http://kufr.blogspot.com/2010/03/drambedkar-on-official-language.html26/03/10
dr.ambedkar on official language, linguistic states, surpluses,
resources and 'exploitation'
a few points in the statement 'Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province'
submitted by dr.ambedkar to the 'Linguistic Provinces Commission' or
Dar Commission in 1948 that caught my eye:
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. l 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
realisation 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 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.
[emphasis mine].
later, in 1955, in his 'Thoughts on Linguistic States' dr.ambedkar had
recommended that Hindi be made the official language of all states.
but what he said in 1948, that the official language of a state should
be different from the provincial language, should that principle have
been applied to hindi speaking states too? dr.ambedkar didn't miss the
provincialism or chauvinism of the hindi speaking states, and i feel
he'd have talked more about it later, after the drive to impose hindi
on the south in the 1960s by the central government. unfortunately, he
passed away soon after the publication of his 'Thoughts on Linguistic
States'. would he have stressed on the need to impose a language
different from hindi as the official language of the hindi speaking
states if he had lived into the sixties?
again, from his statement to the Linguistic Provinces Commission:
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 he 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 e 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 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. [emphasis
mine].
that's quite clear. in 1948, dr.ambedkar was clearly in favour of 'all
areas which are contiguous and which speak the same language should be
forced' into a single province. which means he wouldn't have supported
the idea of a separate telangana in 1948.
would he have supported telangana in 1955, when he wrote his 'Thoughts
on Linguistic States'? he was more concerned with the smaller size of
the southern states on an average, in terms of population, in relation
to northern states.
more from his statement to the Linguistic Provinces Commission:
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.
[emphasis mine].
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.
how about the revenue surpluses from hyderabad which the telangani
separatists claim are being used to fund development in other regions?
following dr.ambedkar's common sensical logic, one could say: the
surplus from hyderabad is not consumed by andhra pradesh alone but is
consumed by the whole of India. and: granting that, hyderabad goes
with a new telangana state, what i don't understand is how the
separatists are going to prevent andhra-rayalaseema from getting a
share of hyderabad's surplus revenue?
finally, one last point from the statement:
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. [emphasis mine].
so, what would dr. ambedkar have said about all the noise being made
by the separatists that telangani resources, like coal from singareni,
are being 'exploited' by people from andhra-rayalaseema? as you can
see, dr. ambedkar would have approved of the 'rational exploitation'
of resources. if the rest of india can exploit resources from bombay
high, or jharkhand or assam, why should there be any objection to
resources from telangana being used to meet power needs in
andhra-rayalaseema? they're not being 'stolen', they're being sold.
just as they're being sold to power plants in karnataka, maharashtra
and other parts of the country.
how i wish the separatists would read dr. ambedkar's views with open
eyes, and minds, before putting words into his mouth!!
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
