ALTHOUGH the author of this article appears to uphold the consideration promised in return to the original surrender made by the princes, and it deserves its respect, it may be important to ponder as to why there must have been such a surrender in the first place.
With all their valor and revering subjects in their respective States, why did those princely States end up surrendering such huge amounts of money and property to a Union they were so reluctant to join in the first place? Given that affiliation and inclusion to either the Indian or the Pakistani republics was optional to these princely States, their inclusion amid heated expressions of reluctance must have been a coercion if not a conquer. In such a case what value does The Union hold to the people who belonged to these princely States and what reverence can be expected from them towards the Indian Union which upon a simple amendment to its constitution in 1971 repealed all the payments promised to the people of the dissolved princely States?
It is also questionable had these princely States not submitted and not reluctantly got coerced into The Union, would they have been in as poor state of existence as now? The Hyderabad princely State and its people, for instance, are having a bitter experience in the Indian Union now where their homeland - Andhra Pradesh - is being split in two much against popular demands against such division. Can we now pat Sardar Patel's back posthumously or our own backs for this abuse of centralized political power in inflicting pain to the Telugu people of Andhra by The Union? Did all the people who subscribed to this union in 1950 deserve this? Dont we need some time to slow down and think about a re-writing of such a constitution that lets someone to care so little for the very people of this union?
Isn't it even higher levels of stupidity to let national parties like the BJP and the INC to make this topic a bait to fish for popular votes in upcoming elections? Isn't it stupid to take sides of either of these parties (and their philosophies too) and thereby appear to support such continued acts of brutal coercion, division and undemocratic rule?
This statement by the author though summarizes to some extent the right spirit for us to derive from this piece of history bearing very well in current context:
With all their valor and revering subjects in their respective States, why did those princely States end up surrendering such huge amounts of money and property to a Union they were so reluctant to join in the first place? Given that affiliation and inclusion to either the Indian or the Pakistani republics was optional to these princely States, their inclusion amid heated expressions of reluctance must have been a coercion if not a conquer. In such a case what value does The Union hold to the people who belonged to these princely States and what reverence can be expected from them towards the Indian Union which upon a simple amendment to its constitution in 1971 repealed all the payments promised to the people of the dissolved princely States?
It is also questionable had these princely States not submitted and not reluctantly got coerced into The Union, would they have been in as poor state of existence as now? The Hyderabad princely State and its people, for instance, are having a bitter experience in the Indian Union now where their homeland - Andhra Pradesh - is being split in two much against popular demands against such division. Can we now pat Sardar Patel's back posthumously or our own backs for this abuse of centralized political power in inflicting pain to the Telugu people of Andhra by The Union? Did all the people who subscribed to this union in 1950 deserve this? Dont we need some time to slow down and think about a re-writing of such a constitution that lets someone to care so little for the very people of this union?
Isn't it even higher levels of stupidity to let national parties like the BJP and the INC to make this topic a bait to fish for popular votes in upcoming elections? Isn't it stupid to take sides of either of these parties (and their philosophies too) and thereby appear to support such continued acts of brutal coercion, division and undemocratic rule?
This statement by the author though summarizes to some extent the right spirit for us to derive from this piece of history bearing very well in current context:
In the end, the abolition of Privy Purses will remain one of the most shameful events in our constitutional history. The nation saved Rs.4 crore annually but lost its honour. It is equally regrettable that neither the Janata Party in 1977 nor any subsequent non-Congress government did anything to redeem Patel’s pledge. What purpose will, then, be served by spending Rs.2,500 crore to build the tallest statue in his memory?
