White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 6/Paramount Power's Negative Attitude
Paramount Power's Negative Attitude
150. For this state of political stagnancy in States, the negative attitude of the Paramount Power was greatly responsible. Secured against internal commotion under the protection guaranteed to them by the British Government, the Rulers had no incentive to part with power and to establish self-governing institutions in the States. The British Government's attitude towards constitutional advance in States, as officially stated in the House of Commons, was that while the British Government "should certainly not obstruct proposals for constitutional advance initiated by the Ruler", it had "no intention of bringing any form of pressure to bear upon them to initiate constitutional changes. It rests with the Rulers themselves to decide what form of Government they should adopt in the diverse conditions of Indian States".
151. The justification for this policy of laissez-faire was sought in the theory that the engagements of the Crown had been with the Rulers and not with the people. Proceeding on this basis, the Paramount Power ignored all popular movements and organisations States; the Butler Committee took no notice of the States Peoples' Conference; at the Round Table Conference only the Rulers and their representatives were invited. Finally the Act of 1935 conceded the demand of the Rulers that the States should be represented on the Federal Legislature by the nominees of the Rulers and not by elected representatives of the people. In the impressive array of the rights, privileges and prerogatives of the Rulers, witnessed during the negotiations relating to the scheme of 1935, the rights of the people were conspicuous by their absence.
The attitude of the Princes on such important political issues was derivative. No wonder, therefore that some of the Rulers openly advocated the untenable view that any scheme for the transfer of power to the people would be inconsistent with their treaty obligations. This background was not propitious for constitutional advance in States.