Vol. 15 · pages 981–985

962 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (54) STATES REORGANISATION BILL, 1956 *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay): Mr. Deputy Chairman, the storm centre of the debate on this Bill as I see it from the papers is the position assigned to the City of Bombay. As is obvious from the Bill this City which was a premier city in the civic affairs of this country has been brought down to the level of Adaman and Nicobar Islands—what has been described in our Constitution as the territories of India. That means that these territories and now the City of Bombay will not have any Legislature or Executive. Nobody in his widest dreams could have conceived of such a madness. A city which has been in the forefront of India, which has taught politics of India, is now placed on the level of the Laccadive and Maldive Islands and the Nicobar Islands. I am sure that the Government which has fostered this proposal must have the strongest reasons, incontrovertible reasons, in order to justify the decision that they have taken. There have been contestants to the claim for the City of Bombay. There are the Maharashtrians who claim that the city belongs to them. There are our Gujarati friends; I do not know on what basis they lay their claim, but they claim a kind of an easement over the city. They say that they will not allow the city to go into the possession of the Maharashtrians and the quarrel is going on. It has been admitted by no less a person than Mr. Morarji Desai that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra. I have read his speech which he delivered to the Gujarat Maha Pradesh Congress, or something like that, in which he categorically made this statement that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra. If that is so, I am quite unable to understand what objection there can be for the city of Bombay to be given to Maharashtra. Under the British regime when citizenship was common, any man could go anywhere and reside and the *P. D., (R. SO, Vol. 12-A of 1956, 1st May 1956, pp. 834-46.

963PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES local people could not object. Under those circumstances various people from various Provinces have gone to cities located in other Provinces. They built up their interests and have lived there for generations. But in the redistribution that we are now making, I have not seen anybody—Non-Madrasi living in Madras—raising objection to Madras being given to the Tamilian. Calcutta is equally a cosmopolitan city. When I was the Labour Member, I had often to visit Calcutta in order to see the labour conditions there and I found that the Bengal people did not call the people living in Calcutta as ‘Bengali’. Their word was “ Calcuttiya” These are “Calcuttiyas” That shows that they were not part of Bengali population, and it is a huge population. Notwithstanding this, our friends, the Congress Party people, have never raised any objection; nor the Calcuttiyas” have ever raised any objection to Calcutta being handed over to the Bengali. My first question to my Friend, Mr. Pant, is this. If Calcutta can go to Bengali and Madras can go to Tamilian, what objection is there for Bombay to go to Maharashtra ? That, I think, is a fundamental question which he must satisfy the Maharashtrians about. Yes, it is said that there is in Bombay a Gujarati population which amounts to not more than 15 per cent, and that the Maharashtrians do not form a majority of the population. It is said that that is the reason which vitiates the claim of the Maharashtrians over Bombay. I wonder whether there are any cities in this country where the foreign population in the city is not 15 per cent, and the position of Bombay, it is said, by reason of the fact that 15 per cent, are Gujaratis is in a sense peculiar. How is it peculiar ? One can give any number of illustrations to show that our cities are always a mixed quarter. No city can claim to have a uniform population of its own. And if notwithstanding this fact the other city can claim to belong to West Bengal, I am quite unable to understand why Bombay City should not make a similar claim. There are some people who have said that Bombay never belonged to Maharashtra. Well, I am surprised at the knowledge of those who made the statement, I am very much surprised. Who were the first inhabitants of Bombay ? They were the kolis—the fishermen—and do the

964 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES fishermen say that they are not Maharashtrians ? I would like any one to go and make enquiries and find out what is the opinion of the kolis who were the original inhabitants of Maharashtra. If those ladies and gentlemen who have indulged in these wild allegations want to know a little bit of its characteristics, I should like to tell them that even before the Portuguese acquired Bombay, Bombay belonged to a dowager queen called Lakshmi Bai and the Portuguese took it as a tenancy from her. It did not even belong to the Portuguese. The Portuguese never conquered it. They took it. The poor queen subsequently could do nothing. Ultimately, it was transferred to the British as a dowry to the wife of Charles II. It was so small that the dowry was not more than £10. That was because Bombay was what I shall call a place occupied by a few kolis. I have got with me the original print of the original Bombay when it transferred itself from the Portuguese to the British. Therefore, historically, geographically and logically— the logic which we have applied to other cities—I cannot see how anybody can dispute the claim of the Maharashtrians to have the city to themselves. Of course, there is a wide difference of opinion between myself and the rest of the Maharashtrians. The rest of the Maharashtrians want Bombay as part of a United Maharashtra. Now, I am very much against this United Maharashtra. I do not understand why Maharashtrians should want a United Maharashtra and I am sure about it that in the course of future history, we are not going to war with U. P. nor are we going to war with any of the northern territories like -Rajasthan. Why do you want a United Maharashtra ? I am at one with Maharashtrians that Bombay belongs to Maharashtra. On that, I will fight tooth and nail. There can be no doubt on that point at all. And therefore I had suggested that the Government might give Bombay a separate status as a City State and call it the “Maharashtra City State” so that it will be part of Maharashtra and at the same time, it will enjoy the status of an ‘A’ class State. But since the Government, for some reason which it is very difficult for me to understand, is going to reduce the status of Bombay City to that of the Nicobar Islands, I tell them right now that I

965PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES reverse my position and fight with them along with the rest of the Maharashstrians. Now that is what I want to say about Maharashtra. With regard to the question that the Maharashtrians in Bombay City do not form a majority, I like to clear that idea. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding. Some census figure has been dug out which said that the population of Maharashtrians in Bombay is 46 per “cent, or something like that. Therefore they are not in a majority. Sir, it is a complete misunderstanding. Any man who knows the census operation, who knows statistics and who knows the peculiar statistics of Bombay City would pay no attention to that figure. The census figure records the state of affairs on a particular day on which the census is taken. It does not indicate the common state of affairs. What happened on a particular day is taken as the typical example, but it is not typical at all. Secondly, the important point to be noticed is that Bombay City is one of the cities which is most subjected to immigration and emigration. Unfortunately, in the year 1941 when the new census was taken, the Government of India, in order to shorten their labour, did not repeal the immigration and emigration report figures for the year 1931. But if one were to go into the figures given on immigration and emigration in the census of 1931, he will find what violent changes there are in the immigration and emigration position. I do not think that even the non-Maharashtrian population which appears to be in a majority is permanently there in a majority. Most of them come for seasonal labour. If they happen to be there on the day of census, their existence is recorded as ‘residents of Bombay’. On the next day, they might as well leave for their native places, because they have made enough money for their living. In these circumstances, can anybody accept the census figures as true figures of the citizens of Bombay? I deny that conclusion altogether. I have been a student of the census statistics. I have studied them considerably. I know what they mean. Therefore, the claim that these figures show that the population of the Maharashtrians is less is absolutely ambiguous, if not bogus. It has no value. It only indicates what happened to be on a particular day on which the census was recorded.

966 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Now, I have said that I did not agree with the majority of the Maharashtrians, if I may say so, that there should be a united Maharashtra. My contention is that there should not be. I am going to say the same thing about U. P., about Rajasthan and about these huge Hindi reptile provinces, which have been looming large before us. I shudder to see U. P. standing before me in that shape. Shri H. P. Saksena (Uttar Pradesh): God save your soul. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Do not pray for my soul. I have no soul. I am a Buddhist. Nobody need take the trouble of praying for my soul. I do not believe in God. I have no soul. I have spared you that trouble. Now, I am surprised, I must say, that the Commission should have retained U.P. as it is, should have retained Rajasthan as it is, and should have linked up the two provinces of Vindhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh into one. Shri K. S. Hedge (Madras): Madhya Bharat. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: What does this mean ? I have made a little calculation. The area of U.P. is 1,14,323 sq. miles. Its population is 6,32,54,118. Bihar : The area is 70,368 sq. miles; its population is 4,02,18,916. Madhya Pradesh: Area is 2,01,633 sq. miles; its population is 3,28,46,971.1 know I have to deduct something here for Vidarbha. Rajasthan : Area is 1,28,424 sq. miles; population is 1,52,97,979. The total area is 10 crore sq. miles and population is about 15 crores. Shri T. Pande (Uttar Pradesh): Ten lakh sq. miles. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That does not matter very much to my argument. The question that requires to be dealt with in my judgement is a very serious question. Are we to have one State for one language, or are we to have one language for one State ? If this question had no political consequences, nobody would bother about it, but the trouble is that this question has very serious political consequences. In the United States, the population of the various States differs. In some States it is small, and in some States it is big. But the Americans do not mind it on account of the fact that the States have