document_title: Pokhran-II

question_text: who was indias president when first nuclear test was done

text: Pokhran-II

text: India's nuclear bomb project[edit]

text: Efforts towards building the nuclear bomb, infrastructure, and research on related technologies have been undertaken by India since World War II. Origins of India's nuclear program dates back to 1944 when nuclear physicist Homi Bhabha began persuading the Indian Congress towards the harnessing of nuclear energy— a year later he established the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR).

text: In 1950s, the preliminary studies were carried out at the BARC and plans were developed to produce plutonium and other bomb components. In 1962, India and China engaged in the disputed northern front, and was further intimidated with Chinese nuclear test in 1964. Direction towards militarisation of the nuclear program slowed down when Vikram Sarabhai became its head and little interest of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965.

text: After Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister in 1966, the nuclear program was consolidated when physicist Raja Ramanna joined the efforts. Another nuclear test by China eventually led to India's decision toward building nuclear weapons in 1967 and conducted its first nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, in 1974.[6]

text: Post-Smiling Buddha[edit]

text: Responding to Smiling Buddha, the Nuclear Suppliers Group severely affected the India's nuclear program.[7] The world's major nuclear powers imposed technological embargo on India and Pakistan, which was technologically racing to meet with India's challenge.[7] The nuclear program struggled for years to gain credibility and its progress crippled by the lack of indigenous resources and dependent on imported technology and technical assistance.[7] At IAEA, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared that India's nuclear program was not militarising despite authorising preliminary work on the hydrogen bomb design.[7]

text: As an aftermath of the state emergency in 1975 that resulted in the collapse of the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government, the nuclear program was left with a vacuum of political leadership and even basic management.[7] Work on the hydrogen bomb design continued under M. Srinivasan, a mechanical engineer, but progress was slow.[7]

text: The nuclear program received little attention from Prime Minister Morarji Desai who was renowned for his peace advocacy.[7]  In 1978, Prime Minister Desai transferred physicist Ramanna to Indian MoD, and his government was not entirely without progress in nuclear program and had the program continue to grow at a desirable rate.[7][8]

text: Disturbing news came from Pakistan when the world discovered the Pakistan's clandestine atomic bomb program.[7] Contrary to India's nuclear program, Pakistan's atomic bomb program was akin to United States's Manhattan Project, it was under military oversight with civilian scientists in charge of the scientific aspects of the program.[7]  The Pakistani atomic bomb program was well funded and organised by then; India realised that Pakistan was likely to succeed in its project in matter of two years.[7]

text: In 1980, the general elections marked the return of Indira Gandhi and the nuclear program began to gain momentum under Ramanna in 1981. Requests for additional nuclear tests were continued to be denied by the government when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw Pakistan began exercising the brinkmanship, though the nuclear program continued to advance.[7] Initiation towards hydrogen bomb began as well as the launch of the missile programme began under Late president Dr. Abdul Kalam, who was then an aerospace engineer.[7]

text: Political momentum: 1988–1998[edit]

text: In 1989, the general elections witnessed the Janata Dal party led by V.P. Singh, forming the government.[9] Prime Minister V.P. Singh down played the relations with the Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto whose Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won the general elections in 1988. Foreign relations between India and Pakistan began to severely worsen when India began charging Pakistan of supporting the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.[9] During this time, the missile program succeeded in the development of the Prithvi missiles.

text: Successive governments in India decided to observe this temporary moratorium for fear of inviting international criticism.[7] The Indian public had been supportive towards the nuclear tests which ultimately led Prime Minister Narasimha Rao deciding to conduct further tests in 1995.[9] Plans were halted after American spy satellites picked up signs of preparations for nuclear testing at Pokhran Test Range in Rajasthan.[9] President Bill Clinton and his administration exerted enormous pressure on Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to stop the preparations.[9] Responding to India, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto issued harsh and severe statements against India on Pakistan's news channels; thus putting stress on the relations between two countries.[10]

text: Diplomatic tension escalated between two countries when Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto raised the Kashmir issue at the United Nations in 1995[11][12].[13] In a speech delivered by then-Speaker National Assembly Yousaf Raza Gillani, stressed the "Kashmir issue" as continue to endanger the peace and security in the region.[13] The Indian delegation headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the United Nations, reiterated that the "UN resolutions only call upon Pakistan— the occupying force to vacate the "Jammu and Kashmir Area."[13]

text: 1998 Indian general elections[edit]

text: The BJP, came to power in 1998 general elections with an exclusive public mandate.[4] BJP's political might had been growing steadily in strength over the past decade over several issues.

text: In Pakistan, the similar conservative force, the PML(N), was also in power with an exclusive mandate led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who defeated the leftist PPP led by Benazir Bhutto in general elections held in 1997.[14] During the BJP campaign, Atal Bihari Vajpayee indulged in grandstanding— such as when he declared on 25 February that his government would "take back that part of Kashmir that is under Pakistan's control."[4] Before this declaration, the BJP platform had clear intention to "exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons" and "India should become an openly nuclear power to garner the respect on the world stage that India deserved."[4] By 18 March 1998, Vajpayee had publicly begun his lobbying for nuclear explosion and declared that "there is no compromise on national security; all options including the nuclear options will be exercised to protect security and sovereignty."[4]

text: Consultation began between Prime Minister Vajpayee, Dr.Abdul Kalam, R. Chidambaram and officials of the Indian DAE on nuclear options. Chidambaram briefed Prime Minister Vajpayee extensively on the nuclear program; Abdul Kalam presented the status of the missile program. On 28 March 1998, Prime Minister Vajpayee asked the scientists to make preparations in the shortest time possible, and preparations were hastily made.[15]

text: It was time of tense atmosphere when Pakistan, at a Conference on Disarmament, offered a peace rhetoric agreement with India for "an equal and mutual restraint in conventional, missile and nuclear fields."[4] Pakistan's equation was later reemphasised on 6 April and the momentum in India for nuclear tests began to build up which strengthened Vajpayee's position to order the tests.[4]

text: Preparations for the test[edit]

text: Unlike Pakistan's weapon–testing laboratories, there was very little that India could do to hide its activity at Pokhran.[16] Contrary to high-altitude granite mountains in Pakistan, the bushes are sparse and the dunes in the Rajasthan Desert don't provide much cover from probing satellites.[16] The Indian intelligence had been aware of United States spy satellites and the American CIA had been detecting Indian test preparations since 1995; therefore, the tests required complete secrecy in India and also needed to avoid detection by other countries.[16] The 58th Engineer Regiment of Indian Army's Corps of Engineers was commissioned to prepare the test sites without being probed by the United States spy satellites. The 58th Engineer's commander Colonel Gopal Kaushik supervised the test preparations and ordered his "staff officers take all measures to ensure total secrecy."[16]

text: Extensive planning was done by a very small group of scientists, senior military officers and senior politicians to ensure that the test preparations would remain secret, and even senior members of the Indian government didn't know what was going on. The chief scientific adviser and the Director of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Dr. Abdul Kalam, and Dr. R. Chidambaram, the Director of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), were the chief coordinators of this test planning.[4] The scientists and engineers of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMDER), and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) were involved in the nuclear weapon assembly, layout, detonation and obtaining test data.[4] A very small group of senior scientists were involved in the detonation process, all scientists were required to wear army uniforms to preserve the secrecy of the tests. Since 1995, the 58th Engineer Regiment had learned to avoid satellite detection.[4] Work was mostly done during night, and equipment was returned to the original place to give the impression that it was never moved.[4]

text: Bomb shafts were dug under camouflage netting and the dug-out sand was shaped like dunes. Cables for sensors were covered with sand and concealed using native vegetation.[4] Scientists would not depart for Pokhran in groups of two or three.[4] They travelled to destinations other than Pokhran under pseudonyms, and were then transported by the army. Technical staff at the test range wore military uniform, to prevent detection in satellite images.[16]

text: Nuclear weapon designs and development[edit]

text: Development and test teams[edit]

text: The main technical personnel involved in the operation were:[1]

text:
Project Chief Coordinators
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (later, President of India), Scientific Adviser to the prime minister and Head of the DRDO.
Dr. R. Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Atomic energy.
Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO)
Dr. K. Santhanam; Director, Test Site Preparations.
Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research
Dr. G. R. Dikshitulu; Senior Research Scientist B.S.O.I Group, Nuclear Materials Acquisition
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director of BARC.
Dr. Satinder Kumar Sikka, Director; Thermonuclear Weapon Development.
Dr. M. S. Ramakumar, Director of Nuclear Fuel and Automation Manufacturing Group; Director, Nuclear Component Manufacture.
Dr. D.D. Sood, Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group; Director, Nuclear Materials Acquisition.
Dr. S.K. Gupta, Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy Group; Director, Device Design & Assessment.
Dr. G. Govindraj, Associate Director of Electronic and Instrumentation Group; Director, Field Instrumentation.

text: Movement and logistics[edit]

text: Three laboratories of the DRDO were involved in designing, testing and producing components for the bombs, including the advanced detonators, the implosion and high-voltage trigger systems. These were also responsible for weaponising, systems engineering, aerodynamics, safety interlocks and flight trials.[1] The bombs were transported in four Indian Army trucks under the command of Colonel Umang Kapur; all devices from BARC were relocated at 3 am on 1 May 1998. From the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, the bombs were flown in an Indian Air Force's AN-32 plane to the Jaisalmer army base. They were transported to Pokhran in an army convoy of four trucks, and this required three trips. The devices were delivered to the device preparation building, which was designated as 'Prayer Hall'.[1]

text: The test sites was organised into two government groups and were fired separately, with all devices in a group fired at the same time. The first group consisted of the thermonuclear device (Shakti I), the fission device (Shakti II), and a sub-kiloton device (Shakti III). The second group consisted of the remaining two sub-kiloton devices Shakti IV and V. It was decided that the first group would be tested on 11 May and the second group on 13 May. The thermonuclear device was placed in a shaft code named 'White House', which was over 200 metres (660 ft) deep, the fission bomb was placed in a 150 metres (490 ft) deep shaft code named 'Taj Mahal', and the first sub-kiloton device in 'Kumbhkaran'. The first three devices were placed in their respective shafts on 10 May, and the first device to be placed was the sub-kiloton device in the 'Kumbhkaran' shaft, which was sealed by the army engineers by 8:30 pm. The thermonuclear device was lowered and sealed into the 'White House' shaft by 4 am, and the fission device being placed in the 'Taj Mahal' shaft was sealed at 7:30 am, which was 90 minutes before the planned test time. The shafts were L-shaped, with a horizontal chamber for the test device.[1]

text: The timing of the tests depended on the local weather conditions, with the wind being the critical factor. The tests were underground, but due to a number of shaft seal failures that had occurred during tests conducted by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, the sealing of the shaft could not be guaranteed to be leak-proof. By early afternoon, the winds had died down and the test sequence was initiated. Dr. K. Santhanam of the DRDO, in charge of the test site preparations, gave the two keys that activated the test countdown to Dr. M. Vasudev, the range safety officer, who was responsible for verifying that all test indicators were normal. After checking the indicators, Vasudev handed one key each to a representative of BARC and the DRDO, who unlocked the countdown system together. At 3:45 pm the three devices were detonated.[1]

text: Specifications and detonation[edit]

text: Five nuclear devices were Made during Operation Shakti.[17] All devices were weapon-grade plutonium[1] and they were:[1]

text:
Shakti I – A thermonuclear device yielding 45 kt, but designed for up to 200 kt.
Shakti II – A plutonium implosion design yielding 15 kt and intended as a warhead that could be delivered by bomber or missile. It was an improvement of the device detonated in the 1974 Smiling Buddha (Pokhran-I) test of 1974, developed using simulations on the PARAM supercomputer.
Shakti III – An experimental linear implosion design that used "non-weapon grade"[18] plutonium, but which likely omitted the material required for fusion, yielding 0.3 kt.
Shakti IV- A 0.5 kt experimental device.
Shakti V – A 0.2 kt experimental device.

text: An additional, sixth device (Shakti VI) is suspected to have been present but not detonated.[1]

text: At 3:43 pm IST; three nuclear bombs (specifically, the Shakti I, II and III) were detonated simultaneously, as measured by international seismic monitors.[4] On 13 May, at 12.21 p.m.IST 6:51 UTC, two sub-kiloton devices (Shakti IV and V) were detonated. Due to their very low yield, these explosions were not detected by any seismic station.[4] On 13 May 1998, India declared the series of tests to be over after this.[19]

text: Announcement[edit]

text: Following the Pokhran-II tests, India became the sixth country to join the nuclear club.[20] Shortly after the tests, a press meet was convened at the Prime Minister's residence in New Delhi. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee appeared before the press corps and made the following short statement:

text:
“

Today, at 15:45 hours, India conducted three underground nuclear tests in the Pokhran range. The tests conducted today were with a fission device, a low yield device and a thermonuclear device. The measured yields are in line with expected values. Measurements have also confirmed that there was no release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. These were contained explosions like the experiment conducted in May 1974. I warmly congratulate the scientists and engineers who have carried out these successful tests.[21]

”

text: Reactions to tests[edit]

text: Domestic reactions[edit]

text: News of the tests were greeted with jubilation and large-scale approval by society in India.[22] The Bombay Stock Exchange registered significant gains. Newspapers and television channels praised the government for its bold decision; editorials were full of praise for the country's leadership and advocated the development of an operational nuclear arsenal for the country's armed forces.[22] The Indian opposition, led by Congress Party criticised the Vajpayee administration for carrying out the series of nuclear tests.[22] The Congress Party spokesman, Salman Khursheed, accused the BJP of trying to use the tests for political ends rather than to enhance the country's national security.[22]

text: By the time India had conducted tests, the country had a total of $44bn in loans in 1998, from IMF and the World Bank.[23] The industrial sectors of the Indian economy such as the chemicals industry, were likely to be hurt by sanctions.[23] The Western consortium companies, which had invested heavily in India, especially in construction, computing and telecoms, were generally the ones who were harmed by the sanctions.[23] In 1998, Indian government announced that it had already allowed for some economic response and was willing to take the consequences.[23]

text: International reactions[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: The United States issued a strong statement condemning India and promised that sanctions would follow. The American intelligence community was embarrassed as there had been "a serious intelligence failure of the decade" in detecting the preparations for the test.[24]

text: In keeping with its preferred approach to foreign policy in recent decades, and in compliance with the 1994 anti-proliferation law, the United States imposed economic sanctions on India.[5] The sanctions on India consisted of cutting off all assistance to India except humanitarian aid, banning the export of certain defence material and technologies, ending American credit and credit guarantees to India, and requiring the US to oppose lending by international financial institutions to India.[25]

text: From 1998–1999, the United States held series of bilateral talks with India over the issue of India becoming party of the CTBT and NPT.[26] In addition, the United States also made an unsuccessful attempt of holding talks regarding the rollback of India's nuclear program.[27] India took a firm stand against the CTBT and refusing to be signatory party of it despite under pressure by the US President Bill Clinton, and noted the treaty as it was not consistent with India's national security interest.[27]

text: Canada, Japan, and other countries[edit]

text: Strong criticism was drawn from Canada on India's actions and its High Commissioner.[28] Sanctions were also imposed by Japan on India and consisted of freezing all new loans and grants except for humanitarian aid to India.[29]

text: Some other nations also imposed sanctions on India, primarily in the form of suspension of foreign aid to India and government-to-government credit lines.[30] However, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia refrained from condemning India.[30]

text: China[edit]

text: On 12 May the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated: "The Chinese government is seriously concerned about the nuclear tests conducted by India," and that the tests "run counter to the current international trend and are not conducive to peace and stability in South Asia.".[31] The next day the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued the statement clearly stating that "it is shocked and strongly condemned" the Indian nuclear tests and called for the international community to "adopt a unified stand and strongly demand that India immediate stop development of nuclear weapons".[32] China further rejected India's stated rationale of needing nuclear capabilities to counter a Chinese threat as "totally unreasonable".[32] In a meeting with Masayoshi Takemura of Democratic Party of Japan, Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China Qian Qichen was quoted as saying that India's nuclear tests were a "serious matter," particularly because they were conducted in light of the fact that more than 140 countries have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. "It is even more unacceptable that India claims to have conducted the tests to counter what it called a "China threat".[32] On 24 November 1998, the Chinese Embassy, New Delhi issued a formal statement:

text: (sic).... But regrettably, India conducted nuclear tests last May, which has run against the contemporary historical trend and seriously affected peace and stability in South Asia. Pakistan also conducted nuclear tests later on. India's nuclear tests have not only led to the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan and provocation of nuclear arms races in South Asia, but also dealt a heavy blow to international nuclear disarmament and the global nonproliferation regime. It is only natural that India's nuclear tests have met with extensive condemnation and aroused serious concern from the international community.

text: Pakistan[edit]

text: The most vehement and strong reaction to India's nuclear explosion was from a neighbouring country, Pakistan. Great ire was raised in Pakistan, which issued a severe statement blaming India for instigating a nuclear arms race in the region.[4] Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif vowed that his country would give a suitable reply to India.[4] The day after the first tests, Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan indicated that Pakistan was ready to conduct a nuclear test. He stated: "Pakistan is prepared to match India, we have the capability.... We in Pakistan will maintain a balance with India in all fields", he said in an interview. "We are in a headlong arms race on the subcontinent."[4]

text: On 13 May 1998, Pakistan bitterly condemned the tests, and Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub was quoted as saying that Indian leadership seemed to "have gone berserk [sic] and was acting in a totally unrestrained way."[34] Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was much more subdued, maintaining ambiguity about whether a test would be conducted in response: "We are watching the situation and we will take appropriate action with regard to our security", he said.[4]  Sharif sought to mobilise the entire Islamic world in support of Pakistan and criticised India for nuclear proliferation.[4]

text: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been under intense pressure regarding the nuclear tests by President Bill Clinton and Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto at home.[35] Initially surprising the world, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif authorised nuclear testing program and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) carried out nuclear testings under the codename Chagai-I on 28 May 1998 and Chagai-II on 30 May 1998. These six underground nuclear tests at the Chagai and Kharan test site were conducted fifteen days after India's last test. The total yield of the tests was reported to be 40 kt (see codename: Chagai-I).[36]

text: Pakistan's subsequent tests invited similar condemnation from the United States.[37] American President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying "Two wrongs don't make a right", criticising Pakistan's tests as reactionary to India's Pokhran-II.[35] The United States and Japan reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Pakistan. According to the Pakistan's science community, the Indian nuclear tests gave an opportunity to Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests after 14 years of conducting only cold tests (See: Kirana-I).[38]

text: Pakistan's leading nuclear physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy, held India responsible for Pakistan's nuclear test experiments in Chagai.[39]

text: U.N. sanctions[edit]

text: The reactions from abroad started immediately after the tests were advertised. On 6 June, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1172 condemning the test and that of Pakistan's.[40] China issued a vociferous condemnation calling upon the international community to exert pressure on India to sign the NPT and eliminate its nuclear arsenal. With India joining the group of countries possessing nuclear weapons, a new strategic dimension had emerged in Asia, particularly South Asia.[40]

text: Effects on Indian economy[edit]

text: Overall, the effect of international sanctions on Indian economy was minimal; the technological progress was marginal. Most nations did not call for embargoes against India as the exports and imports together constituted only 4.0% of its GDP, with United States trade accounting for only 10.0% of this total. Far more significant were the restrictions on lending imposed by the United States and its representatives on international finance bodies. Most of the sanctions were lifted within five years.

text: Legacy[edit]

text: The Indian government has officially declared the 11 May as National Technology Day in India to commemorate the first of the five nuclear tests that were carried out on 11 May 1998.[41]

text: It was officially signed by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 and the day is celebrated by giving awards to various individuals and industries in the field of science and technology.[41]

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran is a 2018 Bollywood movie based on India's underground Pokhran-II nuclear test.


document_title: Central Legislative Assembly

question_text: who was elected president of central legislative assembly in 1925

root

text: Central Legislative Assembly

text: Composition[edit]

text: The new Assembly was the lower house of a bicameral parliament, with a new Council of State as the upper house, reviewing legislation passed by the Assembly. However, both its powers and its electorate were limited.[1][2]

tag: p

text: The Assembly had 145 members who were either nominated or indirectly elected from the provinces.[3]

text: Nominated Members[edit]

text: The nominated members were officials or non-officials and nominated by the Government of India and the provinces

text: Officials[edit]

text: There were a total of 26 nominated officials out of which 14 were nominated by the Government of India from the Viceroy's Executive Council, Council of State and from the Secretariat. The other 12 came from the provinces. Madras, Bombay and Bengal nominated two officials while United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar & Orissa, Central Provinces, Assam and Burma nominated one each.

text: Non-Officials[edit]

text: There were a total of 15 nominated non-officials out of which 5 were nominated by the Government of India representing five special interests namely Associated Chambers of Commerce, Indian Christians, Labour interests, Anglo-Indians and the Depressed Classes. The other 10 non-officials were nominated from the provinces namely two from Bengal, United Provinces and Punjab and one each from Bombay, Bihar & Orissa, Berar and the North West Frontier Province.

text: Elected Members[edit]

text: Initially, of its 142 members, 101 were elected and 41 were nominated. Of the 101 elected members, 52 came from general constituencies, 29 were elected by Muslims, 2 by Sikhs, 7 by Europeans, 7 by landlords, and 4 by business men.[4][5] Later, one seat each was added for Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and the North West Frontier Province.

text: The constituencies were divided as follows:[6]

text:
Province
Seats
Names of Constituencies

Assam

4

General (2): Assam Valley, Surma Valley with ShillongMuslim: Assam MuhammadanAssam European

Bengal

16

General (6): Calcutta Urban (1), Calcutta suburbs (Hoogly, Haorah, 24 Pargana Dist Municipal) (1), Calcutta Rural, Presidency Division (1), Burdwan Division (excluding Hoogly and Howrah Dist) (1), Dacca Division (1), Chittagong Rajshahi Division (1)Muslim (5): Calcutta and suburbs (Hoogly, Haorah, 24 Pargana Dist) (1), Burdwan and Calcutta Presidency Division (1), Dacca Division (1), Chittagong Division (1), Rajshahi Division (1)Europeans in Bengal Presidency (2)Landholders Bengal (1)Commerce (2): Indian Chambers of Commerce (1), Rotation: Bengal Chambers of Commerce or Marwari Association or Bengal Mahajan Sabha (1)

Bihar and Orissa

12

General (8): Tirhut Division (2), Orissa (2), Patna with Shahabad (1), Gaya with Monghyr (1), Bhagalpur Purnea and the Santhal Parganas (1), Chota Nagpur Division (1)Muslim (3): Patna and Chota Nagpur cum Orissa (1), Bhagalpur Division (1), Tirhut Division (1)Bihar and Orissa Landholders (1)

Bombay

16

General (8): Bombay City Urban (2), Sind (1), Northern Division (2), Southern Division (1), Central (2) Muslim (4): Bombay City Urban (1), Sind Urban (1), Sind Rural in rotation with Northern Division (1), Central Division in rotation with Southern Division (1)Europeans in Presidency (1)Commerce (2) Indian Merchants Chamber (1), The Bombay Millowners' Association or The Ahmedabad Millowners' Association (1) Landholders Rotation (1): Sind Jagirdars & Zamindars or Gujarat & Deccan Sardars & Inamdars

Burma

4

General (3)  European (1)

Central Provinces

5

General (3): Nagpur Division (1), Central Provinces Hindi Division (The Narmada, Jabalpur and Chhattisgarh Divisions) (2) Muslim (1) Landholders (1)

Madras

16

General (11): Madras City Urban (1), Madras Districts Rural (1), Ganjam cum Vizagapatnam (1), Godavari cum Krishna (1), Guntur cum Nellore (1), Chittoor cum Ceded Dists (Anantpur, Bellary, Cuddapah, Kurnool) (1), Salem, Coimbatore cum North Arcot (1), Chingleput cum South Arcot (1), Tanjore cum Trichinopoly (1), Madurai, Ramnad cum Tinnevelly (1), Nilgiris and West Coast (Malabar, Anjengo, S. Canara) (1)Muslim (3): North Madras (Ganjam, Vizgapatam, Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Anantapur, Bellary, Cuddapah, Kurnool and Chittoor) (1), South Madras (Chingleput, Madras, Arcot, North & South Coimbatore, Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madurai) (1), Nilgiris and W. Coast (Malabar, S. Canara) (1)Europeans in Presidency (1)Landholders in Presidency (1)

Punjab

12

General (3): Ambala Division (1), Jullundur Division (1), West Punjab (Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan) Division (1) Muslim (6): East Punjab (Ambala, Kangra, Hoshiarpur, Jullunder, Ludhiana) (1), East Central Punjab (Ferozepur, Lahore, Amritsar and Gurdaspur) (1), West Central Punjab (Sialkot, Gujranwala, Sheikhupura and Lyallpur) (1), North Punjab (Gujrat, Jhelum and Rawalpindi) (1), North- West Punjab (Attock, Mianwali, Shahpur and Jhang) (1), South-West Punjab (Multan, Montgomery, Muzaffargarh and Dera Ghazi Khan) (1) Sikh (2): East Punjab (Ambala and Jullundur Division) (1), West Punjab (Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan) (1) Punjab Landholders (1)

United Provinces

16

General (8) Cities of UP (Agra, Meerut, Cawnpore, Benares, Allahabad, Bareilly, Lucknow) (1), Meerut Division (excluding Municipality and Cantonment) (1), Agra Division (1), Rohilkhand and Kumaon Division (1), Allahabad Jhansi Division (1), Benares Gorakhpur Division (1), Lucknow Division (1), Faizabad Division (1)Muslim (6): Cities of U.P (1), Meerut Division (1), Agra (1), Rohilkhand and Kumaon Division (1), Lucknow and Faizabad (1), Southern Division (Allahabad, Benares, Gorakhpur) (1)European U. P. (1)Landholders U P (1)

tag: table

text: The Government of India Act 1935 introduced further reforms. The Assembly continued as the lower chamber of a central Indian parliament based in Delhi, with two chambers, both containing elected and appointed members. The Assembly increased in size to 250 seats for members elected by the constituencies of British India, plus a further 125 seats for the Indian Princely states. However, elections for the reformed legislature never took place.

text: Inauguration[edit]

text: The Central Legislative Assembly met in the Council Hall and later to the Viceregal Lodge in Old Delhi both of which are now located in Delhi University.[7][8] A new "Council House" was conceived in 1919 as the seat of the future Legislative Assembly, the Council of State, and the Chamber of Princes. The foundation stone was laid on 12 February 1921 and the building was opened on 18 January 1927 by Lord Irwin, the Viceroy and Governor-General. The Council House later changed its name to Parliament House, or Sansad Bhavan, and is the present-day home of the Parliament of India.[9][10]

text: The Assembly, the Council of State, and the Chamber of Princes were officially opened in 1921 by King George V's uncle, the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn[11]

text: Elections[edit]

text: The first elections to the new legislatures took place in November 1920 and proved to be the first significant contest between the Moderates and the Non-cooperation movement, whose aim was for the elections to fail. The Non-cooperators were at least partly successful in this, as out of almost a million electors for the Assembly, only some 182,000 voted.[12]

text: After the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement, a group within the Indian National Congress formed the Swaraj Party and contested the elections in 1923 and 1926. The Swaraj Party led by Motilal Nehru as the leader of the Opposition was able to secure the defeat, or at least the delay, of finance bills and other legislation. However, after 1926, the members of the Swaraj Party either joined the government or returned to the Congress which continued its boycott of the legislature during the Civil Disobedience Movement.

text: In 1934, the Congress ended its boycott of the legislatures and contested the elections to the fifth Central Legislative Assembly held that year.[13]

text: The last elections to the assembly were held in 1945.

text: The electorate of the Assembly was never more than a very small fraction of the population of India. In the British House of Commons on 10 November 1942, the Labour MP Seymour Cocks asked the Secretary of State for India Leo Amery "What is the electorate for the present Central Legislative Assembly?" and received the written answer "The total electorate for the last General Election (1934) for the Central Legislative Assembly was 1,415,892."[14]

text: Important events[edit]

text:
In March 1926, Motilal Nehru demanded a representative conference to draft a constitution conferring full Dominion status on India, to be enacted by the parliament. When this demand was rejected by the Assembly, Nehru and his colleagues walked out of the house.[15]
On 8 April 1929, the Indian revolutionaries Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw a bomb into the corridors of the Assembly in order to show their discontent and frustration against the British government's decision to enact the Trade Disputes Bill and the Public Safety Bill. The bomb explosion was followed by a shower of leaflets citing their reasons and ideology behind the act and few gunshots in the air, shouting "Inquilab Zindabad!" ("Long Live the Revolution!"). A few members were injured such as George Ernest Schuster (the finance member of the Viceroy's Executive Council), Sir Bomanji A. Dalal, E. Raghavendra Rao, Shankar Rao and S. N. Roy.[16][17] The revolutionaries surrendered themselves and the weapon without any resistance as per plan instead of escaping. On 12 June 1929 they were sentenced to Penal transportation for the bombing, having defended the case themselves.[18]
Due to the return of the Congress in 1934 as the main opposition, there was a sharp increase in the number of government defeats in the Assembly. In a British House of Commons debate on 4 April 1935, the Secretary of State for India, Samuel Hoare, stated that "The number of divisions in the Legislative Assembly since the recent elections and up to the 25th March in which Government have been successful is five. The number of adverse divisions in the same period is seventeen." Henry Page Croft then asked "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government would have been successful on any occasion without the support of the nominated members?" Hoare replied "I could not answer that question without looking into the figures, but in any case I see no reason to differentiate between one class of member and another."[19]
In 1936 during the Arab revolt in Palestine, Indian troops were sent there. In the Assembly, the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, disallowed all questions and resolutions which asked him to express the concern of Indian Muslims about the position of Arabs in Palestine.[20]
On 27 February 1942, during the Second World War, the Assembly held a secret session to discuss the war situation.[21]

tag: ul

text: Presidents of the Assembly[edit]

text: The presiding officer (or speaker) of the Assembly was called the President. While the Government of India Act 1919 provided for the President to be elected, it made an exception in the case of the first President, who was to be appointed by the Government. The Governor-General appointed Frederick Whyte, a former Liberal member of the British House of Commons who had been a parliamentary private secretary to Winston Churchill.[22][23] Sachchidananda Sinha was the Deputy President of Assembly in 1921.[24]

text: Ganesh Vasudev Mavlankar was the last President of the Assembly till the Assembly came to an end on 14 August 1947. He became the first Speaker of the Constituent Assembly of India, and in 1952 the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India.[25]

text:
No

Image

President

Tenure[26]

1

Frederick Whyte

3 February 1921 – 23 August 1925

2

Vithalbhai Patel

24 August 1925 – April 1930

3

Sir Muhammad Yakub

9 July 1930 – 31 July 1931

4

Ibrahim Rahimtoola

17 January 1931 – 7 March 1933

5

R. K. Shanmukham Chetty

14 March 1933 – 31 December 1934

6

Sir Abdur Rahim

24 January 1935 – 1 October 1945

7

Ganesh Vasudev Mavlankar

24 January 1946 – 14 August 1947

text:
No

Image

Deputy President

Tenure[27]

