PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2011 ID-51428
.
Seminar on .
IIIII .
speakers: .
Prof. Kodandarnm(Osmania University, Date: 25th April, (Monday) Chairman Political Joint Action Committee) Time: 2.30 PM i\1 r. 1\tallcp:'lly Laxmaiah (Vice-Chainnan, Venue: SSS-1, Committee Room, .
Political Joint Action Committee) JN U, New Delhi. .
Prof. l. Thiruntali (Delhi University) .
Prof. Anand Kumar (CSSS, JNU) .
Prof. Valerian Rodrigues (CPS, JNU) .
.
Dr. B. R. Ambedka r exp rcssed his views on I in gu isti c states at the time of form ation of A ndh ra State. (i) He believed that .
the pride in people's language, race and culture would become a hurdle in unifying India. His primary suspicion was that .
it may lead to "insubordination" resulting in the prospect of chaos and disorder. (ii) The other fear of Dr. B.R. .
Ambedkar was that each state will have·its own language which may become an obstacle for a Central Judiciary when it .
is invoked to rectify the mistake of provisional courts. However, on the positive side, he believed that the concept of .
Linguistic Provinces ·would I ead to "social homogeneity", which he presupposes as a condition for the "effective .
.
While commenting on language as the basis for reorganization of states, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said "the.
functioning of democracy". .
idea of linguistic province has nothing to do with the question of what should be its official language. By linguistic provinces, I mean a province which by the social compcsition of its population is homogenous and therefore, more suited for the realization of those social ends, which a democratic goverr.ment must ful ftll. !n my view, a Linguisti< Province has nothing to do with the language of the province. ln the scheme of Linguistic Provinces, language haS necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited to the creation of the province, i.e., for the demarcation of the bound'aries of the province. There is no categorical imperauve in the scheme of Linguistic provinces, which compels .15 to make the language of the Province as its official language. Nor is 1t necessary for sustaining the cultural unity of tl" .
Provi nee, to rnak e the I an gua ge of the Provi nee its o1ftc i al.language ......" .
'Vie must not allow the Provincial language to become its ofliciai language even if it was natural that the provincial language should be the official language of the Province. There is no danger in creating Linguistic Provinces. Danger lies in creating linguistic provinces with the language of each province as its officiaUanguage. The latter would lead to the creation .of provincial nationalities. For the use of the previsional languages as official languages would lead to Provincial cultures to be isolated, crystallized, hardened and solidified. It would be fata to allow this to happen. To allow this is to allow the prc'linces to become independent nations, separate ii everything and thus open the road to the ruination of United India. In Linguistic Provinces without the language of the province being made its official language, the provincial culture would be fluid with a channel open for give and take. Under no circumstances, we must 21low the Linguistic Provinces to make their Provincial Languages their .
But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's concrete proposal for the formati on of small states and his opposition to the.
official la nguages. model of linguistic states was expressed in 1953 in the context of the formation of the Telugu Linguistic State. He said, "in a state what would remain for the smaller comnmnities to look to? Can they hope to be elected to the legislature? Can they hope to maintain a place in the state ser,ice? Can they expect any attentioll to tlleir .
economic betterment? In these circumstances, the creation of linguistic state means the banding over of Swarai to .
a communal majority" (Time~ of India, April 23, 1953). .
On the burning issue of the time, i.e., formati on of Andhra State, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opined: "Tak< Andhra 'there are two or three major communities spread over the linguisdc area. They are either Reddys or the Kammas and the Kaapus. They hold all the land, all the offices and all the businesses ...... " .
The experience of the 55 years of Telugu linguistic state is the proof of the co:o1pletc monopoly by the two domir.:ml Reddys and Kammas of the political power to the complete neg!ect of SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities. The only anti· dote for this seems to be the restoration of er.;twhile Hyderabad State (Tdangana), .vhich existed as an autonomou!: f·;i''"·' .
-..between \948-56. .
UDSF .
AISA AISF.
AlBSF.
.
.
JNU Forutn for Telangana .
.. .
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2011 ID-51428
.
Seminar on .
IIIII .
speakers: .
Prof. Kodandarnm(Osmania University, Date: 25th April, (Monday) Chairman Political Joint Action Committee) Time: 2.30 PM i\1 r. 1\tallcp:'lly Laxmaiah (Vice-Chainnan, Venue: SSS-1, Committee Room, .
Political Joint Action Committee) JN U, New Delhi. .
Prof. l. Thiruntali (Delhi University) .
Prof. Anand Kumar (CSSS, JNU) .
Prof. Valerian Rodrigues (CPS, JNU) .
.
Dr. B. R. Ambedka r exp rcssed his views on I in gu isti c states at the time of form ation of A ndh ra State. (i) He believed that .
the pride in people's language, race and culture would become a hurdle in unifying India. His primary suspicion was that .
it may lead to "insubordination" resulting in the prospect of chaos and disorder. (ii) The other fear of Dr. B.R. .
Ambedkar was that each state will have·its own language which may become an obstacle for a Central Judiciary when it .
is invoked to rectify the mistake of provisional courts. However, on the positive side, he believed that the concept of .
Linguistic Provinces ·would I ead to "social homogeneity", which he presupposes as a condition for the "effective .
.
While commenting on language as the basis for reorganization of states, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said "the.
functioning of democracy". .
idea of linguistic province has nothing to do with the question of what should be its official language. By linguistic provinces, I mean a province which by the social compcsition of its population is homogenous and therefore, more suited for the realization of those social ends, which a democratic goverr.ment must ful ftll. !n my view, a Linguisti< Province has nothing to do with the language of the province. ln the scheme of Linguistic Provinces, language haS necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited to the creation of the province, i.e., for the demarcation of the bound'aries of the province. There is no categorical imperauve in the scheme of Linguistic provinces, which compels .15 to make the language of the Province as its official language. Nor is 1t necessary for sustaining the cultural unity of tl" .
Provi nee, to rnak e the I an gua ge of the Provi nee its o1ftc i al.language ......" .
'Vie must not allow the Provincial language to become its ofliciai language even if it was natural that the provincial language should be the official language of the Province. There is no danger in creating Linguistic Provinces. Danger lies in creating linguistic provinces with the language of each province as its officiaUanguage. The latter would lead to the creation .of provincial nationalities. For the use of the previsional languages as official languages would lead to Provincial cultures to be isolated, crystallized, hardened and solidified. It would be fata to allow this to happen. To allow this is to allow the prc'linces to become independent nations, separate ii everything and thus open the road to the ruination of United India. In Linguistic Provinces without the language of the province being made its official language, the provincial culture would be fluid with a channel open for give and take. Under no circumstances, we must 21low the Linguistic Provinces to make their Provincial Languages their .
But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's concrete proposal for the formati on of small states and his opposition to the.
official la nguages. model of linguistic states was expressed in 1953 in the context of the formation of the Telugu Linguistic State. He said, "in a state what would remain for the smaller comnmnities to look to? Can they hope to be elected to the legislature? Can they hope to maintain a place in the state ser,ice? Can they expect any attentioll to tlleir .
economic betterment? In these circumstances, the creation of linguistic state means the banding over of Swarai to .
a communal majority" (Time~ of India, April 23, 1953). .
On the burning issue of the time, i.e., formati on of Andhra State, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opined: "Tak< Andhra 'there are two or three major communities spread over the linguisdc area. They are either Reddys or the Kammas and the Kaapus. They hold all the land, all the offices and all the businesses ...... " .
The experience of the 55 years of Telugu linguistic state is the proof of the co:o1pletc monopoly by the two domir.:ml Reddys and Kammas of the political power to the complete neg!ect of SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities. The only anti· dote for this seems to be the restoration of er.;twhile Hyderabad State (Tdangana), .vhich existed as an autonomou!: f·;i''"·' .
-..between \948-56. .
UDSF .
AISA AISF.
AlBSF.
.
.
JNU Forutn for Telangana .
.. .
.
.
.