http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrincely_states_of_Pakistan&h=YAQHzwT8H
None of the states had any complusion to Join either India or Pakistan. British were controlling the princely states by what is called as "Doctrine of Paramountcy". This recognises the British crown as the paramount power.
Under Cabinet mission plan the states were to be left to do what they wanted. This was pure Lord Wavell trash. Wavell was handpicked by Churchill . This would left 665 inedependent states in India alone.
The basis of the claim made by the States for a right to declare themselves independent lies in the Statement of 12th May 1946 issued by the Cabinet Mission in which they say that the British Government could not and will not in any circumstances transfer paramountcy to an Indian Government which means that the rights of the States which follow from their relationship to the Crown will no longer exist and that all the rights surrendered by the States to the paramount power will return to the States. The Statement of the Cabinet Mission that the Crown could not transfer paramountcy is obviously not a statement of political policy. It is a statement of law. The question is, is this a correct statement of the law as it applies to the States ?
There is nothing original in the proposition set out by the Cabinet Mission. It is a mere repetition of the view propounded by the Butler Committee appointed in 1929 to examine the relationship between the Crown and the Indian States.
As students of the subject know the Princes in the stand they took before the Butler Committee contended for two propositions :—
(i) That Paramountcy could not override the terms and conditions contained in the Treaties between the Princes and the States but was limited by them.
(ii) That the relations embodied in Paramountcy were of a personal nature between the Crown and the Princes and could not, therefore, be transferred by the Crown to an Indian Government without the consent of the Princes..
Thank god that we had friend in Lord Mountbatten. The entire pincelt state integration was a rdama cooked by Mountbatten , Gandhi , Nehru and Patel.
Mountbatten knew that princes just could not say no or they would ever question anything told to Viceroy of India. This was instilled in them for over 150 years.
He held a formal glittering Durbar and anounce in his grand style that the princes had to acede to either India or Pakistan.
There was also fear that Indian masses and congress would murder them and join India. When the British decided to grant independence to India, the prime minister Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer,declared that Travancore would remain as an independent country, based on an "American model".
There were agitations and Sir Ramsawamy was stabbed by a congress worker at the behest of congress high command; following which he resigned and left for Madras, to be succeeded by Sri P.G.N. Unnithan. After several rounds of discussions and negotiations between Sree Chithira Thirunal and V.P. Menon, the King agreed that the Kingdom should accede to the Indian Union in 1949. On 1 July 1949 the State of Travancore was merged with the State of Cochin and the short lived state of Travancore-Kochi was formed. This was the genreal pattern.
All rulers were made to sign accession instruments as per 1935 constitution in 1947 and then slowly congress party and India tok control from 1947 to 1949.
Mounbtbatten used his pomp and authority ( which he did not have) to push the rulers. The rulers were weak and useless so they readily agreed. Some of them were genuine patriots and willingly merged therestates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment