Himachal’s quest for identity

Prof Ranbir Singh

Himachal’s quest for identity may be traced from the Ludhiana Session of the All-India People’s Conference, headed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1938. 

The Praja Mandal leaders from Punjab Hill States had demanded that the Province of Himachal Pradesh be formed by integrating Punjab hill states and Garhwal and Jaunsar-Bawar area of the United Province, in it. This demand had also been favoured by Dr B Pattabhi Sitaramayya, the then Vice-President of All-India People’s Conference in 1948. Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister of India, had also assured him in a letter dated March 18, 1948, that it shall be fulfilled in due course of time after this area is sufficiently developed in its resources and the administration. Perhaps to make it a full-fledged province, its administrative structure was not perceived fit by the government of India. Hence, Himachal Pradesh was given the status of a Chief Commissioner’s Province on April 14, 1948. However, it was made a Part-C state on January 26, 1950, headed by a Lieutenant Governor and having a Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister, who was responsible to the State Legislative Assembly by the Constitution of India.

When the States Reorganisation Commission was appointed by the Government of India in 1953 for considering various demands for the formation of linguistic states, the government of Himachal Pradesh headed by Dr YS Parmar and its State Legislative Assembly had demanded the formation of a Vishal Himachal State comprising the Part-C State of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Kangra and Lahaul-Spiti districts of Punjab and Garhwal and Jaunsar areas of Uttar Pradesh (UP) on the ground that people of these areas not only have a common culture, but a linguistic affinity as well. Besides, these areas were also suffering from discrimination by the governments of Punjab and UP.

But the States Reorganisation Commission rejected this demand in 1955 on the ground that there was no evidence of discrimination against the people of hilly areas of Punjab and that such a demand did not exist in the hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh. Instead, the Commission favoured the integration of merger of Himachal Pradesh in the state of Punjab, which at that time was sharing the border with Pakistan and China because a stronger state was needed in North Western India. Moreover, the Commission also felt that on account of its economic backwardness, Himachal Pradesh would not be able to become a viable state. However, for ensuring the protection of its people, they suggested that Punjab Cabinet have at least one minister from the Assembly constituencies falling in the hill area of the state. Moreover, they urged that the Centre should not only give special funds for the development of this area, but also exercise strict vigil on Punjab Government for ensuring that these funds were spent properly. However, the chairman of the Commission, Justice Fazal Ali, gave a Note of Dissent recommending the preservation of the identity of Himachal Pradesh as a Union Territory for safeguarding the interests of the people of the area. Dr YS Parmar, the then Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, also launched a vigorous campaign for preserving its identity.

Consequently Himachal Pradesh was made a Union Territory headed by a Lieutenant Governor on November 1, 1956. A Territorial Council, having some executive functions, was also created for giving representation to the people. However, later it was replaced by a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister and responsible to the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh. Later, Shimla, Kangra and Lahaul-Spiti areas were merged into it on November, 1966, after the Parliamentary Committee on Punjab Suba headed by Sardar Hukum Singh recommended the linguistic reorganisation of Punjab by making its Punjabi region as the new state of Punjab, for converting its Hindi region into the state of Haryana and by transferring the hill area of Punjab to Himachal Pradesh.

The Boundary Commission appointed by the government of India to demarcate the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, recommended the transfer of Shimla, Kangra and Lahaul-Spiti districts, Una Tehsil of Hoshiarpur district and Nalagarh Tehsil of Patiala district of Punjab to Himachal Pradesh. But, they rejected the demands for the inclusion of Pathankot Tehsil of Gurdaspur district and Kalka Sub-Tehsil and Morni Hill areas of Ambala district in Himachal Pradesh. It, however, accepted its demands for the transfer of Dalhousie enclave of Gurdaspur district to it. Thus the present boundaries of Himachal Pradesh were demarcated by the Punjab Reorganisation Act (1966) on November 1, 1966.

However, the demand of statehood for Himachal Pradesh was accepted much later on January 25, 1971, as a result of the persistent efforts of the Congress government of Himachal Pradesh headed by YS Parmar. The Congress leadership of the state in general and Parmar in particular deserve credit for it. But other parties, including the BJP, had also lent support to it despite the fact that its earlier incarnation, the Jan Sangh, had favoured the merger of Himachal Pradesh into Punjab in 1955 because it wanted the formation of Maha Punjab to counter the Akali demand for the Punjabi Suba as Jan Sangh did not favour the creation of a Sikh majority state on the border of Pakistan. However, its leaders from Himachal Pradesh and Shimla, Kangra and Lahaul-Spiti districts of Punjab did demand their inclusion in Himachal Pradesh in 1966.

Be that as it may, this state has become a role model of human resource development for other states by laying stress on the education, health and women welfare. The primary credit for all this has to be legitimately given to Dr Y S Parmar.

(The author is a senior fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi and was a UGC visiting professor in HPU, Shimla, in 2001-2002)