In 1920, Congress (party) under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi declared swaraj (self-rule) for Indians as its goal and asked the princes of India to establish responsible government.[3]Jawaharlal Nehru played a major role in pushing Congress to confront the princely states and declared in 1929 that "only people who have the right to determine the future of the States must be the people of these States".[4] In 1937, the Congress won in most parts of British India (not including the princely states) in the provincial elections, and started to intervene in the affairs of the states.[4] In the same year, Gandhi played a major role in proposing a federation involving a union between British India and the princely states, with an Indian central government. In 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.[5]
At the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states were officially recognized in the Indian subcontinent,[6] apart from thousands of zamindari estates and jagirs. In 1947, princely states covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population.[7] The most important states had their own British political residencies: Hyderabad of the Nizams, Mysore, Pudukkottai and Travancore in the South, Jammu and Kashmir, and Indore in Central India. The most prominent among those – roughly a quarter of the total – had the status of a salute state, one whose ruler was entitled to a set number of gun salutes on ceremonial occasions.[citation needed]
The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth; the premier 21-gun salute states of Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir were each over 200,000km2 (77,000sqmi) in size. In 1941, Hyderabad had a population of over 16 million, while Jammu and Kashmir had a population of slightly over 4 million. At the other end of the scale, the non-salute principality of Lawa covered an area of 49km2 (19sqmi), with a population of just below 3,000. Some two hundred of the lesser states even had an area of less than 25km2 (10sqmi).[8][9]
History
1765–1805 map of India, shown with a territorial division between Hindus, Muslims and the BritishPolitical subdivisions of the Indian Empire in 1909 with British India (pink) and the princely states (yellow)
The princely states at the time of Indian independence were mostly formed after the disintegration of the Mughal empire. Many Princely states had a foreign origin due to the long period of external migration to India. Some of these were the rulers of Hyderabad (Turks), Bhopal (Afghans) and Janjira (Abyssinian). Among the Hindu kingdoms, most of the rulers were Kshatriya. Only the Rajput states and a scattering of South Indian kingdoms could trace their lineage to the pre-Mughal period.[10]
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[11]
The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British Crown by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 400 states were influenced by Agents answerable to the provincial governments of British India under a governor, lieutenant-governor, or chief commissioner.[14] A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the legislation enacted by the British Parliament, and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the princely states existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.[14]
The Indian rulers bore various titles including Maharaja or Raja ("king"), Sultan, Nawab, Emir, Raje, Nizam, Wadiyar (used only by the Maharajas of Mysore, meaning "lord"), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of Bhaddaiyan Raj, Chogyal, Nawab ("governor"), Nayak, Wāli, Inamdar,[15]Saranjamdar[16] 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 rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title "Raja", or a variant such as Raje, Rai, Rana, Babu, Rao, Rawat, or Rawal. Also in this 'class' were several Thakurs or Thai ores and a few particular titles, such as Sardar, Mankari, Deshmukh, Sar Desai, Istamuradar, Saranjamdar, Raja Inamdar, etc. The most prestigious Hindu rulers usually had the prefix "maha-" ("great", compare for example "grand duke") in their titles, as in Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. This was used in many princely states including Mewar, Travancore and Cochin. The state of Travancore also had queens regent styled Maharani, applied only to the sister of the ruler in Kerala.
Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific of naib, "deputy") originally used by Mughal governors, who became de facto autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire, with the prominent exceptions of the Nizam of Hyderabad & Berar, the Wali/Khan of Kalat and the Wali of Swat. Other less usual titles included Darbar Sahib, Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral) and Mir (from Emir).
The Sikh princes concentrated at Punjab usually adopted titles when attaining princely rank. A title at a level of Maharaja was used.
There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles under the Mughal emperors. For example, the addition of the adjective Bahadur (from Persian, literally meaning "brave") raised the status of the titleholder one level.
Furthermore, most dynasties used a variety of additional titles such as Varma in South India. This should not be confused with various titles and suffixes not specific to princes but used by entire (sub)castes. This is almost analogous to Singh title in North India.
The actual importance of a princely state could not be read from the title of its ruler, which was usually granted (or at least recognized) as a favor, often in recognition for loyalty and services rendered to the British Raj. Although some titles were raised once or even repeatedly, there was no automatic updating when a state gained or lost real power. In fact, princely titles were even awarded to holders of domains (mainly jagirs) and even taluqdars and zamindars, which were not states at all. Most of the zamindars who held princely titles were in fact erstwhile princely and royal states reduced to becoming zamindars by the British East India Company. Various sources give significantly different numbers of states and domains of the various types. Even in general, the definition of titles and domains are clearly not well-established.
