The Linguistic Reorganisation of States, A Historical Necessity or a Source of Division?

The Linguistic Reorganisation of States, A Historical Necessity or a Source of Division?

Why in News?

Recently, Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi reignited a long-standing debate on the linguistic reorganisation of Indian states by criticising the existing framework. At an event in Gandhinagar, the Governor remarked that linguistic divisions had led to the creation of “second-class citizens,” particularly in his own state. This statement has stirred political and academic debates, prompting many scholars and constitutional experts to revisit the significance and consequences of the 1956 reorganisation of Indian states on linguistic lines.

Introduction

The linguistic reorganisation of states remains one of the most defining moments in India’s post-independence history. In 1956, the Indian government restructured its internal boundaries with the goal of creating more culturally and administratively coherent entities. This effort was not only a response to popular demands but also an attempt to secure national unity in a newly independent and highly diverse nation.

The Governor’s recent remarks have brought the focus back to whether linguistic divisions have truly served India’s unity or deepened regional divides. To understand this issue in depth, one must trace the roots of linguistic reorganisation, examine the motivations, understand the criticisms and praises of the move, and evaluate whether the vision behind it still holds relevance in contemporary India.

Key Historical Background

Before the First Reorganisation

Prior to Independence, the British governed India through a dual administrative system comprising directly controlled provinces and princely states. The boundaries of these administrative units bore no relation to linguistic or cultural identities. Instead, they were carved based on colonial needs, political agreements, or geographical expediency.

By 1947, India inherited this mosaic of administrative divisions — 565 princely states and 17 provinces — and had to integrate them into a united republic. Between 1947 and 1950, these states were broadly classified into four categories:

1. Part A States – Former governors’ provinces of British India.

2. Part B States – Princely states or groups thereof.

3. Part C States – Chief Commissioners’ provinces and some smaller princely states.

4. Part D – Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Each type had its own governance framework and degree of autonomy. The political complexity and cultural mismatches across these divisions caused mounting demands for a new framework based on linguistic and cultural coherence.

Demand for Reorganisation: Rise of Linguistic Identity

Even before Independence, the Indian National Congress had recognised the importance of linguistic identity. The party promised to reorganise the provinces based on language after achieving independence. However, following the trauma of Partition, the government put this plan on hold fearing further disintegration.

Despite this, public pressure mounted. A turning point came with the hunger strike of Potti Sriramulu, a Gandhian and former railway employee who demanded the creation of a separate Telugu-speaking state — Andhra. His death after a 58-day fast in December 1952 led to widespread protests and violence. The Centre was compelled to form the new Andhra State in 1953, carved out of the Telugu-speaking parts of the then Madras State.

This incident forced the Indian government to take the demand for linguistic states seriously. Subsequently, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was formed in 1953, chaired by Justice Fazl Ali, with members K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru.

The Reorganisation of 1956

Recommendations of the SRC

The SRC submitted its report on September 30, 1955, recommending the reorganisation of India into 16 states and 3 union territories. Their recommendations were based not only on language but also considered administrative efficiency, cultural unity, and geographical cohesion.

The core principles behind linguistic reorganisation included:

• Democratic representation: People governed by those who spoke their language.

• Cultural preservation: Safeguarding regional languages and traditions.

• Administrative ease: Managing states where the majority spoke a common language.

The reorganisation came into effect on November 1, 1956, marking a new chapter in Indian federalism.

Map Transformation

Before 1956, states like Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad, and others included people speaking several different languages. After reorganisation, these composite states were split into more homogeneous linguistic units.

For example:

• Bombay became the bilingual Bombay state (eventually split into Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960).

• Punjab continued to demand separation until the creation of Haryana in 1966.

• Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh were created to represent the Malayalam, Kannada, and Telugu speakers respectively.

The Union Territories were created for areas with administrative significance but lacking linguistic or demographic uniformity.

Criticism by TN Governor R. N. Ravi

At a recent event, Governor R. N. Ravi criticised the linguistic division, stating:

“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, one third of the population became a second-class citizen.”

This statement triggered a backlash from political leaders and scholars. Critics accused the Governor of undermining the idea of federalism and regional pride. Supporters argued he was voicing a growing concern — that linguistic divisions may reinforce regionalism at the cost of national integration.

Counterarguments and the Case for Linguistic States

Historians and political analysts have defended the 1956 reorganisation for several reasons:

1. Unity in Diversity: By allowing states to function in the language of the majority, the sense of alienation and cultural marginalisation was reduced.

2. Administrative Efficiency: Functioning in a single language streamlined governance and public service delivery.

3. Democratic Inclusion: People could interact with state institutions in their own language, thereby strengthening democratic participation.

4. Preventing Conflict: Recognising linguistic identities reduced secessionist tendencies. For example, the creation of Andhra diffused tensions in the Telugu-speaking population.

Political scientist Granville Austin argued that the reorganisation was a “bold experiment in democratic federalism” that helped manage the challenges of Indian diversity.

The Bombay Case Study

A key example was the case of Bombay State, which the SRC recommended be split based on linguistic lines. However, the Centre hesitated, and violence erupted in support of the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement and the Mahagujarat Movement.

Eventually, in 1960, the state was split into Maharashtra (Marathi-speaking) and Gujarat (Gujarati-speaking), calming tensions and setting an example of how linguistic accommodation could maintain peace.

The Lingering Challenges

Despite the success of the 1956 reorganisation, some challenges remain:

• Intra-state linguistic minorities: In many states, people speaking non-dominant languages still face exclusion.

• Regionalism over nationalism: In some regions, linguistic pride has transformed into political chauvinism.

• Demands for new states: Movements for statehood based on culture and identity continue (e.g., Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand).

However, most experts agree that linguistic states have not fragmented India — rather, they have stabilised it by giving space to local identities within a national framework.

A Success Story According to Scholars

Historian Ramachandra Guha, in his writings, noted that critics had predicted the linguistic reorganisation would divide India. However, the opposite happened.

“The formation of states on linguistic lines has, in fact, helped India survive as a nation. Language has not been a basis for secession but for integration.”

The reorganisation allowed people to take pride in their identity while remaining a part of the Indian Union.

Conclusion

The linguistic reorganisation of Indian states in 1956 was a pragmatic and democratic response to a deeply diverse nation. It was not without challenges, but over time, it helped strengthen India’s federal structure and democratic ethos.

Governor R. N. Ravi’s remarks have opened an important debate — one that demands both historical understanding and contemporary reflection. As India continues to evolve, it must balance linguistic pride with national unity, ensuring no citizen feels like a second-class participant in the democratic journey.

Five Questions and Answers

1. Why did India undergo linguistic reorganisation in 1956?
To accommodate the linguistic and cultural identities of various regions, improve administrative efficiency, and reduce post-independence tensions.

2. What was the role of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC)?
The SRC, led by Justice Fazl Ali, was formed in 1953 to study and recommend how states should be reorganised. It submitted its report in 1955 suggesting the creation of 14 states and 6 union territories.

3. What did TN Governor R. N. Ravi recently say about linguistic states?
He criticised linguistic divisions, claiming they have created second-class citizens, particularly in Tamil Nadu.

4. What was the impact of the reorganisation on states like Bombay?
It led to the creation of Maharashtra and Gujarat, reducing regional tensions and fulfilling long-pending linguistic demands.

5. Has the linguistic reorganisation helped or hurt Indian unity?
Most scholars believe it has helped by allowing cultural expression and regional autonomy, while maintaining national integrity.