Yes, there has been a discernible and gradual shift in the basis on which demands for the creation of new states have been raised in different regions of India. While the initial post-independence period saw demands primarily rooted in linguistic identity, subsequent movements have increasingly emphasized developmental disparities, administrative convenience, and distinct ethnic or tribal identities.

Early Demands (Primarily Linguistic and Cultural): In the immediate aftermath of independence, the primary basis for state reorganization was language. The idea was that states formed along linguistic lines would foster cultural homogeneity and administrative efficiency. This led to:

• Linguistic Reorganization: The demand for a separate Telugu-speaking state (Andhra Pradesh in 1953) was a catalyst. The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) of 1953, though initially cautious, largely endorsed the linguistic principle. This resulted in the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, which redrew the map of India, creating states like Maharashtra and Gujarat based on language.
• Cultural Homogeneity: Closely tied to language, the argument was that a shared culture and heritage would lead to better governance and a stronger sense of identity within a state.

Shift in Basis (Later Demands - Post-1960s/70s onwards): Over time, the focus shifted from purely linguistic considerations to a more complex set of factors:

1. Developmental and Economic Backwardness: This has emerged as a dominant rationale. Regions that feel economically neglected, exploited, or marginalized within larger states often demand separate statehood, arguing that a smaller, dedicated administration would better address their developmental needs and ensure equitable resource allocation. Examples include:

   • Jharkhand (from Bihar): Demands stemmed from the perception of exploitation of mineral resources and neglect of tribal development.
   • Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh): Similar arguments of economic backwardness and lack of focus on tribal areas.
   • Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh): Demands arose from the distinct geographical and economic challenges of the hill region and a feeling of neglect by the plains-dominated state government.
   • Telangana (from Andhra Pradesh): While initially a linguistic demand, the later and successful movement was primarily driven by perceived economic exploitation, political marginalization, and neglect of the region's development within a united Andhra Pradesh.
   • Ongoing Demands: Vidarbha (from Maharashtra) and Bundelkhand (from Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) are current examples where economic backwardness is a key driver.

2. Administrative Convenience and Efficiency: The argument here is that large states are difficult to administer effectively, leading to governance deficits. Smaller states, it is argued, can be governed more efficiently, allowing for better delivery of services and closer interaction between the government and citizens.

3. Ethnic and Tribal Identity: In many regions, particularly in the North-East and central India, demands for new states or autonomous regions are rooted in the assertion of distinct ethnic, tribal, or indigenous identities and cultures. These groups seek self-governance to protect their unique heritage, land rights, and way of life from perceived threats of assimilation or domination by larger groups. Examples include:

   • Naga, Mizo, Garo, Khasi, Jaintia states: Formed to recognize distinct tribal identities in the North-East.
   • Ongoing Demands: Gorkhaland (in West Bengal) and Bodoland (in Assam) are prominent examples where ethnic identity and cultural distinctiveness are central to the demand.

4. Political Identity and Autonomy: A desire for greater political voice and self-determination for a specific group or region, often intertwined with other factors, also fuels statehood demands.

Conclusion: The evolution of state reorganization demands in India reflects the country's changing socio-political landscape. While language was the primary unifying factor in the initial phase, the focus has broadened to encompass issues of equitable development, administrative efficacy, and the assertion of distinct ethnic and cultural identities. This shift underscores the complex challenges of nation-building in a diverse federal polity, where aspirations for both unity and distinctiveness continue to shape political discourse.