Abstract: This essay argues that certain ethno-linguistic minority groups sought the redrawing of India’s internal boundaries based on linguistic divisions so they could reap greater benefits from the country’s federalist system. Linguistic states would give them some degree of autonomy while still allowing them to feel like legitimate members of the Indian nation, which was incredibly diverse yet dominated politically by upper-class, northern Hindus at the Centre. In their envisioned linguistic states, ethno-linguistic minorities saw themselves achieving political power that would give them authority over their state’s finances and the ability to write laws related to their everyday interests and livelihoods. To explain what led the central government to capitulate to the demands of sub-national groups for reorganization, this essay examines two prominent cases – Andhra Pradesh and Punjab – in which agitations for reorganization flared on-and-off over multiple decades, ultimately sparking further campaigns for redistribution on the basis of religion or economics.
Keywords: Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Federalism, Linguistic States, Nehru
Upon the establishment of the Dominion of India in 1947, 565 princely states and 27 states could be found within its territory. The internal borders dividing these states did not reflect linguistic or cultural divisions. Most states had been established on the basis of administrative convenience during colonial rule. While the Congress Party had expressed support for reorganization on a linguistic basis prior to India’s independence, its leaders backtracked once they found themselves in positions of power. After a bloody partition process, they feared redrawing the map would undermine nationalism and hinder efforts to establish a powerful central government. They proposed deferring further debate over the matter until more pressing priorities were taken care of such as the holding of national elections, the promulgation of a constitution, and the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.[1] Certain ethno-linguistic minorities saw the situation differently. States drawn on the basis of linguistic divisions would allow them to enjoy the benefits of the country’s federalist system; they could be legitimate members of the diverse Indian nation while retaining decision-making authority over critical issues that directly affected their interests and livelihoods. To explain what led the Centre to capitulate to the demands of sub-national groups for reorganization, this essay will examine two of the most prominent cases – Andhra Pradesh and Punjab – in which agitations for reorganization flared on-and-off over multiple decades.
Andhra Pradesh:
In 1950, Madras changed from being a province to a state. Its territory covered the majority of the country’s south and its population was made up of a mix of cultures and languages. Belonging to Madras State were four major linguistic communities (Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas, and Malayalees). The Telugus were the first among them to demand secession and the formation of a separate Andhra Pradesh, in which they could protect their linguistic culture. In August 1920 itself, four months before the Nagpur Session of the Congress Party, the Madras Legislative Council voted in favor of creating an Andhra province. Besides this cultural factor, the Telugus believed they could only take charge of their economic, administrative, and financial interests if they had their own state in which they comprised a demographic majority.[2] They were unhappy with the fact that Tamils held the majority of government jobs when the 12 districts from Andhra region were showing annual surpluses in the government’s ledgers.[3]
Unfortunately, the Telugus’ demands for Andhra were rejected on multiple occasions. In 1927, the Secretary of State for India ignored a resolution from the Madras Legislative Council on the subject.[4] In 1948, the Dhar Commission advised the Centre against Andhra on the grounds that the different economic situations of Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra would make the proposed state unstable. While Rayalaseema was facing a large revenue deficit, Coastal Andhra enjoyed a decent surplus.[5] In February 1949, the Bombay Legislative Council passed a resolution calling for the creation of Maharashtra which was also rejected by the Dhar Commission. Now facing repeated calls for two linguistic states, Jawaharlal Nehru struck the JVP Committee. Comprising himself, Home Minister Vallabhai Patel, and former Congress President Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, the JVP Committee initially opposed the creation of linguistic states believing that they would be a detriment to the cohesion of the nation and hinder its economic advance, which hinged on the maximization of domestic trade and exchange between states.
The Chief Minister of Madras, C.R. Rajagopalachari, also shared the beliefs of the JVP Committee but realized the impracticality of denying the creation of Andhra given “virtually unanimous Telugu sentiment” on the issue.[6] After Potti Sreeramulu (Amarajeevi) died during his 58 day fast for linguistic reorganization and his death procession turned into a deadly riot, Rajapalogchari wrote to Nehru advising him that the sooner separation happened, the better.[7] Nehru concurred, though he responded that “[Andhra] would be a backward [state] in many ways and … [the Telugus] should not expect much help from the Centre.”[8]
On December 19th, 1952, Nehru reluctantly announced a new Andhra state to be carved out of Madras State. However, it would not include the city of Madras, which the Telugus believed they had a fair claim to despite being greatly outnumbered there by the Tamils.[9] In 1956, the States Reorganization Committee made further changes to the border of Madras State, leaving it with a Tamil majority; detaching its Malayalam and Kannada speaking districts to create the states of Kerala and Karnataka respectively.[10]
Punjab:
With partition, the Punjab province was split into two. The dominion of India was given the East Punjab while Pakistan took West Punjab. As princely states acceded to India in 1948, eight of them were merged into a Class B state called Patiala and the East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). PEPSU remained separate from the Class A province of East Punjab, which then comprised both Punjabi and Hindi-speaking areas.[11] In the early 1950s, at the same time other ethno-linguistic groups began to agitate for the creation of linguistic states, the Sikh-centric Akali Dal raised its own demands for a Punjabi suba (or Punjabi speaking state).
Led by Master Tara Singh, the Akali Dal argued that the “demarcation of a linguistic state on the basis of Punjabi” would solve the problem of what was then a communally ridden Punjab.[12] They believed a Punjabi Suba would give the people institutions where they could channel public opinion and feel represented. Sikhs, they argued, were different than Hindus; with different cultures, traditions, histories, social orders.[13] A state based on culture and language would give the Sikhs some degree of comfort in accepting a Hindu majority at the Centre and wean them off the cause of separatism. It would allow them to put communal concerns to bed and focus on more critical social and economic issues.[14]
The Akalis, however, were met with resistance from Punjab’s Hindus, who were backed by the Jana Sangh, the precursor to the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Jana Sangh passed a resolution arguing that the Akalis’ demand for a Punjabi suba was meant to obfuscate their true intention: the creation of a “communal and theocratic state.”[15] Meanwhile, the States Reorganization Committee believed partitioning Punjab again could fuel communal disorder, like that observed during partition. Therefore, in 1956, it only recommended to the Centre that PEPSU be merged into Punjab with Punjabi and Hindi as its official languages. The Dhar Commission, however, did opine that demands by Sikh and Jats would only intensify if the question of linguistic reorganization in Punjab continued to go unaddressed. Nevertheless, the Akalis continued to campaign for a unilingual state where only Punjabi in Gurmukhi script should be used.[16]
Following India’s war with China and Pakistan in 1964 and 1965 respectively, the demand for a separate Punjabi state was rekindled. The Akalis did not exploit these conflicts and “declared their unqualified support for government.”[17] Immediately after the ceasefire, however, the Government of India rushed to reexamine the issue. According to Kingshuk Nag, the rationale was partly based on the fact that Sikh soldiers had played a pivotal role in the war effort and ought to be repaid through the creation of a Punjabi suba.[18] The groundwork had already been laid in 1964 when Nehru instructed Pratap Kairon Singh to declare Punjab a unilingual state. It would be unwise politically for the Congress to continue opposing the Akali’s demand for a Punjabi Suba.[19]
While the Jana Sangh again opposed the reorganization of Punjab, this time on the grounds that “Sikhs were part and parcel of Hindu society,”[20] the Centre went ahead and trifurcated the Punjab. This resulted in the creation of a new Hindi-speaking state (Haryana) and produced a Punjab with a Punjabi-speaking, Sikh majority. These two states would share a capital, the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The new map of Punjab excluded several hill principalities that became Himachal Pradesh.[21]
Conclusion
The redrawing of state borders on the basis of language would give ethno-linguistic minorities, including the Punjabi and Telugu, greater autonomy from the Centre and the ability to make decisions on critical issues decided at the state level. Because they would comprise the demographic majority in the new, redrawn states, there was a high likelihood that they would capture enough seats in their legislatures to govern. Control over a state’s legislature would allow members of ethno-linguistic minorities to control their state’s finances and make laws on issues enumerated in List II of Schedule Seven of the Constitution. Along with the Centre, they can also consider issues on List III of Schedule Seven.[22] Effectively, it can be said that the creation of linguistic states helped the ethno-linguistic minorities establish a place for themselves in a country where upper-class, northern Hindus dominated at the Centre. Nevertheless, linguistic reorganization did not end campaigns for further redistribution on the basis of religion or economics. This is again evidenced by the cases of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. In Andhra, the Telangana region perceived it was getting a raw deal from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema when it came to budget allocations, quotas for public sector jobs, and the provision of public services. In the latter, Sikhs separatists affiliated with the Khalistan movement demanded the establishment of a sovereign, theocratic Sikh state, particularly during the 1980s. The possibility of new states in India are endless, and at this point we can only speculate on what sub-national groups will have their aspiration for statehood granted in years to come.
Jack Greenberg is a final year student at McGill University where he is pursuing an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in International Development Studies and Political Science. Jack’s current research interests include the Koreas’ relations with China and Japan, North Korean Human Rights & Security, and Cross-Border Migration in Northeast Asia. Outside of his academic studies Jack works as a Consultant in Deloitte Canada’s Human Capital Consulting practice.
Bibliography
Gandhi, Rajmohan. Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company, 2013
Gandhi, Rajmohan. Rajaji: A Life. Gurgaon, Haryana: Penguin Books India, 1997.
Guha, Ramchandra. India After Gandhi. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.
Nag, Kingshuk. The Saffron Tide: The Rise of the BJP. New Delhi: Rupa Publications, 2014.
Pingle, Gautam. The Fall and Rise of Telangana. Hyderabad, Telangana: Orient Blackswan Pvt. Ltd., 2014.
Sarhadi, Ajit Singh. Punjabi Suba: The Story of a Struggle. New Delhi: U.C. Kapur, 1970.
Singh, Khushwant. Captain Amarinder Singh: The People’s Maharaja. New Delhi: Hay House India, 2017.
Singh, Khushwant. A History of the Sikhs: Volume II (1839-2004). Oxford India Paperbacks. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.
[1] Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 191.
[2] Gautam Pingle, The Fall and Rise of Telangana (Hyderabad, Telangana: Orient Blackswan Pvt. Ltd., 2014), 54.
[3] Ibid, 53.
[4] Ibid, 52.
[5] Ibid, 53.
[6] Rajmohan Gandhi, Rajaji: A Life (Gurgaon, Haryana: Penguin Books India, 1997) 342.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Pingle, The Fall and Rise of Telangana, 55.
[9] Rajmohan Gandhi, Rajaji: A Life, 342.
[10] Ibid, 362.
[11] Khushwant Singh, Captain Amarinder Singh: The People’s Maharaja (New Delhi: Hay House India, 2017), 37.
[12] Ajit Singh Sarhadi, Punjabi Suba: The Story of a Struggle (New Delhi: U.C. Kapur, 1970), 199.
[13] Ibid, 202
[14] Ibid.
[15] Kingshuk Nag, The Saffron Tide: The Rise of the BJP (New Delhi: Rupa Publications, 2014), 81
[16] Khushwant Singh. A History of the Sikhs: Volume II (1839-2004). Oxford India Paperbacks, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 292.
[17] Ibid, 300
[18] Nag, The Saffron Tide, 81
[19] Singh, A History of the Sikhs, 299.
[20] Nag, The Saffron Tide, 82.
[21] Rajmohan Gandhi, Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (New Delhi: Aleph Book Company, 2013), 380.
[22] The Constitution of India [India], 1950, Schedule VII, Lists II and III. The state list had 66 items (now 59), and the concurrent list has 47.
