The United States of India
Context:
- Scholars argued that the south differs politically from the north because of its political language, regional parties’ demands for more state power, its diversity of languages and cultures, the countercultures produced by various anti-caste, anti-Brahmin, and rationalist movements, its higher economic status, and its investments in industrial infrastructure, modern institutions, and education. This argument was made in a significant debate that was published in The Hindu.
Language variations:
- Examining linguistic nationality movements, which regarded India as a confederation of several ethnicities, the most major historical distinction between the two regions, may help one to understand this.
- The north saw India as a single entity that is consistent with the term “Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan,” but the south wanted to make India a federation of nationalities.
- Due to print and publishing culture, the south created distinctive language public spheres, which the movie further cemented.
- Many southern linguistic communities began to claim their nationality around the beginning of the 20th century.
- The political transformations in Europe, where new countries were founded based on linguistic identity with the political objective of achieving “popular sovereignty,” served as an inspiration for the leaders.
- It had been demonstrated that linguistic identities were more secular, adaptable, and inclusive than ethnic or religious identities, thus the administrators of the then-Madras Presidency purposefully wished to foster their development.
- The middle-class intelligentsia of the South recognized the crucial connection between language and unrestricted democracy.
Language is not a barrier:
- In order for a democracy to work and for equality and justice to be fulfilled, the common language must be employed in the fields of education, administration, and the court.
- In order to carry out this new responsibility, people’s languages also needed to be suitably modernized. While this was going on, it was believed that none of these things were even remotely possible until India became a federation of nations.
- These languages would vanish if India were forced to unify into a single monolithic nation.
- Even a cursory look at how southern languages are today demonstrates the truth of such worries.
The necessity of a strong bond:
- A unified India would not be suitable for democracy since democracy requires the sovereign-citizens to actively participate in the nation-state’s decision-making processes. India is not a nation, but rather a multi-national subcontinent (much like the European Union).
- They argued that no single language could facilitate such a procedure for the entire subcontinent.
- Strong relationships between its residents are essential for a powerful country. On the Indian subcontinent, there were numerous languages that were spoken, hence no single language was able to unify the entire nation.
- The ludicrous belief that Hindi could bring together non-Hindi speakers is the root of the belief that it could keep India unified today.
- We understand that learning French can help individuals connect. Tamil speakers may come together, or vice versa.
- But to imagine a gathering of non-Hindi speakers from Kerala, Punjab, or West Bengal is to imagine the impossible.
Conclusion:
- After the nation earned its independence, the Congress came to an agreement with the South by deciding to create linguistic States with constitutionally restricted powers.
- The idea of the federation was aggressively opposed by right-wing Hindu organizations, and they still are, because it would undermine their attempt to create a nation that is exclusively Hindu.
The ghosts of the past still follow the winners of the former, at least during elections, even if the Indian state has defeated the southern nationalities.
