No More Learning

It was in this way that Leh and Ladakh valleys were cleared from
the raiders by Major-General Thimmayya. The credit of recover-
ing Poonch goes to Major-General Atma Singh.
It was on the persuasion of Lord Mountbatten that the Govern-
ment of India took their complaint to the United Nations against
the Pak invasion of Jammu and Kashmir. A cease-fire was order-
ed with effect from 1st January, 1949. Many efforts were made
by the United Nations to resolve the dispute between India and
Pakistan but they have not succeeded.
In 1965, Pakistan sent her infiltrators into the Kashmir Valley
and then attacked the Chhamb area. That resulted in a war bet-
ween India and Pakistan not only in the State of Jammu and


## p. 933 (#977) ############################################

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
933
а
Kashmir but also in East Punjab. As a result of the good offices
of the Soviet Union, the war was brought to an end and the famous
Tashkent Declaration was issued in January 1966, but in spite of
this the relations between the two countries are bitter on account of
the question of Kashmir.
The accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been
criticised by Pakistan on many grounds. It is pointed out that the
State of Jammu and Kashmir had an overwhelming population of
Muslims and hence the State ought to have acceded to Pakistan.
However, the fact must not be ignored that the partition of the
country had not taken place on the two-nation theory. If that had
been so, there was no necessity of holding a plebiscite in the North-
West Frontier Province with its 90 per cent Muslim population.
There was also no necessity of consulting the legislatures in Bengal
and the Punjab. The separation of the predominantly Muslim
areas from the rest of India was in the nature of a political division.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that Muslims are even today
the citizens of India and occupy the highest positions in the coun-
try and that also proves that the partition of the country did not
take place on the basis of the two-nation theory.
It is well known that Mr. M. A. Jinnah did his level best to
secure the accession of the predominantly Hindu States of Jodhpur
and Jaisalmer to Pakistan and offered tempting terms for that pur-
pose.
It is a different matter that he failed but it could not be
denied that Mr. Jinnah did his best to secure their accession to
Pakistan. Moreover, the Muslim ruler of the State of Junagadh
actually acceded to Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan ac-
cepted it. That also contradicts the two-nation theory as the
population of Junagadh was over 85 per cent Hindu.
It must be observed that the Government of India was not en-
thusiastic about the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
to India. Nothing was done by the Government of India to force
the hands of the Maharaja. As a matter of fact, her attitude was
one of indifference. It is possible that if the raiders had not attack-
ed the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India
which had her hands otherwise full, would not have bothered about
the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It was only when the raiders
attacked the State of Jammu and Kashmir and there was the im-
mediate danger of the fall of Srinagar into their hands that the
Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir requested the Government of
India to come to his help and as that help could be given only if
that State acceded to India, the Government of India was forced to
send her troops into the State of Jammu and Kashmir. If the
attitude of India was one of indifference, it is well-known that


## p. 934 (#978) ############################################

934
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
Pakistan adopted all kinds of tactics to put pressure on the Maharaja
to accede to Pakistan. It is also known that the leader of the
raiders was one General Tariq who was later on identified as
Major-General Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army. It is
this
Akbar Khan who later on became the Commanding-in-Chief of
Pakistan.
INTEGRATION AND DEMOCRATISATION OF STATES
The accession of States was only a partial solution of the pro-
blem of the States. The people of the States were restive and
wanted to have a share in the administration. The Government
of India was also favourably inclined towards their aspirations.
The administration of the Indian States required to be modernised.
The work of integration, democratisation and modernisation of the
Indian States was done simultaneously. Integration involved the
elimination of the small States by their merger with the neighbour-
ing Provinces or States, or their consolidation into larger political
units by means of the Unions of the States. By those means a few
viable and sizeable units were to be created. Integration also in-
volved the establishment of “a common Centre in the whole of
India, able to function efficiently in the Provinces and States alike
in matters requiring all-India action. ” In the words of the White
Paper on the States, “The aim was the integration of all elements
in the country in a free, united and democratic India. "
(1) As regards the merger of the smallest States into the neigh-
bouring States or Provinces, the Orissa and Chattisgarh States were
the first to be merged. Those States were 39 in number and had a
population of 70 lakhs and an area of 56,000 sq. miles. Individual-
ly those States were too small for a modern system of adminis-
tration. Their mergers were negotiated by Sardar Patel on 14
and 15 December, 1947. According to the Merger Agreements,
the ruling Princes surrendered to the Dominion Government "full
and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and power for and in relation
to the governance” of their States and agreed to transfer their ad-
ministration on 1st January, 1948. On 1st January, 1948, these
States became parts of Orissa and Central Provinces. On 16
December, 1947, Sardar Patel observed thus: “It should be obvious
to everyone, however, that even democracy and democratic institu-
tions can function efficiently only where the units to which these
are applied can subsist in a fairly autonomous existence. Where,
on account of smallness of its size, isolation of its situation, the
inseparable link with a neighbouring autonomous territory, be it a
Province or a bigger State, in practically all economic matters of


## p. 935 (#979) ############################################

INTEGRATION OF STATES
935
everyday life, the inadequacy of the resources to open up its econo-
mic potentialities, the backwardness of its people and sheer incapa-
city to shoulder a self-contained administration, a State is unable
to afford a modern system of Government, both democratisation
and integration are clearly and unmistakably indicated. ”
The next merger was that of the Deccan States numbering 17.
They were merged with Bombay in March 1948. Kolhapur was
merged later on. In this way, an area of 10,860 sq. miles and a
population of 27 lakhs was merged in the Bombay Presidency. In
June 1948, the Gujarat States numbering 289 were merged in
Bombay Presidency. These States covered an area of 17,680 sq.
miles and had a population of 27 lakhs. In May 1949, Baroda
was merged in Bombay Presidency. It had an area of 8,236 sq.
miles and population of 30 lakhs. A few small States in the
Punjab, the States of Banganapalli, Pudukotti and Sandur in
Madras, Cooch-Behar in West Bengal, the Khasi Hills States in
Assam and Tehri-Garhwal, Banaras and Rampur in U. P. were
merged in the surrounding Provinces in 1948 and 1949.
The Merger Agreements of practically all the States were in
identical terms. The merged States became parts and parcel of
the Provinces into which they were included. The people of the
merged States were given representation in the Provincial Legis-
latures. The Government of India Act, 1935, as amended, was
applied to them in the same way as was done to other Provinces of
India.
(2) Another form of integration of States was the consolidation
of States into Centrally administered areas. This was done in the
case of Himachal Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh, Kutch, Bilaspur,
Bhopal, Tripura and Manipur. 21 States in East Punjab covering
an area of 10,600 sq. miles with a population of about 10 lakhs
were consolidated into the Union of Himachal Pradesh. This
Union was inaugurated on 15 April, 1948. Vindhya Pradesh was
created by consolidating the Bundelkhand and Bhagelkhand States
numbering 35 with an area of 24,600 sq. miles and a population of
36 lakhs. Vindhya Pradesh was created into a States Union in
April 1948 with a responsible ministry but later on its Govern-
ment was taken over by the Government of India on 1st January,
1950. Kutch with an area of 17,249 sq. miles and a population
of 5 lakhs was made a Chief Commissioner's Province in May,
1948. The State of Bilaspur in the Punjab was taken over by the
Government of India on 12 October, 1948. The State of Bhopal
was taken over by the Government of India on 1st June, 1949.
The State of Tripura was taken over by the Government of India
on 15 October, 1949,


## p. 936 (#980) ############################################

936
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
(3) Another form of integration of States was the formation of
the States Unions. These Unions were created "with due regard
to geographical, linguistic, social and cultural affinities” of the
people living in the States. Their rulers came to be known as
Rajpramukhs.
On 15 February, 1948, the United States of Kathiwar
(Saurashtra) was inaugurated. This Union had 222 States, estates
and talukas. Its area was 21,451 sq. miles and its population was
41 lakhs. The important States of the Union were Nawanagar
and Bhavanagar. According to the terms of the covenant, the
States agreed to unite and integrate their territories into one State
with a common executive, legislature and judiciary. There was to
be a Council of Rulers with a Presidium of five members. The
rulers were to elect the President and Vice-President of the
Presidium. The President was to be the Rajpramukh of the Union.
All the executive powers were put in the hands of the Rajpramukh
but he was to be aided and advised by a Council of Ministers. In
other words, he was to act as a constitutional head. The covenant
fixed the privy purses of the rulers and guaranteed their private
property, personal privileges and the right of succession.
On 18 March, 1948 was created the United States of Matsya
consisting of Alwar, Bharatpur, etc. The Union of Vindhya Pra-
desh was created on 4 April, 1948. The United States of Gwalior,
Indore and Malwa or Madhya Bharat was inaugurated on 28 May,
1948. It had an area of 46,710 sq. miles and a population of 80
lakhs. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) con-
sisting of 7 big States such as Patiala, Nabha, Kapurthala, etc. was
inaugurated on 20 August, 1948. It had an area of 10,999 sq.
miles and a population of 35 lakhs. The United States of Rajas-
than was created in three stages. The first United States of Rajas-
than consisting of Mewar and nine other smaller Rajputana States
was inaugurated on 18 April, 1948. The State was reconstituted
to include Jaipur, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Bikaner. On 15 May,
1949, the United State of Matsya was incorporated into Rajasthan.
The United State of Travancore-Cochin came into being on 1st
July, 1949. Its total area was 9,155 sq. miles and its population
was 93 lakhs.
Under the Indian Princes, the States had autocratic governments.
The people had absolutely no voice in the administration of the
States. The Princes did whatever they pleased. There was prac-
.
tically no distinction between the public revenues and the private
revenues of the ruling Princes.
However, such a state of things could not exist after the inde-
pendence of India and the integration of the States. The people


