Stronger lingustic/ National identity in India

How could it happen that people would identify more as Bengali, Punjabi or whatever than as Moslem, Hindu or Sikh?

Could an Indian federation have still happened on Independence
 
Inside one's own state the religious identity and caste identity are important for an Indian. Outside the state where a different language is spoken the linguistic identity becomes important. Only when an Indian is outside India, he thinks as an Indian himself. But to think in this manner actual physical presence is not necessary. Even when one is sitting in his home he may imagine himself as an Indian or Tamil/Bengali/Marathi/Punjabi or Hindu/Muslim/Christian/Sikh depending on the situation or subject he deals with at the time.
 

SunDeep

Banned
So, with this concept, is this about creating a TL where India is partitioned along linguistic/ethnic lines rather than according to religion as IOTL? For instance, could you see India being divided into ethno-linguistic (as opposed to theocratic) nations such as Dravidia, Bengal, Maratha, Punjab, Gujarat, Oriya et cetera?
 
A partition of India based on the spoken language of the region was not plausible as per the OTL situation under the British Raj. The British Government in India never encouraged the native languages and did not form administrative units based on languages. The major administrative units like the Bombay, Calcutta or Madras presidencies were all multi-lingual areas and English was the language of administration in the whole subcontinent. The freedom fighters in all parts of India used English as their medium of communication to get in touch with one another and to fight the British. Hence the linguistic nationalism never got a chance to develop in India.
The language based states were formed in India only after the independence and such a concept did not exist in the British period. Perhaps Bengali and Tamil were the only languages that had developed some rudimentary forms of cultural consciousness of identity based on them. On the other hand the religious identities were very strong and well defined. The rivalry between the Hindus and the Muslims which already existed was strengthened due to political interventions.
 
A partition of India based on the spoken language of the region was not plausible as per the OTL situation under the British Raj. The British Government in India never encouraged the native languages and did not form administrative units based on languages. The major administrative units like the Bombay, Calcutta or Madras presidencies were all multi-lingual areas and English was the language of administration in the whole subcontinent. The freedom fighters in all parts of India used English as their medium of communication to get in touch with one another and to fight the British. Hence the linguistic nationalism never got a chance to develop in India.

The language based states were formed in India only after the independence and such a concept did not exist in the British period. Perhaps Bengali and Tamil were the only languages that had developed some rudimentary forms of cultural consciousness of identity based on them. On the other hand the religious identities were very strong and well defined. The rivalry between the Hindus and the Muslims which already existed was strengthened due to political interventions.

I'd add Malayalam to that list but otherwise I agree with Kishan's points.

I think most Indians would identify first by their jati (this concept is complex but basically it's your endogamous/religious/subcommunity identity), then their ethnolinguistic identity, then their nationality as Indians. There's also a strong class element too among the English educated upper middle classes across India who would, to some extent, see themselves as having an informal commonality of identity- where that would come in the abovementioned hierarchy of identities would probably vary from person to person. A Malayalee Christian brought up in Delhi would probably feel that English speaking upper class identity much more strongly than, say, his cousin born and brought up back in Kerala.
 
I'd add Malayalam to that list but otherwise I agree with Kishan's points.

I think most Indians would identify first by their jati (this concept is complex but basically it's your endogamous/religious/subcommunity identity), then their ethnolinguistic identity, then their nationality as Indians. There's also a strong class element too among the English educated upper middle classes across India who would, to some extent, see themselves as having an informal commonality of identity- where that would come in the abovementioned hierarchy of identities would probably vary from person to person. A Malayalee Christian brought up in Delhi would probably feel that English speaking upper class identity much more strongly than, say, his cousin born and brought up back in Kerala.

Yes. This.

This idea comes up a lot, but as pointed out above, only post-independence has linguistic identity become a thing, and even then it is largely secondary both to national identity and to caste-based identities.

On a broader level, though, I feel this question lacks crucial context: the reality is that linguistic nationalism is the exception throughout the world, not the norm. Linguistic nationalism is largely a European phenomenon, and the emergence of monolingual states is largely the result of the world wars in the 20th Century. Other monolingual states tend to be settler societies, and even there it's not entirely the case (Canada and Quebec, Quechua and various indigenous languages in much of Latin America).

So India really isn't that exceptional. Just look at the neighborhood. The only monolingual states in Asia are Japan, the Koreas, and Bangladesh. Every other Asian country is multilingual.
 
So India really isn't that exceptional. Just look at the neighborhood. The only monolingual states in Asia are Japan, the Koreas, and Bangladesh. Every other Asian country is multilingual.

I'd point out that even Bangladeshi national identity is primarily religious rather than linguistic.
 
I'd point out that even Bangladeshi national identity is primarily religious rather than linguistic.

Do you think so? The whole Bengali language issue was the major force behind E. Pakistan's alienation. And there has always been a very strong leftist/secular current in Bangladeshi politics.

Plus it seems that the existing separation from India, the war with Pakistan, the country's bloody birth, all have also served to inculcate a separate, secular "Bangladeshi" identity that sits apart from a wider Bengali one.
 
Do you think so? The whole Bengali language issue was the major force behind E. Pakistan's alienation. And there has always been a very strong leftist/secular current in Bangladeshi politics.

Plus it seems that the existing separation from India, the war with Pakistan, the country's bloody birth, all have also served to inculcate a separate, secular "Bangladeshi" identity that sits apart from a wider Bengali one.

I agree that was a driving force in Bangladeshi independence but I think it's notable that it still hasn't led to much solidarity with Indian Bengalis .
 
Flocculencio is right when he says that the Bengalis on both sides of the border do not view each other with much solidarity. This is quite different from the case of Tamils. The Tamils in Tamilnadu are greatly agitated by the treatment meted out to Tamils in Sri Lanka or even in Malaysia. In the case of Tamils, the Tamils in India are a huge majority when compared to the Tamils outside India. They also belong to the same religion and culture. But Bengalis in India and Bangladesh have similar population strengths and follow different religions. The Bengalis in India also resent the immigration of Bangla Deshis into India. This could be the reason for the difference in attitudes of Bengalis and Tamilians.
 
Flocculencio is right when he says that the Bengalis on both sides of the border do not view each other with much solidarity. This is quite different from the case of Tamils. The Tamils in Tamilnadu are greatly agitated by the treatment meted out to Tamils in Sri Lanka or even in Malaysia. In the case of Tamils, the Tamils in India are a huge majority when compared to the Tamils outside India. They also belong to the same religion and culture. But Bengalis in India and Bangladesh have similar population strengths and follow different religions. The Bengalis in India also resent the immigration of Bangla Deshis into India. This could be the reason for the difference in attitudes of Bengalis and Tamilians.

One thing I've also noticed about Tamil identity is that there tend to be less perceptions of difference between Tamil Muslims and Tamil Hindus- from what I've observed both tend to think of themselves as Tamil first (although this is changing due to increased trends towards "arabisation" among some Tamil Muslims).
 
So India really isn't that exceptional. Just look at the neighborhood. The only monolingual states in Asia are Japan, the Koreas, and Bangladesh. Every other Asian country is multilingual.

But in many Asian countries, one language is predominant, if not universal - most Southeast Asian countries for instance have only a single official language, which is generally understood, if not always natively. In a sense, these countries are linguistically where many European countries were a century ago, when the various regional languages/dialects were much more widely spoken than they are today. We may see them become more monolingual as time passes.

India on the other hand is something like Austria-Hungary linguistically, where there is no majority language though there is a large minority that speaks one (Hindi in this case).
 
But in many Asian countries, one language is predominant, if not universal - most Southeast Asian countries for instance have only a single official language, which is generally understood, if not always natively. In a sense, these countries are linguistically where many European countries were a century ago, when the various regional languages/dialects were much more widely spoken than they are today. We may see them become more monolingual as time passes.

India on the other hand is something like Austria-Hungary linguistically, where there is no majority language though there is a large minority that speaks one (Hindi in this case).

I should point out that the dominant languages often tend to be a relic of various local conflicts and/or the aftereffect of colonialism where specific ethnic groups achieved a certain level of dominance e.g. the Burmese in Myanmar, the Javanese in Indonesia etc.
 
How could it happen that people would identify more as Bengali, Punjabi or whatever than as Moslem, Hindu or Sikh?

Could an Indian federation have still happened on Independence

One thing to consider is the amount of conflict between groups.

Identity and groups are formed by two things - similarity to those within the group and difference to those outside the group.

When religion is important because of conflict and discrimination, it seems to trump any similarities. Look at Northern Ireland. It's a small place, there aren't many people, they have a clearly defined accent and slang. These are all things that should cement a common identity but don't - religion trumps it all.

You can contrast that with the identities of people in England and Wales. There is nowhere near the same level of discord between protestants and catholics, and people use other things more to create their identity. I feel certain that a protestant and a catholic from Hastings would feel more connected with each other than in religious terms with a protestant and a catholic from Newcastle. If you took those four people and stuck them in a room, I reckon they would be more likely to pair up on regional grounds more than religious ones.

So, translate that effect to India - how would people identify more by their region and local language? For a start, we'd need to find a way of removing tension between the faiths. How would a Punjabi muslim or dalit have more in common with a Punjabi jat than with their Bihari equivalents (apart from by joining a SUV owners club)?

We'd need to create a great deal more harmony between religions and castes. We'd probably need more conflict between the regions as well. So an Akbar-style ruler of one particular area who insisted on religious tolerance for a long period, but who also fought wars against neighbours who spoke a different language would probably do the trick.

So I'd say it's almost impossible post-independence, and difficult after Shah Jahan took the throne, more so once Aurangzeb succeeded him.
 
I think that the formation of states on linguistic basis have in fact reduced chances of linguistic rivalry. Enmity based on language difference is likely to develop in multi-lingual countries or states when there are two or three languages of almost equal strength, competing in almost same area. But in India even though there are dozens of languages (22 officially recognized and many more minor languages and dialects) most of the states are practically monolingual where one language dominates. In Tamilnadu Tamil, in Kerala Malayalam, in Maharashtra Marathi, in Bengal Bengali, in Punjab Punjabi and so on. As one language dominates in one state overwhelmingly, speakers of other languages, if any stay there, accept that domination. It is only in the Northeast that several languages overlap and that makes the area troublesome. Further English dominates in administrative, judicial and higher education areas in all states. Hence linguistic rivalry do not occur unless it is purposefully fanned by politicians with selfish motives.
 
Top