Ambedkar consistently argued that the proposed linguistic states would become socially more homogeneous and politically democratic in due course of time. His proposals about the formation of linguistic states emanated from his democratic impulse to accord political and cultural recognition to the term region, otherwise defined predominantly in a geographical spatial sense. He gave importance to the size of the population of a state and had suggested the creation of present-day Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in his writings. He wanted Bombay to be a separate city state, while Maharashtra would remain representative of Gujaratis and Marathis. The idea of one state, one language that he defended over one language, one state was predominantly guided by his quest for development, justice, equality and freedom for the untouchables and dalits who could perhaps learn the language of the new state and participate in its political and administrative affairs.
I n the year 2000, three new states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal were created out of the then existing states of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh respectively, and made part of the Indian union. The ideological and political justifications for the creation of these states rested on their having a specific social, cultural and geographical identity, distinct from the states that they were earlier part of. It was also believed that these new states would be economically viable, administratively efficient, culturally integrative, socially homogeneous and politically representative.
To continue reading, become a subscriber.
Explore our attractive subscription offers.
Click here
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
