Political Unification Of India

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the indomitable man who integrated 562 princely states with the Union of India and prevented the Balkanization of the newly-independent country, owes an incalculable debt of gratitude to the vision, tact, diplomacy, and pragmatic approach of today's India. India had finally gained its hard-won independence in 1947, but it came with a slew of problems, including partition, communal riots, and a refugee crisis. It's easy to see why India's new government found the integration of more than 500 princely states a difficult nut to crack, given the country's crippling resource constraints, fledgling institutions, and ill-equipped colonial machinery. Patel, India's first deputy prime minister and home affairs minister, would not only handle these issues deftly and dexterously, but would go on to be known as the "Architect of Modern India."

•    Vallabhbhai Patel had already established himself as one of the most popular leaders of the freedom struggle after making his mark in the Kheda and Bardoli satyagrahas (during which he earned the title of 'Sardar'). 

 

•    By 1946, he had already established himself as one of the most popular leaders of the freedom struggle. He was a man of few words, stoic and simple in his habits, but when he did speak, people listened. As India's first deputy prime minister and home minister, he was tasked with the difficult task of integrating the princely states. He got to work with the speed of a military commander and the dexterity of a natural diplomat, ably assisted by V.P. Menon (then Lord Mountbatten's Constitutional Adviser and later the Secretary of the Ministry of the States). 

 

•    The princely states accounted for 48 percent of pre-independence India's land area and 28 percent of its population. Despite the fact that these kingdoms were not legally part of British India, they were completely subordinate to the British Crown in reality.

 

•    The Indian Independence Act of 1947 (based on the Mountbatten Plan) allowed the British Crown's paramountcy over Indian states to lapse. It also gave each of these rulers the option of joining the newly formed dominions of India or Pakistan or remaining as a sovereign state. 

 

•    Recognizing the urgency of gaining the acceptance of these 500-plus chiefdoms before India's Independence Day, Patel and Menon began employing all of their tricks, including force and friendly advice, to achieve their integration with the Indian dominion. However, the procedure was far from straightforward. 

 

•    Many of the rulers, who had been mollycoddled and exploited by the British for decades, saw the British departure as the ideal time to declare autonomy and declare their independent statehood on the world map. Patel (who laid out the framework) and Menon (who laid the actual groundwork) persisted, though.

 

•    He tried everything he could to persuade the princes to join India, from invoking their patriotism to warning them about the possibility of anarchy if they refused. He also proposed the concept of "privy purses," which would be a payment made to royal families in exchange for their consent to merge with India. 

 

•    Patel hosted a series of lunch parties in the spring of 1947, urging his princely guests to assist the Congress in drafting a new Indian constitution. 

 

•    Patel's tireless efforts paid off when the majority of rulers agreed to dissolve their states, handing over control of thousands of villages, jagirs, palaces, institutes, cash balances in the billions of rupees, and a 12,000-mile railway system to the Indian government without receiving any compensation. 

 

•    Except for a few princely states that resisted, the process of princely state integration was nearly complete by August 15, 1947. Some simply waited until the last possible moment to sign the Instrument of Accession, such as Piploda, a small state in central India that did not join India until March 1948. 

 

•    However, the most serious issues arose with Jodhpur, which attempted to negotiate better deals with Pakistan, Junagadh, which did accede to Pakistan, and Hyderabad and Kashmir, both of which declared their intention to remain independent.

 

•    With the transfer of power looming on the horizon, Maharaja Hanvant Singh ascended the throne of Jodhpur in June 1947 and began to waver on his predecessor's commitment to join India. He was young and inexperienced, but he believed that because his state was adjacent to Pakistan, he could get a better "deal." 

 

•    As a result, Hanvant Singh began talks with Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who is said to have given the Maharaja a signed blank sheet of paper on which to write down all of his demands. The princely state was allowed to accede to Pakistan on any terms it wanted, from free access to the Karachi port to arms manufacturing and importing. 

 

•    Seeing the dangers of the border state joining Pakistan, Patel met with Hanvant Singh right away and assured him that importing arms would be permitted, that Jodhpur would be connected to Kathiawar by rail, and that India would provide grain during famines. 

 

•    Following the carrots, the stick came in the form of more serious warnings: it was pointed out that the accession of a predominantly Hindu state to Pakistan would violate the two-nation theory's basic tenet and would almost certainly result in communal violence in the country. As a result, Jinnah's blank check was quickly revoked, and Jodhpur became part of India.

 

•    Junagarh, a princely state on Gujarat's southwestern border, also refused to join the Indian union by August 15, 1947. It was the most important of the Kathiawar states, with a large Hindu population, and was ruled by Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III, the Nawab. 

 

•    Nawab Mahabat Khanji chose to join Pakistan on September 15, 1947, despite Mountbatten's objections, claiming that Junagadh was connected to Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states under Junagadh's suzerainty — Mangrol and Babariawad — retaliated by declaring independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. 

 

•    The Nawab of Junagadh retaliated by militarily occupying the two states. Other neighbouring states retaliated angrily, sending troops to the Junagadh border and appealing to the Indian government for help. 

 

•    India believed that allowing Junagadh to join Pakistan would exacerbate communal tensions in Gujarat, so it refused to accept the Nawab's choice of accession. The government cited the state's 80 percent Hindu population as justification for a plebiscite on the issue of accession. 

 

•    India cut off fuel and coal supplies to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the border, and occupied the acceded-to-India principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad. Pakistan agreed to talk about a plebiscite in exchange for the withdrawal of Indian troops, which India refused.

 

•    Following clashes with Indian troops on October 26, the Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan. The Nawab had emptied the state treasury of cash and securities before leaving. Junagadh's court, facing collapse, invited the Government of India to take over the state's administration on November 7, 1947. 

 

•    Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the Dewan of Junagadh and father of the more famous Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, decided to seek intervention from the Indian government. The Indian government accepted the Dewan's invitation to intervene. In February 1948, a plebiscite was held, with almost unanimous support for India's accession. Junagadh was a part of the Indian state of Saurashtra until November 1, 1956, when it was absorbed into the state of Bombay. 

 

•    In 1960, the state of Bombay was divided into the linguistic states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, which included Junagadh. Since then, Junagadh has been a part of Gujarat.

 

•    Kashmir was a princely state ruled by a Hindu king over a majority Muslim population that had resisted joining either of the two dominions. This strategically located kingdom's case was not only unique, but also one of the most difficult, as it had significant international borders. 

 

•    Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, had proposed a cease-fire agreement to both India and Pakistan, pending a final decision on the state's accession. Pakistan signed the cease-fire agreement, but an army of soldiers and Pakistani lashkars (armed tribesmen) carrying weapons invaded Kashmir from the north. 

 

•    Thousands of tribal Pathan swept into Kashmir in the early hours of October 24, 1947. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir requested assistance from India. He sent Sheikh Abdullah, his representative, to Delhi to seek India's assistance. Maharaja Hari Singh fled Srinagar and arrived in Jammu on October 26, 1947, where he signed the J&K state's "Instrument of Accession." 

 

•    Indian jurisdiction would extend to external affairs, communications, and defence, according to the terms of the document. Following the signing of the document, Indian troops were airlifted into Kashmir and fought alongside the Kashmiris. 

 

•    Maharaja Hari Singh announced the formation of an interim popular government on the 5th of March, 1948, with Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah as Prime Minister. The state constituent assembly was elected in 1951. 

 

•    On October 31, 1951, it convened for the first time in Srinagar. 

 

•    The Delhi Agreement, signed in 1952 by the Prime Ministers of India and Jammu & Kashmir, granted the state special status within the Indian Constitutional framework. The constituent assembly of J&K ratified the state's accession to the Union of India on February 6, 1954. Following that, the President issued a constitution order under Article 370 of the Constitution, which extended the Union Constitution to the state, with some exceptions and modifications.

 

•    Jammu & Kashmir is and will remain an integral part of India, according to Section 3 of the J&K constitution. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 was promulgated by the President of India on August 5, 2019. 

 

•    The order effectively repeals the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370, which stated that provisions of the Constitution that applied to other states did not apply to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

 

•    The ruling class in Hyderabad (India's largest and wealthiest princely state) had flatly refused to join the Indian empire. Patel and other mediators' requests and threats failed to sway the cunning Nizam, who continued to expand his army by importing weapons from Europe. 

 

•    When armed fanatics known as Razakars unleashed violence against Hyderabad's Hindu residents, things took a turn for the worse. Patel acted once more. In what became known as 'Operation Polo,' Indian forces marched into Hyderabad on September 17, 1948. 

 

•    The Nizam was forced to surrender and merge his kingdom with the Indian Union after a four-day armed encounter, 13 months after India gained independence. Later, as a reward for his submission, the Nizam was appointed governor of the state of Hyderabad.

 

•    Travancore, a maritime state in southern India, was strategically located for maritime trade and had abundant human and mineral resources. It was one of the first princely states to reject Indian union membership and cast doubt on the Congress' leadership of the country. 

 

•    By 1946, Sir C.P. Ramamswamy Aiyar, the Dewan of Travancore, had declared his intention of forming an independent state of Travancore that would be willing to sign a treaty with the Indian union. Sir C.P. Aiyar is also said to have had secret ties with the British government, which supported an independent Travancore in the hope of gaining exclusive access to a mineral called monazite, which was abundant in the area and would give Britain an advantage in the nuclear arms race. He remained in his position until July 1947. 

 

•    After surviving an assassination attempt by a member of the Kerala Socialist Party, he changed his mind. Travancore became a part of India on July 30, 1947.

 

•    Hamidullah Khan, a Muslim Nawab, ruled over a majority Hindu population. He was a close ally of the Muslim League and a vocal opponent of the Congress' rule. He'd made it clear to Mountbatten that he wanted independence. 

 

•    However, the latter replied that “no ruler could flee the dominion closest to him.” The Prince became aware of the large number of princes who had acceded to India by July 1947 and decided to join them.

 

•    While Patel's role in bringing these royal territories into the Indian union is well-known, few people are aware that he also integrated Lakshadweep at a later date, ensuring that the beautiful coral atolls remained part of India. 

 

•    Pakistan began eyeing the strategically located and almost "out-of-sight" island archipelago that had been barely informed of the Independence shortly after August 15, 1947. 

 

•    The Pakistani Navy's attempt to seize Lakshadweep was thwarted when Patel quickly dispatched Indian naval ships to defend the island. As a result, the ever-pragmatic Patel and his brilliant secretary succeeded in unifying the princely states into the Indian union.

 

•    The Indian nation is the result of a long historical process that has lasted at least five centuries. India's nationhood has deep roots in its history as well as its experience with the struggle for independence. 

 

•    In pre-colonial India, there were already some elements of shared existence and consciousness. Despite its enormous cultural diversity, certain strands of a common cultural heritage had developed over the centuries, knitting its people together and instilling a sense of oneness, while also instilling tolerance for diversity and dissent. The unity of India, as poet Rabindranath Tagore put it, is a "unity of spirit." 

 

•    Under the Mughals, elements of political, administrative, and economic unity had developed. The rulers' politics and territorial ambitions frequently cut across regions and, at their most ambitious, were sub-continental in scope. In addition, despite limited transportation and communication, a significant amount of India-wide trade, specialization of production, and credit networks developed, particularly in the late mediaeval period. 

 

•    As evidenced by the popularity of the concepts of Bharat Varsha and Hindustan, a vague sense of Indianans had emerged. The colonialization of India's economy, society, and polity, as discussed in an earlier chapter, aided the process of India's unification. Even though they were still divided by language and ethnicity, Indians began to share more and more common economic and political interests, as well as social and cultural development, beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century.

 

•    The national movement was instrumental in uniting Indians politically and emotionally to form a nation and integrating them into a "common framework of political identity and loyalty." The breadth, duration, and breadth of social penetration of this movement instilled in the people a sense of unity and nationhood. The leaders of the national movement realized that the process of forming a nation was long and continuous, and that it was vulnerable to interruption, disruption, and even reversal. In 1947, there had already been one such disruption. 

 

•    As founders of the Republic, these leaders were well aware that the process of unifying India and national integration would need to be carefully maintained, promoted, and nurtured through ideological and political efforts even after independence.

 

•    India's vast diversity is legendary. It is divided into numerous linguistic, cultural, and geographic-ecological zones. It is home to Hindus, Muslims, and Christians of various faiths. 

 

•    Apart from tribal with a variety of belief systems, there are Sikhs, Persis, Buddhists, and Jews. The Indian Constitution recognized fourteen major languages in 1950, along with hundreds of others, many of which were spoken by only a million people. Mother tongues were listed as 1549 in the 1961 Census. 

 

•    The tribal, who make up over 6% of India's population, are dispersed across the country. Given this diversity, the national movement's leaders realized that the Indian nation needed to be built on a broad foundation. Only by accepting this enormous diversity and not opposing it to the process of nation-building could India be unified and its segmentation overcome. 

 

•    The emergence of a strong national identity as well as the preservation of India's rich diversity were viewed as parallel processes. Regional cultural identities would emerge as part of the overall Indian identity, not as a rival to it. 

 

•    However, it was recognized that India's diversity could also be a source of weakness. Diversity can be exploited for divisive purposes, resulting in disruptive tendencies like communalism, casteism, linguist exclusivity, and regional exclusivity. As a result, the challenge of integrating diverse loyalties was very real, especially as rapid social changes led to an increase in the size and number of social conflicts. 

 

•    Jobs, educational opportunities, political power, and a piece of the larger economic pie could and did fuel religious, regional, caste, and linguistic rivalries and conflicts. Different from other parts of the world, extra effort was required to carefully promote national unity. 

 

•    Territorial integration, mobilization of political and institutional resources, economic development, and adoption of policies that promote social justice, eliminate glaring inequalities, and provide equal opportunities were all part of the broad strategy for national consolidation after 1947. 

 

•    The leadership created a political institutional structure that aided in the consolidation of the country. The inauguration of a democratic and civil libertarian polity was at the heart of this structure. The argument that democracy and national integration are incompatible in newly liberated and developing countries, and that an authoritarian political structure is required to hold a diverse nation like India together was rejected. 

 

•    On the contrary, India's diversity necessitated the use of democracy rather than force or coercion to bring it together. Nehru repeatedly warned his countrymen that any reversal of democratic methods in India could result in disruption and violence. 

 

•    He emphasized that India could only be held together by a democratic structure that provided complete freedom as well as the opportunity for diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and political voices to be heard.

 

•    In 1950, a constitutional structure was established that addressed both the demands of diversity and the demands of unity. It established a federal structure with a strong center but also gave the states a great deal of autonomy.

 

•    The difference between decentralization and disintegration, as well as unity, integration, and centralization, was kept in mind by the drafters of the Constitution. Not only was the constitutional structure conducive to national integration, but it also provided the fundamental framework within which the fight against divisive forces could be waged. 

 

•    Elections were to be used by the political leadership to promote national consolidation and legitimize their integration policies. The parliament was the seat of basic and ultimate power, and it served as an open forum for different political ideologies to express themselves and compete for power. 

 

•    Invariably, the issues and problems discussed, as well as the programmers and policies, were on a pan-India scale. As Asoka Mehta put it, the parliament served as the nation's great unifier.

 

•    Political parties also served as a strong unifying force. All of the major political parties formed after 1947—the Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India, the Jan Sangha, and later the Swatantra party—were all-India in character, organization, and ideology, and stood for the country's unity. Even when their capacity to do so was limited to specific regions, they worked for national goals and mobilized people on an all-India basis and on all-India issues. 

 

•    In the post-independence years, all of this was perhaps even truer of Congress. It had a large and powerful organization that covered almost the entire country. It was able to maintain internal party cohesion and unity, as well as a willingness to act as a uniting force in society and politics. 

 

•    It is important to remember that, following the rapid marginalization of communal parties after independence, the major divide in Indian politics and among the intelligentsia was based on political and ideological differences rather than caste, religion, or language. 

 

•    The fact that the major vocal social groups and classes—the bourgeoisie, the working class, and the intelligentsia—were all pro-India and stood for national unity was also significant. Both before and after independence, Indian nationalism had little trouble dealing with the emergence of class consciousness, as well as class organizations such as trade unions and Kisan Sabhas on the one hand, and the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) on the other. 

 

•    Loyalty to a class or class organizations was not seen as a threat to national cohesion by any section of Indian society or politics.

