Integration and Merger of Indian States – UPSC Post-Independence Notes

The integration and merger of Indian states stands as a pivotal chapter in the nation’s post-independence history, reflecting a complex process of political, administrative, and socio-cultural amalgamation. Following India’s independence in 1947, the country embarked on a journey of consolidating hundreds of princely states and territories into a unified, federal republic. This monumental task involved negotiations, diplomacy, and at times, coercion, as the Indian leadership sought to forge a cohesive national identity and establish a robust administrative framework. The integration process, marked by the accession of princely states to the Indian Union, not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape but also laid the foundation for India’s diverse yet cohesive democracy. This amalgamation of territories, cultures, and aspirations underscores the ongoing quest for unity in diversity, a fundamental principle guiding the nation’s democratic ethos.

Integration of Princely States in Post-Independence India:

1. Significance of Princely States:
   • Before independence, almost 40% of the Indian territory was composed of princely states, ruled by monarchs with varying degrees of autonomy under the system of British Paramountcy.
2. Post-Independence Aspirations:
   • With the departure of the British, some princely states expressed aspirations for independence, challenging the transfer of paramountcy to the newly formed states of India and Pakistan.
3. British Stand and Alteration:
   • Initially, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s announcement in February 1947 indicated that Britain did not intend to transfer paramountcy to any government in British India. Jinnah also declared that states would be independent sovereign entities after paramountcy.
4. Altered British Position:
   • However, Attlee’s later statement during the Independence of India Bill suggested that it was hoped the states would find their place within the British Commonwealth.
5. Indian Nationalist Rejection:
   • Indian nationalists, both from British India and the princely states, could not accept the idea of numerous independent or semi-autonomous states within a free India, potentially threatening its unity.
6. Assertion of Nationalism:
   • People in the princely states had been involved in the nationalist movement since the late 19th century and had developed a strong sense of Indian nationalism.
7. Unity and Integration:
   • Indian nationalist leaders argued that political power belonged to the people, not just the rulers, and that the people of princely states were an integral part of the Indian nation.
8. Demand for Democratic Order:
   • Concurrently, movements like the States’ Peoples’ Conference emerged, advocating for the establishment of a democratic political system and integration with India.

The integration of princely states was a critical task for post-independence India. The leadership, both at the national level and within the states, worked towards ensuring that these territories became an integral part of the newly formed democratic republic. This process involved negotiations, diplomacy, and sometimes even military action. Ultimately, the successful integration of princely states played a pivotal role in shaping modern India.

The Accession of Princely States in India:

1. Appointment of Sardar Patel:
   • On June 27, 1947, Sardar Patel took charge of the newly established States Department, with V.P. Menon as its Secretary.
2. Awareness of Potential Threat:
   • Patel recognized the potential threat to Indian unity posed by obstinate princely rulers. He emphasized the need for prompt and effective handling of the situation to safeguard the hard-won freedom.
3. Government’s Guiding Principles:
   • The government based its approach on three key considerations: a. The majority of the princely states’ populace expressed a desire to join the Indian Union. b. Flexibility in granting autonomy to certain regions was considered. This approach aimed to accommodate diversity and respond flexibly to regional demands. c. Given the backdrop of Partition, the consolidation and integration of territorial boundaries were of paramount importance.

Sardar Patel’s leadership and the government’s strategic approach played a crucial role in persuading princely states to accede to the Indian Union, ultimately contributing significantly to the formation of modern India. This process involved diplomatic negotiations, political acumen, and a deep understanding of the diverse socio-political landscape of the princely states.

Integration of Princely States in India: Role of Sardar Patel

1. Engagement through Dialogue:
   • Sardar Patel initiated a series of luncheon meetings where he urged princely guests to collaborate with the Congress in framing India’s new constitution.
2. Three Critical Subjects:
   • Patel’s first step was to appeal to the princes, emphasizing the importance of acceding to the Indian Union in three crucial subjects: foreign relations, defense, and communications. These areas were deemed vital to the common interests of the country.
3. Implied Warning:
   • While making his appeal, Patel implicitly hinted at the potential challenges India might face post-August 15, 1947, should some states choose not to accede. There was an underlying suggestion of the risk of anarchy and chaos.
4. Diplomacy and Pressure:
   • Employing a combination of persuasion and pressure, Sardar Patel demonstrated masterful diplomacy. He skillfully navigated discussions with princely states, urging them to join the Indian Union.
5. Varied Responses:
   • While some princely states joined the Constituent Assembly with wisdom, realism, and patriotism, others initially refrained from participation.
6. Leveraging Mountbatten’s Influence:
   • Patel worked to gain the support of Lord Mountbatten, convincing him to advocate for India’s cause. Mountbatten’s pivotal speech to the Chamber of Princes on July 25 played a crucial role in persuading many of them.
7. Instrument of Accession:
   • Following Mountbatten’s speech, nearly all princely states, except for three, eventually signed the Instrument of Accession, formally integrating with the Indian Union.

Sardar Patel’s tireless efforts, strategic thinking, and adept negotiation skills were instrumental in bringing together the diverse princely states into a unified, independent India. His role in this process is widely acknowledged as a cornerstone of modern India’s formation.

Merger of Important States Before 1947:

1. Travancore:
   • Ruler: Maharaja Chithira Thirunal, with effective administration by Diwan C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyyer.
   • Circumstances: After an attack on C. P. Aiyyar, the Maharaja of Travancore conveyed readiness for accession.
2. Jodhpur:
   • Ruler: Young Hindu king Hanwant Singh.
   • Challenges: Proximity to the border made accession a sensitive issue. Jinnah also attempted to persuade him.
   • Resolution: After significant pressure from Sardar Patel, Hanwant Singh eventually signed the Instrument of Accession.
3. Bhopal:
   • Population: Predominantly Hindu.
   • Ruler: Habibullah Khan, with support from Jinnah.
   • Circumstances: Faced a revolt against the ruler. Habibullah Khan encountered pressure from Patel, the communist population, and eventually acceded by signing the Instrument of Accession.

These instances represent the complex negotiations and considerations involved in the process of princely states’ accession to the newly independent India. The interplay of political, regional, and communal factors played a crucial role in shaping these decisions.

Accession of Remaining Indian States after 1947:

Junagarh:

• Junagarh was a small state located on the coast of Saurashtra, surrounded by Indian territory and lacking any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.
• Despite the overwhelmingly Hindu population’s desire to join India, the Nawab announced the accession of Junagarh to Pakistan on August 15, 1947.
• Pakistan accepted this accession, but the people of the state vehemently opposed the ruler’s decision.
• A popular movement was organized, leading to the Nawab fleeing and the establishment of a provisional government. The Dewan of Junagarh, Shah Nawaz Bhutto (father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto), invited the Government of India to intervene.
• Indian troops entered the state, and a plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, resulting in an overwhelming vote in favor of joining India.

This event underscores the importance of considering the will of the people in determining the political status of princely states during the process of accession.

Jammu & Kashmir:

Background:

• The state of Kashmir shared its borders with both India and Pakistan. Its ruler, Hari Singh, was Hindu, whereas nearly 75% of the population was Muslim. Hari Singh initially refrained from acceding to either India or Pakistan, hoping to maintain his power as an independent ruler.
• The National Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah, favored joining India.

Invasion by Pakistan:

• On October 22, a group of Pathan tribesmen, unofficially led by Pakistani army officers, invaded Kashmir. They swiftly advanced towards Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, as the Maharaja’s ill-trained army proved ineffective.
• In panic, on October 24, the Maharaja appealed to India for military assistance.

Indian Response:

• Nehru was initially hesitant to accept accession without ascertaining the will of the people. However, Mountbatten, the Governor-General, pointed out that India could send troops to Kashmir only after the state formally acceded to India, according to international law.
• Under pressure from Sheikh Abdullah and Sardar Patel, the Maharaja acceded to India on October 26 and agreed to appoint Abdullah as the head of the state’s administration.
• India committed to holding a referendum on the accession once peace and order were restored in the Valley.
• On October 27, approximately 100 planes airlifted troops and weapons to Srinagar to combat the raiders. Srinagar was reclaimed, but the raiders retained control over parts of the state, leading to continued armed conflict for months.

Referral to the UN:

• To avert a large-scale conflict with Pakistan, on December 30, 1947, India agreed to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations Security Council, seeking Pakistan’s withdrawal of aggression.
• The Security Council tended to lean towards Pakistan’s stance, replacing the ‘Kashmir question’ with the broader ‘India-Pakistan dispute’.
• Despite numerous resolutions, a ceasefire was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan on December 3, 1948. The state was effectively divided along the ceasefire line.
• In 1951, the UN passed a resolution calling for a referendum under UN supervision after Pakistan withdrew its troops from the part of Kashmir under its control.
• However, Pakistan has not withdrawn its forces from the region known as Azad Kashmir, rendering the resolution ineffective. Kashmir continues to be a significant obstacle in fostering friendly relations between India and Pakistan.

Hyderabad:

Background:

• Hyderabad was the largest princely state in India and was entirely surrounded by Indian territory. The Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, was one of the wealthiest rulers of his time.
• His rule was known for being unjust and tyrannical. He was supported by Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (MIM), a Muslim political party, which advocated for a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Nizam’s Stand:

• The Nizam desired an independent status for Hyderabad, which was contrary to India’s vision of unity.
• Sardar Patel firmly stated that India would not tolerate an isolated state that could undermine the union that had been established with great effort.

Negotiations and Razakars:

• In November 1947, a stand-still agreement was signed between the Government of India and the Nizam. The hope was that the Nizam would introduce a representative government, making the process of merger smoother. However, the Nizam had other plans.
• He engaged the services of Sir Walter Monckton, a prominent British lawyer, to negotiate with the Government of India on his behalf. The Nizam aimed to prolong negotiations while building up his military strength, with the hope of either forcing India to accept his sovereignty or potentially acceding to Pakistan.
• Simultaneously, within the state, there was a surge in the militant Muslim communal organization, Ittihad ul Muslimin, and its paramilitary wing, the Razakars.

Satyagraha Movement and Communist-Led Peasant Struggle:

• On August 7, 1947, the Hyderabad State Congress initiated a powerful satyagraha movement to push for democratization. This led to the imprisonment of around 20,000 satyagrahis. As a result of Razakar attacks and state repression, thousands sought refuge in temporary camps in Indian territory. The movement then escalated into armed resistance.
• In the Telangana region, a strong communist-led peasant struggle had been underway since the latter half of 1946. It regained vigor when peasant squads organized defense against Razakar attacks.

Operation Polo and Integration:

• By June 1948, Sardar Patel’s patience was wearing thin as negotiations with the Nizam dragged on. From his sick-bed in Dehra Dun, he advised Nehru on military action to integrate Hyderabad into India.
• On September 13, 1948, the Indian army initiated Operation Polo, also known as Hyderabad Police Action. After three days, the Nizam surrendered and acceded to the Indian Union in November.
• The Indian government chose to be magnanimous and refrained from punishing the Nizam. He retained the formal title of ruler or Rajpramukh, received a privy purse of five million rupees, and was allowed to keep most of his immense wealth.
• With the accession of Hyderabad, the merger of princely states with the Indian Union was complete, establishing India’s authority across the land.

Triumph of Indian Secularism:

• The Hyderabad episode showcased another victory for Indian secularism. Many Muslims in Hyderabad joined the anti-Nizam struggle, and Muslims across the country supported the government’s policy and actions, contrary to the expectations of Pakistani leaders and the Nizam.

Manipur:

Accession:

• Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh of Manipur signed the instrument of Accession with the Indian government on the assurance that the internal autonomy of Manipur would be maintained.
• In response to public pressure, the Maharaja held elections in Manipur in June 1948, leading to the state becoming a constitutional monarchy.
• Manipur was the first part of India to conduct an election based on universal adult franchise. While the State Congress favored Manipur’s merger with India, other political parties held opposing views.
• In September 1949, the government of India pressured the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur. This caused significant anger and resentment in Manipur, with consequences still felt today.

Post-Integration:

• The second and more challenging stage of the complete integration of princely states into the new Indian nation began in December 1947.
• Sardar Patel acted swiftly, completing the process within a year. Smaller states were either merged with neighboring states or consolidated into centrally administered areas.
• Many were combined into five new unions, forming Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin. Mysore, Hyderabad, and Jammu and Kashmir retained their original form as separate states of the Union.
• In exchange for surrendering all power and authority, the rulers of major states were granted privy purses in perpetuity, free of all taxes. These purses amounted to Rs 4.66 crores in 1949 and were later constitutionally guaranteed.
• The rulers retained certain privileges, including succession to the throne, titles, personal flags, and gun salutes on ceremonial occasions.
• There was criticism of these concessions to the princes both at the time and later. However, given the challenging times post-independence and the Partition, they were considered a small price to pay for the abolition of princely power and the early and smooth territorial and political integration with the rest of the country.
• Undoubtedly, the integration of the states compensated for the loss of territories that became part of Pakistan in terms of area as well. It played a part in partially healing the wounds of partition.

French Territories:

The French establishments included:

1. Pondichéry
2. Karikal
3. Yanaon (Andhra Pradesh) on the Coromandel Coast
4. Mahé on the Malabar Coast
5. Chandernagor in Bengal.

After prolonged negotiations, the French authorities handed over Pondicherry and other French possessions to India.

Portuguese Territories (1961):

The Portuguese establishments included:

1. Goa (Capital)
2. Daman & Diu
3. Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The Portuguese were determined to stay, supported by their NATO allies Britain and the USA. The Indian government, committed to peaceful dispute resolution, initially refrained from military action.

The people of Goa initiated a movement for freedom from Portuguese rule. However, both this movement and non-violent attempts by Indian satyagrahis to march into Goa were met with brutal suppression.

After patiently waiting for international pressure on Portugal, Prime Minister Nehru ordered Indian troops to march into Goa under Operation Vijay on the night of 17 December 1961. The Governor-General of Goa surrendered without resistance.

This marked the completion of the territorial and political integration of India, though the process had taken over fourteen years.

Colonial Legacy:

India’s colonial past had a profound impact on its development post-1947. British rule brought about drastic transformations in various aspects of Indian society. However, these changes, while sometimes positive (such as the development of railways), ultimately contributed to what Gunder Frank aptly termed as the ‘development of underdevelopment’.

Basic Features of Colonial Legacy:

1. Integration of Indian Economy with the World: The colonial period saw India becoming more integrated into the global economy, primarily serving the interests of British colonialism.
2. Peculiar Structure of Production & Division of Labour: The colonial era led to a specific structure of production and division of labor. India became an exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished goods, leading to a skewed economic structure.
3. Economic Backwardness: While there were pockets of development, overall, India experienced economic backwardness. The majority of the population remained engaged in subsistence agriculture.
4. Role of Colonial State: The colonial state played a central role in shaping the economic landscape. Policies were often designed to benefit the British economy, leading to the exploitation and impoverishment of India.

These features of colonial legacy significantly influenced the economic and social challenges that India faced post-independence. Overcoming these legacies became a crucial task for the newly independent nation.

Integration of the Indian Economy with the World:

Under colonialism, India’s economy was intricately but submissively integrated into the global capitalist system. This integration, however, was marked by a clear hierarchical relationship with Britain.

Since the 1750s, India’s economic interests were subjugated to those of Britain. This was a significant aspect, as engagement with the global economy was inevitable and a characteristic shared by independent economies as well.

Peculiar Structure of Production & Division of Labour:

The colonial rule imposed a distinctive structure of production and an international division of labor tailored to serve British industrial interests. India primarily produced and exported foodstuffs and raw materials like cotton, jute, oilseeds, and minerals. In return, it imported a wide range of manufactured products from Britain, spanning from basic items like biscuits and shoes to complex machinery, cars, and railway engines.

This pattern of colonial economic exploitation persisted even as India developed a few labor-intensive industries like jute and cotton textiles. This was a result of the existing global division of labor, where Britain specialized in high technology, high productivity, and capital-intensive goods, while India was relegated to labor-intensive, low-technology production.

The structure of India’s foreign trade during the colonial period was a clear indicator of the economy’s colonial nature. For example, in the period of 1935-39, food, beverages, tobacco, and raw materials accounted for a significant 68.5 percent of India’s total trade.

Economic Backwardness:

The process of economic development is contingent on the size and effective utilization of economic surplus or savings, which are subsequently invested for the expansion of the economy.

• Net Savings: From 1914 to 1946, the net savings in the Indian economy constituted only 75 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP) or national income. This relatively small size is in stark contrast to the period of 1971-75, when net savings accounted for 12 percent of GNP.
• Total Capital Formation: The total capital formation during 1914-46 was meager, representing only 75 percent of GNP. In comparison, during 1971-75, it increased significantly to 20.14 percent of GNP.
• Share of Industry: The share of industry in this low level of capital formation was astonishingly low. Machinery constituted only 7.8 percent of GNP during 1914-46. This figure improved substantially to 6.53 percent during 1971-75.

Furthermore, a substantial portion of India’s social surplus or savings was appropriated by the colonial state and squandered. Another significant share was taken by indigenous landlords and moneylenders. Only a minuscule portion of this surplus was actually invested in agricultural development.

The ‘Drain’ refers to the unilateral transfer of wealth to Britain without India receiving any equivalent economic, commercial, or material returns. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of India’s total national income was unilaterally siphoned out of the country through this process.

Role of Colonial State:

The fourth feature of colonialism in India was the pivotal role played by the state in constructing, determining, and maintaining various aspects of the colonial structure. The policies of India were formulated in Britain, prioritizing the interests of the British economy and capitalist class.

An important facet of India’s underdevelopment was the lack of state support for both industry and agriculture. This stood in contrast to the practice in nearly all capitalist countries, including Britain, which enjoyed active state support in the initial phases of development.

The colonial state imposed free trade policies in India and refrained from providing tariff protection to Indian industries. It was only after 1918, due to the pressure exerted by the national movement, that the Government of India reluctantly granted some degree of tariff protection to select industries.

Starting from the 1880s, the currency policy was manipulated by the government to favor British industry at the expense of Indian industry.

The colonial state allocated a significant portion of its revenue towards British-Indian administration, fulfilling payments of both direct and indirect tribute to Britain, and furthering the interests of British trade and industry. Unfortunately, this often came at the expense of India’s own development.

Furthermore, the Indian tax structure was highly regressive. While the peasants were burdened with heavy land revenue for most of the colonial period, and the poor were taxed on essentials like salt, the upper-income groups—which included well-paid bureaucrats, landlords, merchants, and traders—paid disproportionately lower taxes. The level of direct taxation remained notably low.

De-industrialisation:

De-industrialization refers to the process where traditional industries and crafts are undermined, leading to a decline in their importance and often their collapse. In the context of colonial India, de-industrialization was a significant consequence of British economic policies. Here are some key aspects of de-industrialization:

1. Ruin of Artisans and Handicraftsmen: The influx of cheap machine-made goods from Britain inundated the Indian markets, making it increasingly difficult for Indian products to compete. This led to the decline of traditional craftsmen and artisans who found it hard to sustain their livelihoods.
2. Shift in Textile Trade: Previously, Indian handloom textiles held a significant market share in Europe, Asia, and Africa. However, the rise of the textile industry in England led to a reversal in the direction of the textile trade. India transitioned from being an exporter of textiles to an importer of British-made clothes.
3. Taxation Policies: Indian handicrafts faced heavy taxation when exported, while British goods enjoyed duty-free entry into India. Additionally, the British government, under pressure from its industrialists, often imposed protective tariffs on Indian textiles, further disadvantaging local industries.
4. Impact on the Weaving Industry: The shift in trade dynamics had a severe impact on the Indian handloom weaving industry. Many weavers lost their livelihoods, leading to widespread unemployment. Some weavers migrated to rural areas to work as agricultural laborers, thereby adding pressure to the already strained rural economy.
5. Nationalist Interpretation: Indian nationalist leaders later termed this process as ‘de-industrialization.’ It was seen as a deliberate economic policy that undermined India’s economic self-sufficiency and made it reliant on British goods.

De-industrialization significantly altered the economic landscape of India and had far-reaching social and economic consequences. The loss of traditional industries contributed to the impoverishment of many communities, reinforcing the dependence on the colonial economy.

Ruralisation of India and its Consequences:

De-industrialization and the subsequent decline of cities led to a significant shift in India’s population and economy towards rural areas. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “ruralization of India”. Here are some key aspects and consequences of this transformation:

1. Population Distribution: By the 1921 Census, only 11% of the population was living in urban areas, in contrast to the 61% recorded in 1891. This shift indicates a major transition from urban to rural living.
2. Overburdening of Agriculture: The decline of industries meant that many artisans and workers returned to rural areas, taking up agriculture as their primary livelihood. This led to increased pressure on the agricultural sector.
3. Lack of Investment in Agriculture: Both cultivators and landlords had little incentive to invest in agriculture. This lack of investment hindered the introduction of modern technology, resulting in persistently low levels of productivity.
4. Absence of Government Support: The government at the time did not allocate significant resources towards agricultural, technical, or mass education. This lack of support further impeded agricultural development.
5. Impact on Peasantry: The peasantry, already burdened by the landlord-moneylender nexus, faced additional pressure on land due to ruralisation and deindustrialisation. This led to economic hardships and increased vulnerability.
6. Commercialisation of Agriculture: Agriculture, which was traditionally a way of life, began to be influenced by commercial considerations. Specialised crops were grown not just for consumption, but also for sale in national and international markets as raw materials for industries.
7. Introduction of Commercial Crops: British policies in India led to the introduction of various commercial crops such as tea, coffee, indigo, opium, cotton, jute, sugarcane, and oilseeds. These crops were cultivated primarily for sale in markets, both within the country and internationally.

Overall, the ruralisation of India marked a significant shift in the economic and social landscape of the country. It had profound implications for agriculture, livelihoods, and economic practices, laying the foundation for subsequent developments in India’s agrarian sector.

Overburdening of Agriculture and Impoverishment of Peasantry:

The over-reliance on agriculture in India during colonial times, combined with policies that did not favor the agrarian sector, had significant repercussions on the peasantry and the agricultural landscape. Here are the key consequences of this situation:

1. Limited Investment in Agriculture: The cultivators, or farmers, lacked the necessary resources and incentives to invest in agricultural practices. This lack of investment hindered the adoption of modern farming techniques, leading to consistently low levels of productivity.
2. Absence of Rooted Zamindars: The zamindars, who were essentially land revenue collectors, often had little connection or commitment to the villages they oversaw. This detachment contributed to the overall disconnection between landowners and the rural communities.
3. Insufficient Government Support: The colonial government allocated limited resources towards agricultural development, technical education, and mass education. This lack of support further hindered the advancement of agriculture.
4. Fragmentation of Land: Sub-infeudation, a system where smaller landholdings were created within larger estates, led to the fragmentation of land. This made it challenging to introduce modern farming technologies and contributed to perpetually low productivity levels.
5. Impact of Landlord-Moneylender Nexus: Peasants faced economic hardships due to the exploitative relationship between landlords and moneylenders. This nexus often resulted in high levels of indebtedness and financial strain for the peasantry.
6. Shift from Tradition to Commercial Considerations: Agriculture, which had traditionally been a way of life, began to be influenced by commercial interests. Certain crops were now grown not just for local consumption, but primarily for sale in national and international markets.
7. Introduction of Commercial Crops: British policies in India led to the cultivation of a range of commercial crops, including tea, coffee, indigo, opium, cotton, jute, sugarcane, and oilseeds. These crops were grown primarily for commercial purposes, rather than for local consumption.

The overemphasis on agriculture, coupled with policies that did not favor the agrarian sector, contributed to the impoverishment of the peasantry and perpetuated low levels of agricultural productivity. This legacy of colonial policies continued to shape India’s agrarian landscape even after independence.

Development of Transport and Communication:

During the 1940s, India experienced significant progress in developing its transport and communication infrastructure. This advancement played a crucial role in unifying the country and facilitating the movement of goods and people. Here are the key aspects of this development:

1. Road Network: By the 1940s, India boasted an extensive network of approximately 65,000 miles of paved roads. This road network greatly improved connectivity across the country, enhancing the efficiency of transportation.
2. Railway Expansion: India also had an extensive railway system, with nearly 42,000 miles of track. The railways were instrumental in facilitating the movement of goods and passengers, further contributing to the economic and social integration of India.
3. Unification of India: Both the roadways and railways played a crucial role in unifying the diverse regions of India. They enabled rapid transit, reducing the time and effort required to travel across the vast subcontinent.
4. Commercial Revolution: While these transportation networks were beneficial, they did not lead to a simultaneous industrial revolution. Instead, they contributed to a commercial revolution, which primarily served to further entrench the colonial economic structure.
5. Economic Focus on Ports: The railway lines were strategically laid to connect India’s inland regions, which were rich in raw materials, to the coastal ports. This prioritized the transportation of goods for export and the distribution of imported manufactured products from the ports to the interior.
6. Absence of Indigenous Industrial Growth: Unlike in Britain and the United States, the development of railways in India did not catalyze the growth of indigenous steel and machine industries. Instead, it largely benefited British industries in these sectors, perpetuating a reliance on imports for such goods.

Overall, the development of transport and communication infrastructure in India during this period was a significant achievement, enhancing connectivity and facilitating economic activities. However, the economic impact was largely in favor of the colonial powers, underscoring the need for comprehensive industrial development to complement transportation advancements.

Rise of Indian Bourgeoisie:

During the colonial period, India saw the emergence of an indigenous bourgeoisie, composed of Indian traders, moneylenders, and bankers. This class played a crucial role in the economic landscape of the country. Here are the key aspects of the rise of the Indian bourgeoisie:

1. Partnership with British Capitalists: Indian traders, moneylenders, and bankers entered into partnerships with British capitalists operating in India. This allowed them to accumulate wealth and establish themselves as junior partners in various economic ventures.
2. Supporting British Revenue Collection: The Indian bourgeoisie played a significant role in supporting British revenue collection efforts. They provided loans to Indian agriculturists, further assisting British authorities in their financial operations.
3. Emergence of Independent Capitalists: Over time, a strong indigenous capitalist class emerged with its own economic and financial foundations. These Indian capitalists operated independently of foreign capital, signifying a growing economic self-reliance.
4. Control of Industrial Units: By the end of the Second World War, Indian capital exerted control over 60 percent of large industrial units. This demonstrated a substantial presence and influence in the industrial sector.
5. Dominance in Small-Scale Industry: The small-scale industrial sector, which contributed significantly to national income, was predominantly based on Indian capital. This sector played a vital role in economic activities.
6. Expansion into Banking and Insurance: Indian capital made notable progress in banking and life insurance. Indian joint-stock banks held the majority of bank deposits, and Indian-owned life insurance companies controlled a significant share of the market.
7. Influence in Trade: The Indian bourgeoisie had a significant presence in internal trade, and they also had a role to play in foreign trade. They were instrumental in shaping the trade dynamics within the country.

While the rise of the Indian bourgeoisie was a notable development, it’s important to note that the growth of Indian industry and capitalism was still somewhat limited and constrained, especially in comparison to the potential that could have been achieved in an independent, non-colonial setting. The legacy of colonial economic policies continued to impact the scope of economic development in India.

