Dynamics of Regionalism in the Politics of India

The history of regional politics in India starts with the Dravida Khazakham (DK) that asked for a separate South Indian State owing to widespread resentment and subsequent protest against the imposition of Hindi. It was this assertion that lead the Central Government to adopt the three language policy and the official Language Amendment Act, 1967.

In its more radical form, it could be argued that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was a direct result of the sending of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) into Sri Lanka. The atrocities committed by them in the Northern Part against the Sri Lankan Tamils and the alleged support of the Tamil Nadu Government, that led to the inaction and security lapse on its part – leading to the eventual assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.

In essence, the existence of the all India cultural mainstream has led to the rise of regionalism among all ethnic groups that do not associate with the Aryan race, be it the Dravidians of South India or the Mongoloids of North East India.

Ethnocentrism, which is the core for regional politics is only a mechanism that is employed by smaller cultural or linguistic groups to protect their culture from the dominant culture trying to assert its influence on it.

Looking at it from this perspective, ethnocentrism and regional politics seems to be somewhat of a good thing, for we should not forget how one of the most progressive linguistic groups, the Bengalis, were able to retain only one of the many linguistic variants as the official one – leading to the loss of whole linguistic scripts like the Sylethi Nagari script. Another example that is of relevance here is the movement for the Assam Accord which led to the youngest Chief Minister, in Prafulla Mahanta, coming to power and which laid the foundation for the expelling of the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who had been entering the state and changing the entire demographics of it. Although social and political boundaries are two different things, looking at the example of the Kokboroks of Tripura and how they were made a minority in their own state – it seems only justified that the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) pushed for the revival of the Assamese culture and way of life.

Today, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that regionalism has assumed at least three important forms in India, namely supra-state regionalism, inter-state regionalism and intra-state regionalism. The best example of this supra state regionalism, is this North - South divide essentially emanating out of the language issue. The Karnataka – Tamil Nadu issue over the Cauvery water is a good example of inter-state regionalism and the demand of an ethnic group for specific rights and privileges within a pre-existing order of things is intra-state regionalism. For instance separation of the state of Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya from the state of Assam.    

A developing country like India, which is also democratic should ideally provide substantial scope and time for the traditional societies to shift their loyal ties from a community centric one to a more nation centric one. The race for rapid industrialization, post-independence has somehow hindered this idyllic and the central leaders have in fact pushed for the one-Identity – the Indian identity.

This idea of India, no matter how justified it might seem does not fit into the traditional idea that Indians have. People across India have a tendency to call themselves Assamese, Bengali, Gujrati, Rajasthani, Tamil etc. before they actually associate themselves with the Indian identity. It would be wrong though, to blame it all on the people – we must remember that not so long ago, at the dawn of Independence, we were 565 different States. We are a very young nation and it will at least take some time for the thought of integration to seep in.   

India is so diverse in terms of culture, religion, language etc. that it faces the risk of complete disintegration or complete authoritarian rule. In this context, there is a natural tendency of the central Government, in power, to push for the national integration narrative. There is an inclination for the overplaying of the destructive consequences and the underplaying of the constructive implications of the regionalism in politics of India. Although the fact that the division of the north-eastern and north- western states into smaller divisions having led to more effective administration and rapid development cannot be denied.

We know from history that majorities can seriously impair the rights of the minorities. The great French Philosopher Alex de Tocqueville once noted – “Democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.” Therefore for a true democracy, where the rights of each and every individual is actually protected – there is a need for checks and balances of power and regionalism in politics across the country is this check and balance.

Yes, there is a compromise on a one nation, one nationality identity yet the same heightened nationalism has not been successful right in our neighborhood, in Pakistan where the Government in fact had federal zones of administration established and attempted to centralize all power. The division of states in India, which has been done on the basis of language definitely does have its problems but has at least been able to keep the country together all these years after Independence. We still have a very healthy democracy with a robust economy unlike Pakistan which has time and again been taken over by the military regime and has an extremely weak democracy.

Regionalism in politics is definitely responsible in assassinating the ‘Indian’ identity but is it all that bad after all? Is the ‘Indian’ identity actually necessary? Isn’t the European Union working like a singular unit and in fact doing very well, while also maintaining separate national identities within it? There has been a good frequency of argument that it is the European Union that wants to reach a state of existence like that of India and yet I argue that model of the European Union is what India needs to learn from. While all individuals must be able to practice and sustain their cultural practices and identities, they must learn to live together in harmony – “Unity in Diversity”, in the true sense.