move Bajranggarh to indian states and make Bajranggarh feudator

Hello,

I have just noticed this error to be corrected

No, Bajrangarh

was not a British princely state before the loss of the Marathas in 1818; it was an independent, short-lived state that was actively resisting Gwalior's Maratha expansion. The sequence of events was:

• Before 1818: Bajrangarh was an independent principality ruled by Raja Jai Singh, who even issued his own currency as a sign of sovereignty. It was, however, engaged in ongoing conflict with the Scindia ruler Daulat Rao Scindia, who aimed to incorporate the small state into Gwalior. A Gwalior general had even captured the fort in 1816.
• During/After 1818: The Third Anglo-Maratha War ended with a decisive British victory over the Maratha Confederacy. Gwalior was forced to accept British suzerainty (paramountcy) through treaties, effectively becoming a British princely state (or "puppet," as the user puts it).
• Aftermath: It was the British who, through mediation in 1819, resolved the succession dispute in Bajrangarh and formalized its status not as an independent princely state, but as a feudatory of Gwalior. 

1)

move Bajranggarh princely state to indian_states

here  are the examples to modify:

 Rupee - Jai Singh 
 

2)

also create the new sub issuer  Bajranggarh feudatory under gwalior_princely_states

here  are the examples to modify:

Rupee - Ajit Singh (Bajranggarh, Gwalior feudatory)

@Jarcek @tdziemia @sujit_kumar can we finish this, thanks 

Normally in other parts of the world, we would have one place, Bajranggarh, and we would have two periods, one to cover its existence as an independent state, and another to cover it being a feudatoy of Gwalior.  

If we handle it this way, we would move the issuer Bajranggarh to Indian_states as you suggest (we remove “Princely State of” from its name). Then we would add these ruling authrities:

Jai Singh 1798-1818

Gwalior Feudatory (period) 1819-1857

Ajt Singh 1819-1857 

yes this can be done for complex issuers like this one