Summary of Sajal Nag’s ‘Multiplication of Nations?

Political Economy of Sub-Nationalism in India’

Unnayan Chandra

B.A. Honors (History)

Batch of 2020

Background (Pre-1947)

The author begins on a rather pessimistic and inconclusive tone when he points out the multiplicity of
movements- aspired and inspired by many factors viz. language, ethnicity, tribal status etc. – will define
whether India is nation-in-the-making or nation-in-the-unmaking. That the rejection of ‘elitist’
historiography which treated Indian National Movement in a unilinear fashion with Gandhi and Indian
National Congress as its central projections is unconvincing and inadequate has been pointed out by
many new trends of history writing which focuses on the many nationalities and regional aspirations-
cultural, ethnic and linguistic- that emerged during the National Movement has been pointed out. Thus
the fundamental assumption of ‘one nation-one national movement’ stands rejected which has
implications on the history of post-independent India. In fact, while during the discourse of pre-
independent India, Congress and its superficially untied movement acted as agent of appropriation of
these movement and thus undermining their independent status in the name of fighting against the
foreign rule, these movements have emerged with far more assertive vigor in the an independent India.

Rhetoric of administrative efficiency to suit the economic and political necessities of an imperialist
British Empire was the guiding light of division and determination of provincial boundaries during the
Raj. A further attempt at homogenizing Indian market to suit the Colonial Capitalist requirement
obfuscated the ordinary Indians- Gujarati-speaking territories under Bombay and Andhra Speaking
territories under Madras presidencies would be a case in point. Such organization created ethnic
tensions and hindered the growth of sub-nationalities. The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms considered
the linguistic reorganization of states impractical though they were in favor of small homogeneous
states. Many demands of regional-cultural reorganization were, however, persistently brushed aside by
the raj. Such neglect retarded the free economic, cultural and political development of these
nationalities, developed or incipient.

The principle of linguistic provinces was recognized by the Indian National Congress quite early as a key
to tackle the problems arising out of the multinational, multi-ethnic character of India which recognized
the principal of linguistic reorganization in the scheme of federal governance. the committee identified
the Assamese area, the Bengali area, the Oriya area, the Telugu, Tamil, Kanarese and Malayali areas, the
Marathi, Gujarati, and the Sindhi areas, and on the basis of the memoranda and representations
submitted by the respective ethnic and nationality groups for their constitution into separate province.
Strong cases were made of Karnataka and Sind as well.
The development of modern communication channels and industrial edge led to the cultural
advancement of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta where the first set of intelligentsia emerged which defied
their cultures and language in their own ways. This created the scope of subjugation of other cultures
which could not grow due to lack of social mobility and economic development. Thus, Bengal dominated
Bihar and Assam; Tamils dominated virtually entire southern parts of the sub-continent. While Bombay
(Marathi speaking) wanted economic domination, Gujarat wanted its own cultural hegemony (Maha-
Gujarat). These culturally advanced nationalities attempted unification of their territories- on the basis
of emotion on one hand and domination the other. Another process that was at work was the
nationality formation of groups, which were minorities within the presidencies-e g, Telugus and
Malayalis in the Madras presidency; Assamese, Oriyas and Biharis in Bengal presidency; the Gujaratis
and Kannadigas in Bombay presidency and so on. The minority groups resisted sometimes on the basis
of jobs opportunities and economic backwardness (Biharis against Bengalis), other times on the basis of
ethnic confrontation and exploitation of tribal in the hands of non-tribal (as seen in case of Jharkhand
and Chhattisgarh).

Immediate Challenges after 1947

Stark difference in the socio-political realities of the pre and post independent India compelled the
Congress to keep the principal of linguistic organization-one that was reiterated as late as 1937 and
1946- to the periphery. Issue of internal security and project of national integration were given priority
over claims and counter-claims that were overwhelmed in the politics of an infant nation struggling with
the wounds of bleeding partition. Subsequently a commission was set-up under Dar which noted that
the formation of provinces exclusively or even mainly on linguistic consideration is not in the larger
interest of the Indian nation and should not be taken in hand. Nehru formed yet another JVP committee
which submitted its report in 1949 and noted that we should prefer to postpone the formation of new
provinces for a few years so that we might concentrate during this period on other matters of vital
importance and not allow ourselves to be distracted by the question. Later, however, under
tremendous pressure of popular demand, mass discontent and rebellion of Congressmen at the
provincial level, the government was compelled to announce the establishment of Andhra province in
1953.

