THOUGHTS ON LINGUISTIC STATES 165
the foregoing pages but which lie about scattered. These principles may be stated as below :
(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.
(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.
(3) The formula one State, one language must not be confused with the formula of one language, one State.
(4) The formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language should be brought under one Government irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the people speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation for a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be cut up into many States as is done in other parts of the world.
(5) Into how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up, should depend upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration,
(2) the needs of the different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different areas, and (4) the proportion between the majority and minority.
(6) As the area of the State increases the proportion of the minority to the majority decreases and the position of the minority becomes precarious and the opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny over the minority become greater. The States must therefore be small.
(7) The minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the majority. To do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions must be made for a system on plural member constituencies (two or three) with cumulative voting.
PART IV
THE PROBLEMS OF LINGUISTIC STATES
CHAPTER 9
VIABILITY
Will the three Maharashtrian States be viable ? Will their Revenue be sufficient to meet their expenditure ? Such a question is bound to be asked.
It is not that such a question can be asked about Maharashtra alone. It can be asked about many other States in India.
I give four statements relating to Part A States, Part B States and the Central Government from Part III of the Report of the Taxation Inquiry Committee presided over by Dr. John Mathai ( See Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7).