States Reorganization Act
The States Reorganization Act , which became law on August 31, 1956, was a legislative package passed by the Indian parliament that regulated the reorganization of Indian territory into individual states according to ethnic-linguistic principles. For procedural reasons, a corresponding regulation followed separately for the two states of Bihar and West Bengal and a little later with the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act , which came into force on September 1, 1956. The territorial changes associated with the two laws were implemented on November 1, 1956.
Indian independence and the integration of the princely states
On June 15, 1947, the Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament came into force, which provided for the division of British India into two states, a predominantly Hindu state India and a Muslim state Pakistan . On August 14, 1947, the highest representative of the British colonial power, the Governor General and Viceroy of India , Louis Mountbatten in Karachi Pakistan and the following day in Delhi India formally granted independence (as Dominions within the framework of the British Commonwealth ). Immediately afterwards, serious unrest broke out between Hindus and Muslims, which resulted in conditions similar to civil war.
In India, political power was taken over by representatives of the Indian National Congress . The Indian National Congress sought to establish a Republic of India. At the time of British colonial power, however, a considerable part of India was not directly under British rule, but was ruled by more than 560 indigenous Indian princely dynasties who were in a contractual and personal relationship of loyalty to the British crown. The relationship between these princely states and an independent Indian state was unclear. On July 5, 1947, Vallabhbhai Patel appealed to the still reluctant princes (many had previously agreed in principle) to join the Dominion India for the joint settlement of matters of defense, foreign policy, and communications and communications. On July 25, 1947, Lord Mountbatten also addressed the princes with a similar request. Many princes voluntarily and out of patriotic convictions, or realistically knowing that there was no alternative, agreed to the incorporation of their countries into the Indian Union. The rulers of individual larger princely states, such as the Nizam of Hyderabad , the Raja of Travancore and the Nawab of Bhopal , tried to pursue an independent policy between India and Pakistan. Partly under military pressure from the Indian Union, finally to incorporate their countries into the Indian republic. The Junagadh Nawab declared the annexation of its predominantly Hindu principality to Pakistan, whereupon it was occupied by Indian troops. The Maharajah of Kashmir also tried to maintain its independence, but joined his country under the impression of a Muslim rebellion against his rule in India.
Ultimately, all princes were forced to give up their political power and their state territories were incorporated into the newly founded states of India and Pakistan. In the Indian Union, the administrative division of the British colonial power was initially continued in the stabilization phase after the declaration of independence. Most of the smaller former princely states were incorporated into the formerly British provinces.
Dar Commission and JVP Committee
The Indian National Congress had called for an administrative reorganization of India according to linguistic aspects early on during British colonial rule. The agitation against the partition of Bengal in 1905 was based primarily on the argument that the Bengali language area belonged together . Since 1921 the demand for the reorganization of India on a linguistic basis was part of the party program of the Congress. When independence came within reach, the Congress Party became more cautious in its statements and only promised a reorganization of India according to linguistic aspects "as far as circumstances made it possible". Leading Congress politicians feared a revival of regionalist and particularist interests and corresponding centrifugal tendencies in independent India. The first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized that the first priority must be the stabilization of the newly created state and that a reorganization of the federal territory could only be considered later. On June 17, 1948, the Linguistic Provinces Commissions was established. The commission should decide whether the new formation of the essentially linguistically defined states of Andhra , Karnataka , Kerala and Maharashtra, called for by various parties, would be sensible and feasible.
The commission consisted of three people, Chairman S. K. Dar, a retired Allahabad High Court judge , Panna Lall, a former Indian Civil Service official, and B. C. Banerje. After its chairman it became known as the "Dar Commission" . In its final report, the commission warned against an imminent reorganization of the territory of the Indian Union and rejected the concept of linguistically homogeneous provinces:
“[…] The existing Indian Provinces are administrative units of British imperialism. They came into existence in a somewhat haphazard way, and were not designed to work [as] democratic institutions […] But they have taken root and are now living vital organisms and have served the useful purpose of bringing together people who might otherwise have remained separated. [...] In any rational and scientific planning that may take place in regard to the provinces of India in the future, homogeneity of language cannot be a decisive or even an important factor. Administrative convenience, history, geography, economy, culture and many other matters will also have to be given due weight. [...] this is certainly not the time for embarking upon the enterprise of redrawing the map of the whole of southern India including the Deccan, Bombay and the Central Provinces. India is yet to become a nation and Indian states are yet to be integrated. [...] India [...] cannot afford to add to its anxieties the heat, controversy and bitterness, which the demarcation of boundaries and allotment of the capital cities of Bombay and Madras will involve. [...] In order to secure this stability and integration, India should have a strong center and a national language. [...] The only good that we can see in a linguistic province is the possible advantage it has in working the legislature in the regional language. But this is more than counter-balanced by the obstruction, the linguistic provinces will inevitably cause to the spread of national language and national feeling in the country. "
“[…] The existing Indian provinces are administrative units of British imperialism. They emerged in a somewhat arbitrary way and were not designed to function as democratic institutions […] However, they have taken root and are now vital organisms that also served the useful purpose of bringing together people who in other circumstances remained separate from one another would be. In a rational and scientific planning that may take place in the future with regard to the provinces, the homogeneity of the language cannot be a decisive or even an important criterion. Administrative considerations, historical background, geography, economy, culture and many other things must also be given due consideration. [...] this is certainly not the time to start the task of redrawing the map of all of South India, including the Dean , Bombay and the Central Provinces . India must first grow into a nation and the individual states must first be integrated. […] India […] cannot afford to add to its fears the heat, the controversy and the bitterness that the new demarcations and the allocation of the capitals Bombay and Madras would bring with it. […] To ensure stability and integration, India should have a strong center and a national language. [...] The only good thing we can see in a linguistic province is the advantage that the legislative process can be in a regional language. […] However, this is more than outweighed by the resistance that linguistic provinces will inevitably oppose to the spread of a national language and national feeling in the country. "
After the report of the Dar Commission became known, numerous protests arose, so that the leadership of the congress party felt compelled to set up a separate committee to deal with this question at their annual party congress in Jaipur in December 1948. This committee consisted of the three people Jawaharlal Nehru , Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and was known as the "JVP Committee" after the first letters of the names of its members. In its report of April 1, 1949, the JVP committee came to similar conclusions as the Dar Commission and only recommended the formation of a linguistically defined state of Andhra from parts of the former Madras presidency .
State formation in 1950
The recommendations of the Dar Commission influenced Indian politics in the following years. In the first decade of the Indian Republic there was a strong tendency to elevate India's largest language by speakers, Hindi , to the general state language. The Indian constitution , which came into force on January 26, 1950, defined India as a federal republic and took over the states as they emerged from the colonial borders after independence. The constitution differentiated between 4 categories of states or territories, which were given the suffixes Part A , B , C and D after their listing in the attached tables of the constitution . In the narrower sense, only the A and B states actually corresponded to partially autonomous federal states, the C states had more the character of territories that were indirectly administered by the central government. Most of the C states were granted elected representation under the Government of Part C States Act 1951, but this only had limited powers. Important issues such as financial matters were decided directly by the Indian Ministry of the Interior.
| category | description | Administrator | States |
|---|---|---|---|
| A states | Former British Provinces | elected governor and elected parliament |
9 states: Assam , Bihar , Bombay , Punjab , Madhya Pradesh , Madras , Orissa , Uttar Pradesh , West Bengal |
| B states | Former princely states or associations of princely states |
Rajpramukh (former prince) and elected parliament |
9 states: Hyderabad , Jammu and Kashmir , Madhya Bharat , Mysore , Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan , Saurashtra , Travancore-Cochin , Vindhya Pradesh |
| C states | Former princely states | Chief commissioner appointed by the government, usually also elected parliament |
10 countries: Ajmer , Coorg , Koch-Bihar 1 , Bhopal , Bilaspur , Delhi , Himachal Pradesh , Kachchh , Manipur , Tripura |
| D area 2 | Union Territory | appointed governor | Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
States Reorganization Commission
In the long run, however, the division into class A, B, C, and D states proved to be unsustainable. A precedent was the creation of the state of Andhra from parts of the previous state of Madras according to linguistic criteria, which took place in 1953 under the pressure of years of agitation. This marked the path to the creation of essentially linguistically defined states on which there was no turning back.
On December 22, 1953, Prime Minister Nehru set up the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), whose task it was to develop recommendations for new states formed according to ethnic-linguistic conditions. The commission consisted of three notable people, former Supreme Court Justice Sayyid Fazal Ali , K. Madhava Panikkar , then Indian Ambassador to Cairo, and Hriday Nath Kunzru , a member of the Rajya Sabha , the Indian "House of States". None of the three people were members of the Congress Party. Fazal Ali chaired the meeting.
On February 23, 1954, the commission announced to the Indian public through the press that petitions and suggestions for the new territorial division could be made. In total, more than 150,000 such entries were received, of which, however, only around 2000 "well thought-out" ones were examined in more detail. The commission traveled more than 60,000 kilometers across India and interviewed more than 9,000 people from all walks of life.
On September 30, 1955, the commission presented its recommendations in a report. The recommendations were far-reaching. The report advocated an early reorganization of the states and cited as the main argument that the movement towards linguistic states could not be stopped after the creation of the state of Andhra. On the other hand, the ongoing uncertainty regarding the territorial division leads to economic disadvantages. The SRC report stressed that the Commission was not guided by purely linguistic points of view. Another important point was the economic viability of the new units to be created.
The report recommended the elimination of the previous distinction between A, B and C states. In particular, the C-States should, since they are too small to be economical, be affiliated with larger states. The number of Union territories should be reduced to a minimum. The draft published at the beginning corresponded to a relatively large extent to the later realized implementation (see below), but there were some essential differences: the state of Hyderabad was not to be dissolved, but to continue to exist and essentially to be reduced to its Telugu-speaking parts. The Marathi-speaking region of Nagpur was to be separated from Madhya Pradesh and raised to a separate state of Vidarbha . Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were to be annexed to the Punjab and Assam respectively. After the Commission's recommendations were published, there was an intense public and parliamentary debate on the proposals. In January the government tabled a bill that followed the proposals on most points. The parliaments of the states, whose approval was actually not required, were also consulted. On April 18, 1956, the draft law to amend the constitution was introduced into the Lok Sabha . After deliberation in the committees and the approval of both chambers, the States Reorganization Act on August 31, 1956 and the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act on October 19, 1956 became law. Since the border regulations between Bihar and West Bengal lasted a little longer, they were implemented in a separate law, the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act , which became law on September 1, 1956.
Specific Provisions of the States Reorganization Act
The States Reorganization Act dissolved 10 states: Hyderabad, Travancore-Cochin, Coorg, Saurashtra, Kachchh, Ajmer, Vindhya Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, Bhopal and the Punjab and East Patiala States Union (PEPSU). The territory of these states was divided among the neighboring states. Travancore-Cochin was a special case, as the state was formally dissolved, but a new state was then founded under a new name (Kerala) on very similar territory. So here it was more a matter of renaming. All previous C-states were either dissolved and annexed to other states or converted into union territories. The only previous D-state, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, also became a union territory.
After the States Reorganization Act was implemented, the following 14 states existed:
- Andhra Pradesh : In the state of Andhra was Telangana region of the dissolved State Hyderabad affiliated. The enlarged state was then named Andhra Pradesh.
- Assam : the area of Assam remained unchanged.
- Bihar : on the basis of the Bihar And West Bengal (Transfer Of Territories) Act, 1956 Bihar ceded parts of the Purnea district and parts of the Manbhum district to West Bengal. This gave West Bengal a land bridge between its previously unconnected northern and southern parts.
- Bombay : the state was enlarged by the addition of Saurashtra and Kachchh and the Marathi-speaking parts of Nagpur Division of Madhya Pradesh; the Marathwada region of Hyderabad was incorporated. The southern portions of Bombay were ceded to the state of Mysore. A small border area around Abu Road in the Banaskantha district was ceded to Rajasthan .
- Jammu and Kashmir : Jammu and Kashmir remained unchanged in its territory
- Kerala : Kerala was formally re-established as a federal state, but in fact it was essentially the successor state of Travancore-Cochin , which was enlarged by joining the Malabar district , which was previously part of Madras . The archipelagos of the Laccadives and Amindives as well as Minicoy , which were previously part of the Malabar district , were separated from the latter and converted into a union territory. The area of the later district of Kanyakumari on the southern tip of India came to Madras.
- Madhya Pradesh : Madhya Bharat , Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal were dissolved as states and incorporated into Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh received the exclave of Sironj , which previously belonged to Rajasthan . The Marathi-speaking parts of the Nagpur division were incorporated into the state of Bombay.
- Madras : the state was essentially limited to its present-day borders through the cession of the Malabar district to the newly formed state of Kerala and the kannada-speaking area around Kollegal to Mysore. From Tranvancore-Cochin, Madras gained territories (see above).
- Mysore : Mysore was significantly enlarged by the addition of the state of Coorg and the predominantly Kanada-speaking southern parts of the state of Bombay and western Hyderabad. From Madras Mysore received most of the coastal district of South Kanara (a small portion with the town of Kasaragod went to Kerala) and the area of Kollegal.
- Orissa : the territory of Orissa remained unchanged
- Punjab : the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was annexed to the Punjab.
- Rajasthan : Rajasthan was enlarged by the annexation of the Ajmer state . The Sironj exclave was ceded to Madhya Pradesh. In addition, Rajasthan received a small border strip around Abu Road from Bombay.
- Uttar Pradesh : the area of Uttar Pradesh remained unchanged. In a minority vote, KM Panikkar had spoken out in favor of dividing the state into at least two states, but did not prevail with this opinion.
- West Bengal : West Bengal received the aforementioned territories from Bihar
The following 6 Union Territories were formed:
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Delhi
- Himachal Pradesh
- Laccadives, Amine Divas and Minicoy
- Tripura
- Manipur
Further development
After the reorganization by the States Reorganization Act, the following states and union territories existed (numbers rounded):
| No. | Surname | Population in millions (1956) |
Area (km²) | Main language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Andhra Pradesh | 34 | 284,900 | Telugu |
| 2 | Assam | 10 | 230,500 | Assamese |
| 3 | Bihar | 41 | 165,800 | Hindi |
| 4th | Bombay | 51 | 487,000 | Marathi , Gujarati |
| 5 | Kerala | 14th | 38,900 | Malayalam |
| 6th | Madhya Pradesh | 28 | 458,500 | Hindi |
| 7th | Madras | 32 | 130,000 | Tamil |
| 8th | Mysore | 20th | 85,000 | Kannada |
| 9 | Orissa | 16 | 155,000 | Oriya |
| 10 | Punjab | 17th | 122,000 | Hindi , punjabi |
| 11 | Rajasthan | 17th | 342,000 | Hindi |
| 12th | Uttar Pradesh | 67 | 293,000 | Hindi |
| 13th | West Bengal | 28 | 98,000 | Bengali |
| 14th | Jammu and Kashmir | ~ 4 | ~ 139,000 | Kashmiri |
| No. | Surname | Population in millions (1956) |
Area (km²) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Delhi | 2 | 600 |
| 2 | Himachal Pradesh | 1 | 10,000 |
| 3 | Manipur | 0.6 | 9,000 |
| 4th | Tripura | 0.7 | 4,000 |
| 5 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands | 0.03 | 3,000 |
| 6th | Laccadives, Amine Divas and Minicoy | 0.02 | 100 |
After the implementation of the States Reorganization Act , the discussions about the reorganization of the Indian state initially subsided. The provisions of the Act proved to be largely sustainable and for the most part have remained in force to this day. However, some provisions of the act are still controversial today. One example is the dispute over the area of the city of Belagavi (Belgaum) between the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka . In 2014, after years of political agitation, the Telangana region broke away from Andhra Pradesh, to which it had been annexed by the Act, and formed its own federal state.
The only two remaining bilingual states after 1956 were Punjab and Bombay. Panjabi and Hindi speakers were united in Punjab and Gujarati and Marathi speakers in Bombay. The discussion about Bombay had centered above all on the future of the large, cosmopolitan port and trading city of Bombay (now Mumbai ), to which both the Gujarati and Marathi speakers made claims. Although the city was in the Marathi-speaking area, it was mainly Gujarati traders who contributed to its economic rise. The dispute over Bombay was reminiscent of the discussion about the city of Madras (now Chennai ) a few years earlier, which had been claimed by both Tamil and Telugu speakers. In 1960 the state of Bombay was also divided into the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra according to linguistic aspects in the Bombay Reorganization Act (the city of Bombay went to Maharashtra). In 1966, the Punjab Reorganization Act was followed by an analogous decision for the state of Punjab, from which the Hindi-speaking areas were separated. The new state of Haryana was formed.
In the following decades, conflicts arose in multilingual Assam, so that in 1962 Nagaland and 1970–1972 Meghalaya , Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh were separated from Assam.
The formation of new states has therefore increased their number from 14 in 1956 under the States Reorganization Act to 29 in 2017.
literature
- Reinhart Bauer: The restructuring of the Indian Union in 1956. In: Journal for foreign public law and international law . Volume 18, 1957, pp. 345–394, (detailed German-language treatise on constitutional law, digitized at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law ).
Web links
- The States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Text of the States Reorganization Act)
- The Bihar And West Bengal (Transfer Of Territories) Act, 1956 (legal text)
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e f Reinhart Bauer: The reorganization of the Indian Union in 1956. In: Journal for foreign public law and international law . Volume 18, 1957, pp. 345–394, (detailed German-language treatise on constitutional law, digitized at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law ).
- ^ A b Virendra Kumar: Committies and Commissions in India. 1947-73. Volume 1: 1947-54. Reprinted edition. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi 2004, ISBN 81-7022-196-X , pp. 65 ff.
- ↑ Maya Tudor: The Promise of Power. The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan. Cambridge University Press 2013, ISBN 978-1-107-03296-5 , p. 170 .
- ^ Jagdish C. Johari: Indian Polity. A Concise Study of the Indian Constitution, Government, and Politics. Lotus Press, New Delhi 2004, ISBN 81-89093-68-1 , p. 29 .
- ↑ Article 1 of the constitution: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."
- ^ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (As Adopted), FIRST SCHEDULE (Articles 1, 4 and 391): The States and the territories of India. (PDF) pp. 1141–1143 , archived from the original on December 3, 2013 ; Retrieved October 9, 2015 (English, Indian Constitution as amended in 1949).
- ^ Government of Part C States Act. (PDF) 1951, archived from the original on March 4, 2016 ; accessed on October 8, 2015 (English, p. 313ff).
- ^ Reorganization of States: The approach and arrangements. (PDF) The Economic Weekly, October 15, 1955, accessed October 8, 2015 .
- ^ A b Report of The States Reorganization Commission, Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, No. 53/69/53-Public. (PDF) Retrieved October 8, 2015 (English, final report of the, published in the Journal of Indian School of Political Economy Jan. – Dec. 2009, pp. 356–523, (unfortunately the end is missing)).
- ^ Report of the State Reorganization Commission 1955. (PDF) Retrieved on October 16, 2015 (English, quick and dirty digitized original report , published by the Indian Ministry of the Interior).
- ^ Nilakantha Rath: Separation is no solution to the problem of regional imbalance in development . In: Journal of Indian School of Political Economy . tape 21 , no. 1-4 , 2009, pp. 193–197 (English, online [PDF]).