Journey of India's Internal Map
The reorganization of states in independent India has been a dynamic and often contentious process, primarily driven by linguistic aspirations and administrative considerations. While the British administrative divisions were largely based on expediency, the Indian nationalist movement had long advocated for states organized on linguistic lines to foster regional identity and ease of governance.
Post-independence, this demand gained momentum, leading to significant movements like the Andhra Movement. The process was guided by various committees and culminated in the landmark States Reorganisation Act of 1956, based on the Fazal Ali Commission's recommendations.
This act redrew India's internal map, but the process didn't end there, with subsequent reorganizations continuing to address linguistic, ethnic, and administrative needs, constantly balancing regional aspirations with national unity.
The Demand for Linguistic States
British Era: Administrative Convenience
The British organized provinces primarily for administrative convenience, military strategy, or commercial interests, often disregarding linguistic or cultural homogeneity. Multi-lingual and multi-cultural provinces like Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency, and Central Provinces were common. However, the seeds of linguistic consciousness were sown with the rise of regional languages and literatures. The first linguistic movement for a separate Orissa province from Bihar was conceded in 1936.
Congress's Stance: Pre-Independence Promise
The Indian National Congress, from its Nagpur Session in 1920, accepted the linguistic principle for its own provincial committees. It repeatedly promised the formation of linguistic provinces in independent India (e.g., Nehru Report 1928). This was seen as a way to promote regional languages, culture, education, and administration in the mother tongue, fostering greater democratic participation.
The Andhra Movement: A Turning Point
After independence, the demand for linguistic states became more vocal. The movement for a Telugu-speaking state of Andhra, carved out of Madras Presidency, intensified significantly. Potti Sreeramulu, a Gandhian leader, undertook a fast unto death in October 1952. His tragic death after 56 days in December 1952 led to widespread rioting and violence, forcing the central government's hand. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru announced the formation of Andhra state in December 1952, which came into existence on October 1, 1953, the first state formed on a linguistic basis post-independence.
Early Committees on State Reorganisation
June 1948: Dhar Commission (Linguistic Provinces Commission)
Appointed by the Constituent Assembly, headed by Justice S.K. Dhar.
Recommendation: Rejected reorganization purely on a linguistic basis, fearing it would undermine national unity and create administrative problems. Favored reorganization based on administrative convenience. Met with widespread disappointment.
December 1948: JVP Committee
Appointed by Congress due to negative reaction to Dhar report. Consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya.
Recommendation: Expressed concerns about national unity and security. Formally rejected reorganizing states solely on linguistic grounds at that time, but stated that if public sentiment was insistent, it should be conceded, provided it did not threaten national unity. Conceded Andhra demand.
States Reorganisation Act, 1956
The Fazal Ali Commission (SRC)
Appointed in December 1953 by the Government of India, headed by Justice Fazal Ali, with H.N. Kunzru and K.M. Panikkar as other members. Its task was to examine the entire question of the reorganization of the states of the Union. The Commission submitted its report in September 1955.
- The Commission broadly accepted language as the basis of reorganization of states but rejected the "one language-one state" theory.
- It emphasized that linguistic homogeneity should not be the sole criterion and must be balanced with other considerations.
- Four major principles/factors to be taken into account:
- Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India.
- Linguistic and cultural homogeneity.
- Financial, economic, and administrative considerations.
- Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people in each state as well as of the nation as a whole.
- Recommended the abolition of the three-tier (Part A, B, C, and D) state system of the original Constitution.
- Suggested the creation of 16 states and 3 centrally administered territories (though some recommendations were modified by the government).
- It opposed splitting Bombay and Punjab.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956: Landmark Legislation
The Government of India accepted most of the recommendations of the Fazal Ali Commission with some modifications. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was passed by Parliament in November 1956. It came into effect on November 1, 1956. Simultaneously, the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956, was enacted to implement the scheme of reorganization. This abolished the distinction between Part A, B, C, and D states, creating a unified structure.
States and Union Territories Formed (Nov 1, 1956)
| Category | Name | Key Merger/Details |
|---|---|---|
| States (14) | Andhra Pradesh | Formed by merging Andhra State with Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad state. |
| States (14) | Assam | Existing state (partially re-organized later). |
| States (14) | Bihar | Existing state. |
| States (14) | Bombay | A large bilingual state of Marathi and Gujarati speaking people (later bifurcated). |
| States (14) | Jammu and Kashmir | Existing state (reorganized into UTs in 2019). |
| States (14) | Kerala | Formed by merging Travancore-Cochin state with Malabar district of Madras and Kasargod of South Canara. |
| States (14) | Madhya Pradesh | Merged Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Bhopal; Marathi-speaking areas of Nagpur division of old MP were transferred to Bombay. |
| States (14) | Madras (present-day Tamil Nadu) | Kanyakumari district added from Travancore-Cochin. |
| States (14) | Mysore (later Karnataka) | Enlarged by adding Kannada-speaking areas of Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad, and Coorg. |
| States (14) | Orissa | Existing state (formed in 1936). |
| States (14) | Punjab | Enlarged by adding PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union). |
| States (14) | Rajasthan | Enlarged by adding Ajmer state and parts of Bombay and Madhya Bharat. |
| States (14) | Uttar Pradesh | Existing state. |
| States (14) | West Bengal | Existing state. |
| Union Territories (6) | Andaman and Nicobar Islands | Centrally administered territory. |
| Union Territories (6) | Delhi | Centrally administered territory. |
| Union Territories (6) | Himachal Pradesh | Centrally administered territory (later became a state). |
| Union Territories (6) | Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands | Later renamed Lakshadweep in 1973. Centrally administered territory. |
| Union Territories (6) | Manipur | Centrally administered territory (later became a state). |
| Union Territories (6) | Tripura | Centrally administered territory (later became a state). |
Impact and Subsequent Reorganisations
The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 did not mark the end of the process. Demands for new states based on language, cultural identity, economic viability, and administrative efficiency continued to emerge, reflecting the dynamic nature of Indian federalism.
Key Subsequent Reorganisations (Post-1956)
1960: Maharashtra & Gujarat
Bifurcation of the bilingual Bombay state into Maharashtra (for Marathi-speaking people) and Gujarat (for Gujarati-speaking people) following intense agitations.
1963: Nagaland
Carved out of Assam, recognizing the distinct identity of the Naga tribes and addressing long-standing insurgency demands, became a state in 1963.
1966: Punjab & Haryana
Based on Shah Commission, Punjab was trifurcated into Punjab (Punjabi-speaking, Sikh majority), Haryana (Hindi-speaking), and hilly areas merged with Himachal Pradesh. Chandigarh made a UT and joint capital.
1972: North-Eastern Reorganisation
North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (effective 1972) elevated Manipur and Tripura (erstwhile UTs) to statehood, and Meghalaya (autonomous state) became a full-fledged state. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became UTs (later states in 1987).
1975: Sikkim
Joined India as an associate state in 1974 (35th Amendment) and became a full state in 1975 (36th Amendment) after a popular referendum.
2000: Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand
Carved from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar respectively. Primarily driven by demands for regional development, administrative efficiency, and addressing neglect of tribal/backward areas, rather than purely linguistic reasons.
2014: Telangana
Carved out of Andhra Pradesh, becoming the 29th state. This fulfilled a long-standing demand based on distinct regional identity and developmental concerns, despite common language (Telugu) with the residual Andhra Pradesh.
2019: Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation
The state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories: UT of Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislative assembly) and UT of Ladakh (without a legislative assembly). Article 370 was abrogated. (Source: MHA).
Impact on Indian Polity
National Unity
Initial fears that linguistic states might promote fissiparous tendencies were largely unfounded. Reorganization removed a major source of grievance and conflict. It allowed for the development of regional languages and cultures, fostering a sense of identity and pride, which in turn integrated people more firmly with the Indian Union.
Regional Identity
Linguistic states have undoubtedly strengthened regional identities, leading to the flourishing of regional literature, arts, and media. This has largely proven to be complementary to, rather than contradictory to, national identity in India's diverse federal structure, empowering regional political parties and leaders.
Centre-State Relations
The reorganization has had a complex impact. It has led to demands for greater state autonomy and resources. The rise of regional parties has made coalition politics at the Centre more common, giving states greater bargaining power. Overall, it has contributed significantly to the federal character of the Indian polity.
Quick Summary: Reorganisation of States
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Historical Context | British provinces (admin convenience); Congress's linguistic principle (Nagpur 1920). |
| Andhra Movement | Demand for Telugu state; Potti Sreeramulu's fast & death (1952); Andhra State formed (1953). |
| Early Committees | Dhar Commission (1948): Rejected linguistic basis, favored admin convenience. JVP Committee (1949): Rejected linguistic basis then. |
| Fazal Ali Commission (SRC) | Appointed 1953, report 1955. Accepted language as basis (balanced with other factors). Principles: Unity, linguistic/cultural homogeneity, admin/financial viability, welfare. |
| States Reorganisation Act, 1956 | Effective Nov 1, 1956. Created 14 States & 6 UTs. Abolished Part A,B,C,D states. (Implemented via 7th Const. Amendment). |
| Subsequent Reorganisations | 1960: Maharashtra, Gujarat. 1963: Nagaland. 1966: Punjab, Haryana, (HP). 1971-72: NE states (Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya etc.). 2000: Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand. 2014: Telangana. 2019: J&K, Ladakh (UTs). |
| Impact | National Unity: Largely strengthened by addressing grievances. Regional Identity: Fostered regional languages/cultures. Centre-State Relations: Complex, enhanced federalism, rise of regional parties. Some inter-state disputes. |
Conclusion: A Pillar of Indian Federalism
The reorganization of states in India has been a crucial process in nation-building and democratic consolidation. Primarily driven by the powerful impulse of linguistic identity, but also shaped by administrative, economic, and ethnic considerations, it transformed India's internal political map.
While initial apprehensions about its impact on national unity were strong, the creation of linguistic states, beginning with Andhra and formalized by the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, has largely been a success story. It has fostered regional cultures and languages, made administration more responsive, and arguably strengthened the fabric of Indian federalism by accommodating diverse aspirations.
The process remains ongoing, reflecting the evolving socio-political dynamics of the country, with the more recent reorganizations (like Telangana and Jammu & Kashmir) highlighting a mix of developmental, identity, and strategic rationales. The Indian experience demonstrates a unique ability to manage internal diversity through democratic means, though challenges like inter-state disputes and demands for further reorganization persist.
UPSC Previous Year Questions
Prelims MCQs:
1. Which one of the following is the correct chronological order of the formation of the following states as full States of the Indian Union? (UPSC CSE Prelims 2007)
- (1) Sikkim (2) Arunachal Pradesh (3) Nagaland (4) Haryana
- (a) 3 – 4 – 1 – 2
- (b) 3 – 1 – 4 – 2
- (c) 4 – 3 – 1 – 2
- (d) 4 – 1 – 3 – 2
Answer: (a) 3 – 4 – 1 – 2
Hint/Explanation: Nagaland: 1963, Haryana: 1966, Sikkim: 1975, Arunachal Pradesh: 1987.
2. The Parliament of India can form a new State by separating territory from any State or by uniting two or more States. Such a Bill requires to be passed by (UPSC CSE Prelims Pattern - based on Art 3)
- (a) a simple majority and the consent of the concerned State legislature.
- (b) a simple majority.
- (c) a special majority.
- (d) a special majority and the consent of the concerned State legislature.
Answer: (b) a simple majority.
Hint/Explanation: Article 3 of the Constitution allows Parliament to form new states, alter areas, boundaries, or names of existing states by a law passed by a simple majority. The President must refer the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified period, but Parliament is not bound by these views.
3. The States Reorganisation Commission, headed by Fazal Ali, was appointed in 1953. Which of the following was NOT one of its members? (UPSC CSE Prelims Pattern)
- (a) Fazal Ali
- (b) H.N. Kunzru
- (c) K.M. Panikkar
- (d) Pattabhi Sitaramayya
Answer: (d) Pattabhi Sitaramayya
Hint/Explanation: Pattabhi Sitaramayya was a member of the JVP Committee, not the Fazal Ali Commission. The Fazal Ali Commission members were Fazal Ali, H.N. Kunzru, and K.M. Panikkar.
Mains Questions:
1. "The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was a watershed moment in the political and administrative history of independent India." Elaborate. (UPSC CSE Mains Pattern)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly state the context leading to the SRA, 1956 – linguistic demands, early committees, Andhra formation.
- Key Recommendations of Fazal Ali Commission: Language as a basis (balanced with other factors), abolition of A,B,C,D state categories.
- Provisions of SRA, 1956: Creation of 14 states and 6 UTs, redrawing of India's internal map.
- Political Impact: Addressed major linguistic grievances, thus strengthening national unity in the long run; empowered regional languages and cultures; paved the way for the rise of regional political leadership and parties; shifted the balance in Centre-State relations to some extent.
- Administrative Impact: Simplified the state structure (abolition of Part A, B, C, D classification); aimed for more rational administrative units; facilitated governance in regional languages.
- Limitations/Further Issues: Did not end all demands (e.g., Bombay, Punjab), led to some inter-state disputes.
- Conclusion: Reiterate that SRA 1956 was a landmark that fundamentally reshaped India's federal structure, accommodating linguistic diversity and laying the groundwork for future reorganizations.
2. Discuss the evolution of the demand for linguistic states in India before and after independence. How has the linguistic reorganization impacted national integration? (UPSC CSE Mains Pattern)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly introduce the concept of linguistic states.
- Evolution Before Independence: British provincial organization (administrative, not linguistic); rise of linguistic consciousness (e.g., Orissa); Congress's stance (Nagpur 1920, Nehru Report 1928) – acceptance of linguistic principle.
- Evolution After Independence: Initial hesitation by leadership (Dhar Comm, JVP Comm) due to fears of disunity; Andhra Movement and Potti Sreeramulu's sacrifice – turning point; Fazal Ali Commission and SRA, 1956; Subsequent reorganizations (Maharashtra/Gujarat, Punjab/Haryana, NE states, etc.).
- Impact on National Integration:
- Positive Aspects: Reduced a major source of discontent; made democracy more meaningful by enabling participation in mother tongue; strengthened cultural identities, which became building blocks of a diverse nation; overall, strengthened the unity and integrity of India by accommodating regional aspirations.
- Negative Aspects/Challenges (to be managed): Some inter-state border and resource disputes; potential for parochialism if not balanced with national perspective; "Sons of the soil" movements in some instances.
- Conclusion: While not without challenges, the linguistic reorganization of states has largely been a positive force for national integration in India, demonstrating the success of democratic accommodation of diversity.
3. What was the basis of the reorganisation of states in India in 1956? What were its main consequences? (UPSC CSE Mains History Optional 1990, relevant for GS)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly mention the context of the SRA, 1956.
- Basis of Reorganisation (as per Fazal Ali Commission and SRA): Primary Basis: Language and cultural homogeneity. Balancing Factors: Preservation of unity and security of India; financial, economic, and administrative viability; welfare of the people and national planning. Rejection of "one language-one state" dogma. Abolition of the old classification of states.
- Main Consequences:
- Political: Redrawing of internal boundaries (14 states, 6 UTs), addressed linguistic aspirations, rise of regional parties, impact on Centre-State relations.
- Administrative: Simplification of state structure, governance in regional languages.
- Social/Cultural: Flourishing of regional languages, literature, and culture; strengthened regional identities.
- Economic: Aimed for better planning and development within more homogeneous units.
- Continued Demands: The Act did not resolve all issues, leading to further reorganizations.
- National Unity: Debated initially, but largely seen as strengthening it by accommodating diversity.
- Conclusion: The SRA 1956 was a pragmatic exercise that primarily used language as a rational basis for reorganizing states, balanced by other crucial considerations, with far-reaching consequences for India's polity and society.
UPSC Trend Analysis
Prelims:
- Chronology of state formation: Questions asking to arrange states by their year of formation are common.
- Key Committees/Commissions: Dhar Commission, JVP Committee, Fazal Ali Commission – their recommendations or members.
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles related to state formation (Art 2, 3, 4).
- Specific state reorganizations: (e.g., Punjab Reorganisation Act, formation of Telangana).
- Focus is often on factual recall related to major milestones in state reorganization.
Mains:
- Impact Analysis: Questions on the impact of linguistic reorganization on national unity, Centre-State relations, regional identity, and administrative efficiency are frequently asked.
- Evolutionary Aspect: Tracing the demand and process of state reorganization from pre-independence to recent times.
- Rationale/Principles: The basis on which states were reorganized (e.g., Fazal Ali Commission's principles).
- Critical Evaluation: Assessing the successes and challenges of the reorganization process.
- Questions often require a balanced perspective, acknowledging both positive outcomes and persistent issues.
- Linkage to broader themes of federalism, democracy, and nation-building.
Overall Trend: UPSC treats state reorganization as a significant aspect of India's post-independence political consolidation and federal dynamics. Prelims questions test factual knowledge of key events and bodies. Mains questions demand an analytical understanding of the process, its rationale, and its multifaceted impact on the Indian polity.
Original MCQs for Prelims
1. Which of the following committees, appointed after India's independence, explicitly rejected the idea of reorganizing states purely on a linguistic basis, favoring administrative convenience instead?
- (a) Fazal Ali Commission
- (b) JVP Committee
- (c) Dhar Commission
- (d) Shah Commission (1966)
Answer: (c) Dhar Commission
Explanation: The Dhar Commission (1948) recommended against reorganizing states solely on linguistic lines and favored administrative convenience. The JVP Committee, while also initially hesitant, was slightly more open to public sentiment. The Fazal Ali Commission largely accepted language as a basis, balanced by other factors. The Shah Commission dealt with the reorganization of Punjab.
2. The formation of Andhra State in 1953, the first linguistic state post-independence, was a direct consequence of:
- (a) The recommendations of the JVP Committee.
- (b) The States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
- (c) The intense agitation and the martyrdom of Potti Sreeramulu.
- (d) A resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly of India.
Answer: (c) The intense agitation and the martyrdom of Potti Sreeramulu.
Explanation: While the demand was old, the death of Potti Sreeramulu after his fast unto death created immense pressure, forcing the government to announce the formation of Andhra State even before the Fazal Ali Commission was appointed.
3. Consider the following states:
- • Gujarat
- • Haryana
- • Telangana
- • Nagaland
Arrange these states in the correct chronological order of their formation:
- (a) 4 – 1 – 2 – 3
- (b) 1 – 4 – 2 – 3
- (c) 4 – 2 – 1 – 3
- (d) 1 – 2 – 4 – 3
Answer: (b) 1 – 4 – 2 – 3
Explanation: Gujarat: 1960 (from Bombay); Nagaland: 1963 (from Assam); Haryana: 1966 (from Punjab); Telangana: 2014 (from Andhra Pradesh).
Original Descriptive Questions for Mains
1. "The reorganization of states on linguistic lines, while initially viewed with apprehension, has ultimately served as a bulwark for Indian unity and federalism." Critically examine this statement.
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Briefly mention the historical context of linguistic demands and the initial fears regarding national unity.
- Apprehensions: Fears of fissiparous tendencies, regionalism undermining nationalism; concerns about administrative and financial viability of smaller states; potential for inter-state conflicts.
- How it Served as a Bulwark for Unity: Accommodation of Aspirations (addressed a major source of popular discontent and separatism); Strengthened Democracy (made governance more participatory and administration more accessible); Emotional Integration (fostered a sense of belonging and cultural pride); Channeling Regionalism Positively (allowed regional identities to flourish within the Indian Union).
- How it Served Federalism: Strengthened States (created more cohesive political units); Enhanced Bargaining Power of States (led to the rise of regional parties, influencing Centre-State dynamics); Decentralization (shifted focus from a highly centralized model).
- Critical Examination (Challenges/Limitations): Inter-state disputes (borders, water); rise of sub-regionalism and demands for further reorganization; instances of linguistic chauvinism or "sons of the soil" policies; not all reorganizations were purely linguistic (e.g., states created in 2000, J&K 2019).
- Conclusion: While not without its challenges, the linguistic reorganization has largely been a successful democratic experiment in India, accommodating diversity and thereby strengthening, rather than weakening, national unity and the federal structure.
2. Trace the journey of state reorganization in India from the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 to the formation of Telangana in 2014. What different rationales, beyond just language, have driven these subsequent reorganizations?
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Briefly state that SRA 1956 was a major step but not the end of reorganization.
- Post-1956 Reorganisations (Key Examples and their primary rationale): Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960 - primarily linguistic); Nagaland (1963 - ethnic identity and insurgency); Punjab and Haryana (1966 - language and religious identity); North-Eastern States (1970s onwards - ethnic identity, cultural distinctiveness, administrative needs, security); Sikkim (1975 - strategic and popular will); Goa (1987 - cultural distinctiveness); Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand (2000 - regional development, administrative efficiency, tribal/backward areas); Telangana (2014 - historical grievances, regional identity, economic neglect).
- Different Rationales Beyond Language: Ethnic and Tribal Identity; Administrative Viability/Efficiency; Economic Development and Regional Disparities; Cultural Distinctiveness; Strategic and Security Concerns; Historical Grievances/Sense of Neglect.
- Conclusion: The journey of state reorganization post-1956 shows an evolving Indian federalism responding to diverse demands. While language was the initial prime mover, subsequent reorganizations have been driven by a complex interplay of ethnic, cultural, administrative, developmental, and historical factors, reflecting the dynamic nature of India's plural society.