Parag Banerjee
Today’s India was not like it
always. It has gone under several mergers, some forcefully and some
diplomatically, both were for the benefit of the ruling class of the then
India. As history is largely used to justify the oppressive unification of
nationalities in one nation, we need to revisit the history of formation of
India as a nation-state, and the formation of different states within India.
Indian sub-continent: before colonial rule
To trace the movements of
different nationalities, with respect to Indian nation-state, we need to trace
a brief history from many a years before to 1947. In pre-colonial India, there
was no one language or culture in this sub-continent. There were no well
defined geographical borders between one set of objective identity parameters
(like ethnicity, language, culture, religion, caste etc) and another. Though
there was a vague idea about a country named India, reflected in the writings
of then eminent persons, it was largely derived from the concept of a massive
landmass from the Himalayas in the north to the ocean in the south, which got
manifested from time to time. The major determining factor in the course of
history, behind the unification of all these differences to a single
nation-sate with same legal structure and tax-system was the interest of the
colonial rulers, to plunder the natural resources of this country and to create
a market for their imported goods. If the British had not come, the fate of
these ethnic groups and nationalities of this sub-continent would have been
different.
Movements during colonial India
The movements of different
nationalities started beginning within colonial India with ‘Andhra MahaSabha’
demanding for a separate Andhra Pradesh in 1911. For language-based creation of
states and education in mother tongue, movements were building up among the
Tamil, Malayali, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali and Oriya in the tumultuous times
of the anti-imperialist struggles of 1918-1922. From the Nagpur session of
Congress in 1920, their organisation building started to be based on linguistic
provinces. In 1929, headed by Motilal Nehru, the Nehru committee presented to
the Simon Commission their demand for language based provinces. But the
national leadership of congress started backtracking slowly and the assertion
of a nation-state came to focus alongside with the rise of anti-colonial
struggle throughout the country.
1947 and creation of Indian
nation-state
The aftermath of the ‘Two nation
theory’, demand for a separate state for Muslims, the bloody riots following
the Partition drowned the voices of different nationalities. After the exit of
the British the brown-skinned rulers started terming the voices of the
nationalities as signals of separatism and denied the demands for
language-based provinces. At this stage, the nationality movements were growing
mainly in the princely states ruled by feudal kings. The feudal interest of
these princely states, which earlier used to get support from the British, for
retaining their control over their subjects, started to switch to Indian state,
dreaming their interest would be saved. As a result the Indian state got
consolidated and the jubilant native rulers started injustice towards the
demands of the nationalities forgetting their earlier promises. In the
constitution of the ‘independent’ India, drafted in 1950, there were no rights
of self-determination, self-governance, and secession for the states. Almost
all powers rested in the hands of the central government. Instead of being a
republic based on self-governance, India built itself as a ‘prison-house of
nationalities’.
The annexation of territories to India
Under the June 3 plan, 562
princely states were given the option of joining either India or Pakistan or choosing
Independence. Indian nationalists and large segments of the public feared that
if these states did not accede, a vast majority of the people and territory
would be fragmented. The rulers of the princely states were not uniformly
enthusiastic about integrating their domains into independent India. By far the
most significant factor that led to the princes’ decision to accede to India
was the policy of the Congress, with Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel and V.P Menon playing the leading role. In
July 1946, Nehru pointed that no princely state could prevail militarily
against the army of independent India. In January 1947, he said that independent India would not accept the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and in May 1947, he declared that
any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be
treated as an enemy state. There was the use of both threat and diplomacy to
the kings but the question of peoples’ aspiration was never taken seriously. In
most of the cases these kings were very unpopular among their subjects, and
their choice was according to some vested interest and did never reflect the
aspirations of the people.
The reorganisation of states within India
The States Reorganisation
Commission (SRC) was the body constituted by the Central Government,
in 1953, to recommend the reorganization of state boundaries according to
linguistic basis. After nearly 2 years of study, the Commission recommended
that that India’s state boundaries should be reorganized to form 16 states and
3 union territories. Throughout the two years of its work, the Commission was
faced with meetings, demonstrations, agitations, and hunger strikes. The
strongest reaction against the SRC’s report and the States Reorganization Act came
from Maharashtra where widespread rioting broke out and eighty people were
killed in Bombay city in police firings in January 1956. From then on, there
were reflections of peoples’ aspirations in movements on behalf of people of
Kashmir, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Kerala,
Vidarbha, Gujarat, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, Punjab and peoples from different
origins of north-east. There is continuous state repression and a virtual
‘Army-rule’ and continuous violation of human rights in parts of Kashmir and
north-eastern states like Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal
Pradesh to suppress the peoples’ right to self determination.
Some cases of reorganization
The first re-organisation of
states on linguistic basis was merging Telangana with Andhra. Nehru commented–
‘An innocent girl called Telangana is being married to a naughty boy called
Andhra. It is their choice to continue or get separated.’ Even it was the will
of Telangana to get separated but it was only after huge bloodshed it was
carved off Andhra Pradesh, that too keeping in view 2014 Lok Sabha Election and
other calculations. The motive behind the merger was to exploit the natural
resources of Telangana, which later on became the cause for its separation.
The reason
cited for the formation of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand was mainly
‘administrative advantage’, hich turned out to be advantage of the MNC’s in
plunder of mines and other natural resources and advantage to control the
dissenting voices from the people. The case of Kashmir is probably among the
worst examples. Both the Indian and the Pakistani state along with Chinese,
fought with each other and caused to kill many civilians for decades, but none
care to give the people of Kashmir their right to self-determination.
The case of
Gorkhaland is somewhat different; demand of Gorkhaland and various other
aspects are discussed on other articles. The agenda here is to bind all the
nationality based movements. The State enunciates suppression if the movement
is against its political will.
Demand of self-determination and
its FIght
Among the upholders of Indian
nationalism there are debates regarding whether the formation of more small
states on language or nationality basis within Indian Territory will strengthen
Indian nationalism or weaken it. In the realms of administration and education
the all-India big bourgeoisie foists the English and Hindi languages throughout
the country and thereby stunts the development of the languages of the
nationalities. The language question may only be resolved by permitting
equality of the national languages. The Indian ruling classes attempts to
promote unity of the state on the basis of Hindi identity; it targets the
minority communities through anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh pogroms.
A
consistent democratic approach to the nationality question necessitates support
for the Kashmiri people, the demand of the Gorkhas etc and the nationalities of
the North-East. The solution to the problem of nationality struggles are
connected to end of the current centralized economic and political control by
the central government, the use of national languages in the administration and
education in the mother-tongue, a struggle against big national chauvinism of
the bigger nationalities and against fundamentalism particularly Hindi
fundamentalism. The establishment of a voluntary federation of the
nationalities based on the right to secession, autonomy for the minority
nationalities in each national republic is needed to proceed in the direction
of social equality and progress.
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment