States Reorganization Act 1956 and Constitution (Seventh) Amendment Act 1956

In order to understand the significance of the SR Act 1956 and the Constitution (Seventh) Amendment Act 1956, the nature of political and administrative organization under the British needs to be followed. British India had two types of territories provinces, governed directly by British officials who were responsible to the Governor-General of India and princely states under the control of local hereditary rulers having British government as the sovereign but enjoying autonomy based on a treaty
When India became Independent on August 15, 1947, British dissolved their treaty relations with over 600 princely states, who had the option of acceding to either India or Pakistan. Most of the princely states joined India. Hyderabad was incorporated into India after armed intervention.
In the three year period during 1947-1950, the princely states were politically integrated into the Indian Union- either merged with the existing provinces or organised into new provinces.
The Constitution of India, when it came into existence on January 26, 1950 had three classes of states.

·         The nine Part A states, which were the former governors’ provinces of British India, were ruled by an elected governor and state legislature:

·         The eight Part B states were former princely states or groups of princely states, governed by a Rajpramukhs, who was often a former prince, along with an elected legislature. The Rajpramukh was appointed by the President of India.

·         The ten Part C states included both the former chief commissioners’ provinces and other centrally administered areas except Andarnan and Nicobar islands. The chief commissioner was appointed by the President of India.

·         The States Reorganization Act 1956 brought about linguistic reorganization of the states under which absorbed the former British provinces and princely states on the basis of language. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution (1956) abolished the difference between Part A and Part B states- both became “states” constituting a single category. Part C states were renamed “union territories.” The personal privileges of the princes - the Privy Purse, the exemption from customs duty etc continued till they were abolished in 1971.

Criticism of Linguistic Reorganization of States

The linguistic reorganization of the states encouraged various ethnic groups to demand statehood. This was because ethnic identity was provided a territory under the scheme of linguistic reorganization. Such potential has been further sharpened because linguistic reorganization in a vast and diverse country like India cannot satisfy the cultural aspirations of all groups. The dissatisfactions of some of the unrecognized minority linguistic groups also continue to simmer. Such problems exist with regard to the Konkan region of Maharasthra/Goa, Nepali-speaking groups of Darjeeling, Sikkim, and Assam, and Maithili and Avadhi language groups in Bihar. There are several political parties which are ethnicity-based, and they will very willingly build their strength by exploiting the linguistic identities of their constituencies. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) hinted at weaknesses of the linguistic reorganization of states in this respect when it said:
Very often, the sub-national sentiment which is initially based on linguistic, religious or ethnic groupings, gains strength with a blend of economic issues, such as those relating to... economic backwardness. One of the most significant developments has been the rise of linguistic chauvinism, rearrange-ment of the boundaries of the States on linguistic basis.., resulting in fissiparous tendencies. Three new states were created in 2000 not on the basis of language but primarily for good governance. Since the SRC report was acted upon first in 1956, many new States came into existence first in South and West and later in the Northwest arid the Northeast. The last phase of the reorganization was in the north and the Central India in 2000 There are demands for new States still like Harita Pradesh (western UP); Bundelkhand (UP) Koshal (western Orissa); Telangana (AP); Kodagu (Karnataka); Vidarbha (Maharashtra); Jatland (Haryana); Ladakh (Jammu and Kashmir); Bodoland (Assam); Gorkhaland (West Bengal); UTs of Puducherri and Delhi.
Needless -to say, the demands could not he met as it would lead to proliferation of states to a point of making federal coordination difficult; they are not economically viable; national unity would he threatened ; small states may be unable to tackle political threats like naxalism; small states are not necessarily better governed as seen in the north east; administrative problems about creation of institutions like High Court; Secretariat etc; the costs of setting up a capital etc, to name some general reasons.