Navigating India's Territorial Evolution
The political map of India today is a testament to a long and intricate evolutionary journey. Post-independence, the monumental task involved integrating over 550 diverse princely states, followed by a series of reorganizations driven primarily by linguistic identity. The pivotal States Reorganisation Act of 1956 reshaped the nation, yet the process of creating new states and union territories continued, influenced by cultural uniqueness, administrative practicality, and developmental aspirations. This section delves into the historical landmarks, influential figures, commissions, and legislative actions that have defined India's territorial composition, also touching upon contemporary demands for new states.
Integration of Princely States: Forging a Union
At independence, British India comprised direct provinces and over 550 princely states. The Indian Independence Act, 1947, allowed these states to accede to India or Pakistan, or remain independent, posing a critical challenge to national unity.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
As India's first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Sardar Patel led the integration effort. He used a blend of diplomacy, persuasion, political foresight, and firm statesmanship, famously dubbed the "iron fist in a velvet glove" approach, appealing to princes' patriotism and emphasizing the benefits of a united India.
V.P. Menon
Serving as Secretary of the Ministry of States, V.P. Menon was instrumental in the administrative and diplomatic processes. He skillfully negotiated with rulers, drafted the Instruments of Accession, and managed the intricate details, playing a vital role in convincing most states to join India.
Instruments of Accession: This legal document formalized a princely state's agreement to join the Dominion of India. By signing, states typically ceded control over three subjects: Defence, External Affairs, and Communications, retaining internal autonomy initially. By August 15, 1947, most geographically contiguous states had acceded.
Special Cases: Challenges and Solutions
Hyderabad
Largest princely state, ruled by the Nizam who sought independence or accession to Pakistan. After failed negotiations and terror by Razakars, India launched "Operation Polo" (police action) in Sept 1948, leading to Hyderabad's accession.
Junagadh
Hindu majority with a Muslim Nawab who acceded to Pakistan. India opposed due to no contiguity and public sentiment. A plebiscite in Feb 1948 overwhelmingly favored India, leading to its integration.
Jammu & Kashmir
Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh, Muslim majority. Initially independent, but Pakistani-backed tribal invasion in Oct 1947 forced Maharaja to sign Instrument of Accession to India, leading to Indian military intervention. Special status under Article 370 was later granted (altered in 2019).
Initial Constitutional Classification (1950)
The original Constitution of 1950 categorized states into four parts, an ad-hoc arrangement reflecting historical administrative units pending a more permanent reorganization.
Part A States (9)
Former governors' provinces of British India. Ruled by elected governor and legislature.
- e.g., Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, Punjab, West Bengal.
Part B States (9)
Former princely states or groups. Governed by a Rajpramukh (former ruler) and elected legislature.
- e.g., Hyderabad, J&K, Mysore, Rajasthan, PEPSU.
Part C States (10)
Former chief commissioners' provinces & some princely states. Centrally administered.
- e.g., Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Bhopal.
Part D Territories (1)
Only Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Administered by a lieutenant governor.
- Sole example: Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
The Linguistic Push: Commissions and Concession
The demand for state reorganization along linguistic lines, a sentiment pre-dating independence, gained undeniable momentum, leading to key commissions and ultimately, the first linguistic state.
Dhar Commission (Linguistic Provinces Commission)
Appointed by the Constituent Assembly under S.K. Dhar.
Recommendation: Rejected language as the sole basis for reorganization, emphasizing administrative convenience, financial viability, and national unity. Feared regionalism. Met with protests.
JVP Committee
Formed by Congress (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya) due to Dhar report backlash.
Recommendation: Formally rejected language as a basis. However, pragmatically conceded that if strong popular sentiment existed, it might be reconsidered, provided national unity was not compromised.
Creation of Andhra State
Demand for a Telugu-speaking state from Madras Presidency intensified. Potti Sriramulu's fast-unto-death (56 days) and subsequent passing in Dec 1952 triggered widespread riots. Under immense pressure, the GoI conceded. Andhra State was created on October 1, 1953, the first state formed on a linguistic basis. Kurnool was its capital. This fueled demands nationwide.
States Reorganisation Commission (1953-1955)
The creation of Andhra sparked nationwide demands. To address this comprehensively, the government appointed the three-member States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in December 1953.
SRC Members
- Fazl Ali (Chairman, retired Supreme Court Chief Justice)
- K.M. Panikkar (historian and diplomat)
- H.N. Kunzru (parliamentarian and scholar)
Key Recommendations (1955)
- Broadly accepted language as a basis, but rejected 'one language-one state'.