An 1895 group photograph of the eleven-year-old Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV, ruler of the princely state of Mysore in South India, with his brothers and sisters. In 1799, his grandfather, then aged five, had been granted dominion of Mysore by the British and forced into a subsidiary alliance. The British later directly governed the state between 1831 and 1881The Govindgarh Palace of the 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 zooThe Nawab of Junagarh Bahadur Khan III (seated centre in an ornate chair) shown in an 1885 photograph with state officials and familyPhotograph (1900) of the Maharani of 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 and the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. Women could be appointed as "Knights" (instead of Dames) of these orders. Rulers entitled to 21-gun and 19-gun salutes were normally appointed to the highest rank, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India.
Many Indian princes served in the British Army, the Indian Army, or in local guard or police forces, often rising to high ranks; some even served while on the throne. Many of these were appointed as an aide-de-camp, either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of relatives of such rulers) or to British monarchs. Many saw active service, both on the subcontinent and on other fronts, during both World Wars.
Apart from those members of the princely houses who entered military service and who distinguished themselves, a good number of princes received honorary ranks as officers in the British and Indian Armed Forces. Those ranks were conferred based on several factors, including their heritage, lineage, gun-salute (or lack of one) as well as personal character or martial traditions. After the First and Second World Wars, the princely rulers of several of the major states, including Gwalior, Patiala, Nabha, Faridkort, 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)
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 and Jammu & Kashmir were created honorary Generals in the British Army in 1877, the Maharaja of Bikaner was made one in 1937, and the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1941)[citation needed]
It was also not unusual for members of princely houses to be appointed to various colonial offices, often far from their native state, or to enter the diplomatic corps.
The gun salute system was used to set unambiguously the precedence of the major rulers in the area in which the British East India Company was active, or generally of the states and their dynasties. As heads of a state, certain princely rulers were entitled to be saluted by the firing of an odd number of guns between three and 21, with a greater number of guns indicating greater prestige. Generally, the number of guns remained the same for all successive rulers of a particular state, but individual princes were sometimes granted additional guns on a personal basis. Furthermore, rulers were sometimes granted additional gun salutes within their own territories only, constituting a semi-promotion. The states of all these rulers (about 120) were known as salute states.
After Indian Independence, the Maharana of Udaipur displaced the Nizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, because Hyderabad State had not acceded to the new Dominion of India, and the style Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes. When the princely states had been integrated into the Indian Union their rulers were promised continued privileges and an income (known as the Privy Purse) for their upkeep. Subsequently, when the Indian government abolished the Privy Purse in 1971, the whole princely order ceased to be recognised under Indian law, although many families continue to retain their social prestige informally; some descendants of the rulers are still prominent in regional or national politics, diplomacy, business and high society.
As paramount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the British King-Emperor of India, for whom the style of Majesty was reserved, was entitled to an 'imperial' 101-gun salute—in the European tradition also the number of guns fired to announce the birth of an heir (male) to the throne.
Non-salute states
Coinage of king Manak Pal (1772-1804), Princely State of Karauli. Karauli mint. Struck in the name of the Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Dated 1784-5 CE
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, for example, was both larger and more populous than Karauli State, but the Maharaja of Karauli was entitled to a 17-gun salute and the Maharaja of Surguja was not entitled to any gun salute at all.[18][19][20]
A number of princes, in the broadest sense of the term, were not even acknowledged as such.[example needed] On the other hand, the dynasties of certain defunct states were allowed to keep their princely status – they were known as political pensioners, such as the Nawab of Oudh. There were also certain estates of British India which were rendered as political saranjams, having equal princely status.[21] 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.
A controversial aspect of East India Company rule was the doctrine of lapse, a policy under which lands whose feudal ruler died (or otherwise became unfit to rule) without a male biological heir (as opposed to an adopted son) would become directly controlled by the company and an adopted son would not become the ruler of the princely state. This policy went counter to Indian tradition where, unlike Europe, it was far more the accepted norm for a ruler to appoint his own heir.
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 states of Nagpur, Jhansi, Satara, Sambalpur, and Thanjavur. Resentment over the annexation of these states turned to indignation when the heirlooms of the Maharajas of Nagpur were auctioned off in Calcutta. Dalhousie's actions contributed to the rising discontent amongst the upper castes which played a large part in the outbreak of the Indian mutiny of 1857. The last Mughal badshah (emperor), whom many of the mutineers saw as a figurehead to rally around, was deposed following its suppression.
In response to the unpopularity of the doctrine, it was discontinued with the end of Company rule and the British Parliament's assumption of direct power over India.
Photograph (1894) of the 19-year-old Shahaji II Bhonsle 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, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda – were directly under the control of the governor-general of India, in the person of a British resident. Two agencies, for Rajputana and Central India, oversaw twenty and 148 princely states respectively. The remaining princely states had their own British political officers, or Agents, who answered to the administrators of India's provinces. The agents of five princely states were then under the authority of Madras, 354 under Bombay, 26 of Bengal, two under Assam, 34 under Punjab, fifteen under the Central Provinces and Berar and two under the 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 proclamation of the King-Emperor to provide a forum in which the rulers could voice their needs and aspirations to the government. It survived until the end of the British Raj in 1947.[22]
The native states in 1947 included five large states that were in "direct political relations" with the Government of India. For the complete list of princely states in 1947, see lists of princely states of India.
In direct relations with the central government
Five large princely states in direct political relations with the Central Government in India[23][24][25][26]
Name of princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees)
The armies of the princely states were bound by many restrictions that were imposed by subsidiary alliances. They existed mainly for ceremonial use and for internal policing, although certain units designated as Imperial Service Troops, were available for service alongside the regular Indian Army upon request by the British government.[42]
Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore in 1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this was afforded by the army of the Sikh kingdom of Lahore. The British Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is organised for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor.[43]
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.[44]
The Imperial Service Troops were routinely inspected by British army officers and had the same equipment as soldiers in the British Indian Army.[45] Although their numbers were relatively small, the Imperial Service Troops were employed in China and British Somaliland in the first decade of the 20th century, and later saw action in the First World War and Second World War .[45]
Political integration of princely states
In 1920, Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi declared that attainment of swaraj for Indians was its goal. It asked "all the sovereign princes of India to establish full responsible government in their states". Gandhi assured the princes that Congress will not intervene in internal affairs of the princely states.[3] Congress reiterated their demand at 1928 Calcutta Congress, "This Congress assures the people of the Indian States of its sympathy with and support in their legitimate and peaceful struggle for the attainment of full responsible government in the States."[4]
Jawaharlal Nehru played a major role in pushing Congress to confront the princely states.[4] In his presidential address at Lahore session in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru declared: "The Indian states cannot live apart from the rest of the (sic) India".[46] Nehru added he is "no believer in kings or princes" and that "the only people who have the right to determine the future of the States must be the people of these States. This Congress which claims self-determination cannot deny it to the people of the states."[4]
After the Congress's electoral victory in 1937 elections, protests, sometimes violent, and satyagrahas against the princely states were organised and were supported by the Congress's ministries. Gandhi fasted in Rajkot State to demand "full responsible government" and added that "the people" were "the real rulers of Rajkot under the paramountcy of the Congress". Gandhi termed this protest as struggle against "the disciplined hordes of the British empire". Gandhi proclaimed that the Congress had now every right to intervene in "the states which are the vassals of the British".[4] In 1937, Gandhi played a major role in formation of federation involving a union between British India and the princely states with an Indian central government.[47]
In 1939, Nehru challenged the existence of the princely states and added that "the states in modern India are anachronistic and do not deserve to exist."[4] In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.[5]
Hindu Mahasabha took funding from the princely states and supported them to remain independent even after the independence of India. V. D. Savarkar particularly hailed the Hindu dominated states as the 'bedrock of Hindu power' and defended their despotic powers, referring to them as the 'citadels of organised Hindu power'. He particularly hailed the princely states such as Mysore State, Travancore, Oudh and Baroda State as 'progressive Hindu states'.[48][49]
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 or Pakistan.[50] The accession process was largely peaceful, except in the cases of Jammu and Kashmir (whose ruler decided to accede to India following an invasion by Pakistan-based forces, resulting in a long-standing dispute between the two countries),[51]Hyderabad State (whose ruler opted for independence in 1947, followed a year later by the invasion and annexation of the state by India), Junagarh and its vassal Bantva Manavadar (whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, but were annexed by India),[52] and Kalat (whose ruler declared independence in 1947, followed in 1948 by the state's accession to Pakistan).[53][54][55]
At the time of Indian independence on 15 August 1947, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of "British India", which were under the direct control of the India Office in London and the governor-general of India, and the second being the "princely states", the territories over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. The integration of these territories into Dominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence Act 1947 by the British Parliament, was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, which the Government of India pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, SardarVallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon in the months immediately preceding and following the independence convinced the rulers of almost all of the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. In a speech in January 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel said:
As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcy every 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 and Junagadh all the states which are contiguous to 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 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.[56]
Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a few states, notably the former princely state of Kashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, and the state of Hyderabad, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by the Operation Polo invasion.
Having secured their accession, Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon then proceeded, in a step-by-step process, to secure and extend the central government's authority over these states and to transform their administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between the territories that had formerly been part of British India and those that had been princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of India, through a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure, acquired control over most of the remaining European colonial exclaves on the subcontinent. Fed up with the protracted and stubborn resistance of the Portuguese government; in 1961 the Indian Armyinvaded and annexedPortuguese India.[57] These territories, like the princely states, were also integrated into the Republic of India.
As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[58] to the Constitution of India withdrew recognition of the princes as rulers, took away their remaining privileges, and abolished the remuneration granted to them by privy purses.
As per the terms of accession, the erstwhile Indian princes received privy purses (government allowances), and initially retained their statuses, privileges, and autonomy in internal matters during a transitional period which lasted until 1956. During this time, the former princely states were merged into unions, each of which was headed by a former ruling prince with the title of Rajpramukh (ruling chief), equivalent to a state governor.[59] In 1956, the position of Rajpramukh was abolished and the federations dissolved, the former principalities becoming part of Indian states. The states which acceded to Pakistan retained their status until the promulgation of a new constitution in 1956, when most became part of the province of West Pakistan; a few of the former states retained their autonomy until 1969 when they were fully integrated into Pakistan. The Indian government abolished the privy purses in 1971, followed by the government of Pakistan in 1972.[citation needed]
In July 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.[5] In January 1947, Nehru said that independent India would not accept the divine right of kings.[60] In May, 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.[61] There were officially 565 princely states when India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, but the great majority had contracted with the British viceroy to provide public services and tax collection. Only 21 had actual state governments, and only four were large (Hyderabad State, Mysore State, Jammu and Kashmir State, and Baroda State). They acceded to one of the two new independent countries between 1947 and 1949. All the princes were eventually pensioned off.[62]
During the period of the British Raj, there were four princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. The first three acceded to Pakistan.[63][64][65][66] However, the ruler of the fourth princely state, the Khan of KalatAhmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's independence as this was one of the options given to all princely states.[67] The state remained independent until it was acceded on 27 March 1948. The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Ahmad Yar Khan, led his brother, Prince Abdul Karim, to revolt against his brother's decision in July 1948, causing an ongoing and still unresolved insurgency.[68]
Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947. The princely states of the North-West Frontier States Agencies. included the Dir Swat and Chitral Agency and the Deputy Commissioner of Hazara acting as the Political Agent for Amb and Phulra. These states joined Pakistan on independence from the British.[citation needed]
Hunza, also known as Kanjut, was a princely state in the Gilgit Baltistan region of Pakistan. Initially, it functioned as a principality and subsequently became a princely state under a subsidiary alliance with the British India starting in 1892 and continuing until August 1947. For a brief period of three months, it remained unaligned after gaining independence, and then from November 1947 until 1974, it retained its status as a princely state within Pakistan. The territory of Hunza now constitutes the northernmost part of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan.
The Gilgit Agency was an agency within the British Indian Empire. It encompassed the subsidiary states of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir situated along the northern border. The primary objective of establishing the Gilgit Agency was to bolster and fortify these regions, particularly in the context of concerns about Russian encroachment in the area. The subsidiary states encompassed Hunza, Nagar and other states in the present day districts of Gupis-Yasin, Ghizer, Darel, Tangir and Diamer. The agency headquarters was based in the town of Gilgit, within the Gilgit tehsil of Jammu and Kashmir.
Rajpramukh was an administrative title in India which existed from India's independence in 1947 until 1956. Rajpramukhs were the appointed governors of certain Indian provinces and states.
Maharaja Sir Hari Singh was the last ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian Independence Act 1947 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The Act received Royal Assent on 18 July 1947 and thus modern-day India and Pakistan, comprising west and east regions, came into being on 15 August.
The Instrument of Accession was a legal document first introduced by the Government of India Act 1935 and used in 1947 to enable each of the rulers of the princely states under British paramountcy to join one of the new dominions of India or Pakistan created by the Partition of British India.
In India, a privy purse was a payment made to the ruling families of erstwhile princely states as part of their agreements to first integrate with India in 1947 after the independence of India, and later to merge their states in 1949, thereby ending their ruling rights.
Before it gained independence in 1947, India was divided into two sets of territories, one under direct British rule, and the other consisting of princely states under the suzerainty of the British Crown, with control over their internal affairs remaining to varying degrees in the hands of their hereditary rulers. The latter included 562 princely states which had different types of revenue-sharing arrangements with the British, often depending on their size, population and local conditions. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. After independence, the political integration of these territories into an Indian Union was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, and the Government of India pursued this over the next decade.
Malwa Agency was an administrative section of British India's Central India Agency. The headquarters of the political agent was at Neemuch (Nimach). The other chief towns of the region were : Ratlam and Jaora.
A salute state was a princely state under the British Raj that had been granted a gun salute by the British Crown ; i.e., the protocolary privilege for its ruler to be greeted—originally by Royal Navy ships, later also on land—with a number of cannon shots, in graduations of two salutes from three to 21, as recognition of the state's relative status. The gun-salute system of recognition was first instituted during the time of the East India Company in the late 18th century and was continued under direct Crown rule from 1858.
Nagar was a princely state located in the northern region of Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan. Before August 1947, it maintained a subsidiary alliance with British India. It shared its borders with the Gilgit Agency states to the south and west, while to the north and east, it bordered the princely state of District Hunza. From November 1947 to 1974, Nagar was recognized as a princely state within Pakistan, with its administrative center in the town of Nagar.
The Madras States Agency was a colonial agency for the indirect rule of princely states associated with British India. Founded in 1923, it consisted of these five princely states :
The Punjab States Agency was an agency of the British Raj. The agency was created in 1921, on the model of the Central India Agency and Rajputana Agency, and dealt with forty princely states in northwest India formerly dealt with by the Province of Punjab.
The Gwalior State was a state within the Maratha Confederacy located in Central India. It was ruled by the House of Scindia, a Hindu Maratha dynasty. Following the dissolution of the Confederacy, it became part of the Central India Agency of the Indian Empire under British protection.
Jammu and Kashmir, also known as Kashmir and Jammu, was a princely state in a subsidiary alliance with the British East India Company from 1846 to 1858 and under the paramountcy of the British Crown, from 1858 until the Partition of India in 1947, when it became a disputed territory, now administered by three countries: China, India, and Pakistan. The princely state was created after the First Anglo-Sikh War, when the East India Company, which had annexed the Kashmir Valley, from the Sikhs as war indemnity, then sold it to the Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh, for rupees 75 lakhs.
The Imperial Service Troops, officially called the Indian States Forces after 1920, were auxiliary forces raised by the princely states of the Indian Empire which were deployed alongside the Indian Army when their service was required. The Imperial Service Troops were inaugurated in 1888 by the Viceroy of India. At the beginning of the 20th century, their total numbers were about 18,000 men.
Junagarh or Junagadh was a princely state in Gujarat ruled by the Muslim Babi dynasty in India, which acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan after the Partition of British India. Subsequently, the Union of India annexed Junagadh in 1948, legitimized through a plebiscite held the same year.
The Princely States of Pakistan were princely states of the British Indian Empire which acceded to the new Dominion of Pakistan between 1947 and 1948, following the partition of British India and its independence.
A standstill agreement was an agreement signed between the newly independent dominions of India and Pakistan and the princely states of the British Indian Empire prior to their integration in the new dominions. The form of the agreement was bilateral between a dominion and a princely state. It provided that all the administrative arrangements, existing between the British Crown and the state would continue unaltered between the signatory dominion and the princely state, until new arrangements were made.
References
↑ Ramusack 2004, pp.85Quote: "The British did not create the Indian princes. Before and during the European penetration of India, indigenous rulers achieved dominance through the military protection they provided to dependents and their skill in acquiring revenues to maintain their military and administrative organizations. Major Indian rulers exercised varying degrees and types of sovereign powers before they entered treaty relations with the British. What changed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is that the British increasingly restricted the sovereignty of Indian rulers. The Company set boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military personnel, subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of commercial goods at favorable prices, and limited opportunities for other alliances. From the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and consolidated their power, their centralized military despotism dramatically reduced the political options of Indian rulers." (p. 85)
↑ Ramusack 2004, p.87Quote: "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)"
↑ The India Office and Burma Office List: 1945. Harrison & Sons, Ltd. 1945. pp.33–37.
↑ Zubrzycki, John (2024). Dethroned. Oxford University Press. p.41. ISBN978-1-80526-053-0. Princely States at the time of Indian independence owed their existence to the slow collapse of the Mughal Empire following the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. Centuries of foreign domination meant that many of the rulers who carved out their own states were outsiders. The Nizams of Hyderabad were of Turkoman stock. Bhopal was established by one of Aurangzeb's Afghan generals. Rampurs first ruler, Nawab Faizullah Khan, was a Pashtun. Tonk in present day Rajasthan was founded by Pindari freebooters. The seaboard state of Janjira was the creation of an Abysinnian pirate. Among the Hindu kingdoms, most of the rulers were Kshatriya. Only the Rajput states and a scattering of South Indian kingdoms could trace their lineage to the pre-Mughal period.
↑ Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
↑ 1.Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, published under the authority of the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, 1909, Oxford University Press. page 5. Quote: "The history of British India falls, as observed by Sir C. P. Ilbert in his Government of India, into three periods. From the beginning of the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century the East India Company is a trading corporation, existing on the sufferance of the native powers and in rivalry with the merchant companies of Holland and France. During the next century the Company acquires and consolidates its dominion, shares its sovereignty in increasing proportions with the Crown, and gradually loses its mercantile privileges and functions. After the mutiny of 1857 the remaining powers of the Company are transferred to the Crown, and then follows an era of peace in which India awakens to new life and progress." 2.The Statutes: From the Twentieth Year of King Henry the Third to the ... by Robert Harry Drayton, Statutes of the Realm – Law – 1770 Page 211 (3) "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed ..." 3. Edney, M. E. (1997) Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765–1843, University of Chicago Press. 480 pages. ISBN978-0-226-18488-34. Hawes, C.J. (1996) Poor Relations: The Making of a Eurasian Community in British India, 1773–1833. Routledge, 217 pages. ISBN0-7007-0425-6.
↑ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, pp.463, 470 Quote1: "Before passing on to the political history of British India, which properly begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic, ... (p. 463)" Quote2: "The political history of the British in India begins in the eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"
↑ Samad, Yunas (2014). "Understanding the insurgency in Balochistan". Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 52 (2): 293–320. doi:10.1080/14662043.2014.894280. S2CID144156399.: "When Mir Ahmed Yar Khan dithered over acceding the Baloch-Brauhi confederacy to Pakistan in 1947 the centre's response was to initiate processes that would coerce the state joining Pakistan. By recognising the feudatory states of Las Bela, Kharan and the district of Mekran as independent states, which promptly merged with Pakistan, the State of Kalat became land locked and reduced to a fraction of its size. Thus Ahmed Yar Khan was forced to sign the instrument of accession on 27 March 1948, which immediately led to the brother of the Khan, Prince Abdul Karim raising the banner of revolt in July 1948, starting the first of the Baloch insurgencies."
↑ Harrison, Selig S. (1981), In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p.24, ISBN978-0-87003-029-1 : "Pakistani leaders summarily rejected this declaration, touching off a nine-month diplomatic tug of war that came to a climax in the forcible annexation of Kalat.... it is clear that Baluch leaders, including the Khan, were bitterly opposed to what happened."
↑ R. P. Bhargava (1992) The Chamber of Princes, p. 313
↑ Praval, Major K.C. (2009). Indian Army after Independence. New Delhi: Lancer. p. 214. ISBN978-1-935501-10-7.
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2016). "A Princely Affair: The Accession and Integration of the Princely States of Pakistan, 1947–1955". Oxford University Press Pakistan. ISBN9780199407361
Bhagavan, Manu. "Princely States and the Hindu Imaginary: Exploring the Cartography of 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 in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN978-0-521-89436-4 .
Ernst, W. and B. Pati, eds. India's Princely States: People, Princes, and Colonialism (2007)
Pochhammer, Wilhelm von India's Road to Nationhood: A Political History of the Subcontinent (1973) ch 57 excerpt
Zutshi, Chitralekha (2009). "Re-visioning princely states in South Asian historiography: A review". Indian Economic & Social History Review. 46 (3): 301–313. doi:10.1177/001946460904600302. S2CID145521826.
Imperial Gazetteer of 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 in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxvi, 1 map, 520. online
Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV (1907), The Indian Empire, Administrative, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552. online
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
