Skip to main content

Integration of Princely States - By Isha

 Integration of Princely States – By Isha


Introduction

On the eve of Independence and Partition of India in 1947, there existed two India viz., 

  1. British India

  2. Native India


The British India was ruled and controlled by the British. The Native India consisted of 565 Native states ruled by native princes. These native states were under the paramountcy of the British.

The Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 recognised the legal right of the princely states of the British paramountcy. Hence, the Indian Independence Act of 1947 not only abolished the British paramountcy over the native states but also divided India into two independent nations viz., Indian Union and Pakistan. Thus the Princely States were given full freedom either to join Indian Union or Pakistan or to remain independent. This status of princely states posed a threat to the very existence of Indian Union.

The Interim Government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru felt it vital to bring all the princely states into the fold of Indian Union in the interests of India’s unity and security. Therefore it set up Home Ministry (5th July 1947) with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as minister in charge and V.P. Menon as the Secretary to deal with the princely states. 

The princely states were appealed to join the Indian Union by signing the Instrument of Accession. Lord Mountbatten also advised the princely states to accede to either Indian Union or Pakistan before 15th August, 1947. As a result of the appeal, all the princely states except Junagadh, Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union by 15th August 1947.


  1. Accession of Junagadh, 29th January 1949


Junagadh was a small princely state of Kathiawad district of Gujarat. Its ruler was Muslim and its population were predominantly Hindus. It’s neighbouring states i.e. Baroda and Bhavnagar were also Hindu states. It had no direct territorial link with Pakistan. Inspired by religious sympathy, the Muslim ruler of Junagadh accorded to Pakistan. But the people rose in revolt and protested against the action of the ruler. The situation became grave and the ruler of Junagadh fled to Pakistan.

The Government of India was forced to take over the administration of Junagadh by sending it’s troops. In 1948, a referendum was held and the people of Junagadh favoured accession to India. The merger finally took place on 29th January 1949.


  1. Hyderabad, 23rd November 1949


Hyderabad was a princely state. Like Junagadh it’s ruler was also a Muslim (Nizam) and it’s population were predominantly Hindus. The Hindus constituted 85 percent of the population. The Government of India appealed to Nizam, the ruler of Hyderabad to accede to the Indian Union. Being influenced by the Muslim organization ‘Ittehadul Mussalman’ and it’s leader Kasim Razvi, the Nizam did not respond. In the meanwhile Lord Mountbatten promised some special concessions to the Nizam, if he acceded to the Indian Union. This was also rejected by Nizam. However, he signed a temporary agreement with the Government of India known as Standstill Agreement on 20th November 1947. The Razakars, under the leadership of Razvi committed atrocities on Hindus. The lawlessness in the state became so grave that the government of India had no other alternative except to take police action. The Indian troops headed by General Chaudhary entered Hyderabad on 13th September 1948. Nizam surrendered to the Government of India. At last, he acceded to the Indian Union on 23rd November 1949.


  1. Kashmir


Kashmir was also a big princely state of India. It was ruled over by Hari Singh, a Hindu. But most of its population was Muslim. It was a neighbouring state to Pakistan. In spite of appeals from both the countries, Hari Singh did not join either India or Pakistan but remained independent. In connivance with Pakistan, the Muslim tribesmen of the frontier invaded Kashmir on 22nd October 1947. Soon, they occupied some towns and threatened Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir. Then the ruler of Kashmir sought help of the government of India. The Government of India informed him that Indian troops could not enter the state, unless he signed the ‘Instrument of Accession’ on 26th October 1947. On 27th October 1947, the Indian troops entered Kashmir, checked the Pakistani aggression and drove away the infiltrators. Thus, Kashmir became an integral part of the Indian Union. But Pakistan disputed the accession of Kashmir to Indian Union. Instead of expelling the aggressors  the region they occupied one third region of Kashmir on 1st January 1949. As a result, one third of Kashmir was under the occupation of Pakistan and the rest constituted an integral part of the Indian Union. Now it became an issue between the two countries.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more