266
Chapter IX
NEHRU REPORT AND ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE
The All Parties Conference held on 12 February in Delhi and 19
May 1928 in Bombay had appointed a committee with Motilal Nehru as
Chairman to draft a constitution for India. However, as events unfolded,
, it became apparent that the quest for greater power and voice that had given
rise to communalism between the Hindus and Muslims was to be the
floundering rock for these efforts. The Indian National Congress and the
Muslim League seemed to be steadily but surely moving towards collision.
The support of the Princes became vital and eventually the voice of the
states subjects was drowned in the cacophony of the power match. The
Nehru Committee' presented its report to the All Parties Conference held
at Lucknow on August 28. The Report was accepted by the All India
Congress Committee on 5th November 1928. But the efforts of the
Members of the Committee were still-born and resulted in the irrevocable
drifting of Jinnah and the Muslims away from the Congress. 267
On the eve of his departure as member of the AISPC Delegation to
England, Abhyankar had warned that the Committee must take into consideration the views of all political parties and opinions in India.
However the final report belied the hope that the states subjects, through their organisation the AISPC, would be given due cognisance and weightage. The Nehru Report contained a full chapter on the Indian States detailing their constitutional position vis a-vis the Government of India and knocking down the theory of direct relalionship between the Indian Princes and the Crown of England. Because, as Sapru said, "the maintenance of such a direct relationship was an attempt to convert the Indian states into an Indian Ulster"' and was "like a Chinese wall in the way of India’s progress toward Dominion Status".’ Instead the Report proposed that the
New Indian Commonwealth would have the same rights and obligations towards the states arising out of the treaties as were exercised and discharged by the Government of India.'*
The princes were alarmed. Moreover by 1929 Jawaharlal Nehru and his radical supporters within tiie Congress were annoyed with the Nehru
Report that had advocated Dominion Status instead of Complete 268
Independence for India. Under their pressure at the December 1928
Congress Session, Gandhi had moved to have Dominion Status as the
Congress goal, which if not conceded by 31 December 1929 would request in the launching of civil disobedience.
The States subjects received the Nehru Report with a feeling that they had been let down. An agitation against the Report was launched in some of the Princely States in the South while the leaders of the AISPC, careful to compliment the correct exposition of the constitutional position of the states with the Government of India, said that "(it) does not however, go far enough so far as the people of the states are concerned."'’ In an interview to the Hindustan Times, Abhyankar criticizing the Report, said
"They (authors of the Nehru Report) have hesitated to speak frankly about this (demanding that the princes give up autocracy and rule as constitutional monarchs)." Unless the Indian States People have the same political rights as those of the British Indian people no federal form of government can function in India". Abhyankar hoped that the Commonwealth Government would give "equitable relief to tlie people of the Indian states and not exploit advantages which have been acquired by superior diplomacy and 269 dominant position". He lashed out against Sir Shivaswami Iyer who denied that the states subjects had contributed in any way towards customs, salt and other monopolies, contending that these rested upon the treaties and agreements between the princes and the Imperial Rulers. "We put it to him" said Abhyankar "whether there was freedom of action on the part of the states when they were concluded? Abolition of interstate barriers abolition of the manufacture of salt and opium, mints, jurisdiction over railways and other items of joint concern which formed part of the agreement were forced upon the states by diplomatic pressures. If the
Commonwealth insists on sitting tight on these agreements, of what avail is that Commonwealth to us? It may mean only a change in the colour of the bureaucracy - instead of being wliite it may be brown."
Abhyankar emphasized that the Indian States People claimed equal political rights in fiscal and economic matters and demanded categorical assurances from British Indian Nationalists. "The assurance which the people want is that undue advantage taken of the states by the bureaucratic government would be abandoned and equal political rights would be vouchsafed. Similarly also responsible government under the aegis of the 270 rulers should be promised to the people of the states. The Nehru
Committee has failed to do this and there is just complaint about its omission. We however acknowledge gratefully what is conceded. We have to complain for what is omitted." The fact was that in their anxiety to gain for India some concrete vestiges of Independence in the form of Dominion
Status, Nehru and Sapru recognised that the support of the princes was vital. Thus while approving the crown tlieory of the AISPC, the Swarajists abandoned the states subjects on the points of responsible government and representation.
The second session of the All India States Peoples Conference was held over the weekend of 25th and 26th May 1929 in Bombay. C.Y.
Chintamani was the President with G.R. Abhyankar, Chairman of the
Reception Committee. Govind Lai Shivlal and Ramdeoji Poddar were vice- chairmen, Amritlal Sheth, Balwantray Mehta, Niranjan Sharma, Ajit and
Mani Shankar Trivedi were secretaries while L.M. Doshi was appointed
Treasurer.^
The most important resolution that the 2nd AISPC adopted was to
meet Gandhiji and other Congress leaders at the forthcoming Lahore session 271 to stake their demand at representation for tiie States Subjects in the negotiations and the new Federated India. This was a direct response to the let down they suffered with the acceptance of the Nehru Report by the
Congress. As Chintamani put it in his Presidential Address "(It is) clear that in any federal scheme, the states’ people will have to be given the same rights and sense of participation as people living in British India." He criticized the Paramount Power and the Princes for their obstructive attitudes in matters of constitutional reforms and emphasized that there must be established the rule of law in the Indian Princely States. Chintamani pointed out that the problem of the Indian States had two aspects -- the internal and the external. The external aspect related to the organic bulk of the states with British India and was akin to the two terms of references decided by the Butler Committee wliich had already submitted its report.
The internal aspect related to the form of government existing in each state which required examination with a view lo establish responsible government in them. The AISPC contended that thr Butler Committee and the Simon
Commission did not touch upon this internal aspect and was therefore unacceptable to them. It was indeed ironical tliat while so much was being Ill
done to safeguard the security and privileges of the Princes by the
Government of India, the British Government, even British Indian
Nationalists, no account was taken of the 70 million states subjects. A
tripartite conference of the representatives of the British Indian Nationalists,
^ the Princes of India and the Imperial Rulers had been proposed to discuss
the future federation. The princes had categorically refused to join any
conference that included representatives of their subjects. Thus Motilal
Nehru in his Report had gone thus far and no further, leaving the doors
open, as it were, to enable the Princes join the federation. Exemplifying
I thereby that his avowed commitment to democracy, self governing
institutions and responsible government could be eclipsed and set aside, if
expediency demanded it. The British Indian Nationalists were willing to
espouse the perpetuation of the princely order and autocratic rule on India,
without any pangs of conscience.
Earlier the AISPC had sent eight delegates to attend the All Parties
Convention where the National Liberation Federation and the Indian
National Congress had been moved to acknowledge the popular movement 273 in the states. At the 43rd session of the Congress in Calcutta on December
29, 1928 the following resolution had been adopted.
"The Congress urges on the ruling princes of India to introduce responsible government based on representative institutions in the states and to issue immediate proclamations and fundamental rights of citizenship, such as rights of association, free speech, free pres and security of person and property. The Congress further assures the people of the Indian States of its sympathy and support in their legitimate and peaceful struggle in the attainment of full responsible government.^
This Congress resolution, adopted under the presidentship of Motilal
Nehru, however amounted to nothing when the crucial question of support to the subjects arose subsequently. In fact as early as 1926, Srinivasa
Iyengar,* President of the INC which had held its session in Gauhati warned in his inaugural address,*^ "Indian States, in the opinion of some friends present a different and delicate question in connection with our demand for ’Swaraj’. The difficulty only exists so long as we do not go into it and the delicacy arises because we have one view for British India 274 and another for the Indian states. 1 share to the full the sympathy of all those who think that the Indian states are a kind of very imperfect Swaraj.
They remind us of the high estate from which we have fallen and our national instinct, sound in the main, prompts us to preserve these relics of ancient dignity. But the reconciliation between sentiment and imperious necessity for Swaraj is by no means difficult. The rulers of Indian states, ought in their own interests and in the interests of their subjects, to content themselves with the position of hereditary governors or administrators of their territories under a system of representative institutions and responsible government. It is better, much better, for an Indian ruler to be the head of a democratic government and to rely on the support of his people than to occupy the very dubious and anxious position he does at present. He will then, if he is just and a wise ruler be in a safe, freer and more dignified and influential position than he is now, if he be unjust or vicious, he will not deserve any protection either from the present government or from Free
India.
The population of the Indian stales is about 72 millions, somewhat less than a third of the population of British India. The identity of 275 sentiment and civilization of interest and aspirations between the two is unaffected by political barriers; and echos of our Swaraj Movement are heard in the states. The people of British India, when they are fighting for
Swaraj, are entitled to have the Indian states brought into line with British
India. Matters affecting the relations of the Government with Indian states relating to the affairs of such states, ought not to be excluded, as they are at present, from the consideration of the Central Legislature. We in British
India are, by ties of blood, religion, culture and business so intimately connected with those in the Indian states that it is impossible to deny them our help in their aspirations and their grievances. The people of each state should have such representation in their assembly as may be necessary to safeguard their interests till each Indian state obtains a system of responsible government."
The AISPC moved a Resolution condemning the States Enquiry
Committee chaired by Sir Harcourt Butler. The delegation that had gone to England in 1928 presented its report and discussions were held about the response of the British Press to the cause of tlie states subjects. The AISPC appointed P.L. Chudgar and R.J. Udani to continue propaganda work in 276
England. "When I was in England people asked me why they had not until then heard anything about the Indian India and the political discontent in the states," said Abhyankar in his speech. "I am perfectly convinced that there we must maintain intensive agitation in the states. We (must also) bring pressure to bear upon the Paramount Power by a systematic constant agitation in
England especially because of counter-agitation by the princes."
Accounts of the repression in the states was tabled. In Nawanagar, the Jamsaheb had resorted to imprisonment without trial and the oppressive system of monopolies had resulted in the Jamnagar Praja Parishad to instate an Enquiry under the leadership of Jamnadas Mehta. The Jamsaheb banned the entry of the Mehta and members of the Praja Parishad into the state and three prominent leaders were jailed. Thus in the AISPC agitation had failed to elicit any positive result. In Jodhpur the Durbar banned the Jodhpur State
Political Conference and resorted to imprisoning its leaders. In Patiala, the atrocities perpetrated under the rulership of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh had become unbearable and extreme, resulting in widespread popular agitation Ill in the State. While in the State of Wadhwan the state police would regularly assault popular leaders.
Affairs in Patiala reached a head and in August 1929, the AISPC appointed the Patiala Enquiry Committee'® which was charged to look into the alleged misgovernment of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh. The Committee consisted of members,. Abhyankar was the legal counsel. Witnesses were called to give evidence and statements were recorded about charges of gross misconduct, misappropriation of public funds, other malpractices and even aiding and abetment murder. The States leaders chose the opening day of the session of the Chamber of Princess to issue the highly adverse collection of charges against Patiala personally and his administration." Irwin was focj^ to institute an official inquiry headed by
James A.O. Fitzpatrick, agent to the governor-general for the Punjab States.
The AISPC protested at what was an obviously biased move calculated at exonerating the Maharaja of all charges against him.'- The events of the times had made it imperative to let Patiala off the hook. The Government of India needed princely support to make the Round Table Conference a success, the British Indian Nationalist were anxious to ensure princely 278 participation in the federation and the brother princes closed ranks to protect the Maharaja, lest it opened their own administration to public scrutiny and censure. At any rate, the ’Indictment’ of Patiala caused a
»reat deal of consternation in British official hierarchy. Irwin and
Wedgewood Benn were both apprehensive about whether Patiala should ittend the Round Table Conference when the Indictment appeared.'^ In
Fact severe condemnation of Patiala’s financial extravagance and dubious aersonal character as elucidated in the ’Indictment of Patiala’ and consequent public indignation required special arrangements to be made for lim to avoid demonstrations both in his State and at Bombay from where le was to embark on for England.''^
As a result of the support that the British now gave Patiala, who
’feels himself peculiarly exposed to attack and is more vulnerable than most’,'"* inevitably began to tow the British line in as far as the federation and Round Table Conference was concerned, despite his attack on
Paramountcy in his address to the Chamber of Princes in February 1930, when the princes in a display of solidarity during Patiala’s hour of crises dected him Chancellor of the Princes Chamber. 279
’Indictment of Patiala’ brought the States Peoples’ leaders directly connected with the Enquiry under the malevolent glare of the princely eye.
Amritlal Sheth, the secretary of the Enquiry Committee was imprisoned.
Abhyankar was offered two choices. First was to take up the post of Prime
Minister of the State of Patiala. The second was assassination.'*
The Indian National Congress took no official cognisance of the
Patiala affair though Jawaharlal Nehru issued a press statement published in the Hindu on 10th March 1930. "I have read with amazement the report of the Patiala Enquiry Committee appointed by the Indian States Peoples
Conference. To say that I have read it with astonishment is to put it mildly. It has produced a feeling of disquiet and nausea in me.
Admittedly, the enquiry was one sided and the report is an exparte document and as such its conclusions cannot be considered final. But as it is pointed out, under the circumstances it could not be otherwise. The evidence that is given certainly supports the conclusion that a strong prima- facie case has been made out. It is monstrous that such charges should be made and no attempt made to disprove them should be made by one who has autocratic control over the lives and property of large numbers of 280 people. No person whoever he may be can honourably remain silent under this accusation, much less can a prince a public man. For those who are incharge of public affairs, must like Caesar’s wife be above suspicion."
As decade of the 20’s drew to a close, events in British India moved rapidly. The Gandhi-Irwin pact had failed following close on the heels of the countrywide boycott of the Simon Commission, all white in composition, which was charged with the task of inquiring India’s fitness for responsibility of government. The Congress at it’s Session in Lahore opted for civil disobedience and declared that its goal was Complete
Independence on 31st December 1929.'^ With this the entire scheme of the Nehru committee lapsed.
The Minutes of the Second AISPC recorded that "We continued to agitate for the recognition of tiie right of the people to be directly represented by a spokesman of our own choice. We were going to press this claim upon the attention of the Congress but the break down of negotiations between Viceroy and Gandhi made this effort useless."
1930 heralded the civil disobedience movement including the non payment of taxes. The mass movement reached a crescendo with 281
Gandhiji’s Dandi March. The triumphant progress of the civil disobedience amazed and overwhelmed not just those who had stood aloof but the entire world. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "The fire of great resolve is in him and surpassing love of his miserable countrymen. And love of truth that scorches and love of freedom that inspires." Exhorting the youth of India,
Jawaharlal went on, "the field of battle lies before you, the flag of India beckons you and freedom herself awaits your coming. Do you hesitate now, you who were but yesterday so loudly on her side? Will you be mere lookers on this glorious struggle and see your best and bravest face the might of a empire which has crushed }'our country and her children? Who lives if India dies? Who dies if India lives?'*'
The progress of the civil disobedience movement compelled the
Government to consider the ways of meeting the growing menace. The immediate decision, of course, was to resort to repressive measures whose main objective was to prohibit the functioning of the Congress organisation by banning all its committees, arresting the leaders wholesale and outlawing every form of political activity - meetings processions, picketing propaganda etc. At the same time special attention was paid to prevent the 282
Muslims of the rest of India from joining tiie civil disobedience movement following the example of the Muslims of the Northwest frontier province.
....The Viceroy as the man on the spot witnessed the daily deteriorating conditions. The ’Movement’ had produced a high commotion among the
Indian people. The fear of the Viceroy had come true, he had alienated many who were moderate in their politics, opposed to civil disobedience, and desirous of cooperating with Government. Force had failed to extinguish the spirit of revolt against law and government... The report of the Statutory Commission which was published on June 13 and 24, 1930 confirmed the worst fears of the nationalists. It deliberately omitted any mention of Dominion Status even as the distant goal of India’s political progress. It recommended no transfer of power, retaining all authority in the hands of the irresponsible Central Government. In the provinces dyarchy was to be abolished, but the autonomy was hedged by the grant of special powers to the Government of India over financial matters. The commission instead of rejecting, the vicious principle of separate electorates against which it gave cogent arguments to perpetuate it,'”^ offering an additional gap to commercial intransiiH-iice... All things combined to bring 283 home to the Viceroy the urgency ol expediting consideration of the
Reforms. He began to press the Secretary of State on three subjects: 1) fixing an early date for the meeting of the Conference, in order to turn the minds of Indians from agitation to constructive work, 2) selecting delegates who would participate in the Conference and 3) determining the agenda and the basic principles for discussions. Irwin’s endeavour was to soften the shock of the Simon Commission Report by side tracking its importance and emphasizing the independent role of the Round Table Conference.'®
Irwin was in fact impaled in the horns of a dilemma. His calculations of a speedy collapse of the civil disobedience movement had gone awry. His plan was to repair the damage done by his first mistake, namely the Simon Commission, by substituting it for the Round Table
Conference endowed with equality between British and Indian representatives, free discussion and authority to lay down agreed discussions for the guidance of the Government and Parliament appeared to be foundering. "If, on the one hand, he persisted with the Conference without the participation of the Congress he stood accused of playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. On the other hand, if he wished to induce 284
Congress to cooperate he must fulfill its conditions, that is, surrender to
Gandhi."^' Irwin adopted a new design while efforts were to be made to
induce the Congress to participate, delegates selected for the Conference
would proceed to London irrespective of the Congress decision. The
delegation would be chosen to create the impression that India was fully
represented and that Congress was only one of the many parties that was
absent by virtue of their being a extremist body which was opposed by all
other groups and interests of India. The Viceroy gave permission to
Jayakar and Sapru (Swarajists) to intervene, confer and obtain the
concurrence from Gandhi, if possible. The Mahatma however maintained
that the Congress was not prepared to go to London without an assurance
that the discussions would proceed on the basis of full responsible
I government — Purna Swaraj. As the government was not prepared to ,i concede the demand the effort failed, and the First Round Table Conference
(November 12, 1930 to January 19, 1931) met in an atmosphere of
unreality.
The first RTC had the following categories of members who had
been chosen by the Government: 285
1. Politicians belonging to all-India parties who were moderate,
comprising anti-boycotters, keen on keeping India within the
orbit of the British Empire;
2. Representatives of communal organisations, such as the
Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sikhs, the
Christians, the non-brahmins and the Scheduled Castes.
3. Representatives of economic interests - the landowners, and
industrialists.
4. Representatives of non-Indian groups with particular interests
- the European, Anglo-Indians and Burmese.
5. Representatives from the Princely States of India.
6. The British delegates chosen to represent the three
parliamentary parties.
There were altogether 89 members who attended the Round Table
Conference in London, when on 12 November 1930 King George V inaugurated the proceedings at the Royal Palace of St. James. 286
The beginning of 1930 saw Abhyankar delivering the Presidential
Address at the Bhor State Subjects Conference" where he stressed the imperatives of ensuring a mechanism of redress to the states subjects from the Paramount Power in case of misrule - a provision that the Princes were determined to avert. In a letter written from Basavangudi on 15th January
1930, V. Srinivasa Sastri wrote to Abhyankar,-'
"First, let me say it is an excellent address (to the Mysore States
Subjects Conference).... you give praise where praise due. Second,
the identical issue in the latter part of your address was raised by me
here in a private discussion. Is or is not the Dominion Government
to get the power of friendly interference and advise in case of
misrule? Even the Dewan of Mysore strongly objected. Sir
Chimanlal Setalvad, who was present, supported it, saying that the
issue should not be raised now that the power of interference will
certainly come of its own accord and that we must now quietly allow
the Princes their own way in this respect."
Sastri contented that "If British India now 1 ^ their power it could recover it (if it ever could) by a long process of friction and strife during 287 which the people of the states would have to undergo unnecessary harassment and even tyranny. The Dewan told me: "You, people of British
India want to gain a great deal at the expense of the present British power.
Why should not the Princes at this good opportunity, shake off this power of interference from outside?" We must therefore attack the Butler report and the Princes’ contention without reservation or mercy. I fear British
Indian politicians don’t quite realise the danger... Please don’t make public anything I say here. But you should know. The debate that night in
Bangalore was long and rather warm. 1 put full force into all your considerations."
Meanwhile delegates to the RTC were making preparations in full
swing. S.G. Vaze, of the Servants of India Society and editor of the
’Servant of India’ was one of the delegates had sought advice from
Abhyankar about what might be the thing he would need in London. "My
dear Ganpatrao", wrote Vaze on 12th April 1920,"I am really very
much touched by your letter in which, in the midst of your own anxieties
of a most harrowing character, you have given me minute directions as to
the purchases to be made which will be of utmost use to me."-‘‘ Turning 288 to the issues at hand Vaze wrote, "Seth’s incarceration^^ is a great blow to us, but do try to arrange a deputation and come over yourself. This is an opportunity of serving the states which will not return for years. If you don’t come I am afraid no one else will and the subjects’ case, which is so strong will go by default."
The "Subjects’ Case" that Vaze referred to was that of representation of the States Subjects at the Round Table Conference. In a letter dated 25th
July 1930"’ to A.V. Patwardhan of Servants of India Society, from
London, Vaze made an assessment, "There are several men who will be willing to take up the cause of Indian states, if only they can be assured of the correctness of the representation made to them. The men whom we
used to approach are not much good - Graham Pole and the rest. For one
thing they won’t do much, for another they don’t carry much weight.
Others are more cautious and therefore more difficult to convince. But
when once convinced they will exert themselves more and their championship will go farther and tell better. It’s a pity that no Indian
spokesman can be here now. I quite see your difficulties. The thing cannot be helped, but it is a misfortune all the same." 289
The question of representation seemed to vex S.G. Vaze throughout
lis stay in England.^* In a letter to A.V. Patwardhan, he suggested that it was "very desirable on the part of the people of British India and Indian
India to engage a counsel to give opinion in writing in opposition to the opinion of Sir Leslie Scott" especially since Butler had endorsed affirmatively and Simon implied in his report Sir Leslie Scott’s opinion.
Vaze thought that in order to provide a strong, impartial case it was necessary to engage an eminent constitutional lawyer even though "we have, it is true, lawyers of great eminence on our side, but they will necessarily be regarded as interested parties, and for this reason their law will be suspected." He suggested Sir Thomas Inskip who "would probably demand at least 300 guns if he put his hand to such an opinion". "Please do consult Mr. Kelkar, Mr. Abhyankar, and others and let me know.... I must have the money as well as your consent if I am to proceed in the matter."
During the months preceding the RTC hectic discussions and debates ensued amongst the delegates, members of the British government and other influential British politicians. It was Vaze’s constant letters that kept the 290
States Peoples leaders appraised of the situation. We find several references to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s views on the problem of the States’ subjects and popular agitation in the Princes States, that were always dictated by expediency.
In a letter dated August 28, 1930,"*^ we find the first reference to the ’hijacking’ as it were of the AISPC and the movement by Congressmen who appeared bent on wrecking it by starting non-cooperation within the states. It is essential to recall here tliat the Congress entirely guided by
Gandhi as it was, consistently refused to offer any concrete help to the
States leaders in their agitation. Time and again on crucial issues, the States
Leaders were let down by the Congress leadership. The fact was that
Abhyankar, Sastri, Vaze, Patwardhan, and other committed States men were in the horns of a dilemma. The negative response from the Congress after 1917 which was the period that marked the ascendancy of Gandhi to the helm of affairs, left the states leaders with no ciioice but to forge an independent identity to cater to the particular problems of the states subjects that were so different than those of British Indian subjects. Simultaneously, borrowing a page from the Congress book, they continued negotiations, and 291 discussions with them in an effort to gain their constructive support. The fact was that while the dedication of the early pioneers of the states’ subjects movement enabled the establishment of the apex body, the major drawback was finance. This in the early years was entirely dependent on donations by members. This was the reason why the AISPC could not operate an effective propaganda machine in London. More over when their agitation, quite often vociferous, resulted in public uproar against any particular Prince, the British Government and especially the Congress generally adopted a low profile thus preventing the states people from consolidating their gains, as in the case of the Indictment of Maharaja
Bhupender Singh of Patiala. As the relationship between the Government of India, the Princes of India and the Congress was need based - it was imperative to contain, if possible negate, the popular movement in the states by capturing it. Vaze writes, "I don’t attach much value to what Sir Tej
Bahadur says about Indian states agitation. We must go on hammering... we must not allow it to slacken now... 1 feel however that we committed a serious mistake in regard to Patiala. For the moment much of the work done so far has been almost thrown awry. The trouble with the movement 292 is that the inovennent is in the hands of people who do not believe in constitutional agitation at all. They are ahnost on the look out for an excuse to start non-cooperation and their voice prevails, because they are able to finance the movement, no others."
Vaze seemed confident that Srinivasa Sastri, affectionately called
Sastriar by his friends and admirers, would safeguard the States’ Peoples’ interests at the RTC. "You know how powerful an opponent he is when he is once roused... the princes have already been anticipating the worst trouble from him." But Vaze wanted that "(we must) keep up our cry for the inclusion of an Indian States’ man."
During this period a Labour MP Rennie Smith appears to have shown a great deal of interest in India in general and the Indian States in particular. He was one of the younger members of the House of
Commons, though he did not belong to the left wing of the party. It would appear from Vaze’s letter that Smith had offered to raise questions relating to the States Subjects problems if convinced with authenticated information.
It would also appear that through the efforts of the members of Servants of
India Society, who had gone to London neither as delegates or advisors, the 293
Manchester Guardian, which had not been very sympathetic to the
Deputation of the AISPC in 1928, now began to write favourable articles.
As the date for the first RTC drew near the Princes and their
representatives promoted several schemes with the sole purpose of gaining
' autonomy in their internal affairs. Malcome Hailey was to comment, 1 '! "They seem to be out for the extinction of the Political Department, rather
than the creation of a Federal Constitution."’*^ Irwin realizing the import
of the various schemes wrote, "I am not sure... that they may not have
some ideas in their minds of using federation to get rid of the exercise of j paramountcy."^* & Despite the variety of schemes with varying
motives that the states’ representatives put forward, when they arrived in
London in late October 1930, they appointed a committee to consider the
attitude that they should adopt towards the federation.”
By the first week of November the Princes of India had decided to
join the Federation that ensured control of matters of common concern.
This decision quite suddenly dispelled the gloom that had beset the official
British mind which had earlier been obsessed with the fear that when
discussions began their Government would be confronted with a united 294 demand for Dominion Status from both the Princes and the British Indian
Nationalist. With the Prince’s decision opened up two possible strategies to both the Conservative and Liberal parties. The first was to use the princes ’federation’ initiative to divert attention from Dominion status. The second was to use it in dealing with the vexed problem of how much power could be transferred to Indian control in the Central Government. Finally,
Sapru, head of the Indian liberal delegation, who had arrived in London with the intention of demanding a declaration in favour of Dominion Status was obliged to reconsider federation with the States as the only means of acquiring some form of central responsibility, when the Muslim delegates refused to support him without corresponding guarantees for their own position.
While the various combinations were being worked out, revised and altered by each group to subserve their own interests, those deeply concerned at the total exclusion of even any reference to the States Subjects as a legitimate entity continued to use all their resources not just to gain representation for the AISPC at the Round Table Conference, but ensure elected representation from the Indian States to the federal legislature. 295
Vaze was thoroughly alarmed at the united decision of the Princes to form the Federation on the 24th October he wrote to
Patwardhan, "You and Abhyankar perhaps think that this is all too good, but you must carefully consider just what it is that this demand implies."
Vaze feared, as did V.S. Srinivasa Sastri and Sir C.P. Sivaswamy Aiyer that a federation of the type that who contemplated "necessarily involves a weak central government merely performing certain stated duties."
Secondly, the central government in order to enable the states to join in would retain jurisdiction over only those subjects which were of common concern to both, devolving upon the provinces such sensitive subjects like civil and criminal law that were hitlicrto vested in the centre. Finally vesting all residuary powers with the provinces would render the centre feeble. "There is no doubt whatsoever that federation of this extreme type will be injurious to India’s best interests, but there is no likelihood of it being turned down.^^ In a candid expose of motives and reactions, he wrote, "The Moslems want a federal system in their own interests. Other communalists like the non-brahmins almost mechanically follow the moslems and will very likely support the Princes’ demand (though 296
Ambedkar is an out and out opponent of federation, but he does not count).
The only group which might be expected to resist federation is that of the liberals, but among them too many have already been won over. Sapru, for instance, who framed the Nehru constitution on the unitary basis, is now willing to fall in with the Princes’ idea, he says, if it were a question of settling the British Indian Constitution alone, he would without any hesitation, adopt a unitary plan; but since the Princes are willing to come in immediately, we must give up this plan in favour of federation, though it involves vesting residuary powers in the units of the federation. He was, as you know, unalterably resolved to resist the nioslem claim in this particular; he has however now changed over in response to the Princes’ pressure. Setalwad, C.P. and Chintamani will, I think, follow suit.
Shastriar alone will fight, but he will be completely isolated for I do not rely upon Ramachandra Rao to back him up."”
For the States’ People the most disquieting feature of the Princes’ demand for immediate federation was the demand that their "dynastic and personal matters" be dealt with the Viceroy as Crown Representative and not, as heretofore, by the Government of India. This demand was therefore 297 tantamount to asking that the Butler Committee recommendations for amending the Government of India Act be carried out. Moreover "dynastic and personal matters" included questions of succession, adoption, abdication, dethronement, expulsion and in general interference in States’ affairs in consequence to the ruler’s inisgovernment. The Gaekwar of
Baroda was the only ruling prince who seems quite willing to let the future
Government of India deal with the "personal and dynastic question." But
Vaze was doubtful "whether Krishnamachary, who will represent Baroda at the conference, will be prepared to incur the odium of the other Princes by giving vent to his chiefs opinions." Speculating on what British India’s attitude would be in the face of this united demand. "But even here we cannot hope for much support. Sapru himself has gone over. He argued so vehemently against the Prince’s claims in regard to the direct relationship with the Crown with the Nehru Report, but he says he then argued against the legal claims as distinct from the political claims, and now as it is the political claims that are in question he can lend his support to them. What the distinction is between the legal and political claims I for any part don’t know. It’s a sheer quibble, and a clumsy one at that. But he has persuaded 298 himself that there would be no inconsistency on his part if the author of the
Nehru Report now supported the Princes’ pretensions. Again, I am afraid,
CP, Setalvad & Co. will follow suit.”^**
Since there was to be no voting at the Conference, there was no question of defeating the Prince’s proposal for amending the Government of India Act. Thus Vaze suggested that the only option left to the States subjects was to continue to insist on elected representation from the States on the same franchise as was to be adopted by the Provinces. "This would involve almost immediately the introduction of representative institutions in the States for dealing with local affairs." Another imperative qualification that Vaze felt was necessary before admitting the States into the federation was the guarantee to their subjects fundamental rights of citizenship. "I do hope Ramachandra Rao will take up these suggestions, but I am doubtful, more than doubtful, whether he would do so and press them on the attention of the conference... But it would not be a bad idea to issue instructions from time to time in the names of Kelkar and other close friends of his by cable. My own impression is that he needs such goading and would not misunderstand it."^^ 299
Thus on 11th November 1930 Abhyankar sent a cable to
Ramachandra Rao'*® in London outlining a set of demands on behalf of the
States’ subjects.
"On behalf of Indian States Peoples Conference we request you urge
that future Central Government should be federal after Canadian
model with residuary powers vesting in Central Government. Stop.
Right of paramountcy should also vest in Central Government stop.
Only such states as accept following conditions be entitled to
admission to federation, stop. One: Constitutions of States should
approximate to these of provinces. Stop. Two: States people should
elect federal representatives. Stop. Three: Fundamental rights of
citizenship guaranteed to people Stop. Four: States people given right
to appeal to federal court. Stop. Show Vaze."
Accordingly Ramachandra Rao in his capacity as member of the
Round Table Conference wrote to Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Secretary of
State for India expressing his desire to raise the question of the subjects of the Indian States at the Conference.'*' Rao made reference to the
Memorandum of the Indian States Subjects Conference presented to the 300
Indian Statutory Commission: "I venture to think" he wrote, "that one of the ways in which some protection could be given to the people of the
States is by enacting in the new Constitution provision similar to the Bill of
Rights (eg. Poland, Irish Republic)... The Nehru Report also contains a chapter dealing with the question of what is called the declaration of rights for British Indian Citizens. If this is necessary in the case of British Indian
Citizens, it is even more necessary in the case of subjects of States autocratically governed. I wish to raise this question under one or the other of the 12 heads in Lord Sankey’s Scheme. I think it can be discussed under
10 and even 2 ."
British authorities had however not intentions whatsoever of allowing a spoke in their wheel. The raging controversy over the modus operandi had to all appearances deflected attention froin Dominion Status. Any acknowledgement of States Subjects demands for democratic and representative institution would only serve to defeat their own purpose.
British officials therefore rejected Ramachandra Rao’s request on the grounds that they did not interfere in the internal affairs of the States. As might be recalled the question of the status and representation of the Indian 301 states subjects had been raised in tiie House of Commons and replies tabled on the 12th and 26th November 1928, in connection with the refusal of the
Butler Committee to hear representatives of the Indian States people, as also the debate initiated by Lord Olivier in the House of Lords on 5th December
1928 as regards the constitutional advance in the Indian States. There was also a question in the Commons on 25th February 1929 by Mr. Thurtle on whether Government would set up a committee to enquire into the alleged grievances of the Indian States Peoples.
In responding to Ramachandra Rao’s request, P.J. Patrick, Under
Secretary of state noted that "The suggestion appears quite impractical on constitutional grounds, and it is bound to arouse resentment in the Indian
States Delegation...... It is (also) questionable whether it would receive much support from other members of the British Indian Delegation."'*"
Nevertheless on the 1st December 1931 Ramachandra Rao presented to the Round Table Conference a memorandum on the need for the
Declaration of Fundamental Rights to cover States Subjects, quoting
Bikaner who had said earlier in a speech tliat the term ’State’ included
Subjects. Rao contended that "In these circumstances, can it be seriously 302 contended that the people of the State have no stake or should have no voice in effecting a change in the existing relations between the States and the paramount power or in the evolution of a new constitutional tie between
British India and the Indian States based on a federated principle?
The people of the Indian States are subject to the laws of naturalisation in British India, though I am not aware of a similar law in regard to any British Indian Subject. A federal constitution for the whole of India must naturally affect the status and position of the Indian States.
What will be their future rights and obligations to their own states and to the new government of federated India? Tlie terms on which this double allegiance is to be imposed must receive careful consideration.'"’-^
"The Memorandum" noted Sir F. Stewart, "has presumably been or is being circulated. In any case, it can hardly be stopped. S/S cannot but see RCR as he asks but he can presumably disclaim any power himself to get the matter put before the Conference.
The attitude of Ramachandra Rao, so actively involved in the States
Subjects Movement in India, first president of the AISPC in 1927 and leader of the AISPC, deputation to London in 1928 remain something of a 303
mystery. On 28th November 1930 Vaze wrote "Would you believe it?
Ramachandra Rao did not show me your cable of 11th instant, though you
had specially asked him to do so. He only spoke to me about it and as for
the contents told me just this much, that you insisted on a declaration of
fundamental rights of citizenship - the one point on which he agrees with
you.... Ramachandra Rao insists, on the other hand, on a bill of rights,
which, though good in itself, as a moral sermon, will be ineffective so long
as civil and criminal law is not a federal subject.." "Ramachandra Rao
seems to think that the princes have a sort of natural and indefeasible right
of choosing their own representatives for either house (on the question of
popularly elected states representative in the lower chamber). He adopts
' Srinivasa Aiyer’s reasoning in this, but the other principle which Aiyer
emphasises viz., that the states should guarantee a minimum standard of
good administration in order to qualify for joining the federation,
Ramachandra Rao ignores altogether, not to speak of the more drastic
, condition which you mentioned in your cable, viz., that States should be
popularly governed like British provinces.'^'' 304
It appears from Vaze’s letter that only Joshi, Shiva Rao and
Ambedkar spoke with a sense of responsibility and strongly pleaded the cause of the states people as of all other oppressed classes. In any case, so strong was the Princes’ lobby and the tacit support they had from the
British Government to accede to all their demands, so desperate was the urge of British Indian nationalists to gain power in the Centre that "you will understand therefore how forlorn the hope is of elective representation being accepted for the States." Already the negotiations outside the
Conference and within it had begun to show stress. Vaze records "Sapru has become very overbearing and dictatorial. Relations between him and
Chintamani have become very strained... Sapru has threatened to resign the membership of the All-India Liberal Federation. So it is a very gloomy prospect. As Shastriar said this morning, if, with the princes creating difficulties, Moslems creating still worse difficulties, and the Liberals so thoroughly riven, the conference achieves any measure of success, it will be God’s own handiwork; for our part we are doing best to hinder it.'"*^
Thus the federal structures committee, also called the Sankey
Committee was charged with the responsibility of detailing the modalities 305 of the federation. Sankey had suggested a bicameral legislation in which
the states were to be represented in both chambers. The report said "the
manner in which the states representatives should be chosen will be a matter
for the States themselves.""’^ Meanwhile the princes who had envisaged
joining a federation with a unicameral legislature were debating the merits
and demerits of the various schemes that several of them had put up.
As usual the agreement of the Princes was imperative. "Man after
man in the sub-committee on the British Indian States "petitioned" the
princes to come into the lower chamber as well as the upper. And the
princes were condescending enough to agree, which was regarded by
everyone as a mark of sweet reasonableness on the part of the princes. The
petition went not only from Sapru who is more royal than the king, but
from C.P. and Jaykar. Shastriar alone did not join. Vaze was annoyed
with the States Peoples Leaders, "but why on earth don’t you send cables
to others, it will cost a trifle... By this time cables from various persons
and groups, variously worded, should have rained upon the Conference.
Every other interest is alert, but the States’ people are asleep. Well, you
certainly deserve the government you are g e ttin g ....V a z e was not to 306 know that in the wake of the onslaught of the Civil Disobedience movement in India and a sharp polarisation within the AISPC. The movement that
Abhyankar had envisaged stood threatened. By 19th December 1930, in a confidential letter to Kodanda Rao, Vaze wrote, "I hope you have not let yourself be unduly influenced by the views I have been expressing in my letters. It is now clear that these views are not shared either by Shastriar or by Hariji. Of course they too would like the States to be represented in the Federal Legislature by elected representatives, but seeing that the
Princes are not likely to agree to this, they are willing to let them have the power of nomination, trusting that the pressure of public opinion would make them introduce representative institutions for the management of local affairs and election for their representatives in the federal legislature.
.... If the princes insist upon nomination in the lower house, we —
Joshi and I — would break up the Conference rather than agree to it. Not
Sastriar and Hariji... A clear difference of view and tactics has emerged, and I would beg you therefore to wipe from your mind all that I have written in the past and determine your policy in the light of the views which 307
Shastriar and Hariji hold."'*’ This was the ominous sign of things to come within the AISPC.
When the First Round Table Conference closed on 19th January
1931, "all the difficult questions are left undecided, the communal settlement is as far as ever and though responsibility is being introduced at the centre, the conditions mentioned are ahnost impossible. The only good feature about it is that the conditions are as yet capable of modification. So far as the Stats’ question is concerned, we have lost all along the line. The last stages of the Conference were so hurried that even a proper dissent could not be expressed. Still Joshi raised the point in his speech - the point viz. of popular representation, but he had just a minute or two for that and, poor man, he could not do much. The most encouraging thing was that
Mr. Chintamani made it absolutely dear that although in the transitional period Princes may be allowed to nominate persons to the federal legislature, it could not be a permanent arrangement, and that eventually the
States’ representatives must come in by election just like the British Indian
States must now be wide awake. All is not lost yet. Many questions are still left open and there is plenty of room for agitation. 308
End Notes
1. Nehru Committee; Motilal Nehru, Chairman, TB Sapru, Ali Imam, Pradhan, Shuaib Qureshi, Subhas Chandra Bose, M.G. Aney, M.R.Jaykar, N.M. Joshi and Mangal Singh were members.
2. All Parties Conference, 1928, Report of the Committee and Summary of Proceedings (Allahabad, AICC, 1928).
3. Sapru, Tej Bahadur, ’Leader’, Allahabad, 19 April 1929.
4. All Parties Conference, 1928, Report of the Committee appointed by the Conference to determine the principles of the constitution of India, 1928. Cited: S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1939, London.
5. Abhyankar, GR, Interview. Source: Work in England of the Deputation of the Indian States’ Peoples Conference, 1928.
6. History of the Associated Movements ed. R.L. Handa vol. Ill states that among others the 2nd AISPC was attended by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Jamnalal Bajaj. I have not found any reference to this at the India Office and the fact that one of the resolutions adopted at tiiis session authorised some leaders of the AISPC to meet Gandhi to elucidate their case, suggests to the contrary.
7. INC The Glorious Tradition. Vol.ll. 1928-1938: Text of resolutions passed by the INC, the AICC & CNC. ed. A.M. Zaidi, printed at Documents Press, HS 14 Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110048.
8. Srinivasa Iyengar: 6 1874 d.l941. President, INC, 1926, Gauhati.
9. Indian National Congress: Presidential Addresses, Vol.IV, 1921-39, Ed: A.N. Zaid, 1988, printed at Fairfield Graphics (P) Ltd. 112 Zamrudpur, New Delhi 110048. 309
10. All India States Peoples Conference Patiala Enquiry Committee: Indictment of Patiala, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.
11. Barbara Ramusack: The Princes of India in the twilight of Empire. 1978, Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
12. Report of Enquiry by J.A.O. Fit/.patrick, 17 July 1930, India Office Records, CR, R/1/29/545(0).
13. Irwin to Wedgewood Benn, 2 April 1930, India Office Records, MSS EinC 152/11. Wedgewood Benn to Irwin, 4th July 1930, Ibid. Irwin to Wedgewood Benn, 18 July 1930, Ibid. Keyes to George Cunningham, Pvt. Secretary to Irwin, 5th July 1930, India Office, MSS Eur F 131/28.
14. Maharaja Bhupender Singh was forced to make a hurried departure. To avoid a hostile demonstration that had been arranged at Ballard Pier (Bombay) from where the mail boat sailed, the Chancellor of Chamber had to take a launch and board the boat midstream. (Source: B. Ramusack, Princes of INdia in the Twilight of Empire, pp.200.)
15. B.J. Clancy’s note on the Chamber Session, January 1935, Private Papers, India Office Records, L/PO/88. Patiala and other princes however retracted from their support to the Federation by the Second RTC.
16. G.R. Abhyankar: Private Papers, Nehru Memorial M&l, New Delhi. This was confirmed by Abhyankar’s son, Lt. Col. M.G. Abhyankar who recalls much consternation within the family at the assassination threat. Characteristically G.R. Abhyankar ignored both offers.
17. S.R. Mehrotra, India and the Commonwealth 1885-1929. London, 1965, p. 142. cited in S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1939. 310
At Lahore on the 29th December 1929 Jawaharlal Nehru in fiercely pressing for ’complete independence said, "the embrace of the British Empire is a dangerous thing. It is not and cannot be the life giving embrace of affection freely given and returned. And if it is not that, it will be what it has been in the past, the embrace of death." Source: J.L. Nehru, Presidential Address, 44th Session of INC, Lahore, December 29, 1929. The Indian Annual Register, 1929, vol.II, p.292.
18. Tarachand: History of the Freedom Movement. Vol.IV, pp. 125-126.
19. Ibid. pp. 132-134.
20. Ibid pp. 134-150.
21. Ibid.
22. Presidential Address by G.R. Abliyankar to the Bhor State Subjects Conference, National Archives, New Delhi.
23. G.R. Abhyankar: Private papers, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, Teen Murti, New Delhi. The letter is marked Strictly Private and Confidential.
24. Ibid.
25. Abhyankar’s son Raghunath died of lymphosarcoma of the intestines on 16 April 1930 after suffering an agonizing end at the age of 14.
26. Amritlal Sheth was jailed in reprisals that followed the ’Indictment of Patiala’ by the All India State People’s Conference in February 1930.
27. G.R. Abhyankar; Private papers, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, New Delhi. 311
28. Ibid. An extract from S.G. Vaze’s letter to Mr. A.V. Patwardhan, August 13, 1930.
29. Ibid. Letter to A.V. Patwardhan from S.G. Vaze.
30. Harley to Irwin, 20th November 1930, Halifax Collection, No. 19.
31. Irwin to Lawrence, 17th November 1930, Ibid.
32. The first schemes put up for consideration was by Kailas Haksar and K.M. Panikkar on behalf of the Special Standing Organization of the Chamber. This was contained in their book Federal India that was released on the opening day of the London Conference. It contemplated the grant of complete responsible government to British India save for the transfer to a federal council of matters of common concern to the States and British India. Federal India was in fact largely devoted to describing how, in return for British India, achieving central responsibility, the states would obtain complete internal autonomy safeguarded by a supreme court. Sir Mirza Ismail, Dewan of Mysore, put forth another scheme. Concerned as he was with the growth of vocal opinion among the subjects of the state (refer ft.#23), Ismail was also influenced by the consideration that if Mysore entered a federation it might gain relief from the heavy burden of tribute which it paid the British Government. He suggested a federal constitution that provided full autonomy in the Provinces, responsibility at the centre and a closer association between British India and the states in matters of common concern. In September 1930 yet another scheme was initiated by Sir Akbar Hydari on behalf of Hyderabad. The responsible British Indian Centre envisaged int he Haksar-Panikkar and Ismail schemes, was a severe threat to Hyderabad’s existence and autocracy of the Nizam. Hydar’s plan for federation therefore involved the abolition of the British Indian centre, and its replacement by a small ’aristocratic’ federal assembly consisting of 36 provincial representatives. 24 State representatives and 12 Crown nominees. All matters of common concern were to come under federal 312
jurisdiction, while all remaining subjects would be completely provincialised. Reserved subjects, particularly foreign affairs, political relations with states, defence, finance and law and order would remain under the jurisdiction of the Crown. Sir George Schuster, to whom Hydari had explained his scheme on the voyage to London, though appreciative of Hydari’s concern to eliminate ’the popular demagogues from British India,’ pointed out that British Indian politicians would never accept the abolition of their ’central political stage’. Hydari therefore revised his scheme to accommodate a British Indian Centre, though he insisted that this Centre was in no way to influence the activities of the federal assembly. Source; S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards the Indian States, Curzon Press, London -- pp. 131-134.
33. The Indian States’ Delegation included all members of the Standing Committee - the Rulers of Alwar, Bhopal, Bikaner, Kahsmir, Patiala and the Jain Sahib of Nawanagar; Manubhai Mehta and Kailas Haksar from the Chamber’s Special Organisation, plus seven members chosen by Irwin. Four of the premier states were represented - Hyderabad by Sir Akbar Hydari, Mysore by Sir Mirza Ismail, Gwalior by Sahibzada Ahmed Khan, and Baroda by the Gaekwar. Prabhashankar Pattani represented those stats under minority administration; Gulab Singh, the Maharaja of Rewa, represented the so called conservative states; and the Chief of Sangli was chosen to represent the smaller states. Source; S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards Indian States 1905-1936, London, fn. pp. 154.
34. Harley to Irwin, 14th November 1930, Halifax Collection No. 19.
35. G.R. Abhyankar, Private Collection, Copy of Mr. Vaze’s letter to A.V. Patwardhan, 24-10-30, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. 313
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid. Copy of cable from G.R. Abhyankar to Ramachandra Rao, 11th November, 1930.
41. Ramachandra Rao to Wedgewood Benn, Secretary of State for India, ’Indian States and Federation,’ L/PO/5/3, India Office Records.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. G.R. Abhyankar: Private collection, copy of Mr. Vaze’s letter 28th November, 1930. Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, New Delhi.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid, copy of Vaze’s letter to A.V. Patwardhan, 12th December, 1930.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid. Copy of Mr. Vaze’s letter to Mr. Kodanda Rao, I9th December 1930.
51. Ibid.