1

DAILY
CLASS NOTES
Post Independence

Lecture - 03
Reorganization of states and
development of agriculture
after post-independence
 2

Reorganization of states and development of agriculture

after post-independence
Reorganization of states:
❖ After the integration of princely states into the newly independent India, the issue of reorganizing states
emerged as a significant challenge.
❖ With the diversity of languages, cultures, and ethnicities across the Indian subcontinent, the administrative
boundaries inherited from British colonial rule often did not reflect the linguistic or cultural realities on the
ground.
❖ This incongruity led to demands from various linguistic and ethnic communities for the redrawing of state
boundaries to better align with their identities and aspirations.
❖ Leaders of India, including figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, found themselves grappling with
the complexities of this issue.
❖ The diversity of demands, often with competing interests, necessitated careful negotiation and deliberation to
find solutions that would balance the aspirations of different groups while maintaining national unity and
integrity.
❖ The challenge was not merely administrative but also deeply intertwined with questions of identity,
representation, and governance.
❖ Stand of Congress before independence.
➢ Before independence, the Indian National Congress had articulated its stance on the reorganization of
states, notably addressing linguistic concerns.
➢ This was evident during the Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920, where the party formally
demanded the reorganization of states based on language.
➢ This demand was reiterated in the Nehru Report of 1928, reflecting the Congress's commitment to
accommodating linguistic diversity within the future constitutional framework of India.
❖ Stand of Congress after independence.
➢ However, the stand of the Congress on the issue of linguistic reorganization took a different turn after
independence.
➢ The formation of the JVP (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya)
Committee in 1948 marked a shift in the party's approach.
➢ The committee, comprising prominent Congress leaders, expressed reservations against the idea of
forming states based solely on language.
➢ Instead, it advocated for a more pragmatic approach, emphasizing the importance of administrative
efficiency and national unity over linguistic considerations.
➢ This shift in stance created discontent among linguistic communities, leading to the emergence of pan-
India movements advocating for linguistic states.
➢ The divergence between the Congress leadership and linguistic activists highlighted the complexities
and tensions inherent in addressing the linguistic diversity of India within the framework of a unified
nation.
 3

❖ Indian reaction:
➢ The Pan-India movement initiated in response to the Congress's reluctance to heed linguistic demands
gained momentum in 1952 with Potti Sriramulu's pivotal decision to undertake a fast unto death.
➢ Sriramulu's fast, a poignant protest against the delay in creating linguistic states, particularly for Telugu-
speaking people, galvanized public sentiment across India.
➢ His sacrifice underscored the depth of feeling among linguistic communities and intensified pressure on
the government to act.
➢ Finally, in 1953, the formation of Andhra Pradesh, primarily for the Telugu-speaking population,
marked a significant victory for the linguistic reorganization movement.
➢ This event not only addressed the longstanding linguistic aspirations of the Telugu-speaking people but
also served as a catalyst for subsequent demands for linguistic states across the country, reshaping
India's administrative landscape and affirming the importance of linguistic identity in the nation-
building process.
❖ Reorganization Act of 1956
➢ The States Reorganization Act of 1956 marked a significant milestone in India's journey towards
accommodating linguistic diversity within its administrative framework.
➢ As demands for linguistic reorganization echoed from various regions beyond Andhra Pradesh, the
Indian government established a commission comprising Fazal Ali, Hriday Nath Kunzru, and K.M.
Panikar to address these concerns comprehensively.
➢ Following extensive deliberations and consultations, the commission submitted its recommendations,
which formed the basis for the enactment of the State Reorganization Act.
➢ This Act, passed as the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956, brought about substantial changes
in India's administrative structure.
➢ It effectively abolished the previous categorization of states into four distinct categories, ushering
in a new era where states were organized based on linguistic and other relevant considerations.
➢ Additionally, the Act delineated two main types of administrative entities: Union Territories (UTs)
and States, each with its own set of powers and responsibilities.
➢ By streamlining India's administrative divisions along linguistic lines and abolishing the outdated
categorization of states, the State Reorganization Act of 1956 facilitated a more coherent and responsive
governance structure.
➢ It not only addressed the immediate demands for linguistic reorganization but also laid the groundwork
for a more inclusive and representative system of governance that could better accommodate the diverse
identities and aspirations of India's populace.
❖ Problems have not been solved:
➢ Despite the enactment of the State Reorganization Act in 1956, the linguistic and regional aspirations of
various communities continued to manifest in demands for the creation of new states.
➢ The Act failed to entirely resolve the issue as linguistic identity remained a potent force in Indian
politics.
 4

➢ Subsequent decades witnessed a series of movements and demands for statehood based on linguistic,
cultural, and regional considerations.
➢ In 1960, the Maratha movement resulted in the formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat as separate
states, addressing the linguistic aspirations of Marathi-speaking people.
➢ The annexation of Goa, Daman, and Diu in 1961 further added to the complexity of state boundaries.
➢ Pondicherry, now Puducherry, was designated as a Union Territory in 1954, but demands for
statehood persisted in other regions.
➢ The Akali movement in 1964 led to the reorganization of Punjab and the creation of Haryana,
reflecting the demands of Punjabi-speaking Sikhs for their own state.
➢ Subsequent years saw the formation of Himachal Pradesh in 1971 and the creation of Manipur,
Meghalaya, and Tripura as states in 1972, each reflecting unique linguistic and regional identities.
➢ The late 1980s saw the emergence of demands for Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, which
culminated in their formation in 1986 and 1987, respectively.
➢ The turn of the millennium witnessed further reorganization with the formation of Jharkhand,
Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh as separate states in 2000, each representing the aspirations of
distinct linguistic and tribal communities.
➢ In 2014, Telangana was carved out of Andhra Pradesh, marking one of the most recent instances of
state formation in India.
➢ These developments underscore the persistent significance of linguistic, cultural, and regional identities
in Indian politics and governance, highlighting the ongoing challenges in balancing the diverse
aspirations within the framework of a unified nation.
➢ Despite numerous reorganizations, demands for statehood continue to arise, reflecting the complex and
dynamic nature of India's socio-political landscape.
Development of Agriculture:
❖ Colonial heritage:
➢ The development of agriculture in India bears the marks of its colonial past, where policies focused on
the expansion of land revenue collection often came at the expense of agricultural productivity.
➢ This period witnessed a decline in agricultural output due to exploitative land revenue policies, coupled
with the neglect of soil fertility and inadequate industrialization support.
➢ As a result, traditional farming practices gave way to a form of industrialized agriculture that favored
mechanization but marginalized small-scale farmers.
➢ Poverty and famines were pervasive, exacerbated by the sector's disproportionate contribution to the
economy with over 70% of the population dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.
➢ The pitiable condition of agriculture reflected the enduring legacy of colonial-era policies, necessitating
post-independence efforts to rectify historical injustices and address the systemic challenges plaguing
the agricultural sector.
❖ Outlook of Nehru Ji
➢ Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, held a profoundly positive outlook on the nation's
development, with a strong emphasis on rapid improvement across various sectors.
 5

➢ Recognizing the critical role of agriculture in India's socio-economic fabric, Nehru made a significant
announcement in 1948, stating that while all sectors could wait, agriculture could not.
➢ This declaration underscored Nehru's prioritization of agricultural development as a cornerstone of
India's progress, reflecting his commitment to uplift rural communities and drive overall economic
growth.
➢ Nehru's unwavering focus on advancing agriculture laid the foundation for subsequent policies and
initiatives aimed at modernizing the sector and addressing the challenges faced by farmers, thereby
shaping India's developmental trajectory in the post-independence era.
❖ Planning for agriculture and land reforms:
➢ The planning for agriculture and land reforms in India gained momentum with the formation of a
committee under the leadership of J.C. Kumarappa, aimed at addressing the entrenched issues
surrounding land ownership and tenancy.
➢ The committee underscored four crucial points to tackle these challenges effectively.
➢ Firstly, it advocated for the abolition of zamindari systems, which had long perpetuated landlordism
and exploitation of tenant farmers.
➢ Secondly, emphasis was placed on implementing tenancy reforms to protect the rights of tenants and
provide them with secure land tenure.
➢ Additionally, the committee highlighted the importance of maximizing land possession for small and
marginal farmers, aiming to empower them economically.
➢ Lastly, it stressed the need for the consolidation of land holdings to enhance agricultural productivity
and efficiency.
➢ These recommendations laid the groundwork for subsequent land reforms in India, aimed at addressing
inequalities in land distribution and fostering agricultural development for the benefit of rural
communities.
