314

Chapter X

1930 - 1937

In India the civil disobedience movement that had gathered momentum after the Dandi March careered along even as the First Round

Table Conference convened in London. The severe reprisals that the

Government inflicted upon the boycotters did not deter them, nor Gandhi’s imprisonment in the Yeravada Jail, Poona in May 1930 dilute the campaign.

There was turmoil and commotion in Lahore, Calcutta, Bombay and martial law in Bombay and Sholapur. In the Frontier Province the army was mobilised and airforce put into action. Economic distress had added fuel to the political fire. There were strikes in the factories and a movement in

Uttar Pradesh villages for non-pay of rents. In Gujarat a no-tax campaign was planned. Government resorted to coercive measures to realise revenue.

Thousands of acres of land were confiscated, hundreds of village officials were dismissed. The aboriginals of the Central Provinces defied the forest laws and the peasants of Karnataka and Kanara vied with one another in 31:5

making sacrifices and inviting privalions and suffering. In fact the

movement had greatly succeeded in both its aim to elevate the moral stature

of the people and to destroy the political prestige of Government. It damaged British economic interests by reducing Indian imports - especially

of textiles and yarn by 31 % - 45 %.

By the end of 1930, the British had realised that without conciliating

the Congress, whose influence proved to be all pervading, no settlement

was possible. The Times’ correspondent had warned, "No Indian

delegation without Gandhi, the two Nehrus, Malviya or Patel could possibly

be looked on as representative." Wedgewood Benn had suggested to the

Viceroy the desirability of inducing Gandhi to attend the Round Table

Conference. Then the Viceroy made his persuasive speech to the Indian

Legislative Assembly on the 17tii January 1931 thus opening a way to a

rapproachment with Gandhi. On the 26th January 1931 the Mahatma and

members of the Congress Working Committee were released. On 8th

February the much awaited members of ti\e Round Table Conference -

Sapru, Jaykar, Sastri arrived in Allabahad and discussions ensued until the

14th. Although they had nothing new to tell, it was on their suggestion that 316 the Mahatma sought on interview with the Viceroy Lord Irwin. On leaving the Yeravada Jail the previous month, Gandhi had said "I am hankering after peace, if it can be had with honour." On the 5th March an agreement was signed between Gandhi and Irwin. The Congress ratified the Gandhi-

Irwin Pact at its Karachi session on 29th March that was presided by

Vallabhai Patel.'

The civil disobedience movement had ignited the entire fabric of the

Indian polity. "It is needless for me to say that already there are signs of impatience. There is nothing unusual in this. When there is a declaration of war of independence in British India, these splinters are bound to cross the frontier. The stir in British India has been and is acting on the states and repercussions are visible. Good sen.se therefore requires to take time by forelock. Any delay however unintentional and unconsciously brought about may be open to comment. With a view therefore to avoid this feeling and to foster and keep up that atmosphere of good relations... I am placing these views for Your Highness’ consideration.- Already on the 7th April the Chief of , Chintamani Appasaheb Patwardhan had announced his intention to institute a Royal Assembly or an elected Legislative Assembly. 317

Although Abhyankar had been dismissed from the post of Public Prosecutor by the Sangli Durbar on grounds that his political activities were incompatible with the job, the Rajasaheb continued to look to him for guidance in matters of governance. Abhyankar proceeded to draw up the modalities and conditionalities that would govern the Sangli Rayat Assembly which was to have both a nominated and an elected component. The preparation of electoral rolls - on the basis of necessary residence in the

Sangli State jurisdiction and educational status of both men and women was recommended. A detailed methodology of the officers required to conduct the preliminary preparations, the elections and past election formalities - their duties and responsibilities were outlined. Abhyankar suggested to the

Rajasaheb that a committee be constituted to frame rules and bylaws for the

Provincial Council with Rao Saheb Thombare, Prime Minister of the State, as chairman and two non-official members as advisors would do the trick.

He especially suggested the name of A. V. Patwardhan who had enabled the framing of constitutions in the States of Bhor, Oundh and Phaltan.

Abhyankar suggested that simultaneous elections be held of the Sangli

Municipality, other municipalities in the state, the Sangli Chamber of 318

Commerce and the Cooperative Credit Societies in the Sangli State. He said special emphasis on strictly adhering to the publicly announced time schedule for the entire exercise. On the question of the nominated members in the Assembly, Abhyankar suggested that of the ten at least three should be outsiders and proceeded to suggest names of men who had experience in other state councils. These were Rao Bahadur Kale of Satara, Mr. Jog of Dharwad, Mr. N.C. Kelkar of Poona, Mr. Chikadi of the Bombay

Council "representing sober non-brahmin opinion," and Mr. Wagbhat

Deshpande of Bhor. "Their association would be of immense use in building up correct traditions and conventions, in shaping and guiding our procedure and in restraining botli the official and non-official elements of this assembly. I have made this suggestion with the object that no time should be lost when the elections are over to declare these three nominations. The rest of the seven nominations are entirely at the discretion of Your Highness. The interest of minorities, of untouchables and of women (I am sorry to bracket them with the remaining two) deserve

Your Highness’ consideration in filling the seven nominations."^

Abhyankar suggested that to begin with the Rayat Assembly could be 319 housed in the Willingdon College buildings, "if the assembly develops in importance it would willingly vote for a spacious chamber for itself."'*

Replying to the Rajasaheb’s suggestion that Abhyankar might consider joining the Assembly he said "I doubt whether my activities would leave me time and energy to be a member of this assem bly.Perhaps Abhyankar had been convinced that "one cannot serve two masters at once." Also the

fact that official position would inevitably fetter his political activity. Yet

he did not seize the chance offered by the civil disobedience movement. He did not unleash it within the states in Western surely knowing

that these small states would not be able to sustain its onslaught. Instead true to his declared goal of "constitutional government under the aegis of

the Indian Rulers" he paved the way and enabled the establishment of

representative assemblies and forums on this region.

At the all-India level when the Gandhi-Irwin talks were well under

way and an agreement was imminent, the States leaders decided to explore

possibilities of placing their views before the Second RTC through the

Congress. It may be recalled that during the First RTC while the British

government had consistently refused to accord the States Subjects any 320 representation, the few British Indian leaders who had been associated with the States Peoples Movement by virtue of their association with the Servants of India Society, backed out of the task of pleading the case at the

Conference. Accordingly, on the 27th February 1931 the AISPC presented a memorandum to the Mahatma stating that "the Congress would be untrue to itself if it did not seek the protection of the States’ people in a new constitution for India."

The memorandum^ was prepared for the AISPC by Abhyankar.

Other members were Amritlal Thakkar, Rangildas Kapadia and Kakalbhai

Kothari. Outlining the background of the States Peoples’ problems the memorandum stated that it was only in 1921 that the then Prime Minister

Ramsay Mcdonald had used the "reslricting" word "British India" instead of the word "India" that the authors of the 1917 Reforms had mentioned as the political entity where there was to be a progressive realisation of responsible and self-governing institutions. The states leaders were unhappy that the 1931 declaration at the end of the 1st Round Table

Conference was silent on this point. "The Princes have agitated for over four years to be separated from the Government of India as they believed 321 that democratization in British India would be the death knell of their autocratic power and control over their internal autonomy.’ Thus the princes forwarded the principle of direct relations with the Crown through the Viceroy and an alien bureaucracy. "This was upheld by the Butler

Committee, favoured by the Simon Commission and supported by the dispatch of the Government of India and the present declaration puts the seal of approval of His Majesty’s Government on the Princes’ demand."**

The First RTC had thus "given the Princes what they wanted". The princes had 1) saved themselves of any possibility of any encroachment by the All

India Federation on their internal autonomy. 2) Their autocratic powers remained intact. 3) They were now vested with additional powers of influencing policies, legislature and administration of matters of common concern or federal subjects in the future.

The British Imperialists, on their part were only too "eager to support the Princes in their endeavour to divide Paramountcy. The endless negotiations on this and other related questions gave the British enough opportunity 1) "to retain full control of Indian India as the Princes’ autonomy and autocracy would remain in tact only by sufferance and 322 support of the Paramount Power." 2) The British would dominate the

Federal Legislative and Executive through the nominees of the Princes. 3)

Under the pretext of protecting the Princes, they would command an effective voice in the control of the Indian Army even after the transition period was over.

The authors of the Memorandum criticized the opportunistic stand adopted by the Congress at the Conference. "When Congress perceived that no advance was possible unless the States were made to fit into the future constitution, since the Princes would not come in unless assured of the division of Paramountcy, it appears that they have conceded this demand." Further the States’ leaders said that "It is not reported that any of the British Indian delegates except perhaps a solitary individual^ protested..." It was "sad irony" that Congress had "kept silent" and

"consented to the preposterous claims of the Princes." "Whatever the motives or whatever may be the understanding in surrendering their right of paramountcy over the Indian states which naturally and legally must belong to the future Swaraj Government as the successor of the present

British Government - the interests of (he country as a whole have suffered 323 a setback. If the benefits and privileges which this division of paramountcy seemed to the British power as narrated are considered, it will be quite evident that under the overpowering shadow of a viceregal government carried on by an alien and irresponsible bureaucracy and supported by 600 autocrats, it is extremely doubtful whether the parallel government of Indian

Federation would prospect and successfully function... The princes are putting forward a claim that by joining this attenuated federation divested of the power of paramountcy, they have helped the cause of uniting India.

This claim is not only untenable but simply audacious."

With the intention to stating their views and staking their claim in the governance of India, the States Leaders listed out their demands which they hoped would form part of Gandhi’s demands and discussions when he met

British authorities as India’s sole representative at the Second Round Table

Conference in London. The demands of the AISPC were that:

1. Paramountcy was not to be divided.

2. Paramountcy could be included in the list of reserved

subjects.

3. The Princes must adjust their governments to establish 324

responsible institutions during the transition period.

4. The Indian States were to be admitted into the Federation only

on condition that their governments were of the same standard

as that in British India.

5. The states would be represented only by elected

representatives and not by nominees.

6. Federal laws relating to the states must operate directly in the

states and the administration of federal subjects must be given

over to the federal executive. Any vagaries of law must be

a cognisable offence by the federal court.

7. Until the establishment of a responsible government, an

independent judiciary and the rule of law, state judiciaries

should be linked to the Federal Supreme Court.

8. The Declaration of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to all

citizens of British India must accrue to all states and states

subjects and be embodied in the Federal Constitution.

9. Finally that the Indian states subjects must be able to send

their representatives to participate in all future conferences 325

convened for shaping the Indian Constitution.

During the third session'” of the All-India States People Conference in Bombay, Abhyankar moved a resolution, which was seconded by Manoji

Govindji Sheth, that "the AISPC repudiates the claims of the Princes to represent their people at the Round Table Conference or act as their spokesman." The Conference resolved to "abolish slavery and forced labour, condemn absentee kinship and repression." Finally Abhyankar and

Chudgar moved a resolution that "This Conference appeals to all the

members of the Round Table Conference in general and Mahatma Gandhi, the sole representative of the Indian National Congress, in particular to take care of the interests of the people of the States as distinguished from those of the Princes."" 326

SECOND ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE

London, 7th September 1931 - 1st December 1931

The period between the end of the First RTC and the Gandhi-Irwin

Pact and the Second Round Table Conference (7th September 1931 to 1st

December 1931) was of events that had far reaching consequences on subsequent events. In April 1931 Lord Irwin, whose term in India came to an end, was succeeded by Lord Willingdon who confirmed that he had spent the first five months in office disabusing the Princes of the idea that a "Gandhi Raj was imminent"'- In August the Labour Government fell and Ramsay Mcdonald formed a National Government with a ’doctor’s mandate’ to deal with the economic crisis in England. His cabinet consisted of only 10 members - four Conservatives, four Labour and two Liberal.

Amongst the conservatives was Samuel Hoare, who became the new

Secretary of State for India in place of Wedgewood Benn who had resigned earlier. The Coalition government sought the mandate of the country in

October 1931 and obtained a decisive victory, with 471 of the 556 members of Parliament being Conservative. 327

The conservative-dominated government in England affected the course of affairs relating to India — both the Round Table Conferences and in India. The Conservatives now repudiated the policy of equality, partnership and agreement between England and India that the Labour governments had persued since 1917. The new government proceeded to assert the supremacy of the British Parliament and its right to determine the pace as well as the quantum of constiluiional advance. Thus from now on it was the recommendations of the Statutory Commission and not the agreements of the first RTC that guided the policy of the government. In

India Willingdon had made up his mind not to follow Irwinism which he felt was "quintessence of weakness," nor permit the "half-naked seditious faquir" to darken the door of the Viceregal palace for negotiating on terms of equality. On January 10, 1932 lie wrote to the Secretary of State,

"Gandhi is a set of Jekyll and Hyde, and while he may have his saintly side, on the other he is the most machiavellian bargaining political humbug

I have ever come across."

The general policy that the British government followed, therefore, was to wreck the conference. The only way, the well-worn way, to escape 328 from the commitments of the First Round Table Conference, was to resort to coercion, when in doubt play the trumps. In the doubtful situation of

1931, as Moore has pointed out, this was done. "It is known that in 1886, when Gladstone seemed to threaten the Empire by his announcement of a scheme of Irish Home Rule, Lord Randolph Churchill, remembering Ulster, observed that, ’the orange card’ would be the one to play. In 1931, when

Gandhi’s repudiation of the Conference formula was added to the economic crisis, ’the crescent card’ became a trump in the hands of the Conservatives and the Unionist Party’.

Gandhi had already realised of what lay ahead. On 8th August 1931 he commented "the Settlement commits the Congress to participate in the

RTC to place the Congress point of view before it. But without the necessary atmosphere, my going there will be futile."''^ That a politician as astute as the Mahatma did not foresee the radical changes in British policy towards India after the fall of the Labour government is quite surprising. Meanwhile, the Indian States leaders did not give up their efforts in promoting their course. There are soine indications that the socialist block in the Congress, led by Jawaharlal Nehru was fairly 329 sympathetic to them though unwilling to go the full way in lending support.

Writing to the Mahatma who was in England on the 12th September

1931,''’ Nehru suggested that "we feel that the minimum conditions on which we can agree to the States coming into the federation are:

1) That a guarantee of fundamental rights be agreed to by them.

2) There should be a supreme court not subordinate to the states

to protect these rights.

3) That the subjects of the States are given representation in the

central legislature on an elective basis.

It is difficult for us to conceive how any state can keep outside the

Indian Federation for long, and we cannot give up the ideal of the unity of

India. In case, however, the States do not accept our minimum terms or agree to join the federation we suggest that the consideration of the question of the States be postponed for the moment and the future of what is known as British India may be discussed directly with the British Government. But this can be done after we have made it quite clear that we are leaving the

States question as an open one and that we will not be bound by any agreement arrived at between England and the States behind our back. In 330

case a settlement is reached between British India and Great Britain the

question of the States can be taken up afresh."

In September Nehru had written to Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of

Patiala,'* who had supported the Federation scheme during the First RTC,

and in June 1931 rejected it in favour of liis own scheme which would

enable him to become the champion of the smaller states, in an attempt to

gain ascendancy over Bikaner who had been elected Chancellor of the

Chamber of Princes. "You will remember that you told me that you would

like us to consider the question of federation on the basis of responsible

government in the states. I replied that if responsibility was granted to the

people of the states there was little to discuss. We could then agree easily

to most other things. The difficulties which are supposed to come in the

way are, if I may say so, personal and individual. In a sense there is no

problem of Indian States, the problem of one of Indian Princes. Nehru then

1 went on to outline the decline of responsibility and the perpetuation of this

system by the British to serve their own ends. "....I am afraid that I have

written to you rather vaguely. Nonetheless I hope I have made it clear how

I approach the question of federation and the states. I believe that my 331 views are generally shared by Congressmen, but I cannot commit the

Congress or anyone else to them."

The fact that Gandhi and the Conservative block within the Congress were not in favour of Nehru’s stand, although Nehru had his recommendations to Gandhi about the States adopted as resolutions at the meeting of the Congress Working Committee at Ahmedabad on 8th, 9th,

10th September 1931, was evident. At the Second Round Table Conference while Gandhi put forward the proposals he did not press the issue. In that sense one might argue that the Congress as a party, Nehru’s personal views not withstanding, continued to be one of the marked reluctance to become involved with the problem of the states.

The states’ leaders were probably prepared for such an attitude from the Congress -- to expect a radical change would have been wishful thinking. The AISPC decided to send their own states’ man rather than depend on the British Indian delegates to plead their case with force and conviction at the Conference. For this onerous task the AISPC unanimously chose Abhyankar. Their earlier disappointment is reflected in this excerpt from the Indian States Reformer,'^ a weekly published every 332

Sunday from Dehradun:

"The members of the (First) RTC were not representative in the

sense that they were elected by the people as their spokesman.

Every interest which would be affected by any change in the

constitution of the government had someone to present its case. The

only people who went entirely unrepresented were the subjects of the

Indian states. In fact the Government of India have never recognised

the seventy million of Indian states people as a political entity except

when it suited them to interfere in the internal administration of

particular states on the score of misgovernment and oppression.

The States on the subjects, however, had hoped that Dewan

Bahadur M. Ramachandra Rao and Mr. C. Y. Chintamani, who were

among the nominees of the Indian Delegation to the RTC and who

had been presidents of the Indian States Peoples Conference, would

not fail to advance their cause in London. But their hopes were not

fulfilled.... When one remembers the enthusiasm and emphasis with

which once the two erstwhile leaders of the Indian States people,

advocated their rights and deplored maladministration and tyranny in 333

the states, one is astonished at their reticence about the cause during

the deliberations of the London Conference...... Dewan Bahadur

Ramachandra Rao in complete contrast to his Presidential Speech at

the 1927 AISPC.... now advocates that the subjects support the

Princes, as the entry of the Indian states into the Federation will

undoubtedly eventually mean administrative changes in the States."

Abhyankar sailed to London in the third week of September 1931.

A letter'* he received from the Sangli Durbar on behalf of the Ranisaheb said, "Sangli is only one of the many smaller states of India, but it has achieved a name for itself and has obtained all-India importance by selection, a few days ago, of its Ruler to serve as a member of the Federal structures sub-committee.'^ This time, again, the states people had to turn to Sangli, when they thought it necessary to send representatives to assist the Indian Delegation in regard to Indian Stats problem.-” The Sangli people. Her Highness thinks, thus rightly feel proud.... and wishes you every success in your labours and further hopes that you will have a successful time in England and a safe return home among us."

Abhyankar had in March 1931 written to Sir Henry Snell,"' whom 334 he had met in London at the Labour Commons Group in 1928, the new

Under-Secretary of State at the India office. "I had therefore suggested the appointment of a commission and you were then seriously thinking of having a non-official commission for the Labour Party going over to India for this purpose. This idea has still not materialised and the urgency of such an inquiry is all the greater since the new scheme of Federation is to come into existence. It appears from the present outline of this scheme of federation that the Princes are to get advantages but they are not to suffer any disadvantages by way of surrendering their autocratic power...... The existence of the States People is altogether ignored and neglected. Now that you are in office will you kindly ri;member the justice and fairness of our claims?"

Much discussion and deliberations are recorded in file notings about

Abhyankar’s demand for the representation of States Subjects at the Second

Round Table Conference, before Henry Snell sent his reply. On 9th April

1931, Gibson, Secretary Reforms Department wrote to Sir M. Seton "The

Princes very definitely will have nothing to do with the Federation if it means interference with the internal governments of their states except and 335 to a limited extent, so far as federal subjects are concerned" ...On the same day HAF Rumbold, Secretary Political (Intelligence) Department prepared the following note, "Professor Abhyankar desires representation of the people of the Indian States at "the second sitting of the RTC." His request is not at par with that of the Anglo-Indians, Depressed Classes, and

Labour that representatives of their already on the Conference should be appointed to the Federal Structures Committee. There seems to be no question of acceding to Prof. Abhyankar’s request. A formula was prepared in consultation with the Viceroy in November 1929 for rejection of such a request. A draft reply to Prof. Abhyankar is attached which incorporates the substance of the formula." There is something to be said for varying it as the States’ People’s Conference no doubt received it from

Lord Irwin a year ago."

It was evident that the British Government would stall any move by the AISPC to gain a bonafide status for the States Subjects. On 2nd July

1931 Manishankar Trivedi, Secretary of the AISPC sent a copy of the proceedings of the 3rd Session to the Under Secretary of State. It elicited this response from India Office - "there is no need to acknowledge receipt 336

of the enclosed letter from the Indian States. File it."

Abhyankar and Ainritlal Sheth arrived in London at the beginning of

October. They stayed at 30 Belsize Park, N.W.3. It was from here that

Abhyankar sent out three petitions to Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, who

presided over the Federal Structures Committee and also sought an

interview with him. The first petition to Lord Sankey dated 28 October

1931 demanded a Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in the states to

safeguard the interests of the subjects.

"If the states join the federation the people in these states, if they feel

aggrieved by the interpretation of any federal law or abuse of federal laws

and rules or by the interpretation of their constitution, they ought to have

a court wherein they can seek their remedy against any legal wrong. If,

therefore, some of the States courts are to be invested with original jurisdiction about federal matters, it is necessary to bear in mind that the

provision in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to the whole of British

India, under which the State in its corporate character can be sued in the

name of the Secretary of State for India does not exist in many Indian

States. ... If therefore the States courts are to be given the original 337 jurisdiction in federal matters, this provision shall have to be inserted in the procedure of the States,... otherwise there may be a legal wrong in the case of the States Subjects... without a legal remedy." Abhyankar stated that because the tenure of office for lawyers was during the period of royal pleasure and not good behaviour and because lawyers were poorly paid, no intelligent person was attracted to the state judicial service. Moreover since the executive and judiciary were combined, the dispensation of justice in the

Indian States was almost non existent. "For these reasons we submit that the Supreme Court be invested on its original side with the power to try all controversies which the subjects of any Indian State may have..."

Abhyankar further suggested that so as not to over-burden the

Supreme Court, Highcourts in several provinces be vested with original jurisdiction to try cases of the Indian States Subjects against their states.

He ended his petition saying that "If there had been a single representative of the Indian States people in the Federal Structure Committee, it would not have been necessary to trespass upon tlie valuable time and attention of your

Lordship."

Abhyankar’s second petition'^ was a demand for a declaration of 338 fundamental rights for the Indian states subjects.

So far as the outlines of the Federal Constitution are thrashed out in the Committee, we regret to say that the claims of the Indian States people are thoroughly ignored... It is a union of autocratic units on the one hand and autonomous self governing units on the other. As laid down in the constitution of the United States of America (Art.IV, Sec.IV) or in the

Mexican Constitution (Art. 115) a standard form of government is necessary for all units composing a federation. In the case of the Indian Federation the nominees of some 100 or 125 Princes and the elected representatives of

230 million people, will sit together. The princes are claiming weightage in the Upper House, double that of their population and 10% more than the

Lower House. Taxation and Representation would be under this scheme on a disproportionate basis. The nominees of the Princes would generally vote under a mandate and all the evils of all official block would be perpetuated.... this would hardly lead to the establishment of real responsible government in India."

Advocating the guarantee of fundamental rights against "royal lawlessness" Abhyankar said, "so long as rule in the states is purely 339 autocratic, so long as there is no sovereignty of the people and so long as there are no vestiges of the responsibility of the Government of any State to the people, it is impossible to hope that an aggrieved subject of any state will get redress when fundamental rights are violated by the

Executive....every citizen needs the amplest protection against the danger that the administrator will himself interpret the meaning of the law he applies. The concentration of power to interpret in the same hands as the power to administer has always historically been associated with tyranny."

Finding the India Office unresponsive, Abhyankar decided to meet

Lord Sankey and sent him a handwritten request on the 5th November for an interview. P.J. Patrick, at the India Office, noted on the file that G.R.

Abhyankar could be met "unofficially at the United University Club (as

GRA is an orthodox brahmin) and not at White Hall or St. James’ Palace".

Seaton and Sankey although in agreement with Patrick did not think it necessary "to drive home the unofficial bit." Sankey thought, in fact, that there was no "embargo" on the meeting being held at White Hall.

To pave the way for his own request for an interview with Lord

Sankey, Abhyankar had asked the Chief of Sangli to write to Wakely at 340

India Office so that it now became almost imperative for the British

authorities to grant the interview. Patrick noted on 31 October 1931,

"Incidentally Sir Mirza Ismail recently asked if he might bring Professor A.

as a spectator to the Federal Structures Committee and on my suggestion

it was hinted to Sir M. Ismail that Prof. A. should seek the permission of

the Chief of Sangli. The Prof. has since then informed Sir M.I. that he has

done." Sangli had requested Patrick "as did Sir M.I. to see A as a

personal favour." Patrick said he "couldn’t officially but requested

permission for an unofficial meeting as it seems unavoidable."

The meeting with Abhyankar was summarised by Patrick in his dispatch to Humbold on 7th November, stating at the outset that the meting

was "informal" as the "British Government could not concern itself with an

organisation claiming to represent subjects of the Indian Rulers with whom

they were in treaty relations." Abhyankar set forth the AISPC demands;

Declaration of Fundamental Rights, Commission of Inquiry, representation

of state subjects at RTC and all other conferences and finally legitimacy and

recognition of the states peoples movement, so that "the movement was not

captured by communists and could proceed along constitutional H v e ^ 341

The interview with PJ Patrick did not amount to very much. Patrick reiterated that "no official cognisance could be taken" either of Abhyankar, the AISPC or the AISPC literature. Abhyankar pressed his request for an interview with Sankey. Summarising his impressions Patrick in a formal note to Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, wrote "It’s (AISPC) tenets are similar to those of Congress... Prof. Abyankar and Mr. Amritlal Sheth ask you to give them "a little encouragement" by granting them a brief interview. To encourage them would proportionately discourage the

Princes, and it is rather a dangerous moment to do the latter. The Princes are rather tender on this point of the Indian Stales Peoples’ Conference.

"One possible reply" suggested Patrick, "is that Lord Chancellor has very little free time owing to the political situation" and that you reserve for the members of the FS Committee. In any case no use would come of this meeting as the Federal Structures Committee is not concerned with the internal affairs of the states. Perhaps they’d like to see the political secretary at India Office."

In response to Patrick’s proposed reply, Wakely, Assistant Under

Secretary of State, noted, "I do not like this reply, as it implies that the 342 applicants have a right to audience/inlei view. 1 would siiggto.

Lord Sankey regrets that, for the same reasons for which the peoples of the

States are not represented at the RTC, it is impossible for him to receive a delegation."

To add to the consternation caused by Abhyankar at the India Office,

Lord Sankey received a handwritteri note on 11 November from Lord

Olivier asking him to meet Abhyankar. On the 12th November, Humbold wrote a clearly defined policy note to Sankey:

"I understand that Lord Olivier has written to you asking you to see

Professor Abhyankar unofficially. Prof. A is one of the

representatives of the Indian States Peoples’ Conference who has

already applied for an interview and been refused.... In these

circumstances it would be rather difficult for you to see Prof.

Abhyankar at Lord Olivier’s request. We have always taken the

line that he cannot be received officially and it is very difficult to see

the distinction which Lord Olivier draws between an official and

unofficial interview. The Press, if they heard of it, which is not

improbable, would certainly fail to see the difference. It would be 343

particularly unwise to see Prof. A at the moment when the Princes

are apprehensive of what would follow on the Federation and the

effect it would have on the internal governments of their states.

Moreover, the necessity of British intervention in Kashmir renders

this question especially delicate just now and if you gave an

interview to Prof. A., the Princes might read into it a great deal

more than they should.

Prof. A has already put on paper a number of his grievances

and Mr. Patrick saw him informally a few days ago, so that he

cannot complain that his views have not come to our notice. Write

to Lord Olivier freely and frankly. He’s been the ex-Secretary of

State and will understand."

On the 17th November Abhyankar made one last pitch by sending a third petition to Lord Sankey. In it he refuted the statements made by Sir

Manubhai Mehta about the existence of representatives institutions in

Bikaner, enclosing printed reports about the real state of repression in

Bikaner, Bhopal and Hyderabad. Finally, once again reiterating the AISPC demands, Abhyankar made a special plea for the institution of a 344

Commission of Inquiry into the affairs in the Princely states.

On the 23rd November Abhyankar received a final reply from India

Office regretting an interview with the Lord Chancellor. On the 4th

December 1931 Patrick received the following handwritten note from

Humbold, "I regret that I have kept tlie Indian States Peoples Delegation papers for so long. I now return them to you with the Lord Chancellor’s private file on the subject.

You will no doubt prefer to have this letter filed in the Political

Department for reference purposes. No reference however should be made in any future correspondence to anything contained in the correspondence of this private file of the Lord Chancellor’s."

Abhyankar had also been in touch with Harold Laski"'* who was assisting Lord Sankey with the work of the Federal Structures Committee.

During the first RTC Laski had been constantly in touch with S.G. Vaze.-'’

In his weekly letter to the Servants of India Society he wrote "I dined with

Laski last night and he impressed upon me the supreme need of carrying on a very responsible and sober, but very vigorous agitation on behalf of the states’ people. Please arrange to hold a Conference of the Deccan States. 345

It is no use holding an All-India Conference, for most of our people are

Congressmen, who may perhaps try to wreck the RTC on other grounds.

That is of no use to us. But the Deccan States’ Conference can give the ieadZ 346

End Notes

1. Tarachand, History of the Freedom Movement in India. Vol.IV, Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi, pp. 157-163.

2. G.R. Abhyankar: Private Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Letter from Abhyankar to H.H. Chintamani Rao Appasaheb Patwardhan, Chief of Sangh; 20th April 1930.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Memorandum of the Indian Stales Peoples’ Conference presented to the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, 27-2-31, Bombay AISPC.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. N.M. Joshi, Labour leader and delegate to tiie 1st RTC.

10. 3rd Session of the All-India States Peoples’ Conference, Bombay, 9, 10, 11th June 1931.

11. Ibid. Report of the Conference, AISPC, Bombay.

12. Willingdon to Hoare, 12th October 1931, Templewood Collection, No.5. Source: S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards Indian States 1905-1935.

13. Tarachand: History of the Freedom Movement, pp. 170-176. 347

14. D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma Gandhi. Vol.Ill, p. 131. Source: Tarachand, History of the Freedom Movement.

15. The selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Orient Longmans, New Delhi. Ed. S. Gopal, Nehru to Gandhi, 12 September 1931.

16. Ibid. Nehru to Bhupender Singh of Patiala, 16th September 1931.

17. Indian States Reformers, 1st March, 1931.

18. G.R. Abhyankar; Private papers, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, New Delhi. Huzur Office Sangli to GRA 17th September 1931.

19. The Federal Structures Committee which was attended by Gandhi as the sole representative of the INC met on 7th September 1931, prior to the 2nd RTC. The States delegation to the Committee was strengthened by the inchision of rulers of Baroda, , Dholpur and Sangli.

20. G.R. Abhyankar’s son, Lt. Col. M.G. Abhyankar (Retd.) recalls the excitement when his father received a telegram from the Mahatma asking him to accompany the Indian Delegation to offer advice on the States problem. The condition was that Abhyankar would not "open his mouth" at the Conference.

21. Questions of Representation of AISPC at the RTC. India Office Records, London Correspondence: G.R. Abhyankar to Henry Snell, Under-Secretary of State for India, 19th March 1931.

22. The ’formula’ was worked out by the Secretary of State, Wedgewood Benn and Lord Irwin in November 1929 in telegraphic correspondence which started with Irwin’s private and personal telegram No.551 of 5th November 1929.

23. 2nd petition from G.R. Abhyankar to Lord Sankey, Chairman, Federal Structures Committee. 31-10-31. India Office Records, London. 348

24. Professor J. Harold Laski, author, A Grammar of Politics taught at the London School of Economics and was especially sympathetic to the demand of elected represenlation for the Indian States in the Federation.

25. G.R. Abhyankar: Private papers. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi: Weekly letter No.32, 3lst January 193L