Were there any territories in British India in 1947 that would have preferred to become independent states as opposed to a part of India or Pakistan?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,728
SoCal
#1
Were there any territories in British India in 1947 that would have preferred to become independent states as opposed to a part of India or Pakistan? For the record, I mean having their population--as opposed to their leadership--support becoming an independent state rather than merely a part of India or Pakistan.

Any thoughts on this?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,040
Las Vegas, NV USA
#2
If you're talking about the Republic of India there have been several secession movements: Punjab, Nagaland, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir. Of course Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. Burma separated from British India in 1947 along with Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,371
New Delhi, India
#5
They were native states, and as per the regulations of the Mountbatten plan, they were not required to consult their people.

"On 18 July 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the arrangements for partition and abandoned British suzerainty over the princely states, of which there were several hundred, leaving them free to choose whether to accede to one of the new dominions."
Partition of India - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,728
SoCal
#6
They were native states, and as per the regulations of the Mountbatten plan, they were not required to consult their people.

"On 18 July 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the arrangements for partition and abandoned British suzerainty over the princely states, of which there were several hundred, leaving them free to choose whether to accede to one of the new dominions."
Partition of India - Wikipedia
Why did Britain not extend this freedom of choice to Indian provinces?
 
Jul 2012
3,176
Dhaka
#8
Also, one more question--was India actually willing to respect Kashmiri independence if Pakistan wouldn't have invaded Kashmir?
In fact, Pakistan seemed to respect Kashmir's choice by signing the Standstill Agreement. Whereas India stalled, giving the impression that Kashmir's accession to India was their objective. Kashmir being Nehru's homeland gave added credence to that impression.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,371
New Delhi, India
#9
Signing an agreement and abiding by it are two different things. The 'kabaiies attacked Kashmir. Now Pakistan said that their army was not involved, but they actually were. They had reached Srinagar Airport.That is why Kashmir asked for India's help. At present, we have a cease-fire agreement with Pakistan, but it violates the agreement practically daily by border firing and sending in terrorists.
 
Likes: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,416
India
#10
Were there any territories in British India in 1947 that would have preferred to become independent states as opposed to a part of India or Pakistan? For the record, I mean having their population--as opposed to their leadership--support becoming an independent state rather than merely a part of India or Pakistan.

Any thoughts on this?
Many princely states wanted to be independent. But the ruler gave up due to the nationalistic wave sweeping across the region and Sardar Patel was very adamant that all princely state sign accession paper with India.

Travancore in Southern Kerala was first to declare independence but later gave up after an assassination attempt was made on the Prime Minister of Travancore state.

Hyderabad (a huge enclave within India) also wanted to be independent because the ruler was Muslim, it wasn't the part of India until September 1948.

Kalat state wanted to independent but it was annexed into Pakistan in 1948 leading to 70 years long Baloch insurgency for independence.

Kashmir also wanted to be independent, but Pakistan army(disguised as tribals) and Pashtun tribal militias invaded making maharaja signing accession paper with India.