71 internal administrations.

71. ibid., Appendix III, Joint Opinion of Sir Leslie Scott, K.C; Mr. Stuart Bevan, K.C; Mr. Wilfred Greene, K.C; Mr. Valentine Holmes and Mr. Donald Somervell.

The second part concerned proposals for the Political Department. Scott recommended the virtual abolition of the department and its replacement by an

"Indian States Council" consisting of the Viceroy, three princes or ministers, two "impartial” Englishmen and the Political Secretary. Each member of the council would

subscribe to a solemn obligation to protect the interests and rights of the states. Future Viceroy's would take a separate oath to this effect upon assuming office.

Political officers would operate under the direction of the princes and there would be a royal proclamation limiting interference in the affairs of the states.

Finally, the Viceroy's intervention in the event of gross misgovernment in a state would be subject to the condition that he first consulted and took advice from the Indian States Council.^

The third and final part concerned the relations between the states and British India. Scott suggested the creation of a "Union Council" for discussion of matters of common concern. It would consist of repre­

sentatives from the Indian States Council together with representatives from the Governor-General's executive. The interests of the states would be safeguarded by

stipulations that the Governor-General's executive could not outvote the Indian States Council and that any proposal to which the latter objected would be withdrawn.^

72. Private Office Papers, L/P0/401, Indian States Committee, 1927-29•

Irwin was cynical in his response to these proposals. He believed that Scott was not only mis­

leading the princes but also suffering from delusions of grandeur:

"I am afraid that his trouble really is that he convinced himself that his intervention at this juncture is one of the direct

attempts of Providence to bring order into a disordered world and his critical faculty has suffered some obliteration under his enthusiasm."^

The Indian States Committee proceeded to dismantle Scott's contentions.

Acting upon instructions, Butler and his

colleagues declared: "The relationship of the Paramount Power with the states is not merely a contractual relation­ ship, resting on treaties made more than a century ago. It is a living, growing relationship shaped by circum­ stances and policy, resting ..., on a mixture of history, theory and modern fact." Moreover it was not true that the states were originally independent: "Nearly all of them were subordinate or' tributary to the Moghul empire, the Mahratta supremacy

01

dependent on them. Some were rescued, others were created by the B r i t i s h . T h e committee therefore concluded: "Paramountcy must remain paramount; it

must fulfil its obligations, defining or adapting itself according to the shifting necessities of the time and the progressive development of the States."^

74. Irwin to Birkenhead, 9 August 1928, Halifax Collection, No.4.

75* Report of the Indian States Committee, 1928-29, Cmd. $30£, 1929* para. 39*

The Committee rejected the idea of an Indian States Council although it did suggest that more frequent discussion between the Standing Committee of the Chamber and the Political Department might lessen the friction between the t w o . ^ However, the Committee also suggested a new and novel theory of intervention. If an insurrection which occurred in a state was due, not to misgovernment

on the part of the ruler, but to a widespread popular demand for a change in the form of government, then the paramount power would be bound to take such measures as would satisfy this demand without eliminating the prince. The Political Department's acquiescence in this recommend­ ation was typical. ' Watson thought it "unthinkable for many years to come" that the government would be required to act in this manner provided the autocratic rule of the princes was "tolerably just and efficient." Moreover, agitators who might stir up discontent "could always be won over by a prudent ruler who gave them employment in the state service.

77* ibid., para 73* 7 8 . ibid., para.

50

79. GOI• FPD. No. 73 - Reforms, 1928, Nos.1-4, Watson's undated note on the "Position of the Government of

India in supporting a Ruler against a demand of his subjects for a change in the methods of State Govern­ ment." As he had been in the case of Alwar, Watson was again proved wrong. In the summer of 1931 the

grievances of the Muslim population of Kashmir exploded into rioting and forced the Government of India to

intervene with troops. The Hindu prince, Hari Singh, was subsequently obliged to inaugurate a council system of government and to appoint a commission of enquiry headed by a British official to investigate the Muslim

grievances. For an account of the disturbances in

Kashmir, see Prem Nath Bazaz, The History of the Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir: From the gayiiggfr times to the present day, New Delhi, 1954, pp.

In considering relations between the states and British India, Butler's committee recommended the appointment of an expert body to enquire into the

’’reasonable claims" of the states to a share in that part of the government's revenue which was derived from matters of common concern to the states and British India. It also suggested that policy on such matters as excise and postal arrangements should henceforth be decided after joint consultation between the states and British

81

India. These proposals were designed to prod the states in the direction intended by Irwin. Anything in advance of them, particularly any scheme of a "federal character" was deemed by the Committee to be wholly

8p

premature. Endorsing the opinion reached by Irwin's executive in 1926, the Committee concluded:

"For the present it is a practical necessity to recognize the existence of two Indias ... there is need for great caution in dealing with any question of federation at the

present time so passionately are the Princes as a whole attached to the maintenance in its entirety and unimpaired of their individual sovereignty within their states."q^

Irwin's expectation of the Indian States

Committee never materialized. The reason was that when the Committee presented its report in March 1929 the

attention of the princes was riveted upon its paramountcy recommendations. Needless to say this aspect of the report horrified the princes of the Standing Committee..

80. Report of the Indian States Committee, 1928-29* C m l r 33T557T 5 5 9 7 ' p a r a T T J O : --- ---

81. ibid.

82. ibid., para. 66.

For them it represented a complete repudiation of nine

84.

years prolonged, and often expensive, labour. Yet they were not the only ones to feel aggrieved. The princes in general were alarmed at the suggestion that the

government could suggest changes in the form of their governments should popular demands for such arise. This appeared to be an open invitation to their political opponents to encourage agitation for change. Moreover, in this respect it was significant that in December 1927

the first meeting of an All-India States* People's Conference had been convened at Bombay. The conference had been

partly inspired by the government's refusal to allow the forthcoming states committee to receive deputations from subjects of the states on the grounds that this would exceed its terms of reference. The conference, which subsequently attracted the support of such prominent Indian politicians as C.Y. Chintamani and N.C. Kelkar, moved a resolution urging "responsible government for the people of the Indian States through representative

85