Challenges of Nation Building Online Test 12th Political Science Lesson 7 Questions in English

James Mill was a Scottish economist and political theorist, philosopher, published a three-volume work called THE HISTORY OF BRITISH INDIA in 1817. He divided Indian history into three periods – Hindu, Muslim and British. According to Mill, before the British came to India, the country was ruled by Hindu and Muslim autocrats, religious intolerance, caste taboos and superstitious dominated the social life in India. Mill felt that the British rule could civilize India by introducing British institutions, laws and manners in the country. According to him, British rule could bring enlightenment and help India to progress.

In the westerns and central India. Princely states came into existence with the entry of Rajputs into the Indian sub-continent who migrated from Central Asia around 200 AD(CE).

The word ‘Rajput’ means ‘sons of kings’. Hence, princely states were established even before the Mughal and British colonial invasion. A ‘princely state’ or a ‘native state’ is a political unit of a larger administrative province, which either is ruled directly by monarchic lineage or serves as a subsidiary coalition with a more powerful monarchic government. These smaller administrative pockets were based on the political, cultural, lingual, and geographical landscape.

The princely states were established even before the Mughal and British colonial invasion. There were a number of nonRajput princely states too some ruled by Nawabs and Nijams, some ruled by native dynasties like Mysore, Travancore and Pudukottai. All those monarchical states subordinated to the British India were termed as Princely States. However, the word ‘princely’ was deliberately retained during the British regime, to ascribe subordination of the rulers in the subcontinent to the British Crown.

The princely states were fragmented administrative pockets and the subject of integration of princely states in the phase preceding Indian independence has a long history even before the Colonial invasion. Many dynasties attempted to integrate the princely states starting from the Maghadan Kings, Bimbisara, and Ajatasatru belonging to sixth century BC(BCE).

The Maurya and Ashoka, and five centuries later Chandragupta and his son Samudragupta, all of them who almost managed to bring many smaller kingdoms together, but consolidating under one rule still remained a far cry. Many princely states asserted their autonomy while pledging their loyalty to a powerful neighbouring ruler, especially during the time of war. However, when the thirst for power, jealousy and frequent disagreements among kingdoms led to resentment and disunity, it paved way for Arab and Persian invasion, establishing the Moghul empire and eventually conquering the northern part of pre-independent India.

The ‘Salute States’ were States that had the British East India presence, and there were around 117 to 120 salute states. So, the heads, rulers, or princes of these states, were greeted with gun salutes. The number of guns used to salute a particular head of a State reflected the level of honour and prestige granted to a ruler.

A 21-gun salute was the highest honour granted to a ruler and rulers of lesser ranks received a minimum of 9-gun salute.

Explanation

Some of the rulers who received the 21-gun salute include:

* His Highness the Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior

* His Highness the Maharaja Gaekwar of Baroda

* His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir

* His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore

* His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar

Explanation

Some of the rulers who received 9-gun salutes include:

* The Nawab of Sachin

* The Maharaja of Patna

* The Maharana of Wadhwan

* The Nawab of Loharu

Among the 565 Princely States, only 117 to 120 were salute states, which implied there were many other States which were under the British rule or British Raj were non-salute states. The number of gun salutes or no gun salute actually had nothing to do with the relevance of the States, i.e. if the State was any less or more important than the rest. Some heads of States did not receive any gun salute. Some of the reasons include:

1. a) Some were not acknowledged as gun salute states
2. b) Some princely states were considered of lower prestige
3. c) Some princely states were obsolete but the rulers were permitted to their royal entitlements and even received pensions

During the pre-independence phase, many princely states enjoyed the patronage of the British rule and were not eager to part with their privileges when the integration of States was proposed. Some of the rulers were looking forward to establishing finally their own independent State, and assert their autonomy, post-independence. A unification of princely states meant the end of British rule, as well as the dissolving of the princely states, and provinces. In 1947, the unification process began amidst high politics, diplomatic negotiations, and violence. The then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee when addressing the House of Commons on 15th March 1946 acknowledged the fight for freedom and the lives lost towards the struggle for an independent nation. He also put forth the challenges that India would face given its complex cultural heritage. He said, “I am well aware, when I speak of India, that I speak of a country containing a congeries of races, religions and languages, and I know well all the difficulties thereby created. But those difficulties can only be overcome by Indians. We are very mindful of the rights of minorities and minorities should be able to live free from fear.”

Nevertheless, the process towards nation building and negotiations to merge the States began in April 1947. Some of the problems faced towards nation building were communal riots, partition, and refugee crisis. Once India became independent Sardar Vallabhai Patel, took over as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs and the merging of 565 princely states began.

Sardar Vallabhai Patel along with VP Menon, Patel’s able Secretary, who did the groundwork for unification of princely states, since he was formerly an Indian civil servant, who served the last three British viceroys, made political integration possible.

Sardar Patel and VP Menon convinced the heads of the Princely States to cooperate by joining the Indian Constituent Assembly. They were also promised that their personal assets and possessions would not be taken over by the government. Many princely states consented, except Junagadh, Kashmir, and Hyderabad who wanted to remain independent.

The Nawab of Junagadh, or his Dewan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who later went on to become the President of Pakistan, both rejected the autocratic rule. Three States surrounding Junagadh, chose to be part of India, and the fourth side it is covered by the Arabian sea. The majority of the population were non-Muslims, nonetheless Dewan Bhutto joined Pakistan on 15th August 1947. People started to protest and insisted the Dewan to request the Indian government to take over the administration. By then, the Dewan had already flown with his family to Karachi, the then capital of Pakistan, along with the State’s treasure.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was yet another ruler who headed a State with predominantly non-Muslim population. There were lengthy debates on the issue between Hyderabad and Delhi but Lord Mountbatten informed that it cannot become a Dominion. A ‘dominion’ meant a self-governing nation in the British Commonwealth.

In addition, it became known that the Nizam became a prisoner of a communal organisation, Ittehad-ulMusilmeen led by Kasim Razvi, whose armed volunteers were called ‘razakars’. The Nizam had initially encouraged them but later lost control over their activities. In addition, the Nizam had also lifted the ban on imposed on Communist Party in 1943. The collaborated activities of the Razakars and the Communist party resulted in violence.

Trains passing through the State of Hyderabad were attacked. With barely any help from the Nizam, the Indian troops were sent into the State in September 1948. The Nizam was offered a large portion of wealth and privileges once he declared that Hyderabad will be part of India.

As a result of the Communist antilanlord uprising in Telangana region of Hyderabad was the Bhoodan movement, meaning the ‘gifting of land’. The Bhoodan movement was initiated by Vinobha Bhave, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, who promoted the voluntary redistribution of land favouring the landless.

Hyderabad, the largest princely state under Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan Siddiqi, Asaf Jah VII, wanted to join neither India nor Pakistan. When the peasants of Telangana, who were mostly Hindus, revolted, he exerted violence using his army to suppress the resistance and to fight against the Indian Union. Eventually, in September 1948, the Indian army under Operation Polo annexed Hyderabad and overthrew the Nizam, merging the State with the rest of the country.

The only Princely State left was Kashmir, which had a Hindu ruler Maharaja Hari Singh. Since the majority of the population were Muslims, Pakistan assumed Kashmir belonged to them.

on August 15th 1947, ruler Hari Singh proposed a standstill agreement allowing the mobility of people and goods. Pakistan consented but India refused, which provoked Pakistan to violate the Standstill agreement. When Hari Singh wanted military assistance from India, Lord Mountbatten clarified that under the International law, India can send her military troops only if the State signs the instrument of accession, which Hari Singh promptly did, on 26th October 1954. On the very next day, 27th October 1954, the army was sent to Srinagar, ousting Pakistan from the Kashmir valley.

Even before independence, the linguistic vibrancy of the land had a significant impact on mobilising movements and protests during the freedom struggle. Hence, the restructuring of the States based on vernacular languages was of strategic importance in integrating the States as one nation. In fact, when Annie Besant initiated the ‘Home Rule Movement’, there were more participants from the Southern region. The plan for linguistic re-organisation began in 1917 by the Congress party; plans to redistribute the provinces on linguistic basis came to the fore and by the 1920s, there were expressions on the need to acknowledge vernacular languages for administration and formal education.

In fact, many regional Congress members also insisted on linguistic provincials, especially the Andhra Provincial Congress Committee consolidated the Telugu speaking districts from the Madras Presidency in 1917. Noticing the rising demand for a linguistic assertion, the process of re-distribution of provinces began in 1927. After a long struggle that began in 1895, to separate from Bihar from the Odisha Province, Odisha became the first Indian State to be linguistically independent State in 1936.

Prominent leaders such as Lokmanya Tilak, Annie Besant, and Mahatma Gandhi were all in favour of States reorganised on linguistic basis.

Once, India became independent, Congress was apprehensive about separating the States based on vernacular languages fearing more unrest, similar to the religious conflicts that lead to the partition. Eventually, in 1948, the Constituent Assembly set up the first Linguistic Province Commission (LPC), to review the practicality of linguistic provinces under the headship of Justice SK Dhar.

The first Linguistic Province Commission (LPC) called, ‘The Dhar Commission’ did not favour the linguistic redistribution fearing threat to national unity and difficulty in the administrative process.

The decision by Dhar Commission did not go well with the citizens of the country, especially those in States with independent linguistic identity. Therefore, in 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, who was then the President of the Congress, set up the JVP Committee, to reconsider the demand of linguistic reorganisation.

Initially, Jodhpur had expressed their desire to join India, but when Maharaja Hanvant Singh took over as the ruler, he preferred joining Pakistan instead of India. Muhammed Ali Jinnah, allegedly offered Maharaja Hanvant Singh, free access to Karachi port, and arms manufacturing and importing them. Seeing the threat posed at the border, Patel made a better offer to Maharaja Hanvant Singh, by permitting importing of arms, rail connectivity between Jodhpur and Kathiawar and supply of grains to farmers during a famine. Fearing communal violence, because the population of Jodhpur were predominantly Hindus, Maharaja Hanvant Singh conceded to join India.

Initially, the committee adamantly continued to oppose the reorganisation of linguistic States, insisting on higher ideals like unity and development. With the growing demand for linguistic autonomy, a report was generated enabling the creation of linguistic States. Agitation and movements across the country continued until the 1960s.

The first linguistic State was Andhra Pradesh comprising of Telugu speaking people established under pressure. Massive protests prevailed for the state of Andhra Pradesh

Massive protests prevailed for a prolonged period, costing the life of Potti Sriramulu, who died on the 56th day of his hunger strike. Violent agitation followed all over Andhra Pradesh even after his death. When the protests by Vishalandhra movement, meaning Greater Andhra, persisted, Nehru was forced to declare the State of Andhra Pradesh, after merging Telugu speaking Hyderabad State and Andhra State in 1956.

Heeding to the growing violent insistence for the creation of States based on linguistic factors from across the country, Jawaharlal Nehru appointed three members with Shri Saiyid Fazl Ali as the Chairman, Hridayanath Kunzru, and K.M. Panikkar as the members to set up the Fazl Commission, to review the demand for separate States. Finally, on 22nd December 1953, the Fazl Commission was in place. The Commission acknowledges four major criteria to consider for the reorganisation of the States based on languages, and the report was submitted in September 1955.

The Fazl Commission suggested the reorganisation of the county into sixteen States and three Union Territories. The Indian government accepted the report, though it made few modifications and constituted the State Reorganisation Act in 1956.

After the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was passed by the Parliament, and the Indian government implemented it leading to the creation of 14 States and 6 Union Territories came into existence in 1st November 1956. The States were Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The six union territories were Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, Manipur and Tripura.

