Nehru’s foreign policy

Jawaharlal Nehru served as India’s prime minister from independence in August 1947 until his death in May 1964. He wanted India to stay independent of both Cold War blocs. India helped develop non-alignment, took part in the Bandung Conference of 1955 and avoided formal military alliances with either the United States or the Soviet Union.

Relations with Pakistan proved more difficult. Partition led to mass migration, communal violence and disputes over assets and territory. The main territorial issue was Kashmir, a Muslim-majority princely state ruled by the Hindu ruler Hari Singh. After forces from Pakistan entered the territory in October 1947, he acceded to India. Nehru accepted the accession and sent Indian troops. Pakistan rejected the legitimacy of Indian control.

Economic development under Nehru

Nehru pursued rapid modernization through a mixed economy. Private enterprise continued, while the state directed investment and controlled major industries. The Planning Commission was established in 1950, and development followed Five-Year Plans.

The First Five-Year Plan, 1951–1956, focused on agriculture, irrigation and recovery from Partition. The Second, 1956–1961, gave more attention to heavy industry, steel and an expanded public sector. Large dams, scientific institutes and state-owned industries represented the effort to build a self-reliant economy.

The results were mixed. India built a substantial industrial base and expanded technical education. Growth, however, remained modest. The population rose rapidly, and dependence on imported food continued. Land reform differed between states and was often weakened by the influence of landlords. Economic historians disagree about the balance. Defenders highlight the industrial foundations created after colonial rule, while critics argue that licensing, protection and bureaucracy limited efficiency and competition.

The war of 1947–1948

The first Indo-Pakistani War began after Kashmir acceded to India. Indian and Pakistani forces fought until a United Nations-sponsored ceasefire came into effect on 1 January 1949. The ceasefire line divided Kashmir. India retained most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh, while Pakistan controlled territories later known as Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.

The settlement stopped the fighting, but it did not resolve the dispute. The proposed plebiscite never took place because India and Pakistan disagreed over demilitarization. Kashmir therefore became both a territorial conflict and a competing claim about national identity.

The war of 1965

Following fighting in the Rann of Kutch, Pakistan tried to encourage an uprising in Indian-controlled Kashmir through Operation Gibraltar in August 1965. When this failed, Pakistan launched Operation Grand Slam. India widened the conflict by crossing the international border towards Lahore.

International pressure brought the war to an end. The Tashkent Declaration of January 1966 restored the pre-war positions but did not resolve Kashmir. Pakistan failed to trigger a Kashmiri revolt, while both states claimed military success. The conflict weakened Pakistan’s president, Ayub Khan, because his opponents believed that he had surrendered gains at Tashkent.

The war of 1971 and Bangladesh

The 1971 war grew mainly out of Pakistan’s internal crisis. The Awami League won Pakistan’s 1970 election, but it was not allowed to form a government. From March 1971, the army’s repression in East Pakistan led to armed resistance and drove millions of refugees into India. India trained and supplied the Mukti Bahini and signed a treaty with the Soviet Union in August.

The war began openly in December, after Pakistani air attacks on Indian airfields. Indian forces advanced quickly in the east, and Pakistani troops surrendered at Dhaka on 16 December. Bangladesh became independent. The western front brought no comparable territorial transformation. The Simla Agreement of 1972 turned the Kashmir ceasefire line into the Line of Control.

The outcome decisively changed South Asia’s balance of power. Pakistan lost its eastern wing, India emerged as the leading regional power and the idea that religion alone could hold Pakistan together was discredited. Pakistani interpretations often emphasize Indian intervention. Bangladeshi and many Indian accounts give greater weight to political exclusion, cultural discrimination and military violence within Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi: political power and social change

Indira Gandhi was prime minister from 1966–1977, then again from 1980–1984. At first, senior Congress leaders held much of the power around her. She overcame their challenge by splitting the party in 1969 and presenting herself as a populist leader. Her 1971 campaign used the slogan Garibi Hatao—remove poverty—to link centralized leadership with social reform.

In 1969, her government nationalized fourteen major banks. In 1971, it abolished the former princes’ official privileges. The Green Revolution relied on high-yield seeds, irrigation, fertilizer and credit. It increased wheat production, particularly in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. Food security improved, although farmers with enough land and capital benefited most. Rural and regional inequalities therefore widened in some areas.

Indira Gandhi’s victory over Pakistan in 1971 strengthened her position. Later, inflation, unemployment, corruption allegations and protest weakened the government. After the Allahabad High Court invalidated her 1971 election, she declared an Emergency in June 1975. The government restricted civil liberties, imprisoned opponents and censored the press. Sanjay Gandhi became associated with forced sterilization and destructive urban-clearance campaigns.

The Emergency brought greater administrative discipline in some areas, but constitutional freedom suffered. Congress lost the 1977 election to the Janata coalition. Indira returned to power in 1980.

Punjab and the end of Indira Gandhi’s rule

Conflict between the central government and Sikh militants in Punjab grew during the early 1980s. In June 1984, the army entered the Golden Temple at Amritsar under Operation Blue Star. Its aim was to remove Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers. The damage and deaths at Sikhism’s holiest shrine caused widespread anger. On 31 October 1984, Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Gandhi. Organized anti-Sikh violence followed and killed many people, particularly in Delhi.

Interpretations of Indira Gandhi remain sharply divided. Supporters point to stronger central government, agricultural transformation and the victory of 1971. Critics focus on the weakening of Congress institutions, political manipulation of regional disputes and the authoritarianism of the Emergency.

Rajiv Gandhi, 1984–1989

Rajiv Gandhi took office promising modernization and cleaner government. His administration promoted computers and telecommunications, while selectively reducing economic controls. These policies helped support the later growth of India’s technology and service sectors. Most Indians, however, still depended on agriculture, and poverty remained extensive.

His huge parliamentary majority did not secure lasting political dominance. The government’s handling of the Shah Bano case revealed tensions between minority protections, secular law and electoral calculation. The Bofors arms scandal further damaged Rajiv’s image. It led to allegations that commissions had been paid in connection with a Swedish weapons contract.

Rajiv also intervened in Sri Lanka. The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 resulted in the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. The force became involved in costly fighting against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam before withdrawing in 1990. A Tamil Tiger suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

Rao, 1991–1996

P V Narasimha Rao led a Congress minority government through an acute balance-of-payments crisis. Working with finance minister Manmohan Singh, he began major economic reforms in 1991. The government reduced industrial licensing, opened more sectors to private and foreign investment, lowered trade barriers and devalued the rupee.

These measures moved India away from the heavily regulated economic system associated with the Nehru era. Growth and foreign investment increased, but the benefits were uneven. Critics connected liberalization with insecurity, regional inequality and reduced protection for poorer groups. Supporters saw it as a necessary response to fiscal crisis and inefficient controls.

Rao also confronted the growth of Hindu nationalism. In December 1992, Hindu activists destroyed the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, provoking communal violence. His government was criticized for failing to prevent the demolition. Rao’s period therefore brought decisive economic change alongside a minority government, communal tension and the weakening of Congress’s former dominance.

The problems of nation-building

Pakistan became independent on 14 August 1947 as two territories separated by about 1,600 kilometres of Indian territory. West Pakistan held the central government and most military institutions. East Bengal, renamed East Pakistan, had the larger population. The new state had to absorb Muslim refugees, build an administration, divide assets with India and fight over Kashmir.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah became governor-general, but he died in September 1948. During Pakistan’s first year, his personal authority helped hold the state together. His early death left no equally dominant civilian leader to replace him. The Objectives Resolution of 1949 declared that sovereignty belonged to Allah, while authority would be exercised through chosen representatives. It created a lasting tension between parliamentary government and Pakistan’s Islamic identity.

Cultural differences also weakened national unity. The central leadership promoted Urdu even though most Pakistanis spoke Bengali. The Bengali Language Movement, particularly the killing of protesters in Dhaka in February 1952, turned language into a symbol of unequal treatment. The 1956 constitution made Bengali a state language, but political and economic grievances continued.

Military and civilian rule

East–West friction and the breakup of Pakistan

East Pakistan earned important export income from jute, yet received a smaller share of state expenditure and development investment. West Pakistanis dominated the civil service and armed forces. The One Unit policy of 1955 merged the western provinces, enabling West Pakistan to claim political parity with the more populous east.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League called for extensive provincial autonomy through its Six-Point Programme. In the 1970 general election, it won an overall parliamentary majority. Yahya Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resisted an immediate transfer of power. The army launched Operation Searchlight in March 1971. Civil war, atrocities, refugee flight and Indian intervention ended with the creation of Bangladesh.

Some interpretations see the breakup mainly as the result of long-term economic and linguistic discrimination. Others focus on the decisions taken in 1970–1971: refusing to recognize the election result, the army crackdown and India’s military intervention. These explanations complement each other rather than being mutually exclusive.

Social and economic challenges

Pakistan went through periods of rapid growth, particularly under Ayub Khan and during the 1980s. Irrigation, Green Revolution technology, foreign aid and remittances from workers in the Gulf supported development. Land ownership, however, remained unequal. Urban and rural services were uneven, while dependence on foreign assistance increased the military’s political importance.

Repeated military intervention prevented stable parliamentary traditions from developing. Provincial tensions also remained after the loss of East Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Sindh. Islam offered a shared national language of legitimacy, but governments disagreed about how far religious law should shape the state.

The guide’s 1991 referendum reference

The guide places a “constitutional referendum (1991)” in this Pakistan statement. Pakistan did not hold a national constitutional referendum in 1991. Its relevant national referendums took place in other years, including Zia-ul-Haq’s 1984 referendum. The September 1991 constitutional referendum was held in Bangladesh and approved the restoration of parliamentary government. This distinction is necessary when explaining the constitutional development of the two states.

Independence and the new state

Bangladesh emerged from the 1971 war with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as its dominant political leader. The new country began nation-building under extremely difficult conditions. Transport and industry had been damaged, millions of refugees needed to return, armed groups were still active, and many experienced officials had previously served in Pakistan’s institutions.

The 1972 constitution established parliamentary government. It also identified nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism as guiding principles. Bengali language and culture gave the state a strong identity. However, defining the nation mainly through Bengali culture created difficulties for non-Bengali and Indigenous minorities.

Mujib and the crisis of civilian government

Mujib’s government nationalized major industries and tried to lead reconstruction through the state. Recovery was held back by weak administration, corruption, smuggling and the disruption left by the war. The famine of 1974 revealed environmental vulnerability, as well as failures in food distribution and government policy.

Radical groups challenged the government, and political violence grew. In 1975, Mujib ended competitive politics and introduced the one-party BAKSAL system. An army coup in August 1975 assassinated him and most of his family. A series of coups followed, showing how weak the new state’s civilian institutions were.

Ziaur Rahman and Ershad

Ziaur Rahman became president and remained in power until his assassination in 1981. He shifted away from the original focus on secular Bengali nationalism towards Bangladeshi nationalism. This placed more emphasis on territorial identity and Islam. He encouraged private enterprise, restored multiparty politics under controlled conditions and founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

General Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized power in 1982. His government pursued administrative decentralization and economic development, but continued to depend on military authority. Islam became the state religion in 1988. Opposition alliances, student activism and mass demonstrations eventually forced Ershad to resign in December 1990.

Elections in 1991 brought Khaleda Zia and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party to office. In September, a referendum approved the Twelfth Amendment. It replaced the executive presidency with a parliamentary system in which the prime minister held effective executive authority.

Social and economic development

Bangladesh faced rapid population growth, widespread rural poverty, landlessness, and repeated floods and cyclones. Its dependence on jute exports and foreign aid left the economy vulnerable. Governments struggled to provide enough education, health care and employment.

Even so, important changes took place. Irrigated agriculture expanded. Non-governmental organizations developed rural credit and health programmes, while the garment industry generated export earnings and large-scale employment for women. Economic and social opportunities gradually widened, although working conditions and inequality remained serious challenges.

Bangladesh’s early history can be understood in two contrasting ways. One view emphasizes recurring coups, famine and weak government. The other highlights the survival of a distinct national identity, the overthrow of military rule and the restoration of parliamentary government by 1991.

Independence and competing identities

Ceylon became independent on 4 February 1948, keeping the parliamentary institutions inherited from British rule. The Sinhalese were the majority. Sri Lankan Tamils lived mainly in the north and east, while Indian Tamils, many descended from plantation workers brought under British rule, were concentrated in the central highlands.

The Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948 and related legislation left many Indian Tamils without citizenship or voting rights. In 1956, S W R D Bandaranaike’s government made Sinhala the sole official language. The Sinhala Only Act opened up more opportunities for Sinhala speakers, but it disadvantaged Tamil officials and job-seekers.

Compromise proved difficult. Agreements proposed by Bandaranaike in 1957 and Dudley Senanayake in 1965 offered limited devolution or recognition of Tamil language needs. Sinhala nationalist opposition stopped them from being fully implemented. Tamil political demands consequently shifted from equal treatment within a united state towards regional autonomy and, eventually, separatism.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike

Sirimavo Bandaranaike became prime minister in 1960, the first woman in the world to hold that office. She governed in 1960–1965 and 1970–1977, then returned as prime minister in 1994. Her governments promoted Sinhala-Buddhist influence, state control of the economy and non-alignment abroad.

The 1972 constitution renamed the country Sri Lanka, established a republic and gave Buddhism a privileged position. Sinhala stayed the official language, although Tamil received limited recognition. University “standardization” policies made entry harder for many Tamil students. For many Tamils, these changes showed that constitutional politics could not deliver equality.

Bandaranaike also expanded nationalization, welfare provision and import controls. Supporters saw these policies as a defence of social equality and national ownership. Critics highlighted shortages, unemployment and slow growth. Restrictions on opposition and the press also led to concerns about democratic practice.

The 1971 uprising

In April 1971, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, a radical movement that drew much of its support from educated but unemployed Sinhala youth, launched an uprising against Bandaranaike’s government. Insurgents attacked police stations and briefly controlled some rural areas. Foreign assistance helped the security forces suppress the rebellion.

The revolt showed that conflict was not solely ethnic. Unemployment, class frustration and limited opportunities also posed threats to the state. Thousands were detained, and the government later introduced reforms aimed at addressing youth discontent.

From discrimination to civil war

Tamil militancy grew during the 1970s. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, founded under Velupillai Prabhakaran, sought an independent Tamil state. The 1978 constitution created a powerful executive presidency under J R Jayewardene. Market reforms also moved Sri Lanka away from the earlier state-controlled economic system.

Violence escalated sharply after the Tamil Tigers killed thirteen soldiers in July 1983. Anti-Tamil attacks known as Black July killed civilians, displaced communities and pushed more recruits towards militant organizations. This marked the beginning of sustained civil war between the government and the Tamil Tigers.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 proposed provincial devolution and recognition of Tamil as an official language. Indian troops were sent to enforce the agreement, but they ended up fighting the Tamil Tigers until their withdrawal in 1990. Fighting continued between the Tigers and the Sri Lankan state. At the same time, the JVP launched a second, predominantly Sinhala uprising in the south during 1987–1989.

Development and the meaning of the conflict

Sri Lanka maintained high literacy, broad access to education and relatively strong health outcomes. Its welfare system remained an important continuity after independence. Unemployment, regional inequality and the cost of war nevertheless put growing pressure on the state.

One interpretation sees the civil war mainly as the result of majoritarian policies: citizenship restrictions, Sinhala linguistic dominance and constitutional preference for Buddhism. Another gives greater weight to militant separatism, failed political compromises and the actions of neighbouring India. The conflict developed through the interaction of government policy, communal fear and armed violence.