DocShare
State Politics in IndiaChapter Unit

I. History of the Formation of States in India

1. Introduction

In India, society, culture, and politics are interlinked, playing an essential role in shaping the identity and structure of the nation. Culture, encompassing language, customs, dress, history, and values, is deeply tied to the emotional aspect of human beings, as it often forms the very basis of a person's identity. The importance of culture is reflected in the sacrifices people make to preserve and protect it, even to the extent of putting their lives at risk. History shows that numerous wars, such as those leading to the partition of India and Pakistan, were fought primarily to protect cultural identities. Similarly, many regions and states have undergone changes, including renaming cities and regions, to preserve their cultural heritage.

The demand for state reorganization based on linguistic and cultural identities in post-independence India is a continuation of these historical patterns. The formation of new states and the reorganization of existing ones were seen as necessary to preserve and promote regional cultures and identities. Initially, the idea of reorganizing states in India was based primarily on language, a crucial component of cultural identity, which set the stage for the subsequent political and social restructuring in India.

2. History of the Formation of the State

India, with its immense diversity, has historically been divided into several regions based on cultural, linguistic, and administrative factors. Ancient Indian texts such as the Buddhist "Anguttar Nikaya" mention the 16 Mahajanapadas, which were significant cultural and political entities in ancient India. During the medieval period, the country was divided into multiple provinces under Mughal rulers like Akbar, who ruled over 12 provinces, and Aurangzeb, who expanded the empire to 21 provinces. The division of India during the British colonial period was shaped more by administrative convenience and military strategy than by cultural or regional needs.

When the British first colonized India, they divided the territory into four major presidencies—Madras, Bengal, Bombay, and Agra—for better administration. These presidencies were further subdivided as the British acquired more territories through military conquest or political agreements. The creation of these provinces was largely for the ease of governance, not considering the diverse cultural and regional aspirations of the local population. For instance, new areas acquired by the British were sometimes merged into existing provinces, such as Madras, Bombay, and Bengal, from the late 18th century through the mid-19th century. The creation of new provinces like Agra in 1833 and the formation of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh in 1877 are prime examples of this administrative-driven approach.

Despite these arbitrary divisions, the British policies were influenced by nationalist movements in India. With the rise of Indian nationalism in the 19th century, there were calls for reorganizing the states to better reflect the linguistic and cultural aspirations of the people. The partition of Bengal in 1905, though later reversed in 1912, exemplified such attempts. In 1919 and 1935, the British government enacted the Government of India Acts, which provided for some self-governance in provinces. These acts acknowledged the need for some form of provincial autonomy and recognized the increasing role of regional identities.

By the early 20th century, the demand for reorganization based on linguistic and cultural grounds became more pronounced. The Congress, during its sessions in the 1920s and 1930s, increasingly pushed for reorganization, particularly in regions like Utkal, Andhra, Sindh, and Karnataka. This laid the foundation for future political restructuring in post-independence India.

3. Merger of Princely States

After India gained independence in 1947, one of the most significant challenges was the integration of the approximately 600 princely states into the Indian Union. These princely states had been under British suzerainty but were not directly controlled by the British crown. They had a large degree of autonomy and were governed by local rulers. The issue of their integration was a complex and critical one, as these states were often seen as independent or semi-independent territories.

At the time of independence, the British government allowed these princely states to decide whether they would join India, Pakistan, or remain independent. Some states, like Bhopal, Travancore, and Hyderabad, initially declared their intention to remain independent. However, India’s leadership, particularly Sardar Patel, the first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, was determined to ensure that these states became part of India for the sake of national unity and stability.

Patel’s diplomatic and strategic negotiations played a crucial role in convincing most princely states to join the Indian Union. The process, however, was not without resistance. For instance, the princely state of Junagadh initially chose to accede to Pakistan, but after a plebiscite and military intervention, it joined India in November 1948. Similarly, Jammu and Kashmir, which was strategically important and had a Muslim-majority population, was invaded by tribal forces from Pakistan in October 1947. The Maharaja of Kashmir sought India’s help, and in return, signed the Instrument of Accession, formally joining India.

One of the most complex cases was Hyderabad, where the Nizam, the ruler, sought to remain independent. However, after months of political negotiations and a military action known as Operation Polo, Hyderabad was integrated into India in 1948. Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granted to protect its autonomy, remained in place until 2019, when the article was abrogated, further altering the state’s status within the Indian Union.

The integration of these princely states was crucial for the formation of a unified India. Patel's leadership and the strategic use of diplomacy, along with the efforts of other leaders, ensured the successful merger of these diverse and autonomous entities into the newly independent Indian Union.

II. Constitutional Provision for Formation and Reorganization of the State

India, as a federal and parliamentary system, includes both unitary and federal features in its Constitution. The framers established a strong central government to ensure national unity and provided clear guidelines for the formation and reorganization of states. The relevant provisions are detailed in Part One of the Constitution, primarily through Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4.

1. Union of States (Article 1)

Article 1 describes India as "Bharat," a "Union of States." This structure ensures the indissolubility of the Union while allowing for flexibility in state composition. Unlike the United States, Indian states cannot secede, ensuring a permanent Union.

2. Formation of New States (Articles 2 and 3)

  • Article 2 grants Parliament the authority to admit or establish new states into the Union on terms it deems fit.
  • Article 3 empowers Parliament to:
    • Form new states by reorganizing existing ones or merging territories.
    • Alter the boundaries of states.
    • Rename states.
    • Reduce the size of states.

Bills for such reorganization must have the President's recommendation before being introduced in Parliament. While state legislatures are consulted, their consent is not binding.

3. Flexibility of Reorganization (Article 4)

Article 4 clarifies that laws enacted under Articles 2 and 3 do not constitute constitutional amendments. They can be passed as ordinary legislation without the need for a two-thirds majority or special procedures under Article 368. This ensures the reorganization process is efficient.

4. Historical Influence

The precedent for Article 3 stems from Section 290 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed the British Parliament to modify provincial boundaries. Additionally, similar provisions exist in Chapter 6 of the Australian Constitution. B.N. Rau introduced this provision during the drafting process, and it was adopted with the support of the Constituent Assembly.

5. Saving Clause

To protect state rights, a saving clause ensures that state legislatures can express their views on any changes to their territory. However, Parliament remains the ultimate authority in the reorganization process.

III. Demand for Reorganization and Formation of New States Based on Language

India's immense linguistic diversity, with over 600 languages (300 in common use as per the 2011 Census), has deeply influenced the demand for state reorganization. Language is intertwined with cultural identity and regional pride, making it a critical factor in administrative restructuring.

1. Pre-Independence Demands

The demand for linguistic states predates independence. It was rooted in the need for administrative efficiency and cultural representation.

  • Early Congress Sessions:

    • The Congress first discussed linguistic reorganization during its 1917 Kolkata session, though leaders were divided. Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak supported linguistic states, but Annie Besant opposed them.
    • The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1918) recommended linguistic state formation.
    • The Nagpur session of Congress (1920) formally adopted the demand for linguistic states, restructuring regional branches accordingly.

  • Simon Commission (1927):

    • Congress leaders reiterated their support for linguistic states and proposed creating states like Utkal, Andhra, Sindh, and Karnataka.

2. Post-Independence Scenario

Despite these earlier efforts, post-independence India faced significant challenges due to partition. National integration took precedence, delaying linguistic reorganization.

  • Dhar Commission (1948):

    • Formed under Justice S.K. Dhar to examine the feasibility of linguistic states.
    • Recommended against linguistic reorganization, emphasizing administrative convenience, national unity, and economic viability.
    • Proposed criteria for state formation, including financial self-reliance, geographical proximity, administrative feasibility, and mutual consent among linguistic groups.

  • JVP Committee (1948):

    • Formed by the Congress with Nehru, Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya as members.
    • Warned against the risks of linguistic states but acknowledged public demand.
    • Suggested initiating the process with Andhra Pradesh to test linguistic reorganization.
    • Emphasized national unity, economic development, and administrative efficiency alongside linguistic aspirations.

3. Formation of Andhra Pradesh

The demand for a separate Telugu-speaking state intensified in the early 1950s. Potti Sriramulu, a freedom fighter, fasted for 56 days, sacrificing his life in 1952. His death triggered widespread protests, leading to the creation of Andhra Pradesh on October 1, 1953, as the first state formed based on language.

4. Fazal Ali Commission and State Reorganization

The success of Andhra Pradesh strengthened linguistic state movements across India. The central government formed the State Reorganization Commission (1953), chaired by Fazal Ali, with K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru as members.

  • Recommendations:

    • Linguistic considerations should guide reorganization, but other factors, such as administrative convenience, economic viability, and cultural unity, should also be considered.
    • States should be reorganized without compromising national unity.

  • States Reorganization Act (1956):

    • Abolished the earlier classification of states into Categories A, B, C, and D:
      • Category A: Provinces with legislative assemblies and councils (e.g., Bombay, Bengal, Madras).
      • Category B: Former princely states (e.g., Mysore, Rajasthan, Hyderabad).
      • Category C: Chief Commissioner’s provinces (e.g., Delhi, Himachal Pradesh).
      • Category D: Union territories (e.g., Andaman and Nicobar Islands).
    • Redefined state boundaries, creating states like Kerala, Karnataka, and Maharashtra.

5. State Reorganization Commission (SRC) Report – 1955

The State Reorganization Commission (SRC), appointed in 1953 under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali, was tasked with tackling the growing demands for the reorganization of Indian states, a challenge which arose after the country’s independence in 1947. The issue of state reorganization was critical because of India’s vast diversity in terms of language, culture, and geography. The formation of new states, primarily based on linguistic lines, was seen as a way to promote administrative efficiency, protect cultural identities, and foster national unity. However, the challenge before the Commission was to balance the linguistic and regional demands with broader considerations of national security and administrative efficiency.

The SRC deliberated for two years before presenting its findings, which were subsequently used to draft the State Reorganization Act of 1956, which reorganized the boundaries of states in India.

6. Major Recommendations of the State Reorganization Commission

  1. Linguistic and Cultural Considerations: While the SRC emphasized the importance of linguistic identity in the formation of states, it cautioned that linguistic reorganization should not be the sole criterion. The commission stressed the need to take into account factors such as economic viability, administrative efficiency, unity, and national security. This holistic approach was intended to create states that were not only linguistically homogenous but also economically viable and strategically sound.

  2. South India Reorganization: The Commission recommended the reorganization of South India based on major languages. For instance, the southern states were to be reorganized into Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam speaking regions. The boundaries of these new states were to be drawn based on linguistic majorities in districts and talukas. This reorganization was particularly important as it recognized the demand for states based on linguistic identity, which had been gaining momentum since the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953.

  3. Reorganization in North India: The SRC also recommended changes in North India, where large states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan were to be split into smaller, more manageable states. This would improve administrative efficiency, making governance more effective at the state level. The division of these states aimed to address regional imbalances and ensure better local governance.

  4. Opposition to Certain Demands: The SRC rejected the formation of a separate Sikh state (Punjab) and opposed the demand for splitting Mumbai on linguistic grounds. The Commission also did not support the idea of creating a separate state for tribal groups in Assam and Bihar, emphasizing the importance of unity and integration for the overall political stability of the country.

  5. Support for the Formation of Vidarbha: The Commission recommended the creation of a Vidarbha province, made up of Marathi-speaking areas, based on cultural and historical identity. However, it did not favor a split of the Bombay state or the formation of a separate Marathi-speaking region, opting instead for a more integrated approach.

7. Implementation of the State Reorganization Act of 1956

The State Reorganization Act of 1956, passed by the Indian Parliament, gave legal effect to the recommendations of the SRC. The Act resulted in the creation of 14 states and 6 Union Territories, which were drawn primarily along linguistic lines, though other factors such as administrative efficiency and security concerns were also considered.

The creation of new states included:

  • Andhra Pradesh: Merged the Telangana region of the princely state of Hyderabad with the Andhra region, forming the first state based on linguistic lines.
  • Kerala: Formed from the union of Travancore-Cochin and Malabar, both areas of the old Madras Presidency.
  • Mysore: The region was expanded to include Kannada-speaking areas from surrounding states like Bombay and Hyderabad.
  • Bombay: Expanded to incorporate Marathi-speaking areas of the princely state of Saurashtra, Kutch, and the Nagpur division of the old Hyderabad state.

This Act marked a significant step in India’s state reorganization, setting a precedent for linguistic states while ensuring national unity.

8. Formation of New States Post-1956

The process of state formation continued after the passage of the State Reorganization Act of 1956, and since then, India has witnessed the creation of 15 more states due to demands based on ethnic, linguistic, or regional considerations. This reflected the ongoing struggles of various regional groups for better governance and recognition of their cultural identities.

The states formed after 1956 include:

  1. Gujarat (1960): Created by splitting Bombay into two, mainly to address the demands of the Gujarati-speaking population.
  2. Nagaland (1963): Formed for the Naga ethnic groups, who had been struggling for autonomy.
  3. Haryana (1966): Created from Punjab, following demands for a separate state for the Hindi-speaking population.
  4. Himachal Pradesh (1971): Formed from areas of Punjab, with a focus on the hill communities.
  5. Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura (1972): These states were formed from parts of Assam to address the demands of the ethnic groups in the region.
  6. Sikkim (1975): Merged with India to become a state after political unrest and demands for autonomy.
  7. Mizoram (1986): Created after peace agreements were signed with insurgent groups.
  8. Arunachal Pradesh (1987): Formed after being a Union Territory, it became a state to fulfill the aspirations of its people.
  9. Uttarakhand (2000): Carved out of Uttar Pradesh, reflecting the demands for better governance in the hilly regions.
  10. Jharkhand (2000): Formed from Bihar to address the demands of tribal populations for a separate state.
  11. Chhattisgarh (2000): Created from Madhya Pradesh to improve governance and address regional demands.
  12. Telangana (2014): Split from Andhra Pradesh, marking the latest major reorganization, based on linguistic and cultural factors.

These new states were primarily created to address the needs of regional identity, underdevelopment, and demands for linguistic, cultural, and economic self-determination. While the reorganization brought administrative efficiency, it also led to political complexities and tensions in some cases.

IV. How many states formation or organisation of new state?

Despite the reorganization that occurred in the 20th century, new demands for states continue to emerge. Many of these demands stem from regional disparities in development, cultural differences, and desires for better governance. The creation of Telangana has further spurred such demands, with regions now seeking recognition based on linguistic, cultural, and developmental needs. Some of the current prominent demands for new states include:

  • Harit Pradesh: The demand for a new state carved out of western Uttar Pradesh, focusing on the agrarian and development issues of the region.
  • Coorg Pradesh: A demand from the Coorg region of Karnataka, citing cultural and historical distinctiveness.
  • Mithilanchal: A demand for a separate state in Bihar for the Maithili-speaking population.
  • Saurashtra: A demand from Gujarat, calling for a separate state for the Saurashtra region due to cultural and geographical differences.
  • Bundelkhand: A long-standing demand for a separate state from parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, citing economic backwardness.
  • Tulunadu: A demand from the Tulu-speaking regions in Karnataka and Kerala for a separate state.
  • Kaushal State: A demand from western Odisha for the formation of a state based on the Kausali language and regional identity.
  • Greater Cooch Behar: A demand for a separate state in West Bengal, citing cultural and linguistic differences.
  • Purvanchal: A demand for a separate state in eastern Uttar Pradesh due to economic backwardness.
  • Maru Pradesh: A demand from western Rajasthan for the formation of a new state due to the desert region's underdevelopment.
  • Vindhya Pradesh: A demand for the creation of a separate state from the Vindhya region in Madhya Pradesh, again due to developmental issues.

The continued emergence of new demands for states suggests that India’s federal system, though effective, still faces challenges in accommodating diverse regional and cultural aspirations.

Unlock Full Unit & Study Features

Sign in to highlight text, create saved notes, ask the AI Tutor questions, and access all units.

Sign InRegister