Faridkot

SHARED HISTORICAL CONTEXT

PEPSU: an alternative to direct merger with East Punjab

Eight princely states—Patiala, Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia—combined in the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, known as PEPSU. These territories were distinct from the former British province of Punjab. Partition changed their surroundings, but did not itself dissolve their administrations or turn their rulers into provincial officials. [4][5]

The White Paper records consideration of a union without Patiala, then the conclusion that such a unit would not be viable. The eventual covenant placed Patiala’s Yadavindra Singh at its head as Rajpramukh and Kapurthala’s Jagatjit Singh as Up-Rajpramukh. Patel inaugurated PEPSU on 15 July 1948; the transfer of administration was completed on 20 August. [4]

A princely union created a common government across the member states while preserving negotiated positions and privileges for their rulers. It was a different route from that taken by Loharu, Dujana and Pataudi, which merged directly into East Punjab. The later name PEPSU must therefore not be read back onto the map of 16 August 1947, when these states still had distinct administrations. [4][6]

SHARED HISTORICAL CONTEXT

What integration changed—and what the documents can establish

Across the princely states, accession was followed by several different forms of integration: direct merger into a province, a period of central administration, or a covenant establishing a union of states. These transferred broader governing powers than the initial accession arrangements. Public assets, liabilities, services and courts had to be brought into the receiving system; negotiated privy purses and private property arrangements did not preserve the ruler’s former sovereignty. [7][8][9]

The White Paper acknowledges popular movements demanding accountable government as part of the pressure for change. It also presents the settlement from the Indian government’s perspective. A published agreement can establish the powers transferred and its formal terms. By itself it cannot establish the views of every subject, the absence of coercion or the full local experience of the transition. The territory-specific evidence above and the wider regional account answer different questions. [7]