document_title: Personality rights

question_text: who owns the likeness and intellectual property of dead celebrities

text: Personality rights

text: Classification[edit]

text: Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

text: A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny). If an individual violates this right they will have to go through a lawsuit.[clarification needed]

text: Civil law and common law jurisdictions[edit]

text: In contrast with common law jurisdictions, most civil law jurisdictions have specific civil code provisions that protect an individual's image, personal data and other generally private information. Exceptions have been carved out of these general, broad privacy rights when dealing with news and public figures. Thus, while it may violate an ordinary citizen's privacy to speak about their medical records, one is generally allowed to report on more intimate details in the lives of celebrities and politicians.

text: Unlike most common law jurisdictions the personality rights in civil law are generally inheritable, thus one can make a claim against someone who invades the privacy of a deceased relative if the memory of their character is besmirched by such publication.

text: Personality rights have developed out of common law concepts of property, trespass and intentional tort. Thus personality rights are, generally speaking, judge-made law, though there are jurisdictions where some aspects of personality rights are statutory. In some jurisdictions, publicity rights and privacy rights are not clearly distinguished, and the term publicity right is generally used. In a publicity rights case the issue to decide is whether a significant section of the public would be misled into believing (incorrectly) that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between a plaintiff and a defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising involving the image or reputation of a famous person. The actionable misrepresentation requires a suggestion that the plaintiff has endorsed or licensed the defendant's products, or somehow can exercise control over those products. This is done by way of the tort of passing off.

text: The meaning of the law is best illustrated by principal cases on the subject.

text: Country specific jurisdictions[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: In Australia, false association or endorsement is actionable via the law of passing off, not a separate law of "right of personality". The Henderson case[1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (both the first instance and appellate jurisdiction). The plaintiffs were ballroom dancers and they sued the defendant in passing off alleging it wrongfully published their photograph on the cover of a gramophone record entitled Strictly for Dancing: Vol. 1. An injunction was granted on the ground that the use suggested the plaintiffs recommended or approved of the defendant's goods, or had some connection with the goods.

text: However, in the 1988 case of Honey v Australian Airlines,[2] Gary Honey, a well known Australian athlete failed in his attempt to get a damages award after Australian Airlines used a photograph of him in action on a poster without his permission. The judge held, in essence, that the poster depicted excellence in general rather than a particular person.

text: Canada[edit]

text: Statutory protection[edit]

text: The provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan have enacted privacy legislation dealing with personality rights, which have the following traits:[3]

text:
An appropriation of personality can be achieved through the use of a person’s name, likeness, or voice (but British Columbia has a more restrictive definition).
The plaintiff must be identified or identifiable by the use made of his persona.
An action for the appropriation of personality can only succeed where the defendant intended to commit the wrong (but British Columbia has no "intention" requirement).
The defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s persona must have resulted in a gain or advantage for the defendant (but British Columbia has a more restrictive definition, relating only to commercial gain).
An appropriation of personality is actionable without proof of damages.
The right of action for appropriation of personality is extinguished upon the death of the person whose privacy was violated.
The following constitute statutory defences in all four provinces: (i) that the plaintiff consented to the use of his persona; (ii) that the use of the plaintiff’s persona was incidental to the exercise of a lawful right of defence of person or property; (iii) that the use was authorized or required under a provincial law or by a court, or any process of a court; and (iv) that the act was that of a peace officer acting in the course of his or her duties. The Manitoba Act provides additional defences.

tag: ol

text: Common law provinces[edit]

text: Canadian common law recognizes a limited right to personality. It was first acknowledged in the 1971 Ontario decision of Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., where the Court held that where a person has marketable value in their likeness and it has been used in a manner that suggests an endorsement of a product then there is grounds for an action in appropriation of personality. This right was later expanded upon in Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps (1977) where the Court held that the personality right included both image and name.

text: In Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd. (1998), the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that simply writing about somebody, even for the purpose of generating a profit, does not constitute appropriation of personality.

text: The general tort of appropriation of personality is still in development, but it is currently[when?] being argued that it will be recognized in all common law provinces,[4] with certain characteristics:[5]

text:
Athans confirms that there is "a proprietary right in the exclusive marketing for gain of his personality, image and name..."
There is always a requirement that the plaintiff be identifiable.
An action for appropriation of personality will have to be intentional for a plaintiff to recover at common law.
There is a requirement that the defendant must have acted for the purpose of commercial gain, but Gould suggests that this may be restricted to "endorsement-type situations".
It is a matter of uncertainty whether the common law tort of appropriation of personality is actionable per se or whether damages must be shown.
Privacy rights are extinguished upon death, but personality rights are inheritable.
A defendant will not be liable for an appropriation of personality at common law where: (i) he has consented to the use of his persona; (ii) the use made of his personality rights was merely incidental to another purpose; or (iii) the publication constituted a matter of public interest.

text: Quebec[edit]

text: In 1994, the new Civil Code of Quebec introduced new provisions that enshrine the right to privacy as an attribute of personality:[6]

text:
“

3. Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation and privacy. These rights are inalienable.
...
36. The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of the privacy of a person:

(1) entering or taking anything in his dwelling;
(2) intentionally intercepting or using his private communications;
(3) appropriating or using his image or voice while he is in private premises;
(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;
(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public;
(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.

”

text: In Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, the Supreme Court of Canada also affirmed that under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms privacy provisions, a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject, except where the subject appears in an incidental manner, or whose professional success depends on public opinion.[7] The relevant provisions of the Charter are:

text:
“

4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.
5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.

”

text: Therefore, the following general characteristics may be drawn:[8]

text:
An appropriation of personality can be realized through the use of a person’s name, likeness, or voice.
The plaintiff must be recognizable in order an appropriation of personality to be actionable.
There is no need for the courts to look for an element of intent.
Distinctions based on commercial purposes are irrelevant, and inconsistent with s 9.1 of the Quebec Charter.
The plaintiff is required to show that she suffered damage through the appropriation of her personality rights.
Quebec law may allow an action to be taken by the estate of a deceased person, provided that it can be proved that there is a patrimonial aspect at stake.
A defendant will not be liable for an appropriation of personality under Quebec law where: (i) the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented to the appropriation of his personality; (ii) the use of the individual’s persona is incidental to another purpose; (iii) the appropriation of personality is authorized by law; or (iv) the publication is a matter of public interest.

text: Cyprus[edit]

text: In Cyprus, people depicted in photographs can oppose their use in advertisements and their publication in magazines, even if it was taken in a public place.[9]

text: Denmark[edit]

text: In Denmark, the Danish Penal Code chapters 26 and 27, provides certain personality rights. The governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, has made a declaration regarding publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area:[10]

text: A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s). The personality rights however may be contracted for persons who are generally accepted as public persons.

text: France[edit]

text: In France personality rights are protected under article 9 of the French civil code. While publicly known facts and images of public figures are not generally protected, use of someone's image or personal history has been held actionable under French law. The most famous case in recent history is perhaps the publication of the book on François Mitterrand called Le Grand Secret[11] in which Mitterrand's doctor published a book that not only revealed private facts about Mitterrand's life, but also revealed medical confidences protected by doctor–patient privilege.

text: Germany[edit]

text: In Germany personality rights are protected under the German civil code, where the concept of an "absolute person of contemporary history" allows the depiction of individuals who are part of history but still gives them some protection of their rights of privacy outside the public sphere. A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case:

text:
“

The general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Arts 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an "other right" protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (constant case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338 - readers' letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one's own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG) and the right to one's name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them (reference omitted).[12]

”

text: Greece[edit]

text: The relevant Greek laws include 57 AK and 2472/1997. As regarding photography:

text:
Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent. Taking a photo or video of someone or drawing them in a painting constitutes an illegal act by itself according to Article 57 of the Greek Civil Code (57 ΑΚ, 57 Αστικός Κώδικας) even without any publication of the resulting photo, video or drawing. The law assumes that consent has been provided silently if the depicted person has been paid for the photography session. The law also provides some exceptions for persons of contemporary history.[13] Furthermore, the law 2472/1997 also applies in many circumstances, even in photographing political rallies in public places or in photographing the police; Greece also requires photographers to obtain a government permit before photographing people participating in political protests in public places.[14]
Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent.[13] The publication of photographs of identifiable police officers beating civilians in public places may be against the law 2472/1997 and as such these images should be turned to the authorities for review.[14]
Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent.[13]

text: Guernsey[edit]

text: The relevant Guernsey law was enacted on 3 December 2012 under the name of Image Rights Bailiwick of Guernsey Ordinance 2012 and allows for the registration of a personality right, together with images associated with that personality. Images are widely defined and can be any number of personal attributes, such as likeness, mannerisms, gestures, voice, nickname etc.

text: Personalities able to register fall into 5 categories, namely sole, joint, group, legal and fictional character. In addition, humans can be registered up to 100 years after the date of death, making the law very favourable for estate managers and trustees.

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: In Hong Kong, as in most other common law jurisdictions, there is no separate "personality right", and false association or endorsement is actionable under the law of passing off. The main case on this point relates to Cantopop singer/actor Andy Lau and Hang Seng Bank over the allegedly unauthorized use of Lau's image on credit cards,[15] which has led to the observation that only limited personality rights exist in this jurisdiction.[16]

text: Jamaica[edit]

text: In a 1994 case involving the estate of Bob Marley, the Supreme Court of Jamaica acknowledged a property right of personality which survived his death.[17]

text: Korea[edit]

text: While personality rights are said to exist to some extent by a Korean attorney,[18] cases filed to enforce such rights against shopping malls have been unsuccessful.[19][20]

text: People's Republic of China[edit]

text: In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute. According to article 99 and 100 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the right of name and the right of image are protected. It is prohibited to use another's image for commercial use without that person's consent. In the new[when?] Tort Liabilities Law, the right of privacy is mentioned for the first time in the legislation.

text: South Africa[edit]

text: In South Africa personality rights are protected under the South African law of delict and the Bill of Rights, which also provides for freedom of expression and freedom of association.[21] After much uncertainty concerning the recognition of image rights in South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal provided clarity in the landmark case of Grütter v Lombard.[22][23][24] In South Africa, a person's right to identity is violated if the attributes of that person is used without permission in a way which cannot be reconciled with the true image of that person.[25] Apart from the unauthorized use of a person's image, this kind of infringement also entails some kind of misrepresentation concerning the individual, such as that the individual approves or endorses a particular product or service or that an attorney is a partner in a firm, while this is not the case. Secondly, the right to identity is violated if the attributes of a person is used without authorization by another person for commercial gain.[26][27] Apart from the unauthorized use of the individual's image, such use also primarily entails a commercial motive which is exclusively aimed at promoting a service or product or to solicit clients or customers. The mere fact that the user may benefit or profit from any product or service in respect of which the individual's attributes have incidentally been used, is not in itself sufficient. This violation of the right to identity therefore also entails unauthorized use of the individual's attributes with a commercial purpose, whether it is done by means of advertisement or the manufacture and distribution of merchandise covered with the attributes of the individual. Personality rights are not absolute and it goes without saying that the use of a person's attributes must be unlawful before a plaintiff will succeed with any claim. With the use of a person's image, the personality rights, privacy, human dignity and freedom of association of the individual must often be weighed against the user's right to freedom of expression. The use of a person’s image can be justified on the grounds of consent, truth and public interest, fair comment and jest.[28]

text: Spain[edit]

text: According to the agency (Spanish) Data Protection for the collection and dissemination on Internet of images of a person without their consent may be a serious breach of the Data Protection Act which would be punishable by a minimum fine of 60,000 euros. According to El Mundo Data Protection Agency decided to investigate ex officio by the mere distribution of the image of a person on the Internet without their consent.[29]

text: United States[edit]

text: In the United States, the right of publicity is a state law-based right, as opposed to federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state.[30] The rationale underlying the right of publicity in the United States is rooted in both privacy and economic exploitation.[31] The rights are based in tort law, and the four causes of action are: 1) Intrusion upon physical solitude; 2) public disclosure of private facts; 3) depiction in a false light; and 4) appropriation of name and likeness. Typically, but by no means exclusively, the right of publicity is manifest in advertising or merchandise. In states without a specific right of publicity statute, the right of publicity may still be recognized via common law. The right of publicity has evolved rapidly, with a history of reported cases in the United States and worldwide.[32]

text: By the broadest definition, the right of publicity is the right of every individual to control any commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or some other identifying aspect of identity, limited (under U.S. law) by the First Amendment. The right of publicity can be referred to as publicity rights or even personality rights. The term "right of publicity" was coined by Judge Jerome Frank in 1953.[33]

text: The extent of recognition of this right in the U.S. is largely driven by statute or case law. Because the right of publicity is primarily governed by state (as opposed to federal) law, the degree of recognition of the right of publicity varies significantly from one state to the next. The Lanham Act governs federal protection of personality rights, and the doctrine has much in common with the laws defining federal protection of trademarks.[34] In fact, an individual’s identity could be considered their personal “mark”, the misappropriation of which is sufficient to constitute infringement. In addition, both trademark and publicity rights appear to be designed somewhat to combat infringement for the sake of consumers, granting a cause of action for false descriptions, false representations, and false endorsement claims. Just as there is a cause of action for implying a certain brand sponsors a product when it really does not, there is a cause an action if a celebrity’s identity is used to imply endorsement for a product they are not, in actuality, affiliated with. Courts will typically consider eight factors when weighing a false endorsement claim, in order to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion:

text:
the strength of his mark.
the degree of similarity between the two marks.
the proximity of the products/services.
the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap.
actual confusion.
the defendant's good faith in adopting its own mark.
the quality of the defendant's product.
the sophistication of the buyers.

text: These eight factors have their origins in the case Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp.,[35] but are similarly used by courts to analyze false endorsement claims by celebrities.[36]

text: Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms. There are other notable characteristics of the Indiana law, though most of the major movement in right of publicity emanates from New York and California, with a significant body of case law which suggest two potentially contradictory positions with respect to recognition of the right of publicity.

text: Some states recognize the right through statute and some others through common law. California has both statutory and common-law strains of authority protecting slightly different forms of the right. The right of publicity is a property right, rather than a tort, and so the right may be transferable to the person's heirs after their death. The Celebrities Rights Act was passed in California in 1985 and it extended the personality rights for a celebrity to 70 years after their death. Previously, the 1979 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures decision by the California Supreme Court held that Bela Lugosi's personality rights could not pass to his heirs.[37][38]

text:
In 1977, in the case of Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not immunize a television station from liability for broadcasting Hugo Zacchini's human cannonball act without his consent. This was the first, and so far the only, U.S. Supreme Court ruling on rights of publicity.[citation needed]
In September 2002, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman sued luxury cosmetics company Sephora for allegedly using a picture of them without permission in a brochure promoting perfumes.[39]
In October 1990, actor Crispin Glover filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios for both the unauthorized use of his likeness and the use of footage of him from Back to the Future in Back to the Future Part II; his permission had not been sought for the latter and he received no payment. After a motion to dismiss was overruled, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount. The Screen Actors Guild changed its rules to prohibit its members from unauthorized mimicking of other SAG members.
A recent example is John Dillinger's rights of publicity, as seen in Phillips v. Scalf, a 2003 Indiana Court of Appeals case.[40] The operators of Dillinger’s restaurant are alleged to have violated the right of publicity of Jeffrey G. Scalf, the grandnephew of the 1930s gangster and bank robber John Dillinger, in using without authorization Dillinger’s name, image, and likeness in connection with the restaurant. In a later case, a U.S. district court ruled in 2011 that Indiana's publicity rights statute did not protect people who died before the law's enactment in 1994.[41]
In March 2003, eight members of the cast of The Sopranos alleged that electronics retailer Best Buy used their images in newspaper ads without permission.[42]
In the July 2003 case of ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, however, a painting of the golfer Tiger Woods and others is protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment and treads neither on the golfer's trademarks nor publicity rights. Similarly in the July 2003 case of Johnny and Edgar Winter v. DC Comics, a depiction of blues music duo the Winter brothers in a comic book as worms called the Autumn Brothers obtained First Amendment protection from publicity rights suit. In May 2005, Toney v. Oreal USA Inc. clarified the distinction between the purview of copyright versus the nature of publicity rights.[43]
The 2006 New York County Supreme Court case Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, after dismissing the complaint on statute of limiations grounds, held in the alternative that personality rights are limited by First Amendment rights of artistic freedom of expression]].[44][a] The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, but those courts only addressed the statute of limitations holding, not the First Amendment holding.[45]
In 2008, a federal judge in California ruled that Marilyn Monroe's rights of publicity were not protectable in California. The court reasoned that since Monroe was domiciled in New York at the time of her death, and New York does not protect a celebrity's deceased rights of publicity, her rights of publicity ended upon her death.[46]
In the 2009 case of James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., the District Court of the Central District of California dismissed athlete Jim Brown's theory of false endorsement under the Lanham Act and determined that the First Amendment protects the unauthorized use of a trademark in an artistic work when the mark has artistic relevance to the work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work. Applying this test, the court found a lack of implied endorsement and held that the First Amendment protected Electronic Arts in its use of a virtual football player that resembled Mr. Brown.[47]

text: U.S. states that recognize rights of publicity[edit]

text:
Alabama (common law)[48]
California (statute and common law)[48][49] (see Celebrities Rights Act)
Connecticut (common law)[48]
Florida (statute)[50]
Georgia (common law)[48]
Hawaii (statute)[48][51]
Idaho (common law)[52]
Illinois (statute)[48][53]
Indiana (statute)[48][54]
Kentucky (statute and common law)[48]
Massachusetts (statute)[48]
Michigan (common law)[48]
Minnesota (common law)[48]
Missouri (common law)[48]
Nebraska (statute)[48]
Nevada (statute)[48]
New Jersey (common law)[48]
New York (statute)[48][55]
Ohio (common law)[48]
Oklahoma (statute)[48]
Pennsylvania (common law)[48]
Rhode Island (statute)[48]
Tennessee (statute)[48]
Texas (common law)[48]
Utah (statute and common law)[48]
Virginia (statute)[48]
Washington (statute)[56]
Wisconsin (statute and common law)[48][57]


document_title: UK Threat Levels

question_text: what level of terror alert is the uk at

question_tokens: what level of terror alert is the uk at

root

text: UK Threat Levels

text: Current threat level[edit]

text: The current level was reduced to Severe on the afternoon of 17 September 2017/[2] It had been raised to Critical following the 2017 Parsons Green bombing on 15 September.[3]

tag: p

text: The previous threat level to that was Severe having been reduced to that level[4] following an increase to Critical after the Manchester Arena bombing of 22 May 2017.[5]

text: Categories of threat[edit]

text: Since 24 September 2010, the Home Office has reported three different categories of terrorist threat:[6][7]

text:
Threat from international terrorism.
Terrorism threat related to Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland itself.
Terrorism threat related to Northern Ireland in Great Britain (i.e. excluding Northern Ireland).

tag: ul

text: A fourth category of terrorist threat is also assessed but is not disclosed, relating to threats to sectors of the UK's Critical National Infrastructure such as the London Underground, National Rail network and power stations.[8]

text: The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) is responsible for setting the threat level from international terrorism and the Security Service (MI5) is responsible for setting both threat levels related to Northern Ireland.[9] The threat level informs decisions on protective security measures taken by public bodies, the police and the transport sector.[10]

text: Threat levels[edit]

text:
Threat level
Response

Critical
An attack is expected imminently.

EXCEPTIONAL

Maximum protective security measures to meet specific threats and to minimise vulnerability and risk. Critical may also be used if a nuclear attack is expected.

Severe
An attack is highly likely.

HEIGHTENED

Additional and sustainable protective security measures reflecting the broad nature of the threat combined with specific business and geographical vulnerabilities and judgements on acceptable risk.

Substantial
An attack is a strong possibility.

Moderate
An attack is possible, but not likely.

NORMAL

Routine protective security measures appropriate to the business concerned.

Low
An attack is very unlikely.

tag: table

text: History[edit]

text:
Wikinews has news related to:
UK Threat Levels

text: Threat levels were originally produced by MI5's Counter-Terrorism Analysis Centre for internal use within the British government. Assessments known as Security Service Threat Reports or Security Service Reports were issued to assess the level of threat to British interests in a given country or region. They had six levels: Imminent, High, Significant, Moderate, Low and Negligible. Following terrorist attacks in Indonesia in 2002, the system was criticised by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) as insufficiently clear and needing to be of greater use to "customer departments".[11]

text: The 7 July 2005 London bombings prompted the government to update the threat level system following a recommendation from the ISC that it should deliver "a greater transparency of the threat level and alert systems as a whole, and in particular [it is recommended] that more thought is given to what is put in the public domain about the level of threat and required level of alert." The system was accordingly simplified and made easier to understand.[12] Since 2006, MI5 and the Home Office have published international terrorism threat levels for the entire UK on their websites, and since 2010 they have also published threat levels for Northern Ireland, with separate threat levels for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.[9]

text: Changes to threat levels[edit]

text: The following table records changes to the threat levels since August 2006:[9]

text:
Date
National Threat Level

Dates
International terrorism
Northern Ireland related terrorism

1 August 2006
Severe
24 September 2010 - 11 July 2011
Severe
GB: substantial
NI: severe

10 August 2006
Critical[a]
11 July 2011 – 23 October 2012
Substantial
GB: substantial
NI: severe

13 August 2006
Severe
24 October 2012 – 29 August 2014
Substantial
GB: moderate
NI: severe

30 June 2007
Critical[b]
29 August 2014 – 10 May 2016
Severe
GB: moderate
NI: severe

4 July 2007
Severe
11 May 2016 – 22 May 2017
Severe
GB: substantial
NI: severe

20 July 2009
Substantial
23 May 2017 – 26 May 2017
Critical
GB: substantial
NI: severe

22 January 2010
Severe
27 May 2017 – 15 September 2017
Severe
GB: substantial
NI: severe

11 July 2011
Substantial
15 September 2017 - 17 September 2017
Critical
GB: substantial
NI: severe

29 August 2014
Severe
17 September 2017 - current
Severe
GB: substantial
NI: severe

23 May 2017
Critical[c]

27 May 2017
Severe

15 September 2017
Critical[d]

17 September 2017
Severe

text:
Jump up ^ Threat level increased following the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.
Jump up ^ Threat level increased following the 2007 Glasgow Airport attack.
Jump up ^ Threat level increased following the 2017 Manchester Arena attack.
Jump up ^ Threat level increased following the 2017 Parsons Green bombing.[13]


document_title: Princely state

question_text: which province of pakistan did not have any constitution during british rule

text: Princely state

text: History[edit]

text: Though principalities and chiefdoms existed on the Indian subcontinent from at least the Iron Age, the history of princely states on the Indian subcontinent dates to at least the 5th-6th centuries C.E., during the rise of the middle kingdoms of India following the collapse of the Gupta Empire.[14][15] Many of the future ruling clan groups – notably the Rajputs – began to emerge during this period; by the 13th–14th centuries, many of the Rajput clans had firmly established semi-independent principalities in the north-west, along with several in the north-east. The widespread expansion of Islam during this time brought many principalities into tributary relations with Islamic sultanates, notably the Delhi Sultanate and Bahmani Sultanate. In the south, however, the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire remained dominant until the mid-17th century; among its tributaries was the future Mysore Kingdom.

text: The Turco-Mongol Mughal Empire brought a majority of the existing Indian kingdoms and principalities under its suzerainty by the 17th century, beginning with its foundation in the early 16th century. The advent of Sikhism resulted in the creation of the Sikh Empire in the north by the early 18th century, by which time the Mughal Empire was in full decline. At the same time, the Marathas carved out their own states to form the Maratha Empire. Through the 18th century, former Mughal governors formed their own independent states. In the north-west, some of those – such as Tonk – allied themselves with various groups, including the Marathas and the Durrani Empire, itself formed in 1747 from a loose agglomeration of tribal chiefdoms that composed former Mughal territories. In 1768, Prithvi Narayan Shah, ruler of a small principality in Gorkha likewise established the Kingdom of Nepal from a federation of small states, expanding its influence over much of north-eastern India; in the south, the principalities of Hyderabad and Arcot were fully established by the 1760s, though they nominally remained vassals of the Mughal Emperor.

text: British relationship with the princely states[edit]

text: India under the British Raj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory: British India and the Native states or Princely states. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

text:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[16]

text: In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used) also to refer to the regions under the rule of the East India Company in India from 1774 to 1858.[17][18] The term has also been used to refer to the "British in India".[citation needed]

text: The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British Crown by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 400 states were influenced by Agents answerable to the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner.[19] A clear distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested upon the legislation enacted by the British Parliament, and the legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the princely states existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.[19]

text: Princely status and titles[edit]

text: The Indian rulers bore various titles – including Chhatrapati (exclusively used by the 3 Bhonsle dynasty of the Marathas) or Badshah ("emperor"), Maharaja or Raja ("king"), Sultan, Raje, Nizam, Wadiyar (by the Maharajas of Mysore), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of Bhaddaiyan Raj, Nawab ("governor"), Nayak, Wāli, Inamdar,[20] Saranjamdar[21] and many others. Whatever the literal meaning and traditional prestige of the ruler's actual title, the British government translated them all as "prince," to avoid the implication that the native rulers could be "kings" with status equal to that of the British monarch.

text: More prestigious Hindu rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title "Raja,"Raje" or a variant such as "Rana," "Rao," "Rawat" or Rawal. Also in this 'class' were several Thakurs or Thakores and a few particular titles, such as Sardar, Mankari (or Mānkari/Maankari), Deshmukh, Sar Desai, Raja Inamdar, Saranjamdar.

text: The most prestigious Hindu rulers usually had the prefix "maha" ("great", compare for example Grand Duke) in their titles, as in Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. The states of Travancore and Cochin had queens regnant styled Maharani, generally the female forms applied only to sisters, spouses and widows, who could however act as regents.

text: There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles under the Mughal emperors. For example, the addition of the adjective Bahadur raised the status of the titleholder one level.

text: Furthermore, most dynasties used a variety of additional titles, such as Varma in South India. This should not be confused with various titles and suffixes not specific to princes but used by entire (sub)castes.

text: The Sikh princes concentrated at Punjab usually adopted Hindu type titles when attaining princely rank; at a lower level Sardar was used.

text: Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific of naib, "deputy," used of the Mughal governors, who became de facto autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire), with the prominent exceptions of the Nizam of Hyderabad & Berar, the Wāli/Khan of Kalat and the Wāli of Swat. Other less usual titles included Darbar Sahib, Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral) and Mir (from Emir).

text: Precedence and prestige[edit]

text: However, the actual importance of a princely state cannot be read from the title of its ruler, which was usually granted (or at least recognised) as a favour, often in recognition for loyalty and services rendered to the Mughal Empire. Although some titles were raised once or even repeatedly, there was no automatic updating when a state gained or lost real power. In fact, princely titles were even awarded to holders of domains (mainly jagirs) and even zamindars (tax collectors), which were not states at all. Various sources give significantly different numbers of states and domains of the various types. Even in general, the definition of titles and domains are clearly not well-established.

text: In addition to their titles all princely rulers were eligible to be appointed to certain British orders of chivalry associated with India, the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India and the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. Women could be appointed as "Knights" (instead of Dames) of these orders. Rulers entitled to 21-gun and 19-gun salutes were normally appointed to the highest rank, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India.

text: Many Indian princes served in the British Army, the Indian Army, or in local guard or police forces, often rising to high ranks; some even served while on the throne. Many of these were appointed as an Aide de camp, either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of relatives of such rulers) or indeed to the British King-Emperor. Many saw active service, both on the subcontinent and on other fronts, during both World Wars.

text: Apart from those members of the princely houses who entered military service and who distinguished themselves, a good number of princes received honorary ranks as officers in the British and Indian Armed Forces. Those ranks were conferred based on several factors, including their heritage, lineage, gun-salute (or lack of one) as well as personal character or martial traditions. After the First and Second World Wars, the princely rulers of several of the major states, including Gwalior, Patiala, Bikaner, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Jammu and Kashmir and Hyderabad, were given honorary general officer ranks as a result of their states' contributions to the war effort.

text:
Lieutenant/Captain/Flight Lieutenant or Lieutenant-Commander/Major/Squadron Leader (for junior members of princely houses or for minor princes)
Commander/Lieutenant-Colonel/Wing Commander or Captain/Colonel/Group Captain (granted to princes of salute states, often to those entitled to 15-guns or more)
Commodore/Brigadier/Air Commodore (conferred upon princes of salute states entitled to gun salutes of 15-guns or more)
Major-General/Air Vice-Marshal (conferred upon princes of salute states entitled to 15-guns or more; conferred upon rulers of the major princely states, including Baroda, Kapurthala, Travancore, Bhopal and Mysore)
Lieutenant-General (conferred upon the rulers of the largest and most prominent princely houses after the First and Second World Wars for their states' contributions to the war effort.)
General (very rarely awarded; the Maharajas of Gwalior and Jammu & Kashmir were created honorary Generals in the British Army in 1877, the Maharaja of Bikaner was made one in 1937, and the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1941)[22]

text: It was also not unusual for members of princely houses to be appointed to various colonial offices, often far from their native state, or to enter the diplomatic corps.

text: Salute states[edit]

text: The gun salute system was used to set unambiguously the precedence of the major rulers in the area in which the British East India Company was active, or generally of the states and their dynasties. As heads of a state, certain princely rulers were entitled to be saluted by the firing of an odd number of guns between three and 21, with a greater number of guns indicating greater prestige. Generally, the number of guns remained the same for all successive rulers of a particular state, but individual princes were sometimes granted additional guns on a personal basis. Furthermore, rulers were sometimes granted additional gun salutes within their own territories only, constituting a semi-promotion. The states of all these rulers (about 120) were known as salute states.

text: After Indian Independence, the Maharana of Udaipur displaced the Nizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, because Hyderabad State had not acceded to the new Dominion of India, and the style Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes. When the princely states had been integrated into the Indian Union their rulers were promised continued privileges and an income (known as the Privy Purse) for their upkeep. Subsequently, when the Indian government abolished the Privy Purse in 1971, the whole princely order ceased to be recognised under Indian law, although many families continue to retain their social prestige informally; some descendants of the rulers are still prominent in regional or national politics, diplomacy, business and high society.

