Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s Strategic
Role in Uniting India’s Princely States
Sivani Brahma Baruah,
Independent Researcher,
Meghalaya, India.
Abstract:
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and Home
Minister, played a very important role in uniting 565 princely states after
India became independent in 1947. It is through his efforts that these
heterogeneous states became great partners in the Indian Union for securing the
unity of the nation. The present study examines how he induced reluctant rulers
to accede to India through diplomacy or persuasion along with political
pressure. With such accolades dedicated to his name, very few people actually
know of the adversities he encountered at the hands of certain princely states
and true were some of the beautiful strategies he had to adopt in handling
these conflicts. The skill of change-the-situation to adapt approaches using
tact, compromise, or firmness as needed was what kept India from political
disintegration. This study portrays Patel’s integral contributions to a stable
and unified India at a time of great maelstroms. Under his leadership, a
politically fractured land developed into a cohesive nation after independence.
The unity of princely states thus comes as proof of vision, resilience, and
skills in nation-building. It was through him that the geographical integrity
of India was maintained and the future governance and federal structure of
India was laid as a foundation.
Keywords: Sardar Patel, Princely
States, Indian Union, Political Integration, Nation-Building, Diplomacy
Introduction
Indian independence from British rule on August 15, 1947,
was a momentous occasion in history. But bigger than this was the task of
uniting over 565 princely states into a single nation. These semi-sovereign
territories subject to the decisions of maharajas, nawabs, rajas, and other
hereditary rulers accounted for over 40% of the subcontinent and held nearly
100 million souls, nearly 25% of India’s population. From enormous kingdoms,
with subjects numbering in the millions, to small princely estates-they varied
greatly in terms of culture, language, and religion. The economies mostly
sustained themselves through trade, agriculture, and mineral wealth, although
some were of strategic importance because of either proximity to coastal ports
or borders. Under British paramountcy, these princely states enjoyed a degree
of autonomy, while the British provided defense and foreign affairs. The Indian
Independence Act promulgated in 1947, in effect, ended this arrangement and
left the decision with the rulers-whether to join India or Pakistan-or declare
independence. India’s unity was further threatened by the great dangers posed
to her with the communal violence and massive dislocation during partition that
were looming large with the threat of national disintegration.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was born on October 31, 1875, in
Nadiad, Gujarat, and became the chief architect of the unification of India. He
was a barrister and one of the prominent freedom fighters. From the Bardoli
Satyagraha of 1928 when he led a non-violent protest against increased land
taxes, he became known as “Sardar,” which means “leader,” gaining utmost
respect and popularity. Appointed as India's first Deputy Prime Minister and
Home Minister in 1947, Patel brought his iron will to this complex task: “We
are all knit together by a common destiny,” he said, provoking his countrymen
to unite in pursuit of a common cause. His mission was to persuade or to coerce
the different rulers, who had for centuries protected their privileges, into a
united India, while negotiating the communal tensions and geopolitical
interests of that time.
Patel was confronted with a tapestry of princely states,
with each being shaped by its own peculiar set of traditions, religious
demographics, and foreign influences. Some rulers, in regard to ancestral
legacies, sought independence, with the hope of treating their states as
sovereign entities. Others, with the temptation of really good promises, were
considering alliances with Pakistan. Patel’s strategy was protean, flexible
between persuasion and pragmatic action. He offered rulers incentives like
financial aid and ceremonial jobs to secure commitments from many states and to
create the momentum for unity. Where resistance surfaced, he conversely
fostered public sentiment against the reluctant leaders by mobilizing local
people through grassroots interventions. “Unity is our strength,” he would chant
as a slogan around this collective resolve. Economic measures, such as trade
restrictions, undermined the defiant rulers, leading to their obedience with
minimal resistance.
When confronted with recalcitrant opposition, Patel
unleashed interventions that would teach a good lesson in short confines:
defiance does not pay. The fine balancing of communal tensions would be,
imperatively, another arena wherein Patel was able, in his own way, to present
himself as a unifier for India through creating an inclusive identity for all
diversities. “We fought to determine our destiny; now we fight to preserve it,”
Patel stressed to beautify his sentiment for nation-building. He worked to transform
a disorganized land into a nation, representing various territories under a
single flag.
The other area of Patel’s conception is the establishment of
robust governance. His reforms laid out a federal structure balancing the
regional identities of the erstwhile princely states with the new unity of the
nation, catering to the preservation of their cultural legacies and at the same
time ensuring administrative integrity. By 1950, his initiatives had pioneered
the foundation for the lasting federal structure of India that would guide all
future integrations and governance models. Patel became a beacon of leadership
called the “Iron Man” of India, with his legacy celebrated annually on National
Unity Day, October 31. The study examines his multiple strategies to deal with
the resistant rulers and the impact of Patel on India’s federal and cultural
integration, which provides suggestions for historians and policymakers dealing
with diversity in democratic societies across the globe.
Literature Review
The integration of princely states into the post-1947 Indian
Union stands as a pivotal subject within historical and political studies.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s central and decisive leadership in this monumental
process is universally acknowledged across academic literature. This review
synthesizes key studies and historical accounts that examine Patel’s diverse
strategies, the formidable challenges he encountered, and his profound and
lasting impact on India’s evolving federal structure and nation-building.
Foundational accounts highlight Patel’s multifaceted
approach to unification. V. P. Menon, Patel’s key collaborator and Secretary of
the States Department, offers an invaluable insider perspective in The Story of
the Integration of the Indian States. He meticulously details the strategic
development of the Instrument of Accession, a critical legal document that
allowed rulers to cede control over defense, foreign affairs, and
communications while retaining internal autonomy (Menon 45-50). Menon
underscores the initial diplomatic successes, like the swift accession of
states such as Bikaner and Baroda, which set crucial precedents for broader
integration. Ramachandra Guha further emphasizes Patel’s strategic genius,
acknowledging his leadership of the States Department (established June 1947)
as the primary machinery for systematic unification, balancing political
incentives with subtle pressure (Guha 112-115). Bipan Chandra et al. contribute
by highlighting Patel’s crucial mobilization of public sentiment through the
All-India States’ People’s Conference (AISPC) and local Praja Mandals, noting
its effectiveness in pressuring states like Jodhpur (Chandra et al. 89-92).
Academic literature extensively examines the challenges
posed by particularly resistant states and Patel’s varied responses. Ian
Copland provides a detailed analysis of Hyderabad’s integration through
“Operation Polo” in September 1948. This military intervention, initiated after
the Nizam’s persistent independence claims and escalating communal violence,
illustrates Patel’s decisive readiness to use force when diplomatic efforts,
such as the Standstill Agreement, failed to secure national interests (Copland
245-250). Sekhar Bandyopadhyay further analyzes Junagadh’s accession,
highlighting Patel’s shrewd use of economic sanctions and support for the local
Aarzi Hukumat (provisional government), culminating in a February 1948
plebiscite overwhelmingly favoring India (Bandyopadhyay 320-325). Barbara N.
Ramusack discusses Kashmir’s complex accession, triggered by tribal invasion
and formalized under Article 370 (Ramusack 178-182).
Beyond immediate territorial integration, Patel’s vision
extended to establishing a robust governance framework. Guha praises the
establishment of the All India Services, famously termed the “Steel Frame,”
recognizing their critical role in ensuring administrative continuity and
cohesion across the newly unified nation (Guha 134-137). Menon meticulously
records the reorganization of the 565 princely states into 14 administrative
units by 1950, forming the bedrock of India’s enduring federal structure (Menon
301-305).
Statement of the Problem
The incorporation of
565 princely states into the Union of India after independence in 1947
presented a huge challenge. The lapse of British paramountcy gave each state
the choice to either accede to India, Pakistan, or remain independent-a
situation which was threatening national unity. To accomplish this unification,
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel played a major role. Nonetheless, he was faced with
many complexities and adversities; a nuanced discussion on these challenges and
his ways to overcome them is needed. This study aims to investigate the problems Patel
encountered and the approaches he adopted to achieve the integration of the
princely states, ensuring India's territorial unity and federal coherence.
Research Questions
1. How did Sardar
Patel use diplomacy, persuasion, public support, and force to unify India’s
princely states?
2. What obstacles did
resistant states create, and how were these challenges addressed?
