| Colonial India | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Map of colonialIndia, distributed by theBritish Information Services (1942) | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Aprincely state (also callednative state) was a nominally sovereign[1] entity ofBritish Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by an indigenous ruler under a form ofindirect rule,[2] subject to asubsidiary alliance and thesuzerainty orparamountcy of theBritish Crown.
At the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states were officially recognized in the Indian Subcontinent,[3] apart from thousands ofzamindari estates andjagirs. In 1947, princely states covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population.[citation needed] The most important princely states had their own Indian political residencies:Hyderabad of theNizams,Mysore,Pudukkottai andTravancore in the South,Jammu and Kashmir andGwalior in North andIndore in Central India. The most prominent among those – roughly a quarter of the total – had the status of asalute state, one whose ruler was entitled to a set number ofgun 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 200,000 km2 (77,000 sq mi) 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 ofLawa covered an area of 49 km2 (19 sq mi), with a population of just below 3,000. Some two hundred of the lesser states even had an area of less than 25 km2 (10 sq mi).[4][5]
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 ofHyderabad (Turks),Bhopal (Afghans) andJanjira (Abyssinian). Among the Hindu kingdoms, most of the rulers wereKshatriya. Only theRajput states and a scattering ofSouth Indian kingdoms could trace their lineage to the pre-Mughal period.[6]
India under the BritishRaj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory:British India and thenative states orprincely states. In itsInterpretation Act 1889, theBritish Parliament adopted the following definitions:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty 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.[7]
In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) also to refer to the regions underthe rule of the East India Company in India from 1774 to 1858.[8][9]
TheBritish 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.[10] 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.[10]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Indian rulers bore various titles includingMaharaja orRaja ("king"),Sultan,Emir,Raje,Nizam,Wadiyar (used only by the Maharajas ofMysore, meaning "lord"), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of Bhaddaiyan Raj,Chogyal,Nawab ("governor"),Nayak,Wāli,Inamdar,[11]Saranjamdar[12] 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, orRawal. Also in this 'class' were severalThakurs or Thai ores and a few particular titles, such asSardar,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 inMaharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. This was used in many princely states includingMewar,Travancore andCochin. The state ofTravancore also hadqueens regent styledMaharani, applied only tothe sister of the ruler inKerala.
Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific ofnaib, "deputy") originally used by Mughal governors, who becamede facto autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire, with the prominent exceptions of theNizam ofHyderabad & Berar, theWali/Khan ofKalat and theWali of Swat.Other less usual titles includedDarbar Sahib,Dewan,Jam,Mehtar (unique toChitral) and Mir (fromEmir).
TheSikh princes concentrated atPunjab usually adopted titles when attaining princely rank. A title at a level ofMaharaja was used.
There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles under theMughal emperors. For example, the addition of the adjectiveBahadur (from Persian, literally meaning "brave") raised the status of the titleholder one level.
Furthermore, most dynasties used a variety of additional titles such asVarma 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 toSingh title in North India.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The actual importance of a princely state could not be read from the title of its ruler, which was usuallygranted (or at least recognized) as a favor, often in recognition for loyalty and services rendered to theBritish 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 (mainlyjagirs) and eventaluqdars andzamindars, which were not states at all. Most of thezamindars who held princely titles were in fact erstwhile princely and royal states reduced to becomingzamindars 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.
In addition to their titles, all princely rulers were eligible to be appointed to certain British orders of chivalry associated with India, theMost Exalted Order of the Star of India and theMost 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 theBritish Army, theIndian 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 anaide-de-camp, either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of relatives of such rulers) or to British monarchs. Many sawactive 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, includingGwalior,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.
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.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
%2c_with_British_officers_and_Maratha_nobility_in_Indore%2c_Holkar_State%2c_Central_India._Circa_1879..jpg)
Thegun 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 assalute states.
AfterIndian Independence, the Maharana ofUdaipur displaced theNizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, becauseHyderabad State had not acceded to the newDominion of India, and the styleHighness 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 thePrivy 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.
At the time of Indian independence, only five rulers – theNizam ofHyderabad, the Maharaja ofMysore, the Maharaja ofJammu and Kashmir state, the MaharajaScindia ofGwalior and the MaharajaGaekwad ofBaroda – were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Six more[citation needed] – the Nawab ofBhopal, theMaharaja Holkar ofIndore, the Maharaja ofBharatpur[citation needed], the Maharana ofUdaipur, the Maharaja ofKolhapur, theMaharaja ofPatiala[citation needed] and the Maharaja ofTravancore – were entitled to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was theNizam of Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique styleExalted Highness and21-gun salute.[13] Other princely rulers entitled to salutes of 11 guns (soon 9 guns too) or more were entitled to the styleHighness. No special style was used by rulers entitled to lesser gun salutes.
Asparamount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the BritishKing-Emperor of India, for whom the style ofMajesty 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.
_Karauli_mint._Struck_in_the_name_of_the_Mughal_emperor_Shah_Alam_II._Dated_1784-5_CE.jpg)
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 theAden 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 thanKarauli 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.[14][15][16]
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 aspolitical pensioners, such as the Nawab ofOudh. There were also certain estates of British India which were rendered aspolitical saranjams, having equal princely status.[17] Though none of these princes were awarded gun salutes, princely titles in this category were recognised as a form ofvassals of salute states, and were not even in direct relation with the paramount power.
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Present State | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Jammu and Kashmir | 84,471 | 4,021,616 | including Gilgit, Baltistan (Skardu), Ladakh, and Punch (mostly Muslim, with a sizeable Hindu and Buddhist minority) | Jammu & Kashmir andLadakh in India | Maharaja,Dogra, Hindu | 21 |
 Hyderabad State | 82,698 | 16,338,534 | (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) | Telangana,Maharashtra,Karnataka inIndia | Nizam,Turkic, Muslim | 21 |
 Khanate of Kalat | 73,278 | 250,211 | (chiefly Muslim with a small Hindu minority) | Balochistan, Pakistan | Khan orWali,Baloch, Muslim | 19 |
 Jodhpur State | 36,071 | 2,125,000 | (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) | Rajasthan, India | Maharaja,Rathore, Hindu | 17 |
 Kingdom of Mysore | 29,458 | 7,328,896 | (Chiefly Hindu, with pockets of Muslim minority) | Karnataka, India | Wodeyar dynasty;Maharaja;Kannadiga;HinduKshattriya (Urs/Arasu in Kannada) | 21 |
 Gwalior State | 26,397 | 4,006,159 | (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim minority) | Madhya Pradesh, India | Maharaja,Maratha,Hindu | 21 |
 Bikaner State | 23,317 | 936,218 | (chiefly Hindu, with a low Muslim minority) | Rajasthan, India | Maharaja, Rathore, Hindu | 17 |
 Bahawalpur State | 17,726 | 1,341,209 | (Chiefly Muslim, with a sizeable Hindu and Sikh minority) | Punjab, Pakistan | Nawab Amir, Abbasid, Muslim | 17 |
 Jaisalmer State | 16,100 | 76,255 | (Chiefly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) | Rajasthan, India | Maharaja,Bhati, Hindu | 15 |
 Jaipur State | 15,601 | 2,631,775 | (Chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | Rajasthan, India | Maharaja,Kachhwaha, Hindu | 17 |
 Bastar State | 13,062 | 306,501 | (Chiefly Hindu, with a low Muslim population) | Chhattisgarh, India | Maharaja,Kakatiya -Bhanj, Hindu | - |
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
A controversial aspect of East India Company rule was thedoctrine 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-GeneralSir James Ramsay, 10th Earl (later 1st Marquess) ofDalhousie. Dalhousie annexed seven states, includingAwadh (Oudh), whose Nawabs he had accused of misrule, and theMaratha states ofNagpur,Jhansi,Satara,Sambalpur, andThanjavur. 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 theIndian mutiny of 1857. The last Mughalbadshah (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 theBritish Parliament's assumption of direct power over India.
By treaty, the British controlled the external affairs of the princely states absolutely. As the states were notBritish 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, andBaroda – were directly under the control of thegovernor-general of India, in the person of a Britishresident. Two agencies, forRajputana andCentral 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 ofMadras, 354 underBombay, 26 ofBengal, two underAssam, 34 underPunjab, fifteen under theCentral Provinces and Berar and two under theUnited Provinces.
TheChamber of Princes (Narender Mandal orNarendra Mandal) was an institution established in 1920 by aroyal proclamation of theKing-Emperor to provide a forum in which the rulers could voice their needs and aspirations to the government. It survived until the end of theBritish Raj in 1947.[18]
By the early 1930s, most of the princely states whose agencies were under the authority of India's provinces were organised into new Agencies, answerable directly to the governor-general, on the model of the Central India and Rajputana agencies: theEastern States Agency,Punjab States Agency,Baluchistan Agency,Deccan States Agency,Madras States Agency and theNorthwest Frontier States Agency. TheBaroda Residency was combined with the princely states of northern Bombay Presidency into theBaroda, Western India and Gujarat States Agency.Gwalior was separated from the Central India Agency and given its own Resident, and the states ofRampur andBenares, formerly with Agents under the authority of the United Provinces, were placed under theGwalior Residency in 1936. The princely states ofSandur andBanganapalle in Mysore Presidency were transferred to the agency of the Mysore Resident in 1939.
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, seelists of princely states of India.
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousandrupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Baroda State | 13,866 | 3,343,477 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 323.26 | Maharaja,Maratha, Hindu | 21 | Resident at Baroda |
| Hyderabad State | 82,698 | 16,338,534 (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority) | 1582.43 | Nizam,Turkic, Muslim | 21 | Resident in Hyderabad |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 84,471 | 4,021,616 including Gilgit, Baltistan (Skardu), Ladakh, and Punch (mostly Muslim, with sizeable Hindu and Buddhist populations) | 463.95 | Maharaja,Dogra, Hindu | 21 | Resident in Jammu & Kashmir |
| Kingdom of Mysore | 29,458 | 7,328,896 (chiefly Hindu, with sizeable Muslim populations) | 1001.38 | Wodeyar (means Owner inKannada) andMaharaja,Kannadiga, Hindu | 21 | Resident inMysore |
| Gwalior State | 26,397 | 4,006,159 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 356.75 | Maharaja,Maratha,Hindu | 21 | Resident at Gwalior |
| Total | 236,890 | 35,038,682 | 3727.77 | |||
Central India Agency,Gwalior Residency,Baluchistan Agency,Rajputana Agency,Eastern States Agency
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indore State | 9,341 | 1,513,966 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 304.9 | Maharaja,Maratha,Hindu | 19 (plus 2 local) | Resident at Indore |
| Bhopal | 6,924 | 785,322 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 119.82 | Nawab(m)/Begum(f),Afghan,Muslim | 19 (plus 2 local) | Political Agent in Bhopal |
| Rewah | 13,000 | 1,820,445 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 65 | Maharaja,BaghelRajput,Hindu | 17 | Second largest state inBaghelkhand |
| 85 smaller and minor states (1941) | 22,995 (1901) | 2.74 million (chiefly Hindu, 1901) | 129 (1901) | |||
| Total | 77,395 (1901) | 8.51 million (1901) | 421 (1901) | |||
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooch Behar | 1,318 | 639,898 (chiefly Hindu, with a sizeable Muslim population) | 91 | Maharaja,Koch (Kshattriya), Brahmo | 13 | Resident for the Eastern States |
| Tripura State | 4,116 | 513,010 (chieflyVaishnavite, with a sizeableSanamahi minority) | 54 | Maharaja,Tripuri, Vaishnavite (Kshattriya) | 13 | Resident for the Eastern States |
| Mayurbhanj State | 4,243 | 990,977 (chiefly Hindu) | 49 | Maharaja, Kshattriya, Hindu | 9 | Resident for the Eastern States |
| 39 smaller and minor states (1941) | 56,253 | 6,641,991 | 241.31 | |||
| Total | 65,930 | 8,785,876 | 435.31 | |||
Gwalior Residency (two states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rampur | 893 | 464,919 (chiefly Muslim, with a sizeable Hindu population in 1931) | 51 | Nawab,Jat,[27][28] Muslim | 15 | Political Agent at Rampur |
| Benares State | 875 | 391,165 (chiefly Hindu, 1931) | 19 | Maharaja,Bhumihar Brahmin, Hindu | 13 (plus 2 local) | Political Agent at Benares |
| Total | 1,768 | 856,084 (1941, approx.) | 70 | |||
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Udaipur (Mewar) | 13,170 | 1,926,698 (chiefly Hindu andBhil) | 107 | Maharana,SisodiaRajput, Hindu | 19 (plus 2 personal) | Political Agent for theMewar and Southern Rajputana States |
| Jaipur | 15,610 | 3,040,876 (chiefly Hindu) | 188.6 | Maharaja,KachwahaRajput, Hindu | 17 (plus 2 personal) | Political Agent at Jaipur |
| Jodhpur (Marwar) | 36,120 | 2,555,904 (chiefly Hindu) | 208.65 | Maharaja,RathorRajput, Hindu | 17 | Political Agent for the Western States ofRajputana |
| Bikaner | 23,181 | 1,292,938 (chiefly Hindu) | 185.5 | Maharaja, Rathor Rajput, Hindu | 17 | Political agent for the Western States of Rajputana |
| 17 salute states, 1 chiefship, 1zamindari | 42,374 | 3.64 million (chiefly Hindu, 1901) | 155 (1901) | |||
| Total | 128,918 (1901) | 9.84 million (1901) | 320 (1901) | |||
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalat | 73,278 | 250,211 (chiefly Muslim) | 21.3 | Khan orWali,Baloch, Muslim | 19 | Political Agent in Kalat |
| Las Bela | 7,132 | 68,972 (chiefly Muslim) | 6.1 | Jam,Baloch, Muslim | Political Agent in Kalat | |
| Kharan | 14,210 | 33,763 (chiefly Muslim) | 2 | Nawab,Baloch, Muslim | Political Agent in Kalat | |
| Total | 94,620 | 352,946 | 29.4 | |||
Other states under provincial governments
Madras (5 states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1901 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travancore | 7,091 | 2,952,157 (chiefly Hindu and Christian) | 100 | Maharaja,Kshatriya-Samanthan, Hindu | 21 (including two guns personal to the then ruler) | Resident in Travancore and Cochin |
| Cochin | 1,362 | 812,025 (chiefly Hindu and Christian) | 27 | Raja,Samanta-Kshatriya, Hindu | 17 | Resident in Travancore and Cochin |
| Pudukkottai | 1,100 | 380,440 (chiefly Hindu) | 11 | Raja,Kallar, Hindu | 11 | Collector of Trichinopoly (ex officio Political Agent) |
| 2 minor states (Banganapalle andSandur) | 416 | 43,464 | 3 | |||
| Total | 9,969 | 4,188,086 | 141 | |||
Bombay (354 states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1901 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kolhapur | 2,855 | 910,011 (chiefly Hindu) | 48 | Maharaja", Chhtrapati "Maratha, Hindu | 19 | Political Agent for Kolhapur |
| Cutch | 7,616 | 488,022 (chiefly Hindu) | 20 | Maharao,JadejaRajput, Hindu | 17 | Political Agent in Cutch |
| Junagarh | 3,284 | 395,428 (chiefly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim population) | 27 | Nawab,Pathan, Muslim | 11 | Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar |
| Navanagar | 3,791 | 336,779 (chiefly Hindu) | 31 | Jam Sahib,JadejaRajput, Hindu | 11 | Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar |
| 349 other states | 42,165 | 4,579,095 | 281 | |||
| Total | 65,761 | 6,908,648 | 420 | |||
Central Provinces (15 states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1901 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalahandi | 3,745 | 284,465 (chiefly Hindu) | 4 | Raja, Kshatriya,Hindu | 9 | Political Agent for theChhattisgarhFeudatories |
| Bastar | 13,062 | 306,501 (chieflyanimist) | 3 | Raja, Kshatriya, Hindu | Political Agent for theChhattisgarhFeudatories | |
| 13 other states | 12,628 | 1,339,353 (chiefly Hindu) | 16 | 11 | ||
| Total | 29,435 | 1,996,383 | 21 | |||
Punjab (45 states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bahawalpur State | 16,434 | 1,341,209 (chiefly Muslim) | 335 | Nawab,Daudputra, Muslim | 17 | Political Agent forPhulkian States and Bahawalpur |
| Patiala State | 5,942 | 1,936,259 (chiefly Sikh) | 302.6 | Maharaja, Sikh | 17 (and 2 personal) | Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur |
| Nabha State | 947 | 340,044 (chiefly Sikh) | 38.7 | Maharaja, Sikh | 13 (and 2 local) | Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur |
| Jind State | 1,299 | 361,812 (chiefly Sikh) | 37.4 | Maharaja, Sikh | 13 (and 2 personal) | Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur |
| Kapurthala State | 645 | 378,380 (chiefly Sikh) | 40.5 | Maharaja, Ahuluwalia, Sikh | 13 (and 2 personal) | Commissioner of theJullundur Division (ex officio Political Agent) |
| Faridkot State | 638 | 199,283 (chiefly Sikh) | 22.7 | Raja, Sikh | 11 | Commissioner of the Jullundur Division (ex officio Political Agent) |
| Garhwal State | 4,500 | 397,369 (chiefly Hindu) | 26.9 | Maharaja,Rajput Hindu | 11 | Commissioner ofKumaun (ex officio Political Agent) |
| Khayrpur State | 6,050 | 305,387 (chiefly Muslim) | 15 (plus 2 local) | Mir,TalpurBaloch, Muslim | 37.8 | Political Agent for Khairpur |
| 25 other states | 12,661 (in 1901) | 1,087,614 (in 1901) | 30 (in 1901) | |||
| Total | 36,532 (in 1901) | 4,424,398 (in 1901) | 155 (in 1901) | |||
Assam (26 states)
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1941 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manipur | 270.3 | 512,069 (chiefly Hindu and animist) | 19 | Raja,Kshatriya, Hindu | 11 | Political Agent in Manipur |
| 25 Khasi States | 3,778 | 213,586 (chiefly Khasi and Christian) | ~1 (1941, approx.) | Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills | ||
| Total | 12,416 | 725,655 | 20 (1941; approx.) | |||
| Name of princely state | Area in square miles | Population in 1901 | Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand rupees) | Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler | Gun-salute for ruler | Designation of local political officer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hsipaw (Thibaw) | 5,086 | 105,000 (Buddhist) | 3 | Sawbwa,Shan, Buddhist | 9 | Superintendent,Northern Shan States |
| Kengtung | 12,000 | 190,000 (Buddhist) | 1 | Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist | 9 | SuperintendentSouthern Shan States |
| Yawnghwe | 865 | 95,339 (Buddhist) | 2.13 | Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist | 9 | Superintendent Southern Shan States |
| Mongnai | 2,717 | 44,000 (Buddhist) | 0.5 | Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist | Superintendent Southern Shan States | |
| 5Karenni States | 3,130 | 45,795 (Buddhist and animist) | 0.035 | Sawbwa,Karenni, Buddhist | Superintendent Southern Shan States | |
| 44 other states | 42,198 | 792,152 (Buddhist and animist) | 8.5 | |||
| Total | 67,011 | 1,177,987 | 13.5 | |||
The armies of the princely states were bound by many restrictions that were imposed bysubsidiary 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.[40]
According to theImperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 85,
Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior 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 ofBritish India, but of all the possessions under thesuzerainty of the King-Emperor.[41]
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 theImperial control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence.[42]
The Imperial Service Troops were routinely inspected by British army officers and had the same equipment as soldiers in theBritish Indian Army.[43] Although their numbers were relatively small, the Imperial Service Troops were employed in China andBritish Somaliland in the first decade of the 20th century, and later saw action in theFirst World War andSecond World War .[43]
In 1920, the Indian National Congress under the leadership ofMahatma Gandhi declared that attainment ofswaraj 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 the Congress would not intervene in the princely states internal affairs .[44] 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."[45]
Jawaharlal Nehru as well as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel played a major role in pushing Congress to confront the princely states.[45] 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."[45]
After the Congress's electoral victory in 1937 elections, protests, sometimes violent, andsatyagrahas against the princely states were organised and were supported by the Congress's ministries. Gandhi fasted inRajkot 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".[45] 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."[45] In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.[48]
Hindu Mahasabha took funding from theprincely states and supported them to remain independent even after theindependence 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 asMysore State,Travancore,Oudh andBaroda State as 'progressive Hindu states'.[49][50]
The era of the princely states effectively ended with Indian independence in 1947; by 1950, almost all of the principalities hadacceded to either India or Pakistan.[51] The accession process was largely peaceful, except in the cases ofJammu and Kashmir (whose ruler decided to accede to India following aninvasion by Pakistan-based forces, resulting in a long-standingdispute between the two countries),[52]Hyderabad State (whose ruler opted for independence in 1947, followed a year later bythe invasion and annexation of the state by India),Junagarh and its vassalBantva Manavadar (whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, but wereannexed by India),[53] andKalat (whose ruler declared independence in 1947, followed in 1948 by the state's accession to Pakistan).[54][55][56]
At the time ofIndian 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 theIndia Office in London and thegovernor-general of India, and the second being the "princely states", the territories over whichthe Crown hadsuzerainty, 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 intoDominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence Act 1947 by the British Parliament, was a declared objective of theIndian National Congress, which theGovernment of India pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics,SardarVallabhbhai Patel andV. 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.[57]
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 ofKashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, and the state ofHyderabad, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by theOperation 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 theIndian Armyinvaded and annexedPortuguese India.[58] These territories, like the princely states, were also integrated into the Republic of India.
As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[59] to theConstitution of India withdrew recognition of the princes as rulers, took away their remaining privileges, and abolished the remuneration granted to them byprivy purses.
As per the terms of accession, the erstwhile Indian princes receivedprivy 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 ofRajpramukh (ruling chief), equivalent to a state governor.[60] In 1956, the position ofRajpramukh 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 ofWest 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.[48] In January 1947, Nehru said that independent India would not accept thedivine right of kings.[61] In May, 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join theConstituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.[62] There were officially 565 princely states when India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, but the great majority had contracted with the Britishviceroy 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, andBaroda State). Theyacceded to one of the two new independent countries between 1947 and 1949. All the princes were eventually pensioned off.[63]
During the period of theBritish Raj, there were four princely states in Balochistan:Makran,Kharan,Las Bela andKalat. The first three acceded to Pakistan.[64][65][66][67] However, the ruler of the fourth princely state, theKhan of KalatAhmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's independence as this was one of the options given to all princely states.[68] 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 anongoing and still unresolved insurgency.[69]
Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947. The princely states of theNorth-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]
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.
