Constitutional Law III

8/10/2019 Constitutional Law III

1/15

1 | P a g e

National Law Institute University

Bhopal

Subject: Constitutional Law III

Project Topic: Indian Federalism and Linguistic States

Submitted by:

Amit Mate

B.A.LL.B. 200924

Submitted to:

Prof. (Dr.) V.K. Dixit

Professor of Human Rights/ Political Process/ Environmental Law


2/15

2 | P a g e

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................3

Social context of language..............................................................................5

First Linguistic State.......................................................................................8

Andhra Pradesh.........................................................................................8

Battle for Bombay......................................................................................8

Assam.......................................................................................................10

Punjab......................................................................................................11

Recent Divisions...........................................................................................12

Pros and cons...............................................................................................13

Conclusion...................................................................................................14

Bibliography.................................................................................................15


3/15

3 | P a g e

Introduction

The Indian Federalism is unique in nature and is tailored according to the specific needs of

the country. Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India in which the Union of

India is permanent and indestructible. Both the Centre and the States are co-operating and

coordinating institutions having independence and ought to exercise their respective

powers with mutual adjustment, respect, understanding and accommodation. Tension and

conflict of the interests of the Centre and the respective units is an integral part of

federalism. Prevention as well as solving of conflicts is necessary. Thus, the Indian

federalism was devised with a strong Centre. Federalism with a strong Centre was inevitable

as the framers of the Indian Constitution were aware that there were economic disparities

as several areas of India were economically as well as industrially far behind in comparison

to others. The nation was committed to a socio economic revolution not only to secure the

basic needs of the common man and economic unity of the country but also to bring about

a fundamental change in the structure of Indian society in accordance with the egalitarian

principles. With these considerations in mind the Constitution makers devised the Indian

federation with a strong Union.

The constitution and various other government documents are purposely vague in defining

such terms as national languages and official languages and in distinguishing either one

from officially adopted regional languages. States are free to adopt their own language of

administration and educational instruction from among the country's officially recognized

languages, the Scheduled Languages. Further, all citizens have the right to primary

education in their native tongue, although the constitution does not stipulate how this

objective is to be accomplished.

As drafted, the constitution provided that Hindi and English were to be the languages of

communication for the central government until 1965, when the switch to Hindi was

mandated. The Official Languages Act of 1963, pursuing this mandate, said that Hindi would

become the sole official national language in 1965. English, however, would continue as an

"associate additional official language." After ten years, a parliamentary committee was to

consider the situation and whether the status of English should continue if the knowledge of

Hindi among peoples of other native languages had not progressed sufficiently. The act,


4/15

4 | P a g e

however, was ambiguous about whether Hindi could be imposed on unwilling states by

1975. In 1964 the Ministry of Home Affairs requested all central ministries to state their

progress on the switch to Hindi and their plans for the period after the transition date in

1965. The news of this directive led to massive riots and self-immolations in Tamil Nadu in

late 1964 and early 1965, leading the central government, then run by the Congress to back

away from its stand. A conference of Congress leaders, cabinet ministers, and chief

ministers of all the states was held in New Delhi in June 1965. Non-Hindi-speaking states

were assured that Hindi would not be imposed as the sole language of communication

between the central government and the states as long as even one state objected. In

addition any of the Scheduled Languages could be used in taking examinations for entry into

the central government services.

Before independence in 1947, the Congress was committed to redrawing state boundaries

to correspond with linguistics. The States Reorganisation Commission, which was formed in

1953 to study the problems involved in redrawing state boundaries, viewed language as an

important, although by no means the sole, factor. Other factors, such as economic viability

and geographic realities, had to be taken into account. The commission issued its report in

1955; the government's request for comments from the populace generated a flood ofpetitions and letters. The final bill, passed in 1956 and amended several times in the 1960s,

by no means resolved even the individual states' linguistic problems.

Even regions with a long history of agitation for a linguistic state sometimes have found the

actual transition less than smooth. For example, proponents began lobbying for a Te-lugu-

speaking state in the early twentieth century. In 1956 the central government formed a

single state, Andhra Pradesh, composed of the predominantly Telugu-speaking parts of

what in British India had been the Madras Presidency and the large polyglot princely state of

Hyderabad. Although more than 80 percent of the residents (some 53 million people as of

1991) of Andhra Pradesh speak Telugu, like most linguistic states it has a sizable linguistic

minority. In this case, the minority consists of Urdu speakers centred in the state's capital,

Hyderabad, where nearly 40 percent (some 1.7 million people in 1991) of the population

speak that language. Linguistic affinity did not form a firm basis for unity between the two

regions from which the state had been formed because they were separated by cultural and


5/15

5 | P a g e

economic differences. Although there were riots in the late 1960s and early 1970s in

support of the formation of two separate states, the separation did not occur.

The violence that broke out in the state of Assam in the early 1980s reflected the

complexities of linguistic and ethnic politics in South Asia. The state has a significant number

of Bengali-speaking Muslims-immigrants and their descendants who began settling the

region in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The Social Context of Language:Contemporary languages and dialects, as they figure in the

lives of most Indians, are a far cry from the stylized literary forms of Indo-Aryan or Dravidian

languages. North India especially can be viewed as a continuum of village dialects. As a

proverb has it, "Every two miles the water changes, every four miles the speech." In some

cases, a variety of caste dialects coexist in the same village or region. In addition, there are

numerous regional dialects that villagers use when doing business in nearby towns or

bazaars.

Since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, regional languages, such as

Bengali, Punjabi, and Marathi, have become relatively standardized and are now used

throughout their respective states for most levels of administration, business, and social

intercourse. Each is associated with a body of literature. British rule was an impetus for the

official codification of these regional tongues. British colonial administrators and

missionaries learned regional languages and often studied their literatures, and their

translations of English-language materials and the Bible encouraged the development of

written, standard languages. Industrialization, modernization, and printing gave a major

boost to the vocabulary and standardization of regional tongues, especially by making

possible the wide dissemination of dictionaries.

Such written forms still often differ widely from spoken vernaculars and village dialects.

Diglossia-the coexistence of a highly elaborate, formal language alongside a more colloquial

form of the same tongue-occurs in many instances. For example, spoken Bengali is so

divergent from written Bengali as to be nearly another tongue. Similarly, Telugu scholars

waged a bitter battle in the early twentieth century over proper language style. Reformers

favored a simplified prose format for written Telugu, while traditional classicists wished to

continue using a classical literary poetic form. In the end, the classicists won, although a


6/15

6 | P a g e

more colloquial written form eventually began to appear in the mass media. Diglossia

reinforces social barriers because only a fraction of the populace is sufficiently educated to

master the more literary form of the language.

The standard regional language may be the household tongue of only a small group of

educated inhabitants of the region's major urban centre that has long exercised politico-

economic hegemony in a region. Even literate villagers may have difficulty understanding it.

The more socially isolated--women and Dalits tend to be more parochial in their speech

than people of higher caste, who are often able to use a colloquial form of the regional

dialect, the caste patois, and the regional standard dialect. An educated person may master

several different speech forms that are often so different as to be considered separate

languages. Western-educated scholars may well use the regional standard language mixed

with English vocabulary with their colleagues at work. At home, a man may switch to a more

colloquial vernacular, particularly if his wife is uneducated. Even the highly educated

frequently communicate in their village dialects at home.

Only around 3 percent of the population (about 28 million people in 1995) is truly fluent in

both English and an Indian language. By necessity, a substantial minority are able to speak

two Indian languages; even in the so-called linguistic states, there are minorities who do not

speak the official language as their native tongue and must therefore learn it as a second

language. Many tribal people are bilingual. Rural-urban migrants are frequently bilingual in

the regional standard language as well as in their village dialect. In Bombay, for example,

many migrants speak Hindi or Marathi in addition to their native tongue. Religious

celebrations, popular festivals, and political meetings are typically carried on in the regional

language, which may be unintelligible to many attendees. Bilingualism in India, however, is

inextricably linked to social context. South Asia's long history of foreign rule has fostered

what Clarence Maloney terms "the linguistic flight of the elite." Language--either Sanskrit,

Persian, or English--has formed a barrier to advancement that only a few have been

fortunate enough to overcome.

Throughout the twentieth century, radio, television, and the print media have fostered

standardization of regional dialects, if only to facilitate communication. Linguistic

standardization has contributed to ethnic or regional differentiation insofar as language has


7/15

7 | P a g e

served as a cultural marker. Mass communication forces the adoption of a single standard

regional tongue; typically, the choice is the dialect of the majority in the region or of the

region's preeminent business or cultural centre. The use of less standard forms clearly labels

speakers outside their immediate home base. To fulfil its purposes, the regional language

must be standardized and taught to an increasing percentage of the population, thereby

encroaching both on its own dialects and the minority languages of the region. The language

of instruction and administration affects the economic and career interests and the self-

respect of an ever-greater proportion of the population.


