Indian Princely States Archives

1. Who among the following headed the Indian States Committee formed in t

Who among the following headed the Indian States Committee formed in the year 1928 ?

Motilal Nehru

Sir Harcourt Butler

Ian Copland

M.A. Jinnah

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Indian States Committee was appointed by the British government in 1927 to investigate the relationship between the Paramount Power (the British Crown) and the Princely States of India, and to suggest measures for their economic and financial relations. It was headed by Sir Harcourt Butler and is therefore famously known as the Butler Committee (1928 is the year it submitted its report, having been appointed in 1927).

– The committee’s main task was to clarify the complex relationship and obligations between the British Crown and the rulers of the Indian Princely States, who were not directly under British Indian administration.
– Its report was submitted in 1928.
– The committee emphasized that paramountcy must remain supreme and that the states should not be transferred without their agreement to a new government in British India responsible to an Indian legislature.

Motilal Nehru chaired the committee that produced the ‘Nehru Report’ in 1928, which drafted a dominion status constitution for India. M.A. Jinnah was a prominent leader of the Muslim League. Ian Copland is a modern historian who has written extensively on the princely states.

2. The Congress leader Swami Ramananda Tirtha was active in the freedom s

The Congress leader Swami Ramananda Tirtha was active in the freedom struggle in which of the following Princely States?

Kashmir

Mysore

Baroda

Hyderabad

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Swami Ramananda Tirtha was active in the freedom struggle in the Princely State of Hyderabad.

– Swami Ramananda Tirtha (born Venkatesh Bhagwan Khedgikar) was a prominent Indian freedom fighter, educator, and social activist.
– He is considered the architect of the freedom movement in the Hyderabad state.
– He founded the Hyderabad State Congress in 1938 and led the struggle for the integration of Hyderabad with the Indian Union after India’s independence, opposing the Nizam’s reluctance to accede.

The movement led by Swami Ramananda Tirtha in Hyderabad involved both peaceful protests and later, a more forceful struggle (known as Operation Polo or Police Action by the Indian government) due to the Nizam’s defiance and the violence perpetrated by the Razakars (a paramilitary force).

3. Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of

Which one of the following statements does not apply to the system of Subsidiary Alliance introduced by Lord Wellesley ?

To maintain a large standing army at other's expense

To keep India safe from Napoleonic danger

To secure a fixed income for the Company

To establish British paramountcy over the Indian States

This question was previously asked in

UPSC IAS – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The system of Subsidiary Alliance, introduced by Lord Wellesley, aimed to bring Indian states under British control. While the Indian state had to pay for the maintenance of the British contingent stationed within its territory (which indirectly benefited the Company financially), the primary purpose was not “to secure a fixed income for the Company.” The payment was often in the form of cession of territory rather than a fixed cash income, and the main objectives were political and military dominance.

The main objectives of the Subsidiary Alliance were military protection against external threats (like Napoleon) and internal dissent, maintaining a large army at the expense of Indian states, controlling the foreign policy of Indian states, and establishing British paramountcy.

Under the alliance, the Indian ruler had to disband his own army, accept a British Resident at his court, and could not enter into alliances or relations with other foreign powers or Indian states without the Company’s permission. This effectively stripped the Indian states of their sovereignty and brought them under complete British control.

4. The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to

The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to

Define the jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Governments.

Define the powers of the Secretary of State for India.

Impose censorship on national press.

Improve the relationship between the Government of India and the Indian States.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC IAS – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Butler Committee, officially known as the Indian States Committee, was appointed in 1927 by the British government, headed by Sir Harcourt Butler. Its primary mandate was to examine the relationship between the Paramount Power (the British Crown) and the Indian Princely States, and to make recommendations for the satisfactory settlement of the financial and economic relations between British India and the States. The overarching objective was to improve and clarify the complex and often strained relationship between the government of British India and the numerous semi-autonomous princely states. Option D accurately reflects this main object.

– The Butler Committee was the Indian States Committee of 1927.
– Its focus was on the relationship between British India and the Princely States.

