Notes: Post Independence - 3 | Post Independence History for UPSC Mains PDF Download

Tribal Integration and National Consolidation

• Tribals in India are a very heterogeneous community. There are more than 400 tribal communities as per the 1971 census, some like Negis and Meenas well assimilated in mainstream, others like tribes of North eastern states still retaining original cultural identities.
• During British period, they were grossly isolates at times and were exploited on the other by merchants, administrators, forest officials, money-lenders and so on. They primarily depended on forests which were alienated from them. 
• Their unique culture also came under threat from outsiders like missionaries. In most cases, they were alienated from their lands as well. Their anger was also vented out in form of many uprisings during colonial period. 
• Colonial rule left them in gross suspicion and insecure and their 'integration' into Indian nation became a challenge as India had already witnessed the ill effects of policies of 'isolation' and 'assimilation' in past. 
• So, Nehru and other leaders saw a middle path in form of integrative approach and said 'tribal areas have to progress and have to progress in their own way'. Tribals had to be developed economically, socially and politically, but as per their own genius. Their forest and land rights have to be acknowledged. Their language and culture has to be preserved.
• Provisions were also made in the constitution itself. Article 46 called for their educational and economic development without injustice and exploitation. 
• Similarly, special provisions were made for tribal areas and governors were given additional responsibility. State and central laws have to be modified to be applicable in these areas. Right to Property and Right to free travel and residence were curtailed in these areas. Seats were reserved in legislatures for them. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes was also setup. Tribal Advisory Councils were setup in areas with tribal population.

However, execution of above ideas remained far from satisfaction and tribals lagged behind in the developmental race and tribal areas are still exploited by the money-lenders, forest officials, merchants and traders, forest contractors and land grabbers. Their ignorance of law has also made them even more vulnerable. Their educational performance have remained very low and little attention has been paid on education in their own language despite constitutional directives. As a result of this, there have been many protest movements, violent actions and vociferous demands for their development in post-independence period. Antagonism of tribals towards non-tribals is another grave development. In many areas tribals have been outnumbered by the outsiders and it has further fuelled their anger.

• Manipur was a Monarchy at the time of Independence, however it signed the Instrument of Accession on the conditions that its autonomy will be maintained. 
• But people wanted self rule and as a result Maharaja of Manipur ordered elections of assembly in 1948. These were the first election in India after independence and Congress came to power. After elections, the state became a constitutional monarchy. 
• In the Legislative Assembly of Manipur there were sharp differences over the question of merger of Manipur with India. While the state Congress wanted the merger, other political parties were opposed to this. 
• The Government of India succeeded in pressurising the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement in September 1949, without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur. This caused a lot of anger and resentment in Manipur, the repercussions of which are still being felt.
• Tribals of North East were subjected to high degree of isolation during British rule and as a result of it, they were able to preserve their unique identities, little land was owned by outsiders, they remained in majority in the areas they resided, but all this at the cost of their underdevelopment. 
• This area also remained politically isolated as well and was hence untouched by ideas of nationalism and a common unifying bond. Special needs of North east tribes were addressed through provisions of 6th Schedule which is applicable only to tribes of North East. 
• It provided for 'tribal autonomous districts' and 'regional councils' which could work independently and perform some of legislative and judicial functions as well. However, problems arose in tribal areas for their threat perception and integration issues. Hill tribals had little cultural affinity with those in plains of Assam and Bengal and they were apprehensive that people from plains will intrude into their areas and will ultimately take control over resources an cultural identities. 
• Political leadership also failed to perceive this development and it aggravated over time and in mid 1950s, a demand for separate hill state arose in Assam to which government didn't pay any serious attention. When Assamese was made the sole official language ignoring other tribal languages in 1961, protest voices got further louder and it culminated into first creation of Meghalaya state within state Assam in 1969 and later a full state in 1972. UTs of Manipur and Tripura were also granted statehood.
• Though transition to statehood of Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh was smooth, it was not so in case of Nagaland and Mizoram. Naga areas were totally isolated during British rule and after Independence, government of India sought to integrate them, but they opposed in favor of a separate independent state under leadership of A Phizo and British officers and missionaries support. 
• In 1955, a violent campaign was launched by Nagas and they declared independence from Assam and India. To this government of India responded with a firm foot and sent army and prolonged negotiations were also pursued along with. 
• After army intervention, rebellions back was broken and more moderate leader Dr Imkongliba accepted the offer of separate Naga state which came into existence in 1963. Declaration of separate state led to decline of insurgency which saw sporadic outbursts with Chinese, East Pakistani and Burmese support. Army also gained some unpopularity due to some unpleasant incidents.

