LanguageandRighttotheCity

JanakiNair HastheearlynationalistvisionofKarnatakacometogrief,closetoturningintoanightmareinthehandsof somegroups?ThiswasDRNagarajschiefconcerninanarticlethatdiscussedtheemergenceofamore stridentKannadanationalism(particularlyoverthelasttwodecades).Hedistinguishedbetweenafear centrednationalismasrepresentedbythewritingsofMChidanandamurthy(andtheactivityoftheKannada ShaktiKendra)andthespiritualnationalismofearlierwriterssuchasAlurVenkatarao.ConsiderAlur VenkataraosmessageontheoccasionofKarnatakaunificationin1956: Inshort,weshouldnotforgetthatKarnatakaisamuchbroaderentitythanKannada.Notonly thespeakersofdialects,weshouldalsonotforgettheminoritieswhospeakother (neighbouring)languagesintheconstructionofunitedKarnatakathisisaprincipletobekept inmind.Inotherwords,Kannadahasthedominantstatus.Butknowledgeiswelcomefromall sides.AssomeonewhokeenlyconductedtheKarnatakamovement,Ineverforgetthis.Thus, oncewhentheMarathilibraryinDharwarwasfacingclosure,Itookitover,addedthecollection tomyownBharataPustakalaya,ranitforsomeyearsandwhentheMarathisherecame forwardtomanageit,Ihandeditovertothem[Venkatarao1980]. Chidanandamurthysprose,andthecopiousoutpouringsoftheKannadaShaktiKendra,ontheotherhand aremarked,notjustbyfear,butbyenvyofthemoremuscularTamilnationalism.1Andindeedtheself confidenceofAluryieldswaytotheaggressivelydefensivestandofChidanandamurthy,andthetransition fromthistoasecularsociopoliticsoccurredonlyintheworkandvisionofPLankesh.DRNagarajsown humanismledhim,andseveralotherssuchasLankesh,toconsistentlyopposethelanguageofviolence andmilitancyasasolutiontothepredicamentofKannada,andindeedKarnatakaitself.2Thissecularsocio politicalspace,whichvaluesthemultiplestrandsthatmakeupcontemporaryKarnataka(nottheleastof whicharelinguisticminorities)hasbeensorelytestedonmorethanoneoccasionoverthelasttwodecades, andinparticularin1991and1994whentwodifferentminorities,TamilsandMuslims,weresingledoutfor attack,andthecurrentimpasseoncemorestrainstherelationshipbetweenKannadaandTamil.Butone mightgofurthertosuggestthattheidentityofKarnatakaitselfisendangeredwhenitsconstituentelements arethreatened,forwhowillhesitatetoacknowledgeKarnatakasdebttotheliteratureandlabourofthe Marathi,Urdu,TeluguandTamilspeakers? Clearly,thetriumphantmarchofcomputerlanguagessuchasJavaandC++througheveryneighbourhood ofBangalore,andsomeotherpartsofKarnataka,hasdonenothingtoresolveorrenderirrelevantthecrisis withinwhichtheKannadalanguageandthestatefindsitself,andmayonlyhaveaccentuatedit.Indeed, WhenthecapitalistsgiveKannadaasidelongglance[kadegannindanoduthiruvaga],Kannadaitself becomescapitaltosomesaystheKannadaDevelopmentAuthorityChairmanBargurRamachandrappa,in hisrecentpleaforrecastingKannadapride(KannadaabhimanadaKatuvaasthavainPrajavani,October31, 2000).Thecurrentimpasse,inwhichaculturaliconofKarnataka,Rajkumar,hasbeenheldhostageforover threemonthsbyVeerappanandhisallies,closelyidentifiedwithTamilNadu,isasignoftheuneasyfit betweeneconomicdevelopmentandculturalpolitics.Ihaveelsewherearguedthatthepredicamentstems fromKannadasdominatedstatuswithinKarnataka,notindemographicterms,asthevotariesoftheShakthi Kendrawouldliketoinsist,butwithineconomicandculturalspaces.(Indemographicterms,afterall,the estimated40percentofBihariHindispeakersinCalcuttaorthesubstantialnumberofTeluguspeakersin ChennaihasdonenothingtochallengethehegemonyofBengalorTamilrespectivelyinBengalandTamil Nadu).Rather,if,followingPierreBourdieuinLanguageandSymbolicPower3weadoptthenotionofa linguisticmarket,aneconomywithinwhichparticularlanguagecompetencestakeonvalue,wemaydiscern thedeeplysegmentedandfarfromunifiedlinguisticmarketwhichhasdevelopedinKarnataka.Itisa

linguisticmarketthatsustainsadivisionoflabourbetweendifferentlanguagesandlanguagecompetence, resultingintheveryrestrictedspherewithinwhichKannadamaycirculate.Therestrictionsimposedbysuch objectivefactorsasgeographyanddemography,appearthenasfarlesscrucialindefiningthepredicament ofKannadathanthoseimposedbytheeconomyortheorganisationofthepoliticalsphere.The overwhelmingdominanceofEnglishasaninternationallyhegemoniclanguage,inthecommercial,financial, scientificorITfields,orthedominanceofHindiandTamilintheculturalspheres(eg,TVandcinema) leavesKannadatoitslonelyreignovertheliterarysphere,andwithinthespaceofdomesticity.Strenuous attemptstomakeKannadatheadministrativelanguageoftheregionhavedonelittletorecastthe segmentedlinguisticmarketorcompensateforthedivisionoflabourbetweenlanguagesthathasemerged. AlthoughKannadahasbeentheofficiallanguageofthestatesince1963,andisbyandlargethelanguage ofgovernance,itdoesnotsufficientlyundoitsdominatedstatus. SitesofDomination

ThenameisKarnataka,nowletthebreathbeKannada(hesaraayithuKarnataka,usiraagaliKannada)

wastherallyingcallofpoetChennaviraKanavi,whichsuggeststhatthelinguisticreorganisationofstatesin 1956,anadministrativeact,didnotautomaticallybringlinguisticdominanceinitswake.Clearly,thestate machineryhasalargeroletoplayinmakingthisareality,andasSumathiRamaswamysrecentworkhas shown,evensucharobustnationalismasthatofTamilcouldnotdowithoutthestatessupportinmaking Tamilthedefactolanguageofthestate[Ramaswamy1998:16198].TheKarnatakastatehasrepeatedly beenviewedasfailinginitdutiestowardsthelanguage,4callingfortheworkofassociationssuchasVatal NagarajsKannadaChaluvaligaru,theKannadaShaktiKendra,ortheRajkumarAbhimanigalaSanghato nameafew. ItneedcomeasnosurprisethatthecityofBangalorehasbecomeemblematicofthedominatedstatusof Kannada:bythelastcensus(1991)only35percentofthepeopledeclaredKannadaastheirmothertongue. Thisdemographicdeficitisproducedashumiliationinultranationalistdiscourse.ThusChidanandamurthy recallsaskingforaticketinKannadainthe(Englishspeaking/Tamildominated)cantonmentandbeing threatenedbythemanager:morehumiliatingthanthethreatwasthefactthatKannadigasweremute witnesses.5TheKannadigaisherealocalrefugeesaidRaNamChandrasekhar,anHALemployeewho hasproducedsomeofthemostdetailedanalysesofthedemographicdatatoprovethatKannadahasa fugitivepresenceinthestatecapital.6Thisisbotharesultof,andacausefor,theKannadigaslackofself respectandthelimitlesstoleranceofothersneedswhichhavebeenrepresentedaspositiveattributes(the largeheartednessoftheKannadigaorthecivilisedKannadiga,etc)andtricktheguilelessKannadigainto happiness.7ThecosmopolitanismwhichishailedbythecitysbourgeoisieandtheEnglishPressin particulartakesonapejorativemeaninginKannadawritings:saysGNarayana,formerMayorofBangalore, Bangaloreistodayacosmopolitancity.Ifthissituationcontinues[thewholeof]Karnatakaitselfmay becomecosmopolitan[Narayana1997:2].Thisdemographiclack,thesewriterssuggest,maybe redressedinanumberofways:byencouragingmigrationintothecityfromnorthKarnataka(aphenomenon thatnewmodesoflabourmobilisation,particularlyintheconstructionindustry,hasalreadyenabled,though hardlyduetotheinfluenceofsuchgroups.Bythe1950s,asithasbeenshownbydemographers,interstate migrationwasovershadowedbyintrastatemigration,atrendthathasnotbeenreversed).8Thewounds inflictedbygeography,9namely,thelocationofBangalorenearthebordersoftwootherstates,Andhra PradeshandTamilNadu,mayonotherhand,beredressedbybanningnewindustriesinBangalore,asSa RaGovindu,thepresidentoftheRajkumarAbhimanigalaSanghadeclared.10 Thisuseofdemographicdataisaparticularlyattractivestratagemsinceitquicklylaysbarethedominated statusofKannadainKarnatakaandparticularlyBangalore,comparedwithChennai,Trivandrumor Hyderabad.11ButtheKannadamovementdidnotoweitsoriginstotheactivitiesoftheShaktiKendra(begun in1988),northeAbhimanigalaSanghas(begunin1982).Nordothesegroupstodaymonopolisethe

