Chapter 1 Challenges Of Nation Building

Three Challenges

Independent India broadly faced three major challenges:

1. Challenge of Unity: To shape a nation that was united yet accommodated the vast diversity of its society in terms of language, culture, and religion. Many doubted whether a country with such diversity could remain together, especially after Partition. Key questions were: would India survive as a unified country? At what cost (e.g., sacrificing regional identities)? And how to achieve territorial integration?
2. Challenge of Democracy: To establish democracy based on the Constitution's grant of fundamental rights and universal adult franchise. India adopted representative democracy with a parliamentary government framework, but the challenge was to develop democratic practices in line with the Constitution.
3. Challenge of Development: To ensure the development and well-being of the entire society, particularly the poor and disadvantaged. The Constitution enshrined equality and special protection for vulnerable groups and communities, and outlined welfare goals in the Directive Principles. The challenge was to formulate effective policies for economic development and poverty eradication.

This book explores how India addressed these challenges in the early years. This chapter focuses on the primary challenge of nation-building immediately after Independence, examining the context of Partition, how India sought unity amidst diversity, dealt with regional aspirations, and addressed disparities. The subsequent chapters will cover the challenges of establishing democracy and achieving economic development with equality and justice.

Partition: Displacement And Rehabilitation

The emergence of two nation-states, India and Pakistan, on 14-15 August 1947 was a direct result of the Partition of British India. This division was based on the **‘two-nation theory’** propagated by the Muslim League, which argued that India comprised two ‘people’ (Hindus and Muslims) and demanded a separate country for Muslims (Pakistan). The Congress opposed this theory, but political developments, competition, and the British role led to the decision for Partition.

Process Of Partition

The decision to divide British India into India and Pakistan was painful and complex. It was based on the principle of **religious majorities**: Muslim-majority areas would form Pakistan, and the rest would remain with India. However, this presented several difficulties:

1. No Single Muslim Majority Belt: Muslim concentrations were in the west and east, separated by vast Indian territory, leading to the creation of West and East Pakistan as non-contiguous territories.
2. Not All Muslim Majority Areas Wanted Pakistan: Leaders like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan from the North Western Frontier Province strongly opposed the two-nation theory, but NWFP was merged with Pakistan despite his opposition.
3. Muslim Majority Provinces Had Significant Non-Muslim Areas: Punjab and Bengal had large non-Muslim populations. It was decided to bifurcate these provinces based on religious majority at district or lower levels, a decision not finalised by Independence night, leaving many uncertain of their country. This caused the deepest trauma.
4. The Problem of Minorities: Lakhs of Hindus and Sikhs in areas assigned to Pakistan and large numbers of Muslims in Indian Punjab, Bengal, Delhi, and surrounding areas found themselves trapped as 'undesirable aliens' in their ancestral homes. No one anticipated the scale of violence or had plans to handle it. Violence escalated quickly after the prospect of Partition became clear, forcing minorities to flee on short notice.

Consequences Of Partition

The year 1947 witnessed one of human history's largest, most abrupt, unplanned, and tragic population transfers. Violence and atrocities occurred on both sides, with communities ruthlessly killing and maiming each other in the name of religion. Cities like Lahore, Amritsar, and Kolkata became divided into ‘communal zones’ where minority populations were unsafe.

Forced to abandon homes, people suffered immensely, seeking refuge in temporary camps. Local administration and police were often unhelpful. Journeys across the new border were fraught with danger, with attacks, killings, rapes, and abductions occurring. Thousands of women were abducted, forced to convert and marry. Many were killed by their own families to 'preserve honour'. Children were separated from parents. For millions, freedom meant life in 'refugee camps' for months or years.

Writers, poets, and filmmakers from both countries documented the trauma as a ‘division of hearts’, not just division of land, assets, or administration. Beyond the physical division, Partition posed a deeper question: did Partition on religious basis make India a Hindu nation? Despite mass migration, Muslims formed 10-12% of the population in 1951. How would India treat its Muslim citizens and other minorities?

The Muslim League advocated for a Muslim nation. Organisations also aimed to turn India into a Hindu nation. However, most national movement leaders believed India must be a secular nation, treating all citizens equally regardless of religion. Citizenship would not be based on religious affiliation. This ideal was enshrined in the Constitution.

Mahatma Gandhi, saddened by communal violence, did not celebrate Independence Day in 1947 but worked for communal harmony. He persuaded communities to give up violence and resorted to fasting to bring peace in Kolkata and Delhi. His fast in Delhi (January 1948) helped reduce tension, enabled Muslims to return home safely, and prompted the government to honour financial commitments to Pakistan. Extremists blamed Gandhi for this, leading to his assassination by Nathuram Godse on 30 January 1948, ending his struggle for truth, non-violence, justice, and tolerance.

Let's Re-search: The story of Shweta's grandfather moving from Lahore to Ludhiana during Partition highlights the violence but also the instances of help and shelter provided by families of other communities. This underscores the complexity of human relationships and the importance of compassion amidst communal strife. Similar stories from grandparents or older relatives about Independence and Partition experiences can offer diverse perspectives on celebrations, trauma, expectations, and the human impact of these events.

Film: Garam Hawa (1973) portrays the life of a Muslim family in Agra facing dislocation and identity crisis after Partition, grappling with the decision to migrate to Pakistan or stay, reflecting the personal and economic consequences of the division.

Integration Of Princely States

British India comprised British Indian Provinces (directly ruled by the British) and **Princely States** (ruled by princes accepting British supremacy or paramountcy). These states covered one-third of the land and housed one-fourth of the population.

The Problem

Before Independence, the British announced that paramountcy over Princely States would lapse, making all 565 states legally independent. Princes were free to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent. This decision, left to rulers rather than people, posed a grave threat to a united India. Rulers like Travancore and Hyderabad announced independence, while the Nawab of Bhopal opposed joining the Constituent Assembly. This created a real possibility of India fragmenting into numerous small states, also dimming prospects for democracy as most princely states were ruled non-democratically.

Government’s Approach

The interim government firmly opposed fragmentation. Sardar Patel, as Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, played a crucial role in integrating most princely states through firm but diplomatic negotiations. This required skillful persuasion, considering the complexity of various states (e.g., 26 small states in Orissa, numerous states/administrations in Saurashtra).

The government's approach was guided by three considerations: 1) The clear desire of people in most states to join India. 2) Willingness to be flexible in granting autonomy to some regions to accommodate plurality. 3) The supreme importance of integrating and consolidating national territorial boundaries, highlighted by Partition.

By 15 August 1947, peaceful negotiations brought almost all contiguous states into the Indian Union, with rulers signing the ‘Instrument of Accession’. However, integrating Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Manipur proved challenging.

Hyderabad

Hyderabad, the largest princely state, was surrounded by Indian territory. Ruled by the Nizam, one of the world's richest men, it sought independent status. A Standstill Agreement was signed with India (Nov 1947) for a year of negotiations.

Meanwhile, a strong popular movement against the Nizam's oppressive rule grew, particularly among the peasantry in the Telangana region and women. The movement, centred in Hyderabad town, was led by Communists and the Hyderabad Congress. The Nizam responded by unleashing the Razakars, a brutal paramilitary force targeting non-Muslims. Faced with Razakar atrocities and communal violence, the central government ordered the army to intervene. In September 1948, the Indian army moved in, and after brief fighting, the Nizam surrendered, leading to Hyderabad's accession to India.

Manipur

Days before Independence, the Maharaja of Manipur, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession with India, assured of internal autonomy. Due to public pressure, the Maharaja held elections in June 1948, making Manipur a constitutional monarchy and the first part of India to hold an election based on universal adult franchise.

Sharp divisions existed in the Manipur Legislative Assembly regarding merger with India; the state Congress favoured it, while other parties opposed. The Government of India successfully persuaded the Maharaja to sign a Merger Agreement in September 1949, integrating Manipur with India.

Reorganisation Of States

Nation-building continued after Partition and princely state integration with the challenge of redrawing internal state boundaries. This was not just administrative; boundaries had to reflect linguistic and cultural diversity without compromising national unity. Under colonial rule, boundaries were based on administrative convenience or annexed/princely territories.

The national movement rejected these divisions and promised linguistic principle for state formation, adopted by Congress in 1920 (Nagpur session) for party organisation. Post-Independence, leaders hesitated, fearing linguistic states would cause disruption and divert focus from other challenges. Postponement was also linked to undecided princely states and fresh memory of Partition violence.

This decision faced challenges from local leaders and people. Protests for a separate Andhra state (Vishalandhra movement) emerged in Telugu-speaking areas of Madras province. Despite central government vacillation, the movement gained momentum. Potti Sriramulu, a Gandhian Congress leader, died after a 56-day fast, causing violent unrest. This forced the Prime Minister to announce a separate Andhra state in December 1952 (Source quotes Mahatma Gandhi on linguistic provinces).

Andhra's formation spurred demands for linguistic states nationwide, prompting the government to appoint a **States Reorganisation Commission in 1953**. The Commission recommended redrawing state boundaries based on language. The **States Reorganisation Act (1956)**, based on this report, created 14 states and six union territories.

While leaders initially feared linguistic states would endanger unity, they eventually accepted the principle, hoping it would reduce separatism. Linguistic reorganisation was also seen as more democratic, opening politics to a non-English speaking elite. It provided uniform state boundaries and, crucially, strengthened national unity by accepting regional and linguistic claims, underlining the acceptance of diversity.

The creation of linguistic states wasn't immediate. 'Bilingual' Bombay state (Gujarati/Marathi) was later split into Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960). Punjab got statehood in 1966 (Haryana and Himachal Pradesh separated). The Northeast saw reorganisation in 1972 (Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura) and 1987 (Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland statehood in 1963). Later, demands for states arose based on distinct regional culture or development imbalance, creating Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand (2000). Telangana was created in 2014. Demands for smaller states persist (Vidarbha, Harit Pradesh, North Bengal).

Linguistic states transformed democratic politics, making power accessible beyond the elite and cementing diversity acceptance. Democracy became associated with plurality of ideas and ways of life, shaping future politics within this framework.