June, July and August of 1947 were marked by frenetic political activity, stormy meetings and historic decisions at the highest levels of the Government of India, princely India and political parties who were to shape the course of history, with the partition of India fast becoming a reality. In the White Paper of July 1948, titled ‘White Paper on Indian States’, a landmark date is stated to be 13 June 1947 when the Government of India decided to set up a Department to conduct relations with the States in matters of common concern.

On this day, the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten invited Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel and Acharya Kripalani (on behalf of the Congress), MA Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, and Sardar Nishtar (on behalf of the Muslim League); and Sardar Baldev Singh (on behalf of the Sikhs) to “attend an informal meeting to discuss the problem of the States”. In a press communique issued on 27 June 1947, it was announced by the Viceroy: “In order that the successor Governments will each have an organisation to conduct its relations with the Indian States when the Political Department is wound up, His Excellency the Viceroy, in consultation with the Cabinet, has decided to create a new Department called the States Department to deal with matters arising between the Central Government and the Indian States.

This Department will be in charge of Sardar Patel, who will work in consultation with Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar.” There is confusion, ignorance and misinformation regarding India before Independence. The White Paper referred to an earlier 1929 report. It was titled the Harcourt Butler Committee report and stated: “To politically understand pre-Independent India, it can be safely said there were two Indias. There was the British India or Provinces, governed by the Crown according to the statutes of Parliament and enactments of the Indian Legislature; and the Indian States under the suzerainty of the Crown and still for the most part under the personal rule of the Princes.”

The Indian States were often referred to as Princely India or Princely States. The Butler report stated that geographically India is one and indivisible. “The problem of statesmanship is to hold the two together”. The report questioned: Were there really two Indias? And was the problem merely to hold them together? The geographical set-up of the Indian States did not coincide with any ethnic, racial, or linguistic divisions. The people of the Provinces and the States had suffered alike from waves of foreign invasions and foreign domination. Close ties of cultural affinity, no less than those of blood and sentiment, bound the people of the Indian States and the British Provinces together. What was it then that separated Indian States from the rest of India? Firstly, there was the historical factor.

Unlike the Provinces, the States had not been annexed by the British Government. Secondly, the States maintained the traditional monarchical form of Government. There were Maharajas, Maharanas, Maharawals, Maharaos, Rajas, Nizam, Nawabs, Khans or Mirs who had been rulers for generations, if not centuries. There were States like Hyderabad and Kashmir the size of the United Kingdom: Kashmir State was spread over 84,471 square miles, while Hyderabad State had a territory of 82,313 miles. There were 150 States which had territories of more than 10,000 square miles and 67 which had territories ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 square miles. There were 202 States having each an area of less than 10 square miles.

The Indian States constituted about 45 per cent of the total Indian territories and almost 24 per cent of the Indian population lived in the States, according to the White Paper. Historically the main common feature that distinguished the States from the Provinces was that the States had not been annexed by the British Power. In their individual origin, however, the evolution and growth of States represented different processes. The historical perspective has often been ignored in contemporary debates on the role of Princely India. The White Paper noted: Firstly, there were the old established States, such as those in Rajputana, in existence before the main waves of foreign invasion took place. Secondly, another class consisted mainly of the States with Muslim-dynasties founded by the nobles or the Viceroys of the invading foreign Emperors.

Thirdly, there were the States which emerged in the period of decline of the Mughal power and prior to the final stages of consolidation of British territory. Then there were the newer States, which the British recognised during the final period of consolidation. Only one State, namely Benares, was set up and recognised since the assumption of the Government of India by the Crown. For Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and the States Department, the challenge was to face the aftermath of the Partition which was a severe blow to the political and geographical integrity of India.

The economic development and cultural expression of the Indian people was dependent on how the new India would take shape. On the day the States Department came into being, i.e, 5 July, 1947, Sardar Patel, as Member for the States Department, issued an important statement defining the policy of the Government of India. He assured the States that no more was asked of them than accession on three subjects of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications, in which the common interests of the country were involved, and that their autonomous existence would be scrupulously respected. He gave a further assurance that it would not be the policy of the States Department to conduct relations with the States in any manner which favoured of the domination of one over the other; and that if there would be any domination, it would be the domination of mutual interests and welfare. “It is the lesson of history,” said Sardar Patel, “that it was owing to her political condition and our inability to make a united stand that India succumbed to successive waves of invaders.

Our mutual conflicts, and internecine quarrels and jealousies have in the past been the cause of our downfall and our falling victims to foreign domination a number of times. We cannot afford to fall into those errors or traps again. We are on the threshold of independence. It is true that we have not been able to preserve the unity of the country entirely unimpaired in the final stage. To the bitter disappointment and sorrow of many of us some parts have chosen to go out of India and to set up their own Government. But there can be no question that despite this separation a fundamental homogeneity of culture and sentiment reinforced by the compulsive logic of mutual interests would continue to govern us.” Besides the geographical and historical perspectives, the earlier Reports and White Papers disregard the spiritual heritage of Princely India, especially for the centuries-old States established in pre-modern times.

They had a divine right to rule; a right which they had internalized, and which had been legitimized by social acceptance over generations and centuries. They drew their political and sociocultural strength from these spiritual legacies be it Vedic, Shaivite, Vaishnavite, Shaktism, Sikhism or Islamic. It accounted for the cultural diversity of Princely India and their die-hard faith in divinity in sharp contradistinction with modern constitutional rights and privileges. The White Paper highlighted that the internal administration of the States and their political set-up varied greatly. There was a very wide difference in the degree of administrative efficiency reached by the most advanced and the most backward.

According to the information circulated by the Chamber of Princes in 1946, over 60 States had set up some form of legislative bodies. Through the 5 July 1947 statement can be discerned the concerns of Sardar Patel and his sense of history. “We are at a momentous stage in the history of India. By common endeavour we can raise the country to a new greatness while lack of unity will expose us to fresh calamities. I hope the Indian States will bear in mind that the alternative to co-operation in the general interest is anarchy and chaos which will overwhelm great and small in a common ruin if we are unable to act together in the minimum of common tasks.”

The warning is clearly spelt out too when he minced no words, stating, “Let not the future generation curse us for having had the opportunity but failed to turn it to our mutual advantage. Instead, let it be our proud privilege to leave a legacy of mutually beneficial relationship which would raise this Sacred Land to its proper place amongst the nations of the world and turn it into an abode of peace and prosperity.” These were precious lessons of history from Sardar Patel for the Republic of India.

(The writer is an authorresearcher on history and heritage issues and a former deputy curator of Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya)