Orissa on the Eve of Independence: Dreams of Greater Orissa and the lost Chances

Dr. Surakant Nath

Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy, Pune
The Second World War ended not only with the victory of the Allies but also with the
prospect of disappearance of empires in the world. While there was a considerable weakening of
the British power and prestige, the nationalist movement, the revolt of the Royal Indian Naval
Ratings and the valour displayed by the Indian National Army made it impossible for the British
to continue in India. The period between the end of the war in 1945 and the attainment of
independence in 1947 witnessed hectic political parleys and negotiations which could succeed in
bringing durable peace in India.

Independence for which millions had toiled and sacrificed came with a big price:
Millions were displaced, millions got assaulted, raped, maimed and killed and independence that
people had waited for so long could not bring unmixed happiness and joy. Annapurna Maharana,
the famous Gandhian leader, conveyed a feeling of surprise and suddenness at the event of
actualisation of independence. In her autobiography she writes,

“15 August 1947 arrived. Suddenness of the event was not only a big surprise for me but
even for Acharya Harihar Das. Through out the night of 14 August 1947 we all kept awake and at
the stroke of midnight we all assembled near the flag post and sang the national anthem. The
experience of that night is indescribable. Whomsoever we saw that night we simply hugged. We
were all short of words. What an extraordinary feeling of joy? It must have been the joy of self-
accomplishment!”1

Recounting the happenings on the day of Independence, Gobind Mishra, the Congress
leader from Dasapalla, writes in his memoirs,

“After 12 O’ clock in the night of 14 August 1947 I could not get any sleep. Rest of the
night was spent in celebration. There could be no way of assessing how much one had
contributed towards the goal of independence. Today dreams have materialized. Our perceptions
have started changing. Times have changed and ideals are also changing. With new priorities and
new goals a new India has to be built. New rules of governance have to be drafted. Our
countrymen should realize the profound nature of the responsibility that has come down to us
and assist those who have been entrusted with this difficult task. Many thoughts of this nature
started playing in my mind”. 2

He also continued,

“The British Government has transferred power to Indians but they have not completely
removed the potential heart-burns. India has already been bisected but dark clouds are still
hovering over India in the form of six hundred princely states…since the British paramountcy
has disappeared they have all become independent and can do what they want. Who can vouch
that the Britishers are not conspiring with them to further their interests in India?” 3
 With the kind of political arrangement prevailing for long, the prospect of independence
for India suddenly brought on to surface the complex problem of the so-called princely states.
Since they (princely states) were spread over more than one-third of the total Indian land mass
and constituted more than one-fourth of total Indian population, indecision regarding their fate
had left enough scope for confusion. Many of the states fancied chances of out right
independence as granted by the departing British. Some one like the Maharaja of Dholpur, even
rushed to suggest to the Viceroy that the British should stay on in India to rule their Empire till
the princes gained their independence. 4

Continuing popular movements and financial stringency of the states had led the States
Enquiry Committee (of Orissa) headed by H K Mahatab to recommend for amalgamation of the
princely states with the province of Orissa.5 And in 1947 the central government also reiterated a
similar kind of merger because many of the states were in no position to counter the growing
political and economic stress that disappearance of the British created.6

Some of the Princes were well aware of their sovereign status. Pratap Chandra Bhanj
Deo, the Maharaja of Mayurbhanj’s letter to Maharaja of Dungarpur of 9 May 1946 presents the
plight of the rulers. He wrote,

‘Our authority is a farce, the real rulers are the Residents and the Political Officers. We
are puppets and tools in their hands.’7

However, as sovereigns, the Princes also enjoyed certain exclusive privileges which they
apprehended will be lost if they merged with the province of Orissa. So using sovereignty as a
pretext, the Princes tried to maintain their feudalistic platforms for waging an already-lost battle
for a little longer.

There can be no second opinion about the fact that Mahatab played a stellar role in the
final merger of the states with the province of British Orissa. Even his die-hard critics
unhesitatingly applaud his contribution in the process of amalgamation of the garjats. On 15
December 1947 the garjat rulers signed a statement of merger and on 1 January 1948
amalgamation was effected. After one full year Mayurbhanj merged with Orissa on 1 January
1949.8

After the merger of the states an executive council was formed to co-ordinate the affairs
between the provincial government and the states. Kapileswar Nanda, the peasant leader from
Bolangir, Kailash Chandra Mohanty from Nilgiri and Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, the Prajamandal
leader from Talcher were on the Committee. 9 In order to involve the common people of the
erstwhile sates and to address their problems 34 members from the States were nominated to the
Vidhan Sabha. This temporary arrangement was discontinued on 9 October 1949 and as per the
directions of the Viceroy the membership of the Orissa Assembly was increased to 91 after
including 31 representatives from the erstwhile states. In the nomination of the representatives
from the states the provincial government sought the advice of the leader of the opposition,
Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo (The Ruler of Kanika).
 As per the merger statement between Sardar Patel and the Rulers of the princely states,
25 states merged with Orissa on 1 January 1948.10 However, between 1 January 1948 and 1
January 1949 momentous changes took place in the attitude of some of the rulers and people of
some of the states which spelt doom for the dream of including Sareikala and Kharasuan for
Greater Orissa. Initially people had been overjoyed over the decision to merge Sareikala and
Kharasuan with Orissa. But the failure to get through the merger of Mayurbhanj with Orissa
became an event of crucial importance. With regard to Sareikala and Kharasuan there were two
very fundamental difficulties and on both these counts things went in favour of Bihar. First, the
ruler of Sareikala expressed his desire to merge with Bihar and second, from Orissa there was no
direct access to sareikala and Kharasuan other than through Mayurbhanj which had not merged
with Orissa on 1 January 1948.

Interested factions deliberately worked overtime to create disruption in the normal life in
these states. With active support from the Bihar Government the ‘Ho’ tribals were instigated to
work against the merger with Orissa. Because of hardship of the Oriya officers stationed there
law and order situation in these states became grim.11

In February 1948 a serving judge of the Bombay High Court, Baudekar was appointed to
decide the future of sareikala and Kharasuan. Jaipal singh, the Jharkhand tribal leader was given
a free hand by the Rulers in staging disturbances and projecting a picture as if people were
against merger with Orissa. Some leaders in Orissa were also entrusted with the responsibility of
misleading public opinion with regard to events in these two states. On 18 May 1948 the two
states were handed over to Bihar by the Central Government on the pretext that there was
unusual delay in Justice Baudekar’s visit and so the Central leadership took the decision after
considering the opinion of the two provinces.12 This, became the biggest news in the Oriya press.
Although Mahatab’s role in the whole process was highlighted, some factions were critical of his
failure to prevent the dismemberment of the two states from Orissa.13

A little before the eventual decision of the Central Government was made public,
Mahatab, as the Premier of Orissa, had sent a secret report about the affairs in sareikala and
Kharasuan to the Rulers of the states which were amalgamated with Orissa. Mahatab wrote,

“Suggestive news have appeared in the press to the effect that these two states are going
to be integrated with Bihar. I will not be surprised if this news ultimately comes true. It is
needless to say that I am taking all necessary steps against the dismemberment of these two steps
from the province of Orissa but I think it is useful to take a detached view of the whole
situation….”14

Expressing his inability and helplessness in preventing the dismemberment of these two
states he wrote in the last paragraph of the Report,

“…I am very sorry that there is no substantial local support in these two states in favour
of joining with Orissa. I am very sorry, the Ruler is against Orissa. I am very sorry Bihar has
played in to the hands of the intriguers. I am very sorry, the constitution of the country has
undergone such a change that Government of India as such can not compel the provincial
Government to behave in a particular way. I am very sorry Mayurbhanj did not join Orissa. In
spite of all these factors I am satisfied that I have done my duty and I will continue whatever be
the result. Orissa with twenty three states is a major province and I have full faith in her bright
future.15

Two very pertinent questions arise from this Report of Mahatab to the Rulers of the
states. First, in spite of the efforts put in by Mahatab, was there a possibility of forcing a crisis
with the Central Government on the issue of sareikala and Kharasuan? Second, Did Mahatab
have a role to play in Maurbhanj not willing to merge with Orissa on 1 January 1948? 16

Nilamani Routray in his autobiography Smruti O Anubhuti writes that after the merger of
the states on 1 January 1948 he had gone to Baripada, the capital of Mayurbhanj along with
Sudhir Ghosh. There he met the Prime Minister of the state, Sri Sarat Chandra Dash. On being
asked what had withheld Mayurbhanj from joining Orissa when all other states had already
joined, he said,

“The arrogant attitude of Mahatab has been the obstacle in the path of Maurbhanj
merging with Orissa.”17

Reflecting on the post-merger scene, Godavarish Mohapatra, the editor of Niankhunta,

brought out a satirical piece titled Manyabar Mahatabanka Puja Abhinandan (The Puja
Greetings of Mahatab).18The poem was

Tam tam tam tamka baje Chhotia Odisha Virata Saaje

Jai Kharasuan Sadheikala Tathapi Odisha Vishala Hela
Karaputa pare Andhra Daka Chamaka Delani Odisha Jaka
Baja tamaka Bajay Baja Mukutavihina Odisha Raja
Tamaka Maadare duluke Chhati Behosa helaki Odisha Jaati?
Epata Galani Sepata Jiva Tathapi Odisha Virata Heba
On the question of Sareikala and Kharasuan, Sailabala Das (daughter of Utkal Gourab
Madhusudan Das) wrote letters to the Prime Minister, Pundit Nehru, Deputy Prime Minister,
Sardar Patel, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Sachidanand Sinha, the famous Congress leader
from Bihar. In her letter dated 30 August 1949 she wrote to sardar Patel,

“When you helped Orissa in amalgamating with her ex-state areas, the whole of Orissa
blessed you for giving shape to their long-cherished dream and long-felt want of a strong and
consolidated Utkal.”19

She continued in her letter,

 “…for some mysterious reasons, the amalgamation of these two states with Orissa was
delayed. Ugly rumours got about that this was due to some eminent Biharis in the Congress High
Command. But many of us discounted this rumour as we put our faith in your reputation of
unflinching impartiality.”20

To Dr. Sachidanand Sinha she wrote in September 1949,

“… as it is, Bihar as a province is quite big and rich in itself and you do not need these
two states to enrich you further….”

In the same letter she continued,

“I am shocked to learn from statements in the papers and from victims from Sareikala
and Kharasuan that the atrocities and barbarism with which the unfortunate Oriya people in these
states are repressed are such that they make even my cold blood now run hot…Is it their fault
that they do not wish to be Biharised?”21

In his reply to her letter Dr. Sachidanand Sinha wrote back,

“As regards the two states merged in Bihar …they had been merged definitely and finally
by Sardar Patel in Bihar and there was absolutely no chance of the question being reopened… As
a matter of fact, these two states are not Orissa states at all in any sense, but they are Adibasi
states; the bulk of the population in both of them consisting of Adibasis. The Bihar Government
has done nothing to suppress Oriya for any purpose, whatsoever, nor will they do so in future.
You need not, therefore, worry yourself about it any longer.”22

The issue of Sareikala and Kharasuan again came up during the formation of the States
Reorganisation Commission constituted in 1953 to redraw the state boundaries on linguistic
basis. A Committee was formed under the leadership of the Finance Minister, Sri Radhanath
Rath. And basing on the facts, the Committee forcefully presented its arguments before the States
Reorganisation Commission. Orissa Assembly had passed a resolution unanimously for merger
of the two states (Sareikala and Kharasuan) with Orissa. Since the States Reorganisation
Commission did not pay any heed to the demands of Orissa there was a widespread protest
movement in the state against the government. Sri Nabakrusna Choudhary was the chief Minister
of the state when disturbances against the recommendations of the Commission started. He went
to Delhi in this regard but when he came back empty handed, the movement turned violent.23

Speaking about the role of Naba Babu, Girija Pattanayak, then a student at Ravanshaw
College, said,

“Central Government refused to revise the earlier decision and to agree for the merger of
Sareikala and Kharsuan with Orissa. There were wide spread protests and the public reaction to
the decision was of complete dejection and disillusionment. In January 1956, Naba Babu had
been invited as the chief guest for the annual function of Ravenshaw College East Hostel. As the
news of his presence in the hostel function spread there was considerable excitement. I met Naba
Babu. He told me that the Congress Leadership will not understand unless something (very big)
drastic and eye-catching was done. I am going to the centre with our (Ministers) resignations.
You can do whatever you can. When I insisted on what he meant by ‘do whatever you can do’,
he said, ‘You are a revolutionary! Do I need to make you understand what to do?’On the
suggestion, whether his hints implied that he was with us, he said, ‘What kind of revolutionary
are you? Does one need o have consent of some one to start a revolution? And which revolution
has taught you this?”24

Naba Babu went to Delhi with the resignation letters but came back with the Gurkha and
Garhwali forces. He was made to believe by the central leadership that the protest movement in
Orissa was a secessionist movement and was a danger to the unity and integrity of India. Delhi
made him understand that way. When Naba Babu was there in Delhi, it was broadcast on radio
that the Congress Working Committee had accepted the recommendations of the States
Reorganisation Commission. This made him very unpopular among the people because it had
nothing for Orissa. But his wife had different things to say. She herself led the protest movement
in Cuttack and said,

“This government has lost its mind.”25

The movement for redrawing the state boundaries created an explosive situation. Deaths
in police firing only added insult to injury. Caught in between an angry public and an
unsympathetic Party Naba Babu decided to resign. Why Nabakrusna Choudhary resigned from
the Chief Minister’s office is still a matter of debate. Responding to the question asked by a
journalist as to why Naba Babu resigned as the CM in 1956, his wife Malati Devi said,

“Bapi was never desperate to cling on to power. As the Chief Minister he saw there were
many obstacles in the way in which he wanted to work. He could not do all that by remaining in
the government. After his resignation Nehru wanted to take him in the central cabinet. He was
offered high positions. Bapi refused. Blaming me for Bapi’s refusal Nehruji wrote, ‘There is a
need for people like him in the government. You are making him do all this…’”26

It is no accident that the then President and the Prime Minister of India happened to be
from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh respectively, the two biggest provinces of India. In this context
Jayaprakash Narayan has said that after reorganization of the states on linguistic basis he once
met Pundit Govind Ballav Pant and asked him,

“Punditji, in size Uttar Pradesh is as big as France. It will be convenient for the people of
the state if it is split into one or two more states. Same is the case with Bihar.”About Uttar
Pradesh Punditji replied, “How can we divide the birth place of Rama and Krishna?”27

Reasons probably lay elsewhere. Orissa had once been a part of Bihar. Dr. Rajendra
Prasad was not only the then President of the Indian Union, he happened to be the undisputed
leader of Bihar also. Even if the States Reorganisation Commission had given an unbiased
report, the conditions in India were such that it would have been foolish to expect that the
Commission would not have listened to the President and taken away territories from his home
state and merged them with another province. For the Oriyas, it was like a situation where the
examinee knew before appearing at the examination that he would fail.28

Naba Babu was of the opinion that the whole exercise was meaningless if the people of
the affected areas did not speak up for themselves. It made no sense to hold meetings and disrupt
public life in Cuttack if people in sareikala, Kharasuan, Midnapore or Srikakulam were not
involved as much. It was essential that the people in these areas were aroused and motivated. But
in the surcharged atmosphere of 1956 not many Oriyas were willing to buy this idea.29

On the other hand, while the Oriya leaders were working for the merger of these states
with Orissa, not many people in these areas had any sense of pride in associating themselves
with Orissa. In this context, an incident needs to be recounted. When Gokulanand Choudhary
and some prominent Oriya leaders asked some Oriya friends of Midnapore to merge with Orissa,
their reply was, “Do you have a Rabindranath Tagore or a city like Calcutta?”Even though the
protests against the Boundary Commission were wide spread in Cuttack, Puri and Balasore it
was almost non-existent in the areas, merger for which the protest was being launched. This
could not have escaped the Boundary Commission.30

For the educated young and the Oriya elites, the dismemberment of these territories in
1948 and the inability to get the decision in favour of Orissa in 1956 was a question of loss of
prestige. In the present context, it becomes relevant to think whether merger of Sareikala,
Kharasuan, srikakulam or Midinapore would have made much difference as such. Bihar in any
case has been partitioned and a new state of Jharkhand created. The two states Sareikala and
Kharasuan are now in Jharkhand. Would it have made much difference to the common man
then?

The atmosphere was vitiated31and Naba Babu became the target of public anger. He
became the scapegoat for the non-acceptance of Orissa’s suggestions by the States
Reorganisation Commission. Some people even went to the extent of digging up Malati Devi’s
origins to explain for Naba Babu’s role in Orissa politics. 32Or did the Sareikala and Kharasuan
question again affirm the remarks made by Lord Curzon in 1912 that unfortunate things were
happening to the Oriya people because ‘…Oriyas are a non-agitating people?’33

References
1. Annapurna Moharana, Amruta Anubhava(Oriya), Sikshya Sandhan,
Bhubaneswar,2005, PP. 292-293.
2. Dr. Girish Chandra Mishra ed. Govind Chandra Rachana Samagra (Oriya), Vol.1,
Arya Prakashan, Cuttack, 1998, pp.450-451.
3. Ibid.
4. The Viceroy was astonished that there could be such stupid rulers who suffered ‘from
a belief in the Divine Right of Kings’ when the British were on the verge of leaving
India. M N Das in his chapter on ‘The End of The British Raj Vis-à-vis The Princely
States of India’ in Towards Merger, Orissa State Archives, Bhubaneswar, 1998, p.9.)
5. Report of the Enquiry Committee, Orissa States (Orissa Mission Press, Cuttack,
1939).
6. Accession No.1161-S, Orissa State Archives, Bhubaneswar.
7. HK Mahatab, Beginning of the End, Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1974, P.1.
8. Nilamani Routray, Smruti O Anubhuti (Oriya), Granth Mandir, Cuttack, 2001, p. 186.
9. Ibid, p. 195.
10. Ibid, p. 189.
11. Balaram Mohanty, Biplabi Jananayak: Nabakrusna Choudhary (Oriya), Bharat
Bharati, Cuttack, 1994, pp.53-54. For details about the whole process of merger of the
princely states with Orissa and the problems arising thereof see Nilamani Routray,
op. cit., pp. 183-199. Initially the Ruler of Sareikala had expressed his willingness to
join with Bihar. Later he changed his opinion and wanted to join Orissa. But by then
it was too late and he could not change the opinion of the tribals.
12. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.191.
13. Kailash Chandra Dash, A Study on the Merger of the Princely States of Orissa, in
Towards Merger, Orissa State Archives, Bhubaneswar, 1998, P.184.
14. For the detailed secret Report of Mahatab to the Rulers see Kailash Chandra Dash,
op. cit., pp.184-189.
15. Ibid.
16. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.186.
17. Not all garjat Prajamandal leaders found it comfortable working with Mahatab. Since
they had suffered severely under the repressive regimes of the Princes they wanted
drastic changes in the administration whereas any outside leader approaching the state
issue was bound to prefer a more moderate and dispassionate view. Many garjat
leaders were distinctly unhappy that their case was not properly presented before
Sardar Patel by the Provincial Congress leadership. As a result, People from the
Princely states did not display much enthusiasm in welcoming Sardar Patel in Orissa
when he had come to decide the fate of the princely states. Ibid, pp.185-186.
18. Cited in Kailash Chandra Dash, op. cit., p.196.
19. Sachidanand Mohanty ed. Literature and social reform in Colonial Orissa: The
Legacy of Sailabala Das(1875-1968), Sahitya Academy, 2006,p.169.
20. Ibid. She did not get any reply to her letter to sardar Patel as Patel was ill. The letter
was acknowledged by his secretary.
21. Ibid., p.172. Sailabala das was 75 years old in 1949.
22. Ibid., p.180.
23. Balaram Mohanty, op. cit., p.54.
24. Foreword to Chitta Ranjan Das’s Sri Nabakrusna Choudhary: Eka Jibani(Oriya),
The Universe, Cuttack, 2001.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid, p.125.
27. Anadi Nayak, Lokashaktira Sandhane: Nabakrusna Choudhary(Oriya), Grantha
Mandir, Cuttack, 2001, p.152.
28. Ibid. Sri Nilamani Routray also mentions in his autobiography that of the three
members on the States Reorganisation Commission, Syed Fazl Ali happened to be the
 Governor of Orissa. But before that he had been the Chief Justice of Patna High
Court. This could not be of any help to Orissa. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.266.
29. Anadi Nayak, op. cit., p. 153.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid, p. 156.This time around, Mahatab took advantage of the problems faced by the
discredited Government of Nabakrusna Choudhary in Orissa and took over as the
Chief Minister of Orissa after Naba Babu’s resignation. Nilamani Routray, op. cit.,
p.296.
32. Anadi Nayak, op. cit., p. 156.
33. Cited in Bansidhar Mohanty, Oriya Bhasa Andolan(O), Friends Publishers, Cuttack,
1989, p.68. In 1912 when discussions were on to create a separate province of Bihar
and Orissa separating it from Bengal, Curzon had vehemently opposed the move
saying that Oriyas and Biharis did not have commonalities of customs or language
and It was an unnatural union which will not last long.

UNLIKELY HEROES OF 1942: A STUDY IN THE CONTEXT OF ORISSA

 Dr. Surya Kant Nath
Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy
Khadakwasla, Pune

UNLIKELY HEROES OF 1942: A STUDY IN THE CONTEXT OF ORISSA

The Quit India Movement of 1942 involved unprecedented and unparalleled mass
participation. It marked the culmination of the nationalist movement in India. It was fought in the
name of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress but at the same time the movement was totally
un-Gandhian in character.1 It sent tremors deep down the British spine the like of which had not
been felt since the uprising of 1857 and demonstrated the extent to which common people were
willing to go in their quest for freedom.

The Congress had embarked on the Quit India campaign on 8 th august 1942. Meeting at
Bombay the AICC adopted a resolution authorizing Gandhi to lead a mass struggle on non-
violent lines on the widest possible scale “so that the country might utilize all the non-violent
strength it had gathered airing the last twenty-two years of peaceful struggle” 2 in the fight for
liberation. Gandhi addressing the gathering called it open rebellion –the “do or die” struggle to
compel the British to depart.

Linlithgow’s government had anticipated the move and had made its plan to deal with it a
couple of months in advance. In a resolute bid to nip the rebellion in the bud, it arrested Gandhi
and all the other leaders on the morning of 9th August and incarcerated them in Ahmednagar Fort
in Bombay presidency.3 The Congress organization was outlawed throughout British India and
potential Congress leaders at the provincial level who could ferment trouble were put behind the
bar.
 Bereft of effective leadership from the outset, the agitation was carried on by
underground workers and junior leaders with very little experience who put up a chaotic battle
with the authority. The eruption into the ranks of the non-violent freedom fighters of extremists
and terrorists on one hand and anti-social elements on the other led to alarming disturbances all
over the country. Communication system was virtually paralyzed and the supply of war material
to the forces defending India on the Burma border was placed in great jeopardy.4
The Quit India Movement degenerated into an ill-organized mass upheaval, lit up as
much by acts of surprising individual ingenuity and heroism as by crude out bursts of
incendiarism and looting. Among those who went underground and indulged in violence and
destruction were some who became big names in regional and national politics. Although some
individuals tried to keep the fire of agitation alive the back of the struggle was broken by mid
October 1942 as the Raj often employed all instruments of oppression at its command.5

As per the theme of the paper ‘Role of the common people in the national awakening and
the freedom movement of India’ I would like to deliberate upon a few crucial aspects linked with
the popular movements launched under the Congress banner and the contribution of different
segments of the society thereof. I have chosen the Quit India Movement because it was the
movement which became leaderless from the very beginning and could not have a centrally-
organized machinery to provide the movement with guidelines. It also left the agitators with lot
of flexibility at the local level and to a great extent functioned outside the usual jurisdiction of
the Indian National Congress. The British Government deliberately tried to establish a Congress
link to the wide spread disturbances so that Gandhi and the Congress organization could be
maligned for their complicity in instigating the population against Allied war efforts at a crucial
phase of the Second World War.6
The most significant feature of the Quit India Movement was that it marked the complete
erosion of colonial hegemony. This was significant because the Indian National movement was
primarily a hegemonic struggle between the nationalist and imperialist forces. In the course of
this paper I have tried to cite a few examples in support of this.

Secondly, during the course the Quit India Movement there was little evidence of internal
social conflict while confronting the colonial state. This was in marked contrast to the pattern of
events of the earlier campaigns of mass agitation launched by the Indian National Congress in
1920-22 and 1930-34. All other contradictions were pushed to the background because of the
intensity of the anti-British feelings.7

Another very crucial manifestation was the symptoms of unrest among sub-ordinate
sections of bureaucracy and the police. The lower bureaucracy was particularly vulnerable to the
nationalist ideology. In several places they were found quite sympathetic to the nationalist cause
and in most cases did not show either promptness in dealing with it as they had invariably done
in the past.

To assess the role of different segments of population I have selected three cases of
individuals with specific attributes who can help us in having a fair idea about the magic of
Gandhi’s name, the attitude and aspirations of the common people who had not been associated
with Indian National Congress in any way but nevertheless played their part in the struggle for
freedom. The three individuals I have tried to focus on are from three different backgrounds: one,
a tribal from Koraput, Laxman Naik, who was the only political agitator from Orissa who was
hanged in the Berhampur central jail premises. Second, a non-descript leader from the princely
state of Dhenkanal, Baishnab Pattanaik, who started his career as a contract (part-time) painter
with the Bengal-Nagpur Railway and ended up as a committed Communist at the end of the war
and, third, Surendra Nath Dwivedi, a socialist leader who successfully managed to evade the
police and built up an underground movement in Orissa during the Quit India movement with the
help of school students. All the three were directly related to the Congress organization in the
state as many ideological outfits functioned within the Congress in the pre-independence period.
While Laxman Naik was a member of the Congress, Dwivedi was a member of the Congress
Socialist Party and Baisnab was yet to become an active member of the Prajamandal, a political
outfit in the princely state of Dhenkanal which functioned under the guidance of the Congress
and the Socialist leaders.

To start with, I wish to emphasize on the magic of Gandhi’s name which drew millions of
his countrymen in to the vertex of the national movement. Gandhi had a fascinating array of
vocations attributed to him. Not many seemed to know quite who or what he was. He was a
Mahatma, a Pundit, a Sadhu, a Brahmin, even a devata. The most intelligent said, he was a man
who was working for the good of the country. But there were curious instances of the power of
his name.8

Gandhi baba could work miracles.9 Thousands joined the Gandhian movement being
mesmerized with his personality and saint-like approach. Many who did not have the slightest of
ideas about satyagraha or had never ventured out of the safety of their homes jumped headlong
into the nationalist movement without even bothering to think what would happen next, or what
an uncertain journey it would lead to. The example of Suhsila Devi, a close aide of Rama Devi
presents a peculiar example of how Gandhi’s name worked wonders in the lives of ordinary
Indians. She was a widow and did not have any children. One night Gandhiji came in her dream
and the next morning she packed her ornaments in a bundle and left for the nearest Congress
workers’ house.10 To most rural masses Gandhi meant Congress and vice versa. Every one
interpreted and appropriated Gandhian messages and his name according to his political and
moral vision.

The experiences of the famous Oriya educationist and freedom fighter, Chitta Ranjan Das
of Bagalpur also makes an interesting reading. He mentions in Mitrasya Chakshusa that after the
outbreak of the Quit India Movement in August 1942 he felt restless for two to three days.
Unable to take a decision, he confided to his elder brother that he wanted to plunge into the
Gandhian movement so that he could do something for his country. His brother did not dissuade
him. He only said that since, he (his elder brother) was the eldest child in the family, he had to
fulfill his responsibilities towards the family, so he could not join the national movement, even if
he had the inclination to. But if he (Chtta Ranjan Das) wanted to join Gandhian movement, he
could do so and from his brother’s side there was no objection. 11There might have been a
thousand more such instances of ordinary young men and women joining the Gandhian
movement without having any prior notion of what was in store or what sort of a life it could
lead to.
 These incidents also speak volumes about how ordinary young boys and housewives,
who had no formal exposure to active agitational politics, were drawn into the vortex of the
national movement and what kind of magic or spell Gandhi’s name or the image of the Congress
organization exercised over the common men all over India. Another significant aspect of this
episode also points to the fact that some family members of the agitators were liberal and
supportive of their decision to join Gandhian movement which probably provided the agitators
with much more emotional strength.

Orissa has always been a stronghold of the Indian National Congress. Since the days of
Gopabandhu Das, who brought and popularized the Congress creed in Orissa in 1920, Congress
has always been the most dominant political force in the province. More than the opposition to
the Congress from left or non-Congress parties, the divisiveness in the party ranks from its own
members and factional squabbles among them has led to weaken the party and discredit it in the
public eyes. Literally speaking, anyone worth the name in the struggle against colonial state in
the Twentieth century Orissa was either a Congress member or a sympathizer.

I. Laxman Naik

Koraput was a partially excluded area and it was not normally administered by laws and
regulations of the province. It was noted for its tribal population who lived in the forest and hilly
areas and where the literacy rate was the lowest in the state. It is, however, wrong to presume
that people were unaware of Gandhi’s message.

The Government’s report regarding the disturbances in the Koraput district make an
interesting reading :

“In the Koraput district where the trouble for a time being was wide spread, the
ignorant hill tribes who had no idea of politics had been duped, partly by attractive promises
that there would be no rents, no taxes, no forest laws and no shandy dues in a full Congress
regime and partly by playing on their superstition.The rise in prices and lack of food stuffs and
other articles of popular consumption definitely spread a sense of grievance. There is however,
no evidence to show that this was the main incentive behind the disturbances or was more than a
mere contributing factor.12

The report sought to create the impression that the hill tribes were duped and their
superstitions played upon for bringing them out. The illiterate masses were misled by the
Congress and came out only to share the loot. But the fact remains that the Quit India movement
was not only the occasion when the Congressmen had mobilized the population of Koraput
against the oppressive rule of the colonial administration. Although the Congress had not struck
any roots in the district till the 1930’s, office acceptance by the Congress in 1937 and subsequent
intensive efforts by the ministry to popularize Gandhi’s creed and Congress ideals had been a
great success in this part of province. The increase in the Congress primary membership was
striking. In October 1938, it stood at 50,048. (Koraput district was second only to Cuttack district
which had a membership of 58,878).13The enthusiasm generated by the PCC was such that there
was virtual deification of Gandhi and at some place “temple ritual took place at the Congress
office.”14 The effect of Gandhi’s popularity in the area can be seen from the fact that Laxman
 Naik, the president of the Primary Congress Committee at Mathili and many adivasi supporters
had given up hunting and eating meat.15

Moreover, Malkanagiri, where the movement was most intense in Koraput district, had a
rich legacy of popular movements. Koraput had a long tradition of fituri and Laxman Naik (who
led the movement in malkanagiri) had come in contact with Ramachandra kutia, a koya youth
who had joined the fituri and Sitarama Raju, who had raised the banner of revolt against bethi
and oppressive forest rules in 1922-24. His association with these rebel leaders gave him the
opportunity of going round the area as did his subsequent interest in astrology and medicine
(known locally as desari traits). This in turn helped him to strike roots among the people of
Malkanagiri area.16

Leading a crowd of about a thousand people Laxman Naik reached the Mathili police station
around 9.30 A.M. singing the Ramdhun and carrying Congress flags. They raised slogans like:

“We are warriors. The British Government has gone. Mahatma Gandhi is our king. Maharaja
of Jeypore is dead. The British king is dead. The country is ours. We have got independence. Rise
brethren, all of you take part in this war. Mahatma Gandhi Ki Jai.”17

The people were stopped by the police about two hundred yards east of the police station.
After an argument with the policemen, the crowd withdrew to the nearby hat in procession.
There, Laxman Naik, the leader, made a speech informing that the British Government was gone.

“Gandhi Raj had replaced the British Raj and the shandy dues and the forest dues no longer
had to be paid.”18

In the tussle that followed when the crowd marched to the police station to hoist the Congress flag
around 2 PM, the police found pretext for ordering lathicharge and subsequent firing. Laxman
was hit by a police bayonet on his face and lay unconscious in a small drain, in front of the
police station.19 It was in the police firing that a forest guard Rammaya was killed along with
some nine to eleven other demonstrators.20

In the trail that followed, the crowd was described as a ‘violent mob’ which wanted to bring
down the police station, kill the officers and loot the Malkanagiri treasury. Since Laxman was
viewed as a potential threat by the estate as well as the colonial administration, he was singled
out and charged with the murder of the forest guard Rammaya. The authorities unleashed a
virtual reign of terror to smoother the storm and to secure witnesses. Of the fifty three charge
sheeted, four were acquitted, eighteen convicted to lesser terms, thirty sentenced to life
imprisonment and Laxman given a death sentence. 21 He was finally hanged on 29th March 1943
in the Berhampur central jail premises.22

The final statistics for the Quit India disturbances in Koraput district read: Total arrested-
1970, jailed-570, death in jails-50, lathicharge-24 occasions, total rounds fired by the police-451,
total killed in police firing-25, total injured-2147 and total fine imposed-Rs. 11,200.00. 23 This
would not have been possible had the people been merely duped by the Congress or swayed by
Gandhi’s name or any attractive promises.

The war time hardship and the repressive measures of the police and the estate had stirred
the hill tribes to strive for establishing a ‘national government’ where there would be no rent, no
taxes, no forest laws and shandy dues. The government puzzled at the unexpected enthusiasm
demonstrated by the unlettered tribals and eager to blame the Congress for the disturbances,
charged it with the responsibility for inciting the tribals thereby understating the depth of
penetration of the nationalistic ideas and the economic issues involved.

II. Baisnab Patnaik

After the All India States Peoples’ Conference in 1937, Prajamandal associations were
formed in the states and there was a vigorous drive to mobilize the people. The Quit India
Movement was most widespread in Dhenkanal state as the state repression was most brutal there.
In Denkanal, people devoid of any civil rights, were reeling under an oppressive state machinery.
The movement of the people in the states entered a new phase with the passing of the Quit India
Resolution at Bombay. As a sequel to the widespread arrests in British Orissa, notifications were
issued by the Dhenkanal Durbar prohibiting public meetings and procession and declaring the
Prajamandal unlawful on 16.8.1942.24
The news of the events in British Orissa inspired the people in the gadjats25 to defy
government orders and to indulge in acts of lawlessness. Apprehending trouble, the Dhenkanal
state authorities had passed orders on the 17th August 1942 for detaining Kishori sahu,
Bhagirathi Sahu, Dibakar Biswal, Baisnab Patnaik, Maheswar Subahusingh, Purna Mohapatra,
and for restricting the movement of Musa Mallick and Debraj Patra. All these leaders were
absconding and only Purna Mohapatra and Maheswar Subahusingh were detained on 19th
August 1942.26

Baisnab had had a non-descript child hood and in his teens became a contract painter in
the Bengal-Nagpur railway segment. This gave him enough opportunities to travel and meet
people. The state took notice of him when he started taking active part in the public meetings and
in organizing anti-state activities. He was arrested for a brief period in the early part of 1942 and
after his release on 28 April 1942, had left for Cuttack and there was no news of him in
Dhenkanal till 26th August 1942. He suddenly came in the news when he led a gang of nineteen
people to Murhi (now known as Kamakshya Nagar) and caused havoc there. The group was
armed with deadly weapons such as muzzle-loading guns, bows, arrows, spears and lathis. They
raided the police station at Murhi at 4 A.M. in the morning. 27 Baidhar Swain, a boy of 12 years,
remained in charge of their surplus weapons and baggage in the Jungle. They overpowered the
guard and attempted to break the iron shaft containing the treasury money, but failed. They burnt
the thana records, took away four state guns, Sixty rounds of ammunitions and a cash of rupees
19.146.00 from the thana building and ran amok, threatening the local SDO, Police and the
public. They broke open the court, the office rooms, burnt the court records, Tehsildar’s quarters,
and the quarters of the second officer, Sirastadar, range officer, other staff quarters and sheds.
They then left for Malpura, a village about six miles from Murthi and with the aid of the
villagers looted a state granary. The miscreants robbed one hundred and fifty rupees from the
care-taker of the debottar granary and distributed the paddy among the villagers.28
 Baisnab Patanaik and his group marched from village to with the Congress flags and
drums. At Palasuni biso arround five hundred villagers raided the Chandpur police station on 2nd
September 1942. Baisnab and his men then burnt down the thana house and the local
school.29After Chandpur, Baisnab along with his associates Musa Mallick, Dibakara Biswal,
Kisori Sahu and others proceeded towards Parjanag. The police had got the information and on
4th September 1942 encountered the mob at Janhapara. In this clash with the police, Bira Sahu of
Toradanali and Benu Sahu of Kusumunda were shot dead and Baisnab sustained serious bullet
injury.30

After being critically wounded, Baisnab managed to sneak into Cuttack with a fellow-
fighter Nabaghana Behera and with the assistance of Surendranath Dwibedi left for Calcutta for
treatment in the guise of a marwari.31 After Baisnab’s disappearance, another party led by
Debraj Patra set fire to the police out post and the beat house of the forest department at
Gengutia of 5th September 1942.32

However, after Baisnab left the state with a gun-shot wound, the movement lost its momentum. In order
to instill fear in the minds of the people, state administration came down heavily on the rebels and the
villagers who supported them. Forces were stationed at different places of the state and Bhuban. Night
patrols were arranged and raids were conducted in suspected villages for arresting the leaders. 33 Cash
rewards were announced for the capture of absconders and the state even rewarded the villagers of
Kusia with rupees three hundred for assisting in the arrest of four associates of Baisnab-Musa Mallick,
Ananda Swain, Anukula Sahu and Baidhar Swain. 34 Houses of the prominent Prajamandal leaders were
pulled down by elephants, properties confiscated and men, women and children indiscriminately
assaulted.35

The state administration again unleashed terror and repressive measures to suppress the
movement. Troops marched through villages looting and plundering indiscriminately causing
untold suffering and loss to the people. Collective fines were imposed on villages and were
realized forcibly. Almost all the Prajamandal workers were detained and tortured in the jails.
Intensive searches were made to apprehend the absconders and cash rewards were announced for
capturing them or for providing information about them. The agitation in Dhenkanal ended in the
face of massive arrests, and stringent repressive measures.36

III. Underground Movement and Surendra Nath Dwivedi

Roughly from end of September 1942 the movement entered its longest but also the least
formidable phase. This phase was characterized by acts of terror by the youth. In organizing the
underground activities in Orissa and co-ordinating with branch offices in different districts,
Surendranath Dwivedi played a conspicuous role. The underground movement in orissa survived
for three months and it collapsed once Dwivedi was arrested on 13th October 1942.

Evading arrest while coming back from Bombay on 9th August (along with Malati Devi),
Dwivedi made his friend Mathura Nandan Sahu’s house in Alisha Bazar the central office for
issuing directions and for bringing out Congress bulletins. Because of strict police surveillance,
he had to put on various get-ups and shift his place of hiding twice till his eventual arrest on 13th
October 1942. But by then, he had set up a well-established underground organization linking it
with the underground organizations in Bihar and Calcutta. 37 In Orissa, underground units
(Branch offices, B.O.s) were set up in almost all district headquarters.

When Dwivedi started organizing the movement, he had his task, well cut-out. Three aspects
had to be taken care of:

1. Bulletins had to be brought out and an organization had to be set up to circulate them,
2. Underground units had to be set up throughout the province and networking had to be done
for spread of the movement in different districts,
3. Contacts had to be established with underground workers leading the movement in other
provinces.38

Since most of the first line Congress leadership was inside the jail, Dwibedi organized the
movement through the efforts of the students. He appealed to the policemen, merchants and the
general public to play their part in this supreme effort to achieve independence. Appeals were
made to the Government servants to give up slavery (often with threatening letters to their
person) and to the villagers to establish ‘azad panchayats’ and to refrain from paying fines.
Directions were also provided in the bulletins on how to disarm and overwhelm the police
parties.39

Giving a brief description of the happenings in other parts of India, a bulletin “The Final
Revolution for Independence of India” read:

“Dear friends! let us not spare the British who have sucked our blood for so long and let their
blood be dropped at least one day in India. There is no time. Let us awake. Let all the
government offices be burnt. Let telephone and electric wires be cut. Let treasury be looted and
the poor paid the money. Then thousands of people will follow. Let cars be detained and sahibs
(Europeans) assaulted by night. There is none to order you to work. If anybody wants to do good
for his motherland, let him die. Only Goddess Bhagabati can help us. Long live this revolution. If
anyone is asked to leave his job for the sake of his motherland and he does not obey, then let him
be killed.”40

Another bulletin addressed to the inhabitants of Cuttack read:

“Inhabitants of Cuttack! Will you keep aside from this great sacrifice? Do not delay and
plunge in to this tide with firmness and courage. Paralyze government administration. Burn
records of the police stations, courts and other offices. Sabotage telegraph, telephone and the
railway communications. Uproot the posts. Demolish railway stations. Drag your brothers
police, Deputy Magistrates and clerks-from the slavery of the enemy. Do not sell any thing to
those who are helping the government. Let the atmosphere created by you spread to the
muffassil...”41

To the fellow countrymen in the government services an appeal read:

“Comrades! The zero hour has struck. You have heard Mahatma Gandhi’s call. The liberation
of our motherland is at hand and Gandhiji wants you to play a heroic role...Will you not respond
to this call? Your interests lie entirely with your own men not with a few English masters who
will leave you as soon as their interest is gone. The posterity will not forgive you when it will
know that a tottering foreign administration survived only with the support of a few Indian
officers if it survives at all!...In the name of India and its teeming millions who bravely face
bullets today for the cause of our own liberation, I appeal to you to play a noble part. Decline to
obey immoral orders. Resign government service at once. Declare yourselves free. Recognize no
other authority except the Indian people.”42

The ‘Congress Varta’, a bulletin issued immediately before Dwivedi’s arrest and on the eve of
the Durga Puja read:

“The mother wants destruction. Salvation lies in destruction. Take the charm of destruction.
Be war-like and reduce the administrative camp of the enemy British to ashes. Drive away this
power from our country. Wipe out all its symbols and colours. Let a stream of blood flow by our
bloodshed. Play a blood ‘holi.’ The real worship of the mother (Goddess Durga) will be
performed.”43

The purpose of these bulletins was to rouse the masses and to incite them to indulge in mass
sabotage and destruction. Nevertheless, some of the bulletins categorically instructed the public
to remain non-violent. One such read:
“Take care! Do not adopt violence to any body. Victory to non-violence.”44

Even while dealing with the armed forces the instructions were,

“If we threaten and exasperate them by our fruitless action (violence) then they will consider
us as their personal enemy. Moreover, their oppressions will take a brutal shape. So we will not
only refrain from killing but we will also by our behaviour give them definite assurance that
their lives are safe.”45

Although the government records mention about the wide circulation of these bulletins and
the existence of a widespread network of underground organisations in Cuttack and Balasore
districts it does not mention any direct involvement of the underground leaders in the subversive
activities. However, as evident from the letters of the B.Os. [Branch Offices] to the C.O
[CentralOffice] the leaders played a very active role in inciting the people to indulge in
destructive activities at least at places like Basudevpur, Govindpur, Ersama, Tritol and Jajpur.46
 The underground resistance, however, lost its force after the arrest of Surendra nath Dwivedi.
Biswanath Pundit and Anil Kumar Ghose directed the underground movement for sometime after
Dwivedi’s arrest but with the arrest of seventeen others the movement gradually petered out.47

The establishment of underground units throughout the province was a necessary preliminary
step towards a mass upsure in the province. Dwivedi’s activities, however, were confined to
Cuttack and Balasore districts only as no Congressmen of repute were outside the jail in the other
four districts.48Another distinct handicap for Dwibedi was that he was the only prominent leader
in the province who had evaded arrest and his arrest would have meant a virtual collapse of the
underground movement. For this he had to be extra cautious and was virtually confined to his
underground office in Alisa Bazar.

In spite of frequent appeals through the pamphlets, not many senior officials resigned from
their jobs. This, as Dwivedi points out was due to the fact that most of the higher government
officials in Orissa were outsiders [non-Oriyas]. Dwibedi also mentions that he was not very well
known in the government circles where he could influence the higher officials to resign. 49 But
the officials at the lower level were quite sympathetic towards the nationalist cause. Many police
and other lower level officials helped financially and in the circulation of the bulletins.50

The underground movement failed to keep the Quit India movement alive for very long. But it
left a profound impact on the general public. Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan attributed the
failure of the Quit India movement to

“...Lack of organisation, absence of a full programme of revolution, and lack of knowledge

and training the people who failed to create their own power and resist the re-conquest of the
liberated areas.”51

Most of the underground workers in Orissa as Dwivedi mentions, were students from schools
and colleges who had no formal training and some who had nothing to do with the Congress. 52 In
all 87 people were arrested out of which 17 were punished for involvement in Dwivedi
Conspiracy case to various terms of imprisonments.

Apart from these three specific cases narrated above, there were two instances of the people
running parallel governments in Orissa, at Talcher 53 and Basudevpur.54 These governments did
not last long because of the massive manhunt and brutal use of official machinery for oppression.
But it did reflect the aspirations of the people and the newly-found confidence of the people in
managing their own affairs. The biggest contribution of the Quit India Movement was that it put
independence on the immediate agenda of the Government.

The Congress has often been criticized for being an organization of the ‘bourgeoise’ or a party
of ‘collaborators, which repeatedly betrayed the masses.55 These accusations may contain some
truth. But it would be totally unfair to dismiss the organization as an organization only of the
propertied class or working to protect the interests of the propertied class. Gandhian movement
had its share of limitations and inadequacies which were internal to all mass movements as such.
However, one has to take into account the strength and greatness of Gandhi as a person and the
strength of his ideology. Otherwise, how can one explain for the fact that Gandhian leadership
retained more mass popularity than his radical critics? And how could people jump in to the
movement without bothering about its consequences?

References

1. According to official estimates, in the first week after the arrest of the leaders, 250 railway
stations were damaged or destroyed and over 500 post offices and 150 police stations were
attacked. Bipan Chandra & Others., India’s Struggle for Independence, Penguin, New
Delhi:1989, pp.462.
2. Durga Das., India from Curzon to Nehru, Rupa, New Delhi,p.206.
3. Many leaders were taken to unknown destinations fearing public backlash. Ibid., p.206.
4. A detailed figure of the destruction and arrests at the national level is provided in Bipan
Chandra & Others., India’s Struggle for Independence, Penguin, New Delhi:1989, pp.462-463.
5. The pressure on Churchill was so great that he had to admit that “It would be impossible
“…..to stand on a purely negative attitude and the Cripps Mission is indispensable to prove our
honesty of purpose…if rejected by the Indian parties …our sincerity will be proved to the
world…” Churchill to Linlithgow, 10 March 1942, N. Mansergh (ed), Transfer of Power, Vol.1,
London 1970, pp.394-5. But the whole exercise was carried out only to pacify the American
opinion. Censorship of press was strictly adhered to in order to block news of disturbances from
reaching the public. H K Mahatab, History of Freedom Movement in Orissa(HFMO),
Vol.V(supplement), p.59.
6. Tottenham’s Congress Responsibility for the Disturbances (February 1943) repeatedly
attributed the Congress change of line to secret Pro-Axis sympathies. The whole outburst was
painted as a deliberate ‘fifth-columnist’ conspiracy as a way of winning anti-Fascist opinion for
brutal repression of an undoubtedly massive popular rebellion.
7. Students acted as couriers, simple villagers helped by refusing information to the police and
sympathetic landlords assisted the people and even the police and government officials passed on
important information regarding impending arrests. Bipan Chandra & Others., India’s Struggle
for Independence, Penguin, New Delhi:1989, pp.463-4.
8. There was hardly anyone in the remote countryside who did not believe in Gandhi’s divinity.
Each act of one-up-man-ship over the British only convinced his infallibility in the eyes of the
Indians. Interview, Kumar Karunakar Nayak, Freedom fighter, Atharbatia, 18 Jul 1990.
9. Sumit Sarkar, Popular Movements and Middle Class Leadership in late Colonial India, Centre
for studies in social science, K P Bagchi & Co. Calcutta,1985, p.51.
10. Rama Devi Choudhury was the wife of the foremost Gandhian leader of Orissa, Gopabandhu
Choudhury and sister in law of former Chief minister of Orissa, Naba Krusna Choudhury. When
Sushila Devi’s relatives went looking for her, she hid in a bush and left for the nearest Congress
worker’s house(which was three miles away) only after sunset so that she could not be dissuaded
from her resolve. Rama Devi Choudhury, Jiban Pathe(Oriya), Grantha Mandira, Cuttack, 1984,
p.102.
11. Chitta Ranjan Das, Mitrasya Chakshusha(Oriya),S B Publications, Cuttak, 1993,p.96.
12. An account of the Congress distubances in Orissa, Home Deptt,special section, Government
of Orissa, 1942, cited in H.K.Mahatab, History of the Freedom Movement in
Orissa(Hereafter HFMO),Vol.V(supplement),p.52.
13. Home Deptt. (Poll), Fortnightly Reports, November, 1939, File no.18/11/39.
14. N N Mitra ed., The Indian Annual Register, Vol.II, July-December 1942, p.194.
15. S Sanganna, ‘Revolts in Orissa- Martyr Laxman Naik: A Hero of the Freedom Movement’ in
V Raghavaiah ed., Tribal Revolts, Nellore, 1971, p.249.
16. Biswamoy Pati, “Storm Over Malkanagiri: A note on Laxman Naiko’s Revolt, 1942”in
Gyanendra Pandey ed., The Indian Nation in 1942, New Delhi, 1988, p.191.
17. Kishore Mohan Patra, Orissa State Legislature and Freedom Struggle, 1912-1947, ICHR,
Delhi, 1979, p.193.
18. The Patna High Court Decision ited in H K Mahatab ed.,HFMO, Vol.IV, pp.44-
48(Appendix).
19. Nityananda Das, “Martyr Laxman Naik: A Hero of the Freedom Movement”, in Adivasi,
Vol.IX, No1, April 1967, p.24.
20. Dasarathi Nanda, Sahid Laxman Naik (Oriya), Bijoy Book Store, Berhampur,1977, p.35.
Also, Ramakant Mishra, Amar Shahid Laxman Naik (Oriya), Pustak Bhandar, Cuttack, 1991, pp.
16-17.
21. B C Rath, Quit India Movement in Orissa, Arya Prakashan, Cuttack, 1994, p.55.
22. H K Mahatab ed., HFMO, Vol.IV, p.91. Also, Dasarathi Nanda, op.cit., pp. 116-117.
23. Sriharsha Mishra, Swadhinatara Jayajatra(Oriya), Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1980,
pp.105-106. Also, Balarama Mohanty, Swadhinaa Sangrama O Odisha (Oriya), Alok Sahitya
Pratisthan, Cuttack, 1978, p.113.
24. Notification No.152, Dhenkanal State, 16 august 1942.
25. There were 26 Princely states or Gadjats in Orissa which covered the wild tracts and were
placed under a magistrate who supervised the tributary mahals. They were independent of the
province of British Orissa (called Mughalbundi as they were ruled by the Mughals earlier) but
socio-culturally and economically were closely interlinked.
26. Amrit Bazar Patrika, 11 November 1942.
27. B C Rath, op. cit., pp.96-97.
28. Amrit Bazar Patrika, 11 October1942.
29. Ibid.
30. Jatayu, 31 August 1985(Oriya Fortnightly). Also, Amrit Bazar Patrika, 11 october1942.
31. Surendra Nath Dwivedi, August Biplab(Oriya),Cuttack, 1972, pp.101-102.
32. Amrit Bazar Patrika, 11 october1942.
33. B C Rath, op. cit., p.102.
34. Amrit Bazar Patrika, 11 october1942.
35. Braja Kishore Dhal, Bhulibu Nahin (Oriya), Bookland International, Bhubaneswar,1980,
pp.104-5.
36. Ibid.
37. Dwivedi mentions in his autobiography how the Congress workers were sent with special
instructions to meet the under ground activists in a khadi bhandar on the college street in
Calcutta. S N Dwivedi, op.cit.,p.127.
38. Ibid, p.55.
39. Ibid, p.60.
40. History of Freedom Movement Unit Papers (HFMU), R-1, File No.31/3, pp.120-123.
41. Utkal Congress Bulletin No. 6, Home Deptt.(pol.), File No.3/31/1942.
42. An appeal made by Bhairab Chandra Mohanty, who had resigned from government service
and who was later tried for his role in the Dwivedi conspiracy case. Home Deptt.(pol.), File
No.3/31/1942.
43. S.N.Dwivedi,op.cit,p. 103.
44. Utkal Congress Bulletin No. 6-Home Deptt.(pol.), File No.3/31/1942.
45. Utkal Congress Bulletin No. 10, Ibid.
46. S.N.Dwivedi,op.cit,pp.51,86,113-119.
47. Ibid,pp. 188-198.
48. Ibid,p.100.
49. Ibid,p 92.
50. Ibid,p.101.
51. Home Dept.(pol.), File No. 3/64/1943.
52. S.N.Dwivedi, op.cit,p.86.
53. In Talcher state, guerilla activities continued till May 1943, with a chasi-mulia (peasant-
labour) raj controlling nearly 400 square miles and staging an attack on Talcher town on 7
September 1942 which could be beaten back only with the help of aeroplanes. All India States
Peoples Conference Papers, File No. 164.
54. Twenty-six villages of six panchayats in Basudevpur covering an area of about 40 square
miles and surrounded by two rivers ran a parallel administration named ‘Swadhin Banchhanidhi
Chakla’. The chakla had departments like army, intelligence, food etc. There was a court to
decide cases and Bhagi singh and Ram Singh of Eram village were detained in the jail for two
days for defying the Congress. B C Rath, op.cit.,p.79.

55. Sumit Sarkar, op.cit., p.51.

Nationalist Education and Social Reform: The Experiment at satyavadi (1909-1926)

Dr. Suryakant Nath

Associate Professor in History,
NDA, Pune
Education happens to be the medium of cultural transmission from one generation to
another in any given society. It takes place in the society and usually reproduces social classes.
As a social phenomenon, it does not take place in a vacuum and educational institutions function
more like micro-societies. While many writers are of the view that it is education which causes
social change in the society, others argue that it is the educational changes which follow other
social changes rather than initiating them. 1In this paper an attempt is made to study the
interrelationship between education and society in the backdrop of the colonial milieu. The area
is confined to the regional segment of Orissa. I have also tried to focus on the path-breaking
endeavours of a nationalist institution called satyavadi which lasted for roughly two decades.

The rise of the colonial power in India was accompanied by the rise and growth of
western style education and knowledge. Modern education came to India through many agencies
like the colonial government, Christian Missionaries, Indian social reformers and nationalist
leaders. While the British spent money on spread of western education they also tried to project
themselves as superior, hard-working, rational, enlightened and masculine. They also tried to
depict Indians as weak, superstitious, feminine, irrational, barbaric and in need of education and
civilization.2

The western education increased the consciousness of racism and injustice in Indians and
led to the early and later radical nationalist efforts to create a history and a nation for themselves.
It was important because persons who got educated became eligible for working in government
services and legal and professional spheres. The other basic function of education was to develop
indigenous elites who could serve as intermediaries between the British masters and their vast
subjects. They were used by colonial rulers to help social structures to fit in with European
concept of work and social relations.3 Many British administrators and their Indian counter parts
believed that western education would help in modernization of India.

It is in this backdrop that national education emerged as a critique of the colonial pattern
of education. Gandhiji argued that colonial education created a sense of inferiority in the minds
of Indians. He thought there was poison in the western education which enslaved the people and
cast an evil spell on them. He wanted a type of education that could help Indians recover their
sense of dignity and self-respect. He also strongly felt that education in English language
crippled Indians, distanced them from their surroundings and made them ‘strangers in their own
lands’.4

These misgivings regarding colonial education led many thinking Indians to visualize
different indigenous educational initiatives at regional levels. Satyavadi experiment happened to
be one such indigenous national educational experiment.

Satyavadi : the Open air school

Satyavadi literally means ‘speaker of truth’ and very appropriately describes the noble
and honest intentions of the founder of this movement. It was an experimental school started by
Utkalmani (Jewel of Utkal or Orissa)5Gopabandhu Das, who is famous through the length and
breadth of Orissa for his nationalist and humanitarian activities. It was founded in 1909 and
survived till 1926. Throughout its life the school was plagued by hardships and could not afford
to have concrete buildings. (It is another thing that the founders did not believe that such
expensive exterior was mandatory for imparting the right kind of education).6

Gopabandhu remained the back bone of the Satyavadi institution (Later it came to signify
a distinct movement) but never remained a regular teacher at the school. He was preoccupied in
the regional political scenario as the member of Bihar and Orissa Provincial Councils (1917-
1919) and as the chief campaigner of the nationalist movement in Orissa. He was the President
of Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee (UPCC, 1920-1928) and the chief fund collector for
satyavadi school. The school believed in an unconventional and alternative system of education 7
which was autonomous of the colonial state and could operate at a drastically reduced fee
structure.