text: At the time of Indian independence, only five rulers – the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Mysore, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir state, the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda and the Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior – were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Five more – the Nawab of Bhopal, the Maharaja Holkar of Indore, the Maharana of Udaipur, the Maharaja of Kolhapur and the Maharaja of Travancore – were entitled to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was the Nizam of Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique style Exalted Highness. Other princely rulers entitled to salutes of 11 guns (soon 9 guns too) or more were entitled to the style Highness. No special style was used by rulers entitled to lesser gun salutes.

text: As paramount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the British King-Emperor of India, for whom the style of Majesty was reserved, was entitled to an 'imperial' 101-gun salute—in the European tradition also the number of guns fired to announce the birth of an heir (male) to the throne.

text: Non salute states[edit]

text: There was no strict correlation between the levels of the titles and the classes of gun salutes, the real measure of precedence, but merely a growing percentage of higher titles in classes with more guns. As a rule the majority of gun-salute princes had at least nine, with numbers below that usually the prerogative of Arab Sheikhs of the Aden protectorate, also under British protection.

text: There were many so-called non-salute states of lower prestige. Since the total of salute states was 117 and there were more than 500 princely states, most rulers were not entitled to any gun salute. Not all of these were minor rulers -- Surguja State, for example, was both larger and more populous than Karauli State, but the Maharaja of Karauli was entitled to a 17-gun salute and the Maharaja of Surguja was not entitled to any gun salute at all.

text: A number of princes, in the broadest sense of the term, were not even acknowledged as such.[example needed] On the other hand, the dynasties of certain defunct states were allowed to keep their princely status – they were known as political pensioners, such as the Nawab of Oudh. There were also certain estates of British India which were rendered as political saranjams, having equal princely status.[23] Though none of these princes were awarded gun salutes, princely titles in this category were recognised as a form of vassals of salute states, and were not even in direct relation with the paramount power.

text: Doctrine of lapse[edit]

text: A controversial aspect of East India Company rule was the doctrine of lapse, a policy under which lands whose feudal ruler died (or otherwise became unfit to rule) without a male biological heir (as opposed to an adopted son) would become directly controlled by the Company and an adopted son would not become the ruler of the princely state. This policy went counter to Indian tradition where, unlike Europe, it was far more the accepted norm for a ruler to appoint his own heir.

text: The doctrine of lapse was pursued most vigorously by the Governor-General Sir James Ramsay, 10th Earl (later 1st Marquess) of Dalhousie. Dalhousie annexed seven states, including Awadh (Oudh), whose Nawabs he had accused of misrule, and the Maratha states of Nagpur, Jhansi and Satara and Sambalpur and Thanjavur. Resentment over the annexation of these states turned to indignation when the heirlooms of the Maharajas of Nagpur were auctioned off in Calcutta. Dalhousie's actions contributed to the rising discontent amongst the upper castes which played a large part in the outbreak of the Indian mutiny of 1857. The last Mughal Badshah (emperor), whom many of the mutineers saw as a figurehead to rally around, was deposed following its suppression.

text: In response to the unpopularity of the doctrine, it was discontinued with the end of Company rule and the British Parliament's assumption of direct power over India.

text: Imperial governance[edit]

text: By treaty, the British controlled the external affairs of the princely states absolutely. As the states were not British possessions, they retained control over their own internal affairs, subject to a degree of British influence which in many states was substantial.

text: By the beginning of the 20th century, relations between the British and the four largest states – Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda – were directly under the control of the Governor-General of India, in the person of a British Resident. Two agencies, for Rajputana and Central India, oversaw twenty and 148 princely states respectively. The remaining princely states had their own British political officers, or Agents, who answered to the administrators of India's provinces. The Agents of five princely states were then under the authority of Madras, 354 under Bombay, 26 of Bengal, two under Assam, 34 under Punjab, fifteen under Central Provinces and Berar and two under United Provinces.

text: The Chamber of Princes (Narender Mandal or Narendra Mandal) was an institution established in 1920 by a Royal Proclamation of the King-Emperor to provide a forum in which the rulers could voice their needs and aspirations to the government. It survived until the end of the British Raj in 1947.[24]

text: By the early 1930s, most of the princely states whose Agencies were under the authority of India's provinces were organised into new Agencies, answerable directly to the Governor-general, on the model of the Central India and Rajputana agencies: the Eastern States Agency, Punjab States Agency, Baluchistan Agency, Deccan States Agency, Madras States Agency and the Northwest Frontier States Agency. The Baroda Residency was combined with the princely states of northern Bombay Presidency into the Baroda, Western India and Gujarat States Agency. Gwalior was separated from the Central India Agency and given its own Resident, and the states of Rampur and Benares, formerly with Agents under the authority of the United Provinces, were placed under the Gwalior Residency in 1936. The princely states of Sandur and Banganapalle in Mysore Presidency were transferred to the agency of the Mysore Resident in 1939.

text: Principal princely states in 1947[edit]

text: The native states in 1947 included five large states that were in "direct political relations" with the Government of India. For the complete list of princely states in 1947, see List of princely states of India.

text: In direct relations with the Central Government[edit]

text:
Five large Princely states in direct political relations with the Central Government in India[25][26][27][28]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Baroda
13,866
3,343,477 (chiefly Hindu)
323.26
Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu
21
Resident at Baroda

Hyderabad
82,698
16,338,534 (mostly Hindu with a sizeable Muslim minority)
1582.43
Nizam, Turkic, Sunni Muslim
21
Resident in Hyderabad

Jammu and Kashmir
84,471
4,021,616 including Gilgit, Baltistan (Skardu), Ladakh, and Punch (mostly Muslim, with sizeable Hindu and Buddhist populations)
463.95
Maharaja, Dogra, Hindu
21
Resident in Jammu & Kashmir

Mysore
29,458
7,328,896 (chiefly Hindu)
1001.38
Maharaja, Kannadiga, Hindu
21
Resident in Mysore

Gwalior
26,397
4,006,159 (chiefly Hindu)
356.75
Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu
21
Resident at Gwalior

Total
236,890
35,038,682
3727.77

text:
[show]Please expand to view the tables for the Agencies under the Central government

88 Princely states forming the Central India Agency[29][30]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Indore State
9,341
1,513,966 (mainly Hindu)
304.9
Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu
19 (plus 2 local)
Resident at Indore

Bhopal
6,924
785,322 (mostly Hindu)
119.82
Nawab(m)/Begum(f), Afghan, Muslim
19 (plus 2 local)
Political Agent in Bhopal

Rewah
13,000
1,820,445 (chiefly Hindu)
65
Maharaja, Baghel Rajput, Hindu
17
Political agent in Baghelkhand

85 smaller and minor states (1941)
22,995 (1901)
2.74 million (Chiefly Hindu, 1901)
129 (1901)

Total
77,395 (1901)
8.51 million (1901)
421 (1901)

42 Princely states forming the Eastern States Agency[29][31]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Cooch Behar
1,318
639,898 (chiefly Hindu and Muslim)
91
Maharaja, Kshattriya, Brahmo
13
Resident for the Eastern States

align="center" | Tripura State
4,116
513,010 (chiefly Hindu)
54
Maharaja, Kshattriya, Hindu
13
Resident for the Eastern States

Mayurbhanj State
4,243
990,977 (chiefly Hindu)
49
Maharaja, Kshattriya, Hindu
9
Resident for the Eastern States

39 smaller and minor states (1941)
56,253
6,641,991
241.31

Total
65,930
8,785,876
435.31

Gwalior Residency (2 states)

Two states under the suzerainty of the Resident at Gwalior, Gwalior having direct relations with the central government.[25][32]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Rampur
893
464,919 (chiefly Hindu and Muslim, in 1931)
51
Nawab, Pathan, Muslim
15
Political Agent at Rampur

Benares State
875
391,165 (chiefly Hindu, 1931)
19
Maharaja, Bhumihar, Hindu
13 (plus 2 local)
Political Agent at Benares

Total
1,768
856,084 (1941, approx.)
70

23 Princely states forming the Rajputana Agency, with the Resident for Rajputana at Abu[33][34]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Udaipur (Mewar)
13,170
1,926,698 (chiefly Hindu and Bhil)
107
Maharana, Sisodia Rajput, Hindu
19 (plus 2 personal)
Political Agent for the Mewar and Southern Rajputana States

Jaipur
15,610
3,040,876 (chiefly Hindu)
188.6
Maharaja, Kachwaha Rajput, Hindu
17 (plus 2 personal)
Political Agent at Jaipur

Jodhpur (Marwar)
36,120
2,555,904 (chiefly Hindu)
208.65
Maharaja, Rathor Rajput, Hindu
17
Political Agent for the Western States of Rajputana

Bikaner
23,181
1,292,938 (chiefly Hindu)
185.5
Maharaja, Rathor Rajput, Hindu
17
Political agent for the Western States of Rajputana

17 salute states, 1 chiefship, 1 zamindari
42,374
3.64 million (chiefly Hindu, 1901)
155 (1901)

Total
128,918 (1901)
9.84 million (1901)
320 (1901)

3 Princely states forming the Baluchistan Agency[35][36]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Kalat
73,278
250,211 (chiefly Sunni Muslim)
21.3
Khan or Wali, Brahui, Sunni Muslim
19
Political Agent in Kalat

Las Bela
7,132
68,972 (chiefly Sunni Muslim)
6.1
Jam, Kureshi Arab, Sunni Muslim

Political Agent in Kalat

Kharan
14,210
33,763 (chiefly Sunni Muslim)
2
Nawab, Sunni Muslim

Political Agent in Kalat

Total
94,620
352,946
29.4

text:
Sikkim, as a Protectorate of the British Government[37]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Sikkim
2,818
121,520 (chiefly Buddhist and Hindu)
5
Maharaja, Tibetan, Buddhist
15
Political Officer, Sikkim

text:
[show]Please expand to view the tables for other states under Provincial Governments

Madras (5 States)

5 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Madras[35]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand) Rupees
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Travancore
7,091
2,952,157 (chiefly Hindu and Christian)
100
Maharaja, Kshatriya-Samanthan, Hindu
21 (including two guns personal to the then ruler)
Resident in Travancore and Cochin

Cochin
1,362
812,025 (chiefly Hindu and Christian)
27
Raja, Samanta-Kshatriya, Hindu
17
Resident in Travancore and Cochin

Padukkottai
1,100
380,440 (chiefly Hindu)
11
Raja, Kallar, Hindu
11
Collector of Trichinopoly (ex officio Political Agent)

2 minor states (Banganapalle and Sandur)
416
43,464
3

Total
9,969
4,188,086
141

Bombay (354 States)

354 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Bombay[38]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Kolhapur
2,855
910,011 (chiefly Hindus)
48
Maharaja, Kshatriya, Hindu
19
Political Agent for Kolhapur

Cutch
7,616
488,022 (chiefly Hindu)
20
Maharao, Jadeja Rajput, Hindu
17
Political Agent in Cutch

Junagarh
3,284
395,428 (chiefly Hindu)
27
Nawab, Pathan, Muslim
11
Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar

Navanagar
3,791
336,779 (chiefly Hindu)
31
Jam Sahib, Jadeja Rajput, Hindu
11
Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar

349 other states
42,165
4,579,095
281

Total
65,761
6,908,648
420

Central Provinces (15 States)

15 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the Central Provinces[39]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Kalahandi
3,745
284,465 (chiefly Hindu)
4
Raja, Rajput, Hindu
9
Political Agent for the Chhattisgarh Feudatories

Bastar
13,062
306,501 (chiefly Animist)
3
Raja, Kshatriya, Hindu

Political Agent for the Chhattisgarh Feudatories

13 other states
12,628
1,339,353 (chiefly Hindu)
16

11

Total
29,435
1,996,383
21

Punjab (45 States)

45 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the Punjab[40][41]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Bahawalpur
16,434
1,341,209 (chiefly Muslim)
335
Nawab, Daudputra, Muslim
17
Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Patiala
5,942
1,936,259 (chiefly Hindu and Sikh)
302.6
Maharaja, Sidhu Jat, Sikh
17 (and 2 personal)
Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Nabha
947
340,044 (chiefly Hindu and Sikh)
38.7
Maharaja, Sidhu Jat, Sikh
13 (and 2 local)
Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Jind
1,299
361,812 (chiefly Hindu and Sikh)
37.4
Maharaja, Sidhu Jat, Sikh
13 (and 2 personal)
Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Kapurthala
645
378,380 (chiefly Muslim and Hindu)
40.5
Maharaja, Ahluwalia Kolal, Sikh
13 (and 2 personal)
Commissioner of the Jullundur Division (ex officio Political Agent)

Faridkot
638
199,283 (Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim)
22.7
Raja, Barar Jat, Sikh
11
Commissioner of the Jullundur Division (ex officio Political Agent)

Tehri (Garhwal)
4,500
397,369 (chiefly Hindu)
26.9
Maharaja, Rajput Hindu
11
Commissioner of Kumaun (ex officio Political Agent)

Khairpur
6,050
305,387 (chiefly Muslim)
15 (plus 2 local)
Mir, Talpur Baloch, Muslim
37.8
Political Agent for Khairpur

25 other states
12,661 (in 1901)
1,087,614 (in 1901)
30 (in 1901)

Total
36,532 (in 1901)
4,424,398 (in 1901)
155 (in 1901)

Assam (26 states)

26 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Assam[42][43]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Manipur
8,638
512,069 (chiefly Hindu and Animist)
19
Raja, Kshatriya, Hindu
11
Political Agent in Manipur

25 Khasi States
3,778
213,586 (Khasi and Christian)
~1 (1941, approx.)

Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills

Total
12,416
725,655
20 (1941; approx.)

text: Burma[edit]

text:
52 States in Burma: all except Kantarawadi, one of the Karenni States, were included in British India until 1937[44]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Hsipaw (Thibaw)
5,086
105,000 (Buddhist)
3
Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist
9
Superintendent, Northern Shan States

Kengtung
12,000
190,000 (Buddhist)
1
Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist
9
Superintendent Southern Shan States

Yawnghwe
865
95,339 (Buddhist)
2.13
Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist
9
Superintendent Southern Shan States

Mongnai
2,717
44,000 (Buddhist)
0.5
Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist

Superintendent Southern Shan States

5 Karenni States
3,130
45,795 (Buddhist and Animist)
0,035
Sawbwa, Red Karen, Buddhist

Superintendent Southern Shan States

44 Other States
42,198
792,152 (Buddhist and Animist)
8.5

Total
67,011
1,177,987
13.5

text: State military forces[edit]

text: See article: Indian State Forces

text: The armies of the Native States were bound by many restrictions that were imposed by subsidiary alliances. They existed mainly for ceremonial use and for internal policing. According to the Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 85,

text: Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment which is not required either for police purposes or personal display, or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with Gwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to Mysore in 1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this was afforded by the army of the Sikh kingdom of Lahore. The British Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is organised for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor.[45]

text: In addition, other restrictions were imposed:

text: The treaties with most of the larger States are clear on this point. Posts in the interior must not be fortified, factories for the production of guns and ammunition must not be constructed, nor may the subject of other States be enlisted in the local forces. ... They must allow the forces that defend them to obtain local supplies, to occupy cantonments or positions, and to arrest deserters; and in addition to these services they must recognise the Imperial control of the railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only to the common welfare but to the common defence.[46]

text: The troops were routinely inspected by British army officers and generally had the same equipment as soldiers in the Indian Army.[47] Although their numbers were relatively small, the Imperial Service Troops were employed in China and British Somaliland in the first decade of the 20th century, and later saw action in the First World War and Second World War .[47]

text: Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after[edit]

text: The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with India and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with Pakistan and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: India[edit]

text: At the time of Indian independence, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of "British India," which were under the direct control of the India Office in London and the Governor-General of India, and the second being the "Princely states," the territories over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled by France and Portugal. The integration of these territories into Dominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence Act 1947 by the British parliament, was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress, which the Government of India pursued over the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V. P. Menon in the months immediately preceding and following the independence convinced the rulers of almost all of the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. In a speech in January 1948, Vallabhbhai Patel said:

text: As you are all aware, on the lapse of Paramountcy every Indian State became a separate independent entity and our first task of consolidating about 550 States was on the basis of accession to the Indian Dominion on three subjects. Barring Hyderabad and Junagadh all the states which are contiguous to India acceded to Indian Dominion. Subsequently, Kashmir also came in... Some Rulers who were quick to read the writing on the wall, gave responsible government to their people; Cochin being the most illustrious example. In Travancore, there was a short struggle, but there, too, the Ruler soon recognised the aspiration of his people and agreed to introduce a constitution in which all powers would be transferred to the people and he would function as a constitutional Ruler.[48]

text: Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a few states, notably the former princely state of Kashmir, whose Maharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into India until his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, the state of Hyderabad, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was subsequently defeated by the Operation Polo invasion, and the states of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers agreed to accession only in late 1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad.

text: Having secured their accession, Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon then proceeded, in a step-by-step process, to secure and extend the central government's authority over these states and to transform their administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between the territories that had formerly been part of British India and those that had been princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of India, through a combination of diplomatic and military means, acquired control over the remaining European colonial enclaves, such as Goa, which were also integrated into India.

text: As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[49] to the Constitution of India withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the remuneration of the princes by privy purses. As a result, even titular heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.[50]

text: Pakistan[edit]

text: During the period of the British Raj, there were four princely states in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. The first three acceded to Pakistan.[51][52][53][54] However, the ruler of the fourth princely state, the Khan of Kalat Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's independence as this was one of the options given to all princely states.[55] The state remained independent until it was acceded on 27 March 1948. The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Ahmad Yar Khan, led his brother, Prince Abdul Karim, to revolt against his brother's decision in July 1948, causing an ongoing and still unresolved insurgency.[56]

text: Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947. The Princely states of the North-West Frontier States Agencies. included the Dir Swat and Chitral Agency and the Deputy Commissioner of Hazara acting as the Political Agent for Amb and Phulra. These states joined Pakistan on independence from the British.[citation needed]


document_title: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

question_text: where was the adventures of sherlock holmes published

text: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

text: Context[edit]

text: Arthur Conan Doyle began writing while studying medicine at university in the late 1870s, and had his first short story, "The Mystery of Sasassa Valley", published in September 1879. After eight years, A Study in Scarlet, Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes story, was published by Ward Lock & Co. The novel was well received, but Doyle was paid little for it, and despite a sequel novel, The Sign of the Four, also being published by Ward Lock, he shifted his focus to short stories.[1] In early 1891, the first editor of The Strand Magazine, Herbert Greenhough Smith, received two submissions from Doyle for the newly established magazine. He later described his reaction; "I at once realised that here was the greatest short story writer since Edgar Allan Poe."[2] The first of these, "A Scandal in Bohemia" was published near the back of The Strand Magazine in July 1891. The stories proved popular, helping to boost the circulation of the magazine,[1] and Doyle received 30 guineas for each short story in the initial run of twelve.[2] These first twelve stories were published monthly from July 1891 until June 1892,[3] and then were collected together and published as a book, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes on 14 October 1892 by George Newnes, the publisher of The Strand Magazine.[4] The initial print run of the book was for 10,000 copies in the United Kingdom, and a further 4,500 copies in the United States, which were published by Harper Brothers the following day.[5]

text: Stories[edit]

text: Summary[edit]

text: All of the stories within The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes are told in a first-person narrative from the point of view of Dr. Watson, as is the case for all but four of the Sherlock Holmes stories.[6] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Doyle suggests that the short stories contained in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes tend to point out social injustices, such as "a king's betrayal of an opera singer, a stepfather's deception of his ward as a fictitious lover, an aristocratic crook's exploitation of a failing pawnbroker, a beggar's extensive estate in Kent."[1] It suggests that, in contrast, Holmes is portrayed as offering a fresh and fair approach in an unjust world of "official incompetence and aristocratic privilege".[1] The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes contains many of Doyle's favourite Sherlock Holmes stories. In 1927, he submitted a list of what he believed were his twelve best Sherlock Holmes stories to The Strand Magazine. Among those he listed were "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" (as his favourite), "The Red-Headed League" (second), "A Scandal in Bohemia" (fifth) and "The Five Orange Pips" (seventh).[7] The book was banned in the Soviet Union in 1929 because of its alleged "occultism",[8] but the book gained popularity in a black market of similarly banned books, and the restriction was lifted in 1940.[9]

text: Publication sequence[edit]

text:
Stories by publication sequence

Title
Publication
Plot
Ref.

"A Scandal in Bohemia"
000000001891-07-01-0000July 1891
The King of Bohemia engages Holmes to recover an indiscreet photograph showing him with the renowned beauty, adventuress and opera singer Irene Adler—the revelation of which would derail his marriage to a daughter of the King of Scandinavia. In disguise, Holmes witnesses Adler marry the man she truly loves, then by means of an elaborate stratagem discovers the photograph's hiding place. But when Holmes and the king return to retrieve the photo, they find Adler has fled the country with it, leaving behind a letter for Holmes and a portrait of herself for the King. The king allows Holmes to retain the portrait as a souvenir.
[10][11]

"The Red-Headed League"
000000001891-08-01-0000August 1891
Jabez Wilson, a pawnbroker, consults Holmes about a job he gained only because of his red hair. The job took him away from his shop for a short period each afternoon, and involved him copying the Encyclopædia Britannica. After eight weeks, he was informed that the job had suddenly finished. Holmes visits the pawnbroker's shop, and after some investigation contacts a police inspector and the manager of a nearby bank. Along with Watson, they hide in the bank vault, and catch two thieves, who had dug a tunnel from the shop during the hours that Wilson was out each afternoon.
[12]

"A Case of Identity"
000000001891-09-01-0000September 1891
Against the wishes of her stepfather, Miss Mary Sutherland has become engaged to Hosmer Angel. On the morning of their wedding Hosmer elicits a promise that Mary will remain faithful to him "even if something quite unforeseen" occurs, then mysteriously disappears on the way to the church. Holmes deduces that Hosmer was Mary's stepfather in disguise, the charade a bid to condemn his stepdaughter to spinsterhood and ensure his continued access to her inheritance. Holmes does not reveal the truth to Mary because "There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman"; he had already advised her to put the matter behind her, though she responded that Hosmer "shall find me ready when he comes back."
[13]

"The Boscombe Valley Mystery"
000000001891-10-01-0000October 1891
Inspector Lestrade asks for Holmes's help after Charles McCarthy is murdered, and his son, James, is implicated. McCarthy, and another local landowner, John Turner, are both Australian expatriates, and Lestrade was originally engaged by Turner's daughter, Alice, who believes James is innocent. Holmes interviews James, and then inspects the scene of the murder, deducing a third man was present. Realising Holmes has solved the case, Turner confesses to the crime, revealing that McCarthy was blackmailing him due to Turner's criminal past. Holmes does not reveal the crime, but secures James's release because of the presence of a third person at the crime scene.
[14]

