Integration of Princely States - Background, Reasons, List of Princely States, Role of Sardar Patel & More

The integration of princely states represented a turning point in India's post-independence consolidation. When it achieved independence from British dominance in 1947, the Indian subcontinent was divided into two separate territorial configurations: one consisting of areas directly governed by the British, and the second consisting of princely states—semi-autonomous territories under British Crown suzerainty. Although these princely states had autonomy in matters of internal administration, they were not legally included within British India. There were more than 565 princely states then, and they accounted for almost 28% of the people and about 48% of the pre-independent India landmass.

The topic of princely state integration is highly significant for aspirants of the UPSC Civil Services Examination. It constitutes a core theme under Modern Indian History in the General Studies Paper-I of the UPSC Mains syllabus and also features prominently in the General Studies Paper-I of the Prelims syllabus.

In this article, we shall study the historical background, reasons, and list of Integration of princely states.

What was Integration of Princely States?

The Integration of Princely States incorporated semi-autonomous princely territories into the newly independent India after 1947. It involved negotiating with princely rulers to accede to the Indian Union voluntarily. The Instrument of Accession facilitated the accession process, a legal document that allowed the princely states to join India. India's Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, was instrumental in convincing princely states to accede to the Union. Princely states opposed integration and caused disturbances such as the Hyderabad Police Action and annexation of Junagadh and Manavadar. The majority of the princely states had integrated into India by 1950, making the country more integrated and territorially contiguous.

Around 565, princely kingdoms recognized and developed special ties with the British Empire. All these states, a total of 565, would subsequently gain legal independence. The Britishers claimed that the Princely States would no longer be under British control once they no longer ruled India just before India attained independence.

Indian Independence Act of 1947, which established India and Pakistan, provided options to princely states: join one or the other nation, or remain independent. Sardar Patel played a vital role, formulating an integration formula together with V.P. Menon. Instrument of Accession was an important legal instrument signed by India and Pakistan that provided for India to have authority on matters of foreign, defense, and communication and states on internal matters. States such as Gwalier, Bikaner, Patiala, and Baroda were among the initial states to accede to India on April 28, 1947.

Piploda joined India in March 1948. Among the 552 princely states within India's geography, the last three – Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Kashmir – initially hesitated. However, they were eventually incorporated into India: Hyderabad through police action, Junagarh via a referendum, and Kashmir through the Instrument of Accession.

Lord Louis Mountbatten, as Viceroy and then Governor-General, played a pivotal role in pressuring reluctant princely rulers toward accession. He made it clear that no princely state would be permitted dominion status or accepted into the British Commonwealth unless it joined India or Pakistan, effectively undermining the possibility of independent existence for states like Bhopal and Junagadh. He leveraged personal relationships—being trusted by rulers (such as the Nawab of Bhopal)—to gain their accession 

Mountbatten also dismantled the British Political Department, which had managed relations with the princely states, and replaced it with India’s States Department in June 1947. This new structure, led by Sardar Patel as Minister of States and V. P. Menon as administrative head, centralized authority over state accession and integration

Study in detail about India’s Freedom Struggle with this link!

How did India achieve the Integration of Princely States?

Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the first deputy prime minister of India, unified the Princely republics by merging political maneuvering and coercion. Patel was born on October 31, 1875. Some of his significant actions in the following states are listed below:

Jodhpur

• To urge the king of Jodhpur to ally herself with India, the Diwan of the neighboring state of Bikaner was employed.
• As a result, Jodhpur and the Instrument of Accession were signed.

Bhopal

• Lord Mountbatten attempted to prevent any integration into the Union of India after asking the Nawab of Bhopal to sign the Instrument of Accession by arguing that the interests of Muslims in the Hindu-dominated province would be endangered after the accession.
• However, the citizens of Bhopal had come to understand that this was only being done to keep the Nawab in control of the state and had little to do with the real interests of any community.
• The Instrument of Accession with India was thus required to be signed by the Nawab.

Travancore

• Travancore (Kerala) was thought to have adequate natural resource reserves, which led to the belief that it could live independently.
• As a result, it desired to maintain its independence. Jawaharlal Nehru tried to convince the Dewan of Travancore, C. P. Ramaswami Iyer, but he refused to sign the Instrument of Accession despite being invited to Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru. C.P.'s anti-communist stance made him unpopular with the Kingdom’s Communists.
• On July 25, 1947, C. P. faced an attempted assassination. The Instrument of Accession was signed due to his recommendation to the King of Travancore to join India from his hospital bed.

Also, read about the Rise of Gandhi in the national freedom struggle.

Junagarh

• A princely state with a large Hindu population controlled by a Muslim sultan.
• It has previously ratified the agreement with Pakistan to reside on Pakistani soil. However, India strongly believes in the public’s desire for such a choice.
• Thus, V.P. Menon and V.B. Patel persuaded Shahnawaz Khan Bhutto’s Diwan of Junagarh to hold a plebiscite. But not before cutting off Junagadh’s access to the air and land.
• The Nawab and his family escaped to Pakistan due to fighting between the Indian and Junaghadi troops.
• Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s father, His Dewan Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, asked the Indian government to step in and sent a letter to Mr. Buch, the government of India’s regional commissioner for Saurashtra, to that effect. Following a later vote, Junagadh became a part of India.

Also, check out the Timeline of India’s History here!

Hyderabad

• The Telangana insurrection, the movement of peasants led by communists against the Jagirdars and Talukdars, and the growth of Gandhian schemes like Prabhat Pheri and Khadi are only a few examples of events that gave the impression that the power of Hyderabad’s rulers was transient.
• Ittehadul Muslameen, an organization of conservative Muslims, and the Razakars militia were successfully organized by the Nawab of Hyderabad.
• They questioned the concept of India, and as a result, the Government of India finally took police action in 1948, which resulted in Hyderabad’s surrender on September 17 of that same year.
• The Nawab consented to Hyderabad joining India. He was promoted to Rajpramukh (Governor) of Hyderabad, a democratic state.
• This may be described as a seamless power transfer from the king to the democratic system without any sensation of dethronement.

Kashmir

• Kashmir was not a part of Pakistan or India during Independence. Maharaja Hari Singh, the King of Kashmir, asked the Indian Government for assistance on October 22, 1947, when a portion of Pakistan, supported by their army, assaulted Kashmir.
• Following Maharaja’s signature on the Instrument of Accession, the Indian Army was dispatched to assist Kashmir.
• Finally, on December 31, 1948, there was a cease-fire between India and Pakistan. India addressed the UN over this issue.
• As a result, the UN requested that Pakistan disarm in 1951 and India conduct a referendum in the region. Pakistan has not, however, withdrawn its forces from the region, and as a result, there is still a point of contention between the two countries.
• India refers to the territory held by Pakistan as “Pak Occupied Kashmir,” while Pakistan refers to it as “Azad Kashmir.”

Pre‑Independence Political Pressure from Congress

• Since the 1920s, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru explicitly challenged the legitimacy of princely rule. At the 1928 Calcutta Session and 1929 Lahore Congress, they demanded that princely states grant full responsible government and emphasized that only the people's consent—not royal privilege—could determine governance.
• Following the 1937 provincial elections, Congress ministers in princely states organized protests and satyagrahas demanding democracy. 
• Gandhi famously fasted in Rajkot State to campaign for responsible governance, declaring the people as the real rulers under colonial oversight.
• By 1947, Nehru warned that any princely state refusing to join India would be treated as an “enemy state”.

Know the History of Kashmir here.

Reasons for Integration of the Princely States

• Integrating the princely states into a unified, universally administered India was one of the first and biggest issues to emerge after independence.
• The British patronized these princely nations during the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus they were reluctant to cede their position of authority and prestige.
• Before independence, the states that presented issues included Jodhpur, Bhopal, and Travancore. After independence, Junagarh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir.
• India’s newly elected government opposed the idea of autonomous nations existing within the state because it would compromise India’s internal and external security.
• It was believed that these Princely States would serve as a staging area for an assault on the entire nation in the event of an incursion by a foreign power.
• Pakistan was also attempting to court the Princely kingdoms and the Indian government. Consequently, it was essential to unite the Princely states as quickly as feasible.

List of the Princely States and Their Integration

The list of princely states and their integration year is mentioned in the table below:

Four-step Integration Of Princely States

The four steps of Integration of princely states include merger, democratization, centralization, constitutionalization, and reorganization, discussed below:

Merger

• This procedure began with the execution of Covenants of Merger by the rulers of nearby great nations and numerous surrounding small states to persuade them to join forces to create a “princely union.”
• The unification of Gwalior, Indore, and eighteen lesser states resulted in Madhya Bharat on May 28, 1948. The Patiala and East Punjab States Union included Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalargarh, and Kalsia, was established in Punjab on July 15, 1948.
• Six additional states joined the princely union of Saurashtra the next year, making Patel successful in his native Gujarat’s Kathiawar peninsula, where 222 states were united in January 1948.

Democratization

• The States Department took Sardar Patel’s advice and put it into practice by having the rajpramukhs of the merged princely unions sign a special covenant obligating them to rule by the constitution.
• This implied that their authority was, in practice, equivalent to that of the governors of the former British provinces, giving the inhabitants of their territory the same level of responsible government as the rest of India.
• The outcome of this approach has been characterized as, in essence, a more pervasive assertion of paramountcy by the Government of India over the states.
• The Congress's view had always been that an independent India would take over as the supreme authority, even though this went against the British assertion that paramountcy would stop with the transfer of power.

Read more about Nanasaheb’s role in the freedom struggle here!

Centralization and Constitutionalization

• Menon, after a meeting in Delhi with the States Department and the Rajpramukhs of the princely unions, the Rajpramukhs signed new Instruments of Accession, granting the Government of India the authority to enact laws about all matters covered by the seventh schedule of the Government of India Act 1935.
• One key distinction between the old princely states and the former British provinces left unresolved by democratization was that the previous princely states had only signed limited Instruments of Accession covering three subjects, shielding them from other government policies.
• A significant number of additional powers were granted to the federal government by the Constitution, which stated, among other things, that “their governance shall be under the general control of, and comply with, such particular directions, if any, as may from time to time be given by, the President.”
• Except for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Part C states were the previous Chief Commissioners’ Provinces and other areas under central administration.
• The only real distinction between the Part B states and the Part A states were that the Part B states’ governors were Rajpramukhs, who was chosen by the Covenants of Merger, as opposed to Governors chosen by the federal government.
• To ensure they had the same legal standing before the central government as the last British provinces, all of the princely unions, as well as Mysore and Hyderabad, decided to adopt the Constitution of India as the state’s constitution.
• They tried to do this to give the central government the same level of control over the former princely states as it did over the former British provinces.

Study and download the entire Modern History India Notes.

Re-organization

• The former princely states’ lands have now been fully incorporated into India and are identical to those that used to be a part of British India, both legally and practically.
• The princes’ private rights, such as the privy purse, duty-free status, and customary dignities, persisted before being eliminated in 1971.

Administrative Integration & Constitutional Alignment

• Revised Instruments of Accession (May 1948) greatly extended the powers transferred to India, going beyond defence, communications, and external affairs to cover all matters in the Seventh Schedule. This brought the erstwhile princely states under complete central control.
• The nation was reorganized into Part A, B, C, and D states, with the appointment of Rajpramukhs (figures drawn largely from former princes). These changes formalized governance alignment, culminating in the abolition of royal privileges and post‑States Reorganization Act institutionalized a unified administrative system.

Role of Sardar Patel in Integration of Princely States

To merge the princely states, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first deputy prime minister and home minister, was given a challenging assignment alongside V.P. Menon, the Ministry of the States secretary. To persuade the princely kingdoms to join India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel persisted in his efforts.

Additionally, he introduced “Privy Purses” at that time as a novel idea. According to the idea, if the states agree to join India, they will receive a sizable payout from the union. To reunite the princely kingdoms with the Union of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel took several helpful measures.

The first states to decide to join the Union were Bikaner, Baroda, and a few other states in Rajasthan. On the other side, several additional governments wished to unite with Pakistan, while a few desired to exist as independent nations. Some princely kingdoms eventually joined Pakistan in this manner.

A Hindu ruler ruled over the “Rajput” princely kingdom of “Jodhpur,” which also had a sizable Hindu populace. The state is strangely leaning toward Pakistan, nevertheless. Hanvant Singh, the prince of Jodhpur, received a signed blank check from Pakistan’s Jinnah. Additionally, he gave him access to the “Karachi Port.”

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel put forth the most work to incorporate the “Jodhpur” state into India. As soon as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, known as the “Iron Man of India,” saw this, he promptly promised “Hanvant Singh,” the monarch of “Jodhpur,” a sum of money with appropriate benefits. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel did not want to lose the state since the “Kathiawar rail” is connected to “Jodhpur,” India would deliver various grains through that route during famines.

As most nations possess enormous wealth, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel worked skillfully to integrate the princely states into the Union of India, giving the nation enormous riches. Along with it, various states were involved in numerous important tasks, including trends, imports, and export of India.

Learn about the Union Territories of India here.

Issues and Concerns Post-Integration Of Princely States

With the end of their rule over India, the British announced the end of their monarchy over princely states. The British government believed that all these states were free to join India or Pakistan or remain fully independent. It hampered national unity.

The Princes

• Many people were disappointed that their states didn’t gain the independence and assurance of continued existence they had anticipated because they believed the Instruments of Accession to be permanent. While some people were upset over the loss of states governed by their families for generations, others were upset at the loss of administrative institutions that they had invested a lot of time and effort into creating, which they believed to be effective.
• For instance, several people were assigned to diplomatic positions abroad, including Krishna Kumarasingh Bhavasingh Gohil, who now serves as the Governor of Madras State.

Colonial Enclaves

• The 1961 Portuguese suppression of a rebellion in Angola radicalized Indian public opinion. It intensified pressure on the Indian government to use military force, despite Nehru’s ongoing support for a diplomatic settlement.
• India 1951 modified its constitution to make UT of Pondicherry’s assets in India into Portuguese provinces because it saw maintaining ownership of them as a source of national pride.
• Voters in Pondicherry and Karaikal approved the merger in a referendum held in October 1954. The Republic of India assumed de facto authority of all four enclaves (Pondicherry, Yanam, Mahe, and Karikal) on November 1.
• Following the failure of an American effort to negotiate a settlement, the Indian Army entered Portuguese India on December 18 and overcame the Portuguese garrisons there.
• Portuguese sovereignty was overthrown in Dadra and Nagar Haveli in July 1954 due to an insurrection.
• The Portuguese attempted to send troops from Daman to retake the enclaves, but Indian troops stopped them.
• Portugal filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice asking permission to send troops into the enclave. Still, the Court rejected the case in 1960, ruling that India had the right to refuse Portugal’s request.

Sikkim’s Issue

• Bhutan was considered a protectorate outside India’s international border during the British era. In 1949, the Government of India and the Government of Bhutan signed a Treaty of Friendship that maintained this system and stated that Bhutan would follow the Indian government’s advice when managing its external affairs. India negotiated new treaties with Nepal and Bhutan after 1947.
• Given the area’s strategic importance to India, India’s government initially signed a Standstill Agreement with the Chogyal of Sikkim before signing a comprehensive treaty with them in 1950 that effectively turned Sikkim into a protectorate that was independent of India.
• The opponents of the Chogyal triumphed resoundingly, and a new constitution was established stipulating Sikkim’s affiliation with the Republic of India. The Sikkim Assembly issued a motion on April 10th, 1975, urging the complete integration of the state with India.
• In a referendum held on April 14, 1975, Sikkim received 97%of the vote in favour of this proposal. The Indian Parliament then changed the constitution to recognize Sikkim as India’s 22nd state.
• Sikkim was given complete internal autonomy, but India was in charge of defence, external affairs, communications, and law and order in the final analysis.
• Sikkim was historically seen as being within the borders of India during the colonial era since it was a British dependent with a status comparable to that of the other princely kingdoms.

Secessionism and Sub-Nationationalism

• The states were not required to sign either a Merger Agreement or a revised Instrument of Accession.
• Instead, the power to make laws relating to Kashmir was granted to India by Article 5 of the Constitution.
• Integrating former princely states with other provinces have also raised some issues.
• Separatist movements also exist in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, which consists of the former Nagpur state and the Berar region.

Administrative & Socio‑Cultural Challenges

• Former princely states had varied governance systems, revenue structures, and legal frameworks, complicating efforts to form a standardized bureaucracy and civil service, and integrate tax systems into national regimes.
• Linguistic, cultural, and religious tensions developed in cities such as Hyderabad (plural language composition), Junagadh (Hindu majority against Muslim ruler), and Kashmir (religious complexities), which influenced public opinion as well as policy strategy during accession and merger.
• The Telangana Rebellion (1946–51), a peasant uprising against feudal systems in Hyderabad, exemplified localized resistance to princely authority and contributed to the political rationale behind forceful intervention (Operation Polo).

You can also register for the best coaching for history optional and begin your UPSC IAS preparation journey with Testbook.

Historiographical Debates: Consent vs Coercion

Historians remain divided on whether integration represented voluntary consent or covert coercion:

Consent Perspective (V. P. Menon)

V. P. Menon, in his official narratives, maintains that all accession and merger agreements were negotiated and signed voluntarily by the princes, with no undue force exerted. He posits that rulers agreed to new terms through rational deliberation and incentives, including privy purse arrangements.

Coercion Perspective (Ian Copland and Critics)

Ian Copland and other scholars argue that the legal veneer of consent masked subtle coercion, leveraging political-military pressure and the collapse of British protection to leave rulers with little real choice. Copland implies that numerous princes considered themselves betrayed by British withdrawal and coerced into accession.

Critics also raise doubts about Mountbatten's role—contending that though he was legal in his actions, he did not stand by early promises of independence but actually enabled central concentration by way of de facto influence.

Conclusion of Integration of Princely States

India today owes a great deal to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for his foresight, strategy, diplomacy, and pragmatic outlook. He was in charge of bringing 565 princely states together to form the Union of India and prevent the Balkanization of the newly independent nation.

Testbook offers a series of complete notes on various competitive exams. Testbook always takes the top spot due to its best quality assured products such as live tests, mocks, Content pages, GK and current affairs videos, and many more. To study more topics from Modern History for UPSC, download the Testbook App now!