The Linguistic Reorganisation of States

The Linguistic Reorganisation of States

• Between 1947 and about 1950, the territories of the princely states were politically integrated into the Indian Union.
• Most of these princely states:
  • Were merged into existing provinces
• Some were:
  • Organised into new provinces, such as
    • Rajputana
    • Himachal Pradesh
    • Madhya Bharat
    • Vindhya Pradesh
  • These new provinces were formed by grouping together multiple princely states.
• A few princely states:
  • Became separate provinces, such as:
    • Mysore
    • Hyderabad
    • Bhopal
    • Bilaspur
• During this transitional phase:
  • The Government of India Act, 1935 continued to function as the constitutional law of India
  • It remained in force till the adoption of the new Constitution
• The new Constitution of India:
  • Came into force on 26 January 1950
  • Declared India a sovereign democratic republic
  • The republic was also declared to be a “Union of States”
• The Constitution of 1950 classified Indian states into four categories:
  • Part A States
  • Part B States
  • Part C States
  • Part D State

Part A States (Nine States)

• These were the former Governors’ provinces of British India
• They were:
  • Ruled by an elected Governor
  • Had an elected state legislature
• The nine Part A states were:
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Bombay
  • Madhya Pradesh
    • Formerly known as the Central Provinces and Berar
  • Madras
  • Orissa
  • Punjab
    • Formerly known as East Punjab
  • Uttar Pradesh
    • Formerly the United Provinces
  • West Bengal

Part B States (Eight States)

• These were:
  • Former princely states or groups of princely states
• They were governed by:
  • A Rajpramukh
  • An elected legislature
• The Rajpramukh:
  • Was appointed by the President of India
• The eight Part B states were:
  • Hyderabad
  • Jammu and Kashmir
  • Madhya Bharat
  • Mysore
  • Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU)
  • Rajasthan
  • Saurashtra
  • Travancore-Cochin

Part C States (Ten States)

• These states included:
  • Former Chief Commissioners’ Provinces
  • And some princely states
• Each Part C state was:
  • Governed by a Chief Commissioner
  • The Chief Commissioner was appointed by the President of India
• The ten Part C states were:
  • Ajmer
  • Bhopal
  • Bilaspur
  • Coorg
  • Delhi
  • Himachal Pradesh
  • Kutch
  • Manipur
  • Tripura
  • Vindhya Pradesh

Part D State (One State)

• There was only one Part D state
• It was the:
  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• It was:
  • Administered by a Lieutenant Governor
  • The Lieutenant Governor was appointed by the central government

Movements for Linguistic States

Before Independence

• The demand for states on a linguistic basis developed much before the independence of India, during British rule itself.
• Lokmanya Tilak was perhaps the first national leader to:
  • Appreciate the diversity of Indian languages
  • Urge the Indian National Congress to work in vernacular languages
  • Advocate the reorganisation of provinces on a linguistic basis
• As early as 1891, Tilak wrote in Kesari:
  • “The present administrative division of India is the result of a certain historical process and in some cases purely a result of accident…”
  • He argued that if provinces were replaced by linguistic units, they would:
    • Possess homogeneity
    • Encourage the people and languages of the respective regions
• A major step was taken on 8 April 1917, when the All India Congress Committee (AICC):
  • Decided to constitute a separate Andhra Provincial Congress Committee
  • This was formed out of the Telugu-speaking districts of the Madras Presidency
  • This decision strengthened the argument for linguistic reorganisation
• By this time, a broad consensus was emerging among Indian leaders that:
  • The language of governance and education should be the dominant language of the people
  • For this purpose, provinces should be reorganised on linguistic lines
• However, Gandhi differed when the proposal came before the AICC in 1917:
  • He felt the issue could wait till the implementation of constitutional reforms
  • Tilak, on the other hand, believed that:
    • Linguistic provinces were an essential prerequisite for real provincial autonomy
• The first generation of freedom fighters realised the importance of linguistic states in the context of the Partition of Bengal in 1905
• European capitalism had already experienced the democratic advantages of language-based administrative units
• The British colonial administration deliberately created multilingual provinces in India:
  • In December 1903, H. S. Risley, the Home Secretary, submitted a note recommending the division of Bengal
  • Lord Curzon later divided Bengal, which was:
    • A linguistically homogeneous unit
    • Into two religiously heterogeneous units
  • The objective was to check the growing freedom movement
• Ironically, this colonial step:
  • Helped Bengali-speaking people develop linguistic consciousness
  • Encouraged them to think in terms of linguistic unity
• The movement for the reunification of Bengal:
  • Gave rise to a broader movement for reorganising provinces on linguistic lines in eastern India
• Reflecting this public mood, at its Calcutta Session in 1905, the Indian National Congress:
  • Opposed Curzon’s decision
  • Passed a resolution stating that:
    • “This Congress recommends the adoption of some arrangement which would be consistent with administrative efficiency and would place the entire Bengali speaking community under an undivided administration.”
• Ultimately, the colonial government was forced to annul the religious partition of Bengal, but in 1911:
  • It created Assam and Bihar as separate provinces on linguistic grounds
• The acceptance of federalism at the Lucknow Session of the Congress in 1916:
  • Further encouraged demands for linguistic provinces
• On 8 April 1917, acting on the Lucknow Session’s recommendation:
  • The AICC formally demanded a Telugu-speaking province
• The Home Rule Movement:
  • Strongly emphasised the need for linguistic provinces
  • Became a significant milestone in linguistic reorganisation
• In her presidential address at the Calcutta Congress Session of 1917, Annie Besant stated:
  • “Sooner or later, preferably sooner, provinces will have to be re-delimited on a linguistic basis.”
• Annie Besant supported linguistic provinces because:
  • Her Home Rule Movement drew major participation from South Indians
  • This helped in the early acceptance of linguistic identities
  • She also rose to prominence during the anti–Bengal partition movement, which acted as a precursor to later linguistic movements
• At the Nagpur Session of 1920, the Congress accepted in principle the creation of linguistic states
• As a practical step:
  • The Congress began reorganising its provincial committees on linguistic lines
  • The creation of a separate linguistic circle for Telugu speakers became a model for future administrative units
• The issue of language gained greater seriousness in the 1920s, especially after:
  • Gandhi emerged as the central leader of the Congress
  • The role of vernacular languages in administration and education began to be debated strongly
• In 1927, the Congress:
  • Again declared its commitment to the redistribution of provinces on a linguistic basis
  • Reaffirmed this position several times, including in the Election Manifesto of 1945–46
• The growing idea of federalism pushed the colonial government to appoint the Simon Commission in 1927 to examine linguistic reorganisation:
  • The Commission observed that:
    • “In no case can the linguistic or racial principle be accepted as the sole test.”
• In response, the Nehru Committee (1928) was appointed:
  • Headed by Motilal Nehru
  • Included leaders like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Ali Imam, and Subhash Chandra Bose
  • For the first time, it formally incorporated the demand for linguistic provinces
  • It stated that:
    • Geographic, economic and financial factors mattered
    • But the wishes of the people and linguistic unity must be the primary considerations
• Odisha became the first linguistic state in 1936, due to:
  • The efforts of Madhusudan Das
  • The long-running movement that began in 1895 for separation from Bihar
• By this time:
  • The idea of linguistic states had captured popular imagination
  • It was formally adopted in the Congress manifesto
• On 27 November 1947, in the Constituent Assembly, Prime Minister Nehru:
  • Accepted the principle underlying linguistic provinces
• However, after independence:
  • Partition created fears of further division
  • Several leaders became cautious about linguistic reorganisation

After Independence

• After independence, political movements for new linguistic states revived strongly
• The Congress government feared that:
  • Linguistic states might:
    • Harm national unity
    • Encourage separatist tendencies
  • This fear largely arose from the experience of Partition
• During this phase:
  • Movements like Aikya Kerala, Samyukta Maharashtra and Vishalandhra gained strength
  • The Communist Party of India played a leading role in:
    • Organising these movements
    • Popularising linguistic states as instruments of democratisation
• The demand for a separate Andhra state became particularly intense
• Within the Constituent Assembly, the government indicated that:
  • Andhra could be considered as a separate unit
  • This led to the formation of a committee to examine the issue of linguistic provinces
• This resulted in the appointment of the Dhar Commission

Linguistic Provinces Commission (Dhar Commission)

• On 17 June 1948, Rajendra Prasad:
  • Set up the Linguistic Provinces Commission
• The Commission included:
  • S. K. Dhar – retired judge of Allahabad High Court
  • J. N. Lal – lawyer
  • Panna Lall – retired ICS officer
• In its report dated 10 December 1948, the Commission stated that:
  • The formation of provinces mainly or exclusively on linguistic grounds was not in the larger national interest
• It further observed that:
  • Bilingual border districts with integrated economic life:
    • Should not be broken up purely on linguistic lines
• The Commission recommended reorganisation on the basis of:
  • Geographical continuity
  • Financial self-sufficiency
  • Administrative convenience
  • Capacity for future development

JVP Committee

• The recommendations of the Dhar Commission:
  • Created widespread resentment
• As a result, in December 1948, the Congress appointed the JVP Committee at its Jaipur Session
• The Committee comprised:
  • Jawaharlal Nehru
  • Vallabhbhai Patel
  • Pattabhi Sitaramayya
• The Committee:
  • Shifted emphasis from language to national security, unity and economic development
  • This represented a temporary retreat from the Congress’s earlier commitments
• Patel argued that:
  • Supporting such demands might hamper nation-building
• In its report dated 1 April 1949, the Committee stated that:
  • The time was not suitable for creating new provinces
  • However, it also acknowledged that:
    • If public sentiment became overwhelming and insistent, it would have to be considered
    • But always subject to the national interest as a whole

Views of Leaders

B. R. Ambedkar

• B. R. Ambedkar submitted a Memorandum dated 14 October 1948 to the Dhar Commission:
  • In this memorandum, he supported the formation of linguistic provinces
  • He gave specific support to the creation of a Marathi-majority Maharashtra state
  • He also clearly stated that Bombay should be the capital of Maharashtra
• To tackle the fear that linguistic provinces might weaken national unity, Ambedkar suggested that:
  • The official language of every province should be the same as the official language of the Central Government
  • This would help in maintaining administrative uniformity and national cohesion
• Ambedkar supported:
  • “One State, One Language”
  • But he rejected the idea of “One Language, One State”
  • By this, he meant that:
    • A state should ideally have one dominant language
    • But one language should not forcibly demand one exclusive state everywhere

K. M. Munshi

• K. M. Munshi was a prominent Gujarati leader
• He was strongly opposed to the inclusion of Bombay in the proposed Maharashtra state
• Munshi opposed the entire proposal of linguistic reorganisation, arguing that:
  • “The political ambition of a linguistic group can only be satisfied by the exclusion and discrimination of other linguistic groups within the area.”
• He further warned that:
  • No safeguards and no fundamental rights would be able to protect minority linguistic groups
  • They would still suffer from:
    • Subtle psychological exclusion
    • A sense of marginalisation created by linguistic dominance
• According to Munshi:
  • Linguism inevitably promotes group rivalry
  • And weakens social harmony within mixed linguistic regions

Jawaharlal Nehru and V. K. Krishna Menon

• Jawaharlal Nehru clearly perceived the dangers of linguistic chauvinism:
  • Just as he saw the danger of communalism
• Although the Congress had supported linguistic provinces for nearly 30 years:
  • Nehru and Patel tried to delay and contain the process
  • They feared that unchecked linguistic politics could threaten national unity
• V. K. Krishna Menon, a close confidant of Nehru:
  • Asserted that the agitation for a Malayalam-speaking state was recent and artificial
  • He claimed that it was backed mainly by:
    • Political parties aiming at the “conquest of power”
• Krishna Menon strongly criticised the expected recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission:
  • He alleged that:
    • The recommendation for separate Kerala and Tamil states reflected the personal views of a Commission member, namely K. M. Panikkar
  • He described these recommendations as:
    • Economically unsound
    • Politically risky
    • Administratively inconvenient
    • Strategically dangerous
    • Harmful for national security
• He argued that:
  • A sectarian sub-nationalism of fascist orientation was developing in the Tamil region
  • Therefore:
    • A separate Tamil province would be anti-national
    • A Kerala state would likely go Communist after the next general elections
• According to him, this would have:
  • Disastrous domestic consequences
  • And also serious international repercussions
• Krishna Menon strongly warned:
  • “We will Balkanise India if we further dismember the State instead of creating larger units.”
• In his note to Nehru dated 28 September 1955, Krishna Menon proposed:
  • The creation of a single unified Southern state
  • To be called “Dakshin Pradesh”
  • As a southern counterpart to Uttar Pradesh
• This proposed Dakshin Pradesh was suggested to include:
  • Present-day Tamil Nadu
  • Travancore
  • Cochin
  • Malabar
  • And possibly Kanara up to Kasaragode

First Linguistic State: Andhra

• The demand for the first linguistic state of India emerged strongly from the Telugu-speaking regions during the late 1940s and early 1950s, when the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Andhra Mahasabha were actively mobilising the masses in the princely state of Hyderabad against the autocratic Nizam’s rule.
• One of the most powerful slogans of this mobilisation was the formation of Vishalandhra, a unified state consisting of all Telugu-speaking people spread across:
  • Madras Presidency
  • Hyderabad State (Telangana region)
  • Parts of Central Provinces
• As the movement progressed, this slogan captured the popular imagination and became an issue of mass identity and democratic rights, while it was strongly opposed by landlords and Razakars, who supported the continuation of the Hyderabad commissionery because it ensured protection of their feudal proprietary interests.
• The Telangana peasant armed struggle (1946–51) brought the intertwined issues of:
  • Land reforms
  • Democratic rights
  • Linguistic self-determination
    to the centre of Indian politics, forcing the central government to take the question of linguistic states seriously.
• In the first general elections of 1952, the political cost of ignoring the Vishalandhra demand became evident when the Telugu people voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaders who had fought for a separate Andhra state.
• In the Madras Legislative Assembly, the Congress could secure only 43 out of 140 seats from the Andhra region, yet the party imposed Rajagopalachari as Chief Minister, thereby preventing what could have become India’s first non-Congress government in a major province.
• On 16 July 1952, P. Sundarayya moved a private member’s bill in Parliament demanding the formation of a linguistic Andhra state, arguing that:
  • Multilingual states weaken unity,
  • Linguistic states strengthen national integration,
  • Linguistic reorganisation would improve administrative efficiency and national security.
• Despite these arguments, Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress leadership rejected the demand, citing fears regarding national unity and security.
• Disillusioned by Congress inaction, Potti Sri Ramulu, a veteran Congress leader from the Andhra region, undertook a fast-unto-death, and after 58 days of fasting, he died in December 1952.
• His death triggered:
  • Spontaneous mass protests across Andhra
  • Widespread violence and administrative breakdown
  • An unprecedented wave of public anger against the central government
• Faced with an uncontrollable situation, the government introduced a bill in Parliament on 2 September 1953, carefully avoiding the use of the term “linguistic state”, revealing its continued ideological hesitation.
• During the parliamentary debate, P. Sundarayya sharply criticised the government, asserting that even after decades of experience, the leadership was still trying to deny the legitimacy of linguistic states, and that the people would eventually force their realisation.
• Finally, yielding to popular pressure, Jawaharlal Nehru announced in the Lok Sabha the formation of Andhra Rashtram with 14 districts, και and on 1 October 1953, the first linguistic state of independent India was formally created by bifurcating the Madras Province.
• However, the Telugu-speaking Telangana region of Hyderabad State was excluded, leaving the idea of Vishalandhra still incomplete.
• The creation of Andhra acted as a catalyst for nationwide linguistic agitations, leading to intensified struggles for:
  • Samyukta Maharashtra
  • United Kerala
  • Vishalandhra
• Under increasing mass pressure, the Nehru government was finally compelled to set up the States Reorganisation Commission (1953), also known as the Fazl Ali Commission, to undertake a comprehensive linguistic reorganisation of Indian states.

State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) / Fazl Ali Commission

• The creation of Andhra State in 1953 intensified demands from several other linguistic regions for the formation of states on a linguistic basis, compelling the Government of India to appoint a high-level commission.
• Accordingly, in December 1953, the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was constituted under the chairmanship of Justice Fazl Ali.
• Its two other members were K. M. Panikkar and H. N. Kunzru.
• The Commission submitted its report in September 1955, and it broadly accepted language as the primary basis for reorganisation of states.
• However, it explicitly rejected the rigid theory of “one language – one state”, keeping national interests above linguistic absolutism.
• The Commission clearly stated that the unity and integrity of India must be the supreme consideration in any reorganisation scheme.

Major Principles Adopted by the SRC

The Commission identified four key criteria to guide the reorganisation of states:

• Preservation and strengthening of national unity and security.
• Linguistic and cultural homogeneity of the population.
• Financial, economic, and administrative viability of the proposed states.
• Planned development and welfare of both the state and the nation as a whole.

Administrative Recommendations of the SRC

• The Commission recommended the abolition of the four-fold classification of states (Part A, B, C, and D) provided in the original Constitution.
• It proposed the creation of 16 states and 3 centrally administered territories.
• It recommended the abolition of the institution of Rajpramukh and the special political agreements with former princely states.
• It further suggested the removal of the general control of the Union Government under Article 371.

States Reorganisation Act, 1956

• The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted to implement most of the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission.
• It came into force along with the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, which provided the constitutional framework for restructuring Indian states.
• Under the Seventh Constitutional Amendment, the distinction between Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D states was completely abolished.
• A new category called “Union Territory” replaced the former Part C and Part D states.

States and Union Territories Created

• The Act created 14 states, namely:
  Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
• In addition to the three Union Territories proposed by the SRC, the Act also created:
  • Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands,
  • Himachal Pradesh, and
  • Tripura as Union Territories.

Major Territorial Mergers under the Act

• Kerala was created by merging:
  • Travancore–Cochin State,
  • Malabar District of Madras State, and
  • Kasargode region of South Canara (Dakshina Kannada).
• Andhra Pradesh was formed by merging the Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad State with Andhra State.
• Madhya Pradesh was formed by merging:
  • Madhya Bharat,
  • Vindhya Pradesh, and
  • Bhopal State.
• Bombay State absorbed:
  • Saurashtra State and
  • Kutch State.
• Mysore State absorbed Coorg State.
• Punjab State absorbed Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU).
• Rajasthan State absorbed Ajmer State.
• The Union Territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands was carved out from Madras State.

Concept of Zonal Councils

• To promote inter-state cooperation and coordination, the States Reorganisation Act also provided for the creation of five Zonal Councils.
• These councils were established for the:
  • Northern Zone,
  • Central Zone,
  • Eastern Zone,
  • Western Zone, and
  • Southern Zone.
• The primary objective of the Zonal Councils was to promote emotional integration, administrative cooperation, and balanced regional development.

Recommendations of the SRC That Were Not Accepted (or Implemented Later)

1. Vidarbha

• The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) recommended the formation of a separate Vidarbha State by splitting the Marathi-speaking regions from Madhya Pradesh.
• However, the Government of India did not accept this recommendation.
• Instead, these Marathi-majority areas were merged into the Bombay State, which was already predominantly Marathi-speaking.
• Thus, the long-standing demand for separate Vidarbha statehood remained unresolved.

2. Andhra – Telangana Issue

• The SRC recommended that Telangana should remain a separate state for the initial period and should be called Hyderabad State, instead of being immediately merged with Andhra State (formed in 1953).
• The Commission argued that:
  • The economic and administrative conditions of Telangana were different from Andhra.
  • The merger could take place after the general elections likely to be held around 1961,
  • Only if two-thirds of the Hyderabad State Legislature approved the unification.
• However, in the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly, more than two-thirds of the MLAs supported the immediate merger and rejected the SRC’s recommendation of keeping Telangana separate for five years.
• Subsequently, an agreement was reached on 20 February 1956 between the leaders of Telangana and Andhra.

Gentlemen’s Agreement (1956)

• Before the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the Gentlemen’s Agreement was signed to:
  • Provide safeguards for Telangana,
  • Prevent discrimination in employment, irrigation, and regional development.
• Based on this agreement, the Central Government formed a unified Andhra Pradesh on 1 November 1956.
• However, dissatisfaction continued and several movements emerged opposing the merger, notably in:
  • 1969,
  • 1972, and
  • From the 2000s onwards.
• The Telangana movement gradually transformed into a mass political demand.
• Finally, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 was passed by Parliament.
• As a result, Telangana became India’s 29th state on 2 June 2014.

3. Belgaum Border Dispute

• After Independence in 1947, the Belgaum district, earlier part of the Bombay Presidency, became part of Bombay State.
• When linguistic reorganisation took place, Belgaum was transferred to the Kannada-majority Mysore State (later Karnataka).
• This decision was strongly opposed by the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which demanded that Belgaum should be included in the Marathi-majority Maharashtra State.
• This dispute continues to be a long-standing inter-state boundary issue between Maharashtra and Karnataka.

4. Punjabi Suba Movement

• The Akali Dal, a Sikh-dominated political party, demanded the creation of a Punjabi Suba, a separate Punjabi-speaking state.
• The demand created deep anxiety among Punjabi Hindus, who feared the creation of a Sikh-majority province.
• Sikh leaders such as Fateh Singh strategically projected the demand as:
  • Linguistic in nature, and
  • Not religious, to maintain constitutional legitimacy.
• In response:
  • Hindu newspapers from Jalandhar urged Punjabi Hindus to declare Hindi as their “mother tongue”,
  • This was done to weaken the linguistic justification of the Punjabi Suba demand.
• The SRC rejected the Punjabi Suba demand, arguing that:
  • It lacked majority popular support, and
  • Punjabi was not grammatically distinct enough from Hindi.
• However, PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) was merged with Punjab.
• The Akali Dal continued its agitation, and finally:
  • The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 split Punjab into:
    • Punjab (Sikh-majority), and
    • Haryana (Hindu-majority).
  • Chandigarh was made a Union Territory and common capital of both states.
  • The hilly regions of Punjab were merged into Himachal Pradesh, which later became a full state.

5. Kerala – Madras (Tamil Nadu) Boundary Adjustments

• Based on linguistic population percentage, the SRC recommended transferring the following four taluks from Travancore–Cochin to Tamil Nadu:
  • Agasteeswaram,
  • Thovalai,
  • Kalkulam, and
  • Vilavancode.
• The same linguistic criterion was applied to transfer Shenkotta Taluk to Tamil Nadu.
• However, in the case of Devikulam and Peermede Taluks:
  • Despite Tamil-speaking majorities and Tamil representatives in the Assembly,
  • The Commission retained them in Travancore–Cochin State on geographical grounds.
• Although Shenkotta Taluk was formally transferred, the Joint Boundary Committee later divided it.
• As a result, Travancore–Cochin retained a major portion of Shenkotta Taluk, diluting the original SRC recommendation.

New States and Union Territories Created After 1956

• Even after the large-scale reorganisation of states in 1956, the political map of India continued to change due to:
  • Popular agitations, and
  • Shifting political conditions.
• The demand for new states on the basis of language and cultural homogeneity led to the bifurcation of existing states over the next several decades.

Division of the State of Bombay (Maharashtra and Gujarat), 1960

• In 1960, due to agitation and violence during the Mahagujarat Movement, the Bombay State was reorganised on linguistic lines.
• As a result:
  • Maharashtra was created for Marathi-speaking people, and
  • Gujarat was created for Gujarati-speaking people.
• Gujarat was established as the 15th state of the Indian Union.

Territories Acquired from France and Portugal

• After Independence, India acquired:
  • Chandernagore, Mahe, Yanam and Karaikal from France, and
  • Goa, Daman and Diu from Portugal.
• These territories were:
  • Either merged with neighbouring states, or
  • Given the status of Union Territories.

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

• This territory was under Portuguese rule till 1954.
• After its liberation:
  • It was administered between 1954 and 1961 by an administrator chosen by local people.
• It was converted into a Union Territory by the 10th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1961.

Goa, Daman and Diu

• India acquired Goa, Daman and Diu from Portugal in 1961 through police action.
• They were constituted as a Union Territory by the 12th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962.
• Later:
  • In 1987, Goa was granted statehood, and
  • Daman and Diu were made a separate Union Territory.

Puducherry

• Puducherry consists of the former French establishments:
  • Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam.
• These territories were handed over to India in 1954.
• They were administered as ‘acquired territories’ till 1962.
• Puducherry was made a Union Territory by the 14th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962.

Formation of Nagaland (1963)

• The state of Nagaland was formed in 1963 after separating:
  • Naga Hills and Tuensang area from Assam,
  • In order to pacify Naga political aspirations.
• Before being granted full statehood:
  • It was placed under the Governor of Assam in 1961.
• With Nagaland’s formation, the number of Indian states rose to 16.

Shah Commission and Formation of Haryana, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh (1966)

• In 1966, Parliament passed the Punjab Reorganisation Act following:
  • The Punjabi Suba agitation,
  • Led by the Akali Dal under Master Tara Singh.
• This was done on the recommendation of the Shah Commission (1966).
• As a result:
  • Punjabi-speaking areas became the state of Punjab,
  • Hindi-speaking areas became the state of Haryana, and
  • The hilly regions were merged with Himachal Pradesh (then a Union Territory).
• Chandigarh was made a Union Territory and a common capital of Punjab and Haryana.
• The two states were also to share:
  • A common High Court,
  • A common university, and
  • Joint management of irrigation and power systems.
• With the division of Punjab, the number of states increased to 17.
• In 1971, Himachal Pradesh was elevated to full statehood, becoming the 18th state.

Manipur, Tripura and Meghalaya (1972)

• In 1972:
  • The Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura, and
  • The Sub-State of Meghalaya were granted full statehood.
• At the same time:
  • The Union Territories of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh (earlier NEFA) were created.
• With this:
  • Manipur became the 19th state,
  • Tripura the 20th, and
  • Meghalaya the 21st state.
• Earlier, the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1969 had created Meghalaya as an ‘autonomous state’ within Assam.

Sikkim (1975)

• Till 1947, Sikkim was a princely state ruled by the Chogyal.
• After Independence, Sikkim became an Indian Protectorate, with India controlling:
  • Defence,
  • External affairs, and
  • Communications.
• In 1974, Sikkim sought greater association with India.
• The 35th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1974 granted Sikkim the status of an ‘associate state’ through:
  • New Article 2A, and
  • A new Tenth Schedule.
• This arrangement failed to satisfy public aspirations.
• In a 1975 referendum, the people voted to:
  • Abolish the Chogyal, and
  • Join India as a full state.
• The 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975 made Sikkim the 22nd state of India and inserted Article 371-F.

Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa (1987)

• In 1987, three new states were created:
  • Mizoram – 23rd state,
  • Arunachal Pradesh – 24th state,
  • Goa – 25th state.
• Mizoram became a state after the Mizoram Peace Accord (1986) ended the long insurgency led by the Mizo National Front.
• Arunachal Pradesh had been a Union Territory since 1972.
• Goa was separated from the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.

Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand (2000)

• In 2000:
  • Chhattisgarh was carved out of Madhya Pradesh,
  • Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh, and
  • Jharkhand from Bihar.
• These became:
  • 26th,
  • 27th, and
  • 28th states respectively.

Telangana (2014)

• In 2014, Telangana became the 29th state of India.
• It was carved out of Andhra Pradesh through the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

Earlier Developments

• The Andhra State Act, 1953 created India’s first linguistic state (Andhra) from the Telugu-speaking areas of Madras State.
  • Kurnool was its capital,
  • Guntur housed its High Court.
• The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 merged:
  • The Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad State with Andhra,
  • Forming the enlarged Andhra Pradesh,
  • With Hyderabad as capital.
• The 2014 Act again bifurcated Andhra Pradesh into:
  • Telangana, and
  • Residuary Andhra Pradesh.
• Hyderabad was made the joint capital for 10 years, and:
  • The High Court at Hyderabad was made common temporarily.

Final Position of States and Union Territories

• In 1956:
  • 14 States,
  • 6 Union Territories.
• In 2014:
  • 29 States,
  • 7 Union Territories.
• After the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019:
  • 28 States,
  • 9 Union Territories.

Benefits Served by Linguistic States to India

• Promotion of Regional Languages and Culture
  • Linguistic reorganisation led to the nurturing, preservation, and promotion of regional languages.
  • It strengthened regional literature, education, administration, and cultural identity, which in turn strengthened national unity, not weakened it.
• Better Administration and People–Government Interaction
  • People could interact with their elected governments in their own language, without facing the difficulty of translations.
  • This made:
    • Administration more efficient
    • Public participation more meaningful
    • Governance more accessible
  • At the same time, it never restricted people from learning other languages or migrating to other states.
• Strengthening of Federal Structure
  • Linguistic states helped people realise that one could be:
    • Gujarati-speaking and Indian
    • Tamil-speaking and Indian
    • Hindi-speaking and Indian
  • This strengthened the idea of unity in diversity and deepened emotional integration within the federal structure.
• Growth of English as a Link Language
  • The creation of linguistically homogeneous states led to:
    • English emerging as the common medium of inter-state and Centre–state communication
  • Without linguistic states, a single dominant language could have created resentment and superiority complexes, leading to political instability.
• Deepening of Democracy and Grassroots Penetration
  • Linguistic homogeneity made it:
    • Easier for governments to communicate policies
    • Easier for people to understand rights, duties, and welfare schemes
  • This resulted in:
    • Stronger local self-government
    • Better democratic participation
    • Effective political mobilisation
  • A linguistically mixed state would have found it much harder to unite democratic institutions and people.
• Managing Linguistic Minorities and Conflicts
  • Issues did arise in some regions such as:
    • Bengali in Assam
    • Konkani in Maharashtra
  • There were also concerns regarding discrimination and minority language rights, but:
    • These issues were largely resolved through constitutional safeguards, political negotiations, and democratic processes.
• Objective and Peaceful Basis for State Formation
  • India follows federalism with a strong Centre, and language provides an objective, measurable basis for state boundaries.
  • Without linguistic division:
    • States might have fought over territories
  • Instead, language provided a peaceful, logical, and acceptable foundation for reorganisation.