Page |1

REORGANIZATION OF STATES – THE GROWING COMPLEX

POLITICAL SCIENCE

STUDENT NAME: DIVIJA PIDUDU

ROLL NUMBER: 18LLB064

SEMESTER I

FACULTY NAME: Prof. T.Y. NIRMALA DEVI

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

OCTOBER 2018
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Political Science
Prof. T Nirmala Devi for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project regarding –
Reorganization of states – The growing complex. I have tried my level best to collect
information about the project in various possible ways to depict the clear picture about the given
project topic.
 Page |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………….………………..…. 4

Scope of Article 3…………………………………………………………….…………..…… 6

Criterion for the formation of new states………………………………………………………8

Political integration of India……………………………………………………………………10

Accession of princely states…………………………………………………….………………. 12

Reorganization of states on linguistic basis…………………………………………………….. 16

Advantages of reorganization of states on linguistic basis…................................................. 19

Disadvantages of reorganization of states on linguistic basis…………………………………... 20

Suggestions…………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 22

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….……….. 24
 Page |4

INTRODUCTION

The constitution of India is the supreme law of our country and hence every law enacted by the
government of India must confirm to it. We all know that the constitution of India came into
effect on 26th January, 1950. Our constitution avows the Union of India to be a sovereign,
democratic republic, assuring it’s citizens of justice, equality, and liberty to promote among them
all fraternity. In 1976, by constitutional amendments, the words socialist, secular and integrity
and fraternity were added. Our constitution is the longest written constitution of any sovereign
country in the entire world. It contains three hundred and ninety five articles, twenty two parts,
twelve schedules, and ninety four amendments. There are totally 117,369 words in our
constitution. It was written in English. It was also translated into Hindi language officially.
Amendments to the constitution can be made by the parliament. Yet the hon’ble Supreme court
of India held that not every constitutional amendment is permissible. An amendment should
respect the basic structure of the constitution, which is immutable. The procedure is laid out in
the Article 368.

One of the special features of Union of India is that the Union is indestructible but the power
conferred on parliament includes the power to form a new state or union territory by uniting part
of any state or union territory to other state or Union territory. The identity of states can be
altered or even expunged by the parliament. The constituent assembly declined a motion in
concluding stages to designate India as Federation of states.

Article one elucidates India a Union of states. These states are specified in the first schedule of
the constitution. First schedule lists the states and territories of India and also lists any change to
the borders of the nation.

Article 2, 3, and 4 of the Indian constitution1 enable the parliament by law to admit a new state,
increase, decrease the area of any state.

The authors of Indian constitution, unlike the current generation of Indians, did not believe that
the states, districts and mandals with in India are static, unchanging and permanent. Maturity to

1
Constitutional law of India, Dr JN Pandey, Central Law agency, 54th edition, Chapter 11, Pg No. 525 to 531
 Page |5

accept that states would evolve and change, and hence made provisions for creation of new states
in Indian union.

Article 3 of Indian constitution addresses the topic of new states and alteration of areas,
boundaries or names of the existing states. It says: parliament may by law

1. Form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more
states or parts of states or uniting any territory to a part of any state.
2. Increase the area of any state
3. Diminish the area of any state
4. Alter the boundaries of any state
5. Alter the name of any state

Provided that no bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either house of parliament except on
the recommendation of the president and unless, where the proposal contained in the bill affects
the area, boundaries are name of any of the states, the bill has been referred by the president to
the legislature of that state for expressing it’s views there on within such period as may be
specified in the reference or with in such further period as the president may allow the period so
specified or allowed has expired explanation in this article, in clauses (a) to (e) state includes a
union territory, but in the proviso, state does not include a union territory explanation. The power
conferred on parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new state or union territory
by uniting a part of any state or union territory to any other state or union territory.
 Page |6

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 3

The states and the territories there of after the amendment of article 1 (2) reads: state and the
territories there of shall be as specified in the first schedule. The constitution contemplates
changes of the territorial limits of the constituent states and there is no guarantee about their
territorial integrity2.

The intention seems to be given an opportunity to the state legislature to express it’s view with in
the time allowed. If the state legislature fails to avail itself of the opportunity, such failure would
not invalidate the introduction of the bill. There is nothing in the proviso to indicate that
parliament must accept or act upon the view of the state legislature. Indeed two state legislatures
may express totally divergent views. All that is contemplated is that the parliament should have
before it the views of the state legislature to the proposals contained in the bill and then be free to
deal with the bill in any manner it thinks fit and following the usual practice and procedure
prescribed by and under the rules of business 3. What is to be referred to the state legislature is the
proposal contained in the bill. It is not necessary that every time an amendment of the proposal
contained in the bill is moved and accepted, a fresh reference should be made to the state
legislature.

Parliament has been vested with the exclusive power of admitting or establishing new states,
increasing or diminishing the area of an existing state or altering it’s boundaries, the legislatures
of the states concerned having only the right to an expression of views on the proposals. For
making such territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions governing
constitutional amendments.

Article 3 (a) enables parliament to form a new state and this can be done either by the separation
of the territory from any state or by uniting two or more states are parts of states, or by uniting
any territory to a part of any state. There can be no doubt that foreign territory which after the
acquisition becomes a part of the territory of India under article 1 (3) (c) is included in the last

2
India Constitution Art 1 (2) (e)
3
BabulalParathe V. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 S.C. 51(53-54) 1960 1 SCR 605: 1960 S.C.J. 107.
 Page |7

clause of article 3 (a). Thus article 3 (a) deals with the problem of the formation of a new state
and indicates the modes by which a new state can be formed 4.

Article 3 (b) provides that a law may be passed to increase the area of any state. This increase
may be incidental to the re organization of states under Article 3 (b) may have been taken out
from the area of any state may also be the result of adding to any state any part of the territory
specified in article 1 (3) (c). Article 3 (d) refers to the alteration of the boundaries of any state
and such alterations would be the consequence of any of the adjustments specified in article 3
(a), (b), (c). Article 3 (e) refers to the alteration of the name of any state.

In RC Poudyal and Ors V Union of India: Article was discussed and it was observed that: it
cannot be predicted that the article confers on parliament an unreviewable and unfiltered power
immune from judicial scrutiny. The power is limited by the fundamentals of the Indian
constitutionalism and those terms and conditions which the parliament may deem fit to impose,
cannot be inconsistent and irreconcilable with the foundational principles of the constitution and
cannot violate or subvert the constitutional scheme. The validity of a statute is to be tested by the
constitutional power of the legislature at the time of it’s enactment by that legislature and if thus
tested it is beyond the legislative power it is not rendered valid.

4
Ref by president of India under Article 143(1), AIR S.C 845(859), (1960) 3 SCR 250; (1960) S.C.J. 933
 Page |8

CRITERION FOR THE FORMATION OF NEW STATES

The demands for the formation of linguistic states began in august 1946, little more than a month
after the elections to the constituent assembly. Pattabhi Sita Ramyya, a member of the congress
working committee and congress president 1948, called for the formation of linguistic states and
said that the whole problem must be taken up as the first and foremost problem to be solved by
the constituent assembly.

During the freedom movement, the Indian national congress had favored the provincial division
of the country on linguistic basis. The Nehru committee of all parties conference in 1928, said
language as a rule corresponds with a special variety of culture, tradition and literature in the
linguistic area all these factors will help in the general progress of the province. However, after
attaining independence the top leaders of the congress were not unanimous on provincial
division of the country on linguistic basis.

The linguistic provinces commission also known as Dhar commission, which was appointed by
the government on june, 17, 1948 at the recommendation of constituent assembly considered it in
advisable to re organize the provinces mainly on linguistic basis. It suggested that geographical
continuity, and financial self sufficiency, administrative convenience, capacity for future
development should be generally the recognized test for re organization of provinces.

Similarly, the JVP committee, that was appointed in the same year by the Indian national
congress in it’s finding sounded a caution against linguistic principles and shifted it’s emphasis
on security, unity an economic prosperity of the country for re organization of states. The JVP
report, submitted on April 1st 1949, contained a perceptive analysis of the situation, and two of
it’s sentences reflect it’s own difficulties as well as the dilemma racking India: we feel that the
present is not an opportune movement for the formation of new provinces. At the members also
believed that if public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as democrats, have to submit
it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole 5.

5
Indian National Congress, Report of the linguistic Provinces Committee, pp.9 and 15
 Page |9

In the absence of unanimity the then central leadership on provincial division on linguistic
consideration, reorganization of states was kept in abeyance for some time. However, Sri ramulu,
a prominent congress leader from telugu speaking region of the then madras province went on
fast unto death from October 19 1952 demanding a separate state for telugu speaking people.

