THE DIVISION OF THE NORTH
The problem having been realised we
must now search for a solution.
The solution lies obviously in adopting some standard for determining
the size of a State. It is not easy to fix such a standard. If two crores of population be adopted as a standard measure
most of the Southern States will become mixed States. The enlargement of the
Southern States to meet the menace of the Northern States is therefore
impossible. The only remedy is to break up the Northern States of U.P.,
Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
How did this solution not strike the Congress Working Committee I am
unable to understand. It is so obvious.
Division of the Northern States
As I have said the Commission in designing linguistic
States has created a consolidation of the North and balkanisation of the South.
The Commission has not I am sure done this
intentionally. But intentionally or unintentionally the fact is there. Its evil consequences are also clear.
It is therefore necessary that this
situation must be rectified. The only way to do this is to divide the three
States of (1) Uttar Pradesh,
(2) Bihar and (3) Madhya
Pradesh into smaller units. In this behalf I make bold to offer certain
tentative proposals.
This division does not conflict with the underlying principles of a
linguistic State. For, if these States are divided in the way suggested, each
resulting State will be a linguistic State.
I am happy to find Mr. Pant saying in the recent debate in Parliament
on the subject that he has no objection to the cutting up of the U.P. What he said for U.P. may well be taken as
applicable to Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Division of Ultar Pradesh.—My proposal with regard to the Uttar Pradesh is to
divide it into three States (See Map
2). Each of these three States should have a population of approximately two crores which should be regarded as the standard size
of population for a State to administer effectively. Where the boundary lines
of these three States should be drawn I have shown in the accompanying Map No.
2.
The three States of the Uttar Pradesh could have as their capitals
(2)
Meerut (2) Cawnpore
and (3) Allahabad. They are situated quite in the centre of each of these three
States.
Division of Bihar—My proposal with regard to Bihar is
to divide it into two States (See Map
3). Each of these two States will have a population of a little over one and
half crores. It is not a small population for one Government to administer.
Where the boundary lines should be drawn I have shown in the
accompanying Map No. 3.
The two States of Bihar could have as their capitals (1) Patna and (2) Ranchi. They are situated quite in the centre of the
two States.
Division of Madhya Pradesh.—Madhya Pradesh stands before us in
two forms. The old Madhya Pradesh and the new Madhya Pradesh.
The old Madhya Pradesh consisted of :
(2) some Indian States out of the States known as the Eastern States.
This old State of Madhya Pradesh had a population of 2 1/2 crores. It
consisted of 22 districts. Its legislature had 223 members.
The new Madhya Pradesh as planned by the Commission will consist of:
(2) the 14 districts of the old Madhya Pradesh,
(2) the whole of Bhopal,
(3) the whole of Vindhya Pradesh,
(5) the Sironj sub-division of Kola
district of Rajasthan.
The total population of this new Madhya Pradesh will be 26.1 million and its area will be
about 171.200 square miles.
I suggest that it should be divided into two Stales : (1) Northern Madhya Pradesh, (2) Southern Madhya
Pradesh (See Map 4).
The State of New Madhya Pradesh should consist of the following areas :
(2) The whole of Vindhya Pradesh.
(2) The whole State of Bhopal.
The State of Southern Madhya Pradesh should consist of—
(2) the whole State of Indore, and
(2) the 14 districts of Mahakosal.
The population of this Indore State will be about 2 crores and the population of this Vindhya Pradesh
will be about 1.30 crores. (See Map
No. 4).
Why the Commission created this monster State it is no way to know.
Even Prime Minister Nehru was surprised at its creation.
All that one can think of is that the Commission has been under the
impression that one language, one State is a categorical imperative from which
there is no escape. As I have shown one language,
one State can never be categorical imperative. In fact one State, one language
should be the rule. And therefore people forming one language can divide
themselves into many States.
THE PROBLEMS OF MAHARASHTRA
I
THE PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra is another area which is a subject of controversy.
