Vol. 1 · pages 166–170

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 151 It is therefore necessary that this situation must be rectified. The only way to do this is to divide the three States of (1) Uttar Pradesh, (2) Bihar and (3) Madhya Pradesh into smaller units. In this behalf I make bold to offer certain tentative proposals. This division does not conflict with the underlying principles of a linguistic State. For, if these States are divided in the way suggested, each resulting State will be a linguistic State. I am happy to find Mr. Pant saying in the recent debate in Parliament on the subject that he has no objection to the cutting up of the U.P. What he said for U.P. may well be taken as applicable to Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Division of Uttar Pradesh. —My proposal with regard to the Uttar Pradesh is to divide it into three States ( See Map 2). Each of these three States should have a population of approximately two crores which should be regarded as the standard size of population for a State to administer effectively. Where the boundary lines of these three States should be drawn I have shown in the accompanying Map No. 2. The three States of the Uttar Pradesh could have as their capitals (1) Meerut (2) Cawnpore and (3) Allahabad. They are situated quite in the centre of each of these three States. Division of Bihar —My proposal with regard to Bihar is to divide it into two States (See Map 3). Each of these two States will have a population of a little over one and half crores. It is not a small population for one Government to administer. Where the boundary lines should be drawn I have shown in the accompanying Map No. 3. The two States of Bihar could have as their capitals (1) Patna and (2) Ranchi. They are situated quite in the centre of the two States. Division of Madhya Pradesh.—Madhya Pradesh stands before us in two forms. The old Madhya Pradesh and the new Madhya Pradesh. The old Madhya Pradesh consisted of : (1) the Province at one time known as C. P. and Berar, and (2) some Indian States out of the States known as the Eastern States. This old State of Madhya Pradesh had a population of 2½ crores. It consisted of 22 districts. Its legislature had 223 members. The new Madhya Pradesh as planned by the Commission will consist of: (1) the 14 districts of the old Madhya Pradesh, (2) the whole of Bhopal, (3) the whole of Vindhya Pradesh, (4) Madhya Bharat except : Sunel enclave of Mandasaur district, and (5) the Sironj sub-division of Kota district of Rajasthan.

152 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES The total population of this new Madhya Pradesh will be 26.1 million and its area will be about 171.200 square miles. I suggest that it should be divided into two States : (1) Northern Madhya Pradesh, (2) Southern Madhya Pradesh ( See Map 4). The State of New Madhya Pradesh should consist of the following areas : (1) The whole of Vindhya Pradesh. (2) The whole State of Bhopal. The State of Southern Madhya Pradesh should consist of— (1) the whole State of Indore, and (2) the 14 districts of Mahakosal. The population of this Indore State will be about 2 crores and the population of this Vindhya Pradesh will be about 1.30 crores. ( See Map No. 4). Why the Commission created this monster State it is no way to know. Even Prime Minister Nehru was surprised at its creation. All that one can think of is that the Commission has been under the impression that one language, one State is a categorical imperative from which there is no escape. As I have shown one language, one State can never be categorical imperative. In fact one State, one language should be the rule. And therefore people forming one language can divide themselves into many States. CHAPTER 7 THE PROBLEMS OF MAHARASHTRA 1 THE PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH MAHARASHTRA Maharashtra is another area which is a subject of controversy. There are four proposals in the field : (1) To retain the Bombay State as it is i.e. to retain it as a mixed State consisting of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bombay. (2) To disrupt the existing State and to separate Maharashtra and Gujarat and make them into two separate States. (3) To make united Maharashtra with Bombay as one State. (4) To separate Bombay from Maharashtra and make it a separate City State. I would like to state what my proposals are. They are as follows : Bombay as a mixed State should be done away with. I would divide Maharashtra into four States ( See Map 5) : (1) Maharashtra City State (Bombay), (2) Western Maharashtra, (3) Central Maharashtra and (4) Eastern Maharashtra.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 153 Maharashtra City State. —The City of Bombay plus such area of Maharashtra as would enable it to be a good and strong City State. Western Maharashtra. —(1) Thana, (2) Kolaba, (3) Ratnagiri, (4) Poona, (5) North Satara, (6) South Satara, (7) Kolhapur and (8) the Marathi-speaking territories given over to Karnataka. Central Maharashtra—(1) Dang, (2) East Khandesh, (3) West Khandesh, (4) Nasik, (5) Ahmednagar, (6) Aurangabad, (7) Nanded, (8) Parbhani, (9) Beed, (10) Usmanabad, (11) Sholapur City and the Marathi-speaking area of Sholapur District and (12) the Marathi-speaking territories given over to Telangana. Eastern Maharashtra.—(1) Buldhana, (2) Yeotmal, (3) Akola, (4) Amraoti, (5) Wardha, (6) Chanda, (7) Nagpur, (8) Bhandara and (9) the Marahispeaking territories given to Hindi States. I will next proceed to examine the merits of these proposals. II MAHARASHTRIANS UNDER THE MIXED STATE Should Bombay remain a mixed State ? It is a most unusual procedure. The City of Calcutta is not a separate City State. Madras is not a separate City State. Why Bombay alone be made the exception ? Secondly, it is already a mixed State. What is the experience of the Maharashtrians under this mixed State ? The Maharashtrians have suffered terribly under this mixed State. What is the position of the Maharashtrians in the Bombay Cabinet ? Let us consider the distribution of Ministership : Gujarathi Ministers ... ... ... 4 Marathi Ministers ... ... ... 4 Kannada Ministers ... ... ... 1 Total ... 9 Gujarathi members in the Assembly are only 106, Marathi members are 149 and yet the number of Gujarathi Ministers is equal to that of Maharashtrian Ministers. Let us come to Deputy Ministers : Marathi speaking ... ... ... 5 Gujarathi speaking ... ... ... 2 Kannada speaking ... ... ... 2 Total ... 9 Only among Deputy Ministers do the Maharashtrians have a majority of one.

154 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES But how the power and subjects are distributed among the Ministers and Deputy Ministers is the most important matter. It shows what power and authority the Maharashtrian Ministers possess in this mixed Cabinet of the Bombay State. Allocation of Subjects among Ministers Gujarathi Ministers Maharashtrian Ministers 1. Morarji Desai .. 105 Subs. Hirey .. 49 Subs. 2. Dinkerrao Desai .. 26 Subs. Nimbalkar .. 20 Subs. 3. Jivaraj Mehta .. 43 Subs. Tapase .. 15 Subs. 4. Shantilal Shah .. 28 Subs. Chavan .. 4 Subs. Total .. 202 88 The allocation of subjects among Deputy Ministers is also done on the same pattern. Allocation of Subjects among Deputy Ministers Gujarathi Deputy Ministers Maharashtrian Deputy Ministers 1. Indumati Sheth .. 12 Subs. 1. Wandrekar .. 12 Subs. 2. Babubhai J. Patel 3 Subs. 2. Deshmukh .. 4 Subs. 3. Naravane .. 5 Subs. 4. Sathe .. 5 Subs. 5. Faki .. 3 Subs. Total .. 15 29 Let us now consider how much money is spent on development in Maharashtra and in Gujarath. The following figures will give an idea of the Per Capita Expenditure for the three years on Maharashtra and Gujarath : Per Capita Expenditure on Development in Rupees Years Population 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1. Maharashtra .. 2,17,20,091 1.7 2.3 1.8 2. Gujarath .. 1,18,96,789 2.9 3.1 3.2 What a differential treatment ? What a discrimination ? What an injustice ? Can anybody blame the Maharashtrians if they felt disgusted with the mixed State of Bombay ? Such a position of subordination no Maharashtrian can tolerate. The idea of a mixed State must be blown off once for all.

THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 155 III THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY The Bombay City is an area which is a subject matter of controversy. The controversy has become very acute. Maharashtrians want the City to be part of Maharashtra, Gujarathis want the City to be a separate State. Heads have been broken over the controversy. But there has been no agreement. It is therefore necessary to go to the root of the matter. The Gujarathis do not claim Bombay City as their own. But will not let go their hold on it. They claim a sort of easement over it by reason of the fact that they control the trade and industry of the City. The issue is : should it become part of Maharashtra or should it be constituted into a separate State ? The Gujarathis and Maharashtrians are sharply divided on the issue. The Maharashtrians want that Bombay should become exclusively a part of the new Maharashtra State. The Gujarathis are stoutly opposed to it. They have presented two alternatives. One alternative is not to break up the existing bi-lingual State of Bombay into two linguistic units of Gujarath and Maharashtra. The Congress Working Committee’s decision is to make the city of Bombay into a separate State. The Gujarathis are happy. The Maharashtrians are naturally angry. The resentment of the Maharashtrians is well justified. The arguments urged against the claim of the Maharashtrians have no force at all. The first argument that is urged is that the Marathi-speaking population of Bombay City does not form a majority of the total population of the City. The total population of Bombay City is very large ( See Statistical Appendix). Marathi-speaking population is 48 per cent. Those who use this kind of argument do not seem to realize the weakness of it The total Marathi population of Bombay City is no doubt less than 50 per cent but it has to be valued against two factors. One is that geographically no one can deny that Bombay is part of Maharashtra even if the Maharashtrians are in a minority in the City. Even Mr. Morarji Desai admitted in the course of his speech in the meeting of the Gujarath Pradesh Congress Committee that Bombay is part of Maharashtra. The second point to be taken into consideration in valuing the population factor is the continued influx of population from the rest of India who come to Bombay either for making profits or for earning their bread. None of them regard Bombay as their home ; they should not therefore be counted as permanent residents of Bombay City. Many come for a few months and go back.