The princely states, which covered a total area of 7,12,508 square miles and  numbered no fewer than 562, included tiny states such as Bilbari with a population of 27 persons only and some big ones like Hyderabad (as large as Italy) with a population of 14 million. The East India Company acquired, in the process of conquest, important coastal tracts, the valleys of the great navigable rivers and such tracts which were rich in agricultural products and densely populated by prosperous people, while, generally, the Indian states were “the inaccessible and less fertile tracts of the Indian peninsula”.

The making of Indian states was largely governed by the same circumstances which led to the growth of East India Company’s power in India. The evolution of relations between the British authority and states can be traced under the following broad stages.

Bristish Policies towards States

Position of subordination (1740-1765)

Starting with Anglo-French rivalry with the coming of Dupleix in 1751, the East India Company asserted political identity with capture of Arcot (1751). With the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the East India Company acquired political power next only to the Bengal Nawabs. In 1765 with the acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, the East India Company became a significant political power.

Policy of ring fence (1765-1813)

This policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main therat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders. The Company undertook to organize Awadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security. Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence-which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major Powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance. Thus, British supremacy was established.

Policy of subordinate isolation (1813-1857)

Now, the imperial idea grew and the theory of paramountcy began to develop. Indian states were supposed to act in subordinate cooperation with the British Government and acknowledge its supremacy. States surrendered all forms of external sovereignty and retained full sovereignty in internal administration. British Residents were transformed from diplomatic agents of a foreign power to executive and controlling officers of a superior government.

In 1833, the Charter Act ended the Company’s commercial functions while it retained political functions. It adopted the practice of insisting on prior approval/sanction for all matters of succession. In 1834, the Board of Directors issued guidelines to annex states wherever and whenever possible. This policy of annexation culminated in usurpation of six states by Dalhousie including some big states such as Satara and Nagpur.

Policy of subordinate union (1857-1935)

The year 1858 saw the assumption of direct responsibility by the Crown. Because of the states’ loyality during the 1857 revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in political storms of the future, the policy of annexation was abandoned. The new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex. After 1858, the authority of the Mughal emperor ended; sanction for all matters of succession was required from the Crown since the Crown stood forth as the unquestioned ruler and the paramount power. Now the ruler inherited the seat of power not as a matter of right but as a gift from the paramount power, because the fiction of Indian states standing in a status of equality with the Crown as independent, sovereign states ended with the Queen adopting the title of “Kaiser-i-Hind” (Queen Empress of India). The paramount supremacy of the Crown presupposed and implied the sub-ordination of states. The British Government exercised the right to interfere in the internal spheres of states-partly in the interest of the princes, partly in the interest of people’s welfare, partly to secure proper conditions for British subjects and foreigners and partly in the interest of the whole of India.

The British Government was further helped in this encroachment by modern developments in communication-railways, roads, telegraph, canals, post offices, press and public opinion. The Government of India exercised complete and undisputed control in international affairs-it could declare war, peace or neutrality for states. According to the Butler Commission in 1927, “For the purpose of international relations, state territory is in the same position as British territory and state subjects in the same position as British subjects.”

Curzon’s Approach -Curzon stretched the interpretation of old treaties to mean that the princes, in their capacity as servants of people, were supposed to work side-by-side with the governor-general in the scheme of Indian Government. He adopted a policy of patronage and “intrusive surveillance”. He thought neither as feudal nor federal, a type not based on a treaty but consisting of a series of relationships having grown under different historical conditions that, in the course of time, gradually conformed to a single line.

The new trend seemed to reduce all states to a single type-uniformly dependent on the British Government and considered as an integral part of Indian political system.

Post 1905 a policy of cordial cooperation began to counter progressive and revolutionary developments in face of large-scale political unrests.

According to the recommendations of Montford Reforms (1921), a Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) was set up as a consultative and advisory body having no say in the internal affairs of individual states and having no powers to discuss matters concerning existing rights and freedoms. For the purpose of the chamber the Indian states were divided into three categories.

1.      Directly represented-109

2.      Represented through representatives-127

3.      Recognised as feudal holdings or jagirs.

The question of extent of sovereignty and paramountcy was still undefined. The Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of relationship between the states and Government. It gave the following recommendations-

1.      Paramountcy must remain supreme and must fulfill its obligations, adopting and defining itself according to the shifting necessities of time and the progressive development of states.

2.      States should not be handed over to an Indian Government in British India, responsible to an Indain legislature, without the consent of states.

Thus, “paramountcy” was left undefined and depended on Crown’s prerogative and the princes’ implied consent.

Policy of Equal Federation (1935-1947)

According to the Federation proposal, the Indian states were to be brought into a direct constitutional relationship with British India, as distinct from the existing position in which they were in direct relationship only with the British Crown. This was to be achieved by the setting up of a Federal Indian Legislature which would have representatives from British India as well as from the Indian States. However, while the representatives from British India would be largely elected by the people, the representatives from the Indian States, who were to constitute one-third of the total members, would be nominated by the rulers of these States. The whole purpose of this scheme was to use the nominated representatives of the States as a solid conservative block to counter the weight of the elected representatives of British India. The Federation scheme was, therefore, opposed by all nationalists and it was demanded that the representatives of the States should also be elected instead of being nominated. Understandably, this imparted a great sense of urgency to the demand for responsible government in the Indian States, for there could be no elective principle at the Federal level without it being implemented at the level of the States.

The Government of India Act, 1935 proposed a Federal Assembly with 125 out of 375 seats for the princes and the Council of States with 104 out of 160 seats for the princes, under its scheme of an all-India federation, which was subject to ratification by states representing more than half of the population and entitled to more than half of the seats in the Council of States.

This scheme never came into existence and after the outbreak of World War-II (September 1939) it was dropped altogether.

Influence of the national movement

Nevertheless, as was bound to happen, the national movement, after it had taken roots in British India, exercised a powerful and growing influence on the people of the States. The ideas of democracy, responsible government and civil liberties popularised by the nationalists had an immediate relevance for them as they in their day to day life suffered the excesses of autocratic rule. These ideas were carried at first by individual nationalists, some of them revolutionary terrorists from British India seeking shelter in the states. But when the national movement assumed a mass character, its influence on the people of Indian states became more generalized. In fact, the first local-level popular associations were organised in the states under the impact of the Non-Cooperation and Khilafat movement which lasted from 1920 to 1922.

The political organisations-praja mandals

Among the States where the first Praja Mandals or State People’s Conference were set up included Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda, the Kathiawad States, the Deccan States, Jamnagar, Indore and Nawanagar. Among the leaders who emerged through this process, the more important names are those of Balwant Rai Mehta, Maniklal Kothari and C.R. Abhayankkar. It was largely at their initiative that the first all-India gathering of the people of States took place in 1927 and led to the formation of the All India States’ People’s Conference (AISPC), the first session itself being attended by about 700 political workers.

The congress policy

In 1920, the Indian National Congress had declared its policy towards the Indian states through a resolution which called upon the rulers to institute full responsible government. On the question of organising political movements or struggles in the Indian States, however, the Congress policy was more complex. While individuals living in the States were free to become members of the Congress and participate in movements led by it, they were not to carry on political activity in the states in the name of the Congress. This they could do only in their individual capacity or as members of local political organisations such as Praja Mandals, etc. An obvious reason for this stand of the Congress was that the States were legally independent entities; the political conditions in different States varied a great deal and between British India and the Indian States the differences on this count were immense. Therefore, an organisation such as the Congress, which determined its politics and forms of struggle, on the basis of the conditions in British India, could not afford to be directly associated with political movements in the states at that initial stage. Moreover, it was not advisable for the people in the States to rely on the more advanced types of movement in British India for an acceptance of their demands. They were required to build up their own strength, advance their own political consciousness, and demonstrate their capacity to struggle for their own specific demands. Within the framework of these limitations, the Congress and Congressmen continued to extend support to the movements in the States in a variety of ways. In his Presidential Address to the Lahore session of the Congress in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru elaborated the position of the organisation vis-a-vis the states. He emphatically stated: “Indian States cannot live apart from the rest of India ... the only people who have the right to determine the future of the States must be people of these States.”

While the process of political awakening and political protest went ahead in many states in 1920s and early 1930s, the real spurt in the movements in the states came in the latter half of the 1930s. This was largely a product of two associated developments - the Federation scheme proposed by the Government of India Act of 1935 and, the assumption of office by Congress ministries in the majority of the provinces of British India in 1937.

Congress ministries

The assumption of office by Congress ministries in many of the provinces also acted as a spurt to the movements in the Status. The fact of the Congress being in power in the provinces in British India and the works done by it for betterment of common people in these provinces generated a feeling of confidence and aroused expectation in the people of the States. It also acted as a pressure on the rulers that the Congress was no longer just an oppositional movement; it was a party in power. They took this as an indication of the future they would have to contend with in their own territories.

The new stage

The high water-mark of the movement in the States was thus reached in the years 1938-39. Praja mandals or People’s Associations sprung up in many states, and struggles broke out in Rajkot, Travancore, Mysore, Hyderabad, Patiala, Jaipur, Kashmir and the Orissa States.

Change in the congress policy

There was a marked change in the Congress policy towards the movements in the States in this new situation. The militants and leftists had been urging even earlier for a clearer identification with the movement in the States, but the decisive impact on Congress thinking was made by the growth of popular movements in the States. This is clear from the following statement made by Gandhiji in an interview to the Times of India on 25 January 1939:

“The policy of non-intervention by the Congress was, in my opinion, a perfect piece of statesmanship when the people of the States were not awakened. That policy would be cowardice when there is all-round awakening among the people of the States and a determination to go through a long course of suffering for the vindication of their just rights ... The moment they became ready, the legal, constitutional and artificial boundary was destroyed.”