8/15

8 | P a g e

The First Linguistic State:

In 1953, the movement that led to the creation of the state of Andhra Pradesh. This act was

consistent with Gandhi's wishes and with established Congress policy, yet it grated with the

Prime Minister of the day. He could see that the formation of Andhra would lead to similar

demands by other linguistic groups. The success of the Andhras did embolden other

communities to come out stinging. There was now a major campaign for Samyukta or

Greater Karnataka, aiming to unite Kannada speakers spread across the states of Madras,

Mysore and Hyderabad. The Malayalis wanted a province of their own, bringing together

the erstwhile princely states of Cochin and Travancore with Malabar. There was also a

Mahagujarat movement. But, in terms of mass base and popular appeal, the most

significant of the post-Andhra linguistic struggles was that which spoke for Samyukta

Maharashtra.

After Andhra, the Government of India set up a States Reorganisation Committee (SRC). Its

report, submitted in 1955, pretty much conceded that India would be reorganised according

to linguistic provinces. But some questions remained. The most serious was the future of

India's most prosperous city, Bombay. Would it go to Maharashtra, since it had more

Marathi speakers than speakers of other languages, and since the areas contiguous to it

would anyway form part of the state? Or would it go to Gujarat, since the Gujaratis had

invested so heavily in its development? Or, since there were many other linguistic groups in

Bombay, would it be constituted as some kind of autonomous, multicultural city-state?

The Battle of Bombay:

The question of Bombay's future came up for discussion in the Lok Sabha on November 15,

1955. Strongly pushing the city-state alternative was the Marathi-speaking M.P. from

Bombay, S.K. Patil. His city, said Patil, had a "cosmopolitan population in every respect; it

had been built upon the labour of everybody". It was, he continued, cosmopolitan in theory

as well as in practice: here "everybody thinks in terms of common citizenship".

This is what Patil said in Parliament, and he later expanded on the theme in a newspaper

interview. The prospective city-state of Bombay, he told the paper, would "be a miniature

India run on international standards ... (A) melting pot which will evolve a glorious new


9/15

9 | P a g e

civilisation ... And it is an extraordinary coincidence that the population of the city should be

exactly one per cent of the population of the whole country. This one per cent drawn from

all parts of the country will set the pace for other states in the practice of secularism and

mutual understanding."

Patil asked the Maharashtrians to give up their claim on Bombay in the spirit of

compromise. The plea was rejected in ringing tones by the M.P. from Pune, N.V. Gadgil.

Speaking immediately after Patil in the Lok Sabha, Gadgil insisted that while he was in

favour of compromise, "there is a limit. That limit is, nobody can compromise one's self-

respect, no woman can compromise her chastity and no country its freedom". The reports

of protest meetings should make it clear "that anything short of Samyukta Maharashtra with

the city of Bombay as capital will not be acceptable". If these sentiments went unheeded,

warned Gadgil, then the future of Bombay would be decided on the streets of Bombay.

The Maharashtrians were being urged to accept the loss of Bombay in the name of national

unity. Gadgil protested against this unsubtle attempt at blackmail. The last 150 years, he

said, had seen Maharashtrians contributing selflessly to the growth of national feeling.

Marathi speakers founded the first schools and universities, and helped found the Indian

National Congress.

Note that both S.K. Patil and V.N. Gadgil belonged to the same party, the Congress. The

party's High Command finally decided to recommend to the Government of India that

Bombay be made a city-state. Regional sentiments were disregarded, sparking widespread

protests. In the 1957 elections the Congress was routed by an opposition front uniting under

the banner of Samyukta Maharashtra. The anger spilled over into the streets. In 1960, the

Government of India conceded the right of the Maharashtrians over Bombay.

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.


10/15

10 | P a g e

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 or 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 Bal Thackeray's Shiv Sena.

Assam

In the case of Andhra Pradesh, the minority consists of Urdu speakers centred in the state's

capital, Hyderabad, where nearly 40 percent (some 1.7 million people in 1991) of the

population speak that language. Linguistic affinity did not form a firm basis for unity

between the two regions from which the state had been formed because they were

separated by cultural and economic differences. Although there were riots in the late 1960s

and early 1970s in support of the formation of two separate states, the separation did not

occur. The violence that broke out in the state of Assam in the early 1980s reflected the

complexities of linguistic and ethnic politics in South Asia. The state has a significant number

of Bengali-speaking Muslims -- immigrants and their descendants who began settling the

region in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Muslims came in response

to a British-initiated colonization plan to bring under cultivation land left fallow by the

Assamese. By the 1931 census, the Assamese not only had lost a hefty portion of their land

but also had become a disadvantaged minority in their traditional homeland. They

represented less than 33 percent of the total population of Assam, and the Muslim

immigrants (who accounted for roughly 25 percent of the population) dominated commerce

and the government bureaucracy. Assamese-Bengali rioting started in 1950, and in the 1951

census many Bengalis listed Assamese as their native tongue in an effort to placate the

Assamese. Further immigration of Bengali speakers after the formation of Bangladesh in

1971 and a resurgence of pro-Bengali feeling among earlier immigrants and their

descendants reawakened Assamese fears of being outnumbered. Renewed violence in the

early and mid-1980s was sufficiently serious for the central government to avoid holding

general elections in Assam during December 1984.


11/15


12/15

12 | P a g e

Finally, the Sikh demand for a separate state is an embarrassing end result of Nehru's own

mistakes. After the Prime Minister backed down spring and allowed the division of Bombay

State between the Marathi and Gujarati language groups, the Punjabi-speaking Sikhs

became the only one of India's 14 major constitutionally recognized linguistic groups

without a separate state. Nehru and the reigning Congress Party contend that the Sikhs are

less a linguistic entity than a religious community.

Recent Divisions:

The recent creation of three smallstates - Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh - within

India has raised some interesting issues about the territorial scale of such constitutional

units and their relationship with the Republic as a whole. These issues need to be spelt out

at some length; in order to enable us to comprehend the prospect they hold out for the

social and economic growth of the Republic, collectively, and the states of the Republic,

individually, in the future. To throw some light on the issues, the political map of our

country is still substantially a legacy of the mapping exercises carried out during the colonial

dispensation in the 19th century. The political context for the crystallisation of the three

small states referred to above - Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh - is provided by the

recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) of 1955, which took a

retrospective look at the map of India, as reflected in the provinces created under British

rule. How has the recent emergence of three small states - Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and

Chattisgarh - affected the states of the Indian Union as they were mapped out in the 1950s?

Three observations need to be voiced before we can answer this question: first, a variety of

sub-regional units within the existing states of the Republic have staked a claim for a

separate identity of their own; second, the level of economic development which India has

attained today calls for a more spatially dispersed pattern of industrialisation, than has been

carried out hitherto; and third, the development of democratic institutions within the

villages plus the need for a second generation green revolution. Therefore, that the recent

creation of three small states within the Indian Union necessarily calls for a novel

reorganisation of the territorial units within the Republic. But the process of territorial

reorganisation unleashed in the last few years is likely to stimulate similar demands in other

parts of the country. Smaller states, it is generally believed, lend themselves readily to

efficient political and economic management.


13/15

13 | P a g e

Pros and cons of having linguistic states:

"One State, one language" is a universal feature of almost every State. Examine the

constitution of Germany, France, Italy, England, and U.S.A. "One State, one language" is the

rule. Wherever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a danger to the

State. The illustrations of the mixed States are to be found in the old Austrian Empire and

the old Turkish Empire. India cannot escape this fate if it continues to be a conger of mixed

States. The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a multi-lingual State unstable are

quite obvious. A State is built on fellow feeling. What is this fellow-feeling? To state briefly it

is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it

feel that they are kith and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of

fellowship for ones own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those who are not one's own

kith and kin. It is a feeling of "consciousness of kind " which on the one hand, binds together

those who have it so strongly that it over-rides all differences arising out of economic

conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their

kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group.

The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation of a stable and democratic State. This is

one reason why a linguistic State is so essential. But there are other reasons why a State

should be unilingual. There are two other reasons why the rule "one State, one language" is

necessary. One reason is that democracy cannot work without friction unless there is fellow-

feeling among those who constitute the State. Faction fights for leadership and

discrimination in administration are factors ever present in a mixed State and are

incompatible with democracy.

The present State of Bombay is the best illustration of the failure of democracy in a mixed

State. With Bombay as a mixed State for the last 20 years, with the intense enmity between

the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis, only a thought less or an absent-minded person could put

forth such a senseless proposal.


14/15

14 | P a g e

Conclusion

The former State of Madras is another illustration of the failure of democracy in a mixed

State. The formation of a mixed State of United India and the compulsory division of India

into India and Pakistan are other illustrations of the impossibility of having democracy in a

mixed State. We therefore want linguistic States for two reasons. To make easy the way to

democracy and to remove racial and cultural tension. But the dangers of a Linguistic state

can be stated as follows. A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language

may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an independent

nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be

Modern India we have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States

indulging in rivalry and warfare.


15/15

15 | P a g e

Bibliography:

1.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

2.http://www.time.com

3.http://dol.nic.in

4.http://en.wikipedia.org

5.http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag

6.http://www.ambedkar.org

Documents

Constitutional Law III