Bipan Chandra Summary: The Freedom Struggle in Princely India | PSIR Optional for UPSC PDF Download

The Variegated Pattern of the British Conquest of India

• The British employed various strategies to gain control over India, leading to a situation where two-fifths of the subcontinent was still ruled by Indian princes.
• These princely regions included large states such as Hyderabad, Mysore, and Kashmir, which were comparable in size to many European countries, as well as numerous smaller states with populations in the thousands.
• Regardless of their size, all these states acknowledged the superiority of the British Government.

Power Dynamics and Governance

• In exchange for recognising British authority, the princes were offered protection against any threats to their absolute power, both from within and outside their territories.
• Most princely states functioned as strict autocracies, with power concentrated in the hands of the ruler or their close associates.
• Land taxes in these states were generally higher than those in British India, and the civil rights were fewer, with less adherence to the rule of law.
• Rulers had significant control over state revenues, which sometimes led to misuse, although some states had checks in place to prevent this.
• This concentration of power often resulted in extravagant lifestyles and wasteful spending by the rulers.
• There were instances of progressive rulers attempting reforms in administration and taxation, allowing for greater public involvement in governance.
• However, the majority of princely states remained stagnant in terms of economic, social, political, and educational development, partly due to external influences and the restrictive environment created by the British.

Impact of the British Government

• The condition of the Indian States in the twentieth century was largely a result of the British Government’s policies and actions.
• As the national movement in British India gained momentum, the princes were increasingly viewed as protectors of the existing order.
• Any support for nationalist movements, such as that offered by the Maharaja of Baroda, was met with strong disapproval from the British.
• Many potential reformers among the rulers lost their initiative due to constant British surveillance and interference in their affairs.
• However, there were notable exceptions, with states like Baroda and Mysore successfully promoting development in various sectors such as industries, agriculture, administration, and education.

The Advance of the National Movement

• The emergence of the national movement in British India had a significant impact on the people residing in the princely states.
• In the early twentieth century, runaway terrorists from British India sought refuge in the princely states and became involved in political activism, influencing local populations.
• A pivotal moment was the launch of the Non-Cooperation and Khilafat Movement in 1920, which spurred the formation of numerous local organisations within the princely states.
• Princely states where praja mandals or States’ People’s Conferences were established included Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, and others.
• This growing movement culminated in December 1927 with the All India States’ People’s Conference (AISPC), which saw the participation of 700 political activists from various princely states.
• Key figures in this initiative included Baiwantrai Mehta, Manikial Kothari, and G.R. Abhayankar, who played crucial roles in mobilising support and organising the conference.

Indian National Congress Policy

• The Indian National Congress first addressed the princely states in 1920 at Nagpur, urging princes to implement full responsible government.
• Although residents of the states could join Congress, they were not permitted to initiate political activity in the states under the Congress name.
• This was due to significant differences in political conditions between British India and the princely states, including a lack of civil liberties.
• These restrictions were aimed at strengthening local movements in both the states and British India.
• The emphasis was on building local strength among the people in the states.

Introduction

• The Indian National Congress (INC) had a strong informal connection with various organisations in the Indian States, including the All India States People's Conference (AISPC).
• In 1927, the Congress reiterated its resolution from 1920 and reaffirmed it in 1929, emphasizing the need for fundamental rights in the princely states.
• Jawaharlal Nehru, in his presidential speech at the Lahore Congress, stressed that the future of the Indian States should be determined by their own people.
• Over time, the Congress insisted that the Princes guarantee fundamental rights for their citizens.

Changes in the Situation in the Indian States

• In the mid-1930s, two significant events altered the situation in the Indian States: the Government of India Act of 1935 and the formation of Congress Ministries in 1937.
• The Government of India Act of 1935 proposed a federal system linking Indian States directly with British India, allowing them to send representatives to the Federal Legislature.
• However, these representatives would be chosen by the Princes, not elected by the people, creating a conservative block in the legislature to resist nationalist pressures.
• The Indian National Congress and the AISPC criticized this imperial strategy, advocating for representation by elected officials to ensure democratic governance in the States.

The Impact of Congress Ministries

• The formation of Congress Ministries in most provinces of British India in 1937 instilled confidence in the people of the Indian States and spurred increased political activity.
• The Princes had to recognize the Congress as a governing body capable of influencing neighbouring Indian States.
• The years 1938-39 witnessed a resurgence in the Indian States, with numerous movements demanding responsible government and reforms.
• Praja mandals, advocating for responsible government, emerged in several States where such organisations were previously absent, leading to significant struggles in places like Jaipur, Kashmir, Rajkot, Patiala, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and the Orissa States.

Shifts in Congress Policy

• The changes in the Indian States prompted a shift in Congress policy.
• Initially, at the Haripura session in 1938, the Congress opposed initiating movements in the States under its name, advocating for local organisations to rely on their strength.
• However, this stance changed as Congress leaders observed the growing spirit and determination among the people in the States.
• Gandhiji explained this shift, stating that the Congress's non-intervention policy was appropriate when people were unaware, but it would be cowardice now that there was widespread awakening.

New Policies and Developments

• In March 1939, the Congress at Tripuri passed a resolution acknowledging the awakening among the States' people, which could lead to a relaxation or removal of Congress's self-imposed restraints, fostering greater identification with the States.
• In the same year, the AISPC elected Jawaharlal Nehru as its President, symbolising the merging of movements in Princely India with those in British India.
• The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 further transformed the political landscape, impacting the dynamics between British India and the Indian States.

Political Activity in India

After the Government resigned, it armed itself with the Defence of India Rules. In the States, there was also less tolerance for political activity. Tensions escalated again in 1942 with the start of the Quit India Movement. This time, the Congress made no distinction between British India and the Indian States, and the call for struggle was extended to the people of the States.

The people of the States joined the fight for Indian independence. They demanded responsible government, insisted that the British leave India, and called for the States to become integral parts of the Indian nation.

The negotiations for the transfer of power that followed the end of the War highlighted the issue of the States. The national leadership, especially Sardar Patel, managed the complex situation caused by the end of British dominance, which left the States legally independent. This handling eased tensions significantly. Most States succumbed to a mix of diplomatic pressure, arm-twisting, and popular movements. They realised that independence was not a practical option, leading them to sign the Instruments of Accession. However, some States, like Travancore, Junagadh, Kashmir, and Hyderabad, resisted for varying lengths of time. Ultimately, only Hyderabad continued to resist and sought independence.

Rajkot and Hyderabad: Representative States

To illustrate the pattern of political activity in the Indian States, it is helpful to examine the movements in two representative States: Rajkot and Hyderabad. One is among the smallest, while the other is the largest; one is famous for Gandhiji’s personal involvement, and the other for its refusal to join the Indian Union in 1947, which led to military action for its integration.

• Rajkot, a small state with a population of about 75,000, is located in the Kathiawad peninsula. It held more significance than its size suggests, as Rajkot city was the centre of the Western India State Agency, where the British Political Agent oversaw many States in the area.
• Rajkot was fortunate to be ruled until 1930 by Lakhajiraj, who focused on improving industry, education, and politics in his state.
• Lakhajiraj encouraged public participation in governance by starting the Rajkot Praja Pratinidhi Sabha in 1923. This assembly had ninety representatives elected through universal adult franchise, which was quite rare at that time.
• Although the Thakore Sahib, as the ruler was known, had full veto power, under Lakhajiraj’s leadership, popular participation was generally accepted rather than resisted.
• Lakhajiraj also supported nationalist political activity by allowing Mansukhlal Mehta and Amritlal Sheth to hold the first Kathiawad Political Conference in Rajkot in 1921, which Vithalbhai Patel presided over. He attended the Rajkot and Bhavnagar sessions of the Conference in 1925, donated land for a national school, and wore khadi to support the national movement, defying the British.
• He was proud of Gandhiji’s achievements and frequently invited him to the Durbar, where he would have Gandhiji sit on the throne while he himself sat in the Durbar. He also hosted a public reception for Jawaharlal Nehru during his visit.

Lakhajiraj passed away in 1939, and his son Dharmendra Singhji, who was very different from his father, took over. The new Thakore was only interested in pleasure, and real power shifted to Dewan Virawala, who did nothing to prevent the Thakore from wastefully spending the State’s resources. The finances deteriorated to the point where the State had to sell monopolies for matches, sugar, rice, and cinema licences to private merchants.

• This led to rising prices and increased discontent over the Thakore’s carefree lifestyle and disregard for public participation in governance, which was evident in the decline of the Pratinidhi Sabha and a rise in taxes.

Background of the Struggle in Rajkot

The groundwork for the struggle had been laid over several years of political efforts by various groups in Rajkot and Kathiawad.

• Mansukhlal Mehta, Amritlal Sheth, and Balwantrai Mehta were instrumental in leading one of the groups.
• Phulchand Shah headed another group.
• Vrajlal Shukia led a third group.
• A fourth group, comprising Gandhian constructive workers, emerged as the leading force in the Rajkot struggle under U.N. Dhebar after 1936.

First Struggle under Jethalal Joshi

• Jethalal Joshi, a Gandhian activist, played a pivotal role in organizing 800 workers from a state-owned cotton mill into a labor union.
• In 1936, he led a strike that lasted twenty-one days, demanding improved working conditions.
• The strike was successful, with the Durbar agreeing to the union's demands.
• This victory prompted Joshi and Dhebar to convene the first meeting of the Kathiawad Rajakiya Parishad in March 1937, the first in eight years.
• The conference, attended by 15,000 people, called for a responsible government, lower taxes, and reduced state expenditure.

Lack of Response from the Durbar

• On 15 August 1938, Panshad workers protested against a gambling monopoly at the Gokulashtmi Fair, which had been sold to a disreputable company called Carnival.
• The protesters were violently confronted by the Agency and State police, leading to unrest in Rajkot city.
• A session of the Parishad on 5 September, chaired by Sardar Patel, saw Patel calling for a committee to propose a responsible government and new elections.
• He demanded a 15 percent reduction in land revenue, cancellation of monopolies, and restrictions on the ruler’s claims on the State treasury.

The Durbar's Reaction

• In response to these demands, the Durbar appointed a British officer as Dewan to manage the situation.
• Cadell took over as Dewan on 12 September, while Virawala became Private Adviser to the Thakore to assist in discreet operations.

Escalation of the Satyagraha

• The movement intensified, involving the withholding of land revenue, defying monopoly rights, and boycotting State-produced goods.
• There were runs on the State Bank, strikes in the state cotton mill, and student protests.
• Efforts were made to cut off all sources of income for the state, including excise and customs duties.

Sardar Patel's Role

• Although often absent from Rajkot, Sardar Patel maintained regular communication with local leaders and coordinated the movement.
• Volunteers from other regions, including Kathiawad, British Gujarat, and Bombay, joined the movement.
• The organization of the movement was impressive, with a secret chain of command ensuring continuity in leadership.
• Code numbers in newspapers informed Satyagrahis about their arrival dates and arrangements in Rajkot.

British Concerns and Negotiations

• By late November, the British were apprehensive about a potential Congress victory in Rajkot and the spread of the movement across Kathiawad.
• Despite political advice, the Durbar opted to negotiate with Sardar Patel.
• An agreement on 26 December 1938 limited the Thakore’s Privy Purse and established a committee to propose reforms for empowering the people.
• All prisoners were released, and the Satyagraha was called off.

British Government's Response

• The British government did not take kindly to the Thakore's defiance.
• Consultations among the Resident, Political Department, Viceroy, and Secretary of State were conducted.
• The Thakore was advised against accepting Sardar Patel’s list of committee members and to select another with the Resident's assistance.
• As a result, Patel’s list was rejected under the pretext of an excuse for the decision.

Rajkot Satyagraha: Background and Initial Developments

• The list of nominees for the Rajkot Durbar was criticized for including only Brahmins and Banias, excluding Rajputs, Muslims, and the depressed classes.
• The breach of agreement by the State led to a resumption of the Satyagraha on 26 January 1939, met with severe repression by Virawala, causing concern among nationalists outside Rajkot.

Kasturba's Decision

• Kasturba, Gandhiji’s wife, was deeply affected by the situation in Rajkot.
• Despite her poor health and being advised against it, she decided to travel to Rajkot to support the cause.
• Upon her arrival, Kasturba and her companion Maniben Patel were arrested and detained in a village sixteen miles away from Rajkot.

Gandhiji's Involvement

• Rajkot was anticipated to witness significant events.
• Gandhiji felt it was his responsibility to oppose the breach of agreement.
• He emphasized his connection to Rajkot, citing his family’s ties with the Thakore family.

Negotiations and Ultimatum

• Mass Satyagraha was paused to facilitate negotiations.
• Discussions involving the Resident, the Thakore, and Dewan Virawala proved unfruitful.
• Gandhiji issued an ultimatum, threatening to fast unto death if the Durbar did not honour its agreement by 3 March.
• Virawala’s refusal to change his position compelled Gandhiji to commence his fast.

Nationwide Protests

• Gandhiji’s fast sparked widespread protests across the nation.
• His fragile health raised concerns about the duration of the fast.
• Protests included hartals, legislative adjournments, and threats of Congress Ministries resigning.
• The Viceroy received numerous telegrams urging intervention.
• Gandhiji appealed to the Paramount Power to persuade the Thakore to honour his commitment.

Arbitration and Chief Justice's Award

• On 7 March, the Viceroy proposed that Sir Maurice Gwyer, the Chief Justice of India, arbitrate the dispute.
• This suggestion was accepted, leading Gandhiji to end his fast.
• On 3 April 1939, the Chief Justice’s ruling supported the Sardar’s claim for seven nominees.

Continued Resistance

• Despite the ruling, the Thakore remained unyielding.
• Virawala continued to back claims for representation by Rajputs, Muslims, and depressed classes.
• He rejected proposals to include representatives while maintaining a majority of the Sardar's claims.

Escalating Tensions

• Tensions escalated with hostile demonstrations against Gandhiji's prayer meetings.
• Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Ambedkar intensified demands for separate representation for Muslims and depressed classes.
• The Durbar exploited these tensions to evade honouring the agreement.
• The Paramount Power hesitated to intervene, fearing a complete Congress victory.

Gandhiji's Realisation and Departure

• Gandhiji reflected on his failure to bring about a change of heart among his opponents.
• He recognized that his attempt to invoke the authority of the Paramount Power was counterproductive.
• He concluded that true non-violence required him to focus his fast solely on the Thakore and Virawala.
• Gandhiji released the Thakore from the agreement and apologized to the Viceroy and Chief Justice.
• He also extended apologies to his opponents, including Muslims and Rajputs, before leaving Rajkot for British India.

The Rajkot Satyagraha

• The Rajkot Satyagraha underscored the intricate dynamics within the princely states.
• Rulers were protected by the British Government from reform movements, highlighting the need for change.

The British Government to induce reform could always be resisted

• The British Government often disregarded the legal independence of the princely States when they opted for paths that were not to British liking.
• It was the British who encouraged the Thakore to breach his agreement with the Sardar.
• This legal separation empowered the States to resist British pressure, a privilege not extended in British India.
• Consequently, resistance movements in the princely States functioned under different circumstances compared to those in British India.
• The Indian National Congress was justified in its belief that the movements in Princely India and British India were distinct.
• Its hesitance to confront the Indian States stemmed from a realistic understanding of the challenges involved, as exemplified by the Rajkot incident.

Rajkot Satyagraha's Influence

• The Rajkot Satyagraha, despite being perceived as a failure, played a crucial role in politicising the populace in the princely States, especially in Western India.
• It made the Princes acutely aware that their continued rule was contingent on British support.
• The struggles in Rajkot and similar movements were instrumental in paving the way for the integration of princely States during the independence period.
• Many Princes, observing the growing resistance among the people, were less inclined to oppose integration during the 1947-48 period.
• Without these grassroots movements, the process of integrating princely States into India would have been significantly more challenging and protracted.
• Notably, the individual most pivotal in the integration process during 1947-48 was the same Sardar Patel who had previously been in conflict with the Princes.

Hyderabad’s Resistance to Change

• Hyderabad, being the largest princely State in India in terms of size and population, exhibited a strong resistance to change during the period leading up to independence.
• The Nizam, who ruled from 1911 to 1948, practiced a form of personalised autocracy, where his decisions were central to the governance of the State.
• To finance royal expenses, the Nizam maintained an estate that constituted 10% of the State's area.
• Additionally, 30% of the State's area was comprised of jagirs, which were burdened by illegal taxes and forced labour, further exacerbating the population's grievances.
• The Nizam's regime faced increasing discontent due to cultural and religious repression, particularly angering the predominantly Hindu population.
• The promotion of Urdu as the court language, while neglecting Telugu, Marathi, and Kannada, alienated significant portions of the populace.
• Furthermore, Muslims were disproportionately favoured in administrative positions, especially in senior roles, contributing to the perception of bias in the Nizam's administration.
• The Arya Samaj Movement, which aimed at social reform, was actively suppressed, with officials requiring permission to conduct religious practices.
• Following the rise of the Ittehad ul Muslimin, Hyderabad was increasingly portrayed as a Muslim state, further intensifying communal tensions.

Political Consciousness and Movements

• The Non-Cooperation and Khilafat Movement of 1920-22 marked the beginning of political awakening in Hyderabad.
• Reports indicated the emergence of charkhas, establishment of national schools, and campaigns against alcohol and untouchability.
• Badges featuring Gandhiji and the All Brothers were circulated, reflecting the growing political consciousness.
• Public meetings became more frequent, primarily in connection with the Khilafat Movement, which was easier to organise compared to other political activities.

The Freedom Struggle in Princely India

Background: In the 1930s, the Nizam of Hyderabad faced pressure from the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League to join the All India Provincial Conference and the Indian National Congress. Public demonstrations of Hindu-Muslim unity were popular during this time.

Hyderabad Political Conferences:. series of conferences held outside Hyderabad focused on the need for responsible government, civil liberties, and the condemnation of oppressive practices like vethi (forced labor) and high taxation. These conferences reflected the growing political awareness and demand for reforms in the state.

Cultural Awakening:. regional cultural awakening began, particularly in the Telangana area, led by the Andhra Jana Sangham (later the Andhra Mahasabha). This movement aimed to promote the Telugu language and literature and establish libraries, schools, and research societies. Despite facing repression from the state authorities, these cultural efforts laid the groundwork for future political activities.

Civil Disobedience Movement: The Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-32) saw increased participation from Hyderabad, with nationalists from the state joining their counterparts in British India. This experience politicized Hyderabad nationalists and fostered a sense of urgency for more active political engagement.

Formation of Hyderabad State Congress: In 1938, activists from different regions of the state united to form the Hyderabad State Congress, a body representing the people of Hyderabad. Despite its name, it was not an official branch of the Indian National Congress. However, the Nizam’s government attempted to ban it, claiming it was a communal organization.

Launch of Satyagraha: Negotiations with the government failing, the decision was made to launch a Satyagraha, led by Swami Ramanand Tirtha, a nationalist influenced by Gandhi and Nehru. The Satyagraha aimed to defy the ban on the State Congress and assert its legitimacy.

Execution of Satyagraha: Starting in October 1938, groups of Satyagrahis, representing different regions, declared themselves members of the banned State Congress. This was done three times a week for two months, leading to the arrest of all participants. The Satyagraha garnered significant public support, with large crowds gathering in Hyderabad city and Aurangabad city to witness and support the movement.

Gandhi’s Involvement: Mahatma Gandhi closely monitored the Satyagraha and communicated with Sir Akbar Hydari, the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, advocating for better treatment of the Satyagrahis and urging a change in the state’s approach. His involvement added weight to the movement and highlighted the broader national significance of the struggle in Hyderabad.

Arya Samaj Satyagraha: Simultaneously, the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Civil Liberties Union launched their own Satyagraha against religious persecution, which attracted participants from across India. This protest had religious and communal undertones, and its prominence influenced the perception and impact of the State Congress Satyagraha.

The Freedom Struggle in Princely India

In the early 1940s, the State Congress in Hyderabad faced challenges as authorities attempted to label it as a Hindu communal group by confusing its secular Satyagraha with the religious-communal Satyagraha of the Arya Samaj. To protect its identity, the State Congress decided to halt its Satyagraha.

The Vande Mataram Movement

• In Hyderabad, students protested against the authorities’ ban on singing Vande Mataram in their hostel prayer rooms, leading to a widespread strike.
• Expelled students from Hyderabad found support at Nagpur University in Congress-ruled Central Provinces, fostering a new activist group.
• The movement was crucial in nurturing a young, active group that would later become leaders and activists for the cause.

With the State Congress still banned, local cultural groups became the main hubs of activity, with the Andhra Mahasabha playing a significant role in attracting newly politicised youth. Around 1940, Ravi Narayan Reddy emerged as a key leader from the Andhra Mahasabha, shifting towards the Communist Party and influencing younger members towards Leftist and Communist ideologies.

The Andhra Mahasabha began to focus on peasant issues, strengthening its radical elements.

The outbreak of World War II provided the government with a pretext to avoid political and constitutional reforms. A symbolic protest against the ongoing ban was led by Swami Ramanand Tirtha and others chosen by Gandhiji, who were arrested and detained. Gandhiji decided to wait for a nationwide movement to resume the struggle.

The Quit India Movement

• The Quit India Movement launched in August 1942 aimed at uniting all Indians, regardless of their regional affiliations, in the struggle for independence.
• A crucial meeting of the All India State People’s Conference (AISPC) alongside the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in Bombay emphasized the need for a unified movement for independence and integration of the princely states with British India.
• In Hyderabad, the movement gained significant traction, especially among the youth, despite the arrest of key leaders hindering organized efforts.
• Women played a vital role in the movement, with instances of Satyagraha occurring across the city. Slogans like ‘Gandhi Ka Charkha Chalana Padega, Goron ko London Jana Padega. became popular, reflecting the spirit of the movement.

The Quit India Movement also highlighted the growing rift between Communist and non-Communist radical nationalists. The Communist Party’s adoption of the People’s War slogan and its opposition to the Quit India Movement, which called for support to Britain in its fight against fascism, created divisions. In Telengana, many young nationalists rallied around Jamalpuram Keshavrao, while others followed Ravi Narayan Reddy to the Communist Party.

The Freedom Struggle in Princely India

The Communist Party of India (CPI) was able to strengthen its base among the people in Princely India during the Freedom Struggle because the Nizam removed the ban on the party. This decision was in line with the Government of India's policy, which had lifted the ban on the CPI due to its pro-war stance. While most nationalists were imprisoned for supporting the Quit India Movement, the Communists were free to expand their influence.

Growth of the Communist Movement

• In 1944, a significant split occurred during the Andhra Mahasabha session in Bhongir.
• Members with pro-nationalist and liberal views walked out to form a separate organization.
• This left the Andhra Mahasabha under Communist control.
• The Communists quickly launched a program to mobilize and organize the peasantry.

After the war ended in 1945, the People's War line underwent changes, and restrictions on organizing struggles were lifted.

Peasant Struggles in 1945-46

• The period of 1945-46, especially the latter half of 1946, witnessed significant peasant struggles in regions like Nalgonda, Warangal, and Khammam.
• Peasants targeted issues such as forced grain levies, illegal extractions, and land seizures.
• Initial confrontations involved landlords' goondas clashing with peasants led by the Sangham.
• Subsequently, clashes occurred between state police and peasants armed with sticks and stones.
• Despite strong resistance, repression intensified by the end of 1946, leading to a quelling of the movement.
• Thousands faced arrests and beatings, and many leaders were imprisoned or killed.
• Nonetheless, the movement instilled newfound confidence among the oppressed peasants of Telengana.

Pre-Independence Developments

• On 4 June 1947, Viceroy Mountbatten announced the British withdrawal from India by 15 August.
• On 12 June, the Nizam declared his intention to become a sovereign monarch post-British rule, refusing to join the Indian Union.
• The first open session of the Hyderabad State Congress took place from 16 to 18 June, advocating for accession to the Indian Union and a responsible government.
• The State Congress, with support from the Indian National Congress, successfully opposed the Nizam's attempt to impose an undemocratic constitution.
• The boycott of elections gained widespread support, boosting the State Congress's confidence to resist the Nizam's actions.

