The Butler Report

[The following authoritative statement was prepared by the Dewan Bahadur, at the Editor’s special request, for publication in ‘Triveni’. But in view of the Indian States Subjects’ Conference at Bombay, advance copies of the article were supplied to some of the daily papers in India. –Editor, ‘Triveni’.]

The Butler Report has met with a mixed reception both in India and in England. Long before its publication, some of the Princes gave expression to their sense of disappointment at the probable results of the inquiry, and a perusal of the Report makes it quite clear that their anticipations were fully justified. The significant silence of the Indian Princes and their Dewans, who were very vocal hitherto in condemnation of the British Indian politician, is noteworthy and one may therefore safely conclude that their feeling is that they have lost all along the line. The inquiry was held in camera and the Committee denied itself, by a too narrow and unjustified interpretation of the terms of reference, the opportunity of hearing the views of the people of the Indian States on the important questions raised before the Committee. The Indian Press and the Indian public men never expected any fruitful results from this inquiry. The Report has also been denounced by eminent public men and the leading organs of public opinion in India as a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between British India and Indian India, and to make the question of evolving a new Constitution for India even more difficult than it is. The only class of people who are pleased with the Report are the British official and commercial classes in India, the Anglo-Indian Press and the British Press in England, and retired Anglo-Indian Pundits like Sir Michael O’Dwyer.

THE THEORY OF PARAMOUNTCY

In regard to the affairs of Indian States, the theory of Paramountcy of the Crown, combined with usage and political practice, had conferred on the Government of India an enormous power limited by its own discretion. In the words of Sir Sydney Low, "the Paramount Power was itself the judge of what it could do or could not do; it decided what it liked and its decisions were regarded as statement of the law which would override or cancel contractual obligations." Since the introduction of Reforms, the Princes began to examine their own position and to resent these wide powers of intervention possessed by the Paramount Power and exercised through their agents, the Political Officers. They urged that their States are sovereign units, except in so far as they have accepted derogations from their sovereignty by treaty engagements or understandings with the representatives of the Crown.

The main request of the Princes was, therefore, that the present powers of intervention established by treaty and political practice should be more clearly defined and their political relations with the Paramount Power strictly limited by the terms of agreements and treaties entered into from time to time. They contended that the Paramount Power had no powers other than those expressly provided in treaties and agreements. They complained that there has been substantial infringement of their contractual rights, to which they submitted through weakness or ignorance or a salutary respect for the Government of India, and adduced voluminous evidence to illustrate their contentions.

The Butler Committee have refused the request of the Princes for a clearer definition of their position. They have re-affirmed the existing position with an even greater emphasis than that contained in the previous pronouncements of Lord Minto and Lord Reading and other Viceroys. The States are sui generis but they fall outside both international and municipal Law and the Committee have held that it is impossible to define Paramountcy. They say: "We have endeavoured, as others before us have endeavoured, to find some formula which will cover the exercise of paramountcy, and we have failed, as others before us have failed, to do so. The reason for such a failure is not far to seek. Conditions alter rapidly in a changing world. Imperial necessity and new conditions may at any time raise unexpected situations, Paramountcy must remain paramount; it must fulfill its obligations, defining or adapting itself according to the shifting necessities of the time and the progressive development of the States." The Princes, have, therefore, entirely failed to achieve their main object and nobody in the States or in British India expected any other result, though undoubtedly there are many important questions in which they have a genuine grievance. The discretion of the Paramount Power to interfere in the affairs of Indian States will continue to be as unlimited and as undefined as before and the Report of the Committee has not improved the matter in the least in the direction desired by the Princes.

STATES PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE

The attitude of the people of the Indian States in this matter is plain. They feel that in present circumstances in the States where autocracy is rampant, the only safeguard for the protection of the subject is the intervention of the Paramount Power, however unwelcome it may be. Till constitutional Government on a democratic model is introduced in the States, there is no other remedy against the autocracy of the Princes than a recourse to the Paramount Power. In the Memorandum of the Indian States Peoples’ Conference to the Butler Committee, it was urged that what is needed is neither a wholesale repudiation of the Paramount Power's rights of interference as suggested by the Princes, nor an unlimited charter to its agents for interference at will, but a clear demarcation of a limited, defined, and strictly constitutional intervention. The Deputation urged also the need for a constitutional agency for investigation of cases before actual intervention and put forward proposals for the establishment of a Constitutional machinery. If the Princes had also put forward some such scheme, it would perhaps have considered it. As it is, they attempted to get rid of all control and it is only natural if after a perusal of the Report they have a feeling that perhaps the ropes have been tightened. The present system of control through Political, Officers is out of date and no machinery to take its place would be satisfactory unless the right of the people of the States in all matters is definitely recognised. Autocracy of the Princes must be controlled either from above or from below. If the powers of the Paramount Power are to be curtailed, it can only be done by the development of the democratic system in the States. The proposals of the Princes for relaxation of control would, if accepted, have still further increased their autocratic power. This is the feeling of the people of the States. As it is, the Committee have not only entirely ignored the complaints brought forward against Political Officers and the Political Department but have commended the existing system.

CHANGE TO VICEROY'S CONTROL

The change from the Governor-General-in-Council to the Viceroy as the controlling authority on behalf of the Crown in regard to matters pertaining to the States, was put forward by the Princes and the Committee have recommended the change. They assert that it will have three distinct advantages. "First, it will gratify the Princes to have more direct relations with the Crown through the Viceroy; secondly, it will relieve them of the feeling that cases affecting them may be decided by a body which has no special knowledge of them, may have interests in opposition to theirs, and may appear as a judge in its own cause; and thirdly, it will, in our opinion, lead to much happier relations between the States and British India, and so eventually make coalition easier’. It is impossible to fully understand the reasons for the gratification of the Princes at this proposed change. If, as is generally believed, the Princes of India have put forward the proposals to prevent the Indian Members of the Governor-General's Council from dealing with questions relating to the Indian States, they have done great injustice to their own cause. The control of the Political Department would become much stronger than it is now if the Viceroy is the sole authority in these matters and the change will, in all likelihood, prove to be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The Political Secretary must necessarily be the only officer on whom the Viceroy must rely, and it might be that he will uphold the doings of his political officers much more readily than otherwise. He will gain a more dominating position in all States affairs, and however painstaking the Viceroy may be, the real arbiter of affairs will be the Political Secretary. On the other hand, Indian Members of the Governor-General's Council would bring a fresh mind to bear on the affairs of the States and have a certain amount of sympathy and respect for the rulers of the Indian States.

It is more than possible that the proposal was made on grounds of sentiment in regard to official precedence but even this, I understand, has been modified in favour of the Princes a few years ago. Some of the rulers have been placed above the Members of the Viceroy's Council in this matter and the salute of 13 guns enjoyed by the Members of Council has been withdrawn. It is commonly believed that the Indian Princes would prefer a European to an Indian however eminent, just and patriotic the latter may be, to sit in judgment over them. They have an inordinate respect for any Tom, Dick, or Harry and would prefer him to an Indian of the highest social standing. It has been stated that the Indian Princes raised objections to the entertainment of Indians in the Political Department and the proposals of the Butler Committee for the recruitment of a separate Political service from the British Universities has been designed to prevent the Indian element from getting into this service. Until the Indian Princes give up this kind of snobbery and learn to respect their own countrymen, the situation is not hopeful. Perhaps an Indian Prince cannot tolerate an Indian, even of the highest social standing and culture, as a Resident at his court. As it is, Sir Harcourt Butler and his colleagues were aware that the Indianisation of the British Indian Services is going on apace, and they wish to save at least the Political Department for British youths. The Princes have simply played into their hands, and Sir Harcourt Butler took advantage of their proposals which have not commended themselves even to some of the British members’ of the Indian Services.

The Committee believe that the change will not throw much additional work on the Viceroy. This cannot be a fact. The Viceroy's position is already very irksome on account of his many onerous duties. The line of reform in this matter is in the direction of relieving him of the political portfolio and entrusting it to a separate Member of the Viceroy's Council rather than to make him supreme. The Viceroy should not be identified with any portfolio but should be placed in a position of detachment, so that he may be the final authority in all matters. The rejection of the proposal for the appointment of a Political Member is therefore to be regretted.

THE ‘TWO INDIAS’

The most mischievous part of the Report is the suggestion made in para 58 and the undue emphasis laid on what Sir Sydney Low calls ‘the basic fact of Indian politics.’ "There are two Indias; one is the India of the British provinces, the other the India of the protected States." Sir Harcourt Butler and his colleagues refer to the existence of the two Indias as if it is a new discovery that they have made, and the attempt made to keep these two parts of India as far apart as possible and to isolate the States from British India is obvious. The basic fact of the situation in India is not so much the existence of the two administrative systems, but the identity of interests between the people of British India and the people of Indian States. The people of both the Indias are already held together by immemorial ties and by a fundamental unity of thought and culture and race and civilisation, and they have the same social and economic problems. The National movement in British India is having its repercussions in the Indian States and the people of the Indian States have a desire to take their legitimate part in an All-India polity. These are really the fundamentals of the situation, which the Committee has ignored. For some time the British Imperialists, the Tory politicians and the British official and commercial classes in India and England have been exploiting the Indian Princes with a view to retard the National movement in India, and the Butler Committee's Report has now come to their rescue. The Committee was appointed to report on the existing relations between the States and the Paramount Power, and not to suggest what should be done with the Princes in the eventuality of a new Dominion Constitution for British India. It went out of its way, without giving an opportunity to the people of British India and the States who are vitally interested in the problem, to express its strong opinion that, "in view of the historical nature of the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Princes, the latter should not be transferred without their own agreement to a relationship with a new Government in British India responsible to the Indian Legislature." I need not refer to the true constitutional position which has been so often discussed, nor to assert that the Indian Princes should have no voice in the matter. The Indian States Committee were apparently anxious not so much to improve the existing position of the Princes vis-a-vis the Paramount Power and the Political Department, as to prevent future developments in the Indian Constitution by the inclusion of the Indian States therein.

This opinion of the Committee accords with the wishes and sentiments of the enemies of India's freedom, who do not want India to attain the status of a self –governing Dominion. ‘The Daily Mail’, ‘The Daily News’, ‘The Morning Post’ and other Tory papers are delighted at the prospect of utilising the Indian States against the Nationalist aspirations of India. Sir Michael O'Dwyer sees in the Report a fitting instrument for keeping the British Indian politician in his proper place. It is, therefore, only natural that this part of the Report should have been received with great jubilation by British interests both in this country and in England, who wish to maintain their dominant position in India. The true position is perhaps that indicated by ‘The Manchester Guardian.’ It says:

No lawyer can deny us the right to say to the Princes who entered into certain engagements with us because of our position as rulers of British India: "The time is coming when we must hand over the rule of British India to its inhabitants. We give you notice now, so that you may make new engagements with our successors. We will help you as far as we can to get fair terms, but your future must depend chiefly on your success in securing the good-will of your subjects."

The Indian Princes will do well to follow this advice. Moreover, the Princes are not the only persons concerned in the matter. As has been admitted by the Maharaja of Bikaner, the word ‘States’ in the terms of reference includes the people of the States. The people of the States have definitely expressed their view already in this matter and they certainly would like to come into the future Government of India, and the Indian States People's Conference adopted a resolution expressing for constitutional relations with British India. If the Princes create any difficulties in the matter, they will certainly be disowned by their own people.

PARAMOUNT POWER AND THE STATES SUBJECTS

The most important portion of the Report, relating to the duty of the Paramount Power to the people of the States, has not received sufficient public attention. The paragraphs 49 and 50 contain a weighty pronouncement by the Committee in regard to popular demands by the people of the Indian States put forward in the Memorandum of the Indian States People's Conference. It was contended by the Deputation that the Paramount Power has not discharged its duty to the people of the States in securing good Government, and if it has failed in the past, the Committee was bound to find out whether the obligations laid on the Princes for providing good Government .to their people has been discharged by them, and also to suggest ways and means by which these responsibilities and obligations could be adequately fulfilled in the future. The Princes have always stood out for their autocracy and maintained that the Paramount Power had no business to suggest improvements in their internal administration as they are independent sovereigns. It was urged in the Memorandum that misrule on the part of a State which is upheld by the Paramount Power is misrule in the responsibility for which the British Government becomes in a measure involved, and it was therefore not only the right but the duty of the British Government to see that the administration of the State in such a condition is reformed and gross abuses removed. This contention has been fully upheld. The pronouncement of the Committee on this matter must therefore be regarded as a victory to the people of the Indian States. The Committee have stated in unequivocal terms that,

"The guarantee to protect a Prince against insurrection carries with it an obligation to enquire into the causes of insurrection and to demand that the Prince shall remedy legitimate grievances, and an obligation to prescribe the measures necessary to this result."

In para 50 they declare that:

"The promise of the King-Emperor to maintain unimpaired the privileges, rights and dignities of the Princes carries with it a duty to protect the Prince against attempts to eliminate him, and to substitute another form of Government. If these attempts were due to misgovernment on the part of the Prince, protection would only be given on the conditions set out in the preceding paragraph. If they, were due, not to mis-government, but to a widespread popular demand for change, the Paramount Power would be bound to maintain the rights, privileges and dignity of the Princes; but it would also be bound to suggest such measures as would satisfy this demand without eliminating the Prince."

This emphatic statement, fully recognising the duty of the Paramount Power to suggest Constitutional changes in the system of Government in consonance with public opinion for the development of a democratic system under the hereditary ruler of the State, is a step of great constitutional importance, the significance of which I trust the Princes will fully realise. They can no longer say that the Paramount Power has no right to suggest changes in the form of government and that they should continue their autocracy unimpaired. It is, however, a matter for regret that the Committee has not permitted itself to enquire whether there is at the present moment this widespread popular demand for change in the form of government in the States. Without making any inquiries whatever, they say that no such case for a change has yet arisen. If they had only acquainted themselves with the National movement in Indian India, they would not have made this assertion.

The National movement in the Indian States has been gathering strength for several years and during the last year, the Hyderabad Political Conference, the Deccan State Subjects’ Conference, the Kathiawar Conference, the Mysore State Congress, the Rajaputana States Peoples’ Conference, the Anjira States Peoples’ Conference, the All-India States Peoples’ Conference, the South Indian States Peoples’ Conference, and various other Peoples’ organisations in the States have spoken unequivocally on the subject, and have demanded the establishment of Responsible Government in the States and have also advocated many radical reforms including the establishment of an independent Judiciary. The Committee have commended the advice of H. E. the Viceroy for a fixed Privy purse, security of tenure in the Public Services, and an independent Judiciary. In confining themselves to these reforms, the Committee have entirely failed to take note of the strong public opinion that has been formed in regard to many fundamental changes in the system of government in the States. Nevertheless, the recognition by the Committee of the duty of the Paramount Power to the people of the States to up the popular demand for a change in the present system of autocratic rule is a source of gratification to them.

FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendations of the Committee in regard to the financial and economic relations between British India and the States may now briefly be noticed. The Princes put forward a scheme for a States Council which was published in India and which was so severely criticised that they gave it up and have disowned it as unauthorised. They, however, presented again a similar scheme to the Committee based on a scheme of the European Association presented to the Indian Statutory Commission. This has been rightly rejected by the Committee. The States Committee's recommendations for the appointment of committees in matters of common concern to British India and the States and formal committees in cases of disagreement can never prove satisfactory and may even prove harmful. The ultimate solution can only be a regular constitutional machinery for the whole of India in which the people of the States are also assigned a definite place and an effective voice in all matters of common concern. The Committee have declared that schemes of a federal character are wholly premature and that the States have not as yet reached any real measure of agreement among themselves. This is true so far as the Princes are concerned, but federal schemes have now been under active discussion in various Conferences and Congresses from time to time. It is also clear, however, that any other method of adjustment of the relations of the States to British India will not give satisfaction. A satisfactory scheme can only be devised by the co-operation of all the parties concerned; the Princes and the people of the Indian States and the people of British India and the Government of India will have to sit together for the purpose in a Constituent Assembly. In the meantime, it is not known whether the Princes are satisfied with the solution, suggested in the Report. The representation of the people of the States and the State Governments in the Central legislature as an interim arrangement limited to the discussion of subjects of common concern to British India and the States, is a possible solution before a federal solution is reached, though attended with many difficulties. As regards specific proposals, it is a matter for satisfaction that the Committee have recognised the claim of the States to a share in the Maritime Customs Revenue, but they have tacked on to it also a recommendation that the States should make a contribution to Imperial burdens. The Princes perhaps never contemplated such a contribution but were merely looking forward to a share of the Revenue. It is to be hoped that the enquiry by the expert body would be open and public, and all other interests will be represented thereon. As regards other matters, it is also satisfactory that the Committee have recommended a share of the profits in Savings Bank to the States when they are considerable. The recommendation of the Committee in regard to salt does not appear to be equitable but the subject needs further examination. The reason assigned, namely, that the Government of British India established a monopoly and is therefore entitled broadly to all the profits is not convincing. It is not possible to deal with all cases for adjustment and the subject may have to be thoroughly examined later on with a view to remove any soreness of feeling on the part of the Indian States that they are not properly treated by British India.

RELATIONS WITH SIMON COMMISSION

It is more than probable that no action will be taken on the Butler Report till the report of the Indian Statuory Commission is also available to Parliament. There is a considerable amount of misconception in Great Britain that Sir Harcourt Butler's Committee and Sir John Simon's Commission will together produce proposals for fitting in the Indian States into a new Constitution for India. While in England in November last, I noticed that even such a well-informed publicist like Mr. J. A. Spender fell into this error in his contributions to ‘The Daily Mail’. The States Committee did not even hear the views of the people of the States, much less of the people of British India. The Indian Statutory Commission did not invite the opinions of either the Princes or the people of the States as regards the future Constitution for the whole of India including the States. Both these bodies were working in compartments and I imagine that their labours will not eventuate in the creation of a new Constitution for the whole of India. The attitude of the Indian Princes in regard to the points raised in the Butler Report is not known, but they have to make up their minds on the various points of controversy. It is said that His Excellency, the Viceroy, who is going to England on the 24th of June next, is meeting the Indian Princes at Poona before his departure. The Indian Princes have been harping a great deal on their relations with the ‘Paramount Power.’ The Paramount Power means the Crown acting through the Secretary of State and the Governor-General-in-Council who are responsible to the Parliament of Great Britain.

THE PRINCES’ DUTY

The Princes must now realise that the ultimate authority is not the King-Emperor acting by himself but the British Parliament. The Princes have realised that the social structure of Parliament has radically changed and they did not and do not hesitate to rub shoulders with many members of the Labour party whom they did their best to conciliate. The Princes pin their faith to the average British working man and his wife who make the Parliament of Great Britain, and hesitate to trust their own countrymen in an Indian Legislature. This attitude of the Princes is inexplicable. Will the Indian Princes take the advice of Sir Malcolm Hailey that the future of the States depends pot upon worn-out treaties and ‘sanads’ but upon working with the present day progressive forces in British India and in their own States? Have they learnt the lesson of the Great War that autocracy as a system of Government is doomed and that "the world has been made safe for Democracy," and adjust themselves in time to this world-wide movement for popular liberty? Should they shut their eyes to the fact that their safety lies not in isolating themselves from British India relying upon the protection of the Crown, or would they take their legitimate part in the evolution of the political destiny of India as a whole? Would the Indian Princes at this critical juncture play into the hands of the enemy? Sir Leslie Scott who played so prominent a part in the presentation of their case to the Butler Committee, has publicly stated that the Princes and the untouchables in India are in need of special protection from the Paramount Power. The Princes cannot be congratulated on the position assigned to them.

I have been assured on high authority that the statement made by Sir Leslie Scott in his now famous article in ‘The Law Quarterly Review’ was not authorised by the Princes, but it has not been repudiated by them as yet. Some of the Indian Princes are far-seeing and able statesmen who have taken part in the world movements of today and imbued with a genuine love for their Motherland. Will they rise equal to the occasion and influence their brethren of their order to shake off the spell of British Imperialism and work for a United India? No responsible British Indian politician has ever urged the disappearance of the Indian Princes, and it may emphatically be asserted that, consistently with the maintenance of their order, it is possible for British India and Indian India to be welded together into a common Constitution. Let there be no misgiving on this matter. The desire of Nationalist India is that the Indian Princes should become constitutional sovereigns and that personal rule as a system of Government should be modified in the States by the introduction of the Democratic principle.