>*og**i
In the opening paragraph of its report the .Butler Committee observed: "Politically there are two Indias, British India, governed by the Crown according to the statutes of Parliament and enactments of the Indian Legislature, and the Indian States under the suzerainty of the Crown and still for the most part under .the personal rule of the Princes. Geographically Inuia is one aim iiiuivisible, made up 01 pink and yellow. The piooiem of statesmanship is to hold the two together". 2. That is how 19 years ago the problem of the Indian States presented itself to the authors of this important report on the Indian States. But were there really two Indias? And was the problem merely to hold them together? 3. A glance at the map (Appendix 1) showed that geographically India was one and indivisible. The territories of the Indian States were dovetailed into, and closely interwoven with, those of what was then British India. Even where the map showed solid blocks of the Indian States the territories were so irregular that the States had enclaves in the Provinces and vice versa. 4. The main part of the communications essential to the welfare of the whole of the country passed in and out of the territories oi the Indian States. A community of interests in the wider economic field linked the States with the Provinces. If the Status and. the Piuvinces failed to co-operate in implementing policies on matters of common concern, there was a vacuum which rendered it impossible to enforce effective measures in respect of such matters in any part of the country. 5. The geographical set-up of the Indian States did not coincide with any ethnic, racial or linguistic divisions. The peoples of the Provinces and the States had suffered alike from t>he waves of foreign invasions and foreign domination. Close ties of cultural affinity, no less than those of blood and sentiment, bound the people of the States and the Provinces together. 6. What was it then that separated the Indian States from the resi of India? Firstly, the historical factor that unlike the Provinces the States had not been annexed by the British Government. Secondly, .the political factor that £be States maintained the traditional monarchical form of Government. 7. Did these factors, however*, really segregate the States from the "Provinces and create an impassable political barrier between them?, The freedom of the Indian States from foreign subjugation was only relagve; the paramount power controlled the external affairs of the States and exercised wide powers in relation to their internal matters. The whole of the country was, therefore, in varying degrees under the sway of the British Government. Besides, in the context of Ihe demand for India'6 freedom the degree of control exercised by the British power ceased to have any meaning. Nor was there any reason to over-emphasize the political difference between the States and the Provinces. There was nothing incompatible between the systems of governance in the Provinces and the States provided the supremacy of the common popular interests was recognised and representative and. responsible Governments were established in the States. 8. India was, then, not only a geographical and cultural continuum but also one economic and political entity. The problem of statesmanship in
