Great Britain and India

Problem of Indian States

The purpose of this page is to ventilate that moderate Indian opinion which, recognizing all the difficulties, yet believes in the continued association of Great Britain and India within the loose framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We hope to include contributions from leading figures of the various sections of responsible opinion, Hindu,

Moslem, and the Indian States. .

[Sir Albion Banerji, C.S.I., C.I .E., served as Dewan, or Prime Minister, in Cochin and Mysore, and more recently acted as For- eign and Political Minister of Kashmir, so that he speaks with authority on the Native States.—En. Spectator.]

TUB Viceroy, in his speeches to both Houses of the Legislature at Simla the other day, announced his intention of discussing the future constitution of India with the ruling Princes and the representatives of the States. It is a matter of common knowledge that neither the Princes nor their State-subjects

regard the proposals made in the Harcourt-Butler Con 'ttee Report and the Simon Commission Report with any enthusi- asm. With due deference to the pronouncements made in these two historic documents it is to be stated that the main problem connected with the Indian States has been only partially investigated, and we are no nearer to a satisfactory solution than when the Montagu-Chelmsford Report was written. In the concluding chapter of that famous report, the joint authors drew a picture of India as a sisterhood of self-governing States, including Indian States. To-day, although by common consensus of opinion any constitutional change for British India must have due regard for the position to he assigned to Indian States in their relationship with British India, neither the Butler Committee nor the Simon Commission have suggested any clear-cut scheme for the purpose.

Sir Reginald Craddoek's Dilemma in India expressed the thought of a particular school amongst the leading pro- Consuls, that self-governing institutions of a democratic nature are just as unsuited to the people of the States as to the people of British India, and although the ruling Princes say that they welcome democracy for British India, they do so because they do not wish to be thought antiquated despots and believe that they would gain Parliamentary support by appearing enlightened and anxious for democracy over the way. This school of political thought has never ceased to emphasize the principle of holding British India and Indian States together under British control.

It is quite clear to those who have carefully followed the trend of events in India as a whole, that an attempt is now being made to solve the Indian States problem by adhering, as far as possible, to the aforesaid principle. Take, for ex- ample, the recommendation of the Butler Committee, which proposes the Viceroy and not the Governor-General in Council as the agent in. all dealings with the Indian States, with advisory committees to be appointed by him, representing both Indias when interests clash, making the Secretary of State for India the final authority. The Simon Commission, while admitting that the " States cannot be compelled to come into closer relationship with British India than exists at the present time," has only expressed the pious hope that a new constitution " should provide an open door whereby, when it seems good to them, the ruling Princes may enter on just and reasonable terms."

A faint outline, indicated in paragraph 22 of the Simon Commission Report, of u Federation for all India, leaves matters very much as they are, especially in view of the exten- sion of powers to be centred in the Viceroy as the head of the Central Government, who is expected to assume a personal control over the two Indias, one of which is to be democratic, and the other autocratic in regard to their internal form of administration.

For any kind of Federation, as the Simon Commission have clearly indicated, there must be a federal legislature, a federal executive, and a federal finance, and none of these has been made a part of their scheme for the future con- stitution of India, the only practical suggestion being the creation of a standing consultative body to be called tie Council for Greater India. I would like to indicate the main difficulties that will stand in the way.

The present-day problem in regard to Indian States is not merely that of defining the status of the Indian Princes with reference to the paramount power, but chiefly, if not entirely, the adjustment of relations between the Government of British India and that of the Indian States, irrespective of the constitutional position of the agent which conducts such government. The position and status of Indian Princes; however important, should not be allowed to obscure the greater issue, namely, the larger interests of the States themselves.

The reforms that have been introduced in British India and those hereafter to be introduced cannot but create a keen desire on the part of the subjects of the Princes to take a larger share in the administration of their country. The conflict between the autocratic power and the personal rule of the Princes in the majority of the States and the necessity of so reforming their governments as to allow the transfer of at least part of their authority to constitutional agencies, is perhaps keener to-day than it has ever been in the past.

In developing the federal idea, the Simon Commission do not appear to have considered the differences between the individual position of the Princes and their Governments. In other words, in a scheme of federation with British Indian provinces, which will be autonomous, it will be the States that will be the corresponding units and not the Princes. His Highness the Maharaja of Bikanir, in a speech delivered after the October pronouncements of the Viceroy, did in a sense recognize these differences when he stated that " Federation is a word which has no terrors for the Princes and Governments of the States." If there is to be a federal union, it has to be with a big State or a group of States, and the main difficulty will be how individual sovereignty of the Princes within their States can be included.

My own view is that, as matters stand at present, Federation between the British provinces and the Indian States is impossible, and can only be regarded as a practical proposition when the Princes divest themselves of individual sovereignty and introduce Constitutional reforms in the government of their territories. Are we therefore to wait an indefinite period and allow the two Indies to run along their own lines of advance, and is it possible to make the Viceroy the chief central authority for the Indian States and the Governor- General a similar functionary in relation to British India ? There will be insuperable difficulties in concentrating both the functions in one and the same person, and a time may arrive, as soon as Dominion Status is granted, when there will be two such central authorities, one, that is the Constitutional outcome of the democratic form of government, namely, the Prime Minister responsible to the legislature, and the other the Viceroy, who should remain as the representative of the Crown, as in the Dominions, and continue his present functions with reference to the Princes and their States. Upon these considerations a federal executive cannot at present be established, including the Indian States and the sovereignty of the Princes ; a federal legislature is out of the question, and it naturally follows that any agreement on federal finance is not within the range of practical politics.

Having before us the examples of failure in the attempts made in the past history of India both by Hindu and Mohammedan kingdoms towards over-centralization, great caution is needed at the present time, and unless and until the Indian States problem is further investigated and the Princes and their States constitutionally represented in a Royal Commission for the presentation of their case in regard to this vital question, it is far better to leave them and their States alone and to take up the question of Constitutional reform in British India separately as was done on the previous occasion a decade ago. The Princes would be ill advissd to throw themselves into the vortex of political controversy at the Round Table Conference next autumn.

ALBION BANELJI.