Experiment of an assimilative state by Nehru

he reorganisation of states was always on the minds of leaders. The first sign of this were seen in 1920-21, when Congress leaders asked state units to reorganise on linguistic lines.

Thus, we saw the formation of the Bombay, Marathwada and Vidarbha Congress units. The basic principle of having states formed on linguistic lines was to make governance easier, facilitate better information gathering and also better communication. It was a universal assumption that people think best in their mother tongue.

Before independence, there were meetings and discussions in the constituent assembly when leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar wanted the formation of states on linguistic lines to be deferred. It was around the time of independence that they felt that linguistic passions would grow and eventually become a threat to national unity. They believed unity was far more important.

The leaders, especially Nehru, believed in the power of Indian plurality, which was assimilative and inclusive. He believed that it would lead to the betterment of culture and enhance the way of life, like in England.

But the fight for Andhra had already begun. There were riots, self-immolation incidents, and the demand for the formation of states on the basis of language was on the rise across the nation. By 1952, most southern states were formed.

While the states were being formed, questions still remained about the Gujarati- and Marathi-speaking population. That is when the agitation began in Maharashtra.

The Samyukta Maharashtra movement was depicted by some people, to an extent, as a class war to give an ideological edge to  the emotional appeal of a linguistic state. However, the fact is industries and trade were always run by non-Maharashtrians in Mumbai and elsewhere in the state.  

Many critics say that because of Mumbai, Maharashtra was made bilingual. However, in Mumbai, the two communities — Gujaratis and Maharashtrians — have always lived together for generations. Neither has existed as a purely linguistic unit. Just as people in Maharashtra faced agitations and state violence, so did the people of Gujarat.

The demand for the formation of a separate state was purely an issue of emotional identity. The basic thought being that the mother tongue is the source of knowledge. The leaders of that time did not specify their vision for a linguistic Maharashtra.

Their plans for the state and for the Marathi language were not known. The only exception was Shripat Amrit Dange who, as a leader of the masses, had vision and had spoken about it openly. None of the other leaders of the movement had spelt out their vision for Maharashtra.

On the other hand, there was Yashwantrao Chavan, who had visualised Maharashtra as a state for the people, farmers and workers. He saw Maharashtra as a cradle for Nehru’s idea of a socialistic pattern of society. Chavan appealed to the people to try out Nehru’s experiment of assimilative culture. Chavan firmly believed in the ideology that,

“First an Indian and then a Maharashtrian.” Chavan was a person of inclusive instinct, so when the Congress went ahead with the experiment of a bilingual state, they asked Chavan, who was the chief minister of Bombay, whether the concept was working. He reported that people weren’t happy and there were far too many problems.

There were two basic factors that prompted the formation of Maharashtra — the pressure exerted by Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti in Bombay, the Maha-Gujarat Samiti of Gujarat, and the diplomacy of YB Chavan in convincing Nehru of the futility of the experiment at that stage.

Since most of the other linguistic groups in India had got their own states, the decision on Gujarat and Maharashtra, too. needed to be taken.

The Congress then eventually took steps to form a separate Maharashtra with Mumbai as its capital. Within two years the Congress had won the Maharashtra elections.
Arun Sadhu is a former editor. He spoke to Neeta Kolhatkar