DELIMITATION, REORGANISATION OF STATES SHOULD BE TAKEN UP TOGETHER

The setting up of linguistic states was arguably the single biggest political blunder made in post-Independence India. Today, this linguistic identity has morphed into calls for secession in a North-South divide, largely supported by some regional parties.

- GAUTAM R. DESIRAJU AND DEEKHIT BHATTACHARYA BENGALURU & NEW DELHI

The Constitution of India describes the country as a Union of States, and the Seventh Schedule lays down a clear division of powers and responsibilities. This, in turn, charts out how a state works and what it ought to do. However, Article 2, which is supposed to define what a state is, remains vague—deliberately or otherwise. Article 2 merely says that "Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit."

Clause 14, Chapter I, Part I of the States Reorganisation Committee Report of 1955 summarises the position pithily: "The existing structure of the States [sic] of the Indian Union is partly the result of accident and the circumstances attending the growth of the British power in India and partly a by-product of the historic process of the integration of former Indian States. The division of India during the British period into British provinces and Indian States was itself fortuitous and had no basis in Indian history."

The setting up of linguistic states, intentional or otherwise, was arguably the single biggest political blunder made in post-Independence India. Today, this linguistic identity has morphed into calls for secession in a North-South divide, largely supported by some regional parties.

Ironically, the first linguistic state formed in independent India, namely Andhra Pradesh, was divided in 2014 into two Telugu-speaking states (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana), demonstrating the hollowness of the linguistic state idea in a modern forward-looking country. Historically speaking, the Telugu language has always been a unifier and not a divider. Language is, in the end, a social convenience and not an identity marker.