What did the acceptance of linguistic states mean for Indian democracy?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Democracy was associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life.
Option (1) Democracy was associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life. — Correct. Linguistic states underlined the acceptance of the principle of diversity: democracy, in other words, was associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life.
Option (2) The threat of secessionism was greater than the respect for diversity. — Incorrect. Leaders had feared that states based on language might foster separatism. The experience proved the opposite: linguistic reorganisation did not lead to disintegration and strengthened national unity, while respect for diversity was its very basis.
Option (3) Democracy was only concerned with the format of elections India had adopted. — Incorrect. Adopting democracy did not merely mean adopting the format of elections. It was a larger choice, in favour of recognising and accepting differences that could at times be oppositional.
Option (4) Disintegration was a political reality that would cross India’s path sooner or later. — Incorrect. Disintegration was the fear of the early years, not the lesson of linguistic states. Fifty years on, the linguistic states had not led to disintegration; they strengthened national unity.
NCERT (2025-26): “Reorganisation of States … Now it is more than fifty years since the formation of linguistic states. We can say that linguistic states and the movements for the formation of these states changed the nature of democratic politics and leadership in some basic ways. The path to politics and power was now open to people other than the small English speaking elite. Linguistic reorganisation also gave some uniform basis to the drawing of state boundaries. It did not lead to disintegration of the country as many had feared earlier. On the contrary it strengthened national unity. Above all, the linguistic states underlined the acceptance of the principle of diversity. When we say that India adopted democracy, it does not simply mean that India embraced a democratic constitution, nor does it merely mean that India adopted the format of elections. The choice was larger than that. It was a choice in favour of recognising and accepting the existence of differences which could at times be oppositional. Democracy, in other words, was associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life. Much of the politics in the later period was to take place within this framework.” |