Reorganisation of states COMMENTS
It won’t be such a bad thing—smaller states. Language-based units have run their course. It’s time to factor in economic, social, cultural realities.

Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Daily Mail
Feb 20, 2012
Born in the USI?

Apropos Geography Lesson Revised, why call them the language riots of Tamil Nadu? There were no riots between people speaking different languages. They were sacrifices made by the common people against the top-down imposition of a completely alien language on the locals.

Sudalaimadan, Baltimore

To begin with, the demand for a separate state for Telugu people with Madras as the capital had existed since the 1920s, to which neither the colonialists nor the Congress paid any heed. But are we living in separate countries or hostile territories that we can’t move to, work in or own property in another state? Is it really an issue of sons of the soil vs the rest?

Sangeetha, Chennai

Smaller states per se are not a bad idea. But the bureaucracy will need to be trimmed. Right now, it’s an India of the babus, by the babus, for the babus.

Tejinder Brar, St Louis, US

Feb 27, 2012
Self Before Region

Apropos Geography Lesson Revised (Feb 6), people who support the idea of turning cities into UTs are those who have migrated to the metros. Their fantasy consists of creating self-sufficient islands of urban prosperity, hedged against the outside, rather than a network of cities integrated with the countryside.

Satish, South Jordan

I saw this map in Outlook, and was shocked to see that by the year 2040, my country will not be united, but in turn be fragmented—and I really don’t think it is something to be proud of. This thought of a future India disturbs me as a youngster. From today itself, let all young Indians stop such thinking and unite to make the future of our country a bit brighter by preventing this division of states. Outlook too should keep writing on the subject of prevention of division of all states in India.

Ananya Arvind, Class VII student, Chennai

Jan 28, 2012
02:53 PM

I think the southern states esp TN and AP is most caste ridden. So they must be split up on caste basis. None too complicated. the Forward castes are heavily discriminated against. So there can be a separate state for the FCs of TN and AP probably Vizag to Madras. The rest can belong to so called Backward Castes who are the real powerful and forward castes of the south

madras, india
Jan 28, 2012
02:57 PM

By creating such a state there will be a 100% reservation for both parties and will pave the way of ridding caste based thinking in our societies which is a must to progress. If this happens only the real poor will get be able to get reservation and the current system where the rich people of the Backward castes are consistently getting benefits rather unfairly.this needs to change.

madras, india
Jan 29, 2012
12:19 AM

 Indian Nationalists always worry about current linguistic states of India which is akin to Africa - Multiple Nations within the Subcontinent. They always dreamed about breaking the states into smaller entities to destroy the regional nationalism growing in different parts of India which they will fear will cause India to break into multiple nations in Future.

Now Outlook has given their dreams into a "Vision for Future". It's "Redrawing Indian States" want to Split larger states into small ones. Tamilnadu will be split into 3 parts. And says the split should not be done politically...Wow..What a Right wing social Engineering

USA has larger states than India & still they clamor for more states rights & less federal power; Even Presidential candidates support it

Indian Nationalists are afraid that India might break into pieces; So they want to break it themselves before it becomes like Africa

Tamil Nationalism in Tamilnadu is more stronger NOW than in the 1990s due to the indifferent attitude of the Indian Gov. Tamils will Never allow it...NEVER a breakup of TN

As the article says "The Tamils won’t opt for a revision. It is best not to wake up a sleeping animal"...Exactly...

Chennai, India
Jan 29, 2012
01:57 PM

Chennai should have never been part of TN, it was a telugu speaking place in the first place.

madras, india
Jan 30, 2012
03:16 AM

Sri@D-41, Chennai has always been a Tamil speaking place, never a Telugu speaking one. The settlers from Andhra came only after the British started building a city around the port and annexing the surrounding villages. The city is nothing but a collection of Tamil villages like Tiruvallikkeni (Triplicane), Mylapore, Mandaiveli, Chepakkam (Chepauk), Tiruvottiyur, Keezhpakkam (Kilpauk), Ezhumbur (Egmore), Tiruvanmiyur etc. which are much older then the city itself.  Also, despite the influx of Telugus and other Indian communites, the lingua franca of Chennai has always been Tamil. Hence, please stop rumour mongering.

Chennai, India
Jan 30, 2012
06:47 AM

Sri is right. At the time of linguistic states reorganisation in the 50s, Madras was a Telugu speaking area and should have gone to Andhra.However, because if its historical affinity and significance to Tamils, it was traded with Tirupati (a Tamil speaking area).

If we are to go into the mists of time, as advocated by Chakran, there should have been no Pakistan as all the so called Muslim majority areas of India were once Hindu majority.

Chennai, India
Jan 30, 2012
06:56 AM

What exactly is a "national city"? A Union Territory? When the national capital New Delhi has changed its status from a UT to a separate State, suggesting changing other metro cities to UT status is ridiculous. What will be the source of income for these 'national cities' when the industries are all located in the suburbs, most of them beyond 50 km from the city?

Speaking of Chennai, whatever Chennai is today, whether as the "Detroit of India" or as a leading IT services center, it has been mainly due to the progressive policies of the successive TN govts starting from that of Kamaraj. Adding to that Chennai is one of those cities which does not have a major central Public Sector industry presence simply because it has voted only regional parties to power since 1965 and hence discriminated against by the Center. The industrial belts of Ambattur, Guindy, Sriperumbudur, Oragadam, Maraimalainagar, Ennore, Gummidipoondi, the IT highway etc are all the results of the foresight and industrial friendly policies of the govts of TN and thereby the people of TN. Thousands of acres of farm land around Chennai were taken over to create a vibrant industrial city. Enormous concessions were provided to investors to attract investments to the city. To suggest that a city which has been built with so much passion and sacrifice be 'centralized' is equivalent to punishing Tamils for being progressive. And by leaving out Kolkata from the list, the author has proved beyond doubt that he seeks to reward incompetence and regressive governments.

Chennai, India
Jan 30, 2012
08:27 AM

Bonita (D-16), you are wrong!  Where is the proof of your statement? Even in the 1950's Madras was a Tamil majority city. The language of the city was Tamil. Else it would not have been possible for Rajaji to retain it with the Tamils. This has got nothing to do with the so called 'clout' Rajaji is said to have enjoyed. If Tirupati was a Tamil area and still went to Andhra,it only proves that the story of Rajaji's 'clout' with Nehru is just humbug.

Bringing up Pakistan here just for comparison is absurd. The Muslims of the area were not outsiders, they were sons of the soil who decided to convert many generations before. In Chennai's case, the sons of the soils were Tamils of the villages I mentoined. The migration of Telugus could not alter the demographics decisively since it was matched by the migration of Tamils from other parts of TN. Thus the localities are not condemned to 'mists of history'. They were very much vibrant as Tamil villages when the British first came and they are very much alive today.

Chennai, India
Jan 30, 2012
11:15 AM

The reason why the magazine has suggested division of states is because a divided mentality has alerady started to creep in. I predict that india will break up eventually into separate coutnries. Rather than having to do it painfully its better to surgically do it. Would you rather have separate countries or separate states? That will drive this movement.

If you see our country we have logically divided it into castes and religions. Tell me thats not the case. Every election at every level is now based on caste and religious support and pandering to vote banks not on performance or ideas but purely on the above divisive factors. Now if this division is already there in the mind, why should it not come about physically.

Reservation is another such area. The purspose of this was to bring about advancement of castes that had been oppressed. That was only intention. We see that powerful castes have gotten themselves to be marked as backward and reaping benefits while the economically backward of all castes are still under privileged and discriminated by the above OBCs (not fcs mind you - the dalits in TN are oppressed by OBC Thevars and other and not by Brahmins) Affirmative action should help the 'NEEDY'. Not on caste or religious basis.

But the thing is 'We are where we are' and we need to do what we need to do so that we as a nation and eople are given good opportunities to succeed and be happy. If we find ourselves in a state where we are divided on castes, let there be a physical manifestation of the same by dividing states into smaller more manageable entities based on caste. (not religion as we have already made that division).

Again its impossible for every caste to have a state. But more on the lines of broad classification. ie FC, OBC, SC ST) .

I am sure many might not like what I say but this is the truth that we are a divided people.

madras, india
Jan 31, 2012
10:01 AM

To start with, the demand for a separate state for Telugu ppl w/ Madras as the capital has been there from 1920s, to which neither the colonialists nor the Congress paid any attention to. Before going into the history (cited by stalwarts like the CM of Madras state post- independence), one question that comes to my mind is - are we living in separate countries or hostile territories that we cannot move to and work in or own property in some other state, that the point of debate becomes sons of soil vs "others" ? All exercises by govts to attract investors are followed by other states too ! Arent Tamils working in other states too ? Then what is wrong in turning some metros into "national cities" or UTs being fully aware of negative consequences otherwise ? Hyd is giving us valuable lessons on the same topic on what what-not to do, how loose tongues and hasty decisions would affect ppl, how easily everything within a short time  becomes politics. If we dont learn from it then we are doomed for eternity

Chennai, India
Jan 31, 2012
01:10 PM

What we observe in recent demands for new states, is about exploitation of certain "area" by another "region" or people within the same linguistic state.
So, language no more holds us together in one state. what can identify us as belonging to a state? And do we really need such an identity?

Let us take the example of A.P. where separate Telengana issue has been simmering with so many bandhs, shutdowns, suicides and violence etc., it is clear , the demand is not empty. There were some new irrigation canals to arid regions in Telengana and even before the water arrived, the people from well to do , fertile regions immigrated to these areas like Nizamabad,Karimnagar districts for example , and purchased lands from illiterate poor villagers for a song !!!

Poor people of these districts remained poor and rich peasants became much richer so much as to build swimming pools in the second floor of their bungalows, in these so called “backward” areas like Nizamabad for example!!!

But take the case of cites like Hyderabad and Bangalore on entirely another plane.
As I belong to this area, I know, that SW engineers from as far away as Gujarat and nearby Orissa and Chennai have flocked to the city. In show rooms of cars (some brands of bikes and cars are sold highest in Hyderabad) I have talked to young men from Nagaland, Assam and more girls from Goa.
In the Universities of Hyderabad, as declared by Police Department, students come from 25 different countries!! Including many from Pakistan and Iran.

This tells us that India's development is not dependent on villages alone but on cities as well. Internal migration of our people , holds the key. We really do not need more number of states if we sincerely implement backward areas development programs properly. For example purchase and sale of land must be banned in these areas particularly when new irrigation projects, PSU's etc., are being implemented there.

City development must be undertaken in such a way that they grow rapidly with metro railways, uninterrupted power supply, high bandwidth network connections, new cellphone companies etc. Internal migration of all types of workers must be encouraged and language chauvinism must be discouraged by politicians.

Instead of discouraging growing migration to cities, Govt. policy must concentrate on how best to utilize, this migration. Govt. instead of discouraging the growth of city with innumerable restrictions, it must go the other way round , it shall encourage the growth of big metropolis, with better and most advanced infrastructure like light rail , metro, radio controlled taxi services, sky scrapers etc., with better policing.

bowenpalle venuraja gopal rao.
warangal, india
Jan 31, 2012
01:41 PM


Divided we stand, united we fall. This is what makes a democracy strong. India is not a nation state, it is state of nations.

lol, india
Feb 01, 2012
07:33 AM

1. I think you have read too much into what I wrote. My statements were in response to the grossly unfair claim made by Sri, nothing more. I never said you should not migrate or buy property in other states
2. I agree that other states have also been progressive and very competitive. I am not seeking to make Mumbai, Bengaluru or Hyderabad as UTs. I stuck to Chennai because the Marathis, Kannadigas and Telugus are very much capable of speaking on behalf of their cities.
3. Should you demand that a city be made a 'national city' just because you work there but do not speak that language? I do not agree. This is the attitude that sows the seeds of hatred amongst Indians. The causes of problems faced by linguistic minorites have more to do with the insecurity complex of the majority which is caused by statements like yours.
4. What if once Pune, Coimbatore, Mysore are developed like the current metros? Should they also then become 'national cities'? Where will this end?
5. What is wrong in dissolving linguistic states and carving out 'national states'? If you can live in a 'national city', you can definitely live in a 'national state', can't you?
6. Are you trying to say that if Hyd had been a UT, the current problem would not have existed? I do not think so.

