In 1928, the Motilal Nehru Report reiterated that the principle of linguistic states was desirable since language ‘corresponds with a special variety of culture, of traditions and literature. In a linguistic area all these factors will help in the general progress of the province’. But when the time came for the realisation of these commitments, the leadership of the newly constituted republic was to palpably hesitate and prevaricate. Given the political context of the time, this vacillation was understandable. Linguistic states might just have opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box in a country that had been already divided in the name of religion, consolidate narrow, chauvinistic loyalties, and threaten the unity and the political integrity of the country. On November 27 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru stated in the Constituent Assembly that though there were pressing issues facing the government, language was not one of them. And the Linguistic Provinces Commission or the Dar Commission stated that the time “for embarking upon the enterprise of redrawing the map of the whole of Southern India, including the Deccan, Bombay, and the Central Provinces” had not come.

The government was, however, compelled to change its mind when Sri Potti Sriramulu, a respected leader of Andhra Pradesh and a disciple of Gandhi, went on a fast unto death for a separate Andhra state in 1952. His death prompted language riots in Telugu-speaking areas. On December 16 1952, Nehru announced that Andhra would be a separate state, even as demands for other linguistic states burst onto the horizon. Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission on December 22 1953. The report of the commission, which ran into 267 pages, and which consisted of four parts, was made public in October 1955. The report proposed the linguistic reorganisation of states. In 1956, the Seventh Amendment to the Indian Constitution reordered the political map on the basis of language. The leadership was, however, determined that no demand that was connected with religious identities, or secessionism, would be tolerated. In other cases, the government would decide whether a particular linguistic group should get its own state. Right up to 1966 when Punjab was trifurcated, often bitter and violent conflicts over language were ultimately resolved through pluralistic solutions.

... contd.