Table of Contents-

S.No. Contents Page No.

1. Introduction 3

2. Historical Background of Linguistic Reorganization

 Pre-Independence Factors
 Post-Independence Scenarios 3-4
- Dhar Commission
- JVP Committee

State Reorganization Commission

3. 5

4. State Reorganization Act, 1956 5-6

5. Conclusion and Analysis 6-7

6. Bibliography 7

1|Page
Introduction-

“The year was 1947, India was midnight’s child, born out of the struggles of thousands of revolutionaries
and common folk, in the hope for a life of freedom and dignity.” Our founding fathers determined that 571
princely states would unite to become 27 states, with the goal of bringing the country closer together. The
foundations behind this decision were more historical and political than linguistic or cultural in nature.
These arrangements however were short lived as the demands for Linguistic Reorganisation of states arose
after independence, from various corners of the nation.

There were mixed opinions and ideas among then political leaders regarding Linguistic Reorganisation,
with Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel being of the opinion that it could be lethal and disintegrating factor
for the nation, on the other hand Gandhi Ji and B.R. Ambedkar being in favour and optimistic of Linguistic
Reorganisation. There were various movements and tussles also for reorganisation of states, which led the
government to reconsider the organisation of states, leading to State Reorganisation Act, 1956.

This Paper covers the features of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 with an understanding of historical
factors that led to the Act, with the study of various committees in between the independence and 1956 that
carefully examined the nuances of linguistic reorganisation, assisted and crafted the Reorganisation.

The paper majorly aims to understand the circumstances that led to and motive behind the Linguistic
Reorganisation, finally outlining the positives and negatives of Linguistic Organisation under the Analysis
of the paper with examination of situations prevailing in the nation since Linguistic Reorganisation of
states.

Historical background of Linguistic Reorganisation-

Reorganization of states along linguistic lines had its origins in national movements, when in the early
1920s, congress embarked on a campaign of political mobilisation on the grounds of mother tongue and
pledged to redraw provincial boundaries along linguistic lines1. The desire to stimulate community
engagement and ensure stable government prompted the need for language-based political borders.
Furthermore, it was believed that after being overlooked by the British, vernacular languages would finally
gain importance.

As evidenced by the British carving up a state for Oriya speakers in 1936 – Orissa – from the states of
Bihar and Bengal – the demand for linguistic partition of states is not new. However, when this issue arose
after independence, the national leadership was hesitant to give in because of the prevailing challenges of
division, administrative issues, and economic and political upheaval. Movements for Ayikya Kerala,
Samyukta Maharashtra, and Vishalandhra received attention post-independence. The Communist Party of
1
Linguistic Reorganisation of Indian States, http://www.ppup.ac.in/download/econtent/pdf/Linguistic
%20Reorganisation%20of%20Indian%20Provinces(3).pdf, (last visited 8th Nov,2021)
2|Page
India was in the forefront of forming these movements and popularising the concept of linguistic states in
India, as well as its effectiveness in democratising independent India.

The major fears bound with the Linguistic Reorganisation were that-

 It could have unexpected consequences, including regionalism, language chauvinism, and the
establishment of the "Sons of the soil" concept. Moreover, it would be abused for divisive reasons,
giving rise to disruptive tendencies like communalism, casteism, and language or regional isolation.
 The issues of Jobs, educational opportunities etc under political influence could foster religious,
regional, caste, and linguistic rivalries and wars. This could turn out as a threat to India's integrity.

Even though popular desire for it continued, successive committees on it admonished the leadership2-

 Dhar Commission-

The Linguistic Provinces Commission, chaired by S.K.Dhar, was established by the Indian government
in June 1948 to investigate the viability of establishing states on a linguistic basis. Later, the
Commission rejected the linguistic basis for state reform and instead suggested state reorganisation
based on the following criteria:

1. Contiguity in terms of geography

2. Financial independence
3. Administration's ability to function
4. Developmental potential

 JVP Committee-
The Dhar Commission's report sparked widespread discontent among the public. As a result, Congress
created a three-member committee to consider the Dhar Commission's recommendations during the
Jaipur session of 1948. The linguistic aspect of state reconstruction was likewise disregarded by this
group. This group suggested that states be reorganised based on the nation's security, unity, and
economic development.

The death of Potti Sriramulu, however, forced the Indian government to create the first linguistic state,
Andhra State, by splitting Telugu-speaking districts from Madras State.

State Reorganisation Commission-3

2
Dhar Commission and JVP Committee, http://polityofindia.blogspot.com/2013/08/dhar-commision-jvp-
committee-and-fazl.html, (last visited Nov 10 2021)
3|Page
The formation of state of Andhra sparked the fresh demands of separate linguistic states in other region of
country, which led the Indian government towards formation of a three-member State Reorganisation
Commission, chaired by Fazl Ali with K M Panikkar and HN Kunzru as other two members. It issued its
report in September 1955, approving Linguistic Reorganisation but denying the notion of “one language,
one state”. Its position was that the primary concern in any reorganisation or redrawing of the units should
be maintaining India’s unity and integrity.

It outlined four important variables that should be considered in every state reorganisation scheme:

 The country's unity and security must be preserved and strengthened.

 Homogeneity in terms of language and culture.
 Considerations in finance, economics, and administration.
 Planning and promotion of the people's welfare in each state, as well as the nation's overall welfare.

The commission also proposed abolishment of the original idea of Constitution's four-tiered classification
of states and suggesting to replace it with 16 states and three centrally administered territories. It was also
suggested that-

 The Rajapramukh agreement and specific treaties with erstwhile princely states be dissolved.
 Article 371, which gives the government of India broad control, should be repealed.

The Government of India took the Committees’ proposals into account with some minor changes and
brought them into action through The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 & 7th Constitutional Amendment
Act (1956).

States Reorganisation Act, 1956- 4

The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 was a landmark measure that reorganised India's states and
territories along linguistic lines. The Act was enacted at the same time as the Constitution (Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1956, which reorganised the constitutional framework for India's existing states and the
prerequisites to approve the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 under Articles 3 and 4 of the constitution.

The division between Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D states was removed by the Seventh Amendment.
The division between Part A and Part B states was abolished, and the term "states" was coined. The
designation of a Part C or Part D state was superseded by a new type of entity known as a union territory.

 It merged the Travancore-Cochin state with the Malabar District of Madras state and
Kasargode of South Canara to form the new state of Kerala (Dakshina Kannada).
3
Report of State Reorganization Commission, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/State
%20Reorganisation%20Commisison%20Report%20of%201955_270614.pdf, (last visited 9th Nov 2021)
4
The Linguistic Reorganisation of States, https://selfstudyhistory.com/2015/01/30/the-linguistic-reorganisation-
of-states/ (last visited 9th Nov 2021)
4|Page
  It created Andhra Pradesh by merging Telugu-speaking portions of Hyderabad state with
Andhra state.
 Madhya Pradesh was formed by merging the states of Madhya Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh,
and Bhopal.
 It amalgamated the states of Saurashtra and Kutch into the state of Bombay, and the state of
Coorg into the state of Mysore.
 Patiala and East Punjab States Union were combined into Punjab state, and Ajmer state was
amalgamated into Rajasthan state.

Despite the creation of numerous states following the passage of the SRA in 1956, the requests of
Bombay, Punjab, and the North Eastern states were not met. After the 1960 Samyukta Maharashtra
Movement, Maharashtra and Gujarat were formed, with the former holding Bombay city. Haryana and
Punjab were formed in 1966, and Himachal Pradesh was formed in 1971, as a result of similar language
and ethnic conflicts. Nagaland was the first state to gain independence in the North East, in 1963,
followed by Manipur, Tripura, and Meghalaya in 1972. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh were formed a
decade later, in 1987.

Conclusion and Analysis-

The desire to stimulate community engagement and ensure stable government prompted the need for
language-based political borders. Furthermore, it was believed that after being overlooked by the British,
vernacular languages would finally gain importance. In contrast to Nehru's notion that linguistic states
would further fragment an already divided nation and not serve the ideas of secularism, linguistic states
have boosted unity. We might use the example of former Ceylon to illustrate the potential consequences
of not establishing political boundaries based on language (present day Sri Lanka). When Sinhala was
declared Ceylon's only official language in 1956, it sparked outrage among certain Tamils. In truth, the
civil conflict that has decimated the island nation since 1983 has largely been caused by the majority
linguistic group's refusal to recognise the rights of the minority.

But looking upon the negatives that have emerged out in country since independence as an aftermath of
Linguistic Reorganisation; The demand for linguistic states continues to be strong. Take, for example, the
etho-linguistic demand for 'Gorkhaland,' which recently triggered severe violence in Darjeeling. Also,
these states can sometimes be at odds with one another, like in the "water war" between Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu.
5|Page
Bibliography
1. Arora, Satish Kumar. "The Reorganization of the Indian States." Eastern
Survey 25 (1956): 27-30.

2. BASU, INDIRA. Should Indian States be Divided on Linguistic Lines?

31 Oct 2017. 14 Nov 2021.
<https://www.thequint.com/news/india/linguistic-division-of-states-in-
india-history#read-more>.

3. Kudaisya, Gyanesh. Reorganisation of States in India. National Book

Trust, 2014.

4. "Linguistic Reorganisation of Indian States."

<http://www.ppup.ac.in/download/econtent/pdf/Linguistic
%20Reorganisation%20of%20Indian%20Provinces(3).pdf>.

6|Page