Language & division of states

Background Context

• Triggering Occasion: TN Governor R. N. Ravi criticized the linguistic foundation of state formation, arguing it led to second-class citizenship for some populations.
• Core Debate: Whether or not the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956 was a divisive or unifying pressure for India.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Points )

India Earlier than First Reorganisation (1956)

• Twin System of Administration:
  • British India: Immediately administered provinces.
  • Princely States: Oblique rule by native rulers.
• Constitutional Classification (1950):
  • Half A: Former British provinces, ruled by elected legislatures.
  • Half B: Former princely states, ruled by Rajpramukhs.
  • Half C: Commissioners’ provinces + some princely states.
  • Half D: Andaman & Nicobar Islands (ruled by the Centre).
• Whole States/UTs on 26 January 1950: 28 states + 6 Union Territories.

Linguistic Reorganisation of States (1956)

• Key Set off: Calls for for states primarily based on linguistic and cultural id surged post-Independence.
• Main Catalyst: Potti Sriramulu’s dying (1952) throughout a quick for a Telugu-speaking state (Andhra) sparked widespread protests → creation of Andhra State.
• Political Response:
  • Fazl Ali Fee (SRC) shaped in 1953.
  • Submitted report: 30 September 1955.
  • Beneficial reorganisation of India into 16 states & 3 UTs primarily based on administrative effectivity + linguistic affinity.

Information Highlights: After 1956 Reorganisation

• States created primarily based on dominant languages:
  • Andhra Pradesh (Telugu)
  • Kerala (Malayalam)
  • Karnataka (Kannada)
  • Tamil Nadu (Tamil)
  • Maharashtra (Marathi)
  • Gujarat (Gujrati)
• States that have been reorganised or merged:
  • Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, and so on.
• Half A, B, C, D classifications abolished.
• New construction: Unified system with elected legislatures and clearer administrative boundaries.

Key Arguments For Linguistic Reorganisation

• Unity By Identification:
  • Linguistic states ensured that various language teams felt included, stopping alienation.
• Nehru’s Pragmatic Method:
  • Regardless of early warning, Nehru ultimately supported linguistic states to handle unrest and improve governance.
• Democratic Lodging:
  • Recognised linguistic identities as a part of a plural democratic ethos.
• Profitable Mannequin:
  • Scholar Ramachandra Guha and others be aware that linguistic reorganisation helped unify slightly than divide India.

Governor R. N. Ravi’s Criticism (2025)

• Core Concern: Linguistic division has made many really feel like second-class residents.
• Quote: “In my very own state Tamil Nadu… folks reside collectively however as soon as it turned a linguistic state, one-third turned second-class.”
• Implication: Means that linguistic politics led to exclusion, significantly for linguistic minorities in every state.

Counterpoints to Governor’s View

• SRC’s Balanced Method:
  • Rejected inflexible linguistic determinism; argued for unity & cultural stability.
• Historic Complexity:
  • Bombay and Punjab noticed violent protests throughout their linguistic splits (e.g. Bombay’s bilingual state demand).
• State Unity Past Language:
  • Instance: Maharashtra and Gujarat, regardless of being cut up, remained steady politically and economically.

Broader Implications for Indian Federalism

• Language as a Unifying Precept:
  • Whereas controversial, it has remained core to India’s id administration.
• Limits of Linguistic Logic:
  • Not utilized uniformly — e.g., Punjab-Haryana division additionally concerned non secular and regional issues.
• Ongoing Challenges:
  • Calls for for brand spanking new states (e.g., Gorkhaland, Vidarbha) nonetheless persist.
  • Want to handle intra-state linguistic minorities’ rights.

Conclusion: A Combined Legacy

• Reorganisation of 1956 was a realistic response to post-Independence challenges.
• Regardless of criticisms, it largely succeeded in:
  • Lowering secessionist tendencies.
  • Making certain regional illustration.
  • Preserving nationwide unity amidst cultural range.
• Nonetheless, inside exclusions and new grievances require renewed consideration inside federal coverage frameworks.