Evolution of Indian States

Introduction

The Indian states, encompassing 562 princely entities, varied widely in size, from tiny Bilbari with just 27 inhabitants to Hyderabad, as vast as Italy, with a population of 14 million. The phases of British Authority and State Relations are as follows:

Company’s Rise to Political Power from the Position of Subordination (1740–1765)

• Emergence of the Company’s Political Identity: The Company’s political identity emerged during the Anglo-French rivalry, culminating in the capture of Arcot (1751) and the significant victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757).
• Ascendancy as a Political Power: By 1765 (After the Battle of Buxar), the acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa elevated the East India Company to a major political force in India.
• Ring Fence Policy (1765–1813)
  • Objective: The Ring Fence policy, exemplified in Warren Hasting’s wars against the Marathas and Mysore, aimed at creating buffer zones to safeguard Company frontiers.
• Subsidiary Alliances: with major powers like Hyderabad, Awadh, and the Marathas solidified British supremacy. 
  • Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of the ring fence policy.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

• Subordinate Isolation Policy (1813–1857)

  • Theory of Paramountcy: The theory of paramountcy emerged, requiring Indian states to cooperate subordinately with the British government. 
    • The Indian states surrendered all forms of external sovereignty while retaining internal sovereignty.
  • Commercial to Political Focus: The Charter Act of 1833 marked the end of the Company’s commercial functions but retained political power, introducing the practice of seeking approval for matters of succession.
  • Dalhousie’s Usurpation of States: In 1834, the Board of Directors urged annexation, leading to the usurpation of eight states by Dalhousie, including significant ones like Satara and Nagpur.

• The Era of Subordinate Union (1857–1935)

• • Direct Responsibility by Crown: In 1858, the Crown assumed direct responsibility due to the state’s loyalty during the 1857 revolt.
  • Shift in Policy: Policy shifted from annexation to punishment or deposition, emphasizing states as breakwaters in political storms.
  • End of Mughal Emperor’s Authority: The Mughal emperor’s authority ended in 1858; all succession matters required the Crown’s sanction.
  • Kaiser-i-Hind: The Queen’s adoption of ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ signalled the end of the Indian state’s equality with the Crown.
  • Paramount Supremacy: Paramount supremacy implied state subordination. Rulers inherited the ‘Gaddi’ as a gift, highlighting the subordination to the paramount power. 
  • British Interference: In state affairs for prince’s welfare, public welfare, British subjects, foreigners, and overall Indian interests.
    • Increased intervention facilitated by modern communication developments railways, telegraph, etc.
  • Lord Curzon’s Interpretation: Lord Curzon interpreted old treaties to position princes as servants working alongside the Governor-general.
    • Adoption of patronage and ‘intrusive surveillance’ to shape relationships between states and the government.
    • The aim was to establish uniform dependence on the British government, unifying states in the Indian political system.

• Post-1905 Developments

• • Montford Reforms (1921): It led to the creation of the Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) as a consultative body. 
    • For the purpose of the chamber, the Indian states were divided into three categories: Directly represented, Represented through representatives and Recognised as feudal holdings or jagirs.
  • Butler Committee (1927): This committee examined the nature of the relationship between princely states and the government. 
    • Its recommendations include: Paramountcy to remain supreme, adapting to evolving state conditions, and States not to be handed over to an Indian Government without princely states’ consent.[UPSC 2017]
  • Government of India Act, 1935: This act  proposed a Federal Assembly. 
    • Scheme dependent on ratification by Indian states representing over half the population and entitled to over half the Council of States’ seats. 
    • It never came into existence.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

Indian states operated with varying degrees of autonomy, but over time, British interference increased, especially after the Doctrine of Paramountcy was established. This change saw the erosion of traditional powers of Indian rulers, culminating in direct British control or significant influence over state affairs. The evolution of Indian states mirrored the broader colonial project of British India, wherein indigenous institutions were subordinated to British rule.

DOWNLOAD PDF