- Primary consideration: Unity and security of India.
- Other factors: Linguistic/cultural homogeneity, financial/economic/administrative viability, scope for welfare.
- Recommended abolition of four-fold state classification (Part A, B, C, D).
- Proposed 16 states and 3 centrally administered territories.
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 & 7th Constitutional Amendment Act: These legislative actions largely implemented the SRC's recommendations. Effective from November 1, 1956, they abolished the Part A, B, C, D classification, creating 14 States and 6 Union Territories, fundamentally reshaping India's internal map.
Post-1956 Evolution: A Continuous Process
The 1956 reorganization was not the end. Demands based on language, culture, ethnicity, administrative convenience, and regional development continued to drive further state creation and boundary changes.
| Year | State(s)/UT(s) Created/Altered | Basis/Reason | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960 | Maharashtra & Gujarat | Linguistic bifurcation of Bombay state. | Marathi & Gujarati speaking areas. |
| 1961 | Dadra and Nagar Haveli (UT) | Liberated from Portuguese rule. | Made a Union Territory. |
| 1962 | Goa, Daman & Diu (UT) | Acquired from Portuguese rule (police action). | Made a Union Territory. Goa later became a state. |
| 1962 | Puducherry (UT) | Former French settlements. | De jure transfer in 1962. |
| 1963 | Nagaland (State) | Carved from Assam to satisfy Naga demands. | To preserve distinct culture. |
| 1966 | Haryana (State), Chandigarh (UT) | Bifurcation of Punjab on linguistic basis (Punjabi & Hindi). | Chandigarh made a UT and common capital. |
| 1971 | Himachal Pradesh (State) | Elevated from Union Territory status. | |
| 1972 | Manipur (State), Tripura (State), Meghalaya (State) | Elevation of UTs, Meghalaya made full state from sub-state of Assam. | Also created UTs of Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh. |
| 1975 | Sikkim (State) | Became an 'associate state' (1974), then a full state after referendum. | Article 371F for special provisions. |
| 1987 | Mizoram (State), Arunachal Pradesh (State), Goa (State) | Elevation of UTs to statehood. Goa made state from part of UT. | Daman and Diu remained a UT. |
| 2000 | Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand (States) | Better governance, regional development, tribal aspirations. | From MP, UP, Bihar respectively. |
| 2014 | Telangana (State) | Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh for separate statehood. | Hyderabad made joint capital for 10 years. |
| 2019 | J&K (UT with legislature), Ladakh (UT without legislature) | Reorganisation of erstwhile state of J&K. Abrogation of special status. | Significant constitutional change. |
| 2020 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (merged UT) | Merger of two existing Union Territories. | Resulted in 28 states and 8 UTs. |
Contemporary Demands & Future Landscapes
The evolution continues. Demands for new states still surface, driven by various factors.
Basis for Demands
- Linguistic Identity: Remaining minor linguistic groups.
- Cultural Uniqueness/Ethnic Identity: Preserving distinct heritage (e.g., Gorkhaland, Bodoland).
- Administrative Convenience: Argument for easier governance and better service delivery in smaller units.
- Economic Backwardness/Neglect: Perception of neglect in development (e.g., Vidarbha, Bundelkhand).
- Historical Factors: Claims based on past administrative units.
- Political Mobilization: Fueled by regional parties and leaders.
Examples of Ongoing Demands
- Vidarbha (from Maharashtra)
- Gorkhaland (from West Bengal)
- Bodoland (within Assam)
- Bundelkhand (parts of UP and MP)
- Purvanchal / Harit Pradesh (from Uttar Pradesh)
- Saurashtra (from Gujarat)
- (Note: Intensity of demands can fluctuate)
Pros and Cons of Creating Smaller States
Pros of Smaller States
- Better Governance and Administration: Easier to manage, responsive to local needs.
- Focused Development: Addresses regional imbalances, targeted development.
- Greater Political Participation: More opportunities for local leadership.
- Preservation of Distinct Identities: Satisfies cultural/ethnic aspirations.
- Reduced Intra-State Conflicts: Resolves regional tensions within larger states.
Cons of Smaller States
- Economic Viability: May lack resources, depend heavily on central grants.
- Administrative Costs: High expenditure for new infrastructure (capitals, secretariats).
- Inter-State Disputes: Can lead to new conflicts over resources (water, boundaries).
- Weakening of National Unity (Fear): Potential for fissiparous tendencies.
- Domination by Local Elites: Susceptible to capture by dominant regional groups.
- May not solve problems: Poor governance/corruption might persist.