The Princely states and the Indian National Movement

Submitted By-
Tawhid Alom Laskar
SM0117055

Faculty In Charge
Ms. Namrata Gogoi

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

GUWAHATI
18 SEPTEMBER, 2017
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. Introduction 2
1.1 Overview
1.2 Literature Review
1.3 Research Question
1.4 Scope and Objective
1.5 Research Methodology

2. Princely States 5
2.1 Origin of Princely states
2.2 British rule and Princely states

3. Indian National Movement 9

3.1 Rise of Indian National Movement
3.1 Challenges of Nation building

4. Princely States and the Indian National Movement 14

5. Integration of Princely states 17

6. Conclusion 19

BILBLIOGRAPHY

1
 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The history of Princely States dates back to the Classical period of Indian History. It refers to
the semi-sovereign rule of the local kings in accordance with the British Raj. The political
situation and context in each of the princely states was quite different from the rest of British
India. At the time of British withdrawal, 565 Princely states were officially recognized in the
Indian sub continent. Over a period of time with the Indian Independence the princely states
got amalgamated either with India and Pakistan and thus sought Independence for
themselves. The project shall look into the various aspects of the Indian National movement
and the accession of princely states from various sections of history and put forwards a
detailed understanding of the various fall outs, advantages and disadvantages of the Indian
national movement.

The dawn on India’s freedom was full of political and socio-economic complexities.
The leaders of the country found themselves in an atmosphere valued with manifold and
diversified criticalities. These, if not solved quickly, would have led to further complications.
Distressed with various problems from various dimensions, the leaders had to find out ways
and means to face the reality of the situation and arrive at a solution beneficial to the country.

The immediate fallout of the freedom of the country led to the creation of two distinct
nations, namely, India and Pakistan. A country, invested with such a large number of free
states, could not have dreamt of political consolidation in such an environment. It was quite
likely that those princes could have formed a third force and contributed towards its
disintegration rather than its further consolidation. Faced with such a critical and complex
situation, the mantle of finding out a solution with a view to avoid the disintegration, the
Congress party had cultivated political awakening and democratic thinking in the minds of
individuals of all sections of the society and responsibility fell upon Sardar Patel. Sardar’s
task was to create political consciousness in the minds of the people of those states and
simultaneously to persuade their princes to merge with the union of India so as to form a
strong united India after the departure of the British. By tactful method of promising privy
purses, through his friendly advice, and sometimes by stern and strong administrative
measures, he could succeed in bringing all the rulers together merging their states into the
Indian union without any bloodshed.

2
 1.2 Literature Review
1. India’s Struggle For Independence, Chandra, Bipan, Published by : Penguin Books (New
Delhi)
In this book the author’s lay emphasis over the long term strategies of the national
movements and the various efforts put forth by the various political parties. Constitutional
reform and the role of opposition being described with results of success and points of
failures. The challenges faced by the Indian National Congress and the challenges faced by
the British Raj are also depicted and explained with proper historical records and facts. The
ideological aspects, land reform policies, education policies and nation building policies are
discussed in details in this book.

2. Imperialism,  and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class, 1920-1947, Mukhejee,

Aditya, published by: Sage Publications, New Delhi.

This book describes and analyzes the emergence and evolution of the Indian
capitalist class and its relationship with imperialism and nationalism. It also provides a
comprehensive economic history of colonial India in the first half of the 20th century.
Based on extensive empirical data, this is the first detailed, thoroughly researched and
comprehensive account of the position of the Indians. The book also narrates the aftermath
and design of Independent India.

3
1.3 Scope and Objective:

Scope:
The scope of this project is limited to the study of the history of Princely states and the
Indian National Movement.
Objective:
The objectives of the research are:
1. To study the various Princely states during British Raj.
2. To study the aspects of Indian National Movement.
3. To study the historical reasoning of Integration of Princely states.
1.4 Research Questions:
1. Which were the Princely States?
2. What were the political aspects of the Princely states?
3. How the Princely states incorporated with the Indian subcontinent ?

1.5 Research Methodology:

 Approach to Research: In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal

Research is a research in which secondary sources are used and materials are
collected from libraries, archives, etc. Books, journals, articles were used while
making this project.
 Types of Research: Explanatory type of research was used in this project, because
the project topic was not relatively new and unheard of and also because various
concepts were needed to be explained.
 Sources of Data collection: Secondary source of data collection was used which
involves in collection of data from books, articles, websites, etc. No surveys or
case studies were conducted.

4
 CHAPTER – 2
. THE PRINCELY STATES
The British ruled India with two administrative systems. One was ‘Provinces’ and the other
‘Princely States’ About 40% of India’s States were Princely States in British India with local
ruler or king with honorary titles like Maharaja, Raja, Nizam, Badshah and other such titles
meaning king or ruler in different Indian languages. These rulers were subjected to the British
Empire.
By Definition, a Princely State can be depicted as an independent entity in terms of
internal administration within certain limits established by British India. All foreign aspects –
army, international relationships and whatever was managed by the British Government of
India and anything internal like administration of justice etc were managed by the head of the
administration in accordance with some strings based on his capacity in serving the British
and the historic relationship they had with the British. Some had formal pacts with the
British, some were just recognized, and some became Princely States just because they were
there. Others like Kashmir or Hyderabad were huger than most of the European nations of
today. There were kingdoms with their names etched in generations of history and originated
in antiquity like Mewar or Tehri.
The first question before the new Independent government was the status of the
Princely states within the new Indian federation. Many of the larger princes began to dream
of independence and to scheme for it. The Indian nationalists could hardly accept a situation
where the unity of free India will be endangered by hundreds of small and large independent
states.
With great skill and masterful diplomacy and using both persuasion and pressure,
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel succeeded in integrating the hundreds of princely states with the
Indian union in two stages. Some states had shown wisdom and realism and perhaps a degree
of patriotism by joining the Constituent Assembly in April 1947. However, the majority of
princes had stayed away and a few, such as those of Travancore, Bhopal, and Hyderabad,
publicly announced their desire to claim an independent status
As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment to the Constitution of 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 exist1

1
www.indiansaga.com/history/postindependence/states ; accessed on 25th Sept 2017

5
 2.1 Origin of Princely states
The political relationship between the British and the states can be traced back to the mid-
18th century when the East India Company began establishing diplomatic relations with
Indian Kingdoms.
Though principalities and chiefdoms existed on the Indian subcontinent from at least
the Iron Age, the history of princely states on the Indian subcontinent dates the rise of
the middle kingdoms of India following the collapse of the Gupta Empire. By mid-19th
century most of the major kingdoms were linked to the Company by treaty. Many of the
future ruling clan groups – notably the Rajputs – began to emerge during this period. Many of
the 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 Brahmani Sultanate. However, the actual importance of a princely state cannot
be read from the title of its ruler, which was usually granted (or at least recognised) as a
favour, often in recognition for loyalty and services rendered to the Mughal Empire.
More important, by this time the central elements of what came to be known as
‘paramountcy’ were in place. A vague and ill-defined term, paramountcy included among
other things a system of British ‘Residents’ in princely states, control over the states’ foreign
affairs, and the regulation of succession within such states. If the princely order survived
without being subsumed within the colonial bloc, it was mainly owing to their strategic
importance to the Raj—first during the upheaval of 1857 and more importantly during the
First World War.
After the war, the princes wanted to obtain greater freedom from the constraints of
paramountcy and guarantees against further encroachment. In recognition of their services,
they managed to secure in 1919 the creation of a ‘Chamber of Princes’— a 120 member
outfit that would advise the viceroy on all matters pertaining to the states. Another decade
passed before the Chamber got its act together. In the run-up to the first Round Table
Conference of 1930-31, the Chamber initially sought to work towards the elimination of
paramountcy. Once it became clear that the British would not concede this, the princes
decided upon the idea of joining an all-India federation as the best alternative.

6
 2.2 British rule and Princely States

After the battles of Plassey and Buxar, the British gained the political authority in the areas of
Bengal which facilitated their economic exploitation of the area. Slowly through the
instruments of Subsidiary Alliance and Doctrine of Lapse, they were able to gain hold on a
vast territory by annexing the princely states, whose sovereignty was surrendered to the
British. However, the revolt of 1857 served as an eye opener. Accordingly a proclamation
was made in the Delhi Durbar held in 1858 by Queen Victoria that no more annexations of
princely states would take place. Although this relaxation was a move that was welcomed by
the princely states, however they were still dependent on the British as the latter had control
over most of the resources such as the fertile tracts of northern India and the marine resources
of coastal parts of India. Geopolitically as well, they were powerful, as they had control over
all the border areas adjoining India. The only difference was that earlier they were dependent
on the British East India Company and post 1858 they became dependent on the British
crown.
Subsequently, after India’s independence, this inheritance of power by the Indian
government again compelled the princely states to be dependent on them for a host of their
activities as well as survival. This also helped weaken their position in the Indian
subcontinent and their demand of being sovereign2.
The Indian sub-continent was always a bunch of different entities ruling different
parts in India. During the arrival of the British in India, the most dominant empire in the
Indian sub-continent was the Mughal Empire. Their capitals were centered in the Delhi-Agra
region. The Mughal Empire acted as patrons to many smaller kingdoms all over India. With
the collapse of the Mughal Empire, which began in the 18 th century, the different rulers
became semi-independent and they began searching for other patrons. The British East India
Company began playing this status in many ways. The British East India Company, which
arrived in India for spice trade found out that the Portuguese and the Dutch had strong holds
in the spice trade. They therefore began searching for other trading options in India. They
offered the different ruling families in India sophisticated agreements, which gave the British
control over the management of the kingdoms, while the Indian rulers were rulers in official
titles and spent most of their time having an extravagant life. According to one of the articles
in the agreement between the East India Company and the Indian rulers, if the king did not
have a son to inherit from him then the kingdom was transferred to the East India Company.

2
www.adaniel.tripod.com/princely ; 25th September 2017

7
The Company saw in the cheap Indian labor force an important factor to control India.
Slowly the British began annexing Indian land and making it, East India Company's property.
The British also established factories and began using the cheap Indian work force to enrich
themselves.
Not all Indian rulers were happy with the British annexation process. Some of the
Indian rulers began fighting the British East India Company. Among them were the Marathas
in west India, the rulers of Mysore in south India and the Sikhs in north India. The British
won in these wars against the local rulers and gave different status to the occupied land. A
large part of the land captured from the Marathas by 1803 became part of province named
Bombay. The East India Company directly ruled this province through a British
representative. While in Mysore, in south India, the East India Company defeated and
executed the ruler Tipu Sultan in 1799 and replaced him with another Indian ruling family
which became popular among the local Indians. But in general the East India Company's
policy was annexation of Indian territories and turning them into British property.3

CHAPTER - 3
3
https://byjus.com/integration-princely-states-background-incs-stand; accessed on 25th September 2017

8
 INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT
The British started a program of reforms where they tried to integrate high-caste Indians and
rulers into the government. They stopped confiscation of lands, advocated religious tolerance
and allowed the Indians to join the civil service in subordinate roles. They increased the
number of British soldiers and only they were allowed to handle artillery. In 1877, Queen
Victoria was bestowed the title ‘Empress of India.’
The British felt that they could ‘civilize’ the people of India by getting them to
convert to Christianity. These efforts however failed. The other alternative was education. A
westernized system of education was introduced and a new educated class of Indians
emerged. They became the mediators between the British and the rest of Indian society. This
class of people found their way into government as lawyers, businessmen, journalists and
teachers.
Even though the British tried to convert Hindus to Christianity, Hinduism survived
and in fact, achieved a revival despite their best efforts. Indians, who were trained to believe
in western ideals of justice and freedom, started protesting against the discrimination by the
British.
These protests led to the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885. This
party was created to address charges against British officials who prevented Indians from
assuming control over their own affairs. The Congress eventually became the driving force
behind Indian nationalism and the freedom struggle.
Indian efforts against the British initially was not well organized. This led to the rise
of a rebel group of extremists who gave Indian nationalism a distinct Hindu orientation,
which alienated the Muslims .This alienation led to the formation of the All India Muslim
League in 1906. The league promoted loyalty to the British and the advancement of Muslim
political interests. Some Muslims however began to feel isolated, especially as the British
promoted Christianity. More Muslims started to join the Congress party. In 1916, the
Congress and the Muslim League signed the Lucknow Pact. The Lucknow Pact united the
two parties in their cause of driving the British out of India. An important member of the
Congress was Muhammad Ali Jinnah who worked towards a separate State for the Muslims,
Pakistan. This caused major issues between the two religious groups which led to violence
and bloodshed later.
Soon after, there was a rise in the number of radicals similar to the group led by Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, who believed that Swaraj was every Indian’s birthright. Tilak wanted to

9
assault the British directly. Other Bengal rebels carried out a campaign of terror and
assassination against the British. In 1905, the British partitioned Bengal and this led to the
first major resistance to foreign rule.
The Indian National Congress was founded by Allan Octavian Hume in 1885. Hume
was a retired Civil Service Officer. He saw a growing political consciousness among the
Indians and wanted to give it a safe, constitutional outlet so that their resentment would not
develop into popular agitation against the British rule in India. He was supported in this
scheme by the Viceroy, Lord Dufferin, and by a group of eminent Indians. Womesh Chandra
Banerjee of Calcutta was elected as the first President. The Indian National Congress
represented an urge of the politically conscious Indians to set up a national organization to
work for their betterment.
The Swadeshi movement was born, and the Indians protested in various ways-
boycott of foreign goods, strikes, non-cooperation, non-violent resistance, etc. Finally, the
British revoked the partition. Their motive had been to divide the Hindus who dominated
West Bengal, and the Muslims who were a majority in East Bengal.

3.1 Rise of Indian National Movement

The Indian national movement was undoubtedly one of the biggest mass movements modern
society has ever seen. It was a movement which galvanized millions of people of all classes
and ideologies into political action and brought to its knees a mighty colonial empire.
Consequently, along with the British, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese
revolutions, it is of great relevance to those wishing to alter the existing political and social
structure.
Various aspects of the Indian national movement, especially Gandhian political
strategy, are particularly relevant to these movements in societies that broadly function within
the confines of the rule of law, and are characterized by a democratic and basically civil
libertarian polity. But it is also relevant to other societies.
The Indian national movement, in fact, provides the only actual historical example of
a semi-democratic or democratic type of political structure being successfully replaced or
transformed. It is the only movement where the broadly Gramscian theoretical perspective of
a war of position was successfully practiced; where state power was not seized in a single
historical moment of revolution, but through prolonged popular struggle on a moral, political

10
and ideological level; where reserves of counter-hegemony were built up over the years
through progressive, stages; where the phases of struggle alternated with 'passive' phases.
The Indian national movement is also an example of how the constitutional space
offered by the existing structure could be used without getting co-opted by it. It did not
completely reject this space, as such rejection in democratic societies entails heavy costs in
terms of hegemonic influence and often leads to isolation - but entered it and used it
effectively in combination with non-constitutional struggle to overthrow the existing
structure.
The Indian national movement is perhaps one of the best examples of the creation of
an extremely wide movement with a common aim in which diverse political and ideological
currents could co-exist and work - and simultaneously continue to contend for overall
ideological and political hegemony over it. While intense debate on all basic issues was
allowed, the diversity and tension did not weaken the cohesion and striking power of the
movement; on the contrary, this diversity and atmosphere of freedom and debate became a
major source of its strength.
Today, over sixty years after independence, we are still close enough to the freedom
struggle to feel its warmth and yet far enough to be able to analyze it coolly, and with the
advantage of hindsight. Analyze it as we must, for our past, present and future are
inextricably linked to it. Men and women in every age and society make their own history,
but they do not make it in a historical vacuum. Their efforts, however innovative, at finding
solutions to their problems in the present and charting out their future, are guided and
circumscribed, molded and conditioned, by their respective histories, their inherited
economic, political and ideological structures. To make clearer, the path that India has
followed since 1947 has deep roots in the struggle for independence. The political and,
ideological features, which have had a decisive impact on post-independence development,
are largely a legacy of the freedom struggle. It is a legacy that belongs to all the Indian
people, regardless of which party or group they belong to now, for the 'party' which led this
struggle from 1885 to 1947 was not then a party but a movement - all political trends from
the Right to the Left were incorporated in it4.
At the beginning of the 19th century India was regarded as one of the few countries
with least possibilities for the rise of nationalism or the growth of national movement. The
main reason for such assumptions was that the vast population of India was not only
politically and backward but also disunited by barriers of language, religion, culture etc. The
4
India’s Struggle For Independence, Chandra, Bipan, Published by : Penguin Books (New Delhi)

