CHALLENGES OF NATION BUILDING IN INDEPENDENT INDIA

Nation Building and Its Problems

OBJECTIVES OF THE CHAPTER

• Outline the immediate challenges to India’s national unity and territorial integrity post-1947.
• Analyze how India addressed the challenges of Partition, integration of princely states, and linguistic reorganization of states.
• Understand the context of freedom alongside the violence and displacement of Partition.
• Explain the process and necessity of integrating princely states.
• Describe the redrawing of state boundaries based on linguistic aspirations.

INTRODUCTION

India gained independence at midnight on 14-15 August 1947, marking the end of 200 years of British rule. This moment, famously termed a ‘tryst with destiny‘ by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, was eagerly awaited. The national movement had largely agreed on two goals: establishing a democratic government and ensuring the government worked for the welfare of all, especially the poor and socially disadvantaged. However, independence arrived under extremely difficult circumstances. Freedom was accompanied by the partition of the country, leading to unprecedented violence and displacement. Despite this turmoil, India’s leaders remained focused on the multiple challenges facing the new nation.

DEVELOPMENT

The newly independent India faced three fundamental challenges:

• Forging National Unity amidst Diversity.
• Establishing democracy.
• Ensure development and well being of entire society and not only of some sections.

Partition, Displacement, and Rehabilitation: This posed the major challenge infront of independent india.

• The division of British India into India and Pakistan was based on the ‘two-nation theory’ advanced by the Muslim League, which argued that India consisted of two ‘people’, Hindus and Muslims, and thus demanded a separate country for Muslims. The Congress opposed this theory. several political developments in the 1940s, the political competition between the Congress and the Muslim League and the British role led to the decision for the creation of Pakistan. 

Eventhough leaders of both nations promised the security of life and faith to everyone it couldnot save people from the pain and anguish of unprecendent violence. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, in his Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan at Karachi on August 11, 1947, stated: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” [ He also expressed the hope that in time, the “angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community” would vanish.

In the same manner Jawaharlal Nehru, in a Letter to Chief Ministers on October 15, 1947, addressed the situation of the Muslim minority in India after Partition. He wrote: “We have a Muslim minority who are so large in numbers that they cannot, even if they want, go anywhere else. That is a basic fact about which there can be no argument.” He emphasized the need to treat this minority in a civilized manner, stating, “Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State.” He warned that failure to do so would result in “a festering sore which will eventually poison the whole body politic and probably destroy it.

PROCESS OF PARTITION: The process, guided by the principle of religious majorities, was complex and painful.

The four major issue were:-

1. Lack of a Single Muslim Majority Belt: There was no single continuous area within British India where Muslims formed the majority. Instead, there were two main concentrations of the Muslim population, one in the west and one in the east. Since these areas could not be joined, it resulted in the creation of two separate territories for Pakistan (West and East Pakistan), divided by a large expanse of Indian land.

• Opposition from some Muslim Majority Areas: Not all areas with a Muslim majority wished to be part of Pakistan. For instance, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the prominent leader of the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP), strongly opposed the partition and the two-nation theory. Despite his opposition, the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan.

• Division of Punjab and Bengal: Two large provinces, Punjab and Bengal, had significant non-Muslim populations within their Muslim-majority areas. The decision was made to bifurcate these provinces based on religious majorities at the district or even lower levels. This division was complex and couldn’t be finalized by August 14-15, 1947, leaving many people uncertain about which country they belonged to on Independence Day and causing significant trauma.

• The Plight of Minorities: The creation of new borders left millions of Hindus and Sikhs in areas designated as Pakistan and a similar number of Muslims on the Indian side, particularly in Punjab and Bengal. These groups suddenly found themselves viewed as unwelcome minorities or ‘aliens’ in their ancestral homes. As soon as partition became certain, large-scale violence erupted against these minority communities, forcing them to abandon their homes, often with little notice, and flee across the new borders.

THE PARTITION OF INDIA IN 1947 HAD SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES

• Massive Displacement and Violence: It resulted in one of the largest, most abrupt, unplanned, and tragic transfers of population in human history. There were widespread killings and atrocities on both sides of the border, with people ruthlessly killing and maiming those from the other community in the name of religion.

• Communal Zones: Cities like Lahore, Amritsar, and Kolkata were divided into “communal zones,” where people of one community avoided areas where the other community primarily lived.

• Suffering of Minorities: Minorities on both sides were forced to abandon their homes and often sought temporary shelter in refugee camps, facing immense suffering and sometimes unhelpful local administration and police.

• Attacks During Journey:  Even during their migration, people were often attacked, killed, or raped. Thousands of women were abducted, forced to convert, and marry their abductors. In some cases, women were killed by their own families to preserve “family honour”. Many children were separated from their parents.

