AS the nation once again grapples with the issue of reorganization of states, B.R.Ambedkar’s book Thoughts on Linguistic States written in 1955 need an urgent reading to realise the root cause of the problem. His ideas were proved right and his assessment of the creation of new states in the federal polity is relevant in post-Independent India.
How opportunist and vote-bank hungry could our leaders be, is beyond anybody’s mind. They picked up Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s reservation—just for their own motive and purpose, not for the betterment of any community—which he had demanded for just 10 years i.e. for only one decade,not for the decades to come. But have forgotten his recommendations in the report of State Reorganisation Commission in 1955. Our leaders, whichever party they belong, are using reservation just to get power not the upliftment of downtrodden, either they are Scheduled Caste/Tribe or Tribal. So many political parties—for the sake of Scheduled Caste/Tribes, backwards etc—are in the fray but the leaders of such parties have removed their poverty instead of their community. For example, judge yourself the economic condition of such leaders before forming the political party and theirs today’s lofty liabilities and assests.
Anyhow, lets see what Ambedkar had rolled from his sleeves out .
One of the most interesting proposals by Ambedkar in 1955 was to split Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. He wanted Madhya Pradesh divided into northern and southern states.
Bihar also was to be split into two with Patna and Ranchi as the capitals. But the split came-- after 45 years—with the formation of Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand out of Bihar in the year 2000.
After working on the Constitution, Ambedkar came out with a vision for a reorganised India. His observation was that a state should have a people of one language to have uniformity and to retain linguistic culture. At the same time, there could be two states where people spoke the same language. He proposed splitting single-language states. He was wondered at the Uttar Pradesh’s huge size and wanted to split it into three states.
Ambedkar had a special formula for Bombay, then a mixed-language province—including the present day Maharashtra and Gujarat. He proposed city state status for Bombay. He acknowledged the presence of people of multiple linguistic groups and their role in establishing Bombay. He proposed to split Bombay into three states. At that time, Maharashtra comprised several districts of the erstwhile Nizam’s Hyderabad. The fact is that Ambedkar was responding to the report of the first State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1955 through this book.
Perhaps the Indian history—Andhra Pradesh in particular—have not forgotten the sacrifice of Gandhian Potti Sriramulu who died on December 16, 1952, after a 58-day fast demanding a separate Andhra state fro Telugu-speaking people—to be carved out of Madras Presidency. This prompted the Central government to go for the SRC and triggered the formation of linguistic states. Ambedkar ridiculed Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister.
One of Ambedkar’s major proposals was to make Hyderabad the second-capital of India because of the centrality of location, as a junction of North and South and on defence considerations.
The Andhra state issue never died down. The 1955 SRC reorganized Andhra and Hyderabad(Telangana) as separate entities. By then Hyderabad as a separate state had elections in 1952 and a state government was in place. The clamour for a single language state for the Telugus led to the merger of Andhra and Hyderabad states in 1956 with assurances to Hyderabad in a gentleman’s agreement that the cabinet will have 40 per cent representation from Hyuderabad. There would be the post of deputy chief minister so that either the chief minister or deputy chief minister was from Hyderabad.
The failure of the agreement led to the 1969 Telangana agitation, which too settled by a six-point formula—between the leaders of Andhra and Telengana regions—with equitable opportunities in education and employment.
In November 1996, a hugely successful meeting called Vidroha Sabha demanding Telengana was held. Later Telangana ideologues Jai Shankar, former Vice-Chancellor of Osmania University and Mallepalli Laxmiah, a journalist released a book Telangana lo Emi Jaruguthundi (The Present Conditions in Telangana), which tried to cite injustice and discrimination as causes of its backwardness even today. The differences in the conditions of the Andhra and Telangana regions seem to have accentuated in the post-liberation Andhra Pradesh. This emerged into a fresh movement demanding Telangan and got a political face 2001 and the electoral politics around it followed.
Ambedkar seemed to have solutions to all such problems—all written down 55 years ago. On splitting one-language states, he said: “Into how many states a people speaking one language should be cut up, should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration, (2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different areas, and(4) the proportion between the majority and minority.”
The size of the state for him had a special connotation.
How opportunist and vote-bank hungry could our leaders be, is beyond anybody’s mind. They picked up Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s reservation—just for their own motive and purpose, not for the betterment of any community—which he had demanded for just 10 years i.e. for only one decade,not for the decades to come. But have forgotten his recommendations in the report of State Reorganisation Commission in 1955. Our leaders, whichever party they belong, are using reservation just to get power not the upliftment of downtrodden, either they are Scheduled Caste/Tribe or Tribal. So many political parties—for the sake of Scheduled Caste/Tribes, backwards etc—are in the fray but the leaders of such parties have removed their poverty instead of their community. For example, judge yourself the economic condition of such leaders before forming the political party and theirs today’s lofty liabilities and assests.
Anyhow, lets see what Ambedkar had rolled from his sleeves out .
One of the most interesting proposals by Ambedkar in 1955 was to split Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. He wanted Madhya Pradesh divided into northern and southern states.
Bihar also was to be split into two with Patna and Ranchi as the capitals. But the split came-- after 45 years—with the formation of Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand out of Bihar in the year 2000.
After working on the Constitution, Ambedkar came out with a vision for a reorganised India. His observation was that a state should have a people of one language to have uniformity and to retain linguistic culture. At the same time, there could be two states where people spoke the same language. He proposed splitting single-language states. He was wondered at the Uttar Pradesh’s huge size and wanted to split it into three states.
Ambedkar had a special formula for Bombay, then a mixed-language province—including the present day Maharashtra and Gujarat. He proposed city state status for Bombay. He acknowledged the presence of people of multiple linguistic groups and their role in establishing Bombay. He proposed to split Bombay into three states. At that time, Maharashtra comprised several districts of the erstwhile Nizam’s Hyderabad. The fact is that Ambedkar was responding to the report of the first State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1955 through this book.
Perhaps the Indian history—Andhra Pradesh in particular—have not forgotten the sacrifice of Gandhian Potti Sriramulu who died on December 16, 1952, after a 58-day fast demanding a separate Andhra state fro Telugu-speaking people—to be carved out of Madras Presidency. This prompted the Central government to go for the SRC and triggered the formation of linguistic states. Ambedkar ridiculed Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister.
One of Ambedkar’s major proposals was to make Hyderabad the second-capital of India because of the centrality of location, as a junction of North and South and on defence considerations.
The Andhra state issue never died down. The 1955 SRC reorganized Andhra and Hyderabad(Telangana) as separate entities. By then Hyderabad as a separate state had elections in 1952 and a state government was in place. The clamour for a single language state for the Telugus led to the merger of Andhra and Hyderabad states in 1956 with assurances to Hyderabad in a gentleman’s agreement that the cabinet will have 40 per cent representation from Hyuderabad. There would be the post of deputy chief minister so that either the chief minister or deputy chief minister was from Hyderabad.
The failure of the agreement led to the 1969 Telangana agitation, which too settled by a six-point formula—between the leaders of Andhra and Telengana regions—with equitable opportunities in education and employment.
In November 1996, a hugely successful meeting called Vidroha Sabha demanding Telengana was held. Later Telangana ideologues Jai Shankar, former Vice-Chancellor of Osmania University and Mallepalli Laxmiah, a journalist released a book Telangana lo Emi Jaruguthundi (The Present Conditions in Telangana), which tried to cite injustice and discrimination as causes of its backwardness even today. The differences in the conditions of the Andhra and Telangana regions seem to have accentuated in the post-liberation Andhra Pradesh. This emerged into a fresh movement demanding Telangan and got a political face 2001 and the electoral politics around it followed.
Ambedkar seemed to have solutions to all such problems—all written down 55 years ago. On splitting one-language states, he said: “Into how many states a people speaking one language should be cut up, should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration, (2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different areas, and(4) the proportion between the majority and minority.”
The size of the state for him had a special connotation.
Comments