05A. Thoughts on Linguistic States Part I

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

_______________________________________________________________

First published: 1955

Reprinted from the edition of 1955

Contents

PREFACE

PART I - The work of the commission

Chapter I : Linguism and nothing else

Chapter 2 : Linguism in excelsis

PART II - THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM

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

PART III - SOLUTION

Chapter VI : The division of the north

Chapter VII : The problems of Maharashtra

Chapter VIII : Summary of principles covering the issue

PART IV - THE PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTIC STATES

Chapter IX : Viab ility

Chapter X : Majorities and minorities

PART V - THE NEED FOR A SECOND CAPITAL

Chapter XI : India and the necessity of a second capital a way to remove tension between the north and the south

PART VI - MAPS

PART VII - SATISTICAL APPENDICES

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

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES

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.

23^rd December 1955

Milind Mahavidyalaya

Nagsen Vana, College Road

Aurangabad (Dn.)

B. R. AMBEDKAR

THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION

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.

Part II