Secularism:
Participating in the debate on Hindu Code Bill in Parliament in 1951 he explained the concept of secularism as follows: — “It (secular state) does not mean that we shall not take into I consideration the religious sentiments of the people. All that a secular state means is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the 1 people. That is the only limitation that the Constitution recognises.” — Parliamentary Debates, il Vol III, Part II, p. 2466.
The state should guarantee to its citizen the liberty of conscience and the free exercise of his religion including the right to profess, to preach and to convert within limits compatible with public order and morality. — States and Minorities, p.11.
Linguistic States
According to Ambedkar, linguistic province meant a province which by the social composition of its population would be homogeneous and therefore more suited for the realization of those ; social ends which a democratic government must fulfil. In his view, a linguistic province had – nothing to do with the language of the province. He remarked, “The Constitution should provide that the official language of every province shall be the same as the official language of the Central Government.” He said that the constituents in a federal state should not be on linguistic principles. The danger lies in creating linguistic provinces with the language of each province as its official language.
Ambedkar stated: “To allow this is to allow the provinces to become independent nations”. He was of opinion that linguistic provinces would work democracy better, because they would produce social homogeneity. He felt the necessity of emotional harmony or national integration through one common language, Hindi. He asked — “What is the use of the precious books? (of poet-saints of Dnyaneshwar and Tukaram)”. He favoured “one language, many states” formula.
Ambedkar was in favour of the formation of multi-lingual states. In order to safeguard the interests of minorities he suggested establishment of committees of members belonging to different linguistic states, with the right of appeal to the governor. After the death of Potti Sriramulu, he prophesied that some other unilingual provinces might come into existence. He opposed unification of Maharashtra.”. The struggle for a United Maharashtra was carried on through a one non-party body. Eminent persons like D.R. Gadgil, D.V. Potdar, S.A. Dange, Shankar Rao Deo and M.R. Jayakar, comprising all shades of opinion, participated in the. formation of Samyukta Maharashtra Parishad. This Parishad submitted its evidence before the States Reorganisation Commission (S.R.C.); but Ambedkar submitted his own evidence before: the Commission. The protagonists of United Maharashtra established Samyukta Maharashtra: Samiti and carried on agitation against the bilingual Bombay State. The Scheduled Caste: Federation (S.C.F.) led by Ambedkar was a constituent Party of the Samiti. He said Thai bilingual Bombay State must be ended. He remarked that he was opposed to United Maharashtra, and to bilingual Bombay State also.
According to him, linguist in the country was only another name for communalism. In Maharashtra, the Marathas formed the majority community. He stated, those who are going to rule are not Marathas by speech, but Marathas by caste’. He was aware that ‘the minorities especially the Scheduled Castes and Tribes would not get justice at the hands of the Marathas.’ . He remarked, “There is no man of eminence among them (Marathas) such as Tilak, Gokhale, or Ranade”.
He warned about the communal majority which is born. He emphasized small states. According to him, as the area increases the proportion of the majority to minority decreases. To protect the minorities, he suggested, the Constitution must be amended, and the provision must be made for a system of plural-member constituencies (2 or 3) with cumulative voting.
