Moving on. For decades, the state was mired in clashes and disturbances. Now that the division is done everyone can move back to focusing on developing top-notch states. Without the Telangana region to hold them back, AP could move fast. In the same way, Telangana could assure more development in Nalgonda, Warangal, and Karimnagar.
Handling violence. AP would now be spared of dealing with all the Naxals. Telangana could now make Naxals as the top priority and deal with both peaceful and forceful terms. Some of the Naxal problem is due to a lack of rural development and this could partly be solved now.
Fight for the Cities
Since the start of the civilization, cities have formed the core of culture. In the past 300 years, India has not kept pace with the creation of cities. Thus, there is always a big fight for the important cities. These cities are the only connection to modernity for many regions.
Different linguistic groups tried to wrestle key cities from other linguistic groups. Samyukta Maharashtra groups tried to get a hold of Bombay that was mostly under the control of Gujarati merchants. Andhra movements fought for the control of Madras. Telangana groups fought to control Hyderabad. Punjab and Haryana fought hard for control of Chandigarh.
Overall the lesson for India from these agitations is not to concentrate too much power and revenue generation on a handful of cities. This lopsided development has made states war for key cities (Gujarat-Maharashtra for Mumbai, Tamil Nadu-Andhra for Chennai, Punjab-Haryana for Chandigarh, and now for Hyderabad). If AP had 10 other equivalent cities, maybe they would not have been so vociferous nor would Telangana have been so eager.
* * *
I will end the chapter by giving some background on the anti-Hindi riots of Tamil Nadu.
Anti-Hindi Agitations of the South
It would be absurd to make Hindustani the medium of instruction in all the regions and it is still more absurd to use English for this purpose.
--Mahatma Gandhi
India's extreme corners were always somewhat an enigma to the people close to the center. North Easterners are often derisively called as chinki (corruption of the Hindi word for Chinese people). Chennai (the capital of extreme south) is among the most hated cities in India. Given how their histories developed, these states were usually more proud of their independent lineage and this often rankles the other Indians.
On the 26th of January 1965, India was to switch to Hindi as the sole official language of the central government. When India was formulated, Patel, Nehru, and many of the Constitution framers thought of Hindi as the national language. English was supposed to be a transitional language. In 1963, Nehru passed the Official Language Act that provided some assurances that English would continue to stay official. However, the language of the act was too ambiguous for the southern politicians.
In 1963, Annadurai, the leader of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), launched a new round of agitations that reached a peak when an activist, Chinnasamy, died of self-immolation in Trichy.
After Nehru died in 1964, things were getting worse. Shastri had to back down after the 1965 agitations and finally in 1967 the Official Languages Act was amended. Since then the regional languages have received further protection. As a result of these protests, DMK was able to capture power in Tamil Nadu for the first time and the national parties never captured the state since then.
Long-Term Effects of the Agitation
English protected: India's Constitution stipulated the use of English only for the first 15 years (until 1965). English was designated as a transition language. But for the Tamils, English would have ceased to be an official language of India after 1965 and would have curtailed our options in the global market. The agitations kept English relevant in India.
End of TN Congress: The agitation was used by the Dravidian parties to create a following and the protests weakened the Congress in TN. In the elections after the 1965 agitations, Congress lost power and has been declining since then. To this day, India's national parties are unable to impact the state in a big way. On the flip side, it has made it almost impossible for a Tamil to become a Prime Minister.
Multicultural democracy: The absence of a national language prevented the integration of different states into a common national ethos and identity. However, it strengthened the multicultural tolerance in India.
Protection of regional arts and diversity: While the film industries and other cultural elements of states that accepted Hindi got diminished, in states that didn't accept Hindi the regional arts flourished. Thus, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have the biggest movie industries in India after Bollywood.
Hampered national movement of Tamils: While the English acceptance helped the Indians get a wider range of service jobs, it has also made the life of Tamils who want to migrate to the rest of India hard.
Withdrawal of Brahmins from Tamil politics: The Dravidian parties blamed Tamil Brahmins for bringing Hindi, despite the fact that many of Brahmin leaders such as Radhakrishnan opposing the Hindi imposition. Since the anti-Hindi agitations, TamBrams have withdrawn from most political activities in Tamil Nadu.
Has the Linguistic Organization Helped India?
Strengthened the union: Until the 1950s, many regions of India - including Tamil region wanted to secede from India. The extremists contended that they were never part of Indian kingdoms for most of the history and the separatists in the region wanted to get out of India. However, after getting a separate state for Tamil people, the secession demands have gone away as they have a good level of autonomy. Thus, the Tamils are able to get the benefits of being in India, while still maintaining the Tamil culture.
Maintained the diversity: Without the linguistic organization, many of the regional languages could have died. Cultural diversity is a key strength of India and the linguistic organization has protected it.