Immediately, similar claims and counter-claims were made from various quarters of the country. The
division of Punjab saw an added dimension religion where apart from the ubiquitous Hindu-Muslim
dichotomy, Sikhs were a major stakeholder. Urdu movement in Uttar Pradesh was equally religious in its
political manifestation. Maithili movement in north Bihar, however, was bereft of any sectarian demand
and movements in the North-East were mostly on the lines of ethnic considerations- the movement of
the ‘troubling’ Naga being most visible and prominent.

The Nehruvian Era

Nehru never objected to the principle of linguistic organization by his confidence was shattered by the
violence unleashed in the partition and refugee crisis of 1947 and the instability it caused to the
relatively stable quarters. He gave economic and national issues precedence over sub-national issues
and noted that a cooling-off period of ten years would be required to take up provincial causes. This was
indicated in the JVP committee’s report too. His fears came true when Andhra was given recognition on
the basis of language. While he appreciated the importance of a language in a community, he was not
wholly committed to the creation of mono- lingual province. As a matter of fact, by 1955, Nehru was
thinking of creating large composite city-states out of Bombay, consisting of the Gujarati and the
Marathi speaking areas including Vidarbha. This he felt would be the ideal way of having larger as well as
fewer states. He even went to the extent of persuading the chief ministers of Bengal and Bihar to agree
to merge with each other to form one state, while Madras agreed to include Travancore and Cochin.
There was even talk of a larger Dakshina Pradesh consisting of all the Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam
speaking areas.

Indian Bourgeoisie and Linguistic States

The opposition to the demand for linguistic provinces cane from another quartet-the Indian bourgeoisie.
In the wake of the demand for creation of a Samyukta Maharashtra, the Indian capitalist class struggling
to consolidate itself after independence became vociferous in opposing the theory of linguistic
provinces. The Indian Merchants Chamber, comprising leading industrialists and businessmen, adopted
violent opposition to the theory and its application for creating a unified Maharashtra. They had
panicked at the prospect of Bombay-the industrial city being transferred to the unified Marathi-
dominated. Maharashtra which could jeopardize their investments as most of these industrialists were
Gujaratis, Marwaris, Parsis and so on, i e, non-Marathis.

Interestingly, even after the consolidation of its hold over Indian economy and polity, the Indian
capitalists perpetuated its tirade against the movements. In other words the struggles of different
nationalities for self-rule and development were constantly attempted to be thwarted by the big
bourgeoisie and its allies holding the state power in India. The bourgeoisie class was fundamentally
opposed to the idea of decentralization of power and federalism since that would legal and physical
barriers to the flow of goods and services. Further, they opposed it also because growth of sub-national
culture would inevitably mean sharing power with local elites/bourgeoisie class. And, lastly, they were
unwilling to undo the homogenization and integration of market achieved during the Raj.

Hindi Nationalism

Yet another debate was surrounded by the question of Urdu vs. Hindi and Hindi vs. Non-Hindi
languages. The question of script (Devanagari vs. Urdu) and language was based on communal lines.
English was accepted practically because it would be ‘India’s window to the world’ on one hand and
language of science and technology on the other. Hindi was tossed in the politics of preference because
it had its origins in Sanskrit- thus it could serve as lingua franca and also because it was a legacy of
Nationalist movement. In the wake of the debate the country got divided into Hindi speaking versus
non- Hindi speaking groups. While the proponents of Hindi called for its recognition as the 'national'
language of the country, the representatives of the non-Hindi speaking people insisted that their
language was equally 'national'; and if Hindi was to be recognized, it could only be as the official
language of the union. The Constituent Assembly resolved this demand for retention of English for a
transitional period by granting Hindi the status of official language of the country, but postponing its
implementation for 15 years. In the meantime English would continue to be the official language of the
union and of inter-provincial communication, and the major regional languages would continue to be
used permanently in their own provinces and would also be recognized as 'national' languages through
their incorporation into the eighth schedule of the constitution. The compromise of 1965 was
introduced formally into the Official Language Act through the Official Language (Amendment) Act 1967.
The nature of the resolution of this long-standing controversial issue was basically bilingual. The act
provided for the joint use of Hindi and English in parliament, for the use of Hindi as the language of
communication between the centre and the Hindi speaking states and the use of English for
communication between the centre and non-Hindi speaking states. However, the act and the overall
compromise also contained multilingual elements particularly on the matter of the languages o f
communication for entry into union public service.

Conclusion-

The author concludes by saying that while most of these movements were seen as ‘secessionist’, they
actually never questioned the sovereignty of the nation. These movements were actually a result of the
aspirations of new classes and cultural sub-nationalities who wanted to, in fact, participate in the
process of nation building. He points out that with capitalism penetrating deeper into new geographical
areas and touching the lives of new class of people in the country, their political aspirations in form of
such movement seems unending. And, how the nation responds to them would actually decide whether
India is a nation-in-the-making or nation-in-the-unmaking.