India’s Silent Revolutionaries
“Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” Ian Fleming, in Goldfinger.
In 60 years of post-colonial India, 3 significant developments will win the award for deepest impact – but least appreciated or known.
Potti Sreeramulu - Spirit Of The Linguistic State Reorganization (Image source - hindu.com). Click for larger image.
1953 – The Language Genie
An issue on which the colonial rulers ‘set up’ the new rulers of India for failure was on the contentious issue of language. Rightly, the colonial rulers pointed out that there never has been a successful country with so many languages.
Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose were all for one national language – much like numerous western countries, whose success they so wanted to rival or exceed. And the language of their choice was Hindi.
What kept Europe divided, amongst many things (not that they need help), is language. Belgians (a country with 1 crore population; smaller than Chennai) are being prepared for probable split between the Flemish and the French speaking populations. Canada has been at the precipice for 100 years – torn between two languages. The Balkans , homeland of Alexander the Great (who wanted to make one world), have been at each other for the last 80 years – after they became independent of the Ottoman Empire.
There never has been a country, in modern history, which has had 2-3 languages, without splitting at the seams. One man, who is forgotten and who made a difference was Potti Sreeramulu. A believer and follower of Gandhiji, he pushed Nehru for re-organising India on linguistic lines. Nehru vacillated. Potti Sreeramulu, like Gandhiji, went on ahunger strike. Nehru ignored Potti Sreeramulu’s hunger strike. Potti Sreeramulu died.
The ground swell of international (and also domestic) opinion forced Nehru’s hand. He was left with little choice. And India has since then been administered on linguistic lines. This has given enough space for every sub-culture – without diluting their renewed Indian identity.
In the meantime, Indians have become adventurous in their integration. Idli and Dosa are a part of a Punjabi households and salwar kameez have become popular in Kerala. Hindi film industry is second only to Telugu film industry.
If India had followed colonial administration’s advice of one national language, Tamil Nadu would definitely have seceded in the 1960’s. Ask Sri Lanka. I do hope that Malaysia does not make the Sri Lankan mistake.
1991 – Problems From Outside
Rajiv Gandhi came back from Sriperumbudur in a coffin. Assam problem seemed beyond resolution. The common Indian had given up on Punjab. The 1984 anti Sikh riots only strengthened the negative outlook. Kashmir was simmering. The Indian electorate had given a fractured mandate. A hung Parliament.
Indian economy was going downhill – and nothing seemed to get the economy out of the “Hindu rate of growth”. India was on the verge of a debt default. Indian debt was downgraded by western rating agencies. The Asian Tigers had done wonders – under US tutelage. China was furiously reforming – and succeeding at it. USSR India’s faithful ally, was breaking up. Corruption was endemic and every politician was an Untouchable – nobody or anything could touch them. There were no laws. Many across the world shook their head and could be heard saying, “I knew … I told you … It had to happen …”
All bets on India were off.
A “intellectual” politician, was called back from retirement – to become Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao. Forgotten today.
By 1995, he set up India for today’s growth. In a matter of 4 years, he cleared 40 years of cobwebs. The direction that he put India on has been now been followed for more than 15 years – with great success by more than 5 Prime Ministers. His biggest success was accountability. Heads of administration do not appear in a court of law – which PVN did. Election Commission, CAG, Supreme Court acquired fangs – earlier docile shadows of their purported design of BR Ambedkar.
1992 – The New Paradigm
One of India’s chronic under performer, Andhra Pradesh got a new Chief Minister – N. Chandra Babu Naidu. In the next 9 years, Andhra Pradesh moved in the Top 5 investment destinations.
Technology savvy, focused, driven – he changed the political idiom in India. State governments now pattern themselves along Naidu’s lines. Privatisations (instead of expanding public sector), tax cuts (instead of increases), administration automation (instead of increased recruitments), hand picked bureaucrats with a development agenda (instead of personal loyalty agenda earlier) were the cornerstones of his strategy. His state administration reform agenda convinced PM Vajpayee to commend Naidu’s template to other state governments to follow.
The Source
These 3 reformers were from Andhra Pradesh – carved out of the earlier Nizam state. The Nizam state was the largest Indian state (in Europe or any other part of Asia, it would have been a few countries) – ruled by an Indian ruler. The last Nizam of Hyderabad, considered at one time the richest man in the world, was also a very simple man. Famously, he never threw away half smoked cigarettes – frugality for world’s richest man. Especially, when other Indian Nawabs out did each other with their spending and peccadilloes in London and Paris.
Andhra Pradesh (most of) was not administered by colonials. Hyderabad is the largest modern Indian city – without a history of Colonial administration. Kolkatta, Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, New Delhi were cities ruled by Colonial India administration before the creation of the Indian Republic.
Indian consumer companies test market their products in Hyderabad frequently – as it lends itself to the Indian idiom. Other major metros (with a history of colonial administration) many a time give a “false positive”. Andhra Pradesh supports the world’s largest film industry – bigger than Hollywood and of course, Mumbai film industry.
Two significant creative minds were adopted by Hyderabadis as their cultural mascots. One was Allama Iqbal of “सारे जेहान से अच्छा हिंदुस्तान हमारा” “Saare Jehan Se achcha Hindustan Hamara” fame.
Chirkan, the second mascot, is the “poet” of dirty ditties. Chirkan was the irreverent break from the feudal and colonial Indian mindset – before the Indian Republic.
His rhymes on Qutub minar (a phallic symbol of feudal /colonial majesty of another era) have been repeated by every school child as his very own. He was feted at cultural events – and was a legend in his lifetime. His “sher” on a princess (the Nizam’s daughter) is repeated by schoolboys even today with raging hormones. It is to the Nizam’s credit that Chirkan was not persecuted – but given a token punishment of banishment from Hyderabad.
Forgotten today by the mainstream, Chirkan’s books still circulate in the underground. Chirkan’s rhymes and jokes spread to all of India. 75 years later, every teenager makes his rites of passage with Chirkan’s jokes. Most of Mumbai film industry’s dirty jokes are a take off on Chirkan.
Related articles
- ‘India’ (nytimes.com)
2ndlook 
Anuraag,
While I am impressed by most of your posts, this one surprised me; your first point in particular. I would have expected a more unconventional position – consistent with your other articles.
Here’s a relevant portion from something I am working on, that poses a contrarian perspective. As you would notice – I am not disputing your basic argument, but simply providing a different context.
—-
….
European polity has dominated modern discourse in recent times. Western notions of a nation evolved from their tribal roots, where linguistic and cultural identities eventually defined their political units as nations. With influences of the three Semitic religious during varying periods, this rigidity was reinforced. These religions derive their own identity from books, each considered as the “final” word from God, therefore unique and superior to others. Tribal identities and later religious dogmas were often the implicit glue that bound European warring factions together, eventually creating nation states that had distinct identities. Recently there is an attempt in Europe to reassess the impliability of these attributes. Since the late twentieth century Europe is making an attempt to politically unite these disparate nations.
Indic thought, however, is in complete contrast to these western experiments in nation building. Western notions of a nation therefore, can never apply to India. In India’s history – not a single major empire ever was limited to one language group. From Ashok to the Mughals, empires enlarged and shrunk, but language was never a primary criteria in their identity. Not the Vijayanagar empire, or the Marathas. For the English and other European intellectuals, in their own sense of logic, the Indian identity was too nebulous to be considered a nation….
Parag Tope
From an upcoming book: “Operation Red Lotus, Tatya Tope and the Anglo-Indian War of 1857”
To be published in 2008 by Rupa and Co.
….
Wow! Whatta shot!!
Thanks for your superb question!! It needs a long answer! So brace yourself!!
The way I see it …
1. A nation is a political entity with issues of governance and legality, courts, army, defence. Political boundaries in India have, may and will keep changing – with a lot of bloodshed, persecution, costs (like in Europe).
2.Or these can change under a bigger cultural framework – that is India. India can grow! Sikkim joined the Indian Union – and Tibet wanted to. India was not in position to manage the union of Tibet. Similarly, other smaller countries may want to join the Indian Union – later.
3.In the modern discussions, (especially in English Language) we equate national framework with a cultural framework also. But these need not (and in India’s case) are not congruent.
4.To illustrate, Sankaracharya in the 11th century pushed the advaita philosophy; Hindu revival and created the chaar dhaam (the fourth teerth sthan – Rameshwaram /Kanyakumari; Jagannath Puri; Gangotri /Jamunotri and Benaras /Haridwar). These were politically different areas; linguistically different areas – but Bharat (that is India) was one. Every Hindu follows a different Hindusism (yet as Allama Iqbal says) we are all Hindus and Hindis.
5.Language, religion, literature, in India, are irrespective political boundaries.
6.For the post-colonial Indian (political) nation state to survive and prosper, we needed a mechanism which would allow different sub-cultural identities to prosper and flex. And that is what Potti Sreeramulu pushed and got. And we have survived and will hopefully prosper!
7.Hence, yes, you are right. India will not unite or divide on the basis of language! It will grow or break up as a nation state because of political /administrative mismanagement.
8.And India can also break up! And the ‘apparent’ reason for a break up can be anything!! Language, law, religion, culture, height, weight, colour!! So, the modern Indian state precluded, by its inclusive design, that beak up did not happen for these ‘reasons’.
9.So, actually, we are both talking the same thing. Europeans, (like Africans) are a lot tribal. Remove the gloss and the sheen – they are (both) tribals.
10.India, after 4500 years of civilisation, is different.
11.It is not language. We have layers within sub-cultures!! (How does one deal with that??)
12.There are three Marathis – Konkan Marathi, Marathwada and Vidarbha. There are three Telugu languages – Rayalaseema, (AP’s first capital was Kurnool in Rayalaseema area); Andhra and Telangana. The Telugu spoken in these three areas is different.
13.My mother tongue is Hindi – and I can say that if the Hindi chauvinists had got their way, we would surely done down. It would not have been the language – it would have been the chauvinism that would have got everybody’s goat!!
14.It is not laws. Within the same state (Kerala, Assam, Andhra have both matriarchal /matrilineal societies and patriarchal communities). And to imagine that some misdirected “youth” talk about a uniform civil code.
15.It is definitely not religion – my Hinduism is unique. Nobody else in the world practices it the way I do! I am sure your Hinduism is too! You can be atheist Hindu also! As long as we share the same common values of humanity!!
16.And as Pakistan’s national poet, Allama Iqbal (Tarana-e-Hind) says, Hindi hai hum. Yes, we like that only!!
#1-#9 – Excellent. I think – we seem to be in agreement about some core issues of India’s history and polity.
—-
#10 – as you point out in some other posts, the 4,500 could be a higher number.
#11-#13 – see below
#14 and #15 –
I am almost positive that you don’t meant to dilute “Hinduism”… but there’s a risk in extending your argument too much. Read Rajiv Malhotra’s excellent post on this subject. http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm
in general addressing #14 and #15 – is very very tricky. Again – take the basic point in my response. A uniform civil code – in the context of western thought automatically is very rigid. However – India can look to its own experiences for answer. While I am no expert on law, this book review reveals some interesting insights. http://www.hindu.com/lr/2003/11/02/stories/2003110200290300.htm
India’s current constitution has made things far more rigid than India’s own experiences. Consider the facets of Hindu law in terms of inheritance and dowry. In all likelyhood – the current framework for the Hindu code possibly came into existence in the last 300-400 years – as the Indian economy began to stagnate, before its precipitous fall in the eighteenth century.
In a stagnating economy, mobility of labor was limited… sons stayed home – since opportunities were limited elsewhere (this was also the period of increased nepotism that translated into the rigidity of social hierarchy) Daughters in India, in general, were encouraged to marry outside their villages, (possibly to widen the gene pool) and sons stayed in the same village. With limited resources, larger family structures began to emerge… Again – in a dynamic economy – mobility of labor is much higher… only in stagnating economies would the sons have had to stay home (not all got Visa’s to come to the west 200 years ago 🙂 Consider a family that had 2 sons and 2 daughters and say owned 10 acres of land and 25 tola gold. If the daughters were to leave when they were married… what would be a fair way for inheritance? Fair parents might give away most of their liquid assets, 10 tolas each to the daughters when they were married. The sons would inherit the land, and take care of the parents in their old age. The daughters had to forego their right on the land. This – in a stagnating economy – was logical and fair. There is a debate about – how the Hindu law existed when India’s economy was dynamic and sons were leaving their villages… were parents saving for their old age then? again – western “scholars” tell us that India’s culture has been static for thousands of years… that the way our grandparents lived has been the way forever. But if the economy was dynamic and the sons had better options in far off places – this model of inheritance could not have worked… Hindu law – must have addressed the dynamics… including the cultural variations that you point out.
After the English rule was complete, there were attempts to tinker with Hindu law – especially Act 21 (I think) of 1850… but after 1857, the English backed of from messing with Hindu law… but Congress did what the English could not do… they created a rigid framework for a unified Hindu code post 1950. Its inherent rigidity put India in a perpetual firefighting mode… dowry was banned in the 60s and daughters still had little or no right on inherited land when the father died without a will. Most fair parents continued to give gold to their daughters… with the intention of leaving the land and property for their sons – who would take care of them… we made them implicitly criminals, because they were practicing the “evil” dowry system. Then came the growth of landed assets and near stagnation of gold prices… daughters and her in-laws wanted a part of the action… then came the laws that mandated equal distribution of landed assets… now the daughters could benefit from appreciating property values… even daughters who had received gold… there were lawsuits galore… in addition a dynamic economy encouraged nuclear families… many sons did/could not take care of their implicit duties… extortion began… and daughter-in-laws were burnt… what was a fair inheritance law – suddenly became a monster… and Hinduism was to blame… our current constitution, while not “uniform” – is too rigid to handle the chaos from inflation and growth, how do you expect it to handle variations in cultures, sub-cultures and religion. India’s constitution – while not “uniform” is the most rigid that India has *ever* seen in its history.
A “uniform” law – that recognizes not only cultural variations but also economic dynamics is the core of Indian polity. The entire basis of our current constitution was to amplify divisions rather than recognize India’s inherent ability to handle diversity… Again – the same context as the basis for this thread… the flexible yet coherent definition of India can apply to the legal framework… Most liberals shudder when the hear the word “uniform” because they think of western fascism – which can *never* exist in India. Even a parliamentary debate on the subject was shot down 8-9 years ago… even the “educated” elite automatically assumed that it meant “regression.”
#12/13 – In India’s history, the languages of the rulers changed the administrative structure, but did not alter the lives of the people linguistically. This was because education was completely privatized. India’s rulers had no jurisdiction over education. This changed in 1835 with Bentinck’s proclamation. Literacy dropped dramatically when private schools were shut down because they did not meet the criteria of the “reforms” that were introduced. Post 1947, the government continued to follow the same policy. Most liberals cannot imagine a successful educational model without governmental involvement… (this is a huge debate – so I’d rather not go there if you happen to be one of them 🙂 Therefore – enforcing “hindi” automatically meant all the way down to the schools… creating the radical reactions that you mention.
If Hindi was forced at an administrative level, not at an educational level – just like most Indian rulers in the past did, the visceral reaction would not have existed…
#11 – I suspect that a dynamic economy naturally handles diversity… a stagnant economy creates these sub-layers as you point out. I personally believe – that these “sub-cultures” that exist within Maharashtra for example – were radically different say 200 years ago and probably more so 400 years and so on.
—
The fact is that whether Indians like it or not – we are living in a world dominated by European thought… so one cannot pretend that the last 300 or so years didn’t happen. So I won’t.
but one can’t throw caution to the wind… when dowry deaths had reached epidemic proportions in the 90s… Hillary Clinton – in her speech 10 years ago – said it is the “moral duty” of America to “save India’s burning brides…” Liberal Indians and feminists cheered… is this liberal rhetoric different than Christian missionaries who want to “save” India from the dark forces of its “pagan” heritage?
The way forward – is a lot more complex and dynamic… given that a large section of Indian intellectuals would agree with the kind of liberal rhetoric above… the plausible solutions will have to unwind the last 170 years (post 1835 – and yes – including the last 60 years) of intellectual servitude. The answers IMO, are not intuitive, and might on the surface – create an impression of India’s retrograding (especially to the English speaking liberal elite) but necessary.
The best way forward in the *long term* (repeat long term) is for the government to leave people alone… make smaller states… government should be out of education… completely! that is India’s history and that is India’s strength. Combine that with India’s history of free markets and mobility of labor (eliminate need to domicile certificates, ration cards) – you would see an India that “evolves”… old sub-cultures might die their “natural” death and new cultures will emerge… India’s strength has been it dynamic social hierarchy, for which a dynamic economy was a pre-requisite. The 1700s and later witnessed a dramatic collapse of the economy, creating the rigidity in social hierarchy…
…the path to this long term goal is difficult… a non-linear path, like switchbacks while hiking up a mountain range… there will be times when you will have to go sideways and even down into the valleys…
will India’s liberal elite, obsessed with the linearity progress, allow that to happen?
#16 – …can Indians continue to say – with confidence – “we are like that only??” 🙂
Parag
Regarding the marriage practices: –
In various South Indian, Maharashtrian, North East parts of India, daughters are encouraged to marry inside the family! And family wealth is also passed from mother to daughter in some cases. Sons-in-law go to the brides house. Daughters marrying outside the village (to widen the genetic pool) is an Indo Gangetic practice.
So, like I was saying there is not 1 India. It is 1 country, 2 histories and many people.
Diluting Hinduism
Hinduism is as strong as Hindu believers, followers and leaders are! If Hindu believers, followers and leaders are NOT confident and strong enough to sustain the humanizing influence, then Hindusim deserves to die! Let us compete and may the best culture win!! And right now we are far ahead in the race.
More than 50% of the world population follows Indic culture. Without wars, massacres, and persecution!!
If some other religions are not in a position to appreciate competitive practices, that is their problem! As long as they do not mess with my practices.
Economic stagnation
Will happen at times. Are we prepared! Can we let temporary setbacks change our world view?
Nationalisation Of Education
Good starting point on an Education reforms agenda.
Your distinction between administrative Language and The Language Of General Discourse is an excellent idea.
Creation of layers, sub cultures are a sign of a vibrant economy, diverse culture and creative instincts. I like the diversity!! I do not think this layering and sub cultures happened due to stagnation or sloth.
I don’t see any domination Of European Thought – but I do see vigourous efforts at European propaganda.
The Last 300 years history – I suggest that you take a Secondlook!!! Different picture .. Different story.
Your Best Way Forward prescriptions will take us a long way forward.
Like Allama Iqbal said – Kuch baat hai ki hast mit-ti nahi … we are like that only!
Marriage practices – your point was taken earlier… I was indicating that our current constitution is too rigid to handle simple things such as economic changes, therefore we can’t really expect it to handle other variations (that you accurately point out). People who oppose revisions to the constitution are not concerned about the issues impacting Hindu Law – but the exceptions provided for other religious groups. I am suggesting getting rid of 4-5 sets of rigid laws for everyone, and replace them with a single, but flexible framework that reflects Indic thought… which was the underlying argument in my first response… I know for most liberals, this is a non-starter…
Diluting Hinduism – Your argument is too broad-brushed to be accepted in totality, but I see your point…
Layers/Sub-layers – Just to be clear, I was not taking a position on diversity. I was pointing out that in a thriving economy and when there is a high mobility of labor, the sub-layers tend to merge with each other (analogous to pouring one paint into another… if the jar holding the paint starts shaking – you get a new “combination” and the two old colors “disappear”) Again – I don’t see one better than the other… neither do I consider the natural death of an “old” culture anathema to a society… as long as it was not caused by any forceful change, especially government. I am Marathi – but I am not sure if I agree with the Maharashtra Government’s policy to fund Marathi movies to counter the influence of Hindi movies… although – I do miss watching a good Marathi movie or two, that is not sufficient a reason to either restrict Hindi movies or artificially prop up Marathi movies… primarily because I disagree with any enlarged role for the government. Perhaps in 10 years- the Marathi film-industry might disappear – but that’s life. Hindi’s influence in Maharashtra is largely market driven and a little bit government driven (5 years of Hindi in school). However this argument changes completely about English – since English is a government led monopoly in higher education… a logical extension of the Macaulay doctrine. Monopolies are bad… especially the one’s created by governments, and particularly when it means imposition of a foreign language.
