aathi tamil<aathi1956@gmail.com> | 15 ஏப்ரல், 2017 ’அன்று’ பிற்பகல் 3:12 | ||||||||||||||||
| பெறுநர்: aathi1956@gmail.com | |||||||||||||||||
Gunaseelan Samuel
AMBEDKAR WAS AGAINST LINGUISTIC STATES AND WAS FOR HINDI IMPOSITION ON NON-HINDI PEOPLES DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR WRITINGS AND SPEECHES VOL. 1, Compiled by Vasant Moon, First Edition by Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra : 14 April, 1979 Re-printed by Dr. Ambedkar Foundation : January, 2014, Pages 145-46. “Having stated the advantages of a linguistic State I must also set out the dangers of a linguistic State. “A linguistic State with its regional language as its official language may easily develop into an independent nationality. The road between an independent nationality and an independent State is very narrow. If this happens, India will cease to be Modern India we have and will become the medieval India consisting of a variety of States indulging in rivalry and warfare. “This danger is of course inherent in the creation of linguistic States. There is equal danger in not having linguistic States. The former danger a wise and firm statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed State are greater and beyond the control of a statesman however eminent. “How can this danger be met ? The only way I can think of meeting the danger is to provide in the Constitution that the regional language shall not be the official language of the State. The official language of the State shall be Hindi and until India becomes fit for this purpose English. Will Indians accept this ? If they do not, linguistic States may easily become a peril. “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 different 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 partition that Hindus would not only be independent but 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 that God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one, great and prosperous. But I fear that the curse may fall again. For I find that those who are 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 to suggest a way out. It is for Indians to consider it" அம்பேத்கர் மொழிவழி பிராந்திய அதிகாரங்கள் எதிர்ப்பு
தலித் அரசியல் மறுபக்கம் | |||||||||||||||||
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக