The establishment of the Chamber of Princes was not only a major innovation in the evolution of British policy towards the states, it also represented a triumph
for the eloquence and persistence of a select band of rulers of medium sized states. Throughout the reform discussions the manner in which they had enchanted Montagu was indeed remarkable, but it was also rather surprising that a liberal Secretary of State should have been able to establish such a harmonious rapport with some of India's leading autocrats. One of the principal reasons for this lay in the hostility they shared towards the bureaucracy of the Government of India. At the instigation of Princes like Jey Singh of Alwar, Montagu repeatedly protested to Chelmsford at the "petty acts of annoyance and interference by Political Agents."^" Such complaints were not new to
the Viceroy: Chamberlain had reported a conversation with Bikaner in which the latter had complained that some
political officers were less courteous to the princes than
p
they should be. Chelmsford confessed that he felt some concern about the quality of the political service but considered that "the longer I am here the more reason I find for taking the stories of the Chiefs with no i&ore than a grain of salt."^ Montagu, however, was not to be put
1. Montagu to Chelmsford, 4 February and 4 March 1919* Montagu Collection, No.3.
2. Chamberlain to Chelmsford, 8 May 1917* Chelmsford Collection, No.3*
3. Chelmsford to Montagu, 1 April 1919* Montagu Collection, No .8.
75.
off and he voiced similar complaints at an interview 4
he held with the Political Secretary, Wood. This annoyed Chelmsford who replied imploringly: t!Now I do earnestly ask you not to accept the tales which you get from the Chiefs on the sub^ject.**^ He reminded Montagu of an instance involving Patiala. The latter had
constantly fulminated against what he considered to be unwarranted interference on the part of his Political Agent, L.M. Crump. Prom this Chelmsford deduced that Patiala would be particularly glad to see the back of this official, but when Crump was obliged to take his wife on leave to England, Patiala requested that he may be allowed to resume his duties as his political agent as
they had always been the best of friends. Chelmsford was irritated and perplexed as he indicated to Montagu:
f,I am left in doubt as to whether to take this as one more instance of the incon sistency of the human mind, or as a
reflection on the rest of my Politicals, on the assumption that no change of
Resident could possibly be for the better.”^
Chelmsford*s confusion represented a dilemma for the Government of India and its Political Department which supervised the states. Despite his uncertainty, the
Viceroy had at least identified the problem when, with
reference to Bikaner*s complaint, he had informed Chamberlain that rather than the prestige of the princes being lowered
4. Chelmsford to Montagu, 18 June 1919> Montagu Collection, Ho.8.
5. ibid.
6. Chelmsford to Montagu, 1 April 1919* Montagu Collection, No.8.
in recent years, the exact contrary was in fact nearer 8
the truth. Princes like Alwar, Bikaner and Patiala were now beginning to reap the full benefit from the freedom which Butler*s policy of non-interference had intended for the rulers as a whole. A reversal of roles had in fact taken place; whereas in the time of Curzon political officers had resorted to every conceivable
means of petty interference to emphasize their commanding position over the ruler3 and their states, by the end of the war the rulers, for their part, were prompted almost in a spirit of revenge and spite to protest against every petty indiscretion they encountered in order to emphasise
their independence from political officers and to press for more. The difficulties of the Government of India were further increased by the precedent, established during the reform discussions, by which the princes now considered it their right to have direct access to the highest
officials in London, particularly the Secretary of State. Montagu positively encouraged this because he believed it was the only means of avoiding the influence of political officers and ascertaining the real wishes of the princes. The opportunities for such contact were greatly increased in the post-war period. Bikaner was a frequent visitor to Europe in his capacity as an Indian representative at
Imperial Conferences and the League of Nations. The lifting of restrictions on foreign travel meant that there
8. Chelmsford to Chamberlain, 22 June 1917* Chelmsford Collection, No.5*
was a continual stream of Indian Princes seeking inter views at the India Office. As a purely formal matter of etiquette this would have been harmless but the manner in which the princes began to clamour for redress of their grievances in India was frustrating to the Government of India. A trend emerged whereby the princes assiduously cultivated their contacts in Britain to whom they would extol the virtues of Princely India and relate how they
q suffered under the iron hand of the Political Department. Many were completely taken in by the customary charms and graces of the princes; few bothered to enquire into what sort of men they really were, how they governed their states or what conditions in them were like. Pew realized that Patiala1 s extravagant excursions to Europe were leading his state to bankruptcy.^ Disbelief was often expressed when the authorities in India endeavoured to prove that some of the princes behaved quite differently when they were in their states as opposed to when they travelled abroad. By 1920, with greater freedom in India and influence in London, the triumvirate of Alwar, Bikaner and Patiala represented a formidable combination which even a Curzon would have had difficulty in dealing with.
One of the major recommendations of the Mont ford Report had been the institution of direct political
relations between the individual states and the Government of India. In its simplest form direct political relations
9. 001. PPD. No. 488 - Political (Secret), 1927* Note by Major A.S. Meek, Political Agent, Mahi Kantha,
29 January 1927*
10. GOI. FPD. No. 105 - Political, 1929* Financial difficulties of the Patiala state.
meant that there should he only one intermediary between the states and the central government. In 1918 only
the premier states of Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda and Kashmir corresponded directly with the Government of India through four first-class Residents.11 In all the other states a duplication of political control existed. There were
12