The Two Indias

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 115, 17 May 1930, Page 1 (Supplement)

The Two Indias

Progressive Emidiaini Praces

Bntislh Himdlii®. aimd the limdlnaini States

By F. PAGE GOURLEY, in “John o’ London’s Weekly.”

|T is surprising how little most of us know about India: for instance, the very important fact that there is not one India but two—British India and the India of the States, ruled over by their own Princes. These States arc not a British “possession,” and their inhabitants are not British subjects; but their Princes, who arc Sovereign Rulers, except in so far as their sovereignty has been abridged by voluntary treaty or agreement, are in permanent and indissoluble alliance with the British Crown, to which they owe loyalty and allegiance. An Immense Population. India has a population of 320 millions, and the States, with a population of over seventy millions, cover an area of nearly 700,000 square miles, or four-fifths of what we know vaguely as “India.” There are more than 500 independent States of varying sizes, from Hyderabad, with a population of twelve millions - larger than that of any of the great Mohammedan kingdoms, such as Persia, Afghanistan, or Morocco—down to the smallest States, particularly numerous in the Bombay Presidency, whose rulers rather resemble landowners with special hereditary privileges. The loyalty of the States in times of crisis, such as were the Mutiny and the Great War, has been proved over and over again, and is ■without question. It has often been said that had it not been for the Maharajah of Patiala, not a single white man, woman. or child would have been left alive between Cawnpore and Lahore at the end of the Indian Mutiny. And the sterling loyalty of the Indian Princes was, likewise, one of the outstanding features of that world-wide upheaval of the World War. More than any other single factor it served to keep India steady during that trying period.

A Unique Relationship. British India and Indian India are, in fact, mutually indispensable, but it is only within such an organisation as the British Empire that the two systems could exist and develop side by side. There is nothing else in the world resembling this relationship, which is without precedent.. Such being the ease, new problems are bound to present themselves for solution from time to time, since many of the treaties between the States and the Crown go back for a century or more, during which great changes have taken place, and the original intentions of the treaties may have been forgotten or misinterpreted. Two inquiries into Indian affairs were therefore instituted not long ago—the Simon Commission to consider the future government of British India, and the Harcourt Butler Committee to review the relation between the Crown and the States. The Butler Committee has already reported, and the members of the Committee confessed that their imagination was powerfully affected by the stirrings of new life and new hope in the States: not only by the progress already achieved, but by the possibilities of the future. After examining the relationship between the States and the Crown, the Committee recorded the strong opinion that in view of the historical nature of that relationship, the Princes should not be transferred without a new government in British Indian responsible to an Indian legislature. At the same time the Committee left the door open to closer union, and observed that “there is nothing in our proposals to prevent the adoption of some form of federal union as the two Indias of the present draw nearer to one another in the future.” Social Reform. Another of the things wo do not know about India—or, at least, do not realise about Indian India—is the extent to which measures of social reform arc being introduced into the territories ruled by the Princes. We are rather apt to think immediately of jewels and elephants when we hear the title Maharajah mentioned, and we do not appreciate the amount of hard work and good government that stands to the credit of the ruler of a modern State in Indin. The States, although they are anxious to preserve their archaic and picturesque side—and, indeed, their subjects would greatly resent it if they did not—by no means neglect projects of social reform. A visit to the Dsara week in Mysore State, to which I had the privilege of being invited a few years ago, not only made me acquainted with the city’s spectacular side, but also convinced me that Mysore is as.up-to-date as almost, any city in Europe. Then, again, in connection with a. very different subject, the States of Baroda, Patiala, and Kashmir have passed legislation raising the Age of Consent to eighteen, and Baroda has taken the first step towards the prevention of child

marriage. Many of the Princes are anxious to raise the status of women in their domains by such measures, for instance, as an improvement in the number and standard of women teachers. No British Indian Government has yet found itself able to impart primary instruction to more than a small fraction of the population. But the Maharajah of Patiala has introduced a system of free and compulsory primary education for all the children in his State; anocl the State of Baroda is pledged to the same policy, which has also been accepted for Travancore. New Principles of Government. We hear sometimes of the “extravagance” and “arbitrary rule” of the Princes, but are seldom told that their jewels and regalia arc heirlooms handed down for generations; or that the following principles of government were adopted by a unanimous resolution of the Chamber of Princes:— (1) A fixed privy purse with a well-defined line between personal expenditure and that of the State. (2) Security of life and property. (3) An independent judiciary. (4) Clear and uniform laws, approximating so far as circumstances permit to those of British India. (5) Stability of the public services. (6) and continuity of administration. (7) Beneficent rule for the well-being and contentment of the people. Growing Enlightenment. The more progressive States, whose standards surpass, in many respects, those that obtain in British India, are by no means blind to the claims of a growing humanity and enlightenment; and the more backward States can hardly fail to follow suit in time, borne onward by the irresistible current of a quickening public opinion. And public opinion in the States is not only exceedingly powerful, but has its own peculiarly Oriental methods of expressing itself; as when, for instance, the entire population sits down around the ruler’s palace and refuses to disperse until its grievance is redressed or at least heard. It is, therefore, of some profit to explain why the spirit of social reform, once implanted, can bear fruit much more easily and quickly than it can do in British India. The administration of a native State, being indigenous, and not foreign, has its hand, as it were, upon the people’s pulse, and may, with safety, effect changes where a foreign Power is well advised to pause. In view of the various achievements of the several States above enumerated. I feel compelled to stress the desirability of allowing the States to work out their own destinies untrammelled.

Taxes and Tariffs. There are numerous issues to which I do not propose to make allusion, as I am anxious to keep away from controversial subjects, but there are a few points to which I may perhaps be forgiven for referring. The States’ request for a voice in the formulation of policies affecting the whole of India, and for some impartial tribunal to which they can refer differences of opinion between themselves and British India, cannot be considered exorbitant. One of their chief complaints with which I feel all fair-minded Britons will agree is a genuine one, concerns the question of tariffs; at present the States are taxed for the benefit of British India. The Princes are not asking for the stricter interpretation of their treaties merely on personal grounds; the most important of their arguments concern the material interests of their subjects, who feel themselves aggrieved by certain very substantial injuries. And since it is obvious that the co-operation of British India and the Indian States is essential for the well-being of both, it is very desirable that machinery should be set up whereby they can have an effective voice in the settlement of matters affecting the whole of India.

It is to be hoped that, before the British Government takes any action upon the Harcourt Butler report, the views of the Princes upon that report, already placed by them before the Viceroy, will be very carefully considered. And, further, that when the Simon Commission makes its report, the Princes may be called into consultation upon it, since its proposals, although directly concerned with British India, cannot fail to affect their future.

India is a great trust, and it is earnestly to be hoped, for the good of the British Empire as a whole, that the decisions which our Government must take during the next six months on these weighty matters will be for the benefit both of British India and the Indian States.