Initiatives undertaken and controversies related to the accession of Princely States with India

Introduction: The integration of over 560 princely states into independent India was a monumental task fraught with challenges and controversies. This discussion will explore the initiatives undertaken by the Indian leadership to achieve this integration and the controversies that arose during the process. Furthermore, it will demarcate the changing internal and external boundaries of India as a state in the context of this integration, illustrated by the political maps of India in 1947 and 1964.

The Challenge of Princely States

At the time of India’s independence in 1947, alongside British India, there existed a vast patchwork of princely states, varying greatly in size, population, and resources. These states, while under British paramountcy, enjoyed internal autonomy. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 granted these states three options: to accede to India, accede to Pakistan, or remain independent. This presented a significant challenge to the nascent Indian nation.

Initiatives for Accession

The Indian leadership, under the guidance of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the first Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of States, and V.P. Menon, the Secretary of the Ministry of States, adopted a multi-pronged approach to secure the accession of these princely states:

Persuasion and Diplomacy: Patel and Menon skillfully employed persuasion and diplomatic negotiations, appealing to the patriotism and long-term interests of the rulers. They emphasized the geographical contiguity and cultural affinity of most states with India.
The Standstill Agreement: This agreement was offered to the rulers, ensuring the continuation of existing administrative arrangements and services with the new Indian government during the negotiation period.
The Instrument of Accession: This legal document was the key tool for securing the formal accession of the princely states to the Dominion of India. It initially covered only three subjects: Defence, External Affairs, and Communications. Rulers were persuaded to sign this instrument, ceding control over these crucial areas to the Indian government.
The Doctrine of Lapse (Reversed): Unlike the British policy of the Doctrine of Lapse, which annexed states on the absence of a natural heir, the Indian government assured the rulers of the continuity of their rule and privy purses (royal allowances) in exchange for accession.
People’s Movements: In many states, popular movements demanding accession to India played a crucial role in pressuring the rulers to make a decision. The Indian government often subtly supported these movements.
Use of Force (where necessary): In a few exceptional cases where rulers were recalcitrant and posed a threat to the stability and integrity of India, the Indian government was compelled to use force. The most notable examples are Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Controversies Related to Accession

The process of integrating the princely states was not without its controversies:

Junagadh: The Nawab of Junagadh, a state with a Hindu majority population but a Muslim ruler, initially acceded to Pakistan. This was met with widespread protests and a popular uprising. India eventually intervened militarily after Pakistan refused to reconsider, and a plebiscite overwhelmingly favored accession to India.
Hyderabad: The Nizam of Hyderabad, a large and wealthy state with a Hindu majority population ruled by a Muslim ruler, initially desired independence. However, the oppressive rule of the Razakars (a private militia) and the deteriorating law and order situation led to Indian military intervention (“Operation Polo”) in September 1948, resulting in Hyderabad’s accession.
Jammu and Kashmir: The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, initially delayed his decision, hoping to remain independent. However, the invasion by Pakistan-backed tribal militias in October 1947 forced him to seek India’s help and sign the Instrument of Accession. This accession was controversial from the beginning and led to the first Indo-Pakistan War. The status of Kashmir remains a contentious issue between India and Pakistan.
Travancore and Cochin: The initial desire of these states for independence also caused some concern, but through persuasion and the efforts of leaders, they eventually acceded to India and later merged to form the state of Travancore-Cochin (now Kerala).
The Issue of Privy Purses: While initially guaranteed, the privy purses paid to the former rulers became a subject of debate in later years, viewed by some as anachronistic and a drain on the national exchequer. They were eventually abolished by the Indian government in 1971.

Changing Boundaries of India (1947-1964)

The accession of princely states significantly altered the internal and external boundaries of India.

Map of India, 1947:

External Boundaries: India gained independence with its boundaries largely defined by the Radcliffe Line, which partitioned British India into India and Pakistan. This initial map showed the separation of Pakistan into West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Several princely states were shown within these boundaries, yet to formally accede. Key areas of contention regarding external boundaries at this time included the status of Kashmir and the demarcation of the border with Pakistan.
Internal Boundaries: The internal map was a complex mix of provinces of British India and the numerous princely states. These princely states were enclaves of varying sizes and administrative structures within the larger provinces.

(Imagine a map of India in 1947 showing the division into British Indian provinces and the locations of major princely states like Hyderabad, Kashmir, Junagadh, Travancore, etc.)

Map of India, 1964:

External Boundaries: By 1964, the external boundaries of India had become more defined, although disputes with Pakistan over Kashmir and with China over certain border regions persisted. The map would clearly show the independent nations of Pakistan and, by this time, the impact of the 1962 Sino-Indian War on the northeastern borders.
Internal Boundaries: The internal map underwent a radical transformation due to the integration of the princely states. The map of 1964 would show a more consolidated India with the former princely states either merged into existing provinces or reorganized into new states. The linguistic reorganization of states, which gained momentum in the 1950s, would also be evident, leading to the formation of states like Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc. Former princely states like Mysore (now Karnataka), Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh would appear as larger, consolidated entities. The former French and Portuguese colonies (like Pondicherry and Goa) would also be integrated into India.