Which one of the following statements is not correct about reorganisation of states?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → The States Reorganization Commission was formed in 1953 and its report accepted administrative convenience and religious affinities to reflect the boundaries of the state.
Option (1) The formation of Andhra spurred the struggle for statehood on linguistic basis in other parts of the country. True. The formation of Andhra spurred the struggle for making other states on linguistic lines.
Option (2) The States Reorganization Commission was formed in 1953 and its report accepted administrative convenience and religious affinities to reflect the boundaries of the state. False. The Commission was indeed appointed in 1953, but its report accepted that the boundaries of the state should reflect the boundaries of different languages. Administrative convenience was the basis of the boundaries drawn in colonial times.
Option (3) The States Reorganization Act was passed in 1956. True. It led to the creation of 14 states and six union territories.
Option (4) Linguistic reorganisation of states strengthened national unity True. It did not lead to disintegration as many had feared; on the contrary it strengthened national unity.
NCERT (2025-26): “Reorganisation of States … The formation of Andhra spurred the struggle for making of other states on linguistic lines in other parts of the country. These struggles forced the Central Government into appointing a States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 to look into the question of redrawing of the boundaries of states. The Commission in its report accepted that the boundaries of the state should reflect the boundaries of different languages. On the basis of its report the States Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956. This led to the creation of 14 states and six union territories. 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.…” |