When India gained independence in 1947, it faced the critical task of integrating regions with varying degrees of political and administrative affiliations. While the integration of Goa and Hyderabad into the Indian Union was a focal point, the question arises: why did post-independent India not pursue a similar unification effort with the Maldives and Sri Lanka? Several key reasons explain this decision.
Historical Context and Territorial Integration
Goa and Hyderabad were distinct in their political status compared to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Goa was a Portuguese colony, while Hyderabad was a princely state under a local ruler. Both regions, despite their unique governance, were considered integral to the Indian subcontinent’s territorial unity. As a result, their integration into India was seen as a natural extension of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In contrast, Sri Lanka and the Maldives had their own established historical identities and international status. The Maldives was a British protectorate in the 19th century before becoming an independent nation, and Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, gained independence from British rule in 1948. These nations were recognized as separate entities with distinct national identities and were not viewed as territories requiring integration into India.
Principles of Non-Interference and Sovereignty
Post-independence India adopted a foreign policy rooted in non-interference and respect for the sovereignty of other nations. Unlike the princely states within India, which were given the option to join the Indian Union, Sri Lanka and the Maldives were recognized as independent countries. Any attempt to unify them with India would have been considered an act of aggression and violated international norms.
The establishment of the United Nations and the reinforcement of self-determination principles in the post-World War II era further influenced India’s approach. India, eager to align itself with these principles and avoid any actions deemed imperialistic or expansionist, refrained from pursuing unification with neighboring countries.
Regional Stability and International Perception
India’s primary concern in the post-independence period was the stability and security of its immediate neighborhood. Integrating Goa and Hyderabad was seen as essential for maintaining internal security and territorial integrity. In contrast, attempting to unify Sri Lanka or the Maldives could have destabilized the region and attracted international condemnation, potentially leading to geopolitical tensions.
Furthermore, India sought to establish itself as a leader in South Asia and a proponent of peaceful coexistence. Actions perceived as aggressive towards Sri Lanka and the Maldives could have undermined India’s image as a supporter of regional cooperation and stability. This was crucial as India was also working to build its reputation within the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
Cultural and National Identities
Sri Lanka and the Maldives had distinct cultural, ethnic, and linguistic identities that set them apart from India. Unlike Goa, which had historical and cultural connections to India despite Portuguese rule, or Hyderabad, which was geographically surrounded by Indian territories, Sri Lanka and the Maldives had developed their own national identities. Any attempt to unify these nations with India would likely have been met with resistance and could have led to significant conflict.
Focus on Nation-Building
In the immediate aftermath of independence, India was focused on nation-building and addressing internal challenges such as economic development, social integration, and consolidating its territories. The resources and attention required to pursue unification with geographically separate and sovereign countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives would have been immense and likely beyond India’s capacity at the time.
Conclusion
India’s decision not to pursue the unification of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, unlike the integration of Goa and Hyderabad, was influenced by a combination of historical, political, and strategic factors. The respect for sovereignty, the emphasis on regional stability, and the need to focus on domestic priorities all played a role in shaping India’s foreign policy approach during its formative years.
