Emergence of new state and their demand-

The integration of India was accomplished within less than a year-and-a-half after its independence in
1947. It involved the reduction of state units and provinces and princely states from 571 to 27. This was
not an easy task because, over the centuries, there had developed in India numerous self-contained
linguistic and cultural units with their distinct identities.

The Constitutional Provision

The grouping of the States at Independence was done more on the basis of historical and political
principles than social, cultural or linguistic divisions.

Article 2 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to admit into the Union, or establish new
States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. By Article 3, Parliament has the power by law to form
a new State from the territory of any State or by uniting two or more States, increase or decrease the
area of any State, or alter the boundaries or the name of any State.The conditions laid down for the
making of such a law are that (i) such a Bill must be introduced only on the recommendation of the
President, and (ii) before recommending the Bill, the President is to refer it to the concerned State
Legislature which would express its views within a specified period. The President is not, however, bound
by the views of the State Legislature. However, in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the consent of the
State Legislature is required before a Bill on such alterations is introduced in Parliament.

Article 4 stipulates that any such law may make supplemental, incidental or other consequential
provisions and may amend the First and Fourth Schedules without going through the constitutional
amendment process

A simple majority and ordinary legislative procedure is enough for Parliament to form new States or alter
existing State boundaries. It may be noted that the Article does not apply to cession of territory to a
foreign State. Any treaty of agreement involving ceding Indian territory to an outside authority requires a
constitutional amendment to be implemented.

States Reorganisation Act:

The Government appointed a commission under S.K. Dhar to examine the feasibility of
reorganisation of states on a linguistic basis. The S.K Dhar Commission preferred reorganisation
for administrative convenience rather than on linguistic basis. However, in 1953, the first
linguistic State came into being as Andhra Pradesh, created by separating the Telugu speaking
areas from the State of Madras. This followed a prolonged agitation and the death of Potti
Sriramulu after a 56-day hunger strike. As there were several more demands for states on a
linguistic basis, a commission was set up under Justice F. Fazl Ali with H.N. Kunzru and KM.
Panikkar as members to study the demand.
It submitted its report in 1955. Its suggestions were accepted with modifications and the States
Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956. As a result, the four-fold distribution of States was
replaced by 14 States (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal)
and six Union Territories (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Laccadive,
Minicoy and Amandivi, Manipur and Tripura) vide the Seventh Constitution Amendment.

Language was decided as the basis on which India’s states were to be

reorganised for the following reasons:
1. Linguistic basis would ensure larger participation of the local people in the administration.

2. Linguistic regions were, naturally, geographically contiguous also, and this made them easily
governable;governabl.

3. The vernacular languages, which had been neglected by the British, could now flourish;

4. A highly volatile situation had occurred in many parts of the country and the decision to form
linguistic states helped modify the situation to a great extent.

Reorganisation on the recommendations of the State Reorganisation Commission in 1956

resulted in 14 states and 6 Union territories.

There were certain negative consequences of the reorganisation of states on a

linguistic basis:
1. It encouraged a feeling of regionalism;

2. It hindered economic cooperation between states;

3. It developed an antagonistic attitude towards neighbouring states.

More New States:

Agitation and violence again resulted in the bifurcation of the State of Bombay into two States,
viz, Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960. Then in 1963 the State of Nagaland was created
comprising a tribal area from the State of Assam.

In 1966 the State of Punjab was reorganised on a linguistic basis on account of growing pressure
over the creation of a Punjabi Suba; as a result of the J.C. Shah Commission report, the Punjabi
speaking areas were constituted into the State of Punjab, while the predominantly Hindi-
speaking areas were constituted as the new State of Haryana, and the hill areas were merged
with the contiguous Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh; Chandigarh became a Union Territory
serving as the common capital of the two States.

Meghalaya, which had been created as an autonomous sub-state within the State of Assam in
1969, was made a State in 1971. Himachal Pradesh was upgraded into a State in 1971. In 1972
Manipur and Tripura were elevated to Statehood. In 1975 Sikkim was admitted as the 22nd
State of India. Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh (erstwhile Union Territories carved out of Assam in
1969) and Goa became States in 1987.

India’s political map was redrawn again in late July-early August 2000, when both Houses of
Parliament passed the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2000, the Uttar Pradesh
Reorganisation Bill, 2000, and the Bihar Reorganisation Bill, 2000 for the creation of
Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand respectively. The bills got presidential assent in August,
and the states came into being in November 2000. Now there are 28 States and 7 Union
Territories.

Why the Emergence of New States:

In the cases of Gujarat and Maharashtra, the feeling of separate cultural identities and
languages prompted demand for separate statehoods.

In the northeastern region, tribal affiliations were recognised as a basis of statehood when
Nagaland was created. Of course, partly the state was created to calm down the Naga
insurgency which was the first armed challenge to the unity of the Indian state. Several other
states were formed in the northeastern region on the basis of tribal/ethnic affiliations under the
North-Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971.

In the Hindi language states, some regions were apparently not satisfied with the linguistic
criterion alone. There were significant movements for reorganisation on cultural criteria, as with
the tribal areas of central India.

The hill regions of Uttar Pradesh had their own claims, that ecological distinctness conferred a
degree of cultural specificity, and a set of economic problems that could be tackled only within
the framework of autonomy that statehood brought. In the 1990s, ground realities had changed
enough to bring the main political formations closer to movements demanding statehood in the
Hindi heartland. And by 2000, three more states were created.

In the case of Chhattisgarh, the demand was based both on the grounds of tribal affiliations and
lack of economic development. The people of this region felt the region’s natural resources
were being exploited by the state government but its development needs were not being met
to a commensurate level, and that only separate statehood would help the region grow
economically.

The establishment of Jharkhand is considered a major achievement of the tribal people who
have been agitating for a state of their own for fifty years. Though the Jharkhand movement had
been demanding a separate state comprising the tribal dominated areas of south Bihar, Orissa,
Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal, the government has conceded a Jharkhand state comprising
18 districts in southern Bihar only.The existence of Jharkhand dates back to the 13th century
when Raja Jai Singh Deo of Orissa had declared himself the ruler of Jharkhand. ‘Jharkhand’ is a
cultural name given to the region comprising the forest tracts of Chhotanagpur Plateau.

The demand for Uttaranchal (later renamed Uttarakhand) started way back in 1930 with the
people of Kumaon and Garhwal regions wanting to enjoy the fruits of development which they
felt were not reaching the hilly districts. There was a lack of agriculture, industry and
infrastructure and there was, consequently, unemployment in most of the region. This, felt the
people, could be remedied only through the conferment of separate statehood.

Several demands for separate statehood are gathering momentum. Some of these are quite
long pending, others have come up more recently.

The demand for Telengana goes back a long time. In 1947, Telengana was none other than the
princely state of Hyderabad under the Nizam. In 1953, all Telugu districts of Madras were
separated to form a new Andhra state—the first Indian state formed on linguistic basis. Later
Andhra was merged with the Telugu speaking area of Hyderabad to become Andhra Pradesh as
it is now.From those very times, the demand for a separate Telengana state has grown—
showing, perhaps, that a common language need not be the only criterion for identity. In fact,
the State Reorganisation Commission had recommended against the Andhra-Telengana
merger.However, the Centre did not accept this recommendation. The Telengana region even
now continues to be backward, isolated and underdeveloped. The people feel these problems
would be tackled better if they got statehood.

Yet another region dreaming of statehood is Vidarbha in Maharashtra. Again, the issue is
underdevelopment: rich Maharashtra state is seen to have done little towards developing this
backward region. The spate of farmers’ suicide only emphasised the sorry situation.

The supporters of a separate Kutch state claim that the ‘step motherly’ treatment meted out to
the largest drought-prone and underdeveloped district vis-a-vis its counterparts in Saurashtra
and the other regions of Gujarat have brought together supporters of all the political parties on
the war path.In their support for a separate statehood to Kutch the supporters of the
movement claim that their culture, language and nature are different from those in other parts
of Gujarat. Hence, the demand of a separate Kutch state is justified.

In Orissa, there is a demand for a separate Kosala state. According to leaders demanding it,
Kosal Raj, which finds mention in the Ramayana, was actually what is now western Orissa. It has
been alleged that the government’s main concern is with the coastal region, while the western
region has been largely neglected. People of this backward region are victims of acute poverty
and deprivation. Sale of children, a high rate of infant mortality, and deaths due to malnutrition
are some major concerns in western Orissa.

There are movements in Uttar Pradesh to carve out three more states from it—Bundelkhand,
Harit Pradesh and Purvanchal. In this case, there is more keenness on the part of political
elements than the people. Statehood implies political power for leaders, and after all even the
people do like the idea of a state capital closer home.

Gorkhas are ethnic Nepalis who have long demanded a separate state called “Gorkhaland” be
carved out of the eastern state of West Bengal. The original Gorkhaland insurgency in 1980s
ended after Gorkha leaders accepted limited autonomy. The demand for statehood was revived
in 2008. The Gorkhas say it is an issue of homeland and identity for them—they do not want to
be considered migrant Nepalese citizens.

Even Tamil Nadu has recently faced a demand for the bifurcation of the state into north Tamil
Nadu and south Tamil Nadu along River Cauvery “for effective administrative” purpose.It was
claimed that the fruits of globalisation and industrialisation was not being enjoyed by people
farther away from Chennai and its close neighbourhood where major industries were set up.
Bifurcation of the state was necessary, it was claimed by the leaders of the movement in order
to ensure uniform distribution of economic growth and power, and for effective administration.

There are thus different strands in the demand for and emergence of new states.

1.One main strand is the cultural/social affiliations.

2.Another important reason is the strong perception that ‘development’—in the sense of
equitable share in resources, employment entrepreneurial opportunities and adequate voice in
political decision-making—will never reach them in the bigger state and can be achieved only
with a separate statehood for the aggrieved region.

3.there is the inequitable development process. Those who feel left out, or exploited or losing
out in the economic process put up the demand for a new state believing they will be
empowered to chart out a better future for themselves..
These demands would not emerge if socio-economic development is equitable and equality
under the law were scrupulously observedThe leaders of both the Central and State
governments have been found to be more and more interested to remain in power than to look
into the basic needs of the people. They did not like to decentralise power to ensure the
transfer of resources and removal of economic imbalances down to the grass-root
level.Accumulation of frustration among the people encourages unscrupulous elements to raise
the demand for new states for acquiring arbitrary power.