Healthy competition: Although a lot of times the competition turns unhealthy (e.g. the water wars between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu that I will cover later) for the most part the competition is healthy. There is a shadow growth war between southern cities such as Bangalore, Chennai, and Hyderabad. This competition pushes our politicians to care a tiny bit more than the politicians in states that don't have a linguistic rivalry (BIMARU states).
Better growth: There is some correlation between states with high linguistic attachment and states with high economic/human development.
On the surface, the linguistic organization seems to go against the "one nation" rule. But, if you look deeper, the strength of our civilization lies in the concept of "one destination, many paths".
* * *
Chapter 4: Ancient Enmities and Troubled Warriors
September 30, 2010
I was in Ayodhya, a holy city in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. It was really tense and I saw police forces from all parts of the state brought in. I was traveling around India for a few weeks trying to understand a little more about the culture. After I got out of the bus, I took a rickshaw to take me around the place and let me understand the trouble there. It was the day when the Allahabad High Court was to pronounce its verdict on the historic dispute of the temple.
With no effort, I got to a small room in the basement where a key religious leader was boasting about his part in bringing down the mosque 18 years ago. He also took me around the campus where the parts to create a temple were almost ready, just waiting to be assembled. Locals told me that the temple would be ready to be built in 24 hours, if the court gives a go.
All eyes were on the High Court, 160 kilometers south. The court at Allahabad had heard years of arguments on both sides. Amidst tense moments, I tried to get to the controversial site that both Hindus and Muslims claimed to be theirs. However, the police stopped me from getting too close.
Eighteen years before that time, on December 6, 1992 independent India faced its biggest challenge for its secularist credentials when a mob of Hindu karsevaks (volunteers) demolished a 16th century mosque at the place where I was heading to. That was
followed by a year of communal clashes and bomb blasts as both Hindus and Muslims were at each other's throats. The most recent violent episode was in 2002 a group of pilgrims returning from the temple were burnt down in the state of Gujarat, sparking a major communal riot.
Hindu - Muslim Troubles
Ancient Trouble at Ayodhya
Lord Rama, the hero of the epic Ramayana, has an important place in the Hindu faith. Devotees look up to him for inspiration and cherish his ideal qualities - honesty, respect for elders, love for his wife, monogamy, affection for his brothers, and a king who treated his subjects in a just way. Scriptures say that he was born in the town of Ayodhya, on the banks of the river Sarayu, 500 kilometers east of Delhi.
The town teems with temples dedicated to the various characters of Ramayana. However, there is one key spot missing - the birthplace of Ram. Many Hindus believe that the temple at the birthplace of Rama was the one destroyed in 1527 by the Mughal king, Babur in the 16th century and built a mosque over it. Various excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India show that there was indeed a Hindu temple and probably even a Buddhist place of worship at the site the mosque once stood.
The fact that a Hindu temple was destroyed to build the Babri Masjid was not an altogether surprising thing. Throughout India, many Hindu and Buddhist structures were erased by various Muslim rulers to propagate Islam. Various holy cities of Hinduism - Mathura, Varanasi, and Somnath - are all witnesses to historical carnage.
Like in Jerusalem, now there are two religious groups who claimed ownership of the site through historical links. The Hindus believed that the site was the birthplace of Ram and for Muslims it was the place where Babar built an important mosque.
The trouble came to the fore during the British rule and in 1853 (four years before India's first war of independence) there was a major religious riot near the site on the ownership. Six years later, the local government erected fences around the site and allowed the Hindus to use the outer court while letting the Muslims use the inner court. In a Court verdict by Judge Chamier of Faizabad in 1886, the judge prevented building a temple just outside the Masjid although he sympathized with the claim.
I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations.It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances.
-- Court verdict of Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886)
Trouble in Independent India
Britain imposed a status quo for decades and there was no major incident for the next six decades. In December 1949, the controversy rose again as a group of idols allegedly sneaked into the now decrepit mosque in the dark of the night.
Hindu priests claimed superhuman intervention while the government could not accept magic. Both the Muslims and Hindus fought and the government decided to lock down the whole site. For years, the matter was fought in the courts.
By mid 1970s, Hindu parties started to get stronger due to the weakness of the center and by 1984 a movement to build the temple at Ram Janmabhoomi (birth site of Ram) was formed.
The Specter of Shah Bano
When the 60-year old Shah Bano Begum filed a case for getting her alimony in a local court, in April 1978, she didn't obviously know that she would change Indian history. She was a mother of five who was married to one Mohammed Ahmed Khan in 1932. Mr. Khan married another woman 14 years after their marriage and in 1978 he deserted his older wife. She was promised Rs.200/month for maintenance and that was not held up. In November 1978, Khan divorced Bano through the Islamic method of triple talaq (all you need to do is utter the word thrice and you are divorced from your spouse).
India had different personal laws for different religions and the government was loathe to change the personal laws of Muslims. However, the lower court took a more sympathetic view of the poor woman who had to support five kids and asked the man to pay a meager sum. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the sum in a further appeal in July 1980. The court used the provisions of the Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code that overrode the personal laws of religions.
Various Muslim boards vigorously opposed the court's decision and took the matter to the Supreme Court. On April 23, 1985, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision - Mr. Khan had to pay a monthly maintenance to his wife and children. The court saw it as a humanitarian case and also recommended the government bring a Uniform Civil Code across the nation (applying the same set of civil laws across the nation).
The Court's decision should not have been a shock for any rational person. Of course, an old lady deserted by a husband would have the sympathy. However, Muslim bodies took umbrage at this and believed that the court was encroaching their liberties. They were not ready for modernizing their laws and the government was very careful not to upset the vote banks.
When Mr. Rajiv Gandhi came to power in 1984, he took a leaf out his mother's book - of toying with laws to cut the teeth of the courts. In August 1985, a Parliamentarian Gulam Mohammed Mahmood Banathwala introduced a private member bill in the Parliament to overrule the Court's judgment. Rajiv initially stood ground and voted to defeat the bill. However, he started giving more importance to the conservative Muslims. On the 22nd of November 1985, one of Rajiv Gandhi's men - Z. A. Ansari launched a senseless three hour tirade against the Supreme Court and judge Chandrachud. Famous judges all over the nation reacted in anger.
Rajiv finally gave into the pressure, as he had little political experience. The controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 was enacted and the Supreme Court's judgment was nullified. Muslim men were now free to divorce their wives at any time and just pay 90 days worth of maintenance amount. Civil organizations were aghast. Even many progressive Muslims were stunned. Arif Mohammad Khan, a minister in Rajiv's party resigned.
While the Civil Society made a feeble protest, another group saw a huge opening created out of this. The conservative Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was reduced to ashes in the 1984 elections and this was a time for them to make a move. The conservative organizations and women organizations made a strange coalition and protests were held.
The government was on the back foot and had to do something to balance the favor they did to the Muslims. Rajiv made a smart political calculation a couple of months before the bill was finally passed into a law.
Opening the Gates at the Ayodhya
In January 1986, a petition was filed by a local journalist Umesh Chandra Pandey to open the gates of the Mosque for worship. The issue got the attention of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his close advisor and cousin Arun Nehru. Both of them saw this as an opportunity to assuage the Hindus.
The government gave a green signal to the local court and the court allowed the opening of the gates on February 1, 1986.
Muslim lawyers fought on, but the government was firm. In 1988, a Muslim parliamentarian Syed Shahabuddin got the government to ban Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in return for not taking a rally to Ayodhya. The government once again gave way to pressure groups and banned the book and triggered a controversy elsewhere.
To balance that, in November 1989 the government green signaled the laying of the foundations close to the disputed mosque. The event, organized by the right wing parties was attended by Home Minister Buta Singh and others. Hindu groups believed that the long battle was now coming to a grand finale.
BJP's Rise to the National Stage
BJP used the momentum generated by Ayodhya to get nationwide attention. They got an unexpected help on this from a TV series on the national television.
Just when the Ayodhya issue was climbing into the national scene, veteran film director Ramanand Sagar brought out the epic TV rendition of Ramayana in 1987.
The series
featuring Arun Govil as Lord Ram was wildly popular among the middle class kids and parents all over the nation. People allover were glued to the television. While Ram has been always popular among the masses, now the Lord was also firmly in front of the urban middle class.
I was in kindergarten back then, but I have strong memories of the show and how my whole family was attached to it. At school, the key character Hanuman was our addition to Superman, He-Man, and Spiderman TV series that also appeared on Sundays. By the time the series ended in July 1988 (giving way to the equally popular series on Mahabharata) India was in the spell of Rama.
Never before had such a large percentage of South Asia’s population been united in a single activity, never before had a single message instantaneously reached so enormous [an] audience.
-- Philip Lutgendorf (Ramayan: The Video)
Time for BJP to shift from the masses to the middle class, who were ready to shift out of Nehruvian secularism. BJP became the party to represent the middle class and Ram's virtues. In the 1989 elections, they took 85 seats in the Parliament from a meager two seats in 1984.
The party head, Lal Krishna Advani, started his famous chariot ride (Hindu epics are full of chariot battles) built atop his Toyota van. The ride started from the holy city of Somnath in Gujarat on September 25, 1990 was to reach Ayodhya on October 30 and begin the construction of the temple. Since Advani's support was crucial to the coalition government at the center, not much was done to stop the ride sooner. He was eventually stopped in Bihar.
From Tryst to Tendulkar: The History of Independent India Page 8
