Loading the lesson
Loading the lesson
Search AllRounder.ai
Search the courses, subjects, tracks, games and features, or jump straight to a page.
Search the courses, subjects, tracks, games and features, or jump straight to a page.
Learn it your way
A short class with Sarah and her students. The other ways are under More.
Sign up free to listen. Transcripts are free to read.
Before 1947, how was a princely state different from a British Indian province?
A province was ruled directly by the British, but a princely state had its own ruler who managed internal affairs.
Right. And the ruler could do that only as long as he accepted the supremacy of the British Crown. What was that supremacy called?
Paramountcy.
Good. Now, just before Independence, the British said paramountcy would lapse. What did that mean for the 565 states?
Legally, every one of them would become independent once British rule ended.
Exactly. Keep that number in mind: 565 states, covering about a third of the land and one in four Indians.
What choices did the British say the princely states had?
They could join India, join Pakistan, or stay independent.
And who would make that choice?
The rulers, not the people living in the states.
Why does that matter so much?
Because a single prince could decide the future of millions of people who were never asked.
That is the heart of the problem. Did any rulers act on it?
Travancore announced independence, the Nizam of Hyderabad did the same the next day, and the Nawab of Bhopal did not want to join the Constituent Assembly.
Suppose many rulers had chosen independence. What would the map of India look like?
It would be full of holes, with small countries scattered inside India. Hyderabad was completely surrounded by Indian territory.
So unity was at risk. What about democracy?
Most of these states were not run democratically, and the rulers did not want to give people democratic rights.
Yes. The freedom struggle aimed at unity, self-determination and democracy. How did the lapse of paramountcy threaten those aims?
It handed power to hereditary rulers instead of the people, and it could break the country apart.
Well summed up. That is the problem the new government had to solve, and next we will see how it did.
About 565 states ruled by princes, covering a third of British India's land and a quarter of its people.
With British rule ending, the Crown's supremacy over the states ended too, making them legally independent.
Each state could join India, join Pakistan or remain independent.
The choice was left to the rulers, which denied the people of the states any say.
Independent states could fragment India and keep millions under undemocratic rule.
Travancore: Its ruler announced that the state had decided on independence, the first sign of the problem.
Hyderabad: The Nizam announced independence the next day, although the state was completely surrounded by Indian territory.
Bhopal: The Nawab of Bhopal was unwilling to join the Constituent Assembly that was drafting India's Constitution.
When paramountcy ended, the princes could choose; a nation of pieces was too much to lose.
A ship's captain retires mid-voyage and tells every cabin it may sail off in its own lifeboat. The cabin keys belong to a few passengers, so they decide for everyone. The crew must persuade them quickly, or the ship will break apart at sea.
565 states, 3 choices, 1 decider, the ruler.
T.H.B. - Travancore, Hyderabad, Bhopal: the first three warning signs.
Term
What was paramountcy?
Click to flip
Term
How many princely states would become legally independent when paramountcy lapsed?
Click to flip
Term
What three options did the British say the princely states had?
Click to flip
Term
Who was given the power to decide each state's future?
Click to flip
Term
Which two rulers first announced independence?
Click to flip
A territory ruled by a hereditary prince who managed its internal affairs while accepting the supremacy of the British Crown.
The supremacy of the British Crown over the princely states, also called suzerainty.
The ending of British supremacy over the princely states when British rule ended, which made the states legally independent.
The law passed by the British Parliament in July 1947 that ended British rule and confirmed the lapse of paramountcy.
The body elected to draft the Constitution of India.
The principle that a people should decide their own political future.
The title of the ruler of Hyderabad, the largest princely state.
When British rule ended, paramountcy over the 565 princely states lapsed, leaving each state legally free to join India, join Pakistan or stay independent. Because the choice lay with the rulers and not the people, this threatened the unity and the democracy of the new nation.
British India was made up of provinces ruled directly by the British and princely states ruled by princes who accepted British paramountcy. Just before Independence the British announced that paramountcy would lapse, so all 565 states would become legally independent and could join India or Pakistan or remain independent. The decision was left to the rulers, not their people. Trouble began at once: Travancore declared it would be independent, the Nizam of Hyderabad announced the same the next day, and the Nawab of Bhopal did not want to join the Constituent Assembly. India faced the real possibility of breaking into many small countries, and the people of the states, most of them ruled undemocratically, faced bleak prospects for democracy.
On the eve of Independence there were two kinds of territory in British India. The British Indian Provinces were ruled directly by the British government. The princely states, large and small, were ruled by princes who looked after their own internal affairs as long as they accepted the supremacy of the British Crown. This supremacy was called paramountcy (or suzerainty). The princely states covered about one-third of the land area of the British Indian Empire, and one out of every four Indians lived under princely rule.
Just before Independence the British announced that when their rule over India ended, the paramountcy of the Crown over the princely states would also lapse. The Indian Independence Act, passed by the British Parliament in July 1947, confirmed this. Legally, it meant that all the states, as many as 565, would become independent on 15 August 1947.
The British government took the view that the states were free to:
The decision was left not to the people of these states but to their princely rulers. A handful of rulers could therefore decide the future of millions of people who had never been asked.
The problems started very soon. In June 1947 the ruler of Travancore announced that the state had decided on independence. The Nizam of Hyderabad made a similar announcement the next day. Other rulers, such as the Nawab of Bhopal, were unwilling to join the Constituent Assembly that was writing India's Constitution.
This was the situation the interim government had to solve. The next lessons show how it responded, through Sardar Patel's negotiations and the Instrument of Accession, and why the cases of Hyderabad and Manipur were more difficult.