1857 Swatantra Sangram: Indian Princely States and Princes:
DAYA SAGAR
Those who really desire to know, rather at least all those who have born after 1960 in India , in what circumstances , socio political environment & status and level of knowledge about the working of a democratic government & legislature and diversity of expectations of the Indian people & expectations of the rulers of acceding Princely states the Indian leadership had taken over the reins from the British crown where even the elements of Constitution of Democratic Indian republic had yet to be conceived , drafted , debated and finally accepted , leaving aside inheriting a totally depleted economy. Such requirements have become more important in view of the style of political gamesmanship that has become the culture of the day. After passage of the Indian Independence Act of 1947 even making the rulers of Princely states to accede to free India and leave the status & wealth they held was very difficult task. In Constitution of India a separate category of States had to be created as Type – B states with Art-238 ( Application of provisions of Part VI to States in Part B of the First Schedule. )there to define their constitutional status in free India although later on in 1956 the states were reorgainsed and Art-238 was omitted /deleted .Type – B states had a Raj Pramukh ( Art-238-1< For the word “Governor” wherever it occurs in the said Part VI, except where it occurs for the second time in clause (6) of article 232, the word “Rajpramukh” shall be substituted> Art-238 -3 < (3) Articles 155, 156 and 157 shall be omitted> Art-238-7 < In article 168, for clause (1) the following clause shall be substituted, namely: – “(1) For every State there shall be a Legis lature which shall consist of the Rajpramukh and- (a) in the State of Mysore, two Houses; (&) in other States, one House.”>) For the word “Governor” wherever it occurs in the said Part VI, except where it occurs for the second time in clause (6) of article 232, the word “Rajpramukh” shall be substituted. ) who was to be from the ruler / from ruling family of erstwhile princely state.The acceded Princely State of J&K was also included as Type- B states but for there was another Art-370 related to J&K which was a temporary provision ( where as Art-238 was not temporary) .The erstwhile rulers were given a hefty sum of money as annual Privy purse{( *Art-291 – (1) Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution, the payment of any sums, free of tax, has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as privy purse- (a) such sums shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of India; and (b) the sums so paid Lo any Ruler shall be exempt from all taxes on income. (2) Where the territories of any such Indian State as aforesaid are comprised within a State specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule, there shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of that State such contribution, if any, in respect of the payments made by the Government of India under clause (1) and for such period as may, subject to any agreement entered into in that behalf under clause (1) of article 278, be determined by order of the President. * [Privy purse sums of Rulers.].-Omitted by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, s. 2 (w.e.f. 28-12-1971)}and allowed to retail a lot property/ estates wealth that had been created out of common taxes/ natural state resources. Most of them had not voluntarily vouched for freedom to the people of British India what to talk stepping down from their thrones for simultaneously giving democratically elected peoples government to their subjects. Among other issues it will be of great interest for all to know about the role of the Rulers of Indian states ,living under the umbrella of British Crown , in the Indian Independence movement in the British India and any movement for independence going on their states against the rule.
The British Indian Empire had two limbs , the British India and the Indian Princely states. All know that in 1947 British India was divided into two Dominions, the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, and the Indian princely states of erstwhile British Indian Empire though also were given independence but were kept out of the two dominions. The princely states were left to the Princes who could remain like ‘independent’ Countries or join any one of the Dominion or could make alliance with both or one of the dominions. The young generation of today may not be knowing how hard was the task for the India Dominion leadership / government in 1947 & thereafter to accommodate the demands& conditions of even the rulers of the Princely States (about 565 in number ) while drawing out the constitution of the India Democratic Republic. One may ask why were not the princely states that existed in 1947 had also been included in British India like many other states of Indian rulers that British had taken away from the Indian princes and made part of direct rule of British as British India? The brief answer could be that after the 1857 war of independence against the British was lodged by some princes of Indian states and some soldiers in the army of East India Company the British could understand that it will not be wise to totally dislodge the rulers of Indian states and hence British adopted a policy where under the Rulers of local states were allowed to enjoy the wealth of their states , ofcourse accepting the Suzerainty of the British Crown. British had dislodged many Indian rulers before 1957 and a very few were dislodged after 1958 where after the rule from East India Company was also taken for direct Governance by the British Crown under Government of India Act 1958 of British Parliament. The status & British policy after 1858 as regards “not” dismantling the ‘local Indian Princes” well reflects from the fact that at the time of British retreat there were 565 Princely states out of which 552 ( may be one or two this or that side) acceded to India Dominion and as per White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 11/Privy Purse of Rulers, the Privy Purse of *INR 5000000 / yr tax free was sanctioned for Hyderabad and just INR 2140/ yr tax free for ruler of Dedhrota ( merged in the state of Bombay) which was a very tiny ruler but had still been retained as a ruler by the British after 1857 Swatantrata Sangram ( even when it failed ). Some references mention the amount as Rs 42,85,714.
To be continued
(The writer is a senior journalist and analyst of J&K Affairs , can be reached at dayasagr45@yahoo.com)