Reorganisation of States

The first principle

Provincial boundaries in British India were drawn for the convenience of conquest and revenue collection, so they cut across the regions where people shared a language and culture. Democracy changed the test of a good boundary: once people had to be governed, educated and represented in their own language, units that matched language areas became more workable. The redrawing of the map has therefore never been a single event but a continuous process, pushed by popular movements and channelled by a central government that kept, under Article 3, the final say.

The core

Before independence: boundaries for administration

• The Bengal Presidency grew with conquest until it ran from Assam to the Punjab border. Assam was separated as a Chief Commissioner's province in 1874, and Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal in 1905, justified as administrative convenience, was widely seen as an attempt to divide a politically active people. Its annulment, announced in 1911, created the province of Bihar and Orissa in 1912.
• Orissa became the first province formed on a linguistic basis in 1936, and Sindh was separated from Bombay in the same year. The Congress itself, at its Nagpur session of 1920, organised its Pradesh Congress Committees on linguistic lines and promised linguistic provinces after freedom.

After independence: caution, then concession

• Partition made the leadership wary of any demand that could divide the country again. The Linguistic Provinces Commission under S K Dar (1948) preferred administrative convenience to language, and the JVP Committee of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya (1949) advised that language demands should wait, though it left the door open for Andhra if the demand was strong.
• In 1952 Potti Sriramulu, a Gandhian, fasted for a Telugu speaking Andhra State and died after nearly two months without food. The protests that followed led Nehru to announce Andhra State, which was formed on 1 October 1953 from the Telugu districts of Madras.
• The government then appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), with Fazl Ali as chairman and K M Panikkar and H N Kunzru as members. Its report of 1955 accepted language as an important factor but rejected the formula of one language, one State, and also weighed national unity, administrative and financial viability, and the welfare of the people of each area.
• The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Seventh Amendment, 1956 created 14 States and 6 Union Territories from 1 November 1956, and abolished the Part A, B, C and D classification.

Reorganisation after 1956

• Bombay. The SRC kept Bombay as a bilingual State, but the Samyukta Maharashtra and Mahagujarat movements, with police firing on protesters in Bombay, led to Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960.
• Punjab. The Punjabi Suba movement of the Akali Dal led to the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which created Haryana, transferred hill areas to Himachal Pradesh and made Chandigarh a Union Territory.
• The north east. Nagaland became a State in 1963, and Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura in 1972, as tribal identity, not language alone, became a basis for States. Sikkim joined in 1975, and Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became States in 1987 along with Goa.
• Recent changes. Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand followed in 2000 and Telangana in 2014. In 2019 Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two Union Territories, and in 2020 Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu were merged into one Union Territory.

Dimensions

• Political. Linguistic States deepened democracy, since politics and administration could be carried on in the people's language, and they brought regional leaders into the national system instead of against it.
• Administrative. Language based States made it easier to run schools, courts and offices, though new boundaries created disputes such as Belagavi between Karnataka and Maharashtra.
• Cultural. Regional languages and literatures flourished with State support.
• National unity. The fear that linguistic States would weaken the nation proved largely unfounded, because accommodating identity reduced the pressure for secession.

In practice

Was linguistic reorganisation driven by popular pressure from below?

There is a strong case that it was. In Andhra, Maharashtra and Punjab the central leadership first said no, and each major concession came only after mass agitation, fasts and deaths. The Dar Commission and the JVP Committee both advised delay, so the change came from the streets, not the cabinet. The case has limits, however. The Congress itself had committed to linguistic provinces in 1920, regional elites and parties led the movements and gained from them, and the centre controlled the outcome: it chose when to appoint the SRC, kept Bombay bilingual until 1960, and conceded Punjab only in 1966 on its own terms. A balanced answer is that popular pressure decided the pace, while a federal centre managed the result.

Article 3

Parliament can, by a simple law, form new States and alter the area, boundaries or names of States. The bill needs the President's recommendation and must be referred to the affected State legislature for its views, which are not binding. Under Article 4 such laws are not amendments of the Constitution under Article 368.

Issues and way forward

• Boundary and water disputes. New lines left disputes over Belagavi and over river waters, which a standing mechanism of inter State councils and tribunals must handle.
• Language is no longer the only basis. Since the 1960s, tribal identity, development and administrative size have driven new demands, as the north east and the States of 2000 show.
• Centralised power. Because Article 3 lets Parliament act without the State's consent, critics argue that reorganisation should follow wider consultation; the Sarkaria Commission (1988) urged greater cooperation between the Union and States in general.
• Lesson. Accommodating identity within a strong Union has worked better than suppressing it.

Common confusions

• Dar Commission and JVP Committee. Dar (1948) was an expert commission; the JVP Committee (1949) was a Congress committee of three leaders.
• SRC report and SRC Act. The Commission reported in 1955; Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act in 1956.
• Andhra State and Andhra Pradesh. Andhra State was formed in 1953; Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956 by adding the Telugu areas of Hyderabad.
• Article 3 and Article 368. Changing States under Article 3 needs only a simple majority; amending the Constitution under Article 368 needs a special majority.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: linguistic provinces, Nagpur 1920, Dar Commission, JVP Committee, Potti Sriramulu, States Reorganisation Commission, Seventh Amendment, Samyukta Maharashtra, Punjabi Suba, Article 3, Union Territories.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction (data): India went from 14 States in 1956 to 28 States today, showing that reorganisation has been continuous rather than a single event.
  • Introduction (judgement, quote or report): The States Reorganisation Commission of 1955 accepted language as an important factor but rejected the formula of one language, one State.
  • Conclusion: Reorganisation on the basis of language strengthened rather than weakened Indian unity, because it gave regional identities a stake in the Union.
  • Conclusion: Future demands should be judged on viability and the welfare of people, through consultation, not merely on agitation.