TheDaak review

by Abhimanyu Sen

    Dr. Bhimrao R. Ambedkar was a scholar and leader of the Dalits (then referred to as the Depressed Classes) who rose and achieved incredible heights despite facing tremendous adversities. He was a brilliant man— a jurist, economist, sociologist, and most importantly, the Father of the Indian Constitution. He was a profound thinker and visionary who had produced works on a diverse range of issues but is most famous for his pioneering work on caste. Here, we will discuss his thoughts on the linguistic reorganization of states; an issue that had assumed great prominence from the 1940s to 60s, but has remained effervescent in Indian politics ever since in some parts of the country or others. Today the issue remains prominent in the face of recent concerns like the upcoming delimitation of parliamentary seats, Hindi imposition, and Northern domination of the South and the East. We will revisit Ambedkar’s ideas on these issues and see if they remain relevant. 

    The older British-era provinces were often a hotchpotch of multiple linguistic and ethnic groups falling under one administrative unit. The Congress Government, though initially sympathetic to the idea of linguistic reorganisation, switched its position after independence to show that diverse groups could live harmoniously. A committee consisting of Nehru, Patel, and P. Sitaramayya rejected linguistic states. The government was forced to concede to the demand for linguistic states after the martyrdom of Potti Sriramulu. The government set up the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) for linguistic reorganisation. Dr. Ambedkar was an unequivocal supporter of linguistic reorganisation but, thoughts on the issue differed greatly from the proposals of the SRC. His views have been summed up in his ‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ (1955), ‘Maharashtra as a Linguistic Province’ (1948), and ‘Need for Checks and Balances’ (1953). Here we get to see his various thoughts on the idea of linguistic states. Our main focus will be on his Thoughts on Linguistic Provinces which is the last of the three books and contains the final sum of his ideas. Here he begins by quoting Emerson about consistency being the virtue of an ass, and he would not make an ass of himself. He was a thinking man so responsibility was of greater importance to him than consistency. He wrote this in the context of his previous ideas being different from the ones expressed here as he did not have the full data when he had made those public. Later, he wrote his Thoughts with extensive references to statistical data and history.

    Ambedkar starts with a warning against multi-lingual states and gives the examples of old empires of Turkey and Austria. He compares these with modern unilingual states like France, Germany, and the USA. He felt that India lacked cohesion like the latter group of countries. He places importance on the use of language as a force that can be both unifying as well as divisive. He states that one language will unite people while two are bound to divide people. He strictly speaks of multi-lingual states as unacceptable because they breed hatred by one people against another. This is simply because two (or more) distinct groups staying together under one unit, will end up fighting each other on issues related to administration, division of powers, and financial resources and might end up with one group dominating another. He found this to be incompatible with democracy. In the long run, it would be detrimental to national unity, although linguistic provinces could breed secessionist tendencies, the risk of doing without them was even greater. He said that “the genius of India is to divide – the genius of Canada, South Africa, and Switzerland is to unite”, referring to the Indian history where India has seen periods when it was divided into several small groups without any cohesion. Other than administrative convenience, linguistic states created fellow-feeling. If Indians wanted to be united in the long run, they needed linguistic states. He understood the need for a common link language would be needed to maintain unity and even convenience. Here he proposes to use Hindi as the link language and even as the official language of the states and calls up all Indians to own Hindi. 

    Ambedkar’s main disagreement with the SRC stemmed from its use of the “One language, one state” formula against his own “One state, one language” formula. Although sounding similar, the two were quite different, as the former aimed to bring together all people speaking the same language under the same administrative unit while the latter aimed to have a single language for a state. This basically meant that people speaking a language could be divided into two or more states. He said this in response to the SRC’s initial plan where the entire Hindi-speaking population was divided into four states – Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh, while the South was divided into several states based on which language was spoken in which area. He believed that this was bound to create problems as the bigger states of the north would end up dominating the south. Added with the use of Hindi as the official language, this dominance would not be accepted by the South. In fact, such a position of dominance by the Hindi speakers would not be taken well by any other part of India. He draws a contrast between the progressive south and the conservative north. He was a firm believer in Indian unity and wanted to prevent any situation which might lead to the separation of India. Hence, the consolidation of the north and balkanization of the South would lead to political problems. Since Southern states could not be enlarged, the solution lay in the division of the northern states. For this, he proposed to:

1. Divide UP into three parts: Western UP with its capital at Meerut, Central UP with its capital at Kanpur, and Eastern UP with Allahabad as its capital.
2. Divide Bihar into two parts: Northern Bihar with its capital at Patna and Southern with its capital at Ranchi. 
3. Divide MP into two parts: Northern MP with its capital at Bhopal and Southern with its capital at Indore.

This would ensure not only that the states were of manageable size with more or less equal population for administrative convenience but also that their influence was not disproportionate to others, i.e. no single state can dominate national politics. At the same time, all their state languages would be Hindi.

    Ambedkar had devoted most attention to his home state, Maharashtra. Ironically, the SRC had decided to keep the Bombay state with Marathi and Gujarati speakers and create a separate state of Vidarbha (which consisted of Marathi speakers). He had dispelled all the arguments forwarded by the proponents of this mixed state which he believed would only create enmity between Marathis and Gujaratis. The mixed state was already dominated by Gujaratis as they held both political and economic power. A section, mostly backed by Gujaratis, demanded a separate city-state of Bombay as Maharashtrians did not form the majority in the city and the dominance of Gujaratis and Marwaris in business and industries. He also spoke against the idea of separating Bombay from Maharashtra. For him, if there was to be a united Maharashtra state, then Bombay was going to be a part of the state as Bombay and Maharashtra could not survive without one another. This was because Bombay had been built up using the labour of Maharashtrians and depended on Maharashtra for its supplies of electricity and water. He went on to counter the arguments of the proponents for the Bombay city-state ideas. At that time, he had thrown his weight behind the Samyukta Maharashtra movement. However, he changed his position later and he wanted Maharashtra to be divided into four parts: 

1. Western Maharashtra
2. Central Maharashtra corresponding more or less with Marathwada
3. Eastern Maharashtra corresponding more or less with Vidarbha 
4. Maharashtra City State which was Bombay with some surrounding areas

He made it clear that all these states, including Bombay, would be ruled by Marathi speakers. And he also intended to bring all Marathi speakers under these new states including those in Belgaum and Karwar. He went so far as to say that Bombay should not grant citizenship to everyone to ensure Marathi control of the city. He believed that by partitioning Maharashtra into parts balance between the new states could be ensured. Giving the example of Central Maharashtra, which had been neglected by the Nizam, was economically weaker than the other two parts and would risk being neglected in a united province of Maharashtra. The region was educationally backward as well, hence students from this region would find it difficult to compete with students from other areas for education in Pune University. Moreover, all government jobs would be taken up by Brahmins from Pune and Nagpur. Having more legislatures and ministries would have helped the people train political leaders. He also talked about the domination of these states by the Maratha caste which was quite backward then. He proposed that the central government collect the Electricity Tax from Bombay and distribute it among the other three states. Although it sounds contradictory his stance was clear – if there was a united Maharashtra, then Bombay would belong to it and if Bombay was to be separated then his plan was to be followed. (He suggested similar city-states in Calcutta and Madras). This was very different from the plans of the Gujaratis as he would not allow Gujarati domination of the city-state but he offered them protection available to them under the Constitution. He also suggested changes in taxation to make the states viable. He argued that these smaller states would be safer for minorities as well as Dalits because a great stone of the weight of a large majority would crush them. He wanted governments to be formed on the basis of political, not communal majority since a political majority grows but a communal majority is born. He accused the Congress of winning the votes by putting up candidates from castes dominant in the area. He advocated for multi-member constituencies where not only the dominant castes but also minorities and Dalits could elect their representatives. He did not want to bring back the old system of separate electorates. Here he had mentioned the government not including caste in the census data. He even advocated for two capitals for India based on historical and practical considerations. He considered Bombay and Calcutta but eventually suggested Hyderabad as the second capital.

    Ambedkar had definitely come up with ideas that were novel and progressive as he tried to give a solution to the problems India was facing back then without compromising its unity. He was certainly right about the idea of dividing certain areas into more administrative units than proposed by the SRC as many of his suggested divisions took place. Bihar was divided to create Jharkhand with Ranchi as its capital. MP was divided to create Chhattisgarh from its southern districts. Both of these demands had been rejected by the SRC. Even Uttarakhand was created from UP, although the partition was not along the lines suggested by Ambedkar. His ‘one state, one language’ formula was vindicated by the creation of Telangana from the bigger Andhra Pradesh. While the partitioning of Maharashtra has not taken place, the demands for a separate Vidarbha or Marathwada have occasionally come up. The issue of Belgaum (or Belagavi) remains a bone of contention between Maharashtra and Karnataka. The most prophetic remains his prediction about future hostilities between India and China when discussing Calcutta and Bombay as second capital cities. His stance on Bombay was somewhat vindicated as the Indian Navy was in poor shape during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. However, we find many regressive elements in his thoughts as well. We can start with him taking South Africa as an example of a multilingual state as contemporary South Africa was no example of harmonious coexistence between different groups but rather a system based on subjugation of the majority by a minority almost akin to the caste system. Then we come to his suggestion to use Hindi, not only as a link language but as the official language of the states organized on linguistic basis. This almost seems to defeat the very purpose of linguistic reorganization of states as the regional languages would be pushed to the backseat if another language were to be used for official purposes. This would have actually distanced the masses from their governments. While a link language is needed, the imposition of Hindi seems strange as his fears about the use of regional languages for official communication leading to the break-up of India were vastly exaggerated. Regional languages are used for official works in the states but no state has seceded. The reason behind such an idea could be that he thought English was a foreign language while Hindi was Indian and already spoken by a large number of Indians. But this seems out of line with the rest of his thoughts and English would have been a much better link language as it does not advantage one group over others (in this case North Indian upper castes). Perhaps his thoughts stemmed from the desire to not use a foreign language and the elite status of English which excluded the vast majority of Indians. Today, Ambedkarites speak out against Hindi imposition as it benefits the aforementioned group. Another reactionary proposal was the idea to limit the citizenship of Bombay. Again, this can be seen as a response to the settlement of Gujaratis by the British, he sought to restrict further incoming of people from other provinces so that Maharashtrians could have control over the city, but this would not have been feasible and directly contradictory to the Constitutional provisions. He believed that these ‘outsiders’ came to Bombay only to earn money, but did not regard Bombay as their home, hence it could be justified. Another interesting omission here was of Northeast India which did not have so many states back then and these were carved out of Assam, it is difficult to say why he had not suggested anything for this diverse and complicated region in these texts.

    When we see the condition of India today, we are forced to think about Ambedkar. We are forced to look back to Ambedkar as casteism prevails to this date as do many other things pointed out by him. While he had spoken about the South fearing northern domination and Hindi imposition, we are seeing the current situation in South India regarding the New Education Policy and delimitation of parliamentary constituencies. While the southern states have made rapid industrial progress, with relatively slower growth of population, the case of the northern states has been the opposite. The northern states lag behind in most indicators like per capita GDP and HDI. These states are more conservative and religious. While the buck of delimitation was being passed from one government to the next, it looks like there will be a delimitation exercise very soon. If the number of seats in the Lok Sabha is kept the same, then the southern states will lose seats to the northern states and if the number is increased, more seats will go to the north. Whatever the case may be, the southern states will incur losses, as their representation in the parliament will come down. Many South Indians see this as being penalised for doing well. A look at certain statistics will point out the clear differences between the Northern and Southern states. If we take into account the Gross State Domestic Product, per capita GSDP, maternal and infant mortality rates, percentage of students enrolling in and completing school, and investment in health and education sectors. In fact, the contribution of Southern states to -India’s GDP overshadows that of the heavily populated states like UP, Bihar, and MP. Most importantly the fertility rates of the Southern states are significantly lower, with TFR falling below replacement ratio in certain states (TFR of UP was 2.35 and of TN was 1.76). Most importantly the Southern states had reached their population control goals much earlier than the Northern states, which many of the latter are yet to achieve. While UP and Bihar had the highest under 5 mortality rates, Kerala and Puducherry had the lowest. Today south India is more industrialised than the north, the spread of education is better and the position of women is generally better than in the north. Interestingly, the number of people who prefer not to use government healthcare facilities is generally higher in the Northern states than Southern ones, implying better availability and more trust in these institutions. A combination of all these factors can be said to account for the lower fertility in these states. Many view it as the North dominating India just because of its huge population, but no other achievement. To top it off, the Southern states get less money from the Centre compared to their contributions. This has sparked debate about strengthening what is already seen as northern domination. Another issue that has sparked debate is the new National Education Policy which seeks a three-language formula in school-level education. The southern states see it as another subterfuge for imposing Hindi on the southern states coupled with the recent pressure on Tamil Nadu to implement the formula. Even though the University Education Commission had pointed out the problems with the use of what it had called High Hindi (to differentiate it from other languages spoken in North India) for education it recommended the use of Hindi over English or Sanskrit as the federal language and medium of instruction. It recommended the use of Hindi as a second language after the regional language in provinces and hoped that it would eventually replace English as the official language. It recommended the learning of three languages by students but reduced the importance of English. However, it did take note that Hindi was a young language and it could not claim superiority over any regional language, advised Hindi-speaking students to learn another modern Indian language and even expressed doubt over retaining the all-India character of educational institutions if Hindi was going to be used. The Education Commission of 1964-66 (Kothari Commission) first used the term Three Language Formula. It laid stress on developing Hindi and other regional languages. The formula suggested that the students of non-Hindi speaking states would study English and Hindi with their mother language, while the Hindi speakers would learn ‘a modern Indian language, preferably one of the southern languages’ along with Hindi and English. However, it recommended the continuation of using English in all Indian institutions while preferring the mother language in other areas. It even recommended the study of foreign languages for external communication and Hindi for internal communication. While these commissions had noble intentions of making education more accessible to the masses using regional languages and fostering mutual understanding and national integration (something which was aimed by Ambedkar as well), these commissions gave undue importance to Hindi and pushed for its use even while understanding the many disadvantages it had. Some would point out how Hindi speakers want others to speak their language while refusing to learn any other language themselves. When implementing the Three Language Formula it was seen that Hindi was being taught as a third language in non-Hindi speaking states, Hindi speakers learnt Sanskrit (a language with little purpose today) instead of modern, living Indian languages. The attempts to introduce Tamil in Haryana failed. The National Education Policy of 2020 has some laudable goals, but the policy document is high on rhetoric about protecting Indian languages and giving importance to regional languages, it continues the three-language formula with Sanskrit as an option for all practical purposes. The three-language formula was affirmed by the National  Curriculum Framework for School Education as well. This created a feeling of alienation among others that their languages were less important. It is quite clear that this formula has failed in its purpose and other alternatives should have been looked at. While there is no talk about secession from India, the resentment of the southern states has been voiced clearly and the problem will only increase in the future if the issues are not sorted out as early as possible. It can be pointed out that many people feel that the only purpose of learning  Hindi is to communicate with North Indians, unlike English which is needed for external communication. In fact, the use of Hindi has been detrimental to the other languages of north India like Braj Bhasha, Awadhi, Maithili, and Bhojpuri. The movement of north Indians to other parts as cheap labor has also sparked xenophobia in these areas. Perhaps the suggested division of UP into more parts would have helped these languages and definitely prevented a huge mass from dominating other parts. It can be said that as long as these problems persist Ambedkar will never become irrelevant.

References:

Ambedkar, B. R., & Moon, V. (2014). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and speeches (pp. 99–171). New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation. (Original work published 1979).

Apoorvanand. (2025, March 1). Why the Three-Language Formula Threatens South India-The Wire. Retrieved from The Wire website: https://thewire.in/education/understanding-why-the-three-language-formula-threatens-south-india/?mid_related_new

Bureau, T. H. (2025, March 12). Tamil Nadu CM Stalin alleges National Education Policy is “a saffron policy” and delimitation an exercise to benefit BJP. Retrieved March 14, 2025, from The Hindu website: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/national-education-policy-a-saffron-policy-and-delimitation-an-exercise-to-benefit-bjp-alleges-stalin/article69322258.ece

Education Comission 1964-66. (1966). Education and National Development. New Delhi: Ministry of Education, Government of India. Retrieved from Ministry of Education, Government of India website: http://www.academics-india.com/Kothari%20Commission%20Report.pdf

Mahesh, K. (2025, March 13). Need to unite all South Indian states against proposed delimitation: KTR. Retrieved March 14, 2025, from The Times of India website: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/need-to-unite-all-south-indian-states-against-proposed-delimitation-ktr/articleshow/118990819.cms

Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. New Delhi. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf

Mukherjee, V. (2024, October 23). TFR in South India explained: Why are they worried about population growth? Retrieved from BSIndia website: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/tfr-in-south-india-explained-why-are-they-worried-about-population-growth-124102300612_1.html

Press Trust of India. (2025). PTI. Retrieved March 15, 2025, from Msn.com website: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/nep-a-saffron-policy-delimitation-exercise-for-bjps-benefit-alleges-tn-cm-stalin/ar-AA1ALHif?ocid=BingNewsVerp

University Education Commission . (1950). The Report of the University Education Commission (pp. 265–285). New Delhi: Ministry of Education, Government of India. Retrieved from Ministry of Education, Government of India website: http://www.academics-india.com/Radhakrishnan%20Commission%20Report%20of%201948-49.pdf

---

---