There are four proposals in the field :
(1) To retain the Bombay State as it is i.e. to retain it as a mixed
State consisting of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay.
(2) To disrupt the existing State and to
separate Maharashtra and Gujarat and make them
into two separate States.
(3) To make united Maharashtra with Bombay
as one State.
(4) To separate Bombay from Maharashtra
and make it a separate City State.
I would like to state what my proposals are. They are as follows : Bombay as a mixed State should be done away with. I
would divide Maharashtra into four States (See Map 5) :
(1) Maharashtra City State (Bombay), (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra
and (4) Eastern Maharashtra.
Maharashtra City State— The City of Bombay plus such area of Maharashtra as would enable it to be a good and strong
City State.
Western Maharashtra— (1) Thana,
(2) Kolaba, (3) Ratnagiri,
(4) Poona, (5) North Satara,
(6) South Satara, (7)
Kolhapur and (8) the Marathi-speaking
territories given over to Karnataka.
Central Maharashtra—(1) Dang, (2) East Khandesh, (3)
West Khandesh, (4) Nasik, (5) Ahmednagar, (6) Aurangabad, (7) Nanded,
(8) Parbhani, (9) Beed, (10) Usmanabad, (II) Sholapur
City and the Marathi-speaking area of Sholapur
District and (12) the Marathi-speaking territories given over to Telangana.
Eastern Maharashtra.—(1) Buldhana,
(2) Yeotmal, (3) Akola, (4) Arnraoti, (5) Wardha,
(6) Chanda, (7) Nagpur,
(8) Bhandara and (9) the Marathi-speaking
territories given to Hindi States.
I will next proceed to examine the merits of these proposals.
II
MAHARASHTRIANS UNDER THE MIXED STATE
Should Bombay remain a mixed State ? It is a most unusual procedure. The City of
Calcutta is not a separate City State. Madras is not a separate City State. Why
Bombay alone be made the exception ?
Secondly, it is already a mixed State. What is the experience of the Maharashtrians under this mixed State ? The Maharashtrians
have suffered terribly under this mixed State. What is the position of the Maharashtrians
in the Bombay Cabinet ?
Let us consider the distribution of Ministership
:
Marathi
Ministers ... ... ... 4
Kannada
Ministers ... ... ... 1
Total
... 9
Gujarathi members in the Assembly are only
106, Marathi members are 149 and yet the number of Gujarathi Ministers is equal
to that of Maharashtrian Ministers.
Let us come to Deputy Ministers :
Marathi speaking 5
Gujarathi speaking 2
Kannada speaking 2
Total ... 9
Only among Deputy Ministers do the Maharashtrians
have a majority of one.
But how the power and subjects are distributed among the
Ministers and Deputy Ministers is the most
important matter. It shows what power and
authority the Maharashtrian
Ministers possess in this mixed Cabinet of the Bombay State.
Allocation of Subjects among Ministers
|
Gujarathi Ministers
|
Maharashtrian
Ministers
|
|||||
|
1
|
Morarji Desai
|
105
|
subs
|
Hirey
|
49
|
subs
|
|
2
|
Dinkerrao Desai
|
26
|
subs
|
Nimbalkar
|
20
|
subs
|
|
3
|
Jivaraj Mehta
|
43
|
subs
|
Tapase
|
15
|
subs
|
|
4
|
Shantilal Shah
|
28
|
subs
|
Chavan
|
4
|
subs
|
The allocation of subjects among Deputy Ministers is also done on the
same pattern.
Allocation of Subjects among Ministers
|
Gujarathi
Deputy Ministers
|
Maharashtrian Deputy Ministers
|
|||||
|
1
|
Indumati Sheth
|
12
|
subs
|
Wandrekar
|
12
|
subs
|
|
2
|
Babubhai J Patel
|
3
|
subs
|
Deshmukh
|
4
|
subs
|
|
Naravane
|
5
|
subs
|
||||
|
Sathe
|
5
|
subs
|
||||
|
Faki
|
3
|
subs
|
||||
Let us now consider how much money is spent on development in Maharashtra and in Gujarath.
The following figures will give an idea of the Per Capita Expenditure for the
three years on Maharashtra and Gujarath :
Per Capita Expenditure on Development in Rupees |
||||
Years |
||||
|
Population
|
1950-51
|
1951-52
|
1952-53
|
|
|
Maharashtra
|
21720091
|
1.7
|
2.3
|
1.8
|
|
Gujarath
|
11896789
|
2.9
|
3.1
|
3.2
|
What a differential treatment ? What a discrimination ?
What an injustice ? Can anybody blame the Maharashtrians if they felt disputed with the mixed
State of Bombay ?
Such a position of subordination no Maharashtrian can tolerate. The
idea of a mixed State must be blown off once for all.
III
THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY
The Bombay City is an area which is a subject matter of controversy.
The controversy has become very acute.
Maharashtrians want the City to be part of Maharashtra. Gujarathis want the
City to be a separate State. Heads have been broken over the controversy. But
there has been no agreement. It is therefore necessary to go to the root of the
matter.
The Gujarathis do not claim Bombay City as their own. But will not let
go their hold on it. They claim a sort of easement over it by reason of the
fact that they control the trade and industry of the City. The issue is: should it become part of Maharashtra or should it
be constituted into a separate State ? The
Gujarathis and Maharashtrians are sharply divided on the issue. The
Maharashtrians want that Bombay should become exclusively a part of the new
Maharashtra State. The Gujarathis are stoutly opposed to it. They have
presented two alternatives. One alternative is not to break up the existing bi-lingual State of Bombay into two linguistic units
of Gujarath and Maharashtra. The Congress Working
Committee's decision is to make the city of Bombay into a separate State.
The Gujarathis are happy. The Maharashtrians are naturally angry. The
resentment of the Maharashtrians is well justified. The arguments urged against
the claim of the Maharashtrians have no force at all.
The first argument that is urged is that the Marathi-speaking
population of Bombay City does not form a majority of the total population of the City. The total population of Bombay City is very
large (See Statistical Appendix). Marathi-speaking population is 48 per cent.
Those who use this kind of argument do not seem to realise the weakness
of it.
The total Marathi population of Bombay
City is no doubt less than 50 per cent. but it has to be valued against two
factors. One is that geographically no one can deny that Bombay is part of
Maharashtra even if the Maharashtrians are in a minority in the City. Even Mr. Morarji Desai admitted
in the course of his speech in the meeting of the Gujarath Pradesh Congress Committee that Bombay is part of
Maharashtra.
The second point to be taken into consideration in valuing the
population factor is the continued influx of population from the rest of India
who come to Bombay either for making profits or
for earning their bread. None of them regard Bombay as their home; they should not therefore be counted as permanent residents of Bombay City. Many
come for a few months and go back.
Bombay is a home only to the Maharashtrians and none else. It is not therefore logical or fair to count the non-Maharashtrians for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to who form the majority of
population in the Bombay City.
Again it is not realised that the increase in the non-Marathi-speaking people in the Bombay City is due
to the absence of a local law restricting citizenship. If Bombay State had such
a law all this influx into Bombay from all parts of India could have been shut
out and the Maharashtrian majority retained.
It is also not realised that the influx of the non-Maharashtrians in
Bombay is due to the fact that Bombay is a port, and it is a port on the Western Coast. The route from Europe to Bombay is much
shorter than the route from Europe to Calcutta or Europe to Madras. That is why
large number of poor people from other parts of India leave their homes and
come to Bombay as temporary residents. It is easier to find a job in Bombay than elsewhere.
Really speaking the matter has to be looked at from a different point
of view. People have been coming to Bombay for the last two hundred years or
so. Yet this influx has not reduced the Maharashtrian population in the city
below 48 per cent. After two hundred years, the bedrock
of its population remains Maharashtrian in its
composition. This is due to the migratory character of City (See Appendix 3). The Gujarathis are migratory population.
There are also other arguments which could be
urged in favour of allowing Bombay to remain as part of Maharashtra.
Bombay is not the only composite city in India. Calcutta and Madras are
also composite cities. If Calcutta can be part of Western Bengal and Madras can
be part of Madras State what objection can there be to Bombay being made part
of Maharashtra ? This is the question that every
Maharashtrian will ask. I see no answer to this
question. The only answer that comes to one's mind is that the Congress High
Command thinks that Maharashtrians
are unfit to rule
others. This is a slur on the Maharashtrian
character and they will not tolerate it.
It is said that Bombay has been built up by the capital belonging to
non-Maharashtrians. That may be so. But has Madras been built by the capital of
Madrasees ? Has
Calcutta been built by the capital of Bengalees ? Without
the capital of Europeans Madras and Calcutta would have been villages. Then why
urge this point against the Maharashtrians when they claim Bombay to themselves
? Maharashtrians have at least contributed labour
without which Bombay could not have been what it is. It must always be
remembered that the life lines of Bombay lie in Maharashtra. The sources of its electricity lie in Maharashtra. Sources of its water supply
lie in Maharashtra. The sources of its labour lie in Maharashtra. Maharashtra
can at any time make the city of Bombay ' Mohenjodaro '
a City of the Dead.
The Gujarathi population is filled with
fear that Maharashtrians will practise discrimination against them. But under our Constitution
discrimination is not possible for the reason that the Constitution contains a
list of fundamental rights and remedies by way of writs from the High Court and
the Supreme Court which can immediately provide redress for a wrong. For every
wrong of a discriminative character there is a remedy provided by the Constitution. Why should the Gujarathis have any fear ?
Let us now consider what benefit the Gujarathis are going to get from
Bombay being made a separate City State. Their population in the Bombay State
is only ten per cent. How many seats can they get in the Bombay City State
Legislature? Not even ten per cent. How can ten
per cent protect their clients against 90 per cent ?
It must be remembered that the feelings
between the Maharashtrians and the Gujarathis would hereafter be running high
as never before. A Maharashtrian will not vote for
a Gujarathi candidate and a Gujarathi voter will not vote for a Maharashtrian
candidate. Hitherto the Gujarathis have been able
to plough the sands of Maharashtra with their
money. But money may not succeed once self-respect is aroused. The Gujarathis
must consider whether goodwill is not a better protection than a paltry share
in the Government of the City.
While the case of Maharashtra is as strong as steel there are some
points on the other side which they must not fail to consider in their anger.
They want Bombay to be within Maharashtra. But the question which they must consider is:
What do they want ? Do they want prosperous Bombay
or do they want decadent Bombay ? Can Bombay be
prosperous under Maharashtra ? This in other words
means : can Maharashtra provide the capital
necessary for the growing trade and industry of the City ? No Maharashtrian can answer this question in the
affirmative. The Maharashtrians may be able to supply the need for capital
after a course of years. But certainly not now.
The second point is : what would be the
effect on the standard of living of Maharashtrians living in Bombay if the City's prosperity
declines either by flight of capital or removal of business houses. The
Maharashtrians must not forget, however it may
hurt their pride, that they are a nation of clerks and coolies. What employment
can they get in a declining city ?
The Maharashtrian should consider the question of Bombay from this
point of view. There is a saying which says :
There is also another reason why Bombay City should be made a separate state. The minorities and the Scheduled Castes who
are living in the village are constantly subjected to tyranny, oppression, and
even murders by the members of the majority
communities. The minorities need an asylum, a place of refuge where they can be free from the tyranny of the majority. If there
was a United Maharashtra with Bombay included in
it where they can go to for safety ? The same
tyranny was practised over the Brahmins, Marwaris
and Gujarathis living in the villages when Godse killed Mr. Gandhi. All
the Brahmins, Marwaris and Gujarathis who were once living in villages ran away
and are now living in towns and forgetting their experiences are shouting for
United Maharashtra, after having reached a safe
harbour.
It seems to me that Maharashtrians will do
well to accept the decision of the Congress High Command for the time being.
The Maharashtrians need have no fear of losing Bombay. Nobody can
dispossess Maharashtrians of Bombay. Much less can there be any ouster of them by anybody.
The real objection to the creation of Bombay as a separate State arises
from the fact that the name Bombay does not carry within it the sense that it
is part of Maharashtra. It is to remove this objection that I propose that the
new State of Bombay should be renamed by another name which will carry on its
face the word Maharashtra.
Supposing in terms of this suggestion instead of saying that Bombay be
made a separate State it is said that Maharashtra be divided into four States,
(1) Maharashtra City State (which is Bombay City), (2) Western Maharashtra, (3)
Central Maharashtra, (4) Eastern Maharashtra; what
objection can there be to the creation of a separate State of Bombay ?
This also involves the separation of Bombay. With this change in the
name of the City I like to know which Maharashtrian
can raise objection to the creation of Bombay as a
separate City State on the ground that this scheme separates Bombay from
Maharashtra ? To say that Bombay be made a
separate State is merely stating that Maharashtra be divided into four States.
If there is no objection to Maharashtra being divided into two or three States what
objection can there be to Maharashtra being divided into four? I can see none.
For the sake of similarity in language I propose that Calcutta be called Bengal
City State and Madras be called Tamil City State.
This is one proposal which I make to ease the tension between
Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.
The Maharashtra City State will be a surplus State. Those who are
wanting United Maharashtra with Bombay are hoping to get the benefit of this surplus
for Maharashtra.
The surplus revenue of the City State arises because of (1) The
Property Tax and (2) The Electricity Tax. Can the revenue from these two
sources be appropriated by Maharashtra if Bombay becomes a separate City State ?
Nothing can be done to take away the yield of the Property Tax from the
Bombay City State Property Tax. It is a local tax, on local situated property.
The State within which the property is situated is entitled to the yield of the
Tax.
With regard to the Electricity
Tax the situation is different.
When Gujarath and Maharashtra are separated—and they must be— Gujarath will claim the revenue derived from
electricity produced and consumed within Gujarath. Maharashtra
will claim the revenue derived from electricity produced and consumed within
Maharashtra. Bombay City as a State will do the same. Can Bombay be allowed to
do so and appropriate the revenue to itself ? Is
it just ? Bombay City
does not produce electricity. It is produced outside Bombay City in
Maharashtra. Therefore the new Bombay City State
has no right to appropriate to itself the whole revenue derived from
electricity. The proper thing to do is to apply the principle of the
segregation of the sources and division of the yield well known to all students
of State Finance.
To put it in concrete shape let the Centre take over the
taxation of Electricity and divide the yield among the four States of
Maharashtra— (1) Bombay, (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra, (4)
Eastern Maharashtra according to their needs. It
will also ease the financial strain that the three Maharashtras
are likely to suffer on account of the separation
of Bombay.
IV
UNITED OR DIVIDED ?
I have said that Bombay be given a new area and made into a separate
City State.
There now remains the question of how to deal with the rest of the
Maharashtra. I have suggested that the rest of the Maharashtra should be
divided into three States.
From very ancient times Maharashtra has been divided into three States.
Maharashtra first comes to be known in history during the time of Ashok. It is mentioned in Mahavansa in connection with
reference to the missionaries sent by Ashok to different parts of India for the
purpose of propagating Buddhism. But thereafter the Pali literature speaks of Trai Maharashtrika
or three Maharashtras. It means that from very ancient times there have been
three Maharashtras. My proposal is not therefore new.
