Regional Aspirations | Class 12 Political Science

13 September 2022 · 16 min read

A short watch before you read on.

Regional aspirations sit at the heart of Class 12 Political Science, in the chapter on Regional Aspirations from Politics in India Since Independence. These notes walk you through how different regions of India have expressed their desire for autonomy, how the Union responded, and the accords that brought many of these movements to a close. For the full set of study guides, see the rest of the OYI notes library.

Nation Building

Building a nation is not something that can be finished once and for all. New hurdles keep arising, and some old issues are never fully resolved. As India's democratic experiment grew, people in many regions began to voice a desire for greater autonomy.

People in several parts of the country, especially in Assam, Punjab, Mizoram, and in Jammu and Kashmir, took part in long struggles that often turned into aggressive and armed assertions.

What did these movements have in common?

The push for regional autonomy grew sharpest from the 1980s onwards. These movements often involved armed assertion by the people, repression by the government, and a breakdown of the normal democratic and electoral process. Most of these conflicts were long, and most ended in negotiated settlements or accords with the central government.

The accords were reached through a process of dialogue aimed at settling disputed questions within the framework of the Constitution. The road to each accord was almost always noisy and often violent.

What was unique about the Indian approach?

Indian nationalism tried to strike a balance between unity and diversity. This was very different from many European countries, where cultural diversity was often seen as a threat to the survival of the country.

The democratic approach accepts regional political expression and does not treat it as anti national.
Democratic politics allows parties and groups to speak to people about their regional identity, hopes, and grievances.
It also means that regional issues receive attention and weight during policy making.

Political contests over questions of regional power, rights, and identity are common in a system that chooses to recognise diversity rather than crush it.

Tension points after 1947

India faced many challenges after independence: Partition, the displacement of people, the absorption of princely states, and the reorganisation of states.

The question of Jammu and Kashmir was not only a dispute between India and Pakistan, but also a question about the democratic wishes of the people of Kashmir.
Nagaland and Mizoram in the North East saw strong movements demanding separation from India.
Some Dravidian groups in the south raised the idea of a separate homeland.
A mass movement for linguistic states broke out, affecting Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Gujarat.
In the south, especially Tamil Nadu, there were protests against making Hindi the official language, while in the north there were strong pro Hindi demonstrations.

During the 1950s, Punjabi speakers began to demand a separate state, and in 1966 the states of Punjab and Haryana were formed. Later, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttaranchal, now Uttarakhand, were created. The internal boundaries of the country were redrawn, yet problems in places like Kashmir and Nagaland were too complex to be solved in the first phase of nation building.

Jammu and Kashmir

The Kashmir issue has long been seen as a key point of conflict between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir has three social and political regions: Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. The people of the Kashmir valley are mostly Muslim and speak Kashmiri, with a small Hindu minority. Jammu is home to Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs who speak several languages. Ladakh is mountainous, thinly populated, and split roughly evenly between Buddhists and Muslims. At the centre of it all is Kashmiriyat, the idea of a shared Kashmiri identity, and the wish of the people for political autonomy.

The roots of the issue

Before 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state. Its Hindu ruler, Hari Singh, did not want to join either India or Pakistan and tried to keep an independent status. Because Kashmir had a Muslim majority, Pakistan assumed it belonged to it, but many people in the valley did not see themselves that way; they saw themselves as Kashmiris.

Sheikh Abdullah of the National Conference led a movement 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 seize Kashmir, which forced the Maharaja to ask India for military help. India gave that help only after the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession. It was also agreed that once the situation settled, the wishes of the people of the state about their future would be found out. In March 1948, Sheikh Abdullah became the Prime Minister of the state, the title then used for the head of the state government, and India promised to protect 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 was used to let each princely state under British paramountcy join either India or Pakistan, the two new dominions formed by the Partition of British India.

Article 370 and the debate over special status

Pakistan has always argued that the Kashmir valley should be part of Pakistan. In 1947 it backed a tribal invasion, and as a result one part of the state, called Azad Kashmir by Pakistan, came under Pakistani control.

Article 370 of the Constitution gave Jammu and Kashmir a special status, with more autonomy than other states.

The state had its own constitution.
Not all provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to it automatically.
Laws passed by Parliament applied to the state only if the state agreed.

This special status was read in two opposite ways. One group, mostly outside the state, argued that Article 370 blocked the full integration of the state with India and that Jammu and Kashmir should be treated like any other state. Another group, mostly Kashmiris, argued that the autonomy under Article 370 was not enough. A section of Kashmiris was unhappy that the promise to consult the people had not been kept, which led to calls for a plebiscite, and felt that the special federal status had been slowly eroded.

Politics after 1948

Sheikh Abdullah pushed through major land reforms and other programmes, but his stand on the status of Kashmir led to a growing gap between him and the central government. In 1953 he was dismissed and jailed for several years. The leaders who followed did not have the same public support and could govern only with help from the Centre. Several elections were marked by serious charges of fraud and rigging. Between 1953 and 1974 the Congress had a strong hold over state politics.

Sheikh Abdullah and the Indian government tried to reach an understanding many times. In 1974 Indira Gandhi made an arrangement with him, and he became Chief Minister. He revived the National Conference, which won a majority in the 1977 assembly elections. After his death in 1982, his son Farooq Abdullah took charge, but the Governor soon dismissed him and a breakaway group of the National Conference came to power. The trust that Kashmiris had begun to place in democratic politics was badly shaken. In 1986 the National Conference formed an electoral alliance with the Congress.

Insurgency and after

The National Conference and Congress alliance won the 1987 assembly elections and Farooq Abdullah returned as Chief Minister, but the result was widely believed to be rigged and did not reflect popular opinion. This triggered a political crisis. By 1989 the state was gripped by a militant movement that demanded a separate Kashmiri nation, and Pakistan gave the militants moral, material, and military support. For years the state was under President's rule and effectively under the control of the armed forces.

The call for regional self government

In 1996 the National Conference, led by Farooq Abdullah, returned to power on a promise of regional autonomy. In 2002 the election was widely seen as fair; the National Conference lost its majority, and a coalition led by the People's Democratic Party and the Congress took over. Separatist politics in Kashmir has taken several forms:

One strand wants Kashmir to be an independent country.
Another strand wants Kashmir to join Pakistan.
A third strand wants more autonomy for the people of the state within the Indian union.

Autonomy also matters to the people of Jammu and Ladakh, who often complain of being ignored, so there is as much demand for autonomy within the state as for autonomy of the state. Over time, public support for militancy gave way to a longing for peace, and the Centre began talks with several separatist groups. Most separatists in these talks are trying to renegotiate the state's relationship with India rather than demand a fully independent country. Jammu and Kashmir remains a living example of a diverse and largely secular society.

Punjab

The 1980s also saw major developments in Punjab. The social make up 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 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, and after 1966 the Sikhs became a majority in Punjab.

Political context

The Akalis came to power in 1967 and again in 1977, both times in coalition governments. They found that even after the boundaries were redrawn, their position stayed shaky.

Their government was dismissed by the Centre part way through its term.
They did not enjoy strong support among Hindus.
The Sikh community, like every community, was divided along caste and class lines, and the Congress drew more support among Dalits, whether Hindu or Sikh, than the Akalis did.

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution

In this setting, during the 1970s a section of the Akalis began to demand political autonomy for the region. This was set out 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. It also spoke of the aspirations of the Sikh qaum and of attaining the bolbala, or dominance, of the Sikhs. It could be read as a plea for stronger federalism, but also as a plea for a separate Sikh nation. Its appeal among ordinary Sikhs was limited.

After the Akali government was dismissed in 1980, the Akali Dal launched a movement over the sharing of river water between Punjab and its neighbours. Some religious leaders raised the question of a separate Sikh identity, and the more extreme elements began to call for secession and the creation of Khalistan.

The cycle of violence

Leadership of the movement passed from the moderate Akalis to the extremists and took the form of armed insurgency. Militants made their base 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 to flush them out. The operation succeeded, but it also damaged the historic temple and deeply hurt the sentiments of Sikhs. Many Sikhs in India and abroad saw it as an attack on their faith, which gave further strength to extremist groups.

The assassination of Indira Gandhi

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31 October 1984 outside her residence by her own bodyguards. The country was shocked, and in Delhi and parts of northern India violence broke out against the Sikh community. The violence 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 places like Kanpur, Bokaro, and Chas. Many families lost their male members and suffered great emotional and financial loss. Twenty years later, in 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed regret in Parliament and apologised to the nation for the anti Sikh violence.

The Longowal Accord

In 1984 the new Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi opened a dialogue 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 back to Punjab. Under it:

Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab.
A separate commission would be set up to settle the border dispute between Punjab and Haryana.
A tribunal would decide the sharing of Ravi and Beas river water among Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.
Those affected by the militancy would receive compensation and better treatment, and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act would be withdrawn in Punjab.

The return to normalcy

Militancy and the fight against it led to excesses by the police and to violations of human rights. The Centre imposed President's rule and the normal political process was suspended. Restoring that process in an atmosphere of suspicion and violence was not easy; when elections were held in 1992, only about 24 percent of voters turned out. Militancy was eventually ended by the security forces, but the losses to the people of Punjab, both Sikhs and Hindus, were enormous. Peace returned 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 of the post militancy era, and the state turned once again to questions of economic development and social change.

The North East

The North East is often called the seven sisters, as it is made up of seven states, and it is joined to the rest of the country by a narrow corridor only about 22 kilometres wide. It borders China, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, which makes it India's gateway to South East Asia. Since 1947 the region has changed a great deal. Tripura, Manipur, and the Khasi Hills of Meghalaya were princely states that joined India after independence.

The whole region has seen major reorganisation: Nagaland became a separate state in 1963, Meghalaya, Manipur, and Tripura in 1972, and Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram in 1987. Partition made the region landlocked, which hurt its economy, and large scale migration from neighbouring states and countries changed its population. Its isolation, complex society, and relative backwardness produced a wide set of demands. The politics of the North East is shaped by three issues: demands for autonomy, movements for secession, and opposition to outsiders.

Demands for autonomy

Except for Manipur and Tripura, most of the region was part of Assam at independence. When non Assamese people felt that the Assam government was forcing the Assamese language on them, they demanded political autonomy. There were protests across the state, and leaders of major tribal communities wanted to break away. They formed the Eastern India Tribal Union, later renamed the All Party Hill Leaders Conference, and demanded that Assam be split into tribal states. In the end Assam was divided into several states rather than one tribal state, and by 1972 the reorganisation of the North East was largely complete.

Later, communities such as the Bodos, Karbis, and Dimasas in Assam wanted their own states and pressed their demands through public opinion, 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. So other parts of the federal structure were used: District Councils gave autonomy to the Karbis and Dimasas, and the Bodos were later given an Autonomous Council.

Movements for secession

Autonomy demands were easier to meet, because they used parts of the Constitution to accommodate diversity. It was far harder when some groups wanted a separate country. The national leadership had to deal with this in at least two 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 so did not belong in the Indian union. After the Assam government failed to respond well to a great famine in the Mizo Hills in 1959, the movement for independence won public support. The Mizo National Front, founded by Laldenga, began an armed struggle for independence in 1966, starting a conflict with the Indian army that lasted about two decades. The security forces used harsh measures, which angered and alienated ordinary people, and in the end everyone lost. Maturity on both sides finally made a difference. Laldenga returned from exile and held talks with the Indian government; Rajiv Gandhi brought these to a successful close, and in 1986 they signed a peace accord. Mizoram was granted full statehood with special powers, the Mizo National Front gave up the demand for independence, and Laldenga became Chief Minister. Mizoram is now one of the most peaceful and fast developing parts of the region.

Nagaland's story is similar but began 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. A section of the Nagas later reached an agreement with the government, but this was not accepted by other rebels, and the Naga problem is not yet fully solved.

Movements against outsiders

Large scale migration into the North East created a special problem. Migrants, whether from within India or from outside, are often seen as rivals for jobs and political power and as encroachers on scarce land. This has taken a political and sometimes violent form. The clearest example is the Assam Movement of 1979 to 1985.

Many Assamese suspected that a large number of illegal Bangladeshi migrants had settled in the state, and feared that unless these people were identified and sent back, the local Assamese would be reduced to a minority. Despite its oil, tea, and coal, Assam had widespread poverty and unemployment, and many felt its wealth was being drained away with little benefit to the people. In 1979 the All Assam Students Union, a non party student body, led an anti foreigner movement demanding that all foreigners who had entered after 1951 be sent back. The movement used many creative methods to mobilise people, but there were also tragic and violent incidents that destroyed property and cost lives.

Talks between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the student leaders led to the Assam Accord of 1985. Under the accord, foreigners who had come to Assam during and after the Bangladesh war were to be identified and removed. After this, the student and youth organisations came together to form the Asom Gana Parishad, a regional party, which won the 1985 election on a promise to solve the foreign national issue and build a Golden Assam. The Accord brought peace and changed the face of Assam politics, but it did not settle the question of immigration, which remains a sensitive issue across much of the North East. In Tripura, indigenous people have been reduced to a minority in their own state, and in Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh similar feelings drive hostility towards Chakma refugees.

Lessons from these movements

What can we learn from these examples?

Regional aspirations are a normal part of democratic politics. They are not strange or exceptional. Even smaller countries such as the United Kingdom have them, in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and separatist movements exist among the Basques in Spain and the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Dialogue, not repression, is the right way to respond to regional aspirations. In a large and diverse democracy, these demands have to be negotiated again and again, and nation building never truly ends.
Power sharing matters. A formal democratic structure is not enough. Since the nation is made up of regions, regions must have a real say in national decisions, or they may feel a sense of injustice and alienation.
Regional economic imbalance feeds a sense of discrimination. When some states grow fast while others stay poor, backward regions come to feel that national policy is to blame, and migration between regions increases.
The makers of the Constitution planned wisely for diversity. India's federal system is very flexible: most states have equal powers, but some, like Jammu and Kashmir and the states of the North East, have had special provisions, and the Sixth Schedule gives many tribes control over their own customary laws.

Why it still matters

This chapter can feel like history, but the questions it raises are being decided right now. The clearest example is Jammu and Kashmir. On 5 August 2019 the central government removed the special status that Article 370 had given the state and split it into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Many people challenged this decision in court.

On 11 December 2023 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict. A five judge bench, led by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, unanimously held that Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary provision, and upheld its removal. The court also directed that statehood be restored to Jammu and Kashmir and that assembly elections be held. Notice how the debate in your notes, between those who wanted fuller integration and those who wanted more autonomy, is exactly the debate the court was ruling on.

Then came the vote. In September and October 2024, Jammu and Kashmir held its first assembly elections in ten years. The National Conference, the very party founded by Sheikh Abdullah that appears again and again in this chapter, won 42 of the 90 seats. Omar Abdullah, Sheikh Abdullah's grandson, was sworn in as Chief Minister on 16 October 2024, and his first cabinet passed a resolution asking the Centre to restore full statehood. The family names, the parties, and the tug of war over autonomy in your notes are still the living politics of the region.

The North East thread is live too. The chapter ends the Assam story with the Assam Accord of 1985 and its promise to identify foreign nationals. That promise grew into the National Register of Citizens, or NRC. When Assam published its final NRC on 31 August 2019, about 19 lakh people, that is roughly 1.9 million, were left off the list. In March 2024 the central government notified the rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act, which offers a citizenship route to some of those who were excluded. The argument over who counts as an outsider, which you studied in the Assam Movement, has never really closed.

So when you revise this chapter, read it as a map of debates that are still open, not a closed file. If you want to see how these regional stories connect to bigger ideas about democracy, federalism, and identity, explore the Learnacy Hub, and browse the rest of your Class 12 Political Science notes for the chapters that sit beside this one.

Sources

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