Saturday December 17, 1955 LOK SABHA DEBATES · 2017. 9. 14. · LOK SABHA DEBATES (Part I—Quesdon* and Antwen) VOLUME Vn, 1955 {2Jst November to 23rd December, 1955) ELEVENTH SESSION,

LOK SABHA DEBATES

(Part I—Quesdon* and Antwen)

VOLUME Vn, 1955

{2Jst November to 23rd December, 1955)

ELEVENTH SESSION, 1955

(F<rf. V I I con ta in s N o s . i to 2 6 )

LOK SABflA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI

Saturday, December 17, 1955

CONTENTSVolumt VJI—Prom ittt Nootmbtr to ajrd Dumber, 195$.

\No, I— Mondayi 2 u t Novmbery t s S C o lu m n s

Members Sworn. . * . . . i

Oral Answers to Questions^

Starred Questions Nos. i to 3> 5 to 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 • • *— 30

Written Answers to Questions—

Storred Questions Nos. 4, 26, 27, 30, 33 to 45 * • • 90—36

UnstarreJ' Questions Nos. i to 24 . . • . 36— 46

Daily Digest 47— 50

No. 2— Tuesdayi 22nd November i^SS*

Oral Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 46 to 51, 53 to 63, 65 to 69, 71, 72, 74 ^ 75 5*— 3x


Starred Questions Nos. 73> 76 to 83, 85 to 91 and 93 to 97 .• • 81— 9X

Unstarred Questions Nos. 25 to 54 . . . . 9i— 104

Daily Digest . • . . . . . 105— 08

No. i — Wedfusday^ 23rd November, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 98 to 105, 108, 136, 107, 109 to ‘ i l l , 113*117 to 122, 124 to 126, 128 ................................................ 109— 36


Starred Questions Nos. 106, 112, 114 to 116, 127, 129 to I35> 137 to 147 136— 46

Unstarred Questions Nos. 55 to 68 and 70 • • • 146— 54

Daily D i g e s t .................................................................. . 155—56No. 4^^hursdayy 24th November, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 148 to 161, 163, 164, 167 to 170, I72> 174*176 to 183, 185, 187 and 1 8 9 ........................................................ 157— 90


Surred Questions Nos. 165, I75> 184, 190, 192 and 193 . 190—92Unstarred Questions Nos. 7110 81 and 83 to 90 . . . . 192— 902

Daily D i g e s t ..................................................................................... . 2 0 3 -^

(i)

No, $— Pridayy i$th Novmber, 1955, 0OLUMN8


Starred Questions Nos. 194 to 196, 198, 199, 201, 204 to 206 209 to

217, 220 to 2 2 5 ...................................................................................... 205— 34


Starred Questions Nos. 197, 200, 203, 207, 208, 218, 219, 226 to 240 234*-^43Unstarred Questions Nos. 92 to 1 2 6 .................................................. 243— 60

Daily D i g e s t ......................................................................................................... 261— 64

No. 6— Mondayy 2%th Novembmr, 1955.Oral Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 242 to 246, 251, 252 256, 258, 260, 262 to264, 266, 269, 241, 247, 253, 257* 259, 261, 265, 267, 248,255 and 2 4 9 ...............................................................................................265— 94

Short Notice Question No. i ........................................................................... 2 9 4 - ^


Starred Questions Nos. 250, 254 and 268 . . . . . 299—300

Unstarred Questions Nos. 127 to 148 . ...................................... 300— 10

DaUy D i g e s t ...................................... ................................................311— 12

No. j^Wtdmsday, soth November, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 270, 271, 273 to 276, 278, 284, 279* 282,283, 285 to 295> 297 to 3 0 1 ...................................... • • . 3x3— 42

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 272, 277, 280, 281, 296, 303 to 310 and

3 1 2 ...........................................................................................................342-^8Unstatred Questions Nos. 149 to 1 7 0 ............................................................348— 56

Daily D i g e s t ........................................................................................................ 357— 5*

No. ’—Thursday, ist Deumber , 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 313, 3i 5 to 3i 7» 3I9> 320, 322 to 324.

327 to 330, 332 to 336, 338, 339, 341 to 343i 345 to 347 »nd349 to ..................................................................................................................


Starred Questions Nos. 314. 3i 8. 321, 325, 326, 331, 337> 340,344, 348 and 354 to ............................................................................... 392—405

Unstarred Questions Nos. 171 to 173 and 175 to 216 . • • 405— 28Daily D i g e s t ........................................................................... • • 429—32

No. 9 ^Fridayy 2nd Deeember, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 378 to 381, 383, 385, 387 to 389, 39i, 392,

394 to 399* 401, 403* 404, 406, 407> 409 to 415 • • • • 433—63

' (ii)

(iiO

C olumns

Written Answers to Questions—Star/ed Questions Nos. 382, 384, 386, 390, 393> 400, 402, 40S, 408,

416 to 426 and 123 ................................................................... 464—*70Unstarrqd Questions Nos. 217 to 237 . . . . . . 470— 80

Daily Digest . . . . . . . 48X--84

No» 10— Saturdayy 3rd Decetnber, 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions-— .Starred Questions Nos. 427 to 429, 43h 433 to 436, 439. 443. 444»

446 to 451, 454* 455 and 4 7 6 ...................................................................... 485— 513Written Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 430, 432, 437> 438, 440 to 442, 445* 452,453, 456 to 475, 477 to 484, 171, 188 and 191 . . . 513—29

Unstarr^d Questions Nos. 238 to 2 6 3 ...................................................................529—40Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................541—44

No. ii-^Mondayy $th December 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 485, 488, 490 to 492, 494, 495, 497 to 501*504 to 506, 512, 514 to 516, 518, 521, 522, 525, 530, 526 . 545— 75

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 487, 489, 493, 496, 502, 503, 507 to 511,

513, 519, 520, 524, 527, 528, 529, 531 to 537 . . . 575— 84

Unstarred Questions Nos. 264 to 307 . . . . . 584— 606Daily D i g e s t ................................................ . . . . 607— 10

No, ii-^Tuesday^ 6th December, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 538 to 540, 544 to 546, 548, 549, 55i> 553, 554, ^559 to 563, 565 to 568, 570 to 574* 577 to 583 and 547 - 611—43

Written Answers to Questions^- ,

Starred Questions Nos. 541, 542, 543, 550, 552, 555, 55 to 558,564, 569, 575, 5 7 6 ..................................................................................... «43—47

Unstarred Questions Nos. 308 to 332 . . . . . 648— 60Daily D i g e s t ............................................................ . . . . . 661— 64

No. 13— Wednesday, jth December, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 584 to 587, 589 to 598, 600 to 604 and 606 665— 93Short Notice Question No. 2......................................................................... 93—94

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 588, 599, 605 607 to 630 and 302 . . 694— 706Unstarred Questions Nos. 333 to 362. . . . . . 706—18

DaUy Digest . . . . . . . 7X9-22

COLUMNINo. 14~-Thursdayy %th Diumber 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 631, 632, 634, 635, 637, 639 to 641, 643 to 645, 647 to

-649,651,653 to 659,661,663,664,681,666,668 and 669 . . . . 7 3— 54

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 633,636,638,642,646,650,652,660, 662, 665, 667, 670

to 680, 682 to 6 8 7 ...................................................................................... 755— 5

Unstarrcd Questions Nos. 363 to 3 9 7 ................................................................... 765— 84Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................785— 88

No, IS— Friday, 9th December, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 688 to 690, 692, 694 to 697 699, 701, 703> 705 to 708,711 to 7I3> 715 to 719, 698 and 702 . ...................................... 789— 818

Written Answers to Questions— ,Starred Questions Nos. 691, 693* 700, 704, 709 710 and 714 • • • • 818— 20Unstarred Questions Nos. 398 to 4 2 0 ...................................... ......... • • 820— 30

Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................831— 32

No, l€— Mondc^, 12th December, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 721, 722> 725 to 732, 734, 738 to 740, 743 to 746, 748 to750, 724, 735 «nd 7 2 3 ......................................................... ......... 833— 61

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 720, 733, 736, 737> 74i, 742 and 747 • • • • 861— 64Unstarred Questions Nos. 42110440 . . ...................................... 864—74

Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................875— 76

No, 17— Tuesday, i^th December, 1955.


Starred Questions Nos. 752 to 761, 764 to 773> 775> 779j 780, 784 to 786, 788,7 8 9 ......................................................... ........................................................ 877—906

Short Notice Question No. 3 ............................................................................ 907— 08Written Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 75 Ij 762, 770-A, 774> 776, 777» 778, 781 to 783* 790,791 to 805 and 8 0 7 ..................................................................................... 908—20

Unstarred Questions Nos. 44X to 4 8 9 .................................................................. 920—40Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................94*— 44

No, x8— Wednesday, x th December, 1955* ^

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 808, 809, 815 to 817, 820, 824, 825, 828 to 832, 834 to

836, 838, 814, 812, 823 and 827 . .......................................................... 945— 68Written Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 810, 811, 813, 818, 819, 821, 822, 826, 833 and 837 . 968— 72Unstarred Questions Nos. 490 to 5 2 2 ................................................................... 973— 90

Daily D i g e s t ............................................................................................... 99I - 5K

(iv)

Columns

No, 19— Thursdayy isth Decembir, I955«Oral Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 840, 844 to 848, 850, 853 to 856, 858, 859 86x, 862, 864,865, 867, 871, 873, 874* 876, 878 to 8 8 0 - A ................................................ 995— xoa4

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 839, 841 to 843, 849, 851, 852, 857, 860, 863,866,868

to 870, 872, 875, 877, 881 to 899 and 1 7 3 ......................................................... 10*4— 34Unstarred Questions Nos. 523 to 561 ................................................................... 1035— 52

Daily D i g e s t ......................................................................................................... 1053—56No, 20—Friday, iStkDecembft, I955.

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 891, 893, 894, 896, 897, 899 to 905> 9H to 913, 9 i 5>

917. 919, 921 to 925i 927 to 931, 933. 935 to 940 . • • • 1057— 90Short Notice Question No. 4 . . . . . . . 1090— 92

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 890, 892, 895, 898, 906 to 910, 914,916, 918, 920, 926,

932, 934 .........................................................................................................1092— 99Unstarred Questions Nos. 562 to 6 2 7 ...................................................................XO99— 1136

Daily D i g e s t .........................................................................................................1 1 3 7 - ^

No, 21— Saturday, 17th December, 1955. ,Oral Answers to Questions— . .

Short N oticb Questions ^Short Notice Question No. 5 . . ...................................... ZZ4Z— 44

Daily Digest . . . . . ...................................... 1145—46

No. 22— Monday, 19th December, 1955•

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 944. 943, 945 to 948, 950, 95i, 953 to 955, 957 to 959,

961, 962, 964, 967, 969 to 971, 973, 975 .................................................1147— 76Written Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions kos. 94^ 942, 949, 952, 95 , 960, 963, 965,966,968,972,974,976, 977, 978 and 979 ............................................................................. 1x76— 83

Unstarred Questions Nos. 628 to 655 and 657 to 666 ............................1x83— 1200Daily D i g e s t ................................................................................................ I20x— 04

No 2 1—Tuesday, 20th December, X955*

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 980 to 984, 986 to 988, 990 to 998, 1000, 1002 to loix . 1205— 35

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 985,989,999, looi, 1012 to 1044 . . . 1235— 52Unstarred Questions Nos. 667 to 714 and 716 to 723 . . . . Z252—74

Daily Digest ............................................... . . . X275— 78

No. 2^— Wednesday, 2lst December, X955- Oral Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. 1045 to 1051,1055,1057,1059,1061 to 1067,1070 to 1072,353, 1074, 1075, 1077, 1078, 1106, 1079 to 1 0 8 5 .............................1279— 13x1

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 1053,1054,1056,1058,1060, 1068,1069,1073,1076^ 1086 to

1105, H07 to 1119, 5 1 7 ........................................................................... 1311—Unstarred Questions Nos. 724 to 825, 825-A, 826 to 845, 845-A, 846 to 863 . 1328— 94

Daily D i g e s t ........................................................................................................ 1395— 1402

V

0»LUMNSNo, 25-^Thursdayi 22nd December, 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 1120 to 1125, 1127 to 1136,1139 to 1151 . . I403~35

Written Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 1126, 1137, 1138, 1152 to 1162 . . . X435—Unstarred Questions Nos. 864 to 914, 916 to 934 and 934-A . . 1440--70

Daily D i g e s t ............................................................................. . 1471—74No. 26--Friday, 23rd D ium htr, 1955.

Oral Answers to Questions—Starred Questions Nos. 1x63,1164, iz68, IX70> 1x72 to XX83, XX85 to XX90, 1x93

to X1 9 5 .........................................................................................................I4M— *5®5Short NancB Qubstions—

Short Notice Questions Nos. 6 and 7 . . . . 1505—08Written Answers to Questions—

Starred Questions Nos. XX65 to XX67, XX69, XX7X, XX84, XX9X, 1x92, 1x96 toX207 ...................................................................................................................1508— 17

Unstarred Questions Nos. 935 to 995> 995-A, 996 to xox2 and xox4 • * 15X7—54DaUy D i g e s t ......................................................... ......... 1555—58

IN D E X . ............................................. I—*57

(vi)

LOK SABHA DEBATSS AcC.(Part l-OuMtions and AniwapJêd.....

1141LOK SABHA

S ^ d a y , 17th D9cmb9T, 1^5$

Thi Lok Sabha mit at Eltvm of th$ Clock

[Mr. Spbakbr in tkt Chair]

O R A L ANSW ERS T O Q U E S T IO N S S h o r t N o t ic e Q uhstiom a n d A n sw er

A n ti- In d ia n N ew t in P a k i tU n P reMS, N . Q. N o. 5 S h r l O id w a n ii WUl

the P r i m e M in is te r be pleassed to state:

(a) whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the editorial comments made by the ‘•Morning News” of Karacni datecl the 5th December, 19^5 charging India being an elder accomplice in the game with Afgnanistan for capturing Pakistan and that Pakistan has to safeguard its political entity from the sinister designs of an unholy Bharat and Afghanistan combine etc.;

(b) whether such allegations are being repeatedly made by a section of the Pakistan Press; and .

(c) if so, whether Government have taken any steps to counteract such allegations ?

T h e D e p u ty M in is te r o f E z te m a iA n il K. C h a n d a ): (a)Yes.

(b) Yes. (c) Government have noted with deep

regret repeated »utement» bemg m ê m the Pakistan Press which have absolutely no basis in fact and which are insulting both to India and Afghanistan. India has not interfered in any way la the internal afEairs of Afghanistan or in its relations or controversies with Pakist^, and any statement to the contrary is wholly falw. I n ^has long standing friendly relauons vnth Afghanistan as she has with other countries.

Government can only contradict false statements or, where considered necessary, draw the attention of the Pakistan Government to them. This they have done from time to time.

SkriO idw anit May I know whether the attention of the Pakistan Government was drawn to this incident also ?

1142

S l ir i A nU 1L Chan(M»’ Yes, S ir. J h^ye indicated in my answ er th«t from tiaie to tim e we have draw n tne i^ttention o f th e PaU iton G o v ^ n m en t to the whpUy cious rep o rts and sta tem cnu m id f In tiê Pakistan Press.

8||H Qldwanit About this nutter was it done, and what was their reply?

Shti A nU K . C h a n d a ; This vfumt,alung with other matters, was referred to the Pakistan Government.

Shri Gidwai^t What was their reply ?

8 h r i A n il K . C h a n d a i I believe their reply was that there is a free Press and the Press is free to say whatever it likes.

D r. L a n k a S u n d a ra m i May I knowwhether Government has invoked the relevant provision of the Nehru-Liaquat All Agreement regarding good behaviour of the Press of both countries and, if not, will they invoke it now ?

S h r i A n il K . C h a n d a i For good behaviour between good friendW neighbours, it does not require any reference to the Nehru-Liaquat Agreement.

P a n d i t D . N. T iw a ry i May I knowon how many occasions when reference was made by the Indian Government, the Pakistan Government replied that they would see that such comments are net made in future ?

S h r i A n il K . C h a n d a t We would require the services of a statistician if we have to keep a count of all of them!

S h r lG id w a n it In reply to mv unstarred question No. 551 on 15th December 1955—

‘‘Whether the Govermpent has taken any action regarding drcuhition of a message by Pakistan News Agency in Pakistan Press that agents of a fo r e ^ country had intensified (heir clandestine subversive activities and were entering Pakistan under C category of visas which were granted only to Indians**—

the Prime Minister had given the following reply:

**The allegations of espionage made in these messages were wild and fantastic and absolutely without justification. This matter was brought to the notice of the Prime Minister of Pakistan by our High Commissioner in Karachi. The Prime Minister in reply» stated that the stery

466 l^ D (I)

1143 Oral Answers 17 DECEMBER 1955 Oral Answers II4 4had not been put out with official support or connivance and that the Pakistan Government did not believe in the statements referred to in the story. He further assured the High Commissioner that there would be no repetition of incidents of this nature.**

May I enquire whether this is not another repetition of the same nature ?

S h r l A n il K . C handm s The statement attributed to the Pakistan Prime Minister was with reference to a certain news published about India having employed spies to do espionage work among the Armed Forces of Pakistan. This has no reference tothatsutement.

S h r i N* AL L in g a m s In view of thefact that Pakistan is helping our enemies like Portugal, do not Government believe that these press comments are inspired by

the Pakistan Government; and do not Government think it necessary to draw the particular attention of the Pakistan Government to the state of affairs?

S h r i A n il K . C h a n d a s I have indicated in my answer that we have pointedly drawn attention of that Government to these mendacious reports in the Press.

S h r i R s m a c h a n d r a R e d d ls May Iknow whether, by and large, the relations between India and Pakistan have been improving in view of th i several communications that this Government has been sending to the Pakistan Govermment ?

S h r i A n il K , C h a n d a : I am afraid,Sir, it is really inviting an egression of opinion which I would not like to make at this stage.

qAILY DIQBST \Satwday, ijth DtcnAtr, 1955!

COLUMNS C olum ns

5 . N.Qt Suhftet ORAL ANSWERS T O QUESTIONS No.

1141—144 3. Aati'Iadian N cin ia Pakittan PressShobt N e n c i Q tm nom — 1141—44

II45

Saturday, December 17, 1955

^ O N T E N T ^

No» 16—Saturdayy lOth December 1956.

Statement re Cyclone in M a d ra s .......................................................... ......... 2097—99Paper laid on the Table . . • . . . . . . . 2099Messages from Rajya S a b h a ....................................................................2099-2100University Grants Qjmmission B i l l .......................................................... 2100Indian Tariff (Second Amendment) Bill and Indian Tariff (Third Amendment)

Bill—Motion to consider . . . 2101— 54Consideration Of clauses . . 2154Motion to Pass . . . 2154-55

Demands for Supplementary Grants 2155—2250Daily Di gest . . . . . 2251—52

No, 17—Monday, 12th December 1955.

Columns

Papers laid on the Table . . . .Message from Rajya Sabha . . . .Bar Councils (Validation of State Laws) Bill . Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Bill—

Motion to consider.......................................Demands for Supplementary Grants, 1955-56 . Appropriation (No. 4) Bill . . . .Demands for Excess Grants, 1950-51 . .^propriation (No. 5 Bill Hindu Succession Bill, 1

Motion to consider Daily Digest .

, as passed by Rajya Sabha—

No. 18—Tuesdayi 13th December 1955-Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill .Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Bill—

Clauses 2 and i ................................................Motion to p a s s ................................................

Hindu Succession Bill, as passed by Rajya Sabha-<i- Motion to consider

Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill,. 1955—Mouon to consider . . . .Clauses 2 to 21 and i . . .Motion to pass . . . .Daily Digest . . . . .

No, 19—Wednesday lAth Decembery I955*Papers laid on the Table .................................................. .Message from Rajya S ab h a ................................................ .Motion re Report of States Reorganisation Commission . •Daily D i g e s t ................................................................... .

No, 20—Thursday 15th December 1955-

Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Resolution—Forty-second R e p o r t ...................................................................

Motion re Report of States Reorganisation Commission • . •Daily D i g e s t ...................................... ......... . . . .

No, 21—Friday9 i^th Decembery 1955-Messages from Rajya S a b h a ................................................Paper laid on the T a b l e .........................................................Committee on Absence of Members from sittings of the House—

Twelfth R e p o r t ...................................................................Motion re Report of States Reorgamsation Commission . .Committee on Private Members* Bills and Resolutions—

Forty-second R e p o r t ................................................

2253-542254 2254

2254—68 2267—2395 2395— 98 2398—2412 2412—14

2414—16 2417—18

2419

2419—722 4 7 ^ 7 8

2477—2510

2510—4325442544—502551-52

♦ 2553-54 •2554-552555—2692 2693-94

26952695—28342835-36

2837-38 2838

28382838—2922

2923—38

( i i )

No. 2 1—Friiay, i6 December, l9SS-<ontd.

'^ Arbitration (Amendment) Bill {Amendment of Sections 2 and 39 etc.) . "T Child Mar riage Restraint (Amendment) Bill {Insertion of new Section lA ). .

Hindu Marriage (Amendment^ Bill (Âmendment of Section 28). . .Insurance (Amendment) Bill (/mffraon o/wew 44-^). • • •Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment; Bill {Insertion of new Section sA)—

Motion to consider . . . . . . . . . .Indian Registration (Amendment) Bill {Amendment of section 2 etc.)—

^ Motion to consider . . . . .................................................Clauses 2, 3 and i ........................................................................................Motion to p a s s ..................................................................................................

' Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill {Substitution of section 65 etc.)—Motion to consider....................................................................

. Daily D i g e s t ..............................................................................

No. 22—Saturdayi i^th Decembery 1955.

Death of Shri R. K. Chaudhuri . . . .Messages from Rajya Sabha........................................Petitions on Report of States Reorgimisation Commission Motion re Report of States Reorganisation Commission Daily D i g e s t ..........................................................

No. 23—Monday 19th Decembery 1955.

Leave of Absence . . . . . .Messages from Rajya Sabha . . . . .Motion re Rep o rt of States Reorganisation Commission Daily D i g e s t ..........................................................

No. 24—Tuesday, 20th Decembety 1955.

Papers laid on the T a b l e .......................................Messages from Rajya Sabha.......................................Motion re Report of States Reorganisation Commission

Written Statements of Members . . .Daily Digest . . . . . .

No. 25—Wednesdayy 2\st Decembery 1955.

Papers laid on the T a b l e .................................................Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill . . .Motion re Report of the States Reorganisation Commission-

Written Statements of Members . .Daily Digest . . . . .

No. 26—Thursdayy 22nd Decembery 1955.

Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Resolutions— Minutes of Forty-third to Forty-sixth Sittings .Papers laid on the T a b l e .......................................Messages from Rajya Sabha . . . . .River Boards B i l l ................................................Inter-State Water Disputes Bill . . . .Report of Committee on Offices of Profit . .Comittee on Petitions—

Seventh R e p o r t ................................................Petition re Report of States Reorganisation Commission Correction of Answer to Unstarred Question . .Moiicli for Adiournmtnt—

Situation in ^tachera in Agartala . . .Motoh re Report of States Reorganisation Commission

Written Statements of Members Daily Digest . . .

C olumns

29382938-392939 2939

2940—45

2945—692969—742974—78

29782979-80

2981-82298229832983—31343135— 36

3137-383138-393139-3308 3309-10

3311-123312-133313-3486

3469—863487-88

3489-90 34903490—3668

3665—683669-70

36713671—733673367336733674

367436743674-75

3677—853675—77 3685-3898 3851—98 3899—3902

( i i i )

So, ij^ F rid a y i 2 y d Decmbir, X955,

Papers laid on the Table • .....................................................................3903-04President's Assent to Bills • ....................................................................3904-05Estimates Committee—

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Reports............................................................3905Petitions RepQrt of States Reor^sation Commission . . . . 3905Faridabad Development Corporatioii B i l l ..................................................3905-06Correction of Answer to Stanred Q u e s t io n .................................................3906Motion for A cQ oum m ent..............................................................................3906Motion re Report of the Stttes Reorginisation Commission . . . 3907*—4480

Written Statements of M e m b e r s .................................................................... 4076— 4480Daily D i g e s t .................................................................................................4481-82R6sum6 of the S e s s i o n ............................................................................. 4483-84Index ........................................................................................................... 1—48

Columns

LOK SABHA DEBATES ^(Part II—^Proceedings other thap Questions an^ Aiwwe^T^' * '

2981LOK SABHA

Satwrdttv, 11th December, 1056

The Lok Sabha met at Elevenof the Clock,

[Ml. Spiaker in the Chair]

Q U s a n o N s a n d a n s w e r s(See Part I)

11-05 A.M.

DEATH OF SHRI R. K. CHAUDHURI

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform iheHouse of the sad demise of our friendShri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri. Hepassed away at 2-50 P.M. on the 16th instant in ^ e Welsh Mission Hospitalat Shillong.

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri was66 years of age. He was a sittingMember of the House. He had a longrecord of service to the country. Hebecame a Member of the Central Legislature in 1946. Prior to that hewas a Member of the Assam Legislature for about 20 years. He wasa Minister in the Assam Governmentfrom 1937-38. 1939-41 and 1945-46.As a Parliamentarian Shri Chaudhuripossessed a unique sense of humourand enlivened the proceedings of theHouse whenever he rose to speak.

It was only last month, when I hadbeen to Assam for the Speakers’ Conference, that I was privileged to seehim in his sick bed at Gauhati. Itappeared to me then that it was difficult for him to recover; but he was,as usual, quite hale and hearty; andon b ^ a lf of us all I had wished him

2982

a speedy recovery. However, thatwas not to be; God’s will was otherwise.

We moum the loss of Shri Chaudhuri and I am sure the House willjoin me in conveying our condolenceto his family.

The House may stand in silence fora minute to express its sorrow.

The House then stood in silence fora minute.

MESSAGES FROM RAJYA SABHASeceretary: Sir, I have to report the

following two messages received fromthe Secretary of Rajya Sabha:

(1) **ln accordance with theprovisions of rule 125 of the Rulesof Procedure and Conduct ofBusiness in the Rajya Sabha, I amdirected to inform the Lok Sabhathat the Rajya Sabha, at its sitting held on the 15th December,1955, agreed without any amendment to the Prevention of Disqualification (Parliament and PartC States Legislatures) Amendment Bill, 1955, which was passed by the Lok Sabha, at its sitting held on the 9th December,1955.*'

(2) **In accordance with theprovisions of rule 125 of theRules of Procedure and Conductof Business in the Rajya Sabha,I am directed to inform the LokSabha that the Rajya Sabha, atits sitting held on the 15th December, 1955, agreed without anyamendment to the Insurance(Amendment) Bill, 1955, whichwas passed by the Lok Sabha atits sitting held on the 7th December, 1955.”

29«3 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER, 1955 Report of S.R.C. 2 984

PETITIONS ON REPORT OF STATES REORGANISATION COM

MISSIONShri Sivamorthi Swaml (Kushta<

gi): I beg to present a petition relating to the Report of the States Reorganisation Coiximission.

Shrl Madhao Reddl (Adilabad); I beg to present six petitions relating to the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission.

MOTION RE REPORT OF STATE REORGANISATION COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker: The House will now proceed with the further consideration of the following motion:

**That the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission be taken into consideration.”Shri M. A* Ayyaagar (Tirupati): I

take this opportunity to remember and pay our deep debt of gratitude to the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Ghandhi without whom we would not have won freedom for this country. The first hurdle was over. The Britishers were ruling this country not ditectly, except at the tx>p. There were about 360 districts in undivided India, and each district had not more than ten Europeans, all of them put together; that is, the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrates, the District Educational Officer, the Superintendent of Police and so on. In all, there were 3,600 Europeans on the whole civil side, ranging from nineteen or twenty-one years of age up to sixty years, ruling this country of 36,00 lakhs of Indians, at the rate of one European for a lakh of our population. It was a disgusting affair. We were putting up with this. Mahatma Gandhi led us. He started the non-violent non-co-operation movement when he was fifty and won freedom for this country when he was about seventy-five or so. He never dreamt that during his lifetime he would see that freedom of the country achieved. He lost his wife when he was in jail. Shri Rama- chandra for whom we have built

temples and temples, killed Ravaneih- wara and got back Sita and then ruled for 10,000 long years over this land. But this man of peace—GandhiJi—who suffered but who did not inflict suffer* ing on the enemy, ennobled us, and brought a new era of life in human existence. When human relations were decided by war, he* started a new era of suffering instead of inflicting siaffering on others. This is a unique experiment in world's history. We are too near it to appreciate its full significance. It is a miracle that has been achieved by us through him. Lord Buddha preached non-violence. Jesus Chiist followed him. Asoka adopted non-violence after he killed thousands in Kalinga. But it was left to Gandhiji ih this age to fight without arms and win freedom by fighting one of the mightiest empires in the world:

Harischandro Nalo Raja PurukuUahPurumvah.

Sagarah Karthaviryaacha, ShadaiteChakravarthinoh.

There were also emperors in our country. The emperors held sway not over one single plot but over two or three countries or two or three States together. But we won freedom from one of the mightiest empires of the world over which the sun is supposed to have never set on account of fear or on account of love. Between these two bloody wars, we defeated the might of Germany—between 19141918 and 1939-1946—with all the weapons of destruction that science has discovered so far, in the air, on the land and over the .sea. England defeated Germany. Gandhiji defeated England. Gandhiji defeated both England and Germany, together. In this bloodless war of ours both the vanquished and the victors have been ennobled. The other day, for Queen Elizabeth’s Coronation, Panditji was invited. In my own humble way« I went there as an appendage to our Speaker. All of us were invited. Somebody there put the question: “How can we come when we belong to a Republic?” We said that in our

2985 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.R.C. 2986

Republic we never killed anybody, butwe suffered, and therefore we are inthe best of terms with everybody.Thia is the message we were able togive, to the rest of the world—themessage of peace. The British Rajwas removed from this country without the atom or the hydrogen bombbeing used and they left neither onaccount of love nor on account offear, mnd thus we have endeared ourselves to others.

Now, when we have won our freedom, it has made it necessary forvarious countries in the world to seekour hand of fellowship. We ’ arestretching out our hand of fellowship,not by helping them with atom orhydrogen bombs, but with our fivefingers—the Panch ShilA. Look at themiracle that has been won. Formallyit was left to persons to carry onthe message of Buddha to the north,south, east and west of India. Today,thi‘ prince of peace is carrying thatmessage—the message of PanchShila— for deciding the destines ofwhole nations. It is our good fortuneto be guided by that prince of peace.

Freedom was won. We must alsopay our humble tribute to Sardar Patel,who, following the winning of freedom, got real freedom for the peoplethroughout India. The British divided India into British India and thenative States. It was those in BritishIndia who won freedom first. Thoughwe were not British, we were not bornin the British soil, we all belongedto British India and some of us belonged to the native States. With theachievement of freedom for BritishIndia, Sardar Patel worked to achievefreedom for the 565 odd native States.When we in British India were fighting for freedom, the people in the native States were afraid of openingtheir lips, because the Rajas andMahcurajas shut us out and were inviting the British with garlands. But theurge for freedom spread and the people of the native States joined thefight a.ad another miracle was achievedin less than four months since August,1947. All the princely States were

liquidated and the people in thoseStates have been made the Rajas andMaharajas. Today, who is the king ofthis country? There cannot be aPrime Minister without a king. Hereis the Prime Minister whom we alllove, but who is the king of this land?All our adults are our kings; theirwives and children are our queensand princes and princesses.

Let us take the next step. The nextstep naturally follows. Reorganisationis necessary. India was split up intoso many conglomerate groups. I canonly speak of Madras. When freedomwas won and reforms were introduced,it was all a babel in the MadrasLegislative Assembly. There were theMalayalam-speaking people; theKannada-speaking people; the Telugu- speaking people and the Tamiliana.Though all of them belonged to thesame Dravidian stock, not one of themcould understand the other, and all ofthem had to converse in a commonlanguage. Today, after we have wonfreedom, we have to distribute thisfreedom to every one. Even there,we have achieved something whichother countries have not achieved.We have not, as other countries havedone, appropriated everything to oneparty. It is the Congress Party thatwon freedom of this coimtry with theaid of the people of course, but it wasnot left to the Congress Party to saythat **we alone will enjoy the fruitsthereof*\ We have distributed themto everybody. When our leader stoodfor election, he was opposed byBrahmachari who carried Ganga wateron his head. So, every man andwoman in this country, merely by theage of 21 years has become the realruler of this country. Therefore,when a resolution was sought to beintroduced in this House that somequalifications ought to be imposedeither by way of education or other*wise, it was stoutly opposed by tl^sHouse. Therefore, qualification vhm also removed so as to enable all sec.tions of the people to take part in thegovernance of this country In theirown tongue. Now, should we not re-

398? Motion Th: 17 DECEMBER 1050 Report of SJi.C. 2988

£Shri M. A. Ayyangar]

organise this country on that basis?It is wrong for any person to say thatthis reorganisation is a wrong step.I think that if one says so, he mustgo back or at any rate, he cannot rewrite history. This reorganisation ofcourse may lead to Assiparous tendencies, but we cannot be eternally afraidof this. Yet; it has got another phase.This reorganisation on a linguisticbasis brings all those people whospeak one language, together. To saythat all of us can live together andspeak different languages, that wehave got a Centre to look after things,that you can divide a particular Stateand separate one person from theother, though they speak the samelanguage, is not proper. Is it for thisthat Poti Sriramulu died? For fortyyears and more the cry was there andsince his death, the Andhra State wasformed in South India. But youremember the Andhras were the rulersin Pataliputra and from there theywere gradually shunted back to SouthIndia. Today they have come to theirown. But they have come back toserve and not to rule. It is in thatspirit that we want to reorganise, toserve the rest of the country. Now,

this hotchpotch has to be removed. Ithas been said that the present position of the Maharashtrians, the Telugusand the Kannadigas was the result ofthe imposition of foreign rule. TheMaharashtrians want a Vrihat Maharashtra. The Kannadigas want theirstatus to grow from prosperity to prosperity. That is exactly what theAndhras wanted in South India. TheAndhras led the fight and they gotthe State with the help of the PrimeMinister. Now, the Kannada-speakingpeople are distributed among fiveStates: some in Bombay, some inHyderabad, some in Mysore and somein Coorg, and some also in Madras.Look at Coorg. It has a populationof one lakh only. There is a ChiefMijnister for Coorg. There is a ChiefMinister, Shri Sampumanand, who isthe Oiief Minister of a State whichâs six crores of population.Therefore, small and Mtf—chotaand boda—States—all of them want

to be independent! We do notask the Chief Minister of Coorgwhether he would agree to thewill of the people. The Chief Minister himself says, the will ought to bethis. You will surely remember. Sir,with what great difficulty the Hyderabad question was solved. Whofought for Hyderabad? Those outsidefought for Hyderabad; those insidecould not fight. Today the Telenganapeople say, **we are different and wewant a separate State.” At that timethey fled to Bezwada; the Maharashtrians fled to Bombay and the Kannadapeople fled to Mysore. Today thesepeople say that “ instead of the Nawabruling, we want to rule.'' That isexactly what is going on in Telengana.What else is the agitation? Pleaselook at the territory. In the Report,they have taken into consideration thephysical and geographical features.They say, the Maharashtrian portionof Hyderabad is absolutely differentfrom the Telengana portion. Do theynot dress alike? Do they not talkalike? Yo\x cannot distinguish onefrom the other, except that in theTelengana area there is a greater admixture of Urdu. It is not puccaTelugu, but 05 per cent. Teiugu andthe rest Urdu, Today, after freedomwas won, the movement for TelanganaState has started. When did thismovement start? It was only afterindependence. Before that period, wasthere any difference between the people of Telangana and the people ofAndhra? I presided over a numberof meeting at that time; the peoplefled away from Hyderabad to Madras.I addressed meetings. I was a member of the Executive Council of theCongress Party; at that time SardarPatel also was there and our greatleader was presiding over the deliberations. We asked, **when are yougoing to take steps regarding Hyderabad?” . It is not as if Telangana couldbe left to Itself. It is not even in theinterests of Hyderabad. Hyderabadcity was the capital of 16 district*.Today, if Telangana alone is there, W will be the capital of 8 districts. Thatmeans, you will have to cut off all theMahals by 50 per cent. What do we

2989 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1055 Report of S.R.C. 2990

say now? We say, we read Telanganaliterature. Telangana literature is ourliterature. Warrangal is one of theimportant cities in Telangana and itwas there that Bhagvad was writtenand we read it. On the other side,they read Mahabharata and Rama- yana. The argument advanced forkeeping Telangana separate is this.They say, “We are very low in education; therefore, if we join those peoplewho are more educated, we may notget into the services.” If a persongets cipher marks in the examination,can you put him in the I.A.S.? Howare you to be educated? It is only

along with the others. We are educated and we are interested in ourbrothers also; we want to see that thewhole family is educated. Anotherargument they advance is this. Inthe Circars, people are so strong andeducated that ki politics they willover-ride us. We have the Circarsand the ceded districts. Both of themare prepared to take Hyderabad ascapital. Enjoy it as much as you like.The Telangana people are the head;we are only the limbs. If guaranteeis necessary, I can give this assurance.What does the word “ceded” mean?The districts were ceded by the Nizamof Hyderabad to the Circars. Circarswere originally British districts.There were two portions—Circarportion consisting of 5 districts andthe ceded districts including Chittoor—which were under the Nizam.Andhra was so divided; the Britisherstook a portion and the rest was takenby the Nizam. The Nizam ceded 5 districts; we only want the other districts also to be ceded. Is it wrong?Rather, we want to cede ourselves tothem. So, history also is in favour ofus. The ceded districts form part ofHyderabad. You say, the people ofHyderabad are not up to the level ofthe Circars. Rayalaseema also isbackward. Both of us are backwardand if we Join together, we will pulldown the advanced distri^s of theCircars. I can give this guarantee thatyou and I will both be depressed anddepress the Circars also permanently.Are the Telangana people satisfied?So far as Rayalaseema is concerned, itis backward in water and we have

famine conditions almost every secondyear. We go with ouutretched handsfor having gruel centres. Even forthat, my friend Mr. Nijalingappa sayshe will stop even that much of water; Iwill come to that later on. If Telangana is backward, you have got another friend in Rayalaseema which isalso backward. The two together willdrown the Circars. So far as backwardness is concerned, it is common.I can assure you that we were also afriend of the ceded districts. Weentered into a pact called the Sri BaugPact and we said that the High Courtor capital must be Ha Rayalaseema;we must have a guarantee then 60 percent of the posts in the offices shouldbe given to our people, and so on andso forth. Now we find that no suchguarantee is necessary. We are equalto the task. Therefore, we expertthat Telangana also will come up.Telangana’s argument is, “we are nowa viable State, and if we join thedeficit State, Andhra, we will also become deficit.” 1 want to refute thisargument. Where does the moneycome from ? If a person is diseased,on account of the disease, waterenters into the body and the body getffat. That is a diseased body. Rs. 5 crores or Rs. 6 crores of Telanganacome from drinking. You want tocontinue to drown those poor fellowsin drink and then say, “I have grownfat in Hyderabad.” That is absolutely wrong. Hyderabad was a feudal State; there were sub-feudaltenures and there were the zamindarsunder them. We have abolished thezamindari system in Andhra and theamount of land tax is not more thanRs 10 per acre. In Hyderabadit is Rs. 18.

An Hon. Member: It is Rs. 24.

Shrl M. A. Ayyangar: We abolishedthe zamindari system and reduced thetax to Rs. 10. A few rich men InHyderabad want to exploit the peopleby pouring not alcohol, but today intotheir mouths. The poorer people arethe tillers of the soil and at their expense, the rich men are growmgfatter. They collect Rs. 18 or Rs.and say, **No, no; Telengana must m

2991 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 299a

(Shri M. A. Ayyangar]• separate State only.” They say, that Nawab must go and Reddi must come. [ only ask them, why should we disintegrate? Why should we be a x>arty to disintegration? Is it for the perpetuation of the feudal landlordism for ever in that State? It is wrong. I ask hon. Members who have spoken in this House over this matter, what is the difference between the Telangana people and ourselves? Is the language different? Are the customs and manners different? Are they, in order to satisfy some of our people in the North, going to say, “We are going to have a imiversity for Urdu” ? I am also for the development of Hindi. I am going to preside over a conference here tonight. I am also a Member of the Hindi Commission. Certainly, I am cent, per cent, for Hindi being the official language of the Union, so that gradually it may become the national language for the whole of India. What is this argument that this can be converted into a Hindi University. Who stands against it? I am quite willing. It is not as if every man there knows Hindi. If it is so, it ir easier. They are so educationally backward. I assure them, if they know Hindi and Urdu well, within 10 or 5 years English will disappear and they will have an advantage over the people of South India, because they know Hindi and Urdu.

From the financial point of view, it is an absolutely deficit State. Introduce prohibition which we have accepted or will accept on an all-India basis. Reduce the land tax from Rs. 24 and Rs. 18 to the normal level.I assure you, it will be a useless State and it will begin to borrow.

The authors of this report have said that the granary of South India is the Krishna-Godavari valley. If you only go to those places which were occupied by my communist friends, • Nala- gomda—I am not referring to them—I only say that when persons want to hide themselves during walrtime or otherwise, they go to a place which is not near any sea coast or railway station, which is a hill or jungle and live little better than the man there

or the wolves and tigers. Tour that territory from end to end. I have travelled the whole of Hyderabad. I came and reported to our hon. Minister of Railways and requested him to open up a railway there, for Heaven's sake. They do not produce anything except castor oil; not for digesting but for purging. They have no food to eat. The report says:

“The demographic features are also so difterent that a casual observer proceeding from Aurangabad to Warangal may see the differences between the people not merely in theifr language, but also in their clothing, special customs, manners, etc. The geopolitical argument and the consequent claim to unity will, therefore, be seen to have no substance.”Telangana State has no foodgrains.

They have to be supplied from the Circars. After having won freedom, to satisfy a few people, are we to allow a separate Telangana? If Visal Andhra is formed, you cannot have two Chief Ministers. There will be only one. You cannot have all the Ministers. To pamper a few persons who are holding certain interests, you want to keep the large population in a pit. What is this argument? So far as finance is concerned, the State is useless. We must introduce prohibition there. We must reduce land revenue. No human being can tolerate this, no civilised Government can tolerate this cancer in the heart of India. If the excise revenue goes and If the land revenue is reduced, it will sink into poverty. Even foodgrains are not grown there; the big brother in the Circars has to help. It the elder brother says, I have fought for you, 1 have released you from the ancient feudal system, got all the three of you divided, come back, one man says, no, no, I will stand by myself now that we are separated. Lave in a sârate house and maintain yourself. I know what will happen. You cannot maintain yourself for 5 years. The S.R.C. report allows five years. For what?In the meanwhile you break your heads. Nothing more than that.


Now, what is the opinion? Whyshould you care for the opinion there?Today, the opinion of the legislatureis clear and they have unequivocallypassed a resolution. It may be saidthat the Karnatakas and Marathispeaking people have also joined inthis. Even if we leave them alone,the majority are in favour. Are weto go to the polls again on this issue?Some people will stand for Telangwa.The ordinary people will be terriblyafraid. There is a propaganda goingon that they will be swamped by theCircars. 1 say, there is no questionof swamping. Some Members haveraised the objection that U.P. is bigand so, it should be cut up. If someone is a little fat, would you try tocut him with a knife? There is noharm. If the U.P. is too big, one daythey will say, we are too big, so letus divide. Bigger Germany wantedto have a population of 9 crores.That was a unitary State: not a federalstate. Visal Andhra will be nextbiggest State, or as big as some otherStates, if not equal to the U.P. Thatwould add to our pull at the Centre.Do these chota States, Part C Stateshave any pull?

An, Hon. Member: What aboutKerala?

Shri M. A. Ayyangar: Unless it isinevitable, why do you divide Telan- gana from the Andhras? If necessary, we will also call ourselvesTelangana. Let us all have Telangana.From any point of view, there is nojustification. It must be only cuttingHyderabad to three pieces for thepurpose of not allowing water to mixup with water, not for the purpose ofstagnating somewhere. That wouldbe the case of Telangana. From coastto coast, it is the Circars. They areprepared to share that with Telanganaas they are sharing it with the cededdistricts people. If Telengana wants a balancing force, we will give it. Incase there is any pressure, let them becertain that we, who are similarlysituated, will not allow the Circarsto ride roughshod over us. If we giveHyderabad as capital, their capital isour capital. It is not as if we areasking them to give us anything. The

tail is not wagging the head. Thereverse is the case. We have giventhe capital. It is not necessary tolabour this position.

When Panditji went there, theyspent Rs. 30,000 or 40,000. When people from other countries who have notmade any sacrifice, go, crores ofrupees are spent. If one or two individuals spend, it is only an investmtotWhere do they get all the moneyfrom? There are persons who foughtagainst Hyderabad joining with therest of India. There was the Razakarmovement. They wanted to make a second Pakistan in Hyderabad. Theywere defeated. They handed over alltheir weapons to the communists. Thattrouble is over. I do not say thecommunists; they are good; they havecome here; they were never there.Today you will see the hidden handof those persons. They do not wantHyderabad to be divided. They didnot waht to join the Indian Union.Today they are putting this thirdhurdle. They are behind the scene.From village to village they axe carrying on propaganda saying, we are yourfriends, Visal Andhra will create trouble for you. Do not create a thirdPakistan here, because I am afraidit will be a danger spot in India. Itought not to be left to them. Whoare they? Did they want freedom?Gandhiji was there; Sardar Patel wasthere. Here is our Panditji. It is leftto Pandit G. B. Pant to reorganise theStates. We got freedom; we got theprincely states removed. Today, weare reorganising the States. Reorganise on a linguistic basis, withoutwhich it will be difficult to have peacein this country.

Yesterday, when Shri Gadgil wasspeaking, I went a little out of theway. He said that this matter willbe decided in the stt*eets of Bombay.I am a man of peace. This will neverbe decided in the streets of Bombay.Here is our friend, Pandit G. B. Pantin whom we all have confidence. He,along with the Prime Minister willdecide this. Telangana is naturallya part of Andhra. Just as water thatflows from Hyderabad flows Into the

*995 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER. 1955 Report of S.R.C. 2996

[Shri M. A. Ayyangar]sea jCt us join It with the Circars and the ceded districts.

Just one word about Bellary. I am not prepared to enter into a contro- veny. All honour to my hon. friend Shri Nijalingappa and I wish he becomes the Chief Minister of the new KamaUka State. The point is this. I a m not trying to get Bellary. In that district, there are 3 taluks already given. We want six taluks. For 160 years, this area had been part of Andhra. Even on linguistic considerations also, these 3 taluks should come to us. We admit that in the ^ o Uluks of Hospet and Siruguppa, there is a majority of Kannadigas, and naturally they should go to Karnataka. In the remaining three taluks, they are not absolutely Kannadigas or absolutely Telugus. I am fighting for a linguistic reorganisation of the States. That is the primary consideration. Of course, that is not the exclusive consideration; other considerations also have to be taken into account. We have two parts in Andhra. There are the Kolar gold fields. People may not have gone to Kolar, the gold producing country, in Mysore, where the Andhras live in a majority. I am not trying to walk away with this gold. You can have all the gold for yourself. If you want to give, it is your business. But all that we want is that you should give us some water. So far as the ceded districts are concern, ed, I ask any hon. Member here.........

Shri M. S. Gnmpadaiwamy (Mysore): Nobody prevents you from having water.

Mr. Speaker: Let there be no interruptions. Otherwise, the argument will go on for a longer time.

Shri M. A. Ayyangar: I am finishing in a few minutes.

Formerly, it is true that we did not claim that portion of Bellary where the Tvmgabhadra project is lying. We were satisfied with Alur and the other place. In that sense, this is no doubt a new claim that we are putting forward. So far as Bellary town and liJuk are concerned, the Andhras have

been claiming them for a long time. So far as Hospet, and Sirviguppa are concerned, they must naturally go to the Karnataka. I have talked to my friends here on this matter, and I have told them, let us have no quarrel with Karnataka over this matter. All that we want is that we should be able to get rid of famine from the ceded districts. It is for that purpose that the Tungabhadra project has been put up. It is not materially so important for the Karnataka State as for the Andhra State on this side. We have got a low level sluice there, and the waters through it are being used to irrigate about 70,000 to 90,000 acres of land in Bellary, and about 2i lakhs of acres in the Andhra area. All that we want is that those portions of the project area, which lie up to a distance of two miles on either side should be handed over to us, for this reason, namely, that we want to develop power also along with irrigation.

It is true that a Board has been constituted for administering this project, by the Central Government. And on this Board are members nominated by the Mysore State as well as the Andhra State. But the Mysore engineer resigned or was transferred about three or four months ago. And even to this day, no engineer from Mysore has been appointed in his place. So far as Mysore is concerned, they have got surplus electric power and they are exporting it also. So they are not worried very much over the Tungabhadra project. It is surplus for them. But so far as I am concerned, it is life for me. Let us even assume that an engineer is appointed in his place today. Just the day after tomorrow, he may take leave and go away. Though the Centre is represented on the Board, yet we cannot insist on them anything. This is the trouble that we are having constantly.

Therefore, I am beseeching all hon. Members to consider this matter calmly. It is not as a matter of right that I am asking you. After all, we have to live as brothers. This Tungabhadra project was meant for us primarily.


We were not overflowing with milkand honey. We were starving all thetime. And every second year, we hadto stretch out our hands for gruel.Possibly, some of you may not knowwhat gruel is. Gruel is nothing butsome rice put into water. There is agreater quantity of water than rice init. So, when we take gruel, we takethree-fourths of water and only one- fourth of rice, with a pinch of salt.This has been our lot every secondyear. Even tomorrow, this may beour lot. Under these circumstances,am I asking too much from my Karnataka friends? I am one of them. Ishall celebrate the formation of theirState. When Sriramulu died, he diednot merely for the cause of Andhra,but he gave a fillip to the Karnatakamovement. I am very happy thereforethat Karnataka is coming into existence. But I am asking only for asmall concession from them. So faras I am concerned, I am prepared, andI say, the Andhras also are preparedto lie in their management. But Ionl3> want that they should give ussome water. I would like to tell them,“You are so over-fat and so rich.Mysore is flowing with milk andhoney. You have got so much ofpower and water already. Therefore,this Tungabhadra project is only a second-rate project for you. It is notso important to you as it is for us.Therefore, give us some portion ofthis area.” I would appeal to myhon. friends here and also to myleader and to Pandit G. B. Pant toconsider this request with sympathy.

We are not anxious that weshould impose our language upon theKannadigas. We say that you cantake away the territory of Hospet andSiruguppa, if necessary. We do notinsist on having them at all. All thatwe want is that head-stream and thecorridor.

An. Hon. Member: Corridor also?Shri M. A. Ayyangar: What is wrong

with my asking for a corridor? Afterall, we are all living in the samecountry, and we are living likebrothers. We are not asking for acorridor as if we were belligerents like

Germany and Russia, I am sorry tofind that there is no feeling of sympathy at all in regard to this matter.And my hon. friend is trying to out-Herod Herod. I would appeal to myfriends, in the name of humanity, andin the name of India as a whole, andthey would give it, not my hon. friendShri M. S. Gurupadaswamy. I wouldappeal to the people, and they willgive it. Let my hon. friend take thecredit for it and give it to me. I haveno objection.

Then, there are problems relatingto the boundary disputes. We have nointentions that a Tamil village shouldbe kept a Telugu area or that a Telugu village should be kept in aTamil area. I am sure that a boundarycommission will be set up to solve allthese minor problems relating toboundaries. The boundary problem isthere in the case of Orissa also. I donot known much about it, and poisibljrmy hon. friends from Orissa will speakabout it.

The question of minorities is alsothere. Unfortunately, we find that a person’s loyalty to his language is soinfinitely deep that sometimes he goesto the extent of imposing his languageon every other man in his area andthus trying to convert him. I am notable to understand this at all. Afterall, why should there be this kind ofconflict, if a good number of personsin a particular area speak a particularlanguage? If there is a good numberof Telugu-speaking boys in a Tamilarea, why should you not provide themwith Telugu schools? Similarly, ifthere is a good number of Tamil- speaking boys in a Telugu area, whyshould you not provide them withTamil schools?. I am not able tounderstand why you should object

gUvin them such facilitiesat all. I have been to\u*ing rotmdrecently in connection with theLanguage Commission. And I havefound everywhere that this is the fearthat people have. In every State, theyimpose their own regional laniâgeupon the boys studying in the I, II andIII forms, and the result is that theboys whose mother-tongue is not that

2999 Motion re; 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3000

[Shri M. A, Ayyangar]regional language, find it very difficult. They want to study in their mothertongue so that they may go back to their own area.

I would urge the Central Government that the Constitution should be so amended that the linguistic minorities will be in the charge of the Central Government. Or, they must be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Governor. A Governor has got what is called his individual judgment and also what is called discretion. You can call it what you will; we can find suitable expressions for the purpose. So, the Governor of the State or the Centre must be directly in charge of the linguistic minorities in that State.

In conclusion, I would say that boundary commissions may be appointed all over the country to settle all boundary disputes. So far as Bellary is concerned, I would request my Karnataka friends—I am not trying to enforce it as a matter of righ—to calmly consider this matter. So far as Vishalandhra is concerned, I would appeal to my friends from Telangana to come together, so that we may grow in size and in strength and be one of the mightiest States in India.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Sardar HukamSingh.

Shri Sivamurthi Swami (Kushtagi): If you could give me a chance to speak for a few minutes now, I shall be able to answer the points raised by Shri M. A. Ayyangar.

Mr. Soeaker. The hon. Member will get his chance in due course. As I laid earlier. I am going by SUtes.

Shri Punnoose (Alleppey): Couldwe have some idea about the arraiige- ment as to which States you are taking UD first, so that we could get ready ftCTordingly?

Mr. SDeaker: It is difficult for me to givft «n absolutely rigid programme, for T may have to change it. I am thinking today of having PEPSU and Puniab, where there are many controversial points, Orissa, Hima

chal Pradesh, Centrally administered Delhi, and then....

Shri M. S. Guriipadiâiiiy: Whcsn will Karnataka come?

Mr. Speaker: Karnataka *vill come, but not today; it may, but I c3irot say. Then, I am thinking of having Manipur and Assam. That is my idea. Let Us proceed and see as to how we go on.

Shri V. G. Deflhpande (Gima):What about Madhya Bharat?

Mr. Speaker: It will come later.I have an idea to give every present

State a chance. But it will be seen that if very long speeches take place,I must take them as representative speeches, and cut off the other speeches in respect of the very same States. That is how the position it developing. I have to state to my Bombay friends that it will not be possible for me to accommodate them today, in view of the fact that a long time has been taken already for the discussion oif Bombay city’s future, yesterday as well as the day before.

MuUa AbdiUlabhai (Chanda); What about Vidarbha?

Mr. Speaker: Every State will get a chance. There are still five more days. Let us not spend time over embroidering arguments. If only the arguments and facts are placed before the House, I think we shall be able to cover much more solid grouno in a much shorter time, and everybodv wWl be satisfied also. This is what is passing in my mind.

Shri G. H. Deshpande (Nasik Ce' t tral): Excuse me for disturbing you*I am sorry for disturbing you. T hav*» received an urgent call from mv constituency......

Mr. Speaker: I understand that tne hon. Member has to go to his coofti' tuency. I understand the importance of it.

Shri G. H. Dedipande: I would not take much time.

Mr. Speaker We have heard the pros and cons in respect of the city

3001 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.R.C. 3002 '

at Bombay and the case of SamynktaMaharashtra for a sufficiently longtime. I cannot allot more time tothat matter today. I would requestthe hon. Member to look to the wholepicture and be liberal enough to givemore time to States which have notyet had a hearing.

Shri Ramachandnt Beddi (Nellore):On a point of clarification. You haVementioned a number of States whichwill be represented today. I want totaiow whether only one Member fromeach State would have opportunity tospeak, or more Members will haveopportunities.

Mr. Speaker: The point, as I said,when I first made my announcementwas that I had imagined that thereshould be one representative speakerwho would place the entire case andthen there would be differences whichwould be expressed by other speakers; they need not cover the sameground again, unless they wanted tocontest it. But, unfortunately, I find that there is a tendency to repeat thesame thing. For example, the generalaspects of the Report need not be discussed by them now, or even the oldhistory as to how linguistic provincescame in. It is not, to my mind, cecer*-sary to repeat that now—I am giving,my own opinion; people may differ—and time can be saved by only statingthe particular case which they wantto bring out. So I cannot say whetherone speaker will get a chance or twospeakers will get a chance; it alldepends upon what time speakerstake and how they place their case.

Shii Bogawat (Ahmednagar South):May I make a request? In the deH- berations of the last three days somuch time has been given and so fewMembers could speak, we are afraid that'many Members will not be ableto get a chance. So my request is thatthe time for speeches may be curtailed.

Mr. Speaker: They need not beafraid Bombay hat got fufflcienttime

Sbri Bogawat: Only two hours.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the controversial nature of the problems in Bombay, I intentionally gave moretime to the speakers who, I bnlieve,were represented to me to be representative speakers. It is not that theChair must call every Member, butthe Chair is keen to call every viewto be brought before the House. It isnot that every Member should get achance; every view should get a chance. Members will therefore beliberal enough to see that the case ofother provinces and other peopleshould also be put before this House.

Several Hon. Members rose :Mr. Speaker: Nothing further; I do

not propose to answer any questions.Sardar Hukam Singh.

Sardar Hukam Singb (Kapurthaia-Bhatinda): I realise that I have a very delicate duty to discharfec. 1 am conscious that my task is a difficultone. I feel that I have got a verysound case.[Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair]

But I also know that there is muchof misunderstanding and, in somequarters, some bias as well againstmy case. I will try to overcome thesedifficulties. But I only ask the indulgence of the House to hear patientlywhat I have to say.

Shri Gadgil yesterday told us thatthe net result—and even SwamiRamananda Tirtha was of the sameview—whether any importance wosattached to language as one of the factors or not, whether it was predominant factor or only a small factor,has been that most of the States hav€been formed on the language basis.Shri Gadgil referred to other Stages as weJl. He rushed on simply byuttering two words about our Statesthat there were certain differencesbetween the Punjabi-speaking pe<jple themselves, and therefore, he thoughtthat he was the only Member or herepresented the only State which hadnot got that treatment which hrrt been given to other States. But ivycase is quite a different onegether. While our countrymen had

3003 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report o / S.K.C. 3004

[Sardar HulLam Singh]asked that States should be reorganised on predominantly language basis —and we also did that—all languages except one have got at least cne St&ie to themselves. The net result is that we have got a great controversy over Bombay State. Maharashtrians do cumpiain. They hmv9 m j lull sympathy. But at least their language has got one State, as we see the recommendations, whatever might come out afterwards—that is a different thing. Previously that had been the attitude of our leaders as well. It had been authoritatively stated that a State should not have more tlian one language, though one language may have more than one State. I also went to this Reorganisation Commission on the basis of that and askod that my language also should have a State to flourish and develop therein. What has been the result? While others have got States for their languages, I have lost even my language. There is a story told in our parts that a lady went to a fakir for blessings for the prosperity of hrr family, and the fakir, instead of givtnt her blessings, stripped her of her clothes and she came back without the clothes, what to say of getting those blessings that she wanted. So that is what our fate has been. We had gone there with the representation that a State should be formed on the basis of the Punjabi language as well. But what the recommendations show, if we read them carefully, is that even the language should go. That has been my fate. Therefore, my case is quite distinct and different from those of others that have been put before you in this House.

There is a bias, as I said, and that had its effect even on the recommendations of this Commission. We have been accused of flssiparous inclinations. we have been charged with having *Muslim League’ tendencies, we have been told that we want further division of the country. It is a*90 said that we have the *home* concept —I was feeling nervous when it was other reference. Even in this Report,

other reference. Even in this Report, it has been stated that the memorandum of the Akali Dal was mainly based on grounds that are usually put in the case of linguistic provinces, i say that that also is a wrong statement. I have got that memorandum with me and I am prepared to place it on the Table of the House—anybody can see it. It is entirely based on grounds on which other States have been based. There is nothing in it of that *home’ concept or anything that might injure the interest of tiie country or might contain something that might be peculiar to this State. There is one sentence at the end and if that offends, I am sorry for it. That memorandum^ related to all other things, that it wbuld be a homogeneous State, it would eliminate causes of unrest, it would remove language controversy, it would help education to be imparted in the child’s mother tongue, it would strengthen border defence, it would be surplus in fôd, rich in resources with enormous potentialities for development, the proposed State would be a model for others to emulate much in advance of other States in everything, in education and in health. And then the last sentence is this:

*'We hope that India wants such a Stale and the country needs a contented Sikh community, if incidentally, that is also achieved’*.

12 Noon.If this sentence that we have put is

the, one that is objected to, namely, that incidentally the Sikh community would also become contented, then, I am very sorry. If that be not the ob ject, that is requlr^ to be achieved. Otherwise, there is nothing that can be taken exception to.

My complaint is that our case hat never been considered on merits. Ther# was always that lurking suspicion in the minds of our leaders and, consequently, in the minds of our countrymen also that, perhaps we are not loyal to this country; we have «vU

3003 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R,C. 3OC6

designs and we have some truck withsome foreign power; we have beendoing this and we have been doingthat. This has been propagatedthroughout the country in the Pressand on the platform and, naturally,even when lies are told and repeatedso frequently, they do have someeffect. I here want tn declare it inthe strongest terms possible that thisis all malicious propaganda and isalways resorted to, to create anatmosphere in which our case maynot be considered on merits, so thatthe sympathy that we might get, thatour case might evoke ia the heartsof our countrymen on merits alone—Irepeat that—might not be availableto us. And, this is what has happenedwhen this Commission was considering this point.

My complaint is that it is an oldlegacy. The first Commission appointed was the Dar Commission. Ourcase was not referred to it. They hadno need to mention that. But, in rejecting the demand for linguistic provinces they referred to our case alsounnecessarily. Then said, “ if we concede the formation of linguisticprovinces, then the Sikhs are alsodemanding a State and that demandmight intensify.” This was also oneof the grounds on which they rejected the plea of all the other States.

Then the case came to the JVPCommittee They had no cognizanceof our case because they were takingonly those cases which had been discussed and dealt with by the Dar£!ommission. But, I do not know,why they in conclusion put down a sentence—

“We dre clearly of opinion thatno kind of rectification of boim- daries in the provinces of NorthIndia should be raised at thepresent moment, whatever themerit of such a proposal mightbe.”The merits are to be ruled out.

Whatever the merits might be, nosuch question should be raised at thismoment. This is not all. Thev haito admit here, in this Report, thateven then they decided that they

should gu into it. They said: ‘‘evenai>art from our view of this referenceto us, we are firmly of opinion thatrvo such question should be raised atthe present moment. This does notnecessarily mean that the demand lorthe adjustment of provincial boundaries is unjustified or without merit” . They had to admit that this hadmerits in itself, but this should notbe raised. Those merits should notbe considered. That has been thefate, I should say, even in the discussion of this report as well. 1 declare it here that all this suspicionis unfounded. The Sikhs are Indiansfirst and Indians last They havenever done anything that may arouseany suspicion in the mind of anybody.I put that question straight to ourPrime Minister in 1952 on the 7th ofJuly when the non-official resolutionof my hon. friend Shri Tushar Chat- terjea was being discussed and ourPrime Minister referred to this factthat the Sikhs wanted a separateState and he was not conceding it. Istood up and put this questionstraight to him—-it is put down in theDebates—Who has asked for thatState?* And, the historic reply byPanditji was, ‘I welcome the statement. I concede that no responsibleleader has ever asked for it.* That isrecorded in the Debates. When MasterTara Singh was welcoming our PrimeMinister recently at Amritsar, standing just underneath that highestauthority of our Gurus, the AkalTakht, within the holiest precincts ofShri Darbar Sahib, Golden Temple,he declared unequivocally that hewished he could rip open his heart toshow to his countrymen that theSikhs were Indians first and Indianslast

Pandit niaknt Das Bhargavm(Gurgaon): Which countryman sus

pects this?

Sardar Hnkam Singli: That is mycomplaint. Even this Commissioasuspects it; even the Dar Commissionsuspected it and the JVP Report suspected it. I am coming to that. I havethe good fortune of standing by the

ICX37 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.R.C. 3008

[Sardar Hukam Singh]side ot my own friend and o£ my ownfriend has patience I will be comingto that also.

Master Tara Singh declared it veryuneQuivocally in the holy precincts ofthe Darbar Sahib that he wished hecould rip open his heart there toshow his countrymen that Sikhg areIndians first and Indians last; thatthey had never any truck with anyforeign power. I wrote a letter tothe Prime Minister that these chargesare being levelled against us, thatpropaganda is going on in the Pressand on the platform and 1 requestedthe Prime Minister to institute anenquiry into that. I said that If thereis even a reasonable suspicion in thatrespect that we have ever betrayedthis country or that we have anytruck with any foreign country, wedeserve to be shot in front of thecannon, what to say of giving us a Punjabi Suba. If really that be nota fact and if it is only a propagandato malign us in the eyes of our countrymen, then, it is the duty of thisGovernment to clear this position andtell our friends in this country thatthis is not a fact. If this impressiongoes round, tben, certainly, life forthe Sikhs in this country will be intolerable and will not be wcrth living.It may not be possible for anyminority to live in this country if thisidea is infused in the minds of ourcountrymen that we are not faithful

this country.I have just submitted that the SRC

had to concede that our case was alsobased on the usual grounds that areadvanced in the case of a demand fora linguistic State. But, then, what dowe find in the conclusion? Have theyadhered to those principles and meritswhich they have laid down? Havethey acted on those pHnciples whichthey have laid down for the guidanceof themselves? My complaint is thatnot one of those principles was adhered to. They completely forgot themerifts in our case. Not only that; theyhave gone much further and advisedus—of course, we feel that it is an insult to our intellect as well—that

instead of having an uncertain majority in a small State, it is t»etterthat the Sikhs should be in a sizableminority in a bigger State. If onlinguistic considerations, financial,

economic and defence and all considerations, the Sikhs can certainly geta majority, then the advice of theCommission is that instead of havingin a Pun]abi State a majority, it isadvisable for them to have a sizableminority of nne-third in a biggerState. Why does that come in? Werethey giving us a sovereign State so thatwe were being cut off from the restof India? Did we ask for the divisionof the country? Was it in our mindthat we wanted to separate or is it intheir conclusions that their brains arebeing influenced by that impressionthat perhaps it would be a separateState. I feel that that misapprehensionand the effect of that mischievous propaganda were influencing the decisionsof these eminent men when they gavetheir verdict and ifasulted us as well.

We have heard the debate for thelast three days; we have heard manygood arguments of those whose aspirations have been fulfilled, of thosewhose desires have been met. Nowthey are full of praise for this Commission and their Report and theyhave very sound counsels and advicesto give to others. They come outwith the statement that the nationalsecurity shall be the primary aim,that it is the unity of India thatshould be seen first of all, that weshould look To the coimtiy as a whole.They perhaps mean to say that those*others who are still asking, who havenot got what they want, are perhapstraitors, are not looking to the unityof India. I want to ask this question:Where does the question of securityand unity of India come in so far asinternal re-adjustment of boundariesbetween the States is concerned? Ichallenge anybody who imputes thisto those who desire the re-distribucion.I want them to prove in whatever waythey can that those who ask for thislinguistic re-distribution of India ar«less patriotic or that they hafve lessconsideration for the unity and


security of India. Unity and security of India is dear to us, if not more, at least equally with those that have i;ot those ideas in their minds. yieldto none in this declara<tion that we are as patriotic and as loyal and as faithful to this country as anybody else who can claim that. Here our great Acharyaji—he is not here today— came out with seme fresh concepts and interesting ideas. He said that our leaders, our heroes and our saints belong to the whole country. Couid any province claim them exclusively to itself? Was not the culture that

they gave common to the whole ol India? And he named our Rama- chander, Krishna, Guru Nanak and other nobilities and high persons, heroes and saints. That is quite welcome. We do not dispute those abstract counsels and abstract truths.

They would remain true as long as we are here. Who doubts them? But even our Home Minister—I thank him for that—gave us this counsel that we should discuss it calmly and coolly taking into consideration the country as a whole. May I remind the Arhar- yaji and our revered Home Minister that when he was the Chief Minister he did say that hc would not permit the land of Rama and Krishna to be divided into two? Did he not say that?

Pandit Tbakur Das Bhargavaf He did say that; it was reported so In :he papers.

Sardar Hukam Singh: My friendsays he did say that.

Pandit Thakor Das Bhargava: itwas reported so in the papers.

Sardar Hukam Singlt; Even our Home Minister had to say that he would not permit the land of Rama and Krishna to be divided into two provinces. That should at least be considered by Acharya Kripalani and I would request the hon. Home Minister to realise and appreciate our aspirations as well. As I said just now,In asking for a re-distribution of the country, we are not splitting It up fnto independent States. The reasons are given here that the States should be bigger.

Pandit K, C. Sharma fMeerut Di«t.t

—South): He wanted ui: ty and he is giving you unity.

Sardar Hukam Singh: I thank thehon. Member for that and also thank the members of the Commission. ThcM he claimed that the land of Rama and Krishna must belong to his own province and not to any other province.

Shri B. D. Pande (Almora Distt.— North East): It Is not a statement of facts. What he said was that the land of Rama and Krishna should not be divided.

Sardar Hukam Singh: If 1 have not expressed in suitable terms, I thank my friend for having done so. He said that the land of Rama and Krishna should not be divided. If I have committed any wrong or mistake, I am sorry, and I shall take his words. I would request the hon. Home Minister to appreciate the feelings of others as well in the same concept and in the same understanding as he had himself when he was there. We are told not to think in these terms. We are told by Acharya Kripalani that the culture is one. But is there an Indian culture distinct from the cultures of the provinces that compose it? As Swamiji said day before yesterday, it is only a synthesis of the cultures of the provinces and there is no separate culture of India except that it is a blending together of the cultures of all provinces. If those units progress, if the 'ultures of those units develop, it Is the development of the culture of India and of no other country. It is also said that it would be better for a brave community, for an enterprising community like the Sikhs to have a larger unit instead of shutting themselves up into a smaller unit. We have got these words of praise very often and we are thankful to those who uttered them. If we realise that, then we find that the members of the Commission had that notion in their minds that if a Punjabi Suba is conceded or carved out, then all other provinces should be shut to the Sikhs.Is that the idea? As Indians, should not the Sikhs have the same opportunity in other provinces as anybody else has got? I admire that even when


[Sardar Hukam Singh]a section of the Muslims wanted a separate State, they have got it and they have gone. But our State is giving every facility to other Muslims to stay in any of the places that they want. We have been trying to accommodate even tnose who want to come here. I endorse that policy.* 1 am happy ov«r it But would it be that Sikhs, if only a linguistic redistribution is made, would have access only to that small pond and would not be able to move about and shall not have facilities in other provinces? I request th<e hon. Members to appreciate the feelings that are working behind. As I said in the beginning, there is a lurking suspicion and mistrust that has gone all roimd. If the coimtry believes that if our leaders also believe that we are traitors, let us be told that we are not to be trusted. First satisfy yourself that we are true and loyal and faithful as anybody else. When that satisfaction is come and we arrive at the conclusion that there is nothing wrong so far as our fidelity and loyalty is concerned, are not we entitled to the saine privileges and the same conveniences as anyone else has got?

Not only this. We have been told that if we get the Punjabi Suba, then every Sikh from every other province shall have to come here; that will be their fate. This is not only by irresponsible persons or Press but even by responsible leaders; they talk like that sometimes and I can quote instances. We have been told that we are wrong in demanding this. If we ask for a Punjabi Suba and that is given to us, then all those Sikhs who are living outside and flourishing in their business and enterprises— those Sikhs whose home is outside Punjab and PEPSU should all migrate from that place. This, I cannot understand. Many responsible men have said that.

An Hon. Member: I do not believe.Sardar Hukam Sindi: If you can

believe that I am speaking in your presence, then you can believe that. What is it that is in their minds then? What Ui it that is working there?— The s?ame suspicion, as I said.

When that is removed, I am sure 1 will have all those concessions or all those privileges which any Indian has got. 1 want nothing more; I should make it clear. I am not asking for any special concessions. I have not asked for any weightage or anything like that for the Sikhs. Never was that done. There is a misapprehension in that respect as well. I have never asked for any rights particularly for the Sikhs. What we say is that we shall have the same rights as any other Indian. We should be treated on the same level as any other Indian. We heard here in very fine words from our friend that Sikhs are their kith and kin; there is no difference absolutely between a Sikh and a Hindu. We are all one but these Akalis are creating these differences.

I am also of that opinion; I endorse that view though not with the same vehemence as those words implied. They are one. I am also of ttie same opinion. I have declared it once before. My elder brother was Sodagar Ram. I have four sisters. One is married to a 'Sikh and three to Hindus. My wife comes from a Hindu family, which even smokes. Can we imagine that I will have prejudices against Hindus? Those who have seen my house in Kapurthala were amazed to find hukas Ijdng there. Could I ask my wife’s brother not to indulge in what tie wanted to?

What have we been asking? We should be taken into the fold of Hinduism. We have been deploring that the President’s Scheduled Castes Order was absolutely wrong. Who created that cleavage? Was it not created by the President’s Order of 1950 that only those Scheduled Castes shall have those rights except the four Sikh classes in Punjab and PEPSU, who professed Hindu religion? Was that order not the starting pohit of that cleavage that is complained about so often? Was it not the betfin- ring of the difference that was created? Are we asking for anything separate?

When the Hindu Code Bill was Introduced in this august House in


regard to clause 2(2), Dr. Ambedkarstood up and said that this includedHindus and Sikhs. I moved an amendment that Sikhs should be excluded;I did it purposely. When I had thechance to speak. I told him: it youwant to take me into the Hindu fold,I am prepared to come but do itwholeheartedly and completely. Firstremove that clauce where you haveseparated me and ô the whole hog.How are you going to take away therustoms? Sikhs and Hindus are one.But when there are certain privileges,you say: you are out of my fold; andst* nd at a respectable distance andwould not allow me to come near you.

My friend here by my side has takennote of it; he would say that it wasout of a compromise. I anticipatethat. Can you imagine the fate ofthose persons who were in such a plight that they were forced to agree:this much and no further. You canvery well see and appreciate the difficulties of those people:

it means: the thief is running awaybut he leaves behind his turban. Allright; I have to be content with it.

We are denounced as separatists. 1 shall come to this in a minute. Wehave a distinct religion; that we havealways claimed but wt had alwayssaid that we were included in theHindu fold; we had been told that forthe last hundred years. Dr. Ambedkarhad told me, that in the High Courtsand elsewhere, Sikhs were includedin the Hindu fold so far as sociallegislations are concerned and wewere glad of that. Then the President’s Order threw us out of that, fold.That is one thing.

Then we said that we had the samelanguage. There are some safegpardsfor the linguistic minorities; they hadbeen dinned Into our ears. The safeguards are there; we have oaid fullattention to them. We were a religiousminority first. By denying or the disavowal of that language, we are beingmade a linguistic minority as well. A very prominent member, one officeholder of the fflndu Mahaâbha saldT

—there was a report In the paperf andI cannot vouchsafe it further—that hehad an objection to his children beingtaught in the Gurmukhi script becausethat would have the imprint of Sikhculture on their children and on theirfuture generations. That was thereport. You cannot say: “We are inthe same fold,” and immediately tellus “No, go away.*' It was said thatthere was the same language. Nowthey say it is a Sikh language. Thenabout culture, it is reported that thisperson said that there would be an imprint of Sikh culture.

Now, I am reminded of Jinnah whoIn his Resolution of 1940 said: “Muslims have got a separate language,separate religion and separate culture.All these are distinct and therefore,they are a separate nation.*’ We say.we belong to the Hindu-fold; they say‘no*. We say we have the samelanguage but they say *no’ ; this ifSikh language. We say, we have thesame culture; they say: No. get away.Are we the separatists. Sir? Are weadvocating an3 hlng that smacks ofparochialism or separatism? I leaveit to hon. Members to judge to whatend we have been driven toby our brothers and whatis going to be the ultimate end of it. I appeal to the hon. Members to gothrough this question very calmly,and particularly my Home Minister tolook into the disease Itself and thentry to apply the remedy that might bemost suitable to it.

Language, Sir. we are told has beena problem long ago; it is not a freshproblem. The Report says that theHindus have been denying it. May Iask when this denial came up? It wasfor the first time in 1931 at the time ofcensus that certain Hindus denied thatlanguage because there was competition between Urdu and Hindi. TheMuslims wanted that tJrdu should bethe lingua franca, the language of thewhole country and the Hindus desired,quite rightly, that it should beUrdu and It should be Hindi, Both ofthem denied their mother tongue andit is in the record of the Census Re port that both have spoken falsehoods.


[Strdar Hukam Singh]It is only the Sikhs that have stuck tot. The Census Commissioner has

reproduced the following in hisReport:

**Censu8 operation have begunQuestion You should anstoerReligion Vedic DharamSect Arya SamajistCaite NilRace ArymLanguage Arya Bhasha (Hindi)

The Census Committee.Arya Samaj, Wachhowali, Lahore/'

I read something in the languagepapers here with regard to the census. They propagated that a questionwas put to the Editor, one paper said,by a Hindu of Jullundur Division asto what he should return as his mothertongue and that he had told that manthat it is the Hindi language. Thatman was living in Jullundur Division.»8 per cent, of the people of JullundurDivision are Punjabi-speaking. Anex-Chief Minister of a native stiate gloated over the fact that Hindus havedeclared to a single man that they areagainst Punjabi and that it is nottheir language. Now, we know thatsome murders also were committed.The 1941 census could not incorporatethe returns of language. In 1951 alsothis attempt had to be abandoned.But, the Commission sajrs that thereis no language problem here. Theysay there is no language problem atall. Then, what is the problem?lliey say it is the communal problem;it is not the language problem. Theyalso say that the Hindus have alwaysdisowned this language.

Sir, I have read of the case of Central Europe where because of the adjustment of foreign territories andnations certain minorities have beenleft in other States who had a different language. But, here in Indiawhere we are told that we are one:we have been living here, if the Hindus have a different language, Punjabiis not their mother tongue and it is

the mother tongue of the Sikhs alone,then either the Sikhs have come outof some foreign countries or thoseHindus, who deny that Punjabi istheir mother tongue, are foreir^ners;they are not sons of this soil.

Shri C. D. Pande (Nainital Diatt.cum Almora Distt.—South West cumBareilly Distt.—North): They are.

Sardar Hukam Singh: l am onlyputting the alternatives. You maychoose any. If it suits you I will accept that. If they are then do yousay that ^ e Sikhs are not?

Shri C. D. Pande: Both ai^ thesame.

Sardar Hukam Singh: If both are thesame and our Hindu brethren denytheir mother tongue does it not requirethe careful attention of theleaders to analyse what the causes are?Several friends have enquired fromme many a time as to what is thecause that these Hindus of JullundurDivision deny their mother tongue.I have no answer to it. Sometimes Ihave said: '1 have none. You mustask them.*’ I can only say that i iscommunalism, but if they can giveyou any answer it would be for themto make.

In the last census before the lastgeneral election—-I am bringing to thenotice of the Home Minister what ourfate is—when there was a mentionof delimitation of constituencies—oneinstance will tell you our line of feeling—the Punjab Government ElectionCommissioner recommended by sotnescheme that such and such a constituency should be formed. The ChiefElection Commissioner also supportedthat and the constituencies were formed. There was a Member from Jullundur and he did not Dnd his constituency to be of his own taste. Hewent round to every Member of theParliament here. One hon. Memberwho is a Parliamentary Secretarynow in this Government came to meand asked: “What is the position”?I said that so and so has been cominground and canvassing us that weshould support him. He is saying

3017 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3018that with the scheme that is broughtup by the Election Commissioner in regard to constituencies the Sikhsshall have a majority, they will separate from Iniia and Punjab would belost to India. They would join Pakis- tEn/’ I was amazed to hear that ifone constituency is not made theSikhs would join Pakistan. Then,what were the headlines in the newspapers? It is this:

They said that the foundation waslaid for the Sikh Raj because oneconstituency was not formed according to the liking of one hon. Member.A deputation was led to our worthyPresident and they put the samething. The next day I saw a reportabout the interview in the papers. I also approached the President andasked: “What is happening there?**Anyhow then there was discussion inthe Parliament and that constituencywas certainly readjusted. Then I declared standing up here that I amglad that now the Sikhs would notjoin Pakistan because one constituency has at least been remodelled.

Shrl D. C. Sharma (Hoshiarpur):Old history.

Sardar Hakam Singh: My friendsays “it is old history” but the freshone is worse than that.

Sir, I appeal to hon. friends hereto realise what the position is. I amasked: “Why should I cry for language?” Are Hindus not also thesons of that soil? Do they not havethe same language? Is it not theirmother tongue? If the Sikhs were tosit silent perhaps the Hindus wouldnot oppose it. I only tell them thatthey are two sons of the same mother.The elder one gets annoyed perhapson account of Certain faults of theyounger one. The younger one mighthave committed certain mistakes oron account of his own ignorance, prejudice or communal ism the elder oneruns at the mother with a dagger in

his hand and wants to kill the mother.He says: “I must stab her.” Theyounger one runs to the rescue of themother saying: “Let her be saved.I will sacrifice myself. Whatever thecase I will suffer the consequences.If the mother survives she will tendboth, she will love both and then theelder brother would realise that hehad made a mistake..” That is mylot, Sir. The language is the motheras is generally called. I am theyounger brother. Even if qn accountof my mistakes this elder brother is out to kill her I do not want to permit him to do not.

Shri D. C. Sharma: Certainly not.Sardar Hukam Singh: It is not the

words that would count; it is the action that is required. That has beenthe trouble always. It is in the records, even in the Report of the Commission, that the Hindus do not ownthat. What further proof am I required to give to this House. I amtold that this is not their language.How sad? And why did they do it?Now the Report has stated that if a Punjabi Suba is formed, that wouldnot solve any problem. Quite right.Why? Because the Hindus do notown it. And what would be thecondition? It was the easiest thing inthis case for the Reorganisation Commission to have come to a conclusion.As I said in the beginning, I went tothe Conmiission to get a State for mylanguage. And what have they given?Like that lady who came away without her garment even instead of giving me that State, they have takenaway and scrapped away even thelanguage. They have cast aspersionsthat this is not a distinct language.They have stated that their scriptDevanagari is more suited to the expression of this language. Let it notbe understood that I am against Hindi.I am cexînly for Hind} and it is notpossible for any Indian to ignore orset it aside. If anybody does it, itwould be at his own cost. He willsuffer himself if he ignores that. Butmy position is that Punjabi, regionallanguage, should not be sacrificed.Let Hindi have its pedettal by all


[Sardar Hukam Singh]means, even a little more. But let itnot be done at the sacrifice of the regional language. Let that also remain. It should be given the samestatus as any regional language hasgot in any other State. We are toldthat it will not solve any problem.And what would be the result? AsI was saying it was the easiest thingto do with such a formula. That isthe best of all things. One of myfriends was saying that Bombay is a bilingual State. Quite right. Because, people have gone from outsideSome are Gujaratis and some areMaharashtrians. They are not livingin separate zones as thite is Gujaratiand that is Maharashtrian. But inPunjab State the case is quite distinct. There are two distinct zones—Punjabi and Hindi. Similarly, inPEPSU there are Punjabi and Hindizones. The Punjabi zone of Punjabis contiguous to Punjabi zone ofPEPSU. Both are contiguous. Sacharformula has declared that this is thePunjabi zone. The PEPSU Government has declared that this is thePunjabi zone. There are no disputesabout boundaries. Only a declarationis required that the two are united.They would form one compact, homogeneous area, rich in financial resources and other potentialities. But theSRC Report has departed from thatground. Let not anybody be underthe impression that there is a greatdifficulty so far as economic and financial resources are concerned. Itwould be much richer than the present Punjab and PEPSU States.

Mr. Deputy.Speaker: What is thepopulation?

Sardar Hukum Singh: If only thesetwo are united, then ,the populationwould be 93 lakhs. *

An Hon. Member: What aboutrevenue?

Sardar Hukam Singb: Now youhave drawn my attention to that I will take it. If these areas are united—th^y are officially recognized and

regularly demarcated by the Government themselves—then the population would be 93 lakhs and the proportion of the Sikhs would be 56 percent.

Mr. Deputy.Speaker: Do all thenon-Sikhs also wish for that?

Sardar Hukam Singh: Yes, Sir. 1 do not stand in their way if you makeit by persuasion; but not by the present order of giving them economicconcessions. Mind that. The Sikhswould be 56 per cent. If these twozones are united they would be 93 lakhs and 56 per cent.

An Hon. Member: If PEPSU andPunjab are united?

Sardar Hukam Singh: If PEPSUand Punjabi zones of Punjab are United we will be in a majority. We hadthat apprehension when we put uptha memorandum. Certainly weanticipated we will be frontedwith this. Why should a majoritybe converted into a minority? If theSikhs are in a minority at this moment, why should they be made a majority by the adjustment? Ofcourse, that question struck us andfaced us. If there had been no suspicion and if we are as good as brothersthen there should not have been anyquestion of this proposal of makingone party into a majority or the other,were conscious that we would beconfronted with that. Therefore, weBut facing the facts as they were, weincluded certain other tracts whichwere bilingual and ifti the memorandumthat we submitted it became 47*5 percent. If this is formed then the language is Punjabi and there would beno trouble at all because those whooppose now and disown it, they willhave no ground at all if this regionallanguage is declared for administration and for educational purposes.Then every man who lives there shallfind it to his own advantage to readit. The present frictira would disappear. Would you believe me whenI say that when I went before the

3021 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.H.C. 302a

Commission and I was cross-examined there a member of the Commissiton put me this question: ''how haveyou included this part of Ganganagar and part of Karnal in that State?'* I think I said “if they are not, let them be excluded” . Then he said ''Oh, then you would become 51 per cent.” I say, then something in the Constitution might be provided that I should always remain in a minority. If 1 ask for a Punjabi speaking State, purely of the Punjabi-speaking areas, I cannot be given because I become a majority. If I include other regions, bilingual as well, then I am confronted with "these are not Pun- jc bi-speaking areas so you cannot get that” . What is the remedy then? Where should I go? If I am refused this Punjabi-speaking zone because I become a majority, then do something else, ajid keep me in a minority. I purposely put that when I said that I should remain 47 per cent. We are told that Sikhs would be driving out Hindus. They would go out and they would not like to remain here. Why? That means, if they form 70 per cent, then alone they are prepared to stay here. If they become 55 per cent, they are not prepared to stay. Press- sed further, it means that they want a majority and a stranglehold of 70 per cent, and not less than that. This is their condition for staying. Otherwise they would walk away. They do not want to live there if the Sikhs form 47 per cent.

Very peculiar arguments have been advanced and statements given. Recently there was a statement that there should be a comparison between the population of the Sikhs in the towns and the villages with those in the jails. They say they are the criminals and they are not prepared to mix witti them. This is also the argument that has been advanced. I do not want to reply to that argument. There is no need to do so. But what I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister is, this is what is happening there and he has to redress it. He should not think that simply safeguards would suffice

There is a mentality and psychology of 70 per cent, and 30 per cent. There is a superiority complex that they are the rulers and others are the ruled. There is an inferiority complex that we have to depend upon and be at their sufference. It is not a question, as my friend said of such i>ersons becoming Hindus or Sikhs by conversion. Let them, by their own free will, take to any religion which they may like. This is a secular State, and nobody can object to that. We are not asking for that, but as far as we are here, we should have equal treatment at least.

Mr. Deputy.Speaker: You havetaken nearly an hour. How long would you like to take further?

Sardar Hukam Singh: I have much more to say, but I can say them only if I am allowed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed an hour. I am only leaving it to th« hon. Member to say how much time he wants from now?

Sardar Hukam Singh: I shall condense my further points as much as I can. In paragraph 93, the Commission has laid down the principles, to which I referred earlier. They are: "preservation and strengthening oi the unity and security of India; linguistic and cultural homogeneity financial, economic and administrative considerations; and successful working of the national plan.” So far as these four principles are concerned, if we look to the chapter in which this case is rejected, we will find that there is not a word mentioned as regards the successful working of the national plan. Though it has been said elsewhere that the catchment area is there, they said that it would not help the linguistic and cultural homogeneity. I will take that aspect now. At present we have got 126 lakhs in the present State, out of which 76 lakhs are in the Punjabispeaking zone and 50 lakhs in the Hindi-speaking area. Out of 76 lakhs they are equally divided between the Hindus and the Sikhs—38 lakhs Sikhs and roughly 38 lakhs Hindus. It is


[Sardar Hukam Singh]wrong to say that all the liindus areagainst a Punjabi-speaking area.There were deputations that were ledbefore the Commission by certainnon. Members of the Hindu com*munity who supported this idea.Chowdhuri Hari Chand of Hoshiar- pur and Chowdhuri Kartar Singh.M.L.C. were there. Also anotherHindu gentleman—Shri Om PrakashKohol, has written a book on Hindusand the Punjabi-speaking State andhe has strongly supported it. It is wrong to say that all Hindus are opposed to it. I can say that the MahaPunjab Samithi—and we put it to theCommission as well—does not contain even one member from the ruralareas. They represent only urbaninterests and have something vestedin the present position. Thtey arecertainly most vocal. They are in theGovernment. They have the press attheir command; they have trade andeverything and all the equipmentthat go to form modem machinery.So, it is wrong to say that all Hindusare opposed to the Punjabi-speakingState. Even assuming that roughlythe Sikhs are on the one side and theHindus are on the other side—theargument of the Commission—wefind that in the present Punjab, thereare 38 lakhs of Sikhs, 38 lakhs ofHindus in the Punjabi-speaking zoneand 50 lakhs of Hindi-speaking people, that is, the Hariana people. I am leaving out Kangra foe the present, and though there was a resolution, my friend objected to it. If hesays that it is a Punjabi-speakingarea, let it remain so. I do not object to it.

Start Anand Ctaand (Bilaspur): Doyou accept that resolution?

Sardar Hukam Singh: I have saidthat the opinion of Grierson thatKangra was a Punjabi-speaking area.

Sbrl Anand Chand: What aboutKangra?

Sardar Hukam Singh: I said thatthere was a resolution passed by theDistrict Board of Kangra that it should be tagged on to the hillyareas, but the other day my friend

objected to it, and therefore, I accept the position.

Shri Hem Raj (Kangra): 1 enquired from the District Board andthe District Board said that there wasno such resolution.

Sardar Hukam Singh; I have gotthe records here. I am not anywaypursuing it. Let it be forgotten thatthey passed a resolution. At leastthere are 50 lakhs of Hariana peoplewho want that they should have a separate State. I shall now read a few lines only indicating what theviews of the three Legislative Assemblies—^Punjab, PEPSU andHimachal Pradesh—^were, so far as the redistribution is concerned. I think this should be of some interestto my hon. friends. Out of the totalof 138 members who took part in thediscussion of the SRC Report, 59 * were from Punjab Legislative Assembly, 51 from PEPSU LegislativeAssembly and 28 from HimachalPradesh Legislative Assembly. 30 members have supported the Commission’s proposal for merger ofPunjab, PEPSU and Himachal Pradesh into one unit out of the 138. 91 members have demanded the formation of three linguistic States,—Punjabi-speaking State, HarianaState and Himachal Pradesh. Sixmembers—five from PEPSU and onefrom Punjab—were opposed to theinclusion of Himachal Pradesh in thefuture Punjab. They favour themerger of PEPSU with Punjab butthe question of demarcation of suitable boundaries was left to theCongress High Command sub-com-

ITour members have left theWiSoie question of the future bound- ari'ts ol* Punjab State to the CongressHigh Command. Two members fromPEPSU advocated the retention ofPEPSU. One from PEPSU suggestedthe merger of Mohindergarh districtwith Rajasthan. Four members, allfrom Punjab, have not expressed anyopinion for or against the SRC Report. Though in the Himachal Pradesh Assembly, 28 members participated in the discussion, at the time ofTOting, 38 mambars took part. Four

3025 Motion re: 17 DECEMBFR 1955 Report oj 5.H.C. 3026

of them voted for the Commission*!report and 34 voted against. This isthe view of the Assembly members.I was just giving out the figures,because the Commission has giventhe impression that the majority of♦iie people were opposed to the formation of a Punjabi-speaking State,and that therefore it falls through.Apart from the 50 lakhs Hindus, Ihave given the indication from thedebate of the Legislative Assemblythat 38 lakhs Sikhs also have favoured it. Nobody has said that there areany Sikhs who opposed it. 88 lakhswere there in all. Of course, theremight be one or two here or threeor four on the other side, but roughly,88 lakhs favoured it and 38 lakhsopposed the formation of a PunjabiSuba and Hariana. Can it be saidthat the majority of the people wereopposed to it? If they want to saythat this majority included Harianapeople, and say that 70 per cent, areopposed to it, I do not understandwhy Hariana people should be included in it, because they do notspeak Punjabi. Why should youinclude them in the number ofPimjabi-speaking people when it is not their language? To include themand say that the majority are opposed to it is wrong. There are 88 lakhs who are in favour of theredistribution of the State, as far asPunjabi-speaking area is concerned.

Similar is the case in regard toPEPSU Punjabi zone. There are 17 lakhs of Sikhs and 12 lakhs ofHindus there. They have no objection to read Punjabi. There is noproblem at all. The Commission hascreated a fresh problem. PEPSU wasgoing on peacefully. The languagepolicy is not objected to by anybody.Certainly that question involvedcomplications similar to those thatare appearing here in the Punjab. Ifwe calculate the number of peoplein the Punjabi-speaking area thatwas proposed to be made, therewould have been 55 lakhs of Sikhsand 50 lakhs Hindus. In that respect,we can say that, if all are Indiansand no premium is to be placedbecause a certain person belongs to

this community or that community,certainly the majority was in favourof a Punjabi-speaking State. It ia simple arithmetic and nothing morethan that. But, we have been toldthat the majority is opposed to it. Thewishes of the people are to be ascertained from the debates in theAssembly and it is said that the requisite minimum measure of agreement must come. I want to ask,whether the proposal of the Commission in respect of a Punjabispeaking State was ever consideredin the light of this test. There atleast one-third were opposed to itand two-thirds were in favour of a Punjabi Suba. Here one-fourth arein favour of the proposal of theCommission and three-fourths areopposed to it.1 P.M.

Shrl Mohan Lai Saksena (LucknowDistt. cum Bara Banki Distt.): Youmean one-fourth were in favour ofit and three-fourths against.

Sardar Hukaoi Singh: Out of1,76,00,000 people, 55 lakhs of Sikhs atleast are opposed to it; 50 lakhs ofHarianvis do not want it and atleast 10 lakhs of people from Himachal Pradesh are opposed to it. Thisis simple arithmetic and the percentage can be calculated. I only wantto ask whether that test was to beapplied only for the rejection of a Punjabi-speaking State and not forforming the new proposed State.Does that test lose its force and efficacy because other proposals arebeing made now? Why is that testnot applied here? It is said that theAkali Dal Memorandum put it thatthere are deficit areas. We did putit. We were deficit when the countrywas divided. But now the Punjabishave made it a surplus State. Otherareas are being added on to this, sothat the headache of the centre maybe shifted to Punjab, and Punjabmight have to bear that deficit. Punjabmust be put in charge of these deficitareas and be responsible for them.Are these people only cattle to behuddled together in any enclosurethat the administration wants? Are

3027 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.H.C. 3028

[Sardar Hukam Singh]they human beings or are they to beconsidered only as livestock that isto be put in a box and despatched toany place that is desired? Should youdeliver them only on the sweet willof the consignor or has the consigneealso any say in that matter? Another reason is given. The catchmentarea is there in the Himachal Pradesh and therefore it should be partof the same State. We are asked toconsider the whole country as oneunit. So far as the proposal of theCommission is concerned, there isa minority report that it should bea centrally administered area. Doesthe Centre intend to stop giving thewater to the areas because the headworks are there? Bhakra Dam is there and lands in Rajasthan andother areas are to be irrigated byits waters. For that reason, can allthose areas be put in one State? Iwant to submit one more thing. Thereis a minority report that HimachalPradesh should be kept apart. Sufficient reasons have been given, namelythat it is an undeveloped and backward area requiring special attention, and the wishes of the people arealso there. All these are mentionedin the note of the Chairman. Theother two members have recommended the merger. But, one of thosetwo Members, dealing with U.P. hassaid that U.P. should be divided. Hehas said that the areas of Kumaonand other hilly tracks are backwardand they need to be developed. Hehas said that they cannot develop in that bigger State and therefore theState should be divided. When hesays that these areas are undeveloped, the people of the hill areas arebackward and their problems aredistinct and separate, and when heappends that note for the dismemberment of U.P., he takes up the caseof these hill tracks and uses themexactly on the lines in which theChairman of the SRC has donewhen he appended the minority report that so far as the HimachalPradesh was concerned, it should bekept separate. I have to submit thatthere are two Members of the Com

mission who are in favour of Himachal Pradesh being separate. Thoughnot in the Report, there are twoMembers who support the separateexistence of Himachal Pradesh, forthey have given the same reasons ontwo different occasions. If that argument is accepted, there is only oneMember—a minority—who wants themerger of Himachal Pradesh. TheChairman of this Commission wa*very discreet when he said that hewould not participate in it so far thequestion of Bihar was concerned,because he had spent many years olhis life in that Province. I believethat he lived in U.P. also. I am sorrythe Chairman originally belonged toUttar Pradesh. If he did apply thatprinciple in the case of Bihar, whydid he not apply it in the case ofU.P.?

Pandit K. C. Sharma: He had littleinterest in It.

Sardar Hukam Singh: Why wasthat lest not applied in the case ofUttar Pradesh, when another Member has given a note pleading for thedismemberment of U.P.? I do not saythat it must be dismembered. I amtaking up the argument. Let it remain as it is; let it swell; I have noobjection. Let it be made greater; Ihave nothing against it. I am coming to my argument, how can theseproposals of the Commission convinceanybody here.

As you say that I should finish. 1 close my case now. They have unitedtogether unnatural zones which havenothing in common between them.Therefore, the whole trouble arises.Unless the solution that has beenmade applicable in the other Statesis applied in this zone also, thertwould not be contentment and permanent peace. The people wouldnot be able to live in amity. Theyhave raised the question of nationalsecurity and unity. If it is made, ashas been tried to be made, that itwould be optional for anybodyto read any language. The reportsays that the Hindus are averse to

3029 Motion re: 17 DfiCEMfifiR 1955 Report oj S.R.C, 3< 30

Punjabi, and even those who are brougnt from the PiSPSU, though they nave no objection now, will have objection when they unite. What would be the fate ultimately of Punjabi? We are told that it will noL suffer. The Sikhs are not goingi,o leave their mother tongue. Let it De assured. They won’t leave it, though they will have Hindi as the Kashtrabhasha. The Hindus have been encouraged here that they have a different language. When this State is made, it would not be a Punjabi State. It is wrong to assume that Punjabi language can flourish. When 117 lakhs are opposed to it, 55 lakhs would not be able to continue it. It would suffer and in the end it will be wiped out though as yet it stands in the Constitution. So, this proposal would not solve that problem, but will create many more, to the detriment of our unity and national security. Now, there are two zones separate and distinct. What would happen in the future? Every hamlet, every cottage will be a bilingual cottage, bilingual hamlet. This will go to the farthest ends of the border where there is no trouble at all. There is no mixture of population as Punjabi-speaking or Hindi-speaking in the border. But, if it is said that Hindus have their language, and that Punjabi is not their language, this would permeate even to the remotest corner. Is it in the interests of national security to have two cultures? Surely language is culture and forms part of a pattern of life and has certain values in life. You say Punjabi is not the language of a Hindu sitting in the remotest corner at the border which is vulnerable. We have to guard against it. You would be allowing two languages, two cultures to remain there which will separate permanently the Hindus and the Sikhs. Those who say that there is no difference between the Hindus and the Sikhs are trying to apply a formula by which they are creating that difference, where none exists at present. That, I say, would not add to the security of the State,

and it would be detrimental to the country as a whole.

artinr ftn5n iW ) : w w r

^ f W ^ âjTT^ t I ^

^ I a n f n iy m 1^ IF W

it r i f ^ *5?^5 5 ^ irft I 5#

a jft ^ 0 1^0 ij-o

^ 3 ^ ^ f I 5 T ^ ^ f I RGo 4 ^ ^ t I

^ I ^ «tW R f ^ 3IW R <1?t f5!T5 Jf ^

^ s; I >nn 5TT s;5^ «n(R atm n <1? ^

*T*rr an R ikr it

rfk ?n?r <rr?f hswi

^ HI5T <17^ 5T0 9ic4| 915TI W f i f 4 apT^ 4 ^ »nfr?

I ^ i W «n f«ii# <T«n¥ apr ?pn?r aiw i? q?

i W 3iT«hm

«IT“ I do not know how any

question o f discrimination arises in .his particular matter,”

«CT 0, «fT «nrit I ? *5*^ *rawT VT a im i

?nv ^ 51^ ?hTT I a ift

f«nr fR i 1RPT ^ hfTjrar v W aiNs? ?nv fs n n

I airar ^ v v 4 ^ an

3031 ilo iion r«: 17 DECEMBER 196P Hepcyn of S.Rx^. 3032

r i f f H ^ 3nrfthnvNf f T rh «r

aPT? aiTT t ^ ^^ ^ v t ^ ?nf

“Resolutions and remarkablespeeches of the authorities andthe leaders of the nation in support of the redistribution of areason linguistic and cultural basis.

Resolution of Ministry of Education, New Delhi.

The Ministry of Education,New Delhi, passed a resolution onthe 10th August 1948, on the subject of medium of instructionsin educational institutions. Theresolution has been published inthe Gazette of India, August 14,1948 at page 1000, part 1, section1.

It says, the principle that achild should be instructed in theearly stages of his educationthrough the medium of mothertongue has been accepted by theGovernment.

All educationists agree thatany departure from this principleis bound to be harmful to thechild and therefore to the interests of the society.*’

lift ^ ^ ^ ^k m f :

*The Committee examined theprinciples of redistribution andcame to the conclusion:

*If a province has to educateitself and do its daily workthrough the medium of its ownlanguage, it must necessarily bea linguistic area. If it happensto be a polyglot area, difficultieswill continuously arise and themedia of instructions and workwill be in two or even morelanguages. Hence it becomesmore desirable for provinces tobe regrouped on linguistic basis.

Language, as a rule, correspondswith a special variety of culture,of tradition and literature. Ina linguistic area all these factorswill help in the general progressof the provinces*.”

frft nr? 5hn:sT?r v n tV ^»v ^ «m ?HWT ^ f ;

*They assured the people ofthis vast sub-continent that theculture, language and script ofthe different linguistic areas inIndia shall be protected and guaranteed the freedom of differentterritorial areas within thenation to develop their own lifeand culture within the largerframework and declared for thispurpose that such territorialareas and provinces should beconstituted as far as possible onlinguistic and cultural bases.’*

frft <nrPT ^ fftf? ijro^ ^ inrr •.

'*Dr. Gopichand Bhargava,former Chief Minister of EastPunjab said at Jullundur on 1stJune 1948 that Punjabi was undoubtedly the mother-tongueof the people in the East Punjab.The announcement of the EastPunjab Government declaringboth Hindi and Punjabi to be themedia of instruction in primaryschools has, however, rudelyshaken all Punjabis, exceptthose who wish to sacrifice theirmother-tongue at the altar ofcommunalism.”

ftrsfN <T3n<< f ii if^ apji ihr wv

^ fwTj *r*n 5 .11/) fhft ^5 ^ T*? «ii *T*iT it I aiw'n ^ ^ arr^ arnft

f I ^ grnft annfaorft 1 1 «n«w *f ^ f


anrsft ^

am? ^ ^fA i a n ^ ^ «pte 5(W ^ ^

■(•ft f>w airai, ?i[3r ^ 3*f? ^

w JiRiTT <1^ ^ a ift *h r #

*T <4Qdl«tl «n*T, TEft ?TT1 *W anf ?<fiT ^ ^ srt an ft ffrtr *prFpeA f^ ^ arR TO i «ira- 1 «ft ^ ^ 5

^ traw *f »T»reT i W f«riV ^f ^ ^ !T^ # i ^ T n wf a ift a n W 4 f t ^ aiw

PjrfV ^ irt »ii*T?r f fsT^si^!bH W s yf ?it *n?iTT 5hn ?^ Hi * i f I nhn I anft

?iT^ f?(5 jf JiTsf ?rf? <n f^ •■ 'Sil art*? w ^ T ^

^ ari ST ^ i’ nw ^ ^ *r*i^ tv f ^ IF T IT ^ ^ ^ I ar*T?

^ aiTvn? <T? fflw w^ 5ft ^ ^ art f«wl' ^ vv, vEearRi >ft «n*r ?rt *i'^ ^

^ vnffsi ann^ vVhr

a n ^ vlyt re ?Wrf ^ #

afft '3 1 ^ 7 '9iRi</l

*ft «Misi îff fl’ w i f i wiT*hihrq?:* free srt a k ? 4 vfT[^ ^ w vf « h ^ f lr n iV ^ ^ ?n«r f art^

<«?«W i f a n f «h'B*ii H T? i»f ^

♦kniWi «rr ? t w <iV ^jN t ^ rfy rj I *n?r ?rt ^ artV

*Bt in*R T v A p i I

apft anrf ^ "nm - w?f

<nmft PwrWs art^ <tc?i; ^< n n ^ V w i / i f i w * r f * n n ^ ar^nr«Bt rw5t ^ f?n;, ?>t «t^wtiift snJ <nrm- ^ >ft T*nm awa ift s n r w f f «W f<R ^

^ T?r iTH irfy ^»w in fg ^ w m I »TBf ^ WT ?«» «ITT a?

<ri? Vq*<l aift rt' Ht*T Wtf'f aift a t u i r n f r ^ ^ t

fT^h anw t art *iW«}a *r^ iin ft ari^ ^ ^ iw a m r

a ? i;^ snff ?«iWT a m r arf» ^

fsTOlW ^^ g'sppT *11 pntnr «^r«r ^ f 1

5ffflB5r a ^ m w r , *J^ a n f ^^ -hs 3rt « f * r w w ?* n i r m M 4 f 4 « f M ^ f, H W a ra w M i E » h T -

a rm a ih a t a n a w»iT^ ari a r r ^ ^ , itW f v ^ r * ! ^ ?hn aimt ^ ^ it ^

nt ^ ?5*raT *T I ^ ahrf

^ irt a n ^ ?n»T*t ^ «hir 'T?

TtfT t I ^ ^ f w f ti n p n f n A 4 f‘ art"? n i ^ 4 a 4 \j*i«ifl ^frarr ? a«r ^ 4 a w f sar awn^ ?rt aiTO ^ ^ f w arar t t *

f?r4 *lfa «i^ ari <)W *f nrff *t4 atft f ? p t n ^ f T # a r ^ T T

»t4 ^ffspr at rai^ annr iJwfN’ tnt^ Hii* f »i:‘a5(35 art ijTTo IT’D <»Tftnartsft <it??;a’ f a w f t #= art f v ? 4 T<il? «t«PT? T k ^ ^ WWW 4 w tfq r? it f ajft fa t? T Q >t/t * ] p n f n r it ?«* at amw 4 Wtw>?H«<i»t ^^ itr<P ^ a w a t^ ^ r a V t fiw ?pnTst ^ fsihw ^ aia I a- fw r«w(l Jt iH 4 a7 ^7 'snVl arss sanjr

^ a w I *t7T a w T Vwtll d w iR " ^fV a - 4 a r f ' ^ I *t^ wt f W «m a i p t1 P«B at if ^ ?RTC ai rtW Ti f t w i w V^«<i a w ait^ 'J*wi ?••! anft arsn *fa* f^r 4 vo3Trc ^ T f^ r v f v m it, ^ f€it k i v y f ^«Ê!T IT F I^ ’ T ^ Tlfi r^T it«frpR ^ HTf rt* ^ ^TW ii" I ^

TSnTT fTET WRT jf” ik ftA ^ irf

3035 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 fteport of S.R.C. 3036

[ht m arfsnr Pailani ! ^

fu n ^nr 'Sw*? y v iV 5N 1

I *cn5 aift^ IITV ^

3IW I ar*T? ir®i> '«'<«^ Twr # ?rt ^

4 f r h ^ 5h4 iri fv trv f ip ^P») ^ ^ fa f r ^

^ HI?' I 'l ftnrerfJt)e«i <rg «ift ni7 5rrfW f 1 *n 7^ ,

aii hnsihn 1 ^ 3nr*ft <r5iiT Vn»ra ^ q^n *f iy?n ^ 5 F tm ^ strti^ 5 ti*I >atisii ?rf *1 ^ 3lft

3nf ^>75^ f«l) IRW ^ ^f*T5T aift ^

Tsftrr flnfr? f»T5r r?r <it 5t iriVA f*T5r 7^ «ft, q»n

?nff f»T5r ^ 1 ^8»mr ^ s ir

^ ! W <r5rw ari l i^

^ wn if ^ ^fnrn f ^

« F i - q ^ r ^ i'j ^ ^ •

“By way of caution, however, and as a concession to the sentiment in Patiala, we would recommend that the special position of the city of Patiala might be recognised and that some important offices of the Punjab Government might be located there. Thiswould involve no departure from the general principle which is referred to elsewhere in this report, namely that administrative convenience must be the main consideration to be taken into account in deciding the location of government offices. Tne claims of Patiala can be supported on the ground that Chandigarh has still to develop and that the location of some offices in Patiala

which is situated at a short distance from Chandigarh, will be both popular and convenienl.”v fiR R ^ liTTXFfi

^ ^ t r t e w a r ^ sM ^nr

5T ^ ?T3?r *1 ^ «s^ a ro r

TOSfT f arf? «n W Jfi'urai *r*iT ^ I ^ VTV^ aift ?t« «iFiWe t arf? anr? f ’ T

*tK nt hW*^ ajft ^ ^ ^ H?JT ^ I «M <lv

inr <i??f gf*fhr ^ ân «nofiRhr ^ ^ <rri mt

art*? 5rf*rf ^ promotion ^ ^

^ ajrar vri qPd-Mwi tsnw in fr

§W ?5iT3 f*n? inf? » f *#5înr?iT c; ^ n*r ^ anf «r 5 ^

if 5f«r aiTO nf's iW^ <n T *m imkpT iV 1 tTOT *f yWthr ^ îfnf ^ ?fN- # r i«ro arf? vfrr frr ?‘ n h m J ?rv hRRft ^ ^ < 33; tnsf ^rsrn «ist ^ «n ?r^ 3iRft ^ 1 anf

aift <t3w ^ tri*=hr m <rt g'a''<l/ff«T fly atrc «T( fsirqi5TRr sf J*i«w Wi 5IWI

^ ^ ^hr art*?

c; I ^ ^ FTm frsrf j f ^ I jJ*^ «»? ?> w TOT ^

*f 5T «RT 3ji»r I ^ <h?i; ^fssn atw ^ *?*“ anr *b ' 5 ^ ^^711 I

[Sh ri B arm an in the ChairJ

a n ^ f# r>T W e r f t ff*, m W “ ^Ti* *f ^ 5tT t\ srt 5fhn «ffrw^ art j «T 3ft ijV 1513 f ^ H)5*jr>r*inr f 1anfjfcVtg ^ *TOR f?%T, ^ ? n r

303? MwtM/iv re. 17 DECEMBER 105S Report of S.R.C. 3038

r*r # I F fatnm it r? 1 1 ^ aiftW J 5hft, ^ <i,MT)<aiHT araJT 5hn, «B?f rr^ «r? f^T ^ 1 1?TT 'ft «)?'T>M <|Hl/ 'RTsfr ajf? 5ft ^ *55^ ^

^ «rs n^nr ^ ^ h*pH i «Ti 5ihT ^ r? ’ tra’ ^ ^ ^nt*t art r»T <i!T r»T

^ ^ * I R 5 h t , ?W5tTO^ 5 n ^ I

aiT *f‘ ^ inr^5 «R ^ 5 jra^ I ^ «n (tm, T¥sriV? ^ *T atf? ^ §’W. 6i ^^ ^ <1; ^ ^ hp ?5»i! ^f*Rpft f I ^ wf rar »5» irf <00 7T0

*r?n it, ^ ^ f i *hr wprj ^ . ^00 n o ^ f I ans, T r ?nt r * f ?tf ^00 ?ro in^N r art*? ?rR r Vhciî f 1

inr ?T*r HM ^ 3TT1 rrt 7T ^H ^ ^ ^ f j i w ^ ^ ^«Fir ^ 00 7T0 it ^ ^Bfn r w ^ 00 ?ro «p^ hrr ^ 1

^ 55 mpfTRT ^ ^^ P T T 3 r n r TTW ^ ^ *h r w r arrfrTT

frt 1 art^ n* <p i ^ I ?Rr ^1

\ 3nnr ^ ri* ^ ^ni ^ w r00 ?ro ^ f ^ Roo wo

b r w f 7 TpiTTr anr 00 ?ro * f ^

^hrr I VT tn ip ft 1 w fn r:

if ^ so ?ro f * r ^ ?rt

srt*? hrvh^f ? ap p 00 ?rp ^ «®n^ sr

5; ^ ? ;rhf)i 5tv ifvr v ? wjr^ 5 "^ PR / i I ^

VTTfy ^ ^ ?!rt»Tf ihftsFT^ ?n=mPFr miFft if 1 *

special stress on the economic consequences of the SRC Report, as I havebeen called when the discussion onPunjab is going on, I think I willhave to devote more of my time tothat question rather than to the economic consequences of reorganisation.I would however at the outset put thatpet subject of mine aside by makinga few observations on it.

I am one of those who have beenprejudiced from the very beginning against the recommendations ofthe Commission, and in the ordinarycourse, that prejudice would havestrengthened. But as I sat herelistening to the speeches made bymany hon. Members in this Houseend as I went through the Reportagain and again, I must say I feel thatthe Commission have done a splendidjob of work in the time they had attheir disposal and faced as they werewith numerous complicated problems.Rightly, the Commission have stressed that language alone cannot bethe criterion for realigning the States.If language alone was the criterion, Iam sure some of the Members whohave spoken on the floor of the Houseso vehemently against the recommendations of the Commission wouldhave come to entirely differentconclusions. Take, for example, thecase of UP, Vindhya Pradesh andMadhya Pradesh. If languagewas the sole criterion, this entirearea would have been made intoone State. But no. The Commission have not suggested that.

An Hoil Member: They are uni- lingual States.

Shri Bannl (Jhajjar-Rewari): Ithank you for calling me at thisstage of the discussion. Although Iwould hav^ very much liked to lay

Shrl Banml: If language alonev/as the consideration, then all thoseStates speaking one language wouldhave been formed into one State.

None of the residents of these partshas said:—I want a number ofStates in South India or in Bombay.In fact, the residents of those partsof UP and my part of Punjab, alllike that the States should be as largeand economically viable ^ we can


rShri Bansal]possibly have. And one consideration which the Commission " could not forget was that the States were economically viable.

Now, I would try to examine the recommendations to see whether they have Succeeded in making at least some of the States economically more viable than they are at present. The case of UP is separate. It has been a large province. It has been an economically viable province. I have four States actually in this connection in view: Vindhya Pradesh,Madhya Bharat, Bhopal and Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh was more or less viable, but not Madhya Bharat completely, nor Vindhya Pradesh and certainly not Bhopal. I think it isa good recommendation that theyhave made to merge these States into cne big unit. I must say here that I do not like this big sprawling shape of this new State, particularly that portion which bord^s on Andhra and the new Telangana. But I donot know what could have been doneunder the circumstances—frankly, I am not familiar with the language that is spoken in that tip of new Madhya Pradesh.

Now, as far as the recommendation concerning Bombay is concerned, \ am one of those who are one with it. But I will not like to enter into a controversy as to whether Bombay thould be divided into two or three States or should be kept as recommended by the Commission. But from the purely economic point of view, just as Kakasaheb pointed out the other day that every Maharashtrian says, ‘Bombay chalo*, every Gujarati says, 'Bombay chalo*, and that is because all the lines of communications have been made in such a vray that they converge on Bombay. This is my one criticism against the Report, that while readjusting these bLundaries, the Commission have not caken into consideration the lines of communications, and I think this will be a problem which the Government of India will have to face in the very near future. Although our States

have developed, according to the Commission, on the basis of certain accidents, we should not forget that those accidents took place from 150 to 100 years back, and ever since our railway system and our communications system began to develop, there had been evolved a sort of pattern so til at all the communications converge on the central capitals of those States. And inasmuch as now certain capitals will be disturbed— take the case of Bhopal, for example, which is going to be made the capital of Madhya Pradesh—I am sure a lot of difficulties will arise in the case of those States as far as communication and transport services are coiicerned. The same thing is going to happen in regard to the city of Bombay if the SRC recommendations are going to be changed. I am not going to say whether those recommendations should be changed or should not be changed. I am just bringing to the notice of the House the implications of the recommendations of the Commission.

Now, I come to the question of economic viability, and that will lead me straight to the problem of my State, namely, Punjab. I have been myself toying with the idea of having the Prant of Hariana. But, the more I look at the map of Punjab, the more I study the economic structure, the phyisical contours, the run of the rivers in my area, the sprawling desert that is invading my State, I think that unless the Hariana Prant h merged with some other neighbouring State or the erstwhile Princely States of the neighbourhood, it will not be a viable State at all.

An Hon. Member: Delhi?Shri Bansal: I am referring to

Alwar and Bharatpur. I do not know what is amusing to my friends here. I am only referring to Bharatpur and Alwar and a few other States on the border. (Interruption) I said, erstwhile princely States. I think the hon. Member is listening only with one ear on my side and not with both the ears. If you look

3041 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C, 3042

al the map before me, this so-calledHariana Prant will consist of Hissar,Mahendargarh, Gurgaon, Rohtak anda part of Karnal« and, if it was leftto my friends who spoke before me,they would also like to chip off a portion of Kamal and, perhaps, a portion of even some other districts,which I have Just now mentioned,with the result that a very small portion will remain in the so-calledHariana Prant. ^

Please remember that a major portion of the Hariana Prant is desertland, particularly in my constituencythe whole of Rewari tahsil is nothingmore than a desert, a part of erstwhile Duj ana State which has nowbeen merged with Rohtak district isalso desert. Mahendargarh is desert and Hissar remains a deserteven now. I hope its fortunes willchange somewhat after it begins toget the full quota of the canal watersfrom Bhakra-Nangal. Therefore, Iwill suggest to my friends who areintent on pressing the claims ofHariana that they should considervery calmly as to what they are asking. I know that we from Harianaare very much dissatisfied with thefate that has been allotted to us byour successive governments in thePunjab. No one is more consciousthan myself of that position. Goanywhere in my district, even thechaprassi comes from Jullundur. Goanywhere in my district, you willfind that every Tahsildar and NaibTasildar is sent from the northernPunjab (Interruption) and we reallydo not understand as to why it shouldhappen like that. I am surprised that my Sikh friends say thatthey are suffering from some disabilities. I want to know what disabilities they are suffering from.

My friend, Shri Tek Chand, theother day gave figures of their predominance in our military. I cangive you numbers to show their predominance in other services. I cangive you the numbers of ministerships they hold in our Punjab Ministry. I am surprised that instead of

recognising the very inferior positionto which Hariana has been relegated,instead of telling us, *Look here,brothers, we are with you, we aregoing to meet all your grievances’they come forward and claim thatthey have been put in a position ofvery great inferiority and, therefore,they want a separate homeland oftheir own. I quite realise that if aportion of Punjab which they claim,including even a portion of Karnal, isgiven to them that would be a veryviable State. That would be a veryprpsperous State. I do realise that.May I know how does that State become viable and prosperous? Itbecomes viable and prosperous because it comes next to our greatHimalayan ranges, because it come^close to that area which feeds ourperennial rivers, because it comescloser to the headworks of ourelectricity and irrigation systems.Surely for anybody or any community to claim that they have thesole right to all these bounties ofnature, is, I must say, not being UAt to the people who are living in otherparts of the country.

What is this language question, Iwant to understand. It has beensuggested that Punjabis want tospeak in Punjabi. Welcome. May Iknow that great difference is therebetween Punjabi and Hindustani?For all these years has not the workof the combined Punjab, namely thatpart of the Punjab which has nowgone to Pakistan and the presentPunjab been carried on properlyand efficiently? I ask where wasthe demand at that time for aseparate State. May I know whatdifficulties they experienced in thePunjab of that day or are going toexperience now? I must say franklythat we are the people who are nursing a great sense of dissatisfaction, a rightful sense of * dissatisfactionagainst the treatment that has beengiven to us by our other brothers inthe North Punjab—let them be Sikhsor non-Sikhs. It is for this reasonthat I would like to impress uponthis House that in adopting the re-

3043 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R,C. 3044

[Shri Bansal]commendations of the ReorganisationCommission on the formation ofPunjab after the merger of PEPSUand Himachal Pradesh, they shouldgive serious consideration to that partof the recommendation which saysthat for the backward areas thereshould be Special DevelopmentBoards. In fact, I would go a stepfurther. There should be, of course,Special Development Boards butthere must be special Ministers incharge for those backward areas sothat.........

Sir, my hon. friends in front of meare entering into a conversation andthis disturbs me. I am not a seasoned speaker like you and am, therefore, so easily upset and disturbed.I do not mean any disrespect to them.

Therefore, with all the seriousnessthat I can command, I will suggest tothis House carefully to consider thatportion of the recommendations ofthe Commission where they deal withthe special treatment which mustbe accorded in the future to the backward areas of this region.

I would refer to a small recommendation of the Commission thatrelates to Loharu. In the Report ithas been said that Loharu sub-tehsilshould pass to Rajastihan. I havebeen receiving deputation after deputation from the erstwhile Stateof Loharu saying that they do notwant to be merged with Rajasthan.Tliey are even willing to have a referendum on that point. If thisHouse remains unconvinced that theCommission has not been just to theaspirations of the people of Loharuin tacking that portion on to Rajasthan, I would suggest that someMembers from this House should belent to fhat area to ascettain theviews of the people of that area. Ifthat is not possible, a referendummay be taken at the proper momentso that the people of that small areaare not made to suflPer a sense ofgrievance for times to come.

I have another point in regard tothis Hariana Prant. I do not knowv;hat credence to give to those rumours and reports that come in the

Press again and again and which areheard here and outside in the lobbiesthat in order to placatethe friends who are insistingon a Punjabi Subha, inorder to give them a slightly higherpercentage in the Punjab Legislature,ideas are being canvassed so thatHimachal Pradesh may be made intoa separate State, and some other portions from the northern part of?EPSU may be tacked on to theHimachal Pradesh. And what ismore, whatever the form of HarianaPrant may be at present, some portions from Hariana area may also bechipped off and either tacked on toDelhi or Rajasthan or U.P. I mustsay very emphatically on behatf ofmy constituency and the people whoreside in Hariana that anything ofthis type will be very stoutly resisted by us. If we are not layingclaim on a separate State, certainlywe are going to see that whateverarea we have is not cut into smallportions and distributed as largesse to people who are claiming a sort of separate State in this country.Off and on we hear the demand forGreater Delhi. I was glad to hearthat that demand is not being pressed by the Members of the DelhiState in this House. I will not forestall them, but I hope they will notpress their demand for Greater Delhibecause that will surely mean chipping off some areas from Rohtak andGurgaon.

Shri L. N. MIslira (Darbhangacum Bhagalpur): They are losingDelhi itself.

Shri Bansal: I must seek the earof this House and its support on thisdemand of the people of my areathat they will be very sorry if anysuggestions like that are countenanced. We hear that part ofSonepat is likely to be tacked on toDelhi; we hear that part of Farida- bad is going to be tacked on to Delhifor its future developmental needs. Iweuld humbly suggest that thiskind of a move should not be encouraged and it must be resisted-


About the demand for GreaterDelhi for the future planning or expansion of Delhi so that this capitaldoes not feel the shortage of spacefor its development in future, may I ask how long will you allow thiscity to go on spreading like a leviathan? Are we not aware of thegreat harm that concentration ofpopulation in large cities does to theresidents of those cities? It is saidthat our State is likely to prosper infuture—-yes, it will prosper—but mayI know why should every CentralGovernment office be located in NewDelhi? Is there any reason for that?What has happened to the oft-repeated assurances given on the floorof this House that as far as possible,ifRces of the Central Governmentwill be dispersed and will be takenaway to as large a number of citiesaft possible? Therefore, I say thatwe should not allow for the sake offuture development of Delhi, theHariana region to be dismembered,because that will be the greatesttragedy as far as my area is concerned.

Having said this, I would like toreply to one or two small points thatwere urged the other day and eventoday for dismembering U.P. I havesaid in the very beginning that I am not involved in the U. P. politics.

Mr. Chalrmaii: Then why does heenter that politics? The only question is that the Deputy-Speaker hasasked me to give half an hour toevery Member and I think he shouldutilise that time for laying stress onpoints in which he is much interested.

Shriruling.

I will accept your

Mr. Chatmian; It is no ruling;it is just a suggestion.

An Hon. Member: All are interested in UJ*.

Shri Bannl: I will finish by rerferring to one more point about theInnguage controversy that is ragingin my State of Punjab. As I have

said earlier, I know that Punjabi proper, which is spoken in the northernportion of Punjab, excluding Himachal Pradesh, has a semblance of a separate language, but if I sit in theVidhan Sabha of Punjab and if Ihear, for instance, my friend SardarHukam Singh speaking, although Ido not know Punjabi, I can assurehim that I can understand everyword of what he says, and in thesame way he can understand everyword of what I may speak if I haveever the opportunity of being a member of that Sabha or of anybodyfrom Hariana Prant. This exaggerated emphasis on the languagecontroversy, and particularly to raiseit to such a pedestal that unless thisproblem is solved there will be chaosin the Punjab, really surprises me.It is an astounding statement and Ithink the House will give seriousconsideration and will not be takenaway by the type of arguments thathave been made on the floor of thisHouse. On the other hand, thedfAcuity of the people who are residing in the Hariftna portion of theState is this. After partition, a largenumber of our brethren fromWest Punjab have come and settleddown in our area. There are a largernumber of refugee friends who havesettled down in my small towns ofRewari, Rohtak and Bahadurgarh,and even if there were certain imaginary insuperable barriers betweenthe languages and cultures of ourpeople and the people of theso-called Punjab proper, theyare being obliterated. In fact,I am sure they do not at presentexist at all. Therefore. I would suggest to my friends who have spokenfrom the opposite side that theyshould not exaggerate these points outof all proportions but consider themin a way that will lead to a harmonious solution of our problems.

One small point and I have done.Here in the Report itself and even inthe discussion in regard to the reorganisation of the various States,suggestions have been made, I think

[Shri Bansal]unfortunately, that the ultimate future of some of the areas should be decided after a lapse of five years. This is particularly the case with regard to the residuary State of Hyderabad, namely, that it may be merged with Andhra after a period of five years if two-thirds majority of that Stale Legislature wants it to be done in that manner. The same type of argument, the same type of reasoning is being applied to some other States—I will not name them—-and I would not have really bothered very much about them except largely on matters of policy if this was confined only to Hyderabad, even though I must say that economically and from the political point of view no decision should be left over like this. After all, we want to tackle this problem now and we should do it; we should not keep the Damocles* sword of reorganisation hanging over for an unlimited period. This is the timewhen we are taking a decision; we should take a bold decision and do away with this question once and for all. We should not again raise this trouble after a period of five years. The difficulty in this kind of solution is this. Even in respect of my State, insidiously it is being suggested “You should demand some sort of a three-tier State” . The insidious propaganda is going on. that Hariana Prant should demand some sort of a two-tier State in the Punjab itself, the idea being that if the seeds of a two-tier State are laid now, ultimately a separate entity will emerge and after five years when the question is again opened in respect of one or two States, the people of Hariana and the people of Punjab would again raise their voice. I am bringing to the notice of this House the very serious implications of this kind of move, and, therefore, I would like to impress upon my hon. friends that whatever other considerations there may be« they should cast them in the background and evolve a permanent solution. For God’s sake decide about the future reorganfsatlon of our States here and now. Once for all we should flnaliae this entire thing


so that we do not have to come tothis question of alteration of boundaries again and again. I say so even from the economic point of view. I know that the States Reorganisation Commission did not bestow much thought to this question as to how this realignment of the boundaries is going to aflect the Second Five Year Plan. They have stated in passing that some re-adjustment will have to be done in the various allocations that have already been made tentatively. There may even be some waste of time and some more efforts may have to be put in. In fact Dr. V. K. R. V. Rao has gone to the extent of suggesting that we must give one year for this reorganisation and the next Five Year Plan should be ushered in after the lapse of one year. I do not agree with that view at all. Nevertheless it is true that the reorganisation ol the States is going to upset to some extent the Second Five Year Plan. If we re-open this question again after five years the Third Five Year Plan will again be upset to some extent.1 do not thihk our country can afford10 pay that price.2 P.M.

With regard to the Second Plan, I would like to say that it is our duty, the duty of this House, the Government and the various new States that will be formed, to fall into strides at once; they should not V7ait for the readjustment of the final boundaries and »the other smaller problems like merger of the services, etc. These will have to be attended to. What I say is that they should not devote undue attention to those problems to the entire neglect of the Second Five Year Plan and I think that it would be possible. I think that in spite of the fact that the boundaries of a number of States will be changed out of recognition, given goodwill and co-operation, with the new enthusiasm that is likely to be created on account of the formation of the new States, it is possible to see that the Second Five Year Plan does not suffer. It would be our duty to see that the Second Five Year Plan is not allowed to lag behind. Tbt

3049 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S,R.C. 3050

reason why 1 am so hopeful is this. So far we had about 28 States. Now, in future we will have 16. I think from the point of view of planning, this will be a great advantage.

Today the Planning Commission has to make allocations for small States like Bhopal and Ajmer. Now the problems of these small States will not be there. Moreover, planning itself will be more integrated in the sense that it will have to be within bigger areas. Therefore, whatever temporary drawbacks might be there due to the realignment of the boundaries, they are capable of being overcome by the very fact that we are going to have larger imits, lesser in number.

I will end by appealing to this House that we should consider these problems in a dispassionate manner and not in a spirit of passion and also not from the point of view of linguism only but from the point of view of the larger good of the country as a whole.

^0 («IT5niR):

f I p rn k a n r ft

nrtft ^ f i ^fsriirarpft «rra- ^ f , ^ f , 5 ?^ ^5rT?r 4“ r»r 5ri»T ^ 5T?lhf

^ ari^ t r a w «pt 5^

^ it TO irf

^ SiWiRT ^ 3iR5f a ift

3nnft3nT!=ft w if? arf*? ^ ârft ^

?f, ^ r*r «RI «IHai ^ 5i\3«

Mfe Pf I r? *mr ^ ^

>3a r V 3( V a>f? a r ^ a t V

f«p«} 3TT it I ^

^ TRfhti crfirer «<!T ^ I *f^rpjT t , W’ nn jivt ^

^ t ^ «m Jj?5T^ f I atrfw? r? iiwr <n

*nr ^ I •n'jf «if f*i>^ * T ^ i f , H M a r f a n W ^T f«5 T fs5 ari^

T J T ^ r r i f a n n i i ^ B S i w f^ f l t ^ f I ^ ^

ptr- f wf f r iW »ft I f? TO â i m ^ 5TW atft ^ ? r i ^

ari"? aiTinid «i<?m m jii a ir r^

^ I am? ajK

t ^ ^ »»Hr ? f ?rt^ I ^ i{<wii ^ TO" i k f t ittar# ^ ^ ^ ?k r w f

ITRlf *11 i<i«il Tipft^ anr tnrr

f , 75T <n si^s c^ W ^ ^ # ajft 53^

aid airaiift «iimfiV-nr i W gr

1 1 n p ^ ^ ?nw5T ^ ?^f«wr

7T ? ft f ^ ^ ^ Itaift f j fW f ^ HPHT f I ?rfW^ a^s^kyur jft ^ iTRrf ihir

w v ^ tiw H P# ^^ ^ I apT? an^ vt

*1 apT?f ?if ^

iflw it I 3imiif

r r JHiT? frnr? <R H frfnf «i? ?n*r ^ i W } f Trspft ra

*17^ *1 ?r*r an?ft it *rr 3 i r*ijr 5TV ^ aiFft I ^ r*nptanr4 aipnit' 'arfw 'lAn? 1wt a r if a n n f ^ r ariVapnr arq?ft j^mrari*

w ?rt r*r »naW K r r

<T ^ f*RC^ T*f 1^ f I

130 jj^ro IVtojcwr]5ii»r <TTf?r wf,% H f5 R 5 f f arh fTT f

1 ' I *5* 3iT ^f?ni aft ^ ^ tnfver

^ «JT ^0 ^nniiSTT ^ntw i W

it I ^ 1am? r» n f ^ »ft f«i5?ft ^

*Ijr ^ ^f^PTw *<*t*wi ?it ^?5«! ^ sil * rm # 1 ^nniim1 f ’ n f ^ ari"?

^ f«n3 ^Rft ^li^'^?T3ir ^ ^ mrr^r iHI^rfyrji 9nr r*r <[»r«Bm ^ ht <r? 5jRf f rt ^ T rft f , ^ <T

T? 5"53JW d*ll«l «fR ^ ^ <5?!)«)'<TfTft t [ it c; ^ r*n^

a r ^ ^ mT*TT *r j r * r 17

«b ^ I 5 f t ^ ^r?T 1 ^ ^ fsRTT «(raT ârt^ iira ’ * f « W

5IT7IT ^ 5 fvW fTT ^Tsfhjjf ^ ^ f I ?r*ni!?n^ ^ «i*i i<4 «iin »r^ ^f i ipr ^ <r?ft?tf «PTaif? ^ «H»w ii ^ f * r

hssft fipifv <f! 51^ T^V I *1 1 w ar jw ^ r*nd

^ <?'<an yrfcT >y««i ^ '1 1 ^15 1# I r»T^ ^ fifrt? ITSa ii^ */l 4>cî it f*P 3^ <f5if

fnr <ra^ t 1 r*n7r f?r ?tt3f?W5r ^TW ^ r»r fn-5rt

fB- «JT n^mr nsrf t ^^ ^ frv n m ^ t I aPT?

sitff ?rt ^nnwnt ; f W J ^nr^hr wT«f # I f*ii^ sniViv ^ f r m ’JVv t A I

^ ^ frqf^ «i5r a w # yrroVa t V 5 fJW T ^ I a ift

3051 Motion re; 17 DECEMBER 1955

3' 'N ^ ^ ?«rw t^ 1 *reM

^tbg^sT f W «?T ajft ^ptmr *rai?f«id tr^ a r ^ f5TJf«T ^ ^

*T ^ ^ I 5}f<<nT ir*B ^ r » f ’T H 'ft

<ri?^ f ’ lTTT ^ ^ w t ,ftfi tfgs WJ Jm 5ft #“ ?5R^ r *T ?nn?5f ^ it, ari^

^ *f t j F T i M ^ *n?r ?5T Of I atft g'^nrr sTrft jt ^ â jr t5t«i;5r W * f ?!TBf«r sn ^ ^ arft^ frvn m f ^ ^ I ^^ t ? ^ y*«M »THT w art r*r^ ^ 'J*t11 fv H5 3?r^rrrarf ^ ari anft ^^ 71 aift sft c ^ ^ : t »ft ^ti

*lRr >IK ?ft IT’TT’ IIHT W^^ ?W 'grfr^f I ^ # w f 3 ^ r r i W art « n ^ ^ ^fW ?rf jfifTfl ^ 5?n^ f^whnw 5Wari*? o7't) >«ii"i T ^ T f l u ' l l CpTPT ?)f? T? n ^ »R- I « n r ^ ar»p ^JTF?r »i^T ari*? 5 ^ sir} ^ ?rt r r a w ari^2-5 qii;? a n w . a n w ^?r*m!nT c ; ^ r *T fa < ii<< ari âtft a n p f i r^ ^ Mi'll 1 f*R T ra n ra"

^ arf*? i^^rr ? W ^T^n ^ 1T r a r w a n n sm ^ f r r t ^ ^^ ?it a n r >m W f«ii ^

^ f?iT3 Tfft r Vf f I «>» i n W e ' ^ ajTTO^ f ? ?T7 *ift f » m^ r m ft aif? ^ «pt? im 5r n ^ ?nraT t

TSfW f u M ^f I T 5 ^ ^ H T ^ f f ,

f. ? H V !t am? U R T ? f aif?a n ^ ?^t W J a r ^ y f art*? a n w * f2‘^RR^ r? ? f f aift f? ?hr T * » ^ 3F ^*W(t*i’w[i ?^?ft n*'(«r VvT?n it ^ >7în ^ ^ JTRT fi^w

Report oi S.R.C. 30^2


^

'sram I 3T»i7 ^ f2T 'M'wl it3lft ?<W WfT WRT ^nt ^ HHT ^ 5 ^ ^ ann

.iji^ ^ ^ ^^ atft r5jnr r*T ’T^ ^he? T?T HF?r f$n3 » WjV 5ipi»n v fsrm ^ ^ •am 3n«T'raw *W ««riWr!rnm iatf <1^ ^ an'rot ^^rararfsR JT?T 'TSIW <, ^ ^ms= 5; ari ^0 <fto>ft atT 3JR ajf? fsRRT T?T # <N»HT 'raw *BT t T rfor ^ v r ^ it eif’F’T ifflp ^ <17 ^nf ti 3; ^ **ht ^fTintT 5 ; ?ft anr? ^?PRW fihrf, ?nn»T ansn ^ ^

^ ^ w m t , ^ î^5f*rw ^ HTOT,

ari T5T9 ?TRi*r i5 <;/«^« f ^ anr? 5^ r ssqsT «t

5T atWJ w f #1V t am? âiT # ajft ^ 5T^

t i w «f? hr?i^ ^ f5T3 i W^ 5 ;, TTspfhrn T ^ ,3jft r ! STUP ^ Tfftjf, ipii w i HIS *fi w t ^ ^ 1;, ^ ?TRW t ,f«B jW ^ «nn*T ^ w frfh IanW«B Tf«5 # aift ^ ^ anr

Hi«-d ^ finifrr ^ fjnj «rt <5 f ^ ajtpft 5nr? q? f , arfr

^ 3; arw ^ <)srÎ vMVrT ^ atmft <!'*ft*l' T?r

SFT 3RTT 5 ' nW h <rt *m*ii-f?Vhr ^ anT <n Twi 5inii it,aiTO irr'F ?ir w ^ ^mw ?t «>t3IHT m?5T? I ^ W ’rtfr^ «n5f ajPT ^ ■i fp*} I ^ < ^ 1 1 *i6 «i sinA tff it

an'T ^ tlfli ? ?^W iRT «iT5tf ^ amr h r o w # h? r>r <n W f sjw aiT f arfr f»f f^hir

w aift anft w »ffrTr5 1 ^ ^ Hnfr ^ r i ?«i) f*T <n ^«55*T ^ ^ atfj <raw ^raf f^w ?nri

r*T^ f, fsRT ?i7 # f^rrft^ am? j f <RK*

af ^ 17 5F([T f*RFBI I III y*fTfT 'rarr wrt f iw irr w

<HI ^ t *1 fTET ?T7 Hl»fl«HuW fsra^ 'r il' 51^ !hrr i^ WN- fyw RT^fânW ^ mwi^C? T7? ?f jhft I ai»n fJT fpr^ ?;?r7i‘ «iit ^ aift

f s ^ ^ <J*I*MII ^^ ^ ^ fa«t»mq srVf |Wa»f innra «Wn atf? wf<t f*r

I efi'fl.H anp r>c ^ *T^^ f W ?rt f<5? «i«ii aAsnn?

arh ^ aratnw ^d, ^ ftnj'fWhr t 3 1 ,

I trHMV ^ apin arofaTRT if '^K ♦ <Hi ><s> *T5w 'iJsr it I

5lf*T ^ ti V7^ an^ it TJ aitici IVmW ^ H i< VT^ ^ q> t^ t, »N ^ if' !s?T ? W »lhn 'iHJ JTTR ^ HPHnr it I q«ii/ a f ^< [ v ^ ^ Hmr t , liW eie e W h r f

an^ q r ^ Vf itart*? ?mi ^ HURTtf yi?i^ fT*tf ^ Vhr *f it I >ft 9T ^ gnr? i 4>di ^Hmi JT ^ fhft ^ aift HT^ ?fr*T inniW tj^ irTiii w <Tf ^

' ajft ^ ^ ^ amft ij' ?rfrns ^ qTf f ^ * ' 1 anr r ’f'

'il'd HTT arf ^ ipiBiwm anr fT*r !T5iT it, ajft r<{m*i flffRi f

Whr VTnft \ fn^ n F cT if 3TRT *rrf-

«FT it \ wiiT ^ ^ ftri! anW ^ iiftjnr ^

I 3T7T? 3rTT (T ) W JTRT ^ THT it 3fft ipis fT ^ HTV ^


qo qTTo fiTOTSrei?]

ah ^ f<R atnr^< 1 ^ I ^ amriVmr t ^

^ 31^ fTTsiT *nr*»T-anr? aiw

*ns 'i>5r} ^ *T 5TT rif T5

^ ^ f w ^) f*r ?rt anRT ar RT

q r r ^ , m r*r «t5 s^nhi «fhr ^ ?fsft ifgTi,

flira’ j ^ |ir ^ ^ ?WPsR?;?!? «i>t airr arr^ m«r ^ 1^ f«mHT

^ f>raT5t ânfT ^ f ? H 3 * 3itT ?f Tr? "Tiff 1

arf ajm^ araf^ araif^, s ¥?T^ I ari «r? ^

aift wm^rfrs w

r*n^ traw jf »iT5n ^ JR5T ^ I a n f t ^ ^ ^ st W 3rf? (f^4t â r ^ ^ aift T ’ara^

^ ?*raTft 355 ^ ^ I f i f ^ Ttnm c; ari c; ^m ^ "WHHT ^?7w f , r*n^ ^ ^ ?raPT Hwrarf a r ^ ^f I anr ^ 7i«5 Hm >rft #nf I"ef$n3 ^ Tsft ^ T5T »njf?T»n^ ^ ^ ^ 5fT!? HWT WH ît5«(; *1 anW f f w r ftp aPTcW ^ rqp jj' 3TT aniV Jihr afnV^

5r?r ^ ari ^«id f r ^ WT TOTir 51^ VT ?«i) f r ^ »ft ^ HISIT # aift «PT *rsiTO |fhn VT T?r ^ >ft ^>f*T aift a^r# ^ ?fwnf ^ ^

3*1* ari*? ^ W»T hIwhh ?<PIT ajft HTT >n ^

T?"^ ^ irnhr f ><ii 1 aiw?nr»?fl »n5t <rreft ht?i «ft. nrfsm thr

w ir*R i aiT aift wi w»n

■ar ft I iW t T?r tR « rf « H ^ ? w i

3}ft «rt an it ^ »ft jfto J o !jo

xf?d;d<ii? ^ ^ f r ^ a r f r ^ m>^

^ <n aijfft «it r ^ ^ flt^ ^TE^n f«p Tfm m a n ^TfflRT ^ ^ 1 *5»ii ?rt, ^rraiw iW ft »ft «iT K« HFinf ^tfw R rw ft ^ f aP R I f r o m ^ T s t

q;^ m w f ^ 3 i r a - a j f t « j ? s ; ; e ^ ^

3n^ f«B 3it a n r 4 h r f f h w i

ÎfTtT f a A f^RT M < T feRTTT S W

# a n r HWT ath

T ¥ ?5ttT ?5n!p} ^ q;^ m ? ra r ^^W»nf ( ?rt sn tf? ^ h w i a iw

5«nf*R ^ ?h ft s ik Jn ^ k * f

^HT W 'TT tra ^ <vA!, ad*? eihr ajrr^

mr ^ *n«n ^ a tw « W fsn n ^ ôtt ^ f r -

«i>r5r ^ ^r*fJT ih r r a ift ^rt » ? n w fV ^ T t e

«dM*i|jfl i W I Trarerer # t m ^ w

?rt r * r 5ihT, <N*iT<i«i> ^hn « iV

^ I Hi/I • «n»Tq ^^m>?W 5 ? ? ^ f»T 5rt

3?n re7ViferV% ^rr?} t

■J*yi ar^y? a irr^ i k r

^ 5 n r » w^ f ^ ^ <r3n«r

a ift arfyS) ^ <iRfr ^ ari*? an^pfur

^ rj TTii *i/]^^ f?iT3r * f t m »')?'■! <i, g i f t?TT1 ^ ^ *TT=f«f5 ^ ^ ^^ *WT |T 7 V k ? «FT?ft # I am? aiTT

^ ^ ^ a n ^ rn rw iiw a r f «id

s i r ^ ?'^3tTw ^ 5 t ^ ^ m min^hr ^Tr?TT f ^

rwlwjT «R ^ ?rf ^ jhir?^ 5iR?iT ^ , a n n «i5i]f *njra- #

a n r*ft anrw f, w r fw «n tjp v x( airar ^ <T| T3TT «rw j ^ *i?nft

5T^ ^ ^ < n f T? T tifim anWT

wW I TIT ^ wtwyrP q;


ftr tj

H ^ tR H m a ift ^^ ^ «BT ^ J T ^ lk ^ I j f i m w u T

a n ? 5 iW * <n ^ 5 ^ «rwfrt f«r?r 5ifT HTOT «BT Jnt»r ^rsn< r a ^ v z i f f v ^ ?!▼ «nT5

f aift ipB Himf ari ^ ^ h ; P g ^

^ <T? 3Prffift T?r #1 *5»?rf «ft tr^ro ^ o q iP s ^ ^^*f 3T^5T ci«ii ®inil ^ V tiij y tisrtvniPPF W 5 1 ^ I T R f k HTSITaif

H,»i<idi 3fft »mr *}“r*n 7T P r ^ ^ ? W , 3fh .

?nTOT JtFS- ? W , anm r ^» F ? r f t3 t^ wJ?ft 3n?ft # Iam? 'n m r ^ r * r p r *iRr <n P3R^ P«i! arf^^ C*T 3rt*? M )J|^ ariV

Hi?f >a( ^ Hf*^(iii art*? *>a -i+ l^ ^ f«F «liT ^ n v ^ ^ ^Jfisl?#, ?rt tnmsn s; yrn^ ^f I ?rr?p ^ ftr5 'nn'ft ?i;4 ^ wTTT ^ I >d »i ^Tpft *n?r

9 T * n r 5 T ^ ari *f^ ^ JT H mtnn^ ^ ^ tstVJ 5rt *rf»r #

tntHVTfimm ^ * n ^ W?p»v^vnr *it/I vTTfi T^ I

TW f*) HW T| *h|HI n?THI t P « ^ 5rt»T 1 P«<» ;fuf m

-M ^ 71 ^1 >d a r ^ 7y ? n ^ ^ i<-nîP< i ^ i ^ nnTTT «ft

Tsnfl m rm nfw n ^ *n«Rr ;;ht}'^ «ft I TT a ra W WT^S

mrmrAnBm w? nft «ft 1^ a m fw in r f . ariV f « r n ^ r*?*

^ * 5 T I 3T J^ ^

^ I fTT wl*r H*rfh ^ wsf 1 ^ f , r » r «i<-Hîr«iî ^ * n w >ft t . «praw

»^wsiT ^ I t ^ n ^ ^ o q i « f t ^

H m r fa ro n H 1 art^

rrt»rt‘ ari^ ^vjmr fit 5TP w «r? #C ^ n f a r fS jw f ?«fNrn ^ a ift

^ f^ w r f ^ ?nrH5 ^ ^ f^r■w ^ I am? a n r*ft ffsB g|;!rT w?JT ?rt »Ht

^ ^ iSs T ? r «n?r ^ fsn?^ U ^ ^ * « T ? ^ f ,P-iiq^ 3J7IT f Tiraft ?PK5fr?^ T»j!T I «m? F *n ^ ^

i M . ^ ?rt r * r f i r y ^ m r

5^ w artV r»T ^

W k 5!T I r*}? JT r * n ^ ^ ^!R5n? «JT, ?rt W T f f f f «ft. ^ ^^ i r f ^ ^ K T i ' ^ n t t .^ iT R W 5; ^nr « *n ^ a p ro m ^

fr t fr a r ? 5^ ^ f r * r ^ ^

sr ?PT»^ art*? ^;;^nt ^ w rt

w ^ »^:;5T ?5*T

»i?nr «P? ^ I am? a n r ^ ^ ^nv

^;tt7^ i f t IP T «bV ^ 1 ? ?*nn?

^ ^ t i V ! * l u i «(d ^^V^SRT H ^ I «iV«bH F ’ T « i r f ^h : 3w ITT giP<4«^rd<r q N h n r ^ f. r * r ^rr?f F *r f? 17 ^

^nv s*jw «ir? ni j**, r*r 5 ^ hw

ap«nir ^ P v tir, ajrart, an

urarf, y iT »TPr ? rf r r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ « fa r M *f ik r #am? a trr T?r ^ m«p>rt' erV* ^

fv ^ ^ «ri «rf»T5tf??T nhftiR- *f fAT? «r5TtT f«B r * r ^ ?!w w m r v r? f

5TT frTtf <1 T ^ ^ Wf^ n? *T7T HlfHlWcft ^ K|«W. ^5m?iT f f<»! w^ ^ atrqm R r? r ^

ari^ ^ ^ f w B n T T ? n I ^

^ f ? : y r * r <17 ^

it 11 1! *5Hi <n 3mmtP i;« t^RTii f*T ’T? <5^ |3>T vrnr*fl(iT ^ T*r »f T*r V? wft >4iwifli< *nff


130 Ifsro

^ ^ ^r«n 1 frr ?i7i1 ^ 3T^n Mif ^ ^ I 5nn q

r r ST *fr? 3PT^ i# !n ^ ^^ 3tf? ^ ^ ^

3nn 'd>s« fifVTro' >ar<"t wi«J5I' I 9r*T7 5 inT ^

3 af tPRwi' r?r3if? 5EhVf?^ ?T?ir ?t

3 J I« M I ? W ^ ^ H r a ^ fTt^TT 5E 7# f«i! ^j?rrf 5 w 3trar^^;?r7f « w « W ^flilfiflifl ^ I 5nff h ; ^ M m^ h ^ W T ^ f , ^ *P?TiT f Ir * f r» T a n rft ^ i atnr^fsraf ^ 3nWq>,am fsm srfrRRf f i ^ fsr jr ^ ^rarih w Tjfi if‘ i 4 wrw# *f?PT 1 1 'n< titiK t <a 3ii*? (iiV*nif ^ ^ ^ I ^ 5in«R# ^ ^«fNp ^ ^5T^ 5 n M aift *5> ?a>)qw

r» f 3»Tw J? !» i^ ^ an vft I 3TT5r^ arsT? ffTi anfr-

wpp ^ ! T 3 r ^ m r i i t , S^=rm âPT? <7 tn 'PdfVi* r5T ^« «i tn" ^ anj? ?5 '^3«ii*i TT

T*!' HK ii— anr i?r ’ tra’ jffNn- »r ^ 1 TTs^ an^ ap^r6 ^ Hi'fll ^ flfiRf ^ jHn * rnwT<iV # 1 fT ? ^ ^ w rtr

'»> < *11 \d»( ) »iiJ < <a»ii I ITlfng 5^ ^ < ••II- fw ?TT <fW

' ><1'^ T l ^ V ltt s s ^ *11/ 5T*T * f flJ W if',wm^ <mr w ira- ^ f 1 prfsn?^ ^Tfm s; r*f r r

^ «tlV;%1ui ^ ijR y n i ^ r f H , ^

^*1 ^ «»>Voni5'<r ^ « ‘i*n 'II t|lV|<J aift^ a r ^ ^Tsn ^rfr«} I W

b*l' ^ li>*qi HTF "f(rVsfft <iiV«D ^ aiTW >11 Mi HT n^ :

' ■ ? i ^ w

ûin j^l m f«iH u k r ^ ’ I

?rniJT 5rt»rf ? r ? ^ ? k h - ? h w t i t , Wi ^ ^ ^ a t ^ # , a ra ^ t ftfHT sn¥h ^ TH? ^ w r f

f i <nsft ^ # r ! T ^ 5Ti5 ^3R T i}' ¥*53 ^ ^ arh WHT i t i

f i n ^ HTTsn ^ T1 ^ :

t » r ^ ’ (R f i t , h w t arjHT ararr t , v t f v r ?<r ^ <r^ art*? <T^? n v an»t *15^1fqf»T55T?u ^ ^TTfTT I ar*nB jh V^Vn^^âfi" ^ ^ b v R

«BT >raT 3W art*? a tm r ^w ^ I a j^lt xf^tT a n ^

^ ani} «BT*r ^ 1 ^ rrr a ii^

?g ^ 5tf a n W ^ y f m f ^ V^w>,5i f u r ^ f > T ^ ^ 5« ^ro ^ 5 ^*}f*W T I 5"*r^ 'lip arrr anr4 • tt

r * r anp^ *Trrf <p 1 r * r ^ 17^ ^ 5 Cl") ^ HMrM »T^

fsRIT, IJ'I) ^ “W ^ anr? fSHTT I<s5r âiT 9T sIhI ari*? m r tr« i r ^ a n ^ I ar»T7 r * r «ri! ^r « r n ^ ^si>*ft 17V ^ " T ^ an

I 3TPT « i w a; f«B ^TTRT

^ w i v iH iT ^ n i W a r n t ^ ^^ « *) W ia r f ^ ?55r*BT5 ^ f?H7 *ft art*? >*1 + < ^ ^ t l / ^? f ^ »TP»T I ^ f i r i f j r t v «p1’^nnwrr if, p r I W •f ^nrwh i m s ^ 5T w ^ , «rfpB f w? 5 ^ ipr ^^ vt f^Tn

aift f q ? m q N r r s r ^ r o n r F ? ^ ^ vnt ^

^ I anr? T ^ w 3»T3r w h f f l R T ^ fT T 1\ « / ^ C j w T ^

vff s«n^ ns/k ^ ^ jwntf W 1 ^ ^ 1*1 5? I ^le^ni ajf? ^**PTW ^ ^

3o6i Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of SJt.C. 306a

1 1 ^ arrfHrp aift <R »fiWWTTifT’iRn^ 5>r^ w*r >t«h 7 ?•=?: 5 ^5^ a(rfi y*r arnr arrft

t , 5 tt^F I attrsft ^ > T ^

snff eiirsn ^ ? ^ a f f?; rTf‘ nT narf ^ Jmrr ^ r»T ^rfw irafiT Wt , ?it T*ti ^ <B;;e <T5aphft, aif? ^ awoTgrn wtsTT 8STPPftl

anft ^ Hi»flr ^ fRT H«in tnafw j i f a rr^ v l W W ^f^ g p " r m c: ?rt *5> ^

^ rfr ^ 3rmi f 1 r n / hi^ ffruH iH p v ^ ^ a rr4 ^'t«e '» t° i apTsft wm^ f , ari ^ f ^ ^<TB it ? 4wte^ sisrf" ^ ^ ?iT r««s} ^»r annft iw r ^ 1 4 “ ^«Tf ^ «ci *i?r(r

«nr? t , ^ h ip sm »T?Rr f ?3PT? ^ yvi bi ra ^ ?it ^ ^ ^

I 5^ f ’ T ^ j|^«RW5r« l « ll fiTV fif" I 5 *1 y W ^ «r4)î< wf

ajrfw? ift ^TT f w f

^ <fVfT # P«fi, fiTi^ 7R?r ^ »fm* * n ?)■ I ?TT >Jt WISPT ^ *iT<(ii T'tr *I!T 3fMT?fv^T^fvrw iT I wij 3nf*hi^ ^ ^ N^5i^)vTor^ art? 3IHT # <rt ^ V?,

r ^ g l ^ «P7 ^ s H W I ^msrar c; fsnnft ift ^

3 «n ^ > n w f M , aif? 1^ •iii<J’jf) 3Tipt ^ r*m ^ *J“T r «inJ'<l I «n >nr **nr * r Mi*jfln»<ui V } ait? a jh <rv S ! ^<T? <rt? i r ^ ?rt >d«i W?>5phiT arft ari^ v f v r \ f? r t» n t

^lynr ^ <> f *t fvik^hKTW WIhiU -Wi i tfîi sh^

^ # m<H~g JTiff ihft I T»r « m w*n^ ?nnfhr«F rf«Rr ^ ? rhtR antf^ft tm fsv jflqs siiff 1'J*tii fv 5 ^ Vff ^

f>STti, r>H hcift flst *ra^ niff11*1 4 5^ <rv ^ 3ii< ii^ nr?r *11 ^ a it f*f> T? «*rfw |ir ^ <*11? v t ^ h*ii,

fr^H. h lW «ETfor 5 *11/1 f f ^ i W atro? f*nft?ft n f f t r * » ^

a t r ^ ^ I ^ H i w r n ^fsra’ WT5 firns "f9v ^N" *f f>r<iTw ^ nT5 F f 7nnff«w ^ i fn r 5fff?r T T < T % w iPTsjT it I am ? r n 4r T i W irt *5Hi iih f

5T ^ flT V7«*i? *1 art*? 3Tpt ^ iîhI’ ^ fw V?

I

<nnT ^ *f ^ w w rn i^J«i!m n r a m r a r i h i < ir f f^ 1 ^ ^nff ^ s imf v * W ^ * i w it, m v t ¥ Ttt a i f w m i M I art ni»T v f r t it ? •irt ^ i r m 1^ ^ rfhs it, irt*T«rt «B T !t > 1 ^ it, ^ * r * a p ^ s w ^fw tfra r? I W** W fW i ; h ) aw ITRrt* «i^

a m n ^ 1 a n n «nm r * « r w ,fg H W H art*? f t S R p n viv a iw iî? rt «IT ^ | i w r >ft aiPff frt

?!• aiw,3R - ? rr ^ ^ ^ «f5» ^rfswr ^5im I rtsiw ^sunft w it t o t ^ hn rt^. <hn<A ^mr i 'hwst,>Twi ^rar fTiwiT, ^

jflSTw fwf^s ^ i«n iff r ^ artV « T ^ tf w^ np^f | ) m ,f t n n ^ ari^ a r tim mf^ ijhn, artV ^ ^?h n, fH % ? r ^ « l * r f h mt f fii wf ^ ^ Hwii I f ir *1? *n n sfiff ^<Hi x»n*ii ?>s ^ iw *JMwf ftrt^ iftf‘ I 0vn ^ ifw *n a ip fl i m i t it f * * <jNif

3063 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3of>4

f iiPT I f W^ ^ f , f 3!?nT^nRTvf ^ ^ T r wrt ^ vrt4 t?3ii? ^ ^nfW I ^ ^ 7^ VT h53 R H if t ^ art*?

r ^ ^ rn r, ^ ^ ^fh r ^ *n > f a r R T

F f W ? T ^ l^ ’ TT I a m ? <nrTT ^ ^ P f T ^

hmr^ iTT f ?rt ;g ^ w? rtnmr »tr

f^RIT ^ I TTO R Tf ^ ffr ^ ir ^ ^

3R>Rr ^TFF? ^ 3|f? tr^ ^ ^ I

5jrW=hr ^ M <rf«^^ jft fi* I ^rni ^ TR" ^?rsRfhr grrr iNtr ^ 3rnr? f5T?iT vifni ^

^ 3P^ ^ ^3 n i5 in i n ^ , a r r ^ ift a r i W A

f ?rt ^ ^Tpf k n n i a nr?

^ ^ h? ^ ^ w PstWânhnF? wkr ^rfhp TT ^ ^ ^ ^ ?rtvH

f r f ^ r r o r ? ?r ^m iTfnfW » ?nW ^ ^ 3fpt ^ ^

f , ^M FRT^ ^ Vifh ^ ?f?*r ^ wifTft I ^}^FT

3 H P afTT 3 n *T J % V * 5 T 1 ^ ^

^ #, iTft t{in5w âri^Pf) âneftgm- i ^ m w m t , ^

a n n 1P5^TW ^ fsHRT ^ 3 F S 1

^ f w w f)" w w ^ a n p f t a r r f t ^

v m ^ w r ^ m a jtv n s r? tfh rr. a n n ft a n r f t

MWT ^ ^ inrhr ^ rf? ^win\, 3HT? ^ m ^ ^ ww^ >alW I^ art*? f T T ITVT? ^ H H H I

^ W h i flHEft ^ ^ ^w N i ^ îirM, ^ ^^ f , HW ^ f ,^ranijft ^ f , ^ w ^ a n r ^ ^

<(h[ ^ ^ iW I i t t w wf

inrnA >1? ^nff ^ ^ff?^5r 1 I ^?5 dl Hi ^ cJta ^^1 I7PT ^ tTTTT ^ fv ^^ y ifim ^ ^ fap ^ ^Vi^ke^n;f ^ ^ ^ ^ I

^ ^ 0 ^ 0 ^ ‘ : ^ it, ?nr wunpf I

%ft TO 75 0 fvanhm : T5TOT tr^ ?J?r fs T V ^ l|T I ^ I ^

^Tf?f f :

*ln the face of this realisticposition, it Is most unfair and unnatural to compel or force Hindusto read a language different fromthe one already chosen by them. Ifour Sikh friends, for religious orsentimental considerations, want toprefer Punjabi (in Gurmukhiscript) as the medium of instruct- tion for their children, they arewelcome to do so, and no one has a right to interfere with their decision. But there is no sense orjustification for forcing millionsof Hindu students to leam a language and a script which has no sudiclaim upon them, nor possesses anysecular advantage in its favour.’*

arpt frr? ^ ^ :**Hindus are fully justified in

seeing that no time of their children is wasted in learning Pimjabi,simply to oblige their Sikh coim- trymen.”

it, aPT? anr ‘art nipar vr?fTf , aPT? afFT ‘tfipfr fhflFTT ^ irr^

^ ?rt i yffyn miMI ^ * h ^ art*?

M'jiiJ} ir^ it art v j i / ^ v s vTst ^w ^ im , »HVh' n r wm

^ *TW fN* it I aiPT whr ^^ ITT ^ ^ art^ jT sflfsni

irf WRvt TTrPT ^ artwm? ^ it


sift i W j ' ^ ^**rtw ^ fN" ifN" aif? ^

uRfhr Hwpf Tfsft n rfW t v ^ ap=^ f i R p f t H w p f f , f » n / ^ ^ a p ^ fs R p ft ^ ITRsft f Msri*? a n H T t i F H T 51ft airan<1? r » T ^ ^fHTT ?hiT I i h n it?fli f * r 5#er^ ^ arft ^ aift ^3fft ^ f I fT T Mwr

art*? JT T ^ Min v V ’^t I 3T*T?»rrar ^ <r* x :^

n V *rr aift fq>? a n r a r q ^ w ft ^ h w w n j a n r ^ ^TTTHJjf ^ ^ «ii^ ariV

anrsft ^ ?T7i f l r N I a n r3 « W >mT < rf? ^ ajft anpft »»wi vtN i anr? ^ W ;rt r * rT m VehiT a r r ^ v im r a r f ^ r * r ?5?^ *Tlf? ti*i*i> ^ it I y ^ S T n ^f*i wiw5 5T^ f arft ^ f i T ^ i w ^ > T ^ ^ I anpft H i ^ a r f ^ f^ f^ n u i

g r i W aift ^ anfw?r»T 'irr^f ^ ^ i 4 ^ ^ *im r ^

m?r i f ^ ^ art*? JEirv^ ?7IV ^ s ^ H ^ I ^ H < l l ^

^ ?r iW ^ shft 5nr ?Pi) ^ ^}»p r a i^ ?r ^ im ; I a n r

id ^ ainrqit ^fkn «rf ar^^ q fjrft I apT? arrr V h m a i^ ^

^ ^ ?it ajnr ^ ^ j r i W»ft snff ^ w f f it I f i n i T w n w n r» n f f f .

anq« ?n*rt arr^ yKntlui nm< A o r r a m ^ fs ! n r srfe^ssW 1 * w n t r^^r? ^ KH%) iVdci i^Hif'ifjjn ^ ^nrwi <n ^™^7 ^TSTT tiy»TT ar*T? r» T f t r

ni'f» < *1^ 'SRTiT ?hiT t|}Hift«r»'r»i ij » T ' i N - ^ aift ? W r ^

^ a r ^ * 1 ^ frwT

?n«r ty*T r« (i< « <?!'■« ^ 5TW 5 w H f ,

«INH ^ 5n*T rf it 3tft fTft ?tTlSaift 5 ^ w * i w >ft i t I

?T3?r b I ^ ? W ^ m t i t ,:ti? W in igft « i r f I a n n flslif îrt s i ^ 7i3«r i W f ^ w r ?rW, ^ »m v ^ i ^^ 9 v ^ ^ I f ,

’ ^ ^ -ftn ^ a r e r arf? *w r t -PfnâRT i t I r> n ^ a i f T 4^ w j ^ 7 m < n f - f t n j a w^ art"? W|J?r ÎH<JI*ft V^TTTT it I ♦ H 'w^ «»l P r r t ^ it , ar»T? f w w^ ^ Hil^'f^PâRT ^ ^ o 7 ^ V T E

S T ^ 1 1 H m tarf ^ j f w r w 5hft it I a r ^ ^ 'w f wtnr^ 5T 5^1 HIV<111 frri^ ^ <iVr^ « » «TT m a j ^ w ? i 5 «fft , ’ J? ^ *T ^ it I arfvnp f W

a iiT O i f t , H F ir m?8TT ^ «T 5 ^ arsnr an^Ji * j j i f fli

^ H iv ^ R T Hww il' 3rnft i fIV *11 ^nyw f 5 fn -ftr*5®iw

n ^ - f a i ^ a T H »ft fatfj M ? ^ T n *^ a R r n t*^ >ft V E R i i t aiJV n w >d I aiFWit ^ aw5 n ft^ *n«^ 7T*fT ^ (I'T ' iii<i f .m m f^wn wm vfwm t irmir h v wv

it f?n; aiTT » f - i * f l ^ h n ra j ^ ^ < » J J*'(i« i t 1 >oiN^l Wiy**ffi-n âra' j i h t ^ f?n3 arenr V h m a r ^ ^ ip ft

n ^ - f t n ^ a i w ^ ^ n ; a r a i ^ s A n w a ( ^ ^ rr*ft i h f t aif? ^ n *^ atft ^ «(^}*pr a r ^ tsrsft ^ i u r t s p

<T|rf H T w d a n ^ >? fR" f W «BTh r s v T V T ^ j W ^ 3(Fr ^ *^^^ <wr iF aift oiiHÎ s ^ s rf ^ i^ T ^ ^ w n v ,

f w «bV ^ a n r fTff iiPun ^ ■fer; tyw g " fw ^fhnr

3067 MotUm re: 17 DSCBMB£R 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3068

QO ip ro f v O R T V R lI ^ TO vfrr

<nr^ ^ acr ft, ini’ to

5 ? V ^ iTT TO r Wapsi ^ HWRT ^ TOapj^ ^ HFTIT #, «I5T5f|ff ^ T O U T ^ I ^ ^JWWR ^ wn jf ^ h r o m ^ înwf V nTTT ^ v i ^ HHT

ipss:^ ^ i W li , 3nr^ ^mwrprf r«r f RiT rt*?

^ V T jpRf 3mft f I it*" ^^ 5*tff ^ c; 9HV^ ^ in^ ^ rîftf a?h ^ »ft ?hft 7T^

I |ir ^ ^ ' ^ \ ^ \ f ,

JTirfw f HjTOi anr? rT êrt ^ «R T ^ WT?f ift rN^ I w^ in fH

inrfsT3if ^ ^jrotr^ 5 T?T ^ rw TFTf «P7^ v W w^ 15 #W T^ ^ 3T ^ ^ ^

^ ifK r i f , m ^ w ^HWRTart" w f I ^wnrf snrm

smPTiaif ^ m a iw f 1

ST^TRT 3ff? e?r«f ^ I ^ dTpftWRTarf ^ #?f;^n!r ^ T?f, 3nr^ ^W?-vim ^ f^nmw ^ ^ ^ r*Tarv n w^^ ift f^ fnrr 3rf? ^ 1 arnr r r

^ f H ^rwnfIff, ^ fanmw ^nmr w w , r ^ ^v TTTTi arf*? arsfHr wnr ^ ^3RR ?lRFf ^ ^ nr “ JTfT, ITWrîir It art*? *r?T, TfT ^ ^ f RT?T

MfTMif RT ^ r ^ it] in * w ?r sTiff w TRT #1 ip f Hinr ^ ^W wRPTT fWT?

^ î^5T ari* ^ i r ^frw ?Vvw fW nf r*TT 1H3VfvVTH l)* I

Skri M(Moddin (Hyderabad a ty );The Report of the States Reorganisa

tion Commission has naturally createdconfusion in all the States of India andthat confusion is reflected in the viewsexpressed by the representatives of thepeople in this House. It is .good thatevery part of the country, every representative of the constituencies, shouldhave an occasion to express her or hisviews in this House so that the Onaldecision that may be taken will reflecta large measure of agreement in thewhole of the country.

According to the proposals of theCommission, the Hyderabad State hasbeen disintegrated and the parts whichare known as Marathwada areas areto be integrated with Maharashtra andthe Karnataka parts afe to be integrated with Karnataka. The residuaryState is a problem which has to besolved. The Commission has recommended that because public opinion hasnot yet crystallised in Telangana areas,it should be allowed to run as a sepa rate Telangana State for five years andthe question whether il should joinVishalandhra should be decided later.I agree entirely with the hon. Members who have said that it is not desirable that the question of reorganisation of Hyderabad State should beleft over for .some future period. Itjhould be decided now and here. Thatis an important question and I hopethat the majority of the Members ofthe House agree with that aspect.

During the last three days* discussionin this House, some Members havetouched the* Vishalandhra and theTelangana question. Shri Heda, Shri,Raghuramaiah and Dr. Lanka Sun- daram have spoken about it in particularly. Swami Ramananda Tirthaspoke mainly about Maharashtra andBombay and incidentally referred toTelangana. This morning, Shr? Anan- thasayanam Ayyangar dealt in detailwith this important question. At theoutset, I would like to say that ourDeputy-Speaker, who is extremely fairwhen he sits in the Chair and presidesover this House—I have never seen himgiving any ruling which may even besuspected of being unfair— was extremely unfair when he came down to the


floor of the House and addressed theHouse. How was he unfair? I do notsay that because he pleaded for Viam- landhra, he was unfair. That is notmy point. He said that in the Hyderabad area, there have been three attempts so far since independence to createa kind of Pakistan in the belly of India.The first was the Razakar attempt in 1947-48 which was rightly and properlycrushed. The other attempt was—I donot exactly remember his words— the communist movement in Telangana.That was also dealt with properly andconstitutional methods have been adop> led to Communists now. He said, a third Razakar attempt is now beingmade to have a separate TelanganaState. The use of the word *Raza- kar” in this connection and also in connection with the communist movement was very unfortunate. It hascreated and it does create an impression that this is also a communal movement. As Mr. AnanthasayanamAyyangar has said, there is also a hidden hand behind it which supportsthe movement. Th^se two statementsof Mr. Ayyangar create an impression that the Telangana movement is a communal movement of the type ofthe Razakar movement that took placein 1947-48. This reference, I am sure,will be repudiated by all sections ofthe House and as I said, this referencewas very unfair on the part of Mr.Ayyangar. Who are the supporters ofthe Telangana movement? Mr. Heda,who spoke on the first day as theleader of the group, Mr. Ramaswamyand all other Members of the Housewho silpport this movement have belonged to the Congress from the verybeginning and have suffered not onlyduring the independence movement,but also during the Razakar regimeof 1947-48. They are the leaders ofthis movement and it is very unfairto call them Razakars at this stage,because they differ in regard to theformation of a State.

Sbtl C. K. N»ir (Outer Delhi): Theword “Razakar** only means volunteer; it has no partcular meaning.

Shri Mohioddln: *<Razakar” has gota history behnd it. We should not forget it When the term has been used

for a particular movement, a certainmeaning is attached to it. There is nosense in saying ;hat Razakars meanonly volunteers. It does have a certainmeaning, because of that historicmovement.

Shri C. K. Nair: I only want topoint out.........

Mr. Chaimiaii; Ord^r, order. Thehon. Member cannot speak while I am on my legs. While one Member is expressing his views, another Membershould not frequently interrupt him.The hon. Member has already explained that the term “Razakar” meansonly volunteer and there is no userepeating the same. *

Shri Mohiuddin: The majority ofthe members of the House are perhapsnot aware that the proposal for theestablishment of a Telangana State isnot a new one. The proposal has beenthere for a long time and has been studied and propagated for tlie last 7 or8 years. Of course, it is not as old asthe movement for the reorganisationof India into linguistic S;ates, but, ithas been propagated for the last 7 or8 years. When the States Reorganisation Commission was appointed,those who supported the idea of a separate Telangana State, includingMr. Heda, formed a committee for thepurpose of making this representationto the Commission. I was not one ofthe Members of that Committee; I havebeen always of the view that reorganl*sation of States on a linguistic basis atthis stage is a mistake and shouldbe postponed for at least another 15 or20 years. I expressed that view beforethe Commission. But a large numberof Members of the Hyderabad Assembly and other persons presented thecase to the Commission and aftera thorough enquiry, after goinground the State and after interviewing hundreds of people, theCommission came to the proper andfair conclusion that ihe proposal aboutthe merger ot the Telangana areasint'j Andhra area has not yet crystallised k\ the residuary part ofthe Hyderabad State. Every sectionof the House has paid a tribute tothe Members of the Commission andat this stage, I would also like to

3071 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S,R.C. 3072

[Shri Mohiuddin]add my tribute that in a lai gc number of cases their conclusions havebeen very fair and very correct.In this case,, the conclusion that theproposal for the merger has not yetcrystallised is also a very fair and very correct one. Argument has alsobeen raised that the State of Telan- gana or Hyderabad, as it is now called,will not be viable, I shall not go intothose details; Mr. Heda has dealt withthem. But I should like to mentionone thing. Dr. Jaisoorya is pointingout his Angers at me to show that instead of a surplus of Rs. 2 crores, therewill be a deficit of Rs. 4 crores. I assure Dr. Jaisoorya and the House thatthe Telangana State is financially verystrong and very viable. There is nodispute about it. Whether this surplusState will be converted into a deficitState on account of introduction ofprohibition is a matter which has gotto be considered not by the HyderabadState alone, but by Punjab, U.P., Biharand Bengal where complete prohibitionis not yet imposed. A large proportion of the revenues derived from excise will have to be foregone and theloss of revenue on accoimt of prohibition will have to be made good byeconomies, by additional taxes or bycontributions from the Centre.

The State of Hyderabad as recommended by the Commission is mainlyon the basis of local opinion. TheWorking Committee ha« also passed a - resolution that though they prefer theformation of Visal Andhra, the finaldecision will depend on the wishes ofthe people. The wishes of the peoplehave been very strongly demonstratedand there is no doubt now,—I hopethere is none in the mind of the Government—that a very large majority ofthe people in Telangana, 90 to 95 percent as Shri Heda has said, are in favour.,..

Shri GopalA Rao (Gudivada): Question.

Shri Moliliiddla:....of establishing a State which will be called Hyderabad.

Having dealt with this point, I shouldlike to say a few words about thegeneral aspect of the reorganisation of

the States. With the advent oflndepen- dence, the attitude of the leaders ofIndia towards the reformation of Stateson language basis had considerablychanged. While before Independence,language was perhaps taken to be themost important and perhaps the onlyfactor for the reorganisation of States,after Independence, the attitude hascfianged. The J. V. P. report said thatthe primary consideration muft be thesecurity, unity and economic prosperityof India and the separatist and disruptive tendency should be rigorously dis- couarged. The Commission has alsoconfirmed this opinion and it has saidthat it is neither possible nor desirableto reorganise the States on the basisof a single test, either of language orculture, but a balanced approach tothe whole problem is necessary in theinterests of our national unity. It Hna generally been agreed that no amendment should be proposed or votedupon the motion that has been movedby the hon. Home Minister. But,I would suggest, I hope the House willagree with n>e, that at least the movingamendment may be passed andthat is, that we should see that the reorganisation of States should be subject to this principle laid down by theCommission that it is neither desirablenor possible to reorganise the Stateson the basis of a single test of language.

Dp. Jaisoorya: I support it.An Hon. Member: The report is based

on that.

Shri Mohiuddin: The report is basedon that. But, from so many parts ofthe House we have heard that the reorganisation must take place only onthe basis of language.

Some Hon. Members:said that.

Nobody has

Shri Mohiuddin: The leader of theCommunist Party has gone to the extent of saying that even a villageshould be made the basis tor difvision,for demarcation of the areas betweenone State and another.

Shri Gopala Rao: Ifguous.

it is conti-

^ 7 3 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.H.C. 30 7 4

81111 Mahiuddin; The result is, itdemarcation were to take place onsuch rigorous lines, why even ? village, why not a street in a village bemade the unit of demarcation betweenone State and another? The resultwill be that the divisicm will be soporous that linguism will permeateio strongly into the minds of thepeople that it may become a realdanger to the unity of India.

This feeling that all the people whospeak one language must be in oneState and that the reorganisationshould be so rigorous as not to leaveeven a village or a part of a villagein the other areas, I am afraid, basedon a very different conceptionabout reow n isation. Those who believe this strict and rigorous demarcation of States into language groupshave a faith that the State 90 formedwill be their ideal and that everyaspiration of theirs resides in thatState. The Commission has recommended that language is only an instrument for administrative purposes, thatit is only a convenience for administration. The principle that thedemarcation of States on the basisof language must be rigorousand must be based on the idealsof linguism is one which, I thinkwe should condemn from allsides of this House. I shall read in thi connection one or two sentencesfrom the proceedings of the debateheld tn Dhe Andhra Legislative

Assembly on the 25th of November.Shri P. V. R. Gajapathi Raju—I donot know to what party he belongs—said:

'Administrative uniflcation..this administrative uniflcation refersto the adoption of Hindi as the language for official purposes. “is a dangerous doctrine if it

transcends itself and ilgnores cultural difference Therefore it isthat I say that this tendency tofeel that nationalism equatesmerely to language hegemonyinust be fought by us who are

non-Hindi speaking people../’

Must be fought by us: how arethey going to flght this administrativeuniflcation? The strategy is,

“ If we claim Visalandhra because of our cultural rights, wemust not forget that SamyuktaMaharashtra has also got suchrights. And also furthermore.,.”

I specially invite attention to thissentence

“And also furthermore, it is byvirtue of that two strong amalgamated States on the Godavri ultimately a defence-line may alsobe buiflt in the future.’’

So, he wants a defence-line against1he administrative uniflcation ofIndia in the official language.

3 FM,

Dr. N. M. Jalsoorya: Who said that?

Shri Mohiuddln: Shri P. V. R.Gajapathi Raju I do not know towhich party he belongs. Perhaps, hebelongs to the hon. Member’s party.

Dr. N. M. Jalsoorya: No, no.

Shri Mohiaddiii: Those who support the formation of States with theline of demarcation based not only onthe district but even the villages havethis sort of conception of the languageState that they wish to develop in thefuture. If that is the ideal, then I am afraid that the spirit of nationalism that we wish to develop will beconsiderably retarded. It is for thisreason that we do not want linguismto invade Telangana, and we wanta separate Telangana State. Hyderabad has been a meetitog-ground ofthe north and the south for hundredsof years....

Shri 8. V. Banuwwamj:railway junction.

It is a

3075 Motion rc: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of 5.R.C. 3076

Shri Mohiuddin: It has been ameeting-ground of the east and alfothe west. Hyderabad has alwaysbeen a melting-pot for the ideas thatemanated from the south and also theidea that came down from the north.We have never had any fanaticismabout language in that area. Thepeopde there are more inclined towards learning the national language,that is, Hindi. No doubt, Teluguwill remain the regional language andthe official language of the State, butHindi will have a greater chance ofspreading out in that area and thenIrom that area to the south, if theState of Hyderabad is formed into a separate State and not merged in Telangana from which the virus oflinguism may penetrate the State ofHyderabad.

Shrl Gopala Rao: Do you wantlo retain Urdu?

Shri Mohiuddin: TheT Commissionhave already recommended that theOsmania University should be takenover by the Central and convertedinto a Hindi university. I am veryglad that such a recommendation hasbeen made. We want that the university in Hyderabad should be thecentre tor the whole of the Indianculture, and that the culture fromthat area should emanate to all sidesin the south. It is for these reasonsthat we support the formation of theState of Hyderabad, as recommendedby the Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Now, Shri GopiiRam. The hon. Member is makinghis maiden speech.

: arnrirt acTTo ^ 0 ^ ^

1(1 i f 3TTOT it jrf? ^

if fR R ^ i r f w 5:1

^ anHT'n <rr^ ^ fr»n»T f

^ |TEJR t ^ f I aih f f f^ iT eriW ^ I art

»ilV^ arf^ R R ?<r*iT, ^

afftpcn f*rar f art ^ ^

qjnr ^bMi f ^vn w ITTSiT? 5T*W

a r f w ^ ^•11 •TfT

. [Shrimati SuShama Sen in the Chair]

JEwnriVr <f?T-TjTO ^ <n ’B bR H ^ atro

^ a r t^ iinT^ ^»im c ; fsR p fart airo ?% 7 ir wr

if', 1 *111 V«< MX! jhiT if' ?TErT>T r? «Rn ^ w

fnft t r»T ^ 7PT *T^ f IafifWr 5

?n*r fssn' if rf«c?r tw^ ?75Rr 51^ ^1 aiTOir^ 5nsA ani aift f W 7? r t

1 1 i f ^ ^ ^ I ^ ■w>r ^ w>tm ^ iri'sj^ <T3mr

3 >i'tW yOVT y5T <niW fSiST It I*T^ f^nsnf «}< , fprm wfimror ^tht *rfr m'hH w rnf w w^ «»T ?bt ?(TnT ainiT cifsR^5T ^ 'Tznft whft ^ wjn V<i<n*i ^

inff TFi WTV *f ?Risr ^ ^^ awOm ^ 5* art*? anw? <p

af 5*it T fw ^

T'fJ fv tn . w*TT?r, aift ait’snr «nr

3077 Motion re; 17 D IC IM B IR 1956 Jt«|M>rt of S.R.C. 307!

ifhnrR- ^ 4»RRr f^n^^ninrwTsnr igi; <n^ y n ») t f f

VWA W tiBPT *1 rfT3|fj fin^ ^ ^ 4 IHm >1 5 1 ^ T ^ l gP<<<HI U R T w ijrf

'5111'31 >d •I**! r*iJ n*f> »i^ I ^^ arft iff *BT!f ^ ?5n3

f*rr? c; 1 ^ »nn ^ f 7 "Tjrw «id q tfi p w n W T O ^ ariV

w ® r ?rf i W ^ 3(ft^ ^ g in f Wrfrrar ^ *W

d'H’Jl'if ^ ^ •frS ift 5T5T R"5ThrT ?5T wwn ^ « rf ^ »ft anr? ^ 5lW ?s1- 5T

?rf 4“ ?*T?IT fs IT ^ 5rri^

inrRT «n^ arr snî

An Hon. Member: Why not further?

«ft ?W : ar»T7 fTRf ^^ 5T ?t ?rf 4tt «S?^

^ ^ «i;o <fto aif? 7T»nPiH ^^*mr ?5Pq ^ntj 1 art^ q^r ^ h m ^ ho »RT ^ traw «»)i’ 4 ^ 1

I anr grfvRiH^?rp atnniT w<R frwrnT 5 ; I ■mVj «f «r?VT ^ IT ^ «ld ^53^? ra^ »TfF? <T?f «f*w afft aiTOW^ ^ « <i/^ ffn j s W ^ ?iT5iT «R q;^ (T^«rra'€/? w M 3JT ajft ? 5 r îjVc*! ^ ^sn / Î?7 âiT TT

Wl 5??^ «mf «fH«r 3TMR «bV*»RT W , sf W f ?«niTq? ^ f ’lHT sirnar ^ i W i ^^ ^ t W ? arh 5(f atrar»ft «iht^ arranft airf?n *rnmr f ' fUTO ^ ^R ifslFT ^ Wjt •IsfiTIR' W«PiraT rn i^ n fa v t^t ^ ariV »iSW

» r p « ?T«»T *mr f 1

»T # wffRPT ^ ^hrrtfir ?nrrarsft 5vT 5rf sjfe ? ju ra ? r ^ wti- ^ f^ ^ a r t ^ I ??^cw?r H^V s|lV) 5 «w i ij , 5«ii/J rWPT if I 3R ? ^ a rp ft ^ «mt ffvRT >15R^ % ? ra f fv arw ^ z n p r Hiff5Nt an q^ <iRr ^f*T5Wl

?TTi^ 5if*T a n r r q r r^ f 1 arnr w ^r?TR? ?rl>T trrf 51 T fmn f 1f w f ^ ^ ^ ^ m? a n r ^^ ^H n ^ I a n r tr? w >p arpT^ WTO 1 «*7T ^ i n i 'M'j!I W flR ^ ^ >d»is> RW^ I ^ f r W T ^ R ^ 1*11,

»ft 5 ^ 3 k ^ a r? ^ g W«rr ^ 5 ?rt ffnj a rrn fl 5n*r

3inpft I p f TOiT ^^ i f I

r«j*<WH iT ^ ^ *17H^ f v ssf»riR f r q f f <n ^ 1

*ft>rrf ^ y~*<in «ri i r ^ ^ f r^ -^ r ^ j f «rfe f W i f W ^ *}m<w

^ 3 ^ ?W to «ffe I ?': * * 7}**1“ ^ ^ ^ ? *h frar?nfT fiTFmnp «T?t 51^ ^ T*r i ^^1 am? ainr ^ j t t o t * t^

^ 5ihT f 5rf f«ii ^ I q?T1? ?rf^ ^ ^FTvt f»?Vw <J fviT

<Nn? ?<wi f I ^ 5if*T *1 sn fr i ?r»nw5r j f wln'faq isV wr»i; f W 3m3i ^ ^nnrsf t f*i5 »nnw *f ^rr «B? ^ «w 5nrj^, 5nft!f «ra- 5mpfti

Pr*»TTO n i v ^ ^f=nm: «ni »nrfls(ft»o W «H

*nr*5anr ? r ; ^ ^ ^ arwr 1^ 5 » f ^ *}fT«n5ft ^ <fanw s ; m i *pjTt ^ a rm fl atifr f w »iH»ft<i JTF «ur wjPT inrrr ?rraBT? ^ gir <n iift ifT<i) ^RT w n r ^ T««si1 yir

3079 Motion re: IV UKCEMBEB IBSS Report of S.R.C. 308a

*t *l'4« fSRIT it I ^ W T <(!t■1 ^

This is the communicatibn caused10 be sent by Sardar Patel, the thenHome Minister of the Government ofIndia, to Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramyayya,the then Vice-Presidcnt of the AllIndia States Peoples’ Conference, inreply to letter No. S. P. 39-29 dated10th March, 1948:

‘*The position is as follows. Refe< rence to the itntention if the Government of India to administer this areathrough a Lieut. Governor is made inthe Preamble only. The cession ofJurisdiction to the Government ofIndia in respect of these States isunconditional and absolute and in noway dependent upon the fulfilment ofthat intention. The ultimate objectiveIs to enable this area to attain theposition of an autonomous Province oC Indila. This objective WDUld be attained in two stages. The area wiiU, inthe first instance be administered byan Administrator, probably an officerof the Chiet O)mmissloner’s statusassisted by an Advisory Council consisting of Rulers and representativesof the people ai^ inted in such a manner and with such functions as the Central Government may decide.Subsequently, subject to the decisionof the Constituent Assembly, it isproposed that the administrationsshould be put in charge of a Lieut.Governor assisted by an AdvisoryCouncil representing the Pritices anda Legislature in the Province. Inthe final stage, after this area is sufficiently develoj^ in its resourcesand administration, it i/6 proposedthat its constitution should be similarto that of any other Province.”

hr ^ îpr 1 1

fV fFT ^ ^ ^ ^TfT ^ ^ ^ ^ T ^ ‘

5*^ 3rrr ^ 5117^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ w v T it I‘A ^ H i w ^ Itf

^ ^ fy ^ ^ 9rf»r,^ ^ ^ r i

^ aiT|^ ^ ^ ^cTirT«r ir ^ ^ ?nr-^ \ ^ 4 ^^ TiiTT

4 ^ 3fTT*ft^ ^ TUT ^‘ 1 Qinr

^ ^ ^ ^ I ^f , i f RTTT c;, ^

4. ^ fflEiW n ff^ ^ qr

i, ^ f, ^

^ ^ ^ ^ nx3^ 5 T? «ll5 i^ f I ^ ^

f?!>q f I f W M W i ^

^ frviPT ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3PT? ^ ^ f*T5fT

q i r q w %TT

I f?iTFT “ ^ ^ 5hr^ ^ 5^ vd ^^ >d ^ ^ ^ >3 1^ ^ ftp n w irjV ^?r ^ ^

Jfrhrr

^ iy »rmgi ^^ Tir if, 3Twr i to

^ iH W ?ur,

3o8i Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 308a

«5rf*n?T ^ *ihrr ^^ #1 f W ftnim^r <pr

T3rTv ^ V*n Q "fliK I tim ^ ^ t)am? f aift anft aira" «fNn?W f ^ ^

r*r ^ ’BTHf ^ a p ^ a»raWt ^ f*msf^ ^ r*n^ ^ ^ fr*im?rsr^V Hfft ^ it r«^«'t4'd <(5î?« I fr*nv5r i r ^ ^ 5!^ frw*rftfw «rf <?Rr aiT It *1?JiiVJ H T»ifhpr ^ f I n r

^ *iVhr rtl il' ^ art*? WRT ?if? ^ f r s p # ^ q ! ! ^ 1 spr

atmsS 5RT f5?j«ji w»'*u^ TTT ^ 5rt»rf +l'P<i *!'<;« ^ * 1 ^ -

< T ^ ^fsnif ^ 5T r«iT 9jn3i t««sr <aa«i fvfs""«R li atpf »<it‘<i<ii' ^ WTO it\

An Hon. Member: Sardar Sahib isvery happy.

Sardar Hukam Sinch: When a factcomes out, why not?

« M rw : *1 a ra w^ ^ ^ iJT »}= qTJ! S ST w

w hs anW OTJT ' ? >^7 t ;i ân^ f?iT tiV^ ^ 5rt*r *5* af»T? ^TT*f irt^ 1

^r <TT Wtn[ ?HWl^:?ir?pr t m J T w r ; 1 f udPn 1(1 < i 'rfr'JH' IiRnr irw !T ^ f|Tfmw»n;i

fW T 5f*rat >f atwr if^ aii § ri

i|;5n7r atft « f 5f»f>m? fipnwvr ^ <ri»t ^ hm nr «c»ft «n- ST?? TSfî tnra- TTTiT 3jmi # f^ *4U i ?T ^ 3?RT^ ^ #1 ? r r ^ in^ *1= anr

wss ar?q)i^ atrr«6 w r^ ari siFiT mrm1 amr *5> <bM ar«n *1

^ ^ n »T^ W ^l^N’ it I T B V Tijtr«n ^»,ooo T»f iftfT ^ fTfwS

r*n?‘ i^HWH i r ^ ^ q f m^,000 « p f * f k f f j r a m ^jfrar ^ it I i i f v r a r m ^ ^ h t A a R n it I ^ a i w i ^ w 5 T O ^ f5»rft it « H W f j H r n w ^ arm n^ <o ?rrer ^

^ i f ^ H w ^ I ^ a n ^ jT T^ W N - ffe m rr c ; a n n q m wrcr v r araf »nT aift «i J ^r * r a t n t r>T ^ a n w i^^ ^ qs 5 m ? ^ i * m h r H r f r » r , ^fNrVI

«rfiR T ?n* T^r a n w i^ ^ f i f rijT fW f ^ lift «ntfHi

1^ 5rT5rf ^ ?nv *^ anq^ «c# fsphrr «R5% ^^ hW *njHhr t , hrsry ^ 5 I5T ?Ttr ^^ n n f a n r t i p f f f ^ f r t n r qRrq}Hrrrr isr i^w trôf'f fsfpt f aift firf?r «ri fspfft if *ft «iT5f 5»^f I y r anr ^ qsnr amj^, arrwit 5Wi^ anW n>;2 ^ aift amra r ^ fTT5 4 in rfN V i # »ft a p i rr»n?T JT^ Ve HM »mi ?rf >ftanq^ jf«ht i

Shri Radha Raman (Delhi City): Iam much grateful to you for havlnfgiven me this opportunity of placingmy views on the SRC Report beforethis House. This Report is the result ofalmost two years of hard labour ofthree of our eminent men who constituted the States Reorganisation Commission. Even today they are noted forhaving no bias of any sort, for oragainst anything which became thesubject-matter of the Report. Theyenjoy the full confidence of all theparties. It will be admitted by everyone of us that they enjoy the confidenceot every man and woman of this country. They examined the dilTerent States

3083 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 30I4

LShri Radha Raman]and their redistribution and they werefuided only by one thought, namelythat the redistributed boundaries oithe new States should make the country stronger and its administrationmore efficient. It is true that in arriving at a final decision they gave duethought to certain principles and considerations of language, culture, homogeneity, economic life of the people etc.But, none of these factors exclusivelyweighed with them in deciding one wayor the other. Therefore, their decisionswere taken with full care anddeliberations objectively and dispassionately and they should bereadily accepted without any bitterness. I for one think that theReport as a whole is not merelya historical document but it offers a very good and acceptable solution ofthe long-pending problem of the reorganisation of the States. To my mind,the document has done tv.\\ justice tothe various States and has recommended solutions which should befound as the best in the larger interestsof the country. It is, however, unfortunate that the Report is not accepted in certci*:: quarters for variousreasons and there is difference ofopinion in the country with regard tosome of their recommendations.

Imagine what enormoois money, timeand energy is spent on the work whichthe Commission has done. I was amazed to read the introductory pages ofthe Report; the figures of documentsreceived, persons interviewed, placesvisited by the Commission, all speakof the hugeness of the task done by theCommission, and also the mass ofmaterial collected and disposed of. Yetwhat do we find? The Report does notfind favour with some sections. Themore I listen to the views of the contending parties herein this House, themore i feel there is no end to the arguments on either side. The more wethink of them, the farther we go fromthe solution. It is strange. It is, therefore, high time that we stop all controversies and accept the recommendations as they are.

When we look back on the events ofthe past two years in this perspective,

what do we find? Almost the wholecountry has remained engaged in thework of demanding some territory orother. Same people were claimingVishal Andhra, some Samyukta Maharashtra, some Maha« Punjab, some ^!ahaDelhi, this that and the other, and ourattention was naturally drawn to theirclaims and their demands to our greatdisadvantage. Perhaps very few during this period certainly thought ofVishal Bharat, Mahan Aryavart, MahanBharatvarsh or Bharatdesh. The demand of Greater Delhi was not seriously advanced by many of our friends.I humbly place before this House thatthe people of Delhi are not after anyof these demands, much more so forGreater Delhi. They want Delhi to begreat indeed, but not by getting addedto it large territories from either ofthe four sides; they want it to be greatin its national character, in its ancienthistory and what not. We want theIndian nation to live in Delhi. Wewant Indian Nation to take pride in itand look forward to it. One should liketo be relieved of the present controversies as soon as possible. In myopinion, we are going to discuss thisReport till the 23rd of this month. I wish that date were the deadline forall controversies, because we havesuffered on account of them and wemi§ht suffer more for the very samereason. So, let this House decide oneway or the other with regard to thevarious contentious problems, but afterthe 23rd December, let us all seal ourlips and carry on our work of reconstruction and rebuilding of the nation,which is most important at the presentmoment.

What has the Commission recommended for the territory of Delhi? Ithas mentioned that the rural areaswhich are at present part of the Stateshould be taken back and they shouldbe added to some other large neigh,bouring State. I may say that thic wilJ be really a most undesirable thing.

Shri Lokenath Mishra (Pnri)* Tothis extent you disagree with theS.R.C.

Shri Radha Raman: I may placebefore this Horuse my views with regard to the suggestions which the Oom-

3c83 Motion re: 17 DECEMBIF Report of SJl,C, 3086

<«isaion has made, I believe Delhi is a frowinf town. Delhi has got an ancienthifftoxy; Delhi has got all the talents.As I said earlier, we want the wholenation to live here in Delhi. It shouldreflect the mind and soul of the nationand as such, in spite of the desirethat anyone of us may like that DelhiBhould not grow in population, i maysay that it must grow and it will growas everyone of us fias seen. Under thecircumstances, I think it would behighly desirable that we had examinedthe small territories which are requiredfor the future development of thecapital or for the fuller development ofthe existing State of Delhi. Again I may say that I am not for GreaterDelhi and I do not want any largeslice either from the U P., or from thePunjab. My people do not want it.They want that Delhi should be leftas it is and if there is any need for thefuture development of this capital, itshould be for our leaders and for thisHouse to take that into account because later on it may be still moredifficult to readjust the boundaries ofthis State eyen if it remains as a Centrally administered territory as is proposed by the Commission.

I should not like to take the time ofthe House in giving vent to my feelingson the floor of this House further onthis matter. I believe the best thingfor me to do would be to confine myselfto certain aspects of the recommendations of the Conrunission embodied in theReport and the case of Delhi whichdeserves greater attention from thisHouse than has been given by theCommission in its Report. Before I dothat. I should like to mention myreactions to certain other matters as well, referred to in the Report. I am extremely pleased th it the Commission’s Report agrees with us forabolishing the distinctions of Parts A,B and C States and for the removalof the institution of Rajpramukhs. On many an occasion we had voiced thatthere was no justification for our maintaining the distinction between thedifferent States, and the institution ofRajpramukhs was much out-dated and

could hardly fit in the present circum*stances. The Commission in their Report have accepted our opinion andhave made recommendations for theirabolition, for which I want to congratulate them. I have little doubt inmy mind that the abolition of Part C States has brought to an end Botmerely the anomalous position of theseStates but many other shortcomingsthat were attached to them. ThestStates, however, with, the exception ofa few which will be calJed ‘Centrallyadministered areas’, have lost nochiiigbecause they have now become a vitalpart of some bigger States, with fullpowers and full right of franchise ancfthe fullest autonomy. This, hn\yever,is not the case with the proposed Centrally administered territories, such asDelhi, Manipur and Tripura. There fore, they deserve special attention ofthis House as well as of our leaders. Imay, however, add that the Commission in its Report has recommendedaltogether 16 States, and in doing so,it has merged all the Part C States except a few smaller States, in biggeradjoining States. Such a course hasin no way deprived these States ofany of their existing rights andprivileges, except; that they would notenjoy separate legislatures. Thefranchise, be it in the State or in theCentre, will still continue. They willform a part of a bigger iinit wheretheir rightful place is granted andtheir talents can shine better thanprobably in a smaller State.

Shri Ferose Gandhi (PratapgarhDistt.-West — cum—Rac Bareli-East): Is the hon. Member allowed toread his speech?

Sardar A. S. Saigal (Bilaspur): Lethim read. What is the harm?

Shri Radha Roman: But similar isnot the position with Centrally administered areas. They have not beenallowed to merge with any of the adjoining States. They have not oeeP given their rightful place. They will beCentrally administered and thereforethey will be deprived of their aspira> tions and popular participation 00

3087 MHion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3088

(Sbri Radha Raman]necessary in this democratic age. I,therefore, think that looking at theposition Delhi holds, it must havebetter consideration from this House.The recommendations of the Commission hardly touch much on the presentposition of Delhi. You will find thatthey have in the first part of the Report narrated how Delhi exists—because it is the Union’s capital, theCentre wants to have its power andcontrol on it and therefore it shouldnot have any democratic set-up. Theyhave also mentioned in the Report thatcorporation is an easy substitute forwhat we have at present. I somehowdo not understand how this conclusionhas been arrived at. We all know thatnardly four years ago, in this veryHouse, many of our colleagues andLala Deshbandhu Gupta spoke forDelhi’s democratic set-up—the position in which Delhi exists today. Delhiwas the capital of the Union then. Ithad all those advantages and disadvantages which it presently has.Still after due deliberations and fulldiscu&sion in this House, it was agreedthat Delhi should be a separate Stateand it was made a separate State. Now,I do not understand how the passageof time has altered the position. All thearguments for and against were giventhen and after hearing them it was feltnecessary, looking to the history andbackground in which Delhi existed,looking to the talent it possessed and‘ooking to all other things, that Delhishould be created as a separate State.What is it that has now persuade d theSRC or actuated it to deprive Delhi ofits present position or its right to havea separate democratic set-up.

I do not want to go in or repeat whatwas then said on both sides. I simplywant to remind the House that allthose arguments which have been usedby the SRC in its Report with regardto Delhi were used then and it was onlyafter having fully considered them andexamined them that it ras decided,that Delhi should be a separate State.I, therefore, feel that the case of Delhihas not received the attention it de- perves from the SRC.

It has been mentioned in the SRCReport that a T?orporatlon will benecessary. I fully agree with it. It wasabsolutely necessary for Delhi to havea Corporation. Some people objected,to its creation but even they have nowchanged their view. We all feel thatthere should be a very strong and goodCorporation for the civil administration of this place. Whenever the question of having a Corporation came,there had always been a quarrel between us and the Government and itwas said from the Government sidethat there should not be one but twoCorporations, one for old Delhi and theother for New Delhi. We have notbeen able to reconcile ourselves to thisposition of two Corporations. We wanta strong and effective Corporation forDelhi; it should cover the whole, areaof old Delhi and New Delhi. That was* the reason which probably governedour friends’ decision not to agree to itimmediately after Delhi had obtainedits status as a separate State.

Before I go further I should like tomention......

An Hon. Member: Y cj ha-.'e gonefar enough.

Shri Radha Raman: I should like tfimention that we are not insisting thatwe should have a particular form ofdemocratic Government in Delhi eitherA, B or C type. These were thedifferent types and there was D also.All these different types exist in India,Each pattern was designed to suit certain conditions. We want at the presentmoment that our status shouui beenlarged or rather made more effective.What should be the pattern is l^ft tothe constitutional»pandits to the Government, or to our leaders. They haveto find out or evolve a certain patternwhich suits the conditions of Delhi. Wehave said, not once but on so manyoccasions, that Delhi’s position is different from the rest of the States including the Centrally Administered Territory, I would like to remind the Housethat the very name—Centrally Administered Territory—that Delhi should

3089 Motion re: 17 DSCEMBEH 1995 Report of S.R,C. 3090

be a Centrally Administered Areasmacks of something which is notreconcilable. It has always been saidthat such areas are backward in manyways or deficient economically or theyhave less of talent and so man:' otherthings. But in the case of Delhi allthese things do not stand in the way.We have a population of nearly twentylaklis; this is a growing population.Delhi has got a composite culture.Practically all the languages of thecountry are spoken here. There is noreason why it should be treateddifferently, and more particularly as has been treated by the SRC.

Before I go further, I wish veryemphatically to place before this Houseand before our leaders that we have-always carried out their wishes. Wehave been loyal to them and we shall•continue to obey them if it is their decision that Delhi should remain a Centrally Administered Area in spite of allits claims—past, present and future aswell. We do not want to do anjrthingwhich might disturb the atmosphere inDelhi. We want to have no agitation in the capital city of the country. But we•do want that our claim must be properly examined. It should receive thebest of attention with all the seriousnessthat it deserves, j have little doubtthat the decisions arrived at only threeor four years ago will continue to prevail on our leaders as well as thisHouse and the result would be whatwe want.

I just want to mention for the information of this House that the demandof Delhi for self-government is as oldas 1918. It is not that it was put forward only lately or that the principlewas accepted lately. It was started bythe biggest national organisation of thecountry— the Indian National Congress.I want to read out the Resolution ofthe Congress which mentioned thatDelhi must get its rightful place byhaving a democratic set-up or it shouldl>e a separate State having a Government of its own.

The National Congress at its 1918 •ewlon held in Delhi adopted the

following resolution which was movedby the late Rai Sahib Piyare Lai andseconded by no less a person thanour revered late Hakim Ajmal Khan;

'*That this Congress stronglyrecommends that Delhi should beconstituted into a Regulation Province, that it should have aLegislative Council to assist theChief Commissioner and that itshould have at least two representatives in the Legislative Assembly.”

That was the demand which started in 1918 and since then the peopleof Delhi have been demanding insome form or the other the democratic rights which were not given to it.It was only in the year 1951 thatthese rights were conceded and Delhiwas PTiven a Part C Statens status withfurther limitations than what otherPart C States were subjected to.

It may be that the experiencewhich we have gained in past threeyears is not very satisfactory, or is not according to our expectation, butit should not alter the principle onwhich Delhi was given a separatestatus. I only say that so far as thequestion of experience is concernedI for one maintain that it has not altogether been a bad one. We startedquite afresh, most of our old leadership was gone and the whole burdenhad fallen in the hands of youngerpeople. In the course of the three orfour years that were given to themthey have learnt so many things. I am afraid, in case this democraticright of the people of Delhi is takenaway and Delhi is deprived of itspresent status there will be a lot ofdifficulties which we will have toface. In my opinion, Delhi as a Statehas served as a shock absorber evenfor the leaders or the Ministers whosat at the Centre. It has always beenthe headache of State Minister whowere carrjring on the work on behalf of the State as well as on bdialfof the Centre to deal with local problems.

Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S R C. 309Z

[Shri Radha RamanlIt has been stated that Delhi being

a small State, if it is given a separate status as it is having now, will not be viable and financially it will be a burden. All these arguments have been thoroughly exposed in the past and it has been stated before, and can be stated now, that these argu* ments cannot stand logic and reason. From the calculations that we have made you will find that Delhi can become an economically sc-lf-sufficient unit. If all the burden that is thrown on it because of the Centre's responsibility, or the Centre being here, is taken away, it can certainly have its own self-sufficient economic status also. I, therefore, urge on this House and on the Members present here, and also those who are not present, that Delhi’s case should not receive that scant attention which it has received from the Commission; and those arguments which have led the Commission to come to this conclusion and which are now contrary to what they were then, should not stand in the way of Delhi attaining its just and rightful place.

In the end I want to mention a few points which I think would be helpful in guiding our decision so far as Delhi’s case is concerned. Delhi’s demand for a responsible government, as I said earlier, dates back from 1918 when a resoluton was adopted by the Indian National Congress in its session at Delhi. Therefore, if Delhi is made a Centrally administered territory it will be a retrograde step and it will virtually mean the denial of her just and rightful place. It will be like a body without its soul. Delhi has been and can continue to be financially a viable State. Keeping in view the future development and expansion of this ever-growing city, an area within a radius of at least 20 miles, or even less i f ‘ it is thought so, should be added to Delhi’s present boundaries. There are numerous precedents in the world, where the Federal Capital and the Capital of a State can co-exist without any difEl- crulty. Therefore, here the Delhi

State as well as the Capital can bolk exist. A corporation or a connty council or any other lorm of civil administration however powerful* or a Minister in the Central Govem- ment for Delhi Affairs, or the aseo- ciation of some people in their ad* visory capacity cannot be a subst^ tute for the Government of the people by their own representatives and for their own good, A corporation and the State Government can, and should exist. They should be selfsupporting in their respective spheres with their own finances. Delhi should have a democratic pattern of administration and may be called a “Metropolitan State** if nothing else, and should be given a responsible government at the State level.

Before I conclude I would like to say one more word. It has been quoted over and over again that because Delhi is the capital of the Indian Union and the Indian Union has so many responsibilities to discharge it cannot be acceded that it should remain a separate State. We have all worked for a democracy. Our*s is a living democracy and we are evolving pattern after pattern for it. The world is also believing in that and new patterns are being evolved in many places and in many countries. I see no reason why in our own country we are not able to evolve a pattern which is acceptable to the Centre as well as to the people of Delhi. We are told there is Washington, Canberra and other places like that. The position of London is also mentioned to us. All these are old patterns in my opinion. If you look to the new pattern you will see the difference. See the latest model of Tokyo, see what is done at Ottawa, what is done at Beme, the capital of Switzerland, you will find that all these Capitals are enjoying a certain amount, rather a very good amount, of self-government. If we accept the recommendation of the Commission about Delhi I am afraid neither of these opportunities will be available to us and we will be dep

3093 Motion re: 17 DECBMBBR 1955 Report of S.R.C, 3094

rived of our very rightful and Justplace. Such a course will stifle ouraspirations and we will be depriveef our popular participation in thegovernance of Delhi which is thejust need of the people of Delhi.

I thank you. Madam, for the timeyou have given and for the indulgence of the House whiteh I have received. I am sure that after what Ihave said and what my other friendswill say, Delhi's case will receivethat serious attention which itdeserves.

4 P.M.

Shri B. K. Ray (Cuttack): Thankyou very much for giving me an opportunity to place before the Hourfe,the supreme adjudicator—the Parliament—the saddest fate of Orissa, thelike of which this House has probably never heard. It would have beenreally very unfortunate if the Reportihould hav« been prejudged or accepted as it is. Our hope lies in the veryconsoling words delivered during thelucid speech of our hon. Home Minister that what the States Reorganisation Commission had said are notthe final words. That gives us thehope that the aggrieved will have further opportunities to be heard and 1 think I am now standing on behalfof the disappointed and despairedOrissa to plead her case before thehighest tribunal, namely, this augustHouse.

An Hon. Member: Take somethiftig from Bihar.

Shri B. K. Ray: I know in thissort of controversy, there are hon.Members arrayed on this side andon that side, but I think we shallgive sufficient weight to t he calm andpeaceful atmosphere in which thismatter has been discussed, by observing restraint and not interferingwith the speech of the particularMember who is speaking on the sideof one case or the other. By sayingthat Orissa has claims or has a good

claim for itself, I am not carrjringthe lands with me and away fromBihar, nor should Bihar do so fromOrissa.

With regard to the personnel ofthe Commission I say—and the Members of this House have also conceded it—that they are not only menof eminence and deserve respect butalso that iheir judgment carriesgreat weight with it; and particularly, the Chairman is a person whohas not only enjoyed in his life thehighest honour of being the ChiefJustice of a High Court and then a Judge of the Supreme Court, butis one to whom I am personallymuch obliged. His influence has imparted much to the build up of mycareer as a lawyer and then as a judge. But we should not considerthat the human elements are notthere. I should say the human element is there. On account of humanelements what happens? Man isliable to err and I should say that,with all respect, they have erred.

Before coming to the Report rather in its detail, I should say thatif there is any glaring instance oftheir error, it is the instance of theifr judgment over the claims of Orissaiol only to certain territories now

lying in Bihar but also to certainother territories lying in MadhyaPradesh and certain other areas.What is the mistake? The mistake isthat they did not consider it. Theyclosed the door against us sayingthat what has been done 20 yearsago is quite enough for us. If theworld has changed, if the time haschanged, if the circumstances havechanged, if the political map of Indiahas changed, they are not for yourbenefit. You must be taken to bethere, where you were in the year19.34. Though the’ mountains areno longer there, though the junglesare no longer there, so far as theReport is concerned, they are ftillthere so far as Orissa is concerned.This, in short, is the said error thatthey have committed with regard tothe State of Orissa.

3 095 Motion re; 17 DECEaiBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3096

IShri B . K. Ray]As a general critic of this Report, I

have read and re-read it in order tofind out certain principles on whichit is based and I have been at a lossto find any. No doubt, in the preh«miliary chapter of the Report, therehave been various principles defined,laid down and discussed, as principles that will govern reorganisationo f States, and re-adjustment ofboundaries of States. Help has alsobeen taken from the various committees set up by the Congress, setup by the independent Government^f India, for the purpose of somelight as to the principles whichjshould guide them. But have theylaid down any formula by whichthey should govern the reorganisationof S tates or the redistribution ofStates in India? They have forgotten the genesis of the appointmentof this Commission. India has beenquite safe from 1947 till now. TheGovernments of the various States weregoing on quite smoothly and so alsoat the Centre. Then, why all of a sudden this Commission was set upfor the purpose of reorganisation ofStates? There was something wrong.What was wrong? There was nothingwrong with regard to any administration anywhere*. There was nothingwrong with regard to the securityrr unity of India an)rwhere. Butthe leaders, the authoriti<es at theCentre, knew that there wasthis linguistic principle, this linguistic homogeneity, which was lacking in the existing formation of theStates. On the advent of Independence, and of the introduction ofdemocracy, the proposition arose thata majority, group^by majority, I mean a majority of people speakingone language—had to rule over another group living within the sameboundary and speaking another language. Naturally, with all restraint,with all the safeguards in the Constitution, it became a common feature,a feature which has also been noticed by the Commission in its Report,that disscrimination was there anddiscontent was there. It seems thatthey have been carried away very

much by consideration of Indten unityand security. As one of the hon.Members has already said—and withwhom I entirely agree—in the quea- tion of internal readjustment ofboundaries between pre-existingStates, where arises the question ofIndian unity or Indian security? Thatis a proposition which has simply tobe borne in mind, but some territorial formula had to be laid downby them. What have they done inthe preliminary chapter of theirbook? They have discussed severalprinciples but ultimately, in theirassessment, they have come to sayin respect of each one proposiiionthat “this is not the sole test” . Ultimately, they say that they have madea balanced approach in the Report, butthat approach might be reduced, andI think has been reduced to be theirown discretion and which, in somecircumstances, might glidcT into ar* bilrariness. The inevitable result hasbeen that they have recommendedcertain divisions on an au hoc basis.It has been said on the floor of theHouse, witb which I also agree,that to reorganise States on a linguistic basis and to preventminorities being discriminatedagainst, or, to use a stronger word—I do not like to use it, but in theabsence of another word I have touse it—being oppressed by the majority group, the States should be reorganised so that there is linguistichomogeneity. Of course, so far as thequestion of unity or security of Indiaand the economic evolution of Indiaare concerned, they should be considered after finding out whether it isimpossible to have a readjustment ofboundaries on the linguistic basis or.account of these considerations. Ifthey had followed a particular principle; if they had laid down a particular yard-stick before them andaccording to that, if they had redistributed these States, there should nothave been by now this discontentwhich is now tending to disruptivetendencies in the States. There areonly two or three recommendations about which there can beno two opinions such as that of the

3«97 Motion re; 17 DECEMBER 1956 Report of S.R.C. 3098

reorganisation of the States of M.P.,namely, bringing in all Hindi-speaking areas together under oneadministration, and the setting up ofthe Kerala and Karnataka States.With regard to the other portions,there is visible to my eyes, which isaccustomed to see things down below41 little carefully, a bit of judicialnervousness. One example is theproposed State of Maharashtra,Gujarat and Bombay. because theMaharashtrians can have a State oftheir own; they are self-sufficient andthere is financial viability also. Thereis no danger to the security or unityo f India. There ite no danger in putting all the Maharashtrians into oneState and giving them the city ofBombay also, because it is clear thatgeographically Maharashtra andBombay city form one unit. To makeit bi-lingual, wavering about the decision whether to leave it to Gujarat orMaharashtra and all that is due tothat judicial nervousness.

Let me conie to the case of Bengal.There is no contradiction and therecan be no contradiction over the factthat Bengal had suffered in its territory and it has been vivisected for thesake of the nation. It has sufferedat the altar of the freedom of the Indiannation. Therefore, the natinn has tomake good what it has lost. To connect North Bengal and South Bengalby a highway only is not enough.So far as Darjeeling and other areasare concerned, they are border territories and the security of the IndianUnion is mostly concerned with them.Therefore, the actual Goverimienrt,namely, the State Government, whichis in charge of these territories musthave full facilities for those securitymeasures which are necessary in orderto guard the frontiers of the Stateagainst any external attack. For this,will the mere highway from theNorth to the South Bengal be sufficient? No. Sufficient territories mustbe added to it and those territoriesmust bear this character, namely,they should be such as can be developed and absorbed into the territoryof Bengal. They should be such thatwhen they are amalgamated with

Bengal, the whole State may becomthomo(feneous. In that way, sufficientprogress can be made___

Shrl Blbhntl Mishra (Saran turnChamparan): Why do you not amalgamate Bengal and Bihar?

Mr. Chairman: Can the hon. Memberforce him to give out some suchsuggestion?

Shri B. K. Ray: I now come to therecommendation with regard toManbhum and Dalbhum, because thatis a very material one. So far aiManbhum and Dalbhiun are concerned,they are joined with Bengal in manyways. The majority of their population is Bengali and the tradition isthat of Bengal. For a very long time,at least till 1912, they were part ofBengal Presidency. If they are givenManbhum, why should they not begiven Dalbhum also? I am not pleading the cause of Bengal. I am onlypointing out the inconsistencies, theabsence of logic and coherence in theS. R. C. Report. It is not that thereare no proposals which are logicaland consistent; there are many. Atthe same time, where it affects thepeople very seriously, we should becareful. What has been said withregard to Orissa's claim in Bihar?Because, we are not giving Dalbhumio Bengal, therefore, we should notgive this to. the other State also. I am putting it in my own words; theCommission might have said in different words. They have said so, because they think that Dalbhum willbecome an enclave. If you are notgoing to leave any enclave whatsoeverin the reorganisation of States, whatis your answer for those enclavesbelonging to Madhya Pradesh whichwill still remain in Orissa? In certainenclaves, Madhya Pradesh cannotcarry on the administration itself, asexcise jurisdiction and several otherjurisdictions have been delegated tothe Government of Orissa. Eventhose enclaves should not remain inthat case, if logic is to prevail. Withregard to Orissa, agitation was goingon for 30 or 40 years for having m separate province till H was given

3099 Motion re: 17 DBCBMBBR 195ft Report of S,R,C. 310O'

[Shri B. K. Ray]in the year 1936. At that time, therewas correspondence between theSecretary of State and the Governor-General and there was also a Commission which was appointed for thispurpose. What has been decided underthose circumstances, the Commissionsay, we are not going to interferewith that now. In one case, some

, thing is not given to us even thoughii is admittedly an Oriya area, because they say it will create an enclave; but, at the same time, so manyenclaves are allowed to remain in Madhya Pradesh.

So far I have dealt with the generalcharacteristics of the report. It isnot free from reproach, it is not freefrom criticism. They have honestly,judicially, however, arrived at cer- tam erroneous decisions, with regardto certain territories. On the whole,they have laid down certain principles.For this portion, I may be permittedto read. They have defined culture—I do not disagree with it—as socialheritage of moral, spiritual and economic values expressing itself in thedistinct way of life of a group ofpeople living as an organised community. It covers language, habits,ideas, beliefs and even the vocationalpatterns. I should remind my hon.friends in this House to keep in mindthis definition. They have no doubjtaken linguistic homogeneity, geographical ' compactness, alignment ofcommunications ensuring easy accessibility from one part to another andhistorical affinities to be the mainconsiderations in the readjustment ofStates or boundaries. With regard tohistorical affinities, they have said,

“No conclusion could be drawnmerely from the fact that the areaproposed for retransfer to a Statetell at one lime within the admi- ’ nistrative jurisdiction of thatState.”I will pause a moment nere. In

direct contradiction of this principleof theirs, they have said that Seraikellaand Khaxsawan should be retained byBihar because it was for a certain

time within the administrative Jurisdiction of Bihar or Chota Nagpur.I will read it again:

“No conclusion could be drawnmerely from the fact that the areaproposed for retransfer to a Statefell at one time within the administrative jurisdiction of thatState.”

Of course, if it had been one of thevarious observations, I should notattach much importance to it. Buithis House will be amused to leamthat this is the main ground on whichthey decided Orissa’s case saying thatthe historical fact is that these two* States had administrative connection,or were administratively within theChota Nagpur Division.

As to the merger of princely States ,they themselves have said in para 239:

“It would be unfair to concedeany prescriptive right in favourof any of the existing units on themere ground that it escaped thesweep of political developments inthe country owing to some favourable turn in the events or semesuch factor as a political concession, its geographical isolation, location in the border Dr economicbackwardness.”

It means that if on any of thesegrounds any princely State happenedto be merged in any of the States orprovinces at that time, that shouldn^t give it any prescriptive right. Thisis their proposition. What have theydone? Because Seraikella and Khar- sawan had been put under the administration of Bihar, under the circumstances then,—there was riot,there was violence—the territory wasdivided from the then State of Orissa,from Mayurbhanj a State which hadnot merged in Orissa then. Underthese political and other events, itwas thought • then politic IJiat theyshould be administered by the Qov- ernment of Bihar. They say lhatsuch circumstances would not give a

3 i# i Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3 I#2

particular State within whose admi-JilBtration a territory is» any prescrip*tive title to be retained in it. Here,in the case of Bihar as against Orissa,-Bihar will have prescriptive right.

After this, I will confine my speechto the claims of Orissa in the territories now lying in Bihar. So far asthe other claims are concerned, someof my friends from Orissa will followme, because, according to the direction of the hon. Speaker^ we havearranged accordingly. He said thatwith regard to a particular group,you select certain people so that therewill be no duplication of speeches, sothat the same things may not berepeated. I think the hon. Chairmanwill take note of it that I am notgoing to make the whole speech thatis necessary to place the case ofOrissa before the House. I shalldeal it under different heads. Letme take historical affinity. In thereference by which this Commissionwas given the power, which definedthe scope of their enquiries and investigations, which gave them somedirections as to what to do and whatnot to do, historical background isone of the considerations to whichthey have to pay attention.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member hasonly five minutes more.

Shri B. K. Ray: I have much to say.I do not think I am taking more thanothers.

Mr. Chaimuui: I have got that complaint. The directions of the Speakerare, half an hour is the normal time.

Sliri B. K. Ray: I am the representative speaker from Orissa. Severalother gentlemen will only speak on.specific points. I have already covered the general grounds. Now, I am{going to specific points. I may take15 minutes more. Please allow.

What is the historical background?I f the administration under the British-Indian Government, their formation of^territorial units for that purpose is^ e historical background, then, I

think there was no meaning in setUfigup this Commission at all. TheMembers of the Commission say,because Seraikella and KharsawAM and the Sadar sub-divLsion were beingadministered as part of the ChotaNagpur sub-division by the Britishers,that is the historical background onwhich they are entitled to retainit. I will place before the House thereal historical background.

<i?r f ?

iTTW: ? f , # i

Mr. Chairman; I have alreadyrequested hon. Members that thesedisputes should not be settled herelike that. . . .

Shri B. K, Ray: With regard to theBritish territories, the members of theCommission have said that it wasgrounded in imperial interests andthe exigencies of a foreign Government and not in accordance with theactual needs, wishes and affinities ofthe people, and that compactness,homogeneity, factors conducive togrowth of natural units were subordinated to the prime considerations ofadministrative and military exigencies.

With regard to history, there is nodoubt that Singbhum, Seraikella andKharsawan formed part of the old'Jtkal. Utkal consisted of Odra and the present districts of Balasore,Midnapore, Manbhum, Singbhum andnearabout areas. Odra in UtkalKingdom otherwise known as SouthernTosala extended from river Baita- rani in the north to the riverBansadhara in the south. It includedall the hinterland to the south ofManbhum and Singbhum consistingof the present districts of Sambalpur,Bilaspur and the States of Patna, etc.To the misfortune of the Oriyas, theyhad a large kingdom and it was cutup at different times and some portionwas given to Bengal, some portionto Madras and some portion to thethen Central Provinces. With regard


(Shri B. K. Ray]^ Singbhum, I woiild just refer towhat Walter Hamilton wrote in his

'book called Province df Orissa in1820. He says that the territorialûb-divisions of the province of Orissacommencing from the north are thefollowing though there are manyother petty States and large zamln- daries; Singhbhum, Keonjhar, Mayur- bhanj, Balasore, Cuttack and Khurdha.This was written as long back as1820, and that was the most authenticrecord. The same writer again saysin his description of Hindunthan (1820,Vol. 22. pp. 34), that Singhum, theland of lions, in the province of Orissawas governed by a Rajah independentwithin his own territories, but underpolitical subordination to the BritishGovernment. Mr. Ricket, the thenmember of the Board of Revenue,Bengal, in his report on Sambalpurin 1853 also described Singbhum to bean Oriya territory included in Orissa.

Going into further details, I mightsay that the district of Singbhum consists of three different parts, namely,Dhalbhum, Kolhan &nd Porahat. Herealso, the history is there. ThisPorahat State was an Indian State,and it continued to be an Indian Statetill 1858 under Rana Arjun Singhwhose family and dynasties were forgenerations past recognised as Oriyas,and exercised ruling futhorily over16 pirs of Kolhan. This State wasconfiscated on account of the rebellion.Its revenue administration was madeover to the Board of Revenue in 1859,although it continued in other respects to be managed as a tributaryState. By the pro:;lamation of 5th August 1892, it was incorporated inBengal—not in Bihar, for Bihar hadno existence at that time—along withOrissa in one revenue division. Itwas by Act II of 1892 that it was included in the district of Singbhum(Vide O’Malley’s District Gazetteer ofSingbhum).

Originally, Kolhan had only 16 pin.Its area was then increased by theaccretion of territories from the neighbouring Oriya States of Mayurbhanj,Seraikella and Kharswan, The

Singbhum district then constitutedwas assigned to the Assistant Agentto the Governor-General, a post specifically created for this purpose. Inthe administration report of the Government of Bengal for the year 1872 73, at page 40, there is a remark tothe effect that the lands lying betweenSubarnarekha and Rupnarayan wereparts of Orissa.

With regard to the expansion of theOriya language, I shall take you toDr. Grierson, who writes in his.Linguistic Survey of India :

“The Orissa country is not confined to the division which nowbears that name.''

In fact, ultimately, according to theBritish allocation of territories, onlythe nucleus remained in the Orissadivision. It was only in 1936 that alot of the outlying areas were joinedtogether, and the Orissa province wascreated. But originally, il was onlyOriya division. Grierson furthersays;

“It includes a portion of thedistrict of Midnapore on the north,which together with a part o fBalasore was the Orissa of thephrase ‘Bengal, Bihar and Or.ssa’ met in the Regulations fran\ed bythe Government in the last decadesof the 18th century. Oriya is alsothe language of most of thedistrict of Singbhum belongingto the division of Chota Nagpurand several neighbouring nativeStates which fall politically withinthe same division.” .As I have already stated, so far as:

the administrative divisions are concerned, Bihar had no separate existence. The administration with whichthe Britisher started was the administration of the Presidency of Bengalwhich included with it Bengal, Bibir,Orissa and Chota Nagpur. So, Biharwas a unit or entity; so was Orissaand so was Chota Nagpur.

An Hon. Member: You want Maatthey should be merged again?

3105 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 19SS Report of S.H.C. 3106

Shri B. K. Bay: Within the administration of Chota Nagpur, Singbhuxnwas placed as a district, and it wasonly in 1892 that the Singbhum district as such was created. The realprincely State which on account ofthe rebellion had been confiscated andreduced to an ordinary revenue oradministrative division was for sometime kept under management as a princely State, as a feudatory State,but its revenue division was added ontp the district, and ultimately by anAct in 1892, it was made into a separate district.

When did the Provinces of Biharand Orissa come into existence? Itwas in 1912 that they came into existence. We felt no separation IromSingbhum at all, until the Orissa province was created in 1936. Now, theimportant point is that in looking tothe historical affinities, these affinitiesalso should have been looked into bythe States Reorganisation Commission.

With regard to Seraikella and Khar- swan, it is said that they formed partof Chota Nagpur division. Had theCommission looked into our memoranda and had they carefully lookedinto the documents produced beforethem, they could have seen easily thatfrom 1910 till 1948 these two Stateswere being administered along withall the princely States of Orissa atSambalpur. They were taken awayfrom Bihar on a representation by thepeople and on the basis of an agreement executed by the Hos, in whichthe main ground was that theirmother-tongue was Oriya, that therajahs were Oriyas and they hadevery affinity with the Oriya rajahsand the Orissa country. That is howthe whole thing started.

Now, was the south-eastern frontieragency, which was known also as Chota Nagpur, ever administered byBihar? No. In the entire belt fromSingbhum to Sambalpur there werea number of feudatory States, and therajahs of those States had their ownforts and were maintaining their ownarmies for the protection of the kingdom of Utkal. All those feudatory

States which existed as States at thetime of the Brititeh administrationwere all being governed by an Agentof the Governor-General. It was onlyafter most of them had been transferred to the OrisSa agency or theeastern agyr.cy that these two Stateswere kept or some time under theadministration of the Chota Nagpurdivision. That was again undone ona representation made by the rajahs.The fact that they were under thi- supervision of' the Divisional Commis>sioner of Chota Nagpur does not really mean that their administratio-nwas i tc^rated wilh that of Bihar, revenue, civil, or criminal. Thoserajahs had their own administration.It was only for the observance of theparamountcy power of the BritishG»jvernment that the Commissionerwas thers to supervise whether these- rajahs were ruling properly or not.So, that was absolutely no historicalaffinity at all.

With regard to language and culture, the whole position has beenmisconceived. As has been admittedin the census report, the position isthat t he Orissa are in a majorityThat is one way of looking at thething. It was admitted by Dr. Sinha—it was worthy of him—before thesub-committee of the Congress Working Committee, that on the point oflanguage, Bihar had no case. In fact,the Hindi-speaking people are veryfew in number. They are only something like 34,000 or 38,000 as againstan entire population of 6 lakhs or 8 lakhs. Tnat is the real position. Excluding the Biharis, the largest group*consists of Hos, who are about 4 lakhsor so in number.

But the point is that linguistichomogeneity has to be seen in thisway. Now, what is the area proposedto be added? It is the Sadar sub-divi*Sion of Singbhum. You will kindlynote that the States ReorganisationCommission have completely forgottenOrissa’s claim in this regard. Ourclaim for the Sadar sub-division ofSinghbhum is not at all mentioned inthe Report. The Commission have-

.3107 MoHon re: ' 17 DECEMBER 1965 Keport oj S,R.C. 310 !

[Shri B. K. Ray] confined themselves only to Seraikella and Khars wan, as itf we were claiming only those two, and have said that if these two areas were transferred, they would become an enclave. But we claimed the Sadar sub-division of înghbhum also. Now, the three districts of Orissa on the border of the three States of Seraikella, Kharswan and Singhbhum are Mayurbhanj,

-Keonjhar and Sundargarh

They practically embrace Singhbhum on three sides. Now. all the Hos and the Santals, more than 99 per cent, of the Hos of Bihar concentrate in Singhbhum mostly and Sarai- kella and Kharsawan partly. The entire Hos and Santal population of Orissa concentrate in the three districts of Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar and ^Sundargarh. So the point is that you should compare the area sought to be transferred to the area to which it is to be amalgamated. Take the Oriya language, take the Ho language and take the Santal language; you will find there will be a linguistic homogeneity amongst those people. The O’Donnell Committee Report, on which they rely, has stated that they formed a part of the village economy of Singhbhum. They are living together side by side as one community, as it were, and the Hos have »the largest majority of them who speak Oriya as the second language.

Besides, with regard to geographical position, on the north there is a range of hills and so far as communication of Singhbhum with the rest of Bihar is concerned, there is nothing but one circuitous way or railway which is available. But so far as communication with Orissa is concerned, we have given a list in our memorandum. There are seven main roads and there are six railways, besides one which is proposed to be constructed for the sake of Rourkela which will connect Chaibasa with the different district towns of Orissa. Then, at the time of the O’Donnell <Jommittee*s investigation, they said that the Hos were not willing to go Tfrom Bihar to Orissa, because they

were separated from Orissa by a large belt of feudatory States, and the Hos and Santals of those States had their economic life, their social life and their affinities with these people.

But at present, the position is quite different. In the last general elec- tioris held in 1951, public opinion among the Hos and the other tribal people unmistakably expressed itself in favour of merger with Orissa. Out of 12 MLAs in the district of Singhbhum, 7 have publicly declared themselves in favour of Singhbhum’s transfer to Orissa, and of these, 7 including the ex-Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Assembly represent the tribal people of that district. They have made this position clear in their memoranda to the States Reorganisation Commission and the number of representations they have since submitted to the Government of India. Therefore, the Hos, the Santals and Oriyas who form 99 per cent, of the population of that area live like one community. , Oriya festivals are observed by the Hos and Santals and Ho and Santal festivals are observed by the Oriyas.

Shri Jajware (Santal Parganas cum Hazaribagh): What is the percentage of the Oriya-speaking people there?

Shri B. C. Das (Ganjam South); Much more than that of Beharis.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Memberwill kindly co-operate with the Chair and see that such cross questioning is not permitted.

Shri B. K. Ray: Therefore, by not transferring this area to Orissa, not only have they violated the principle of linguistic homogeneity, the principle of geographic contiguity, com- " pactness and facility of communication, but th ey have also violated the principle of the wishes of the majority of the people.

Now, I would say one word about regional planning. That is yet another factor in favour of transfer, which needs to be taken into account while considering this question. Of the five big rivers of Orissa, nuMly,

tfotio* i« : 17 DBCPfBBR 10SS JUport SJt.C. 31103109

Mahanadi, Brahmani, Sal-andi and Subamarekha^ all exceptMahanadi have their catchment areasand tributaries in Singhbhum such asSankha, Koel etc. They flow throughthe Orissa districts and cause at timetof flood widespread devastation in thedistricts of Simdargarh, Keonjhar,Cuttack and Balasore. ^ ood controland irrigation works over these riversystems can only be effectively undertaken if the catchment areas, especially their tributaries, could be controlled by the State of Orissa throughwhich the major parts of the rivenflow to the area. In reply to a similarargument by Shri N. C. Ohatterjee inrespect of another river, my hon.friend, Shri Syamnandan Sahaya replied that they had already a schemeafoot for controlling that river andsetting up a dam. But that argumentcannot apply here. Excepting Sub- arnarekha, there are other riverswhich do not cause any flood inSinghbhum or Saraikella or Khar- swan. So regional planning is also oneof the considerations in favour oftransfer.

In short, my point is that historicalaflinity and economic considerationsare in favoi^ of transfer. As regardseconomic consideration, I have a wordto say. These Hos have not only theirkith and kin in the districts of Orissa,but according to the Census Reportof 1951, they are gradually migratingto the south, namely, Oriua, becausethere more economic occupations areavailable.

As I have already said, in theentire province of Bihar only some4000 Hos are scattered, but there areabout 4 lakhs of them in Singhbhumwhich is adjacent to MayuzbhanJ and Keonjhar, where the Hos numberabout 3 laklha.

Therefore aiy submission is thatthe SRC have not at all consideredOrissa's case. In fact, I can say thateven applying for the sake of argument, all the tests—even though someof them need not be taken into consideration— that they have laid downin ,the preliminary chapters about re

adjustment of botmdaries OriMi'aclaim can be justified. There can beno question of any danger to Indianunity or security if some 3000 or 4000 sq. miles of Bihar are attached teOrissa, by administratively transferring them to Orissa. Nothing of thekind. On the contrary, so far as thepeople are concerned, economic betterment can be effected by the transfer.According to all the tests, the caseought to have been decided in favourof Orissa. But it has been wronglydecided. I appeal to this hon. House,I appeal to the sub-Committee, tolook into this matter objectively anddispassionately because the SRC havenot given proper consideration to ourgrievance.

Shri S. M. Ghoae (Malda): At theoutset I express my gratitude to ourHome Minister, Pantji, for giving a very correct lead to this debate bysaying that we should discuss it coolly,calmly and dispassionately and remembering always the great unity ofthe Indian people. I congratulateAcharya Kripalani also for emphasising the cultural tmity aspect of theIndian people. But, I was a little sur^ . prised when another hon. Member, a great Parliamentarian, Shri More siddthat we should be grateful to theBritish for giving us this administrative unity. I do not know why theAshoâ Chakra in our National Flag did not come to his notice. I do notknow why the sjrmbol of administrative unity, those lions on the top ofthe chair in which you are sitting didnot attract his notice. Tlien, he shouldhave realised that India achiteved administrative unity covering a muchlarger area than the India of today,before Christ was bom. In the 4thcentuiy B. C. in Kautilya's Artha^shastra, he could have got an idea ofthe pattern of administrative machinery which could yk^p under administrative unity the Empire of Ashoka.Apart from this administrative unity,there is another aspect of which wecan be proud. We are the only people, in my opinion, in the whole wor}dtoday who can claim that at least

Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 3 1 1 a

[9hri 3. M. Ghose]from Mohenjodaro till today we arecontinuing the same pattern of life andthe same pattern of civilisation.

If we look at the articles fromMohenjodaro which are preserved inour museum, any one of them, whether it is cooking utensils, whether itis terracotta, whether it is clothes, orwhether they are ornaments or anyother things, we- will see thatthroughout India, these thoiasandsand thousands of years, inevery part of India, in every villageof India, the same things were beingused and are being used even today.This also throws a little light as towhat sort of economic organisationwas behind this continuous civilisation of India. I do not want to gointo, detiail but I will simply mentionthis. Even some of the Europeanscholars themselves have admittedthat India’s uniqueness lies here, thatalthoufeh there was cultural overflow,this socio-economic pattern never crossed its boundary and from Mohenjo*darb till today it is the same thingconliniied.

i come to another aspect. That is,what was the meaning attached tothese activities by the Indian people.This will be found in their philosophy.I shall not go into detail but ! simplymention that there were altogether9 schools of philosophy in India andthey were broadly divided as Atma- vadins and Anatmavadins. Atmavadinswere six, those who believed in theexistence of Atma as it has been stated and explained in the Vedas, Anat-‘mavadins were three—Charvak, Jainsand Buddhists. You will find thatthe meaning of Atma has been explained by these different schoolswhich, if we try to imderstand andexpress in our ^nodem language, wouldmean thiit it is a thing in the conscious existence of Aurs—a subtle principle, which exists, uniting us all. Thatis to say, those who belonged to thesesix schools, believed in imity of life.*nxe other three schools, the Charvak,Jains and Buddhists even though theywere Anatmavadins, even though theydid not believe in the existence of such

a thing as Atma, aU of them believedin Ahimsa. If we try to understand themeaning of Ahimsa, we shaU find thatit again confirms in a negative waythe same principle of unity of life.Therefore, the heritage which we havereceived from generation to generationthese thousands and thousands ofyears, whether in our economic activity, whether in spiritual or social orother activity, goes to show that theIndian people believed in unity of life.

Sir, I shall read from the Presidential address of the late DeshbandhuC.R. Dass at the Indian National Congress, 1922, in Gaya. This is how heexpressed the great ideal of unity.

“Throughout the pages of Indianhistory, I find a great purposeunfolding itself. Movement ^termovement has swept over this vastcountry, apparently creating hostile forces, but in reality stimulating the vitality and moulding thelife of the people into one greatnationality. If the Aryansand the • non-Aryans met,it was for the purpose ofmaking one people out of them.Brahmanism with its great culture succeeded in ^binding thewhole of India and was indeed amighty unifying force. Buddhianwith its protests against Brahmanism served the same great historical purpose; and from Magadhato Taxila was one great Buddhistic empire which succeeded notonly in broadening the basis ofIndian unity, but in creating, whatis perhaps not less important, thegreater India beyond the Himalayas and beyond the seas, somuch so that the sacred city wherewe have met may be regarded asa place of pilgrimage ofmillions and millions of people of Asiatic races. Thencame the Mohammedans of diverse 'races, i>ut with one culture whichwas their common heritage. For a time it looked as if here was a disintegrating force, an enemy tothe growth of Indian nationalism,but the Mohammedans made theirhome in India, and, while they

8H3 IfotiM rer 19 DSCXMBlfiR Itot Report of SH.C. 8II4brought a new outlook and a wonderful vitality to the Indian lifewith Infinite wisdom, they did aslittle as possible to disturb the^ w t h of life in the villages whereIndia really lives. This new outlook was necessary for India; andif the two sister streams met, itwas only to fulfil themselves andface the destiny of Indian history.Then came the English with theiralien culture, their foreign methods, delivering a rude shock tothis growing nationaUty; but theshock has only completed the unifying process so that the purposeof history is practically fulfilled.**

5 P.M.On the question of unity, the S.R.C.

has also devoted one chapter and letus see today how we are interpreting

Ihis unity? The Report says:“Unfortunately the manner in

which certain administrationshave conducted <their affairs hasitself partly contributed to thegrowth of this parochial sentiment.”Now I want to draw your attention

to some of the recommendations forthe protection of linguistic minoritiesin the different States which would becreated after this reorganisation.

Shri M. P. Misra (Monghyr NorthWest) : Now you are coming from thespiritual to the mundane level.

Shri Loketlath Mishra: But theyare not self-contradictory.

Shri S. M. Ghose: It is stated in theReport that:

“when such devices as domicilerules operate to make the publicservices an exclusive preserve ofthe majority language group ofthe State, this is bound to causediscontent among the othergroups, apart from impending thefree flow of talent and impairingadministrative efficiency.”They have suggested in the Report

that som^ of the services should bebrought under the Central Govem- fheiit. There also I am one with thembieeause of the problem which we shallhave to face and which we are facing

today, because of our developmentplans and because of the dearth oftAlented officers. We know that thereare certain backward areas in ourcountry and we also know that thereare certain parts of India where thereis no dearth of talent and there ismuch more than they can absorblocally. In my opinion, they haverightly pointed out that for the betterexecution of the plan, certain servicessuch as engineering, medical, forest,etc., should be brought under theCentre.

About the linguistic minorities theyhave suggested that even if it werepurely on linguistic basis, then alsothere would have been some minorities as pockets here and there. Therefore to remove their grievances and thefear from their minds, they have re'- commended certain steps. Thosesteps can be taken even earlier thanthe reorganisation of the States.

I come to another very touchy affair.

The Deputy Minister of HomeAffairs (Shri Diltar): Upto six o’clock.

Shri S. M. Ghose: My esteemedfriends Shri Chatterjee and ShriSyamnandan Sahaya created a littleconfusion—I do not say intentionally—blit that is the case with everyone ofus today. When we discuss the problem of West Bengal, we bring in thequestion of Bengal, the Bengal whichexisted and which now is a matterof history, tf you look at our Constitution. if you look at the npap of Jndia,you will not ftrid anywhere Bengaltoday; it is V est Bengal, which is ourown creation. In order that we mayall enjoy this freedom and indepen- aence. this new State of West fiengallyas created by all of us jointly. Whenwe discuss the affairs of West Bengal,in my opinion, all of us should giveIt top priority because it was our owncreation with the head and trunkseparated from each other. It is notthat we deliberately created it butbecause we rêrred the whole matterto an arbitrator whose decision wewere bound to accept, and as a iM ilt

[Shri S. M. G ^ e ]of that arbitrati^, this ^chinnamastha^State has been ottered to us. It shouldreceive your first consideration andtop priority over everything else. Thehead is separated from the body andit is bleeding. Therefore, it is not a problem of only West Bengal but aproblem for all of us to find out asolution. I have great faith, trust andconfidence in our leaders, in our Congress Working Committee and the Committee which has been appointed bythe Working Committee with Pandit-Ji, Maulana Saheb, Pantji and Dhe- barbhai. I hope they will be able tofind out a solution which will be acceptable to all and which will be amost happy solution of the presenttangle. I have no doubt in my mindabout that.

3H 5 ^ '3tfot»on re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 31^6

Another point is about Tripura. Inthe S.R.C. Report they have stated:

*The Assam Pradesh CongressCommittee, the local CoanmunistParty, the Tripura State CongressCommittee and the Governmentof Assam are broadly in favourof the statiis quo."After the Report was out, I know

the President of Assam Pradesh Congress Committee and the President ofTripura Congress Committee submitted a Joint memorandum to Pantji asthe Congress leader. Assam said thatthey do not want to have Tripuraagainst its wish and Tripura said thatthey want to remain separate. But,for the greater interest of the country,if it is felt by this hon. House thatS.R.C. Report should be supported,then it lies with the Assam Government and the people of Assam tocreate such conditions in which thepeople of Tripura will most gladlymerge with Assam. I felt very muchassured on this point when Pantjisaid that nothing will be done againstthe wishes of the people concernedand nothing will be thrust upon anybody. This aspect of Tripura mayalso be remembered.

Shri Rishang Keiahlng (Outer Manipur—Reserved—Sch. Tribes): I wantto request the Government and this

hon. House not to treat the problem o fthe Scheduled Tribes and the minorities in a very light-hearted manner butto treat this problem. seriously, carefully and tenderly because in theminorities and in the tribal people, thepotential forces of national utilityexist. I therefore, request again thatthe Government should consider thequestion of minorities and the backward tribal people very carefully.The successful working of democracyin this country is going to be determined in the way in which the majo*rities treat the minorities and thebackward tribes. Today the minoritygroups and the backward hill tribals,due to ignorance, may keep quiet butvery soon they will try to raise theirvoice and speak so aloud that it hasto be heard not only here inside thecountry but outside as well and ourown people and the people belongingto other countries will judge how thiscountry and the majority group havetreated the minorities and the tribals.

After Independence, I am sorrysay that we have received a lot of lip- sympathy from the majority communities. The majority have appreciatedthe honesty, sincerity and dutifulnessof the minorities and the tribal people.Very often you will find big people andGovernment officers searching everywhere to employ the tribal people orsuch minorities as their cooks, sweepers, etc. I am glad that they haveso much faith in the honesty of thesetribal people and minorities that,they ask them to take charge of thekitchens, latrines and bath roomsbut this will not do now. Wewant something more than that.By looking after the kitchens ofthese bara sahibs we do not gain anything. We do not become as educatedas the children of these bara sahibsare nor do we get a portion of theirproperties. We want something whichwe shall call our own and we musthave soîething wherein we shallmould our own future. Therefore, itis very important that the tribal problem should be tactfully dealt with andshould be given careful consideration.

3117 MotUm re: 17 DECEIOBER 1955 Report o f's .^ J ^ 3118The SRC Report is before ua; we

are discussing that. We want that thiscountry should have & happy and pros, perous future. The hill tribes and the minorities exp«ect that in a prosperous and happy India they shall have an honourable place. In the light of what I have said I want to make a few observations about this Report.

First I shall take up the case of M aS- pur. My State had been existing for many centuries as an independent State. The Commission recognised this fact atid they have clearly mentioned that for centuries Manipur has maintained her separate identity. Manipuri people have got a separate culture, a separate language and a separate composite race that are different from other heroes to lay down their nised by the SRC. I am glad to say that Manipur has never been lagging behind the rest of the country in the light for freedom. When Britishers occupied Manipur it was the lot of Vir Tickendrajit, Pouna and Thangal and other heroes to lay down their lives for the cause of freedom of the country. They were hanged by thfe Britishers. In 1939, the women of Manipur revolted against the British regime and the British Officers were in many places surrounded. Many women were shot down. Again in 1947, during the regime of the Maharaja, Manipur with its love for democracy, revolted against his regime. They won the struggle and got a representative form of government in the State. This way, it was the first State in this Republic of India to have the first elected Assembly— representative form of government

^ A t the time of integration, the Assembly was dissolved and the Chief Commissioner's regime was imposed on the unwilling people of Manipur and it exists even today. When people’s , agitating mood to overthrow the Chief Commissioner's rule was seen the Government of India in 1952 appoinV ^ some nominated persons as advisert)v Everybody knows what kind of peosb^^ will accept nomination. Generally, Job hunters and those who have great , lust lor power and momr come for- ,

ward. Exactly the same thing haiH pended in Manipur. People who hav« no position in society and who had lust for money and power came forward to fill up these posts of advisers.

[S hri Ba rm an in the Chair]1^ e r e was State-wide agitation in

isfSi and the people of Manipur, both in the hills and plains, carried on unitedly the agitation for restoration of dissolved Legislative Assembly. The whole country witnessed the satya^ graha movement in Manipur. Even in this House there were uproars on several occasions and adjournment motions were moved. There was a walk out by the Opposition Members from this House. All these things happened but Government did not move. We were told that the S. R. Commission would give a report on Manipur and the 'Government would give the matter due consideration. The agitation was suspended and we waited. What have we got now? The S.R.C. say that Manipur will be a Centrally Administered Territory. They also say that the administration wiU be associated with some of the nominated local persons as it is now. Thus, the old system will continue in Manipur when other parts of India wear new things. The Manipuri people have sl\ed their blood and sacrificed their lives sb that We may have a responsible form of Government; so that the people themselves may look after the welfare of the Manipuris. The Commission’s recom-. mendation that it should be a territory ' and the old regime should continue can never be accepted. We are fed up with it, disgusted with it. it is too bitter; a thing to be taken for the second time.

It will be Interesting for the House to know what happened during these six or seven 3 ars of * the Chief Commissioner's regime. No development scheme worth the name has been carried out in Manipur. The Gov- enunent have started the construction of ' Imphal-Tamanglong road and after nearly four years have lapsed only 20 miles of this road has been motorable. The

3II9 JVTotion re: 17 1955 Report Of SIt.C. 312a

[Shri Rishang Keisbing]community project atThoubalis miserable failure. The national extensionblocks at Imphal East and Mao Maran

' are at a standstill on account of the; fact that necessary fhinncial sanctionhas not been mad;:. Then the advisers

^ n d others are in<Wl';;inri in smugglingot rice. They buy rice form the poorlocal people at Rs, 6 for the best ricewhich is sold in Ihe out^dde market atRs. 25. They make a huge amount ofmoney by this smugglin^j. Big officersare involved in smuggling a largequantity of goods fro m B u rm a like7 o'clock blades, w ris t watches, fountain pens, cyrle parts and other things,lorry loads of smuggled goods arecarried via Imphal to o ther parts ofIndia but our C .I.D . pol'ce officers arenot able to detect those things.

Then there is a lo t of corruption going on. The fo rm e r C h ie f MedicalOfficer is stated to liavc m isap p ro p riated a large sum of rupees. A manwho gets only Rs. 600 a m onth is saidto have insured fo r about Rs. 3 lakhswith the insurance andBanks. How is it poss bio? There isalso misappropriation of money in theTransport Department w hich involvesa lakh of rupees.

/ n o w I come to the question of Tribal cases. Several tens and scores ofcivil cases are still pending becausethe Central Government abolished theKill Bench which was started in 1 9 ^The power of Hill Bench was usurproby the Chief Commissioner and DeputyCommissioner to try the hill cases butby an injunction order of the JudicialCommissioner they were not allowedto try cases with the result that tensand scores of cases are still pending.If you will come to the hill areas youcan see that there is hardly any administration. The S.D.O.s and theD.O.s sit tight in their chairs andnobody moves into the interior. Theadministration in the hill areas hasbeen too badly neglected.

Jt yoyx take the case of teachers andother Qovernment employees you willfind that they are getting the least payin India. A primary teacher is getting

20 a month. L.MP. docion who

have served (or over ZO years are get-1ting 100 a montlL B.A.3*T. well- trained gradij^te teachers are getting \ Rs. 100 flxea j

These are the results of the Centraladministration and how do you expectus to tolerate these things again? Iknow Manipuri people are democracy- loving people. We are as much Indianas other hon. Members here and whyshould this Government deny us thatright which the whole country has? Ithink it is a great injustice and theCommission has taken a very undemocratic attitude as regards Manipur.They know that there was an agitation;they know that the Manipuri peoplesacrificed their lives; they know thatthousands of our women were madenaked in public; they know thatseVetal thousands oL persons wieredragged on the road like logs;they know that many were throwninto the water; they know thatthere was inhuman torture in jail.All these they suffered for the causeof democracy and still this is their re- commendatiop. I feel that the Commission’s attitude is entirely undemocratic and I bog this hon. House andthe Government to modify this andgive Manipur a legislative assemblyso that fhey may improve themselves.

Reorganisation of States is based pnlinguistic considerations. With regardto Manipur the Commission has clearlystated that they have got a separatelanguage, culture and tradition whichhas got no similarity whatsoever withthe neighbouring State of Assam.Therefore, they have said that Manipurmust maintain its separate identity.But, they have added the words “forthe time being” . Why should they say:“for the time being Manipur has toremain as a separate State as long asManipuri people desire and until theydo not voluntarily decide to go toAssam...” I think it is wrong to forcesomethintg on the unwilling people ofManipur. Tlvit would be antinationaland that goes against the principle onwhich the States are going to be reorganised. .

The S.R.C. has said that Manipurshould remain separate, but at the

3121 Motifon re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C, 31Z2same time they have put all sorts ofpressure on us. They have said thatAssam is overburdened at present as she has to look afterthe so many backward areas.Therefore, until Assam is strongenough to tackle with Manipur. Manipur should be kept separate. Is it inthe interest of Manipur that the Commission has ' recommended to keepManipur separate? It appears to bein the interest of the Assam State thatManipur has been recommended to bekept separate. The other thin ? theyhave mentioned is that if Manipuriswant to remain separate they have toaccept the present undemocratic regimeof the Chief Commissioner and Adviserand if they want a representativeform of government they have to gotoAssam. They know perfectly well thatwe want a democratic and a representative form of government. Theyknow that we have sacrificed everything for the cause of democracy andknowing well they have put thispressure on us. They have thoughtthat if the Ma ’ ipTjr? people are denieda separate repre.sentative form of government they will voluntarily decideto go to Assam, That is why they haveput this pressure on us. Everjrthingthey have recommended is in the interests of our neighbouring State,Assam and not in the interest of Manipur.

We beg of this hon. House and theGovernment to take note of thesefacts and see that justice is done tothe democracy loving people of Manipur. For centuries we have maintained a separate identity. We have suffered a lot for the c&use of democracy.We have sacrificed our best men forthe cause of national independenceand there is no reason Why today weshould be asked immediately to giveup everything and go to Assam. I thinkthis is just like & magistrate passinga death sentence on somebody who isnot at all involved in the case. In myopinion the Commission has fixed thedate and have erected the gallows tohang the Manipuris. I think this is agreat injustice. What have we doneagainst the Government? What have

v/e done against the fetion? We havedone nothing. We are innocent. Thertis np charge-sheet against us. We arenot involved in any# crime. So, whypass this death sentence on us?

r "/ Therefore, I want to inform this hon.^ftuse and the Government that theManipuris will not be satisfied withanything shortof a representative formof government^They are still prepared 'to sacrifice ae-rhey did before if necessary. They are prepared for any eventuality. The six lakhs of people in Manipur demand democracy and areprepared to work for democracy.Both the hill and plain people areunitedly working for it. There is nodifference and disunity. *

Again, there is an (Argument thatManipur is a deficit area. They cannot run the administration with theirown income. The revenue isHs. 35 lakhs or o. It shouldnot therefore remain as a separate State. Do the commission meanto say that all democratic ‘iraditionswhich have been handed down to usthrough our forefathers over the lastseveral centuries should be Sricriflcedfor the sake of a ' few lakhs ofrupees? Give us responsible government, we shall take as little contribution as possible from Centre. OurM.L.A.S will be prepared toreceive Rs. 5/- as pay and - /4 / as their sitting allowance. Wecan maintain ourselves. In 1946,when the late Assembly was functioning, they started many developmentschemes. Several miles of roads wereconstructed throughout the hills andplains of Manipur. But today, afterfive or more years of the Central Administration, what is the position? Wefind nothing more than a few pieces otbroken stones scattered here and thereover the roads already constructed byour own labours. I would request thehon. Minister to come with us and atleast see whether we are telling a lie.We have sincerity; we are honest pe<H pie and we have not yet learnt that artof telling lies and falsehoods. We artstill frank and honest. Believe us. Wawant to be the best citizens of thli

3123 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S.R.C. 31^[Shri Rishan^ Keishing]

country and we are still so. So, mybumble submission is that Manipurmust have that cherished, representative form of government Let there beno more continuance of this adviserregime; no more imposition of this regime of the Chief Commissioner. Relieve us and save us from such aregime. Otherwise, we are evenprepared to face the gallows. I wouldask the hon. Minister and this honourable House to consider our casesympathetically and take necessaryaction so that the x>eople of Manipurcan get what they want within ayear.

I would like to touch upon Naga‘ Hills and NEFA also. At page 193, in

paragraphs 714 and 715, the Commission says ♦something about the NEFA.I am glad that they have reconunendedthe continuance of the Central administration over this area, because I knowthat this area is still backward. Itwould have been quite unwise on thepart of the Government or the Commission to advise that this area shouldgo into Assam or any other state ofthe country. They have .got their ownpeculiar problems and they must betackled by an efficient Government Jtnd that Government is the Central Government. So, I welcome the recommendation that the Central administration should be continued for some timeover this area.

But then, there is another thing andI hope my Assamese friends will not beannoyed with me if I mention it. Itis my sincere feeling and I must saythat. The Commission has said thatNEFA is part and parcel of Assam.Areas like Tuensang were unadministered areas and no man’s land,the people there did not knowwhat the Indian Government wasaa it was completely unadministered area. It is only very recently that Indian administration hasbeen extended to and spread over theseareas. But before they knew anythingabout this, the authorities have fixed•ome places and decided where thepeople should go and who should govern the areas and aU that To my■Jnd. it Is rather undemocratic. I feel

that the people should be developedand made conscious of everything andthen Government can ask themto decide whether they shouldbe with Assam or they wouldlike to be in a separate State.That is what I sincerely feel. What theS.R.C. has said is something like finding out a bride or bridegroom beforethe baby is born. Nobody knows whether the baby to be bom would be a male or a female baby. By the time thebaby is bom, the bride or bridegroomwill become too old. The baby alsomay not like to marry. But membersof the Commission have a*ready saidthat this is part of Assam. Thissounds a bit funny. I think the people must have a say in deciding theirown future.

Mr. Chairman: Five minutes more.Shri Rishang Kedshin^: In the Naga

Hills, the anti-national movement hasbeen going on. They demand completeindependence. That is absurd and noIndian can give any support to thatmovement. I agree on that point. BuA then the Commission says that theAssam Govemment have representedto the Commission that there is no lawand order problem there and that itis quite peaceful. The fact that theyboycotted the last elections, that uptill now not a single member from theNaga hills is in the Assam LegislativeAssembly and that the Naga NationalCouncil placed its demands for complete independence before theCommission are very serious matters. It may be that the NagaNational Council very cleverlyadopt non-violent methods so far asthe Naga Hills district is concerned,because many parts of the areas areaccessible and regular administrationgoes on there and they know that violence will do greater harm to them, butin inaccessible areas, like Tuensang,they might be instigating the people tostart violence. The figut is going onthere. Many people have been killed.The root cause of the trouble to mymind is Naga Hills and not Tuensangarea. The Commission has said thatbecause the Naga HiOls have been quiet

3125 Motion re: 17 DSCEMBKR IMS Keport of SJLC. 3126

there ifl no law and order problem anywhere there and let there be no change.The Commission also has used thewords '*at the present juncture” . Doesit indicate that if violent trouble flaresup in future the Commission wouldfavour some administrative changes. Iwant the Government to go a bit deeperand try to understand the problems,because the people there have declaredthat they have nothing to do withIndia. When they have nothing to dowith India, what will they have to dowith the State Govemment of Assamwhich is a provincial Goverament? Itis a very serious matter. Long beforeih<* Commission's visit Shri JawaharlalNehru had visited the Naga Hills. Because they were not allowed to placetheir demand for independence, theyisaid, “You do not allow us, and so we donotallow you**.Everybody walked outo f the meeting and there were nothingbut empty chairs. Are these not serious

.matters? To say that there is nothing£oing on is, I think, misleading. I wantthe Government to see that the situation there is handled by a strong handand the Centre alone will be able todo this. At least, bring the Naga Hillsand Tuensang together for the timefeeing; till the normal situation is restored, the problem of these two areasmust be tackled by the Central Government. That is my firm and sincerebelief and I am convinced that if theGovernment does as suggested they willget good results. In 1949, there wasa resolution of the Naga NationalCouncil that the Naga Hills should beunder Central administration. So, allthese things must be considered.

The Commission has recommended toabolish all Part C States. It has alsotaken a very hostile attitude towardsthe Hill States. Existing Hill Stateslike Himaclial Pradesh are tobe abolished and the demandof the hill people for new separateStates is denied. Of course, there mayhe some impracticable proposition butsome of them are quite practicable.Himachal Pradesh and some of theother Hill States have been function-In f quite satisfaetorily and why should

they be abolished? If there can beplains, there can be hills also. If therecan be States consisting of plains alone,why should there not be Stales CGfisist- ing of hills alone?After all the beautyof India lies in the fine admixture ofboth the hills and the plains. I thinkthe question of forming some HillStates in this country should be considered and the demand conceded. Thenand then alone some of the tribal people can get together and develop theirculture and mould their futuresatisfactorily and as they desire.One important principle of the reorganisation of States is linguisticbasis. In the Punjab, there is a strongdemand for a Punjabi-speaking State.Himachal Pradesh is not willing to bemerged with Punjab. Why should notthe Government accept these demands? To my mind, they are veryreasonable. Even for a very smallState like mine, we want to remainseparate because we have a distinctlanguage and culture. So, the unwilling areas lik'e Himachal Pradeshshould not be forced to merge themselves with other areas. If Government accepts recommendation ofS.R.C., after 20 years there will be notribal culture at all left in the country. The SJR.C. has recommendedsome Part C States to remain asCentrally administered areas. Theymake us mere cooks. What do we getin the kitchen? We do not get anything at all there. The raaagullas andsamosas etc. are not ours; they aremeant for somebody else. S.R.C. andGovernment cannot force all thingson us as they like. If Hindi is thenational language, we accept it and weare proud to leam the national language. But, if S.R.C. or Government wanteverything to happen as they wish inthe case of Hindi that is veiy wrong.Therefore, on behalf of all the peopleof my State, I request the Government to consider our case and allowus to have Legislature and shape ourown ftiture, of course, with the helpof the Government. Although myfriend and I are here in Parliament,in our State we have no aeperetelegislature. Ifanipur b^ng a centrally administered States and the Tfnma

[ShriVR islW Keishing]Minister'in ctiarge of the administra*tion, we as if we are inside hispocket. W» will be suffocated todeath if we continue to remain likethis. Sir, 1 am not demanding morethan what is due to us. The hon.Home Minister’s shirt and pant will betoo big for me. What I want is apant and shirt which will be justenough for my size and so much is justwhat the people of Manipur demand.Also, do not force anything on theunwilling people of Tripura. I wouldbeg the House and the Home Ministerto consider the case of Tripura. Ifihr y are not willing to be merged withAssam, do not force them. Both Tripura and Manipur should be allowedto have their own responsible form ofGovernment.

3137 r? ; I7 JD8? Report S 3I2»

Shrl Dasaratha Deb (Tripura East): Mr. Chairman, it is good enough thatWG are discussing the S.R.C. Report.At the very outset I must say that therecommendation of the S.R.C. in regard to Tripura is a very dangerousproposition. You know that the demand for a responsible Government for

Tripura is not a new thing. For a longtime the people of Tripura have beendemanding this. Even in this House,the hon. Home Minister on severaloccasions has given us the assurancethat some sort of democratic reformshould be introduced and we wereasked to wait till the S.R.C. Reportcame. After that Report came, weftnd that the very existence of Tripiu:aas a separate State is being denied;not to speak of responsible Government. iThe S.R.C. recommendation isnot only harmful and detrimental tothe people of Tripura, but also a denialof the democratic right of the peopleof Tripura. At the same time, this isa definite departure from the veryprinciples of linguistic division whichshould have been followed by theS.R.C., in reorganising the States. Inthis House I must say that the peopleof Tripura are so strongly against themerger with Assam! In my hand, Ihiive several te l^ am s. Even atnights, I am not able to sleep, becausethe têgrams have been pouring in

day in and day out. In every telegram, it is said, **we do not want merger; we want a separate State with anassembly of our own” . This is th»demand not only of myself, but thisis the demand of all the people ofTripura belonging to all the politicalparties like the Congress Party, theCommunist Party, the P.S.P., theKisan Mazdoor Dal and so on. Allelements of public life are against themerger of Tripura in Assam. I requestthis honourable House to ascertain thewishes of the people of Tripura andthen come to a decision one way o r 'the other. I am sure that if yougo to Tripura and ask the people,a large number of them willexpress the opinion against themerger of Tripura with Assam. I donot know whether there will be asingle soul who will support the merger. Before going into the argumentswhich the S.R.C. has laid down infavour of merger, let me state a fewfacts regarding Tripura which shouldbe carefully considered. In our Memorandum, we have already expressedthat:

“Tripura exists as a separateState now for at least 1365 years(the present Tripura Era being13d5). D^îng this fairly long life,Tripura developed her own distinctive culture. Though Bengaliwas the Court Language of theState for about a hundred years......... it would be wrong to identify Tripura's culture and tradition completely with that ofBengal.” "

In the S.R.C. Report it is said that because there are a number of Bengalipeople in Assam, if Tripura is mergedwith Assam, the Bengali people of Tripura will mix with the Bengali peopleof Assam and their interests will besafeguarded. I would like to, mentionhere that in Tripura, there are not onlyBengalis, but a large number of tribalpeople also are there. Tripura belongsto the tribal people. In our memorandum we have said:

“Even a few decades ago upto1947, t)K tribal people of Tripura

Motion re: 17 DECSMB2R 1955 Repott of S.R.C.

were in the majority in the Statecontributing to the flourishing ofTripura’s special social and cultural life.”

It was mentioned that the Bengalishave gained majority after the Partition. It stated:

“The present population of Tripura is not 639,029 as quoted bythe S.R.C. from 1951 Censusfigures but about 9 lakhs. Theinflux of D.P.S continues and thepopulation is on the increase.

“Tripura continued her separateexistence as Part C State evenafter integration in 1949.

«“Tripura’s economy has also

some special features of its own....the whole economy of the Statewas hard-hit by partition. Tripura's trade and communicationwhich was closely linked up withEast Pakistan (which almost surrounds Tripura) got severely disrupted due to partition.

“The D.P.S of East Pakistan together comprise more than half ofTripura’s population. The rebuilding of Tripura’s economy,therefore has become inseparablefrom the tasks of rehabilitation of

, these toiling people.”

These are some of the facts regarding Tripura.

Now, let me come to some of thearguments which have been put forward by the S.R.C. The S.R.C. recognises that linguistic homogeneityis an important factor. This is one ofthe most important principles that hasto be followed in reorganising theStates. Let us now examine how thisprinciple has been applied to Tripura,The S.R.C. itself admits that not onlythe large number of.Bengalis there,but a large majority of the Tri- bals also use Bengali as theircommon language outside their homesalthough the Tribal people have theirseparate spoken language. You willfind that there is no homogeneity bet- w ^ n Tripura and Agsam whose State

/language is Assamese. E v ^ thcrS.R,C.admits in the report that commonnessof language is highly commendableand if the legislature of the State isnot to develop into a babel of-tongues,it must do its work in one language,the language of the people. If youtake this principle, there is nothingin cQmmon between Assam and Tripura. Their language is Assamese inTripura, a section of the people, theBengalis speak the Bengali languageand the other section the Tribals havegot their own different languages, whichhave nothing in common with thetribal people of Assam. It is true thatthere are a fairly large number ofBengalis in Assam living particularlyin the border regions of Tripura. But,that cannot be posed as an argumentin favour of. the merger becauseTripura’s culture cannot be completelyidentified with that of the Bengalis.

If Tripura’s distinctive culture andunforgottable history and traditiontiave givQu birth to any regional spirit,not to take them into account may beunrealistic. Under specific peculiarhistorical Wnditions, the historicalculture of Tripura has developedwhich has nothing in common withthat of the tribes of Assam. To denythis fact would surely be a great injustice towards the tribal people ofTripura as well as the non-tribalpeople. Neither do financial, economicand administrative considerationsjustify Tripura's merger in Assam, Nodoubt, Tripura is contiguous to Assamgeographically. But, that factor itselfcannot be a ground to merge Tripurain Assam, because there has been noculture and economic relations bet- .ween Assam and Tripura. There aresufficient reasons why JHis relationship has not developed.

Economically, Assam is an underdeveloped and backward State with a deficit Budget of her own. The S,R,C,itself admits her inadequacy of railroad communications, lack of industries and flood control programmes.One Jails to understand how themerger will help the development ofTripura financially and economically.

3 I3 I Motion re: 17 DECEMBE2R 1955 Report o / SJi.C, 3^3^

[Shri Dasaratha D eb]Xfinguistic homogeneity and alignment<of communications ensuring easyaccessibility from one area to another,ju:e some of the objectives which haveto be borne in mind from the point ofview of administrative convenience.This has been pointed out by the S.R.C.report. But, the merger in Assam doesnot take Tripura to that objective.Tripura’s laws were not modelled onthe Assam pattern. They were more*or less on the West Bengalpattern. Please do not think that I ampleading for West Bengal. The Tribalpeople do not want to go to anyuieighbouring State. They want toremain a separate State with a full

-fledged democratic form .of Govern-:ment.

Here, I wish to point out that twomajor principles, namely cultural andlinguistic homogeneity and also thewishes of the people which should'have guided the redistribution•of the States have been completelydenied in the case of Tripura.

?The S.R.C. by recommending the^merger of Tripura in Assam hasimade another mistake. That is,about defence. The S.R.C. says thatpreservation and strengthening of theunity and security of India is anessential thing. There is no doubtabout that. But, one should not arguethis in relation to the merger of

’ Tripura in Assam. Defence is a centralsubject and it Is the responsibilityof the Centre to defend the coimtry.

'There will be no difficulty if Tripurtf*"remains separate. It has also been

.argued that Tripura is a small State

.and has a small population and that:*it is also surrounded by Pakistan onthree sides. Some people advance theargument that because it is a small

•State, it cannot resist and it would beineffective in times of trouble unableto defend itself. This is a misleadingproposition. Defence is a Central

^responsibility. To defend the countryds not the task of this small State orthat State alone. Defence is a national

problem. It is not a problem tor a tparticular provinoe or State or dU- *trict. If any part of the ooimtrj ii<«ndanfered hj otcm al troubles or

external forces, it is the boundeaduty of the Centre and the entirecountry as a whole, the nation as a whole, to defend it.

There is another point which shouldnot be forgotten. Tripura is not anindependent State. If it were an independent State outside the Indian Union,its defence problem would be a vitalproblem. Tripura is not an independent State. It is part and parcel ofthe Indian Union. Why should notthe Indian Union take up the responsibility of defending Tripura if at anytime she is attacked by foreigners?

There is another point. The S.R.C.has recommended that Manipur shouldbe kept as a separate State, and hasadvanced certain argimients. The€u:gument is that Manipur is a borderState, it has been independent formany centuries, it has no rail linkwith the rest of India, it has specialsocial and cultural life and a peculiarracial and linguistic composition, thatAssam has fairly difficult economicand political problems and it is receiving substantial financial aid from theCentre and that its economic development will be retarded if it is mergedin any other State, and that the people are opposed to the merger. Theseare the grounds on which the S.R.C.recommended that Manipur shouldremain separate. I wish to point outthat the same thing should be appliedto the Tripura State also. Even a blind man can see that these are someof the basic groimds on which thepeople of Tripura also demanded aseparate State with a democratieGovernment functioning.

6. P.M.

Let us look at the internal pictureof Assam also. Even the States Reorganisation Commission talk of difficulties, both political and eccmomic.There is the discontent of the Bengaliminorities fighting for the protection oftheir rights. There are the differenttribes fighting for regional autonomyto safeguard their own interests.There are also the diaruptive farceskicking «p leparatifl

3131 Motion re: 17 DECEMBER 1955 Report of S,R.CJ 3134^

among the Nagas and the North-EastFrontier Agency people. The unityof India cannot be furthered, if theunwilling people of Tripura arethrown into such a cauldron of dis- eontent.

Mr. Chaimuui: It\is now 6.1 p.M.The Hotise ahould adjourn now.

Shri Dasarafha Deb: I would takeabout fifteen to twenty minutes more.

Mr. Chairman; The hon. Membercan resume his speech day aftertomorrow.

The Lok Sabha then adjourned till.Eleven of the Clock on Monday, tfim 19th December, 195A.

3135 3136

DAILY D IG EST

‘ [Saturdayy 17th Decembery 1955]Columns

O B IT U A R Y R E F E R E N C E 2981-82

The Speaker made reference to the passing away of Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, a sitting member of the Lok Sabha. Thereafter the House stood in silence for a minute as a mark of respect.

I

without any amendment to the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, I955> passed by the Lok Sabha on the 7th December, 1955.

C o lu m n s

jfÊSSAG ES FRO M R A JY A SABH A 2982

Secretary reported the following t^ o messages from Rajya Sabha.

( i)That at its sitting held on the 15th December, 1955, Rajya Sabha had agreed without any amendment to the Prevention of Disqualification (Parliament and Part C States Legislatures) Amendment Bill 1955, passed by the Lok Sabha on the 9th December, 1955.

•(. i) "Iliat at its sitting held on the 15th December, 1955, Rajya Sabha had agreed

PRESENTATION OF PETITION 2983

(i) Shri Sivamurthy Swamipresented a petition signed by 31 petitioners in respect of of the report of the States Reorganisation Commission.

(ii) Shri C. Madao Reddi presented six petitions signed by 657 petitioners in respect of the report of the States Reorga-

nisation Commission.

MOTION RE REPORT OF STATES REORGANI§ATION COMMISSION 2983-3134

Discussion on motion to consider the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission was continued. The discussion was nor concluded.

Documents

Saturday December 17, 1955 LOK SABHA DEBATES · 2017. 9. 14. · LOK SABHA DEBATES (Part I—Quesdon* and Antwen) VOLUME Vn, 1955 {2Jst November to 23rd December, 1955) ELEVENTH SESSION,