Political and Administrative Integration of Princely States

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This book is a pioneering endeavour to render an idea of the territorial unification of the native states and administrative amalgamation of Travancore and Cochin and Malabar, brought about in two stages.

The princely states in India were not the creation of the British but had been the components of the imperial tradition built by mythological heroes as exemplified by the performance of horse sacrifice. The British, of course, rationalised their existence.

After the exit of the British, the political unification of the princely states with the Dominion of India, was achieved by resorting to the tactful but tacit use of the weapon of paramountcy which the British wielded but discarded.

The durability of political or territorial integration, by and large, is to be sought in administrative amalgamation for which Kerala has been selected since it represents an ideal model for all princely states in the country Travancore, the largest of the three components of Kerala, is the only native state which unlike others, had the maximum autonomy and a well- designed and efficiently run administrative system which in the words of the Indian States Finances Enquiry Committee was sui generis. Its fiscal management was exemplary and in many respects obviously superior to that of the Indian provinces.

Perhaps no state in India paid so much, suffered so much and sacrificed so much for the unity of the country as it had. Its manifold losses still remain uncompensated and contributions to free India unrecognised.

Communism in Kerala has been a broad excuse invented for continuing the Centre's cavalier treatment to the state. The self-assuming bureaucrats from New Delhi taking advantage of the administrative inexperience of the political leadership, dealt with the vital interests of the state curtly and arbitrarily Neither a theory nor a formula was evolved for the administrative integration. The interesting diversities which would have contributed to administrative productivity and efficiency, were simply ignored emphasising on conformity and uniformity and goading the state to follow the practices of the Centre. The book seeks to present briefly the developments of a period significant to history and administration of the country.

S.N. SADASIVAN is a product of the University of Poona from where he has taken his B.A. (Hons.) LLB, M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. For over 36 years he has been devoted to the function of civil service training and a regular contributor to training literature including course designs, case studies and training methods and techniques.

He was Professor of Public Administration in the Kerala Institute of Public Administration (now Institute of Management in Government), Trivandrum (1978-80) and in the Academy of Administration, Bhopal (1988-1993). During 1980-88 he was Professor of Public Administration in the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

For over 14 years from 1964 he taught political theory, constitution, public administration, and management in the National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Between 1993 and 1995 he was consultant to the National Academy of Direct Taxes, Nagpur.

He has so far authored 14 books. His work Productivity and Efficiency in Administration (Phoenix, New Delhi 2002) is rated as an outstanding contribution to administrative science. In his Party and Democracy in India (McGraw-Hill, 1977) he has foreseen the emergence of a national coalition replacing the dominant Indian National Congress. Of foremost importance to the country is his recent study River Disputes in India:Kerala Rivers Under Siege (Mittal Publications, New Delhi, 2003) which opens a new perspective for river control and river water management.

When two territorial units, irrespective of their names, are brought together to function as a single one, it must invariably be, for its success, followed by administrative integration. In fact, the viability of political integration is to be sought in administrative unification. The British had developed the art of territorial consolidation in the course of their empire building, and the methods and techniques for the administrative integration of different contiguous political units, they brought together. As a rule, the British for every political integration, invariably adopted timely and effective steps for administrative integration and where it was not immediately feasible, they had taken ad hoc steps as demanded by time and situation and finally, at an early appropriate time, their inadequacy was made up or they were suitably modified so as to finalise the unification of administration.

A study of administrative integration demands, a clear view of the related or relevant political integration. As a matter of fact, administrative integration of a territorial entity will be easier provided the circumstances that led to its political unification are perceptible. Indispensably therefore, the administrative integration of Kerala, should be approached from the background of its political integration, or better from the total background of the political unification of the princely states all over the country.

Admittedly, it is on account of the obvious failure of the administrative reorganisation, Vindhya Pradesh formed out of the states of Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand had to be reduced to a chief commissioner's province. Again it is due to the importance accorded to administrative integration that Kutch and Himachal Pradesh formed by unifying the Punjab hill states, were converted into chief commissioner's territories. Before Greater Rajasthan was brought into existence, the states of the erstwhile Rajputana agency, were put through a process of building up administrative adequacy in three stages.

**Contents and Sample Pages**