Last 300 years – Any specific suggestions? I consider myself to be “reasonably knowledgeable” on this subject – but would love to hear any unconventional wisdom.
I might not be reading this right – Kuch baat hai ki hast mit-ti nahi (hast = ??? mit-ti = end or soil?)
Galeo Rhinus says, “I am suggesting getting rid of 4-5 sets of rigid laws for everyone, and replace them with a single, but flexible framework that reflects Indic thought… which was the underlying argument in my first response… I know for most liberals, this is a non-starter…”
Secondlook says – Let us throw out all this colonial Anglo-Saxon crap (though I do like this bit about innocent till proven guilty bit).
Galeo Rhinus says, “primarily because I disagree with any enlarged role for the government.”
Secondlook says – Less is more!!
Galeo Rhinus says, “this argument changes completely about English – since English is a government led monopoly in higher education… a logical extension of the Macaulay doctrine. Monopolies are bad… especially the one’s created by governments, and particularly when it means imposition of a foreign language.”
Secondlook says – Along with English, if Indians can handle French, Spanish, Chinese. Possibly also Arabic, Japanese and Russian and speak in any one Indian language properly, I will give away my right arm, left leg and one of the in-between (I have not decided which though, the left or right one)!!
यूनान-ओ-मीस्र-ओ रूमा, सब मीट गए जहाँ से, अब तक मगर है बाक़ी, नाम ओ नीशान हमारा,
कुछ बात है के हस्ती, मीटती नहीं हमारी, सदीओं रहा है दुश्मन, दौर ऐ ज़माना हमारा
iqbal’s
Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Ragheb Alama Website Team.
Hi, Ragheb. Trust your music is shaking and rocking everyone. Thanks for your comments. Glad to know you found these posts interesting.
[…] Gandhiji, Nehru, Narasimha Rao have renewed the Indian model – which is non-exploitative, stable and can bring equity and growth. It is this model that before others, India (and Indians) should believe in – and beat a modern path for the world to follow. […]
[…] Europe is making an attempt to politically unite these disparate nations.” (comment by Parag Tope, 2ndlook blog […]
Anurag,
I think you again got it wrong, when it comes to language.. you see the linguistic division of states in positive tone.. but you didnt explain, why telengana still wants to separate inspite of common telugu language?
Language is not a major criteria in our civilization.. it is the society at large..
For eg, in tamilnadu, the four culturally distinct regions dont mingle each other.. the north tamilnadu (thondai dhesam), west tamilnadu (chera dhesam), east tamilnadu (chola) and the southern one (pandya).. the cultural difference till now exists there, and distinguishes the region..
We can see similar patterns through out india.. in maharashtra, konkan region & marathwada region are still separate culturally..
Why does mithila want to separate from bihar? Why does Bhundelkand? Why does Gorkha land?
1991 is caused out of foolish socialist policies by congress govt.. and later liberalisation is NOT actually liberalisation.. its opening up of indian society to foreign vultures.. luckily, indians managed to survive the western onslaught.. Imagine, during 1991, every investment made by a western MNC is 40 times powerful than an indian counter part.. for eg, when a westerner puts in 1000 dollars, he gets 40,000 rupees in india.. but when an indian company puts in 1000 rs, he do not have the advantage..
I dont accept that liberalisation and globalisation is good for any one in this world.. Its not good both for the west and the east.. see the extensive corruption.. see the extensive cultural damage caused today.. Money cannot be a justifying factor for anything.. Else, prostitution would be the most ethical & easier business today..
Great discussion between Anurag and Parag. Perhaps with change of time, there would be more interesting perspectives that you 2 could bring in.