logging in or signing up NATIONAL INTEGRATION bvmingenious Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 5402 Category: Education License: All Rights Reserved Like it (3) Dislike it (0) Added: June 14, 2011 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 5 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: cafeallday (10 month(s) ago) nice ppt Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: playboysukrit (28 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: playboysukrit (28 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: playboysukrit (28 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: playboysukrit (28 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close loading.... See all Premium member Presentation Transcript National integration : National integration Submitted To: Submitted By: Mrs . Sunita Mathur Mona Agrawal Class X th A , Roll No. 20Political integration of India : Political integration of India At the time of Indian independence, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of "British India", which were under the direct control of the India Office in London and the Governor-General of India, and the second being the "Princely states", the territories over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. The political integration of these territories into India was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, which the Government of India pursued over the next decade. Through a combination of factors, Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon convinced the rulers of almost all of the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. Having secured their accession, they then proceeded to, in a step-by-step process, secure and extend the central government's authority over these states and transform their administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between the territories that had formerly been part of British India and those that had been part of princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of India, through a combination of diplomatic and military means, acquired de facto and de jure control over the remaining colonial enclaves, which too were integrated into India.India Map : India MapHistory of the Unity of India : History of the Unity of India According to Hindu scriptures such as Vishnu Purana 2.3.1, India or ' Bharata ' is the land between the Indus River ( Sindhu ) and the Himalayas. The Vishnu Purana also mentions that the ruler of the land between the Indus and the Himalayas was supported by theologians, political philosophers and poets. In the eras of dynastic India, the principal of the India's unity was a religions one. While there were several emperors, kings, and chieftains, several times there was a monarch crowned as India's Chakravarti . Sometimes the Chakravarti had major political powers as in the case of Emperor Asoka and Pusyamitra Sung, and other times the position was just a figurehead representing the unit of India's various ethnicities. Even the Chalukya Dynasty which only had most of South India under their direct control, they attained suzerainty of the whole of India, Ayodhya (which lay land of their direct control) was the capital of their suzerainty of India and Chalukyan Satyasraya Kula was crowned Chakravarti Sarvabhauma of all of India Raja Bhoja , who had Dhara in Central India under his direct control attained the status of Sarva-bhauma-Chakravarti .Princely States in British India : Princely States in British India The early history of British expansion in India was characterized by the co-existence of two approaches towards the existing princely states. The first was a policy of annexation, where the British sought to forcibly absorb the Indian princely states into the provinces which constituted their Empire in India. The second was a policy of indirect rule, where the British assumed suzerainty and paramount over princely states, but conceded some degree of sovereignty to them. During the early part of the nineteenth century, the policy of the British tended towards annexation, but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 forced a change in this approach, by demonstrating both the difficulty of absorbing and subduing annexed states, and the usefulness of princely states as a source of support. In 1858, the policy of annexation was formally renounced, and British relations with the princely states thereafter were based on indirect rule, whereby the British exercised paramount over all princely states with the British crown as ultimate suzerain, but at the same time respected and protected them as allies. The exact relations between the British and each princely state were regulated by individual treaties, and varied widely, with some states having significant autonomy, some being subject to significant control in internal affairs, and some being in effect the owners of a few acres of land with little autonomy.Reasons for integration : Reasons for integration The termination of paramount would have in principle meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of India and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom". Early British plans for the transfer of power, such as the offer produced by the Cripps Mission, recognized the possibility that some princely states might choose to stand out of independent India. [ This was unacceptable to the Congress, which regarded the independence of princely states as a denial of the course of Indian history, and consequently regarded this scheme as a "Balkanization" of India. [ The Congress had traditionally been less active in the princely states because of their limited resources which restricted their ability to organize there and their focus on the goal of independence from the British, and because Congress leaders, in particular Gandhi, were sympathetic to the more progressive princes as examples of the capacity of Indians to rule themselves. [ This changed in the 1930s as a result of the federation scheme contained in the Government of India Act 1935 and the rise of socialist Congress leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, and the Congress began to actively engage with popular political and labor activity in the princely states. [ By 1939, the Congress' official stance was that the states must enter independent India, on the same terms and with the same autonomy as the provinces of British India, and with their people granted responsible government. [ As a result, it insisted on the incorporation of the princely states into India in its negotiations with Mountbatten.Accepting integration : Accepting integration The princes' position The rulers of the princely states were not uniformly enthusiastic about integrating their domains into independent India. Some, such as the kings of Cochin, Bikaner and Jawhar , were motivated to join India out of ideological and patriotic considerations, [ but others insisted that they had the right to join either India or Pakistan, to remain independent, or form a union of their own. Bhopal, Travancore and Hyderabad announced that they did not intend to join either dominion. Hyderabad went as far as to appoint trade representatives in European countries and commencing negotiations with the Portuguese to lease or buy Goa to give it access to the sea, and Travancore pointed to the strategic importance to western countries of its thorium reserves while asking for recognition. Some states proposed a subcontinent-wide confederation of princely states, as a third entity in addition to India and Pakistan. Bhopal attempted to build an alliance between the princely states and the Muslim League to counter the pressure being put on rulers by the Congress.Mountbatten's role : Mountbatten's role Mountbatten believed that securing the states' accession to India was crucial to reaching a negotiated settlement with the Congress for the transfer of power. As a relative of the British King, he was trusted by most of the princes and was a personal friend of many, especially the Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan. The princes also believed that he would be in a position to ensure the independent India adhered to any terms that might be agreed upon, because Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel had asked him to become the first Governor General of the Dominion of India.Pressure and diplomacy : Pressure and diplomacy By far the most significant factor that led to the princes' decision to accede to India was the policy of the Congress and, in particular, of the two key figures in the States Department, Sadder Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menno. The Congress' stated position was that the princely states were not sovereign entities, and as such could not opt to be independent notwithstanding the end of paramount. The princely states, it declared, must therefore accede to either India or Pakistan. In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, he said that independent India would not accept the Divine Right of Kings, and in May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state. Other Congress leaders, such as C. Rajagopalachari, argued that as paramount "came into being as a fact and not by agreement", it would necessarily pass to the government of independent India, as the successors of the British. Patel and Menno, who were charged with the actual job of negotiating with the princes, took a more conciliatory approach than Nehru. The official policy statement of the Government of India made by Patel on 5 July 1947 made no threats. Instead, it emphasized the unity of India and the common interests of the princes and independent India, reassured them about the Congress' intentions, and invited them to join independent India "to make laws sitting together as friends than to make treaties as aliens". He reiterated that the States Department would not attempt to establish a relationship of domination over the princely states. Unlike the Political Department of the British Government, it would not be an instrument of paramount, but a medium whereby business could be conducted between the states and India as equals.Instruments of Accession : Instruments of Accession Patel and Menon backed up their diplomatic efforts by producing treaties that were designed to be attractive to rulers of princely states. Two key documents were produced. The first was the Standstill Agreement, which confirmed that the agreements and administrative practices that existed as between the princely state in question and the British would be continued by India. The second was the Instrument of Accession, by which the ruler of the princely state in question agreed to the accession of his kingdom to independent India, and to granting India control over specified subject matters.The nature of the subject matters varied depending on the acceding state. The states which had internal autonomy under the British signed an Instrument of Accession which only ceded three subjects to the government of India— defence , external affairs, and communications, each defined in accordance with List 1 to Schedule VII of the Government of India Act 1935. Rulers of states which were in effect estates or talukas , where substantial administrative powers were exercised by the Crown, signed a different Instrument of Accession, which vested all residuary powers and jurisdiction in the government of India. Rulers of states which had an intermediate status signed a third type of Instrument, which preserved the degree of power they had under the British.The accession process : The accession process The limited scope of the Instruments of Accession and the promise of a wide-ranging autonomy and the other guarantees they offered, gave sufficient comfort to many rulers, who saw this as the best deal they could strike given the lack of support from the British, and popular internal pressures. Between May 1947 and the transfer of power on 15 August 1947, the vast majority of states signed Instruments of Accession. A few, however, held out. Some simply delayed signing the Instrument of Accession. Piploda , a small state in central India, did not accede until March 1948. The biggest problems, however, arose with a few border states, such as Jodhpur, which tried to negotiate better deals with Pakistan, with Junagarh , which actually did accede to Pakistan, and with Hyderabad and Kashmir, which declared that they intended to remain independent.Border states : Border states The ruler of Jodhpur, Hanwant Singh, was antipathetic to the Congress, and did not see much future in India for him or the lifestyle he wished to lead, and entered into negotiations with Jinnah who was the designated head of state for Pakistan, along with the ruler of Jaisalmer. Jinnah was keen to attract some of the larger border states, hoping thereby to attract other Rajput states to Pakistan and compensate for the loss of half of Bengal and Punjab. He offered to permit Jodhpur and Jaisalmer to accede to Pakistan on any terms they chose, giving their rulers blank sheets of paper and asking them to write down their terms, which he would sign.Jaisalmer refused, arguing that it would be difficult for him to side with Muslims against Hindus in the event of communal problems. Hanwant Singh came close to signing. However, the atmosphere in Jodhpur was in general hostile to accession to Pakistan. Mountbatten also pointed out that the accession of a predominantly Hindu state to Pakistan would violate the principle of the two-nation theory on which Partition was based, and was likely to cause communal violence in the State. Hanwant Singh was persuaded by these arguments, and somewhat reluctantly agreed to accede to India.Kashmir : Kashmir At the time of the transfer of power, Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu, although the state itself had a Muslim majority. Hari Singh was equally hesitant about acceding to either India or Pakistan, as either would have provoked adverse reactions in parts of his kingdom.  He signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and proposed one with India as well,  but announced that Kashmir intended to remain independent.  However, his rule was opposed by Sheikh Abdullah, the popular leader of Kashmir's largest political party, the National Conference ,who demanded his abdication.  Pakistan, attempting to force the issue of Kashmir's accession, cut off supplies and transport links. The chaos in Punjab resulting from Partition had also severed transport links with India, meaning that Kashmir's only links with the two dominions was by air. Rumours about atrocities against the Muslim population of Poonch by the Maharajah's forces caused the outbreak of civil unrest. Shortly thereafter, Pathantribesmen from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan crossed the border and entered Kashmir.  The invaders made rapid progress towards Srinagar The Maharaja of Kashmir wrote to India, asking for military assistance, offering an Instrument of Accession, and setting up an interim government headed by Sheikh Abdullah.  The accession was accepted.Hyderabad : Hyderabad Hyderabad was a landlocked state that stretched over 82,000 square miles (over 212,000 square kilometres ) in south-eastern India. While 87% of its 17 million people were Hindus, its ruler Nizam Khanwas a Muslim, and its politics were dominated by a Muslim elite.  The Muslim nobility and the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen a powerful pro- Nizam Muslim party, insisted that Hyderabad must remain an independent state and stand on an equal footing to India and Pakistan. Accordingly, the Nizam in June 1947 issued a firman announcing that on the transfer of power, his state would be resuming independence.  The Government of India rejected the firman , terming it a "legalistic claim of doubtful validity". It argued that the strategic location of Hyderabad, which lay astride the main lines of communication between northern and southern India, meant it could easily be used by "foreign interests" to threaten India, and that in consequence, the issue involved India's peace andsecurity It also pointed out that the state's people, history and location made it unquestionably Indian, and that its own "common interests" therefore mandated its integration into India. Lakshadweep : Lakshadweep Sadder Patel is the man behind the integration of Lakshadweep Islands with the Republic of India .The inhabitants of these islands were cut off from the mainstream of the country and learnt about Indian Independence days after 15 August 1947. It was Patel who realized that Pakistan could lay claim to these islands on the grounds of Muslim majority, though the islands were nowhere near the new state of Pakistan. An Indian Navy ship was sent to Lakshadweep to hoist the national flag by Patel to thwart any attempt by Pakistan to grab the islands. Just a couple of hours thereafter, vessels belonging to the Pakistan Navy were spotted near the islands. These vessels however retreated to Karachi after seeing the Indian flag flying over the Lakshadweep. The Instruments of Accession were limited, transferring control of only three matters to India, and would by themselves have produced a rather loose federation, with significant differences in administration and governance across the various states. Full political integration, in contrast, would require a process whereby the political actors in the various states were "persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities towards a new center", namely, the Republic of India  This was not an easy task. While some princely states such as myehal legislative systems of governance that were based on a broad franchise and not significantly different from those of British India, in others, political decision-making took place in small, limited aristocratic circles and governance was, as a result, at best paternalistic and at worst the result of courtly intrigue. Having secured the accession of the princely states, the Government of India between 1948 and 1950 turned to the task of welding the states and the former British provinces into one polity under a single republican constitution. You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.