Petitions
M.V. Ramana Rao
6 February 1947.
M.V. Ramana Rao, joint editor of Visalandhra Vani, an Anglo-Telugu weekly published from Berhampur, Ganjam, wrote to a member of the Constituent Assembly on 6 February 1947. He enclosed a pamphlet issued by the Andhra Provincial Congress Committee and requested that it be read and considered. The pamphlet, addressed to all members of the Constituent Assembly, dealt with the problem of linguistic minorities.
The pamphlet argued that while the Assembly’s Objectives Resolution promised justice, equality, and safeguards for minorities, the attention being paid was almost entirely to religious and racial minorities. Linguistic minorities, equally significant and bound to exist in every province, were being ignored. Even after provinces were reorganised on a linguistic basis, Telugu speakers would remain in Orissa and Tamil Nadu, Tamils in Malabar, Kanarese in Maharashtra, and so on. These communities had distinctive literatures and cultures and a legitimate right to preserve them.
The grievance was drawn from lived experience. Since provincial autonomy came into force in 1936, Bengalees in Bihar and Andhras in Orissa had been subjected to domicile certificate requirements, denied education in their mother tongue, discriminated against in government services, and treated as aliens in provinces where they had lived for generations. The pamphlet compared the treatment of Andhras in Orissa to the treatment of Indians in South Africa. The Congress Working Committee’s Bardoli Resolution of January 1939 had laid down clear policy on these matters, but neither Bihar nor Orissa had implemented it.
The demands were specific: abolition of domicile certificates, the right to primary and secondary education in the mother tongue, equal access to government services without discrimination, and equal opportunities in trade and commerce. These rights, the pamphlet insisted, needed statutory protection enforceable in courts of law, not mere declarations.
Visalandhra Vani
(An Anglo-Telugu Weekly)
- V. RAMANA RAO,
D. V. KRISHNA RAO,
JOINT EDITORS
BERHAMPUR, (GANJAM.)
6th Feb. 1947.
Respected sir,
I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by the Andhra Provincil Congress Committee which I hope you have received already. If you have not received it and if you have not read it, may I respectfully request you to kinldy go through it and express your opinion on the subject.
The problem is the problem of the linguistic minorities which we contend should receive statutory protection as any other minority. I have met many eminent members of the Constituent Assembly when I had been in Delhi during December, ’46. I hoped to meet you along with Prof. N. G. [unclear]anga and a few others but owing to some engagement Prof. Ranga had to leave Delhi before the Assembly concluded its first session. I may be going there about the last week of this month when I shall take the opportunity and have the privilege of paying my respects to you.
I am sure you will agree that in provinces, in border areas, there are bound to be linguistic minorities and they are apt to b[unclear] suppressed by way of denying them rights enjoyed by the majority community, in regard to education, services, trade etc. This is what happened and is happening in an attenuated degree in Bihar in the case of Bengalee minority; this is what has been happening since Orissa came into existence as a separate province in the case of the large Andhra minority, living in a contiguous area. The treatment meted to us is on a par with the treatment meted to Indians in South Africa. Should this be allowed to happen to Indians in India in the name of provincial autonomy.
The Advisory Committee on Minorities is, according to newspaper reports, meeting at Delhi on 24th by which time we will send a memorandum. It is necessary that this Advisory Committee will, along with other minorities, consider the question of linguistic minorities also [unclear] extend to them adequate statutory protection.
Sir B.N.Rau.
Yours sincerely
<Signature>
THE
PROBLEM OF LINGUISTIC
MINORITIES
To
ALL MEMBERS OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
The Constituent Assembly which is now having its plenary session and will soon break into committees and sections, has given a comprehensive definition of its ideal and objective, covering all communities. It says that in our coming Republic there shall be “guaranteed and secured to all people of India justice social, economic and political, equality of status, of opportunity and before the law, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality”. Further it says “And wherein adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas and depressed and other backward classes”. This ought to be really reassuring to all communities and sections in the country who for one reason or another have been suffering from some disabilities owing to the development of a sense of provincial patriotism ever since provincial autonomy came into force.
At the present moment there are so many provinces with their boundaries fixed according to administrative exigencies and not on the basis of cultural or linguistic homogeneity. If Indian nationalism is to develop on genuine democratic lines, provinces have to be reformed on a linguistic basis. Therefore in our new constitution for a Republican Union of India, provincial boundaries have to be recast on the basis of linguistic and cultural homogeneity.
Even when provinces come to be so reformed, not only religious minorities but also linguistic minorities are sure to exist in them, especially in the border areas. For instance there are bound to be Telugus and Malayalees in Tamil Nad; Tamilians in Malabar; Kanarese, Tamils and Oriyas in Andhra; Hindusthanis in Punjab; Gujeratis and Kanarese in Maharashtra; Maharashtrians in Karnataka; Hindusthanis and Maharashtrians in Berar and Mahakosal, respectively. This is apart from the problems raised by Adibasis on account of their racial, linguistic and cultural needs. These linguistic minorities are significant in the sense that they have come to possess noble literatures and cultures built around their languages and they have had fairly long-standing, distinctive cultural achievements and aptitudes. So they have a legitimate and progressive right to insist on their group individuality to be preserved and opportunity provided to make their special contribution to our growing body politic. Therefore these linguistic minorities have to receive adequate protection to enable them to develop their language and culture and they should have equal opportunities and rights along with the majority community, linguistic or otherwise, to rise to their full stature and contribute their best to our national life and culture. But unfortunately while so much attention is being paid to the religious and racial minorities and their special needs, not enough notice is being taken of the equally important needs and rights of linguistic minorities which are bound to exist in all provinces.
The necessity for emphasising this point has arisen because of what has been happening in certain provinces in this country, especially since provincial autonomy came into force in 1936. The Bengalees in Assam and in Bihar and the Andhras in Orissa, have been feeling that the majority community has not been treating them fairly. In Bihar and Orissa the demand of domicile certificates from Bengalees and Andhras respectively has been causing both worry and hardship. Instead of treating them as children of the soil and fellow citizens, entitled to equal privileges and opportunities and comradely treatment they are treated as inferior in status and even occasionally with hostility. This is probably due to a wrong sense of provincial patriotism. And this new chauvinistic sense of provincial patriotism should not be allowed to lead to an attempt at suppressing linguistic and cultural autonomy of minorities as it is bound to prove suicidal to all.
It will be remembered that in Bihar there was a prolonged controversy over the rights of Bengalee minority and as a result the Congress Working Committee at its Bardoli sitting on 13th January 1939 passed a resolution defining its general policy on this matter for the guidance of Congressmen and Congress Ministries. Unfortunately neither Bihar nor Orissa, both of which are again at present governed by Congress Ministries, have come to adopt, in entirety, the policy laid down in that resolution.
What linguistic minorities want in provinces may be briefly mentioned:
1.The abolition of the system of demanding domicile certificates as per the Bardoli resolution.
The Orissa Domicile Committee appointed in 1943 by the wartime Government unjustly recommended 50 years residence. The present Congress Ministry, which has succeeded, has notaccepted that unprecedented recommendation. But to our regret it has not rejected it. At present an insulting and exasperating procedure is being followed in Orissa in the matter of issuing domicile certificates. It must be galling to the sense of self-respect of millions of such linguistic minorities to be thus treated as if they are aliens, subject to inquisitorial and painful enquiries.
2. Right to receive education through the mother tongue.
Here also the Bardoli resolution is explicit and wanted that primary and secondary education should be given in the mother tongue. In South Orissa, there are some villages which are preponderantly Andhra but have no Telugu primary schools. Similarly in many districts of Tamil Nad, the Telugu minority is not provided facilities to learn Telugu. In secondary schools while the medium of instruction for Oriyas is their own mother tongue, the same facility is denied to the Telugu minority even where there are sufficiently large numbers and the unwanted English is being inflicted on them.
3. Services.
There should not be any distinction between the majority and minority communities. All should have equal opportunities. But these principles are today being observed more in their breach than in their observance and a sedulous effort is being made to discriminate against such linguistic minorities in a number of provinces.
4. Opportunities for trade and commerce should not be shut out to the minority communities.
It is not merely enough if in the objectives of the Constituent Assembly there is a declaration about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. In the constitution adequate safeguards have to be statutorily provided to prevent provincial governments from having their own way, inconsistent with the declaration of fundamental rights and to enable the linguistic and cultural minorities to exercise their genuine and legitimate rights in a free and democratic republic. Such statutory safeguards will also strengthen provincial governments in their efforts to legislate in consonance with the spirit of the declaration of fundamental rights. The Constituent Assembly, it is hoped, will do what all is needed not only to give these statutory safeguards to linguistic and cultural minorities but also to make it clear that they are rights enforceable in common courts of law. It has also to make it the duty of the State to bear the costs of any incidental litigation that any body of citizens who belong to a minority, religious or linguistic, is declared to be entitled to raise, by the local High Court.
ANDHRA PROVINCIAL CONGRESS
COMMITTEE.
SUMMARY OF THE BARDOLI RESOLUTION
Dated 13th January, 1939
The resolution recommended the absolution of issuing domicile certificate. In regard to the services there should be no bar. Domicile certificate: As regards Bihar there should be no distinction between Biharis and the Bengalee speaking residents of the province born or domiciled there. The term Bengalee should include both these classes and in the matter of services as well as other matters the same treatment should accord certain preferences in the services to these residents of the province over people from other provinces. The practice of issuing certificates to domiciles should be abolished. Applicants for services should state that they are residents of or domiciled in the province. A domicile should be proved by evidence that implies that the applicant has made the province his home. The length of residence, possession of house or other property and other relevant matters should be taken into consideration in deciding the domicile. Birth in the province or ten years continuous residence should be regarded as sufficient proof of domicile
Service appointment: All persons under Government appointments should be treated alike and seniority, coupled with efficiency, should guide promotions. There should be no prohibition against any one carrying on trade or business in any province. It is desirable that firms and factories should develop local contacts but suggestions made by provincial governments to firms and factories in the matter of appointments should be avoided as they may be misunderstood.
When accommodation in educational institutions is limited, seats may be given to the people of the province.
As regards the language in the Bengalee-speaking areas, the medium of instruction in primary schools should be Bengalee with provision for instruction in Hindusthani for those whose mother tongue is Hindusthani if there is a reasonable number of students speaking Hindusthani. A reverse of this should apply where the area is Hindusthani speaking. In the secondary schools education should be given through the language of the province, but provision should be made for education through a language where there is a demand of other residents of any districts where this or any other language is spoken.