November 1 is Madhya Pradesh Foundation Day.
A smattering of princely states, large and small. A huge, consolidated British province. This was the vast expanse of Central India in 1947. It is hard to imagine a more disparate image of what is now modern-day Madhya Pradesh which spans 3,08,000 square kilometres and as India’s second-largest state after Rajasthan.

The state’s history often invokes Maratha influence on the region, the reign of Ahilyabai Holkar and the Nizam of Bhopal. But its transition into modern-day Madhya Pradesh is less known. The boundaries of the expansive region were redrawn and its territories amalgamated several times over soon after independence ultimately forming one large state – and even that was not the end of the story.

On the occasion of Madhya Pradesh’s Formation Day, November 1, 1956, here is a lesser-known historical account of the “heart” of the country.

Princely states, British India
Before Independence, Central India was a mosaic of princely states, with varying degrees of power and autonomy under the British. The Scindia dynasty of Gwalior, among the most powerful states in the region, was established by the Maratha warrior class who played a significant role in shaping Central India’s political landscape.

Indore, governed by the Holkar dynasty, was another Maratha confederacy state with an illustrious lineage with rulers (pre-annexation by the British) like Madhav Rao Holkar and Ahilya Bai Holkar. The Nawabs of Bhopal, tracing their lineage to the Mughal Empire, ruled the state of Bhopal, one of the few Muslim-ruled areas in Central India.

Smaller states such as Datia and Chhatarpur were ruled by the Bundela Rajputs, historically known for resisting Mughal expansion. Panna, governed by the Baghel dynasty, and Rajgarh, ruled by the Tomar dynasty, added to the complex political structure of the region.

Although these princely states were allowed to maintain some autonomy, their relationship with the British Empire was largely dictated by treaties that placed them under British suzerainty. This patchwork of princely states coexisted alongside the British-administered Central Provinces and Berar.

Madhya Pradesh’s legislative history can be traced back to November, 1913, when the Central Provinces Legislative Council was formed, which marked an early step toward self-governance in the region. By 1937, under the Government of India Act of 1935, the first elections were held in the Central Provinces Legislative Assembly, allowing elected representatives to have a greater say in the administration.

After India achieved independence on August 15, 1947, the princely states had to decide either to join the Indian Union or remain independent. The British Central Provinces and Berar were directly transferred to India upon independence, but the princely states required delicate negotiation to convince them to merge with the new nation.

The States Ministry, led by Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, hoped to create stable, consolidated unions to enhance administrative efficiency, yet assured stronger states such as Indore and Gwalior of their freedom to remain independent.

The first step to consolidate Central India came about through the integration of the states that were initially a part of the short-lived Eastern States Agency, largely located in modern-day Chhattisgarh. However, linguistic and administrative issues, as well as the refusal of major states like Mayurbhanj and Bastar, paved the way for the merger of the Chhattisgarh states into Central Provinces and Berar. This consolidated territory of Central Provinces and Berar came to be known as Madhya Pradesh in 1950. The city of Nagpur was made its capital.

But this happened later.

On the other side of the region, the princely states were in churn for the first few years after independence.

Despite having the power to remain independent, the State of Gwalior, under the leadership of Sir George Jivaji Rao Scindia, decided to merge with the Indian Union, making it the first among the 21-salute states to integrate. Princely states whose rulers were honoured with artillery fire salutes are referred to as “salute states”. The concern, however, was the 23 small princely states that lay scattered in the Malwa region interspersed between Indore and Gwalior.

To the States Ministry, it was clear that a union of these small states would be unable to sustain itself without the support of either Gwalior or Indore. VP Menon, the secretary of the States Ministry, was of the opinion that due to linguistic homogeneity and the agricultural potential of the Malwa region as a whole, a union of Indore, Gwalior and the smaller princely states would be ideal. However, when Menon proposed this to the rulers of Gwalior and Indore, both expressed concern about losing their identity. The long-drawn hostility between the two families further contributed to the hesitancy in committing to a common union.

