Includes bibliographical references and index.
|Statement||edited by Robin Jeffrey.|
|LC Classifications||DS463 .P46|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||xii, 396 p. :|
|Number of Pages||396|
|LC Control Number||79901262|
Get this from a library! People, princes and paramount power: society and politics in the Indian princely states. [Robin Jeffrey;]. People, princes, and paramount power: society and politics in the Indian princely states Item PreviewPages: People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States () pp; Kooiman, Dick. Communalism and Indian Princely States: Travancore, Baroda & Hyderabad in the s (), pp; Markovits, Claude (). "ch "Princely India (–)". A history of modern India, – Anthem Press. pp. – The Prince devotes little space to the concerns of subjects, and Machiavelli’s picture of the common people, though detailed, is not complex. Louis XIV’s famous statement, “L’Etat, c’est moi” (“The state is me”), accords with the philosophy espoused in The Prince: The ruler is the state, and the state is ruler. The people hardly.
People, princes, and paramount power: society and politics in the Indian princely states. Oxford University Press. What's happening to India?: Punjab, ethnic conflict, Mrs. Gandhi's death, and the test for federalism. Macmillan. ISBN Politics, Women and Well-Being: How Kerala Became a "Model". Macmillan. Between and power structures in present-day Gujarat were determined by three political factors: the princes of these states of Western India, the nationalist politicians, and the British paramount power. This book pictures the patterns of interaction between the three agents. The author first defines the interests of the three parties. The paramount supremacy of the Crown presupposed and implied the subordination of states. The British Government exercised the right to interfere in the internal spheres of states—partly in the interest of the princes, partly in the interest of people’s welfare, partly to secure proper conditions for British subjects and foreigners and partly in the interest of the whole of India. The term paramount ruler, or sometimes paramount king, is a generic description, though occasionally also used as an actual title, for a number of rulers' position in relative terms, as the summit of a feudalistic pyramid of rulers of lesser polities (such as vassal princes) in a given historical and geographical context, often of different ranks, which all recognize the single paramount ruler.
See also Robin Jeffrey (ed.), People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States (Delhi: Oxford University Press, ). 7. Maharaja Ramachandra of Pudukkottai was not approved to spend Rs. 10, for his daughter’s puberty rites but was permitted to spend Rs. 20, to attend an reception for. After the fall of the central power, the scattered Hunnish settlers, like so many before them, became rapidly Hinduized, and are probably the ancestors of some of the most famous Rajput clans.4 The last native monarch, prior to the Mahommedan conquest,' to establish and maintain paramount power in the north was Harsha, or Harshavardhana (also. 4 Among the best of the recent works dealing with several princely states are Ramusack, Barbara, The Princes of India in the Twilight of Empire: The Dissolution of a Patron–Client System, – (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, ), the several contributors to Jeffrey, Robin (ed.), People, Princes and Paramount Power Cited by: Rajputana states, F. K. Kapil. User Review - Flag as inappropriate. nice. Contents. Loyalty of Rajputana Princes to the British Crown 1 Ganga Singh Maharaja of Bikaner Mankekar Marathas March Marwar Menon Mewar Mughal Narpat Singh Nehru November organised paramount power paramountcy Parishad Patiala peasants Pema Ram Reviews: 1.