Top of Form

Economic Drain in Colonial India:

The concept of “economic drain” was introduced by Dadabhai Naoroji, a prominent Indian nationalist leader and an early critic of British colonial rule. It refers to a substantial portion of India’s national product that was not available for the consumption and development of its own people, but rather was systematically redirected to Britain. Here are the key components of the economic drain in colonial India:

1. Salaries and Pensions: A significant portion of India’s resources was allocated towards salaries and pensions for civil and military officials who were primarily British. These funds were essentially siphoned out of India and contributed to the drain.
2. Interest on Loans: The Indian Government had to take loans from abroad, and the interest payments on these loans further contributed to the economic drain. These loans were often taken at high interest rates, which led to a substantial outflow of wealth.
3. Profits on Foreign Investments: British individuals and companies had substantial investments in India, and the profits generated from these investments were repatriated to Britain, rather than being reinvested in India’s economy.
4. Imported Stores: Goods and supplies, including military equipment, were purchased from Britain for the functioning of various civil and military departments. These purchases further contributed to the drain.
5. Payments for Services: India had to make payments for services like shipping, banking, and insurance to British entities. These payments represented an outflow of wealth from India.
6. Impact on Capital Formation: The economic drain hindered the process of capital formation within India. This meant that there were limited resources available for investment in critical sectors of the economy.
7. Stifling Indian Enterprise: The drain of wealth also affected the growth of Indian enterprise, particularly in sectors like shipping, banking, and insurance, where British interests were dominant.
8. Cycle of Draining and Reinvestment: Interestingly, a portion of the wealth drained from India was reinvested in the British economy, creating a cycle that further contributed to the drain.

By the time of India’s independence, this economic drain had a profound impact on the country’s economic landscape. India’s share in the global GDP had significantly declined from 23 percent in the 19th century to just 4 percent. Similarly, India’s contribution to world exports had dwindled from 27 percent to a mere 2 percent. This stark decline reflected the extent of economic exploitation and drain experienced during the colonial period.

Education, Health, and Basic Services:

Education:

• In 1951, a staggering 84 percent of Indians were illiterate, with female illiteracy reaching 92 percent.
• The education system under colonial rule relied heavily on rote learning and memorization, which did not promote critical thinking or analytical skills.
• Mass education was severely neglected, further exacerbating the literacy crisis.

Health Services:

• Medical facilities were severely lacking. Only 10 medical colleges were producing 700 graduates annually in 1943, and 27 medical schools producing about 7,000 licentiates.
• By 1951, there were only around 18,000 graduate doctors, most of whom were concentrated in urban areas.
• Sanitation, especially in smaller towns, was rudimentary. Access to clean water and modern sanitation was virtually non-existent in rural areas.

Basic Services:

• Electricity was a luxury, with the majority of towns lacking access to it. Rural areas were even further behind in this regard.
• Epidemics of diseases like smallpox, plague, cholera, dysentery, diarrhea, and malaria were rampant and claimed millions of lives. Malaria alone affected a quarter of the population.

Legal System:

• The colonial legal system had authoritarian elements but also featured some liberal aspects such as the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
• Laws were often repressive and did not originate from a democratic process, leading to arbitrary powers in the hands of civil servants and police.
• While theoretically based on equality before the law, the court system was often biased when it came to Europeans facing charges.
• Access to legal means was skewed towards the wealthy due to the high cost of court procedures.

Paradox of Colonial State:

• The colonial state offered constitutional and economic concessions while retaining significant control over governance.
• Initially, British leaders resisted the idea of representative governance in India, arguing that India’s cultural and historical context was not conducive to democracy. They favored a form of ‘benevolent despotism’ instead.

The colonial legacy left India with deeply entrenched challenges in education, healthcare, and basic services, as well as a legal system that reflected both authoritarian and liberal elements. Overcoming these issues would be a critical task for independent India.

Armed Forces:

• The British colonial administration left behind a well-established and robust armed force. This force had played a significant role in upholding British rule in India.
• The British authorities took extensive measures to keep the armed forces separate from the broader society and the nationalist movement. This was aimed at preventing any potential allegiance or sympathy towards the nationalist cause.

Apolitical Tradition:

• One crucial aspect of the Indian armed forces was their tradition of being ‘apolitical’. This meant that the military did not engage in political matters and remained subordinate to the civilian political authorities.
• This tradition of political neutrality, shared with the civil service, would prove to be advantageous for independent India. It helped establish a clear separation between the military and political spheres.

While the colonial legacy left many challenges for independent India, the apolitical nature of the armed forces provided a stable foundation for the new nation. This tradition contributed to the democratic ethos and civilian control over the military, which continue to be vital aspects of India’s governance.

Basic Features of National Movement & its Legacy:

1. Character of National Movement: The Indian National Movement was marked by its inclusivity, encompassing various ideologies, groups, and leaders, all united in their pursuit of freedom from colonial rule.

2. Economic Underpinnings: The movement advocated economic self-sufficiency, equitable distribution of resources, and welfare-oriented policies for the upliftment of the masses.

3. Secularism: The movement embraced the idea of a secular state, ensuring equal rights and opportunities for people of all religious beliefs.

4. Untouchability: The national movement took a strong stance against the practice of untouchability, aiming for the social upliftment and empowerment of marginalized communities.

5. Pro-poor Orientation: There was a clear emphasis on pro-poor policies, aiming to address issues related to poverty, landlessness, and exploitation of the rural masses.

6. Communalism: The movement sought to foster unity and harmony among India’s diverse religious and cultural communities, discouraging divisive communal politics.

7. Gender Sensitisation: The movement laid the foundation for gender equality and women’s rights, recognizing the vital role of women in the nation-building process.

8. Nation in the Making: The movement envisioned a united and democratic nation that transcended regional, linguistic, and cultural differences.

9. Foreign Policy: The principles of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence, which continue to shape India’s foreign policy, were significant aspects of the national movement’s ideology.

10. Political Norms: The movement established democratic norms and practices that continue to be fundamental to India’s political system.

The legacy of the national movement remains deeply embedded in the values and ideals that shape India’s identity as a nation. It provides a moral compass for the nation, guiding policies and decisions in the pursuit of a just, inclusive, and prosperous society.

Character of National Movement:

• The Indian freedom struggle was an unprecedented mass movement in world history. It was centered around the belief that people must actively engage in politics and take charge of their own liberation. Mahatma Gandhi, a pivotal leader of the movement, consistently emphasized that mass movements were created by the people, not by leaders.
• Satyagraha was a key form of protest that relied on active participation and garnered support from both participating and non-participating individuals.
• The founders of the Indian Republic, who were also leaders of the freedom struggle, had immense faith in the political capabilities of the common people. This confidence led to the introduction of universal adult franchise despite prevailing challenges like widespread poverty and illiteracy.
• The Indian National Congress, the primary political organization of the national movement, was organized democratically right from its establishment in 1885. It valued discussion at all levels for policy formation and decision-making. Important resolutions and policies were openly debated and voted upon.
• Leaders like Lokamanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi staunchly advocated for civil liberties. They believed that freedoms like freedom of speech and the press were crucial for the birth and nourishment of a nation.
• Gandhi asserted that safeguarding the rights of free speech and association was the initial step towards Swaraj (self-rule). He regarded civil liberty as essential for political and social life, emphasizing that it was the foundation of freedom.
• The ideology and culture of democracy and civil liberties in the movement were built on principles like respect for dissent, freedom of expression, adherence to the majority principle, and the right of minority opinions to exist and flourish.
• Congress ministries, established in 1937, notably expanded civil liberties. The Congress did not demand uniformity in viewpoints or policy approaches within its ranks. It welcomed dissent and not only accepted but encouraged diverse and minority opinions to be openly expressed.
• The resolution on Fundamental Rights, adopted at the Karachi Congress in 1931, guaranteed rights such as free expression of opinion through speech or the press, and freedom of association.

Economic Underpinnings of the National Movement:

1. Broad Economic Strategy: The national movement developed a comprehensive economic strategy to address India’s economic backwardness and underdevelopment. This strategy served as the foundation for India’s economic policies post-independence.
2. Vision of Self-Reliance: The leaders of the movement advocated for a self-reliant independent economy. This concept of self-reliance was not about isolation but about avoiding a subordinate position in the global economy.
3. Integration of Industry and Agriculture: The movement stressed the close connection between industry and agriculture. They viewed industrial development as crucial for the progress of rural areas.
4. Promotion of Indigenous Heavy Industries: There was an emphasis on establishing a domestic heavy capital goods or machine-making sector. Its absence was perceived as a factor contributing to economic dependence and underdevelopment. Additionally, for essential consumer goods, reliance on medium, small-scale, and cottage industries was recommended.
5. Role of the State in Economic Development: The nationalists envisioned an active and central role for the state in driving economic development. They advocated for economic planning and the significant expansion of the public sector. As early as 1931, a resolution at the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress asserted that in independent India, the state should own or control key industries and services, among other essential sectors.
6. Advocacy for Planning: The national movement played a pivotal role in advocating for economic planning as a tool for integrated and comprehensive development. The Congress supported the formation of the National Planning Committee in 1938. Additionally, Indian capitalists devised the Bombay Plan in 1944 to further the cause of planning.
7. Emphasis on Cottage and Small-Scale Industries: The movement endorsed the Gandhian perspective on the significance of cottage and small-scale industries. This perspective was fully incorporated into the Nehruvian Second Five Year Plan.
8. Shaping Post-Independence Economic Development: The national movement significantly contributed to shaping the economic framework of India after gaining independence. The principles and strategies developed during the movement continued to guide economic policies in the early years of independent India.

Secularism in the National Movement:

1. Early Commitment: Right from its inception, the national movement in India was dedicated to the principles of secularism.
2. Comprehensive Definition of Secularism: The movement adopted a comprehensive definition of secularism, which included the separation of religion from politics and the state. It advocated for treating religion as a personal matter for each individual. The state was expected to remain neutral towards, and display equal respect for, all religions. Moreover, there should be no discrimination based on religious affiliations, and communalism (religious division) should be actively opposed.
3. Karachi Resolution of 1931: The Indian National Congress, in its Karachi resolution of 1931, affirmed that in a free India, every citizen would have the right to freedom of conscience and the ability to freely profess and practice their religion.
4. Gandhi’s Perspective: Mahatma Gandhi, a deeply religious individual, initially emphasized the close relationship between religion and politics. He believed that politics should be grounded in morality, and he viewed all religions as sources of moral guidance. To him, religion was, in essence, a manifestation of morality in the Indian context.
5. Nehru’s View on Communalism: Jawaharlal Nehru, another prominent leader of the movement, was a fervent advocate against communalism. He was among the first in India to recognize communalism as akin to fascism, but with unique Indian characteristics.
6. Non-Religious Appeals: The leaders of the national movement refrained from appealing to the people on religious grounds, or by criticizing British rule on religious terms (e.g., their adherence to Christianity). Their critiques were primarily economic, political, social, or cultural.
7. Challenge of Communalism: While the national movement did face challenges from communal forces, its strong commitment to secularism provided a foundation for independent India. Despite instances of religious tensions, the principles of secularism were enshrined in the Indian Constitution, becoming a fundamental pillar of the state and society.

Nation-in-the-making:

1. Recent Nation Formation: The national movement in India recognized that the process of nation formation was a recent development. India was viewed as a nation that was still in the process of coming together.
2. Common Struggle against Colonialism: The movement aimed to advance this process of nation-formation by rallying around the common struggle against colonialism. The leaders acknowledged that colonialism played a role in unifying India economically and administratively, even as they criticized its role in promoting divisive political tendencies.
3. Unity in Diversity and National Integration: The national movement embraced the dual concepts of “unity in diversity” and “national integration.” These principles were aimed at fostering unity among India’s diverse communities while preserving their distinct identities.

Foreign Policy:

1. Anti-Colonialism: Independent India’s foreign policy was built on the principles and policies developed by Indian nationalists since the 1870s. The leaders had cultivated a broad international perspective based on opposition to colonialism and a commitment to supporting people struggling for their independence.
2. Anti-Fascist Stand: In the 1930s and 1940s, the national movement took a firm anti-fascist stance. This position was articulated strongly by Mahatma Gandhi. He condemned Adolf Hitler for the genocide of the Jews and, for the first time, endorsed the notion of a justifiable war in the name of humanity. He suggested that a war against Germany to prevent the persecution of an entire race would be entirely justified.

Political Norms:

1. Diversity and Accommodation: In a mass-based struggle, incorporating diverse political and ideological currents is crucial for mobilizing millions. The movement must be disciplined and organizationally strong, yet not monolithic or authoritarian.
2. Congress’s Approach: The Indian National Congress, under whose leadership the anti-imperialist struggle was conducted, exemplified this duality. It was highly ideological and disciplined, but also open-ended and accommodating in terms of ideology and organization.
3. Democratic Functioning: Congress operated democratically, allowing for constant public debate and contention among individuals and groups. Decisions were made through majority voting.
4. High Political Norms: The movement established high standards for political behavior and ethics. Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lokamanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, and others set examples.
5. Adaptability and Innovation: The movement demonstrated the capacity to evolve, adapt, and innovate with the times. It remained in touch with contemporary world thought, processes, and movements.

Gender Sensitization:

1. Opposition to Inequality: The national movement was committed to creating an egalitarian society and opposed all forms of inequality, discrimination, and oppression based on gender and caste.
2. Alliance with Social Liberation Movements: The movement aligned itself with, and often absorbed, movements and organizations working towards the social liberation of women and lower castes.
3. Reform Agenda: The movement advocated for the improvement of the social position of women and lower castes, including their right to work and education, as well as equal political rights.

Untouchability:

• The national movement made the abolition of untouchability a major political priority after 1920 as part of its struggle against caste inequality and oppression.
• Although the movement did not fully develop and promote a strong anti-caste ideology, Mahatma Gandhi did advocate for the total abolition of the caste system in the 1940s.
• The national movement’s atmosphere and sentiments played a crucial role in the acceptance of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Constituent Assembly.
• The passage of the Hindu Code Bills in the 1950s was facilitated by the national movement’s efforts in favor of the social liberation of women.
• The Karachi Resolution of 1931 declared that in a free India, all citizens would be treated equally before the law, regardless of caste, creed, or gender. It ensured that no citizen would face any disability in public employment, offices of power or honor, or in any trade or calling based on these factors.

Pro-Poor Orientation:

• The national movement demonstrated a pro-poor orientation, considering the poverty of the masses as a fundamental issue. Dadabhai Naoroji’s critique of colonialism began from this standpoint.
• This orientation was further strengthened with the rise of Gandhiji and a socialist current. The removal of poverty became a primary objective alongside the overthrow of colonialism.
• The movement was committed to enacting significant changes in society, economy, and politics. It advocated for a radical program of reforms including compulsory and free primary education, reducing taxes on the poor and lower middle classes, lowering the salt tax, land revenue and rent reforms, debt relief, providing cheap credit to agriculturists, protecting tenants’ rights, ultimately abolishing landlordism, ensuring workers’ right to a living wage and shorter working day, allowing workers and peasants to organize themselves, and reforming the machinery of law and order.
• Gandhiji’s statement in 1942, declaring that “the land belongs to those who work on it and to no one else,” epitomized this growing radicalism.

Communalism:

• Jawaharlal Nehru played a significant role in addressing communalism. He was one of the first Indians to identify communalism as an Indian form of fascism, showing a deep understanding of the issue.
• Notably, leaders of the national movement refrained from appealing to the people on religious grounds or framing the struggle against British rule in religious terms, even though the rulers’ religion was Christianity.
• The national movement, however, struggled to effectively counter the forces of communalism or develop a comprehensive strategy against them. This inadequacy played a role in the tragic events of Partition and the communal violence of 1946–47.
• Despite these traumatic events, the strong secular commitment of the national movement was instrumental in making secularism a foundational principle in independent India’s constitution, as well as in its state and society.

Bombay Plan (1943):

The Bombay Plan was a set of proposals put forward by a group of influential business leaders in Bombay (now Mumbai) aimed at charting the economic course for post-independence India.

Objectives:

1. Balanced Economy: The plan aimed to achieve a balanced economy and swiftly elevate the standard of living for the general population. It set an ambitious goal of doubling the current per capita income within 15 years from the commencement of the plan.
2. Education: The Bombay Plan advocated for a comprehensive approach to education, encompassing primary, secondary, vocational, and university-level schooling. It also stressed the importance of adult education and scientific training and research.
3. Industrial Focus: While it acknowledged the significance of basic industries, the plan also emphasized the need to develop industries producing goods for immediate consumption in the initial phase.
4. Government Intervention: The plan recognized the necessity of government intervention and regulation for economic growth. It proposed that the government should protect indigenous industries from foreign competition in the local markets.

Members:

• J. R. D. Tata
• Mr. G. D. Birla
• P. Thakurdas
• Kasturba Lalbhai
• Sir Shri Ram
• Ardeshir Dalal
• Mr. A. D. Shroff
• John Mathai

The Bombay Plan was an important contribution to the economic discourse of independent India and played a role in shaping economic policies in the early years after independence.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901. 

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

• 1. Learn through Videos – here
• 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
• 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
• 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here

Visit our YouTube Channel – here