PART III
20. I will now turn to what are
known to be points on which there
is controversy. There is no controversy
regarding the unification
of Maharashtra into one Province. The controversy relates to the way it should
he brought about. One view is that the new Maharashtra
Province should be a unitary Province, with a single
legislature and a single executive. The other view is that
Maharashtra
should be a Federation of two sub-provinces, one
sub-province
to consist of the Marathi-speaking
districts of the Bombay Presidency
and the other
of the
Marathi-speaking
districts of the present Province of the Central Provinces
and Berar. The idea of creating sub-Provinces
has originated
from the spokesmen
of the Marathi-speaking districts
of Central Provinces
and Berar.
I am satisfied that it is only the wish of a few high-caste politicians who feel that in a unified Maharashtra
their political careers
will come to an end. It has no backing from the people
of e fact that it gives me an opportunity to enunciate what I regard as a very vital
principal. When it is decided to create
a Linguistic Province, I am definitely of
opinion that all
areas which are contiguous and which
speak the same language should be
forced to come into it. There
should be no room for choice nor for self-determination. Every attempt
must be made to create larger provincial units. Smaller provincial units will
be a perpetual burden in normal times and a source of weakness
in an emergency. Such a situation must be avoided. That is why I insist that
all parts of Maharashtra
should be merged together in a single province.
MAHARASHTRA AND THE CITY OF BOMBAY
Controversy over
Bombay
21. Should the City of Bombay be included in Maharashtra or not is another point over
which there has been a controversy. A meeting was held in Bombay in the
building of the Indian
Merchants Chamber. The meeting was attended by no more than sixty. With the
exception of one Indian-Christian it was attended by only Gujarati-speaking
merchants and industrialists. Although it was small and sectional meeting, its
proceedings were flashed on the front page of every important newspaper in
India and the Times of India was so impressed by its importance that it
wrote an editorial which while mildly castigating the vituperative tone which
the speakers at the
meeting adopted against the Maharashtrians,
supported the resolutions passed at the meeting regarding the future of Bombay. This proves what
truth there is in the reply given
by Lord Birkenhead
to the Irish Leader, Mr. Redmond,
in the course of the Irish controversy
when he said that there are cases where a minority is a majority.
My memorandum would be woefully incomplete if I omitted to deal with the pros and cons
of this controversy. This is because of two reasons:
In the first place, the meeting has been recognized to be very important and
secondly because the resolutions of the meeting have been supported by eminent
University Professors.
Proposals regarding Bombay
22. The meeting passed the following resolutions:
(2) That if it is not postponed, Bombay City should be constituted into
a separate Province.
There is a third suggestion, namely, that Konkan
should be constituted into a separate Province
with Bombay as its capital. There is hardly any support to this plan. There is
therefore no necessity to discuss it.
Decision regarding Bombay must be made now
23. I have no complaint against that part of the Resolution which says
the question of Linguistic Provinces be postponed provided the main question
namely whether Bombay should or should not be included in Maharashtra is
settled. If this question
was settled it did not matter if it took five or ten years to give effect to
the Settlement. But the resolution is only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the
controversy. The main question must therefore be tackled right now.
Ground for the exclusion
of Bombay from
Maharashtra
24. The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra
are set out below :
(3) The Marathi-speaking
people do not form a majority of the population of the City of Bombay.[f3] [f3]
(4) Gujarathis
have been old residents of Bombay.[f4] [f4]
(5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast
areas outside Maharashtra. Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra.
It belongs to the whole of India.[f5] [f5]
(6) It is the Gujarathi speaking
people of Bombay who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians
have been only clerks and
coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade and industry under the
political dominance of the working classes who form the bulk of Maharashtrians.[f6] [f6]
(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because it
wants to live on the surplus of Bombay[f7] [f7]
Burden
of Proof
25. On an examination
of these paints
it is obvious that points (1) and (2) are preliminary in the sense that they
help us to decide on whom rests
the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay
is part of Maharashtra,
then the burden of proof for
separating it from Maharashtra must tall upon those
who urge that it should be separated and not
upon those who claim that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will
therefore deal with these two points first.
points (1) and (2)
26. These points can be considered both in the light of history as well as of
geography. I am, however, convinced that history cannot help us to decide the
issue. In the first place, how far back must we go to find the data on which to base our
conclusion. It is obvious that the history of the ancient past would be of no
use to us in this connection.
What could be of use to us is the past of the present. One may go further and
question any reliance being placed upon such a past of the present for drawing
any conclusion that can have a bearing on the issue before us. Most of the
contacts between people during historical times have been between conquerors
and conquered. This is true of India as well
as of Europe. But the results of such
contacts have been quite different in Europe and in India. In Europe such
contacts have produced assimilation of the conflicting social elements. Frequent inter-marriages
have confounded
the original stocks. One language, either the most useful or the most commonly spoken,
has tended to supplant the other. If one civilisation
is superior to the others
in the same country it has automatically
supplanted them. This natural tendency towards assimilation
which we see in Europe is so strong that steps have to be taken to counteract
it. What is the tendency in India ?
It
is definitely against assimilation.
The Musalmans
conquered Hindus. But the Musalmans remained
Musalmans and the Hindus remained
Hindus. The Gujarathis
were conquered by Maharashtrians
and were ruled by them for some
years. What effect has it produced upon the Gujarathis ? Nothing. Gujarathis have remained
Gujarathis and Maharashtrians
have remained Maharashtrians.
The Chalukyas
conquered Maharashtrians and so did the
Shilahars.
But there was no assimilation between them. The Shilahars
and Chalukyas remained what they were and so did the
Maharashtrians. This being
the case, what help can Indian
History give in the decision of the issue?
The history of internal upheavals as well as of external
aggressions has been nothing more than a passing
show. Conquest means nothing and proves
nothing.
27. Let us now turn
to geography and ask for its verdict. It seems to be & better
witness than history. For this purpose one must consider the location
of Bombay in relation to the Province of Maharashtra.
The Province of Maharashtra
once it is created
will be triangular in shape. One side
of this triangle is formed by the Western Coast Line of India between Daman in
the North and Karwar
in the South. The City of Bombay lies in between Daman
and Karwar. The Province of Gujarat
starts from Daman and spreads northwards. The Kanada
Province starts from Karwar and spreads southwards. It is about 85 miles South of Daman
which is the starting point of Gujarat, and 250 miles North of Karwar, which is the starting point of Karnatak
Province. If the unbroken
territory between Daman and Karwar
is geographically part of Maharashtra,
how could Bombay be held not to be
a part of Maharashtra ? This is an incontrovertible fact
of nature. Geography has made Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to
challenge the fact of nature do so. To an
unbiased mind it is conclusive proof that Bombay belongs to
Maharashtra.
28. That the Marathas
did not care to make it a part of their Empire does in no way affect the validity of the conclusion drawn from
geography. That the Marathas
did not care to conquer it does not prove that Bombay is not a part of
Maharashtra. It only means that the Maratha
power was a land power and
did not therefore care to spend its
energy in the conquest of a seaport.
on those who contended that Bombay
should not be included in Maharashtra. Have
they discharged the
burden ?
This leads to the
consideration of other points.
Marathi-speaking population—majority or
minority
30. There is no unanimity on this question. Prof. Gadgil
speaking for the inclusion
of Bombay in Maharashtra asserts that the Marathi-speaking
population of Bombay according to
the census of 1941
is 51 per cent. Speaking against the inclusion of Bombay, Prof. Gheewala
says that the Marathi-speaking
population
of Bombay is 41 percent Prof. Vakil
has brought it down to
39 percent which he regards as a very liberal estimate.
I have not had time to check up these figures and
I understand that the Census of Bombay does not
render much help
in arriving at a precise figure.
However,
if one reads the reasons
assigned by Prof. Vakil, one would find his conclusion to be speculative it not wishful thinking. But assuming that5: the figures given by Prof. Vakil are correct, what of it ? What conclusion can be drawn from
it ? Does it defeat the claim of
Maharashtra to include Bombay ?
Ever since the British
became the masters of
India, India has been one country with
a right to free movement from place
to place. If people from all parts of
India were allowed to come to Bombay and settle there, why should the Maharashtrians suffer ?
it is not their fault. The present state of the population cannot therefore be
a ground for excluding Bombay from
Maharashtra.
point (4)
Are Gujarathis Natives Of Bombay?
31. Let us however fully consider the question.
Are the Gujarathis natives
of Bombay ? If they are not, how did they come
to Bombay ? What is the
source of their wealth ?
No Gujarathi
would clam that
the Gujarathis are
the natives of Bombay. If they are not the natives of Bombay, how did they come
to Bombay ? Like the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch and the English on adventures to fight
their way through and willing to take any risks? The answers which history
gives to these questions are quite clear.
The Gujarathis
did not come to Bombay voluntarily. They were brought to Bombay by the officers
of the East India Company to serve as commercial Adatias
or go-betweens. They were brought because the East India Company's officers who had their first
factory in Surat
had got used to Surti
Banias as
their go-betweens in carrying on their trade. This explains the entry of Gujarathis
in Bombay. Secondly, the Gujarathis
did not come to Bombay to trade on the basis of free and equal competition with
other traders. They came as privileged persons with certain trading rights
given to them exclusively by the East India Company. Their importation into
Bombay was considered for the first time in the year 1671
by Governor Aungier.
This fact is referred to in the Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island. Vol. I in the following terms :[f10] [f10]
"Another scheme for the advantage of. Bombay in which Governor
Aungier interested himself
was the settlement of Surat Banias in Bombay. It appears
that the Mahajan
or committee of the Surat Bania
community desired the assurance of certain privileges before risking the move
to Bombay and that the company had given a general approval to the Mahajan's
proposal. On the 10th January the Surat Council wrote to the Company. The Mahajan
or Chief Council of the Banias have been much satisfied with the answer which
you were pleased to give to their petition sent you by the ship Samson touching their
privileges in Bombay. It seems they have determined
once more to trouble Your Honours with a letter
which they have ordered your broker Bhimji
Parakh
to write, representing their desires that the said privileges may be confirmed
to them under your great seal, for
which their request they give you their reason and ground in their own letter
which they have sent us to be transmitted to you and now goes in your packet by
ship Falcon. The argument they use to strengthen their request seems to
have some weight. They say the Honourable Company are perpetual and their
ordinances always of force, but their Presidents
and Councils are mutable, and the succeeding Presidents and Councils, do alter
often what their predecessors have granted on which score they hope your
Honours will be pleased to grant their petition. As to our judgments hereon,
we humbly offer that we cannot see any detriment can accrue to you thereby,
rather a considerable advantage may follow;
and as to the latitude and extent of what privileges you shall afford them, it
must be totally referred to your own wisdoms howsoever you shall please to
determine in this matter. We judge if your Honours would please to favour them
with a line in answer
to their letter, it would be a great
comfort to them and no disadvantage
to your interest."
32. What were the privileges which the Gujrarathi Banias
had asked for from the East India Company ?
The following petition by one Nima Parakh,
an eminent Bania
belonging to the City of Diu,
gives some idea of what they were:[f11] [f11]
"1. That the Honourable Company shall
allot him so much ground in or near
the present town free of rent
as shall be judged necessary to build a
house or warehouse thereon.
"2. That he with the Brahmans
of Vers (Gors
or priests) of his caste shall enjoy the free exercise of their religion within
their own houses without the molestation of any person whatsoever; that no Englishman, Portuguese, or
other Christian nor Muhammadan
shall be permitted to live within their
compound or offer to kill
any living creature there, or do the least injury
or indignity to them, and if any shall presume to offend them within the limits
of their said compound, upon their complaint to the Governor (at Surat)
or Deputy Governor (at Bombay), the offenders shall be exemplarily
punished; that they shall
have liberty to burn their dead according to their custom, also to use their
ceremonies at their weddings ;
and that none of their profession of what age, sex or condition whatever they be, shall be
forced to turn Christians, nor to carry burthens against their wills.
" 3. That he and his family shall be
free from all duties of watch and ward, or any charge and duty depending
thereon; that neither the Company nor the
Governor, Deputy Governor
or Council, or any other person, shall
on any pretence whatsoever force them to lend money for public or private
account or use any indirect.
"4. That
in case there falls out any difference or suit in law between him or his vakil or attorneys or
the Banias of his caste, and any other persons remaining on the island, the Governor or Deputy
Governor shall not suffer him or them to be publicly arrested dishonoured or
carried to prison, without first giving him due notice of the cause depending,
that he or they may cause justice to be done in an honest and amicable way and
in case any difference happen between him or his attorney and any Bania of
their own caste, they may have liberty to decide it among themselves without
being forced to go to law.
"5. That he shall have liberty
of trade in his own ships and vessels to what port he pleases, and come in and
go out when he thinks good; without paying anchorage, having first given the
Governor or Deputy Governor or customer notice and taken their consent thereunto.
" 6. That in case he brings any goods on shore
more than he can sell
on the island within the space of
12 months, he shall have liberty to transport them to
what port he pleases, without paying custom for
exportation.
" 7. That in case any person be
indebted to him, and also to other Banias,
and be not able to pay all his debts, his right may be preferred before other
Banias.
" 8. That in case of war. or any
other danger which may succeed, he shall
have a warehouse in the castle to secure his goods, treasure, and family
therein.
"9. That he or any of his family
shall have liberty of egress and regress to and from the fort or residence of
the Governor or Deputy Governor;
that they shall be received with civil respect and be permitted to sit down according to their qualities; that they shall freely use coaches, horses or
palanquins and quitasols
(that is barsums
or umbrellas) for their
convenience without any disturbances ;
that their servants may wear swords
and daggers, shall not be abused, beaten or
imprisoned except they offend,
and that in case of any of his kindred or
friends shall come to visit him or them from any other ports,
they shall be used with civility and respect.
"10. That he and
his assigns
shall have liberty to sell
and buy coconuts, betelnuts, pan or
betel-leaves, and any other commodity not rented
out without any molesiation
on the island."
33. How this petition of Nima Parakh
was disposed of can be
seen from the
reply of the Deputy
Governor of Bombay
dated 3rd April. 1677,
which was in the following terms :
" According to order we have
consider the articles of
Nima Parakh Bania,
which if we rightly understand
we do not apprehend any prejudice connection the most of
them being what the meanest enjoy.
