Linguistic Reorganisation of States in India

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The Tamil Nadu Governor recently criticised the linguistic division of states in India, calling it a factor in the creation of “second-class citizens”.

Background

• At Independence in 1947, India inherited a patchwork of provinces and princely states shaped by colonial administrative imperatives. These included:
  • Provinces under direct British rule,
  • 565 princely states under indirect control.
• The Constitution, which came into force on January 26, 1950, declared India to be a “Union of States”. The country, at the time, was divided into 28 states, falling under four categories.
  • Part A states (governors’ provinces in British India): Assam, Bihar, Bombay, East Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
  • Part B states (former princely states or group of princely states): Hyderabad, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan, Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin.
  • Part C states included both the former chief commissioners’ provinces and some princely states: Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Coorg State, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, Tripura, and Vindhya Pradesh.
  • Part D state: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which was governed by a lieutenant governor appointed by the President.
• Post-Independence, people expected the new democratic government to respect and reflect linguistic aspirations in governance.

Development in Later phases

• JVP Committee (1948–1949): The Indian National Congress set up the Linguistic Provinces Committee in December 1948, comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya.
  • Findings: The committee formally rejected language as the basis for reorganisation and emphasised the risks of national disintegration due to linguistic division.
• Creation of Andhra State:Potti Sriramulu’s 56-day hunger strike for a Telugu-speaking state led to his death in 1952, triggering mass protests.
  • In response, the Government created Andhra State in October 1953 by separating Telugu-speaking areas from Madras State, marking the first linguistic state in India.
• States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), 1953:
  • Government of India appointed ( December, 1953) a three member States Reorganisation Commission under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali with other two members were K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru. 
  • The Commission broadly accepted language as a valid criterion but rejected the idea of “one language–one state.”

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956

• The Act abolished the existing classification of states into Part A, B, C, and D, establishing a unified system of 14 states and 6 union territories.
• It led to the formation of states like Kerala, Karnataka, and enlarged existing states by merging territories based on linguistic majority.
• The Bombay Reorganisation Act (1960) later created Maharashtra and Gujarat.
• Created further reorganisations: Punjab (1966), North-Eastern states (1963–1987), Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand (2000), and Telangana (2014).

Impact and Success of Linguistic Reorganisation

• Preservation of Unity through Diversity: Contrary to fears of fragmentation, linguistic states have strengthened national unity.
  • The linguistic pluralism has helped tame secessionist tendencies, unlike in Pakistan and Sri Lanka where language imposition caused conflict.
• Improved Governance: By creating smaller and often more homogeneous states, the Act aimed to bring governance closer to the people and enhance administrative efficiency.
• Promotion of Regional Identity: It recognized and fostered the unique linguistic and cultural identities of various communities, promoting cultural pride and integration.
• The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) noted that major secessionist movements (e.g., in Nagaland, Punjab, Kashmir) were based on ethnicity, religion, and territory, not language.

Way Ahead

• There is a need to strengthen cooperative federalism to address regional aspirations without fuelling divisive tendencies.
• Periodic assessment of state boundaries, governance challenges, and inter-state equity should be undertaken through institutional mechanisms, without compromising national integration.

Source: IE