Category: HISTORY NOTES

INDIA AFTER INDEPENDENCE

Integration of States
Sardar Patel’s strategy to consolidate native states
  1. Atlee had declared that £ didn’t intend to hand over her paramountcy over Indian states to any government in India. Consequently the states began to harbor dreams of independence. Their desires were supported by Jinnah  in a speech in June 1947 in an obvious attempt to keep India weak. However £ began to realize the complications of cold war and by now they changed their stance somewhat and Atlee said that he hoped that the states would join one dominion or the other.
  2. The people of the states had suffered side by side with the people in £ India in the INM. Both movements marched hand in hand and thus it was not possible for nationalist leaders to leave the people of the state on the mercy of the princes.
  3. By April 1947, some states had showed wisdom and joined the constituent assembly. But a majority of them stayed away and some even openly declared their intent for claiming an independent status. In June 1947, Patel set to the task of integrating the states. INM had become deep rooted in princely states as well – too strong that it was impossible for them to ignore it. Had they ignored it, they faced possibility of internal revolts. Patel made the rulers realize this by saying that he won’t be able to stop their people from revolting. He appealed to all the princes whose territory fell in India to accede to the union on 3 subjects – foreign relations, defence and communications.
  4. He followed a policy of stick and carrot. The carrot was that he guaranteed the continuation of personal privileges of the princes in India. A privy purse would be established and they would draw pensions from it. No enquiries would be initiated against the princes as well. Although there was some criticism of the privileges accorded to the rulers, it was a small price to pay for the integrity of the union. Consolidation of the states indeed healed the wounds of partition to some extent.
Hyderabad
Before Independence
  1. Hyderabad had a feudal setup. ~10% of land was reserved for the Nizam and 30% given out as jagirs. Muslims received preferential treatment and non-Muslims were even persecuted.
  2. Political agitations first reached state on the Khilafat issue. Khilafat merged with the issue of a responsible government in the state and enhanced civil liberties.
  3. A cultural movement started in Telangana under the leadership of Andhra Mahasabha which advocated Telugu language and literature and promoted press. In 1938, all the major associations in the state merged together to call Hyderabad State Congress (not a branch of INC).
  4. Hyderabad State Congress had close connections with INC and used the methods of satyagraha, INC leaders too personal interest including Gandhiji. Gandhiji actively guided the 1938 satyagraha and also wrote to Hyderabad government to agree to their demands. However, due to a launch of a parallel satyagraha by Arya Samaj, Gandhiji urged Hyderabad State Congress to withdraw their satyagraha so that it doesn’t get associated with a communal agitation.

After Independence

  1. Patel was in no hurry to force an accession on Hyderabad since the Nizam had made a secret commitment not to join Pakistan and also £ had refused to give the dominion status to Hyderabad. Moreover Mountbatten himself was involved in negotiations with the Nizam. So Patel felt that time was on his side. But at the same time he made it clear that India will not tolerate an ‘island’ in the middle of its territory.
  2. In November 1947, the Nizam signed a standstill agreement with GoI which called for immediate restoration of peace. Behind signing this standstill agreement while GoI hoped that Nizam would be made to see the reality and could be forced to accept a representative government in his state, Nizam hoped to build up his military strength and force the GoI to accept his sovereignty. So he hoped to prolong the negotiations.
  3. While negotiations were on, violence kept on increasing. Nizam had organized a muslim communal organization which had an armed wing called Razakars. On 7 August 1947, the state congress unit launched a powerful satyagraha to force the nizam to accept a representative government. Nizam unleashed a reign of terror on the people through his band of Razakars leading to merciless communal prosecution. As a result CPI was able to expand its cadre in Hyderabad and powerful peasant struggles began to come up and the CPI led struggle turned violent. Peasant groups began to be formed to resist with arms the attack of Razakars. The GoI restrained for several months but as the negotiations and killings showed no signs of ending, it had to send in the Indian army. in September 1948.

Kashmir

  1. 80% of the population was Muslim while 20% was Hindu. The king was a Hindu. He wanted to stay independent. The stand of Indian leaders was clear that only people can decide on their fate and they supported a plebiscite.  But Pakistan not only refused to accept the principle of plebiscite but also tried to short circuit the decision by sending in armed tribals and forces in Kashmir in October 1947. In panic, he appealed to India.
  2. Nehru (on the advise of Mountbatten) said he will only send army if Kashmir is integrated with India. So on 26 October the maharaja signed the instrument of accession. Even though both the maharaja and National Conference (led by Sheikh Abdullah) wanted a firm accession, Nehru said he will get the instrument of accession ratified by holding a referendum once peace and law had been restored in Kashmir. Indian troops went in and pushed back the invaders to some extent. Then on advise of Mountbatten again, Nehru decided to submit the matter to the arbitration of UN on 30 December 1947.
  3. In 1951, UN passed a resolution providing for a referendum under UN supervision after Pakistan had withdrawn its troops from PoK. It has remained unimplemented since as Pakistan has refused to withdraw its forces from PoK.

Junagarh

  1. Majority population was Hindu in this case but the ruler was a Muslim. He wanted to remain independent but when popular pressure began to grow, he declared accession to Pakistan which Pakistan accepted.
  2. A mass revolt broke out and he fled to Pakistan. Indian leaders anyways stood for the sovereignty of the people and not of the ruler. The Diwan of Junagarh asked the Indian government to intervene and signed instrument of accession with India. A plebiscite was organized in which an overwhelming majority voted for merger with India.

Full Integration of Former Princely States

  1. This was even more difficult than the initial accession. Once again Patel showed great vigor in completing the full scale integration within an year. Smaller states were either merged in the neighboring provinces or were merged together to form ‘centrally administered areas’. 5 new unions were formed vis Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, Saurashtra and Travancore – Cochin. States of Hyderabad, J&K and Mysore were allowed to remain in the original form.

Step 1: Fast-track integration

  1. The first step in this process, carried out between 1947 and 1949, was to merge the smaller states that were not seen to be viable administrative units either into neighboring provinces, or with other princely states to create a princely union. This policy was contentious, since it involved the dissolution of the very states whose existence India had only recently guaranteed in the Instruments of Accession. Patel and Menon emphasised that without integration, the economies of states would collapse, and anarchy would arise if the princes were unable to provide democracy and govern properly. They pointed out that many of the smaller states were very small and lacked resources to sustain their economies and support their growing populations. Many also imposed tax rules and other restrictions that impeded free trade, and which had to be dismantled in a united India. Such mergers took place in many provinces and HP.
  2. The Merger Agreements required rulers to cede full power to the India. In return it gave privy purses, protection of private property, personal privileges, dignities and titles. Succession was also guaranteed according to custom.
  3. Although the Merger Agreements were principally intended for smaller, non-viable states, they were also applied to a few larger states. Kutch, Tripura and Manipur, all of which lay along international borders, were also asked to sign Merger Agreements, despite being larger states. Similarly Bhopal and Bilaspur also had to go.

Step 2: Princely Union and Rajpramukhs

  1. The bulk of the larger states, and some groups of small states, were integrated through a different, four-step process. The first step in this process was to convince groups of large states to combine to form a princely union through the execution by their rulers of Covenants of Merger. Under the Covenants of Merger, all rulers lost their ruling powers, save one who became the Rajpramukh of the new union. The other rulers were associated with two bodies—the council of rulers, whose members were the rulers of salute states, and a presidium whose members were elected by the rulers of non-salute states. In return for agreeing to the extinction of their states as discrete entities, the rulers were given a privy purse and guarantees similar to those provided under the Merger Agreements.
  2. Through this process, Saurashtra, Madhya Bharat, PEPSU, Travancore – Cochin and Rajasthan emerged. Only Kashmir, Mysore and Hyderabad were left now.

Step 3: Democratization

  1. These mergers did not meet the expectations of the Government of India so it suggested requiring the rulers of states to take practical steps towards the establishment of popular government. The States Department accepted this suggestion, and implemented it through a special covenant signed by the rajpramukhs of the merged princely unions, binding them to act as constitutional monarchs. This meant that their powers were de facto no different from those of the Governors of the former British provinces, thus giving the people of their territories the same measure of responsible government as the people of the rest of India.
  2. The result of this process was an assertion of paramountcy by the Government of India over the states. While this contradicted the British statement that paramountcy would lapse on the transfer of power, the Congress position had always been that independent India would inherit the position of being the paramount power.

Step 4: Centralization and Constitutionalization

  1. Democratization still left open one important distinction between the former princely states and the former British provinces, namely, that since the princely states had signed limited Instruments of Accession covering only three subjects, they were insulated from government policies in other areas. So in May 1948, a meeting was held in Delhi between the Rajpramukhs of the princely unions and the States Department, at the end of which the Rajpramukhs signed new Instruments of Accession which gave the Government of India the power to pass laws in respect of all matters that fell within the seventh schedule of the Government of India Act 1935. Subsequently, each of the princely unions, as well as Mysore and Hyderabad, agreed to adopt the Constitution of India drafted by the constituent assembly as the constitution of that state, thus ensuring that they were placed in exactly the same legal position vis-à-vis the central government as the former British provinces. The only exception was Kashmir, whose relationship with India continued to be governed by the original Instrument of Accession, and the constitution produced by the state’s Constituent Assembly.
  2. The © classified the constituent units of India into three classes, which it termed Part A, B, and C states. The former British provinces, together with the princely states that had been merged into them, were the Part A states. The princely unions, plus Mysore and Hyderabad, were the Part B states. The centrally administered areas, except the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, were the Part C states. The only practical difference between the Part A states and the Part B states was that the constitutional heads of the Part B states were the Rajpramukhs appointed under the terms of the Covenants of Merger, rather than Governors appointed by the central government.

Step 5: State Reorganization

  1. The distinction between Part A and Part B states was only intended to last for a brief, transitional period. In 1956, the States Reorganization Act reorganized the former British provinces and princely states on the basis of language. Simultaneously, the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution removed the distinction between Part A and Part B states, both of which were now treated only as “states”, with Part C states being renamed “union territories”.
  2. The Rajpramukhs lost their authority, and were replaced as the constitutional heads of state by Governors, who were appointed by the central government.

Step 6: Other Colonial Territories

  1. French: At independence, the regions of Pondicherry, Karikal, Yanam, Mahe and Chandernagore were still colonies of France. An agreement between France and India in 1948 provided for an election in France’s remaining Indian possessions to choose their political future. A plebiscite held in Chandernagore in 1949 resulted in merger with India. In the other enclaves, however, the pro-French camp used the administrative machinery to suppress the pro-merger groups. Popular discontent rose, and in 1954 demonstrations in Yanam and Mahe resulted in pro-merger groups assuming power. A referendum in Pondicherry and Karikal in 1954 resulted in a vote in favor of merger. A treaty of cession was signed in 1956, and following ratification by the French National Assembly in 1962, de jure control of the enclaves was also transferred.
  2. Portugal: On 15 August 1955, five thousand non-violent demonstrators marched against the Portuguese at the border, and were met with gunfire. In 1960, the United Nations General Assembly rejected Portugal’s contention that its overseas possessions were provinces. Although Nehru continued to favor a negotiated solution, the Portuguese suppression of a revolt in Angola in 1961 radicalized Indian public opinion, and increased the pressure on the Government of India to take military action. On 18 December 1961, following the collapse of an American attempt to find a negotiated solution, the Indian Army entered Portuguese India and defeated the Portuguese garrisons there. Goa was incorporated into India as a centrally administered union territory and, in 1987, became a state. In 1954, an uprising in Dadra and Nagar Haveli threw off Portuguese rule. The Portuguese attempted to send forces from Daman to reoccupy the enclaves, but were prevented from doing so by Indian troops.
  3. Sikkhim: Historically, Sikkhim was a British dependency with a status similar to that of the other princely states, and was therefore considered to be within the frontiers of India in the colonial period. On independence, however, the Chogyal of Sikkhim resisted full integration into India. Given the region’s strategic importance to India, the Government of India signed first a Standstill Agreement and then in 1950 a full treaty with the Chogyal of Sikkim which in effect made it a protectorate which was no longer part of India. India had responsibility for defence, external affairs and communications, and ultimate responsibility for law and order, but Sikkim was otherwise given full internal autonomy. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Chogyal, supported by the minority Bhutia  attempted to negotiate greater powers, particularly over external affairs. These policies were opposed internally and in April 1973, an anti-Chogyal agitation broke out; the agitators demanded the conduct of popular elections. Chogyal was reduced to the role of a constitutional monarch, his opponents won an overwhelming victory, and a new Constitution was drafted providing for Sikkim to be associated with the Republic of India. This resolution was endorsed by 97% of the vote in a referendum held in 1975, following which the Indian Government amended the constitution to admit Sikkim into India as its 22nd state.
Integration: Critical Analysis
  1. Ian Copland argues that the Congress leaders did not intend the settlement contained in the Instruments of Accession to be permanent even when they were signed, and at all times privately contemplated a complete integration of the sort that ensued between 1948 and 1950. He points out that the mergers and cession of powers to the Government of India between 1948 and 1950 contravened the terms of the Instruments of Accession, and were incompatible with the express assurances of internal autonomy and preservation of the princely states which Mountbatten had given the princes.
  2. Menon in his memoirs stated that the changes to the initial terms of accession were in every instance freely consented to by the princes with no element of coercion. Copland disagrees, on the basis that foreign diplomats at the time believed that the princes had been given no choice but to sign, and that a few princes expressed their unhappiness with the arrangements. He also criticizes Mountbatten’s role, saying that while he stayed within the letter of the law, he was at least under a moral obligation to do something for the princes when it became apparent that the Government of India was going to alter the terms on which accession took place, and that he should never have lent his support to the bargain given that it could not be guaranteed after independence. One of the reasons why the princes consented to the demise of their states was that they felt abandoned by the British, and saw themselves as having little other option.
  3. Lumby takes the view that the princely states could not have survived as independent entities after the transfer of power, and that their demise was inevitable. They therefore view successful integration of all princely states into India as a triumph for the Government of India and Lord Mountbatten, and as a tribute to the sagacity of the majority of princes, who jointly achieved in a few months what the Empire had attempted, unsuccessfully, to do for over a century—unite all of India under one rule.
  4. In the context of the history of political integration in Northeast India, it is found that the integration with the Indian union politically remained a serious issue. The mode of integration of the Northeastern states has been sought through negotiations, promises, baits and force. Some areas like Manipur and Naga Hills refused to merge with India and expressed desire for withdrawal from the Union which resulted in secessionist demands. The late realization that such integrationist policy was erroneous has led the government to concede autonomy demands of ethnic groups, which led to creation of separate states. However the formation of new states had a cascading affect leading to new demands from other smaller ethnic groups vying different levels of autonomy.
Other Internal Challenges
Communalism
  1. There was great danger that the wounds of partition may refuse to seal and the communal riots may linger on promoting hatred in the society and leading to further violence and disintegration of the nation. Communalism was the Indian version of fascism. Even many Congress leaders came under its sway but thanks to the strength of the nationalist sentiments, the top leadership remained committed to secularism and integration of the nation. It was on the grounds of checking communalism that Nehru got the © amended and inserted ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
  2. After the killing of Gandhi, realizing that RSS was a spreading communalism and fascism in India and was behind the assassination of Gandhi, Nehru got RSS banned. But Patel, in 1949, got the ban revoked on the guarantee that RSS would refrain from any involvement in politics.
The Punjab Problem 
  1. The Punjabi Suba agitation had different colours and complexions. Initially the agitation had ethnic and language connotations, founded by a feeling of distrust over the Punjabi language, between the Hindu and Sikh communities, but the same was given the shape of religious nationalism subsequently which ultimately led to ripping the ground to a secessionist movement with insurgent activities.
  2. The acceptance of the Hindi language as the mother tongue, vis-a-vis the local Punjabi, in the sixties by the Hindus may have marked the beginning of the problem and was one of the major reasons, which led to the division of Punjab in 1966.
  3. The distrust was further forged by the religious communalism of the seventies and by the insurgent activities in the eighties, with the connivance of cross-border hostile forces supporting the demand for separatism, leading to violent reprisal and counter-reprisals.

Left Wing Extremism

  1. CPI in 1948 proclaimed a beginning of a general revolution in India as it branded Nehru as an agent of imperialist and feudal forces! And to this extent it launched violent movements in many parts of the country. Nehru was appalled but he resisted banning CPI until it was impossible for him to not to do so. Still he banned it only in Bengal and Madras where it was most active.
  2. He believed that the best way to combat the communists was to bring the fruits of development to the people. As soon as the CPI gave up its programme of waging an armed struggle and accept parliamentary process, Nehru saw to it that the ban was revoked everywhere.

