No More Learning

THE CENTO
On 17 September, 1955, Pakistan became a member of the
Baghdad Pact and even when its name was changed to Central
Treaty Organisation, she continued to be its member. Pakistan is
also a member of the SEATO. Pakistan has very cordial relations
with Iran and no wonder Iran gave a lot of military help to Pakis-
tan before or after the Indo-Pak war in September, 1965. The
relations between India and Pakistan have always been strained.
An atmosphere of cordiality is more an exception than the rule.
After the partition of India and the establishment of Pakistan,
many disputes arose between the two countries and those have not
been satisfactorily solved. A lot of ill-will was created between
the two countries on account of the wholesale killings on both the
sides after 15 August, 1947. In October, 1947, Pakistan attacked
Kashmir and as the latter acceded to India, Indian forces were
sent to the valley and the raiders were turned out. The Indus
Basin Water Dispute strained the relations between the two coun-
tries for some time but the matter was settled by the Indus Waters
Treaty signed by the two Governments on 19 September, 1960.
Prime Minister Nehru himself went to Pakistan to sign the treaty.
In spite of this treaty, the relations between two countries did not
improve. When India was attacked by China in 1962, Pakistan
showed her sympathy towards China and would have been willing
to attack India if the circumstances so permitted. In August 1965,
Pakistan sent her infiltrators into Kashmir and ultimately attacked


## p. 900 (#944) ############################################

900
PAKISTAN
the Chhamb area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She was
able to conquer some territory. The Indian armies opened the
Lahore front and then through the good offices of the Soviet Union
and the United Nations, a cease-fire was ordered. President Ayub
Khan and Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri went to Tashkent
and on 10 January 1966, the famous Tashkent declaration was
made under the signatures of President Ayub Khan and Lal Bahadur
Shastri. India and Pakistan declared their firm resolve to restore
normal and peaceful relations between their countries and to pro-
mote understanding and friendly relations between their peoples.
It was agreed that the armed personnel of the two countries would
withdraw not later than 25 February, 1966 to the positions they
held prior to 5 August, 1965. The relations between the two
countries were to be based on the principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of each other. Both sides were to discourage pro-
paganda directed against the other country and were to encourage
propaganda which promoted the development of friendly relations
between the two countries. Prisoners of war were to be repatriated.
In spite of the Tashkent Declaration, the relations between the two
countries are not happy.
In a way, Pakistan has been able to place herself in a very strong
position. She is a friend of Great Britain. She can rely upon both
.
economic and military assistance from the United States. She is
also receiving economic and military assistance from the Soviet
Union. She has the most intimate relations with Red China. It
appears that all the Great Powers of the world are out to win the
goodwill of Pakistan.


## p. 901 (#945) ############################################

CHAPTER XXXVII
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
BEFOI
EFORE the independence of India, there were a large number of
,
Indian States. Some of them like Hyderabad, Mysore and Kashmir
were very big while others were very small covering an area of
only a few square miles. Those States were in various stages of
development. Some States like Mysore were so much advanced
that they could compare with any province of British India. There
were others which were governed by autocratic rulers and the
people had no voice in the administration. Some of the States
were the personal property of the Chief. The revenue of some
States ran to crores of rupees while that of some was not more than
a few lakhs. Some of them were in a very backward condition.
However, the Government of India exercised its paramountcy over
all of them through its Political Department. Whatever their own
position in their own States, all the Indian Rulers were under the
thumb of the Political Department. The latter exercised its con-
trol in various ways. Any advice given by the Political Depart-
ment was a command for the rulers. The Government of India
claimed the right to control and use of all titles, honours and salutes
of the rulers of the Indian States. No ruler could accept any
foreign title without the consent of the British Government. Any
ruler could be deposed or forced to abdicate. The Government of
India asserted its right of wardship over minor princes including the
right to control their education. It had the power of establishing a
regency whenever a prince was a minor or he was temporarily sus-
pended or permanently exiled from the State. The subjects of the
Indian States had to apply to the Government of India for passports
to go out of India. The Government of India had complete con-
trol over the issue of all licences for arms and ammunitions. The
appointments of Diwans, Chief Ministers and other important offi-
cials of the Indian States had to be approved by the Political De-
partment. The Government of India also had the right to entertain
petitions from the subjects of the Indian States against their rulers.
However, it interfered only when things reached a critical stage.
No Indian Ruler could employ any European without the consent
of the British Government.
CHAMBER OF PRINCES
The authors of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report were of the


