Unity in Diversity: Integration of Princely States into Independent India

At the time of Independence, India comprised British India and the Princely States. The Princely States covered about two fifths of the geographic territory and had 1/3rd of the population of the British Empire. These  Princely States were littered all over India and The fate of 86 million people was at stake.

• Shifting Alliance: After sepoy mutiny of 1857, Crown abandoned the policy of annexation and Princely states became natural allies of the British rulers and were always willing to help their patrons in times of crisis such as war and intense nationalist mobilization.
• The Indian Independence Act: The Indian Independence Act ceded control of British India to the Indian Government, rulers of the Princely States were given the option to decide whether they wanted to accede to India or Pakistan or to remain independent.
• Nehru’s Assertion: According to Nehru, Independent India would not accept the divine right of kings and  any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.
• Sardar Patel’s Vision: In these circumstances, Sardar Patel along with V. P. Menon took up the monumental challenge of accession of the princely states and integrating them into the Union of India. 
  • The peaceful accession of over 560 Princely States into the Union of India is one of Sardar Patel’s most lasting legacies. 
• According to former Prime Minister Morarji Desai, “The integration of the Princely states could be termed as the crowning achievement of Vallabhbhai Patel’s life.” But for him, this may not have been achieved easily and quickly.

Sovereign Province: Autocracy, Communalism, and Power Dynamics in Princely States

• Totalitarian Autocracies: Most of the Princely states were run as totalitarian autocracies with absolute powers concentrated in the hands of the rulers or their favorites appointed in the patrimonial administration
  • Example: In Hyderabad’s personalized autocracy, sarf khas was the Nizam’s own estate, The income from this would directly meet the royal expenses.
• Discretionary Revenue Policy : The burden of land-tax in princely states, was generally heavier than in British India. 
  • The rulers generally enjoyed Supreme control over the state revenues for personal use  at their own personal discretion. 
• Important Role of Jagirdars: In some Princely states, the Princes shared power with the jagirdars. who controlled vast areas of land and resources because they were relatives or supporters of the rulers or both.
  • Example: In the Alwar state, about 1/3rd of the fertile lands were in the hands of the jagirdars who were close kinsmen of the Raja. The jagirs were concentrated in the southern tehsils of Alwar.
  • Army of Princely States: The coercive arm of the Princely state was generally small but effective in maintaining law and order.
    • Example: A small army of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala acted as personal bodyguards of the Prince and as the supplementary force for the preservation of law and order. 
• No Check  on Arbitrary Powers: They could freely use whatever little force the British allowed them against their subjects.
• Nomination in Assembly: Even when the “modernizing” princes of Mysore, Baroda, Travancore and Cochin  legislative assemblies maintained large nominated majorities in them.
• Communal Mobilization: As the Princes and their autocratic rule came under increasing attack during the 1930’s, these rulers turned more and more to religious revivalism and communal mobilization to maintain a semblance of legitimacy and to strengthen their positions within their states. 
  • Many Princes gave monetary contributions to educational institutions run by their own communities such as the Hindu University at Banaras, the Deccan Educational Society, the Sikh Khalsa College at Amritsar etc,
  • Mysore, Cochin and Travancore supported the prominent Hindu institutions in order to maintain a prominent ritual position within their own states.
  • Bhupinder Singh, the Maharaja of Patiala tried to project himself as the leading figure of the Sikh community 
  • The Nizam’s administration in Hyderabad tried to project itself as a Muslim state, and established Ittehad ul Muslimeen, a communal organisation that tried to project Nizam as the ‘Royal Embodiment of Muslim Sovereignty in Deccan’

The Demise of Princely States in the Face of Nationalist Mobilization and Political Transformations

The intensification of the nationalist mobilisation brought a few princes into the -political arena. They participated in the imperial conferences and the indigenous associations.  Initially, the British used them for seeking legitimacy for their rule in India. The Indian leaders also turned to the princes for financial patronage.

• Chamber of the Princes (1921): The British promoted a deliberative assembly, the Chamber of the Princes. 
  • The Chamber had no real power and evoked limited participation of the Princes whose rivalries and concern for honor further reduced its potential effectiveness. 
• Resistance of Princes for Reforms: The princes generally resisted the constitutional and political changes within their own states.
• First Round Table Conference: The nationalist leader Tej Bahadur Sapru, the liberal Indian leader, called for the federation of British India and the princely states at the First Round Table Conference (1930).
  • The idea did not materialise due to princely intransigence, British ambivalence and Congress opposition. 
  • He was also appointed a member of the Privy Council on 26 February 1934.
• Congress Sided with Masses: While the princes wished to gain from the British some sort of constitutional guarantee for their future existence, the congress leadership gradually sided with the popular aspirations against these feudal vestiges.
  • Haripura Congress Session (1938):  This session of congress resolved to extend moral support to the popular movements against princes and allowed participation of congressmen in individual capacity in such agitations. 
• Falling status of Princes: It is doubtful whether the lack of political and social reforms affected their political viability and became the major cause for their inevitable demise. 
• British ended their Support: When the imperial patron unilaterally abrogated the relationship with them, the only option available to the princes was their integration into the body politic of either India or Pakistan.
  • The British in the post-war conditions were not favorable towards the perpetual existence of the princes as they denied their citizens democratic rights and institutions.
• However, They also tried to secure for them a position commensurate with their ‘historical status’ in the post-colonial polity. 
• • Princely State as an Impediment: The radical congressmen also considered the existence of the princely state to be a major impediment in the way of rational economic planning and rapid industrialisation.
• Revival of Praja Mandals: The local opposition to autocratic rule in the form of Praja Mandals affiliated to the All India State People Conference also got a boost when the prospects of transfer of power appeared as a distinct possibility. 
• • Cabinet mission (1946): The Cabinet mission tried to persuade the princes for accession. 
• Mountbatten Plan (1947): Finally, Lord Mountbatten prevailed over the princes to sign the instruments of accession in August 1947, leaving defence, foreign affairs and communications to the union.
• • It declared that the British suzerainty over these kingdoms was terminated.
  • These were the areas over which the states had long ceased to exercise their jurisdiction and control. 

Pathways to Unity: The Complex Integration of Princely States in Post-Independence India

• Princely States’ Options: During British rule, India was divided into British provinces and princely states. 
  • After the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the princely states were given the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent, resulting in the integration of most states into India through various means.
• Unresolved Territories: Of the 552 princely states situated within the geographical boundaries of India, 549 joined India and the remaining 3 (Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir)  had not acceded to India by August 15,1947.
  • Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, and Junagadh these states  posed a challenge to the Government of India. 
    • As a result, legally speaking Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir became independent,
    • While  Junagadh chose to accede to Pakistan defying public opinion in the state and  Junagadh was also not sharing border with Pakistan.
    • In these three states, the ruler and the majority of the population did not share the same religion.
    • Hyderabad and Junagadh had Muslim rulers while the majority of the population was Hindu.
    • The case was the exact opposite in Jammu and Kashmir.
• In course of time these states acceded to India,
  • Hyderabad by Means of Police Action (Operation POLO)
    • Communal forces, specially the Ittehadul-Muslimeen, known as the Razakars, led by Kasim Rizvi, were strongly against Hyderabad coming to any agreement with the Indian government. 
    • Oppressed by the Razakars, The people’s movement in the state led by the Hyderabad State Congress  launched an agitation for integration of the state.
    • The Indian army marched into Hyderabad on September 13, 1948. 
    • The Nizam surrendered after a few days of ineffective and ineffectual resistance and Hyderabad became a part of India.
  • Junagarh by Means of Referendum
    • The Nawab joined Pakistan on 15 August 1947. In this state around 80 percent of the Population was of that Hindu but the Ruler was Muslim. 
    • Junagarh was surrounded on all of its land borders by India. 
    • The unsettled conditions with India, Junagadh had led to a cessation of all trade with India.
    • In this crisis, the Nawab was forced to flee to Karachi with his family and his followers and there he established a provisional government.
    • People rose against the Nawab and gathered in Bombay  to liberate Junagadh from the Nawab.
    • Samaldas Gandhi formed a government-in-exile (the Aarzi Hukumat)  of the people of Junagadh. 
    • On the basis of misgovernance Patel ordered the forcible annexation of Junagadh.
    • On November 9, 1947, India took over Junagadh, and in a plebiscite held in February 1948 the people supported the accession to India.
  • Kashmir by the Instrument of Accession.
    • The crisis in Jammu and Kashmir was precipitated in October 1947 by a tribal invasion of its territories from Pakistan which terrified the the Raja Harisinh
    • India agreed to help Raja Haringh, provided Raja Harisinh  signed the instrument of accession with India.
    • This instrument also had the provision that a plebiscite would be held after peace had been restored to ascertain the wishes of the people regarding accession
    • Raja Harinsh  signed the instrument of accession, Indian Army units were airlifted to Srinagar and the raiding forces were pushed back after a hard fought battle (First war between India and Pakistan)
    •  An interim government under Sheikh Abdullah had been formed in the meanwhile. 

Integration of Princely States: Diplomacy, Democratization, and the Evolution of Modern India

• Treaties and Agreement: Patel and Menon backed up their diplomatic efforts by producing treaties that were designed to be attractive to rulers of princely states. Two key documents were produced.
  • Standstill Agreement: It confirmed the continuance of the pre-existing agreements and administrative practices. 
  • Instrument of Accession: With the agreement of Nehru and Sardar Patel the states would accede to India only with respect to defence, external affairs and communications was devised and with respect other subjects internal autonomy was granted.
• Continuous Support of Centre: The federal centre, however, occupied the political space left by the collapse of British paramountcy and intervened in Princely state’s internal matters on a regular basis to engineer a great and relatively peaceful merger and democratisation process.
• • Ministry of States: A separate Ministry of States was established by the Government of India in June-July 1947 to deal with matters related with the states.
• Subordination with Union: They were also completely subordinated to the federal centre by using democratisation as a means.
• Merger with Existed states: For this purpose, the smaller states were amalgamated into larger administrative units or merged with the erstwhile provinces of the union.
  • Example: Some of the Eastern states and states of Chattisgarh were integrated into Orissa after adivasi revolts against the princes.
    • The states of Kathiawar were merged into a new state named Saurashtra.
    • The states of the Deccan and Gujarat were merged into the province of Bombay.
    • In March 1948, merger of the Punjab hill states as a centrally ruled unit resulted in the creation of Himachal Pradesh. 
    • In April 1948, a new state of Madhya Bharat was formed integrating Indore, Gwalior and the other Central Indian States. 
• Initiation  of Democracy: This territorial integration was the initiation of democratic reforms and institution of popular accountable ministries in many of these states.
• Equality with Other Units: The merger and democratization of the Princely polities made them analogous with the rest of the country as regards to the manner of governance.
• New Instruments of Accession (April 1948 ): This was signed with the princes ceding to the union the power to pass laws in respect of all matters falling within federal and concurrent legislative lists including in the Seventh Schedule  (Earlier centre had rights only in respect of defence, foreign affairs and communication).
• Direct Intervention : Government direct control of the territory when there is breakdown of law and order and when situations pose threat to National Security.
  • Example: The centre sent regional commissioners to Rajkot and Sambalpur, and asked Princely States Holkar to remove Kis Diwan, detained the Raja of Faridkot, took direct control over the administration of Kutch, Tripura and Manipur on grounds of security,  invaded the Nizam’s territories in Hyderabad,  enforced a blockade on the Nawab of Junagarh.
• Princes as a Governor: Some of the princes were absorbed in the new polity as governors and deputy-governors (rajparamukhs and uprajparamukhs), 
  • However, they could not maintain their privileges and extraordinary status that they had enjoyed under British patronage.
• Privy Purses: In return  for the surrender of their sovereignty, the rulers of the major states were also given privy purses amounting to Rs. 4.66 crores in 1949, free of all taxes that were later also guaranteed by the constitution. 
  • Later, These concessions were abolished in 1969. 

 Conclusion

• Policy of Aloofness: In the history of India, Princely states tried to keep themselves aloof from British India and Indian National Congress in order to protect their identity and their rule.
• Sardar Patel’s Pivotal Role: Post Independence, Sardar patel played a magnificent role in persuading princes and integration of princely states into India
• Survival and Transformation: The princes however  managed to survive the transition to democracy. Many of them joined politics and served as ministers at the central and state level. Others became diplomats or joined the armed forces and the bureaucracy.
• End of an Era: In the 1970s, the constitution was amended to abolish the Privy Purses and the princely titles. With this politically contentious move, the princes finally vanished into the mists of history.
• Legacy Lives On: But as private individuals many of them continue to play a role in public life, as politicians, heritage and tourism enthusiasts, or nature conservationists.

DOWNLOAD PDF