Paper 2›Modern India›Post-Independence Consolidation

Post-Independence Consolidation

Background

A few months before Independence, India consisted of 11 British provinces and 600 princely states. Out of these, 18 were large states whereas others were smaller ones

also known as 'Salute states' and 'non-Salute states' respectively, together constituting almost 1/3 rd of the territory of the Indian subcontinent. As such, the integration of these states into Indian Union was a formidable challenge before an infant nation gripped with multiple challenges.

Among Princely states, larger states enjoyed complete internal autonomy. Thus, subjects of defence, communication and External affairs were under British control while others were directly under Princely states.

Then, there were some smaller states which were only nominally autonomous. In these states, alongwith the defence, communications and External affairs subjects such as law and order, currency, commerce etc. were also managed by the British government.

Between these states were intermediate states which did not possess autonomy of larger states but enjoyed greater than that of the smallest ones.

Thus, we can say that the relationship between British India and princely states was not homogenous.

British Expansion

British East India Company relied on aggressive territorial expansion in the first half of the nineteenth century. This created a rivalry between the Company and the princely states.

However, post-1857, policy of non-intervention vis-à-vis annexation started. In this phase, British worked to establish their Paramountcy through treaties, alliances and

agreements. Therefore, the British crown emerged as a friend and protector of Indian princes post 1857.

With the rise in nationalism and political consciousness, the British had to further deepen their relationship with the Princes. Thus, Chamber of Princes was established in

1921 with Viceroy as its ex-officio Head.

However, the President of the Chamber of Princes remained to be an Indian prince.

In 1935, an All India Federation was proposed through the Government of India Act,

As per the Act, the Princely states could become part of the Federation but it was

not compulsory for them. Finally, the Federation could not materialize because of the disinterest of the Princely states and their 'virtual veto' over its ratification.

However, with the outbreak of the Second World War, all such attempts were stopped. British had realised that they needed the support of princes in the war who generously sent their men and material while the Congress was reluctant to do so.

During the 1940 s, British prevented the forcible integration of Princely States into the Indian nation. It was a strategy to derail the independence struggle.

In 1946-47, British attitude changed slightly to accept that while the treaties and alliances between the British government and Princely states could not be inherited by

India, the British itself would no longer be able to fulfill its treaty obligations towards the Princely states. The change in this attitude was because of the following factors-

The destructive effect of the World War Two,
Rising internal pressure to demobilize the soldiers who were away from their homelands for so long,

Rising external pressure from USA and USSR. Nationalism in the Princely States

It emerged later in Princely states as compared to rest of the nation because of the-

Lower levels of education and political awareness,
Ideological indoctrination of the Princely states' people towards the divine rights of Kings,

The reluctance of top Congress leaders to mobilise the states' people because of low availability of funds as well as organizational capacity atleast before Gandhi. Even after that, Gandhi considered some of the progressive princes to be legitimate and thus avoided any widespread movement there.

In 1920 s, there was the growth of communalism in the Princely states. It led to rise in nationalism as it caused disaffection between the rulers and the people pushing the latter towards nationalism.

Secondly, the growth of Socialism in India integrated the working class of the

Princely states and the British India. Socialist leaders realised that their struggle is not only against the British but also against the Princes and they also brought them under the umbrella of nationalism.

In 1927, Harcourt-Butler Committee was set up to upraise the relationship between British India and the Princely states and to suggest the needed modifications as such.

In this background, various states' people movement came together under All India States' Peoples' Conference under Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru. This led to the maturation of States Peoples' movement also known as the Praja Mandal Movement.

From the very beginning, this movement was dominated by Congress leaders such as Pt Nehru, SC Bose, GP Narayan, Acharya Narendra Dev etc.

Demands of the Praja Mandal Movement and the INC

Democratic reforms in Princely States.

Workers and Peasants reforms.
United India or Akhand Bharat.
Independent India. Government of India Act, 1935 came as a huge disappointment to the States' Peoples' Movement. However, it only strengthened the nationalism.

During World War Two, States' People showed solidarity with the INC.

Cripps Proposal and the Cabinet Mission Plan only increased the disappointment of the people as it allowed Princely States' representation through nomination rather than through elections. This further increased the nationalist sentiments in the princely states.

The potential of Princely states remaining independent was shrinking rapidly. The political impracticality owing to the emerging divergence among the British as well as the Congress and the people made it almost impossible.

Economic impracticality was even stronger. During British rule the princely states had completely integrated with the economy of the rest of the British India. Princely states were deeply dependent upon British India.

Q. Discuss the possibility of a Confederation of Princely States emerging as a third independent political entity after the transfer of power by the British to Indians.

A Confederation of Princely States was suggested by Hamidullah Khan, the nawab of Bhopal as well as the President of the Chamber of Princes. However, upon closer observation, possibility of such a Confederation emerging seems impossible.

It was so because of the following factors-

Political factors- it was politically impractical because by the time of independence, Princely states lacked the support of British, Congress as well as the people. After transfer of power, the British Paramountcy would end and Princely states could not have received British support.

Economic factors- Due to territorial integration of the British Indian Empire, the economy of Princely states had deeply integrated with the rest of the nation. It was completely dependent upon the British India.

Geographical factors- the territory of the princely states were not contiguous and they could not have communicated with each other without depending on India which would be hostile to these states.

Secondly, the interests of the princely states would not have always remained mutual. Any clash of interests would ultimately lead to disputes. Mutual suspicions, jealousies and communalism could not allow a long-term unity.

Internal stress- Princely states were facing internal pressure from people who have tasted nationalism. Under States' Peoples' Movement, they were demanding democracy

and unity with India. The erstwhile ideological indoctrination towards the divine rights of the princes was being challenged by the rising nationalism and socialism.

The possibility of independence was thus a 'mirage' for the Princely states. Thus, independence disappeared before it could be conceived for the princely states.

Role of important Personalities Mountbatten

The last Viceroy and Governor General of India promised 'maximum India' if the Congress accepted partition.

He encouraged the princes to accede to India.
The principle that 'Geographic Proximity' rather than communal identity should be the criteria for Princely states to join any of the nations was designed by him.

Nehru

In 1946, he declared that India does not recognize the Divine rights of Kings.
Later in 1947, he made it clear that the Indian Union was the direct successor of the British Empire and would inherit Paramountcy over the Princely States.

He even warned the Princely states that he would not be able to resist the army of independent India.

Thus, Nehru's tough policy was designed to pressurize the princes into signing the Instrument of Accession.

Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon

They were the Minister and Secretary of the State department respectively. Menon was also the Permanent Secretary of the Executive Council thus acting as the bridge between the Home Minister and the Governor General.

In contrast to Nehru's tough stance, Sardar Patel adopted a more conciliatory tone.
They adopted the Carrot and Stick approach.

They appealed to the patriotism of the rulers.
They also highlighted the sacrifices made by their predecessors for their people and reminded them of their duty towards their subjects.

They promised practical autonomy by continuing the same relationship that the rulers had with the British crown.

Accession would simply mean the accession of the territory and the subjects. The personal property of the rulers would remain untouched.

Further, their titles and honours would remain intact.
State functionaries, employees and officers would absorb into the Indian bureaucracy.

They also promised continuation of judicial immunity.
Privy purses would be setup for the rulers.
On the other hand, the rulers were made aware of the problems they may face if they refuse to merge with India- economic blockade, internal rebellion, communal riots, aggression from Pakistan, and the indication that delayed merger would take place on the basis of much less favourable terms for the rulers.

The response of the Indian princes was not unanimous.

Some rulers such as the Maharaja of Bikaner, Rewa etc. willingly signed Instrument of Accession as a matter of their patriotic duty.

Others such as the nawab of Bhopal, Nizam of Hyderabad, Maharaja of Travancore, and Maharaja of Kashmir wanted to remain independent.

Still other such as the Maharaja of Jodhpur, Nawab of Junagarh began to entertain offers from Jinnah.

Patel and Menon remained extremely patient but firmly insisted upon merger as the only way forward.

By 15 th August, 1947 most princely states that were geographically contiguous with India had signed the Instrument of Accession with India.

Bhopal, Travancore and Jodhpur signed before independence.
Whereas Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir signed after independence. Procedure of Integration

There were two separate Legal instruments

Standstill Agreement- it contained the guarantee of the continuation of the same relationship with the government of India as the Princely states enjoyed with the British crown.

Instrument of Accession- through this, the princes would agree to surrender their territory, defence, communications, currency, and commerce to the government of India.

While the Instruments of Accession were designed to bring the princely states under the sovereignty of Indian government, each of them was unique. Problematic Princely states Jodhpur

Maharaja Hanwant Singh felt that accession to India would prohibit him from leading the lavish lifestyle that he was accustomed to.

He appealed to the neigbouring rulers of Bikaner and Jaisalmer to join him in declaring independence and negotiating a separate standstill agreement with Jinnah. However,

Maharaja of Jaisalmer responded by promptly signing Instrument of Accession with India and called upon other rulers to do the same as it was their sacred patriotic duty.

The Maharaja of Jodhpur now began to openly entertain offers from Jinnah who virtually gave him a blank cheque.

KM Pannikar, a noted historian and Diwan of Bikaner approached the King of Jodhpur and reminded him of the painful history of Islamic invasions in Jodhpur.

Sardar Patel also indicated that without the formal accession of Jodhpur into India,

Indian government would not be in a position to defend Jodhpur from a Pakistani attack or a communal infiltration and uprising. Finally, the Maharaja of Jodhpur signed the Instrument of Accession with India.

Bhopal

Nawab Hamidullah Khan felt that his close personal friendship with the Governor

General will help him remain independent. However, Mountbatten made it clear that independence was a mirage for the princely states and advised the nawab to sign the instrument of accession with India.

Following this, the Nawab tried to use his position as President of the Chamber of Princes to form an independent Confederation of Princely states but was unsuccessful as the bulk of other princes signed the Instrument of Accession.

Ultimately, he invoked religion and appealed to his Muslim subjects to protect Islam against the Hindu majority area.

However, subjects did not respond and ultimately acceded to India. Travancore

Its Maharaja wanted to remain independent and expected British help.

Unlike other Princely states, Travancore had a long coastline, flourishing shipping industry, high literacy, and a relatively democratized form of government.

It had rich deposits of Thorium which had become a mineral of extremely high strategic value with the dawn of the nuclear age.

The Diwan of Travancore CP Ramaswamy Aiyer had been approached by Sardar Patel who had offered him extremely favourable terms. However, all these offers were rejected.

CP Ramaswamy Aiyer was brutally beaten by an unknown man and then he wired the King to immediately sign the Instrument of Accession.

Junagarh

It was a small Princely state with a Hindu majority and Muslim nawab in the Saurashtra region.

The nawab wanted to remain independent but felt that he would be unable to sustain the state without active foreign help.

Thus, he signed the Instrument of Accession with Pakistan and with his family went to Karachi by sea.

His Diwan Shah Nawaz Khan Bhutto relayed to the government of India that Junagarh was now part of Pakistan.

The state's department convinced the vassals of the nawab to sign the Instrument of Accession with India.

The Junagarh army occupied these Indian enclaves.
Sardar Patel then threatened with military action.
At the same time, VP Menon encouraged Shamaldas Gandhi, a popular figure in the local politics to form an Aarzi Hukumat at Bombay. The nawab of Junagarh set up a rival provisional government at Karachi.

In the meanwhile, the Praja Mandal of Junagarh began a mass campaign calling for a plebiscite. Sardar Patel and Shamaldas Gandhi supported this call. In the plebiscite, the people of Junagarh with an overwhelming majority (99.1%) integrated with India.

Hyderabad

Its ruler Nizam Usmal Ali khan wanted the landlocked state to become independent. He even sent deputations to European governments to finalise commercial and diplomatic

agreements. He approached Portugal to lease or purchase Goa in order to get access to the sea. Simultaneously, he appealed to Pakistan, the British and the Americans for military assistance.

However, all these attempts failed.

In this scenario, he began encouraging the paramilitary group known as Razakars to change the communal complexion of the Hyderabad state.

As a result, extremely quickly, the law and order situation deteriorated.
The local Congress committee as well as the Communist Party appealed to India to intervene.

India responded with the police action known as 'Operation Polo'. The Indian forces quickly overwhelmed the Razakars and reached the city of Hyderabad.

The Nizam was given a graceful exit by making him the Rajpramukh of the reconstituted state of Hyderabad.

Kashmir

On the 15 th August 1947, Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan.
Its ruler Maharaja Hari Singh was a descendant of Gulab Singh Dogra, the ruler of Kashmir, who had purchased Kashmir from East India Company in 1847 after its victory against the Sikhs in the First Anglo-Sikh war.

Both India and Pakistan recognized the strategic importance of Kashmir and treated it as a special case.

Hari Singh had signed Standstill agreements with both countries without signing the Instrument of Accession.

Sardar Patel criticized Nehru for not insisting upon Kashmir's accession.

Nehru's justification was that Kashmir may have acceded to Pakistan if India did not sign the Standstill agreement.

