Regional Aspirations

Written and reviewed by Subhra Gupta, Humanities faculty at UniDrill (M.A. Sociology, University of Delhi · 7 years teaching Humanities). Based on NCERT Political Science Class XII (Politics in India since Independence), Chapter 7.

One country, many regions: can they all be satisfied?

Think about how a country holds together when people speak different languages, follow different customs and live in regions with very different histories. In many European countries, the answer was one nation, one culture, and cultural difference was treated as a threat. India made a different choice from the start: the nation would not deny regional and linguistic groups the right to keep their own culture. It tried to balance unity with diversity.

The idea behind this chapter is simple: democracy allows regional aspirations to be expressed in politics, and does not treat them as anti-national. Politics in the regions then pulls in two directions at once: it strengthens regional identity and it also finds a place for it in national policy. The 1980s were the hardest test of this idea, in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Assam and Mizoram.

Early tensions had come from Partition and displacement, the integration of princely states, Kashmir, Naga and Mizo demands for separation, the Dravidian movement and the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu (with pro-Hindi agitation in the north), and the demands for linguistic states. They led to the creation of Punjab and Haryana in 1966, and later to Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand in 2000.

Timeline: major dates

Jammu and Kashmir: three regions, one question

J&K was not one uniform region. It has three parts with different populations and different political concerns.

Roots of the issue. Before 1947, J&K was a princely state under Maharaja Hari Singh. In October 1947, after tribal forces from Pakistan entered the State, he signed the Instrument of Accession and J&K joined India. Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the secular National Conference, became Prime Minister of the State in March 1948, and Article 370 gave the State provisional autonomy. A UN resolution of 21 April 1948 proposed Pakistan's withdrawal, India's reduction of forces and a plebiscite. Pakistan continues to claim Kashmir, and India calls the portion under Pakistani control Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJK).

Two views. For the exam: inside the State there were two opposite reactions to Article 370. One section felt that the special status should be ended so that J&K could be fully integrated with India. Another reading: a second section, mostly in Kashmir, felt that the autonomy was not enough, or had been worn down, and wanted a plebiscite or the restoration of autonomy and more democratic institutions. Behind both lay Kashmiriyat, the sense of being Kashmiri above all.

Politics after 1948: a quick path

Pause and predict: Until 1965 the head of J&K's government was called Prime Minister. If a question asks "who was the first Chief Minister of J&K", should you answer Sheikh Abdullah?

Check your answer: No. Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of the State. The title changed to Chief Minister in 1965, and the first Chief Minister was Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq.

Punjab: autonomy, violence and an accord

Punjab was reorganised on linguistic lines late: a Punjabi-speaking State was carved out only in 1966, with Haryana created separately and some areas going to Himachal Pradesh. The Akali Dal, formed in 1920 as the political wing of the Sikh community, led the Punjabi Suba movement. Akalis formed coalition governments in 1967 and 1977.

In 1973 the party adopted the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, which asserted regional autonomy and wanted Centre-State relations redefined. It spoke of the Sikh qaum and its bolbala (dominance). It had little mass appeal at first.

Two views. For the exam: the Resolution was, on the whole, a plea for strengthening federalism in India. Another reading: because of the language about the Sikh qaum and its bolbala, critics read it as a step towards a separate Sikh State, while its supporters pointed to its demand for a redefinition of Centre-State relations within India.

From resolution to violence. The Akali movement passed into the hands of extremist elements. Militants made the Golden Temple at Amritsar their headquarters. In June 1984 the government launched Operation Blue Star, an army action to remove them. On 31 October 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards. Anti-Sikh violence followed in Delhi and elsewhere, and more than 2,000 Sikhs were killed in the capital. In 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apologised in Parliament for the violence.

The settlement. In July 1985, Rajiv Gandhi reached an agreement with Harchand Singh Longowal, the Akali Dal President (the Rajiv Gandhi–Longowal Accord, or Punjab Accord).

Peace returned in stages. Only 24 per cent of voters took part in the 1992 election. The 1997 election was won by the alliance of the Akali Dal (Badal) and the BJP.

