> On another list I'm on, we're discussing varying
> constructions on national identity and nationalism in
> Russia, with Russia attempting to create a transethnic
> sense of "Russianness" that goes beyond ethnic or
> religious affiliation. It strikes me that India is
> much like Russia in its amazing plurality of
> societies, languages and cultures, so I thought
> comparing the two cases would be interesting.
Indian nation-state (with consequent notions of citizenship and identity) was constituted in struggle against the colonial rule. So the fact that there are multiple languages and cultures is not the decisive factor. Hinduism or any specific language based identity was not the basis for Indian nationalism. (Hindu nationalism was always a minor factor in the freedom struggle.)
In any case, Indian constitution strikes a fine balance in distribution of powers between the federal government and states. I had posted the following article "Speaking many tongues" on the list 0n 6 November 06. This deals with question Chris has asked.
Ulhas
The Times of India
Editorial> Article
LEADER ARTICLE: Speaking many tongues http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/262176.cms
Ramachandra Guha
1 Nov, 2006
TTIMES NEWS NETWORK
Every year, the government of India issues hundreds of reports written by the various commissions and committees constituted by it. These deal with every conceivable subject, from broad questions of macro-economic policy to the plight of animals in state-run laboratories. However, few of these reports are read, and fewer still have any material influence on public policy.
While most reports gather dust in government godowns, there are exceptions.One is the report of the Mandal commission, which has had a far-reaching impact on the life of the nation.
A second is the report of the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), which was implemented exactly 50 years ago, on November 1, 1956. This, in its own time and own way, has also transformed the political and institutional life of the nation.
The background to the SRC is as follows. In the 1920s, the Indian National Congress was reconstituted on linguistic lines. Its provincial units now followed the logic of language one for Marathi speakers, another for Oriya speakers, etc rather than a structure artificially imposed by the Raj.
At the same time, Gandhi and other leaders promised their followers that when freedom came, the new nation would be based on a new set of provinces, these based on the principle of language. However, when India was finally freed, in 1947, it was also divided.
Now, when the proponents of linguistic states asked for their promise to be redeemed, the Congress prevaricated. Partition was the consequence of a primordial attachment to one's faith; how many more partitions would that other primordial loyalty, language, lead to? So ran the thinking of the top Congress bosses, among them Nehru, Patel and Rajaji.
On the other side, the rank and file Congressmen were all for the redrawing of the map of India on the lines of language. Vigorous movements arose among Marathi and Kannada speakers, who were then spread across several different political regimes the erstwhile Bombay and Madras Presidencies, and former princely states such as Mysore and Hyderabad.
However, by far the most militant protests ensued from the very large community of Telugu speakers. In October 1953, a dogged Andhra, a one-time resident of Sabarmati Ashram named Potti Sriramulu, commenced a fast unto death. When he died some seven weeks later, angry protesters torched offices and railway stations all across the Madras Presidency.
Potti Sriramulu's martyrdom led immediately to the creation of the state of Andhra Pradesh. It also led to the formation of the SRC, which in 1956 put the formal, final seal of approval on the principle of linguistic states.
It was thus, for example, that the present states of Kerala and Karnataka were born on November 1, 1956. In the early 1950s, among the opponents of linguistic states were prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the sarsangh-chalak of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, M S Golwalkar.
(This may be the only major issue of policy on which Nehru and the RSS chief found themselves on the same side.) Both thought, or feared, that states based on language might hasten a further balkanisation of India. In fact, something like the reverse has happened.
Far from undermining Indian unity, linguistic states have helped strengthen it. It has proved to be perfectly consistent to be Kannadiga and Indian, Bengali and Indian, Tamil and Indian, Gujarati and Indian.
To be sure, these states based on language sometimes quarrel with one another. Thus my own home state, Karnataka, is engaged one year in a dispute with Tamil Nadu over the waters of the river Cauvery, the next year in a dispute with Maharashtra over the city of Belgaum. While these disputes are not pretty, they could in fact have been far worse.
In the same year, 1956, that the SRC mandated the redrawing of the map of India on linguistic lines, the parliament of Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was then known) proclaimed Sinhala the country's sole official language.
The Tamils of the north protested unavailingly. So did one left-wing Sinhala MP, who issued a prophetic warning to the chauvinists. 'One language, two nations', he said, adding: 'Two languages, one nation'.
The civil war that has raged in that lovely island since 1983 is indeed based, in good part, on the denial by the majority linguistic group of the rights of the minority. Another among India's neighbours, Pakistan, was divided in 1971 because the Punjabi and Urdu speakers of its western wing would not respect the sentiments of the Bengalis in the east.
It is the formation of linguistic states that has allowed India to escape what might have been a worse fate still. If the sentiments of the native speakers of Telugu, Marathi, et al had been disregarded, what we might have here was: 'One language: 14 or 15 nations'.
The writer is currently a visiting professor at Yale University.
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited.