Part-1 Flashcards
Classification of territories
-> Before the 7th CAA, the states reorganisation act (1956), we followed a 4 fold classification:
1. Part A - 9 states, erstwhile governor provinces ( Administered directly by the British )
2. Part B - 9 states, erstwhile princely states
3. Part C - 10 states, included some princely states and some chief commissioner’s provinces ( Head of small provinces under the British government, Ex. Delhi )
4. Part D - Andaman and Nicobar islands.
Articles 1 to 4
Why union and not a federation of states?
1. To communicate to the people that no territory has the right to secede
2. We were already a unified landmass on which federal structure was superimposed unlike in the American setup where erstwhile colonies came together to form a country. Ours is not a result of a contract.
A-1(3)(c) doesn’t confer expansionary powers on the Indian state. Territory can be acquired on the basis of international law.
-> A-2 talks about admitting territories and also establishment of states. ( Either split existing ones or admit new territories and if you want to make state/UT then so be it )
-> There has been a debate wrt to this subclause as to whether it talks about admission of new territories or the reorganisation of existing states but that’s of no need as you have a dedicated provision for domestic reorganisation of states anyway in A-3.
A-3:
If A-03 is used arbitrarily then states would be reduced to the status of glorified municipalities. However thankfully it hasn’t been used arbitrarility. If the opinion of the state is made binding then the reorganisation of territories would become exceedingly difficult.
But can states be reduced to the status of UTs? The SC is yet to answer.
-> A-03 is only for domestic reorganisation and not international reorganisation. For international reorganisation you need to amend the constitution. Ex. India-Bangladesh border settlement. ( Beru Bari union case. )
Story behind reorganistaion of Indian territory after Independence
The British organised the territories as per their convinience:1
1. Administrative convinience
2. Commercial convinience
3. Military convinience
-> During the freedom movement there was talk and general consensus that after independence the states would be organised on linguistic basis ( Emerged during the Nagpur session of the congress ). Even the pradesh congress committees were formulated on linguistic lines ( Gujarat and Marathi for the erstwhile Bombay state ). But Nehru’s views changed after witnessing the horrors of partition. He feared that organisation of states on linguistic basis would stall the process of emergency of national identity. He believed that this would lead to creation of 100s of states for accounting so many languages. It was a time for pushing forward for emergency of national identity. Your identity should be first of being an Indian and not coming from an area speaking a particular language.
-> Generally people who speak the same language have the same culture. ( Ex. Bengali Hindus celebrate Durga Puja like no other which wouldn’t be noticed by a Hindu in Punjab ).
-> Language is a carrier of culture.
-> Whole of Europe is organised on linguistic basis. So, Nehru feared organisation on linguistic basis might later lead to demands for the a separate country.
-> Though this didn’t prove to be true, but there is a tendency among people to consider the natives of the area having the 1st right over the resources of that area. Ex. South vs North.
-> Language often becomes the channel for expressing secular demands.
