The south Indian states of Kerala, Karnataka (former Mysore state), Andhra Pradesh (undivided), and Tamil Nadu (former Madras state) were formed on November 1, 1956, as a result of the linguistic reorganisation of states by amalgamating various administrative units. The language that was dominantly spoken in each of these regions was considered the determining factor of identity unification despite the differences in religion, caste, class, and others in each ‘state’.
As per the State Reorganisation Act of 1956, it is assumed that speakers of a language could find a ‘home’ state. A “state language” was meant to give the speakers a sense of belonging to their state. The irony of the “state language” is that it is the dominant language and not the only language spoken in the state. The choice of language for a state ignores the presence of linguistic diversity and linguistic minorities within the state. Preserving the linguistic and cultural rights of these minorities posed a new challenge for modern India, a challenge that remains particularly visible in the border districts and taluks to this day.
Navigating India's multilingual and multi-ethnic reality
Language is a crucial marker in the building and maintenance of ethnic identity. Ethnicity is more closely tied to language than to other social factors such as religion, caste, or class. India, being inherently multi-ethnic and multilingual across its sub-units, faced significant challenges in the first decade after Partition. Communal violence, secessionist movements in the Northeast (Nagaland and Mizoram), Dravidian nationalism, and opposition to Hindi imposition raised fears among Indian leaders and international observers about the potential balkanisation of the country along ethno-linguistic lines.
In the essay “Thoughts on Linguistic States” (1955), Dr BR Ambedkar warned that a group's ethnocentric demand for an official state language could lead to calls for independent nationhood, as the distinction between statehood and nationhood was very narrow. He opposed the idea of each state having its own official language, believing it risked fragmenting India and undermining national unity. He emphasised the dangers of the ‘one state, one language’, arguing that having multiple states with a shared language would reduce the likelihood of those states perceiving themselves as separate ‘nations’. According to him, this approach would help maintain a more balanced majority-to-minority ratio. Nevertheless, India went on to create states based on dominant regional languages.
To maintain cohesion, the Indian nation-state had to continually negotiate the demands of its diverse ethnic groups, balancing these interests to prevent internal unrest and secessionist movements. Nearly seven decades after the linguistic formation of states, we have seen many states divide further (such as Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, etc.) not based on language but due to socio-political movements driven by tribal/ethnic considerations, historic legacies, or territorial neglect.
Linguistic reorganisation in India emerged as a response to the arbitrary state and district boundaries established during colonial rule, which lacked linguistic, ethnic, or cultural foundations. The Indian National Congress first supported linguistic reorganisation in 1905, reaffirming it as a political goal in the 1920s. Post-Independence, the Dhar Commission (1948) and JVP Committee (1949) expressed caution about reorganising states on linguistic grounds due to concerns about national unity. However, widespread agitation, particularly in Andhra, culminated in the death of Potti Sriramulu in 1952 and prompted Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to form the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953. The SRC’s 1955 report laid the groundwork for the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956. In southern India, this reorganisation led to the formation of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh, based on linguistic identities, while adjusting boundaries at the taluka level in some cases to account for language majorities.
However, the SRC report had cautioned, “The idea that all people who speak the same language and constitute a majority, whether in a village or a taluk, should be attached to their home land will do immense harm to our national growth and must, therefore, be rejected unequivocally,” and suggested a balanced approach, “[while recognising] linguistic homogeneity as an important factor conducive to administrative convenience and efficiency but not to consider it as an exclusive and binding principle, overriding all other considerations, administrative, financial, or political” (SRC, 1955; para 157).
Celebrating state formation and federalism is crucial in the face of growing centralisation by the Union. While reorganising states is often seen as a win for federalism, allowing recognition of dominant linguistic and ethnic identities, states themselves remain culturally diverse, encompassing various languages, cultures, castes, and tribes.
The centrality of the state language works in the same logic as that of the national language, which in turn works in the same logic as the idea of the nation as an “imagined community.”. The state is imagined as a homogenous community of speakers of the “state language.” The linguistic reorganisation of states made hard boundaries, like drawing something similar to the Radcliffe line over territories where common languages were spoken.
What happens to the continuum of a language spoken across what became state borders? For instance, Kannada in Kasaragod, Telugu in Madras (Chennai), and Tamil in Palakkad and Kanyakumari. What happens to the hundreds of “minority” languages (grouped as ‘non- scheduled’ languages) in the geographical margins of the state?
While states have their official “state language,” no single state can claim to be monolingual. In an earlier article on linguistic diversity, one of the authors mapped the linguistic diversity of Indian states and showed that the Indian Census obscures the diversity by clubbing mother tongues under the dominant languages (with divergence at its maximum in the northern ‘Hindi’ states).
Furthermore, the state's creation of language hierarchies – through the designation of Scheduled languages and classical status – marginalises minority and tribal languages. The selective use of state language as the main medium of instruction in government schools suppresses the rights of linguistic minorities by preventing education in children's mother tongue. These issues are particularly pronounced in the borderlands of states.
The Census of Mysore (pre-reorganisation) in 1951 shows the multilingualism explicitly in all the districts of erstwhile Mysore princely state. The state overall had 66% Kannada speakers, followed by Telugu, Tamil, Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu), and Marathi. Bangalore district and the city were extremely diverse. While the district had a majority of Kannada speakers (64%), the city (Bangalore Corporation) had 31.7% Tamil, 23.7% Kannada, and 17.8% Telugu-speaking population. KGF City and Kolar had a Tamil and Telugu majority. The Kannada majority was primarily in the interior districts (Mandya, Hassan, Mysore, Tumkur, etc.).
The SRC report noted some of these tensions. Kannadigas in South Kanara claimed Kasaragod taluk beyond Chandragiri river. The SRC, however, considered it administratively simpler to include the entire taluk in Kerala rather than dividing it based solely on language. Kolar district, which was a Telugu majority, recommended it to be within Karnataka state due to its intimate ties with erstwhile Mysore state and economic importance of gold mines (which the former princely state had nurtured). It conceded to the Madras state’s (now Tamil Nadu) claim to merge Tamil-speaking talukas of the Travancore-Cochin state based on linguistic and geographical proximity. At the other end, it recommended the non-Tamil areas of Madras (Malabar and South Kanara district, and Kollegal taluk of Coimbatore district) be transferred to Kerala and Karnataka.
The first census after the reorganisation in 1961 further reflected the linguistic tension across the borderlands. In Tamil Nadu’s border talukas, for example, 10-15% of the population spoke languages other than Tamil, such as Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam. Similarly, the 1961 Mysore Census revealed that Kannada speakers constituted less than 40% in South Canara and Kolar and between 40 and 60% of the population in districts like Bangalore, North Canara, and Bidar, with strong presences of Telugu, Urdu, and Tulu speakers. These examples highlight the continuing diversity of language in border regions, even after linguistic reorganisation, challenging the narrative of homogeneity around the state language.
While states celebrate their formation day with a focus on the dominant regional language, often to the exclusion of other dialects and minority languages, the reality in the borderlands reminds us of the multilingual and multicultural fabric that still exists across these regions. This linguistic diversity challenges the simplistic idea of language-based state formation and raises important questions about representation, identity, and inclusion in contemporary India.
The SRC had recommended protection of the rights of linguistic minorities, especially with regard to education. Article 350A, added by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956, mandates states and local authorities to provide adequate facilities for primary education in the mother tongue for children from linguistic minority groups. However, without legal enforcement, states have largely neglected this duty. Schools for linguistic minorities, such as Telugu and Tamil schools in Bengaluru, have been neglected, with many being converted to state-language schools or shut down. In tribal areas, children face difficulties as the medium of instruction is the state language, with no textbooks in their native languages and teachers often unprepared to teach in tribal languages.
While celebrating the Rajyabhasha (state language), the state must remain mindful of the linguistic diversity within its borders and respect the multitude of bhashas (languages) and mathrubhashas (mother tongues) spoken by its people. True unity emerges not from imposing homogeneity but from embracing and celebrating the rich heterogeneity of cultures, languages, and lifestyles that bring vibrancy and depth to these regions. By respecting micro-level diversities and promoting language inclusivity, states can foster a sense of belonging. This approach allows the state to support its official language in a way that uplifts rather than marginalises other linguistic communities.
Shivakumar Jolad teaches Public Policy at FLAME University, Pune, and Rajitha Venugopal teaches Literary and Cultural Studies. Views expressed here are the authors’ own.