1

Sachchidananda Sinha

February 1921 – September 1921

2

Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy

September 1921 – 1923

3

T. Rangachari

February 1924 – 1926

4

Sir Muhammad Yakub

January 1927 – 1930

5

Hari Singh Gour

July 1930

6

R. K. Shanmukham Chetty

January 1931 – March 1933

7

Abdul Matin Chaudhury

March 1933 – 1934

8

Akhil Chandra Datta

February 1934 – 1945

9

Muhammad Yamin Khan

February 1946 – 1947

text: Notable members[edit]

text:
Labour Interests: N. M. Joshi
Depressed Classes: M. C. Rajah
Bihar & Orissa: Madhusudan Das, Sachchidananda Sinha, Nilakantha Das, Anugrah Narayan Sinha
Bengal: Khwaja Habibullah, Kshitish Chandra Neogy, Satyendra Chandra Mitra, Abdullah Al-Mamun Suhrawardy, Amarendra Chatterjee
Bombay: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, Seth Harchandrai Vishandas, Vithalbhai Patel, N. C. Kelkar, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, M. R. Jayakar, Wahid Baksh Bhutto, Sir Jehangir Cowasji, Bhulabhai Desai, Abdullah Haroon, Homi Mody, Keshavrao Jedhe, Narhar Vishnu Gadgil
Central Provinces & Berar: Hari Singh Gour, Seth Govind Das, B. S. Moonje, M. S. Aney, Narayan Bhaskar Khare, Barrister Ramrao Deshmukh, Rao bahadur Dinkarrao Rajurkar[28]
Delhi: Asaf Ali
Madras: T. V. Seshagiri Iyer, P. S. Kumaraswamy Raja, P. S. Sivaswami Iyer, Muhammad Habibullah, T. Rangachari, R. K. Shanmukham Chetty, A. Rangaswami Iyengar, M. Ct. M. Chidambaram Chettyar, S. Srinivasa Iyengar, Tanguturi Prakasam, Madabhushi Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, V. V. Giri, Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, S. Satyamurti, N. G. Ranga, Kasinathuni Nageswara Rao, Addepally Satyanarayana Murthy, T. S. Avinashilingam Chettiar, C. N. Muthuranga Mudaliar, T. S. S. Rajan, Sami Venkatachalam Chetty, Ramakrishna Ranga Rao of Bobbili, Kasturiranga Santhanam[29]
NWFP: Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum, Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan
Punjab: Lala Lajpat Rai, Mian Sir Muhammad Shah Nawaz, Bhai Parmanand
United Provinces: Motilal Nehru, Madan Mohan Malaviya, C. S. Ranga Iyer, H. N. Kunzru, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Bhagwan Das, Govind Ballabh Pant, Sri Prakasa, Muhammad Yamin Khan, Mohammad Ismail Khan, Ziauddin Ahmad, Liaquat Ali Khan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai[30]

text: Dissolution[edit]

text: As per the Indian Independence Act 1947, the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of States ceased to exist and the Constituent Assembly of India became the central legislature of India.


document_title: Mexican Texas

question_text: who developed the first anglo colony in mexican texas

text: Mexican Texas

text: Mexican independence[edit]

text: In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain after the brutal and destructive Mexican War for Independence. Its territory included much of the former New Spain, including Spanish Texas. The victorious rebels issued a provisional constitution, the Plan de Iguala. This plan reaffirmed many of the ideals of the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and granted equal citizenship rights to all races.[2]

text: Initially, there was disagreement over whether Mexico should be a federal republic or a constitutional monarchy.[3] The first monarch, Agustin I, abdicated in March 1823. The following month the citizens of San Antonio de Bexar established a governing committee for the province of Texas consisting of seven representatives from San Antonio, one from La Bahia, and one from Nacogdoches. In July, a new national provisional government named Luciano Garcia as the political chief of Texas.[4] On November 27, 1823, the people of Mexico elected congressional representatives and set out to create a new constitution.[5] Texas was represented in congress by Erasmo Seguin.[3] A new Mexican constitution was adopted on October 4, 1824, making the country a federal republic with nineteen states and four territories.[5] The constitution was modelled on the constitution of the United States of America,[3] but the Mexican constitution made Roman Catholicism the official, and only, religion of the country.[6]

text: Because it was sparsely populated,[7] Texas was combined with Coahuila to create the state of Coahuila y Tejas.[5] Texas had originally asked to become a territory if its statehood claim was denied, but after realizing that states controlled their own public lands, while as a territory public land would be controlled by the national government, Seguin chose not to request territorial status.[8] The Congress did allow Texas the option of forming its own state "'as soon as it feels capable of doing so.'"[7] The new state, the poorest in the Mexican federation,[9] covered the boundaries of Spanish Texas but did not include the area around El Paso, which belonged to the state of Chihuahua and the area of Laredo, Texas, which became part of Tamaulipas.[5] The capital of Texas moved from San Antonio to Monclova and then to Saltillo.[6] Along with the states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo León, Coahuila y Tejas was under a unified military organization.[8] With the formation of a new state government, the Texas provincial governing committee was forced to disband. Many Tejanos were reluctant to give up their self-rule.[10]

text: The 1824 constitution dismantled the mission system, requiring missions more than ten years old to be converted into parishes, while newer missions would be given until 1842 to become secularized.[11] Most of the missions had been secularized before the 1820s, and only Missions Refugio, Espiritu Santo and Rosario were not currently secularized. By 1830, these missions had been converted into parishes, and most of the mission Natives moved to other settlements in Texas.[12] As the missions were secularized, the mission lands were distributed amongst the Natives, who would later be taxed on the profits.[11]

text: The new Mexican government was bankrupt and had little money to devote to the military. Settlers were empowered to create their own militias to help control hostile Native American tribes. Texas faced raids from both the Apache and Comanche tribes, and with little military support the few settlers in the region needed help. In the hopes that an influx of settlers could control the Indian raids, the government liberalized its immigration policies for the region for the first time, and settlers from the United States were permitted in the colonies for the first time.[13]

text: Immigration[edit]

text: In the late 18th century, Spain had stopped allocating new parcels of land in San Antonio and La Bahia, making it difficult for some families to accommodate their growth. Occupancy rights were granted to people in the northeast part of Texas, but the new residents had no official ownership of the land on which they lived.[14] Just before Mexico achieved independence, Spain reversed its policies and passed a colonization law. Although the law did not state a religious requirement for settlers in Texas, it was understood that Spain's only religion was Catholicism, per the 1812 Constitution. Notably, article 28 of this law prohibited the importation of slaves into Spanish territories, and if brought to the area, they would be freed.[15] Mexico adopted a similar law in 1824. The General Colonization Law which enabled all heads of household who were citizens of or immigrants to Mexico to be eligible to claim land. The law did not differentiate among races or social stature, and people who had been granted occupancy rights would be able to claim the land patent for the dwellings.[16] Unlike its predecessor, the Mexican law required immigrants to practice Catholicism and stressed that foreigners needed to learn Spanish.[17] Settlers were supposed to own property or have a craft or useful profession, and all people wishing to live in Texas were expected to report to the nearest Mexican authority for permission to settle. The rules were widely disregarded and many families became squatters.[18]

text: As soon as the national colonization law was passed, approval for settlement contracts for Texas was the responsibility of the state government in Saltillo. They were soon besieged by foreign speculators wanting to bring colonists into the state.[19] Coahuila y Tejas implemented the federal law in 1825.[20] At this time, about 3500 people lived in Texas, mostly congregated at San Antonio and La Bahia.[1] Under the new law, people who did not already possess property in Texas could claim one square league (4438 acres) of irrigable land, with an additional league available to those who owned cattle. Soldiers were given first choice of land, followed by citizens and immigrants. Empresarios and individuals with large families were exempt from the limit. Those who had owned land under Spanish control were allowed to retain their property as long as they had not fought on the side of the Spanish during the Mexican War of Independence. Immigrants were subject to the same policies as Mexican citizens, and Native Americans who migrated to Texas after Mexican independence and were not indigenous to the area would be treated as immigrants.[21]

text: Approximately 3420 land grant applications were submitted by immigrants and naturalized citizens, many of them Anglo-Americans. The first group of colonists, known as the Old Three Hundred, arrived in 1822 to settle an empresarial grant that had been given to Stephen F. Austin by the Spanish. The group settled along the Brazos River, ranging from the near present-day Houston to Dallas.[22] Shortly after they arrived, Austin learned that the new Mexican government had not ratified his father's land grant with Spain. He was forced to travel to Mexico City, 1,200 miles (1,931 km) away, to get permission for his colony.[23] During his time in the capitol, Austin impressed various important people in the government by offering to draw a map of Texas, to help remove sediment obstructing navigation of the Colorado River, and by promising to carry out an Indian pacification campaign.[17] On February 18, 1823, ten months after Austin arrived in Mexico City, Agustin I approved his colonization contract. One month later, Agustin abdicated as emperor, and the newly created republican congress nullified all acts of his government, including Austin's colonization contract. Many of Austin's new friends in Mexico praised his integrity before the congress, and his contract was re-approved in mid-April. On his return to Texas in July 1823, Austin established San Felipe de Austin as the new headquarters for his colony.[24]

text: There was no shortage of people willing to come to Texas. The United States was still struggling with the aftermath of the Panic of 1819, and soaring land prices within the United States made the Mexican land policy seem very generous.[19] In 1827 Austin received a second grant allowing him to settle 100 families along the Old San Antonio Road to Nacogdoches, near what is now Bastrop. The location was chosen at the behest of the Tejanos, who hoped that colonists in that area could help defend against Comanche raids.[18] Austin was later granted permission to resettle 800 other families in Texas. Twenty-three other empresarios also brought immigrants to Texas.[22] Of these, only one of the empresarios, Martín De León settled citizens from within Mexico; the others came primarily from the United States.[18][25] Many of the Anglo settlers owned slaves.[26] All colonists were expected to become naturalized Mexican citizens, and they were also supposed to follow the state religion. In Austin's colony, the local priest formally converted new arrivals but then allowed them to worship as they pleased.[27]

text: Austin was granted the rank of lieutenant colonel of the militia, and he was given absolute authority over all justice, excluding the sentencing for capital crimes.[28] To maintain order within his colony, he issued the first Anglo-American law code in Texas. His Instructions and Regulations for the Alcades was issued January 22, 1824. It comprised a penal code and codes of criminal and civil procedure. The instructions authorized the creation of sheriff and constable offices and established a rudimentary court system. It relied on English common law concepts for defining criminal behavior and also established punishments for vices that Austin deemed disruptive,[29] such as gambling, profane swearing, and public drunkenness.[30]

text: Under the terms of the colonization contracts, the empresarios were responsible for providing security within their lands. In 1823 Austin created a company of men who would patrol his colony and protect the colonists from Native attacks and to defuse internal issues. The initial company, known as Ranger Company, comprised 10 volunteers who served terms of 3–6 months and were paid in land. The men were not uniformed and were not subject to military law or regulation. They were the precursors to the Texas Rangers.[31] After the Karankawa repeatedly attacked the settlers, Austin organized a militia to fight back; they almost annihilated the tribe.[32]

text: Comanches were a threat to some of the colonies. Green Dewitt began his colony west of Austin's in December 1825.[27] In July 1826 his headquarters, Gonzales was burned to the ground in a Comanche attack. All but one colonist escaped to San Felipe. They returned to rebuild their colony the following year. For protection, the political chief of the region granted the community a small cannon.[32]

text: Land speculators flooded into Texas. Colonization laws limited Anglos to only one league of land, but Mexican nationals were in many cases eligible for up to 11 leagues. Anglo speculators would often convince a Mexican national to claim his 11 leagues and then sell the land to the speculator through a power of attorney.[33]

text: Rising tensions[edit]

text: In 1825, Mexican authorities became concerned with the actions of empresario Haden Edwards in Nacogdoches. Edwards had threatened to confiscate the land of any Mexican already living in the area in which he planned to bring settlers unless the Mexicans could present written deeds to the property. Mexican authorities promptly told him that he did not have the authority to confiscate land and he should honor the claims of the previous settlers. After multiple confrontations, on December 16, 1826, Edwards, his brothers, and 30 settlers issued a declaration of independence and called themselves the Republic of Fredonia. Other empresarios disassociated themselves from Edwards, and Austin sent 250 militiamen to Nacogdoches to help the Mexican forces quell the revolt. Edwards was finally forced to flee Mexican territory.[25]

text: After hearing reports of other racial issues, the Mexican government asked General Manuel Mier y Teran to investigate the outcome of the 1825 colonization law in Texas. In 1829, Mier y Teran issued his report, which concluded that most Anglo Americans refused to be naturalized and tried to isolate themselves from Mexicans. He also noted that slave reforms passed by the state were being ignored.[25]

text: Although many Mexicans wanted to abolish slavery, fears of an economic crisis if all of the slaves were simultaneously freed led to a gradual emancipation policy.[11] In 1823, Mexico forbade the sale or purchase of slaves and required that the children of slaves be freed when they reached fourteen.[26] Any slave introduced into Mexico by purchase or trade would also be freed.[11] By 1825, however, a census of Austin's Colony showed 1,347 Anglo-Americans and 443 people of African descent, including a very small number of free African Americans.[34] Two years later the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas outlawed the introduction of additional slaves into the state and granted freedom at birth to all children born to a slave.[26] The new laws also stated that any slave brought into Texas should be freed within six months.[35]

text: In 1829, slavery was officially outlawed in Mexico.[26] Austin feared that the edict would cause widespread discontent and tried to suppress publication of it. Rumors of the new law quickly spread throughout the area and the colonists seemed on the brink of revolt. The governor of Coahuila y Tejas, Jose Maria Viesca, wrote to the president to explain the importance of slavery to the Texas economy, and the importance of the Texas economy to the development of the state. Texas was temporarily exempted from the rule.[36] On April 6, 1830, Mexican president Anastasio Bustamante ordered Texas to comply with the emancipation proclamation or face military intervention.[37] To circumvent the law, many Anglo colonists converted their slaves into indentured servants for life. Others simply called their slaves indentured servants without legally changing their status.[38] Slaveholders wishing to enter Mexico would force their slaves to sign contracts claiming that the slaves owed money and would work to pay the debt. The low wages the slave would receive made repayment impossible, and the debt would be inherited, even though no slave would receive wages until age eighteen.[39] This tactic was outlawed by an 1832 state law which prohibited worker contracts from lasting more than ten years.[40] A small number of slaves were imported illegally from the West Indies or Africa. The British consul estimated that in the 1830s approximately 500 slaves had been illegally imported into Texas.[41] By 1836, there were approximately 5,000 slaves in Texas.[42]

text: Exportation in the slave-owning areas of the state surpassed that of the non-slave-owning areas. A survey of Texas in 1834 found that the department of Bexar, which was mostly made up of Tejanos, had exported no goods. The Brazos department, including Austin's colonies and those of Green DeWitt, had exported 600,000 pesos worth of goods, including 5,000 bales of cotton.[43] The department of Texas, which included the eastern settlements, expected to export 2,000 bales of cotton and 5,000 head of cattle.[44]

text: Bustamante implemented other measures to make immigration less desirable for Anglo-Americans. He rescinded the property tax law, which had exempted immigrants from paying taxes for ten years. He further increased tariffs on goods entering Mexico from the United States, causing their prices to rise.[37] The 1830s laws also brought settlement contracts under federal rather than state control.[45] Colonies that did not have at least 150 inhabitants would be canceled. Among the affected colonies were the Nashville Company run by Sterling C. Robertson and the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company, run by David G. Burnet, Lorenzo de Zavala and Joseph Vehlein.[40] Finally, he prohibited further immigration to Texas from the United States, although Anglos would still be welcome in other parts of Mexico.[37] The ban and other measures did not stop U.S. citizens from migrating illegally to Texas by the thousands. By 1834, it was estimated that over 30,000 Anglos lived in Texas,[46] compared to only 7,800 Mexicans.[12]

text: Anglos often viewed the Mexicans as foreigners and intruders.[46] The feeling was often returned; Rafael Antonio Manchola, son-in-law of empresario Martín De León, served as the commander of the presidio at La Bahia from 1828 to 1830 and then as the alcalde of Goliad. He warned the military commander for Texas that

text: "'No faith can be placed in the Anglo-American colonists because they are continually demonstrating that they absolutely refuse to be subordinate, unless they find it convenient to what they want anyway, all of which I believe will be very detrimental to us for them to be our neighbors if we do not in time, clip the wings of their audacity by stationing a strong detachment in each new settlement which will enforce the laws and jurisdiction of a Mexican magistrate which should be placed in each of them, since under their own colonists as judges, they do nothing more than practice their own laws which they have practiced since they were born, forgetting the ones they have sworn to obey, these being the laws of our Supreme Government.'"[47]

text: International issues[edit]

text: Many Americans thought the United States had been cheated out of Texas. American land speculators believed they could make fortunes in the vast region of Texas, and American politicians believed Texas could help maintain a balance of power between free and slave states. In 1827, American president John Quincy Adams offered US$1 million for Texas. Mexican president Guadalupe Victoria refused. Two years later, Andrew Jackson increased the United States' offer to $5 million; President Vicente Guerrero again declined to sell.[48]

text: In July 1829, Mexican authorities had other concerns, as General Isidro Barradas landed 2,700 Spanish troops to the eastern coast of Mexico, near Tampico in an attempt to reclaim the country for Spain. At the request of the government, Austin mustered a local militia to help defend Texas if the invasion were to reach the northern regions of the country.[48] Yucatan governor Antonio López de Santa Anna led a force of Mexican troops to halt the invasion. Barradas surrendered as his troops suffered greatly from tropical diseases, and Santa Anna was hailed as a hero. During the invasion, the Mexican Congress had granted war powers to President Guerrero, making him essentially a dictator. This alarmed the Anglo colonists in Texas, who were accustomed to a separation of powers.[49]

text: Precursor to revolt[edit]

text: Mier y Teran's 1828 report had recommended new garrisons in Texas which could oversee the Anglo colonists and encourage Mexicans to resettle in the area. The new garrisons were to be partly staffed by convicts.[50] The first was established along Galveston Bay in 1831 at the site of present-day Anahuac. It became the first port in Texas to collect customs. A second custom port, Velasco, was established at the mouth of the Brazos River, while a third garrison established Fort Teran on the Neches River below Nacogdoches to combat smuggling and illegal immigration.[51]

text: Mier y Teran further ordered the garrison at Bexar to abandon their fort and create a new presidio.[51] Fort Tenoxtitlán was established in 1830 on the west bank of the Brazos River, 100 miles (161 km) above San Felipe. Shortly after the fort was completed, 50 immigrants from Tennessee arrived in the area under empresario Sterling C. Robertson. The settlers had arrived illegally, as Robertson's contract had been invalidated by Guerrero's 1830 laws. The garrison commander chose not to expel them, instead sending to Mexico for advice. Three months later he received instructions to expel the settlers immediately. He chose not to do so, allowing the Robertson's Colony to be saved.[52] The fort closed in 1832. After having received no replacements or supplies, the commander finally ordered all of the soldiers to return to San Antonio.[53]

text: Anahuac was placed under the control of Colonel Juan Davis Bradburn. Bradburn enforced the 1830 laws strictly, angering many colonists. He forbade the state commissioner from granting property titles to squatters and insisted on enforcing the law freeing any slave who set foot in Mexican territory.[54] He and his men also confiscated settlers goods for their own personal wealth. This angered many of the Anglos. They believed that their rights under the Mexican Constitution of 1824 were being violated. In 1832, local men organized a militia, supposedly to protect the settlement from Indian attacks, although all Indians in the area were peaceful.[55] Mexican law forbade residents from creating militias, so Bradburn arrested the ringleader, Patrick C. Jack.[56] Citizens were very angry. In Brazoria, residents held a town meeting to decide what to do. William H. Wharton complained that there was little support within Austin's colony to oppose Bradburn with military force; he and other advocates of armed conflict felt that their opposition from other settlers was as deep as that of the Mexican soldiers in the area.[57] Bradburn eventually agreed to release Jack, and tensions cooled for a brief period.[55]

text: In May 1832, Bradburn received a letter, ostensibly from a friend, warning that 100 armed men were stationed 40 miles (64 km) away, intent on reclaiming runaway slaves held by Bradburn.[58] When Bradburn realized that the letter was a hoax, he arrested Travis for questioning.[59] He intended to send Travis to Matamoros for a military trial on charges of attempted insurrection, with the goal being separation from Mexico. Conviction on this charge would certainly lead to Travis's execution.[60] The settlers were outraged that the arrest did not require a warrant, a statement of charges, or trial by jury. Most were unfamiliar with Mexican law and assumed that the United States Bill of Rights still applied to them.[61] Settlers attacked the Anahuac garrison to free Travis in an event that became known as the Anahuac Disturbances.[54]

text: Additional settlers had gathered in Brazoria to transport several cannon to aid the group in Anahuac. Colonel Domingo de Ugartechea, who led the garrison at Velasco, at the mouth of the Brazos River, refused to allow the ship carrying the cannon to pass. On June 26, settlers initiated the Battle of Velasco; Ugartechea surrendered the following day.[62]

text: Several days later, Colonel Jose de las Piedras arrived from Nacogdoches to assist Bradburn. He removed Bradburn from his command, and the settlers dispersed.[63]

text: In 1832, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna led an insurrection against Mexican president Bustamante. Although most of the Mexican Army supported the Bustamante administration, this led to a small civil war.[54] Many of the Anglo settlers sided with Santa Anna and followed General José Antonio Mexía, who led soldiers in Texas against Bustamante. Mexia removed the commander at Matamoros from his post. In October, 55 delegates from Texas communities attended the Convention of 1832 in San Felipe. The delegates drafted three petitions to the Congress of Mexico. They wished for an annulment of Article 11 of the colonization law of 1830, which prohibited foreign settlement as well as customs reform, recognition of squatters as valid immigrants, and a separate state for Texas.[64]

text: On December 19, 1832, the Bexar Remonstrance was issued to the Mexican Congress. It legally proclaimed the grievances that the population of Texas had suffered under the centralist style Mexican government.[65] It addressed such issues as improper protection against Indian attacks and poor pay for militia, insufficient local and legislative representation, forbidding of immigration from the United States, lack of schools and funding for education, and various violations of the repudiated republican style Constitution of 1824.[66]

text: Santa Anna was elected the president of Mexico on January 19, 1833. A resulting second convention was held that year in April. This one, attended by recent arrivals such as Sam Houston, appointed a commission to draft a constitution for a new Mexican state of Texas and selected delegates to represent Texas before the federal government. Austin was chosen to deliver the proposed constitution to Santa Anna's government in Mexico City. Although Austin pointed out that Texas had been given permission to form a separate state and had now grown to 46,500 inhabitants, the political chief of Bexar warned the government that the Anglos might be proposing separate statehood as part of a plan to join with the United States.[67] Austin was arrested on November 21, 1833, on suspicion of treason.[68] Austin was imprisoned for about a year. Santa Anna decided to do away with the Mexican Constitution of 1824 and became a dictator. Austin changes from being the promoter of peace to agreeing with separation from Mexico.

text: The Mexican government attempted to address some of the Texans' concerns. Article 11 was repealed on November 21, 1833, allowing American immigrants to again flow into Texas.[68] Five months later, Coahuila y Tejas separated Texas into three departments, San Antonio-Bexar, Brazos, and Nacogdoches, with political chiefs for each department and more representation in the state legislature. Furthermore, trial by jury was introduced, and English was authorized as a second language.[69] An Anglo American, Jefferson Chambers, was appointed superior circuit judge of Texas in 1835 and extensions were granted for settlement contracts that had not met their conditions for the number of settlers.[70] Six English-speaking Texan communities were elevated to municipalities.[71]

text: In March 1833, the capital of the state was transferred from Saltillo to Monclova.[70] The following year, centralists began urging Santa Anna to overturn the federal system and introduce centralism. Some legislators believed that centralism would be the only way to retain Texas, as newspapers in the United States continued to make statements about the forthcoming annexation of Texas. When the national congress attempted to centralize the nation, a civil war ensued. As fighting erupted, Saltillo declared that Monclova had been illegally made the state capitol and selected its own governor. Texans in Saltillo recommended establishing a provisional government in Bexar during the unrest to strengthen the autonomy of Texas. Juan Seguin, political chief of Bexar, called for a town meeting to create a government but was forced to postpone it when Mexican troops advanced in the direction of Texas.[72]

text: By the end of the year, however, Santa Anna began to exhibit centralist tendencies,[71] and in 1835 he revoked the Constitution of 1824 and began consolidating his power. In various parts of the country federalists revolted, and in May 1835 Santa Anna brutally crushed a revolt in Zacatecas; over 2000 noncombatants were killed.[73] The federalists, including Agustín Viesca, the governor of Coahuila y Tejas, were afraid that Santa Anna would march against Coahuila after subduing the rebels in Zacatecas, so they disbanded the state legislature on May 21, 1835, and authorized the governor to set up an office in a different part of the state. Viezca was arrested as he traveled to San Antonio. Under the pretext of being angry over Viezca's imprisonment the people of Anahuac organized a resistance under Travis. In actuality, they were angry that the two-year grace period on tariffs had ended and the Anahuac customs office had reopened. When Viezca escaped and reached Texas, no one recognized him as governor.[72]

text: As protests spread across Texas, Mexican officials increasingly blamed the settlers from the United States for the discontent. When Santa Anna became a dictator and began violating the Mexican Texans rights then the road to revolution began.

text: Texas Revolution[edit]

text: In an effort to secure his freedom, in January 1835 Austin had published his Exposition to the Public Regarding the Affairs of Texas. In this document he explained that Texas wanted to be a separate state, not an independent nation. He discussed the grievances against the Texas justice system and justified the conventions of 1832 and 1833 as "'an exercise of the right to petition that belongs to every free people'".[69] He was finally released from prison and had returned to Texas, by August.[69] He changed his mind in prison about the future of Texas and issued a call to arms, announcing that Texas should be "'forever free of any Mexican control'".[74] He realized that Santa Anna was a dictator and that the Texans had no rights or freedoms under his rule.

text: After the Mexican Congress elected General Santa Anna as President of Mexico in 1833, he appointed Valentín Gómez Farías as his vice president and turned over much of the governing of Mexico to him. However, the Vice President began implementing reforms, particularly impacting the Mexican Army and the Catholic Church. These reforms angered the powerful centrist forces, who urged Santa Anna to abandon his semi-retirement. Santa Anna agreed and led the reaction against liberalization, forcing Gómez Farías and his Federalist supporters, including Mexican General José Antonio Mexía, to flee into exile in the United States.[75] Some went to New Orleans, where they planned to resist the Centralist government.

text: Although the United States government remained officially neutral in the Mexican struggle between Santa Anna's Centralists and Gomez Farias' Federalists, there was much political sympathy favoring the separation of Texas from Mexico. A number of men, known as "filibusterers" were attracted to militia-type organizations such as the New Orleans Greys, preparing to go fight for Texas independence. General Mexia soon found financing in New Orleans and began raising an expedition to attack the important Mexican port of Tampico. He persuaded influential people in New Orleans that seizing the port would aid the Texian cause. However, the "Tampico Expedition" that he began on November 6, 1835, failed.[76]

text: In 1835 Juan Seguin, Plácido Benavides, Manuel Leal, and Salvador Flores began raising companies of volunteers from the San Antonio and Victoria areas to support the federalist cause.[77] By the end of the year over 100 Tejanos had joined this Federal Army of Texas to defend the Constitution of 1824 against the centralists.[78] The political chief of the Nacogdoches region told the militias to take arms against the Mexican troops in July 1835 and asked the rest of the citizens to form a volunteer army. "Texas committees" in cities such as New Orleans and New York City mustered volunteers and began sending an army and money to assist the Texas colonists in their fight. Austin commanded the militias, while Sam Houston was placed in charge of the volunteers.[74] The first violent incident occurred on October 2 at the battle of Gonzales.[74]

text: The Consultation met in November to discuss the reasons for the revolt. The Consultation denounced centralism and organized a provisional state government based "'on the principles of the 1824 Constitution'".[74] The following month, San Antonio surrendered to the Anglos, giving the rebels a great deal of military equipment. Some Texans traveled to the United States seeking aid. Although they were denied a loan, they managed to heavily advertise the availability of land in Texas, ensuring that more volunteers would come to fight.[79]

text: Texas formally declared independence at Washington-on-the-Brazos on March 2, 1836. The revolt was justified as necessary to protect basic rights and because Mexico had annulled the federal pact. The colonists maintained that Mexico had invited them to move to the country and they were determined "to enjoy 'the republican institutions to which they were accustomed in their native land, the United States of America.'"[80] The declaration did not acknowledge that Mexico had attempted to incorporate some of their demands.[81] The new Texas constitution specifically allowed slavery and said no free person of African descent could reside in the new country without Congress's consent.[82] Many of the Tejanos left the fight after the declaration of independence as they were disappointed with the growing anti-Mexican rhetoric. Only Seguin's company remained in the Texian Army.[78]

text: The war ended with the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836, with the birth of the Republic of Texas.[46] Santa Anna was taken prisoner, and the Mexican troops were forced to withdraw south of the Rio Grande.[82] It is remarkable that Sam Houston was able to keep the Texans from killing Santa Anna since he had slaughtered the men of the Alamo and Goliad. In the ensuing Treaties of Velasco, Santa Anna promised he would convince the Mexican government to recognize Texan independence. He did not keep this promise, but the Texans did keep their promise to return him to Mexico.[83] The Mexican Congress did not recognize Texan independence.[82] Santa Anna was released to the United States who then turned him over to Mexico.

text: Footnotes[edit]

text:
^ Jump up to: a b Edmondson (2000), p. 75.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 161.
^ Jump up to: a b c Edmondson (2000), p. 71.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 82.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Manchaca (2001), p. 162.
^ Jump up to: a b Edmonson (2000), p. 72.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 51.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 52.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 85.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 83.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Manchaca (2001), p. 163.
^ Jump up to: a b Manchaca (2001), p. 172.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 164.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 194.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 48.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 187.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 50.
^ Jump up to: a b c de la Teja (1997), p. 88.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 53.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 195.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 196.
^ Jump up to: a b Manchaca (2001), p. 198.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 63.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 70.
^ Jump up to: a b c Manchaca (2001), p. 199.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Barr (1996), p. 14.
^ Jump up to: a b Edmondson (2000), p. 73.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 54.
Jump up ^ Horton (1999), p. 8.
Jump up ^ Horton (1999), p. 9.
Jump up ^ Horton (1999), pp. 95–96.
^ Jump up to: a b Edmondson (2000), p. 74.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 90.
Jump up ^ Williams (1997), p. 6.
Jump up ^ Manchaca (2001), p. 165.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 80.
^ Jump up to: a b c Manchaca (2001), p. 200.
Jump up ^ Barr (1996), p. 15.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 57.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 63.
Jump up ^ Barr (1996), p. 16.
Jump up ^ Barr (1996), p. 17.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 91.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 92.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 62.
^ Jump up to: a b c Manchaca (2001), p. 201.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1997), p. 89.
^ Jump up to: a b Edmondson (2000), p. 78.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 79.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 134.
^ Jump up to: a b Edmondson (2000), p. 135.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 136.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 137.
^ Jump up to: a b c Vazquez (1997), p. 65.
^ Jump up to: a b Henson (1982), p. 90.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 151.
Jump up ^ Ward (1960), p. 215.
Jump up ^ Edmondson (2000), p. 145.
Jump up ^ Henson (1982), p. 97.
Jump up ^ Davis (2006), p. 83.
Jump up ^ Henson (1982), p. 96.
Jump up ^ Henson (1982), pp. 107–8.
Jump up ^ Nofi (1992), p. 23.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 66.
Jump up ^ de la Teja (2010), p. 151.
Jump up ^ Lozano (1985), p. 1.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 67.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 68.
^ Jump up to: a b c Vazquez (1997), p. 69.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 70.
^ Jump up to: a b Barr (1990), p. 2.
^ Jump up to: a b Vazquez (1997), p. 71.
Jump up ^ Hardin (1994), p. 6.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Vazquez (1997), p. 72.
Jump up ^ "Texas State Historical Association. The Handbook of Texas Online. Tampico Expedition. [1]
Jump up ^ Miller, Edward L. (2004)
Jump up ^ de la Teja (1991), p. 24.
^ Jump up to: a b de la Teja (1997), p. 94.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 73.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 74.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 75.
^ Jump up to: a b c Vazquez (1997), p. 76.
Jump up ^ Vazquez (1997), p. 77.

tag: ol