Large scale violence that followed his death after 56 days of fasting on December 15 1952,
compelled the government to announce the creation of the first state on linguistic consideration
and Andhra Pradesh was formally created on October 1 1953. This opened a flood gate of
demands for creation of new states and the government finally appointed a state re organization
commission 1954 with Justice Fazal Ali as chairman and Hriduyanath Kunzru and K M Panikkar
as members. By and large the SRC recommended creation of states taking into consideration the
preservation of the unity and security of the nation, linguistic and cultural affinity of the people
and financial, economic and administrative viability.
 P a g e | 10

POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF INDIA

The political integration of India established a united nation for the first time in centuries from a
plethora of princely states, colonial provinces and possessions. Despite partition, a new India
united peoples of various geographic, economic, linguistic and religious backgrounds. The
process began in 1947 with the unification of 565 princely states through a critical series of
political campaigns, sensitive diplomacy and military conflicts. India was transformed after
independence through political upheaval and ethnic discontent and continues to evolve as a
federal republic natural to its diversity. The process is defined by sensitive religious conflicts
between Hindus and Muslims diverse ethnic populations as well as by geo political rivalry and
military conflicts with Pakistan and China.

When the Indian independence movement succeeded in ending the British Raj on August 15,
1947, India’s leaders faced the prospect of inheriting a nation fragmented between medieval era
kingdoms and provinces organized by colonial powers. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, one of India’s
most respected freedom fighters, as the new Minister of Home Affairs was the man responsible
for employing political negotiations backed with the option of military force to ensure the
primacy of the central government and of the constitution then being drafted.

India’s constitution6 pronounced it a Union of States, exemplifying a federal system with a

strong central government. Over the course of the two decades following Independence the
government of India reclaimed the possessions of the French empire and Portugal. But the trend
changed as popular movements arose for the recognition of regional languages, and attention for
the special issues of diverse regions. A backlash ensued against centralization, the lack of
attention and respect for regional issues resulted in cultural alienation and violent separatism.
The Central government attempted to balance the use of force on separatist extremists with the
creation of new states in order to reduce the pressures on the Indian state. The map has been
redrawn as the nature of the federation transforms. Today, the republic of India is a Union of 28
states and 7 territories.

6
Constitutional law of India, Dr JN Pandey, Central Law agency, 54th edition, Chapter 11, Pg No. 525 to 531
 P a g e | 11

THE STATES

There were between 570 and 600 princely states which enjoyed special recognition by and
relationship with the British Raj. The British government announced in the Indian independence
Act 1947 that with the transfer of power on August 15, 1947, all of these states would be freed of
their obligations to the British empire, and thus would be free to join either India or Pakistan, or
to choose to become independent. The kingdom of Nepal was an independent treaty ally, and
became a fully sovereign nation. The kingdom of Bhutan would dissolve its protectorate
relationship similarly, but via treaty in 1949, India would become the guarantor of its security.
The kingdom of Sikkim became a protectorate of India. Apart from a few which were
geographically unalienable from Pakistan, approximately 565 princely states were clearly linked
to India, the largest nation7.

The largest of them included Hyderabad and Kashmir, while 222 states existed in the Kathiawar
peninsula alone. The states comprised more than half of the territory of India and a large
proportion of its population. It was believed that without a single federal structure India would be
susceptible to political, military and social conflicts. The British had taken control of India
piecemeal and over the course of a century most of the states had signed different treaties at
different times with the British East India Company and the British Crown, giving the British Raj
varying degrees of control over foreign, inter-state relations and defense. Indian monarchs
accepted the suzerainty of Britain in India paid tribute and allowed British authorities to collect
taxes and appropriate finances, and in many cases, manage the affairs of governance via the
Raj’s political department. The princes were represented in the imperial legislative council and
the chamber of princes and under law enjoyed relationships described as that of allies, not
subordinates. Thus the princes maintained a channel of influence with the British Raj.

