The Unification of India, 1947-1951

Holden Furber

Pacific Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Dec., 1951), pp. 352-371.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-851X%28195112%2924%3A4%3C352%3ATUOI1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Pacific Affairs is currently published by Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ubc.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Wed May 16 02:42:46 2007
 The Unification of India,

Holden Furber

w HEN the plan for the partition of British India into two new
independent Dominions-India and Pakistan-was announced
early in June 1947, there were widespread fears both in India and
abroad that the existence of more than five hundred Indian princely
states-a few of them larger than certain European nations in area and
population, and all enjoying varying degrees of local autonomy-would
prove a serious obstacle to the unity, cohesion and stability of the new
India. The welding of the former British provinces and Indian princely
states within the geographic orbit of the new Dominion of India into
one polity under a republican constitution in less than four years has
been a remarkable achievement. Throughout India it is regarded as the
outstanding accomplishment of Prime Minister Nehru's second-in-
command, the late Vallabhbhai Patel. It is the purpose of this article
to explain how those of the former Indian princely states (except
Kashmir) which have acceded to India have been integrated into the
political framework of the new Republic of India. Kashmir is not
treated in detail here.
The accompanying map, when set beside one of the former British
"Indian Empire" on which "Indian States" are colored yellow and
"British India" red, will indicate the extent of the changes which have
taken place. The yellow may, be thought of as transmuted into three
new colors: one showing states which have been merged in the adjacent
former "British" provinces; another showing states which, having either
kept their own boundaries or been grouped in new "princely unions",
are accorded the same constitutional position as the former "British"
provinces; and a third showing states or groupings of states admin-
istered directly by the central government and not accorded the same
constitutional position as the former "British" provinces. In present
Indian political parlance, the former "British" provinces are known as
Part A states in the new Republic; the former princely states or group-
ings of states accorded the same status are called Part B states; and all
The Unification of India

' T I B E T

PART A STATES

PRINCELY STATES
MERGED IN PROVS,

PART 8 STATES

PART C STATES
 Pacific Aflairs
centrally-administered areas (except the Andaman and Nicobar Is-
lands) are called Part C states. Each of these categories will be dis-
cussed here in turn.

Compared to the formation of new princely unions, the merger

of small or geographically disparate states into adjacent provinces was
a simple process. The explanation of the ease with which it was ac-
complished lies in the fact that after July 1947 there never was any
prospect that small or medium-sized princely states could resist pressure
to join the new Indian Union. The only question was whether one or
two of the larger states could succeed in holding aloof. With accession
of nearly all of the important states assured in the summer of 1947,
Vallabhbhai Patel, as head of the new States Ministry in the central
government, could negotiate with rajas of non-viable states, well know-
ing that reasonable guarantees of adequate pensions would reconcile
them to the loss of all of their governing powers.
The process began in Orissa in the autumn of 1947. A simple form
of "merger agreement" was prepared whereby the ruler in question
ceded to the Government of the Dominion of India "full and exclusive
authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance"
of his state. In return, the Government of India guaranteed him a
stipulated sum annually for his "privy purse" and the "enjoyment of
all private properties", and of all personal privileges, dignities and titles
enjoyed by him, whether within or outside his state, on August 14,
1947. It further guaranteed the succession according to law and custom.
Though brief, the clauses of this agreement were framed to obviate any
possibility of future dispute. The ruler gave up his authority on behalf
not only of himself but of his heirs and agreed that any controversy
over what constituted private as distinct from state property should be
settled by a judicial officer of the Government of India.
Such agreements were first applied as of January I, 1948, to thirty-
nine Orissa and Chhattisgarh states covering an area of 56,000 square
miles, with a revenue of twenty million rupees and a population of
seven million. T o these were added the small state of Makrai as of
February I, 1948, and the large state of Mayurbhanj (area, 4,034 square
miles; population, one million) as of November g, 1948. When these
states were merged with the geographically contiguous provinces, the
result was: for Orissa, the addition of twenty-four states whose rulers
 The Unification of India
were guaranteed privy purses totaling 1,812,000 Rs.; for the Central
Provinces (now renamed Madhya Pradesh), fifteen states (total privy
purses guaranteed, 1,666,650 Rs.); and for Bihar, two states (total
privy purses, 121,900 Rs.).
This process was continued in the Deccan and in Gujarat during
1948, resulting in a large expansion of the province of Bombay. In all,
sixty-six states were merged in Bombay (total privy purses guaranteed,
8,283,121 Rs.). Of these, three-Kolhapur, Baroda, and Sirohi-deserve
special mention. Kolhapur, a large Deccan state with a population of
one million, objected to the merger plan. When serious disturbances
occurred there after Gandhi's assassination in late January 1948, the
States Ministry persuaded the maharaja to accept an administrator ap-
pointed by the central government. After a year of strict supervision,
Kolhapur was integrated with Bombay on March I, 1949.
Baroda (area, 8,236 sq. miles; population, 3,ooo,ooo), the premier
state in Gujarat, was unique in being the most geographically disparate
of all of the important Indian states. Its territories were interlaced not
only with Bombay but with other Gujarat states. There were also
pieces of Baroda territory in the Kathiawar peninsula. The state had
a long tradition of efficient administration, but the extravagances of
its new maharaja in recent years were the subject of unfavorable pub-
licity. After somewhat stormy negotiations, the States Ministry secured
the maharaja's agreement to the merger of Baroda with Bombay on
March 21, 1949. No commitment was made as to privy purse for the
maharaja's heirs. The maharaja himself remained a center of contro-
versy. In 1950 he became a leading spirit among those rulers who formed
an "association of rulers" to present rulers' grievances to the States
Ministry. In April 1951 he was deprived of his titles, privileges and
dignities by the Government of India, in favor of his eldest son.
Sirohi, a small state on the border of Rajputana, is the only princely
state which, under the new arrangements, has been divided. Part of it
has been merged in Bombay and the remainder assigned to the princely
union of Rajasthan.
The other states which have been merged with adjacent provinces
are: in Madras-Baganapalle, Pudukkottai, and Sandur (area, 1,602 sq.
miles; population, 485,000), all enclaves in that province; in the United
Provinces (renamed Uttar Pradesh)-Tehri Garwhal on the Hima-
layan frontier, Benares, an enclave near the city of the same name, and
 Pacific Aflairs
Rampur, a state with a Muslim ruler forming an enclave near Morada-
bad;' in East Punjab-the tiny states of Loharu, Dujana, and Pataudi;
in West Bengal-Cooch Behar; and in Assam-the Khasi Hill States.
Administratively and legally, all of these "merged" states (except
the Khasi Hill States) were absorbed in the respective provinces which
in their turn became Part A states in the new Indian Union. The rulers
were shorn of all power, though still enjoying their titles and dignities,
their private property and the stipulated privy-purse allotments. These
privy-purse allotments were, in the first instance, made a charge on the
revenues of the "merged" areas, but under subsequent arrangements
they became a charge on the central budget. The integration of the
merged areas is proceeding under the officials of the particular pro-
vinces concerned; in most of the merger agreements the provincial
government is obligated to take over the existing official staff with
guarantees of uniform pay and pension scales.
Seats in the provincial legislatures for the merged areas have been
allotted on the same basis as for the rest of the provinces. It has not,
however, been possible to fill them by a process of election. The appli-
cation of the provincial franchise provisions of the India Act of 1935
to all of these areas is a complicated process. Consequently these seats
have been filled by appointment. Such appointments have been made
by the central government, not by the provincial governments. This
problem will naturally be resolved when elections are held under the
new Indian Constitution in the winter of 1951-52.
Because of their tribal populations, the Khasi Hill States and other
tribal areas on the northeast frontier of India have had a special regime
set up for them. Under the new Constitution, they become an "autono-
mous district" of Assam, the United Khasi-Jaintia Hill District, in
which tribal councils have a large measure of local autonomy.

THEprocess of forming the five "unions" of princely states-named

Saurashtra, Madhya Bharat, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, the
United state of ~Hjasthan,and the United State df ~ravancore-~ochin
-has been a very complicated one. These princely unions, together
with Mysore, Hyderabad and Kashmir (all of which is regarded by
the Government of India as de jure Indian territory), form the eight
1 Rampur was administered by the central government during a transitional period of six
months before being merged in Uttar Pradesh on December I , 1949.
 The Unification of India
Part B states under the new Constitution. If we leave out of considera-
tion for the moment Hyderabad and Kashmir as special cases, the
integration of these areas with the new Republic took place in three
stages. In July and August 1947, the States Ministry persuaded the lead-
ing princes to "accede" to the Union with respect first of all to the three
essentials--defence, foreign affairs and communications. In 1948-49,
the object was to show the wisdom of the plans for the "unions", to
prove that, in order to make them work, a far larger delegation of
power was necessary. In 194g-50, the object was to accomplish full
integration by having the rulers agree to accept the new Constitution of
India as the constitution of their states; such acceptance meant recog-
nition by the accepting state or newly-formed "union of states" that
its constitutional position in the Republic was the same as that of the
Part A states, the former provinces of "British India".
For an understanding of what took place, it is necessary to bear
in mind that in July and August 1947 all of the princely states within
the geographical orbit of India as distinct from that of Pakistan (except
Hyderabad, Kashmir and Junagadh) "acceded" to India in accordance
with the procedure laid down in the India Act of 1935 as adapted and
amended by the Government of the new Dominion of India. The im-
portant states "acceded" only with respect to defence, external affairs
and communications as defined in List I of Schedule VII of the India
Act of 1935.' Lesser states over which the British Viceroy, as Crown
Representative, had formerly exercised wide jurisdictional powers "ac-
ceded" under instruments transferring those powers to the new Do-
minion. These instruments of accession were the foundation upon
which the states' Ministry worked. In the case of the states merged in
provinces, the instruments were superseded by the merger agreements
described above. In the case of the states out of which the new princely
"unions" were to be formed, the next step was to persuade the rulers to
sign "covenants" surrendering their authority to these new adminis-
trative entities.
List I is the "federal" legislative list of 59 items, of which only a few relate to defence,
external affairs and communications. Instruments of "accession" with respect to these three
subjects normally covered: armed forces and establishments, ammunition and fire-arms, explo-
sives, external affairs (including extradition, immigration and emigration, aliens, naturalization),
posts, telegraphs, telephones, wireless, federal railways, shipping, navigation, admiralty jurisdic-
tion, aircraft, air navigation, port controls (e.g., quarantine), lighthouses, transit of passengers
and goods by sea and air. They did not, however, necessarily cover military forces raised by the
prince concerned, if not integrated with the Indian Army.
 Pacific Aflairs
The making of a princely union was accomplished first in Kathia-
war, where it was most needed. It had long been recognized that the
hundreds of small states in this region were an anachronism. Even be-
fore independence, the Viceroy had carried out two schemes "attach-
ing" numerous small states to larger ones. The princely union now
known as Saurashtra covers in all 222 former princely states and
&<
estates" with an area of 21,062 square miles and a population of
3,556,000. It was brought into being in two stages. First, in January 1948
the rulers of Nawanagar, Bhavnagar, eleven other "salute" state^,^
seventeen "non-salute" states and numerous "estates" covenanted with
one another to set up a United State of Kathiawar. During the follow-
ing year, six more medium-sized states joined the scheme, a new cove-
nant was negotiated and the resulting union was renamed Saurashtra.
Because of the numerous small states of which this union was com-
posed, a program of complete administrative integration was decided
on, to be carried out under the supervision of the States Ministry.
Under this scheme, all of the rulers except the maharaja of Na-
wanagar, who became rajpramukh of the new union, lost all of their
ruling powers. Their position does not differ from that of the rulers of
states merged in provinces except that the rulers of the "salute" states
form a council of rulers, and the rulers of the "non-salute" states elect
one of their number to a "presidium" of five rulers. The other four
rulers in this "presidium" are chosen by the council of rulers. The
council of rulers and the presidium are mere bodies of dignity, how-
ever; they have no power. The sole function of the council of rulers is
to choose two of the presidium as rajpramukh and up-rajpramukh4 of
the new union. As a new covenant has provided that the ruler of
Nawanagar shall be rajpramukh of Saurashtra for life, even this func-
tion is of little moment. The up-rajpramukh, at present the ruler of
Bhavnagar, is elected for a five-year term but exercises no power ex-
cept in case of the death or disability of the rajpramukh. The intent is
that Saurashtra shall function as one administrative unit, the rajpra-

3 Under the British regime, a "salute" state was one whose ruler was, on official occasions,
entitled to a salute of guns, the number of guns being determined by the size and importance
of the state.
4 The term rajpramukh (literally "chief ruler") is used instead of "governor" to distinguish

~.
a ~ r i n c eas head of a princely state or union from the "governor" as head of a former British
province. The term uprajprczmukfi is used of the prince designated to succeed in the event of
the death or disability of the rajpramukh of a princely "union".
 The Unification of India
mukh being the equivalent of the governor in a Part A state. Hence,
all of the other rulers merely enjoy their titles, dignities and privy-purse
allotments without power.
Provision was made in the covenants for the setting up of a con-
stituent assembly of fifty-five members for Saurashtra, to be elected
under the same rules as those for the Bombay legislative assembly (i.e.,
in accordance with the provincial franchise clauses of the India Act
of 1935). Former rulers of states or talukdars of "estates" were not
barred from standing for election. When it became apparent that this
assembly's adoption of the new Indian Constitution would obviate the
necessity for making a new constitution for Saurashtra, this constituent
assembly was declared to be an interim legislative assembly for the
princely union. Government thus functioned under a Congress Party
ministry responsible to this legislative assembly.
The inclusion of Junagadh among the second group of states which
were integrated with Saurashtra in 1949 deserves mention. Junagadh
(area, 3,337 sq. miles; population, 670,000) became the scene of dis-
turbances in the summer of 1947 when its Muslim ruler refused to
accede to India. The legality of this ruler's accession to Pakistan re-
mains a subject of controversy between the Indian and Pakistan gov-
ernments. The facts were that his subjects rose in revolt against him
and he was forced to flee to Pakistan, whereupon Indian armed forces
restored order in his state. The Government of India held a referendum
in February 1948 which went almost unanimously in favor of union
with India. After a year of administration by the central government,
"representatives of the people" agreed to the inclusion of Junagadh in
Saurashtra, and it was given seven members in the Saurashtra legislative
assembly. The Pakistan government still regards the status of Junagadh
as not properly settled, claims that it is de jzrre Pakistan territory, and
never ceases to charge India with inconsistency on the ground that, as
far as legal and constitutional forms are concerned, the ruler of Juna-
gadh's accession to Pakistan differs not a whit from the ruler of
Kashmir's accession to India.
The scheme for the princely union of Madhya Bharat did not differ
essentially from that evolved for Saurashtra. The intent was to form
a union of Gwalior and Indore with eighteen neighboring states of
lesser importance. The resulting union covered an area of 46,710 square
miles and a population of seven millions, The rulers of Gwalior and
 Pacific Affairs
Indore became rajpramukh and up-rajpramukh for life, with large
privy-purse allotments of 2,500,ooo Rs. and 1,~0o,oooRs. respectively.
The up-rajpramukh has a position of greater dignity than in Saurashtra,
and an extra allowance of 250,000 Rs. There is a council of rulers con-
sisting of the rulers of the salute states and Kurwai, plus one ruler elected
by the rulers of the non-salute states. The rulers of the non-salute
states also elect two "junior vice-presidents" for five-year terms.
As in Saurashtra, this apparatus means very little. From a de fact0
point of view, the rajpramukh is the equivalent of a governor. He is
advised by a ministry responsible to an interim legislative assembly
consisting of forty members elected by members of the former Gwalior
legislative assembly, fifteen members elected by members of the Indore
legislative assembly, and twenty members "elected by an electoral col-
lege to be constituted by the Rajpramukh in consultation with the
Government of India to represent states other than Gwalior and In-
dore". The union is to be one administrative unit, but integration is
proceeding much more slowly than in Saurashtra. The plan to have a
separate constituent assembly was given up when the States Ministry
decided that the appropriate procedure was to have the princely unions
adopt the new Constitution of India.
Madhya Bharat is unique in having a very large group of Bhils (an
extremely backward tribe) within its borders. It is noteworthy that the
union covenant provides that all areas with more than fifty per cent
Bhil population become Scheduled Areas governed in the name of the
rajpramukh alone "subject to any directions or instructions" given by
the Government of India. The princely union of Madhya Bharat began
functioning as of May 28, 1948.
The princely union of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, known
colloquially as PEPSU, was inaugurated on July 15, 1948. It consists of
Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalargarh, -
and Kalsia (area, 10,ogg sq. miles; population, 3,424,000, predominantly
Sikh). The rulers of Patiala and Kapurthala are respectively rajpra-
mukh and up-rajpramukh for life. The council of rulers consists of the
rulers of the salute states, plus one of the rulers of the two non-salute
states (i.e., the rajas of Nalargarh and Kalsia, who serve alternately for
five-year terms). The council has no function except to elect the raj-
pramukh and up-rajpramukh after the deaths of the present maha-
rajas of Patiala and Kapurthala. The covenant provides for a constituent
 The Unification of India

assembly, but it has never been convened. The union has been func-
tioning under a small council of ministers who are in effect the nomi-
nees of the Government of India.

THEprincely union now known as The United State of Rajasthan

(area, 128,424 sq. miles; population, 13,100,000) was not completel~
formed until May 15, 1949. Comprising several great states, all with
centuries of history behind them, it was the fruit of long and involved
negotiations. The first step was a covenant in March 1948 among nine
lesser states in the southeast of Rajputana: Banswara, Bundi, Dungar-
pur, Jhalawar, Kishingarh, Kotah, Partabgarh, Shahpura, and Tonk.
Within a month, this brought in the major state of Udaipur (Mewar).
It required, however, a year of negotiation to persuade the rulers of the
other three great Rajputana states-Jaipur, Jodhpur and Bikaner-to
join. These, together with the smaller state of Jaisalmer, came in on
March 30, 1949.
Discussions then ensued about adding the four states of Alwar,
Bharatpur, Dholpur, and Karauli, which had been functioning since
March 1948 as a union named Matsya. The States Ministry took steps
to sound out local opinion on the subject. The officials sent from New
Delhi came to the conclusion that the people of Alwar and Karauli
overwhelmingly favored union with Rajasthan, but that those of
Bharatpur and Dholpur were doubtful. Hence, the States Ministry ap-
pointed a special committee of three to send questionnaires and hold
public meetings in these two states. This committee reported a majority
opinion in favor of union with Rajasthan. The Government of India
accepted this view, and Bharatpur and Dholpur joined Rajasthan. The
Government, however, promised that at an early date suitable steps
would be taken to ascertain whether public opinion in these two states
remains in favor of Rajasthan. The only alternative for them would be
merger with Uttar Pradesh (the former United Provinces).
In this process of integration, covenant has succeeded covenant.
There have been no less than three covenants among Rajput rulers and
a final one whereby the Matsya Union disappeared and was absorbed
by Rajasthan. The resulting structure has some peculiar features. By
long historic tradition, the maharanas of Udaipur were acknowledged
the premier Rajput dynasty. They alone bore the title of maharana. It
was therefore unthinkable that the present maharana should have a
 position of less dignity than his fellow rulers, but it was likewise im-
possible for him, as an invalid, to function as rajpramukh of the new
union. This difficulty was obviated by inventing for him the title of
maharajpramukh. H e presides, therefore, over the council of rulers, but
all political power rests in the maharaja of Jaipur, as rajpramukh.
The arrangement of the council of rulers is somewhat more elab-
orate than in the other princely unions, but it is an equally powerless
body with no functions other than those of electing for five-year terms
a president (the rajpramukh), two senior vice-presidents and three
junior vice-presidents. These functions mean little since the covenant
provides that the maharaja of Jaipur shall be rajpramukh for life, and
the Government of India designates which of the senior vice-presidents
shall act in case of the rajpramukh's incapacity or absence. Likewise
under the covenant, for a term of five years, the rulers of Jodhpur
and Kotah are appointed senior vice-presidents, the rulers of Bundi
and Dungarpur, junior vice-presidents, and the third junior vice-
president is appointed by the rajpramukh in consultation with the
States Ministry from the rulers of the states in the former Matsya
union. There is thus nothing for the council of rulers to do until five
years have elapsed.
The integration of administration for the whole of Rajputana is a
formidable task which is still far from completion. Though the cove-
nant provides for the setting up of a constituent assembly, none has yet
been convened. Assemblies, elected on a very limited franchise and
including many appointed members, formerly existed in a few of these
states (e.g., Jaipur, and Bikaner). These have now disappeared, and no
new representative bodies have replaced them. Rajasthan is governed
by a council of ministers appointed by the rajpramukh in consultation
with the States Ministry in New Delhi.
The fifth princely union, that of Travancore and Cochin, differs
from the others in that it is a merger of one large state and one small
state whose territories are interlaced. The merger did not take place
until mid-1949. It was the fruit of discussions between the States Min-
istry and Congress Party leaders in both states. Both states had had
legislative assemblies for some years. After the war, adult franchise was
introduced, new elections were held, and responsible party government
was set up. The framing of a covenant was therefore a relatively simple
matter. Under it, the maharaja of Travancore became rajpramukh for
 The Unification of India
life; the Government of India was to determine his successor in the
event of death or incapacity. There is thus no guarantee that the maha-
rajas of Travancore and of Cochin will exercise the office of rajpra-
mukh alternately. The legislatures of the two states were merged to
form the legislature of the new joint state. Clauses were included to
provide for close supervision of the new government by the States
Ministry pending the framing of a new constitution.
For all of these five princely unions, the next step toward their full
integration with India was the execution of new "instruments of acces-
sion" whereby the delegation to the Government of India of power
with respect to defence, foreign affairs and communications was broad-
ened to include all matters mentioned in the federal and concurrent
lists in Schedule VII of the India Act of 1935 except matters relating to
t a ~ a t i o n It
. ~will be recalled that each individual ruler had delegated all
of his authority to the union of which his state became a part. Hence it
was held that the rajpramukhs of the new unions had full authority to
make this far more ample delegation of power and to cancel instru-
ments of accession signed by the individual rulers. Accordingly, new
instruments of accession, conferring the additional powers, were pre-
pared, all similar in form. They were signed by the rajpramukhs of
Saurashtra, Madhya Bharat, and PEPSU in September 1948, by
Rajasthan in April 1949,~and by Travancore-Cochin in August 1949.
A similar new instrument of accession was signed by the maharaja
of Mysore on June I, 1949. This state had for many years had a legis-
lature elected on a fairly wide franchise. Its political life went on rela-
tively undisturbed, and there was no occasion for merging it with any
other state.
The case of Hyderabad was markedly different, though it likewise
was a very large and populous state which should obviously stand by
itself. Conflicting views of the legality of the "police action" whereby
the Government of India took over Hyderabad in September 1948 will
not be discussed here. When military rule was succeeded by civil gov-
6 In the federal list, besides matters concerning defence, external affairs and communications,
are such subjects as currency, public debt, census, archaeological sites, fishing, opium, petroleum,
insurance, banking, copyright, labor in mines. In the concurrent list (i.e., matters with respect to
which bath the central legislature and the provincial legislatures may legislate) are such subjects
as criminal and civil procedure, marriage and divorce, wills and intestacy, trusts, contracts,
bankruptcy, lunacy, drugs, professions, newspapers and publishing.
6 For Rajasthan, there were really three instruments superseding one another, as the union
expanded.
 Pacific Agairs
ernment, no legislature was constituted. The state is governed, in the
nizam's name, by a council of ministers acting under the close super-
vision of the Government of India. Since, from the beginning of the
disturbances, the Government of India has declared that the people of
the state should determine its political future, the plan still is to have
the acceptance of the Indian Constitution subjected to ratification by
an assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise. Meanwhile a farman
has been issued (November 23, 1g49), signed by the nizam, accepting
the new Constitution of India as the constitution of Hyderabad, sub-
ject to such ratification. The position of the nizam has been respected
throughout and the Government of India has entered into a privy-
purse agreement with him guaranteeing him 5,000,000 Rs. annually,
but reserving to "such independent" person as it may nominate the
determination of any dispute over what constitutes his private property.
By simple executive action, Hyderabad was thus integrated with the
Union of India. The process whereby the five new princely unions and
Mysore adopted the new Constitution of India was more complicated.
It will have been noted that the new "instruments of accession" re-
ferred to in the preceding paragraphs gave their broad delegation of
powers to the Government of India "except in matters of taxation".
They all also contained the clause: "nothing in this instrument shall
be deemed to commit the state in any way to acceptance of any future
constitution of India". Well aware that the separate financial system
in the former princely states was the greatest obstacle to a true unifica-
tion of India, the States Ministry bent all its energies in 1949 to solving
this problem before January 26, 1950, the date on which the new re-
public of India was to come into being. This was the more necessary,
as it was understood by all lawyers that, with the coming into force
of the new Constitution, all of the arrangements made under the India
Act of 1935 would cease to have legal validity.
A distinguished group under the chairmanship of V. T. Krishnama-
chari, a former prime minister of Jaipur, was appointed as an Indian
States Finances Enquiry Committee. After a year's work, it was able
to present a scheme providing for financial integration over a transi-
tional period of ten years. The subject is so vast as to preclude detailed
discussion of it here. In brief, the problem was to set off against each
other the respective gains and losses which the states concerned would
incur if: ( I ) the central government should perform the same func-
 The Unification of India
tions in the states as in the former "British" provinces; ( 2 ) it should
function with its own personnel in states as in provinces; (3) there
should be contributions to central resources from states on the same
basis as from provinces; and (4) there should be equality of treatment
as between provinces and states for all central services rendered and
central grants shared. When these gains and losses had been calcu-
lated, the Committee concluded that PEPSU, Madhya Bharat, and Ra-
jasthan would gain while Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, Saurashtra, and
Hyderabad would lose. Consequently a plan had to be evolved whereby
losses would be offset by subsidies from the central government which
would taper off during the transitional period.
This very elaborate scheme went into effect in April 1950. Under
it, nearly all of the visible relics of former princely autonomy (e.g.,
state postal systems, currency and railways) will quickly be taken over
by the national government, but internal customs duties will probably
continue for several years in Madhya Bharat, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, and
Hyderabad. Also, under the scheme, the amounts for the princes' privy
purses really become a charge on the central budget, though there may
be some reimbursement of the central treasury under this head from
certain states.
As this scheme evolved during 1949, the committees at work on the
final draft of the new Constitution were adding articles to effect this
financial integration and redrafting other articles to facilitate the States
Ministry's plan to have the rajpramukhs sign proclamations whereby
the Constitution of India should become the constitution of their states.
These proclamations, including the Hyderabad farman mentioned
above, were issued in November 1949. All are similar in form. They
state that the Government of India Act of 1935,"which now governs
the constitutional relationship between this state and the Dominion of
India", will stand repealed on the inauguration of the new Republic,
.
and that "the Constitution of India shortly to be adopted . . shall be
the Constitution for this state as for the other parts of India and shall
be enforced as such in accordance with the tenor of its provisions".
Thus, the process of the constitutional integration of Saurashtra,
Madhya Bharat, PEPSU, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin, Mysore, and
Hyderabad with the Union of India was completed, and their constitu-
tional status became the same as that of the former provinces.
 PacifiC Agai~s
FINALLY we must note the process whereby certain other princely
states have become "centrally administered areas" with a constitutional
status analogous to that of the former "Chief Commissioners' Pro-
vinces". This was done by having the rulers execute merger agree-
ments in almost precisely the same terms as those executed by rulers
whose states were merged in provinces. The difference is that the Gov-
ernment of India, having thus received a full delegation of power, did
not hand these states over to the provinces, but kept their administra-
tion directly in its own hands, grouping some states and leaving others
separate entities.
In all cases, the rulers lost their ruling powers, and their position
became similar to that of rulers whose states had been merged in pro-
vinces. These areas were henceforth administered by lieutenant-govern-
ors or chief commissioners, advised by "councils of advisers" appointed
from New Delhi. Their constitutional position was thus the equivalent
of other "centrally administered areas" (e.g., Delhi, Coorg, Ajmer-
Merwara), known as "Chief Commissioners' Provinces" under the old
regime. Under the new Constitution, they become Part C states. Legis-
latures and councils of ministers are to be set up in most of them in
1952 under the terms of a bill passed by the Constituent Assembly in
September 1951.~When this has been done, their constitutional posi-
tion will differ essentially from that of Part A and Part B states only in
that the national parliament will exercise full "concurrent" legislative
jurisdiction with respect to them. Any degree of states' rights (in the
American sense of that term) that they exercise will be constantly sub-
ject to the overriding authority of the Union parliament.
The princely states which have thus become "centrally administered
areas" at the dates below specified are: ( I ) thirty small Simla and
Punjab hill states grouped under the name Himachal Pradesh, March
1949; ( 2 ) Bilaspur, August 1948; (3) Kutch, May 1948; (4) Bhopal,
April 1949; (5) Tripura, September 1949; (6) Manipur, September
1949; (7) thirty-five Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand states in central
India, grouped under the name Vindhya Pradesh, December 1949. Of
these, only Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh call for extended comment.
Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Tripura, and Manipur are all on the inter-

Legislatures will not be established in Bilaspur, Kutch, Manipur, and Tripura. Delhi will
have a legislative assembly, but its powers will be specifically defined because of Delhi's special
position as the seat of the national capital.

366
 The Unification of India
national borders of India. For Tripura and Manipur, direct administra-
tion from New Delhi was desirable for strategic reasons; in Kutch,
there was the additional factor of great need for a subsidy from the
national treasury; in Himachal Pradesh, a large population of hill
tribes made supervision by central officials necessary. Bilaspur was a
special case; it is a tiny Punjab hill state which will be nearly wholly
flooded when the Bhakra Dam project is completed.
Under the old regime, Bhopal (area, 6,921 square miles; population,
785,000) was one of the most important princely states under a Muslim
dynasty in the whole of India. It held a key position in the road and
rail communications of west-central India. Its nawab had been a promi-
nent figure in princely India for many years and had become perhaps
the most influential member of the Chamber of Princes. Surrounded
by states of Maratha origin, he was in no position to hold out against
accession even had he so desired. When the princely unions described
above began to be adumbrated, his chief fear was that the administra-
tion of which he was so proud would lose its identity in some larger
unit. He therefore held out for months against giving a broader dele-
gation of authority than that in his original "instrument of accession".
He was finally persuaded to do so only by a promise that his state
would not be grouped in any union and would be administerkd by the
central government for at least five years, after which its whole posi-
tion would be reviewed. The phraseology of the merger agreement
which he signed hence differs somewhat from the others. He secured
a privy purse for himself of I,IOO,OOO Rs., and an absolute guarantee of
goo,ooo Rs. annually for his successors, with no time limit. In addition,
he was promised 555,000 Rs. annually from his investment in the Bhopal
state railway. Moreover, he negotiated the final division of his private
from his public assets and did not leave the last word on that subject
to a judicial officer appointed by the Government of India.
In the group of states known as Vindhya Pradesh, which lie between
Uttar Pradesh (formerly United Provinces) and Madhya Pradesh
(formerly Central Provinces), a union of a type analogous to that in
Madhya Bharat was tried first. These states (area, 24,600 square miles;
population, 3,569,000) were among the most backward in India. The
most important of them was Rewa; and there had been a long history
of friction between Rewa with its neighboring Baghelkhand states and
those in Bundelkhand.
 Pacific Aflairs
Although the States Ministry succeeded in getting the signatures of
all thirty-five rajas to a union covenant in April 1948, no composite
cabinet could be set up until the summer. For the next ten months
these states were the scene of continual dissension among the Congress
Party leaders in the region. After the ministry resigned on April 14,
1949, the States Ministry insisted that the maharaja of Rewa, as rajpra-
mukh, should appoint as ministers central-government officials sent
from New Delhi. A new conference was held among the thirty-five
rajas, the Congress politicians, and the officials from the States Min-
istry. The upshot was the signing by the rulers of a "merger agree-
ment". This abrogated the former "covenant" and ceded full powers
to the Government of India. In order to make everything watertight
from the legal standpoint, the maharaja of Rewa was obliged to sign
both as rajpramukh of the union thereby dissolved and as ruler of
Rewa. The Government of India thereupon announced that these
thirty-five states would become a "centrally administered unit" under
a lieutenant-governor as from January I, 1950.
This completes a brief description of the new political map of India.'
No detailed treatment is possible here of the questions involving Kash-
mir, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and possessions in India still ruled by
France and Portugal.
At the end of Yg51, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir still
remained, from a de facto standpoint, partitioned between India and
Pakistan. The Indian view of its legal and constitutional position may
be summarized as follows: the whole state is de jure Indian terri-
tory; its maharaja acceded to India on October 27, 1947, with respect
to foreign affairs, defence and communications. Although this dele-
gation of authority to the Government of India has been greatly broad-
ened, it has not been broadened to an extent which places Kashmir in
the same constitutional position (vis-a-vis the central government) as
other Part B states. Kashmir receives grants from the Government of
India (including 600,ooo Rs. of the maharaja's privy purse of 1,500,000
Rs.), but the financial integration scheme described above does not
apply to it, and internal customs duties are still levied. A Kashmir
It should also be noted that nearly all of the numerous enclaves of one former princely
state within another or within a former "British" province have disappeared. Executive orders
in 1949 and 1950 placed such areas administratively where they belonged geographically.
Thus, with one or two exceptions (e.g., in Bombay and Saurashtra), there are no longer enclaves
of one new state in the Republic within another.
 The Unification of India
LC
constituent assembly", chosen in September 1951, is to redefine Kash-
mir's constitutional position.
Nepal is de jure an independent state and not part of the Republic
of India. Nevertheless, changes in its form of government took place
in the early months of 1951 under the close supervision of the Govern-
ment of India. There was a constant interchange of views and visits
between Katmandhu and New Delhi both by Nepal Congress Party
politicians and by the King of Nepal and members of his entourage.
The result was the establishment of a form of government in Nepal
somewhat analogous to that set up in India in 1919 under which part
of the cabinet was responsible to a legislative assembly and part was not.'
Sikkim and Bhutan may be described as states "protected" by the
Republic of India, which controls their foreign affairs. New agreements
have been negotiated with each of them. The difference from the pre-
1947 position is that, whereas under the British regime only Bhutan
was considered as outside the international frontier of India, they are
now both outside that frontier.
The Portuguese possessions in India remain unchanged. Of the
French possessions, Chandernagore has been transferred de facto to
Indian administration, and the treaty for its de jure cession awaits rati-
fication by the French National Assembly.

IT now remains to compare briefly the new regime with the old and
to make some observations on the working of the new. In a sense,
there is no comparison. The whole apparatus of treaties, paramountcy,
princely autonomy and autocracy, and the princes' special status in in-
ternational law and British constitutional law has been swept away.''
The former Indian India and the former British India are one, operat-
ing under the new republican constitution. This is of course an over-
simplification. The one cannot be transmuted into the other overnight.
What is really happening everywhere, except in Mysore during a
necessary transitional period, is the exercise through the States Ministry
at New Delhi of paramountcy in a new and more pervasive form. This

9 A recent political upheaval in Nepal will apparently result in government by a cabinet fully
responsible to an interim legislative assembly.
10 This view is contested by an ex-political secretary of the maharaja of Baroda's government
who claims that nearly all of the measures described in this article are illegal and ultra uires
under international law. See R. K. Ranadive, The Legal Rights of the Indian States and of Their
Subjects, Baroda, 1950.
 Pacific A g a i n
finds its basis in Article 371 of the Constitution, which reads: "Not-
withstanding anything in this Constitution, during a period of ten
years, or during such longer or shorter period as Parliament may by
law provide in respect of any State, the Government of every State speci-
fied in Part B of the First Schedule shall be under the general control
of, and comply with such particular directions, if any, as may from
time to time be given by, the President." This puts the former princely
states completely at the mercy of the States Ministry, and is far more
flexible in practice than "paramountcy" ever was. The test of this, sys-
tem will come after the new elections in the winter of 1951-52have
installed cabinets responsible to legislatures in all Part B states. It will
then be seen whether Part B states will really function on the same
basis as Part A states.
As has been indicated above, in this transitional period administra-
tive reform has made far more progress than has the introduction of
democratic procedures. The princes have been deprived of power, and
their privy purses are cut to 58,m,ooo Rs., one-quarter of the former
total. Princely power has, however, for the most part not yet passed to
the people of the states themselves. In all of the new princely unions,
senior officers of the Indian Administrative Service (the former Indian
Civil Service) are attached as "advisers" to the important government
departments. Moreover, the Government of India appoints "regional
commissioners" as "advisers" to the rajpramukhs. In practice, there-
fore, cabinets composed of either Congress Party politicians or officials
of the central government, or sometimes of both, acting under the
supervision of these regional commissioners and advisers, have been
carrying out a vast program of administrative reform. It is they who
have been engaged in the work of putting through financial integra-
tion, setting up a new judicial system, demobilizing some "state" forces
and bringing the remainder under the control of the Indian Army, and
tackling a multitude of varying administrative problems.
In view of the magnitude of these tasks, especially in central India
and Rajputana, it is not at all extraordinary that introduction of demo-
cratic government has been slow. Only in Mysore has the political
situation been at all normal. Nearly everywhere else, the political scene
has been stormy, whether or not an assembly was actually functioning.
In Travancore-Cochin, ministerial crisis has succeeded ministerial crisis,
primarily because many of the Cochin Congress Party leaders resent
 T h e Unification of India
the union with Travancore. Feeling on the subject became so heated in
March 1951that fourteen of the members from Cochin walked out of
the legislative assembly in Trivandrum. In Rajasthan and PEPSU
there are no legislatures, but a series of continual quarrels among the
local Congress Party leaders has prevented the establishment of stable
ministries. More than once in 1950-51 the States Ministry has had to
step in and provide for government by Indian Administrative Service
officials appointed by the rajpramukh under orders from New Delhi.
In Madhya Bharat and Saurashtra the political scene has been calmer
but both states have been under close supervision by the States Ministry.
It is a characteristic of this sort of political life that there is a con-
stant running to and fro of Congress leaders in the Part B states to
New Delhi and an almost equally constant touring through the Part
B states by high officials of the States Ministry. With elections all over
India on a basis of adult suffrage so imminent, it is rather pointless to
examine the confused politics of the Part B states in detail. The future
depends entirely on what these elections bring forth.
When all of the factors are considered, this unification of India is
an extraordinary achievement and a tribute to the abilities of the officials
who accomplished it under Vallabhbhai Patel's leadership. It is also
a tribute to the sagacity and good sense of the majority of the princes,
many of whom will continue to play important roles in the new India,
whether they happen to be rajpramukhs or not. The maharaja of
Bhavnagar, whose state became part of Saurashtra, is the present Gov-
ernor of Madras. During the past four years, a sound foundation has
been laid for the carrying out of the social and political reforms needed
to bring princely India fully into harmony and unity with the rest of
the country.
Philadelphia, November 1951