Unification Of India.pdf

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 [email protected].

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-incommand, 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 administered 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 groupings 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 Islands) are called Part C states. Each of these categories will be discussed 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 accomplished 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 knowing 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 thirtynine 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 appointed 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 publicity. 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 controversy. 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 Himalayan 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 Moradabad;' 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 provinces 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 application 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 "autonomous 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 consideration 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 leading 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 recognition 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 important 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 "acceded" under instruments transferring those powers to the new Dominion. 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 administrative 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, explosives, external affairs (including extradition, immigration and emigration, aliens, naturalization), posts, telegraphs, telephones, wireless, federal railways, shipping, navigation, admiralty jurisdiction, 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 Kathiawar, where it was most needed. It had long been recognized that the hundreds of small states in this region were an anachronism. Even before independence, the Viceroy had carried out two schemes "attaching" 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 following year, six more medium-sized states joined the scheme, a new covenant was negotiated and the resulting union was renamed Saurashtra. Because of the numerous small states of which this union was composed, 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 Nawanagar, 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, however; 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 function is of little moment. The up-rajpramukh, at present the ruler of Bhavnagar, is elected for a five-year term but exercises no power except 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 constituent 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 disturbances in the summer of 1947 when its Muslim ruler refused to accede to India. The legality of this ruler's accession to Pakistan remains a subject of controversy between the Indian and Pakistan governments. 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 Junagadh'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 consisting 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 college to be constituted by the Rajpramukh in consultation with the Government of India to represent states other than Gwalior and Indore". 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 rajpramukh 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 rajpramukh and up-rajpramukh after the deaths of the present maharajas 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 functioning under a small council of ministers who are in effect the nominees 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, Dungarpur, 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 appointed 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 impossible 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 elaborate 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 vicepresident 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 covenant 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 Ministry 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 maharajas of Travancore and of Cochin will exercise the office of rajpramukh 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 accession" whereby the delegation to the Government of India of power with respect to defence, foreign affairs and communications was broadened 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 instruments of accession signed by the individual rulers. Accordingly, new instruments of accession, conferring the additional powers, were prepared, 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 legislature elected on a fairly wide franchise. Its political life went on relatively 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 gov6 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 supervision 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, subject to such ratification. The position of the nizam has been respected throughout and the Government of India has entered into a privypurse 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" referred 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 unification 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 republic 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. Krishnamachari, 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 transitional 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 calculated, the Committee concluded that PEPSU, Madhya Bharat, and Rajasthan 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 constitutional 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' Provinces". This was done by having the rulers execute merger agreements in almost precisely the same terms as those executed by rulers whose states were merged in provinces. The difference is that the Government of India, having thus received a full delegation of power, did not hand these states over to the provinces, but kept their administration 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 provinces. These areas were henceforth administered by lieutenant-governors 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, AjmerMerwara), known as "Chief Commissioners' Provinces" under the old regime. Under the new Constitution, they become Part C states. Legislatures 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 position 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 subject 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 interLegislatures 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 administration 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 prominent 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 administration of which he was so proud would lose its identity in some larger unit. He therefore held out for months against giving a broader delegation 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 position 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 rajpramukh, 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 Ministry. The upshot was the signing by the rulers of a "merger agreement". 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 Kashmir, 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 territory; its maharaja acceded to India on October 27, 1947, with respect to foreign affairs, defence and communications. Although this delegation of authority to the Government of India has been greatly broadened, 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 Kashmir'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 Government 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 pre1947 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 ratification 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 international law and British constitutional law has been swept away.'' The former Indian India and the former British India are one, operating under the new republican constitution. This is of course an oversimplification. 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: "Notwithstanding 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 specified 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, system 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 administrative 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, therefore, 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 integration, 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 democratic 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 constant 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 Governor 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