Linguistic Reorganization of States and the Changing Federal Structure of India

India is a federation of states and these states are separated on the basis of major languages. The Indian leaders right after independence made it clear that they wanted a federal state. A federation is the existence of dual polity. It is a group of regions or states united within a Central government. It is a dual form of government where the powers are divided between the centre and the state governments.

They each enjoy considerable independence within their sphere of Governance so as to avoid any clash between the two. However the basis on which this federal structure would be implemented was not certain. Right after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the formation of states based on linguistic lines. According to him this would lead to the emergence of sub-nationalities that would cause agitation and then to the rising of sovereign states.

Thus, initially after Independence the country was divided into states belonging to 3 classes Class ‘A’ states, which were made up of the former British Provinces, such as Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar; Class ‘B’ states, which were made up of former large princely states and large amalgamated unions of states, such as Hyderabad, Mysore and Rajasthan; and Class ‘C’ states, which were those formed out of smaller princely states, such as Bhopal, Delhi and Vindhya Pradesh. The Dar Commission, which was set up to deal with the question of linguistic states, expressed itself against the linguistic reorganization of states.

Order custom essay Linguistic Reorganization of States and the Changing Federal Structure of India with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

In November 1948, the JVP committee was set up to review the Dar Commission report because of the insistence from the delegates of Andhra, Kerela, Karnataka and Maharashtra. This report too was against the linguistic reorganization of states. In 1953 following the fast unto death by Potti Sriramulu in support of Telugu speaking Andhra the congress was forced to change its position and Andhra was created in October 1953. In response to the mounting flood of additional demands the State Reorganization commission was established on December 1953.

The report of SRC given in 1955 created 14 new states from the existing 27. In 1956 the act was enacted. This was the first phase of linguistic reorganization, other phases followed during the period from 1960 to 1980 when these 14 states were further subdivided into new states. As the introduction suggests setting up states on linguistic lines was not the aim of the leaders rather they were forced to. They wanted the states to be economically and administratively viable also they wanted to avoid further communalism which might be caused due to the states being reorganized on linguistic basis.

Integration and democratic participation were the important aims of the leaders then. There was an attempt for inclusive agglomeration of diverse identities and groups through inter-segmental and inter fractional adjustments and changes. After Independence “the task of putting the new nation in to working order, dealing with the lions of refugees, of coping with the conflict in Kashmir, of integrating and consolidating into governable units the myriad of princely states and framing constitutions became the most urgent items on the Government’s agenda. “Unity” and “security” were the slogans of the day. (J. E. Schwartzberg) However this policy “proved inadequate when it encountered the large currents of era of mass politics..... The issue of Linguistic states in particular became the focus of popular agitation” (A. S. Narang). Also minorities complained of discrimination by the local government. It was also stated that the political parties repeatedly exploited ethnic minorities anxieties and desires. The Dar Commission discarded the linguistic reorganization on the basis that a state cannot be created having only 70-80% of the population speaking the same language.

The commission said that it could not be called a “linguistic group” but rather a “big majority”. It was however along this big majority lines that the 14 states were carved out in 1956, thus eliminating the categories of states as class A, B and C. But it gave rise to new problems, for example the SRC did not, at that time, divide the provinces of Bombay and Punjab because they found no neat linguistic lines for division. A separate state of the Punjabi Suba was demanded based on the religious differences between the Hindus and Sikhs.

Nehru did not agree with this idea but instead said that additional areas should be incorporated into the present state of Punjab to dilute the Sikh presence and marginalize the separatists within the province. This was mainly because Punjab was a border state and any tampering with the people’s interests might jeopardise the security of the country. But ultimately the new state of Punjab was formed in 1966 when the Sikh leadership abandoned the religious criteria and demanded the formation of Punjab on ethno linguistic lines.

Along with the new state of Punjab other 2 new states formed Haryana- which consisted mainly of the Hindi speaking belt of erstwhile Punjab and Himachal Pradesh- which were mainly the hill districts. The province of Bombay was also bifurcated between the Gujarati and Marathi speakers in 1960. “The first federal revolution thus discarded the design of administrative divisions that Nehru had favoured for independent India, a design which did not recognize the need for congruence between ethnic identity and territorial homelands.

