Know Your Constitution: Our National Identity Versus State Identity

Know Your Constitution Part-2

India, That Is Bharat, Is A Union Of States



 In last some decades we witnessed the formation of many new states from the existing ones, apart from that we also saw the name-changing of many states. Furthermore, the latest one is the historic bifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir state, and declaration of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir into two separate Union territories.

Have you ever thought about the process of formation of a new state? How does it impact the lives of it’s native people? Whether their direct will has any role play in this process? What are the consequential effects of these changes in their respective territories?  The answer to these questions lies in part one of the constitution.

In this second part of our series “know your constitution” we will discuss constitutional provisions for union and state territories and their reorganisation.

Historical Background Of Formation Of Indian States

The India, as we see today was not the same at the time of independence. At that time we had around 565 princely states. All those Indian states were mainly of three Types.
  • Territories of British India: these were under direct control of British Crown through Governor General 
  • Princely States: Over these states British crown had suzerainty, allowing hereditary rulers certain autonomy.
  • Colonial territories of France and Portugal: for example Goa

By the toiling efforts and strategic plannings of  Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon all these princely states were acceded to India, to form one integrated independent nation, except  Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir.
 However Later on they were also added to India, Hyderabad by police action, Junagadh by referendum and Kashmir through the “Instrument of Accession”



Since then the internal boundaries of India kept changing and new states were formed time to time. From the reorganisation of India Act,1956 to current reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir we have been through a journey of 14 states and 6 Union territory to 28 states and 9 Union territories.

Grounds Of Formation Of New States

India is world’s seventh largest country and also is the second most populous nation with vast diversity in culture and languages.

In India there are 22 Nationally recognised languages (As per 8th schedule of the constitution of India). However around 122 major languages and 1599 other languages are spoken across the nation.

You can check list of nationally recognised languages in link given below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Schedule_to_the_Constitution_of_India


During independence, the cessation of all princely states was done on ad hoc basis. There had been a great demand for the reorganisation of all states on linguistic basis. Many commissions and committees were formed to identify the basic criteria for reorganisation of states, such as S.R. Dhar commission, JVP committee, Faizal Ali committee. 

Finally language as a criteria for redrawing of Indian political map was accepted, but the idea of “one language one state” was rejected, as it could have threatened the unity of India. 
Keeping it’s primary concern as the unity and security of the nation, on the basis of linguistic and cultural homogeneity, administrative effectiveness and welfare of its people, the whole nation under went the restructuring of its states.

 Aandhra Pradesh was the first state formed mainly on linguistic basis. Although on language basis many states were bifurcated in course of time, and many changed their names. Still Apart from linguistic basis, administrative policies were always a reason for carving out a new state from the existing one. However the role of political aspirations and agendas cannot be denied in these events.


Constitutional Provisions


Part one of Indian constitution deals with union and state territories.
  • Article-1 Name and territory of the union 
      it describes our country’s name- India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.  

    At the time of constitution making some member of constituent assembly wanted to give our free nation a modern name “India”,but some members were in favour of our traditional name “Bharat”. However no consensus could be made on this point and we finally got two official names for our free nation i.e.India and Bharat. 

Also the first article describes our nation as union of States instead of federation of States, the reason behind is that, our federation is not the result of any agreement among states like American States. Furthermore the states in Indian Union have no rights to secede  themselves from the Union. Our union of States is one integrated unbreakable Nation- India, that is Bharat.

It also specifies territory of our nation, according to article one the territory of India shall be comprised of
  1. The territories of the States
  2. The territories of Union Territories 
  3. Such other territories that may be acquired.

  • Article-3 Formation of New States and Alteration of Areas, Boundaries Or Names Of Existing States
This article gives our parliament immense power to form a new state or make alteration in existing state boundaries or change names of existing states.

As per Article-3 parliament may by introducing a bill-
  1. Form a new state by separation of territory from the existing state or by uniting two or more states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state.
  2. Increase the area of any state
  3. Diminish the area of any state
  4. Alter the boundaries of any state
  5. Alter the name of any state.
Furthermore as per Article 4, all these procedures will not amount to amendment in the constitution as per Article 368.
 Article-4 was intended to keep the process simple.


However, this Article mentions two conditions for these bills, first one is that any such bill should be introduced in parliament only on recommendation of the President, and secondly any such bill has to be referred to the concerned state legislatures for expressing their views upon it, before introducing it in Parliament.


Hence we can conclude that our constitution has given the States very less or we can say no role at all in their reorganisation or name changing procedures. They have been given mere rights of expressing their views upon related bills. Also their views have no binding effects, it is all up to parliament whether to consider those views or not.


These provisions were intended to maintain integrity and unity of the Nation. At the time of unifying the nation, it was a clear need of the hour to reorganise the states in near future as per their demography, languages and administrative requirements. If these powers were given to the state legislatureS, we certainly would not have reached at the present stage as a unified one nation. All the states would have had been changing their names on regular basis as per their local political aspirations. And the territory crisis among states would have become a big issue.

Although these provisions are central based power, but local people’s wish and needs are always a basic reason behind these changes through their elected representatives in parliament.


Formation Of States Of India 

Aandhra Pradesh:- was formed on 1st November 1956, further on 2nd June 2014  it’s north-western part was carved out from it to form a new state i.e. Telangana.

Madhya Pradesh:-came in existence in year of 1956. And later on in year 2000 it was bifurcated in to two states namely Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Karnataka:-was earlier part of Mysore state, the reason for it’s formation was to bring all Kannada speaking people under one state in 1956. It was renamed on the name of Kannnad language as Karnataka in the year 1973.

Maharashtra and Gujarat:- were once part of the Bombay province. In the year 1960 on the basis of language it was bifurcated in two new states, Gujarat for Gujarati speaking people, and Maharashtra for Marathi speaking people.

Nagaland:-was carved out from the Assam state in December 1963 on demand of the Naga Tribe.

Haryana:- was formed In the year 1966, by separating it from the Punjab state, and Chandigarh remained as a joint capital for both the states.

Himachal Pradesh:- was a Union territory which got statehood in year 1971.

Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura:- got full statehood in the year1972. 

Sikkim:- the second smallest state of India is a landlocked state, also known as the organic state was merged in India in the year of 1975.

Goa:- was under control of the Portuguese till the year of 1961. Afterwards it was a union territory of India along with Daman & Diu, in the year of 1987, Goa become a state.

Uttarakhand:- was formed by bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2000 as Uttaranchal. Later on it renamed as Uttarakhand in the year of 2007.

Jharkhand:-was carved out from Bihar in the year of 2000.



Consequences Of Formation Of A New State

Generally linguistic, regionalism approach and political aspirations  lead to these changes. When a new state is formed, although the local population cannot sense any immediate change in their life. However all of sudden a Bihari becomes Jharkhand person and an Aandhra Pradesh native becomes Telangana person. 


These territorial changes or name changes generally do not have direct impact upon public at large. But gradually the change takes place. Anyhow these changes bring a large change in administrative process of the state, it becomes easy to address local problems. Sometimes some areas which were neglected as a part of a large state, get more autonomy and administrative effectiveness by separation, the recent separation of Ladakh from Jammu & Kashmir has given its natives very high hopes of such advancements. 


Although name change has no administrative benefit but it is for respecting public sentiment along with political strategy. However  the cost of separation is a big concern, whenever any name is changed it leads to a burden of crores of rupees and extra work on the administration to change it in all official documents and places, which finally leads to an extra financial burden on our country and consequently on countrymen.


Our National Identity Versus State Identity

We often read in newspapers about regionalism, language politics, and about conflict among states over common issues like water, and resource sharing, and the recent one is migrant labourers crisis.



We all are common citizens of India irrespective of our states, and language. Internal divisions and changes of territory do not create any new identity of ours. It may be for administrative ease or for better development of a particular area or for the diplomatic reasons of National policy. 


Anyhow it does not change our identity as an Indians at all. We are part of one integrated nation. In current scenario when migrant labourers are moving from one state to another, all of sudden their state identity became important. There is big clash among states for bearing their responsibilities. They may belong to some other state of India than ours, still they belong to this same motherland, to which we all belong :- “ India, that is Bharat ”. 


 In current scenario when we are fighting with the Covid-19 virus on various fronts such as health, economy, and employment crisis we must keep our national identity above any state identity, and try to help our all compatriot who is in need. As our objective statement of constitution, Preamble states our guiding principles as...

......to promote among them all FRATERNITY,
assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation...
       ( preamble of Indian Constitution)

<a href="https://www.freepik.com/photos/people">People photo created by freestockcenter - www.freepik.com</a>

Comments

Sudhir sharma said…
Must read this article for better understanding of our constitution, great work
Keep it up
Micky said…
Very Informative content Kirti. Simple and understandable. Excellent.
Keep Going and Growing


Shankar Belagali said…
Good article kriti.In my personal opinion creation and reorganisation of States on language basis was a mistake. It has only made us fanatics leading to friction on boundary issues river water sharing,etc. Smaller States should have been created keeping in mind the administrative convenience with its capital located centrally. In my opinion, even national capital should have been Nagapur.
Shankar Belagali.
Unknown said…
Love your writingπŸ‘... something very informative apart from regular news...πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ‘πŸ»
Keep on writing as it updates us in many ways...πŸ‘Œ

Popular posts from this blog

Human Rights: A Concept Beyond The Propaganda, Can Be A Saviour Of World In Corona Crisis

Laws to fight Covid 19 pandemic and allied problems

Know your constitution: Introduction