Detailed Notes

Of
Chapter – I
(Including key points)
Challenges of Nation Building
Nation and Nation Building:
Nation: A nation is a stable community of humans formed on the basis of a common language, territory,
history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation has also been defined
as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.
Nation Building:
➢ Nation-building is constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. Nation-
building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and
viable in the long run.
➢ It is different from the state building as the nation building refers to the creation and building of
national identity and the state building refers to infrastructure and the institutions of the state.
Challenges for the new nation
➢ At the hour of midnight on 14-15 August 1947, the first prime minister of free India, Jawaharlal
Nehru, addressed a special session of the Constituent Assembly with the famous ‘tryst with destiny’
speech on the occasion of independence.
➢ There were two important goals to be achieved after independence –
a) To run the government through democratic means.
b) The government will be run for the ‘good of all’ specially the disadvantaged and underprivileged
groups.
➢ India was born in very difficult circumstances. Freedom came with the partition of the country. The
year 1947 was a year of unprecedented violence and trauma of displacement. It was in this situation
that independent India started on its journey to achieve several objectives.
Three Challenges: Broadly, independent India faced three kinds of challenges-
1. The first and the immediate challenge was to shape a nation that was united, yet accommodative of
the diversity in our society. India was a land of continental size and diversity. Its people spoke
different languages and followed different cultures and religions. At that time it was widely believed
that a country full of such kinds of diversity could not remain together for long. The partition of the
country appeared to prove everyone’s worst fears.
2. The second challenge was to establish democracy. India adopted representative democracy based
on the parliamentary form of government. These features ensure that the political competition would
take place in a democratic framework. A democratic constitution is necessary but not sufficient for
establishing a democracy. The challenge was to develop democratic practices in accordance with the
Constitution.
 3. The third challenge was to ensure the development and wellbeing of the entire society and not only
of some sections. Here again the Constitution clearly laid down the principle of equality and special
protection to socially disadvantaged groups and religious and cultural communities. The
Constitution also set out in the Directive Principles of State Policy the welfare goals that democratic
politics must achieve. The real challenge now was to evolve effective policies for economic
development and eradication of poverty.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and the Integration of States:
➢ Born on 31 October 1875 in Nadiad (in present day Gujarat), he was the first deputy Prime Minister
and Home Minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, emerged as a major leader of the freedom
movement after the Kheda Satyagraha (1918) and the Bardoli Satyagraha (1928).
➢ At the time of independence, the problem of integration of princely states was a big challenge for
the national unity and integrity of India. Under such difficult times, Sardar Patel undertook the
daunting tasks of uniting all 565 princely states of India.
➢ Known as an ‘Iron Man’ of India, Patel's approach to the question of the merger of princely states
into independent India was very clear. He was not in favour of any compromise with the territorial
integrity of India.
➢ By his political experience, diplomatic know how and foresightedness, out of India's 565 princely
states many had already given their consent to merge with India even before achieving the
independence.
➢ Sardar Patel faced key challenges of integration from three states, viz., Hyderabad, Junagarh and
Kashmir. It was under his leadership that Indian forces compelled Hyderabad and Junagarh to
merge with India.
➢ Keeping well-versed with Pakistan’s intentions from Jinnah’s divisive ‘Two Nation Theory’, Sardar
Patel's opinion on Kashmir was different from other leaders. Like Hyderabad, he also wanted
Kashmir’s integration with India through military operations. But due to political decisions of some
prominent leaders, Sardar could not succeed in integrating Kashmir fully with India which later
turned into a major historical blunder for the country.
➢ However, Sardar will always remain as an astounding leader who combined in himself the features
of a true ‘Nationalist’, ‘Catalyst’ and ‘Realist’ – popularly characterised as NCR in Indian political
history.
➢ Lord Louis Mountbatten formally proposed the plan on 3 June 1947, Patel gave his approval and
lobbied Nehru and other Congress leaders to accept the proposal. Patel took charge of the
integration of the princely states into India.
➢ This achievement formed the cornerstone of Patel's popularity in the post-independence era. Even
today he is remembered as the man who united India.
➢ Under the plan of 3 June, more than 562 princely states were given the option of joining either India
or Pakistan, or choosing independence. Indian nationalists and large segments of the public feared
that if these states did not accede, most of the people and territory would be fragmented.
➢ The Congress, as well as senior British officials, considered Patel the best man for the task of
achieving conquest of the princely states by the Indian dominion. Gandhi had said to Patel, "The
problem of the States is so difficult that you alone can solve it".
 ➢ Patel was considered a statesman of integrity with the practical acumen and resolve to accomplish a
monumental task. He asked V. P. Menon, a senior civil servant with whom he had worked on the
partition of India, to become his right-hand man as chief secretary of the States Ministry.
➢ On 6 May 1947, Patel began lobbying the princes, attempting to make them receptive towards
dialogue with the future government and forestall potential conflicts. Patel used social meetings and
unofficial surroundings to engage most of the monarchs, inviting them to lunch and tea at his home
in Delhi. At these meetings, Patel explained that there was no inherent conflict between the Congress
and the princely order.
➢ Patel invoked the patriotism of India's monarchs, asking them to join in the independence of their
nation and act as responsible rulers who cared about the future of their people. He persuaded the
princes of 565 states of the impossibility of independence from the Indian republic, especially in the
presence of growing opposition from their subjects.
➢ He proposed favorable terms for the merger, including the creation of privy purses for the rulers'
descendants. While encouraging the rulers to act out of patriotism, Patel did not rule out force.
Stressing that the princes would need to accede to India in good faith, he set a deadline of 15 August
1947 for them to sign the instrument of accession document. All but three of the states willingly
merged into the Indian union; only Jammu and Kashmir, Junagarh, and Hyderabad did not fall into
his basket.
Legacy of Partition: Challenge of Refugee and Resettlement - Partition, Displacement and Rehabilitation:
➢ On 14-15 August 1947, not one but two nation-states came into existence – India and Pakistan. This
was a result of ‘partition’, the division of British India into India and Pakistan.
➢ 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. 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:
➢ The division of India into two dominions was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide
and to implement. 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. The idea might appear simple, but it presented all kinds of difficulties.
➢ First of all, there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India. There were two areas
of concentration, one in the west and one in the east. 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.
➢ Secondly, 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. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the
NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan.
 ➢ The third problem was that 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 at the district or even
lower level. This decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15 August. It meant that a large
number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in
Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.
➢ The fourth and the most intractable of all the problems of partition was the problem of ‘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. Initially, the people and political leaders
kept hoping that this violence was temporary and would be controlled soon. But very soon the
violence went out of control. The minorities on both sides of the border were left with no option
except to leave their homes, often at a few hours’ notice.
Consequences of Partition:
➢ The year 1947 was the year of one of the largest, most abrupt, unplanned and tragic transfer of
population that human history has known.
1. There were killings and atrocities on both sides of the border. In the name of religion people of one
community ruthlessly killed and maimed people of the other community. Cities like Lahore,
Amritsar and Kolkata became divided into ‘communal zones’.
2. Muslims would avoid going into an area where mainly Hindus or Sikhs lived; similarly the Hindus
and Sikhs stayed away from areas of Muslim predominance. Forced to abandon their homes and
move across borders, people went through immense sufferings.
3. Minorities on both sides of the border fled their home and often secured temporary shelter in
‘refugee camps’. They often found unhelpful local administration and police in what was till recently
their own country.
4. They travelled to the other side of the new border by all sorts of means, often by foot. Even during
this journey they were often attacked, killed or raped.
5. Thousands of women were abducted on both sides of the border.
6. They were made to convert to the religion of the abductor and were forced into marriage.
7. In many cases women were killed by their own family members to preserve the ‘family honor’.
8. Many children were separated from their parents.
9. Those who did manage to cross the border found that they had no home. For lakhs of these
‘refugees’ the country’s freedom meant life in ‘refugee camps’, for months and sometimes for years.
10. Writers, poets and film-makers in India and Pakistan have expressed the ruthlessness of the killings
and the suffering of displacement and violence in their novels, short-stories, poems and films. While
recounting the trauma of Partition, they have often used the phrase that the survivors themselves
used to describe Partition — as a ‘division of hearts’.
11. The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of
the country and the administrative apparatus. What also got divided were the financial assets, and
things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police
band!
12. The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’.
 13. It was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbors.
14. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakhs people to migrate across the new border.
Between five to ten lakhs people were killed in Partition related violence. Beyond the administrative
concerns and financial strains, however, the Partition posed another deeper issue.
➢ The leaders of the Indian national struggle did not believe in the two-nation theory. And yet, partition
on religious basis had taken place. 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.
➢ Most leaders of 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. They cherished therefore the ideal of a secular nation. This ideal was enshrined in the
Indian Constitution.
Political Conflicts over Language and Linguistic Reorganization of States:
➢ The process of nation-building did not come to an end with Partition and integration of Princely
States. Now the challenge was to draw the internal boundaries of the Indian states. This was not just
a matter of administrative divisions.
➢ The boundaries had to be drawn in a way so that the linguistic and cultural plurality of the country
could be reflected without affecting the unity of the nation. During colonial rule, the state boundaries
were drawn either on administrative convenience or simply coincided with the territories annexed
by the British government or the territories ruled by the princely powers.
➢ Our national movement had rejected these divisions as artificial and had promised the linguistic
principle as the basis of formation of states. In fact after the Nagpur session of Congress in 1920 the
principle was recognized as the basis of the reorganization of the Indian National Congress party
itself.
➢ Many Provincial Congress Committees were created by linguistic zones, which did not follow the
administrative divisions of British India. But after independence, our leaders felt that 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. The need for postponement
was also felt because the fate of the Princely States had not been decided. Also, the memory of
Partition was still fresh.
➢ This decision of the national leadership was challenged by the local leaders and the people. Protests
began in the Telugu speaking areas of the old Madras province, which included present day Tamil
Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka.
➢ The Vishalandhra movement (as the movement for a separate Andhra was called) 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. Nearly all the political forces in the Andhra region
were in favour of linguistic reorganization of the then Madras province. The movement gathered
momentum as a result of the Central government’s vacillation. Potti Sriramulu, a Congress leader
and a veteran Gandhian, went on an indefinite fast that led to his death after 56 days.
➢ This caused great unrest and resulted in violent outbursts in Andhra region. People in large numbers
took to the streets. Many were injured or lost their lives in police firing. In Madras, several legislators
 resigned their seats in protest. Finally, the Prime Minister announced the formation of a separate
Andhra state in December 1952.
➢ The formation of Andhra spurred the struggle for making of 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.
➢ One of the most important concerns in the early years was that demands for separate states would
endanger the unity of the country. It was felt that linguistic states may foster separatism and create
pressures on the newly founded nation. But the leadership, under popular pressure, finally made a
choice in favour of linguistic states.
➢ It was hoped that if we accept the regional and linguistic claims of all regions, the threat of division
and separatism would be reduced. Besides, the accommodation of regional demands and the
formation of linguistic states were also seen as more democratic. Now it is more than fifty years since
the formation of linguistic states.
➢ We can say that linguistic states and the movements for the formation of these states changed the
nature of democratic politics and leadership in some basic ways. The path to politics and power was
now open to people other than the small English speaking elite. Linguistic reorganisation also gave
some uniform basis to the drawing of state boundaries.
➢ It did not lead to disintegration of the country as many had feared earlier. On the contrary it
strengthened national unity. Above all, the linguistic states underlined the acceptance of the principle
of diversity. When we say that India adopted democracy, it does not simply mean that India did not
embrace a democratic constitution, nor does it merely mean that India adopted the format of
elections. The choice was larger than that. It was a choice in favour of recognizing and accepting the
existence of differences which could at times be oppositional.
➢ Democracy, in other words, was associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life. Much of the
politics in the later period was to take place within this framework.
➢ The acceptance of the principle of linguistic states did not mean, however, that all states immediately
became linguistic states. There was an experiment of ‘bilingual’ Bombay state, consisting of Gujarati-
and Marathi-speaking people. After a popular agitation, the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were
created in 1960.
➢ In Punjab also, there were two linguistic groups: Hindi-speaking and Punjabi-speaking. The Punjabi-
speaking people demanded a separate state. But it was not granted with other states in 1956.
Statehood for Punjab came ten years later, in 1966, when the territories of today’s Haryana and
Himachal Pradesh were separated from the larger Punjab state.
➢ Another major reorganisation of states took place in the north-east in 1972. Meghalaya was carved
out of Assam in 1972. Manipur and Tripura too emerged as separate states in the same year. The
states of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh came into being in 1987. Nagaland had become a state
much earlier in 1963.
 ➢ Language did not, however, remain the sole basis of organization of states. In later years sub-regions
raised demands for separate states on the basis of a separate regional culture or complaints of
regional imbalance in development. Three such states, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand,
were created in 2000.
➢ The story of reorganisation has not come to an end. There are many regions in the country where
there are movements demanding separate and smaller states. These include Vidarbha in
Maharashtra, Harit Pradesh in the western region of Uttar Pradesh and the northern region of West
Bengal.
Integration of Princely States: British India was divided into - British Indian Provinces (under the direct
control of the British government) and the Princely States (indirectly controlled by the British government).
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.
➢ It was announced by the British government that with the end of their rule over India, paramountcy
of the British crown over Princely States would also lapse. This meant that all the princely states
would become legally independent.
➢ 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 left not to the people but to the princely
rulers of these states.
➢ The problems started very soon. First of all, the ruler of Travancore announced that the state had
decided on Independence. The Nizam of Hyderabad made a similar announcement the next day.
Rulers like the Nawab of Bhopal were averse to joining the Constituent Assembly.
➢ 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.
➢ 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’s Approach:
Sardar Patel had 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’s approach was guided
by three considerations-
➢ Firstly, the people of most of the princely states clearly wanted to become part of the Indian union.
➢ Secondly, 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.
➢ Thirdly, 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.
Integration of Hyderabad with the Union of India:
➢ Hyderabad, the largest of the Princely States was surrounded entirely by Indian Territory. Some
parts of the old Hyderabad state are today parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
➢ Its ruler carried the title, ‘Nizam’, and he was one of the world’s richest men. The 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 in the Telangana region in particular, was the victim of Nizam’s oppressive rule and
rose against him. Women who had seen the worst of this 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. They murdered, maimed, raped and looted,
targeting particularly the non-Muslims.
➢ 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. After a few days of intermittent fighting, the Nizam
surrendered. This led to Hyderabad’s accession to India.
Integration of Manipur with Union of India:
➢ Manipur A few days before Independence, 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.
➢ In the Legislative Assembly of Manipur there were sharp differences over the question of merger of
Manipur with India. While the state Congress wanted the merger, other political parties were
opposed to this.
➢ The Government of India succeeded in pressurizing the Maharaja into signing a “Merger
Agreement” in September 1949, without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of
Manipur. This caused a lot of anger and resentment in Manipur, the repercussions of which are still
being felt.

__________________________________________