## p. 937 (#981) ############################################

THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT
937
of the States were demanding a share in the administration and
the Government of India had full sympathy with them. No won-
der, when the Indian States were merged into the Provinces, the
people of those States were put on the same footing as the people
of the provinces concerned. When the Government of India creat-
ed Centrally administered areas, the people of those States were also
associated with the administration. When the Unions of the States
were created, full-fledged responsible government was established
in them. It is true that the people living within the Centrally-
administered areas were not given full control over their administra-
tion, but the people of other Indian States were given responsible
government. Legislatures were set up in the States and the Minis-
tries were made responsible to them. The Rajpramukhs were made
constitutional heads.
THE STATES REORGANISATION COMMISSION
For a long time, there was a demand for the reorganisation of
the provinces of India on linguistic lines. It was contended that
the existing provinces were not created by the British Government
on any scientific principle. Those were set up from time to time
on grounds of expediency. In 1948, the Linguistic Provinces Com-
mittee known as the Dar Committee was set up to go into the mat-
ter. The Committee reported against the proposition. Its view
was that nationalism and sub-nationalism were two emotional
experiences which grew at the expense of each other. A Commit-
tee consisting of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel
and Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya was set up to examine the findings
of the Dar Committee. As a result of the death of Sriramulu,
the situation in Andhra became very tense and the Government of
India appointed Mr. Justice Wanchoo (as he then was) to report
on the matter. It was under these circumstances that the first lin-
guistic State was set up in Andhra. This gave an impetus to the
supporters of the idea of linguistic States and ultimately Prime
Minister Nehru made a statement in Parliament on 22 December,
1953, to the effect that a Commission would be appointed to exa-
mine “objectively and dispassionately” the question of the reorgan-
isation of the States of the Indian Union "so that the welfare of the
people of each constituent unit as well as the nation as a whole is
promoted. ” The Commission was appointed under a resolution of
the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr.
Fazl Ali was appointed the Chairman of the Commission and its
two other members were Pandit Hridayanath Kunzru and Sardar
K. M. Panikkar.


## p. 938 (#982) ############################################

938
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
Para 7 of the resolution mentioned above runs thus: “The Com-
mission will investigate the conditions of the problem, the historical
background, the existing situation and the bearing of all important
and relevant factors thereon. They will be free to consider any
proposal relating to such reorganisation. The Government expects
that the Commission would, in the first instance, not go into the
details, but make recommendations in regard to the broad princi-
ples which should govern the solution of this problem. The langu-
age and culture of an area have an undoubted importance as they
represent a pattern of living which is common in that area. In
considering a reorganisation of States, however, there are other im-
portant factors which have also to be borne in mind. The first
essential consideration is the preservation and strengthening of the
unity and security of India. Financial, economic and administra-
tive considerations are almost equally important, not only from
the point of view of each State, but for the whole nation. India is
embarked upon a great ordered plan for the economic, cultural
and moral progress. Changes which interfere with the successful
prosecution of such a national plan would be harmful to the
national interest. "
The Commission submitted its report to the Government of India
on 30 September, 1955 and it was released to the public on 10
October, 1955. According to the recommendations of the Com-
mission, the Indian Union was to consist of 16 States as against the
existing 27 and
27 and three Centrally-administered territories. The
States that were to disappear were those of Travancore-Cochin,
Mysore, Coorg, Saurashtra, Kutch, Madhya Bharat, Bhopal,
Vindhya Pradesh, PEPSU, Himachal Pradesh, Ajmer and Tripura.
In certain cases, the whole of the State and in certain others only a
part was to be merged in a neighbouring State or States. PEPSU
and Himachal Pradesh were to form part of the Punjab. All the
Part 'C' States were to be abolished. The distinction between Part
‘A’ and Part 'B' States was to be done away with.
The Commission recommended the abolition of the institution
of Rajpramukhs. Special safeguards were recommended for lin-
guistic minorities. The minorities were given the right to have
instruction in their mother-tongue at the primary school stage. In
the interests of national unity and good administration, the Com-
mission recommended the reconstitution of certain All-India Servi-
ces, viz. , the Indian Medical and Health Services. With the same
object in view, the Commission recommended that as a general
rule, 50% of the new entrants in the All-India Services should be
from outside the State concerned and regular transfers to and from
the Centre and the States should be arranged. At least one-third