7
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E6D33255-8F9C-4F9E-B3F9-7359D9D25FE9.pdf
[ Last accessed on 20th, Oct, 2018, 11.00 PM ]
 P a g e | 12

ACCESSION OF THE PRINCELY STATES

From June to August 15, 1947, 562 of the 565 India linked states signed the instrument of
accession. Despite dramatic political exchanges, Travancore, Jodhpur and Indore signed on time.
Patel was also willing to take on other Indian leaders for the sake of accomplishing the job. The
privy purse pledge was offensive to many socialists, and Prime Minister Nehru had complained
of Patel by-passing the Cabinet to make the pledge to the Princes. Patel described the pledge as
an essential guarantee of the Government's intentions, and it was duly incorporated into the
Constitution. Patel defended their right to retain property and contest elections for public office,
and today, especially in states like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, descendants of the formerly
royal families play an important role in politics.

However, in the strenuous process of integration three major conflicts arose that posed a major
threat to the Union:

JUNAGADH

Junagadh was a state on the southwestern end of Gujarat, with the principalities of Manavadar,
Mangrol and Babriawad. The Arabian Sea stood between it and Pakistan, and over 80% of its
population was Hindu. Possibly on the advice of his Dewan, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, who was
prominent in the Muslim League, the Nawab of Junagadh Mahabhat Khan acceded to Pakistan.
The accession was announced on August 15, 1947, when Pakistan had come into being. When
Pakistan confirmed the acceptance of the accession in September, the Government of India was
outraged that Muhammad Ali Jinnah would accept the accession of Junagadh despite his
argument that Hindus and Muslims could not live as one nation. Patel believed that if Junagadh
was permitted to go to Pakistan, it would exacerbate the communal tension already simmering in
Gujarat.

Patel gave Pakistan time to void the accession and hold a plebiscite in Junagadh. Samaldas
Gandhi formed a democratic government-in-exile, the Arzi Hukumat of the people of Junagadh.
Eventually, Patel ordered the forcible annexation of Junagadh's three principalities. Junagadh’s
court, facing financial collapse and no possibility of resisting Indian forces, first invited the Arzi
Hukumat, and later the government of India to accept the reins. A plebiscite was conducted in
December, in which approximately 99% of the people chose India over Pakistan.
 P a g e | 13

KASHMIR

Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu, was equally hesitant about acceding to either India. He felt his
mostly Muslim subjects would not like joining a Hindu majority nation or Pakistan an
eventuality which he would personally prefer to avoid. He personally believed that Kashmir
could exercise its right to stay independent, a belief in which he was backed by Sheikh Abdullah,
the leader of Kashmir's largest political party, the national conference. However, Pakistan
coveted the Himalayan kingdom, while Indian leaders including Gandhi and Nehru hoped that
the kingdom would join India. Hari Singh signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan, but did
not make his decision by August 15.

Pakistan concerned about the lack of movement on the front attempted to force the issue by
permitting the incursions of tribal from the North-West frontier, followed in September 1947 by
regular forces. India offered military assistance to the Kashmiri government which was totally
without an organized military, such assistance, however, was conditional on the Maharaja
signing the instrument of accession, which he then did. By this time the raiders were close to the
capital of Srinagar. Indian troops secured Jammu, Srinagar and the valley itself during the first
Kashmir war, but the intense fighting flagged with the onset of winter, which made much of the
state impassable. Prime Minister Nehru, recognizing the degree of international attention brought
to bear on the dispute, declared a ceasefire and sought U.N. arbitration with the promise of a
plebiscite. Patel had argued against both, describing Kashmir as a bilateral dispute and its
accession as justified by international law8. Patel had feared that the U.N.’s involvement would
stall the process and allow Pakistan to reinforce its presence in Kashmir; in addition, it was far
from clear, which way a plebiscite would go. In 1957, Kashmir was officially integrated into the
Union, but with special provisions made for it in the Constitution’s Article 370. The
northwestern portion that remained under control of the Pakistan army is today Pakistan
administered Kashmir. In 1962, China occupied Aksai Chin, the northeastern region bordering
Ladakh.

8
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E6D33255-8F9C-4F9E-B3F9-7359D9D25FE9.pdf
[Last accessed on 20th, Oct, 2018, 11.00 PM ]
 P a g e | 14

HYDERABAD

Hyderabad was a state that stretched over 82,000 square miles in the center of India and with a
population of 16 million, 85% of whom were Hindus. Its ruler was Nizam Usman Ali Khan, and
had always enjoyed a special relationship with the British Raj. When the British ruled out
dominion status, the Nizam set his mind upon independence, under the influence of Muslim
radical Qasim Razvi. Without Hyderabad, a large gap would exist in the center of the united
nation envisioned by Indian nationalists and the Indian public. Patel believed that Hyderabad was
looking to Pakistan for support, and could pose a constant threat to India's security in the future.
Patel argued that Hyderabad was essential for India’s unity, but he agreed with Lord
Mountbatten that force should not be used immediately. A Standstill Agreement was signed an
agreement made with no other princely state without an explicit assurance of eventual accession.
However, Patel required Hyderabad promise it would not join Pakistan. Mountbatten and India's
agent K.M. Munshi engaged the Nizam’s envoys into negotiations. However, no deal was
reached that both sides found acceptable, and the Nizam alleged that India had created a
blockade. India, on the other hand, charged that Hyderabad was receiving arms from Pakistan,
and that the Nizam was allowing Razvi’s Razakar militants to intimidate Hindus and attack
villages in India.

Lord Mountbatten crafted a proposal called the heads of agreement, which called for the
disbandment of the Razakars and restriction of the Hyderabad army, for the Nizam to hold a
plebiscite and elections for a constituent assembly, and for eventual accession. While India
would control Hyderabad’s foreign affairs, the deal allowed Hyderabad to set up a parallel
government and delay accession. Hyderabad’s envoys assured Mountbatten that the Nizam
would sign the agreement, and he lobbied Patel hard to sign for India. Patel signed the deal but
retained his belief that the Nizam would not accept it. The Nizam, taking Razvi’s advice
dismissed the plan. In September 1948, Patel made it clear in Cabinet meetings that he intended
to use force against the Nizam. He obtained the agreement of the new governor general
Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari and prime minister Nehru after some contentious debate, and
 P a g e | 15

under operation Polo, sent the army to invade Hyderabad. Between September 13 and 18th,
Indian troops fought Hyderabad troops and Razakars and defeated them. Patel retained the
Nizam as the head of state as a conciliatory gesture. The main aim of Mountbatten and Nehru in
attempting to achieve integration through diplomacy had been to avoid an outbreak of Hindu
Muslim violence. Patel insisted that if Hyderabad was allowed to continue its independence, the
prestige of the government would be tarnished and then neither Hindus nor Muslims would feel
secure in its realm. The successful annexation of Hyderabad was praised by many Indian Muslim
leaders, and there were no episodes of civil violence.
 P a g e | 16

REORGANISATION OF STATES ON LINGUISTIC BASIS

The movement to create states based on language gained momentum in the early 1950s starting
with the demand for a separate state for Telugu speaking people. In 1952, freedom fighter and
Gandhian Potti Sriramulu started his fast demanding the creation of Andhra Pradesh consisting
of the Telugu speaking districts of Madras.Historian Ramachandra Guha states in an article that
the fast that was started on October 19 reached its sixth week by December mobilizing Telugu
speaking people in Madras state. By December 12, both Nehru and C Rajagopalachari realized
the scale of the mobilization and agreed to relent, but no official announcement was made. On
December 15, which was the 56th day of his fast, Sriramulu died and widespread violence
erupted in the Telugu speaking areas of Madras state. The announcement of a separate state was
made on December 16. Soon, the States Reorganization Commission was appointed for the
creation of states on linguistic lines. On the basis of this report, the States Reorganization Act of
1956 was enacted. Under the Act which came into effect on November 1, 1956, the distinction
between part A, B, and C states was eliminated and state boundaries were reorganized and new
states and union territories created or dissolved. Ironically, the man whose fast played an
important role in the present state boundaries of India is little known outside his home state.

When the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, India became a union of states with
extensive autonomy and union territories administered by the central government. There were
three kinds of states nine Part A states, eight Part B states and ten Part C states. Part A states
were former governor's provinces in British India -Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Bombay , THE
Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Part B states were the former
princely states such as Hyderabad, Saurashtra, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Madhya Bharat,
Vindhya Pradesh, Patiala and East Punjab States Union and Rajasthan. Part C states included a
few princely states as well as former provinces governed by chief commissioners such as Kutch,
Himachal Pradesh, Co org, Manipur and Tripura. Jammu and Kashmir had special status 9.

9
Constitutional law of India, Dr JN Pandey, Central Law agency, 54th edition, Chapter 11, Pg No. 525 to 531
 P a g e | 17

1948, 1949

On April 1, 1949, when the Nehru-Sardar Patel-Pattabhi Sitaramayya (JVP) Committee report
was made public it endorsed what the earlier S K Dar Commission had said in December 1948.
Arguing for reorganization of states, Dar said new states shouldn’t be on linguistic basis.

The Cogress decided in 1948 to re-examine formation of states and formed the JVP Committee.
It opposed the linguistic basis, but said: “If public sentiment is overwhelming, we as democrats
have to submit to it..” It said the time’s not ripe for creating more states, but added a case can be
made for AP’s Telugu-speaking people. This fanned a movement among Telugu-speaking people
of Madras state — the highlight being Potti Sriramulu’s death after a 56-day fast on December
15, 1952. AP was born on 1953. The creation of AP opened the floodgates.

1953: The States Reorganization Commission (SRC)

Bowing to pressure, Nehru in 1953 formed the States Reorganization Commission (SRC). In
September 1955, it recommended the abolition of A, B, C, D category states and said there
should be 16 states and 3 UTs. It recommended formation of Hyderabad state. Bulk of its
recommendations was accepted leading to the passage of State Reorganisation Act, 1956, and
creation of 14 states and five UTs.

In May 1956, Puducherry became a UT after the French handover.

The 1960s

In 1961, Goa was liberated. Gujarat and Maharashtra were born in 1960. The government
capitulated to the Sikh homeland demand in Punjab. The status of Chandigarh—if it would be
the joint capital — wasn’t settled initially, later the two states agreed to share the city.

Nagaland was carved out of Assam in 1963. In 1966 Meghalaya was carved out of the same
state.
 P a g e | 18

The 1970s

In 1971, Himachal, Manipur and Tripura were born. Also UTs of Sikkim and Arunachal were
created. Sikkim became a full state in 1975. The Jharkhand movement was brewing, so was the
demand for separation of hill regions from UP. Tribal areas of MP wanted a separate identity.

2000-13

BJP created Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh on November 1, 2000. It took another 13
years for Telangana to be born.
 P a g e | 19

ADVANTAGES OF LINGUISTIC REORGANIZATION OF STATES

 It led to nurturing and promotion of the regional languages and culture, strengthening the
country overall.
 It led to better interaction among people of the states with their democratically elected
governments without going through hassles of getting translations of sort. It did not mind
stop those who wanted to, to learn other languages and go to other states.
 It led to consolidation of the federal structure. People realized that it was easy and
peaceful to be Hindi speaking and Indian, Tamil- speaking and Indian, Gujarati speaking
and Indian etc.
 It led to growth of English as a medium of inter-state and state-center communication,
which would have been difficult had the states not been more or less linguistically
homogenous. Absence of a united opposition might have led to more pronounced
superiority complex of the major language.
 It led to better penetration of power to grass-roots level and local governments and better
consolidation of democracy. A linguistically heterogeneous state would have difficulty
getting together the democratic units and getting messages across to it’s people.
 There might have been discrimination when people from other places visit a particular
state, or led to significant minorities in a state demanding recognition for their language,
but things were eventually sorted out.
 Federalism with a strong center is India’s model. That the federalism is based on
language is probably in India’s favor. Had it not been, so states might have fought over
regions to incorporate. Instead, linguistic division gives a mathematical objective basis
for division.
 Administration of the state for the government will become easy because the states will
be divided into small parts and it will be easy to administer and govern the state.
 P a g e | 20

DISADVANTAGES OF REORGANIZATION OF STATES ON LINGUISTIC BASIS

 Creation of small state will divide India. The feeling of Indian nationalism would
diminish in the cries of regional autonomy.
 Creation of small state will take India to pre British era. After the fall of mighty Mughals
the pan India scene was a chaotic one and British used it to their advantages by means of
subsidiary alliances. Be it the marathas ,the rajputs ,southern kingdoms, Kingdom in
Bengal or the ruler sitting in Delhi India was a divided front for the British which they
used it adroitly to setup an empire.
 Small states in India are not making progress proportional to their potential like
Jharkhand which is very rich in minerals and has a favourable environment for further
industrialization. Despite this Jharkhand is embroiled in petty politics and has not been
able to achieve the desired growth as promised prior to its formation. Bihar on the other
hand with its minimal natural resources has been able to achieve second highest GDP
after Gujrat after bifurcation of the two states (Bihar and Jharkhand).
 Small states depend to a substantial extent on Central Government for financial aid.
 It will not be economically prudent to setup new states as it would incur expenditure to
setup state machinery though it would be one time activity but to sustain and run
government machinery state would need resources for which they would depend on
center.
 Politicians want to grab as much political power as possible by taking advantage of the
region movement and public sentiments.
 Hatred within different sections of state will increase which in turn would lead to
factionalism. This could trigger domino effect and with more factional parties demanding
more segregation.
 There could be quarrel related to state boundary (Maharashtra and Karnataka). Belgaum
district of Karnataka has Marathi speaking people who have its origin to Maratha
expansion to south. This has become a reason for Maharashtra’s claim over it though the
natives belong to Kannda speaking group.
 P a g e | 21

SUGGESTIONS

Under the cover of reorganization of states, a gradual balkanization of the country should not be
encouraged, as that would defeat the preamble mandate of and our president quest for national
integrity.

The need of the hour is to concentrate more on development of the states already existing. It is
immaterial whether the state is small or big, what is required is a strong political will to govern
with full honesty and sincerity. Development requires a conducive atmosphere to be created by
both, leaders and citizens and not division of states on the claims of aiding the development of
the states.

There should be formation of a new body which looks into state reorganization. Formation of
new states should be left to a competent commission or to any other body or authority that may
be set up either ad hoc for a particular purpose or in general terms as a kind of statutory,
constitutional authority having quasi-judicial character that may decide upon the issue. Economic
viability is an important aspect as many times we have witnessed that a newly created state lacks
required financial resources to carry on it’s functions. Therefore, no new state should be created
unless it has the resources or revenue to incur at least 60 percent of it’s expenditure from the day
of it’s coming into existence10.

10
Sharma Siddarth(2003), Creation of new states, Need for constitutional parameters, Economic and Political
weekly Y. p. 3973
 P a g e | 22

CONCLUSION

The constitutional provisions under article was incorporated with a benevolent idea to realize
geographical and economic unification of India but now it seems that this provision has become
a tool for satisfying regional and linguistic aspirations of people and an instrument to achieve
electoral gains. The two terms Linguistic and Cultural have never been more misused than in
recent times.

It is difficult to understand what has happened to our power of assimilation and why the feeling
of linguistic and regional fanaticism is gaining ground day by day. The increasing demand for
new states apparently manifests this tendency cropping up in our country and unfortunately by
creating more states, our government has further intensified the problem.

The notion of ‘small is beautiful’ seems to be illusionary, at least past experiences suggest that. It
would be the most profound mistake if anyone thought that creation of new states is panacea for
all the problems. The need of the hour is to concentrate more on development of the states
already existing. It is immaterial whether the state is small or big, what is required is a strong
political will to govern with full honesty and sincerity. Development requires a conductive
atmosphere to be created by both, leaders and citizens 11.

The provision under Article 3 of the constitution, that the center may destroy the very existence
of a state by altering it’s boundary lines in a way it chooses, gives a picture of unitary form of
government actually prevailing in our country in the garb of federalism. The fundamental
principle that a federation depends upon the territorial integrity of states seems to have been
overlooked.

11
Sharma Siddarth(2003), Creation of new states, Need for constitutional parameters, Economic and Political
weekly Y. p. 3973
 P a g e | 23

The further division of the country has lead to turmoil and agitation in the country leading to a
further growing demand for creation of new states, where everyone wants a state according to
his/her own whims and fancies. The regional ties have become so strong that it has given rise to
a phase where in the regional roots have gained predominance over the national unity and
integrity. There are fasts until death and people are coming out on roads asking for their own
state as if state is nothing but a toy that could be handled and modified according to them. And
all of this is being done in the name of linguistic division to support the development of the state
and ensure better governance.
 P a g e | 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E6D33255-8F9C-4F9E-B3F9-
7359D9D25FE9.pdf [ Last accessed on 20th, Oct, 2018, 11.00 PM ]
2. Constitutional law of India, Dr JN Pandey, Central Law agency, 54 th edition, Chapter 11,
Pg No. 525 to 531