158

Chapter VI

THE STATE’S MAN

The twenties heralded phase of hectic activity and writing for

Abhyankar. He wrote at length about various provisions pertaining to the

Princely States in the Montford Reforms and their detrimental effect upon the status of the subjects of those states.Cin the Provinces, the British were busy placating the nationalists and the princes by promoting the idea of a federated government, run by representatives responsible to the people, that would replace Dyarchy.] This was perceived as a method of prolonging

British Rule in India. Writing about the direct relations that the

Government intended to initiate with the Princely States, Abhyankar once again highlighted the plight of their subjects. His articles in the Bombay

Chronicle on 7-12-1923 and 25-12-1923 are of special interest. The British maintained that it was their policy to establish direct relations with the

Princely States and Agencies to facilitate constitutional development in the provinces which would be governed by elected representatives. Thus it 159 became necessary to bring the Princely states under Central control.

However, the Montford Report did not intend to encourage constitutional development in the States. Abhyankar warned the princes not to get taken in by the bogey of direct relations that would create an illusion of enhanced prestige. "The Indian Princes, we are afraid, have not seen through the full implications of this change. They foresee only a state of things which terminates with provincial autonomy. They have not anticipated a period of time when the Central Government would be responsible to the people, the political relations of the Indian Stales would ’paripassu’ be under the control of the future commonwealth. I he real improvement of the Indian states would be effectively brought about only when self-government or

Swaraj is established in British India. The salvation, therefore, of the subjects of the Indian states depends entirely on the attainment of Swaraj in

British India. This is the logical sequence of this policy of direct relations based on the foundation of constitutional practice." It was Lord Reading who had inaugurated the policy o f’direct relations’ with the Indian Princely

States. What this really meant was a change in procedure without any change in the fundamental policy. Writing in the Bombay Chronicler' 160

Abhyankar denounced this new ruse. "We ask his Excellency the justification of the change. If it is in obedience to the recommendations of the Montford Report, is it not necessary that a change in the angle of vision of the future of the States must precede this? What is the propriety of introducing a mere change in the procedure or in the machinery of exercising control over these states? The main purpose of the Reform

Scheme is to radically alter the tone of the administration in India and the form of the same from bureaucracy to responsible government. Unless the ideal laid down in the Proclamation of August 1917 is dictated to the Indian

Ruler what is the good of merely resorting to the procedure which is ancillary to such a policy? Without a change in the policy a change in procedure is as ridiculous as placing the cart before the horse!"

The other important policy followed by the British Government which would have an adverse effect on the plight of the states’ subjects was that of the education of the Indian Princes. Commenting on the Conference of Ruling Princes and Chiefs held in March 1914 in Delhi under the auspices of Lord Hardinge, Abhyankar opined that since the Princely States comprised an area equal to one third and a population that was one fourth 161 that of British India, the quality of education to be imparted to the Indian

Princes, who would be called upon to control the destinies of their subjects, was of vital importance. Hardinge in his inaugural speech had declared, "It is on the education and enlightenment of the Ruling Chiefs and their Sirdars that the moral and material progress of India, in no small measure depends."^ These however seemed to be empty sentiments and mere rhetoric. Strangely the proceedings of this meeting were not published as if the issue of the education of the Princes affected the security of India.

Abhyankar criticized the decision regarding the funding of the King George

College that was to be located in Delhi.’ It had been resolved during the

Chiefs Conference of 1913 "that the Government of India granted an annual subvention of half a lac of rupees which when capitalised, amounted to nearly 13 lacs of rupees and that tlie remaining amount was to be raised solely by the Ruling Chiefs of India." This had been so decided because

"the cost of establishing and maintaining the college required an outlay of

64 lacs rupees and lAVi lacs if a science room is provided." "A superficial reading" wrote Abhyankar, "will instantly show that a sum of nearly 50 lacs of rupees is to be raised from the resources of the Indian Princes for the 162

sole object of establishing a single Arts College decidedly inferior in calibre

to any similar college affiliated to any existing university. A sum of 50

lacs is considered sufficient to bring into existence a private university like

the Hindu University or the Moslem University. The propriety, therefore,

of spending such an enormous amount on the proposed object deserves

scrutiny. It is necessary to see what purpose this proposed higher college

of chiefs will serve, whether it will bring about a betterment of intellectual

and moral culture of the Indian Princes, and whether there is a justification

for a separate institution unconnected >vith any University so far as the

Sardars are concerned."

In analysing the benefits that would supposedly accrue to the target

1 groups — namely the Princes and the Sardars, Abhyankar felt that such a I ! college would merely be a waste of money and even an insidious scheme

to create a ruling class totally unfitted to fulfill their duties in a progressive

and democratic manner. Abhyankar maintained that "the Sardars, Bhayads,

Darakdas and persons who by reason of their birth, wealth and social

1 status, are considered as belonging to the aristocracy of the land" wanted 'X-r ^

f ^ 163 education "for sheer maintenance". However education at the proposed college would be inadequate by virtue of its limited curriculum, inferior quality of teaching that would be tightly controlled by Government.

Without an affiliation to any University, Abhyankar predicted that "this college would not keep pace with the advance of knowledge, ... its efficiency would not be tested by the heaUhy rivalry and competition of

University examinations, ... its curriculum will not have the sanction of the intellectual aristocracy of brains which command the University... its management will not be controlled by tiie influence of the accumulated experience of the Senate and a Syndicate of a University... the curriculum of this college will be prescribed by political officers and sanctioned by the

Departmental authorities of Government... will not come up to the liberal standards of an ordinary Arts College." Moreover since this college did not intend to include faculties of science, medicine, engineering, agriculture and commerce, the degrees offered would not have any value in the job market.