When the rulers of both the states continued to be in favour of separate unions of Indore and Gwalior, Menon consulted Patel. Patel’s primary concern with the creation of separate unions was that the existing animosity between the two would add to unrest in the region and threaten the existence of smaller princely states. Menon then pointed out to the Maharaja of Gwalior that his own state would suffer if it remained isolated while Indore joined the union. After much negotiation, the two maharajas agreed to the union in principle, but the issue of the capital city – Indore or Gwalior – remained contentious.

Ultimately, a compromise was reached and on May 28, 1948, the “United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat)” was inaugurated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Gwalior was made the winter capital for six-and-a-half months in the year and Indore was to serve as the summer capital for the rest of the year. The Maharaja of Gwalior was named Rajpramukh, or Governor and the Maharaja of Indore, Yeshwant Rao Holkar, was made Senior Uprajpramukh or Deputy Governor. The states were assured of a privy purse, which is an amount paid for integrating with India, amounting to Rs 25 lakh for Gwalior and Rs 15 lakh for Indore.

The eastern part of Central India, which is the Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand regions, comprised 35 princely states. Out of these, Rewa was the largest and the only viable state – like Indore and Gwalior. To establish a union in the region, Rewa’s inclusion was crucial. Fortunately, the Maharaja of Rewa, Martand Singh, himself came forward to have a union around Rewa, but the terms of the agreement were largely in his favour.

In the larger interest of national unity, VP Menon agreed to the formation of Vindhya Pradesh in 1948 with Rewa at its centre. The state of Bhopal under Nawab Hamidullah Khan was the last piece of Central India’s puzzle. Bhopal had a strong historical identity and initially resisted joining Madhya Bharat or Madhya Pradesh. The States Ministry however was insistent on Bhopal’s merger with Madhya Bharat. When neither party could arrive at a conclusion, Bhopal was taken over by the Government of India in 1949 as a centrally administered area.

By 1950, all states that were integrated into the Indian Union came to be reorganised as Part A, B, C and D states, based on the level of centralised control. The former governor’s provinces were categorised as Part A states, former princely states were recognised as Part B states, and those under the chief commissioner’s control were designated as Part C states. Madhya Pradesh was given the status of a Part A state, while Madhya Bharat was recognised as a Part B state.

At the time of the formation of Vindhya Pradesh, Patel had anticipated that it would not last. He was proved right and the Government of India took over the administration of Vindhya Pradesh in 1950 due to severe financial difficulties and political feuds between Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand. It was subsequently made a Part C state along with Bhopal.

The political organisation of Central India remained consistent until 1956. The final and most significant consolidation came with the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, which redefined the boundaries of Indian states based on linguistic lines. It merged Part A, B, C, and D states into a more unified state administration. Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal came to be consolidated into the now, mammoth state of Madhya Pradesh.

The Marathi-speaking districts of Vidarbha, however, were separated from Madhya Pradesh and merged with Bombay State, leaving behind a predominantly Hindi-speaking Madhya Pradesh. Although the State Reorganisation Commission had recommended Jabalpur as the capital, Bhopal came to be chosen instead, marking November 1, 1956, as the official formation day of modern Madhya Pradesh.

The evolution of Madhya Pradesh did not end with the 1956 reorganisation. Over the decades, internal political forces led to significant changes in the state’s administrative boundaries. Between 1951 and 2021, 19 districts were split, creating 20 new districts and the names of eight districts were changed.

The most dramatic change came in 2000, when Chhattisgarh was carved out of Madhya Pradesh. The movement for Chhattisgarh’s statehood had begun in the 1950s but gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s as the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress recognised the region’s unique cultural and economic identity. In August 2000, the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act was passed, and on November 1 that year, Chhattisgarh became an independent state, with Raipur as its capital.

Today, Madhya Pradesh is known for its dense forest reserves and wildlife. It is a significant contributor to the country’s agricultural production, especially with crops of soybean, wheat, sugar cane and cotton. The state has also seen the growth of the manufacturing sector in cities such as Gwalior, Jabalpur, Bhopal, and Indore. From a collection of semi-autonomous princely states to its modern form as a key part of India’s political landscape, Madhya Pradesh has undergone a remarkable transformation.

Authors: Kriti Bhargava, Third Year Undergraduate Student, FLAME University, Mehr Kalra, FLAME Alumna, & Prof. Shivakumar Jolad, Faculty of Public Policy, FLAME University.