MAHARASHTRA AS A LINGUISTIC PROVINCE 111
took five or ten years to give effect to the Settlement. But the resolution is only an escapism. It does not settle the issue. It only adjourns the controversy. The main question must therefore be tackled right now.
Ground for the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra
- The arguments urged in favour of separating Bombay from Maharashtra are set out below :
(1) Bombay was never a part of Maharashtra. [1]
(2) Bombay was never a part of the Maratha Empire. [2]
(3) The Marathi-speaking people do not form a majority of the population of the City of Bombay. [3]
(4) Gujarathis have been old residents of Bombay. [4]
(5) Bombay is a trade centre for vast areas outside Maharashtra. Therefore, Bombay cannot be claimed by Maharashtra. It belongs to the whole of India. [5]
(6) It is the Gujarathi-speaking people of Bombay who have built up the trade and industry of Bombay. The Maharashtrians have been only clerks and coolies. It would be wrong to place the owners of trade and industry under the political dominance of the working classes who form the bulk of Maharashtrians. [6]
(7) Maharashtra wants Bombay to be included in Maharashtra because it wants to live on the surplus of Bombay. [7]
(8) A multi-lingual State is better. It is not so fatal to the liberty of smaller people. [8]
(9) Regrouping of Provinces should be on rational lines and not on national lines. [9]
Burden of Proof
- On an examination of these points it is obvious that points (1) and
(2) are preliminary in the sense that they help us to decide on whom rests the burden of proof. If it is proved that Bombay is part of Maharashtra, then the burden of proof for separating it from Maharashtra must fall upon those who urge that it should be separated and not upon those who claim that it should remain part of Maharashtra. I will therefore deal with these two points first.
Prof. Gheewala— Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948, and Prof. Moraes— Free Press Journal, September 18, 1948.
Ibid .
Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 21, 1948.
Prof. Gheewala, Free Free Press Journal, September 6, 1948.
Prof. C. N. Vakil, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.
Prof. C. N. Vakil, Bombay Chronicle .
Prof. C. N. Vakil, at the meeting of India Merchants Chamber.
Prof. Dantwala, Free Press Journal, September 1, 1948.
Prof. Gheewala, Free Press Journal, September 11, 1948.