In the given political outline map of India (on page 17), four States have been marked as A, B, C and D. Ident

Question

Q. In the given political outline map of India (on page 17), four States have been marked as A, B, C and D. Identify these States on the basis of the information given below and write their correct names in your answer-book along with the respective serial number of the information used and the concerned alphabets given in the map as per the following format : Serial number of the information used | Concerned alphabet given in the map | Name of the State

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(i) The State to which the former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri belonged.

(ii) The State to which former Chief Minister S. Nijalingappa belonged.

(iii) The State where DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) came to power in 1967.

(iv) The State where the Congress Party did not get majority in 1967 Assembly elections. [For Visually Impaired Candidates, in lieu of this question: The following questions are for the Visually Impaired Candidates only, in lieu of Q. No. 25 : (25.1) Name the state to which the former Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur belonged. (25.2) Name the state to which the political party DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) belongs. (25.3) Name the state to which the former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri belonged. (25.4) Name the state to which the former President of India V.V. Giri belonged.]

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2024Subjective· 4mImportance★★★★★

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — Indian Princely States Location

Indian Princely States: Location and Why It Matters

Imagine India before 1947. It wasn't one single country under British rule. Instead, it was a patchwork. About two-fifths of the land was directly ruled by the British — that was called British India. The rest was divided into over 500 Princely States, each ruled by a local king, maharaja, nawab, or nizam, who accepted the British Crown as the "paramount power."

So the first thing to understand: location here doesn't just mean "where on a map." It means the political geography of power — who controlled which territory, and how that shaped everything from trade routes to railway lines to the eventual merger of these states into independent India.

The Basic Geography

Princely States were scattered across the entire subcontinent, but they were not evenly spread. Some regions had many small states; others had a few large ones.

The largest and most powerful were in the west and centre: Hyderabad (in the Deccan), Mysore (in the south), Baroda (in Gujarat), Gwalior and Indore (in central India), and Kashmir (in the north).
The densest clusters were in Rajputana (present-day Rajasthan) — over 20 states including Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, and Bikaner — and in Kathiawar (Gujarat), which had hundreds of tiny states.
The north-east had fewer but strategically important states like Manipur and Tripura.
The south had Travancore, Cochin, and a handful of others.

Note

The Princely States covered about 45% of the area of pre-1947 India and contained roughly one-third of the population. They were not colonies — they were semi-autonomous kingdoms under British "paramountcy."

Why Location Was Not Random

The location of these states was the result of history, not British planning. Most were kingdoms that existed before the British arrived. The British did not conquer them all; instead, they signed treaties — the Subsidiary Alliance system — that left the local ruler in charge of internal affairs but placed the state under British military and foreign policy control.

So the map of Princely States was essentially the map of pre-colonial Indian kingdoms that survived British expansion. The British found it cheaper to rule through these princes than to administer every village directly.

Why Location Matters for a Commerce/Humanities Student

You might wonder: why should a commerce or humanities student care about where some old kingdoms were?

For commerce students: The location of Princely States determined where trade routes passed, where ports developed, and where tax revenues flowed. For example, the state of Hyderabad controlled the rich Godavari-Krishna delta and the diamond mines of Golconda. Baroda controlled the cotton-growing region of Gujarat. Mysore had gold mines and sandalwood forests. The economic geography of colonial India was shaped by these boundaries.

For humanities students: The location of Princely States explains why some regions developed differently. States like Mysore and Baroda invested in education, railways, and irrigation — they had progressive rulers. Others, like Hyderabad under the Nizam, remained feudal and backward. When India became independent in 1947, the location of these states — especially those that bordered Pakistan — became a matter of life and death. Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad each had to decide whether to join India or Pakistan, and their location made that decision explosive.

Important

The location of a Princely State was not just a dot on a map. It determined its strategic importance, its economic resources, its cultural identity, and its fate during Partition. The states that were landlocked and surrounded by British India had little choice but to join India. Those on the border — like Kashmir — became flashpoints that still shape politics today.

A Quick Mental Map …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

The four states are Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala — each identified by a specific political leader or electoral event from the 1960s.

Let us place these states in their historical context. The 1960s were a turbulent decade for Indian politics. The Congress Party, which had dominated elections since independence, faced serious challenges for the first time. Regional parties and leaders emerged, and several states saw non-Congress governments take power. The four states asked about here — Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala — each played a distinct role in this story.

The State to which the former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri belonged. Lal Bahadur Shastri was born on 2 October 1904 in Mughalsarai, a town in what was then the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. After independence, this region became the state of Uttar Pradesh. Shastri entered politics in Uttar Pradesh, served as its Minister of Police and Transport in the 1950s, and later became Prime Minister of India in 1964. So the state is Uttar Pradesh.
Note

Shastri's birthplace, Mughalsarai, is now in the district of Chandauli, but historically and politically he is always associated with Uttar Pradesh.
The State to which former Chief Minister S. Nijalingappa belonged. S. Nijalingappa was a prominent Congress leader from the state of Mysore, which was renamed Karnataka in 1973. He served as the Chief Minister of Mysore from 1956 to 1958 and again from 1962 to 1968. He later became the President of the Indian National Congress in 1968. So the state is Karnataka (formerly Mysore).
The State where DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) came to power in 1967. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) was founded in 1949 as a breakaway from the Dravidar Kazhagam. It grew into a powerful regional party in the Madras State, advocating for Tamil identity and language rights. In the 1967 Assembly elections, the DMK won a decisive victory, ending the Congress Party's long rule in the state. C. N. Annadurai became the Chief Minister. The state was renamed Tamil Nadu in 1969. So the state is Tamil Nadu.
Important

The 1967 DMK victory was a watershed moment — it was the first time a non-Congress party formed a government in a major Indian state, signalling the end of Congress's unchallenged dominance.
The State where the Congress Party did not get majority in 1967 Assembly elections. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Same / Similar Concept — real previous-year questions on the same or a closely similar concept, not this exact question.

CBSE 2023Set 59/3/11 markMCQ
$Q. Which one of the following Princely States initially opposed joining the Indian Union ?$
(a) Baroda
(b) Hyderabad
(c) Mysore
(d) Gwalior
›Reveal solutionSolution

Hyderabad, under Nizam Osman Ali Khan, was the most prominent Princely State to initially refuse accession to India in 1947, holding out until military action in September 1948.

When the British announced their withdrawal from India in 1947, the subcontinent's 565 Princely States faced a stark choice: accede to India, join Pakistan, or attempt independence. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 had declared that paramountcy—British suzerainty over these states—would lapse with independence, theoretically leaving rulers free to chart their own course. In practice, geography, demography, and political realism sharply constrained that freedom.

Most states acceded without drama. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as Minister for States, combined persuasion, pressure, and the promise of privy purses to secure nearly all accessions by August 15, 1947. A few, however, resisted. Kashmir's Hindu Maharaja ruling a Muslim-majority population delayed his decision, leading to the conflict that erupted in October 1947. Junagadh's Muslim Nawab, governing a Hindu-majority state on the Kathiawar coast, briefly acceded to Pakistan before a plebiscite reversed the decision. But the most significant holdout was Hyderabad.

Hyderabad was no ordinary Princely State. It was the largest and wealthiest, sprawling across the Deccan plateau with a population of sixteen million—larger than many independent nations of the time. The Nizam, Osman Ali Khan, reputedly the world's richest man, ruled a Hindu-majority population (roughly 85 percent) as a Muslim monarch. He harbored ambitions of independence, encouraged by his powerful Prime Minister Mir Laik Ali and the militant Razakar paramilitary, which sought to suppress pro-accession sentiment and terrorized Hindu villages. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
CBSE 2019Set 59/2/11 mark
$Q. Evaluate the role played by Sardar Patel towards the integration of the Princely States with India.$
›Reveal solutionSolution

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s iron will, diplomatic skill, and relentless persuasion were decisive in integrating over 560 princely states into the Indian Union, preventing the Balkanisation of the country.

The princely states were a patchwork of territories that covered nearly half of India’s landmass and accounted for about a quarter of its population. Ruled by hereditary monarchs who had enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy under British paramountcy, these states were legally free to choose their own fate after the British withdrawal in 1947. The Indian National Congress was determined to build a unified, democratic nation, but the prospect of dozens of independent or semi-independent principalities threatened that vision. It was in this volatile atmosphere that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, as the first Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs, took charge of the States Department.

Patel’s approach was a masterful blend of firmness and flexibility. He understood that the princes were anxious about losing their power, privileges, and personal wealth. So he offered them generous terms: the rulers would retain their private property, their titles, and a privy purse — a tax-free annual allowance — in exchange for signing the Instrument of Accession. This document ceded only three subjects to the central government: defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Everything else — internal administration, taxation, law and order — remained with the prince. This was a brilliant political bargain. It gave the princes a dignified exit and gave India the essential levers of a sovereign state.

Note

The Instrument of Accession was not a merger. It was a legal agreement that brought a princely state into the Dominion of India on limited terms. Full integration came later, through the Merger Agreements of 1948–49.

Patel did not rely on the pen alone. He deployed a two-pronged strategy: persuasion backed by the implicit threat of force. His chief lieutenant, V.P. Menon, the Secretary of the States Department, travelled tirelessly to negotiate with individual rulers. Patel himself wrote personal letters, held meetings, and appealed to the princes’ patriotism and common sense. He reminded them that the British had left, and that the people of their states were already looking to the new Indian government for leadership. To hold out was to invite chaos.

Where persuasion failed, Patel acted decisively. The most dramatic example was Hyderabad. The Nizam, one of the richest rulers in the world, dreamed of an independent state and refused to sign the Instrument of Accession. He armed irregular forces (the Razakars) who terrorised the Hindu population and defied the Indian government. After months of patience, Patel ordered a police action in September 1948. The Indian Army entered Hyderabad, the Razakars were crushed, and the Nizam surrendered within days. Hyderabad was integrated — not by negotiation, but by force. Patel made it clear that no ruler, however powerful, could stand in the way of national unity.

Important

Patel’s handling of Junagadh was equally telling. The Muslim ruler of a Hindu-majority state acceded to Pakistan. Patel responded by sending troops to the border, cutting off supplies, and organising a plebiscite. The people voted overwhelmingly for India. The ruler fled, and Junagadh was integrated. Patel showed that accession was not a ruler’s personal whim — it had to reflect the will of the people.

Kashmir was the one major exception where Patel’s approach did not fully succeed. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, hesitated. He signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan but delayed accession to India. When tribal raiders from Pakistan invaded in October 1947, he appealed to India for help. Patel insisted that accession must precede military aid. The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, and Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. But the resulting war with Pakistan left Kashmir a disputed territory — a problem that persists to this day. Patel had secured the legal accession, but the military and political consequences were beyond his control. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Unlock everything free for 14 days