Dr. Ambedkar was very well aware of examples in the world where multi-lingual states had been the source of constant troubles, and believed that India would be "blown up" if its states were multilingual. So, for him the question of carving out states on any basis other than language was ruled out. He writes in his Thoughts on Linguistic States:
"One State, one language" is a universal feature of almost every State. Examine the constitution of Germany, examine the constitution of France, examine the constitution of Italy, examine the constitution of England, and examine the constitution of the U.S.A. "One State, one language" is the rule.He emphasized that a fellow-feeling in the citizens of a state is crucial for the success of democracy, and opined that such a fellow-feeling is difficult to attain unless the citizens of the state spoke one language. He quotes many examples where democracy had failed due to the state being a 'mixed' one - meaning where more than one language is spoken:
Wherever there has been a departure from this rule there has been a danger to the State. The illustration of the mixed States are to be found in the old Austrian Empire and the old Turkish Empire. They were blown up because they were multi-lingual States with all that a multi-lingual State means. India cannot escape this fate if it continues to be a congery of mixed States.
The reasons why a unilingual State is stable and a multi-lingual State unstable are quite obvious. A State is built on fellow feeling. What is this fellow-feeling ? To state briefly it is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for ones own kith and kin and anti-fellowship for those who are not one's own kith and kin. It is a feeling of " consciousness of kind " which on the one hand, binds together those who have it so strongly that it over-rides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group.
The existence of this fellow-feeling is the foundation of a stable and democratic State.
[Democracy] cannot work without friction unless there is fellow-feeling among those who constitute the State. Faction fights for leadership and discrimination in administration are factors ever present in a mixed State and are incompatible with democracy.The maturity of Dr. Ambedkar's thought on the need for "One state, one langauge" is very well illustrated by the clarity he brings on the reasons why the speakers of different languages start "hating" each other. He argued that it is not because of any "natural antipathy" between them, but because of bringing them together in "juxtaposition" and forcing them "to take part in a common cycle of participation, such as Government":
Why do Tamils hate Andhras and Andhras hate Tamils? Why do Andhras in Hyderabad hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Andhras? Why do Gujaratis hate Maharashtrians and Maharashtrians hate Gujaratis? The answer is very simple. It is not because there is any natural antipathy between the two. The hatred is due to the fact that they are put in juxtaposition and forced to take part in a common cycle of participation, such as Government. There is no other answer.In summary, Dr. Ambedkar believed that tension between two linguistic groups is created by forcing them to come together in "common cycles of participation" such as Government. This very powerful insight which Dr. Ambedkar brings has the ability to explain the tension between any two linguistic groups anywhere, including in India. Also, this has very strong parallels with Rabindranath Tagore's thought on Nationalism and Politics. I will come back to this point in follow-up posts.
So long as this enforced juxtaposition remains, there will be no peace between the two.