The integration and merger of Indian states stands as a pivotal chapter in the nation.

 The integration and merger of Indian states stands as a pivotal chapter in the nation

The integration and merger of Indian states stands as a pivotal chapter in the nation’s post-independence history, reflecting a complex process of political, administrative, and socio-cultural amalgamation. Following India’s independence in 1947, the country embarked on a journey of consolidating hundreds of princely states and territories into a unified, federal republic. This monumental task involved negotiations, diplomacy, and at times, coercion, as the Indian leadership sought to forge a cohesive national identity and establish a robust administrative framework. The integration process, marked by the accession of princely states to the Indian Union, not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape but also laid the foundation for India’s diverse yet cohesive democracy. This amalgamation of territories, cultures, and aspirations underscores the ongoing quest for unity in diversity, a fundamental principle guiding the nation’s democratic ethos.

 

Integration of Princely States in Post-Independence India:

Significance of Princely States:

Before independence, almost 40% of the Indian territory was composed of princely states, ruled by monarchs with varying degrees of autonomy under the system of British Paramountcy.

Post-Independence Aspirations:

With the departure of the British, some princely states expressed aspirations for independence, challenging the transfer of paramountcy to the newly formed states of India and Pakistan.

British Stand and Alteration:

Initially, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s announcement in February 1947 indicated that Britain did not intend to transfer paramountcy to any government in British India. Jinnah also declared that states would be independent sovereign entities after paramountcy.

Altered British Position:

However, Attlee’s later statement during the Independence of India Bill suggested that it was hoped the states would find their place within the British Commonwealth.

Indian Nationalist Rejection:

Indian nationalists, both from British India and the princely states, could not accept the idea of numerous independent or semi-autonomous states within a free India, potentially threatening its unity.

Assertion of Nationalism:

People in the princely states had been involved in the nationalist movement since the late 19th century and had developed a strong sense of Indian nationalism.

Unity and Integration:

Indian nationalist leaders argued that political power belonged to the people, not just the rulers, and that the people of princely states were an integral part of the Indian nation.

Demand for Democratic Order:

Concurrently, movements like the States’ Peoples’ Conference emerged, advocating for the establishment of a democratic political system and integration with India.

The integration of princely states was a critical task for post-independence India. The leadership, both at the national level and within the states, worked towards ensuring that these territories became an integral part of the newly formed democratic republic. This process involved negotiations, diplomacy, and sometimes even military action. Ultimately, the successful integration of princely states played a pivotal role in shaping modern India.

 

The Accession of Princely States in India:

Appointment of Sardar Patel:

On June 27, 1947, Sardar Patel took charge of the newly established States Department, with V.P. Menon as its Secretary.

Awareness of Potential Threat:

Patel recognized the potential threat to Indian unity posed by obstinate princely rulers. He emphasized the need for prompt and effective handling of the situation to safeguard the hard-won freedom.

Government’s Guiding Principles:

The government based its approach on three key considerations: a. The majority of the princely states’ populace expressed a desire to join the Indian Union. b. Flexibility in granting autonomy to certain regions was considered. This approach aimed to accommodate diversity and respond flexibly to regional demands. c. Given the backdrop of Partition, the consolidation and integration of territorial boundaries were of paramount importance.

Sardar Patel’s leadership and the government’s strategic approach played a crucial role in persuading princely states to accede to the Indian Union, ultimately contributing significantly to the formation of modern India. This process involved diplomatic negotiations, political acumen, and a deep understanding of the diverse socio-political landscape of the princely states.

 

Integration of Princely States in India: Role of Sardar Patel

Engagement through Dialogue:

Sardar Patel initiated a series of luncheon meetings where he urged princely guests to collaborate with the Congress in framing India’s new constitution.

Three Critical Subjects:

Patel’s first step was to appeal to the princes, emphasizing the importance of acceding to the Indian Union in three crucial subjects: foreign relations, defense, and communications. These areas were deemed vital to the common interests of the country.

Implied Warning:

While making his appeal, Patel implicitly hinted at the potential challenges India might face post-August 15, 1947, should some states choose not to accede. There was an underlying suggestion of the risk of anarchy and chaos.

Diplomacy and Pressure:

Employing a combination of persuasion and pressure, Sardar Patel demonstrated masterful diplomacy. He skillfully navigated discussions with princely states, urging them to join the Indian Union.

Varied Responses:

While some princely states joined the Constituent Assembly with wisdom, realism, and patriotism, others initially refrained from participation.

Leveraging Mountbatten’s Influence:

Patel worked to gain the support of Lord Mountbatten, convincing him to advocate for India’s cause. Mountbatten’s pivotal speech to the Chamber of Princes on July 25 played a crucial role in persuading many of them.

Instrument of Accession:

Following Mountbatten’s speech, nearly all princely states, except for three, eventually signed the Instrument of Accession, formally integrating with the Indian Union.

Sardar Patel’s tireless efforts, strategic thinking, and adept negotiation skills were instrumental in bringing together the diverse princely states into a unified, independent India. His role in this process is widely acknowledged as a cornerstone of modern India’s formation.

 

Merger of Important States Before 1947:

Travancore:

Ruler: Maharaja Chithira Thirunal, with effective administration by Diwan C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyyer.

Circumstances: After an attack on C. P. Aiyyar, the Maharaja of Travancore conveyed readiness for accession.

Jodhpur:

Ruler: Young Hindu king Hanwant Singh.

Challenges: Proximity to the border made accession a sensitive issue. Jinnah also attempted to persuade him.

Resolution: After significant pressure from Sardar Patel, Hanwant Singh eventually signed the Instrument of Accession.

Bhopal:

Population: Predominantly Hindu.

Ruler: Habibullah Khan, with support from Jinnah.

Circumstances: Faced a revolt against the ruler. Habibullah Khan encountered pressure from Patel, the communist population, and eventually acceded by signing the Instrument of Accession.

These instances represent the complex negotiations and considerations involved in the process of princely states’ accession to the newly independent India. The interplay of political, regional, and communal factors played a crucial role in shaping these decisions.

 

Accession of Remaining Indian States after 1947:

Junagarh:

Junagarh was a small state located on the coast of Saurashtra, surrounded by Indian territory and lacking any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.

Despite the overwhelmingly Hindu population’s desire to join India, the Nawab announced the accession of Junagarh to Pakistan on August 15, 1947.

Pakistan accepted this accession, but the people of the state vehemently opposed the ruler’s decision.

A popular movement was organized, leading to the Nawab fleeing and the establishment of a provisional government. The Dewan of Junagarh, Shah Nawaz Bhutto (father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto), invited the Government of India to intervene.

Indian troops entered the state, and a plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, resulting in an overwhelming vote in favor of joining India.

This event underscores the importance of considering the will of the people in determining the political status of princely states during the process of accession.

 

Jammu & Kashmir:

Background:

The state of Kashmir shared its borders with both India and Pakistan. Its ruler, Hari Singh, was Hindu, whereas nearly 75% of the population was Muslim. Hari Singh initially refrained from acceding to either India or Pakistan, hoping to maintain his power as an independent ruler.

The National Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah, favored joining India.

Invasion by Pakistan:

On October 22, a group of Pathan tribesmen, unofficially led by Pakistani army officers, invaded Kashmir. They swiftly advanced towards Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, as the Maharaja’s ill-trained army proved ineffective.

In panic, on October 24, the Maharaja appealed to India for military assistance.

Indian Response:

Nehru was initially hesitant to accept accession without ascertaining the will of the people. However, Mountbatten, the Governor-General, pointed out that India could send troops to Kashmir only after the state formally acceded to India, according to international law.

Under pressure from Sheikh Abdullah and Sardar Patel, the Maharaja acceded to India on October 26 and agreed to appoint Abdullah as the head of the state’s administration.

India committed to holding a referendum on the accession once peace and order were restored in the Valley.

On October 27, approximately 100 planes airlifted troops and weapons to Srinagar to combat the raiders. Srinagar was reclaimed, but the raiders retained control over parts of the state, leading to continued armed conflict for months.

Referral to the UN:

To avert a large-scale conflict with Pakistan, on December 30, 1947, India agreed to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations Security Council, seeking Pakistan’s withdrawal of aggression.

The Security Council tended to lean towards Pakistan’s stance, replacing the ‘Kashmir question’ with the broader ‘India-Pakistan dispute’.

Despite numerous resolutions, a ceasefire was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan on December 3, 1948. The state was effectively divided along the ceasefire line.

In 1951, the UN passed a resolution calling for a referendum under UN supervision after Pakistan withdrew its troops from the part of Kashmir under its control.

However, Pakistan has not withdrawn its forces from the region known as Azad Kashmir, rendering the resolution ineffective. Kashmir continues to be a significant obstacle in fostering friendly relations between India and Pakistan.

Hyderabad:

Background:

Hyderabad was the largest princely state in India and was entirely surrounded by Indian territory. The Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, was one of the wealthiest rulers of his time.

His rule was known for being unjust and tyrannical. He was supported by Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (MIM), a Muslim political party, which advocated for a Muslim dominion rather than integration with India.

Nizam’s Stand:

The Nizam desired an independent status for Hyderabad, which was contrary to India’s vision of unity.

Sardar Patel firmly stated that India would not tolerate an isolated state that could undermine the union that had been established with great effort.

Negotiations and Razakars:

In November 1947, a stand-still agreement was signed between the Government of India and the Nizam. The hope was that the Nizam would introduce a representative government, making the process of merger smoother. However, the Nizam had other plans.

He engaged the services of Sir Walter Monckton, a prominent British lawyer, to negotiate with the Government of India on his behalf. The Nizam aimed to prolong negotiations while building up his military strength, with the hope of either forcing India to accept his sovereignty or potentially acceding to Pakistan.

Simultaneously, within the state, there was a surge in the militant Muslim communal organization, Ittihad ul Muslimin, and its paramilitary wing, the Razakars.

Satyagraha Movement and Communist-Led Peasant Struggle:

On August 7, 1947, the Hyderabad State Congress initiated a powerful satyagraha movement to push for democratization. This led to the imprisonment of around 20,000 satyagrahis. As a result of Razakar attacks and state repression, thousands sought refuge in temporary camps in Indian territory. The movement then escalated into armed resistance.

In the Telangana region, a strong communist-led peasant struggle had been underway since the latter half of 1946. It regained vigor when peasant squads organized defense against Razakar attacks.

Operation Polo and Integration:

By June 1948, Sardar Patel’s patience was wearing thin as negotiations with the Nizam dragged on. From his sick-bed in Dehra Dun, he advised Nehru on military action to integrate Hyderabad into India.

On September 13, 1948, the Indian army initiated Operation Polo, also known as Hyderabad Police Action. After three days, the Nizam surrendered and acceded to the Indian Union in November.

The Indian government chose to be magnanimous and refrained from punishing the Nizam. He retained the formal title of ruler or Rajpramukh, received a privy purse of five million rupees, and was allowed to keep most of his immense wealth.

With the accession of Hyderabad, the merger of princely states with the Indian Union was complete, establishing India’s authority across the land.

Triumph of Indian Secularism:

The Hyderabad episode showcased another victory for Indian secularism. Many Muslims in Hyderabad joined the anti-Nizam struggle, and Muslims across the country supported the government’s policy and actions, contrary to the expectations of Pakistani leaders and the Nizam.

Manipur:

Accession:

Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh of Manipur signed the instrument of Accession with the Indian government on the assurance that the internal autonomy of Manipur would be maintained.

In response to public pressure, the Maharaja held elections in Manipur in June 1948, leading to the state becoming a constitutional monarchy.

Manipur was the first part of India to conduct an election based on universal adult franchise. While the State Congress favored Manipur’s merger with India, other political parties held opposing views.

In September 1949, the government of India pressured the Maharaja into signing a Merger Agreement without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur. This caused significant anger and resentment in Manipur, with consequences still felt today.

Post-Integration:

The second and more challenging stage of the complete integration of princely states into the new Indian nation began in December 1947.

Sardar Patel acted swiftly, completing the process within a year. Smaller states were either merged with neighboring states or consolidated into centrally administered areas.

Many were combined into five new unions, forming Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin. Mysore, Hyderabad, and Jammu and Kashmir retained their original form as separate states of the Union.

In exchange for surrendering all power and authority, the rulers of major states were granted privy purses in perpetuity, free of all taxes. These purses amounted to Rs 4.66 crores in 1949 and were later constitutionally guaranteed.

The rulers retained certain privileges, including succession to the throne, titles, personal flags, and gun salutes on ceremonial occasions.

There was criticism of these concessions to the princes both at the time and later. However, given the challenging times post-independence and the Partition, they were considered a small price to pay for the abolition of princely power and the early and smooth territorial and political integration with the rest of the country.

Undoubtedly, the integration of the states compensated for the loss of territories that became part of Pakistan in terms of area as well. It played a part in partially healing the wounds of partition.

French Territories:

The French establishments included:

 

Pondichéry

Karikal

Yanaon (Andhra Pradesh) on the Coromandel Coast

Mahé on the Malabar Coast

Chandernagor in Bengal.

After prolonged negotiations, the French authorities handed over Pondicherry and other French possessions to India.

 

Portuguese Territories (1961):

The Portuguese establishments included:

 

Goa (Capital)

Daman & Diu

Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The Portuguese were determined to stay, supported by their NATO allies Britain and the USA. The Indian government, committed to peaceful dispute resolution, initially refrained from military action.

 

The people of Goa initiated a movement for freedom from Portuguese rule. However, both this movement and non-violent attempts by Indian satyagrahis to march into Goa were met with brutal suppression.

 

After patiently waiting for international pressure on Portugal, Prime Minister Nehru ordered Indian troops to march into Goa under Operation Vijay on the night of 17 December 1961. The Governor-General of Goa surrendered without resistance.

 

This marked the completion of the territorial and political integration of India, though the process had taken over fourteen years.

-Himanshu Patil

Joint Event Director