The History and Philately of Princely India: A Guide to Indian Feudatory States Stamps

Introduction: The Princely States and the British Raj

The Princely States of India were territories governed by local princes who were, in turn, controlled by the British Empire Raj. The history of these states reflects the incredibly rich and colorful diversity of lifestyles, languages, religions, customs, and political histories across the Indian subcontinent.

For hundreds of years, the subcontinent was characterized by the competing claims of local empires, waves of invasion, and local warlords. By the time the East India Company of Great Britain established control over large parts of the region, these feudal arrangements had already changed many times over. Often, indigenous princes, generals, or raiders who aided the ultimately victorious British were rewarded with the establishment of their own Princely State. In other instances, a local ruler acceded to the realities of power simply by signing a sanad (agreement) to become a Princely State. These processes continued even after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, when the British Government assumed direct control of India from the East India Company, officially making it part of the British Empire.

The Complex Reality of the States

The states constantly adapted to ever-changing circumstances. The exact number of states throughout this period can only be estimated, varying between 562 and over 700. Throughout the Raj period, smaller states were attached to larger ones, some were divided, and certain states even existed entirely within the borders of other states. The British occasionally dissolved states and assumed direct control of their territories, citing mismanagement or a lack of male heirs. By the time the British left India in 1947, there were officially 565 Princely States, covering 48% of India’s land area and including 28% of its population.

Yet, the geopolitical reality was far more complex:

Vast Differences in Scale: Tiny Bilbari had a population of just 82 people in 1931 and occupied a mere 1.65 square miles. In stark contrast, Hyderabad spanned more than 80,000 square miles and contained over 16 million people (although the British administered some of its internal areas).
Fragmented Territories: Several states had noncontiguous areas. “Islands” of independence or foreign rule could exist entirely within another state.
Shared Ownership: It was common for powerful landowners to challenge the princes, and “shares” of land could be owned by several individuals, much like today’s stock exchanges.

Rulers, Succession, and British Manipulation

Although most ruling positions were hereditary, there was a surprising scarcity of adult male heirs. For a long time, securing a sanad of adoption—which enabled a ruler to choose a non-hereditary male heir—was a highly prized agreement from Great Britain. The landscape shifted in 1858 when Queen Victoria announced that Great Britain no longer wished to extend the empire. Suddenly, between 1859 and 1862, 160 sanads of adoption were issued.

The backgrounds of the princes were as diverse as the states themselves. Rulers came from the hereditary clan of Hindu Rajputs, Kshatriyas (Hindu warrior classes), Muslims, Sikhs, tribal families, and there was even an Irish raja. Crucially, the religion and ethnicity of a prince might or might not reflect the demographics of their population.

While women generally held little power in these states—with polygamy and purdah (the seclusion of women) being common—there were notable exceptions. Bhopal, for instance, was ruled by a succession of four women, some of whom operated effectively from purdah.

The British were skillful manipulators, utilizing the number of gun salutes, titles, and awards to project an appearance of power for the princes. Ruler designations varied greatly, including Maharaja, Raja, Amir, and Nawab, depending on the importance of the state, its local traditions, and the favor in which the British held it.

While the prince was autonomous in theory, the British maintained considerable control in practice:

A British Resident was often stationed within an important state, or princes operated under a regional British official.
The all-too-frequent presence of child princes gave the British direct opportunities to exercise power.
Local control could be strictly limited by a state’s sanad.
In many states, capital punishment had to be reviewed by the British government, and suttee (the practice of burning widows alive) was outlawed altogether.

Economy and the Burden of the Raj

Like all imperial powers, the British sought to profit heavily from their empire. India exported massive quantities of textiles, rice, and spices. Opium was also grown extensively; after the Chinese Opium Wars ended in 1860, India became a large supplier of the drug to the Chinese. Despite this vast agricultural output, India made very few moves toward industrialization. The British meticulously kept treaties and records tracking cotton, textiles, and the specific tributes that the states paid to the Crown.

The British also held outsized influence over the selection, education, and exact powers of the princes. Limiting local power was in the direct interest of the Raj. More than one prince complained that under British influence, they had acquired expensive tastes and a useless—often purely classical—European education, but very few actual rulership skills.

Caught between traditional society, modernizing influences, and the mere illusion of power, many princes led aimless lives. Traditional customs encouraged the ostentatious display of priceless jewels, fancy cars, and opulent palaces. While some princes became famous polo players or gained reputations for womanizing, many died young, often succumbing to alcoholism or substance abuse.

However, many rulers were highly progressive, building hospitals, schools, libraries, and railroads. A prime example is Bhagvat Singh, the ruler of Gondal from 1878 to 1940. He became a physician, drastically modernized his state, published an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and managed state finances so adeptly that he was able to abolish all taxes and custom duties.

The Exhibition: Indian Feudatory States Stamps

The issuance of postage stamps was yet another distinct honor the British could confer upon a state. The postal stamps of the Princely States are usually divided into two categories: Convention States and Indian Feudatory States.

There were five Convention States that signed agreements with the British government. This allowed them to use British-printed stamps of India, overprinted with the specific name of the state, which were valid for postage both within the state and in any parts of India with British postal service.

In contrast, those studying Indian Feudatory States Stamps will find a completely different postal system. During the time of the Raj, the Indian Feudatory States were granted the right to print their own independent stamps. These Indian Feudatory States Stamps were typically only valid for use within the specific state’s borders. In rare cases, they could be used across states that had specific postal arrangements with one another (such as Cochin and Travancore).

Interestingly, after independence, at least one state—Bahawalpur—issued British stamps of India overprinted with the state’s name, doing so, of course, without British permission.

This specific exhibition covers only the Indian Feudatory States. As the exhibition showcases, Indian Feudatory States Stamps are highly sought after because they were immensely colorful, highly varied, and often produced using beautifully primitive printing methods.

The End of the Princely Era

In 1947, on the eve of Indian and Pakistani independence, most princes were persuaded to peacefully join the newly formed countries. The British, India, and Pakistan assured them that they would retain their continued status, incomes, and honors.

Unfortunately, these promises were repeatedly broken. The princes were systematically deprived of their hereditary status, then their lifetime status, and finally their wealth. The “Privy Purse” incomes they were supposed to receive in perpetuity were officially abolished in 1971. The crackdown continued into 1975, when Indian palaces were raided and historic treasures were seized. The former Maharanis of Jaipur and Gwalior even served time in jail on trumped-up charges.

Today, the fates of the descendants of these princely families are as diverse as the history of the states themselves. Many remain active in politics, achieving noted success in elections, as well as in commerce and acting. For example, Saif Ali Khan, the famous Bollywood star, is the current heir to the throne of Bhopal. While some opulent royal palaces have been converted into luxury hotels and some royals continue to live in unimaginable luxury, other members of these once-great royal families struggle to get by. Their fates are as diverse as the history of the Princely States themselves.