Volume_01

86 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

APPENDIX II

A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR

I

I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma in taking notice
in his Harijan of the speech on Caste which I had prepared for the Jat Pat
Todak Mandal. From a perusal of his review of my speech it is clear that
the Mahatma completely dissents from the views I have expressed on the
subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with
my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act
otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person I would
not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatma himself I feel
I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to
put forth. While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to
a sense of surprize on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should
accuse me of a desire to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests
that in publishing the undelivered speech my object was to see that I was
not “forgotten”. Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say my object in
publishing the speech was to provoke the Hindus to think and take stock
of their position. I have never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I
have more of it than I wish or need. But supposing it was out of the motive
of gaining publicity that I printed the speech who could cast a stone at me ?
Surely not those, who like the Mahatma live in glass houses.

II

Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by
me in the speech ? First of all any one who reads my speech will realize
that the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the
issues be has raised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased
to call my indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried
to make out in my speech may be catalogued as follows : (1) That caste has
ruined the Hindus ; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the
basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavyavastha is like a
leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is incapable of sustaining
itself by its own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a
caste system unless there is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced
against every one transgressing his Varna ; (3) That the reorganization of the
Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful because the effect of
the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them opportunity to
acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be
armed ; (4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis
which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity;
(5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE 87

Caste and Varna must be destroyed ; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and
Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the
Shastras. It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma
are absolutely beside the point and show that the main argument of the

speech was lost upon him.

III

Let me examine the substance of the points made by the Mahatma. The
first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not
authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to
state that the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the late
Mr. Tilak who was a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and
on the Hindu Shastras. His second point is that these Shastras should be
interpreted not by the learned but the saints and that, as the saints have
understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchability. As
regards the first point what I like to ask the Mahatma is what does it avail
to any one if the texts are interpolations and if they have been differently
interpreted by the saints ? The masses do not make any distinction between
texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do
not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents
of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told and what
they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the
observance of Caste and Untouchability.

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different
and elevating their teachings may have been as compared to those of
the merely learned they have been lamentably ineffective. They have
been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly, none of the saints ever attacked
the Caste System. On the contrary, they were staunch believers in the
System of Castes. Most of them lived and died as members of the castes
which they respectively belonged. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo
to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would
not admit him to their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his status
as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity. And even the saint
Eknath who now figures in the film “Dharmatma” as a hero for having
shown courage to touch the untouchables and dine with them, did so not
because he was opposed to Caste and Untouchability but because he felt
that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in the
sacred waters of the river Ganges.* The saints have never according to
my study carried on a campaign against Caste and Untouchability. They
were not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned
with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men
were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God—

*vaR;tkpk foVkG T;klh A xaxkLukus 'kq¼Ro R;klh AA—,dukFkh Hkkxor] v- üø] vks-ûùû-

88 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a very different and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find
difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the
teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been
taught that a saint might break Caste but the common man must not. A
saint therefore never became an example to follow. He always remained a
pious man to be honoured. That the masses have remained staunch believers
in Caste and Untouchability shows that the pious lives and noble sermons
of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct as against the
teachings of the Shastras. Thus it can be a matter of no consolation that
there were saints or that there is a Mahatma who understands the Shastras
differently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the masses hold
different view of the Shastras is fact which should and must be reckoned
with. How is that to be dealt with except by denouncing the authority of
the Shastras, which continue to govern their conduct, is a question which
the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts
forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the
Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by one good Samaritan may
be very elevating to himself but in India, with the attitude the common man
has to saints and to Mahatmas—to honour but not to follow—one cannot
make much out of it.

IV

The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by
Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramkrishna Paramahansa
etc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion
has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have
produced. I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite
understand what the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should
be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough but does
it dispose of the matter ? I say it does not. The question still remains—why
the worst number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are
two conceivable answers to this question : (1) That the worst by reason of
some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore
incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That
the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral
twist to the lives of the many and that the best have become best in spite
of the wrong ideal—in fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right
direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first
and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the contrary. To
my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless
the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many
and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously
the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best
followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have
gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE 89

V

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if only
many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for another
reason.* By citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc.
what the Mahatma seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest
form is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without
any fundamental change in its structure if all the high caste Hindus can be
persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their dealings with the
low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect
those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life.
Without such men India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live
in than it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the
members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal
character is in my judgment wasting his energy and hugging an illusion.
Can personal character make the maker of armaments a good man, i.e. a
man who will sell shells that will not burst and gas that will not poison ?
If it cannot, how can you accept personal character to make a man loaded
with the consciousness of Caste, a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his
fellows as his friends and equals ? To be true to himself he must deal with
his fellows either as a superior or inferior according as the case may be; at
any rate, differently from his own caste fellows. He can never be expected
to deal with his fellows as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a
Hindu does treat all those who are not of his Caste as though they were
aliens, who could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom
any fraud or trick may be practised without shame. This is to say that there
can be a better or a worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This
is so not because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In
fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows. The
best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and
their fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave his master
may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man
cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies
to the relationship between high caste and low caste. To a low caste man
a high caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high caste
men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so far as he must have
a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man. It cannot be good
to a low caste man to be conscious that there is a high caste man above
him. I have argued in my speech that a society based on Varna or Caste
is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the
Mahatma would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing
that he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing
the ground on which it is based

* In this connection see illuminating article on Morality and the Social Structure by Mr. H. N.
Brailsford in the Aryan Path for April 1936.

90 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

VI

Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches ? One does not like to make
personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But
when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity
to know how far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure
to practise is due to the ideal being too high to be attainable ; it may be
that his failure to practise is due to the innate hypocracy of the man. In
any case he exposes his conduct to examination and I must not be blamed
if I asked how far has the Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in his
own case. The Mahatma is a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned
trading in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In
his own life, before he became a Mahatma, when occasion came for him to
choose his career he preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became
half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his
ancestral calling. His youngest son—I take one who is a faithful follower
of his father—born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin’s daughter and has
chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have
condemned him for not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong
and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely
the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if he even fails to realize
the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the
practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that he often spoke
on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder whether such has not
been the case with the Mahatma in regard to the subject matter of Caste.
Otherwise certain questions which occur to me would not have escaped him.
When can a calling be deemed to have become an ancestral calling so as
to make it binding on a man ? Must man follow his ancestral calling even
if it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be profitable ?
Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he finds it to be immoral ?
If every one must pursue his ancestral calling then it must follow that a
man must continue to be a pimp because his grandfather was a pimp and
a woman must continue to be a prostitute because her grandmother was a
prostitute. Is the Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his
doctrine ? To me his ideal of following one’s ancestral calling is not only an
impossible and impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal.

VII

The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin remaining a Brahmin all his
life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who do not like to remain
Brahmins all their lives. What can we say about those Brahmins who have
clung to their ancestral calling of priesthood ? Do they do so from any faith in
the virtue of the principle of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives
of filthy lucre ? The Mahatma does not seem to concern himself with such
queries. He is satisfied that these are “real Brahmins who are living on alms

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE 91

freely given to them and giving freely what they have of spiritual treasures”.
This is how a hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma—a carrier
of spiritual treasures. But another portrait of the hereditary Brahmin can
also be drawn. A Brahmin can be a priest to Vishnu—the God of Love. He
can be a priest to Shankar—the God of Destruction. He can be a priest at
Buddha Gaya worshipping Buddha—the greatest teacher of mankind who
taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can be a priest to Kali, the
Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice of an animal to satisfy her thirst
for blood ; He will be a priest of the temple of Rama—the Kshatriya God! He
will also be a priest of the Temple of Parshuram, the God who took Avatar
to destroy the Kshatriyas ! He can be a priest to Bramha, the Creator of
the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God Allah will not brook the
claim of Bramha to share his spiritual dominion over the world! No one can
say that this is a picture which is not true to life. If this is a true picture
one does not know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties to Gods
and Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man
can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this extraordinary
phenomenon as evidence of the greatest virtue of their religion—namely
its catholicity, its spirit of toleration. As against this facile view, it can be
urged that what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more
creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These two attitudes
are hard to distinguish in their outer seeming. But they are so vitally unlike
in their real quality that no one who examines them closely can mistake
one for the other. That a man is ready to render homage to many Gods
and Goddesses may be cited as evidence of his tolerant spirit. But can it
not also be evidence of insincerity born of a desire to serve the times ? I am
sure that this toleration is merely insincerity. If this view is well founded,
one may ask what spiritual treasure can there be with a person who is
ready to be a priest and a devotee to any deity which it serves his purpose
to worship and to adore ? Not only must such a person be deemed to be
bankrupt of all spiritual treasures but for him to practice so elevating a
profession as that of a priest simply because it is ancestral, without faith,
without belief, merely as a mechanical process handed down from father to
son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the prostitution of a noble
profession which is no other than the service of religion.

VIII

Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of every one following his or
her ancestral calling ? He gives his reasons nowhere. But there must be some
reason although he does not care to avow it. Years ago writing on “Caste versus
Class” in his Young India he argued that Caste System was better than Class
System on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social
stability. If that be the reason why the Mahatma clings to the theory of every

92 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

one following his or her ancestral calling, then he is clinging to a false
view of social life. Everybody wants social stability and some adjustment
must be made in the relationship between individuals and classes in order
that stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody wants. One
thing nobody wants is static relationship, something that is unalterable,
something that is fixed for all times. Stability is wanted but not at the cost
of change when change is imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere
adjustment. Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice.
Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of
caste i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary calling avoids these two
evils ? I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible
adjustment I have no doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch
as it offends against both the canons of social adjustment—namely fluidity
and equity.

IX

Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch
as he now only believes in Varna and does not believe in Caste. It is
true that there was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a
blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He believed in the Vedas, the Upanishads,
the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and
therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and defended it
with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry for inter-dining,
inter-drinking and inter-marrying and argued that restraints about inter-
dining to a great extent “helped the cultivation of will-power and the
conservation of certain social virtue”. It is good that he has repudiated
this sanctimonious nonsense and admitted that caste “is harmful both to
spiritual and national growth,” and may be, his son’s marriage outside
his caste has had something to do with this change of view. But has the
Mahatma really progressed ? What is the nature of the Varna for which
the Mahatma stands ? Is it the Vedic conception as commonly understood
and preached by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his followers, the Arya
Samajists ? The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of
a calling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. The essence of the
Mahatma’s conception of Varna is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective
of natural aptitude. What is the difference between Caste and Varna as
understood by the Mahatma ? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma,
Varna becomes merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason
that it is the same in essence—namely pursuit of ancestral calling. Far
from making progress the Mahatma has suffered retrogression. By putting
this interpretation upon the Vedic conception of Varna he has really made
ridiculous what was sublime. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for
reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna
as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an
inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE 93

the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s
view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes
it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts.
Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste
is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as
distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between
the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every one following his
or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the Caste
System and that in calling it the Varna System he is not only guilty of
terminological inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded.
I am sure that all his confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has
no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste
and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism. He has
said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reason to change his
view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism. Does he regard Varna as
the essence of Hinduism ? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer.
Readers of his article on “Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment” will answer “No”. In
that article he does not say that the dogma of Varna is an essential part
of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making Varna the essence of Hinduism
he says “the essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one
and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of
the human family” But the readers of his article in reply to Mr. Sant Ram
will say “Yes”. In that article he says “How can a Muslim remain one if
he rejects the Quran, or a Christian remain as Christian if he rejects
the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if Varna is an
integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism I do not know how a
person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu ?” Why this
prevarication ? Why does the Mahatma hedge ? Whom does he want to
please ? Has the saint failed to sense the truth ? Or does the politician stand
in the way of the Saint ? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering
from this confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the
temperament of the Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity
of the child with the child’s capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can
believe in anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such
time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna as it has
pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second source of confusion
is the double role which the Mahatma wants to play—of a Mahatma and a
Politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether
he has succeeded in it or not Politics have certainly commercialized him.
A politician must knew that Society cannot bear the whole truth and that
he must not speak the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth it
is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting
Caste and Varna is because he is afraid that if he opposed them he will
lose his place in politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion the

94 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the
people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.

X

The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and
Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those standards every known
living faith will probably fail. The complaint that my standards are high
may be true. But the question is not whether they are high or whether they
are low. The question is whether they are the right standards to apply.
A People and their Religion must be judged by social standards based on
social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning if religion is held
to be a necessary good for the well-being of the people. Now I maintain
that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are the
most appropriate standards and that I know of none that are better. The
conclusion that every known religion would fail if tested by my standards
may be true. But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the champion
of Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the existence
of one madman should give comfort to another madman or the existence of
one criminal should give comfort to another criminal. I like to assure the
Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which
has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which I am
charged. I realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one
who wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I am
prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in
which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a
society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals
will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I
am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that
they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel with
Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct.
It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.

XI

Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral regeneration which
it is dangerous to postpone. And the question is who can determine and
control this moral regeneration ? Obviously only those who have undergone an
intellectual regeneration and those who are honest enough to have the courage
of their convictions born of intellectual emancipation. Judged by this standard
the Hindu leaders who count are in my opinion quite unfit for the task. It
is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminary intellectual
regeneration. If they had undergone an intellectual regeneration they would
neither delude themselves in the simple way of the untaught multitude nor
would they take advantage of the primitive ignorance of others as one sees
them doing. Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu society these

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE 95

leaders, will nevertheless unblushingly appeal to ideals of the past which
have in every way ceased to have any connection with the present; which
however suitable they might have been in the days of their origin have now
become a warning rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect
for the earlier forms which make them disinclined—nay opposed to any
examination of the foundations of their Society. The Hindu masses are
of course incredibly heedless in the formation of their beliefs. But so are
the Hindu leaders. And what is worse is that these Hindu leaders become
filled with an illicit passion for their beliefs when any one proposes to rob
them of their companionship. The Mahatma is no exception. The Mahatma
appears not to believe in thinking. He prefers to follow the saints. Like a
conservative with his reverence for consecrated notions he is afraid that if
he once starts thinking, many ideals and institutions to which he clings wilt
be doomed. One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent
thinking puts some portion of apparently stable world in peril. But it is
equally true that dependence on saints cannot lead us to knew the truth.
The saints are after all only human beings and, as Lord Balfour said, “the
human mind is no more a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig”.
In so far as he does think, to me he really appears to be prostituting his
intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social structure of the
Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of it and therefore the worst
enemy of the Hindus.

Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who arc not content merely
to believe and follow. They dare to think, and act in accordance with the
result of their thinking. But unfortunately they are cither a dishonest lot
or an indifferent lot when it comes to the question of giving right guidance
to the mass of the people. Almost every Brahmin has transgressed the
rule of Caste. The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than
those who practise priesthood. Not only have the Brahmins given up their
ancestral calling of priesthood for trading but they have entered trades
which are prohibited to them by the Shastras. Yet how many Brahmins who
break Caste every day will preach against Caste and against the Shastras ?
For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his
practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them,
there are hundreds who break Caste and trample upon the Shastras every
day but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the
sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity ? Because they feel that if the
masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste they would be a menace to
the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this
intellectual class who would deny the masses the fruits of their thinking is
a most disgraceful phenomenon.

The Hindus in the words of Mathew Arnold are “wandering between two
worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born”. What are they to do ? The

96 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Mahatma to whom they appeal for guidance does not believe in thinking
and can therefore give no guidance which can be said to stand the test of
experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are
either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the right direction.
We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the face of this tragedy all
one can do is to lament and say—such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.

zz

PART II
ON LINGUISTIC STATES



3

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC
PROVINCE

Statement submitted
to

the Linguistic Provinces Commission

Published : 1948
Printed from the edition of 1948

NOTE

The figures quoted in this memorandum have been taken from various books
and pamphlets written by various writers on the subject of reconstituting
Maharashtra on a linguistic basis. I rely upon the writers for their accuracy.
Similarly, the map of Maharashtra attached to this Memorandum need not
be taken as accurate or complete. The idea is merely to give a picture of
how the Province when reconstituted will look like.

B. R. A.
14-10-48

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC

PROVINCE

PART I

THE PROBLEM OF LINGUISTIC PROVINCES

The question of Linguistic Provinces has not only led to a great deal
of controversy born out of party prejudices and party interests but it
has led to a difference of opinion as to the merits thereof. The points of
controversy relate to claims and counter-claims as between contiguous
Provinces to territories as well as to the terms of their inclusion. I shall
deal with them at a later stage in so far as they relate to the creation
of the Maharashtra Province. I shall first take up the question of the
merits of the proposal for Linguistic Provinces.

Purposes behind the demand for Linguistic Provinces

2. What is the purpose which lies behind the demand for Linguistic
Provinces ? The generality of those who advocate the creation of Linguistic
Provinces do so because they believe that the Provinces have different
languages and cultures. They should therefore have the fullest scope to
develop their languages and their cultures. In other words, the Provinces
have all the elements of a distinct nationality and they should be allowed
the freedom to grow to their fullest in nationhood.

Difficulties arising out of Linguistic Provinces

3. In discussing the question of creating such Linguistic Provinces it
would be very short-sighted to omit from one’s consideration the fact
that the structure of Government of India of the future is to be cast in
a dual form : (a) a Central Government and (b) a number of Provincial
Governments inextricably inter-linked and inter-woven in the discharge
of their respective Legislative, Executive and Administrative functions.
Before one could agree to the creation of Linguistic Provinces, one must,
therefore, consider the effects which Linguistic Provinces would have on
the working of the Central Government.

102 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

4. Among the many effects that may be envisaged, the following are obvious :

(1) Linguistic Provinces will result in creating as many nations as there
are groups with pride in their race, language and literature. The
Central Legislature will be a League of Nations and the Central
Executive may become a meeting of separate and solidified nations
filled with the consciousness of their being separate in culture and
therefore in interests. They may develop the mentality of political
insubordination, i.e., refusal to obey the majority or of staging walk-
outs. The development of such a mentality is not to be altogether
discounted. If such a mentality grows it may easily make the working
of the Central Government impossible.

(2) The creation of Linguistic Provinces would be fatal to the maintenance
of the necessary administrative relations between the Centre and the
Provinces. If each Province adopts its own language as its official
language the Central Government will have to correspond in as
many official languages as there are Linguistic Provinces. This must
be accepted as an impossible task. How great a deadlock Linguistic
Provinces will create in the working of the Governmental machine can
be better understood by studying the effects of Linguistic Provinces
on the Judiciary. In the new set-up, each Province will have a High
Court with a series of subordinate courts below it. At the apex of
these High Courts will be the Supreme Court with the right to
hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts. On the basis
of Linguistic Provinces, Courts of each Province including its High
Court will conduct their proceedings in the language of the Province.
What is the Supreme Court to do when its jurisdiction is invoked
for rectifying a wrong done by the High Court ? The Supreme Court
will have to close down. For, if it is to function — every judge of
the Supreme Court — I am omitting for the moment the lawyers
practising therein — must know the language of every Province —
which it is impossible to provide for.

No one can contemplate such a situation with equanimity. It may lead to a
break-up of India. Instead of remaining united, India may end in becoming
Europe — faced with the prospect of chaos and disorder.

Advantages from Linguistic Provinces

5. While it is true that the proposal of Linguistic Provinces creates a
problem which goes to the very root of the matter — inasmuch as it affects the
unity of India — there can be no doubt that the reconstruction of Provinces
on linguistic basis has certain definite political advantages.

6. The main advantage of the scheme of Linguistic Provinces which
appeals to me quite strongly is that Linguistic Provinces would make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 103

democracy work better than it would in mixed Provinces. A Linguistic
Province produces what democracy needs, namely, social homogeneity.
Now the homogeneity of a people depends upon their having a belief in a
common origin, in the possession of a common language and literature, in
their pride in a common historic tradition, community of social customs,
etc. is a proposition which no student of sociology can dispute. The
absence of a social homogeneity in a State creates a dangerous situation
especially where such a State is raised on a democratic structure. History
shows that democracy cannot work in a State where the population is
not homogeneous. In a heterogeneous population divided into groups
which are hostile and anti-social towards one another the working of
democracy is bound to give rise to cases of discrimination, neglect,
partiality, suppression of the interests of one group at the hands of another
group which happens to capture political power. The reason why in an
heterogeneous society, democracy cannot succeed is because power instead
of being used impartially and on merits and for the benefit of all is used
for the aggrandisement of one group and to the detriment of another.
On the other hand, a State which is homogeneous in its population can
work for the true ends of democracy, for there are no artificial barriers
or social antipathies which lead to the misuse of political power.

7. It follows that if democracy is to function properly the subjects of the
State must be so distributed as to form a single homogeneous group. The
constitution for the Provinces of India which is on the anvil is designed
for a democratic form of Government. It follows that each Province must
be homogeneous in its population if democracy in the Province is to be
successful. This is simply another way of saying that each Province must
be a linguistic unit if it is to be fitted to work a democratic constitution.
Herein lies the justification for Linguistic Provinces.

Can the creation of Linguistic Provinces be postponed ?

8. Can the solution of this problem be postponed ? In this connection,
I would like to place before the Commission the following considerations :

(i) There is nothing new in the demand for Linguistic Provinces.
Six Provinces (1) East Punjab, (2) United Provinces, (3) Bihar,
(4) West Bengal, (5) Assam and (6) Orissa already exist as
Linguistic Provinces. The Provinces which are clamouring for being
reconstituted on linguistic basis are : (1) Bombay, (2) Madras and
(3) Central Provinces. When the principle of Linguistic Provinces
is accepted in the case of six Provinces, the other Provinces which
are asking the same principle to be applied to them, cannot be
asked to wait indefinitely:

(ii) The situation in the Non-Linguistic Provinces has become
exasperating if not dangerous and is in no way different from the

104 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

situation as it existed in the old Turkish Empire or in the old
Austro-Hungarian Empire.

(iii) The demand for Linguistic Provinces is an explosive force of the
same character which was responsible for blowing up the old
Turkish Empire or Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is better not to
allow it to get too hot when it may become difficult to prevent an
explosion.

(iv) So long as the Provinces were not democratic in their constitutions
and so long as they did not possess the widest sovereign powers
which the new constitution gives them the urgency of Linguistic
Provinces was not very great. But with the new constitution, the
problem has become very urgent.

The solution of the difficulties

9. If the problem must be dealt with immediately what is to be the
solution ? As has already been pointed out, the solution must satisfy two
conditions. While accepting the principle of Linguistic Provinces it must
provide against the break-up of India’s unity. My solution of the problem
therefore is that, while accepting the demand for the re-constitution of
Provinces on linguistic basis, the constitution should provide that the
official language of every Province shall be the same as the official
language of the Central Government. It is only on that footing that I am
prepared to accept the demand for Linguistic Provinces.

10. I am aware of the fact that my suggestion runs counter to the
conception of Linguistic Provinces which is in vogue. It is that the
language of the Province shall be its official language. I have no objection
to Linguistic Provinces. But I have the strongest objection to the language
of the Province being made its official language where it happens to be
different from the official language of the Centre. My objection is based
on the following considerations :

(1) The idea of having a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with the
question of what should be its official language. By a Linguistic
Province, I mean a Province which by the social composition of
its population is homogeneous and therefore more suited for the
realization of those social ends which a democratic Government
must fulfil. In my view, a Linguistic Province has nothing to do with
the language of the Province. In the scheme of Linguistic Provinces,
language has necessarily to play its part. But its part can be limited
to the creation of the Province, i.e., for demarcation of the boundaries
of the Province. There is no categorical imperative in the scheme
of Linguistic Provinces which compels us to make the language of
the Province its official language. Nor is it necessary, for sustaining
the cultural unity of the Province, to make the language of the

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 105

Province its official language. For, the cultural unity of the Province,
which already exists, is capable of being sustained by factors other
than language such as common historic tradition, community of
social customs, etc. To sustain Provincial cultural unity which
already exists it does not require the use of the Provincial language
for official purposes. Fortunately for the Provincialists there
is no fear of a Maharashtrian not remaining a Maharashtrian
because he spoke any other language. So also there is no fear of
a Tamilian or an Andhra or a Bengali ceasing to be a Tamilian,
Andhra or Bengali if he spoke any other language than his own
mother-tongue.

(2) The out-and-out advocates of Linguistic Provinces would no doubt
protest that they have no intention of converting the Provinces
into separate nations. Their bona fides need not be doubted. At
the same time, it often happens that things do take a shape which
their authors never intended. It is therefore absolutely necessary
to take from the very beginning every step to prevent things
taking an evil shape in course of time. There is therefore nothing
wrong if the loc ening of the ties in one direction is accompanied
by their being tightened up in another direction.

(3) We must not allow the Provincial language to become its official
language even if it was natural that the Provincial language should
be the official language of the Province. There is no danger in
creating Linguistic Provinces. Danger lies in creating Linguistic
Provinces with the language of each Province as its official language.
The latter would lead to the creation of Provincial nationalities.
For the use of the Provincial languages as official languages would
lead Provincial cultures to be isolated crystalized, hardened and
solidified. It would be fatal to allow this to happen. To allow
this is to allow the Provinces to become independent nations,
separate in everything and thus open the road to the ruination of
United India. In Linguistic Provinces without the language of the
Province being made its official language the Provincial culture
would remain fluid with a channel open for give and take. Under
no circumstances, we must allow the Linguistic Provinces to make
their Provincial languages their official languages.

11. The imposition of an All-India official language on a Linguistic
Province which may happen to be different from the language of the
Province cannot come in the way of maintaining Provincial culture. Official
language will be used only in the field occupied by Government. The non-
official field or what may be the purely cultural field will still remain
open to the Provincial language to play its part. There may be a healthy
competition between the official and non-official language. One may try to

106 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

oust the other. If the official language succeeds in ousting the non-official
language from the cultural field, nothing like it. If it fails, there cannot
be much harm. Such a position cannot be said to be intolerable. It is no
more intolerable than the present position in which we have English as the
official language and the Provincial language as its non-official language.
The only difference is that the official language will not be English but
some other.

The requirements of a satisfactory solution

12. I am aware of the fact that my solution is not an ideal solution. It
makes working of the constitution in the Provinces on democratic lines
possible. But it does not make possible the democratic working of the
constitution at the Centre. That is because mere linguistic unity, i.e., the
facility to speak a common language does not ensure homogeneity which
is the result of many other factors. As stated before, the representatives
selected by the Provinces to the Central Legislature will remain what they
are, namely, Bengalis, Tamilians, Andhras, Maharashtrians, etc., even
though they may be speaking the official language of the Centre and not
their mother-tongue. But an ideal solution which can be put into effect
immediately, I cannot see. We must be content with the next best. The only
thing we must be sure about is that the solution we adopt immediately
must satisfy two conditions :

(i) It must be the very next best to the ideal; and

(ii) It must be capable of developing itself into the ideal.

Judged in the light of these considerations, I venture to say that the
solution which I have suggested satisfies these two conditions.

PART II

WILL MAHARASHTRA BE A VIABLE PROVINCE ?

Tests of Viability

13. Coming to the specific question of Maharashtra Province it is necessary
to be satisfied that it will be a viable Province. For being declared a viable
Province, a Province must satisfy certain tests. It must be of a certain size,
it must have a certain volume of population and a commensurate amount
of revenue. A Province must not only be self-supporting — which any
Province can be by choosing to live on a lower plane — but it must have
sufficient revenue to provide for a minimum standard of administration
required by efficiency and the needs of social welfare.

Is Maharashtra Viable ?

14. Does the Province of Maharashtra satisfy these tests ? The following
are the figures which show the size and population of the Maharashtra
Province as constituted on a linguistic basis :

Territory Area in Total Total Percentage of
square population Marathi-speaking Marathi-
miles population of the speaking
of the population
Twelve Districts of the Bombay .. .. 47,284 territory territory to total MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE
Presidency population
1,29,13,544 1,00,45,100
77.8

Eight Districts of C. P. and Berar .. .. 36,865 70,20,694 53,88,300 76.7
1,99,34,238 1,54,33,400 77.4
Total .. 84,151 77.9
27,20,207 21,20,700 77.6
States within Bombay Presidency .. .. 11,314 42,49,272 32,99,300

Marathi-speaking Districts of Hyderabad .. 22,766
State

Goa .. .. .. .. 1,534 5,80,000 5,20,000 89.6
6,33,888 2,12,300 33.5
State of Bastar .. .. .. .. 13,701 81,83,367 61,42,300
2,81,17,605 2,15,85,700 ….
Total .. 49,315 76.8

Grand Total .. 1,33,466

107

108 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Area and population of Maharashtra

15. The above table gives figures for the Maharashtra Province in its two
forms (1) abridged and (2) unabridged. In its unabridged form which means
if all the area occupied by the Marathi-speaking people was constituted
in one single Province the area and the population of Maharashtra will
be 1,33,466 square miles with a population of 2,15,85,700. In its abridged
form which means that if the area and population of the Marathi-speaking
people comprised within the States was for the moment omitted, even then
the proposed Maharashtra Province would comprise an area of 84,151
square miles with a population of 1,54,33,400.

Revenue of Maharashtra

16. Turning to the revenue side of the Province, it has been estimated
that the total annual revenue at the existing rate of taxation which
will accrue to the abridged Maharashtra Province will be approximately
Rs. 25,61,51,000.

Comparison of Maharashtra with other Provinces

17. Some comparisons are necessary to get an idea if a Province of this
size, with this population and with so much revenue will be viable. For
this, I give below figures of the first or the biggest and the forty-seventh or
the smallest states within the U.S.A. in order of their size and population :

States Area in
square miles

1st Texas .. .. .. .. 2,67,339

47th Delaware .. .. .. .. 2,057

States Population

1st New York .. .. .. .. 1,26,32,890

47th Wyoming .. .. .. .. 2,57,108

18. It is obvious that Maharashtra whether one takes its abridged
edition or the unabridged edition of it will be several times bigger than
Delaware which is the smallest State in U.S.A. in point of area and also
several times bigger than New York which is the biggest state in U.S.A.
in point of population.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 109

19. Comparison of Maharashtra with the existing and prospective
Linguistic Provinces of India may also be useful. Their position in point of
area, population and revenue is as follows :

Province Area in Population Annual
sq. miles Revenue

Existing Linguistic Province— Rs.

United Provinces .. 106,247 5,50,20,617 32,65,08,000
69,745 3,63,40,151 16,26,78,000
Bihar .. .. 32,198
82,28,544 4,60,62,000
Orissa .. ..
….
New Linguistic Provinces— ….
….
Andhra .. .. 70,000 1,90,00,000
25,000 45,00,000
Karnatak .. .. 35,00,000
6,000
Kerala .. ..

These figures when compared with the figures for Maharashtra leave no
doubt that Maharashtra will not merely be a viable Province but a strong
Province in point of area, population and revenue.

PART III

SHOULD THE MAHARASHTRA PROVINCE BE

FEDERAL OR UNITARY ?

20. I will now turn to what are known to be points on which there is
controversy. There is no controversy regarding the unification of Maharashtra
into one Province. The controversy relates to the way it should be brought
about. One view is that the new Maharashtra Province should be a unitary
Province, with a single legislature and a single executive. The other view
is that Maharashtra should be a Federation of two sub-Provinces, one
sub-Province to consist of the Marathi-speaking districts of the Bombay
Presidency and the other of the Marathi-speaking districts of the present
Province of the Central Provinces and Berar. The idea of creating sub-
Provinces has originated from the spokesmen of the Marathi-speaking districts
of Central Provinces and Berar. I am satisfied that it is only the wish of
a few high-caste politicians who feel that in a unified Maharashtra their
political careers will come to an end. It has no backing from the people of
Central Provinces and Berar. I would not have referred to this point but
for the fact that it gives me an opportunity to enunciate what I regard as
a very vital principal. When it is decided to create a Linguistic Province,
I am definitely of opinion that all areas which are contiguous and which
speak the same language should be forced to come into it. There should
be no room for choice nor for self-determination. Every attempt must be

110 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

made to create larger provincial units. Smaller provincial units will be a
perpetual burden in normal times and a source of weakness in an emergency.
Such a situation must be avoided. That is why I insist that all parts of
Maharashtra should be merged together in a single province.

PART IV

MAHARASHTRA AND THE CITY OF BOMBAY

Controversy over Bombay

21. Should the City of Bombay be included in Maharashtra or not is
another point over which there has been a controversy. A meeting was held in
Bombay in the building of the Indian Merchants Chamber. The meeting was
attended by no more than sixty. With the exception of one Indian-Christian
it was attended by only Gujarathi-speaking merchants and industrialists.
Although it was small and sectional meeting, its proceedings were flashed
on the front page of every important newspaper in India and the Times of
India was so impressed by its importance that it wrote an editorial which
while mildly castigating the vituperative tone which the speakers at the
meeting adopted against the Maharashtrians, supported the resolutions
passed at the meeting regarding the future of Bombay. This proves what
truth there is in the reply given by Lord Birkenhead to the Irish Leader,
Mr. Redmond, in the course of the Irish controversy when he said that there
are cases where a minority is a majority.

My memorandum would be woefully incomplete if I omitted to deal with
the pros and cons of this controversy. This is because of two reasons : In
the first place, the meeting has been recognized to be very important and
secondly because the resolutions of the meeting have been supported by
eminent University Professors.

Proposals regarding Bombay

22. The meeting passed the following resolutions :

(1) That the question of the creation of Linguistic Provinces should be
postponed ; or

(2) That if it is not postponed, Bombay City should be constituted into
a separate Province.

There is a third suggestion, namely, that Konkan should be constituted
into a separate Province with Bombay as its capital. There is hardly any
support to this plan. There is therefore no necessity to discuss it.

Decision regarding Bombay must be made now

23. I have no complaint against that part of the Resolution which
says the question of Linguistic Provinces be postponed provided the main
question namely whether Bombay should or should not be included in
Maharashtra is settled. If this question was settled it did not matter if it

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.

116 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

“6. That in case he brings any goods on shore more than he can sell on
the island within the space of 12 months, he shall have liberty to transport
them to what port he pleases, without paying custom for exportation.

“7. That in case any person be indebted to him, and also to other Banias,
and be not able to pay all his debts, his right may be preferred before
other Banias.

“8. That in case of war or any other danger which may succeed, he
shall have a warehouse in the castle to secure his goods, treasure, and
family therein.

“9. That he or any of his family shall have liberty of egress and regress to
and from the fort or residence of the Governor or Deputy Governor; that they
shall be received with civil respect and be permitted to sit down according
to their qualities; that they shall freely use coaches, horses or palanquins
and quitasols (that is barsums or umbrellas) for their convenience without
any disturbances ; that their servants may wear swords and daggers, shall
not be abused, beaten or imprisoned except they offend, and that in case
of any of his kindred or friends shall come to visit him or them from any
other ports, they shall be used with civility and respect.

“10. That he and his assigns shall have liberty to sell and buy coconuts,
betelnuts, pan or betel-leaves, and any other commodity not rented out
without any molestation on the island.”

33. How this petition of Nima Parakh was disposed of can be seen
from the reply of the Deputy Governor of Bombay dated 3rd April, 1677,
which was in the following terms :

“According to order we have considered the articles of Nima Parakh
Bania, which if we rightly understand we do not apprehend any prejudice
in their concession the most of them being what the meanest enjoy.

“The first is very easy, the Company having vast ground enough, and
we daily do the same to Banias and others who come to inhabit here. As
to the second, the free exercise of religion is permitted to all with the
use of their ceremonies at weddings and feast, the Banias always burning
their dead without molestation. Neither do we permit any person to kill
anything near the Banias who all live by themselves, much less can any
person presume to enter into anybody’s house or compound without the
owner’s license ; and, for forcing people to turn Christian against their
wills, the whole world will vindicate us ; neither are any persons forced
to carry burdens against their wills. No Bania, Brahman, Moor, or such
man is obliged to watch or ward or other duty, but if any person buys
an oart or warge (vada) he is bound on every alarm to send a musquiter.
But if he possesses no land no duty is exacted, so the articles may be

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 117

granted to Nima, and when he goes about to buy any land he may be
acquainted with that small incumbrance thereon.

“The 4th article is indeed a privilege but no more than Girdhar, the
Moody and some others have, which does not in the least exempt them
from the hands of the law or justice, but does only ask that justice be
done respectfully, which he need not doubt of, and for matter of differences
among themselves there is already his Honour’s patent authorising them
to decide such things.

“As to the 5th, the great anchorage of a rupee per ton is wholly taken
off. There remains only a small one of a rupee for every 100 tons, which is
so inconsiderable a matter that we do not believe we will stick at it. If he
does, it will amount but to a small matter being only for his own vessels
that the Company may easily allow it.

“The 6th if we rightly apprehend it, is no more than what all people
enjoy, who are so far from paying custom at exportation of their own goods
that they pay none for what goods they buy. But if he intends his goods
must pay no custom at landing nor none at exportation of what he cannot
sell, it will be so great a loss to the Company, they having farmed out
the customs for two years, that the benefit of his settling here, will, we
believe, not countervail it, till it comes into the Company’s hands again.

“As to the 7th, our law is such that if a person be indebted to several
men, whosoever gets a judgment first in Court will be paid his full debt, but
no man can be aggrieved at that, nor can any creditor have any pretence
to what is once paid, and when judgment is given it is already paid in law,
so that he is no longer proprietor of it. But when a person is indebted to
two men and the first sues him and upon that the second comes in and
sues him too, with what justice can we pay all the debtor’s estate to the
second creditor. Only of this he may be assured that all justice shall be
done him with speed according to our law and the party forced to pay the
full debt, if able, and lie in prison for the rest till he pleases to release
him, which we suppose may well content him.

“As to the 8th, in case of war all persons of quality have liberty to repair
to the castle and secure their money and other things of value. Nor that
I suppose he intends to fill up the castle with gurf (coarse) goods ; but for
money, jewels household stuff, cloth goods of value, that take up small
room, he may bring what he pleases and may have a warehouse apart
allotted for himself and family.

“The 9th and 10th we may join together, they being only to fill up the
number. They are plain optics to show the nature of those they live under
which, when they have experimented our Government, themselves will
laugh at us, enjoying more freedom than the very articles demand, for

118 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

the meanest person is never denied egress and regress upon respectful notice
given and for horses and coaches and the like he may keep as many as he
pleases and his servants be permitted to wear what arms they please, a thing
common to all. Nothing is more promoted by us than the free liberty for buying
and selling which is the load-stone of trade.

“That last thing he asked of having 10 mans of tobacco free of all duties
is the most difficult thing of all, for the farmers will ask a vast deal to grant

such a licence, it being a very great profit they make in the sale of 10 mans,
so that we know not which way this article can be condescended to, but in this

your Honours can judge better than us.”12

34. In reply on the 26th April, the Surat Council wrote :13 “We observe
your answer touching the articles proposed by Nima Parakh Bania in order
to his settlement on Bombay. When we come again to treat with him thereon,
we hope so to moderate the affair that the island shall not receive any the
least prejudice thereby and we do not question but wholly to put him by
his request to 10 mans of tobacco which he would annually receive or bring
on the island free of all duties.”

POINT (5)

Bombay—an Emporium of India

35. That Bombay is an emporium for the whole of India may be admitted.
But it is difficult to understand how it can be said that because of this,
Maharashtra cannot claim Bombay. Every port serves a much larger area
than the country to which it belongs. No one, on that account, can say
the country in which the port is situated cannot claim it as a part of its
territory. Switzerland has no port. It uses either German, Italian or French
Ports. Can the Swiss therefore deny the right of Germany, Italy or France,
the territorial rights of their ports. Why then should Maharashtrians be
denied the right to claim Bombay merely because it serves as a port for
Provinces other than Maharashtra ? It would be different if the Province of
Maharashtra were to get a right to close the Port to Non-Maharashtrians.
Under the constitution, it will not have that right. Consequently, the inclusion
of Bombay in Maharashtra will not affect the right of non-Maharashtrians
to use the port as before.

POINT (6)

Gujarathis—owners of Trade and Industry of Bombay

36. It may be granted that the Gujarathis have a monopoly of trade.
But, as has already been pointed out, this monopoly, they have been able
to establish because of the profits they were able to make which were the
result of the privileges given to them by the East India Company on their

12. This is probably new demand made by Nima Parakh.
13. Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, p. 77.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 119

settlement in Bombay. Who built up the trade and industry of Bombay
is a matter for which no very great research is necessary. There is no
foundation in fact for the statement that the trade and industry of
Bombay was built up by Gujarathis. It was built up by Europeans and
not by Gujarathis. Those who assert that it is the Gujarathis who did it
should consult the Times of India Directory before making such a claim.
The Gujarathis have been just merchants which is quite a different thing
from being industrialists.

37. Once it is established that Bombay belonged to Maharashtra the claim
of Maharashtra to include Bombay cannot be defeated by the argument
that the trade and industry of Bombay is owned by the Gujarathis. The
claim of mortgagor to his land cannot be defeated by the mortgagee on
the ground that the mortgagee has built up permanent structures on the
land. The Gujarathis assuming they have built up the trade and industry
of Bombay are in no better position than a mortgagee is.

38. But who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay seems to
me quite irrelevant to the decision of the issue whether Bombay should or
should not be included in Maharashtra. This argument based on monopoly
of trade and industry is really a political argument. It means that the
owners may rule the workers but the workers must not be allowed to
rule the owners. Those who use this argument do not seem to know what
they are up against. The one thing they are up against is whether this
argument is to be confined only to the City of Bombay or whether it is
to have a general application.

39. There is no reason why it should not have a general application.
For just as in Bombay City society is divided into owners and workers
or into capitalists and wage-earners, such also is the case of society in
Gujarat or for the matter of that in every province of India. If the owners
and capitalists of Bombay are to be protected by the exclusion of Bombay
from Maharashtra because Maharashtrians belong to the working classes,
what is the method they suggest for protecting the capitalists of Gujarat
from the working classes of Gujarat. Those Gujarathi Professors like Vakils
and Dantwalas who are searching their brains to supply arguments to
the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay have not thought of finding ways
and means for protecting the Gujarathi capitalists of Gujarat against
the working classes of Gujarat. The only remedy they can suggest is the
abandonment of adult suffrage. That is the only way by which they can
protect the capitalists if they are out to protect capitalists in general and
not the Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay in particular.

40. There is however one argument which the Professors could urge. It is
that the Maharashtrians being in a majority would discriminate against the
Gujarathi capitalists of Bombay if Bombay was included in Maharashtra.

120 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

One could appreciate such an argument. But those who like to use this
argument must remember two things :

(i) That Maharashtra is not the only place in which such a situation
can arise. It may arise in any province. I like to refer to Bihar. In
Bihar the land in which coal is found belongs to the people of Bihar.
But the coal-owners are Gujarathis, Kathiawaris or Europeans.
Is there no possibility of Biharis making a discrimination against
Gujarathi and Kathiawari coal-owners ? Are the coalfields of Bihar
to be excluded from the Province of Bihar and constituted into
a separate Province in the interest of Kathiawari and Gujarathi
coal-owners ?

(ii) The constitution of India has noted the possibility of discrimination
being made against a minority and has made more than ample
provision for preventing it. There are the fundamental rights.
There are the provisions against discrimination; there are the
provisions of payment of compensation, and there are the High
Courts with the inherent rights to issue high prerogative writs both
against individuals and Governments to stop any harm, injustice
or harassment being done to any citizen. What more protection do
the Gujarathi traders and industrialists of Bombay want against
the possibility of discrimination ?

POINT (7)

Maharashtra’s eye on Bombay’s surplus

41. Before accusing Maharashtrians of having an eye on the surplus
of Bombay it must be proved that Bombay has a surplus. What appears
as surplus is due really to bad accounting. It is bad accounting where
expenditure on overhead charges such as (1) the Governor and his
establishment, (2) the Ministers and their establishments, (3) the
Legislature and the expenditure thereon, (4) Judiciary, (5) Police and (6)
Provincial establishments such as those of the Commissioners of Police
and Directors of Public Instruction is not being taken into account. I
doubt very much if on the existing basis of taxation, Bombay will have
any surplus if expenditure on these items is charged to Bombay. It is a
fallacy to charge all such expenditure to Maharashtra and exempt Bombay
from it and then argue that Bombay has a surplus.

42. The statement that the Maharashtrians want Bombay because they
want to live on the surplus revenue of Bombay, besides being wrong in
fact raises a question of motive. I do not know if the Maharashtrians are
actuated by any such motive. They are not a commercial community. Unlike
other communities, the Maharashtrians have no nose for money, and I am
one of these who believe that it is one of their greatest virtues. Money has
never been their god. It is no part of their culture. That is why they have

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 121

allowed all other communities coming from outside Maharashtra to
monopolize the trade and industry of Maharashtra. But as I have shown
there is no surplus and no question of Maharashtrians casting their eyes
on it.

43. But supposing such a motive in the minds of the Maharashtrians,
what is wrong in it ? It is quite open to Maharashtrians to contend that
they have a greater claim on Bombay’s surplus because they have played
and they will continue to play a greater part in supplying labour for the
building up of the trade and industry of Bombay more than the people
from other Provinces have done or likely to do. It would be difficult for
any economist with any reputation to save who could deny that labour
has as much claim on the wealth produced as capital if not more.

44. Secondly, the surplus from Bombay is not consumed by Maharashtra
alone but is consumed by the whole of India. The proceeds of the Income-
tax, Super-tax, etc. which Bombay pays to the Central Government are
all spent by the Central Government for all-India purposes and is shared
by all other Provinces. To Prof. Vakil it does not matter if the surplus
of Bombay is eaten up by United Provinces, Bihar, Assam, Orissa, West
Bengal, East Punjab and Madras. What he objects to is Maharashtra
getting any part of it. This is not an argument. It is only an exhibition
of his hatred for Maharashtrians.

45. Granting that Bombay was made into a separate Province, what
I don’t understand is how Prof. Vakil is going to prevent Maharashtra
from getting share of Bombay surplus revenue. Even if Bombay is made
separate Province, Bombay will have to pay income-tax, super-tax, etc.
and surely Maharashtra will get a part of the revenue paid by Bombay
to the Centre either directly or indirectly. As I have said the argument
has in it more malice than substance.

POINTS (8) AND (9)

General arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra

46. I will now turn to the Points (8) and (9) which have been urged by
Professors Dantwala and Gheewala. Their arguments strike at the very root
of the principle of Linguistic Provinces. As such I should have dealt with
them in Part I of this Memorandum. But as the aim of their argument is
to exclude Bombay from being included in Maharashtra, I have thought
it proper to deal with them in this Part of the Memorandum as they
are really arguments against the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra.

47. The sum total of the arguments of the two Professors is that
Linguistic Provinces are bad. This cry against Linguistic Provinces is too
late. Since when two Professors having been holding these views is not
known. Are they opposed to Gujarat being reconstituted on Linguistic

122 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Provinces also has not been made clear by them. Or, is it that they
believed in the principle of Linguistic Provinces but hurried to disavow
it when they realized that the admission of the principle involves the
surrender of Bombay to Maharashtra. It is perhaps one of these cases
where a person not finding argument limited to his purpose is forced to
resort to an argument which proves more than he is anxious to allow.
I am, however, prepared to examine the substance of their argument.

48. Prof. Dantwala relies upon Lord Acton and quotes the following
passage from his Essay on Nationality printed in his well-known book
The History of Freedom and Other Essays in support of his own view
against Linguistic Provinces. The quotation reads as follows :

“The combination of various nations in one State is a necessary condition
of civilized life as the combination of men in society.”

49. I am sorry to say that this quotation completely misrepresents
Lord Acton. The quotation is only a few opening lines of a big passage.
The full passage reads as follows :

“The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition
of civilized life as the combination of men in society. Inferior races are raised
by living in political union with races intellectually superior. Exhausting and
decaying nations are revived by the contact of younger vitality. Nations in
which the elements of organization and the capacity for Government have
been lost, either through the demoralizing influence of despotism or the
disintegrating action of democracy, are restored and educated a new under
the discipline of a stronger and less corrupted race. This fertilizing and
regenerating process can only be obtained by living under one Government.
It is in the cauldron of the State that the fusion takes place by which the
vigour, the knowledge and the capacity of one portion of mankind may be
communicated to another.’’

50. Why Prof. Dantwala left out the rest of the passage, it is difficult to
understand. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate case of suppresio
veri and suggestio falsi. The fact is that it does misrepresent Lord Acton.
Why has the Professor relied upon this passage, I do not understand. It
is quite obvious that if the inferior races are placed in common with the
superior races, the inferior races may improve. But the question is, who is
inferior or who is superior. Are the Gujarathis inferior to Maharashtrians?
Or are the Maharashtrians inferior to Gujarathis ? Secondly, what is the
channel of cummunion between Gujarathis and Maharashtrians which
can assure the fusion of the two ? Prof. Dantwala has not considered
the question. He found a sentence in Lord Acton’s Essay and jumped at
it for he could find nothing else to support his case. The point is that
there is nothing in the passage which has any relevance to the principle
involved in the question of Linguistic Province.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 123

51. So much for Prof. Dantwala’s arguments. I will now examine
Prof. Gheewala’s arguments. Prof. Gheewala also relies on Lord Acton.
He quotes a portion of a passage from Lord Acton’s Essay on Nationality.
I reproduce below the passage in full :

“The greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory
of nationality. By making the State and the nation commensurate with
each other in theory, it reduces practically to a subject condition all other
nationalities that may be within the boundary. It cannot admit them to an
equality with the ruling nation which constitutes the State, because the
State would then cease to be national, which would be a contradiction of
the principle of its existence. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity
and civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the
community, the inferior races are exterminated, or reduced to servitude, or
outlawed, or put in a condition of dependence.”

52. I do not understand why the learned Professor has dragged in the
name of Lord Acton. The passage does not really help him. There is one
thing which seems to be uppermost in his mind. He thinks that if Bombay
is included in Maharashtra the Province of Maharashtra will consist of
two nationalities—one consisting of the Marathi-speaking people and the
other of the Gujarathi-speaking people and the Marathi-speaking people
who would be the dominant class will reduce the Gujarathi-speaking
people to a subject condition. It is in support of this he thought of citing
Lord Acton. Such a possibility is always there. There is no objection to
the way in which he has presented the problem. But there are great
objections to the conclusions he draws.

53. In the first place, in a country like India in which society is
throughout communally organized it is obvious that in whatever way it
is divided into areas for administrative purposes, in every area there will
always be one community which by its numbers happens to be a dominant
community. As a dominant community it becomes a sole heir to all political
power, which the area gets. If Marathi-speaking people in a unified
Maharashtra with Bombay thrown into it will become dominant over the
Gujarathi-speaking people, will this prospect be confined to Maharashtra
only ? Will such a phenomena not occur within the Marathi-speaking
people ? Will it not be found in Gujarat if Gujarat became a separate
Province ? I am quite certain that within the Marathi-speaking people
who are sharply divided between the Marathas and the non-Marathas, the
Marathas being a dominant class will reduce both Gujarathi-speaking and
the non-Marathas to a subject condition. In the same way in Gujarat in
some parts the Anavil Brahmins from a dominant class. In other parts it is
the Patidars who form a dominant class. It is quite likely that the Anavils
and the Patidars will reduce the condition of the other communities to

124 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

subjection. The problem therefore is not a problem peculiar to Maharashtra.
It is a general problem.

54. What is the remedy for this problem ? Prof. Gheewala believes that
the remedy lies in having a mixed State. So far as this remedy is concerned
it is not his own. He has adopted it from Lord Acton. But I have no doubt
that so far as Lord Acton advocates this remedy he is quite wrong. Lord
Acton cites the case of Austria in support of his view. Unfortunately, Lord
Acton did not live to see the fate of Austria. It was a mixed State. But far
from providing for the safety of nationalities the clash of nationalities blew
up Austria to bits. The real remedy is not a mixed State but an absolute
State with no power to the people which is generally captured by a communal
majority and exercised in the name of the people. Is Prof. Gheewala prepared
for this remedy ? One need have no doubt to what his answer would be.

55. In the second place, Prof. Gheewala has confounded nationality in the
social sense of the term with Nationality in its legal and political sense.
People often speak of nationality in speaking about Linguistic Provinces.
Such use of the term can be only in the non-legal and non-political sense
of the term. In my scheme there is no room even for the growth of separate
provincial nationality. My proposal nips it in the bud. But even if the
commonly suggested pattern of Linguistic Provinces with the language of
the Province as the official language were adopted, Provinces cannot have
that attribute of sovereignty which independent nations have.

56. It is very difficult to understand what exactly what Prof. Gheewala
wants. Broadly he wants two things : He wants a mixed State and he also
wants that a dominant section should not be in a position to reduce the
smaller sections to subjection. I cannot see how Linguistic Provinces can come
in the way of achieving it. For even after Provinces have been re-constituted
on linguistic basis,—

(1) Provinces will continue to be a conglomeration of communities which
will give Prof. Gheewala the mixed State that he wants ;

(2) If Prof. Gheewala wants a more pronounced form of a mixed State to
protect smaller communities or nationalities, he will certainly have
it at the Centre.

As I have said, I do not think a mixed State is either a good State or stable
State. But if Prof. Gheewala prefers it, he will have it in one form or another,
both in the Provinces as well as at the Centre, in the former in the form of
different communities and in the latter in the form of the representatives
of different Provinces.

57. With regard to his second objective, there will be double protection.
In the first place, the citizen will have such protection as a mixed State
he thinks can give. Secondly, citizenship will be common throughout India.

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 125

There is no provincial citizenship. A Gujarathi in Maharashtra will have
the same rights of citizenship in Maharashtra as Maharashtrian will have.

Given these facts, I fail to understand what objection Prof. Gheewala can
have to Linguistic Provinces ?

58. Prof. Gheewala has made two other recommendations. He says, (1) if
Provinces have to be reconstituted, constitute them on rational basis rather
than on linguistic basis and (2) make nationality a personal thing.

59. To reconstitute Provinces on economic basis—which is what is meant
by rational basis—appears more scientific than reconstituting them on
linguistic basis. However, unscientific linguistic reorganization of Provinces I
cannot see how they can come in the way of rational utilization of economic
resources of India. Provincial boundaries are only administrative boundaries.
They do not raise economic barriers for the proper utilization of economic
resources. If the position was that the resources contained within a Linguistic
Province must only be explained by the people of the Province and no other
than it could no doubt be said that the scheme of Linguistic Provinces was
mischievous. But such is not the case. So long as Linguistic Provinces are
not allowed to put a ban on the exploitation of the resources of the people
by any body capably of wishing to exploit them a Linguistic Province will
yield all the advantages of a rationally planned Province.

60. The proposal of making nationality as a personal thing and put it
on the same footing as religion may be dismissed as being to Utopian. It
would raise many administrative problems. It will come when the world is
one and all nationals are its citizens. Nationality will automatically vanish
as being quite useless.

61. So far I have dealt with the arguments advanced by those who are
opposed to the inclusion of Bombay in Maharashtra. I have taken pains to
do so not because I felt that they were very weighty. I did so because I felt
it desirable to prevent the common man from being misled. The possibility
of this happening was there and for two reasons. In the first place, those
who have come forward with these arguments are not ordinary men. They
are University Professors. Secondly, these Professors came out with their
arguments after Prof. Gadgil had put forth the case for the inclusion of
Bombay in Maharashtra. Unfortunately, no attempt has so far been made to
refute the arguments of the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil. The result has been
the creation of an impression that Prof. Gadgil’s adversaries have carried
the day. It was absolutely essential to remove this impression.

The other side

62. There are however arguments which the adversaries of Prof. Gadgil
have not thought of hut which may be advanced with justice as well as force,

126 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

in favour of the claim of Maharashtrians for the inclusion of Bombay in
Maharashtra. It is quite possible that these arguments may suggest themselves
to the Commission. But I don’t like to leave it to chance. I therefore propose
to set them out below even though the Commission might think that it was
unnecessary.

Calcutta and Bombay

63. In deciding upon the issue of exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra
the Commission will have to take into account the position of Calcutta. Like
Bombay it is the chief emporium of the whole of eastern part of India. Like
the Maharashtrians in Bombay the Bengalis in Calcutta are in a minority.
Like the Maharashtrians in Bombay, the Bengalis do not own the trade
and industry of Calcutta. The position of the Bengalis vis-a-vis Calcutta is
worse than the position of the Maharashtrians vis-a-vis Bombay. For, the
Maharashtrians can at least claim that they have supplied labour if not
capital for the trade and industry of Bombay. The Bengalis cannot even say
this. If the Commission can accept the arguments urged for the separation
of Bombay from Maharashtra, it must be equally prepared to recommend
the separation of Calcutta from West Bengal. For it is a very pertinent
question to ask that if for the reasons given Bombay can be separated from
Maharashtra why when the same reasons exist Calcutta be not separated
from West Bengal.

Is Bombay Viable

64. Before Bombay can be separated it must be proved that financially
Bombay is a viable Province. As I have already said if proper accounting of
revenue and expenditure was made Bombay on the basis of present level of
taxation may not be a self-sufficient Province. If that be so, the proposal for
creating Bombay a separate Province must fall to the ground. It is no use
comparing Bombay with Provinces like Orissa and Assam. The standard of
administration, the standard of living and consequently the level of wages
in Bombay are all so high that I doubt that even with a crashing rate of
taxation Bombay will be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue to
meet the expenditure.

The aim behind Greater Bombay

65. This doubt regarding viability of Bombay Province is heightened
by the indecent haste shown by the Government of Bombay in creating
Greater Bombay by including within the limits of Bombay the adjoining
parts of Maharashtra. It seems that the object of including such area
cannot but be to make Bombay viable. What else can it be? So long as
Bombay remained part of Maharashtra it did not matter to Maharashtrians
in which administrative area a portion of Maharashtra was included. But
when Bombay is to be a separate Province it will take a long time to make

MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 127

Maharashtrians part with their territory to make Bombay greater and viable.
What is more important is the scheme of greater Bombay casts responsibility
upon the Linguistic Provinces Commission to decide whether they could,
with justice force Maharashtrians not only to submit to the demand of the
Gujarathis to give up Bombay but also to submit to their further demand
to hand over a part of territory of Maharashtra to make Bombay a viable
Province. The Commission cannot escape this responsibility.

66. Maharashtra and Bombay are not merely inter-dependent, they
are really one and integral. Severance between the two would be fatal to
both. The sources of water and electricity for Bombay lie in Maharashtra.
The intelligentsia of Maharashtra lives in Bombay. To sever Bombay from
Maharashtra would be to make the economic life of Bombay precarious and
to dissociate the masses of Maharashtra from its intelligentsia without whose
lead the masses of Maharashtra will be nowhere.

Arbitration as a Solution

67. I have seen a suggestion made in some quarters that problem of
Bombay should be settled by arbitration. I have never heard of a more absurd
suggestion than this. It is as absurd as the suggestion to refer matrimonial
cause to arbitration. The matrimonial tie is too personal, to be severed by
a third party. Bombay and Maharashtra are tied together by God to use
a Biblical phrase. No arbitrator can put them as under. The only agency
which is authorized to do so is the Commission. Let it decide.

zz



4

NEED FOR CHECKS AND
BALANCES

Article on Linguistic States

From : The Times of India, dated 23rd April 1953



131

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

The British who ruled India for more than 150 years never thought of
creating linguistic States although the problem was always there. They were
more interested in creating a stable administration and maintaining law
and order throughout the country than in catering to the cultural craving of
people in multi-lingual areas. It is quite true that towards the end of their
career they did realise that the administrative set-up which they had built
required some adjustment from the point of view of linguistic considerations,
at any rate in cases where the conglomeration was very glaring. For instance,
they did create Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as linguistic States before they
left. It is difficult to say whether if they had continued to rule, they would
have followed the path of forming linguistic States to its logical conclusion.

But long before the British thought of creating linguistic provinces the
Congress under the aegis of Mr. Gandhi had already in the year 1920 framed
a constitution for itself on the basis of linguistic provinces. Whether the
ideology underlying the constitution of the Congress as framed in 1920 was
a well thoughtout ideology or whether it was a sop to draw people inside
the Congress fold, one need not now stop to speculate. There is, however,
no doubt about it that the British did realise that linguistic considerations
were important and they did give effect to them to a limited extent.

Opposition
Upto the year 1945, the Congress was, of course, not called upon to face
the responsibility which it had created for itself by its constitution of 1920.
It was only in the year 1945 when it assumed office that this responsibility
dawned upon the Congress. Looking into the recent history of the subject
the necessary momentum to the issue was given by a member of Parliament
by moving a resolution for the creation of linguistic provinces in India.

132 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

The duty of answering on behalf of the Government to the debate fell on me.
Naturally I took the matter to the higher authorities in order to ascertain
what exactly their point of view was. Strange as it may appear, it became
clear to me that the High Command was totally opposed to the creation of
linguistic provinces. In these circumstances, the solution that was found was
that the responsibility to answer the debate had better be taken over by the
Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in reply to the debate made statement
promising the creation of an Andhra State immediately. On the basis of
the statement made by the Prime Minister, the resolution was withdrawn.
The matter rested there.

Second Time

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I had to deal with the matter a
second time. When the draft Constitution was completed, I wrote a letter to
the Prime Minister asking him whether I could include Andhra as a separate
State in Part A States of the Constitution in view of what he had said in
the course of the debate on the Resolution. I have nothing with me here
to refresh my memory as to what exactly happened. But the President of
the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, appointed a Committee to
investigate into the formation of linguistic States, under the Chairmanship
of Mr. Dhar, a lawyer from U.P.

People will remember the Dhar Committee for one thing if not for any
other. The Committee said that under no circumstances should Bombay City
be included in Maharashtra if Maharashtra was made a linguistic State.
That report was then considered by the Jaipur session of the Congress.
The Jaipur Congress appointed a Three-Man Committee consisting of the
Prime Minister, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. They
produced a report, the gist of which was that an Andhra province should be
created immediately but the city of Madras should remain with the Tamils.
A committee was appointed to go into the details. It produced a more or less
unanimous report. But the report was opposed by substantial elements among
the Andhras including Mr. Prakasam who were not prepared to relinquish
their claim to Madras, and the thing lay dormant there.

After that comes the incident of Shri Potti Sriramulu who had to sacrifice
his life for the sake of an Andhra province. It is a sad commentary on the
ruling party that Mr. Sriramulu should have had to die for a cause the
validity of which was accepted by all Congressmen. The creation of a new
Andhra province now being thought of is only a pindadan to the departed
soul of Mr. Sriramulu by the Prime Minister. Whether such action on the
part of the Government would have been tolerated in any other country is
a matter on which there is no use speculating.

There are, in my opinion, three conditions which must be satisfied before
a linguistic State is brought into being. The first condition is that it must
be a viable State. This rule was accepted as absolute when the question of

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES 133

the merger of the Indian States was under consideration during the making
of the Constitution. Only those Indian States which were viable were
allowed to remain as independent States. All others were merged into the
neighbouring States.

A Sahara ?

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State ? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had
very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra
State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. It is possible for the proposed
Andhra State to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in
expenditure ? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to
take the responsibility of meeting this deficit ? If so, will this responsibility
be confined to the proposed Andhra State or will it be extended to all similar
cases ? These are questions which are to be considered.

The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidently say
that I have never heard of the creation of a State without a capital.
Mr. Rajagopalachari (the staunchest Tamilian tribesman) will not show the
Government of the proposed Andhra State the courtesy of allowing it to
stay in Madras city even for one night—courtesy which is prescribed by the
Hindu Dharma on all Hindus for an atithi. The new Government is left to
choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to transact
its business. What place can it choose ? With what can it construct its
hutments ? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some
place in this Sahara it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious
place, and the money spent on this temporary headquarters would be all a
waste. Has the Government considered this aspect of the case ? Why not
right now give them a place which has the possibility of becoming their
permanent capital.

It seems to me that Warangal is best suited from this point of view. It
is the ancient capital of the Andhras. It is a railway junction. It has got
quite a large number of buildings. It is true that it lies within that part of
Andhra which is part of Hyderabad State. As a matter of principle Hyderabad
State which is a monstrocity should have been broken up and a complete
Andhra State might have been created. But if the Prime Minister has some
conscientious objection to the proposal, can he not create an enclave in the
Andhra part of Hyderabad and join it to the new Andhra State and make a
way to Warangal ? An enclave is not a new thing in India. But the Prime
Minister wants to work against the will of God in Hyderabad as well as in
Kashmir. I am sure he will very soon learn the consequences of it.

First Condition

This is just incidental. My main point is that a linguistic State must
be viable. This is the first consideration in the creation of a linguistic
State. The second consideration is to note what is likely to happen within

134 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

a linguistic State. Unfortunately no student has devoted himself to a
demographic survey of the population of India. We only know from our census
reports how many are Hindus, how many are Muslims, how many Jews,
how many Christians and how many untouchables. Except for the knowledge
we get as to how many religions there are this information is of no value.
What we want to know is the distribution of castes in different linguistic
areas. On this we have very little information. One has to depend on one’s
own knowledge and information. I don’t think it would be contradicted if
it is said that the caste set-up within the linguistic area is generally such
that it contains one or two major castes large in number and a few minor
castes living in subordinate dependence on the major castes.

Communal Set-up

Let me give a few illustrations. Take the Punjab of PEPSU. The Jats
dominate the whole area. The untouchables live in subordinate dependence
on them. Take Andhra—there are two or three major communities spread
over the linguistic area. They are either the Reddis or the Kammas and
the Kappus. They hold all the land, all the offices, all the business. The
untouchables live in subordinate dependence on them. Take Maharashtra.
The Marathas are a huge majority in every village in Maharashtra. The
Brahmins, the Gujars, the Kolis and the untouchables live in subordinate
co-operation. There was a time when the Brahmins and the banias lived
without fear. But times have changed. After the murder of Mr. Gandhi, the
Brahmins and the banias got such a hiding from the Marathas that they have
run away to the towns as safety centres. Only the wretched untouchables,
the Kolis and the Malis have remained in the villages to bear the tyranny
of the Maratha communal majority. Anyone who forgets this communal set-
up will do so at his peril.

In a linguistic State what would remain for the smaller communities to
look to ? Can they hope to be elected to the Legislature ? Can they hope to
maintain a place in the State service ? Can they expect any attention to their
economic betterment ? In these circumstances, the creation of a linguistic
State means the handing over of Swaraj to a communal majority. What an
end to Mr. Gandhi’s Swaraj ! Those who cannot understand this aspect of
the problem would understand it better if instead of speaking in terms of
linguistic State we spoke of a Jat State, a Reddy State or a Maratha State.

Third Issue

The third problem which calls for consideration is whether the creation
of linguistic States should take the form of consolidation of the people
speaking one language into one State. Should all Maharashtrians be collected
together into one Maharashtra State ? Should all Andhra area be put into
one Andhra State ? This question of consolidation does not merely relate
to new units. It relates also to the existing linguistic provinces such as

NEED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES 135

U.P., Bihar and West Bengal. Why should all Hindi-speaking people be
consolidated into one State as has happened in U.P. ? Those who ask for
consolidation must be asked whether they want to go to war against other
States. If consolidation creates a separate consciousness we will have in
course of time an India very much like what it was after the break-up of
Maurya Empire. Is destiny moving us towards it ?

This does not mean that there is no case for linguistic provinces. What
it means is that there must be definite checks and balances to see that a
communal majority does not abuse its power under the garb of a linguistic
State.

zz