Chennai, India
Feb 01, 2012
02:00 PM

Linguistic organization serves one purpose: the number of Constitutionally-recognized languages being limited, the number of states too will be smaller in number. That is the whole idea. Else, we would have had hundreds of states based on language itself. On the other hand, if you start organizing states by other criteria, the gate is open. As politicians keep adding more criteria for vote banks, so will states keep increasing. Soon, India may be a union of thousand states. Who knows, some of the states may be "reserved" category too! And then a foreign power like China can take over and keep all these fake intellectuals happy. USA has some really huge states but they never thought of breaking up just for administrative convenience. This is all talk of the small-minded leaders who are not capable of governing.

Hyderabad, India
Feb 01, 2012
02:05 PM

 Should you demand that a city be made a 'national city' just because you work there but do not speak that language?

I am not talking for myself, firstly. I've learnt Tamil because of my interest and inclination towards Indian history and to read the temple sasans and inscriptions. But please do tell me, if a person chooses not to learn a local language, how does it sow seeds of hatred in the citizens

The causes of problems faced by linguistic minorites have more to do with the insecurity complex of the majority which is caused by statements like yours

What statement of mine has provoked you to say this ? What kind of insecurity complex ? Are people in other areas feeling the same ? Speaking about myself, I care least about where I work 

What is wrong in dissolving linguistic states and carving out 'national states'?

Please define "national state". As told in the article, linguistic boundaries are fast disappearing, rightly so and I'm all for that change, where people can coexist peacefully without cultural/regional chauvinisms

Are you trying to say that if Hyd had been a UT, the current problem would not have existed?

No. Telangana issue is a different one. They can separate out if they want to and this is my opinion. The problem begins when they start calumniation that people from other areas are usurpers/encroachers, should pack their luggage (yes, unbelievable) and go back etc

Chennai, India
Feb 01, 2012
02:07 PM

 BTW the first picture only shows only WOMEN's hands with bangles ! Where are male rights activists condemning it ? :D

Chennai, India
Feb 02, 2012
12:12 AM

  A more practical solution is to decentralise powers to the states. Specially, Labour and Industrial policy. There is no reason for Gujrat or Punjab to stop development because Calcutta or Kerala vetos it

Newcastle, United Kingdom
Feb 02, 2012
11:49 PM

The exercise of dividing post-Independence India into inguistic states was the most myopic and chauvinistic one ever to be undertaken in the country's history. It was clearly done by Hindi hegemonists with little or no knowledge about history and culture of the rest of India. Why else would they divide the hindi belt into a number of states based on cultural differences, while merging Telugu speaking Andhra and Telangana into one state? They never knew, nor bothered to find out that the Andharites and Telangana cultures have culturally nothing in common besides the language. ? The same with the Gorkhaland and West Bengal, and also with the Northeast. It is our biggest tragedy that the so-called founding fathers of our nation were so moronic that they didn't think beyond the Hindi belt. 

Hyderabad, India
Feb 03, 2012
12:21 AM

A country of unbelievable diversity like India can be divided into territorries as small as you want citing similarity of people on many counts- linguistic division is just one of them. Culture, religion, caste, colour.... you can go on and on to divide Indiainto smaller segments , but what is the socio economic benefit for the people?

I totally disagree with the notion of creating new states unless there is a genuine reason for the residents feeling exploited by the majority. Decentralizing political power for endorsing divisiveness will cause more divisiveness to spring up everywhere. Every tribe in the tribal areas will ask for statehood. Every caste will seek separate homeland.

From a politician's point of view of course a separate state is rewarding. Because it comes with power and money. Who is bothered about all the cost to create the government infrastructure for a new state. Creation of Jharkhand has not changed much on the ground, but Sibu Soren and other JMM leaders could enrich themselves after grabbing political power to rule a new state. And the Gorkhaland agitation is now the fight between two opposing Gorkha leaders Ghishing and Gurung for the share of the gravy train.

NEW YORK, United States
Feb 04, 2012
01:20 PM

THere should have been more clear explanantion about the criteria that was used to determine 8 Union Territotires

South Jordan, United States
Feb 04, 2012
01:41 PM

I hope people realize that many people who support UT are people who migrated to metros and to safeguard themselves they say UT. They are failing to realize that to safeguard themselves they have to become local when locals are fighting for a cause they should fight with them

I really still don't why Hyd'bad should become an UT on what basis??

South Jordan, United States


OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: