Report of the States Re-organisation Commission

By Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA

In considering the Report of the States Re-organisation Commission, it is necessary to have at the outset a clear idea of the circumstances under which the Commission was appointed and the primary purpose for which it was constituted. The importance of the Report cannot be appreciated unless the distinction between its primary and secondary purposes is kept in mind.

For sometime before its appointment there was in the country an insistent and almost fanatical demand for redrawing the whole map on the basis of unilingual States. It was a demand which was considered by Pandit Nehru to be most unreasonable and highly injurious to the fundamental and long-period interests of the country. This was why, though he often repeated the view that the creation of the Andhra State was less contentious than the creation of other linguistic States, he was not prepared to take the necessary action on the lines of this view. But the martyrdom of Potti Sriramulu in the case of the Andhra State, and the violence of the disorders that followed it, made Pandit Nehru yield to the demand of the Andhras, and the Andhra State was formed in October 1953. This naturally gave a fresh momentum to the demand for other linguistic States–Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra etc. Pandit Nehru’s Government was then placed in a dilemma. If the demand for these States was not conceded there was the danger of wide-scale sabotage and even anarchy bordering on an undeclared civil war. Such a danger could be suppressed only by the use of totalitarian methods and even then there was no complete guarantee of success. But if the demand was conceded there was the fear that each linguistic State, with its autonomy under the Constitution, would become the focus of a sub-national loyalty and that this loyalty would gradually grow in strength at the expense of loyalty to the whole country. It was not an imaginary fear. The fear had its root in the course which Indian history took in the past, when every empire was overthrown by the growth of regional loyalties. And the danger is all the greater today than in the past, because the loyalty is not to an absolute ruler but to an emotion-charged group. Here is an observation in the Commission’s Report bearing on this phenomenon: “It has been most distressing to us to witness, during the course of our enquiry, a kind of border warfare in certain areas in which old comrades-in-arms in the battle for freedom have been pitted against one another in acrimonious controversy, showing little appreciation of the fact that the States are but limbs of the same body-politic and that territorial readjustments between them should not assume the form of disputes between alien powers.” It was to discover a way out of this dilemma that Pandit Nehru’s Government appointed the three man States Re-organisation Commission. The problem to the solution of which the Commission was called upon to address itself was the problem of whether to redraw the map of India on the basis of “one language, one State”. All other questions considered by the Commission are either intimately related to this, or are of a non-controversial and subsidiary character. The nature and value of the Commission’s recommendations are to be judged primarily on What they say about linguistic States and the problems which they give birth to.

That this is the standpoint from which the work of the Commission is to be judged is also borne out by the public reaction in the weeks following the publication of its report. There have not been any comments of a noteworthy character on the recommendations made by it in regard to the removal of distinctions between Part A, Part B and Part C States, and the merger of Part C States in the neighbouring larger states. Even before the appointment of the Commission all sections of public opinion were agreed on the abolition of the institution of Rajpramukhs in Part B States, and on the repeal of Article 371 of the Constitution which gave to the Centre a kind of Control over Part B States which it did not have over Part A States. There was also substantial agreement on the view that Part C States like Bhopal, Coorg and Kutch were too small, and financially too weak to preserve their separate existence, and that the best course would be to merge them in the neighbouring bigger States. The Commission bas only endorsed these non-controversial views by recommending that, (a) the existing constitutional disparity between the different Constituent units of the Indian Union should disappear; (b) Part B States should be equated with Part A States by omitting Article 371 of the Constitution and by abolishing Rajpramukhs; (c) the existing Part C States should be merged in the adjoining larger States; and (d) such of the existing Part C States as cannot be merged in the adjoining areas for security and other imperative considerations should be administered by the Centre, not as ‘States’ but as ‘territories’. The result of these recommendations is that, when they are given effect to, the component parts of the Indian Union would consist of two categories–(a) States forming primary federating units, and (b) territories centrally-administered. It would mean the reduction of the total number of States from twenty-seven to eighteen. There are those who are of the view that the reduction in the number of States is desirable in itself, but who are under a misconception that it can be brought about by the reorganisation of States on a linguistic basis. Several of them have welcomed the Commission’s recommendations on linguistic States for this reason. They should however know that, even if the Commission had stopped with their recommendations on Part B and Part C States, the number of States would have been reduced to eighteen–only two more than the number resulting from reorganisation on a linguistic basis.

(2)

The kind of guidance which the Commission has given to Pandit Nehru’s Government on the crucial question of linguistic States may now be considered. The position taken by the Commission in regard to this issue is rather peculiar. It has throughout the Report argued against the theory and the principle of organising States on a linguistic basis, but it has in the end recommended the constitution of such States with only one important exception. There is thus an incongruity between the theory which it has enunciated and the practice which it has recommended. It is this incongruity that stands out as the most prominent feature of the Report.

Theoretically the Commission has argued that in creating a new State various factors have to be considered, and language is only one of them. Among the other factors are, (1) Administrative Convenience; (2) Financial Viability, and (c) the requirements of the national developmental plans–the Second Five-year Plan and the Plans which will subsequently follow. Over and above all these is the factor of the preservation and strengthening of national unity and security. The bearing of each one of these factors, on the proposals for reorganisation has been fully examined in the Report and the Commission came to the conclusion that “It is neither possible nor desirable to re-organise States on the basis of the single test of either language or culture, but that a balanced approach to the whole problem is necessary in the interests of our national unity.” It went further in elaboration of this thesis and stated that “such a balanced approach would appear to be:

(a) to recognise linguistic homogeneity as an important factor conducive to administrative convenience and efficiency but not to consider it as an exclusive and binding principle, overriding all other considerations, administrative, financial or political;

(b) to ensure that communicational, educational, and cultural needs of different language groups, whether resident in predominantly unilingual or composite administrative units, are adequately met;

(c) where satisfactory conditions exist and the balance of economic, political and administrative considerations favour composite States, to continue them, with the necessary safeguards to ensure that all sections enjoy equal rights and opportunities;

(d) to repudiate the ‘home-land concept’ which negates one of the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution, namely, equal opportunities and equal rights for all citizens throughout the length and breadth of the Union;

(e) to reject the theory of ‘one language, one State’, which is neither justified on grounds of linguistic homogeneity, because there can be more than one State speaking the same language without offending the linguistic principle, nor practicable, since different language groups, including the vast Hindi-speaking population of the Indian Union, cannot always be consolidated to form distinct linguistic units; and

(f) finally, to the extent that the realisation of unilingualism at State level would tend to breed a particularist feeling, to counterbalance that feeling by positive measures calculated to give a deeper content to Indian nationalism; to promote greater interplay of different regional cultures, and inter-State co-operation and accord; and to reinforce the links between the Centre and the State in order to secure the greater co-ordinated working of national policies and programmes.”

This long quotation from the Report makes it clear that the Commission is dead against the principle of ‘one language, one State’, and the concept of ‘home-land’ which always goes along with it. The principle breeds particularistic feelings. It creates the problem of linguistic minorities. Composite States are to be preferred on the whole.

Unfortunately however the Commission completely departed from this position when it had to make the practical recommendations to serve as a guide. It could have adhered to the principles which it had the courage and wisdom to formulate and told Pandit Nehru and his Government that the only kind of re-organisation that was needed was merger of Part C States in-the larger neighbouring units and the abolition of the distinction between. Part A and Part B States. Instead of this it has recommended the creation of a number of new States, all based on linguism with one exception–Bombay. Those who have been agitating for linguistic States are more than satisfied. They are not scholars interested in political theory. They are not in any way perturbed by the elaborate arguments put forward by the Commission against linguistic States. It is the end result in which they are interested. And almost all of them got the States they demanded.

The Constitution of India recognises fourteen languages as the major languages of the country. Of these Sanskrit is not a spoken language and there is no question of a ‘Sanskrit’ State (although there is an appreciable volume of opinion in favor of making Sanskrit the official language of the whole country instead of Hindi). Urdu is spoken by millions of Muslims, but as they are not concentrated in anyone geographical area, it is not practicable to organise an Urdu State. Every one of the remaining twelve languages–Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Punjabi, Tamil and Te1ugu–with the exception of Gujarati, gets as it were a State or States of its own, a home-land for its people with the implied right to look on other Indians living there as strangers enjoying in practice (whatever the Constitution may say) only a second-class citizenship. This incongruity between the theory enunciated by the Commission and the practice which it recommended for adoption, can only be explained in one way. The Commission must have felt that the emotion among the masses of people behind the demand for linguistic States is so strong and so fanatical that the consequence of not conceding the demand–however unreasonable the demand may be–will be more serious than the consequences of conceding it. It was the pressure of circumstances that compelled Pandit Nehru to concede the demand for the Andhra State; and it is the fear of the growth of similar pressure that is responsible for the recommendation made by the Commission that the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Vidarbha and Hyderabad should be formed. One is therefore at a loss to know why the Commission took so much trouble to examine the theory of linguistic States and repudiate it, though academic students of the subject will find all this to be of the greatest value.

(3)

There is one other element of incongruity in the recommendations of the Commission. It is its failure to concede the demand for the division of Bombay into a Maharashtra and a Gujarati State. The grounds on which it defended the continuance of Bombay as a bilingual State are not quite convincing. (1) One such ground is that the demand for a Maha Gujarat is not pressing. By and large the Gujarati-speaking people are content to remain in the composite State of Bombay. The question thus is one of pressure and the contentment of the Gujarati-speaking people is considered to be more important than that of the Marathi-speaking people of the State. The Commission says: “We are conscious of the fact that opinion in the northern and southern Maharashtra districts in general seems to be in favour of the creation of the United Maharashtra State. At the same time we cannot ignore the fact that important sections of public opinion in the Marathi-speaking districts of Madhya Pradesh do not subscribe to the ideal of Samyukta Maharashtra.” The position here is more or less similar to that created by the demand for Visalandhra and Samyukta Karnataka. In both these cases the Commission recommended the formation of linguistic States. Because it found the opinion among the Andhras of Telengana not very much favourable to the formation of Visalandhra, it did not re-commend the continuance of the composite State of Hyderabad but the creation of a second Andhra State. In the case of Karnataka it did not attach sufficient weight to the opinion in favour of two Karnatakas, but all the same it adhered to the principle of linguism. It should have followed a similar course in regard to the Maharashtra as in the case of Visalandhra. If opinion in Vidarbha was very much adverse to Samyukta Maharashtra (as opinion in Telengana was adverse to Visalandhra) it should have recommended the formation of two Maratha States. The sub-national sentiment is far stronger among the Marathas of Bombay than even among the Karnatakas. Their experience of a separate statehood is more recent; and they are a people who made their domination felt over a large part of the country. Is it safe to ignore the feelings of such a linguistic group and attach greater weight to the Gujarati-speaking people of the Bombay State? It is possible that out of respect for Pandit Nehru the Pradesh Congress Committee of Maharashtra might not resort to violent agitation. This will only make the Pradesh Congress Organisation more unpopular than what it is already. One should not forget in this connection that not only in Maharashtra but also in almost every other State of India the Congress organisation has no inherent strength, and that whatever hold it has on the people is due to the respect and affection which people have for Pandit Nehru and the confidence in his leadership. The only result therefore of any directive from the Congress High Command that the Congress in Maharashtra should not agitate for a separate State will be to drive discontent underground, to give opportunities for other political parties to assume leadership and create a revolutionary situation later. Even a level-headed academician like Prof. D. R. Gadgil accused the Commission, so far as the particular issue was concerned, of having been influenced by Gujarati capitalists. (2) Another ground put forward in favour of Bombay continuing as a composite State is the problem of the city of Bombay over which both the Maharashtrians and Gujaratis have claims. There is no space here to examine the whole issue about the city. It may however be relevant to point out that the Commission, which always quoted the views of the Dar Commission with approval, didn’t care to attach weight to the view of that body that Bombay city should be a centrally administered State. One argument brought forward against this view was that if Bombay city was separated the resulting Maharashtra and Gujarati States would be deficit States and there would be no way of diverting to them the surplus revenues of Bombay city. But this is not a convincing argument. Some of the States recommended by the Commission–Kerala for instance–are deficit States. The Central Government has to pay subsidies to them out of its general revenues. There will be no practical difficulty in the Central Government administering Bombay city, collecting its surplus revenues and distributing them between the neighbouring deficit States; Grants-in-aid are a normal feature of every federal system.

It may therefore be concluded that the incongruity in the Commission not recommending the linguistic division of the Bombay State has to be removed. The case for a separate Maharashtra State is as strong as that for a Karnataka or a Kerala State. And when such a State is formed there will inevitably be a separate Gujarati State.

(4)

There is one other point to which reference has to be made. Punjabi is one of the fourteen languages recognised by the Constitution but it appears as if the Commission had not recommeded a Punjabi-speaking State. What it has done is to create a State to be made up of the present East Punjab, PEPSU and Himachal Pradesh. Strong arguments have been put forward by Mr. Fazl Ali, the Chairman of the Commission, against the merger of Himachal Pradesh in the new State. Some of these arguments bear on the strategy of the Himalayan border. It looks therefore desirable that this State should continue to be administered by the Centre. In that case the State of Punjab will consist of the present East Punjab and PEPSU. Can this be regarded as a Punjabi-speaking State? From the data supplied in the Report it is not easy to answer this question. There is the view of the Commission that, “there is no real language problem in the State of Punjab as at present constituted. This is so because the Punjabi and Hindi languages as spoken in the Punjab are akin to each other and are both well understood by all sections of the people of the State.” The difference arises out of the agitation of the Sikhs that the Punjabi language should be written only in Gurumukhi script while the Hindus are opposed to it. The fight therefore seems to be between two scripts and not between two languages, though as a consequence of this fight large sections of the Hindu community repudiated the Punjabi language as their mother-tongue even though it is in fact their mother-tongue. The situation in the Punjab is thus a confused one. And if the Commission has not recommended a pure Punjabi-speaking State, it is due to the existence of this communal tension between the Sikhs and the Hindus and to the fact that the Punjab State demanded by the Sikhs is one where they can have a large majority.

Barring the Punjab where the position is somewhat ambiguous, the net result of the Commission’s recommendations, taken along with the division of the present Bombay State, for which there are cogent reasons as given above, will be to reorganise India into a number of linguistic States. The battle for such States may be said to have come to an end. The next issue will be the sharing of the spoils of victory, and this is an issue full of complications. It is now time to consider what the Commission has to say on this issue.

(5)

It need not be repeated that the battle in which victory was won is the battle between the advocates of multi-lingual States and of unilingual States. It is the latter that have won it. The two world wars have made us familiar with the doctrine of ‘un-conditional surrender’. The unilingualists are not satisfied with a general victory for their principle but want that it should be applied to every matter of detail. There are three issues in this application. One relates to the delimitation of the boundaries of the States to be re-organised on the linguistic basis; another to whether more than one State may be formed from the area inhabited by a single linguistic group; and the third is the position of the minority groups in the States. Each linguistic State has claimed that there are in the neighbouring states some regions–villages, taluks, districts–inhabited by those who speak its language and that wherever they are in a majority the particular region must be included within its limits. It is on this issue that disputes have arisen between Orissa on one side and Andhra, Bihar and Bengal on the other; between Bengal and Bihar; between Assam and Bengal; between Andhra on one side, Madras and Mysore on the other; between Madras and Travancore-Cochin; between Bombay and Rajasthan. There is a formidable list of these disputes and a fierce battle has been going on in regard to the settlement of these disputes. Some of them are long-standing; some are more recent. But every linguistic State wants that each one of its neighbours should unconditionally surrender to it the territories in dispute.

In regard to the settlement of such disputes the Commission observed thus: “In our scheme of re-organisation, we have adopted the district as the basic unit for making territorial re-adjustments. This is because we feel that districts have developed an organic and administrative unity and an economic life of their own, and any adjustments below the district level, therefore, should normally be avoided. If any such adjustments are considered necessary, they should be made only by mutual agreement. We have departed from this rule only when, for ensuring geographical contiguity or for some other important administrative or economic considerations, detachment of a part a district has become imperative.” Of course, districts also have been made and unmade. They do not have the kind of organic unity which the Commission attributes to them. But all the same there should be some recognised principle on the basis of which disputes like these are to be settled, and the principle enunciated by the Commission is as satisfactory as any other alternative principle that can be thought of. The principle is also elastic because the Commission has departed from it when such a departure was found imperative.

On this basis it has determined which of the disputed areas should be taken away from a particular State and included in another neighbouring State. No purpose is served by going into everyone of these disputes and examining whether another kind of settlement–other than what the Commission has proposed–would be more just and appropriate. In cases like these it is only a sort of rough and ready justice that is possible. Even where law is written and where there are judicial tribunals manned by persons known for their impartiality, judgments delivered by them on disputes arising in everyday life do not satisfy all the parties concerned. There is, however, the feeling that the case was properly heard, that consideration was given to all the issues raised by either party and that the judges took all the trouble necessary to give a well-considered judgement. It is with this feeling that the affected linguistic groups should look at the way in which the Commission settled the border disputes or laid down the principles according to which they should be settled. There should be a finality in matters like these. It is, therefore, not proposed here to discuss whether Kolar should remain in Mysore or be included in Andhra, whether Madras should get the Deviculam and Peeramede taluks and so on.

When the principle of unilingual States is condemned, one of the reasons for such condemnation is the permanence of the bitterness between one linguistic State and another due to continuous agitation over border disputes previously settled. There is thus mutual bitterness between Andhras and Utkals, Andhras and Karnatakas, Biharis and Bengalees, each looking on the other as its sworn enemy. And this has its repercussions on the government of the whole country, the work done in the Union Cabinet, in the Union Parliament, and in every one of the Central institutions where citizens of India coming from different linguistic States have to work together in a spirit of loyalty to the country as a whole. There are so many causes of dissension in the country weakening it in a variety of ways. Communalism and casteism are very powerful disruptive factors. It will be a tragedy if to these is added the linguistic antagonism which will be the inevitable outcome of carrying on the struggle for disputed border areas for all time. If each linguistic group accepts as final the settlement recommended by the Commission, it will be a great step in the preservation of the country’s unity. The second best thing will be–in case the Commission’s settlement is not accepted–to make peaceful representations to the authorities who will have to decide these matters through legislation. And when once the legislation for re-organising the States is enacted and their boundaries are fixed, people should accept it as final and there should be no more representations, debates or discussions on the matter.

(6)

On the question whether it is appropriate to form more than one State in an area inhabited by a single linguistic group, there is need for cool thinking and for a revision of some of the ideas that have gathered round the question of linguistic States. (1) Let it be noted first that, so far as Hindi is concerned, all the Hindi speaking people have not been constituted into one State. There are today a number of Hindi States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh etc., and there is no agitation in favour of constituting all of them into one State. (2) The Commission has discussed the pros anal cons of smaller versus larger States and though it is inclined more towards larger States it has observed: “In a matter like this, it would be unwise to be dogmatic or to rule out exceptions. When it is suggested that the weight of argument is in favour of large, rather than small states, the objective is that every State should have adequate resources to assume the responsibility devolving on a full-fledged constituent unit of the Union. This, however, does not mean that units should be so unwieldy as to be without any intrinsic life of their own or to defeat the very purpose for which larger units are suggested, that is, administrative efficiency and co-ordination of economic development and welfare activity.” At a time when we have started on the experiment of democracy which is entirely a new system of government for us, it is best to have comparatively small and compact States, and there will be nothing reactionary if out of a single linguistic area more than one State is created. (3) It is also necessary to devise a remedy for the possibility of sub-national loyalties growing at the expense of national loyalty. National sentiment is not yet deep-rooted among our people. The tendency is much more in the direction of emphasising the achievements of sub-nationalities like the Andhra, the Dravida, the Bengalee etc. Literature that has been coming into existence in recent years sings the praises of particular regions and the people in them. Very few think of India as a whole. All this may be regrettable but that is the truth and the bare truth. Linguistic States are sure to strengthen these tendencies. There must be something very powerful and effective to counteract them until national sentiment becomes as deeprooted and as alive as that, say, in Britain, France or Germany. One effective way in which these tendencies can be counteracted is by having, wherever it is practicable, more than one State for each linguistic group. The Maharashtra States–one with Poona as capital and the other with Nagpur as capital–are better from this point of view than a Samyuktha Maharashtra. Two Andhra States as recommended by the Commission are better. Similarly two Karnataka States–Mysore and Karnataka–should be welcome. No serious objection need be taken if Vidarbha does not want to be included in Maharashtra, or Telengana in Visalandhra, or Mysore in Karnataka. All this will be unpalatable to the protagonists of linguism. But if linguistic States are not to become the instruments of India’s disintegration, the re-organisation of States on these lines is necessary.

It is against this background that the note of Sardar Panikkar proposing the partition of the State of Uttar Pradesh deserves consideration at the hands of all intelligent citizens of the country. As he put it, it is “essential for the successful working of a federation that the units should be fairly evenly balanced. Too great a disparity is likely to create not only suspicion and resentment but generate forces likely to undermine the federal structure itself and thereby be a danger to the unity of the country.” It is not merely Uttar Pradesh that requires to be partitioned. The same applies to the proposed composite Bombay State with the Marathwada districts of Hyderabad, Saurashtra and Kutch added to it. Where will States like Kerala be by the side of such monsters? It is better when the map of the country is proposed to be completely redrawn that steps are taken to bring about the territorial balance advocated by Sardar Panikkar. It is on these grounds that the Commission’s recommendation to create the big State of Madhya Pradesh consisting of the Hindi-speaking districts of the present Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Bharat and Vindhya is objectionable. This State will have an area of 171, 200 square miles and will be the biggest in the country.

It is thus better, wherever possible, to have more than one State in the same language area and to partition the bigger States into smaller and more compact ones. This may not always be compatible with the requirements of financial viability, but one should not forget in this connection that in a modern federation units will have to depend on the Centre for much of their finance.

(7)

The, third issue that emerges from the victory won by the advocates of linguistic States is the position of linguistic minorities, in such States. For ages peoples have been freely migrating from one part of the country to another for permanent settlement. Linguistic groups pave become so mixed up that it is not possible to form a linguistic State which is completely homogeneous and in which linguistic minorities are not found. A necessary accompaniments of linguistic patriotism is to look down upon those who speak other languages as a separate group, not only from a linguistic point of view but also from all other points of view. It is common to see that disabilities are imposed on them in regard to admission to public services in the State, admission of their children to schools, ownership of land and the carrying on of business and so on. The Commission has stated thus: “We were greatly concerned to observe that in one State, for instance, domicile rules were applied not only to determine eligibility for appointment to the public services but also to regulate the award of contracts and rights in respect of fisheries, ferries, toll-bridges and excise shops.” All this is a measure of the intensity of sub-national loyalty at the expense of loyalty to the country which charcterises the people today.

The Commission has gone thoroughly into the question of providing safeguards against discriminatory treatment being accorded to linguistic minorities. Some safeguards are already provided for in the chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. The Commission has suggested several other safeguards and expressed the opinion that what is much more needed is an agency on the spot which will be in a position to enforce the safeguards. The agency which it has recommended for the purpose is the State Governor who will have the minorities under his special charge and who will be responsible to the Central Government in all matters connected with them. This is a more effective device than driving minorities to courts for getting their rights enforced.

(8)

The question of re-organisation of States creates a number of problems of transition. There is a fundamental difference between what was involved when a single State like Andhra was formed and what is involved when the entire map of the country is proposed to be redrawn. Everything is now being thrown into the melting pot in the hope that a better-planned system of States will emerge from it. The Report of the Commission is only the first step in this process. Several other steps have to be taken before the necessary legislation is enacted by Parliament. But even then the work will not be completed. It is in implementing the various legislative enactments that numerous problems will arise. When districts which formed part of one State are transferred to another State, there will arise the question of the application of the laws of this State to the new districts in matters like land tenure, prohibition etc. The unification of laws takes time and difficulties will have to be experienced by both the administrators and the people in the interval. Then again there is the problem of integrating the service personnel belonging to one State (say Hyderabad) with the personnel of another State (say Bombay) which would mean introduction of unified pay scales, refixation of cadres, redetermination of relative seniority in the different services etc. After the Kerala State is formed, should all Malayalees now in the service of Madras be sent to Kerala; should all Tamil public servants from Kerala be transferred Madras? Then there is also the question of the distribution of assets and liabilities and of rearrangements for ensuring the orderly progress of irrigation and power projects previously started. The question of the aid to be given to the new States has also to be decided. There is no end to problems like these. Every State will have to be busy with these transitional arrangements and the Central Government will have to divert much of its attention for the same purpose. Things are sure to be unsettled for a number of years. Will it be possible to carry out the Second Five-year Plan effectively under circumstances like these? Let it be clearly understood that those who feel that the re-organisation of States on a linguistic basis is of the greatest urgency should be prepared to see that planned economic progress is bound to be delayed.

It may also be worthwhile for the Central Government to consider what the problems of transition are likely to be and create a machinery to tackle them. Though legislation for the formation of new States may be enacted by August 1956, the date on which the legislation is to take effect may be left to the discretion of the President. He may start the functioning of one State at one time and another at another. The integration, for instance, of Malabar into Travancore-Cochin may create fewer transitional problems than the integration of Karnataka or the formation of a Gujarati State. The tribunals set up may suggest measures for uniform legislation, for integration of services etc., in respect of each State to be formed, and the State may start functioning after the appropriate tribunals submit their suggestion.

The Report of the States Re-organisation Commission is a document of fundamental importance. It gives a clear analysis of the forces that are at work in our country in shaping public opinion on political issues, the kind of political issues in which the leaders of the people are interested, the need to satisfy the public even on matters where their judgment is not sound, and the steps that have to be taken if the political integrity of the country is to be maintained and strengthened. It is not to a narrow question of the mere re-organisation of States that the Commission addressed itself. It has taken a more comprehensive view of its work and has given an illuminating account of the real problems with which we are faced today and the spirit in which we should try to solve them. The key to the whole report lies in the passage which runs thus: “It is the Union of India that is the basis of our nationality. It is in that Union that our hopes for the future are centred. The States are but the limbs of the Union, and while we recognise that the limbs must be healthy and strong and any element of weakness in them should be eradicated, it is the strength and the stability of the Union and its capacity to develop and evolve that should be the governing consideration of all changes in the country.”

Back