Linguistic reorganisation of the states referred to the redrawing of the boundaries of the states on the basis of language which became an important issue after independence. Though this was a long pending demand which had support of all political parties almost since the 1920’s, the painful memories and impact of partition made many national leaders skeptical about this endeavour. It was feared that linguistic reorganization might affect the unity of India and may result in its balkanization. However a rational assessment of linguistic reorganization 67 years after the first linguistic states of Andhra pradesh was formed indicates that linguistic reorganization proved to be a boon rather than being a bane to Indian unity.

Fears Concerning Linguistic Reorganization

Although linguistic reorganisation was earlier accepted by the Congress leaders in 1920, many of the national leaders felt that after partition and severe communal disharmony prevailing at that time, adding one more element of division based on language will seriously impact the unity of India. This view was seconded by various committees like Dhar committee, JVP committee, and even SRC on the basis of which finally linguistic reorganization happened.

1. The biggest fear was linguistic states may unnecessarily create pressures on the newly founded nation. The congress led nation felt that states formed solely on linguistic basis will be unsuitable and might even pose risk to national unity.
2. Leadership was apprehensive that the demands for linguistic reorganization may lead to growth in the number of different sub-national communities and could add to the number of partitions.
3. Prominent national leaders of the time were also strongly opposed to linguistic reorganization. Nehru and Patel were strongly opposed to the formation of linguistic states fearing it might weaken integration of the country.
4. Even Gandhi, who was the force behind formation of linguistic committees in Congress, opposed this move and observed that this move might result in the vanishing of India’s Independence once states’ states go on their own way.
5. The other major concern as observed by the Dhar commission was linguistic reorganization will create states where a substantial section of population will be linguistic minorities creating a fresh minority problem.
6. Language as correctly observed by the JVP committee is both a binding and separating force. Leaders of the time were of the opinion that security , unity and economic prosperity of India were primary concerns and every separatist tendency must be rigorously discouraged.
7. The linguistic states’ movement was turning out to be violent and conceding to their demands on emotional and not on rational criteria was not felt right by leaders like Ambedkar.

How Linguistic Reorganization Kept India United

After independence,demand for linguistic states was on the rise as could be seen in case of the demand for the Andhra state which was led by Potti Sriramulu His death after a 56 days fast further accelerated the movement and led to the formation of the Andhra state. However,this spurred the struggle for formation of other states on linguistic lines in other parts of the country. Resulting appointment of the States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 which gave nod for linguistic reorganization of states. The SRC act passed in 1956 led to the formation of 14 states and 6 union territories. Despite initial inhibitions towards linguistic states,it was later accepted that linguistic reorganization kept India united.

1. By reorganizing the states on linguistic lines, the national leadership removed a major grievance which could have led to fissiparous tendencies.
2. Linguistic reorganization led to better penetration of power to grassroots 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 its people.
3. People attach great importance to their culture and language. Linguistic reorganization led to preservation of local culture, traditions ,language and dialects.
4. In a linguistically heterogeneous state, there will always be allegations of bias in distribution of resources on the basis of language like in the case of erstwhile United Madras province. This sort of accumulated grievances will lead violent protests and affect internal harmony of the country. Linguistic reorganization has reduced these complaints.
5. Linguistic reorganization of the states has not in any manner adversely affected the federal structure of the Union or weakened or paralysed the Centre as many had feared. In Fact this had led to cooperative federalism as constitution makers have envisaged.
6. Governance was made easier in areas which shared linguistic and geographical features.
7. Indian federalism is based on language. Had this not been so, states might have fought over regions to incorporate. Thus,linguistic division gave an objective basis for division.

The disputes over boundaries between different states, linguistic minorities and economic issues such as sharing of waters, and power and surplus food still persist. However, the linguistic reorganisation of the states has removed an important contentious issue that could have jeopardized India’s integrity and has thus strengthened the cause of Indian unity.