INDIA
"Among the hills from which the Sutlej and Ravi flow, are chiefs who bear the name of Raja, mostly of Rajput descent and whose pedigrees stretch back in unbroken succession for several thousand years … Dynasty after dynasty has ruled in Hindustan and past away. Two creeds, strong to conquer and foreign to land, have been prominent from the Bay of Bengal to the passes of the Khaibar. But, before Mahomed, God-intoxicated, shattered the idols of Arabia; before the founder of the Christian faith gathered his few disciples by the Lake of Galilee, the little Rajput Principalities were existing in their quiet valleys; and when the day arrives that the name of little England shall be no longer a power in Hindustan, but only a vague memory, one leaf of her long and wondrous story, the Rajputs will still be ruling their ancient valleys and tracing back their ancestry to the sun" - L H Griffith, Rajas of the Punjab.
INTRODUCTION
Proclamation Durbar, Delhi, 1877.
At
the proclamation of Queen Victoria as Empress of India in
1877, over 700 princely states and territories enjoyed
treaty relations with the British Crown. The exact
relationship between the Government of India and these
states varied enormously, ranging from treaties of
alliance, defence, protection, or supervision to almost
outright control. The degree of control exercised by the
British authorities varied in accordance with the
engagements entered into by the rulers and the former
governing authority, the Honourable East India Company.
The British Crown assumed these rights from the HEIC in
1857 and exercised, what became known as
"paramountcy" in respect to the internal
government of the rulers. The representatives of the
Government of India supplied the states with advice,
technical expertise, loans and finance, and served as a
means of communication with others princely states. The
rulers, in turn, acknowledged the sovereignty of the
King-Emperor, and in many cases, were bound to supply
military forces for the defence of the Empire. So long as
good government and loyalty were maintained by the
princes, little direct interference was exercised by the
paramount power. Persuasion, cajolery and blandishment,
making direct intervention unnecessary. Needless to say,
the form of government that this engendered was without
parallel in history.
Amongst these development of the nineteenth century stood
the imposing Queen, Victoria. Her example, concern and
genuine interest in India and her welfare touched a cord
with Indians in all ranks of society. Her assumption of
the Imperial title in 1877, seen as a natural outcome of
the personal, yet remote, relationship that had been
developed over the past quarter century. Henceforth, the
princes of India would see Victoria and her successors as
their sovereign, to whom they gave their loyalty. Public
demonstrations of this were amply given in the various
wars in which Britain engaged and in the Durbars arranged
at Delhi and elsewhere. Begining with the Proclamation
Durbar in 1877, and repeated with increased ceremony and
grandeur at the Coronation Durbar of 1903 and culminated
in the magnificent spectacle of 1911. The King-Emperor
George V and Queen-Empress Mary attended the 1911 Durbar
in person, an unprecedented event in both Indian and
Imperial history. Practically every ruling prince,
nobleman and person of note, attended to pay obeisance to
their sovereign, in person. The Sovereigns appeared in
their Coronation robes, the King-Emperor wearing the
Imperial Crown of India with eight arches, containing six
thousand one hundred and seventy diamonds, and covered
with sapphires, emeralds and rubies, with a velvet and
miniver cap all weighing nineteen and a half ounces. They
then appeared at a darshan (a sight) at the jharoka
(balcony window) of Red Fort, to receive half a million
or more of the common people who had come to greet them.
The Imperial Crown of India, used by George V at the Coronation Durbar, Delhi, 1911.
The
dawn of the twentieth century saw a gradual change emerge
in response to increasing demands for self-rule.
Afghanistan was recognised as an independent kingdom
after the third Afghan War in 1919. Nepal was similarly
recognised in 1921, as a consequence of the enormous
contribution rendered by the soldiers of that country to
the Imperial war effort.
Constitutional developments were put in place within
India proper during the 1920s. Initially, the provinces
of British India were granted a measure of responsible
government. Further proposals envisaged the eventual
establishment of a self-governing Dominion; not
dissimilar from those previously established in other
parts of the Empire, such as, Canada and Australia.
Similar to those countries, a federal framework was
passed into law in the Government of India Act of 1935.
This allowed for the voluntary accession of the princely
states, either in union with adjacent existing provinces
of British India or, as separate self-governing units
within the federation.
In preparation for the new federation, and as a
consequence of constitutional developments in those
states, Burma and Aden were separated from the Indian
Empire as distinct Crown Colonies in 1937. A number of
states and protectorates contiguous to those colonies
thereafter ceased to be the responsibility of the
Government of India and came under the supervision of the
local colonial authorities.
Ten years later the British Government announced its
intention to relinquish responsibility for the Indian
Empire by June of 1948. Two separate Dominions were to be
formed out of the British Indian provinces of Assam, East
and West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Bombay, the Central
Provinces, Madras, the Punjab (soon partitioned between
East and West), the North West Frontier Province and the
United Provinces. The new Dominions of Pakistan and India
were broadly formed on the majority religious grouping
within these provinces.
The British authorities unilaterally cancelled the treaty
relations enjoyed by the princely states at midnight on
14th August 1947; the date set for the granting of
independence to the new Dominions of India and Pakistan.
The Paramountcy, hitherto exercised by the Viceroy,
lapsed at that date. The rulers of the princely states
were encouraged to accede to either one of the dominions
of their choice, under the formula adopted in the
abortive federal constitution of 1935.
Some 730 states chose to accede to the Dominion of India
by the date of independence. Two states, Bhutan and
Sikkim, became Indian protectorates. Three other states,
Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, and Junagadh, failed to
accede to either dominion. Jammu, together with parts of
Kashmir were incorporated into India after the Maharaja
was forced to seek Indian military intervention. The
remaining parts of Kashmir, which were controlled by mujahiddin
elements, being incorporated within Pakistan. In time,
the two remaining states of Hyderabad and Junagadh were
to be incorporated by force of arms.
During the period 1948-1950, some of the princely states
that joined India were either incorporated into existing
former provinces of British India. Most of the others
were formed into unions of new states, or if large
enough, single unit states. The senior ruling prince
within the union was usually appointed to the new
position of Rajpramukh, an appointment designed
to be for life. In return for surrendering the government
of their states, together with their revenues and
military forces, the former ruling princes were
guaranteed their hereditary styles and titles, certain
privileges of rank and honour, as well as privy purses to
cover the living expenses of themselves and their
families.
The guarantees and undertakings given by the Union
government of India were gradually withdrawn over a
twenty-year period after independence. By 1956, the
system of voluntary unions of states was dismantled and
the position of Rajpramukh abolished. New states
were created along linguistic and ethnic lines, which
tore apart the traditional ties that existed in the
former princely states. As the princely rulers died out,
more and more time was being taken before their
successors were recognised by the Government of India.
When they were recognised, this was usually after they
were persuaded to accept lower privy purses or reductions
in privileges.
The successful entry of several prominent princes and
members of their families did not always endear them to
the governments of democratic India. Eventually, the
government of Mrs Gandhi tired of their increasing
involvement in opposition politics and sought to curb
their influence. The abolition of the privy purses,
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the elimination
of the princely order itself, became the policy of the
Congress party. After a year-long battle, this was
finally achieved by an amendment to the Constitution at
the end of 1971.
Although some parties have attempted to portray the
constitutional changes as an abolition of the princely
order, this does not appear to be the legal position. The
changes merely removed official recognition of the
position of "ruler", as defined by the 1950
Constitution, and enabled the ending of privy-purse
payments. The amendments did not touch upon any aspects
of the treaties and engagements made during the accession
of the princely states, nor did they even address the
matter of rights to styles and titles. Since then, there
have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme
Court of India, where the court itself has continued to
use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the
nobility and members of their families. Some prominent
examples are: "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej
Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India &
Anr." (1978), "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs.
C.I.T." (1994), "The Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha
Devi" (1998), "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs.
Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000),
"Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs.
Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001),
"Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir
Mohammad Khan" (2005). It is hard to imagine that
the highest court in the land would have accepted the use
of these titles had they been contrary to law.
INDECIS
Due to the very large number of genealogies
involved, the Indian indices have been broadly divided
according to rank. I have used separate indices for the
Salute states, Non-Salute states, Political Pensioners,
the vassals of salute states, and zamindars. Detailed
lists for these can be reached by using the following
links.
I would be grateful to hear from anyone who may have changes, corrections or additions to contribute. If you do, please be kind enough to send me an e-mail using the contact details at: Copyright© Christopher Buyers