"States' reorganization did not, of course, resolve all the problems relating to linguistic conflicts." Critically examine.

Answer:

The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 redrew India's internal map on linguistic lines and defused the most acute agitations of the time. It did not, however, settle every linguistic question, and disputes over boundaries, minorities and official language persisted long afterwards.

What reorganisation achieved

• It channelled powerful linguistic sentiment into constitutional forms.
• It made administration and education accessible in the people's own languages.
• Fears of fragmentation proved unfounded, and national unity was strengthened.

Problems that remained

• Bombay was divided only in 1960, and Punjab only in 1966, after further agitation.
• Border disputes persisted, notably Belgaum between Maharashtra and Karnataka.
• Linguistic minorities within the new states faced their own difficulties.
• Anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu in 1965 turned violent over the official language.
• Later states such as Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Telangana rested on other grounds entirely.

Assessment

• The Official Languages Act of 1963 conceded the indefinite continuance of English.
• The three-language formula sought a workable compromise in education.
• That such demands were pressed constitutionally shows the framework broadly succeeded.

The statement is thus accurate as a qualification rather than a criticism. As Ramachandra Guha argues, linguistic reorganisation resolved the gravest threat of its moment and proved a stabilising success, even though language remained, and remains, a live issue in Indian federal politics.