UPSC Prelims—Polity/History (1947–56 integration, States Reorganisation Act 1956); Mains GS-I—Post-Independence consolidation; GS-II—Federalism & Centre–State relations

The big picture: how a very diverse land became one Union (1947–49)

When India became independent in 1947, the map was not a single neat unit. There were former British provinces and hundreds of princely states ruled by hereditary chiefs who had treaty relations with the British Crown. The new government had to bring all these parts into one constitutional system quickly so that defence, currency, railways, courts, and trade could function smoothly.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (as Home Minister) and V. P. Menon (as key civil servant) led this integration using two simple legal tools:

• Instrument of Accession: The ruler agreed to hand over powers on defence, external affairs, and communications to the Indian Union.
  
• Standstill Agreement: Daily administration continued as before for a limited time while talks proceeded on the future relationship.
  

This quiet, practical approach — firm where needed, reassuring where possible — brought almost all rulers into the Union within months. After accession, many tiny states were merged into larger administrative units so governance would be practical. The message was clear: one democratic Constitution, one economy, one security framework.

Why it worked

• Entry was simple at the start (only three Union subjects), so rulers found it easier to sign.
  
• The Union moved quickly to rationalise many small units into larger formations, preparing the ground for the later reorganisation of states.

A difficult case study: Operation Polo (Hyderabad, 13–18 September 1948)

Context: The Nizam of Hyderabad did not wish to accede; inside the state, the Razakars militia gained strength and violence increased. India had a standstill agreement with Hyderabad in 1947, but negotiations failed. With law and order collapsing and the risk to citizens rising, the Union decided on a brief, targeted “police action.”

What happened: On 13 September 1948, Indian forces under Maj. Gen. J. N. Chaudhuri entered Hyderabad. In about five days, the state forces surrendered; by 18 September, the Nizam accepted Indian authority. Hyderabad signed the Instrument of Accession, and a military administrator managed the transition. This action is known as Operation Polo.

Why it was tricky

• The Nizam’s refusal created a legal–political vacuum at the heart of the Deccan.
  
• Militia-linked violence and communal tension made a negotiated solution unstable.
  
• The Union’s aim was swift restoration of order with minimal bloodshed, while protecting citizens and national unity.
  

Aftermath and debates:
Historians continue to discuss the scale and nature of violence in the period around and after Polo. A committee appointed by the Union government later recorded serious excesses and heavy civilian deaths. 

What Operation Polo teaches: India’s integration was mostly diplomatic and legal, but where governance collapsed and talks failed, limited force was used to protect citizens and the Union—followed by administrative normalisation.

From accession to reorganisation: why linguistic states emerged (1953–56)

Once territorial integration was stable, public pressure grew for states that matched major languages. The argument was democratic: people should deal with government in a language they understand; this makes participation and administration easier.

• A key trigger was Potti Sriramulu’s fast (1952) for a Telugu-speaking state. His death led to Andhra State (1953), proving how strong the linguistic demand had become.
  
• The Union appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC, 1953–55) to study the entire map. Its central message: language is important, but not the only criterion. Unity, administrative convenience, economics, and geography also matter.
  
• Based on this balanced view, Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which redrew much of India mostly along linguistic lines. Examples include Kerala and a larger Andhra Pradesh (by merging Telugu areas of the former Hyderabad State). Later, Maharashtra and Gujarat were created, further aligning states with language communities.
  

Two things to remember

• Language helps democracy, but it cannot be the sole test for state boundaries.
• 1956 provided a workable federal map while keeping the door open to future changes if needed.
  

How new states are created today: Article 3 

• Article 3 of the Constitution allows Parliament to form a new state or change the area, boundary, or name of an existing state.
  
• Before introducing such a Bill, the President must send it to the concerned State Legislature to obtain its views. These views are not binding on Parliament.
  
• In practice, even strong local movements need national-level consensus to pass an Article 3 law.
  

Where we stand now: India has 28 States and 8 Union Territories. In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the Union’s 2019 changes regarding Jammu & Kashmir and stated that statehood for J&K should be restored as soon as possible. The Court also clarified that assembly elections do not have to wait for the restoration of statehood. This shows how federal questions continue to be settled within constitutional limits.

Today’s demands for newer, smaller states: what is active and why

The drivers of statehood demands have shifted. Earlier, language was the main factor. Today, demands often blend governance, development, identity, and representation:

• Governance & development: Many regions feel neglected inside large states—slow roads, fewer colleges or hospitals, low capital spending, and weak recruitment.
  
• Distance & access: Far corners are physically distant from state capitals; people want closer decision-making.
  
• Identity & land: Tribal and ethnic groups seek cultural protection and special safeguards (like Sixth Schedule protections) for land and customs.
  
• Political voice: Smaller states may produce more responsive assemblies and cabinets for those regions.
  

Recent Examples (2024–25)

• Ladakh (Union Territory): Strong campaigns continue for statehood and Sixth Schedule protections; public fasts and mass meetings in Leh keep attention on land, jobs, and ecology.
  
• Vidarbha (eastern Maharashtra): Mobilisations highlight development imbalance and distance from the capital; the demand is for a separate state using Article 3.
  
• ‘Greater Tipraland’ (Tripura): A tripartite accord in 2024 promised a constitutional solution for tribal concerns; the debate over the exact institutional shape remains active.
  
• Garoland (Meghalaya/Assam Garo areas): Organisations have again petitioned for a separate state on cultural and administrative grounds.
  
• Gorkhaland (Darjeeling hills): The idea of statehood remains a recurring rallying point in hill politics, shaping local alignments even when not on the immediate legislative agenda.
  

Terminology note: People sometimes say “Borderland” when they actually mean Bodoland. Today, the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) exists inside Assam under special arrangements after a recent accord. A separate full state is not an active near-term legislative proposal, though it is part of a longer historical debate.

Administrative lesson to remember: Creating a state is not just drawing a line on the map. It means running millions of daily services—policing, courts, schools, hospitals, land records, pensions—and cleanly splitting assets, liabilities, employees, and cadres. This is why Article 3 changes are infrequent and require broad political consensus.

What the States Reorganisation experience still teaches 

• Language made democracy easier, but the SRC warned against language as the only test. Administrative capacity, economic viability, and national unity must be balanced.
  
• Speed versus stability: Creating a state without ready police, judiciary, district administration, and finances invites new problems.
  
• Economics counts: A sustainable five-year fiscal plan is essential—own taxes, GST share, grants, and a capital pipeline.
  
• Transition law is everything: Smooth division of employees, assets, ongoing projects, and court jurisdictions reduces friction.
  
• Politics decides timing: Even large local movements must translate into Parliamentary numbers to pass an Article 3 Bill.

Way forward for new statehood demands: a people-first framework

Instead of yes/no politics, use a transparent set of tests. This respects regional aspirations, protects citizens’ services, and keeps national unity safe.

A) Tests before any decision

• Administrative test: Can the proposed state staff police stations, courts, schools, health centres, and revenue offices within 2–3 years? Is there a credible plan to fill vacancies and train staff?
  
• Economic test: Publish a five-year fiscal plan—own tax base (excise, stamp duty, motor vehicles, etc.), GST share, expected grants, and a clear capital spending list (roads, irrigation, digital backbone, hospitals, universities).
  
• Social test: Where relevant, spell out tribal and linguistic protections (for example, Sixth Schedule or special land safeguards) so communities feel secure from Day 1.
  
• Boundary test: Identify and pre-settle water, forest, city, and highway issues with neighbours. If needed, notify an independent tribunal for legacy disputes.
  

B) Process that builds trust

• Green Paper → White Paper: Share all assumptions, maps, costs, and revenue math publicly; invite comments from districts and civil society.
  
• Time-bound consultations: Hear district panchayats, tribal councils, industry bodies, farm and transport unions, universities. Keep meeting notes public.
  
• Transition law (Reorganisation Act): Put in one place the asset–liability split, cadre allocation, court jurisdiction, pension continuity, procurement handover, and temporary revenue-sharing formulas.
  
• Citizen continuity: Guarantee no break in pensions, rations, scholarships, and health cover. Create one-stop service desks during the changeover.
  

C) Safeguards after a new state is created

• Tapered Union support: Provide a 3–5 year special grant, declining every year, focused on building capacity (police training schools, judicial infrastructure, medical colleges, teacher recruitment).
  
• Independent finance panel: A joint body (Union plus both concerned states/UTs) to review the fiscal plan every six months, publish dashboards, and correct slippages early.
  
• Inter-state coordination council: A standing forum for water sharing, power purchase, highway maintenance, and policing to prevent friction.
  

D) Alternatives when full statehood is not immediately necessary

• Special regional development boards with a notified share of the state budget and transparent project lists.
  
• More districts/sub-divisions and bench courts to bring services closer without redrawing boundaries.
  
• Autonomy packages within the Constitution (where possible) for language, culture, and land—so people feel respected even before any boundary change.
  

It takes the drama out of the question, puts citizens first, and ensures continuity of services. It also keeps unity safe by making every step rule-bound, costed, and consultative.

India’s post-Independence integration was a blend of persuasion, law, and limited force—with Operation Polo standing out as a brief, decisive step when talks failed and violence grew. The 1956 linguistic reorganisation then turned that political unity into a workable federal map, while warning that language alone cannot be the guide. Our Constitution keeps the door open to change through Article 3 because citizens’ needs evolve. As new demands rise—from Ladakh to Vidarbha and tribal regions in the Northeast—the right path is neither denial nor haste. It is a transparent, test-based process that protects services, finances, and rights, while keeping national unity secure.

Exam Hook

Key take aways

• Integration, 1947–49: Patel–Menon brought hundreds of princely states into one Union using accession and standstill; a few holdouts needed firm action. Operation Polo (13–18 September 1948) integrated Hyderabad after talks failed and violence rose.
  
• Reorganisation, 1956: The SRC said language matters but is not the sole test; Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act, redrawing the map largely on linguistic lines; Potti Sriramulu’s fast (1952) triggered the first big move (Andhra, 1953).
  
• Article 3 today: Parliament can create or alter states; the State Legislature’s views are consultative, not binding. India has 28 States + 8 UTs. The Supreme Court has said statehood for J&K should be restored as soon as possible.
  
• Current demands (2024–25): Ladakh (statehood + Sixth Schedule), Vidarbha, Greater Tipraland, Garoland, and the continuing Gorkhaland sentiment. Use these as contemporary examples.
  

Mains practice

“From accession to linguistic reorganisation and today’s fresh demands, how should India decide on new states without harming national unity? Explain with Operation Polo, SRC’s balancing principle, Article 3, and one current movement.”