If there is Uttar Pradesh in North India and Madhya Pradesh in Cenral India, then why dont India have Dakshin Pradesh in South India, Paschim Pardesh in West India and Purav Pardesh in East India?
2007-03-11 21:35:58 · 4 answers · asked by Mohnish S 1 in Travel ➔ India ➔ Other - India
At the time of independence in 1947, India was fragment in more than 200 small states. First Home Minister Sardaar Vallabh Bhai Patel took the onorous task of combining them into administrative states. In North and Central India, there were various small states and there was not any major/dominating state into which other states could be merged. So Uttar Pradesh and Central Pradesh ( later renamed as Madhya Pradesh) were made in this part of country. West had Maharashtra as a dominating state. Gujrat was later carved out of it. In South the kingdoms were quite large and independent. Further Nizam of Hderabad did not accede to India initially and acted like an island of independed province. Thus Madras was made in south, which was later converted.
Later the reorganisation ( bifurcation) of all these administrative states was done on linguistic basis in 1960s.
Hence we find Haryana & Himachal pradesh carved out of earstwhile Punjab on lingustic basis.
Hope this gives the idea of reaon of not having a lot many Regional Pradesh.
2007-03-11 22:30:08 · answer #1 · answered by cooler_leo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should have suggested when India was renaming and dividing some states.
Instead of renaming so many stated why not rename uttar Pradesh and then others need not be worried of.
2007-03-12 08:11:13 · answer #2 · answered by Rajesh Lalwani 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so many states have been divided and renamed now a days.
give this suggestion to politicians and i am sure some party will win on this agenda soon and do it in the near future.
2007-03-12 05:08:02 · answer #3 · answered by sas35353535 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice question. Don't worry, will consider your suggestion in a very nearest future.
Cheers.
2007-03-12 05:04:39 · answer #4 · answered by Zain 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