India’s journey of state reorganization has been a complex interplay of historical, socio-political, and linguistic factors. Let us explore the journey of state reorganization in India along with its evolution, its relation with unity and diversity, and the ongoing challenges.

Early Efforts and Initial Hesitation

Formation of Provincial Congress Committees: The idea of restructuring began with the formation of provincial Congress Committees by linguistic zones following the INC’s Nagpur Session in 1920. Key figures like Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi supported linguistic restructuring.

• Post-Partition Concerns: Prime Minister Nehru was initially wary of further linguistic separation after the partition. However, movements like Ayikya Kerala, Samyukta Maharashtra, and Vishalandhra gained traction.
• Constitutional Scheme: In 1950, The Constitution of India, divided the states of the Indian Union into four categories or parts (A total of 29 states or provinces)
  • Part A: Former governor’s provinces with a Governor
  • Part B: Former princely states with a Rajpramukh
  • Part C: Former princely states + chief commissioners provinces
  • Part D: Andaman and Nicobar

Linguistic Provinces Commission

Establishment: In 1948, the Constituent Assembly formed the Linguistic Provinces Commission led by Justice S.K. Dhar to investigate the desirability of linguistic provinces.

• Dhar Commission Report: The commission advised against linguistic provinces due to potential threats to national unity and administrative challenges.
• JVP Committee with Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya  concluded that the timing was not right for additional linguistic provinces.

Formation of Andhra State

Telugu Speakers’ Demand: Telugu speakers pressured Congress to honour an earlier decision supporting linguistic states.

• Potti Sriramulu: His death after a 56-day hunger strike led to widespread protests and eventually led to the creation of the state of Andhra Pradesh in 1953.

State Reorganisation Commission (Fazl Ali Commission)

Establishment: After the creation of Andhra Pradesh, the Government set up the State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in December 1953, under Justice Fazl Ali as Chairperson with K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru as members.

• Recommendations: The SRC recommended redrawing state boundaries largely on linguistic lines, acknowledging linguistic and cultural similarities, unity and integrity of India, administrative and economic considerations, and people’s welfare as other criteria.
• States Reorganisation Act 1956: Enacted in 1956, this act created 14 states and 6 union territories, abolishing the old distinction between Part-A, Part-B, and Part-C states.

Post-1956 Reorganizations

• Continuous Evolution: Linguistic and cultural demands led to further state bifurcations.
• Legislative Responses: Parliament enacted reorganization acts like Bombay Reorganisation Act (1960), Punjab Reorganisation Act (1966), State of Himachal Pradesh Reorganisation Act (1970), North-Eastern States Reorganisation Act (1971), Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar Reorganisation Acts (2000), and Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (2014) creating Telangana

Reasons for Linguistic Reorganization

• Local Engagement: Greater local engagement in administration.
• Spatial Continuity: Linguistic areas were inherently easier to manage.
• Promotion of Local Languages: Ignored by the British, local languages could thrive.
• Combustible Scenarios: Linguistic states helped in modifying highly volatile situations.
• Secular Mode: Promotes secularism and reduces reliance on caste or religious affiliations.
• Education: Facilitates better learning outcomes by using the mother tongue.
• Administrative Efficiency: Homogeneity aids governance.
• Economic Development: Encourages regional economic growth and cultural tourism.
• Cultural Preservation: Strengthens cultural heritage and diversity.
• Federal Spirit: Reinforces regional identity and nationalism

Reasons Against Linguistic Reorganization

• Regionalism: Fostered a sense of regionalism.
• Economic Cooperation: Hampered economic cooperation between states.
• Adversarial Attitude: Fostered adversarial attitudes toward neighbouring states.
• Cascade Effect: May spur further demands for new states.
• Sons of the Soil Doctrine: This can lead to conflicts over local employment opportunities.
• Sub-nationalism: Might foster divisions and conflicts.

Later Developments

• Formation of Sikkim: Transitioned from a protectorate to a full-fledged state in 1975.
• Liberation of Goa: Liberated from Portuguese control in 1961 and declared a state in 1987.
• Recent State Formations: Uttarakhand (2000), Chhattisgarh (2000), Jharkhand (2000), and Telangana (2014) were formed.
  • Uttarakhand (2000): Created after a long struggle by the inhabitants of the hilly region for better development and recognition of their distinct cultural identity.
  • Jharkhand (2000): The tribal region of Bihar aspired for autonomy due to a rich tribal heritage and a desire for self-governance.
  • Telangana (2014): A long-standing demand for a separate state due to cultural and developmental concerns finally achieved success.
• Recent Union Territories (UTs) Formation
  • Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh: J& K Reorganization Act, 2019 revoked the special status (Article  370) of J & K by “The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019” and J&K bifurcated into two UTs:
    •  UT of Jammu & Kashmir: Excludes Kargil and Leh districts. Capitals: Srinagar (May–October) and Jammu (November–April).
• UT of Ladakh: Comprises Kargil and Leh districts. Capital: Leh.
•  Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu: Merged into a single UT with Daman as its capital by the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Merger Bill, 2019 (Effective January 26, 2020)
• Current Status: As of January 26, 2020, India has 28 states and 8 UTs, reduced from 29 states and 9 UTs.

Factors for Creating New States

• Physiographic characteristics (e.g., Uttarakhand’s mountainous region)
• Level of economic development (e.g., Jharkhand )
• Resource base (e.g., Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh)
• Ethnicity (e.g., Nagaland)
• Size and geographical area (e.g., Uttarakhand from UP)
• Tribalism (e.g., Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand)

Second State Reorganisation Commission

• Ongoing Demands: Demands for new states like Saurashtra, Timaraland, Gorkhaland, and Bodoland persist.
• Formation Basis: Factors include physiographic character, economic development, resource base, ethnicity, and size.

Conclusion

The reorganization of states in India reflects a continuous negotiation between national unity and regional aspirations. While language played a significant role, ethnicity, development, and administrative issues have also driven state formation demands. The linguistic reorganization of India largely concluded after extensive efforts, yet demands for new states based on various factors persist. These ongoing demands highlight the diverse means of uniting people beyond linguistic lines, driven by aspirations for ethnic preservation, development, and administrative efficiency.

DOWNLOAD PDF