BY PROF. K. R. R. SASTRY

Assiduous efforts were made by the advisers of the Princes to improve their legal position. Long ago, in the pages of The Law Quarterly, the status of the Indian States was discussed by competent Professors and Jurists.

Prof. Keith in his magnum opus of ‘Indian Constitutional History’ goes the length of reminding the States that they "could not repudiate the means by which they had been able to live"; for, they had "accepted the invasions on their technical rights as the condition of continued existence as independent entities." My friend, Mr. N. D. Varadachariar, quotes from the history of the formation of the States themselves and substantiates his proposition that "paramountcy is a live power available for constant use, and is in fact so used, which remains the dominant feature of the political life of the Indian States."

The able plea of Sir L. Scott before the Butler Committee, that the States retain what they have not parted through treaties, engagements and sanads, was negatived by that Committee. The Butler Committee made the following significant observation, that "through paramountcy is pushed aside the danger of destruction or annexation of States."

That the principles of international law have no direct application to the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States was laid down authoritatively in the Manipur Case. Again, Lord Reading while Viceroy reminded the tallest among the States that the relationship of an Indian State to the Paramount Power is one of ‘subordinate co-operation.’ The relationship has been, thanks to diplomacy, dragged to an ‘imperial plane’ from an international setting.

While strictly it may not be correct to bodily apply the principles of international law to these numerous Indian States of varying degrees of progress, analogies from international law are bound to prove very valuable in the solution of inter-statal and intra-statal-Provincial disputes.

Undoubtedly, the heads of these States have marks of independent political societies in the realm of private international law. In fact, the status of the Indian States is sui generis. Mr. N. D. Varadachariar’s view of an illimitable Austinian omni-competent Sovereign is not the proper approach to describe the status of these States. Progressive States like Baroda, Mysore, and Travancore have full internal Sovereignty and may well aspire for a novel international status as that of membership of the League of Nations.

Prof. Keith is harsh when he makes this sweeping statement: "On the side of the Rulers, it is patent that their essential pre-occupation is with the effort to secure immunity from pressure in regard to the improvement of the internal administration of their States." That some Indian States have introduced popular institutions and are characterised by a high standard of administration of justice has been none-the-less noted by Prof. Keith.

While there is no choice for the Indian Princes in the matter of joining the Federation, the Indian States are given full freedom regarding the modus and time of acceding to the Federation. The implications of the Federation-to-be need a short notice.

"The combination of the wholly disparate elements gives a unique character to the Federation and produces certain abnormal features"–(Keith). While the Provinces are "subject to a single system applicable to all, the States are definitely exempt from the application of a number of federal powers of legislation, unless they expressly accept them"; the executive authority of the Federation, which is uniform in regard to the Provinces, may vary as regards the States; further, as regards the Federal legislative and executive authority, there may be variations between States; lastly, while Provinces have federation imposed from above, in each State adhesion is voluntary.

The hydra-headed Federation that is vouchsafed under the Government of India Act, while "appearing to lay the foundation of all-India unity on a democratic basis, has introduced and stereotyped diverse fissile elements in the body politic." That the Indian States are part-Sovereign States has to be conceded; but it is to be hoped that the conservative element of the Indian States will not combat the pace of the democratic progress in British India. There is at once a lesson and a warning in Prof. Keith’s remarkable verdict on the ‘legislative monstrosity’ of the Government of India Act (25 and 26 Geo. V, Ch. 42):

"Whether a federation built on incoherent lines can operate successfully is wholly conjectural. If it does, it will probably be due to the virtual disappearance of responsibility and the assertion of the controlling power of the Governor-General backed by the conservative elements of the States and British India."

BACK