11
dearth of unifying sense of nationalism and patriotic feelings was one of the cogent
contributing factors to the foundation and consolidation of the British rule in India. Certain
colonial scholars did not even regard India as a nation. But India, throughout the course of
her history had enjoyed inherent unity in diversity. This unity in diversity greatly helped in
the rise and growth of Indian National Movement. The 19th and early 20th centuries were an
age of democratic, liberal and nationalist ideas. The American War of Independence, the
French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of 1917 etc., greatly inspired the rise and growth
of the National Movement in India. No doubt all these external events, internal turmoils and
self-realisation together inspired the rise and growth of the Indian National Movement.
India’s National Movement was truly Indian in the respect that it was world’s first struggle
for freedom based on truth and non-violence and its foundations was laid by the socio-
religious reform movement of the 19th century.

3.2 Challenges of Nation building

Broadly, independent India faced three kinds of challenges. The first and the immediate
challenge was to shape a nation that was united, yet accommodative of the diversity in our
society. India was a land of continental size and diversity. Its people spoke different
languages and followed different cultures and religions. At that time it was widely believed
that a country full of such kinds of diversity could not remain together for long. The partition
of the country appeared to prove everyone’s worst fears. There were serious questions about
the future of India.
The second challenge was to establish democracy. We know that the Constitution
granted fundamental rights and extended the right to vote to every citizen. India adopted
representative democracy based on the parliamentary form of government. These features
ensure that the political competition would take place in a democratic framework. A
democratic constitution is necessary but not sufficient for establishing a democracy. The
challenge was to develop democratic practices in accordance with the Constitution5.
The third challenge was to ensure the development and wellbeing of the entire society
and not only of some sections. Here again the Constitution clearly laid down the principle of
equality and special protection to socially disadvantaged groups and religious and cultural
communities. The Constitution also set out in the Directive Principles of State Policy the

5
India and the World through Ages, NCERT book 11

12
welfare goals that democratic politics must achieve. The real challenge now was to evolve
effective policies for economic development and eradication of poverty.

CHAPTER - 4

13
 PRINCELY STATES AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT
The struggle for freedom within the Indian Princely States changed into an inseparable part of
the Indian struggle for freedom from the British colonial dominance. The Princes have been
the outer flanks of the British imperialism in India and were sustained with the aid of the
protection with which the British Paramountcy envisaged. In the Indian States, however the
sporadic moves of the State’s peoples did not immediately confront the British power. The
Princes were natives of India and belonged to the people they ruled. The motion for freedom
within the Princely States, therefore, geared toward a number of objectives, which included
the emancipation of the State’s human beings from overseas rule, the realisation of Indian
solidarity, and the achievement of self-rule for the human beings inside the Indian States.
The Jammu and Kashmir State was dominated via the Dogra Rajputs of Jammu and
their political processes did no longer vary from those which prevailed in the other Princely
States of India. Therefore, the instructions and directions assumed inside Jammu and Kashmir
had been not unique from people who the national independent movement assumed in the
other Indian States. The first political response in opposition to the Dogra rulers in Kashmir
were notably slight in content and sought to relaxed small concessions from the Dogra rulers.
Jammu and Kashmir become unexpectedly drawn into the vortex of the liberation movement
in India after the disturbances which broke out inside the Punjab region in 1919-20.
Widespread protest flared up inside the Jammu Province against the oppression, the British
resorted to suppress the civil disobedience movement. A wider upsurge passed off while the
Khilafat agitation was launched in India and in Jammu in addition to Kashmir, the motion
evoked sizable reaction.
There had been two possibilities with reference to the location of the states after the
lapse of paramountcy. At the time of the withdrawal of the British power in India, one
possibility changed into that the states may end up absolutely free and independent sovereign
states without having any manipulate exerted over them by the two newly shaped states of
India and Pakistan. Such an opportunity could become very much dangerous since the result
would have been that the country might be divided into states which could no longer have
enough resources in their very own for the citizen’s liabilities. Such a proposition could have
led to the complete Balkanization of the country. The second and the most realistic
opportunity became that with the withdrawal of the British power, the states could develop
new relationships with either of the states-India or Pakistan, depending upon the geographical
continuity and political state of affairs time-honored. In order to hold the unity of the country,

14
this type of solution changed into a need, however it turned hard to check whether the Princes
of the states, preferred to surrender their strength and be part of the newly fashioned states as
federating gadgets. If taken into consideration from the point of view of the personal benefit,
it was apparent that the second one possibility might not be welcomed; however thinking of
the overall interest of the Indian nation, the rulers would possibly comply with sacrificing
their non-public hobby and merge their states with the Indian union.
As regards the position of the states after the transfer of Power, Cripps observed, that
would, however, be open to an adhering state to negotiate and make suitable arrangements on
these matters in the new Union. Though the states expressed their desire to cooperate with the
new union in framing a constitution, they however appealed that they should be permitted to
form a Union with all non-acceding states.
Unifying post partition India and the princely states under one administration was
perhaps the most important task faced by then political leadership. In colonial India, nearly
40% of the territory was occupied by five hundred sixty five small and large states ruled by
princes who enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy under the system of British Paramountcy.
British power protected them from their own people as also from external aggression so long
as they did British bidding. As the British left, many of 565 princely states, began to dream of
independence. They had claimed that the paramountcy could not be transferred to the new
states of India and Pakistan. The ambitions were fuelled by the then British PM Clement
Attlee announcement on Feb 20, 1947 that "His Majesty's Government does not intend to
hand over their powers and obligations under paramountcy to any government of British
India". With great skill and masterful diplomacy and using both persuasion and pressure,
Sardar Patel succeeded in integrating the hundreds of princely states. Few princely states
joined Constituent Assembly with wisdom & realism, patriotism, but other princely states
still stayed away from joining it. Princely states of Travancore, Bhopal, and Hyderabad
publicly announced their desire to claim an independent status. On June 27, 1947, Sardar
Patel assumed additional charge of the newly created states department with V.P. Menon as
its Secretary.
Smaller states were either merged with the neighboring states or merged together to
'form centrally administered areas'. A large number of states were consolidated into five new
unions, forming Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab states Union [PEPSU],
Saurashtra and Travancore-Cochin. Mysore, Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir retained
their original form as separate states of the Union. In return of their surrender of all power
and authority, the rulers of major states were given privy purses guaranteed by the
15
constitution. The rulers were allowed succession to the gaddi and retained certain privileges
such as keeping their titles, flying their personal flags and gun salutes on ceremonial
occasions.

16
 CHAPTER – 5
INTEGRATION OF PRICELY STATES
The termination of paramountcy would have in principle meant that all rights that flowed
from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to
negotiate relationships with the new states of India and Pakistan "on a basis of complete
freedom". Early British plans for the transfer of power, such as the offer produced by
the Cripps Mission, recognised the possibility that some princely states might choose to stand
out of independent India. This was unacceptable to the Indian National Congress, which
regarded the independence of princely states as a denial of the course of Indian history, and
consequently regarded this scheme as a "Balkanisation" of India. The Congress had
traditionally been less active in the princely states because of their limited resources which
restricted their ability to organise there and their focus on the goal of independence from the
British, and because Congress leaders, in particular Mohandas Gandhi, were sympathetic to
the more progressive princes as examples of the capacity of Indians to rule themselves. This
changed in the 1930s as a result of the federation scheme contained in the Government of
India Act 1935 and the rise of socialist Congress leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, and
the Congress began to actively engage with popular political and labour activity in the
princely states. By 1939, the Congress' official stance was that the states must enter
independent India, on the same terms and with the same autonomy as the provinces of British
India, and with their people granted responsible government. As a result, it insisted on the
incorporation of the princely states into India in its negotiations with British, but the British
took the view that this was not in their power to grant.
A few British leaders, particularly Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy of India,
were also uncomfortable with breaking links between independent India and the princely
states. The development of trade, commerce and communications during the 19th and 20th
centuries had bound the princely states to the British India through a complex network of
interests. Agreements relating to railways, customs, irrigation, use of ports, and other similar
agreements would get terminated, posing a serious threat to the economic life of the
subcontinent. Mountbatten was also persuaded by the argument of Indian officials such as V.
P. Menon that the integration of the princely states into independent India would, to some
extent, assuage the wounds of partition. The result was that Mountbatten personally favoured
and worked towards the accession of princely states to India following the transfer of power,
as proposed by the Congress

17
The Instruments of Accession were limited, transferring control of only three matters to
India, and would by themselves have produced a rather loose federation, with significant
differences in administration and governance across the various states. Full political
integration, in contrast, would require a process whereby the political actors in the various
states were "persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities towards a
new center", namely, the Republic of India. This was not an easy task. While some princely
states such as Mysore had legislative systems of governance that were based on a broad
franchise and not significantly different from those of British India, in others, political
decision-making took place in small, limited aristocratic circles and governance was, as a
result, at best paternalistic and at worst the result of courtly intrigue. Having secured the
accession of the princely states, the Government of India between 1948 and 1950 turned to
the task of welding the states and the former British provinces into one polity under a single
republican constitution.
These considerations eventually led the ‘governors’ of newly amalgamated entities to
sign fresh instruments of accession, ceding to the Union the powers to pass laws in respect of
all matters falling within the federal and concurrent legislative lists of the Government of
India Act of 1935. These entities, in short, merged with the Union of India. In return, these
princes were offered a handsome ‘privy purse’, its size pegged to the revenue earned by the
state. In addition, most of the rulers of the biggest states were given a place in the new
constitutional order as governors and lieutenant governors, or offered attractive
ambassadorial appointments.
After integration of princely states two trouble spots were French settlement and
Portuguese settlements. After prolonged negotiation Pondicherry and other French
possessions were handed over to India in 1954. Portuguese were not ready to handover their
areas. Its Nato allies supported Portugal’s position and India supported peaceful means. There
was a independence movement in Goa, India was patient, but in 1961 when that popular
movement demanded support Indian troops marched in Goa in under Operation Vijay and
Portuguese did surrendered without any fight.

18
 CONCLUSION
The British created an invisible wall between ‘British India’ and the ‘Princely India’ by
governing the latter indirectly through hereditary princes, who were supposedly fully
autonomous, but for British ‘paramountcy’. The Indian National Congress had from the
beginning adopted a policy of non-interference in the states’ affairs, which Mahatma Gandhi
too upheld. However, nationalism began to cast its influence in the states despite this policy
of non-interference. In Kashmir the opposition to the Maharaja took, first, the form of a
Muslim agitation against the ruler’s oppressive measures. But in time as the movement
against the Dogra Raj obtained increasing support from the nationalist leaders, notably
Jawaharlal Nehru, the Muslim Conference (later named National Conference) leadership
headed by Sheikh Abdullah gravitated towards the All-India States Peoples Conference and
its spiritual parent, the Congress. The Congress too abandoned its policy of non-interference
fully by 1939. This shift ultimately caused a rift in the valley, with Ch. Ghulam Abbas
forming the Muslim Conference in opposition to Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference in
1941.
Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of princely states into
India, it was not as successful in relation to a few states, notably the former princely state
of Kashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until his
territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, the state of Hyderabad, whose ruler
decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by the Operation
Polo invasion, and the states of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers agreed to accession only
in late 1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books used:
1. India’s Struggle For Independence, Chandra, Bipan, Published by : Penguin Books (New
Delhi)
2. Imperialism,  and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class, 1920-1947, Mukhejee, Aditya,
published by: Sage Publications, New Delhi

Articles used:
1. Integration of Princely States : Dr. Srinath Raghavan : Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy
Research, New Delhi

Web sources:

1. https://byjus.com/integration-princely-states-background-incs-stand
2. www.adaniel.tripod.com/princely
3. Jstor

20