Unit 2: State Formation and Nation Building: Integration

of Princely States, Linguistic Reorganisation of the States

Integration of Princely States

Emergence of Princely States in India
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. 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.
There were a number of Non-Rajput 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 sub-continent to the British Crown.

Attempts at Integrating Princely States

As mentioned earlier, 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 during Mauryans, Ashoka,
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. 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.

Princely States under British Raj

a) Gun Salute System:
Therefore, by the time European colonisation, i.e. the British, Portuguese, and French, started
to take over, the disunity worked in their favour to establish their presence, initially through
trade. Among the three, the British managed to institute sovereignty under the crown of many
princely states but not all. There were 565 princely states in pre-independent India and, the
‘gun salute’ system under the British rule was an open gesture to announce the level of
affiliation of a princely state to the British East India Company. Therefore, there were two kinds
of princely states: ‘Salute Princely States’ and ‘Non- Salute Princely States’.
b) Salute States
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. Some of the rulers who
received the 21-gun salute include:
v His Highness the Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior
v His Highness the Maharaja Gaekwar of Baroda
v His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir
v His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore
v His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad and Berar
Some of the rulers who received 9-gun salutes include:
v The Nawab of Sachin
v The Maharaja of Patna
v The Maharana of Wadhwan
v The Nawab of Loharu
c) Non-salute States
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
reasons include:
a) Some were not acknowledged as gun salute states
b) Some princely states were considered of lower prestige
c) Some princely states were obsolete but the rulers were permitted to their royal entitlements
and even received pensions

Princely States of India

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 were
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 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. He along with VP Menon, his Secretary, who did the groundwork as he was
formerly an Indian civil servant, who had 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.

Junagadh
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.

Hyderabad
The Nizam of Hyderabad was yet another ruler who headed a State with predominantly non-
Muslim population. However, Hyderabad was in the heart of India and anticipated independent
status. 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-ul-Musilmeen 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 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 anti-landlord 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.

Jodhpur
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.

Kashmir
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.
Hence, 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.
Significance of integrating these states into the Indian Union

The integration of the princely states into the Indian Union was a crucial step towards realizing
the vision of a united, independent India. Beyond the imperative of territorial integrity, this
process held profound implications for the nascent nation-state:
1. Political Consolidation: By bringing the princely states under the umbrella of the Indian
Union, the leadership of the Indian National Congress and other nationalist movements sought
to consolidate political authority and assert the sovereignty of the Indian people over the entire
subcontinent. This consolidation was essential for overcoming the legacy of colonial
fragmentation and fostering a sense of national unity and cohesion.
2. Nation-Building: The integration of the princely states was not merely a matter of territorial
aggrandizement but also a foundational element of the nation-building project. It provided an
opportunity to transcend the parochialism of regionalism and sectarianism, forging a common
national identity based on the principles of democracy, secularism, and social justice. This
process of nation-building involved not only the physical incorporation of territories but also
the promotion of a shared civic ethos that transcended narrow communal and linguistic divides.
3. Strategic Imperatives: From a strategic standpoint, the integration of the princely states
was imperative for safeguarding India's security and geopolitical interests. The presence of
autonomous or semi-autonomous entities within the territorial confines of the Indian
subcontinent posed a potential threat to the stability and cohesion of the newly independent
nation. By integrating these states into the Indian Union, India sought to consolidate its borders,
eliminate potential sources of internal strife, and assert its sovereignty on the international
stage.
In summary, the integration of the princely states into the Indian Union was not merely a
pragmatic necessity but also a transformative process that reshaped the contours of Indian
polity and society. It represented the triumph of the ideals of unity, democracy, and pluralism
over the forces of division and disunity, laying the foundation for a vibrant and inclusive
democratic republic.
Role of National Leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, often referred to as the "Iron Man of India," played a pivotal role in
the integration of the princely states into the Indian Union. As the Deputy Prime Minister and
Home Minister of independent India, Patel was tasked with the formidable challenge of
persuading the princely rulers to accede to the Indian Union. Patel's approach to integration
was characterized by a combination of firmness and diplomacy. Recognizing the strategic
importance of a united India, Patel employed a mix of persuasion, coercion, and negotiation to
secure the accession of princely states. His astute political acumen and administrative prowess
were instrumental in overcoming the resistance of recalcitrant rulers and convincing them of
the benefits of joining the Indian Union. Through a series of negotiations and personal
interactions, Patel succeeded in convincing the majority of princely states to accede to India.
His efforts culminated in the signing of the Instrument of Accession, a legal document through
which the princely states agreed to transfer control over defense, foreign affairs, and
communications to the Indian government in exchange for guarantees of autonomy and
protection of princely privileges. Patel's leadership during the integration process earned him
widespread acclaim and cemented his legacy as one of the architects of modern India. His
pragmatic approach and unwavering commitment to national unity laid the foundation for a
strong and cohesive Indian state, transcending the regional, linguistic, and communal divides
that had long plagued the subcontinent.
Economic, Political, and Social Considerations
The integration of the princely states into the Indian Union was influenced by a multitude of
economic, political, and social factors:
1. Economic Imperatives: From an economic standpoint, integration offered several
advantages, including the rationalization of administrative structures, the elimination of trade
barriers, and the pooling of resources for development projects. By integrating into a larger
economic entity, princely states could benefit from economies of scale, access to a larger
market, and increased investment opportunities.
2. Political Stability: The fragmentation of the Indian subcontinent into numerous princely
states posed a significant challenge to political stability and governance. Integration provided
a framework for consolidating political authority and establishing a unified system of
governance based on democratic principles and the rule of law. It also facilitated the
implementation of uniform policies and programs aimed at promoting socio-economic
development and welfare.
3. Social Cohesion: Socio-cultural considerations also played a crucial role in the integration
process. By joining the Indian Union, princely states contributed to the creation of a more
inclusive and pluralistic society, where diverse communities could coexist and thrive.
Instrument of Accession and the Role of the Indian Independence Act
The Instrument of Accession was a crucial legal instrument through which the princely states
acceded to either India or Pakistan, as the case may be. This instrument facilitated the transfer
of power from the princely rulers to the newly independent dominions of India and Pakistan,
particularly in matters of defence, foreign affairs, and communications. The Instrument of
Accession was closely linked to the Indian Independence Act of 1947, which provided the legal
framework for the partition of British India and the transfer of power to the successor
dominions of India and Pakistan. Under this Act, princely states were given the option to accede
to either India or Pakistan based on geographical contiguity, demographic composition, and the
preferences of their rulers and populations. For princely states choosing to accede to India, the
Instrument of Accession served as the formal legal document through which they agreed to
transfer control over specified subjects to the Indian government. This instrument was signed
by the princely rulers and accepted by the Governor-General of India, thereby formalizing the
accession process. The Indian Independence Act also provided safeguards for the autonomy
and privileges of princely states, ensuring that their internal affairs and rights were respected
within the framework of the Indian Union. However, the Act also stipulated that the
paramountcy of the British Crown over princely states would lapse upon the transfer of power,
necessitating their integration into the dominions of India and Pakistan.
Role of Plebiscites and Public Opinion
Plebiscites and public opinion played a significant role in shaping the integration process,
particularly in regions where there were competing claims or aspirations for independence or
accession to either India or Pakistan. In some instances, plebiscites were conducted to ascertain
the wishes of the people regarding their future political affiliation. For example, in the princely
state of Junagadh, a plebiscite was held to determine whether the state should accede to India
or Pakistan, given its predominantly Hindu population but Muslim ruler. Similarly, in Jammu
and Kashmir, the question of accession was subjected to a plebiscite under the auspices of the
United Nations, although it was never fully implemented due to various geopolitical factors.
Public opinion also played a crucial role in influencing the decisions of princely rulers
regarding accession. Mass movements, protests, and demonstrations by the populace exerted
pressure on rulers to align their policies with the aspirations of their subjects. The role of
political leaders, social reformers, and civil society organizations in mobilizing public opinion
cannot be overstated, as they served as catalysts for change and advocates for integration with
the Indian Union.
Challenges and Conflicts During the Integration Process
The integration of the princely states was not without its challenges and conflicts, as it involved
navigating complex political, social, and logistical hurdles:
1. Internal Dissent: In some princely states, internal dissent and resistance to accession posed
challenges to the integration process. Rival factions, separatist movements, and ethnic or
communal tensions often complicated efforts to secure consensus among the ruling elite and
the populace.
2. External Pressures: External pressures, including the machinations of neighboring
countries, international interventions, and geopolitical rivalries, also influenced the integration
process. Princely states located on the borders of India and Pakistan, such as Hyderabad and
Jammu and Kashmir, became flashpoints for conflict and contention, with competing claims
and interests at play.
3. Administrative Complexity: The sheer administrative complexity of integrating hundreds
of princely states into the Indian Union presented formidable logistical challenges. Establishing
effective governance structures, harmonizing legal systems, and ensuring the smooth transition
of power required meticulous planning, coordination, and resource mobilization.
4. Military Action: In some instances, military action was deemed necessary to compel
reluctant princely rulers to accede to the Indian Union. Operations like Operation Polo in
Hyderabad and Operation Vijay in Junagadh were conducted to quell resistance and enforce
the accession of these states to India.
Despite these challenges, the integration process ultimately succeeded in consolidating the
territorial integrity of India and laying the foundation for a unified and cohesive nation-state.
The resolve and determination of Indian leaders, coupled with the support of the people, proved
instrumental in overcoming the obstacles to integration and realizing the vision of a free and
united India. Integration helped bridge the divides of caste, creed, and ethnicity, fostering a
sense of national identity and solidarity among the people of India.
Impact of Integration
Strengthening of National Unity and Identity The integration of the princely states into the
Indian Union had a profound impact on the consolidation of national unity and identity. By
bringing together diverse regions, cultures, and communities under a common political
framework, integration fostered a sense of belonging and solidarity among the people of India.
1. Fostering Unity: Integration served as a powerful symbol of India's commitment to unity in
diversity, transcending the barriers of language, religion, and ethnicity. It reinforced the idea of
India as a pluralistic and inclusive nation, where all citizens, irrespective of their backgrounds,
shared a common destiny and citizenship.
2. Promoting Nationalism: The process of integration galvanized nationalist sentiments and
patriotism among the Indian populace, as it symbolized the fulfillment of the long-cherished
dream of independence and self-rule. Integration became a rallying point for collective action
and sacrifice, as Indians from all walks of life rallied behind the cause of building a strong and
prosperous nation.
3. Preserving Territorial Integrity: Integration helped safeguard the territorial integrity of
India, preempting the fragmentation and balkanization that had threatened to undermine the
nascent nation-state. By consolidating disparate territories into a unified polity, India
reaffirmed its sovereignty and sovereignty over its historic lands.
Socio-Economic Development in the Integrated States
The integration of the princely states into the Indian Union facilitated socio-economic
development and progress in these regions, laying the groundwork for inclusive growth and
prosperity:
1. Infrastructure Development: Integration brought much-needed investment and
infrastructure development to the erstwhile princely states, including the construction of roads,
railways, schools, and hospitals. This infrastructure development facilitated connectivity,
mobility, and access to essential services, enhancing the quality of life for millions of people.
2. Economic Integration: Integration fostered economic integration and cooperation among
formerly autonomous regions, creating larger markets, economies of scale, and opportunities
for trade and commerce. This economic integration helped stimulate growth, diversification,
and innovation, driving the overall development of the integrated states.
3. Social Welfare Programs: Integration facilitated the extension of social welfare programs
and public services to previously underserved areas, addressing disparities in access to
education, healthcare, and social security. Government initiatives aimed at poverty alleviation,
rural development, and empowerment of marginalized communities helped uplift the socio-
economic status of the populace.
Challenges and Ongoing Issues Related to Integration
Despite the positive outcomes of integration, certain challenges and ongoing issues
persist:
Regional Disparities: Disparities in development and access to resources persist between
different regions within the integrated states, exacerbating inequalities and perpetuating socio-
economic marginalization. Addressing these regional disparities remains a key challenge for
policymakers and administrators.
2. Ethnic and Communal Tensions: Integration has not completely eliminated ethnic and
communal tensions within the integrated states. Lingering grievances, identity politics, and
historical animosities continue to pose challenges to social cohesion and harmony,
necessitating efforts to promote inter-community dialogue and reconciliation.
3. Governance and Administration: The administrative complexities of governing diverse
and heterogeneous regions remain a challenge, as issues of governance, accountability, and
service delivery persist. Strengthening local governance structures, enhancing administrative
capacity, and promoting participatory decision-making are essential for addressing these
challenges.
In conclusion, while integration has brought about significant benefits in terms of national
unity, socio-economic development, and territorial integrity, it also poses ongoing challenges
that require concerted efforts and innovative solutions. By addressing these challenges and
building on the gains of integration, India can continue on its path towards progress, prosperity,
and inclusive growth for all its citizens.
Linguistic Reorganisation of the State

Pre-Independence
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.
At the Wake of Independence
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. This commission called, ‘The Dhar Commission’ did not favour the linguistic
redistribution fearing threat to national unity and difficulty in the administrative process.
Such a decision 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.
The JVP Committee
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.
First Linguistic State
The first linguistic State was Andhra Pradesh comprising of Telugu speaking people established
under pressure. 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. Nehru was forced to declare the State of Andhra Pradesh,
after merging Telugu speaking Hyderabad State and Andhra State in 1956.
State Reorganisation Commission
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 following were the recommendations in brief:
1. Linguistic and Cultural Homogeneity
TO reject the ideology of a State speaking only one language because there are States where
people speak multiple languages, whereas there are independent multiple States where
communities speak the same language. For example, Hindi is spoken across the North Indian
States.
2. Financial, Economic and Administrative Considerations
TO ensure that the economic, political, and administrative functioning treats all sections of the
society in a balanced manner because the Indian constitutions stand for equal rights and
opportunities for all her citizens. TO acknowledge that linguistic homogeneity aids in
administration. However, it cannot be considered as a unifying principle, ignoring other aspects
such as administrative, financial, and political.
3. Preservation and Strengthening of the Unity and Security of the Nation
TO promote deeper nationalism, unilingual States must realise that a singular language will
instill particularistic empathy, which should be countered with more positive and pluralistic
measures to ensure deeper content to national feeling.
4. Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people in each state as well as of the Nation as
a whole to meet the communicational, educational, and cultural needs of various linguistic
communities, who either live in unilingual or multilingual communities of a particular
administrative unit.
Eventually, the 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 Act 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.

• Emergence of More States

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
• 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 formation of States remains a complex issue owing to various forms of diversity, such as
culture, caste, religion, language, ethnicity, and even how a particular territory is
geographically placed. Therefore, the undercurrent of the constant strife for a separate State
lies in access to resources and more importantly asserting identity.

BOOKS:
1. MENON, V.P. (1956). THE INTEGRATION OF INDIAN STATES . LONGMANS, GREEN
AND CO.
2. BOSE, SUGATA, AND JALAL, AYESHA. (2004). MODERN SOUTH ASIA: HISTORY,
CULTURE, POLITICAL ECONOMY. ROUTLEDGE.
3. GUHA, RAMACHANDRA. (2007). INDIA AFTER GANDHI: THE HISTORY OF THE
WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY. PICADOR.
4. BROWN, JUDITH M. (1994). MODERN INDIA: THE ORIGINS OF AN ASIAN
DEMOCRACY . OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
5. CHANDRA, BIPAN. (2008). INDIA'S STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE . PENGUIN
BOOKS INDIA.