Panel abstract EASAS conference

Convenor: Dick Kooiman, Dept of Anthropology (Asian History), Amsterdam Free University, the Netherlands

Panel Abstract: The panel will bring together researchers working on the history of the Indian princely states. The papers to be discussed - work-in-progress, fresh material or finished products - should contribute to one of the following themes:

Papers accepted for presentation in the panel:

Paper 1 Title: Little Kingdoms or Princely States? Trajectories Towards a (Theoretical) Conception

Paper Abstract: As an outcome of the panel no. 45 on the little kingdom in Heidelberg in 2002 it has been suggested to further explore the intersection of the concept of little kingdom and studies on princely states. This paper attempts to show that these two concepts represent ideas as well as notions on different levels of abstraction. The category of the little kingdom, on the one hand, has been used by various scholars as a historical model, and therefore as an analytical tool. Princely states, on the other hand, are existing historical entities. This places them into the category of historical phenomena to be studied rather than tools to facilitate such a study. The paper intends to shed light onto several historical cases from which differences between traditional kingdoms and princely states can be illustrated and used as examples to outline the distinction of these two categories.

Paper 2 Title: Conflicts over Political Representation and Information Control by Indian Princes, 1757-1857

Paper Abstract: Over the century following 1757, power haltingly shifted from India's regional rulers to the East India Company. Political representation and information control remained a central and conflicted issue of this transition, reflecting and enhancing the imbalance between princely states and the British. The earlier network of Indian wakils, who represented regional rulers at each other's courts, unevenly and grudgingly gave way before a system of East India Company Residents. Yet, throughout this period, Indian princes resisted this British effort at monopolization of political information and representation by deploying their own wakils both in the Presidency capitals and also in London. These wakils claimed diplomatic status in an effort to represent their putatively sovereign prince, gathered information to bypass and undercut the Resident at their court,
and negotiated advantages for their ruler (and for themselves personally) by using the institutions of British authority. However, in India the Company's officials and in London the Court of Directors and British Government worked to isolate and repulse these Indian political agents. In the post-1857 period, the grounds of this conflict shifted profoundly since Indian princes received the right from the British monarch to represent themselves directly before her and became one of the pillars of the Raj.
This paper examines the complex ways, in both India and Britain, that Indian princes and wakils worked to retain their own agency over the pre-1857 period. It considers how they, in contrast to the British Residency system, defined political information and the role of wakils. Using case studies, embedded in the larger context of the period, this paper thus demonstrates how conflicted and contingent was this century of transition to the "high imperialism" that would follow.

Paper Giver 3: Chitralekha Zutshi, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA

Paper 3 Title: British Intervention in a Princely State: The Case of Jammu and Kashmir in the Late-Nineteenth and Early-Twentieth Centuries

Paper Abstract: This paper attempts to draw out the intricacies of the relationship between the British Residency and the ruling house of the Dogras in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It highlights the impact of the British intervention in Kashmir from the perspective of its political effect on the ruling house as well as its more general impact on the political economy of the Kashmir Valley, which in turn created the context in which Kashmiri Muslims launched educational and other political reform movements. It argues that British mediation in the processes of state-led land and educational reform brought the princely state and Kashmiris into closer contact with the ideologies and movements prevalent in British India at the turn of the twentieth century.

Paper Abstract: This paper gives a general background for the rise of the state of Amber from the beginning of the 18th century. The career of Sawai Jai Singh is the focus of discussion, which aims to discover how he and his successors created a new state out of the small principality. Jai Singh first enlarged the boundaries of his hereditary homeland through jagir assignments while he was serving the Mughal emperors. Then he started acquiring lands contiguous to his own watan jagirs through land transfers, contract farming and exchange of jagirs from other Mughal mansabdars. After establishing full control over
these territories, Sawai Jai Singh started asserting his right to be the actual sovereign ruler of the area. He was able to successfully claim this right that was based on clan solidarity and zamindari rights.

Paper Abstract: Kutch was a Rajput State in north-western Gujarat. In 1819, following a short war, a treaty was signed between Kutch and its new overlord, the British Government of Bombay. The treaty included a provision that the British would guarantee the nobles of Kutch, the Bhayat, Ain full enjoyment of their possessions. The meaning of possessions was left vague, but it was interpreted as including executive, judicial and fiscal powers over the lands of the Bhayat. As a result of this, about half the area of Kutch was effectively exempted from the control of the State's king, or Maharao, being governed by the guaranteed members of the Bhayat.
Successive Maharaos of Kutch sought to curtail the autonomy of the Bhayat, but thanks to the British guarantee made little headway. In the early 1940s, however, the Paramount Power changed its policy. It allowed the Maharao to deprive the Bhayat of their judicial powers and to force them to hand over a large part of their revenues. The guarantee of 1819 was reinterpreted to mean no more than a Bhayat's right to an appeal to the (now outgoing) British "when his property is interfered with arbitrarily by the State." As a result, in the years immediately before Kutch was taken over by the government of independent India in 1948, the Maharaos enjoyed more real power over their kingdom than at any time since the early nineteenth century
This paper examines the "rise" of the Kutch Bhayat, by which I mean their acquisition of what was said to be greater autonomy than any other State nobles in India, and their Afall, the elimination of those rights. I intend this in-depth study to increase our knowledge of Kutch State, and to lay a basis for further comparative analysis of other States. I shall also suggest that it shows the importance of the law and the judiciary in a number of aspects of the history of the Indian States.

Paper 6 Title: What to do about cows? Princely versus British approaches to a South Asian dilemma

Paper Abstract: For more than a millennium, the cow has been a source of contention in South Asia. On the one hand, most Hindus, Sikhs and Jains hold the animal to be sacred and inviolable. On the other hand, beef has always constituted a major part of the regional Muslim diet. Moreover, until recently it was the habit of Indian Muslims to sacrifice cows at the annual festival of ‘Id-ul-Adha, because tradition held that large animals could be shared amongst seven sacrificers (which made cows a cheaper option for poorer families than sheep or goats). By the Mughal period, the issue had become so divisive and potentially disruptive of public order that several of the emperors were driven from time to time to issue edicts banning or greatly restricting cow-slaughter in their dominions. The Marathas and the Sikh Kingdom of Lahore took this a stage further, both prescribing blanket bans.
British colonial practice was somewhat more permissive. The British and their troops were themselves substantial consumers of beef, and arrangements had to be made for supplying their needs. Additionally – with their laissez-faire approach to religion – the British inclined to the view that, since animal sacrifice was a rite enjoined by Islam, Muslims should be permitted to sacrifice cows if that was convenient—especially in localities where cow-sacrifice had been customary before their arrival. But in the Hindu-ruled princely states, governmental practice followed that of the Marathas and Sikhs. Cow-killing in these territories was totally prohibited.
So where did that leave the Muslim-ruled princely states? Contrary to what one might expect, policy there varied, ranging from permissiveness to full prohibition. This begs the question of why some Muslim darbars in colonial South Asia were, seemingly, more ‘tolerant’ in this respect than their Hindu counterparts. The present paper looks for answers by examining what ensued when the Sheikh of Mangrol, in western India, tried to revoke a long-standing edict of his father’s banning the slaughter of cows for food or sacrifice. The paper argues that, by stirring up communal passions, the Sheikh actually damaged the interests of local Muslims, which hitherto had been protected by the willingness of the majority of Mangrol’s resident Hindus – with the connivance of the darbar’s officials – to turn a blind eye to occasional acts of cow-slaughter, so long as they were carried out inconspicuously.

Paper 7 Title: Colleges and Kings: Strategies and Aspirations in Higher Education under Direct and Indirect Rule

Paper Abstract: In any society, education has been and still is a contested field. The paper links the question of agency in this field with colonial categories of direct and indirect rule, slots into which historical rajas have been put according to historical coincidence rather than by design. Those under British direct rule usually became known as zamindars, whereas those under indirect rule were categorised as ruling princes. Their internal sovereignty implied the rajas’ responsibility in education policy. Zamindars had no such rights and could, if at all, only interfere episodically. Any effort from their side we may consider as private. However, zamindars also felt the need to found and support institutions of higher education in their area of influence since the rajas’ and the zamindars’ esteem was derived from the same source of dharmic rulership.
The discrepancy in status attributed to them by the British had as a consequence different strategies to gain prestige and/or political acclaim by supporting educational institutions among ruling rajas and zamindars. This difference arises from the fact that in the case of the ruling princes the ruler himself stood at the top of the chain of command, whereas the direct rule within the British Empire placed the zamindars close to the bottom. In this situation, their strategy to gain traditional prestige had to rely on private sponsorship. The paper is going to compare two cases from opposing ends of the Madras Presidency, Travancore as a case of indirect rule, and the Northern Circars as a case of direct rule.

Paper 8 Title: The Seventh Nizam: the Claim for Independence and the Khilafat Question

Paper Abstract: The paper seeks to examine the following aspects of the last Nizam’s controversial career as the ruler of Hyderabad from 1911 to 1948 :
1. What led the seventh Nizam to claim that Hyderabad should be an independent state, his frequent petitions to the British for the title of King, and his failure to accede to India in 1947 ? Was there any basis for his claim to superiority over other Indian rulers, and was it linked up with his support to the British on the Khilafat question in 1914 ?
2. Why did Mir Osman Ali Khan refrain from supporting the Khilafat movement openly, when he clearly agreed with its aims ? Did he have a separate Agenda which led him to refrain from publicly espousing the cause of the Caliphate ?
3. Why did he arrange a marriage between his two eldest sons and the daughter and niece of the Khalifa, Abdul Hamid, in 1931 ? Was there an intention that he, or his family, should benefit from this alliance by claiming succession to the Caliphate ?
4. What were the causes of the failure of the Nizam to achieve his goals in the Khilafat question ?

Paper Abstract: The hundreds of Indian princes came to be seen as feudal subsidiaries to the British Crown, especially so after Queen Victoria had adopted the title of Indian Empress (1877). The adoption of this title was announced at an Imperial Assemblage in Delhi, hosted by Viceroy Lord Lytton, where the more prominent Indian princes received banners, gun salutes and other marks of distinction, conceptions entirely based on feudal theories.
In his famous study of this Assemblage, published in a volume on The Invention of Tradition, Bernard Cohn describes the organisation and underlying ideas of this Assemblage in wonderful detail. His analysis of this event includes princely India as a whole, but is strongly focused on what happened in Delhi at the turn of the year 1876/77. What I want to discuss in this paper is the feudalisation of one state in particular, Travancore, but for a much longer time period. Moreover, I will restrict myself to a discussion of just one element of the feudal ceremonial, armorial bearings.
Armorial bearings were virtually imposed on the states, which were at best indifferent, if not reluctant to receive them. Lord Lytton however, wanted to honour the states with banners emblazoned with their own arms and if no arms could be found, they had to be invented. Remarkably, later on the rulers of Travancore came to appreciate these honours much more than Lytton could have imagined. In the 1930s the young Maharaja of Travancore visited London and tried to get his armorial bearings officially registered with the College of Arms. By now, the British government had become much less eager to distribute this kind of ceremonial privilege. The main question to be discussed here is, how these shifts in position took place and what reasons could be advanced to explain them.

Paper 10 Title: Visualizing Dossehra: the Display of Royalty and the Performance of Power in the princely state of Bonai in the late 1930s

Paper Abstract: During research on the princely state of Bonai I discovered a unique album of photographs taken in the late 1930s which shows the rituals and festivities around Dossehra and immediately following (until the time of the full moon), when the tutelary deity of the Raja is worshipped. While old family photographs and wedding albums can frequently be found with the royal families of Orissa and elsewhere, pictures of rituals, of the performance and display of power as well as of the local society in a small kingdom are rather rare. Beginning with these photographs, I will try to analyse the political relationships within the state of Bonai and the significance of the Raja at the centre. Beyond the visual evidence, I will explore what has been – probably very consciously – left out of the photo album.

Paper Giver 11: M.S. Anitha, Maharani's Arts College for Women and University of Mysore, India

Paper 11 Title: Moulding the mind of a Native ruler during the Colonial period in India - A case study of Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV of Mysore (1902-40)

Paper Abstract: The mind of a monarch was closely related to the process change in his state. In this context it may be pointed out that since ancient period in India there was a saying about a ruler in general namely; Yatharaja, Tathapraja. Arnold Toynbee in his Study of History, points out that for the continuous survival of society or a culture or a civilisation, its creative minority has to successfully respond to the challenges from within and without. In a monarchical system of polity, a ruler becomes head of the creative minority along with bureaucracy, courtiers, scholars and other prominent elements. Generally common people followed the ruler or ruling elite. Hence the level of enlightenment of a monarch determines the level of progress. On the basis of this hypothesis the present paper will be prepared, where the emphasis will be laid on moulding the mind of Krishnaraja Wodeyar the IV who was the ruler of the Princely State of Mysore during colonial period (1902-40).
The part played by education in moulding the mind of a man cannot be underestimated. This is true of a ruler. A man gets education in two ways: (1) Informal and (2) Formal. Further, education may be classified as traditional, modern or western. Besides, in moulding the mind of any person wide travel plays a significant role. Even in Karnataka tradition there was a saying in the form of a proverb namely "Kosha odu, Desha Nodu". It means "Study dictionary and travel widely". Likewise, Francis Bacon of England rightly puts it "Travel maketh a full man". In this sense Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV was trained to acquire experiences.
Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV lived during the most critical period in the history of modern India. The Maharaja had to face innumerable challenges both within and outside the State. As Maharaja he expected Rajabhakti (devotion to royalty) from his subjects. But the wind of Rastra Bhakti (Devotion to Nation) was fiercely blowing across the State during this period. Loyalty to the Colonial Paramountacy was esse! ntial for his survival. Modernism and Westernism were the needs of the hour. At the same time he had to protect, preserve and propagate the Indian cultural traditions for which he was symbol to his subjects. In this historical context Maharaja's educational training should be examined and appreciated.For the preparation of this paper mostly the archival sources, the speeches of the Maharaja, biographical material and contemporary Kannada works will be utilised.

Paper 12 Title: The Crisis of State and Nation in Colonial India: Clash and Convergence of Multiple Loyalties in Mysore (1902-47)

Paper Abstract: The first half of 20th century was a formative period in the history of modern South Asia. The forces like colonialism, nationalism, communalism, fundamentalism, regionalism, casteism and linguism clashed during this period. The nature of the conflict among several variables was unique as well as similar from region to region and place to place. In other words during the last phase of British imperialism and colonialism, multiple loyalties emerged in order to put forward their own interests. This factor made the nation building process more complex and difficult. In this web of multiple loyalties the states in the British imperial structure were also caught up.
The Princely states had their own peculiar relationship with the Paramount Power within the imperial structure. Among about 600 Princely states, the historical context of Princely Mysore presents a fascinating study. To put it in simple terms Rajabhakti (devotion to royalty) and Deshabhakti (devotion to Nation) found itself in opposite camps. Besides, the power equation among the Resident, the Maharaja and the Dewan came to play a significant part. In this paper an attempt will be made to identify the multiple loyalties as well as the approach of the Maharaja Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV towards these complexities. It is interesting to note that Mysore emerged as a Model State and received acclamation from none other than Mahatma Gandhiji.
For the preparation of this paper mostly Archival sources, Mysore Legislative Assembly Debates, Autobiographies of eminent personalities and news papers will be used.

Paper Abstract: One of the guiding principles in British imperial interactions with the States throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century was the assumption that their subordination was couched in an implicit superiority of the King-Emperor as sovereign. Central to the rights of this sovereign as they had been developed in both British and Imperial political theory was the right of the sovereign to reward his subjects for exemplary acts, and notable loyalty. Yet, in India, rulers – whether the Mughal Emperor or local rajas – possessed the right to award titles and other paraphernalia of honour to their subjects.
While part of the early policy of the East India Company had been to shift the Emperor’s ceremonial privileges from him to the Company as a corporate entity, the rights of other quasi-independent rulers in India did not come into a place of central consideration until after the extension of imperial rule over India in the late nineteenth century. During this period, drawing their vocabulary of honor from British and Anglo-India usage as they had once mined Mughal and Turco-Persian symbols of honour and authority, the “Princes” began to emulate the modes of the Paramount Power to reward achievements by their own subjects.
This paper will trace this conflict over what was much more than mere ceremonials, as the right to recognize honor among subjects became a major point of contention between the States and the imperial government. This ongoing struggle stretches from the 1870s, through the Great War, through the constitutional struggles of the 1930s, and indeed all the way into the Dominion period (1947-50).

Back to SASNET

Search the SASNET Web Index

SASNET - Swedish South Asian Studies Network/Lund University
Address: Scheelevägen 15 D, SE-223 70 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46 46 222 73 40
Webmaster: Lars Eklund
Last updated 2006-01-27

Back to 2004 Conference page

Panel No. 23

Panel Title: History of the Indian Princely States

Papers accepted for presentation in the panel: