2016
DOI: 10.1177/0019464616651167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The accession of Junagadh, 1947–48: Colonial sovereignty, state violence and post-independence India

Abstract: By revisiting the events from July 1947 to February 1948 that comprised the accession of the princely state of Junagadh to India, this article gives an insight into the newly independent Dominion’s ‘mobilisation of violence’ in re-fashioning its sovereignty and authority. In doing so, it adds to the growing historical literature on state formation in India that argues that multiple crises of the period 1947–49—post-partition violence in Punjab and Delhi, rebellion, accession and war in Kashmir and the so-calle… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Often described as a "bloodless revolution" in the nationalist histories written in India, the "integration" of the princely states is projected as a moment of glory for the Indian nation-state, when the subjects of these states became the right-bearing citizens of a democratic country. However, some recent historical writings on the modes of annexing the princely states of Hyderabad (Sherman 2007) and Junagadh (Ankit 2016) by the Indian government have challenged this nationalist discourse of non-violent and voluntary annexation. But more than Hyderabad and Junagadh, it is in Kashmir where this nationalist narrative of "bloodless revolution" gets spectacularly challenged till this day.…”
Section: Decolonization Of the British Indian Empirementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Often described as a "bloodless revolution" in the nationalist histories written in India, the "integration" of the princely states is projected as a moment of glory for the Indian nation-state, when the subjects of these states became the right-bearing citizens of a democratic country. However, some recent historical writings on the modes of annexing the princely states of Hyderabad (Sherman 2007) and Junagadh (Ankit 2016) by the Indian government have challenged this nationalist discourse of non-violent and voluntary annexation. But more than Hyderabad and Junagadh, it is in Kashmir where this nationalist narrative of "bloodless revolution" gets spectacularly challenged till this day.…”
Section: Decolonization Of the British Indian Empirementioning
confidence: 99%