All questions of Union Territories for BPSC (Bihar) Exam

C

Hyderabad was integrated using police action whereas Junagadh and Sikkim (Sikkim later in 1974) through a referendum. An instrument of accession integrated Kashmir. Nagaland was part of Indian Union later separated from Assam.

Territory of India vs Union of India

Territory of India
- Includes not only states but also union territories and territories that may be acquired by the Government of India at any future time.

Union of India
- Includes only states.

India's Acquisition of Foreign Territories
- India can acquire foreign territories according to the modes recognized by international law.

Parliament's Power to Establish New States
- Parliament can establish new states that were not a part of the Union of India.

Overall, all three statements are correct. The 'Territory of India' is a wider expression that encompasses not only states but also union territories and territories that may be acquired in the future. India can acquire foreign territories according to international law. Additionally, Parliament has the power to establish new states that were not originally part of the Union of India.

Parliament's Power to Reorganize States:

1. Introduction of State reorganization bill: A State reorganization bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President. This means that the President must approve the bill before it can be introduced in the Parliament.

2. Sending the bill to Governor: After the bill is introduced in the Parliament, the Home Minister must send the bill to the Governor concerned for his ratification. The Governor must approve the bill before it can be passed by the Parliament.

3. Supreme Court's Review: If a state legislature unanimously opposes reorganization of the state concerned, the bill is sent to the Supreme Court for a review. This means that if the state legislature does not agree with the reorganization plan, the matter is referred to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Correct Answer: Option A (1 only)

Explanation: The statement "A State reorganization bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President" is correct. However, the statement "The Home Minister must send the bill to the Governor concerned for his ratification" is not correct. The bill is sent to the Governor for his views and not for his ratification. The statement "If a state legislature unanimously opposes reorganization of the state concerned, the bill is sent to the Supreme Court for a review" is also not correct. The bill can still be passed by the Parliament even if the state legislature opposes it. However, the Supreme Court can be approached if there is a dispute regarding the reorganization plan.

The correct answer is option B, which states that the boundary commission headed by Radcliff demarcated the boundaries between the two Dominions of India and Pakistan.

Explanation:

1. The Partition of India:
- The partition of India was a significant event that took place in 1947, leading to the creation of two separate nations - India and Pakistan.
- The partition was a result of the Indian Independence Act of 1947, which proposed the division of British India into two dominions, one with a Hindu majority (India) and the other with a Muslim majority (Pakistan).
- The partition was accompanied by widespread violence, communal riots, and mass migration, resulting in the displacement and loss of lives of millions of people.

2. The Radcliff Boundary Commission:
- In order to determine the boundaries between India and Pakistan, the British government appointed a boundary commission headed by Sir Cyril Radcliff, a British lawyer and judge.
- The commission was tasked with the demarcation of the boundary between the two new nations based on religious demographics and other factors.
- Radcliff and his team were faced with the daunting challenge of drawing the borders within a short period of time, leading to several contentious decisions and disputes.

3. Demarcation of Boundaries:
- The Radcliff Boundary Commission relied on various factors such as religious demographics, administrative boundaries, and geographical considerations to demarcate the boundaries between India and Pakistan.
- The commission examined maps, census data, and consulted with local leaders and officials to make their decisions.
- The demarcation process was complex and involved drawing lines through areas with mixed populations, resulting in the displacement of communities and the division of regions.
- The commission faced criticism for the lack of precision and the arbitrary nature of some of its decisions, leading to ongoing border disputes between India and Pakistan.

4. Aftermath and Legacy:
- The demarcation of boundaries by the Radcliff Commission had far-reaching consequences for the newly formed nations of India and Pakistan.
- It resulted in the division of Punjab and Bengal provinces, which witnessed widespread violence and mass migration.
- The partition also led to the displacement of millions of people, communal tensions, and ongoing conflicts over disputed territories.
- The Radcliff Line, the boundary drawn by the commission, continues to be a source of tension between India and Pakistan, with various disputes and conflicts arising along the border over the years.

In conclusion, the boundary commission headed by Radcliff was responsible for demarcating the boundaries between the two Dominions of India and Pakistan during the partition in 1947. The commission's decisions and the resulting Radcliff Line have had a profound impact on the history and geopolitical landscape of the region.

The JVP Committee

The JVP Committee refers to a committee that was formed in 1927 by three prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. The key objective of the committee was to address the issue of reorganizing the Indian states on linguistic basis.

Reorganization of States on Linguistic Basis

The JVP Committee's primary focus was on linguistic reorganization of the states in India. The committee recognized that language played a crucial role in shaping the identity of a region and the people living in it. The committee felt that reorganizing the states on linguistic basis would help in preserving the cultural identity of different regions, promote national unity, and improve governance.

The committee's recommendations were based on the idea that each state should have a dominant language. The states were to be reorganized in a way that the people speaking the same language were brought together. The committee proposed that the reorganization of states should be done along linguistic lines, and the creation of new states should be based on the linguistic identity of the people.

Impact of JVP Committee Recommendations

The recommendations made by the JVP Committee were not immediately implemented. However, they set the stage for the reorganization of states on linguistic basis, which was eventually implemented in 1956 with the States Reorganization Act. The act created linguistic states based on the recommendations of the JVP Committee.

The reorganization of states on linguistic basis had a significant impact on the political and social landscape of India. It helped in strengthening the regional identities and gave a voice to the people who had been marginalized for a long time. The linguistic reorganization of states also helped in improving governance by making the administration more accessible to the people.

Conclusion

The JVP Committee played a crucial role in shaping the political and social landscape of India. The committee's recommendations paved the way for the reorganization of states on linguistic basis, which was a significant step towards preserving the cultural identity of different regions and promoting national unity. The JVP Committee's legacy continues to influence Indian politics even today, and its recommendations remain relevant in the present context.

Wrong answer. if question asks for incorrect, then 3 only will be answer.

Article 3 authorizes the Parliament to