DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49383#0035
the British government and the Indian states.
PART I
The British Attitude till 1.813.
The territories of the Feudatory States, or, to use a more common
phrase, Native States, occupy an area of more than 824,000 square*
miles. But their population is far less than that of British India
proportionately, and has even suffered a diminution in recent years.
The arid regions of Rajputana and Baluchistan, the numerous States
embedded in mountainous tractsonthe Himalayas and the North-West,
and many small principalities in the forests and hills of Central India
account for this sparseness of population. Excluding the frontier States
of Kashmir and Baluchistan, Nepal and Bhutan and the Shan States
of Burma, we have five considerable blocks of Native State territory.
The Rajputana Agency, that of Central India, the Nizam’s Dominions,
the Madras block of Mysore, Travancore, and Cochin, and lastly
Baroda and the neighbouring Kathiawar Agency, maybe remembered
besides various States scattered through the Punjab, the United
Provinces, Bihar and Orissa, and Bengal. “The relegation of so many
States to inhospitable and unproductive regions was the natural
consequence of the pressure of invasion and conquest, as each successful
invader drove back those who opposed or fled before him into tracts
which were sufficient to support existence and vet not rich enough to
afford plunder.’' But there are also fertile and fair regions in the
territory of these States. Mysore possesses a fertile soil and valuable
mineral ores: Hyderabad is rich in iron and coak Baroda is the smiling
garden offertile Guzerat: and Kashmir is the beauty-spot of all India.
Thus “the territories not under British dominion are often valuable
and their geographical position frequently lends them importance.”
The geographical distribution of the principalities is very irregular
and even in the ca.se ofa solid territory like Hyderabad, the frontier line
is frequently cut up by or cuts into British villages. “The explanation
of these irregularities lies partly in the policy pursued bv the British
PART I
The British Attitude till 1.813.
The territories of the Feudatory States, or, to use a more common
phrase, Native States, occupy an area of more than 824,000 square*
miles. But their population is far less than that of British India
proportionately, and has even suffered a diminution in recent years.
The arid regions of Rajputana and Baluchistan, the numerous States
embedded in mountainous tractsonthe Himalayas and the North-West,
and many small principalities in the forests and hills of Central India
account for this sparseness of population. Excluding the frontier States
of Kashmir and Baluchistan, Nepal and Bhutan and the Shan States
of Burma, we have five considerable blocks of Native State territory.
The Rajputana Agency, that of Central India, the Nizam’s Dominions,
the Madras block of Mysore, Travancore, and Cochin, and lastly
Baroda and the neighbouring Kathiawar Agency, maybe remembered
besides various States scattered through the Punjab, the United
Provinces, Bihar and Orissa, and Bengal. “The relegation of so many
States to inhospitable and unproductive regions was the natural
consequence of the pressure of invasion and conquest, as each successful
invader drove back those who opposed or fled before him into tracts
which were sufficient to support existence and vet not rich enough to
afford plunder.’' But there are also fertile and fair regions in the
territory of these States. Mysore possesses a fertile soil and valuable
mineral ores: Hyderabad is rich in iron and coak Baroda is the smiling
garden offertile Guzerat: and Kashmir is the beauty-spot of all India.
Thus “the territories not under British dominion are often valuable
and their geographical position frequently lends them importance.”
The geographical distribution of the principalities is very irregular
and even in the ca.se ofa solid territory like Hyderabad, the frontier line
is frequently cut up by or cuts into British villages. “The explanation
of these irregularities lies partly in the policy pursued bv the British