## p. 939 (#983) ############################################

THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT
939
of the number of judges in a High Court should consist of persons
recruited from outside that State so that the administration might
inspire confidence and help in arresting parochial trends. The
Commission put emphasis on the need for encouraging the study of
Indian languages other than Hindi. It also recommended that for
some time to come, English should continue to occupy an important
place in universities and institutions of higher learning, even after
the adoption of Hindi and the regional languages for official and
educational purposes.
According to the Commission, the linguistic complexion and the
communicational needs of the Punjab did not justify the creation
of a Punjabi-speaking State. The creation of such a State was
likely to disrupt the economic life of the area. There was no case
for a Punjabi-speaking State because it lacked the general support
of the people inhabiting the area, and because it was not to elimi-
nate any of the causes of friction from which the demand for a
separate Punjabi-speaking State had arisen. The Punjabi Suba
was to solve neither the language nor the communal problem. On
the other hand, it might further exacerbate the existing feelings.
PEPSU and Himachal Pradesh were too small to continue by
themselves. Having regard to the economic and administrative
links between PEPSU and the Himachal Pradesh on the one hand
and the present Punjab State on the other, the merger of these two
States in the Punjab was justified.
During its inquiry, the Commission received 152,250 memo-
randa, petitions and communications, travelled 38,000 miles and
interviewed over 9,000 persons in an effort to get a complete cross-
section of public opinion. The report of the Commission com-
prises 267 printed pages, including two minutes of dissent by Sir
Fazl Ali and Sardar K. M. Panikkar. The first opposed the mer-
ger of Himachal Pradesh in the new Punjab and the second object-
ed to the retention of U. P. in undivided form.
There was a lot of agitation against the recommendations of the
Commission. The interested parties tried to create a sort of chaos
in the country. The Maharashtrians raised a lot of hue and cry
over the city of Bombay. The Congress High Command declared
that it was willing to make alterations in the recommendations of
the Commission if all the interested parties agreed upon any alter-
native. Prolonged negotiations were held and many changes were
made in the recommendations of the Commission but the problem
of Bombay City gave headache to all. Even when the States Re-
organisation Bill was sent to Parliament, the Maharashtrians were
absolutely dissatisfied. However, when the Bill was being discuss-
ed in Lok Sabha, better sense prevailed and it was decided to create


## p. 940 (#984) ############################################

940
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
the bi-lingual State of Bombay containing all the territories of
Maharashtra and Saurashtra with Bombay as capital. The Bill
was passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and received the
assent of President on 31 August, 1956.
THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956
The States Reorganisation Act provided for the creation of the
new State of Andhra Pradesh by adding certain territories to the
existing State of Andhra. Most of the territories were to be taken
from the State of Hyderabad. Certain territories were added
to the State of Madras. Provision was made for the creation
of the new State of Kerala comprising the territories of the existing
State of Travancore-Cochin. A new part 'C' State known as Lac-
cadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands was created.
To the exist-
ing State of Mysore, certain territories taken from Hyderabad,
Madras, Bombay and Coorg were added. A new State of Bombay
consisting of certain territories taken from the State of Hyderabad
and Madhya Pradesh and the territories of the existing States of
Bombay, Saurashtra and Kutch was to be created. A new State
of Madhya Pradesh comprising the territories of the existing State
of Madhya Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh, Bhopal and certain territo-
ries taken from Rajasthan was to be created. Ajmer was added to
the State of Rajasthan. Patiala and East Punjab States Union
was added to the State of Punjab. The first Schedule to the
Constitution of India was amended. There were to be 13 Part
‘A’ States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, one Part 'B' State and five Union
Territories of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, and the
Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands.
India was to be divided into five zones. Each zone was to have
a Zonal Council. The Northern Zone was to consist of the States
of Punjab, Rajasthan, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh etc. The Central
Zone was to consist of the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh. The Eastern Zone was to consist of Bihar, West Bengal,
Orissa, Assam, Manipur and Tripura. The Western Zone was to
consist of the States of Bombay and Mysore. The Southern Zone
was to consist of Andhra Pradesh, Madras and Kerala. Each
Zonal Council was to consist of a Union Minister to be nominated
by the President, Chief Minister of each of the States included in
the zone and two other Ministers of each State. The Union Minis-
ter was to be the Chairman. The Chief Ministers of the States
included in each zone were to act as Vice-Chairmen of the Zonal


