The process of integration that followed the dissolution of princely rule was accompanied by an assurance that the families of the ruling monarchs at the time would be permitted to maintain specific private properties. Additionally, they would receive a grant either through hereditary means or a government allowance. This grant was termed the "privy purse." During the accession phase, these privileges were met with little criticism, as the central objective was the integration and consolidation of territories.
However, the concept of hereditary privileges clashed with the foundational principles of equality and social and economic justice enshrined in the Constitution of India. Nehru consistently voiced his dissatisfaction with this matter. Subsequent to the 1967 elections, Indira Gandhi advocated for the elimination of privy purses by the government.

Why were hereditary privileges and privy purses not in line with the Constitution of India?

They violated principles of equality and social justice.

The process of integration that followed the dissolution of princely rule was accompanied by an assurance that the families of the ruling monarchs at the time would be permitted to maintain specific private properties. Additionally, they would receive a grant either through hereditary means or a government allowance. This grant was termed the "privy purse." During the accession phase, these privileges were met with little criticism, as the central objective was the integration and consolidation of territories.

However, the concept of hereditary privileges clashed with the foundational principles of equality and social and economic justice enshrined in the Constitution of India. Nehru consistently voiced his dissatisfaction with this matter. Subsequent to the 1967 elections, Indira Gandhi advocated for the elimination of privy purses by the government. Morarji Desai, on the other hand, opposed this move, considering it morally improper and a violation of trust.