Challenges of National Building 

Challenges for the New Nation

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of free India, addressed a special session of the Constituent Assembly that night of independence. This was the famous ‘tryst with destiny’ speech.

There were two goals before independent India:

1. Democratic government.

2. The good for all, particularly the poor and the socially disadvantaged groups. 

Challenges of Independent India

Freedom came with the partition of the country. It was in this situation that independent India started on its journey to achieve several objectives. 

Yet the turmoil that accompanied independence did not make our leaders lose sight of the multiple challenges that faced the new nation. Independent India faced three main challenges, they are:

1. Challenge was to shape a nation that was united, yet accommodative of the diversity in our society.

2. To establish democracy and to develop democratic practices in accordance with the constitution.

3. To ensure the development and well-being of the entire society and not only of some sections.

Partition: Displacement and Rehabilitation

1. Partition is the division of British India into India and Pakistan.

2. According to the ‘two-nation theory’ advanced by the Muslim League, India consisted of not one but two ‘people’, Hindus and Muslims. That is why it demanded Pakistan, a separate country for the Muslims. The Congress opposed this theory and the demand for Pakistan.

3. Though, the leaders of Indian National Struggle did not believe in two-nation theory and yet, partition on religious basis taken place. 

4. But several political developments in 1940s, the political competition between the Congress and the Muslim League and the British role led to the decision for the creation of Pakistan.

Process of Partition

It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India. This presented all kinds of difficulties in partition.

There was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India

There were two areas of concentration, one in the west(Pakistan) and one in the east (East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh).

There was no way these two parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country, Pakistan, will comprise two territories, West and East Pakistan separated by a long expanse of Indian territory.

Not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan

Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. 

Non Muslim Majority in Muslim Province

Two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal, had very large areas where the non-Muslims were in majority.

Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious majority. This partition caused the deepest trauma of partition. 

Minorities on both sides of the Border

Lakhs of Hindus and Sikhs in the areas that were now in Pakistan and an equally large number of Muslims on the Indian side of Punjab and Bengal (and to some extent Delhi and surrounding areas) found themselves trapped.

The minorities on both sides became targets of attacks.

The minorities on both sides of borders were le with no option except to leave their homes.

Consequences of Partition

The year 1947 was a year of unprecedented violence and trauma of displacement. This year of one of the largest, most abrupt, unplanned and tragic transfers of population that human history has known. 

Cities like Lahore, Amritsar and Kolkata became divided into ‘Communal Zones.’

Minorities on both sides of the border fled their home and often secured temporary shelter in ‘refugee camps’. For lakhs of these ‘refugees’ the country’s freedom meant life in ‘refugee camps’, for months and sometimes for years. 

The survivors themselves used to describe Partition — as a ‘division of hearts’. It was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence. 

Even after large scale migration of Muslims to the newly created Pakistan, the Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total population in 1951. 

The national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion. 

All citizens would be equal irrespective of their religious affiliation. Being religious or a believer would not be a test of citizenship. Therefore the ideal of a secular nation and it was enshrined in the Indian Constitution. 

Integration of Princely States

British India was divided into what were called the British Indian Provinces and the Princely States. 

The British Indian Provinces were directly under the control of the British government. On the other hand, several large and small states ruled by princes, called the Princely States, enjoyed some form of control over their internal affairs as long as they accepted British supremacy. This was called ‘‘paramountcy or suzerainty of the British crown.’’

Princely States covered one-third of the land area of the British Indian Empire and one out of four Indians lived under princely rule. 

Here, the problem is, the British government took the view that all these states were free to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent if they so wished. This decision was le not to the people but to the princely rulers of these states. This was a very serious problem and could threaten the very existence of a united India. 

Initially, the rulers of princely states decided to be independent. This response of the rulers of the Princely States meant that after Independence there was a very real possibility that India would get further divided into a number of small countries. 

Since the Indian Independence was aimed at unity, self-determination as well as democracy. In most of these princely states, governments were run in a non-democratic manner and the rulers were unwilling to give democratic rights to their populations.

Government Approach

Sardar Patel was India’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister during the crucial period immediately following Independence. He played a historic role in negotiating with the rulers of princely states firmly but diplomatically and bringing most of them into the Indian Union. 

The government approach was guided by three considerations. They are:

i). The people of most of the princely states clearly wanted to become part of the Indian union.

ii). The government was prepared to be flexible in giving autonomy to some regions. The idea was to accommodate plurality and adopt a flexible approach in dealing with the demands of the regions.

iii). In the backdrop of Partition which brought into focus the contest over demarcation of territory, the integration and consolidation of the territorial boundaries of the nation had assumed supreme importance. 

Before 15 August 1947, peaceful negotiations had brought almost all states whose territories were contiguous to the new boundaries of India, into the Indian Union. The rulers of most of the states signed a document called the ‘‘Instrument of Accession’’ which meant that their state agreed to become a part of the Union of India.

Accession of the Princely States of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and Manipur proved more difficult than the rest. The issue of Junagarh was resolved after a plebiscite confirmed people’s desire to join India.

 Hyderabad

Nizam was ruling Hyderabad state and one of the largest of the princely states, and it was surrounded entirely by Indian territory. Some parts of the old Hyderabad state are today parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. 

Nizam wanted an independent status for Hyderabad. He entered into what was called the Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947 for a year while negotiations with the Indian government were going on. 

In the meantime, a movement of the people of Hyderabad State against the Nizam’s rule gathered force. The peasantry and women oppression, joined the movement in large numbers. Hyderabad town was the nerve centre of this movement.

The Communists and the Hyderabad Congress were in the forefront of the movement. The Nizam responded by unleashing a para-military force known as the Razakars on the people. The atrocities and communal nature of the Razakars knew no bounds.

The central government had to order the army to tackle the situation. In September 1948, Indian army moved in to control the Nizam’s forces. Aer a few days of intermittent fighting, the Nizam surrendered. This led to Hyderabad’s accession to India.

 Manipur

The Maharaja of Manipur, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian government on the assurance that the internal autonomy of Manipur would be maintained.

 Under the pressure of public opinion, the Maharaja held elections in Manipur in June 1948 and the state became a constitutional monarchy. Thus ‘‘Manipur was the first part of India to hold an election based on universal adult franchise.’’

There were differences In the Legislative Assembly of Manipur about the merger of Manipur with India.

The Government of India succeeded in pressurising the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement in September 1949, without consulting the Legislative Assembly of Manipur. This caused a lot of anger and resentment in Manipur, the repercussions of which are still being felt. 

Reorganisation of States

It was not just a matter of administrative divisions, but the boundaries have to be drawn in a way so that linguistic and cultural plurality of the country could be affecting the unity of the nation.

National movement had rejected the division of state boundaries which were drawn during colonial rule, as it is artificial and had promised the linguistic principle as the basis of formation of states.

In the Nagpur session of Congress in 1920 the principle was recognised as the basis of the reorganisation of the Indian National Congress party itself. 

Carving out states on the basis of language might lead to disruption and disintegration. It was also felt that this would draw attention away from other social and economic challenges that the country faced. The central leadership decided to postpone matters. 

But soon movements started like the visalandhra movement. The Vishalandhra movement demanded that the Telugu speaking areas should be separated from the Madras province of which they were a part and be made into a separate Andhra province. Potti Sriramulu, a congress leader went on an indefinite fast that led to death after 56 days. This caused great unrest and resulted in violent outbursts in Andhra region. 

Finally, the Prime Minister announced the formation of a separate Andhra state in December 1952. The formation of Andhra Pradesh spurred the struggle for making other states on linguistic lines in other parts of the country. These struggles forced the Central Government into appointing a States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 to look into the question of redrawing of the boundaries of states. 

The Commission in its report accepted that the boundaries of the state should reflect the boundaries of different languages. On the basis of its report the States Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956. This led to the creation of 14 states and six union territories. 

 It was felt that linguistic states may foster separatism and create pressures on the newly founded nation. But it strengthened the unity of India as a whole.

Some commissions on linguistic basis are S K Dhar commission, JVP committee, and Fazl Ali commission, Shah commission.

Some new states and union territories created after 1956:

i). Bilingual state of Bombay – Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960.

ii). Nagaland-1963.

iii). Punjab state- Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh(as UT)in 1966.

iv). Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura -1972.

v).  Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram – 1987.

vi).  Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal -2000.

vii) Telangana- 2014. 

Share

& Comment

Tweet