The Pittsburgh Press (July 12, 1946)
Including that of world’s wealthiest man –
Rich maharajas’ thrones may topple when Britain grants India freedom
546 Oriental rulers fear new statehood
By Phillips Talbot
NEW DELHI, India – Market quotations on maharajas are a bit unsteady just now.
Some 562 Indian state rulers fear that the new plans for India’s statehood indicate a bearish trend for the princely order. Challenges to personal rule are increasing at a time when the princes can neither hope to regain the independence of their ancestors nor retain the protection of “paramountcy.”
“Paramountcy” is the principle that the powers of the British crown override the autocratic princes and their internally autonomous rule.
What will they do?
Under it, a loyal prince, who avoids excessive abuses, generally reigns with an almost free hand, even though the viceroy’s political department manages his external relations and always keeps an eye on him.
In effect, “paramountcy” guarantees the security of most Indian state thrones, even against revolts by subjects.
When British authority leaves India, “paramountcy” will die. Then what will the states do?
On the map of India, the states are spattered from near the Russian frontier almost to the Equator. Containing one-fourth of India’s population, they cover one-third of the country’s territory.
Most are remnants of native empires that existed when the British conquered India. Some, like Kashmir, were sold to the present ruling families by British agents, who had no interest in the land. In the largest 20 states live 63 million people. The combined population of the remaining 542 native states is 27 million.
Fabulous rulers
In size, they start at the bottom, with Bilbari in Gujerat, where the census-takers counted 27 subjects in the state’s area of 1.65 miles.
At the other end of the scale, Hyderabad, like Kashmir, is about the size of Minnesota, but its denser population equals the total number of people living in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan.
Some rulers are as fabulous as foreign imagination paints them. His exalted highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad, reputed to be the richest man in the world, possesses jewels that alone have been estimated to be worth 1½ billions.
What will happen to his title, “Faithful Ally of the British Government,” is one of the unsettled questions of the political transition. Another is the new status of all state subjects, who, for passport purposes, are now considered British-protected persons.
Want freedoms
The princes now must prepare to join the Indian Union, and to negotiate their future status with the Constituent Assembly. With armies ranging only from 10,000 in Hyderabad down to a few hundreds in the small states, they can hardly remain aloof. But they know that the politicians of British India are not very friendly to them.
“We have accepted the continuance of the rulers as the constitutional heads,” Jawaharlal Nehru, president of the Congress Party has said, “but it must be made perfectly clear that only the ultimate rights we recognize are the rights of the people.”
The view of Nationalistic politicians is that all states should modernize and popularize their administrations by separating the judicial from the executive authority, allowing the right of habeas |corpus, granting freedom of the press and establishing real legislatures and ministries.
Some states already are trimming their sails to be prepared for a national government. A group of smaller states in Deccan have announced that they will create their own union by erasing state boundaries.
A popular ministry and legislature will govern the joint territory, under a combined board of rulers, whose powers will be strictly constitutional.
Other groupings of minor states may be considered. In all quarters, talk of governmental reforms is heard.
A strong Indian government could whittle down the powers of unco-operative princes by encouraging self-rule movements on the sly in their states.
Some supporters of the state rulers argue that, in Indian history, the personal relationship of prince and subject is more natural and workable than western parliamentary processes. States should, therefore, be preserved and developed, they say.
To buttress their views, they point to the successful administrations of such states as Mysore, Travancore and Baroda, where the standards of education, industrialization and benefits to residents compare favorably with British India.