About Princely States

Princely States of India, alternatively known as Indian States or Native States, were nominally autonomous units under the British colonial rule in India. These states were generally not governed by the British administration directly, but were controlled by an Indian Prince under a type of indirect British rule, like paramountcy or suzerainty. According to official records, there were 565 princely states at the time of the Indian independence during 1947. Most of these states were under contract with the Viceroy and in agreement of providing public services and tax collections. Only 21 states, amongst all the Princely States of India had authentic state governments and only Kashmir, Hyderabad and Mysore were three large states. These were incorporated into the 2 new independent nations from 1947- 1949. The process faced problems, mostly in Kashmir and somewhat in Hyderabad. All of the Indian Princes were pensioned off in due course.

Under the British imperial rule, India primarily consisted of 2 kinds of territories-
* British India
* Princely States or Native States

In the Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament provided the following descriptions-

* The term British India denotes all the all regions and territories within the dominion of Her Majesty, which are governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India
* The term India represents British India along with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India or any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

The suzerainty of the British Crown over 175 Indian Princely States was exercised by the central government of British India under the Viceroy. The rest of the 400 states were influenced by Agents accountable to the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Chief Commissioner. The law of British India was decided upon by the legislation enacted by the British Parliament. The courts of the Princely States sustained under the authority of the respective princes of the states. The Indian Princes had several titles such as Badshah, Chattrapati, Maharaja, Thakur, Nawab, Wali, Nizam and others. Even though theses titles conveyed traditional and cultural prestige, the British administration identified all of the rulers as Prince. This was mainly done in order to evade the inference that the native rulers could become Kings with status that could be equivalent to the British monarch.

The British Empire completely controlled the external affairs of the princely states of India. As the princely states were not under direct control of the British, the Indian Princes maintained control over their internal affairs. But it was subject to a level of British influence, which was considerably significant in many states.

Types of Princely States of India

There are three primary types of Princely States of India, namely, the Antique States, the Successor States and the Warrior or Conquest States. Princely States of India were nominally autonomous units under the British colonial rule in India. These states were governed by an Indian Prince under a type of indirect British rule. The British administration expressed their objective of forming an imperial state during the early 19th century. Antique states are mainly Rajput ruled territories which existed prior to the Mughal Empire established in 1526. These states made alliances with the Mughals and sustained as internally autonomous entities. After the Mughal empire emaciated, the Antique states extended territorially during the 18th century. Successor States were created by the governors or Subadars of Mughal territories, particularly those of Hyderabad, Bengal and Awadh, after the improved themselves into independent rulers. The Conquest or Warrior States fell in the third category of Indian princely states. As military force was imperative to political supremacy in almost all princely states, conquest states designated polities which the warrior sects set up by providing military protection, against competitors, to local populations.

Antique States of India : The Antique states where dominated by the Rajputs. Antique or vintage states originated during the 13th century. Their cautious integration into the Mughal military and administrative system anticipated their consequent accommodation in the British Empire. During the 16th century and 17th century, some Rajput rulers and their bards or charans developed myths of origins that recognized their rank as Kshatriyas. They legitimated their social status and political power through descent and kinship, instead occupational activity as warriors. The geographically dominance of Rajput political and social standing was mirrored in 1931 census statistics.

Under the British rule, Rajputs formed a higher percentage of the population in 4 Indian provinces and the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir than in Rajputana in the British colonial era. Several varioations of the identity of Rajputs were presented by the Malwa Plateau in central India. Ratlam and its two seceded states of Sitamau and Sailana depict the rapid political mobility and development of symbolic legitimacy of Rajputs. Various Antique Rajput states like Jaipur, Marwar-Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer accepted the Mughal suzerainty and attained confirmation of their local control. Jaisalmer was the last Antique state to be incorporated into the Mughal system.

Successor States of India : Former Mughal territories like Hyderabad, Bengal and Awadh are regarded as the standard successor states. Some antique states like Amber-Jaipur, which was a significant part of Mughal mansabdari administrative system, also had similar features. In several ways, Jaipur state followed the archetypical successor state in the process of its expansion and its structure. It depicted the arbitrary nature of any typology of Indian princely states.

