Abstract
This paper proposes to examine the transition of sovereignty from ‘princely’ to a ‘popular’ form in the erstwhile princely domains of India after independence, and a corresponding transition of princes into citizens, especially after the abolition of privy purses by the Indian government in 1971 through the 26th amendment act. The debate around the abolition of princely titles and legal privileges in 1971 marks an important entry point, among many others, into the nature of Indian state and the paradigm of paramountcy as a form of power in the domain of popular sovereignty. The judgment in the Privy Purses case raises some important questions pertaining to legality of state action and the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘legal’ acts. The insertion of paramountcy as a way to assert state’s power has implications for a theory of sovereignty in postcolonial India as well as the ramifications for Indian citizens in their rights against the state. The institution of rulership and its definition in the constitution along with its subsequent abolition gives an insight into a distinct imagination of Indian democracy as such.
This paper is a revised version of the one presented at a conference on ‘Constitutional Democracy in a Comparative Perspective’ held in JNU, New Delhi on 15–16 March 2018. I thank the editors and participants in the conference for their comments on the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Shri Raghunathrao Ganpatrao versus Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 1267.
- 2.
House of Commons, Accounts and Papers, vol. 22 (1926). Further Correspondence Regarding the Claim of the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Restoration of the Province of Berar (Sever 1985: 460–62).
- 3.
- 4.
The committee was formed in the late 1920s in response to the demand made by the Chamber of Princes to define paramountcy. Report of the Indian States (Butler) Committee. February 14, 1929 (Sever 1985).
- 5.
For more discussion on the structure of extraordinary laws and the aporia of democracy in India, see Singh (2003).
- 6.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume X, October 12, 1949.
- 7.
Ibid.
- 8.
Manu Bhagavan discusses the role of K. M. Munshi as the more moderate voice of the Hindu Mahasabha, who made its ideas ‘palatable’ to the new democratic public. Munshi was also instrumental in the foundation of Swatantra Party later on with a stronghold among the former princes. See Bhagavan (2008). Francine Frankel mentions the ‘vertical networks controlled by princes and zamindars’ as the pillar of support for the Swatantra Party. See Frankel (2005: 359).
- 9.
Article XII of the Covenant, File No. 10/3/72, Pol III, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Archives of India, New Delhi (hereafter, NAI).
- 10.
As per the Estate Duty Bill passed in 1954, rulers could also dispose off their dynastic and hitherto inalienable property, provided they were not seen as ‘official residence’ of the royal family. Ibid.
- 11.
The Congress government, which ruled over the Centre at the time, had a tenuous relationship with several erstwhile princes who had entered the democratic fray in opposition to the Congress belonging to the Jan Sangh or Swatantra Party. For more on the political career of princely families, see Richter (1971).
- 12.
Presidential Order of 6th September, 1970: ‘In exercise of power vested in him under Article 366(22) of the constitution, the President hereby directs that with effect from the date of this order, (name of the Prince with title) ceases to be recognized as a ruler/Bhagdar of (name of the State). By order and in the name of the President’ in The Times of India. September 8, 1970. Delhi.
- 13.
Article 291, ‘where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution, the payment of any sums, free of tax, has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as privy purse-a. Such sums shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India; and b. the sums so paid to any ruler shall be exempt from all taxes on income’. Article 362, ‘in the exercise of the power of the Parliament or of the Legislature of a State to make laws or in exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State, due regard shall be had to guarantee of assurance given under any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in Article 291 with respect to personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State’. Shukla (1963). The Constitution of India, 4th edition. Delhi. cf. Frankel (2005: 442).
- 14.
The privy purses were finally abolished in 1971 through the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act and this abolition was upheld in the judgment given by the Supreme Court in Shri Raghunathrao Ganpat Rao versus the Union of India case on 4th January, 1993.
- 15.
10/3/72, NAI.
- 16.
Also see File no. 22(5) GA-A/70, NAI.
- 17.
File no. 21/3/72, Pol III, M/o Home Affairs, NAI.
- 18.
Ministry of States, File No. 298-P/50, 1950, Political Branch, NAI.
- 19.
Ministry of Finance, Correspondence on Jewellery Museum, F.2 (25) Ex F III/48, GOI, NAI.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
File No. 23/1/78, Pol. III, NAI.
- 22.
File No. 21/11/71, Pol III, M/o Home Affairs, Correspondence regarding impact of 26th Amendment Act, 1971 on the private properties of the rulers, NAI.
- 23.
File No. 10/3/72 Pol. III, 3rd May 1972, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Archives of India, New Delhi.
- 24.
It is now called Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum and is a centre of many ‘heritage’ related activities.
- 25.
File No. 23/1/78, Political III, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, NAI, New Delhi.
- 26.
April 5, 1975. Rajgharane ke seel band kamron ki jaanch sheegrh shuru hogi.Rajasthan Patrika.
- 27.
Rajasthan Patrika, April 30, 1975. This was based on a Rajya Sabha speech by Pranab Mukherjee on this issue.
- 28.
Kaviraj (1986). Indira Gandhi and Indian Politics. Economic and Political Weekly. 21(38/39), 1697–1708.
References
Benton, L. (2006). The Geography of Quasi-Sovereignty: Westlake, Maine and the Legal Politics of Colonial Enclaves. History and Theory of International Law Series, Working Paper 2006/5.
Bhagavan, M. (2008). Princely states and the Hindu imaginary: Exploring the cartography of Hindu nationalism in colonial India. The Journal of Asian Studies, 67(3), 881–915.
Copland, I. (1997). Princes at the Endgame of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, M. (1984). Indirect Rule in the British Empire: The Foundation of Residency System in India (1764-1858). Modern Asian Studies, 18(3), 393–428.
Frankel, F. (2005). India’s Political Economy: The Gradual Revolution 1947–2000 (II ed.). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
HH Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur vs. Union of India, 1971 AIR SC 530.
Kaviraj, S. (1986). Indira Gandhi and Indian Politics. Economic and Political Weekly., 21(38/39), 1697–1708.
Legg, S. (2014). An International Anomaly: Sovereignty, the League of Nations and India’s Princely Geographies. Journal of Historical Geography, 43, 96–110.
Leonard, K. (2003). Reassessing Indirect Rule in Hyderabad: Rule, Ruler, or Sons-in-Law of the State? Modern Asian Studies, 37(2), 363–379.
Mantena, K. (2010). Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Richter, W. (1971). Princes in Indian Politics. Economic and Political Weekly, 6(9), 535–542.
Sever, A (ed.) (1985). Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princley States, Vol. II (pp. 460–462). BR Publishing Corporation.
Singh, U. (2003). Democratic Dilemmas. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(5).
Tarlo, E. (2003). Unsettling Memories: Narratives of Emergency in Delhi. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dhabhai, G. (2020). Paramount State and the ‘Princely Subject’: Privy Purses Abolition and Its Aftermath. In: Roy, A., Becker, M. (eds) Dimensions of Constitutional Democracy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3899-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3899-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3898-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3899-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)