The reorganisation of States continued even after 1956, and not particularly based on vernacular language, after careful consideration by the Parliament. Some of the States that emerged after 1956 include:

* Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960: Formation of Gujarat

* State of Nagaland Act, 1962: State of Nagaland, separate from Assam

* Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Formation of Haryana

* New State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970

* North Eastern Reorganisation act, 1971: Formation of Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Union territories of Arunachal Pradesh & Mizoram

Explanation

* New State of Sikkim Act in 1975

* State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, State of Mizoram act 1986: Formation of the States of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh

* State of Goa Act in 1987

* Reorganisation Act, 2000: Formation of Chhattisgarh

* Reorganisation Act, 2000: Formation of Uttarakhand

* Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000: Formation of Jharkhand

* Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014: Formation of Telangana

The process of reorganisation of States continues with some of the localities demanding separate States:

1. Harith Pradesh (Western Uttar Pradesh) 2. Purvanchal (Eastern Uttar Pradesh) 3. Bodoland (Northern Assam) 4. Saurashtra (Southern Gujarat) 5. Gorkhaland (Northern West Bengal) 6. Vidarbha (Eastern Maharashtra) 7. Kosal (Odisha)

During the British Colonial period, there were about 600 administrative units as the Princely States. Depending on the geographical, cultural, and religious preferences, people were given a choice to either stay back in the new country India or equally new country Pakistan. Meanwhile, there were other countries that were formed such as Bhutan. The current administrative units were formed between 1947 and 1950. Some places retained their boundaries from British India such as Mysore, Hyderabad, and Bhopal.

Amidst religious tensions, post-independence witnessed two nations, India and Pakistan. The independence of India led to the close of colonial rule and in the reorganisation of States, which were mostly based on languages, and the rest based on a geographical and cultural basis. Hence, the new nation of India was restructured and reorganised, which instituted easier governance and administration. The reorganisation of the country maintained cultural diversity, linguistic vibrancy, and glorious heritage. One of the primary concerns for the Indian government was to instil sentiments of unity and a deep sense of belonging to the country. During the national movement, Congress did take notice of the impact vernacular languages had in mobilising powerful participation towards freedom.

Immediately after independence, the same vigour had to be translated by redrawing the map of India, which was now destined for self-governance, replacing the colonial mapping, which had completely negated the local lingual, historical, and cultural dynamics of the land. The reorganisation of the States and granting self-governance to the States meant, the central government and the State government had to balance the powers. However, with the number of agitation that prevailed while restructuring the States based on language, made it clear, that the Centre was stronger than the States. Therefore, the process of nation-building was facing a new ordeal where the country was declared independent, but the States wanted a similar political consolidation based on ethnicity, geographical borders, language and more autonomy in local governance.

The key leaders who paved the way for the restructuring include Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel. However, the pain of partition and circumstances under which the participation led to justifiable concerns for the two leaders. They did not want to divide the country any further because they had a vision a more pluralistic nation, a unified State than one that should be further divided based on any specific identity that differentiates people based on religion, language, or ethnicity. Hence, the apprehension to reorganise the States had its roots from past experiments and experiences. The former provinces and presidencies served the colonial administration, now the States had a specific cultural identity, linguistic individuality, economic viability, geographical placement, political improvement, and administrative convenience.

Following the creation of the States, distribution of resources and right to access to resources became the next priority. Some States were large, and some were small. Some States, irrespective of their size, wielded more power than the rest. Therefore, the Central government had to ensure a balance was maintained between the developed and the underdeveloped States. This was ensured through assigning impartial supply of capital, development projects, and labour opportunities. Since the size of the States differed, smaller States raised concerns that the larger States would have more control over resources thus, moderating, or even violating the access of the smaller States to access resources. The result of such sentiments, will lead to resentment, worsen the economic disparity, and assert hegemonic usurpation of resources.

Post-independence, the cultural, social, political, linguistic, and economic restructuring process was implemented for specific political reasons. Restructuring could not be done with the language being the only criterion, because it stood in the way of national integration. It gave certain languages more privilege over the others, which did not go well with States whose linguistic population was lesser than other dominant languages. Therefore, structuring of States based on languages sparked a debate between national identity and linguistic-cultural identity.

Some such communities include Bodos in Assam and the Coorgis in Karnataka. Even if two neighbouring States, spoke the same language, it still caused unrest concerning the assertion of national identity owing to caste, ethnic, and religious differences.

Nevertheless, in 1950, 12 languages were recognised but later 22 languages were acknowledged, which shows the growing demand among linguistic-cultural communities aspiring for political identity.

Prior to independence, the land was divided into Provinces, Princely States, and Presidencies. Once States were declared, the borders had to be negotiated especially between States such as Karnataka and Maharashtra, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Haryana and Punjab, Odisha and West Bengal, and between Andhra Pradesh and parts of Madras Presidency.

Apart from the other differences, the dominant linguistic communities asserted their specific regional and cultural forms of power and identity. These very specific cultural and linguistic identities received patronage from the State. Here again, the State had to accommodate the cultural linguistic minorities who spoke languages other than the language of the dominant population.

As expected, the dominant population started to assert their power over the minorities, by imposing the language of the dominant linguistic population in administration, education, employment, judiciary, and economy. To tackle the cultural autonomy, development issues, and regional inequalities. States had to strategies a standard agenda that ensured overall development of all linguistic communities. In spite of the efforts by the government to ensure uniformity, two cultures emerged, the elite and the mass.

Explanation
The regional parties across States started to emerge because of region-based identity movements and loyalty towards one’s own region. Most of the political parties were capitalised on the local bases of power. The economic inequality and regional disparities slowed down the development pace and in some cases stalled progress. When regional political parties began to emerge, it meant more challenge for the Centre because the problems at the grassroots were not the same throughout the country.

The Parliament in recent context can form a new State by removing a particular locality from any State. Therefore, a single State has the potential to be multiple States. At the same time, the Parliament has the power to increase or reduce the land to be allotted for a particular State. Other powers include changing the boundary and even the name of the State. However, for all these changes to be implemented, a bill will be drafted and referred by the President to the legislature of the State that is in question. The legislature of the State will is granted a certain period to express their views of the State government and then a resolution will be presented before the assembly. If the State Assembly passes the bill, then the President recommends the introduction of a separate bill in the Parliament. If the Parliament passes the bill, then the President ratifies it and a new State comes into existence.

Andhra Pradesh was formally bifurcated by an Act of Parliament on June 2,2014. The event marked the end of the decades-old movement demanding a separate state.

The State: A State exists where there is a territory, a people, a government and sovereignty, it may lack the feeling of nationality or of oneness among the people and yet remain a State. The sense of belonging together creates a readiness on the part of the members of a State to subordinate their differences to the common good.

Th e problem was not only increasing production but also reducing disparities. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru preferred a planned and mixed economy to make India a self-reliant modern nation without compromising its democratic and federal bases.

Five years plans ensured plenty of irrigation schemes, institution of basic industries, speedy electrification and extensions of infrastructure facilities India was able to eliminate diseases like malaria, to ensure self-sufficiency in food production, and to evolve and accelerate development of modern science and technologies.

During the late 60th and early 70th there were signs of recessions. Leading to political disturbances. Wars with china and Pakistan added to her economic miseries. Nationalisation of bank by Indira Gandhi, electronic revolutions introduced by Rajiv Gandhi did contribute to some positive changes. By 1990 and India had come forward to adopt market oriented new economic policy, thus opening India to LPG (Liberalisation Privatisation & Globalisation)

Mandal Commission or Socially and Economically Backward Classes Commission (SEBC) Was established in India on 1^st January 1979 by Morarji Desai. Mandal Commission recommended reservation for OBCs in Unions educational and employment avenues.

The Industrial Disputes Act protects less than 10 percent of India’s workforce, which means that more than 90 percent of the workers are in the unorganised sector. The public sector has unionised workers with greater bargaining power and the private sector keeps the workers from joining any union and from taking up any labour issues. Indian industry remains capital intensive, resulting in high-level unemployment in the formal sector. Unemployment is steadily rising resulting in informalisation and casualisation of work.

