Statements by Radical Socialist on issue of Delimitation & on the Three Language Formula

Radical Socialist Statement on the Delimitation Issue

The BJP is now the only party that can claim a Pan-Indian presence and relative dominance in contrast to all other parties including the Congress. Once hegemonic the Congress is now basically a regional force that rules in only three states which is more than can be said for any other regional force, be it the Left Front or AAP. But also to be noted is that in every state where over time the Congress has lost the status of being at least the second most important party, it has never recovered this rank let alone re-emerging as the biggest party. It is precisely to secure a long term consolidation and deepening of the BJP’s ‘one-party dominance’ that there is this effort to establish a simultaneous system of elections at the Lok Sabha and state assembly levels and to have a country-wise delimitation exercise for creating more constituencies in the more populous Hindi heartland states where the BJP is more strongly implanted. Delimitation can also be accompanied by gerrymandering to create more Hindu populated constituencies as has been done in J&K.

But there is a logical case for claiming that democratic principles do call for readjustment of constituency strength to reflect this changed reality of a substantial rise in population. Unfortunately, the BJP is using the democratic legitimacy of a call for delimitation as a way to de-democratise Indian federalism and to manipulatively enhance its prospects of dominating the Lok Sabha because of the even greater electoral weight of the Hindi heartland states. It is well recorded that Hindutva advocates have consistently called upon Hindus to have more children, allegedly because otherwise the Muslims will overtake them. The latter assertion is patently false, but it has resulted in especially the Hindi speaking and nearby areas having a huge population growth, while other areas, such as much of the South having pursued the central government’s declared policy of population growth curtailment. Under the guise of democracy therefore, a linguistic-ethnic as well as party political cum ideological dominance is sought to be imposed. It is the clear recognition of this masked assault on the federal distribution of power that has led to M.K. Stalin, the chief minister of TN, as well as some other CMs to oppose the BJP proposal which must of course follow after the next National Census scheduled for 2026. [Incidentally, this census will likely also be organised to serve another purpose than constituency expansion. It will help establish a National Register of Citizens (NRC) where according to newly laid but unmet documentary requirements, Muslims in particular, can be deemed non-citizens to be detained permanently or even expelled.]

What then is to be done? Here is one way of dealing with this issue of delimitation. Let it be enacted after the Census in all states but for the purpose of carrying out assembly elections only. So while some states, for example in the south, will get a limited increase in MLA constituency numbers or none at all compared to the increases in other states, this will not seriously alter the existing pattern of party competition for forming elected state governments which will either be based on a single party majority or through coalition arrangements. The seating composition of the Rajya Sabha should remain the same as it currently is. However, this changed constituency map after such a delimitation in the states should not be the basis (as is currently the case) for how MPs are to be elected. For the Lok Sabha, voters should be treated more as Indian nationals and not primarily as residents of different states. The overall increase in the adult voting population established by the Census should result in more seats for MPs in the LS through allocation of a large extra block which leads, if not to a doubling of the existing number (543), can be a minimum of 500 extra seats. We will not in the future have to go beyond this tally as in due course India’s total population will stabilise.

While the existing 543 seats will continue to be elected on a constituency basis---there will be no change in the existing state wise distribution of LS seats--- the remaining 500 or more are to be based on proportional representation on a party list system. Thus each voter has two votes, one for the constituency candidate, the other on a party list. This is the system in around 85 countries, including Germany and ensures a much more genuine form of democratic representation as compared to the First Past the Post system (FPTP) since it would more strongly reflect the regional, cultural and social diversity of the country. It would also ensure that the BJP will have much more difficulty in establishing its dominance at the Centre and allow other forms of coalition rule, with or without BJP participation, to take place. The likelihood of greater and stronger involvement in legislative and executive activities would surely be more attractive to various sectoral and region based parties. There can be a cut-off of say 3% or 5% to cross for smaller parties to qualify for participation in the LS, further enhancing the legislature’s democratic and socially inclusive character.

Of course this cannot come about without a major amendment to the Constitution and is therefore a more distant prospect. But especially those parties most concerned about the danger that Hindutva forces represent can certainly begin to propagate and even agitate in support of such a proposal. The Left in particular has nothing to lose and can only gain by upholding this banner of greater democracy. Revolutionaries who challenge the restrictive nature of bourgeois democracy should be involved in every attempt at widening popular voice and agency.

o o

Radical Socialist Statement on the Three Language Formula

Since 2014, the Modi-led Central governments have systematically sought and substantially succeeded in undermining Indian federalism by reorganising Centre-state relations so as to enhance the relative powers and capacities for control and intervention of the former over the latter at the economic, political and legal levels. It doesn’t stop here. India must be culturally homogenised as much as possible along Hindutva lines. So the BJP-RSS seeks to promote, to the extent possible, a uniformity of what is taught in schools; hence the New Education Policy (NEP) and its content changes and recommendations.

Furthermore, for the Sangh Parivar, a Sanskritised Hindi must become the most important link language across the country. It is precisely this thinking that lies behind the new effort to push the three-language formula for students in schools whether public or private. That is why there is the insistence that wherever this formula is applied, two of the languages must be Indian. The reaction from the Tamil Nadu government against this is justified because the motivation of this Hindutva dominated government at the Centre is obvious despite its assurance that no specific Indian language is to be imposed. To understand why, a little bit of history.

After independence India’s linguistic diversity and the sensitivity, especially of the non-Hindi speaking populations of the southern and eastern states, meant that there was an early realisation that all central governments even as they desired an Indian language (preferably Hindi since it was the most widely spoken minority language) alongside English to serve as wider link languages, would have to navigate very carefully by not showing favouritism to Hindi. So the original three-language proposal, reiterated with different nuances at times thereafter, was supposed to encourage Hindi speaking states to take up another Indian language as the counterpart to those outside the Hindi belt considering the adoption of Hindi among other choices. The capacity of primary and secondary schools in India to teach three languages was anyway very poor, indeed mostly non-existent, and in effect this three-language policy was a non-starter, never seriously followed anywhere but having the merit of leaving matters basically as they were without arousing language-related political tensions.

With the growing dominance of the BJP in the Hindi heartland, mostly government and government-aided schools besides offering English, offer Sanskrit as the second Indian language option besides Hindi, though there are hardly any serious takers for this third option. But it provides a face-saver for the current government when it pushes for the three language formula to be adopted elsewhere in the south and east. It is a disguised way (after all it is supposed to be voluntary) of pushing Hindi outside the Hindi belt while not in any way seeking to promote non-Hindi regional languages among students inside the Hindi heartland. Indeed, there have been from time to time proposals to make Sanskrit compulsory between grades 5 and 8 in certain states of the north, e.g., Himachal Pradesh. This pressure is growing.

A much more sensible and realisable policy would be to have a compulsory two-language policy. Everywhere there are schools that either have as their medium the regional language or have English as the medium of instruction. There is no getting away from the fact that English is the international language and no matter the justified pride in one’s own language, people everywhere as well as educational institutions recognise this and are promoting its learning. In China, English is increasingly being taught at the primary level. The popular belief that studying in the English medium facilitates better future education and job prospects in India means there is a proliferation of such English-medium schools even when they are of a poor overall standard.

This is where a compulsory two-language system with proper monitoring of basic standards can cultivate the flourishing of all Indian languages as well as English. A practical policy that moves in this direction and is easily doable is to have a two-language policy in all primary and secondary schools, public and private up to, and including, Class X. In those schools where the medium is the regional language, give them the choice of choosing any second language, be it English or any other Indian language. But in English medium schools, the other language to be taught must be from among the languages of that region/state. Those schools who can, and have the financial capacity to do so, may also teach a third language.

Hindi and English will remain on a Pan-Indian scale the main link languages but without detriment or discrimination towards the other Indian languages which will continue to flourish as a result of students at the primary and secondary level developing a genuine bi-lingual capacity and skill. A democratic language policy must also pay attention to languages spoken by large sections of the population, number which are not yet part of the Eighth Schedule. This is desirable because with the increasing pressure of market forces nationally and globally many languages (particularly indigenous ones), identities and knowledge systems are under siege as never before.