“The light of knowledge”, he said, “like the physical light of the sun and the moon should
be freely shared by all, rich and poor, high and low.” As its tools, classrooms and teachers, text
books were not to remain the only and the final source of knowledge. They were viewed as tools
to supplement learning provided by nature. The objective obviously was to humanize society by
inculcating a broad sense of dedication in the students for serving the society.8

Gopabandhu Das was assisted in his mission by four other young teachers and combined
as a group they were known as ‘Panchsakhas’ or five friends. They are also referred to as the
‘Big Five’ or the ‘Five Comrades’. Nilakantha Das joined the school in 1911. 9 He was a post-
graduate in philosophy from Calcutta University. Acharya Harihar Das was a serving teacher and
joined satyavadi in 1912. Godavarish Mishra was a post-graduate in English and joined the
school in 1913.10Kripasindhu Das, the youngest, joined the school in 1914 and remained its
headmaster from 1918 to 1926.Teachers were paid as per their needs and not as per their
qualifications, seniority or experience. All of them voluntarily embraced poverty and lived on a
meager salary somewhere between Rs. 10 to Rs. 40 in 1921.11 It was never a job for them and
teaching at satyavadi was a service rendered to the national cause. In spite of Gopandhu’s best
efforts the school could not survive the untimely death of Kripasindhu Das in 1926.12

Surroundings

The school came up in Sakhigopal village, a village which happened to be at the centre
of sixteen Brahman sasan villages. During the medieval period different Puri Rulers (Gajapatis)
had set up these villages of exclusive Brahmin settlements to promote and nurture Brahmin
culture. They were supposed to provide social sanctity and legitimacy to the rulers. Sakhigopal
also had a famous temple known by the same name, where most pilgrims to Puri halted on their
way to the temple of Lord Jagannath. It is roughly 15 kilometers from Puri. 13The school which
was established at satyavadi in 1909 was originally a vernacular school at Sriramchandrapur set
up by Harihar Dassharma in 1865. It was renamed as satyavadi by Gopabandhu in 1909. The
idea behind shifting the venue to Sakhigopal was its proximity to the main road. The school was
rooted in tradition but was also to be modern in outlook and orientation. Fergusson College of
Pune and schools of Harrow and Eton in England were models for the founders of Satyavadi.14
 Political and literary contributions

Sayavadi as a community of teachers and students played a leading role in bringing about
a momentous change in Orissa in the initial decades of the 20th century. From the narrow
confines of regionalism, they visualized the merger of regional and national aspirations which
they felt was complimentary and not contradictory. The Non Cooperation Movement revived the
fortunes of the school which otherwise was on the verge of closure in 1918 because of financial
hardships. It became the epicenter of the nationalist agitation in 1920 and as the first experiment
as a nationalist school became the center for preparing the syllabus and conducting examinations
in swadeshi style for all the nationalist schools established in Orissa during this
period.15Nilakantha Das became the leader of the Non Cooperation Movement in Sambalpur and
edited a nationalist weekly ‘Seba’ from Sambalpur while Godavarish Mishra started Non
Cooperation Movement in Chakradharpur and converted an Oriya school there to a nationalist
school. The influence and authority of satyavadi intensified with the spread of Non Cooperation
Movement in Orissa.16

Through the experimental school at satyavadi, Gopabandhu tried to instill a sense of

‘community feeling’ among the people. Away from the confines of class rooms and written texts,
the students became informed citizens and undertook social activities for better living conditions
and for a better understanding of their fellow citizens. Some of them became volunteers during
the annual session of the Utkal Union Conference.17Nilakantha Das was a homeopath and used to
go around with students to treat patients. By this the students also learnt lessons in community
service. Since Puri was a famous pilgrim center there used to be congregation of lakhs of
devotees on different occasions. Epidemics frequently spread during various festivals. The
student volunteers not only provided first aid on those occasions but also removed and cremated
dead bodies, defying caste restrictions.18

Literature and Media

Gopabandhu started the practice of bringing out hand-written school magazine,

‘Vanavani’ (forest news) at satyavadi where the teachers and students wrote and expressed their
thoughts. He published a literary journal satyavadi in 1913 and a weekly samaj from the school
campus. Satyavadi was short-lived but samaj grew and became a daily in 1927. In later years it
became one of the main channels of dissemination of nationalist thoughts in Bihar and Orissa. Its
popularity and wider acceptance was because of its simple language. It became the vehicle of
preaching Non Cooperation in Orissa.

All the Five except Harihar were prolific writers in Oriya. In modern Oriya literature
their era is famous as Satyavadi Yuga (Era).19Gopabandhu wrote epics and poems like
Dharmapada, Nachiketa Upakhyan, Bandira Atmakatha, Kara Kabita, Abakasa Chinta etc.
Gopabandhu was a believer in truth and that is why his pet project was called Satyavadi.
Nilakantha was a literary critic and wrote Konarke, Atmajibani, Pranayini, Bhaktigatha etc.
Godavarish wrote Ghatantar, Abhagini, Atharsaha Satara, Ardha Shatabdira Odisha O Tanhire
Mo Sthana, Nirbasita etc. Krupasindhu preferred historical works and wrote Barabati Durga,
Konarkara Itihasa etc. Acharya Harihara wrote Childs’ Easy First Grammar which for decades
remained the bible for English language learners in the state. Simple and lucid language, rational
thoughts, a pro-people slant and a missionary zeal were some of the basic features of satyavadi
writings. This is what has kept them etched in the memory of subsequent generation of readers
and critics of Oriya literature.

Their attempts to initiate a new venture in literature was also in a way opposed to the
traditional style of Oriya writing prevalent in those das. Conventional writing in those days was a
clear imitation of literary forms adopted by Bangali writers. They broke with the tradition and
tried to bring an ideological and social change by incorporating new literary trends. To give a
distinctive identity to regional Oriya language and literature rustic and colloquial form of writing
was adhered to.

Social Reforms

In an orthodox and conservative environment of Satyavadi the activities of the

Panchasakhas created a flutter and raised man eye brows. In the early years of the 20 th century
when caste rules were quite rigid the attempts of these five to break caste rules invited intense
opposition from social circles. Of the five, except Godavarish all were sasani Brahmins or the
purest of the Brahmins.20They deliberately broke many obnoxious and outdated practices. As
rationalists they walked the streets of sasan villages without removing their sandals and grew
moustaches without an accompanying beard like the low caste people. They saluted by folding
their hands even to the low caste people. They organized and participated in pankti bhojans or
‘community feasts’ in which students irrespective of their social origins served food to all at
satyavadi.21 Much to the annoyance of their caste men Gopabandhu, Harihar and Nilakantha
wrote ‘Das’ in place of ‘Dash’ as their surname. As Das was a very common surname used by
people of other castes, Brahmins used ‘Dash’ to make them selves distinctive. Nilkantha
ploughed field himself an act which was forbidden to Brahmins.22

In an area where exclusive and the purest breed of Brahmins dominated, these actions
created a stir and they were termed deplorable and unpardonable sins. Nilakantha was prohibited
entry in to Puri temple and his father, Ananda Das was declared a social out caste. His sin was
that he did not restrain his son from performing these un-brahmin activities. 23 The antagonism
and hostility to the social reform programmes drew such intense hatred from the Brahmin
community that the thatched houses, the only available houses of the school were set on fire by
the conservatives in March 1912. Nearly one thousand priceless and rare books of the library
were burnt down. 24

Satyavadi served as a relief center during contingencies like floods and droughts in the
state. The teachers and students took the lead in collecting relief materials from the public and
distributing them among the sufferers. Samaj, the weekly was started in October 1919 with the
objective of coordinating relief work. Gopabandhu said, “…it was the sense of fellow-feeling at
the times of peoples’ misery which was of utmost importance.”25
 Outcome

A distinct handicap for Satyavadi was that it was rooted in the conservative sasani
brahminical culture of Sakhigopal. The leaders tried to bring about social reforms by doing away
with detestable caste rules. However, they themselves were not completely free from caste bias.
All of them were sasani Brahmins and had been groomed in deep-rooted brahminical culture. It
wasn’t sheer coincidence that in 1918 out of 17 teachers in all only 3 were non-brahmins. They
were Dhaneswar Moharana, Bhagabat Sutar and Sumanta Patnaik, who taught the vocational
subjects like arts, carpentry and agriculture. 26It goes without saying that in an age of near
illiteracy, finding non-brahmin teachers willing to work on such a small salary must have been
near impossible.

Again, when Hindu communalism raised its ugly head Gopabandhu became the eastern
India head of the Hindu Mahasabha.27It may seem that there were attempts to use their social
status to further individual or group interests. They had a skewed vision that the “…nation would
prosper if the Brahmins were educated”. They also seem to have the conviction that their desired
variety of education and social reforms would percolate down to the rest of the society through
the Brahmins. While praising Harihar Dassharma for his great vision, Gopabandhu sang,

“…when Brahmins give up social evils, all other (subordinate) castes would follow
them.” So he seems to have visualized a patronizing role for the Brahmins.28

In another poem to the young members of the brahaman samiti he wrote,

“You are born in shrestha vamsa ; your place is always first in the society; your task is
reading and writing; your great mission is to unveil the truth; your identity is self dedication and
your greatness lies in modest and gracefulness…when you do our duty other castes would follow
you as their ideals…you dedicate yourself in the altar of India…A Hindu is not born for self-
aggrandizement, every drop of his blood is for safeguarding the interest of the humanity.”29

Satyavadi was an ‘all male’ school. All the teachers and students were male. There is no
evidence of any women being associated with the satyavadi movement at this time. Rate of
literacy among people and especially among women was abysmally low. What is, however,
intriguing is that the reformers did not make any tangible efforts to bring women in to their scope
of alternate education. Gopal Chandra Praharaj, a Brahmin known for his satirical writing,
criticized the Brahmins for their aversion to womens’ education. He said that the Brahmins
feared that “…education would make women pleasure-loving, self-guided and force men folk to
work in the kitchen.”30 By and large, western education was linked to moral decline of the
educated Indians.

The satyavadi leaders were highly educated themselves but probably did not have the
courage to defy the social norms and resist the subjugation of women. They some how submitted
to the sasani social conventions dictated by conformist elders. Even at a later stage they did not
try to further the cause of education for women. Most of the prominent women leaders who
started taking part in the nationalist agitation in the state were non-brahmins. Rama Devi (1899-
1985), Malai Devi31(1904-1997) and Sarala Devi (1904-1986) belonged to Cuttack and Balasore
districts and did not have any link with the Satyavadi movement. In fact, some of them even
worked to counter the influence of the satyavadi faction in Orissa politics later.

References

1. AKC Ottaway, Education and Society: An Introduction to the Sociology of

Education, New York, The Humanities Press, 1980, pp.56.
2. Thomas R Metcalf, The New Cambridge History of India: The Ideologies of The Raj,
New Delhi, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.9-11.
3. Martin Carnoy, Education as Cultural imperialism, Longman, 1974, p.15.
4. Susmit Pani, Gandhi’s Theories of Education in S Pani and N Pani ed. Reflections on
Gandhi: The Forgotten Mahatma, Zenith Books International, New Delhi, 2008,
p.233.
5. S C Dash, Pundit Gopabandhu: A Biography, Gopabandhu Sahitya Mandir, Cuttack,
1964, p.23.
6. Ibid, pp.40-41. He had an ardent faith in the Gurukul system of education, and he felt
that if a residential school could be established in the rural setting with all the
teachers and students putting up together, the sylvan atmosphere might in a way help
to restore the ancient ideals. Likewise, he had no great respect for teachers with high
sounding titles.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, p.43.
9. Ibid.
10. Godavaris Mishra, Ardha Shatabdira Odisha O Tanhire Mo Sthan (O), Grantha
Mandir, Cuttack, 1991, pp. 118-119.
11. Nilakantha Das, Atmajibani(O), Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1986, pp.87-8859.
12. Nityananda satapathy, Hey Sathi Hey Sarathi (O), Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1989,
p.306. By this time some of his associates had already left Gopabandhu.
13. S C Dash, op.cit., p.41.The school was at a distance of ten minutes walk from
Sakhigopal railway station which was on the Puri-Khurdha branch line of the than
Bengal-Nagpur Railway.
14. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.59.
15. Samaj, 11 March 1922.
16. Gadjat Vasini (Talcher), 25 June 1921.
17. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.103-104.
18. Radhanath Rath ed., Gopabandhu Rachanavali (O), Vol.1, Cuttack, 1976, p.23.
19. Bansidhar Mohanty, Oriya Bhasa Andolan(O), Friends Publishers, Cuttack, 1989,
p.68. S C Dash, op. cit., pp.72-73.
20. Godavarish was an outsider in the sense that he was not a member from this cluster of
the sasan Brahmin villages.
21. Godavaris Mishra, ‘Gopabandhu Smaranika’ in Godavarisa Granhavali, Vol.IV,
Cuttack, 1972, p.98.
22. Jogesh Chandra Ray Vidyanidhi, Ja Mane pade, Bhubaneswar, 2003, p.45.
23. Ibid.
24. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.91.
 25. Samaj, 13 august 1927.
26. For a detailed life sketch of the teachers see S C Dash, op. cit., pp.58-73.
27. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.129.
28. Gopabandhu Das, Gopabandhu Kavitavali, Cuttack, 2003(reprint), pp. 134-135.
29. Gopabandhu Das, Gopabandhu Rachanavali, Cuttack, 2003(reprint), pp. 161-163.
30. Gopal Chandra Praharaj, Bhagbat Tungire Sandhya(O), 1903, pp. 49-54.
31. Malati Devi was born Malati Sen, in a Bengali Brahmin family but was married to
Nabakrusna Choudhary, a non-brahmin.

Linguistic Identity and Crisis of Integration: A Historical Perspective of the

Demand for Hindi as the National Language

Dr.Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in History,
National Defence Academy, Pune

Language is a symbol of a people’s identity. The Kenyan writer Ngugi Wa Thiong in his
book Decolonizing the mind makes the basic point that every language has a dual character: it is
both a means of communication and a career of their culture. It is the most vital part of their
culture. A people must be proud of their language, and not speak it by default or with diffidence.
Unfortunately we Indians have failed to understand the difference: difference between a language
of communication and a language which is a carrier of culture. A language of communication
cannot be made to develop at the cost of the carrier of our culture. Hence, there has always been
a debate with regard to the ideas of a ‘national language’ and the ‘official language.’

Language in India has always been a debatable issue in public life. At times it has had the
potential of breaking apart the fragile unity that has held us together for so many decades now.
Frequently one comes across many accounts of appreciation with regard to the unusual success
story of the survival, growth and stability of modern India. Robert Blackwill, the departing
American ambassador to India in 2003, said,
 “India is a pluralist society that creates magic with democracy, rule of law and individual
freedom, community relations and (cultural) diversity…..what a place to be an intellectual!....I
would not mind being born ten times to rediscover India.” 1

But it was the same westerners (though mostly British) who not only doubted the survival
of the newly emerging Indian nation but surreptitiously worked to bring about the Balkanization
of India. Expressing his serious reservations regarding India’s chances of survival, the ex-Indian
Army C-in-C, General Sir Claude Auchinleck had said in 1948,

“The Sikhs may try to set up a separate regime. I think they probably will and that will
only be a start of a general decentralization and break-up of the idea that India is a country,
whereas it is a sub-continent as varied as Europe. The Punjabi is as different from a Madrassi as
a Scot is from an Italian. The British tried to consolidate it but achieved nothing permanent. No
one can make a nation out of a continent of many nations.”2

Few people contemplating Indira Gandhi’s funeral in 1984 would have predicted that ten
years later India would remain a unity and the Soviet Union would be a memory.3

There run many axes of conflict which have plagued the nation since its inception in
1947. From the socio-economic point of view the four main prominent axes of these conflicts are
caste, language, religion and class. There may be many more related conflicting questions but
they are, some how or the other, directly or indirectly, related to the main crisis or a combination
of any two or at times, all combined together, which produce a crisis situation in India. In this
paper I have attempted to adopt a historical perspective of Linguistic Identity and to assess how
linguistic identity has been a major source of integrational crisis. I have confined my study to the
demand for Hindi as the national language in the post- independence period.

It goes without saying that with the process of liberalization of the Indian Economy and
the consequent rise of India as an IT super power in the era of globalization, the demand for
Hindi as the national language has become a back burner. But it does carry enough relevance for
the study of other movements for regional identities as it opened a can of worms when its
demand led to various far-reaching political ramifications.

The question of a national language for independent India was undoubtedly a very
complex issue which generated a great deal of heat in the Constituent Assembly. As early as
1925, the Congress had adopted a Resolution that its proceedings would be conducted as far as
possible, in Hindustani. But given the linguistic predilections of the pan-Indian middle class
leadership of the freedom movement, little progress was made in the implementation of the
resolution and English remained the official language of the Congress.4

The constitution of India recognizes 22 languages as official. 5 The most important of

these is Hindi which in one form or the other is spoken by over 400 million people. The other
prominent ones are Telugu, Marathi, Kannad, Tamil, Malayalam, Marathi, Gujarati, Oriya,
Punjabi, Bengali and Assamese. Each of them has a distinct script and boasts of over lakhs of
speakers. Unfortunately, here national unity and linguistic diversity have not always been
compatible. People speaking one tongue have fought with Indians speaking another tongue.

One of the most controversial subject that was discussed in the constituent Assembly was
the issue of language: the language to be spoken in the house; the language in which the
constitution was to be written and the language that was to be accorded the status of ‘national’
language.6 For this, some very significant developments in the initial stage need to be recounted.

On 10 December 1946, when procedures of the Constituent Assembly were still being
discussed, R V Dhulekar of the United Provinces moved an amendment. When he began
speaking in Hindustani, the Chairman reminded him that many members did not know the
language. To which he replied that,

“People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are
present in the House to fashion a constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not
worthy to be members of this Assembly. They had better leave….”

Even after being reminded again by the Chairman, Dhulekar continued,

“…As an Indian I appeal that we who are out to win freedom for our country and are
fighting for it, should think and speak in our language…..I wonder why Indians do not speak in
their own language. As an Indian I feel that the proceedings of the House should be conducted in
Hindustani. We have the history of our own country of millions of past years.” 7

In one of the sessions, members even urged the House to order the Delhi Government to
rule that all car number plates should be in Hindi script. 8They also demanded that the official
version of the constitution be in Hindi, with an un-official version in English. The Drafting
Committee did not accept it on the ground that English was better placed to
accommodate/incorporate the technical and legal terms of the document.9

It is necessary, here, to explain what Hindustani in common parlance meant. It was an

amalgam of Hindi and Urdu. Hindi written in Devnagri script drew heavily on Sanskrit whereas
Urdu, written in a modified Arabic script drew on Persian and Arabic. In almost whole of north
India, Hindustani remained the language of popular exchange. It was intelligible to not only
Urdu and Hindi speakers but also to the speakers of other major dialects like Avdhi, Bhojpuri,
Maithili, Marwari etc. Unfortunately, it was virtually unknown in eastern and southern India. The
languages spoken there were Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam etc.
who had a script and a sophisticated literary tradition of their own.

Under the British English emerged as the language of higher education and the
administration. After their departure, politicians of north India thought that it should be replaced
by Hindi. On the other hand, politicians from the south preferred that English should continue as
the vehicle of inter-provincial communication. The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the
question of the national language clearly brought out the divide between the votaries of Hindi
and the English-knowing members.
 Long before independence Jawaharlal Nehru had written a long essay in 1937 admiring
the major provincial languages of India. But he also felt the need for an all-India language of
communication. He had a feeling that English in India was an elite language which was far
removed from the masses and thought that Hindustani could be that language of
communication.10Another reason for which he chose Hindustani was that it had a simple
grammar and was relatively easy to learn. A basic Hindustani on the fashion of basic English
could be evolved by the linguists and it could be promoted by the state in south India.

Gandhi also had similar views about Hindustani. He thought that Hindustani could unite
Hindu with Muslims and the north with south. 11But both he and Nehru had their misgivings
about Hindi chauvinists.

Added to this was the problem of partition. The case for Hindustani received a serious
jolt as there was a move to further sanskritize Hindi. After the division of the country the
promoters of Hindi some how became fanatical. As Granville Austin has mentioned,

“The Hindi-wallahs were ready to risk splitting the assembly and the country in their
unreasoning pursuit of uniformity.”12

Their crusade only provoked the south Indians to be less accommodative.

T T Krishnamachari of Madras said,

“We disliked the English language in the past. I disliked it because I was forced to learn
Shakespeare and Milton, for which I had no taste at all…If we are going to be compelled to learn
Hindi…I would perhaps not be able to do it because of my age, and perhaps I will not be willing
to do it because of the amount of constraint put on me…This kind of intolerance makes us fear
that the strong centre which we need, a strong centre which is necessary will also mean the
enslavement of people who do not speak the language of the centre. I would sir, convey a
warning on behalf of the people of the south for the reason that there are already elements in
south India who want separation…,and my honourable friends in UP do not help us in any way
by flogging their idea (of) ‘Hindi imperialism’ to the maximum extent possible. Sir, It is up to
my friends in UP to have a whole India; it is up to them to have Hindi-India. The choice is
theirs…”13

Even persons like C Rajagopalachari who were once advocates of Hindi were alienated
by what they characterized as the ‘vulgar haste’ of Hindi supporters to ‘impose’ their language on
others. He wanted English to continue; to maintain the status quo.14

Dr Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Assembly, himself put his finger squarely on the
problem when he said,

‘Whatever our sentiments may dictate we have to recognize the fact that most of those
who have been concerned with the drafting of the Constitution can express themselves better in
English than in Hindi.’ 15
 K M Munshi, one of the framers of the Constitution and a champion of Hindi, had
warned the Zealots that

‘…the pressure of propaganda as regards the time-limit should be relaxed in the interest
of Hindi itself as well as the unity of India.’16

Finally a compromise was reached in the assembly that ‘the official language of the union
shall be Hindi in the Devnagri script’; but for ‘fifteen years from the commencement of the
constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the
Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement.’ 17Till 26 January
1965, at any rate, the notes and proceedings of the courts, the services, and all-India bureaucracy
would be conducted in English. If need be its lease of life could be further extended beyond the
period of fifteen years through Parliamentary legislation.18

The intention of the Constitution-makers was quite clear: English was to be progressively
phased out to make way for Hindi as the national language. Policy guidelines for the Union
government were also laid out where it was the duty of the government to promote the spread of
Hindi language so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the
composite culture of India.

But by 1947 Nehru had started having different thoughts. The country had just been
divided on basis of religion and Nehru did not want it to be further divided on the basis of
language. While speaking to the Constituent Assembly three months after independence, Nehru
said that Congress had once promised linguistic provinces. But the country now faced a very
critical situation resulting from partition. Disruptionist tendencies had come to the fore and to
check them one had to underline ‘the security and stability of India…’19

Gandhi also seems to have the feeling that the reorganization of the provinces on the
basis of language should be postponed until a calmer time, when communal strife had died out
and been replaced by ‘a healthy atmosphere, promoting concord in the place of discord, peace in
the place of strife, progress in the place of retrogression and life in the place of death.’20

Nehru’s reluctance to superimpose divisions of language on the recent division by

religion had support of both Sardar Patel and C Rajagopalachari. Patel also worked hard within
the Constituent Assembly to reverse the official Congress position. But many members in the
Assembly were not willing to give up their own ideas regarding formation of Linguistic states.
Most Congress members speaking Marathi insisted on a separate Maharastra state while those
who spoke Gujarati wanted a province of their own. Similar were the aspirations of the Congress
members who spoke Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam or Punjabi. To satisfy their aspirations a new
committee was formed with Nehru, Patel and Patabhi Sitarammaya. The committee came to be
known as ‘JVP Committee’ after the initials of the members. 21It soon realized that language was
not only a binding force but could also be a separating one.

The JVP slowed down things for a while. But things again started heating up in 1948 and
1949. Campaigns started for Samyukta (greater) Karnataka to unite Kannada speakers spread
across Madras, Mysore, Bombay and Maharastra and a Samyukta Maharastra which sought to
bring together Marathi speakers in a single political unit. The Malayalees wanted a state of their
own by merging princely states of Cochin and Travancore with Malabar. There was also a
movement for Mahagujurat.

The struggle for a Sikh state of Punjab was in a class of its own as it combined both
language as well as religion. The Punjabis had been the worst sufferers of partition. They had lost
their most productive lands to West Pakistan and as per the 1950 census they comprised only
about 35 percent of the total Punjab population. Their cause was championed by ‘Master’ Tara
Singh, headmaster of a Sikh school in Lyallpur. Before 1947 Tara Singh insisted that Sikh Panth
was in danger from the Muslims and the Muslim League and after independence from the
Hindus and the Congress.

But by far the most vociferous clamouring for linguistic autonomy came from the Telugu
speakers of the Andhra country. Going by numbers, it was next to Hindi in the all-India statistics,
had a rich literary history and was associated with symbols of Andhra glory as the Vijayanagara
Empire. There was a very strong feeling of Tamil discrimination against the Telugu-speaking
people in Madras province. Cutting across party lines all the Telugu-speaking legislators in the
Madras Assembly demanded for creation of a state to be named Andhra Pradesh and in 1951 a
Congress-politician-turned-swami went on a hunger strike in support. He gave up the fast after
five weeks in response to an appeal by the famous Gandhian, Vinoba Bhave. 22

Regions are geographical and languages also have a geographical origin. So there was
nothing wrong in regions having their own languages and demanding autonomy for preservation
and growth of their languages. The spirit of thinking that one’s own language is of a superior
quality comes much in the way of establishing unity on a regional as well as an all-India level.
This feeling persists when there is not much give and take between different languages of India.

The vast opposition that gathered against Hindi or Hindustani was due to two reasons.
One was supplied by the protagonists of Hindi themselves. They somehow had begun to feel, or
at least they made others feel, that their language was a superior instrument of knowledge, and
that it would perform the same imperial function that the English language did formerly. This
was an erroneous view because no one conceded that it was superior to other languages. It was
only to perform a functional role of making each understand the other. An imperial function
would have been out rightly rejected.

The other reason was the fear in the minds of the non-Hindi speaking people, particularly
the people in the south, that if Hindi was made a link language, they would loose many
advantages which they had at that moment. For them, the Hindi-speaking people always
possessed a greater command and mastery over the language and in all-India competitive
examinations would have a significant edge over them. With English as the link language the
status quo could be maintained.23
 There was much resentment among the people of south that the centre was bringing in
‘Hindi through the back door’. The President’s order dated 27 May 1952, authorizing the use of
Hindi in addition to English for warrants of appointment of state governors and judges of the
Supreme and High courts had created a minor flutter.24

The 1952 general elections became a show of strength and irrespective of success
elsewhere the Congress did poorly in the Andhra region of Madras. The results 25 encouraged the
revival of the Andhra Movement and towards the end of February 1952 Swami Sitaram began a
march through the Telugu-speaking districts. The biggest boost to the Andhra movement,
however, came when Potti Sitaramulu went on an indefinite fast on 19 October 1952. His death
after 58 days engulfed the entire Andhra in chaos and forced Nehru to make a statement
regarding formation of Andhra as a state after two days of his death. The new state was formally
inaugurated on 1 October 1953. 26

The loss of Congress in the general elections and formation of a state on linguistic basis
and the creation of a State Reorganization Commission (SRC) 27 to frame broad principles which
should govern the solution of the linguistic problem virtually sealed the fate of Hindustani to be
the link language in future. The movement for linguistic states revealed extraordinary depths of
popular feeling and language proved to be a more powerful marker of identity than caste or
religion. All through 1954 and 1955 SRC travelled across India and received as many as 152,250
submissions.28

The fifteen year grace period when English was to be used alongside Hindi in
communication between centre and the states was to end in January 1965. But in the mean time
many significant developments had taken place. The linguistic reorganization instead of
weakening the spirit of nationalism had worked for consolidating the unity of India. Creation of
linguistic states had acted as a largely constructive channel for provincial pride.

The southern politicians had long been worried about the change. In 1956 the Academy
of Tamil Culture had passed a resolution urging that ‘English should continue to be the official
language for communication between the Union and the state Governments and between one
state Government and another’. The signatories included C N Annadurai, E V Ramaswamy
‘Periyar’, and C Rajagopalachari. The organization of the campaign was chiefly the work of
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which organized many protests against the imposition of
Hindi. 29

C N Annadurai, who was universally known as ‘Anna’ considered Hindi as merely a

regional language and felt it had no special merit. To the argument that more Indians spoke Hindi
than any other language, Anna sarcastically answered: ‘If we had to accept the principle of
numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the
peacock but on the common crow’.30

Nehru had been sensitive to the sentiments of the south, east and the north-east. In 1963
he had piloted the passing of an official Languages Act, which provided that from 1965 English
‘may’ still be used along with Hindi in official communication. While Nehru clarified that ‘may’
meant ‘shall’ the other Congress politicians thought it actually meant ‘maynot’.31

As 26 January 1965 approached the opponents of Hindi geared up for action. Shastri and
his government stood by his decision to make Hindi official on 26 January. An overzealous home
minister, Gulzarilal Nanda, under prime Minister Shastri , gave a fresh lease of life to the
language controversy. He issued a circular that Hindu would become the principal language of
the Indian Union on 26 January 1965 and that English would be an additional language, to be
used for all purposes.32

In another circular the Home Ministry said a beginning should be made by giving Hindi
names to the central government offices, organizations and institutions in addition to their
English ones. To start with, central government offices constituted in Hindi-speaking states were
to be given Hindi names. Thereafter, the process of the change-over to Indian names would be
carried on steadily. The Home Ministry also asked all ministries to transcribe all government
forms, rules and manuals into Hindi.33

DMK launched a state-wide protest. Bonfires were made to burn effigies of many Hindi
demoness in many villages. Relevant pages of the Constitution and Hindi books were burnt. In
post offices and railway stations Hindi signs were blackened or removed. There were pitched
battles between the police and young protesters in towns all over the state. 34

On Republic Day, two men set themselves on fire in Madras. The intensity of the anti-
Hindi protests alarmed the central government. Soon it became clear that the ruling Congress
Party was split down the middle on the issue. What New Delhi viewed as an ‘exhibition of mere
parochial fanaticism’ for the state it was a ‘local nationalist movement’.

Although high-ranking Congress minister Morarji Desai was against ‘regional

sentiments’, Shastri was the one placed on the hot seat. His heart was with the Hindi zealots but
his head urged him to listen to other voices. On 10 February 19 people were killed by police
bullets and two sub-inspectors were burnt to death. On 11 February 1965, the resignation of two
Union ministers from Madras forced Shastri’s intervention. The same evening he went on the All
India Radio and conveyed his ‘deep sense of distress and shock’ at the ‘tragic events’. To remove
any possibility of misconception or misapprehension he said he would respect Nehru’s assurance
that English would be used as long as the people wanted. Then he made assurances of his own
guaranteeing complete freedom to the state to transact its business in the language of it’s choice
(whether English or in the regional language); inter-state transactions were to be done in English
or accepted with an authentic translation; non-Hindi states were free to correspond with the
central government in English and that English would continue to be used in the transaction of
business at the centre. Shastri also added later that all-India civil service examinations would be
conducted in English rather than in Hindi alone.35The nation was saved from a conflagration.

Jawaharlal Nehru served three full terms in office. This was a big privilege when
compared with other leaders of India or south Asia. Compared to his sway and the unstinted
support for the Congress Party, no one could match his democratic way of functioning. As their
political survival became the guiding factors for his successors, many peripheral questions were
pushed to the back ground. The governments gradually became non-ideological. 36The loss of
Congress under Kamraj in Tamilnadu and the rise of DMK sealed the fate of Hindi.

Linguistic parochialism and groupism are the manifestations of our social mal-
adjustments which may lead to disastrous results. It is therefore worthwhile to consider how the
social evil can be prevented. This problem has a special bearing on India so far as India is
concerned because on account of her topographical barriers, vastness of size, population,
diversities and endless political changes, she has suffered from destructive fragmentation and
unhealthy autonomy through out her long history.

Language controversies in modern times are mostly a by-product of our new concept of
nation or nationality. We are a multi-lingual country and we should face facts as they exist. So
long as our pride in our respective languages expresses itself in nation-building activities taking
into account the welfare of the whole Indian nation, it is not bad. But if this pride makes us
selfish and narrow and incites us to work to the detriment of national interest, it will land us in
miseries.

The importance of English can not and should not be minimized even if certain sections
do feel that an Indian language should replace it as the official medium of communication. It is a
global language and it has proven that it carries the potential of world domination. If India today
has build-up a huge reputation as an IT super power, a major part of the credit goes to English.

However it is through superior knowledge and not through superior language that the
nations of the west once captured vast markets and vast horizons. When Japan and Russia
attained vast knowledge of that kind they too became powerful and unstoppable. If they could
attain knowledge through the medium of their own tongues, then why not others?

In India unity and pluralism have become inseparable. Linguistic states have been in
existence for sixty years now. Within each state a common language has provided the basis of
administrative unity and efficiency. But pride in one’s language has rarely been in conflict with a
broader identification with the nation as a whole. The three major secessionist movements-
Nagaland in the 1950s, Punjab in the 1980s and Kashmir in 1990s (still continuing)-have
affirmed religious and territorial distinctiveness but not a linguistic one. The pluralistic and
secular Indian democracy has successfully managed to withstand the popular slogan of the
original Jana Sangha, ‘Hindi, Hindu, Hindustani’.

The Indian middle class, especially those of its members at the policy-making levels of
the government, in substantial measure, must bear the guilt of depriving India of the self-respect
of having a national language of its own and of making the knowledge of a certain kind of
English into one of the most invidious systems of social exclusion. When patriotism was high
and memories of the freedom struggle still vivid, efforts to strengthen the cause of the national
language, were ignored or implemented indifferently. For Indians It is relevant to introspect on
what the imposition of English has meant to us, as a people, as a society and as a nation.

References

1. Cited in the prologue of Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi, Picador (Indian
edition):2008, p. XI.
2. Cited in the epilogue of Ramachandra Guha , op. cit., p.744.
3. Quote of Robin Jaffrey, Historian, cited in the epilogue of Ramachandra Guha, op
.cit., p.744.
4. Pavan K Verma, The Great Indian Middle Class, Viking (Penguin India), New Delhi:
1998, p.58.
5. The Eighth schedule under articles 344(1) and 351 provided for 14 languages
initially. Languages specified in schedule Eight were arbitrary selections of languages
spoken in the Union and state territories and could be added to from time to time by
an amendment to the constitution.
6. Cited in the chapter on ‘Ideas of India’, Ramachandra Guha, op. cit., p.117.
7. Ibid.
8. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.8, p.745.
9. Ibid, Vol.7, pp.20-31.
10. Nehru, ‘The question of language’, in his ‘The Unity of India: Collected writings,
1937-1940’ (London: Lindsay Dumond , 1941), pp241-61, cited in Ramachandra
Guha, op. cit., p.119. Nehru had said, ‘The British had created a new caste or class in
India, the English-educated class, which lived in a world of its own, cut off from the
mass of the population…’ Pavan K Verma, Becoming Indian, Allen Lane (Penguin
Books), New Delhi: 2010, p.66.
11. Ibid. In 1944 Gandhi had warned: ‘our love of the English language in preference to
our own mother tongue has caused a deep chasm between the educated and the
politically minded classes and the masses. We flounder when we make the vain
attempt to express abstruse though in the mother tongue…the result has been
disastrous…’ Pavan K Verma, Becoming Indian, Allen Lane (Penguin Books), New
Delhi: 2010, p.66.
12. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution, p.267.
13. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.7, p.235.
14. Kuldip Nayar, Scoop! Inside Stories from the Partition to the Present, Harper Collins
India: New Delhi: 2006, p.50.
15. Pavan K Verma, op.cit., p.58.
16. Kuldip Nayar, op.cit.,p.50.
17. Pavan K Verma, op.cit, pp.58-59.
18. Ibid.
19. Quoted in Robert D King ‘Nehru and the Language politics of India’,Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1970,pp.232-233.
20. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.90, p.86.
21. Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi, Picador (Indian edition):2008, p. 183.
22. Ibid, p.186.
23. Gulabdas Broker, ‘Language and Regionalism’ in Language and Society in India,
IIAS, Simla: 1969, Vol.8, p.393.
24. Kuldip Nayar, op.cit.,p.50.
25. During the election campaigns Nehru was greeted with black flag demonstrations and
shouts of ‘We want Andhra’. Out of the 145 seats in the region the Congress won 43
seats whereas the Communists returned an impressive 41 members.
26. Ramachandra Guha, op. cit., p.189.
27. The members on the Committee were S Fazl Ali, a jurist, K M Pannikar, a historian
and civil servant and H N Kunzru, a social worker.
28. Ramachandra Guha, op. cit., p.189.
29. Ibid., pp.391-392.
30. A S Raman, ‘A Meeting With C N Annadurai’, Illustrated Weekly of India, 26
September 1965.
31. Kuldip Nayar, op.cit.,p.54.
32. Ibid., P.56.
33. Ibid.
34. ‘Language Riots in Madras’ in the Illustrated Weekly of India, 28 February 1965.
35. Selected Speeches of Lal Bahadur Shastri (New Delhi: Publications Division, 1974),
pp.119-22.
36. Ramachandra Guha, op. cit., p.434. Mrs. Gandhi’s strategy of dealing with her
opponents varied greatly from her father.
Re-visiting Ambedkar’s thoughts on linguistic states: Justifying creation of
smaller states

DrSuryakantNath,
Associate Professor in History,
National Defence Academy, Pune
e-mail: suryasikha@rediffmail.com

When Ms Mayawati made the announcement for bringing a resolution in the

State Assembly for carving out four new states in the winter session in November
2011, she sprung a surprise on her political rivals. The four states she suggested
were Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh (Harit
Pradesh). However, she also admitted that her move was inspired by her ideologue,
BabasahebAmbedkar’s philosophy of building smaller units of governance in order
to provide better law and order and for ensuring uniform development. 1Here it
would be appropriate to make an evaluation of reorganisation of states in India and
make a comparison as to what Babasaheb thought on this issue and how has the
process of reorganization of states in modern India taken place.

Baba Saheb BhimRaoAmbedkar wrote his book Thoughts on Linguistic

states in December 1955. There is a just-felt need to revisit his ideas reflected in the
book as the nation (India) is confronted with the spectre of a fresh re-organisation of
states. Most of what he predicted has proved to be right and there seems to be an
urgent need to evaluate his assessment of the creation of new and smaller states in
the federal polity of India. 2

Two interesting proposals reflected in his book were the breaking up of the
province of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh roughly on the lines he had anticipated. It
took the central government roughly 45 years to get the idea implemented. Even
though he was of the opinion that a state should have the people of a single (one)
language to have uniformity and to retain linguistic culture, he also proposed
splitting of single-language states if they were too big like Uttar Pradesh. He
wanted Uttar Pradesh to be split into three states. 3

Written almost a little over 55 years ago, Baba Saheb seemed to have a right
kind of solution to the problems related to the formation of linguistic states. On the
issue of the breaking up of single-language states in to smaller units, he said,
adequate consideration was to be given to: a).Requirement of efficient
administration, b).Needs of the Different areas, c).Sentiments (aspirations) of the
different areas and d). Proportion between the majority and the minority.4

While discussing about the ideas of Ambedkar reflected in the book

regarding creation of smaller states, an attempt is made in this paper to juxtapose
the performance of the smaller states created and to prove how his predictions have
proved to be prophetic.
To evaluate the appropriateness of Ambedkar’s prophetic forecast there is a
need to make an elaborate study of the demand for the creation of states on
linguistic basis, the States Reorganisation Commission, the challenges it faced and
the prospects of a Second Reorganization Commissiion to look into the never-
ending spate of demands for statehood by various regions of India.
One of the major disintegrative tendencies facing the nation today is the
demand for creation of small states. Federal unity is no longer a serious concern like
it was in the 50’s and 60’s. The first states reorganisation commission was set up in
1953 under the chairmanship of Mr. Fazal Ali and Mr. HirdayaNathKunjuru and
Sardar K. M. Pannikkar as its members and recommended the creation of new states
on linguistic basis.5But with a spate of demands for new states coming up from
practically every corner of India at different intervals and with varying intensity,
and that too from within states once considered as linguistic and cultural wholes, it
makes one wonder if we have slowly begun to move away from the idea of a
linguistic state. To analyse this paradigm shift in looking for far more pragmatic
parameters in demands for state formation, there is a need to have a fresh relook at
the organisation of states after independence.

States Reorganisation Commission

The rationale of the reorganisation of states in the early decades of

independent India, and its effects on the democratic politics of the country in
contemporary times needs to be discussed taking in to consideration mainly three
interrelated issues:
 historical and nationalist ideas underlying the process of the
formation of linguistic-cultural regions and states in pre-independence India,
 formation of states and the dominant regional identities following
linguistic reorganisation immediately after independence, and the
  demands for smaller states in contemporary India.

Much before independence, the idea of formation of states on basis of

language had been mooted by the Indian National Congress. In its Nagpur session
in 1920 the Congress had adopted linguistic distribution of the states. Policy of
linguistic reorganization had found support from the All Parties Conference headed
by Motilal Nehru in 1928. The Nehru Report had stated ‘It becomes most desirable
for the provinces to be regrouped on a linguistic basis. Language as a rule
corresponds with a special variety of culture, tradition and literature. In a linguistic
area all the factors will help in the general progress of the provinces’.6

After independence, the Linguistic Provinces Commission, known as Dar

Committee (SK Dar) submitted its report on 10 December 1948 to the Constituent
Assembly suggesting desirability of constituting Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and
Maharashtra on linguistic basis, but also sounded a note of warning, ‘The formation
of provinces exclusively and even mainly on linguistic considerations would be
inadvisable’. 7 It said that homogeneity of language should be considered only as a
matter of administrative convenience but the formation of provinces on exclusively
or even mainly linguistic considerations is not in the larger interests of the nation
and should not be taken in hand’. 8

Subsequently in its Jaipur session, the Congress formed an informal

committee known as JVP (The committee comprised of Jawaharlal Nehru,
Vallabhbhai Patel and PattabhiSitarammaya and the committee was called JVP from
the initials of the three leaders) which sounded a note of warning ‘The old Congress
policy of having linguistic provinces could only be applied after careful thought had
been given to each separate case and without creating serious administrative
dislocation or mutual conflicts which would jeopardize the political and economic
stability of the country’ 9
It also stated, ‘We feel that the present is not an opportune moment for
formation of new provinces. Yet the members also believe that public sentiment is
insistent and overwhelming. We as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to
certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole’.10
With the echoes of partition still ringing in his ears, Nehru was deeply shaken
by his experience on the linguistic Committee. He admitted, ‘(This inquiry) has
been in some ways an eye-opener for us. The work of the sixty years of the Indian
National Congress was standing before us, face to face with centuries-old-India of
narrow loyalties, petty jealousies and ignorant prejudices engaged in mortal conflict
and were simply horrifies to see how thin was the ice upon which we were skating.
Some of the ablest men in the country came before us and confidently and
emphatically stated that language in the country stood for and represented culture,
race, history, individuality and finally a sub-nation’. 11

All those who favoured a strong central government opposed this linguistic
reorganization of states. In 1954 the National Unity Platform campaigned against
this principle and its members asked the Congress to abandon the linguistic basis of
its party organisations. 12
 After independence, the principle of linguistic reorganization was first
applied in case of Andhra. The intensity of feeling aroused as a result of the death of
Potti Sriramulu13 was such that the Congress had to eventually bow down to the
wishes of the people of Andhra. With the creation of a separate Andhra state in
1953, the Pandora’s box was opened leading to demands throughout the country for
further linguistic reorganization of the states.

A three member committee was formed which submitted its report after
deliberating for two years. It warned the country against an excessive reliance on
the linguistic principle and highlighted the dangers inherent to Indian unity if the
linguistic principle is logically applied. However, it is significant to remember that
the committee’s report was signed by Justice Fazl Ali and H N Kunzru but was not
signed by K M Panikar. He appended a minute of dissent. Panikar expressed
apprehensions that there would be ‘dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India
matters’. He suggested break up of UP into two large Hindi-speaking states. UP was
as large as Telugu, Malayalee and Kannad regions taken together and had a very
large representation in the Indian parliament. Panikar wanted that this dominant
position of UP should be checked.14
As a result of the demarcation of fresh boundaries on basis of the States
Reorganisation Commission a total of 14 states and 6 union territories were created.
Division and further subdivision of the provinces was carried out in the subsequent
decades on the basis of:

 Demands for equitable regional development and the recognition of

linguistic-cultural rights of their minorities.
 The phenomenal rise and growth of various regional political parties
began to challenge the dominance of Congress Party and its caste-class alliances in
different parts of the country.
 More compact politico-administrative governance

It is now well known how within a decade of reorganisation, in the early

1960s, more states began to be divided and sub-divided following various
movements and demands for equitable regional development and the recognition of
linguistic-cultural rights of their minorities. The demands for use of English, Hindi
and various regional languages in the spheres of education, administration, and law
began to gain ground more intensely. Similarly, the phenomenal rise and growth of
various regional political parties began to challenge the dominance of Congress
Party and its caste-class alliances in different parts of the country. The process of
breaking up larger and composite states and regions into smaller states, on the
pretext of the later having a more compact politico-administrative governance as a
criterion has been going on since the last 50 years since the first States
reorganization submitted its report and was evident most recently in the formation
of three new states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in the year 2000. 15

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to juxtapose Ambedkar’s

views regarding formation of states based on language and how the states have been
formed in the last sixty years. The truth is that States in India were formed on no
real and common basis. Different reasons have been applied for creation of different
States at different times. The northeastern States were formed to suit certain tribal
aspirations. Goa had its own historical antecedents. Punjab was formed to
accommodate the religious sentiments of the Sikhs with the Punjabi language
serving as a convenient fig leaf for it. UP and MP were formed for another reason
(that is political), which hardly makes any sense. The four southern States were
formed for linguistic reasons, just as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal
were. But now there is demand for separate states among these States. The
Government of India has 10 applications for the creation of new States including a
separate Vidharba in Maharashtra, Telengana in Andhra Pradesh, Saurashtra in
Gujarat, Mithilanchal in Bihar, Bhojpur in Bihar and UP, Harit Pradesh and
Bundelkhand in UP and Coorg in Karnataka, and Gorkhaland and Cooch Behar in
West Bengal, etc. It means dividing country alone on the linguistic lines in 1956
was not a valid reason.

Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian

Constitution, supported the demand for reorganisation of States on a linguistic
basis. He strongly argued for the creation of Maharashtra on this basis. Ambedkar
proposed that each State may have its own language for purposes of administrative
communication with the Centre and other States, but disregarded the thesis of “one
language, one state”. In other words, his view was that people speaking the same
language need not be grouped into one State but there could be more than one State
with the same language. The formula of one State, one language, he pointed out,
was not to be equated with one language, one State. 16

Size of the state held special relevance for Ambedkar. He wrote, “As the
area of the state increases the proportion of the minority to the
majority(communities/castes) decreases and the position of the minority(castes)
becomes precarious and the opportunities for the majorityto practice tyranny over
the minority become greater. The states must therefore be small.” 17For Ambedkar,
States in a democratic polity needed to have equitable size limits since this would
ensure proportional distribution of resources among the States as well as their
inhabitants. Like Nehru, he too favoured a strong Centre to ensure an equitable
survival of different languages, cultures, regions and States within a broader
framework of an inclusive developmental polity.18

In his critique of the 1955 recommendations of the first State Reorganisation

Commission, which redrew state boundaries on linguistic lines, Ambedkar wrote,
“The Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter of no
consequence and that the equality in the size of the status constituting a federation
is a matter of no moment. This is the first and the most terrible error cost which the
Commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will indeed be a great deal.”19

Ambedkar was to prove prophetic. In the decades that followed, agitations

for new states have erupted almost everywhere with varying degrees of violence,
sometimes driven by reasons of ethnicity but increasingly by demands for better
governance and speedier development.20
 Over the years, Ambedkar’s vision has been realised in bits and pieces. His
call to break the impossibly large states of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into more
manageable units was heeded in the year 2000 with the creation of Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh. And now, his (self-declared) leading disciple, Uttar Pradesh chief
minister Mayawati, has put another of his prescriptions on the national agenda for
debate with a proposal to split her unwieldy state intofour parts.21
Ambedkar touched upon certain issues which probably were either too
unrealistic or advanced for his times. However, Ambedkar also dwelt upon various
other issues which needs to be reflected upon, especially with respect to the status
of Bombay. He linked the performance of the reorganization with the quality of
leadership. He spoke of the discipline in the Congress Party. He said, “Congress is
Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is congress. But is Pandit Nehru immortal? Anyone
who applies his mind to these questions will realize that the Congress will not last
till the sun and the moon. It must one day come to an end. It might come to an end
even before the next election. When this happens, the state of Bombay will find
itself engaged in civil war and not in carrying on administration….”22

He not only talked of hatred between the Gujaratis and the Marathis in
Bombay. He in fact talked about in greater detail about the north-south divide. In
chapter v titled ‘The North versus the South’ he wrote “the north is Hindi-speaking.
The south is non-Hindi speaking. Most people do not know what is the size of the
Hindi-speaking population. It is as much as 48 percent of the total population of
India. Fixing one’s eye on this fact one cannot fail to say that the Commission’s
effort will result in the consolidation of the North and the Balkanisation of the
south. Can the south tolerate the dominance of the North? 23

The imbalance in the proportion of Hindi and non-Hindi speaking population

(size of UP) was actually the cause for a dissenting minute by a member of the
States Reorganisation Committee. Mr Panikar wrote, “The consequence of the
present imbalance, caused by the denial of the federal principle of equality of units,
has been to create feelings of distrust and resentment in all the states outside Uttar
Pradesh. Not only in the southern states but also in the Punjab, Bengal and
elsewhere the view was generally expressed before the commission that the present
structure of Government led to the dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India matters.
The existence of this feeling will hardly be denied by anyone. That it will be a
danger to our unity, if such feelings are allowed to exist and remedies are not sought
and found now, will also not be denied.”24

As a remedy for easing tensions between the North and the south, Ambedkar
also suggested about the need for a second capital in his book. In chapter XI he
discussed in detail why Delhi is climatically not suitable throughout the year and
why the Mughals and the British had two capitals when they ruled from Delhi. He
also felt that Delhi was quite far off from the south and created a feeling that they
were being ruled by the people of north India. From the view of defence also Delhi
was in a vulnerable zone. He suggested Hyderabad could be such a city which could
fulfill the requirements of a capital.25
 However, it needs to be taken into account that today’s requirements are very
different from what it was like when Dr Ambedkar wrote his book. There is a
general recognition of a drift away from linguistic states and a simultaneous
investment of faith in smaller states.26More and more people are of the idea that
instead of creating states in an untidy and piece-meal fashion, we should take a
long-term view. Senior journalist, BGVergese says that “there is nothing wrong in
envisaging India at 2040-50 with a population of around 1600 million organized in
60 states, with an average population of 25 million each, and some 1500
districts.”27He also suggested that the terms of reference shouldn’t be political, but
rather “techno-economic-administrative” 28

Political scientist YogendraYadav of the Centre for Study of Developing

Societies terms this change in attitude as the “second stage of evolution in Indian
federalism” 29The first was the creation of states with linguistic homogeneity. The
process dominated the 1950s and 1960s and arose from the difficulty of governing
region with populations that spoke different languages and had diverse histories and
cultures. But today, the push for new states has less to do with identity and
everything to do with the rising expectations of an electorate that wants more from
the governments it elects.30

Notes/References

1. http://www.navhindtimes.in/opinion/small-states-serve-better, Nov 16,

2011.Mayawati claimed that the dalit icon and architect of India’s constitution,
BabasahebAmbedkar was in favour of smaller states. Ambedkar had, however, split
UP in to three states.
2. Raja SekharaVundru, Ambedkar and Small States in Hindustan Times, 1 Feb 2010,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ambedkar-and-small-states/Article1-503851.aspx.
The issue has somehow caught everyone’s fancy more so because it is felt that it
was long overdue and Uttar Pradesh’s economic performance has failed to instill
confidence in the continued idea of keeping it big. In case of UP, its size and
economic record have also led to another anomaly: each successive Finance
Commission has recorded an imbalance between what the state gets and what it
contributes to the national exchequer.http://www.business-
standard.com/india/news/ajit-ranade-small-is-manageable/456194/: UP continues to
rank among the most impoverished states in most development indices.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act
6. SankarGhose, Socialism Democracy and Nationalism in India, Allied Publishers,
Bombay, 1973, p.1890.
7. Ibid.
8. Report of the Linguistic Commission, Para131 and 132.
9. SankarGhose, op.cit.,p.189. Robert king said that the JVP Committee Report was a
‘cold water therapy’. It only slowed things for a while. Ramachandra Guha, India
After Independence: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, Picador,2007,
p 183.
10. Report of the Linguistic Commission, pp.9,15.
11. Quoted in S Harrison, ‘The Challenge to Indian Nationalism’ Foreign Affairs, 34: 3
April 1956.
12. Sankar Ghose, op.cit.,p.190.
13. Potti Sriramulu died after a fifty eight day fast on 15 December 1952. Within a few
days Pt Nehru made the statement that the state of Andhra would come in to being.
Ramachandra Guha, op.cit, p 188.
14. Uttar Pradesh with a population of 200 million accounts for one sixth of India’s
population. If it were a country, it would have been among the eight most populous
nations of the world. This fact alone justifies at least an exploration of the question
of reorganizing the states into smaller, more manageable units.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajit-ranade-small-is-
manageable/456194/:. UP is much bigger than Brazil (193 million). If UP were to
be a separate country only China, India (minus UP), USA and Indonesia would be
bigger than it. Devendra Kothari, Professor, Population Program Management,
Thursday 10 Nov 2011, in Population and Development in India.
15. Outlook, Feb 6, 2012, Republic Day Special, Time to Have 50 states?
16. Cited in the review article- States and the Union (Book Interrogating
Reorganisation of States : Culture, Identity and Politics in India, Routlege and
NMML Library, 2011) sdited by AshaSarangi and SudhaPai in Frontline Vol 28-
Issue 24::Nov. 19-Dec.02,2011 by V Venkatesan.
17. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, Chapter VIII,pt.6. Reprinted from
the Book available online.
18. AshaSarangi and SudhaPai, op.cit.
19. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, Chapter I, Linguism and Nothing
Else, op.cit.
20. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-
20/news/30419772_1_separate-state-telengana-br-ambedkar:
21. Ibid.
22. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter III.
23. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter V.
24. Ibid.
25. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter XI.
26. http://kddfonline.com/category/demand-of-koshal-state/do -smaller-states-provide-
better-governance/. No one now buys the idea that ‘small states will have small
minds’. One can be in favour of creation of small states and yet not be branded an
anti-national.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-
20/news/30419772_1_separate-state-telengana-br-ambedkar:
30. Ibid.
 Swami Vivekanaanda: An Apostle of Universal religion

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate professor in History
National Defence Academy
Pune, 411023, m-9960521836
e.mail. suryasikha@rediffmail.com

Religion has played a significant role in the Indian socio-cultural life. It has not only remained
the base of the Hindu society after 600 years of Mohammedan rule and 200 years of western colonial
rule, but it still remains the major regulatory force of the Indian life. Throughout its long past,
Hinduism has continuously shown a flexibility, an acceptability, and a resilience which have
undoubtedly been the key to its long survival.1 The contact with the west injected a new spirit of
vitality in to the Indian society in the 19 th century. To a great extent, the alien civilization infringed
upon every detail of Indian life, changed its patterns and created new values. 2 The vision of the
average Indian, so long closed like that of a frog in the well, was enlarged. The broad march of the
English Constitution, the glory of the French Revolution, the finality of the American war of
independence, the romance of the Italian, and the cold, ruthless realism of the German Unity brought
enlightenment in to the dark nooks of the Indian minds thus far denied of any sense of history and
politics. At the same time, western philosophy and science introduced reason into its daily habits and
made Indians realize the meaninglessness of many ancient customs and privileges.3 Swami
Vivekananda was one such “enlightened natives”.

Swami Vivekananda emerged as a champion of neo-Hinduism. The great impression that he

managed to create in the Parliament of Religions held at Chicago through his learned interpretation of
Hinduism earned him immortal fame and following.4 He gave a living interpretation of Hinduism
which won the admiration of the world for its greatness. He preached the message of peace, universal
brotherhood and religious toleration. He made an impassioned defence of Hinduism, stressing its
tolerance and the basic oneness of all religions. The essence of his opening address was the emphasis
on the need for a healthy balance between spiritualism of the east and the materialism of the west. He
visualised a new culture for the whole world where material west and spiritual east could blend into a
new harmony to produce happiness for mankind. 5

Vivekananda believed in a religion based on universal principles which have always been
accepted as true by mankind. But for the understanding of the common man, he did not believe in
philosophizing things. In fact, it was he who gave an interpretation to the teachings of Ramakrishna in
order to render them easily understandable and accessible to the modern man.6 He founded an
organisation called the Ramakrishna Mission in 1886 in the memory of his teacher Ramakrishna
Paramahans to complete the western concept of social service with the Hindu ideal of renunciation
and spiritual salvation. Its headquarters is situated at Belur near Kolkata. The Mission has branches in
many countries of the world.

Vivekananda started the movement to make the Hindus feel proud of their ancient heritage. He
was a strong critic of social westernization. He wrote, “We must grow according to our nature. Vain is
to attempt the line of action that foreign societies have engrafted upon us: it is impossible ....suppose
you can imitate the westerners, that moment you will die, you will have no more life in you.” 7 He
urged the people to arise, awake and invade the world with their spirituality. Strength combined with
fearlessness was the political testament of Vivekananda to the Indian nation. He stressed the need of
building the foundation of national character on the formulas of Vedanta. His gospel of fearlessness to
a politically prostrate nation was of great political significance. His nationalism was a kind of spiritual
imperialism.8 He laid special emphasis on the youth of the country. He encouraged them to believe in
the spiritual mission of India.

To the Indians he gave an inspiring call: “Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that
you are an Indian and proudly proclaim, I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother.’” 9 The same kind
of fraternal affinity he wanted to groom among all the people of the world. His Guru Sri
Ramakrishna’s principle was, first form character, first earn spirituality, and results will come of
themselves. His favourite illustration was, ‘when lotus opens, the bees come of their own accord to
seek the honey; so let the lotus of your character be full-blown and the results will follow.’10

Post-Modern Life style and the Concept of universal religion

With the shift from industrial age to the Information age, dramatic technological revolutions
and scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished. Progress in our materialistic civilization has
greatly influenced the modern man’s lifestyle. But he has also been confronted with the dilemma of
overcoming the persistent problems of inequality, poverty, ignorance, disease, and enslavement of
body and spirit through all forms of addiction, destruction of environment, depletion of non-
renewable resources and the breakdown of moral and spiritual values. Actual progress of mankind is
thus in a deep crisis amidst a mechanized capitalism which has forgotten the human soul. 11
 Unbridled competition, lack of justice and compassion, increasing greed for acquiring much
more than what is required has brought our technologically-advanced world on to the brink of
destruction of the human spirit. The spectre of a world torn by conflict and violence, bloodshed,
cruelty, crime, injustice, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism has bred a new kind of spiritual
insecurity. We have become materially enriched but somewhere in the bargain we have lost things
which are noble, pure and integral to human values. Moral and spiritual development has become
stagnant, ethical values have eroded and the soul has become dry. The real purpose of life has been
lost.

Advancements in communication systems have transformed the globe in to a much smaller

village where people of different ethnic, linguistic, religious and socio-cultural backgrounds have
been compelled to accommodate their interests in a fast-changing culturally diversified environment.
There is an urgent need not only for people to be aware of other people advocating or professing
different religions but also to appreciate and respect the other’s religious views. In this changed
scenario, Swami Vivekananda’s idea of a universal religion carries much more relevance today than it
carried in 19th or the beginning of the 20th century.

About religion, swami Vivekananda said, ‘Religion does not consist in doctrines or
dogmas....Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’. 12 He also continued in the same vein
‘We must never forget that the end of all religions is the realising of the God in the soul. That is the
universal religion. If there is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here –in realising
God.’13However, spiritual aspirations can at times work in very different directions. Vilification,
persecution, mutual criticisms have become a trend with many groups which have engaged
themselves in ruthless wars and bloodshed to impose the supremacy of their belief. Swami
Vivekananda was quite aware of this unpleasant reality. He wrote:

“There is nothing that has brought to man more blessings than religion, yet at the same time,
there is nothing that has brought more horror than religion. Nothing has made more peace and love
than religion; nothing has engendered fiercer hatred than religion. Nothing has made the brotherhood
of man more tangible than religion; nothing has bred more bitter enmity between man and man than
religion. Nothing has built more charitable institutions, more hospitals for men, and even animals,
than religion; nothing has deluged the world with more blood than religion.”14

By ideal of a universal religion, Vivakananda did not suggest a standard, uniformly acceptable
set of religious principles to govern the entire mankind. He said, “....differences must always
remain...if by the idea of a universal religion it is meant that one set of doctrines should be believed
in by all mankind, it is wholly impossible.” 15He also said, “Again, if we expect that there will be one
universal mythology, that is also impossible; it cannot be. Neither can there be one universal ritual.
Such a state of things can never come into existence; if it ever did, the world would be destroyed,
because variety is the first principle of life.”16

His universal religion is very close to what one can term as ‘religious pluralism’ or what some
have termed as ‘inter-faith dialogue.’ On the ideal of universal religion he said, “What then do I Mean
by the ideal of universal religion? I do not mean any one universal philosophy or any one universal
mythology, or any one universal ritual, held alike by all; for I know that the world must go on
working, wheel within wheel, this intricate mass of machinery, most complex, most wonderful.” 17He
compared the image of sun with the Lord. He said, “Suppose a man standing on the earth looks at the
sun when it rises in the morning; he sees a big ball. Suppose he starts on a journey towards the sun
and takes a camera with him, taking photographs at each stage of his journey, until he reaches the sun.
The photographs of each stage will be seen to be different from those of the other stages; in fact, when
he gets back, he brings with him so many photographs of so many different suns, as it would appear;
and yet we know that the same sun was photographed by the man at different stages of his progress.”18

The ideal of universal religion could not be established with any one of the world religions.
Supremacy of any one religion would automatically falsify the beliefs of other religions. Vivekananda
thought that all religious beliefs were supplementary and not contradictory. On this he said, ‘...each
religion, as it were, takes up one part of the great universal truth and spends its whole force in
embodying and typifying that part of the great truth. It is, therefore, an addition and not exclusion”.19

Realization of God was the ultimate truth that Vivekananda believed in. It was ‘the power of
realization that makes religion’.20 No amount of doctrines or philosophies or ethical books that one
might have stuffed into one’s brain mattered much. True religion was like a direct, transcendental
experience of the ultimate reality and all religions more or less shared this principle. For him, there
existed only one eternal religion of which all other religions were only variations. Each religion had a
unique beat, a special trait and its own articulation of what was good. And this uniqueness lay in the
internal soul of every religion and not in the external manifestations. Every religion, thus, had a soul
and this soul could differ from the soul of another religion.21

Vivekananda strongly believed that the essence of all religions was one. If one was true, the
other was also equally true. His ideal was like ‘many lamps, but one light’. One could adopt different
paths to attain ultimate truth in life. He said:

“Through high philosophy or low, through the most exalted mythology or the grossest,
through the most refined ritualism or arrant fetishism, every sect, every soul, every nation, every
religion, consciously or unconsciously, is struggling upward towards god; every vision of truth that
man has, is a vision of Him (God) and of none else”. 22 He also continued in the same vein when he
said, “Suppose we all go with vessels in our hands to fetch water from a lake. One has a cup, another
a jar, another a bucket and so forth, and we all fill our vessels. The water in each case naturally takes
the form of the vessel carried by each of us...so it is the case of religion.” 23 God is like water filling
the different vessels, and in each vessel, the vision of the God comes in the form of the vessel. “Yet,
He is one. He is God in every case. This is the only recognition of universality that we can get.”24

Thus, the basic premise of swami Vivekananda’s ideal of a universal religion was equality of
all religions and in a sense, the basic equality of humanity. The innate divinity of man was the
constant theme in all his teachings. This teaching cut across all divisions based on political or
religious affiliations. Spirituality was the core of every religion and dogmatic exclusiveness and
intolerance could never form part of true religion. The more spiritual a man, the more universal he
was. Hence he tried to preach the message of love towards God and all human beings through
 spiritual orientation by which he believed religions could be constructive forces in enriching the inner
selves of people in the age of material advancement.25

The relevance of a universal religion for a multi-cultural and multi-religious world of the
present generation can hardly be over-estimated. Appreciating and respecting cultural pluralism can
lay a secure and surer foundation for peaceful co-existence and encourage self-realization, the vision
that swami Vivekananda had.

References/Notes

1. Beatrice P. Lamb, India: A world in Transition, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1963, p.114.
2. S C Raychoudhury, Socio-Cultural and Economic History of India (Modern Times) Surjeet
Publications, New Delhi, 1985,p.126.
3. D P Mukherjee: “Diversities”, p.165, quoted in K P Krunakaran: “Religious and Political
Awakening in India”,pp.19-20.
4. The Americans were so much impressed with his eloquence and talent of exposition that he was
described by the American Press as an ‘orator by divine right’ and the greatest figure in the Parliament
of Religions. S C Raychoudhury, Socio-Cultural and economic History of India (Modern Times)
Surjeet Publications, New Delhi, 1985,p.132. He was also called a ‘Hero-Prophet’ and a ‘Patriot-Saint
of India.’
5. B L Grover and S Grover, A New Look at Modern Indian History, S Chand & Co., New Delhi, 2005
(22nd Edn) pp. 278-279.
6. Ibid.
7. RC Agarwal, Constitutional Development and National Movement, p.75. He also said, ‘Fools! By
imitation, others’ ideas never become one’s own; nothing unless earned, is your own. Does the ass in
the lion’s skin become the lion?’ http://sureshlibrarian.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/swami-
vivekananda-call-to-the-youth-for-nation-building/
8. Ibid. M N Roy’s quote of ‘India in Transition’ cited.
9. Ibid, pp. 75-76.
10. Swami Srikantananda, I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna
Math, Hyderabad, 2010, p28.
11. The Role of values education in the Age of Globalism and Information Technology by Lourdes R.
Quisumbing, PhD, former Secretary of Education, President Unesco-APNIEVE, Chairperson of the
Board of Trustees and, Professor Emeritus, Miriam College, in a paper presented On the occasion of
the centennial of the Philippine Normal University.
12. Swami Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda,
op.cit., p.26.
13. Ibid.
14. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.II, p.360.
15. B N Pandey (ed.), A Book of India, Rupa & Co., New Delhi, 1981, p.325.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., p. 326.
18. Ibid.
19. Tapasyananda, S. The Philosophical and Religious Lectures of Swami Vivekananda, Advita
Ashrama, Kolkata, 1984, p.28.
20. Swami Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda,
op.cit., p.36.
21. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.II., p.365.
22. B N Pandey(ed.),op.cit., p.326
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., p.327.
25. Swami Rangnathnanda, Extracts from Eternal Values for a Changing Society, Vol-2, cited in Swami
Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda, op.cit.,in the
introduction.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Last hundred Days and the Kashmir Crisis: The Making of a Dispute

Dr SuryakantNath,
Associate Professor in History,
National Defence Academy, Pune

For nearly sixty years India and Pakistan have battled over the territory of Kashmir.The two
nuclear-armed states have not only fought three bloody wars in the region but the countries have also
been fighting shadow wars for quite some time. Information gathered reveals that the Pakistan military
has trained nearly half a million insurgents and as a matter of defence policy has continued the conflict
in Kashmir at great human cost.1

There is more to Kashmir than ‘militants and migrants’. Since 1980s the valley and other parts
of Kashmir have gone through a brutalizing and soul-searching experience of violence emanating from
a variety of sources. 2The CIA money which was destined for Afghan Mujahideen was funnelled to
Kashmir jihadis leading to a twenty year insurgency rarely discussed in western media.

Of late, Kashmir has been one of the contemporary world’s most troubled and dangerous
places, even a ‘nuclear flash point’ in what India calls ‘terrorist insurgency’ and Pakistan ‘a freedom
movement.’Over fifty thousand people, mostly Muslims but including Hindus, Sikhs and security
personnel are said to have lost their lives in militancy related operations, and nearly 200,000 Kashmiri
Hindus have fled their homesin to involuntary exile. While the Indian sources put the figure for total
death at fifty thousand, the jihadi sources put the figure atone hundred thousand.3

Today there is a flood of literature on Kashmir. However, even though we frequently read about
Pt Nehru or Sardar Patel’s views on the subject, very little is known about the kind of views that
Mahatma Gandhi had towards the Kashmir issue and the role which he played with regard to the
Kashmir issue during the last few months of his life.In the following paragraphs an attempt has been
made to study Gandhi's views on the-then newly-emerging Kashmir dispute which would eventually
culminate into a nuclear flash point in history of the contemporary world and continue to remain one of
the most vulnerable areas in the world.

India was partitioned in August 1947 and the two new nations came into independent existence
on 14th and 15th August respectively. From 15th August 1947 to 30th January 1948, Gandhi lived for
168 days and after 22nd October 1947, the reported date of actual incursion of tribesmen into Kashmir,
Gandhi survived for exactly a hundred days. Even though a major part of Gandhi's time during this
period was devoted to establish communal harmony in riot-torn Noakhali and Bihar, he also spoke and
wrote on a variety of other issues. Basing on the information collected during the last hundred days of
his life, an attempt is made to analyze how Gandhi reacted to the conflict in its nascent form and what
kind of solutions he had in mind. More than anything else, an attempt is made to analyze and speculate
if Gandhi's brand of non-violence and his ideas of conflict-resolution could have been a possible
pragmatic alternative!

Gandhi's Kashmir connections go back to 1915. Despite being invited to visit Kashmir on more
than one occasion previously, for some or the other reason, Gandhi had not been able to go there. After
his return from South Africa, way back in 1915, Gandhi had gone to Haridwar where the turbulent
Ganges enters the plains of India. It was the year of the once-in-twelve years Kumbh Mela and
thousands of pilgrims had gathered at Haridwar for the holy occasion. One of the eminent individuals
who had come for the occasion was Maharaja Hari Singh from Srinagar. By that time Gandhi had built-
up a huge reputation for himself as a staunch and fearless fighter for justice and rights in South Africa.
On meeting him the Maharaja invited him to visit his state. But Gandhi had not succeeded in availing
the invitation.4

Kashmir once again beckoned to him almost quarter of a century later. In 1938 when Gandhi
was staying in Abbotabad with Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his brother Dr Khan
Sahib. Sir N Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the then prime minister of Kashmir had earnestly wanted the
Mahatma to visit Srinagar. The state had made all the arrangements and Gandhi almost went to
Srinagar this time. But arrangements fell through and Gandhi had to wait again for almost a decade till
a two day trip to Srinagar and one day visit to Jammu from 31st July to 2nd August 1947 materialized.

Coincidentally Gandhi managed to visit Kashmir when he was least interested and least
expected to visit.5 Gandhi had to plan a flying 3-day visit of reaching Srinagar via Rawalpindi.
Originally, Pt Nehru was scheduled to visit the state to assure the people and the workers there that
they were not being neglected by the Congress. But as 15th August was drawing near and he was the
Prime Minister-designate of independent India, he could not be spared. Even more important was the
fact that political future of Kashmir had not been decided and there was a very strong possibility that
Nehru's visit could be misinterpreted in the context ofKashmir as an attempt to influence its decision of
aligning with India after the British withdrawal.

To a friend Gandhi wrote on 30thJuly ‘I am going to Kashmir....to see for myself the condition
of the people. In any case I shall have a glimpse of the Himalayas. Who knows ifI am going there for
the first and the last time?’ 6 The UPI (United Press of India) had reported that while in Kashmir,
Gandhi was to be looked after by the workers of the Kashmir National Conference and he was to reside
at the house of Mr Kishorilal Sethi.7

Since the political game of one-up-man-ship had already begun, Gandhi refused to be drawn
into any controversy and made a reference to his impending Kashmir visit. In his prayer meeting of
29th July 1947 held in Delhi he said," I am not going to suggest to the Maharaja to accede to India and
not to Pakistan. The real sovereign of the state are the people. The ruler is a servant of the people.If he
is not so then he is not the ruler.This is my firm belief, and that is why I became a rebel against the
British-because the British claimed to be the rulers of India, and I refused to recognize them as such. In
Kashmir too the power belongs to the public. Let them do as they want...I do not want to do anything
in public when I am in Kashmir. I do not even want a public prayer,though I may have it, as prayer is
part of my life."8

However, contrary to the view that the Maharaja held about Gandhi’s visit to the state in 1915,
when he himself had personally invited Gandhi to visit Kashmir, in August 1947 the situation has
undergone a dramatic change and the state administration this time around was determined to keep
Gandhi out. Maharaja Hari Singh had himself written a letter to the Viceroy which Lord Mountbatten
had passed on to Gandhi. His Highness had written, "It would be advisable from all points of view for
Mahatma Gandhi to cancel his projected visit to Kashmir this year. If, however, for reasons of his own,
he is not in a position to do so, I should still say that his visit should take place only towards the end of
autumn....I would, however, again strongly advise that he or any other political leader should not visit
the state until conditions in India take a happier turn."9

Gandhi reached Srinagar on 1st August 1947 and on arrival was handed over a sealed letter by
the secretary of Ramchandra Kak, the then Prime Minister of the state. Prior to his visit to Kashmir,
Gandhi had been briefed by Nehru about Kak. He (Kak) was believed to have the complete confidence
of the Maharaja and to have been strongly instrumental behind the imprisonment of Sheikh
Mohammad Abdullah, the most popular leader in Kashmir. Wherever Gandhi went there were two
popular demands repeated-to release Sheikh Abdullah 'the Lion of Kashmir' and to urgently replace
state's Prime Minister Ramchandra Kak. Gandhi patiently listened to these demands and expressed his
sympathy but could not move on those matters as he had not come to Kashmir on any political mission.
In a reply to what will happen to Kashmir after independence Gandhi said, “what will happen to
Kashmir will depend on you, the people of Kashmir." 10He had an inkling of what was going on in the
mind of the ruler on the question of future of Kashmir as to whether Kashmir would join India or
Pakistan when Kak replied "we are friendly, and we want to be friendly with everybody."11

Once the infiltration of the tribesmen started in the fourth week of October 1947, Gandhi said
"Some of you may ask if I am aware of what is happening in Kashmir. Yes, I am aware of it. If the
reports we are getting are correct, it is really a bad situation. All I can say is that we can neither save
our religion nor ourselves by resorting to violence. It is reported that Pakistan is trying to coerce
Kashmir to join that dominion. That should not be so. Today it is Kashmir. Tomorrow it can be
Hyderabad. Next it may come to Junagadh or some other state. I do not wish to sit in judgement on this
issue. I only believe in the principle that nobody should force anyone into doing anything ..." 12There
was no doubt in Gandhi's mind that government of Pakistan should be prevented from compelling the
people of Kashmir in its favour, just as India too had to desist from such a course of action.

In course of his meetings with the Maharaja what Gandhi told him cannot be too hard to
guess.Reading too much in to some of the changes that took place after his visit to the statecan only be
misleading. Ram Chandra Kak was removed from the post of the Prime minister on 10 th August and
Sheikh Abdullah was released on 29th September. All this and strengthening the road link between
Pathankot and Jammu may seem to suggest that probably ground was being prepared for accession of
the state to India. But there is no hard evidence to support the Pakistani charge that a ‘sinister design’
was in place to secure the accession of the state withthe Indian Union.13

However the British were more than willing to jump to conclusions which defied any
logic and pointed to active complicity on part of Gandhi with matters related to Kashmir.
Campbell Johnson noted: “Both Nehru and Gandhi have been very anxious that the maharaja of
Kashmir should make no declaration of independence”.14

To clear this anxiety Gandhi visited Kashmir by the end of July, 1947. The windows of
his car were shattered in Baramullah, where an angry crowd protested his visit. Nevertheless, he
was to go ahead and obtain a cure for his and Nehru’s anxiety: a guarantee of Maharaja’s
accession to India.

The Times, London, also reported:“… But the Union of India has been taking a lively interest in
the subject and indications are that the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, has lately
been much influenced by representations made by Gandhi who visited Kashmir three months ago
and by other congress leaders.”

Speaking against an arms race, Gandhi said on 6 th July, “The Pakistanis will say that they must
increase their armed forces to defend themselves against India. India will repeat the agreement. The
result will be war....shall we spend our resources on the education of our children or on gun powder
and guns? 15

Gandhi had taken part in the First World War and although in an indirect capacity, he had had a
first-hand experience of the inadequacies of the use of violence as a tool in the process of conflict
resolution. For him cooperation and harmony rather than conflict and struggle constituted the
fundamental law of the universe. Gandhian dialectic placed man at the centre of reason and provided
for a technique of conflict-resolution whereby one or both sides of a conflict could resolve the
antimony into a re-interpretation. This could lead to, what is termed as, a ‘creative resolution of
conflict’.16 Gandhi believed that a conflict can be creatively resolved only when peace is taken to be a
positive concept rather than a negative one.

The negative concept of peace is a standard western formulation. Johan Galtung defines
“resolution of Conflict” as absence of conflict.17Gandhian concept of conflict resolution would mean
not merely elimination of maladjustment but also progressing towards a better and more meaningful
readjustment. Gandhi did not regard conflict as an antagonism between the two but as a product of the
faulty system. The means, therefore, must develop to change the system itself eliminating any future
possibility of conflict.

If Gandhi’s perception with regard to the root of conflict is to be described then it has to be
himsa or violence. He used the word in a number of senses which makes it difficult to identify it with
its traditional meaning.Gandhi did not have a narrow and unrealistic vision of ahimsa. “Ahimsa is a
comprehensive principle.....man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously
committing outward ahimsa, the very fact of his living......necessarily involves some himsa....He (a
votary of ahimsa) will be constantly growing in self-restraint and compassion but he can never become
entirely free from outward ahimsa”.18

Gandhi never attempted to put his ideas on conflict and its solution in a well-synthesized
manner. They lie scattered in his works and one has to go in to the whole lot to present them
cohesively. However, his views expressed in Bhagvat Gita do reflect his approach to war and conflict-
resolution.

Truth, non-violence and morality formed the very basis of Gandhi’s life and work. He judged
every aspect of life including teachings of the Gita by the tests of truth and non-violence.Gandhi’s
approach to the treatment of the concept of war and non-violence in Gita illustrated his attitude to all
the shashtras. If in Gita Krisna urges Arjuna to fight, to Gandhi, it could not be a justification of war or
violence. For him any one who derived justification for war or killing through violence was not a true
bhakti (devotee) entitled to interpret the shastras. “It is possible to draw any number of evil ideas from
the Bible, the Vedas, the Quran and other scriptures”.19

Immediately after the violent incursion of the tribalgroups engineered by Pakistan into Kashmir
started, Sardar Patel and Pt Nehru had discussions with Gandhi. Both of them had been emotionally
drained by the hectic political parleys related to the partition and the sensitive issue of the refugees.
Gandhiji tried to convey to both of them some of his own strength, the secret of which lay in keeping
calm, doing one’s best with least flutter, and trusting absolutely in the wisdom of God, even while
confronted with the worst of emergencies. Gandhiji held that war was something which resulted only
when ones’ utmost efforts to keep peace failed. He wanted India’s efforts to be always directed towards
peace, but he said, it had to be a fair peace with no damage to honour, with first and foremost attention
paid to safeguarding the lives and property of citizens.20

On 27 October 1947, he said,‘I respectfully submit also that Kashmir has to establish popular
rule in the state. The same is the case with other states like Hyderabad and Junagadh. The real rulers of
the state must be their people. If the people of Kashmir are in favour of joining Pakistan, no power on
earth can stop them from doing so.But they should be left free to decide the question for themselves.
They cannot be asked to decide while being attacked and coerced by having their villages and houses
burnt. If the people of Kashmir, in spite of being Muslims in the majority, wish to accede to India then
too no one can stop them”.21

Talking to Saheed Suhrawardy regarding invasion of Kashmir by the tribesmen, Gandhi said,
‘Either Pakistan is behind the outrage, as all circumstantial evidence goes to show, or it is not behind
the invasion. If Pakistan is indeed involved in this attack, is it not your duty as a true friend of India
and Pakistan to proclaim your opinion? On the other hand, if even in the face of the evidence of the
organized military forces present in such strength in Kashmir, you want to maintain that Pakistan has
no hand in this business,thenis it not up to you to find out who is actually responsible for this attack?’22

Kept fully in picture by Patel, Nehru and Abdullah, Gandhi gave ‘tacit consent’ to the despatch
of Indian troops to Kashmir.23The idea of accepting accession of Kashmir and sending troops to save
Srinagar and the valley had the consent of Gandhi. 24On 29 October he even said,publicly that ‘...the
job of armed forces is to march ahead and repel the attacking enemy’25. In his prayer meeting of Friday,
the 31st October 1947, Gandhi referred to the plight of the Kashmiris, both Hindus and Muslims,
fighting under the banner of Sheikh Abdullah and he said, “The people of Kashmir are brave. All the
communities are living there in unity....Kashmiris should tell the invaders to go back, and if they
attackthey will have to march over the dead bodies of the people of Kashmir. Then nobody will be able
to touch our soldiers. If they die, they will become immortal. The darkness around us should vanish
and we will be able to see light.This is my prayer”.26

In his prayer meeting of 1st November Gandhi referred to the massive air movement that was
going on in Delhi ferrying men,arms and supplies to defend Kashmir, conceding that many of the
soldiers going on the mission were going to lose their lives but commended that their lives would have
been laid down for a nobler cause of establishing peace and harmony in the beautiful valley of
Kashmir.27Touching upon non-violence in the context of the battle being fought to save Kashmir, he
again told in the prayer meeting of 5 th November that left to himself he would have gone with a band
of non-violent resisters prepared to die at the hands of the enemy to rescue the state.But at the same
time he also expressed the feeling that such an occasion would arise only if people listened to his
words and acted accordingly.28

On 12th November 1947,speaking on Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India,
Gandhi said that the Government of India agreed to the accession for the timebeing, because both the
Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah, who is the representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, wanted
it. Sheikh Abdullah came forward to make the demand representing not only the Muslims but the entire
masses of Kashmir.29The same day he also said, “ I have heard people talking in whispers that Kashmir
could be divided, that Jammu would come to the Hindus, and that the Muslims could have the rest. I
cannot even think of such divided loyaltyand division of India’s states into several parts. I hope that the
whole of India would act sensibly, and that the ugly situation will be avoided” 30He also observed,
“there is a large preponderance of Muslims in Kashmir. There should be no partitioning of the state. If
we start the process again here, where will it end?It is enough and more than enough that India has
been cut into two....”31

For Gandhi, cooperation and harmony rather than conflict and struggle constituted the
fundamental law of the universe. He aimed at ‘creative resolution of conflict.’ 32Gandhi did not regard
conflict as an antagonism between two, but considered it as a product of the faulty system. The means,
therefore, had to be developed to change the system itself eliminating any future possibility of conflict.
Social transformation of the conflicting parties worked miracles in this regard.

Gandhi was of the firm opinion that Kashmir with its Muslims, Hindu and Sikh population
could provide an anti-dote for the sub-continent’s Hindu-Muslim divide. He also expressed his opinion
that after the raiders were repulsed ‘Kashmir would belong to the Kashmiris’. 33Later in the year (1947)
when the Indian government referred the Kashmir question to the United Nations, on 27 December,
Gandhi said, ‘I shall advise Pakistan and India to sit together and decide the matter.If the two are
interested in the settlement of the dispute, where is the need for an arbitrator?’ 34Who precisely
originated the idea that India should take the Kashmir question to the Security Council(described by
Sardar Patel as “Insecurity Council’ is not clear. Some at the time mentioned the name of Mountbatten
and others that of Nehru and his key official advisers. 35Again on the same issue he said on 4 January
1948, “Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this I have no doubt....therefore the two dominions
should come together with God as witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the United
Nations Organisation. It cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a
settlement the big powers in the UNO will have to endorse that settlement” 36He was unequivocal in
holding that no fair settlement could be found by inviting a foreign hand.

At times expressing helplessness Gandhi sought shelter in his prayers and derived comfort in
surrendering himself to God.On 3rd January he said, “...Today that poison (of distrust) is increasing.
Kashmir has added more poison. If there is war, both countries are going to bleed. I do not wish to be
alive and be witness to the carnage. I can only pray to God, and ask you all to join in the prayer, that
He may take me away. I pray to God that He may cure us of folly and madness so that our country may
continue to progress.”37

Along with the Kashmir cauldron when the Hyderabad problem started, Gandhi felt that he was
very right in not being in favour of partition of India and lamented that others refused to pay heed to
his views. In a letter written on 26 November 1947 in Gujarati Gandhi wrote, ‘I was not in favour of
partition of India:I could foresee these developments. Hence I am not surprised at the crisis we are
facing today’38

Gandhi did not believe that violence was inherent in human nature. He was of the firm opinion
that man was essentially peace-loving, co-operative and compassionate for others. Goodness in man
could be aroused, articulated and strengthened. He wanted people to settle their own quarrels. “Men
were less manly if they resolved their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide
them...they became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the course of law. It is a sign of
savagery to settle disputes by fighting. It is not the less so by asking a third party to decide between
you and me. The parties alone know who is right and therefore, they ought to settle it.” 39With regard to
Kashmir, he also said, “If I had my way, I would have invited Pakistan’s representatives to India, and
we would have met, discussed the matter and worked out some settlement. The two dominions should
come together with god as witness and find a settlement...”40

Gandhi out rightly rejected the use of violence as a means of conflict resolution. He thought it
could be achieved only through “peaceful negotiation” 41Blanche Watson also corroborates the
effectiveness of Gandhian method of using non-violence against violence in a similar manner. He
writes, “Repression has never worked. I challenge anybody to point me to a single episode in either
ancient or modern history, which proves that repression has even once achieved the end to which it has
been directed. The English failed in America,....it failed in South Africa after the Boer War, It failed in
Ireland yesterday.....it will fail in India tomorrow. If repression succeeds in anything, it is in advertising
the cause of the enemy”. 42

Repression provokes conflict and a solution is never reached at. The synthesis of two opposing
claims inconflict resolution doesnot necessarily imply partial surrendering of original claims from both
sides. Nor can it be called a compromise in the modern parlance of negotiations. Resolution of conflict
in the Gandhian way, thus, departs from the traditional sense in that there is no sacrificing of position,
no concession granted to any party, and no victory in the sense of triumph of one party over the other.
In a conflicting situation, groups should meet with an open mind willing to convince and to be
convinced.

Inspite of practising truth and non-violence for a major part of his life, Gandhi conceded that
ahimsa (non-violence) was an ideal which was impossible to realize to perfection. The evil is inherent
in action. As it is very clear, Arjuna did not raise the question of violence and non-violence. He simply
raised the question of distinction between kinsmen and others which according to Gandhi was due to
Arjuna’s reluctance arising out of his ignorance and attachment to ego. 43 For Gandhi, what the Gita
propounded on the common sense level was that once plunged into a battle, one should go on fighting.
One should not give up the task once it has been undertaken. The illustration of war in Gita is not
inadequate. The wisemen shouldn’t read a wrong meaning in it.

For Gandhi satyagraha had deep linkage with universal brotherhood of man. It discarded the
biological concept of the struggle for human existence as well as the concept of survival of the fittest.
He believed in love, respect, mutual help and cooperation in the work for welfare of the society as a
whole. “Love of the hater is the most difficult of all. But by the grace of God, even this most difficult
thing becomes easy to accomplish if we want to do it.” 44 However, Gandhi also knew how hard it was
for common people to practise what they said. Speaking on truth and non-violence he said, “....if our
actual conduct is not in conformity with those virtues, just talking about them is hypocritical. I do not
like that. I have traversed India many times and seen thousands of villages. I find that people talk of
truth and non-violence, but they do not act accordingly. People think in one way, speak in another and
act in yet another way!”45

On Conflict Resolution, Gandhi never put anything as a die-hard theoretician. He himself

practised what he propagated and in one sphere or the other, he put into practice all modes of conflict
resolution as and when he was confronted with one. The saying that “all good theories can be practised
and all good practices can be theorized” fits aptly to the Gandhian mode of conflict resolution.

Gandhi had an undying faith in the power of truth and non-violence. As a life-long practicener
of non-violence, his standard advice was to confront violence with non-violence.But at times it was put
to severe test.When a group of Sikhs led by Giani Kartar Singh met him and narrated to him the
continuing atrocities on Sikhs in Pakistan, his advice was not well-taken. Kartar Singh protested,
“Afflicted men cannot be balanced men. Everyone can not be a Mahatma Gandhi.” To this, Gandhi
replied calmly, “Mahatma Gandhi is neither an angel nor a devil. He is a man like any of you. It can do
no good to dwell on who has killed more people and where...” 46

Like an eternal optimist, he had complete faith in people’s power and their sense of justice. He
had grand plans of visiting Pakistan and was also hopeful that partition was only a temporary process
and it could be revoked. Before setting out for Pakistan, however, Gandhi felt he had first to make
another effort to get India’s house in order. ‘What face can I turn to the Pakistanis’, he asked, ‘if the
conflagration still rages here?’47Even while replying to Vincent Sheean’s question as to why violence
had not subsided after a righteous war, Gandhi said, “See what is happening in India, in Kashmir. Yet, I
have faith. If I live long enough, my followers will see the futility of it (employing force), and come
round to my way.”48

It is a strange co-incidence that Kashmir became the cause of Gandhi’s death. A crisis occurred
when India hesitated to honour the financial clause of the Partition agreement, which included the
payment of cash balances amounting to Rs. 550 million to Pakistan. Sardar Patel took a firm stand
linking the payment of the sum to Pakistan with the withdrawal of troops from Kashmir. 49 But Gandhi
was not convinced that a violent dispute entitled India to keep Pakistan’s money. Pakistan
representatives accused India of strangulating their country. Gandhi announced an indefinite fast at this
stage and word went round that it was directed against Patel’s decision to withhold the cash balances.
Mountbatten and Nehru were, in fact, known to have told Gandhi that India was morally bound to
transfer the balance to Pakistan and that the situation created by the unbending position adopted by
Sardar could be saved only by Gandhi. Patel finally yielded and Gandhi broke his fast at the behest of
the leaders of all communities.50 The young man, Godse, who shot him justified his act by saying that
his main provocation was the Mahatma’s ‘constant and consistent pandering to the Muslims’,
‘culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast (which) at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence
of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately’. 51

A sentiment that has been repeated again and again is a lasting peace based on the
reconciliation between the Muslims and non-Muslims for which Gandhi gave his life. But the sub-
continent still awaits the peace that Gandhi wanted to secure by visiting Pakistan in February 1948, an
exercise prevented by his assassination.52

References

1. Arif Jamal, Shadow War: the Untold Story of jihad in Kashmir, Vij Books, New Delhi, 2009,
P.14.
2. Foreword by T N Madan in A Rao (ed.)The Valley of Kashmir, The Making and Unmaking of a
Composite Culture, Manohar, new Delhi, 2008,p.XIII.
3. Figure quoted by Gen (Retd.)S K Sinha, Governor of the state, speaking in New Delhi on 29
April 2005.The figures for death were: 20,000 militants, 15,000 civilians (almost all killed by
terrorists)and 5,000 security personnel.(Daily Excelsior, Jammu, 30 April 2005). He
characterized the manner of killings by terrorists as brutal.
4. V Ramamurthy, Mahatma Gandhi: The last 200 Days, Kasturi & Sons, Chennai, 2004,p.27.
5. In a reply to Sardar Patel's letter Gandhi had written '...I do not want to go to Kashmir and that
Jawaharlal will go instead. Now I have a letter saying that I may go there, but not Jawaharlal. I
cannot make up my mind. What shall I do?' cited in V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.26.
6. It indeed turned out to be his first and the last visit to the state. V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.28,
and Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.96, pp173-174 cited in Rajmohan Gandhi,
Mohandas : The true story of a man, His people and an Empire, Penguin, New Delhi, 2007,
p.623.
7. Kishorilal Sethi was a well-known contractor who commanded great respect in the state and his
mansion was about three miles from the heart of the city on the aerodrome road.
8. V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.29. Also Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.96, pp173-174
cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit., p.623.
9. The Maharaja was referring to the partition killings.V Ramamurthy, op.cit.,p.36. Also see
Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy,
Picador, 2007, P.62. Transfer Of Power, Vol.12, pp.3-5, 368. At the request of the
Maharaja,Gandhi did not address any public gatherings during his 3-day stay in the state even
though he met several delegations.
10. V Ramamurthy, op. Cit.,p.44.
11. Ibid,p.40.
12. Ibid,p.277.

13. The Times,London, October 25th 1947 wrote, “What exactly did Gandhi tell the
Maharaja? We will never know, but the chain of events that followed his visit is an
indicator of what must have happened. After his visit, the Prime Minister of Kashmir,
Ram Chandar Kak, who had no inclination towards India was replaced by Janak Singh
and then by the Indian loyalist, Mehr Chand Mahajan. The British officers in the Kashmir
Army and Police were dismissed including the Inspector General of Police and the Chief
of the General Staff. Orders for construction of a bridge over the river Ravi, near
Pathankot, to allow connectivity between India and Jammu and Kashmir were issued.
The road between Jammu and Kathua was improved and a telegraph line was constructed
between Jammu and the valley. This was all possible because of assistance from
India”.http://kashmir.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/how-mahatma-gandhi-stalled-kashmirs-
independence/.

14. Campbell Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten, p. 117, cited in

http://kashmir.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/how-mahatma-gandhi-stalled-kashmirs-
independence/.

15. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol-95:408-409, cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit.,p.625.
16. Joan Bondurant, Conquest on Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, London,
1958,p.199.
17. Karnal Singh (ed.,) Gandhian Direction to the society at crossroads, Patna, 1991, p.65.
18. M K Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 264.cited in S K Sethi’s chapter Gandhi and the First world
War in S Pani and N Pani (ed.) Reflections on Gandhi:The Forgotten Mahatma, Zenith Books
International, Delhi, 2008, p.126.
19. A N Mishra, Gita Gandhi and Non-violence in S Pani and N Pani (ed.) Reflections on Gandhi :
The Forgotten Mahatma, op.cit.,p.107.
20. V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.281.
21. Ibid,p.277.
22. Ibid, p.285.
23. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.98,p.319.
24. Durga Das, India from Curzon to Nehru & After, Rupa & Co, New Delhi, 1977,p.270.
25. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.97.p.185.
26. V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.289.
27. Ibid,p.292.
28. Ibid,p.304.
29. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,vol.97.p.285-286.
30. Ibid,p.326.
31. V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.417.
32. Joan Bondurant., op.cit., p.199.
33. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,vol.97.p.185)
34. Ibid,vol-98.p114.
35. Durga Das, op.cit., p.270.
36. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,vol.98.p.171.
37. V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.431.
38. Ibid,p.360.
39. C Shankaran Nair, Gandhi and Anarch, New Delhi, 1922 (repr.1995), p.6.
40. V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p434.
41. Kenneth Boulding, Conflict and Defence: A General Theory, Newyork, 1962,p.304.
42. Blanche Watson, Gandhi and Non-violent Resistance, New Delhi, Reprint 1989, pp.516-17.
43. A N Mishra, op.cit.,p110.
44. S R Bakshi, Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi, 1990,pp.55-56.
45. V Ramamurthy,op.cit., p.419.
46. Ibid, p.464.
47. Larry Collins and Dominique Lappierre, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, Mumbai, 2000,p.465.
48. V Ramamurthy,op.cit.,p.479.
49. Citing Kashmir conflict as the reason, on 3rd or 4th of January Patel said that India could not
give money to Pakistan ‘for making bullets to be shot at us.’ G M Nandurkar (ed.) Sardar Patel
Centenary Volumes (Ahmedabad), vol.2. p.19 cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit.,p.663.
50. Durga Das,op.cit.,p.276.
51. Cited in Ramachandra Guha, op.cit., p22.
52. Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit, p.685.
 Foes turn Friends: Evolving Maratha-Odiya Friendship

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy, Pune

A very common statement which is frequently expressed to describe the political situation
in India after the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 is that the result of the battle did not decide who
was to rule India but decided who was not to rule India. The statement is only partially justified.
The defeat at the hands of the Afghan, Ahmed Shah Abdali dealt a severe blow to the Maratha
power and prestige in North India. But all was not lost. By this time the English had only Plassey
to their credit and that also had been acquired through unfair means. The Marathas still ruled the
roost and a substantial portion of north, central and south India was still under their occupation.
It is another thing that the Marathas fettered away this advantage of creating a pan-Indian empire
and put paid to their hopes by indulging in internecine struggles between their ruling families
themselves.

A crucial link in the substantial geographical landmass that the Marathas controlled a
little before their eventual defeat at the hands of the British comprised of portions of modern
Odisha. The Maratha administration of Orissa effectively began from the year 1751.1 Orissa
formed a significant link between Bengal ruled by the Mughals and Nagpur ruled by them and it
formed the jumping board for frequent raids into the province of Bengal. The Maratha Bargis
earned a nasty reputation for their raids on the villages. In Bengalee a stanza reads:

chhele ghumalo, pada judalo bargi elo deshe

bulbulite dhan kheyechhe, khajna debo kise?

Roughly translated it is:

When the children fall asleep, silence sets in,

the Bargis come to our lands Bulbulis (birds) have eaten the grains,
how shall I pay the rent? 2

The rule of the Marathas in Odisha was also in no way different. The Maratha rule lasted
in Orissa for a brief period of half a century only. This period coincided with the rise of the
British power in Bengal. It was in the nature of historical developments that the foundation of the
British Empire should not be followed by its expansion and the British were acutely conscious of
that historical role for which they were destined. And, the British were thoroughly aware of the
strategic position of Orissa, situated as the land between their emerging power in Bengal and
Madras. They had come to Orissa as traders during the first half of the 17th century A.D. and had
established their factories, and had acquainted themselves with the land and its people, while
simultaneously making assessment of the strength and weakness of the ruling powers. The
Marathas too did not earn respect of the subject population which became a crucial factor in their
defeat in the hands of the British as they were denied any local support. 3

The British occupation of Orissa in 1803 signified an important shift in their history. But
in the preceding 200 years, since the Oriyas had not fared any better under the Mughals, Afghans
and the Marathas, they warmly welcomed the British. The poet and critic Mayadhar Mansingh
wrote, “The priests of temple of Lord Jagannath could welcome their (British) generals in
sonorous, adulatory Sanskrit, because the two hundred years under the rule of Moghuls, Afghans
and the Marathas had created completely anarchical conditions in the country” 4

The Maratha rule over Odisha has evoked mixed reactions from different people writing
on the impact of their rule. Although the Maratha rule in Orissa is often criticized for anarchy
and misrule it did bring some developments into the region. They encouraged pilgrimage to
Orissa from other parts of India, due to the increasing esteem and fame of the Jagannath Temple.
The great festivals of Puri received sufficient patronage. Marathas also had a great role in the
boosting up of Oriya literature. It made a rapid progress-- the Kavya and Padya literature, prose
and biographical literature, Puranic and historical writings, besides devotional poetry, made
immense advancement. But this glorious phase of Maratha rule could only last for not more than
half a century leading to the subsequent rise of the British power in the region. 5

But as it is rightly said ‘time heals all wounds’. Among the many who went to Orissa
with the Maratha army and who stayed back making Orissa their homeland was a great son of
Orissa, Bhakta Kavi (Devotional Poet) Madhusudan Rao. He was born in a Maharastrian
Kshyatriya family in Puri. His ancestors were from the Maharashtriyan royal family of the
Bhonslas from Nagpur. They came to Orissa during the rule of Marathas. After Orissa was ruled
by the British many of these Marathas were left back in Orissa. He was born to one such family. 6
He is a house-hold name in Orissa for his Madhu Barnabodha, a precious asset to Oriya
literature. He was also a social reformer. He established an English medium school named
Cuttack Town School in the year 1881. Later it was renamed as "Town Victoria High School" in
year 1909. Now it is well known as "Bhakta Madhu Bidyapith". He established Alochana Sabha
in Cuttack in 1890 which later in 1993 was changed to "Utkal Sahitya Samaj". He was the first
President of "Utkal Sahitya Samaj". This institution bears his honour and exists till date. He
wrote many essay and poems. "Basanta Gatha" and "Utkal Gatha" are his best poems. He was
the father of modern Oriya poetry. He was also founder of Odiya essay writing. His writings are
pure and reveal best of the language. His contribution to the Oriya literature is unfathomable.
The Oriya language and literature will salute him till its existence. Being a non-Oriya his works
carried out for Orissa is admirable. He was a poet, philosopher and idealist. 7

The bond has only grown stronger over the years. From the strong bond that exists today
between the two communities in Orissa, it is evident that the two communities have put their
bitter past behind and scripted a new chapter of love and friendship. Years of association between
the two (Maratha and the Odiya) communities have brought their art forms, literature and
festivals closer. Popular cultural art forms of Orissa like Pala, which is a beautiful narration of
historical and mythological stories, find similarities with Marathi performing arts of Bharud,
Kirtan and Powada. 8

References

1. http://orissadiary.com/orissa_profile/orissahistory2.asp.
2. Ahmed, Wakil. "Folk Literature". Banglapedia. Asiatic Society of
Bangladesh. Archived from the original on 15 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-21,
cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargi.
3. Pt Suryanaraan Dash, Unavimsa Shatabdira Odisha (Oriya) Vol.1, Dash Publishers,
Cuttack, 1969, pp.1-12.Famous Oriya writer Fakir Mohan Senapati also narrates similar
kind of sentiment prevalent against the ruling Marathas in his autobiography. Fakir
Mohan Senapati, Atma Jibani Charita (Oriya), Cuttack Students Store, 1917, PP.2-3.
4. Cited in http://www.museindia.com/regularcontent.asp?issid=36&id=2546
5. http://www.indiasite.com/orissa/history.html
6. http://www.123orissa.com/person/person.asp?sno=13&cat=a
7. Ibid.
8. Chandrima Maitra, Bitter Past, Present Perfect, Telegraph, 21-11-2011.

Poverty under the Colonial Rule and Peasantry in Orissa

Dr Suryakant Nath
 Associate Professor in History
NDA,Khadakwasla, Pune

In the aftermath of the Revolt of 1857 a whole generation of emerging nationalist leadership in
India believed that the British rule was productive of considerable benefits to the people of India. The
benefits acclaimed most often were peace, law and order, western education, centralised administration,
political unification of the country and the consequent growth of a feeling of nationality, railways,
telegraphs, hospitals etc. However, with the passage of time and as a result of increasing political activity
and consciousness1 doubts began to arise about the value and material content of such benefits, though the
positive aspects of the legal, constitutional and other non-material consequences of British impact were
recognised and acknowledged by a section of the Indian national leadership almost to the end of the
colonial rule in India.

Many were under the impression that the rulers back in England and the British public were
unaware of the real condition in India 2. Hence they went for a thorough investigation of the true state of
affairs with a view to enlighten the British public, parliament, administrators and to force the gravity of
the problem on their attention.3 Moreover, they believed that the urgency of the existing economic
situation should be perceived and assessed correctly, recognised and projected to the rulers so that they
could devise means of improving it.4

The problem of poverty, in a sense, occupied the centre stage of the Indian politics in the
formative period of the Indian nationalism. But the approach of the British rulers and the emerging Indian
leaders greatly varied on the issue. Secretary of State, George Hamilton said, ‘I admit that if it could be
shown that India has retrograded in material prosperity under our rule we stand self-condemned, and we
ought no longer to be trusted with the control of the country.’ 5 Were the representatives of the Crown in
India equally genuine? Perhaps not. In contrast, almost every Indian leader of any substance of the day
wrote articles or books on the economic situation believing that there was a pressing need for
disseminating the deep-seated cause of the poverty of the Indian people. Dadabhai Naoroji described it as
‘the one rock, the one thing, the one test, which in its settlements will either make Britain a blessing to
India, or Heaven knows what distress it may bring forth.’6

In 1901, Bipin Chandra Pal, one of the spokesmen of the extremist party wrote in the very first
issue of his militant weekly, New India, ‘Of all the perplexing problems that confront New India, the
economic problem seems to our mind, the most pressing and important.’ 7 R C Dutt in the same year wrote,
‘I do not think there is a question of graver import connected with any part of the British empire than the
present condition of India.’8 Thus, poverty was one of the few subjects of interest in which a greater gulf
separated the views of the rulers and the ruled in India. It also aroused lot of criticism, anger and violent
denunciation.

With poverty, a very closely associated question was ‘Was India poor?’ M L Darling wrote,
‘The most arresting fact about India is that her soil is rich and her people poor.’ 9 The other equally
disturbing fact was the question of wealth of India for which it remained a perpetual target of invasion
throughout the various periods of its history. In between these twin problems of wealth and poverty
remained the most crucial issue of political order or the colonial state in India.10

Baring a few diehard critics, almost everyone accepted the fact that India was blessed with
natural resources exceptionally favourable for a high degree of prosperity for its population through a
combination of agricultural and industrial development. It also goes without saying that prior to the British
rule the Indian economic development stood well to the forefront in the world scale. India was famous for
its fabulous wealth (some prefer to call it as proverbial). Of course, there is bound to be a difference of
opinion on the issue of the accumulation and distribution of wealth. When Robert Clive entered
Murshidabad, the old capital of Bengal in 1757, he wrote, ‘This city is as extensive, populous as the city
of London, with this difference that there were individuals in the first possessing infinitely greater
property than in the last city’11Many travellers to India in the 17th and the 18th century frequently reported a
general prosperity even in the villages which contrasts with the existing conditions these days.12

Travernier, in his account of journeys in 17th century India virtually echoed Clive’s views
when he observed that ‘....even in the smallest villages rice, flour, butter, milk, beans and other vegetables,
sugar and other sweetmeats, dry and liquid, can be procured in abundance.’ 13 The Indian Industrial
Commission Report of 1916-18 opened its report with the statement:

‘At a time when the west of Europe, the birth place of the modern industrial system, was
inhabited by uncivilised tribes, India was famous for the wealth of her rulers and for the high artistic skill
of its craftsmen. And even at a much later period, when merchant adventurers from the west made their
first appearance in India, the industrial development of the country was at any rate not inferior to that of
the more advanced European nations.’14

Bernier, the French traveller, who visited India in the middle of the 17 th century (Around 1660,
he visited Bengal twice) also gives a similar opinion about the economic condition of the people. A little
before the break-up of the Mughal Empire, he wrote, ‘The knowledge I have acquired in Bengal in two
visits inclines me to believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports in abundance cottons and silks, rice,
sugar and butter. It produces amply for its own consumption of wheat, vegetables, grains, fowls ducks and
geese. It has immense herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and goats, Fish of every kind it has in profusion.
From Rajmahal to the sea is an endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the Ganges by immense
labour for navigation and irrigation.’ 15

The wealth and poverty of India remained a contentious issue for both the British rulers and
the emerging Indian leadership. It became a virtual propaganda battle. For the British, the question of
acceptance of the existence of poverty or the fact that India was getting poorer would have meant not only
self-condemnation but would have led to serious political repercussions. Lord George Hamilton, the
Secretary of State admitted this fact when he declared on 3 February 1902, ‘I have more than once stated
my opinion that our main claim, our only claim, to rule India is the belief that we can improve the material
prosperity of those who live within its borders.’16

For the Indians, it was a painstaking effort hammering again and again on the theme that not
only was India poor, but that she was growing poorer day by day. Gopal Krusna Gokhale made this the
keynote of his famous budget speech of 1902 and after analysing the issue from all angles, concluded that
the material condition of the mass of the people in India was ‘steadily deteriorating’ and that the
phenomenon was ‘the saddest day in the whole range of the economic history of the world.’ 17The
nationalist press was vehement in its denunciation of ‘daily growing’ poverty, which it said had become a
‘palpable’ and an ‘established’ fact.18

The British on the other hand kept on maintaining that under the British regime the material
well being of the people was constantly improving, and that not only was the increasing impoverishment
theory baseless and completely delusory, but the future was full of hope and promise as India was already
starting on the high road to prosperity.’ 19 To the national leadership, famines were clear proofs of India’s
poverty, and their ever-increasing frequency, intensity extent and mortality was an infallible index of the
growing impoverishment of the country. 20

However, here, a fact which needs to be kept in mind is that whether the rule of the British
colonial masters made the country economically impoverished or it was something which they had
inherited. There are different views on whether such underdevelopment is caused by colonial rule in the
past. Several scholars have emphasized factors such as excessive exploitation of colonies, drain of
resources or the growth of a “dependency” complex to argue that colonial rule has long-term negative
effects on development (see Frank 1978, or Bagchi 1982). On the other hand, there is the view that
resource endowments or area characteristics are the major determining forces of long-term outcomes, and
that colonial rule plays only a minor part (e.g. Herbst 2000, on Africa, or Roy 2002, on India). 21

In trying to evaluate the long-term impact of colonialism, a distinction needs to be made between
the direct and the indirect impact. In this sense, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer the
question of what outcomes would have been had European countries never established vast overseas
empires. Even if we want to answer the more limited question of whether the direct impact of colonialism
is different from the indirect effect, we are faced with the problem of selection: are some countries poor
today because they were colonies in the past, or is it because they were “inherently” poor that they were
ill-defended and easily conquered by colonial powers? It is difficult to think of a way to separate out this
selection effect from the causal effect of colonialism in cross country data. 22Can one confidently point to a
positive causal impact of British rule? (perhaps due to introduction of better technology or prior
investments during the Colonial period itself).

It would be purely hypothetical at this point to hazard a guess as to whether India would have
been much better off if it had not directly come under the colonial exploitative rule of the British in the
18th and 19th centuries!23 Since we have more or less accepted the fact that the British rule in India
progressively deteriorated the economic situation in the country we have more or less reasons to believe
that it was the policies of the colonial government which played a crucial role in shaping the economic
history of the country during the period under survey.

British policies in Orissa

Since agriculture formed the backbone of the Indian economy this paper would be touching
upon the British policies towards agriculture in the 19 th and 20th centuries. The British government was
least interested in introducing agrarian legislation to foster ‘economic planning’ but they carried out such
legislations in order to ‘forestall political unrest’. 24The foundations of agrarian legislation that the colonial
authorities laid down continued, though with significant changes, even after independence. The issue that
becomes uppermost here is whether Tenancy legislations served the interests of the tenantry. What were its
limitations and compulsions? And did the agrarian reforms attempted by the Congress Ministry in the
1930s change the condition of the peasantry?

The main elements of agrarian structure were the village community, the system of land
holding and land tenures, and the ubiquitous caste system. The system of land tenure comprised a complex
set of relations including those between the state on the one hand and the agriculturists on the other, and
the interrelations between the different categories of agricultural population in several tenurial forms.25

The rent Act of 1859 forms the backdrop against which all subsequent changes were made in
Orissa. It provided for the first time a definition of the right of occupancy over land both for the zamindars
and the tenants.26 Subsequent reform measures/Acts to bring about changes were the Bengal Tenancy Act
of 1885 and Orissa Tenancy Act of 1913. Apart from codifying various interests on the land, the Orissa
Tenancy Act defined the tenancy rights recognised the rights of the tenants to transfer their holdings
without the consent of the proprietors.27 However, it did not help to reduce the rent burden on the peasants.
Like the Bengal Tenancy Act, it also favoured concentration of large holdings and promoted large
landlordism, especially, absentee landlordism. There were attempts to bring about amendments in the
Orissa Tenancy Act by the Oriya members of the Bihar and Orissa Legislative council. These amendments
were not considered because the government did not feel it to be wise to tamper with the Act. Moreover, it
was a colonial policy of not adversely impacting the loyalty of the propertied class towards the British
Raj. 28

The formation of Orissa as a separate province in 1936 was followed by the formation of a
popular Congress Ministry in the state. The Ministry favoured agrarian reforms like the Madras Estate
Land (Amendment) Bill, Orissa Tenancy amendment Bill, Orissa Moneylenders Bill etc. Other than the
madras Tenancy Amendment Bill all bills were passed. Though the Ministry achieved limited success in
introducing radical change, it succeeded in articulating peasants’ grievances and in exposing the
exploitative nature of the colonial government.

Another related issue with the agrarian policies and change was the peasant unrest which kept
on assuming greater proportions as the national movement progressed. This was primarily a result of the
disintegration and dissolution of the village community as a consequence of the British Revenue and
Administrative system.29It was also closely related to the pathetic conditions in which the peasants were
placed towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.30 Some of the likely reasons which
contributed towards this low status of the peasantry were: a). Land and population ratio, b). Small
holdings, c). absence of any improved/advanced farming options, d). Sale and re-sale of land, e).
Exploitation of the money lender, f). increased land revenue, g). Illiteracy, and natural calamities like
floods and droughts. 31

Speaking about the low condition of the Indian peasants, Manu Subadar had stated, ‘ I shall
only complete this dark picture by sounding a note of warning that progressive deterioration in the
agricultural districts might bring about, particularly in a bad year, socio-economic consequences of a
dangerous character. The most potent forces of disorder and anarchy in the world have emanated not
merely from bread riots or from urban unemployed, but from agrarian distress carried to the point of
desperation.’32

Popular resistance to colonial rule during the 19th century took the form of localised revolts
which occurred in the different parts of Orissa and were commonly called as ‘meli’ or
‘vidroha’.33However, the first major peasant agitation which drew the attention of the colonial masters and
involved the emerging political leadership in the state was the Kanika agitation of 1921-22. It generated
lot of mass interest in politics.34It has to be kept in mind that with the Non- Cooperation Movement of
1920, politically Orissa virtually merged with the nationalist main stream of political agitation and
organised and institutionalised forms of protest become visible in Orissa.

Apart from the Salt Satyagraha, the most significant development in the 1930s was the
formation of peasant organisations in the state. Although Congress had been taking up the stray cases of
peasant unrest in the state, there was no organised peasant movement in the state. The Congress Socialist
Party which championed the cause of the peasantry was formed around this period. 35 A close observation
of the activities of the Kisan Sangha and the provincial Congress would reveal that both initially fought
for a common goal of uniting the peasant masses and then to involve them in anti-colonial political
agitation. The peasant leaders also tried to win over the support of the townsmen for the cause of the
peasants. Resolutions were unanimously passed for the abolition of the Zamindari system, mutation fees,
and demands were placed for appointment of experts to train people in better methods of cultivation,
construction of strong embankments, reduction of water rates, better irrigation facilities, rights over trees,
amendments in forest rules and tenancy laws, abolition of bethi, non-payment of illegal taxes etc. 36

Peasant Conferences held at various places in the province and the visit of Gandhi in 1934
helped in extending the mass base of the Congress as well as pushing forward the demands of the
peasantry. The biggest obstacle in way of redressing the peasants’ grievances was, however, the colonial
government which provided the Congress Ministry in the province with limited autonomy. The fulfilment
of the aspirations of the peasants could be attained only after a long-drawn anti-colonial struggle when
India became independent in 1947.

Notes/References

1. Dadabhai Naoroji, Speeches and writings (Madras, undated) pp. 669-670.

2. For example, in most of Dadabhai’s essays, this remained a dominant theme. ‘When you will
know our real wishes I have not the least doubt you would do justice.’ Resolution II of the Indian
National Congress for 1900.
3. Naoroji, Essays, Speeches and Writings edited by C L Parekh (Bombay, 1887) p.128.
4. Naoroji, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (London, 1901) p.147 and Resolution II of the INC
for 1900.
5. Hansard (Fourth Series) Vol.XCIX, c.1209.Cited in Bipan Chandra, The Rise and Growth of
Economic Nationalism in India, Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977, p.1.
6. Naoroji told this in a speech delivered in 1888 on ‘Benefits of British Rule and Poverty in India’ in
Eminent Indians on Indian Politics, ed. By C L Parekh (Bombay, 1892) p. 161.
7. New India, (Calcutta), 12 August 1901.
8. R C Dutt, Speeches and Papers on Indian questions, 1901 and 1902, (Calcutta, 1904), p. 86.
9. M L Darling, The Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt, 1925, p.73.
10. R Palme Dutt, India To-day, Manisha Granthalaya, Calcutta, 1983 (reprint), p. 21.
11. Quoted in the Indian Industrial Commission Report, p.249.
12. W H Moreland in his ‘India at the death of Akbar’ (1920) and ‘From Akbar to Aurangzeb’ (1923)
tries very hard to accumulate all the negative evidence to show that the poverty of the mass of the
population was prevalent also in the 17th century. But he is compelled to conclude by writing: ‘It is
improbable that for India taken as a whole the gross income per head of the rural population has
changed by any large proportion; it may possibly be somewhat smaller, more probably it is
somewhat larger than it was, but in either case, the difference would not be so great as to indicate a
definite alteration in the economic position.’ W H Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar,1920,
p.286.
13. Travernier, Travels in India, Oxford University Press edition, 1925, vol. 1, p. 238.
14. Indian Industrial Commission Report, p.6.
15. Bernier, quoted by Sir William Willcocks, ‘Lectures on the Ancient System of Irrigation in Bengal’,
University of Calcutta, 1930,pp. 18-19.
16. Indian Debates, 3 Feb.1902,c.105 cited in Bipan Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic
Nationalism in India, Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977,p. 27.
17. G K Gokhale, Speeches, (Madras,1916),p.19.
18. For example see Hindu, 10 Sept 1884, 29 Aug. 1887, 1 Feb.1898,Mahratta, 21 Dec 1884, 11 Nov
1900, Bengalee, 9 March 1902, Native Opinion, 13 April 1884 etc.
19. Grant-Duff in 1886 quoted in Naoroji, Speeches, p.583.
20. From the Congress Presidential chair in 1902, S N Banerjea said, ‘Is it possible to overlook the
significance of these famines?....with their increasing severity and frequency and the silent but
conclusive testimony which they bear to the material retrogression of the people?’Congress
Presidential Address, p.683.
21. Lakshmi Iyer, The Long-term Impact of Colonial Rule: Evidence from India, October 2004, p.1,
iyer-colonial_oct2004.pdf-Adobe Reader.
22. Ibid, pp.1-2.
23. About the rule of the Marathas, historian Sterling wrote, ‘The administration of the Marathas was
fatal to the welfare and prosperity of the country and exhibits a picture of misrule, anarchy,
weakness, rapacity and violence combined which makes one wonder how society can have kept
together under so calamitous a tyranny’ cited in Atul Chandra Pradhan, Odisha Itihasa (Odia),
Panchasheela, Bhubaneswar, p.189.
24. Dietmar Rothermund, ‘The Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 and its influence on Legislations in Other
Provinces,’ Bengal Past and Present, Diamond Jubilee Number, 1967, p. 90.
25. Sarada Raju, ‘The Agrarian Structure of the Madras Presidency: Impact of british Administration’
in Sabyasachi Bhattacharya ed.Essays in Modern Indian Economic History, Munshiram
Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1987, pp. 164-167.
26. Partha Chatterjee, Bengal 1920-1947: The Land Question, Vol.1, K P Bagchi, Calcutta, 1984, pp.
10-15.
 27. R L Sahoo, Agrarian Change and Peasant Unrest in Colonial India: Orissa 1912-1939, Manak,
New Delhi, 2004, p. 214.
28. Ibid.
29. Sarada Raju, op.cit., p. 171.
30. Pt. Suryanarayan Dash gives a detailed account of the various types of Bethi and Bhetti which the
peasants in the rural countryside had to endure and which was in a way, responsible for the
pathetic condition of the peasantry in Orissa. Pt. Suryanarayan Dash, Unavimsa Shatabdira
Odisha (Odia), vol.1, Dash Publishers, Balubazar, Cuttack, 1969, pp. 126-127.
31. Ibid, pp. 127-130.
32. Indian Central banking Enquiry Committee, Minority Report, p. 16, cited in Ibid, p131.
33. Prominent among these meli or vidroha of the 19th century were Paika Vidroha (1827-24), Kondh
meli (1837-1857) of Ghumsar, revolt in Angul ( 1848), Sambalpur rebellion (1829-1849) and
(1857-1864), Keonjhar Praja meli (1862), Athmallik praja meli (1863), Mayurbhanj santhal meli
(1866), Nilgiri praja meli (1875), Dompada meli (1876), Narshinghpur meli (1876) and Nayagarh
meli (1893-95).
34. Some view it as a political agitation led by the Congress to experiment with the non-cooperation
method and to take revenge against the Raja who fully supported the colonial government and
openly criticized the Non-Cooperation Movement. Others glorify it as a chapter of the national
movement. However, it would be incorrect to brand it as a purely political agitation because the
discontent of the peasantry was mostly agrarian in nature.
35. The Utkala Samyavadi Karmi Sangha was established in February 1933 with its mouthpiece,
‘Krushak’. P C Nayak, Anirvan (Odia), Best seller Publications, Bhubaneswar, 2001, pp. 56-57.
The members who started the league were gouranga Chandra Das, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Nrupen
Sen, Manmohan Choudhury, S N Dwivedi, Rabi Ghosh, Prannath Pattanayak, Mohan das,
Bhagabati Panigrahi and Dibakar Pattanayak. Gatikrusna Swain and Loknath Ray joined later.
36. R L Sahoo, op.cit., pp261-262.

Scams in modern India and the relevance of Mahabharata : The case of Ramalinga Raju of
Satyam Computers

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in history
National defence Academy
Khadakwasla, Pune.
Email. Suryasikha@rediffmail.com
 With uplifted arms I cry, but no one heeds;
from dharma flow wealth and pleasure.
Then why is dharma not pursued? 1

In the forest Draupadi had asked Yudhisthira, “What kind of a world is it where the good suffer
and the wicked prosper?”2 Suffering and happiness may be irrelevant to dharma but in the absence of
dharma in the contemporary circumstances, it does influence attitude of people. An individual is bound
to ask, ‘why be good, if the world does not care for my suffering?’3

Lies and falsehood are integral part of our survival strategy. We constantly lie to ourselves. We lie
to those around us, particularly those who are close to us. In fact, the closer they are the more we lie to
them. Entire professions and industries have grown around the art of the lie. The more we lie, the better
we lie, the more brilliant we are seen to be. But deception, lie, falsehood and stealing haven’t cropped up
suddenly. In fact, if one flips through the pages of Mahabharata, one can easily come across instances of
how we deceive ourselves, how we are false to ourselves, and how deeply unjust we are in our day to
day lives.4

But the state of corruption has not cropped up suddenly. It has travelled a long way from the days
of the epics. Today, the global corruption barometer survey shows that corruption in India is at an all
time high and Transparency International’s Corruption Perception index (CPI) has placed India at 94 th
position out of the survey conducted in 107 countries in 2012. 5 It is unfortunate and lamentable that
India is ahead of many countries in this corruption scale. The worrying part of the report is that our
political system, police and education system are among the most corrupt. Our political system carries
the onus of the country’s overall development. If it is corrupt then what development can we expect? The
police have to maintain law and order and protect the weak and the poor. If they are corrupt then who
can we turn to for our security? The education system is supposed to imbibe good values in our younger
generation. If it is corrupt then how can we mould our next generation? Democracy has given us many
good and not so good things and corruption happens to be one of them. 6 The fight against corruption
needs to be taken at the individual level and experience in the recent past has adequately demonstrated
that with a prying media there is still hope for change.

Corruption is universal in its origin and application. The word itself etymologically goes back to
the French and the Latin. In essence, corruption connotes a deviation from socially accepted norms. The
propensity for corruption is generally determined by three contributing conditions: First, the pressures
for amassing wealth (or status or recognition); second, the opportunities for achieving such objectives
(such as discretionary powers to grant favors or inflict punishments); and third, the scope for
rationalization (such as 'everyone does it', 'I deserve better but the establishment is not inclined to agree'
and so on). Virtually every category of corruption in public life can be traced to the existence of these
criteria. There should also be concomitant weaknesses in the system which will delay or even deny
detection of such frauds. 7
 If one analyses corruption historically, it is beyond doubt that corruption existed in ancient India.
Kautilya, in his Arthashastra, discusses how to combat it. He notes that it arises because individuals
realize that they have an opportunity to divert resources due to the government, and some choose to try
and get away with diverting funds. But it has always been combated as the examples of Clive and
Warren Hastings suggest. Systems of oversight and professional values have also existed and these often
induced people to stick to the straight and narrow, particularly in the bureaucracy before and after
freedom. During the Gandhian era and for a generation after, simplicity and honesty were prized values.
To succeed, the method of Satyagraha [non-violent resistance] required Indians to have superior moral
standing compared to exploitative colonialists and this came in the way of corruption." 8

Human perfection is illusory. As Goethe pointed out long ago, impersonal viewpoint within us
produces a desire for goodness, fairness and equality, while the personal one wishes the opposite,
seeking only one’s own gain, often at the expense of others. 9 In an age devoid of values, today, there is a
just-felt need for realizing the true significance of the term 'Dharma' or morality or duty that existed in
the epic Mahabharata. The relevance of the instances in the epic poem in a post-modern world also
provides us with enough instances to make us think and co-relate with the epic characters with real life
situations. Reinterpretations make readers engage and think critically about epics. It promotes dialogue
and acceptance of others' visions. It makes us realize that the truth can often be multi faceted.

The case of Ramalinga Raju of Satyam raises the crucial issue that capitalist greed gives one the
permission to grow rich beyond one’s dreams. And it also points to the fact that it is not only greed that
makes people corrupt. He was ruined by his Dhritrashtra-like weakness for his sons. Raju had created a
world class software company, Satyam. He had everything going for him-success, money, fame and
power. Pursuit of competitive success and swa-dharma seems to have overtaken the universal sadharan-
dharma. The Satyam scandal10 which involved thousands of crores was not only something which shook
the Indian economy but also exposed the fallibility of Raju and his desperate bid to keep control over the
company so that his children could inherit his fortune. Filial obsession and attachment blinded Raju and
transformed a person of such extra-ordinary achievement to commit such a crime.11

Raju’s stake in Satyam had dwindled to as low as 8.6 per cent, and the company was in danger of
slipping out of the family’s control? Raju had two sons and a sense of filial duty drove him, perhaps, to
create companies in real estate and infrastructure, two sectors of the Indian economy that had not been
reformed, and where politicians insisted on bribes to be paid up-front for favours delivered. Since
revenues from the new companies were far away, Raju dipped into Satyam to pay the politicians. It
might have worked if the price of real estate had continued to rise. But no one counted on a downturn
and a liquidity crisis. Desperately, Raju tried to restore the stolen assets of Satyam by merging it with his
son’s companies but that did not work.

Raju was ruined by his Dhritarashtra-like weakness for his sons. The Mahabharata seems to be
saying that one ought to nurture one’s children, but one does not have to indulge them like Duryodhana.
It takes moral courage to resist the sentiment of partiality towards one’s family. 12
 The narrative of Mahabharata also demonstrates that there is also a possibility for choosing
between the two kinds of lives. Yudhisthira made the conscious choice of identifying with all human
beings (Sadhrana- dharma) which led him to the heart of dharma. The situation in the world can improve
only if more and more people agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said, ‘Let the lie come in to the
world, even dominate the world, but not through me’.13

Reference

1. Mahabharata-XVIII.5.49, cited in Gurcharan Das,The Difficulty of Being Good, Penguin Books, New
Delhi, 2009, p.276.
2. Ibid, p.273.
3. Ibid.
4. Pritish Nandy, ‘The Magic of Life’ in Times of India, 21 July 2012.
5. ‘Rising Graft: Who is to Blame’ in DNA, Pune edition, 11 July 2013. Also ‘We Beat Pak Again’ in
DNA, Pune edition, 10 July 2013. The Global Corruption Barometer Report, released by Berlin- based
Transparency International, surveyed about 1.14 lakh people in 107 countries. In the 2011 report, India
ranked 82 out of 100 countries.
6. Hari Narke’s views in ‘Rising Graft: Who is to Blame’, op. Cit.
7. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4548.

8. Ibid.

9. Cited in Thomas Nagel, equality and partiality, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
10. The Satyam Computer Services scandal was a corporate scandal that occurred in India in 2009 where
Chairman Ramalinga Raju confessed that the company's accounts had been falsified. The Global
corporate community was shocked and scandalized when the chairman of Satyam, Ramalinga Raju
resigned on 7 January 2009 and confessed that he had manipulated the accounts by US$1.47-Billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyam_scandal.

11. TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu on Tuesday claimed that the Satyam scandal was due to
"greediness and mania for money" of Congress rulers. He told reporters that Maytas, promoted by
former chairman of Satyam Computers B Ramalinga Raju, had grown into a big company in the
real-estate sector due to the patronage of the Y S Rajasekhara Reddy government.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-13/news/27635644_1_satyam-episode-
satyam-fiasco-satyam-scandal.
12. Gurcharan Das, op.cit., p.278.
13. Ibid ,p.255. Ironically, Satyam means "truth" in Sanskrit, but Raju's admission -- accompanied by
his resignation -- shows the company had been feeding investors, shareholders, clients and
employees a steady diet of asatyam (or untruth), at least regarding its financial performance.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4344.
Bhakti Movement and the beginning of Dalit Literature in Marathi : The Facade of a
Revolution

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in history
National defence Academy
Khadakwasla, Pune.
Email. Suryasikha@rediffmail.com
 Roughly from Thirteenth to Seventeenth century Hinduism underwent a transformation
so great that it has been compared to that wrought in western Christianity by the reformation. 1
The focus of religious attention shifted from the great gods associated with the Hindu polytheism
to one god and his avatars Rama and Krishna. An emotion of passion and devotion (bhakti)
replaced the earlier practice of meaningless rituals, sacrifices and monistic meditation. Earlier
forms of religious expression changed and love-songs to the lord were sung. Group-singing
created a new popular cultural form, the kirtan, which added to the experience of new mysticism
and ecstasy. Apart from pushing aside old gods, old attitudes and old cultural forms, the new
movement also drove the (supposedly) sacred language Sanskrit, back in to the memories of the
pundits and to the deepest confines of temples and monasteries. Almost all modern Indian
vernacular literatures were deeply influenced by this religious movement and became mass
literatures. The socio-religious and cultural order which had long been dominated by the
Brahmins lost much of its spiritual ground to the popular gurus and saints whose song
compilations formed a part of new scripture. The new devotional religion propagated by the
saints fostered new ideas of brotherhood and equality before the loving God but did not succeed
in destroying the Hindu social framework. The saints and the disciples were drawn from all
sections of the society and they propagated the belief that in bhakti (devotion) caste had no place
or meaning.

The devotional worship of god with the ultimate object of attaining moksha or salvation
was called bhakti. 2 The cult of bhakti had essentially a religious fervour whose main theme was
faith in one God and devotion to him through either of the three suggested paths for the
attainment of salvation. Vedanta or the Vedic religious philosophy suggested three ways for
attainment of salvation, referred to as gyan- marg, karma- marg and bhakti-marg. While gyan-
marg laid stress on the acquisition of true knowledge, karma-marg called for selfless or
disinterested action and bhakti-marg suggested devotional worship of god. The third method,
Devotional worship of God, was the easiest method to win God’s favours and to seek reunion
with him after death. 3

Of all the Indo-Aryan vernacular literatures, devotional bhakti first appeared in Marathi.
The Bhakti movement in Maharashtra gained momentum due to the people of modest origin who
visited from place to place singing devotional songs and praising the name of God. These saints
had devoted themselves in prophesying the harmony of God and fraternity of man. They
preached in simple and lucid language that could be perceived by the common people of India.4

Dnyaneswara

Dnyaneswara (also known as dnyanadeva,1271-96) wrote a long Marathi commentary on

the Bhagvat Gita, called Bhavarthdipika, (also known as Dnyaneswari), which became the
fountainhead of Maharashtrian devotionalism. Considered a masterpiece of Marathi literature,
the Dnyaneshwari's 18 chapters are composed in a metre called "ovi". Dnyaneshwar liberated the
"divine knowledge" locked in the Sanskrit language to bring that knowledge
into Prakrit (Marathi) and made it available to the common man. He was confident that he would
write in marathi in as good or better manner than Sanskrit. Amrutanubhav, written some time
after, is difficult and finds fewer readers. Containing 10 chapters and 806 ovi, the basis of this
book is non dualism (advaita siddhanta). The seventh and biggest chapter (295 ovi) is the most
important. Apart from Dnyaneshwari and Amrutanubhav works like Changdev Paasashti (a
collection of 65 ovi addressed to an allegedly 1400 years old yogi named Changdev
Maharaj), Haripath and around 1000 "abhanga" are attributed to Dnyaneshwar. 5

The text (Dnyaneswari) is much more than a commentary. It is in form of a song

composed in rhythmic prose which is required to be chanted. His leaning towards monism can be
deduced from his leaning towards the Natha sect. However, his bhakti was due to his association
with the Varkari sect, which he introduced. He strongly advocated dnyana yukta bhakti (devotion
guided by knowledge). 6 Varkari covers this journey by walk in 18 days, distance Travel from
Alandi to Phandharpur is around 228 kilometers. Varkari travel along with Padukas (footwear) of
Guru Dnyaneshwar in palkhi (palanquin).7

What is significant about Jnaneswari is that it broke new ground by using the vernacular.
It revived the great tradition of Hinduism, the contact with the masses, which it had lost and
begun the practice of kirtan chanting. The songs were based on the simple life of the villagers
and were used as metaphors. The movement started by him continued till 17th century.

According to Vaisnava belief, the Bhagavad Gita is the ultimate statement of spiritual knowledge
since it was professed by Lord Krishna who was an Avatar of Vishnu. Dnyaneshwari contains
more easy and lucid examples about the teaching in Bhagavad-Gita as it is said that saint
dnyaneshwar composed it for bringing an improvement in the behaviour of people. It is quite
difficult for today's generation to understand the concepts smoothly as the text was written long
back. 8

Dnyaneshwar expanded the Bhagavad Gita, which consisted of

700 shlokas (Sanskrit verses), into around 9999 Marathi verses (ovis). The first line of each ovi
rhymes with the next two, rendering a lyrical quality to the entire work. 9 The first ovi of the
Dnyaneshwari follows a rhyme scheme, where the first three lines end in "ā." This ovi is an
invocation to OM, and is followed by an elaborate explanation of Lord Shri Krishna's form as the
embodiment of the Vedas and Puranas, and the complete representation of OM:

ॐ नममोजज आद्यय |
ववेद प्रततिपयद्यय |
जय जय स्वससंववेद्यय |
आत्मरुपय

The second ovi and all the ovis after it follow the same rhyme scheme:
Devā Tūchi Gaṇeshū |
Sakalārthamatiprakāshū |
Mhaṇe Nivṛtti Dāsū |
Avadhārijojē ||2||

दवे वय तितसंचच गणवेशश |

सकलमतति प्रकयशश |
म्हणवे तनवतव त्ति दयसश |
अवधयररिजमो जज ||2||

Āmhī tanumanu jīve |

Tuzhiyā bola potangāve |
Ana tuwāchi aise karāve |
Tari sarale mhaņe ||3.135||10

The content of Jnaneshwari reflects a detailed knowledge

of kundalini, metaphysics and astrology. The commentary lays importance on God as energy. It
emphasises that although there may be many different living forms, they all breathe oxygen
(even fishes under water and reptiles deep inside the earth) and have the same life force within
them, which is a part of God, who is energy and intelligence. It states that people can use energy
and intelligence to connect with the supreme and provides methodologies to achieve the same.

Dnyaneshwari has had a very profound effect on the mind and lives of people, especially
in Maharashtra. The book is considered as sacred as the Bhagvad Gita, of which it is a
commentary. Saint Dnyaneshwar, had written the book, in an attempt to make sure that the
knowledge from within the Gita is accessible to all the common people, who had less command
or access over Sanskrit, and used Marathi in their day to day life. The attempt has been very
successful, due to the nature of the writing and the depth with which the commentary evolves
and clarifies the original concepts. It is widely studied and regularly cited, read in homes and
religious places, all across Maharashtra. It has a special place in the hearts of every Marathi
speaking person. There have been many further commentaries on this commentary, in even
simpler language, since the original Marathi language used in the book, is from 12th century and
bit different from the normal Marathi language spoken during contemporary times.

Namdev

Namdev, who was a contemporary of Dnyaneswara (1270-1350) but outlived him by fifty
years was the next great bhakti saint who was a tailor by caste and was surrounded by many low
caste saints: Gora, the potter, Samvata the gardener, Chokha the untouchable, Sena the barber
and Janabai, the maid.11 He was a devotee of Lord Vishnu (Vithoba) residing at Pandharpur
temple. The Varkari panth differs from many other sects in the way that its members happen to
be house holders who have a strong aversion to asceticism. The tradition of pilgrimage to
Pandharpur twice a year by thousands of Varkaris is closely associated with Dnyaneswar and
Namdev. From village to village and from town to town, Varkaris walk and sing in praise of lord
Vithova. Cutting across caste lines, the membership of the Varkari panth is open to all and their
biggest contribution to the religious life of Maharashtra is the immortal songs of saints who have
left their indelible mark.

Namdev’s songs emphasize on a continuous invocation of Vithoba’s name and a

passionate surrender to the love of the Lord. He was often troubled by the conflict between his
love and devotion for the lord which drag him away from the world and his everyday worldly
responsibilities. His pain and misery at being separated/distanced from the Lord during his
involvement in his daily activities is clearly perceptible in Tukaram’s ‘Dark Night of the Soul’. 12

Eknath

The coming of the Turks and of Islam drove the devotional movement underground for
almost two centuries .The temple of Vithoba at Pandharpur was razed but the spirit was still
alive. It was Eknath (1533-1599) who revived the inspiration and the tradition. In the
development of Marathi literature, Sant Eknath is seen as a bridge between the towering
predecessors Dnyaneshwar and Namdev and the equally noble
13
successors Tukaramand Ramdas. He was a Brahman, born in a family of celebrated saints. As
a scholar, he published the first reliable edition of the Dnyanesvari, and thus gave the Marathi
Gita back to his people. By writing a commentary on the Ramayana, the Bhavartha-ramayana, he
also presented the story of Lord Rama to them. His mystical teachings found their supreme
expression in his famous commentary on the eleventh book of the Bhagavata Purana, in which he
obviously modelled himself on the great master Dnyanesvara.

Eknath invented a new form of deep religious life that had no need for institutions or
monasteries and no resignation from the world. He was a family man, devoted, austere, whose
life was regulated around his hearth and his manuscripts, and yet he was a mystic. Every day he
practiced kirtan, and his songs have become part of the Marathi heritage. They have a strong
moral basis, are concerned with the simplest aspects of life, and yet often soar to great heights of
personal mysticism. Eknath initiated in Maharashtra a movement called Wasudewa Sanstha. It
involved house-to-house visitations by individuals known as Wasudewa, who, standing in front
of peoples' houses, spread religious messages through bhajans (ballads). Eknath’s teachings may
be summarized as “Vichar, Uchchar and Achar” – i.e., purity of thought, speech and practices.
Exemplifying the way of ethical and spiritual living, he practised what he preached. His works,
verses and preaching kindled hope among the people at a time when they needed it most.14

Eknath was one of the earliest reformers of untouchability in Maharashtra, working as he

was in the late middle Ages. In times when Brahmins even avoided the shadow and the voice of
an untouchable, he publicly showed courtesy toward untouchables and frequented them. Once he
saved the life of a Mahar child, rescuing it from the scorching heat, the child was wandering in
the hot sand of the Godavari. 15 The Brahmins of the village got angry when Eknath touched the
body of a backward. In an act meant to mollify them, he famously took a bath in the same river
to wash away the impurity, hoping they would see the inhumanity of their taboos.

Tukaram

Another Maharashtrian saint of the Bhakti movement was Tukaram (1598-1650). He was
born in a rural family of grain traders and a tragedy set him on the path of devotion. His hymns
are considered the glory of devotional poetry, the favourites of the Varkari pilgrims, and they are
woven into the very texture of the Pandharpur rites. More than any other of his fellow saints,
Tukaram was a mystic overpowered by love, by the presence or the absence of his Lord. Again
and again his songs describe the terrifying passage through the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’, where
his feelings of sin and nothingness combine with the absence of the Lord to crush him down in
the depths of despair. His burning desire for the Lord’s vision is frequently fulfilled, and in this
fulfilment an ecstasy takes hold of his mind and his senses and transports him into visions, now
cosmic, now intensely personal. All this is expressed in the concise, vigorous, sometimes brutally
knotted style that is all his own.
Ramdas

The last of the great saint-poets of the Bhakti movement in Maharashtra was Ramdas
(1608-81). His main work, the Dasabodha is not written in the commentary form, but is rather a
compilation of his writings and sermons produced over many years. Though the content was
new, he was more of a reformer who was concerned with the contemporary status of the
Brahmins in the society. His ideas need to be seen in the background that the threat of Islam was
looming large. Ramdas was a devotee of Rama whereas the others centred their devotion on
Krishna and the Vishnu of Pandharpur.

Theologically, the Bhakti movement in Maharashtra had a strong current of monism and
all of them except Ramdas were devotees of Krishna, there works were devoid of any erotic
imagery. They revitalised Hinduism, established the Maratha literary and cultural identity and
insisted on unifying social forces. These were to become significant factors in building the great
Hindu kingdom of the Marathas and later characterised the Maharashtrian nationalist movement.

Can Bhakti literature be considered as the beginning of Dalit literature?

For the later generations, the Bhakti movement represented a liberal religious attitude
which aimed at undermining the superiority of the priestly class and included a ‘levelling’ feature
that reflected in the message of human equality. In the context of the times it arose, it’s attempts
to reject the social barriers, denying the relevance of artificial restrictions, the movement’s
significance cannot be undermined. It rejuvenated Hinduism by striking a serious blow at the
predominance of the Brahmin priesthood in the society; the ground lost by the Brahmins in the
field of Hindu religion could never be regained by them thereafter....The citadel of caste system
could not be broken albeit its evil effects were minimised by the development of harmonious
relationships and free social intercourse between the high caste and low-caste Hindus. 16

However, much of the radicalism of the saints of the bhakti movement has been masked
by the fact that the history, interpretation and institutionalisation of the movement has been in
upper-caste hands. 17 Movements against the caste divisions have figured repeatedly in Indian
history, with varying degrees of success. Consciousness and assertion are two very different
concepts. While the bhakti movement made people (including the lower castes) aware of the
social inequalities it was mostly a socio-religious movement which hardly had any political or
economic implications. One of the many challenges that India still faces in the new millennium
are linked closely with continuing social inequalities.

A host of publications dealing mainly with the ‘Dalit situation' in India have come up in
recent times, along with a parallel body of literature called ‘Dalit literature'. This Dalit literature,
which looks at history and current events from a Dalit point of view, has come to occupy a niche
in the body of Indian literary expression. Its contribution to Dalit politics has also been widely
acknowledged. Its primary motive is to give a voice to the relentless oppression of Dalits in
India's caste hierarchy and the possibility of their social, cultural and political emancipation.
Thus, in a way, dalit literature is a reflection of the growing radicalisation of the movement for
social equality.

Marathi Dalit literature can be justifiably considered the forerunner of modern Dalit
literature. Contemporary Marathi poet Namdev Dhasal's works express the anguish and
aspirations of Dalits in India: the sense of having been the exploited and condemned builders of
Indian civilisation. And the inherent, suppressed urge to emerge out of centuries of darkness and
suffering to claim their just heritage and space in society. 18

Eminent litterateur and editor of the Hindi literary journal, Hans, Rajendra Yadav, calls
the dalit literature is a "social movement" and sees this as integral to mainstream Indian
literature. He argues that it is based on a wide spectrum of socio-political ideas that transcend the
narrowness of the old concepts of culture and social hierarchy and opens up new and creative
spaces. This was a protest movement organised against the traditional, often casteist, Hindu
social theories of life and liberation. "A sense of collective identity and solidarity are seminal for
a protest movement. Dalit literature has been evolving in this direction as a platform of dialogue
for various segments of the movement, including writers and intellectuals." 19

This literature is experience-based, where anubhav (experience) takes precedence over

anumana (speculation), and the marginalised and under-privileged rediscover their articulation
and self identity. Because of the anger at centuries of oppression, the writing is incisive and does
not mince words. Commentaries such as Omprakash Valmiki's Dalit Sahitya ka Saundaryashastra
(Aesthetics of Dalit Literature) deal with the definition and understanding of Dalit
consciousness.
 In their search for alternatives, Dalit writers have rediscovered low caste saint-poets of
the Bhakti movement of the medieval era such as Ravidas, Namdev and Tukaram. An assertion is
made that Dalits were members of an ancient indigenous society uprooted by Aryan newcomers
who introduced varna vyavastha in India. Dalit assertion in politics is a part of this new Dalit
consciousness, which has drawn its influence from Dalit literature. Arjun Dangle, editor of
Poisoned Bread and a former Dalit Panther in Maharashtra, asserts, "Dalit literature is not simply
literature. Although today, most Dalit writers have forgotten its origins, Dalit literature is
associated with a movement to bring about change."20

On the issue of ‘Use of Voice’, Amartya Sen rightly says, “…economic performance,
social opportunity and political voice are deeply inter-related…..the weakness of voice of protest
has helped to make the progress of social opportunities unnecessarily slow.”21 He also goes on to
write, “…political voice is extremely important for social equality, and to that recognition we
have to add the connection between equitable expansion of social opportunities and the force,
reach and range of the process of economic development…..in those fields, there has recently
been more determined use of political and social voice ….”22

References/Notes

1. J T F Jordens ‘Medieval Hindu Devotionalism’ in A L Basham(ed.) A Cultural History of

India, Oxford University Press, 1975, p.266.
2. Bhakti is a Sanskrit word derived from the root bhaj which means ‘to adore or worship’.
One who adores god with devotion is a bhakta or devotee of God.
3. The term Vedanta is composed of two words, Veda and anta implying the end or at the
conclusion of the Vedas, as a shruti or ‘revealed’ literature. Vedanta comprises the subject
matter of the Aranyakas or the ‘forest books’ and as many as 18 Upanishads.
4. F:\Bhakti Movement in Maharashtra.htm.
5. Every Year around 3 Laks of Devotees Travel from Alandi to Phandharpur in month of
June–July (Month Ashad in Hindu calendar).
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnyaneshwari (Authorship of many is disputed due to
differences in writing style).
7. Ibid.
8. These days many publications of the original are available as well as the simplified
versions.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnyaneshwari
10. Ibid.
11. J T F Jordens ‘Medieval Hindu Devotionalism’, op.cit.,p.268.
12. Ibid.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eknath
14. http://www.hinduhistory.info/sant-eknath/
15. http://balbharati.abweb.in/downloadbooks/4th-History-Eng.pdf.
 16. J L Mehta, Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India, Sterling Publishers Pvt ltd,
New Delhi,1983, pp196-197. But judging from the social conditions that have continued
well into the new millennium, it is highly unlikely that this social intercourse as a result
of the Bhakti movement could have been very effective or far-reaching.
17. Gail Omvedt , Buddhism, Bhakti and the VHP — II,
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002122400951000.htm.
18. Khalid Akhter, Flames of Freedom, http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2008/09/2334
Ironically, a militant progressive poet in his initial years, Dhasal finally landed up with
the Shiv Sena - a pointer to the dilemma of co-option in Dalit politics.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2005, p201.
22. Ibid.

SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES: BOON OR BANE?

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor
National Defence Academy, Pune

The world is experiencing a drastic age change, from the ravishes of a tired Industrial Age
society to an early-stage information society (that) is disruptive and painful but ultimately liberating
and benign.1 With the shift from industrial age to the Information age, dramatic technological
revolutions and scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished. Progress in our materialistic
civilization has greatly influenced the modern man’s lifestyle. But he has also been confronted with
the dilemma of overcoming the persistent problems of inequality, poverty, ignorance, disease, and
enslavement of body and spirit through all forms of addiction, destruction of environment, depletion
of non-renewable resources and the breakdown of moral and spiritual values. Actual progress of
mankind is thus in a deep crisis amidst a mechanized capitalism which has forgotten the human
soul. Unbridled competition, lack of justice and compassion, increasing greed for acquiring much
more than what is required has brought our technologically-advanced world on to the brink of
destruction of the human spirit.

Nothing has changed the Web more than the rise of social networking sites. Before social
networking, the World Wide Web was full of interesting information, but there was little
opportunity to contribute or participate. Today, social networking sites are fulfilling the potential of
the Web: connecting people across the globe. But why do they matter so much?2
Value system that we as Indians had held so close to our heart is falling apart in our early-
stage information society today. For the young ones (rightly called Millennials and iPod/Facebook
generation or dotcom. genNext ‘hanging out’crowd), however, life was never better. A whole
generation has become obsessed with the idea of living life on its own terms. It eats, sleeps, walks
and even at times works on social-networking sites. The youngistan’s new-found interest with social
networking sites which can easily be described as ‘addiction’ has both its positives and negatives.
On the positive side it is a very convenient way to connect with people and build better
relationships; it reduces communication barriers; provides ample business opportunities and serves
us an exceptionally wider reach for one’s clientele group. But at the same time in its negative side it
leads to addiction (infatuation/obsession), isolation, reduces humane personal interaction and affects
productivity which can be a worrying factor.3

Neo-liberal attitude towards our culture which has to a great extent been the outcome of
globalization has been one of the biggest challenges for the parents who have had to struggle not
only to manage in catching-up with a fast-changing technology-driven world but also to adapt to a
rapidly changing cultural milieu.4

Today we live in the Information Age where access to information is immediate and
constant in everyone’s life, especially with young people. (As of now, every minute 277,000 people
log in to Facebook which amount to 6 million Facebook views, 320 Twitter and more than 100
Linkedin accounts are created every minute. On You-Tube 30 hours of video is uploaded every
minute. Also in a single minute 1.3 million people will be watching these videos around the world.
Every minute more than 2 million queries are made on the Google and with their new Google+ the
reach of Social Networks will grow further. The number of people using internet will double by
2015. And the more that we are connected, the more we want to find new avenues to engage with
one another and share ideas and information in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. In
this highly connected, always switched-on world, Social Networks makes more sense than ever
before. 5
.
Undoubtedly, the Internet and social media are mainly for entertainment, but eventually
they act as our major source for providing information. When a friend comes across an interesting
story, image, song, video clip or an article on the Internet and shares it on Facebook or Twitter it
goes viral when millions access the same. It also serves as a medium of staying connected and
updated about people physically separated by thousands of miles.6

The flow of information is a very simple process. The consumer of information only needs to be
able to read, comprehend and evaluate the information bombarding them for so many sources.
That's in line with how the young masses lead their lives today. The iPod/Facebook generation
fashions its own playlists and friends lists, rather than let central decision makers like their parents
or guardians choose for them. While the Internet has exponentially increased the amount of
available information, not all of it is good. For every nugget of gold on the Web, there is a ton of
junk.

Orkut, Facebook and other sites like My space became common destinations for young
people in the United States and many other countries of the world. Young people log in, create
elaborate profiles, publicly articulate their relationships with other participants, and write extensive
comments back and forth. By early 2006, many considered participation on the key social network
site, MySpace, essential to being seen as cool at school. While not all teens are members of social
network sites, these sites developed significant cultural resonance amongst American teens in a
short period of time. More or less, same is the case in India. SNS does not only continue to be an
important part of Teens’ lives they have virtually become infatuated with these sites.7

The rapid adoption of social network sites by teenagers in the United States and in many
other countries around the world raises some important questions. Why do teenagers flock to these
sites? What are they expressing on them? How do these sites fit into their lives? What are they
learning from their participation? Are these online activities like face-to-face friendships – or are
they different, or complementary? The attempt to address these questions, and to explore their
implications on youth are huge challenges which every parent is desperately trying to cope with in
today’s world.8

What is unique about the Internet is that it allows teens to participate in unregulated publics
while located in adult-regulated physical spaces such as homes and schools. Of course, this is
precisely what makes it controversial. Parents are seeking to regulate teens behavior in this new
space; and this, in turn, is motivating teens to hide.

The contradiction between the conceived ‘private place’ and the ‘public sphere’ is quite
misleading in this case. Looking for an escape route from the family and elders the teen uploads
images, messages or articles on the internet which actually make it more public than what probably
he/she would have been exposed to. But the interaction with an unknown public provides an air of
anonymity which is more comforting than being denied a ‘private place’ of his/her own. A few of
the teens probably won’t even dare to tell their parents about their Facebook accounts or with whom
they are chatting because they are scared that they may be denied that space forever. So the secrecy
involved in this private space is also quite bothering as it emotionally distances the child from the
elders and parents.

Yet, putting aside the question of risk, what teens are doing with this networked public is
akin to what they have done in every other type of public they have access to: they hang out, search
for social status, work through how to present themselves, and take risks that will help them to
assess the boundaries of the social world. They do so because they seek access to adult society.
Their participation is deeply rooted in their desire to engage publicly, for many of the reasons we
have discussed earlier. By prohibiting teens from engaging in networked publics, we create a
participation divide,9 both between adults and teens and between teens who have access and those
who do not.

Exposure and Maturity

Exposure to Public arena plays a crucial role in the development of individuals. ‘They are
arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities.” 10 By interacting with unfamiliar others,
teenagers are socialized into society. Without publics, there is no coherent society. Publics are where
norms are set and reinforced, where common ground is formed. Learning society’s rules requires
trial and error, validation and admonishment; it is knowledge that teenagers learn through action,
not theory. Society’s norms and rules only provide the collectively imagined boundaries. Teenagers
are also tasked with deciding how they want to fit into the structures that society provides. Their
social identity is partially defined by themselves, partially defined by others. Learning through
impression management is key to developing a social identity. Teenagers must determine where
they want to be situated within the social world they see and then attempt to garner the reactions to
their performances that match their vision.

This is a lifelong process, but one that must be supported at every step.
In today’s society, there is a push towards privacy. It is assumed that people are public
individuals who deserve the right to privacy rather than the other way around. With an
elevated and idealized view of privacy, we often forget the reasons that enslaved peoples
desperately wished for access to public life. By allowing us to have a collective
experience with people who are both like and unlike us, public life validates the reality
that we are experiencing. We are doing our youth a disservice if we believe that we can
protect them from the world by limiting their access to public life. They must enter that
arena, make mistakes, and learn from them. Our role as adults is not to be their
policemen, but to be their guide.

Of course, as Hannah Arendt wrote long before the Internet, “everything that appears in
public can be seen and heard by everybody and has the widest possible publicity.”11

What has changed with the emergence of new tools for mediating sociality is the scale
and persistence of possible publicity. For most people in history, public life was not
documented and distributed for the judgment of non-present others. Only aristocrats and celebrities
faced that type of public because structural and social forces strongly limited the “widest possible
publicity.” Not everything could be documented and spreading information was challenging. Only
the lives of the rich and famous were deemed important enough to share. The Internet has
irrevocably changed this. Teens today face a public life with unimaginably wide possibly publicity.
The fundamental properties of networked publics– persistence, searchability, replicability, and
invisible audiences – are unfamiliar to the adults that are guiding them through social life. It is not
accidental that teens live in a culture infatuated with celebrity 12 - the “reality” presented by reality
TV and the highly publicized dramas (such as that between socialites projected in BIG BOSS or
FEAR FACTOR) portray a magnified (and idealized) version of the networked publics that teens
are experiencing, complete with surveillance and misinterpretation. The experiences that teens are
facing in the publics that they encounter appear more similar to the celebrity idea of public life than
to the ones their parents face.
 It is not as though celebrities or teenagers wish for every conversation to be publicly
available to everyone across all time and space, but mediated publics take the simplest public
expressions and make them hyper-public. Few adults could imagine every conversation they have
sitting in the park or drinking tea in a café being available for such hyper-public consumption, yet
this is what technology enables. Unfortunately, there is an ethos that if it is possible to access a
public expression, one should have the right to do so. Perhaps this is flawed thinking. While we can
talk about changes that are taking place, the long-term implications of being socialized into a
culture rooted in networked publics are unknown. Perhaps today’s youth will be far better equipped
to handle gossip as adults. Perhaps not. What we do know is that today’s teens live in a society
whose public life is changing rapidly.

There is a growing need to have access to these publics – both mediated and unmediated –
to mature, but unfortunately, their access is regularly restricted. Yet, this technology and networked
publics are not going away. As a society, we need to figure out how to educate teens to navigate
social structures that are quite unfamiliar to us because they will be faced with these publics as
adults, even if we try to limit their access now. Social network sites have complicated our lives
because they have made this rapid shift in public life very visible. Perhaps instead of trying to stop
them or regulate usage, we should learn from what teens are experiencing? They are learning to
navigate networked publics; it is in our better interest to figure out how to help them.

Is There a Need for Change?

All we need to do is to evaluate its cause and effects, its real value in enhancing the quality
of our lives. In real terms, technologies have brought us where we are today as a human civilization.
We should ask this question "with everything that we may have today minus clean water, clean air
and a nutritious meal are worth having?" That is the question.13

It is likely that transitions will include wrong turns, convulsions, and unforeseen
opportunities. Significant transitions and transformations are never smooth. Nevertheless, the long-
term change is somewhat predictable. As cited in Hutchinson( 2002) it is suggests that people
overestimate the amount of change that can occur in the short term, but underestimate the amount of
change that can occur in the long term. The consequence of this error is that when change does not
occur as quickly as predicted, there is a belief that change is not going to occur at all and
suggestions for a logical and holistic approach to preparing for what then seems just a lot of hype
are tossed aside. People and social institutions are then caught off-guard and have to scramble
frantically to make adaptations that could have been made in a more orderly step-by-step fashion.
The world is rapidly changing and the education system in schools and colleges needs to be leading
the way into the future rather than constantly reacting in a limited way to the ever-increasing
complex demands made by students, parents, business and industry leaders, community
organizations, and other stakeholders. We live in unprecedented times that demand extraordinary
action.14

References
1. Michael Barone in Political Commentary,Thursday, September 27, 2012.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_
barone/obama_industrial_age_solutions_to_information_age_challenges.

2. http://news.discovery.com/tech/top-ten-social-networking-sites.html
3. http://socialmediatoday.com/syed-noman-ali/608781/social-media-good-thing-or-bad-thing.
Daily overuse of media and technology has a negative effect on the health of all children, preteens
and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological
disorders, as well as by making them more susceptible to future health problems.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/social-kids.aspx
4. The most important issue which dominates our socio-political, cultural and economic horizon is
that of globalisation. It has given birth to a global society. Globalisation and social transformation
in India: Theorising the transition , Manisha Tripathy Pandey, Department of Sociology, Jamia
Millia Islamia, New Delhi-25, India. 16 March, 2011,
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijsa/PDF/pdf2011/Aug/Pandey.pdf.

5. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/08/20/internet-and-social-networks-the-good-bad-
and-ugly.html)
6. Two songs in recent memory which became rage on the internet are Kolaveri D and the Korean
song Oppa Gangnam Style which in spite of their unfamiliar language and unusual themes caught
the imagination of the youth like never before.

7. Boyd, Danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics
in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and
Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. University of
California-Berkeley dmb@sims.berkeley.edu. On other hand not being on the SNS would perhaps
invite derogatory remarks and comments of ridicule very close to being a rustic or “Behenji” among
the peer group, or convey an image of someone who is looked down upon as disadvantaged or
missing out on something very precious in life.
8. Ibid.
9. Jenkins, Henry. 2006. “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for
the 21st Century.” White Paper for MacArthur Foundation.
10. Fraser, Nancy. 1992. "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy." Habermas and the Public Sphere (Craig Calhoun, ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. 125.
11. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 50.
12. Halpern, Jake. 2007. Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America’s Favorite Addiction.
Houghton Mifflin. Reality shows and glamour associated with stars is a big hit for the Indian outh.
13. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/08/20/internet-and-social-networks-the-good-bad-
and-ugly.html
14. Hutchinson, V. (2002). The future of work: A capable age—Some thoughts on the “zero waste”of
young people. New Plymouth, NZ: The Jobs Research Trust. Retrieved November 2006, from
http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/vivian/youth02-3.htm.
 Nationalist Education and Social Reform: The Experiment at satyavadi
(1909-1926)

Dr. Suryakant Nath

Associate Professor in History,
NDA, Pune
Education happens to be the medium of cultural transmission from one generation to
another in any given society. It takes place in the society and usually reproduces social classes.
As a social phenomenon, it does not take place in a vacuum and educational institutions function
more like micro-societies. While many writers are of the view that it is education which causes
social change in the society, others argue that it is the educational changes which follow other
social changes rather than initiating them. 1In this paper an attempt is made to study the
interrelationship between education and society in the backdrop of the colonial milieu. The area
is confined to the regional segment of Orissa. I have also tried to focus on the path-breaking
endeavours of a nationalist institution called satyavadi which lasted for roughly two decades.

The rise of the colonial power in India was accompanied by the rise and growth of
western style education and knowledge. Modern education came to India through many agencies
like the colonial government, Christian Missionaries, Indian social reformers and nationalist
leaders. While the British spent money on spread of western education they also tried to project
themselves as superior, hard-working, rational, enlightened and masculine. They also tried to
depict Indians as weak, superstitious, feminine, irrational, barbaric and in need of education and
civilization.2

The western education increased the consciousness of racism and injustice in Indians and
led to the early and later radical nationalist efforts to create a history and a nation for themselves.
It was important because persons who got educated became eligible for working in government
services and legal and professional spheres. The other basic function of education was to develop
indigenous elites who could serve as intermediaries between the British masters and their vast
subjects. They were used by colonial rulers to help social structures to fit in with European
concept of work and social relations.3 Many British administrators and their Indian counter parts
believed that western education would help in modernization of India.

It is in this backdrop that national education emerged as a critique of the colonial pattern
of education. Gandhiji argued that colonial education created a sense of inferiority in the minds
of Indians. He thought there was poison in the western education which enslaved the people and
cast an evil spell on them. He wanted a type of education that could help Indians recover their
sense of dignity and self-respect. He also strongly felt that education in English language
crippled Indians, distanced them from their surroundings and made them ‘strangers in their own
lands’.4

These misgivings regarding colonial education led many thinking Indians to visualize
different indigenous educational initiatives at regional levels. Satyavadi experiment happened to
be one such indigenous national educational experiment.

Satyavadi : the Open air school

Satyavadi literally means ‘speaker of truth’ and very appropriately describes the noble
and honest intentions of the founder of this movement. It was an experimental school started by
Utkalmani (Jewel of Utkal or Orissa)5Gopabandhu Das, who is famous through the length and
breadth of Orissa for his nationalist and humanitarian activities. It was founded in 1909 and
survived till 1926. Throughout its life the school was plagued by hardships and could not afford
to have concrete buildings. (It is another thing that the founders did not believe that such
expensive exterior was mandatory for imparting the right kind of education).6

Gopabandhu remained the back bone of the Satyavadi institution (Later it came to signify
a distinct movement) but never remained a regular teacher at the school. He was preoccupied in
the regional political scenario as the member of Bihar and Orissa Provincial Councils (1917-
1919) and as the chief campaigner of the nationalist movement in Orissa. He was the President
of Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee (UPCC, 1920-1928) and the chief fund collector for
satyavadi school. The school believed in an unconventional and alternative system of education 7
which was autonomous of the colonial state and could operate at a drastically reduced fee
structure.

“The light of knowledge”, he said, “like the physical light of the sun and the moon should
be freely shared by all, rich and poor, high and low.” As its tools, classrooms and teachers, text
books were not to remain the only and the final source of knowledge. They were viewed as tools
to supplement learning provided by nature. The objective obviously was to humanize society by
inculcating a broad sense of dedication in the students for serving the society.8

Gopabandhu Das was assisted in his mission by four other young teachers and combined
as a group they were known as ‘Panchsakhas’ or five friends. They are also referred to as the
‘Big Five’ or the ‘Five Comrades’. Nilakantha Das joined the school in 1911. 9 He was a post-
graduate in philosophy from Calcutta University. Acharya Harihar Das was a serving teacher and
joined satyavadi in 1912. Godavarish Mishra was a post-graduate in English and joined the
school in 1913.10Kripasindhu Das, the youngest, joined the school in 1914 and remained its
headmaster from 1918 to 1926.Teachers were paid as per their needs and not as per their
qualifications, seniority or experience. All of them voluntarily embraced poverty and lived on a
meager salary somewhere between Rs. 10 to Rs. 40 in 1921.11 It was never a job for them and
teaching at satyavadi was a service rendered to the national cause. In spite of Gopandhu’s best
efforts the school could not survive the untimely death of Kripasindhu Das in 1926.12

Surroundings

The school came up in Sakhigopal village, a village which happened to be at the centre
of sixteen Brahman sasan villages. During the medieval period different Puri Rulers (Gajapatis)
had set up these villages of exclusive Brahmin settlements to promote and nurture Brahmin
culture. They were supposed to provide social sanctity and legitimacy to the rulers. Sakhigopal
also had a famous temple known by the same name, where most pilgrims to Puri halted on their
way to the temple of Lord Jagannath. It is roughly 15 kilometers from Puri. 13The school which
was established at satyavadi in 1909 was originally a vernacular school at Sriramchandrapur set
up by Harihar Dassharma in 1865. It was renamed as satyavadi by Gopabandhu in 1909. The
idea behind shifting the venue to Sakhigopal was its proximity to the main road. The school was
rooted in tradition but was also to be modern in outlook and orientation. Fergusson College of
Pune and schools of Harrow and Eton in England were models for the founders of Satyavadi.14
 Political and literary contributions

Sayavadi as a community of teachers and students played a leading role in bringing about
a momentous change in Orissa in the initial decades of the 20th century. From the narrow
confines of regionalism, they visualized the merger of regional and national aspirations which
they felt was complimentary and not contradictory. The Non Cooperation Movement revived the
fortunes of the school which otherwise was on the verge of closure in 1918 because of financial
hardships. It became the epicenter of the nationalist agitation in 1920 and as the first experiment
as a nationalist school became the center for preparing the syllabus and conducting examinations
in swadeshi style for all the nationalist schools established in Orissa during this
period.15Nilakantha Das became the leader of the Non Cooperation Movement in Sambalpur and
edited a nationalist weekly ‘Seba’ from Sambalpur while Godavarish Mishra started Non
Cooperation Movement in Chakradharpur and converted an Oriya school there to a nationalist
school. The influence and authority of satyavadi intensified with the spread of Non Cooperation
Movement in Orissa.16

Through the experimental school at satyavadi, Gopabandhu tried to instill a sense of

‘community feeling’ among the people. Away from the confines of class rooms and written texts,
the students became informed citizens and undertook social activities for better living conditions
and for a better understanding of their fellow citizens. Some of them became volunteers during
the annual session of the Utkal Union Conference.17Nilakantha Das was a homeopath and used to
go around with students to treat patients. By this the students also learnt lessons in community
service. Since Puri was a famous pilgrim center there used to be congregation of lakhs of
devotees on different occasions. Epidemics frequently spread during various festivals. The
student volunteers not only provided first aid on those occasions but also removed and cremated
dead bodies, defying caste restrictions.18

Literature and Media

Gopabandhu started the practice of bringing out hand-written school magazine,

‘Vanavani’ (forest news) at satyavadi where the teachers and students wrote and expressed their
thoughts. He published a literary journal satyavadi in 1913 and a weekly samaj from the school
campus. Satyavadi was short-lived but samaj grew and became a daily in 1927. In later years it
became one of the main channels of dissemination of nationalist thoughts in Bihar and Orissa. Its
popularity and wider acceptance was because of its simple language. It became the vehicle of
preaching Non Cooperation in Orissa.

All the Five except Harihar were prolific writers in Oriya. In modern Oriya literature
their era is famous as Satyavadi Yuga (Era).19Gopabandhu wrote epics and poems like
Dharmapada, Nachiketa Upakhyan, Bandira Atmakatha, Kara Kabita, Abakasa Chinta etc.
Gopabandhu was a believer in truth and that is why his pet project was called Satyavadi.
Nilakantha was a literary critic and wrote Konarke, Atmajibani, Pranayini, Bhaktigatha etc.
Godavarish wrote Ghatantar, Abhagini, Atharsaha Satara, Ardha Shatabdira Odisha O Tanhire
Mo Sthana, Nirbasita etc. Krupasindhu preferred historical works and wrote Barabati Durga,
Konarkara Itihasa etc. Acharya Harihara wrote Childs’ Easy First Grammar which for decades
remained the bible for English language learners in the state. Simple and lucid language, rational
thoughts, a pro-people slant and a missionary zeal were some of the basic features of satyavadi
writings. This is what has kept them etched in the memory of subsequent generation of readers
and critics of Oriya literature.

Their attempts to initiate a new venture in literature was also in a way opposed to the
traditional style of Oriya writing prevalent in those das. Conventional writing in those days was a
clear imitation of literary forms adopted by Bangali writers. They broke with the tradition and
tried to bring an ideological and social change by incorporating new literary trends. To give a
distinctive identity to regional Oriya language and literature rustic and colloquial form of writing
was adhered to.

Social Reforms

In an orthodox and conservative environment of Satyavadi the activities of the

Panchasakhas created a flutter and raised man eye brows. In the early years of the 20 th century
when caste rules were quite rigid the attempts of these five to break caste rules invited intense
opposition from social circles. Of the five, except Godavarish all were sasani Brahmins or the
purest of the Brahmins.20They deliberately broke many obnoxious and outdated practices. As
rationalists they walked the streets of sasan villages without removing their sandals and grew
moustaches without an accompanying beard like the low caste people. They saluted by folding
their hands even to the low caste people. They organized and participated in pankti bhojans or
‘community feasts’ in which students irrespective of their social origins served food to all at
satyavadi.21 Much to the annoyance of their caste men Gopabandhu, Harihar and Nilakantha
wrote ‘Das’ in place of ‘Dash’ as their surname. As Das was a very common surname used by
people of other castes, Brahmins used ‘Dash’ to make them selves distinctive. Nilkantha
ploughed field himself an act which was forbidden to Brahmins.22

In an area where exclusive and the purest breed of Brahmins dominated, these actions
created a stir and they were termed deplorable and unpardonable sins. Nilakantha was prohibited
entry in to Puri temple and his father, Ananda Das was declared a social out caste. His sin was
that he did not restrain his son from performing these un-brahmin activities. 23 The antagonism
and hostility to the social reform programmes drew such intense hatred from the Brahmin
community that the thatched houses, the only available houses of the school were set on fire by
the conservatives in March 1912. Nearly one thousand priceless and rare books of the library
were burnt down. 24

Satyavadi served as a relief center during contingencies like floods and droughts in the
state. The teachers and students took the lead in collecting relief materials from the public and
distributing them among the sufferers. Samaj, the weekly was started in October 1919 with the
objective of coordinating relief work. Gopabandhu said, “…it was the sense of fellow-feeling at
the times of peoples’ misery which was of utmost importance.”25
 Outcome

A distinct handicap for Satyavadi was that it was rooted in the conservative sasani
brahminical culture of Sakhigopal. The leaders tried to bring about social reforms by doing away
with detestable caste rules. However, they themselves were not completely free from caste bias.
All of them were sasani Brahmins and had been groomed in deep-rooted brahminical culture. It
wasn’t sheer coincidence that in 1918 out of 17 teachers in all only 3 were non-brahmins. They
were Dhaneswar Moharana, Bhagabat Sutar and Sumanta Patnaik, who taught the vocational
subjects like arts, carpentry and agriculture. 26It goes without saying that in an age of near
illiteracy, finding non-brahmin teachers willing to work on such a small salary must have been
near impossible.

Again, when Hindu communalism raised its ugly head Gopabandhu became the eastern
India head of the Hindu Mahasabha.27It may seem that there were attempts to use their social
status to further individual or group interests. They had a skewed vision that the “…nation would
prosper if the Brahmins were educated”. They also seem to have the conviction that their desired
variety of education and social reforms would percolate down to the rest of the society through
the Brahmins. While praising Harihar Dassharma for his great vision, Gopabandhu sang,

“…when Brahmins give up social evils, all other (subordinate) castes would follow
them.” So he seems to have visualized a patronizing role for the Brahmins.28

In another poem to the young members of the brahaman samiti he wrote,

“You are born in shrestha vamsa ; your place is always first in the society; your task is
reading and writing; your great mission is to unveil the truth; your identity is self dedication and
your greatness lies in modest and gracefulness…when you do our duty other castes would follow
you as their ideals…you dedicate yourself in the altar of India…A Hindu is not born for self-
aggrandizement, every drop of his blood is for safeguarding the interest of the humanity.”29

Satyavadi was an ‘all male’ school. All the teachers and students were male. There is no
evidence of any women being associated with the satyavadi movement at this time. Rate of
literacy among people and especially among women was abysmally low. What is, however,
intriguing is that the reformers did not make any tangible efforts to bring women in to their scope
of alternate education. Gopal Chandra Praharaj, a Brahmin known for his satirical writing,
criticized the Brahmins for their aversion to womens’ education. He said that the Brahmins
feared that “…education would make women pleasure-loving, self-guided and force men folk to
work in the kitchen.”30 By and large, western education was linked to moral decline of the
educated Indians.

The satyavadi leaders were highly educated themselves but probably did not have the
courage to defy the social norms and resist the subjugation of women. They some how submitted
to the sasani social conventions dictated by conformist elders. Even at a later stage they did not
try to further the cause of education for women. Most of the prominent women leaders who
started taking part in the nationalist agitation in the state were non-brahmins. Rama Devi (1899-
1985), Malai Devi31(1904-1997) and Sarala Devi (1904-1986) belonged to Cuttack and Balasore
districts and did not have any link with the Satyavadi movement. In fact, some of them even
worked to counter the influence of the satyavadi faction in Orissa politics later.

References

32. AKC Ottaway, Education and Society: An Introduction to the Sociology of

Education, New York, The Humanities Press, 1980, pp.56.
33. Thomas R Metcalf, The New Cambridge History of India: The Ideologies of The Raj,
New Delhi, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.9-11.
34. Martin Carnoy, Education as Cultural imperialism, Longman, 1974, p.15.
35. Susmit Pani, Gandhi’s Theories of Education in S Pani and N Pani ed. Reflections on
Gandhi: The Forgotten Mahatma, Zenith Books International, New Delhi, 2008,
p.233.
36. S C Dash, Pundit Gopabandhu: A Biography, Gopabandhu Sahitya Mandir, Cuttack,
1964, p.23.
37. Ibid, pp.40-41. He had an ardent faith in the Gurukul system of education, and he felt
that if a residential school could be established in the rural setting with all the
teachers and students putting up together, the sylvan atmosphere might in a way help
to restore the ancient ideals. Likewise, he had no great respect for teachers with high
sounding titles.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid, p.43.
40. Ibid.
41. Godavaris Mishra, Ardha Shatabdira Odisha O Tanhire Mo Sthan (O), Grantha
Mandir, Cuttack, 1991, pp. 118-119.
42. Nilakantha Das, Atmajibani(O), Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1986, pp.87-8859.
43. Nityananda satapathy, Hey Sathi Hey Sarathi (O), Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1989,
p.306. By this time some of his associates had already left Gopabandhu.
44. S C Dash, op.cit., p.41.The school was at a distance of ten minutes walk from
Sakhigopal railway station which was on the Puri-Khurdha branch line of the than
Bengal-Nagpur Railway.
45. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.59.
46. Samaj, 11 March 1922.
47. Gadjat Vasini (Talcher), 25 June 1921.
48. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.103-104.
49. Radhanath Rath ed., Gopabandhu Rachanavali (O), Vol.1, Cuttack, 1976, p.23.
50. Bansidhar Mohanty, Oriya Bhasa Andolan(O), Friends Publishers, Cuttack, 1989,
p.68. S C Dash, op. cit., pp.72-73.
51. Godavarish was an outsider in the sense that he was not a member from this cluster of
the sasan Brahmin villages.
52. Godavaris Mishra, ‘Gopabandhu Smaranika’ in Godavarisa Granhavali, Vol.IV,
Cuttack, 1972, p.98.
53. Jogesh Chandra Ray Vidyanidhi, Ja Mane pade, Bhubaneswar, 2003, p.45.
54. Ibid.
55. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.91.
 56. Samaj, 13 august 1927.
57. For a detailed life sketch of the teachers see S C Dash, op. cit., pp.58-73.
58. Nilakantha Das, op. cit., p.129.
59. Gopabandhu Das, Gopabandhu Kavitavali, Cuttack, 2003(reprint), pp. 134-135.
60. Gopabandhu Das, Gopabandhu Rachanavali, Cuttack, 2003(reprint), pp. 161-163.
61. Gopal Chandra Praharaj, Bhagbat Tungire Sandhya(O), 1903, pp. 49-54.
62. Malati Devi was born Malati Sen, in a Bengali Brahmin family but was married to
Nabakrusna Choudhary, a non-brahmin.

Orissa on the Eve of Independence: Dreams of Greater Orissa and the lost Chances

Dr. Surakant Nath

Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy, Pune

The Second World War ended not only with the victory of the Allies but also with the prospect of
disappearance of empires in the world. While there was a considerable weakening of the British power and
prestige, the nationalist movement, the revolt of the Royal Indian Naval Ratings and the valour displayed
by the Indian National Army made it impossible for the British to continue in India. The period between the
end of the war in 1945 and the attainment of independence in 1947 witnessed hectic political parleys and
negotiations which could succeed in bringing durable peace in India.
 Independence for which millions had toiled and sacrificed came with a big price: Millions were
displaced, millions got assaulted, raped, maimed and killed and independence that people had waited for so
long could not bring unmixed happiness and joy. Annapurna Maharana, the famous Gandhian leader,
conveyed a feeling of surprise and suddenness at the event of actualisation of independence. In her
autobiography she writes,

“15 August 1947 arrived. Suddenness of the event was not only a big surprise for me but even for
Acharya Harihar Das. Through out the night of 14 August 1947 we all kept awake and at the stroke of
midnight we all assembled near the flag post and sang the national anthem. The experience of that night is
indescribable. Whomsoever we saw that night we simply hugged. We were all short of words. What an
extraordinary feeling of joy? It must have been the joy of self-accomplishment!”1

Recounting the happenings on the day of Independence, Gobind Mishra, the Congress leader from
Dasapalla, writes in his memoirs,

“After 12 O’ clock in the night of 14 August 1947 I could not get any sleep. Rest of the night was
spent in celebration. There could be no way of assessing how much one had contributed towards the goal of
independence. Today dreams have materialized. Our perceptions have started changing. Times have
changed and ideals are also changing. With new priorities and new goals a new India has to be built. New
rules of governance have to be drafted. Our countrymen should realize the profound nature of the
responsibility that has come down to us and assist those who have been entrusted with this difficult task.
Many thoughts of this nature started playing in my mind”. 2

He also continued,

“The British Government has transferred power to Indians but they have not completely removed
the potential heart-burns. India has already been bisected but dark clouds are still hovering over India in the
form of six hundred princely states…since the British paramountcy has disappeared they have all become
independent and can do what they want. Who can vouch that the Britishers are not conspiring with them to
further their interests in India?” 3

With the kind of political arrangement prevailing for long, the prospect of independence for India
suddenly brought on to surface the complex problem of the so-called princely states. Since they (princely
states) were spread over more than one-third of the total Indian land mass and constituted more than one-
fourth of total Indian population, indecision regarding their fate had left enough scope for confusion. Many
of the states fancied chances of out right independence as granted by the departing British. Some one like
the Maharaja of Dholpur, even rushed to suggest to the Viceroy that the British should stay on in India to
rule their Empire till the princes gained their independence. 4

Continuing popular movements and financial stringency of the states had led the States Enquiry
Committee (of Orissa) headed by H K Mahatab to recommend for amalgamation of the princely states with
the province of Orissa.5 And in 1947 the central government also reiterated a similar kind of merger
because many of the states were in no position to counter the growing political and economic stress that
disappearance of the British created.6
 Some of the Princes were well aware of their sovereign status. Pratap Chandra Bhanj Deo, the
Maharaja of Mayurbhanj’s letter to Maharaja of Dungarpur of 9 May 1946 presents the plight of the rulers.
He wrote,

‘Our authority is a farce, the real rulers are the Residents and the Political Officers. We are puppets
and tools in their hands.’7

However, as sovereigns, the Princes also enjoyed certain exclusive privileges which they
apprehended will be lost if they merged with the province of Orissa. So using sovereignty as a pretext, the
Princes tried to maintain their feudalistic platforms for waging an already-lost battle for a little longer.

There can be no second opinion about the fact that Mahatab played a stellar role in the final merger
of the states with the province of British Orissa. Even his die-hard critics unhesitatingly applaud his
contribution in the process of amalgamation of the garjats. On 15 December 1947 the garjat rulers signed a
statement of merger and on 1 January 1948 amalgamation was effected. After one full year Mayurbhanj
merged with Orissa on 1 January 1949.8

After the merger of the states an executive council was formed to co-ordinate the affairs between
the provincial government and the states. Kapileswar Nanda, the peasant leader from Bolangir, Kailash
Chandra Mohanty from Nilgiri and Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, the Prajamandal leader from Talcher were on
the Committee.9 In order to involve the common people of the erstwhile sates and to address their problems
34 members from the States were nominated to the Vidhan Sabha. This temporary arrangement was
discontinued on 9 October 1949 and as per the directions of the Viceroy the membership of the Orissa
Assembly was increased to 91 after including 31 representatives from the erstwhile states. In the
nomination of the representatives from the states the provincial government sought the advice of the leader
of the opposition, Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo (The Ruler of Kanika).

As per the merger statement between Sardar Patel and the Rulers of the princely states, 25 states
merged with Orissa on 1 January 1948. 10 However, between 1 January 1948 and 1 January 1949
momentous changes took place in the attitude of some of the rulers and people of some of the states which
spelt doom for the dream of including Sareikala and Kharasuan for Greater Orissa. Initially people had
been overjoyed over the decision to merge Sareikala and Kharasuan with Orissa. But the failure to get
through the merger of Mayurbhanj with Orissa became an event of crucial importance. With regard to
Sareikala and Kharasuan there were two very fundamental difficulties and on both these counts things went
in favour of Bihar. First, the ruler of Sareikala expressed his desire to merge with Bihar and second, from
Orissa there was no direct access to sareikala and Kharasuan other than through Mayurbhanj which had not
merged with Orissa on 1 January 1948.

Interested factions deliberately worked overtime to create disruption in the normal life in these
states. With active support from the Bihar Government the ‘Ho’ tribals were instigated to work against the
merger with Orissa. Because of hardship of the Oriya officers stationed there law and order situation in
these states became grim.11

In February 1948 a serving judge of the Bombay High Court, Baudekar was appointed to decide the
future of sareikala and Kharasuan. Jaipal singh, the Jharkhand tribal leader was given a free hand by the
Rulers in staging disturbances and projecting a picture as if people were against merger with Orissa. Some
leaders in Orissa were also entrusted with the responsibility of misleading public opinion with regard to
events in these two states. On 18 May 1948 the two states were handed over to Bihar by the Central
Government on the pretext that there was unusual delay in Justice Baudekar’s visit and so the Central
leadership took the decision after considering the opinion of the two provinces. 12 This, became the biggest
news in the Oriya press. Although Mahatab’s role in the whole process was highlighted, some factions were
critical of his failure to prevent the dismemberment of the two states from Orissa.13

A little before the eventual decision of the Central Government was made public, Mahatab, as the
Premier of Orissa, had sent a secret report about the affairs in sareikala and Kharasuan to the Rulers of the
states which were amalgamated with Orissa. Mahatab wrote,

“Suggestive news have appeared in the press to the effect that these two states are going to be
integrated with Bihar. I will not be surprised if this news ultimately comes true. It is needless to say that I
am taking all necessary steps against the dismemberment of these two steps from the province of Orissa but
I think it is useful to take a detached view of the whole situation….”14

Expressing his inability and helplessness in preventing the dismemberment of these two states he
wrote in the last paragraph of the Report,

“…I am very sorry that there is no substantial local support in these two states in favour of joining
with Orissa. I am very sorry, the Ruler is against Orissa. I am very sorry Bihar has played in to the hands of
the intriguers. I am very sorry, the constitution of the country has undergone such a change that
Government of India as such can not compel the provincial Government to behave in a particular way. I am
very sorry Mayurbhanj did not join Orissa. In spite of all these factors I am satisfied that I have done my
duty and I will continue whatever be the result. Orissa with twenty three states is a major province and I
have full faith in her bright future.15

Two very pertinent questions arise from this Report of Mahatab to the Rulers of the states. First, in
spite of the efforts put in by Mahatab, was there a possibility of forcing a crisis with the Central
Government on the issue of sareikala and Kharasuan? Second, Did Mahatab have a role to play in
Maurbhanj not willing to merge with Orissa on 1 January 1948? 16

Nilamani Routray in his autobiography Smruti O Anubhuti writes that after the merger of the states
on 1 January 1948 he had gone to Baripada, the capital of Mayurbhanj along with Sudhir Ghosh. There he
met the Prime Minister of the state, Sri Sarat Chandra Dash. On being asked what had withheld
Mayurbhanj from joining Orissa when all other states had already joined, he said,

“The arrogant attitude of Mahatab has been the obstacle in the path of Maurbhanj merging with
17
Orissa.”

Reflecting on the post-merger scene, Godavarish Mohapatra, the editor of Niankhunta, brought out
a satirical piece titled Manyabar Mahatabanka Puja Abhinandan (The Puja Greetings of Mahatab).18The
poem was
 Tam tam tam tamka baje Chhotia Odisha Virata Saaje
Jai Kharasuan Sadheikala Tathapi Odisha Vishala Hela
Karaputa pare Andhra Daka Chamaka Delani Odisha Jaka
Baja tamaka Bajay Baja Mukutavihina Odisha Raja
Tamaka Maadare duluke Chhati Behosa helaki Odisha Jaati?
Epata Galani Sepata Jiva Tathapi Odisha Virata Heba
On the question of Sareikala and Kharasuan, Sailabala Das (daughter of Utkal Gourab
Madhusudan Das) wrote letters to the Prime Minister, Pundit Nehru, Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Patel,
President Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Sachidanand Sinha, the famous Congress leader from Bihar. In her letter
dated 30 August 1949 she wrote to sardar Patel,

“When you helped Orissa in amalgamating with her ex-state areas, the whole of Orissa blessed you
for giving shape to their long-cherished dream and long-felt want of a strong and consolidated Utkal.”19

She continued in her letter,

“…for some mysterious reasons, the amalgamation of these two states with Orissa was delayed.
Ugly rumours got about that this was due to some eminent Biharis in the Congress High Command. But
many of us discounted this rumour as we put our faith in your reputation of unflinching impartiality.”20

To Dr. Sachidanand Sinha she wrote in September 1949,

“… as it is, Bihar as a province is quite big and rich in itself and you do not need these two states to
enrich you further….”

In the same letter she continued,

“I am shocked to learn from statements in the papers and from victims from Sareikala and
Kharasuan that the atrocities and barbarism with which the unfortunate Oriya people in these states are
repressed are such that they make even my cold blood now run hot…Is it their fault that they do not wish to
be Biharised?”21

In his reply to her letter Dr. Sachidanand Sinha wrote back,

“As regards the two states merged in Bihar …they had been merged definitely and finally by Sardar
Patel in Bihar and there was absolutely no chance of the question being reopened… As a matter of fact,
these two states are not Orissa states at all in any sense, but they are Adibasi states; the bulk of the
population in both of them consisting of Adibasis. The Bihar Government has done nothing to suppress
Oriya for any purpose, whatsoever, nor will they do so in future. You need not, therefore, worry yourself
about it any longer.”22

The issue of Sareikala and Kharasuan again came up during the formation of the States
Reorganisation Commission constituted in 1953 to redraw the state boundaries on linguistic basis. A
Committee was formed under the leadership of the Finance Minister, Sri Radhanath Rath. And basing on
the facts, the Committee forcefully presented its arguments before the States Reorganisation Commission.
Orissa Assembly had passed a resolution unanimously for merger of the two states (Sareikala and
Kharasuan) with Orissa. Since the States Reorganisation Commission did not pay any heed to the demands
of Orissa there was a widespread protest movement in the state against the government. Sri Nabakrusna
Choudhary was the chief Minister of the state when disturbances against the recommendations of the
Commission started. He went to Delhi in this regard but when he came back empty handed, the movement
turned violent.23

Speaking about the role of Naba Babu, Girija Pattanayak, then a student at Ravanshaw College,
said,

“Central Government refused to revise the earlier decision and to agree for the merger of Sareikala
and Kharsuan with Orissa. There were wide spread protests and the public reaction to the decision was of
complete dejection and disillusionment. In January 1956, Naba Babu had been invited as the chief guest for
the annual function of Ravenshaw College East Hostel. As the news of his presence in the hostel function
spread there was considerable excitement. I met Naba Babu. He told me that the Congress Leadership will
not understand unless something (very big) drastic and eye-catching was done. I am going to the centre
with our (Ministers) resignations. You can do whatever you can. When I insisted on what he meant by ‘do
whatever you can do’, he said, ‘You are a revolutionary! Do I need to make you understand what to do?’On
the suggestion, whether his hints implied that he was with us, he said, ‘What kind of revolutionary are you?
Does one need o have consent of some one to start a revolution? And which revolution has taught you
this?”24

Naba Babu went to Delhi with the resignation letters but came back with the Gurkha and Garhwali
forces. He was made to believe by the central leadership that the protest movement in Orissa was a
secessionist movement and was a danger to the unity and integrity of India. Delhi made him understand
that way. When Naba Babu was there in Delhi, it was broadcast on radio that the Congress Working
Committee had accepted the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission. This made him
very unpopular among the people because it had nothing for Orissa. But his wife had different things to
say. She herself led the protest movement in Cuttack and said,

“This government has lost its mind.”25

The movement for redrawing the state boundaries created an explosive situation. Deaths in police
firing only added insult to injury. Caught in between an angry public and an unsympathetic Party Naba
Babu decided to resign. Why Nabakrusna Choudhary resigned from the Chief Minister’s office is still a
matter of debate. Responding to the question asked by a journalist as to why Naba Babu resigned as the
CM in 1956, his wife Malati Devi said,

“Bapi was never desperate to cling on to power. As the Chief Minister he saw there were many
obstacles in the way in which he wanted to work. He could not do all that by remaining in the government.
After his resignation Nehru wanted to take him in the central cabinet. He was offered high positions. Bapi
refused. Blaming me for Bapi’s refusal Nehruji wrote, ‘There is a need for people like him in the
government. You are making him do all this…’”26

It is no accident that the then President and the Prime Minister of India happened to be from Bihar
and Uttar Pradesh respectively, the two biggest provinces of India. In this context Jayaprakash Narayan has
said that after reorganization of the states on linguistic basis he once met Pundit Govind Ballav Pant and
asked him,

“Punditji, in size Uttar Pradesh is as big as France. It will be convenient for the people of the state
if it is split into one or two more states. Same is the case with Bihar.”About Uttar Pradesh Punditji replied,
“How can we divide the birth place of Rama and Krishna?”27

Reasons probably lay elsewhere. Orissa had once been a part of Bihar. Dr. Rajendra Prasad was not
only the then President of the Indian Union, he happened to be the undisputed leader of Bihar also. Even if
the States Reorganisation Commission had given an unbiased report, the conditions in India were such that
it would have been foolish to expect that the Commission would not have listened to the President and
taken away territories from his home state and merged them with another province. For the Oriyas, it was
like a situation where the examinee knew before appearing at the examination that he would fail.28

Naba Babu was of the opinion that the whole exercise was meaningless if the people of the affected
areas did not speak up for themselves. It made no sense to hold meetings and disrupt public life in Cuttack
if people in sareikala, Kharasuan, Midnapore or Srikakulam were not involved as much. It was essential
that the people in these areas were aroused and motivated. But in the surcharged atmosphere of 1956 not
many Oriyas were willing to buy this idea.29

On the other hand, while the Oriya leaders were working for the merger of these states with Orissa,
not many people in these areas had any sense of pride in associating themselves with Orissa. In this
context, an incident needs to be recounted. When Gokulanand Choudhary and some prominent Oriya
leaders asked some Oriya friends of Midnapore to merge with Orissa, their reply was, “Do you have a
Rabindranath Tagore or a city like Calcutta?”Even though the protests against the Boundary Commission
were wide spread in Cuttack, Puri and Balasore it was almost non-existent in the areas, merger for which
the protest was being launched. This could not have escaped the Boundary Commission.30

For the educated young and the Oriya elites, the dismemberment of these territories in 1948 and the
inability to get the decision in favour of Orissa in 1956 was a question of loss of prestige. In the present
context, it becomes relevant to think whether merger of Sareikala, Kharasuan, srikakulam or Midinapore
would have made much difference as such. Bihar in any case has been partitioned and a new state of
Jharkhand created. The two states Sareikala and Kharasuan are now in Jharkhand. Would it have made
much difference to the common man then?

The atmosphere was vitiated31and Naba Babu became the target of public anger. He became the
scapegoat for the non-acceptance of Orissa’s suggestions by the States Reorganisation Commission. Some
people even went to the extent of digging up Malati Devi’s origins to explain for Naba Babu’s role in
Orissa politics.32Or did the Sareikala and Kharasuan question again affirm the remarks made by Lord
 Curzon in 1912 that unfortunate things were happening to the Oriya people because ‘…Oriyas are a non-
agitating people?’33

References
34. Annapurna Moharana, Amruta Anubhava(Oriya), Sikshya Sandhan, Bhubaneswar,2005, PP. 292-293.
35. Dr. Girish Chandra Mishra ed. Govind Chandra Rachana Samagra (Oriya), Vol.1, Arya Prakashan,
Cuttack, 1998, pp.450-451.
36. Ibid.
37. The Viceroy was astonished that there could be such stupid rulers who suffered ‘from a belief in the
Divine Right of Kings’ when the British were on the verge of leaving India. M N Das in his chapter on
‘The End of The British Raj Vis-à-vis The Princely States of India’ in Towards Merger, Orissa State
Archives, Bhubaneswar, 1998, p.9.)
38. Report of the Enquiry Committee, Orissa States (Orissa Mission Press, Cuttack, 1939).
39. Accession No.1161-S, Orissa State Archives, Bhubaneswar.
40. HK Mahatab, Beginning of the End, Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1974, P.1.
41. Nilamani Routray, Smruti O Anubhuti (Oriya), Granth Mandir, Cuttack, 2001, p. 186.
42. Ibid, p. 195.
43. Ibid, p. 189.
44. Balaram Mohanty, Biplabi Jananayak: Nabakrusna Choudhary (Oriya), Bharat Bharati, Cuttack,
1994, pp.53-54. For details about the whole process of merger of the princely states with Orissa and the
problems arising thereof see Nilamani Routray, op. cit., pp. 183-199. Initially the Ruler of Sareikala had
expressed his willingness to join with Bihar. Later he changed his opinion and wanted to join Orissa. But
by then it was too late and he could not change the opinion of the tribals.
45. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.191.
46. Kailash Chandra Dash, A Study on the Merger of the Princely States of Orissa, in Towards Merger,
Orissa State Archives, Bhubaneswar, 1998, P.184.
47. For the detailed secret Report of Mahatab to the Rulers see Kailash Chandra Dash, op. cit., pp.184-
189.
48. Ibid.
49. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.186.
50. Not all garjat Prajamandal leaders found it comfortable working with Mahatab. Since they had
suffered severely under the repressive regimes of the Princes they wanted drastic changes in the
administration whereas any outside leader approaching the state issue was bound to prefer a more moderate
and dispassionate view. Many garjat leaders were distinctly unhappy that their case was not properly
presented before Sardar Patel by the Provincial Congress leadership. As a result, People from the Princely
states did not display much enthusiasm in welcoming Sardar Patel in Orissa when he had come to decide
the fate of the princely states. Ibid, pp.185-186.
51. Cited in Kailash Chandra Dash, op. cit., p.196.
52. Sachidanand Mohanty ed. Literature and social reform in Colonial Orissa: The Legacy of Sailabala
Das(1875-1968), Sahitya Academy, 2006,p.169.
53. Ibid. She did not get any reply to her letter to sardar Patel as Patel was ill. The letter was
acknowledged by his secretary.
54. Ibid., p.172. Sailabala das was 75 years old in 1949.
55. Ibid., p.180.
56. Balaram Mohanty, op. cit., p.54.
57. Foreword to Chitta Ranjan Das’s Sri Nabakrusna Choudhary: Eka Jibani(Oriya), The Universe,
Cuttack, 2001.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid, p.125.
60. Anadi Nayak, Lokashaktira Sandhane: Nabakrusna Choudhary(Oriya), Grantha Mandir, Cuttack,
2001, p.152.
61. Ibid. Sri Nilamani Routray also mentions in his autobiography that of the three members on the
States Reorganisation Commission, Syed Fazl Ali happened to be the Governor of Orissa. But before that
he had been the Chief Justice of Patna High Court. This could not be of any help to Orissa. Nilamani
Routray, op. cit., p.266.
62. Anadi Nayak, op. cit., p. 153.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid, p. 156.This time around, Mahatab took advantage of the problems faced by the discredited
Government of Nabakrusna Choudhary in Orissa and took over as the Chief Minister of Orissa after Naba
Babu’s resignation. Nilamani Routray, op. cit., p.296.
65. Anadi Nayak, op. cit., p. 156.
66. Cited in Bansidhar Mohanty, Oriya Bhasa Andolan(O), Friends Publishers, Cuttack, 1989, p.68. In
1912 when discussions were on to create a separate province of Bihar and Orissa separating it from Bengal,
Curzon had vehemently opposed the move saying that Oriyas and Biharis did not have commonalities of
customs or language and It was an unnatural union which will not last long.
Nationalist Education and Social Reform: Experiment at Satyavadi (1909-26)

Dr. Suryakant Nath

Associate Professor in History
NDA, Pune
Saytavadi near Sakhigopal in Puri district became a hub of nationalist education in the
early decades of the 20th century. Utkalmani Gopabandhu Das was the driving force behind the
setting up of this indigenous educational institution in 1909.1 Later on Satyavadi came to signify
a powerful movement which profoundly influenced the political, social, literary and cultural
regeneration of the province. Education happens to be a medium of cultural transmission and this
paper attempts to study how indigenous educational venture like satyavadi impacted the social
life of the period in Orissa.

With the gradual conquest of whole of India, colonial pattern of education came in to
vogue in most of the parts of India. Earliest efforts at dissemination of western education had
been made by the Christian missionaries, administrators and the social reformers. But the
western system of education had glaring drawbacks. It professed/preached ideas of racial
superiority, distorted facts relating to Indian history and culture and tried to co-opt Indian
subjects in to their scheme of things. The basic idea behind such education was to create an
Indian intermediary class which could function as a link between the British masters and their
Indian subjects. Many British rulers and their Indian counterparts were under the impression that
western education can empower the Indians and assist in the process of modernization.

It is in this backdrop of the colonial mode of western education that national education
emerged as a viable alternative in many parts of India. 2 Gandhiji was of the opinion that colonial
education created a deep sense of inferiority and enslaved the people and cast an evil spell on
them. He preferred a type of education which could help Indians recover their sense of dignity
and self-respect. He strongly felt that education in English language crippled the Indians,
distanced them from their surroundings and made them ‘strangers in their own lands’.3

Gopabandhu did not have a very high regard for western system of education and was
keen to establish a school on an altogether different pattern. He had ardent faith in the gurukul
system and felt that if a residential school could be established in the rural setting with both
teachers and students putting up together then it could help in restoration of ancient ideals. 4In a
poor province like Orissa people could not afford costly education. So he was guided by ideals of
‘plain living and high thinking’.5He had read in news papers about a band of young persons
joining together to start the Deccan Education Society of Poona, working on a paltry salary and
with a vow of life-long poverty. He was convinced that a similar model could be started in
Orissa.6

The bakul grove at Sakhigopal was chosen as the site for the new school because of its
nearness to the Sakhigopal railway station on the Puri-Khurda branch of the Bengal-Nagpur
railway. It was at the center of a number of Brahmin sasans and was roughly at a distance of
about 15 kilometers from Puri, the famous pilgrimage centre for the Hindus. Sakhigopal also had
a famous temple by the same name where most pilgrims halted on their way to the temple of lord
Jagannath. The vedic Sanatanist Brahmins of this area were steeped in superstitions and caste
arrogance and Gopabandhu thought that setting up of a school amidst such an environment
would rejuvenate the Brahmin community.7

Gopabandhu’s announcement that ‘…everyone has equal right of being educated. Just as
the rays of the sun and moon are shared equally by the people and just as religious instruction is
imparted to the Indian society in all ages, education or mental illumination should be given
equally to all…’8 clearly sums up the idealistic and noble objectives which the founder had about
the school in mind. He was also hopeful that in course of time a series of institutions of this type
would come up all over the province.

Since the school was in close proximity of sasan villages, the progressive ideals of the
school like joint living and community feasting invited a strong and angry reaction from
orthodox Brahmins of the area. On 22 March 1912 some miscreants set fire to the thatched
building inflicting a loss of about five thousand rupees. Some rare and invaluable books were
burnt with the library.9
 In spite of the temporary setback, the school made steady progress. It became an extra-
ordinary institution because of its idealism and became a centre of light and learning in Orissa.
Organizers of the school were fired with idealism to establish new traditions of patriotism,
nationalism and intellectual illumination. However, the biggest obstacle on its way was state
recognition and aid without which the students could not appear as regular students for
matriculation examinations. It was good to be idealistic and talk about the extra-ordinary values
it incorporated. The school was like an organic family where literary activities, debates,
excursions, physical exercises and discipline formed the basic features. The school was different
in the sense that completion of syllabus and preparation of the students for university
examinations were not the set goals. But government recognition could not come as long as
physical infrastructure was not in place and more importantly so long as the management was
not willing to abide by certain conditions of the government. The first batch of the students sat
for the matriculation examination of Calcutta University as private candidates from other high
schools.10

Gopabandhu was assisted in his mission by four other young teachers and combined as a
group they were known as Panchasakhas or ‘five friends’. They were also referred to as the ‘Big
Five’ or ‘five comrades’. Nilakantha Das joined the school in 1911. 11Formally, Gopabandhu
worked as the secretary of the Satyavadi School but his other forays into politics and social
service consumed lot of his time and energy. Nilakantha Das was an M A of his time but joined
Satyavadi as a teacher on a small pay of rupees 30.12 Pandit Godavaris Mishra had an M A degree
in Economics and joined Satyavadi in 1913.13 He worked at Satyavadi till 7 February 1919 and
then left for Singbhum to be the head master of Chakradharpur High School. 14 The fourth
member was pandit Krupasindhu Mishra who had an M A degree in philosophy from Calcutta
University. Acharya Harihar Das, who taught mathematics to the students was from the village of
Nilakantha Das.15 Apart from these ‘famous five’ there were many other teachers like
Ramachandra Rath, Basudev Mohapatra, Venu Gpalachari, Satyavadi Tripathy, Dhaneswar
Maharana, pandit Banchhanidhi Mishra etc. who voluntarily embraced poverty and worked on
very small salaries. It was never a job for them and teaching at satyavadi was a service rendered
to the national cause. The School could not survive the death of pandit Krupasindhu Mishra in
1926.15

Social Reforms

In an orthodox and conservative environment like satyavadi the activities of the

panchasakhas and their associates created a flutter and raise many eyebrows. In the early years of
20th century when caste rules were too rigid the attempts of these men invited intense opposition
from social circles. Brahmins of the area were obsessed with ideas of caste superiority and any
deviation from the accepted norms was criticized and opposed. Nilakantha Das started growing a
moustache, an unusual practice for a Brahmin then. He further angered them by writing an essay
titled, ‘my moustache’ in Utkala Sahitya. On account of his son’s activities, his father had to face
social boycott of his caste men.16
 Community feeding was a characteristic feature of the hostel life at satyavadi where
students irrespective of their social origins served food to everyone. The progressive and
rationalistic approach of these people at satyavadi like walking the streets without removing their
sandals and saluting by folding their hands even to the low caste people drew the ire of their caste
men. Much to the annoyance of the Brahmins, Gopabandhu, Harihar and Nilakantha wrote ‘Das’
in place of ‘Dash’ as their surname.17

Satyavadi served as a relief center during emergencies like flood and drought in the state.
The teachers and students took the lead in collecting relief materials from the public and
distributing them among the sufferers. Samaj, the weekly was started in October 1919 with the
objective of coordinating the relief work.18

Students taking part in relief measures and treating patients and removing dead bodies
during epidemics in Puri as volunteers also came to be vehemently opposed to by the orthodox
Brahmins. These activities were detested by the conservatives as it compromised and diluted the
caste rules.

A distinct handicap for Satyavadi was that it was deep rooted in the conservative sasani
Brahminical culture of Sakhigopal. The leaders tried to bring about changes in detestable caste
rules and usher in social reforms by their personal examples. But probably that was not enough by
their standards or they were too far ahead of their times. Some scope for conflict in way of
dedication and commitment was bound to be there when such highly talented men were required
to work under the same roof for so long. 19Godavarisha writes in his autobiography that he could
not comprehend why Gopabandhu asked him, Nilakantha Krupasindhu and Acharya Harihar to
voluntarily lead a life of poverty while he did not apply the same principles for his son-in-law
when he passed MA. He went on to be a Director in the education department.20

Satyavadi was an all-male school. The Panchasakhas and their associates probably could
not bolster up enough courage in advocating the furtherance of education of women which would
have invited more resistance of their caste men. By and large, western education was identified
with moral decline and not many encouraged their girls to study. 21Most of the women leaders who
took part in the freedom movement in Orissa during Non-Coopearation, Civil Disobedience or
Quit India Movement were non-Brahmins and leaders like Rama Devi and Malati Devi or Sarala
Devi all belonged to Cuttack and Balasore districts and did not have any link with the Satyavadi
movement. In fact some of them even worked to counter the influence of the satyavadi faction in
Orissa politics later.

The open air school at Satyavadi was contemporaneous with poet Ravindranath Tagore’s
Santiniketan. But unfortunately for Orissa, when Gopabandhu joined the national movement he
transferred the school to a national school and it ultimately died out. However, Satyavadi is still
looked upon as a symbol of all that is purest and best in Orissa.

Legacy of Satyavadi
 The legacy of satyavadi was continued and carried forward by Gopabandhu choudhury and his
associates at Alakashrama set up at Jagatsingpur. 22 Nationalist education, constructive activities and
social reforms were given a big boost. Many students of the Satyavadi school subsequently played a
stellar role in the cultural life of Odisha.

In the field of provincial politics both Nilakantha Das and Godavarisha Mishra played
significant role in the period before and after independence. 23 There was a derogatory reference to the
Satyavadi stalwarts in provincial politics where they were referred to as members of ‘Nana
Company’.24

But a field where satyavadi remained unmatched was in the field of literature. Gopabandhu,
Nilakantha, Godavarisha, Krupasindhu and Harihar were prolific writers and contributed a flood of
literature which as a whole came to be subsequently classified as literature of Satyavadi Yuga (or
Satyavadi Era) in history of Oriya literature.25

References

1. Archana Nayak, Pt. Gopabandhu Das(o), Orissa Sahitya Academy, Bhubaneswar, 1995, p.12
2. Sriram Chandra Dash, Pt. Gopabandhu: A Biography, Gopabandhu Sahitya Mandir, Cuttack,
1964, pp.72-73. Also Nilakantha Das, Atmajibani, Cuttack Students store, Cuttack, 1986, p.94.
Santiniketan was started by poet Rabindranath Tagore where the students managed their affairs
themselves.
3. Susmit Pani, Gandhi’s theories of Education in S Pani and N Pani ed. Reflections on Gandhi:
The forgotten Mahatma, Zenith Book International, New Delhi, 2008, p. 233.
4. Sriram Chandra Dash, op.cit., p.40.
5. Ibid, p.43.
6. Ibid, p.40-41.
7. Ibid, p.41.
8. Ibid, p.43.
9. Archana Nayak,op.cit, p.13.
10. Nityanand Satapathy, Hey saathi Hey sarathi(o), Granthamandir, Cuttack, 1989, pp.172-173. In
1921 Gopabandhu refused to draw a grant of rupees twenty thousand as he believed in the
politics of non-cooperation and did not want to accept the grant. This grant could have helped
in lessening the financial hardship which satyavadi was going through at that point of time.
11. Ibid, p.60.
12. Ibid, p.60.
13. Godavarisha Mishra, Ardha Satabdira Orissa O Tanhire mo sthan(o), Grantha Mandir,
Cuttack, 1991, pp.116-117.
14. Sriram Chandra Dash, op.cit., p.66.
15. Nilakantha Das, op.cit., p199.
16. Godavarisha Mishra, op.cit., p. 123.
17. Nilakantha Das, op.cit., p.121.
18. Nityanand Satapathy, op.cit., p.145.
19. There were frequent misunderstandings between Godavarisha on one side and Nilakantha and
Harihar on the other. Sriram Chandra Dash, op.cit., p.65.
 Godavarisha said that Nilakantha’s father used to come to Satyavadi and jeer at the teachers
saying, “This is my son’s school. He is owner of this factory and you all are his paid
labourers.” Sriram Chandra Dash, op.cit., p.66.

20. Godavarisha Mishra, op.cit., p. 136.

21. The literacy figures at that point of time must have been abysmally low and finding parents
who could have sent their wards to receive education must have been an impossible task
because conservative opinion believed that education made girls pleasure-loving and distracted
them from house-hold work.
22. Gopabandhu Choudhury had visited Satyavadi and was influenced by the concept of national
education there. He established Alaka Ashrama in Jagatsinghpur and lived there with his and
his younger brother’s family like ordinary peasants. The school started there taught among
other subjects, aspects of nationalism, Geography and History. Charkha became an essential
element of every ashamite’s life. Gopinath Mohanty, Dhuli Matira Santha (o), Vidyapuri,
Cuttack, 1985, p.39.
23. In provincial politics members of Bharati Mandir group like Nabakrusna Choudhury,
Harekrusna Mahatab, Jadumani Mangaraj, Bhagirathi Mohapatra and Rajakrusna Bose came to
play a more dominating role subsequently. Gopinath Mohanty, op.cit., p.45.
24. ‘Nana Company’ obviously referred to the members of satyavadi faction being Brahmins.
Personal interview with Karunakar Nayak, freedom fighter of village Atharbatia, Pattamundai,
Kendrapara, dt. 16 august 1990.
25. Gopabandhu wrote Bandira Atmakatha, Nachiketa Upakhyan, Dharmapada, Karakabita, and
Avakashchinta etc. Nilakantha wrote konarke, Atmajibani, Pranayini, Bhaktigatha etc.
Godavarisha wrote Atharshah Satara, Ghatantara, Nirbasita, Ardhasatabdira Orissa O
Tanhire Mo Stan etc. Krupasindhu wrote Barabati Durga and Konarkara Itihasa and Acharya
Harihara wrote Child’s Easy First grammar.
 The Contribution of Congress Socialists to the National Movement in Orissa

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor of History
National defence Academy, Pune

The Congress Socialists played a significant role in the history of anti-colonial struggle in India. Their
emergence at the international, national and regional level marked a radical transformation of the ideology in
nationalist politics. Radicalisation of the nationalist movement had started in the 1920s after Mahatma Gandhi
had taken over the reins of the Indian National Congress 1 but it became perceptible only in the 1930s. It was
due to many national and international factors. At the international level, the great economic depression of
1929, failure of the western capitalist economies to cope with its adverse consequences and the unusual
recovery and exceptional economic gains made by the Soviet Union made the socialist ideology immensely
popular in India and many young men who had been sceptical with the Gandhian methods gradually leaned
towards socialist ideas. This radicalism in nationalist politics brought massive popular response, participatory
politics and a steady erosion of the colonial power structure.

At the regional level, mobilisation for the Civil Disobedience movement or the Salt Satyagraha, the
creation of Orissa as a separate province in 1936 and the formation of the Congress Ministry in 1937 provided
a definite push to the issues which had been at the forefront of nationalistic struggle for many years now. The
popular protest against the problems of the peasantry in British Orissa and repressive and exploitative regimes
in Princely states came to be highlighted in the ensuing struggle alongside the nationalist struggle for liberation
from foreign rule.

It may sound a little unusual but Congress Socialists in Orissa formed the Utkal Congress Samyavadi
Karmi Sangha (or Utkal Congress Socialist Workers League) almost a year before the Congress Socialists
party was formed at the national level in 1934.2 However, before we go on to the contribution of the socialists
to the Indian national movement at the regional level, specific issues related to the emergence of socialism and
their functioning within the Congress needs to be analysed. First of all it needs to be kept in mind that the left
trend represented by the Congress Socialists and Communists was structured very much within the Congress
organisation and it wielded quite a dominating influence. And secondly, all the measures adopted by the
Congress during the whole of 1930s bore a stamp of socialist orientation. In all these popular movements
initiated by the Indian National Congress, the socialists undoubtedly played a very crucial role.

Emergence of Socialist line of thought in Orissa Congress can be traced back to February 1933 when
Utkal Samyavadi Karmi Sangha (Utkal Congress Socialist Workers League) was set up at Cuttack by some
Congress members. The members of this group were nationalists like Naba Krusna Chaudhury, Malati
Chaudhury, Gouranga Chandra Das, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Nrupen Sen, Manmohan Chaudhury, S N
Dwibedi, Rabi Ghosh, Prananath Patanayak, Mohan Das, Bhagabati Charan Panigrahi, Dibakar Patnayak.
Gatikrusna Swain and Lokanath Ray joined later. 3 A weekly organ named ‘Saarathi’ was launched on behalf of
this Karmi Sangha with Naba Krusna Chaudhury as the editor. It wanted to expand the nationalist base and
was vehement in its criticism of feudal and capitalist exploitation. 4 In 1935 CSP launched another monthly
journal ‘Adhunika’ which was edited by Bhagabati Charan Panigrahi (who later became the leader of the
breakaway communist faction) and CSP also started a cultural organisation called ‘Nabayuga Sahitya Sansad’.
Adhunika carried a fair amount of discussion on Marxist ideology and leaned heavily towards Soviet Union
and had a distinct communist orientation.5

The objectives/goals of the Utkal Samyavadi Karmi Sangha were outlined in the preamble of its
constitution. It read, “Whereas in the interest of the struggle of the masses in India for political and economic
freedom, it has become urgently necessary to organise in each of the Congress provinces a well-knit and
disciplined party of those workers who are determined to fight till the bitter end for the economic and political
emancipation of the masses along definite scientific lines of socialism based on past experiences and deep and
realistic study of moral and material condition of the people and their psychology and whereas the wide
democratic platform of the Congress and the place it has come to occupy in the popular mind due to great Civil
Disobedience Movement of 1930-34 makes affiliation of any such party to the Congress possible and
desirable” 6 The Utkala Samyavadi Karmi Sangha was later affiliated to the All India Congress Socialist Party
and worked as its provincial unit from September 1934.

The peasant question in India formed part of a wider question of the struggle against British imperialism.
7
Acharya Narendra Dev, the President of the All India Congress Socialist Conference at Patna on 17 may 1934
in course of his address said, “The peasants are notorious all over the world for the incapacity to organise
themselves and to develop common understanding. Left to themselves, they can lodge their protest by
spontaneous peasant risings when conditions become unbearable. This has been the case in Ireland and Russia
and India is no exception. The history of British rule in India is full of such risings. Whenever drastic changes
were introduced by the government in the land system of the country and when the village community was
being destroyed. ....these ignorant people trampled upon by tyranny and sunk deep in superstition know only
one way out and that is rush head-long into riotous conduct, and then the government makes short shrift of
them. It is only the revolutionary intelligentsia that can organise them for disciplined action. Masses are
important”.8

Surendra Nath Dwibedi, a prominent Congress Socialist in Orissa echoed a somewhat similar sentiment.
About the methods he said, “We decided to go from village to village holding meetings, getting peasant’s
signatures on a printed appeal to the government asking for remission. As this was an appeal to the
Government they might not create any obstacle. The zamindars might not oppose our move as they would also
be benefitted by a corresponding rebate in revenue. Secondly we could easily enter the villages and organise
the peasants by setting up Krushak sanghas. In the zamindari areas, the peasants had no rights over trees in
their own fields or over the fish in the ponds near their house. So, the zamindars and moneylenders found it
easy to extract illegal cesses from the peasants. So in such circumstances it was unrealistic to conceive of
organising the peasantry on the basis of class struggle. Hence the strategy had to be designed in such a manner
that the peasants became fearless9 and cooperation of the non-socialists could be sought while the whole
programme had to be under the Congress banner.

Acharya Narendra Dev10 also stressed the need to coordinate and unite forces with Congress. He said,
“The struggle of the workers should be linked with the struggle of the Congress and through it with the
struggle of peasants and the lower middle class. It is only when they will all unite into one big effort that the
battle will be won. All the forces that are working for the political independence of the country have to be co-
ordinated with each other and this is possible only when all come to possess the same ideals”.

During this period there was consistent ideological campaign against oppression, exploitation and
arbitrary rule by holding public meetings and Kisan processions to expand the nationalist base among the
oppressed masses. The CSP realised that the lower classes needed to be self conscious. Acharya Narendra Dev
said, “.....upper classes who wield economic power in the country and have existing social conditions in their
favour need not be class conscious, because it is only in this way, they can really feel that they are defending
not their class interest but the interests of the whole society. The social basis being very narrow they really feel
stronger by entertaining the belief that they are acting in the interests of the society as a whole”. 11 The poor
peasantry in the countryside on the other hand had to be made aware of their basic rights and to do away with
the culture of fear which engulfed their whole being.

Narratives in S N Dwibedi’s books and books on Naba Krusna Chaudhury abound with examples of this
culture of fear which was very much a part of the peasant’s being in the rural surroundings. Dwibedi narrates
an incident as to what extent people were scared of the agents of the Zamindar and anything related to any
stamped paper. Literacy must have been around 5% at that time and there was hardly any newspaper available
in the countryside. He narrates that “One day we (Dwibedi, Naba Babu, Malati Devi, Goura Chandra Das and
Gouranga Charan Das) were talking to peasants in a village in Cuttack and asking them to sign a petition for
remission of rent to the Government. Most of them seemed to be willing to sign the petition. In the mean time
the chowkidar of the village came to the scene, sat down near us and started noting down something with a
pencil. Then the chowkidar used to be a significant cog in the colonial police system. The villagers who saw
him suspected that he was noting down their particulars for reporting their names to the police for co-operating
with the Socialist leaders. Most of them dispersed without signing the petition”. From this incident it can be
imagined to what extent people were scared of the official machinery and why it was very crucial to work
towards dispelling this fear from their mind.12

Today’s generation will find it hard to believe that 80 years back peasants could not dare to wear clean
clothes or carry an umbrella in front of petty zamindars in the countryside. They were thrashed if they were
found wearing shoes. At the very sight of the zamindar or the mahajan in the village, people used to prostrate
themselves on the ground and pay respects. If any peasant became affluent, and by mistake made any display
of his wealth, he was beaten black and blue in the so-called ‘Mrudang Ghar’. 13 Poetry and slogans to change
the traditional social practices formed a component of Socialist mobilisation of the peasants in the countryside.
Naba Babu advised the people to refrain from paying their respects in the traditional mode. Kalandi Charan
Panigrahi wrote the poem Kiye saala saitaan14

Beelei kukura izzat bujhe

Bujhe maan apamaan
Manisha aame kee bujheeebu naahin re
Kiye saala saitaan

(Roughly translated, the lines imply that when animals like dogs and cats understand the attitude of care and
insult wouldn’t we as human beings make out who is the devil?)

The socialists also emphasized on the real issues which were of paramount importance than mere political
freedom and the usual civil rights.15

Kee heba se swarajya nei

Jadi mora napoore peta
Khati khati chaashi mulia maleni
Chashi chasi dana kana niyanta

(Roughly translated, the lines imply of what use is freedom if I don’t get enough to eat? Even after back-
bending labour the peasants don’t get a stomach-full to eat or clothes to wear.)

Not only the zamindar, even their goomasthas exploited and harassed the people in many ways. Daily,
the fisherman had to give the goomastha Barju Mohanty from Cuttack (the zamindaari was in Nimapada), fish
and beaten rice, the barber had to give massage, the milk man had to give milk, curd and cheese, apart from
many types of bhetti and bethi. On top of that, Barju Mohanty had a habit of addressing everyone as ‘saala’.
The milkman Danei Behera narrated this case to the peasant leader, Mohan Das. Accordingly, Mohan Das
advised him that when Barju Mohanty was in the Nimapada Bazaar, in full public view, he should
shout/scream ‘hey saala Barjua’. Danei did that and taking clue from him everyone else started shouting ‘hey
saala Barju Mohanty’. Barju Mohanty left the place and left for Cuttack. 16 This kind of small incidents helped
in dispelling fear from the mind of the peasantry in the countryside.
 In course of hectic activities, highly educated young men like Bhagabati Panigrahi, Ananta Patanayak,
Goura Chandra Patanayak, Baidyanath Rath, Saci Routray, Biswanath Pasayat, Rama Krusna Pati and Ram
Mohan Mishra tried to reach out to the poor in the countryside. 17 The Socialists started wielding more
influence inside the Congress once Naba Krusna Chaudhury became the Secretary of the PCC in 1937. In a
meeting held at Cuttack during March 1937 several resolutions on the peasant problems were passed by the
CSP. The most important of their demands were18

(a). 50% reduction of land revenue

(b). Abolition of landlordism
(c). Repeal of anti-national and anti-democratic laws
(d). Guarantee of minimum wage of Rs 30/-
(e). Freedom of speech, press and association
(f). Withdrawal of British army and
(g). Right to possess arms.
The peasant leaders touched upon issues that were relevant to the existing problems of the peasants.

The British authorities came to resent the speeches made by certain prominent socialists. On 20 th
November 1937, during the celebration of students Day, Naba Krusna Chaudhury exhorted the students ‘to
organise revolutionary discipline with a view to ousting Government and stressed on the justification for
violence when necessary.’19 During one of his visits to Orissa in 1936, Pundit Nehru attacked the Zamindari
system in all his speeches and pointed out that the British and the zamindari system of administration was like
two grinding stones between which the peasants were ground to poverty. 20 One of the important tools used by
leaders in Orissa to mobilise the masses was through their speeches on the occasion of various annual days
such as Shradha (death anniversary) of important leaders like Pundit Gopabandhu Dash on 7 July, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak on 1st August, Birth day of Mahatma Gandhi on 2 October, Shramik Divas on 1 may etc.
Krushak Divas was celebrated on 1 September. 21 Slogans like ‘Chaasi mulia ki jai’, ‘Bande Mataram, ‘Biplav
ki jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ were raised to arouse and inculcate unity in the masses.22

The All India Kisan Day celebration at Cuttack Municipal ground on 1st September 1937 was a major
event in the history of the peasant movement in Orissa.23 Nearly ten thousand peasants attended the conference
which was organised under the leadership of Naba Krusna Chaudhury and Malati Chaudhury (According to an
official estimate 15000 to 20 000 peasants attended the conference). 24 They marched in a procession to the
Cuttack Municipal ground holding placards and shouting slogans electrifying the town and the countryside.
The placards displayed their basic demands i.e, rent reduced by half, abolition of Zamindari system, unity of
Kisan and labour, water tax to be reduced by half, abolition of mutation fees, confiscation of math properties
(matha dhana kotha heu), abolition of forest tax etc. Holding national and red flags with hammer and sickle,
they shouted slogans such as down with imperialism and landlordism, etc. 25 On occasions, the CSP was also
critical of the functioning of the Congress ministry in the province. It passed a resolution which said, “The
Congress Ministry has not fully satisfied the demands of the people as laid down in the manifesto”. It called
for organising the peasants to fight for their own class interest and to join Congress in large numbers.26

During 1937, Congress Enquiry Committees were set up by both Cuttack and Balasore DCs to enquire in
to the complaints lodged by the tenants against the police and the landlords. Individual enquiries were
undertaken by Congress leaders. Radha Krusna Biswas Ray personally conducted enquiry in to the alleged
grievances of the tenants of the Jeypore estate in Koraput. 27 Rajkrusna Bose, the veteran Congress leader
advised the peasants in a meeting at Cuttack to stop payment of illegal taxes to the Zamindars and to continue
to agitate for the remission of rent.28 At the Bargarh peasant Conference held at Padmapur on 11 October 1937
presided over by the socialist leader S M Joshi, the peasants were told. “Zamindars would be powerless if the
ryots adopted the attitude of the people of Bardoli and took to satyagraha in the form of non-payment of rents”.
The meeting passed many resolutions including one on the boycott of Japanese goods. 29 Malati Devi, a
prominent Congress Socialist was elected to the All India central Kisan Committee in March 1939. The All
India Kisan Conference deputed Jayaprakash Narayan and Sahajanand Saraswati to visit Cuttack and hold an
enquiry to review the activities of the Provincial Kisan Sangha. It is unfortunate that at that point of time,
Orissa PCC was going through ‘most deplorable political factionalism’ and most of the kisan leaders were pre-
occupied with ‘States Peoples activities.’ The report pointed to an ever expanding base of the kisan
organisation in the state and it is evident from the fact that in Puri there were 18 Kisan Sabhas functioning in a
total of twenty three thanas.30

In general, peasant Conferences were held in Cuttack, Puri, Balasore, Sambalpur, Ganjam, where
resolutions advocating pro-peasant laws and abolition of bethi and rasad were passed. 31 Besides, resolutions
demanding compulsory education for children and facilities for the harijans formed the other notable aspect of
such demands.32 The effectiveness of the CSP received a minor setback when the Communists were removed
from the CSP in 1940. Naba Krusna Chaudhury was the one who had very close relations with the communists
and he had been the one who had brought many of them into the state politics. So he was quite unwilling to
expel them from the party.33

Because of the Socialists in the ranks, the Congress Government in 1937 initiated and adopted many
measures which were pro-people. The ministry remained in power for about two years and four months.
During this period, legislations related to issues like Madras Estates Land (Orissa Amendment) Bill, Orissa
Tenancy Bill, Orissa Moneylender’s Bill, Upliftment of Harijans, Small Holder’s Relief Act, Prohibition etc,
were moved. Since it was house which had rich, well-to-do and people with feudal interests, these issues were
bound to arouse controversy and debates. But it definitely reflected the radical and progressive ideas that were
associated with the socialists in general and the members with left orientation in particular.

Apart from the specific agrarian issues and the issues of the peasantry, the Socialists also played a
significant role in the peoples’ movement in the princely states of Orissa. The princely states were like islands
of misrule and the regimes were so repressive and inhuman that they were known as dark areas or andhari
mulak. The people were denied basic civil rights and groaned under innumerable taxes that were decided on
the whims of the rulers. The first Orissa States Peoples Conference was organised in 1931 at Cuttack. As the
freedom struggle in the neighbouring British areas gathered momentum and a popular Congress Ministry
formed in Orissa in 1937, the people in the states were awakened to resist the autocratic regimes in their states.
The Congress expressed its sympathy for the cause of the people in the states but owing to the larger picture of
the anti-colonial struggle against the British did not undertake an active course of action in the states peoples’
movement. It was the socialists in the Congress who championed the cause of the people in the princely states
and organised them in their struggle for basic civic and political rights.34
 Here it would be worthwhile to mention in brief about the prevailing conditions in the princely states of
Orissa. The princely states of Orissa witnessed the worst repression and misrule than probably any other group
of states in India.35 The province of British Orissa was surrounded by twenty-six Gadjat States of which
Mayurbhanj was the biggest and Tigiria, the smallest. Many states didn’t have any semblance of a civilized
administration and the people in most states were subjected to medieval savagery and torture. Though the
people of these states had everything common with their neighbours in the province of Orissa, a common,
culture, common social usage, religious thought and mode of living they were cut up in several political
jurisdictions which brought them under different administrations.36

An issue around which the popular agitation in the states veered was bethi or unpaid labour. A peasant used
to spend over 100 days in a year in doing forced labour for the state or for the official. He could be called up at
any time of the day or night and had to quit his own work (however urgent it might be) for fear of being
beaten, fined or imprisoned. If unable to perform bethi work, the peasant had to send someone else on his
behalf on payment.37 Personal works of the state officials and almost all the works of the state were managed
through bethi. Of all the exactions suffered by the peasant, bethi was the most oppressive and it reduced him to
a state of serfdom.

Rasad, Magan, Bhetti, Shika and Kheda were the other forms of exploitation which a peasant had to live
with. Rasad was forced requisition of provisions which a peasant was compelled to supply when Raja, his
friends, guests and all other officials passed through any village. Magan was the compulsory contribution on
the tenants at the rate of one-fourth of their annual land rent on several ceremonial occasions. (Marriage, birth
of children, foreign visits etc.) Bhetti was another forced present like sunia bhetti, pariba bhetti or darshan
bhetti etc. During shikar the peasants had to accompany the king to assist him in hunting and Kheda was
capturing of elephants during harvest time. There was no security of life and property in the states.

The life of an average peasant was hedged in with so many restrictions that he confronted a fine or
physical assault at every turn. In addition to all these, forest rules were totally anti-people and monopoly to
trade in many goods was given by the king to his own agents who fleeced the common people in very many
ways. This is just a very brief list of ways in which people were exploited in the states and one should not
forget that in many states there were frequent acts of rape and indecent assault on women by police officials
and other officers of the state. Rape and molestation of women in custody had become so rampant that the
people had come to regard it as part of the normal penalty for a woman offender. Just to cite one example, Sri
Nanda Ram Singh, the sub-inspector from Motagaon village in Dhenkanal had built up a sinister reputation for
ravaging the modesty of women.

The 2nd session of the Orissa States Peoples’ conference was held on 23 rd and 24th June 1937 at Cuttack
and was presided over by Dr Pattabhi Sitarammayya, the president of the All India States Peoples Conference.
Only about 100 people from 8 of the 26 states were able to attend as preventive measures had been taken by
the state administrations. Balunkeswar Acarya was the chairman of the Reception Committee. A constitution
for the OSPC was drafted and many resolutions were passed. The first resolution deplored the absence of
codified laws and acts in the states and the Conference urged upon the rulers of the Indian states to
immediately confer on their subjects

(a). The right of occupancy of their holding

 (b). Fundamental rights of citizenship and
(c). Responsible governments.
A strong plea was made to abolish evil practices like rasad, magan, bethi, bhetti etc.

A committee of enquiry was instituted to investigate into the illegalities, excesses and acts of repression.
The leaders from the states who attended this conference were Sarangadhar Das from Dhenkanal, Dr
Bishwabhar Rath (Nayagarh), Lal Mohan Pati (Mayurbhanj), Balunkeswar Acharya (Hindol), Radhanath Rath
(Athgarh), Harmohan Patnayak (Dhenkanal), Gobind Chandra Mishra (Daspalla),Madhusudan Mohanty
(Athgarh), Madhusudan Patanayak (Tigiria) and Gangadhar Mishra (Ranpur). The touring of the Inquiry
Committee practically marked the beginning of mass awakening in the states of Orissa. Initially the students
who were exposed to Gandhian ideas in the neighbouring areas of British Orissa took the initiative of reising
the banner of resistance in the princely states. They were helped and led by the socialist and the left leaders in
the Congress like Nabakrusna Chaudhury, Malati Chaudhury, Rabi Ghose, Bhagabati Panigrahi, Pranakrusna
Padhiary, Gokul Chandra Ray Chudamani, Anant Pattanayak, Guru Patanayak, Goranga Chandra Das and
Surendranath Dwibedi. The weekly paper of the Socialists Krushak gave wide coverage to the states affairs.

Under the auspices of Cuttack District Kisan Sangha a Kisan rally was organised on at Jenapur
(bordering Cuttack and Dhenkanal) to observe the All India Kisan Day on 1 September 1938. Influential
leaders like Naba Chaudhury, Malati Chaudhury, Prana Krusna Padhiary, Sarangadhar Das, Bhagabati
Panigrahi and Surendranath Dwibedi attended the rally. The second day of the conference was devoted
entirely to Dhenkanal affairs. At the invitation of the Dhenkanal Prajamandal, around 12000 men and women
had assembled at Jenapur on 2nd September 1938. 38 This particular event seems to have galvanized the people
in the states and most of the Prajamandals formed around this period virtually made the same demands of a
minimum of a dignified existence in the states. Agitations in Nilgiri, Dhenkanal, Talcher, Ranpur virtually
reached a feverish pitch during this period. The leadership in the state cautiously monitored the events in the
princely states and provided all possible assistance in keeping the morale of the agitators high in face of strong
repressive measures adopted by the state administrations.

While posing to negotiate with the Prajamandal for redressing the grievances of the people in the
Dhenkanal state, the king ordered for massive clampdown on the protesters and in the ensuing developments 2
people were killed in Bhuban and 6 more at Nilkanthpur including the 12 year old boy Baji Rout. His death
shocked the people and evoked widespread condemnation from all quarters. He became a symbol of sacrifice
in the national movement in the states and the province. In all, 17 people were killed in the Dhenkanal state.
On Gandhi’s insistence there was to be no outside interference as per the Haripura resolution and it was
decided that the struggle (Offering satyagaha in batches) was to be carried on by the workers of Dhenkanal.
For imparting necessary training in principles and rules of satyagraha, a training camp was to be opened in
British Orissa.39

Just about this time Political agent of Orissa States, Maj.R L Bazalgette was killed by a mob on 5 th
January 1939 at Ranpur. This provided an alibi for the State administrations to order reprisal measures. The
people of Ranpur and adjoining villages took shelter in jungles and other places outside the state boundaries.
The entry of weekly like Krushak and daily newspaper Samaj, published at Cuttack was banned in Dhenkanal,
Talcher and other states where educated and well-to-do people were leading the movement for responsible
government. Because the reprisals were brutal, the people from the Talcher state decided to leave their home
and hearth and move to the neighbouring British territory, Angul as a mark of protest. Exodus of people from
the states was suggested with the objective that it would exert pressure on both the ruler of the state and the
Political department to redress the grievances of the people. Exodus started on 8th November 1938 and by end
of December 1938 it had swelled to about 30,000. It needs to be kept in mind that people resolved to even
leave their ripe crops in their fields in face of uncertainty that they were bound to come across in the refugee
camps in Brtish Orissa once they left their villages. It is an accepted fact that Dr Harekrusna Mahtab played a
significant role in negotiating with the Political department for a solution of the problem of the people in the
princely states. But it is also a fact that it was mostly the socialist leaders who played a significant role in
awakening the people, mobilising them in resisting the repressive government of the autocratic rulers and
linking them with the mainstream Congress-led nationalist movement of the British provinces. Naba Babu and
Malati Devi were instrumental in providing the people with relief in the refugee camps when they left the
Dhenkanal and Talcher state and kept their issues alive by organising meetings in Cuttack and by regularly
publishing harrowing tales of repression in their weekly, Krushak.

Most of the Prajamandals resolved to adopt a standard modus operandi of

1. Start non-co-operation with the government by launching a massive boycott of its employees and
supporters and to defy government orders
2. To raise volunteer corps in villages for carrying satyagraha,
3. Strengthen the organisation by holding meeting and procession in defiance of prohibitory orders,
4. To enrol citizens as members of Praja mandal.

This continued till a negotiation was reached between the agitators and the Rulers. In Dhenkanal and
Talcher the agitators went back to their respective villages after being promised of certain concessions to the
people. Gandhi had also sent his emissary Agatha Harrison to work towards a workable formula for finding an
end to the states crisis. It is not that the British as the Paramount power denied the existence of the genuine
grievance of the people in the states. But they had their own reasons for not pressing for redressing these
grievances. The rulers could bank upon the help of the British in case things went wrong. But with massive
mobilisation of the peasantry in British Orissa and the neighbouring princely states, they became vulnerable to
growing pressure of the awakened masses in their states. This process of agitation almost continued unabated
throughout the interim period till the Second World War broke out and the political events started moving very
first.

With the unilateral declaration of war by the British dragging India into the vertex of the war without its
consent, the Congress Ministries in the province resigned in protest. The Congress did not intend to embarrass
the British at a time when they were fighting for survival but at the same time it could not remain a helpless
spectator to the events happening all around. In 1940 Gandhi gave a call for a limited Individual Satyagraha
with an initial list of 78 Satyagrahis. In the meantime, the Japanese had advanced through whole of South East
Asia and were knocking the eastern frontiers of the British Empire. The Congress called for the Quit India
Movement in August 1942.

The Quit India Movement was fought in the name of Gandhi and in the name of the Congress but it was
totally un-Gandhian in nature. It witnessed massive acts of violence and turned out to be the biggest blow to
the British administration after the Revolt of 1857. Unwilling to let the Congress affect the British war efforts,
all the top ranking leaders of the Congress were rounded up on 9 th august 1942 from their respective hotels in a
pre-dawn drive. However, this measure of the Government backfired and innumerable acts of violence and
bloodshed were witnessed all over the country. Rendered leaderless from the beginning, the people interpreted
Gandhi’s Mantra of Do or Die as per their inclination and paralysed the administration in many areas of the
Country.

In Orissa also, the top leaders of the province were rounded up and Congress was declared illegal. Their
offices were taken over by the government. In many areas of the state there were spontaneous reactions to
protest against the government action and mostly the students and the Congress members who had managed to
evade arrest organised this movement. Once the initial phase of protest was dealt with strongly by the
government, agitators moved to the countryside and raised the banner of revolt. A carefully planned
underground movement in the province was organised by the Congress Socialist leader Surendra Nath
Dwibedi. Making his friend, Mathura Nand Sahu’s house in Alisa bazaar, the head qrs dwibedi provided
directions for bringing out Congress Bulletins and managed to establish a network of underground organisation
linking it with the underground organisation in Bihar and Bengal. Both Malati Devi and Dwibedi had evaded
arrest while coming back from the Bombay session of the Indian National Congress. But since as a lady it
would have been difficult to operate from underground, she courted arrest by giving an anti-war speech in
Cuttack. Popular uprisings were seen in Koraput, Bhandari Pokhari, Mathili, Papadahandi, Cuttack, Kaipada,
Jajpur, Nomapada and Lunia. Firing by the government forces were also resorted to in Tudigadia, Khairadiha
and Eram. But since we are discussing only about the role of the Congress Socialists I am just touching upon
the role played by Dwibedi and his small band of followers who managed to dodge the police and operate
underground till October 1942.40

The Quit India movement was not only confined to British India alone. It made deep inroads into the
princely states and inspired the people there to make their contribution to the cause of India's independence.
Initially, there were demonstrations against the arrest of the Congress members in Nilgiri, Dhenkanal and
Talcher states. But the movement really caught up with the escape of Pabitra Mohan pradhan from Talcher jail
on 31st August 1942. The movement was most widespread in Dhenkal and Talcher states as the repression was
most brutal there.

After being critically wounded, Baisnab managed to sneak into Cuttack with a fellow-fighter
Nabaghana Behera and with the assistance of Surendranath Dwibedi left for Calcutta for treatment in the guise
of a marwari. After Baisnab’s daisappearance, another party led by Debraj Patra set fire to the police out post
and the beat house of the forest department at Gengutia of 5th september 1942.

The movement in Talcher was led by Pabitra Mohan Pradhan who escaped from the state jail on 31st
August 1942 and inspired the setting up of a separate “parallel government” (or national government) in the
area.41

It needs to be kept in mind that there was a Coalition ministry in the province and there wasn’t much of
resistance in the province once the initial burst of enthusiasm died down with the arrest of the lower rung of
the leadership. From October 1942 till end of the war there doesn’t seem to be much that can actually be
classified to the Socialist leadership.
 The Congress Socialists remained politically active and effective in the province for approximately ten
years. They played a significant role in raising many crucial issues related to the agrarian structure and the life
of the peasantry. They managed to carry it to the level of legislation and bills were passed in the house both in
1937-39 and the Ministry formed in1946. But it remained virtually in form of legislations only. They made
very little difference to the lives of the people at the ground level. This was partially because, most of the
leaders from among the Ministers came from the upper crust of the Odia society and there was bound to be
contradiction in their ideology and practice. No one gives up power voluntarily and many of the Congress
leaders were reluctant to bring about qualitative change by bringing about radical transformation in the socio-
economic lives of the people. They were worried that it may upset the traditional structure and lead to chaos
and anarchy in societal equations. Dr Mahatab belonged to this group and for a very long period of time he
remained a very powerful political force in the province since 1930s. The Socialists wanted change but they
probably were too depleted after the Communists broke away and did not have the numbers to put their ideas
into practice. In any case, fighting for an ideology, initiating a movement and running a Government are
different ball-games all together. A Banka Bihari Das, Nishamani Khuntia or Goura Chandra Das probably
couldn’t have done wonders when their leaders like Naba Choudhury and Malati Devi kept changing and re-
changing their priorities in political lives. Once Surendra Nath Dwibedi left the Congress Socialists Party, it
was reduced to a spent force and hardly had a say in the provincial power politics.

However, Socialism inside the Congress has not been an irrelevant ideology and even in this age of post-
Marxism, it still remains a creed that has potential to inspire millions of the disadvantaged to transform their
society and polity. The slogans like “Yeh azaadi jhoothi hai” immediately after the country attained
independence, spoke a lot about the gap between what the makers of this nation aspired and what they
managed to achieve. And hence, the phrase “Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” was inserted in the
Preamble of our Constitution through amendment in the 1970s by Mrs Indira Gandhi. In a huge country of 120
crore plus population, probably no single ideology can be effectively implemented. If by any stroke of luck,
we have managed to reach a status of a potential global economic power, it is primarily because of the decades
of Nehruvian brand of socialism that prepared the platform for the eventual capitalist take-off in the 1990s.

Notes/References

1. Gandhiji transformed the Indian National Congress from a class movement to a mass movement. Earlier
it used to be an annual picnic for the upper-class Indian elites who met in different cities of India for
three days, discussed about poverty and passed resolutions concerning the poor in the country.
2. A meeting was convened at the Anakhia farm of Naba Choudhury in February 1933 for formation of the
Samyavadi Karmi Sangha. Dwibedi, S. N., Mo Jibana Sangrama: Ardha Shatabdira Samajabadi
Andolanara Kahani (Odia), Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1984, p.39.
3. The list of names of the Socialists who started the Workers league as given in different sources varies.
But it started with a small group of dedicated workers who were charged with idealism and took pledge
of non-acquisition of property. Nayak Padma Charan, Anirban (Odia), Vidya Prakashan, Cuttack, p. 63.
Also see Nayak Anadi, Lokashaktira Sandhane: Nabakrusna Choudhury, (Odia) Grantha mandira,
Cuttack, 2001, p. 35 and Rabi Shailaj (ed.) Pathikruta (Odia), Lohia Academy Trust, 2004, p.35.
4. Rabi Shailaj (ed.), op. Cit., pp. 36-37.
5. The writings of Bhagabati Panigrahi in ‘shikar’, ‘hatudi O daa’ and Sachi Routray’s ‘Anguthi’, ‘Visarjan’
emphasized class struggle and developed the trend of a sort of Soviet cult.
6. Constitution of the Utkal Congress Samyavadi Karmi Sangha, cited in S N Dwibedi, Short History of
Congress Socialist Party in Orissa, pp.4-5.
7. Ahmad, Z. A., The Agrarian problem in India: A general Survey, political and Economic Information
department of the All India congress Committee, Allahabad, 1937,p.45.
8. Acharya Narendra Dev, Socialism and National Revolution, (edited by Yusuf Meherally), Padma
Publications Ltd, Bombay, 1946, p.7.
9. Dwibedi, S. N, op.cit., pp.55-57.
10. Acharya Narendra Dev, op.cit.,p.10.
11. Ibid, pp.5-6.
12. Dwibedi, S. N, op.cit., pp. 56-57.
13. Nayak, Padma Charan, op. Cit., p.76.
14. Nayak, Anadi, op.cit., p.54.
15. Nayak , Padma Charan, op.cit., p.75.
16. Ibid., p.77.
17. Dwibedi,S N., Quest for Socialism, p.59.
18. Fort Nightly Report, 2nd half of March 1937, Home Political Department, National Archives, New Delhi.
19. Linlithgow Collection, Hubback to Linlithgow, Vol-I, dt 5 January 1938, Microfilm section, Nehru
Memorial Museum Library, New Delhi.
20. Government of India, Home Department., Political Branch, F.No. 4/38/1936.
21. Government of Orissa, Home Department., Special Section, Fort Nightly Confidential reports from
Collector of Balasore to Chief secretary for July, August and September 1937, Orissa State Archives,
Acc. No. 630.
22. Government of Orissa, Home Department, special Section, F No. 149-b, 1938.
23. New Orissa, 15.6.1943, Report of the Inspector on Banpur Peasant Conference, Government of Orissa,
Home Department, special Section, F. No. 158/1937.
24. Government of India, Home Political Department, Fort Nightly Report for the first half of September
1938, F. No. 18 September 1938.
25. Government of Orissa, Home Department, special Section, Fort Nightly Confidential Report from
collector of Cuttack to Chief Secretary, F. No. 158/1937.
26. J P Papers, File No 27, Letter by UPCSP, Nehru Memorial Museum Library, New Delhi.
27. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of May 1937.
28. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of June 1937.
29. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of October 1937.
30. National front, Vol.II, No 28, dt 24.8.1939.
31. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 2nd half of September 1937.
32. Mahatab, H K, History of the Freedom Movement in Orissa, Vol-V pp.22-25, Cuttack, 1957.
33. Dwibedi, S N, Mo Jibana Sangrama, Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1984, p. 103.
34. For a detailed report on the oppressive practices in the princely states of Orissa see Nath S K’s chapter
on ‘State peoples Agitation in Dhenkanal’ in Nationalist Politics and Popular Movements, Gagandeep
Publications, Delhi, 2001, pp,120-129.
35. Handa,R L, History of Freedom Struggle in Princely States, New Delhi, 1968, p.226.
36. Ibid.
37. Pradhan, Pabitra M, Pabitra Granthavali, Part-I, Mukti Pathe Sainika, VolI-VIII, Nabajibana Prass,
Cuttack, 19888, p.41.
38. Orissa Review, Special issue on Freedom Movement in Orissa, Vol. XLVI No I, August 1989, p.122.
39. Ibid., p. 125.
40. Dwibedi was arrested on 13th October 1942 and in his books he himself blames the Communists for
helping the government in tracing him from his hideout.
41. For details on the disturbances during the Quit India Movement see sub-chapter ‘Quit India in the
Princely states’ in Nath, S K, op. cit., pp.89-99.
To Sir (Radcliffe) with Love: Boundary Commission and its bearing on the Indo-Pak War of 1947-48

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy
Khadakwasla, Pune
e-mail: suryasikha@rediffmail.com

Cyril Radcliffe1-the name brings back memories of the drawing of boundary during the
partition of India which resulted in large scale bloodshed, violence, displacement and dislocation. 2
Partition of the sub-continent was the outcome of immediate politics of domestic nature but turned out
to be an event with far-reaching international consequences.3 A poem on Sir Cyril Radcliffe by W H
Auden aptly sums up the notions regarding the role of the Boundary Commission and its chairperson.4

Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,

Having never set eyes on this land he was called to partition
Between two peoples fanatically at odds,
With their different diets and incompatible gods.
'Time,' they had briefed him in London, 'is short. It's too late
For mutual reconciliation or rational debate:
The only solution now lies in separation.
The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter,
That the less you are seen in his company the better,
So we've arranged to provide you with other accommodation.
We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu,
To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you.'

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day

Patrolling the gardens to keep assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
 And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.

The next day he sailed for England, where he quickly forgot

The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not,
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.

A crude border had already been drawn up by Lord Wavell, the viceroy of India prior to his
replacement as Viceroy in February 1947, by Lord Mountbatten. 5 In order to determine exactly which
territories to assign to each country, in June 1947, Britain appointed Sir Cyril Radcliffe to chair two
boundary commissions- one for Bengal and one for Punjab. All lawyers by profession, Radcliffe and
the other commissioners had all the polish and none of the specialised procedures and information
needed to draw a boundary. Nor was there time to gather the survey and regional information. The
absence of some experts and advisers, such as the United Nations, was deliberate, to avoid delay.6

After arriving in India on 8 July 1947, Radcliffe was given just 5 weeks to decide on a
border. He soon met with his college alumnus, Mountbatten and travelled to Lahore and Calcutta to
meet with Commission members, chiefly Nehru from the Congress and Jinnah, president of the Muslim
League. He objected to the short time frame, but all parties were insistent that the line be finished by
the 15th of August, the final day of withdrawal of the British from India. Mounbatten had accepted the
post of Viceroy on the condition of an early deadline. The decision was completed just a couple of days
before the withdrawal, but due to political manoeuvring it was not published until 17 August, two days
after the grant of independence to India and Pakistan.7

Pakistan was intended as a Muslim state while India was a secular state with a Hindu
majority. Muslim majority areas in the north were to become Pakistan. The provinces of Baluchistan
(91.8%Muslim population before partition) and Sind (72.7%) went entirely to Pakistan. However, two
provinces did not have a uniform majority- Bengal (54.4%) in the north-east and Punjab (55.7%) in the
north-west. The western part of Punjab became part of West Pakistan and the eastern part became a part
of the Indian state of Punjab. Bengal was similarly divided into East Bengal (East Pakistan-now
Bangladesh) and west Bengal which became a province of India with the same name.8

Punjab’s distribution of population was such that there was no line that could neatly divide
Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Likewise, no line could appease the Muslim League headed by Jinnah,
and the Indian National Congress led by Nehru and Patel, as well as the British. Moreover, any division
was going to entail’ ‘cutting through road and rail communications, irrigation schemes, electric power
systems and even individual land-holdings’. However, a well-drawn line would minimize the cases of
separating farmers from their fields, and minimize the millions of people who would have to be
relocated.
 Irrespective of widespread criticism and flak that he got, for his hasty and unbiased
demarcation of boundaries between the two dominions, inadvertently, Sir Radcliffe accomplished a
task which could not have been possible otherwise. Today, if India holds on to three-fifths of the most
fertile and populated areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the contribution of Sir Cyril Radcliffe
and the Boundary Commission can in no way be discounted. 9 On the other hand, laying claim over
whole of the state and being reduced to possessing control over only two-fifths of it in the bargain, has
always been a continuous source of rancour for the Pakistanis. Their failure to have the state acceded to
Pakistan has even encouraged them to speculate the idea that there was a wider conspiracy to deny
Pakistan what was legitimately hers’.10

For most Indians, the Kashmir conflict remains fairly simple and straight forward: On 22
October 1947, around two to three thousand tribesmen invaded the state of Jammu and Kashmir. 11 The
then Maharaja, Hari Singh, appealed to India for help on 24 October to flush the invaders, India
expressed its inability to send troops unless the instrument of accession was signed by Hari Singh. 12
The Maharaja, after judging the situation, signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October and on 27
October Indian troops were air-dropped in the Kashmir valley and drove the invaders back. The conflict
continued for two months before it was taken to the Security Council on 31 December 1947. 13 On the
basis of UN recommendations, ceasefire was accepted by both the countries. The cease fire line, over a
period over sixty years, has become the actual line of control (LOC) where boundaries of two countries
are placed right now. The portion of Jammu and Kashmir which remained under control of Pakistan is
known as Pak-Occupied Kashmir (or POK in India) or Azad Kashmir (Independent Kashmir in
Pakistan).

However, from the view point of Pakistan, things were manipulated and certain individuals
conspired to deny Pakistan it’s legitimate dues. The precedence of Junagadh provided Pakistan with
enough reasons to feel betrayed. Junagadh was a princely state with a majority Hindu population but
with a Muslim Nawab. When trouble broke out in the state, the ruler fled and a plebiscite decided in
favour of acceding to the Indian Dominion.14 Pakistan had expected that the fate of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir would be decided by a similar experiment and Pakistan would succeed in having the
whole of the state as it had a Muslim majority population (77.1% Muslims) with a Hindu Maharaja as
the ruler. That was not to be.

A word about the Indo-Pak war of 1947 which broke out barely two months after the
partition and which had very close linkages with Sir Cyril Radcliffe and the boundary commission.

The Indo-Pak war of 1947 can be classified as one of the most absurd wars. There was no
precedent in history for a situation in which armies commanded by two senior British officers in
telephonic conversation with each other were restrained with difficulty from a war of words. The
reactions of the commanders by themselves were by no means simple. General Douglas Gracey of
Pakistan and General Bucher of India had to take decisions in consultation with Field Marshal Sir C
Auchinleck, GCB, GCIE, DSO, OBE, former Commander-in-Chief of India. 15 After partition, he had
been appointed supreme commander with certain responsibilities for co-ordination between
commanders-in-chief of the two new dominion armies.

Even more interesting was the fact that in 1949, General Sher Khan, the Pakistani Chief of
Staff and General Kalwant Singh of India, who met in Delhi for talks with the UN Commission in
connection with cease fire, were old friends at Sandhurst. At the same time, it is novel in a sense that
never before two armies in opposition knew quite so much about each other and nor were they more
surprised at finding that they were expected to put into practice against former colleagues, the same
lessons, they had learnt together in the same school.

However, political developments apart, there is one aspect of military situation which
Pakistanis brood with bitterness. It concerns the award of Gurdaspur district under the Radcliffe award.
It should be kept in mind that the statement of the British Government known as the 3 rd June plan had
announced arrangements by which the members of the Punjab and Bengal legislative assemblies
should keep separate portions to decide their fate on partition. The portions comprised of members
respectively from districts holding Muslim and non-Muslim majorities. If either voted for the division
of their province then the province was to be divided. This actually happened and Punjab was torn into
two. The basis of the decision to divide the district was taken as per census of 1941. In the Lahore
division, Gurdaspur district carried a Muslim majority. Had this district as a whole been given to
Pakistan, the position of the troops landed by air would have been quite untenable. Further, the
sustenance of the troops dropped in the valley would have been next to impossible had the supply line
not been maintained from Pathankot to Jammu.16

Gurdaspur district consisted of four Tehsils 17; Batala, Sakargarh, Gurdaspur and Pathankot.
Of these, the first three, had Muslim majorities and only Pathankot tehshil had a Hindu majority.
Therefore, had the three Muslim tehshils gone to Pakistan, the maintenance of Indian troops within
Kashmir would have presented a grave problem for the Indian commanders because the Indian rail-
head at Pathankot is fed through the middle of Gurdaspur tehshil. Radcliffe’s award of Gurdaspur and
Batala tehshila (both Muslim majorities) to India rendered it possible to maintain an Indian force at
Jammu based on Pathankot as railhead and enabled India to consolidate her defences southwards from
Uri to the Pakistan border.

Another point of great interest is that while partitioning Punjab, Radcliffe was assisted by
four High court judges from Punjab. Two were Muslims, one was a Sikh and one a Hindu. (In the
poem by W H Auden they are mentioned as two Muslims two Hindus). In the sharply polarised
communal environment, the decision of the four judges was often influenced by their communal
sentiment. The final decision became the responsibility of Radcliffe himself. While demarcating the
boundary of the two parts of Punjab, the Commission had to take into account, ‘...other factors.’ 18

Mr Din Mohammad, one of the two Muslim members on the Radcliffe Commission, felt that
Radcliffe’s main reason behind awarding the Batala and Gurdaspur tehshils of Gurdaspur district to
India was based on the ground that their award to Pakistan would have isolated the important Amritsar
district from surrounding Indian areas. In the east, it was bounded by Kapurthala state, which though
ruled by a Sikh Maharaja, at the time contained a narrow Muslim majority. The decision to award
Gurdaspur district to India on Radcliffe’s part was sincere, is beyond doubt. However, it is also fair on
Pakistan’s part to have misgivings about Radcliffe’s decision. In retrospective effect, as it turned out,
the award spoiled a perfect party for the Pakistanis as it provided a base for Indian operations in Jammu
and Kashmir and deprived Pakistan of what it felt was legitimately hers.19
 Pakistan not only failed to appreciate the Commission’s genuine difficulties in awarding the
boundaries, but suspected and was even convinced that Radcliffe along with Mountbatten, plotted to
deprive Pakistan of Kashmir. However, accusations of collaboration are ruled out because Mountbatten
had issued strict instructions that his staff were to have no contact with Sir Cyril Radcliffe during his
difficult task of drawing boundaries and simultaneously he himself avoided a meeting with Radcliffe
considering the grave political sensitivity of the situation.20

The partition was a highly controversial arrangement. 21It still remains a cause of much
tension in the sub-continent. Mounbatten has not only been accused of rushing the process through, but
also alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India’s favour since everyone agreed that India
would be a more desirable country for most. However, the Commission took so long to decide on the
final boundary that the two nations were granted their independence even before there was a defined
boundary between them. The members were so distraught at their handiwork (and its results) that they
refused any compensation for their time on the Commission.

Over the sixty-odd years, although, the Radcliffe Line has not remained a bone of serious
contention between India and Pakistan, because of the degree of dislocation and devastation it caused,
partition has managed to leave a permanent scar in the psyche of all those people who had to go
through the whole experience. With each innocent falling victim to cross-border terrorism because of
the embittered relations since partition, Sir Cyril Radcliffe must be twisting and turning in his grave
and wondering, ‘what more could he have done?’

References/ Notes

1. Sir (later Viscount) Cyril Radcliffe (1899-1977) was acknowledged as a brilliant barrister in
England. But despite his encyclopaedic knowledge of a vast array of subjects, he knew virtually
nothing about India. He had never set foot on the sub-continent and paradoxically, that was the
reason why he was chosen to head the Boundary Commission. Larry Collins & Dominique
Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, New Delhi, 2000, p. 226.
2. For inhabitants of the two divided provinces, Punjab and Bengal, it meant fear, disruption,
violence, and huge transfer of population, as Hindus and Muslims trekked to the ‘safe’ side of the
border. It is impossible to compute the magnitude of migration and disruption. Possibly a million
died; and within a year five and half million refugees had moved across the border of West
Pakistan and India, while one and a quarter million moved from East Pakistan to the part of
Bengal remaining in India. Judith M. Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian
Democracy, OUP, New York, 1985, p.327.
3. As an episode in Imperial history, it marked the beginning of global trend towards
decolonisation. For south Asian History, it meant independence for India and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, it also inaugurated Indo-Pak tensions. Conflict between the Hindus and the
Muslims had existed for centuries, but the partition brought it to the international level-and
exacerbated it. Lucy chester, American Diplomacy, Commentary and Analysis: A Look
Back....February 2002, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_01-
03/chester_partition/chester_partition.html.
4. Poem by WH Auden available online http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?228333.
5. The Breakdown Plan was sent by Wavell to the Secretary of State on 7 September 1946 for
initial withdrawal of control from South India but control of Bihar and UP was retained from the
point of view of communications and to facilitate creation of Pakistan. Penderal Moon (ed.),
Wavell : The Viceroy’s Journal, OUP, London, 1973, p. 344. The basic reason why the Atlee
Government decided to declare a final date (30 June 1948) for British withdrawal from India was
on the ground that it accepted Wavell’s assessment that there had been an irreversible decline of
Government authority. Bipan Chandra & others, India’s Struggle for Independence 1857-1947,
Penguin Books, New Delhi,1989, p. 495.
6. Maria Mishra, Vishnu’s Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion, Penguin Books,
London, 2008, p. 246.
7. The award was ready on 9th August 1947. Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Macmillan,
2007, p. 33. Bipan Chandra & Others mention 12 th August 1947 as the date when the Boundary
Commission Award was ready but Mountbatten decided to make it public after Independence
Day, so that the responsibility would not fall on the British. Bipan Chandra & Others, Op. Cit.,
p.499.
8. East Bengal received 54,000 sq miles of territory, with a population of 40 million, 27 percent
of whom were Hindu. The west (Bengal) was allocated 28,000 sq miles and 21 million people,
including a 29 percent Muslim minority. Maria Mishra, Op. Cit., p247.
9. Pakistanis blame Mountbatten for their inability to capture the whole state of Jammu and
Kashmir. They think that he conspired with Sir Radcliffe to gift the district of Gurdaspur to the
Indians. On Gurdaspur, see Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, pp.115-116; and, for a
rebuttal, Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947, OUP, New Delhi, 1998, p. 81.
10. Ibid. Award of the Gurdaspur district allowed India a road into Kashmir and proved to be
crucial in the eventual retention of three-fifth of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
11. Ramachandra Guha, Op. Cit., pp.64-67. Estimates of the number of invaders vary. Some even
mention there were as many as 13,000 tribals.
12. The first news of the tribal invasion of Kashmir reached New Delhi 24 October 1947.
Maharaja’s accession was to be considered temporary. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre,
Op. Cit., pp. 442-447.
13. Ibid., p. 450.
14. A referendum held on February 1948 resulted in 91 percent of the electorate voting for
accession to India. V P Menon, Integration of Indian States, pp.120-149.
15. On Friday, 24 October 1947, Maj-Gen Dougulas Gracey, replacing General Masservy who
had been sent to London, got his first information of what had happened in Kashmir through a
secret intelligence report. He immediately conveyed it to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian
Army, Lt-Gen. Sir Rob Lockhart, a Scot and a Sandhurst classmate of Gracey. He in turn
communicated it to two more people, Governor General Lord Mountbatten and Field Marshal
Auchinleck. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Op. Cit., P.443.
16. The area concerned was small; but it gave land access to Kashmir which would otherwise
have been denied her. Had the whole Gurdaspur district gone to Pakistan, then, India would have
lost Pathankot and the only practicable road from East Punjab to Jammu. The Radcliffe Award
was no way related to the Kashmir question; rather it was based on considerations arising from
the division of the water from certain canals. However, it aroused much suspicion in Pakistan as
to the disinterestedness of the British; and if nothing else, it shows the scant preparation which
the British made for partition and the little thought they appear to have given to its consequences.
M Brecher, Nehru: A political Biography, London, 1959, pp. 359-361.
17. A tehshil is the administrative unit below a district, somewhat analogous to a county.
18. These ‘other factors’, were the orientation of railways, canals and the hydro-electric systems.
Had Pathankot (the only tehshil in Gurdaspur with a Hindu majority) been awarded to Pakistan,
the head works on the upper Bari doab canal at Madhopur would have come under Pakistan’s
control. As regards the canal-irrigated Lahore, Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts, Amritsar not
only had a Hindu majority, it also had the golden temple (the famous and revered shrine of the
Sikhs).
19. Many Pakistanis to this day believe that in the very act of dividing up India between two
successor states, the British were guilty of collusion with the Indian side in at least keeping the
door open for Kashmir’s accession to India. Alastair Lamb, Crisis in Kashmir: 1947-1966,
Routlege and Kegan Paul, 1966, p. 42.
20. This has remained a debateable topic ever since. Though Mountbatten had left Radcliffe to
interpret his own terms of reference, in reality they had been set out by the Viceroy himself.
Christopher Beaumont, Private Secretary to Radcliffe, has subsequently revealed that
Mountbatten persuaded Radcliffe to change the Punjab borderline and the award of Ferozepur
tehshil to India. Jaswant Singh, Jinnah: India Partition Independence, Rupa & Co, 2009, pp.
443-445.
21. Radcliffe repeatedly expressed the hope that India and Pakistan could work together to solve
some of the most difficult infrastructure problems created by his boundary award. Mountbatten
himself seemed optimistic that inclusion in the Commonwealth would keep India and Pakistan
on mutually friendly terms, emphasizing that Dominion status meant membership in a continuity
of cooperative nations. Lucy Chester, Op. Cit.
 Buddha’s Teachings and Relevance for the Common Man

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate professor in History
National Defence Academy
Pune, 411023, m-9960521836
e.mail. suryasikha@rediffmail.com

Many legends make the rounds in the name of Lord Buddha. 1 The basic objective behind these
legends is to bestow divinity to lord Buddha and to create the impression that because of these divine
qualities, he could forecast many events related to his life. For instance, consider the example of
Baishakh Poornima. Buddha was born on Baishakh poornima and he attained nirvana (enlightenment)
and mahaparinirvana on the same day. 2 Legends also say that his wife, Yashodhara, his favourite disciple,
Anand, his charioteer, Chhanna and his horse, Kantaka were all born on the same day. It is also said that
the Peepal tree (Bodhi), under which Buddha attained salvation had also sprouted on the same day.
Buddha had preached his teachings (turning the wheel of law) for the first time to his five disciples on
the same day. Because of the uncanny coincidence of these events falling on the same day, Baishakh
poornima is also called as Buddha poornima. 3

Legends are mostly based on faith and have no factual basis. Many of these legends related to
Buddha’s life were created after Buddha’s death to suit his super-human status. Followers of Buddha
(mostly the Mahayana brand) created these legends associated with Buddha’s life. They deified Buddha
and started worshipping his images. They form a majority in Myanmar, Thailand, Tibet and Bhutan. 4 They
look down upon the Hinayana Buddhists who initially did not consider Buddha as a divine being. The
Chinese and the Japanese belong to this category. Today, even the followers of Hinayana brand of
Buddhism are not free from this practice of worshipping Buddha as a deity. 5This only implies that there is
no respite for Buddha from being deified and being accorded with a divine and special status.

It is an irony that Buddha never claimed any divinity in matters related to his life. He lived and
preached all his life like an ordinary human being. 6 If Buddha and Buddhism are considered relevant even
after two thousand and five hundred years after his death, then it is primarily because of his
commonness. He doesn’t seem inaccessible to anyone. More than his teachings what was more
significant was his conduct and demeanour which made him popular and widely acceptable.

Buddha was born as Siddharth in the Sakya clan in 563 BC. 7 He lost his mother soon after his
birth and was raised by his maternal aunt Gautami, for which he came to be known as Gautam. 8Since he
was reared as a prince in the pleasurable comforts of the royal palace, he never got the exposure to the
painful reality of life. Hence he got disturbed when for the first time he came across an old man, a sick
man and a corpse.9 The feeling of inner turmoil and empathy drove him to search for the reasons behind
sorrow and the ultimate truth that which could liberate one from this sorrow. At the age of 29 he left his
son, wife and renounced the world. 10For six years he wandered in search of ultimate truth. While
meditating under the Bodhi tree for 49 days he attained enlightenment when he was 35 years old. 11What
was this enlightenment?

Entranced in meditative thought the realization dawned upon him when he got the answers to
the questions which had troubled him. He had found solution to all his questions in a single sentence,
‘Desire is the cause of sorrow and destruction of desire would lead to the end sorrow’. There was hardly
anything new or extra-ordinary in this realization or revelation. But this realization had enlightened his
soul and transformed him to Buddha, or the enlightened One. The realization of this truth in thought and
deed could transform one’s life in a great way and that was Buddha’s message.

Six years of meditation and search for the ultimate truth cannot be said to be a very long period.
One also has to keep in mind that in the beginning he subjected himself to severe self torture (as was the
practice then) as a means of attaining ultimate truth in life. Subsequently he realized that there could be
other means of attaining salvation in life too. His attempts to meditate after having food made his
followers (who considered self torture and deprivation were the only means to attain salvation) critical
of his ways and denounce him. 12 The path he subsequently followed came to be known as the middle
path-a midway between a life of indulgence (worldly pleasure, ease and comfort in the royal palace) and
a life of self torture and deprivation. That remained the essence of the Buddhist teachings. Living in the
midst of luxury and worldly pleasures doesn’t result in the destruction of desire. Nor does a life of self
torture and deprivation kill the temptation for worldly pleasures. Buddha prescribed an eight fold path
consisting of right views, speech, conduct, knowledge, efforts, livelihood, contemplation and right
meditation, following which one could attain salvation in life. 13

Buddha lived for 84 years. 14 Out of that he spent more than 50 years as a saint/preacher
travelling over many parts of north and eastern India. The area which he traversed during this period
from Kapilavastu in Nepal to Gaya and from Koshambi to Vaishali cannot be more than an area in excess
of 1500 sq. kms. This doesn’t seem to be too vast an area covered in his life time. At least for an
individual it is not impossible by any means. There was nothing extra-ordinary or miraculous in his
deeds. If one compares his feat with another philosopher who came after him, his deeds seem too little.
Even though Shankara lived only till his 32 nd year, by that time he had traversed the four extreme ends of
India and established maths.

Not only that, Buddha’s middle path is also reflected in his choice of places where he availed
hospitality. He was not reluctant in accepting the invitation of the royal houses of Pataliputra, Vaishali,
Licchavi etc. Nor was he hesitant in accepting invitation of the poor, deprived and the marginalised. He
died in the house of a very poor iron-smith, Chunda’s house. It is believed that he had some stale food to
offer to Buddha and after having it Buddha suffered from diahorrea and died. 15It is also well known that
he had accepted the hospitality of Amrapalli. It only goes to show that Buddha did not discriminate
between the rich or the poor or the high or the low and loved everyone in the same way. 16There was
nothing out of the ordinary or unnatural in his conduct. He only wanted to find a way for everyone to
attain a state of eternal bliss where sorrow or happiness no longer mattered to an individual.

As a prince, probably Buddha knew Sanskrit. That was the medium for expression of one’s
intellect. But Buddha preached in Magadhi (Pali) and Prakrit, the languages of the people. How he was
interested in the common man and wanted his ideas to be accessible to them is obvious from this. Today
when intellectual fraud associated with high sounding theories and jargons find it tough to go beyond
conference/seminar halls, the relevance of the use of simple and comprehensible language of the
Buddha seems to be in stark contrast. It is surely a lesson for intellectuals who wish to make lasting
contribution to the society by making their ideas socially more relevant and acceptable.

It is rightly said that Buddha invented nothing new which was not there in the then prevailing
Brahmanical religion. Nirvana of Buddhism was known as Moksha and right views, knowledge, conduct
and livelihood etc were all there in the Hindu tradition. Probably because of all this he is rightly viewed
as a Hindu deity. But more than that, it is important to remember that this only demonstrates the
simplicity of his ideas. On the other hand, those very simple ideas created a social revolution 17 which has
remained alive even after twenty five centuries!

Buddha did not preach about the mysteries related to life or the strange relation between the
soul and the supreme soul. He remained silent on the existence of God. He only showed a path by which
the sorrow of earthly existence could be reduced and done away with. It was not only simple but also
live-able. He had said, ‘I can only show you the path. But you have to decide how you want to follow the
path, and how far.’ He also said, ‘To walk the path look to your inner self’. This also implies that Buddha
wanted the individual to be his own guide and live his life free from the complicated demands of God,
religion and the priestly class. Buddha’s message of self help and individual’s search for truth without any
dependence on external forces brought about an extra-ordinary change in the thinking of the people.
That is why, even today, Buddha is relevant.

Secondly, Buddha’s life is also a pointer to the fact that for social revolution, simple ideas are
good enough. There is no need for incomprehensible ideas to bring revolution in the society. All those
whom we consider extra-ordinary individuals did the most ordinary things in their own way. Gandhiji and
Gautam Buddha are clear cases in point. In the quest for according them super-human or divine status
we have only succeeded in distancing them from our hearts.

References/Notes

1. The Buddha is not a proper name. It is a generic name or an appellative to a being who has
attained enlightenment. Buddhist Literature mentions many Gods and Brahmas, but none of
them is supreme. The Buddha is superior to all beings, human and divine, by his knowledge
of truth (Dharma). The difference between gods and the Buddha lies in the fact that the gods
 rule over their respective worlds where as the Buddha rules over the whole universe. Dr S C
Bagri, Buddhist Pilgrimages and Tours in India, Trishul Publications, 1992,pp.161-162.
2. Sharat kumar mohanty , Buddham, Sharanam Gachhami (Odiya), Agraduta, Kataka, 2006,
p.33.
3. Almost a similar kind of coincidence is seen in the life of Guru Nanak. He was born on kartik
Poornima and died on the same day for which Kaartik Poornima is also known as Guru
Poornima.
4. The Tibetan brand of Buddhism was greatly influenced by Tantra and is called Vajrayana
while the language Pali (Magadhi), in which the original Buddhist texts were composed is still
alive in Srilanka. Sharat Kumar Mohanty, op.cit.,p.11. Laos and Cambodia also have Buddhist
majority. Zen Buddhism which originated in Japan and profoundly influenced the Japanese
socio-cultural life could not be widely accepted in the western countries.
5. Ibid. In as early as 1925, an institution for study of Buddhism in the west was formed by the
name Western Buddhist Order in England and the brand of Buddhism that they study is
called Navayana. Pali Text Society was formed in England in London in 1881.
6. Sharat Kumar Mohanty, op.cit.,p.21.
7. Some historians put the date at 566 BC. Romila Thapar, A History of India, Vol.I, Penguin
Books, 1986, p.66
8. Mahaprajapati Gautam, the younger queen of Suddhodhana was Buddha’s maternal aunt.
Dr S C Bagri, op.cit., p.2. Maya Devi died seven days after Siddhartha’s birth. She is supposed
to have told her sister Prajapati before her death, “A mother who has borne a future Buddha
will never give birth to another child.” Paul Carus, The Gospel of Buddha, National Book
Trust, 1978, p.12.
9. Dr S C Bagri, op.cit., p.2.
10. Paul Carus, op.cit., p.20.The event is famous as the great Renunciation. The great Chinese
Philosopher Confucius had also renounced his wife and his family.
11. Sharat Kumar Mohanty, op. Cit., pp.39-40.
12. Sanyutta Nikaya (The Book of Kindred Sayings) translated from Pali by F L Woodward cited in
B N Pandey (ed.), A Book of India, Rupa & Co, New Delhi, 1981, pp.340-341.
13. Sharat Kumar Mohanty, op. Cit., pp.41-42.
14. Ibid., p. 49. Buddha died in 479 BC.
15. Ibid.,p.40. The name of the iron smith (Chulla) is variously spelt and the food he served is
also at times debated. The Buddha was served with pork.
16. Ibid.,p.27.
17. The neo-Buddhists using Buddhist symbols today play an influential role in electoral politics
in India.
Re-visiting Ambedkar’s thoughts on linguistic states: Justifying creation of
smaller states

DrSuryakantNath,
Associate Professor in History,
National Defence Academy, Pune
e-mail: suryasikha@rediffmail.com

When Ms Mayawati made the announcement for bringing a resolution in the

State Assembly for carving out four new states in the winter session in November
2011, she sprung a surprise on her political rivals. The four states she suggested
were Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh (Harit
Pradesh). However, she also admitted that her move was inspired by her ideologue,
BabasahebAmbedkar’s philosophy of building smaller units of governance in order
to provide better law and order and for ensuring uniform development.1Here it
would be appropriate to make an evaluation of reorganisation of states in India and
make a comparison as to what Babasaheb thought on this issue and how has the
process of reorganization of states in modern India taken place.

Baba Saheb BhimRaoAmbedkar wrote his book Thoughts on Linguistic

states in December 1955. There is a just-felt need to revisit his ideas reflected in the
book as the nation (India) is confronted with the spectre of a fresh re-organisation of
states. Most of what he predicted has proved to be right and there seems to be an
urgent need to evaluate his assessment of the creation of new and smaller states in
the federal polity of India. 2

Two interesting proposals reflected in his book were the breaking up of the
province of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh roughly on the lines he had anticipated. It
took the central government roughly 45 years to get the idea implemented. Even
though he was of the opinion that a state should have the people of a single (one)
language to have uniformity and to retain linguistic culture, he also proposed
splitting of single-language states if they were too big like Uttar Pradesh. He
wanted Uttar Pradesh to be split into three states. 3

Written almost a little over 55 years ago, Baba Saheb seemed to have a right
kind of solution to the problems related to the formation of linguistic states. On the
issue of the breaking up of single-language states in to smaller units, he said,
adequate consideration was to be given to: a).Requirement of efficient
administration, b).Needs of the Different areas, c).Sentiments (aspirations) of the
different areas and d). Proportion between the majority and the minority.4
 While discussing about the ideas of Ambedkar reflected in the book
regarding creation of smaller states, an attempt is made in this paper to juxtapose
the performance of the smaller states created and to prove how his predictions have
proved to be prophetic.
To evaluate the appropriateness of Ambedkar’s prophetic forecast there is a
need to make an elaborate study of the demand for the creation of states on
linguistic basis, the States Reorganisation Commission, the challenges it faced and
the prospects of a Second Reorganization Commissiion to look into the never-
ending spate of demands for statehood by various regions of India.
One of the major disintegrative tendencies facing the nation today is the
demand for creation of small states. Federal unity is no longer a serious concern like
it was in the 50’s and 60’s. The first states reorganisation commission was set up in
1953 under the chairmanship of Mr. Fazal Ali and Mr. HirdayaNathKunjuru and
Sardar K. M. Pannikkar as its members and recommended the creation of new states
on linguistic basis.5But with a spate of demands for new states coming up from
practically every corner of India at different intervals and with varying intensity,
and that too from within states once considered as linguistic and cultural wholes, it
makes one wonder if we have slowly begun to move away from the idea of a
linguistic state. To analyse this paradigm shift in looking for far more pragmatic
parameters in demands for state formation, there is a need to have a fresh relook at
the organisation of states after independence.

States Reorganisation Commission

The rationale of the reorganisation of states in the early decades of

independent India, and its effects on the democratic politics of the country in
contemporary times needs to be discussed taking in to consideration mainly three
interrelated issues:
 historical and nationalist ideas underlying the process of the
formation of linguistic-cultural regions and states in pre-independence India,
 formation of states and the dominant regional identities following
linguistic reorganisation immediately after independence, and the
 demands for smaller states in contemporary India.

Much before independence, the idea of formation of states on basis of

language had been mooted by the Indian National Congress. In its Nagpur session
in 1920 the Congress had adopted linguistic distribution of the states. Policy of
linguistic reorganization had found support from the All Parties Conference headed
by Motilal Nehru in 1928. The Nehru Report had stated ‘It becomes most desirable
for the provinces to be regrouped on a linguistic basis. Language as a rule
corresponds with a special variety of culture, tradition and literature. In a linguistic
area all the factors will help in the general progress of the provinces’.6

After independence, the Linguistic Provinces Commission, known as Dar

Committee (SK Dar) submitted its report on 10 December 1948 to the Constituent
Assembly suggesting desirability of constituting Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and
Maharashtra on linguistic basis, but also sounded a note of warning, ‘The formation
of provinces exclusively and even mainly on linguistic considerations would be
inadvisable’. 7 It said that homogeneity of language should be considered only as a
matter of administrative convenience but the formation of provinces on exclusively
or even mainly linguistic considerations is not in the larger interests of the nation
and should not be taken in hand’. 8

Subsequently in its Jaipur session, the Congress formed an informal

committee known as JVP (The committee comprised of Jawaharlal Nehru,
Vallabhbhai Patel and PattabhiSitarammaya and the committee was called JVP from
the initials of the three leaders) which sounded a note of warning ‘The old Congress
policy of having linguistic provinces could only be applied after careful thought had
been given to each separate case and without creating serious administrative
dislocation or mutual conflicts which would jeopardize the political and economic
stability of the country’ 9

It also stated, ‘We feel that the present is not an opportune moment for
formation of new provinces. Yet the members also believe that public sentiment is
insistent and overwhelming. We as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to
certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole’.10

With the echoes of partition still ringing in his ears, Nehru was deeply shaken
by his experience on the linguistic Committee. He admitted, ‘(This inquiry) has
been in some ways an eye-opener for us. The work of the sixty years of the Indian
National Congress was standing before us, face to face with centuries-old-India of
narrow loyalties, petty jealousies and ignorant prejudices engaged in mortal conflict
and were simply horrifies to see how thin was the ice upon which we were skating.
Some of the ablest men in the country came before us and confidently and
emphatically stated that language in the country stood for and represented culture,
race, history, individuality and finally a sub-nation’. 11

All those who favoured a strong central government opposed this linguistic
reorganization of states. In 1954 the National Unity Platform campaigned against
this principle and its members asked the Congress to abandon the linguistic basis of
its party organisations. 12

After independence, the principle of linguistic reorganization was first

applied in case of Andhra. The intensity of feeling aroused as a result of the death of
Potti Sriramulu13 was such that the Congress had to eventually bow down to the
wishes of the people of Andhra. With the creation of a separate Andhra state in
1953, the Pandora’s box was opened leading to demands throughout the country for
further linguistic reorganization of the states.

A three member committee was formed which submitted its report after
deliberating for two years. It warned the country against an excessive reliance on
the linguistic principle and highlighted the dangers inherent to Indian unity if the
linguistic principle is logically applied. However, it is significant to remember that
the committee’s report was signed by Justice Fazl Ali and H N Kunzru but was not
signed by K M Panikar. He appended a minute of dissent. Panikar expressed
apprehensions that there would be ‘dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India
matters’. He suggested break up of UP into two large Hindi-speaking states. UP was
as large as Telugu, Malayalee and Kannad regions taken together and had a very
large representation in the Indian parliament. Panikar wanted that this dominant
position of UP should be checked.14
As a result of the demarcation of fresh boundaries on basis of the States
Reorganisation Commission a total of 14 states and 6 union territories were created.
Division and further subdivision of the provinces was carried out in the subsequent
decades on the basis of:

 Demands for equitable regional development and the recognition of

linguistic-cultural rights of their minorities.
 The phenomenal rise and growth of various regional political parties
began to challenge the dominance of Congress Party and its caste-class alliances in
different parts of the country.
 More compact politico-administrative governance

It is now well known how within a decade of reorganisation, in the early

1960s, more states began to be divided and sub-divided following various
movements and demands for equitable regional development and the recognition of
linguistic-cultural rights of their minorities. The demands for use of English, Hindi
and various regional languages in the spheres of education, administration, and law
began to gain ground more intensely. Similarly, the phenomenal rise and growth of
various regional political parties began to challenge the dominance of Congress
Party and its caste-class alliances in different parts of the country. The process of
breaking up larger and composite states and regions into smaller states, on the
pretext of the later having a more compact politico-administrative governance as a
criterion has been going on since the last 50 years since the first States
reorganization submitted its report and was evident most recently in the formation
of three new states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in the year 2000. 15

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to juxtapose Ambedkar’s

views regarding formation of states based on language and how the states have been
formed in the last sixty years. The truth is that States in India were formed on no
real and common basis. Different reasons have been applied for creation of different
States at different times. The northeastern States were formed to suit certain tribal
aspirations. Goa had its own historical antecedents. Punjab was formed to
accommodate the religious sentiments of the Sikhs with the Punjabi language
serving as a convenient fig leaf for it. UP and MP were formed for another reason
(that is political), which hardly makes any sense. The four southern States were
formed for linguistic reasons, just as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal
were. But now there is demand for separate states among these States. The
Government of India has 10 applications for the creation of new States including a
separate Vidharba in Maharashtra, Telengana in Andhra Pradesh, Saurashtra in
Gujarat, Mithilanchal in Bihar, Bhojpur in Bihar and UP, Harit Pradesh and
Bundelkhand in UP and Coorg in Karnataka, and Gorkhaland and Cooch Behar in
West Bengal, etc. It means dividing country alone on the linguistic lines in 1956
was not a valid reason.

Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian

Constitution, supported the demand for reorganisation of States on a linguistic
basis. He strongly argued for the creation of Maharashtra on this basis. Ambedkar
proposed that each State may have its own language for purposes of administrative
communication with the Centre and other States, but disregarded the thesis of “one
language, one state”. In other words, his view was that people speaking the same
language need not be grouped into one State but there could be more than one State
with the same language. The formula of one State, one language, he pointed out,
was not to be equated with one language, one State. 16

Size of the state held special relevance for Ambedkar. He wrote, “As the
area of the state increases the proportion of the minority to the
majority(communities/castes) decreases and the position of the minority(castes)
becomes precarious and the opportunities for the majorityto practice tyranny over
the minority become greater. The states must therefore be small.” 17For Ambedkar,
States in a democratic polity needed to have equitable size limits since this would
ensure proportional distribution of resources among the States as well as their
inhabitants. Like Nehru, he too favoured a strong Centre to ensure an equitable
survival of different languages, cultures, regions and States within a broader
framework of an inclusive developmental polity.18

In his critique of the 1955 recommendations of the first State Reorganisation

Commission, which redrew state boundaries on linguistic lines, Ambedkar wrote,
“The Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter of no
consequence and that the equality in the size of the status constituting a federation
is a matter of no moment. This is the first and the most terrible error cost which the
Commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will indeed be a great deal.”19

Ambedkar was to prove prophetic. In the decades that followed, agitations

for new states have erupted almost everywhere with varying degrees of violence,
sometimes driven by reasons of ethnicity but increasingly by demands for better
governance and speedier development.20

Over the years, Ambedkar’s vision has been realised in bits and pieces. His
call to break the impossibly large states of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh into more
manageable units was heeded in the year 2000 with the creation of Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh. And now, his (self-declared) leading disciple, Uttar Pradesh chief
minister Mayawati, has put another of his prescriptions on the national agenda for
debate with a proposal to split her unwieldy state intofour parts.21

Ambedkar touched upon certain issues which probably were either too
unrealistic or advanced for his times. However, Ambedkar also dwelt upon various
other issues which needs to be reflected upon, especially with respect to the status
of Bombay. He linked the performance of the reorganization with the quality of
leadership. He spoke of the discipline in the Congress Party. He said, “Congress is
Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is congress. But is Pandit Nehru immortal? Anyone
who applies his mind to these questions will realize that the Congress will not last
till the sun and the moon. It must one day come to an end. It might come to an end
even before the next election. When this happens, the state of Bombay will find
itself engaged in civil war and not in carrying on administration….”22

He not only talked of hatred between the Gujaratis and the Marathis in
Bombay. He in fact talked about in greater detail about the north-south divide. In
chapter v titled ‘The North versus the South’ he wrote “the north is Hindi-speaking.
The south is non-Hindi speaking. Most people do not know what is the size of the
Hindi-speaking population. It is as much as 48 percent of the total population of
India. Fixing one’s eye on this fact one cannot fail to say that the Commission’s
effort will result in the consolidation of the North and the Balkanisation of the
south. Can the south tolerate the dominance of the North? 23

The imbalance in the proportion of Hindi and non-Hindi speaking population

(size of UP) was actually the cause for a dissenting minute by a member of the
States Reorganisation Committee. Mr Panikar wrote, “The consequence of the
present imbalance, caused by the denial of the federal principle of equality of units,
has been to create feelings of distrust and resentment in all the states outside Uttar
Pradesh. Not only in the southern states but also in the Punjab, Bengal and
elsewhere the view was generally expressed before the commission that the present
structure of Government led to the dominance of Uttar Pradesh in all-India matters.
The existence of this feeling will hardly be denied by anyone. That it will be a
danger to our unity, if such feelings are allowed to exist and remedies are not sought
and found now, will also not be denied.”24

As a remedy for easing tensions between the North and the south, Ambedkar
also suggested about the need for a second capital in his book. In chapter XI he
discussed in detail why Delhi is climatically not suitable throughout the year and
why the Mughals and the British had two capitals when they ruled from Delhi. He
also felt that Delhi was quite far off from the south and created a feeling that they
were being ruled by the people of north India. From the view of defence also Delhi
was in a vulnerable zone. He suggested Hyderabad could be such a city which could
fulfill the requirements of a capital.25

However, it needs to be taken into account that today’s requirements are very
different from what it was like when Dr Ambedkar wrote his book. There is a
general recognition of a drift away from linguistic states and a simultaneous
investment of faith in smaller states.26More and more people are of the idea that
instead of creating states in an untidy and piece-meal fashion, we should take a
long-term view. Senior journalist, BGVergese says that “there is nothing wrong in
envisaging India at 2040-50 with a population of around 1600 million organized in
60 states, with an average population of 25 million each, and some 1500
districts.”27He also suggested that the terms of reference shouldn’t be political, but
rather “techno-economic-administrative” 28
 Political scientist YogendraYadav of the Centre for Study of Developing
Societies terms this change in attitude as the “second stage of evolution in Indian
federalism” 29The first was the creation of states with linguistic homogeneity. The
process dominated the 1950s and 1960s and arose from the difficulty of governing
region with populations that spoke different languages and had diverse histories and
cultures. But today, the push for new states has less to do with identity and
everything to do with the rising expectations of an electorate that wants more from
the governments it elects.30

Notes/References

31. http://www.navhindtimes.in/opinion/small-states-serve-better, Nov 16,

2011.Mayawati claimed that the dalit icon and architect of India’s constitution,
BabasahebAmbedkar was in favour of smaller states. Ambedkar had, however, split
UP in to three states.
32. Raja SekharaVundru, Ambedkar and Small States in Hindustan Times, 1 Feb 2010,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ambedkar-and-small-states/Article1-503851.aspx.
The issue has somehow caught everyone’s fancy more so because it is felt that it
was long overdue and Uttar Pradesh’s economic performance has failed to instill
confidence in the continued idea of keeping it big. In case of UP, its size and
economic record have also led to another anomaly: each successive Finance
Commission has recorded an imbalance between what the state gets and what it
contributes to the national exchequer.http://www.business-
standard.com/india/news/ajit-ranade-small-is-manageable/456194/: UP continues to
rank among the most impoverished states in most development indices.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act
36. SankarGhose, Socialism Democracy and Nationalism in India, Allied Publishers,
Bombay, 1973, p.1890.
37. Ibid.
38. Report of the Linguistic Commission, Para131 and 132.
39. SankarGhose, op.cit.,p.189. Robert king said that the JVP Committee Report was a
‘cold water therapy’. It only slowed things for a while. Ramachandra Guha, India
After Independence: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, Picador,2007,
p 183.
40. Report of the Linguistic Commission, pp.9,15.
41. Quoted in S Harrison, ‘The Challenge to Indian Nationalism’ Foreign Affairs, 34: 3
April 1956.
42. Sankar Ghose, op.cit.,p.190.
43. Potti Sriramulu died after a fifty eight day fast on 15 December 1952. Within a few
days Pt Nehru made the statement that the state of Andhra would come in to being.
Ramachandra Guha, op.cit, p 188.
44. Uttar Pradesh with a population of 200 million accounts for one sixth of India’s
population. If it were a country, it would have been among the eight most populous
nations of the world. This fact alone justifies at least an exploration of the question
of reorganizing the states into smaller, more manageable units.
 http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajit-ranade-small-is-
manageable/456194/:. UP is much bigger than Brazil (193 million). If UP were to
be a separate country only China, India (minus UP), USA and Indonesia would be
bigger than it. Devendra Kothari, Professor, Population Program Management,
Thursday 10 Nov 2011, in Population and Development in India.
45. Outlook, Feb 6, 2012, Republic Day Special, Time to Have 50 states?
46. Cited in the review article- States and the Union (Book Interrogating
Reorganisation of States : Culture, Identity and Politics in India, Routlege and
NMML Library, 2011) sdited by AshaSarangi and SudhaPai in Frontline Vol 28-
Issue 24::Nov. 19-Dec.02,2011 by V Venkatesan.
47. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, Chapter VIII,pt.6. Reprinted from
the Book available online.
48. AshaSarangi and SudhaPai, op.cit.
49. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, Chapter I, Linguism and Nothing
Else, op.cit.
50. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-
20/news/30419772_1_separate-state-telengana-br-ambedkar:
51. Ibid.
52. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter III.
53. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter V.
54. Ibid.
55. B R Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States, op.cit. Chapter XI.
56. http://kddfonline.com/category/demand-of-koshal-state/do -smaller-states-provide-
better-governance/. No one now buys the idea that ‘small states will have small
minds’. One can be in favour of creation of small states and yet not be branded an
anti-national.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-
20/news/30419772_1_separate-state-telengana-br-ambedkar:
60. Ibid.
 Swami Vivekanaanda: An Apostle of Universal religion

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate professor in History
National Defence Academy
Pune, 411023, m-9960521836
e.mail. suryasikha@rediffmail.com

Religion has played a significant role in the Indian socio-cultural life. It has not only remained
the base of the Hindu society after 600 years of Mohammedan rule and 200 years of western colonial
rule, but it still remains the major regulatory force of the Indian life. Throughout its long past,
Hinduism has continuously shown a flexibility, an acceptability, and a resilience which have
undoubtedly been the key to its long survival.1 The contact with the west injected a new spirit of
vitality in to the Indian society in the 19 th century. To a great extent, the alien civilization infringed
upon every detail of Indian life, changed its patterns and created new values. 2 The vision of the
average Indian, so long closed like that of a frog in the well, was enlarged. The broad march of the
English Constitution, the glory of the French Revolution, the finality of the American war of
independence, the romance of the Italian, and the cold, ruthless realism of the German Unity brought
enlightenment in to the dark nooks of the Indian minds thus far denied of any sense of history and
politics. At the same time, western philosophy and science introduced reason into its daily habits and
made Indians realize the meaninglessness of many ancient customs and privileges.3 Swami
Vivekananda was one such “enlightened natives”.

Swami Vivekananda emerged as a champion of neo-Hinduism. The great impression that he

managed to create in the Parliament of Religions held at Chicago through his learned interpretation of
Hinduism earned him immortal fame and following.4 He gave a living interpretation of Hinduism
which won the admiration of the world for its greatness. He preached the message of peace, universal
brotherhood and religious toleration. He made an impassioned defence of Hinduism, stressing its
tolerance and the basic oneness of all religions. The essence of his opening address was the emphasis
on the need for a healthy balance between spiritualism of the east and the materialism of the west. He
visualised a new culture for the whole world where material west and spiritual east could blend into a
new harmony to produce happiness for mankind. 5

Vivekananda believed in a religion based on universal principles which have always been
accepted as true by mankind. But for the understanding of the common man, he did not believe in
philosophizing things. In fact, it was he who gave an interpretation to the teachings of Ramakrishna in
order to render them easily understandable and accessible to the modern man.6 He founded an
organisation called the Ramakrishna Mission in 1886 in the memory of his teacher Ramakrishna
Paramahans to complete the western concept of social service with the Hindu ideal of renunciation
and spiritual salvation. Its headquarters is situated at Belur near Kolkata. The Mission has branches in
many countries of the world.

Vivekananda started the movement to make the Hindus feel proud of their ancient heritage. He
was a strong critic of social westernization. He wrote, “We must grow according to our nature. Vain is
to attempt the line of action that foreign societies have engrafted upon us: it is impossible ....suppose
you can imitate the westerners, that moment you will die, you will have no more life in you.” 7 He
urged the people to arise, awake and invade the world with their spirituality. Strength combined with
fearlessness was the political testament of Vivekananda to the Indian nation. He stressed the need of
building the foundation of national character on the formulas of Vedanta. His gospel of fearlessness to
a politically prostrate nation was of great political significance. His nationalism was a kind of spiritual
imperialism.8 He laid special emphasis on the youth of the country. He encouraged them to believe in
the spiritual mission of India.

To the Indians he gave an inspiring call: “Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that
you are an Indian and proudly proclaim, I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother.’” 9 The same kind
of fraternal affinity he wanted to groom among all the people of the world. His Guru Sri
Ramakrishna’s principle was, first form character, first earn spirituality, and results will come of
themselves. His favourite illustration was, ‘when lotus opens, the bees come of their own accord to
seek the honey; so let the lotus of your character be full-blown and the results will follow.’10

Post-Modern Life style and the Concept of universal religion

With the shift from industrial age to the Information age, dramatic technological revolutions
and scientific breakthroughs have been accomplished. Progress in our materialistic civilization has
greatly influenced the modern man’s lifestyle. But he has also been confronted with the dilemma of
overcoming the persistent problems of inequality, poverty, ignorance, disease, and enslavement of
body and spirit through all forms of addiction, destruction of environment, depletion of non-
renewable resources and the breakdown of moral and spiritual values. Actual progress of mankind is
thus in a deep crisis amidst a mechanized capitalism which has forgotten the human soul. 11

Unbridled competition, lack of justice and compassion, increasing greed for acquiring much
more than what is required has brought our technologically-advanced world on to the brink of
destruction of the human spirit. The spectre of a world torn by conflict and violence, bloodshed,
cruelty, crime, injustice, ethnocentrism, religious fundamentalism has bred a new kind of spiritual
insecurity. We have become materially enriched but somewhere in the bargain we have lost things
which are noble, pure and integral to human values. Moral and spiritual development has become
stagnant, ethical values have eroded and the soul has become dry. The real purpose of life has been
lost.

Advancements in communication systems have transformed the globe in to a much smaller

village where people of different ethnic, linguistic, religious and socio-cultural backgrounds have
been compelled to accommodate their interests in a fast-changing culturally diversified environment.
There is an urgent need not only for people to be aware of other people advocating or professing
different religions but also to appreciate and respect the other’s religious views. In this changed
scenario, Swami Vivekananda’s idea of a universal religion carries much more relevance today than it
carried in 19th or the beginning of the 20th century.

About religion, swami Vivekananda said, ‘Religion does not consist in doctrines or
dogmas....Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’. 12 He also continued in the same vein
‘We must never forget that the end of all religions is the realising of the God in the soul. That is the
universal religion. If there is one universal truth in all religions, I place it here –in realising
God.’13However, spiritual aspirations can at times work in very different directions. Vilification,
persecution, mutual criticisms have become a trend with many groups which have engaged
themselves in ruthless wars and bloodshed to impose the supremacy of their belief. Swami
Vivekananda was quite aware of this unpleasant reality. He wrote:

“There is nothing that has brought to man more blessings than religion, yet at the same time,
there is nothing that has brought more horror than religion. Nothing has made more peace and love
than religion; nothing has engendered fiercer hatred than religion. Nothing has made the brotherhood
of man more tangible than religion; nothing has bred more bitter enmity between man and man than
religion. Nothing has built more charitable institutions, more hospitals for men, and even animals,
than religion; nothing has deluged the world with more blood than religion.”14

By ideal of a universal religion, Vivakananda did not suggest a standard, uniformly acceptable
set of religious principles to govern the entire mankind. He said, “....differences must always
remain...if by the idea of a universal religion it is meant that one set of doctrines should be believed
in by all mankind, it is wholly impossible.” 15He also said, “Again, if we expect that there will be one
universal mythology, that is also impossible; it cannot be. Neither can there be one universal ritual.
Such a state of things can never come into existence; if it ever did, the world would be destroyed,
because variety is the first principle of life.”16

His universal religion is very close to what one can term as ‘religious pluralism’ or what some
have termed as ‘inter-faith dialogue.’ On the ideal of universal religion he said, “What then do I Mean
by the ideal of universal religion? I do not mean any one universal philosophy or any one universal
mythology, or any one universal ritual, held alike by all; for I know that the world must go on
working, wheel within wheel, this intricate mass of machinery, most complex, most wonderful.” 17He
compared the image of sun with the Lord. He said, “Suppose a man standing on the earth looks at the
sun when it rises in the morning; he sees a big ball. Suppose he starts on a journey towards the sun
and takes a camera with him, taking photographs at each stage of his journey, until he reaches the sun.
The photographs of each stage will be seen to be different from those of the other stages; in fact, when
he gets back, he brings with him so many photographs of so many different suns, as it would appear;
and yet we know that the same sun was photographed by the man at different stages of his progress.”18

The ideal of universal religion could not be established with any one of the world religions.
Supremacy of any one religion would automatically falsify the beliefs of other religions. Vivekananda
thought that all religious beliefs were supplementary and not contradictory. On this he said, ‘...each
religion, as it were, takes up one part of the great universal truth and spends its whole force in
embodying and typifying that part of the great truth. It is, therefore, an addition and not exclusion”.19

Realization of God was the ultimate truth that Vivekananda believed in. It was ‘the power of
realization that makes religion’.20 No amount of doctrines or philosophies or ethical books that one
might have stuffed into one’s brain mattered much. True religion was like a direct, transcendental
experience of the ultimate reality and all religions more or less shared this principle. For him, there
existed only one eternal religion of which all other religions were only variations. Each religion had a
unique beat, a special trait and its own articulation of what was good. And this uniqueness lay in the
internal soul of every religion and not in the external manifestations. Every religion, thus, had a soul
and this soul could differ from the soul of another religion.21

Vivekananda strongly believed that the essence of all religions was one. If one was true, the
other was also equally true. His ideal was like ‘many lamps, but one light’. One could adopt different
paths to attain ultimate truth in life. He said:

“Through high philosophy or low, through the most exalted mythology or the grossest,
through the most refined ritualism or arrant fetishism, every sect, every soul, every nation, every
religion, consciously or unconsciously, is struggling upward towards god; every vision of truth that
man has, is a vision of Him (God) and of none else”. 22 He also continued in the same vein when he
said, “Suppose we all go with vessels in our hands to fetch water from a lake. One has a cup, another
a jar, another a bucket and so forth, and we all fill our vessels. The water in each case naturally takes
the form of the vessel carried by each of us...so it is the case of religion.” 23 God is like water filling
the different vessels, and in each vessel, the vision of the God comes in the form of the vessel. “Yet,
He is one. He is God in every case. This is the only recognition of universality that we can get.”24

Thus, the basic premise of swami Vivekananda’s ideal of a universal religion was equality of
all religions and in a sense, the basic equality of humanity. The innate divinity of man was the
constant theme in all his teachings. This teaching cut across all divisions based on political or
religious affiliations. Spirituality was the core of every religion and dogmatic exclusiveness and
intolerance could never form part of true religion. The more spiritual a man, the more universal he
was. Hence he tried to preach the message of love towards God and all human beings through
spiritual orientation by which he believed religions could be constructive forces in enriching the inner
selves of people in the age of material advancement.25

The relevance of a universal religion for a multi-cultural and multi-religious world of the
present generation can hardly be over-estimated. Appreciating and respecting cultural pluralism can
lay a secure and surer foundation for peaceful co-existence and encourage self-realization, the vision
that swami Vivekananda had.

References/Notes
26. Beatrice P. Lamb, India: A world in Transition, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1963, p.114.
27. S C Raychoudhury, Socio-Cultural and Economic History of India (Modern Times) Surjeet
Publications, New Delhi, 1985,p.126.
28. D P Mukherjee: “Diversities”, p.165, quoted in K P Krunakaran: “Religious and Political
Awakening in India”,pp.19-20.
29. The Americans were so much impressed with his eloquence and talent of exposition that he was
described by the American Press as an ‘orator by divine right’ and the greatest figure in the Parliament
of Religions. S C Raychoudhury, Socio-Cultural and economic History of India (Modern Times)
Surjeet Publications, New Delhi, 1985,p.132. He was also called a ‘Hero-Prophet’ and a ‘Patriot-Saint
of India.’
30. B L Grover and S Grover, A New Look at Modern Indian History, S Chand & Co., New Delhi,
2005(22nd Edn)pp.278-279.
31. Ibid.
32. RC Agarwal, Constitutional Development and National Movement, p.75. He also said, ‘Fools! By
imitation, others’ ideas never become one’s own; nothing unless earned, is your own. Does the ass in
the lion’s skin become the lion?’ http://sureshlibrarian.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/swami-
vivekananda-call-to-the-youth-for-nation-building/
33. Ibid. M N Roy’s quote of ‘India in Transition’ cited.
34. Ibid, pp. 75-76.
35. Swami Srikantananda, I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna
Math, Hyderabad, 2010, p28.
36. The Role of values education in the Age of Globalism and Information Technology by Lourdes R.
Quisumbing, PhD, former Secretary of Education, President Unesco-APNIEVE, Chairperson of the
Board of Trustees and, Professor Emeritus, Miriam College, in a paper presented On the occasion of
the centennial of the Philippine Normal University.
37. Swami Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda,
op.cit.,p.26.
38. Ibid.
39. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.II, p.360.
40. B N Pandey(ed.), A Book of India, Rupa & Co.,New Delhi, 1981, p.325.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., p. 326.
43. Ibid.
44. Tapasyananda,S. The Philosophical and Religious Lectures of Swami Vivekananda, Advita Ashrama,
Kolkata, 1984, p.28.
45. Swami Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda,
op.cit.,p.36.
46. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.II., p.365.
47. B N Pandey(ed.),op.cit., p.326
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., p.327.
50. Swami Rangnathnanda, Extracts from Eternal Values for a Changing Society, Vol-2, cited in Swami
Srikantananda (compiled), I am a voice without form: Thoughts of Swami Vivekananda, op.cit.,in the
introduction.

To Sir (Radcliffe) with Love: Boundary Commission and its bearing on the Indo-Pak War of 1947-48

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in History
 National Defence Academy
Khadakwasla, Pune
e-mail: suryasikha@rediffmail.com

Cyril Radcliffe1-the name brings back memories of the drawing of boundary during the
partition of India which resulted in large scale bloodshed, violence, displacement and dislocation. 2
Partition of the sub-continent was the outcome of immediate politics of domestic nature but turned out
to be an event with far-reaching international consequences.3 A poem on Sir Cyril Radcliffe by W H
Auden aptly sums up the notions regarding the role of the Boundary Commission and its chairperson.4

Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,

Having never set eyes on this land he was called to partition
Between two peoples fanatically at odds,
With their different diets and incompatible gods.
'Time,' they had briefed him in London, 'is short. It's too late
For mutual reconciliation or rational debate:
The only solution now lies in separation.
The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter,
That the less you are seen in his company the better,
So we've arranged to provide you with other accommodation.
We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu,
To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you.'

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day

Patrolling the gardens to keep assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.

The next day he sailed for England, where he quickly forgot

The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not,
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.

A crude border had already been drawn up by Lord Wavell, the viceroy of India prior to his
replacement as Viceroy in February 1947, by Lord Mountbatten. 5 In order to determine exactly which
territories to assign to each country, in June 1947, Britain appointed Sir Cyril Radcliffe to chair two
boundary commissions- one for Bengal and one for Punjab. All lawyers by profession, Radcliffe and
the other commissioners had all the polish and none of the specialised procedures and information
needed to draw a boundary. Nor was there time to gather the survey and regional information. The
absence of some experts and advisers, such as the United Nations, was deliberate, to avoid delay.6

After arriving in India on 8 July 1947, Radcliffe was given just 5 weeks to decide on a
border. He soon met with his college alumnus, Mountbatten and travelled to Lahore and Calcutta to
meet with Commission members, chiefly Nehru from the Congress and Jinnah, president of the Muslim
League. He objected to the short time frame, but all parties were insistent that the line be finished by
the 15th of August, the final day of withdrawal of the British from India. Mounbatten had accepted the
post of Viceroy on the condition of an early deadline. The decision was completed just a couple of days
before the withdrawal, but due to political manoeuvring it was not published until 17 August, two days
after the grant of independence to India and Pakistan.7

Pakistan was intended as a Muslim state while India was a secular state with a Hindu
majority. Muslim majority areas in the north were to become Pakistan. The provinces of Baluchistan
(91.8%Muslim population before partition) and Sind (72.7%) went entirely to Pakistan. However, two
provinces did not have a uniform majority- Bengal (54.4%) in the north-east and Punjab (55.7%) in the
north-west. The western part of Punjab became part of West Pakistan and the eastern part became a part
of the Indian state of Punjab. Bengal was similarly divided into East Bengal (East Pakistan-now
Bangladesh) and west Bengal which became a province of India with the same name.8

Punjab’s distribution of population was such that there was no line that could neatly divide
Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Likewise, no line could appease the Muslim League headed by Jinnah,
and the Indian National Congress led by Nehru and Patel, as well as the British. Moreover, any division
was going to entail’ ‘cutting through road and rail communications, irrigation schemes, electric power
systems and even individual land-holdings’. However, a well-drawn line would minimize the cases of
separating farmers from their fields, and minimize the millions of people who would have to be
relocated.

Irrespective of widespread criticism and flak that he got, for his hasty and unbiased
demarcation of boundaries between the two dominions, inadvertently, Sir Radcliffe accomplished a
task which could not have been possible otherwise. Today, if India holds on to three-fifths of the most
fertile and populated areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the contribution of Sir Cyril Radcliffe
and the Boundary Commission can in no way be discounted. 9 On the other hand, laying claim over
whole of the state and being reduced to possessing control over only two-fifths of it in the bargain, has
always been a continuous source of rancour for the Pakistanis. Their failure to have the state acceded to
Pakistan has even encouraged them to speculate the idea that there was a wider conspiracy to deny
Pakistan what was legitimately hers’.10

For most Indians, the Kashmir conflict remains fairly simple and straight forward: On 22
October 1947, around two to three thousand tribesmen invaded the state of Jammu and Kashmir. 11 The
then Maharaja, Hari Singh, appealed to India for help on 24 October to flush the invaders, India
expressed its inability to send troops unless the instrument of accession was signed by Hari Singh. 12
The Maharaja, after judging the situation, signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October and on 27
October Indian troops were air-dropped in the Kashmir valley and drove the invaders back. The conflict
continued for two months before it was taken to the Security Council on 31 December 1947. 13 On the
basis of UN recommendations, ceasefire was accepted by both the countries. The cease fire line, over a
period over sixty years, has become the actual line of control (LOC) where boundaries of two countries
are placed right now. The portion of Jammu and Kashmir which remained under control of Pakistan is
known as Pak-Occupied Kashmir (or POK in India) or Azad Kashmir (Independent Kashmir in
Pakistan).

However, from the view point of Pakistan, things were manipulated and certain individuals
conspired to deny Pakistan it’s legitimate dues. The precedence of Junagadh provided Pakistan with
enough reasons to feel betrayed. Junagadh was a princely state with a majority Hindu population but
with a Muslim Nawab. When trouble broke out in the state, the ruler fled and a plebiscite decided in
favour of acceding to the Indian Dominion.14 Pakistan had expected that the fate of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir would be decided by a similar experiment and Pakistan would succeed in having the
whole of the state as it had a Muslim majority population (77.1% Muslims) with a Hindu Maharaja as
the ruler. That was not to be.

A word about the Indo-Pak war of 1947 which broke out barely two months after the
partition and which had very close linkages with Sir Cyril Radcliffe and the boundary commission.

The Indo-Pak war of 1947 can be classified as one of the most absurd wars. There was no
precedent in history for a situation in which armies commanded by two senior British officers in
telephonic conversation with each other were restrained with difficulty from a war of words. The
reactions of the commanders by themselves were by no means simple. General Douglas Gracey of
Pakistan and General Bucher of India had to take decisions in consultation with Field Marshal Sir C
Auchinleck, GCB, GCIE, DSO, OBE, former Commander-in-Chief of India. 15 After partition, he had
been appointed supreme commander with certain responsibilities for co-ordination between
commanders-in-chief of the two new dominion armies.

Even more interesting was the fact that in 1949, General Sher Khan, the Pakistani Chief of
Staff and General Kalwant Singh of India, who met in Delhi for talks with the UN Commission in
connection with cease fire, were old friends at Sandhurst. At the same time, it is novel in a sense that
never before two armies in opposition knew quite so much about each other and nor were they more
surprised at finding that they were expected to put into practice against former colleagues, the same
lessons, they had learnt together in the same school.

However, political developments apart, there is one aspect of military situation which
Pakistanis brood with bitterness. It concerns the award of Gurdaspur district under the Radcliffe award.
It should be kept in mind that the statement of the British Government known as the 3 rd June plan had
announced arrangements by which the members of the Punjab and Bengal legislative assemblies
should keep separate portions to decide their fate on partition. The portions comprised of members
respectively from districts holding Muslim and non-Muslim majorities. If either voted for the division
of their province then the province was to be divided. This actually happened and Punjab was torn into
two. The basis of the decision to divide the district was taken as per census of 1941. In the Lahore
division, Gurdaspur district carried a Muslim majority. Had this district as a whole been given to
Pakistan, the position of the troops landed by air would have been quite untenable. Further, the
sustenance of the troops dropped in the valley would have been next to impossible had the supply line
not been maintained from Pathankot to Jammu.16

Gurdaspur district consisted of four Tehsils 17; Batala, Sakargarh, Gurdaspur and Pathankot.
Of these, the first three, had Muslim majorities and only Pathankot tehshil had a Hindu majority.
Therefore, had the three Muslim tehshils gone to Pakistan, the maintenance of Indian troops within
Kashmir would have presented a grave problem for the Indian commanders because the Indian rail-
head at Pathankot is fed through the middle of Gurdaspur tehshil. Radcliffe’s award of Gurdaspur and
Batala tehshila (both Muslim majorities) to India rendered it possible to maintain an Indian force at
Jammu based on Pathankot as railhead and enabled India to consolidate her defences southwards from
Uri to the Pakistan border.

Another point of great interest is that while partitioning Punjab, Radcliffe was assisted by
four High court judges from Punjab. Two were Muslims, one was a Sikh and one a Hindu. (In the
poem by W H Auden they are mentioned as two Muslims two Hindus). In the sharply polarised
communal environment, the decision of the four judges was often influenced by their communal
sentiment. The final decision became the responsibility of Radcliffe himself. While demarcating the
boundary of the two parts of Punjab, the Commission had to take into account, ‘...other factors.’ 18

Mr Din Mohammad, one of the two Muslim members on the Radcliffe Commission, felt that
Radcliffe’s main reason behind awarding the Batala and Gurdaspur tehshils of Gurdaspur district to
India was based on the ground that their award to Pakistan would have isolated the important Amritsar
district from surrounding Indian areas. In the east, it was bounded by Kapurthala state, which though
ruled by a Sikh Maharaja, at the time contained a narrow Muslim majority. The decision to award
Gurdaspur district to India on Radcliffe’s part was sincere, is beyond doubt. However, it is also fair on
Pakistan’s part to have misgivings about Radcliffe’s decision. In retrospective effect, as it turned out,
the award spoiled a perfect party for the Pakistanis as it provided a base for Indian operations in Jammu
and Kashmir and deprived Pakistan of what it felt was legitimately hers.19

Pakistan not only failed to appreciate the Commission’s genuine difficulties in awarding the
boundaries, but suspected and was even convinced that Radcliffe along with Mountbatten, plotted to
deprive Pakistan of Kashmir. However, accusations of collaboration are ruled out because Mountbatten
had issued strict instructions that his staff were to have no contact with Sir Cyril Radcliffe during his
difficult task of drawing boundaries and simultaneously he himself avoided a meeting with Radcliffe
considering the grave political sensitivity of the situation.20

The partition was a highly controversial arrangement. 21It still remains a cause of much
tension in the sub-continent. Mounbatten has not only been accused of rushing the process through, but
also alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India’s favour since everyone agreed that India
would be a more desirable country for most. However, the Commission took so long to decide on the
final boundary that the two nations were granted their independence even before there was a defined
boundary between them. The members were so distraught at their handiwork (and its results) that they
refused any compensation for their time on the Commission.
 Over the sixty-odd years, although, the Radcliffe Line has not remained a bone of serious
contention between India and Pakistan, because of the degree of dislocation and devastation it caused,
partition has managed to leave a permanent scar in the psyche of all those people who had to go
through the whole experience. With each innocent falling victim to cross-border terrorism because of
the embittered relations since partition, Sir Cyril Radcliffe must be twisting and turning in his grave
and wondering, ‘what more could he have done?’

References/ Notes

1. Sir (later Viscount) Cyril Radcliffe (1899-1977) was acknowledged as a brilliant barrister in
England. But despite his encyclopaedic knowledge of a vast array of subjects, he knew virtually
nothing about India. He had never set foot on the sub-continent and paradoxically, that was the
reason why he was chosen to head the Boundary Commission. Larry Collins & Dominique
Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, New Delhi, 2000, p. 226.
2. For inhabitants of the two divided provinces, Punjab and Bengal, it meant fear, disruption,
violence, and huge transfer of population, as Hindus and Muslims trekked to the ‘safe’ side of the
border. It is impossible to compute the magnitude of migration and disruption. Possibly a million
died; and within a year five and half million refugees had moved across the border of West
Pakistan and India, while one and a quarter million moved from East Pakistan to the part of
Bengal remaining in India. Judith M. Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian
Democracy, OUP, New York, 1985, p.327.
3. As an episode in Imperial history, it marked the beginning of global trend towards
decolonisation. For south Asian History, it meant independence for India and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, it also inaugurated Indo-Pak tensions. Conflict between the Hindus and the
Muslims had existed for centuries, but the partition brought it to the international level-and
exacerbated it. Lucy chester, American Diplomacy, Commentary and Analysis: A Look
Back....February 2002, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_01-
03/chester_partition/chester_partition.html.
4. Poem by WH Auden available online http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?228333.
5. The Breakdown Plan was sent by Wavell to the Secretary of State on 7 September 1946 for
initial withdrawal of control from South India but control of Bihar and UP was retained from the
point of view of communications and to facilitate creation of Pakistan. Penderal Moon (ed.),
Wavell : The Viceroy’s Journal, OUP, London, 1973, p. 344. The basic reason why the Atlee
Government decided to declare a final date (30 June 1948) for British withdrawal from India was
on the ground that it accepted Wavell’s assessment that there had been an irreversible decline of
Government authority. Bipan Chandra & others, India’s Struggle for Independence 1857-1947,
Penguin Books, New Delhi,1989, p. 495.
6. Maria Mishra, Vishnu’s Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion, Penguin Books,
London, 2008, p. 246.
7. The award was ready on 9th August 1947. Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Macmillan,
2007, p. 33. Bipan Chandra & Others mention 12 th August 1947 as the date when the Boundary
Commission Award was ready but Mountbatten decided to make it public after Independence
Day, so that the responsibility would not fall on the British. Bipan Chandra & Others, Op. Cit.,
p.499.
8. East Bengal received 54,000 sq miles of territory, with a population of 40 million, 27 percent
of whom were Hindu. The west (Bengal) was allocated 28,000 sq miles and 21 million people,
including a 29 percent Muslim minority. Maria Mishra, Op. Cit., p247.
9. Pakistanis blame Mountbatten for their inability to capture the whole state of Jammu and
Kashmir. They think that he conspired with Sir Radcliffe to gift the district of Gurdaspur to the
Indians. On Gurdaspur, see Alastair Lamb, Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, pp.115-116; and, for a
rebuttal, Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947, OUP, New Delhi, 1998, p. 81.
10. Ibid. Award of the Gurdaspur district allowed India a road into Kashmir and proved to be
crucial in the eventual retention of three-fifth of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
11. Ramachandra Guha, Op. Cit., pp.64-67. Estimates of the number of invaders vary. Some even
mention there were as many as 13,000 tribals.
12. The first news of the tribal invasion of Kashmir reached New Delhi 24 October 1947.
Maharaja’s accession was to be considered temporary. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre,
Op. Cit., pp. 442-447.
13. Ibid., p. 450.
14. A referendum held on February 1948 resulted in 91 percent of the electorate voting for
accession to India. V P Menon, Integration of Indian States, pp.120-149.
15. On Friday, 24 October 1947, Maj-Gen Dougulas Gracey, replacing General Masservy who
had been sent to London, got his first information of what had happened in Kashmir through a
secret intelligence report. He immediately conveyed it to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian
Army, Lt-Gen. Sir Rob Lockhart, a Scot and a Sandhurst classmate of Gracey. He in turn
communicated it to two more people, Governor General Lord Mountbatten and Field Marshal
Auchinleck. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Op. Cit., P.443.
16. The area concerned was small; but it gave land access to Kashmir which would otherwise
have been denied her. Had the whole Gurdaspur district gone to Pakistan, then, India would have
lost Pathankot and the only practicable road from East Punjab to Jammu. The Radcliffe Award
was no way related to the Kashmir question; rather it was based on considerations arising from
the division of the water from certain canals. However, it aroused much suspicion in Pakistan as
to the disinterestedness of the British; and if nothing else, it shows the scant preparation which
the British made for partition and the little thought they appear to have given to its consequences.
M Brecher, Nehru: A political Biography, London, 1959, pp. 359-361.
17. A tehshil is the administrative unit below a district, somewhat analogous to a county.
18. These ‘other factors’, were the orientation of railways, canals and the hydro-electric systems.
Had Pathankot (the only tehshil in Gurdaspur with a Hindu majority) been awarded to Pakistan,
the head works on the upper Bari doab canal at Madhopur would have come under Pakistan’s
control. As regards the canal-irrigated Lahore, Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts, Amritsar not
only had a Hindu majority, it also had the golden temple (the famous and revered shrine of the
Sikhs).
19. Many Pakistanis to this day believe that in the very act of dividing up India between two
successor states, the British were guilty of collusion with the Indian side in at least keeping the
door open for Kashmir’s accession to India. Alastair Lamb, Crisis in Kashmir: 1947-1966,
Routlege and Kegan Paul, 1966, p. 42.
20. This has remained a debateable topic ever since. Though Mountbatten had left Radcliffe to
interpret his own terms of reference, in reality they had been set out by the Viceroy himself.
Christopher Beaumont, Private Secretary to Radcliffe, has subsequently revealed that
Mountbatten persuaded Radcliffe to change the Punjab borderline and the award of Ferozepur
tehshil to India. Jaswant Singh, Jinnah: India Partition Independence, Rupa & Co, 2009, pp.
443-445.
21. Radcliffe repeatedly expressed the hope that India and Pakistan could work together to solve
some of the most difficult infrastructure problems created by his boundary award. Mountbatten
himself seemed optimistic that inclusion in the Commonwealth would keep India and Pakistan
on mutually friendly terms, emphasizing that Dominion status meant membership in a continuity
of cooperative nations. Lucy Chester, Op. Cit.

Odisha: Linguistic Identity and the Movement for a Separate Province

 Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor in History
National Defence Academy, Pune
e-mail-suryasikha@rediffmail.com

The agitation to protect Oriya language forms the most remarkable episode in the articulation of
the Oriya identity. In a multi-cultural set-up, where there were continuous assaults on the very
question of survival of their identity based on language, the Oriyas fought tooth and nail to
preserve their unique identity. Alongside national awakening, the enlightened Oriyas took the
vital cause of remaking Orissa into a substantial territorial and administrative entity in the Indian
body politic. Supported by public opinion in and outside the then truncated British Orissa, a
spontaneous collective leadership emerged to recreate Orissa to its proper shape.

Having passed through political domination and having been balkanised for nearly three
centuries under outsiders—Afghans, Mughals, Marathas and the British-Orissa towards the later
part of the 19th century presented the picture of a mass of administrative areas “grown up almost
haphazard as the result of conquests, super cession of the former rulers and administrative
conveniences.”1Such a condition could hardly promote unity among the people for any type of
collective endeavour. Moral and material development of the people had suffered a serious
setback and the interest of the local population had been grossly overlooked by the outsiders who
had subjugated them.

This agitation had a background. In the Orissa division of the Bengal Presidency, the Bengalis
dominated over the Oriyas and were regarded as “an intermediary ruling race.” Their longer
experience with the British rule and their propinquity to the seat to Government at Kolkata
helped them to emerge in positions of authority in Orissa. The lawyers and teachers were
Bengalis and the facilities of teaching Oriya in Orissa were almost non-existent. 2Similarly, the
people of Sambalpur and Ganjam were left at the mercy of the more powerful Hindi and Telugu-
speaking people respectively. The high handed attitude of these intermediary rulers can be
gauged from the fact that an order was passed by the chief commissioner of Central Provinces on
25 January 1895, abolishing Oriya as the court and official language of Sambalpur. 3The problem
of administration and sufferings of the Oriya-speaking people drew the attention of the British
authority at the time of the catastrophic famine in June 1866, in which, one third of the
population died of starvation and the diseases that supervened.4

The famine of 1866 forms a major landmark in the history of Modern Orissa as it brought about
a change in the social and intellectual life of Orissa. When the Oriyas were languishing culturally
and morally, the dreadful famine struck the land, catching both the Government and the people
unawares and took a heavy toll on human lives. Apart from those perished, millions were left
destitute under its impact. The famine is commonly referred to as “Na Anka”, as it visited during
the ninth regnal year of the King of Puri. Some of the causes commonly attributed for this
ruthless outbreak were the failure of crops due to insufficient rainfall during 1865, shortage of
food grain in the stores, lack of the foresight on the part of the information-machinery of the
Government, geographical isolation of Orissa and apathy of the landlords. 5 Till this time Orissa
had no recorded experiences of any seasonal calamity of this nature. Orissa had, in fact, been a
surplus region in the field of paddy production and was a regular exporter of rice. 6 The
communication system was, however, highly irregular. The land route to Kolkata was intersected
by large un-bridged rivers and sea contact with Orissa was virtually non-existent. Orissa, thus,
used to be completely cut off from the rest of the country during the rainy season. 7 The situation
was made more complex by the defacto rulers who were the people from Bengal in most cases.8

One positive aspect of this calamity was that it proved a great blessing for the people who were
so long taken for granted and who were forced to establish contacts with the rulers only through
the Bengali intermediaries. It was quite but natural that these overlords got the larger share of the
blame for the mismanagement and their domination was bound to slacken over the local
population.

The Oriya movement from its genesis (in the immediate aftermath of the Famine of 1866) till its
culmination (with the formation of Orissa as a separate province in 1936) can be broadly
classified into three phases. The First phase can be said to have begun in the immediate aftermath
of the Famine and culminated with the formation of the Utkal Union Conference in 1903. The
Famine compelled the Government to take interest in the affairs of the land which had been long
neglected. However, the initial phase is remarkable for the language agitation, in which the
contours of the Oriya identity were given a shape and a race was aroused to thwart the evil
designs of cultural subjugation by dominant neighbours. The movement for the preservation of
the Oriya language or the Phase of the Bhasa Suraksha Andolan as it was called, not only helped
the Oriyas to rally behind a cause, but it also opened new avenues for channeling their
grievances through proper forums. Simultaneously, it also exposed the manipulative designs of
the more powerful neighbours.

During the first phase of the movement, it was realised that the main cause for the general
backwardness of the Oriyas under the British rule was territorial dismemberment of the Oriya-
speaking areas. And, therefore, amalgamation of the Oriya-speaking tracts under a unified
administration was the most prominent issue during the second phase of the Oriya Movement
which can be said to have begun with the formation of the Utkal Union Conference in1903 and
reached its climax roughly in 1920, When the Utkal Provincial Congress Committee was formed.
The movement for amalgamation was bound to invite fierce opposition from the Bengalis,
Biharis, Andhras and the Central Provinces, because, the Oriyas lay scattered over many
Provinces and their amalgamation obviously implied territorial dismemberment of the concerned
provinces.

Orissa became the first linguistic province of the British Indian Empire. Having been neglected
for a long time by the British Government and the Indian National Congress, for almost four
decades, a section of the Oriya leadership did not want to become involved in the greater Indian
anti-colonial movement or the mainstream nationalist movement, as they thought that attainment
of statehood should come first and then the nation. However, many realized that there was
nothing contradictory in both the goals. The demand for a separate province emerged only after
attempts at consolidation of all Oriya-speaking tracts under one administration was frustrated.
The third phase of the Oriya Movement can be said to have extended from 1920 to 1936, the
year in which Orissa became a separate Province. An unfortunate aspect of the Movement was
that separation was achieved with the bitter awareness that some Oriya-Speaking tracts would
not be included in the new province.

Orissa as a separate Province was formed on 1st April 1936 (along with Sindh), 9 but the
movement for forging a separate identity and the union of the Oriya-speaking tracts can be said
to have started immediately after the Famine of 1866. The Famine brought about a perceptible
change in the socio-economic and cultural life of Orissa. The economic insecurity which was
evident in agriculture forced the upper strata of the rural population to seek alternative means of
employment for which an essential pre-requisite was modern education. They began to give
priority to modern education and Government services over agriculture. As a result, the post-
famine phase marked a significant increase in the number of students and educational
institutions.10

Growth of education, development of communication, increase in the volume of trade

and commerce gradually diminished the economic backwardness of the people. Establishment of
printing press, publication of periodicals, journals and establishment of different cultural
institutions helped general consciousness to grow. All these factors contributed towards the
creation of a powerful, conscious and educated middle class in Orissa. 11The Famine also
produced a considerable stir among the emerging intelligentsia who began to take a fresh look at
the nature of the British rule. The unwise Famine policy of the Government was largely held
responsible for the deplorable situation. The lower level officials were also not spared. The
intelligentsia complained that these officials, who happened to be mostly Bengalis, gave wrong
information and largely contributed to the famine.12

The Oriya-Bengali controversy which had been going on intermittently since 1840’s became
particularly virulent now. In Southern Orissa, the controversy was against Telugu and in the West
against Hindi.13The Oriya identity was in the making as well as at stake, Some Bengali officials
posted in Orissa made deliberate attempts to replace Oriya with Bengali on the ground that it was
but a variant of Bengali. One Kanti Chandra Bhattacharya even went to the extent of publishing
a book which said that Oriya was a mere dialect of Bengali.14The fear of Cultural submersion by
the neighbouring regions led by many educated Oriyas to resist the domination of the outsiders.
In the course of the agitation attempts were not only made by the Bengalis to prove that the
Oriya language did not have a separate identity but books and articles were printed which
distorted the history of the land.15

First, it was Uma Charan Haldar, a Deputy Inspector of Schools, who had suggested replacing
Oriya with Bengali. And then it was Rajendralal Mitra and Kanti Chandra Bhattacharya who
through their speeches and writings encouraged the domiciled Bengalis and their associates to
forcefully market the idea.16The attempt by the Bengalis to enforce their language in place of
Oriya had very little impact on the Government. British officials were rather sympathetic
towards the cause of the Oriyas, John Beams, through his scholarly arguments countered the
views of Rajendralal Mitra and Kanti Chandra Bhattacharya.17

T.E. Ravenshaw, the commissioner, was even more supportive of maintaining the separate
character of the Oriya language.18The Oriya intelligentsia on the other hand was shocked and
gallantly fought back to save their language from extinction. Gouri Shankar Roy, a domiciled
Bengali, was one of the first to raise weighty arguments in defense of Oriya language. He
portrayed the plight of Oriyas under three Governments—those of Bengal, Madras, and C.P.
where they were prevented from fulfilling their aspirations. 19 He also exposed the designs of
vested interests to abolish the Oriya language. It had an impact on the educated people in the
main land who became aware of the suffering of their brethren in the outlying areas in three
provinces where they were being forced to disown their mother tongue and made to learn
Bengali, Telugu of Hindi. This is significant because persons like Gouri Shankar were guided not
by their ancestral language but by the genuineness of the cause and became pioneering leaders of
Oriya nationalism.20

While demanding for recognition of their separate identity, the Oriyas definitely emphasized on
cultural markers. However, it probably would be a sweeping generalization to say that other
ethnic groups were isolated. There is enough evidence to suggest that many Bengalis played
significant roles in championing the Oriya cause. Gouri Shankar Roy, the distinguished editor of
the leading Oriya weekly, Utkal Dipika, Raja Baikuntha Nath De of Balasore, Radhanath Roy,
Ramashankar Roy and Rammohan Roy were some of the domiciled Bengalis who ushered an
intellectual renaissance and created profound consciousness in public affairs. Pyari Mohan
Archarya was another eminent domiciled Bengali, who in his “History of Orissa” described the
glorious legacy of the Oriyas by the providing the Oriya children with great inspiration and
pride.21
The difficulties faced by the Oriya people of Ganjam and Vizagapattam agency tracts were
equally insurmountable. Although Oriya was offered as a subject of study in 1873, it was not
taught due to indifference of Telugu teachers.22 Quick attention was paid to the application
written in Telugu, than those written in Oriya. 23William Mohantly, an Oriya nationalist, started
one Oriya weekly paper on 1876 to highlight the Oriya problem in the area. The Oriya boys
studying in the District South of Ganjam were in distinct disadvantage when they were in
minority in the educational institutions.24 In 1870’s there was also a move to write Oriya in the
Telugu script in Ganjam.25 Harihara Mardaraj Deo, the Raja of Khallikote took the leadership of
Oriya movement in the area and he was helped by Nilamani Vidyaratna. Prajabandhu, a weekly
paper appeared at Rambha under Nilamani Vidhyaratna’s editorship and it duly focused the
language issue in it.26

The plight of the Oriyas and their language was more or less the same in Sambalpur. However,
the Oriya movement in Sambalpur inspired a powerful language agitation which ultimately lent
vigour and dynamism to the Oriya identity at large. The Central Province was a Hindi speaking
region and when the Oriya speaking Sambalpur was added to it for long 30 years (1865-1896)
the Government was confronted with several administrative problems. 27 The Hindi speaking
officers found it difficult to work in Sambalpur, a non-Hindi area and similarly, the Oriya
employees of Sambalpur also disliked their transfer to the Hindi-speaking districts. The problem
was intensified due to the prevalence of a social custom known as Mahaprasada, which fostered
a sense of brotherhood among the officials. 28 This affected the efficiency in administration and
the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces on 15th January 1895 issued a circular that
Oriya shall be replaced by Hindi as the official language of Sambalpur district. The members of
the Utkal Sabha, presented a memorandum protesting this policy which they thought would
disrupt Oriya identity.29

The Oriya-speaking people of Sambalpur patiently watched the impact of Hindi for long five
years (1896-1901). They observed that Government language policy put a great strain on the
mental faculty of the Oriya children and the number of Hindi schools and Hindi teachers
multiplied at the cost of the Oriya schools and Oriya teachers. Consequently the Hindi speaking
people had better scope of employment in Sambalpur and the local discontent swelled. It got
further intensified when the Government abolished 82 Oriya primary schools in the district
during 1898-99 and instruction in Hindi was made compulsory for the students of class III and
IV.30

Apart from the difficulties from the educational point of view, those that arose out of its adoption
as the court language were too numerous. The difficulties in connection with the settlement
operations were also visible. The Oriya speaking people of Sambalpur submitted a memorandum
to the Viceroy which was signed by all the leading persons of Sambalpur. The Sambalpur
Hiteishini in its 13th and 27th February issues of 1901 put forth the language problem of Oriyas
in a forceful manner. They demanded to replace Hindi by Oriya as the court, revenue and official
language of Sambalpur.31 The Oriyas who submitted the memorial were quite at a loss to
understand that while the same Central Provinces Government had made a special concession in
favour of Sironcha, a tehshil of Chand district in central provinces to retain Telugu as its court
language, it had decreed otherwise in case of Sambalpur. The Oriya petitioners also pointed out
difficulties faced by the officials while collecting the census returns which were initially
prepared in Hindi and later abandoned in favour of Oriya, which was more convenient.32

The administrative difficulties couldn’t permit retaining Oriya in Sambalpur while the court
language in the Central Provinces was Hindi. The Oriya leaders thus suggested that Sambalpur
with its Gadjat Mahals might be made over to Bengal as a part of Orissa Division, with which
this portion of the province was geographically and socially connected. The distance from
Sambalpur to Cuttack in any case was not more than that from Sambalpur to Raipur. 33The
memorial presented by the people of Samabalpur to his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor
General of India marks a highpoint in the resurgence of the Oriyas. The Oriya identity was in the
making and was also at stake.

Fortunately for the Oriyas, Lord Curzon, whose attention had been drawn by Madan Mohan
Mishra regarding the closure of the 82 Oriya primary schools, sympathetically asked the Central
Provinces Government to have a fresh look and reconsider the decision regarding the Oriya
language.34 A delegation comprising of Madam Mohan Mishra, Baladeb Supakar, Mahanta
Bihari Das and Braja Mohan Pattnaik met the Chief Commissioner at Nagpur And presented
their grievances.35 Madhusudan Das sent a lengthy telegram to the private secretary to the
Viceroy on 2.09.1901 drawing attention of Lord Curzon to the impractical order of the Chief
Commissioner.36 However Andrew Fraser’s visit to Sambalpur in 1901 and his strong
recommendation for replacement of Hindi by Oriya as the official language sealed the issue in
favour of the Oriyas.37 The Government of India finally accepted the Chiefs Commissioner’s
recommendations and orders were passed accordingly rescinding(canceling) the resolution of
15th January 1895.

The agitation to protect their language forms the most remarkable episode in the articulation of
the Oriya identity. The Oriyas fought tooth and nail to preserve their unique identity in a multi-
cultural set-up. The success story of the language agitation in Sambalpur also convinced the
Oriya people of their helplessness caused by their divided existence. And this finally inspired a
movement for the amalgamation of all the Oriya-speaking tracts under one administration.
Any account of the Oriya movement is almost inconceivable without a reference to the role
played by Utakal Gourav Madhusudhan Das and Utkalmani Gopabandhu Das, the two great sons
of Orissa. Their association with the Oriya movement points to two distinct streams which at
different stages captured the imagination of the Oriya people and eventually succeeded in
creating a separate Province in 1936. The modus operandi of these two leaders might have been
different but one thing that was common to both was that both held the Oriya cause very close to
their hearts and tirelessly strove for it.

The attempts to put forth the cause of the Oriyas before the colonial authorities at the turn of the
century had been sporadic and at best semi-organized. Co-ordination among the leaders of the
different parts and among various associations had been lacking and the language agitation
clearly drove home the point that territorial dismemberment was the Chief cause of the
backwardness of the Oriyas. Integration and the amalgamation of all the Oriya-speaking tracts, it
was felt was indispensable, if the Oriya nation with its language and culture was to develop and
sustain itself.

The question of amalgamation of the Oriya-speaking areas was advocated not only for the
preservation of the Oriya language, but also for economy in administration. As the Oriya tracts
were under three Governments, 38 Utakal Dipika wrote “Oriya language remained undeveloped
as Oriya-speaking areas were lying in three different but contiguous provinces like a cucumber
garden under three owners…subjugated to different set of rules…” It was supposed that keeping
the entire Oriya-speaking population would minimize the expenditure. 39 Many of the Oriya
leaders had keenly observed the Sambalpur agitation and were strengthened in their belief that
only a well organised joint endeavour with a greater thrust could carry the aspirations of the
Oriya people to fulfillment. Among them was Madhusudan Das, the architect of the Oriya
nationalist movement in the twentieth century.

The desire to have an Oriya organization was also motivated by a feeling of estrangement with
Bengal that was deepening every day. In 1902, when Oriya was introduced as a separate
language in Calcutta University, the Bengalis raised strong protests 40 which disappointed the
Oriyas. They became further disillusioned when S.N. Banarjee, the great nationalist leader of
Bengal, requested Madhu Babu to include Orissa under the Bengal Provincial Congress
Committee which had been formed by him. 41 This proposal was not acceptable to Madhu Babu
as he had started thinking in terms of a separate organization for Orissa.

Early in 1903 a small band of enthusiasts gathered at Rambha in Ganjam district under the Raja
of Khallikote and resolved to establish the Ganjam Jatiya Samiti (Ganjam National Conference).
Its first meeting was held at Berhampore in April 1903 and was presided over by Shyamsundar
Rajaguru of Parala Khimendi. Nilamani Vidyaratna was the Secretary of the Conference and
Harihara Mardaraja Deb (Raja of Khallikota) and Madhuri Sahoo (a businessman of
Berhampore) bore the expenditure of the Conference. Six delegates from Cuttack, four from
Puri, three from Balasore and two from Sambalpur attended the conference.42

Delegates from Cuttack included Madhusudan Das, Biswanath Kar, Nanda Kisore Bal, Krushna
Prasad Choudhary and Gopal Chandra Praharaj. 43 This meeting of the Ganjam Jatiya Samiti can
be regarded as the first national conference of the Oriya people. It gave birth to the famous
“Utkal Samilani” or the Utakal Union Conference which played an active role for the
amalgamation of the Oriya-speaking areas from hence-onwards.

On the 30th and 31st December 1903, representatives of Oriya-speaking tracts of Madras, the
Central Provinces, and Bengal met in a conference at Cuttack. It was the historic gathering of the
Utkal Sammilani which met amidst unprecedented enthusiasm and with its birth the Oriya
Movement received a new impetus. Sriram Chandra Bhanja Deo, the Maharaja of Mayrubhanj
presided over the first Conference and Rajendra Narayan Bhanj Deo the Raja of Kanika was the
Chairman of the reception committee. Madhusudan Das was the Secretary and in a sense the
moving spirit behind the Organization.44

The Organization from 1903 till the formation of the separate Orissa province was the sole
representative Organization of the Oriyas. It served as the forum for the discussion and
deliberation on the Oriya problem and provided the platform from where the grievances of the
Oriyas were ventilated. Attempts were made for the linguistic, cultural, political, economic and
emotional integration of the Oriya people.

Since the Oriyas felt that “injustice and thwarting of healthy patriotism,” was perpetrated by the
go-between class because of the unnatural union of Orissa with various provinces, and not by the
British Government, the nationalistic feeling that inspired the Utkal Union Conference was
directed, at least to begin with, against these intermediaries. So, it is not at all surprising that the
Utkal Union Conference formulated a policy of appeasement towards the British Government.
Madhusudan Das was of the firm opinion that Orissa would not profit much by being critical of
the British policies and therefore in many of the sessions of the Utkal Union Conference glowing
tributes were paid to the British crown and the Viceroy.45
The policy of aligning with the British strengthened the Utkal Union Conference’s ties with the
feudatory chiefs. Madhusudan Das had the shrewdness to notice and exploit the Chiefs’
abhorrence for the Congress. The patronage of the Chief was accepted as usually one among
them was chosen as President of the Conference for a long time. It was said that the Utkal Union
Conference was the brain-child of Madhusudan Das and was nurtured in the lap of the Kanika
Chief.46 It was only in 1913 that for the first time a commoner, Madhusudan Das, became the
President of the Utkal Union Conference.

The Utkal Union Conference was an elite association of the ruling Chiefs, officials and non-
officials having moderate political views and of common men eager to have an identity. On the
other hand, the Union’s relations with India National Congress was embittered from its inception
due to a resolution adopted by the Madras session of the Congress under the Presidency of Lal
Mohan Ghose in 1903.47 The resolution said : “The Congress views with deep concern the
present policy of the Government of India in breaking up territorial divisions which have been of
long standing and are closely united by ethnological, legislative, social and administrative
relations and the Congress deprecates the separation from Bengal of Dacca, Mymensingh,
Chittagong divisions and portions of Chhota Nagpur divison and also the separation of the
district of Ganjam and the agency tracts of Ganjam and Vizagpattam from the Madras
Presidency.”48

A review of the activities of the Utkal Union Conference during its existence from 1903 to 1920
shows that the annual sessions were usually presided over by the ruling chiefs and zamindars of
Orissa. It concerned itself with problems like

(i) Union of the scattered Oriya-speaking people,

(ii) Development of industrial potentialities,

(iii) Spread of education,

(iv) Improvement of agriculture,

(v) Extension of railways and roads,

(vi) More representation of Oriya members in Legislative Council and Imperial

Council.49

Political Unification was accorded first priority in the agenda of the conference. The members
also evinced interest to send Oriya children abroad for technical training and advocated
mechanization of agriculture. Madhusudan Das, the moving spirit behind the Utkal Samilani
advocated industrialization, growth of local crafts and spread of technical training as essential
measures to remove poverty.50 Revival of salt manufacturing industry and exploitation of natural
resources were some of the proposals which he wanted the Government to undertake. At the time
of annual sessions, he organised industrial and agricultural exhibitions to expose people to new
ideas and technieques.51

During the period from 1903 to 1920, though the movement met with no concrete achievement
in securing the amalgamation of the Oriya-speaking territories, it was a great success so far as it
constantly watched and safeguarded against any further sacrifice of the Oriya interests. It
repeatedly reminded the authorities of the existing grievances of the Oriya people and their
language in the absence of which the Oriya cause would have been lost in the oblivion. It secured
the cultural and sentimental unity among the Oriya people.52The decline of the Utkal Union
Conference as a mass-force was evident in a few years after its birth. Role of feudatory Chiefs
left a wide credibility gap in the mind of the common man and squabbles and mis-understanding
among the chief organizers also reduced the importance of Utkal Union Conference
considerably.53

However while assessing the performance of the Utkal Union Conference, due credit
should be given to Madhusudan Das who put his heart and soul into the organization and
managed to generate mass consciousness in a relatively less educated environment.
Unfortunately, the creation of the Bihar and Orissa province in 1912 without giving due
consideration to aspirations of the Oriya speaking people of Ganjam and the agency tracts cast a
severe blow against Madhusudan’s leadership.54 A new generation of young political activists
like Gapabandhu Das emerged in Orissa challenging Madhusudan’s “mendicant policy.” 55 At the
Chakradharapur session in 1920, they snatched away the leadership from Madhusudan and
plunged Utkal sammilani in the national mainstream of the Congress Movement. 56 Madhusudan
withdrew himself from active involvement in political work of the Conference in favour of the
new generation who enthusiastically followed Mahatma Gandhi in his historic struggle for
freedom from the foreign rule.57

The year 1920 is a turning point in the history of political developments in Orissa. Younger
members of the Utkal sammilani increasingly felt that the union or the merging of the Oriya
Movement with that of the larger national movement of the Congress might serve Oriya interest
best and Utkal (Orissa) could not probably move separately from other parts of India in solving
her problems.58 In the 14th session of the Utkal Union Conference at Cuttack on 19th April 1919,
Pt. Gopabandhu Das in his Presidential address voiced the necessity of subordinating the local
nationalism to the Indian nationalism. He said that “People of Orissa were human beings first,
Indians next, and Oriya at last”.59 In the next session held at Puri, it was pointed out that the
national freedom of the Oriyas was impossible unless they merged themselves into all India
nationalism.60

Although Madhusudan Das’s political strategy seems quite unclear, he appeared convinced that
priority to the socio-economic problems of the Oriyas would bring fulfillment to their political
ambition. Therefore even though he attended the sessions of the Congress prior to the setting up
of the Sammilani, he did not consider it worthwhile to spare time for it later on. On the other
hand, Gopabandhu was sympathetic to the cause of Orissa, but to him the problem of the
country–that of freeing her from the British bondage–was of prime importance. And he believed
that the Oriya cause would be better served by the identification with the national cause. 61
Gopabandhu argued that there was no contradiction between the ideals of the Sammilani and
those of the Congress and that joining the all-India political organization would facilitate the
unification of Oriya speaking areas.62

The Indian political scenario changed considerably with the emergence of Gandhi on the scene
and the Congress gradually transformed from a party of the ‘babus’ to that of the masses. The
acceptance of the Congress creed also had a significant impact on the whole outlook of political
agitation in Orissa. The emergence of Gopabandhu eclipsed Mahdusudan’s leadership to a
considerable extent and the flagging image that the Sammilani had, received a severe blow when
the supporters of the Congress carried through a resolution in favour of Gandhi’s call for non-
cooperation.63

Acceptance of the Congress creed by the Oriya leaders did not mean that the Non-Cooperation
Movement instantly took off in Orissa. In fact, it started with sporadic incidents of protests in
various towns, such as spontaneous demonstrations by school and college students. In January
1921, Just after the Nagpur Congress, demonstration were organised by students of Ravenshaw
College at Cuttack and by the Zilla school in Sambalpur where attention was drawn to the
Congress ideas.64 In Ravenshaw Collge, sixty students out of which thirty were members of
National Congress participated in a strike.65 By the middle of February 1921, four national
schools had been established at Satyabadi, Cuttack, Sambalpur and Charkaradharpur and
attempts were made by the leaders to set up Congress organizations and Swaraj Ashrams at
various places. The house of the Satyabadi students at Cuttack was converted into a Swaraj
Ashram by Gopabandhu,66 and shortly afterwards in March 1921, the Utkal Provincial Congress
Committee was formed with Gopabandhu Das elected as president, Akram Rasool as Vice
President, Bhagirathi Mohaparta as Secretary and Brajabanhdu Das as Joint Secretary.67
Various individuals were chosen to carry out party work in specific areas. Nilakantha Das
remained in charge of Sambalpur district, Harekrusna Mahatab took up the responsibility for
Balasore, Godabarish Mishra for Singhbhum and Niranjan Patanaik for Ganjam. Jagabandu
Singh and Krupasindu Mishra looked after the work in Puri district and the responsibility for
Cuttack district was left with Jadumani Mangaraj, Bhagirathi Mahapatra, Dr. Atal Bihari Acharya
and Gobinda Mishra.68A factor which contributed to the buoyancy of the Congress activities was
the visit of Gandhi to Orissa in March 1921 when meetings were held in Cuttack, Puri, Bhadrak,
Berahmpur and other places and were attended by thousands of people. 69 Gandhi was deeply
moved by the scenes in the drought and flood-affected areas and wherever he went he assured
the public that if his programme would be adhered to, then freedom could be achieved in a years’
time.70

This created tremendous excitement all over the place and the Congress organization received
the necessary boost. The Ahmedabad Session of the Indian National Congress in December 1921
thus attracted 127 delegates and enthusiasts from Orissa. 71 A local newspaper by way of
information wrote that by date 30.06.1921, Orissa had about 40,000 Congess workers and as
much as Rs. 22,000 had been raised for the Tilak Swaraj Fund. 72 The efforts of Orissa Congress
in furthering the cause of non-cooperation was very much appreciated by others outside Orissa
and was reported in other newspapers.73

The most important result of the political campaign in Orissa was the growth of political
consciousness among the peasants or as the government put it, “the lower classes”, It was the
first organised political agitation against the colonial administration and the limits (weakness?)
of the Gandhian–led mass agitation were visible in the first count. There were instances of hat-
looting during this period. In Khurda, attempts were made to break forest laws. In some places
police and Choukidars, the tangible symbols of oppression and authority for the ordinary people
were attacked. In the uprising in Kanika, the police officials who were seen as the protectors of
the landlord, were also attacked by the peasants.74

Congress attitude towards such developments was distinctly ambivalent and there was no attempt
to build a peasant movement during this period. In fact, the Congress members were instructed
not to organize ‘no-tax campaigns’. Although, there is evidence to show that some of the district
and village level workers in the Congress were in favour of launching a no-tax campaign,
probably, the leaders of the Provincial Congress Committee, believed that Orissa was not ripe for
such political actions.75
It is, however, a fact that Congress leaders were involved in campaign in Kanika. The Congress
leaders, of course, did not approve of a no-tax campaign. Instead they wanted the movement to
be restrained and a compromise worked out. On advice of the police, the Balasore District
Congress Committee did not interfere in this region (Panchmukha). 76 In 1923, The Utkal
Provinical Congress Committee (UPCC) appointed a committee of three members Gobinda
Mishra, Lingraj Mishra and H.K. Mahatab to enquire into the uprising of the people and the
police atrocities in Kanika.77 The enquiry, however, could not start because of indifference of
some members of the committee.78 As per Gobinda Mishra’s version, Mahatab subsequently
changed his mind and thought that the enquiry would not be in the interests of the peasants of
Kanika. Thus, from the very beginning the Congress in its political and ideological practice was
caught in a dilemma. While it intended to mobilize vast numbers of peasants and ordinary people
for its organizational growth, at the same time, it also had to control them and their activities
within its framework.

An important factor which affected the political work of the Congress in the state was the
colonial administration. In spite of its avowed policy of non-interference, the colonial state
attempted to check and obstruct the movement. In the rural areas, the police terrorized the
common people to prevent them from joining or indeed even attending Congress meetings. 79
There are reports regarding attempts by officials to terrorize people of Khurda and Banki from
attending Congress meetings.

While evaluating the Non-Cooperation Movement in Orissa one comes across many limitations
of the Congress in Orissa. As started earlier, the Non-Cooperation Movement was the first anti-
colonial political agitation which started with the Primary objective of mobilizing the middle
classes and bringing them into the fold of national politics. Its other objectives such as
renouncing titles, boycotting educational institutions and Government jobs were hardly realized.
At best, it can be said to have been a moderate success. A backward region like Orissa is, of
course, not the right area to evaluate the success and failure of such objectives. In 1920, the lone
title-holder in Orissa was Madhusudan Das and he was opposed to the Congress. Not more than
ten Oriyas left their Government jobs or law practices to join the Congress. 80 Out of 442 national
colleges and schools established during 1921-22 in Bihar and Orissa Province, 81 only ten were in
Orissa.82 The number of Congress supporters in Orissa who went to jail during this period,
probably was not more than twenty.83 By end of 1922, the imprisonment of the Congress leaders
meant that the Congress activities had virtually ceased. The euphoria created by Gandhi’s call of
“Swaraj in a year” gave way to disillusionment and frustration. In 1923, there was a dramatic
slump in the Congress member ship all over India and in Orissa the number fell below one
hundred.84
While looking at the Non-Cooperation Movement in Orissa, the question of amalgamation of
Oriya-speaking tracts should be taken into account. The first Congress-led political agitation in
the Mughalbandi areas hardly created ripples in the feudatory states which had a large chunk of
Oriya speaking population. Although outwardly, the identification of the Oriya nationalism with
that of Indian nationalism seemed quite smooth, tension was brewing below the surface,
nevertheless. The articulation of regional concerns with that of the Congress politics was not
smooth. For Gopabandhu Das and other younger leaders, Oriya cause could not be any more
served by “Politics of isolation”. But for many old members of the Utkal Samilani, the entry of
Oriyas into the Congress meant the loss their autonomy and a diversion from their original aim
of creating a separate Oriya Province.85

As stated earlier, at the Chakradharpur session of the Utkal Union Conference, the younger
leaders under Gopabandhu managed to pass the Non-Cooperation resolution but after that they
did not use the sammilani as a platform to co-ordinate their activities. On the other hand, the
Provincial Congress Committee was formed and the differing attitudes between the Congress and
the Sammilani or the non-Congress members definitely had its impact on the Congress activities
in the state. The old members of the Utkal Sammilani adopting the Congress creed blamed the
Congress for diverting the movement from the original aim of creating a separate Oriya
province. The sammilani became so disorganized that, during the non-Cooperation days, no
annual session of the Utkal Sammilani was held. 86While Gopabandhu Das and his followers
adopted a soft stance towards the Sammilani, leaders like Mahatab, Gopabandhu Choudhury, and
their followers were bitter critics of it. 87 The differing attitude among leaders led to tension in the
Congress Party and a large number of middle class people were torn between Congress activities
and working for the unification of the Oriya-speaking areas.

An uneasy interaction between regional concerns and the impetus of all India Politics
characterized the political and social conjuncture in which various shades of politics hinged in
orissa. Such a political equation was also responsible for a lack of cohesiveness among the Oriya
leaders. The non-Congress supporters of the Samilani followed a policy of pursuing their
demand through the Government channels during the Non-Cooperation days in order to keep the
issue alive in the media. Biswanath Kar took this opportunity to pass a resolution concerning the
amalgamation of the Oriya-speaking tracts in the Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council.88

Attempts to revive the Sammilani were, however, made by the end of the Non-Cooperation
Movement and in February 1923, a meeting for this purpose was held under the leadership of
Shashi Bhusana Rath, a member of the Madras Legislative Council.89 In this meeting held at
Berhampur it was categorically declared that the ‘Sammilani’ was neither a part of National
Congress nor did it accept its political creed. In another meeting held two months later in the
same town, the old political agenda was revived.90

It would, of course, be incorrect to say that all members of the Utkal Sammilani were anti-
Congress. Some of the members of the Samilani had criticized the Congress during the
Sammilani’s meeting in April at Berhampur. But Madhusudan Das and Gopal Chandra Praharaj,
who were opposed to the Congress, became its members later. The problems of the Sammilani
were that once the regional concern and aspiration for which it stood, started being reflected in
the Congress, it gradually lost its relevance. Nevertheless, it would be highly improper to regard
the Sammilani as a static entity.

A very significant aspect of the Congress organization and the pattern of political agitation
during the Non-Cooperation Movement was that, the Utkal Provincial Congress Committee was
loosely-knit body without any financial or administrative control over its branch units. And,
moreover, the political actions of the Congress activities to a large extent came to be determined
by the All India Congress Committee as the UPCC was highly dependent on the grants from
AICC for its political agitation and campaigning. For example, UPCC contributed only Rs. 6000
to the Tilak Swaraj Fund but by the end of 1921 had received Rs. 60,000 from the same fund.
91
This excessive dependence of the UPCC on the AICC for funds and on Gandhiji for decisions
did not augur well for the effectiveness of the Congress in the State. The fact that the movement
collapsed when Gandhi abruptly called it off clearly shows its basic weakness.

Notes/Refrences

1. S.C. Patra, Formation of the Province of Orissa, Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, 1979, p.19.

2. Ibid., p. 33.

3. Ibid.

4. The Government calculated the mortality in Orissa at 1,000,000. K.M. Patra and Bandita Devi,
An Advanced History of Orissa (Modern Period), Kalyani, New Delhi, 1983, p. 102.

5. P. Mukherjee, “The Orissa famine of 1866”, in Orissa Historical Research Journal, Vol. IV,
April, 1957, pp. 70-71.

6. Ibid.

7. N. Mohanty, Oriya Nationalism: Quest for a united Orissa, 1866-1936, Manohar, New Delhi,
1982, p.17.

8. The Famine Commission indicted the administration for their inept handling of the situation in
Orissa. They kept feeding the authorities in Orissa with wrong information regarding the stock of
paddy in the province till the situation became alarming and irretrievable. Ibid., p.18.
9. Orissa was to be separated from Bihar and formed by adding to it an appreciable bit from
Madras and small bit from the Central Provinces, S.C. Patra, op. cit., p. 207.

10. K.M. Patra, op. cit., pp. 4-5.

11. S.C. Patra, op. cit., p.74.

12. F.M. Senapati, Atma Jibana Charita, Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1958, pp. 40-43.

13. Two Bachelors of Arts, The Oriya Movement Being a Demand for a United Province, Bharat
Bharati, Berhampur, 1996, p.34. Also, Pt. B. Mohapatra, Odia Andolanara Itihasa, Gopabandhu
Sahitya Mandir, Cuttack, 1976, pp.20-22.

14. Kanti Chandra Bhattacharya wrote a book entitled, “Udiya Swatantra Bhasa Nae” and he
dedicated the book to Rajendralal Mitra who in his Cuttack Debating Club speech of 9 December
1868 had advocated abolition of Oriya language as a pre-condition for development and progress
of the state. (K.C. Das, Language movement in colonial Orissa, in Orissa Review, Vol. Lviii, No.
9, April, 2002, p.12). Rajendralal Mitra’s remark about abolition of Oriya language was
apparently based on the wrong information that was fed to him by the Bengalis in Orissa. Mitra
admitted this before Madhusudhan Das, an eminent Oriya leader, later on.

15. Utkal Hiteisini, a periodical of the domiciled Bengalis, even attempted to prove that Gangas
came to Orissa from Bengal and that Sarala Das wrote his Oriya “Mahabharata” under the
influence of Chaitanya. Utkal Dipika, 16.4.1870. It seems strange that some Bengali scholars
were unaware that Sarala’s Mahabharata was written in late 15th century whereas Sri Chaitanya
came to Orissa in 1510 A.D.

16. Encouraged by such scholars, a group of Bengali gentlemen launched a signature campaign
of illiterate Oriyas in favour of the Bengali language. Utkal Dipika, 26.3.1870. In another
meeting held at Jajpur an Oriya gentleman was even bribed to speak for the substitution of Oriya
with Bengali language. Ibid., 14.5.1870.

17. John Beams condemned Kanti Chandra’s books as “Profoundly destitute of philological
arguments.” He said, “…at a time when Oriya was already a fixed and settled language, Bengali
did not exist.” John Beams, Comparative Grammar of Our Languages, Vol. I, p.120, cited in Pt.
B. Mohapatra, op. cit., p. 39.

18. Bahika, 16.3.1875.

19. Utkal Dipika, 13.03.1869.

20. Prof. Bishnu Mohapatra, however, has taken a somewhat different approach to this emerging
Oriya consciousness and identity during this formative phase. He speaks of two principles—
principles of exclusion and principles of inclusion—by which the Oriya middle class attempted
to create a political community by emphasizing the cultural markers. While trying to define their
identity, by principle of exclusion, the Oriya elites isolated the neighbouring ethnic groups
(Bengalis, Biharis and Andhrites) and by the principle of inclusion, they attempted to bring other
Oriyas (Oriyas lying scattered in the various outlying areas in C.P. Bengal and Madras
presidencies) into the political fold. Bishnu Mohapatra, Anti Colonial Politics in Orissa, 1920-
1936: The Power and Limits of Oriya Nationalism, in The Calcutta Historical Journal Vol. xvii,
No. 2, July-December, 1995, p. 141.

21. N.K. Sahu, P.K. Mishra, and J.K. Sahu, History of Orissa, Nalanda, Cuttack, 1991, p. 363.
Also, Pt. B. Mohapatra, op. cit., pp. 33-34.

22. Utkal Dipika, 3.6.1876.

23. Utkal Dipika, 18.04.1874.

24. P.K. Mishra, Political History of Orissa, 1900-36, Orient Publishers and Distributors, New
Delhi, 1979, p. 74.

25. Ibid., p. 76.

26. K.C. Das, Language Movement in Colonial Orissa, Orissa Review, April, 2002, p. 19.

27. P.K. Mishra, op. cit., pp. 18-20.

28. K.C. Das, op. cit., p. 14.

29. K.C. Das. “Utkal Sabha and the articulation of Oriya identity, “Orissa Review,” April, 2001,
pp. 13-17.

30. P.K. Mishra, op. cit., p. 31.

31 K.C. Dash, Orissa Review, April, 2002, p.15.

32. Ibid., p.17.

33. Ibid.

34. P.K. Mishra, op. cit., pp. 32-36.

35. Ibid., pp. 35-36.

36. Ibid., p.37, Also, Pt.B. Mohapatra, op. cit., pp. 27-30.

37. Ibid.

38. Utkal Dipika, 13.03.1869.

39. Utkal Putra, 1.8.1873.

40. N.K. Das, Utkalgauarab Madhusudan, Utkal Universty, 1951, p. 50.

41. Ibid.
42. Two Bachelors of Arts, op. cit., p. 24.

43. Utkal Dipika, 18.11.1903.

44. The policy of aligning with the British strengthened the Utkal Union. K.M. Patra and Bandita
Devi, op. cit., p.191.

45. N. Mohanty, op. cit., p. 53.

46. Utkal Dipika, 31.10.1903.

47. K.M. Patra and Bandita Devi, op. cit., p.190.

48. Two Bachelors or Arts, op. cit., p.37.

49. A.K. Patel, Growth of Education and Political Consciousness in Orissa,1854-1920,

unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sambalpur University, 1982, p. 278.

50. Ibid., p. 303.

51. Ibid.

52. P.K. Jena, Orissa : Ä New Province, History of Government and Politics in Orissa From
1936-1948, Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, pp. 34-35.

53. A prominent example of this was that Gukulananda Choudhury, a lawyer of Cuttack broke
away and formed a splinter group called “Oriya People’s Association”, Utkal Dipika, 24.9.1923.

54. A.K. Patel, op. cit., p. 309.

55. S.N. Das, Deshaprana Madhusudana, Granthmandir, Cuttack, 1988, p. 352. Also, Pt. B.
Mohapatra, op. cit., pp. 170-171.

56. Ibid., pp. 353-358.

57. Ibid.

58. Pt. B. Mohapatra, op. cit., pp. 164-165.

59. Ibid.

60. Utkal Dipika, 20.12.1919.

61. N. Mohanty, op.cit., p. 99.

62.The Samaj, 06-11.1920, in Gopabandhu Rachanabali, (hereafter GR), Vol. 3, Janma

Satabarshiki Samiti, Cuttack, 1977, pp. 130-131.

63. N. Mohanty, op. cit., p.102.

64. Samaj, 30.04.1921, GR. Vol. IV, op. cit., 1978, p. 83.

65. H.K. Mahatab, Dasabarsara Orissa, Cuttack Students Store, Cuttack, 1935, p. 21.

66. G.C. Mishra, (ed.), Gobinda Chandra Rachana Samagra, Vol.1, Arya Prakashan, Cuttack,
1998, p. 215.

67. H.K. Mahatab, et.al. (ed). History of the Freedom Movement in Orissa (hereafter HFMO),
Vol. III, 1911-1930, State Committee for the compilation of History of the Freedom Movement
in Orissa, Cuttack, 1957, p. 56.

68. Ibid.

69. Pabak Kanungo, Odisha O Gandhi, Gyanamandal Foundation, Cuttack, 1999, p. 65.

70. Ibid., p. 95. Also, G.C. Mishra (ed), op. cit., p. 225.

71. H.K. Mahatab, Sadhanara Pathe, Vol.1, Dr. Harekrusna Mahatab Foundation, Cuttack, 1987,
p. 55.

72. Aasha, 18.07.1921.

73. Ibid., 27.03.1922.

74. Telegram from Viceroy to the Secretary of State, 1.5. 1922, L/P & J/6/2483/1922, cited in
Bishnu Mahapatra, op. cit., P.150.

75. G.C. Mishra (ed), op. cit., p.273.

76. H.K. Mahatab, Sadhanara Pathe, op. cit., p. 62.

77. G.C. Mishra, (ed). op. cit., p. 273.

78. Ibid.

79. The Samaj, 7th and 14th April 1921, GR, Vol. VI, op. cit., pp. 90-91,92-94.

80. Bishnu Mohapatra, op. cit., p.153.

81. P.N. Chopra (ed). India’s Major Non-Violent Movements 1919-1934, Vision Books, New
Delhi, 1979, p.102 cited in Bishnu Mohapatra, op.cit., p. 153.

82. Report of the Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee, Madras, 1922, Appendix-IV, citied in
Bishnu Mohapatra, op. cit., p. 153.

83. Ibid.

84. G.C. Mishra, (ed), op. cit., p. 249.

85. Bishnu Mohapatra, op.cit., p.155. Also, S.N. Das, DeshaPrana Madhusudan, op.cit., pp. 354-
357.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Bihar and Orissa Legislative Council Debates 25.11.1921, Official Report, pp. 163-191, cited
in Bishnu Mohapatra, op. cit., p. 157.

89. Utkal Dipika, 24.02.1923.

90. Ibid., 7.04.1923.

91. The Samaj, 14.01.1922, in GR, Vol. VI, op. cit., p. 247.
 The Contribution of Congress Socialists to the National Movement in Orissa

Dr Suryakant Nath
Associate Professor of History
National defence Academy, Pune

The Congress Socialists played a significant role in the history of anti-colonial struggle in India. Their
emergence at the international, national and regional level marked a radical transformation of the ideology in
nationalist politics. Radicalisation of the nationalist movement had started in the 1920s after Mahatma Gandhi
had taken over the reins of the Indian National Congress 1 but it became perceptible only in the 1930s. It was
due to many national and international factors. At the international level, the great economic depression of
1929, failure of the western capitalist economies to cope with its adverse consequences and the unusual
recovery and exceptional economic gains made by the Soviet Union made the socialist ideology immensely
popular in India and many young men who had been sceptical with the Gandhian methods gradually leaned
towards socialist ideas. This radicalism in nationalist politics brought massive popular response, participatory
politics and a steady erosion of the colonial power structure.

At the regional level, mobilisation for the Civil Disobedience movement or the Salt Satyagraha, the
creation of Orissa as a separate province in 1936 and the formation of the Congress Ministry in 1937 provided
a definite push to the issues which had been at the forefront of nationalistic struggle for many years now. The
popular protest against the problems of the peasantry in British Orissa and repressive and exploitative regimes
in Princely states came to be highlighted in the ensuing struggle alongside the nationalist struggle for liberation
from foreign rule.

It may sound a little unusual but Congress Socialists in Orissa formed the Utkal Congress Samyavadi
Karmi Sangha (or Utkal Congress Socialist Workers League) almost a year before the Congress Socialists
party was formed at the national level in 1934.2 However, before we go on to the contribution of the socialists
to the Indian national movement at the regional level, specific issues related to the emergence of socialism and
their functioning within the Congress needs to be analysed. First of all it needs to be kept in mind that the left
trend represented by the Congress Socialists and Communists was structured very much within the Congress
organisation and it wielded quite a dominating influence. And secondly, all the measures adopted by the
Congress during the whole of 1930s bore a stamp of socialist orientation. In all these popular movements
initiated by the Indian National Congress, the socialists undoubtedly played a very crucial role.

Emergence of Socialist line of thought in Orissa Congress can be traced back to February 1933 when
Utkal Samyavadi Karmi Sangha (Utkal Congress Socialist Workers League) was set up at Cuttack by some
Congress members. The members of this group were nationalists like Naba Krusna Chaudhury, Malati
Chaudhury, Gouranga Chandra Das, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Nrupen Sen, Manmohan Chaudhury, S N
Dwibedi, Rabi Ghosh, Prananath Patanayak, Mohan Das, Bhagabati Charan Panigrahi, Dibakar Patnayak.
Gatikrusna Swain and Lokanath Ray joined later. 3 A weekly organ named ‘Saarathi’ was launched on behalf of
this Karmi Sangha with Naba Krusna Chaudhury as the editor. It wanted to expand the nationalist base and
was vehement in its criticism of feudal and capitalist exploitation. 4 In 1935 CSP launched another monthly
journal ‘Adhunika’ which was edited by Bhagabati Charan Panigrahi (who later became the leader of the
breakaway communist faction) and CSP also started a cultural organisation called ‘Nabayuga Sahitya Sansad’.
Adhunika carried a fair amount of discussion on Marxist ideology and leaned heavily towards Soviet Union
and had a distinct communist orientation.5

The objectives/goals of the Utkal Samyavadi Karmi Sangha were outlined in the preamble of its
constitution. It read, “Whereas in the interest of the struggle of the masses in India for political and economic
freedom, it has become urgently necessary to organise in each of the Congress provinces a well-knit and
disciplined party of those workers who are determined to fight till the bitter end for the economic and political
emancipation of the masses along definite scientific lines of socialism based on past experiences and deep and
realistic study of moral and material condition of the people and their psychology and whereas the wide
democratic platform of the Congress and the place it has come to occupy in the popular mind due to great Civil
Disobedience Movement of 1930-34 makes affiliation of any such party to the Congress possible and
desirable” 6 The Utkala Samyavadi Karmi Sangha was later affiliated to the All India Congress Socialist Party
and worked as its provincial unit from September 1934.

The peasant question in India formed part of a wider question of the struggle against British imperialism.
7
Acharya Narendra Dev, the President of the All India Congress Socialist Conference at Patna on 17 may 1934
in course of his address said, “The peasants are notorious all over the world for the incapacity to organise
themselves and to develop common understanding. Left to themselves, they can lodge their protest by
spontaneous peasant risings when conditions become unbearable. This has been the case in Ireland and Russia
and India is no exception. The history of British rule in India is full of such risings. Whenever drastic changes
were introduced by the government in the land system of the country and when the village community was
being destroyed. ....these ignorant people trampled upon by tyranny and sunk deep in superstition know only
one way out and that is rush head-long into riotous conduct, and then the government makes short shrift of
them. It is only the revolutionary intelligentsia that can organise them for disciplined action. Masses are
important”.8

Surendra Nath Dwibedi, a prominent Congress Socialist in Orissa echoed a somewhat similar sentiment.
About the methods he said, “We decided to go from village to village holding meetings, getting peasant’s
signatures on a printed appeal to the government asking for remission. As this was an appeal to the
Government they might not create any obstacle. The zamindars might not oppose our move as they would also
be benefitted by a corresponding rebate in revenue. Secondly we could easily enter the villages and organise
the peasants by setting up Krushak sanghas. In the zamindari areas, the peasants had no rights over trees in
their own fields or over the fish in the ponds near their house. So, the zamindars and moneylenders found it
easy to extract illegal cesses from the peasants. So in such circumstances it was unrealistic to conceive of
organising the peasantry on the basis of class struggle. Hence the strategy had to be designed in such a manner
that the peasants became fearless9 and cooperation of the non-socialists could be sought while the whole
programme had to be under the Congress banner.

Acharya Narendra Dev10 also stressed the need to coordinate and unite forces with Congress. He said,
“The struggle of the workers should be linked with the struggle of the Congress and through it with the
struggle of peasants and the lower middle class. It is only when they will all unite into one big effort that the
battle will be won. All the forces that are working for the political independence of the country have to be co-
ordinated with each other and this is possible only when all come to possess the same ideals”.

During this period there was consistent ideological campaign against oppression, exploitation and
arbitrary rule by holding public meetings and Kisan processions to expand the nationalist base among the
oppressed masses. The CSP realised that the lower classes needed to be self conscious. Acharya Narendra Dev
said, “.....upper classes who wield economic power in the country and have existing social conditions in their
favour need not be class conscious, because it is only in this way, they can really feel that they are defending
not their class interest but the interests of the whole society. The social basis being very narrow they really feel
stronger by entertaining the belief that they are acting in the interests of the society as a whole”. 11 The poor
peasantry in the countryside on the other hand had to be made aware of their basic rights and to do away with
the culture of fear which engulfed their whole being.

Narratives in S N Dwibedi’s books and books on Naba Krusna Chaudhury abound with examples of this
culture of fear which was very much a part of the peasant’s being in the rural surroundings. Dwibedi narrates
an incident as to what extent people were scared of the agents of the Zamindar and anything related to any
stamped paper. Literacy must have been around 5% at that time and there was hardly any newspaper available
in the countryside. He narrates that “One day we (Dwibedi, Naba Babu, Malati Devi, Goura Chandra Das and
Gouranga Charan Das) were talking to peasants in a village in Cuttack and asking them to sign a petition for
remission of rent to the Government. Most of them seemed to be willing to sign the petition. In the mean time
the chowkidar of the village came to the scene, sat down near us and started noting down something with a
pencil. Then the chowkidar used to be a significant cog in the colonial police system. The villagers who saw
him suspected that he was noting down their particulars for reporting their names to the police for co-operating
with the Socialist leaders. Most of them dispersed without signing the petition”. From this incident it can be
imagined to what extent people were scared of the official machinery and why it was very crucial to work
towards dispelling this fear from their mind.12

Today’s generation will find it hard to believe that 80 years back peasants could not dare to wear clean
clothes or carry an umbrella in front of petty zamindars in the countryside. They were thrashed if they were
found wearing shoes. At the very sight of the zamindar or the mahajan in the village, people used to prostrate
themselves on the ground and pay respects. If any peasant became affluent, and by mistake made any display
of his wealth, he was beaten black and blue in the so-called ‘Mrudang Ghar’. 13 Poetry and slogans to change
the traditional social practices formed a component of Socialist mobilisation of the peasants in the countryside.
Naba Babu advised the people to refrain from paying their respects in the traditional mode. Kalandi Charan
Panigrahi wrote the poem Kiye saala saitaan14

Beelei kukura izzat bujhe

Bujhe maan apamaan
Manisha aame kee bujheeebu naahin re
Kiye saala saitaan

(Roughly translated, the lines imply that when animals like dogs and cats understand the attitude of care and
insult wouldn’t we as human beings make out who is the devil?)

The socialists also emphasized on the real issues which were of paramount importance than mere political
freedom and the usual civil rights.15

Kee heba se swarajya nei

Jadi mora napoore peta
Khati khati chaashi mulia maleni
Chashi chasi dana kana niyanta

(Roughly translated, the lines imply of what use is freedom if I don’t get enough to eat? Even after back-
bending labour the peasants don’t get a stomach-full to eat or clothes to wear.)

Not only the zamindar, even their goomasthas exploited and harassed the people in many ways. Daily,
the fisherman had to give the goomastha Barju Mohanty from Cuttack (the zamindaari was in Nimapada), fish
and beaten rice, the barber had to give massage, the milk man had to give milk, curd and cheese, apart from
many types of bhetti and bethi. On top of that, Barju Mohanty had a habit of addressing everyone as ‘saala’.
The milkman Danei Behera narrated this case to the peasant leader, Mohan Das. Accordingly, Mohan Das
advised him that when Barju Mohanty was in the Nimapada Bazaar, in full public view, he should
shout/scream ‘hey saala Barjua’. Danei did that and taking clue from him everyone else started shouting ‘hey
saala Barju Mohanty’. Barju Mohanty left the place and left for Cuttack. 16 This kind of small incidents helped
in dispelling fear from the mind of the peasantry in the countryside.

In course of hectic activities, highly educated young men like Bhagabati Panigrahi, Ananta Patanayak,
Goura Chandra Patanayak, Baidyanath Rath, Saci Routray, Biswanath Pasayat, Rama Krusna Pati and Ram
Mohan Mishra tried to reach out to the poor in the countryside. 17 The Socialists started wielding more
influence inside the Congress once Naba Krusna Chaudhury became the Secretary of the PCC in 1937. In a
meeting held at Cuttack during March 1937 several resolutions on the peasant problems were passed by the
CSP. The most important of their demands were18

(a). 50% reduction of land revenue

(b). Abolition of landlordism
(c). Repeal of anti-national and anti-democratic laws
(d). Guarantee of minimum wage of Rs 30/-
 (e). Freedom of speech, press and association
(f). Withdrawal of British army and
(g). Right to possess arms.
The peasant leaders touched upon issues that were relevant to the existing problems of the peasants.

The British authorities came to resent the speeches made by certain prominent socialists. On 20 th
November 1937, during the celebration of students Day, Naba Krusna Chaudhury exhorted the students ‘to
organise revolutionary discipline with a view to ousting Government and stressed on the justification for
violence when necessary.’19 During one of his visits to Orissa in 1936, Pundit Nehru attacked the Zamindari
system in all his speeches and pointed out that the British and the zamindari system of administration was like
two grinding stones between which the peasants were ground to poverty. 20 One of the important tools used by
leaders in Orissa to mobilise the masses was through their speeches on the occasion of various annual days
such as Shradha (death anniversary) of important leaders like Pundit Gopabandhu Dash on 7 July, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak on 1st August, Birth day of Mahatma Gandhi on 2 October, Shramik Divas on 1 may etc.
Krushak Divas was celebrated on 1 September. 21 Slogans like ‘Chaasi mulia ki jai’, ‘Bande Mataram, ‘Biplav
ki jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ were raised to arouse and inculcate unity in the masses.22

The All India Kisan Day celebration at Cuttack Municipal ground on 1st September 1937 was a major
event in the history of the peasant movement in Orissa.23 Nearly ten thousand peasants attended the conference
which was organised under the leadership of Naba Krusna Chaudhury and Malati Chaudhury (According to an
official estimate 15000 to 20 000 peasants attended the conference). 24 They marched in a procession to the
Cuttack Municipal ground holding placards and shouting slogans electrifying the town and the countryside.
The placards displayed their basic demands i.e, rent reduced by half, abolition of Zamindari system, unity of
Kisan and labour, water tax to be reduced by half, abolition of mutation fees, confiscation of math properties
(matha dhana kotha heu), abolition of forest tax etc. Holding national and red flags with hammer and sickle,
they shouted slogans such as down with imperialism and landlordism, etc. 25 On occasions, the CSP was also
critical of the functioning of the Congress ministry in the province. It passed a resolution which said, “The
Congress Ministry has not fully satisfied the demands of the people as laid down in the manifesto”. It called
for organising the peasants to fight for their own class interest and to join Congress in large numbers.26

During 1937, Congress Enquiry Committees were set up by both Cuttack and Balasore DCs to enquire in
to the complaints lodged by the tenants against the police and the landlords. Individual enquiries were
undertaken by Congress leaders. Radha Krusna Biswas Ray personally conducted enquiry in to the alleged
grievances of the tenants of the Jeypore estate in Koraput. 27 Rajkrusna Bose, the veteran Congress leader
advised the peasants in a meeting at Cuttack to stop payment of illegal taxes to the Zamindars and to continue
to agitate for the remission of rent.28 At the Bargarh peasant Conference held at Padmapur on 11 October 1937
presided over by the socialist leader S M Joshi, the peasants were told. “Zamindars would be powerless if the
ryots adopted the attitude of the people of Bardoli and took to satyagraha in the form of non-payment of rents”.
The meeting passed many resolutions including one on the boycott of Japanese goods. 29 Malati Devi, a
prominent Congress Socialist was elected to the All India central Kisan Committee in March 1939. The All
India Kisan Conference deputed Jayaprakash Narayan and Sahajanand Saraswati to visit Cuttack and hold an
enquiry to review the activities of the Provincial Kisan Sangha. It is unfortunate that at that point of time,
Orissa PCC was going through ‘most deplorable political factionalism’ and most of the kisan leaders were pre-
occupied with ‘States Peoples activities.’ The report pointed to an ever expanding base of the kisan
organisation in the state and it is evident from the fact that in Puri there were 18 Kisan Sabhas functioning in a
total of twenty three thanas.30

In general, peasant Conferences were held in Cuttack, Puri, Balasore, Sambalpur, Ganjam, where
resolutions advocating pro-peasant laws and abolition of bethi and rasad were passed. 31 Besides, resolutions
demanding compulsory education for children and facilities for the harijans formed the other notable aspect of
such demands.32 The effectiveness of the CSP received a minor setback when the Communists were removed
from the CSP in 1940. Naba Krusna Chaudhury was the one who had very close relations with the communists
and he had been the one who had brought many of them into the state politics. So he was quite unwilling to
expel them from the party.33

Because of the Socialists in the ranks, the Congress Government in 1937 initiated and adopted many
measures which were pro-people. The ministry remained in power for about two years and four months.
During this period, legislations related to issues like Madras Estates Land (Orissa Amendment) Bill, Orissa
Tenancy Bill, Orissa Moneylender’s Bill, Upliftment of Harijans, Small Holder’s Relief Act, Prohibition etc,
were moved. Since it was house which had rich, well-to-do and people with feudal interests, these issues were
bound to arouse controversy and debates. But it definitely reflected the radical and progressive ideas that were
associated with the socialists in general and the members with left orientation in particular.

Apart from the specific agrarian issues and the issues of the peasantry, the Socialists also played a
significant role in the peoples’ movement in the princely states of Orissa. The princely states were like islands
of misrule and the regimes were so repressive and inhuman that they were known as dark areas or andhari
mulak. The people were denied basic civil rights and groaned under innumerable taxes that were decided on
the whims of the rulers. The first Orissa States Peoples Conference was organised in 1931 at Cuttack. As the
freedom struggle in the neighbouring British areas gathered momentum and a popular Congress Ministry
formed in Orissa in 1937, the people in the states were awakened to resist the autocratic regimes in their states.
The Congress expressed its sympathy for the cause of the people in the states but owing to the larger picture of
the anti-colonial struggle against the British did not undertake an active course of action in the states peoples’
movement. It was the socialists in the Congress who championed the cause of the people in the princely states
and organised them in their struggle for basic civic and political rights.34

Here it would be worthwhile to mention in brief about the prevailing conditions in the princely states of
Orissa. The princely states of Orissa witnessed the worst repression and misrule than probably any other group
of states in India.35 The province of British Orissa was surrounded by twenty-six Gadjat States of which
Mayurbhanj was the biggest and Tigiria, the smallest. Many states didn’t have any semblance of a civilized
administration and the people in most states were subjected to medieval savagery and torture. Though the
people of these states had everything common with their neighbours in the province of Orissa, a common,
culture, common social usage, religious thought and mode of living they were cut up in several political
jurisdictions which brought them under different administrations.36

An issue around which the popular agitation in the states veered was bethi or unpaid labour. A peasant used
to spend over 100 days in a year in doing forced labour for the state or for the official. He could be called up at
any time of the day or night and had to quit his own work (however urgent it might be) for fear of being
beaten, fined or imprisoned. If unable to perform bethi work, the peasant had to send someone else on his
behalf on payment.37 Personal works of the state officials and almost all the works of the state were managed
through bethi. Of all the exactions suffered by the peasant, bethi was the most oppressive and it reduced him to
a state of serfdom.

Rasad, Magan, Bhetti, Shika and Kheda were the other forms of exploitation which a peasant had to live
with. Rasad was forced requisition of provisions which a peasant was compelled to supply when Raja, his
friends, guests and all other officials passed through any village. Magan was the compulsory contribution on
the tenants at the rate of one-fourth of their annual land rent on several ceremonial occasions. (Marriage, birth
of children, foreign visits etc.) Bhetti was another forced present like sunia bhetti, pariba bhetti or darshan
bhetti etc. During shikar the peasants had to accompany the king to assist him in hunting and Kheda was
capturing of elephants during harvest time. There was no security of life and property in the states.

The life of an average peasant was hedged in with so many restrictions that he confronted a fine or
physical assault at every turn. In addition to all these, forest rules were totally anti-people and monopoly to
trade in many goods was given by the king to his own agents who fleeced the common people in very many
ways. This is just a very brief list of ways in which people were exploited in the states and one should not
forget that in many states there were frequent acts of rape and indecent assault on women by police officials
and other officers of the state. Rape and molestation of women in custody had become so rampant that the
people had come to regard it as part of the normal penalty for a woman offender. Just to cite one example, Sri
Nanda Ram Singh, the sub-inspector from Motagaon village in Dhenkanal had built up a sinister reputation for
ravaging the modesty of women.

The 2nd session of the Orissa States Peoples’ conference was held on 23 rd and 24th June 1937 at Cuttack
and was presided over by Dr Pattabhi Sitarammayya, the president of the All India States Peoples Conference.
Only about 100 people from 8 of the 26 states were able to attend as preventive measures had been taken by
the state administrations. Balunkeswar Acarya was the chairman of the Reception Committee. A constitution
for the OSPC was drafted and many resolutions were passed. The first resolution deplored the absence of
codified laws and acts in the states and the Conference urged upon the rulers of the Indian states to
immediately confer on their subjects

(a). The right of occupancy of their holding

(b). Fundamental rights of citizenship and
(c). Responsible governments.
A strong plea was made to abolish evil practices like rasad, magan, bethi, bhetti etc.

A committee of enquiry was instituted to investigate into the illegalities, excesses and acts of repression.
The leaders from the states who attended this conference were Sarangadhar Das from Dhenkanal, Dr
Bishwabhar Rath (Nayagarh), Lal Mohan Pati (Mayurbhanj), Balunkeswar Acharya (Hindol), Radhanath Rath
(Athgarh), Harmohan Patnayak (Dhenkanal), Gobind Chandra Mishra (Daspalla),Madhusudan Mohanty
(Athgarh), Madhusudan Patanayak (Tigiria) and Gangadhar Mishra (Ranpur). The touring of the Inquiry
Committee practically marked the beginning of mass awakening in the states of Orissa. Initially the students
who were exposed to Gandhian ideas in the neighbouring areas of British Orissa took the initiative of reising
the banner of resistance in the princely states. They were helped and led by the socialist and the left leaders in
the Congress like Nabakrusna Chaudhury, Malati Chaudhury, Rabi Ghose, Bhagabati Panigrahi, Pranakrusna
Padhiary, Gokul Chandra Ray Chudamani, Anant Pattanayak, Guru Patanayak, Goranga Chandra Das and
Surendranath Dwibedi. The weekly paper of the Socialists Krushak gave wide coverage to the states affairs.

Under the auspices of Cuttack District Kisan Sangha a Kisan rally was organised on at Jenapur
(bordering Cuttack and Dhenkanal) to observe the All India Kisan Day on 1 September 1938. Influential
leaders like Naba Chaudhury, Malati Chaudhury, Prana Krusna Padhiary, Sarangadhar Das, Bhagabati
Panigrahi and Surendranath Dwibedi attended the rally. The second day of the conference was devoted
entirely to Dhenkanal affairs. At the invitation of the Dhenkanal Prajamandal, around 12000 men and women
had assembled at Jenapur on 2nd September 1938. 38 This particular event seems to have galvanized the people
in the states and most of the Prajamandals formed around this period virtually made the same demands of a
minimum of a dignified existence in the states. Agitations in Nilgiri, Dhenkanal, Talcher, Ranpur virtually
reached a feverish pitch during this period. The leadership in the state cautiously monitored the events in the
princely states and provided all possible assistance in keeping the morale of the agitators high in face of strong
repressive measures adopted by the state administrations.

While posing to negotiate with the Prajamandal for redressing the grievances of the people in the
Dhenkanal state, the king ordered for massive clampdown on the protesters and in the ensuing developments 2
people were killed in Bhuban and 6 more at Nilkanthpur including the 12 year old boy Baji Rout. His death
shocked the people and evoked widespread condemnation from all quarters. He became a symbol of sacrifice
in the national movement in the states and the province. In all, 17 people were killed in the Dhenkanal state.
On Gandhi’s insistence there was to be no outside interference as per the Haripura resolution and it was
decided that the struggle (Offering satyagaha in batches) was to be carried on by the workers of Dhenkanal.
For imparting necessary training in principles and rules of satyagraha, a training camp was to be opened in
British Orissa.39

Just about this time Political agent of Orissa States, Maj.R L Bazalgette was killed by a mob on 5 th
January 1939 at Ranpur. This provided an alibi for the State administrations to order reprisal measures. The
people of Ranpur and adjoining villages took shelter in jungles and other places outside the state boundaries.
The entry of weekly like Krushak and daily newspaper Samaj, published at Cuttack was banned in Dhenkanal,
Talcher and other states where educated and well-to-do people were leading the movement for responsible
government. Because the reprisals were brutal, the people from the Talcher state decided to leave their home
and hearth and move to the neighbouring British territory, Angul as a mark of protest. Exodus of people from
the states was suggested with the objective that it would exert pressure on both the ruler of the state and the
Political department to redress the grievances of the people. Exodus started on 8th November 1938 and by end
of December 1938 it had swelled to about 30,000. It needs to be kept in mind that people resolved to even
leave their ripe crops in their fields in face of uncertainty that they were bound to come across in the refugee
camps in Brtish Orissa once they left their villages. It is an accepted fact that Dr Harekrusna Mahtab played a
significant role in negotiating with the Political department for a solution of the problem of the people in the
princely states. But it is also a fact that it was mostly the socialist leaders who played a significant role in
awakening the people, mobilising them in resisting the repressive government of the autocratic rulers and
linking them with the mainstream Congress-led nationalist movement of the British provinces. Naba Babu and
Malati Devi were instrumental in providing the people with relief in the refugee camps when they left the
Dhenkanal and Talcher state and kept their issues alive by organising meetings in Cuttack and by regularly
publishing harrowing tales of repression in their weekly, Krushak.

Most of the Prajamandals resolved to adopt a standard modus operandi of

1. Start non-co-operation with the government by launching a massive boycott of its employees and
supporters and to defy government orders
2. To raise volunteer corps in villages for carrying satyagraha,
3. Strengthen the organisation by holding meeting and procession in defiance of prohibitory orders,
4. To enrol citizens as members of Praja mandal.

This continued till a negotiation was reached between the agitators and the Rulers. In Dhenkanal and
Talcher the agitators went back to their respective villages after being promised of certain concessions to the
people. Gandhi had also sent his emissary Agatha Harrison to work towards a workable formula for finding an
end to the states crisis. It is not that the British as the Paramount power denied the existence of the genuine
grievance of the people in the states. But they had their own reasons for not pressing for redressing these
grievances. The rulers could bank upon the help of the British in case things went wrong. But with massive
mobilisation of the peasantry in British Orissa and the neighbouring princely states, they became vulnerable to
growing pressure of the awakened masses in their states. This process of agitation almost continued unabated
throughout the interim period till the Second World War broke out and the political events started moving very
first.

With the unilateral declaration of war by the British dragging India into the vertex of the war without its
consent, the Congress Ministries in the province resigned in protest. The Congress did not intend to embarrass
the British at a time when they were fighting for survival but at the same time it could not remain a helpless
spectator to the events happening all around. In 1940 Gandhi gave a call for a limited Individual Satyagraha
with an initial list of 78 Satyagrahis. In the meantime, the Japanese had advanced through whole of South East
Asia and were knocking the eastern frontiers of the British Empire. The Congress called for the Quit India
Movement in August 1942.

The Quit India Movement was fought in the name of Gandhi and in the name of the Congress but it was
totally un-Gandhian in nature. It witnessed massive acts of violence and turned out to be the biggest blow to
the British administration after the Revolt of 1857. Unwilling to let the Congress affect the British war efforts,
all the top ranking leaders of the Congress were rounded up on 9 th august 1942 from their respective hotels in a
pre-dawn drive. However, this measure of the Government backfired and innumerable acts of violence and
bloodshed were witnessed all over the country. Rendered leaderless from the beginning, the people interpreted
Gandhi’s Mantra of Do or Die as per their inclination and paralysed the administration in many areas of the
Country.

In Orissa also, the top leaders of the province were rounded up and Congress was declared illegal. Their
offices were taken over by the government. In many areas of the state there were spontaneous reactions to
protest against the government action and mostly the students and the Congress members who had managed to
evade arrest organised this movement. Once the initial phase of protest was dealt with strongly by the
government, agitators moved to the countryside and raised the banner of revolt. A carefully planned
underground movement in the province was organised by the Congress Socialist leader Surendra Nath
Dwibedi. Making his friend, Mathura Nand Sahu’s house in Alisa bazaar, the head qrs dwibedi provided
directions for bringing out Congress Bulletins and managed to establish a network of underground organisation
linking it with the underground organisation in Bihar and Bengal. Both Malati Devi and Dwibedi had evaded
arrest while coming back from the Bombay session of the Indian National Congress. But since as a lady it
would have been difficult to operate from underground, she courted arrest by giving an anti-war speech in
Cuttack. Popular uprisings were seen in Koraput, Bhandari Pokhari, Mathili, Papadahandi, Cuttack, Kaipada,
Jajpur, Nomapada and Lunia. Firing by the government forces were also resorted to in Tudigadia, Khairadiha
and Eram. But since we are discussing only about the role of the Congress Socialists I am just touching upon
the role played by Dwibedi and his small band of followers who managed to dodge the police and operate
underground till October 1942.40

The Quit India movement was not only confined to British India alone. It made deep inroads into the
princely states and inspired the people there to make their contribution to the cause of India's independence.
Initially, there were demonstrations against the arrest of the Congress members in Nilgiri, Dhenkanal and
Talcher states. But the movement really caught up with the escape of Pabitra Mohan pradhan from Talcher jail
on 31st August 1942. The movement was most widespread in Dhenkal and Talcher states as the repression was
most brutal there.

After being critically wounded, Baisnab managed to sneak into Cuttack with a fellow-fighter
Nabaghana Behera and with the assistance of Surendranath Dwibedi left for Calcutta for treatment in the guise
of a marwari. After Baisnab’s daisappearance, another party led by Debraj Patra set fire to the police out post
and the beat house of the forest department at Gengutia of 5th september 1942.

The movement in Talcher was led by Pabitra Mohan Pradhan who escaped from the state jail on 31st
August 1942 and inspired the setting up of a separate “parallel government” (or national government) in the
area.41

It needs to be kept in mind that there was a Coalition ministry in the province and there wasn’t much of
resistance in the province once the initial burst of enthusiasm died down with the arrest of the lower rung of
the leadership. From October 1942 till end of the war there doesn’t seem to be much that can actually be
classified to the Socialist leadership.

The Congress Socialists remained politically active and effective in the province for approximately ten
years. They played a significant role in raising many crucial issues related to the agrarian structure and the life
of the peasantry. They managed to carry it to the level of legislation and bills were passed in the house both in
1937-39 and the Ministry formed in1946. But it remained virtually in form of legislations only. They made
very little difference to the lives of the people at the ground level. This was partially because, most of the
leaders from among the Ministers came from the upper crust of the Odia society and there was bound to be
contradiction in their ideology and practice. No one gives up power voluntarily and many of the Congress
leaders were reluctant to bring about qualitative change by bringing about radical transformation in the socio-
economic lives of the people. They were worried that it may upset the traditional structure and lead to chaos
and anarchy in societal equations. Dr Mahatab belonged to this group and for a very long period of time he
remained a very powerful political force in the province since 1930s. The Socialists wanted change but they
probably were too depleted after the Communists broke away and did not have the numbers to put their ideas
into practice. In any case, fighting for an ideology, initiating a movement and running a Government are
different ball-games all together. A Banka Bihari Das, Nishamani Khuntia or Goura Chandra Das probably
couldn’t have done wonders when their leaders like Naba Choudhury and Malati Devi kept changing and re-
changing their priorities in political lives. Once Surendra Nath Dwibedi left the Congress Socialists Party, it
was reduced to a spent force and hardly had a say in the provincial power politics.

However, Socialism inside the Congress has not been an irrelevant ideology and even in this age of post-
Marxism, it still remains a creed that has potential to inspire millions of the disadvantaged to transform their
society and polity. The slogans like “Yeh azaadi jhoothi hai” immediately after the country attained
independence, spoke a lot about the gap between what the makers of this nation aspired and what they
managed to achieve. And hence, the phrase “Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” was inserted in the
Preamble of our Constitution through amendment in the 1970s by Mrs Indira Gandhi. In a huge country of 120
crore plus population, probably no single ideology can be effectively implemented. If by any stroke of luck,
we have managed to reach a status of a potential global economic power, it is primarily because of the decades
of Nehruvian brand of socialism that prepared the platform for the eventual capitalist take-off in the 1990s.

Notes/References

1. Gandhiji transformed the Indian National Congress from a class movement to a mass movement. Earlier
it used to be an annual picnic for the upper-class Indian elites who met in different cities of India for
three days, discussed about poverty and passed resolutions concerning the poor in the country.
2. A meeting was convened at the Anakhia farm of Naba Choudhury in February 1933 for formation of the
Samyavadi Karmi Sangha. Dwibedi, S. N., Mo Jibana Sangrama: Ardha Shatabdira Samajabadi
Andolanara Kahani (Odia), Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1984, p.39.
3. The list of names of the Socialists who started the Workers league as given in different sources varies.
But it started with a small group of dedicated workers who were charged with idealism and took pledge
of non-acquisition of property. Nayak Padma Charan, Anirban (Odia), Vidya Prakashan, Cuttack, p. 63.
Also see Nayak Anadi, Lokashaktira Sandhane: Nabakrusna Choudhury, (Odia) Grantha mandira,
Cuttack, 2001, p. 35 and Rabi Shailaj (ed.) Pathikruta (Odia), Lohia Academy Trust, 2004, p.35.
4. Rabi Shailaj (ed.), op. Cit., pp. 36-37.
5. The writings of Bhagabati Panigrahi in ‘shikar’, ‘hatudi O daa’ and Sachi Routray’s ‘Anguthi’, ‘Visarjan’
emphasized class struggle and developed the trend of a sort of Soviet cult.
6. Constitution of the Utkal Congress Samyavadi Karmi Sangha, cited in S N Dwibedi, Short History of
Congress Socialist Party in Orissa, pp.4-5.
7. Ahmad, Z. A., The Agrarian problem in India: A general Survey, political and Economic Information
department of the All India congress Committee, Allahabad, 1937,p.45.
8. Acharya Narendra Dev, Socialism and National Revolution, (edited by Yusuf Meherally), Padma
Publications Ltd, Bombay, 1946, p.7.
9. Dwibedi, S. N, op.cit., pp.55-57.
10. Acharya Narendra Dev, op.cit.,p.10.
11. Ibid, pp.5-6.
12. Dwibedi, S. N, op.cit., pp. 56-57.
13. Nayak, Padma Charan, op. Cit., p.76.
14. Nayak, Anadi, op.cit., p.54.
15. Nayak , Padma Charan, op.cit., p.75.
16. Ibid., p.77.
17. Dwibedi,S N., Quest for Socialism, p.59.
18. Fort Nightly Report, 2nd half of March 1937, Home Political Department, National Archives, New Delhi.
19. Linlithgow Collection, Hubback to Linlithgow, Vol-I, dt 5 January 1938, Microfilm section, Nehru
Memorial Museum Library, New Delhi.
20. Government of India, Home Department., Political Branch, F.No. 4/38/1936.
21. Government of Orissa, Home Department., Special Section, Fort Nightly Confidential reports from
Collector of Balasore to Chief secretary for July, August and September 1937, Orissa State Archives,
Acc. No. 630.
22. Government of Orissa, Home Department, special Section, F No. 149-b, 1938.
23. New Orissa, 15.6.1943, Report of the Inspector on Banpur Peasant Conference, Government of Orissa,
Home Department, special Section, F. No. 158/1937.
24. Government of India, Home Political Department, Fort Nightly Report for the first half of September
1938, F. No. 18 September 1938.
25. Government of Orissa, Home Department, special Section, Fort Nightly Confidential Report from
collector of Cuttack to Chief Secretary, F. No. 158/1937.
26. J P Papers, File No 27, Letter by UPCSP, Nehru Memorial Museum Library, New Delhi.
27. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of May 1937.
28. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of June 1937.
29. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 1st half of October 1937.
30. National front, Vol.II, No 28, dt 24.8.1939.
31. Home Department (Political), Fort Nightly Reports, 2nd half of September 1937.
32. Mahatab, H K, History of the Freedom Movement in Orissa, Vol-V pp.22-25, Cuttack, 1957.
33. Dwibedi, S N, Mo Jibana Sangrama, Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1984, p. 103.
34. For a detailed report on the oppressive practices in the princely states of Orissa see Nath S K’s chapter
on ‘State peoples Agitation in Dhenkanal’ in Nationalist Politics and Popular Movements, Gagandeep
Publications, Delhi, 2001, pp,120-129.
35. Handa,R L, History of Freedom Struggle in Princely States, New Delhi, 1968, p.226.
36. Ibid.
37. Pradhan, Pabitra M, Pabitra Granthavali, Part-I, Mukti Pathe Sainika, VolI-VIII, Nabajibana Prass,
Cuttack, 19888, p.41.
38. Orissa Review, Special issue on Freedom Movement in Orissa, Vol. XLVI No I, August 1989, p.122.
39. Ibid., p. 125.
40. Dwibedi was arrested on 13th October 1942 and in his books he himself blames the Communists for
helping the government in tracing him from his hideout.
41. For details on the disturbances during the Quit India Movement see sub-chapter ‘Quit India in the
Princely states’ in Nath, S K, op. cit., pp.89-99.