• Life in Refugee Camps: For lakhs of refugees, freedom meant living in refugee camps for months or even years as they had no homes to return to.

• Division Beyond Territory: The Partition was not just a political or administrative division; it also divided financial assets, government employees, railway workers, and even things like furniture and musical instruments. It was a violent separation of communities who had previously lived together.

• Mass Migration and Deaths: An estimated 80 lakh people were forced to migrate across the new border, and between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition-related violence.

• Challenge to Secularism: The Partition, based on religious grounds, posed a deeper issue for India, which did not believe in the two-nation theory. It raised questions about how the Indian government would treat its Muslim citizens and other religious minorities, given the severe conflict already created between communities.

• Writers, poets, and filmmakers have captured the trauma of Partition, often describing it as a “division of hearts”

• However, India remained committed to secularism, treating all citizens equally regardless of religion. Despite the creation of Pakistan, India retained a large Muslim minority. The Muslim Population in India accounted for 10-12 percent of the total Population in 1951. This reaffirmed the leaders’ commitment to a secular nation where all citizens were equal regardless of religion.

Mahatma Gandhi’s Sacrifice: Mahatma Gandhi was deeply saddened by the communal violence during Partition. He said “Tomorrow we shall be free from the slavery of the british domination. But at midnight India will be partioned. Tommorrow will thus be a day of rejoicing as well as mourning.” He did not participate in the Independence Day celebrations on August 15, 1947, and was in Kolkata trying to stop the gruesome riots between Hindus and Muslims. His presence and efforts to persuade communities to give up violence significantly improved the situation in Kolkata, allowing for a communal harmony during the independence celebrations. He also undertook fasts to bring peace, first in Kolkata and later in Delhi when large-scale violence erupted there. Gandhiji was concerned about ensuring that Muslims could stay in India with dignity and as equal citizens. He was also unhappy with the Indian government’s decision regarding financial commitments to Pakistan and undertook his last fast in January 1948 partly for this reason. His fast in Delhi had a dramatic effect, reducing communal tension and allowing Muslims to return home safely. His efforts were not liked by extremists in both communities. Finally, on 30th Jan 1948, extremist, Nathuram Vinayak Godse walked up to Gandhi Ji during his evening prayer in Delhi and fired “three” bullets at him, killing him.

The division of India was driven more by political aspirations than the desires of the common people. the human cost and lived experience of Partition for the common people were a tragic consequence, rather than a reflection of their collective will. The fact that “a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan” [c also underscores the imposed nature of the division.

INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES: This posed another challenge to India unity and integrity.

• Princely states covered one-third of the land area of the British Indian Empire and one out of four Indians lived under Princely rule.
• Under Mountbatten plan, British paramountcy over 565 Princely States lapsed at independence, allowing them to choose their future. They were given the choice to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent, a decision left to the rulers, not the people.
• The Problem: This threatened India’s unity. The first problem arose with the “Ruler of Travancore” who announced the state would be independent. The Nizam of Hyderabad made a similar announcement the next day. Many rulers were hesitant or unwilling to join India. Rulers like the Nawab of Bhopal were averse to joining the constituent assembly. There was a real possibility of India fragmenting into smaller countries. Most states had non-democratic governments, and rulers were reluctant to grant democratic rights.

Government’s Approach:

Led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister during the crucial period immediately following Independence, the interim government took a firm stance against fragmentation. Patel skillfully negotiated with the rulers. He said to Princely states “We are at a Momentus stage in the history of India. By common endeavour, we can raise the country to new greatness, while lack of unity will expose us to unexpected calamities. I hope the Indian states will realise fully that if we do not Cooperate and work together in the general interest, arachy and Chaos will overwhelm us all, great and small and lead us to total will.”

• The government’s approach was guided by three considerations:
  • First: Acknowledging the popular will, as most people in the princely states desired to join India.
  • Second: Flexibility in granting autonomy to accommodate regional diversity.
  • Third: Prioritizing the integration and consolidation of national territory, especially in the context of Partition.
• The rulers of most states signed the “Instrument of Accession” which meant that their state agreed to become part of the Union of India before August 15, 1947.
• While most states acceded peacefully, Junagadh, Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Manipur proved more challenging. The issue of Junagarh was resolved after a plebiscite.

Hyderabad:

• Context: The largest princely state, entirely surrounded by Indian territory, ruled by the wealthy Nizam who desired independence. Some parts of old Hyderabad are today’s part of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
• Events:
  • The Nizam signed a Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947 for a year while negotiations continued. He got into standstill Agreement in November 1947.
  • A powerful popular movement against the Nizam’s oppressive rule gained momentum, particularly among the peasantry in the Telangana region, with active participation from Communists and the Hyderabad Congress. The peasantry in the Telangana region in particular was victim of Nizam’s oppressive rule and rose against him.
  • The Nizam responded by unleashing a brutal para-military force known as the Razakars, who committed widespread atrocities, particularly targeting non-Muslims.
  • In September 1948, the Indian Army moved in (“Operation Polo”) and controlled the forces to control the situation.
• Outcome: After brief fighting, the Nizam surrendered, leading to Hyderabad’s accession to India.