A few years later, similar situation developed in autonomous district of Mizo in Assam. They were relatively settled with the idea of being part of India, but inadequate measures during 1959 famine and later declaration of Assamese as official language stoked the secessionist tendencies and Mizo National Front (MNF) was formed with Laldenga as its leader and tacit support from China and East Pakistan. It declared independence in 1966 and launched violent insurgency which was met by tough stance of Indian army. Ladenga and others fled into East Pakistan and Mizoram was given status of a UT in 1973. In 1986, when MNF and Laldenga surrendered, government also softened its stance and invited them into mainstream announcing full statehood to Mizoram with Laldenga as its first chief minister in 1987.

• Case of Jharkhand was different. It also had 1/3rd tribal population and Jharkhand area was generally poor and exploited despite presence of mineral resources. Early leaders like Jaipal mobilized support in 1950s with tribal identity as a rallying point, but soon realized that larger population was non-tribal and hence the idea didn't work. 
• In 1970s Jharkhand Mukti Morcha led by Shibu Soren redefined the strategy and took both the tribals and non-tribals together claiming that north Bihar and other outsiders have led to their exploitation and underdevelopment. The struggle went through various ups and downs before Jharkhand got full statehood in 2000.

Regionalism, Regional Inequalities and National Consolidation

• Regionalism is not about local patriotism or local pride as Gandhiji said 'As the basis of my pride as an India, I must have pride in myself as a Gujarati otherwise we shall be left without any moorings'. 
• National pride is not the opposite of regional pride and rather two of them coexist together and this was core to our nationalistic ideology too during our freedom struggle. 
• Special efforts to uplift one's region is not regionalism as it promotes a progressive thinking and healthy competition and even undermines other divisive factors like caste and class by diverting attention from them to regional well being. For same regions, demand for a separate state or an autonomous region is also not regionalism unless it is marked by bitterness towards others.
• Regionalism is instead an ideology which propagates that interests of a region are not in harmony with national interests or interests of other regions and hence may lead to hostility. Politics of DMK during 1950s in Tamil Nadu is an apt example when a region becomes more assertive of its cultural identity in a hostile manner. Case of Punjab during 1980s is not an example of regionalism, but communalism.
• Linguistic reorganization of states averted a major face-off between various regions by acting as a safety value. Another area of potential conflict is sharing of riparian waters, especially in southern states. Even such disputes have not aroused passions to such great extents to cause major integrational threats.
• Another potential source of regionalism can be economic disparity. However, many special programs like Food for Work, IRDP etc in 1970s and special aid for development of such regions helped in diffusing growth of strident regionalism. 
• Industrial policy also ensured that new industries are widely spread out. During planning process also, more development aid and funds were given to lesser developed regions which continue even today and role of Finance Commission is important in this aspect which allocates more grants to backward regions. 
• Public investment in various infrastructure projects like - rail, road, ports, industries etc also played role in offsetting the inequalities. Tax soaps and other incentives were provided to private sector also to invest in industrially backward regions. 
• Licensing policy was used to guide the location of industries in various regions. Nationalization of banks started process of financial inclusion of backward areas as well. However, investment in agriculture sector and irrigation remained one ignored area. Green Revolution led to unequal benefits and considerable heartburn in other rain-fed and dry areas which was tried to minimize through extending the Green Revolution to other areas as well.
• Results of above efforts have been a mixed one. Industrialization has relatively evenly spread except a few states like North Eastern states and Jammu and Kashmir. 
• Some states have progressed more than others and others have failed to keep pace. While states like Haryana and Himachal Pradesh have improved upon, states like West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh have lost their position. Andhra and Rajasthan have stagnated.
• One of the major reasons of economic disparity of poor economic growth of the nation as a whole and it was not good enough to make a dent in regional inequalities. 
• Specific issues of social and political organization of certain states are also a reason of their backwardness as in case of Bihar and West Bengal. Similarly, agrarian structure in UP and Orissa is still backward. 
• In Bihar and UP casteism is there. In West Bengal CPI led leadership didn't allow much industrial growth due to strong trade-unionism. Intra-regional disparities have also given birth to sub­regional movements as well as in case of Vidharbha in Maharashtra, Telangana in Andhra, Saurashtra in Gujarat, Darjeeling or Gorkhland in West Bengal, Bodoland in Assam etc.
• For various reasons, economic disparity has not led to growth of regionalism in India. While it is digested for many reasons, some rational explanations like fault of their own political leadership are given in other cases. Some others are even unaware of the acuteness of the situation.
• One particular instance of regionalism raising its head is in form of 'sons of the soil doctrine' since 1950s. It holds that a state and its resources specifically belong to a particular cultural or linguistic group inhabiting in that state. It creates a notion of 'us' for insiders and 'them' for outsiders. 
• Outsiders are not regarded 'sons of the soil' even if they have been residing there since long. To harness the employment and economic opportunities this doctrine was used along communalism, casteism and nepotism. As migration into major cities accelerated after 1951, urban areas specifically became the playfield of this doctrine as 'insiders' were gradually reduced to minority in these cities as these areas witnessed acute struggle for middle class jobs and other opportunities. 
• Failure to create new employment opportunities created more competition in 1960s and 1970s. It particularly flourished in states of Maharashtra, Assam and Telangana and was primarily led by urban middle class as people in these areas had little tradition of migration as compared to other states like West Bengal, Kerala etc. Worst among these was one led by Shiv Sena in 1960s which was more antagonistic towards South Indians especially Tamilians.
• However, regional chauvinism has not posed a great challenge to national unity after 1960s and 70s. DMK has contended itself by changing the name of state and its capital city. Shiv Sena has turned to Hindu communalism instead. There are occasional flares like violence in Assam and rhetoric of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, but they are only limited in their intensity.

India's Role in International Arena

• Korea War and Non-Alignment Policy: The end of Second World War left Korea divided and hostile to each other. India supported US resolution in 1950 in UN when North Korea invaded South Korea and condemned North Korea as aggressor. 
• However, US got miffed when India abstained from another resolution calling for an armed intervention. US sent its force under leadership of General McArthur without a UN approval and crossed the 38th parallel and marched into North Korea. 
• China warned US on this and came into defense of North Korea and fight ensued. US moved another resolution calling China aggressor (though in reality it was US which was aggressor) and India voted against it. 
• India was only line of communication between China and US and after long efforts, both sides agreed to hold ceasefire and recognized the same boundaries which they wished to change. 
• A 'Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission' was formed under India General Thimayya's leadership to repatriate soldiers. Korean War was a test of Non-Alignment policy of India and its foreign policy. 
• In whole turn of events, India first miffed USSR and China when it termed North Korea aggressor and then miffed US when it abstained from UN vote and later voted against US resolution calling China as an aggressor. 
• India didn't dilute its stance in difficult circumstances as in the same period, China attacked Tibet without taking India into picture, India even supported permanent seat of China in UNSC which USSR didn't like. 
• India also needed US help to meet challenge of food security during famine. However, later everyone acknowledged the stance of India and the incidents prove to be a sound testimony of genuineness and worth of non-alignment policy.
• Indo-China (Today's Laos-Vietnam-Cambodia) - Indo-China was on brink of becoming theater of cold war in 1950s. US was goading France to continue its efforts to occupy the region and China was getting ready to intervene if US comes into picture. 
• Indian leaders held intense negotiation for maintaining peace and even declared such intention in the Colombo Conference, 1954. Finally, after much parleys, India was successful in assuring China that it should not intervene and also extracted promise from France that it would not allow US to have a military base in the region. 
• As a result, India was appointed Chairman of 'International Control Commission' which would supervise the import of foreign armaments in Indo-China. This commission was later subverted by US and Indo-China did became a theater of anti-communism crusade of West, but same peace efforts initiated by India were followed by the regional leaders later.

Suez Canal Episode - Suez was nationalized by Naseer in 1956 and this made UK and France apprehensive and they demanded international control over it, however India asked both sides to restrain and suggested a formula allowing Egypt to control canal, but with an advisory role for users at London Conference which was widely appreciated. But UK and France perceived it as a future irritant in terms of trade route use and they ultimately supported Israel attack on Egypt and their control of Suez canal. This attack was widely condemned as 'naked aggression' by

India, US and UN and as a result withdrawal of forces started to take place under UN supervision in which India also lend help in form of peacekeeping forces.

India's Relations with Superpowers and Neighbours

• India and the USA - India wanted to have cordial and friendly relationships with US despite its policy of non-alignment. The US, however, disappointed India first on Kashmir issue, then over food aid. 
• The US had big influence in the UN and it used it to project a negative image of India over Kashmir issue and ignored the fact that Pakistan was an aggressor and it later even provided military help to Pakistan on the name of countering Soviet threat. 
• Similarly food-aid was delayed to India and she was humiliated. The US also showed it open displeasure over India's recognition of communist China as a nation and India's support to its permanent seat in UNSC. 
• The US was also miffed by India's abstention in the UN resolution over Korea war. US also dragged cold war at India's doorstep by including Pakistan in military blocks like SEATO and CENTO and it termed non-alignment as immoral. 
• On Goa issue also, the US supported Portuguese claim. The US was grossly obsessed with its anti-communist crusade and in this fervor failed to appreciate Indian stance quite frequently.
• Further, the US never saw India as a strong bulwark against communism and according to it India might collapse under burden of its diversity. However, people to people contacts remained healthy and the US was also a source of technology and machinery. 
• When India went closer to the USSR, the US got wary and started to think towards improving its relations with India. However, situation took a bad turn in wake of 1962 war with China in which the US tacitly supported India. 
• When Indira Gandhi came to power, she tried to considerably improve relations with the US and the UK. However, she was disappointed when the US president Lyndon Johnson dithered over her request for food shipments in aftermath of 1965 war and draught as the US wanted to make India apologetic of her criticism of Vietnam War. 
• As a result, India ventured on to bring Green Revolution for food security, further strengthening NAM and pursue a more independent foreign policy.

India and USSR - Indian relations with Soviet Union started on a cold note as it perceived India under imperial influence as India joined Commonwealth. Further, Communist Party of India was also in opposition to Indian government. 

• First major sign of India's truly non-aligned status appeared in India's position vis-a-vis Korea war when India voted against UN resolution calling China as aggressor. Impressed, Soviet and China sent food shipments to India when India was badly hit by draught. 
• The process of friendship speeded up after death of Stalin in 1954 and it even offered military equipment in wake of Pakistan joining CENTO and SEATO, but India refused citing its non-alignment. Relations took healthy turn when Nehru visited USSR in 1955 and Russian president visited India following year. 
• This time onward, the USSR also offered full support on Kashmir issue through veto in UNSC and it provided huge relief to India. USSR also supported integration of Goa. 
• USSR also supported industrial development of India and helped in setting up heavy industries like Bhilai and Bokaro steel plant. The USSR also supplied machinery and equipments for other heavy industry projects. 
• The USSR also didn't sided with its communist brother China when Indo-China relations deteriorated over Dalai Lama issue in 1959 and in fact made first military agreement with India in 1960 to make border roads along Chinese border which were damaged by China. 
• In 1962, India got a license to manufacture MIG aircrafts - first time for a non Soviet nation. The USSR also remained neutral and rather empathized with India in war with China and later bolstered their military equipment ties with India which served India well in 1971 war. 
• The USSR also got a tacit ally amidst Cold War as India's stance was always tilted towards the USSR. Soviets also had a long disputed border with China and friendship with India meant diverting Chinese attention and keeping a check on it. 
• Most importantly, the support of the USSR had always been unconditional unlike Western support which always came with many strings attached. When Indira came to power, she also continued a policy of closeness with the USSR.

Nepal and India - With Nepal, there were historic ties of India and they were further strengthened with 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship and allowed Nepal free passage through India. Both countries also agreed to be responsible for each other's security.

Burma and India - With Burma, border issues were settled amicably.

• Pakistan and India - Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir and subsequent accession of Kashmir and ensuing events have already been discussed. Kashmir issues was continuously used to blackmail India in UN and Pakistan also grew closer to US and joined its regional military blocks like SEATO, CENTO etc. 
• It was only USSR which recognized genuineness of Indian non-alignment that it helped India militarily as well in international fora as well. It supported Kashmir issue as well by vetoing resolutions in UNSC. 
• From 1962, Pakistan also sided with China, thus threatening India in a two side pressure which seemed to be very acute in 1971. India showed great generousness in division of pre-partition assets, division of water of Indus water and treatment of refugees and their compensation.

China and India - India always wanted to have friendly relationships with China as both have borne the brunt of colonialism and it was evident in its recognition of Communist China right from the beginning in 1950, support of China in Korea war and support of China in UNSC seat. 

• India also raised little objection over Chinese occupation over Tibet in 1950 and it even formally recognized it in 1954 as Panchsheel agreement was signed between the two and agreed on a mutual co-existence on the basis of it. 
• India even hailed Chinese leadership in Bandung conference in 1959. But in the same year, a big uprising happened in Tibet and thousands of Tibetan refugees along with the Dalai Lama sought refuge in India which was provided by India on humanitarian grounds on the condition that no political activities should be carried out from Indian soil. 
• China, however, didn't take it so kindly and soon after that skirmishes took place on Indo-China border between soldiers of two sides and China for the first time laid a firm claim on disputed area of NEFA and Ladakh. 
• In October 1962, Chinese forces launched a massive attack on NEFA (today's Arunachal Pradesh) and soon occupied vast areas as Indian army showed little resistance. 
• Indian PM Nehru sought Western help, but China voluntarily retreated as unpredictably as it has launched strike leaving a bruised ego and a broken friendship. Non­alignment and Panchsheel got a body blow and ironically India was hit not by a capitalist imperial country, but by a socialist friend. The US and the UK had responded positively and they could not be brushed aside in post-war scenario. Pakistan thought India was weakened and launched 1965 war.

Many analyst feel that Nehru failed to foresee the developments and instead of sorting out border dispute early on allowed the matters deteriorate and instead followed a 'forward policy' which alarmed China and it had to launch attack in self-defense. Some others argue that India was still an under developed country and could not have afforded too much military spending - especially on Chinese border - and have instead chosen to focus on Industrialization and nation building. 

