Product Code Database
A princely state (also called native state) was a nominally sovereign Quote: "The British did not create the Indian princes. Before and during the European penetration of India, indigenous rulers achieved dominance through the military protection they provided to dependents and their skill in acquiring revenues to maintain their military and administrative organizations. Major Indian rulers exercised varying degrees and types of sovereign powers before they entered treaty relations with the British. What changed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is that the British increasingly restricted the sovereignty of Indian rulers. The Indian Company set boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military personnel, subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of commercial goods at favorable prices, and limited opportunities for other alliances. From the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and consolidated their power, their centralized military despotism dramatically reduced the political options of Indian rulers." (p. 85) entity of British Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by an indigenous ruler under a form of indirect rule, Quote: "The British system of indirect rule over Indian states ... provided a model for the efficient use of scarce monetary and personnel resources that could be adopted to imperial acquisitions in Malaya and Africa." subject to a subsidiary alliance and the suzerainty or paramountcy of the the Crown.
At the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states were officially recognized in the Indian Subcontinent, apart from thousands of zamindar and . In 1947, princely states covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population. The most important princely states had their own Indian political residencies: Hyderabad State of the , Mysore, Pudukkottai and Travancore State in the South, Jammu and Kashmir and Gwalior in North and Indore State in Central India. The most prominent among those – roughly a quarter of the total – had the status of a salute state, one whose ruler was entitled to a set number of on ceremonial occasions.
The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth; the premier 21-gun salute states of Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir were each over in size. In 1941, Hyderabad had a population of over 16 million, while Jammu and Kashmir had a population of slightly over 4 million. At the other end of the scale, the non-salute principality of Lawa Thikana covered an area of , with a population of just below 3,000. Some two hundred of the lesser states even had an area of less than .
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) also to refer to the regions under the rule of the East India Company in India from 1774 to 1858. 1. Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, published under the authority of the India Office, 1909, Oxford University Press. page 5. Quote: "The history of British India falls, as observed by Sir C. P. Ilbert in his Government of India, into three periods. From the beginning of the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century the East India Company is a trading corporation, existing on the sufferance of the native powers and in rivalry with the merchant companies of Holland and France. During the next century the Company acquires and consolidates its dominion, shares its sovereignty in increasing proportions with the Crown, and gradually loses its mercantile privileges and functions. After the mutiny of 1857 the remaining powers of the Company are transferred to the Crown, and then follows an era of peace in which India awakens to new life and progress." 2. The Statutes: From the Twentieth Year of King Henry the Third to the ... by Robert Drayton, Statutes of the Realm – Law – 1770 Page 211 (3) "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed ..." 3. Edney, M. E. (1997) Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765–1843, University of Chicago Press. 480 pages. 4. Hawes, C.J. (1996) Poor Relations: The Making of a Eurasian Community in British India, 1773–1833. Routledge, 217 pages. . Quote 1: "Before passing on to the political history of British India, which properly begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic region, ... (p. 463)" Quote 2: "The political history of the British in India begins in the eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"
The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British Crown by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 400 states were influenced by Agents answerable to the provincial governments of British India under a governor, lieutenant-governor, or chief commissioner. A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the legislation enacted by the British Parliament, and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the princely states existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.
More prestigious Hindu rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title "Raja", or a variant such as Raje, Rai, Rana, Babu, Rao, Rawat, or Rawal. Also in this 'class' were several Thakurs or Thai ores and a few particular titles, such as Sardar, Mankari, Deshmukh, Sar Desai, Istamuradar, Saranjamdar, Raja Inamdar, etc. The most prestigious Hindu rulers usually had the prefix "maha-" ("great", compare for example "grand duke") in their titles, as in Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. This was used in many princely states including Nagpur, Kolhapur State, Gwalior, Baroda State, Mewar, Travancore and Cochin. The state of Travancore also had queen regent styled Maharani, applied only to Marumakkathayam in Kerala.
Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific of naib, "deputy") originally used by Mughal governors, who became de facto autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire, with the prominent exceptions of the Nizam of Hyderabad State, the Wali/Khan of Kalat and the Wali of Swat.
Other less usual titles included Darbar Sahib, Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral) and Mir (from Emir).
The Sikh princes concentrated at Punjab region usually adopted titles when attaining princely rank. A title at a level of Maharaja was used.
There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles under the Mughal Empire. For example, the addition of the adjective Bahadur (from Persian, literally meaning "brave") raised the status of the titleholder one level.
Furthermore, most dynasties used a variety of additional titles such as Varma in South India. This should not be confused with various titles and suffixes not specific to princes but used by entire (sub)castes. This is almost analogous to Singh title in North India.
In addition to their titles, all princely rulers were eligible to be appointed to certain British orders of chivalry associated with India, the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India and the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. Women could be appointed as "Knights" (instead of Dames) of these orders. Rulers entitled to 21-gun and 19-gun salutes were normally appointed to the highest rank, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India.
Many Indian princes served in the British Army, the Indian Army, or in local guard or police forces, often rising to high ranks; some even served while on the throne. Many of these were appointed as an aide-de-camp, either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of relatives of such rulers) or to British monarchs. Many saw active service, both on the subcontinent and on other fronts, during both World Wars.
Apart from those members of the princely houses who entered military service and who distinguished themselves, a good number of princes received honorary ranks as officers in the British and Indian Armed Forces. Those ranks were conferred based on several factors, including their heritage, lineage, gun-salute (or lack of one) as well as personal character or martial traditions. After the First and Second World Wars, the princely rulers of several of the major states, including Gwalior State, Patiala State, Nabha State, Faridkot State, Bikaner State, Jaipur State, Jodhpur State, Jammu and Kashmir and Hyderabad, were given honorary general officer ranks as a result of their states' contributions to the war effort.
It was also not unusual for members of princely houses to be appointed to various colonial offices, often far from their native state, or to enter the diplomatic corps.
After Indian Independence, the Maharana of Udaipur State displaced the Nizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, because Hyderabad State had not acceded to the new Dominion of India, and the style Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes. When the princely states had been integrated into the Indian Union their rulers were promised continued privileges and an income (known as the Privy Purse) for their upkeep. Subsequently, when the Indian government abolished the Privy Purse in 1971, the whole princely order ceased to be recognised under Indian law, although many families continue to retain their social prestige informally; some descendants of the rulers are still prominent in regional or national politics, diplomacy, business and high society.
At the time of Indian independence, only five rulers – the Nizam of Hyderabad State, the Maharaja of Mysore, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir state, the Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior State and the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda State – were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Six more – the Nawab of Bhopal State, the Maharaja Holkar of Indore State, the Maharaja of Bharatpur State, the Maharana of Udaipur State, the Maharaja of Kolhapur State, the Maharaja of Patiala State and the Maharaja of Travancore – were entitled to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was the Nizam of Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique style Exalted Highness and 21-gun salute. Other princely rulers entitled to salutes of 11 guns (soon 9 guns too) or more were entitled to the style Highness. No special style was used by rulers entitled to lesser gun salutes.
As paramount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the British King-Emperor of India, for whom the style of Majesty was reserved, was entitled to an 'imperial' 101-gun salute—in the European tradition also the number of guns fired to announce the birth of an heir (male) to the throne.
There were many so-called non-salute states of lower prestige. Since the total of salute states was 117 and there were more than 500 princely states, most rulers were not entitled to any gun salute. Not all of these were minor rulers – Surguja State, for example, was both larger and more populous than Karauli State, but the Maharaja of Karauli was entitled to a 17-gun salute and the Maharaja of Surguja was not entitled to any gun salute at all.
A number of princes, in the broadest sense of the term, were not even acknowledged as such.This is an example. On the other hand, the dynasties of certain defunct states were allowed to keep their princely status – they were known as political pensioners, such as the Nawab of Oudh. There were also certain estates of British India which were rendered as Saranjamdar, having equal princely status. Though none of these princes were awarded gun salutes, princely titles in this category were recognised as a form of vassal state of salute states, and were not even in direct relation with the paramount power.
The doctrine of lapse was pursued most vigorously by the Governor-General Sir James Ramsay, 10th Earl (later 1st Marquess) of Dalhousie. Dalhousie annexed seven states, including Oudh State (Oudh), whose Nawabs he had accused of misrule, and the Maratha states of Nagpur, Jhansi, Satara State, Sambalpur, and Thanjavur. Resentment over the annexation of these states turned to indignation when the heirlooms of the Maharajas of Nagpur were auctioned off in Calcutta. Dalhousie's actions contributed to the rising discontent amongst the upper castes which played a large part in the outbreak of the Indian mutiny of 1857. The last Mughal badshah (emperor), whom many of the mutineers saw as a figurehead to rally around, was deposed following its suppression.
In response to the unpopularity of the doctrine, it was discontinued with the end of Company rule and the British Parliament's assumption of direct power over India.
By the beginning of the 20th century, relations between the British and the four largest states – Hyderabad State, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda State – were directly under the control of the governor-general of India, in the person of a British resident. Two agencies, for Rajputana and Central India, oversaw twenty and 148 princely states respectively. The remaining princely states had their own British political officers, or Agents, who answered to the administrators of India's provinces. The agents of five princely states were then under the authority of Madras, 354 under Bombay, 26 of Bengal, two under Assam, 34 under Punjab, fifteen under the Central Provinces and Berar and two under the Uttar Pradesh.
The Chamber of Princes ( Narender Mandal or Narendra Mandal) was an institution established in 1920 by a Proclamation of the King-Emperor to provide a forum in which the rulers could voice their needs and aspirations to the government. It survived until the end of the British Raj in 1947.Vapal Pangunni Menon (1956) The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, Macmillan Co., pp. 17–19
By the early 1930s, most of the princely states whose agencies were under the authority of India's provinces were organised into new Agencies, answerable directly to the governor-general, on the model of the Central India and Rajputana agencies: the Eastern States Agency, Punjab States Agency, Baluchistan Agency, Deccan States Agency, Madras States Agency and the Northwest Frontier States Agency. The Baroda Residency was combined with the princely states of northern Bombay Presidency into the Baroda, Western India and Gujarat States Agency. Gwalior was separated from the Central India Agency and given its own Resident, and the states of Rampur and Benares, formerly with Agents under the authority of the United Provinces, were placed under the Gwalior Residency in 1936. The princely states of Sanduru and Banaganapalli in Mysore Presidency were transferred to the agency of the Mysore Resident in 1939.
The native states in 1947 included five large states that were in "direct political relations" with the Government of India. For the complete list of princely states in 1947, see lists of princely states of India.
Central India Agency, Gwalior Residency, Baluchistan Agency, Rajputana Agency, Eastern States Agency
Gwalior Residency (two states)
Other states under provincial governments
Madras (5 states)
Bombay (354 states)
Central Provinces (15 states)
Punjab (45 states)
Assam (26 states)
According to the ,
In addition, other restrictions were imposed:
The Imperial Service Troops were routinely inspected by British army officers and had the same equipment as soldiers in the British Indian Army. Although their numbers were relatively small, the Imperial Service Troops were employed in China and British Somaliland in the first decade of the 20th century, and later saw action in the First World War and Second World War .
Jawaharlal Nehru played a major role in pushing Congress to confront the princely states. In his presidential address at Lahore session in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru declared: "The Indian states cannot live apart from the rest of the (sic) India". Nehru added he is "no believer in kings or princes" and that "the only people who have the right to determine the future of the States must be the people of these States. This Congress which claims self-determination cannot deny it to the people of the states."
After the Congress's electoral victory in 1937 elections, protests, sometimes violent, and Satyagraha against the princely states were organised and were supported by the Congress's ministries. Gandhi fasted in Rajkot State to demand "full responsible government" and added that "the people" were "the real rulers of Rajkot under the paramountcy of the Congress". Gandhi termed this protest as struggle against "the disciplined hordes of the British empire". Gandhi proclaimed that the Congress had now every right to intervene in "the states which are the vassals of the British". In 1937, Gandhi played a major role in formation of federation involving a union between British India and the princely states with an Indian central government.
In 1939, Nehru challenged the existence of the princely states and added that "the states in modern India are anachronistic and do not deserve to exist." In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.
Hindu Mahasabha took funding from the princely states and supported them to remain independent even after the independence of India. V. D. Savarkar particularly hailed the Hindu dominated states as the 'bedrock of Hindu power' and defended their despotic powers, referring to them as the 'citadels of organised Hindu power'. He particularly hailed the princely states such as Mysore State, Travancore, Oudh and Baroda State as 'progressive Hindu states'.
Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a few states, notably the former princely state of Kashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, and the state of Hyderabad State, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by the Operation Polo invasion.
Having secured their accession, Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon then proceeded, in a step-by-step process, to secure and extend the central government's authority over these states and to transform their administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between the territories that had formerly been part of British India and those that had been princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of India, through a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure, acquired control over most of the remaining European colonial exclaves on the subcontinent. Fed up with the protracted and stubborn resistance of the Portuguese government; in 1961 the Indian Army invaded and annexed Portuguese India.Praval, Major K.C. (2009). Indian Army after Independence. New Delhi: Lancer. p. 214. . These territories, like the princely states, were also integrated into the Republic of India.
As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment to the Constitution of India withdrew recognition of the princes as rulers, took away their remaining privileges, and abolished the remuneration granted to them by privy purses.
As per the terms of accession, the erstwhile Indian princes received privy purses (government allowances), and initially retained their statuses, privileges, and autonomy in internal matters during a transitional period which lasted until 1956. During this time, the former princely states were merged into unions, each of which was headed by a former ruling prince with the title of Rajpramukh (ruling chief), equivalent to a state governor.Wilhelm von Pochhammer, India's road to nationhood: a political history of the subcontinent (1982) ch 57 In 1956, the position of Rajpramukh was abolished and the federations dissolved, the former principalities becoming part of Indian states. The states which acceded to Pakistan retained their status until the promulgation of a new constitution in 1956, when most became part of the province of West Pakistan; a few of the former states retained their autonomy until 1969 when they were fully integrated into Pakistan. The Indian government abolished the privy purses in 1971, followed by the government of Pakistan in 1972.
In July 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, Nehru said that independent India would not accept the divine right of kings.Lumby, E. W. R. 1954. The Transfer of Power in India, 1945–1947. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 228 In May, 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state. There were officially 565 princely states when India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, but the great majority had contracted with the British
viceroy to provide public services and tax collection. Only 21 had actual state governments, and only four were large (Hyderabad State, Mysore State, Jammu and Kashmir State, and Baroda State). They acceded to one of the two new independent countries between 1947 and 1949. All the princes were eventually pensioned off.Wilhelm von Pochhammer, India's road to nationhood: a political history of the subcontinent (1981) ch 57
Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947. The princely states of the North-West Frontier States Agencies. included the Dir Swat and Chitral Agency and the Deputy Commissioner of Hazara acting as the Political Agent for Amb and Phulra. These states joined Pakistan on independence from the British.
Princely status and titles
The Indian rulers bore various titles including Maharaja or Raja ("king"), Sultan, Emir, Raje, Nizam, Wadiyar dynasty (used only by the Maharajas of Mysore, meaning "lord"), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of Bhaddaiyan Raj, Chogyal, Nawab ("governor"), Nayak, Wāli, Inamdar, Saranjamdar and many others. Whatever the literal meaning and traditional prestige of the ruler's actual title, the British government translated them all as "prince", to avoid the implication that the native rulers could be "kings" with status equal to that of the British monarch.
Precedence and prestige
The actual importance of a princely state could not be read from the title of its ruler, which was usually granted (or at least recognized) as a favor, often in recognition for loyalty and services rendered to the British Raj. Although some titles were raised once or even repeatedly, there was no automatic updating when a state gained or lost real power. In fact, princely titles were even awarded to holders of domains (mainly jagir) and even taluqdar and zamindar, which were not states at all. Most of the zamindars who held princely titles were in fact erstwhile princely and royal states reduced to becoming zamindars by the British East India Company. Various sources give significantly different numbers of states and domains of the various types. Even in general, the definition of titles and domains are clearly not well-established.
Salute states
The gun salute system was used to set unambiguously the precedence of the major rulers in the area in which the British East India Company was active, or generally of the states and their dynasties. As heads of a state, certain princely rulers were entitled to be saluted by the firing of an odd number of guns between three and 21, with a greater number of guns indicating greater prestige. Generally, the number of guns remained the same for all successive rulers of a particular state, but individual princes were sometimes granted additional guns on a personal basis. Furthermore, rulers were sometimes granted additional gun salutes within their own territories only, constituting a semi-promotion. The states of all these rulers (about 120) were known as salute states.
Non-salute states
There was no strict correlation between the levels of the titles and the classes of gun salutes, the real measure of precedence, but merely a growing percentage of higher titles in classes with more guns.
As a rule the majority of gun-salute princes had at least nine, with numbers below that usually the prerogative of Arab Sheikhs of the Aden protectorate, also under British protection.
Largest princely states by area
+ Eleven largest princely states in terms of area Jammu and Kashmir 84,471 including Gilgit, Baltistan (Skardu), Ladakh, and Punch (mostly Muslim, with a sizeable Hindu and Buddhist minority) Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in India Maharaja, Dogras, Hindu 21 82,698 (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) Telangana, Maharashtra, Karnataka in India Nizam, Turkic peoples, Muslim 21 19 Jodhpur State 36,071 (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) Rajasthan, India Maharaja, Rathore, Hindu 17 29,458 (Chiefly Hindu, with pockets of Muslim minority) Karnataka, India Wodeyar dynasty; Maharaja; Kannadiga; Hindu Kshattriya (Urs/Arasu in Kannada) 21 26,397 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim minority) Madhya Pradesh, India Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu 21 Bikaner State 23,317 (chiefly Hindu, with a low Muslim minority) Rajasthan, India Maharaja, Rathore, Hindu 17 Bahawalpur State 17,726 (Chiefly Muslim, with a sizeable Hindu and Sikh minority) Punjab, Pakistan Nawab Amir, Abbasid, Muslim 17 Jaisalmer State 16,100 (Chiefly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) Rajasthan, India Maharaja, Bhati, Hindu 15 Jaipur State 15,601 (Chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) Rajasthan, India Maharaja, Kachhwaha, Hindu 17 Bastar State 13,062 (Chiefly Hindu, with a low Muslim population) Chhattisgarh, India Maharaja, Kakatiya dynasty - Bhanj dynasty, Hindu -
Doctrine of lapse
A controversial aspect of East India Company rule was the doctrine of lapse, a policy under which lands whose feudal ruler died (or otherwise became unfit to rule) without a male biological heir (as opposed to an adopted son) would become directly controlled by the company and an adopted son would not become the ruler of the princely state. This policy went counter to Indian tradition where, unlike Europe, it was far more the accepted norm for a ruler to appoint his own heir.
Imperial governance
By treaty, the British controlled the external affairs of the princely states absolutely. As the states were not British possessions, they retained control over their own internal affairs, subject to a degree of British influence which in many states was substantial.
In direct relations with the central government
+ Five large princely states in direct political relations with the Central Government in India"Mysore", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 173, Macmillan & Co."Jammu and Kashmir", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 171, Macmillan & Co."Hyderabad", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 170, Macmillan & Co. Resident at Baroda Resident in Hyderabad Resident in Jammu & Kashmir Resident in Mysore Resident at Gwalior + 88 princely states forming the Central India Agency"Central India Agency", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 168, Macmillan & Co. Resident at Indore Political Agent in Bhopal Second largest state in Baghelkhand + 42 princely states forming the Eastern States Agency"Eastern States", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 168, Macmillan & Co. Resident for the Eastern States Resident for the Eastern States Resident for the Eastern States + Two states under the suzerainty of the Resident at Gwalior, Gwalior having direct relations with the central government."Gwalior Residency", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 170, Macmillan & Co. Political Agent at Rampur Political Agent at Benares + 23 princely states forming the Rajputana Agency, with the Resident for Rajputana at Abu"Rajputana", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 175, Macmillan & Co. Political Agent for the Mewar and Southern Rajputana States Political Agent at Jaipur Political Agent for the Western States of Rajputana Agency Political agent for the Western States of Rajputana + Three princely states forming the Baluchistan Agency"Baluchistan States", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 160, Macmillan & Co. Political Agent in Kalat Political Agent in Kalat Political Agent in Kalat + 5 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Madras Resident in Travancore and Cochin Resident in Travancore and Cochin Collector of Trichinopoly ( ex officio Political Agent) + 354 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Bombay Political Agent for Kolhapur Political Agent in Cutch Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar + 15 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the Central Provinces Political Agent for the Chhattisgarh Feudatory Political Agent for the Chhattisgarh Feudatory + 45 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the Punjab"Punjab States", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 174, Macmillan & Co. Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur Commissioner of the Jullundur Division ( ex officio Political Agent) Commissioner of the Jullundur Division ( ex officio Political Agent) Commissioner of Kumaon Kingdom ( ex officio Political Agent) Political Agent for Khairpur + 26 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Assam"Assam States", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg 160, Macmillan & Co. Political Agent in Manipur Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills
Burma
+ 52 states in Burma: all except Kantarawadi, one of the Karenni States, were included in British India until 1937 Superintendent, Shan State Superintendent Shan State Superintendent Southern Shan States Superintendent Southern Shan States Superintendent Southern Shan States
State military forces
The armies of the princely states were bound by many restrictions that were imposed by subsidiary alliances. They existed mainly for ceremonial use and for internal policing, although certain units designated as Imperial Service Troops, were available for service alongside the regular Indian Army upon request by the British government.Lt. Gen. Sir George MacMunn, page 198 "The Armies of India",
Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore in 1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this was afforded by the army of the Sikh kingdom of Lahore. The British Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is organised for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor.
The treaties with most of the larger States are clear on this point. Posts in the interior must not be fortified, factories for the production of guns and ammunition must not be constructed, nor may the subject of other States be enlisted in the local forces. ... They must allow the forces that defend them to obtain local supplies, to occupy cantonments or positions, and to arrest deserters; and in addition to these services they must recognise the British Empire control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence.
Political integration of princely states
In 1920, the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi declared that attainment of swaraj for Indians was its goal. It asked "all the sovereign princes of India to establish full responsible government in their states". Gandhi assured the princes that the Congress would not intervene in the princely states internal affairs . Congress reiterated their demand at 1928 Calcutta Congress, "This Congress assures the people of the Indian States of its sympathy with and support in their legitimate and peaceful struggle for the attainment of full responsible government in the States."
/ref> The accession process was largely peaceful, except in the cases of Jammu and Kashmir (whose ruler decided to accede to India following an invasion by Pakistan-based forces, resulting in a long-standing Kashmir dispute), Hyderabad State (whose ruler opted for independence in 1947, followed a year later by the invasion and annexation of the state by India), Junagarh and its vassal Bantva Manavadar (whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, but were annexed by India), and Kalat (whose ruler declared independence in 1947, followed in 1948 by the state's accession to Pakistan).: "Equally notorious was his high-handed treatment of the state of Kalat, whose ruler was made to accede to Pakistan on threat of punitive military action.": "When Mir Ahmed Yar Khan dithered over acceding the Baloch-Brauhi confederacy to Pakistan in 1947 the centre's response was to initiate processes that would coerce the state joining Pakistan. By recognising the feudatory states of Las Bela, Kharan and the district of Mekran as independent states, which promptly merged with Pakistan, the State of Kalat became land locked and reduced to a fraction of its size. Thus Ahmed Yar Khan was forced to sign the instrument of accession on 27 March 1948, which immediately led to the brother of the Khan, Prince Abdul Karim raising the banner of revolt in July 1948, starting the first of the Baloch insurgencies.": "Pakistani leaders summarily rejected this declaration, touching off a nine-month diplomatic tug of war that came to a climax in the forcible annexation of Kalat.... it is clear that Baluch leaders, including the Khan, were bitterly opposed to what happened."
India
At the time of Indian independence on 15 August 1947, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of "British India", which were under the direct control of the India Office in London and the governor-general of India, and the second being the "princely states", the territories over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. The integration of these territories into Dominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence Act 1947 by the British Parliament, was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, which the Government of India pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon in the months immediately preceding and following the independence convinced the rulers of almost all of the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. In a speech in January 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel said:
Pakistan
During the period of the British Raj, there were four princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. The first three acceded to Pakistan. However, the ruler of the fourth princely state, the Khan of Kalat Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's independence as this was one of the options given to all princely states. The state remained independent until it was acceded on 27 March 1948. The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Ahmad Yar Khan, led his brother, Prince Abdul Karim, to revolt against his brother's decision in July 1948, causing an ongoing and still unresolved insurgency.
See also
Bibliography
Gazetteers
External links
|
|
