1. Anyone who wants to reach the whole of 5-crore. population of France can do so through one language, i.e. French. Similarly, one can reach the entire 5-crore British population through English.. And 25 crores of USA can be reached through one language, English. Over 1 billion (100 crores) Chinese can be also reached if one knows the Chinese language.
Brahmin advantage: However, it will not be possible to reach all the 1 billion Indians even if you master about 80 languages of which only 15 are listed in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution because some of them have no script and nearly half the Indians are illiterate. Such a serious disadvantage is not found in any other country.
2. The only people who did not suffer this handicap are the Brahmins. They had their own exclusive language, Sanskrit, which kept them united. In modern times, English is serving them better. The people they subjugated and exploited remained divided because they did not have one single common all-India language. The ruling Brahmin caste remained united and the ruled Bahujans remained divided. Tamils, Telugus, Marathis and Biharis remained divided. People speaking script-less languages like Tulu, Konkani, Kodava etc. remained like frogs in the well and people speaking Mizo, Dogri, Rajasthani remained secluded.
Reject anti-English campaign: 3. These Bahujans (i.e. all Indians other than Brahmins, Vaishyas and Kshatriyas) who constitute 90% of the population are made of different linguistic groups forming 3%, 4%, 2% or 5% of the population who could not communicate with each other. Linguistic differences kept them divided. This is how communal people like Dayananda Saraswati, Tilak, Gokhale, Golwalkar, etc. came to be called “all-India leaders” despite their anti-people sectarianism while much greater Mahatma Phule, Periyar, Sahu Maharaj, Narayana Guru etc. came to be called “regional leaders” despite their non-communal, progressive and revolutionary outlook. This has been the disadvantage of the Bahujan revolutionary leaders and the advantage of the upper caste nazis.
reject anti-english hysteria: 4. Bahujans should reject the anti-English propaganda of the Hindu nazi zealots and should know the value of English language. The upper castes declared themselves “Hindu” only in the past 100 years to strengthen their hold on the rest (who had remained divided) and developed a craze to be known as an all-India organisation. The upper caste-controlled media nurtured and developed this madness and even Dalits and Muslims became victims of this phrase called “all- India”. However, both Dalits and Muslims resisted the attempts to include them in the Hindu fold.
Owing to (a) superior political organisation, (b) numerically dominant in certain areas and (c) being financially far superior to Dalits, the Muslims successfully refused to be called Hindus and this is one of the causes that led to the formation of Pakistan (and Bangladesh).
5. Dr. Ambedkar too rejected this “all-India” and “united India” craze and gave greater importance to the welfare his people i.e. Dalits. Again due to (a) lack of political organisation, (b) scattered population of Dalits and (c) absence of financial backing for the Dalit cause, he had to be content with the “Scheduled Castes” status for Dalits. He had to unfortunately yield not only on the question of separate settlement, but even on the question of separate electorate for Dalits. His views on these questions were pragmatic. On some occasions he spoke of Mahar Watan (separate land for Mahars), even as Periyar had spoken of Dravida Nadu.
Bharata Mata hypocrisy: 6. In other words, the Bahujan leaders were not swayed by this “all-India”, “one-nation-one- people”, “united India” and such other slogans, as these ideals were not in the interest of Bahujans. Dr. Ambedkar further declared that patriotism did not mean worshipping mountains and rivers or the map of India, but it meant service to the people living in India. Volumes can be written on the hypocrisy behind the concept of Bharat Mata map worship and land worship.
7. A careful study of history shows that big empires have perished yielding place to small states. The Roman Empire, Ottoman Turkish Empire, British Empire etc. are to be found now only in the pages of history. Napoleon’s dream of a French Empire and Hitler’s dream of a Nazi Empire shattered during their own lifetime. Very recently, the Soviet Empire of Russia crumbled and small states emerged. All this has a lesson for us. The Centre should keep only defence, foreign affairs, currency, railways, communication and such other subjects which the states cannot handle and transfer all other power to states. Federal aspects of the Constitution should be strengthened.
8. At the time of giving priority over the land, land was considered only like a house, useful or useless according to its condition. They had before them the 554 Indian states ruled by princes, apart from the large-sized provinces ruled by the British. After the partition, India lost an area of 347-734 square miles and a population of 815 million. But by adding the princely states, India gained nearly 5,00,000 square miles more area and a population of 865 millions (excluding J&K). That is to say more area and larger population was acquired by merging the 554 independent or semi-independent, states. The State of Hyderabad was the largest, and there were same small states which were less than 2 square miles in area. Yet, they were mere states whose existence was recognised by the single unit all over India. The all- India mind swallowed all these states.
Small is beautiful: 9. The smallness of these princely states need not surprise us. There are independent nations in the world which are much smaller in size. The Vatican is just 0.4 square kilometers in area whose population is about 1,000. Monaco is 1.95 square kilometers (skm) whose population is 31,500. The other independent small nations which are members of the UN are Liechtenstein: 170 skm (30,700 population), Šan Marino: 61 skm (24,300 population), Maldives 298 skm (2,61,000 population), Malta: 316 skm (3,70,000 population). These areas and populations are less than some of our taluks, hoblis, cities and towns of India.
10. We also have examples of the following very familiar and rich nations:-
Bahrain 660 skm 5,38,000 Population
Barbados 340 2,64,000 ”
Brunei 5,765 2,92,000 ”
Cyprus 9,251 7,25,000 ”
Luxemburg 2,586 40,500 ”
11. The defence potential of all these countries is virtually nil. They have armies consisting a few hundred soldiers only for protocol and ceremonial purposes. None of these have been conquered or occupied by others. These countries have no enemies. Conquest and occupation of lands by enemies have become obsolete in the present-day world.
12. Even now in India, we have such small states like Goa, with 3702 skm (12 lakh population), Mizoram: 21,018 SKM (7 lakh population), Nagaland: 16,579 skm (12 lakh population), Sikkim: 7,096 skm (4 lakh population), and union territories like Lakshdweep 32 skm (51,000 population), Daman & Diu: 112 skm ( 1 lakh population), Pondicherry: 492 skm (8 lakh population), Dadra and Nagar Haveli: 491 skm (1,39,000 population).
Humbug of one-nation: It is very interesting to note that these Union Territories are much smaller than the city of Delhi, whose area is 1,483 skm. The area and population of some of these states and Union Territories are less than some of the districts of bigger states. The reason for the creation of these small states and Union Territories is not their ethnic, tribal or caste distinction, but their political assertion and organisation. This was not granted, but demanded and forcibly taken through suffering and sacrifice.
14. This shows that these people did not believe in the theory of “one-nation-one-people”. In other words, the emotional dreamland of “mother India” or Bharat Mata did not appeal to these people. The people did not share the ideas, dreams and thoughts of the Aryan upper castes but gave importance to the needs of the society than to the concept of worshipping the land and calling it as motherland or fatherland.
15. Though the common mass of Bahujans keep them- selves, human beings, above the dreams of “one-nation-one-people” etc. their “educated” lot and leaders, due to mis-education and propaganda for the last two generations and due to mental intimacy with the Brahminical Social Order (BSO) stalwarts, appear to have stopped thinking about human beings and have given up pragmatism and are inclined thoughtlessly towards the “all-India” concept or Bharat Mata phobia. The BSP leaders also appear to have not thought on this line.
The huge and scattered population of Bahujans appear to some of them more as a liability than as an asset.
16. It is high time that the Bahujan Samaj leaders decide whether the human beings should be placed above the nation-mania or vice-versa.
If they decide in favour of human beings, India will have to be divided into many more states and its electoral constituencies redrawn so as to enable each caste/community to be master of itself in its realigned area. We should encourage debates and popularise the concepts of separate electorate and separate settlement.
Smaller and larger number of states is the most effective means of breaking the backbone of BSO and strengthening the assertiveness of Bahujans.
(Paper read at the Bahujan Samaj seminar in Bangalore on Sept. 8, 2000).
DV Sept. 1, 2000 p.8: “Signs of Bharat Mata cracking up: DV welcomes creation of new states”.
