Vol. 1 · pages 126–130

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 111 took five or ten years to give effect to the Settlement. But the resolution is only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the controversy. The main question must therefore be tackled right now. Ground for the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra 24. The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra are set out below : (1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra. 1 (2) Bombay was never a part of the Maratha Empire. 2 (3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a majority of the population of the City of Bombay. 3 (4) Gujarathis have been old residents of Bombay. 4 (5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas outside Maharashtra. Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra. It belongs to the whole of India. 5 (6) It is the Gujarathi-speaking people of Bombay who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only clerks and coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade and industry under the political dominance of the working classes who form the bulk of Maharashtrians. 6 (7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because it wants to live on the surplus of Bombay. 7 (8) A multi-lingual State is better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of smaller people. 8 (9) Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on national lines.9 Burden of Proof 25. On an examination of these points it is obvious that points (1) and (2) are preliminary in the sense that they help us to decide on whom rests the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay is part of Maharashtra, then the burden of proof for separating it from Maharashtra must fall upon those who urge that it should be separated and not upon those who claim that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will therefore deal with these two points first. 1. Prof. Gheewala—Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes—Free Press Journal, September 18, 1948. 2. Ibid. 3. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal , September 21, 1948. 4. Prof. Gheewala, Free Free Press Journal , September 6, 1948. 5. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal , September 11, 1948. 6. Prof. C. N. Vakil, Bombay Chronicle. 7. Prof. C. N. Vakil, at the meeting of India Merchants Chamber. 8. Prof. Dantwala, Free Press Journal , September 1, 1948. 9. Prof. Gheewala, Free Press Journal , September 11, 1948.

112 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES POINTS (1) AND (2) Verdict of History 26. These points can be considered both in the light of history as well as of geography. I am, however, convinced that history cannot help us to decide the issue. In the first place, how far back must we go to find the data on which to base our conclusion. It is obvious that the history of the ancient past would be of no use to us in this connection. What could be of use to us is the past of the present. One may go further and question any reliance being placed upon such a past of the present for drawing any conclusion that can have a bearing on the issue before us. Most of the contacts between people during historical times have been between conquerors and conquered. This is true of India as well as of Europe. But the results of such contacts have been quite different in Europe and in India. In Europe such contacts have produced assimilation of the conflicting social elements. Frequent inter-marriages have confounded the original stocks. One language, either the most useful or the most commonly spoken, has tended to supplant the other. If one civilization is superior to the others in the same country it has automatically supplanted them. This natural tendency towards assimilation which we see in Europe is so strong that steps have to be taken to counteract it. What is the tendency in India ? It is definitely against assimilation. The Musalmans conquered Hindus. But the Musalmans remained Musalmans and the Hindus remained Hindus. The Gujarathis were conquered by Maharashtrians and were ruled by them for some years. What effect has it produced upon the Gujarathis ? Nothing. Gujarathis have remained Gujarathis and Maharashtrians have remained Maharashtrians. The Chalukyas conquered Maharashtrians and so did the Shilahars. But there was no assimilation between them. The Shilahars and Chalukyas remained what they were and so did the Maharashtrians. This being the case, what help can Indian History give in the decision of the issue ? The history of internal upheavals as well as of external aggressions has been nothing more than a passing show. Conquest means nothing and proves nothing. Verdict of Geography 27. Let us now turn to geography and ask for its verdict. It seems to be a better witness than history. For this purpose one must consider the location of Bombay in relation to the Province of Maharashtra. The Province of Maharashtra once it is created will be triangular in shape. One side of this triangle is formed by the Western Coast Line of India between Daman in the North and Karwar in the South. The City of Bombay lies in between Daman and Karwar. The Province of Gujarat starts from Daman and spreads northwards. The Kanada Province starts from Karwar and spreads southwards. It is about 85 miles South of Daman which is the starting point of Gujarat, and 250 miles North of Karwar, which is the starting point of

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 113 Karnatak Province. If the unbroken territory between Daman and Karwar is geographically part of Maharashtra, how could Bombay be held not to be a part of Maharashtra ? This is an incontrovertible fact of nature. Geography has made Bombay part of Maharashtra. Let those who want to challenge the fact of nature do so. To an unbiassed mind it is conclusive proof that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra. Bombay and the Maratha Empire 28. That the Marathas did not care to make it a part of their Empire does in no way affect the validity of the conclusion drawn from geography. That the Marathas did not care to conquer it does not prove that Bombay is not a part of Maharashtra. It only means that the Maratha power was a land power and did not therefore care to spend its energy in the conquest of a seaport. 29. With the decision on Points (1) and (2), the burden must now shift on those who contended that Bombay should not be included in Maharashtra. Have they discharged the burden ? This leads to the consideration of other points. POINT (3) Marathi-speaking population—majority or minority 30. There is no unanimity on this question. Prof. Gadgil speaking for the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra asserts that the Marathi-speaking population of Bombay according to the census of 1941 is 51 per cent. Speaking against the inclusion of Bombay, Prof. Gheewala says that the Marathi-speaking population of Bombay is 41 per cent. Prof. Vakil has brought it down to 39 per cent, which he regards as a very liberal estimate. I have not had time to check up these figures and I understand that the Census of Bombay does not render much help in arriving at a precise figure. However, if one reads the reasons assigned by Prof. Vakil, one would find his conclusion to be speculative if not wishful thinking. But assuming that the figures given by Prof. Vakil are correct, what of it ? What conclusion can be drawn from it ? Does it defeat the claim of Maharashtra to include Bombay ? Ever since the British became the masters of India, India has been one country with a right to free movement from place to place. If people from all parts of India were allowed to come to Bombay and settle there, why should the Maharashtrians suffer ? It is not their fault. The present state of the population cannot therefore be a ground for excluding Bombay from Maharashtra. POINT (4) Are Gujarathis Natives of Bombay ? 31. Let us however fully consider the question. Are the Gujarathis natives of Bombay ? If they are not, how did they come to Bombay ? What

114 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES is the source of their wealth ? No Gujarathi would claim that the Gujarathis are the natives of Bombay. If they are not the natives of Bombay, how did they come to Bombay ? Like the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch and the English on adventures to fight their way through and willing to take any risks? The answers which history gives to these questions are quite clear. The Gujarathis did not come to Bombay voluntarily. They were brought to Bombay by the officers of the East India Company to serve as commercial Adatias or go-betweens. They were brought because the East India Company’s officers who had their first factory in Surat had got used to Surti Banias as their go-betweens in carrying on their trade. This explains the entry of Gujarathis in Bombay. Secondly, the Gujarathis did not come to Bombay to trade on the basis of free and equal competition with other traders. They came as privileged persons with certain trading rights given to them exclusively by the East India Company. Their importation into Bombay was considered for the first time in the year 1671 by Governor Aungier. This fact is referred to in the Gazetteer of Bombay Town and Island , Vol. I in the following terms : 10 “Another scheme for the advantage of Bombay in which Governor Aungier interested himself was the settlement of Surat Banias in Bombay. It appears that the Mahajan or committee of the Surat Bania community desired the assurance of certain privileges before risking the move to Bombay and that the company had given a general approval to the Mahajan’s proposal. On the 10th January the Surat Council wrote to the Company. The Mahajan or Chief Council of the Banias have been much satisfied with the answer which you were pleased to give to their petition sent you by the ship Samson touching their privileges in Bombay. It seems they have determined once more to trouble Your Honours with a letter which they have ordered your broker Bhimji Parakh to write, representing their desires that the said privileges may be confirmed to them under your great seal, for which their request they give you their reason and ground in their own letter which they have sent us to be transmitted to you and now goes in your packet by ship Falcon. The argument they use to strengthen their request seems to have some weight. They say the Honourable Company are perpetual and their ordinances always of force, but their Presidents and Councils are mutable, and the succeeding Presidents and Councils, do alter often what their predecessors have granted on which score they hope your Honours will be pleased to grant their petition. As to our judgments hereon, we humbly offer that we cannot see any detriment can accrue to you thereby, rather a considerable advantage may follow; and as to the latitude and extent of what privileges you shall afford them, it must be totally referred to your own wisdoms howsoever you shall please to determine in this matter. We judge 10. Bombay Gazetteer, I, pp. 46-47.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 115 if your Honours would please to favour them with a line in answer to their letter, it would be a great comfort to them and no disadvantage to your interest.” 32. What were the privileges which the Gujarathi Banias had asked for from the East India Company ? The following petition by one Nima Parakh, an eminent Bania belonging to the City of Diu, gives some idea of what they were : 11 “That the Honourable Company shall allot him so much ground in or near the present, town free of rent as shall be judged necessary to build a house or warehouse thereon. “2. That he with the Brahmans of Vers (Gors or priests) of his caste shall enjoy the free exercise of their religion within their own houses without the molestation of any person whatsoever ; that no Englishman, Portuguese, or other Christian nor Muhammadan shall be permitted to live within their compound or offer to kill any living creature there, or do the least injury or indignity to them, and if any shall presume to offend them within the limits of their said compound, upon their complaint to the Governor (at Surat), or Deputy Governor (at Bombay), the offenders shall be exemplarily punished ; that they shall have liberty to burn their dead according to their custom, also to use their ceremonies at their weddings ; and that none of their profession of what age, sex or condition whatever they be, shall be forced to turn Christians, nor to carry burthens against their wills. “3. That he and his family shall be free from all duties of watch and ward, or any charge and duty depending thereon ; that neither the Company nor the Governor, Deputy Governor or Council, or any other person, shall on any pretence whatsoever force them to lend money for public or private account or use any indirect. “4. That in case there falls out any difference or suit in law between him or his vakil or attorneys or the Banias of his caste, and any other persons remaining on the island, the Governor or Deputy Governor shall not suffer him or them to be publicly arrested dishonoured or carried to prison, without first giving him due notice of the cause depending, that he or they may cause justice to be done in an honest and amicable way and in case any difference happen between him or his attorney and any Bania of their own caste, they may have liberty to decide it among themselves without being forced to go to law.” “5. That he shall have liberty of trade in his own ships and vessels to what port he pleases, and come in and go out when he thinks good, without paying anchorage, having first given the Governor or Deputy Governor or customer notice and taken their consent thereunto. 11. Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, pp. 74-76.