THE STORY BEHIND THE UNIFICATION OF INDIAN STATE AFTER THE INDEPENDENCE

THE STORY BEHIND THE UNIFICATION OF INDIAN STATE AFTER THE INDEPENDENCE:

The story:

When the Britishers ruled India, it was not a single unit but the entire area was divided into two distinct parts, British India and Princely India. The Princely India comprised of 562 states. They were not a part of British India but were influenced by the British. They ruled the princely states on the basis of two policies:

1) To annex or occupy them forcibly.

2) To acquire the power and gain tribute from the rulers of the princely states.

Before 1857, British annexed the princely states but later they realized the importance of their support and then started the paramountcy over them with the British crown and protected the princely states as their allies. Each princely state had its own ruler, court of justice, railways, roads, currency, stamps etc. They were fixed to pay taxes to the British and none were allowed to maintain their own armies. The British when began the establishment of the schools and universities and develop the states, the maharajas felt comfortable with their subjects. This led to the way to the princes to trust the British.

The Indian National Congress decided for the political integration of these territories in India. The Government Of India Act, 1935 specified the unification of all the Princely states and the British India under a federal government. But this decision failed to be implemented due to the uprising of second world war. Later the Independence act, 1947 gave the freedom to the states to join any of the independent states of India or Pakistan. But after their decision of accessing to some state, there should be no relation between the British and the princely states as per the Indian government and should not protect them too. The Indian Government declared that the end of paramountcy means leaving the princely states to choose their state of India or Pakistan on the basis of complete freedom. The interesting fact here, to be noted is that the congress did not focus on the princely states earlier as the resources in those regions were scarce but later on to compensate the wounds of partition, it went for acceding them.

Rulers of the princely states were not interested in integrating their states to India. The main reasons for their unwillingness were:

1) Lack of Unity among the states.

2) The small states did not trust the large ones.

3) The Muslim princes of the states did not trust the Hindu rulers of India.

Lord Mountbatten, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the then deputy Prime minister and Home minister and V P Menon played an important role in integrating the states into a union. Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy was greatly trusted by the kings of the princely states. He was asked by the Indian government to offer his help in the integration. He acted as the trustee to all the princely states to avoid communal violence and communal movements. It was very tough to unite the small states into a union first and then to integrate them to India. The iron determination of Patel with his minister V P Menon, made the princes to cede their territories into India. The congress stated that the states which were against joining India would be considered their enemies and the states must accede to India or Pakistan as a compulsion.

 Patel and Menon were given the task of negotiating with princes. Patel gave the instructions on the plan and it was Menon who went to hundreds of different kings all over India and worked out agreements. The Policy statement of the government of India, prepared by Patel assured the kings with the following aspects:

1)      It assured the unity of India and the common interests of the princes and the independent India were considered. They were reassured about the congress intentions and invited them to join independent India to make laws sitting together as friends rather than to make treaties as aliens.

2)      The statement also assured the promise that they would not dominate princely states and it would also not be an instrument of paramountcy but everyone are considered equals.

3)      It said that without integration, the economies of states would collapse and anarchy would arise if the princes were unable to provide democracy and govern people.

4)      They lacked resources and there were many taxes imposed upon them which would be removed if acceded to India.

5)      The princes would receive an annual payment from the Indian government and the treatment of all the princely states would be equal without any difference.

6)      The practical independence needed by the princely states is given.

7)      If they did not join with the favorable terms, then would be forcibly acceded with the less favorable terms.

8)      If at all any supremacy is required, it would be with common understanding and for common good and lack of unity exposes us to unexpected calamities.

Many documents were prepared ensuring the requirements and freedom of princely states. The promises and the guarantees they offered gave sufficient comfort to many rulers, who saw this, a best deal they could strike given the lack of British support and internal pressures.

                              “SUPREMACY IS NOT THE GOAL BUT UNITY”

                                                                                           -PATEL

“When Pakistan became a separate state, India has lost an area of 3, 64,737 square miles and population of 81.5 million but by the integration of the states, India received an area of nearly 5, 00,000 square miles with the population of 86.5 million and it was adequately compensated.”

                                                                                                                                   -MENON

The four steps followed by the government to unite the states:

1)      MERGER:

The first step deals with making the kings accept to merge into unions.

2)      DEMOCRATISATION:

When the states were merged into unions, many communal riots occurred among themselves and these states were ruled directly by the governor apart from the ruler appointed by the Indian government, like the British have their governor for the whole of their kingdom.

3)      CENTRALISATION AND CONSTITUTIONALISATION:

The government of India thought of having a centralized power and to make a constitution (book of rules and regulations). There were Part A(all the states), Part B(Mysore and Hyderabad which were ruled by rajpramukhs) and Part C(centrally administered) states and Jammu was not under our constitution.

4)      REORGANISATION:

Part A, Part B, Part C states were reorganized into normal states of the country. Rajpramukhs lost their prominence. Part C states referred to as Union territories and all the states were headed by the governors.

There were many controversies faced by the Indian congress in making the unions. Many states wanted to stay independent without acceding neither to India nor Pakistan. The interesting facts about those states are explained as follows:

JODHPUR AND JAISALMER:

Jodhpur and Jaisalmer were the states with the Hindu population and the Muslim ruler. The ruler of Jodhpur was against congress and did not see much future in India or the Indian lifestyle. Along with Jaisalmer, he wanted to accede to Pakistan. Jinnah, the designated head of Pakistan gave them the blank papers and asked them to choose any terms and those will be accepted by him without any rejection, in order to gain them. But Mountbatten convinced them that there would arise many religious wars if the Hindu states join the Muslim Pakistan. So later they agreed with him and joined India.

JUNAGADH:

Junagadh chose Pakistan. It was located in the south western part of Gujarat having no connection with Pakistan. Mountbatten added that the geographic compulsions meant most of the states to choose India and only the Border States have the opportunity to choose Pakistan. But Junagadh rejected to go for India. The two states which were under the ruling of Junagadh joined India and angrily Junagadh occupied them. The rulers of neighboring states were angry and sent their troops to Junagadh and asked for Indian assistance. As there was a chance of communal tension, a plebiscite was conducted in the area and it was favorable to India. The fuel, coal and the postal links were cut to Junagadh from India. The nawab left to Pakistan unable to bear and control the situation. Later, Junagadh high court invited Indian government to take over the administration of the state.

KASHMIR:

The Kashmir issue is considered a small scale civil war. The Kashmir state has the majority Muslim population and a Hindu ruler (Hari Singh). He considered opting for either India or Pakistan, not a good decision and wanted to remain independent. Then Pakistan ceased the supplies and transport links from their country. Later the Pakistani tribesmen crossed the border and entered Kashmir. The invaders made a rapid approach to Srinagar. Kashmir, then had no other option but to seek the help of India for protection. But India required it to join the country to give its protection. India also helped Kashmir in the First Kashmir War. Indian government declared an invasion on Pakistan if it did not stop its incursions into Kashmir. Thus Kashmir acceded to India with the special provisions provided in the constitution. The Pakistanis think the uprising in the Indian occupied Kashmir, a reaction against the suppression of the wish of Kashmir in joining Pakistan and Indians think Pakistan is the guiding head for the attacks and rebellion In Kashmir.

HYDERABAD:

Nizam was one of the richest and wealthiest in the world and so he resisted turning over his position and wanted to be independent. Hyderabad has Hindu population and a Muslim ruler (Nizam Osman Ali Khan). A powerful Muslim party existed in Hyderabad. Moreover, it was the most prosperous of the states. It had its own army, airline, telecommunication system, railway network, postal system etc. But the Indian government argued that it stands as the means for communication between north and south India. It could also be used by the foreign interests to threaten India. The common interests of people also favour its integration to India. But Nizam did not agree to that. So Nizam, supported by the Razakars, a military force and Pakistan started killing of the Hindu people which threatened peace. The people began to move to the surrounding areas to save their lives from the attacks causing a refugee problem in Madras. There were also rumours that arms were smuggled into Hyderabad from Pakistan. After the Mountbatten’s departure in 1948, Indian government could not tolerate with the mess in Hyderabad and Patel decided to send the Indian army into Hyderabad under Operation Polo against the decision of Nehru to go in a peaceful manner. The troops took some time to get the situation under control and the state was annexed into India. The Nizam was retained the head in the same manner as others. If the Indian government had delayed even a bit in deciding the military action, Hyderabad would have been an independent state for longer and the story of accession would have been worse and bloody.

SIKKIM:

Sikkim is the border state of India and remained independent as the other Princely states. The Chogyal (head) of Sikkim was a dependent on British and the state was a protectorate of India. India looked after the external affairs and the Law and order in Sikkim leaving behind the internal affairs. But on independence of Sikkim from the British, it wanted the freedom from India on external affairs. So Chogyal supported with the upper and lower classes attempted to negotiate power which was opposed by few parties which supported India. This led to fire an agitation. As India was holding the Law and order control in Sikkim, they took the action to control the situation in the state. It held elections which led to the chogyal’s fall and the opponents supporting India, win. They finally called upon the integration of the state to India making it a 22^nd state.

GOA:

Goa was taken over by the Indian government but the Portuguese complained in the international court of justice that India aggressively took over the Portuguese territories Daman, Diu and Goa. Many countries supported its complaint. But later the resolution failed when Soviet Union along with Ceylon, Liberia, and United Arab Republic (UAR) were against the complaint and the court of justice asked Portuguese to cooperate with India. The court justified its decision saying that India occupied Goa in order to preserve order in its territory. Thus Goa became a part of Indian Territory.

TELANGANA-ANDHRA PRADESH:

All the Telugu speaking states were merged from British India into Telangana and it wanted to be an independent state in India as recommended by the states reorganization committee but was lately merged into Andhra Pradesh.

Many more states like Bhopal, Travancore etc. gave little pressure in the beginning but later were convinced to join the Indian union.

MY PERSPECTIVE:

Political integration of India was not at all an easy task on the part of our government. There were the efforts of many great people behind the Present Indian state. A man of iron will and determination tackled the question of unifying 562 princely states in such a manner without even shedding a drop of blood. I feel, the process of integration should have been better as few states were forcibly integrated into India which is giving a big problem to the present society. The Kashmir state is under a big mess now. Both Pakistan and China are trying to possess it. In the same way, Telangana is now fighting for a separate state and want to be independent. Many princes were not satisfied with the fulfillment of the promises made by the Indian government after the integration which led to the disputes among the states. The Operation Polo of Hyderabad led to the difference of opinion between Nehru and Patel. The political plan of Patel assisted by Menon and the support by Mountbatten is the major foundation behind this success.

“When I went to India, I told myself: I am going to take my decisions looking ten years ahead. All my decisions are going to be governed by what it will read like when history is written. I don’t care what people say now. I am working for the history my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will read. This makes one impervious to short term criticism.”

                                                    -LORD MOUNTBATTEN