Chapter 1 Challenges Of Nation Building

India achieved independence on the midnight of 14-15 August 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, marked this moment with his famous 'tryst with destiny' speech delivered to the Constituent Assembly.

This photograph captures the historic moment of India's first Prime Minister addressing the nation from the Red Fort upon gaining independence.

The national movement had diverse voices, but nearly everyone agreed on two core goals for independent India:

1. To govern the country through a **democratic system**.
2. To ensure the government worked for the benefit of **all citizens**, with particular attention to the poor and socially disadvantaged groups.

However, achieving these goals was challenging. India gained freedom under extremely difficult circumstances, most notably the **Partition** of the country, which resulted in unprecedented violence and trauma through mass displacement in 1947. Despite this turmoil, the leaders remained focused on the significant challenges facing the new nation.

Newspaper headlines from 1947, like this one, reflect the tense and uncertain atmosphere surrounding the impending Partition and independence.

Three Challenges

Independent India faced three primary challenges:

1. To shape a united nation while accommodating diversity: India was a vast country with immense linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity. Many doubted whether such a diverse nation could remain unified, especially after the Partition based on religion. Key questions were whether India could survive as a single country, whether unity would come at the expense of regional and sub-national identities, and how the territory would be integrated.

---

2. To establish democracy: India adopted a representative democracy based on a parliamentary form of government. The Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights and the right to vote to all citizens, ensuring political competition within a democratic framework. The challenge was not just having a democratic constitution but developing actual democratic practices in accordance with it.

---

3. To ensure development and well-being for all: The Constitution laid down the principle of equality and included Directive Principles of State Policy outlining welfare goals. It also provided special protections for socially disadvantaged groups and religious/cultural minorities. The challenge was to create effective policies for economic development and eradicate poverty across the entire society, not just certain sections.

This book explores how India addressed these challenges in the initial years and beyond, focusing on nation-building, establishing democracy, and achieving development with justice. This chapter concentrates on the crucial challenge of **nation-building** immediately after independence.

These stamps issued for India's first Republic Day in 1950 might visually represent the aspirations and challenges faced by the new republic, perhaps symbolizing unity, progress, or specific national goals.

Partition: Displacement And Atrocity

On 14-15 August 1947, the British Indian Empire was divided, leading to the creation of two nation-states: **India and Pakistan**. This decision stemmed from the **'two-nation theory'** put forth by the Muslim League, which argued that India comprised two distinct peoples, Hindus and Muslims, requiring a separate country for Muslims (Pakistan). The Congress opposed this theory, but political developments in the 1940s, including competition between the Congress and the Muslim League and the role of the British, resulted in Partition.

Process Of Partition

The decision to divide British India based on religious majority was extremely difficult to implement and led to immense suffering. Key challenges in the Partition process included:

• There was **no single continuous belt of Muslim majority areas** in British India. Muslim populations were concentrated in two regions: one in the west and one in the east. This necessitated Pakistan being created as two separate territories, West and East Pakistan, separated by a large stretch of Indian territory.
• Not all Muslim majority areas wished to join Pakistan. **Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan**, a prominent leader in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) known as the 'Frontier Gandhi', strongly opposed the two-nation theory. His view was disregarded, and the NWFP was merged with Pakistan.
• Two major Muslim majority provinces, **Punjab and Bengal**, also had significant non-Muslim populations in large areas. It was decided to bifurcate these provinces based on religious majority at the district or even lower levels. The border demarcation process was so complex that it wasn't completed by the date of independence, leaving many people unsure whether they were in India or Pakistan on 15 August 1947.
• The most difficult problem was the fate of **minorities** on both sides of the border. Millions of Hindus and Sikhs in areas assigned to Pakistan, and large numbers of Muslims in Indian parts of Punjab, Bengal, Delhi, and surrounding areas, found themselves trapped. They became 'undesirable aliens' in their ancestral homes.

As Partition became imminent, minorities on both sides were attacked. The scale of violence was unanticipated and overwhelmed initial hopes that it would be temporary. Minorities were forced to abandon their homes, often with little warning.

Consequences Of Partition

The year 1947 witnessed one of the largest, most abrupt, and tragic transfers of population in human history. Partition resulted in horrific violence and atrocities on both sides. Cities became divided into 'communal zones,' with people of one community avoiding areas dominated by the other. Estimates suggest around **80 lakh (8 million) people were forced to migrate** across the newly drawn borders.

Images like this one, showing trains packed with refugees, powerfully depict the scale and human cost of the mass displacement during Partition.

