Overview: Union & its Territory | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

The Union & its Territory

Given the immense diversity of the subcontinent, the drafters of the Indian Constitution designed a federal union modeled on the Government of India Act of 1935. Although it was initially a highly centralized system, regional political forces have consistently sought to lessen the central government's control over the states.
Articles 1 to 4 of the Constitution deal with the Union and its territories. Currently, there are 28 states and 8 union territories.

India – A Union of States

Article 1 of the Constitution defines India, or Bharat, as a Union of states. Due to a lack of consensus in the Constituent Assembly on the country's name, both the traditional name "Bharat" and the modern name "India" were adopted. Despite the federal nature of the Constitution, the term "Union of India" is used instead of "Federation of States." Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explained this choice by stating that:

• The Indian Federation is not based on an agreement between states, unlike the American Federation.
• States have no right to secede from the Union, making it indestructible.

Classification of Territories:
Article 1 classifies Indian territories into three categories:

1. Territories of the states.
2. Union territories.
3. Territories that may be acquired by the Government of India.

The names of the states, union territories, and their territorial extent are listed in the Constitution's 1st Schedule.

• 'Territory of India' and 'Union of States': The "Territory of India" is a broader term than the "Union of India." While the Union only includes states, the Territory encompasses states, union territories, and any land India may acquire in the future.
• Acquisition of Foreign Territory: India can acquire foreign territories through internationally recognized means, such as cession (via treaties, purchase, gift, lease, or plebiscite), occupation (of unclaimed territory), conquest, or subjugation. Examples include the acquisitions of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, and Sikkim.

Articles 2 and 3 – Admission and Reorganisation of States:

• Article 2 empowers Parliament to admit and establish new states within India.
• Article 3 allows for internal adjustments within India's states. Parliament holds broad powers to reorganize states and union territories, giving it the authority to modify the political map of India. This flexibility has led to the Union being described as an "indestructible union of destructible states."

Under Article 3, Parliament can:

• Create new states by altering existing ones.
• Expand or reduce the area of any state.
• Modify state boundaries.
• Rename states.

Conditions for State Reorganisation:
Two conditions are required for the reorganisation of states:

1. A bill proposing changes must have the President's recommendation before being introduced in Parliament.
2. The President must refer the bill to the affected state's legislature for its opinion, but is not bound by the legislature's response. This referral process does not apply to union territories.

Article 4: Laws enacted under Articles 2 and 3 (regarding new states or changes to boundaries, areas, and names) do not qualify as constitutional amendments under Article 368. Thus, only a simple majority in Parliament is required to pass such legislation, making the process similar to ordinary lawmaking.

Case Study: Berubari Union

• The issue of whether Parliament, under Article 3, has the authority to cede Indian territory to a foreign country surfaced when the central government's decision to transfer a part of the Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan triggered political controversy. This matter required a Presidential reference under Article 143.
• The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament's powers under Article 3 do not extend to ceding Indian territory to a foreign nation. As a result, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1960 had to be enacted to transfer the specified territory.
• In a 1969 ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that resolving disputes between India and another country does not require a constitutional amendment, as long as it doesn't involve the cession of territory. Such actions can be executed through the executive branch. However, if the executive decides to cede territory, Parliament must pass a constitutional amendment to formalize the transfer.

Organisation of States Post-Independence India

Independent India inherited a fragmented political-administrative structure from the British. The primary task of the Constituent Assembly and the interim government was to rationalize this structure. The most pressing issue was the integration of the princely states.

At the time of independence, there were two types of political entities:

1. British Provinces – directly administered by the British government.
2. Princely States – ruled by local princes under British paramountcy.

There were around 550 princely states at independence. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 gave these states the choice to join either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent (although the Mountbatten Plan ruled out independence).

All the princely states within India's geographic boundaries signed the Instrument of Accession and joined India, with the exception of Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Jammu and Kashmir. These states were later integrated with India by different means:

• Hyderabad through police action.
• Junagarh via a referendum.
• Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession following an invasion by Pakistani tribal forces.

