Ep - 8 | Patel, Menon and The Integration of Princely India Ft. John Zubrzycki

[@althea_is_smokin_hot]

Sir,this achievment of Mr Patel is even greater than the freedom struggle of india,as itwas able to unite princely state with union,the absence of which was the cause of prevalence of 1100 years long islamic invasions.

[@krishnanunnimadathil8142]

One major difference in the social experience between princely states and British India was the relative absence of communalism in the former, compared with the intense communal-based politicking in British India. This is a consequence of the British input in the areas they controlled of “representative government”, based not on individual franchise per se, but on identity-based political caucuses. In the princely states, unlike in British India, the clerical class had relatively a muted presence on politics; because of which inter-communal tensions were relatively checked. Social change, where it did take place, was also brought about with a greater sense of amity and reconciliation, brokered under the aegis of those who were seen as legitimate rulers by the people. This difference in political culture had had a dramatic impact in these societies. It is seen in stark relief in states such as Kerala, about little over half of which was under princely state rule - Travancore and Kochi - where communalism was relatively muted and where till date the prevalent culture is one of general amity and cohabitation; compared with British Malabar, where the culture of representative government and the attendant identity-based politics meant that seething communal tensions marked the politics of the place and has seeped into very visible civic barriers and social divisions. Within Kerala itself, those parts which were under princely state rule also witnessed greater social transformation including literacy and female emancipation at a faster clip; when compared to British-controlled Malabar extending through into South Kanara (today’s Dakshin Karnataka), where till date, social development indicators lag behind the rest of Kerala. The reason for this is the greater legitimacy which the princely rulers - especially the Hindu rulers - enjoyed among the people when compared to the British. Social transformations brought about in these places were perceived less as foreign impositions than as guidance from a legitimate native ruler with the best interests of the people at heart. Cry as they may, the British could never dream of such legitimacy during their entire tenure in India, even if people grudgingly accepted their dominion. Fear is never a substitute for open acceptance. Of course, the rulers had to be of a reformist mindset themselves. Many, such as the Rajasthan states, were a bit slow in this regard. But it didn’t mean they were always backward-looking; they were limited by several things including budget. The British press often reported the Indian states in a very poor light, often to show themselves as better and more enlightened; and in a way trying to justify their presence in the country as clearly foreign rulers; but the reality is that not a single princely state got split between India and Pakistan - it was an all or nothing. It was British Bengal and British Punjab which got divided; and British India which saw most of the violence both before and after the events of 1947.

[@sivasidhamalli2199]

Thank you very much for your post and the information about the British controlled territories and Travancore - Kochi states.

[@manivannanchokkalingam8251]

after india 🇮🇳 had been depleted of its wealth, can't believe the princes had second thoughts. good effort, ty for bringing in this author.

[@ParthaSarathyIppili]

This is old story known to everyone, why now???