Manipur:

• Context: The Maharaja of Manipur, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian Government before independence on the assurance that Manipur’s internal autonomy would be maintained.
• Events:
  • Under public pressure, the Maharaja held elections in Manipur in June 1948 based on universal adult franchise (a first for any part of India) and the state became a Constitutional Monarchy. Manipur became the first part of India to hold an election based on Universal Adult Franchise.
  • Sharp differences arose in the state’s Legislative Assembly regarding the merger with India; the State Congress supported it, while other parties opposed it.
  • The Govt of India succeeded in persuading the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement in Sep 1949.
• Outcome: Manipur merged with India, though the circumstances surrounding the Merger Agreement caused some lasting resentment.

Reorganisation of States:

• After integrating the princely states, the next challenge was redrawing India’s internal boundaries. Colonial-era boundaries were based on administrative convenience or conquest.
• The national movement had rejected these divisions as artificial and had promised the linguistic principle as the basis for the formation of states to reflect India’s cultural diversity. In fact, at the Nagpur session of Congress in 1920, the Principle was recognised as the basis of the reorganization of the Indian National Congress party itself.
• Gandhi on Linguistic Provinces: “If linguistic provinces are formed, it will also give a fillip to regional languages. It would be absurd to make Hindustani the medium of instruction in all the regions and it is still more absurd to use English for this Purpose”.
• Initial Apprehensions: Post-independence, leaders feared that creating states solely on language might lead to disruption, disintegration, divert focus from socio-economic challenges, and foster separatism. The fresh memory of Partition and the undecided fate of princely states led to a decision to postpone the matter. Two commissions, the Dhar Commission (1948) and the JVP committee (1948), rejected language as the primary basis for reorganization.
• The Linguistic Principle Gains Momentum:
  • Andhra Movement: Movement started in the South including Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka. Protests erupted in Telugu-speaking areas of Madras province demanding a separate state. The Vishalandhra Movement (as the Movement for a separate Andhra was called) gained strength. Potti Sriramulu, a Congress leader and veteran Gandhian, went on an indefinite fast that led to his death after 56 days. This caused widespread unrest and violence. Finally, the formation of Andhra state was announced by the PM in December 1952.

• States Reorganisation Commission (SRC): The creation of Andhra spurred similar demands elsewhere. The central government appointed the States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 to look into the question of redrawing the boundaries of States. The SRC, in its report, accepted that state boundaries should generally follow linguistic lines.

• States Reorganisation Act, 1956: Based on the SRC report, this act was passed in 1956. It led to the creation of 14 States and Six Union territories.
• Reason: To accommodate popular linguistic aspirations and reduce the threat of separatism.
• Outcome: Strengthened national unity by accepting diversity, deepened democracy by opening politics beyond the English-speaking elite, and provided a more uniform basis for state boundaries.

Year-wise Reorganisation (Post-1956):

Significance of Reorganisation:

The process, though initially viewed with apprehension, ultimately strengthened national unity. It underlined the acceptance of the principle of diversity and plurality within the Indian democratic framework. It also democratized politics by making it more accessible beyond the English-speaking elite. However, the process is ongoing, with demands for smaller states continuing in various regions.

Establishing Democracy: The Indian Constitution granted fundamental rights, universal adult suffrage, and established a representative parliamentary democracy. The challenge lay in developing democratic practices consistent with the Constitution. Ensuring Development and Well-being for All: The Constitution aimed for the development of the entire society, emphasizing equality and special protection for disadvantaged groups and minorities. The Directive Principles of State Policy outlined welfare goals. The key challenge was to create effective policies for economic development and poverty eradication.

CONCLUSION

The initial years after India’s independence were marked by formidable challenges that tested the nation’s resilience. Overcoming the trauma of Partition, integrating hundreds of princely states, and reorganizing states along linguistic lines were critical steps in building a unified, diverse, and democratic nation. The leadership’s commitment to secularism, democracy, and accommodating regional aspirations laid the foundation for India’s political trajectory. While the path was fraught with difficulties, including violence and deep societal divisions, the successful negotiation of these early challenges demonstrated the strength of the nascent Indian state and its commitment to unity in diversity. The acceptance of linguistic reorganization, despite initial fears, ultimately strengthened national unity and deepened democracy by acknowledging India’s inherent plurality. These foundational efforts paved the way for addressing subsequent challenges of democratic consolidation and socio-economic development.