Final Struggle Against the Nizam

• The State Congress leaders, in consultation with national leaders in Delhi, decided to initiate the final struggle against the Nizam.
• Swami Ramanand Tirtha noted that this phase would likely lead to armed conflict with the Indian Union, starting with a mass Satyagraha.
• A Committee of Action was formed, chaired by D.G. Bindu, and the struggle was officially launched on 7 August, commemorated as ‘Join Indian Union Day.’
• The response was overwhelming, with defiance meetings held statewide.
• Workers and students, including 12,000 Hyderabadi workers in Bombay, went on strike, facing arrests and beatings.
• On 13 August, the Nizam banned the ceremonial hoisting of the national flag, prompting a call to action from Swamiji.
• Swamiji and his colleagues were arrested early on 15 August 1947, shortly after India gained independence.
• Despite tight security, 100 students managed to hoist the national flag in Sultan Bazaar as planned.
• In the following days, hoisting the Indian national flag became a prominent form of resistance, with creative methods of display.
• Trains adorned with the national flag entered Hyderabad territory from surrounding areas.

Indian Territory

• Students played a crucial role in the movement, quickly joined by many women, including Brij Rani and Yashoda Ben.
• As the movement gained strength, the Nizam and his administration reacted with severe measures.
• The Razakars, a paramilitary group backed by the State, began attacking the people’s struggle.
• Razakars were armed and unleashed on protesting crowds, establishing camps near rebellious villages and conducting armed raids.
• On 29 November 1947, the Nizam signed a Standstill Agreement with the Indian Government, but repression intensified.
• Many people fled the State, seeking refuge in camps in neighbouring Indian territory.
• In response, the public resorted to self-defence, using whatever resources they had.

Role of the Communists

• The Communists played a vital role in organising defence against the Razakars, particularly in Nalgonda, Warangal, and Khammam regions.
• Peasants were organised into dalam, trained in arms, and mobilised for the anti-Nizam struggle.
• The movement also adopted an anti-landlord stance, targeting cruel landlords, some of whom were killed.
• Land that was illegally occupied was returned to its rightful owners.
• Most large landlords had fled, and their land was redistributed to smaller landholders or those without land.

Resistance Efforts

• The State Congress organised armed resistance from camps along the State’s borders.
• Raids were conducted on customs outposts, police stations, and Razakar camps.
• Outside the Communist strongholds, the State Congress was the main force behind popular resistance.
• Over 20,000 Satyagrahis were imprisoned, with many more involved in the movement outside.

Intervention of the Indian Army

• By September 1948, it was evident that negotiations to persuade the Nizam to join the Union had failed.
• On 13 September 1948, the Indian Army intervened, leading to the Nizam's surrender on 18 September.
• The integration into the Indian Union was finally completed.
• The people welcomed the Indian Army as liberators, marking the end of the Nizam and Razakar's oppression.
• Celebrations erupted, with the national flag being hoisted.
• However, the Communists chose to continue their struggle against the Indian Union, which was a separate issue.

Political Conditions

• Hyderabad and Rajkot illustrate how struggle methods adapted to the unique situations in British India.
• The lack of civil liberties and representative institutions limited political options.
• British support enabled rulers to resist popular pressure, as seen in Rajkot.
• This led to a greater reliance on violent agitation methods in regions like Hyderabad, Travancore, Patiala, and others.
• Ultimately, even the State Congress resorted to violence, and the Nizam was subdued only by the Indian Army.
• Groups like the Communists, more willing to use violent methods, found themselves in a stronger position.

Differences in Political Conditions

• The differences in political situations between the States and British India explain the Congress's reluctance to merge movements.
• The movement in British India had a distinct approach compared to those in the States.

The Freedom Struggle in Princely India

Political Strategy

• The Princes adopted forms of struggle and a strategy that were specifically suited to the political context of the time.
• Political sagacity dictated that the Princes avoid being unnecessarily pressured into taking firm stances against Indian nationalism.
• This approach was to be maintained until it could be counter-balanced by the political weight of the people of the state.