Kerala State Formation Explained: The 1955 Indian Express Report and SRC Findings
The formation of Kerala on 1 November 1956 was not an emotional cultural merger, but the outcome of a clear and hard-negotiated administrative process.
A rare Indian Express edition dated 10 October 1955, reporting directly on the
States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) headed by Fazl Ali, shows exactly how Kerala’s map was drawn.
This article summarises the factual content from those clippings and the SRC’s Chapter III: Kerala.
Why Kerala Was Proposed: Linguistic and Practical Logic
The 1955 report noted that Travancore-Cochin was already a predominantly Malayalam-speaking region.
The Malayalam population stood at 86.3%, and in key districts such as Quilon, Trichur, and Kottayam,
the percentage was as high as 94%.
This made Travancore-Cochin the natural core around which a Malayalam-speaking state could be formed.
Malabar: The Major Addition
The district of Malabar (from Madras State) was recommended as the main addition.
The SRC described Malabar as culturally distinct, slightly isolated from Madras,
and economically centred around plantation crops like pepper, cashew, ginger, coffee, and rubber.
It was also identified as 96% Malayalam-speaking.
The Fate of Fort Cochin
The newspaper makes it clear:
“Fort Cochin, which is administratively part of Malabar, will automatically go to Kerala.”
Arguments to make Fort Cochin a centrally administered region were rejected.
The SRC said the Union Government already had constitutional powers over ports,
and therefore a special region was unnecessary.
Kasaragod and South Kanara: Border Questions
Kasaragod Taluk
The SRC noted that Malayalam-speaking population in Kasaragod taluk was about 72%.
Despite Kannada political opinions accepting Kerala’s claim only up to the Chandragiri river,
the Commission still recommended adding the entire taluk to Kerala,
instead of slicing the district on narrow linguistic lines.
Other South Kanara Areas
Demands for including the whole of South Kanara, North Kanara, or Coorg were rejected.
The Commission found no justification for these expansions.
Laccadive / Amindive Islands
Interestingly, the 1955 newspaper states that the Amindive group should be part of the future Kerala State.
Historically this did not happen, as the islands became a Union Territory,
but the newspaper gives rare insight into the original thinking.
Tamil-Speaking Taluks Removed from Travancore-Cochin
To create a linguistically consistent Kerala, five Tamil-speaking taluks were removed:
- Thovala
- Agasteeswaram
- Kalkulam
- Vilavancode
- Shencotta (Shenkotta)
These regions later became part of Kanyakumari district in Tamil Nadu.
Financial Debates Around Malabar
Objections Raised
Opponents argued that Malabar was under-developed, had a large revenue–expenditure gap,
used a different land revenue system, and would cost heavily to integrate.
SRC’s Verdict
The report found these worries exaggerated.
The Madras Government estimated Malabar’s deficit at not more than Rs. 55 lakhs per year.
The introduction of agricultural income-tax and future development was expected to improve its revenue.
The SRC concluded that Kerala’s finances would be stable and Malabar’s economic position would improve.
The Food Production Debate: Nanjil Nad
Another major argument in 1955 was that South Travancore / Nanjil Nad was the “rice bowl”,
and removing this area would leave Kerala food-deficient.
The SRC rejected this claim.
Food production estimates were inconsistent and exaggerated,
and Nanjil Nad itself was not self-sufficient in food.
Even under the most generous estimates, Kerala would not be losing a net food-surplus zone.
Palakkad
Palakkad played a crucial geographic and administrative role in the formation of Kerala. In the 1950s, the SRC noted that Malabar’s southern districts — including Palakkad — shared strong linguistic unity with Travancore-Cochin, with Malayalam spoken by more than 95 percent of the population. Palakkad was also a natural land bridge between the west coast and Tamil regions through the Palakkad Gap, which created centuries of trade, migration, and cultural exchange without altering its Malayalam-majority character. The district’s agrarian economy, based on paddy cultivation and the extensive canal-irrigated Chittur region, was cited as part of Malabar’s distinct administrative identity that made its merger with Kerala both logical and sustainable.
Chittur
Chittur, then part of the larger Palakkad–Malabar administrative zone under Madras State, was highlighted for its predominantly Malayalam-speaking population and its long-established agrarian systems. The SRC observed that despite proximity to Coimbatore, Chittur had no significant Tamil-majority pockets and culturally aligned with Malabar and Cochin through language, landholding practices, and local governance structures. Economically, Chittur’s irrigated paddy fields formed one of the most productive agricultural belts in Malabar, contradicting claims that the region could not sustain integration into Kerala. Its inclusion strengthened Kerala’s eastern frontier while preserving the linguistic and cultural continuity that guided the 1956 reorganisation.
Mahe
Mahe, though a Malayalam-speaking enclave, was not included in the proposed Kerala State because it remained under French administration until 1954 and continued as part of the newly formed Union Territory of Pondicherry. The SRC noted that Mahe’s political status and international treaty arrangements placed it outside the scope of linguistic reorganisation. Despite its cultural and linguistic alignment with Kerala, the Commission recommended no territorial transfer, leaving Mahe as a distinct administrative unit even after Kerala’s formation in 1956.
Fort Kochi
Fort Kochi, historically part of the Malabar administration under Madras, was clearly recommended for inclusion in Kerala by the SRC. The 1955 Indian Express report emphasised that although Fort Kochi had strategic port importance, making it a centrally administered zone was unnecessary because the Union Government already possessed constitutional powers over major ports. With an overwhelming Malayalam-speaking population and strong economic ties to Cochin and Malabar, its merger into Kerala was marked as automatic and administratively sensible.
Kanyakumari
Kanyakumari district, then consisting of the taluks of Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode, and Shencottah, was transferred from Travancore-Cochin to the Madras State based on clear linguistic evidence. The SRC pointed out that these regions were overwhelmingly Tamil-speaking and culturally integrated with the Tamil region. Economic arguments for retaining them within Travancore-Cochin were dismissed, as the Commission found no financial or administrative disadvantage in transferring the taluks to Tamil Nadu during the 1956 reorganisation.
Peerumedu
Peerumedu, located in the high ranges of Travancore, was highlighted for its significant hydel power potential and its established plantation economy. The SRC noted that the area formed an essential part of Kerala’s long-term electricity development plans. The ongoing colonisation and agricultural settlement schemes in Peerumedu were assessed to be functioning effectively, and the Commission recommended that these projects continue under the new Kerala administration without interruption.
Devikulam
Devikulam, another high-range taluk with major hydroelectric prospects, was considered vital for the proposed Kerala State’s future energy infrastructure. The SRC report acknowledged the strategic importance of Devikulam’s terrain for large-scale power generation. It also noted that the plantations and settlement patterns in the region were tied closely to Travancore-Cochin’s administrative systems, making its retention within Kerala both practical and beneficial for long-term development.
Kasaragod
Kasaragod was one of the most debated regions in the reorganisation process. The SRC report recorded that around 72 percent of the taluk’s population were Malayalam-speaking, with strong cultural and administrative links to Malabar. Despite some Kannada political objections favouring a boundary at the Chandragiri River, the Commission concluded that dividing Kasaragod on narrow linguistic lines would disrupt natural administrative cohesion. As a result, the entire taluk was recommended for inclusion in Kerala, forming the northernmost district during the 1956 reorganisation.
Power Projects and the High Ranges
Hydroelectric potential in Devikulam and Peermade taluks would continue to benefit Kerala.
SRC noted no major changes were needed to ongoing colonisation projects in these regions.
The Rejected Proposal for a Single South Indian State
Some political voices in the 1950s suggested merging Kerala with Madras to form one large “South Indian State”.
The SRC dismissed this sharply:
there was no administrative, linguistic, or cultural basis for such a merger.
Neither Tamilians nor Malayalees supported it.
The Proposed Kerala in 1955: Size and Demographics
- Area: ~14,980 square miles
- Population: ~13.6 million
- Malayalam speakers: ~94%
These figures closely match the final Kerala formed on 1 November 1956.
Why These 1955 Newspaper Clippings Matter
These clippings reveal that Kerala’s formation was a careful, rational decision based on:
- Linguistic majority
- Geographical coherence
- Administrative convenience
- Financial viability
- Economic patterns of Malabar and Travancore-Cochin
- Clear rejection of unrealistic territorial demands
No mythology, no religious angle, no romantic backstories.
Kerala was shaped by data, debate, and administrative logic.
The 1955 Indian Express report provides a transparent, factual window into how Kerala was stitched together.
It shows that the state’s formation was deeply studied and debated,
with decisions made on linguistic consistency, economic viability, and administrative efficiency.
Understanding this helps us defend the real history against distortions and oversimplified narratives.