It so happens when difference is understood as inequality or discrimination by some polluted minds particularly those who are in predominant posture in view of three capital i.e. economic, social and cultural.

Yes, diversity provides with sensitivity, intelligence through inquisitive attitude of people. An entire universal knowledge and experiences can be obtained from such society. A child living in such diverse society, learns automatically; the factual aspects of human life, its objectives and unprecedented growth of natural sciences and metaphysics in balanced way cannot be ruled out. What matters here is an ideal socialisation that a child obtains from family, neighbours, school and other communities. It means his ascriptive identity should be as clean as a scale so that he could write the creative words on it through his acquired traits in future and lead the society to the path of progress and prosperity in an splendid way.

Cultural diversity denotes a nation wherein people of different beliefs, religions, customs and rituals are living together. Thus, cultural diversity depicts difference and not inequality or discrimination.

In case, the case studies and surveys upon present scenario of politics and people's aspirations; all it indicates need for further reorganisation of states or further division of India in nationalities or nations, following suggestions can be given:

(i) Unity of the nation should be given top priority.

(it) Any plan, programmes, policies that pose tensions and objections from people should be rescinded.

(iii) The fanatic approach of linguistic unity should be rejected if other factors not allow such reorganisation.

(iv) The economic needs vis-a-vis available national resources in the regions should be given thought in course of debates upon their reorganisation.

(v) Means for sustaining such a state/ nation proposed for reorganisation should be in ample quantum so that process of development is not barred and the state can bear the expenses incurred in the stately affairs and administration.

(vi) The main objective of reorganisation of state should be to bring in administrative facility. The trade and industry as a result of reorganisation should flourish and the feelings of people a be given a reasonable importance.

People in favour of smaller states oppose that the public in that case, will make an easy access to the administration and grievances are redressed immediately. People's cooperation for community development programmes can be obtained more quickly in smaller principalities/nationalities/states as UNDP Report, 2004 proposes. People against organisation of smaller states see hurdles varied way while sitting for debate and final decision upon any national plan or programme as the predival delay cannot be ruled out. Moreover, non-plan expenditure (Salaries of M.L.As, M.Ps, officials, office expenses including stationery and official apparatuses etc.) will rise-up considerably and each state intends to show reluctance if concerned plan is not in its advantage. Thus, a series of objections, arguments, undue debates will defeat the purpose of the concerned policy and gradually, a chaotic situation may be created. Source of income are reduced while expenses increases marifold in smaller states—say people not in favour of creation of more states. People in favour of reorganisation on the basis of language say, social unity will establish in these states and it is most essential for a republic state like India. They add further that regional language will observe development as a result of organisation of state on linguistic basis. People will able to express their sentiments more efficient ways in their own language which will strengthen unity and integrity. It is the policy of the nation. Reorganisation of states on linguistic line will create ethnic and language ego in the states in ratio of the political parties. Legislative assembly will then become an assembly of nation or a nation to the state. In case, each state gives official status to its language, the Centre will have in the circumstance, to do communication in all their languages adopted by the states. The courts including Supreme Court of India will have to render their decision in an languages adopted by the states concerned. Further, it is unpracticable in view of accounts and auditing because it will become tough to bring uniformity and coordination in auditing. Thus, they say the principle of one language-one nation/state is baseless.

The reorganisation of the provinces of India on longinstic basis had been one of the demands of the Indian National congress in the struggles against the British government. In free India, the question of reorganisation was forced up by the fast and death of Potti Sriramulus. It generated chaotic situation in the province and thus, Telugu State of Andhra Pradesh was created. In order to examine objectively and dispassionately the issue of reorganisation of states, government of India had constituted a commission namely State Reorganisation Commission in 1954 with Fazal Ali as Chairman and two other member Pt. Hridaya Nath Kuryou and Sardar K.M. Parikkar. This commission carried out indepth surveys and studies on the issue and submitted its report in September 1955 and thus, state Reorganisation Act was passed in November 1956. In persuance with the recommendations of commission, 14 states and 6 Union Territories were created.

In 1961, Bombay state was bifurcated to form the two states of Maharashtra and Gujarat. In 1962, the state of Nagaland was created thus, presently there are 28 states and 7 Union territories in India.

As per the UNDP Human Development Report, 2004 that finds place in this text book, a recommendation has been given to divide India in more states as nations or nationalities on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language or indigenous identities and thus, this report wants to see India as a democratic state-nation. It says that modern India is facing a grave challenge to its constitutional commitment to multiple and complementary identities with the rise of groups that seek to impose a singular Hindu identity on the country. Recent communal violence has raised serious concerns for the prospects for social harmony and threatenings to undermine the country's earlier achievements. It is therefore, needful that multiple and complementary identities in the form of smaller units are to be formed and protected. Such an effort will cater to India's commitment to practices of pluralism, institutional accommodation and conflict resolution through democratic means—says the report. It is hopeful that building state nations will accommodate diversity constructively by crafting reform policies of cultural recognition.