixteen–more uniform–units: Andhra, Karnataka. Kerala, Tamilnad, Gujarat (if possible, along with Cutch), Maharashtra, Orissa, W. Bengal, Assam (if desired, along with Manipur) E. Punjab (along with PEPSU), Rajasthan, Kashmir, and some four Hindi units including U.P. and Bihar. This, in-fact, is the simple rational picture, because linguistic States relate to the well-developed basic regional languages mentioned in the Constitution and not to every local dialect.

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, Madras, and Madhya Pradesh, in all of which the Oriyas felt they had a minor role and that regional development of their areas suffered due to want of adequate attention. So also the Telugu speaking areas were divided between Madras, Hyderabad, Mysore and Madhya Pradesh, in none of which, they felt, they had an adequate voice or influence. The Tamilians, although inhabitants of a multi-lingual State like Madras, had the advantage of having practically all the Tamil speaking areas in Madras, in which State they always enjoyed a predominant position and influence. Had the position of Andhras and Tamilians, or Oriyas and Biharees been reversed, probably Tamilians and Biharees would have been the first to agitate for linguistic units.¹ No doubt the Malayalam and Kannada speaking areas too have been and are divided between several States, but they had at least the advantage of well-administered major States like Mysore, Travancore and Cochin in their midst, which–and their Rulers too–they felt were their own. Consequently the urge for linguistic units was less marked in the case of Kerala and Karnataka, at any rate in the earlier period, than in the case of Orissa and Andhra. As for Maharashtrians and Gujaratees, being almost equally matched in a progressive major State like Bombay, the Gujaratees being prominent in business and commerce and the Maharashtrians in professional and other spheres, the agitation was less insistent in the beginning. Had the Rulers of Hyderabad been patrons of regional languages, literatures and indigenous traditional arts, like the Rulers of Mysore, Travancore and Cochin instead of thrusting on the people in their State Urdu and, what the majority felt to be, a non-indigenous Urduised culture, the Andhras who form the largest linguistic group in Hyderabad would not, perhaps, have been as insistent for the formation of Andhra State as they have been. It is surprising that even eminent persons should have failed to appreciate the significance of and the role played by, language in the sentiments, aspirations and community-consciousness of a people. For instance, leaders like Rabindranath Tagore, Tej Bahadur Sapru. Sarojini Naidu and Rajaji paid, on occasions, compliments to the then Nizam’s Government for introducing Urdu as the medium of instruction in the Osmania University–although Urdu is the mother-tongue of only some ten to twelve per cent of the local population, largely confined tourban areas, while Telugu, Marathi and Kannada are the regional languages. Referring to it this writer wrote (‘Social Welfare’ of Oct.20 ’44): “Suppose the Ruler of Kashmir happened to be an Andhra prince. Would Sir Tej have felt elated if Telugu were made the medium of instruction for higher studies in Kashmir? For a similar reason–that the Ruler happened to be a Bengalee–would C. R have felt enthusiastic if Bengali were made the medium of instruction in Pudukottai? Or would the late Poet Rabindranath have felt satisfied if Tamil were made the medium of instruction in Tripura State simply for the reason that the Ruler happened to be a Tamilian? Sir Tej, C.R. and Mrs. Naidu are all persons of high eminence and undoubted integrity, but it may not be entirely out of place to mention here that none of them has a mother-tongue which will be adversely affected by Urdu being made the medium of instruction in Hyderabad. Is it not significant that no prominent person belonging to Andhra, Maharashtra or Karnataka has paid a similar compliment on the occasion?”

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 Hyderabad State, when a foreign language like English could be the medium of University education all over India. For one thing, English was not voluntarily chosen; then, too, a highly developed international language, with a rich literature, like English being adopted for higher studies all over India had obviously various advantages which cannot be claimed for Urdu, especially when adopted as medium in but one isolated University in the South. However, the feeling of frustration among the Andhras, Maharashtrians and Kannadigas of Hyderabad due toneglect of their languages, which are regional, was hardly taken note of, much less appreciated.

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 topersons 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 Hyderabad would upset the equilibrium of the South, without indicating even faintly as to why it should, has puzzled many and appears to have hardly convinced any. Since the major part of the country is comprised of linguistic units with the recent addition of Orissa and Andhra, and since there is a growing urge for the same generally on the part of the people of the remaining areas, there appears to be hardly any choice but to accept it. Only the pace of implementing the policy has to be considered, and the necessary safeguards provided, to ensure an alert national consciousness and harmony and sufficient cultural contact among language groups, and to retain the cosmopolitan nature and the wholesome steadying influence of cosmopolitan cities like Bombay, Madras and Hyderabad, even if they were to be the capitals of linguistic States. Whether linguistic reorganisation is proceeded with or not, the bi-lingual and allied problems should receive urgent attention and they have to be solved on a sound and enduring basis.

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 Province of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
–Ed. TRIVENI