Challenges To And the Restoration of The Congress System | Class 12 Political Science

13 September 2022 · 12 min read

A short watch before you read on.

These notes cover the political aspirations of India's regions after independence. They explain how different parts of the country, from Jammu and Kashmir to Punjab and the North-East, expressed their demands for autonomy and identity, how the Indian state responded, and the major accords that helped bring peace. This is part of our Class 12 Political Science notes.

Nation Building

Building a nation is not something that can be achieved once and for all. Every time, new hurdles arose, along with some old issues that had never been fully resolved. As the democratic experiment progressed, people from many regions began to express their desire for autonomy.

People in several parts of the country, particularly in Assam, Punjab, Mizoram, and Jammu and Kashmir, took part in long conflicts and often made aggressive and armed statements.

What were the characteristics of the movements?

The push for regional autonomy grew stronger from the 1980s onwards.

These movements often involved people's armed assertions, government repression, and the collapse of democratic and electoral systems. Most of these conflicts were long drawn out and ended in negotiated settlements or agreements with the central authority.

The agreements were reached through a process of dialogue aimed at resolving disputed questions within the framework of the Constitution. The road to agreement was usually noisy and sometimes violent.

What was unique about the Indian approach?

Indian nationalism tried to strike a balance between unity and diversity.

The Indian approach was quite different from that of many European countries, where cultural variety was often seen as a threat to the country's survival. The democratic approach accepts regional political expressions and does not treat them as anti-national.

Democratic politics allows parties and groups to speak to people about their regional identity, aspirations, and concerns. It also means that regional issues and challenges are given the attention they deserve when policies are made.

Political conflicts over regional power, rights, and an independent existence are common in systems that want to recognise diversity.

Tension points

India has faced many problems since independence, including Partition, displacement, the absorption of princely states, and the reorganisation of states.

After independence, the question of Jammu and Kashmir arose. It was not only a dispute between India and Pakistan but also a question of the democratic ambitions of the people of Kashmir.

Nagaland and Mizoram, both in the North-East, saw strong movements for independence from India. Some Dravidian groups in the south also sought their own homeland. Later, a mass movement for the creation of linguistic states spread across many regions.

The states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Gujarat were among those affected. There were protests in the south, particularly in Tamil Nadu, against making Hindi the country's official language, while in the north there were strong pro-Hindi demonstrations demanding that Hindi be made official soon.

During the 1950s, Punjabi speakers began to demand a separate state. In 1966, the states of Punjab and Haryana were created as a result. Later, the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) were also formed, and the country's internal boundaries were redrawn. The problems in some areas, such as Kashmir and Nagaland, were so complicated that they could not be solved in the first phase of nation building.

Jammu and Kashmir

The Kashmir issue has long been seen as a key point of tension between India and Pakistan.

Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh are the three social and political regions that make up Jammu and Kashmir. The people of the Kashmir Valley are mostly Muslim and speak Kashmiri, with a small Hindu minority who also speak the language.

Jammu is home to Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs who speak a variety of languages. Ladakh is a mountainous region with a small population that is roughly divided between Buddhists and Muslims. Kashmiriyat, or Kashmiri identity, and the desire of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for political autonomy are central to the issue.

The sources of the issue

Before 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state. Hari Singh, its Hindu ruler, did not want to join either India or Pakistan and tried to negotiate an independent status for his state.

Because Kashmir had a Muslim majority, Pakistan believed it belonged to them. However, the people did not see it that way. They identified themselves as Kashmiris.

Sheikh Abdullah of the National Conference led a movement within the state to remove the Maharaja, but he was also opposed to joining Pakistan. The National Conference was a secular organisation with a long history of working with the Congress.

In October 1947, Pakistan sent tribal infiltrators to capture Kashmir, forcing the Maharaja to ask for Indian military help. India provided help after the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian government. It was also agreed that once the situation had stabilised, the views of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on their future would be found out.

In March 1948, Sheikh Abdullah became the Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the head of the state's administration was then called the Prime Minister). India promised to preserve the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir.

What is the Instrument of Accession?

The Instrument of Accession was a legal document created under the Government of India Act 1935. In 1947 it allowed each of the princely states to join one of the two new dominions, India or Pakistan, that were formed by the Partition of British India.

Internal and external conflicts

Pakistan has always claimed that the Kashmir Valley should be part of it. In 1947, Pakistan supported a tribal invasion of the state, as a result of which one part came under Pakistani control and is known as Azad Kashmir.

Article 370 of our Constitution gave Kashmir a special status. Compared with other Indian states, Jammu and Kashmir had more autonomy under Article 370. The state had a constitution of its own, and many provisions of the Indian Constitution did not automatically apply to it. Laws passed by Parliament applied to Jammu and Kashmir only if the state agreed.

People outside Jammu and Kashmir argued that the special status under Article 370 prevented the full integration of the state with India, and that the state should be treated like any other. Another group, mainly Kashmiris, felt that the autonomy given by Article 370 was not enough.

A section of Kashmiris voiced its dissatisfaction. First, the promise that accession would later be referred to the people of the state was not kept, which led to calls for a plebiscite. Over time, the special federal status promised by Article 370 was slowly reduced, and democracy was not built up in the state in the same way as elsewhere.

Political changes after 1948

Sheikh Abdullah led major land reforms and other programmes. His stand on Kashmir's status caused a growing gap between him and the national government.

In 1953, he was dismissed and imprisoned for several years. The leaders who followed him did not have as much public support and could only run the state with the help of the central government.

Several elections were marked by serious charges of fraud and rigging. For most of the period between 1953 and 1974, the Congress had a strong influence on state politics. For a time, the National Conference (without Sheikh Abdullah) stayed in power with the active support of the Congress, before eventually merging with it.

Sheikh Abdullah and the Indian government tried to reach an agreement on several occasions. In 1974, after an arrangement with Indira Gandhi, Sheikh Abdullah became the Chief Minister of the state. He revived the National Conference, which won a majority in the 1977 assembly elections.

After his father's death in 1982, Farooq Abdullah took over the leadership. He was soon removed by the Governor, and a breakaway group of the National Conference came to power. The trust that Kashmiris had placed in democratic processes was badly shaken. In 1986, the National Conference formed an electoral alliance with the Congress, the ruling party at the Centre.

After the insurgency

Farooq Abdullah returned as Chief Minister after the National Conference and Congress alliance won the assembly elections in 1987.

The results did not reflect popular opinion, and the entire election is believed to have been rigged. This led to a political crisis in Kashmir, which grew worse as conflict spread.

In 1989, the state was gripped by a militant movement demanding a separate Kashmiri nation. Pakistan gave moral, material, and military support to the militants. For many years, the state was under President's rule and effectively under the control of the security forces.

A call for regional self-government

In 1996, the National Conference, led by Farooq Abdullah, came to power in Jammu and Kashmir with a promise of regional autonomy for the state.

In 2002, the election in Jammu and Kashmir was fairly free and fair. The National Conference lost its majority and was replaced by a coalition government led by the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and the Congress.

Separatist politics in Kashmir took several forms. One group of separatists wanted Kashmir to be an independent country. Others wanted Kashmir to become part of Pakistan. A third group wanted the people of the state to have more autonomy inside the Indian union.

The idea of autonomy also appeals strongly to the people of Jammu and Ladakh, who often complain of being ignored and left behind. As a result, there is as much demand for autonomy within the state as there is for the autonomy of the state itself.

Over time, the public's early support for militancy gave way to a desire for peace. The Centre began talks with several separatist groups. Instead of demanding an independent country, most separatists in these talks tried to renegotiate the state's relationship with India.

Jammu and Kashmir remains a living example of a diverse society and political system. Despite its differences, the state's varied and secular culture has largely stayed intact.

Punjab

The 1980s also saw major developments in Punjab. The social makeup of the state changed first with Partition, and again after Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were carved out. While the rest of the country was reorganised on linguistic lines in the 1950s, Punjab had to wait until 1966 for the creation of a Punjabi-speaking state.

The Akali Dal, formed in 1920 as the political wing of the Sikhs, had led the movement for a Punjabi suba, or Punjabi-speaking state. After 1966, the Sikhs were a majority in Punjab.

Political context

The Akalis came to power in 1967 and again in 1977. On both occasions it was a coalition government. Even after the boundaries were redrawn, the Akalis found that their political position remained weak.

First, their government was dismissed by the Centre midway through its term.
Second, they did not enjoy strong support among Hindus.
Third, the Sikh community, like every other religious community, was internally divided along caste and class lines.

The Congress won more support among Dalits, whether Hindu or Sikh, than the Akalis did.

It was in this context that, during the 1970s, a section of the Akalis began to demand political autonomy for the region. This was reflected in a resolution passed at their conference at Anandpur Sahib in 1973.

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution asserted regional autonomy and sought to redefine the relationship between the Centre and the states. The resolution also spoke of the aspirations of the Sikh community. It was a plea for stronger federalism, but it could also be read as a call for a separate Sikh nation, and it had only limited appeal among ordinary Sikhs.

After the Akali government was dismissed in 1980, the Akali Dal launched a movement over the sharing of river water between Punjab and its neighbouring states. A section of the religious leadership raised the question of a separate Sikh identity, and the more extreme elements began to demand secession from India and the creation of Khalistan.

Cycle of violence

Leadership of the movement passed from the moderate Akalis to the extremists and took the form of an armed insurgency. Militants set up their headquarters inside the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest Sikh shrine, and turned it into an armed fortress.

In June 1984, the Government of India carried out Operation Blue Star. The security forces flushed out the militants, but the operation damaged the historic temple and deeply hurt the sentiments of the Sikhs.

Many Sikhs in India and abroad saw the military action as an attack on their faith, and this gave further strength to militant and extremist groups.

Assassination of Indira Gandhi

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984 outside her residence by her bodyguards.

The entire country was shocked. In Delhi and in many parts of northern India, violence broke out against the Sikh community and continued for almost a week. More than two thousand Sikhs were killed in the national capital, the worst affected area, and hundreds more were killed in other places such as Kanpur, Bokaro, and Chas.

Many Sikh families lost their male members and suffered great emotional and financial loss. Twenty years later, speaking in Parliament in 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed regret over these killings and apologised to the nation for the anti-Sikh violence.

The Longowal Accord

In 1984, the new Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi began talks with moderate Akali leaders. In July 1985, he reached an agreement with Harchand Singh Longowal, then the President of the Akali Dal.

This agreement, known as the Rajiv Gandhi and Longowal Accord, or the Punjab Accord, was a step towards bringing normalcy to Punjab. It was agreed that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab, that a separate commission would settle the border dispute between Punjab and Haryana, and that a tribunal would decide the sharing of Ravi and Beas river water among Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.

The agreement also provided for compensation and better treatment for those affected by the militancy, and for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from Punjab.

Militancy and counter-insurgency led to excesses by the police and to violations of human rights. The central government had to impose President's rule in the state, and the normal electoral and political process was suspended.

Restoring the political process in an atmosphere of suspicion and violence was not easy. When elections were held in Punjab in 1992, only about 24 per cent of voters turned out.

Militancy was eventually ended by the security forces, but the losses suffered by the people of Punjab, both Sikhs and Hindus, were enormous. Peace returned to Punjab by the middle of the 1990s. The alliance of the Akali Dal (Badal) and the BJP won a major victory in 1997, in the first normal elections in the post-militancy era. The state is once again focused on economic development and social change, and politics has gradually moved back along secular lines.

The North-East

This region is also known as the seven sisters, as it is made up of seven states. It is connected to the rest of the country by a narrow corridor only about 22 kilometres wide at its thinnest point. The region borders China, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, and acts as India's gateway to Southeast Asia.

Since 1947, the region has changed a great deal. Tripura, Manipur, and the Khasi Hills of Meghalaya were once princely states that joined India after independence. The whole North-East has gone through major political reorganisation: Nagaland became a separate state in 1963, Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura in 1972, and Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram in 1987.

After Partition in 1947, the North-East became a landlocked region, which harmed its economy, and its politics remained hard for outsiders to follow. At the same time, waves of migration from neighbouring states and countries caused major demographic changes.

The region's isolation, its complex social make-up, and its relative backwardness produced a complicated set of demands from different states. The politics of the North-East has been shaped by three issues: demands for autonomy, secessionist movements, and opposition to outsiders. Major steps on the first issue in the 1970s paved the way for big changes on the other two in the 1980s.

What were the autonomy demands of the North-Eastern states?

Except for Manipur and Tripura, the entire region was part of Assam at the time of independence. When non-Assamese people felt that the Assam government was forcing them to use the Assamese language, they demanded political autonomy.

There were protests and unrest across the state. Leaders of the major tribes of the region wanted to break away. They formed the Eastern India Tribal Union, later renamed the All Party Hill Leaders Conference in 1960, and demanded that Assam be divided into tribal states.

In the end, Assam was divided into several states rather than one single tribal state. Tripura and Manipur were also raised to the status of states, and by 1972 the reorganisation of the North-East was largely complete.

Communities such as the Bodos, Karbis, and Dimasas in Assam also wanted their own states, and pressed their demands through public campaigns, popular movements, and insurgency. Because more than one community often claimed the same land, it was not possible to keep creating smaller and smaller states. Instead, other features of the federal system were used to meet their demand for autonomy while keeping them within Assam. District Councils gave autonomy to the Karbis and Dimasas, and the Bodos were later given an Autonomous Council.

Secessionist movements

Autonomy demands were easier to deal with, because they could be met by using different parts of the Constitution to accommodate diversity. It was far more difficult when some groups demanded a separate country as a settled goal rather than in a moment of anger.

For a long time, the country's leadership had to deal with such demands in at least two North-Eastern states. The Mizo Hills were an autonomous district within Assam after independence. Some Mizos argued that they had never been part of British India and therefore should not be part of the Indian union.

After the Assam government failed to respond properly to a severe famine in the Mizo Hills in 1959, the movement for independence won wide public support.

The Mizo National Front

The Mizo National Front (MNF), founded by Laldenga, grew out of this anger. The MNF began an armed struggle for independence in 1966, which started a two-decade-long conflict between Mizo militants and the Indian army.

The MNF fought a guerrilla war, received outside support, and found shelter in what was then East Pakistan. The Indian security forces replied with harsh measures, many of which hurt ordinary people, and at one point even the Air Force was used. These measures left people angrier and more alienated, and after two decades of conflict everyone had lost.

This is where the maturity of the political leadership on both sides made a difference. Laldenga returned to India from exile and began talks with the government. Rajiv Gandhi brought these talks to a successful close, and in 1986 he and Laldenga signed a peace agreement. Mizoram was granted full statehood with special powers, and the MNF gave up its demand for independence. Laldenga became the Chief Minister. This agreement was a turning point, and Mizoram is today one of the most peaceful states in the region, with strong progress in literacy and development.

Nagaland's story is similar to Mizoram's, but it began much earlier and has still not reached a happy ending. Under Angami Zapu Phizo, a section of the Nagas declared independence from India in 1951. Phizo rejected many offers of a negotiated settlement, and the Naga National Council began an armed struggle for independence. A section of the Nagas later reached an agreement with the government, but this was not acceptable to others, and the Naga problem has still not been fully resolved.

Movement against outsiders

Large-scale migration into the North-East created a special problem. Newcomers, whether from other parts of India or from abroad, are often seen as competitors for jobs and political power, and as people who use up scarce resources such as land.

This issue has taken a political and sometimes violent turn in several North-Eastern states. The best example is the Assam Movement, which ran from 1979 to 1985.

Many Assamese believed there were large numbers of illegal Bangladeshi migrants in the state, and feared that without identifying and sending them back, the local Assamese would be reduced to a minority. Despite its natural resources, such as oil, tea, and coal, Assam suffered from widespread poverty and unemployment, and many felt that its wealth was being drained out of the state with little benefit to local people.

In 1979, the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), a non-party students' organisation, led a movement against foreigners. The movement demanded that all foreigners who had entered the country after 1951 be sent back, and it used many creative methods to mobilise Assamese people from every walk of life. There were also tragic and violent incidents that led to loss of life and property, and the movement tried to block railway traffic and the supply of oil from Assam to refineries in Bihar. Talks between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the leaders of the AASU finally led to an accord in 1985.

The Assam Accord of 1985

Under this agreement, foreigners who had come to Assam during and after the Bangladesh war were to be identified and sent back. After the movement's success, the leaders formed a regional party, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), which was elected in 1985 on the promise of solving the foreigners issue and building a Golden Assam.

While the Assam Accord brought peace and changed the face of Assam politics, it did not settle the question of immigration. The issue of outsiders remains a sensitive one in Assam and in many other parts of the North-East. It is especially sharp in Tripura, where the indigenous people have been reduced to a minority in their own land, and similar feelings lie behind local hostility towards Chakma refugees in Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.

What are the lessons to be learned from these examples?

These regional movements teach several important lessons about democracy in a large and diverse country.

Regional demands are normal. Regional interests are a natural part of democratic politics. Even smaller countries such as the United Kingdom have regional aspirations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and both Spain and Sri Lanka have faced separatist movements. In a country as large and varied as India, such demands must be dealt with all the time, and the process of nation building is never finished.
Dialogue works better than repression. The right response to regional aspirations is conversation, not force.
Power-sharing matters. It is not enough simply to have democratic institutions or to say that regions have autonomy in their own areas. Regions must have a real say in the future of the country. If they are shut out of national decision-making, they may come to feel a sense of injustice and alienation.
Economic fairness matters. When some regions stay poor while others grow rapidly, the gap creates a feeling of regional discrimination. Backward regions often feel that their needs should come first and that government policy is to blame for the imbalance.
The Constitution was written with foresight. India's federal system is very flexible. Most states have equal powers, but some, such as the states of the North-East, have special provisions. The Sixth Schedule, for example, protects the customary laws and practices of many tribes. These provisions have helped settle some of the most difficult political problems, and regionalism has come to be seen as a normal part of democratic politics in India rather than a threat to it.

Why it still matters

This chapter can feel like history, but the questions it raises are very much alive today. Regional aspirations, autonomy, and the meaning of statehood are still being argued over in courts, in assemblies, and on the streets.

Jammu and Kashmir. The special status the notes describe under Article 370 was removed by the central government on 5 August 2019, and the state was split into two Union Territories. On 11 December 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld that decision, but it also directed the government to hold assembly elections and to restore full statehood as soon as possible. In 2024, the region voted for its first assembly in a decade. The National Conference and the Congress won, and Omar Abdullah was sworn in as Chief Minister on 16 October 2024. His new assembly soon passed a resolution asking the Centre to give the region back its statehood and its special rights. The debate this chapter opens is, in other words, still open.

The North-East. The careful balance between diversity and unity that these notes praise is still being tested. In Manipur, violence between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities broke out on 3 May 2023. By 2025, more than 260 people had been killed and over 60,000 had been forced from their homes, and the Centre placed the state under President's rule on 13 February 2025. In Nagaland, the long conflict the chapter calls unfinished is still unfinished: a framework agreement signed between the government and the NSCN (Isak-Muivah) on 3 August 2015 has still not become a final settlement.

These stories show why the ideas in this chapter matter well beyond the exam. Dialogue over repression, power-sharing over exclusion, and fair treatment of every region are not just old lessons; they are choices India is still making. You can connect this topic to live world affairs on the Learnacy Hub, or revise alongside our other study notes.

Sources

More on Class 12 - Political Science Notes → Explore the Learnacy Hub →