In ‘Bhaiyyaji’ Joshi’s comment, the predicament of being Marathi

Rahul Sarwate

In November 1924, V D Savarkar met Maulana Shaukat Ali of the Khilafat movement. In a heated exchange, the Maulana claimed that because of their deep-rooted regionalism, the Marathas lacked patriotism. Perplexed by this accusation, Savarkar said, “The war of independence that Chhatrapati Shivaji initiated was never limited to Maharashtra. Do you not know that the revolutionary flag I raised about 20 years ago was for the independence of the nation? What cause of Maharashtra were Tilak, Gokhale, and Ranade fighting for? Every political movement in Maharashtra in the last fifty years was a nationalist movement. Maharashtra spilled its blood in every national crisis, be it the division of Bengal or the massacre at Jallianwala. To call Maharashtra narrow-minded, the very place where the idea of integrated India was created and nurtured, is the height of ingratitude.” Savarkar here represents Maharashtra’s self-conception of its relationship with the Indian nation.

The two ideas of cultural nationalism, the Hindi (Indian) nationalism of the Indian National Congress and the Hindu nationalism of Savarkar and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, emerged and flourished in Maharashtra from the mid-19th to mid-20th century. Both these frames were central to the making of Maharashtra’s self-consciousness. The other significant political movements in Maharashtra, such as the anti-caste politics initiated by Jotirao Phule and the Dalit movement led by B R Ambedkar, had universal concern for equality at heart. Such political projects also testify to the deeply-ingrained commitment to broader humanitarian causes over regional interests in the Marathi public world. Shaped by these political currents rooted in the national or universal frame, a regionalist sentiment didn’t take root in Maharashtra. In 1948, for example, we can see Ramrao Deshmukh, a Maratha leader from Vidarbha, arguing for the lack of regionalism in Maharashtra. “The Maratha…is content to see his heritage, traditions, and history dissolve and become a part of the common traditions of the country…Regionalism never sat on the Marathas except very lightly”, Deshmukh said in a public speech.

It is noteworthy that both Vinoba Bhave and Savarkar, Maharashtrian ideologues of two opposite political stand-points, were against the demand for Samyukta Maharashtra. Bhave imagined Maharashtra as one river amongst many that join the ocean of Indian culture, while for Savarkar, Maharashtra was to be the strong arm of the Indian nation. Though the metaphors differ in the degree of their masculine imagination, for both these articulations, Maharashtra’s uniqueness was to merge within the Indian nation selflessly. We also see an echo of this sentiment in a Marxist like Lalji Pendse. In an account of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, Pendse argued that due to the heightened political consciousness that Maharashtra achieved through being at the forefront of the anti-colonial struggle, the Samyukta Maharashtra movement never lost sight of the more significant concern about the integrity of the Indian nation.

This oneness with India can also be seen in how Marathi speakers contributed to Indian literature across languages. Just to cite a few examples, D R Bendre, a Jnanpith awardee, was one of the greatest Kannada poets; Kaka Kalelkar wrote extensively in Gujarati; Prabhakar Machwe was a prolific Hindi writer; Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh became an iconic Hindi poet; Sakharam Deuskar contributed to modern Bangla literature. They merged in the cultural and linguistic landscapes that surrounded them.

As we can see, Marathi regionalism, or rather the lack of it, led to a worldview that could undermine its own cultural interests. Therefore, it is not surprising that a Maharashtrian like Joshi devalues his own language. It is a consequence of Maharashtra’s imagination of its place within the nation. However, the winds are changing. People began to wonder if acquiring a protective attitude towards Marathi was needed. Perhaps Maharashtra would never be able to emulate Tamil Nadu, but its sense of being wounded should be a cause of concern for all.

In the 13th century, Chakradhar Swami migrated from Gujarat to Maharashtra and founded the Mahanubhava sect. He commanded his disciples to write only in Marathi and to “remain in Maharashtra”. A hymn recorded in Sutrapatha, a literary composition of the sect, records Chakradhar’s message for his disciples: “Stay in Maharashtra. Maharashtra is sattvic (pure). The living and non-living things in it are also sattvic. No bodily or mental harm comes from being there. Being in Maharashtra cures bodily and mental afflictions which have arisen in other countries. Its food and water are curative. Its herbs are curative. Its wind, rainstorms, and showers are also sattvic and cure all afflictions. Maharashtra does no wrong itself and allows no one else to do wrong. Maharashtra is [where] dharma gets accomplished.”

What of Maharashtra remains sattvic today is anyone’s guess, but can Maharashtra hope for migrants who would embrace Maharashtra and Marathi as their own, just as this 13th-century saint from Gujarat once did?

The writer is a historian of modern Maharashtra. He teaches at the School of Arts and Sciences, Ahmedabad University