THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES
_______________________________________________________________
First published: 1955
Reprinted from the edition of 1955
Contents
PREFACE
Chapter I : Linguism and nothing else
Chapter III : The pros and cons of a linguistic state
Chapter IV :
Must there be one state for one language ?
Chapter V : The north versus the south
Chapter VI : The division of the north
Chapter VII : The problems
of Maharashtra
Chapter X : Majorities and minorities
Chapter XI : India and the
necessity of a second capital a way to remove
tension between the north and the south
Appendix I : Population by Linguistic
Families
Appendix II : Area and Population of States of United
States of America
Appendix III : The population of the Bombay City according to the
Communities
Appendix IV : Provincial/State Revenue
Appendix V :
Budgetary Position of the States on
Revenue Account
Appendix VI : Budgetary Position of the States on Revenue
Account
Appendix VII :
Central Revenues (Selected Years)
Appendix VIII :
Population of the Indian Union by
Communities
Appendix IX :
Statistics of Chief Castes
Appendix X
: Relative Population of
Different Communities
PREFACE
The creation of Linguistic States is
a burning question of the day. I regret that owing to my illness I was not able
to take part in the debate that took place in Parliament much less in the
campaign that is carried on in the country by partisans in favour of their
views. The question is too important for me to sleep over in silence. Many have
accused me for remaining quiet not knowing what the cause was.
I have therefore taken the other
alternative i.e. to set out my views in writing.
Readers may find certain
inconsistencies in my views as expressed in this brochure and as expressed
formerly in certain public statements. Such changes in my view are, I am sure,
very few. The former statements were made on the basis of fragmentary data. The
whole picture was then not present to the mind. For the first time it met my
eye when the report of the S.R.C. came out. This
is sufficient justification for any change in my
views which a critic may find.
To a critic who is a hostile and
malicious person and who wants to make capital out of my inconsistencies my
reply is straight. Emerson has said that consistency is the virtue of an ass
and I don't wish to make an ass of myself. No thinking human being can be tied
down to a view once expressed in the name of consistency. More important than
consistency is responsibility. A responsible person must learn to unlearn what
he has learned. A responsible person must have the courage to rethink and
change his thoughts. Of course there must be good and sufficient
reasons for unlearning what he has learned and for
recasting his thoughts. There can be no finality in thinking.
The formation
of Linguistic States, although essential, cannot be decided by any sort of hooliganism. Nor must it be
solved in a manner that will serve party interest. It must be solved by cold
blooded reasoning. This is what I have done and this is what I appeal to my
readers to do.
23rd December 1955
Milind Mahavidyalaya
Nagsen Vana, College Road
Aurangabad (Dn.)
B. R. AMBEDKAR
CHAPTER I
LINGUISM AND NOTHING ELSE
The present Constitution of India recognises the
following States which are enumerated in the Schedule :
Part “A” States
|
Part “B” States
|
Part “C” States
|
1.
Andhra
|
1.
Hyderabad
|
1.
Ajmer
|
2.
Assam
|
2.
Jammu & Kashmir
|
2.
Bhopal
|
3.
Bihar
|
3.
Madhya Bharat
|
3.
Coorg
|
4.
Bombay
|
4.
Mysore
|
4.
Delhi
|
5.
Madhya Pradesh
|
5.
Patiala
|
5.
Himachal Pradesh
|
6.
Madras
|
6.
Rajasthan
|
6.
Kutch
|
7.
Orissa
|
7.
Saurashtra
|
7.
Manipur
|
8.
Punjab
|
8.
Travancore - Cochin
|
8.
Tripura
|
9.
Uttar Pradesh
|
9.
Vindhya Pradesh
|
Article 3 of the Constitution gives power to Parliament to create new States. This was done because there was no time to reorganize the States on linguistic basis for which there was a great demand.
In pursuance of this incessant
demand the Prime Minister appointed the States
Reorganisation Commission to examine the question.
