linguistic reorganisation of states

The linguistic reorganisation of states in India has been a pivotal chapter in the country's post-independence history. The debate on the divisive nature of linguistic-based state creation, recently reignited by the Tamil Nadu Governor's criticism, highlights the complex balance between preserving regional identities and maintaining national unity.

Background of the Reorganisation of States in India

Initial Classification (1950-1956):

When India gained independence, the colonial boundaries were inherited, which lacked coherence. The Constitution of 1950 classified states into four categories:

1. Part A: British provinces,

2. Part B: Princely states,

3. Part C: Smaller provinces,

4. Part D: Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

This structure was seen as temporary and led to demands for a more rational reorganisation.

The Demand for Linguistic States:

The call for states based on language and cultural identity grew, especially in southern India. The death of Sri Potti Sreeramulu in 1952, following a hunger strike demanding the creation of a separate Andhra State, became a catalyst. As a result, Andhra State was created in 1953, marking the first instance of a linguistic state being formed.

Government Responses:

To address the growing demand for linguistic states, several commissions and committees were formed:

• Dhar Commission (1948): Rejected language as the basis for state creation.

• JVP Committee (1949): Warned against linguistic reorganisation, fearing national disintegration.

• States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) (1953): Headed by Justice Fazl Ali, the SRC recommended language as an important factor but not the sole criterion for state formation. It emphasized the importance of unity, security, and administrative efficiency.

• States Reorganisation Act (1956): Based on the SRC’s report, this act reorganised India into 14 states and 6 Union Territories, aligning many states based on linguistic groups.

Arguments in Favor of Linguistic Reorganisation

1. Cultural Accommodation in Federalism:

The linguistic reorganisation helped respect India's diverse cultural and linguistic identity, aligning with the country's values of democracy and pluralism. It allowed states to preserve their cultural identities while contributing to national unity.

2. Integration of Regional Aspirations:

By reorganising states based on language, India was able to integrate regional aspirations into the constitutional framework, which helped prevent alienation and fostered a sense of inclusion.

3. Defusing Secessionist Tendencies:

Linguistic pluralism is credited with preventing secessionist tendencies, unlike in countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where forced linguistic uniformity led to violent conflict (e.g., the Bengali-West Pakistan conflict and the Sinhala-Tamil divide).

4. Administrative Efficiency:

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recognised that linguistic homogeneity aids local governance and improves communication in education, the judiciary, and bureaucracy.

5. Political Representation and Empowerment:

The reorganisation helped regional parties rise and participate actively in national politics, strengthening democratic decentralisation and increasing electoral participation.

6. Unity in Diversity:

The principle of unity in diversity was reinforced by allowing states to celebrate their regional languages and cultures, without threatening national cohesion.

Arguments Against Linguistic Reorganisation

1. Rise of Regionalism and Linguistic Chauvinism:

One of the key criticisms is that the overemphasis on linguistic identity has led to the exclusion of linguistic minorities. For example, non-Marathi speakers in Maharashtra and non-Tamil speakers in Tamil Nadu often face marginalisation. This can result in majoritarianism, where the dominant linguistic group suppresses minority voices.

2. Politicisation of Linguistic Identities:

Regional political parties have sometimes exploited linguistic sentiments to demand new states, capitalising on local emotions for political gain. This often leads to the inflation of demands for separate states, leading to unnecessary divisions.

3. Inter-State Tensions and Border Disputes:

Linguistic reorganisation has led to border disputes between states. For instance, the Belagavi dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra arises from linguistic claims over the city, which remains a contentious issue.

4. Administrative Overload:

The continuous demand for new linguistic states, such as Tulu Nadu or Vidarbha, places a burden on governance and national consensus. This leads to administrative challenges and strained resources.

5. Weakening of National Identity:

Some argue that prioritising regional identity over national identity could lead to a fragmented India, where state interests overshadow national concerns. Critics worry that this could undermine pan-Indian nationalism.

India's Future Strategy for Language Policy

Given the challenges and opportunities posed by linguistic diversity, India’s language policy should be inclusive, flexible, and forward-thinking.

1. Promotion of Multilingualism:

India should adopt a flexible Three-Language Formula in schools, allowing states to promote their own languages while ensuring national integration. This should include early education in mother tongues and promoting multilingualism.

2. Safeguarding Linguistic Rights:

Constitutional safeguards, such as Articles 29 and 30 (which protect linguistic minorities' rights in education and culture), should be strengthened to prevent linguistic exclusion within states.

3. Inter-State Cultural Exchanges:

Programs like ‘Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat’ should be strengthened to encourage mutual respect and cultural exchange between linguistic regions, fostering unity across India’s diverse population.

4. Inclusive Language Policies:

States should address the linguistic exclusion of minorities within their borders, ensuring inclusive language policies that accommodate all linguistic communities.

5. Multilingual Administrative Systems:

Encourage multilingual signage, official forms, and communication in states with high linguistic diversity to facilitate better governance and citizen engagement.

6. Promotion of Digital Content in Indian Languages:

Initiatives like Bhashini can play a significant role in ensuring that digital content and governance are available in all of India’s languages, promoting digital inclusion.

Conclusion

India’s future lies in embracing a multilingual, inclusive federalism, where language becomes a unifying force, not a dividing one. The country must balance regional autonomy with national integration by adopting a flexible language policy that promotes cultural diversity while upholding the unity of the nation. By ensuring constitutional safeguards, fostering inclusive policies, and using modern tools like Bhashini, India can navigate its linguistic challenges and emerge stronger, more cohesive, and more diverse.