The Committee’s report (1929) asserted the paramountcy of the British Crown and stated that the states could not be transferred to a future self-governing British India without their agreement. This concept of paramountcy and the committee’s recommendations played a significant role in the discussions regarding the future integration of princely states into independent India.

5. Which one of the following statements about ‘Princely States’ in India

Which one of the following statements about ‘Princely States’ in India is not correct?

The British Government declared that States were free to join either India or Pakistan or remain independent.

The decision to join India or Pakistan or remain independent was left not to the people of Princely States but to the Princely Rulers.

The Ruler of Travancore first decided to remain independent.

The State of Travancore finally joined India through a plebiscite.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

Statement A is correct, as the Indian Independence Act of 1947 gave princely states the option to accede to India or Pakistan or remain independent. Statement B is correct; the decision legally rested with the ruler, although popular opinion and geographical location played significant roles. Statement C is correct; the Dewan of Travancore, C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, initially declared the state’s intention to remain independent. Statement D is incorrect; Travancore did not join India through a plebiscite. It acceded to India in July 1947 after negotiations, political pressure, and an assassination attempt on the Dewan. Plebiscites were used in states like Junagadh and a conditional plebiscite was proposed for Jammu and Kashmir, while Hyderabad was integrated through police action.

The integration of princely states into the Indian Union after independence was a complex process involving negotiation, diplomacy, and in some cases, military action or plebiscites. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon played crucial roles in this process.

By August 15, 1947, most states had signed the Instrument of Accession, joining India. However, a few states, notably Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Jammu & Kashmir, posed significant challenges and their integration involved different methods. Travancore’s initial resistance and eventual accession are also notable events in this history.

6. Which of the following Princely States saw major movements over the pe

Which of the following Princely States saw major movements over the period from 1930s to 1940s?

1. Tripura
2. Nilgiri
3. Baroda
4. Travancore

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1, 2 and 4 only

2 and 4 only

1 and 3 only

1, 2, 3 and 4

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2012

Download PDF Attempt Online

During the 1930s and 1940s, coinciding with significant nationalist movements in British India, there were also widespread movements for political reforms and responsible government in many princely states. These movements were often led by Praja Mandals (People’s Associations) or similar organizations. Tripura, Nilgiri (in Odisha), Baroda, and Travancore all witnessed significant political agitation and movements during this period, demanding greater rights for the people and integration with the future Indian Union.

The Praja Mandal movements were parallel nationalist movements in the princely states that sought democratic rights, responsible government under the aegis of the ruler, and later, integration with independent India.

Notable movements include the Travancore State Congress agitation, the Praja Mandal movements in the Eastern States Agency (including Nilgiri), Baroda’s reforms movement, and political awakening in states like Tripura. These movements played a crucial role in the eventual integration of princely states into the Indian Union.

7. Which one among the following Princely States opted for a direct deali

Which one among the following Princely States opted for a direct dealing with the Constituent Assembly in the year 1946 instead of through the Chamber of Princes?

Baroda

Travancore

Junagadh

Mysore

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2012

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) Travancore. Travancore was one of the first princely states to declare its intention to become independent and not join the Indian Union in 1947. Even prior to this declaration, in 1946, some states like Travancore explored the possibility of dealing directly with the Constituent Assembly rather than exclusively through the Chamber of Princes, which represented the collective interests of the states.

– Travancore, under its Dewan C.P. Ramaswami Iyer, took a strong stance on independence and direct negotiations, bypassing the Chamber of Princes.
– This move was significant in the complex process of integrating princely states into the Indian Union.

The Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) was an institution established in 1920 by a royal proclamation of the British government to provide a forum for the rulers of the princely states to voice their needs and aspirations. While many states used this channel, some, like Travancore, sought independent approaches during the crucial period leading up to India’s independence and the formation of the Constituent Assembly. Baroda was significant as the first state to accede to India, but Travancore’s early declaration of independence and direct dealings were notable in 1946-47. Junagadh and Mysore also eventually acceded to India.

8. Which one among the following is not correct about the Subsidiary Alli

Which one among the following is not correct about the Subsidiary Alliance ?

It was formulated by Wellesley

British army was posted in the subsidiary state

It did not recognize an adopted heir to a subsidiary state

A British Resident was posted in the subsidiary state

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2010

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option C is incorrect about the Subsidiary Alliance. The Subsidiary Alliance system, formulated by Lord Wellesley, did not deal with the issue of succession or the recognition of adopted heirs. This was a feature of the Doctrine of Lapse, introduced later by Lord Dalhousie, which stated that if a ruler of a protected state died without a natural heir, the state would be annexed by the British, and adopted heirs were generally not recognized. The Subsidiary Alliance focused on bringing Indian states under British control regarding foreign policy, defence, and internal administration via a Resident.

The Subsidiary Alliance system required Indian states to accept a permanent British force within their territory, pay for its maintenance, surrender their external relations to the British, and accept a British Resident at their court. In return, the British promised protection against external enemies.

Lord Wellesley used the Subsidiary Alliance system extensively to expand British influence in India. Key states that accepted the alliance included Hyderabad (1798), Mysore (1799), Oudh (1801), and the Maratha Peshwa (1802). The system effectively stripped the Indian rulers of their sovereignty and brought them under British control.

9. Which one of the following areas was acquired by the British under the

Which one of the following areas was acquired by the British under the Treaty of Deogaon, 1803?

Cuttack

Murshidabad

Surat

Calicut

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-2 – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A, Cuttack.

The Treaty of Deogaon was one of the treaties signed in December 1803, marking the end of the Second Anglo-Maratha War with the Bhonsle Raja of Nagpur (Berar). According to this treaty, the Raja ceded the province of Cuttack (which included Balasore) and territory west of the Wardha river to the British East India Company. This acquisition was significant for the British as it connected their possessions in Bengal with those in Madras along the eastern coast.
– Murshidabad was the capital of the Bengal Subah under the Nawabs and was brought under effective British control after the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the grant of Diwani (1765).
– Surat was an important trading port in Gujarat, controlled at various times by the Mughals and Marathas, and became a key British trading post, but its acquisition wasn’t primarily defined by the Treaty of Deogaon.
– Calicut (Kozhikode) was a significant port on the Malabar Coast in present-day Kerala, involved in trade with Arab and European merchants, distinct from the areas covered by the Anglo-Maratha Wars in 1803.

The Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805) involved the British against the Scindia, Holkar, and Bhonsle confederacy. The British signed separate treaties with these Maratha powers: Treaty of Bassein (1802) with the Peshwa (which triggered the war), Treaty of Surji-Anjangaon (1803) with Scindia, and Treaty of Deogaon (1803) with Bhonsle. These treaties significantly expanded British territory and influence in India.

10. The Indian States Committee was formed in 1928 under:

The Indian States Committee was formed in 1928 under:

The Raja of Junagadh

Ian Copland

Sir Harcourt Butler

Motilal Nehru

This question was previously asked in

UPSC NDA-2 – 2015

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Indian States Committee was appointed by the British Government in December 1927 to examine the relationship between the Paramount Power (the British Crown) and the Indian Princely States and to suggest ways to improve economic and financial relations between British India and the States. The committee was chaired by Sir Harcourt Butler. Its report was published in 1929, and it is commonly known as the Butler Committee. The question states it was formed in 1928, which is slightly inaccurate (formed in Dec 1927) but Sir Harcourt Butler was definitely the chairman.

The Indian States Committee, also known as the Butler Committee, was formed in 1927 under the chairmanship of Sir Harcourt Butler to study the relationship between the British Crown and the Princely States.

The committee’s report emphasized the paramountcy of the British Crown and stated that the relationship between the Crown and the States was direct and not through British India. This disappointed the princely rulers who had hoped for greater autonomy or a clearer definition of paramountcy. The report also dealt with financial and economic issues.