How the A.K. Dar Commission Shaped Vidarbha’s Administrative Future

thenewsdirt
Jun 11
5 min read

When India was on the verge of reorganising its provinces in the wake of Independence, Vidarbha emerged as one of the earliest regions to make a case for separate statehood.

In a moment of significance that has since faded from national discourse, a central government-appointed commission had once explicitly supported that demand.

The A.K. Dar Commission, formed in 1948, concluded that Vidarbha deserved its province, distinct from what would later become the state of Maharashtra. This recommendation, grounded in governance rather than sentiment, continues to influence the Vidarbha movement, even as political decisions over the years have bypassed it.

The Commission and Its Recommendations

The A.K. Dar Commission, formally known as the Linguistic Provinces Commission, was constituted on 17 June 1948.

Its mandate was to assess whether Indian provinces should be reorganised along linguistic lines. Justice S.K. Dar, who chaired the panel, was instructed to examine multiple proposals for new provinces and determine their feasibility from administrative, economic and political perspectives.

At the time, the Marathi-speaking regions of India were under active consideration for unification into a single state.

Vidarbha, which then belonged to the Central Provinces and Berar, had already advocated for autonomy.

In 1938, the CP & Berar Legislative Assembly passed a resolution in favour of a separate Vidarbha province. Later, in August 1947, the Akola Pact was signed between leaders from western Maharashtra and Vidarbha. It proposed a single Marathi-speaking state with two administrative units of Mahavidarbha and Western Maharashtra.

The agreement clearly mentioned that if such an arrangement failed, Vidarbha should be granted statehood.

The Dar Commission, in its final report submitted in December 1948, took note of this demand. While the commission generally advised against the immediate formation of linguistic provinces, it made an important exception.

It stated that if Marathi-speaking areas were to be reorganised, they should not form a single large state. Instead, two separate states should be formed, one for Vidarbha and the other for western Maharashtra.

It observed that combining the regions could lead to an unwieldy administration and pose challenges to effective governance.

The commission underlined that administrative convenience must take priority over linguistic unity. It found Vidarbha to be a geographically and economically viable region for separate statehood.

This aligned with the sentiment among Vidarbha leaders, many of whom had long argued that the region’s development needs and identity would be better served under an independent provincial administration.

Political Responses in Vidarbha

The recommendation by the Dar Commission was initially received with approval in Vidarbha. Local leaders believed that the government had finally recognised the distinct identity of their region.

Figures like Brijlal Biyani and M.S. Aney had long championed the cause of a separate Vidarbha. They viewed the commission’s findings as a validation of their stand.

At the grassroots level, the report was seen as a formal acknowledgement that Vidarbha did not have to be subsumed into a larger Maharashtra to preserve its linguistic or cultural interests.

However, the political momentum generated by the report did not last. In 1949, the Congress high command appointed the JVP Committee, comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, to re-examine the Dar Commission’s findings. The JVP Committee concluded that the question of Vidarbha’s statehood should be left to the will of its people.

Despite this suggestion, no public consultation or plebiscite was conducted. As a result, the Dar Commission’s recommendation was effectively shelved without formal rejection or endorsement.

By 1956, Vidarbha was merged into the bilingual Bombay State, and later in 1960, into the newly formed state of Maharashtra. This decision went against both the Akola Pact and the Dar Commission’s report. Vidarbha leaders who had expected a different outcome expressed dissatisfaction.

Brijlal Biyani resigned from his ministerial post in protest and continued to campaign for separate statehood through the Nag Vidarbha Andolan Samiti. While sections of the population welcomed being part of a united Maharashtra, many felt that their region’s interests were compromised in the process.

One key political compromise came in the form of the Nagpur Agreement of 1953. Under this arrangement, Vidarbha agreed to join Maharashtra under specific conditions, including equitable distribution of government resources and one legislative session per year to be held in Nagpur.

However, this agreement had no legal backing and served only as a political understanding.

Over time, many of these assurances were either diluted or ignored, reinforcing the belief among Vidarbha supporters that the merger had been unfavourable.

Long-Term Relevance to the Statehood Demand

Timeline of Events leading to Keeping Vidarbha under Maharashtra

The Dar Commission’s report did not change Vidarbha’s status immediately, but it laid the groundwork for a lasting statehood movement. In the years that followed, its findings were repeatedly cited by activists and politicians who continued to press for a separate state.

The 1955 States Reorganisation Commission also supported a separate Vidarbha, echoing many of the Dar Commission’s concerns about governance and regional imbalance.

Throughout the 1960s and 70s, the Vidarbha movement saw periodic revivals. In 1972, Jambuwantrao Dhote launched a mass agitation and a hunger strike demanding statehood. The Dar Commission was often mentioned in such campaigns to highlight that the region's demand was not driven solely by emotion or politics, but had been supported by official evaluations from as early as 1948.

When the Indian government created Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand in 2000, many in Vidarbha questioned why their region, with an older and institutionally endorsed claim, had been excluded.

Analysts pointed out that despite favourable reports from two commissions, Vidarbha remained part of Maharashtra due to political opposition from regional parties like the Shiv Sena.

In later years, the Dar Commission’s relevance persisted, particularly during discussions around the formation of Telangana. As demands for smaller states grew louder across India, Vidarbha was frequently cited as a region whose case had been endorsed but never implemented.

Proponents of statehood continued to refer to the 1948 report as one of the earliest validations of their claim.

Despite this, the movement has weakened in recent years. The political class within Vidarbha has not prioritised the demand consistently.

Leaders who had once campaigned for statehood did not push the issue once in power. The emotional connection with the Dar Commission’s findings has remained, but its political utility appears to have diminished.

Nevertheless, the commission's report still stands as a historical record that recognised Vidarbha as a region with unique needs and capabilities. Its assessment, based on administrative logic rather than linguistic identity, gave the movement an analytical foundation that few other regional demands could claim.

While the political climate may not currently favour statehood, the documentation from 1948 remains a significant reference point in Vidarbha’s long and unfinished journey toward autonomy.