[Part of an ongoing series on Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi. Last week’s entry can be found here. Next week, we will look at Chapter 10, “The Conquest of Nature,” on India’s approach to development and the modernization of agriculture.]
Guha’s Chapter 9, “Redrawing the Map,” is about the early phase in the movement to establish language-based states, with particular emphasis on the south (the creation of Andhra Pradesh out of what was formerly the state of Madras), the status of Bombay vis a vis Maharashtra, and the delineation of Punjab.
As Guha points out, though reorganizing states according to language was part of the Congress plank from the 1930s, after Independence/Partition, both Nehru and Sardar Patel were strongly opposed to rushing into any reorganization of states, especially if there was a danger that such reorganizations could lead to the destabilization of the union. The logic behind this hesitation was understandable and quite sound: if the idea of “India” could be broken along the lines of religion, why not also language?
The first new state to be created along the lines of language was Andhra Pradesh, and this was largely due to the hunger strike of Gandhian activist and Telugu leader Potti Sriramulu, who is another one of those great, largely forgotten (well, forgotten outside of Andhra Pradesh at least) “characters” from post-independence Indian history who probably should be better known than he is:
Sriramulu was born in Madras in 1901, and studied sanitary engineering before taking a job with the railroads. In 1928 he suffered a double tragedy, when his wife died along with their newborn child. Two years later he resigned his position to join the Salt Satyagraha. Later, he spent some time at Gandhi’s Sabarmati ashram. Later still, he spent eighteen months in jail as part of the individual Satyagraha campaign of 1940-41. . . .
Gandhi did regard Sriramulu with affection but also, it must be said, with a certain exasperation. On 25 November 1946 the disciple had beugn a fast unto death to demand the opening of all temples in Madras province to untouchables. Other congressmen, their minds more focused on the impending freedom of India, urged him to desist. . . .
Potti Sriramulu had called off that fast of 1946 at Gandhi’s insistence. But in 1952 he Mahatma was dead; and in any case, Andhra meant more to Sriramulu than the untouchables once had. This fast he would carry out till the end, or until the government of India relented.
Potti Sriramulu died of his hunger strike on December 15, 1952. Three days later, Nehru announced that the formation of the state of Andhra out of the eleven Telugu-speaking districts of Madras.
Of course, with Andhra the reorganization was just beginning. Three years later, the national States Reorganization Committee announced a number of other changes. In the south, the job was easy, as there were four clear language regions (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, and Malayalam) that could be allocated their own states.
In Bombay, the situation was more complicated, as the Marathi-speakers in Bombay comprised a plurality (43%) but not a majority of the city’s residents as of 1955. Moreover, the economically dominant ethnic communities of Bombay — especially Gujaratis — strongly resisted the idea of making Bombay part of a Marathi-speaking state. However, following growing unrest and a series of “language riots” (memorably described in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children), this merger eventually did happen in 1960, as Bombay was declared the capital of the new state of Maharashtra. (Suketu Mehta’s book, Maximum City, has a lot more on how language and ethnicity politics have evolved in Bombay over the years — warts and all.)
This Guha chapter doesn’t detail how things would play out later in Punjab, where the Sikhs’ early demand for a Punjabi-language state was denied by the States Reorganization Committee in 1955. (Sikhs have always anecdotally blamed this failure on the census of 1951, where Punjabi-speaking Hindus by and large described their primary language as “Hindi,” confusing matters greatly.) When reorganization eventually did occur in Punjab in 1966, it caused lots of other problems, some of which would lead to a resurgent Akali movement, and eventually to the rise of Sikh separatism in the 1970s.
Partly as a result of what happened in Punjab (and we’ll get to that in a few chapters), Guha’s rather easy acceptance the language reorganization movements seems a bit glib to me:
When it began, the movement for linguistic states generated deep apprehensions among the nationalist elite. They feared it would lead to the balkanization of India, to the creation of many more Pakistans. ‘Any attempt at redrawing the map of India on the linguistic basis,’ wrote the Times of India in February 1952, ‘would only give the long awaited opportunity to the reactionary forces to come into the open and assert themselves. That will lay an axe to the very root of India’s integrity.’
In retrospect, however, linguistic reorganization seems rather to have consolidated the unity of India. True, the artifacts that have resulted, such as Bangalore’s Vidhan Souda, are not to everybody’s taste. And there have been some serious conflicts between states over the sharing of river waters. However, on the whole the creation of linguistic states has acted as a largely constructive channel for provincial pride. It has proved quite feasible to be peaceably Kannadiga, or Tamil, or Oriya–as well as contentedly Indian. (207-208)
Guha’s premise that language-based politics works somewhat differently from the politics of religious communalism seems right to me. The latter seems inevitably divisive (and almost always destructive), while the former seems to have had several positive benefits (especially as it has led to support for regional literatures and the arts). And it’s also clear that the reorganization along linguistic lines didn’t lead to what was feared, “the creation of many more Pakistans.”
But isn’t it still true that the language-based politics that led to the creation of new states starting in the 1950s has also led state governments to certain excesses along linguistic/ethnic lines? Two such excesses might include the renaming of Bombay as ‘Mumbai’, and the recent renaming of Bangalore as ‘Bengluru’. I’m also concerned about the language-based “reservations” that exist in some states, favoring the dominant ethno-linguistic community over other ethnic groups (though I admit I am not a specialist on this latter issue). Now that the states have been permanently established, is the perpetuation of language-based politics really that benign?
If I am right, the complicated status of Chandigarh ( capital of Punjab & Haryana ) is a spin-off Hindi-Punjabi problem.
Colonial names are popular only amongst the english-speaking, cosmopolitan elites and external world. Whereas most local language speaking folks use Bengalru and Mumbai. So changing the name is not a negative regression and maybe it is a form of “post-colonial”,”post-modern” reclamation and progressive in its own way.
Yes, I have no doubt about that. I was actually waiting for you to cover this chapter. Thanks! Somebody (Obviously of North Indian origin) recently asked me “What has South Indians done for India, either pre or post Independence” Let me get on to the soap box 🙂 I can speak for my people from Teluguland. There are three Telugus who have changed India (I believe postitively, but it depends on who you ask) in the post Independence era. One is Potti Sriramulu as discussed above. second person is NTR, who stood up to Indira/Rajiv Gandhi and played key role in the rise of coalition politics. On the downside he also made politics into buffoonery and personality driven. Third one is PV Narasimha Rao, A Nehruvian who moved away from Nehruvian Economic and Foreign policies. I believe, he is THE MOST important politician of modern India.
Instead of having all kinds of family politics and feuds in a joint-family system between brother/sisters living together and creating a negative atmosphere for the kids, it is better to go nuclear, minimize friction and yet keep the family bonds intact. I look at language based re-orgnaization in that way and I think minimization of conflict has been succesfully achieved. Gujaratis still live and thrive in Bomabay, same with Telugus in Madras etc. Language based politics has not been completely gotten rid of, but definitely an quais-equilibrium has been reached wherein problem can be containable and minimized. Though there are some hot-spots like Assam and Kaveri issue.
Brij, it’s more complicated than that. Gujarati and Marathi speakers may have traditionally said “Mumbai,” but Hindi speakers always said “Bambai.” And when the Shiv Sena changed the name in 1995, they changed it for all languages, so even people who had pronounced it differently were forced to say “Mumbai”. Many non-Marathis still view the change as a form of Marathi chauvinism (and a fair number of people, Suketu Mehta included, refuse to commit to “Mumbai”). It’s not about throwing off a colonial yoke at all — it’s about asserting ethno-linguistic dominance.
Manish blogged about the Bengaluru change at SM a couple of years ago, and commenter Raghu had some interesting comments in response.
Beating my head What a stupid question!!