At its Tripuri session in March 1939, the Congress passed a resolution which incorporated the idea expressed above by Gandhiji:

“The great awakening that is taking place among the people of the States may lead to a relaxation, or to a complete removal of the restraint which the Congress imposed upon itself, thus resulting in an ever increasing identification of the Congress with the States’ peoples.”

The election of Jawaharlal Nehru as President of the Ludhiana session of the AISPC in 1939 also gave great impetus to the movement and became a symbol of the fusion of the movements in British India and the Indian States.

Quit India in the states

The Second World War broke out in 1939 and this led to a marked change in the atmosphere. The Congress Ministries resigned and the British Indian government as well as the Princes became more repressive. There was a lull in the movement which was, however, broken with the launching of the Quit India movement in August 1942. For the first time, the Congress gave a call to the people of the States to participate fully in the all-India struggle for independence. To their demand for responsible government was now added the demand for independence for India and for the States to become integral parts of the Indian nation. The struggle of the people in the States was formally integrated with the struggle of the people in British India.

Integration and merger

After World War-II began and a position of non-cooperation was adopted by the Congress, the British Government tried to break the deadlock through the Cripps Mission (1942), Wavell Plan (1945), Cabinet Mission (1946) and Attlee’s statement (February 1947).

Cripps held that the British Government did not contemplate transferring paramountcy of Crown to any other party in India. The states tried various schemes to forge a union of their own, envisaging themselves as sovereign in status or as a third force in the Indian political scene. The June 3rd Plan and Attlee’s statement made it clear that the states were free to join either of the two dominions, and Mountbatten refused to give a sovereign status to the states.

Sardar Patel, who was in charge of states’ ministry in the interim cabinet, helped by V.P. Menon, the secretary in the ministry, appealed to the patriotic feeling of rulers to join the Indian dominion in matters of defence, communication and external affairs-the three areas which had been part of the paramountcy of the Crown and over which the states had anyway no control. By August 15, 1947, 136 states had joined the Indian Union but others remained precariously outside-

1.      Junagarh : The Muslim Nawab wanted to join Pakistan but a Hindu population wanted to join Indian Union. In the face of repressive attitude of the Nawab, there was a plebiscite which decided in favour of India.

2.      Hyderabad : Hyderabad wanted a sovereign status. It signed a Standstill Agreement with India in November 1947. Indian troops withdrew and the Nizam’s police and troppers (Razakkars) took over. The Nizam wanted an outlet to the sea (Goa). The violence and supply of foreign arms prompted Indian troops to move in again in 1948-described as “a police action to restore law and order”. Hyderabad acceded in November 1949.

3.      Kashmir :  The state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Hindu prince and a Muslim majority population. The prince envisaged a sovereign status for the state and was reluctant to accede to either of the dominions. As he procrastinated, the newly established state of Pakistan sent its forces behind a front of tribal militia and  moved menancingly towards Srinagar. It was now that the prince was forced to sign an Instrument of Accession (October 1947) with the Indian Union, endorsed by the popular leader Sheikh Abdullah. Indian troops were despatched to defend the state against the raiders from Pakistan. India’s complaints to the UN Security Council regarding raids from Pakistan and the Indain offer to settle the status of the state through a plebiscite led to a ceasefire and left 84,000 square km of area under Pakistani occupation. The special status of Jammu and Kashmir was recognised under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which implied a limited jurisdiction of the Indian Union over the state as compared to other states.

Two-fold problem

(1)    of transforming the states into viable administrative units, and

(ii)    of absorbing them into the constitutional units.

This was sought to be solved by-

1.      incorporating smaller states (216 such states) into contiguous provinces and listed in Part A. For instance, 39, states of Orissa and Chhattisagarh were incorporated into Central Provinces. Gujarat states were incorporated into Bombay.

2.      making some states as centrally administered for strategic or special reasons, listed in Part-C (61 states)- Himachal Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Bhopal, etc;

3.      creating five unions-United States of Kathiawar, United States of Matsya, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, Rajasthan and United States of Travancore-Cochin (later Kerala).

Initially these states acceded with respect to defence, communication, external affairs; later they felt that a closer association was necessary. The five unions and Mysore accepted Indian jurisdiction in Union, concurrent subjects except taxation and subject to differences as under Article 238 and the supervisory power of Union for ten years.

The Seventh Amendment (1956) abolished Part-B states as a class and formed one class out of Parts A and B; thus special provisions relating to Part B states were deleted.

The Indian states thus lost their identity and became part of one uniform political set-up.