Background Context
- Triggering Event: TN Governor R. N. Ravi criticized the linguistic basis of state formation, arguing it led to second-class citizenship for some populations.
- Core Debate: Whether the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956 was a divisive or unifying force for India.
Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues )
India Before First Reorganisation (1956)
- Dual System of Administration:
- British India: Directly administered provinces.
- Princely States: Indirect rule through native rulers.
- Constitutional Classification (1950):
- Part A: Former British provinces, governed by elected legislatures.
- Part B: Former princely states, governed by Rajpramukhs.
- Part C: Commissioners’ provinces + some princely states.
- Part D: Andaman & Nicobar Islands (governed by the Centre).
- Total States/UTs on 26 January 1950: 28 states + 6 Union Territories.
Linguistic Reorganisation of States (1956)
- Key Trigger: Demands for states based on linguistic and cultural identity surged post-Independence.
- Major Catalyst: Potti Sriramulu’s death (1952) during a fast for a Telugu-speaking state (Andhra) sparked widespread protests → creation of Andhra State.
- Political Response:
- Fazl Ali Commission (SRC) formed in 1953.
- Submitted report: 30 September 1955.
- Recommended reorganisation of India into 16 states & 3 UTs based on administrative efficiency + linguistic affinity.
Data Highlights: After 1956 Reorganisation
- States created based on dominant languages:
- Andhra Pradesh (Telugu)
- Kerala (Malayalam)
- Karnataka (Kannada)
- Tamil Nadu (Tamil)
- Maharashtra (Marathi)
- Gujarat (Gujrati)
- States that were reorganised or merged:
- Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, etc.
- Part A, B, C, D classifications abolished.
- New structure: Unified system with elected legislatures and clearer administrative boundaries.
Key Arguments For Linguistic Reorganisation
- Unity Through Identity:
- Linguistic states ensured that diverse language groups felt included, preventing alienation.
- Nehru’s Pragmatic Approach:
- Despite early caution, Nehru eventually supported linguistic states to manage unrest and enhance governance.
- Democratic Accommodation:
- Recognised linguistic identities as part of a plural democratic ethos.
- Successful Model:
- Scholar Ramachandra Guha and others note that linguistic reorganisation helped unify rather than divide India.
Governor R. N. Ravi’s Criticism (2025)
- Core Concern: Linguistic division has made many feel like second-class citizens.
- Quote: “In my own state Tamil Nadu… people live together but once it became a linguistic state, one-third became second-class.”
- Implication: Suggests that linguistic politics led to exclusion, particularly for linguistic minorities in each state.
Counterpoints to Governor’s View
- SRC’s Balanced Approach:
- Rejected rigid linguistic determinism; argued for unity & cultural balance.
- Historical Complexity:
- Bombay and Punjab saw violent protests during their linguistic splits (e.g. Bombay’s bilingual state demand).
- State Unity Beyond Language:
- Example: Maharashtra and Gujarat, despite being split, remained stable politically and economically.
Broader Implications for Indian Federalism
- Language as a Unifying Principle:
- While controversial, it has remained core to India’s identity management.
- Limits of Linguistic Logic:
- Not applied uniformly — e.g., Punjab-Haryana division also involved religious and regional considerations.
- Ongoing Challenges:
- Demands for new states (e.g., Gorkhaland, Vidarbha) still persist.
- Need to address intra-state linguistic minorities’ rights.
Conclusion: A Mixed Legacy
- Reorganisation of 1956 was a pragmatic response to post-Independence challenges.
- Despite criticisms, it largely succeeded in:
- Reducing secessionist tendencies.
- Ensuring regional representation.
- Preserving national unity amidst cultural diversity.
- However, interior exclusions and new grievances require renewed attention within federal policy frameworks.
