Opinion Fifty years of separation
On Saturday,Maharashtra and Gujarat celebrated their 50th birthday. Though there was much greater gusto in Ahmedabad than in Mumbai...
On Saturday,Maharashtra and Gujarat celebrated their 50th birthday. Though there was much greater gusto in Ahmedabad than in Mumbai,both states are undoubtedly happy to be on their own. The question,therefore,is why did they come into existence only on May 1,1960,and not four years earlier on November 1,1956 when the bulk of the states were reorganised strictly on linguistic lines? This chapter of modern Indian history is complex,highly emotive and even more painful because of violence on a mass scale that led to frequent police firing and bloodshed. The story is also long and complicated,but let me try to sum it up briefly.
In spite of having had to concede in 1953 to Andhras separation from what was then the state of Madras (now Tamil Nadu) after Potti Sriramulus celebrated fast unto death for this cause,Nehru was most reluctant to accept proliferating demands for other changes in provincial boundaries on the basis of language. But few listened to his repeated and impassioned plea to freeze the issue for 10 years because it was trivial and tedious compared with the more urgent task of building up a united,secure and stable India. He therefore appointed the States Reorganisation Commission to buy time,hoping that that intense parochial feelings would subside. Precisely the opposite happened. During the two years when the SRC gathered evidence,the country bristled with bitter sentiment. There were hunger strikes and agitations for linguistic states. At one stage,the prime minister,in a widely circulated letter,had to rebuke several chief ministers,all Congressmen,who were spending the secret funds at their disposal to further (their) territorial claims.
Even this paled in comparison with the enraged reaction to the publication of the commissions report in October 1955. So inflammatory were the speeches of linguistic chauvinists that a few days later,Nehru wrote to Mountbatten: One might almost think that we were on the verge of a civil war in some parts of India. This,incidentally,was said well before the situation took a far more alarming turn. For,the SRCs decision,while accepting the linguistic principle as a basis for redrawing the countrys political map,had made two glaring exceptions. The one that caused immediate explosion was the recommendation that Bombay should continue to be a bilingual state but,for the sake of a better balance between the Gujarati-speaking and Marathi-speaking populations,the Marathi-speaking Vidharba area be formed into a separate state. (The other exception was in relation to Punjab. Rejecting the largely Sikh demand for a Punjabi suba or Punjabi-speaking state,the commission opted for a trilingual state that included present-day Punjab,Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. As subsequent events showed,the dangerous potential of this decision,that remained in force until 1966,was far greater,but that would have to be discussed separately.)
As for bilingual Bombay,both its Gujarati and Maharashtrian components rejected the idea of its continuance with equal vehemence. Both wanted language-based states. But there was a virtually insurmountable obstacle to an agreement between them: the economically booming and cosmopolitan city of Bombay. The Gujaratis were not alone in being totally opposed to the metropolis going to Maharashtra. The Maharashtrians were incensed that anyone should dare question the great citys inclusion in their state.
Unfortunately,it was at this juncture in June 1956 that the Nehru government decided to form three states out of bilingual Bombay: Maharashtra,Gujarat and the Centrally-governed city-state of Bombay. Though Nehru said that the future of the city could be reviewed five years later,all hell broke loose. His normally apolitical finance minister,C.D. Deshmukh,resigned and,in an angry resignation statement,accused the government of surrendering to the moneybags of Bombay. Nehru hit back: We are the children of revolution. Let no one talk about moneybags to us.
Violence,far more vicious and widespread than before,in which students,workers,farmers and even businessmen joined,erupted in Bombay and Marathi-speaking districts. Nehru was dismayed that no leader of society was prepared to condemn mindless rioting. Apparently he overlooked the fact that the silent majority shared the sentiment of the rampaging mob. The problem worsened because Morarji Desai,Bombays chief minister and Gujarats supreme leader after Sardar Patel,acted firmly against the rioters. Close to 100 people were killed in police firing. For once,Nehru backed Desais refusal to have any inquiry into the excessive use of force by the police.
Soon enough virulent violence spread to Gujarat and forced Morarjibhai to go on a weeklong fast.
The official bill for carving three states out of bilingual Bombay was ready for introduction when,almost miraculously,there was a sea change in the situation. 180 MPs,belonging to various parties,joined together to suggest a return to the original idea of retaining bilingual Bombay. The only thing that changed was that Desai moved to Delhi and Y.B. Chavan became the states chief minister.
However,the much-applauded experiment did not succeed. Tension between the Gujarati and Maharashtrian partners in the composite state never abated. By 1958 riots began in the Gujarat region once again,leading to immediate retaliatory violence in Marathi-speaking areas. More importantly,as Gujarats yearning for separation from Maharashtra became stronger,its objection to Bombay citys inclusion in Maharashtra weakened. At an informal meeting of Congress and opposition leaders of Bombay state,S.K. Patil,then known as the uncrowned king of Bombay city,used erotic imagery to spread the word that the two partners in Bombay were no longer in a cohabitation mood.
As Congress president in 1959,Indira Gandhi was among the first national leaders to perceive the change. Two others who also felt which way the wind was blowing were President Rajendra Prasad and Vice-President Radhakrishnan. Partly as a result of persuasion by these three, and partly out of respect for the peoples feelings even when he did not like them,Nehru eventually agreed. On May 1,1960 when Maharashtra and Gujarat were formally inaugurated,the highest tributes were paid to Indira Gandhi even though she was no longer Congress president.
The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator
Share