The North East: eight States, many questions

The North East has eight States: the "seven sisters" (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Meghalaya) and Sikkim, sometimes called their "brother". The region holds about 4 per cent of India's population but about twice that share of its area. It is joined to the rest of the country by a narrow corridor of about 22 km, and it has long international borders, notably with China, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Its location makes it a gateway to Southeast Asia.

Three issues dominate: demands for autonomy, secessionist movements and opposition to 'outsiders'.

Autonomy. Tribal communities that were not Assamese formed the Eastern India Tribal Union, later the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (1960). That movement led to Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Within Assam, Bodos, Karbis and Dimasas also demanded separate States. Karbis and Dimasas were given autonomy through District Councils, and the Bodos an Autonomous Council.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: the Sixth Schedule gives tribes autonomy in preserving their customary laws and practices. In reality: it works through autonomous district and regional councils in the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, with powers to make certain laws and run certain courts.

Secession: Mizoram and Nagaland. After independence the Mizo Hills became an autonomous district within Assam. The Assam government's poor handling of the 1959 famine fed secessionism. The Mizo National Front (MNF) under Laldenga began an armed campaign in 1966, and the insurgency lasted two decades. In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi and Laldenga signed a peace agreement, giving Mizoram full statehood with special powers, and Laldenga became Chief Minister. In Nagaland, Angami Zapu Phizo and the Naga National Council led an armed struggle for a sovereign Naga nation. A section of the Nagas signed an agreement with the Government of India, but others rejected it, and a final settlement is still pending.

Outsiders: the Assam Movement (1979 to 1985). The All Assam Students' Union (AASU) led a movement against illegal migrants from Bangladesh. It cited faulty voters' lists and the drain of Assam's resources such as oil, tea and coal, and demanded that all who had entered after 1951 be sent back. This was a movement against outsiders, not a movement for separation. The Assam Accord of 1985, signed with the Rajiv Gandhi government, provided for identifying and deporting those who had migrated during or after the Bangladesh war. The AASU and a political group (Asom Gana Sangram Parishad) formed the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), which came to power in 1985. The problem of migration continued. In Tripura, the original inhabitants have become a minority, and similar hostility has been shown to Chakma refugees in Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.

Pause and predict: The Assam Accord (1985) and the Mizo Accord (1986) were both signed with the Rajiv Gandhi government. Which of the two movements had demanded separation from India?

Check your answer: The Mizo National Front. Its armed campaign from 1966 aimed at secession, while the AASU's Assam Movement was directed against outsiders and illegal migration, not against being part of India.

Sikkim and Goa: two integrations

Sikkim was a protectorate of India: India handled defence and foreign relations, while internal administration was with the Chogyal, from the Lepcha-Bhutia minority, although most people were of Nepali origin. After the first democratic elections in 1974, which were swept by the Sikkim Congress led by Kazi Lhendup Dorji, the Assembly first asked for the status of an associate State and then, in April 1975, for full integration. A referendum confirmed this, and Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Union in 1975.

Goa, Diu and Daman remained under Portuguese rule after 1947 and Portugal refused to withdraw. After patient efforts to persuade it, the Indian army liberated them in December 1961 in barely two days. Goa began as a Union Territory. Some in Goa, led by the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, wanted a merger with Maharashtra, so the Centre held an opinion poll in January 1967. A majority rejected the merger. Goa became a State in 1987.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: Sikkim became the 22nd State in 1975. In reality: the step came in two stages through the Constitution: the 35th Amendment (1974) made Sikkim an associate State, and the 36th Amendment (1975) made it a full State.

Four lessons

India's federal system has been flexible. It has made special provisions for J&K (Article 370, until 2019) and for the North East (including the Sixth Schedule).

Key people and terms

Exam traps

60-second revision

Where this chapter connects

• Previous: The Crisis of Democratic Order covers the Emergency and the Janata interlude that came before Congress returned in 1980.
• Next: Recent Developments in Indian Politics follows the shift to coalition politics after 1989.
• Related: Challenges of Nation-Building explains the integration of princely states and the linguistic reorganisation of States, which are the background here. Federalism gives the constitutional framework for special provisions.