Which of the following Princely States saw ma)or movements over the period from 1930s to 1940s? 1. Tripura 2. Nilgiri 3. Baroda 4. Travancore Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1. The Evolution of British Paramountcy (basic)

To understand the Indian National Movement, we must first understand how the British managed the map of India. The British Empire in India was not a single uniform block; it was a patchwork consisting of two distinct entities: British Indian Provinces (directly ruled by the British) and Princely States (ruled by local monarchs). Approximately one-third of the land and one out of every four Indians lived under these Princely States Politics in India since Independence (NCERT), Challenges of Nation Building, p.14.

The core concept governing the relationship between the British Crown and these local rulers was Paramountcy (or suzerainty). In simple terms, the Princes were allowed to enjoy internal autonomy—meaning they could manage their own palaces and local laws—as long as they accepted the supremacy of the British Crown. This meant they gave up their right to conduct independent foreign relations or maintain separate armies. However, the British definition of 'paramountcy' was intentionally vague. This gave the British the 'right' to intervene in a state’s internal affairs whenever they cited 'misgovernance' or interest of the Empire.

By the 1920s, as the National Movement for democracy grew in British India, the Princes became nervous about their future. To address this, the Harcourt Butler Committee (1927) was formed. The Committee famously concluded that 'Paramountcy must remain supreme.' It refused to strictly define the term, calling it a 'living, growing relationship' that would adapt to the 'shifting necessities of time' A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), The Indian States, p.606. Crucially, the Butler Committee promised the Princes that they would not be handed over to a future independent Indian government without their own consent.

Feature	British Indian Provinces	Princely States
Administration	Directly ruled by British officials.	Indirectly ruled by local Princes/Kings.
Sovereignty	Under the British Parliament.	Under British "Paramountcy" (Internal autonomy).
International Status	British Territory.	Treated as British Territory for international purposes A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), The Indian States, p.605.

Sources: Politics in India since Independence (NCERT), Challenges of Nation Building, p.14; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), The Indian States, p.606; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), The Indian States, p.605

2. Birth of the All India States People's Conference (AISPC) (basic)

To understand the birth of the All India States People's Conference (AISPC), we first have to look at the map of colonial India. It wasn't a single unit; it was a patchwork. About two-fifths of the land consisted of Princely States — over 500 semi-autonomous kingdoms ruled by Nizams, Nawabs, and Maharajas under British suzerainty. While the Indian National Congress (INC) was busy fighting the British for 'Swaraj' in British provinces, the people living in these Princely States faced a different struggle: they were often living under absolute autocracies with very few civil liberties.

The year 1927 was a pivotal moment of 'national recovery' where political energy began to surge across the subcontinent Bipin Chandra, Struggle for Swaraj, p.279. In December 1927, hundreds of political workers from various states gathered in Bombay to form the AISPC. Their goal was to coordinate the various local protest groups, known as Praja Mandals (People's Associations), and demand Responsible Government. This meant they wanted the Princes to act as constitutional heads, with real power resting in the hands of an elected legislature. It’s important to note that the INC initially maintained a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of the states, believing the people there should lead their own struggle.

However, as the national movement intensified, the boundary between the 'British India' struggle and the 'States' struggle began to blur. By the late 1930s and 1940s, the AISPC and the INC effectively merged their goals. Jawaharlal Nehru, a champion of the youth and the left-wing, eventually became the President of the AISPC in 1939, signaling that the fight for a free India was inseparable from the fight for democracy within the Princely States Rajiv Ahir, Independence with Partition, p.497.

Sources: Modern India (Old NCERT), Struggle for Swaraj, p.279; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Independence with Partition, p.497

3. The Congress Policy Shift: Haripura and Tripuri (intermediate)

During the late 1930s, the Indian National Congress underwent a profound ideological and strategic transformation. For years, the Congress had maintained a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of the 560+ Princely States, believing that the people there should lead their own struggles. However, as the Praja Mandal (People’s Associations) movements intensified against feudal oppression in states like Travancore, Nilgiri, and Tripura, the Congress could no longer remain a silent spectator History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.105.

The Haripura Session (1938), presided over by Subhash Chandra Bose, marked the first major turning point. The Congress formally declared that the goal of Purna Swaraj (Complete Independence) was for the whole of India, including the Princely States. While it still advised that the actual 'struggle' should be carried out by the Praja Mandals themselves to avoid direct legal complications with the Princes, the 'moral cover' of the Congress was now firmly behind them. Bose also showed his vision for a modern India by setting up the National Planning Committee during this session.

By the Tripuri Session (1939), the tension between the radical wing (Bose) and the conservative 'Old Guard' (backed by Gandhi) reached a breaking point. Bose was re-elected as President, defeating Gandhi’s preferred candidate, Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Bose wanted to issue a six-month ultimatum to the British to leave India, a move Gandhi felt was premature Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II, p.417. The resulting deadlock and the passing of the Pant Resolution—which mandated that the President form the Working Committee according to Gandhi’s wishes—led to Bose's resignation and the formation of the Forward Bloc.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.105; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II, p.417

4. The Integration Process and Sardar Patel (intermediate)

When India stood on the brink of independence in 1947, it was a "patchwork quilt" of two distinct entities: British India (provinces ruled directly by the British) and approximately 562 Princely States. With the passage of the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the British policy of Paramountcy (the Crown's suzerainty over the princes) lapsed. This technically gave the states the option to join either India or Pakistan, or theoretically remain independent — a situation that threatened the very unity of the new nation.

The integration was not merely a top-down diplomatic feat; it was fueled by intense grassroots pressure from Praja Mandal (People’s Associations) movements. Throughout the 1930s and 40s, residents of these states demanded civil liberties and responsible government. For instance, in Tripura, the Rajya Gana Parishad led agrarian agitations, while in Travancore, the 1946 Punnapra-Vayalar uprising signaled a violent rejection of the Diwan’s attempt to maintain independence. Notably, Nilgiri (in modern Odisha) became the first state to merge with the Indian Union in late 1947 following a massive people's movement against feudal oppression Introduction to the Constitution of India, OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION, p.51.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, heading the newly created States Ministry, alongside the brilliant civil servant V.P. Menon, orchestrated the integration using the "Patel Scheme." He appealed to the rulers' patriotism, arguing that they should cede control over only three subjects that they historically never controlled anyway: Defence, External Affairs, and Communications Spectrum: A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.607. By August 15, 1947, 136 states had signed the Instrument of Accession.

Unlike the British Provinces, whose inclusion in the new Federation was automatic, the accession of Princely States was voluntary. The legal document used, the Instrument of Accession, allowed rulers to limit the authority of the Federation over their territory, with all residuary powers initially belonging to the State Introduction to the Constitution of India, OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION, p.50. This dual nature of the Indian polity was eventually streamlined as the states were shaped into viable administrative units and fully integrated into the constitutional structure.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION, p.50-51; Spectrum: A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.607

5. The 'Progressive' Model: Baroda and Mysore (intermediate)

In the complex landscape of Princely India, most states were seen as bastions of feudalism and British-backed autocracy. However, Baroda and Mysore stood out as 'Model States' or 'Progressive States.' These kingdoms undertook internal modernization and social reforms that often outpaced even the British-ruled provinces. While many states faced violent uprisings in the 1930s due to extreme oppression, the leadership in Baroda and Mysore adopted a strategy of proactive reform, which shaped the nature of the local freedom struggle (Praja Mandal movements). Mysore: The Pioneer of Representation
Mysore's journey toward modernization was unique. After a period of direct British administration due to alleged misgovernance in 1831, the kingdom was restored to the Wodeyar dynasty by Lord Ripon in 1881 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.100. This restoration came with a commitment to good governance. Under visionary Diwans like C.V. Rangacharlu and M. Visvesvaraya, Mysore established the Representative Assembly (1881)—the first of its kind in India—giving people a platform to voice grievances. They led the way in industrialization (Sivasamudram hydro-project) and education, making the 'Mysore Model' a benchmark for administrative efficiency. Baroda: The Social Reformer
Under Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III, Baroda became a laboratory for social and educational experiments. Long before it became a national demand, Baroda introduced compulsory primary education in 1906. The state promoted library movements, industrial development (the Bank of Baroda), and significant social legislation against untouchability and child marriage. Because of this administrative maturity, the Maharaja was a prominent figure in national dialogues, including the Round Table Conferences, where he and his Diwans (like Manubhai Mehta) represented the interests of the states Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.384.

Feature	Mysore's Approach	Baroda's Approach
Political Milestone	Created the first Representative Assembly in India (1881).	Pioneered the concept of a modern civil service and meritocracy.
Social Milestone	Focus on infrastructure, irrigation (KRS Dam), and hydro-power.	First to implement free and compulsory primary education (1906).
Impact on Movement	Movement focused on 'Responsible Government' under the Raja.	Reforms often anticipated and satisfied nationalist demands early on.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.100; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences, p.384

6. Radical Struggles: Travancore and Nilgiri (exam-level)

As the Indian national movement reached its crescendo in the 1930s and 40s, the struggle was no longer confined to British India. In the Princely States, people began organizing under Praja Mandals (People’s Councils) to demand civil liberties and "Responsible Government"—meaning a government accountable to the people rather than just the monarch. These movements often took a radical turn due to local feudal oppression and the stubbornness of certain rulers and their Diwans (Prime Ministers).

In Travancore (modern-day Kerala), the struggle became exceptionally militant during the mid-1940s. The Diwan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Aiyer, proposed a controversial "American Model" of government. This was a clever attempt to retain power by creating an irremovable executive, which effectively bypassed the demand for a truly democratic parliamentary system. This sparked the Punnapra-Vayalar Uprising (1946), a fierce armed conflict led by communist-backed workers and peasants against the state’s forces. This event is cited as a key strand of the national upsurge that forced the hand of recalcitrant rulers Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Post-War National Scenario, p.462.

Parallel to this, the Orissa States (now Odisha) witnessed intense tribal and peasant agitations against feudal exploitation, such as forced labor and high taxes. Among these, Nilgiri stands out because it became a flashpoint where the administration completely collapsed under the pressure of the Praja Mandal agitations. The situation became so volatile that the Indian government had to intervene, leading to Nilgiri becoming the first Princely State to merge with the Indian Union in late 1947. Similar movements in Dhenkanal and Talcher further signaled that the days of absolute monarchy were over History, Class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.105.

Sources: History, Class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.105; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Post-War National Scenario, p.462

7. Agrarian and Political Movements in Tripura (exam-level)

During the 1930s and 1940s, the political landscape of the Princely State of **Tripura** underwent a radical transformation. Unlike British India, where the struggle was directly against colonial rule, the people of Tripura fought a dual battle: against the **autocratic rule of the Manikya dynasty** and the oppressive **feudal land revenue system**. The pivotal moment came in 1938 with the formation of the Tripura Rajya Gana Parishad. This organization became the primary vehicle for the Praja Mandal movement in the state, demanding civil liberties and a "Responsible Government" where the administration would be accountable to an elected legislature rather than just the monarch.

The movement was deeply intertwined with agrarian grievances. The tribal and non-tribal peasantry faced heavy taxation and social exploitation. A significant highlight of this era was the Reang Uprising (1942–43), led by Ratanmani Reang. While it began as a socio-religious reform movement among the Reang tribe, it quickly turned into a political revolt against the Maharaja’s officials and the titun (forced labor) system. This period also saw the birth of the Janashiksha Samiti (1945), which promoted mass literacy as a means of political awakening among the tribes, laying the groundwork for the democratic consciousness that preceded Tripura's eventual integration into India.

Following India's independence, Tripura signed the Instrument of Accession and merged with the Indian Union in 1949. Its administrative journey was unique, starting as a Part C state, then becoming a Union Territory, and finally achieving full statehood in 1972 alongside Manipur and Meghalaya M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Union and Its Territory, p.55. This transition marked the culmination of the political aspirations that began with the Gana Parishad agitations decades earlier.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Union and Its Territory, p.55

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

To tackle this question, you must connect the specific movements in Princely States to the broader shift in Indian National Congress policy during the late 1930s. As you learned in the Haripura Session (1938), the Congress transitioned from a policy of non-interference to active support for Praja Mandal movements. The period between 1930 and 1940 was defined by a surge in demand for responsible government and civil liberties, where local grievances over feudal taxes merged with the national call for Purna Swaraj. This question tests your ability to identify which specific states became the primary flashpoints for these mass mobilizations.

Walking through the reasoning, we look for states with documented mass uprisings. Tripura saw the formation of the Tripura Rajya Gana Parishad in 1938, leading significant agrarian agitations. Nilgiri (in modern-day Odisha) was the site of such a violent and iconic people’s struggle against feudal oppression that it became the first state to merge with the Indian Union in 1947. Travancore witnessed one of the most intense struggles in history, specifically the Punnapra-Vayalar uprising (1946) and the massive resistance against the "American Model" proposed by the Diwan. Therefore, 1, 2, and 4 are clearly major centers of movement.

A common trap UPSC uses is the inclusion of Baroda (3). Students often assume that because Baroda was a "model state" known for being progressive and administratively active, it must have had a major political movement during this window. However, the reasoning is actually the opposite: because the Gaekwads of Baroda had already initiated significant top-down reforms and administrative modernization earlier, the state did not experience the same scale of explosive, bottom-up political upheaval or mass rebellion seen in the other three states during the 1930s-40s. By eliminating Baroda, we arrive at the correct answer: (A) 1, 2 and 4 only.

Sources: ;