 

•    The leadership's role in nation-building and national consolidation, as well as how it functions, is critical. The national movement's leaders thought in terms of the country and were fully committed to national unity and consolidation, which was widely accepted. 

 

•    In addition, none of India's early leaders—Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad, and Rajendra Prasad—were associated with any particular region, language, religion, or caste. Jayaprakash Narayan, J.B. Kripalani, Rammanohar Lohia, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, B.T. Ranadive, and Ajoy Ghosh were among the prominent opposition leaders.

 

•    The fact that the Congress leadership was well-versed in accommodative politics was a major asset. During the anti-imperialist struggle, it was able to keep diverse political and ideological trends united. Following this, despite having near-total political dominance, it was willing to appease and accommodate opposition parties and dissenting groups after 1947. 

 

•    It was especially sensitive to public outcry over linguistic or other cultural issues. It reacted angrily to violence and reacted sympathetically to demands made through nonviolent means and widespread support. For example, Nehru was willing to persuade and accommodate the Communists if they agreed to refrain from using violence. Other political parties, including the CPI, eventually came to share the same means, methods, and values for resolving social conflicts, with only rhetorical differences.

 

•    The Indian army and administrative services were also instrumental in bringing the country together. After 1947, India developed a national administrative service, with recruitment to its top echelons, the IAS, IPS, and other central services, taking place on the basis of individual merit from all regions and linguistic areas, regardless of caste or religion. 

 

•    All officers chosen were given common training and owed allegiance to the central government, which also had the ultimate power to promote or discipline them. The central and state services were largely apolitical, accepting the authority of the party that had been elected to power by the people. Similarly, the army was a national force with officers and ranks drawn from across the country. 

 

•    Following 1947, India's economy, national market, and transportation and communication networks were all further unified. Dams, steel mills, fertilizer plants, cement factories, heavy machinery, and electric plants were all promoted on a national scale, and they quickly became symbols of national effort and unity.

 

•    Economic development, according to Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders, is necessary for national consolidation. The government established a Planning Commission soon after independence and took proactive measures to promote planned economic development. 

 

•    Despite the fact that the government and the Planning Commission were unable to eliminate regional economic disparities, they were able to prevent inequity in the distribution of economic resources among states. The central government's policies toward the states were generally accommodating. 

 

•    As a result, despite constant grumbling and numerous grievances, there was no serious discontent in the states and regions over central government discrimination, and thus no separatist feelings on that basis.

 

•    National integration also necessitated policies that promoted social justice and economic and social equality. In the interests of the oppressed and deprived, the national movement had also linked the process of nation-building with socioeconomic changes. 

 

•    After independence, the nation's consolidation had to be assessed in terms of how it affected people's lives. The coming of independence, as well as processes of economic development and political democracy, had to benefit the entire Indian people, not just the middle and upper classes. 

 

•    By prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, or sex, the Constitution laid the groundwork for reducing social disparities. Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, employment, and legislatures redeemed the national movement's major pledge to the oppressed sections of society. 

 

•    A slew of social reforms and welfare laws were enacted shortly after 1947. Landlordism was abolished, and some land was redistributed. Untouchability became illegal after a law was passed. 

 

•    Unfortunately, there was no subsequent struggle against the hierarchical caste system, so caste discrimination and oppression persisted, while casteism, or the use of caste solidarity for electoral and other political purposes, grew. 

 

•    By the early 1950s, the momentum of social reform had faded. The elimination of social oppression, discrimination, and exploitation based on caste, religion, language, or ethnicity, as well as gross economic inequality, has remained the weakest part of the national integration agenda.

 

•    The founding fathers advocated for secularism as the nation's foundation from the beginning. They remained committed to the national movement's secular vision, unfazed by Partition and the riots that accompanied it. They also dealt firmly with communal violence, and on the whole, religious minorities were protected. 

 

•    The foreign policy of independent India was also a unifying factor. The policy of non-alignment and anti-colonialism, as well as Nehru's growing international stature, contributed to a sense of national pride in India among all sections of the population, regardless of political affiliation. 

 

•    The need for unity was urgent at the time of independence, but there was also the issue of integrating diverse loyalties. The strategies and approaches for promoting integration took time, but people were in a hurry, and conflicts were inevitable. Many analysts predicted growing disunity and even the country's disintegration.