What if these princely states had chosen independence or refused to join? This “what if” presents one of the most fascinating and dangerous alternate histories of modern India.
By Prem Shukla, National Spokesperson, BJP: “We have achieved independence after centuries of suffering and sacrifice. Shall we now allow that freedom to be broken into fragments by petty rulers or ambitions?” Speech, All India States’ People’s Conference, July 1947. “The inspiration of one nation, one people, one country must be our watchword.”
Speech at the Constituent Assembly, 1947
At the dawn of independence in August 1947, India was not one single nation but a mosaic of over 565 princely states and British provinces. Just to give a context they comprise around 40% of the land area and 23% of India’s population of undivided India. However, this number of princely states also include those which are located in the region of present day Pakistan like Kalat, Bahawalpur, Khairpur etc. (around 13). Post unification, a bulk of them fell in the proposed Indian side of the undivided India (~552). In terms of area, princely states comprised around 2.54 million square km. Post partition around 2.02 million square km, or 80% of them acceded to India and the rest 20% to Pakistan
The departing British, keeping their long-term strategic interests in mind, left these princely states free to join India, join Pakistan, or remain independent, through the Indian Independence Act 1947. As far as the Congress was concerned, the decision to integrate the princely states in the Indian Union was taken during the Haripura session in 1938 –
“The Congress stands for the same political, social and economic freedom in the States as in the rest of India and considers the States as integral parts of India which cannot be separated. The Purna Swaraj or complete independence, which is the objective of the Congress, is for the whole of India, inclusive of the States, for the integrity and unity of India must be maintained in freedom as it has been maintained in subjection.”
In this context, a new states department was set up with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as its head and VP Menon as the secretary. Through a combination of diplomacy, persuasion, and determination, Patel brought nearly all these states into the Indian Union. The greatness of Sardar Patel, lies in anticipating the dangers of this move ahead of partition and India’s independence. He had been proactive in drafting the Instrument of Accession (IoA), requiring the states to give over the subjects of defence, foreign relations and communications to the Government of India by early July 1947 itself. In less than three weeks, practically all the states had signed before August 1947. Some states were, however, unwilling to join India for the fear that they would lose their independence. How these states finally came together with India is an interesting tale of a bloodless revolution led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The integration stories of Travancore, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir, Bhopal, Manipur, Cooch Behar,Tripura are well documented.
What if these princely states had chosen independence or refused to join? This “what if” presents one of the most fascinating and dangerous alternate histories of modern India.
Counterfactually, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that, had it not been for Sardar Patel’s strategic action, the integration of states would not have been possible. Even if we assume that the states that had acceded to India before Independence would have done so even with or without Patel’s efforts, there are still states like Travancore, Hyderabad, Tripura, Junagadh, and Bhopal. Last but not least, India would have certainly lost Lakshadweep to Pakistan, had it not been for the swift action by Sardar Patel to send Indian troops before Pakistan and raise the tricolor flag.
Had the princely states remained separate, the Indian subcontinent would have resembled pre-unification Europe or post-Ottoman West Asia, a patchwork of rival mini-nations. Fortunately, Europe does not have neighbours like Pakistan. Major states like Hyderabad, Travancore, Bhopal, and Kashmir were already toying with independence in 1947. Their success would have inspired others, leading to dozens of small sovereignties, each with its own currency, army, and foreign ties.
The creation of Pakistan from undivided India demonstrated a clear example of what India would become if the multiple princely states were not united. Losing 25% of our territory to hostile forces has allowed global players to make it into a playground for their geopolitical ambitions. Losing the Northwest Frontier Province to Pakistan has allowed the USA to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 80s. Losing Gilgit Baltistan to Pakistan’s illegal occupation had allowed for decades of cross-border terrorism and radicalisation of the Kashmir Valley and the exodus of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits.
Can we imagine a scenario where we have lost 40% of our territory, that too with hostile states surrounding all around India and even in the middle?
Instead of the Republic of India, we might have seen twenty or thirty mini-countries – weak, unstable, and constantly in conflict. This was not new to us, as had been the case before the Islamic invasion. Although there was civilizational continuity across the subcontinent, starting from present-day Afghanistan to Southeast Asian countries during this period, the defining feature was political disunity, which cost us badly for the next thousand years. However, this time we have a neighbour like Pakistan, created with a sole ambition to destroy India. With so many independent states without having a geographical and political nucleus, Pakistan and the global powers will leave no stone unturned to break up India into a thousand pieces further.
If we are facing cross-border terrorism from the northern and eastern front today, one cannot even imagine the scenario if India had to fight anti-national forces from the southern, eastern and even central fronts as well. Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Junagadh states would have become the new conduits for cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan. Let’s not forget the left-wing extremism. If in a united India, the Maoist anti-national agents can wage a war against the state, it would have been far easier for them to wage a full-fledged war from the jungles of central India had Bhopal and Hyderabad become independent states.
Without the integration of Hyderabad, India would have been facing an unnatural situation of having a hostile territory right in the middle of the country, and that too with a state with a large Hindu population. Had it not been for Operation Polo, the Razakars would have become successful in Islamising the Hyderabad state and even expand further in all directions.
Perennial poverty
Disunity would have crippled India’s economic future. Each princely state would have imposed tariffs, currencies, and trade barriers, suffocating commerce and mobility. Massive national projects like the railways, Bhakra Nangal Dam, and steel plants could never have materialized. The dream of a self-reliant economy would have been replaced by economic isolation and dependency on foreign powers. Without integration, there would be no single Indian rupee, no Reserve Bank of India, and no industrialisation. India’s economic rise would have remained a mirage. Most of all, with hostile neighbours all around, India might have to spend more than 10% of its meagre budget on defence and internal security, leaving no chance for rapid economic growth.
A weaker central government means no economic stability in the remaining provinces as well. If today, we are witnessing the North-South divide due to economic disparity, one can certainly assume similar discord and bickering in a fragmented India, further aggravating the disunity, and likely lead to another partition. The independence and the status of the political leaders enjoyed in the neighbouring states will certainly give them an incentive to demand and bargain more while staying united.
The rivers that flow through these states will become another flashpoint for conflict. Imagine the complexity of river sharing agreements among the states and that too largely hostile. Along with Indus and Teesta, Krishna Godavari, and Yamuna would have become international rivers with potential sources for diplomatic conflicts
Even if economic conflicts can be sorted out through negotiation, the security of India, a disunited subcontinent, would have been a security nightmare. Independent entities like Hyderabad or Kashmir could have aligned with Pakistan, Britain, or other powers, creating internal flashpoints and external threats. The Indian Army, instead of being a unified force, might have been splintered into regional militias loyal to local rulers. Foreign powers could easily exploit these divisions — turning India into a South Asian chessboard for Cold War politics.
The Death of Democracy and Bharatiya Identity
Before integration, most princely states were absolute monarchies, where rulers wielded unchecked power. Without accession to democratic India, millions of citizens would have remained subjects, not citizens. The Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality and freedom, would not have reached them. Feudalism and hereditary privilege would have persisted, blocking social reform, women’s empowerment, and education. Democracy would have survived only in fragments, if at all.
Beyond politics and economics lies the question of Bharatiya identity. The Indian freedom movement united people under the idea of “One India, One People, One Destiny.” Without integration, that idea would have died in its infancy. There would be no tricolour flag, no national anthem, and no shared Constitution, only dozens of competing flags and thrones. The vision of Bharat Mata as a civilizational whole would have remained unfulfilled. On the world stage, a fragmented India would have been a minor player. It could not have launched a space program or emerged as an IT superpower. Instead, it would have been a region of unstable micro-states, vulnerable to foreign manipulation and economic dependency – a South Asian version of divided Africa or the Middle East.
Reviving the forgotten legacy
“Rashtriya Ekta Diwas will provide an opportunity to reaffirm the inherent strength and resilience of our nation to withstand the actual and potential threats to the unity, integrity, and security of our country.” PM Modi’s 2014 speech at the inauguration of the Run for Unity
The integration of the princely states stands as one of the greatest acts of statesmanship in history. Through Sardar Patel’s vision and resolve, the dream of a united, democratic, and sovereign India became a reality. Celebrating ‘Ekta Diwas’ in his name is a tribute every Indian should give to Sardar Patel. It’s a civilisational travesty that we haven’t celebrated his contribution until 2014.
The objective of building the Statue of Unity or celebrating his birthday as ‘Ekta Diwas should be seen as a civilisational reminder for us to commemorate the vision of a united India and express gratitude to Sardar Patel for ensuring that India emerged not as a cluster of kingdoms, but as a single nation with a shared destiny, a civilization reborn as a republic.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or stance of the organization. The organization assumes no responsibility for the content shared.)