• India also didn't want to have another insecure neighbor when one was already there in form of Pakistan. In aftermaths of refuge to the Dalai Lama, India had very little choice. 
• Indian failure had not been because of naive faith in Chinese friendship, not because of belief in utopian pacifism and Panchsheel or under-equipped armed forces. 
• In fact military strength of Indian armed forces have been multiplied many times since 1947 when India defeated Pakistan. It was rather due to unexpected nature of the war. 
• Approach of armed forces was not an integrated one as it was evident from little use of Indian air power in the war. Civilian-military coordination was not good either. It was a failure of logistics, of intelligence, of nerve on the part of military commander who fled seeing onslaught of enemy. 
• Others also argue that China for long wanted to make her presence felt on global scene, but was thwarted every time. Be it US recognition of Taiwan as real China, denying of UNSC seat, attempt to check-mate her in case of Korea war and Indo-China conflict, differences between Soviet and China over border issues. 
• The Chinese were also upset that Afro-Asian countries were following Indian line in making friendship with both the US and the USSR, rather than Chinese way of distancing from both. These events made China frustrated and isolated and prompted China on path of aggressive assertion as manifested in 1962 war. 
• Thus, Chinese war a result of China's own compulsions rather than aggressive posture of India or misjudgment of Nehru. In fact Nehru was right in pursuing a policy of friendship as a developing country could hardly afford two hostile nations at its doorstep.

Other Early Political Developments and Congress

• The social base of Congress extended from metropolitan areas to rural one and it acted as one of the major instruments of political stability. It is also said that after independence, it transformed itself from a social movement to a political institution. 
• To provide further organizational cohesion, Patel made a provision that no person who is a member of any other party with a constitution can be its member though it was earlier allowed as in case of Congress Socialist and Communist party. 
• As a result, Socialists left the party terming it as a bourgeoisie move and base of Congress didn't remain as broad as it was earlier. Nehru, However, made several attempts to bring them back and even Congress retained its left of the center approach. 
• Still Congress largely remained democratic and view of party members was reflected in meetings of AICC.
• Nehru felt that he wouldn't be able to do justice to two roles at one time and hence resigned from Congress presidentship and J B Kriplani was appointed president instead. Kriplani demanded that decisions of government should be discussed with party organization as well.
• However Nehru and Pate deemed it unrealistic and improper as executive works under principle of confidentiality in a parliamentary democracy and is responsible to legislature alone. Kriplani resigned on this issue and this issue again arose when Purushottamdas Tandon became party president with whom Nehru had significant differences over his conservative attitude. 
• Kriplani and others also left the party around same time. In a tussle between Tandon and Nehru, Tandon had to resign and Nehru once again president of party contrary to his own decision to not to do so.
• During times of Nehru party cadre was never mobilized to implement the vision of Nehru and as a result party members lost touch from the ground. 
• Departure of socialists like Jayprakash Narayan weakened the radical forces within the party and they didn't show any willingness to side Congress despite some repeated appeals from Nehru and finally the two moved ways apart. 
• Nehru in turn tried to ingrain socialism in the party structure itself by pursuing policy of land reforms, planned development, cooperative farming etc. However, even assertion of socialism couldn't stall the decline of party and party was marred by power hunger, factionalism, nepotism and so on.
• First signs of it appeared in the loss of party in 3 Lok Sabha by-elections in 1963. As a result, Nehru made a last ditch effort to strengthen party internally with the help of K Kamraj, chief minister of Madras. 
• They came up with what is known as 'Kamraj Plan' in August 1963 to infuse a new life into the party and restore the balance between party and the government. The plan stressed that leading Congressmen who are in good positions in government like cabinet ministers, Chief Ministers etc should voluntarily resign and should instead focus on strengthening organizational aspect of party. 
• Nehru was made authority to decide whose resignation to accept and thus also to have an authority to cleanse the party at the top. Response of Congressmen was immense and all cabinet ministers and all chief ministers offered their resignations and out of which resignations of 6 cabinet ministers viz Babu Jagjivan Ram, Lal Bahdur Shastri, Morarji Desai, S K Patil etc and 6 chief ministers. 
• However, the decision came very late as Nehru was ailing at that time and all the Congressmen, who were relieved, were not given any significant duty to bolster party except Kamraj who was made party president. 
• They sulked or made intrigues against political rivals in the state. Congressmen continued to be obsessed with administrative power and patronage and overall morale of party remained low.