Integration of Princely States| Class 12 Political Science Notes

Integration of Princely states: British India was divided into what were called the British Indian Provinces and the Princely States. The British Indian Provinces were directly under the control of the British government. On the other hand, several large and small states ruled by princes, called the Princely States, enjoyed some form of control over their internal affairs as long as they accepted British supremacy. This was called paramountcy or suzerainty of the British crown. The Princely States covered one-third of the land area of the British Indian Empire and one out of four Indians lived under princely rule.

The Problem

Division of British India

• British India consisted of British Indian Provinces and Princely States.
• British Indian Provinces were under direct British control, while the Princely States were ruled by local princes who accepted British supremacy.

Paramountcy of the British Crown

• The Princely States enjoyed some autonomy in internal affairs but recognized the paramountcy or suzerainty of the British crown.

Extent of Princely States

• Princely States covered one-third of the land area of British India, with one-fourth of the Indian population living under princely rule.

Challenge of Independence

• With the impending end of British rule, the paramountcy of the British crown over Princely States was also set to lapse.
• This meant that all 565 Princely States would become legally independent, posing a serious challenge to the unity of India.

Decision Left to Princely Rulers

• The British government left the decision of joining India, Pakistan, or remaining independent to the rulers of the Princely States, not the people.

Threat of Disintegration

• The rulers of Princely States, such as Travancore and Hyderabad, announced intentions for independence, threatening the unity of India.
• Some rulers, like the Nawab of Bhopal, were reluctant to join the Indian Constituent Assembly, further complicating the situation.

Democratic Prospects in Princely States

• The reluctance of princely rulers to join democratic processes meant that democracy in these states was uncertain.
• Despite India’s aim for unity, self-determination, and democracy, many princely states were governed undemocratically, with rulers hesitant to grant democratic rights to their populations.

Role of Government

Firm Government Stance

• The interim government, led by figures like Sardar Patel, took a strong stance against the division of India into numerous small princely states.
• The Muslim League, in contrast, advocated for the states’ freedom to choose their own paths.

Role of Sardar Patel

• Sardar Patel, serving as India’s Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, played a pivotal role in negotiating with the princely states’ rulers to integrate them into the Indian Union.
• His approach involved a delicate balance of firmness and diplomacy, considering the complex landscape of princely states with various sizes and administrations.

Challenges in Integration

• Integration efforts faced significant challenges due to the diversity and multitude of princely states, such as the 26 small states in present-day Orissa and the 14 big states and 119 small states in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat.
• Negotiations required skilful persuasion to bring the princely states into the Indian Union.

Guiding Considerations

• The government’s approach was guided by three main considerations:

1. The desire of most people in princely states to join the Indian Union.
2. Willingness to offer autonomy to certain regions to accommodate diversity and regional demands.
3. The importance of territorial integration and consolidation in the aftermath of partition.

Instrument of Accession

• Before August 15, 1947, negotiations successfully brought most states contiguous to India’s boundaries into the Indian Union through the signing of the “Instrument of Accession.”
• However, certain princely states, such as Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Manipur, presented more complex integration challenges.

Junagadh and Hyderabad Issues

• The cases of Junagadh and Hyderabad proved particularly challenging, with resolution methods varying.
• Junagadh’s situation was resolved through a plebiscite confirming the people’s desire to join India.
• The complexities of the Kashmir issue are addressed in Chapter Eight, while Hyderabad and Manipur’s cases are examined here.

Hyderabad

Geographical Context

• Hyderabad, the largest of the Princely States, was completely surrounded by Indian territory, with parts of its former territory now belonging to Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.
• Ruled by the Nizam, Hyderabad was known for its immense wealth, making the Nizam one of the wealthiest individuals globally.

Standstill Agreement

• In November 1947, the Nizam entered into a Standstill Agreement with India, seeking an independent status for Hyderabad while negotiations with the Indian government were ongoing.

Peasant Movement

• Opposition to the Nizam’s rule intensified within Hyderabad State, particularly in the Telangana region, where the peasantry suffered under oppressive conditions.
• The movement gained momentum, with women, who experienced severe oppression, actively participating in large numbers.

Role of Hyderabad Congress and Communists

• The Hyderabad Congress and Communist factions played significant roles in leading the movement against the Nizam’s rule, with Hyderabad town serving as the movement’s nerve center.

Rise of the Razakars

• In response to the growing dissent, the Nizam deployed a paramilitary force known as the Razakars to suppress the uprising.
• The Razakars’ actions were characterized by extreme brutality, including murder, mutilation, rape, and looting, primarily targeting non-Muslims.

Indian Intervention

• The atrocities committed by the Razakars prompted the Indian government to intervene, leading to the deployment of the Indian army in September 1948.
• After several days of intermittent fighting, the Nizam’s forces were defeated, resulting in his surrender and Hyderabad’s accession to India.

Manipur

Instrument of Accession

• Prior to Independence, Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh of Manipur signed the Instrument of Accession with the Indian government, ensuring the state’s accession to India while maintaining its internal autonomy.

Transition to Constitutional Monarchy

• Responding to public pressure, Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh held elections in Manipur in June 1948, leading to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in the state.

Pioneering Election

• Manipur became the first part of India to conduct elections based on universal adult franchise, marking a significant milestone in Indian democratic history.

Political Divisions

• Within the Manipur Legislative Assembly, differing opinions emerged regarding the merger of Manipur with India.
• While the state Congress favored merger, other political parties opposed the idea.

Pressure for Merger

• Despite opposition, the Government of India exerted pressure on Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh to sign a Merger Agreement in September 1949, bypassing the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur.

Public Resentment

• The unilateral decision to merge Manipur with India without consulting the Legislative Assembly sparked widespread anger and resentment among the people of Manipur.
• The repercussions of this decision continue to be felt in Manipur’s political landscape.

Related Links:

1. Merger Of Princely States
2. 1st Schedule of Indian Constitution – UPSC Notes
3. Union of States- Article 1 of Indian Constitution

FAQs on Class 12 Political Science Notes Chapter 1 Integration of Princely States

What were the two main divisions of British India, and how did they differ in terms of governance?

British India comprised the British Indian Provinces, directly under British control, and the Princely States, ruled by local princes who accepted British supremacy but enjoyed some autonomy in internal affairs.

What was the paramountcy of the British crown in relation to the Princely States?

The Princely States recognized the paramountcy or suzerainty of the British crown, meaning they acknowledged British supremacy while retaining some control over their internal affairs.

What challenge did the impending end of British rule pose to the unity of India in relation to the Princely States?

The lapse of the paramountcy of the British crown over the Princely States meant that all 565 states would become legally independent, potentially threatening the unity of India.

How did Sardar Patel contribute to the integration of the Princely States into the Indian Union?

Sardar Patel, India’s Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, played a crucial role in negotiating with the rulers of the Princely States to integrate them into the Indian Union, employing a delicate balance of firmness and diplomacy.

What were some of the challenges faced in integrating the Princely States into the Indian Union?

Integration efforts faced significant challenges due to the diversity and multitude of princely states, such as the presence of small and large states with differing administrative structures, requiring skillful negotiation and persuasion.