SYLLABUS:
Linguistic reorganisation of States (1935-1947);
Regionalism and regional inequality; Integration of Princely States; Princes in electoral politics; Question of National Language;
Caste and Ethnicity after 1947 - Backward castes and tribes in post-colonial electoral politics; Dalit movements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINS QUESTIONS:
With the impending lapse of British paramountcy, the question of the future of princely states became a vital one. Elucidate.
Formation of Mountbatten plan announced - 1946-47 => after this issue of integration of princely state emerged as biggest challenge.
562 - across length and breadth; Small one 27 people; Large one 17 million - Hyderabad; Without their integration -> Indian independence was meaningless <> no development, no integration.
3 choices - India | Pak | or remain independent } Balkanisation - disintegration. Handled by iron hand by Patel and Menon.
Having won independence from British rule on 15th August 1947, India had to face the uphill task of integrating native states. At the time of independence, there were 562 Native States. Out of these 30 were located within the territories given to Pakistan and 532 were left in India.
The task of integrating these native states was very difficult because these states were having their typical political and socio-cultural identities. They were existing since hundreds of years. Challenge was further complicated by the provisions of Mountbatten Plan / Independence Act. That gave freedom to native states to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent.
This complicated task was handled by Sardar Patel. He was the head of Home department and the department of native states. He was ably assisted by VK Krishna Menon, the secretary to the home department.
“Sardar Patel accomplished a silent revolution by ensuring the absorption and assimilation of a multitude principalities without shedding even a drop of blood.” Elucidate.
"With great skill and masterful diplomacy and using both persuasion and pressure, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel succeeded in integrating the hundreds of princely states with the Indian Union." Discuss. [2007, 60m]
With great skill and masterful diplomacy and using both persuasion and pressure, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel succeeded in integrating the hundreds of princely states with the Indian Union. Discuss.
Approaches used by Sardar Patel for integration of Native States (529/532): | Junagarh, Hyderabad, Kashmir |
A combination of persuasion and pressure to prevail upon native rulers to accomplish the task of integration.
Pressure was applied to those native rulers who failed to respond to carrot of persuasion.
| By 14th of August 1947, 529 Native states had agreed to sign ‘the instrument of accession’ for joining Indian Union. Only three states were left out: Junagadh (Plebiscite), Hyderabad (Police Action), and Kashmir (Instrument of Accession). Junagarh - Nawab Mohd Mahabat Khan - love for animals. Acceded Junagarh to Pakistan (an effect of Lapse of Paramountcy) a trap of Jinnah (If India says Junagarh to be its part because of Hindu Majority then Pak would apply same principle to say Kashmir belongs to Pak). Retreating Colonial Power had its own interests suggested India to take this issue to UN. Sardar Patel was not interested instead Referendum was held and India got 1 lakh+ votes to 51 votes for Pak. Hyderabad - Special status for Hyderabad (on Mountbatten’s suggestion) like own laws, ~20k force, no central rule etc. but demands don't stop! Kasim Rizvi formed the Razakar force. Only Muslims and no Hindu = communal stand. Refused to sign IOA and gave Rs 20 cr as loan to Pak. Min of Hyd Liaq Khan threatened to go to UN. India launch Operation Caterpillar/ call it Polo or Police Action: Indian Army won it. However, Nehru and co showed leniency and made Mir Usman Ali as Rajpramukh of Hyderabad. Every time the fear was what if it would lead to War! And so we were reluctant to meddle w/o IOA signed. Kashmir - Hari Singh, King of Kashmir never wanted Kashmir as part of India and Kashmir was not a part of India till August 15, 1947. After Pakistan attack on Kashmir IOA signed and A370 plus 35A. Till date issue. |
The Seventh Amendment (1956) abolished Part-B states as a class and formed one class out of Parts A and B; thus special provisions relating to Part B states were deleted.
The Indian states thus lost their identity and became part of one uniform political set-up.
“The reorganization resulted in rationalizing the political map of India without seriously weakening its unity. If anything, its result has been functional, in as much as it removed what had been a major source of discord, and created homogeneous political units which could be administered through a medium that vast majority of the population understood. Indeed, it can be said with the benefit of hindsight that language, rather than being a force for division has proved a cementing and integrating influence.” Examine. [2013, 25m]
How did the need of reorganisation arise?
