Mumbai should be Union Territory

Title of this article may leads to surprise & anger of my

some of very good friends, some may say I am Marathi- hater; any
political party cannot say it, as it is very sensitive issue among
Marathi peoples. Peoples who don’t know me may think that- I am
any migrant in Mumbai who steal their jobs, for which I should
clear that I am neither Non-Maharashtrian, nor Non-Marathi, but I
am from simple middleclass Marathi family in Nagpur.

Even 2 months before I was strong opponent of this concept,

but after some study of history, Geography, culture and economics
my view changes, which I am putting it in public.

By Geographical, historical or cultural basis-

Mumbai was never real part of Maharashtra, but Mumbai was

initially formed by King Bhimdev of Gujarat (may be quite
bitter truth) who established his kingdom in the region in the
late 13th century, and brought many settlers to the islands.
The Muslim rulers of Gujarat captured the islands in 1348,
and they were later governed by the Gujarat Sultanate from
1391 to 1534. The Treaty of Bassein between the Portuguese
viceroy Nuno da Cunha and Bahadur Shah of the Gujarat
Sultanate placed the islands into Portuguese possession in
1534. Charles II of England received possession of the islands
in 1661 as part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza,
daughter of King John IV of Portugal, and leased them to
the English East India Company in 1668.

This historical facts clearly shows that, Mumbai was historically

not part of Maharashtra.
 Any criteria without language cannot support Mumbai in
Maharashtra, where language is pseudo-criteria which do not really
impact development or status of any state, as it is just false
propaganda spreded by regional politician for the sake of votes from
emotional peoples.

Here I would like to quote No one but Honorable Bharat-ratna

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar-

I would like to state what my proposals are. They are as follows :

Bombay as a mixed State should be done away with. I would
divide Maharashtra into four States
(1)Bombay
(2)Western Maharashtra
(3)Vidarbha
(4) Central Maharashtra.

Bombay — The City of Bombay plus such area of Maharashtra as would

enable it to be a good and strong City State.

Western Maharashtra— (1) Thana, (2) Kolaba, (3) Ratnagiri, (4) Poona, (5)
North Satara, (6) South Satara, (7) Kolhapur and(8)the Marathi
speaking territories given over to Karnataka.

Central Maharashtra—(1) Dang(2)East Khandesh, (3)

West Khandesh, (4) Nasik, (5) Ahmednagar, (6) Aurangabad, (7) Nanded, (8
) Parbhani, (9) Beed, (10) Usmanabad, (II) SholapurCity and the Marathi-
speaking area of Sholapur District and (12) the Marathi-speaking territories
given over to Telangana.

Vidarbha.—(1) Buldhana, (2) Yeotmal, (3) Akola,

(4) Amraoti, (5) Wardha, (6) Chandrapur, (7) Nagpur, (8) Bhandara and (9)
the Marathi-speaking territories given to Hindi States.
I will next proceed to examine the merits of these proposals.
Note- At the time of Babasaheb, Mumbai was called as-
Bombay and Gadchiroli, Gondia was not separate district.
 Even on the basis of language, Marathi although largest speaking
language not form majority as it is in less than 50%. (Same case in
Vidarbha).

Now I would like to prove my point in respect of today’s

condition-

It is easy to see a tension between the growth of regionalism and

regional politics on the one hand, and the rapid expansion of
increasingly cosmopolitan metropolitan centres likes the National
Capital Region of Delhi, Chandigadh etc.
If Mumbai is only for Maharashtrians and Hyderabad only for the
people of Telangana, the process of national integration that
urbanisation brings with it can be seriously threatened.
In a democracy, everyone must respect sentiments like regionalism
and linguistic affinities of the people. However, an open society
must also respect the right of every citizen to live and work
wherever she pleases in the country.
Cosmopolitan urbanisation is a healthy trend in a diverse society
like ours since it helps build bridges of communication across
regions, religions, castes and communities.
New Delhi's growth is in large part due to its increasingly national
character, from being at one point a very north Indian town. India's
politicians and policy-makers must come to grips with the need to
encourage the development of cosmopolitan metros even as they
address regional sentiments and the problem of unbalanced inter-
regional development.
On its 50th anniversary as capital of Maharashtra, Mumbai must
wonder if its economic power has been hurt by the political
chauvinism of those who speak in its name.
If Mumbai has to be India's Shanghai and if Hyderabad and other
such big cities have to grow, they should remain more open to
talent and enterprise, even as they remain sensitive to the needs of
the hinterland that feeds and sustains them.
For Maharashtra it is also good, because Large concentration only
on Mumbai is constantly giving backlog to rest of Maharashtra, like
Marathwada. Also Vidarbha should get status of separate state, for
it’s own development. Since Vidarbha will never developed within
Maharashtra.
Mumbai should be converted into union territory
and officially declared as India's Financial Capital. Once it happens,
the pace of work will be faster, like in Delhi.

Here I am just ignoring all emotional and sentimental but illogical

and unscientific issues, which are merely superstitions, to put
development and national integrity as first and last priority and a
bitter truth is putting forward that-

“Existence of Mumbai in Maharashtra is not only degrading

Mumbai but also for Rest of Maharashtra.”
You may not like this, You may not accept it, but I have my
freedom, No one can suppress my view.