What do you think?
Rate this book
A Princely Affair: The Accession and Integration of the Princely States of Pakistan, 1947-1955
On August 15, 1947, West Pakistan was less than half its present size. Nearly a year of negotiations, arguments, threats, and even chance, brought nine princely states into the Pakistani fold. Thereafter followed a long and staggered process of integration.
Using hitherto inaccessible primary sources, this path-breaking book completes the story of the creation of Pakistan. In charting the accession and integration of the princely states, this book shows, for the first time in detail, the complicated and often botched processes of the early consolidation of Pakistan. The problems emanating from this early period, haphazard constitutional integration, weak local political forces, the insurgency in Balochistan since 1948, and a weak sense of national identity and citizenship remain with Pakistan today.
Using hitherto inaccessible primary sources, this path-breaking book completes the story of the creation of Pakistan. In charting the accession and integration of the princely states, this book shows, for the first time in detail, the complicated and often botched processes of the early consolidation of Pakistan. The problems emanating from this early period, haphazard constitutional integration, weak local political forces, the insurgency in Balochistan since 1948, and a weak sense of national identity and citizenship remain with Pakistan today.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published June 25, 2015
8 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 6, 2016
I reviewed this book for my training institute which assigned it to me. Here's what I wrote for a grade.
The book is about the princely states that acceded to Pakistan after the British left the subcontinent. This book is the first of its kind that deals with the princely states that acceded to Pakistan. Though there was historical research and books available that dealt with states that acceded to India, there was dearth of material in a single book form that dealt with the states that were integrated into Pakistan. The book first introduces the history of the princely states such as Khairpur, Bahawalpur, Kalat, Hunza and Nagar, Swat, Dir, Amb and Chitral. When the British ruled India, they directly controlled only half of it, the rest of India was ruled by princes and Maharajas who had accepted the British paramountcy and accepted the British Crown as the only true power here by signing treaties. When the British decided to leave India and end the colonial rule, all those treaties were to become null with the lapse of paramountcy. Theoretically, the states were to become independent. However, the big three: the British, the Indian Government and the Pakistani government wanted those states to accede to the two dominions instead of becoming independent.
This is a work of history. The author details the events as it occurred but the job of the historian is also to interpret history as he or she sees it. The author’s main thesis is the states that acceded to Pakistan were fundamentally different from the states that acceded to India. Professor Barbara Ramusack’s book on Indian Princely States ranked states in India as 1) Antique States which originated from the thirteenth century onwards and their assimilation in the Mughal administration prefigured their subsequent incorporation into the British Empire. The states in the Rajputana agency, Central India and the Simla Hill were put in this category by Professor Barbara Ramusack. 2) Successor States were those that actually clearly traced their origin to the Mughal Empire. Oudh, Hyderabad and Bengal were the examples of such kind of states. 3) Warrior or Conquest States which included states were the states that were established by warrior groups which contested with an overarching authority (like Mughals) to form new political entities by offering military protection to local population. The examples of these princely states included Bhopal, Rampur and Maratha. Bangash’s main thesis is that the states that acceded to Pakistan were neither like the Antique states like those in Rajputana and Central India which were inspired by the classic Brahiminic texts where the King is said to the Vallabha or Patti i.e. the husband and lord of the land and earth and the people were regarded as their Praja i.e. children, nor like the successor states like Oudh and Hyderabad which emulated the Mughal court and nor were they like the Conquest states. The states that acceded to Pakistan were mainly tribal states that existed at the periphery of the Indian Empire. Harsh terrain and scarcity of resources resulted in the tribal mode of living in those areas. As we look at the states that acceded to Pakistan on a map: Kalat, Dir, Swat, Amb, Chitral, Hunza, Nagar we can clearly see that all of those mentioned were on the western and north western frontiers of the Indian Empire. With the exception of Bahawalpur and Khairpur which were more like the princely states that acceded to India and emulated the princely airs of Maharajas of Indian princely states, those states had frugal ways and didn’t spend lavishly on palaces and jewels and expensive pomp and show.
The tribal way of organizing society limited the powers of the head of the state which was not the hereditary prince and might be removed from his position if the Jirga deemed fit. Bangash defies Professor Barbara Ramasuck in this respect as she claimed that the princely states in both the dominions of India and Pakistan had similar experiences. He asserts that since the general makeup of states acceding Pakistan was different, they underwent a different experience and they were dealt with differently. His point being there were more difficulties faced by the Government of Pakistan in integrating those unruly states. The case in point is Kalat which was actually one state that fared quite well in remaining independent for seven months. It claimed suzerainty over Lasbela and Kharan. Persuading it to accede resulted from numerous meetings, negotiations, and even threats. Thus author maintained that dealing with the frontier states was more complicated than dealing with states that fell within Indian Territory. Furthermore, these princely states were never a definite part of Mughal Empire. They were often changing hands between Mughals and Persians in case of Kalat. On the other hand, Hunza and Nagar also used to pay tribute to China for protection. Moreover, lassiez faire approach of the Muslim League to deal with the princely states strongly contrasted with the Indian Government approach of aggressively seizing states and integrating them. Lack of clear policies in the initial years of accession and integration of princely states still haunt Pakistan as there are insurgencies and a feeling of deprivation among some of the previous princely states.
The author has a point. Though the major chunk of population of Pakistan was in what was previously the British India, almost half of the area of Pakistan was beforehand governed by the states either tribal or feudal in nature. Kalat was enormous, so was Bahawalpur and Khairpur was not small either. Though frontier states in the north like Hunza, Nagar and Dir were smaller in size, their strategic importance exceeded much more than their size. Barring Khairpur and Bahawalpur, all these states could not become what were the textbook Indian princely states with Maharajas donning exquisite clothes studded with jewels and living in lavish and enormous palaces keeping a harem of beautiful maidens. Though Bahawalpur fits the profile whose Abbasi Nawab kept a harem, married a white woman and lived an extravagant life, majority of the states’ princes did not have that luxury. Their mode of societal organization was tribal. The British Indian government had no clear policy towards them. Gun salutes was their way of classifying princely states. More gun salutes were given to important princely states and whoever rebelled against the crown was given a brutal lesson and subjugated. Therefore, all the frontier states, however unruly had to accept the British paramountcy. When the British paramountcy lapsed, it was a challenge for the Pakistani government to deal with them. The ultimate aim should have been to strategically do away with the feudal and tribal mode of governance to a representative form of government. That was to be done in the initial years. The laissez faire and piecemeal policies of Muslim League proved to be unhealthy which continue to haunt Pakistan in the shape of Baloch insurgencies that arise chiefly from region that was erstwhile Kalat.
The author, however, was trying too hard and focused to prove Professor Barbara Ramasuck wrong. Even though there were differences between states that acceded to Pakistan and those which acceded to India, the thesis wasn’t strong enough as there were common grounds too as all states had accepted British paramountcy, they had their gun salutes, they derive legitimacy and protection from the British Empire. He could have stuck to just writing history.
The author was also looking at the whole competition of acquisition of states from the point of view of Pakistan. It was as if he was not being neutral and is taking sides. For example, the author’s tone was lamenting when he discussed the case of Junagarh and its accession to India despite the fact that the Prince of Junagarh had signed the instrument of accession to Pakistan. This way the author adopted a partisan approach that was not scholarly and objective.
Recommendations and Improvements
As far as the organization of the book is concerned, it follows a logical chronological structure. The writing is sometimes very sloppy. For example,
“As shown below, the princes and states which acceded to Pakistan were not in the textbook ‘Indian Princely States’ image, to which the Raj had given rise.”
The book is full of such sentences. Moreover, the maps are not clearly visible. They are too small to make any sense out of them. Family trees are missing. Chronological charts are missing which could have been a great help in making sense of the timeline of accession of states and other historical events.
The book is heavily footnoted which gives enough detail and points out useful resources. Bibliography is given and an Index that I personally found to be helpful was there. It is a well-researched book even reproducing copies of the original documents such as instrument of accessions of princely states. It could have been better if these considerations were taken into account.
The book is about the princely states that acceded to Pakistan after the British left the subcontinent. This book is the first of its kind that deals with the princely states that acceded to Pakistan. Though there was historical research and books available that dealt with states that acceded to India, there was dearth of material in a single book form that dealt with the states that were integrated into Pakistan. The book first introduces the history of the princely states such as Khairpur, Bahawalpur, Kalat, Hunza and Nagar, Swat, Dir, Amb and Chitral. When the British ruled India, they directly controlled only half of it, the rest of India was ruled by princes and Maharajas who had accepted the British paramountcy and accepted the British Crown as the only true power here by signing treaties. When the British decided to leave India and end the colonial rule, all those treaties were to become null with the lapse of paramountcy. Theoretically, the states were to become independent. However, the big three: the British, the Indian Government and the Pakistani government wanted those states to accede to the two dominions instead of becoming independent.
This is a work of history. The author details the events as it occurred but the job of the historian is also to interpret history as he or she sees it. The author’s main thesis is the states that acceded to Pakistan were fundamentally different from the states that acceded to India. Professor Barbara Ramusack’s book on Indian Princely States ranked states in India as 1) Antique States which originated from the thirteenth century onwards and their assimilation in the Mughal administration prefigured their subsequent incorporation into the British Empire. The states in the Rajputana agency, Central India and the Simla Hill were put in this category by Professor Barbara Ramusack. 2) Successor States were those that actually clearly traced their origin to the Mughal Empire. Oudh, Hyderabad and Bengal were the examples of such kind of states. 3) Warrior or Conquest States which included states were the states that were established by warrior groups which contested with an overarching authority (like Mughals) to form new political entities by offering military protection to local population. The examples of these princely states included Bhopal, Rampur and Maratha. Bangash’s main thesis is that the states that acceded to Pakistan were neither like the Antique states like those in Rajputana and Central India which were inspired by the classic Brahiminic texts where the King is said to the Vallabha or Patti i.e. the husband and lord of the land and earth and the people were regarded as their Praja i.e. children, nor like the successor states like Oudh and Hyderabad which emulated the Mughal court and nor were they like the Conquest states. The states that acceded to Pakistan were mainly tribal states that existed at the periphery of the Indian Empire. Harsh terrain and scarcity of resources resulted in the tribal mode of living in those areas. As we look at the states that acceded to Pakistan on a map: Kalat, Dir, Swat, Amb, Chitral, Hunza, Nagar we can clearly see that all of those mentioned were on the western and north western frontiers of the Indian Empire. With the exception of Bahawalpur and Khairpur which were more like the princely states that acceded to India and emulated the princely airs of Maharajas of Indian princely states, those states had frugal ways and didn’t spend lavishly on palaces and jewels and expensive pomp and show.
The tribal way of organizing society limited the powers of the head of the state which was not the hereditary prince and might be removed from his position if the Jirga deemed fit. Bangash defies Professor Barbara Ramasuck in this respect as she claimed that the princely states in both the dominions of India and Pakistan had similar experiences. He asserts that since the general makeup of states acceding Pakistan was different, they underwent a different experience and they were dealt with differently. His point being there were more difficulties faced by the Government of Pakistan in integrating those unruly states. The case in point is Kalat which was actually one state that fared quite well in remaining independent for seven months. It claimed suzerainty over Lasbela and Kharan. Persuading it to accede resulted from numerous meetings, negotiations, and even threats. Thus author maintained that dealing with the frontier states was more complicated than dealing with states that fell within Indian Territory. Furthermore, these princely states were never a definite part of Mughal Empire. They were often changing hands between Mughals and Persians in case of Kalat. On the other hand, Hunza and Nagar also used to pay tribute to China for protection. Moreover, lassiez faire approach of the Muslim League to deal with the princely states strongly contrasted with the Indian Government approach of aggressively seizing states and integrating them. Lack of clear policies in the initial years of accession and integration of princely states still haunt Pakistan as there are insurgencies and a feeling of deprivation among some of the previous princely states.
The author has a point. Though the major chunk of population of Pakistan was in what was previously the British India, almost half of the area of Pakistan was beforehand governed by the states either tribal or feudal in nature. Kalat was enormous, so was Bahawalpur and Khairpur was not small either. Though frontier states in the north like Hunza, Nagar and Dir were smaller in size, their strategic importance exceeded much more than their size. Barring Khairpur and Bahawalpur, all these states could not become what were the textbook Indian princely states with Maharajas donning exquisite clothes studded with jewels and living in lavish and enormous palaces keeping a harem of beautiful maidens. Though Bahawalpur fits the profile whose Abbasi Nawab kept a harem, married a white woman and lived an extravagant life, majority of the states’ princes did not have that luxury. Their mode of societal organization was tribal. The British Indian government had no clear policy towards them. Gun salutes was their way of classifying princely states. More gun salutes were given to important princely states and whoever rebelled against the crown was given a brutal lesson and subjugated. Therefore, all the frontier states, however unruly had to accept the British paramountcy. When the British paramountcy lapsed, it was a challenge for the Pakistani government to deal with them. The ultimate aim should have been to strategically do away with the feudal and tribal mode of governance to a representative form of government. That was to be done in the initial years. The laissez faire and piecemeal policies of Muslim League proved to be unhealthy which continue to haunt Pakistan in the shape of Baloch insurgencies that arise chiefly from region that was erstwhile Kalat.
The author, however, was trying too hard and focused to prove Professor Barbara Ramasuck wrong. Even though there were differences between states that acceded to Pakistan and those which acceded to India, the thesis wasn’t strong enough as there were common grounds too as all states had accepted British paramountcy, they had their gun salutes, they derive legitimacy and protection from the British Empire. He could have stuck to just writing history.
The author was also looking at the whole competition of acquisition of states from the point of view of Pakistan. It was as if he was not being neutral and is taking sides. For example, the author’s tone was lamenting when he discussed the case of Junagarh and its accession to India despite the fact that the Prince of Junagarh had signed the instrument of accession to Pakistan. This way the author adopted a partisan approach that was not scholarly and objective.
Recommendations and Improvements
As far as the organization of the book is concerned, it follows a logical chronological structure. The writing is sometimes very sloppy. For example,
“As shown below, the princes and states which acceded to Pakistan were not in the textbook ‘Indian Princely States’ image, to which the Raj had given rise.”
The book is full of such sentences. Moreover, the maps are not clearly visible. They are too small to make any sense out of them. Family trees are missing. Chronological charts are missing which could have been a great help in making sense of the timeline of accession of states and other historical events.
The book is heavily footnoted which gives enough detail and points out useful resources. Bibliography is given and an Index that I personally found to be helpful was there. It is a well-researched book even reproducing copies of the original documents such as instrument of accessions of princely states. It could have been better if these considerations were taken into account.
October 3, 2023
Unlike K.K. Aziz, Yaqoob Khan Bangash meanders to his point. Even if the point is valid, the exhausting journey you have to take really derails the impact of the book.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews