Princely States in British India
| Part of a series on the |
| History of Modern India |
|---|
| Pre-Independence |
| British Raj (1858–1947) |
| Independence movement (1857–1947) |
| Partition of India (1947) |
| Post-Independence |
| Political integration (1947–49) |
| States Reorganisation Act (1956) |
| Non-Aligned Movement (1956– ) |
| Green Revolution (1970s) |
| Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 |
| Emergency (1975–77) |
| 1990s in India |
| Economic liberalisation |
| 2000s in India |
| See also |
| History of India |
| History of South Asia |
| India portal |
The early history of British expansion in India was characterised by the co-existence of two approaches towards the existing princely states. The first was a policy of annexation, where the British sought to forcibly absorb the Indian princely states into the provinces which constituted their Empire in India. The second was a policy of indirect rule, where the British assumed suzerainty and paramountcy over princely states, but conceded some degree of sovereignty to them. During the early part of the nineteenth century, the policy of the British tended towards annexation, but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 forced a change in this approach, by demonstrating both the difficulty of absorbing and subduing annexed states, and the usefulness of princely states as a source of support. In 1858, the policy of annexation was formally renounced, and British relations with the princely states thereafter were based on indirect rule, whereby the British exercised paramountcy over all princely states with the British crown as ultimate suzerain, but at the same time respected and protected them as allies. The exact relations between the British and each princely state were regulated by individual treaties, and varied widely, with some states having significant autonomy, some being subject to significant control in internal affairs, and some being in effect the owners of a few acres of land with little autonomy.
During the 20th century, the British made several attempts to integrate the princely states more closely with British India, creating the Chamber of Princes in 1921 as a consultative and advisory body, transferring the responsibility for supervision of smaller states from the provinces to the centre in 1936, and creating direct relations between the Government of India and the larger princely states superseding political agents. The most ambitious was a scheme of federation in the Government of India Act 1935, which envisaged the princely states and British India being united under a federal government. This scheme came close to success, but was abandoned in 1939 as a result of the outbreak of the Second World War. As a result, in the 1940s, the relationship between the princely states and the crown remained regulated by the principle of paramountcy and the various treaties between the British crown and the states.
Neither paramountcy nor these arrangements could continue after Indian independence. The British took the view that because they had been established directly between the British crown and the princely states, they could not be transferred to independent India. At the same time, they imposed obligations on Britain that it was not prepared to continue to carry out, such as the obligation to maintain troops in India for the defence of the princely states. The British government therefore decided that paramountcy, together with all treaties between them and the princely states, would come to an end upon the transfer of power.
Read more about this topic: Political Integration Of India
Famous quotes containing the words princely, states, british and/or india:
“A princely marriage is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind.”
—Walter Bagehot (18261877)
“The line that I am urging as todays conventional wisdom is not a denial of consciousness. It is often called, with more reason, a repudiation of mind. It is indeed a repudiation of mind as a second substance, over and above body. It can be described less harshly as an identification of mind with some of the faculties, states, and activities of the body. Mental states and events are a special subclass of the states and events of the human or animal body.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“I am actually what my age and my upbringing have made mea bourgeois who adheres to the British constitution, adheres to it rather than supports it, and the fact that this isnt dignified doesnt worry me.”
—E.M. (Edward Morgan)
“But nothing in India is identifiable, the mere asking of a question causes it to disappear or to merge in something else.”
—E.M. (Edward Morgan)