Reorganisation of States

The figure is a political cartoon by the cartoonist Shankar, originally published on 26 July 1953 with the caption “Struggle for Survival.” It captures the mood of the early 1950s, when the central leadership was reluctant to redraw state boundaries on linguistic lines, but popular movements were forcing the issue.

The cartoon shows a large, menacing figure labelled “Linguism” — a giant with many heads, each representing a different linguistic region demanding a separate state. The giant is shown advancing toward a small, frail-looking figure labelled “States Reorganisation Commission” (the SRC, appointed in 1953). The SRC figure is holding a tiny shield or a piece of paper, looking overwhelmed and uncertain. The cartoon’s message is that the demand for linguistic states was so powerful and widespread that it seemed like a force that could tear the country apart — a “genie” that the commission was trying to contain. The title “Struggle for Survival” suggests that both the central government and the idea of national unity were under threat from these regional pressures.

The cartoon is placed in the textbook right after the description of the formation of Andhra state (1952) and the appointment of the SRC. It visually reinforces the tension described in the text: leaders like Nehru feared that linguistic states would lead to disintegration, yet the people’s agitation was unstoppable. The cartoon does not show any specific places, dates, or artefacts — it is a symbolic representation of the political struggle. The “many heads” of the giant correspond to the many linguistic movements (Telugu, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, etc.) that were active at the time. …

The cartoon, titled “Struggle for Survival” and dated 26 July 1953, was drawn by the celebrated Indian cartoonist Shankar. It captures the mood of the period just after the formation of Andhra state in 1952, when linguistic demands were spreading across the country.

The cartoon shows a large, anxious-looking figure labelled “India” — likely representing the central government or the nation itself — being pulled in multiple directions by several small, energetic figures. Each of these small figures represents a linguistic group or region demanding a separate state. The central figure appears overwhelmed, struggling to hold together while being tugged from all sides. The caption at the bottom reads: “The US has one-fourth of our population but 50 states. Why can’t India have more than 100 states?” This is a rhetorical question that the cartoon places in the mouths of the regional agitators, implying that if the United States — with a much smaller population — can manage 50 states, then India, with four times the population, should logically be able to accommodate many more states without falling apart.

The cartoon’s message is layered. On the surface, it mocks the fear of the central leadership that linguistic states would lead to disintegration. The “struggle for survival” is not India’s struggle to survive the demands, but rather the struggle of the central leadership to resist them. The cartoon suggests that the demand for more states is natural and not a threat — after all, the US example shows that a large number of states is compatible with national unity. At a deeper level, the cartoon also reflects the tension between the central government’s cautious, unitary approach and the popular, democratic pressure for linguistic reorganisation. The “struggle” is between the old fear of fragmentation and the new reality of a diverse, federal democracy. …

The cartoon, published in Shankar's Weekly on 5 February 1956, is titled “Coaxing the Genie back.” It captures the mood just before the States Reorganisation Commission submitted its report. The central image shows a large, menacing genie labelled “Linguism” rising out of a bottle. The genie has already escaped — it is not a small wisp but a fully formed, powerful figure, suggesting that the demand for linguistic states had grown too strong to be suppressed.

Standing in front of the genie is a small, anxious-looking man representing the States Reorganisation Commission. He is holding a bottle and trying to coax the genie back inside. The bottle is labelled “States Reorganisation Commission” — the very body appointed to contain the problem. The irony is deliberate: the genie is already out, and the commission’s effort looks futile. The cartoonist, Shankar, is commenting on the impossibility of reversing the linguistic movement. The genie of linguism had been released by popular agitation (especially the Andhra movement and Potti Sriramulu’s fast), and no official commission could simply push it back.

The caption below the cartoon reads: “asked if the State Reorganisation Commission could contain the genie of linguism.” This directly echoes the textbook’s discussion of the central leadership’s initial reluctance to create linguistic states, fearing they would weaken national unity. The cartoon visually answers that question: no, it cannot. The genie is too large, too powerful, and already free. The commission’s task was not to suppress linguistic demands but to reorganise states in a way that accommodated them — which is exactly what the 1956 Act did. …

The acceptance of the principle of linguistic states did not mean, however, that all states immediately became linguistic states. There was an experiment of ‘bilingual’ Bombay state, consisting of Gujarati- and Marathi-speaking people. After a popular agitation, the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were created in 1960. In Punjab also, there were two linguistic groups: Hindi-speaking and Punjabi-speaking. The Punjabi-speaking people demanded a separate state. But it was not granted with other states in 1956. Statehood for Punjab came ten years later, in 1966, when the territories of today’s Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were separated from the larger Punjab state. Another major reorganisation of states took place in the north-east in 1972. Meghalaya was carved out of Assam in 1972. Manipur and Tripura too emerged as separate states in the same year. The states of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh came into being in 1987. Nagaland had become a state much earlier in 1963. Language did not, however, remain the sole basis of organisation of states. In later years sub-regions raised demands for separate states on the basis of a separate regional culture or complaints of regional imbalance in development. Three such states, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand, were created in 2000. Telangana has emerged as a new state on 2 June, 2014. The story of reorganisation has not come …

The figure is a simple comparative illustration: it places two outlines side by side — one of the United States, one of India — drawn to roughly the same size on the page. Inside the US outline, 50 small dots or markers are scattered across its landmass, each representing one state. Inside the Indian outline, a much larger number of dots (over 100) are packed closely together, suggesting what 100+ states would look like within India’s borders. A caption below reads: “The US has one-fourth of our population but 50 states. Why can’t India have more than 100 states?”

The point is deliberately provocative. The US, with roughly one-fourth of India’s population, manages with 50 states. India, with four times the population, has only 28 states (as of the textbook’s writing). The figure forces you to ask: if population density alone were the criterion, shouldn’t India have far more states? But the textbook’s own narrative answers that question. The creation of states in India was never about population size alone — it was about linguistic and cultural plurality, democratic accommodation, and the fear of disintegration. The figure is not a serious proposal; it is a rhetorical device to make you think about why state boundaries are drawn the way they are.