Post-independence Consolidation and Reorganization within the Country | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Understanding the Evolution of India's Political Landscape

In the wake of India's hard-fought struggle for independence, the nation faced the formidable task of consolidating and reorganizing itself. This article delves into the intricate process of post-independence consolidation and the subsequent reorganization within the country. It encompasses the pre-independence landscape, the integration of princely states, and the reorganization of Indian states.

Pre-Independence Landscape

• Before gaining independence in 1947, India was a mosaic of regions, including Princely States, Territories of British India, and colonial territories under the sway of Portugal and France. The Government of India Act of 1935 had proposed an All-India Federation comprising provinces and princely states as units. However, this federation never materialized due to various conditions.
• A significant turning point came in 1946 when a Cabinet commission visited India, declaring that princely states were no longer under British paramountcy and could choose to align themselves with the successor government or remain independent. Subsequently, on July 5, 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act, which was based on the Mountbatten Plan.

Challenges of Integration

One of the most pressing challenges for independent India was the integration of princely states. Some of these states aspired to retain their independence, posing a significant hurdle to national unity. This issue is often referred to as national integration or the integration of Indian people as a political community.

Stage 1 of Consolidation:

During 1946-47, there was a resurgence of state people's movements demanding political representation in the Constituent Assembly. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel played pivotal roles during this phase. Patel appealed to princely states to accede to the Indian Union in areas concerning foreign relations, defense, and communication. Threats were issued that the terms offered after August 15, 1947, would be less favorable.
The efforts of Patel and other leaders led to the signing of "instruments of accession" by nearly all princely states, with the exception of Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh. The willingness of these princely states to accede was driven by factors such as their understanding that they were not genuine rulers under British paramountcy, the assurance of fair compensation, no alteration in their internal political structure, and the desire of their people to become part of India.

• Integration of Junagadh: Junagadh, although predominantly Hindu, was ruled by a Muslim nawab, who announced accession to Pakistan in 1947. Despite the population's preference to join India, a popular movement forced the nawab to flee, leading to a plebiscite in February 1948, resulting in an overwhelming vote in favor of joining India.

• Integration of Kashmir: Kashmir, situated on the border with both India and Pakistan, was ruled by a Hindu king over a predominantly Muslim population. While the king hesitated to align with either India or Pakistan, popular political forces led by Sheikh Abdullah favored joining India. Pakistan, unlike in the cases of Junagadh and Hyderabad, refused to accept a plebiscite. Tribal invaders, unofficially supported by Pakistani army officers, invaded Kashmir in October 1947. In response, the Maharaja sought India's military assistance, leading to his accession to India in October 1947. Indian leaders, however, committed to a referendum on Kashmir's accession once peace was restored.

• Integration of Hyderabad: Hyderabad, the largest Indian state, completely surrounded by Indian territory, initially aspired to maintain independent status and expanded its armed forces with encouragement from Pakistan. Negotiations with India were prolonged, leading to impatience on the Indian side. In September 1948, the Indian army entered Hyderabad, resulting in the Nizam's surrender and accession to the Indian Union.

Stage 2 of Consolidation:

The second phase involved the integration of states with neighboring provinces or the creation of new units like the Kathiawar Union, Vindhya and Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, or Himachal Pradesh. This phase also encompassed internal constitutional changes in states that initially retained their old boundaries, including Hyderabad, Mysore, and Travancore-Cochin. This phase of consolidation was accomplished within a year, marking a significant achievement in India's post-independence history.

Reorganization of India

• At the time of independence in 1947, India consisted of 571 disjointed princely states that were merged together to form 27 states. The grouping of states at the time was done on the basis of political and historical considerations rather than on linguistic or cultural divisions, but this was a temporary arrangement.
• On account of the multilingual nature and differences that existed between various states, there was a need for the states to be reorganized on a permanent basis.
• Back in the 1920s, the Indian National Congress – the main party of the freedom struggle – had promised that once the country won independence, each major linguistic group would have its own province.
• However, After independence, Congress did not take any steps to honour this promise.
• Shortly after independence, movements for the linguistic reorganization of states gained momentum in several states. After partition, the then Prime Minister Nehru was wary of further separating the country on the basis of language following the painful religious partition.
• However, as evidenced by the movements for Ayikya Kerala, Samyukta Maharashtra, and Vishalandhra, calls for a distinct state based on linguistic identity gained traction.
• In 1948 the Linguistic Provinces Commission, headed by
• Justice S.K. Dhar, to enquire into the desirability of linguistic provinces, was appointed by the Constituent assembly.
  • S.K. Dar commission,1948: The Dar Commission advised against the step at the time for it might threaten national unity and also be administratively inconvenient. Consequently, the Constituent Assembly decided not to incorporate the linguistic principle in the constitution. 
  • JVP Committee,1948: With the Dhar committee recommendation, Public opinion was not satisfied, especially in the South, and the problem remained politically alive. To appease the vocal votaries of linguistic states, the Congress appointed a committee (JVP) in December 1948 consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, president of the Congress, to examine the question afresh. This committee advised against the creation of linguistic states, for the time being, emphasizing unity, national security, and economic development as the needs of the hour.

Groups of States after Independence

In 1951, India had 27 states divided into four parts: Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D.

• Part A: Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh (formerly Central Provinces and Berar), Madras, Orissa, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces)were among the nine states in Part A.
• Part B: Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Saurashtra, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, Patiala, and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), and Rajasthan were the nine Part B states.
• Part C: Delhi, Kutch, Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur, Coorg, Bhopal, Manipur, Ajmer, Cooch-Behar, and Tripura were among the ten Part C states. Except for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Part C states included both former Chief Commissioners’ provinces and other centrally administered areas.
• Part D: The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Part D) was a territory ruled by a governor appointed by the Indian President.

Formation of Andhra

On 19 October 1952, a popular freedom fighter, Patti Sriramalu, undertook a fast unto death over the demand for a separate Andhra which expired after fifty-eight days. The State of Andhra was created as the first linguistic state(Telugu speaking).

State Reorganisation Commission

In August 1953, the Then PM, Pt. Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), with Justice Fazl Ali, K.M. Panikkar, and Hriday Nath Kunzru as members, to examine ‘objectively and dispassionately ’ the entire question of the reorganization of the states of the Union.

• SRC widely accepted language as the foundation for state reorganization. It did, however, reject the theory of ‘one language, one state.’
• The SRC recommended the conversion of the four kinds of states into two categories States and Union territories and the merger of the erstwhile Part B state of Hyderabad with Andhra.
• States Reorganisation Act: To give effect to the scheme of reorganization, the States Reorganisation Act, of 1956, was enacted by the Parliament under Article 4 of the Constitution of India.
• 7thConstitutional Amendment: In order to implement the States Reorganisation Act, the Constitution introduced the 7thConstitutional Amendment, which received the Indian President’s assent on October 19, 1956.
• Abolition of Part A, B, and D: This amendment not only resulted in the formation of new states by altering the areas and boundaries of the then-existing states, but it also resulted in the abolition of Part A, Part B, and Part C states and the designation of certain areas as Union Territories.
• The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 reduced the number of states from 27 to 14.
• The states were Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. The six union territories were Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands, Manipur, and Tripura.

SRC opposed the division of Bombay & Punjab; Therefore, Maharashtra, where massive rioting occurred, was the location with the strongest response to the SRC report.

Key Reorganizations

• Maharashtra and Gujarat: In 1960, the bilingual state of Bombay was divided into Maharashtra and Gujarat.
• Creation of Union Territories: Several territories were designated as Union Territories, such as Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
• Nagaland: Created in 1963 as a separate state for the Nagas.
• Haryana, Chandigarh, and Himachal Pradesh: Punjab was reorganized in 1966, leading to the creation of Haryana and the inclusion of hilly regions in Himachal Pradesh.
• Sikkim: Initially a protectorate, Sikkim joined India in 1975 after a referendum.
• Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh: Both became states in 1987 and 1986, respectively.
• Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, and Telangana: These states were formed in 2000 and 2014.

Reasons behind reorganization

• Emotional Integration of Different Language Groups
• Linguistically Homogeneous Units
• State Level Elevation (where it would be able to enjoy the powers and facilities that they believe they were denied.)
• Rising Consciousness Among Ethnic Minorities
• Easier Consolidation of Demands
• Widespread Sense of Discrimination(Ethnic minority communities that are agitated develop a sense of discrimination.)
• Economic Backwardness Eg. Formation of Chhattisgarh
• Availability of Fewer Opportunities
• Such movements gain traction when they are led by an effective and powerful leader.

Challenges in State Reorganization

• The process of creating new states has not been without its challenges. Some states have been reluctant to accept these changes, viewing them as a sign of the central government's failure. Additionally, concerns about the division of population affecting representation in the central government have been raised.
• In conclusion, India's journey from a diverse pre-independence landscape to a unified nation involved intricate processes of integration and reorganization. These efforts, undertaken by visionary leaders, have contributed to India's vibrant and diverse federal structure, reflecting its linguistic and cultural richness.

Conclusion

The integration and reorganization of states in post-independence India were monumental tasks that shaped the nation's political map. These processes aimed at fostering national unity while respecting linguistic and cultural diversities. The challenges and complexities encountered along the way underscore the importance of balancing regional aspirations with the overarching goal of a united India.