GS Notes

1.2.4 - Post Independence India Notes 01

17 min read

Elaborate Notes

A. INTEGRATION

Integration of the Nation: States, Territory, and People

The process of nation-building in post-independent India was a two-pronged challenge: the territorial integration of states and the emotional and political integration of people. While British India was being granted independence, the ‘other India’, consisting of 565 princely states, presented a complex problem. The integration of these states was not merely a geographical or administrative exercise but also involved weaving the aspirations of their people into the fabric of the newly independent nation.

The Role of People’s Movements: Praja Mandals / States People’s Conference (SPC)

  • Genesis and Objective: The States People’s Congress (SPC), known locally as Praja Mandals, emerged as the primary vehicle for political expression in the princely states. These organizations were established by the people of the states to articulate their grievances against autocratic rulers, demand democratic reforms (such as responsible government), and advocate for integration with the rest of India. As historian Bipan Chandra notes in India’s Struggle for Independence, the Praja Mandal movements were a “parallel stream of the national movement,” mirroring the Indian National Congress (INC) which operated in British India.
  • Early Centres: The initial hubs of significant political activity were states like Hyderabad, Mysore, and the princely states of Gujarat (e.g., Baroda, Rajkot). These regions had a relatively higher degree of political consciousness, often fueled by proximity to British Indian provinces and the presence of an educated middle class.

Relationship with the Indian National Congress (INC)

The INC’s policy towards the princely states evolved over two decades, reflecting its strategic priorities and changing political realities.

  • 1920, Nagpur Session (Policy of Non-Intervention): The INC, under Gandhi’s leadership, adopted a resolution allowing residents of princely states to become individual members. However, it explicitly forbade them from conducting political activities within the states in the name of the Congress. This policy was based on several considerations:

    • Legal and Political Distinction: The INC’s primary goal until 1929 was Swaraj (self-rule) within the British Empire. The struggle was directed against British colonial rule. In the princely states, the immediate ruler was an Indian prince, and the British exercised control through ‘paramountcy’. A direct confrontation with the princes was seen as opening a second front and complicating the primary struggle.
    • Lack of Political Maturity and Organizational Base: Leaders like Gandhi felt that the people of the states were not yet sufficiently trained in the methods of non-violent mass struggle (Satyagraha). As V.P. Menon recounts in The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (1956), the INC was also wary of its limited organizational presence in the states, which would make it difficult to protect the people from repression by the rulers.

  • 1927, All India State Peoples’ Conference (AISPC): The formation of the AISPC in Bombay was a landmark event. It provided a unified, all-India platform for the various Praja Mandals, enabling them to coordinate their struggles and lobby the INC for greater support. Key leaders associated with its formation included Balwantrai Mehta, Maniklal Kothari, and G.R. Abhyankar.

  • 1929, Lahore Session: Under Jawaharlal Nehru’s presidency, the INC passed a resolution expressing solidarity with the states’ people, stating that the “Princely States cannot be separated from the rest of India.” However, the policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of the states was formally maintained.

  • 1937-39, Impact of Congress Ministries: The formation of Congress ministries in several provinces under the Government of India Act, 1935, was a watershed moment. It demonstrated the power of popular governance and significantly boosted the prestige of the INC. This inspired the people of the adjoining princely states to intensify their demands. Historian Ramachandra Guha, in India After Gandhi (2007), highlights that the “demonstration effect” of Congress rule led to a mushrooming of Praja Mandals and a surge in their membership. The people began to question why they should be denied the democratic rights their counterparts in British India were beginning to enjoy.

  • 1938, Haripura Session: With Subhas Chandra Bose as President, the INC reiterated its 1920 stance but made a crucial ideological shift. It declared that its goal of Poorna Swaraj (Complete Independence) was for the whole of India, explicitly including the 565 princely states. This marked the official integration of the states into the national vision of a free India.

  • 1939, Tripuri Session and Ludhiana AISPC Session: The Tripuri Session marked a definitive change in policy. The INC declared that it would no longer be bound by the policy of non-intervention and that the struggles of the states’ people were an integral part of the larger Indian freedom movement. This was solidified when Jawaharlal Nehru was elected President of the AISPC at its Ludhiana session in the same year, creating a powerful organizational and ideological linkage between the two bodies.

  • 1942, Quit India Movement (QIM): The QIM was the first pan-India movement where the people of the princely states participated on a massive scale alongside their brethren in British India. Their demands were threefold: (1) the British must Quit India; (2) the autocratic Indian rulers must grant democratic rights; and (3) the states must be integrated with the rest of India. This unified struggle laid the ideological and popular foundation for the territorial integration that would follow in 1947.

B. TERRITORIAL INTEGRATION OF INDIA

Status as on 3rd June 1947

The Mountbatten Plan of 3rd June 1947 outlined the partition of British India but left the fate of the 565 princely states ambiguous. The political map of the subcontinent was a complex mosaic:

  • British India: Provinces directly under British administration, set to be divided between India and Pakistan.
  • Princely States: Ranging from large states like Hyderabad to tiny estates, these were not British territory but were tied to the British Crown through a system of ‘paramountcy’.
  • French Possessions: Pondicherry, Karaikal, Yanam, Mahe, and Chandranagar.
  • Portuguese Possessions: Goa, Daman & Diu, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli.

Integration of Foreign Possessions

  • French India (1954): The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in the First Indochina War (1946-54) weakened its colonial resolve. Realizing the untenability of its Indian possessions, France opted for a peaceful transfer. After a plebiscite in Chandranagar (1949) favoured merger with India, the remaining territories were de-facto transferred in 1954 through negotiations, and a de-jure transfer was completed in 1962.
  • Portuguese India (1961): Portugal, under the Salazar dictatorship, refused to negotiate. Despite popular movements for liberation within Goa, India initially pursued a diplomatic path. However, after Portuguese forces fired on Indian steamers and fishing boats, and with growing international support for decolonization, the Indian government launched Operation Vijay in December 1961. The Portuguese forces surrendered within 36 hours. Through the 12th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962, Goa, Daman, and Diu were integrated into the Indian Union as a Union Territory.

Integration of 565 Princely States

This was the most formidable challenge, described by Sardar Patel as a task of “unification and consolidation.”

  • Legal Framework:

    • Government of India Act, 1935 (Section 6): This Act had originally provided a mechanism for princely states to accede to a proposed ‘Federation of India’ by signing an Instrument of Accession (IoA). This legal precedent was revived in 1947. Section 6(6) specified that only the ruler’s signature was required for the accession to be legally valid.
    • Indian Independence Act, 1947: This Act declared the lapse of British paramountcy over the princely states from 15th August 1947. Legally, this meant each state would become a sovereign entity, free to accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. This provision created the potential for the ‘balkanization’ of India.

  • Instruments of Integration:

    • Instrument of Accession (IoA): This was the primary legal document. By signing it, a ruler agreed to cede jurisdiction over three subjects—Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Communications—to the Dominion of India. All other subjects were to remain under the ruler’s control.
    • Merger Agreement (MA): This was a subsequent and more comprehensive step. States that signed the Merger Agreement ceded all their powers and jurisdictions, effectively dissolving their separate political identity and merging them into the neighbouring provinces or forming new administrative units (e.g., Saurashtra Union, Vindhya Pradesh). This was the true political integration.

  • The States Department (June 1947): To handle the complex negotiations, the Government of India established the States Department on 13th June 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was its political head, and V.P. Menon, a seasoned civil servant, was the administrative secretary. Their partnership was pivotal to the success of the integration process.

Sardar Patel’s Strategy: Persuasion and Pressure

Patel and Menon employed a masterful “carrot and stick” policy.

  1. Bringing Mountbatten on Board: Patel astutely used the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, who held considerable influence over the princes. On 25th July 1947, Mountbatten addressed the Narendra Mandal (Chamber of Princes, established in 1920), arguing compellingly that:

    • Acceding on just three subjects was not a real loss of sovereignty, as the princes never controlled these areas under British paramountcy.
    • He warned that after 15th August, Britain would not be in a position to offer them any protection.
    • He appealed to their patriotism and highlighted the geographical compulsions that made integration with India the only viable option. His royal lineage and status as the Crown’s representative made his advice particularly effective.

  2. Patriotic Appeal and Guarantees (The ‘Carrot’): Patel appealed to the rulers’ sense of patriotism, urging them to join the “common endeavour” of building a new India. To make the proposition attractive, he offered generous privy purses, preservation of their titles, and personal properties.

  3. Implied Threat of Anarchy (The ‘Stick’): Patel made it clear to the rulers that if they did not accede, the Government of India would not be able to restrain the popular movements (Praja Mandals) within their states, which were clamouring for integration and democracy. This was an implicit threat that refusing accession would lead to internal chaos and the potential overthrow of their rule.

The Problematic States

While most states acceded by 15th August 1947, a few held out.

  • Bhopal: The Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, was a Muslim ruler of a Hindu-majority state and the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. He harboured ambitions of independence. However, immense pressure from the Praja Mandal, the people, and Patel’s firm stance compelled him to sign the IoA just before the deadline.

  • Travancore: Its influential Diwan, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyyar, announced on 11th June 1947 that Travancore would become an independent state, even appointing a trade agent to Pakistan. He famously spoke of an “American model” of neutrality. The state witnessed the powerful Punnapra-Vayalar uprising (October 1946) led by communists against the Diwan’s regime. The renewed popular agitation, combined with a failed assassination attempt on Aiyyar in July 1947, led him to flee, and the Maharaja promptly acceded to India.

  • Manipur: Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh signed the IoA on 11th August 1947, on the assurance of internal autonomy. Following popular pressure, Manipur held India’s first election based on universal adult franchise in June 1948, becoming a constitutional monarchy. However, in September 1949, the Maharaja was pressured into signing a Merger Agreement in Shillong, without consulting the elected legislative assembly. This act is viewed by many in Manipur as illegitimate and has been a historical grievance fueling separatist sentiments.

  • Jodhpur: A Hindu-majority state with a Hindu ruler, Hanwant Singh, Jodhpur shared a crucial border with Pakistan. M.A. Jinnah personally offered him a blank cheque, including full port facilities in Karachi and arms manufacturing rights, to entice him to accede to Pakistan. V.P. Menon, in his memoirs, describes a tense meeting where the young king even threatened him with a pistol. Patel’s firm intervention and persuasion, highlighting the communal turmoil that would engulf his state, secured Jodhpur’s accession to India.

Integration Post-15th August 1947

  • Hyderabad:

    • Context: The largest and richest princely state, a Hindu-majority (over 85%) region ruled by the Muslim Nizam, Mir Osman Ali. The state was landlocked within Indian territory.
    • Key Players: The Nizam was advised by the extremist Kasim Razvi, leader of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM). Razvi’s private militia, the Razakars, unleashed a reign of terror on the Hindu population and pro-integration activists.
    • Events: Hyderabad declared independence on 12th June 1947. Patel offered significant concessions, but the Nizam, swayed by Razvi, refused. A powerful people’s movement, led by the Hyderabad State Congress and the Communists (the Telangana peasant armed struggle), was already underway. In November 1947, a Standstill Agreement was signed to maintain the status quo for a year, but the Razakars’ atrocities escalated. Finally, in September 1948, the Indian Army launched Operation Polo (also codenamed Operation Caterpillar). The Hyderabad state forces surrendered in four days. The Nizam was made the Rajpramukh (Governor), and Hyderabad was integrated.

  • Jammu & Kashmir (J&K):

    • Context: A Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Dogra king, Maharaja Hari Singh. The state was strategically located, sharing borders with both India and Pakistan.
    • Key Players: Maharaja Hari Singh wished to remain independent. Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, was the most popular leader, opposing the Maharaja and advocating for a secular, democratic Kashmir. He had close ties with Nehru.
    • Events: Hari Singh offered a Standstill Agreement to both dominions. Pakistan signed it, but India did not. In October 1947, in an attempt to force accession, Pakistan sponsored an invasion of tribal Pashtun lashkars, supported by its army. As the invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar, a desperate Hari Singh appealed to India for military help. India agreed, but on two conditions: J&K must accede to India, and Sheikh Abdullah must be made the head of the emergency administration. The Maharaja signed the IoA on 26th October 1947.
    • UN Intervention: The Indian Army pushed back the invaders, but before the entire territory could be cleared, Prime Minister Nehru, on the advice of Mountbatten, took the issue to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in January 1948. The UNSC passed resolutions calling for a ceasefire, which came into effect on 1st January 1949, creating the Ceasefire Line (now the Line of Control) and leaving a portion of J&K under Pakistani control (PoK). A plebiscite was recommended, conditional on Pakistan’s prior withdrawal of its forces, a condition Pakistan never met.
    • Ratification: The Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir, convened in 1951, drafted the state’s constitution and formally ratified the accession to India in 1954, providing a popular mandate to the ruler’s decision.

Prelims Pointers

  • Praja Mandals: Also known as States People’s Conference (SPC), these were popular organizations in princely states demanding democratic rights and integration with India.
  • AISPC: The All India State Peoples’ Conference was formed in 1927 as a national-level body for Praja Mandals.
  • INC Sessions & Policy on States:
    • 1920 Nagpur: Allowed people from states to be members but forbade political activity in the name of INC.
    • 1938 Haripura: Declared Poorna Swaraj goal for the entire Indian subcontinent, including princely states.
    • 1939 Tripuri: INC formally decided to get directly involved in the struggles of the people of the princely states.
  • Nehru’s AISPC Presidency: Jawaharlal Nehru became the President of the All India State Peoples’ Conference in its Ludhiana session in 1939.
  • Key Legislations:
    1. Government of India Act, 1935: Section 6 provided the legal basis for the Instrument of Accession.
    2. Indian Independence Act, 1947: Ended British paramountcy over princely states, granting them the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.
  • States Department: Formed in June 1947, headed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Minister) and V.P. Menon (Secretary).
  • Narendra Mandal: The Chamber of Princes, established in 1920, where Mountbatten delivered a crucial speech on 25th July 1947 urging accession.
  • Instrument of Accession (IoA): Document by which princely states acceded to India on three subjects: Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Communications.
  • Merger Agreement (MA): Document for complete political and administrative merger of a state with India.
  • Standstill Agreement: An agreement to maintain the status quo pending final decision on accession (e.g., signed by Hyderabad and Pakistan-J&K).
  • Punnapra-Vayalar Uprising (1946): Communist-led movement in Travancore against the Diwan, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyyar.
  • Operation Polo: Code name for the Indian armed forces’ action in Hyderabad in September 1948.
  • Razakars: The private militia of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) in Hyderabad, led by Kasim Razvi.
  • Integration of Goa: Achieved through Operation Vijay in December 1961. Goa became part of India via the 12th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1962.
  • First Election on Universal Adult Franchise: Held in Manipur in June 1948.
  • Accession of J&K: Maharaja Hari Singh signed the IoA on 26th October 1947.

Mains Insights

1. Nation-Building as a Multi-faceted Process: The integration of princely states was the first and most critical test of the nascent Indian state. It was not merely a territorial consolidation but a complex process involving:

  • Political Negotiation: The brilliant statecraft of Patel and Menon, using a blend of persuasion, guarantees, and coercion.
  • Popular Aspiration: The role of the Praja Mandal movements, which provided the moral and political legitimacy for India’s actions, especially in cases like Hyderabad and Travancore. Without popular support, integration would have appeared as a simple act of conquest.
  • Legal Framework: Using existing British Indian legislation (GoI Act 1935) to provide a legal basis for accession, thereby framing the process within the rule of law.
  • Geopolitical Compulsions: The geographical reality that most states were landlocked within India made independence an impractical proposition, a point repeatedly stressed by Mountbatten and Patel.

2. Historiographical Debate: The Role of Patel vs. Nehru:

  • Patel as the ‘Iron Man’: A dominant narrative, articulated by authors like V.P. Menon, portrays Patel as the pragmatic, decisive realist who single-handedly unified India through his firm policies, particularly in Hyderabad and Junagadh. This view often contrasts him with Nehru, who is sometimes depicted as an idealist, especially in his decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UN.
  • A More Nuanced View: Historians like Ramachandra Guha and Bipan Chandra argue for a more complementary understanding. They contend that Patel, Nehru, and Mountbatten worked as a team. While Patel managed the intricate negotiations, Nehru’s stature as a national leader and his rapport with figures like Sheikh Abdullah were indispensable. Nehru’s vision of a secular, democratic India was a powerful magnet for the people of the states, who sought to escape feudal autocracy. The decision on Kashmir was a collective cabinet decision influenced by the prevailing international context and Mountbatten’s advice.

3. Seeds of Future Conflicts and Impact on Indian Federalism: The process of integration, while largely successful, also laid the groundwork for future challenges:

  • The Kashmir Issue: The unique circumstances of its accession and the subsequent internationalization of the dispute created a protracted conflict that has shaped India’s foreign policy and national security discourse for decades.
  • Insurgency in the North-East: The manner of Manipur’s merger, where the Merger Agreement was signed without the consent of the elected assembly, created a legacy of grievance and a sense of betrayal that has fueled separatist movements in the region.
  • Evolution of Federalism: The initial promise of significant autonomy under the IoA (ceding only 3 subjects) gradually gave way to complete merger. This set a precedent for a strong central government, a feature that was later enshrined in the Constitution. The integration process thus shaped the quasi-federal, centre-dominated nature of the Indian polity.

4. The ‘Two-Nation Theory’ and the Logic of Integration:

  • The accession of a Muslim-majority state like Jammu & Kashmir, led by a popular Muslim leader (Sheikh Abdullah), to a secular India was a significant ideological victory against Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory.
  • Conversely, the problems in Hyderabad and Junagadh (Hindu-majority, Muslim ruler) were often framed by Pakistan as evidence for its theory. India’s stance, however, was consistent: the will of the people was paramount, not the religion of the ruler. This principle was applied to justify action in Junagadh (via plebiscite) and Hyderabad (legitimized by popular movements) and its claim over Kashmir (based on the support of the National Conference).

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. Which one of the following groups of plants was domesticated in the ‘New World’ and introduced into the ‘Old World’? (UPSC CSE 2019) (This question is analogous to how integration topics might be tested – focusing on origins and movements. While not directly on this topic, the pattern is relevant. A direct question could be about the origin of a particular legal provision for integration.)

    A direct question based on the topic could be: **Q. The provision for princely states to accede to the ‘Federation of India’ through an

Graph View