Font size:
Print
Linguistic States Debate: The Powerful Case Against R N Ravi’s Claims
Linguistic States and Unity: Exposing the Flaws in R N Ravi’s Argument
Context: Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi recently criticised the linguistic reorganisation of states, claiming it led to the creation of “second-class citizens.” However, scholars argue that the 1956 reorganisation, though partly based on language, played a vital role in preserving India’s unity and democratic federalism.
What is the historical background of linguistic reorganisation in India, and why was it implemented in 1956?
-
Colonial Legacy and Initial Post-Independence Structure
-
- At the time of independence, India inherited arbitrary provincial boundaries from the British Raj, which had administered the subcontinent through a dual structure of directly ruled provinces and indirectly governed princely states.
- The Constitution of India (1950) organised the country into Part A, B, C, and D States — a categorisation based on administrative convenience rather than linguistic or cultural unity.
-
Demand for Linguistic States
-
- Despite the Congress’ earlier support for linguistic provinces during the freedom struggle, post-Partition fears of balkanisation led to initial reluctance. The JVP Committee (1949)—comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya—warned of “disintegrative tendencies” in linguistic reorganisation.
- However, popular movements reignited the demand. The death of Potti Sriramulu after a 58-day hunger strike for a Telugu-speaking state led to the formation of Andhra State in 1953, which triggered further agitations across India.
-
States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), 1953
-
- To address growing demands, the SRC was constituted under Justice Fazl Ali. Its 1955 report clearly stated: “It is neither possible nor desirable to reorganise states solely on the basis of language.”
- Accordingly, the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was passed, creating 14 states and 6 Union Territories, primarily considering language, but also administrative, economic, and security factors.
Why has Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi criticised linguistic reorganisation, and what does his critique imply?
- Governor R N Ravi’s Position: In July 2025, Governor R N Ravi criticised linguistic reorganisation, stating it created “second-class citizens” and fragmented the “Bharat rashtra”, asserting:
- Linguistic nationalism created internal conflict.
- Ethnicity- or language-based states weakened national unity.
- Certain groups, such as linguistic minorities within states, felt alienated post-reorganisation.
-
- He further claimed that states like Tamil Nadu, with diverse linguistic populations, turned exclusive and sidelined non-dominant groups post-linguistic classification.
- Underlying Concerns and Constitutional Counterpoints: While Ravi’s critique invokes national unity, it overlooks constitutional safeguards:
- Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution guarantee minorities the right to preserve their language and culture.
- Eighth Schedule recognition of 22 languages symbolises linguistic pluralism, not division.
- Article 350A & 350B mandates facilities for linguistic minorities and the appointment of a Special Officer for their welfare.
- Moreover, linguistic reorganisation did not bar multilingualism within states. Several states (e.g., Maharashtra, Karnataka) have multiple official languages at local levels to ensure inclusivity.
What has been the broader impact of linguistic reorganisation on Indian unity, administration, and federalism?
- Preservation of National Unity: Contrary to fears of fragmentation, scholars like Ramachandra Guha and Paul Brass argue that linguistic accommodation prevented separatism.
-
- In India After Gandhi, Guha observes: “Linguistic states helped tame secessionist tendencies… unlike Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where language imposition led to civil wars.”
- Efficient Governance: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 2008 stated: “Resolution of linguistic conflicts post-Independence has been one of India’s greatest achievements. Common language provides administrative unity and accessibility.”
-
- States like Gujarat and Maharashtra, formed after violent agitations, stabilised rapidly post-reorganisation.
- Strengthening Federalism: Linguistic states empowered regional identity within the federal framework. Regional parties flourished, deepening democracy. Examples:
-
- DMK in Tamil Nadu, asserting Tamil identity within constitutional limits. Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, initially built on Marathi pride but functioning within national politics.
How should India reconcile linguistic identity with national unity in the present context?
-
Avoiding the “One Language, One Nation” Pitfall
-
- India’s Constitution does not designate Hindi as the national language. Article 343 mentions Hindi as the official language, while English continues as the associate official language.
- Promotion of a singular identity, as implied in Ravi’s reference to “5,000-year-old Bharat rashtra”, ignores constitutional pluralism and risks alienating non-Hindi speaking populations.
-
Balanced Approach: A Constitutional and Practical Necessity
-
- Promote three-language policy (NEP 2020) with respect for mother tongue.
- Enhance safeguards for linguistic minorities (Article 350B).
- Continue decentralised governance with linguistic diversity as a strength, not a threat.