Complete story Madras and Bombay after partition in 1947. Madras and Bombay both were divided into different states on the basis of language and belief. Pt. JL Nehru was campaigning in Guntur district of then States of Madras where he faced protest demanding separate states. After discussing with senior leaders and Constitutional Assembly, Nehru formed a commission to look over the issue though Nehru said that formation of separates states on the basis of language is like dividing country. Watch this episode of Pradhanmantri which presents the entire information about formation of various states from Bombay and Madras states.
Why were Indian leaders reluctant on choosing states on linguistic lines?
Nehru (& India) had seen already Hindu Muslim partition and this influenced any choice for states on linguistic lines. SK Dhar Co. Nov 1948- Present emergency situation does not justify states on linguistic lines. Nehru appointed another Co JVP Jan 1949. Fear of Balkanisation! It also recog the new Andhra States. However the Q of creation of new states on linguistic lines be delayed for 10yrs. More importantly after many protests, Nehru did not shake from his decision.
What affected Nehru’s decision to give way to formation of Andhra?
Things changed after Potulu Sriramalu sat on to indefinite fast. {Nehru's idea was Madras which was a cosmopolitan city how it could be divided on linguistic lines}. Nehru was ready to accept after 50+days of fast but now C Rajaji CM of TN was not ready to give Madrass. Rajaji advised Nehru to call Sitaram (close to P Sriramalu) and try to pacifiy situation (People of Andhra are very emotional and get excited quickly). But death of Sriramalu => violence everywhere and then Nehru had to announce the new state. The problem was that now a Pandora box had opened and wherever the demand was for a new state the protests got stronger and violent. Eg in Bombay - Gujaratis were in all important posts and this hurt Marathis. Bombay was demand of Guj, marathis and separate Bombay Citizen Society. JRD Tata part of latter brought this up to SRCommission. Nehru always spoke of unity. He said this is not right time for this things. But ppl were adamant n their fights for separate states.
Mob Violence in Bombay: Morarji hit (Morarji the CM of Bombay said he could discuss things but the Q was could the city be given in hands of ppl who had come down to violence. {My point here: where were these ppl when under Br rule; Why not do things then - Ghar mein Sher aur bahar dher}.
Nehru's revolving between choices and multiple statements different time actually fired the state issue forward. He somewhere hurried when announcing the formation of Andhra. He even announced that the decision of SRC would be implemented. In fact SRC recom another state Telengana which after many decades the present govt had to do. {And remember Nehru himself had said that once States are formed on linguistic lines its demand would never stop}. Nehru never took decision, he simply said maybe or not.
Even today (in 2016) we are 29 states and still the demand for new states comes up.
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee lost the 2004 Lok Sabha election even after so many political advantages—as in Kargil war win, Pokhran atomic test success, etc. After losing elections in LS 2004, Atal Bihari Vajpayee indirectly incriminated Godhra riots for the defeat.
The reorganization of the states on the basis of language was a major aspect of national consolidation and integration. Comment.
PRADESHIK Committee - DHAR - JVP - SRC - Significance.
How did Dr. B.R. Ambedkar try to seek a political solution to the Problem of caste in India? [2016]
Discuss the factors that lead to the growth of Dalit consciousness and mention the major movements aimed at their empowerment. [2010, 30m]
Dalit movements were expression of growth of larger national and human consciousness of Indian people. They were expression of democratic awakening of lower caste.
The introduction of new system of education, new political and economic forces which rested on principles of individual liberty, equity, and democratic spirit percolated among Indian masses.
They also got a fillip through British policy of divide and rule in which census operation played a sufficient role. British policy classifying caste. On the basis of social precedence provided an opportunity for making claims for social pre-eminence a through caste mobilisation.
Improved communication network made wider links and combination possible; new system of education provided opportunity for socio-economic promotion, new administrative system, rule of law under mined certain privileges enjoyed by few and certain economic forces like industrialization threw open equal opportunities for all dismantling social barriers.
All these factors contributed to the shift in position of untouchables. Social reform movement such as those of Jyotiba phule in Maharashtra and Sri Narayan Guru in Kerala also began to question caste in equality.
Gandhiji integrated the issue of abolition of untouchability into national movement and major campaign and struggles such as Vaikom and Guruvayur Satyagraha were organized. Gandhiji’s effort was to make upper caste realise enormity of injustice done via practice of untouchability.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emerged as major leader of Depressed Classes by late 1920’s. He concentrated on SCs and formed All Indian Scheduled Caste Federation in 1942. He also cooperated with colonial government on the understanding that he could get more benefits for SCs. The All India S.C. Federation also contested election, but its candidates lost to Congress.
Others strands also emerged in different regions in Punjab the Ad-Dharm, in U.P. the Adi Hindi and in Bengal the Namashvedsas. In Bihar, Jagjivan Ram who emerged as the most important Congress leader formed Khetmajoor Sabha and Depressed Class League.
In early 1970’s a new trend identified as Dalit Panthers merged in Maharashtra as a part of country wide wave of radical politics. The Dalit Panthers leaned ideologically to Ambedkar’s thought. By 1950’s Dalit Panther had developed serious differences and the party split up and declined.
In North India new party BSP emerged in 1980’s under Kanshi Ram and later Mayawati who became the chief minister of U.P. in 2007.
“Dalit Movements for empowerment in independent India have essentially been for carving out political space through electoral politics.” Discuss. [2016]
<Reservation, BR Ambedkar and Buddhist Dalit Movement. Dalit Panthers. BSP. KR Narayanan - 1st Dalit President. KG Balakrishna - 1st Dalit President.>
However, it would be injustice to the wholly secular vision of our leaders to term the dalit movements only for political power. The movement of Jyotiba phule, Narayan Dev, and above all Mahatma Gandhi essentially focused towards their (dalit) overall development and rooting out their problems by transforming the Hindu society as a whole.
Despite all the fission that the caste system has undergone through the ages, it is bound to maintain the permanency of its form. Discuss.
Caste system is an institutionalized hierachical structure prevalent in Indain society that has regulated various aspects of socio-cultural, economic and political interactions traditionally. Evolution through ages in form of fusion and fission of various castes has effected new dynamism in the system.
Traditionally avenues of social mobility in form of sanskritization, patron sponsored mobility resulted in groups breaking away from mother caste. Failed anticipatory socialisation resulted in caste groups with new traditions. Other caste groups differentiated themselves on basis of occupational roles while others differentiating on eating habits. While cases of fission abound fusion involved inclusion of new tribal groups into caste structure. Often members of invading armies settling were assimilated and provided caste identities. These processes only complicated the caste structure with minimal threat of dilution to the caste system.
With monetisation of economy, private property, setup of industries class sytem realistically challenged caste. Increasing avenues of social mobility via economic opportunities has diluted caste boundaries. The consequent urbanisation saw restrictions on commensaulity (eating together) fading. Same caste were divided into different class. Vertical integeration of castes to gain political strength reffered to as 'Varnisation of Caste' by MN Srinivas further caste rigidities.
However modernity in India co-exists with tradition. Studies by Harold A.Gould, Pawan Varma and others have shown caste determining recruitments. Upper caste forming the upper classes and lower caste forming the working class.
Democratisation which was supposed to dilute primordial identities by providing equal political and civil rights has seen political observation on caste lines as predicted by ghurye and observed by rajni kothari. A.Beitielle observation remains apt that only caste old has been replaced by caste new while the system remains.It can hence be inferred that the process of fusion and fission have been only partially successful in diluting caste structure.
“In exercising its exclusive power the Parliament additionally enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955.” Comment. [2008, 20m]
FIGHT AGAINST UNTOUCHABILITY: | Enactment of Untouchability (offences) act 1955: |
At the time of Indian Independence a number of social evils were prevailing in India in different forms. Among these evils untouchability was most inhuman. Certain sections of society were being compelled to live a life of social exclusion. They were not considered as ordinary citizens. This evil of untouchability was going on since ages. Many reformers in the past had raised the voice against it but in spite of these efforts untouchability had refused to die out. The political freedom won from British rule was meaningless to these sections of society suffering from untouchability. Therefore, India had to strive to win social freedom after winning political freedom from British rule. The steps taken by the government were the manifestation of the same. | The makers of Indian Constitution were conscious of the fact that the untouchability was a big evil. Article 17 was provided in Part III of Constitution of India to prohibit the practise of untouchability in any form. This provision of Constitution failed to have any significant impact on the ground because this article was merely an expression of Intent. In the absence of any specific legal provision it was not possible for the courts to punish the persons practising untouchability. To provide a suitable legal framework for wiping out the evil of Untouchability the Parliament exercised its exclusive authority to enact Untouchability offences Act 1955. Article 35(2) of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament with exclusive authority to enact the law for the implementation of any of provisions of Part III of the Constitution. This act declared the offence of practicing untouchability as non-cognizable or compoundable. |
Mahatma Ayyankali (1863-1941):
He was a social reformer – his own experiences and the presence of “a virulent form of untouchability in Kerala motivated him to undertake the task of liverating his brethren from untouchability and casteism.”
First, he sought to gain for untouchables the right to walk along the public streets.
He founded the Sadhu Jana Paripalana Yogam, an organisation of the Dalits whose main objectives included, among others: to pray to God, but not to the idol; to educate children; to practise cleanliness; to settle disputes among themselves;
The king of Travancore was impressed with Ayyankali’s work and allowed untouchable students to enter schools; he also granted land to be distributed among untouchables.
A major problem, perhaps the most serious one, that India faced since 1947, has been of national unity or consolidation of the nation. Discuss.
Untouchability 1955; POA against SC ST 1989; Consolidation of India.
"If normal factors were allowed to operate, unscrupulous people from outside would take possession of tribal lands and forests and interfere with the life of the tribal people. This would also upset their whole life and culture, which have so much of good in them". Examine critically.
Comment was made in face of challenges faced by tribals.
Entry of FRA 1865 - landlords; 1927 - imposed restrictions, shifting cultivation prohibited in name of environment, political independence lost - exploitation at hands of moneylenders / outsiders, therefore, Nehru after independence came up with PANCHSHEEL [Tribal]. Limitation - statement of intent, no real effect. Other - N Policy on Tribals, TSP.
Nehru favored the policy of integrating the tribal people in Indian society, of making them as integral part of the Indian nation even while maintaining their distinct identity and culture.” -Elaborate with special reference to Northeastern India. [2012, 30m]
After independence, the integration of tribal population into the mainstream posed a serious challenge. They resided mostly in hills and forest areas and their traditions, cultures and ways of life were different from those of their non-tribal neighbours. The preservation of the tribal people’s rich social and cultural heritage lay at the heart of the government’s policy of tribal integration.
JLN did not want that tribals be treated like Museum specimens, neither he wanted them to be engulfed by the non-tribal masses. He adopted a middle path, he wanted to make tribals an integral part of the nation and at the same time wanted to protect their distinct culture and identity. Nehru stood for economic and social development of tribals in multifarious ways for which he laid down certain guidelines –
There should be no imposition on tribals or compulsion from outside.
Tribal rights in land and forests should be respected and no outsider should be able to take possession of tribal lands.
Necessary to encourage all the tribal languages.
For administration, reliance should be placed on the tribal people themselves. Administrators should be recruited from amongst them and trained.
There should be no over-administration of tribal areas.
Various provisions in the CoI itself supported Nehru’s approach such as Article 46, Schedule 6, Tribal Advisory Councils, Reservation, NCST, etc.
The situation of tribals in the North East was different from the other tribals in the country.
They constituted majority in most of the areas they inhabited, non-tribals had not penetrated into the areas in a significant way and their socio-political culture was not disturbed. Thus, Nehru’s tribal policy was even more relevant to the tribals of North East. Nehru’s policy was implemented in NEFA which was created in 1948. Here officers were asked to implement specially designed development policies without disturbing the social and cultural fabric of the tribals.
Thus, Nehru’s visionary policy played an important role in the integration of tribal population after independence.
“India’s need for a federal system was more an imperative than a political choice.” Do you agree? [2016]
The roots of the centre-region tensions in south Asia have less to do with its inherent cultural diversities than with the historical circumstances of the immediate post-colonial period. The trauma of partition in 1947 meant that the first priority of state managers in both India and Pakistan was to set up strong central governments. Such concessions ass were made to federalism, whether real or on paper, were handed from above. With at least fourteen major linguistic groups and some 1652 mother tongues, India’s need for a federal system was an imperative rather than simply a matter of political choice.
But instead of creating a genuinely federal system, India’s early state managers were more anxious to build a state structure capable of ensuring unity. Fears of survival were even greater in Pakistan, where military-bureaucratic dominance combined with an all-pervasive, if ill-defined, Islamic ideology was used to chip away at provincial rights very early on in post-partition era.
0 Comments