THOUGHTS ON
LINGUISTIC STATES
_______________________________________________
PART IV
THE PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTIC STATES
Will the three Maharashtrian
States be viable ? Will their Revenue be sufficient to meet
their expenditure ? Such a question is bound to be asked.
It is not that such a question can be asked about
Maharashtra alone. It can be asked about many other States in India.
I give four statements relating to Part A
States, Part B Stales and the Central Government from Part
III of the Report of the Taxation Inquiry Committee
presided over by Dr. John Mathai (See Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7).
From these statements the following
propositions stand out:
(1) That up to a certain year in the life of
the States there was no deficit. They were all viable. It is only after Congress came into
office that States ceased to be viable.
(2) That since the Congress came into office
the Excise Revenue has begun to dwindle. It has gone down to a vanishing point.
(3) That Income Tax and Sales Tax have increased enormously.
These are the causes
which explain why States have ceased to be viable.
The Excise Revenue is being sacrificed for a
false ideology which has no meaning, no sense and no reality.
To regard to the Policy of Prohibition followed
by the Congress, the following conclusions can be drawn without
fear of challenge :
(1) An enormous amount of revenue is sacrificed
for nothing.
(2) People have not ceased to drink. There is
enormous amount of illicit manufacture of liquor which is being sold to the public
clandestinely.
(3) The money lost by Government is picked up
by the illicit manufacturer.
(4) Prohibition has demoralised Society.
Formerly only male members of the family drank because they
alone could go to the liquor shop. Now illicit liquor
manufacture has become a Home Industry. Liquor being now made at home both men and women
drink.
(5) In addition to the loss of revenue on
account of Prohibition Government has to undertake
increased expenditure on Police to enforce Prohibition
which, however, they never do.
What good is this Prohibition which does not
prohibit ? The Congress threatens to extend this
Prohibition to the whole of India. God bless the Congress!
It is said that God first makes them mad whom
He wishes to destroy. God is doing the same with Congressmen.
It is enough for me to say that Congress cannot
have both viability and Prohibition.
Coming to the Land Revenue it could certainly
be increased. But the Congress is afraid to touch the agriculturist for fear of losing
votes. It is therefore raising money from the Sales Tax and the Income Tax both of which
fall so heavily on the urban classes as is apparent from Table No. 6.
It is therefore clear that viability is no
problem. Only the Congress
has to revise its Taxation Policy.
Viability is a question of capacity to bear
taxation and will to tax. There is enough capacity. What is wanted is will.
The whole of the
Indian Taxation system requires to be changed. It is a question of altering the
Constitution. I cannot deal with it now. I must reserve it for another occasion.
MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES
Politics is nothing if not realistic. There is very little in it
that is academic. It is
therefore follows that before passing any judgement on any
scheme of politics it is essential that one must consider the ground plan.
Someone may ask what do I mean by " Ground Plan ". To
me the ground plan means the social structure of a community to which the political plan
is sought to be applied.
It needs no
argument to show that the political structure rests on the social structure. Indeed the
social structure has a profound effect on the political
structure. It may modify it in its working. It may nullify
it or it may even make a mockery of it.
In the case of India the social structure is
built up on the caste system, the special product of Hindu
civilisation and culture.
The caste system
is so well known that one need not wait to explain its nature. One can straight proceed to
show what effect it is likely to have on Linguistic States.
There are some peculiar
features of the caste system which must however be noted—
(1) Castes are so distributed that in any given
area there is one caste which is major and there are others
which are small and are subservient to the major caste owing to their comparative
smallness and their economic dependence upon the major
caste which owns most of the land in the village.
(2) The caste system is marked not merely by
inequality but is affected by the system of graded inequality. All castes are not on a
par. They are one above the other. There is a kind of ascending scale of hatred and a
descending scale of contempt.
(3) A caste has all the exclusiveness and pride
which a nation has. It is therefore not improper to speak of collection of castes as a
collection of major and minor nations.
I am sorry, I cannot illustrate these points by
reference to facts and figures. The census which is the only source of information on
these points fails to help me. The last census omits
altogether the caste tables which had been the feature of the Indian census ever since its
birth. The Home Minister of the Government of India who is responsible
for this omission was of the opinion that if a word does not exist in a dictionary it can
be proved that the fact for which the word stands does not exist. One can only pity the
petty intelligence of the author.
The consequences of the caste system on politics are
quite obvious. The interesting part is to see what effect it has upon elections which is the foundation of Representative
Government which is reared up on a system of single member constituencies.
The effects may be summarised as follows :
(1) Voting is always communal. The voter votes
for the candidate of his community and not for the best
candidate.
(2) The majority community carries the seat by
sheer communal majority.
(3) The minority community is forced to vote
for the candidate of the majority community.
(4) The votes of the minority
community are not enough to enable the candidate to win the seat against the candidate put
up by the majority community.
(5) As consequence of social system of graded
inequality the voter of the higher (major) communities can never condescend to give his
vote to a candidate of a minority community. On the other
hand the voter of the minority community who is socially on a lower level takes pride in
giving his vote to the candidate of the majority community. That is another reason why a
candidate of a minority community loses in election.
The Congress always wins, so it is found. But
no one asks why does the Congress win ? The answer is that
Congress is very popular. But why is the Congress popular ?
The true answer is that Congress always puts up candidates which belong to castes which
are in the majority in the constituencies. Caste and Congress are closely linked. It is by
exploiting the caste system that the Congress wins.
These evil consequences of the caste system are
sure to be sharpened by creation of Linguistic States.
Minority communities may be crushed. If not crushed they
may be tyrannised and oppressed. They are sure to be discriminated against and denied
equality before law and equal opportunity in public life.
The history of nations and the changes in their
ideologies have been well traced by Lord Action :
" In the old European system, the rights of
nationalities were neither recognised by governments nor
asserted by the people. The interest of the reigning families, not those of the nations,
regulated the frontiers, and the administration was conducted generally without any
reference to popular desires. Where all liberties were suppressed, the claims of national
independence were necessarily ignored, and a princess, in the words of Fenelon, carried a monarchy in her wedding portion."
Nationalities were at first listless. When they
became conscious:
"They first rose against their conquerors
in defence of their legitimate rulers. They refused to be governed by usurpers. Next came
a time when they revolted because of the wrongs inflicted upon them by their rulers. The
insurrections were provoked by particular grievances justified by definite complaints.
Then came the French Revolution which effected a complete change. It taught the people to
regard their wishes and wants as the supreme criterion of their right to do what they like
to do with themselves. It proclaimed the idea of the sovereignty of the people
uncontrolled by the past and uncontrolled by the existing state." The caste is a
nation but the rule of one caste over another may not be admitted
to be the same as the rule of one nation over another. But supposing the case is not
carried so far but is limited to majority and minority even then the question remains : What right has the majority to rule the minority ?
The answer is that whatever the majority does
it is right. What complain the minorities can have ?
People who rely upon majority rule forget the
fact that majorities are of two sorts : (1) Communal
majority and (2) Political majority.
A political majority is changeable in its class
composition. A political majority grows. A communal majority is born. The admission to a
political majority is open. The door to a communal majority is closed. The politics of a
political majority are free to all to make and unmake. The politics of a communal majority
are made by its own members born in it.
How can a communal majority run away with the title deeds given to a political majority to rule ? To give such title deeds to a communal majority is to establish a hereditary Government and make the way open to the tyranny of that majority. This tyranny of the communal majority is not an idle dream. It is an experience of many minorities. This experience to Maharashtrian Brahmins being every recent it is unnecessary to dilate upon it.
What is the remedy ?
No doubt some safeguards against this communal tyranny are essential. The question is: What can they be ? The first safeguard is not to have too large a State. The
consequences of too large a State on the minority living within it are not understood by
many. The larger the State the smaller the proportion of the minority to the majority. To
give one illustration—If Mahavidarbha remained
separate, the proportion of Hindus to Muslims would be four
to one. In the United Maharashtra the proportion will be fourteen to one. The same would be the case
of the Untouchables. A small stone of a consolidated majority placed on the chest of the
minority may be borne. But the weight of a huge mountain it
cannot bear. It will crush the minorities. Therefore creation of smaller States is a
safeguard to the minorities.
The second safeguard
is some provision for representation in the Legislature.
The old type of remedy provided in the Constitution were (1) certain number of reserved
seats and (2) separate electorates. Both these safeguards have been given up in the new
Constitution. The lambs are shorn of the wool. They are feeling the intensity of the cold.
Some tempering of the wool is necessary.
Separate electorates or reservation of scats must not be restored to. It would be enough to have plural member constituencies (of two or three) with cumulative voting in place of the system of single-member constituency embodied in the present Constitution. This will allay the fears which the minorities have about Linguistic States.