Rehabilitation of Refugees

  1. This was a great destabilizing problem but was handled efficiently, specially in west, and by 1951 the refugees from west were amicably settled. But the task was more challenging in the East. This was because while in the west most of the hindus and muslims had migrated in one go, in the east, the inflow of hindus continued for years. Many Hindus in the east Pakistan had stayed on but as the communal riots spread there, they were forced to migrate to W Bengal and Assam.
  2. In the west most of the immigrants cold occupy the land and property left by the muslim emigrants in Punjab, UP and Rajasthan. But in the east, this was not the case.
  3. Also due to linguistic affinity it was easier to resettle the immigrants in the west in Punjab, HP, western UP, Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan. But in the east, it was only possible to resettle them in W Bengal and to some extent in Assam and Tripura.
Linguistic Reorganization of States
  1. The biggest desire was to preserve the ethnic and political identity and not to be swamped by linguistic or ethnic majorities.
  1. In 1953 Andhra Pradesh was created after the riots broke out following the  death by fasting for this cause of Potti Sriramulu, a noted Andhra linguistic enthusiast. Subsequently, the Government appointed the ‘States Reorganization Commission’ to examine and suggest a rational solution for the reorganization of States, based on language.
  2. The Commission, after consultations and interactions with various groups of people, reported to have found the public will in favour of linguistic reorganization. The rationale was that language being the most faithful reflection of the culture of an ethnic group, ethno-lingual boundaries would be considered the most stable and suitable arrangement for the effective working of democratic entities and institutions. It was also perceived that the same would also have the advantage of ease for people’s interaction with the government.
  3. Linguistic division of States and reshaping of the political boundaries took place in the year 1956. The bi-lingual Bombay and Punjab were subsequently bifurcated to form unilingual Maharastra and Gujarat, in the West, and Punjab and Haryana in the North, in 1960 and 1966 respectively.
  4. It allowed for accommodation of diversity within the larger framework of federal unity and without weakening the Nation’s integrity. In social terms, it removed a major source of discord, and created homogenous political units which could be administered through a medium, the local language, that the vast majority of the population understood.
Anti-Hindi Movement 
  1. The dispute was not one of national language since the view that one language should be the symbol of national identity was rejected and out © adopted almost all the major different languages as the national languages. The issue was of the official language since the official work couldn’t be carried out in so many languages. Only 2 candidates were available – £ and Hindi.
  2. Even before the independence, the leadership of the INM had felt that £ can’t continue as the official language. As early as 1937, JLN while accepting that £ was the world language had clearly stated that at best it can be pursued as a second optional language. Hindi had been accepted by the nationalist leaders of non-Hindi belt as well since the overriding need at that hour was to display unity and independence (in every field including culture and language). Thus leaders like Tilak, SCB, Rajgopalachari, Gandhiji etc. were all votaries of Hindi. In its sessions and political work too, INC used hindi and other regional languages. Thus in the 1928 Nehru report, it was laid down that ‘Hindustani’ as written in Devanagari or Urdu script would be the common language of India and that £ may continue only for some time. The © accepted this stand only replacing Hindustani by Hindi.
  3. The choice between Devanagari and Urdu script was the first dilemma of the constituent assembly. Both Gandhi and Nehru were strong advocates of Hindustani (in both Devanagari and Urdu) but the question was settled by the partition (and as Pakistan claimed Urdu to be the language of Muslims and Pakistan). In a vote held the votaries for Hindi in devanagari won although by a razor thin majority.
  4. The next question was what should be the time frame for replacing English with Hindi. This is the issue which led to most serious divides between the Hindi and the non-Hindi areas. While the proponents of Hindi wanted an immediate switchover, the non-Hindi speaking people wanted a long (if not an indefinite) switchover time. Nehru wanted Hindi as the official language eventually but wanted £ to continue in the transition time and that the transition should only be gradual.
  5. The © provided that Hindi in Devanagari script (with international numerals) will be the official language of India. £ will continue as the official language till 1965 when it would be replaced by Hindi. Until then Hindi will be introduced in a phased manner and it would be the duty of the government to promote the spread of Hindi. The parliament will have the power to provide for the use of £ for specified purposes even after 1965. The state legislatures could decide on the state language though for all union-state communications, Hindi will be used. The hope was that by 1965, Hindi proponents would be able to overcome its weaknesses, develop the language and win over the confidence of non Hindi people. It was also hoped that because Hindi will be the medium of instruction in education and universal education would anyways be provided by 1960, Hindi will come to be accepted by all as the official language.
  6. But this never happened. Education never grew in India and Hindi proponents, instead of trying to calm the anxieties of non Hindi people and win their confidence, began to look for government imposition of Hindi. Also instead of simplifying and developing the language, they made it too complex in the name of ‘purification’. Comprehensive literature in Hindi was never developed and by no means it was ready to be accepted as the official language of the union.
  7. It was launched pre-independence by DMK under Periyar E.V.Ramaswamy Nayakar to agitate against the introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in the schools of the then Madras Presidency. It succeeded in preventing compulsory teaching of Hindi in the schools of the Presidency. 
  8. The agitation of the post- independence period was conducted to ensure the continuation of English as an official language and to prevent Hindi from becoming the sole official language of the Republic. The Government responded with the constitution of the first Official Language Commission in 1955. The commission recommended a number of steps to eventually replace English with Hindi. But the report was not unanimous and had dissenting notes from non-Hindi speaking Members of the Commission from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
  9. The report was further reviewed by a parliamentary committee which recommended that Hindi should be made the primary official language with English as a subsidiary one. Both these reports were opposed by many non-Hindi groups. As the opposition grew stronger the government  English would continue as the associate language for an indefinite period.
  10. However, as the deadline of 15 years  stipulated in the constitution for switching over to Hindi as primary official language approached, the government efforts to spread Hindi’s official usage stepped up. But the Official Language Bill, 1959 was brought up for continuation of English.

Factors Responsible for Promoting National Unity

  1. Unified army, all india services etc. Unified economy, large scale planning, communication and transport system etc. Steel plants, fertilizer plants, hydro electric dams, higher educational institutions, Nehru’s foreign policy etc. all became a symbol of national unity and development.
  2. Commitment of the national leadership. Centralized tendencies in our ©. The commitment to reduce social injustice also promoted unity.
  3. The language policy followed was not that of suppression and imposition from top. But this multiplicity was accepted and the system evolved to live with it without giving rise to persistent conflicts.
Foreign Policy
Phase 1 (1880-1919)
  1. The early nationalists used to oppose the aggressive use of Indian resources in military operations outside India by the £ government. Thus they opposed the Afghan war in 1878-80, Egypt expedition in 1882 to protect £ interests there. They opposed 1885 annexation of Burma, 1903 attack of Tibet and the forward policy followed by £ in NW of India supposedly to ‘defend India from Russian designs’.
  2. They expressed solidarity with people fighting for independence and liberation elsewhere in the world like Ireland, Turkey, Russia etc.
  3. They expressed pan-Asian consciousness. Thus Japan’s rise was hailed earlier until it attacked China, attack on Burma and China by £ was condemned.
  4. They clearly saw the role of foreign capital in expanding imperialism. Foreign capital went first and soldiers later in order to ‘protect the capital’.
  5. In the war, though officially the nationalists supported £ effort there was little sympathy for £.

Phase 2 (1919 onwards)

  1. INM grew more conscious of foreign developments and began to express opinion on almost every major event happening worldwide. Indians continued to express solidarity with people fighting for independence and against fascism.
  2. Indians opposed the Treaty of Sevres, the mandate system was rightly labeled as a cover for imperialism, Congress favored Burma’s independence from India and opposed an attack on Afghanistan. Congress supported the revolution in China by Sun Yat-Sen.
  3. JLN traveled to Brussels in 1926-27 to attend Congress of Oppressed Peoples. He met many leaders there but didn’t meet Mussolini. Thus while criticizing colonialism, he made clear that INM was no friend of fascism. He also condemned US imperialism over Latam which was previously ignored by Indian nationalists. They extended support to Chezchoslovakia and Spanish people. It was basically ideology based.
Relations with Pakistan
  1. Even after the Kashmir complications, in January 1948, GoI decided to pay Pakistan Rs. 55 cr as a part of the partition plan even though that money could be used against it in Kashmir.
  2. Pakistan also ridiculously laid claims on the property of the migrants who had fled to Pakistan leaving their land and property in India. Such issues had to be resolved by negotiations.
  3. Another source of discord between the two nations was the treatment of Hindus in east Pakistan specially where they were subject to communal hatred and extermination. This led to a steady inflow of refugees in India and worsening of situation. While this strengthened the calls for a military intervention in east Pakistan, Nehru always resisted and tried to resolve the issue by negotiations. He also took a clear stand against a similar prosecution of Muslims in some areas of W Bengal. At the same time he always urged Pakistan to end the communal frenzy and provide security to the religious minorities in east Pakistan. In April 1950, he was able to sign a pact with Pakistan on the issue of protection of minorities (which was resented to by the communal forces in India) but the problem continued despite the pact.
  4. Another source of tension was the river waters of Indus and both countries signed a treaty to share its water under the auspices of WB after India showed generosity.
Advertisements