Languages & Nationalities in India

Safdar Hashmi Samaroha & EMS Centenary lecture


Dt. 03.03.2010, Muktadhara Auditorium Near Gol Market, New Delhi.


Com Chanchal Chauhan of Lok Lahar(Hindi) presided over


Speaker; Com. Prakash Karat, General Secretary CPI-M:-


Communists' position and record of activities:-


[Initial tributes were paid to Com.EMS- as the leader who married Marxist Theory to actual political practice - he also demonstrated as to how communists should participate in parliamentary politics]


Recognition of linguistic nationalities aspirations:


Com.EMS was the first theoretician to study the historical evolution of the Malayali nationality- showed how agrarian relations shaped development of the Malayali culture and language in the Princely stated of Malabar and Travancore- Cochin; emphasis on the malayali identity was therefore a means to rally the peasantry of what is now known as modern Kerala, into the common struggle against feudalism and the overall anti-imperialist and anti- colonial struggle.


Com.EMS as a member of the Malabar tenancy Reform Committee- in his minutes of dissent advocated abolition of landlordism in Malabar and Travancore- Cochin States- the feudal Jammi system- championed the slogan that all Malayalis should be in a Malayala speaking state.

Communists elsewhere also pressed for the necessity of recognition of different linguistic nationalities in India- a major plank of the anti- imperialist & anti- feudal struggle.


Communists understood that the masses - mostly the peasantry in colonial India - can be brought easily to the common anti - colonial cum anti - feudal struggle only with a linguistic consciousness.


A pan- Indian identity consciousness- the necessary ingredient for freedom struggle- could develop as a culmination f the provincial linguistic consciousnesses serving as a backdrop of local struggles.


Communists recognized the process of development of linguistic identities in the feudal pre-colonial India -> with development of commerce - primarily money- lending over different regions - also as a result of the Bhakti Movement. However nationalities fully develop only with the development of capitalism - development of nation - states is possible only with the advent of capitalism.


In 1920, under inspiration of Gandhiji - in the Nagpur AICC session - Congress reorganized its Provincial Committees on linguistic lines- negating the British imperialist administrative divisions of India into admixtureous provinces and princely states in total disregard of the linguistic identities.


Around 1946, Com P Sundarayya called for Vishalandhra and Com Bhabani Sen called for Natun Bangla (New Bengal) - linguistic states as a base for the anti- imperialist/ feudal struggle.


Attitude of the Big Bourgeois:


Immediately after independence:


Though Congress set up a Committee under Motilal Nehru in 1920 for reorganisation of Indian provinces on linguistic lines- it started going back on its promise after Independence - citing partition as an excuse and displaying the specter of further vivisection of the country now on linguistic lines.


The Jawahar Lal Nehru + Vallabh Bhai Patel + Pattabhi Sitaramaiah Committee set up immediately after independence(in 1947) wanted to negate the demand for creation of linguistic states - as a diversionary tactic proposed postponement of formation of linguistic states for a period of 10 years.

However big movements for reorganization of states on linguistic lines viz. Vishalandhra, Samyukta Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala swept the country by 1953 - these were mostly led by the communists - Congress was unable to prevent this tide.


Even before 1953 there existed a small Andhra Pradesh - The states Reorganisation Committee (SRC) recommended an Andhra Pradesh sans Hyderabad, Bombay Province (Maharashtra & Gujarat)


The Morarji Desai Govt. shot dead scores of people on the streets of Bombay for demanding separate Gujarat and Maharashtra.


SRC also turned down formation of a Punjabi Saba. However the cause of formation of linguistic states triumphed finally with the formation of such states even in the North Eastern Region.


Anti- communist forces presently seek to interpret CPI-M opposition to smaller states as a means to prevent creation of Gorkhaland. That is as to how the opposition of CPI-M to TELENGANA formation is being portrayed.


The big bourgeois earlier distrusted formation of linguistic states as it favoured a countrywide common homogenous market with un- impeded access to any location. RSS also opposed formation of linguistic states on the plea of stopping vivisection of the country, as it regards India as an uniform ancient nation.


Big Bourgeois position as of now i.e. since 2000:


Because of strong development of capitalism mostly in linguistic states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra and Maharashtra compared to the non- linguistic Hindi speaking states, the Big- Bourgeois is no longer that strongly averse to formation of linguistic states


On the contrary the big bourgeois now prefers formation of even smaller states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand etc. where it can buy up/ suborn Govt. and get license to loot natural resources.


Smaller states like those in the NE Region are always dependent on central Govt. largesse. Politicians in those states therefore always have to switch sides with change of guard at the Central Govt.

Big linguistic states are more coherent and independent and can therefore reflect the democratic aspirations of their population.


Linguistic fissipareousness originating from regional backwardness:


Capitalist development with its lopsidedness- especially the accelerated pace of post- independence capitalist development generates so many advanced and backward states and similar disparities within a state. Thus we have historically backward regions like Vidarbha and Telengana experiencing demand for statehood- whereas Telengana autonomy resolutions were never seriously taken up.


the Liberalisation – Globalisation - Privatisation policies have generated cut-throat competition – it fractured petit bourgeois as a class – generated a fissured identity- encourages in some strata, a manufactured identity - which fuels an illusory hope of advancement through smaller statehoods


Hindi Regions are a particular case in point – no linguistic nationality concept is developed here - people here are either straightaway : Indian or Bundelkhandi, Awadhi etc. - no concept of a Hindi identity from Rajasthan to Bihar exists. Whether breaking up into smaller states would really solve the problem of lack of development is really doubtful?


Though Sardar Patel is credited with absorption of princely states - Com EMS has shown that struggle for linguistic and cultural rights formed the basis of a framework of a modern, secular and democratic India- for this mere existence of linguistic identity was not enough.


Position on Linguistic Rights:


Solution of the languages question is part of the democratic reordering of the Indian Society- so far there are 22 scheduled languages with option open for further addition to the list


There should be equality of all Indian languages - formation of linguistic states helped in further development of the languages


There should be simultaneous translation into various Indian languages-use of only English and/ or Hindi as official languages is unscientific nd undemocratic.

Primary Education should be in mother tongue which requires more use in day to day life ->to bloom as states official language- it can reduce utility of English and people develop through own experience a composite link language

(softcopy generation and editing: Ms. Dimple Tyagi, all errors are however my responsibility)