Which of these was a major princely state within India, but NOT a feudatory state of the Nizam?

Gadwal
Wanaparthy
Paloncha
Travancore

The correct answer is D. Travancore.

Gadwal, Wanaparthy, and Paloncha were all feudatory states of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Travancore, on the other hand, was a major princely state within India that was not a feudatory state of the Nizam.

Travancore was a princely state in India that existed from the 13th century to 1949. It was located in the southern part of the Indian subcontinent, on the Malabar Coast. The capital of Travancore was Thiruvananthapuram, which is now the capital of the Indian state of Kerala.

Travancore was a Hindu kingdom ruled by a hereditary monarchy. The last ruler of Travancore was Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, who ruled from 1924 to 1949. In 1949, Travancore merged with the princely state of Cochin to form the state of Travancore-Cochin. In 1956, Travancore-Cochin was merged with the Malabar district of Madras Presidency to form the state of Kerala.

Travancore was a prosperous state with a rich culture and history. It was known for its beautiful temples, palaces, and gardens. Travancore was also a major producer of spices, such as pepper and cardamom.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was the ruler of the princely state of Hyderabad, which was located in the Deccan Plateau of India. The Nizam was a hereditary monarch who ruled from 1724 to 1948. The last Nizam was Mir Osman Ali Khan, who ruled from 1911 to 1948. In 1948, Hyderabad was merged with the Indian Union.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was one of the richest rulers in the world. He owned vast estates and properties, and he had a large collection of jewels and other valuables. The Nizam was also a patron of the arts and sciences. He founded several universities and colleges, and he supported a number of artists and scholars.

The Nizam of Hyderabad was a controversial figure. Some people admired him for his wealth and his patronage of the arts and sciences. Others criticized him for his lavish lifestyle and his lack of concern for the welfare of his subjects.

Exit mobile version