| The Chancellor of the
Chamber of Princes (the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar) is very shortly arriving
in this country and will almost certainly ventilate this matter while he
is here. It is very desirable to be in a position, whenever he refers to
the matter (which he may take an early opportunity of doing), to say that
the Crown Representative is already composing his reply on lines which
can be indicated broadly to him as set out in this paper. Unless, therefore,
any of my colleagues wish the matter to be discussed in Cabinet, I propose
to despatch the draft telegram to the Crown Representative not later than
the 8th September.
2. The Chancellor, in his letter
of the 1st June to the Viceroy's Political Adviser, complains:
-
of the failure of the Draft Declaration
of March 1942 to inclued an assurance that the British Government stands
by its treaty obligations to the States, and of the apparent intention
to impose treaties on the rulers;
-
of the Lord Privy Seal's remarks in
the House of Commons on the 28th April (Hansard, Cols. 834 and 835), which
the Chancellor interprets as meaning that the Paramount Power intends to
impose democratic institutions on the States;
-
of various smaller grievances in connection
with the "Cripps Negotiations," which, on the whole, need not concern the
war Cabinet (except for the complaint that, by joining an Indian Union,
they might involve themselves in succession from the Empire);
-
of the absence of recognition of the
right of non-adhering States-like non-adhering Provinces - to form a separate
Union of their own.
3. In the view of the Viceroy and his
advisers the Princes feel genuinely that their interests were insufficiently
considered both in the Draft Declaration and in the discussions arising
from it. The Viceroy accordingly suggests that a considered reply, "the
nature of which can only be determined by His Majesty's Government," should
be sent. I have accordingly agreed with the Viceroy on the following line
of reply:
-
the absence from the Draft Declaration
of a special reference to the State's treaty rights is of no significance;
the Prime Minister's statement of the 11th March made quite clear that
the fulfilment of treaty obligations to the States remains an integral
part of His Majesty's Government's policy. Moreover, these treaties will
only be altered by negotiation and agreement;
-
The Lord Privy Seal said that the House
would wish the British administration in India "to do all it can to encourage
and expedite the development of suitable representative institutions in
All Indian States." This does not necessarily mean the imposition of democracy
(which in any case might be quite unsuitable). It mean that the Paramount
Power will continue, as at present, to urge upon Rulers the establishment
of institutions for representing the views and grievances of their subjects
with a view to their being remedied (viz. administrative reforms) constitutional
changes (which might involve restriction on the Ruler's powers) may or
may not be a sequel, but that is for the Rulers themselves to decide; no
pressure to introduce such changes will be applied by the Paramount Power
on the Ruler, as it is in the case of administrative reform. (This conforms
with what has been said here in Parliament as recently as 1938 and with
the Viceroy's own pronouncements on the subject in India. The argument,
though somewhat sophisticated is at any rate consistent with our declared
policy in a matter on which the Princes are very sensitive).
-
replies on the minor points need not
concern us (the succession point is covered under IV);
-
between now and the next Indian constitutional
diccussions the Princes may certainly consider the outline of a scheme
for a separate Union, if they wish. They might also consider what terms
they might wish to demand of an Indian Union before they Join it, e.g.
the right to secede from the Union if tile Union secedes from the Empire.
Consideration of these points could certainly not be excluded from future
discussions.
(In actual fact) the Viceroy hopes--
and proposes thank we suggest privately to the Princes that - the idea
of age separate States Union might be used by them merely as a bargaining
counter to secure better terms for accession to an Indian Union, and not
as a serious objective. This seems sound).
-
The question arises whether a reply
on these lines should be published. The Victroy assumes it will; my view
is that it should not, since it is in effect an explanation of why we consider
that there should be no new declaration of policy towards the States at
this stage. If the reply aces not have the effect of satisfying the Princes,
and if the Jam Saheb presses the matters strongly, it might conceivably
be necessary to make some statement in parliament, but I am anxious to
avoid it since there is little we can say and it might make matters worse
for them by stimulating criticism in other quarters.
-
Finally, the Viceroy and I remain agreed
that we should press on as vigorously as possible with measure (such as
internal organisation, pooling of judicial and police services between
co-operative groups of States, absorption where possible of the administration
of smaller by that of larger States & c.) towards making the lesser
States more fit for survival in the modern world. The Viceroy hankers a
little after a public pronouncement reaffirming the Crown's existing obligations
to protect the States, linked with a warning that we interpret this only
to mean protection of such States as are fit to survive. I am against any
more pronouncements, and particularly against a qualification of the treaty
obligations. It is because internal reforms are in the State's own interests
that I think we should continue to urge the Rulers to adopt them.
-
The course of action I propose to authorities
is therefore:
-
the issue in India, on behalf of the
Viceroy to the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, of a reply on the
lines laid down in paragraph 4, indicating no change n our policy towards
the States.
-
this reply to be expressly limited to
confidential circulation among the Princes (hints of its contents may no
doubt leak out in due course, but it will not be in any sense a formal
declaration);
-
the avoidance of any new formal declaration
about the sanctity of the Princes treaties at this stage, even though it
is possible that we might have to make some reference to the subject in
an Indian debate (even this however I should prefer to avoid);
the continuance and intensification,
so far as this can be done without alienating the more important Ruler's
of our present policy of bringing the States into line with modern administrative
standard). |