In the process of colonizing India, British colonialism wiped out all the local governors who dared to resist themselves, while the local governors who supported the British colonists were protected and utilized. After all, Britain had not colonized India as its backyard at that time, so Britain was only a simple colonial act in India at that time. They only care about two things, one is to get the maximum benefit, and the other is to rule at the lowest cost. And the disposal of local state princes fully conforms to these two basic principles.
For those princes who were protected and used, until Britain decided to use India as its back garden.
From 1848 to 1856, Lord Dalhousie, then governor of India, expelled many royal families of the native states and plundered their land wealth and people. However, it also directly led to the Indian uprising in 1857. Of course, later Indian historians (non-Indians) thought that this was a military uprising initiated by a group of indigenous princes who were hurt by the British and took advantage of the contradiction between the colonists and the Indian people. However, the riots at that time only occurred in northern India, and governors from other places turned to support Britain and even provided a lot of help. Finally, the army riot was successfully suppressed, and this riot also successfully changed Britain's colonial policy towards India.
The change of British colonial policy was because the colonial authority of the East India Company was cut, and the British royal family directly managed India. According to the changed colonial policy, British India consists of 550 native states and colonies directly controlled by Britain. The surviving maharaja became the ruling foundation of British India. The king of England is also the king of India. So the local princes did not disappear, as many as 550, just obeying British rule.