Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay): Mr. Chairman, this is a Bill the object of which is to create a new State for the Andhras. As such it is the subject matter of the Andhras themselves. Others who are not Andhras can only take part in it in a general way, and solely because this new Province is a portent of probably some other linguistic provinces to come into existence.
It is only because of the feeling of the latter kind that I have stood up today to say a few words.
Sir, when one goes into the Bill, one is very much puzzled as to whether one should congratulate the Government on the Bill such as has been brought forward before this House, or whether one should congratulate the Andhras who are clamouring for a separate Province.
Related articles
As anyone in this House knows, as soon as the Congress Party was organised and had a constitution in the year 1921, the first thing it did was to incorporate the principle of linguistic provinces. I have no idea that at any time from the year 1921 up to the year 1949 or thereabout, the Congress either ever withdrew that principle from its constitution, or regretted having entered that principle in its constitution. In 1949 I believe – if I am wrong my friends will correct me – but I think that is about the year, when the Drafting Committee was sitting, and one Member of the then Assembly tabled a Resolution for the formation of the linguistic provinces.
I was in charge of the Law Department and as such the Resolution fell within my portfolio. I had to consult my cabinet colleagues in order to know what sort of reply I should give to this Resolution. They said that the better thing would be for me to transfer the Resolution either to the Prime Minister or to the late Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, which I very gladly did, because I did not want the responsibility to fall upon my shoulder for the answer that might be given to that Resolution.
It was then arranged between the mover of the Resolution and the Members of the high command of the Congress, that although they were not prepared to accept the Resolution in all its generality so as to apply to all the multilingual provinces then existing, they were prepared to consider the question of creating an Andhra Province. The members of the Drafting Committee were waiting to know what exactly they should do, whether they should enter Andhra as a separate province in the Schedule of the States. Hon.
Members who are particular to know about this will find in a foot-note to the first draft of the Drafting Committee’s Report that I referred to the Prime Minister in order to let me know whether Andhra should be entered in the Schedule to the Constitution. I got no reply, with the result that Andhra then did not become a separate province. It was a great surprise to me that when practically for twenty years, a party had stood by the principle of linguistic provinces, it should have developed cold feet after twenty years.
Surely, 20 years was a long period for even the greatest dullard to think over the matter and come to a clear conclusion as to whether the principle that was adopted in 1921 was a mistaken principle and ought completely to be withdrawn, or whether it was a principle which should be pursued with certain modifications.
The result has been that from 1949 up to this period, there has been a vacillating attitude on the part of the Government, once saying that there shall be no linguistic provinces, at another time saying, “Yes, we shall create an Andhra Province.” And unless and until one honourable gentleman had sacrificed his life for the sake of creating an Andhra Province, the Government did not think it fit to move in the matter. I have no idea and I do not wish to be harsh on the Government; but I am dead certain in my mind that if in any other country a person had to die in order to invoke a principle which had already been accepted, what would have happened to the government. It is quite possible that the government might have been lynched. But here nothing has happened.
The Government is playing with the proposition.
The argument that has been brought forth by the Government is that if you create linguistic provinces, you will break up the unity of India. That has been the argument which one heard time and again from every member of the Government. Sir, I am surprised that such an argument should have been used.
If anyone were to look up the Schedule of States attached to the Constitution, he would find that there are altogether 27 States filling up different parts – Part A, Part B and Part C. I am not taking into account Part D. Now, if you take up these 27 States, you will find that 23 States are linguistic States. Only 4 are multi-lingual. I should like to ask my hon. friend, the Home Minister, whether he thinks that the 23 linguistic States which have existed from the very beginning of the Constitution have in any way done anything in order to disrupt the unity of this country.
I would like him to answer that question. These 23 linguistic states have not been able to disrupt the unity of India. I am as keen as he is on maintaining the unity of India and I shall not support any step which will bring about the break-up of this country.
We have, by God’s grace, achieved not only independence but also unity, and it is our bounden duty, no matter to what party we belong, to see that this independence and this unity is retained. But, to say, in the face of this fact, with 23 linguistic States, that linguistic States would break up the unity of India is to say something which is puerile. They must produce some very weighty arguments in support of their contention that they cannot pursue a policy of creating linguistic States.
