Dethroned #5: Unification and Mergers

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 claiming it was his! Same as what had happened in Europe a couple of centuries back, he said, when small kingdoms were joined to form something close to the current set of European countries. But Mountbatten wanted to announce the larger princely states would be left alone – Menon, the master tactician, persuaded him not to. The optics of the Viceroy imposing rules on the soon to be independent India would be bad, he warned.

 

Within 12 months of independence, most of the princely states had been merged into new states, their identities subsumed at the “altar of political unity”. Menon would justify such moves as based on the survivability of the kingdoms. Patel minced no words about it – feudal systems simply had to go, he said.

 

Attempts by some princely states to group together, lobby together proved futile. With no common affiliation or traditions or language, just the desire to stay separate would prove to be insufficient glue to hold them together.

 

The Congress sweetened the pot of such mergers. A privy tax of Rs. 10 lakhs p.a. was guaranteed (some got more). This income was tax free, a very attractive condition in an era when tax rates were very high. Rulers could maintain their palaces, certain properties and their titles. The privy purses and privileges were incorporated into the Constitution, despite opposition from Nehru and sections of the Congress. Patel had his way on that matter:

“We cannot start as a free country by breaking our promises.”

(It was one of many friction points between Nehru and Patel. By extension, Nehru distrusted Menon, viewing Menon a “puppet” of Patel. Nehru would “punish” Menon after Patel died by posting him to backward and remote Orrisa as the Governor).

 

Once they agreed to join India, 20 states merged with Orrisa, 15 with the Central Provinces, and 2 with Bihar. Menon would cite these mergers as precedent to arm-twist other princely states to also agree to merge with newer states of independent India. At times, Nehru and the cabinet squirmed at the way Menon went about it. But Menon defended his policy – since the first princely states had agreed, he argued, the principle of consistency should apply everywhere.

 

The Deccan rulers were merged into the province of Bombay. The “hill states” of Punjab were merged into Himachal Pradesh and accompanied with lot of communal violence directed at the Muslims. This wasn’t the only time Patel either didn’t care about communal violence or even tacitly encouraged it. And His attitude led to discord with Nehru, who badly wanted to build a united India in the aftermath of Partition by making Muslims feel welcome.

 

The Kathiawar states had to dealt differently. And Menon, to his credit, could be flexible. 

They were richer, better run, popular with their subjects, and had good relations with the Congress. Menon promised them higher privy purses and urged them to join together voluntarily (not with Bombay presidency, if they didn’t want that) to form a legislative assembly of their combined union. The Union of Saurashtra was thus formed. No wonder then:

“Patel was euphoric at the pace at which the map of India was changing.”

 

Historians are divided as to whether Patel and Menon ever had any intention of honouring Mountbatten’s view that some of the princely states could have been left alone (Jaipur, Baroda, Indore, Gwalior etc). Did their personal distaste to monarchies dictate their policy? Or were there other compulsions like consistency and the fear of setting dangerous precedents? Or was it the genuine ideological belief that democracy was the way forward?