NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES
______________________________________________
From: The Times of India, dated 23rd April, 1953
____________________________________________________________
The British who ruled India for more
than 150 years never thought of creating linguistic States although the problem
was always there. They were more interested in creating a stable administration
and maintaining law and order throughout
the country than in catering to the cultural craving of people in multi-lingual
areas. It is quite true that towards the end of
their career they did realise that the administrative set-up which they had
built required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations, at any rate in cases where the
conglomeration was very glaring. For instance, they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as
linguistic States before they left. It is difficult to say whether if they had
continued to rule, they would have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion.
But long before the British thought of
creating linguistic provinces the Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already in the year 1920 framed a
constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic provinces. Whether the
ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as framed in 1920 was a
well thought out ideology or whether it was a sop to draw people inside the
Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is, however, no doubt
about it that the British did realise that linguistic considerations were
important and they did give effect to them to a limited extent.
Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of
course, not called upon to face the responsibility which it had created for
itself by its constitution of 1920. It was only in
the year 1945 when it assumed office that this
responsibility dawned upon the Congress. Looking into the recent history of the
subject the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament
by moving a resolution for the creation of
linguistic provinces in India.
The duty of answering on behalf of the
Government to the debate fell on me. Naturally I took the matter to the higher
authorities in order to ascertain what exactly their point of view was. Strange
as it may appear, it became clear to me that the High Command was totally
opposed to the creation of linguistic provinces.
In these circumstances, the solution that was found was that the responsibility
to answer the debate had better be taken over by the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister in reply to the debate made statement promising the creation of an Andhra State immediately. On the basis of the
statement made by the Prime Minister, the resolution was withdrawn. The matter
rested there.
Second Time
As Chairman of the Drafting Committee,
I had to deal with the matter a second time. When the draft Constitution was
completed, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him whether I could
include Andhra as a separate State in Part A States of the Constitution in view
of what he had said in the course of the debate on the Resolution. I have
nothing with me here to refresh my memory as to what exactly happened. But the
President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra
Prasad, appointed a Committee
to investigate into the formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship
of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.
People will remember the Dhar
Committee for one thing if not for any other. The Committee said that under no
circumstances should Bombay City be included in Maharashtra
if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State. That report was then considered by the
Jaipur session of the Congress. The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three-Man
Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai
Patel and Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya. They produced a report, the gist of
which was that an Andhra province should be created immediately but the city of
Madras should remain with the Tamils. A committee was appointed to go into the
details. It produced a more or less unanimous report. But the report was
opposed by substantial elements among the Andhras
including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to
relinquish their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there.
After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had to sacrifice his life for the sake
of an Andhra province. It is a sad commentary on the ruling party that Mr.
Sriramulu should have had to die for a cause the validity of which was accepted
by all Congressmen. The creation of a new Andhra province now being thought of
is only a pindadan to the departed soul of Mr.
Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such action on the part of the
Government would have been tolerated in any other country is a matter on which
there is no use speculating.
There are, in my opinion, three
conditions which must be satisfied before a linguistic State is brought into
being. The first condition is that it must be a viable State. This rule was
accepted as absolute when the question of the
merger of the Indian States was under consideration during the making of the
Constitution. Only those Indian States which were viable were allowed to remain as independent States. All others were
merged into the neighbouring States.
A Sahara ?
Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State ?
Mr. Justice Wanchoo had very candidly admitted
that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra
State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is possible for the proposed Andhra State to
reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going
to take the responsibility of meeting this deficit ?
If so, will this responsibility be confined to the
proposed Andhra State or will it be extended to
all similar cases ? These are questions which are
to be considered.
The new Andhra State has no fixed
capital. I might incidentally say that I have never heard of the creation of a
State without a capital. Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest Tamilian tribesman) will not show the
Government of the proposed Andhra State the
courtesy of allowing it to stay in Madras city
even for one night—courtesy which is prescribed by the Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi. The new Government is left
to choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to transact
its business. What place can it choose ? With what
can it construct its hutments ? Andhra is Sahara
and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some
place in this Sahara it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious
place, and the money spent on this temporary headquarters would be all a waste.
Has the Government considered this aspect of the case ?
Why not right now give them a place which has the possibility of becoming their
permanent capital.
It seems to me that Warangal is best suited from this point of view. It
is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a railway junction. It has got
quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within that part of Andhra which is part of Hyderabad State. As a matter
of principle Hyderabad State which is a monstrosity should have been broken up
and a complete Andhra State might have been created. But if the Prime Minister
has some conscientious objection to the proposal,
can he not create an enclave in the Andhra part of Hyderabad and join it to the
new Andhra State and make a way to Warangal ? An enclave is not a new
thing in India. But the Prime Minister wants to
work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in Kashmir. I am sure he will
very soon learn the
consequences of it.
This is just incidental. My main point is that a linguistic State must be viable. This is
the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic State. The second consideration is
to note what is likely to happen within a linguistic State. Unfortunately no
student has devoted himself to a demographic survey of the population of India. We only know from our census reports
how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews, how many Christians
and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge we get as to how many
religions there are this information is of no value. What we want to know is
the distribution of castes in different linguistic areas. On this we have very
little information. One has to depend on one's own knowledge and information. I
don't think it would be contradicted if it is said that the caste set-up within
the linguistic area is generally such that it contains one or two major castes
large in number and a few minor castes living in subordinate dependence on the
major castes.
Let me give a few illustrations. Take
the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats
dominate the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence on
them. Take Andhra—there are two or three major
communities spread over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis or the Kammas and
the Kappus. They hold all the land, all the
offices, all the business. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence on
them. Take Maharashtra. The Marathas are a huge majority in every village in
Maharashtra. The Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate
co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived without fear. But times have changed.
After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the Brahmins and
the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have run away to the
towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables, the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny of the Maratha
communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-up will do so at his
peril.
In a linguistic State what would
remain for the smaller communities to look to ? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature ? Can they hope to maintain a place in the State
service? Can they expect any attention to their
economic betterment ? In these circumstances, the
creation of a linguistic State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal
majority. What an end to Mr. Gandhi's Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of the
problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of
linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.
Third Issue
The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people speaking one language into one State. Should all Maharashtrians be collected together into one Maharashtra State ? Should all Andhra area be put into one Andhra State ? This question of consolidation does not merely relate to new units. It relates also to the existing linguistic provinces such as U.P, Bihar and West Bengal. Why should all Hindi-speaking people be consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P. ? Those who ask for consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in course of time an India very much like what it was after the break-up of Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving us towards it ?
This does not mean that there is no case for linguistic provinces.
What it means is that there must be definite checks and balances to see that a
communal majority does not abuse its power under the
garb of a linguistic State.