The story of Integration of Indian States

So this is my first review of a book on this blog. I finished the book yesterday only. So here are the points which I noticed :

1.Author is an honest and modest man. Many other Indians who have written very mediocre memoirs portray things in such a way that they were the one doing all stuff not this man.

2. This book has changed my opinion about Lord Mountbatton to great extent.His dealings with various princes shows that he really tried to help India during those negotiations.

3. Vindhya state was so mired in corruption that it was converted to a chief commissioner's province. This is same rewa -satna area of today. Most corrupt area of India.

4. Privy purse were heavy at the time of independence but when Indiara Gandhi eliminated them they had more a notional value with high inflation of years preceding it.It was actually a communist propaganda to remove patrons of local culture and art from small towns and villages.

5. Maharaj of J&K was paid out of Indian government finance not state treasury. So Shiekh Abdullah was just another Maharaja.

6. Travancore Devsthanam board properties had revenues of 8-10 crore even in those days. So the problem of robbing Paul and paying peter is very old. Hindus have already received a shorthand.

7. States in Saurashtra were given high compensation ? why because of Gandhiji's influence? Nepotism was beginning to take root.

8. There was clearly lack of good officers and I guess it was due to elite pattern of recruitment in services and education followed during British time.

9. The kind of atrocities which were committed by Razakars on Hindus and still they were allowed to go unpunished?? India is indeed a soft state from very beginning.

10. Decision to take Kashmir dispute to UN was not as foolish as it is made to be todya and even Sardar agreed to it from very beginning.

11. Private airlines contribute heavily to Kashmir war effort - will something similar be possible today?

12. All princess big or small were too much concerned about their status ,ceremonies and honor- if they would have worried similarly about their subjects.

13. Democracy is not always good.In mysore for example Maharaja administration was much better than Democracy.

14. All the areas where there were princely states have always been weak points of congress even today.

15.Some kings were really intelligent and created investment trust for their properties.

16. The way Nizam squandered state's money and helped Pakistan at the height of Kashmir war shows our collective amnesia. Today same Nizam is feted as someone unfortunate in our media.

17.Kerala was literate due to efforts by Maharaja and communist can not claim credit for same. So this explain why communist rule kerala and Bengal are different on this parameter. It is not because of communists but despite them.


18. BK Nehru and Khushwant isngh both are critical of Maharajah of Indore's attempt to transfer jewelery out of India but are mum on Nizam or Maharajah of baroda. Reverses is case with V P Menon. so who is objective?

19. Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi were at most a large Jamindar and not a prince as they style themselves to be.

20. Seeing the trouble Pakistan today has in controlling tribes in NWFP one has to believe to some extent Pakistan's claim during Kashmir crisis that they could not control tribes.

21.Indian government went to the extent of deposing kings of Bhartapur and Alwar to allay apprehensions of minorities. So they were truly secular from beginning.

22. I always though state employed a large number of British officers but they all seem to have disappeared during negotiations.

23. A less than sympathetic view for tribal and portraying them as people given to violent way of living - effect colonial education can have on a mind

24.Communists collaborated with Razakars - a worst kept secret of our history by communist historians.

Overall a good read devoid of archaic English phrases and quotations so common with the books of those era.