The Dominion MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1930. PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 51, 24 November 1930, Page 10

The Dominion MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1930. PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS

Conspicuous in the discussions at the India Round Table Conference last week were the Indian princes representing e aiv States Speaking with the ease and polish of cultivated diplomats they extended an assurance of goodwill and co-operation to all concerned in the momentous question before them. It may be asked, what is the political significance, the value, of such an assurance? It is very great. U? er ? a e 650 native States in India. Their geographical dis tributioii, poptlation, and wealth are.such that their fortunes ffiat of Br s India are almost organicallyHnterdependent. If on the map BrtU India were coloured red, and the native States white, the g effect would be a broad band of red round the coast, and an irregular tesselated pavement of red and white, m aboutequal P r °P ort ° ’ within. Roughly speaking, this division gives to the native State, two-fifths of thewhole map. With their population,, which is easily one-fourth of the whole, and their hoarded wealth in gold, jewels, and other valuable collateral, this measure of territorial piestigc is to be reckoned with. The States vary greatly in size and importance. The Nizam of Hyderabad rules over a territory of 83,000 square miles and a population of eleven million people. From this degree of PJ status and opulence there is a fairly gradual descent until the humble estate of a few acres, held by a Kathiawar chief, is reached. The Nizam coins money, levies taxes, and inflicts capital punishment without appeal, while even his obscure fellow-princeling, the. Chieftain of Kathiawar, has some show of judicial authority, and is exempt from British taxation. . As the situation is constituted at present, the native princes are absolutely protected by British suzerainty in. India. . The British Government exercises exclusive control over their foreign relations, and assumes a general but limited responsibility for internal peace within the -States, and a special' responsibility for the safety and welfare of British subjects resident therein. Furthermore the subjects of native princes enjoy British protection outside their own territories. Subordinate co-operation may be. required from J he States to resist foreign aggression or maintain internal peace. Native rulers are guaranteed against dethronement by. insurrection but may themselves be removed by British authority in cases % of extreme misgovernment. • ’ Education, enlightenment, coupled with the unobtrusive presence and tactful counsel of the British political officer resident in each of the native States, have conduced to a remarkable, development in administrative methods and material prosperity within a comparatively short space of time. In the beginning, justice was bartered, offices sold the wives and children of revenue defaulters sold into slavery, and’some of the States had even an official torture department as part of their police organisation. . They were deeply suspicious o» Britain’s policy of friendly protection and assistance but experience of its application has changed fear into trust. However much these comfortably-situated potentates may have desired to remain aloof from the present discussion, the development of events has made participation inevitable. In what direction the future policy will be influenced, by India s principalities and powers remains to be seen. Sufficient has been noted here to show that the Gandhist National Congress is. by no means the only factor' in determining the claims of native India. The ruling princes are not likely to expose their present seem ity to the democratic pretentions certain to develop ■ from progressive dominion status without adequate guarantees.