" The first is very easy, the
Company having vast
ground enough, and we daily do the same to Banias and others
who come to inhabit
here. As to the second, the free exercise of religion is permitted to all with
the use of their ceremonies at:
weddings and feast,
the Banias always burning their dead
without molestation. Neither do we permit any person
to kill anything near the Banias who ail
live by themselves, much less can any person
presume to enter
into anybody's house
or compound without the owner's license;
and, for forcing people
to turn Christian against
their wills,
the whole world will vindicate us;
neither are any persons forced to carry burdens against their wills. No Bania,
Brahman,
Moor, or such man is obliged to watch or ward or other duty, but if any person
buys an oart
or warge (vada)
he is bound on every alarm
to send a musquiter. But if he possesses no land no duty
is exacted, so the articles may be granted
to Nima.
and when he goes about to buy any land he may be acquainted with that small
encumbrance thereon.
" The 4th article is indeed a
privilege but no more than Girdhar,
the Moody and some others have, which does not in the least exempt them from
the hands of the law or justice, but does only ask that justice be done
respectfully, which he need not doubt of... and for matter of differences among
themselves there is already his Honour's patent authorising them to decide such
things.
" As to the 5th, the great anchorage
of a rupee per ton is wholly taken off. There remains only a small one of a rupee for every 100 tons, which is so inconsiderable a matter that we
do not believe we will stick at it. If he does, it will amount but to a small
matter being only for his own vessels that the Company
may easily allow it.
" The 6th if we rightly apprehend it,
is no more than what all people enjoy, who are so far from paying custom at exportation of their
own goods that they pay none for what
goods they buy. But if he intends his goods must pay no custom at landing nor
none at exportation of what he cannot
sell, it will be so great a loss to the Company, they having farmed out the
customs for two years, that
the benefit of his settling here, will, we believe,
not countervail it, till
it comes into the Company's hands again,
" As to the 7th, our law is such that
if a person be indebted to several men, whosoever gets a judgment
first
in Court will be paid his full debt, but no man can be aggrieved at that, nor can any creditor have any
pretence to what is once
paid,
and when judgment
is given it is already
paid in law, so that.
he is
no longer proprietor of it
But when a person
is indebted to two men and
the first sues him and upon that
the second
comes
in and sues him too, with what justice can we pay all the debtor's estate to the
second creditor.
Only of this
he may be assured that all justice shall be done him
with speed according
to our law and the party forced to pay
the full debts if able,
and be in prison for the
rest till he pleases to release him, which we suppose may well content him.
"As to the 8th in case of
war all person of
quality
have liberty to repair to the castle and secure
their money and other
things of value.
Nor that I suppose
be intends
to fill up the castle
with gari (coarse) goods
; but for money, jewels household stuff
,cloth goods of value that take up small
room he may
bring what
he pleases and may have a warehouse apart allotted for himself
and family.
"The 9th and 10th we may join
together, they
being only
to fill up
the number. They are plain optics to show the nature
of those they
live under. which,
when they
have experimented
our Government,
themselves will laugh at us, enjoying more freedom than the
very articles demand for
the meanest person is never denied egress and regress upon respectful notice
given and for horses and coaches and the like he may keep as many as he pleases
and his servants be permitted to wear what arms they please, a thing common to
all. Nothing is more promoted by us than the free liberty for buying and
selling which is the load-stone of trade.
"That last
thing he asked of having 10 mans
of tobacco free of all duties is
the most difficult thing of all, for the farmers will ask a vast deal to grant
such a licence/it being a very great profit they make in the sale of 10 mans,
so that we know not which way this article can be condescended to, but in this
your Honours can judge better than us."[f12] [f12]
34. In reply on the 26th April, the Surat
Council wrote : [f13] [f13]" We observe your answer touching the articles proposed
by Nima Parakh
Bania
in order to his settlement on Bombay. When we come again to treat with him
thereon, we hope so to moderate the affair that the island shall not receive
any the least prejudice thereby and we do not question but wholly to put him by
his request to 10 mans of tobacco which he would annually receive or
bring on the island free of all duties."
point (5)
Bombay—an Emporium of India
35. That Bombay is an emporium for the whole of India may be admitted.
But it is difficult to understand how it can be said that because of this, Maharashtra
cannot claim Bombay. Every port serves a much larger area than the country to
which it belongs. No one, on that account, can say the country in which the
port is situated cannot claim it as a part of its
territory. Switzerland has no port. It uses either German, Italian or French
Ports. Can the Swiss therefore deny the right of Germany, Italy or France, the
territorial rights of their ports. Why then should Maharashtrians
be denied the right to claim Bombay
merely because it serves as a port for Provinces other than Maharashtra ? It would be different if the
Province of Maharashtra were to get a right to close the Port to Non-Maharashtrians. Under
the constitution, it will not have that right. Consequently, the inclusion of
Bombay in Maharashtra
will not affect the right of non-Maharashtrians
to use the port as before.
Gujarathis--owners
of Trade and Industry of Bombay
36. It may be granted that the Gujarathis
have a monopoly of trade. But, as has already been pointed out, this monopoly,
they have been able to establish because of the profits they were able to make
which were the result of the privileges given to them by the East India Company on their settlement in
Bombay. Who built up the trade
and industry of Bombay is a matter for which no very great research is
necessary. There is no foundation in fact for the statement that the trade and
industry of Bombay was built up by Gujarathis.
It was built up by Europeans and not by Gujarathis.
Those who assert that it is the Gujarathis who did it should consult the Times
of India Directory before making
such a claim. The Gujarathis have been just merchants which is quite a
different thing from being industrialists.
37. Once it is established that Bombay belonged
to Maharashtra
the claim of Maharashtra to include Bombay cannot be defeated by the argument
that the trade and industry of Bombay is owned by the Gujarathis. The claim of mortgagor to his land
cannot be defeated by the mortgagee on the ground that the mortgagee has built
up permanent structures on the land. The Gujarathis assuming they have built up
the trade and industry of Bombay are in no better position than a mortgagee is.
38. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay seems to me
quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay should or should
not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on monopoly of trade and
industry is really a political argument. It means that the owners may rule the
workers but the workers must not be allowed to rule the owners. Those who use this argument do not seem to
know what they are up against. The one thing they are up against is whether
this argument is to be confined only to the City of Bombay or whether it is to
have a general application.
39. There is no reason why it should not have a general application. For
just as in Bombay City society is divided into owners and workers or into
capitalists and wage-earners,
such also is the case of society in Gujarat
or for the matter of that in every province of India. If the owners and
capitalists of Bombay are to be protected by the exclusion of Bombay from
Maharashtra because Maharashtrians
belong to the working classes, what is the method they suggest for protecting
the capitalists of Gujarat from the working classes of Gujarat. Those Gujarathi
Professors like Vakils and Dantwalas
who are searching their brains to supply arguments to the Gujarathi capitalists
of Bombay have not thought of finding ways and means for protecting the
Gujarathi capitalists of Gujarat against the working classes of Gujarat. The
only remedy they can suggest is the abandonment of adult suffrage. That is the
only way by which they can protect the capitalists if they are out to protect capitalists
in general and not the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay in particular.
40. There is however one argument which the Professors could urge. It is
that the Maharashtrians being in a majority would discriminate against the
Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay if Bombay was included in Maharashtra.
One could appreciate such an argument. But
those who like to use this argument
must remember two things :
(i) That Maharashtra
is not the only place in which such a situation can arise. It may arise in any
province. I like to refer to Bihar.
In Bihar the land in which coal is
found belongs to the people of Bihar. But the coal-owners are Gujarathis, Kathiawaris
or Europeans. Is there no possibility of Biharis
making a discrimination against Gujarathi
and Kathiawari
coal-owners ? Are the coalfields of Bihar to be
excluded from the
Province of Bihar and constituted into a separate Province in the interest of
Kathiawari and Gujarathi coal-owners ?
(ii) The constitution of India has noted
the possibility of discrimination being made
against a minority and has made more than ample provision for preventing it. There the fundamental rights. There
are the provisions against discrimination;
there are the provisions of payment of compensation,
and there are the High Courts with the inherent rights to issue high
prerogative writs both against individuals and Governments to stop any harm,
injustice or harassment
being done to any citizen. What more protection do the
Gujarathi traders and industrialists of Bombay want against the possibility
of discrimination ?
point (7)
Maharashtra's eye on Bombay's surplus
41. Before accusing Maharsshtrians of having an eye on the surplus of Bombay it must be
proved that Bombay has a surplus. What appears as surplus is due really to bad accounting. It is bad accounting where expenditure on overhead charges such as (1)
the Governor and his establishment, (2) the Ministers and their establishments, (3) the Legislature and
the expenditure thereon, (4) Judiciary, (5) Police and (6) Provincial
establishments such as those of the Commissioners of Police and Directors of
Public Instruction is not being taken into account. I doubt very much if on the existing basis of taxation, Bombay
will have any surplus if expenditure on these items is charged to Bombay. It is
a fallacy to charge all such expenditure to Maharashtra and exempt Bombay from
it and then argue that Bombay has a surplus.
42. The statement that the Maharashtrians want Bombay because they want to live on the surplus revenue of Bombay, besides being wrong in
fact raises a question of motive. I do not know if the Maharashtrians are
actuated by any such motive. They are not a commercial community. Unlike other communities, the Maharashtrians have no
nose for money, and I am one of these who believe that it is one of their greatest virtues. Money has never been their god. It is no part of their
culture. That is why they have allowed all other communities coming from
outside Maharashtra
to monopolize the trade and industry of Maharashtra. But as I have shown there is no surplus and no
question of Maharashtrians casting their eyes on it.
43. But supposing such a motive in the minds of the Maharashtrians, what
is wrong in it? It is quite open to Maharashtrians to contend that they have a
greater claim on Bombay's surplus because they have played and they will continue
to play a greater part in supplying labour for the building up of the trade and
industry of Bombay more than the people from other Provinces have done or
likely to do. It would be difficult for any economist with any reputation to
save who could deny that labour has as
much claim on the wealth produced as capital if not more.
44. Secondly, the surplus from Bombay is not consumed by Maharashtra alone but is consumed by the whole of India. The
proceeds of the Income-tax, Super-tax, etc. which Bombay pays to the Central
Government are all spent by the Central Government for all-India purposes and
is shared by all other Provinces. To Prof. Vakil it does not matter if the
surplus of Bombay is eaten up by United Provinces, Bihar, Assam, Orissa, West Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. What he objects to is Maharashtra
getting any part of it. This is not an argument. It is only an exhibition of
his hatred for Maharashtrians.
45. Granting that, Bombay was made into a separate Province, what I
don't understand is how Prof. Vakil is going to prevent Maharashtra
from getting share of Bombay surplus revenue. Even if Bombay is made separate
Province, Bombay will have to pay income-tax, super-tax, etc. and surely Maharashtra
will get a part of the revenue paid by Bombay to the Centre either directly or
indirectly. As I have said the argument has in it more malice than substance.
points (8) and (9)
46. I will now turn to the Points (8) and (9) which have been urged by
Professors Dantwala and Gheewala. Their arguments strike at the very root of the
principle of Linguistic Provinces. As such I should have dealt with them in Part I of this Memorandum.
But as the aim of their argument is to exclude Bombay from being included in Maharashtra, I have thought it proper to deal with them in this
Part of the Memorandum as they are really arguments against the inclusion of
Bombay in Maharashtra.
47. The sum total of the arguments of the
two Professors is that Linguistic Provinces are bad. This cry against Linguistic Provinces is too late. Since
when two Professors having been holding these views is not known. Are they
opposed to Gujarat
being reconstituted on Linguistic Provinces also has not been made clear by them. Or, is it that they believed
in the principle of Linguistic Provinces but hurried to disavow it when they
realized that the admission of the principle involves the surrender of Bombay
to Maharashtra. It is perhaps one of these cases where a person not
finding argument limited to his purpose is forced to resort to an argument
which proves more than he is anxious to allow. I am, however, prepared to
examine the substance of their argument.
48. Prof. Dantwala relies upon Lord Acton and quotes the following passage from his Essay on
Nationality printed in his well-known book The History of Freedom and Other
Essays in support of his own view against Linguistic Provinces. The
quotation reads as follows :
" The
combination of various nations in one State is a necessary condition of
civilized life as the combination of men in society."
49. I am sorry to say that this quotation completely misrepresents Lord
Acton. The quotation is only a few opening lines of a big passage. The full
passage reads as follows :
"The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary
a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior
races are raised by living in political union with races intellectually
superior. Exhausting and decaying nations are revived by the contact
of younger vitality. Nations in which the elements of organization and the
capacity for Government have been lost, either through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the
disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated anew under the
discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilizing and
regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one Government. It is
in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the vigour,
the knowledge and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be communicated to
another.
50. Why Prof. Dantwala left out the rest of the passage, it is difficult
to understand. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate case of suppresio veri
and suggestio falsi. The fact is that it does misrepresent Lord Acton. Why
has the Professor relied upon this passage, I do not understand. It is quite
obvious that if the inferior races are placed in common with the superior
races, the inferior races may improve. But the question is, who is inferior or
who is superior. Are the Gujarathis inferior to Maharashtrians ? Or are the Maharashtrians inferior to Gujarathis ? Secondly, what is the channel of
communion between Gujarathis and Maharashtrians which can assure the fusion of the two ? Prof. Dantwala has not considered
the question. He found a sentence in Lord Acton's
Essay and jumped at it for he could find nothing else to support his case. The point
is that there is nothing in the message which has any relevance to the principle involved in
the question of Linguistic Province.
51. So much for Prof. Dantwala's arguments. I will now examine Prof. Gheewala's
arguments. Prof. Gheewala also relies on Lord Acton.
He quotes a portion of a passage
from Lord Acton's
Essay on Nationality. I reproduce below the passage in full :
"The greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern
theory of nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with
each other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all other
nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit them to an
equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State, because the State
would then cease to be national, which would be a contradiction of the
principle of its existence. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity and
civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the
community, the inferior races are exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or
outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence."
52. I do riot understand why the learned Professor has dragged in the name of Lord Acton.
The passage does not really help him. There is one thing which seems to be uppermost in his mind. He thinks
that if Bombay is included in Maharashtra the Province of Maharashtra will consist of two nationalities—one consisting of
the Marathi-speaking people and the other of the Gujarathi-speaking people and the Marathi-speaking people who would be
the dominant class will reduce the Gujarathi-speaking people to a subject
condition. It is in support of this he thought of citing Lord Acton. Such a
possibility is always there. There is no objection to the way in which he has
presented the problem. But there are great objections to the conclusions he
draws.
53. In the first place, in a country like India in
which society is throughout communally organized it is obvious that in whatever
way it is divided into areas for administrative purposes, in every area there
will always be one community which by its numbers happens to be a dominant
community. As a dominant community it becomes a sole heir to all political power, which the area gets. If Marathi-speaking
people in a unified Maharashtra with Bombay thrown into it will become dominant over
the Gujarathi-speaking people, will this prospect be confined to Maharashtra only ? Will such a phenomena not occur within the
Marathi-speaking people ? Will it not be found in Gujarat if Gujarat became a separate Province ? I am quite certain that within the Marathi-speaking
people who are sharply divided between the Marathas and the non-Marathas, the Marathas being a dominant class will reduce both Gujarathi-speaking and the
non-Marathas to a subject condition. In the same way in Gujarat in some parts
the Anavil
Brahmins from a dominant class. In other parts it is the Patidars
who form a dominant class. It is quite likely that the Anavils
and the Patidars will reduce the condition of the other
communities to subjection. The problem therefore is not a problem peculiar to Maharashtra. It is a general problem.
54. What is the remedy for this problem ? Prof. Gheewala believes that the remedy lies in having a mixed
State. So far as this remedy is concerned it is not his own. He has adopted it from Lord Acton.
But I have no doubt that so far as Lord Acton advocates this remedy he is quite
wrong. Lord Acton cites the case of Austria in support of his view.
Unfortunately, Lord Acton did not live to see the fate of Austria. It was a
mixed State. But far from providing for the safety of nationalities the clash
of nationalities blew up Austria to bits. The real remedy is not a mixed State but an absolute State with no power
to the people which is generally captured by a communal majority and
exercised in the name of the people. Is Prof. Gheewala prepared for this remedy ? One need have no doubt to what his answer would be.
55. In the second place. Prof. Gheewala has confounded nationality in the social sense of the term with Nationality in
its legal and political sense. People often speak of nationality in speaking
about Linguistic Provinces. Such use of the term can be only in the non-legal and non-political sense
of the term. In my scheme there is no room even for the growth of separate provincial nationality. My
proposal nips it in the bud. But even if the commonly suggested pattern of
Linguistic Provinces with the language of the Province as the official language
were adopted. Provinces cannot have that
attribute of sovereignty which independent nations have.
56. It is very difficult to understand what exactly what Prof. Gheewala wants. Broadly
he wants two things : He wants a mixed State and he also wants that a
dominant section should not be in a position to reduce the smaller sections to
subjection. I cannot see how Linguistic Provinces can come in the way of
achieving it. For even after Provinces have been re-constituted on linguistic
basis,—
(1) Provinces will continue to be a conglomeration of communities which
will give Prof. Gheewala the mixed State that he wants;
(2) If Prof. Gheewala wants a more pronounced form of a mixed State to
protect smaller communities or nationalities, he will certainly have it at the
Centre.
As I have said, I do not think a mixed State is either a good State or
stable State. But if Prof. Gheewala prefers it, he will have it in one form or
another, both in the Provinces as well as at the Centre, in the former in the
form of different communities and in the latter in the form of the
representatives of different Provinces.
57. With regard to his second objective, there will be double
protection. In the first place, the citizen will have such protection as a
mixed State he thinks can give. Secondly, citizenship will be common throughout India.
There is no provincial citizenship. A Gujarathi in Maharashtra will have the same rights of citizenship in Maharashtra
as Maharashtrian will have.
Given these facts, I fail to understand what objection Prof. Gheewala can
have to Linguistic Provinces ?
58. Prof. Gheewala has made two other recommendations. He says, (1) if
Provinces have to be reconstituted,
constitute them on rational basis rather
than on linguistic basis and (2) make nationality a personal thing.
59. To reconstitute Provinces on economic basis—which is what is meant
by rational basis—appears more scientific than reconstituting them on
linguistic basis. However, unscientific linguistic reorganization of Provinces
I cannot see how they can come in
the way of rational utilization of economic resources of ndia. Provincial boundaries are only administrative boundaries. They do not raise economic
barriers for the proper utilization of economic resources. If the position was that the resources contained within a Linguistic Province must only be explained by the
people of the Province and no other than it could no doubt be said that the scheme of
Linguistic Provinces was mischievous. But such is not the case. So long as
Linguistic Provinces are not allowed to put a ban on the exploitation of the
resources of the people by any body capably of wishing to exploit them a
Linguistic Province will yield all the advantages of a rationally planned
Province.
