ANAND PATRACHAR SCHOOL

Corp Office: B-11, Opp CRPF School, Prashant Vihar, Rohini Sector 14, Delhi
BRANCHES: North Delhi, South Delhi, East Delhi, West Delhi.

CHAPTER-1
CHALLENGES OF NATION BUILDING

PROCESS OF PARTITION:
• According to the two nation theory advanced by the muslim league, India consisted of not one but
two people, hindus and muslims.
• Hence muslim demanded Pakistan, a separate country for muslims.
• Congress was against demand of Pakistan and separate state for muslims.
• Many political decisions led to development of Pakistan.
• It was decided that new country of Pakistan would comprise of two states – West Pakistan and
East Pakistan.

Problems faced in formation of Pakistan:

• No single belt of muslims was present in the whole country.

• Not all muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan.
• Khan Abdul Gafar Khan also known as frontier Gandhi was opposed to the idea of two nation
theory. Eventually his voice was ignored and NWFP was merged into Pakistan
• Two of the muslim majority states of british india that is Punjab and Bengal had very large areas
that had non muslims in majority. Eventually these two regions were bifurcated according to the
religion on 14-15 August 1947.
This means eventually large no of people were not aware on the day of independence whether they
were in India or in Pakistan.
The partition of these two territories caused deepest impact and trauma.
• Problem of minorities: Lakhs of hindus and Sikhs in the areas were now in Pakistan and an equally
large no of muslims were now in Indian side of Punjab and Bengal. They felt trapped. The minorities
of both sides became easy targets of attack.
The minorities on both the sides of the border were left with no option except to leave their homes.

Consequences of Partition:

• There were killing and atrocities on both sides of the border.

• People from one community were ruthlessly killing the other community.
• Cities like Lahore, Amritsar, Kolkata were divided into communal zones.
• Writers poets and filmmakers have expressed ruthlessness of the killing and suffering of the
displacement and violence in their novels and short stories, poems and films.

Integration of princely states:

• British India was divided into what were called British Indian proviences and princely states.
APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
• The British India Proviences were directly under the control of British India whereas Princely
states enjoyed many powers though they were under British supremacy ( Paramountcy).
• With Britishers announcing Independence, their rule over princely states would also end.
This would lead to formation of free 565 states.
• The rulers of Princely states were free to join either India or Pakistan or remain free as an
independent country.
• This situation was very critical as this would have questioned the very existence of India as a
nation.
• The leaders of free India has a very difficult task lying infront of them that was integration of
princely states Into India.
• But many rulers of these princely states created numerous hindrance in this process.
• Case of Travancore and Hyderabad : Initially the ruler of Travancore has announced that the state
would remain independent. The Nizam of Hyderabad also made a similar announcement.
• Case of Bhopal: Rulers like nawab of Bhopal were averse to the idea of joining the constituent
assembly. Due to this prospect of Integrating a country into one and following common code of
conduct looked very bleak.
• In most of these princely states governments were run in undemocratic manner and rulers were
unwilling to give democratic rights to its population.

Government’s Approach Towards Integration :

Government’s approach was guided by three considerations-

1. The people of most of the princely states wanted to be a part of India.

2. Government was prepared to be flexible in giving autonomy to some regions. The main reason
behind this was to accommodate plurality and adopt a flexible approach in dealing with the demands
of the religions.
3. In backdrop of Partition Integration and consolidation of the territorial boundaries of nation has
assumed supreme importance.

Instrument of Accession: The rulers of most states signed a document called “Instrument of
Accession” which meant that their state agreed to become a part of Union Of India.

• Accession of princely states of Junagarh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and Manipur proved a difficult task.

Case Of Hyderabad:

• Hyderabad was the largest princely state that was surrounded entirely by Indian territory.
• The Nizam desired for an independent status for Hyderabad.
• He entered into “ Standstill Agreement” with India in November 1947 for a year while
negotiations with Indian Government were still on.
• There was a movement by the people against the Nizam’s rule.
• The peasantry in the telangana was worst hit by Nizam’s atrocities.
• The Nizam responded to peasants movement by releasing a para military force known as the
Razakars on the people.
• The Razakars were very atrocious and their cruelty knew no boundation. They murdered, raped
and looted targeting particularly non muslims.

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
• In September 1948 Indian Army moved in to control Nizam’s forces, finally Nizam surrendered.
• In this manner Hyderabad was finally included in India.

Case of Manipur:

• Few days before independence, Maharaja of Manipur joined India with a condition and assurance
that Internal autonomy of Manipur will be maintained.
• Under public pressure, elections were held in Manipur in June 1948 and the state became a
constitutional monarchy.
• Manipur was the first state in India to hold elections as per the pattern of universal adult franchise.
• The government of India succeeded in pressurising the Maharaja into signing The Instrument of
Accession finally including the state of Manipur into India.
• This led to lot of anger and resentment in Manipur, the effects of which are still being felt.

Reorganisation of states:

• After integration of princely states, the main challenge the was to unite India.
• Challenge was to draw internal boundaries of the Indian States. The boundaries had to be drawn in
such a way so that linguistic and cultural diversity of the country would be reflected keeping in mind
national integration.
• Britishers divided the country on administrative basis. But Indian government rejected this method
as this was against the concept of national intergration. Infact in Nagpur 1920 session of congress it
was decided to reorganise whole congress and many provincial congress committees were created.
• Craving out states on the basis of religion and language might lead to disruption and disintegration.
Hence the matter was postponed.
• Protests began in Telegu speaking areas of the old Madras which included present tamil nadu,
kerela, Karnataka.
• In its protest Potti Sriramulu a congress leader went of indefinite fast that led to his eventual death.
This caused great unrest and violent protests were held.
• Finally as a result of protests a separate state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in December 1952.
• Because of formation of Andhra Pradesh struggles erupted for formation of separate states on
linguistic basis.
• As a result central government appointed States Reorganising Committee in 1953.

Importance of Linguistic States:

Linguistic states underlined the acceptance of principle of diversity. It made sure the cultural
diversity as well as National Integration remained maintained.

1 mark Questions:

1. What is a princely state?

A Princely State was by name an independent unit of British rule in India that was not directly
governed by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler under a form indirect rule such as suzerainty or
paramountcy.
2. What is rehabilitation?

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
Rehabilitation: The restoration of someone to a useful place in society or vindication of a person's
character and the re-establishment of that person's reputation.
4.Who is a refugee?
A refugee is a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of
political upheaval, economic hardships, war and etc.
3.What is the name of first speech by Jawaharlal Nehru?
The name of first speech by Jawaharlal Nehru was nominated as ‘tryst with destiny’.
5. Which theory was advanced by Muslim League?
Muslim league advanced 'two-nation theory.' It was argued by Pakistan that it consisted of two
nations.

6. Which states were created on the basis of separate regional culture or complaints of regional
imbalance in development?

Three states -Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttaranchal- were created on the basis of separate
regional culture or complaints of regional imbalance in development.

7. Which document was signed by the states in which they agreed to become a part of the
union of India?

A document called the ‘instrument of accession’ was signed by the states in which they agreed to
become a part of the union of India.

8. Who is known as 'Frontier Gandhi'?

The undisputed leader of North Western Frontier Province, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan is known as
Frontier Gandhi.

9. Name the states which emerged as separate states in 1972?

Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura emerged as separate states in 1972.

10.Define Razakars.

A para military force of Nizam was known as Razakars. This military force was sent by Nizam in
response to the people's movement of Hyderabad. The atrocities and communal nature of the
Razakars knew no bounds.

11. What are the princely states?

A Princely State (also called Native State or Indian State) was a nominally sovereign entity of
British rule in India that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler under
a form indirect rule such as suzerainty or paramountcy.
2 marks Questions:
1. Mention the challenges faced by Independent India?
Independent India faced three kinds of challenges. They are –
To shape a nation that was united, get accommodative of the diversity in our society.
To establish democracy
To ensure the development and well being of the entire society and not only of some sections.

2. How state boundaries were drawn during the colonial rule?

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
During colonial rule, the state boundaries were drawn either on administrative convenience or
simply coincided with territories annexed by the British government or the territories ruled by the
princely states.
3. Which regions in India are demanding separate states for them?
Telangana in Andhra Pradesh, Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Harit Pradesh in western of UP and the
northern region of west Bengal are demanding states for them.

4. What were the institutional arrangements created by Nehru?

The institutional arrangements created by Nehru were a constitution, an elected parliament, a
planning commission and an expanding public sector.
5. What do you understand by paramountcy?
British India was divided into the British Indian provinces and the princely states. The princely states
enjoyed some form of control over their internal affairs as long as they accepted sovereignty of the
British crown.
6. What was the task of States Reorganisation Commission? What was its most salient
recommendation?
7. The central government had appointed a States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 to look into
the question of redrawing of the boundaries of states. The commission in its report accepted that the
boundaries of the state reflect the boundaries of different languages. On the basis of its report the
States Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956.
7. What was the challenge before India after partition and integration of princely states?
The challenge before India after partition and integration of princely states was to draw the internal
boundaries of the Indian states. The boundaries had to be drawn in a way so that the linguistic and
cultural plurality of the country could be reflected without affecting the unity of the nation.
8. What was the instrument of accession?
Before 15th August, 1947, peaceful negotiations had brought almost all the states whose territories
were contiguous to the new boundaries of India into the Indian union, the rulers of most of the states
signed document called the instrument of accession.
What was the 'two- nation theory’ advanced by Muslim League?
Muslim league advanced two- nation theory. According to this theory India consisted of not one but
two 'people', Hindu and Muslims. That is why it demanded Pakistan as a separate country for the
Muslims. The congress opposed this theory and the demand for Pakistan. But several political
developments in 1940s, the political competition between the congress and the Muslim league and
the British role led to the decision for the creation of Pakistan.
4 marks Questions:
1. Discuss about the merger of Manipur to the union of India?
A few days before Independence, the Maharaja of Manipur, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the
Instrument of Accession with the Indian government on the assurance that the internal autonomy of
Manipur would be maintained. Under the pressure of public opinion, the Maharaja held elections in
Manipur in June 1948 and the state became a constitutional monarchy. Thus Manipur was the first
part of India to hold an election based on universal adult franchise. In the Legislative Assembly of
Manipur there were sharp differences over the question of merger of Manipur with India. While the
state Congress wanted 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.
2. What do you understand by princely states?

India under the British was divided into two distinct entities, British Provinces and Princely States.
Princely States under the Government of India Act 1935 were defined as including any territory,
whether described as a state, an estate, a jagir or otherwise. They were under the suzerainty of His
Majesty and not a part of the British India. The code of conduct governing the relations of the
princely states with the British Government was, therefore, different from that which governed the
APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
relations between provinces and the British Government. In the case of the provinces, the authority
of the British Government was direct. It was exercised through the British Parliament, the Secretary
of State for India, Governor General in Council or Provincial Governors. In the case of the princely
states, the authority was indirectly exercised by various treaties, engagements and sanads,
supplemented by usage and sufferances.

3. What led to Hyderabad’s accession to India?

The ruler of Hyderabad called, as Nizam wanted an independent status for Hyderabad. He entered
into what was called the standstill agreement with India in November 1947 while negotiations with
the Indian government were going on for a year. In the meantime, a movement was started by the
section of people in Hyderabad state against the Nizam’s rule. The peasantry in the Telangana region
in particular, was the victim of Nizam’s oppressive rule and rose against him. Women who had seen
the worst of this oppression joined the movement in large numbers. Hyderabad town was the nerve
center of this movement. The Communists and the Hyderabad Congress was in the forefront of the
movement. The Nizam responded by unleashing a Para-military force known as the Razakars on the
people. The atrocities and communal nature of the Razakars knew no bounds. They murdered,
maimed, raped and looted, targeting particularly the non- Muslims. The central government had to
order the army to tackle the situation. In September 1948, Indian army moved in to control the
Nizam’s forces. After a few days of intermittent fighting, the Nizam surrendered. This led to
Hyderabad’s accession to India.
6 marks Questions:
1. What were the reasons which led to Hyderabad’s accession to India?

The ruler of Hyderabad who was called Nizam wanted an independent status for Hyderabad. He
entered into what was called the standstill agreement with India in November 1947 while
negotiations with the Indian government were going on for a year. In the meantime, a movement of
the people of Hyderabad state against the Nizam’s rule gathered force. The peasantry in the
Telangana region in particular, was the victim of Nizam’s oppressive rule and rose against him.
Women who had seen the worst of this oppression joined the movement in large numbers.
Hyderabad town was the nerve centre of this movement. The Communists and the Hyderabad
Congress was in the forefront of the movement. The Nizam responded by unleashing a para-military
force known as the Razakars on the people. The atrocities and communal nature of the Razakars
knew no bounds. They murdered, maimed, raped and looted, targeting particularly the non-
Muslims. The central government had to order the army to tackle the situation. In September 1948,
Indian army moved in to control the Nizam’s forces. After a few days of intermittent fighting, the
Nizam surrendered. This led to Hyderabad’s accession to India.
2. What were the difficulties in following the principle of religious majorities to divide India
into India and Pakistan?

To divide India into India and Pakistan the principle of religious majorities was decided to be
followed. It meant that areas where Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of
Pakistan and the rest was to stay with India. Though the idea appeared simple but it presented many
difficulties.
The first difficulty was that there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in the British India.
There were two areas of concentration, one in west and one in the east. There was no way these two
parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country. Pakistan will comprise two territories,
west and East Pakistan separated by India.
Second difficulty was that not all Muslims majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul
Gaffar Khan, also known as Frontier Gandhi' was standby opposed to the two nation theory.
Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan.

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
 The third problem was that two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India; Punjab and
Bengal had very large areas where non-Muslims were in majority.

Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious
majority at the district or even lower level. The decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15
August. So large number of people did not know on the day of independence whether they were in
India or in Pakistan. The partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of partition. The
fourth problem was the most intractable of all. The problem was related to the problems of
minorities on both sides of the border. Lakhs of Sikhs and Hindus in the areas that are now in
Pakistan and an equally large number of Muslims on the Indian side of Punjab and Bengal found
themselves trapped. They were undesirable aliens in their own home, in the land where they and
their ancestors had lived for centuries. When the country got partitioned, they became easy targets of
attack.
3. Discuss the integration of princely states.

Or
How the princely states were merged with Independent India?
British India was divided into what were called the British Indian Provinces and the Princely States.
The British Indian Provinces were directly under the control of the British government. On the other
hand, several large and small states ruled by princes, called the Princely States, enjoyed some form
of control over their internal affairs as long as they accepted British supremacy. This was called
paramountcy or suzerainty of the British crown. Princely States covered one-third of the land area of
the British Indian Empire and one out of four Indians lived under princely rule. Problem in
integration: Just before Independence it was announced by the British that with the end of their rule
over India, paramountcy of the British crown over Princely States would also lapse. This meant that
all these states, as many as 565 in all, would become legally independent. The British government
took the view that all these states were free to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent if
they so wished. This decision was left not to the people but to the princely rulers of these states. This
was a very serious problem and could threaten the very existence of a united India. The problems
started very soon. First of all, the ruler of Travancore announced that the state had decided on
Independence. The Nizam of Hyderabad made a similar announcement the next day. Rulers like the
Nawab of Bhopal were averse to joining the Constituent Assembly. This response of the rulers of the
Princely States meant that after Independence there was a very real possibility that India would get
further divided into a number of small countries. Government’s approach: The government’s
approach was guided by three considerations. Firstly, the people of most of the princely states
clearly wanted to become part of the Indian union. Secondly, the government was prepared to be
flexible in giving autonomy to some regions. The idea was to accommodate plurality and adopt a
flexible approach in dealing with the demands of the regions. Thirdly, in the backdrop of Partition
which brought into focus the contest over demarcation of territory, the integration and consolidation
of the territorial boundaries of the nation had assumed supreme importance. The interim government
took a firm stance against the possible division of India into small principalities of different sizes.
Sardar Patel was India’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister during the crucial period
immediately following Independence. He played a historic role in negotiating with the rulers of
princely states firmly but diplomatically and bringing most of them into the Indian Union.
4. What were the challenges that India had to face when it became independent?

Independent India faced three kinds of challenges.

The first challenge was to shape a nation that was united. Yet accommodative of the diversity in
our society. India was a land of continental size and diversity. Its people spoke different languages
and followed different cultures and religions. At that time it was widely believed that a country full
of such kinds of diversity could not remain together for long. The partition of the country appeared
to prove everyone's worst fears.

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
 The second challenge was to establish democracy. India adopted representative democracy based
on the parliamentary form of government. These features ensure that the political competition would
take place in a democratic framework. A democratic constitution is necessary but not sufficient for
establishing a democracy. The challenge was to develop democratic practices in accordance with the
constitution.
The third challenge was to ensure the development and well-being of the entire society and
not only of some sections. The constitution had clearly laid down the principle of equality and
special protection to socially disadvantaged groups and religious and cultural communities. The
constitution also set out in the directive principles of state policy the welfare goals that democratic
politics must achieve. The real challenge now was to evolve effective policies for economic
development and eradication of poverty.

5. Write a note on the reorganisation of states after the partition and integration of princely
states?
The process of nation-building did not come to an end with Partition and integration of Princely
States. Now the challenge was to draw the internal boundaries of the Indian states. This was not just
a matter of administrative divisions. The boundaries had to be drawn in a way so that the linguistic
and cultural plurality of the country could be reflected without affecting the unity of the nation.
During colonial rule, the state boundaries were drawn either on administrative convenience or
simply coincided with the territories annexed by the British government or the territories ruled by
the princely powers. Our national movement had rejected these divisions as artificial and had
promised the linguistic principle as the basis of formation of states. In fact after the Nagpur session
of Congress in 1920 the principle was recognised as the basis of the reorganisation of the Indian
National Congress party itself. Many Provincial Congress Committees were created by linguistic
zones, which did not follow the administrative divisions of British India.Things changed after
Independence and Partition. Our leaders felt that carving out states on the basis of language might
lead to disruption and disintegration. It was also felt that this would draw attention away from other
social and economic challenges that the country faced. The central leadership decided to postpone
matters. The need for postponement was also felt because the fate of the Princely States had not been
decided. Also, the memory of Partition was still fresh. This decision of national leadership was
challenged by the local leaders and the people. Protests began in the Telugu speaking areas of the old
Madras province, which included present day Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and
Karnataka. The Vishalandhra movement (as the movement for a separate Andhra was called)
demanded that the Telugu speaking areas should be separated from the Madras province of which
they were a part and be made into a separate Andhra province. Nearly all the political forces in the
Andhra region were in favour of linguistic reorganisation of the then Madras province. The
movement gathered momentum as a result of the Central government’s vacillation. Potti Sriramulu,
a Congress leader and a veteran Gandhian, went on an indefinite fast that led to his death after 56
days. This caused great unrest and resulted in violent outbursts in Andhra region. People in large
numbers took to the streets. Many were injured or lost their lives in police firing. In Madras, several
legislators resigned their seats in protest. Finally, the Prime Minister announced the formation of a
separate Andhra state in December 1952.
6. Write a note on Indian Government’s policy on the integration of princely states?

