The founders of ancient Indian civilisation chose to use language as key criteria. And hence, most states grew to be identified with one language. This saga continues with the government giving the nod to Telangana… but India should take pride in its multiplicity.
Early builders of modern India perceived the prime role that English education could play in order to match up with the West. Imagine an India speaking French or Portuguese or even Arabic, as opposed to English. History witnessed not only the speakers of these languages ruled India, but also the Greeks and, for a short stint, an Egyptian ruler held sway over some parts of India.
No one can really speculate when Sanskrit, the grandmother of most Indian and, many European languages, really came into existence and, how many people in which era spoke this language. However, it is acknowledged that Indian civilization’s debt to Sanskrit is immense. India today speaks many more languages than all European countries put together. Hence, India has recognized how different parts of India would be divided into small states – to make governance easy. The founders chose to use language as on key criteria, and hence, most states are identified with one language.
Debating whether it was a good idea is futile now, since it is the reality of life. Though there was, and still exists a resistance to Hindi as a national language, majority of India has accepted this.
Splitting of states – sparked off before 1947
Breaking up and formation of states happened before 1947. For example – Bengal and Bihar and Orissa (together) were created in 1912. Then Orissa was born out of Bihar in 1936. In recent times, several states were carved out of the older larger ones – e.g. Jharkhand (strengthening the demand of a tribal homeland), Uttrakhand (ancient competing hill kingdoms of Garhwali and Kumaon came together as a composite region), Chhattisgarh (partitioning 16 Chhattisgarhi-speaking south-eastern districts). These were done not necessarily based on language, on some other factors. However, in case of Andhra Pradesh it is bit complicated; it was first a merger, and then, the talks were on a split.
When India got freedom in 1947 the Nizam of Hyderabad (the state which included current Andhra Pradesh state and more) wanted it o remain as an independent country inside India! In September 1948 this became a state of India (Hyderabad). Later in 1956, after many commissions and debates, the merging of Telengana took place, but under certain conditions. The State Reorganization Commission, due to public demand, recommended disintegration of Hyderabad state and, to merge the Marathi- speaking region with Bombay state and Kannad-speaking region with Mysore state.
Similar to the fate of Jammu and Kashmir state, Pandit Jawharlal Nehru left the fate of Andhra Pradesh open, accepting a provision to consider separation of Telangana in the future.
New states, or no, India should take pride in its multiplicity
Now, with several regions also clamouring for statehood, India must tread carefully, about how far this should go! Among the reasons given for breaking up or merging of states are – governance, economy, language and culture. In some cases, this may be beneficial for the people, and in some cases it may not. Telangana is a special case in that respect. However, if culture and language and ethnicity are the sole criteria – one must be cautious. After all, India speaks in many languages, wears an array of costumes, eats different food and celebrates many different festivals. Yet, India is one – a true example of united diversity. And, at no cost, should India sacrifice that.