The distribution of population, area and
revenue would be as shown in Table (on page 160).
The accompanying map No. 5 will show the area and boundaries of each of
the three divisions.
For the present, from the point of view of
area and population there is nothing to complain
against the three divisions.
From the earliest times they have always
been spoken of as Trai
Maharashtras.
The division does no wrong to the language principle. In fact if all the
three Maharashtras have the same language it can help to develop the Marathi language if it is worth their while to do so.
The question of viability I will consider later on. I propose to deal
with it separately in a special chapter.
Bombay was then unknown. Otherwise it would have been the fourth part
of Maharashtra.
Of the remaining three parts what I call Eastern
Maharashtra is already a separate State. All that
required is that it should be allowed to remain separate. It has got a
well-established administration system, a well-established revenue system and a
well-established judicial system. It has been separated from the trammels of
the Hindi-speaking people.
The only problem that remains is how to divide the area covered by the
Maharashtra which is part of the present Bombay State and the Marathwada of the Hyderabad State.
Instead of forming a merger of the two into one and joining it to the third which I call Eastern
Maharashtra, why not divide the Maharashtra part of Bombay and Marathwada into
two equal States ? This is my scheme. I transfer
six districts of Maharashtra part of the Bombay State and make them part of
Marathwada. (See Map No. 5). The
distribution of the area and population of the
three Maharashtras are shown below :
The Population Area and Revenue of the Three Maharashtra States will be
approximately as follows:
|
Name of State
|
Total
Population of the territory
|
Area in square
miles
|
Total Revenue
|
Total
expenditure
|
|
Western Maharashtra
|
12677316
|
30028
|
262420441
|
not known
|
|
Central Maharashtra
|
12409044
|
55482
|
216380095
|
not known
|
|
Eastern Maharashtra
|
8027130
|
39004
|
94111012
|
not known
|
|
Total
|
33113490
|
124514
|
572911548
|
not known
|
I will now proceed to state my reasons in support of my plan.
I have said that Maharashtra has always been divided into three. This
is a historical argument. It at least shows that the tradition, the way of life
and the social and economic condition of what is called
United Maharashtra is not one. Those who are in a hurry to have United
Maharashtra may not take it seriously. But there
are other arguments which arise out of the present condition and which cannot
be ignored. I mention a few.
My first argument is that a single Government cannot administer such a
huge State as United Maharashtra.
The total population of the Marathi-speaking
area is 3,30,83,490. The total area occupied by the Marathi-speaking
people is 1,74,514 sq. miles. It is a vast area
and it is impossible to have efficient administration by a single State. Maharashtrians who talk about Samyukta Maharashtra have no conception of the
vastness as to the area and population of their
Maharashtra. But why there should be one single Maharashtrian State. I am quite unable to understand.
To have a separate Maharashtra State is one thing. To have a single Maharashtra
State is quite a different thing. I am in favour of a separate Maharashtra,
separate from Gujarathis and separate from
Hindi-speaking people. But I am unable to understand why a free Maharashtra should
be made into one single State. The Maharashtrians
are not planning to declare war on U.P. and therefore they need not have a common front.
Even from the point of view of Marathas
why should there be this consolidation? What
affiliation has a Maratha of Satara got with the Maratha
of Aurangabad ? What
affiliation has a Maratha of Nasik got with the
Maratha of Ratnagiri ?
What care and interest a Maratha of Satara is going to bestow upon the problems
of the Maratha of Aurangabad ? What care and
interest a Maratha of Nasik is going to bestow upon the problems of the Maratha
of Ratnagiri ? The consolidation has no meaning
and can serve no purpose.
All Maratha Ministers in the present Bombay Cabinet come from Satara
District or Nasik District. There is none from Konkan.
The second consideration is the economic
inequality between the three parts of Maharashtra. Marathwada
has been solely neglected by the Nizam. What guarantee is there that the
other two Maharashtras will look after the
interests of what I call the Central Maharashtra ?
The third consideration is industrial
inequality between the three parts of Maharashtra. Western Maharashtra and
Eastern Maharashtra are industrially well developed. What about the Central
Maharashtra ? What guarantee is there of its industrial development ? Will
Western Maharashtra and Eastern Maharashtra take interest in the industrial development of Central
Maharashtra?
The fourth consideration is the inequality of education between Eastern
and Western Maharashtra on the one hand and
Central Maharashtra on the other. The inequality between them is marked. If the
Central Maharashtra goes under the Poona
University its destiny is doomed.
I am greatly worried about Marathwada. It
was hitherto part of
the Nizam's Territory for the last 200 years. The Nizam had criminally neglected this area. He took no interest in it.
There is not a mile
of canle irrigation in Marathwada. There is hardly a high school in taluka
places in Marathwada. There is hardly a youth in
Nizam's public service from Marathwada.
I speak from knowledge and experience. People are not only down and
out they are ignorant. They are being grabbed by
highly advanced people on both sides. When their
avenues of employment are
closed there will be
further degradation in their position.
I shudder to think what would happen when Marathwada goes under the Poona
University. The standard of education in the
schools and colleges under the Poona University is so high that hardly any boy
from Marathwada can
hope to pass the examination. It is quite possible that. with the madness for united Maharashtra there will develop a madness
for a single and common University.
The creation of United Maharashtra will be followed by
the onrush of Poona and Nagpur
Brahmins in Marathwada
to pick up the jobs.
There is a further reason why Maharashtra should be divided into three.
The total strength of the Bombay
Legislative Assembly is 315, Out of them 149 members are Marathi-speaking. The total strength of the Bombay Legislative
Council is 72; out of them 34 are Marathi-speaking.
Obviously some Marathi-speaking
person should have been the Chief Minister of the
Bombay State. Mr. Hirey stood up as a candidate
for the Chief Ministership,
But he was made to sit down by the Congress High Command. Not only was Mr. Hirey made to sit down but he was forced to move
that Mr. Morarji Desai
be made the Chief Minister.
What a humiliation for a Maharashtrian leader ! And what value does the
Congress High command attach to the political intelligence
of Maharashtrians ?
The same incapacity of the Maratha
Ministers is clear from the division of subjects referred earlier.
It is obvious from the facts given above that the Marathas are lacking in
political talent. There is no man of eminence among
them such as Tilak, or Gokhale
or Ranade. The Maharashtrian
today counts for nothing. The Congress Maharashtrian
coin is for much less
in the Congress. The non-Congress
Maharashtrian also counts for nothing. It is
therefore absolutely essential to train up
Maharashtrians in
political life. This
political training
has become fundamental because of the transfer of power to the masses. The word
Marathas is used in two senses. In one sense it means
all those who speak the Marathi language. In another sense it means all those who are Marathas by
caste. They are all spoken of as Marathas. But they
all fail to make the
distinction between Marathas i.e. those who speak
the Marathi language and Marathas i.e. those who
are Marathas by
caste.
Those who are going to rule Maharashtra are not Marathas
by speech but Marathas by caste, notwithstanding the hopes of the Brahmins. Now it cannot be denied that Marathas are politically the most backward community. It is
fundamental that they should receive political training. If there is only one Maharashtra only one
Maratha can be trained
as Chief Minister and five or six as Ministers. On
the other hand if there are three Maharashtra. States,
three Marathas can find training as Chief Ministers and thirty Marathas can get
training as Ministers. We can do real service to ourselves by helping to educate our Masters.
The only way of educating the Marathas is
to give them more field for developing their abilities and exercising their abilities. Only the creation of three Maharashtras can do this.
There is a story which is very appropriate to the occasion. The father
of a young girl had taken her for an outing in a jungle. She found that under
big trees there stood small shrubs. Finding this
to be uniformly so, she asked her father why these
small shrubs under the big trees do not grow. The father not being a botanist could
not give an answer. So he said : Oh ! I do not know. He, however, felt that the question
was very significant. He was a Professor in a college. Next day he went to the
college and put the question to his Botanist colleague. The Botanist replied: Why! The answer is
simple. The big trees use up all the sun's rays to themselves. The shrubs do
not get any rays. That is why they do not grow. The Marathwada
people must not forget the moral of this story.
The only argument in favour of United
Maharashtra is that
it is like a meeting of the two brothers Rama and Bharat
in Ramayana after a long separation. It is a silly argument, not worth consideration.
There are some Maharashtrians who are
satisfied with some kind of Political Treaty with
Western Maharashtra guaranteeing some concessions. Treaties are like scraps of
paper. They cannot be enforced. Instead of political
treaties which nobody can enforce is it not better to have power in one's own
hands ?
What a poor and wretched show by Maharashtrians in the Government of
Bombay ! If this is the show that the most
advanced and educated part of Maharashtrians can make, what can be expected
from the people of Marathwada?
I advise the people of Marathwada or Central Maharashtra to have a
State of their own so that they have power in their own hands to improve their
own lot.
RECLAMATION OF LOST TERRITORY
Should all the Marathi-speaking people be
huddled up under one State ? Or should they be divided into two or more States.
How to dispose of the remainder when Bombay is separated is the next
question. The remainder consists of two parts: (1)
Gujarath, (2) Maharashtra.
I am concerned with Maharashtra.
While creating Linguistic Provinces the Commission has given over Marathi-speaking areas to non-Marathi-speaking
areas. The number of such excluded areas are as
follows :
2. Khanapur Taluka.
4. Supa Taluka.
5. Karwar Taluka.
7. Ahamadpur Taluka in Bidar.
8. Udgir Taluka in Bidar.
10. Some portion from Vidarbha given to
the neighbouring Hindi-speaking State.
The Maharashtrians excluded from
Maharashtra come to 13,89,648 in terms of population.
The Commission in retaining the mixed State of Bombay had to secure two most important objects. One is not to allow
Bombay to go into the hands of Maharashtrians. This the Commission did by
creating a mixed State. The second thing they had to do was to secure equality
between Maharashtrians and the Gujarathis. The necessity of equality between the two
In the future Legislature of the Bombay State as planned by the Commission had
become urgent as the members of Karnatak in the
old Assembly on whom the Gujarathis depended for
their majority were to disappear in
the new Karnatak State. This the Commission did by clipping the wings of
Maharashtra by handing over Marathi-speaking
people to non-Marathi-speaking States. There seems
to be no other reason for this political
vandalism.
This wrong done by the Commission to Maharashtra must now be remedied
and fortunately it can be undone. The proposal of a mixed State is gone and
there is no necessity for equality between Maharashtrians and Gujarathis.
For the sake of the reader I summarise
below the principles which should underly the creation of Linguistic States which are
already enunciated In
(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.
(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.
(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of
one language, one State.
(4) The formula one language, one
State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one
Government irrespective of area, population and
dissimilarity of conditions among the people speaking the language. This is the
idea that underlies the agitation for a united Maharashtra
with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It must be
abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into many States as is
done in other parts of the world.
(5) Into how many States a people
speaking one language should be cut up, should depend upon (1) the requirements
of efficient administration, (2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the
sentiments of the different areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority
and minority.
(6) As the area of the State
increases the proportion of the minority to the majority decreases and the
position of the minority becomes precarious and the opportunities for the
majority to practise tyranny over the minority become greater. The States must
therefore be small.
(7) The minorities must be
given protection to prevent the tyranny of the majority. To do this the
Constitution must be amended and provisions must be made for a system on plural
member constituencies (two or three) with cumulative voting.
Comments
Social Counter