"The Five Orange Pips"
000000001891-11-01-0000November 1891
John Openshaw tells Holmes about two strange deaths in his family. In 1883, his uncle died two months after receiving a letter from India, inscribed "K.K.K." with five orange pips enclosed. In 1885, Openshaw's father received a similar letter, and died three days afterwards. Openshaw recently received a similar letter and asks for advice. Holmes tells Openshaw to do as the letter asks and leave a diary page, which Holmes deduces is connected to the Ku Klux Klan, on the garden sundial. Openshaw is killed before he can do so, but Holmes discovers the killers have been travelling on a sailing ship, and sends the captain a letter with five orange pips. The ship is lost at sea.
[15]

"The Man with the Twisted Lip"
000000001891-12-01-0000December 1891
Neville St. Clair, a respectable businessman, has disappeared and his wife claims she saw him at the upper window of an opium den. When she entered the room, she only found a beggar. St. Clair's clothes are later found in the room, and his coat, laden with coins, in the River Thames outside the window. The beggar is arrested for murder, but a few days later St. Clair's wife receives a letter from her husband. Holmes considers, and washes the beggar to discover that is actually St. Clair, who confesses that he has been leading a double life as a beggar as the income is so large, but promises to stop begging if Holmes will keep his secret from his wife.
[16]

"The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle"
000000001892-01-01-0000January 1892
A "Blue Carbuncle" is stolen from a hotel suite, and a former felon is soon arrested. However, an acquaintance of Holmes discovers the carbuncle in the throat of a Christmas goose. Holmes traces the owner of the goose, but soon determines that he was not the thief by offering him a replacement goose. The detective continues his search, first to an inn and then a dealer in Covent Garden. The dealer refuses to provide Holmes with information about the source of the goose, but Holmes observes another man trying to find the same information, and confronts him. The man, the head attendant at the hotel, confesses to his crime. Holmes allows him to remain free, arguing that prison could make him a hardened criminal later.
[17]

"The Adventure of the Speckled Band"
000000001892-02-01-0000February 1892
Helen Stoner worries her stepfather may be trying to kill her after he contrives to move her to the bedroom where her sister had died two years earlier, shortly before her wedding. Stoner is herself now engaged, and Holmes learns that her stepfather's annuity (from the estate of his wife—Stoner's mother) would be greatly reduced if either sister married. During a late-night investigation of the bedroom, Holmes and Watson discover a dummy bell-pull near a ventilator. As they lie in wait a whistle sounds, then a snake appears through the ventilator. Holmes attacks the snake with his riding crop; it retreats to the next room, where it attacks and kills Stoner's stepfather.
[18]

"The Adventure of the Engineer's Thumb"
000000001892-03-01-0000March 1892
An engineer, Victor Hatherley, attends Dr Watson's surgery after his thumb is chopped off, and recounts his tale to Watson and Holmes. Hatherley had been hired for 50 guineas to repair a machine he was told compressed Fuller's earth into bricks. Hatherley was told to keep the job confidential, and was transported to the job in a carriage with frosted glass, to keep the location secret. He was shown the press, but on closer inspection discovered a "crust of metallic deposit" on the press, and he suspected it was not being used for compressing earth. He confronted his employer, who attacked him, and during his escape his thumb is chopped off. Holmes deduces that the press is being used to produce counterfeit coins, and works out its location. However, when they arrive, the house is on fire, and the criminals have escaped.
[19]

"The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor"
000000001892-04-01-0000April 1892
Lord Robert St. Simon's new American bride, Hatty Doran, has disappeared almost immediately after the wedding. The servants had prevented an old love interest of his from forcing her way into the wedding breakfast, Hatty had been seen in whispered conversation with her maid, and Inspector Lestrade arrives with the news that Hatty's wedding dress and ring have been found floating in the Serpentine. Holmes quickly solves the mystery, locating Hatty at a hotel with a mysterious, "common-looking" man who had picked up her dropped bouquet after the ceremony. The man turns out to be Hatty's husband Frank, whom she had thought dead in America, and who had managed to locate her only moments before she was to marry Lord St. Simon. Frank and Hatty had just determined to go to Lord St. Simon in order to explain the situation when Holmes found them.
[20]

"The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet"
000000001892-05-01-0000May 1892
A banker asks Holmes to investigate after a "Beryl Coronet" entrusted to him is damaged at his home. Awakened by noise, he had found his son, Arthur, holding the damaged coronet. Arthur refuses to speak, neither admitting guilt nor explaining himself. Footprints in the snow outside the house tell Holmes that the banker's niece had conspired with a blackguard to steal the coronet; Arthur had discovered the crime in progress and the coronet had been damaged during his struggle to prevent it. He had refused to tell his father the truth of the crime because of his love for his cousin.
[21]

"The Adventure of the Copper Beeches"
000000001892-06-01-0000June 1892
Violet Hunter consults Holmes after being offered a governess job subject to a number of unusual conditions, including cutting her hair short. The wage is extremely high, £120, and she decides to accept the job, though Holmes tells her to contact him if she needs to. After a number of strange occurrences, including the discovery of a sealed-off wing of the house, she does so. Holmes discovers that someone had been kept prisoner in the wing, but when Holmes, Watson and Hunter enter, it is empty. They are accused of freeing the prisoner, who was the daughter of Hunter's employer, who sets his dog on them, though it attacks him instead. It is revealed that Hunter had been hired to impersonate her employer's daughter so that her fiancé would believe she was no longer interested in seeing him, but the daughter had escaped and the pair later married.
[22]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes were well received upon their serialisation in The Strand Magazine.[23] Following the publication of "A Scandal in Bohemia" in July 1891, the Hull Daily Mail described the story as being "worthy of the inventive genius" of Doyle.[24] Just over a year later, when Doyle took a break from publishing the short stories upon the completion of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, a piece in the Belfast News Letter reviewed a story by another author in The Strand Magazine saying that it "might have been read with a moderate amount of interest a year ago", but that "the unique power" of Doyle's writing was evident in the gulf in quality between the stories.[25] The Leeds Mercury particularly praised the characterisation of Holmes, "with all his little foibles",[23] while in contrast the Cheltenham Looker-On described Holmes as "rather a bore sometimes", noting that descriptions of his foibles "grows wearisome".[26] The correspondent for Hampshire Telegraph lamented the fact that Doyle's more thoughtful writing, such as Micah Clarke, was not so popular as the Holmes stories, concluding that an author "who wishes to make literature pay must write what his readers want".[27]

text: Adaptations[edit]

text: Sherlock Holmes has been adapted numerous times for both films and plays, and the character has been played by over 70 different actors in more than 200 films.[28] A number of film and television series have borne the title "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes", but some of these are either original stories,[29] combinations of a number of Doyle's stories, or in one case, an adaptation of The Sign of the Four.[30] Irene Adler, who is in the first short story, "A Scandal in Bohemia", is prominent in many modern adaptations, despite only appearing in one story.[31] Often in modern adaptations, she is portrayed as a love interest for Holmes, as in Robert Doherty's Elementary and the BBC's Sherlock,[32] even though in the story itself, the narration claims: "It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler."[31] Many of the stories from the collection were included as episodes in the Granada Television series, Sherlock Holmes which ran from 1984 until 1994.[33] The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes were dramatised for BBC Radio 4 in 1990–1991, starring Clive Merrison as Holmes and Michael Williams as Watson. Bert Coules was the head writer, but stories were also written by Vincent McInerny and Peter Mackie, and directed by Patrick Rayner and Enyd Williams.[34]