HOME
The Info List - Princely State



--- Advertisement ---


(i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i)

A PRINCELY STATE, also called NATIVE STATE (legally, under the British) or INDIAN STATE (for those states on the subcontinent), was a nominally sovereign monarchy under a local or regional ruler in a subsidiary alliance with a greater power. Though the history of the princely states of the subcontinent dates from at least the classical period of Indian history , the predominant usage of the term _princely state_ specifically refers to a semi-sovereign principality on the Indian subcontinent
Indian subcontinent
during the British Raj
British Raj
that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by a local ruler, subject to a form of indirect rule on some matters; similar political entities also existed on or in the region of the Arabian Peninsula, in Africa and in Malaya, and which were similarly recognised under British rule, subject to a subsidiary alliance and the suzerainty or paramountcy of the British Crown. Oman, Zanzibar and the Trucial States
Trucial States
were also under the Viceroy of India, and were administered by their rulers in the same manner as the Indian princely states, as part of the Persian Gulf Residency ; they were officially categorised as British protectorates , with differing degrees of autonomy.

At the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states were officially recognised in the Indian subcontinent, apart from thousands of zamindaris and jagirs . The most important states had their own British Political Residencies: Hyderabad
Hyderabad
, Mysore
Mysore
and Travancore
Travancore
in the South followed by Jammu while the Nizam
Nizam
of Hyderabad had the unique style of _His Exalted Highness_.

The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth; the premier 21-gun salute states of Hyderabad
Hyderabad
and Jammu and Kashmir were each over 200,000 km2 in size, or slightly larger than the whole of Great Britain
Great Britain
. In 1941, Hyderabad
Hyderabad
had a population of over 16 million, comparable to the population of Romania at the time, while Jammu and Kashmir had a population of slightly over 4 million, comparable to that of Switzerland
Switzerland
. At the other end of the scale, the non-salute principality of Lawa covered an area of 49 km2, or smaller than Bermuda
Bermuda
, with a population of just below 3,000. Some two hundred of the lesser states had an area of less than 25 km2 (10 mi2). At the time of Indian independence in 1947, Hyderabad
Hyderabad
had annual revenues of over Rs. 9 crore (roughly £6.75 million/$27.2 million in 1947 values, approximately £240 million/$290 million in 2014 values), and its own army, airline , telecommunication system, railway, postal system, currency, radio service and a major public university; the tiny state of Lawa had annual revenues of just Rs. 28,000 (£2100/$8463 in 1947 values, £73,360/$89,040 in 2014 values).

The era of the princely states effectively ended with Indian independence in 1947. By 1950, almost all of the principalities had acceded to either India
India
or Pakistan. The accession process was largely peaceful, except in the cases of Jammu and Kashmir (whose ruler opted for independence but decided to accede to India
India
following an invasion by Pakistan-based forces), Hyderabad
Hyderabad
(whose ruler opted for total independence in 1947, followed a year later by the conquest of the state to India), Junagadh(whose ruler acceded to Pakistan, but was annexed by India). and Kalat (whose ruler opted for independence in 1947, followed in 1948 by the state's annexation).

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. 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 formally derecognised the princely families in 1971, followed by the Government of Pakistan in 1972.

CONTENTS

* 1 History * 2 British relationship with the princely states * 3 Princely status and titles

* 4 Precedence and prestige

* 4.1 Salute states * 4.2 Non salute states

* 5 Doctrine of lapse * 6 Imperial governance

* 7 Principal princely states in 1947

* 7.1 In direct relations with the Central Government

* 8 Burma * 9 State military forces

* 10 Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after

* 10.1 India
India
* 10.2 Pakistan

* 11 See also * 12 Notes * 13 References

* 14 References

* 14.1 Gazetteers

* 15 External links

HISTORY

Though principalities and chiefdoms existed on the Indian subcontinent from at least the Iron Age
Iron Age
, the history of princely states on the Indian subcontinent
Indian subcontinent
dates to at least the 5th-6th centuries C.E., during the rise of the middle kingdoms of India following the collapse of the Gupta Empire
Gupta Empire
. Many of the future ruling clan groups - notably the Rajputs
Rajputs
- began to emerge during this period; by the 13th-14th centuries, many of the Rajput
Rajput
clans had firmly established semi-independent principalities in the north-west, along with several in the north-east. The widespread expansion of Islam during this time brought many principalities into tributary relations with Islamic sultanates, notably the Delhi Sultanate and Bahmani Sultanate
Bahmani Sultanate
. In the south, however, the Hindu
Hindu
Vijayanagara Empire remained dominant until the mid-17th century; among its tributaries was the future Mysore
Mysore
Kingdom .

The Turco-Mongol Mughal Empire
Mughal Empire
brought a majority of the existing Indian kingdoms and principalities under its suzerainty by the 17th century, beginning with its foundation in the early 16th century. The advent of Sikhism
Sikhism
resulted in the creation of the Sikh Empire
Sikh Empire
in the north by the early 18th century, by which time the Mughal Empire
Mughal Empire
was in full decline. At the same time, the Marathas carved out their own states to form the Maratha
Maratha
Empire . Through the 18th century, former Mughal governors formed their own independent states. In the north-west, some of those - such as Tonk - allied themselves with various groups, including the Marathas and the Durrani Empire
Durrani Empire
, itself formed in 1747 from a loose agglomeration of tribal chiefdoms that composed former Mughal territories. In 1768, Prithvi Narayan Shah
Prithvi Narayan Shah
, ruler of a small principality in Gorkha likewise established the Kingdom of Nepal
Kingdom of Nepal
from a federation of small states, expanding its influence over much of north-eastern India; in the south, the principalities of Hyderabad
Hyderabad
and Arcot were fully established by the 1760s, though they nominally remained vassals of the Mughal Emperor.

BRITISH RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRINCELY STATES

India
India
under the British _Raj_ (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory: British India
British India
and the _Native states_ or _Princely states_. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(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
Majesty
through the Governor-General of India
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
British India
together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty
Majesty
exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

In general the term " British India
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
India
from 1774 to 1858. The term has also been used to refer to the "British in India".

The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British Crownby the central government of British India
British India
under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 400 states were influenced by Agents answerable to the provincial governments of British India
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
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.

PRINCELY STATUS AND TITLES

His Highness Sayajirao Gaekwad III
Sayajirao Gaekwad III
Sena Khas Khel Shamsher Bahadur GCSI, GCIE, KIH (21-gun salute) – the Maratha
Maratha
Maharaja
Maharaja
of Baroda

The Indian rulers bore various titles – including Chhatrapati (exclusively used by the 3 Bhonsledynasty of the Marathas ) or Badshah ("emperor"), Maharaja
Maharaja
or Raja
Raja
("king"), Sultan
Sultan
, Raje
Raje
, Nizam , Wadiyar (by the Maharajas of Mysore
Mysore
), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of Bhaddaiyan Raj, Nawab
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.

More prestigious Hindu
Hindu
rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title " Raja
Raja
," Raje
Raje
" or a variant such as "Rana," "Rao," "Rawat" or Rawal
Rawal
. Also in this 'class' were several Thakurs or Thakores and a few particular titles, such as Sardar
Sardar
, Mankari(or Mānkari/Maankari), Deshmukh, Sar Desai , Raja
Raja
Inamdar, Saranjamdar.

The most prestigious Hindu
Hindu
rulers usually had the prefix "maha" ("great", compare for example Grand duke) in their titles, as in _Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao_, etc. The states of Travancore
Travancore
and Cochin
Cochin
had queens regnant styled Maharani
Maharani
, generally the female forms applied only to sisters, spouses and widows, who could however act as regents .

There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles under the Mughal emperors . For example, the addition of the adjective _Bahadur_ 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.

The SIKH PRINCES concentrated at Punjab usually adopted Hindu
Hindu
type titles when attaining princely rank; at a lower level Sardar
Sardar
was used.

MUSLIM RULERS almost all used the title " Nawab
Nawab
" (the Arabic honorific of _naib_, "deputy," used of the Mughal governors, who became de facto autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire), with the prominent exceptions of the Nizam
Nizam
of Hyderabad
Hyderabad
"> An 1895 group photograph of the eleven-year-old Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV
Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV
, ruler of the princely state of Mysore
Mysore
in South India
South India
, with his brothers and sisters. In 1799, his grandfather, then aged five, had been granted dominion of Mysore
Mysore
by the British and forced into a subsidiary alliance . The British later directly governed the state between 1831 and 1881. The Govindgarh Palace of the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Rewa . The palace which was built as a hunting lodge later became famous for the first white tigers that were found in the adjacent jungle and raised in the palace zoo. The Nawab
Nawab
of JunagadhBahadur Khan III (seated centre in an ornate chair) shown in an 1885 photograph with state officials and family. Photograph (1900) of the Maharani of Sikkim
Sikkim
. Sikkim
Sikkim
was under the suzerainty of the Provincial government of Bengal; its ruler received a 15-gun salute.

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
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
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 indeed to the British King-Emperor. 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, Patiala, Bikaner , Jaipur , Jodhpur , Jammu and Kashmir and Hyderabad, were given honorary general officer ranks as a result of their states' contributions to the war effort.

* Lieutenant/Captain/Flight Lieutenant or Lieutenant-Commander/Major/Squadron Leader (for junior members of princely houses or for minor princes) * Commander/Lieutenant-Colonel/Wing Commander or Captain/Colonel/Group Captain (granted to princes of salute states, often to those entitled to 15-guns or more) * Commodore/Brigadier/Air Commodore (conferred upon princes of salute states entitled to gun salutes of 15-guns or more) * Major-General/Air Vice-Marshal (conferred upon princes of salute states entitled to 15-guns or more; conferred upon rulers of the major princely states, including Baroda, Kapurthala, Travancore, Bhopal and Mysore
Mysore
) * Lieutenant-General (conferred upon the rulers of the largest and most prominent princely houses after the First and Second World Wars for their states' contributions to the war effort.) * General (very rarely awarded; the Maharajas of Gwalior
Gwalior
and Jammu 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
Nizam
of Hyderabad
Hyderabad
, the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Mysore
Mysore
, the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Jammu and Kashmir state , the Maharaja
Maharaja
Gaekwad
Gaekwad
of Baroda and the Maharaja
Maharaja
Scindia
Scindia
of Gwalior
Gwalior
– were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Five more – the Nawab of Bhopal , the Maharaja
Maharaja
Holkar
Holkar
of Indore
Indore
, the Maharana
Maharana
of Udaipur , the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Kohapur and the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Travancore
Travancore
– were entitled to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was the Nizam
Nizam
of Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique style _Exalted Highness_. 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
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.

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.

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
Surguja State
, for example, was both larger and more populous than Karauli State, but the Maharaja
Maharaja
of Karauli was entitled to a 17-gun salute and the Maharaja
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. 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
Nawab
of Oudh
Oudh
. There were also certain estates of British India
British India
which were rendered as political saranjams , having equal princely status. Though none of these princes were awarded gun salutes, princely titles in this category were recognised as a form of vassals of salute states, and were not even in direct relation with the paramount power.

DOCTRINE OF LAPSE

Main article: Doctrine of lapse

A controversial aspect of East India Company
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.

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 Awadh(Oudh), whose Nawabs he had accused of misrule, and the Maratha
Maratha
states of Nagpur
Nagpur
, Jhansi
Jhansi
and Satara , and Sambalpur
Sambalpur
. Resentment over the annexation of these states turned to indignation when the heirlooms of the Maharajas of Nagpur
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.

IMPERIAL GOVERNANCE

Main articles: Agencies of British India
Agencies of British India
and Residencies of British India
India
Photograph (1894) of the 19-year-old Shahaji IIBhonsle Maharajah of Kolhapur visiting the British resident and his staff at the Residency

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.

By the beginning of the 20th century, relations between the British and the four largest states – Hyderabad
Hyderabad
, Mysore
Mysore
, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda – were directly under the control of the Governor-General of India
Governor-General of India
, in the person of a British Resident . Two agencies, for Rajputanaand Central India
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
Assam
, 34 under Punjab , fifteen under Central Provinces and Berar and two under United Provinces . Chamber of Princes meeting in March 1941

The Chamber of Princes(_Narender Mandal_ or _Narendra Mandal_) was an institution established in 1920 by a Royal Proclamationof the King-Emperorto 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
British Raj
in 1947.

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
India
and Rajputanaagencies: the Eastern States Agency, Punjab States Agency, Baluchistan Agency, Deccan States Agency, Madras States Agencyand the Northwest Frontier States Agency. The Baroda Residencywas combined with the princely states of northern Bombay Presidency
Bombay Presidency
into the Baroda, Western India
India
and Gujarat States Agency . Gwalior
Gwalior
was separated from the Central India Agencyand given its own Resident, and the states of Rampur and Benares
Benares
, formerly with Agents under the authority of the United Provinces, were placed under the Gwalior Residencyin 1936. The princely states of Sandur and Banganapallein Mysore
Mysore
Presidency were transferred to the agency of the Mysore
Mysore
Resident in 1939.

PRINCIPAL PRINCELY STATES IN 1947

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 List of princely states of India
India
.

IN DIRECT RELATIONS WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Five large Princely statesin direct political relations with the Central Government in India
India
NAME OF PRINCELY STATE AREA IN SQUARE MILES POPULATION IN 1941 APPROXIMATE REVENUE OF THE STATE (IN HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES ) TITLE, ETHNICITY, AND RELIGION OF RULER GUN-SALUTE FOR RULER DESIGNATION OF LOCAL POLITICAL OFFICER

Baroda 13,866 3,343,477 (chiefly Hindu) 323.26 _Maharaja_, Maratha
Maratha
, Hindu 21 Resident at Baroda

Hyderabad
Hyderabad
82,698 16,338,534 (mostly Hindu
Hindu
with a sizeable Muslim
Muslim
minority) 1582.43 _Nizam_, Turkic , Sunni Muslim 21 Resident in Hyderabad

Jammu and Kashmir 84,471 4,021,616 including Gilgit, Baltistan (Skardu), Ladakh, and Punch (mostly Muslim, with sizeable Hindu
Hindu
and Buddhist
Buddhist
populations) 463.95 _Maharaja_, Dogra
Dogra
, Hindu 21 Resident in Jammu APPROX.)

BURMA

See also: Shan States
Shan States
and Wa States
Wa States
Burma (52 states)

52 States in Burma : all except Kantarawadi
Kantarawadi
, one of the Karenni States , were included in British India
British India
until 1937 NAME OF PRINCELY STATE AREA IN SQUARE MILES POPULATION IN 1901 APPROXIMATE REVENUE OF THE STATE (IN HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES ) TITLE, ETHNICITY, AND RELIGION OF RULER GUN-SALUTE FOR RULER DESIGNATION OF LOCAL POLITICAL OFFICER

Hsipaw (Thibaw) 5,086 105,000 ( Buddhist
Buddhist
) 3 _Sawbwa_, Shan , Buddhist 9 Superintendent, Northern Shan States
Shan States

Kengtung 12,000 190,000 (Buddhist) 1 _Sawbwa_, Shan, Buddhist 9 Superintendent Southern Shan States
Shan States

Yawnghwe 865 95,339 (Buddhist) 2.13 _Sawbwa_, Shan, Buddhist 9 Superintendent Southern Shan States

Mongnai 2,717 44,000 (Buddhist) 0.5 _Sawbwa_, Shan, Buddhist

Superintendent Southern Shan States

5 Karenni States 3,130 45,795 ( Buddhist
Buddhist
and Animist) 0,035 _Sawbwa_, Red Karen, Buddhist

Superintendent Southern Shan States

44 Other States 42,198 792,152 ( Buddhist
Buddhist
and Animist) 8.5

TOTAL 67,011 1,177,987 13.5

STATE MILITARY FORCES

_See article: Indian State Forces_

The armies of the Native Stateswere bound by many restrictions that were imposed by subsidiary alliances . They existed mainly for ceremonial use and for internal policing. According to the Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 85,

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
Gwalior
in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore
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
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
British India
, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor.

In addition, other restrictions were imposed:

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 Imperial control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence.

The troops were routinely inspected by British army officers and generally had the same equipment as soldiers in the Indian Army. Although their numbers were relatively small, the Imperial Service Troops were employed in China and British Somaliland
British Somaliland
in the first decade of the 20th century, and later saw action in the First World War and Second World War
Second World War
.

POLITICAL INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES IN 1947 AND AFTER

Main articles: Political integration of Indiaand Princely statesof Pakistan

_ The examples and perspective in this section DEAL PRIMARILY WITH INDIA AND DO NOT REPRESENT A WORLDWIDE VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. (February 2014)_ _(Learn how and when to remove this template message )_

_ The examples and perspective in this section DEAL PRIMARILY WITH PAKISTAN AND DO NOT REPRESENT A WORLDWIDE VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. (June 2017)_ _(Learn how and when to remove this template message )_

INDIA

At the time of Indian independence , India
India
was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of " British India
British India
," which were under the direct control of the India
India
Office in London and the Governor-General of India
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
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
Indian National Congress
, which the Government of India
India
pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, Sardar
Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel
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
Vallabhbhai Patel
said:

As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcyevery Indian State became a separate independent entity and our first task of consolidating about 550 States was on the basis of accession to the Indian Dominion on three subjects. Barring Hyderabad
Hyderabad
and Junagadhall the states which are contiguous to India
India
acceded to Indian Dominion. Subsequently, Kashmir also came in... Some Rulers who were quick to read the writing on the wall, gave responsible government to their people; Cochin
Cochin
being the most illustrious example. In Travancore, there was a short struggle, but there, too, the Ruler soon recognised the aspiration of his people and agreed to introduce a constitution in which all powers would be transferred to the people and he would function as a constitutional Ruler.

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
Maharaja
delayed signing the instrument of accession into India
India
until his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, the state of Hyderabad
Hyderabad
, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by the Operation Poloinvasion, and the states of Tripura and Manipur , whose rulers agreed to accession only in late 1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad.

Having secured their accession, Sardar
Sardar
Patel and V. P. Menonthen 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
British India
and those that had been princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of India, through a combination of diplomatic and military means, acquired control over the remaining European colonial enclaves, such as Goa
Goa
, which were also integrated into India.

As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment to the Constitution of India
India
withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the remuneration of the princes by privy purses . As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.

PAKISTAN

During the period of the British Raj
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 Accessionby 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 .

Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947. The Princely statesof 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.

SEE ALSO

* Salute state * List of Indian Princely states– a list of Indian princely states at the time of Indian Independence * List of Brahmin dynasties and states * List of Maratha dynasties and states * List of Rajput dynasties and states * List of Indian monarchs * Prince and Principality
Principality
– information on princely styles worldwide * Maratha
Maratha
titles * Maratha
Maratha
Empire * Rajputana

NOTES

* ^ Values are from the last imperial Indian census in 1941. Until 1966, when India
India
left the British sterling area , the Indian rupee was pegged to the British pound sterling and had a value of 1s. 6d (1 shilling and 6d., equal to 18 old pence). The pre-decimal pound was subdivided into 20s. (shillings) and valued at $4.03 in 1947. One shilling was therefore worth $0.20 U.S., so a rupee was worth $0.30 U.S. In 1947, 1s. 6d had an estimated purchasing power of £2.62 in 2014, while $0.30 in 1947 had an estimated purchasing power of $3.18 (in 2014 values).(Schedule of Par Values, Currencies of Metropolitan Areas, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg xxiii, Macmillan measuringworth.com)

REFERENCES

* ^ Ramusack 2004 , pp. 85 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 organisations. 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 Company set boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military personnel, subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of commercial goods at favourable prices, and limited opportunities for other alliances. From the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and consolidated their power, their centralised military despotism dramatically reduced the political options of Indian rulers." (p. 85) * ^ Ramusack 2004 , p. 87 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. (p. 87)" * ^ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_A-J.html * ^ Coen, Sir Terence Bernard Creagh, KBE, CIE. The Indian Political Service: A Study in Indirect Rule. London: Chatto & Windus, 1971 * ^ Markovits, Claude (2004). _A history of modern India, 1480–1950_. Anthem Press. pp. 386–409. * ^ _A_ _B_ _The India
India
Office and Burma Office List: 1945_. Harrison & Sons, Ltd. 1945. pp. 33–37. * ^ Ravi Kumar Pillai of Kandamath in the Journal of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs Pages 316-319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2016.1171621 * ^ Bajwa, Kuldip Singh (2003). _Jammu and Kashmir War, 1947–1948: Political and Military Perspectiv_. New Delhi: Hari-Anand Publications Limited. p. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7bREjE5yXNMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=dogra+1948+tribal+pakistan+invasion&ots=B8Ib4XPpLr&sig=y_lQsLt4gQB-c32WiCgbnb7ZNh8#v=onepage&q=dogra%201948%20tribal%20pakistan%20invasion&f=false.

* ^ Aparna Pande (16 March 2011). _Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: Escaping India_. Taylor & Francis. pp. 31–. ISBN 978-1-136-81893-6 . * ^ Siddiqi, Farhan Hanif (2015), "The Political Economy of the Ethno-nationalist Uprising in Pakistani Balochistan, 1999–2013" (PDF), _The Political Economy of Conflict in South Asia_, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 57–74 : "The statement provided a pretext for the Pakistan government for military action and put the Khan of Kalatin a very precarious situation. Sensing military action against the Khanate, the Khan aligned himself with Pakistan on 30 March 1948." * ^ Yaqoob Khan Bangash (10 May 2015). "The princely India". * ^ Wilhelm von Pochhammer, _India's road to nationhood: a political history of the subcontinent_ (1981) ch 57 * ^ Agarwal, Ashvini (1989). _Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas_, Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0592-5 , pp.264–9 * ^ Grousset, Rene (1970). _The Empire of the Steppes_. Rutgers University Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-8135-1304-9 . * ^ Interpretation Act 1889(52 Viscount John Allsebrook Simon Simon (1930). _Report of the Indian Statutory Commission ..._ H.M. Stationery Office. Retrieved 9 June 2012. * ^ _All India
India
reporter_. D.V. Chitaley. 1938. Retrieved 9 June 2012. * ^ Royalark.net: "Salute States" * ^ Govindlal Dalsukhbhai Patel (1957). _The land problem of reorganized Bombay state_. N. M. Tripathi. Retrieved 9 June 2012. * ^ Vapal Pangunni Menon (1956) _The Story of the Integration of the Indian States_, Macmillan Co., pp. 17–19 * ^ _A_ _B_ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 92 * ^ "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. * ^ _A_ _B_ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 93 * ^ "Central India
India
Agency," Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 168, Macmillan & Co. * ^ "Eastern States," Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 168, Macmillan & Co. * ^ " Gwalior
Gwalior
Residency,", Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 170, Macmillan & Co. * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , pp. 94–95 * ^ "Rajputana," Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 175, Macmillan & Co. * ^ _A_ _B_ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 96 * ^ "Baluchistan States," Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 160, Macmillan & Co. * ^ "Sikkim," Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 175, Macmillan & Co. * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 97 * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 102 * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 100 * ^ "Punjab States,", Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 174, Macmillan & Co. * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 103 * ^ " Assam
Assam
States,", Indian States and Agencies, _The Statesman's Year Book 1947,_ pg 160, Macmillan & Co. * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 101 * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 85 * ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , pp. 85–86 * ^ _A_ _B_ Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV 1907 , p. 87 * ^ R. P. Bhargava (1992) _The Chamber of Princes_, p. 313 * ^ "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", _indiacode.nic.in_, Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011 * ^ 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). _The Indian princes and their states_. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4 . Retrieved 6 November 2011. , "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the TITLES, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), _India: A Wounded Civilisation_, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The princes of India
India
– their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialise only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and TITLES." (pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), _An atlas and survey of South Asian history_, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India
India
or Pakistan, the real death of princely India
India
came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' TITLES, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), _Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world_, U of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognise them as princes and their privy purses, TITLES, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), _ India
India
After Gandhi: The History of the World\'s Largest Democracy_, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997). _Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865–1901_. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5 . Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj
British Raj
by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their TITLES." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), _Merriam-Webster\'s geographical dictionary_, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India
India
ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989), _Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide_, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0 , retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognised," their privileges, privy purses and TITLES all abolished at a stroke" (page 91) * ^ Pervaiz I Cheema; Manuel Riemer (22 August 1990). _Pakistan\'s Defence Policy 1947-58_. Palgrave Macmillan
Palgrave Macmillan
UK. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-1-349-20942-2 . * ^ Farhan Hanif Siddiqi (2012). _The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan: The Baloch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements_. Routledge. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-415-68614-3 . * ^ T.V. Paul (February 2014). _The Warrior State: Pakistan in the Contemporary World_. OUP USA. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-0-19-932223-7 . * ^ Bangash, Y. K. (2015), "Constructing the state: Constitutional integration of the princely states of Pakistan", in Roger D. Long; Gurharpal Singh; Yunas Samad; Ian Talbot, _State and Nation-Building in Pakistan: Beyond Islam and Security_, Routledge, pp. 82–, ISBN 978-1-317-44820-4 * ^ Nicholas Schmidle (2 March 2010). _To Live or to Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years in Pakistan_. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-1-4299-8590-1 . * ^ Syed Farooq Hasnat (26 May 2011). _Global Security Watch—Pakistan_. ABC-CLIO. pp. 94–. ISBN 978-0-313-34698-9 .