On 26 th October, 1947 a large number of Pathan tribals, with the backing of the Pakistan army, invaded Kashmir plundering the valley targeting Hindus and reached the outskirts of Srinagar.

The ruler of Kashmir asked for help from India.
India, in turn, asked the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession first.

On 26 th October 1947, Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession.
Then Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. They repelled the Pakistani troops in pitched battles but could not push on due to the arrival of winter. Portions of northern and western Kashmir remained under Pakistani occupation.

Ceasefire was declared unilaterally by Pt Nehru and the Kashmir question was referred the UN.

Due to the emerging Cold War bloc politics, under the influence of American and British diplomats, the Kashmir question became the India-Pakistan question overnight.

This had the effect of legitimizing Pakistan's claim to Kashmir instead of viewing Pakistan as the aggressor and violator of international peace.

In 1951, the UN passed the resolution asking Pakistan to withdraw its army and India to conduct a plebiscite. Neither side has initiated any attempts to fulfill the resolution's mandate.

Conclusion of the integration procedure Integration of Princely states by this time was still incomplete. Their special privileges and powers were still remaining. India had a loose federation with Princely states who still retained their undemocratic, monarchical and feudal nature. However, this was the first step in a multi-step process which gradually led to complete merger. Many Princely states were merged with the existing Indian provinces and some Princely unions were also formed.

Background

During freedom struggle, leaders such as Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, C Rajagopalachari, Azad, and Bose etc. favoured Hindustani in either Devanagari or Persian script to emerge as the national language of India.

While Mahatma Gandhi admired the English language and appreciated its importance in the modern world, he opposed it as India's national language due to its foreign origin.

He argued that it was a symbol of colonial rule and declared that the true genius of a person can be expressed only in their mother tongue.

Since 1925, it had become compulsory for the Provincial Congress Committees to conduct their activities in the regional languages.

Pt Nehru also assured the non-Hindi speakers that Hindi would never be imposed upon them by destroying their own vernaculars.

However, the issue of national language was communalized. With partition, Pakistan claimed Urdu and Hindi was deliberately Sanskritized to make it distinct from Urdu.

Changing vocabulary made it difficult for non-native speakers to understand.

Following this, a compromise was reached namely that Hindi would not become India's national language rather it would become the official language i.e. the administrative

language of the central and state governments and the medium of communication between different federating units and the centre.

Deadline set by the Constituent assembly

Once it became clear that Hindi would become India's official language, a debate emerged within the Constituent assembly regarding the time frame for its introduction.

Hindi speakers wanted immediate introduction while non-Hindi speakers wanted gradual introduction.

Ultimately, a 15 year deadline was set. Non-Hindi speakers were given upto 1965 to adopt it.

The constitution also provided for the appointment for a Language commission to study the feasibility of introducing Hindi. It submitted its report in 1956 and recommended

that English should be progressively replaced by Hindi and the process should be completed by 1965.

This resulted in heavy opposition from the Tamil belt prompting Nehru to suggest that English would continue to be used as an associate official language even after 1965.

A joint Parliamentary Committee also approved of this compromise in 1960.

However, a Presidential Directorate in April 1960 revived the suspicions of the non-Hindi speakers once again. It setup the Central Hindi Directorate which began carrying out-

Publication and translation of standard works, medicine, law and administration in Hindi.

Promoting the use of Hindi in courts.
Giving compulsory Hindi training to all central government employees.

Tamil belt was in a rebellious mood. Major demonstrations were organised calling for the boycott of the Central Hindi Directorate. The slogan 'English Ever Hindi Never' was used to convey the anger of the people against the imposition of Hindi.

In 1963, under the leadership of Pt Nehru, Parliament enacted the Official Languages Act. Its main objective was to regain the trust of the South India by removing the constitutional deadline and providing for the continued use of English even after 1965.

The Act, however, became controversial due to the use of the term 'may' instead of 'shall'.

At the time of Pt Nehru's death, the future was uncertain when Lal Bahadur Shastri was chosen as the new Prime Minister. In 1965, Shastri's government introduced Hindi as a compulsory subject for all UPSC exams.

This resulted in widespread protests and riots.
Some students even committed self-immolation and two prominent Tamil ministers resigned from their cabinet positions.

Shastri government was forced to backdown and Indira Gandhi, the then Minister for Information and Broadcasting was sent to Madras to convince people that Hindi would not be imposed.

In 1967, Indira Gandhi's government introduced an amendment to the 1963 amendment act which provided a constructive solution to the dangerous national

language issue. Firstly, it removed all the ambiguities of the act. Its major provisions were as follows-

English would continue as the Associate Official language.
An indefinite policy of bilinguism would be adopted.
3 language formula was proposed for education- a) Hindi belt- Hindi, English and a regional language should be taught. b) Non-Hindi belt- Hindi, English and the Vernacular language.

Public Service Examinations can be attempted in any major Indian language i.e. Hindi, English or any other major language. However, candidates would have to prove their proficiency in English, and Hindi for the Hindi speakers and English alone for the non-Hindi speakers.

Fourteen regional languages were inserted into the Eighth Schedule of the Indian constitution. All of them were given status of official regional languages. Gradually, eight more languages were added to this schedule.

Q. Shed light on the national language issue which emerged post-independence. What were the challenges it created and how was it resolved?

India's linguistic diversity, on the one hand, contributed to its multi-cultural nationalism but on the other hand, it posed challenges vis-à-vis the selection of a national language.

The issue of national language started since the freedom struggle with debate emerging on the Devanagari script versus the Persian script. It got communalized with Urdu being claimed as the language of Muslims and Hindi that of Hindus.

Following this, a compromise was reached namely that Hindi would not become India's national language rather it would become the official language i.e. the administrative language of the central and state governments and the medium of communication between different federating units and the centre.

A 15 year deadline was set by Constituent Assembly. Non-Hindi speakers were given upto 1965 to adopt it. However, the challenge gained significant proportions with the protest by non-Hindi states against the imposition of Hindi post-independence.

The constitution also provided for the appointment for a Language commission to study the feasibility of introducing Hindi. It submitted its report in 1956 and recommended that English should be progressively replaced by Hindi and the process should be completed by

A joint Parliamentary Committee also approved of this compromise in 1960.

However, a Presidential Directorate in April 1960 revived the suspicions of the non-Hindi speakers once again. It setup the Central Hindi Directorate which started to work for development and promotion of Hindi.

Tamil belt was in a rebellious mood. Major demonstrations were organised calling for the boycott of the Central Hindi Directorate. The slogan 'English Ever Hindi Never' was used to convey the anger of the people against the imposition of Hindi.

In 1963, under the leadership of Pt Nehru, Parliament enacted the Official Languages Act. Its main objective was to regain the trust of the South India by removing the constitutional deadline and providing for the continued use of English even after 1965. The Act, however, became controversial due to the use of the term 'may' instead of 'shall'.

In 1965, Shastri's government introduced Hindi as a compulsory subject for all UPSC exams.

This resulted in widespread protests and riots.

Shastri government was forced to backdown and Indira Gandhi, the then Minister for Information and Broadcasting was sent to Madras to convince people that Hindi would not be imposed.

In 1967, Indira Gandhi's government introduced an amendment to the 1963 amendment act which provided a constructive solution to the dangerous national language issue. It removed all the ambiguities of the act.

Thus, like every other difficulty, India's inherent cultural accommodation and constitutional morality overpowered the linguistic sectarianism. Although, some tensions can be observed even in present times but the nationalist sentiments in India has learnt to go hand in hand with regional identities including language.

Linguistic reorganisation of states During the National movement

The reorganisation of Provincial units had been a long standing demand of Indian nationalists.

In fact, it was the main factor behind the Swadeshi movement.
During the Home Rule Movement, Tilak had raised the demand for the linguistic reorganisation of the states as well as the spread of education in vernacular languages.

In 1925, the Congress amended its constitution making it compulsory for its Provincial Congress Committees to conduct their business in the regional languages.

Prominent leaders including Tilak, Savarkar, Mahatma Gandhi and C. Rajagopalachari supported the cause for linguistic reorganisation as a means to strengthen the nationalism.

They felt that if the linguistic aspirations of major linguistic groups could be fulfilled, they could be brought on a common platform against British imperialism.

The British strategy regarding linguistic reorganisation was based on the principle of divide and rule.

They deliberately kept different linguistic communities in the same state to foster a sense of linguistic competition.

Undivided Bengal consisted of Bangla, Assamese, Odiya and Hindi speakers but Business and administration were dominated by Bangla speakers.

Madras consisted of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam speakers but was dominated by Tamil speakers.

Bombay consisted of Marathi, Gujarati and Sindhi speakers but was dominated by Marathi speakers with Parsis being another influential minority.

Further, the British tried to complicate the issue of languages by making it a matter of religious and caste interest.

Even when they carried out linguistic reorganisation, it was done to fuel separatism, provincialism and communalism. Example- the linguistic aspirations of Sindhis and

Pashto speakers were fulfilled but those of Malayalam and Gujarati speakers remained unfulfilled.

Another region where the feeling of linguistic pride was very strong was the Telugu speaking regions.

However, the Telugu movement could not reach full strength since the community was divided between the British Indian province of Madras and the Princely state of Hyderabad.

Once Hyderabad acceded to India and power was transferred by the British, the Telugu movement emerged with full force.

Debate within the Constituent Assembly

The question of linguistic reorganisation emerged as soon as the constituent assembly was set up.

The leaders of linguistic minorities demanded the immediate reorganisation of the sates on the basis of language. Telugu speakers demanded Andhra, Marathi speakers

demanded Maharashtra, Gujarati speakers demanded Gujarat and Punjabi speakers demanded Punjab.

However, the national leadership remained reluctant.

They believed that in a federal setup, the creation of a linguistic state could be dangerous to national unity. It would be difficult to obtain a consensus between neigbouring linguistic states dominated by communities with a shared history of competition and conflict.

Further, it may lead to a deterioration of law and order. The linguistic minorities may be targeted by the dominant community and the states may not intervene as it could be politically disadvantageous.

Further, India at that time was facing severe crisis such as the refugee crisis, Kashmir war, high inflation and food scarcity. It was felt that the country lacked the resources and man power to undertake a major reorganisation of states.

The creation of linguistic states was considered harmful for administrative efficiency as well as economic integration. It would have required the preparation of new trade, tariff, water sharing and infrastructure building agreements which were thought to be difficult to obtain in the charged atmosphere.

Further, linguistic reorganisation may have also presented national security threats. The demand for Punjab may have evolved into a demand for Khalistan which would have destabilized India's sensitive western border.

Finally, the fulfillment of the linguistic aspirations of some communities may have resulted in the emergence of other linguistic movements. The national government would remain permanently embattled with these movements leading to further disaffection and separatism.

On the other hand, the leaders of the linguistic minorities argued that without linguistic reorganisation, the linguistic minorities would never be able to experience the fruits of

independence. They would continue to remain at the mercy of the majority linguistic communities resulting in a feeling of disaffection and separatism.

The SK Dhar Commission was appointed in 1948 to study the feasibility of linguistic reorganisation. It recommended that the time had not yet come to carry out linguistic reorganisation and there were other pressing issues that had to be dealt with.

The linguistic minorities became restless forcing the Congress to set up the JVP committee in 1949 consisting of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi

Sitaramayya which endorsed the recommendations of the Dhar Commission and rejected the linguistic reorganisation of the states.

Creation of Andhra and appointment of the States Reorganisation Commission

Telugu speaking regions had been restless for a long time and the attitude of the interim government fuelled further protests. Massive demonstrations were organised and the city of Madras was virtually locked down.

The linguistic passions were simultaneously inflamed by the National language issue which had resulted in massive protests by Tamil speakers. There were a series of clashes between both communities between 1950 and 1953.

A famed Gandhian leader Potti Sriramalu went on a fast unto death to demand the separate state of Andhra.

The national government did not respond resulting in his death on the 58 th day of his fast.

This sparked a series of riots forcing the government to take action.
Nehru was forced to accept the demands of the Telugu speakers and the Andhra state was established in 1953.

Madras city was given to Tamil Nadu and in compensation, Andhra got Tirupati.
At the same time, the government also appointed the States Reorganisation Commission headed by Justice Fazl Ali including other prominent members such as HN Kunzru and KM Pannikar.

Its mandate was to study the feasibility of linguistic reorganisation and make recommendations with regards to the territorial reorganisation of the provinces.

The Commission visited more than a hundred cities and was shocked by the passion of the people towards the issue of language.

It submitted its recommendations in October 1953 on the basis of which the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament.

States Reorganisation Act, 1956

It provided for the creation of 14 new states and 6 Union territories on the linguistic basis. Each major regional language other than Hindi got atleast one state.

However, Bombay was not divided into Gujarat and Maharashtra since the Commission could not find a workable solution.

A separate state of Punjab for Punjabi speakers was rejected on the ground that it was a communal demand of Sikhs rather than a linguistic demand. Instead, the Patiala and

East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was created having Hindi, Punjabi as well as Dogri speaking regions.

The demand for Jharkhand was rejected on the grounds that the language of both north and south Bihar was Hindi.

The issue of Bombay and PEPSU

The demands for separate Marathi and Gujarati homelands started growing and took the shape of a mass movement following the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act.

Both sides wanted the city of Bombay to be their administrative capital.
A third group represented by major industrialists and businessmen wanted Bombay to be a union territory.

However, the national leadership was concerned about the possibility of Marathi separatism if Bombay was separated from Maharashtra.

Therefore, in 1960, the Bombay state was bifurcated into Gujarat and Maharashtra with Ahmedabad and Bombay as their capitals respectively.

Pt Nehru was reluctant to reorganise the internal borders of PEPSU because of its strategic and military importance and due to its communal sensitivity.

Therefore, linguistic reorganisation was carried out by Indira Gandhi in 1966.
PEPSU was divided into three parts namely Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
Chandigarh was made a Union territory and designated as common capital of both Punjab and Haryana.

On the other hand, Shimla became capital of Himachal Pradesh.

Issues of linguistic minorities

Linguistic minorities referred to the speakers of those languages where these languages constitute the minority language in their state of residence.

Roughly 18% of Indians fall under the category of linguistic minorities.
They are spread across the whole of India including Jammu and Kashmir which has a 44% minority and Kerala with a 4% minority.

The largest minority language is Urdu spoken from Punjab to Bengal and Kashmir to Karnataka.

The constitution has enshrined certain safeguards to protect the rights of linguistic minorities. Article 30 provides for the promotion of minority languages and the safeguarding of their cultural and educational rights.

The state is required to set up primary schools in all districts having sizeable minority populations where education must be imparted in the minority languages.

A general complaint of the linguistic minorities is that they are discriminated against. State officials often remain insincere about protecting the cultural heritage of linguistic minorities and promoting education in the minority languages.

This issue is further complicated due to the nature of popular democracy and vote bank politics. The minorities are never in a position to influence provincial politics in any meaningful way due to their minority status.

In fact, regional political leaders are often incentivised to adopt policies which reflect their 'son of the soil position'. This often clashes with the interests of the linguistic minorities.

Despite this, some states such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka have performed relatively well in the protection of their linguistic minorities.

However, the performance of Hindi belt states such as Rajasthan, Haryana, UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh has been quite poor.

This has communalized the question of linguistic minorities in North India. This has resulted in North India becoming the most prominent theatre of communal violence since the 1960 s.

Conclusion The nation was shaken by the clash on linguistic issues. It threatened to divide India in the same way that religion had divided it. After initial reluctance, better sense prevailed and the linguistic reorganisation of states diffused the internal tensions that threatened to tear the nation apart.

However, greater sincerity needs to be shown towards the issue of the linguistic minorities since it represents another fault line along which the nation may find itself divided.

The people of Bengal and Punjab faced a great degree of uncertainty at the time of partition. The Boundary Commission announced its award on the 18 th August, 1947. The

general atmosphere of hatred created by the Muslim League's Direct action programme led to an enhanced sense of anxiety.

Chaos erupted as Lahore was given to Pakistan. Its Hindu and Sikh residents had accepted to be the part of India.

Both India and Pakistan assured their religious minorities of full state protection but were unable to convince sizeable sections of their minorities to stay in place.

Popular resentment boiled over taking the shape of communal outbursts. This triggered a major communal pogrom on both sides of the border which could not be calmed for several months.

The law and order machinery was poorly equipped to handle such a major crisis and failed to protect the lives, property and dignity of the minorities.

More than one crore people were forced to flee and more than ten lakh were slaughtered. Such a massive humanitarian crisis had never occurred before or since India's partition.

Women, children and the elderly were the worst affected.
The problems of the migrants did not end at the end of their journeys. Those who survived their ordeal found themselves without food, shelter, clean drinking water or medicine.

They were constantly threatened without the presence of adequate police protection.

The most painful was their immense sense of loss. Their lives had been completely uprooted and many would be permanently separated from their loved ones. Response to the refugee crisis North western India: Delhi-Punjab belt

The largest number of refugees came to this region. Providing security, food, clothing shelter, medicine, water and sanitation were the immediate tasks before the administration to provide relief to these victims of partition.

For months, they had to live under open skies, on roadsides, along railway lines or in makeshift camps in cities such as Jalandhar, Kurukshetra, Delhi, Faridabad etc.

A rehabilitation centre was setup with the task of-

Reuniting separate family members,
To rehabilitate the refugees both physically and emotionally.

Most migrant from Punjab were farmers who had to be provided land in order to rebuild their lives.

Land distribution was done in two phases-

A small parcel of land was assigned to each family
Further distribution was done on the basis of 'claimed loss' and 'graded cut'.

Land left behind by the Muslim migrants from India to Pakistan was distributed among the India bound refugees.

However, the general complaint was that their new lands were too little and less fertile than the land they had left behind.

Refugee colonies were set up in cities such as Jalandhar, Delhi and Faridabad to resettle the urban refugees.

Financial assistance was provided to them to settle new businesses and construct their houses. East and North East India: West Bengal and Manipur-Tripura region

A major complication of the refugee crisis in East India was that migration was a one- way affair i.e. from East Pakistan towards India.

Therefore, there was virtually no land or property to be distributed among the incoming refugees.

Most refugees in Bengal remained concentrated in Calcutta where large slums sprouted up. They faced severe problems such as the lack of basic amenities, healthcare,

education. Employment opportunities were also poor since the economy was unable to absorb the additional workforce.

Another problem was that the bulk of refugees in the east were poor, illiterate and unskilled which further deepened the crisis.

Some refugees from East Pakistan also migrated towards the Assam valley and the tribal dominated regions of Tripura and Manipur.

They faced hostility from locals due to linguistic, cultural and ethnic differences.
The problem was most severe in the sparsely populated tribal regions where the influx of refugees threatened to change the demographic complexion.

This created political conditions that are relevant even today and created major hurdle towards the process of tribal integration and nation building in the north east.

Western India: Gujarat and Maharashtra

Roughly twenty lakh Pakistani migrants from Sindh came to this region in the months following partition.

They faced problems similar to refugees in other regions but with even greater complications.

They suffered an added sense of loss of culture. The locals of Gujarat and Maharashtra treated them as unwanted outsiders with a foreign identity and culture. This created problems with regards to their assimilation.

They were discriminated against in matters of business and employment. Additionally, the state machinery remained apathetic to their issues and progress towards rehabilitation was slow.

Due to lack of land and housing, both urban and rural migrants from Sindh had to live in slums in cities such as Ahmedabad, Surat and Bombay.

Slowly, they were able to rebuild their lives to emerge as one of the most influential business classes in western India. However, they received little outside or state help.

Impact of the refugee crisis

More than fifteen lakh refugees each arrive in north western, western and eastern India.
Roughly forty lakh Muslim migrants migrated from India towards Pakistan.
The largest influx of refugees was seen in the Delhi-Punjab belt causing a major demographic shift. Delhi's famous Indo-Islamic culture was destroyed overnight and came to be dominated by Punjabi culture.

In Calcutta and Bengal, communists mobilised migrants by providing them relief and promising reforms. Thus, the politics of West Bengal slowly came to be dominated by the Communist Party.

In Delhi, the Jan Sangha and RSS became extremely popular due to their relief work among refugees. They also benefitted from the undercurrent of intense communal hatred and succeeded in recruiting the refugee youth.

In the Gujarat-Bombay region, the influx of Sindhi refugees strengthened the linguistic movement. The native Gujarati and Marathi speakers were threatened by the possible dilution of their linguistic identity.

In the tribal dominated north east, the influx of Bengali refugees created political complications which manifested themselves in the form of strong movement for tribal

independence which often became violent. This threatened political stability, national security and national integration.

The theme of the refugee crisis became prominent within the popular culture. The subjects of partition, suffering of the refugees, separation communal relations,

exploitation of women and human struggle captured the imagination of poets, novelists, short story writers, musicians, painters and cine makers.

Some important works touching these themes include Tobatek Singh written in Urdu by Manto, Train to Pakistan in English by Khushwant Singh, Pinjar in Punjabi by Amrita Pritam, Tamas in Hindi by Bhishm Sahni.

More than 75 years after partition, the wounds of the refugee crisis may have been healed but the scars remain.

Poverty, crime, addiction, truancy and communal feelings continue to linger with the refugee communities being the worst affected.

This is often perceived to be the result of the generational trauma of partition. As such, rehabilitation should not focus only upon physical and economic resettlement. It should also involve cultural protection and emphasis on mental health.

Democracy and first General election During the National Movement

The national movement had been deeply democratic especially since the formation of Congress.

Major demand of the nationalists was the introduction of a limited, constitutional, responsible and democratic government.

Since the beginning of the 20 th century, self-rule and democracy became the twin objectives of the nationalists.

Gandhiji broadened the social base of the movement thus enlisting virtually all sections of the population in the struggle for democracy.

From the 1920 s onwards, people of the Princely states also joined the struggle for national unification, national independence and democracy.

The Nehru report of 1928 raised the demand of universal adult franchise and the abolition of separate electorates to create a self-ruled democratic and secular India.

The entry of workers and peasants into the national movement further strengthened the case for democracy.

Same pattern was echoed by the rising participation of dalits, Muslims and women in the national movement.

Therefore, the national movement had a rich legacy of democracy. Constitutional debate

Following the transfer of power, major constitutional debate erupted within the nationalist leadership with regards to the following questions-

Form of government

With regards to the first question, one group of leaders led by Dr Rajendra Prasad and C. Rajagopalachari suggested that India should have a Presidential form of government i.e.

indirectly elected.

They argued that India was not ready for direct elections and Presidential form of government could represent continuity of the Governor General's office within a Republican system.

Pt Nehru insisted upon a Westminster Parliamentary system with direct elections.

The Westminster system was the logical choice since Indian democracy was modeled on British democracy. Moreover, indirect elections would be against the legacy of the national movement.

Timing of election

Some prominent members of Nehru's cabinet wanted to delay elections. They argued-

The country was facing sever crisis and would not be able to bear additional burden of the general elections.

Law and order machinery was not equipped to provide necessary security.
The bulk of voters were illiterate and were susceptible to caste and communal appeals.

Threat of muscle and money power was extremely strong.
The task of registering voters had not been completed and would require a massive undertaking.

The infrastructure needed to conduct elections in remote and distinct areas was nonexistent.

Ensuring the neutrality of officials would be a big challenge.
Both domestic and foreign experts had expressed doubts regarding the preparedness of elections.

If the elections could not be performed successfully, it would tarnish India's image and could threaten national unity.

Pt Nehru insisted upon conducting elections as soon as possible arguing that the ordinary masses would be unable to taste the real fruits of freedom till they are able to elect their own governments.

Extent of franchise

Prominent leaders such as Dr Rajendra Prasad and C. Rajagopalachari suggested the gradual introduction of Universal Franchise.

Pt Nehru argued that democracy and independence would be meaningless without equality. Limited franchise would prolong the exploitation of the underprivileged by the dominant minority.

Nehru's approach in the First general elections

Pt Nehru emerged as a true statesman insisting upon direct elections with Universal Adult Franchise as soon as possible. Leading from the front, he convinced other leaders and it was declared that elections to be held in 1951.

Election Commission of India was set up on the 25 th January 1950. It had one Chief Election Commissioner (Sukumar Sen, an ICS officer with Maths background).

Representation of People's Act, 1951 provided for elections of Lok Sabha as well as state legislative assemblies with the principle of direct elections with Universal Adult Franchise.

Election Commission of India began registering voters primarily by using government school teachers. It also began training state officials to conduct elections. It

simultaneously began preparing for elections by creating the necessary infrastructure such as polling booth, transportation and security apparatus.

Once the voter list was prepared, it had to be prepared again since more than thirty lakh names were found to be fictitious.

To overcome the hurdle of mass illiteracy, election symbols were assigned to the different parties.

Campaigning was done through newspapers, speeches, public rallies, pamphlets, posters and door to door campaigning.

State run All India Radio was prohibited from caring campaign messages.
The election was planned in several phases between October 1951 to February 1952. This was done to prevent the overburdening of the election machinery Policy agenda of different parties

The Congress promised progressive and secular society with poverty removal and economic growth.

Jan Sangh accused the Congress of minority appeasement and promised to restore Hindu cultural pride.

Communists accused the Congress of being a bourgeoisie party and promised structural reforms for workers and peasants.

The Scheduled Caste Federation accused the Congress of being an upper caste sympathiser and promised to address the problems of dalits and women.

The DMK came out with an agenda of Tamil pride.
Pro-Hindi groups promised to make Hindi the national language. Day of the election

The election began with the Chini tehsil (Himachal Pradesh) and in several phases was conducted across India.

The atmosphere was festive and the people participated in a celebratory mood.

Voter turnout was healthy at 58%. The voting percentage was highest at Kottayam (Kerala) i.e. 84% and lowest at Shahdol (UP) at 18%.

The Congress won absolute majorities both at the centre and the states. Almost all top figures of the national movement were elected but there were few upsets such as Dr Ambedkar and Morarji Desai.

Impact and Significance of these elections

The biggest success was the participation of the people in healthy numbers with the hope of change.

In a hierarchical society, the principle of one person, one vote was revolutionary. In a single stroke, centuries of social disability and political discrimination were wiped out.

The myth that the illiterate Indian masses were unfit for democracy was shattered. They rose above the politics of case, religion, language or class and rejected the divisive

agenda of some parties who choose progressive and secular society as promised by Congress.

Neutrality of state officials was another major achievement.
The composition of first Lok Sabha represented the true spirit of India. Some members were rich, others were educated, others illiterate. Some Hindi speakers, some regional,

some representing business interests, others workers, some were liberal and others orthodox.

The elections also legitimised the constitution since most former constituent assembly members were elected to the Lok Sabha.

The success of the election silenced critics, both foreign and domestic.
The success of the elections also raised India's prestige especially among the newly independent countries. Newly independent countries started looking towards India as a role model.

Environmentalism Background

In the initial years after independence, there was no specific Environmental policy.

This period witnessed greater stress on economic growth and infrastructure development with little concern for environmental degradation.

There was no single body to oversee environmental protection. The primary environmental issue fell under the ambit of waste disposal, sanitation, public health and

forest regulation. These were handled by different ministries and departments primarily at the state level.

At the same time, a few provisions were introduced to tackle problems such as destruction of forests, unplanned urban growth and the emerging problem of water pollution. These included

the Factories Act, 1948
the River Boards Act, 1956
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act), 1967.

This reflects the lack of any unified effort in developing a policy to tackle pollution from these sources. Instead, efforts were scattered and sporadic.

At the same time, there was growing concern with regards to rising population, its polluting effects, resource depletion and its impact on forests and wildlife.

The first turning point was the Stockholm Conference, 1972 which was followed by a series of environmental protection laws as well as economic planning with a focus on clean and sustainable development.

Efforts to combat biodiversity laws and pollution post-Stockholm conference (1972)

Wildlife Protection Act,1972

Prevent the decline of animal and bid protection
It prohibits the killing of certain species except for scientific and education purpose
It empowers state governments to declare any area to be a wildlife sanctuary or national park.

Water (Prevention of pollution) Act (1974)

It provided for the creation of Central Pollution control Boards and State Pollution Control Boards.

Forest (Conservation) Act (1980)

It aimed at checking deforestation and diversion of forest land for non-forestry purpose.

It also promoted social forestry.

Air (Prevention of pollution) Act, 1981

It empowered the Central and State Pollution Control Boards to monitor and check air pollution.

It also empowered the central and state governments to adopt policies and measures to identify the sources of air pollution and frame policies to check it.

Clearly, these acts were designed to protect the natural environment and improve the quality of life by checking pollution, deforestation and protecting wildlife and the natural environment.

However, there was little focus on the resolution of industrial and environmental disputes. Further, polluting industries and activities were not sufficiently checked.

The next major turning point in the evolution of India's environmental policy came in the form of the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Environmental reforms after the Bhopal gas tragedy

Environment Protection Act, 1986

It was a landmark in India's evolving environment protection framework.
By plugging the loopholes in existing legislations, it centered the focus of the country towards environment protection.

It primarily tackles pollution with stringent penalties for violators.

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

It provides mandatory insurance cover for the purpose of providing immediate relief to persons affected by accidents involving any hazardous material.

National Environment Tribunals Act, 1995

Civil codes took a long time to dispose all disputes including those of environment.
This act provided for speedy disposal of environmental cases to the national environment tribunal that had four benches (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai).

National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997

It provided for the establishment of the appellate authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction in any areas in which any industries, operations or processes may or may not be carried out subject to the safeguards provided by the environment protection act, 1986.

National Biodiversity Act, 2000

This Act offers assistance to communities involved in the protection of biodiversity around them. It facilitates scientific access to genetic material while protecting the traditional knowledge of biodiversity conservation.

Environmental movements in India post-independence

A large number of environmental movements emerged in India during and after the 1970 s.

Initially they emerged as a local response to local issues but gradually they coalesced into a national movement for environmentalism.

Broadly, the emergence of the Indian environmental movements may be attributed to factors such as

control over natural resources
Misguided developmental policies of the government resulting from centralized top- down planning.

Environmental degradation or destruction causing socio-economic distress.

Rising awareness about the importance of the ecological balance and the environment protection through literature and media. For example, the publication of 'Silent Spring' in 1960 by Rachel Carson.

Major Movements

Bishnoi Movement

Led by Amrita Devi in Rajasthan to prevent poaching of wildlife, deforestation and combat desertification.

More than 363 members of the Bishnoi community sacrificed their lives in conflict against powerful local elements and the government.

The Bishnoi movement represents a unique blend of environmentalism with religious spiritualism.

Chipko Andolan

Led by activists such as Sundar Lal Bahuguna, Chandi Prasad Bhatt, Gaura Devi and others in the forested hilly areas of Uttarakhand.

The Chipko Movement gets its name from the tactic used by the activists to prevent the felling of trees, namely hugging the trees.

Women played a leading role in the movement since deforestation affected them directly. This was because women were primarily responsible for gathering firewood and pastoral activities. Both these activities required easy access to healthy forests.

Chipko movement thus emerged as the major step not only towards the democratization of environmentalism but also the growth of feminist influence within environmentalism.

Narmada Bachao Andolan

Pioneered by Medha Patekar, it opposed the Narmada river valley project.
It has emphasized upon the social, environmental and economic risks associated with such projects. It also brings focus on issues such as forced displacement.

It has directly contributed to the introduction of tools such as environmental and social assessments of major projects as well as the incorporation of specific guidelines to resettle and rehabilitate the displaced communities.

Silent Valley Movement

A series of protests took place in the Silent valley to protect the ecology, he dense tropical and temperate forests and against hydro-electricity projects planned for this region.

Appiko Movement

It emerged in the Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka with the following objectives- a) Restoring forests in the denuded areas b) Protecting existing forest cover c) Utilizing forest wealth with consideration for the conservation of natural resources

Like the Chipko movement, it was the grassroots movement of local communities against the degradation of natural forests due to infrastructure development, industrial expansion and commercial exploitation.

Nature of India's environmental movement

These began as localized movements but coalesced into national environmental alliance.
They have been non-violent movements which relied on constitutional methods.
They have strong democratic credentials as most of them are grassroots movements and they believed in the democratic rights of the local communities.

They represent synthesis between modern science and traditional knowledge.
These movements have been able to attract large number of NGOs and groups, both domestic and foreign.

India's environmental movement has remained constructive rather than obstructive when it comes to economic development. They have found creative solutions to solve

the dilemma of growth versus environmentalism by adopting the strategy of sustainable development with the focus on conservation and inclusivity.

Nehru's Foreign Policy

War with Pakistan
Border disputes
Cold war era
Need of foreign aid
To transform India into a world leader
To influence international relations with a view to combat colonialism and racism
To prevent global conflict

Background of Nehru's foreign policy

In 1927, Nehru became Congress' foreign representative. He travelled extensively including to the International Decolonisation Conference (1927), Soviet Union and also to several Asian and African colonies.

He was also fully inspired by socialism as well as to its ideological opposition to colonialism and racism.

He was deeply inspired by Gandhian principles including non-violence and self-rule. Nehru's foreign policy principles

Non-alignment- it stood for political neutrality in the Cold war.

In the era of bloc politics, Nehru advocated the third path distinct from both capitalism and communalism which stood for equal cooperation with both superpowers for economic development.

Panchsheel- He outlined principles on the basis of which international relations especially between neighbours could be conducted.

Mutual non-aggression
Mutual respect of international boundaries and territorial sovereignty
Mutual non-interference in each other's' internal affairs
Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit
Peaceful co-existence.

Decolonisation- Nehru envisioned a world free of colonialism and India as a leader of the newly decolonised countries.

He condemned French aggression in Africa and South East Asia after the Second World War.

He also condemned the joint British and French invasion of Egypt in 1956.
In 1947, he laid the foundations of the Asian Relations Conference at its first summit at Delhi.

The Asian Relations Conference represented the assertion of newly independent countries to determine their own fate free from superpower influence.

At the Bandung Conference in 1955, Nehru floated the creation of the non-aligned movement.

In 1956, first summit of NAM took place in Belgrade.

International peace through dialogue- Nehru was subscriber of the idea that international disputes must be resolved through mutual dialogue.

During the Korean War, he emerged as the negotiator between the two sides.

Internationalism- Nehru was a supporter of international institutions such as UNO, World Bank and IMF.

He unilaterally referred the Kashmir issue to the UN for resolution.
Similarly, the Indus Water Treaty (1960) was finalised between India and Pakistan through the World Bank.

At the same time, Nehru was not a pacifist. While he did not believe in the violent resolution of disputes, he also felt that national defence is the most important objective of foreign policy.

As such, in 1948, he laid the foundations of the Atomic Energy Cooperation and in 1949, he laid the foundation of the National Defence Academy with the purpose of making India a nuclear state and to strengthen the armed forces respectively.

Major Foreign Policy Moves

London Declaration, 1950- India joined the Commonwealth and the British Commonwealth was renamed as the Commonwealth of Nations.

Delhi Pact, 1950- It was signed between Nehru and Liaqat Ali Khan.

It sought to resolve the disputes caused by the refugee crisis

Asian Relations Conference, 1947
Non-Aligned Movement, 1956
Panchsheel Agreement, 1956
India-China war, 1962

Assessment of Nehruvian foreign Policy Pros

Nehru's Foreign policy operated along a predictable path. This instilled confidence among other countries with respect to Nehru.

Nehru's policy of decolonisation anti-apartheid and non-alignment presented India as a natural leader of the third world countries.

The success of humanity's second experiment with internationalism (the UN) was in large part due to Nehru's belief in its effectiveness.

India was able to obtain developmental assistance and cooperation from both superpowers without sacrificing her strategic autonomy.

Nehruvian insistence on strong national defence played a direct role in India's future military success against Pakistan.

Cons

However, one of the biggest weaknesses of Nehruvian internationalism was its idealism as reflected by Indo-China war as well as the internationalisation of the Kashmir issue.

Non-Alignment was seen as defiance of their influence by both superpowers thus their attitude towards India remained cool bordering on hostility.

Nehru's decision to abstain from UN resolution number 48 which named China one of the aggressors during the Korean War was seen by Americans as opportunism. Nehru

had clearly acted to protect neutrality at the cost of the truth. Consequently, Pakistan became a member of SEATO and received American aid and acted against India with impunity.

Communalism Post-independence

When a community (either religious or non-religious) is feeling that its interests (social, economic, political and cultural) are not only distinct from the interests of other

communities but also mutually antagonistic, a feeling of hatred, fear and competition manifests itself. Communalism refers to this feeling.

Background

Communalism is a modern concept with respect to India as different religious communities may have shared an adversarial relationship in the past, assimilative

character of Indian society overcame these differences through a lengthy process of cultural synthesis.

It was during British rule that communalism emerged as a major political trend. This was due to the following factors-

The decadal census from 1881 onwards divided Indians on the basis of religion.
Divide and Rule policy adopted by the British following Revolt of 1857.
Popular democracy based on first past the post system encouraged vote bank politics.

Reservation based on separate electorates to religious minorities.
Parties and groups such as Hindu Mahasabha, Arya Samaj, and the Muslim League regularly engaged in dangerous communal rhetoric.

Mass communalisation during Khilafat movement.
Series of communal riots during 1920 s and 30 s.
Pakistan demand and the partition of India. Post-Independence

Following partition, the government cracked down on right-wing Hindu groups following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. As a result, 1950 s remained peaceful.

However, major communal riot at Jabalpur shocked the nation forcing the government to introduce new laws to increase security and clamp down on local leaders.

However, the 1960 s remained disturbed.

1970 s were relatively peaceful with the emergency period being the most peaceful.
1980 s was a turning point for Indian communalism. The Shah Bano case, followed by the decision to open Babri Masjid to Hindu devotees was the greatest contributor to rising communalism.

1990 s witnessed communalism to reach its boiling point with issues such as Rath Yatra, cross-border terrorism, violence against Kashmiri pandits, Babri Masjid demolition and

Bombay serious bomb blasts in 1993.

The government responded by setting up anti-terrorism task forces, introduced preventive detention laws and threatened down on suspicious activity at the local and national levels.

In the new millennium, the atmosphere was poisoned by the Godhra incidence and riots.

Since the 2010 s, communal harmony has been threatened due to issues such as Love Jihad, cow protection, mob-lynching and fake reporting especially on social media.

Conclusion Communalism has thus remained a persistent problem in Indian politic and requires a multi-

pronged response including-

Improving the law and order machinery
Holding the perpetrators to account
Holding the local government functionaries responsible for being unable to stop communal rioting.

The immediate relief of affecting persons.
Organizing Mohalla committees including leaders from all communities, resolution of trivial disputes locally.

Enforcing reasonable restrictions on free speech especially incendiary speech in sensitive areas by political and community leaders.

Responsible and unbiased reporting of communal incidents in the media.
Spreading education and awareness especially among women.