People faced immense suffering, seeking temporary shelter in 'refugee camps' and often finding little help from local administration and police in what was recently their own country. Journeys across the new border, often on foot, were fraught with danger, including attacks, killings, and rapes. Thousands of women were abducted on both sides, forced to convert and marry their abductors; in some cases, women were killed by their own families to protect perceived 'family honor'. Many children were separated from their parents. Survivors often spent months or years in refugee camps.

Writers, poets, and filmmakers captured the brutality and trauma of Partition in their works, often using the phrase survivors used: a **'division of hearts'**. Partition was more than just a political or administrative division; it divided financial assets, physical belongings, government employees, and, most profoundly, communities that had lived together for centuries as neighbors. Between five to ten lakh (0.5 to 1 million) people are estimated to have been killed in Partition-related violence.

Information about the short story "Hospitality Delayed":

This excerpt from Saadat Hasan Manto's story chillingly illustrates the perversion of hospitality and the depth of communal hatred during Partition violence, where rioters, after slaughtering members of one community, offered food and drink to the survivors, highlighting the twisted reality of the time.

Beyond the immediate human tragedy, Partition posed a deeper question for India: given it was partitioned on religious grounds, would India automatically become a Hindu nation? Even after significant migration to Pakistan, Muslims constituted 12% of India's population in 1951. This raised a fundamental challenge: how would the government treat its Muslim citizens and other religious minorities (Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Jews) in the context of severe communal conflict fueled by Partition?

Competing political interests influenced these dynamics. The Muslim League advocated for a separate Muslim nation. There were also organizations promoting the idea of India as a Hindu nation. However, most leaders of the national movement were committed to the principle that India must treat all citizens equally, regardless of their religion. They believed that religious belief should not determine citizenship status and cherished the ideal of a **secular nation**. This ideal was enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Information about Mahatma Gandhi's sacrifice:

Mahatma Gandhi did not celebrate independence on 15 August 1947. He was in Kolkata, working to quell gruesome Hindu-Muslim riots, disheartened that his principles of non-violence had seemingly failed. His presence and efforts, including fasting, significantly improved the communal situation in Kolkata and later in Delhi. He was deeply committed to ensuring Muslims could live in India with dignity as equal citizens and was concerned about India honoring its financial commitments to Pakistan. His fast in January 1948 in Delhi had a profound impact, reducing violence and allowing Muslims to return home. However, his steadfast pursuit of Hindu-Muslim unity provoked Hindu extremists. Despite multiple attempts on his life, he refused armed protection. On 30 January 1948, Nathuram Vinayak Godse assassinated him during his evening prayer in Delhi. Gandhi's death had a dramatic effect, causing Partition-related violence to subside, leading to a crackdown on communal organizations, and diminishing the appeal of communal politics for a time.

Integration Of Princely States

British India was divided into two main categories: British Indian Provinces, directly controlled by the British government, and **Princely States**, ruled by princes who enjoyed some internal autonomy under British **paramountcy** (or suzerainty). Princely States covered a third of the land area and housed one in four Indians.

The Problem

Just before India's independence, the British announced that with the end of their rule, paramountcy over the Princely States would also lapse. This meant that 565 large and small states would become legally independent. The British government gave the princely rulers the choice to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent, without consulting the people of these states. This posed a severe threat to the unity of independent India, raising the possibility of India fragmenting into numerous small countries. It also jeopardized the prospects of democracy for the people living under non-democratic princely rule.

Problems arose quickly, with rulers like the Maharaja of Travancore and the Nizam of Hyderabad announcing their decisions to remain independent. The Nawab of Bhopal was also reluctant to join the Constituent Assembly.

This map shows the political divisions of India around the time of independence, highlighting the numerous Princely States (yellow areas) that had not yet joined the Indian Union, illustrating the complex territorial challenge of integration.

Government’s Approach

The interim government took a firm stand against the potential fragmentation of India into small principalities. The Muslim League, however, supported the states' right to choose independence. **Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel**, India's Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, played a crucial role in integrating most of the Princely States into the Indian Union. He used a combination of firm diplomacy and skillful persuasion for this complicated task.

This photograph shows Sardar Patel, instrumental in the integration of princely states, with the Nizam of Hyderabad, one of the rulers who initially resisted joining India.

The government's strategy was guided by three main considerations:

1. The clear desire of the **people** in most princely states to join the Indian Union.
2. The government's flexibility in offering **autonomy** to some regions to accommodate plurality.
3. The paramount importance of **integrating and consolidating** the territorial boundaries of the nation, especially in the backdrop of the Partition.

Before 15 August 1947, peaceful negotiations led almost all contiguous states to sign an **'Instrument of Accession'**, agreeing to become part of India. However, the accession of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Manipur proved more difficult.

• Junagadh: Its accession was resolved after a plebiscite confirmed the people's desire to join India.
• Hyderabad: The Nizam initially sought independence and signed a Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947 for a year. However, a strong popular movement against the Nizam's oppressive rule, particularly by the peasantry in Telangana and led by Communists and the Hyderabad Congress, gained momentum. The Nizam responded by deploying a brutal paramilitary force called the **Razakars**, who targeted non-Muslims with atrocities. The central government intervened, sending the Indian army in September 1948. After brief fighting, the Nizam surrendered, and Hyderabad acceded to India.
• Manipur: The Maharaja, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession before independence, with the assurance of maintaining internal autonomy. Under public pressure, he 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. However, the state Legislative Assembly was divided over merging with India. The Government of India successfully pressurized the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement in September 1949, without consulting the elected Assembly. This decision caused significant resentment in Manipur, with lasting repercussions.

R. K. Laxman's cartoon humorously depicts the power dynamics between the people and rulers in princely states and Sardar Patel's strategic approach to integrating them into India, perhaps showing the rulers' resistance and the underlying popular desire for change or merger.

Reorganisation Of States

Nation-building did not end with Partition and princely state integration. The next major challenge was to define the **internal boundaries of the Indian states**. This was not just an administrative task but required drawing boundaries that reflected the country's linguistic and cultural diversity without compromising national unity.

Under colonial rule, state boundaries were arbitrary, based on British administrative convenience or territories conquered/ruled by princes. The national movement had opposed these artificial divisions and promised the reorganization of states based on the **linguistic principle**. This principle was adopted by the Indian National Congress party itself as early as 1920 for its own organizational structure, creating Provincial Congress Committees along linguistic zones.

However, after independence and Partition, the national leadership became hesitant. They feared that forming states solely based on language could lead to disruption and disintegration of the newly formed nation, diverting attention from other pressing social and economic issues. They decided to postpone the matter, also influenced by the unresolved status of princely states and the fresh trauma of Partition.

This postponement was met with strong challenge and popular protests, particularly in the Telugu-speaking areas of the old Madras province. The **Vishalandhra movement** demanded a separate Andhra province for Telugu speakers. The movement intensified when Potti Sriramulu, a Congress leader and Gandhian, died after a 56-day fast unto death for the cause. His death sparked widespread unrest and violent protests in the Andhra region. Facing immense public pressure and resignations of legislators, the Prime Minister finally announced the formation of a separate **Andhra state in December 1952**.

This Shankar cartoon, titled "Struggle for Survival," captures the intense popular demand for linguistic states in 1953, illustrating it as a vital struggle despite the leadership's initial hesitation.

Information about Potti Sriramulu:

Potti Sriramulu (1901-1952) was a Gandhian activist who left his job to join the freedom movement. He fasted for opening temples to Dalits and later undertook a fast unto death demanding a separate Andhra state for Telugu speakers. His death in December 1952 catalyzed the movement and led to the formation of Andhra, becoming a martyr for the cause of linguistic states.

The creation of Andhra triggered similar demands and struggles across other linguistic regions in India. These movements compelled the central government to appoint the **States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953**. The SRC accepted the principle that state boundaries should align with language boundaries. Based on its report, the **States Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956**, leading to the creation of **14 states and 6 union territories**.

Shankar's cartoon, "Coaxing the Genie back," depicts the States Reorganisation Commission attempting to control the demands for linguistic states ("genie of linguism"), reflecting the leadership's anxiety about whether this reorganisation would contain or unleash fissiparous forces.

The formation of linguistic states, initially feared as a threat to unity, did not lead to the country's disintegration. Instead, it arguably **strengthened national unity** by accommodating regional linguistic identities. It provided a more uniform basis for state boundaries and opened up democratic politics and access to power beyond a small, English-speaking elite. The acceptance of linguistic states fundamentally underlined India's commitment to recognizing and accepting **diversity** and plurality within its democratic framework.

Fast Forward: Creation of new states

The principle of linguistic states was accepted, but the process of reorganization continued beyond 1956:

• The bilingual Bombay state (combining Gujarati and Marathi speakers) was divided into **Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960** after popular agitation.
• In Punjab, demands for a separate Punjabi-speaking state were met later. **Punjab state was created in 1966** by separating Haryana (Hindi-speaking) and parts that went to Himachal Pradesh.
• Major reorganization occurred in the **north-east in 1972**, with Meghalaya carved out of Assam, and Manipur and Tripura gaining statehood. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became states in 1987, while Nagaland had become a state earlier in 1963.

Over time, the basis for state creation expanded beyond language to include demands based on distinct **regional culture** or concerns about **regional imbalance in development**. Examples include the creation of **Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand in 2000**. Demands for separate, smaller states based on these factors continue in various regions of the country.