The British Raj and the Indian Princely States in the Twentieth Century

The twentieth century was the period in which the Indian princely states went from being central to the British Raj to being an embarrassment. The 569 princely states — which had covered about 40 percent of the area of British India and contained about a quarter of the population in 1947 — were, by the end of the Second World War, the most conspicuous anomaly in the constitutional order of the British Empire. The British had built a system that depended on personal relations with individual rulers, and the system worked, in so far as it worked, because the British could manage the relationship. By 1947, the British could not. The integration of the princely states into the Indian Union between 1947 and 1950 was, as the historian Ian Copland has shown, the most consequential political event of the post-independence period.

The Indian Princely States in the Early Twentieth Century

The Indian princely states in the early twentieth century were a diverse group of polities, ranging from large states like Hyderabad (with a population of more than 16 million) and Kashmir to small states with just a few thousand subjects. The states were governed by several rulers, including Hindu maharajas, Muslim nawabs, and tribal chieftains, and they had very different historical origins. The British relationship with the states was governed by the doctrine of paramountcy and the system of subsidiary alliances, and the states were guaranteed internal autonomy in exchange for the surrender of foreign policy.

The states were, in general, more autocratic than the directly administered British India, and the rulers often had personal powers that were not subject to the same legal constraints. As the Indian National Congress argued in 1929, the states were “survivals of the feudal order” that the British had maintained for their own purposes. The princes, in turn, regarded the Congress as a body of ambitious lawyers from British India who knew nothing of the actual conditions of the states.

The Chamber of Princes (1921–1947)

The Chamber of Princes, established in 1921, was the consultative body of the Indian princely rulers. The Chamber was created in response to the growing political pressure on the princely states, and it was intended to provide a forum for the rulers to discuss common concerns. The Chamber met twice a year under the chairmanship of the Viceroy, and it had no formal powers, but it provided a useful channel of communication between the British and the states.

The Chamber was particularly active in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was an important forum for the discussion of reforms. The principal figures of the Chamber included the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Bikaner, and the Maharaja of Patiala. The Chamber’s most important political function was, perhaps, to give the princes a sense of corporate identity that they had not previously possessed. As the Maharaja of Bikaner put it, the Chamber was the place where the princes discovered “that they were not isolated individuals but members of a great and historic class.”

The Princely States and the Round Table Conferences

The princely states were represented at the Round Table Conferences of 1930–1932, which were convened to discuss constitutional reform in India. The princely states’ representatives, led by figures such as the Nawab of Bhopal and the Maharaja of Bikaner, played a notable role in the discussions. The Communal Award of 1932, which separated the representation of Muslims, Sikhs, and other minorities in the Indian legislatures, was one of the most controversial outcomes of the Round Table process, and the princely states’ position on the Award was complex. The princely states were generally reluctant to commit themselves to the federation proposed by the British government, and the federal scheme was never implemented.

The Government of India Act of 1935

The Government of India Act of 1935 established a new relationship between the princely states and British India. The Act provided for a federal structure that would include both British India and the princely states, and the princely states were to be represented in the federal legislature. The federal scheme required the accession of the princely states, and the princes were generally reluctant to commit themselves to a federation in which they would be outvoted by British India. The 1935 Act was passed by the British Parliament, but the federal scheme was never implemented, and the Act operated only in its provincial provisions. The representation of the princely states in the federal legislature remained a theoretical question.

The Princely States During the Second World War

The princely states made important contributions to the British war effort during the Second World War. The Indian princely states provided soldiers, money, and supplies to the British war effort, and several princely rulers, including the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Maharaja of Baroda, were prominent supporters of the British. The financial contributions of the princely states were substantial, and they were used to fund the expansion of the British Indian Army. The princely states were also important in the strategic defence of India, particularly in the North-West Frontier and in the Burma front.

The princes’ wartime support was, in the long run, a tactical mistake. By supporting the British, the princes forfeited what remained of the popular support that the older autocracies had commanded. As Ramachandra Guha has argued, “the princes fought for the British Raj, and they lost the post-war political order.”

The Princely States and the Indian Independence Movement

The princely states had a complex relationship with the Indian independence movement. Some princely rulers supported the Indian National Congress, while others were sympathetic to the All-India Muslim League. The most important princely contributions to the independence movement came from rulers who publicly endorsed the Congress position, including the Maharajas of some of the major states. The Congress, in turn, attempted to win the support of the princes, although it was committed in principle to the integration of the states into a democratic Indian union. The princes were a divided group, and the British government attempted to use them as a counterweight to the Congress, although the strategy ultimately failed.

The Cabinet Mission of 1946

The Cabinet Mission of 1946 included discussions with the princely states about the future of British India. The Mission, sent by the Labour government of Clement Attlee, was charged with negotiating an agreement between the Congress, the Muslim League, and the princely states on the future constitution of India. The Cabinet Mission’s discussions with the Chamber of Princes were an important part of the negotiations, although the Mission ultimately concluded that the princely states should be free to accede to either of the two new dominions. The Muslim League’s demand for a separate state of Pakistan was accepted, and the role of the princely states in the new state of Pakistan was a complex question.

The Integration of the Princely States (1947–1950)

The integration of the princely states into the Indian Union was one of the most significant political events of the post-independence period. The work was carried out by V. P. Menon and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Indian minister in charge of the States Department. The legal framework was the Instrument of Accession, by which the rulers ceded control of defence, foreign affairs, and communications to the Indian Union.

The resistance to integration in Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Kashmir was the most serious. The Nizam of Hyderabad attempted to declare independence, but the Indian army’s “Operation Polo” of September 1948 annexed the state. The accession of Kashmir to India in October 1947 led to the first India-Pakistan war, and the Kashmir conflict remains unresolved. As Copland has put it, “Patel took the states in, but Kashmir and Hyderabad nearly took him.”

The Princely States in the Post-Independence Period

The post-independence period saw the formal integration of the princely states into the new republics of India and Pakistan. The formal integration into the Indian Union was completed by 1950, and the Chamber of Princes was dissolved in 1947. The privileges and pensions of the former princely families were preserved, in part, by the Indian government, although the rulers lost their formal powers. The political legacy of the princely states is still felt in modern India, particularly in the Kashmir conflict and in the linguistic reorganisation of the Indian states. The princely states are one of the most distinctive features of the British Raj, and their integration is among the most consequential chapters of the post-independence period.

Historiographical Note

The historiography of the princely states in the twentieth century has been transformed. The older administrative history, represented by the work of the Indian Political Service, has been displaced by the revisionist literature led by Ian Copland, Ramachandra Guha, and Barbara Ramusack. The current debate, exemplified in the recent work of S. R. Ashton and the contributors to the New Cambridge History of India, is over how far the princes were a coherent political class and how far they should be treated as an artificial category imposed by the British.

In this Section

Other Sections