The first reorganization did precisely the opposite: it legally acknowledged India as a federation of ethnic subunits. In a sense, Nehru and India had returned to the ethnic fault line conceded by the Congress movement during the struggle for national independence. ” (Maya Chadda). This was not the end of all problems. The new issue arose in the north-eastern states. The North-eastern states were the most neglected of all the states in India.

The British followed a policy of seclusion that had left the region resentful and suspicious of all governments that had sought to control the Northeast from New Delhi. Along with that the overlapping of the Naga and Mizo tribes across Burma and the Indo-Chinese border, closely linked the issue of ethnic autonomy to national security and territorial control. If India was to keep these areas under her control it was necessary to appease the people living in those areas. And the appropriate answer was found in separating the state of Assam into separate tribal provinces.

The Nehru government created the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which divided the Northeast into three broad areas with special arrangements of power sharing for each. This schedule created district councils which had power over local economy, culture, religion and customs. Eventually with the North-Eastern Area (reorganization) Act 1971, there came in to existence several states from the undivided state of Assam. Tripura and Manipur which were originally parts of Assam became Union Territories in 1956 and then separate states in 1972.

Meghalaya became an autonomous state within Assam and then a full-fledged state in 1972. Mizoram was declared a Union Territory. While there were agitations in Tripura and Manipur for separate statehood like the Nagas, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh never demanded a separate statehood. These states were simply created to stop China from claiming these border territories. The state of Mizoram was created in 1987 after signing of accord between the Mizo National Front and the Govt of India after 20 years of insurgency by the dominant Mizo tribe.

But this did not end the problem as many linguistic minorities felt that in the states with a dominant language they were outcasts, they were being neglected by the dominant groups and this was leading to the deterioration of not only their culture but also their languages. This identity crisis among the various minority groups is still leading to upheaval in different parts of the country. Many linguistic minorities are asking for separate states citing the example of the north-eastern states.

Lingo-Ethnic Upheavals in Different States

Even though the states of India have been from time to time reorganized on the basis of linguistics, some problem always seems to crop up regarding one area or another. At present upheavals are more regarding ethnic reorganization rather than linguistics alone. Here is an account of 2 such strifes.

The Nagalim problem

One of India’s oldest continuing armed conflict is between the Govt of India and the Nagas. The armed conflict has persisted with two interruptions one in 1960 and another when an accord was signed in 1975. The pact of 1975 was signed between the Govt of India and some willing leaders of Nagaland.

This was interpreted as a sellout and thus gave fire to the already heated up issue. The conflict was that of the creation of Nagalim, an integrated land for the Nagas which not only included the present state of Nagaland but also those districts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam containing Nagas as majority. According to J. P. Hutton (1922), “Nagaland (Nagalim) has always been a sovereign nation occupying a compact area of 120,000 sq. km of the Patkai Range in between the longitude 93°E and 97°E and the latitude 23. 5°N and 28. 3°N.

It lies at the tri-junction of China, India and Burma. Nagalim, without the knowledge and consent of the Naga people, was apportioned between India and Burma after their respective declaration of independence. The part, which India illegally claims, is subdivided and placed under four different administrative units, viz. , Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland states. The eastern part, which Burma unlawfully claims, is placed under two administrative units, viz. , Kachin State and Sagaing Division (formerly known as the Naga Hills).

Nagalim, however, transcends all these arbitrary demarcations of boundary”. The integration of the Naga areas of Burma with the areas in India was not the Naga political agenda, but bringing the Nagas of India together has been an issue that unites most Nagas. Even the Nagaland Assembly has passed a number of resolutions expressing support for that cause. The policy of non-interference by the British “was followed by area expeditions that were resorted to in order to quell opposition of the hill communities to the colonial extension of commercial activities in and through their land.

Eventually the hill communities were brought under different territorial administrative authorities and hence the concept of territorial politics was thus introduced, hitherto unknown to the hill communities. The so-called 'administrative convenience', made some of the ethnic groups fall under one or another political unit. In the process the Naga areas were brought under four administrative units; Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. The contiguous Zeliangrong Nagas were divided among the states of Assam (North Cachar Hill district), Nagaland and Manipur.

Such whimsical administrative divisions and introduction of territorial politics shattered all ethnic aspirations” (U. A. Shimray) and gave rise to ethnic stirrings The problem with the Nagas are that they are not a linguistic community, they speak as many as 30 different languages which belong to several distinct forms of Tibeto-Burmese language group. The languages spoken by some tribes are incomprehensible by the other Naga tribes. Thus, whether or not some of these groups should be included in to the Nagas is a very big concern. The other major problem is with that of Manipur.

The goal of creating a single political unit out of all Naga-inhabited areas puts the Naga project of nationhood in collision course with a parallel Manipuri project. “Indeed, the issue is so sensitive that until June 2001 the Indian government left the territorial scope of the 1997 ceasefire deliberately vague. Eventually, things came to a head when the NSCN–IM insisted on a clarification, and in June 2001 a joint statement confirmed that the ceasefire was ‘between the Government of India and the NSCN–IM as two entities without territorial limits’.

The announcement led to a veritable political explosion in Manipur and significant expression of anger in the other affected states. Seeking guarantees from the Indian government that Manipur’s territorial integrity would not be sacrificed on the altar of Naga peace has now become a major theme in Manipuri politics” (Sanjib Baruah). The United Naga Council (UNC) has issued a statement that calls for a “peaceful parting” between the Nagas and the Meiteis. But the

UNC statement will only aggravate the tense situation in Manipur because it threatens a break-up of the tiny state, a prospect no Meitei will be prepared to accept. The Centre on the other hand has made it absolutely clear that Manipur’s territorial integrity or Assam’s and Arunachal Pradesh’s cannot be undermined to solve the Naga problem. It is therefor time for the NSCN and other responsible Naga civil society groups to state if they are willing to accept a solution without a “Greater Nagalim” that will mean slicing up of existing states like Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.

If they accept then an extensive autonomy plan that give Nagas a chance for socio-cultural integration without changing of state boundaries, should be prepared by the state govts to give something like “supra-state body” a chance. That may mean that the Nagas will control the areas of Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh that they inhabit in a majority — but that is a price the three states may have to pay for finally solving the Naga problem that threatens to engulf the whole region.

The Ghorkhaland problem

Another big problem for India is that of the Gorkhaland issue. The word Gorkha is historically associated with the Kashas of North India. But it was after the establishment of the Gorkha Dynasty in1559 by Drabya Shah, the word began to be referred to the inhabitants of the Gorkha ruled region. Daniel Wright (1877) says, “The Gorkhas or the Gorkhalis so named from the former capital of their country are the dominant race. They formerly occupied the district around the town of Gorkha, which is about 40 miles from the city of Katmandu.

They are said to be of Rajput descent and to have been driven out of Rajputana on the occasion of an invasion by Musulmans. They first settled near Palpa, having passed through the Kumaon hills, and gradually extending their dominion to Gorkha. ” The Gorkhas were originally Indo-Aryan in character but after the Anglo-Nepalese war the British distinguished them as distinctly mongoloid in character. With time the term Gorkhas have been used interchangeably with the Nepalis. The struggle for Gorkhaland, it seems, started since 1907 by the leaders of the hill people for a separate administrative setup.

In 1917 there was a similar demand to create a separate territory from West Bengal. Similar uprising followed in 1919, 1920, 1930. In 1943 the All India Gorkha League was formed which wanted the govt to recognize the gorkhas as a separate minority. Then in 1949 they demanded a separate state for themselves. But these were all disregarded by the authorities. The main agitation for the Gorkhaland started in the 1980’s under the leadership of Subhas Ghising belonging to the Gorkha National Liberation Front. The GNLF-led agitation for the creation of a separate state of “Gorkhaland” happened at a time when the Communist Party of India, Marxist [CPI(M)] was firmly in power in the state of West Bengal. Given the CPI(M)’s pro-poor ideology, stellar achievements in land reforms, rural development, and community empowerment in West Bengal, and prior public commitments to grant autonomy to the Gorkhas, it was surprising that sentiments for a separate Gorkhaland grew steadily in the Darjeeling district” (Rajat Ganguly).

Once the agitation started it left many people dead, many hundreds homeless, there was loss to the local economy due to strikes etc. More importantly it drove a deep chasm between the majority Bengalis and the minority Gorkhas in West Bengal. All this led to an agreement between the GNLF and Govt of West Bengal & Govt of India in August 1988 that aa autonomous Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council will be established, but in return the GNLF would have to drop the demand of separate state. However this hardly changed the situation of the hill district.

There were hardly any development project carried out by the DGHC and the people felt cheated. The DGHC blamed the West Bengal Government for not providing the necessary funds and for trying to undermine the DGHC’s image and authority in Darjeeling. At times, Subhas Ghising, the GNLF President and Chairperson of the DGHC, even talked of resurrecting the Gorkhaland agitation, which were dismissed by his political opponents as merely pressure tactics to procure more funds from Kolkata. Ghising’s political opponents in turn accused him and the DGHC of being corrupt and wasteful and operating in an undemocratic manner.

The struggle for Gorkhaland received a new boost 2008 when a new party called the Gorkha Janamukti Morcha under the leadership of Bimal Gurung. Once a trusted aide of Subhas Ghising, Bimal Gurung decided to break away from the GNLF and started a new agitation for Ghorkhaland. A new party was formed called the Gorkha Janamukti Morcha and on April 2011 they signed a pact with the central and state govts forming the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, a semi- autonomous body that would replace the DGHC.

The reasons why there is a demand for Gorkhaland are:

1. “Although states in post-independent India were reorganized on the basis of ethno-linguistic criteria, the policy failed to eradicate the problem of “entrapped minorities” as many states within the Indian federation continued to include peripheral minority ethnic groups that were linguistically and culturally different from and politically and economically subordinate to the majority ethnolinguistic communities that wielded power in the states. Many of these entrapped minority groups had a long history of demands for political autonomy or separate political identity and had come to believe that the States Reorganization Commission would consider their case with sympathy. When that did not happen, many of these minority ethnic groups felt frustrated and aggrieved. In the years following the states reorganization, these isolated and peripheral minority ethnic groups came to resent their endemic poverty and underdeveloped status and became convinced that they were being deprived (deliberately or otherwise) by the majority communities that controlled the state governments. The only way out of this poverty and underdevelopment, these groups felt, was by creating their own state and entering into a direct relationship with the Indian central government for assistance and guidance; for instance, Gorkha leaders in Darjeeling cited the example of Sikkim, which had one-third of Darjeeling’s population but received almost ten times more central grant than Darjeeling”. (Rajat Ganguly)
2. The isolation and under development has been aggravated by the fact that that their homeland has been infiltrated by members of the dominant community and other ethnic groups thereby creating an exploitative cultural division of labour in which valued roles and resources are allocated mostly to the outsiders. The ethnic communities have also failed to successfully compete with the dominant outsiders for valued resources, such as access to education, health care and employment.
3. The agitators argued that the West Bengal state government have deliberately kept Darjeeling isolated and neglected. They also claimed that much money was spend on the development of Siliguri but very little of these funds went to the hills for the development of Darjeeling, Kalimpong, and other hill towns. For eg- there is still acute shortage of water and the supply is not enough to cater to the demands of the growing population as well as the tourists. The conditions of the roads are appalling and there is a huge dearth of electricityor problems of voltage.
4. The area had no facilities for higher education, the North Bengal University being the only University in that region. But it was situated in Siliguri and not in the hills.
5. This neglect of the region has led to the decline in the tourism industry, which has further led to the decline in employment among the local people.
6.  It was also claimed that the Govt offices set up in the area did not benefit the locals as most of the posts went to the outsiders from the plains. Along with that the lack in education facilities did not facilitate the locals in getting the jobs.
7. West Bengal government based in faraway Kolkata appeared to be remote, opaque and unaccountable to the local people of Darjeeling.

The CPI(M)’s casual response to the various grievances and problems of the people in Darjeeling also strengthened the local perception that the party neglected the hills in favor of the plains. BODOLAND ISSUE, ASSAM: The Bodos belong to the Tibeto-Burman speaking Indo-Mongoloid ethnic group and are the most commonly found in the Brahmaputra plains of Assam. “The term Bodo is also used to denote a large number of tribes-the Garos of Meghalaya, Tippera of Tripura, and Boro Kachari, Koch, Rabha, Lalung, Dimasa, Hajong, Chutia, Deuri, and Moran of Assam and other parts of the Northeast”. M. N. Brahma, "The Bodo Kacharis of Assam-A Brief Introduction," Bulletin of the Tribal Research Institute [Gauhati], 1:1 [1983], p. 52. ). These tribes ruled over Assam until about 1825 but at present they are found in the northern areas of the Brahmaputra Valley, mainly in Kokrajhar, Darrang, Goalpara, and Kamrup districts. Theirs is a patriarchal society and they mostly follow Bathauism, which is a form of animism, as religion. They mainly practiced Jhooming agriculture but off late have ventured into settled agriculture.

