The Native States of India constitute one of the anomalies of Indian
political life. They are the honored remnants of the old order of
things--an order in which personal bravery, resourcefulness and
leadership with or without capacity for successful intrigue enabled
individuals to carve out kingdoms and principalities for themselves and
their legal successors.
In the case of some of these Native States the genealogies of the ruling
houses go back to the early centuries of the Christian era by historical
evidence and to pre-Christian times by tradition. Their origin is
somewhat shrouded in mystery. In popular belief they are the descendants
of gods--gods of light and life, the Sun and the Moon. Next to the Royal
family of Japan, they are perhaps the only houses among the rulers of
the earth which can claim such an ancient and unbroken lineage of
royalty with sovereignty of one kind or another always vested in them.
There have been times in their history when the royal heads of these
states had no house to live in and no bed to sleep on, much less a
territory to rule and an army to command. This was, however, a part of
their royalty. In struggles against powerful enemies, sometimes of their
own race and religion, but more often foreign aggressors of different
blood and creed, they were many a time worsted and driven to extreme
straits of poverty and helplessness. In peace or in war, in prosperity
or in misery, they never gave up the struggle. Their right to lead their
people and to rule their country they never yielded for a moment. It is
true that sometimes they submitted to the superior power of the enemy
and accepted a position of subordination, though in one case, at least,
even this was done only for a short time under the Moguls. In the darker
days of Indian history, when the military devastation of foreign
invaders left nothing but tears and blood, ruin and ashes, defeat and
misery in their track, these houses kept the lamp of hope burning. For
full ten centuries they carried on a struggle of life and death,
sometimes momentarily succumbing before the overwhelming force of their
adversaries, but only to rise again in fresh vigor and life to reclaim
their heritage and preserve their own and their country's independence.
The _Sessodias_ of Mewar called the _Ranas_ of Mewar (Udaipur) and the
Rahtores of Marwar (including Jodhpur, Bikaner, Rutlam, Kishangarh and
Alwar) have written many a glorious page of Mediaeval Indian history and
dyed it with their own blood as well as that of their adversaries. Not
only their men but their women have made themselves immortal by their
bravery, chivalry, purity and self-immolation. The one thing which
distinguishes the Indian Rajput from the peoples of other lands is that
he has never waged war against the poor, the helpless and the
defenceless. Numberless men gave their lives freely and ungrudgingly not
only in protecting the lives of their own women and children but also in
doing the same service to the women and children of their enemies. The
Rajput never fought an unfair fight. He never took advantage of the
helplessness of his enemy and always gave him right of way and the use
of his best weapons for a free and fair fight in the open. Anyone
desirous of knowing their deeds may read them in that poem in prose,
known as the Annals of Rajhasthan by Col. Todd. Col. Todd has drawn a
most faithful and thrilling picture of Rajput bravery and Rajput
chivalry in a language worthy of the best traditions of English
literature. Here and there in matters of minor details his authority has
been questioned; otherwise the results of his monumental labors still
remain the best picture of Rajput India. The Rajput States of India are
thus the objects of reverent honor to the 220 million Hindus of that
country. Next to the Rajput States comes the native ruling family of
Mysore as the representative of a very ancient Hindu Kingdom. The
Mahratta States are the remnants of the Mahratta Empire and the Sikhs
those of the Sikh Commonwealth. The biggest of all the Indian Native
States, Hyderabad, arose out of the ruins of the Mogul Empire and is
supposed to be the most powerful guardian of Moslem culture and
tradition. From this description the reader will at once see why the
Native States are so dear to the peoples of India and why the Indian
educated party has always stood by the Native States, whenever either
their treaty rights or the personal dignity and status of their chiefs
was threatened by the British authorities. Lord Dalhousie's policy of
annexation by lapse was so much resented by the people of India that it
had almost cost the British their Indian Empire. Only in the Native
States do the Indians see remaining traces of their former
independence. That fact alone covers all the defects of native rule or
misrule in the States, in their eyes. Some of these Native States have
been so well administered that in education, social reform and
industrial advancement they are far ahead of the neighboring British
territories. But their chief merit lies in the fact that ordinarily the
people get enough food to eat and are seemingly happier than British
subjects. This fact has been noticed by several competent observers of
contemporary Indian life, among them the Right Honorable Mr. Fisher,
President of the Board of Education in England. In his book _The Empire
and the Future_ he has observed:
"My impression is that the inhabitants of a well governed native
state are on the whole happier and more contented than the
inhabitants of British India. _They are more lightly taxed_; the
pace of the administration is less urgent and exacting; their
sentiment is gratified by the splendor of a native court and by
the dominion of an Indian government. They feel that they do
things for themselves instead of having everything done for them
by a cold and alien benevolence." (Italics are ours)
But after all that is favourable to the Native States of India has been
said, their existence in their present form remains a political anomaly.
As at present situated, they are an effective hindrance to complete
Indian unity. Although "India is in fact as well as by legal definition,
one geographical whole," yet these Native States, occupying about
one-third of the total area of the country and with a population of
about 70 million will, for a long time, prevent its becoming a
homogeneous political whole. Thus a circumstance which was hitherto
looked upon as a piece of good luck will operate as a misfortune.
"The Native States of India are about 700 in number. They embrace
the widest variety of country and jurisdiction. They vary in size
from petty States like Rewa, in Rajputana, with an area of 19
square miles, and the Simla Hill States, which are little more
than small holdings, to States like Hyderabad, as large as Italy,
with a population of thirteen millions."[1]
The general position as regards the rights and obligations of the Native
States has been thus summed up by the distinguished authors of the joint
Report (Lord Chelmsford and Mr. Montagu):
"The States are guaranteed security from without; the paramount
power acts for them in relation to foreign powers and other
States, and it intervenes when the internal peace of their
territories is seriously threatened. On the other hand the States'
relations to foreign powers are those of the paramount power; they
share the obligation for the common defence; and they are under a
general responsibility for the good government and welfare of
their territories."
As regards the assimilation of the principles of modern life, it is
remarked in the same document:
"Many of them have adopted our civil and criminal codes. Some have
imitated and even further extended our educational system.... They
have not all been equally able to assimilate new principles. They
are in all stages of development, patriarchal, feudal or more
advanced, while in a few states are found the beginnings of
representative institutions. The characteristic features of all of
them, however, including the most advanced, are the personal rule
of the Prince and his control over legislation and the
administration of justice."
Under the circumstances the question of questions is how these
territories are going to fall into line with the British controlled area
in the matter of the development of responsible Government. We will once
more quote the opinion of the Secretary of State for India and the
Viceroy, who say:
"We know that the States cannot be unaffected by constitutional
development in adjoining provinces. Some of the more enlightened
and thoughtful of the Princes, among whom are included some of the
best known names, have realised this truth, and have themselves
raised the question of their own share in any scheme of reform.
Others of the Princes--again including some of the most honored
names--desire only to leave matters as they are. We feel the need
for caution in this matter. It would be a strange reward for
loyalty and devotion to force new ideas upon those who did not
desire them; but it would be no less strange, if out of
consideration for those who perhaps represent gradually vanishing
ideas, we were to refuse to consider the suggestions of others who
have been no less loyal and devoted. Looking ahead to the future
we can picture India to ourselves only as presenting the external
semblance to some form of 'federation.' The provinces will
ultimately become self-governing units, held together by the
central Government which will deal solely with matters of common
concern to all of them. But the matters common to the British
provinces are also to a great extent those in which the Native
States are interested--defence, tariffs, exchange, opium, salt,
railways and posts and telegraphs. The gradual concentration of
the Government of India upon such matters will therefore make it
easier for the States, while retaining the autonomy which they
cherish in internal matters, to enter into closer association with
the central Government if they wish to do so. But though we have
no hesitation in forecasting such a development as possible, the
last thing that we desire is to attempt to force the pace.
Influences are at work which need no artificial stimulation. All
that we need or can do is to open the door to the natural
developments of the future."
In Paragraphs 302 to 305 the authors of the Report state the process by
which this development may be expedited. Disavowing any intention of
forcibly altering treaty rights, they propose to classify the States
into (_a_) those that have "full authority over their internal affairs,"
(_b_) those "in which Government exercises through its Agents large
powers of internal control," (_c_) those who are really no more "than
mere owners of a few acres of land." It is further pointed out that
hitherto the
"general clause which occurs in many of the treaties to the effect
that the Chief shall remain absolute Ruler of his country has not
in the past precluded and does not even now preclude 'interference
with the administration by Government through the agency of its
representatives at the Native Courts.' We need hardly say that
such interference has not been employed in wanton disregard of
treaty obligations. During the earlier days of our intimate
relations with the States British agents found themselves
compelled, often against their will, to assume responsibility for
the welfare of the people, to restore order out of chaos, to
prevent inhuman practices, and to guide the hands of a weak or
incompetent Ruler as the only alternative to the termination of
his rule. So too, at the present day, the Government of India
acknowledges as trustee, a responsibility (which the Princes
themselves desire to maintain) for the proper administration of
States during a minority, and also an obligation for the
prevention or correction of flagrant misgovernment."
And also that:
"the position hitherto taken up by Government has been that the
conditions under which some of the treaties were executed have
undergone material changes, and the literal fulfilment of
particular obligations which they impose has become impracticable.
Practice has been based on the theory that treaties must be read
as a whole, and that they must be interpreted in the light of the
relation established between the parties not only at the time when
a particular treaty was made, but subsequently."
On these grounds it is proposed to establish a Council of Princes to
which questions which affect the States generally or are of concern to
the Empire as a whole, or to British India and the States in common, may
be referred for advice and opinion. So long as the Princes do not
intervene either formally or informally in the internal affairs of
British India, we have no objection to the scheme. On the other hand, we
do hope some method will be found by which, with the consent of the
parties interested the smaller principalities scattered all over the
country may, for administrative purposes, be merged either in the
British area or in the bigger Native States which possess full power of
autonomy over their internal affairs. In the long run it will be
comparatively easy to convert the latter to an acceptance of the modern
principles of government if the number of Native States is reduced and
their people achieve that solidarity which comes by community of
interests and ideas. In this connection it is a happy augury for the
future that some of the highest Chiefs like those of Mysore, Baroda,
Gwaliar, Indore, Kashmir, Bikaner, Jodhpore, Alwar, and Patiala are
alive to the importance of marching with the times. The people of
British India owe them a great debt of gratitude for the moral support
they have given to their claim for responsible Government by coming out
openly and freely in favour of the proposed advance. We are sure that
these Princes will in due time take measures to bring their own
territories in line with the British provinces and thus strengthen the
ties that bind them to their own peoples as well as to the other people
of India. After all, there can be no manner of doubt, as the authors of
the report predict,
"that the processes at work in British India cannot leave the
States untouched and must in time affect even those whose ideas
and institutions are of the most conservative and feudal
character."
It is the path of wisdom and sagacity to recognise the world forces that
are at work. No amount of ancient prestige can prevent the people from
coming into their own. The age of despotism is gone and the autocrats of
today must sooner or later hand over their powers to the people. The
more they conciliate them the longer perhaps they may be able to lead
them. They may continue as leaders for a long time, but as autocratic
dispensers of favours and fortunes they cannot remain, perhaps not even
for their life time.
In our judgment this part of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report is no less
important for the future of Indian democracy than the others that
directly deal with British India, and we hope that whatever might be
the policy as regards the existing States the new law will make it
impossible for the Government of India and the Secretary of State to
create any new States in the future. It is monstrous to transfer
millions of human beings from one kind of political rule to another like
so many cattle, as was done in 1911. The present rule of any Indian
Maharaja may be as good or as bad as that of a British Governor or
Lieutenant Governor, but the latter has in it greater democratic
potentialities than the former, for the mere fact, if for no other,
that, while the British are more or less amenable to world opinion, the
rulers of Native States are not. It is inhuman, and not in accord with
modern ideas of right and wrong to reward somebody's loyalty by giving
him power of life and death over numerous fellow beings, otherwise than
in due course of law. Even the mighty British Government is not the
owner of the bodies and souls of its subjects in India. How, then, can
it assume the right of abandoning them to the absolute rule of a single
individual, however worthy or loyal he may be? We hope this stupid way
of rewarding loyal services may be ended by an express provision to that
effect in the statute which will be passed relating to the
reorganization of the Government of India.
In this connection the following observations made in a leading
editorial of the _Servant of India_, Poona (February 16, 1919), are
worthy of attention:
"A hundred years ago, it was decidedly in the interests of British rule,
and probably also in the interests of the people of India generally,
that the small, ill-governed, and eternally fighting states of India
should come under the suzerainty of a single powerful power. It may be
regarded as a historical misfortune that this power happened then to be
foreign, though many regard this contact with a virile civilization as
the making of India. This suzerainty could then be established duly by
entering into treaties with these states and guaranteeing them certain
rights and privileges. But these treaties have now assumed in the eyes
of the descendants of the original princes an air of inspiration; they
have become a kind of perpetuity. They always come in the way of any
improvement. When any new policy is proposed to them, they are always
prepared to say, 'This is not in the bond.' One may be allowed to
speculate as to how many of these Highnesses would have survived to this
day to put forward this claim in the absence of the suzerain power.
Thrones in ancient days were as unstable as they are becoming now in
Europe. It is hardly possible that the present popular wave in Europe
would not have touched our Native States. The subjects of the states
would have clamoured for a recognition of their rights, and they would
have had their way. But now the princes feel quite secure. Have they not
got their treaties? As a result there is no political life at all in the
Native States. The most ardent advocate of Home Rule would be most
violently against migration to a Native State. The real problem of the
Native States is how to get over the treaties when they conflict with
the interests of their subjects. The questions discussed at the Chiefs'
Conference leave us comparatively cold, as they entirely neglect the
people most concerned. The questions of the rights of the chiefs and
their salutes or precedence are in our opinion of a very secondary
importance. A renowned statesman in Europe gave at the utmost a life of
a dozen years to the most solemn treaty between two countries, for in
that period circumstances alter and the solid foundation for the treaty
cracks. Is it not high time that the treaties with the chiefs should be
revised after over a hundred years? It would indeed redound to their
credit if the chiefs themselves come forward to submit to such
readjustment. Perhaps their autocratic and irresponsible power may have
to suffer some diminution. But if they consent to that diminution so as
to give it to their subjects in the modern democratic spirit, the real
power and influence of the Native States will increase incalculably. It
is in this direction we wish to see a solution of the problem of the
Native States which are nowadays working as a brake on our national
progress."