¹ Panikkar, K. M., The Indian Princes in Council: A Record of the Chancellorship of H.M. The Maharaja of Patiala 1926–31 and 1933–36 (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), p. 92.Google Scholar

² See particularly Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne H., The Modernity of Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967);Google ScholarGus-field, Joseph H., “Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change,” American Journal of Sociology, LXXII, No. 4 (1966), 351–362;Google Scholar and Weiner, Myron, ed., Modernization (New York: Basic Books, 1966).Google Scholar

³ The full impact of indirect rule upon the relations between rulers, their subordinates, and their subjects is a topic worthy of much more extensive scholarly investigation. The evolution of British policy toward the princely states is treated best in Sir Warner's, William Lee- classic Protected Princes of India (London: Macmillan, 1894),Google Scholar republished in 1910 under the tide Native States of India. For a recent study, see Kamal, K. L. and Stern, Robert, “The Jagirdars of Jaipur,” paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, New York, March 28, 1972.Google Scholar

⁴ The full name of the Concord is the Consultation of Rulers of Indian States in Concord for India, also called the Concord for India.

⁵ The Concord and the Comity have an overlapping (but not identical) membership, different objectives and separate financial arrangements, but to some extent share the same officials and facilities. The distinction between the two is generally blurred, in the press and misunderstood by both the general public and many of the princes themselves. The origin, and structure of this complex relationship is discussed in greater detail below.

⁶ Balfour, Elizabeth E., The History of lord Lytton's Indian Administration, 1876 to 1880 (London: Longmans, Green, 1899), pp. 270–280,Google Scholar and notes by Lytton dated 18 May 1876 and 27 May 1876, India Office Records, Crown Representative Papers, R/1/19/81. (Hereafter the India Office Records will be cited as IOR and the Crown Representative Papers as CR. The latter collection is composed of original Foreign and Political Department files of the Government of India which were removed to London in 1947. Hereafter the Foreign and Political Department will be cited as F&P and the Government of India as GOI). Also see Phadnis, Urmila, Towards the Integration of Indian States, 1919–1947 (London: Asia Publishing House, 1968), p. 18.Google Scholar

⁷ Mary C. Minto, India Minto and Morley, 1905–1910 (London: Macmillan, 1934), p. 29 and Phadnis, , Towards the Integration of Indian States, 1919–1947, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁸ Phadnis, op. at.; B. L. Grover, A Documentary Study of British Policy Towards Indian Nationalism, 1885–1909 (Delhi: National Publications, 1967), pp. 239, 278–280; note by John B. Wood, Political Secretary, GOI, dated 27 May 1916, IOR, CR, R/1/19/560; and Salisbury to Lytton, 10 Nov 1876, India Office Library (hereafter IOL), Lytton Papers, MSS Eur E 218, 3/1. Cited in Seal, Anil, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Hardinge, Charles, My Indian Years, 1910–1916 (London: John Murray, 1948), p. 84.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Note dated 25 Apr 1908 by S. Harcourt Butler, Foreign Secretary, GOI, and quoted in Wood's note of 27 May 1916, IOR, CR, R/1/19/560.

¹¹ Panikkar, Kavalam M., His Highness the Maharaja of Bifaner: A Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), p. 144Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., pp. 144–149 and the note by John Wood dated 27 May 1916, IOR, CR, R/1/19/560.

¹³ Proceedings of the Conference of Ruling Princes and Chiefs: held at Delhi on the 30th October 1016 and Following Days (Delhi: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1916).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Chamberlain to Chelmsford, 8 May 1917, IOL, Chelmsford Papers, MSS Eur E 264/3. (Hereafter the Chelmsford Papers will be cited as MSS Eur E 264.)

¹⁵ Ibid., and Chamberlain to Chelmsford, 28 Jun 1917, ibid. In future conferences the Viceroy instead of the Political Secretary presided.

¹⁸ The leaders of this group who formed a committee to present the princely petitions to Montagu during his tour of India were Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner, Maharaja Jey Singh of Alwar, Jam Saheb Ranjit Singh of Nawanagar, and Maharaja Bhupindcr Singh of Patiala. All of these rulers were Rajputs except Patiala, a Sidhu Jat Sikh, fat and especially Rajput princes were later the dominant though not the exclusive leadership elements in the Chamber of Princes, as were rulers located in the general vicinity of the new imperial capital at Delhi. This latter point will be discussed further in our following sections on organizational structure and procedure and on oartici-pation.

¹⁷ Quoted in Phadnis, Towards the Integration of Indian States, 1919–1947, p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁸ V. P. Menon, The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (Madras: Orient Longmans, 1961), pp. 73, 75, 82. See also Singh, Ganda, “The Role of Patiala in the Integration of India,” Punjab Past and Present, II, Part 1 (April, 1968), 144/159.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The proposal was made in the Report of the Shava Lai Committee, which was appointed by the Government in April 1949, following a conference of Rajpramukhs and Chief Ministers of Unions. Cited in “A Note on the Derivation and Certain Features of the ‘Concord for India’,” p. 1, in the files of the Consultation of Rulers of Indian States in Concord for India, located at India Lodge, 108 Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The authors wish to thank H. H. Maharaja Sriraj Meghrajji of Dhrangadhra for his permission to consult selected portions of these materials, hereafter cited as Concord Files.