While the Princes would hesitate to employ members of their nobility with inferior educational backgrounds since il would be extremely inconvenient, even embarrassing for him to dismiss such an individual should he be 164 proven incompetent. To add to this I he Government did not intend to reserve posts for products of the proi)osed college. Thus it seem quite unlikely that the Sardars’ sons would voluntarily choose to join the college.

In as far as the primary target group was concerned — the Princes,

Abhyankar felt that "a chief must get a sound and liberal education which alone will develop his mental faculties, broaden his mind, enlarge his sympathies and widen his outlook. This goal seemed a remote possibility if the Princes were to be taught by the tutors selected by the Political

Department "that the Indian has no initiative, no grit, no power of organisation, no capacity to control and hold independent charge of a district... The Anglo Indian theories of protection, free trade, unearned increments, taxation drain and other kindred subjects are too well known to need recapitulation here."

The system of keeping the Princes ensconced in educational institutions that ensured their total alienation from common people came under attack. "The Indian Princes with their alien upbringing and devoid of liberal knowledge... deliberately divorced from public life... will under / these circumstances, prove far more unpopular than alien bureaucrats of the 165 present day type... The residence of the heir-apparent at Oxford is not considered derogatory to the interests of the Empire, either by the King

Emperor or by his advisers, or by the public at large. Why the Indian government alone is so solicitous about keeping aloof the Indian aristocracy... we fail to understand. The instincts of the Political

Department perhaps may smell danger in this association to the solidarity of British Rule.

In September 1924 the Maharaja of Bikaner who was at the time

Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) represented India at the League of Nations. During the iieneral debate on the reduction of armament that had been initiated by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Monsieur

Herriot, Bikaner made a lengthy speech in which he advocated the reduction of armaments and also insisted that the maintenance of vast garrisons along the northern frontiers of India was imperative. This confused and irresponsible speech Abhyankar criticsed in an article entitled ’Bikaner at

Geneva’."* Reiterating the fact that the Princes of India had time and time again proved their loyalty to their Imperial Masters, most recently during the First World War, Abhyankar asked of the Maharaja "whether the 166

British Government has fully reciprocated this feeling? ... Is not His

Highness aware of the indignation of many... Princes of Central India at the want of trust and confidence displayed by military authorities in the matter of equipment and training of the Indian States Forces? Did the Maharaja of Bikaner lend his support... to the scheme of a Military College solely for the use of Indian State (that was) proposed by a distinguished Prince of his order?"

Abhyankar contended that the British Government had deliberately followed a policy of not imparting any military education to Indians. "It has deliberately withheld all positions of trust and confidence, initiative and direction... It has shown a lamentable disregard for Indianizing the official rank in the Indian Army. These facts are too well known. We expected the Maharaja of Bikaner to state these facts plainly to his hearers and use the great opportunity which he got in being invited to this League, to narrate the disabilities under which one-fifth of the human race was labouring in this country and the manner in which the manhood of this nation was being stunted everyday by ;i policy of distrust systematically maintained by the bureaucracy... We are extremely sorry to find that with 167 his anxiety to please the Indian politicicins and the Indian bureaucracy but for whom he would not have got entrance to the Assembly, he has betrayed the cause of the Indian people and brought discredit to the Indian aristocracy."

Historically, the British had always looked upon the Indian states forces with distrust and suspicion and as a potential threat to British possessions in India. Through the years of power consolidation they had ensured that the states’ forces were reduced in strength to a point that by the twentieth century most princes had armies that only served ceremonial purposes. When the Princes were called upon to assist the Imperial War

Effort the troops so provided were "refused supply (of) arms of precision and long range... (having) withdrawn effective weapons (from) the State

Service forces (these were) for one reason or another... never restored to them though strenuously demanded. They have turned a deaf ear to well thought out schemes for training these forces. They have maintained troops to overawe the state forces and have stationed them in places like Mhow,

Sikandrabad, Morar so as to reconitre the movements of the state forces in the adjoining state territories." In fact in a book entitled "Backwards and 168

Forwards" Colonel Hanna, the military expert during the early years of this

century, wrote that in 1895 14,000 British troops, 18,000 native troops and

114 guns were employed by the Government to keep vigil over the Indian

States Armies. A writer in the Times, London stated that in 1884 the

strength of the State forces was 349,853 men and 4,237 artillery guns. "It

is a great pity that recent official publications do not contain the figures of

the regular and the irregular forces maintained by the Indian States and the

cost which these states bear on their account.Abhyankar was of the

view that the Indian State forces were equal in calibre to the Native Army

of British India. Thus it was quite unjustified to maintain a separate army

for the explicit purpose of enabling the expansionist foreign policy of the

British in the nineteenth century, thus burdening the taxpayers in British

' India with impunity. "Besides the well known support that the Indian

' Princes gave the British to crush the Mutiny in 1857, native chiefs sided

with the Crown of England during tiie three Afghan wars, were employed

in Somaliland in Africa and China, not to mention the war service of the

Indian states forces during the First World War. A critical assessment of

1 British Military policy in India points to the fact that while the Indian State 169

‘ Forces were allowed to stagnate, they were put to limited use to assist

British foreign policy. In fact the large British Indian Army was quite

unnecessary since there was no imminent threat to the security of the

country. The question that agitated the minds of Indian statesmen in British

India^ and the Princely States was the justification for the maintenance of

an army far beyond the requirement of immediate Indian security. The

First World War had shown that neither the inhabitants of India nor those

of her neighbouring countries had waged war during 1914-18. Refuting the

claim made by Bikaner that India was perpetually exposed to the threat of

external aggression, Abhyankar wrote "No patriotic statesman should

represent to the outside world that this country is open to foreign invasion

over an area extending over 6,000 miles. The Maharaja of Bikaner’ before

drawing a dreadful picture in very glowing terms of the immense

difficulties confronting this problem, and when he was posing as a great

military expert ought to have well posted himself about the real situation".

"However strongly we may resent the forward policy so aggressively (and)

recklessly pursued by the military autocrats in India", Abhyankar felt that

it was great impropriety for any patriot "to convey the impression to 170 strangers that this country is open to foreign invasion (along) a very vast and extensive border." In fact several British statesmen in England and

India had continuously reiterated the urgent need to abandon the forward policy and replace it with one wherein economic measures would enable the frontier areas come within the British sphere of influence.* Colonel Hanna remarked that, "the Frontier problem on which the Maharaja, briefed by the bureaucracy in India, laid stress is at the bottom, not a military but an economic problem and the best weapon against the Frontier raids is not the bullet but bread." The aim of the Army Department seemed to be to maintain the security of India not from within but from without.

Abhyankar held the view that "the cardinal feature in the military policy of

India that the Indian Army must be maintained in India, for and by India".

For this it was imperative to obtain the greatest military efficiency from the smallest number of men with which India could be secured from her enemies within and without. This was to be accomplished by giving

Indians the necessary reorganisation of the military policy, structure and administration, reduction of the strength of the Indian army, the replacement of British units by Indian unity, Indianization of the army, 171 requisite training and equipment of recruits. This programme would not just ensure a positive participation and association of the Indians in the defence of their country but open up vast vistas of employment that young men would look forward to with pride. If this were implemented then the taxpayers in British India and the Princc.ly States would readily give their dues and to bear the burden of military expenditure. As Sir Shivaswami

Iyer remarked, "(with) the concession of these reforms... a united and powerful India (will be) able to hold a upper hand in the council of the

Empire not merely (to fulfil) national aspirations but will be a source of strength to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Discontented India will be a source of weakness to herself and to Britain."

While such macro problems vexed Abhyankar’s mind two incidents in 1925 exhibited the strength of his pen and tlie ability he had to create the pressure of public demand for an inquiry and action by the Government in the internal affairs of two Princely States — Indore and Alwar.

On the 15th May 1925 there was a massacre of some hapless and poor ryots of Nemuchana village in the State of Alwar. The sordid details were made available to the world beyond the boundaries of Alwar by a 172 survivor who escaped to Kanpur and narrated his story to the editor of the

’Pratap’. He said that 600 people were killed, hundreds of cattlehead were destroyed, all mahajans (moneylenders) rendered penniless and the entire village was set ablaze by hoodlums who claimed allegiance to the Maharaja of Alwar. All Hindi newspaper picked up this news. This resulted in a demand for inquiry by the Delhi Congress Committee and the Rajasthan

Seva Sangh who sent telegrams to the Maharaja. At last the Maharaja issued a belated Press Note offering a vague account of the Nemuchana incident that was published in the Times of India’ on 12th June 1925.

Abhyankar denounced the incident in Alwar as a willful imposition of Martial laws in the state by the Maliaraja to quell the dissatisfied and agitated ryots. Writing on the ’Chronicler’ on 17th June 1925 he said,

"The Maharaja maintains in the Press Note that an official inquiry is being instituted about the origin and cause of tlie agitation. But this is thoroughly irrelevant as firing on the mob has taken place. This power of authorities to maintain public law and order at whatever cost of blood or property is called martial law. The term martial law is sometimes employed as a name for the commonlaw right of the Crown and its servants to repeal force by 173

force in the case of an invasion, insurrection, riot or generally any violent

resistance to the law." Quoting Sir James Mackintosh who wrote that the only inquiry relevant in such a case "is the existence of the necessity for

such an extraordinary step. The only principle on which martial law is tolerated is necessity. Its introduction can be justified only by necessity.

The continuance requires precisely the same justification of necessity. And if it survives the necessity, on which it alone rests for a single minute it becomes instantly a mere excess of lawless violence" and that "martial law in truth," as Lord Hale’ had observed, "is not law at all; but something rather indulged than allowed as a law and it can only be tolerated because by reason of open rebellion the enforcing of any other law has become impossible." Abhyankar felt that proving the necessity of the action taken at Nemuchana entirely rested on the Maharaja and that he had failed to make a case of it. "In British India althougii Government ofttimes hazards to whitewash a tale, this attempt is successfully exposed by public opinion.

There is a vigorous press which tears to pieces all garbled versions of any misdeeds. Public resentment against any unjust act is ventilated in meetings openly held in British India... The Jallianwala Bagh affair and the agitation 174 in connection with the same, the passing of an Act of indemnity and the

appointment of the Hunter Committee, clearly prove what is possible to be

achieved under such circumstances in British India."

"There is absolute no chance of such redress of this kind to the

people of Alwar. They have no councils, they cannot agitate the question

and bring the pressure of indignant public opinion to bear on their Ruler.

The case of the Maharaja of Alwar as it is that of a despotic Ruler bears no analogy whatsoever with that of any constitutional Government. In Alwar the government is purely autocratic. There is no constitution, there is no parliament, there is no power to check the vagaries of the executive. There is no independent judiciary, there is no press, no freedom of meeting or discussion.... public opinion is feeble and cowed down by repression and

is thoroughly incapable of self expression."

