Popular Struggle in the Princely States

This section is about a part of the freedom struggle that students sometimes find slippery: the princely states. These were not directly ruled by the British but by hereditary rulers (maharajas, nawabs, rajas) under British paramountcy. At independence they covered roughly one-third of the land and one-fourth of the population of British India — so what happened here mattered greatly for the making of modern India.

Political Awakening in the Princely States

Two Indias: British Provinces and Princely States — the setup

• British Indian provinces: directly administered by British government.
• Princely states: ruled by native princes under British paramountcy (a suzerainty that guaranteed protection in return for loyalty).
  After 1857 the British stopped annexing states as they had earlier; most princes had supported the British in 1857 and were rewarded with security and privileges. By the twentieth century, princely India was thus a patchwork of autocracies sitting beside the modernising provinces.

Why popular struggle in the states erupted

Life in many princely states was harsh for ordinary people:

• Autocratic rule: Many rulers governed arbitrarily, lived in luxury, and suppressed civil liberties (no free press, no assembly).
• Economic backwardness: Heavy land revenue, little investment in education or health, rural exploitation.
• Reformers few: Some exceptions (e.g., Baroda) tried reforms, but these were the minority.
• British interference: When princes showed any sympathy to nationalism or tried reform, British residents often blocked them — so states were insulated from positive change.

Against this background, ideas circulating from the nationalist movement (democracy, responsible government, civil rights) began to awaken the urban-educated and grassroots in the states. The result: agitation for rights and representative government.

Organisations of the struggle — Praja Mandals and AISPC

Two organisational responses were crucial.

1. Praja Mandals (People’s associations)

• Emerged from the 1910s onward in many states as local associations of urban educated people and activists.
• Their demands were straightforward: representation in government, civil liberties (press, assembly, association), fair recruitment in state employment, and eventually responsible government.
• These groups modelled themselves on the nationalist language of rights and self-rule — but they usually operated in their own name rather than directly as Congress branches (because the political status of the states was different).

2. All-India States Peoples’ Conference (AISPC)

• December 1927: First AISPC in Bombay — presided over by Ram Chandra Rao and attended by delegates from 70+ states.
• A platform to coordinate demands, pass resolutions on administrative reform, representative institutions, and civil rights.
• AISPC also sought the backing of the INC — and won it: at the 1927 Madras Session, the Congress agreed to support democratic struggles in the states.

The Indian National Congress and the princely states — a policy that evolved

The Congress’s relation with the states went through three phases:

1. Non-interference (early years up to 1920s)
   • Congress initially kept a distance from the princes and the states, preferring non-intervention and letting local movements act independently.
   • Reason: political tact — the Congress wanted to avoid provoking princely rulers unnecessarily and believed locals should lead their own struggle.
2. Gradual endorsement and moral support (1920s–30s)
   • Nagpur Session, 1920: Congress asked princes to grant responsible government. But it still insisted that state activists organise locally (Praja Mandals) rather than acting in Congress’s name.
   • Madras Session, 1927: clear support for the democratic struggle in states.
   • Lahore Session, 1929 (Nehru’s voice): argued the fate of the states was linked to the rest of India — states’ peoples had the right to determine their future.
3. Active integration (late 1930s onwards)
   • Two important developments pushed Congress closer to direct engagement:
     • Government of India Act, 1935 proposed a federal link between provinces and states (though princes would nominate representatives). That raised the constitutional stakes for the states.
     • 1937 Congress ministries in provinces boosted confidence and encouraged people in the states to push for change.
   • Haripura Session, 1938: Congress aimed for complete independence for the whole of India, including princely states. Still, it wanted local movements to be independent.
   • Tripuri Session, 1939: Congress formally abandoned strict non-interference and endorsed political struggle in the states — a major policy turn.

Symbolic and practical fusion — Nehru, AISPC and Quit India

• 1939 Ludhiana AISPC: electing Jawaharlal Nehru as its President was symbolic — it signalled a fusion of state movements with the national movement.
• Quit India, 1942: The INC’s call for total British withdrawal did not distinguish between British India and princely states. The people of the states responded: their demands now included not only responsible government but also integration into India and the end of British suzerainty. Thus, the freedom struggle in the states became a political demand for assimilation into the national body politic.

Integration of the Princely States (1947–1949).

It was this process — led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and his civil servant colleague V. P. Menon — that converted India from a patchwork of 565 semi-independent kingdoms into one united nation.

Let’s study this crucial phase:

Background – The Challenge of Princely India

When the British left India in 1947, they left behind not one, but three entities:

1. British India – directly ruled provinces (now becoming the Dominion of India).
2. Pakistan – created as a new dominion.
3. Princely States – around 565 semi-independent kingdoms under British paramountcy.

At independence, these princely states covered:

• One-third of India’s total land area, and
• One-fourth of its population.

The question was — what would happen to them after the British left?

The Mountbatten Plan and the Lapse of Paramountcy

According to the Mountbatten Plan (3 June 1947):

The paramountcy of the British Crown over princely states would lapse on 15 August 1947.

This meant:

• All treaties and arrangements between the British and the princes would cease to exist.
• Each ruler could decide whether to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.

However, the decision was left to the ruler, not the people — creating a serious risk that:

• Some princes might declare independence (leading to political chaos), or
• Some might join Pakistan, even if geographically within India — threatening the idea of a united nation.

Patel, Menon and the Department of States

To handle this enormous challenge, a special States Department was created in 1947:

• Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel – Minister in charge (also Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister).
• V. P. Menon – Secretary of the Department; a master strategist and negotiator.
• Lord Mountbatten – as Governor-General, offered diplomatic support and personal influence over the princes.

Their mission:

To integrate more than 500 princely states into one political framework — the Union of India.

The Strategy – Persuasion and Pragmatism

On 5 July 1947, Patel made an appeal to the rulers, urging them to accede to the Indian Union.
He asked them to sign two simple documents:

1. Instrument of Accession – transferring powers over Defence, External Affairs, and Communications to the Indian Government.
2. Standstill Agreement – maintaining existing administrative arrangements until new ones were made.

Through a mix of diplomatic tact, persuasion, and political realism, Patel and Menon succeeded spectacularly.

By 15 August 1947, all but three states had signed —
✅ 565 princely states integrated, except Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir.

The Three Problematic States

(A) Travancore – The First to Resist, the First to Join

• Dewan: Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyar.
• Declared Travancore’s intention to remain independent.
• The state was rich in monazite, source of thorium, vital for nuclear research — Britain had strategic interests here.
• However, after firm persuasion and internal pressure, Travancore acceded to India on 30 July 1947.

✅ Travancore thus became one of the first to join India.

(B) Manipur – The First with a Democratic Election

• Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh signed the Instrument of Accession just before independence, on assurance of internal autonomy.
• June 1948 – Manipur held elections under universal adult franchise (first in India), becoming a constitutional monarchy.
• However, divisions emerged in the Manipur Legislative Assembly over merger.
• Finally, in September 1949, the Merger Agreement was signed with India — without consulting the elected Assembly.

⚠️ This created resentment and political friction that continues to echo in Manipur’s regional politics even today.

(C) Junagadh – Muslim Ruler, Hindu Majority

• Ruler: Nawab Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III.
• Despite a large Hindu population, the Nawab announced accession to Pakistan.
• This caused economic chaos and public protests; the Nawab fled to Karachi.
• Patel responded with a military and administrative intervention; Junagadh’s Dewan invited Indian help.
• A plebiscite on 20 February 1948 showed 91% in favour of joining India.

✅ Junagadh formally became part of India.

(D) Jammu and Kashmir – The Contested Accession

• Ruler: Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu; population largely Muslim.
• The Maharaja wanted independence, maintaining neutrality between India and Pakistan.
• In October 1947, tribal invaders from Pakistan entered Kashmir.
• The Maharaja requested Indian military help.

➡️ India’s condition: he must first sign the Instrument of Accession.
He signed on 26 October 1947, acceding to India for Defence, External Affairs, and Communications.
Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar and repelled the invaders.

⚠️ This accession remains the origin of the long-standing India–Pakistan dispute over Kashmir.

(E) Hyderabad – The Nizam’s Defiance and “Operation Polo”

• Ruler: Nizam Osman Ali Khan Asaf Jah VII, ruling over a majority Hindu population.
• The Nizam desired independence, while his militia, the Razakars, led by Qasim Razvi, unleashed terror on pro-integration citizens.
• The Nizam signed a Standstill Agreement (Nov 29 1947) with India, but repression continued.
• Negotiations failed; law and order collapsed.

Operation Polo (September 1948)

• The Indian government launched a “police action” on 13 September 1948, codenamed Operation Polo.
• Within five days (till 18 September), the Nizam’s forces surrendered.
• The Indian Army was welcomed as liberators, ending Razakar atrocities.
• Hyderabad was formally integrated into India.

✅ Thus, by late 1948, Hyderabad too became part of the Union.

The Outcome – A United India

By the end of 1948:

• 565 princely states had been merged into the Indian Union.
• Some were reorganised into larger administrative units (like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Saurashtra).
• This political unification laid the foundation for India’s national integration and administrative stability.

The Role of Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon

Leader	Contribution
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel	Provided political will, firmness, and pragmatic vision. His mix of persuasion and pressure earned him the title “Iron Man of India.”
V. P. Menon	Drafted the Instruments of Accession and handled intricate negotiations; the technocrat behind Patel’s political strategy.
Lord Mountbatten	Used his influence with princes to smoothen accessions, especially during the transition.

Together, they transformed a fragmented colonial legacy into a cohesive democratic union — a remarkable feat achieved without large-scale civil war.

In Essence

Between June 1947 and September 1948, India accomplished what no other decolonised country managed so swiftly — the peaceful (and occasionally forceful) integration of over 500 princely states into one nation.
The credit belongs chiefly to Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon, whose diplomacy, firmness, and patriotism ensured that the “dream of political unity” envisioned since the national movement finally became reality.