struggletobuildanewidentityforKannada.WhatthenweretheKannadamovementsearlyformsafter statereorganisationandhowhavethesebeentransformedsincethe1980storaisenotonlynewdemands butadoptnewstrategiesintheachievementofitsgoals?HowdoothergroupssuchasKarnataka VimochanaRangaforinstance,envisageandworktowardsanotherKannadanationandwithwhatsuccess? Intheearly1960s,thereweretwoprincipalsitesofstrugglefortheKannadamovement.AsOldMysoreand particularlyBangalorewithdrewfromitsculturaldependenceontheMadrasPresidency,therewasacallto supportindigenous(Karnataka)culturalproductions.AaNaKrishnaRao(AaNaKru)andMaRamamurthy oftheKarnatakaSamyukthaRangawereamongthosewhodemandedthatKannadasingersbegivena placeintheannualRamotsavaculturalfestivals,thendominatedbyartistesfromTamilNadu(Idu Ramotsavaalla,TamilotsavaAaNaKruisreportedtohaveangrilysaid)(SamyuktaKarnataka,April28, 1962).Cinematoowasemergingasasiteofstruggleinthe1960s.Ontheonehand,leadersofthe KannadamovementobjectedtorepresentationsofKarnatakainTamilfilms:inKanchiThalaivan(1963)a Tamilfilm,thehumiliationofMayurvarman,KadambaKing,atthecourtofthePallavasatKanchiwastaken asahumiliationoftheentireKannadanation,andthemoviewaswithdrawnfromcirculation.12Therewere alsogrowingdemandsforthescreeningofmoreKannadafilmsinthecity:atthestartofhispoliticalcareer, VatalNagarajthreatenedtoshutdown,throughviolenceifnecessary,thetheatreswhereTamilfilmswere beingshown,particularlyintheMajesticarea(DeccanHerald,December28,1960;February20,1962, September8,1962).Finally,inordertostresstheseparationofthenewlinguisticstatefromitsearlier culturalmoorings,therewereappealstoKannadaactorssuchasKalyanKumar,torefusetoactinTamil films.Thesearchforawaytodominatethesphereoftheculturalhaspassedthroughmanyphases:even whenKannadafilmshaveamoreassuredpresenceinthecity,periodicprotestsagainstthedubbingofother languagefilmsorremakeshavecontinued. ButtherewasanothersphereinwhichtheKannadamovementwasrelativelymoresuccessful.Thiswasin therealmofpublicsectorjobs,anentitlementnotmerelytoasalarybutawholenewwayoflifeinthecity: goodwagesforfairlyundemandingworkwereaccompaniedbyhousing,transport,subsidisedcanteens,etc, allofwhichwerethegainsconsolidatedbyaleftwingtradeunionmovement.Beguninthe1940sand 1950s,theBigFourunits,HAL,BEL,HMTandITI,employedlargelyMalayaliandTamilianworkers:the Kannadigapresencewasrathermuteduntilthe1960swhenacombinationofdemographicshifts, managementpoliciesandnewculturalpoliticsbegantogainground.ThePublicSectorunitswerealso importantlocationsofwellfundedculturalandfineartsgroups,atfirstmonopolisedbytheMalayalisand Tamils:thesewerethelanguagesofculturalorganisations,aswellastradeunions,inthe1970s.13 Sincethe1950s,andthedevelopmentofthelinguisticstates,migrationfromerstwhilePresidencyareasinto BangalorehasbeengraduallyreplacedbymigrationfromtheruralKarnataka.Asthenewlinguisticstate consolidatesitsresources,simultaneouslyredrawingandrestrictingthesphereofinfluenceofthe Presidencies,labourmobility(oftheTamilvstheKannadigalabourerforinstance)hasbeentransformed, slowingdowninterstate,whileenhancingintrastatemigration.Thisprocesshasbeenmatchedby recruitmentpolicies:inBEL,forexample,thestrengthoftheAITUCwaschallengedin1967bytheWorkers UnityForum,whichconsistedprimarilyofnewKannadiga(middlepeasantcaste)migrants,whowere encouragedbyamanagementanxioustocurbleftwingmilitancy.14ThelargenumberofKannadaSanghas whichparticipatedintheGokakChaluvaliof1982wasampleindicationthatthetidehadturnedinfavourof theKannadigas.IndeedthedecisionoftheDevarajUrsgovernmenttomaketheKannadatestcomplusory forClass2,3and4employeesingovernmentevenledtoatemporarydeclineintheactivitiesofthe Chaluvaligars[Joseph1994:69,168].Somuchso,theSarojiniMahishiCommitteereportwhich recommendedthat100percentoftheGroupDjobs,80percentofthenextscale,andupto65percentof allothercategoriesinthepublicsectorbereservedforKannadaspeakers,cameatatimewhenthe Kannadaspeakerswereagrowingpresenceinnearlyallpublicsectorunits,thoughstillnotthe overwhelmingmajority.Thesonsofthesoilcampaignresurfacedinthe1980swiththeHegde governmentsdecisiontoreversethispolicy,andbecamethefirstagitationonthequestionofjobsledbythe

RajkumarAbhimanigalaSangha.15 TheGokakChaluvaliof1982,atfirstamovementoflitterateurs,artistsandacademics,centredintheHubli Dharwadregion,whichalsoincludedsignificantnumbersofwomen,broughtafreshandpositiveunitytothe Kannadamovement,whiledrawingawholerangeofnewgroupstoitsfoldofwhichtheRajkumar AbhimanigalaSanghawasthemostimportant.TheentryofRajkumarintotheGokakChaluvalitrulymadeit amassmovement,withtheactoraddressingmeetingsalloverthestate.16Inturn,theemergenceofthe RajkumarAbhimanigalaSanghasignalledanewstageinthemovement,withtheunhesitatinguseof violencethoughprimarilyagainstpublicproperty(KannadaStirTurnsViolent,DeccanHerald,April18, 1982).(Theonlydeathsthatoccurredin1982wereatKolarGoldField(KGF),whereTamiloppositiontothe proposedlanguagepolicyalsotooktheformofviolenceagainstpublicproperty:fivewerekilledinpolice firingaftersettingfiretothepostofficeandsomeothermineproperty). InformalEconomiesand'PoliticsinaNewKey' Twosimultaneousprocessesinthe1980salteredthecomposition,courseandstrategiesoftheKannada movement:themarginalisationofthepublicsectorandits(usuallyleftwing)tradeunions,andtheincreasing informalisationoftheeconomy.Whenthelongandbitterpublicsectorstrikeendedin1981,theeclipseof thissectorasprimeemployerwasalreadyunderway.Onlysporadicprotestscouldtakeplaceonthe questionofjobs,forafterall,howcouldthesamepressurebeputontheprivateorlargelyinformalsector? Therewasthe1984agitationagainsttheHegdeGovernmentOrderonKannadatestsforgovernmentjobs, thelaterdemandfortheWheelandAxlePlantortheRailwayheadquartersinBangalore,largelyanti governmentprotests.Simultaneously,thegradualeclipseofwellestablishedarenasofworkingclassaction, suchastradeunions,madetheinformalnetworks(neighbourhoodyouthgroups,KannadaSanghasand AbhimanigalaSanghasinparticular)evenmoreimportantsitesofpoliticalactivity.Largenumbersofthose whobelongtotheAbhimanigalaSanghasforinstanceareserviceprovidersinthecity:autorickshawdrivers, tempodriversandmechanics,recyclingjobworkers,pettyshopkeepers,andKEBorBWSSBemployees.17 Notsurprisinglythemoreimportantarenaofactioninthe1980swasthesymbolicreterritorialisingofthecity: redandyellowKannadaflagpolesthatmushroomedalloverthecityafter1982werecompensatingvisually forwhatmightstillbeanaudibleabsence.TheKannadaShaktiKendratookuptheseculturalquestionswith anaddedzeal,andtheKannadamovementtookonmorepointedattacksagainstminorities,particularly againstTamils.Protestsagainsttheprincipallanguageofliturgyinchurchesalloverthecity,namely,Tamil or,lessoften,English,theactiverenamingofroads,andoppositiontosymbolswhichconsecratedother (linguistic)culturalheroeswereseenascrucialareasofinterventiontomakethecityreflectmorecloselythe culturalentityofwhichitwasapart,Karnataka.Wecouldnotpreventtheinstallationandunveilingofthe Shivajistatueinthelate1980ssaidRaNamChandrasekhar,citingtheShaktiKendrasmoresuccessful oppositiontotheThiruvalluvarstatueasasignoftheconsolidationofitspower. Evenso,thecontentiousquestionoflanguageinthecitywasnotseriousenoughtowarranttheattentionof thestateapparatuses:thedeputycommissionerofpolice(intelligence)confessedbeforetheNDVenkatesh CommissionenquiringintotheviolenceagainstTamilsin1991,thatforpurposesofcollectionofintelligence hehadmadesomeclassificationsuchaslabourproblems,communalproblems,etc,butheiscertainthat linguisticrelationshipswiththeCitypopulationwasnotasubjectforgatheringinformation(Reportofthe NDVenkateshCommissionofInquiryVolumeI:52,emphasisinoriginal).TheviolenceagainstTamilsinthe OldMysoreregionandparticularlyinBangalorein1991wasindeedunprecedented,andfurthercameata timewhentheissueofjobsforKannadigaswaslessimportantthanthequestionsofrightstothelandand water.SteenVolkesveryimportantworkontheagriculturalusesoftheCauveryriverinbothKarnatakaand TamilNadupointstoawiderangeofbitterdisputesoverwaterrights,usuallybetweenheadandtailend userswithinthesamevillage,withcaste(ratherthanlanguage)playinganimportantroleindecidingwater allocations[Volkee1995].Nevertheless,theCauverywaterdisputehassincethe1980sincreasinglybeen

constructedasadisputeexclusivelybetweentwolinguisticregions[Balekundry1991]. LandRightsandGeographiesofViolence ThehistoricalconjunctureatwhichtheviolenceagainsttheTamilsoccurredin1991isofsomeimportance: itwasatimewhentherighttolandwhetherwithinthecityorelsewherehadbecomebothmoreuncertain andyetmorecriticalasaresourceinaninformaleconomy.Conflictsoverlandrightswithinthecityhad heightenedinthedecadewhenthepopulationincreasedbyamassive76percent(19711981).The geographiesofviolencebothduringthe1991riotsandthe1994riotsagainstUrduspeakingMuslimsreveal averyinterestingcongruence.Theywerebothconcentratedinthewesternpartsofthecity,whereland rightsweremostprecarious,aterrainthatwasfullyoccupiedbyillegalconstructions,andfurther,hilly groundthatmadesurveillancedifficult.TheriotsdidnotaffectoldersettlementsofTamilstotheeastofthe city.TheVenkateshCommissionnotedthatviolencewasconfinedto13policestationlimitsallofwhichwere contiguousandinthewesternpartofthecity(p2).Inthe20sqkmfallingtotheBasaveshwaranagarand Kamakshipalayapolicestations,thereexistedseveralrevenuepocketsandslumsmostlyinhabitedby labourclassandmigrantpoorpeopleconsiderablenumberofwhomwerelinguisticminorities(p59alsop 64).TherewasastrikingcongruencebetweentheseaffectedareasandthosetargetedintheantiUrdu telecastriotsof1994:thepropertiesandbusinessesofMuslimswerenowsingledoutforattackinthesame westerndivisionsofthecity,offMysoreRoad[PeoplesDemocraticForum,1994:5,7].Thisarea,as SolomonBenjaminandBhuvaneswariRamansnewworkhasclearlyshown,boastsofoneofthemost vibrantinformaleconomiesinBangalorecity,butironicallyinanareawhichhasthemosttenuousofrightsto property,andwhereownershipisconstantlyinflux.18TheauthorssayofAzadnagar,neartheKRmarket. ThelandsupplysystemsinAzadnagarcomprisesofavarietyofsubsystemsfreesitesformedbystate agenciesanddistributedtopoorgroups,revenueplots,gramthanaorlayoutsonvillagelandandsquatter settlement.Valmikinagar,oneofthelargestlayoutinthewardforexamplewasdevelopedpartlybythestate forfreesitesandpartlybyprivatedevelopers.Azadnagar,anotherlargelayoutinthewardevolvedon gramthanaland.Inaddition,therearealargenumberofsmallerprivaterevenuelayoutsexistintheward Markandeyalayout,Vittalnagarlayout,Adarshnagar,Rudrappagarden,etc.Besides,theBandeSquatter settlementemergedonmarginallandintheabandonedquarryarea,lowlyinglandintheward.The differentlandsettingsencompassthevarietyofeconomicactivitiesanditsactors. Propertyherehaseconomicvaluenotmerelyashousingbutalsoasasourceoflivelihood,aneighbourhood workshop.Further,aslocationsoutsidethemasterplanningarea,claimsareestablishednotonlyvia markets,butalso[via]ethnicandpoliticalroutes.Suchfragileandcomplexeconomieshavebeenmost vulnerableduringtheriotsofthe1990s. Bothin1991andin1994,thepropertyandlivelihoodsofTamilsandMuslimsrespectivelycameinforfar moresustainedattackthanlivesperse.Ofthe23deathsthatarebelievedtohaveoccurredin1991,17 wereduetopolicefiringandsixduetomobviolence(NDVenkateshCommissionReport).Propertylossin theseriotswasputatRs17croreinbothTamilNaduandKarnatakabytheIndianPeoplesHumanRights Tribunal(AnnexureIV).TheVenkateshCommissionputtheestimateoflossesvariouslyatRs3crore(state andcentralgovernmentlosses),atRs15.5crore(asperdepartmentofcommerceandindustries)andRs 20.5crore(asperpoliceestimates).IntheantiUrduriots25werekilled,anequalnumberdyingasaresult ofpolicefiringorstabbinginjuries.19Theseareshockingstatisticsforacitythathadnoprevioushistoryof suchdeathlyviolence,butthestatisticsrelatingtothelossofprivatepropertyandlivelihoodsandthethreat posedtothecontinuanceofcertainsocialgroupsinthewesternpartofthecitywereindicativeofmuchmore enduringstrategiesofalteringclaimstoanareaorneighbourhood.20Thisdefinitelinkbetweenthegrowing violenceoflanguagepoliticsinthepasttwodecades(andparticularlyinthe1990s)andtransformations withintheeconomicsphere,however,mustnotobscuretheworkofideologicallyconstituting,andmobilising, theKannadapeopleinthenameofnationalism.

ModesofMobilisation ItwouldbetemptingtoseeintheactionsofKannadaactivistssincethe1980samimicryofthestylesand strategiesofTamilnationalism.Ironically,inthe1960s,therelativepoliticalquiescenceoftheKannadiga wasdeploredbythoseBangaloreTamilswhothrewthemselvesintotheantiHindiprotests:21thereisan apocryphaltaleofTamilssendingtheshaminggiftofbanglestotheiremasculatedKannadigacounterparts togoadthemintoactiononanissuethatwasnottheirown.TheemasculatedKannadigacontrastswiththe virileTamil,andeveninthecurrentefforttocorrectthischaracterisation,bytheadoptionofanaggressive andeventhreateningtone,onemaydetectacommonpatterntothegendereddiscourseonlanguageon bothsidesoftheborder.Forlanguageitselfisfeminised,personifiedasKannadaBhuvaneswari/Tamilttay, whilehersupplicants,devoteesandprotectorsareoverwhelminglymale.22Mobilisationonthequestionof languageandstateidentityhasremainedresolutelyandaggressivelymale:notonlyhasparticipationinfan clubsorlanguageassociationsbeenoverwhelminglymale,inKarnatakaaselsewhere,thefemalehasbeen mobilisedwithinthisdiscourseasareveredbutweakpersonificationoflanguageitself,callingforthe constantvigilanceofherprotectors(ThayinaduPremaThayiPritiashteShrestha,KannadaKanmani,1993). Thewomanisfigurednotascitizeninthisdiscourse,butanembodimentofregional/linguistichonour:inthe aftermathofthe1991violence,theTamilSangampamphletdeclared:Tamilsfleeingthecityexpressedthat theycouldhavesomehowwithstoodthephysicalassaultsonthemandtheirpropertiesbutnotthatofthe chauvinistgoonslayinghandsontheirwomenandindulginginoutrageslikerapingandstripping.23Neither ChidanandamurthynorSaRaGovindurecognisedtheneedtodrawmorewomenintotheirorganisations, stilllessrecastthisprofoundlygendereddiscourse.Onhispart,DRNagaraj,whilecharacterisingvirile politicsasentirelyamoderninvention,aweaponoftheHindunationalists,fallsbackonvalorisingGandhias theembodimentofanIndianidealofardhanareeswara. ThecommonalitiesbetweenthegendereddiscoursesofbothKannadaandTamilmaybeunderstoodwithin thebroadercontextof19thcenturynationalistmobilisationsthatstrovetocorrectthecolonialstereotypeof theemasculatedIndianmale.RatherthantheKannadalinguisticmovementbeingsimplyimitativeofthe Tamilmodeltherearequiteoftencommonsourcesforbothkindsofcharacterisations,andmodalitiesof mobilisation.24ButthereareotherdiscernibledebtstothepoliticalenergiesofTamilactivists.Dalitpoet, teacherandcurrentlyMLC,SiddalingaiahrecallshisearlytutelagebyRPIactivistsfromTamilNadu(who incidentallywerevehementlyantiDMK)andthesupportoftheTamildalitsduringtheBhoosaagitationof 1973whenhewashimselfunderattack(Interview,December1999).Thiswasatimebeforeanexclusivist emphasisonlanguagemarkeddalitortradeunionpolitics.Thegradualevolutionofastresson(exclusivist) prideintheKannadalanguagehasthushadseriousrepercussionsonthetoleranceforminorities: suggestingthatmultilingualismwasamistakeratherthanavirtueChidanandamurthysays,atthesame timewetoohaveerred,weknowit,wehavebeentoogood,wehavebeenaddressingTamiliansinTamil, MalayaleesinMalayalam,withoutinitiatingthemintoourlanguage.25 Fortunately,eventhepresentcrisishasnotdimmedthepridethatmanypeopleofKarnatakatakeintheir multilingualism:deputychiefministerMallikarjunKhargespokeinthechasteUrduofhisnativeGulbargato hisNDTVinterlocutors;Rajkumarandhisfamilythemselveshavenothesitatedtouselanguageofthe captorsintheirappeals.Thisiswhythestatisticsmaybealtogethermisleading,sinceasKSSinghs PeoplesofIndiaprojecthasshownthereisoverwhelmingindicationofthemultilingualismofmanyIndians (asmuchas66percentinthatsample).KnowledgeofKannadainBangaloremaybefarmorewidespread thanasimplemothertonguecountmayreveal;theonlysectionswhomayaffordtheluxuryofignorance maybethecardcarryingcosmopolitansorEnglishspeakers.Thereare,inotherwords,valuableresources foramoreinclusivenotionsofKarnataka. However,whileitisquitepossibletolegislateonthelanguageofadministration,employmentoreducation, thereremainsthestubbornquestionoftaste.DVGundappa,writingin1950toRRDiwakardespairedover therelativeunpopularityofKannadasongs:

WearenowsupposedtohaveasmanyasfiveAIRcentresforKarnataka:Butthereisnoteven oneamongthemwhichisdoingwhatisnecessarytoencouragethesingingofKannadasongs. EventheMysorestationpreferstoprovideTamilandTelugupiecesasrecordedmusicandthe MysorePalaceartistTChowdiahpreferstorenderaTamilPallaviratherthanaKannadaora Sanskritone(DVGundappaPrivatePapers,KarnatakaStateArchives(KSA),Bangalore). Morerecently,Radhakrishna,presidentoftheJagaMechidaMagaDrRajkumarAbhimanigalaSangha expressedsimilardismayoverthepreferenceofKannadaspeakersforthemorelavishproductionsofthe TamilorHindifilmindustry:thesamecinematickettakestheaudiencetoSimlaKashmirWashington, whereastheKannadafilmshowsthesameNagarhole,thesameBandipura,thesameMysorePalace (Interview,July20,1999).NoristhismerelyasconsequenceofthesmallerpopulationofKannadigasinthe country.Whatcannotbeachievedthroughthemechanismsofpersuasionisthereforeachievedthroughthe modalitiesofcompulsion:thecompulsoryscreeningofKannadafilmsinalltheatresforafixednumberof weeksperyearhasthusbeenaconsistentdemandoftheKannadamovement.26 EventsofthelasttwodecadeshavehardenedthepositionofbothKannadigasandTamilswhomayformerly havebeenpoliticalallieswithinthetradeunionorthedalitmovementandeventhelinguisticmovement.The defensiveTamilresponsetotherelentlesscampaignagainstmigrationintothecityhasbeentoproducea mythicisedpastthatspeaksofTamilsastheoriginalinhabitantsoftheBangaloreandKolardistricts:even KempeGowdathefounderofthecity,wasaTigalawhobelongedtotheTamilVanniyarcaste[Bangalore TamilSangham1992].Manysolidaritieswerebroken,saysthereportproducedbytheTamilSangham (1992),citingattacksbydalitsinSiluvepuraasasignthatinadditiontomythsofHindu,Dravidianorclass identity,evenacastebasedunityofdalitshasbegunevaporatinginthemindsofTamils.This,despitethe factthatthereweremanyvoicesraisedagainsttheferociousattacksonTamilsandTamilproperties,bya rangeoforganisationsandindividualsinKarnataka,fromtheKarnatakaRajyaRaithaSangha,the KarnatakaVimochanaRanga,thewomensgroupsinBangaloresuchasVimochana,tosectionsofthe RajkumarAbhimanigalaSanghathemselves.Couldthesealternativepositions,nomatterhowweak,be takenasresourcesforenvisaginganotherKannadanation? AnotherKannadaNation InanimportantstudyofthehistoricalcleavagebetweenpatriotismandnationalismasitdevelopsinEurope, MaurizioViroli(1997:8)suggeststhatpatriotismandnationalismcompeteonthesameterrainandare antitheticaltoeachother.Identifyingtheformerwithrepublicanidealsandfightsforfreedomratherthana singularlanguageorethnicityhesays,properlyunderstood,thelanguageofrepublicanpatriotismcould serveasapowerfulantidotetonationalism.But theethnoculturalunity[ofnationalismwithoutarepublicanliberty]maytranslateintocivic solidarity,ifacultureofcitizenshipiserectedonit;orbetter,ifthesenseofbelongingbasedon commoncultureandcommonethnicdescentistranslatedintoacultureofcitizenship.Withouta politicalcultureofliberty,ethnoculturalunitygeneratesloveofonesculturaluniqueness(ifnot superiority)andadesiretokeepitpurefromexternalcontaminationandintrusion.Wewould havethenationbutitwouldnotbeanationofcitizens...Democraticpolitiesdonotneed ethnoculturalunity;theyneedcitizenscommittedtothewayoflifeoftherepublic[Viroli1997]. Suchanoppositionbetweenthesitesofdemocratic[patriotic]actionsand[modern]nationalisms(andsub nationalismsarehardlyexemptfromthemonstrositiesofthefullfledgednationalisms,aswewellknow)may berelevantindelineatingthestrandsoftheKannadamovement.Atthepresenttime,thereisnodoubtthat thedominantstrandisonethatcallsforthekindofethnoculturalunitythatViroliwarnsagainst.Butthereare manysignsofpoliticalactivitiesinKarnatakathatcomplicatethepictureofaresolutelyethnocultural

nationalism.Until1987,saidthepresidentofJagaMechidaMagaDrRajkumarAbhimanigalaSangha,the Sanghaswereintolerant,particularlyofthelargeminorityofTamils.After1987,werealisedwewerewrong. Bythistime,alotofgapshadgrownbetweenKannadaandTamilbrothers...After1987,ourviewpoint changed.PeoplewholiveinKarnatakaarecalledKannadigas.Kannadigaisnottheonewhoknows Kannada...Thosewholivehere,whomigratedforthesakeoflivelihood...theyalsoarethepeopleofthe state(Interview,July20,1999). AndheurgedthatBoth[KannadaandTamilspeakers]shouldjoinourmovement[whichopposedthe rapaciousforcesofthemarketinglobalisedconsumptioneg,thestruggleagainstKentuckyFriedChicken andtheappropriationoflivelihoodresourcesinreturnforonlyanimageeg,theongoingstruggleagainst theBangaloreMysoreInfrastructureCorridor].ThereisrecognitionamongsuchgroupsastheKarnataka VimochanaRanga(KVR)thattheonlylanguagethattheKarnatakastateisactivelypromotingisthe languageofcapitalism,andresistancetothatcallsforacritiqueofthedevelopmentparadigmitself.Towhat usemusttheresourcesofKarnatakabeput?Tobenefitwhichpeople?TheKVR,asRameshBairys researchhaspointedout,ispossessedofadifferentvisionofKarnataka,onethatquestionsand restructurestheframeswithinwhichthelanguagequestionmaybeposed[Bairy1996].Thecurrent campaigntohaltworkonthemassiveacquisitionoflandfortheBangaloreMysoreinfrastructureprojecthas beenjoinedbyrespectedGandhianssuchasHSDoreswamy,greenactivists,KVR,Dalitgroupsand branchesoftheRajkumarAbhimanis. OthercritiquesofthedominantvoicesonthepredicamentofKannadahavecomefromunexpectedquarters, andadoptotherstrategiesofmobilisation.TheKarnatakaRajyaRathaSangha,thoughnotunambiguousin itsagenda,hasconsistentlyquestionedtheemergingsovereigntyofthemarketwhichhasbeguntoreduce theroleofthestatetothatofserviceprovider.Further,itscritiqueoftheabsorptionofruralresourcesby citieshasevenledtoademandthatnomoreCauverywatershouldbeallowedtoflowintothecityof Bangalore.Astrongfeministcritiqueofthegendereddiscourseoflinguisticpoliticshaslaidbarethe inadequaciesofnormingthesubjectoftheKannadanationasmale.AndalthoughKarnatakasdalitgroups havewaveredmorerecentlyonwhethertheymustsupportthestridentcallstodefendKannadaidentity,they remainonlyuneasilyalignedwiththeclearlyproHindutvaversionofKannadanationalism:thusthe KarnatakaSamataSainikDal,attheheightoftheprotestsagainsttheunveilingofThiruvalluvarstatue, detectedanuppercasteplottokeepadalithero(Thiruvalluvar)fromoccupyingpublicspaceinthecity(Dal Pumphlet). IndeedRajkumarhimselfhasremainedloyaltoanothernationinhisincreasingdistancefromtheactivitiesof themajorityofhisfansassociations.In1978,hewentintohidingtoavoidbeingdraggedintostandingfor electionsagainstIndiraGandhiinChikmagalur.In1984,hecondemnedtheviolenceduringthebundh,and refusedtoserveonthegovernmentpanelwhichtheHegdegovernmentsetuptosolvetheissueof KannadaexaminationsforClassIIIandClassIVjobs,thoughhedeclaredthecausejust.Bythelate1980s, theactivitiesoffanclubswereapositiveembarrassmenttohimwhentheytooktoviolentroadandrail rokos:the1987railrokocampaignwhichwasmeticulouslyorganisedtopressforaSouthernRailwayCentre inKarnataka,ledhimtopubliclystageabreak,sayingthathewasinnowayrelatedtofansassociations.It wasatthatmomentthatmanyAbhimanigalaSanghaspubliclydeclaredtheirautonomy.Itislike,inaposter somewhere,abeediiskeptin[Rajkumars]mouthexplainsRadhakrishna.Doesthatmeanheissmokinga beedi?No.Solikethatwewillkeephisname,wehavethatright.Whenhehascomeintopubliclifewehave therighttousehim.Thusthemanwhowishedtorepresenttheaspirationsof3croreKannadigasin1982 hasbeenincreasinglydistancedfromtheveryorganisationsthatinvokehisname. Still,itwouldbefutiletodenythatthereiswidespreadsupportfortheprogrammesandactivitiesofthemore extremelinguisticnationalisms,especiallyduringthiscurrentcrisiswhichhasincreasingly(anddangerously) beenreadasanencounterbetweennationalisms.Suchreadingssweepcomplexhistoriesoutofsight, leavingthebordersoftheadministrativestateasthefinalspacewithinwhichsuchidentitiesmayunfold.

NothingcouldbefurtherfromthefancifulwishoftheadvertisementforBPLmobileswhichproclaims Geographyishistory!Butitispossible,eveninthesetryingtimes,todetectthevoiceofanguishaboutthe destinyofalanguagethreatenedbythecosmopolitanismsodeartothevotariesofglobalisationwho promiseasliceoftheUSinIndiaatleastinBangalore.26Karnatakasuniquestateformation,geography andhistorymaybethestartingpointforconceivingadifferentkindofnation,onethatgraspsbothendsofa slipperypoletoachieveuniversalitythroughbeingspecificasDRNagarajhassuggested,byplacingthese gatheringpassionsattheserviceofanewdemocraticcitizenship. Notes

1Seeforinstance,RaNamChandrasekharKannadaShakthi(Bangalore:KannadaShakthiKendra:1998);alsohisKannadaJagruthiVarsha

Saadisideno?(mimeo);andKannadaKannadigaKarnataka(Bangalore:KannadaPusthakaPradhikaara,1996).Thislasttextdrawsobviousinspirationin itstitlefromthemenacingsloganHindiHinduHindusthan.

2IhavediscussedthesepositionsbrieflyinMemoriesofUnderdevelopment:LanguageandItsIdentitiesinContemporaryKarnataka,EPW,xxxi:41
and42,(1996)andinBattlesforBangalore:ReterritorialisingtheCity(unpublished).SeveralKannadaintellectuals(writers,teachers,journalistsand artistes)tookaclearanduncompromisingstandagainstthemoreaggressiveandviolentactionsofseveralKannadagroupsduringtheGokakagitation (1982),theagitationagainsttheremovaloftheKannadatestforClassIIandClassIVemployees(1984),theThiruvalluvarepisodeandCauveryriots (1991).TheirstandontheriotsagainsttheUrdutelecast(1994)waslessunambiguousalthoughheretootheviolenceagainstMuslimswasseverely condemned.

3PierreBourdieu,LanguageandSymbolicPower(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress1994),p45.Bourdieuschiefconcernistheemergenceofa
standardisedFrench,asanofficiallanguagethattriumphsoverthepatois.

4ForthefailureofthestatetosecurethevictoryoftheGokakChaluvaliof1982(whichupheldtheGokakCommitteeReportssuggestionthatKannada
bedeclaredthesolefirstlanguageinthestate),seeKannadaKaddaya:HosaBhashaSutrainKannadaShakthi,p18.SeealsoGovindallyDevegowda, AbhimanyaShunyadaKarnatakaSarkarainKannadaKanmani:10neyaVarshadaSmaranaSanchike,1995.

5MChidanandamurthy,NannaBaduku:OnduKiruChitra(MChidanandamurthyGouravaSamputa,SamshodanadalliPrakatagondaLekhanadaMel 6InterviewwithRNamChandrasekhar,October7and11,1998;seealsothechapterValaseinKannadaKannadigaKarnataka,pp16368.
EkathegonduSavalu:AntharajyaValaseinSaarthaka,nodate,pp15262.

Acchu,nodate),p942;seealsoVeSrinivasKannadaChaluvaliNadedubandaDaariinKannadaKanmaniwhichdescribesthehumiliationexperiencedby MaRamamurthywhenthedemandforthescreeningofKannadafilmsinMajesticwasmade.

7Chidanandamurthy,KannadadhaSamsyegaluinKannadaKannadigaKarnataka,p51. 8ChidanandamurthyKannadadhaSamsyegaluinKannadaKannadigaKarnataka. 9TheStatesReorganisationCommittee(1956)acknowledgedtheparticularlyfragmentedpoliticalstatusofKannadaspeakers,whowerereducedto

minoritiesinthreeoftheadministrativedivisionsofKarnatakaincolonialIndia. 10InterviewwithSaRaGovindu,presidentDrRajkumarAbhimanigalaSangha,October23,1998. 11RaNamChandrasekhar,EkathegondhuSavalu,p153. 12KannadaChaluvaliNadedhuBandaDariinKannadaKanmani;interviewwithRaNamChandrasekhar,October11,1998;Chidanandamurthyelevates whatwasperhapsnomorethanasmallwrestlingmatchintoahistoriceventsaysDRNagaraj,commentingontheuseofthisepisodeinconstructinga historyoftheKannadanation,TheNatureofKannadaNationalism. 13InterviewwithRaNamChandrasekhar,October7and11,1998. 14InterviewbyDilipSubramanianwithMSARao,June1981. 15InterviewwithSaRaGovinduOctober23,1998;InterviewwithRRadhakrishna,President,JagaMechidaMagaDrRajkumarAbhimanigalaSangha, July20,1999. 16RajJumpsIntroFray,DeccanHerald,April17,1982;RajkumarVowstoFightforKannadaSupremacy,DeccanHerald,May12,1982;StirWill ContinuetillKannadaGetsPrimacyRaj,DeccanHerald,May17,1982. 17InterviewwithmembersofJagaMechidaMagaRajkumarAbimanigalaSangha,July20,1999. 18SolomonBenjaminandBhuvaneswariRaman,OnValmikinagar/Azadnagarunpublishedmaterial. 19Ihave,however,beenunabletogetanystatisticsonpropertylossesintheseriots. 20ThishasalsobeennotedinotherinstancesofcommunalviolenceasforinstanceinAhmedabad,SuratandBhopalin1993:seeMehdiArslanand JanakiRajan(eds),CommunalisminIndia:ChallengeandResponse,Manohar,Delhi,1994.

21AntiHindiprotestsweremostconspicuousintheTamildominatedareasofthecitysuchasSrirampuram,Ulsoor,MurphyTown,etc. 22OnthefeminisingoftheTamillanguageseeSumathiRamaswamy,PassionsoftheTongue,esppp79134. 23AMuteGenocide,p14.Therewerewidelycirculatedreportsofwomenbeingsingledoutforattackbythestyleoftheirthalis(thedistinguishingmark betweenTamilandKannadamarriedwomen)buttheywereunconfirmedinthereportoftheIndianPeoplesHumanRightsTribunal. 24RahamathTarikerepointstothewaysinwhichKarnatakashistoriographicaltradition,followingdominantnationaliststrands,suppressedtherichlegacy ofsyncreticSufitraditionsinthemedievalperiod.Tarikere,KarnatakadaSufigalu(Kamalapura:KannadaUniversity,1998),pp48. 25Inhisrecentarticle,BargurRamachandrappadiscussesthefutilityofstrugglesbasedsonarrowlyonthelanguageofcinema,arguingforamoreliberal definitionofcultureandculturalresources.HisstudiousavoidanceofanydiscussionofTamilnationalism,choosinginsteadtospeakofMarathi,Bengali andMalayalamsuccessesishoweverareminderofhowcloselytiedarethemodalitiesofnationalismonbothsidesoftheborder,Kannadaabhimanada Katuvaasthava. 26ThewordswerethoseofSanjoyDasgupta,formersecretaryIT,governmentofKarnataka,atBangaloreIT.COM,1998.

References
Bairy,TSRamesh(1996):CompetingConstructionsofKannadaIdentity:AStudyofTwoOrganisations,MPhilUniversityofHyderabad. Balekundry,SG(1991):InjusticetoKarnatakainRegardtoCauveryWaters,Bangalore. BangaoreTamilSangham(1992):AMuteGenocide:AReportontheGoryIncidentsofViolenceonKarntakaTamilsduringtheBlackDecember1991, Bangalore,pp39,40. Joseph,TM(1994):PoliticsofRecruitmentinPublicSectorUndertakingsaStudyoftheNativistMovementinBangalore,UnpublishedPhDThesis,ISEC, pp69,168. Narayana,G(1997):BengaluruNagaradaMukhyaSamsyegalu(mimeo). PeoplesDemocraticForum(1994):MediumforCommunalism:AReportontheAntiUrduCommunalRiots,Bangalore. Ramachandrappa,Bargur(2000):KannadaabhimandaKatuvaasthava,Prajuvani,October31. Ramaswamy,Sumathi(1998):PassionsoftheTongue:LanguageDevotioninTamilNadu,MunshilalManoharlal,Delhi,pp16168. Venkatrao,Alur(1980):KarnatakatvadaVikasaascitedinDRNagarajTheNatureofKannadaNationalism,KathanaSahitya,AksharaPrakashana, TransbyMadhavaPrasad(Forthcoming).

Viroli,Maurizio(1997):ForLoveofCountry:AnEssayonPatriotismandNationalism,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,p8. Volke,Steen(1995):ConflictsoverNaturalResourcesinSouthIndiainaPoliticalEconomyPerspective,PaperpresentedatThirdConferenceofthe NordicAssociationforSouthAsianStudies,Oslo,Norway,(mimeo).