In the given political outline map of India (on page 19), four States have been marked as Ⓐ, Ⓑ, Ⓒ and Ⓓ. Ident

Question

Q. In the given political outline map of India (on page 19), four States have been marked as Ⓐ, Ⓑ, Ⓒ and Ⓓ. 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 where the Congress party did not secure majority in 1967 elections.

(ii) The State where Congress party did not secure majority in 1967 elections but formed the government with the support of other parties.

(iii) The State related to Samajwadi leader, Ram Manohar Lohia.

(iv) The State related to the former President of India, V.V. Giri. [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) Which popular slogan was given by Lal Bahadur Shastri ? (25.2) Which decade of Indian politics has been referred to as the 'dangerous decade' ? (25.3) Which candidate was supported by Indira Gandhi for the post of President in 1969 ? (25.4) Which State is related to the phrase 'Aya Ram, Gaya Ram' ?]

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 marked on the map are identified by their unique political situations in the late 1960s — two where Congress lost its majority, one linked to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia, and one associated with former President V.V. Giri.

The late 1960s were a turbulent time in Indian politics. The Congress party, which had dominated the country since independence, faced serious challenges. In the 1967 elections, it lost its majority in several states, and the way it handled those losses — sometimes clinging to power with outside support, sometimes being forced out — tells us a great deal about the shifting political landscape. The four states you need to identify are all connected to this period, though in different ways.

Let us take each clue one by one.

The State where the Congress party did not secure majority in 1967 elections. This is a straightforward clue. In the 1967 state assembly elections, Congress failed to win a majority in a number of states. Among the most prominent was Kerala, where the Communist-led coalition formed the government. Another was Tamil Nadu (then Madras state), where the DMK swept to power. But the clue is deliberately broad — it simply asks for a state where Congress did not get a majority. Several fit. However, the map on page 19 (which you are looking at) marks four specific states, and the correct one here is Kerala. Congress could not form the government there after the 1967 elections.
Note

In 1967, Congress lost its majority in eight states: Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. But the map only shows four, so you must match the clue to the state actually marked.
The State where Congress party did not secure majority in 1967 elections but formed the government with the support of other parties. This is a more specific clue. Congress lost its majority but still managed to form a government by stitching together a coalition or getting support from independents and smaller parties. The classic example is Rajasthan. In the 1967 Rajasthan assembly elections, Congress won 89 seats — short of a majority in a house of 184. But with the support of independents and some defectors, it managed to form a government under Chief Minister Mohan Lal Sukhadia. This was a common pattern in several states, but Rajasthan is the one marked on your map.
Important

The difference between (i) and (ii) is crucial: in (i) Congress lost and could not form the government; in (ii) Congress lost but still formed the government with outside support. Do not confuse the two.
The State related to Samajwadi leader, Ram Manohar Lohia. Ram Manohar Lohia was a towering figure in Indian socialism. He was a founder of the Samajwadi Party and a fierce critic of Congress. His political base was primarily in Uttar Pradesh, though he also had influence in Bihar. Lohia contested elections from Uttar Pradesh and was a member of the Lok Sabha from there. The state most closely associated with him is Uttar Pradesh.
The State related to the former President of India, V.V. Giri. …

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