Vol. 1 · pages 156–160

PART I THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION CHAPTER 1 LINGUISM AND NOTHING ELSE The present Constitution of India recognizes the following States which are enumerated in the Schedule : PART ‘A’ S TATES PART ‘B’ S TATES PART ‘C’ S TATES 1. Andhra 1. Hyderabad 1. Ajmer 2. Assam 2. Jammu and Kashmir 2. Bhopal 3. Bihar 3. Coorg 4. Bombay 3. Madhya Bharat 4. Delhi 5. Madhya Pradesh 4. Mysore 5. Himachal Pradesh 6. Madras 5. Patiala 6. Kutch 7. Orissa 6. Rajasthan 7. Manipur 8. Punjab 7. Saurashtra 8. Tripura 9. Uttar Pradesh 8. Travancore-Cochin 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 Reorganization Commission to examine the question. In its report the States Reorganization Commission has recommended the creation of the following States : Proposed New States Name of the State Area (in sq. miles) Population (in crores) Language 1. Madras .. .. .. 50,170 3.00 Tamil 2. Kerala .. .. .. 14,980 1.36 Malyalam 3. Karnatak .. .. .. 72,730 1.90 Kanarese 4. Hyderabad .. .. .. 45,300 1.13 Telugu 5. Andhra .. .. .. 64,950 2.09 Telugu 6. Bombay .. .. .. 151,360 4.02 Mixed 7. Vidarbha .. .. .. 36,880 0.76 Marathi

142 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Proposed New States—contd. Name of the State Area (in sq. miles) Population (in crores) Language 8. Madhya Pradesh .. .. .. 171,200 2.61 Hindi 9. Rajasthan .. .. .. 132,300 1.60 Rajasthani 10. Punjab .. .. .. 58,140 1.72 Punjabi 11. Uttar Pradesh .. .. .. 113,410 6.32 Hindi 12. Bihar .. .. .. 66,520 3.82 Hindi 13. West Bengal .. .. .. 34,590 2.65 Bengali 14. Assam .. .. .. 89,040 0.97 Assamese 15. Orissa .. .. .. 60,140 1.46 Oria 16. 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. 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 States constituting a Federation is a matter of no moment. This is the first and the most terrible error which the Commission has committed. If not rectified in time, it will cost India 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 Reorganization Commission is the disparity in the size of the different States the Commission has suggested for creation. But there is another fault in the recommendations 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 the following table : Southern States Central States Northern States* 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 .. 2.61 Andhra .. 1.09 Kutch 0.5 Rajasthan .. 1.60 Hyderabad .. 1.13 Punjab .. 1.72 * I have included certain centrally situated States because by language they are affiliated to one another.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 143 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 ‘O 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, ‘O 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 THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM CHAPTER 3 THE PROS AND CONS OF A LINGUISTIC STATE “One State, one language” is a universal feature of almost every State. Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France, examine the constitution of Italy, examine the constitution of England, and examine the constitution of the U.S.A. “One State, one language” is the rule. Wherever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a danger to the State. The illustration of the mixed States are to be found in the old Austrian Empire and the old Turkish Empire. They were blown up because they were multi-lingual States with all that a multi-lingual State means. India cannot escape this fate if it continues to be a congery of mixed States. The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a multi-lingual State unstable are quite obvious. A State is built on fellow-feeling. What is this fellow-feeling ? To state briefly it is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of

144 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those who are not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “consciousness of kind ” which on the one hand, binds together those who have it so strongly that it overrides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation of a stable and democratic State. This is one reason why a linguistic State is so essential. But there are other reasons why a State should be unilingual. There are two other reasons why the rule “one State, one language ” is necessary. One reason is that democracy cannot work without friction unless there is fellow-feeling among those who constitute the State. Faction fights for leadership and discrimination in administration are factors ever present in a mixed State and are incompatible with democracy. The present State of Bombay is the best illustration of the failure of democracy in a mixed State. I am amazed at the suggestion made by the States Reorganization Commission that the present Bombay State should be continued as it is to enable us to gain experience of how a mixed State flourishes. With Bombay as a mixed State for the last 20 years, with the intense enmity between the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis, only a thoughtless or an absent-minded person could put forth such a senseless proposal. The former State of Madras is another illustration of the failure of democracy in a mixed State. The formation of a mixed State of United India and the compulsory division of India into India and Pakistan are other illustrations of the impossibility of having democracy in a mixed State. Another reason why it is necessary to adopt the rule of “one State, one language” is that it is the only solvent to racial and cultural conflicts. Why do Tamils hate Andhras and Andhras hate Tamils ? Why do Andhras in Hyderabad hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Andhras ? Why do Gujaratis hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Gujaratis ? The answer is very simple. It is not because there is any natural antipathy between the two. The hatred is due to the fact that they are put in juxtaposition and forced to take part in a common cycle of participation, such as Government. There is no other answer. So long as this enforced juxtaposition remains, there will be no peace between the two. There will be people who would cite the cases of Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. It is true that these cases of bilingual States exist. But it must not be forgotten that the genius of India is quite different from the genius of Canada, Switzerland and South Africa. The genius of India is to divide—the genius of Switzerland, South Africa and Canada is to unite.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 145 The fact that they have been held together uptil now is not in the natural course of things. It is due to the fact that both of them are bound by the Congress discipline. But how long is the Congress going to last ? The Congress is Pandit Nehru and Pandit Nehru is Congress. But is Pandit Nehru immortal ? Any one who applies his mind to these questions will realize that the Congress will not last till the sun and the moon. It must one day come to an end. It might come to an end even before the next election. When this happens the State of Bombay will find itself engaged in civil war and not in carrying on administration. We therefore want linguistic States for two reasons. To make easy the way to democracy and to remove racial and cultural tension. In seeking to create linguistic States India is treading the right road. It is the road which all States have followed. In the case of other linguistic States they have been so, from the very beginning. In the case of India she has to put herself in the reverse gear to reach the goal. But the road she proposes to travel is well-tried road. It is a road which is followed by other States. Having stated the advantages of a linguistic State I must also set out the dangers of a linguistic State. A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be Modern India we have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and warfare. This danger is of course inherent in the creation of linguistic States. There is equal danger in not having linguistic States. The former danger a wise and firm statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed State are greater and beyond the control of a statesman however eminent. How can this danger be met ? The only way I can think of meeting the danger is to provide in the Constitution that the regional language shall not be the official language of the State. The official language of the State shall be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose English. Will Indians accept this ? If they do not, linguistic States may easily become a peril. One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people. This is an inexorable law. Culture is conserved by language. Since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture it is the bounden duty of all Indians to own up Hindi as their language. Any Indian who does not accept this proposal as part and parcel of a linguistic State has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent Maharashtrian, a hundred per cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi,