"I Told You So"

(reproduced from http://the-strawberry-fields.blogspot.com with permission from the author)

" I Told You So"

That's what S.K. Patil and Nehru would have said if they were alive today. They aren't alive, but you can almost hear them banging their heads against a wall in dismay.

First, a bit of history...


Prior to independence, British India was divided into provinces and princely states, each of which had elected legislatures and governors. In 1947, it was granted independence and was divided into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The princely states were encouraged to join one of these countries. Bhutan and Hyderabad opted for independence, but Hyderabad was eventually brought under Indian control. Till 1950, there were 27 states
not quite the same as we have now), excluding Jammu and Kashmir which had special status till 1957.


The Indian National Congress had promised that states would be divided on a linguistic basis. Andhra was the first state to be formed where the Telegu-speaking part of the Madras State was merged with Hyderabad. Nehru was vehemently opposed to the linguistic divisions. He said "If you succeed in creating so-called linguistic states now, what will happen ten or twenty years hence? Are you going to stop people from moving from one state to another? This movement will change the linguistic composition of the state." Eventually he had to give in, and the Government set up the States Reorganization Committee in 1953. In 1956 the States Reorganization Act came into place. It recommended the division of India into 14 states and 7 union territories. The Bombay State was to include Saurashtra, Kutch, Marathi-speaking Nagpur district of Madhya Pradesh, and Marathwada part of Hyderabad.


A major controversy surrounded the future of Bombay city. The Gujaratis felt that they had invested so much in the city's development, that it should be handed over to Gujarat. Maharashtra laid claim to it on the basis that there was a majority of Marathi-speakers. However, given the cosmopolitan nature of the city, Nehru proposed that Bombay be a city-state.


The issue was discussed in the Lok Sabha in 1955. S.K. Patil, a Marathi-speaking MP from Bombay, said that his city had a "cosmopolitan population in every respect" and that it had been "built with the labour of everybody". His hopes were for Bombay as a "a miniature India run on international standards", "a melting pot that will evolve a glorious new civilization" and he said it was "an extraordinary coincidence that the population of the city should be exactly one percent of the population of the whole country. This one percent drawn from all parts of the country will set the pace for other states in the practice of secularism and mutual understanding". He asked the Maharashtrians to give up their claim on Bombay, in the spirit of compromise.


N.V. Gadgil, a fellow Congressman, refused to accept Patil's proposition. Gadgil was categorical in his demand for a united Maharashtra (or Samyukta Maharashtra, as the movement was called). He said that if "these sentiments were unheeded, the future of Bombay would be decided on the streets of Bombay".


It was eventually decided that Bombay will be a city-state. This led to widespread protests led by the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, whose leaders included Keshavrao Jedhe, Acharya Atre, Prabodhankar Thackeray (yes, now you know where the genes came from!) and Senapati Bapat. There was rioting on the streets of the city and several demonstrators (~105) were fired at and killed by the police at Flora Fountain. Morarji Desai, the then chief minister of Bombay State was asked to resign (a tradition that continues today), and was replaced by YB Chavan. Eventually the Government had to give in, and in 1960, the state of Maharashtra was formed.


Fast forward to the present. 26/11 has started this debate all over again. The need for a CEO of Bombay, or a directly elected mayor. Our city has been held ransom by the state for long enough, but has anything really changed to allow for an independent state this time around?


An article in The Hindu puts it nicely, even though it was written over 5 years ago:
"To recall the debate between Patil and Gadgil is to remember a time when Indian parliamentarians were both independent-minded and intelligent. Patil's case, for retaining Bombay's cosmopolitan character, was made with logic and eloquence. But Gadgil's case, for the centrality of the city to Maharashtrian identity was compelling as well. Here were politicians from Maharashtra who could argue on the basis of principle and believe in what they said too. Can one say the same for their latter-day epigones?


In some ways, one can still hear the echoes of that old Lok Sabha debate. For, tragically, what was to N.V. Gadgil a matter of legitimate cultural pride, has degenerated, under a different kind of Maharashtrian leadership into an insular parochialism. The battle for Bombay continues. On the one side are those who see it as a truly cosmopolitan city, which can still set the pace for other states in the practice of secularism and mutual understanding". On the other side are the visceral chauvinists of the SS" and MNS.

*Addendum*
By sheer coincidence, I was emailed this link today, which is relevant to what I've written, so I'm adding it here. It's a letter written to the Linguistic Provinces Commission by B.R. Ambedkar in 1948. While his overall conclusion is very different from what I believe to be the solution, his is a very balanced and well-expressed argument, definitely worth reading. He says:

"While accepting the principle of Linguistic Provinces it must provide against the break-up of India's unity. My solution of the problem therefore is that, while accepting the demand for the re-constitution of Provinces on linguistic basis, the constitution should provide that the official language of every Province shall be the same as the official language of the Central Government. It is only on that footing that I am prepared to accept the demand for Linguistic Provinces."

"The idea of having a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with the question of what should be its official language. By a Linguistic Province, I mean a Province which by the social composition of its population is homogeneous and therefore more suited for the realisation of those social ends which a democratic Government must fulfil. In my view, a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with the language of the Province. In the scheme of Linguistic Provinces, language has necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited to the creation of the Province, i.e., for demarcation of the boundaries of the Province. There is no categorical imperative in the scheme of Linguistic Provinces which compels us to make the language of the Province its official language. Nor is it necessary, for sustaining the cultural unity of the Province, to make the language of the Province its official language. For, the cultural unity of the Province, which already exists, is capable of being sustained by factors other than language such as common historic tradition, community of social customs, etc. To sustain Provincial cultural unity which already exists it does not require the use of the Provincial language for official purposes. Fortunately for the Provincialists there is no fear of a Maharashtrian not remaining a Maharashtrian because he spoke any other language. So also there is no fear of a Tamilian or an Andhra or a Bengali ceasing to be a Tamilian, Andhra or Bengali if he spoke any other language than his own mother-tongue."

"Under no circumstances, we must allow the Linguistic Provinces to make their Provincial languages their official languages."


For those interested in reading more, you should see:
The Samyukta Maharashtra Movement, 1946-1960
The 2003 Hindu Article mentioned above
Nehru Said It All
Nehru and Linguistic States

Merry Christmas everyone!

By,
Sanjana