When the British left India, Mysore (Karnataka) rulers agreed to instrument of accession by newly formed Indian government. However there were standstill agreements which are still leading to disputes, while also legally maintaining the princely properties with utmost care. India even retained the British Armed Forces and ranks. Who authorized state standstill agreements

  • Could you cite the standstill agreements? Any of them? Please cite all nontrivial assertions
    – MCW
    Aug 21, 2017 at 11:06
  • 1
    @Jasia - I'm afraid I haven't expressed myself clearly; OP asserts that there is at least one standstill agreement. I'm looking for a citation to that agreement. (my first comment did ask for a definition of standstill agreement, but that has been provided and edited into the question). Google searches have not confirmed the existence of the referenced standstill agreement. I suspect that "standstill agreement" is a less than useful translation from either OP's native language or from Law, which might as well be a foreign language.
    – MCW
    Aug 21, 2017 at 11:24
  • 1
    @MarkC.Wallace So trivial in fact, that people that didn't already know some of the history and background couldn't find the information after 4 hours of searching? ;-) Aug 21, 2017 at 14:28
  • 1
    @MarkC.Wallace To be fair, the OP may not have known any more than they actually posted in their question. They posted a Wikipedia citation for the dispute, but may have picked up the phrase "standstill agreement" from a local newspaper. I knew about it because I've read quite a lot of background on Indian independence and partition, but I suspect that I'm in a fairly small minority in that regard. Aug 21, 2017 at 15:00
  • 1
    Last comment; I meant no disrespect to OP; I'm happy to see more non-western questions. I'm trying to diagnose a pattern of questions that are difficult to answer - how do we encourage citation of all non-trivial assertions? (without creating novel length comments chains)
    – MCW
    Aug 21, 2017 at 15:09

1 Answer 1


Karnataka belonged in Bombay Province (part of Deccan, along with Maharashtra of today)...

The context of the question, the Kavery river dispute, was an issue between the State of Mysore and Travancore. The standstill agreements have no meaning in this regard. It was meant to be a temporary arrangement for legal purposes. It's of no consequence anymore.

When the state boundaries were redrawn, based on linguistics, Karnataka was carved from parts of Mysore state and Deccan states. This made the implementation of river agreement based on the original agreements very complex, as they were based on considerations of overlapping regions.

The original agreements between Mysore and Travancore as parts of British empire expired a long time ago, in 1974. There are no remaining agreements in force.

The Kavery river dispute reflects internal Indian politics now, and has no bearing to the British Raj or any agreements at that time.

Edit: The details about the dispute, which is the context of this question, on Wikipedia

Wikipedia entry on state reorganization in India post independence

Wikipedia entry on per-independence structure of princely states in India

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.