Unit 15 Princely States

UNIT 15 PRINCELY STATES Structure Iiltroduction Genesis of the New Princely Order Basic Features of Sovereignty in the Princely States 15.3.1 Administrative Structure in the Princely States 15.3.2 Princely Order as a Prop of Imperial Design 15.3.3 Mechanism of Imperial Control Similarities and Differences Among the Princely States Bureaucratisation and the Process of Modernisation Extinctioil of the Princely Order Summary Glossary Exercises 15.1 INTRODUCTION In this Ilnit, we will focus on the Princely order consisting of about 600 states .that survived the imperial onslaught of annexation of the Empire. Since the number of Princely states was so large, it would be difficult to deal with individual states, hence, this Unit discusses only some basic features such as the evolution of princely order, the administrative structure of Princely state, common elements and differences among Princely states. It also specifically focuses on the Princely order as prop of imperial design and mechanisms that were used to establish imperial control over the Princes. The study of the impact of bureaucratisation and modernisation on the Princely states and finally the fall of the Princely order are the other themes dealt with in the Unit. 15.2 GENESIS OF THE NEW PRINCELY ORDER The different patterns of the British conquest of India and the methods employed to create an empire resulted in the "grandiose and ramshackle" structure of the princely order. The princes ruled in about 215~~of the Indian sub-continent having 113'~ of the population of the British Empire. Some of these states like I-Iyderabad, Mysore and Kashmir were equal in size to many European countries while there were also very small feudal estates. The common feature of all these states was that they recognised the paramountcy of the British Crown. They enjoyed only as much independence as was allowed to them by the British and thk paranlount power treated them as feudatory or subordinate states. If the sovereignty of the princes had any meaning, it was in relation to their own subjects. The British protected the Princes against any threat to their autocratic power, internal or external. Most of the Princely states were administered as absolute autocracies. It was under the umbrella of British protection that all these 'absolute' rulers walked with all their' grandeur and dignity. The princes were, therefore, useful tools in the over-all imperial design. They were natural allies of the British rulers and were always willing to help their patrons in the times of crisis such as war and intense nationalist inobilisation. The British could always rely on these 'bulwarks of reaction'. However, despite monarchial form of Colonisation govement, the late 19th century imperial perception of tradition-bound, (part - 1) unchanging oriental despots disinterested in progress and change may not be entirely true, as the forces of modernisation and social-change were already underway in some of the more "progressive" states. The nationalist historiography also attributes the collapse of the Princely order to the monarchic, absolute form of government and anachronism of this type of rule in the post- colonial democratic set-up. Apart from the popular opposition to the princes due to the impact of radical nationalist modem politics, the fall of the Princely order was also precipitated by the British Crown's abandonment of its former allies and the steps taken by the independent Indian Government. Prior to 1760, the East India Company had signed treaties with local coastal powers for commercial purposes and suppression of piracy. As the Company was transformed from primarily a trading company into a territorial power after the battle of Plassey (1757), it began to conclude treaties of "Subsidiary-alliance" with militarily weaker rulers from the 1760s onwards. In the first "subsidiary- alliance" with the Nizam of Hyderabad (1760) the Company agreed to furnish its well-trained troops in exchange for an annual subsidy. Similar treaties were concluded with Oudh, Cooch Behar and Carnatic subsequently. There were a number of practical considerations for retaining of indigenous Princes: i) Fir~tly,the subsidiary-alliance became an important tool for the extension of British dominance during the late 18" and early 19~~century. The British lacked the financial resources and manpower necessary to conquer and administer the entire subcontinent. The Empire-builders, therefore, sought to limit their direct rule to economically prosperous and politically strategic areas and establish control over the other regions indirectly through a system of alliances with indigenous rulers. Generally these states were surrounded by British-controlled territories, cut off from sea-routes and were geographically not in a position to challenge the British. Rather, they had to be dependent in many respects. ii) Secondly, other areas that were troublesome to conquer and located in inaccessible terrain such as desert tracts, hills of central India, the highlands of Orissa clogged by dense forests and remote recesses of Kathiawar with little arable lands or yielding little revenue were also brought under the terms of treaties. iii) Thirdly the treaties with the indigenous rulers also gave a stamp of legitimacy to the Paramount power. The British used a variety of means to acquire a veneer of legality and a moral basis for their rule. The desire for legitimacy was the prime reason which led the British to carefully develop symbols that emphasised the paramountcy of their position over the princes while allowing the latter to retain extravagant ceremonial trappings of authority such as the ancient darbar ceremonies and gun-salutes. iv) Finally, in return for a promise of military protection from internal and external dangers, the East India Company secured the loyalty of Princes and their subjects. The Company could also raise contingents of troops paid from the state revenues or the annual cash tribute payments. The "subsidiary alliances", thus extended the British suzerainty, without incurring much expense. The political map of India was largely settled after the third Anglo-Maratha conflict (1818-20). However, the British continued to use annexation as a solution for "misrule" of the indigenous rulers. Dalhousie annexed Satara Princely States (1 849), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1 854) and Oudh (1 856). At the same time, other alternatives to annexations were also attempted before 1857. Jhansi was brought under direct British rule in 1830s but restored to a new ruler in 1842. Dalhousie rejected the proposal to annex Travancore on the ground that the terms of the treaty with the state did not permit annexation. No state was annexed after the events of 1857, although the British bureaucrats administrated some states for long periods. For instance, Manipur was ruled by the British after the revolt of 1891 until 1907. The ambivalence of the British policy towards annexation rose from the fundamental contradiction between the imperial interest of a trading company to expand and rule without getting involved in military operations and incurring military cost and the zeal of the Utilitarian and Evangelicals for reform of Indian society and institutions. Many British administrators were disdainful for the princely order and regarded them as the cesspool of corruption and socio- economic stagnation and as a symbol of 'oriental despotism'. However, the support of loyal princes during the revolt of 1857 (especially Patiala, Mysore and Hyderabad) to the British imperial cause strengthened their claims as military, administrative and political allies of the British rulers. In the British perception, they became the "natural leaders of the people" and were rewarded in the form of honour and territories in some cases. The British rulers solemnly confirmed the British guarantee for their perpetual existence. Queen Victoria proclaimed that "all Treaties and Engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by us accepted and will be scrupulously observed - we desire no extension of our present Territorial Possessions - we shall respect the rights, dignity and honour of native princes as our own." Assurances were given to the Princes that their dynasties would not be allowed to lapse for want of natural heirs. Not a single dynasty lapsed after 1857 and none of the states was annexed. The heavy cost of suppression of 1857 'revolt' led to a budgetary deficit of $14 lacs in 1858-59 and this became the principal argument against krther annexation. The borders of states remained frozen in the post-revolt period. 15.3 BASIC FEATURES OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE PRINCELY STATES The princely states were vast motley of states differing in size, composition and income. A popular perception created by imperial stereotypes depicts them as elephant-riding Rajas enjoying the company of dancing girls. We should analyse the basis of feudal order within the state as a major aspect of autocracy. Moreover, in the ethnographic accounts of W.W. Hunter, Henry Maine and Alfred Lyall; India has projected as a society which privileged the traditional, the rustic and the martial over the urban and modern. The East was seen as a repository of ancient traditions sanctified by time, colourful rites, majestic spectacle and archaic knowledge. In this scenario the princes were seen as representing a clan-based polity, having, for example, a direct link with the Hindu Kingdoms of the pre-Muslim period. In opposition to this stereotype, there was constant imperial surveillance, interference and pressures which sapped much of the energy of the old darbari system. The traditional role of social-protection attributed to the state apparatus soon gave way to princes who had only the hunting-range to patrol. The princely order played a useful role in the great game of the empire; the ceremonial trappings were only peripheral to Colonisation the actual functioning of sovereignty within these feudatory polities. Even this (Part - 1) ceremonial aspect was an amalgam of the old traditions and new ones were borrowed from abroad such as gun-salutes, orders of knighthood, and coat of arms.

Load more