Placing the onus equally on the British - almost forcing the

unpalatable fall out of British policy statements vis-a-vis the Indian States,

Abhyankar wrote "there is an important consideration which seems to have been overlooked by the Paramount Power. The subjects of an Indian state

owe a double allegiance — one to their ruler and the other one to the King - 175

Emperor. They are, therefore, entitled to claim double protection from the

Ruler of Alwar and from His Majesty’s Government in British India.

When such grave allegations have been made affecting the lives of so many people in an Indian state, is it not the duty of the Foreign and the Political

Department to hold promote, through^and impartial investigations and to ascertain the truth?"

However it was the ’Malabar Hill tragedy’ of January 1925 when

Abhyankar, with his vitriolic pen, was able to generate public criticism sharp and strong enough that eventually led to the abduction of Tukojjrao

Holkar, the Maharaja of Indore.*^ The press in British India was outraged at the crime and the Times of India wrote a lengthy article ’The End of a

Crime’ on 25th May 1925 on the conclusion of the sensational trial that had engaged public attention in the preceding months. In that article the author described the trial as a "telling exposition of facts and evidence, after a trial, in short, which was in every respect free, fair and through" and lauded the "magnificent work of the police" who had started" with some hypothetical knowledge of the probable origin of the conspiracy founded on an acquaintance with the past life of the woman in the case, with a 176

knowledge of the identity of a man caught, as it then seemed, in the actual commission of crime, they worked up a case which the utmost ingenuity of the defence was unable to impair." However the most provocative claim

that the writer made was, that, "We know we are voicing a widespread belief that there has yet to be revealed, in all its skulking shamefulness, an ultimate source or sources which encouraged, inspired and bribed the condemned wretches to undertake the sinister crime for which punishment has been meted out."

Abhyankar in an article in the ’Servant of India’ on 26th November

1925 entitled ’What Justice Demands’ went a step ahead. "Now that the trial is over and the seal of the highest court has been indelibly stamped on it, the question is, what next?" Using the charge that Mr. Justice Crump had made to the jury that, "It is possible, whoever the assailants were, that there were persons behind them, whom we cannot precisely indicate. But where an attempt is made to kidnap a woman who was for ten years the mistress of the Maharaja (of Indore), is it not at least reasonable to look to

Indore as the quarter from which this attack may have emanated? There

may be other persons who were interested in kidnapping Mumtaz. We 177 know nothing of them. Indeed we know from the accused themselves that there was a wish to take her back to Indore in the interest of Shankarrao

Gawde. But whether it was in the interest of Shankarrao or some other person who desired to have her or who desired to do away with her, when you consider the materials placed before you, they indicate that Indore is the place from where this attack emanated." Abhyankar wrote that it was therefore "the duty of Lord Reading’s Government to discover this hidden hand and to drag him before the Court of Justice." In the article he contended that while the Maharaja’s name was not specifically mentioned circumstantial evidence came dangerously close to implicating him. In support of this argument, Abhyankar quoted, besides the testimony of

Mumtaz Begaum and events brought to light during the case proceedings, the fact that (1) all the accused held official post in the Indore Durbar (2) by the free use of the Indore properties - Aurora House to Somerset House

- in Bombay (3) of using the garage facilities of these houses to park the red

Maxwell (4) the presence of Mr. Sharma, financial secretary of the State of Indore in Bombay and the mysterious telegrams that he sent (5) the abduction and confinement of a mali (gardener) and Khasgiwalla (special 178 attendant) employed by the Indore durbar because the Maharaja believes that they knew something (6) of huge expenditures incurred in engaging eminent counsels far beyond the means of any of the accused (7) of the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Indore Durbar in London to instruct the counsel (8) of the candid admission of Mr. Sengupta that the accused

Shafi Ahmed was after all a hireling and the appeal for mercy of Mr.

Velinkar for the accused Pande to the effect that extremely powerful influences were brought to bear on him with a view to draw him into the conspiracy and the plea that neither Ponde nor Dighe deserved to take

Mumtaz for themselves.

Abhyankar followed this up by his article ’Put him on trial’ on 10th

December 1925 in the ’Servant of India’. He maintained that it was imperative for the Political Department to take a bold initiative to investigate the case as the chief persons involved belonged to the Indore

State. While the Reading Government, he said, must do all to preserver and safeguard the rights of British Indian subjects. "I cannot say whether the Maharaja is guilt or innocent. But circumstantial evidence leads to dangerous insinuations against him and he must be put on trial." 179

Abhyankar said that a trial and proven guilt of the Maharaja did not make the state liable to annexation. The policy vis-a-vis the Indian States that the

British Government followed after 1858 did not envisage annexation, lapse or forfeiture. A tyrannical ruler was no longer punished by the Crown and the State remained intact whether the ruler abdicated or was deposed as had been in the case of the State of Nabha. In pointing out the difference between voluntary abdication and forced dethronement, Abhyankar said that the former would probably ensure the succession of the Rulers’ heirs, "but if it is the open inquiry and trial, a Prince who is forcibly dethroned is found guilty of misdemeanor or of any offence would not only lose his gadi but his heirs also would be deprived of their otherwise legitimate rights...

(as had happened in the case of the Aundh State.)"

As pressure of public opinion started mounting, Tukojirao began making frantic efforts to enlist public sympathy. The first pointer was the fact that he had engaged Mr. Sengupta a prominent Swarajist leader of

Bengal to defend Shafi Ahmed. "Like a Rip van Winkle the Maharaja awoke one day from the sleepy hollow of his palace and issued his annual administration report after nearly a decade. He seems to have developed 180 suddenly an instinct for representative institutions and has created a pompous legislative council with hardly an iota of responsibility given to the people. He issued an edict for free primary education as if the utility of this measure for over twenty years since Mr. Gokhale made his supreme effort in it’s favour in the Imperial Council (had not occurred to him)....

He has begun to make amends for his past cruel treatment of innocent people. Her Highness Maharani Chandravati baisaheb, the senior wife of the Maharaja and mother of the Heir-Apparent was reinstated as the Ruler of Maheshwar State from her enforced retirement in seclusion." Abhyankar decried the newspapers that had at first taken up the fight against the misdeeds of the Maharaja and then petered out with a whiinper, some even going so far as to praise the Maharaja "It is to be regretted," wrote

Abhyankar "that there has been a suilden somersault in the attitude of a certain section of the press which was virulent in the beginning when the case was sub judice."

In December 1925 the Editor of the Servant of India, Mr. S.G.

Vaze, received a letter from a Mr. V.G. Pantvaidya offering an explanation and justification for the Maharaja’s conduct in an attempt to refute 181

Abhyankar’s article.s "The facts are that the existence of certain rumours about the kidnapping of women was brought to the notice of the Indore

Government which took prompt action and ordered through inquiry. The result of this inquiry showed that there was no real foundation for the rumours which appeared to have been set on foot by interested persons..

(To further allay the fears of his subjects the Maharaja asked his Chief

Minister to conduct investigations)...The Chief Minister accordingly published a notice in the local paper called "Malhari Martand’ on 23rd

September 1925... asking everyone who may have any information to give about any case of kidnapping to see him personally so that it might be inquired into... since no one came forward to give any information of any kind, it was clear that nobody had any to give."

Vaze showed the letter to Abhyankar who sent in a formal rejoinder to Mr. Pantvaidya’s letter. Among other things Abhyankar wrote, "I am astounded at the writer’s audacity in referring to the inquiry which a former

Chief Minister... for no one interested in white washing the Durbar would have been so indiscreet as to refer to things, which, to say the least, have an uncanny look of suspicion about them... It would throw a flood of light 182 on the matter if Mr. Pantvaidya would tell the public if it is true that Mr.

Walawalkar (the Chief Minister) had to leave the State on the very day he contemplated a preliminary inquiry into the scandals and privately disclosed some clues to His Highness."

Finally the Indian Durbar reacted with a ’Reply’ published in the

’Servant of India’ on 17th December 1926 in which a point by point rebuttal of Abhyankar’s article ’What Justice Demands’ was attempted. To this the ’Servant of India’ observed in its issue of 24th December 1924, under the title ’The ways of Indore’, tiiat "we are requested by the Prime

Minister of Indore State to announce that the article that we published last week as a ’Reply by the Indore Durbar’ to our leader of November 26, does not bear the Durbar’s imprimatur. We do not profess to be learned in the ways of Indian States but one would have thought that a communication purporting to answer the points in our leader from the standpoint of H.H. the Maharaja Holkar might reasonably be regarded as the Darbar’s authorised reply.... But apparently the Indore officials wish to make best of both the worlds; they are anxious to give the public version of things and yet be able to repudiate its official character when it is published." 183

This comment from S.G. Vaze, the editor was followed by another leader by Abhyankar ’A Lame Explanation’ on 21st January 1926 in the

’Servant of India’. "The Whole attempt of the writer of this reply (the

Indore Durbar’s Reply) only goes to confirm one’s suspicions. If this is the lame and halting explanation about the clouds which are thickening around the head of the Maharaja the conclusion becomes irresistible that there are prima facie grounds for further investigation into this matter without a moment’s delay. The ’London Times’ unaffected by any excitement or sensation which the Bawala Murder Case created and living in the serene atmosphere of England, has observed lluis, "There is a growth in the public opinion to modify the control of the Government towards future cases of serious lawlessness and misrule. The scandal of the Malabar Hill murder committed by the henchmen of the Maharaja of Indore has moved enlightened Indian opinion to a greater extent than has been recognised here." Further in the article stating his own position Abhyankar wrote, "I have made it abundantly clear that 1 do not hold any preconceived idea or entertain any prejudice against the Maharaja. I have an open mind; but the facts disclosed in the trial and the sins of omission and commission of the 184

Maharaja of Indore since the date of the Malabar Hill tragedy confirm me in my belief that an open trial is imperative both in the interest of the

Maharaja and... the State as also in the ends of justice. This affair has been hanging fire for over a year and it is scandalous enough in all conscience. We, therefore, appeal to Lord Reading to take up this question seriously and to dispose of it in (a) thoroughly independent, impartial and judicious manner... (and) not leave this unhappy legacy to his successor."

Abhyankar’s call for an open trial of the Maharaja elicited reactions against his stand. "The United India and Indian States’’ in its issue of 2nd

January 1926'° wrote a lengthy article criticising Abhyankar personally, calling him a ’self appointed mentor’, as well as his article in the ’Servant of India’ on the 10th December 1925." This resulted in a letter in the same paper from him. "I am surprised to read your note about my articles in the ’Servant of India (about the ) Indore conspiracy. If you held the view tht there was nothing strange and surprising in the Bawala murder case, if you did not believe that the presiding Judge was right in holding that the Indian hand of this diabolical conspiracy was at Indore and that the accused had intended to abduct Mumtaz at any cost, I would have 185 appreciated your difference of opinion. .. I am pained to see your self complacent attitude that the public at large has nothing to do with this affair and that it is solely the business of the Political Department which is not in need of self appointed mentor like me." In self defence Abhyankar wrote,

"I can however draw your attention to a passage in a recognised work on jurisprudence. ’Indignation against injustice is moreover one of the chief constituents of the moral sense of the community and positive morality is no less dependent on it than is the law itself. It is good therefore that such instincts and emotions should be encouraged and strengthened by their satisfaction."

On the 1st of February 1926 a communique was issued by the

Government of India announcing its intention to institute a "Commission of

Enquiry to investigate the alleged connection of His Highness the Maharaja

Holkar of Indore with the attempted abduction of Mumtaz Begaum and the murder of the late Mr. Bawala in Bombay on January 12th 1925. The commission if appointed, will consist of two High Court Judges, two Ruling

Princes and a senior officer of the Political Department". The procedure to be followed was that which had been laid down in Paragraph 309 of the 186

Montagu-Chelmsford Report for cases where the question arose of depriving a ruler temporarily or permanently of any of his powers or privileges.

Holkar, who was informed by the Viceory of this decision, set about at once to consult eminent lawyers and legal advisers about his position after the decision of the Privy Council was passed. Reporting on these desperate confabulations the special correspondent of the Times of India filed this despatch "As is well known money has been spent like water in financing the defence in the Bawala murder case although even now it is not admitted that the Durbar had anything to do with it... It is, however, an open secret that big sums of money have been spent by the Maharaja... in order to test his own position. Lawyers like Sir John Simon, Sir Edward

Marshall-Hall and Sir Patrick Hastings who were consulted recently ... I have it on good authority that Sir Tej Bahadur’s frequent visits to Indore have cost the Durbar a huge sum. It is understood that he is paid Rs. 2,000 per day... and Sir Sivaswami Iyer... is paid Rs.6,000 per month and possibly travelling expenses." To tills impressive list Holkar added 187 luminaries like Lord Sinha, Sir Prabha Shankar Pattani of Bhavnagar and

Sir Manubhai Mehta of Bombay.

In an ominous warning the Chamber of Princes, of which the

Maharaja of Patiala had become Chancellor, discussed the question of approaching the Viceroy with views in support of Holkar, but could not gather up enough courage to actually do this. Press reports were skeptical about the Government’s decision as it afforded Holkar an escape route in an abdication. The Indian Daily Mail, Bombay wrote, "... From the wording of the communique, ... it would appear that the Maharaja if he likes may avoid the Commission, presumably by abdication. Even if he chooses this alternative, we hope the Commission will not be given up. It should be hatched in an open manner without the police being aware of it."

The Calcutta daily 'Forward'’ wrote "What we feel inost concerned about at the present moment is the order which has been issued by the

Government of India as regards the Muharaja, which in substance amounts this: Either you submit to a trial by a tribunal appointed by us or abdicate." While the 'Servant' of Calcutta wrote "So a Commission of

Enquiry is going to be appointed (into) the alleged connection of Indore 188 with the Bawala case. But who knows what lies behind this enquiry?"

The 'Muslim Outlook' of Lahore was more categorical .. "A Commission of enquiry is hardly the course which has been urged... what was needed to establish the fact that there is one law in India for the rich and to the poor, for the prince and for the peasant, was the impeachment of Holkar before a court of law. And if such a tribunal had found that Holkar was guilty, it should have had the power to sentence him either to death or to serve penal servitude for life... The activities of the Chamber of Princes in this connection., are apparently against the ends of justice being served; and if this is the case. His Excellency should plainly apprise those Princes who would like the affair hushed up that they should mind their own business."

While the 'Amrit Bazar Patrika’’ said, "Doubt has been expressed whether the Commission is going to be appointed at all." Meetings were held at

Jalgaon to protest against the newspaper that had demanded ’An open trial’ of the Maharaja and in Poona, motivated by the non-brahmin lobby headed by V.R. Shinde, on 4th February 1926 in support of Indore.

Finally with mounting public ire and pressure in response to

Abhyankar’s clarion call to bring Tukojirao Holkar to book, the 189

Government of India issued another press communique on 27th February

1926 "Intimation has now been received from the Maharaja that he wishes to avail himself of the above mentioned option and objects to the appointment of a Commission, and that he was decided to abdicate in favour of his son.

The abdication has been acccpled by the Governor-General-in-

Council, and no further inquiry into the Maharaja’s alleged connection with the Bawala murder case will now be made."

This was followed by a communique from the Foreign and Political

Department on the 3rd March 1926 making public the formal abdication letter of Tukojirao Holkar, Maharaja of Indore and its acceptance sent to him by Mr. Glancy, Agent to the Governor-General in Central India. On

11th March 1926 the heir-apparent was installed as Maharaja Shri Sawai

Yashwantrao Holkar, Ruler of Indore. On the 30th March Tukojirao, the ex-Maharaja sailed for England via Karachi. This was possibly because while the Government of India had decided to drop proceedings against him, the decision did not amount to a law and he could have been dragged 190 into the municipal courts in Bombay. The public spirited individuals could have initiated criminal proceedings against the Maharaja.

With the abdication of Holkar a suppressed feeling of relief must have passed throughout the State of Indore, but the Government’s handling of the affair came under heavy fire. The Government’s decision not to hold any further investigations, a precondition set by Holkar to his abdication, implied that the Princes, no matter how gross and criminal their conduct, would be protected by the Paramount Power. As Abhyankar said in his article in the Bombay Chronicle "We regret and condemn this decision.

Princes, we know, are above law, an immunity which nobody ought to enjoy except in legal fiction; but even tlie most ardent upholder of princely prestige must realise that there is a limit, and it is reached when we come to murder and abduction." Also lliat to avoid a full and impartial investigation would be "not merely a miscarriage of justice but something very like compounding a crime." The Muslim Outlook had voiced similar sentiments earlier. "It was", Abhyankar said, a legal point of equality before law for all citizens. In Holkar’s case the Commission of Enquiry had no power to award any sentence, only to report to the Viceroy; whose 191 decision was ultimate. "It is however relevant to bear in mind the observation by Lord Salisbury in his despatch on Maharaja Gaikawar... If

Malharrao had been found guilty by the Commission of the heinous offence imputed to him there would have been no ground for inflicting on him any milder punishment than that which would have been thought just if he had occupied a humble position." The other question that was raised by the

Maharaja’s apologists was a constitutional one. Of whether an independent sovereign Ruler was subject to the plenary jurisdiction of the Government of India. All these questions however came to nothing very much since the

Maharaja decided to abdicate and not to face an inquiry.

Abhyankar criticised the role played by the other Indian Princes and the Narendra Mandal who could not muster up the imperative wherewithal to raise pertinent issues both of the action of the Government of India, the need to take immediate steps to remove gross maladministration in their states and accept the need to exercise .self resistant.

The most surprising fallout of the Indore Conspiracy and Abdication

Case was the stand taken by Dr. Annie Besant strongly in favour of

Tukojirao Holkar. It may be recalled that just a few years earlier during 192 the controversy over the Princes Protection Act 1921, Mrs. Besant had been a ’fence sitter’ giving neither the subjects nor the Princes unqualified support. Her statement recorded by the Press Laws Committee, headed by

Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru gave the decided impression that she was sympathetic to the Princely order. She now became a "jealous apologist'"^ of the Maharaja of Indore. Abhyankar had repeatedly demanded that an independent commission be appointed by the Political

Department to investigate the state of affairs in the Indore state."T h is would have left no room for attributing motives to Government" said

Abhyankar. Mrs. Besant had been indignant about the appointment of the commission and had "resorted to fantastic arguments and amazing maxims".

"To those who know the strong hold the cult of theosophy has over Indore, the patronage which her lieutenants and disciples are enjoying at the expense of the Indore Durbar, there is nothing surprising in the outburst of

Mrs. Besant. But there is nothing moral in the support which Mrs. Besant has been giving to unadulterated autocracy as in the present case. She has never espoused the cause of the Indian States subjects. Her Commonwealth of India Bill has left the question of Indian States and subjects as one 193 beneath her notice. She supported the Protection of India Princes Act which was denounced by all British Indian Statesmen. She has not dared to give unpleasant advice or preach the value of responsible government to the Indian Princes for the fear of offending their susceptibilities or for fear of losing their patronage. It, however, passes comprehension that she should make such an astounding and humiliating statement as that most non­ westernized Indians prefer the occasional tyranny of a prince of their own blood to the condescending protection of a foreigner. May we take the liberty of telling Mrs. Besant that in spite of all her boast of knowing the oriental mind she has not understood (the) Indian mentality. A crime committed by any sinner is equally execrable in the eyes of us Indians. No matter whether the pigment of his skin is white, black, or brown. In her over zeal to defend the Maharaja, she justifies his polygamy and even the keeping of a mistress in the Royal palace.... If this is the honest belief of

Mrs. Besant, the great Apostle of Theosophy, in this country, we have only to request the Political Department that the young Maharaja should be immediately withdrawn from the corroding influence of Dr. Bessant and her disciples."''* In his newspaper Sansthani Swarajya, that he published from 194

Bombay with the active help and support of Amritlal Sheth who owned the

Gujarathi newspaper and printing press ’Janniabhooini’, Abhyankar outlined a scheme for the minority administration in Indore to ensure the destruction of all pernicious influences. 195

Endnotes

1. Bombay Chronicler, 3-12-24.

2. In the post mutiny years the question of the education of the Indian Princes was taken up, among others. The various conferences of Ruling Princes and Chiefs that succeeding Viccroys convened, intended to lull the Indian aristocracy into a false sense of participation with the Imperial rulers in the governance of this country. Thu;; in 1870 the Rajkumar College was established followed by Mayo College, Ajmer in 1872, Daly College, Indore in 1881 and the Aitchison College, Lahore in 1886. Although called ’College’, these institutions were really schools intended to teach up to the matriculation level. Besides these four colleges were smaller schools at Lucknow, Raipur, Gondal and Wadhwan which were useful only for the local Sardars and noblemen. Of all the universities, only the Punjab University had recognised the final examination held by these ’Colleges’ as adequate for obtaining admission to it. The Rajkumar Colleges were entirely controlled by the Government who also prescribed the curriculum.

3. With a view to widening the scope of the Rajkumar Colleges a Conference was held at Calcutta in 1902 presided over by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India. This was followed by another conference at Ajmer in 1904. There it was decided to start a post-diploma course of higher education extending over three years at the Rajkumar Colleges. This was inaugurated at the Mayo College, Ajmer in 1907. The course included English, History, Administration, Revenue Settlement and Judicial work. The Government of India and the Local Governments recognised this course as being equivalent of an University degree, as far as employment in the Government was concerned. However this scheme proved to be a non starter and the Begaum of Bhopal mooted the idea of establishing a special university to which the chiefs’ colleges would be affiliated. Thus it was that the Government of India began to consider the proposal of establishing a higher chiefs college. (Source: G.R. Abhyankar, Problems of Indian States. Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.) 196

4. Abhyankar wrote a three part article entitled ’Bikaner at Geneva’ in the Bombay Chronicle on September 15th and 24th and December 24th, 1924.

5. G.R. Abhyankar, Problems of Indian States. Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.

6. Especially Dr. Moonje of Nagpur.

7. Text of speech of the Maharaja of Bikaner at the League of Nations in Geneva on 6th September 1924.

8. This advice was often forwarded by the Viceroys Lords Canning, Lowrence, Mayo and Northbrooke, by the Commander-in-Chiefs Lords Sandhurst and Napier as well as by statesmen like Durand, Norman Muir, Pollack, Taylor. "But" said Abhyankar, "the tin gods of the Military Department have been heedless in their forward move." (Source: G.R. Abhyankar, Problems of Indian States. Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.)

9. On the morning of 13th January 1925 Bombay was startled by news of a bold and audacious murder committed at Teen Batti, Walkashewar Road on Malabar Hill. This crime had all the ingredients of a potboiler and sent a thrill of horror throughout the city. A Bombay businessman Mr. Abdul Kader Bawla was driving up the road about midnight with his mistress Mumtaz and friend Mr. K.F. Mathew. His car was suddenly intercepted by some men who were travelling in a red Maxwell bearing an Indore State number plate. The men in the Maxwell began firing at Mr. Bawla and his friends. In the scuffle that ensued Bawla was shot, Mumtaz was stabbed and sustained a wound on her face while Mathew sustained a bullet injury. As it happened just at that point in time. Lieutenants Saegert, Barley and Stephen drove up at the site of the crimc on their way home. The assailants attacked the army officers who tried to help the victims. Saegert apprehended Shafi Ahmed who had a knife in his hand poised to kill the Lieutenant. However, the assailants managed to escape while Lt. Saegert took the gravely injured Mathew, Mumtaz and Bawla to a hospital where Bawla died. A case was lodged with the Bombay Police and it came up for hearing before the Chief Presidency Magistrate who directed the case before the Sessions Court of the Bombay High Court. The case was presided over 197 by Mr. Justice Crump who was assisted by a special jury. The accused were (1) Safi Ahmed, 26 years, Reserved Mounted Indore Police (2) Pushpasheel Balwantrao Pande, 23 years, Mankari Indore (3) Bahadursha Mahammadsha, 26 yrs. Motor driver, Indore (4) Akbar Shah Mahamniadsha, 23 yrs, Indore (5) Shamrao Raoji Dighe, 23 yrs. Captain, Air Force, Indore (6) Mumtaz Mahammad Saiyad, 25 yrs, Sub-Inspector, CID Indore (7) Abdul Latif Moyuddin, 25 yrs. Motor driver, Indore (8) Kurmatkhan Nizamkhan, 28 yrs.. Pay Sergent, Imperial Lancers, Indore (9) Anandrao Gangaram Phanse, 32 yrs, Adjutant-General, Indore State Forces. The Advocate-General Mr. J.B. Kanga appeared for the Crown. Mr. K.F. Nariman appeared for Mumtaz and watched the proceedings on behalf of his client. Mr. Sengupta of the Calcutta Bar with Mr. Nadkarni defended the first accused Shafi Ahmed. Mr. S.G. Velinkar defended the accused (2) to (8) while Mr. M.A. Jinnah with Mr. Gupta defended the (9)the accused. The charges that were brought against the nine accused were that (1) They had hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Mumtaz Begaum, a crime that was eventually perpetrated in British India. (2) That Mumtaz was kidnapped in order that she might be forced to illicit intercourse (3) That the accused had intentionally caused the death of A.K. Bawla (4) That the accused had attempted to murder Lt. Saegert (5) That they had caused grevious injury to the persons of Mumtaz and K.E. Mathew. The background was that Mumtaz Begaum, 22 yrs old had been the mistress of the Maharaja of Indore for 10 years. She had accompanied Tukojirao to England in 1921 under the name of Kamalabai Saheb and had given birth to his daughter who had been done to death under the orders of the Maharaja. Mumtaz, finally, disillusioned with her life as a Maharaja’s mistress, escaped to Amritsar enroute to Mussoorie and with help from the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, refused to go back to the Maharaja. The incensed Maharaja tried to cajole her, even intimidate her, but of no avail. Mumtaz then found her way to Bombay where she became the mistress of A.K. Bawala. At the end of the trial it was decreed by Mr. Justice Crump that the accused (6) and (8) be acquitted and discharged as the Jury found them ’not guilty’. The accused (3), (4), (7) and (9) were found guilty of the offence of conspiracy to kidnap Mumtaz from British India and of aiding and 198 abetting murder. They were sentenced to transportation to life. The accused (1), (2) and (5) were found guilty of the above mentioned charges as well as murder and were sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead. In fact Shafi Ahmed and Dighe were executed while Pande who developed insanity was saved from the gallows. With this the curtain fell on the Bawala murder case.

10. Article in the United India and Indian States dated 2-1-26 is reproduced in GR Abhyankar Problems of Indian States. Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.

11. Article entitled. Put Him on Trial, in ’Servant of India’ on 10-12-25

12. G.R. Abhyankar, Problems of Indian States. Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928, pp.485.

13. "The manner in which the ex-Maharaja has been conducting himself during many years past, the reason why he was not accorded audience by His Majesty when he visited England in 1921, the experience which Lord Reading himself had when he last visited Indore publicly, the cruel treatment accorded to the senior Maharani since 1918, the outrageous conduct in absorbing a Mohammadan prostitute into the Hindu royal household, the unjust and illegal incarceration of his brother and the high­ handed manner in which the Maharaja’s sister and her daughter were rendered wilfully externees of the state, the confiscation of the estates of the Dube family, the grievance of the Palsikar lady, the strange and tragic death of the Parsi lady enticed into Indore and other scandles about women ventilated in the Press — were they not enough to inform the mind and awaken the conscience of the Political Department?"

Ibid, pp.484.

14. Ibid. pp.485-486.