A little-known facet of India’s independence

When CP Ramaswami Aiyar, the dean of Travancore, surprised Congress by declaring on June 11, 1947, that it would become an independent state, he received support from an unexpected quarter. Hindutva’s father, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, praised Aiyar for his “brave, far-sighted determination” to seek independence. “Hyderabad’s Muslim ruler Nizam has already declared independence and other Muslim states are likely to follow suit. Hindu states are bold enough to claim that they have equal rights,” he wrote.

The fact that Savarkar’s views were not shared by other freedom fighters highlights the disputes that characterized the very real problem of what to do with the 562 princely states in the run-up to Independence. like my book Dethroned: Patel, Nehru and the Integration of Princely India shows, there were sharp divisions within the nationalist movement over whether to support the democratic aspirations of the peoples of the states and how to deal with recalcitrants like Travancore, Hyderabad, Bhopal and, later, Junagadh and Kashmir.

Gandhi criticized Travancore’s offer as “tantamount to a declaration of war on India’s free millions”. Jawaharlal Nehru warned that the state would “starve to death”. His threats were based on the fear that if more states exercised their right to independence, India would become Balkanized, undermining the unity of the new Union and decades of nationalist struggle. Watching the events closely was Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who telegraphed Aiyar on June 20, promising that a future Pakistan he would be “ready to establish a relationship with Travancore that will be of mutual benefit.”

Aiyar eventually backed down, but not before VP Menon, the secretary of the state department, reminded him that Travancore was the main breeding ground for communism in India and that if there was a communist uprising after August 15, there would be no help. from delhi. . Vallabhbhai Patel, the powerful minister of state, reminded him that wealthy industrialist Seth Dalmia had given the local Congress party $5 lakh to stir up trouble. If Aiyar did not give up the idea of ​​independence from him, his “life could be in danger.”

While there was unanimity among Indian nationalists that there was no place in a free India for islands of autocracy, there were differences on how this could be avoided. Views ranged from Nehru’s utter contempt for princes whom he derided as “sinks of reaction and incompetence”, to Savarkar’s view that princely states were “portals to a pure and ancient past”, and even ” the foundation on which the future nation could launch itself. Typically for Mahatma Gandhi, his views changed to suit the times. “My ideal of Indian states is Ram Rajya,” he declared in 1925, a condition he believed princes could achieve and they must achieve their goal.He was an admirer of the ruler of Mysore, Krishnaraja Wadiyar, a pious and progressive Hindu whom he referred to as a rajarshioh holy king.

Patel took a middle path. Although he once described rulers as “worthless… sycophants”, whom their slave subjects had the “right to dethrone”, he was careful to cultivate close ties with the rulers of influential states such as Patiala and Gwalior while appealing to the princes. ‘proud and glorious past, when his ancestors “had played very patriotic roles in defending the honor of their family and the freedom of their land.”

The official policy of the Indian National Congress towards the states, adopted at Nagpur in 1920, was one of non-intervention. He said that Congress could form committees in the states but not engage in political activity. This position was rational. The princely states enjoyed considerable autonomy. Getting involved in the affairs of the states would leave Congress fighting battles on two fronts, with the British and with the princes, for which it was not prepared.

When the leading leftist congressman NV Gadgil used the Jabalpur session of the All India Congress Committee in 1935 to introduce a resolution demanding that the people of the states get their full backing in the fight for freedom, Patel opposed it. For constitutional progress to take place, the cooperation of the people of the states is required, Patel argued. Alienating them would therefore go against the interests of Congress.

The involvement of Hindu nationalist organizations in the states brought rulers such as Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal closer to the Muslim League. For him, it was a matter of survival. A Muslim ruling a Hindu-majority state, he had become increasingly aware of the communal orientation of the other princes who received funds from groups like the Hindu Mahasabha to run schools and for office space and propaganda work. In 1946, Hamidullah became chancellor of the House of Princes and used his influence to try to lure the rulers of states like Jodhpur and Indore into Pakistan’s orbit. In June 1947, he joined Travancore and Hyderabad in declaring that his state would become independent upon the transfer of power.

The end of the Raj would widen the rift between Nehru and Patel as they clashed over how to respond to threats to India’s territorial integrity brought about by Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan, the tribal invasion of Kashmir and Hyderabad’s declaration of independence. . Nehru’s reluctance to use force would infuriate Patel, who in turn would be branded a communalist for his insistence on sending the army to dethrone the Hyderabad nizam.

Despite his antipathy to the princes, Patel was determined to honor the promises he had made to them by enshrining their private purses, privileges, and dignities in the Constitution, declaring it a small price to pay for the sacrifices they had made. A socialist to the core, Nehru resisted spending public money in private purses in perpetuity while millions of Indians starved to death. Patel eventually got his way.

The outline of India’s current map owes much to the success of Patel and Menon in forcing the states to accede and then to integrate them into viable units. But cries of treason would ring out in empty darbar halls for decades to come, particularly after Indira Gandhi derecognised the princes in 1971.

In order to obtain the adhesion of the princes, they were promised complete autonomy in addition to giving up their rights of defense, foreign relations and communications. This promise was broken in the months after Independence when control over their internal affairs was taken away and even the so-called viable states were amalgamated into new units or neighboring provinces. Those who resisted were sometimes threatened with armed intervention; the most extreme example was Hyderabad, where at least 25,000 lives were lost.

For decades, the last word on the princes was Menon’s. The history of integration of Indian states and his arguments, as summed up in Patel’s claim that he had engineered a bloodless revolution. The time for reassessment is long overdue.

Juggernaut publishes John Zubrzycki’s latest book Dethroned: Patel, Menon and the Integration of Princely India. The opinions expressed are personal.