56 SOCIAL SCIENTIST It can be categorically stated that the problem of regional chauvinism in all its manifestations has its roots in the betrayal by the big bourgeoisie at the time of transfer of power in 1947.2 Even in the course of the freedom struggle, the attitude of the bourgeoisie to nationality aspirations was vacillating and it showed a compromising approach to feudal ideology. But the advent of independence hastened the outright betrayal. This betrayal had two aspects— abandonment of the federal principle "and secondly the compromise with landlordism. The first, dictated by the class interests of the narrow statum of monopolists, led it to break its policy of gathering support and accommodating the regional/nationality interests. In its single-minded drive for a unified all-India market, it embarked on a policy of riding roughshod over the powerful current of the democratic revolution. To aspire for the economic advance of the nationality concerned and to expect the full development of its language and culture are elementary factors in a bourgeois democracy* In the immediate post-independence situation, linguisitic-nationality assertion came in the form of the demand to fulfil the reorganisation of provincial/state boundaries on the linguistic principle and for a democratic language policy. In both these matters, the new ruling classes controlling state power showed their irreconcilable hostility; they were hostile to the democratic restructuring of the state boundaries and a just solution of the language problem. The Congress party turned away from its own policy which began in 1920 (Nagpur Congress) with the reorganisation of the Pradesh committees on a linguistic basis. It abandoned its own prescriptions for a federal structure encompassing linguistic provinces as stated in 1928(Motilal Nehru report) and 1946 (election manifesto). After 1947, the big bourgeois-led Congress itself snapped the link between the twin nation-forming streams for its selfish class interests. During the formation of the Constituent Assembly to frame the Constitution, a commission was set up under Justice Dar to examine the question, and the opinion given was hostile to linguisitic reorganisation. After the Linguistic Provinces Commission report led to discontent, the Congress again appointed three leaders to look into the matter. Their report known as the JVP report did not endorse the democratic linguistic reorganisation principle with the exception of Andhra From then on the model to be followed was the centralised one-nation mode] so dear to the big bourgeoisie. The policies of the Congress government following from this conception has been the root cause for the growth of discontent and disruption of national unity. The formation of linguistic provinces was a victory wrested from the pan-Indian ruling classes by powerful mass movements. The logic of this reorganisation has not led to federalising the Indian state power. In the sphere of language, the struggle continues for the equal development of all Indian languages and against the imposition