it wouldn't be decolonizing without keeping the european monarch??
Also, the issue with indian nawabs and prices is that they were the ones who gave up their country to the british. People would always have this though that the back of their heads that the nawabs would give up the country again.
The Maharaja of Kashmir and the Hyderabadi regime attempted independence and the first would have succeeded
This would not be a common idea in the era of decolonization and is in fact an idea mostly planted by the Indian Congress and the Muslim League to legitimize themselves.
(With some truth in the case of Murshidabad being a descendant of the one who betrayed Siraj-ud-Dawla, the Nawab of Bengal)
(And the fact that population exchange made the populations of the two countries less attached to the princely states, which facilitated their abolition)
More Indian princely states would have become independent if some things had gone differently
(Tripura, Khanate of Kalat, Kashmir, Travancore, Mysore are more likely if the collapse of the Raj went differently and less peaceful because their people did not hate them and in the case of Kashmir geography helps in that)
It could have helped the collapse of the British Raj during 1943 or 1944
(Subhas Bose is more successful with Japan, smarter and less crazy, to give some princely states the option to go their own way when the Raj collapses inland.)
Or, for example, a crushing Indian victory in the Indo-Pakistan war left Pakistan dead
(With Khan granting Qalat independence and becoming King of Balochistan, Afghans grant Pashtun lands and support independence of Dogra Kashmir)