Industrial activities are lacking but there may be some silkworm culture done by the Bodos. The demand for a separate Bodoland started during the British rule. It took a major turn after independence and mostly after the formation of Nagaland and other north-eastern states. The bodos formed Plains Tribal Council of Assam (PTCA) in 1967 and demanded the formation of a separate state for the Bodos and all other plain tribes of Assam. The All Bodo Students Union also formed in the same year as a part of PTCA. But with time they all lost hopes upon the party and started working separately.

In the 1980’s Assam saw another movement by the All Assam Student Union (AASU) and Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) about the eviction of foreign nationals from the state. The ABSU worked alongside the AASU with the hope that their cause would receive a boost. The movement ended with the formation of the new AGP Govt. But the ABSU soon realized that the attitude of the new Govt about towards the Bodos is no less different from the preceding Govts. Thus, in 1987 they renewed their struggle for Bodoland, a creation of full-fledged state for the Bodos.

The two districts of Kokrajhar and Darrang became the nerve centres of the struggle. Initially the ABSU had a list of 92 demands but later it mainly centred around 3 main agendas:

• formation of a separate state named Bodoland on the north bank of the Brahmaputra;
• establishment of autonomous district councils in the tribal dominant areas on the south bank of the Brahmaputra;
• incorporation of the Bodo Kacharis of Karbi Anglong in the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution

The main reasons for this agitation were:

1. The Bodos constituted 49% of Assam's population in 1947; but by the 1971 census they had dropped to 29% due to internal and external migration. The migrant labours from Bangladesh affected the population of the Bodos. They got most of the jobs while the Bodos were left jobless.
2. Another major problem was that the Bodos mostly depended on agriculture for sustenance. The land that belonged to them have been mostly taken away form them by the migrants or for the establishment of tea plantations pushing them away into the forests and thus reducing to poverty and indebtness. The new regulation by the Assam Govt imposed a rule forbidding any settlements inside the forest. All of these led to the entrapment of the tribals and was a major cause for the agitation.
3.  In 1950s the Govt of Assam had made a rule forbidding the encroachment of the migrant population in to the special area demarcated for the Scheduled Tribes and Castes. But this was not strictly maintained leading to the loss of land among the tribal and a severe competition for the scarce resources.
4. In 1960s the Assam Govt. declared the Assamese language to be the official language of the state. The effort to impose the language drove a wedge between the two communities.
5. The effort by the Assam Govt to assimilate the different identities and not integrate them led to the fear among the tribals about loosing their identity. This to a large extent led to the agitations.
6. Only 10% of jobs are reserved for plains tribals, including the Bodos. On top of that the requirement of knowledge of the Assamese language to obtain a government job in the state was a further barrier to employment opportunities for Bodo youth.
7. The progress achieved by hill tribes in neighboring Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland and the relative advances made by the two hill districts of Assam-Karbi Anglong and North-Cachar Hills with their autonomous district councils made the Bodos and other plains tribes feel that, despite their larger population, they have been ignored.
8. The creation of separate tribal states for populations smaller than the Bodo in the 1960s and 70s made the demand of the plains tribals seem legitimate.

9. The crafty drawing of the constituencies merging the tribal and non-tribal majorities makes it impossible for the tribals to gain a seat in the state legislators.

10. Lastly, the unrestrained suppression by the law enforcement agencies against Bodo agitators in 1987 fuelled the movement further. The ABSU resorted mostly to bandhs and closures, disrupting the rail and road links of Assam and the rest of the northeastern region. The agitation also saw extortion and harassment of nontribals, non-Bodo school teachers, clerks, foresters posted in tribal areas, and tea plantation managers and employees.

But the most serious development of the movement was the formation of the rebel insurgent Bodo Security Force (Bd. SF), comprising a hard core of the Bodo youth wedded to violent tactics to achieve the goal of Bodoland. “The prolonged movement seriously affected the economy of Assam and the entire northeastern region. The chief ministers of the six northeastern states that were affected by the frequent bandhs urged the movement leaders, the Assam government, and the center to move quickly toward a settlement.

Political parties of all hues unequivocally condemned the violence perpetrated by some of the protestors and the consequent police reprisals. The AGP government came down heavily on the agitators, ruling out any need to form a separate Bodoland state to ameliorate the grievances of the plains tribes. It also sought to drive a wedge between the Bodos and other tribes by avowing the need to protect the interests of all tribals in the state, the Bodo- dominant movement notwithstanding. ” (Sudhir Jacob George)

The agitations continued well into 1993 with the Bodo Security Force gaining more power and at places marginalising the ABSU and other parties. There were also a number of failed attempts to talk by the Assam Govt and the central Govt. Efforts to solve the Bodo issue continued involving a great deal of ground work and behind-the-scenes effort on the part of Home Affairs Minister Rajesh Pilot, the Bodo Congress (I) legislator, Jaman Singh Brahma, and an emissary of the prime minister. These efforts ultimately resulted in the Bodo Accord, signed at Guwahati on February 20, 1993, formally ending the prolonged Bodoland agitation.

The main aspects of the Bodo accord was:

1. Creation of a Bodoland Autonomous Council (BAC). This is only an autonomous hill council and not a separate state.
2. The legislative power of the BAC is to be vested in a 40-member council, out of which 35 members are to be elected on the basis of adult franchise and the remaining five are to be nominated by the governor of Assam.
3. Executive powers are to reside in a smaller Bodoland Executive Council (BEC), similar to a state-level cabinet.
4. There would also be elections for the BAC.

5. The territory of the BAC included the areas between the Sankosh River and Mazbat Pasnoi River, which roughly mark the western and eastern boundaries on the north bank respectively. The more complex southern border of the BAC, often impinging on nontribal areas, appears to have been left unspecified. Comprising 2,750 villages and several small towns, the BAC includes 25 tea plantations.

6. A benchmark for the inclusion of areas in the BAC was that Bodos should constitute 50% or more of a village's population. However, villages with lesser Bodo populations have also been included to ensure territorial continuity.

7. The BAC is to be organized with 38 departments, mostly corresponding to the subjects earmarked for autonomous district councils, such as education, forests, health, land, and revenue. But law and order was retained by the state, along with the right to dismiss the elected council under exceptional circumstances. (Legislative Branch, Assam Act No. 11, 1993)

8. The Accord also provided for the leaders of the movement to ensure the surrender of all arms, explosives, and ammunition by their followers, and bring those who had gone underground back into the national ainstream.

All the rights of nontribals living in the BAC area were to be protected, and their language, culture, and land kept intact. [Memorandum of Settlement (Bodo Accord)]. So was the agitation really worth it? The 7 or 8 year long agitation, did it end in the fulfilment of the demands? An analysis of the Bodo accord reveals that the Bodos did not get all that it wanted. Firstly, they did not get the state separated as they would have wanted. Secondly, it was not a tripartite deal rather a bipartite deal with the state and the BAC.

Thirdly, it was not a political accord as it was only an administrative institution. The law and order was to be maintained by the state government. Fourthly, the leaders had to accept only half the area of they actually demanded. It includes 2750 villages only rather than the 4635 initially demanded. Also the area of the BAC is still not defined. All these shortcomings have led to discontent among the Bodo people. The situation is very vulnerable and an outburst again is not far away. Infact a strife did take place in mid 2012 in Assam again.

So we see that the there was unnecessary killing of people. The people of different religions and communities were rendered homeless. They had to live in refugee camps. The strife led to the destruction of the valuable forest and wildlife resources because the Bodo security force took shelter in the Manas wildlife reserve. The area was exploited indiscriminately by the security forces. But it seems that the lines of agreement did not do justice to the struggle. All the loss of lives seemed to be in vain the destruction of forests were in vain because they did not receive even half of their want.

Conclusion

We see that even if the state had earlier yielded to the linguistic reorganization of states in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s they are opposing now. The increasing opposition by the Central and State governments in the recent times has shown that the country is not ready for further divisions. Where they have initially supported the tribal groups in the border areas for the formation of states they are not supporting it now for further division. Thus, the Bodoland, Gorkhaland and Nagalim movement did not hold good. All these movements failed and statehood was not granted.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer