June 23, 2002

THE recent eviction of descendants of a former princely state of British India from Bhopal House, in Karachi, and subsequent restoration of the property to its rightful owners, evoked memories of a bygone era — when an elite order held sway over an area of more than half a million square miles and a population of 90 million souls, constituting two-fifths of the land mass of the gigantic geographical entity that British India was. The diversity in size, population and revenue earning of these princely states was mindboggling. On the one hand were the dominions of parsimonious Nizam of Hyderabad, and Berar spread over a whopping 82,700 square miles, with a population of 14.5 million. Its annual revenue was of eight and a half crore rupees, that exceeded the combined revenue of 20 states of the United Nations. On the other hand was the statelet of Vejanoness in Kathiawar, reigned over by a Thakur, whose 184 subjects lived on a 22-acre estate, yielding a princely sum of Rs 450 per annum.

Princely India was indeed a unique phenomenon in the annals of history. Constituting a state within a state, otherwise an anathema to statecraft that was, nevertheless, not only devotedly garnered and painstakingly nurtured by the British, but was also taken as the corner stone of their policy in India. The British advent in India saw East India Company forging diplomatic ties with native Indian kingdoms. It gradually developed into a client-state relationship, as British force of arms encapsulated the strength of native predatory forays into territories of rival claimants. The predatory tendencies of native princes afforded them virtually no opportunity to wage a joint struggle against the ever-spreading alien rule, and their internecine rivalries added fuel to the fire.

By the second decade of 19th century, the expansionist policies of Lords Dalhousie and Wellesley successfully overpowered resistance from the native states, which were then linked to the paramount power by inveterate treaties. This linkage entailed assigning residents at the princely courts, authorizing and controlling successions, and exercising control of the foreign policy. The British Raj grew secure and the reformation process gained strength by the actions of successive governors-general. The vagaries of oriental despotism became evident, forcing the colonial apparatus to reconsider its policy of keeping a ring-fence of friendly states around its territories. The growing outrage against the ruling pattern prevalent in princely states resulted in the absorption of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, Awadh, Sindh and Punjab in the Indian empire by 1856. Then came the Great Revolt of 1857, traumatizing the colonial apparatus in Calcutta and its controlling strings in London, necessitating reappraisal of the company’s polices. An in-depth appraisal of the causes of the revolt revealed two factors, that, though converse in content, served the cause of Indian princes. The first finding was that the unbridled territorial expansion unleashed by the company had resulted in earning the enmity of the, otherwise peaceable, rulers. And that, according to company’s Board of Directors’ President, Lord Stanley of Alderly, spelt disaster.

Secondly, it had emerged from the tumultuous course of events during the Mutiny that the princely states, as a whole, steadfastly supported the British cause, helping ultimately to turn the tide in their favour. The British, therefore, concluded that if native princes could salvage the Raj in 1857, they may well do it again, thereby providing raison d’etre for perpetuating their existence.

Lord “ Clemency” Canning was so overwhelmed by the crucial support extended by native states, Gwalior and Hyderabad in particular, that he took two concrete steps to secure their existence. Firstly, in the proclamations of Queen Victoria issued to mark the transfer of rule from East India Company to the Crown, Lord Canning inserted a pledge to “respect the rights, dignity and honour of the native princes as our own.” This led to the binding of the fate of native princes with the British monarchy. Secondly, he assured the princes that, contrary to past practices, their dynasties would not be allowed to lapse for want of natural heirs. From then onwards, till the cessation of colonial rule, many provinces of British India were carved up or redrawn but the borders of princely states froze. None were annexed or allowed to lapse. The native states hailed Lord Canning’s settlement as their Magna Carta.

Beginning accidentally, the British rule in India was unconventional to the core. Nowhere was this unconventionality more visible than in ruling over two separate entities, British India and Indian India. Alongside the pink markings denoting British territories on the imperial map were scattered yellow patches, signifying areas which were foreign to the British and consisted of 556 princely states. Due to their size and political significance, five states — Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Mysore, Gwalior and Baroda — had the singular distinction of maintaining direct relations with the government of India. The others came under the purview of various provincial governments and presidencies.

A novel and curious system was designed to deal with this multiplicity of states, by dividing them into three classes. The top echelon was known as First Division States or Salute States. Often dubbed as a finest form of political astuteness, as well as rapturous administrative chicanery, this make-believe gradation, accorded to 118 states, consisted of firing on all formal occasions of gun salutes ranging from 21 guns to nine guns. In this table, five rulers — Nizam of Hyderabad, Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda, Maharaja Sindhia of Gwalior, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the Maharaja of Mysore — were accorded the full measure of 21-gun salute. This was followed by six rulers — the Nawab of Bhopal, Maharaja Holkar of Indore, the Khan of Kalat, Maharaja of Kolhapur, Maharaja of Mewar and the Maharaja of Travancore — were entitled to 19-gun salute. The rest were 17-gun-salute to nine-gun salute states.

Another distinction between status of the rulers pertained to their titles, with 13-gun salute rulers regarded as Maharajas, and 11- and 9-gun rulers known as Rajas. The next tier, Second Division States, were 117 in number, who enjoyed limited measure of jurisdiction within their boundaries. The last tier of Prince’s league consisted of 327 Talukdars, Jagirdars, Thanedars and Thakurs. Their rule was essentially non-jurisdictional and such powers were exercised on their behalf by political agents of the government of India.

Truly representative of the multiplicity and diversity of native states, the rulers of gun salute entities were a motley, but charming, crowd, belonging to different religions and races. Of them, the majority hailed from valorous Rajput tribes reigning in 66 states, followed by Pathan Muslims, fording over 20 principalities. The great Marhatta upsurge, which shook the foundations of the Mughal Empire, resulted in creation of nine states, ruled by Marhatta chieftains. Kshatriya rulers held sway over nine territories; Sikhs dominated five states; Jats and Brahmins ruled three states each, and even a Muslim nawab of African origin reigned over Sachin in Bombay presidency!

The lifestyle of Indian princes was ostentatious and they justified it on the grounds that it was rooted in tradition. Guests of Nawab of Rampur were mandatorily shown his collection of 200 radio sets or entertained by his personal jazz band. The Jam Sahib of Nawanagar boasted of shooting 1000 brace of partridges in a season, and the ruler of Bikaner shot 3300 sand grouse in one outing. The Maharaja Bhupinder Sindh of Patiala, a giant of a man, reportedly ate 25 quails in one meal and succeeded in consuming a 10-egg omelette on the day he died.

A great majority of native rulers was aware of the nature of their responsibilities, although, keeping in view that they were so many, most lacked dedication or brilliance. However, after half-a-century of private tutelage provided by the British, along with acquiring English public school education, they were far removed from the imperial stereotype image. Nawab Hamidullah of Bhopal did his Masters from Aligarh University, and Maharaja of Dharangadhra studied philosophy at Oxford. There was no scarcity of conscientious rulers, most of them beginning their day at 5am and continuing till going to bed.

Contrary to popular perception, the functioning of the native state was heavily dependent upon a bureaucratic machinery, headed by a high class Chief Executive. The princes could afford to hire the best, thus, their states were very well-served. K.M Panikar, who served in Patiala and Bikaner, was the first Indian ever to win a scholarship to Christchurch. Sir C.P Ramaswamy Aiyer, Dewan of Travancore, who was paid Rs 6,000 per month and his earnings by 1945 were rumoured to be in the region of Rs 50 lakhs, was thought to be one of the cleverest men in India. As Chief Minister of Patiala, Nawab Liaquat Hyat Khan got a monthly stipend of Rs 3,000, plus an allowance of Rs 51,000 a year, for life. The emoluments paid by native states to their employees were so attractive that in the mid-1940s, two very prominent politicians, H.S. Suharwardy and S.P. Mookherjee, were tempted to pursue a career in states.

Despite the magnificence and pageantry of princely courts, they were essentially devoid of real power. The government of India had steadily chipped away at whatever sovereignty was left with them. Between 1878 and 1886, the states were made to integrate their post and telegraph networks into the imperial system. From 1877, the states lost their jurisdiction over broad- gauge railways passing through their territories. Gradually, the British India currency became legal tender, replacing state currencies and the rulers were compelled to stop minting silver and copper cubes. From 1879 onwards, the states could not employ Europeans and could not import weapons for use of their police forces. To top it all, Lord Curzon, in 1900, decreed that the rulers require permission to travel abroad!

Although the rulers of the states had become modern in their outlook, the court life was a continuous litany of highly ritualized audiences. The tradition of receiving nazars and bestowing khalats was reverentially adhered to. Inside the court nothing appeared to have changed, whether it be the royal processions, reliance on astrologers, palace intrigues or zenana entertainments. Pomp and show was the order of the day, and in certain cases was stretched to the limit.

The states extended extensive patronage to all good causes, particularly education. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Begum of Bhopal gave several hundred thousands of rupees to Aligarh University. There were countless scholarships and awards given by native states to deserving scholars and students. Their patronage of arts and literature is legendary, with many musical schools deriving their names from the states which patronized them.

With the dawn of the 20th century, the persistent efforts of the paramount power aimed at reforming the princely states, coupled with the emerging generation of enlightened princes, committed to bring betterment to their native states. They succeeded in bringing about a noticeable change in governing patterns of these states, that ushered in a new era of modernism and development. Gwalior emerged as a centre of cotton and oil mills, with its own power station and a machine tools plant. The living conditions of princely states liberalized over the period of time, bringing prosperity to their inhabitants and popularity to rulers.

A manifestation of the changing times was the gradual dissipation of rivalries between ruling princes. Being repositories of traditional feuds, the ruling princes harboured enmity with their colleagues to an unhealthy degree, and it badly affected their relations. The Kshatriya Rajputs were proud of their ancestors and looked down upon Sudra Marhatta princes.

Diametrically opposite to this stance was that of the Marhatta rulers. They bitterly resented the axis formed between the Rajput rulers and the East India Company, that successfully humbled the ambitions of ruling India harboured by the Marhatta confederacy in the 19th century. Gradually, the princely order realized the commonalities of its existence that distinguished it from the rest of the milieu, in shape of its affluence, autocratic power, privileges granting it status considered above the law and the lineage linking it to the mythical past which endowed on it the divine right to rule.

Consequently, some rulers succeeded in forging close bonds of friendship, based on shared interests. Foremost among them being Bhupindra Singh of Patiala, who got very friendly with Udaibhan Singh of Dholpur, Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal and Yeshwant Rao of Indore. One way of creating amity between ruling princely households was the age-old practice of intermarriages between them. However, traditionally such alliances had the tendency of going sore if a disagreement occurred. But, with the changing times, matrimonial bliss, in most cases, was spared the rigours of such a schism.

The consensus amongst the ruling order helped a great deal in overcoming conceptual hurdles. It resulted in formation of the Chamber of Princes, that ploughed vigorously at conserving the independent status of princely India at the time of British withdrawal from India. The great princely order, imbued with an illusion of permanence at the end of the First World War, faded into thin air in an unbelievably short span of 30 years. Its denouement looks more tragic when viewed in the backdrop of the dissolution of British aristocracy, that took over a century.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)