THE
PRIVY PURSE AND PRIVILEGES
OF
THE PRINCES
PROF. B. R. KUMAR
[Being the text of a
Paper read at a meeting
held under the auspices
of the Khasa Forum,
As
the discussion on the subject is being held under the auspices of the Khasa
Forum, it is appropriate to start with the particular angle, from which all
discussions on political topics are to be conducted by us. The Forum is not a
party forum; it is not a forum of journalists or politicians in the narrow
sense of the term–people out to convert others or to capture power, may be for
the best of motives, for Khasa was neither merely a party man, nor merely a
journalist, but one who, through political journalism, attempted to uphold in
the social life of the people, the highest standards of, first, morality,
second, rationalism, and, third, politics. For fundamentally all healthy social
life is a balance of these three ideologies or first principles, on which all
human social life is built and functions; in European philosophy, the balance
of will, wisdom, and activity; in Indian Philosophy, Sat, Chit, Ananda; in
common parlance, the seed, the flower and the fruit; or the foundation, the
ground structure and the roof. Morality, the distinction between right and
wrong in the absolute sense, the Imperatives, the Sanatana Dharma, the
Laws of Nature, that is the basis of all Human Life; the distinguishing trait
of Man as distinguished from the animal, who is guided by instinct. But
morality without rationality is mere superstition and ritual, and in any social
group morality must find expression in outward activity; our behaviour towards
others in daily details of life. The three go together; and hence the Khasa
group is essentially a group of Political Fundamentalists; we look at political
problems from the Fundamental point of view. It is from that angle that the
question of the Privy Purses and Privileges is to be examined by us.
First,
then, from the Moral point of view, is the contemplated action Moral? A certain
bargain was struck with the Princes; struck at a time when the Princes could
have held out–as Hyderabad and Travancore, and Kashmir did–and caused us any
amount of trouble and expense, and if they had held out only God knows if even
the mighty Indian Government, busy as it was with the problems of the partition
and Kashmir, could have ever got the better of them. Some of the Princes of
Kashmir, Rajputana and Kathiawar could have easily joined
And
that brings me to the second point of the immorality of the proposed action. The
agreement with the princes was not a mere verbal agreement; it was not a merely
legal document, to be left for later interpretations by the lawyers and the
courts. It was a constitutional document; it was considered so sacrosanct that
it was embodied in the Constitution. Now, there was no need for this safeguard;
the princes could not have insisted upon it, and the protection of the courts
would have met the question of the sanctions behind the agreement. Hence the
only reason that could have induced the Constitution-makers to have embodied
the document in the Constitution was to make its safety doubly assured, or
perhaps trebly assured. A written Constitution is supposed to be a kind of
political bible; it cannot be meddled with, too easily; the
This
leads one to the third objection, legal. Can the
The
contemplated action thus is immoral, unconstitutional, and, perhaps, even
illegal. But, even politically it is unwise. The moral authority of a
government depends on the sanctity of its promises, verbal, constitutional,
legal; once this sanctity is shaken there is no guarantee to its citizens that
the same kind of actions will not be repeated in the case of the promises to
the ordinary citizens. The Union Government issues paper currency notes running
into crores, on which it is written that it promises to “Pay the Bearer on a
Demand, the sum of” rupees so and so. What is the guarantee that this promise
will be kept? The Union Government has raised loans, both internal and
external: what is the guarantee that the same will not be repudiated, if it, at
any time, so suits the Government? And if the Government can do so, why not
semi-Governmental institutions, the L. I. C., the Unit Trust, the Reserve Bank,
the State Banks, the Nationalised Banks, the State, the Zilla, the Panchayat
Boards, the Co-operative Banks and so on? And if these can do so, why not
public sector undertakings, and then the private sector undertakings, and
private banks and private individuals? For, if the State itself turns thief or
highwayman–and that is how the Union Government is behaving towards the Princes–then
what moral justification or power has it to control other lesser thieves? As
the Romans put it, “Who is to guard the custodian?” or as Christ put it, “If
the salt loses its flavour.” Fundamentally sanctity of promise is the
superstructure of morality, as illustrated in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata;
without it, no society can take root or flourish; morality is the root and
faith is the fruit. Hence to break our promise with the Princes is to remove;
the very foundations of all social cohesion. That was the reason, Socrates gave
for his refusal to take the advice of his friends and save his life: obedience
to the laws was the duty of a citizen, for, without this no State could exist;
and obedience is only possible if the laws are not changed at the whim of the
ruler. Hence the action of the Government is politically unwise; it cuts at the
root of public faith, confidence in the financial and general integrity of the
Government. In future, people will hesitate to subscribe to its loans, to buy
its units, to put money in its banks, and logically, ultimately, each man will
have to hide his savings in his backyard, because no one can be trusted, from
Governments to private individuals. The pensions given by the British East
India Company, 200 years ago, to the then deposed rulers still continue; such
was the sanctity of the word of the Britisher.
The
proposed action is politically unwise, but even economically it is unnecessary.
The total amount due to be paid to the Princes is about rupees four crores per
year, which automatically decreases with the death of each recipient, so that
in a few more years, it will automatically cease. But even if it did not, it is
flea-bite in the total receipts of the Union Government, of about 4,000 crores,
that is, the total amount is about a thousandth of the Union budget; four
crores added to 4,000 crores is not going to make any difference to the budget;
if the amount was a question of solvency or bankruptcy of the Government, it
might have had some economic justification. But, when the Union Government is
prepared to put up with hundreds of crores of losses in the public sector, when
it has no compunction in wasting crores and crores or unnecessary items (losses
of Hindustan Steel since its inception are about Rupees 200 crores) foreign
tours of Ministers and others, putting up a new palace for the Prime Minister,
furnishing ministerial residences at exorbitant costs, paying outrageous
electricity and water bills, expanding ministries and thereupon the bureaucracy
to needless extent, prolonging the Kashmir conflict, nationalising all and
sundry without any attempt at economy, and a thousand other items of wasteful
expenditure, as so often pointed out by the Audit committees–it cannot be a
question of solvency or bankruptcy! The four crores involved in this
repudiation is not justified on that ground; so that it has no economic basis.
Thus
morally, constitutionally, legally, politically and economically, the proposed
action is indefensible and, perhaps, it may be said to the credit, or is it
discredit, of the Union Government, that it does not put forward any of these
excuses; even the tribute of hypocrisy to virtue is not paid by the present
rulers of India; even Mohammed of Ghazni, a thousand years ago, was more
virtuous, for when he decided to loot the accumulated wealth of India, hoarded
in its temples, he put forward a moral justification, the breaking of the
temple idols. But, we, in the 20th century, are more sophisticated; we have
discarded all morality from our social actions, and hence there is no need even
for its pretence. And so the only justification put forward by the Union
Government is, that “Times have changed”; within 23 years of our Independence
the times have changed so radically that what was right 23 years ago–for
otherwise the then Government would not have entered into the agreements–has
become wrong today; that what could have been morally, constitutionally,
legally, politically, economically, impossible 23 years ago is the right thing
to do today. In plain language, this is the language of the opportunist, the
unashamed opportunist, without a spark of decency, or of conscience, of commonsense,
of political wisdom of economic scruples, of historical dynamism, or, if you
like, the language of the highwayman.
And
so, the question, how have the times changed, if they have changed at all? Now,
it is obvious that this figure of speech does not mean that there is any change
in the eternal varieties of universal laws, under which what was right in 1947
has become wrong in 1970, and so must be set right by putting the clock
backward; much like the passengers in an aeroplane have to do when they cross
the dateline, and have to put the date back by a day or put the time back or
forward as they travel east to west or west to east. All that it means is that
the relative Position of the two parties has changed; in 1947, the princes
could negotiate on a footing of equality; in 1970, they have to negotiate on a
footing of inequality, and that it suits the needs of the present rulers, to
deprive them of their privileges and purses and they know that they can do so
without much resistance from the rulers–physical resistence that is, which, in
politics divorced from morality, becomes the only standard of action. In 1947,
Gandhiji’s reply to this was his fast in favour of
And
this leads us to the inevitable question: Why this immoral, irrational,
unconstitutional, illegal, impolitic and uneconomic attitude towards the
princes? Fundamentally, it is nothing, but an attempt to find scapegoats for
the failure of the ruling party during the last 20 years to improve the
economic condition of the country. When the Congress came to power, its first
scapegoats were the businessmen; the responsibility for the poverty of the
masses was laid at their doors. Later, it was the opposition parties, who were
obstructionists. Then, it was the officials who were indifferent. Afterwards,
it was the public, who were unpatriotic. Now, it is the turn of the Princes,
along with newspapers and banks and various agencies in the other spheres of
activity, still left in private hands. Perhaps, the best simile that fits the
situation is the thief joining in the public outcry by shouting “thief, thief,”
and thus diverting attention from himself, for the real authors of all our
present misery are the very same people who are holding forth against the
Princes, for they have been in charge of the political control of the country ever
since independence, and no one has been able to oppose their policies. Either
their policies have been wrong, or their implementation has been ineffective.
But a bad workman must find fault with his tools.
The
main problem of our people is poverty. Now, egalitarianism is quite a moral and
rational doctrine, if it means levelling up. But that is a slow task; it is a
hard task, and it means setting an example oneself. Now, our rulers are by no
stretch of the imagination egalitarian, on principle; it is only a slogan with
them. And since it is only a slogan, from the time that they came to power they
have adopted not relevant policies, but theatrical acting, (levelling down and
not levelling up. Now, this policy is immoral, for it is pure vandalism; it
serves no purpose; if all the wealth of the rich people, were confiscated, it
would not give more than a few paise to each of the poor. Further, it is
impolitic, for if the enterprising men are not to be permitted to use their
brains for the improvement of their own economic condition, the society in
which they live, suffers as much the brain drain. It is uneconomic, for it is
only the initiative of the few that creates jobs for the many. It is suicidal,
for after the Princes (and others) have been deprived of their purses, it will
sooner or later be the turn of the rulers themselves; after all, our rulers are
not paupers. The first victims of lawlessness are its inspirers; a revolution
first devours its own parents. In the Mahabharata story, Draupadi was gambled
away to the Kauravas. But that gave no right to the latter to dishonour her in
the public assembly by disrobing her; Draupadi was rescued. Perhaps, that is
the situation of the Princes today; their helplessness gives no right to the
legal powers of the State to dishonour them publicly.
It
was said of the curate’s egg, that it was good in parts. The attempt to deprive
the princes of their treaty rights has not the excuse, even of being good in
parts; it is rotten, through and through. And the fact that the whole pose of
egalitarianism is hypocrisy, adds to the immorality of the action. Our rulers
are no believers is egalitarianism; if they were, they would have set the
example themselves in their daily lives and conduct, as Gandhiji did. While the
annual average income of an Indian is about 300 rupees, an eminent economist
has calculated that each Union Minister costs us about rupees 17,000 per month.
Look at the palaces, in which they live, where the furnishing of each room
costs about 70,000 rupees, their electricity, water, telephone, petrol bills;
look at the pomp and pomposity of their public appearances; no Indian-made car
is good enough for them; the Prime Minister wants to build a new palace for
herself-and there are lakhs of villages without water. It never strikes them
that all this money could be diverted to the provision of village wells, and
such other necessities. The head of a family, when there is shortage of food
and drink, first, thinks of the needs of the children; that is socialism; our
rulers’ is its perversion; the ruler first and then the rest, if there is
anything left. Was it Carlyle, who wrote that the droppings of the rich could
feed the poor; is it not the same with our rulers? But, all this perversion is
attempted to be kept away from the public gaze by attempting to find some
convenient scapegoat; and so the patent hypocrisy of the whole show, which, in
the public mind, creates universal cyncism. Unlike the curate’s egg, the
proposed action is rotten in every detail and every fibre.
The
Greeks said that those whom the God’s wish to destroy, they first make mad. Our
epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata repeat the same theme.
Perhaps, the British Empire in