Th e National Annual Rural Sanitation Survey of the Swachh Gram Mission conducted for 2018-19 has reconfirmed the Open Defecation Free (ODF) status of 90.7% of villages which were previously declared and verified as ODF by various districts and states.

Land acquisition has become a major problem resulting in the displacement of tribals and their land. India’s industrialisation is beginning to demand more and more land. Industrial land acquisition needed to be based on the consent of the local people. Acquisition needed to be preceded by compensation and welfare measures that rendered the acquisition of land for industrial purposes as a developmental endeavour. The current laws give the government substantial powers to acquire land. Forced land acquisition by the government has led to violent unrest in some parts of India.

The post 1991 period. As the Central government’s role in funding the State governments became less, the States needed to attract private investment. Some States have turned themselves a hub for foreign investment and some could not. This has resulted in the uneven development of States.

With more states in India coming under the influence of regional parties, the union-state relations have suffered a setback. Earlier the party in the centre and most of the states were same now the parties ruling the states are different and the regional parties are asking for more state autonomy and a greater role for the Inter-state council. They are also asking for more sharing of the finances from the centre (as the financial relations of the State are limited).

Deaton and Dreze point out that the number of Indians living at less than a dollar a day has come down, even though there is a substantial debate about the extent of decline in the poverty rate. According to one widely quoted estimate, between 1993/94 and 1999/2000, the number of Indians living at less than a dollar a day came down from 36 percent to 26 percent. This means that India has about 270 million absolutely poor people when the figure for China is about 110 million.

Human development in areas such as primary education and health leave a lot to be desired. The result is that even though there has been a decline in the number of people below the poverty line, a strategy of inclusive growth would have achieved poverty alleviation more rapidly. A shift to LPG since 1990 also resulted in increasing disparities leading to extensive socio-political unrest in different parts of the country. The Dalit India, the tribal India in addition to the OBC India need to be given more attention so as to ensure social integration and National unity.

India’s public health record presents a dismal picture during the reform period. The infant mortality rate declined by 30 percent in the 1980s but the same declined by only 12.5 percent in the 1990s. India’s (80/1000) infant mortality rate was lower than Bangladesh’s (91/1000) in 1990. In 1999, India’s infant mortality rate (71/1000) had overtaken Bangladesh’s (61/1000).

India has witnessed communal violence since the time of partition. Political parties, movements with ulterior motives, fundamental groups spread the stories of hatred among the different communities. It is the ‘narratives of hatred’ spread by these groups that result in the communal clashes. Minorities are often victims of the communal clashes and their property and livelihood are greatly affected.

Caste clashes and caste discrimination continues to be a major challenge for nation building. In spite of strict laws passed against untouchability, the practice continues in places where the caste system in pronounced. (dis)honour killing is a major blow to the inter-caste marriages in India. Women are not treated equally to men is a reality and their representation in politics is abysmally low and Violence Against Women (VAW) is increasing. 33% reservation of seats for women in the parliament and assembly seats are yet to be materialised.

The major challenge for India’s development is inclusive growth. Growth has unambiguously reduced poverty and improved the human condition in India. However, the gains of the middle and richer classes have been greater than those that went to the poorer sections of society. This is evident from the fact that reforms in areas such as telecommunications, banks, stock markets, airlines, trade and industrial policy have not been matched by agricultural and human development. India’s industrialisation continues to be capital and knowledge-intensive at a time when over 250 million people survive on less than a dollar a day. If India grows in this way it will take a longer time to eradicate poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition. Moreover, slow progress in human development in areas such as education and health will make it tougher for India to grow in the long run. The socio-economic and political challenges highlighted above are major challenges to Nation building.

Frame 4 development projects that are State specific. Two development projects should target rural areas and two development projects that target urban areas.

In the year 1802, Lord Wellesley created the Madras Presidency. Until the second half of the 18th century, the different small Kingdoms ruled South India. The British conquest of South India led to the integration of different Kingdoms into one.

This Madras Presidency was an administrative subdivision of British India. This administrative subdivision included the present- day Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, some parts of Odisha, Kerala, Karnataka and the Lakshadweep.

After the Independence Madras Presidency became the Madras State. Then due to the linguistically based reorganisation of Indian States on November 1, 1956, the new separate State for Tamil’s was created that was formerly known as the Madras State. Later the name of Madras State was renamed as Tamil Nadu after the great political struggle of Tamil people.

One of the problems was it gave the honoured position of national language to Hindi. This created the way for the emergence of Tamil linguistic sub-nationalism in the second decade of the 20th century. It witnessed the emergence of the non-Brahmin movement as a complex issue that included caste conflict, linguistic nationalism and class struggle. T. Madhavan, Tyagaraja, and other non-Brahmin leaders formed the South Indian Liberal Federation. Later it was popularly known as the ‘Justice Party’.

Justice Party was had contested in the provincial elections of Madras at 1920, and it emerged victoriously and formed the government. From 1920 to 1937, it formed four out of the five ministries. Finally, it lost to Congress in the 1937 election, it never recovered.Later emerged the leadership of Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy and his ‘Selfrespect Movement’. These movements created great influence in the Tamil people’s cultural and political life. The consciousness of Tamil nationalism emerged in South India due to the impact of these movements.

Indian National Congress strengthened its organisation in Tamil country through the Civil- Disobedience Movement. In 1937 Congress won the Madras legislative assembly election and Rajaji became the Chief Minister.

Rajaji prioritised and implemented two public policies, first one was abolishing the untouchability and the second one was adopting of Hindi as the National language. Rajaji announcement that Hindi should be a compulsory subject in schools was perceived as an insult to the nonBrahmins pride as Dravidians/Tamilians. EVR Periyar and other Self-respect Movement members organised marches and massive anti-Hindi conferences. (Shiga Miwako and Karashima Noboru, Ed. 2014) Tamil scholars like Maraimalai Adigal, Thiru.Vi.Kalyanasundaram and others convened a lot of public meetings and created awareness among the people about the imposition of Hindi.

EVR Periyar extended his wholehearted support to this agitation. He raised even a slogan, ‘Tamil Nadu Tamilarukke’ (Tamil State for Tamils). He organised the Dravida Nadu Conference in 1939 and demanded the separate Independent ‘Dravida Nadu’.

A consequence of this protests was the demand for the separated state for the nonBrahmin people, which also included the Tamils, Telugus, Kannadigas, Malayalees. In 1944 E.V. Ramasamy reorganised the Justice Party into Dravidar Kazhagam in the Salem conference in order to streamline the voice of the Tamils upon the social cause and for the upliftment of the Tamils. Periyar’s Salem Conference was noted for its militancy and mass arousing spirit. Now, the object of the Dravidar Kazhagam was to proclaim a sovereign independent Dravidian Republic, which would be federal in nature with four units corresponding to the linguistic divisions, each having residuary powers and autonomy of internal administration. However, the struggle for Dravida Nadu could not get the support outside the Tamil speaking territory.

Rajaji initiated the creation of a new concept of political state in South India. This initiation was to counter the Dravida movement. Dakshina Pradesh means the amalgamation of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He spread his ideology through his followers like C.Subramaniam, Bhaktvatsalam, and some others. Rajaji’s political idea was vehemently opposed by most of the political parties of South India.

Sreekantan of the Revolutionary Socialist Party, Achutha Menon of Cochin Communist Party and A.K.Gopalan leader of the Travancore Communist Party strongly opposed the idea of the State of Dakshina Pradesh.

E.V. Ramasamy wrote an editorial column in the press, Viduthalai and requested all Tamils to send telegrams against the formation of Dakshina Pradesh to the Chief Minister of Madras Government. Meanwhile, the people of Karnataka also opposed the concept of Rajaji, particularly Sardar Sarana Gowda of Karnataka People’s Party.

Rajaji and his supporters once again raised the concept of Dakshina Pradesh at Amritsar Congress Conference in 1956. There, K.Kamaraj, Chief Minister of Madras State reflected people’s resistance and stood against Dakshina Pradesh. He opposed the Dakshina Pradesh concept in all the public meetings and it had aroused a great spirit among the Tamils, who were ready to fight against the concept of Dakshina Pradesh.

The demand of States on linguistic basis was developed even before the independence of India under British rule. After independence, the first ten years of nation-building between 1947 and 1956 saw the issue play a decisive role again and prompted the formation of two major policy directions: one was the official language policy and other the reorganisation of States, that is, federal restructuring. (Yamada, Keiko, Karashima, Noboru (Ed),2014). The reorganisation of the States on the basis of language, a major aspect of national consolidation and integration, came to the force almost immediately after independence.

The formation of Tamil Nadu, based mainly on political trends and conceived after the linguistic status reorganisation, emerged as an offshoot of the freedom struggle of India. The trends and development in the socio-political scene of Madras-based on the Linguistic Movement. The glory and the antiquity of Tamil language touched the minds of Tamil scholars as well as Tamil people and unified them under the new political system of independent India. The States Reorganisation Commission submitted the final report in 1955. It recommended the creation of the States of Madras, Mysore, and Kerala. According to States Reorganisation Commission, the new Madras State came into existence on 1st November 1956.

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was a major reform of the boundaries of India’s States and territories, organising them along linguistic lines. The State Reorganisation Commission recommended on the basis of the percentage of the people speaking Tamil, in the four taluks namely Agasteeswaram, Thovalai, Kalkulam, and Vilavancode to Tamil Nadu from the State of Travancore. The same yardstick was applied for the transfer of Shenkotta taluk to Tamil Nadu. However, while dealing with Devikulam and Peermedu (Idukki), even though the majority was Tamil speaking people and the representatives to the State assembly were Tamils. The Commission used a different yardstick and recommended to retain in Travancore – Cochin State due to geographical reasons. For the first time in history Tamil Nadu has been created as a district linguistic State.

Sankaralinganar, a freedom fighter and one of the disciples of Gandhi who belonged to Virudhunager demanded to rename Madras State as Tamil Nadu. He observed fast unto his death from 27 July 1956 to his last breath on 13th October 1956. The death of Sankaralinganar created a mass struggle in Madras State. College students, labourers, women, and different organisations openly participated in the movements.

Owing to the influence of these movements, Congress lost its popularity among the people. Finally, it reflected in the 1967 general election, when Congress was totally swept away from Tamil Nadu and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) captured political power. DMK renamed the Madras State as ‘Tamil Nadu’.

The new Indian nation evolved during the post-mutiny colonial period, through the national movement, was inspired by past experiences, and emerging ideas of democracy, liberalism and federalism. The age of monarchies were gone forever, the era of religious states too were gone. In an age of liberal democracy, peoples’ will, rights and their linguistic, cultural identities, and their economic development have to be the basis of nation building. The great nation builders of modern times like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were against religious or cultural nationalism (Hindu Nationalism, Muslim Nationalism or Two-Nation Theory, they acknowledged the plural base of emerging new India, hence advocated a democratic liberal and federal India. However, many thinkers have pointed out that the constitution of our New India through called India a union of states did not provide adequate financial and political powers for the constituent states. Over centralization along with insistence on a single national-official language (i.e. Hindi) replacing English would erode into the cultural and linguistic identity of the constituent regions. Jawaharlal Nehru could see the perils involved in replacing English with Hindi, hence gave an assurance on the continuance of English as long as the non-Hindi people desired the same.

The Union Budget also known as, the ‘Annual Financial Statement’ is the account or estimation of the Indian government’s finances, i.e. receipts and expenditure for the fiscal (financial) year. The fiscal year begins from 1st April to 31st March. The Union Budget is of two types: Revenue Budget and Capital Budget.

The lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, whose members are elected by people. These members are known as ‘Members of Parliament’. A body of representatives, who are elected by popular vote, with the objective of creating, changing, or drafting a constitution, i.e. a legal system that determines the fundamental political principles of a government is a Constituent Assembly. An association of nations involving the United Kingdom and many former British colonies that later became independent states but continue to pledge allegiance to the British Crown are British Commonwealth.