60. The proposal of making nationality as a personal thing and put it on the same
footing as religion may be dismissed as being to Utopian. It would raise
many administrative problems. It will come when the world is one and all
nationals are its citizens. Nationality will automatically vanish as being
quite useless.
61. So far I have dealt with the arguments advanced by those who are opposed to the
inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. I have taken pains to do so not because I felt that
they were very weighty. I did so because I felt
it desirable to prevent the common man from being
misled. The possibility of this happening was there and for two reasons. In the first place, those who have come forward with these arguments
are not ordinary men. They are University Professors. Secondly, these Professors came out with their
arguments after Prof. Gadgil had put forth the case for the inclusion of Bombay in
Maharashtra. Unfortunately, no attempt has so far been made
to refute the arguments of the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil. The
result has been the creation of an impression that Prof. Gadgil's
adversaries have carried the day. It was absolutely essential to remove this impression.
62. There are however arguments which the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil have
not thought of but which may be advanced
with justice as well as force in favour of the claim of Maharashtrians for the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. It is quite possible that these arguments may suggest
themselves to the Commission. But I don't like to leave it to chance. I
therefore propose to set them out below even though the Commission might think
that it was unnecessary.
Calcutta and Bombay
63. In deciding upon the issue of exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra
the Commission will have to take into account the position of Calcutta. Like Bombay
it is the chief emporium of the whole of eastern part of India. Like the
Maharashtrians in Bombay the Bengalis in Calcutta are in a minority. Like the
Maharashtrians in Bombay, the Bengalis do not own the trade and industry of
Calcutta. The position of the Bengalis vis-à-vis Calcutta is worse than
the position of the Maharashtrians vis-à-vis Bombay. For, the
Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not capital
for the trade and industry of Bombay. The Bengalis cannot even say this. If the
Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be
equally prepared to recommend the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal. For
it is a very pertinent question to ask that if for the reasons given Bombay can
be separated from Maharashtra why when the same reasons exist Calcutta be not separated from West Bengal.
Is Bombay Viable?
64. Before Bombay can be separated it must be proved that financially
Bombay is a viable Province. As I have already said if proper accounting of
revenue and expenditure was made Bombay on the basis of present level of taxation may not be a
self-sufficient Province. If that be so, the proposal for creating Bombay a
separate Province must fall to the ground. It is no use comparing Bombay with
Provinces like Orissa and Assam. The standard of administration, the
standard of living and consequently the level of wages in Bombay are all sc
high that I doubt that even with a crushing rate of taxation Bombay will be
able to raise the necessary amount of revenue to meet the expenditure.
The aim behind Greater Bombay
65. This doubt regarding viability of Bombay Province is
heightened by the indecent haste shown by the Government of Bombay in
creating Greater Bombay by including within the limits of Bombay the adjoining parts of
Maharashtra. It seems that the object of including such area cannot but be to make
Bombay viable. What else can it be? So long as Bombay remained part of
Maharashtra it did not matter to Maharashtrians In which administrative area a
portion of Maharashtra was included. But when Bombay is to be a separate Province it will take a long time to make Maharashtrians part with their territory to make Bombay greater and
viable. What is more important is the scheme
of greater Bombay casts responsibility upon the Linguistic Provinces Commission to decide whether
they could, with justice force
Maharashtrians not only to submit to the demand of the Gujarathis to give up Bombay but also to submit to their further
demand to hand over a part of territory of Maharashtra to make Bombay a viable Province. The Commission
cannot escape this responsibility.
66. Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent, they are really one and integral. Severance between
the two would be fatal to both. The sources of water and electricity for Bombay
lie in Maharashtra. The intelligentsia of Maharashtra lives in Bombay. To
sever Bombay from Maharashtra would be to make the economic life of Bombay
precarious and to dissociate the masses of Maharashtra from its intelligentsia without
whose lead the masses of Maharashtra
will be nowhere.
Arbitration as a Solution
67. I have seen a suggestion made in some quarters that problem of Bombay should be settled by
arbitration. I have never heard of a more
absurd suggestion than this. It is as absurd as the suggestion to refer
matrimonial cause to arbitration, The matrimonial tie is too personal, to be
severed by a third party. Bombay and Maharashtra are tied together by God to
use a Biblical phrase. No arbitrator can put
them asunder. The only agency which is authorized to do so is the Commission.
Let it decide.
[f1]Prof. Gheewala—Free
Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes—Free Press Journal,
September 18, 1948.
Comments
Social Counter