²⁰ The declared purpose of the Union of Rulers was “to safeguard their common interest and well-being as well as to promote social and cultural development of themselves and their families and to serve the Motherland in accordance with their best traditions in harmony with the progressive and stable elements in the country” Thirty-eight rulers were listed as founder members. “A Note on the Derivation … of the Concord.…” p. 1 (see note 19).

²¹ See Menon, , pp. 410–415, and Erd-man, Howard, The Swatantra Party and Indian Conservatism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 23.Google Scholar

²² In fact, the Saurashtra group's Constitution, drafted in March 1950, anticipated the establishment of an all-India “Consultation” of Rulers: “Article X. The above said several bodies shall or may consult or associate with other similarly constituted bodies in India … and for the purpose enter into a consultative general body or Consultation, under intimation to the Government of India.” The similarity in terminology derives in large part from the fact that the Constitutions of both the Saurashtra association and the Consultation were authored by the same individual. Copies are available in Concord Files.

²³ “States Information Service & Bureau: A Prospectus,” p. 3, Concord Files. The prospectus later noted: “No less important than providing a meeting ground for Members and compiling a mere legal documentation, the bureau would serve as an agency for publicity, which has been altogether neglected.”Google ScholarIbid., p. 7.

²⁴ Proceedings of the annual meetings of ihc Saurashtra States-General, February 13, 1966, August 2, 1967. and April 14, 1968; and of the General Meeting of the All-Gujarat Rulers, August 2, 1967; “Report of the Dhrangadhra Committee on Dynastic Matters, 1950;” and “State Information Service and Bureau—a Prospectus,” May 18, 1965, all in Concord Files.

²⁵ For background on the resolution, see Richtcr, William L., “Princes in Indian Politics,” Economic and Political Weekly, VI, No. 9 (February 27, 1970. p. 538.Google Scholar

²⁶ Letter, July 11, 1967, Concord Files.

²⁷ Consultation of Rulers of Indian States in Concord for India, “Memorandum of Association and The Filed Set of Rules and Regulations” (Delhi: Mimeo, February 5, 1970), p. 2. Concord Files.

²⁸ Comments by the Intcndant General (Maharaja of Dhrangadhra) at the Seventh Conciliar Committee Meeting, June 8, 1969. Concord Files.

²⁹ The unsuccessful attempts were a proposed constitutional amendment that failed to receive enough votes in the Rajya Sabha, and a Presidential Dc-recognition Order that was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The successful termination of princely privileges and privy purses by constitutional amendment in December, 1971, did not spell an immediate end to the Consultation. Financial support declined somewhat, but the Comity continued to lobby for transitional payments and arrangements, while Concord functions remained unaffected by the change.

³⁰ E.g., the Maharaja of Tripura; the Maharaja of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh; and the Maharana of Udaipur in Rajasthan.

³¹ See Richter, , “Princes in Indian Politics,” EPW, PP. 535–538.Google Scholar

³² Proceedings of the Chamber of Princes, March 1939. pp. 33–49.Google Scholar

³³ Even during 1935–1936 when the Government of India Act of 1935 was being implemented, Berirand J. Glancy, the Political Secretary, complained of the lack of suitable agenda items for both the Standing Committee and the Chamber. Glancy to Maharaja Udaibhan Singh of Dholpur, Officiating Chancellor of the Chamber, 13 Sept 1935, and Clancy to Patiala, Chancellor, 10 Jan 1936. National Archives of India, GOI, F&P, 1935, Int-A, File No. 153. (Hereafter the National Archives of India will be cited as NAI).

³⁴ Patiala to all members of the Chamber, 27 Feb 1928, Punjab State Archives at Patiala, Chamber Section, Case No. Ill (c) 12 of 1928. (Hereafter the Punjab State Archives will be cited as PSAP and the Chamber Section as CS.)

³⁵ Minutes of an informal meeting of the Standing Committee of the Chamber on Oct 1929, PSAP, CS, Case No. Ill (B) 20 of 1929.

³⁶ Chamber Proceedings, March 1939. pp. 38–40.Google Scholar

³⁷ Originally, 284 princes were designated rulers and guaranteed their privy purses and privileges in the 1948–1949 agreements with the Indian Government. By 1967, five of these had either died without heir or otherwise terminated their family status.

³⁸ “Memorandum of Association,” p. 8. Concord Piles.Google Scholar

³⁹ Presumably Dr. Karan Singh, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and presently Health Minister in Mrs. Gandhi's cabinet, would also have been included if he had not been inalterably opposed to the whole Concord enterprise.

⁴⁰ “Memorandum of Association,” p. 10. Concord Files.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Even though the Standing Committee of the Chamber only met three or four times a year, its membership was generally limited, perhaps unconsciously, to princes less than a twenty-four hour train trip from Delhi and willing to take the time and effort necessary to attend the meetings.

⁴² “Intendant General's Memorandum Prescript on Standard Modes of Official Writing,” Concord Files.Google Scholar

⁴³ For a description of this time-consuming procedure, see Charles C. Watson, Political Secretary, GOI, to Patiala, 23 May 1930, PSAP, CS, Case No. HI (c) 27 of 1930 and Panikkar, , His Highness the Maharaja of Bikaner, pp. 245–246.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Composed of the rulers of Alwar, Bhopal, Bikancr, Kashmir, Nawanagar, and Patiala.

⁴⁵ Several books were written during the late 1930's and early 1940's by English visitors extolling the virtues of the princes and their states. See, for instance, Diver, Maud, Royal India: A Descriptive and Historical Study of India's Fifteen Principal Slates and Their Rulers (New York and London: Appleton-Century, 1942);Google Scholar and Sir Mac-Munn, George, The Indian States and Princes (London: Jarrolds, 1936).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ An entire run of this magazine which was published from November 1945 to April 1947 is available at the India Office Library. It was edited and published by S. A. Jawad, Director of Public Relations for the Chamber of Princes.

⁴⁷ See, “The Privy Purse: Legal and Moral Aspects,” dated September, 1967.

⁴⁸ See, “First Note on Indian Treaty Relations,” (Consultation Paper on Indian Treaties, IV, New Delhi: July 15, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The following assessment of press opinion is revealing: “of the leading newspapers, Hindustan Times appears to be taking a helpful attitude editorially, Statesman is entirely dependable, and Indian Express is wholly with us, the Hindu supports us but the Times of India is both critical and likely to follow the official lines,” Minute of January 15, 1970, in Concord Files.

⁵⁰ Letter dated January 31, 1970, Concord Files.

⁵¹ Shankar, V., “Publicity Programme Proposals,” September 12, 1969, pp. 1–2, Concord Files.Google Scholar

⁵² Because of his previous Chamber prominence, Patiala could easily have become the Concord's Convenor General. One explanation of his failure to do so is that he wanted to play the same sort of mediator role in the late 1960's that he had played in the late 1940's. He also saw himself as the last survivor of the generation of young leaders who created the new India in 1946 and 1947. From that perspective he presumably found both Punjab Assembly politics and Concord politics too far beneath his dignity. Interview with H. H. Maharaja of Patiala, Patiala, April 35, 1970. For a longer exploration of this question, see William L. Rich-ter, “Differential Political Behavior Among the Punjab Princes,” paper presented at Third Punjab Studies Conference, Philadelphia, May 6, 1971, pp. 12–14. Yadavindra Singh died suddenly of a heart attack in June 1974 while still serving as Indian ambassador to the Netherlands.

⁵³ The Ministrant Committee was reconstituted on August 11, 1971, with the rulers of Bikaner, Gwalior, Kalahandi, Nabha, and Tripura appointed as members. All comparisons drawn here are based upon the committee's earlier (1967–1971) composi-tion. Similarly, the Conciliar Committee was reconstituted on September 22, 1970, and comparative analysis of participation on that committee draws upon its 1967–1970 membership and attendance figures.

⁵⁴ Extract from diary of Leslie M. Crump, Political Agent for the Phulkian States, 20–31 May 1918, NAI, GOI, F&P, Internal-B, June 1918, Pro. Nos. 38–43.

⁵⁵ Wedgwood Benn to Irwin, 15 Nov 1930, NAI, GOI, F&P, 1930, Special, File No. 24 (3).

⁵⁶ Nawab Sadiq Muhammad Khan of Bahawal-pur, who served on the Standing Committee for three terms, has been excluded from this analysis because of that state's accession to Pakistan after Partition.

⁵⁷ Others, such as H. H. Dhrangadhra, served on the post-1939 Standing Committee as well as the Conciliar Committee.

⁵⁸ Letter from Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad to Lord Willingdon, June 27, 1935, IOR, CR, R/1Y20/142.

⁵⁹ For a complementary explanation of Udaipur's reticence in terms of a Rajput ethic, see Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne H., “The Political Modernization of an Indian Feudal Order: An Analysis of Rajput. Adaptation in Rajasthan,” Journal of Social Issues, XXIV, No. 4 (1968), pp. 96–100.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Wood to Maharaja Sawaidukaji Rao Hotkar of Indore, 22 Mar 1920, and note by Wood of a conversation with Indore on 23 June 1920, and note Sep. 1920, Pro. Nos. 45-51. Indore also felt that the Chamber would bring big princes like himself onto the same level as the small fry and would destroy the individuality of such states as Indorc.

⁶¹ Menon, pp. 110–112.

⁶² Convenor-General's Conciliar Rescript, 7 Dec 1972, in Concord Files.

⁶³ Letter from H. H. Fatehsinhrao of Baroda to “All Rulers and Members of the Concord,” January 9, 1970.

⁶⁴ It is a further evidence of the confusion concerning membership in the Concord and the Comity that these rulers resigned from the Concord over a Comity issue, while some of them had riot contributed to and were therefore technically not members of either body.