Do you think reorganization of states on the basis of language is justified
Answers
Reasons why the division of states on basis of language was a good idea:
1. It ensures that people of a state are united in terms of language and hence a state’s identity can evolve.
2. It helps smooth functioning of state government offices, because then there will be only one official state language.
3. Regional languages and culture get a boost continuously. This encourages regional language literature as well. It adds to the ethnic diversity of the nation.
4. With everyone understanding one local language, it is easier for government projects to be implemented even at the village level.
Reasons why the division of states on basis of language was not a good idea:
1. It led to unequal formation of states in terms of geographical area and population density.
2. It led to increased discrimination among people from different states.
3. Linguistic/state identity can become stronger than national identity (as shown in the movie ‘Chak De India’).
4. It encourages further division of states based on language.
We will first look at post-1947 and pre-1947 scenario:
Pre-1498, we had kingdoms of all sizes, shapes, and nature, including a modest bunch of container subcontinent lines (for the most part, topographically and socially)
Between 1498-1947, the subcontinental kingdoms pretty much existed under a wide range of frontier domain.
The 1857-1947 period under English domain is the thing that principally prompted the marvel that we call "Indian patriotism"
Until 1947, almost everyone had a shared objective to "expel the English", things were fine. It was practically an instance of Bharat Mata ki Jai from the start.
In any case, after that was refined, the battle for a partake in the power/economy/improvement pie turned into the normal yet separated objective, which expected different structures.
So on the off chance that we take a look at the avocation part regarding improvement did the statehood have any kind of effect? the aftereffects of this part are uncertain. Another indicate to take a look at the littler states, many individuals underlined on having littler states so that there ought to be better administration, again for this there were blended outcomes.
The linguistic statehood brought about the headway of dialect or culture? The response to this question is NO. Particularly when we take a look at it with the reference of movement, cosmopolitanism, an innovation which are obscuring personality on one hand and then again there were dissents keeping in mind the end goal to make Hindi to be acknowledged as the bringing together language.
Advancement, financial development, and every single other thing were occurring regardless of this. TATA moves from Bengal to Gujrat and the explanation behind that was not a language.
So it doesn't make a difference if there is a dialect or if there are littler states, such things can not prompt better administration.
Obviously, it's implied that it ought to be accomplished under the aegis of the now generally acknowledged standards of national solidarity, constitutionalism, vote based system, federalism, regard and acknowledgment of all societies and religions and so forth.