## p. 941 (#985) ############################################

THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT
941
Councils by rotation, each holding office for a period of one year
at a time. Each Zonal Council was to have certain advisers to
help her in the performance of its duties. It was to meet at such
time as the Chairman of the Council fixed. It was to meet in the
States included in the Zone by rotation. All questions were to be
decided by a majority vote. However, the Chairman was to have
a casting vote in case of a tie. The proceedings of every meeting of
the Zonal Council were to be forwarded to the Central Govern-
ment and also to each State Government concerned. Each Zonal
Council was to have a Secretariat staff consisting of a Secretary and
such other officers as the Chairman may consider necessary. The
Chief Secretaries of the States represented in each Council were to
be the Secretary of the Council by rotation. They were to hold
office for a period of one year at a time. The office of the Zonal
Council was to be located at such a place within the zone as may
be determined by the Council. The Central Government was to
bear all the expenses of the office. The Zonal Council was to act
as an Advisory Body and was to discuss those matters in which some
or all the States represented in the Council had a common interest.
The Council was to advise the Central Government and the govern-
ment of each State concerned regarding the action to be taken on
any such matter. It was to discuss and make recommendations
with regard to any matter of common interest in the field of econo-
mic and social planning, any matter concerning border disputes,
linguistic minorities or inter-state transport and any matter con-
nected with or arising out of the reorganisation of the States.
Provision was made for joint meeting of the Zonal Councils.
Changes were made in the number of seats allotted to each state in
the Council of States.
The Central Government was to set up a Delimitation commis-
sion consisting of three members. The Chief Election Commis-
sioner was to be its ex-offico member and the other two members
were to be appointed by the Central Government. The Chairman
of the Commission was to be appointed by the Central Government
from the members. The commission was to determine on the basis
of population figures the number of seats to be reserved for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of each of the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, ,
Mysore, Punjab and Rajasthan in the House of the People and
the Legislative Assemblies of the States. It was to determine the
Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies into which each new
State was to be divided, extent of and the number of seats to be
allotted to each constituency and number of seats to be reserved
for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State in each


## p. 942 (#986) ############################################

942
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
constituency. Provision was made for the creation for each of the
new States a State Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service and
a State Cadre of the Indian Police Service. The initial strength
and composition of each of the Cadres was to be fixed by the Cen-
tral Government.
The Government of Part 'C' States Act, 1951 was repealed with
effect from 1st November, 1956. The Third Schedule to the States
Reorganization Act, 1956 gave details regarding the number of
seats allotted to each State in the House of the People and the Legis-
lative Assembly.
With effect from January 20, 1957, the State of Jammu and
Kashmir was declared to be an integral part of India. The Consti-
tuent Assembly dissolved itself after framing a new Constitution for
the State.
After the establishment of the composite State of Bombay under
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, there was a lot of agitation for
the separation of Maharashtra from Gujarat. For a long time the
Government of India resisted the demand. That led to riots on a
large scale and ultimately the Government of India was forced to
enact the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. It received the assent
of the President on April 25, 1960. It provided for the creation of
two separate States of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The capital of
Maharashtra was to be Bombay and that of Gujarat was to be at
some other place. While Maharashtra was to have Bombay High
Court, Gujarat was to have its separate High Court at some other
place. Separate representation was given to Maharashtra and
Gujarat in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Gujarat was to send 22
and Maharashtra 44 members to Lok Sabha. They were also to
send 11 and 19 members to Rajya Sabha respectively. The Legis-
lative Assembly of Gujarat was to consist of 132 and that of Maha-
rashtra 264 members. There was to be no Legislative Council for
Gujarat, but the Legislative Council of Maharashtra was to consist
of 78 members. Provision was also made for the division of the
assets of the former State of Bombay between Maharashtra and
Gujarat.
In July 1960, the Government of India decided to set up the
new State of Nagaland with Kohima as its capital. This was done
to satisfy the discontented elements in that region. An Act was
passed in 1962 to implement that decision.
There was some trouble in Punjab. There was an agitation for
the creation of a Punjabi Suba. When it assumed alarming pro-
portions, the Government of India appointed a Boundary Commis-
sion which was presided over by Mr. Justice Shah of the Supreme
Court of India. The direction given to the Commission was: “The


## p. 943 (#987) ############################################

THE PUNJAB REORGANISATION ACT
943
Commission shall examine the existing boundary of the Hindi and
Punjabi Regions of the present State of Punjab and recommend
what adjustments, if any, are necessary in that boundary to secure
the linguistic homogeneity of the proposed Punjab and Haryana
States. The Commission shall also indicate the boundaries of the
hill areas of the present State of Punjab which are contiguous to
Himachal Pradesh and have linguistic and cultural affinity with
that territory. The Commission shall apply the linguistic principle
with due regard to the census figures of 1961 and other relevant
considerations. The Commission may also take into account such
other factors as administrative convenience and economic well-
being, geographic contiguity and facility of communication and will
ordinarily ensure that the adjustments that they may recommend
do not involve breaking up of existing tehsils. ”
The Commission submitted its report in May 1966. Some areas
which formerly belonged to Punjab were given to Himachal Pra-
desh and the rest of the Punjab was divided into the States of Pun-
jab and Haryana. The majority of the members of the Commis-
sion recommended that Chandigarh be given to Haryana. The
Report was not accepted in full by the Government of India. The
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, was passed by the Indian Parlia-
ment and it received the assent of the President on September 18,
1966. It was provided that a new State known as Haryana shall
be set up and it was to have Hissar, Rohtak, Gurgaon, Karnal and
Mahendragarh districts, Narwana and Jind Tehsils of Sangrur dis-
trict, Ambala, Jagadhari and Naraingarh district, Pinjore
Kanungo circle of Kharar tehsil of Ambala District and the terri-
tories in Manimajra Kanungo circle of Kharar tehsil of Ambala
District specified in the First Schedule. Provision was made for
the establishment of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It was
also provided that to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh,
Simla, Kangra, Kulu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts, Nalagarh
Tehsil of Ambala district, Lohara, Amb, and Una Kanungo circles
of Una Tehsil of Hoshiarpur District, the territories in Santokhgarh
Kanungo circle of Una Tehsil of Hoshiarpur District etc. would be
added. The rest of the territory of the Punjab was to belong to
Punjab. Provision was made for the allocation of seats in the
Council of States, House of the People, and Legislative Assemblies.
There was to be a common High Court for the State of Punjab
and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Provision
was also made for the distribution of assets etc. among the States.
The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 did not satisfy the aspira-
tions of the Sikhs and they were particularly sore about Chandi-
garh. No wonder, the Sikhs started agitation once again and Sant


## p. 944 (#988) ############################################

944
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
Fateh Singh went on fast unto death and fixed a date for burning
himself alive unless Chandigarh was given to Punjab. There were
negotiations at the eleventh hour and ultimately it was agreed to
refer the disputes between the States of Punjab and Haryana to the
arbitration of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. How-
ever, nothing has come out of it on account of the attitude adopted
by the Government of Haryana and also the almost certainty that
Mrs. Indira Gandhi would give the award in favour of the Sikhs.
The result is that the trouble is still continuing.
BORDER DISPUTES BETWEEN MAHARASHTRA AND MYSORE
It was in the year 1957 that the Government of Bombay submit-
ted a memorandum to the Ministry of Home Affairs suggesting the
re-adjustment of border areas between Bombay and Mysore States.
It was stated in that memorandum that while the States Reorgan-
isation Act had settled the main framework of the reorganisation
of states on a linguistic basis, a large number of marginal territorial
adjustments had still to be made. The Government of Mysore re-
acted adversely to the claim made by the Government of Bombay.
The Government of Bombay requested that its proposal be placed
before the Zonal Council at an early date. The Zonal Council
was unable to decide the matter before the two States of Maha-
rashtra and Gujarat were formed, and a new Western Zone came
into existence and the Mysore State was taken out of the Western
Zone and included in the Southern Zone. On the suggestion of the
Home Minister of India, it was agreed to refer the boundary dis-
pute to a Four-Man Committee. Each State nominated two repre-
sentatives. Nothing came out of this Four-Man Committee in spite
of the waste of two years.
Agitation started once again and continued for about 4 years. The
Chief Ministers of the two States met from time to time but they
failed to come to any compromise. A high-power delegation of
Congressmen from Maharashtra and Bombay met the Prime Min-
ister, the Congress President and the Home Minister and urged
upon them the necessity of appointing a Commission at once. They
made it clear that if that was not done at once, there was the pos-
sibility of the Congress losing heavily in the forthcoming general
elections. A delegation arrived from Kasaragod with a mass peti-
tion demanding that the Working Committee should decide in favour
of the merger of Kasaragod in the Mysore State. It was under
these circumstances that Dr. Mehr Chand Mahajan, former Chief
Justice of India, was appointed on October 25, 1966 as One-Man
Commission to resolve the boundary disputes between the States


## p. 945 (#989) ############################################

THE MAHAJAN REPORT
945
of Maharashtra, Mysore and Kerala. The Commission had to
do a lot of touring and ultimately it submitted its Report on August
25, 1967 and the same was released to the public on November 4,
1967. In his Report, Dr. Mehr Chand Mahajan recommended
the transfer of certain villages from Mysore to Maharashtra and
vice versa.
He also recommended the incorporation of Kasaragod
in the State of Mysore. Dr. Mahajan favoured neither one party
nor the other. He accepted neither all the claims of Maharashtra
nor those of Mysore. He applied his judicial mind to the facts of
the case and made his recommendations in the light of what he
considered to be in the best interests not only of the people of
Maharashtra, Mysore and Kerala but also of India as a whole.
He condemned all those who stood for linguistic States as an end.
He rightly pointed out that the principle of linguistic States had
been accepted not to create inter-state barriers and tensions but to
promote the welfare of the people of India as a whole. No unilin-
gual State existed for the speakers of a particular language. While
the recommendations of the Mahajan Commission were accepted
by Mysore, those were rejected by Maharashtra. The result is that
the border dispute is continuing. It has already resulted in a lot
of bloodshed.


## p. 946 (#990) ############################################

CHAPTER XXXVIII
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
LORD CHELMSFORD was the Governor-General and Viceroy
of India in 1919 when the Government of India Act, 1919 was
passed by the British Parliament and he continued to occupy that
exalted position up to 1921. It was during his Viceroyalty that
the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy took place at Amritsar. Mahatma
Gandhi also started his Non-Cooperation movement during his
regime although the same continued even during the time of his
successor.
The Muslims of India started the Khilafat movement
to protest against the treatment meted out to Turkey by the Allied
Powers. The movement stood for the maintenance of the integrity
of the Turkish Empire. The Muslims also demanded the establish-
ment of a Muslim State of Palestine.
LORD READING (1921-26)
Lord Chelmsford was succeeded by Lord Reading in 1921 and
he continued to occupy that position up to 1926. Lord Reading
was born in a poor family but he rose to the high position of Lord
Chief Justice of England by dint of hard work. During his Vice-
royalty, there was a lot of opposition to the Government. Both the
Indian National Congress and the Muslim League were dissatisfied
with the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and as a matter of fact, the
general elections were boycotted by the Congress. Mahatma
Gandhi joined hands with the Khilafat leaders and carried on agi-
tation against the Government. There was the triple boycott of
Pritish Courts, Government Schools and the Reformed Councils.
Mahatma Gandhi was able to collect a crore of rupees for the Non-
co-operation movement. He also started a campaign in favour of
prohibition. The liquor shops were picketed by the volunteers and
the Government suffered losses in the form of revenue from liquor
licences. The Mahatma also started a campaign to remove un-
touchability from society. He also introduced the Charkha or the
hand-spinning wheel to raise the standard of life of the people and
also to harm the cloth industry of England.
When the Prince of Wales landed in Bombay in 1921, there was
complete hartal in the city. Riots also broke out and lasted for
three days. Considerable damage was done to property. 53 per-
sons were killed and about 440 were wounded.


## p. 947 (#991) ############################################

LORD READING
947
There were disturbances in Assam, Bihar, Calcutta, Chittagong,
Karachi, Madras and Dharwar. The Moplahs fell upon the
Hindus in Malabar and thousands of them were either butchered
or forcibly converted to Islam. There was a wave of indignation
among the Hindus against the Moplah rising and the failure of the
Government to protect them.
At Chauri Chaura, 21 policemen and rural watchmen were kill-
ed by an infuriated mob. This was too much for Mahatma Gandhi
who believed in a policy of non-violence. The result was that
Mahatma Gandhi withdrew the Non-co-operation Movement.
After that, he himself was arrested, tried and put in jail.
It was during the regime of Lord Reading that the Swarajist
Party was formed in 1923 under the leadership of C. R. Das in
Bengal, Pt. Motilal Nehru in Upper India and N. C. Kelkar in the
Deccan. This party stood for entry into the Legislatures. In spite
of opposition from Mahatma Gandhi, it had its way. The Swaraj-
ist Party in the Central Assembly gave a lot of trouble to the
Government.
As a result of the Non-Co-operation Movement and the wide-
spread defiance of law, criminal outrages took place in some parts
of the country, particularly in Bengal. In order to meet the situa-
tion, the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1924, was
issued. It provided for the arrest without a warrant of persons
suspected of belonging to criminal organisations. Special Judges
were appointed to deal with them and they were given the power
to try them secretly and punish them. With the help of this Ordi-
nance, a large number of persons were tried and imprisoned. There
was a lot of indignation in the country on account of the summary
procedure adopted in those trials.
On many occasions, the Viceroy was forced to use his power of
certification to sanction laws which were not passed by the Cen-
tral Legislature. In 1922, he certified the Princes' Protection Bill
to prevent the publication of writings which were likely to excite
feelings against the Indian Princes. To balance the 1923-24
Budget, the Viceroy increased the Salt duty by certification.
In 1923, allegations were made against the Maharaja of Nabha
by his own officials and the subjects of the Maharaja of Patiala.
However, before the matter could be investigated, the Maharaja of
Nabha abdicated and the administration of the State was taken over
by the Government.
One Mumtaz Begam, a singing girl, was under the patronage
of the Maharaja of Indore. She left the State with the assistance
of a Muslim Barrister of Bombay named Bawla. An attempt was
made to abduct Mumtaz Begam and Bawla was murdered. Lord


## p. 948 (#992) ############################################

948
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
Reading appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate into the
attempted abduction and murder. The Maharaja of Indore was
implicated in the matter and he eventually abdicated.
In 1925, the Nizam of Hyderabad claimed the Province of Berar.
He also asserted that he stood on the same footing as the British
Government in India. The claim of the Nizam was disallowed and
the Viceroy told him bluntly: “The sovereignty of the British Crown
is supreme in India and therefore no ruler of an Indian State can
justifiably claim to negotiate with the British Government on an
equal footing. Its supremacy is based not only on treaties and
engagements but exists independently of them and quite apart
from its prerogative in matters relating to foreign powers and poli-
cies. It is the right and duty of the British Government, while
scrupulously respecting all treaties and engagements with the Indian
States, to preserve peace and good order. I remind your Exalted
Highness that the ruler of Hyderabad along with other rulers re-
ceived in 1862 a Sanad declaratory of British Government's desire
for perpetuation of his House and Government subject to the conti-
nued loyalty to the Crown; and no succession to the Masnad of
Hyderabad is valid unless it is recognised by His Majesty the King-
Emperor; and that the British Government is the only arbitrator
in a disputed succession. . . . . . . . The varying degrees of internal
sovereignty which the rulers enjoy are all subject to the due exer-
cise by the Paramount Power of this responsibility. ”
It was during his Viceroyalty that the Muddiman Committee was
set up to report on the working of the Government of India Act,
1919 and its Report was also published during his regime.
The Union Parliament of South Africa proposed to pass an Anti-
Asiatic Bill providing for the reservation of certain areas in which
the Asiatics were not to be allowed to acquire land. The Govern-
ment of India took up the matter on behalf of the Indians in South
Africa and succeeded in getting the legislation postponed till a
Round Table Conference of Indian and South African delegates
met to discuss the matter.
There was the Akali agitation in the Punjab during the Viceroy-
alty of Lord Reading. The Akalis demanded that they must have
the management of the Sikh Gurdwaras or holy places under their
control. The Mahants who were in control of Gurdwaras and
were gaining a lot from them, opposed the move. That led to agita-
tion by the Akalis. The Mahant of Nankana Sahib collected a
Pathan guard and some 130 Akalis were killed in a treacherous
affray on 5 March, 1921.