Grouping of States

Post-independence, the states of India were initially grouped into four categories:

1. Part A: Included the major provinces of British India such as Bihar, Bombay, the Central Provinces and Berar, Madras, Orissa, the United Provinces (later renamed Uttar Pradesh), Assam, East Punjab, and West Bengal.

2. Part B: Comprised major princely states that had joined India.

3. Part C: Consisted of smaller princely states and certain former chief commissioner’s provinces.

4. Part D: Included the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were considered extremely backward at the time.

This categorization was a temporary administrative measure to streamline the integration of various regions into a coherent political structure.

• Part A states: These were the former British provinces. They were administered by an elected governor and state legislature. The 9 states in this category were Assam, Bihar, Bombay, East Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
• Part B states: These consisted of the former princely states. They were governed by a Rajpramukh, who was typically a former prince. The 9 states in this category were Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Mysore, Madhya Bharat, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan, Vindhya Pradesh, Travancore-Cochin, and Saurashtra.
• Part C states: This category included former princely states and provinces, which were administered by a Chief Commissioner or Lieutenant Governor. The 10 states under this category were Ajmer, Coorg, Cooch-Behar, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, and Tripura.
• Part D: This included the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were categorized as a Union Territory and governed by a Chief Commissioner appointed by the President.

Linguistic Demands and State Boundaries

The call for reorganizing states based on linguistic lines was not a new idea that emerged after India's independence; it had roots in British India as well. The anti-partition movement in Bengal sparked similar linguistic aspirations in regions like Andhra (part of the Madras province) and Orissa.

• In 1920, the Indian National Congress organized its party units along linguistic lines.
• By 1930, at its Madras session, Congress passed a resolution advocating for provinces to be reorganized on the basis of language.
• In 1928, the All-Party Conference recognized Sindhi as a distinct language and did not oppose the formation of Sindh province.

However, the painful experience of Partition made the Constituent Assembly reluctant to immediately grant linguistic states.

Dhar Commission and JVP Committee

• Following demands from various parts of the country, particularly from southern states, for linguistic reorganization, the government constituted the Dhar Commission in June 1948, chaired by S.K. Dhar. The Commission recommended reorganizing states based on administrative convenience rather than language.
• The Dhar Commission’s report caused widespread dissatisfaction, leading Congress to form another committee in 1949 with Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya as members—hence called the JVP Committee. In its report, the JVP Committee rejected the idea of reorganizing states based solely on language.
• However, by 1953, the agitation in Andhra, especially following the death of Gandhian leader Potti Sriramalu during a hunger strike, forced the government to create the state of Andhra Pradesh by carving out the Telugu-speaking regions from Madras.

State Reorganisation Commission (Fazl Ali Commission)

• The creation of Andhra Pradesh fueled demands for linguistic reorganization in other regions. In response, the government appointed the State Reorganisation Commission in 1953, led by Fazl Ali. The commission, while rejecting the "one language-one state" theory, broadly supported language as a basis for reorganizing states, emphasizing that the unity of India must be the foremost consideration.
• The Fazl Ali Commission recommended reducing the four categories of states (Parts A, B, C, and D) to just two: States and Union Territories. It also suggested merging the Part B state of Hyderabad with Andhra.
• Based on the commission's report, Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, abolishing the earlier fourfold classification and dividing India into States and Union Territories. Several smaller states were merged with neighboring states.
• As a result of this reorganization, India had 14 states and 6 Union Territories.

Formation of States Post-1956 and Ethnic States

Despite the large-scale reorganization of states in 1956, demands for further restructuring on the basis of language, cultural identity, and ethnicity persisted, leading to the bifurcation of existing states.

• Gujarat and Maharashtra: Agitations based on language led to the division of the Bombay state in 1960, creating Gujarat for Gujarati-speaking people and Maharashtra for Marathi-speaking people.

• Dadra and Nagar Haveli: This territory was liberated from Portuguese rule in 1954 and governed by a local body until 1961, when it became a Union Territory via the 10th Constitutional Amendment Act.

• Goa, Daman, and Diu: Acquired from Portugal through police action in 1961, these territories were made a Union Territory in 1962 through the 12th Constitutional Amendment Act. Goa achieved statehood in 1987, while Daman and Diu remained a Union Territory. In 2019, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu were merged into a single Union Territory.

• Puducherry: The French ceded control of Puducherry, Yanam, Karaikal, and Mahe to India in 1954. These territories were administered as acquired territories until 1962, when the 14th Constitutional Amendment Act constituted them as a Union Territory.

• Haryana, Chandigarh, and Himachal Pradesh: Due to demands for a separate Sikh state, the Shah Commission recommended the bifurcation of Punjab in 1966. This led to the creation of Haryana from the Hindi-speaking regions, while the Punjabi-speaking regions formed Punjab. The hilly areas were merged with Himachal Pradesh, which became a state in 1971.

• Sikkim: Initially a princely state under British India, Sikkim became a "Protectorate" of India after independence. In 1974, it was given the status of an "associate state" through the 35th Constitutional Amendment Act, but in 1975, a referendum resulted in the abolition of its monarchy. The 36th Constitutional Amendment Act granted full statehood to Sikkim, adding Article 371F to the Constitution for special provisions concerning its administration.

• Telangana: Carved out of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, Telangana's separation stemmed from the longstanding demand of the Telangana people, who felt apprehensive after merging with Andhra Pradesh due to the latter’s stronger economic position. Despite the common language (Telugu), the historical differences led to the formation of Telangana as India's 29th state.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation

On 31 October 2019, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganized into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh—under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. This move was preceded by a constitutional change that rendered Article 370 inoperative, making all provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.
The reorganisation fulfilled the long-standing demand of Ladakh, whose residents had expressed concerns about neglect. Additionally, geopolitical reasons contributed to the decision.

• Administration: Both Union Territories (UTs) are administered under Article 239A by Lieutenant Governors. The UT of Jammu & Kashmir retains a legislature, while Ladakh has no legislature.

• Delimitation Commission (2020): The commission increased the number of seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from 107 to 114, including 24 seats reserved for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). It also recommended provisions for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes (STs), Kashmiri migrants, and displaced persons from PoK.

Ethnic States

The formation of ethnic states in India began in 1963 with Nagaland.

• Nagaland: This state was established by carving out the Naga Hills and Tuensang areas from Assam.

• Manipur, Tripura, and Meghalaya: In 1970, the autonomous state of Meghalaya was formed from the autonomous districts of Garo, Khasi, and Jaintiya Hills. It was granted full statehood in 1972 through the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, which also included the merger of some non-tribal areas. Both Manipur and Tripura, previously Union Territories, were promoted to full state status around the same time. Additionally, two new Union Territories were created from Assam: Arunachal Pradesh (formerly the North-East Frontier Agency) and Mizoram (formerly the Mizo Hills District). In 1986, both Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh achieved full statehood.

• Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand: In 2000, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were formed from the tribal regions of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, respectively, where the majority population was tribal. The same year, Uttarakhand was created as a hill state by splitting from Uttar Pradesh.

Reasons Behind Statehood Demands

Demands for statehood based on region, language, ethnicity, and backwardness continue in various parts of India. Several factors contribute to these demands:

1. Colonial Legacy: The territorial arrangements made during the colonial period were primarily administrative, neglecting the country’s linguistic, regional, and ethnic diversity.

2. Historical Boundaries: India did not have a centralized political structure prior to British rule; the pre-British boundaries were often based on ethno-cultural considerations. The end of British rule allowed these old ethno-cultural identities to reassert themselves.

3. Democratic Aspirations: The introduction of democracy and universal adult franchise fostered aspirations for self-governance among various communities.

4. Emergence of New Classes: Land reforms weakened the authority of large landlords, leading to the rise of a new class with aspirations for autonomy, as seen in demands like Harit Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh.

5. Awareness of Regional Disparities: With increased democratic consciousness and education, people became more aware of regional disparities arising from historical and geographical factors, exemplified by demands such as Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh.