sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alwar, Alwar State, Imperial Service Troops, Maharaja of Patiala, Nawab of Junagarh, Patiala State

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 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 , 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 . 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 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 . Some of these states like I-Iyderabad, and 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 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 (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 (1760) the Company agreed to furnish its well-trained troops in exchange for an annual subsidy. Similar treaties were concluded with Oudh, 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 , the highlands of Orissa clogged by dense forests and remote recesses of 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 ceremonies and gun-.

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 , without incurring much expense. The political map of India was largely settled after the third Anglo- 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), (1853), (1 854) and Oudh (1 856). At the same time, other alternatives to 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 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, 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 , 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 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 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 -range to patrol. The princely order played a useful role in 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. The most important feature of the princely order was that it acted as prop of the imperial design.

15.3.1 Administrative Structure in the Princely States Most of the Princely states were run as totalitarian autocracies with absolute powers concentrated in the hands of the rulers or their favourites appointed in the patrimonial administration. The burden of land-tax was generally heavier than in British India. The rulers generally enjoyed Supreme control over the state revenues for personal use, and this often led to ostentatious living. In some 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. Although they enjoyed varying degrees of authority. these feudatory nobles usually collected and detained the land-revenues from their estates and also held limited police and magisterial powers within their estates. For example, in the state, about 113'~of the fertile lands were in the hands of the jagirdars who were close kinsmen of the . The were concentrated in the southern tehsils of Alwar. The Raja and these feudatory chiefs reinforced each other's position. The jagirdars provided troops in times of need to the Raja. Raja Banni (1815-57) appointed a class of administrators who were not jagirdars and recruited Muslim officials trained in the British methods of administration. This led to conflict between the jagirdars and these new administrative officials. In Hyderabad's personalised autocracy. sarf khas was the Nizam's own estate, which accounted for ten per cent of the total area of the state. The income from this wetlt directly to meet the royal expenses. Another 30% of the agricultural land was held by jagirdars of various categories. Oppressive practices like vethi or veth-begar and exorbitant taxes and illegal taxes were an integral part of this feudal set-up. Salarjung (1 853-83) recruited men who were trained in the British pattern. These Anglo-Indian bureaucrats drawn from the diwani administration constituted an autonomous bureaucracy and came to be known as non-mulkis. There was a constant conflict between the non-mulkis and the jagirdars and the bureaucracy organised on the Mughal pattern over the control of the state administration. The mulikis as the latter came to be known, broadened as a group during 191 1-48 by integrating men from the districts. The Princely state of Hyderabad was based on efficient handling of the basic governmental functions like the collection of taxes, the maintenance of law and order and the provision of limited public services like education, transport and communication. The feudal jagirdars and the landed magnates remained the main supporters and upholders of the authority of the Princes. although some 'enlightened' rulers and their ministers did try to introduce reform in the administration and system of taxation. The coercive arm of the state was generally small but effective in maintaining law and order. For example, for 5,412 square miles of the territory, armed police consisted of only about 1600 men trained by a British police officer, J.O. Warbustoon. Apart from this, a small army consisting of 1,204 infantry, 452 cavalry and 212 men in command of the artillery under Bhupinder Singh of Patiala acted' as personal bodyguards of the and as the supplementary force for the preservation of law and order. They also played a key role in ceremonial duties. The Princely states were generally run on laws that Princely States were a conglomeration of enactments based on the British Indian models and on the personal decrees of the Princes. Even the personal decrees of Princes could be arbitrarily withdrawn or modified at any time at the discretion of the ruler. As there was no institutional check on the arbitrary powers enjoyed by the princes within their own domains, they could freely use whatever little force the British allowed them against their subjects. They could also utilise income from the revenues at their own personal discretion. Even when the "modernising" princes of Mysore, Baroda, Travancore and Cochin instituted legislative assemblies, they maintained large nominated majorities in them. 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 mobilisation in order to maintain a semblance of legitimacy and in order 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 Arnritsar and the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College at Aligarh. Support to these type of institutions meant, in the context of communal politics, support for a communal effort to obtain more leverage within the British administrative structure. Mysore, Cochin and Travancore supported the prominent Hindu institutions in order to maintain a prominent ritual position within their own states. Bhupinder Singh, the tried to project himself as the leading figure of the Sikh community and patronised the Sikh institutions and even the writing of Sikh history. The Nizam's administration in Hyderabad tried to project itself as a Muslim state, a~dthis process was accelerated after 1927 with the emergence of the Ittehad ul Muslinin, a communal organisation that tried to project Nizam as the "Royal Embodiment of Muslim Sovereignty in Deccan". In Travancore, the Maharaja claimed to act as the earthly trustee of a Hindu deity and the state controlled hundreds of temples.

15.3.2 Princely Order as a Prop of Imperial Design

The princes were one of the useful props of the empire. We have seen 11om the resources of indigenous rulers were utilised to extend the suzerainty of t11c British through an "ingenious" system. Gradually, the sovereignty of the princes got eroded and slowly and steadily they became feudatory puppets of the Imperial power. Initially the British controlled the foreign affairs and the relations of these rulers with other military powers. Gradually, however, the British intervened in the administration and the economic life of the Princely states. The Princes were allowed to retain certain privileges and their ritual status. They were given protection from external and internal threats in lieu of military support and loyalty to the British Empire. Paramountcy was not defined in any treaty but the doctrine of paramountcy was used to legitimise whatever action the British deemed necessary or desirable to secure the objectives outlined in the treaties. As the clients of their imperial patrons, rulers of the states assisted the British whenever the empire was threatened. The rulers of Patiala, Mysore and Hyderabad rendered valuable help to the British in its military campaign to save and re-establish the empire on the sub-continent during and after the "revolt of 1857". The Princes rendered similar military help to the British during the Boxer Uprising in China (1 898-1900) and the two World Wars. Most of the Princes supported British war efforts during Colonisation li~amof Hyderabad alone contributed Rs. 35 lacs. The Princes also permitted (Part - 1) tl~cBritish officers to recruit troops for the British from their states. 13hupinder Singh of Patiala was the most active Prince in the British recruitment drive. During World War I1 also. the princes expressed solidarity with the British and many of them were appointed to government agencies connected with wartime administration such as war advisory council, National Defence Council, Eastern Group supply council, the central Price Control Conference, etc. The Princes were extolled as "the natural leaders of the " and were often used as "a bulwark" against the modern nationalist political mobilisation.

15.3.3 Mechanism of Imperial Control The essential elements of British Paramountcy were settled by 1840. The system of 'residents' at the princely courts, the regulation of the succession and control over the states' foreign relations were some of the prominent features of this relationship. The British maintained relations with the princes through political officers who either resided in or visited the princely courts regularly. This was a reversal of the indigenous practice of a client keeping an agent in the court of the suzerain. The political officers were members of the Foreign Department of the or the Bombay Political Department. In 1914, it was separated into two separate sections-Foreign and Political. the latter being concerned with the relationship with the princes. The large strategically important states like Hyderabad. Mysore, Baroda and Kashmir had residents stationed in their capital who were linked to the Viceroys through the provincial government. The smaller states of and central India were under the over-all supervision of agents to the Viceroy, who maintained contact with each state through subordinate officers. The Political officers were the custodians of the imperial policy, recognised succession as valid, handled correspondence between the princes and the British authorities and kept an eye over the internal administration of the state. In the second half of the 19thcentury, there was large- scale intrusion of British manufactures in the Indian markets that necessitated extension of Railway and other modern means of communication. But these required darbari sanction of the princes. There was also the need to regulate transit duties on goods passing through the states. During Mayo's Viceroyalty new legal documents were signed which made the princes dependent on the 'advice' of the residents in matters of administration. Twelve ruling princes who defied British administration were removed from their in the late 19~century for 'crimes' against the Queen Empress. In a series of measures during 1878-86, sovereignty of feudatory princes was further curbed. For example, most of the states were compelled to relinquish control over Post and Telegraph networks. Similarly, the salt molnopoily of the colonial state was extended to cover most of the states. The princes were prohibited to produce and export salt except for one or two cases for domestic consumption. They were also deprived of civil and criminal jurisdiction over the broad-gauge railways passing through their territory. By the end of 19~~century, the British Indian currency became the legal tender throughout the sub-continent and all the rulers were compelled to sign away their right to mint silver or copper coins. The British imperial power also regulated import of weapons to be used by the police force of princely states and controlled the employment of Europeans in the services of the princes. In order to increase the degree of Imperial control and surveillance, British adillinistration by the bureaucratic mode of administration in the states. a model Princely States of administration analogous to their own ruled territory of British India. Such administrative changes were generally achieved through the intervention of residents. Thus, the states were slowly drawn into the overarching imperial system of administration. The 'modernising' princes, knowingly or unknowingly, hastened this process of integration. There were also more direct methods of intervention in the affairs of the princely states. The Imperial Service Scheme (1885) stipulated raising of that wcre trained, equipped and partly commanded by the British and utilised only for the defence of the British Imperial interests, but they were paid by the state governments. The British justified their intervention by removing doubts regarding the legalit) of imperial intercession. In 1870, Aitchinson. the foreign secretary, came up with the notion that the treaties needed to be re-read with an eye to the circumstances when they were drawn up initially and in the light of subsequent evolution of relationship between the princes and the Crown. T.H. Thorton developed a theory of 'usage' in 1877, which held that any "long-continued course of governmental practice" acquiesced in by the state could be construed as lawful, since quiescence implied consent. In 1890s C.L. Tupper. the chief-secretary in the government of and William Lee-Warner, the chief secretary of Bombay government contributed to the doctrine of res judicata, which. in its original common law setting, permitted the judges to be guided by decisions in the prevlous cases of a precisely similar nature, but which, in its Indian interpretation. was interpreted to mean that treaties should be read as a whole. and applied equally to all states.

15.4 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES AMONG THE PRlNCELY STATES

We have seen how the expanding British power consolidated and demarcated the fluid political and territorial boundaries of the Indian kingdoms and ordained that primogeniture was to be the guiding principle of succession within the princely (dynastic) families. The state boundaries were secured and demarcated through the treaties with the British. The British Empire forged about collaborative alliances with about 600 states in the sub-continent. There were great variations in the size and the territorial extent of these states. Hyderabad's territorial area consisted of 82,698 sq. miles. In terms of income and expenditure, it rivalled Belgium in 1947-48. The state of Jammu and Kashmir with 84,000 sq. miles of territory was bigger in size than France. Even Tranvancore, with a population of 5 million in 1921, had more people than Austria or . The smallest state of Banka Pahari in Bundelkhand had only 5 sq. miles territory. Apart from size, the other differences among the princely states were with regard to income, taxation and more significantly in terms of the pace of modernisation and industrialisation. Some states, like , Cochin, Mysore and Baroda were commercially and industrially more advanced than the rest. The Rajputana states and some states of central India were extremely backward and female infanticide, beggar and agrestic serfdom was prevalent in many of them. Another major difference among the states was in terms of the treaties and the circumstances under which such treaties were signed. The signed a treaty with the British in 1798 as an ally against Mysore. Maratha chiefs accepted treaties after being defeated by the Company's forces. The Cis- princes including Patiala and many rulers had sought British protection Colonisation (through treaties) against covetous neighbours. The tiny states in Kathiawar, (Part - 1) which were simply like estates of locally dominant landholders, simply accepted British suzerainty as fait accompli, without any formal treaty with the Company. There was therefore, no uniformity in the rights, the treaty obligations and the privileges granted to the different rulers. These were even reflected in the ceremonial aspects as the rulers were categorised according to the number of gun-salutes to which the rulers were entitled. Only five big states of Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda, Gwalior and Kashmir enjoyed 21 gun-salutes. The states also differed markedly in terms of linguistic, religious and ethnic composition of its population. The rulers of Hyderabad were Muslims while its population consisted of only 15% Muslims. The majority of its subjects were who spoke Telugu, Marathi and languages. The ruler of Jammu and Kashrnir was a Dogra chief while the majority of his subjects were Muslims. In Travancore, there were 25% Christians and 45% "lower-caste" Hindus while the ruler was a high-caste. Ideology, race, religion and upbringing were the major factors which imparted a variegated character to this group. Therefore, while Mysore by 1920 had a legislative council, a representative assembly and a public service board that recruited people in the state services through competitive examinations; Nizams of Hyderabad were wedded to the traditional notions of benevolent autocracy. Despite all this heterogeneity of character the princely states also shared the basic commonality in terms of affluence, autocratic powers and a lineage history which tracad their ancestry to gods and mythical heroes. They were subservient to the British Empire and played a significant role as one of the main pillars of support in the scheme of the Imperial conquest. They derived their strength from their British patrons. They were rooted in the feudal milieu and sought substance from the landowners - a class that provided the chief indigenous support base for them. Despite some exceptions, they had a highly developed class-consciousness as the 'fraternity of the princes'. The British projected them as the 'natural leaders of the people' and used the alliance with the princes for legitimising their power. On the other hand, the princes generally kept themselves aloof from the nationalist politics and agitation in the twentieth century.

15.5 BFJREAUCRATISATION AND PROCESS OF MODERNISATION

The princes and the British both indulged in rhetoric about the states as being the repositories of the "ancient culture, oriental traditions and ideals", yet, the forces of bureaucratisation and modernisation started penetrating into the body politic of the states. For administrative purposes the princes relied on their bureaucracy whose nature and quality influenced the states' administration. Despite a general picture of corrupt and rotten administration, some administrators associated with the princes earned a reputation of their own. K.M. Pannikkar, who served Patiala and Bihraner, Sir C.P. Rarnaswarny Aiyer, the of Travancore and Sir Ismdl, who served as the chief-minister of Mysore, and Hyderbad successivelp, were some of the able administrators in the service of princely states. In W majority of the states, education developed slowly compared to the British-governed Empire. However, some princes in Mysore, Baroda and Travaneore took the lead in this direotion. Gaikwad of Baroda introduced free compulsory primary education in 1894. The British, however, generally discouraged the schemes of reforms of the "modernising" princes. They disapproved of the agrarian and the legislative reforms of Raja Vmaof Princely States Cochin (1895-1914), who was forced to abdicate his . However, there was scope for 'selective' modernisation in certain administrative practices such as the efficient collection of land-revenue and development of infrastructure needed to integrate princely states into the increasing orbit of British-inspired market- forces. The British themselves implanted a bureaucracy of British Indian type during the period of minority of the Princes. Such attempts were made in Alwar. , Jaipur, and Baroda. Some rulers also found in this type of bureaucratic reform a means to counter balance and check the power of the disruptive . Education became a means of unleashing modemising forces in the States as the states lagged behind the British-governed territories in the sphere of education. The new bureaucracies in the princely states initially I comprised of educated men from British India as they had acquired the necessary administrative skills. Subsequently, when the locally dominant social groups adopted the new educational system they started competing with these outsiders. In some cases, an antagonism developed between the earlier appointed outside elements in the state bureaucracy and the newly emergent group who aspired for privileges and powers in the state's administrative set-up. The 'brahrnin-non-brahmin' conflict in Kolhapur and 'mulki-non-mulki' conflict in Hyderabad were a reflection of this type of social-conflict which got extended into the political sphere.

As already noted earlier, the British had achieved a greater control over persons and territories in the states by 1900 through communication and transport networks, fiscal and economic policies and structural re-organisation of the adpinistration. Some princes resented such British-initiated changes or 'modernisation' as a further diminution of their autonomy and prestige. However, a new breed of hybrid princes who were systematically indoctrinated by private tutors, public schools and princely colleges like () and Raj Kumar college (Rajkot) accepted superficial westernisation along with the notions of dynastic legacy. On the other hand, the "corrupt and inefficient administration" in the princely states served as the justification for the presence of British as 'the guardians of the best interest of the Indians'. Some of the rulers instituted legislative assemblies and tried to upgrade their judicial system. Mysore had an annual representative assembly from 1881. Travancore ruler constituted an all-official legislative council from 1887 and a Mysore type assembly with large nominated majority from 1904. Baroda also had a representative assembly from 1907. These bodies, however, lacked a real popular representative character and accountability as the majority of the members of these bodies were trusted officials of the rulers. Others remained autocratic states.

The pace of economic modernisation also varied from state to state. Some of the states attracted capital for industrial growth. A number of factors facilitated capital investments in the states which were thereby categorised as advanced states. As the states did not levy any income or corporate taxes and had less stringent labour laws, this opportunity combined with handsome subsidies in certain key sectors attracted capital. In one year, 1943-44 along, over Rs. 5 crore of new industrial capital flowed into the states. A part of new investment came into mining but factory production and infrastructure absorbed a greater portion. Mysore took the lead in the woollen-textile, the automobile and aircraft production in the 1940's. Baroda became a prominent centre of cotton-textile industry while Hyderabad attracted new investments in cement, chemical and , fertiliser industries. The city of Gwalior developed as a major industrial centre Colonisation with many cotton-textile mills, oil-mills, a power station and an embryonic (Part - 1) machine tool industry. The also invested its income in the stocks of Bombay cotton-mills and brick-kilns.

15.6 EXTINCTION OF THE PRINCELY ORDER

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. In 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 honour further reduced its potential effectiveness. The princes generally resisted the constitutional and political changes within their own states thereby alienating the nationalist leaders Tej Bahadur Sapru, the liberal Indian leader, called for the federation of British India and the princely states at the First Round Table Conference (1 930). The idea did not ma~erialisedue to princely intransigence, British ambivalence and Congress opposition. While the princes wished to gain from the British some sort of constitutional guarantee for their hture existence, the congress leadership gradually sided with the popular aspirations against these feudal vestiges. The Haripura Congress Session (1938) resolved to extend moral support to the popular movements against princes and allowed participation of congressmen in individual capacity in such agitations. It is doubtful whether the lack of political and social reforms affected their political viability and became the major cause for their inevitable demise. However, when the imperial patron unilaterally abrogated relationship with them, the only course available to the princes was their integration into the body politic of either India or . The British labour ministry in the post-war conditions was not favourable towards the perpetual existence of the princes as they denied their citizens democratic rights and institutions. It was reflected in the attitude of Attlee and Cripps. The radical congressmen considered them to be a major impediment in the way of rational economic planning and rapid industrialisation. 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. However the British did not act in haste. They had to extricate themselves from the legal and formal military obligations towards the princes which were specified in the treaties contracted with them. They also tried to secure for them a position commensurate with their 'historical status' in the post-colonial polity. The Cabinet mission tried to persuade the princes for accession. 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. These were the areas over which the states had long ceased to exercise their jurisdiction and control. The federal centre, however, occupied the political space left by the collapse of British paramountcy and intervened in their internal matters on a regular basis to engineer a great and relatively peaceful merger and democratisation process. For this purpose, the smaller states were amalgamated into larger administrative units or merged with the erstwhile provinces of the union. They were also completely subordinated to the federal centre by using democratisation as a means. The centre sent regional commissioners to Rajkot and . asked Princely States to remove Kis Diwan, detained the Raja of Faridkot, took direct control over the administration of Kutch, and Manipur on grounds of security. He intervened in Neelgiri and Bharatpur on the pretext of impending break doh of law and order machinery, enforced a blockade on the of Junagarh who flew to Pakistan and finally in September, 1948 and invaded the Nizam's territories in Hyderabad. In December 1947, some of the Eastern states and states of Chattisgarh were integrated into Orrisa :~fteradivasi revolts against the princes. Similarly, the states of Kathiawar were merged into a new state named . The states of the Deccan and 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 was formed integrating , Gwalior and the other Central Indian States. More important than such territorial integration was the initiation of democratic reforms and institution of popular accountable ministries in many of these states. The merger and democratisation of the Princely polities made them analogous with the rest of the country as regards to the manner of governance. In April 1948, new instruments of accession were 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 of Govt. of accession that had empowered the centre only in respect of defence, foreign affairs and communication. 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 the British patronage. 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. These concessions were abolished in 1969.

15.7 SUMMARY

In this Unit you have learnt how the political map of India was redrawn by the East India Company through the 'subsidiary alliance' system. However during the mutiny the states had proved loyal to the British and therefore steps were taken to ensure that the princely rule was safe in India. A grand historical alliance was forged between capitalist Britain and the feudal princely houses in India. This alliance offered many advantages to both the British Empire and the Indian princes. Based on the support of feudal landowners, the princely order enjoyed some degree of internal autonomy in dealing with their own subjects. However, the princes were subservient to the over-all Imperial system of British paramountcy. They acted as the allies of the British paramount power and accepted imperial control and surveillance. The expanding British control over the territories, communications and finance in India was also felt by the princely darbars. The resident system and the introduction of bureaucracy on the British- model were the basic tools of imperial control. However, the British intervention was not homogeneous and the British impact on these princely houses differed from one state to another. The rising tide of popular agitations and the withdrawal of the British paramountcy sealed the fate of the princely order and they were soon absorbed into the post-colonial polities of either India or Pakistan after 1947. Colonisation (Part - 1) 15.8 GLOSSARY

Parambuntcy : Supremacy

Patrimonial : Something inherited from ancestors

Mulki : Bureaucracy organised on Mughal pattern

Non-Mulki : Anglo-Indian bureaucrats

15.9 EXERCISES

1) Trace the genesis of the princely states.

2) What were the basic features of the administrative structures in the princely states? SUGGESTED READINGS FOR THIS BLOCK

Richard B. Barnett, Between Empires: , The Mughals and The British, 1 720-1801

C.A. Bayly, The New Cambridge : Indian Society and The Making of the British Empire, Vol. 1 1.1

Stewart Gordon, The New Cambridge History of India: The Macathas 1600-161 8, Vol. 11.4

M.N. Pearson, The New Cambridge History of India: The Portuguese in India, Vol. 1

Om Prakash, The New Cambridge History of India: European Commercial , Enterprise in Pre-, Vol. 1 1.5

Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed.), Merchants, Markets and the State in Early Modern India

C.A. Bayly, Information and Empire: Political Intelligence and Social Communication in North India, 1780- 1880

Bernard S. Cohn, Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge

Michel H. Fisher, in India: Residents and the Residency System

Robin Jefferey (ed.), People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics

in the Indian Princely States A

Y. Vaikuntharn, People S Movements in the Princely States