1. Reorganisation of States in India
Author(s): Mahendra Prasad Singh
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 11 (Mar. 15 - 21, 2008), pp. 70-75
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40277259 .
Accessed: 28/05/2013 01:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2. Reorganisation ofStates inIndia
MAHENDRAPRASADSINGH
Throughananalyticalstudyoftheprocessof
fédéralisationofIndia,theauthorprovidesa picture
ofstoryofstateformationinthecountry.Itisargued
thatanyfurtherreorganisationofstatesshouldbe
basedona "cosmopolitanmodelofdemocracy"and
shouldbe anchoredintheoriesofconstitutionalism,
consociationalismand multiculturalism.
MahendraPrasadSingh(profmpsingh@yahoo.com)teachespolitical
scienceattheUniversityofDelhi.
partitionofBengalin1905wasaimedatforestallingof
newlyemergentspiritofIndiannationalismintheEnglish-
educatednewmiddleclass('nutanbhadralok')inBengal
toprolongtheBritishhegemony.ThispartitionforcedtheBritish,
infaceofa strongpopularprotestintheformoftheswadeshi
movement,toordertheannulmentofthepartitionofBengalin
1911.AfurtherpartitionoftheBengalpresidencyfollowed,this
time in responseto popular Biharidemands,creatingthe
provinceof Biharand Orissain 1911.In answerto a similar
demandOrissawasbifurcatedin1936.
Province/NationalityFormationinBritishIndia
Theundercurrentsofcivicpatriotism/nationalisminBengaland
elsewhereinthelastquarterofthe19thcenturymingledwith
Hindurevivalismandwithotherreligiousrevivalisttendencies
waitinginthewingsbythebeginningofthe20thcentury.The
movementengenderedsimilarlinguisticprovincialfervourin
Hindi-speakingand laterOriya-speakingpartsofBengalpresi-
dency.Themovementfora separateprovince-formationinBihar
waslinkedpartlywithHindilinguisticidentityandmainlywith
prospectsof greateremployment,middleclass professional
earnings,and freedomfromBengalidomination[Prasad1992;
Mishraand Pandey1996].IronicallyBengaliintelligentsiahad
patronisedthecampaigntoreplacethePersiancourtlanguage
withHindiaroundthelastquarterofthe19thcenturyin the
Hindi-speakingpartof theBengalpresidency.This campaign
succeededinitsobjectivein1881.Itwasnotaccompaniedbythe
demandformakinga separateprovinceofBiharat thattime
[Das Gupta1970].
Thus began the modernhistoricalprocessof nationality-
formationin India.The majorlandmarksof thisdevelopment
constitutedtheacceptanceoffederalismbytheLucknowconfer-
enceoftheIndianNationalCongressin1916,acceptanceoflinguis-
ticprovincesbythe1920CongressheldinNagpur,submissionof
memorandainlargenumberstotheBritishGovernmentofIndia
andtheIndiaOfficeinLondonforrecognitionofnationalitiesof
Oriyas,Kannadas,Andhras,Tamils,Bengalis,and Jharkhandis,
andthesubsequentcreationoflinguisticstatesbasedonsuchcrite-
ria[Ghosh1996:16-17].TheIndianStatutoryCommissionchaired
byJohnSimoninitsreportsubmittedtotheBritishgovernment
foundthatitwas"manifestlyimpossibleforustorecommendthe
redrawingofthemapofIndiaaccordingtosomenewpattern".The
reportfurtherstatedthat:
Ifthosewhospeakthesamelanguageforma compactandself-
containedarea,so situatedandendowedas tobeabletosupport
itsexistenceas a separateprovince,thereisnodoubtthattheuse
ofa commonspeechis a strongandnaturalbasisforprovincial
' march 15, 2008 Q259 Economic& Politicalweekly
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3. ESPECIALARTICLE
individuality.Butitisnottheonlytest- race,religion,economicinterest,
geographicalcontiguity,a duebalancebetweencountryandtownand
betweencoastlineand interiormayall be relevantfactors.Mostim-
portantofall, perhapsforpracticalpurposesis thelargestpossible
measureofgeneralagreementonchangesproposed,bothonthesideof
theareagaining,andonthesideoftheareathatislosingterritory...1
The 1942 "Quit India" Resolution of the Congress pledged "the
largestmeasure of autonomyforthe federatingunits". Politics
moved intodifferentgears in 1946 with the Britishgovernment
sending the Cabinet Mission to explore the political futureof
India. Memorandawere submittedto themissionbytheDravida
Kazagham for a sovereign state of Dravidastan and by the
CommunistPartyofIndia for"17sovereignNational Constituent
Assemblies based on national homelands of various Indian
peoples" and advocated "a voluntaryunion of national states"
[Ghosh1996: 18].
ReorganisationofStates since 1947
TheBritishtransferredpowerundertheGovernmentofIndia
Act1947totheconstituentassemblyofIndiadominatedbythe
IndianNationalCongress.TheparamountcyoftheBritishCrown
overnativeIndianstateslapsedin thesameyear.The govern-
mentofIndiacombinedconsensualdiplomacyand"policeaction"
(Hyderabad)anddefensivemilitaryassistance/intervention-on-
invitation(JammuandKashmir)toeffectuatetheintegrationof
thesestateswiththeIndianunionintheprocessofbeingcrafted
bytheconstituentassemblydoublingastheprovisionalParliament.
InduecoursethreecategoriesofstatesoutoftheBritishIndian
provincesandthenativestateswerecreatedbytheconstituent
assemblyofindependentIndia.These categorieswerecalled
Part1 states(formerlyBritishIndianprovinces),Part11states
(formerlysmallernativeIndianstatesthatdid notpose much
probleminjoiningtheIndianunion),andPartinstates(formerly
nativeIndianstateswhoseintegrationwithIndiaprovedtobe
problematiceitherduetothedesireoftherulerstoexercisethe
optionofindependence(JammuandKashmirandHyderabad))
or due to smallersize and numericallyand geographically
scatteredandfragmentedhistory[Menon1969].
ThecreationofsomenewvprovincesbydividingtheBengal
presidencybytheBritishrulersaroundthefirstdecadeofthe
20thcenturyinresponsetopopulardemandswasjustthebegin-
ningofthelongdrawn-outprocessofterritorialreorganisationin
modernIndia.Suchpopulardemandsandmovementsmultiplied
followingthecommencementoftheConstitutionin 1950.The
holdingofthefirstgeneralelectionsin 1952on universaladult
suffrageacceleratedwhatthenewnationalistelites,including
Nehru,decriedas the"fissiparoustendencies".The nationalist
leadersduringthefreedomstruggle,on theotherhand,had
adopteda varietyofstrategiestodeepenthesociologicalfounda-
tionsofIndiannationalismbyappealingtolinguisticidentities.
Inadditiontousingterritorialpatriotismas thebedrockofcivic
nationalismbyCongressmoderates,Congressextremistshad
alsoleanedonHinduism,andGandhionIndianlanguagesanda
compositereligiouspluralisminsearchof"cultural"nationalism
withethnicundercurrents.Bythelate19thandearly20thcenturies
theriseofproto-nationalismhadbeguntogatherreligiousand
regional linguistic underpinnings. Gandhi had tried to co-opt
themintoa pan-Indian forcebyadvocating thereorganisationof
the Indian National Congress along linguisticlines ratherthan
on the Britishadministrativeprovincial boundaries, which was
the case earlier.AlthoughGandhi's proposal was adopted bythe
Congressat itsNagpur session in 1920,his penchantforpopular
sovereigntyreflectedin his demand of1922fora directlyelected
constituentassemblyforfutureand independentIndia was never
accepted bytheBritishrulers.
The constituentassemblyofIndia, under constantpressureto
redraw India's internal borders, formeda linguistic provinces
commission(chairedbyS KDar) tostudytheproblemand writea
report.In itsreportsubmittedinDecember 1948 theDar Commis-
sion recommended:
Tillnationalismhasacquiredsufficientstrengthtopermittheforma-
tionofautonomousprovinces,thetruenatureandfunctionofa prov-
inceunderourConstitutionshouldbe thatofan administrativeunit
functioningunderdelegatedauthorityfromthecentreandsubjectto
centre'soverridingpowersinregardtoitsterritory,itsexistence,and
itsfunctions.Thesepowersarerequiredtoformnewprovincesandto
mitigatetherigourofgovernmentbylinguisticmajorities,topreventa
breakdownoftheadministrationonaccountofdisputesamongstlin-
guisticgroups,tocheckfissiparoustendenciesandstrengthennation-
al feelings,andabovealltobuildupanIndiannation.2
AfterIndependence
Shortlyafterindependence,movementsforlinguisticreorganisa-
tionofstatesgainedmomentumin severalstates.The central
CongressleadershipaswellastheStatesReorganisationCommis-
sion(src) report(1956)largelyacceptedthelinguisticprinciple
in a fewcases butwishedto maintajnmultilingualstatesfor
culturalhomogenisation.Thesrc reportstressed"obviouslimita-
tionstotherealisationofunilingualismatihe statelevel"dueto
thefollowing"limitingfactors":"(i) notall thelanguagegroups
are so placedthattheycan be groupedintoseparatestates;
(ii) therearea largenumberofbilingualbeltsbetweendifferent
linguisticzones;and (iii)thereexistareaswitha mixedpopula-
tionevenwithinunilingualareas."3
TheseventhamendmenttotheConstitu-
tionsupplementedbytheStatesReorgani-
sationAct(bothenactedin 1956)created
thefollowingstateseffectiveNovember1,
1956(Table1).
However,theuniongovernmentin1956
concededto the demand forunilingual
states only in case of AndhraPradesh,
wheretheagitationhadculminatedintothe
self-immolationofa popularTeluguleader.
Milderagitationsforlinguisticallymixed
rumpstatesofMadrasafterbifurcationof
Andhra,Bombay,Mysore,Punjab, and
elsewherewere ignored.However,the
popularlinguisticmovementsandtheinter-
nalbalkanisationofIndiapersisted.
Asithappened,underthepressureandpersistenceoflinguis-
tic,religious,and tribalmovements,the centralgovernment
yielded,creatingAndhraPradesh(Telugu-speaking),TamilNadu
table 1:Reorganised
States in1956
1 AndhraPradesh
2 Assam
3 Bihar
4 Bombay
5 JammuandKashmir
6 Kerala
7 Madras
8 Mysore
9 Orissa
10 Punjab
11 Rajasthan
12 UttarPradesh
13 WestBengal
Sources:TheSeventh
ConstitutionalAmendmentand
SRCAct,both1956.
Economic& Politicalweekly Q2S march 15, 2008 71
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4. SPECIAL ARTICLE
(Tamil-speaking),Karnataka (Kannada-speaking),Gujarat
(Gujarati-speaking),Maharashtra(Marathi-speaking),Punjab
whichwastrifurcatedintoPunjab(Punjabi-speakingwitha Sikh
majority),Haryana(Hindi-speakingwithHindumajority),and
HimachalPradesh(Hindi-speakingwithHindumajority)inthe
1950s and 1960s. This process of territorialreorganisation
extendedto thenorth-eastin the1960sand 1970s.Beginning
withthebifurcationofNagalandoutofAssam(1962),theprocess
culminatedinthecreationoftheso-called"sevensisters"- states
or the unionterritories- in the region:ArunachalPradesh,
Assam,Manipur,Meghalaya,Mizoram,Nagalandand Tripura.
FirstNagalandandMizoram,andlaterManipurandAssamcame
tobeaffectedbyseparatistmovements.Theextentofsupportfor
separatismis arguablyratherlimitedpoliticalfractionand
subjecttochange.Yetthemovementshavepersistedinvarying
degreesand caused breakdownto democracyand federalism
necessitatinginvocationofemergencyprovisionsoftheConstitu-
tion.A recentstudyoftherevivaloftheTai-Ahomhistoryin
AssambytheinsurgentUnitedLiberationFrontofAsom (ulfa)
in"searchforanalternativetothelabelAssameseand/orIndian"
surmisesthat"religioncannotbe thecentralthemeofthiskind
ofhistory(as itisnow)",andthat"onecouldthenmovebeyond
diversity,and,buildon Indiannationalitythatpeopleacceptas
legitimateanddesirable"[Saikia2005].4
NewSub-State Movements
Sub-statemovementsbasedontribalorethnicidentitiesacquired
salienceinseveralstatesin the1980ssuchas GurkhaNational
LiberationFrontin theDarjeelinghilldistrictofWestBengal,
BodolandagitationinAssam,and JharkhandMuktiMorchain
theChhotaNagpurregionmainlyinBiharbutmarginallyalsoin
theadjoiningstatesofWestBengal,OrissaandMadhyaPradesh.
Tomeetthesesub-statedemands,a newproto-federalinnovation
ofautonomousRegionalDevelopmentCouncilswas set up in
Jharkhand,Darjeeling,Bodoland,and Ladakhareas ofBihar,
WestBengal,Assam and Jammuand Kashmir,respectively.
Systematicstudiesofthissubstratedevolutionaryquasi-federal
experimentare notavailablebecause practitionersas well as
academicstendtogiveshortshrifttothem.Thepoliticalactivists
generallycontinuetoagitateforstatehoodandscholarstendto
be scepticalofthewilland abilityofthoseinpowertoactand
behavefederally.5
AnoverviewofthepresentstatesandunionterritoriesofIndia
withareaanddemographiccharacteristicsisenoughtodemon-
stratethatterritorialreorganisationof the federationis still
lackingin linguistichomogeneityand uniformstandardsof
literacy(Table2). • .
ThethreemostrecentnewstatescreatedintheIndianunion
are Jharkhand(supersedingtheJharkhandRegionalDevelop-
mentCouncil),Uttarakhandand Chhattisgarh,bifurcatingthe
statesofBihar,up and mprespectivelyintheyear2000. These
newstateswerecreatedin responseto populardemandsand
mass movementsin the morebackwardregionsof thethree
Hindi-speakingparentstates.Curiously,theyarethefirstclear-
cutcategoryofstatescreatedmoreonconsiderationsofeconomic
backwardnessand discriminatorytreatmentby the political
elitesoftherespectiveparentstatesthanonlinguistic,religious,
or tribalconsiderations.The newstatesare moreendowedin
naturalresourcesthantheirparentstates,butless in human
development.Uttarakhandislessdistinguishableinethnicterms
fromupbutisbackwardintermsofregionaleconomicdisparities.