The interim government took a firm stand against the possible division of India into small
principalities of different sizes. The Muslim League opposed the Indian National Congress and took
the view that the States should be free to adopt any course they liked. Sardar Patel played a historic
role in negotiating with the rulers of princely states firmly but diplomatically and bringing most of
them into the Indian Union. It may look easy now. But it was a very complicated task, which
required skilful persuasion. For instance, there were 26 small states in today’s Orissa. Saurashtra
region of Gujarat had 14 big states with 119 small provinces. The government’s approach was
guided by three considerations.
APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
 Firstly, the people of most of the princely states clearly wanted to become part of the Indian
union.
Secondly, the government was prepared to be flexible in giving autonomy to some regions. The
idea was to accommodate plurality and adopt a flexible approach in dealing with the demands of the
regions.
Thirdly, in the backdrop of Partition, which brought into focus the contest over demarcation of
territory, the integration and consolidation of the territorial boundaries of the nation had assumed
supreme importance. The rulers of most of the states signed a document called the ‘Instrument of
Accession’, which meant that their state agreed to become a part of the Union of India. Accession of
the Princely States of Junagarh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and Manipur proved more difficult than the
rest. The issue of Junagarh was resolved after a plebiscite confirmed people’s desire to join India.

7. Write a note on the consequences of partition?

Consequences of partition:
The year 1947 was the year of one of the largest unplanned and tragic transfer of population in
human history. There were killings and atrocities on both sides of the border. In the name of religion,
people of one community ruthlessly killed and maimed people of the other community.
Cities like Lahore, Amritsar and Kolkata became divided into communal zones. Muslims would
avoid going into an area where mainly Hindus or Sikhs lived; similarly the Hindus and Sikhs stayed
away from areas of Muslim predominance.
Forced to abandon their homes and move across borders, people went through immense
sufferings. Minorities on both sides of the border fled their home and often secured temporary
shelter in ‘refugee camps’. They often found unhelpful local administration and police in what was
till recently their own country. They traveled to the other side of the new border by all sorts of
means, often by foot. Even during this journey they were often attacked, killed or raped.
Thousands of women were abducted on both sides of the border. They were made to convert to
the religion of the abductor and were forced into marriage. In many cases women were killed by
their own family members to preserve the ‘family honour’. Many children were separated from their
parents.
People who managed to cross the border found that they had no home. For lakhs of these
‘refugees’ the country’s freedom meant life in ‘refugee camps’, for months and sometimes for years.
The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of
the country and the administrative apparatus. The financial assets and things like tables, chairs,
typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band were also divided.
The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’.
Partition on religious basis had taken place. Even after large scale migration of Muslims to the
newly created Pakistan, the Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total
population in 1951. The Partition had already created severe
conflict between the two communities. There was a question before Indian government how to treat
this community and other religions in the country.

8. Discuss the government’s approach on the integration of princely states?

The interim government took a firm stance against the possible division of India into small
principalities of different sizes. The Muslim League opposed the Indian National Congress and took
the view that the States should be free to adopt any course they liked. Sardar Patel was India’s
Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister during the crucial period immediately following
Independence. He played a historic role in negotiating with the rulers of princely states firmly but
diplomatically and bringing most of them into the Indian Union. It may look easy now. But it was a
very complicated task which required skilful persuasion. For instance, there were 26 small states in

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
today’s Orissa. Saurashtra region of Gujarat had 14 big states with 119 small provinces. The
government’s approach was guided by three considerations. Firstly, the people of most of the
princely states clearly wanted to become part of the Indian union. Secondly, the government was
prepared to be flexible in giving autonomy to some regions. The idea was to accommodate plurality
and adopt a flexible approach in dealing with the demands of the regions. Thirdly, in the backdrop of
Partition which brought into focus the contest over demarcation of territory, the integration and
consolidation of the territorial boundaries of the nation had assumed supreme importance. Before 15
August 1947, peaceful negotiations had brought almost all states whose territories were contiguous
to the new boundaries of India, into the Indian Union. The rulers of most of the states signed a
document called the ‘Instrument of Accession’ which meant that their state agreed to become a part
of the Union of India. Accession of the Princely States of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and
Manipur proved more difficult than the rest. The issue of Junagadh was resolved after a plebiscite
confirmed people’s desire to join India.

9. Write an essay on the sacrifice of Mahatma Gandhi?

On15th August 1947 Mahatma Gandhi did not participate in any of the Independence Day
celebrations. He was in Kolkata in the areas which were torn by gruesome riots between Hindus and
Muslims. He was saddened by the communal violence and disheartened that the principles of ahimsa
(non-violence) and Satyagraha (active but non-violent resistance) that he had lived and worked for,
had failed to bind the people in troubled times. Gandhiji went on to persuade the Hindus and
Muslims to give up violence. His presence in Kolkata greatly improved the situation, and the coming
of independence was celebrated in a spirit of communal harmony, with joyous dancing in the streets.
Gandhiji’s prayer meetings attracted large crowds. But this was short lived as riots between Hindus
and Muslims erupted once again and Gandhiji had to resort to a fast to bring peace. Next month
Gandhiji moved to Delhi where large scale violence had erupted. He was deeply concerned about
ensuring that Muslims should be allowed to stay in India with dignity, as equal citizens. He was also
concerned about the relations between India and Pakistan. He was unhappy with what he saw as the
Indian government’s decision not to honour its financial commitments to Pakistan. With all this in
mind he undertook what turned out to be his last fast in January 1948. As in Kolkata, his fast had a
dramatic effect in Delhi. Communal tension and violence reduced. Muslims of Delhi and
surrounding areas could safely return to their homes. The Government of India agreed to give
Pakistan its dues.
Gandhiji’s actions were however not liked by all. Extremists in both the communities blamed him
for their conditions. He was particularly disliked by those who wanted Hindus to take revenge or
who wanted India to become a country for the Hindus, just as Pakistan was for Muslims. They
accused Gandhiji of acting in the interests of the Muslims and Pakistan. Gandhiji thought that these
people were misguided. He was convinced that any attempt to make India into a country only for the
Hindus would destroy India. His steadfast pursuit of Hindu-Muslim unity provoked Hindu
extremists so much that they made several attempts to assassinate Gandhiji. Despite this he refused
to accept armed protection and continued to meet everyone during his prayer meetings. Finally, on
30 January 1948, one such extremist, Nathuram Vinayak Godse walked up to Gandhiji during his
evening prayer in Delhi and fired three bullets at him, killing him instantly. This ended a life long
struggle for truth, non-violence, justice and tolerance. Gandhiji’s death had an almost magical effect
on the communal situation in the country. Partition-related anger and violence suddenly subsided.
The Government of India cracked down on organisations that were spreading communal hatred. The
organisation of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) was banned for some time. Communal
politics began to lose its appeal

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH
 ASSIGNMENT – 1

Challenges of Nation Building

1) Fill in theblanks:
a) India gainedindependence on _.
b) was the first prime minister of India.
c) The famous speech of JawaharLal Nehru is known as _.
d) Freedom came withthe _ _ of India.
e) India became arepublic on .
2) Explain the three challenges faced by independent India.
3) What were the two goals set to be achieved by independent India?
4) Which party gave the ‘two nation’ theory? What was it?
5) What principle was followed while partitioning India?
OR
What was the basis of India’s Partition?
6) What kind of difficulties were involved in the process of partition?
7) What were the consequences of partition?
8) Why did the idea of a secular nation emerge in India?
9) What was Mahatma Gandhi’s sacrifice for India?
10) How was the British India divided before independence?
11) How many princely states were there before independence?
12) What was the response of the following three princely states to the question of joining
India after independence:
a) Travancore
b) Hyderabad
c) Bhopal
13) Why was the integration of princely states a problem for India?
14) Who was the deputy prime minister and the firsts home minister of independent India?
How did he solve the problem of integration of princely states?
15) What three considerations guided the government’s approach to the princely states?
16) Fill in theblanks:
a) The document signed by the rulers of princely states while becoming a part of the
union of India was called _ _.
b) Four Indian princely states which posed difficulties were , ,

APS
9999132085,9810008840 POLITICAL SCIENCE-XIITH