Princely States under Colonial Rule: Issues of Resource Use

Types of Political Systems in Colonial India Due to the complicated history of colonial acquisition between 1770s and1840s, colonial rule in India was not based on a uniform pattern. In addition to directly ruled areas, there were a number of indirectly ruled princely states. Features of princely states—Doctrine of Paramountcy –Titular ruler on throne with access to income –Supervisory role of Political Agent and committees –Role of minority council very important –Fixed tribute to be paid to Colonial gov. under treaty

Physical Geog. Of Princely States

Heterogeneity of Princely States Great variation in size and resources By million people live in princely states (out of 279 million in Colonial India) A total of 584 states ranging from Hyderabad, bigger than England, v. small state of Biblary with 27 people Seen as a bulwark by Colonial state against increased political demands of nationalist and radical political groups Politically different, from progressive princes such as Baroda v. conservative states in Rajasthan

Maharajas of Baroda (L); Jaipur (R)

Areas of Difference Baroda: Regime had newer roots from 18 th c. Fewer layers of nobility in state Supports more progressive ideas—new edcuational systems, rights for women, “uplift” of lower castes, reforms in governmental policy Ambivalence towards nationalist leaders, but critical of colonial rule Jaipur Emphasizes antiquity of regime Based on a network of relationships with middle- and-local level nobility (thikanas) Support more conservative, caste- based ideas of social hierarchy Oppose liberal education, rights for women, nationalism

Features of Princely Rule Under treaty rules after 1857 given greater control over internal resources, but very little control over foreign relations and army. Fixed tribute leads to higher land revenue demand from peasant communities Princely states given right to continue with controversial demands such as: –Begar (forced labor) –Extra taxes for weddings, purchases –Greater control over police, partly as a way of controlling increasing radicalism of peasants/nationalists

Effects on Resource Extraction During late 19 th –early 20 th C. greater attempts made by rulers to increase revenue to meet tribute/revenue demands –Enclosure of grazing lands, new grazing taxes –Timber contracts (esp. in Hills) Recreational interests assoc. with status such as hunting also lead to protection of woodlands and game –Create tensions with peasants who use woodlands for firewood, construction, food

Political changes, 1920s Outside of princely states a growing nationalist movement emerging—large parties such as the Congress and Muslim League create mass followings In countryside Peasants are organizing themselves into groups (kisan sabhas) to boycott taxes demand debt relief and freedom from begar New alliances being made between Urban politicians, peasant communities, people in princely states

Relationships b/w Princes and Nationalist Parties In general this relationship became more antagonistic as time went on—why? In beginning urban nationalist groups were not opposed to princely power—Gandhi’s own family connections with princely states As nationalists move from a platform of “Home Rule” to “Self Rule” they increasingly focus on civil rights and democratic principles Princely states increasingly seen as “feudal” repressive regimes, complicit in colonial power

In Rajasthan—the following issues emerge By early 20 th century, changes under colonial rule suppress rights of agrarian and pastoral communities and strengthen rights of rulers and nobility over pasture/lands Worldwide depression of agrarian prices has impact on local economy Less state investment in irrigation projects than earlier, loss of community involvement in traditional water- harvesting techniques Enclosure of pasture/commons has highest impact on pastoral groups such as gujjars, banjaras Higher levels of indebtedness to high-caste moneylenders

Political tensions by turn of century: Growing influence of kisan sabhas and other radical groups Nationalist politicians, particularly young congressmen make contacts with urban and rural groups in princely states New political ideas disseminated through religious meetings, pamphlets, informal channels Princes attempt to suppress such movements through increased censorship and police powers