## p. 902 (#946) ############################################

902
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
view that time had come to end the isolation of the Indian rulers
and something should be done to provide for joint consultations
and discussions by them for the furtherance of their common in-
terests. It is true that Lord Lytton had, at one time, suggested
.
the formation of an Imperial Privy Council consisting of the rulers
of Indian States but his suggestion had not been accepted. The
same was true of the suggestion of Lord Curzon for the formation
of a Council of ruling Princes. The proposal of Lord Minto to
set up an Advisory Council of Indian rulers and big landlords to
combat the nationalist movement in the country had not been acce-
pted. During the regimes of Lord Hardinge and Lord Chelms-
ford, conferences of Indian rulers were pretty regular and the
Montagu-Chelmsford Report recommended that those conferences
should be replaced by a permanent body known as the Council of
Princes which would give the Indian rulers “the opportunity of
informing the Government as to their sentiments and wishes, of
broadening their outlook and of conferring with one another and
with the Government of India. ” Another recommendation was that
the Council of Princes should annually appoint a Small Standing
Committee to advise the Political Department on matters affecting
the States. The Government of India consulted the Indian rulers
with regard to the above recommendations and ultimately the
Chamber of Princes was set up on 8 February, 1921 by a Royal
Proclamation. The ceremony of its inauguration was performed
by the Duke of Connaught on behalf of the King-Emperor in the
Diwan-i-Am of the Red Fort in Delhi. A passage in the Procla-
mation was in these words:
“My Viceroy will take its counsel freely in matters relating to
the territories of Indian States generally and in matters that
affect these territories jointly with British India or with the
rest of my Empire. It will have no concern with the internal
affairs of individual States or their Rulers or with the relations
of individual States with my Government, while the existing
rights of these States and their freedom of action will in no
way be prejudiced or impaired. ”
The Chamber of Princes consisted of 120 princes in all. Out
of those, 12 members represented 127 states and the remaining 108
were members in their own right. About 327 states were given
no representation at all. Some important Indian rulers did not
join it. Ordinarily, the Chamber of Princes met once a year
,
and was presided over by the Viceroy. It elected its own Chan-
cellor who presided over its meeting in the absence of the Viceroy.
The Chancellor was the President of the Standing Committee of
the Chamber of Princes. The Standing Committee met twice or


## p. 903 (#947) ############################################

THE BUTLER COMMITTEE REPORT
903
thrice a year at Delhi to discuss the important questions facing the
Indian States. Every year the Standing Committee submitted its
report to the Chamber of Princes. The princes also had informal
conferences among themselves when they went to Delhi to attend
the session.
The Chamber of Princes was deliberative, consultative, and ad-
visory body. Its importance has been stated by the Simon Com-
mission Report in these words: “The establishment of the Chamber
of Princes marks an important stage in the development of relations
between the Crown and the States, for it involves a definite breach
in an earlier policy, according to which it was rather the aim of
the Crown to discourage joint action and joint consultation bet-
ween the Indian States and to treat each State as an isolated unit
apart from its neighbours. That principle, indeed, has already been
giving place to the idea of conference and co-operation amongst
the ruling princes of India, but this latter conception was not em-
bodied in permanent shape until the Chamber of Princes was es-
tablished. The Chamber has enabled thorough interchange of
views to take place on weighty matters concerning relationship of
the States with the Crown and concerning other points of contact
with British India. "
THE BUTLER COMMITTEE
On 16 December, 1927, Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for
India, appointed a committee of 3 members, viz. Sir Harcourt
Butler, Prof. W. S. Holdsworth and the Hon'ble S. C. Peel to en-
quire into the relationship between the Indian States and the par-
amount power and to make suggestions for the more satisfactory
adjustment of the existing economic relations between the Indian
States and British India. Sir Harcourt was the Chairman of the
Committee. He and his colleagues came to India in January 1928
and visited 16 States. The proceedings of the Committee were
held in camera. The Committee did not examine the represen-
tatives of the people of the Indian States on the ground that that
was not within their terms of reference. However, they accepted a
written statement from the All-India States People's Conference.
However, most of the work of the Committee was done in England,
where the Indian rulers did their level best to put forward their
point of view before the Committee.
According to the recommendations of the Butler Committee, the
Viceroy and not the Governor-General-in-Council should be the
agent of the Crown in dealing with the states. The relations
between the Crown and the Princes should not be transferred


## p. 904 (#948) ############################################

904
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
without the consent of the princes to a new Government in British
India responsible to the legislature. The scheme regarding the
creation of a State Council should be rejected. Intervention in
the administration of a state should be left to the decision of the
Viceroy. Special Committees should be appointed to enquire into
disputes that may arise between the states and British India. A
Committee should be appointed to enquire into the financial rela-
tions between the Indian States and British India. There should
be separatte recruitment and training of political officers drawn
from the Universities of England.
The authors of the Butler Committee Report enunciated the
theory of direct relationship between the Indian States and the
British Crown. It was contended that the relationship of the
Indian States was not with the Government of India but with the
British Crown. This theory was put forward with a view to set-
ting up a “Chinese Wall” between British India and the Indian
states. As a mater of fact, the theory of direct relationship was
.
being gradually evolved from 1917 when the famous August Dec-
laration was made to give India responsible Government by stages.
Its first sign was to be seen in the transfer of the relationship of
Indian States from the provinces to the Central Government. In
an inspired letter, the Maharaja of Indore wrote that "His High-
ness's treaty relations are with the Viceroy as a representative of
His Majesty, the King Emperor. ” With “autonomous Govern-
Inent, British India can but occupy with regard to Indore the posi-
tion of a sister state like Gwalior or Hyderabad each absolutely
independent of the other and having His Majesty's Government as
the connecting link between the two. ” The theory of direct re-
lationship was also advocated by Dr. A. B. Keith and Sir Leslie
Scott. According to Dr. Keith, “It is important to note that the
relations of the Indian States, however conducted, are essentially
relations with the Crown and not with the Indian Government and
that this fact presents an essential complication as regards the es-
tablishment of responsible Government in India. It is clear that
it is not possible for the Crown to transfer its rights under a treaty
without the assent of the Native States to the Government of
India under responsible Government. ”
Sir Leslie Scott was an eminent lawyer and he was engaged by
the Standing Committee of the Chamber of Princes to respresent
them before the Butler Committee. In an article contributed to
the Law Quarterly Review, Sir Leslie laid down five propositions,
some of which might be accepted as true, others palpably false and
advanced to perpetuate British stranglehold of India and to keep
the States out of a united constitution for ever. Two of these


## p. 905 (#949) ############################################

THE BUTLER COMMITTEE REPORT
905
were that the contracts or treaties between the Princes and the
Crown were between two sovereigns and not between the Com-
pany and the Government of British India, and that the Princes
in making those contracts or treaties gave their confidence to the
British Crown and the Crown could not assign the contracts or
treaties to any concerned party. The British Government, as par-
amount power, had undertaken the defence of all States and to
remain in India with whatever military and naval forces might be
requisite to enable it to discharge that obligation. The British
Government could not hand over those forces to any other Govern-
ment, to a foreign power such as France or Japan, or even to
British India. The Indian Princes were very much pleased with
the theory which was intended to help them to exclude themselves
from the control of the Government of India when it came into
the hands of the Indians.
The recommendations of the Butler Committee were criticised by
the Indians from all walks of public life. The view of C. Y.
Chintamani was: “The Butler Committee was bad in its origin, bad
in the time chosen for its appointment, bad in its terms of reference,
bad in its personnel and bad in its line of inquiry, while its report
is bad in reasoning and bad in its conclusions. ” The view of Sir
M. Visvesvaryya was: “In the Butler Committee Report, there is
no hint of a future for the Indian States' people. Their proposals
are unsympathetic, unhistorical, hardly constitutional or legal. . . .
There is no modern conception in their outlook. Certainly nothing
to inspire trust or hope. "
Criticising the Butler Committee Report, the Nehru Committee
pointed out that "an attempt is being made to convert the Indian
States into an Indian Ulster by pressing constitutional theories into
service” and gave the following warning: "It is inconceivable that
the people of the States who are fired by the same ambitions and
aspirations as the people of British India would quietly submit to
existing conditions for ever, or that the people of British India bound
by the closest ties of family, race and religion to their brethren on
the other side of an imaginary line will never make common cause
with them. "
The rulers of the Indian States were also disappointed with the
findings of the Butler Committee with regard to the unfettered dis-
çretion of the Political Department in its relations with Indian
States. They had been hoping that they would be given more
independence from the Political Department.
On the occasion of the First Round Table Conference held in
London in 1930, the Indian Princes accepted the proposal for the
creation of an All-India Federation in which both British India


## p. 906 (#950) ############################################

906
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
Provinces and the Indian States were to be brought together. On
the first day of the plenary session of the Conference, Sir Tej Baha-
dur Sapru declared himself decisively for a federal system of Gov-
ernment at the Centre and he invited the Indian rulers to agree to
the creation of an All-India Federation. His contention was that
the Indian rulers would be a stabilising factor in the federal set up
and their adherence would enable the process of national unifica-
tion to begin without delay. British India would benefit from
their experience in the matter of defence. Sir Mohd. Shafi and
M. A. Jinnah welcomed the idea of an All-India Federation. The
Maharaja of Bikaner identified himself with the aspirations of
British India “with passion for an equal status in the eyes of the
world, expressed in the desire for dominion status which is the
dominant force amongst all thinking Indians to-day. ” He gave an
assurance that the Indian rulers would come in provided their
rights were guaranteed. The Nawab of Bhopal declared: “We
can only federate with a self-governing and federal British India. ”
The Indian National Congress had not been represented in the
first Round Table Conference and consequently, an attempt was
made soon after the first Round Table Conference to come to a
compromise with the Congress which was carrying on the Civil
Disobedience Movement. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed in
March 1931 and Gandhiji attended the Second Round Table Con-
ference on behalf of the Congress. Gandhiji was not opposed to
the federal idea but he was against dyarchy at the centre even for
the transitional period. He asked for complete control over def-
ence and external affairs. He stood for full responsible Govern-
ment at the centre. That demand was not accepted by the British
.
Government. At the end of the Second Round Table Conference,
Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald declared: “The great idea of
an all-India federation still holds the field. The principle of a res-
ponsible federal government, subject to certain reservations and
safeguards through a transition period, remains unchanged. And
we are all agreed that the Governors' provinces of the future are to
be responsibly governed units, enjoying the greatest possible mea-
sure of freedom from outside interference and dictation in carrying
out their own policies in their own sphere. "
The Third Round Table Conference met in 1932 but it was not
attended by any important Indian ruler. The Viceroy was asked
to explain to the individual rulers the federal scheme and secure
some indication of their views in order to prepare a favourable
atmosphere for the reception of the White Paper which the British
Government intended to publish concerning the constitutional pro-
posals. In March, 1933, the White Paper containing the propo-


## p. 907 (#951) ############################################

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT & INDIAN STATES 907
sals of the British Government with regard to India was published
and in April, 1933, a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of
Parliament was appointed to consider the future Government of
India with special reference to the White Paper proposals. The
Committee was given the authority to consult delegates from Bri-
tish India and Indian States. The Joint Select Committee submit-
ted its Report in October, 1934. In December, 1934, a Bill based
on the Joint Select Committee's Report was introduced. The
Chamber of Princes appointed a Committee to examine the Gov-
ernment of India Bili. The Committee suggested a number of
amendments and alterations. Those suggestions were thoroughly
examined by the Secretary of State for India. On 4th August,
1935, the Government of India Bill received the Royal assent.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935
The Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a federal form
of Government for the whole of India. Under that Act, the Indian
States were given more representation in the federal legislature than
was due to them on the basis of their population and area.
While
250 seats were allotted to British India, the Indian States got 125
seats. In the Council of State, the Indian States were given the
right to send 104 members out of a total of 260 members. While
the representatives from the provinces were to be elected, those
from the States were to be nominated by the rulers of the States
concerned. While the inclusion of the provinces into the federa-
tion was to be automatic or compulsory, the Indian States were
given the option to join the federation or not. While the control
of the federal Government over the provinces was to be uniform,
it was to vary in the case of Indian States according to the terms
of the Instrument of Accession signed by the particular ruler at
the time of joining the federation and accepted by the Crown.
A critical examination shows that the Indian States were given
more representation than was due to them on the basis of their
area, population or resources. Moreover, they were given the
option to join or not to join the federation. The Joint Select Com-
mittee's Report gave the following reasons for treating the provin-
ces and the Indian States differently: “The main difficulties are
two: that the Indian States are wholly different in status and cha-
racter from the Provinces of British India, and that they are not
prepared to federate on the same terms as it is proposed to apply
to the Provinces. On the first point, the Indian States, unlike the
British Indian Provinces, possess sovereignty in various degrees and
they are, broadly speaking, under a system of personal government.


## p. 908 (#952) ############################################

908
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
Their accession to a Federation cannot, therefore, take place other-
wise than by the voluntary act of the ruler of each State, and after
accession the representatives of the acceding State in the Federal
Legislature will be nominated by the ruler and its subjects will
continue to owe allegiance to him. On the second point the rulers
have made it clear that while they are willing to consider Federa-
tion now with the Provinces of British India on certain terms, they
could not, as sovereign States, agree to the exercise by a Federal
Government in relation to them of a range of powers identical to
the Provinces on whom autonomy has yet to be conferred. ”
Lord Linlithgow succeeded Lord Willingdon in 1936. He came
to India with the determination to inaugurate the Federation dur-
ing his tenure of office. His view was that a direct personal ap-
proach to the Indian rulers would help him to persuade most of
them to join the Federation. It was with that object in view that
he sent his emissaries to the rulers of the Indian States. Those emis-
saries were provided with draft copies of Instrument of Accession
and written instructions from the Viceroy. The three emissaries
to the various States met the Indian Rulers and their Advisers. As
a result of the talks, it became clear that what was worrying the
Indian rulers was not whether the proposed Federation would en-
able them to contribute to the glory of India as a whole but whether
their own position would be better and safer inside the Federation
than outside it. Their attitude could be summed up in these
words: “We are being given the opportunity of entering a federa-
tion from which, when once we are in, there is no escape. Nor,
since the ultimate interpreter of the federal constitution is the Fede-
ral Court, can the Government of India or anyone else predict the
course of future events or anticipate the use which federation will
make of its powers. We owe it, therefore, to ourselves and to our
successors to safeguard to the utmost our own position inside the
federation. That is the light in which you must regard the limita-
tions which we have proposed, and if they seem unduly numerous
and too widely drawn, remember that we have good reason for
making them so. "
It is true that Lord Linlithgow was very serious about his work,
but the Political Department of the Government of India was creat-
ing hurdles in the way by putting emphasis on the loss which the
rulers were to incur as a result of joining the Federation. Although
many concessions were offered to the Indian rulers, they could not
be persuaded to join the federation. While all this was happen-
ing, the Second World War broke out in September, 1939.
On
11 September, 1939, Lord Linlithgow declared that while Federa-
tion remained, as before, the objective of His Majesty's Government,


## p. 909 (#953) ############################################

CRIPPS AND INDIAN STATES
909
“the compulsion of the present international situation and the fact
that, given the necessity for concentrating on the emergency that
confronts us, we have no choice but to hold in suspense the work in
connection with preparations for Federation. ”
In August, 1940, Lord Linlithgow put forward certain proposals
on behalf of His Majesty's Government with a view to securing the
co-operation of the people of India. One of the proposals was to
set up a War Advisory Council containing the representatives of
British India and the Indian States. However, the so-called August
offer was rejected by the Congress.
In March, 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps came to India with certain
proposals on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to
the future set-up in the country. In one of his interviews, Sir
Stafford stated that it was the intention of the British Government
to give full freedom to all provincial units and the Indian States to
come into the new Union or to stay out. Moreover the British
Government did not intend to stay in India unless the Indian people
wanted them in their own interest to stay and except to the extent
that it might be unavoidable for the fulfilment of the British Gov-
ernment's Treaty obligations to the non-adhering States. On 10
April, 1942, the Indian States' delegation met and adopted the fol-
lowing resolution which was conveyed to Sir Stafford: "The Indian
States will be glad as always, in the interest of their motherland,
to make their contribution in every reasonable manner compatible
with the sovereignty and integrity of the States, towards the fram-
ing of a Constitution for India. The States should be assured, how-
ever, that in the event of a number of States not finding it feasible
to adhere, the non-adhering States or groups of States, so desiring,
would have the right to form a union of their own, with full sove-
reign status in accordance with a suitable and agreed procedure
devised for the purpose. '
The Cripps mission was a failure but the rulers of the Indian
States realized after the departure of the mission that their future
was not safe. It was found that if the interests of the Indian States
came into conflict with those of British India, the British Govern-
ment was going to care for British India and not for them.
at this time that Jawaharlal Nehru declared that treaties with the
Indian States must be scrapped and those who talked of those trea-
ties were “lunatics, knaves or fools. ” It was in this atmosphere
that the rulers of the Indian States started devising plans to safe-
guard their own interests in the future. The Nawab of Bhopal
urged upon the Political Department to take all those measures
which were necessary to safeguard their position in the event of
changes taking place in the constitutional set-up in the country.
It was


## p. 910 (#954) ############################################

910
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
In his address to a meeting of the Chamber of Princes held on 17
January, 1946, Lord Wavell assured the Indian Princes that no
changes in their relationship with the Crown or the rights guaran-
teed to them by treaties and engagements would be initiated with-
out their consent. However, he impressed upon the rulers the
necessity of placing their administration on modern lines for the
welfare of their subjects which could be done only by ensuring that
all States fulfilled the three fundamental criteria of good Govern-
ment: political stability, adequate financial resources, and effective
association of the people with the administration. The Viceroy
asked the rulers of the smaller States to pool their resources and
form political entities of a sufficient size.
On 19 February, 1946, Prime Minister Attlee announced the
decision of the British Cabinet to send three Cabinet Ministers to
India. On 15 March, 1946, he referred to the Indian States in
the British Parliament in these words: “I hope that the statesmen
of British India and of Princely India will be able to work out a
solution of the problem of bringing together, in one great policy,
these disparate constituent parts. There again, we must see that
the Indian States find their due place; there can be no positive
veto on advance and I do not believe for a moment that the Indian
Princes would desire to be a bar to the forward march of India.
But, as in the case of many other problems, this is a matter that
Indians will settle themselves. ”
In his interview with the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy held
on 2 April, 1946, the Nawab of Bhopal pointed out that the Indian
States wanted to continue their existence with the maximum degree
of sovereignty. They desired no interference in their internal affairs
by British India. He suggested the formation of a Privy Council
of the Indian States of British India. The Nawab urged that para-
mountcy should not be transferred to an Indian Government in the
event of India becoming independent. In the same afternoon,
Lord Pethick-Lawrence and the other members of the Cabinet Mis-
sion met the Standing Committee of the Chamber of Princes. The
rulers were told that if British India became independent, para-
mountcy would end. The British Government did not contem-
plate keeping any troops in India for the maintenance of internal
order. The Crown would not be in a position to carry out its
treaty obligations and hence the Indian States would also be releas-
ed from their obligations under their treaties.
On 16 May, 1946, the Cabinet Mission announced its proposals
with regard to the future set-up of India. About the States, it was
declared that with the attainment of independence by British India,
whether within or without the British Commonwealth, the relation-


## p. 911 (#955) ############################################

CABINET MISSION AND INDIAN STATES
911
ship which had hitherto existed between the Indian States and the
British Crown would come to an end. Paramountcy could neither
be retained by the British nor transferred to the new Government.
It was pointed out that the rulers had given an assurance to the
Mission that they were ready and willing to co-operate in the new
development of India. The form of co-operation was to depend
upon the result of negotiations between the Indian States and the
future Government of India. In their broadcast on 16 May, 1946,
both the Secretary of State for India and Sir Stafford Cripps made
only casual references to the States. They asserted that para-
mountcy could not be handed over to any one and hence it must
cease. They left the future relationship between the States and
British India for negotiations.
On 22 May, 1946, the Cabinet Mission published a Memoran-
dum on States' Treaties and Paramountcy. It was pointed out
in that Memorandum that when a new fully self-governing or
independent Government or Governments came into being in Bri-
tish India, the influence of His Majesty's Government with those
Governments would not be such as to enable them to carry out the
cbligations of paramountcy. The British Government had no in-
tention of keeping British troops in India for that purpose. The
result was that paramountcy would come to an end. The existing
political arrangements between the States on the one hand and the
British Crown and British India on the other were to come to an
end. The void was to be filled up by the States entering into a
federal relationship with the successor Government or Governments
in British India. The Memorandum referred to the desirability of
the States forming or joining administrative units large enough to
enable them to be fitted into the constitutional structure.
On 17 May, 1946, the Nawab of Bhopal asked for certain clarifi-
cations from Lord Wavell, particularly regarding the independence
of the Indian States. The reply of Lord Wavell was that the
settlement of most of the matters raised by the Nawab did not rest
with him or the Cabinet Mission as they related to the terms which
the States were free to negotiate for their own association with the
new constitutional structure. To the Nawab, the letter of Lord
Wavell was disappointing and he wrote to him again asserting that
the States were entitled to claim that the Crown should not leave them
at the mercy of British India. He pointed out that it could never be
the intention of His Majesty's Government to leave the States as "a
sort of no man's child” without any effort on the part of the Crown
to protect their legitimate and reasonable rights and claims. The
reply of Lord Wavell was that he appreciated the anxiety of the
Nawab but he could not help him in the matter and he asked him


## p. 912 (#956) ############################################

912
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
to discuss the matter with Sir Conrad Corfield, the Political Advi-
ser to the Government of India. The view of Sir Conrad was that
the decision regarding the lapse of paramountcy at the end of the
interim period placed the Indian States in the best bargaining posi-
tion possible for the purpose of fitting themselves in the future
constitutional structure. He advised the States to set up a Nego-
tiating Committee to settle the terms on which they would be pre-
pared to participate in the discussions of the Constituent Assembly.
He gave a promise of help to the Indian States by the Political
Department during the interim period.
It was under these circumstances that the Standing Committee
of the Chamber of Princes set up a Negotiating Committee and
authorised the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes to arrange
discussions with the corresponding body of the British Indian Con-
stituent Assembly as contemplated by the Cabinet Mission. It was
on 21 December, 1946 that the Constituent Assembly passed a reso-
lution appointing a Negotiating Committee to negotiate with the
Negotiating Committee set up by the Indian States. Speaking on
the resolution, Jawaharlal Nehru declared: “I regret, I say frankly,
, I I
that we have to meet the Rulers' Negotiating Committee. I think
that, on the part of the States, there should have been on the
Negotiating Committee representatives of the people of the States.
I think even now that the Negotiating Committee, if it wants to do
the right thing, should include some such representatives; but I
feel that we cannot insist upon this at this stage. ” However, this
had no effect on the Indian Princes.
On 20 February, 1947, Prime Minister Attlee declared in the
House of Commons that the British Government would transfer
power to responsible Indian hands not later than June, 1948. With
regard to the States, he observed: “As was explicitly stated by the
Cabinet Mission, His Majesty's Government do not intend to hand
over their powers and obligations under paramountcy to any Gov-
ernment of British India. It is not intended to bring paramountcy,
as a system, to a conclusion earlier than the date of the final trans-
fer of power, but it is contemplated that for the intervening period,
the relations of the Crown with individual States may be adjusted
by agreement. "
This announcement introduced an element of urgency and
Jawaharlal Nehru contended that it would be to the advantage of
the States if their representatives joined the Constituent Assembly
during the April Session. The Nawab of Bhopal who was the
Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, pointed out the difficulty to
do so without a meeting of the Indian rulers for that purpose. It
was, however, decided that 50% of the States representatives should


## p. 913 (#957) ############################################

ATTITUDE OF STATES TOWARDS FREE INDIA 913
be elected and efforts should be made to increase the elected quota
as far as possible. Jawaharlal Nehru also invited the representa-
tives of the States to function forthwith on some of the Committees
set up by the Constituent Assembly, particularly the Union Powers
Committee and the Fundamental Rights Committee. However,
the attitude of the Chancellor was that he could not arrive at any
decision without consulting the General Conference of the rulers.
There arose differences between the Chancellor of the Chamber
of Princes and the Maharaja of Bikaner. The Maharaja did not
approve of the policy of “Wait-and-see" adopted by the Chancel-
lor. He was in favour of the Indian States joining the Constituent
Assembly at once. The lead of the Maharaja of Bikaner was fol-
lowed by the Maharaja of Patiala who issued a public statement
criticising the policy of sitting on the fence. The Chancellor,
Nawab of Bhopal, tried to dissuade the rulers from entering the
Constituent Assembly and even his personal appeals to the rulers
had no effect. On 18 April, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru declared
that any State which did not come into the Constituent Assembly,
would be treated as a hostile State. Such a State would have to
bear the consequences of being so treated. Liaquat Ali Khan, the
leader of the Muslim League in the Central Legislature and the
Cabinet, criticised the statement of Nehru and observed that the
Congress had no right to coerce the States. According to him,
“The States were perfectly within their right in refusing to join the
Constituent Assembly. He appealed to the States to "disregard
the idle threat. " In spite of this, on 28 April, 1947, the representa-
tives of the States of Baroda, Bikaner, Patiala, Jaipur, Cochin and
Rewa took their seats in the Constituent Assembly. After that, one
by one, the other States also started sending their representatives to
the Constituent Assembly.
On 3 June, 1947, Lord Mountbatten announced his plan by
which power was to be transferred into the hands of the Indians
much earlier than June, 1948. However, the policy towards the
Indian States was to be governed by the Cabinet Mission Memo-
randum of 12 May, 1946. The Nawab of Bhopal resigned his
Chancellorship of the Chamber of Princes and stated thus in his
letter of resignation: “Now that Your Excellency has indicated to
us the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the future
of the Indian States, and Bhopal State would, as soon as para-
mountcy is withdrawn, be assuming an independent status, I consi-
der it desirable that I should tender my resignation of the office of
Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes with effect from today.
Another reason for my resignation is that the Chamber, as now
constituted, formed part of a constitutional machinery which, in
>


## p. 914 (#958) ############################################

914
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
my opinion, will now become functus officio. ” In another letter
addressed to the Viceroy, the Nawab observed that “the State of
Bhopal does not wish to remain associated in any manner whatso-
ever with the Chamber of Princes or any of its subordinate organ-
izations. It cannot therefore be represented by the Standing Com-
mittee of that body and will negotiate direct with the successor
Governments of British India in regard to its interests, and its future
political relationship with Pakistan and Hindustan. ” On the resig-
nation of Nawab of Bhopal as Chancellor, the Maharaja of Patiala
became the Chancellor and it must be said to his credit that he
played a very glorious role so far as the higher interests of India
as a whole were concerned and it will be the height of ingratitude
for the people of India to forget the services rendered by him to
his country at that critical moment. There was every possibility
of the division of India into a very large number of independent
States. The rulers had their own armies and the danger was a
very real one. The Maharaja of Patiala threw in his lot with the
Indian Government and all the intrigues of the Political Depart-
ment ultimately came to nothing.
On 11 June, 1947, Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar declared that
the State of Travancore had decided to become an independent
sovereign State. On 12 June, 1947, a similar announcement was
made by the Nizam of Hyderabad. On 15 June, 1947, the All-
India Congress Committee laid down its policy towards the Indian
States. The Princes who had not joined the Indian Constituent
Assembly were invited to do the same and “co-operate in the build-
ing of the constitutional structure of free India in which the States
will be equal and autonomous sharers with other units of the Feder-
ation. ” The Congress also urged the States to hasten progress
towards responsible Government “so as to keep in line with the fast
changing situation in India and at the same time to produce content-
ment and self-reliance in their people”. The Congress rejected
the claim of the Princes to become independent. It claimed for
the people of the States the dominant voice in decisions concerning
them. The Congress Resolution declared that the All-India Con-
gress Committee did not admit the right of any State in India to
declare its independence and to live in isolation from the rest of
India. That would be a denial of the course of Indian history and
of the objectives of the Indian people today. Jawaharlal Nehru
also declared that the claim of the States to independence could not
be sustained as independence did not depend on a mere declar-
ation by a State but rested fundamentally on recognition by other
States. The lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown did not
make the Indian States independent. To quote him, “I should like


## p. 915 (#959) ############################################

INDIAN STATES AFTER JUNE 3 PLAN
915
to say and other countries to know that we shall not recognise the
independence of any State in India, further that any recognition of
any such independence by any Foreign Power will be considered
an unfriendly act. ”
The Indian Independence Act, 1947 was passed by the British
Parliament and it provided that "the suzerainty of His Majesty
over the Indian States lapsed with all its treaties and agreements in
force on that date”. The result was that the Indian States became
completely independent and the Governments of India and Pakistan
were not to inherit the rights and authority of the former Govern-
ment of India over the Indian States. The Act did not attempt a
solution of the problem of the Indian States but left the same to
be tackled by the new Dominions themselves. It appears that the
authors of the Act did not contemplate that the Indian States would
become independent States and thereby disrupt the unity of India.
Sir Hartley W. Shawcross, Attorney-General of England, observ-
ed thus in the British Parliament: "We do not propose to recognise
the States as separate international entities on August 15”.
The Congress was able to tackle the problem of the Indian States
successfully and the credit for that goes to Sardar Patel, Lord
Mountbatten and Mr. V. P. Menon. On the suggestion of Sardar
Patel, the States Ministry was set up and he himself became its
head. An Instrument of Accession was drawn up which was ac-
ceptable to the Princes. They were required to hand over to the
Indian Union only the subjects of defence, foreign relations and
communications. In other matters, their autonomy was to
be
scrupulously respected. Sardar Patel made it clear to the Princes
that it was not the desire of the Congress “to interfere in any
manner in the domestic affairs of the States. " He also appealed
to the patriotism of the Indian Princes thus: “We are at a moment-
ous stage in the history of India. By common endeavour we can
raise the country to a new greatness while lack of unity will expose
us to fresh calamities. I hope the Indian States will bear in mind
that the alternative to co-operation in the general interest is anarchy
and chaos which will overwhelm great and small alike in common
ruin if we are unable to act together in the minimum of common
tasks. Let not the future generations curse us for having had the
opportunity but failed to turn it to our mutual advantage. In-
stead, let it to be our proud privilege to leave a legacy of mutually
beneficial relationship which would raise this Sacred Land to its
proper place among the nations of the world and turn it into an
abode of peace and prosperity. ” Addressing the Chamber of Princes
on 25 July, 1947, Lord Mountbatten also endorsed the appeal of
Sardar Patel and advised the Indian States to accede to one or the


## p. 916 (#960) ############################################

916
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
other of the Dominions before 15 August, 1947. He pointed out
that if nothing was put in the place of co-ordinated administration
that had grown up under the British rule, only chaos would result
and that was bound to hurt the States most. No State could live
in isolation. The subjects which were proposed to be vested in the
Federation were the subjects which the States could not handle
themselves. The States had not administered their external re-
lations or their defence and were not in a position to handle them
in the future. Communications were a means of maintaining the
life-blood of the whole sub-continent. The three subjects were such
which could be left to be handled on their behalf “for their conven-
ience and advantage by a larger organisation. ” Lord Mountbatten
also stressed the factors that were to be taken into consideration by
the States while acceding to any Dominion. “There are certain
geographical compulsions which cannot be evaded. ” “The vast
majority of States were irretrievably linked up with India. ” He
concluded his address thus: “I am not asking any State to make in-
tolerable sacrifice of either its internal autonomy or independence.
My scheme leaves you with all the practical independence that you
can possibly use and make you free of all those subjects which you
cannot possibly manage of your own. You cannot run away from
the Dominion Government which is your neighbour any more than
you can run away from the subjects for whose welfare you
responsible. ”
The net result of all the efforts was that by 15 August 1947, with
the exception of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir, as many as
136 salute and fully jurisdictional States acceded to the Indian
Union. On 15 August, Lord Mountbaten paid the following tri-
bute to Sardar Patel: “Thanks to that far-sighted statesman, Sardar
Vallabhabhai Patel, Minister-in-charge of the States Department, a
scheme was produced which appeared to me to be equally in the
interests of the States as of the Dominion of India. It is a great
triumph for the realism and sense of responsibility of the rulers
and the Governments of the States as well as for the Government
of India that it was possible to produce an Instrument of Acces-
sion, which was equally acceptable to both sides, and one more-
over so simple and straightforward that within less than 3 weeks,
practically all the States concerned had signed the Instrument of
Accession. "
are
JUNAGADH
Junagadh was an important state in the group of the Kathiawar


## p. 917 (#961) ############################################

STATE OF JUNAGADH
917
states. It was bounded by other Indian states except the South
and South-west where the Arabian Sea lies. This state had no
geographical contiguity with Pakistan. The distance between Port
Veraval of Junagadh and Karachi is about 300 miles. The area
of the state was 3,337 square miles and its population according to
the census of 1941 was 6,70,719. More than 80% of the people
were Hindus. There were many islands of the Junagadh state in
the states of Gondal, Bhavnagar and Navanagar. Parts of the
states which had acceded to India were interspersed with Junagadh
territory and access to them was possible only through Junagadh.
The railways and posts and telegraphs of the state were an integral
part of the Indian system. The railway police, telegraphs and
telephones were administerd by the Government of India. The
Nawab of the state lived a life of luxury and his chief pre-occupation
in life was dogs of which he had hundreds.
There was speculation that Junagadh was going to join Pakistan
and the Nawab took pains to contradict it. The following press
nute was issued by the Government of Junagadh on 11 April 1947:
“What Junagadh pre-eminently stands for is the solidarity of
Kathiawar and would welcome the formation of a self-contained
group of Kathiawar States. Such a group while providing for the
autonomy and entity of individual States and their subjects would
be a suitable basis for co-operation in matters of common concern
generally and co-ordination where necessary. ”
A similar repudi-
ation was issued on 22 April, 1947.
Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, a Muslim League politician of Karachi,
was appointed a member of the State Council of Ministers of
Junagadh. In May 1947, he was appointed the Dewan of the
state. The Nawab of Junagadh came under the influence of the
Muslim League.
The Government of India sent an Instrument of Accession to
the Nawab of Junagadh for his signatures. On 13 August, 1947,
Sir Shah Nawaz sent the reply that the matter was under consider-
ation. In spite of it, the Government of Junagadh issued the
following communique on 15 August, 1947, announcing her acces-
sion to Pakistan: “The Government of Junagadh has during the
"
past few weeks been faced with the problem of making its choice
between accession to the Dominion of India and accession to the
Dominion of Pakistan. It has had to take into very careful con-
sideration every aspect of this problem. Its main pre-occupation
has been to adopt a course that would, in the long run, make the
largest contribution towards the permanent welfare and prosperity
of the people of Junagadh and help to preserve the integrity of the
State and to safeguard its independence and autonomy over the


## p. 918 (#962) ############################################

918
THE INDIAN STATES SINCE 1919
largest possible field. After anxious consideration and the careful
balancing of all factors the Government of the State has decided to
accede to Pakistan and hereby announces its decision to that effect.
The State is confident that its decision will be welcomed by all loyal
subjects of the State who have its real welfare and prosperity at
heart. ”
The Government of Junagadh did not communicate to the Gov-
ernment of India the fact of its accession to Pakistan. There was a
lot of correspondence between the Governments of India and Pakis-
tan about Junagadh and ultimately on 13 September, 1947, the
Government of Pakistan informed the Government of India that she
had accepted the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and also signed
a Standstill Agreement. There is no doubt about the fact that
there were prolonged secret negotiations between the Nawab and
the Dewan on the one hand and the Government of Pakistan and
Mr. M. A. Jinnah on the other. When the Nawab and the Dewan
ran away from the state, many letters fell into the hands of the
Government of India and in one of those letters, it was stated that
Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto had written to Mr. Jinnah about the in-
terview he granted him on 16 July, 1947 in which Mr. Jinnah had
advised the Nawab to keep out under any circumstances until 15
August. There was also a reference to the assurances of Mr.
Jinnah that he would not allow Junagadh to starve as “Veraval is
not far from Karachi. ” There was also the following passage in
one of those letters: “Junagadh stands all alone surrounded by
Hindu rulers' territories and British Indian Congress provinces.
We are of course connected by sea with Pakistan. If geographical
position by land was fairly considered, Kutch, Jamnagar and other
territories adjoining Junagadh geographically should be considered
connected with Pakistan as they once in the past actually formed
part of Sind. Though the Muslim population of Junagadh is
nearly 20% and non-Muslims form 80 per cent, 7 lakh Muslims
of Kathiawar survived because of Junagadh. I consider that no
sacrifice is too great to preserve the prestige, honour and rule of
His Highness and to protect Islam and the Muslims of Kathiawar. "
The accession of Junagadh to Pakistan was condemned by the
rulers of the other states of Kathiawar. Jam Saheb of Nawanagar
and the rulers of Bhavnagar, Dhrangadhra, Morvi, Porbandar,
Gondal and Wankaner sent their protests. The reply of the Nawab
was in these words: “The Indian Independence Act did not and
does not require a ruler to consult his people before deciding on
accession. I think we are making an unnecessary fetish of the argu-
ment of geographical contiguity. Even then, this is sufficiently


## p. 919 (#963) ############################################

STATE OF JUNAGADH
919
provided by Junagadh's sea coast with several ports which can keep
connection with Pakistan. "
The Jam Saheb of Nawanagar told the Government of India
that if the latter did not take immediate and effective steps to
protect the other Kathiawar states, the people would lose all faith
in the Government of India. There were also rumours that
Pakistan had offered to give military assistance to Junagadh. On
17 September, 1947, the Government of India decided to disperse
around Junagadh troops of the acceding states. However, there
were strict orders that the State of Junagadh was not to be occupied.
On 24 September 1947, the Government of India decided that a
brigade should be suitably dispersed in Kathiawar to protect the
states which had acceded to the Indian Union. It was also de-
cided to send troops to the states of Mangrol and Babariawad.