According to some eminent scholars, there were 7 criteria of autonomy which denoted the transformation from province to a successor state. These are mentioned below-
* The imperial military officer or the provincial governor in a small territory nominated or appointed his own revenue officers.
* Regional governors appointed their own successors.
* Revenues were used in the region and only ceremonial transmittals were provided to the centre.
* Governors engaged in autonomous diplomatic and military activities.
* Ruling family units established their principal residences in the provincial capitals instead of setting up at the Mughal court.
* Coinage was casted in silver at least in order to replace the imperial silver rupees.
* Delivery of the khutbah, the Friday congregational sermon in the principal mosque, is in the name of the governor rather than the emperor.

Most of the Successor States of India implemented the initial 5 functions in a chronological order, but the final 2 stages were mostly avoided by almost all the states. Awadh was the standard model for the expansion and growth of a successor state. The successor state of Bengal was rather short lived and Hyderabad, the third successor state, was the most long lived one and also was one of the last territories that was included in the Mughal Empire. Hyderabad became a successor state during the 19th century.

Conquest States of India : Conquest or Warrior states formed the 3rd category of Princely States of India, even though use of military force use of military force was a major factor. This refers to the regions that were formed by the warrior groups who challenged the over-extending authority in order to establish new political units by providing military protection to the local populace. Vijayanagar was a Conquest state of the earlier regime which served as a structural predecessor of the Maratha states.

The founders of warrior states were mainly leaders of different clan who performed special services for a prevailing ruler. These military leaders received generous compensation such as rights to the produce of land and various honours and titles of sovereignty. These growing rulers often agreed to nominal inclusion into the Mughal structure as mansabdars, but usually avoided participation in the governance of the empire on either imperial or provincial level. Among all the 3 types of Princely States of India, Conquest or Warrior states are the most diverse. After the revolt of 1857, Rampur in western Uttar Pradesh was the only remainder of Rohilla Afghan power. Bhopal in central India was also considered as one of the large conquest states.

Development of Literature in Princely States of India

Literature in Princely States of India is closely entangled with the sacred and the secular. In the southern region of the former British India, the native rulers or Maharajas of the princely state of Travancore and Mysore collected extensive compilations of Sanskrit texts and manuscripts, whereas in north India, the native rulers of Baroda, Kashmir, Bikaner, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur and their respective subjects, particularly Jains and other merchant communities, accumulated noteworthy libraries. By the year 1874, the library in Bikaner consisted of 1400 texts and manuscripts which included many rare literary works, Dharmashastra, Vedas, Mantra and Samgita. In the year 1910, Maharaja Sayaji Rao of the princely state of Baroda started to gather texts and manuscripts in Sanskrit which became the central part of the Oriental Institute of Baroda. Benoytosh Bhattacharya later edited, interpreted and published some of the literary works in Sanskrit from the Oriental Series of Gaekwad, in order to increase access.

Some of the Indian princes, such as those of Patiala state and the princely state of Baroda, patronized and supported the scholars who composed literary works about the history of their native state, religions and dynasties. Apart from literature, the rulers of the princely state of India also focused on developing and establishing libraries, archaeological sites and museums that helped them shape the historical identity of the region. The native princes exhibited various manuscripts, sculptures and paintings, European visual arts and even industrial gadgets in the libraries and museums that were erected in their states. Some of the native rulers also sponsored the publication of affluent volumes on key historical and archaeological sites that were located in their princely states. The rulers of the princely state of Bhopal subsidized several volumes on Sanchi that was one of the foremost Buddhist pilgrimage site and stupa in its region. The Nizam of Hyderabad state provided financial support for the composition of few volumes on Ajanta and Ellora. As all of the 3 sites were either Hindu, Buddhist or Jain, the benefaction of these rulers had a pluralist implication, which is an Indian cultural heritage.

The native rulers of the Indian princely states supported the development of museums and generously printed literary works and books based on various cultural sites as current ways of justifying their authority and power; and demonstrated dharma in the fast transforming political context of the nation.

Coins of Princely States of India

The British ruled India with two administrative systems. One was `Provinces` and the other `Princely States`. About 60% of the Indian subcontinent`s territories were Provinces and 40% were Princely States. Provinces were British territories completely under British control. Princely States were states in British India with local ruler or king with honorary titles like Maharaja, Raja, Maharana, Rana, Nizam, Badshah and other such titles meaning king or ruler in different Indian languages. These rulers were subjected to the British Empire. These two types of administrative systems were the result of the British East India Company`s attempt to annex the whole of Indian sub-continent and make it into a British territory.

Until 1947/48, the complex political map of India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) included over 650 quasi-independent Indian Princely States. The habitual terminology of "Princely States" is significantly flawed. "Princes" did not rule these states" but rather by "kings," some of whom enjoyed a truly ancient heritage of political power. For the British -- and their ideology of imperialism -- there was but one significant "king" (and he lived in London); Indian rulers were (and had to be) "princes."

Along with the Princely States there were also 11 Provinces in British India. These Provinces were under direct British control. These Provinces were formerly Indian entities, which the British annexed from the Indian rulers, attached them together and turned them into British Provinces. Among these Provinces were Bombay, Madras, Bengal, Assam and United Provinces.

Until around 1947 many parts of India had their own separate coinages too. These regions were run as Princely States and coins from around twenty of these fit into my collecting criteria. The Princely States with more abundant coinages are such as Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kutch and Travancore.

The fertile and prosperous land of Awadh in Northern India, today`s modern Uttar Pradesh, was governed by Nawab-Wazirs on behalf of the Mughal Emperor from around 1720 AD. With the decline of the Mughal Empire, the British Governor General, the Marquis of Hastings, persuaded Ghaziuddin Haidar, the Nawab-Wazir of Awadh, to cast off Mughal suzerainty and declare himself independent. Ghaziuddin was crowned in 1819, but the State of Awadh whose capital Lucknow, lay claimed the title of the cultural capital of India, did not survive even four decades. Despite Ghaziuddin`s proclamation of independence, the first issues continued in the name of the Mughal Emperor, with the Awadh coat of arms on the reverse, before independent coins were issued. The coat of arms was imitative of the English and marked a departure from the traditional Mughal designs. Nasiruddin Hyder, Muhammed Ali, and Wajid Ali succeeded Ghaziuddin. The monetary system consisted of the gold ashrafi, (half, quarter, eighth and sixteenth of an ashrafi), the silver rupee with similar five denominations and the copper fulus. The defeat of the Nawab of Awadh at the Battle of Buxar (1764), precipitated the decline of the Kingdom. The silver rupee minted by Nabab Amjad ali Shah has a fish above which royal crown is shown. Two swords are around the crown and royal canopy. Wajid Ali Shah, the last Nawab was forced to abdicate in 1856 by Lord Dalhousie. During the 1857 uprising, the battle of Lucknow was one of the most bitterly fought battles. The revolutionaries are said to have minted coins in the name of the Nawab-Wazarat.

The Kingdom of Mysore was situated in Southwest India and was ruled by various Hindu dynasties. In 1761, Haider Ali a military adventurer deposed the Wodeyar ruler and proclaimed himself King. In the region, coins of both the Mughal and Vijayanagar standards were current. His coin issues coins of the pagoda types continued to carry the motifs and iconographic forms of the Vijayanagar period (e.g., Hara-Gauri) with his initial, the letter `He` on the reverse. Tipu, his son, succeed him and assumed the title of Sultan. Tipu minted very interesting coins, most of which had elephant on obverse. Elephant was royal symbol of this dynasty. His most popular coin is a heavy silver coin called `double Rupee`. He introduced various innovations and new varieties in his coinage, continuing with the pagodas, the mohurs, and introduced his own standards. An interesting feature of his coins is that they do not bear his name. Tipu Sultan, a progressive ruler, was one of the few Indian princes to perceive the imperial designs of the British and oppose them; he, however, was slain in the battle of Srirangpatanam in 1799 after which the British reinstated Krishna Raja Wodeyar as King of Mysore. Krishna Raja Wodeyar continued to issue coins of the Vijayanagar and Mughal standards. The gold coins carried the Hara-Gauri motif and the King`s name on the reverse. The silver coins were in the Mughal tradition, bearing the name of the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam II on the obverse and the name of the mint on the reverse. Some of the smaller fraction coins carried the image of the deity Chamunda, the family deity of the Wodeyar family; other coins carried motifs drawn from nature and inscriptions in Nagri, Persian, Kannada, and English at various points of time. Wodeyar kings especially Krishana Raja Wodeyar were able rulers and made Mysore as one the best princely state of India by 20th century. The coins issued by King`s Dewan (prime minister) Purnaiya on behalf of King, shows a Shardula, a mythical tiger.

In the Princely State of Hydrabad, in matters of currency and coinage, the coins of the Nizams were issued in the name of the Mughal Emperor till 1858 when a coin legend was introduced with the name of the founder of the state, Asaf Jha. Thereafter, they were struck independently and the new coins were termed the `Hali Sicca`, i.e., the current coins. In 1903-04 coins were machine struck for the first time. These coins featured the Charminar on the obverse with Persian inscription Nizam-ul-mulk Bahadur Asaf Jah around it. The reverse carried the value. These coins confirmed to the British coins in denominations and metals.

Puduakkottai, a small princly state like all other princely state eventually merged in Republic of India in 1947, issued a number of copper coins, weighing approximately 1.2 grams each.

Princely States of India and Indian National Congress

The Princely States of India and Indian National Congress shared a unique political relationship during the era of the Indian freedom struggle. Some scholars believed that the Indian National Congress deliberately detached the party from the political mobilization of the Indian princely states. Prior to 1920, the political and economic demands of the Congress party totally abandoned the native states. Further more, the Indian National Congress declined to engage in the democratic struggle of these princely states. The policy decision was based on the need to focus on the primary goal of attaining freedom from the British and to evade regional disintegration, as there were limited resources. During the initial phase of the Congress, determined lawyers in the party were apprehensive regarding their lack of legal standing in the princely states, and were concerned about the complexities in managing several distinct units where autonomy of the civilians were less cared for than in regions under the rule of the British Empire in India.

In the latter part of the 19th century, various progressive native rulers undertook social reform activities which were optimistic instances of the capacity of the Indians to rule and portrayed of resistance of the native chiefs to the western models. The members of the Indian National Congress were professionals and were fascinated by the profitable opportunities for employment as administrators and legal counsel in the Indian princely states. As the preference of the British administration for non-intervention was developed in practice, which was done in reply to local conditions of specific Residents of British India. As a result, Mahatma Gandhi, including other members of Congress maintained proper contacts with the Indian princely states and even personally visited the territories. After his return to the country in the year 1915, Gandhi declared a policy of non-intervention in explicit political mobilisation within the Indian princely states for around a period of 2 decades. He also persuaded his chosen successor, Jawaharlal Nehru, to become more involved in the politics of the princely states of India.

During the occurrence of the Devi movement the influence of the Indian National Congress and Gandhian sanctions in the districts of Gujarat spread to the princely state of Baroda and Bombay presidency. After 1922, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel converted the Devi movement to a secular from a religious one; and unsuccessfully attempted to alleviate the class conflict against the Parsis. The authorities of Baroda reacted both considerately and aggressively that the British Government of India; and depicted that personal dictatorship and autocracy was probable even in one of the progressive princely states. In the year 1925, Mahatma Gandhi presided at the Third Raniparaj Conference and several natives provided support to the Gandhian programs. Even though only a few members of the Congress remained active in princely states during the British Raj in the 1920s, there was no divergence in the policy of the Indian National Congress over the decade. The political authorities from the princely states took several efforts to set up managing organizations and to develop better relationship with the Congress party in the year 1927.

After the Indian States` People`s Conference (ISPC) in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1927, the Indian National Congress allowed people from the different princely states to join the party and the Indian freedom struggle. Several individuals also participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement as well. Consequently, these members asked for mutual support from the Indian National Congress in their effort for a dependable administration in the princely states.

Jawaharlal Nehru was appointed as the president of the All India States` People`s Conference (AISPC) in the year 1939. But the AISPC was never successful in developing into a noteworthy national organisation. Therefore the political mobilization amongst the subjects of the Indian princely states continued at the state level. Some of the leaders of the Indian National Congress participated in the issue occasionally and pursued specific agendas.