Here are two opinions –
Bismay : “The merger with the Indian State was an extension of democracy to the people of the Princely. States”.
Inderpreet: “I am not so sure, there was force being used. Democracy comes by creating consensus”.
What is your own opinion in the light of accession of Princely States and the responses of the people in these parts ?
Solution
Short Answer
My opinion is that merger with Indian State was an extension of democracy to the people of the Princely States. The decision of joining Pakistan could have threatened the very existence of a united India. The response of some rulers such as Travancore, Hyderabad was negative. This meant that India would get further divided into a number of small countries. The prospects of democracy for the people in these states also looked bleak. Indian leaders had aimed at unity, self-determination as well as democracy, in most of the Princely States, governments were run in a non-democratic manner and the people did not enjoy any rights. So the merger with Indian State established democracy in the Princely States.
While, it is correct that force was used but that was necessitated due to the prevailing circumstances of that time in the states like Hyderabad where a paramilitary force known as the Razakars whose communal atrocities knew no bound. They murdered, maimed and raped targeting particularly non muslim. Hence, the army was sent to control the Nizam’s forces. This led to Hyderabad’s accession to India.
