Authored By: Vijaylaxmi D
Symbiosis School for Liberal Arts
In 1953, into the sixth year of our independence, a Commission was appointed to handle the mammoth task of reorganising State boundaries in India. This was the State Reorganisation Commission (will be referred to as SRC here on) and in September of 1955, it produced its first report. Shortly after, its recommendations were formally legislated into The States Reorganisation Act of 1956. This Act reorganised India into 14 States and 6 centrally administered territories on the basis of language. Although lauded by few, the recommendations of the SRC report were widely critiqued by many leaders, parties and citizens for its inadequacy and inefficiency in administering territories equally and effectively. Of many such critics, was the renowned Dr. Ambedkar. In his work titled ‘Thoughts on Linguistic States’ published in 1955, he provides readers with a vantage point of the SRC report.
In terms of discussions in the fora of constitutionality, the SRC report has brought to discussion some crucial matters. Ranging from discussions on equality, representation, minority rights and language, the SRC Report still stands as a cornerstone example of hasty reorganisation attempts which at their core violate some of the most fundamental aspects of our constitution.
With a very culturally rich history, India is a culmination of immense diversity. More than anything else, language has repeatedly proven to be a matter of bond, and contention in India. Language is a crucial aspect of any community’s culture, and every community intends to protect it differently. When matter came to division of States in India, language became the primary criterion for reorganization of States. Keeping this in mind, SRC utilised language as the key differentiating factor. But, SRC did so in a manner that was inconsiderate of the size of the State. Hence, Dr. Ambedkar opens the essay with a statistical comparison of the population of the proposed States. Through this comparison, we see a very clear distinction between the highest population in the north and in the south. Uttar Pradesh led the chart with 6.32 crore inhabitants, whilst Madras was at 3 crore. This established that the proposed States were unequally represented as units in this federation. The disparity in size was not accounted for by the SRC. This was the start of the disastrous north-south divide that we still see to this day, seventy-one years after the initiation of this report. The SRC report doesn’t take caste differences into account either. This at its core violates the principle of equality (art. 14). Unequal distribution of population sizes leads to unequal political weightage in the Parliament. This would further lead to overrepresentation of certain regions, further taking away from not just equality, but also from our federal structure. The absence of any reasonable and rational justification behind the creation of this disparity is a violation of Article 14’s equal protection clause.
To make a note of, Dr. Ambedkar defines a linguistic State in two ways. Firstly, all individuals speaking one language should be grouped under the jurisdiction of one State. Secondly, if the same language is spoken across many States, then they will be grouped together in a way that all States have jurisdiction over one language only. Both these ways will facilitate division of States in a manner that invites least linguistic and factional friction.
Dr. Ambedkar established that he is in favour of linguistic States, but not in the way SRC administered them. According to Dr. Ambedkar, one State, one language is a good way to go about reorganising States due to the presence of a fellow-feeling. This refers to the feeling of oneness and unity in citizens, and its presence is a must for a democracy to function smoothly. This feeling binds individuals together in a manner than any other differences can be overridden. This is supported historically as well, since unilingual States have survived friction better than multilingual States, most of whom disintegrated due to factional tensions. One State, one language is an effective way of eradicating racial and cultural conflicts as well. On the other hand, if observed, countries like Canada survived bilingualism. What was done differently there? This brings us to Dr. Ambedkar’s exceptional take on how India failed to unite and divided itself further. SRC’s report juxtaposed different languages in a manner that would force them to communally work together. For instance, Gujarati and Marathi in Bombay. It is foul to expect either communities to live in harmony with one another. If this juxtaposition exists, how does one unite a nation? Dr. Ambedkar proposes a straightforward solution: It is given that if a region’s regional language becomes its official language, it is inching close to becoming an independent nationality. To avoid this, there must exist a constitutional provision that mandates an overarching language that can tie the nation together. Dr. Ambedkar proposed Hindi, and till all learn, English as two languages for this purpose. He declared this as a part and parcel of having linguistic States. The role of not just Hindi, but any official language, always held the scope of being exclusionary, especially since the North was Hindi-speaking.
According to Dr. Ambedkar, one of the most flawed errors in the recommendations given by the SRC report was how it inherently widened the gap between north and south India. The report displayed a clear difference between the sizes of northern and southern States, with the former being exponentially larger than the latter, both geographically and population-wise. This is deeply problematic, as representatively the north will have more political weightage than the south, which is incredibly unfair. This distinction has led to political subjugation of the south by the north. Dr. Ambedkar calls it to be a consolidation of north and balkanization of south, as the Hindi-speaking States in the north barely changed, whilst the south faced complete reorganisation. Moreover, to make matters worse, Dr. Ambedkar highlights how Hindi was made an official language. This further increased the north’s influence over the parliament, further alienating the south. Many political leaders proposed various remedies to this recommendation. Panikkar, for instance, proposed division of Uttar Pradesh into four States. C. R. Rajagopalachari, as highlighted by Dr. Ambedkar, spoke of how one federation for India will not function if our prime ministers and presidents are only Hindi-speaking. Rajagopalachari suggested the creation of a northern federation and a southern federation, with a few subjects on which both northern and southern States will convene. Dr. Ambedkar’s solution to the north-south divide was clear and concise: he proposed redrawing boundaries by breaking colossal northern States into smaller units. He chose to divide the north since setting a standard limit for the south wasn’t plausible, given the north was substantially bigger in geography. He proposed division of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh was to be trifurcated into three, with Meerut, Cawnpore, and Allahabad as respective capitals (approximately 2cr per State). Bihar was to be halved, into Bihar and Jharkhand, with Patna and Ranchi as capitals (1.5 cr roughly per State). Lastly, Dr. Ambedkar proposed the division of Madhya Pradesh into northern and southern Madhya Pradesh. The former will hold Vindhya Pradesh and State of Bhopal, while the latter will hold State of Indore and fourteen Mahakosal States. Hindi’s subsequent imposition on all of the South was a further violation of article 29 (1) which allows minority communities to preserve their language. Even further, this violates the idea of a federal structure as discussed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. With the presence of Hindi at the top, it made it even more difficult for the south to gain political representation as equal units of the federation.
Bombay was a mixed State at this point in time, and it set a clear example of how juxtaposition of two different languages in one space is a seed of contention. Dr. Ambedkar heavily criticised the way Bombay was dealt with, since it was clear that not only should it belong to Maharashtra geographically, but also since Maharashtrians faced representation based political inequalities in the Bombay Cabinet with Gujarat having more members, as well as higher capital expenditure. Due to this, Gujarat had a substantial hold over the decisions in Bombay. Hence, Dr. Ambedkar proposed two remedies that the SRC should’ve opted for: Removal of the Bombay State, and Division of Maharashtra into 4 States, namely Maharashtra City State, Eastern Maharashtra, Western Maharashtra and Central Maharashtra. Removal of the Bombay State would prove to be a politically fair decision. Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar advocates for the division of Maharashtra, since the division would give way to efficient administration. Historically supported, the division of Maharashtra into the remaining three States finds its way back to the Mahavansa in Ashoka’s regime, where these three were referred to as ‘Trai Maharashtrika.’ This division will help reduce educational and economic inequalities in the three States as well, especially in the Marathwada region as it was criminally neglected under the Nizam’s rule. All at the same time, this division would ensure individuals speaking the various dialects of Marathi will be under different State jurisdiction. This too, is another additional example of the impact of representational differences at the state level.
Dr. Ambedkar highlighted further disparity and discrepancies in how taxes are being collected in these States. In accordance with the committee’s report, he highlighted how excise taxes are being extracted at a lesser rate, whilst sales and income taxes are being levied at a higher rate. The latter is being covered by the urban classes with close to no material return or benefit. Tangentially, the policy on prohibition also failed. From all these pointers, Dr. Ambedkar affirmed that the government is not taxing the citizens of any State in an apt manner.
Dr. Ambedkar describes caste as the social structure upon which our political structure is based. Similarly, caste finds relevance in State divisions also. Dr. Ambedkar explains three aspects in which caste manifests itself into State reorganisation. Firstly, it must be noted that every region has its own majorities and minorities, the latter being smaller and economically dependent on the former. Secondly, there is a presence of graded inequalities in India. Lastly, majority and minority communities are built on exclusiveness and pride, indicating the presence of a fellow feeling. Hence, they are built like nations within themselves. He also spoke of how voting is communal in nature, and how contesting individuals are often from the upper castes. He outlines how the situation is exponentially worse when someone attempts to contest whilst belonging from a lower caste and a linguistic minority. The failure of the SRC Report in admitting to the role that caste plays in communities led to these linguistic states directly reinforcing caste majorities. Similarly, due to voting being largely communal in India, the results always tilted in favour of those in the upper castes, further marginalising lower caste minorities. Both these act as a direct violation of Article 15 and 16, which speak of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity.
Dr. Ambedkar concludes his essay by commenting on the inadequacy of having one capital in India. For a population as diverse and dense as India’s, only one capital is insufficient, especially one that isn’t centrally located. Dr. Ambedkar proposes Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Bolarum as the second capital of India. He cites three reasons for this. Primarily, Delhi is unbearable in the summers. It is nearly impossible to work in Delhi in summer, due to which a cooler capital is required for those months. Secondly, Delhi is way far from the south, increasing the already-existing feeling of alienation in the southern States. The third reason is defence. Important cities, like Bombay, Calcutta, Shimla, and Delhi itself are in close proximity to attacks from our neighbours. In that case, it will be very difficult for any defence measures to be administered through Delhi, as it is very far from these locations. Hyderabad, is fairly equidistant from these locations and can take up public regulation and welfare. A special mention in Hyderabad’s portfolio is how if it makes a second capital, it will also be representing the south, bridging the existing gap by some degree.
All these recommendations made by Dr. Ambedkar to the SRC were greatly drawn from his understanding of the constitution. The SRC report was devoid of some of the most fundamental tenets of the Indian Constitution. SRC failed to take into account the sheer inequality of political weightage that it would enforce by redrawing the northern boundaries the way they did. Furthermore, linguistic grounds were used to promote the interests of only one community or language, further deepening the inequalities and breaking the federal structure. Furthermore, the analysis of the SRC report raises questions about article 3 of the constitution, which gives the Parliament the power to demarcate state boundaries.In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot exercise its powers in a manner that damages the basic structure of the Constitution. Federalism was later affirmed as part of the basic structure in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). If linguistic reorganisation produces enduring representational asymmetry between federal units, the exercise of Article 3 power may warrant scrutiny under the basic structure doctrine. If this is the kind of inequality that the State has brought about through the SRC report, what does it speak about the extent to which article 3 can be exercised? Can it, or should it have the authority to directly or indirectly breach fundamental rights? Similarly, can something that is a part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution (federalism) be breached?
The SRC report’s recommendations are imperative for us to understand, simply because these recommendations have not only shaped our States, they have also unknowingly sown seeds of conflicts which are still matters of heated debate. The hatred that has manifested itself in communities, like those of Maharashtra and Gujarat or the inter-southern States, find their root to this time period. Most importantly, the north-south divide was deepened in this period. This conflict has worsened to the point where the south is not only refusing Hindi, but has also engaged in violence to assert the rights of their languages. We, hence, must understand that the SRC report was not just an attempt to reorganise, it has affected and shaped a lot of what we see in politics today.
Reference(S):
– Ambedkar, B. R. (1955). Thoughts on Linguistic States. Anant Sahitya Sadan.
– Moon, V. (2020, March 14). Why Ambedkar Demanded “One State, One Language”: An Overview of His “Thoughts on Linguistic States”. All About Ambedkar. Retrieved
February 1, 2026, from https://www.allaboutambedkaronline.com/post/why-ambedkar-demanded-one-state-one-l anguage-an-overview-of-thoughts-on-linguistics-states
– India Const. art. 14
– India Const. art. 15, cl. 1
– India Const. art. 16, cl 1
– India Const. art. 29, cl 1
– S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1 (1994) (India)
– Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr, 1973 4 SCC 225 (1973) (India)
