counter the Dravida movement. Dakshina Pradesh means the amalgamation of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He spread his ideology through his followers like C.Subramaniam, Bhaktvatsalam, and some others. Rajaji’s political idea was vehemently opposed by most of the political parties of South Achutha Menon N.
Sreekantan India. Sreekantan of the Revolutionary Socialist Party, Achutha Menon of Cochin Communist Party and A.K.Gopalan leader of the Travancore Communist Party strongly opposed the idea of the State of Dakshina Pradesh. E.V. Ramasamy wrote an editorial column in the press, Viduthalai and requested all Tamils to send telegrams against the formation of Dakshina Pradesh to the Chief Minister of Madras Government.
Meanwhile, the people of Karnataka also opposed the concept of Rajaji, particularly Sardar Sarana Gowda of Karnataka People’s Party. However, Rajaji and his supporters once again raised the concept of Dakshina Pradesh at Amritsar Congress Conference in . There, K.Kamaraj, Chief Minister of Madras State reflected people’s resistance and stood against Dakshina Pradesh. He opposed the Dakshina Pradesh concept in all the public meetings and it had aroused a great spirit among the Tamils, who were ready to fight against the concept of Dakshina Pradesh.
K.Kamaraj Rajaji Linguistic Reorganisation of Indian States after Independence The demand of States on linguistic basis was developed even before the independence of India under British rule. After independence, the first ten years of nation-building between and saw the issue play a decisive role again and prompted the formation of two major policy directions: one was the official language policy and other the reorganisation of States, that is, federal restructuring. The reorganisation of the States on the basis of language, a major aspect of national consolidation and integration, came to the force almost immediately after independence. The boundaries of provinces in pre- India had been drawn in a haphazard manner as the British conquest of India had proceeded for nearly a hundred years.
No heed was paid to linguistic or cultural cohesion so most of the provinces were multilingual and multi- cultural. The case for linguistic States as administrative