RULING PRINCES IN INDIA

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 84, 10 April 1933, Page 6

RULING PRINCES IN INDIA

RELATIONS WITH BRITAIN,

(By SAFDAR JA2v T G.)

For many years those conversant with the problem of India have always realised that the position of the Ruling Princes, was a barrier to a homogeneous or logical structure of Federal Government in India, and, if you like to use the phrase, also a great safeguard. They rule two-fifths of the land, and in their own minds know no master other than the Crown and its representative, not the nebulous Crown behind the offices of Whitehall, but the living Crown as

represented by His Majesty in person, a Crown first truly personified to them by Queen Victoria. To bring them into the great Federation of India is a constructive piece of statesmanship, and by definitely deciding for federation as the aim of their structure the Simon Commission showed how this was to be done. The Federal Government was to be the centre of large autonomous provinces, some Governors' provinces, some Princes' provinces, each developing within certain limits to suit its own conditions, with a Federal Government at the head not in the hands of a democratic unskilled assembly, but aided by a selected Legislature which was to have wise choice of the provinces its its ba»is, including the Princes' provinces. By this conception the futility of the expression "Dominion status" went by the board as a parrot cry. One uses that phrase to represent the six millions of all-British, all-Christian folk of Australia, the one and a half millions of New Zealand, for instance, and foolish was he who first drew it across the trail of Indian development. Various proposals had been made years ago to organise a system of ■ conferences amongst the Ruling Princes of India j

with a view both of securing the expression of their collective opinion and of providing opportunities for counsel and consultation in matters of common concern to India as a whole. But it was not until the publication of the MontaguChelmsford report that the idea took permanent and effective shape. It is not, of course, to the Government of India that one must turn to find the institution of that idea. It was by Royal proclamation that the Chamber of Princes was set up on February 8, 1921. The ceremony of inauguration was performed, on behalf of the King-Emperor, by the Duke of Connaught in the Dewau-i-am of the Mogul Palace in Delhi. The Chamber of Princes contains 108 rulers of States

who arc members in their own right. They are Ruling Princes who enjoy permanent dynastic salutes of eleven guns or over, together with other rulers of States who exercise such full or practically full internal powers as, in the opinion of the Viceroy, qualify them for individual admission to the Chamber. The Viceroy is the President of the Chamber, and a Chancellor and pro-Chancellor are elected from among the members annually. The establishment of the Chamber of Princes marked an important stage in the development of relations between the Crown and the States, for it involved a definite breach in an earlier principle of policy, according to which it was rather the aim of the Crown to discourage joint action and joint consultation between the Indian States as an isolated unit apart from its neighbours. The Chamber has enabled free interchange of views to take place on weighty matters concerning the relationship of the ' States with the Crown and concerning other points of contact with British India.

The essential point, however, to bear in mind is a feature which is common to all Indian States alike. They are not British territory and their subjects are not British mibjects. The relations •between each of them and the Paramount .Power may be ascertained or deduced from the treaty, or other written document, or usage and agreement; but however that may be, the Crown is in each case responsible for the States' external relations and for its territorial integrity. There are about forty States, all of major importance, which have actual treaties with the Paramount Power. A larger number of States have some form of engagement, or "Sanad," i.e., a concession or acknowledgment of authority or privilege, generally coupled with conditions, proceeding from the Paramount Power. The remainder enjoy, in some form or other, recognition of their status by the Crown. Each State manages its own internal affairs by making and administering its own laws, and imposing, collecting and spending its own taxes. There is, as a rule, a British resident or other agent whose duty it is to offer advice to the ruler, and to report to the British authorities; and there is the right of the Crown to intervene as the Paramount Power in the internal affairs of the States in cases of gross 7nis-government, or in cases where such intervention is called for, having regard to the duty of the Crown as Paramount Power to preserve the dynasty, to be answerable for the integrity of the States, and to maintain peace in India. However, while one holds that the ultimate development of the Indian policy must lie in the direction of a solution embracing all India, it is absolutely clear that the Indian States cannot be compelled to come into anv closer relationship with British India than exists at the present time. Indian rulers arc naturally proud of their historic position, and their rights have been repeatedly acknowledged. At the same time, one believes that they recognise more and more the need for adjusting their future relationship to the rest of India. One believes that they will only be ready to come into the larger whole when they can see that their rights and position will be safeguarded. The greater unity will come about when it is felt that it is to the mutual advantage of both sides to pursue it. It should be the desire of the new constitution to provide an open door whereby, when' it seems good to them, the Puling Princes may enter on just and reasonable terms.