Praja Mandal Movements in Princely States | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Praja Mandal Movements

• By the mid-1800s, the British government had formed treaty relationships with most of India's Princely States. Under British paramountcy, the internal management of these States was left to the Princes.
• British residencies were set up to facilitate communication between the British government and the Princely States.
• In theory, the rulers had absolute power, but in reality, they were controlled by the British Resident and relied on the British government for both internal and external protection.
• The Resident also determined succession policies within the States.
• Most Princely States were governed autocratically, imposing a heavy economic burden on the people through high taxation.
• Education and social services were poorly developed, and civil rights were restricted.
• The revenues of these States were spent on the luxurious lifestyles of the rulers.
• The British provided protection from domestic and external threats, which led the rulers to ignore the interests of their people.
• The British expected the States to support their imperialist policies, which went against the development of nationalist sentiments.
• People in British provinces were given some political rights and involvement in administration after the Acts of 1919 and 1935.
• In contrast, those under the Princely States did not enjoy equal rights.
• Many Princes were hostile and suspicious of nationalist movements.
• However, some States, like Baroda and Mysore, were exceptions, as they supported nationalists and encouraged reforms in politics, administration, agriculture, and education.

The National Movement in Princely States:

• The nationalist movement in British India also influenced the people in the Princely States.
• Revolutionary nationalists fleeing British authority in the early 20th century came to the Princely States and initiated political activities.
• The non-cooperation and Khilafat movements resonated with the entire Indian population, including those in the Princely States.
• People’s organizations, known as ‘Praja Mandals’ or ‘Praja Parishads,’ were established in princely states such as Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, Kathiawad, Jamnagar, Indore, and Nawanagar as part of the national movement.
• The movements in the princely states are collectively referred to as Praja Mandal movements.

Nature of the Praja Mandal Movements:

• The Praja Mandal movement aimed at securing rights from both their feudal princes and the British administration.
• The primary demand of the Praja Mandal movements was for democratic rights.
• Activities of the Praja Mandal Movements:- Participants in the Praja Mandal Movements implemented the constructive programs of the Indian National Movement within their princely states.
• They established schools, promoted the use of khadi, encouraged cottage industries, and initiated agitations against Untouchability.

The National Movement Associations in Princely States:

• The Hitvardhak Sabha: Founded in Poona in May 1921, the Hitvardhak Sabha aimed to address the problems faced by the people of the southern princely states.
• Akhil Bhor Sansthan Praja Sabha: Established by Wamanrao Patwardhan in November 1921 in the Bhor region, this Sabha focused on advocating for the issues concerning the local population.

All India Association of the People’s Council:

• The first session of an All India States’ People’s Conference took place in Bombay in December 1927. This Conference gathered representatives from numerous Indian princely states, including Baroda, Bhopal, Travancore, and Hyderabad.
• It was formed to promote political dialogue between the princely class of India and the British Raj regarding governance, political stability, and India's future. The Council, along with other people’s movements, also advocated for farmers' loans, taxes, and related issues in the princely states. Leaders like Balwantrai Mehta, Maniklal Kothari, and G.R. Abhayankar led this movement.
• During the Bombay session of the All India Association of the People’s Council in 1927, the princely states' national movement was elevated to a national level. This session called for responsible government and citizenship rights for the people of Princely States.
• The Madras Session of Congress also supported the demands made during the Bombay session.
• Two key developments in the mid-1930s significantly altered the relationship between the Princely States and British India.
• The Government of India Act of 1935 proposed a federal scheme that established a direct constitutional relationship between the States and British India. The States were to send representatives to the upper house of the Central Legislature, called the Council of States. However, these representatives were to be nominated by the rulers of the States, not elected by the people. This arrangement would deprive the people of their rights and create a group of hand-picked individuals loyal to the British Government in the Federal legislature. The Act also allowed the rulers to decide whether to join the federation, undermining the people’s legislative representation. In the Karachi Session of the Council in 1936, the Council rejected the clause of the 1935 Act that allowed the nomination of Princes from the Princely states to the Imperial Legislature. The Karachi Session demanded that the right to elect representatives should belong to the subjects of the princely states.
• The second major impact on the States came from the Congress's acceptance of office in the majority of British Indian provinces in 1937. The installation of Congress ministries in the neighboring British Indian provinces inspired Praja Mandal leaders to intensify their political activities, demanding responsible government in the Princely States.
• The years 1938-39 were marked by a new awakening in the Indian States, witnessing numerous movements advocating for responsible government and other reforms.

Attitude of Congress and Subsequent Development

• Congress's Policy in 1920: At the Nagpur Session in 1920, the Congress for the first time outlined its policy towards the people's movement in the Princely States. It urged the Princes to provide full responsible government in their States. Although people from the States could join the Congress, they were not allowed to initiate political activities in the State under the Congress name. They could only engage in political activities as individual members of local Praja Mandals.
• Increased Interest in the 1920s: From the mid-1920s, the Congress showed a growing interest in the people's movements within the States. In 1929, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, during the Lahore Congress, emphasized that the future of the Indian States should be determined by their own people, highlighting the interconnectedness of the States with the rest of India.
• Collaboration and Compromise: By 1935, cooperation between the leaders of the States' People's Conferences and Congress leaders grew. It was agreed that Congress Committees could be formed in the Indian States, provided they did not engage in unparliamentary activities or direct actions. This compromise fostered harmony between the Congress and the freedom movements in the States.
• Resolution at Lucknow Session (1936): During the Lucknow session of Congress in 1936, it was asserted that the people of the States should have the same rights of self-determination as those in the rest of India. The Congress advocated for equal political, civil, and democratic liberties for all parts of India, while emphasizing that the struggle for liberty within the States should be led by the people of those States themselves.
• Satyagraha Movements: In Rajkot, the Satyagraha movement attracted figures like Gandhiji and Sardar Patel. Although Gandhiji withdrew the Satyagraha, acknowledging his failure to change the ruler's heart, its impact was significant. In Hyderabad, a strong people's movement emerged, and in Kashmir, under Sheikh Abdullah, the people organized themselves. The Congress also began to show more interest in political activities within the States, maintaining that these movements should not be conducted in the name of Congress but through local organizations.
• Haripura Session (1938): At the Haripura session of Congress in 1938, the issues of the States were addressed in detail. The Congress regarded the States as integral parts of India and sought the same political, social, and economic freedom for the States as for the rest of India. The demand for 'Purna Swaraj' was extended to the whole of India, including the States.
• Shift in Policy (1939): Initially, the Haripura Congress of 1938 reiterated that movements in the States should not be launched in the name of Congress but should rely on local strength. However, later in 1939, witnessing the people's spirit and capacity to struggle, Gandhi and Congress altered their stance. This shift was influenced by the radicals, socialists in Congress, and political workers in the States who had been advocating for this change.
• Gandhi's Justification: In January 1939, Gandhi explained this policy shift, stating that while non-intervention by Congress was prudent when the people of the States were not awakened, it would be cowardice when there was widespread awakening and determination among them to endure suffering for their rights. He emphasized that once the people were ready, the legal and artificial boundaries would be disregarded.
• Congress at Tripuri (1939): At the Tripuri session in March 1939, Congress passed a resolution removing all restraints on itself regarding intervention in the Princely States, marking a significant shift in its policy.
• Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to become the President of the All India States’ People’s Conference in 1935 and was elected president in 1939. He encouraged the Praja Mandals to intensify their agitations for the rights and dignities of the people in the Princely States.
• During the Quit India movement, the Congress Party called on the people of the Princely States to join the struggle. The need for a strong relationship between the Princely States and the Government of India was emphasized, especially with the impending constitutional changes after World War II.
• The Cabinet Mission of 1946 proposed a federal scheme for independent India and noted that British paramountcy would cease, returning rights to the Princely States. Some Princely States declared independence, hoping for British support, influenced by Jinnah.
• Jinnah argued that the Indian States were sovereign, bound only by treaties with the Crown, and that British India had no authority over them. He contended that no Indian State could be forced into a Constituent Assembly.
• Nehru strongly opposed Jinnah's view, asserting that Indian States were not sovereign. Under Congress pressure, the British government transferred control of the Political Department to the future Dominions of India and Pakistan. Sardar Patel headed the States Department of India.
• When the Nizam of Hyderabad and Travancore-Cochin expressed a desire for independence, Patel acted swiftly to prevent this.
• The Mountbatten Plan of June 1947 proposed the division of India into two dominions, with Princely States choosing their future. The concept of paramountcy was questioned, as it was set to lapse, giving States the option to join either dominion or remain independent.
• However, Mountbatten and the British government favored the integration of Princely States into the Dominions. Popular movements emerged against independence in Hyderabad, Travancore, and Junagadh.
• The AICC resolution of 15 June 1947 denied any State's right to declare independence and live in isolation from India. Efforts were made to integrate all 565 States into the Indian Union.

