Viswanathan K's Thoughts

What did all those princes do post-independence? Several of them joined politics. Their success rate (getting elected) was very high, at 80%, writes John Zubrzycki in Dethroned . “(They) were able to exploit traditional ties based on rank, caste and economic dependence.”   At first, they aligned with the Congress, to ensure their privy purses and privileges remained. But with success, the bitterness that some felt, the betrayal of some promises, led several to switch sides. Vijayaraje Scindia was the most prominent switch. She even “ruled” over ten parliamentary constituencies, where nobody could win unless she “approved” them. Many of the erstwhile princes of Orrisa, Gujarat and Rajasthan also fought and won elections against the Congress. Gayatri Devi from Jaipur won by the largest margin (at that time).   Nehru, never a fan of privy purses, had, from 1953 onwards (after Patel’s death), tried coaxing the princes to voluntarily give it up. He argued that giving so m...

As more and more princely states signed the Instrument of Accession, Menon was elated that the Balkanization of India had been averted. Patel would describe such handovers as voluntary and said the rulers would be remembered with respect and admiration for their choice. But, as is clear, many of them signed under pressure, under threats, under explicit and implicit hints that post-British rule, local uprisings would happen to overthrow the rulers (it was left unsaid whether the Congress would instigate such uprisings, but that was obvious), says John Zubrzycki in Dethroned .   Ok, so most of the 565 princely states were now joining India. How best to integrate them into the political union? The first step that Patel and VP Menon came up with was to combine the smaller states with other larger states like Bombay or Orrisa. Only the really large princely states like Gwalior and Baroda were allowed to stay as separate states.   Mountbatten agreed with the idea, even claim...

John Zubrzycki’s book, Dethroned , is the tale of how the princely states were integrated into India at independence by the combo of Sardar Patel and VP Menon. Patel was a mix of “charm and persuasion with coercion”, complemented well by VP Menon’s “skills as a tactician”.   The terms and conditions of accession kept changing during that chaotic period. Mountbatten started off by saying the princely states would have authority on all matters, except defense, foreign affairs and communication. In the same breath, Mountbatten also added that while in theory, the princely states would have a choice, in practice, a majority of the 565 states were geographically and inextricably tied to be part of India. Why no mention of Pakistan here? Because, as this map shows, almost all the princely states lay on the India side. Also, the few princely states on the Pakistan side were Muslim-majority and Muslim-ruled, so Jinnah wasn’t too worried. Contrast that with India, where several princely...

Partition eventually produced India and Pakistan (East and West). But for a while, a 3 rd group existed in parallel – the princely states, writes Sam Dalrymple in Shattered Lands . The British even considered handing power separately to the provincial governments (they were honest in its name – Plan Balkan). How large a part of India were these princely states? This map is worth a thousand words (BROWN = India; GREEN = Pakistan; WHITE = “independent” princely states)   Nehru was apoplectic at the idea. So Mountbatten turned to the most competent civil servant in his staff, VP Menon, and gave him a single night to come up with an alternative proposal. Menon came up with the idea that each of the 565 princely states would have to pick a side; they couldn’t say “None of the above” (not just for independence. The kingdom of Dir, for example, considered joining Afghanistan !).   A senior political advisor to Mountbatten, Conrad Corfield didn’t agree – he wanted the princely states...