In its report the States Reorganisation Commission has recommended the creation
of the following States:
Proposed New States
Name of the State
|
Area (Sq. Miles)
|
Population (Crores)
|
Language
|
Madras
|
50,170
|
3.00
|
Tamil
|
Kerala
|
14,980
|
1.36
|
Malyalam
|
Karnatak
|
72,730
|
1.90
|
Kanarese
|
Hyderabad
|
45,300
|
1.13
|
Telugu
|
Andhra
|
64,950
|
2.09
|
Telugu
|
Bombay
|
151,360
|
4.02
|
Mixed
|
Vidarbha
|
36,880
|
0.76
|
Marathi
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
171,200
|
2.61
|
Hindi
|
Rajasthan
|
132,300
|
1.60
|
Rajasthani
|
Punjab
|
58,140
|
1.72
|
Punjabi
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
113,410
|
6.32
|
Hindi
|
Bihar
|
66,520
|
3.82
|
Hindi
|
West Bengal
|
34,590
|
2.65
|
Bengali
|
Assam
|
89,040
|
0.97
|
Assamese
|
Orissa
|
60,140
|
1.46
|
Oria
|
Jammu and Kashmir
|
92,780
|
0.14
|
Kashmiri
|
The important thing is to compare
the size of the states -
Taking population as the measuring
red the result may be presented as follows:
There are 8 states with a population
between 1 and 2 crores each.
There are 4 states with a population
between 2 and 4 crores each.
There is one state above 4 crores.
There is one state above 6 crores.
The result, to say the least, is
fantastic. The Commission evidently thinks that the size of a state is a matter
of no consequence and that the equality in the size of the status constituting
a federation is a matter of no moment.
This is the first and the most
terrible error cost which the commission has committed. If not rectified in
time, it will Indeed be a great deal.
Chapter 2
LINGUISM IN EXCELSIS
In the first chapter it has been
pointed out that one result of the recommendations of the states Reorganisation
Commission is the disparity in the size of the different States the Commission
has suggested for creation.
But there is another fault in the
recommendation of the commission which perhaps is hidden but which is
nonetheless real.
It lies in not considering the North
in relation to the South. This will be
clear from following table :
Southern States
|
Central States
|
Northern States [f.1]
|
|||
Name
|
Population (in crores)
|
Name
|
Population (in crores)
|
Name
|
Population (in crores)
|
Madras
|
3.00
|
Maharashtra
|
3.31
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
6.32
|
Kerala
|
1.36
|
Gujarat
|
1.13
|
Bihar
|
3.85.
|
Karnataka
|
1.90
|
Saurashtra
|
0.4
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
|
Andhra
|
1.09
|
Kutch
|
0.5
|
Rajasthan
|
2.61
|
Hyderabad
|
1.13
|
Punjab
|
1.72
|
||
This scheme of dividing India in the name of Linguistic States cannot be
overlooked. It is not so innocuous as the Commission thinks. It is full of
poison. The poison must be emptied right now.
The nature of Union of India
expresses only an idea. It does not indicate an
achievement. Bryce in his " American
Commonwealth " relates the following incident which is very
instructive. This is what he says :
" A
few years ago the American Protestant
Episcopal Church was occupied at its annual conference in revising liturgy. It
was thought desirable to introduce among the short sentence prayers a prayer
for the whole people; and an eminent New England
Divine proposed the words ' 0 Lord, bless our Nation '. Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence was
brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by
the laity to the word, ' Nation ', as importing
too definite recognition of national unity, that it was dropped, and instead
there were adopted
the words, ' 0 Lord, bless these United States.' "
India is not even mentally and
morally fit to call itself the United States of India. We have to go a long way
to become the United States of India. The Union of India is far, far away, from
the United States of India. But this consolidation of the North and balkanisation of the South is not the way to reach
it.
[f.1]I have included
certain centrally situated States because by language they are affiliated to
one another.
Comments
Social Counter