3. How did Patel’s
work influence India’s federal system and national unity?
Research Objectives
1. To examine Patel’s
methods for unifying India’s princely states.
2. To assess
challenges posed by resistant princely states.
3. To evaluate
Patel’s impact on India’s territorial unity and federal framework.
Significance of the Research
This study on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s unification of
India’s princely states emphasizes his crucial role in building a unified
nation. It explores his diplomacy, public support, and force, revealing
psychological tactics, communal navigation, and administrative reforms like the
All India Services. Patel’s federal system and cultural integration ensured
lasting unity, shaping modern governance. This research enriches historical
understanding, provides global nation-building insights, and informs policies
on managing diversity in democracies. Patel’s legacy offers valuable lessons
for academicians and leaders seeking to foster cohesion in pluralistic
societies worldwide.
Methodology
This study analyzes Patel’s unification efforts using
qualitative data from official records and scholarly texts. A case-study
approach explores his diplomacy, public support, and force. Thematic analysis
reveals key patterns, and comparisons show adaptability, ensuring a clear and
accurate insight into his role in uniting India.
Analysis
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s unification of over 565 princely
states into the Indian Union after 1947 was a defining achievement in India’s
nation-building. This analysis examines five pivotal case studies of Hyderabad,
Junagadh, Kashmir, Travancore, and Jodhpur, to address how Patel employed a
sophisticated blend of diplomacy, public support, and strategic use of force to
overcome resistance. By exploring his nuanced psychological tactics, his astute
navigation of communal dynamics, and the profound impact on India’s nascent
federal structure, this section aims to fill gaps in existing scholarship,
revealing Patel’s strategic adaptability and his lasting legacy as the
architect of modern India.
Hyderabad:
The Challenge of Sovereignty and Decisive Force
Hyderabad in 1947 was the largest and richest princely
state, strategically crucial and being centrally placed, and having immense
resources. The Nizam, Mir Osman Ali Khan, was a Muslim ruler over a Hindu
majority of greater than 16 million people, and it posed the biggest threat to
India’s territorial integrity. The Nizam had aspired for an independent
Hyderabad and sought recognition internationally, at one point attempting to
lobby the United Nations. His ambition was seriously augmented by the Razakars,
a militant Islamist volunteer organization led by Qasim Razvi, whose violent
actions against the Hindu population and pro-India elements further aggravated
communal tension and instability. This internal upheaval, growing with every
passing day along with the Nizam’s refusal of accession, was a direct threat to
India’s own internal security and geographic coherence.
Initially, Patel pursued a diplomatic solution securing a
Standstill Agreement on November 29, 1947, to maintain the status quo for one
year during which negotiations would be pursued. This was seen as a strategic
move to buy time, avert immediate conflict, and allow internal dynamics within
the state to take their own course. The increasing brutality of the Razakars
against the will of the Nizam and growing incomprehensible humanitarian crises
forced Patel into taking a decisive stand. He recognized that diplomacy had run
its course and the state had become a volatile center of secessionism, which
consequently called for the use of decisive force. Operation Polo was launched
on September 13, 1948, in a rapid and swift move. In four days, the Indian Army
overran Hyderabad, forcing the Nizam to capitulate on September 17. Patel
skillfully psychologically managed the transition by keeping the Nizam’s fear
of complete loss of power and dignity alive, appointing him as Rajpramukh
(constitutional head) ensuring a smooth transfer. This case shows a clear
readiness of Patel to shift from the path of prolonged diplomacy to one of
military intervention whenever national security and the internal stability
were literally on the brink, thereby managing communal tensions and cementing
India’s federal and territorial unity.
Junagadh:
The Power of Public Will and Economic Pressure
Junagadh posed a unique challenge as a small coastal state
within Gujarat, having a Hindu majority under a Muslim Nawab, Muhammad Mahabat
Khan III. As close to Pakistan as he was, on September 15, 1947, he preferred
to accede to Pakistan, something which posed a direct challenge to the territorial
integrity of India and even to the very principle of the partition (ideally,
princely states adjoining a dominion would join that dominion).
Patel's answer was a master class in non-military pressure.
Direct military action would attract worldwide condemnation, as well as a
popular backlash. Patel imposed a complete economic blockade to cut off
essential supplies such as fuel and food, prompting reports about a rapid
deterioration in the state’s economy and administrative capacity.
Simultaneously leveraging public support, Patel supported the Aarzi Hukumat
(Provisional Government), an associated local resistance movement organized by
Indian citizens of Junagadh under leaders like Samaldas Gandhi. This
provisional government, which functioned outside Junagadh's borders, organized
massive popular protests and civil disobedience campaigns that placed huge
internal pressure on the Nawab. The combined effect of economic strangulation
and increasing popular discontent proved overwhelming. The Nawab, isolated and
with fears of total collapse of law and order, escaped to Pakistan on October
26, 1947. Patel proceeded with the normal integration of Junagadh as an Indian
dominion by a plebiscite of February 20, 1948, wherein a great 99.95 percent of
the people voted for accession to India. This case illustrates Patel’s genius
in forging will and applying enduring economic pressure in the name of
unification without direct military conflict, hence consolidating India's
coherent identity as well as the democratic federal framework built on the
fundamental principle of popular consent.
Kashmir:
Balancing Urgency with Strategic Compromise
Kashmir was the most complicated and longest-lasting problem
to the point it became an issue of global security, not only because the two
dominions separated and became independent, but also because it was a state
with a strategic area, situated to the north and bordering both new states. Its
royal Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, controlled a Muslim-majority, and at
the beginning, he had ideas that the state would become independent and thus
would not have to join either India or Pakistan. Things got so tangled in this
regard that a dangerous power vacuum was formed. The crisis got out of control
in October 1947 when invading tribal forces supported by Pakistan launched a
full-scale attack and ransacked Srinagar at a high rate. Since it was an attack
on an area holding sovereignty, Kashmir’s northern limits with India were also
endangered, therefore challenging the entire concept of unification put forward
by Patel. Like usual, Patel reacted immediately and logically. Without wasting
time, he made it possible for the Maharaja’s support to be there at the last moment
and for the strategic need of occupying Kashmir he signed the Instrument of
Accession, which was actually done by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947.
This deed, which is legally binding, indicates in very clear terms that Kashmir
had now become a part of the Indian Union and on that legal basis the Indian
troops’ deployment is allowed. More than that, on the ground of the most
relevant communal issues within the area and also with the intention to make
the smooth transition into the union easier, Patel believed in and promoted the
temporary and transitional arrangements under Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution, which accorded special status and autonomy to Kashmir. His
leveraging power over Hari Singh, together with the instant military support that
led to the failure of the invaders’ plan, was nothing short of a show that
displayed Patel’s ability to juggle between the two extremes of national
security and political compromise. Although the integration of Kashmir is still
a complicated and disputed matter, the firm steps taken by the Patel in 1947
were the very first ones in ensuring Kashmir’s assent, thus affecting the
nature of India’s federal system by embracing rather than excluding differences
in the unified system.
Travancore:
Leveraging Internal Dissent and Economic Leverage
Travancore, a rich and thriving south state, was of high
economic value especially because of its very rare monazite reserves which is a
necessary mineral for atomic energy and a strategic port of that region. The
Dewan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer was a very strong character who announced not
only that Travancore will be independent but also that he might be influenced
by the supposed British trade interests in its mineral wealth. This
announcement was like a key obstacle to Patel’s idea of a united Indian Union
especially in the south. Patel very cleverly subdued the opposition by
combining the appeal to public opinion with smart diplomacy. He knew that
Dewan’s dream of going solo was not something that the people would agree with.
The protests against the State Congress and Dewan’s despotic rule and his
independence viewpoint were the mainspring that caused their growth
significantly. The assassination attempts on the Dewan in July 1947, which
immobilized the Dewan’s power and wiped out his popularity among the masses,
was the crisis that put the ball firmly in Patel’s court. As a result, Patel
agreed with the Maharaja and the Dewan on the issue of economic advantages and
security guarantees which accession to India would give, and the point of
safety from the side of separation was raised. Through the use of both the
increasing public unrest and the ruler’s Supreme Court-like anxiousness over
forthcoming instability and anarchy, Patel got the July 1947 Travancore
accession without violence. This is a good example of how Patel exploits the
dynamics of local politics and the rulers’ self-interest to accomplish
integration, a step that is very instrumental to India’s territorial unity and
federal cohesion in the southern peninsula.
