Linguistic States: A 20th-Century Timeline
Dec 1903: Linguistic principle for organising India’s provinces figures for first time in Sir Herbert Risley's letter to the Bengal government. Sir Herbert is home secretary at this point.
1905: Partition of Bengal takes place
1917: Dr Annie Besant strongly opposes linguistic organisation of provinces at the Calcutta session
1920: Congress adopts linguistic redistribution of provinces at the Nagpur session
1927: Congress adopts a resolution supporting creation of linguistic states
1928: Motilal Nehru Committee supports redistribution along linguistic lines
1945-46: Congress election manifesto promises provinces will be constituted on linguistic and cultural lines
Nov 1947: Prime Minister Nehru concedes the linguistic principle, but says security and stability of India important
1948: Linguistic provinces commission set up
Aug-Sept, 1951: G. Sitaramaiah fasts for creation of Andhra state
Dec 15, 1952: Potti Sriramulu dies while fasting for the creation of Andhra. The state is carved out of Madras Presidency only a year later.
Dec 1953: States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) is set up
1955: Nehru sends S.G. Barve to the former USSR for understanding the language policy as a state reconstruction programme
Jul 1955: SRC report submitted—14 states and 9 union territories recommended.
Aug 1956: SRC recommendations implemented
1960: Gujarat and Maharashtra come into being
1960-61: Sant Fateh Singh and Master Tara Singh undertake fast unto death for the creation of a Punjab state
1963-64: Language riots in Tamil Nadu
1963: Nagaland takes shape
1966: Haryana and Punjab created 1970-80: Other Northeastern states carved out
1992: Goa created
2000: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand emerge as independent entities.
Apropos the illustration on reorganisation of states (India Redrawn, Feb 6), while the idea of creating new states is welcome, we denounce Outlook’s deliberate mischief in suggesting that Hyderabad be made a Union Territory but the same rule has not been applied to any other Indian city. Hyderabad is the heart of Telangana and will remain an integral part of a future Telangana state. Any attempt to separate it from Telangana will be met with the most serious resistance. In fact, as we write this, committed Telangana activist Venepalli Panduranga Rao is sitting on a deeksha at Kodandapur village in Nalgonda district, where Hyderabad has its water treatment plant. The city has an umbilical relationship with the region. It depends on Telangana for all its basic needs, including drinking water. The message of Panduranga Rao’s deeksha is that Hyderabad is an inseparable part of Telangana and any attempt to separate it will provoke Telanganites to cut off all basic supplies to Hyderabad. We condemn this mischievous portrayal and demand that Outlook immediately retract this map.
Ravi Mayreddy, Philadelphia
I used to think you were a magazine that put out facts sans any bias. But your graphic on the reorganisation of India made me think you more than justify your tagline—“more than just a news magazine”. Pray, by what logic have you made Hyderabad a ‘UT’ and left most other metros as cities? Think about it. It’s just a matter of time before all the settlers from Andhra and Tamil Nadu claim that they are the backbone of all the development in Bangalore. It was exactly this kind of irresponsible reporting in the local media that led to suicides by many youth. As a national magazine, Outlook should exercise more caution. You have lost a loyal customer forever; I will never ever buy Outlook again.
Satish Jupalli, on e-mail
Your outlook on Hyderabad is very narrow. It appears you too are influenced, like Kuldip Nayar and others, by the Andhra political mafia. It is common knowledge how they have corrupted members of the Srikrishna Commission and unashamedly presented their wishlist on it. You have shown Hyderabad as a ‘UT’ with an extended area up to the Andhra border, the very same brazen wish of Andhras in the SKC report. You have a national presence and a reputation to keep. Please don’t indulge in such contemptible gimmicks on behalf of the Andhra political mafia. It will do your magazine well if, in the name of scrupulous journalism, you retract that asinine map.
J.R. Janumpalli, on e-mail
It totally defies logic to make Hyderabad a UT. Telangana has been a long-standing issue and the time has come to make it a separate state with Hyderabad as its capital. I have relatives in both Telangana and Andhra and if it’s made into a separate state, it will not affect me only one way. It’s a mischief on your part to suggest that Hyderabad be made a UT.
Vinod Kumar, Philadelphia
Either Outlook has lost its head or buried it in the sand. You have made Hyderabad a UT as per the wishes of the Seemandhra leaders and the SKC report. How much money have you taken from the Seemandhra leaders? Hyderabad was built with the sweat and blood of Telangana labour for 400 years. It was an independent country with its own currency and army and it was forcefully merged with India first and later with Seemandhra. Telangana has been fighting for a separate state since the day it was merged. India got its independence but Telangana is still waiting for its own. The people of Telangana will never accept Hyderabad as a UT even if you dance on your head.
Ragu Desidi, Hyderabad
I adore the fact that Hyderabad is a state within itself in the USI 2040 map. Having seen the mindless acts of people fighting for Telangana state, I feel the solution for Andhra Pradesh is justified.
Binay Mishra, on e-mail
Thank god, you’ve left Kerala alone from the possible mutilation of states in the guise of reorganisation. Malayalis take pride in the fact that only people of this linguistic region had demanded the unification of the three different pre-’47 states—Travancore, Cochin and Malabar—and are content being united despite losing prime land to Tamil Nadu.
R.S. Pillai, Kollam
Curiously, as per this map rejigged as per your imagination, Kerala is the biggest state not going to be divided and will be one of the top 10 big states after the reorganisation, bigger than each of the three states to be carved out of TN. Hmm... now we know the brains behind this dangerous idea. :)
Editor’s note: We wish to clarify that we had expressly stated that the redrawing of India was entirely imaginary and that we were neither arguing for, nor are committed to any state shown.
Apropos India Redrawn (Feb 6), even with as many states as the US, India will remain a ‘union of states’, not a ‘United States of India’. Unlike the US which is a federation, our states are not “united” under a division of power amongst the states, nor is there any treaty operating among them.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Santhosh gairola >> Every city beyond 10mil should automatically get the UT status; within 2 years of reaching the number.
instead of UT status,I would say that every city with more than 5 million population should have more powers for its local bodies . Also these cities should have greater budgetary allocation for infrastructure. Now this also means that people in these cities should pay more for electricity and water (less subsidies , less govt handouts and more money for infrastructure).
Ragu Desidi >> Telangana people will never accept Hyderabad as a UT even if you dance on your head.
If there is one city that can be made UT,it should be Mumbai. The city owes its economy as being a Indian city rather than a Maharashtrian city. But then any party which suggests this will lose elections in rest of Maharashtra for sure...
Delhi has benefitted lot being a UT and separate state and today rocks in infrastructure - Mumbai , despite being the commercial capital of India has simply fallen behind because it is governed by politicians who are tied to fulfilling demands of rest of the state.
Overall I dont think making more UTs is any solution. Cities cannot exist in isolation from their hinterlands. Let us instead focus on immediate statehood demands which are pending for decades. The congress philosophy of postponing every single reasonable demand should first be buried.
BV Rao >> The great empire of Ashoka ( 3rd century) which was much bigger than modern India, extending up to parts of Iran, and entire Pakistan and Afghanistan of the present day, was ruled by him with just about four provincial governments and powerful district administration
One thing you forgot is population during the days of Ashoka . At the time of Jesus Christ,world population was just 250 million. India's population is estimated to be around 40 million or so - that is, the population of Ashoka's empire (which was bigger than present day India) is just same as population of present day Delhi NCR and Greater Mumbai and Kolkatta put together.
Infact, our large population is a large reason why we must decentralise and also have smaller government but at same time we must enforce rule of law firmly where needed . Large population cannot be governed with Stalinist era governance and policies driven from Delhi and at same time the liberal idiots and Rushdie/MF Hussein supporting bleeding hear liberals should understand that anarchy will result if we start supporting trangression of rule of law in the name of freedom of expression.
A QUESTION TO OUTLOOK - Why is that Kerala is alone spared/left out of this exercise of division? Is there some hidden agenda?
If there is one state which can be divided neatly it is kerala. Kerala has two parts - the North (Malabar) which was part of Madras Presidency and South(Travancore Kochin) which was part of kingdom pre independence.
North Kerala will have large Mapilla Muslim and ethnic immigrant christian (Syrian Christian) minority and a nominal Hindu majority and much of population will be rural with Kozhikode as main urban center. South Kerala will have huge Christian minority (mostly converts post Vascodagama era) , more urban oriented (Cochin/Trivandrum) and have a Hindu majority .
Of course, Malayali Friends will condemn this suggestion - which is why there is no logic in dividing Gujarat or TamilNadu. Let us first consider those statehood demands that are long pending and then plan for rest.
Talking about Union Territoryship, why is that daman and diu are still Union territories? what about Pondicherry? The people here would like this arrangement to continue, so it would be ok to respect people's sentiments. which is why we should also drop idea of creating 50 states at one stretch and consider the long pending demands - telengana, gorkhaland,and maybe ladakh/jammu....
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT