The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was a body constituted by the Central Government of India in 1953 to recommend the reorganization of state boundaries along the linguistic lines. In 1955, after nearly 2 years of study, the Commission recommended that India's state boundaries should be reorganized to correspond more closely to the country's linguistic divisions, and proposed 16 states and 3 union territories.
States Reorganisation Commission consisted of Fazal Ali, Kavalam Madhava Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru. Some of its recommendations were implemented in the States Reorganisation Act of 1966.
Contents |
After India became independent from the British Empire in 1947, the constituent units of India were classified under the following distinct categories:[1]
| Category | Description | Adminstrator | States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part A states | Former British provinces | An elected governor and state legislature | 9 states |
| Part B states | Former princely states or groups of Covenanting states | Rajpramukh (former princes) | 8 states: Hyderabad, Saurashtra, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan |
| Part C | Former princely states and provinces | Chief commissioner | 10 states |
| Part D | Union Territory | Governor appointed by the Indian president | Andaman and Nicobar |
The borders of these states, inherited from British India, were not suitable for easy administration. The internal provincial borders of British India were a result of historical events, as well as political, military and strategic planning by the British. The Government agreed that the reorganization of state borders was necessary, but the basis of reorganization was yet to be determined.
One of the proposals was to reorganize the state on the basis of languages of India. This would make administration easier, and would help replace the caste and religion-based identities with less controversial linguistic identities. Earlier in 1920, the members of the Indian National Congress had agreed on the linguistic reorganization of the Indian states as one of the party's political goals.[2] The Provincial Committees of the party were set on this basis since 1920. In 1927, the Congress declared that it was committed to the "the redistribution of provinces on a linguistic basis", and reaffirmed its stance several times, including in the election manifesto of 1945-46.[3]
But, soon after independence, the Congress-led Government became concerned that the states formed solely on a linguistic basis might be unsuitable, and might even pose a risk to the national unity.[2] On 17 June 1948, Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, set up the Linguistic Provinces Commission (aka Dar Commission) to recommend whether the states should be reorganized on linguistic basis or not. The committee included SK Dar (retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court), JN Lal (lawyer) and Panna Lall (retired Indian Civil Service officer). In its 10 December 1948 report, the Commission recommended that "the formation of provinces on exclusively or even mainly linguistic considerations is not in the larger interests of the Indian nation".[4] It recommended the reorganization of the provinces of Madras, Bombay and Central Provinces and Berar primarily on the basis of geographical contiguity, financial self-sufficiency and ease of administration. Soon after the report was published, the Congress, at its Jaipur session, set up the "JVP committee" to study the recommendations of the Dar Commission. The committee, comprised Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, in addition to the Congress president Pattabhi Sitaramayya. In its report dated 1 April 1949, the Committee stated that the time was not suitable for formation of new provinces, but also stated "if public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole".[3]
B. R. Ambedkar submitted a Memorandum (dated 14 October 1948) to the Dar Commission, supporting the formation of linguistic provinces, specifically the formation of the Marathi-majority Maharashtra state with Bombay as its capital. To address the concern of national unity, he suggested that the official language of every province should be same as the official language of the Central Government.[5] KM Munshi, a Gujarati leader opposed to incorporation of Bombay in the proposed Maharashtra state, opposed the linguistic reorganization proposal, saying that "the political ambition of a linguistic group can only be satisfied by the exclusion and discrimination of other linguistic groups within the area. No safeguards and no fundamental rights can save them from the subtle psychological exclusion which linguism implies."[3]
By the 1952, the demand for creation of a Telugu-majority state in the parts of the Madras State had become powerful. Potti Sreeramulu, one of the activists demanding the formation of a Telugu-majority state, died on 16 December 1952 after undertaking a fast-unto-death. Subsequently, the Telugu-majority Andhra State was formed in 1953. This sparked of agitations all over the country, with linguistic groups demanding separate statehoods.[1]
In order to reorganise the states on the basis of language, the Government of India constituted the State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali, a former Supreme Court judge.
The Commission submitted its report on 30 Septemeber 1955, with the following recommendations:[1]
The report was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 14 December 1955.
The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 implemented some of the recommendations of the SRC. In addition to the three Union Territories (UTs) proposed by the SRC, it also established Laccadive, Minicoy & Amindivi Islands, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura as UTs. It established a total of 14 states in addition to these UTs.
The recommendations of the commission were not accepted universally.
The SRC has recommended formation of the Malayalam-majority Kerala state by merger of the Travancore-Cochin state with some parts of the Tamil-majority Madras State.
The Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress (TTNC) demanded to merge Thovalai, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode, Neyyatinkarai, Senkottai. Deviculam, Peermade and Chittoor taluks with Madras State.[6] However, the Commission recommended only the merger of Thovalai, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilvancode and Shenkottai with Madras State. Considering the economic loss to the Travancore-Cochin State the Commission did not favour the merger of the hilly districts, Deviculam and Peermade with Madras State.[6] In Neyyatinkarai Taluk the Commission found that 86% of the people knew Malayalam. So the Commission did not favour the merger of this Taluk with Madras State. In Chittoor also the commission found that the majority people spoke Malayalam and hence it was merged with Malabar and consequently with the newly formed Kerala State.[6] During the Lok Sabha (Parliament) discussions, the representatives of Travancore-Cochin State vehemently opposed the Commission's recommendations for the merger of the Southern Taluks with Madras State.[6] A. Nesamony argued for the merger of Neyyatinkarai, Deviculam, Peermade and Chittoor with the Tamil-majority Madras State.[6]
Even though the SRC recommended for the merger of the entire Shenkottai taluk, the subsequently formed Joint Committee recommended the eastern portion of Shenkottai alone to be merged with Madras State. This decision was finally published authoritatively on 16 January 1956. In the July 1956 Lok Sabha meeting, Nesamony argued for the full merger of Shencottai as recommended by SRC. The House refused to reconsider the decision of the joint Committee by over-ruling the recommendation of the SRC.[6]
On the basis of the percentage of the people speaking Tamil, the S.R.Commission recommended for the transfer of four taluks namely, Agasteeswaram, Thovalai, Kalkulam and Vilavancode to Tamil Nadu from the State of Travancore-Cochin. The same yard stick was used for the transfer of Shenkotta Taluk to Tamil Nadu. While dealing with Devikulam and Peermede taluks, even though the majority was Tamil – speaking people and the representatives to the State Assembly were Tamilians as in the case of the above indicated five taluks, the commission used a different yard stick and recommended to retain in Travancore – Cochin State. One of the three members of the commission Sardar K.M. Panicker was a Malayalee, and it is alleged that he may have influenced the decision . Even though Shenkotta was fully transferred by the commission, the Joint – Committee appointed to fix the exact boundaries of the states, divided Shenkotta Taluk and allowed Travancore – Cochin State to retain a major portion. This verdict remained controversial.
The Commission's report judged the arguments for and against the merger of the Telugu-majority Telangana region (of Hyderabad State) and the Andhra State (created in 1953). Para 369 to 389 of SRC deals with the merger of Telangana and Andhra to establish the Andhra Pradesh state (complete text of the recommendations is available on Wikisource).
Several Telugu leaders disagreed with the merger, and continued to pursue a separate Telangana.
The Akali Dal, a Sikh-dominated political party active mainly in Punjab, sought to create a Punjabi Suba (a Punjabi-majority) province. This new state would be a Sikh-majority state, which caused concern among the Punjabi Hindus. The Sikh leaders such Fateh Singh tactically stressed the linguistic basis of the demand, while downplaying its religious basis — a state where the distinct Sikh identity could be preserved.[7] The Hindu newspapers from Jalandhar, exhorted the Punjabi Hindus to declare Hindi as their "mother tongue", so that the Punjabi Suba proponents could be deprived of the argument that their demand was solely linguistic.
The States Reorganization Commission rejected the demand for a Punjabi-majority state saying that it lacked a majority support and that Punjabi was not grammatically very distinct from Hindi. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was merged with Punjab, though. Akali Dal continued its movement, which later led to the formation of the Sikh-majority Punjab state.
After India became independent in 1947, the Belgaum district (which was in the erstwhile Bombay Presidency) became a part of the Bombay State. The award of the Belgaum district to the Kannada-majority Mysore State (later Karnataka) was contested by the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which wanted it to be included in the proposed Marathi-majority Maharashtra state.