Jodhpur:
Direct Diplomacy and Strategic Persuasion
Jodhpur was a major Rajput state in Rajasthan and was
strategically situated near the border with the new Pakistan. The princely
state’s young, and ambitious, Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hanwant Singh, threw up a
classic and dangerous problem when on being tempted with offers like free
access to Karachi Port, manufacturing of arms for the use of state, and the
supply of considerable sums of money by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he rather chose to
give his assent to Pakistan. Had Jodhpur been lost to India, it would have
resulted in a substantial territorial anomaly along with a security gap in the
northern area. Patel dealt with this menace by conducting a face-to-face,
highly personalized, and tradesman-like negotiation, and, at the same time,
applying public pressure in a soft but obvious manner. He sent V.P. Menon, his
closest secretary, to talk with the Maharaja. Working under Patel’s
instructions, Menon brought out the risks involved in joining Pakistan in a
very clear way and among them was the uprising of Jodhpur’s Hindu majority
population whom he predicted would not accept the move without resistance. The
All-India States’ People’s Conference, a pan-India organization that was the
main advocate of democratic governance in princely states, also stirred local
protests which escalated the pressure from within the state. Patel’s method of
winning over people’s minds by pointing out stability, common culture, and
religion along with the unspoken threat of revolts, turned out to be the
achievement. In August 1947, Maharaja Hanwant Singh signed the Instrument of
Accession, thus forever tying Jodhpur with India. This decision on the spot
ensured Rajasthan’s necessary integration that helped strengthen India's
federal structure and averted a potential strategic disaster.
Comparative
Analysis: A Symphony of Strategic Adaptability
These five case studies vividly showcase Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel’s unmatched strategic flexibility in unifying India’s princely states.
His approaches were finely tailored to each state’s unique context. In
Hyderabad, force followed failed diplomacy and rising unrest, used as a last
resort to secure stability. Junagadh’s integration relied on economic pressure
and public mobilization, avoiding conflict. Kashmir balanced urgent military
support with political compromise through temporary autonomy. Travancore’s
accession leveraged public dissent and the ruler’s fear of chaos. Jodhpur’s
integration combined persuasive diplomacy with the subtle threat of unrest,
ensuring unity.
Patel’s navigation of communal dynamics in Muslim-ruled
states with Hindu majorities (Hyderabad, Junagadh) and Hindu-ruled states with
Muslim majorities (Kashmir) was particularly crucial. He ensured that the
principle of self-determination, often interpreted through the lens of the
majority population’s will, was paramount, thereby upholding a secular vision
for India. This meticulous handling of diverse populations and religious
demographics significantly contributed to India’s secular unity, filling a
critical gap in much of the existing scholarship that often focuses solely on
the political mechanics.
His psychological tactics, a subtly powerful dimension of
his approach, were pivotal. Patel skillfully exploited rulers’ fears - fear of
isolation, fear of losing their privy purses and privileges, fear of popular
uprisings, and fear of outright chaos. He consistently offered an “honourable”
way out through accession, promising them continued ceremonial roles, financial
entitlements (privy purses), and the preservation of their cultural legacies,
contrasting this with the alternative of likely popular revolt or forced
annexation. This “carrot and stick” approach was fundamental to overcoming
centuries of inherited privilege and resistance.
Beyond territorial consolidation, Patel’s vision extended to
establishing a robust governance framework for the newly integrated states. By
1950, through a series of mergers and integrations, he meticulously reorganized
the 565 princely states into manageable administrative units, initially forming
unions of states and then integrating them into the existing provinces,
ultimately leading to the formation of 14 administrative units. This process
laid the foundational groundwork for India’s enduring federal system, balancing
regional diversity with national cohesion. His unwavering commitment to a
unified administrative structure led to the establishment of the All India
Services, the “Steel Frame” of Indian administration, which further cemented
uniform governance across the integrated territories. These pioneering efforts
profoundly shaped India’s federal framework, influencing subsequent state
reorganizations and even later integrations like Sikkim in 1975, where the
principles of popular will and democratic accession continued to guide the
process. Patel’s work stands as a testament to his transformative
nation-building skills, offering enduring lessons for modern federalism in
addressing regional identity debates and reinforcing national unity in diverse
democratic societies worldwide.
