India 1951-2024

"India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

Article 1, Indian Constitution (1950)

The foundational statement of India in the Constitution defines India as a union of states. Yet, none of the states that occupy India’s current geographical boundary existed in the same structure back in 1950. The political map of India in 1951 is unrecognizable from the map of 2021. In recent times, we have witnessed the emergence of Telangana as a separate state from Andhra Pradesh and the division of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh, and hence are familiar with these transitions. While we now identify most states with the state official language, the fact that none of the British Provinces (barring Orissa) and princely states had a linguistic basis is largely out of school education and public discourse. The complex transition from erstwhile Bombay province into Maharashtra which involved the separation of Vidarbha from Madhya Pradesh, as well as the integration of Marathwada and Greater Bombay with Bombay state is hardly featured in contemporary debates.

States and Union territories in India are a complex amalgamation of provinces, districts, princely of British India, and erstwhile French and Portuguese foreign territories in India. Back in 1951, India had 28 states, divided into four types Part A, B, C, and D. Administratively these were divided into 310 districts. Five French territories, three Portuguese territories, and the protectorate state of Sikkim were not part of India. Seven decades later, we have 28 states, 8 Union territories and about 785 districts. Indian states today show little resemblance to the states of their 1951 counterparts.

Alongside the states, districts in India have also been evolving continuously post-independence. Districts have undergone numerous bifurcations, trifurcations, mergers, and renaming in line with the political and administrative priorities of the states from time to time. The number of districts in India increased from 310 in 1951 to 640 by 2011. In the last three years, that is, 2021 to 2024, the number is estimated to have climbed from 693 to 785.

28

310

states

districts

28

785

8

states

districts

UTs

State formation and district creation in this country are intricate, involving the carving out of new territories from existing ones, renaming, expanding, or exchanging territories, alongside shifts in power structures and political leadership. This dynamic process reveals the country's diverse cultural, linguistic, and geographical complexities.

HOW IS A NEW STATE FORMED?

States are not sovereign

None of the Indian states were originally sovereign entities; they did not exist as independent units before joining the Indian Union. Part A states (Governors' provinces) were administered centrally until 1937, with limited devolution starting from 1919. Under the 1935 Act, certain powers were assigned to provinces, but the Governors retained significant authority under the control of the Governor-General. Chief Commissioners' provinces were recognized as federal units but were still governed centrally. Former princely states claimed some sovereignty but were under British paramountcy, limiting their control over both external and internal matters. The rulers of these princely states surrendered any remaining sovereignty to India before the Constitution was established.

Unlike the American colonies or Swiss Cantons, no Indian state was independent before forming a federal union. The Indian Constituent Assembly was free to create a constitution that suited India, with no binding commitments from previous structures. The Indian Parliament has exclusive power to admit new states, change state boundaries, or adjust state areas, with states having only the right to express their views. Territorial changes do not require constitutional amendments, making adjustments flexible and centralized. Unlike the U.S., where both the Union and individual states are considered indestructible, in India, only the Union is indestructible, and individual states can be altered or redefined.

Jawaharlal Nehru

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Lord Mountbatten

V.P. Menon

Cyril Radcliffe

INDIAN CONSTITUTION & INDIAN STATES

Article 1: Name and territory of the Union

India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.

The territory of India shall comprise-
(a)The territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories may be acquired.

Article 2: Admission or establishment of new States
Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions, as it thinks fit.

Article 3: Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States

Parliament may, by law:

Form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
increase the area of any State;
diminish the area of any State;
alter the boundaries of any State;
alter the name of any State;

Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries, or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.

In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union territory.

The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.

TIMELINE

Orissa became a separate province

1936

Extensive reorganisation

1956

1912

1948

The Bihar-and-Orissa State created

Mysore state created; Dhar Commission reccommends against linguistic reorganisation

REORGANISATION

The mammoth task of integration fell upon Sardar Patel and VP Menon of the States Ministry. In less than 3 years, they managed to integrate and consolidate close to 550 princely states, including troubled states of Hyderabad, Junagadh, Jammu & Kashmir, Travancore, and the fragmented Kathiawar states into 29 states and 310 districts.

The constitution recognized four types of states (29), Part A, B, C, and D states in increasing order of centralized control. Part A states (9) were former British governor provinces headed by the Governor. Part B states (8) were former big princely states or union of princely states headed by Rajpramukh. Part C states (10) were former Commissioner provinces and some princely states and were administered by the Commissioner. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands were the only Part D territory. Sikkim was a protectorate state. Foreign territories remained out of this classification, namely the French and Portuguese territories.

Nehru formed a State Reorganisation Committee.

SRC delved into the various factors that would impact the reorganization process, including the costs involved, the unity and security of India, the importance of language and culture, and the financial viability of states. The commission also considered national development plans, regional planning, the balance between smaller and larger states, and other pertinent factors. The SRC endorsed the creation of states primarily on linguistic lines to ensure that people sharing a common language and culture could be governed under a single administrative unit. This was seen as essential for administrative convenience and to foster national unity.

The SRC endorsed the creation of states primarily on linguistic lines to ensure that people sharing a common language and culture could be governed under a single administrative unit. This was seen as essential for administrative convenience and to foster national unity.

The SRC recommended the abolition of Part A-C states and the creation of 16 states and 3 Union Territories.

The SRC also addressed re-organizing certain units and suggested safeguards for linguistic groups, the integration of services, and various financial and administrative measures. The overarching goal of these recommendations was to maintain and strengthen the unity of India while ensuring that the reorganization process was grounded in sound administrative, cultural, and economic principles.

STATE REORGANISATION ACT (1956)

The government largely accepted the SRC report recommendations and passed the SRC Act in 1956.

Under this Act, India was reorganized into 14 states and 5 Union territories. The map created thereafter became the foundational map of modern Indian states.

Many districts, taluk/tehsils, and even villages from different Part A, B, and C states were mixed to form the new states.

Hyderabad and erstwhile Andhra Pradesh were integrated into one state.

Unlike SRC recommendations, bilingual Bombay included Vidarbha.

Along with Delhi and current Lakshadweep, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, and Manipur were made Union territories

1961-71: RECLAIMING TERRITORIES & REDEFINING STATES

Integration of Portuguese & French territories

Reconsidering India’s repeated non-violent pursuits to claim Goa, the Indian government initiated Operation Vijay which culminated in the liberation of Goa, as well as the territories of Daman and Diu in 1961. In 1962, Pondicherry came to be transferred to India as a union territory as well following de facto transfer and ratification of the treaty by France.

Punjabi Subha and Haryana Creation

In the latter half of the decade, the new state of Haryana was created in 1966 following the Punjabi Suba movement, which demanded the separation of Hindi-speaking regions from Punjab. Simultaneously, the union territory of Chandigarh was instituted as the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana. The state of Himachal Pradesh was reorganized to ensure contiguity. Towards the end of the decade, we saw the renaming of Madras state to Tamil Nadu in 1969.

Statehood & territorial reorganisation

Nagaland (1963): Violent conflicts and demand for statehood by Naga ethnic tribes led to statehood for Nagaland. The formation of Nagaland marked the beginning of creating states to address specific ethnic and tribal identities.

1971-81: THE NORTH-EAST REIMAGINED

North-East

After the turbulent events of the 1960s (including the Mautam Famine in Mizoram, the Indo-China war of 1962, and conflicts surrounding the imposition of Assamese) demands for statehood emerged. In response, the North-East Areas Reorganization Act was passed in 1972. As per the Act, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Tripura were granted statehood. Mizoram was established as a union territory and NEFA was renamed to Arunachal Pradesh and granted Union Territory status.

Himachal Pradesh

Post re-organization of Himachal Pradesh, a new demand for statehood was put forth by the legislative assembly. In 1971, this demand came to be satisfied with the grant of statehood to Himachal Pradesh.

Renaming states & UTs

In 1973, the state of Mysore was renamed to Karnataka, while the Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands were renamed to Lakshadweep Islands.

Sikkim

In 1975, a referendum conducted in Sikkim turned out to be overwhelmingly in favor of Sikkim’s integration with India. This paved the way for Sikkim to transition from an associate state to the 22nd state of the Union of India.

1981-91: STATEHOOD UTS

The decade was a defining one for India’s North East since their long-standing demands finally came to be satisfied with the grant of statehood to Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh as well in 1987. In the same year, the Goa Assembly adopted the Official Languages Bill, which made Konkani the official language and propelled Goa along the path of statehood. On 23 May 1987, the INC passed the Goa, Daman, and Diu Reorganization Act creating the state of Goa and UT of Daman and Diu. Later in 1991, Delhi was constituted as a Union Territory with a Legislative Assembly, council of ministers, and an elected chief minister with a limited mandate as per the National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991. This act provided Delhi special status among other UTs.

1991-2001: CARVING NEW STATES

Demand for Chhattisgarh’s statehood goes back to the time when it was a part of the Eastern States Agency. Since its demand for statehood did not manage to gather much support then, it was merged with Madhya Bharat and eventually became a part of the state of Madhya Pradesh. Movements for statehood continued in the region under the leadership of Khubchand Baghel and Purushottam Kaushik. Over time both INC and BJP took interest in the matter, and in November 2000, Chhattisgarh state came into being.

The Jharkhand Party under Jaipal Singh Munda had submitted a memorandum to the States Reorganization Commission back in 1953, but the Commission did not concede to the demand since Jharkhandi identity was not a linguistic one. Demand for Jharkhand however continued to persist. Finally, in 2000, a three-way alliance between INC, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Bihar Reorganization Bill was tabled and Jharkhand state became a reality on the anniversary of Birsa Munda in the year 2000.

Uttarakhand’s demand for statehood was rooted in the geographical and cultural factors that differentiated the hill districts from the mainland ones. Much like the case of Jharkhand, the SRC ignored the demand for Uttarakhand state. Regional parties such as Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKD) then led the movement for statehood. Their agitation came to be strengthened by the announcement of a reservation scheme that failed to cater to most of their population. Finally, in the year 2000, the state of Uttaranchal was announced.

2001-21: STATEHOOD STRUGGLES & CONSTITUTIONAL SHIFTS

The demand for Telangana dates back to the Mulki rules conflict of 1952 which erupted over the recruitment of non-locals into the government jobs reserved for those born or having domicile in Hyderabad state. This conflict led to the establishment of the Telangana Praja Samithi. However, Mulki's rules came to be repealed in 1973 putting the statehood movement to rest. In 2001, Kalvakuntala Chandrasekhar set up the Telangana Rashtra Samiti which brought back the matter of Telangana statehood into the mainstream. KCR’s fast-for-death led to the creation of Telangana in 2014.

Abolition of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and creation of UTs of J&K, and Ladakh. Article 370 of the Constitution of India provided a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, granting it a degree of autonomy within the Indian Union. It was incorporated into the Constitution of India as a temporary provision at the time of the Accession of J&K to India. They had the power to define who is a "permanent resident" and restrict non-residents from owning land and enterprise within it. BJPs had a long-standing agenda of abolishing Article 370.

In 2019, the Indian Government freed Jammu and Kashmir of its special status for integration and governance. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019 divided the state into 2 union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The demand for new statehood for Jammu and Kashmir has not materialized.

FUTURE STATES

The trends in the last 75 years, shows that Indian states have continually evolved, and the current divisions of Indian States and Union Territories are not final. There are ongoing demands for new states such as Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, Bhil Pradesh, Bundelkhand, Bodoland, Kuki land etc driven by economic, cultural, and administrative considerations. There have been demand for restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir,

Jammu & Kashmir

Gorkhaland

Following the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh—demands for the restoration of statehood emerged from both regions. On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation but directed the government to restore Jammu and Kashmir's statehood and hold assembly elections by September 2024. Post the elections in Sept-Oct 2024, the newly elected cabinet, led by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, passed a resolution in October 2024, urging the restoration of statehood. With democratic processes strengthened and popular rule reinstated, restoring statehood remains a priority and an expectation for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Gorkhaland movement has long sought a separate state for the Nepali-speaking Gorkha people in northern West Bengal. The demand dates back to 1907, when the Hillmen's Association of Darjeeling petitioned the Morley-Minto reforms committee. Post-independence, the Akhil Bharatiya Gorkha League (ABGL) advocated for Gorkha identity and economic freedom. The movement gained momentum in the 1980s with violent agitation led by the Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF), resulting in the creation of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC) in 1988. Renewed demands by the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) in 2008 led to the establishment of the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA) in 2011, replacing the DGHC as a semi-autonomous body. However, on March 28, 2022, the GJM officially dropped its statehood demand, opting for a political resolution within West Bengal instead.

Bhil Pradesh

The demand for Bhil Pradesh, a separate tribal state for the Bhil community, covering 49 districts across Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, has resurfaced recently in July 2024. Rooted in the legacy of Bhil leader Govind (Guru) Giri Banjara and the 1913 Mangarh massacre (killing of Bhil Tribals by the British), the demand has historically emphasized tribal identity and autonomy. Post independence, demand for Bhil state was raised repeatedly. Leaders like Congress MPs Somjibhai Damor and Dileep Singh Bhuria, it has been amplified by tribal parties like the Bharatiya Tribal Party (BTP), formed in 2017, and more recently the Bharat Adivasi Party (BAP), which emerged in 2023. The recent rally at Mangarh Dham highlighted the growing consolidation of tribal voices, but the future of the Bhil Pradesh demand remains uncertain.

Uttar Pradesh

Since its formation in 1950, Uttar Pradesh (UP) has undergone several internal changes, with repeated proposals for its division. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had suggested splitting UP into three regions—western (Meerut), central (Kanpur), and eastern (Allahabad)—while G.B. Pant opposed any division to preserve the Hindi heartland. In 2011, Mayawati proposed dividing UP into four parts: Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh, and Paschim Pradesh. Despite these efforts, UP remained unified until 2000, when demands from Himalayan districts for better representation and development led to the creation of Uttarakhand, marking the first alteration of UP's boundaries in 50 years.

Vidarbha

The demand for a separate Vidarbha state, comprising 11 districts in eastern Maharashtra, has deep historical roots. It dates back to October 1, 1938, when the Central Provinces legislature passed a resolution for the creation of a 'Mahavidarbha' state, a day still celebrated by some as 'Vidarbha Day.' The State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1955 supported Vidarbha statehood with Nagpur as its capital, but the region was included in the Bilingual Bombay State in 1956 and later merged into Maharashtra in 1960. Advocates for statehood argue that Vidarbha has been neglected by successive state governments, leading to underdevelopment and issues such as farmer suicides and high electricity tariffs.

Following the Maharashtra elections in November 2024, Devendra Fadnavis, once a strong proponent of Vidarbha statehood, became Maharashtra's Chief Minister for the third time. Regional leaders, including Mahavidarbha Janjagran convenor Nitin Ronghe and Jai Vidarbha Party president Mukesh Masurkar, have called on Fadnavis to prioritize the statehood demand while addressing ongoing challenges in the region. Sentiments of hope and urgency have been expressed, with stakeholders emphasizing the need for development and a brighter future for Vidarbha's farmers, even as the push for statehood remains central to the region's aspirations.