Essay on Regionalism in India!
In the Indian context, regionalism refers to assertion of distinct ethnic, linguistic or economic rights by various groups within the nation. Since regional consciousness is based on linguistic, economic, ethnic and cultural identities of the people living in a specific geographical area, we may speak in terms of economic regionalism, ‘linguistic regionalism, political regionalism and even sub-regional movements (for instance, Gorkha movement in Darjeeling hill area or the Bodo Movement in Assam) within the general frame of regionalism. Regionalism, in the Indian context, is thus a multi-dimensional concept.
This is because of the fact that the term ‘region’ refers not simply to a geographical territory, as is often assumed, but also to common characteristics of culture nurture and nourished for a considerable period of time by the people of a geographical area. These cultural traits are contrasted with characteristic cultural features in other parts of the larger geographical entity.
A distinction may be made between two types of socio-cultural regions. One type includes regions marked out by observers and/or specialists on the basis of some defining features. The other type includes regions which the people in the concerned areas perceive and which may attract their loyalties, give them separate identification tags, as it were, and form the basis for joint action.
These two types are not, however, mutually exclusive categories. Nevertheless, it may be recognised that the regions marked out by analytic observers and/or specialists are not necessarily recognised by the people who reside within those areas. Thus, the five zones marked by the States Reorganization Act, 1956, are very useful taxonomic concepts for those concerned with economic planning.
Taxonomic regions can reveal quite accurately a great deal of information which can be useful for economic and social planning as well as for a general understanding of distribution of socio-cultural zones and social processes.
The nature of such regions depends on which traits are selected as significant and what purpose the formulation is intend to serve. But few, if any, residents of the respective zones, have any notion that they can be so classified.
On the contrary, if a number of people strongly feel that they share a regional identity, that feeling, in itself, is a common feature. The analytical observers and specialists must take the perception of the people into account. Government authorities may denote a new political entity which may then become in terms of perception of the people within it an important region.
The geographic spread of a region varies according to the criteria and purposes selected by the researcher. For certain criteria and purposes the whole Indian sub-continent can be treated as one region, as Emeneau had done in respect of certain linguistic traits and as Kroeber had done in regard to civilisation.
For other purposes a small tract like Coorg can validly be considered a separate region both by the observers and by the residents themselves.
For instance, Srinivas has pointed out that the people of Coorg can be classified as practicing a special variety of Hinduism’ as contrasted with that practiced in adjoining areas’ described by him as ” Peninsular Hinduism” which, in its turn, is a part of the vast region of “All India Hinduism”. Even much smaller tracts and population can usefully be denoted as regions for certain purposes.
Since the seventies regionalism has developed as a major social and political force in the Indian sub-continent. The origin of regionalism may be explained in various ways and from different perspectives.
To begin with, mention may be made of the creation of an independent nation in a pluralistic society within which sectional interests vigorously compete for shares of the nation’s resources and for symbols of regional eminence.
According to some analysts, in a vast and diversified polity like India, regionalism is a legitimate phenomenon. Assertion of regional rights is interpreted by some as an expression of the quest for a human identity.
According to Rajni Kothari, “the way to deal with them lies not in dubbing them anti- national and crushing them with the use of state force but in respecting and recognizing their underlying motives and aspirations and fit them into the larger framework of national unity.”
Secondly, the growth in importance after independence of regional languages and in the number of people educated in those languages led to their enhanced self-identification with the language and the region of their domicile.
The process began in the 19th century when local leaders deliberately propagated regional speech, literature and practices as ways of opposing the language and influence of the elite, mainly English-speaking elite. The linguistic separation between regions is another element in sharpening loyalty to region.
The social force of linguistic identification, however, developed greatly after independence because of the following reasons:
(a) Improvement in communication within the regions;
(b) Propagation of regional language for educational, literary, religious and political purposes;
(c) The need felt by local political leaders for supra-local alliances in order to swing political weight.
Thirdly, when people belonging to a particular ethnic group reside permanently within a specific geographic area, their ethnic feelings find expression in the form of increased regional loyalty.
Many recent regional movements in India, such as movement for Gorkhaland in Darjeeling, Bodo movements in Assam, and Jharkhand movement in Bihar and West Bengal are basically movements for establishing ethnic identity. It may be pointed out that ethnicity is not peculiar to India.
It is a world phenomenon. No large nation-state today is free from ethnic upsurges. Recent ethnic troubles between Azerbaijan’s and Armenians show that even a highly centralized Communist state is pot free from ethnic clashes. It may further be pointed out that ethnicity is to be distinguished from racial identity.
“Race tends to refer to the biological aspect of group difference, ethnic to a combination of the cultural aspect plus a putative biological element because of the assumption of common descent”.