Language and Division of States in India, Debating the Legacy of Linguistic Reorganisation

Language and Division of States in India, Debating the Legacy of Linguistic Reorganisation

Why in News?

Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi has stirred a fresh political and academic debate by criticizing the linguistic basis for the reorganisation of Indian states. Speaking recently, he claimed that the creation of linguistic states had led to a large segment of the population turning into “second-class citizens.” This statement triggered widespread criticism, especially in a state like Tamil Nadu, where linguistic and cultural identity is deeply rooted. Ravi’s remarks have not only brought back the memories of the 1956 State Reorganisation but have also raised questions on the unity, integration, and political structure of modern India.

Introduction

The linguistic reorganisation of states in India in 1956 remains one of the most significant events in the history of Indian federalism. The basis for redrawing state boundaries was language, an approach that scholars have long credited with promoting national unity, administrative efficiency, and better governance. The current debate, however, has re-ignited concerns over whether this linguistic division has indeed achieved its goals or has instead resulted in further division and discrimination.

Governor R.N. Ravi’s remarks have questioned the long-held belief that linguistic reorganisation was essential for India’s unity, arguing instead that it fostered separatism and second-class citizenship among diverse linguistic groups.

The Situation Before the First Reorganisation

When India became a republic on January 26, 1950, its internal structure was a patchwork of Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D states:

• Part A states included nine former governor’s provinces under British India with elected legislatures and governors.

• Part B states consisted of princely states or groups of princely states, which were merged and given their own elected legislatures.

• Part C states were mainly commissioner’s provinces and some princely states governed by the Centre.

• Part D was a single territory – the Andaman and Nicobar Islands – under direct central administration.

This division was inherited from the colonial structure, with limited representation or attention to linguistic or cultural homogeneity. It reflected the British system of governance, where control and administrative convenience mattered more than regional aspirations or identities.

The Trigger: Potti Sriramulu’s Death and Andhra Movement

The demand for linguistic states gained momentum during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Among the most notable movements was the one in Andhra for a separate Telugu-speaking state.

Potti Sriramulu, a Gandhian and freedom fighter, undertook a hunger strike demanding the creation of a Telugu-majority Andhra state. His fast-unto-death began in October 1952 and lasted 56 days, eventually resulting in his death on December 15, 1952. His martyrdom triggered widespread protests and riots across Andhra, forcing the Government of India to concede.

As a result, Andhra State was carved out of the Madras Presidency on October 1, 1953. This was the first major state to be formed solely on linguistic lines, setting the stage for the national debate on redrawing India’s internal boundaries.

The Reorganisation Commission and the 1956 Reorganisation

Following the Andhra episode, the demand for linguistic states became a national issue. The Government of India formed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953 under the chairmanship of Justice Fazl Ali, with members H.N. Kunzru and K.M. Panikkar.

The Commission submitted its report in October 1955, and based on its recommendations, the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 was enacted. This landmark act reorganised India’s states largely on linguistic lines and created:

• 14 States

• 6 Union Territories (UTs)

Notably, large provinces like Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab were redrawn, with borders adjusted to reflect linguistic majorities. States like Kerala (for Malayalam speakers), Karnataka (Kannada), and Maharashtra (Marathi) came into being.

The goal was to ensure better governance, cultural autonomy, and easier communication between the state governments and their people.

Governor Ravi’s Criticism of Linguistic States

In his recent statement, Governor R.N. Ravi said:

“In my own state Tamil Nadu… People of different languages – Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Gujarati, Marathi, Hindi… they all live together, but the moment it became a linguistic state, more than one-third of the population became second-class citizens. It happened in other parts too.”

He argued that the linguistic division has had a divisive impact, pushing minorities to the margins and creating exclusivist political cultures. He suggested that rather than promoting national unity, linguistic reorganisation may have entrenched regionalism and discrimination.

Arguments in Support of Linguistic Reorganisation

Despite Governor Ravi’s claims, many constitutional scholars, historians, and political thinkers have defended linguistic reorganisation. Key arguments include:

1. Administrative Efficiency: People governing and being governed in the same language eased administration, especially in a vast and diverse country.

2. Cultural Identity: Language is closely tied to cultural identity. Recognising linguistic boundaries helped preserve cultural heritage.

3. Political Representation: Linguistic states enabled better representation of local voices in the legislature.

4. Integration: Contrary to fears of disintegration, linguistic states are credited with integrating various regions into the Indian Union peacefully.

Historian Ramachandra Guha calls the 1956 reorganisation a “success story” that helped stabilize post-independence India. He says:

“Their [scholars’] conclusion was that the creation of linguistic states had unified the country, not broken it apart.”

SRC’s Balancing Approach

Interestingly, the SRC did not blindly endorse linguistic division. It recommended that linguistic reorganisation be balanced with administrative convenience and national interest.

For example, the Commission opposed merging Vidarbha with Maharashtra and Goa with Maharashtra, stating these moves could harm regional identities. Similarly, the idea of a bilingual Bombay state (for both Marathi and Gujarati speakers) failed to resolve tensions and led to further conflict.

Ultimately, Bombay was split into Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960 after intense protests by both linguistic communities.

Language is Not the Only Criterion

Even in 1953, the Union Government made it clear that language would not be the only factor for state formation. The Parliamentary resolution stated:

“While language is important, reorganisation must be based on a broad understanding of administrative efficiency, national unity, and socio-economic needs.”

This multi-dimensional approach aimed to address fears of disintegration or excessive regionalism.

Emergence of Regionalism: A Real Concern?

Governor Ravi’s comments highlight the growing concern about regionalism, where sub-national identities start taking precedence over national identity.

Indeed, some states have developed strong linguistic-nationalist movements. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has consistently resisted central government directives involving Hindi or imposition of a ‘one-nation-one-language’ policy.

But experts argue that such assertiveness is not inherently harmful. India’s federal structure allows for such diversity and provides institutional mechanisms to balance it.

Has It Made People “Second-Class Citizens”?

Governor Ravi’s remark that linguistic minorities feel like “second-class citizens” has drawn sharp criticism. Critics argue:

• All states in India have linguistic minorities, and India’s Constitution guarantees them the right to use their language and preserve their culture (Article 29 and 30).

• Discrimination is often more due to economic, political, or caste-based marginalisation than linguistic identity.

• The presence of linguistic minorities in any state is natural and cannot be eradicated, but that does not mean the state has failed in its constitutional duties.

Conclusion

The reorganisation of states on linguistic lines in 1956 was a historic step aimed at building a united yet diverse Indian Union. While the debate continues about the outcomes of this experiment, it is clear that language, culture, and identity remain deeply sensitive issues.

Governor R.N. Ravi’s statement has reopened a necessary conversation on the federal structure, regional integration, and the need for inclusive governance.

Rather than undoing linguistic states, the focus should be on ensuring that all linguistic groups – majority or minority – feel equally respected, protected, and empowered within the Indian federal framework.

India’s unity lies in celebrating its diversity, not suppressing it.

Five Questions and Answers

Q1. What recent comment by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi sparked controversy?
A1. He criticized the creation of linguistic states, claiming it turned linguistic minorities into “second-class citizens” and fostered regionalism.

Q2. What was the role of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC)?
A2. Formed in 1953 under Justice Fazl Ali, it was tasked with recommending the reorganisation of Indian states. Its report in 1955 led to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Q3. What incident led to the creation of the first linguistic state in India?
A3. The death of Potti Sriramulu during a hunger strike for a Telugu-speaking state led to the creation of Andhra State in 1953.

Q4. What were the main arguments in favour of linguistic reorganisation?
A4. It improved administrative efficiency, strengthened cultural identity, enhanced political representation, and fostered national unity.

Q5. What does the Indian Constitution say about linguistic diversity?
A5. Articles 29 and 30 protect the rights of minorities to conserve their language and culture, ensuring equal treatment and opportunities for all linguistic groups.