Linguistic Reorganisation of States

Initial Opposition and the JVP Committee

The chapter commences by discussing the post-Partition deliberations on reorganizing India's provinces based on linguistic criteria. In 1948, the Constituent Assembly established the Dar Commission, which advised against linguistic provinces due to apprehensions regarding national unity and administrative challenges. Dissatisfied public opinion in the southern regions prompted the Congress leadership to create the Jawaharlal Nehru–Sardar Patel–Pattabhi Sitaramayya (JVP) Committee in late 1948. While this committee also initially suggested postponing linguistic reorganization, emphasizing unity and development, it included a crucial provision: a new linguistic state could be formed if the demand was "insistent and overwhelming" and had the consensus of other groups. This meant that although national leaders were cautious, they would not outright suppress popular demands for linguistic states.

Formation of Andhra State

A significant instance of this occurred in South India. The long-standing demand for a separate Telugu-speaking Andhra state from Madras Presidency gained momentum in 1952 when Telugu nationalist Potti Sriramulu fasted until his death. His death and the subsequent violence compelled the Nehru government to concede. Consequently, in October 1953, the new Andhra State was created, and simultaneously, the former Madras State was reorganized to create Tamil-speaking Tamil Nadu. This success motivated other linguistic groups across India to advocate for their own states or boundary adjustments along linguistic lines. Although Jawaharlal Nehru was hesitant about rapidly redrawing borders, he felt obligated to acknowledge these mass movements democratically. According to one biographer, Nehru believed that a linguistic mosaic could potentially strengthen national unity, despite his concerns about timing and potential turmoil.

States Reorganisation Commission (SRC)

To address these pressures, Nehru established the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in August 1953, with Justice Fazl Ali as chairman and K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru as members. Over two years, the SRC conducted extensive hearings amid widespread agitations and riots. The commissioners were dismayed by the "border warfare" they witnessed, where even former comrades resorted to parochial sentiments, threats of mass migration, and scaremongering about language group extinction. In October 1955, the SRC submitted its report, largely endorsing the principle of linguistic states while emphasizing the importance of administrative and economic factors. The SRC advised against splitting Bombay and Punjab at that stage. Despite opposition in some regions, the government accepted the SRC recommendations with some modifications and enacted the States Reorganization Act in November 1956.

Reorganisation Act of 1956 and its Consequences

The 1956 Act led to a significant redrawing of India's map along linguistic lines, resulting in the creation of fourteen new states and six union territories. Telugu-speaking Telangana from Hyderabad State was merged with Andhra to form Andhra Pradesh. Kerala was formed by uniting Travancore–Cochin with the Malabar district of old Madras. Mysore State (later Karnataka) was enlarged by adding Kannada-speaking areas from Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad, and Coorg. Maharashtra expanded by merging Kutch and Saurashtra and parts of Hyderabad, while Bombay State acquired the Marathi areas of Hyderabad and became a bilingual unit of Marathi and Gujarati speakers.

These changes sparked strong reactions in some regions. The SRC’s report and the 1956 Act triggered violent agitation in Maharashtra, where students, farmers, workers, artists and others demanded a single Marathi-speaking state. Eight protestors were killed in police firing in Bombay in January 1956. To quell unrest, the government initially decided (June 1956) to bifurcate Bombay State into Maharashtra (Marathi) and Gujarat (Gujarati), making Bombay city a separate Union Territory. However, this move angered both communities: Maharashtrians wanted Bombay as Maharashtra’s capital, and Gujaratis did not want Bombay in Maharashtra. Nehru briefly tried to placate both by proposing a bilingual Greater Bombay (July 1956). Popular protests on both sides continued, led by the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti and Maha Gujarat Janata Parishad, and even many Congress members joined in. Over the next four years, agitations persisted. In 1957 Bombay State’s elections gave Congress only a slim majority, and the issue remained unresolved. Finally, under Congress President Indira Gandhi’s urging, the Central government agreed in May 1960 to partition Bombay State. Effective 1 May 1960, the state of Bombay was split: Maharashtra (with Bombay as capital) and Gujarat (with Ahmedabad as capital) were formed as separate states.

The Case of Punjab

Another exception to strict linguistic reorganisation was Punjab. In 1956 the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was merged with Punjab, creating a large state with three linguistic groups (Punjabi, Hindi and Pahari). Sikh leaders, backed by the Akali Dal, soon demanded a separate Punjabi-speaking (Punjabi Suba) state, but communal tensions arose as Hindu leaders opposed, claiming Punjabi was not their mother tongue, and Sikhs framed it as a Sikh demand. Most Congress leaders (including Nehru) considered this a communal issue in language guise and initially refused the demand. Only in 1966, with Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister, did the government concede. Punjab was divided into a Punjabi-speaking state of Punjab and a Hindi-speaking Haryana, with the Pahari-speaking Kangra and parts of Hoshiarpur going to Himachal Pradesh. The new city of Chandigarh became a Union Territory and joint capital of Punjab and Haryana.

Assessment of Linguistic Reorganisation

By the late 1960s, nearly all demands for linguistic states had been addressed. The authors assert that this reorganization eliminated a major source of conflict and strengthened national unity. Loyalty to regional languages proved compatible with national loyalty, and fears of linguistic states weakening the Centre did not materialize. Political scientist Rajni Kothari noted that the result was a rationalized political map and homogeneous political units that could be administered in a language understood by the majority, thereby solidifying national unity rather than undermining it.

Linguistic Minorities

The chapter acknowledges that reorganisation did not resolve all problems, such as inter-state boundary disputes, resource sharing, and the treatment of linguistic minorities. Even after reorganisation, a significant portion of the population lived as minorities in states dominated by a different language. According to the 1971 census, nearly 18% of India’s population spoke a mother tongue other than the official language of their state. Constitutional safeguards were provided, including Article 30, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions, and Article 347, which allows the President to recognize a minority language as official in parts of a state upon request. Since 1956, an amendment (the 7th, adding the Eighth Schedule languages) committed the government to provide primary and secondary education in the mother tongue where numbers justified it, and to appoint a Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities to monitor implementation.

Implementation Challenges

In practice, the enforcement of these safeguards has been inconsistent, with state governments varying in their defense of minority language rights. The Commissioner’s reports frequently cite cases of discrimination against linguistic minorities in schooling, professional education, and state jobs due to lack of official-language proficiency. While some states provide basic education in minority languages at the primary level, many minority communities feel their languages and cultures have not been fully protected.

The Case of Urdu

One specific case discussed is Urdu, India’s largest minority language. Despite being one of India’s scheduled national languages, Urdu found no refuge as an official state language after reorganisation (except in Jammu & Kashmir). In states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the governments asserted that Hindi and Urdu were not separate languages and phased out Urdu from many schools and official use. By 1980, only $3.7%$ of U.P. primary students received instruction in Urdu, despite Urdu speakers being over $10%$ of the population. Urdu intellectuals complained it was being treated as a “foreign language”. While Nehru defended Urdu and urged U.P. to declare it an additional official language where it was widely used, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were reluctant due to fears of communal unrest. By contrast, Andhra Pradesh (from 1968) and Karnataka did recognize Urdu in certain regions and provided Urdu-medium schooling. The authors note that the Urdu issue became entangled with religious politics, but despite official neglect and hostility, Urdu continued to exist and even grow in literature, media, films and television.

Conclusion

Post-independence India largely accommodated its linguistic diversity within the federal structure. By reorganizing states on linguistic lines and instituting safeguards for minorities, the national leadership defused a potentially divisive issue. The result was a more stable union of states with political boundaries aligned to language, which “cleared the ground for national integration” rather than imperiling it. However, disputes over borders, resources, and minority rights persisted. Linguistic reorganisation was a defining project of consolidation in independent India, carried out with broad popular support and generally positive outcomes for the nation's unity.