Compare the history of jammu& kashmir and tamil nadu since 1947 (8 points each)
Answers
Answer:
EThe Kashmir imbroglio suddenly brings it home: that India is not a swayambhu or spontaneously generated country.
On that first independence day in 1947, everything was uncertain. Which states would become part of India? They fell into two groups. British India was the core territory of the republic and the Constituent Assembly elected by people living in this area was expected to quickly draft a constitution for the country.
The people here were not, however, asked if they wanted to become Indian citizens.
Then there were the ‘princely states’, whose sovereignty was restored when the British left. Their rulers had the option of joining India or Pakistan, or remaining independent.
Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel and his officers acted boldly and swiftly, ‘persuading’ most of them to accede to India. The excitement of those days can be sensed even in the dry prose of V.P.Menon’s Integration of the Indian States.
There was a dilemma when the Nizam of Hyderabad, a Muslim, decided his state would be independent. It was assumed that his views must run contrary to the desires of the majority of his subjects, and the Indian army violently pushed through his abdication by what is euphemistically called ‘police action’.
xplanation:
Hiieeee....❣✌
Baharistan-i-Shahi and Haidar Mailk's Tarikh-i-Kashmir (completed in 1621 CE) are the most important texts on the history of Kashmir during the Sultanate period. Both the texts were written in Persian and used Rajatarangini and Persian histories as their sources.