Research Findings
This study highlights Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s pivotal
role in unifying India’s 565 princely states after 1947, with key findings
presented below:
1. Strategic & Adaptive Methods: Patel masterfully combined
diplomacy via the States Department led by V.P. Menon, public mobilization
through Praja Mandals, and, as a last resort, judicious military force e.g.,
Operation Polo, adapting his approach to each state’s unique context.
2. Massive Integration Scope: His efforts led to the
successful integration of 562 princely states by 1949, bringing nearly 99
million people (28% of India’s population) and 48% of its pre-partition land
area into the Indian Union.
3. Leveraging Public Will: Patel effectively utilized
popular movements to pressure defiant rulers, securing peaceful accessions in
cases like Junagadh validated by a 99% plebiscite) and Travancore amidst local
unrest.
4. Decisive Force (Last Resort): For critical cases where
other methods failed, such as Hyderabad (September 1948), Patel authorized
swift military action, integrating a state of over 16 million in four days and
neutralizing threats like the Razakars.
5. Adept Communal Management: He skillfully navigated
complex communal dynamics in states like Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Kashmir,
ensuring the will of the majority population prevailed and fostering India’s
secular unity. His role in Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession (Oct 26, 1947) and
support for Article 370 were key.
6. Psychological Insights & Incentives: Patel understood
rulers’ fears and motivations, offering privy purses and ceremonial roles while
subtly emphasizing risks of resistance. This influenced decisions, as seen with
Jodhpur’s Maharaja Hanwant Singh, who chose India despite lucrative offers from
Pakistan.
7. Foundational Federalism: Beyond territorial gains, Patel
established India’s cohesive federal system by reorganizing states into 14
administrative units by 1950 and advocating for the All India Services, which
ensured administrative consistency across the newly unified nation.
8. Enduring Legacy: Patel’s integration framework profoundly
shaped India’s territorial integrity and its constitutional and administrative
evolution, setting a lasting model for nation-building and influencing
subsequent federal arrangements.
Conclusion
Gradually piecing together India’s unification of 565
princely states is a major breakthrough in nation-building. A judicious mix of
diplomacy, public campaign, and, when necessary, resorting to resolution against
resistances has facilitated the forging of a single nation from diverse
regional identities. Managing communal differences so successfully, Patel
established an enduring secular framework for national unity. Administrative
reforms shaped a federal structure balancing local autonomy with national
integrity, which now operates as India’s own governance structure. This paper
signs the stunning magnitude of Patel’s approach on modern challenges in
diversely structured democracies. To this day, Patel’s legacy, commemorated
each year on National Unity Day, is a reference for historians and contemporary
policymakers alike and provides a model for inclusive statesmanship. Patel’s
message celebrates the concept of unity in diversity and provides insights about
building cohesive nations with deference to culture and region. His
contributions remain an exemplar to inspire national unity and a model for good
governance across pluralistic societies in the world.
Works Cited
Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. From Plassey to Partition: A History of
Modern India. Orient Black Swan, 2004.
Chandra, Bipan, et al. India since Independence. Penguin Books,
2000.
Copland, Ian. The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge
UP, 1997.
Guha, Ramachandra. India after Gandhi: the History of the
World’s Largest Democracy. Harper Collins, 2007.
Menon, V. P. The Story of the Integration of the Indian States. Orient Longman,
1956.
National Archives of India.
Instrument of Accession and Related Correspondence. 1947–1949.
Press Information Bureau. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: The Man Who United
the Nation. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India,
[n.d.].
Ramusack, Barbara N. The Indian Princes and Their States.
Cambridge UP, 2004.
Singh, Harpreet. “Integration of
Princely States in Independent India and the Role of Sardar Patel.” International Journal of Innovative Social
Science & Humanities Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 2019, pp. 26–28.
Trivedi, Vinod, and Shailesh
Shastri. “The Princely States.” International
Research Journal of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 5, no.
4, 2024, pp. 58–63.