Talk:Princely state

message: Here is a short list of sources that I have checked to find out the date of accession:
* Amirali, p.21: signed on 28 March
* Amirali, p.22-23: acceded on 27 March
* Ishtiaq Ahmed, p.168: After 1 April
* Jalal, Struggle for Pakistan: no information
* Jalal, State of Martial Rule: no information
* Owen Bennet Jones, p.133: "eventually" after 1 April
* Samad, p.311: signed on 27 March
* Axmann book, Noorani review: 20 March
* Barnes, Gray & Kingsbury, p.162-163: on or after 1 April
* Harrison, p.25-26: on or after 1 April
* I. Baloch, p.190: complete control of administration on 15 April
* Riaz Ahmad, p.27: signed on 1 April
* Kundi, p.57: forced Khan to sign on 1 April
* Bangash 2015, p.82 : signed on 27 March
* Bangash book, Ahmed review: accession on 27 March
* Prakash Singh, Encyclopedia on Jinnah: no information
* Zaidi, p.xxiii: Jinnah instructed Ikramullah on 27 March (only accession possible)
* Zaidi, p.xxiii: Decision to accede announced on 1 April
* Zaidi, p.xxiii: Khan assured Kalat is "part of Pakistan" on 2 April
Based on this, I conclude that nobody knows. That is why so many dates are thrown around. Ayesha Jalal and Owen Bennet Jones are the most reliable scholars here, and they are saying they don't know. Zaidi gives as much information as available. (Zaidi is the compiler of Jinnah papers. He has gone through all the papers that he could get his hands on.)
But it is not hard to piece together what happened. On 27 March, the All-India Radio revealed that the Khan had tried to negotiate with India. The Khan knew this meant trouble for him. (He would be branded "seditious" in Wayne Wilcox's terminology.) So, he made a statement the next day that he would accede to Pakistan. But, he was still trying to negotiate. Jinnah ruled out any further negotiation. Khan continued to dither. That is why Pakistan had to send in the army on 1 April. Left with no choice, Khan then sent a telegram to Jinnah on 1 April. Jinnah replied the next day. I could find Jinnah's response:
So by 2 April, it was assumed that there was a firm commitment. But the accession was yet to be signed. Hence, Owen Bennet Jones's words:
We can assume that the people were still rebelling, probably with the Khan's encouragement. That is why Jinnah had to order the army to take complete control of the administration. That was on 15 April. Then it was all over. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of Bangash, none of these sources have done a high-level study of the subject and are a variety of non-WP:HISTRS. Jalal has not done an in-depth study of accession unlike the historians whose quotes have been included above. She mentions the whole matter in passing. Of course, since it's known the date falls in March, that invalidates the annexation theory by crux. The Khan declared accession apparently the very same day he heard the AIR radio broadcast:  The Zaidi papers mention the  containing this. The Instrument of Accession is viewable online, with the explicit dates of 27 March 1948 and 31 March 1948 for the dates of accession and acceptance respectively.  Of course, these are primary sources but it shows that Bangash, Khanam and Saiyid are the historians speaking the truth. The rest 'piecing together' of personal opinions and assumptions is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL essentially. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of accession 

message: The kingdom of Nepal was in North of india not north east which would emply assam and that is incorrect. Avhiyan (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide sources that demonstrate that the distinction between the two relative directions for the two countries is generally used in reliable English-language sources.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 8 May 2018 

message: There is no consensus for 's new edits and he is basically misrepresenting his version as WP:STATUSQUO. I am seeing same justification for edit warring from . We know that there is no consensus to remove those few words, so for now, you have to stick to the pre-NadirAli version. MBlaze Lightning talk 05:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop restoring new edits made last month without consensus. Misrepresenting  WP:STATUSQUO is unhelpful. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You too have not invested into the discussions here but are suddenly very interested in the undo button. But let me repeat to you, what was there before the 30th April revert is the WP:STATUSQUO. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NadirAli's revert 

message: The recent disruption here has been immense and unproductive. The article appears to have become yet another battleground for a small group of pov-pushers who are intent on fighting each other at numerous venues, with an ever-widening net. I propose that when this Arbitration Enforcement request ends we should revert to the last stable version and start over from there. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The List of longest-reigning monarchs includes several princely state rulers (see discussion). Is the term "monarch" applicable to these princely state rulers? utcursch | talk 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Only the rulers that were sovereigns should be called monarchs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchs? 

message: Link to the edit
The article curently states: "As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[52] to the Constitution of India withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the remuneration of the princes by privy purses. As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.[53]"
The text of the 26th Amendment amendment can be seen here: The Constitution of India (26th Amendment) Act 1971. Specifically please note:
Derecogition as "Ruler or the successor of such Ruler": 
"(a) the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before  the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amend- ment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler  of an Indian State! or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor  of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler." 
Abolition of privy purse:
"..on and from the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, privy purse is abolished  and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purse  are extinguished and accordingly the Ruler or, as the case may  be, the successor of such Ruler, referred to in clause (a) or any other person shall not be paid any sum as privy purse."
Malaiya (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , the previous content was sourced to an authoritative scholarly source. It is not clear what you disagree about it. That is the first thing for you to clarify. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Constitution of India (26th Amendment) Act 1971

message: 1. How could princely states be nominally sovereign, if they accepted the paramountcy of British Crown?
2. Please explain what is meant by nominally here? PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you may want to check nominal in the Wiktionary, definition 3: "in name only". That means, they were called souvereign in the manner of a convenient lie which let the princes keep their pride, life and wealth and which allowed the British to not use force against them while still being in full control. But in fact these States weren't really "souvereign", yes. --Enyavar (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princely States were ...nominally sovereign? 

message: There is no recognition here of the three-way division of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that prevails currently, under India, Pakistan and China.I am wondering whether a sentence to that effect is warranted. Sooku (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a brief mention in the "Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after" section, which could be expanded a bit. But this article is essentially about the pre-1947 situation. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality of Kashmir?