Q.

Underline the important changes which have occurred in the historiography of the Princely
States since the early twentieth century. Would you agree that the discourse on these States
is colored by Orientalist prejudices in general? Illustrate your answer with examples

Q. It is believed that the creation of the Native States was economically and Ideologically
necessary for British rule in India. Discuss with the help of Examples.
During British colonial rule there were two India’s, Native India and British India. Native India’s
princely states consisted two fifth of the territory and one quarter of the population. However,
India came to be understood as British India and the inferences drawn from British India was
generalized. hence distinct characteristics of Princely states was obscured. This tendency of
colonial mode of historiography to negate the distinct characteristics of Princely states was
permeated into subsequent histories. Colonial historiography considered Princely states as
under the indirect British rule. ‘Indirect rule’ implied that the princely states and its landed
aristocracy was ‘preserved’ by the colonial state as a means of its functional requirements. Thus
the notion of ‘indirect rule’ eschews the elements of resistance, negotiations and mutual
accommodations, making it a one-way process in which colonial state reigned supreme. While
privileging the metropolis, it denies Indian subjects their agency, excepting as instruments or
puppets of the supreme power.
Hira Singh critically analyze three main strands of historiography-Liberal, Marxist and Subaltern-
in an attempt to reclaim the picture of indigenous resistance and agency.
Barrington Moore, representing liberal approach, was typically obsessed with isolating histories
inside the boundaries of nation-states. He argues that England was successful in transformation
from tradition to modernity unlike India. Here, Hira Singh argues that, Barrington Moore fall
short of recognizing the transnational character of this transition. As Hamza Alavi points out, the
changes in England and India were shaped by each other.

Marxist theories of 1960’s and 70’s based on political economy recognized the intrinsic
connection between colony and metropolis in the process of transition from tradition to
modernity. However the central argument of Marxist theories was that the Colonial capitalism
replaced pre-capitalist economy in colonies with capitalist economy and bourgeois democracy
as necessary precondition for economic domination. Hira Singh cite the example of Princely
states in Rajasthan to prove the contrary. There was no differentiation of economic and political
power in the land tenures. The Princely rulers and landlords held the economic, political and
juridical power in respective states. Hence, princely states remained essentially pre-capitalist.
Moreover, Marxist theories privilege metropolitan capital and the colonial state, treating pre-
colonial structures as essentially passive, always at the receiving end.
However, colonialism was a contested terrain unlike these narratives implied. It’s not simple as
colonizers imposing and colonized accepting things. There were struggle, resistance,
accommodation and compromise between colonizer and colonized. The different land revenue
systems of Zamindari, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari along with non-intervention in the revenue
settlements of princely states was all due to resistance and struggle by the indigenous forces in
the countryside. Colonizers faced resistance from landed aristocracy in the countryside when
the former attempted to do away with the rights of the latter. This Resistance forced British
government towards compromise and accommodation. Hira Singh cites the example of Princely
states in Rajasthan to prove her point. In 1941 being apprehensive of United opposition from
landlords, colonial government reverted a plan -devised as a response to peasant movements-
to divest the landlords of their customary rights and reduce them to mere assignees of fixed
share of revenue in cash. Thus, the secret of the survival of the pre-capitalist production
relations, power structure and culture lies not in the functional need of metropolitan capital or
colonial state, but in the resistance and struggle by the dominant pre-capitalist forces in the
princely states.

The tendency to privilege metropolis characterizes the subaltern historiography and Foucaultian
discourse. The prominent subaltern historians such as Ranajit Guha and Partha Chattarjee wrote
about the colonial encounter with Indians with a one-sided view, in which, Indian subjects were
manipulated by colonial-capitalist forces according to their functional requirements. This
highlights the persistence of the colonial mode of historiography even in more recent
discussions.
The same tendency is visible in Foucaultian analysis of Nicholas Dirks. Dirks view Indian subjects
as the object of manipulation for colonial government. He saw the survival of ‘indirectly ruled’
princely states and other forms of the old regime as the purposeful ‘preservation’ of
colonialism. Seeing the princely states merely as a creation of colonial architecture and not as
contributors to that architecture, is looking at the edifice of colonialism and Indian power-
relationships one-sidedly. Princes had a due role in shaping the process of rule in their
respective states, and influencing the relative position of their states vis-à-vis colonial state.

One significant development in the study of princely states has been the introduction of ‘little
kingdom’ model in 1960’s. Little kingdom model was an amalgamation of history and
anthropology which studies the present relations in princely states in order to reconstruct the
past of kingship in India. Nicholas Dirks’ seminal work of study of little kingdoms in South India
is a characteristic work of this model.
Louis Dumont in ‘Homo hierarchicus’ argued that the political and economic spheres of India
are encompassed by the religious principles of purity and impurity. Nicholas Dirks challenged
Dumont and argued that caste is embedded in the political context of kingship. He argued that
it was the kingship and authority, honour, and power associated to it which played a crucial role
in the social organization of caste and its hierarchization, not purity and pollution. The caste
system was ordered in relation to king. Though caste hierarchization is political it is symbolically
religious. He treats this symbolic, that is, the royal and temple rituals, as the cause of the King’s
political power. In fact Dumont and Dirks share a common ground that both obliterated the
actual cause for king’s power, that is, the ownership of entire land of the kingdom, while
privileging it’s ritual and symbolic aspects. Both Dumont and Dirks tend to represent India
through caste, and caste though religion. For both, Indian social reality and power are
essentially religious.
Thus, in the ‘little kingdom’ model, power is essentially treated as a cultural construction
divorced from its material context. This divorce leads to misconstruing of Land grants from King
to his sub-chiefs as gifts. Little kingdom model, conforming to its post-modern theoretical
framework, argues that, in India power relations were constructed on the pattern of relations
between devotees and devoted (Dirks saw King as the master of ceremonies). Hence, the
transactions between the chiefs and subchiefs, it is argued, closely parallel the transactions of
Puja(worship). More generally the realms of religious and political cannot be separated.
Hira Singh rightly points out the material context of land grants which is misconstrued as gifts by
little kingdom model. She argues that these grants were not religious transactions but secular.
There are obligations of certain duties and services binded to land grants unlike gifts. The sub
chiefs are obliged to render these services and duties upon the bestowal of land grants. For
instance, Hira Singh shows, in 19th and 20th century princely states of Rajasthan, mutual rights
and obligations between chief and sub-chiefs were clearly defined in secular, earthly terms.
Kings authority to grant lands for sub-chiefs lay on his ownership of the whole lands.

By misconstruing the power relations and economic transactions between King and his sub
chiefs as transaction between devotees and devoted in spiritual realm, ‘little kingdom’ model
stick to the age old Orientalist discourse that India, its society, polity and economy is obsessed
with religion.

The little kingdom model also obliterate the question of peasants and class. It doesn’t consider
how peasants played an important role in shaping the structure of kingdom by agricultural
production. Peasants turned Inam lands in to productive units, which was granted to sub chiefs
by the King. This relation between Peasants on the one hand and King and Sub chiefs on the
other hand provided the structure of kingdom, the point which little kingdom model didn’t
consider. Hira Singh argues that the absence of peasant, like the absence of land, in the ‘little
kingdom’ model is a result of ideological choice to avoid the question of class. Little kingdom
model perceives the internal dynamics of princely states as static, resonating the orientalist
notion of stagnant oriental society. The principle reason of this perception was it’s choice to
ignore the questions of class, class contradictions, resistance and struggles in the historiography
of the kingdom in South Asia. Thus studying the history from the perspective of palace, the king
and subchiefs, and failing to appreciate the role of peasants and aspect of class, little kingdom
model fails to grasp the internal dynamics of princely states.

To conclude, there’s a tendency of generalizing the features of British India to Princely states.
The Princely states were perceived as states ‘preserved’ under the ‘indirect rule’ of Colonial
state to fulfill the functional requirements of the latter. This notion was the product of colonial
mode of historiography which permeated into subsequent histories. The Kings and landed
aristocracy in the princely states were seen as objects manipulated by colonial state at will.
Hence the agency of the ruling elite of princely states, who resisted, negotiated and wrested
accommodation, were negated.
The ‘little kingdom’ model, given its ideological Commitment to ignore the land question, ends
up providing a static, supra-historical view of rituals and symbols of royal authority. It attributes
the King’s power to religious rituals and symbols and fails to appreciate the King’s ownership of
the land from which he derived power. This resonates the ideas rooted in Orientalist discourse.
By failing to address the peasant question and class aspects, the little kingdom model fails to
grasp the actual structure and internal dynamics of the kingdom. It ended up in asserting the
static nature of the princely states, again echoing the orientalist notions.