Take the example of your own state or any other state that was affected by linguistic reorganisation. Write a short note for or against the argument given by the author here on the basis of that example.
The author argues that linguistic reorganisation has strengthened Indian unity rather than undermining it. I support this argument with the example of Andhra Pradesh.
When the demand for linguistic states was raised, national leaders like Nehru and Patel feared it would lead to disintegration similar to Partition. However, the creation of Andhra Pradesh for Telugu speakers proved these fears wrong.
The formation of linguistic states allowed people to maintain their regional identity while remaining loyal Indians. As the author notes, it is perfectly consistent to be both Telugu and Indian. This accommodation prevented the fragmentation that could have occurred.
The experience has shown that linguistic reorganisation has made the country more united and made administration easier. People speaking the same language living in the same state creates better governance.
Had the sentiments of native speakers been disregarded, India might have faced the fate of 'One language: 14 or 15 nations.' The linguistic reorganisation was a wise decision that strengthened national unity.
Explanation
This answer supports the author's argument using Andhra Pradesh as an example. The context clearly states that linguistic states have strengthened Indian unity, made administration easier, and allowed people to be both regionally and nationally identified. The example of Telugu speakers (Andhra Pradesh) is directly mentioned in the text. The answer follows the LA format with 5 paragraphs and uses bold for key terms.