Jharkhandand Chhattisgarhsharein commondisproportion-
atelylargetribalpopulationsthantheirparentstates.However,
overtheyears,thetribalmajorityintheformerhasbeenreduced
toa minoritybymigrationintothearea fromBiharplainsand
otherparts of India. The Chhattisgarhregionneverreally
mounteda regionalmovementofanysignificance.In fact,the
creationofthesenewstatesisunderstandablemorebylookingat
Table 2; States and UnionTerritoriesInIndia Today
States Area(sqkm) Population LiteracyPrincipalLanguages
Rate(%)
AndhraPradesh
(1953,1956,1959) 2,76,754 7.62,10,007 60.5 Telugu/Urdu/Hindi
ArunachalPradesh(1971) 83,473 1,097 54.3 Nissi/Daffla/Nepali/Bengali
Assam(1951,1962,1971) 78,438 2,66,55,528 63.3 Assamese/Bengali/Bodo/Bora
Bihar(1950,1956,1968,2000) 94,163 8,29,98,509 47.0 Hindi/Urdu/Santhali
Chhattisgarh(2000) 1,55,191 2,08,33,803 64.7 Hindi
Goa(1987) 3,702 13,47,688 82.3 Konkani/Marathi/Kannada
Gujarat(1960) 1,96,024 5,06,71,017 69.1 Gujarati/Hindi/Sindhi
Haryana(1966,1979) 44,212 2,11,44,564 67.9 Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu
1 HimachalPradesh(1966) 55,673 60,77,900 76.5 Hindi/Punjabi/Kinnaun
2 JammuandKashmir(1950) 2,22,236 1,00,69,343 54.5 Kashmiri/Urdu/Dogri
3 Jharkhand(2000) 79,714 2,69,45,829 53.6 Hindi/Santhali/Urdu
4 Karnataka
(1950,1956,1968) 1,91,791 5,28,50,562 66.6 Kannada/Urdu/Telugu
5 Kerala(1956) 38,863 3,18,41,374 90.9 Malayalam/Tamil/Kannada
6 MadhyaPradesh
(1950,1956,2000) 3,08,000 6,03,48,023 63.7 Hindi/Bhili/Bhilodi/Gondi
7 Maharashtra(1950,1960) 3,07,713 9,68,78,627 76.9 Marathi/Hindi/Urdu
8 Manipur(1971) 22,327 "21,66,788 70.5 Manipuri/Thado/Tangkhul
9 Meghalaya(1971) 22,429 23,18,822 62.6 Khosi/Garo/Bengali/Assamese
10 Mizoram(1971) 21,087 8,88,573 88.5 Lushai/Mizo/Bengali/Lakher
11 Nagaland(1962) 16,579 19,90,036 66.6 Ao/Sema/Konyak
12 Qrissa(1950,1960) 1,55,707 3,68,04,660 63.1 Oriya/Hindi/Telugu
13 Punjab
(1950,1956,1960,1966) 50,362 2,43,58,999 69.7 Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu
14 Rajasthan
(1950,1956,1959) 3,42,239 56,507 60.4 Hindi/Bhili/Bhilodi/Urdu
15 Sikkim(1975) 7,096 5,40,851 68.8 Nepali/Bhutia/Lepiha
16 TamilNadu
(1950,1953,1959) 1,30,058 6,24,05,679 73.5 Tamil/Telugu/Kannada
17 Tripura(1950) 1,04,91.69 31,99,203 73.2 Bengali/Tripuri/Hindi
18 UttarPradesh
(1950,1968,1979,2000) 2,36,286 16,61,79,921 56.3 Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi
19 Uttaranchal(2000) 53,483 84,89,349 71.6 Hindi/Garhwali/Kumaoni
20 WestBengal
~~~~
(1950,1954,1956) 88,752 8,11,76,197 68.6 Bengali/Hindi/Urdu
NationalCapitalTerritory/
DelhiState(1950,1956) 1,483 1,38,50,707 81.7 Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu
UnionTerritories(UTs)
1 AndamanandNicobar
(1950,1956) 8,249 3,56,152 81.3 Bengali/Tamil/Hindi
2 Chandigarh(1966) 114 9,00,635 81.9 Hindi/Punjabi/Tamil
3 DadraandNagarHaveli(1961) 491 2,20,490 57.6 Gujarati/Hindi/Konkani
4 DamanandDiu(1987) 112 1,58,204 78.2 Gujarati/Hindi/Marathi
5 Lakshadweep(1956) 32 60,650 86.7 Malayalam/Tamil/Hindi
6 Pondicherry(1962) 492 9,74,345 81.2 Tamil/Malayalam/Telugu
Source:AdaptedfromDerekO'Brian(compileranded),ThePenguinReferenceYearbook2007,PenguinIndia
NewDelhi,2006.
y2'' march 15, 2008 FJEE3 Economic& Politicalweekly
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5. SPECIALARTICLE
a newfederalcoalitionalgoverningframeworkin New Delhi
since 1989. Federalpoliticswas earliermarkedby political
dominanceofupinparticularandtheHindi-speakingregionin
general.Sincetheearly1990sthishasyieldedtoa newfederal
balance of politicalforcesin whichthe non-Hindi-speaking
regionalrimlandstatesbecamepoliticallymoreconsequential
due to growingasymmetriesand disparitiesin economicand
educationaldevelopmentsand non-delimitatiônof electoral
constituenciesafterthe1971Census.
CurrentPoliticalMap and States
ThoughthepoliticalmapofIndiabynowhasbeenconsiderably
reorganisedinternallytocontain28statesandsevenunionterri-
tories,thefederalunioncontinuestobemarkedbya greatdealof
interstateasymmetriesofdemographicsandterritoriesaswellas
internalculturalheterogeneityand economicdisparitywithin
each state.Moreover,each unitincludesprincipallinguistic,
religious,internalsects/casteand subcaste/tribalminorities.
Multiculturaldiversityand federalsegmentationcreatemajori-
tarianstatesforminoritieswithina nationofa differentmajority
overall.Whilesuch a politicalarrangementallows self-rule
withintheoverallframeworkofsharedrule,theclaimsofprovin-
cialmajorityisprivilegedandmayundercertainconditionsturn
intolerantto minoritieswithintheprovinceconcerned.These
featuresoftenlead to politicaland social conflicts,sometimes
involvingviolence.Consequently,protectingrightsof these
"internal"minorities,internalto a federatingunitas well as
minoritieswithinthemajorminoritiesandthemajoritycommu-
nitybecomesa difficultproposition.6The experienceof the
Indianpoliticalsystemsuggeststhatfederalismas a political
mechanismhasbeenmoresuccessfulinprotectingtheidentity
andinterestofmajornationalminoritiesthathappentobe state
orprovincialmajorities(e g, MuslimsinJammuand Kashmir,
SikhsinPunjab,NagasinNagaland,etc)thanofinternalminori-
tiesand"discrepant"majorities,bywhichismeantthenational
majoritycommunitythathappenstobe a provincialminorityin
somestates.In practice,nationalmajoritiesor pluralities(e g,
Hindusand Hindi-speakingpeople) or caste/tribeminorities
havealloftenbeenvictimsofdiscriminationandviolentattacks
-in differentpartsof India withpoliticaland administrative
processesoftenfailingthem.The politicalclassand themedia
mostlymakemoreofHindu-Muslimcommunalviolence,drown-
ingthesufferingand criesofinternalminoritiesor minorities
withinminoritiesanddiscrepantmajority.Onlythejudiciaryand
theNationalHumanRightsCommission(nhrc)canbesaidtobe
moreconsciouslyandconsistentlystirringtheirlimbsforthese
god-forsakencommunitiesatthereceivingendofthesupposedly
successfuldemocracyofIndia.Butthereare limitstojudicial
actionandnhrc'sreachandeffectiveness.
India- 'MultinationalState'
Inanattempttoresolvetheseproblems,theIndiansubcontinent
hasexploredandexperimentedwithtwomajormodels.One is
whatPaulBrasshascalled"modernnationstate",inwhich"loyal-
tiestonationalcommunityandtopoliticalstructureultimately
mergesothatnationalismandpatriotismbecomeone"(e g,some
WesternEuropeanunilingualcountriesand Japan).Jinnah's
"two-nationtheory"thatHindusand Muslimsconstitutedtwo
separatenationsand the latterforthatreasonmusthave a
separatestatewasalsoinspiredbythismodel.Thesecondmodel
iswhatBrasscalls"multi-ethnic"or"multinationalstate",which
comprises"manynationsboundtogetherin a singlepolitical
andterritorialunitbyfeelingsofpatriotismderivedfromideol-
ogy,memoriesofa commonstruggleagainstexternaloralien
powers,and rationalcalculationsofcommonadvantageinthe
sharingof a singlepoliticalstructure,butnotby a common
nationality".India has obviouslyoptedforthesecondmodel,
whichBrassalsoconsidersrelevantnotonlyforIndiabutalsofor
theIndiansubcontinentas a whole[Brass1974].
Brass' model of "nationality-formation"in modernnorth
India brieflyalluded to above is applicableto theprocessof
statesreorganisationdonein Indiasubsequenttohisstudyin
theareasofthecountrywheretheclassicalHindumainstream
cultureprevailedandtoan extentstillsurvives.Thisarea"may
be said to stretchfromPunjab to Assam and the central
HimalayanfoothillsoftheIndiannorthandthesouthernpenin-
sula. Thoughboththenorthand thesouthare linguistically
pluralwithinthedualityof the Sanskriticor Indo-European
andDravidianlinguisticfamilies.Butboththesemacro-regions
have stronglyresistedovercentralisationof the federation
soonerorlaterinindependentIndia.
SanjibBaruahpoignantlyanalysesthetensionandcontinuity
betweennationalismand nationalityand thelimitsof"nation-
building"inthecontextofAssam.Heusestheterm"subnational-
ism"whichrefersnotto"somestableessencethatmakesitinher-
entlydifferentfromnationalism,buttodescribea situationata
particularhistoricalmoment".Baruah argues that in the
Assamesecase theideologyoftheulfa illustratesthatIndia's
"stubbornsubnationalconflictscan be locatedinthisenduring
tensionanda failuretodevelopa pan-Indiannarrativethatcan
accommodatethe entire range of historicallyconstituted
subnationalaspirationsandconcerns".He suggestsa departure
from"thederivative,suffocatingandquiteout-of-dateparadigm
ofnation-building"and a "returntoa moreconfidentvisionof
civilisationalunityofthesubcontinent"and a launchingof"a
boldprojectofgenuinefederation-building[Baruah1999].Ina
subsequentbook,Baruahgoes beyondthe idea of national/
civilisationalfederalismof his earlierworkand prescribesa
solutionofthe"insurgenciesin thenorth-eastthatalternates
betweendisorderanduneasycoexistencewithinIndia.Helooks
beyondsubnationalandnationalfederalstructuresandexplores
thepossibilityofEuropeanUnionlikemulti-leveltransnational
region-buildingin pursuanceof India'sLook East Policythai:
beganintheearly1990s[Baruah2005].Obviously,thesemodels
have widerapplicabilityforthe enduringproblemsof India's
north-westcontiguoustoPakistanandAfghanistanandthePalk
StraitontheIndo-SriLankanborder.
Second Reorganisation Commission
The political reorganisationof India since independence
has notresolvedall demandsforstateformation.A second
reorganisationcommissionwitha moreopen mindthanthe
Economic& Politicalweekly GEE3 march 15, 2008 ' $
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6. SPECIAL ARTICLE - :
previousone seemsto be called for.The Congress-ledUnited
ProgressiveAlliancegovernmentwheninitiallyformedin2004
wasapparentlyinclinedtoconsiderappointingsucha commis-
sion,butfinallyresistedthisdemandat thecostoflosingone
ofitsallies,theTelanganaRashtraSamiti,whoseministerin
theunioncabinet,ChandrashekharRao, resignedmidwayin
protest.This did not, however,affectthe stabilityof the
government.The upa chairpersonSonia Gandhiand prime
ministerManmohanSinghsubsequentlyappointeda second
union-stateRelationsCommissionchairedbytheformerchief
justiceofIndia,M M Punchchi,toreviewthefederalaffairsin
thepost-SarkariaCommissionReport(1987-88)phaseinstead.
Butas A K Singhrightlyremarks,"The sub-regionalidentity
assumés importancewhen inter-regional disparitiesand
discriminationsurface.Thisphenomenonhastwodimensions:
one,manyofthesub-regions,despitebeingrichinresources,
haveremainedeconomicallyunderdevelopedeitherbecauseof
stateneglectorbecauseoftheill-conceivedtop-downapproach
ofdevelopment;second,some regionssurviveat thecostof
othersthroughresourceand earningstransfers."It is within
thisexplanationsketchthatA K Singhputsthedemandsof
separatestatehoodforVidarbha,Marathwada,amongothers
some of whichhave alreadybeen conceded by the centre
[Singh2003].
UnresolvedIssues ofInternaland ExternalFédéralisation
Therearea numberofmajorproblemsofreorganisationofstates
inIndiainthedecadesahead.First,thenorth-southdividethat
preoccupiedAmbedkarintenselyin the1950sis at leastpartly
moderatedbydivisionofbiggernorthIndianstates.However,
anotherdimensionofthisproblemhassurfacedduetopostpone-
mentofthedelimitationofelectoralconstituenciesfollowinga
decennialheadcountsincethe1971Census.Afterbeingheldin
abeyanceearlieruntil2000,theprocesseshavenowbeenfrozen
until2026bythe84thamendment(2001).Ithasalreadyresulted
in a potentiallyexplosivequestionon thenorth-southaxis as
disproportionateincreaseofpopulationinthetwomacro-regions
has produceddistressingrepresentationaldisparitiesin the
Parliament.ThemajorstatesoftheGangeticvalleyhavegrown
fasterin populationsand proportionatelyfewerseats in the
Parliament.Thisdisparityislikelytobefurthermagnifiedbythe
timethequestionofdelimitationofconstituenciesis reopened
after2026[Bose2000].
Second,theriseoffragmentedethnicidentitiesand strong
micro-regionalismhas forcedtheshort-sighteduniongovern-
mentstocreatenewstates,oftendisregardingadministrative
rationalityandfinancialviability.Inthenewpoliticaleconomy
ofneoliberalism,privatisation,and globalisation,wheneven
themoreresourcefulcentraland richerprovincialstatesare
facinggrowing-and chronicdeficits,how longtheolderand
newpoorerstatescansustaintheirstatehoodisa bigquestion.
Mostofthesenewstateshavebeencreatedinan ad hocpoliti-
cal mannerwithoutrecommendationsfroma src liketheone
appointedby the Nehrugovernmentin the mid-1950s.The
problemhas onlymagnifiedsince.A secondstatesreorganisa-
tioncommissionisneeded.
Third,the asymmetricalfederalrelationsof Jammuand
Kashmirand Nagaland with the Indian union are still
notsufficientlyresolved.The problemsare particularlycom-
plicated due to insurgenciesin these states. The existing
specialstatusenjoyedbythesestatesundertheConstitution
need to be implementedin letterand spirit.What these
formalconstitutionalprovisionsneed is greaterdemocratic
substanceand federalautonomyin practice.The moderates
andhardlinersinthesestatesneedtobe seriouslyengagedina
democraticdialogue formeaningfulalternativesin power-
sharing,securityof life and propertyforthe citizens,and
economicdevelopment.
Fourth,evenafterthecreationofnewstatesbeforeandafter
independence,theunionofIndiais stilla complexmosaicof
religious,linguistic,caste, and tribalminoritieswithinand
across the existinginternalboundaries.Giventhe compact
geographicaltemplateofthesubcontinentandtheendowment
of complexdemographicbut an overarchingcivilisational
unity-in-diversity,noreorganisationofstatescanproduceinter-
nallyhomogeneousandadministrativelyandfinanciallyviable
setofstatesin all cases. Hence,endlessfragmentationofthe
Indiannationstateis nota solutionbuta partoftheproblem
of ungovernabilityand internationalinstability.There is a
strongtendencyofclingingtomajority-minoritystra-itjacketof
Hindu-Muslimcommunalismoftheperiodaroundtheviolent
imperialPartitionof1947.Communalviolencein Indiatoday
hasbecomeradicallytransformed.Itwouldbe obtusetoignore
themassacreofdalitsand uppercastesinBihar.To thinkthat
minoritycommunalismis less dangerous than majority
communalismisnotonlyunethicalbutithasalso provedtobe
destructiveofciviccommunityandIndiancitizenship.Bynow
bothHindusand Muslimshaveendured"minority"syndrome
or psychosis.India is now face to face withhydra-headed
communalisminvolvingnot onlyHindusand Muslims,but
also otherethniccommunities.We are challengedby the
problemofguaranteeingtherightsand securitiesof"internal
minorities"(minoritieswithinminorities,"discrepantmajorities"),
majoritiesthatmaybe nationallyso-calledbutare provincial
minoritiesor vice versa. Federal solutionhas historically
been predicatedon the grantof statehoodto provincial
majoritieswithina compositefederalunion.Federaltheory
andpracticeisyettoadequatelyaddresstotheseproblems.To
address the problemsof minoritieswithinminoritiesand
discrepantmajoritiesthefederaltheorymustself-consciously
engage morethoroughlythanin the past withthe theories
of constitutionalismand the rule of law, consociationalism,
andmulticulturalism.
Finally,ifsouthAsia has to exitfromthehistoryofinter-
necine feudal and colonial feudingand warfare,it must
becomeinternallydemocraticandmoveahead toembracethe
processesofregionaland globalintegrationlikeothersupra-
nationalregionsintheworld.Itmustmakea concertedeffort
to emulatewhatDavid Held called "thecosmopolitanmodel
of democracy".This modelenvisagesa global and regional
order comprisingmultipleand overlappingnetworksof
political,economic,andsocialpowerandclustersofindividual
'* march 15,2008 QSa Economic&Politicalweekly
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7. SPECIAL ARTICLE
autonomyand rights"withinand across each networkof
power" spanningstates, civil societies, and regional and
globalorganisations.These developmentswouldgivebirthto
"anempoweringlegalorder-a 'democraticinternationallaw'".
The emergentlegal principleswould "delimitthe formand
scope of individualand collectiveactionwithinthe organi-
sationsand associationsof state and civil society.Certain
standardsare specifiedforthe treatmentof all, whichno
politicalregimeor civilassociationcan legitimatelyviolate"
[Held 1994]. This cosmopolitanmodel of democracyin the
core and peripheralnationsof southAsia alone can ensure
simultaneouspursuitofdemocracyand developmentand an
escape fromtheviciouscycleofwarand poverty.Thereis no
otherway.
NOTES
l QuotedinS RMaheshwari,StateGovernmentsin
India,MacMillanIndia,NewDelhi,2000, p 20.
2 SeeB ShivaRaoetal (eds),TheFramingofIndia's
Constitution:A Study[with]SelectDocuments,
VolVI,IndianInstituteofPublicAdministration,
NewDelhi,1968,p476.
3 Governmentof India (Republic),Reportof the
StatesReorganisationCommission(chair Fazal Ali),
MinistryofHomeAffairs,NewDelhi,1955,pp203-05.
Soon afterthe submissionof the SRC report
BRAmbedkarcritiqueditmainlyonthebasisthat
theproposedreorganisationwouldresultingreat
imbalanceamongthestatesdue topopulation,
especiallybetweenthenorthand thesouth.As
a solutionheproposeddividingthefournorthern
statesofUP,Bihar,MadhyaPradeshand Mahar-
ashtraintosmallerstates.He advocatedsmaller
statestopreventwhathe calledthe"tyrannyof
thecommunalmajority".See his Thoughtson
LinguisticStates,AnandSahityaSadan,Aligarh,
1989,reprint.
4 FrankMoraes,Witnesstoan Era,London,1973,
p 295,alsoremarks:"IftheunityofIndiawas ar-
tificial,so was itsdivision.IfIndiahad tobreak
up,itshouldhavebrokenup on logicallinesof
languagewithethnicand culturalaffiliations."
QuotedinGhosh,opcit,p 10.
5 Forsucha priori/hastyconclusion,seeAKSingh,
'JharkhandMovement: Assertion of Socio-
CulturalIdentityandtheDemandfora Separate
State'in RasheeduddinKhan (ed), Rethinking
IndianFederalism,IUHSS, Indian Instituteof
AdvancedStudy,Shimla,1997.
6 Fortheoreticalandempiricalelaborationofthis
problématique,see AvigailEisenburgand Jeff
Spinner-Halev(eds),MinoritieswithinMinorities:
Equality,RightsandDiversity,CambridgeUniver-
sityPress,Cambridge,2005.
REFERENCES
Baruah,Sanjib(1999): India,Assamand Politicsof
NationalityagainstItself,OxfordUniversityPress,
NewDelhi.
- (2005):DurableDisorder:UnderstandingthePoli-
ticsNorth-EastIndia, OxfordUniversityPress,
NewDelhi.
Bose,Ashish(2000): 'North-SouthDividein India's
DemographicScene',Economic& PoliticalWeekly,
Vol XXXV,No 20, May 13-19-
Brass,R Paul (1974): Language, Religion and Politics in
NorthIndia,CambridgeUniversityPress,London,
PP9-15-
Das Gupta,Jyotirindra(1970):LanguageConflictand
National Development:Groups Politics and
NationalLanguagePolicyinIndia,Universityof
CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
Ghosh,SunitiKumar(1996):India'sNationalityProb-
lemandRulingClasses,Calcutta.
Held,David (1994): 'Democracy:FromCity-States
toa CosmopolitanOrder?'inThePolityReader
inSocialTheory,PolityPress,Cambridge,UK.
Menon,V P (1969): TheStoryofIntegrationofthe
IndianStates,OrientLongman.
Mishra,GirishandBKPandey(1996): Sociologyand
EconomicsofCasteismin India,PragatiPublica-
tions,Delhi,pp28-38.
Prasad,Rajendra(1992):Atmakatha(Autobiography),
AlliedPublishers,NewDelhi,p55.
Saikia,Yasmin(2005):AssamandIndia:Fragmented
Memories,CulturalIdentity,and theTai-Ahom
Struggle,PermanentBlack,Delhi,pp265-66.
Singh,AK(2003): 'FederalismandStateFormation:
An Appraisalof Indian Practice'in B D Dua
and M P Singh (eds), Indian Federalismin
the New Millennium,Manohar, New Delhi,
P104.
CentrefortheStudyof Cultureand Society
(affiliatedto ManipalUniversityand KuvempuUniversity)
invitesapplications forits Ph.D. in Cultural Studies
Eligibility:A Master'sdegreefroma recognizeduniversitywith55%
marksoritsgradeequivalent.5% relaxationwillbe allowedinthecase
of SC/ST students.
Applicationsshould include a coveringletterand the following
documents:
a) the applicant'scurriculumvitae,b) copies of mark-sheetsof
undergraduateand graduatedegrees,c) a writingsample (nomore
than15 pagesor approx.4000 words),and d) a two-pageresearch
proposal.
Broadresearchareasat CSCS include:genderstudies,lawandculture,
education,filmand new media,historyand philosophyof culture.
Applicantswithotherinterestsarealso encouragedto apply.
Theapplicationandsupportingdocumentsshouldbe sentinanenvelope
marked"Ph.D. Programme"to reachThe AdministrativeOfficer,
Centreforthe Studyof Cultureand Society,466,9thCross,First
Block,Jayanagar,Bangalore- 560011,no laterthanApril30, 2008.
Shortlistedcandidateswillbe calledforan oralinterviewin thefirst
weekof June2008.
Registration:ThePh.D candidateswillberegisteredeitherwithManipal
Universityor withKuvempuUniversity,Karnataka.
Financial Support: Selectedcandidateswill be givenfellowships/
financialassistancein thefirstand fourthyearof theirthesiswork.
CSCS also offersa one-yearDiploma in CulturalStudies.
For furtherdetails,writeto us or visittheCSCS websiteat
www.cscsarchive.org
Economic&Politicalweekly Q3S9 march 15, 2008 '5
This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Tue, 28 May 2013 01:51:16 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions