The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1956. Indian Boundaries

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27876, 26 January 1956, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1956. Indian Boundaries

An outbreak of serious rioting in Bombay last week is the most dramatic expression, so far, of deep -and widespread feelings caused by the Indian Government’s plan to redraw the State boundaries. The development has ominous implications, because if it spreads elsewhere (as there are signs that it may) India’s national unity may be in jeopardy. The Government’s broad object in seeding reorganisation of the State boundaries is to remove anomalies and inconsistencies that developed under British rule, to group as far as possible peoples with similar cultural heritages , and languages, to integrate the former Indian States (ruled by the Princes) within the nation, and over all to simplify administration and cut down costs. With the Indian States wiped out and the country available as a unit for division, the operation would not be difficult if India were a true unitary country. But it is not. The Indian people are made up of various sub-nations which, in effect, are federated into a political unit. As the Indian correspondent of the “ Round Table” explained in a recent article, among the people of India the concept of India has not yet sunk very deep; regional ties are stronger than the national bond; and while it may be true that the primacy of the nation must be held high at all costs unless the country is to fall to pieces again, it is equally true that attempts to impose a higher nationalism at the expense of lesser but more real loyalties will be confronted with very serious opposition. Unfortunately, when it comes to dividing India anew on logical and rational lines, practice of the principle of the primacy of the nation is clouded by a legacy of the recent past, inherited not from Britain, but from the Congress Party. Mahatma Gandhi organised the Congress Party on roughly linguistic* lines; its territorial units corresponded with the linguistic divisions within India rather than with the provinces. It was this division that produced the political anomaly that in some provinces there were two separate and sometimes rival Congress organisations. Congress policy implied the desirability of dividing India on linguistic lines, and with the coming of independence, local Congress politicians in various parts of India naturally demanded that the party’s linguistic policy be put into effect. The Government that had newly taken power in difficult circumstances was unwilling, reasonably enough, to risk major administrative changes until it had settled down; and the leading Congress figures in the Government recommended patience on their linguistic groups. Mr Nehru spoke openly against parochialism and regionalism. But it was too late. The Teluguspeakiirg people of Madras \sere determined to have their own State; a man, widely respected, adopted Gandhi’s methods and starved himself to recommend his people’s cause. When this man died, a series of ugly incidents occurred. The Government bowed to the storm and announced the immediate formation of the Andhra State; it acknowledged the implications of this decision by promising the early appointment of a States Reorganisation Commission. This commission reported last October and recommended the establishment of 16 States of equal status, against the

existing 27 States, which rank as A, B and C class States. The commission also recommended the establishment of three territories to be administered by the central Government—Delhi, Manipur and the Andamans. Though the commission had in mind from the start the “ one State, one language ” principle, it did not accept the principle without reservations. One

important reservation was in respect of to preserve the financial and industrial structure of Bombay, the commission wished to maintain it as a composite State of Marathas and Gujeratis; the new Bombay State of 45,000,000 people would thus be a bilingual State. Anticipating local opposition, the working committee of the Congress Party rejected the commission’s recommendation and proposed instead separate Marathi-speaking and Gujerati-speaking States which would divide an enlarged Bombay State into two. The city of Bombay was to be left as a separate city State. This concession did not prove enough for the Marathas, who wanted Bombay city as the capital of a separate State of Marathi-speaking people. Rioting broke out in Bombay in November, and because it occurred on the eve of the visit of the Russian leaders, Marshal Bulganin and Mr Khrushchev, it was embarrassing all round when the authorities declared that the riots were abetted, if not engineered, by Communists. In the circumstances, it was not surprising that demonstrations died down. However, rioting broke out again last week after Mr Nehru’s announcement that the Indian Government' had decided that Bombay city would belong to neither the Marathas or Gujeratis, but would be a separate entity under the administration of the central Government. This was both a compromise between local claims and an expression of the belief of Mr Nehru

and his colleagues that Bombay is a city of international importance, in which the principle of the primacy of the nation must overrule local feelings. But strong and violent manifestations of local feelings concerning the local position not only in Bombay, but in several other areas, indicate that the central Government has a most difficult problem on its hands. Wisdom and understanding by both Government and local leaders, and all the great influence of Mr Nehru, will be needed if the several disputes are not to have serious effects on the population’s still embryonic concept of India as a national unit.