5:43 am - Saturday September 23, 2017

Why did the princely states choose to forego their independence and accede to the Dominion of India or the Dominion of Pakistan?

एक प्रश्न जो अभी तक पूर्ण रूप से उत्तरित नहीं हैं वह है की यदि आधा भारत हमारे राजाओं के आधीन था तो वहां भी तो किसी भारतीय संस्कृति , विज्ञान अथवा अन्य  विषय पर बड़ी स्वदेशी उपलब्धि नही हुई  . तकनिकी रूप से सारा भारत इंग्लैंड पर ही आश्रित था . सन १९४७ में सरदार पटेल की दृढ निश्चयता के अलावा यह भी सच है की पूरे हिन्दू भारत की प्रजा स्वतंत्र भारत मैं ही विलय होना चाहती थी . इसका भावनात्मक पहलु के अलावा किसी भी राज्य का बाकि राज्यों से आगे न होना भी था . मैसूर , बडौदा , ग्वलीयर  जैसे कुछ राजा थोड़ा अधिक दूरदृष्टि वाले थे परन्तु तब भी सारा भारत एक सा ही था.नीचे लेख मैं राजाओं के भारत मैं विलय के कारणों का विश्लेषण है .

Why did the princely states choose to forego their independence and accede to the Dominion of India or the Dominion of Pakistan?

Balaji Viswanathan

Balaji Viswanathan, History buff / Quora

In 1947, Britain left India with a huge mish-mash of states. The regions in yellow in the map below were directly ruled by a colonial administration and had some standardization. But, all the regions in pink were ruled by independent kings. While these local monarchs surrendered their foreign policies to Britain & were tied by various treaties limiting their soverignity, they were often free to have their own armies, laws, courts, banks & economic systems.

 

 

 

 

It was not in India’s best interests and made for very poor economic integration. But for the empire it didn’t matter as such a system allowed them to rule India with the fewest officers possible [the local kings administering theirs and also sending armies to quell rebellions nearby]. However, Britain could get ease of transportation through these territories with their treaties.

When Britain was leaving India its treaties with these local kings also expired leaving these monarchs to declare their sovereignty. These monarchs often hated the Congress party as the party had plans for social development and wealth redistribution. Look at the map above and see how a government in Delhi can reach Madras or Bombay without crossing a possibly hostile sovereign government. It would have made for endless wars in South Asia.

 

It was not in India’s best interests and made for very poor economic integration. But for the empire it didn’t matter as such a system allowed them to rule India with the fewest officers possible [the local kings administering theirs and also sending armies to quell rebellions nearby]. However, Britain could get ease of transportation through these territories with their treaties.

When Britain was leaving India its treaties with these local kings also expired leaving these monarchs to declare their sovereignty. These monarchs often hated the Congress party as the party had plans for social development and wealth redistribution. Look at the map above and see how a government in Delhi can reach Madras or Bombay without crossing a possibly hostile sovereign government. It would have made for endless wars in South Asia.

Besides that, many of the monarchs – especially the largest ones like the Nizam of Hyderabad were, to put it respectfully, scoundrels of the highest order. They cared more about their Rolls Royces than their people. They had opulence at the expense of the public. For Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others, independence of India meant not only the absence of British, but also the absence of such backward systems.

At the dawn of independence, India practically put a trigger on many of the monarchs and got them to join. The integration was so successful in barely a couple of decades, people forgot that India had such a massive number of monarchs and kingdoms all over the country. Still, the vestiges of the bad governance by the Nizam can be seen in the blighted hinterland of Marathwada, Telangana and northern Karnataka. That said, a few other monarchs like those of Mysore were slightly more progressive.

Filed in: Articles, इतिहास

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply