Dr B R Ambedkar had strongly advocated for ‘One State, One Language’ policy for Independent India. He also wanted to make Sanskrit the official language of the Indian Union. He believed, since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture, it is the bounden duty of all Indians to own up Hindi as their language.
“Any Indian who does not accept this proposal as part and parcel of a linguistic State has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent Maharashtrian, a hundred per cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi, but he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word except in a geographical sense,” Dr Ambedkar emphatically said.
“If my suggestion is not accepted, India will then cease to be India. It will be a collection of nationalities engaged in rivalries and wars against one another,” he had warned.
Here are Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s thoughts on ‘One State, One Language’:
“One State, one language” is a universal feature of almost every State. Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France, explore the constitution of Italy, read the constitution of England, and discuss the constitution of the U.S.A. “One State, one language” is the rule.
One language can unite people. Two languages are sure to divide people. This is an inexorable law. Culture is conserved by language. Since Indians wish to unite and develop a common culture, it is the bounden duty of all Indians to own up Hindi as their language.
Any Indian who does not accept this proposal as part and parcel of a linguistic State has no right to be an Indian. He may be a hundred per cent Maharashtrian, a hundred per cent Tamil or a hundred per cent Gujarathi, but he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word except in a geographical sense. If my suggestion is not accepted, India will then cease to be India. It will be a collection of nationalities engaged in rivalries and wars against one another.
God seems to have laid a heavy curse on India and Indians, saying, ‘Ye Indians shall always remain divided, and ye shall always be slaves!’
I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher, so to say, of Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only by a partition that Hindus would be independent and free if India and Pakistan had remained united in one State; Hindus though independent would have been at the mercy of the Muslims.
A merely independent India would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus. It would have been a Government of one country by two nations, and of these two, the Muslims without question would have been the ruling race, notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh.
When the partition took place, I felt God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one, great, prosperous. But I fear that the curse will fall again, for those advocating linguistic States have at heart the ideal of making the regional language their official language. This will be a death knell to the idea of a United India.
With regional languages as official languages, the ideal to make India one United country and to make Indians, Indians first and Indians last, will vanish. I can do no more than suggest a way out. It is for Indians to consider it.
(DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR; WRITINGS AND SPEECHES VOL. 1, PART II THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES: THE LIMITATIONS OF LINGUISM, CHAPTER 3 THE PROS AND CONS OF A LINGUISTIC STATE)
