By DEWAN BAHADUR M. RAMACHANDRA RAO

My first duty is to tender to you my sincerest thanks for honor you have done me in inviting me to preside over your deliberations this year. Having had no intimate personal knowledge of the administration or the political conditions of the Indian States, I was at first inclined to decline your very kind invitation. I was however, informed that it has been your desire to invite a public man from British India to take the chair at this annual Conference of States subjects. I much appreciate the compliment. An occasion like this affords a fitting opportunity for an exchange of views on the many important questions of the day in which both of us re mutually interested. We live under two different administrative systems, but there are many problems common to us in which our mutual co-operation is needed. For many years, the people of the States and their leaders have taken the view that they are not much concerned with, or affected by, British Indian politics and policies, and I believe that similar considerations actuated the leaders of political thought and the various political organisations in British India in abstaining from interesting themselves in the problems and the general welfare of the people of the Indian States. This policy of ‘live and let live’ has greatly retarded the political education or the subjects of Indian States and the growth of their political institutions. In recent years, however, there has been a very healthy change and the dependence of the States and of British India on each other in the development of an All India polity is now being more and more clearly recognised.

I take this opportunity therefore of acknowledging at the outset that the credit of bringing about this change and focussing public attention on the problems of the States belongs to all those responsible for the organisation of this and similar conferences and to all other public men in the States who have been patiently working for years for the political emancipation of the subjects of the States. As I said, there are at the present moment some very eminent public men in India who have taken the view that it is better to leave the Indian States alone to work out their salvation. I entirely differ from this view. At present the people of British India, it is true, have no constitutional right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Indian States, and similarly the subjects of Indian States have no right of interference in the affairs of British India. It is obvious, however, that in our struggle for national emancipation and for the development of India as a whole into a self-governing world-state, the people of British India and the Indian States have to act in concert till the goal is reached. It is unthinkable that the States can remain unaffected by any scheme of Swaraj for India as a whole. I am, therefore, glad that the subjects of the Indian States are making strenuous efforts to come into line with the national movement in British India for the attainment of Swaraj, and in your struggles for the development of your political institutions in the Indian states on a democratic basis you are entitled to such co-operation and assistance as we in British India can give you.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFENCE

The identity of Indian States with British India in all matters of general national welfare, and the necessity for co-operation with each other in the pursuit of a national policy, has been recently brought home in several ways to the people of British India and the Indian States. The events are so recent that they do not need any lengthy recapitulation. I may refer at the outset to the questions relating to the defence of India from external aggression and to the demand for the nationalisation of the Indian Army. The glorious part played by the Indian troops including the State forces in all theatres in the late war is still fresh in our recollection. The willing co-operation of India in that great crisis and the gallantry of her soldiers received unstinted praise and admiration from all parts of the British Empire. Every country is now developing a new military system based upon the experience of the great war. No longer are wars settled between armies of professional soldiers, but the entire strength of the nations is thrown into the conflict. The wealth, the industries, and the manhood of the whole nation are called up, and citizens of whatever class or creed, and industry in every form, are being mobilised in every country. As admitted by eminent witnesses before the Indian Sandhurst Committee, India is gradually losing the somewhat isolated position it had occupied for the last two generations in the politics of Asia, and it will have to meet complications of a different character than the purely frontier disturbances with which it has been familiar of late years. The implications of the change in the position are too well-known to need further elucidation. The creation of a national army in India officered by Indians, the reduction of the British garrison, and its eventual abolition, and the reconstruction of the whole military system from the stand-point of nationalist India, have occupied public attention since the war. A self-governing India within the British Empire necessarily involves a vital change in the present policy of the emasculation of the people. This matter has formed the subject of acute controversy for some years in the Central Legislature of India and you are familiar with all aspects of the problem.

THE INDIAN SANDHURST COMMITTEE

The Indian Sandhurst Committee which was appointed three years ago, and of which I had the honor to be a member, had to consider the whole question of the training facilities for Indian Army officers in this country and other, cognate questions. In that connection, we had necessarily to consider the position of the Indian States, and representatives of many of the important States came up before the Committee and stated their requirements for the training of officers. The Committee carne to the unanimous opinion that the participation of the Indian States in an Indian Sandhurst would be an advantage to India as a whole, as tending to increase the efficiency of the State forces, and it accordingly recommended that a certain number of vacancies should be reserved for the Indian States at the Military College to be established in India, over and above the number of vacancies for the regular Indian army. The subjects of Indian States are already eligible for the King's commission and it is our recommendation that candidates from the States Should be eligible for admission to the Indian Military College on the same terms as the residents of British India. The States are, therefore, as much interested as the people of British India in the establishment of the requisite institutions for military training in India and the nationalization of the Indian army.

In this state of things, can any responsible person say that the people of British India and the Indian States have no identity of interests and a common obligation for the defence of their Motherland? They are already held together by immemorial ties and by a fundamental unity of thought and culture, of race and civilisation, and they have the same social and economic problems. But apart from all these, a self-governing India, for which all of us are yearning, without an efficient national army trained under the same general system, co-ordinated and acting together under a single general command, is unthinkable, whether the troops are drawn from British India or the State forces. Some action in this direction has already been taken in the training of the Imperial Service Troops and the recommendations of the Sandhurst Committee, if carried out, would be a further step in consolidating and improving the efficiency of the State forces and the British Indian army and to promote that sense of unity so necessary for success.

FISCAL POLICY OF INDIA

Another group of subjects in which the interdependence of British India and the Indian States has recently occupied prominent public attention, relate to the currency, fiscal, and commercial policy of the Government of India. The results of the present policy, which has brought about a disastrous economic exploitation of the whore country, affect the Indian States as much as the people of British India. The Indian States are enclosed within the limits of the Indian customs circle, and they are closely concerned in the tariff policy of the Government of India, and their interests, both as consumers and as producers, are identical with those of the population of British India. The Indian Fiscal Commission dealt with the whole question of the tariff policy of India, and the discrimination to be exercised in the selection of industries for protection so as to make the inevitable burden on the community as light as is consistent with the due development of industries. The recommendations of the Commission were discussed a few years ago in an important debate in the Legislative Assembly, and the fiscal policy of India as now accepted has its inevitable reactions on the Indian States. You are familiar with all aspects of the problem and I need not refer to the subject in any detail. The incidence of taxation in the States is equally affected by the fiscal policy of the Government of India.

THE INDIAN STATES AND A CUSTOMS

ZOLLARVEIN

The Indian Taxation Committee, which sat two or three years ago, also had occasion to deal with all phases of the same problem and the difficulties that have cropped up between the maritime Indian States and British India in regard to the imposition and collection of customs duties, and the preventive arrangements against smuggling, and the maintenance of internal lines. The committee expressed the opinion that many of the present difficulties could be surmounted, and suggested that in the circumstances of India a customs zollarvein between the Indian States and British India would be an ideal arrangement. Such an arrangement, as you are a ware, was come to between the various states in Germany before its unification in the middle of the last century. The loss of customs revenue at the British India ports on account of the action of some of the maritime States in Kathiawar has very recently attracted wide public attention in this country. The failure of the conference at Mount Abu between the representatives of the Indian States and the Government of India, and the re-imposition a short while ago by the Government of India of the customs cordon in the Kathiawar States: are the subjects of acute controversy at present. The action of the Government of India has raised constitutional issues of the greatest importance and has brought to the forefront the absolute necessity of a statutory constitutional tie between the States and British India. Be this as it may, my point is that unless the Government of India and the States find a satisfactory solution of the problem, they may cause a great deal of damage to each other. The many holes in the fiscal sieve can only be properly closed and sewn up by mutual co-operation between all the parties concerned. It is only by such co-operation that the agreement come to in 1917 between the States and the Government of India was carried out in practice, and without a common understanding between the States and the Government of India, it is impossible to give effect to an all-India tariff policy.

THE STATES AND THE OPIUM POLICY OF THE

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

The States Opium Conference held in May last, was another occasion where the States had to consider the present policy of the Government of India in an important branch of its administration. The controversies at the Geneva Conferences have already familiarised all of us with the general features of the problem and its humanitarian and international aspects, and it is not necessary for me to refer to it at any length. In order to fulfil their international obligations in the largest measure, the Government of India are now committed to a policy of reducing progressively the exports of opium from India so as to extinguish them altogether within a definite period, except as regards the export of opium for strictly medical purposes. This policy was accepted in the Central Legislature, but it is impossible to carry out this policy unless the States actively co-operated with the Government of India in the reduction of the large areas under poppy cultivation in the States and the substitution of other crops therefor. His Excellency the Viceroy explained the salient features of the problem and appealed to the representatives of the States for their hearty co-operation and assistance, without which he felt it was not possible to carry out the undertaking given by the Government of India to the League of Nations.

The acceptance by the States of the policy outlined by the Government of India and also the agreement between the representatives of the States and the Government of India for the appointment of a committee of investigation of the whole subject in which the States are to be represented, shows the very large measure of co-operation necessary between the States and British India in carrying out it common policy on behalf of India. This is the latest instance where the Government of India and the States have acted together in furtherance of a common policy, more or less in the same way as the constituent states in a federal constitution.

THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE

I have invited your attention to these three matters as illustrations of the manner in which British India and the Indian States are already acting together in many matters involving broad questions of national policy and the way in which they are compelled to work together in many spheres of administration. The States and British Indian authorities are also co-operating with each other every day in matters relating to Revenue and Financial administration, and their co-operation in the administration of Police and Justice is a matter of daily occurrence. The range of matters in which the States and British Indian Provinces are realizing their dependence on each other is daily increasing, and their dealings with each other have already established, by precedent and usage, a loose kind of tie and certain rights and obligations, though they are not defined by statute and crystallised in a written constitution common to both of them. In our relations with the outside world, India is regarded as a single unit and there is in our international relations no distinction between British India and the States. The disabilities suffered by Indians in the British Colonies and foreign lands extend to British Indian subjects as well as to the subjects of the States. In these circumstances, the exact position of the Indian States in an all-India polity has been the subject of serious thought for several years, and since the declaration of August 1917, it has been obvious to everybody that their incorporation in the body politic of India is no longer a matter for speculation for constitutional theorists, but that the subject has become a matter of immediate practical interest. Writing on the subject ten years ago, before the publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, I expressed the opinion that "the States should be brought into touch with the ultimate facts of the political life in this country and that this can only be attained by a Federal Union in which the Indian States should be constituent partners sharing common obligations and rights along with British Indian Provinces." The authors of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report also gave an indication of their conception of the eventual future of India as "a sister-hood of States, self-Governing in all matters of purely local or provincial interest, in some cases corresponding to existing, provinces, in others perhaps modified by the area according to the character and economic interests of the people." They proceeded to state that over this congeries of States would preside a Central Government increasingly representative and responsible to the people of all the States; dealing with matters both internal and external, of common interest to the whole of India; acting as arbiter in inter-state disputes and representing the interests of all-India on equal terms with the self-governing units of the British Empire. They expressly pointed out that, "in this picture, there is also place for the Indian States and that it is possible that they too will wish to be associated for certain purposes with the organisation of British India in such a way as to dedicate their peculiar qualities to the common service without loss of individuality." In advocating a new constitutional structure linking up the Indian States with British India, we are only pressing for a vital reform which was foreseen as inevitable 10 years ago.

GROWTH OF PUBLIC OPINION

It is not, therefore, surprising that the future relation of Indian States to British India has received unusual attention during the last few months for a variety of reasons. The growing agitation in the Indian States for the establishment of responsible Government in the States, and the conferences held by the subjects of the various States from time to time, have given ample proofs to the Indian Princes of the repurcussions of the national movement in British India, as also of the desire of the subjects of the States to take their legitimate part in an all- India polity. The subject also attracted a good deal of public attention in Great Britain on account of the activities of the delegation of Indian Princes which left for England subsequent to the Simla Conference. The British Press during the last few months has frequently discussed the question, not from an unbiased point of view, but solely with a view to protect the present position of the Indian Princes; and Anglo-Indian pundits like Lord Sydenham, Lord Meston and Sir Michael O'Dwyer have suddenly conceived a great affection for the Indian States and the perpetuation of their treaty rights.

In his address last year, my esteemed friend Professor Abhyankar very rightly contended that many questions of policy vitally affecting the interests of the subjects of Indian States and relating to defence, customs and tariffs, commercial services such as posts, telegraphs and railways, currency and banking, excise and opium, are decided by the Government of India and the Indian Legislature, but the States have at present no opportunity in the formulation of that policy. The Rulers of the States have naturally desired to know what their exact position would be in the future constitution of India, and though we have no authoritative information, it is understood that they have formulated their views on the whole subject at the Conference held in Simla in May last. The appointment of the Royal Commission, which has been expected for some time, has also stimulated interest in the subject in this country, and many eminent men who are authorities on the Indian Constitution have publicly discussed the position of Indian States in the future constitution of India. The Commonwealth of India Bill and the Bill formulated by the Independent Labour Party have also dealt with the problem of the Indian States and have given some indication of the position as assigned by their authors to the States in the future constitutional arrangements for the whole of India. It has been generally suggested that the Indian States should be allowed to occupy the same dignified status in the Indian Constitution as the federal states in the United States of America.

The Maharajah of Alwar has expressed the sentiment that his goal is the United States of India where every Province, every State, working out its own destiny in accordance with its environment, its tradition, history and religion, will combine together for higher and Imperial purposes. The plea for a union has thus found general acceptance and support, and it is a matter for great satisfaction that the problem has now come within the range of active public discussion both in the States and in British India.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE PRINCES

No one who has any acquaintance with the subject will deny the difficulties surrounding the problem of evolving a new constitution for bringing the Indian States into some form of organic association with British India.

India is now a unitary State contemplating federalism. Will the Indian States consent to be absorbed and fitted in with the present structure of the Government of India, and if this cannot be achieved, would it be possible to devise a federal constitution for the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces, and if so, on what terms? The adoption of either type vitally affects the subjects of Indian States, and their Rulers, and the people of British India. The difficulties are not, however, insurmountable and can only be solved with the good-will and co-operation of all the parties concerned. Whatever changes may ultimately be made to bring the States into constitutional relation with British India, a Central Government is the Sine qua non.

THE SIMLA CONFERENCE

Doubts however have been expressed about the attitude of the Princes in regard to the future political

evolution of India. The recent conference of the Princes in May last at Simla, has given rise to very grave apprehensions and misgiving. It is a matter for great regret that the proceedings of the conference have not been made public, and that the Government of India and those responsible for the conference at Simla have not chosen to issue any authoritative statement as regards the purposes for which the conference has been summoned, or as to the conclusions arrived at by it, and it would have been in the fitness of things if the Government of India had issued a communique on the subject to clear up the misunderstanding. It has been suggested in the press that the Indian Princes are being used at the present juncture as a sort of smoke screen for vitiating the judgment of the Royal Commission on the subject of an Indian constitution. It has also been stated that the - object of the conference was to find a solution for checking the democratic onrush in British India, and that under the guise of safeguarding their existing status, rights, and dignities, Indian Princes are being advised and incited to oppose a grant of full constitutional freedom to India and to retard India's advance to Swaraj.

I can hardly believe that the Indian Princes will be so unpatriotic as to enter into a conspiracy with the enemies of India's freedom. It may be that the conference was intended to ascertain the wishes of the Indian Princes as to the place of the States in a future Indian constitution.

Whatever may be the object of the recent conference of the Princes in Simla, some light is thrown on the present attitude of the Princes as expressed by their delegation in England. As you are a ware, Col. Hasker and Dr. Rush brook Williams left for England immediately after the Simla Conference and have received a good deal of attention from the British Press. They have issued a statement on behalf of the Indian Princes that they are not opposed to the legitimate aspiration of India to become fully self-governing, but that the position and status of the Princes as guaranteed in the treaties should be maintained.

H. H. THE JAM SAHEB

His Highness the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar recently gave expression to similar sentiments and stated publicly last month that the Princes have full sympathy with the aspirations of their countrymen in British India, and that such a feeling can and in fact does co-exist with the natural instinct of self preservation. He went on to say that "the Princes have no desire to interfere in the affairs of British India and that they do not wish that there should be outside interference in their own domestic affairs" and he appealed to the Viceroy, "that their position in the New India that is being evolved needs to be thoroughly safeguarded and that whatever form the future constitution will assume, the existence of Indian States as separate political entities will demand an adjustment, which while recognising and meeting modern conditions, will not ignore history and traditions." It is clear from this that the present attitude of the Indian Princes is not hostile to the Indian national movement. But that is not enough. They have to come into it, and the creation of an organic constitutional structure for the whole of India including the Indian States is hardly compatible with the general attitude of the Indian Princes as indicated by H. H. The Jam Saheb. The Princes cannot ignore the requirements of the situation and must face the essential conditions for the evolution of a common constitution for the whole of India.

SOME DIFFICULTIES:

LOSS OF SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

Before I close this part of the subject, I should like to make a brief reference to two or three cognate matters which of late attracted considerable public attention and which have an important bearing on the general acceptance of a constitution embracing the whole of India. I refer to the contention that has been put forward that the Indian States will be surrendering their sovereign rights by coming into a federal union with British India. This position was examined at considerable length by me ten years ago, and quite recently by eminent public men in the country, and a controversy on the subject has been going on in the press for sometime past. I do not like to weary you with further details at this stage. The restrictions placed upon the independent action of the States, and the obligations which habitually govern their external relations, and even to some extent their exercise of internal sovereignity, are well-known. The present position of the States, as summarised by Sir William Lee-Warner, is that the "British Government has drawn to itself the exercise of the entire external sovereignty of the Indian States, and it has also gathered into its hands some of the internal sovereignty of even important States." They share the obligation for the common defence of India and are under a general responsibility to the Government of India for good government and the welfare of their territories. The tie that unites the Indian States to the British Government is, therefore, not international in any sense of the term, nor is it feudal, and it has been described as semi-sovereign. The question as to whether the Indian States are sovereign, and if so to what extent, and in what manner, has now been discussed for sometime by eminent constitutionalists in India as well as Great Britain, and many nice questions of constitutional law, such as the divisibility of sovereignty, have also formed the subject of controversy. I do not wish to refer to these matters nor to the varying degrees of internal sovereignty enjoyed by the bigger and the smaller States. While the theoretical sovereignty of the Indian States cannot be denied, and while some of the bigger states like Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, Baroda, Gwalior, Indore, Patiala and Bikaner enjoy at the present day an undoubted measure of internal sovereignty, we cannot forget the actual conditions of the present day. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the treaties provide that the Chief shall remain the absolute ruler of his country, the Government of India have not been precluded in the past, and are not even now precluded, from interference with the administration of the States by the Government of India through the agency of its representatives. The treaties have, therefore, to be interpreted not so much in the light of the relations established between the parties at the time when a particular treaty was made, but also by subsequent developments and in the light of practice and usage which have considerably modified them. Whatever may have been the rights established by treaties a century ago, the present position is that many of the States have been stripped of many real attributes of sovereignty in actual practice. In these circumstances, it is futile either for the Princes or for the people of Indian States to refuse to come into line and join in a scheme for the political evolution of India into a self-governing Dominion, on the ground that such a step would entail a loss of their sovereign rights.

ROMANCE AND REALITY

I trust, therefore, that those interested in the matter will realise the difference between romance and reality and take a dispassionate view of the actual facts as they exist to-day in arriving at a decision on this question. At the same time, I agree that every effort should be made and every guarantee should be given to preserve, as far as possible, the individuality of the States in the new constitution. The position of the States in a new constitution, both in regard to the discharge of common obligations and in regard to their rights of internal administration, would be, in my opinion, much better than it is now. Notwithstanding their treaties, the States are now squeezed by the ‘gentle’ persuasion of political officers and by the Political Department of the Government of India in many important matters. This cannot happen in a constitution where their rights and obligations are clearly defined.

In one of the recent conferences of States subjects, I have noticed that a desire was expressed for the formation of a confederation similar to that of the Germanic States in the latter half of the last century. Germany was split up into a number of little sovereignties in the first half of the last century and its unification was in a large measure due to the genius and energy of Bismark. He had a clear insight into the real needs for the establishment of German unity, which was partly brought about by diplomacy and war. On the other hand, the national unity of Italy was achieved by Cavour and the Italian patriots by a process of assimilation of the different principalities into a single kingdom and by the sympathy of France and England with the national aspirations of Italy to free herself from the Austrian yoke. I wish we had a Bismark or Cavour in the Indian States at the present day. European parallels may not be very useful and perhaps we shall have to strike out a new path and make a constitution suitable to our own peculiar conditions. In my opinion, what is required is not a separate Confederation of Indian States. If it is necessary for the Indian Princes to make any sacrifices of their present powers and position with a view to create a new constitution for the whole of India, I trust they will not hesitate to do so.

THE SMALLER STATES

Another point that arises for consideration is the question as to whether a federal constitution for India should include all the States, or whether a Federated India should include only the more important ones. It will be admitted that in a large majority of the smaller states, all the administrative powers are now exercised by political agents. Out of a total of 562 states, 374 have an area of less than 1000 square miles i.e., 1/4 of an average district in British India. Of the 562 States, only 30 possess the area, population and resources of an average British Indian district. Three of the States are stated to have a population of 100 souls and 5 of them a revenue of Rs. 100. Whatever may be the circumstances under which many of these tiny states have been recognised as feudatories in the early part of last century, it is clear that, before a federal union can be carried out between the States and the British Indian provinces, a thorough investigation will have to be undertaken as to which of them should be admitted to a federal union. It is unthinkable that the large majority of the smaller States, which are no better than petty Zamindaries, should be put in the same category with Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda or Kashmir. The problem of the smaller States and their future position in a federated India require very careful consideration.

THE POSITION OF THE PRINCES

A third point is the exact position of these hereditary Princes as heads of their States in a new constitution. It is clear we cannot go solely by the precedents of federal constitutions elsewhere, nor will it be practicable to ignore existing conditions. The recognition of the dignity, status and position of the Princes of the more important States in a new constitution under appropriate safeguards will be necessary until the principle of popular sovereignty, assuming a popular form, so deeply penetrates the masses of the people as to dispense with the hereditary principle altogether. The time for the assertion of this principle is far distant, and we may leave it out of consideration altogether for the present. It does not follow from this that the present system of autocratic personal rule in the Indian States should necessarily continue.

LORD MESTON'S OBJECTION

One of the objections raised by Lord Meston to the creation of a federal constitution for the whole of India including the Indian States is that the constituent states in the federation would be of two entirely different types, hereditary monarchies, and provincial Governments under a democratic parliamentary system, and that the creation of a common constitution for both of them would be like mixing oil with water and that the two cannot really coalesce. This objection is not so formidable as Lord Meston wishes to make out. But even if there is any force in this objection, it is clear that the Princes are realising the inevitable trend of events in their States for the establishment of constitutional responsible Government. As an illustration, I may refer to the statement made by H. H. the Jam Saheb quite recently on a public occasion that if it be the desire of his subjects to progress on the lines of British India, they will not find him behind-hand in enthusiastic response to their aspirations and that he would be prepared to grant them in the administration a share "adequate to their capacities." This is a very encouraging statement and I trust that every other Prince will follow him in this matter. The words "adequate to their capacities" in this pronouncement introduce a qualification, the exact import of which is not clear. I hope that His Highness will not imitate the methods of the British Government in appearing to make promises, but at the same time making reservations with a view to evade them.

Another qualification made by His Highness was that whatever changes he is prepared to make to introduce a popular element in the administration, to bring it into line with British India, should receive the approval of His Excellency the Viceroy. The exact words used by His Highness are "should such a measure find favour with your Excellency, it will hearten and embolden me in taking steps for initiating it in right earnest." It is clear, therefore, that His Excellency the Viceroy, as representing the paramount power, has thus been given an opportunity Of initiating constitutional reforms in the States, and if His Excellency neglects to press for the adoption of a settled constitution, the suspicions already existing will be deepened.

GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES

There is yet another fundamental point to which I, must make a reference. That point, to put it in the words of, Lord Olivier, is "whether and how far the relations now subsisting between the King and all other Indian States can be transferred to the executive of an Indian National Government, not responsible, as now, to the British Parliament, but to a Federal Indian Assembly." During the discussions in the Legislative Assembly on the subject of Dominion self-government for India during the last two or three years, the spokesmen of the Government of India pointedly raised the same question more than once. Sir Malcolm Hailey said that the Government of India would like to know "whether the States would continue as hereto- fore to deal with the Governor-General-in-council who is responsible to the British Parliament, or with the executive Government responsible to the Indian Legislature?" "Is Indian self-government to be confined to British India only, or was it to be extended to the States also? Under what terms should this be done? Are they to be dependent on the Crown, or are they to be controlled by a new Government responsible only to the Indian Legislature, instead of a Government responsible to the British Parliament."

The constitutional issue thus raised by Lord Olivier and Sir Malcolm Hailey has been answered more than once by eminent Indian statesmen who are recognised authorities on Indian constitutional law. The contention that Indian States have entered into treaty relations with the Governor-General, as representative of the British Crown, and not as the executive head of the Government of India for the time being is without foundation. Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Iyer very recently examined the question again and has clearly expressed the opinion that, "the treaties do not merely confer a personal right or obligation, but impose obligations on the Rulers, for the time being, of the Indian States in favour of the authorities, for the time being, in charge of the Government of India." It is not, therefore correct to say that the treaties were entered into with the Crown irrespective of the sovereignty of British India, and if this sovereignty is transferred by the Crown acting with the British Parliament to an Indian National Parliament, the Indian States cannot claim to have any constitutional relations solely with the British Crown and independently of the Government of India as defined in a new constitution.

Nor do I see any reason why the Princes should hesitate to be constitutionally connected with a Government responsible only to the Indian Legislature. The States will have suitable representation in the federal legislatures and in the federal executive that may come into existence, and in all other federal assemblies for the control of federal affairs. A federal executive and a federal legislature, in the making of which the Princes and the people of the States will have a voice, would undoubtedly protect their rights very much better than a Government which is not responsible to them, and a Parliament in which they have no representation. I do not, therefore, believe that the Indian Princes as a body would not co-operate with us in coming into a federation with British India and in the political reconstruction of India. Their active help and assistance is necessary in attaining our ideals for the political emancipation of our Motherland and we may rely on their lofty patriotism to come into line with the political aspirations of the people of India as a whole.

Sir Malcolm Hailey expressed the opinion that some kind of federation is the objective frequently suggested to the Government of India, and his speech leads one to conclude that, in his opinion, some such federation would be necessary, but that the terms on which such a federation should be secured between British India and the Indian States should first be settled.

Some of our enemies will, however, continue to cherish the hope that the Indian Princes may be used for creating difficulties in the reconstruction of our political edifice on a democratic basis, but I sincerely hope they will be disappointed. The time-spirit is rapidly changing even the most conservative Rulers of the Indian States and the most conservative institutions in the country. Sir William Lee-Warner predicted this change at the beginning of the century in very pregnant words. "The day has passed then the East could 'bow low before the storm in patient deep disdain.' The legions still thunder by, but Oriental society can never go back to what it was: Tomorrow will not be as Yesterday. It is certain that the present century will witness alterations in the character of British relations with the Native States." This prophesy is now beginning to be fulfilled.

I have referred briefly to these vital aspects of the problem and do not feel called upon to take up any more of your time by the discussion of further details, nor do I wish to refer to any of the schemes that are now in the field. Our energies must be devoted to evolving a scheme acceptable to the Princes and the people of the Indian States and of British India. The further details of a federal constitution, such as the composition of a federal legislature or of a federal executive, the functions of the federal state, the constitution of a federal Court, and the settlement of inter-state disputes, the system of federal finance, the exact powers of intervention to be reserved to the federal Government in the internal administration of the states, and various other matters should receive detailed consideration, and for that purpose I trust you will, while agreeing on general principles, appoint a suitable committee to formulate proposals for final adoption by this and other conferences of States subjects in the near future.

INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION

I have so far referred to the difficult problem of the establishment of constitutional relations between British India and the Indian States and the evolution of a federal constitution for the whole of India. I have referred to the difficulties surrounding the problem. The reform in the internal administration of the Indian States is even more important, and is of immediate practical interest to the members of this conference, than even a Federal Union between the Indian States and British India. I do not wish to make any detailed comparison between the political condition of the people in British India and of the Indian States and the defects and merits of the systems of administration under which they are now living. Nor do I wish to refer to specific acts of misgovernment and maladministration in the Indian States which have occupied public attention during the last few years, but I shall confine myself to the broad general features of the problem. The characteristic feature of all the States, including the most advanced, is the personal rule of the Prince and his control over legislation, administration, and justice. The States are in all stages of development, patriarchal, feudal, or more advanced, while in a few States, representative institutions which have been described as the dim colorless copies of those prevailing in British India,' have been established. The new constitution of Mysore has received a considerable measure of approbation and is the only outstanding development of constitutional importance in the States in recent years. A government which owes its success to the personal character of the Ruler can never afford any guarantees for progress. Akbar was a great ruler and it was impossible even for an Akbar to provide that he should be succeeded by another Akbar. A settled constitution which recognises the responsibility of the administration to the people, and containing all the essential elements of a popular government, is the only safeguard for the protection of the people.

THE PRINCES AND THE NEW ORDER

Many of the Princes have moved in the warm currents of world-politics and are also cognisant of the reactions of world-forces on India. As members of the League of Nations, they have taken part in recasting the map of Europe and have pleaded for the self-determination of small nationalities and the protection of minority communities. They have also taken part in the financial, economic, and political reconstruction of many countries in the world, and in activities which have given a new sense of humanity to all nations. They cannot refuse to co-operate and give their helping hand in the political reconstruction of their own Motherland. As members of the League, they have had opportunities of surveying the political conditions of every country in the world, and of realising that the Divine Right of the monarchical order is an anachronism at the present day. They cannot expect its continuance in their own States on the old basis. On behalf of the Princes of India, the Maharajah of Bikanir assured the League of Nations that they are entirely for the establishment of the ‘rule of law.’ He cannot legitimately object to the extension of the same rule to the Indian States. As members of the Imperial Conference, some of the Princes have strongly pleaded for a new constitutional charter for India and for the establishment of Dominion self-Government.

THE MAHARAJAH OF ALWAR

Permit me to recall to your mind the brilliant speech of the Maharajah of Alwar at the Imperial Conference in 1923. He said, "are we going to progress steadily and progressively, yet not too slowly, towards our goal which other sister nations have been more fortunate in already achieving, the goal of having the power to govern our country as a loyal and integral part of the Empire? Are we going to be helped affectionately and with kindly feeling to the goal which has been pronounced publicly by the British Government, and to more than which we do not aspire, of being a loyal self -Governing Dominion within the Empire? Is everything going to be done to accelerate our progress, or is our progress under various pretexts to be restricted and delayed? Have we a long number of years before us of the great furnace to pass through, from which Ireland has only just emerged? The world was not built for academic or pious assurances spread over a number of years, the fulfilment of which may well pass over a life-time." We see here two of the strongest advocates for Indian Home-rule, and I could point out passages from the speeches of other Indian Princes at these conferences and other gatherings, where their patriotic advocacy of the cause of India's freedom and her status in the sisterhood of nations attracted universal attention. The advocacy of self-governing institutions for British India and the continuance of unmitigated autocratic rule in their own States, are not reconcilable courses of conduct. It has been said that the development of conflicting qualities and the most contradictory tendencies, is the essence and symptom of greatness, but I do not believe that our Princes have any intention of achieving greatness in that way. I hope, therefore, that they will themselves change their angle of vision and give practical proof of the high sentiments and the most admirable aspirations to which they have given expression in these world gatherings.

SIR. T. MADHAVARAO'S MEMORANDUM

The best way in which the Rulers of the States can inaugurate the new order in the States is to accept in letter and spirit, the principle of responsibility of the administration to the people of the States. The remarkable memorandum prepared by the late Sir. T. Madhavarao, which was published a few months ago, admirably summarises the essential changes required in the administrative methods and government of Indian States, and you will permit me to make a brief reference to it. The Memorandum was drawn up about 30 years ago, when the political leaders of British India did not formulate any theories about the establishment of Responsible Government in India. Its chief value consists in showing what a statesman with an unrivalled experience of the administration of Indian States thought were the essential needs of the situation even at that time. The state of things in most of the Indian States is more or less the same to-day as it was in the days of Sir. T. Madhavarao. The Memorandum embodies a draft constitution for the Indian States, and lays down as a fundamental principle of the constitution for the States, that the paramount object of the Government of the States should be the happiness of the people. To lay down this in a constitution may appear trite, but Sir Madhavarao thought at the time that the Rulers not only forget this essential object of all Government, but sometimes also controverted this proposition. The draft constitution also lays down that personal rule should be abolished, that some sort of ministerial responsibility should be enforced, that the Princes should be prohibited from the exercise of the suspending and dispensing powers, that an impartial-law making body should come into existence, that the administration of justice should be in accordance with due process of law, that the Prince should have a fixed civil list for the maintenance of his personal dignity and of his household, and that public revenues should be safeguarded against encroachments by the Prince. The whole document deserves the attention of all those interested in the reform of the States. One of the causes for great dissatisfaction prevailing at the present day is that several instances have occurred in recent years of the denial of the elementary rights of the subject, the right of freedom of speech, of property, and the right of association, and it must be your endeavour to secure these rights as an essential step in the reform of the States. The reforms advocated by Sir Madhava Rao have long been overdue, and the introduction of Responsible Government in the States is the only solution of the problem.

It is as much the right of the people of the Indian States, as it is of the people of British India, to advocate and demand such changes in the structure of their Government as they may deem proper, and to enforce their demands in all constitutional ways.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

PARAMOUNT POWER

The responsibilities of the Paramount Power for the well-being of the subjects of the Indian States, and the limitations now imposed under existing practice in the internal affairs of the States, have been stated on a recent occasion by Lord Reading. The British Government have not hitherto fulfilled these responsibilities in any adequate measure. If the Paramount Power is prepared to change the system of administration in British India in the interests of the people, and if its objective is the establishment of Responsible Government in British India, it has equally the duty to see what changes are required from time to time in the internal administration of the States for safe-guarding the people against intolerable misrule and oppression, and for giving them an effective voice in the administration. It cannot be assumed for one moment that treaties and engagements require the British Government to maintain the existing rule of the Princes, whatever may be the standard of their administration.

THE NEED FOR AN ENQUIRY

I have so far referred to some of the aspects of the problem of including the States in a federal constitution for the whole of India, and also dwelt on the urgent need for carrying out the necessary reforms in the internal administration of the States, and for the establishment of constitutional government therein. A comprehensive enquiry into the problems relating to Indian States and their future position in a self-governing India is urgently called for; such an enquiry has never been undertaken hitherto, and it was believed that as a consequence of the conference at Simla between the Indian Princes and the Government of India, the Secretary of State was seriously considering the method of holding an enquiry into the problems relating to the Indian States, their exact position in the future Indian constitution, and the terms and conditions on which they should be associated in a constitutional way with British India. It was suggested that this enquiry should be made by the Royal Commission which has now been appointed for British India. Another proposal was that the problems relating to the Indian states, which are even more complicated than those of British India, should be investigated by a separate Royal Commission. The proposal for a separate Royal Commission was supported by my esteemed and distinguished friend, the Right Hon'ble V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, whose unrivalled political experience and acknowledged authority in all matters pertaining to the development of the Indian constitution, made the proposal all the more weighty. It was suggested that both the commissions should be appointed simultaneously, and that their recommendations should afterwards be co-ordinated with a view to the creation of a federal constitution for the whole of India. Neither of these proposals has found favour with His Majesty's Government. The Royal Commission for British India has been appointed solely in terms of Section 84 (a) of the Government of India Act, and during the recent debate in Parliament, neither Earl Winterton nor Lord Birkenhead made any reference to the Indian States, though the former promised to make a statement on the subject. The appointment of the Royal Commission has met with universal resentment in India, and every political party and every community in the country has set its face against it. The exclusion of Indians from the Commission, and the insult thereby offered to us, is not the only unsatisfactory feature about it, Apart from the personnel, there is the fact that the resolutions of the Central Legislature in regard to the Dominion status of India have been completely ignored, and the enquiry to be made by the Royal Commission is confined to the narrow issues raised by the terms of Section 84 (a) of the Government of India Act. In regard to the Indian States, H. E. the Viceroy announced a few days ago at Rajkot the decision to appoint an expert committee, (1) to report upon the relationship between the Paramount Power and the States with particular reference to the obligations arising from treaties, engagements, sunnads, and usages, (2) to enquire into the wider problem of the States financial and economical relations with British India, and (3) to make new recommendations that they may consider desirable or necessary for their more satisfactory adjustment. The personnel of this committee is not yet known, but we may take it for granted that neither the people of the Indian States, nor the Princes, will be represented on the committee. The terms of reference are equally unsatisfactory, and will not include the wider issues relating to the Indian States. From the terms of His Excellency's speech, we gather that the expert committee has been appointed at the request of the Princes to examine certain practical questions relating to the financial and other adjustments between the States and British Indian authorities, and it will have nothing to do with the question of the inclusion of the States in a new constitution for the whole of India, nor will it deal with the reforms in the internal administration which this conference has been pressing year after year. It is clear to my mind that the machinery for investigating the whole series of problems for bringing the States into constitutional relations with British India has not been thought of as yet. It will be the duty of this conference to devise ways and means to secure this investigation as early as possible, by such means as may be agreed to in this conference.

OUR BRITISH ‘TRUSTEES’

I must now bring my remarks to a close. In a consideration of the whole problem we cannot forget our ‘British Trustees’. They are not anxious to advance the cause of national freedom in British India, and still less to promote constitutional reforms in the Indian States. For a long time, British statesmen have sought moral justification for British Rule in India, and have repeatedly asserted that in governing the 319 million people of India, Great Britain is discharging a solemn trust. They have asserted that British policy in India is not in any sense dictated by British interests, and that the welfare of India alone is the determining factor in the formulation of their policy. They have frequently declared that as soon as the people of India are ready to undertake the burden, the Government of the country will be willingly handed over to them. A very high authority has considerably modified the theory of trusteeship, and has declared recently that the people of India are partners with Great Britain, and appealed for mutual good-will and co-operation in the working of this great partnership in India. Apparently, India is the subject of a partnership of an indefinite duration in which the people of Great Britain have a predominant part, and there is no means of dissolving it. According to legal notions, a trust is a trust, and can never be converted into a partnership between the trustees and the beneficiaries of the trust.

CANT AND HYPOCRISY

Their view about British responsibility in India has been very recently propounded by the Earl of Lytton in the British press after his return to England. He states with brutal frankness that the doctrine of trusteeship has led to a great deal of cant and hypocrisy on the one side, and a good deal of irritation on the other, and the true criterion of Britain's relationship to India is the attitude of India to Great Britain. He urges that the successful realisation of India's ideals would depend on the question as to whether they are compatible with British interests, and suggests the possibility of India being hostile and unfriendly to British interests, and also of India joining some day the enemies of Great Britain. In order to dispel their suspicions, he demanded a common declaration of friendship by the statesmen of both countries, to be followed by a sincere examination of the conditions which would enable the national interests of each to be secured. It is very surprising that doubts and suspicions of India’s attitude to Great Britain should begin to be entertained, only after a demand for the full recognition of her status has been put forward. The causes of the Great War were unknown to India, and yet India stood by her allegiance heart and soul from the first call to arms, and her solid achievements and the general attitude of her people in that great crisis were the subject of many eloquent tributes from the Prime-Minister downwards. Yet we are now told that India may join Britain's enemies. Lord Lytton's statement of the position is a frank negation of all moral responsibility for the Government of this country, on which British statesmen have hitherto laid so much stress, and it would look as if our claim for Swaraj for India depends upon the arrangement of a satisfactory bargain between British and Indian politicians. The exigencies of the situation have driven British statesmen to deviate from the high moral stand-point which they have hitherto taken. Another observation that I should like to make is that our ‘trustees’ wish to discount our national movement every time the question of Indian reform is on the tapis. They do not wish to bring the trust to an end and believe in our perpetual tutelage. In their opinion, we cannot even form a judgment as to what is for good for ourselves, and the Royal Commission was constituted on this basis.

During the recent debate in Parliament, Lord Birkenhead again made a reference to the theory of trusteeship and as to how the trust has been discharged during the 150 years of British occupation. He stated that when the British approached India in a commercial guise, which has frequently been its earliest approach to future Dominion, it found India ‘a welter of anarchy’ and he confessed that the moment Parliament repudiated its responsibility, ‘India would be involved in the same kind of chaos as that from which Britain had rescued her.’ If that statement is true, it is hardly complimentary to our British 'trustees' that they should have managed the affairs of India in such a manner as to leave us exactly where we were when they came to India. It is obvious, however, that His Lordship wishes to find reasons for the perpetuation of the trust.

A STORM OF EMOTION

A second class of our trustees contend that India is a country for tropical storms, which fiercely as they rage, subside and pass away after restoring fertility to the sun scorched soil. They assert that the movement for Swaraj is a fierce storm of emotion, rather than the all-absorbing pursuit of a long suffering people, and believe that this emotional cloud-burst has passed away.

A third class of our trustees have opened a campaign in the British Press and express the opinion that a new crisis in the chequered history of India is impending, that the Government of India is dominated by the Indian politicians, and that the best way of safeguarding the treaty rights of the States would be to replace the existing Legislative Assembly by a strong Advisory Council to which the Indian Princes and the Chiefs can send representatives. We see in this a deliberate attempt to set up the States against the political aspirations of India. There is still another class of our trustees who wish to put off the evil day as far as possible, and continually discuss the inherent and indefeasible superiority of Occidental civilisations over the civilisations of the Orient, and they assert that the development of our political institutions in India should proceed on lines suitable to the genius of an Eastern people. They do not develop their theme fully and tell us frankly what this genius consists in, but apparently they claim that democracy is a peculiarly Western institution. The author of ‘India To-morrow’ says that the west has hurled its complicated civilisation on the East in an unfinished state, and on a people more ready to absorb than to understand. These and other critics have been busy for sometime, and Miss Mayo has completed the picture by depicting the social conditions of India in the most odious light. In the pursuit of our political ideals, we have to fight this periodical exhibition of ignorance, self-interest, misrepresentation, culumny, and other kinds of interested criticism.

CONCLUSION

Gentlemen: The deliberations of your conference this year are of a peculiar significance and are particularly important for a variety of reasons. The National Movement in British India for the establishment of Swaraj has gathered increased strength and momentum, and we are now pressing for radical alterations in the present constitution. Our ideals for the future Government of India have been sometime ago Summarised by Lord Lytton in the three following propositions:

(1) We desire to see India free from any foreign domination.

(2) We desire to see India defended by armed forces consisting of our own people and acting under the orders of our own Government.

(3) We desire to see India governed by an executive answerable to a Parliament elected by our own people.

We are thankful to His Lordship for having so correctly and so unambiguously stated in the British Press the three fundamental ideals of our political faith.

IDENTITY OF IDEALS

I refuse to believe that there is anybody in the Indian States, be he a prince or a peasant, who will not whole-heartedly subscribe to these ideals, and who will not do his best to realise them. A large vision of Indian political destiny has permeated all classes of people throughout India, and on this main question, there is and there can be absolutely no difference between the people of British India and the Indian States. A free, strong, united, self-governing and self-supporting India is our aim and ideal. In familiarising the people of the States with our national ideals, your services are, therefore, invaluable and this conference is doing its best to bring the States into general harmony with the political developments in British India. The Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, the National Liberal Federation, the Hindu Mahasabha and other political organisations in British India are now actively engaged in examining the question of a new constitution for India. The All-India Congress Committee has charged the Working Committee of the Congress to frame a scheme in consultation with the various political parties in the country. I sincerely hope that this committee and the other political organisations will not content themselves by framing proposals relating only to British India, leaving the position of the Indian States in the new constitution undefined. That would be very un-fortunate. It is, therefore, very, desirable that, the executive committee of this conference should secure the co-operation, of the political organisations in British India without any delay and collaborate with them in devising a new constitutional charter for the whole of India.