British Policy towards Indian Princely States

A key component of the new policy was the formal recognition of the right of adoption for Indian rulers.

Sanads of Adoption

• Formal grants issued by the British Crown.
• Confirmed a ruler's right to adopt an heir in the absence of a natural one.
• Prevented their state from lapsing to British rule (a direct reversal of the Doctrine of Lapse).

Significance: This removed a major source of grievance (like the case of Jhansi) and provided a sense of security and continuity to princely dynasties, solidifying their loyalty.

The linchpin of the post-1857 princely state policy was the assertion of British paramountcy.

Definition

Paramountcy implied the supreme and ultimate authority of the British Crown over all Indian states, whether directly administered or ruled by princes.

Limited Sovereignty

• Princely states were recognized as integral parts of the British Indian Empire but subject to the ultimate authority of the Crown. Their sovereignty was highly limited.
• Lost External Relations: They lost the right to have foreign policy, declare war, or sign treaties with other states or foreign powers. This was solely the prerogative of the British Crown.
• Restricted Armies: Their right to raise large armies was restricted, and their defence was managed by the British Indian Army.

Significance: This doctrine placed the British in a position of unchallenged suzerainty, ensuring that no Indian state could ever again pose a threat to British rule.

British Strategy

The British deliberately cultivated the princes as loyal supporters of the Empire.

• Counterweights to Nationalism: They were seen as essential counterweights to any rising nationalist forces or popular movements in British India. As Lord Canning famously remarked, the princely states acted as "breakwaters in the storm" of 1857.
• Rewarding Loyal Princes: Princes who had remained loyal during the revolt (e.g., Scindia of Gwalior, Nizam of Hyderabad, rulers of Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Kashmir, Nepal) were rewarded with titles, honours, land grants, and continued protection, strengthening their vested interest in the continuation of British rule.

Despite the Queen's Proclamation promising non-interference, the reality was increased, albeit indirect, British control.

• Role of British Residents and Political Agents: These British officials were stationed in princely states and wielded considerable influence, effectively acting as de facto rulers. They advised on, and often dictated, matters of administration, succession, and finances.
• Interference in Succession: The British often interfered in the choice of successors, especially in cases of dispute, or when an adopted heir was appointed, requiring British approval.
• Intervention for "Misgovernance": The British reserved the right to intervene or even depose a ruler on grounds of "misgovernance," especially if it threatened British interests or prestige.

  Example: The deposition of Malhar Rao Gaekwad of Baroda in 1875 on charges of misrule and attempted poisoning of the British Resident was a clear demonstration of British paramountcy and right to intervene.

• Control over Finances: British Residents often scrutinized state finances and even dictated financial policies to ensure stability and British economic interests.

• Loss of External Sovereignty: This was a direct consequence of British paramountcy. Princely states could not engage in any diplomatic relations, declare war, or sign treaties with any other foreign power or even with each other.
• British Defence: The British Indian Army became responsible for the defence of the princely states against external aggression and internal rebellion, effectively stripping the princes of their independent military power.

The British consciously used elaborate ceremonies and symbols to integrate the princes into the imperial hierarchy and publicly assert Crown paramountcy.

Durbars

• Grand durbars were organized, showcasing British imperial power and the subordinate position of the princes.
• Delhi Durbar of 1877: Proclaimed Queen Victoria as the Empress of India (Kaisar-i-Hind), a highly symbolic move.
• Delhi Durbars of 1903 and 1911: Further reinforced this imperial display, with princes paying obeisance to the Crown.

Titles and Honours

Princes were granted numerous British titles, honours, and orders (e.g., Star of India, Indian Empire) to flatter their ego and foster loyalty to the Crown.

Significance: These rituals aimed to create a sense of shared imperial identity and to legitimize British rule through traditional Indian forms of pomp and spectacle.

• Context: Mysore had been annexed in 1831 by the East India Company on grounds of alleged misgovernance.
• Rendition (Restoration): In 1881, Lord Ripon, following the new policy of conciliation, restored the state of Mysore to the Wodeyar dynasty under a child Maharaja, Chamarajendra Wodeyar X.
• Conditions: The restoration was subject to certain conditions, including payment of annual tribute and British oversight of administration.
• Significance: This act demonstrated the sincerity of the British Crown's new policy of non-annexation and indirect rule, especially when a state was deemed "loyal" or "well-governed" under British guidance. It became a powerful symbol of the Crown's 'benevolence' and commitment to its promises.

Lord Curzon (Viceroy, 1899-1905) adopted a more assertive approach towards the princely states, interpreting paramountcy more broadly.

• Asserting Paramountcy More Forcefully: Curzon believed that the British Crown had a direct moral and administrative responsibility for the well-being of the states and their people.
• Emphasis on Efficiency and Loyalty: He stressed that princes must rule efficiently and loyally, seeing them as integral parts of the imperial machinery.
• Increased Supervision: He increased supervision over states' finances and administration, often intervening in appointments and internal policies.
• Training of Princes: Curzon established institutions (e.g., Imperial Cadet Corps) to train young princes in modern administration and military affairs, aiming to make them more competent and loyal instruments of imperial rule.
• "My feudatories": Curzon famously referred to the princes as "my feudatories," clearly signaling their subordinate status.