Issue of Official Language and Linguistic Reorganisation of States – UPSC Post-Independence Notes

The issue of official language and linguistic reorganization of states stands at the intersection of politics, culture, and identity, wielding significant influence over the fabric of a nation. Language, as a vehicle of communication and expression, holds immense power in shaping societal dynamics and fostering a sense of belonging among its speakers. The debate surrounding the designation of an official language and the reorganization of states along linguistic lines is a contentious one, often evoking passionate discourse and reflecting deep-seated historical, regional, and ethnic tensions. In many countries, particularly those with diverse linguistic landscapes, decisions regarding official language and territorial boundaries can have profound implications for governance, social cohesion, and the preservation of cultural heritage. As such, navigating this complex terrain requires a delicate balance between acknowledging linguistic diversity and promoting national unity, while also addressing the aspirations and rights of linguistic minorities.

Issue of Official Language: Background

The language issue emerged as one of the most contentious and divisive matters in the initial two decades following India’s independence. Linguistic identity became a potent force in society during this period.

This problem of linguistic diversity presented two significant challenges to national integration:

1. Controversy over the Official Language of the Union:
   • The conflict over the official language of the Indian union was a central issue.
   • It particularly flared up in opposition to Hindi, leading to tensions between Hindi-speaking and non-Hindi-speaking regions.
2. Linguistic Reorganization of States:
   • Another major aspect was the reorganization of states along linguistic lines.

The dispute was not about establishing a single national language that all Indians would adopt in due course. The idea of one national language for an Indian national identity had already been overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the national leadership, which upheld secular principles.

India was a multilingual nation, and it needed to remain so. The Indian national movement had conducted its ideological and political work through various regional languages. At that time, the demand was to replace English with the mother tongue as the medium for higher education, administration, and courts in each linguistic area.

Course of Official Language:

The resolution of the national language issue came about when the framers of the Constitution essentially acknowledged all major languages as ‘languages of India’ or India’s national languages.

Gandhi, given his stance against English as a foreign language, opposed the idea of English being the all-India medium of communication in independent India.

However, this wasn’t the end of the matter. It was not practical for the country’s official work to be conducted in so many languages. There needed to be a common language through which the central government could conduct its operations and maintain communication with the state governments. Consequently, the issue of the official language was highly political right from the start.

In the end, Hindi was chosen, specifically the version written in the Devanagari script, to be the official language of India. It’s worth noting that it was designated as the official language, not the national language.

The question of the time-frame for transitioning from English to Hindi created a divide between Hindi-speaking and non-Hindi-speaking regions. Advocates for Hindi wanted an immediate switch, while those from non-Hindi areas pushed for the retention of English for a prolonged, if not an indefinite period.

As for Nehru, he leaned towards making Hindi the official language, but he also supported the continued use of English as an additional official language.

Role of Constitution:

The Constitution stipulated that Hindi, written in the Devanagari script and with international numerals, would be designated as India’s official language. English was slated to continue for all official purposes until 1965, after which it would be replaced by Hindi. The introduction of Hindi was to be done in stages. Post-1965, it would become the sole official language. Nevertheless, Parliament retained the authority to allow the use of English for specified purposes even after 1965.

The Constitution placed the onus on the government to foster the spread and advancement of Hindi. It also provided for the establishment of a Commission and a Joint Committee of the Parliament to monitor progress in this regard. At the state level, the decision regarding the official language would be determined by the state legislatures. However, the official language of the Union would serve as the means of communication between the states and the Centre, as well as between one state and another.

Official Language Commission:

In 1956, the report of the Official Language Commission, established in 1955 as per a constitutional provision, recommended that Hindi should gradually replace English in various functions of the central government, with full implementation by 1965. However, two members of the commission, one each from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, dissented, alleging a pro-Hindi bias among the other members. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) reviewed the report to implement its recommendations.

In April 1960, the President issued an order stating that after 1965, Hindi would be the principal official language, while English would continue as the associate official language without any restrictions. To promote Hindi, the central government, in accordance with the President’s directive, took a series of measures, including establishing the Central Hindi Directorate, publishing important works in Hindi or in Hindi translation in various fields, mandating training of central government employees in Hindi, translating major legal texts into Hindi, and promoting their use in the courts.

Official Languages Act, 1963:

In 1959, Prime Minister Nehru provided assurance in Parliament that English would continue as an alternate language for as long as the people required it. In 1963, the Official Languages Act was enacted. The objective of this Act was to remove the restriction placed by the constitution on the use of English after a specified date, namely 1965.

Criticism:

The Act faced criticism due to the ambiguity arising from the use of the word “may” instead of “shall”. Non-Hindi leaders, in protest, altered their approach to the official language issue. Initially, they had demanded a slowdown in the replacement of English, but they shifted their stance to advocate against setting a deadline for the transition.

Tamil Nadu saw significant protests, some even resorting to self-immolation. Two Tamil Ministers in the Union Cabinet, Subramaniam and Alagesan, resigned in protest. Tragically, around 60 people lost their lives due to police firing during the agitation.

Later, when Indira Gandhi assumed the role of Prime Minister in 1966, she introduced an amendment to the 1963 Official Languages Act in 1967.

Official Languages Amendment Act, 1967:

The Official Languages Amendment Act of 1967 addressed the ambiguities surrounding Nehru’s assurance in 1959. It established English as an associate language, in addition to Hindi, for official work at the central level. Moreover, communication between the central government and non-Hindi states would continue in English for as long as non-Hindi states deemed it necessary. This amendment effectively adopted an indefinite policy of bilingualism.

The states were encouraged to implement a three-language formula. This involved the study of a modern Indian language, preferably one from the Southern languages, in addition to Hindi and English in Hindi-speaking areas. In non-Hindi speaking areas, the formula included the study of Hindi along with the regional languages and English.

Furthermore, the Parliament adopted a policy resolution dictating that public service exams were to be conducted in Hindi and English, as well as in all regional languages. It was stipulated that candidates must have additional proficiency in either Hindi or English.

Report of Education Commission, 1966:

In a significant move, the Government of India acted on language policy in July 1967. Building on the recommendations of the Education Commission’s report from 1966, it announced that Indian languages would eventually become the medium of instruction for all subjects at the university level. However, the specific timeline for this transition would be determined by each university according to its own convenience. This decision marked a crucial step towards promoting the use of Indian languages in higher education.

Linguistic Reorganisation of States:

The linguistic reorganization of states in India was a significant political development aimed at creating states based on linguistic lines, which means that the boundaries of the states were defined to align with the predominant language spoken by the population in that region. This reorganization was a response to the diverse linguistic diversity in India and aimed to ensure better governance and administration based on linguistic and cultural affinity.

Key points related to the linguistic reorganization of states:

1. Congress Party’s Commitment: The idea of linguistic states gained momentum in India after the Indian National Congress committed to it in 1917. The party’s Nagpur Session in 1920 formalized this commitment, and provincial Congress committees were organized along linguistic lines.
2. Gandhi’s Support: Mahatma Gandhi supported the concept of linguistic states, considering it a means of fostering better understanding and unity among people through the use of their native languages.
3. Nehru’s Apprehension: After the traumatic partition of India based on religious lines in 1947, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was initially cautious about further dividing the country on linguistic grounds. However, demands for linguistic states gained momentum in the post-independence period.
4. Creation of Maharashtra: The demand for a separate Marathi-speaking state, Maharashtra, gained prominence in this period. Other linguistic communities also began demanding separate states for themselves.

The linguistic reorganization of states aimed to address the issue of language-based regional identities and ensure better governance by creating states with linguistic and cultural homogeneity. This process eventually led to the formation of several new states in India, reflecting the linguistic diversity of the country.

Justice S.K. Dhar Commission (1948):

The Justice S.K. Dhar Commission, appointed by the Constituent Assembly in 1948, was tasked with enquiring into the desirability of linguistic provinces in India. However, the commission’s recommendations did not support the idea of linguistic provinces.

Key points about the Justice S.K. Dhar Commission:

1. Appointment: The commission was appointed to examine whether linguistic provinces should be created in India. It was established in response to growing demands from various linguistic communities for states based on language.
2. Recommendations: The Dhar Commission, in its report submitted in December 1948, recommended against the creation of linguistic provinces. Instead, it suggested reorganizing states based on administrative convenience rather than linguistic factors. This recommendation created dissatisfaction among those who were advocating for linguistic states.

JVP Committee (1949):

The JVP Committee, consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, was established in 1949 to reevaluate the issue of linguistic provinces in India.

Key points about the JVP Committee:

1. Formation: The JVP Committee was formed by the Indian National Congress to revisit the question of linguistic provinces and provide its recommendations on the matter.
2. Report: The committee submitted its report in April 1949. In contrast to the Dhar Commission, the JVP Committee rejected language as the basis for reorganizing states. It did not support the idea of linguistic provinces.

The recommendations of these committees and commissions reflected the complexities and challenges associated with the linguistic reorganization of states in India. Ultimately, the demand for linguistic states continued to grow, leading to further discussions and actions on this issue in subsequent years.

Andhra Pradesh – First State based on Linguistic Reorganisation:

The demand for linguistic states found its culmination in the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Here are the key events and figures associated with this historic development:

1. Post-Independence Agitation: After India gained independence, there was a widespread movement across the country advocating for states to be organized on linguistic lines. This movement was characterized by various methods including petitions, representations, street marches, and protests.
2. Leaders of the Movement:
   • T. Prakasam: Former Chief Minister of Madras, T. Prakasam, resigned from the Congress party in 1950 to support the cause of linguistic states.
   • Swami Sitaram: Another prominent figure in this movement, Swami Sitaram, went on a hunger strike to support the demand for a separate Andhra state. His hunger strike ended after an appeal from veteran Gandhian leader Vinoba Bhave.
3. Potti Sriramulu’s Fast unto Death: On October 19, 1952, Potti Sriramulu, a popular freedom fighter, began a fast unto death to demand a separate Andhra state. Tragically, he passed away after fasting for fifty-eight days. This event sparked widespread agitation, including rioting, demonstrations, and violence across Andhra.
4. Formation of Andhra State: In response to the intensifying agitation and the sacrifice of Potti Sriramulu, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru announced the formation of a separate Andhra State in December 1952.
5. Creation of Andhra State (1953): In October 1953, the Government of India took the significant step of creating the first linguistic state, known as Andhra State. This involved the separation of Telugu-speaking areas from the Madras State.

The creation of Andhra Pradesh was a significant milestone in India’s linguistic reorganisation process. It set a precedent for the formation of states based on linguistic affinity, a principle that would go on to shape the map of India in the years to come.

Fazl Ali Commission (1953) and State Reorganisation Act, 1956:

1. Formation of the Commission:
   • In response to the demands for linguistic states following the creation of Andhra Pradesh, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in August 1953.
   • Justice Fazl Ali served as the Chairman of the commission, with K.M. Panikkar and Hridaynath Kunzru as its members.
2. Mandate of the Commission:
   • The SRC was tasked with objectively and dispassionately examining the entire question of the reorganisation of states in the Union of India.
3. Recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission (1955):
   • The Commission accepted language as the basis for the reorganisation of states. However, it rejected the theory of ‘One-Language-One-State’.
   • It emphasized that the unity of India should be considered the primary consideration in any redrawing of the country’s political units.
4. State Reorganisation Act, 1956:
   • The recommendations of the SRC culminated in the enactment of the State Reorganisation Act in November 1956.
   • This act led to the creation of fourteen states and six centrally administered territories.
5. Current Status of States and Union Territories:
   • As of now, India consists of 28 states and 8 union territories, for a total of 36 entities.
6. Recent Reorganisation:
   • A significant reorganisation occurred on 31st October 2019, when the state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated to create two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
   • Additionally, on 26th January 2020, the union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu were merged to form a single union territory named Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

The Fazl Ali Commission and the subsequent State Reorganisation Act played a pivotal role in shaping the political map of India, ensuring that states were organised on linguistic lines, and contributing to the administrative efficiency and governance of the country.

Aftermath of State Reorganization Act 1956:

1. Maharashtra-Gujarat Division:
   • The recommendation of the SRC and the subsequent State Reorganisation Act led to significant opposition in Maharashtra. Riots and protests erupted in 1956.
   • The government, in response to the pressure, decided to divide the Bombay state into two linguistic states: Maharashtra and Gujarat. Bombay city was to form a separate, centrally administered state.
2. Resentment and Opposition:
   • The division plan faced strong opposition, especially from Maharashtrians who were dissatisfied with the proposed arrangement.
   • The people of Gujarat were also apprehensive as they felt they would be a minority in the new state. They were unwilling to give up Bombay city to Maharashtra.
3. Escalation of Unrest:
   • The disagreement over the status of Bombay city intensified the agitation. Violence and arson spread to Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat.
4. Enactment of State Reorganisation Act:
   • Despite the protests and disagreements, the government passed the States Reorganisation Act in November 1956. This formalized the division of states.
5. Continued Agitation:
   • Popular agitation persisted for nearly five years as people in Maharashtra and Gujarat continued to voice their discontent.
6. Final Resolution:
   • In May 1960, after years of protests and negotiations, the government agreed to bifurcate the state of Bombay into Maharashtra and Gujarat.
   • As per the resolution, Bombay city was included in Maharashtra, and Ahmedabad was designated as the capital of Gujarat.

The division of the Bombay state into Maharashtra and Gujarat marked a significant chapter in India’s linguistic reorganisation process, demonstrating the complexities and sensitivities involved in accommodating regional and linguistic identities.

Punjab:

1. Exception to Linguistic Principle:
   • Punjab was an exception to the linguistic reorganisation principle. Even after the merger of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) with Punjab in 1956, the state remained trilingual, with speakers of Punjabi, Hindi, and Pahari.
2. Demand for Punjabi Suba:
   • In the Punjabi-speaking regions, there was a strong demand for the creation of a separate Punjabi Suba (Punjabi-speaking state).
3. Communal Overtones:
   • The issue took on communal dimensions, further complicating the matter.
4. Division of Punjab:
   • In 1966, under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, it was decided to divide Punjab into two states: Punjab (Punjabi-speaking) and Haryana (Hindi-speaking).
   • The Pahari-speaking district of Kangra and a part of Hoshiarpur were merged with Himachal Pradesh.
   • Chandigarh, the newly constructed city and capital of united Punjab, was designated as a Union Territory and was intended to serve as the joint capital for both Punjab and Haryana.
5. Achievements of Linguistic Reorganisation:
   • The linguistic reorganisation process, spanning over a decade of struggle, paved the way for greater political participation by the people.
   • It demonstrated that language loyalty can be complementary to national loyalty.
   • The reorganisation addressed a significant grievance that could have led to divisive tendencies.
   • It did not weaken the federal structure or the unity of the nation. Instead, it rationalised the political map without undermining national unity.
   • It removed a major source of discord, creating more homogenous political units that could be administered using a language understood by the majority.
   • Ultimately, linguistic reorganisation proved to be a unifying and integrating force rather than a divisive one.

The process of linguistic reorganisation of states in India stands as a testament to the country’s ability to accommodate diverse linguistic identities while maintaining its unity and integrity.

Minority Languages and Associated Issues:

1. Existence of Linguistic Minorities:
   • In the linguistically reorganised states, there exists a substantial population who speak a language other than the main or official language of the state.
   • Approximately 18% of India’s population do not speak the official language of their residing state as their mother tongue.
2. Challenges Faced:
   • The key challenge was determining the status and rights of these linguistic minorities within their respective states.
   • It was important to protect them from potential discrimination while also facilitating their integration with the dominant language group of the state.
   • Assurance needed to be provided to both the linguistic minority and the majority to prevent any separatist sentiments.
3. Constitutional Safeguards:
   • The Indian Constitution addressed this issue by providing fundamental rights to linguistic minorities.
   • Article 30 grants minorities (based on religion or language) the right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice, ensuring that no discrimination occurs in granting aid to such institutions.
   • Article 347 empowers the President, upon a minority’s demand, to officially recognise their language for specific purposes throughout the state.
4. Official Policy since 1956:
   • The official policy since 1956, backed by a constitutional amendment, aimed to provide instruction in the mother tongue in primary and secondary classes wherever there is a sufficient number of children for a class.
   • The amendment also established the position of a Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities, tasked with regular reporting on the implementation of these safeguards.
5. Role of Central and State Governments:
   • While the central government has generally played a positive role in safeguarding minority rights, the implementation of these safeguards falls under the jurisdiction of state governments.
   • However, the effectiveness of implementation varies from state to state.
6. Challenges Persist:
   • Despite some progress in several states, the situation of linguistic minorities remains unsatisfactory in most regions.

The issue of linguistic minorities remains a crucial aspect of India’s diverse linguistic landscape, demanding continued attention and efforts towards inclusive and equitable policies.

Integration of Tribals in India:

1. Diverse Tribal Communities:
   • Tribals in India live in diverse conditions across various regions, speaking different tribal languages and adhering to distinct cultures.
   • They are primarily concentrated in states like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, northeastern states, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Rajasthan.
2. Tribals as Minorities:
   • With the exception of the Northeast, in most states, tribals constitute a minority within their home states.
3. Isolation in Colonial India:
   • During colonial times, tribals lived in relative isolation from the mainstream population. Their traditions, habits, and cultures were markedly different from those of non-tribal communities.
4. Integration through Market Forces:
   • The radical transformation and influence of market forces led to the integration of isolated tribal communities with colonial powers.
   • Moneylenders, traders, revenue farmers, and other intermediaries entered tribal areas, disrupting their traditional way of life.
5. Impact of Forest Laws:
   • To facilitate the commercial exploitation of forests and to conserve them, colonial authorities brought large forested areas under forest laws.
   • These laws prohibited shifting cultivation and imposed strict restrictions on the use of forests and access to forest products for tribals.
6. Causes of Tribal Uprisings:
   • The tribals faced a series of challenges including loss of land, indebtedness, exploitation by middlemen, denial of access to forests and forest products, as well as oppression and extortion by various government officials.
   • These factors led to several tribal uprisings in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, notable examples being the Santhal and Munda rebellions.

The integration of tribal communities into the broader socio-political and economic framework of India has been a complex process, marked by both cultural preservation and external influences. The struggles and uprisings of these communities have played a crucial role in shaping their rights and identities within the Indian nation.

The Problem of Tribal Integration in India: Approaches and Policies

There have been three primary approaches towards tribal integration in India:

1. Policy of Isolation:
   • This approach aimed to leave tribal communities alone, preserving them from the influences of modernity and external forces.
2. Policy of Assimilation:
   • The second approach advocated for the complete and swift assimilation of tribal communities into the broader Indian society. It was believed that the disappearance of tribal culture and lifestyle would signify their ‘upliftment’.
3. Policy of Integration:
   • Instead of the extremes of isolation or assimilation, Nehru advocated for a policy of integration. This approach aimed to incorporate tribal communities into Indian society while respecting and preserving their distinct identity and culture.

Nehru’s Approach to Tribal Integration:

1. Guiding Principles (Tribal Panchsheel):
   • Nehru outlined specific principles to guide government policy towards tribal integration:
     • Tribal development should align with their inherent strengths and characteristics, without external imposition.
     • Protection of tribal rights over land and forests, preventing outsiders from taking control.
     • Promotion and support for tribal languages, ensuring conditions for their growth and flourishing.
     • Administrative reliance on tribal people, with recruitment and training of administrators from within their communities.
     • Administration and development through the social and cultural institutions of the tribal communities.
2. Focus Areas for Development:
   • Nehru emphasized various aspects for the economic and social development of tribal communities, including communication, modern medical facilities, agriculture, and education.

Nehru’s approach to tribal integration sought a balanced path, respecting tribal identity while ensuring their progress in a manner suited to their unique circumstances. This policy aimed to bridge the gap between traditional tribal life and the evolving modern Indian society.

Government Policies for Tribal Welfare

The Indian government has implemented various policies and provisions aimed at safeguarding the interests and promoting the welfare of tribal communities. These policies include:

1. Constitutional Safeguards (Article 46):
   • The Constitution of India, under Article 46, mandates the promotion of the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Tribes (STs) and directs the state to protect them from social injustice and exploitation.
2. Special Responsibilities of State Governors:
   • Governors of states with tribal areas were granted special responsibilities to safeguard tribal interests. This included the power to modify central and state laws as they apply to tribal areas and to formulate regulations protecting tribal land rights and shielding them from exploitative moneylenders.
3. Political Rights and Reservations:
   • The Constitution granted full political rights to tribal communities and provided for reserved seats in legislatures as well as positions in administrative services for Scheduled Tribes.
4. Tribal Advisory Councils:
   • The establishment of Tribal Advisory Councils in all states with tribal areas was mandated to advise on matters related to tribal welfare.
5. Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:
   • The President appointed a Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to assess the observance of safeguards provided for these communities.
6. Prevention of Land Loss and Exploitation:
   • State governments took legislative and executive actions to prevent the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribal individuals and to curb exploitation of tribals by moneylenders.
7. Special Facilities and Programs:
   • Both central and state governments initiated special programs and provided facilities for the welfare and development of tribal areas and communities. This included the promotion of cottage and village industries and the creation of employment opportunities.

However, despite these constitutional safeguards and governmental efforts, progress in tribal welfare has been slow, especially outside the North East region. Many tribals still face issues of poverty, indebtedness, landlessness, and unemployment. The challenge lies in the effective implementation of well-intentioned measures.

Reasons for Dismal Performance of Tribal Policy:

1. Inefficient Allocation of Funds:
   • Funds allocated for tribal welfare are sometimes not utilized properly, leading to a lack of corresponding results. In some cases, funds are misappropriated.
2. Ineffectiveness of Tribal Advisory Council:
   • The Tribal Advisory Council, meant to safeguard tribal interests, has often not operated effectively.
3. Lack of Training and Prejudice among Administrative Personnel:
   • Administrative personnel may be inadequately trained or hold biases against tribal communities, hampering effective policy implementation.
4. Limited Access to Justice:
   • Tribals may face difficulties in accessing justice, often due to their unfamiliarity with legal procedures and the legal system.
5. Violations of Land Transfer Laws:
   • Strict land transfer laws for tribals are sometimes violated, resulting in land alienation and evictions.
6. Impact of Industrialization and Mining:
   • Rapid industrialization and mining activities have adversely affected tribal communities in many areas.
7. Restrictions on Forest Access:
   • Deforestation and the curtailment of tribal’s traditional rights to access forests and forest products contribute to their challenges.
8. Slow Progress in Education:
   • Progress in education among tribal populations has been disappointingly slow.
9. Exploitation and Unsatisfactory Treatment by Officials:
   • Tribals may face exploitation from forest officials, along with an unsympathetic attitude from government authorities.
10. Misuse of Forest Laws:
    • Forest laws and regulations are sometimes exploited to harass and oppress tribal communities.

Positive Developments:

1. Legislation for Tribal Rights:
   • Legislation has been enacted to protect tribal rights and interests.
2. Tribal Welfare Departments:
   • Activities of tribal welfare departments have contributed to the betterment of tribal communities.
3. Panchayati Raj:
   • The institution of Panchayati Raj has played a role in local governance and tribal welfare.
4. Spread of Literacy and Education:
   • Efforts to promote literacy and education have had positive effects on tribal communities.
5. Reservations:
   • Reservations in government services and higher educational institutions have provided opportunities for tribal upliftment.
6. Increasing Political Participation:
   • Repeated elections have boosted confidence among tribal communities, leading to greater political participation.
7. Protest Movements:
   • Protest movements among tribals, though sometimes resorting to violence, have drawn national attention to tribal issues and may bring about positive change over time.

Tribals in the North East – Background:

• The northeastern region of India is home to a diverse range of tribal communities, comprising over a hundred distinct groups. They speak various languages and inhabit the hilly areas of Assam.
• Unlike in other regions, the tribal population in the northeast often formed the majority in the areas they inhabited. Additionally, non-tribal communities had limited penetration into these regions.
• During the British colonial period, the tribal areas were part of the Assam province but held a separate administrative status. Non-tribals were prohibited from acquiring land in these areas, which helped protect the tribals’ land rights.
• Christian missionaries were allowed and encouraged by the British to establish schools, hospitals, churches, and engage in proselytization. This introduced modern ideas and changes among some tribal youth. The missionaries collaborated with the colonial authorities and kept nationalist influence at bay.
• After independence, some missionaries and foreigners even promoted sentiments favoring separate and independent states in the northeastern region.
• The tribals in the Northeast had limited political and cultural contact with the rest of India. The common bonds forged during the anti-imperialist struggle, which played a pivotal role in unifying the Indian people, had minimal impact in the Northeast.
• Jawaharlal Nehru’s tribal policy was particularly relevant to the tribal populations in the Northeast. This policy found reflection in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution, which was applicable specifically to the tribal areas of Assam.
• The Sixth Schedule aimed to grant a significant degree of self-government to tribal communities by establishing autonomous districts and creating district and regional councils. These councils were vested with legislative and judicial powers within the broader jurisdiction of the Assam legislature and parliament.

Problems in Assam and Demand for Autonomy (1950):

The problems in Assam stemmed from the cultural disconnect between the hill tribes and the Assamese and Bengali communities in the plains:

• The hill tribes of Assam did not share a cultural affinity with the residents of the plains, who were predominantly Assamese and Bengali.
• The tribals were apprehensive about losing their distinct identities and feared assimilation through what they perceived as a policy of Assamization.
• They were particularly distressed by the often patronizing and condescending attitude of non-tribals in roles such as teachers, doctors, government officials, and traders.

The demand for a separate hill state gained momentum:

• In the mid-1950s, a section of the tribal population began demanding a separate hill state within the Indian Union as resentment against the Assam government grew.
• This demand was further fueled when Assamese leaders moved towards making Assamese the sole official language of the state in 1960.
• The All-Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC) was formed in 1960, merging various political parties from the hill areas to push for a separate state.

The language issue exacerbated tensions:

• The passage of the Assam Official Language Act, which designated Assamese as the official language, sparked strong opposition in the tribal districts.
• In the 1962 elections, advocates for a separate state won a significant majority of Assembly seats in the tribal areas, leading them to boycott the State Assembly.

Meghalaya’s formation:

• After prolonged discussions and negotiations, and the examination of various commissions and committees, Meghalaya was carved out of Assam as a ‘state within a state’ in 1969.
• Meghalaya officially became a separate state in 1972, incorporating the Garo, Khasi, and Jaintia tribes.

Statehood for Manipur, Tripura, and Arunachal Pradesh:

• Manipur and Tripura, which were previously Union Territories, were granted statehood as part of the reorganization of the Northeast.

Trouble in Nagaland and Mizoram:

• Nagaland and Mizoram experienced secessionist and insurrectionary movements, which complicated the process of statehood.

Autonomous Districts as an Alternative:

• To address the multitude of regional aspirations, the central government explored alternatives, such as granting Autonomous District status to certain tribes, recognizing their distinct identities and granting them a degree of self-governance.

North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) and Its Developmental Policies

The North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) played a significant role in implementing developmental policies in the northeastern border areas of India during Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure. NEFA was established in 1948, carved out of the border regions of Assam, and designated as a Union Territory. Its administration was placed under a special cadre of officers with the objective of implementing developmental policies while preserving the social and cultural fabric of the local communities.

Key points regarding NEFA and its developmental policies:

1. Creation of NEFA: NEFA was created by reorganizing the border areas of Assam to better address the unique challenges and opportunities in the northeastern region. This administrative restructuring aimed to provide focused attention to the development of these areas.
2. Special Administration: NEFA was placed under a special administration that included officers dedicated to its development. These officers were tasked with implementing policies that would promote economic growth and social progress without disrupting the traditional ways of life of the local people.
3. Development with Cultural Preservation: A crucial aspect of NEFA’s developmental approach was the preservation of the social and cultural patterns of the local communities. The policies aimed to strike a balance between modernization and the protection of indigenous cultures.
4. Transition to Arunachal Pradesh: In 1987, NEFA was renamed Arunachal Pradesh and granted the status of a separate state within the Indian Union. This transition marked a significant step in recognizing the region’s identity and autonomy.

Overall, NEFA’s developmental policies, as guided by Prime Minister Nehru and Verrier Elwin, served as a model for balancing economic development with the preservation of cultural heritage and social cohesion in the northeastern frontier areas of India.

Jharkhand Movement and the Creation of Jharkhand State

The Jharkhand movement was characterized by various socio-economic and political factors, particularly in the tribal areas of Bihar, which consisted of the Chota Nagpur and Santhal Parganas regions. Here are some key points about the Jharkhand movement and the eventual creation of the state of Jharkhand:

1. Socio-Economic Differentiation: Over the years, economic differentiation became evident in Jharkhand, with a significant number of agricultural laborers and an increasing workforce in mining and industrial sectors. The landholding pattern, both among tribals and non-tribals, exhibited inequalities.
2. Loss of Land and Indebtedness: Like in other tribal areas, the loss of land, often to outsiders, led to indebtedness, reduced employment opportunities, and lower agricultural productivity among the tribal population.
3. Demand for State Autonomy: The demand for state autonomy in Jharkhand was spurred by these socio-economic factors. Various movements emerged, with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) being one of the most prominent.
4. Formation of JMM: The JMM, formed in late 1972, played a crucial role in revitalizing the demand for a separate Jharkhand state. It garnered support from both tribal and non-tribal sections of society, focusing on economic issues and adopting a radical program.
5. Leadership and Alliances: Shibu Soren emerged as a prominent leader of the JMM. The movement saw shifting alliances and divisions among leaders, particularly regarding cooperation or alliance with mainstream national parties.
6. Challenges in Transition: The movement faced challenges in transitioning from a primarily tribal identity-based movement to a class-based regional politics, given the heterogeneous nature of tribal society, which included different socio-economic groups.
7. Creation of Jharkhand: The Jharkhand movement culminated in the creation of the state of Jharkhand in 2000, during the tenure of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government.
8. Secessionist Movements: It’s important to note that while demands for autonomy can be addressed within the constitutional framework, secessionist movements, which call for the creation of a separate country, present a more complex and challenging situation.

The formation of Jharkhand as a separate state marked a significant milestone in addressing the socio-economic and political aspirations of the people in the region, particularly the tribal population.

Mizoram and the Mizo-India Peace Accord

The history of Mizoram and the Mizo-India Peace Accord is a significant chapter in the struggle for autonomy and peace in the region. Here are the key events and developments:

1. Emergence of Mizo National Front (MNF): The Mizo National Front (MNF) was formed in response to the dissatisfaction with the Assam government’s relief measures during the famine of 1959. Laldenga became the president of the MNF.
2. Grievances over Assamese as Official Language: The passage of the Act in 1961, which made Assamese the official language of Assam, further fueled discontentment among the Mizos.
3. Declaration of Independence and Armed Uprising: In March 1966, the MNF declared independence from India and launched a military uprising. They attacked both military and civilian targets.
4. Indian Government’s Response: The Indian government responded swiftly with massive counter-insurgency measures by deploying the army. This led to the rapid suppression of the insurrection, although sporadic guerrilla activities continued.
5. Escalation and Subsequent Settlement: The Mizo insurgency gained some strength in the late 1970s, but it was effectively dealt with by the Indian armed forces. By this point, the Indian government had significantly weakened the insurgent forces.
6. Peace Negotiations and Accord: With the insurgency significantly weakened, the Indian government was now open to negotiations for peace. In 1986, a settlement was reached. Laldenga and the MNF agreed to cease violent activities, surrender, and re-enter the constitutional political process.
7. Grant of Statehood and Autonomy: As part of the accord, Mizoram was granted full statehood in February 1987. The agreement guaranteed autonomy in matters related to culture, tradition, land laws, and more.
8. Formation of Mizoram Government: A government led by Laldenga was established in the newly formed state of Mizoram.

The Mizo-India Peace Accord marked a turning point in the history of Mizoram, signifying the end of armed conflict and the beginning of a new era of political participation and autonomy for the Mizos within the Indian Union.

Nagaland and Assam Movements

The struggles in Nagaland and Assam represent significant episodes in the history of the Northeastern region of India. Here is a summary of these movements:

Nagaland Movement:

1. Naga Inhabitants: The Nagas were the indigenous people of the Naga hills along the Assam-Burma (Myanmar) border.
2. British Influence: The British administration largely isolated the Nagas from the rest of the country, allowing Christian missionary activity, which led to the growth of a small educated class.
3. Post-Independence Integration Efforts: After independence, the Indian government aimed to integrate Naga areas with the state of Assam and India as a whole.
4. Resistance and Rebellion: A section of Naga leaders, led by Z. Phizo, opposed this integration. They demanded separation from India and complete independence, encouraged by some British officials and missionaries.
5. Insurrection and Negotiations: In 1955, separatist Nagas declared the formation of an independent government and initiated a violent insurrection. The Indian government pursued a two-track policy, refusing to negotiate with Phizo’s group while engaging with more moderate, non-violent Naga leaders.
6. Creation of Nagaland State: By 1963, the armed rebellion was largely quelled, and more moderate Naga leaders, led by Dr Imkongliba Ao, negotiated for the creation of the state of Nagaland within the Indian Union. The government accepted this demand, and Nagaland became a state in 1963.

Assam Movement:

1. Migration and Tension: The rich resources of the Northeast attracted migration from other parts of the region, creating tension between “locals” and “outsiders.”
2. Assam Student Union (AASU): In 1979, the All Assam Student Union (AASU) launched an anti-foreigner movement, focusing on illegal migration, the dominance of Bengali outsiders, and issues related to the voter’s register.
3. Violent Agitation: The agitation involved both non-violent and violent methods. It resulted in loss of life and property.
4. Assam Accord: In 1985, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, negotiated with AASU leaders, resulting in the signing of the Assam Accord. It addressed the issue of illegal migration and outlined steps for identification and deportation of foreigners.
5. Formation of Assam Gana Parishad: Following the accord, AASU and Assam Gana Sangram Parishad formed a political party, Assam Gana Parishad. They won the Assembly elections in 1985, promising to address the foreign national problem.

While these movements brought some level of resolution to the issues at hand, challenges related to immigration and regional identity continue to shape the political landscape of the Northeastern states.

Top of Form

Regional Aspirations and Containment of Regionalism

What Regionalism is not:

1. Local Patriotism vs. Regionalism: Local patriotism, loyalty to a locality, or attachment to a region and its language and culture are not synonymous with regionalism. These sentiments can coexist with national patriotism and loyalty to the nation.
2. Distinct Regional Identity: A person can identify strongly with their regional identity (e.g., Tamil, Punjabi) without compromising their pride in being Indian or harboring hostility towards people from other regions.
3. Efforts for Regional Development: Aspiring to develop one’s state or region, alleviate poverty, and implement social justice is not regionalism. Healthy interregional competition in achieving positive goals is encouraged.
4. Defending Federal Features: Advocating for the preservation of federal features in the constitution is not considered regionalism.

What Regionalism is:

1. Conflict Based on Alleged Interests: Regionalism arises when the interests of one region or state are asserted in a hostile manner against the country as a whole or another region or state, leading to conflict.
2. Limited Instances of Inter-Regional Conflict in India: Since 1947, India has seen relatively few instances of inter-regional conflict. The DMK’s politics in Tamil Nadu during the 1950s and early 1960s is a notable exception.

Containment of Regionalism in India:

1. Cultural Diversity and Autonomy: India has successfully accommodated and celebrated its cultural diversity. Different regions have enjoyed cultural autonomy, fulfilling their legitimate aspirations.
2. Linguistic Reorganization and Language Resolution: The linguistic reorganization of India and the resolution of the official language controversy have been pivotal in eliminating a significant cause of cultural conflict. This helped in preventing feelings of cultural loss or domination.
3. Handling Regional Disputes: While regional disputes persist, they remain within manageable limits. Conflicts over river water sharing and boundary disputes have occurred, but they have not escalated beyond acceptable levels.
4. Mediation by Central Government: The central government has often acted as a mediator in regional disputes, preventing sharper interregional conflicts, even if it occasionally draws the ire of the disputants.

In summary, India’s approach to regional diversity and aspirations has largely been successful in containing divisive forms of regionalism. The emphasis on cultural autonomy, linguistic recognition, and effective conflict resolution mechanisms has contributed to national unity.

Economic Imbalances & Regionalism:

Economic inequality among different states and regions could potentially lead to discontent and strain the political system. However, thus far, this issue has not escalated into regionalism or a strong sense of discrimination against a specific region. From the outset, the national government recognized the responsibility to address regional development imbalances. Various policies were implemented to achieve this goal:

1. Transfer of Financial Resources:
   • The Finance Commission, a constitutional body, played a crucial role in redistributing financial resources. This involved channeling funds from wealthier states to those in need.
2. Planning as a Tool:
   • Planning was utilized as a potent instrument to counter regional inequality. The Planning Commission allocated greater plan assistance to economically disadvantaged states. This support was provided in the form of both grants and loans.
3. Industrial Policy Resolution (1956):
   • The Government of India’s 1956 Industrial Policy Resolution emphasized the importance of balanced and coordinated development in both industrial and agricultural sectors within each region. This approach was seen as essential for elevating the country’s overall standard of living.
4. Third Plan Emphasis:
   • The Third Plan explicitly highlighted the objectives of balanced development across different parts of the country. It aimed to extend the benefits of economic progress to less developed regions and promote the widespread diffusion of industry.

These concerted efforts underscored the government’s commitment to promoting equitable development and reducing regional disparities in economic growth.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901. 

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

• 1. Learn through Videos – here
• 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
• 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
• 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here

Visit our YouTube Channel – here