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.
In favour of the argument:
The example of Gujarat and Maharashtra supports the author's argument that linguistic states have strengthened Indian unity. These states were created in 1960 after the States Reorganisation Commission recommended the formation of linguistic States for major linguistic groups.
Initially, national leaders feared that creating states on the basis of language would lead to the disintegration of the country. The Central Government resisted linguistic States for some time. However, experience has shown that this fear was unfounded.
The formation of Gujarat and Maharashtra proved that it is perfectly consistent to be Gujarati and Indian or Marathi and Indian. Instead of dividing people, linguistic reorganisation made administration easier and brought the country closer together. The author's warning that disregarding linguistic sentiments could have resulted in 'One language: 14 or 15 nations' appears valid when we see how linguistic States have accommodated regional identities within the larger framework of Indian unity.
Explanation
This answer supports the author's argument using the example of Gujarat and Maharashtra mentioned in the context. It incorporates key facts: the year of creation (1960), the role of the States Reorganisation Commission, the initial fears of national leaders, and the positive outcomes of unity and easier administration. The answer demonstrates how linguistic identity and national identity can coexist.