Praja Mandal Movement in Rajkot (Rajkot Satyagraha):

• In the 1930s, Dharmendra Singhji, the ruler of Rajkot, became an autocrat, living a luxurious life in stark contrast to his father.
• His Diwan, Virawala, concentrated power and mismanaged the State’s wealth.
• Monopolies for essential goods were sold to individual merchants to raise revenue.
• Taxes were increased, and the popular assembly was allowed to lapse, leading to widespread discontent.
• Various political parties in the Kathiawar area prepared for a struggle, with a prominent group led by U.N. Dhebar, a Gandhian constructive worker.
• In 1941, Gandhiji selected Dhebar for Individual Satyagraha at Viramgam.
• The first significant action occurred in 1936 when 800 workers struck under a labor union organized by Jethalal Joshi, a Gandhian activist, in a state-owned cotton mill.
• The Durbar had to concede to the union’s demands for better working conditions.
• Inspired by this success, Jethalal and U.N. Dhebar organized a meeting in March 1937, demanding responsible government and reduced taxes and state expenditure.
• The Parishad launched the next phase of protest in August 1938 against gambling, which escalated into full-scale Satyagraha.
• Activities included workers’ strikes in cotton mills, student strikes, boycotts of goods produced by monopolistic merchants or the State, non-payment of land revenue, and withdrawal of deposits from the State bank.
• This effectively blocked all sources of income for the State.
• Volunteers from Mumbai and British Gujarat joined the movement, with Sardar Patel maintaining contact with the Satyagrahis.
• On December 26, 1938, the Durbar reached a settlement with Sardar Patel, leading to the withdrawal of Satyagraha and the release of prisoners.
• The Durbar committed to appointing a committee to formulate a scheme of reforms granting powers to the people, with seven out of ten members nominated by Sardar Patel.
• Initially opposed to the agreement, the British government eventually intervened.
• Thakore Sahib refused to accept Sardar Patel’s list of nominees, arguing that it lacked representation for Rajputs, Muslims, and depressed classes, aiming to create divisions among the people.
• The Satyagraha resumed on January 26, 1939, met with heavy repression.
• Kasturba Gandhi, deeply moved, decided to go to Rajkot despite her age and health, accompanied by Sardar Patel’s sister, Maniben.
• Gandhiji also decided to go to Rajkot and undertake an indefinite fast, which sparked nationwide protests.
• On March 7, 1939, Gandhiji ended his fast after the Viceroy requested the Chief Justice of India, Sir Maurice Gwyer, to arbitrate the agreement violation by Thakore.
• The Chief Justice upheld Patel’s position in an award on April 3.
• However, the Durbar, influenced by Diwan Virawala, continued to promote communal and caste divides, refusing to honor the agreement.
• As communal tensions escalated, with Jinnah and Ambedkar advancing claims for Muslims and depressed classes, and hostile demonstrations at Gandhiji’s prayer meetings, the British Government, aiming to undermine Congress, refused to intervene.
• Gandhiji eventually withdrew from the agreement, apologizing to the Viceroy and Chief Justice for the time wasted.
• Despite being a failure, the Rajkot Satyagraha highlighted the complexities in princely states, where the Paramount Power interfered for its interests while using the legal independence of rulers as a pretext for non-interference.
• The same methods of struggle, applied in different political contexts of British India and Indian states, yielded different outcomes.
• The Rajkot Satyagraha significantly politicized the people of the states, demonstrating the power of popular resistance to rulers and encouraging many states to integrate with India post-independence.

Praja Mandal Movement In The State of Hyderabad:

• The State of Hyderabad was the largest princely state of India in terms of population and territory.
• The ruler of the State of Hyderabad, Osman Ali Khan, was called the Nizam of Hyderabad.
• The State of Hyderabad included Marathwada, parts of Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka.
• The Nizam of Hyderabad was highly supported and helped by the British administration.
• The Non-cooperation Movement also influenced the State of Hyderabad.
• The Nizam of Hyderabad crushed the non-cooperation movement and Khilafat movement in Hyderabad.
• Though the Nizam hesitated to come out openly against the Khilafat Movement due to religious concern.
• The Nizam promoted the formation of Ittiehad ul Muslimin, an organization based on loyalty to the Nizam on the basis of common religious faith, Islam.

People’s Councils in the State of Hyderabad:

• In 1921, the Andhara Mahasabha was established in Andhra Pradesh, and the Karnatak Council was formed in Karnatak. By 1937, the Maharashtra Council was set up in Marathwada.
• These councils aimed to address social and cultural issues, advocating for a responsible political system, the expansion of private schools, and the promotion of vernacular education. Despite restrictions in the State of Hyderabad, these councils highlighted the problems faced by the people.
• The press played a crucial role in raising political awareness among the people of the State of Hyderabad.

The Rise of Hyderabad State Congress:

• In September 1938, the Hyderabad State Congress was established in the State of Hyderabad by leaders from the Andhara Mahasabha, Karnatak Council, and Maharashtra Council. This marked the beginning of the political struggle in the State of Hyderabad.
• The State Congress was declared secular and open to all,castes, and tribes, with the goal of promoting communal harmony and unity.
• Feeling threatened by the State Congress, the Nizam of Hyderabad banned the organization.
• In response to the ban,Swami Ramanand Tiratha, a Gandhian nationalist, led a Satyagraha in October 1938. Concurrently,Arya Samaj, Hindu Maha Sabha, and Hindu Civil Liberty Union also organized a Satyagraha against the religious persecution of Hindus in Hyderabad.
• Due to the overlapping religious and political motives of the Satyagrahas, the State Congress, advised by Gandhiji, decided to separate the political issue and suspended its Satyagraha.
• The ban on the State Congress led to the rise of regional cultural organizations as political platforms, notably the Andhra Mahasabha.
• Ravi Naraya Reddy, a leader in the Mahasabha, shifted towards the Communist Party of India, influencing a radical turn in the Mahasabha's focus on peasant issues.
• Although the Nizam was compelled to implement some reforms, he maintained the ban. In 1940, the State Congress initiated an individual Satyagraha against the ban.

Repressive Policies of the State of Hyderabad and the Freedom Struggle:

• In the State of Hyderabad, the national song ‘Vande Mataram’ was banned. However, students took the initiative to promote it as a song of the national freedom movement. Notably, students from the Government College of Aurangabad were instrumental in spreading Vande Mataram.
• Eventually, the student movement aligned with the national movement, strengthening the freedom struggle in Hyderabad. Key leaders like Mukundrao Pedgaonkar, Srinivasrao Borikar, and Govindbhai Shroff played crucial roles in fortifying the freedom movement in the region.

Hyderabad State Congress and Quit India Movement of 1942:

• When the Quit India Movement of 1942 was initiated by the Indian National Congress, the Hyderabad State Congress joined in as part of the movement.
• The State Congress organized a significant Satyagraha in Hyderabad, leading to numerous arrests. A group of women also participated in Satyagraha in Hyderabad city, resulting in the arrest of Sarojini Naidu.
• In August 1942, the Hyderabad State Congress presented the following demands to the Nizam:
• Responsible Government under the Nizam.
• Integration of the State of Hyderabad with Independent India.
• Grant of Civil Rights to the people of the State of Hyderabad.
• Removal of the ban on the Hyderabad State Congress in Hyderabad.
• The years 1945-46 witnessed the rise of a strong peasant movement in various parts of the Nalgonda district, and to some extent in Warangal and Khammam, against issues like forced labor(Vethi/Begar),illegal land seizures, and forced grain levies imposed by the State during wartime food procurement.
• In 1946, the All India Association of People’s Council also urged the Nizam to lift the ban on the Hyderabad State Congress.
• By the end of World War II, the conditions became increasingly challenging for the Nizam of Hyderabad. Ultimately, in July 1946, the Nizam lifted the ban on the Hyderabad State Congress.

Significance of Rajkot Satyagraha and Hyderabad Satyagraha

Differences in Political Struggles: Hyderabad and Rajkot:-

• Hyderabad and Rajkot illustrate how methods of struggle adapted to the unique conditions of British India. Non-violent mass civil disobedience, or Satyagraha, was less effective in the princely states due to the absence of civil liberties and representative institutions.
• The British protection allowed rulers in these states to resist popular pressure more effectively. This was evident in Rajkot, where the rulers faced less immediate challenge.
• In response to the political climate, movements in these states often resorted to violent methods of agitation. This was seen not only in Hyderabad but also in places like Travancore, Patiala, and the Orissa States.
• In Hyderabad, even the State Congress eventually turned to violent tactics, and the Nizam was ultimately subdued by the Indian Army.
• Leftist groups, such as the Communists, who were more willing than the Congress to adopt violent methods, found a more conducive environment in these states. This allowed them to gain strength in regions like Hyderabad, Travancore, Patiala, and the Orissa States.
• The stark contrast between the political conditions in the princely states and British India contributed to the Congress's reluctance to unify the movements in these regions. The strategies and forms of struggle in British India were tailored to its specific political context.
• Moreover, it was politically prudent for the Congress to avoid pushing the Princes into a confrontational stance against Indian nationalism until the political influence of the state's populace could counterbalance it.

Praja Mandal Movement in Punjab:

• Punjab Riyasti Mandal was established in 1928 to advocate for civil liberties and political rights for people in Punjab princely states.
• Significant administrative and constitutional reforms were introduced in British India Punjab, alongside socio-religious reform movements that raised public awareness.
• The Punjab freedom struggle involved agitation against the Rowlatt Acts, leading to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, the Gurdwara Reform movement, and the actions of the Babar Akalis.
• In contrast to the voicelessness of neighboring Indian states under despotic princely rulers, Punjab's subjects lacked freedom of speech and popular institutions, with rulers misusing revenue for personal luxury.
• To address these issues, the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal was formed at a public conference in Mansa, Patiala state, on July 17, 1928, following the founding of the All India States People’s Conference in 1927.
• The Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal was initiated by Akali workers from Punjab states, who had gained experience from the struggle to reform Sikh places of worship management.
• Seva Singh Thikrivala, an Akali leader, was elected president of the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal while still in jail, with Bhagvan Singh Laungovalia as general secretary.
• The Praja Mandal opened membership to all adult residents of Punjab states, regardless of caste, class, or religion, and expanded its activities to cover princely states in Punjab, Kashmir, and Shimla regions.
• Affiliated with the All India States People’s Conference, the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal aimed to protect people’s rights, establish representative institutions, and improve peasant conditions.
• Initially, the Praja Mandal’s activities were limited to Sikh states, particularly against Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala. The Shiromani Akali Dal also held meetings in Patiala state to secure the release of Seva Singh Thikrivala.
• Akali leaders Kharak Singh and Master Tara Singh led campaigns against Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, intensifying the Praja Mandal's agitation. This pressure led to the release of Akali prisoners, including Seva Singh Thikrivala.
• After his release, Seva Singh actively participated in the Praja Mandal movement. On December 27, 1929, the first regular session of the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal was held in Lahore, condemning Maharaja Bhupinder Singh’s maladministration.
• The Praja Mandal protested against land revenue increases and begar(forced labor) in Jind state and criticized rulers in Malerkotia and Kapurthala states for oppressive taxes and misrule.
• In 1930, the Praja Mandal intensified its campaign against Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, especially after his nomination as the princes' representative at the Round Table Conference in London.
• During the third annual conference in July 1931, the main demand was the deposition of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh.
• The Patiala government responded to the Praja Mandal by issuing the Hidayat in 1931, banning political activities. Seva Singh was rearrested and died in prison on January 20, 1935.
• His death marked the end of a significant phase in the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal. In 1936, the Patiala government signed an agreement with Master Tara Singh, leading to the release of Akali prisoners and weakening the Praja Mandal.
• With changes in leadership and internal conflicts, the movement declined. In 1945, the All India States People’s Conference established a regional council for Punjab states, shifting leadership to urban Hindus.
• Popular agitations for reforms continued in princely states, peaking in Faridkot in 1946, with Giani Zail Singh as a local leader. Following Independence, the formation of PEPSU on July 15, 1948, marked the end of princely regimes and the Punjab Riyasti Praja Mandal, replaced by the PEPSU Pradesh Congress.

The Liberal Prince of Aundh:

• Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, the ruler of Aundh (in the Deccan States Agency division of the Bombay Presidency), was known for his liberal governance.
• He established a Representatives’ Council, allowing 50% representation for the people of his state. In 1926, he granted the Council the power to legislate and pass resolutions.
• In 1929, Pratinidhi announced that the subjects of his state would receive the right to self-rule within five years. He also set up a committee to draft a constitution based on modern political principles.
• His efforts were highly praised by the All India Association of People’s Council.