Mumbai is what the city was always known as, when it was seven islands and not under British rule. There is a temple in South Bombay called Mumbadevi and the surrounding islands were named after the local deity. When I am speaking in Marathi or Gujarati I call it Mumbai, and Bombay when I speak in English and that’s what I did before the official name change and continue to do so even today, more out of habit than in order to make a political statement.
I think linguistic separation of states has been in general a good thing for India. Culturally there exist a lot of differences among people speaking different languages. In fact apart from the English speaking elite in India, most people identify more strongly with being a Maharashtrian, Gujarati or Tamil than they do with being an Indian. While some may wish that it were not so, that is the reality on the ground and the linguistic separation of states accommodates that reality politically.
Guha is going to be on CSPAN2’s BookTV this afternoon (Saturday) at 4:25 EST / 1:25 PST.
Mumbai is what the city was always known as, when it was seven islands and not under British rule.
As I understand it, the Portuguese founded the city as Bom Bahia — and before that there was no city there, just scattered tribal fishing villages on the various islands. So “Mumbai” is not a reversion to a pre-colonial name.
I thinking people who come from outside and live in a particular state have to assimilate a bit if they are going to live for a long time in a place. And nobody is forcing them to say Mumbai. They can choose to say whatever they want to say ( Bamabia or Bombay) but using Mumbai for official purposes and Marathi folks using it for conversation is not harmful at all. To that extent Marathi chauvinism is a good thing because then “everything” will be drowned and homogenized by Hindi, English. In this sense I disagree with Suketu Mehta.
Excuse typos – I meant to say I think @ 10.
Regional languages are an asset which will be drowned in “cultural homogenization” unless there is some amount of harmless ethno-linguistic chauvinism. Linguistic based re-organization, politics notwithstanding, is an opportunity for enforcing this harmless chauvinism. Also note most “dangerous” politics involving languages is generally rooted with economic issues like river, poverty etc. These are not cultural defects but more an issue of governance and development.
“As I understand it, the Portuguese founded the city as Bom Bahia — and before that there was no city there, just scattered tribal fishing villages on the various islands. So “Mumbai” is not a reversion to a pre-colonial name.”
i don’t see that as being an impediment to changing a name – objectively, not subjectively because people will have different emotions about it and good/bad reasons for opposinga name change. otherwise, americans should still be calling new york as new amsterdam after the founding name given by the dutch. the british changed it after they captured it. and before that it had a french name and before that the native americans had their own names. whoever is in charge has changed new york’s name. as for linguistic chauvinism- colonial names are remnants of a similar linguistic chauvinism. not that they should all be changed – but given all the name changes of places around the world for thousands of years, it’s unlikely that any name is going to remain static in perpetuity as whoever is in charge will change.
Whose God, fair enough.
My point was that the argument that Bombay should be renamed Mumbai because it is somehow a return to pre-colonial roots isn’t supported by history. Names can of course be changed moving forward, as a society changes. In Bombay, however, it is excessive and a bit confusing, as you have all these streets given names that no one actually uses on a day to day basis. Tourists come to the city looking for someplace called “Hutatma Chowk” on the map, and taxi drivers have no idea what they mean (then you say “Flora Fountain” and they’re right on it.)
It’s also a bit troubling how many things in Bombay have been named after Chattrapati Shivaji.
There
iswasis a well-known technical college inBombayMumbaiBombay – that was called ‘Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute’. Presumably, it was called that because it was actually set up during her Jubilee year – 1887, but everyone of course called it ‘VJTI’. Since then, it has been renamed ‘Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute‘. Guess what people still call it – VJTI !Both the books failed to mention one important detail, the massacre at Flora Fountain (Hutatma Chowk) by orders of Morarji Desai. The omission is understandable in this book. From prologue, “Despite the range of subjects it covers, this book cannot hope to have treated any of them comprehensively”. A book about Bombay should not have been so stingy on details.
Morarji Desai was one of the strangest characters in Indian politics. From the memoirs of ex-RAW chief:
Link
amardeep, i don’t doubt that it’s confusing/irritating, but probably fifty years from now it won’t be so confusing. i’m not undermining the emotional significance/distress that name changes cause people or making light of the chauvinism/opportunism behind some name changes. but everything has to go through a transition. who knows, some future govt. might change it back to bombay/victoria terminus. but i find it odd when people in recently colonized/independent countries will just accept whatever changes that particular colonial power made as somehow existing for all time and don’t realize that those powers generally (with rare exceptions) gave no such thought or care when they just changed names either to suit their own chauvinism or because they were linguistically-challenged and couldn’t pronounce names properly.
i find it a bit disturbing to read newspaper articles, generally by brits, bemoaning name changes in india or elsewhere, when they had the luxury of changing ancient roman names to anglo ones and changing names wherever they went around the globe. i think name changes in their former colonies somehow diminishes their own self-importance and truly drives home to the last remaining “empire”-philes that it really is over. so i don’t think these columns are written from a sense of caring about how it’s going to affect indians/whoever/newspaper datelines/money involved in name changes – although it’s sometimes passed of as that — but more from a sense of either understandable wistfulness at best and downright post-colonial chauvinism at worst. i know people who still refer to malaysia as malaya and sri lanka as ceylon, not out of fond nostalgia, but because they really feel that by referring to those places by those names they are denying the authenticity of the current names. the romans founded many towns and cities in britain, but they certainly wouldn’t go back to calling them by those names (although some are still forms of roman names). if germany had occupied britain during wwii and changed names and named things after germans, i can bet the brits would have changed those names back faster than you can say mumbai:)
“It’s also a bit troubling how many things in Bombay have been named after Chattrapati Shivaji. “
that may be. but is it any different than the many things named in india for victoria, an empress who never set foot in india? or that were named/renamed for any number of past emperors, kings? each naming represented some sort of chauvinism. i’m not saying i necessarily agree with all name changes, just that i can understand the impulse and i think it’s inevitable, whether for better or worse. but as they say in cricket, “swings and roundabouts”, and what goes around comes around again and again. “mumbai” or “chennai” might be something else a couple of centuries from now. i’ll admit it was hard for me to say those names initially, because of the familiarity and lore of bombay and madras (and i’ll admit that i still say bangalore but that too will change with time), but i find it much easier now to say mumbai and chennai. the new indian cricket league has teams with the names mumbai and chennai in it, not bombay and madras. so a new generation will grow up differently.
i think south africa has been going through some of these name debates, with the now black-majority wanting to change some names associated with apartheid-era south africa. naturally there is resistance from many white south africans as they feel they founded many things/places.
I have no problem in principle with subnational entities based on linguistic boundaries. But it’s an abuse of language to call them “states”. States don’t get re-organised by the central government committees.
I am not a historian, and though I no longer live there, my family has lived in Bombay for over four generations and as far as I know it was always known as Mumbai in Marathi (after the Mumbadevi temple which is in guess what Mumbadevi), and I thought it predated Bombay or Bom Bahia. No I am not so sure so I am going to try and find out more about the historical origins of the name.
Yes and I do agree with you that Bombay was never significant or important in anyway till the control passed over to the British. It was a collection of seven small fishing villages inhabited by Kolis, the fisherpeople from Maharashtra. Vasai which is to the north of Bombay was much more important strategically to the Marathas and the Portuguese.
As far as the name change goes, I personally think this trend of renaming cities back to their local versions is a bit silly as is renaming everything after Shivaji, Nehru or Indira Gandhi, or horrors Sanjay Gandhi! Like the national park in Bombay being renamed Sanjay Gandhi National Park after his death.
Is it more troubling than Congress(I) naming everything after members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty?
Is it more troubling than Congress(I) naming everything after members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty?
Good point. No, both trends are equally irritating.
According to an Indian diplomat Mr. Seth (I cant remember the full name), the conflict in srilanka is due to “linguistic hegemony”. He went on to claim that India from beginning allowed local rule based on linguistic region and thus avoided any civil wars such as the one in Sri-Lanka and the bloody civil war that ended in creation of Bangladesh.
I found these arguments convincing. I dont understand the logic of making a Tamil person force to speak Hindi and as a result lingustic states is a great idea, in my view.
As usual I will also point out the FACT that India’s area in sq. Km is bigger than all nations of Western europe which are countries largely on lingustic basis. (there are Exceptions such as Switzerland where French and German spoken widely). India is also more lingustically and Ethnically diverse than W.Europe. So it is natural that people of India would like to have lingustic grouping for statehood. In fact the Indian states need to be given more autonomy and need to be given more control over the revenues.
Yeah but Gujarati and Marathi speakers make up 70% of the population. The name change of Mumbai is the government officially calling the city by the name most of its residents uses. I think the name change is commonsense pragmatism.
perhaps in order to avoid future conflicts over name changes/naming, some computer experts should come up with the indian version of The Random Town Generator. Of course then there would be fights over what values to plug in.:)
Language based politics probably unified India more than it divided it. By dividing India into language-based states and creating so many official languages the Indian was able to resolve a dilemma the citizen faces (“Should I support my culture or my country?”). Indians don’t worry about resolving their Tamil or Panjabi identity with their Indian identity – their Tamil or Panjabi identity is the basis for their Indian identity.
Other countries that have tried to impose one language on the country for the sake of national unity are now facing disunity (Turkey and the Kurds).
Indianoguy, more ammunition for you. Also, check out Truth #1 on the same blog, it caught me a little by surprise.
Regarding the change of Bombay’s name, it has been done but people still call it what they are used to. I use Mumbai in marathi, Bambai in Hindi and Bombay in English and it has never been a problem.
Similarly, all govt organizations starting with Bombay such as BMC and BEST were changed to Brihanmumbai (greater Mumbai) and thus the names such as BMC and BEST stayed the same. And yes there are too many Chhatrapati Shivaji inspired names.
I would agree on this. While Guha seems to have a purely favorable point of view of the advantages of linguistic reorganization of states, I for one have mixed feelings about it and wonder about the ‘what if’ question. Yes, the advantages that he mentions are definitely there but then had the states not got reorganized along these lines, would these languages really have died. Especially when we have a Big Brother center which could have made sure all languages of note get their merited attention, active free media and a populace which is quite passionate abut its languages. On the other hand, if we had bigger states like the erstwhile Bombay, the interaction between different linguistic groups would have been more and people would have been better exposed to languages and cultures within the country.
Guha is on cspan-2 discussing his book right now
Ardy, Thanks for that Ammunition. I call upon all Souhties to claim superiority over uncivilized and ignorant Northies :-). Talking about Truth #1, In a way Narasimha Rao government continued the reforms started by Rajiv Gandhi government.
I dont agree. I’d rather prefer being called ‘Gulti’ rather than a ‘Madrasi’
I doubt it. New states have been formed at fairly regular intervals and this is not likely to stop. In several states there are pockets which follow a different language. For example Vidharba in Maharashtra.
Language = Culture so is there a morally acceptable alternative to linguistic states under the current contitution?
On the other hand, liguistic chuavnism does take a toll: Bombay is no longer the place to be, in large part because of language based politics. This could occur in Banglore / Bengaluru too in the future. There is something wrong about granting a linguistic group suzerainity over a place which owes its existance more to other groups.
Indianoguy
Why waste energy in belabouring the obvious 🙂
Incidentally — for those who think that the linguistic division was complete, this might be interesting. (there are over 50 languages with more than one lakh/100000 speakers)
Incidentally — for those who think that the linguistic division was complete, this might be interesting. (there are over 50 languages with more than one lakh/100000 speakers)
Interesting… I didnt know there were much more Marathi and Telegu speaking ppl than Gujaratis..and its a difference of over 20 million…I guess a lot of Gujjus seem to be emigrating abroad contributing to those statistics… maybe some inter marriages too..
Interesting… I didnt know there were much more Marathi and Telegu speaking ppl than Gujaratis. Telegu, Never heard of it, is it a new language? 😐
Dizzydesi, Thats 1991 sensus data. We popped out 150 million people since then. Telugu is the 2nd most widely spoken language (If you count bilinguals and trilinguals) after Hindi. BTW, Interesting screen name. In my dictionary Desi = Dizzy. Can I call you DesiDesi or DizzyDizzy?
I myself am not convinced either ways, you and Mr Guha may be spot on or may be not. But you have a valid point about ‘Madrasi’ considering the attitude which my Northie brethren show. You guys should call all us northies ‘bhayyas’ or something and then people may become a little more careful about displaying their ignorance. Anyways, thanks to economics, these days there is a lot of migration across the country (though still restricted to the educated middle class masses) which is reducing ignorance a little in peoples on both sides of the Vindhyas.
I think down the road, in a not too distant future, there will be more states and when that happens there will be multiple states with main languages other than Hindi. When that happens, while language based culture will continue to thrive, linguistic chauvinism will decrease. Some of the possible new states that will lead this process will be the formation of Telangana (from Andhra Pradesh), Vidarbha (from Maharashtra)and Koshala (from Orissa).
“In the south, the job was easy, as there were four clear language regions (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, and Malayalam) that could be allocated their own states.”
It wasn’t that easy, actually. Madras faced the same problem Bombay faced. Tamil or Telugu?
From wiki:
“During the reorganisation of states in India on linguistic lines, in 1953, Telugu speakers wanted Madras as the capital of Andhra Pradesh and coined the slogan “Madras Manade” (Madras is ours) before Tirupati was included in Andhra Pradesh. The dispute arose as the city had come to be inhabited by both Tamil and Telugu speaking people. Earlier, Panagal Raja, Chief Minister of Madras Presidency in early 1920s had suggested that the Cooum River be the boundary between the Tamil and Telugu administrative areas. In 1928 Sir C. Sankaran Nair sent a report to the Central Council discussing why Madras does not belong to the Tamils. However in 1953, the political and administrative dominance of Tamils, both at the Union and State levels ensured that Madras was not transferred to the new state of Andhra though the city was historically and geographically part of the Andhra region. The annexation of Tamil dominated areas into the metropolitan limits of the city and migration of Tamil speaking people from other parts of Tamil Nadu to the state capital increased the percentage of Tamil speaking population.”
” I dont understand the logic of making a Tamil person force to speak Hindi and as a result lingustic states is a great idea, in my view.”
Please see http://www.geocities.com/tamiltribune — apparently Tamils are forced to speak Hindi today, and submit to Hindi dominance.
Yes, for instance circa 1968 it was said that Prince Philip had said to the Queen, after Prince Edward was born, “How about it, Old Sausage, shall we go off and have a Second Honeymoon in Bangalore?” and the Queen replied, “What? ? Bangalore? In My Sore State?” So it’s a colonial name….
Now, now, Otto. if it’s the size of France, you know right away that it’s not a province. And didn’t somebody once say, “L’etat, c’est moi!”? So how’s that for a nice knock down argument? Once, some clever people asked me if India was like Europe in that every fifteen or twenty miles there’s a change of dialect. I was so clever myself back then that I replied, “Why– I’ve never counted”…but really, how would India have worked if Punjabis and Bengalis didn’t have states of their own?
Exactly which state in India is the size of France Amrita?
The seventh largest city in India is on the bank of river Sabarmati, currently known as “Ahmedabad” after the Sultan Ahmed Shah who claimed he founded the city in 1411. However, city was known as “Karnavati” since late 11th century after Karndev – a Solanki ruler. There was a movement to change name to “Karnavati”, but most folks are used to calling it “AMDAVAD” and not Ahmedabad – thereby avoiding any connotation to any link to muslim name Ahmed. In my opinion it doesn’t matter. A rose by any other name is still a rose – isn’t it? By the way Gandhinagar, the official capital of Gujarat is relatively new phenomena.
\ Raj, By size of population that would be TN according to the 2001 census. There were 5 states with a greater population than TN/France, with UP (166M) having more than 100 million people more than france.
Area-wise, Madras State, Bombay State, etc, were about the size of france prior to the liguistic reorganization.
Currently no Indian states are as large as France, although the larger ones (including the one I belong to) have an area of more than 300000 sq km.
This is an interesting point – I agree, and myself hope there will be more states. But it is even more interesting to ask how many people these new states will have versus how many people Hindi-speaking states will have!
Currently, the Southern states have very low population growth rates. Kerala and Tamil Nadu in particular have populations that are almost stabilizing, with fertility at or barely just above replacement.
Most of the growth in India’s population in the coming decades will occur in the Northern, and more particularly, the Hindi speaking states – UP especially, which is expected by 2050 to add nearly 150 million people to its current population of 200 million people, increasing its share of the total population of India from roughly 1 in 6 to 1 in 5. Thus UP in 2050 will have a population (351 million +) only a little bit less than what all of India did in 1950 (371 million). Bihar is expected to add some 80 million people during the same period (now to 2050).
During this period (from now to 2050) Kerala and Tamil Nadu are projected to add only about 10-15 million people; and Andhra and Karnataka will add about 30-40 million combined. Thus the four Southern states will together add just about a third of what UP alone is expected to add.
Therefore demographic weights of the southern states will decline, and the relative weight of non-Hindi speakers will also decline. While these are projections, not predictions, in my view they argue for policies that promote stronger development of regional sub-identities, including regional languages, independently of demographic weight considerations in India. Indeed, this is another angle that argues for greater federalism, perhaps even sub-nations, within India, in addition to just having more states.
Link
France is one of the largest western European nation, but there are atleast a couple of Indian states the size of Germany (unified). France and Spain are the largest states of Western Europe but if we combine two states of India, for example, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, than it is the size of France.
I don’t know how long these S. Indian linguistic boundaries will hold. Aside from the growth rates that Chachaji mentions there is a growing amount of North to South internal migration. To a large extent it is UP/Bihari laborers who have their families back home but an increasing amount of middle class salaried folk coming with families as well.
44 Chachaji,
That link was great. I thought the statewise migration data was quite fascinating !!
I think the more likely reason is that most Indians cannot pronounce “Ahmedabad”. “Ahmed” is pronounced with the guttural “kh” sound found in Semitic languages- Indians have a hard time saying ‘Akh’medabad. I’d be happy if the city was renamed Amdavad so the official spelling reflected the word actually used.
RC, thanks! But I would caution that the inter-state migration projections in that document (p.17) are the most iffy of all – as the authors themselves note on p.7.
And louiecypher, you raised an interesting point. On p. 17, the link shows that all Southern states except Karnataka will have net yearly out-migrations. Even Karnataka gains only modest numbers through in-migration – with a net migration rate of only about +10K per year. Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Maharashtra are the strongest ‘gainers’ from inter-state migration. UP and Bihar are the largest out-migration states.
Since only net figures are given, one can’t easily tell the absolute in- and out- migrations, but very tentatively, I would suggest that the impact on in-state linguistic ratios is likely to be very modest – except possibly in certain neighborhoods of the largest metros (Chennai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru) of the Southern states.
This destroyed Punjab, espcially since further division into Himchal Pradesh and Haryana went against the real langugae of Punjab, replacing it with Hindi ( A language which has no bearing on old hindi, but is a bombay mix of northern languages conconcted by a whiteman caled Gilchrist. Just check out how BBC call one of their programs Urdu/Hindi program..illogical if they were truly two separate languages…wheareas the only difference is smattering of persian in one)