REFERENCES

* Bhagavan, Manu. "Princely States and the Hindu
Hindu
Imaginary: Exploring the Cartography of Hindu
Hindu
Nationalism in Colonial India" _Journal of Asian Studies,_ (Aug 2008) 67#3 pp 881–915 in JSTOR * Bhagavan, Manu. _Sovereign Spheres: Princes, Education and Empire in Colonial India_ (2003) * Copland, Ian (2002), _Princes of India
India
in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947_, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0-521-89436-0 . * Ernst, W. and B. Pati, eds. _India’s Princely States: People, Princes, and Colonialism_ (2007) * Harrington, Jack (2010), _Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India, Chs. 4 & 5._, New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Palgrave Macmillan
., ISBN 978-0-230-10885-1 * Jeffrey, Robin. _People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States_ (1979) 396pp * Kooiman, Dick. _Communalism and Indian Princely States: Travancore, Baroda & Hyderabad
Hyderabad
in the 1930s_ (2002), 249pp * Markovits, Claude (2004). "ch 21: "Princely India
India
(1858–1950)". _A history of modern India, 1480–1950_. Anthem Press. pp. 386–409. ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2 . * Ramusack, Barbara (2004), _The Indian Princes and their States_, The New Cambridge History of India
India
, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0-521-03989-4 * Pochhammer, Wilhelm von _India's Road to Nationhood: A Political History of the Subcontinent_ (1973) ch 57 excerpt * Zutshi, Chitralekha. "Re-visioning princely states in South Asian historiography: A review" _Indian Economic & Social History Review_ (2009) 46#3 pp 301–313. doi: 10.1177/001946460904600302

GAZETTEERS

* Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. II (1908), _The Indian Empire, Historical_, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India
India
in Council , Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxv, 1 map, 573. online * Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. III (1907), _The Indian Empire, Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502_, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India
India
in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxvi, 1 map, 520. online * Imperial Gazetteer of India
India
vol. IV (1907), _The Indian Empire, Administrative_, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India
India
in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552. online

EXTERNAL LINKS

_ Wikimedia Commons has media related to PRINCELY STATES OF INDIA _.

* Indian

.