Sambhav-2023

Answer 1

Approach

• In introduction write about the prevailing conditions just after independence.
• Mention how it created challenges for India- both external and internal apart from integration of the princely states.
• Conclude Suitably.

Introduction

15^th August 1947 marked the end of colonial rule in India and the country found itself standing on the threshold of a new era wherein the task was to build a strong nation. While India found itself independent from the British, it was still to find independence from social, economic and political problems that hindered India’s growth story.

Body

Challenges faced by post-independence India:

Internal Challenges:

• Partition and its consequences: Partition was marked with large scale communal violence. Partition not only led to the division of assets but also created huge refugee crisis followed by the origin of Kashmir issue.
• Integration of States: Vallabhbhai Patel incorporation of Indian states took place in two phases with a skilful combination of baits and threats of mass pressure in both.
  • Phase I: By August 15, 1947, all states except Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagarh had signed an instrument of accession.
  • Phase II: It was more difficult process of ‘integration’ of states. The principal bait offered was a generous privy purse while some princes were made governors and Rajpramukhs in free India.
• Mass poverty: At the time of Independence, the incidence of poverty in India was about 80% or about 250 million. Famines and hunger pushed India to take external help for its food security.
• Illiteracy: When India gained Independence, its population numbered about 340 million. The literacy level then was just 12% or about 41 million.
• Low economic capacity: Stagnant agriculture and poor industrial base.
  • In 1947, agriculture accounted for 54% of India’s GDP. At the time of independence, 60% of India’s population depended on agriculture for a living.
  • During the centrally planned economy phase, the annual growth rate stagnated around 3.5% (Hindu rate of growth) from the 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income growth averaged 1.3%.
• Linguistic reorganization: Boundaries of the British Indian provinces had been drawn and redrawn in a haphazard manner without any thought to cultural and linguistic cohesion. Continued demand for linguistically homogeneous provinces led to emergence of secessionist trends.
• Secessionist movements: Punjab’s Khalistan movement of the 1980s, Insurgency in the North-East, and the Naxal Movement in central-eastern India (1960s) were among the biggest internal security challenges to India.
• Emergency: National Emergency of 1975 as the government’s response to the JP Movement is considered as dark phases of Indian democracy. It curtailed the fundamental rights of the citizens and shook the foundations of Indian democratic credentials.
  
  • From 1973 there was a sharp decline in the economic situation, a combination of growing unemployment, rampant inflation, and scarcity of basic food and essential commodities created a serious crisis.

External Challenges

• Global world order marked with cold war tensions: Most of the developing countries were band-wagoning either of the two superpowers USA or the Soviet Union. India followed a policy of non-Alignment to stay away from cold-war politics and focus on its internal development.
• Hostile Neighbours: India had to face consequent wars with Pakistan (1965, 1971) and China (1962) during the early phases of its independence. This not only hindered India’s growth and created regional instability.

Conclusion

It is to be noted that, Indian constitutional principles of secularism and federalism are the foundational keystone of Indian democracy. Indian democracy is a heterogeneous model with a vast socio-religious and cultural diversity. It was predicted by western political analysts that the Indian model of democracy would not last long.

However, it was due to India’s strong commitment to its constitutional principles that led India to not only survive as a nation but also to emerge as the leader of the newly independent countries.

---

Answer 2

Approach

• Briefly Introduce about the partition of India.
• Discuss that the acceptance of the partition of India was a forced upon the nationalist leadership and not a consensus-based agreement due to several situations.
• Conclude suitably.

Introduction

As per the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, India and Pakistan created as two dominion nation. Lord Mountbatten to continue as the Governor General (GG) of India and Jinnah assumed power of GG of Pakistan, though Mountbatten was supposed to be common GG of both the nations.

Body

The nationalist leaders accepted partitions due to compulsion to prevent explosive situations and save the human and materials of the time. Some of the leaders were so optimistic that things will be normal after the partition, as shown by the statement of Nehru like Once the British left, Hindu-Muslim differences would be patched up and a free, united India would be built up.” Factors that show that leaders were not in favour of partition. Like:

• Leaders like Nehru and Gandhiji were not in favour of the “two nation theory”.
• Nehru had denied the grouping of states (it was a blueprint of geographical partition) based on the religion of population as suggested by the Cabinet Mission.
• Gandhiji had fast on the day of independence to show his anger against partition.
• There were several steps had been taken to prevent the partition like CR formula, Desai-Liaqat Pact, etc.

Despite several optimism, there were several compulsions that brought a forced agreement among the leaders to think about horrific partition. Like:

• The partition reflects the success-failure dichotomy of the Congress-led anti-imperialist movement. The Congress had a twofold task—(i) structuring diverse classes, communities, groups, and regions into a nation, and (ii) securing independence for the nation.
  • While the Congress succeeded in building up sufficient national consciousness to exert pressure on the British to quit India, it failed to complete the task of welding the nation, especially in integrating the Muslims into the nation.
• Only an immediate transfer of power could forestall the spread of ‘direct action’ and communal violence. The virtual collapse of the Interim Government also made the notion of Pakistan appear unavoidable.
• The partition plan ruled out independence for the princely states which could have been a greater danger to Indian unity as it would have meant Balkanisation of the country.
• Acceptance of partition was only a final act of the process of step-by-step concessions to the League’s championing of a separate Muslim state.
  • During Cripps Mission (1942), autonomy of Muslim majority provinces was accepted.
  • During Gandhi-Jinnah talks (1944), Gandhi accepted the right of self-determination of Muslim-majority provinces.
  • After the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946), Congress conceded the possibility of Muslim majority provinces setting up a separate constituent assembly.
  • Official reference to Pakistan came in March 1947, when CWC resolution stated that Punjab (and by implication, Bengal) must be partitioned if the country was divided.
  • With the 3^rd of June Plan, Congress accepted partition.
• While loudly asserting the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly, the Congress quietly accepted compulsory grouping and accepted the partition most of all because it could not stop the communal riots.
• There was nevertheless much wishful thinking and lack of appreciation of the dynamics of communal feeling by the Congress, especially in Nehru who stated at various times— “Once the British left, Hindu-Muslim differences would be patched up and a free, united India would be built up.” “Partition is only temporary.” “Partition would be peaceful—once Pakistan was conceded, what was there to fight for?”

Conclusion

The communalism of the 1920s and the 1930s was different from that of the 1940s. Now it was an all-out effort for an assertive ‘Muslim nation’. Congress leadership underestimated the potential of this type of communalism.

Gandhi felt helpless because there had been a communalisation of the people. He had no option but to accept partition because the people wanted it.