Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nehru Report and Round Table Conference
Nehru Report and Round Table Conference
Chapter IX
, it became apparent that the quest for greater power and voice that had given
floundering rock for these efforts. The Indian National Congress and the
The support of the Princes became vital and eventually the voice of the
states subjects was drowned in the cacophony of the power match. The
Nehru Committee' presented its report to the All Parties Conference held
at Lucknow on August 28. The Report was accepted by the All India
England, Abhyankar had warned that the Committee must take into
However the final report belied the hope that the states subjects, through
weightage. The Nehru Report contained a full chapter on the Indian States
detailing their constitutional position vis a-vis the Government of India and
knocking down the theory of direct relalionship between the Indian Princes
such a direct relationship was an attempt to convert the Indian states into
an Indian U lster"' and was "like a Chinese wall in the way of India’s
progress toward Dominion Status".’ Instead the Report proposed that the
New Indian Commonwealth would have the same rights and obligations
towards the states arising out of the treaties as were exercised and
his radical supporters within tiie Congress were annoyed with the Nehru
The States subjects received the Nehru Report with a feeling that
they had been let down. An agitation against the Report was launched in
some of the Princely States in the South while the leaders of the AISPC,
of the states with the Government of India, said that "(it) does not however,
"They (authors of the Nehru Report) have hesitated to speak frankly about
this (demanding that the princes give up autocracy and rule as constitutional
monarchs)." Unless the Indian States People have the same political rights
would give "equitable relief to tlie people of the Indian states and not
dominant position". He lashed out against Sir Shivaswami Iyer who denied
that the states subjects had contributed in any way towards customs, salt and
other monopolies, contending that these rested upon the treaties and
agreements between the princes and the Imperial Rulers. "We put it to
him" said Abhyankar "whether there was freedom of action on the part of
railways and other items of joint concern which formed part of the
people want is that undue advantage taken of the states by the bureaucratic
Committee has failed to do this and there is just complaint about its
to complain for what is om itted." The fact was that in their anxiety to gain
Status, Nehru and Sapru recognised that the support of the princes was
vital. Thus while approving the crown tlieory of the AISPC, the Swarajists
representation.
The second session of the All India States Peoples Conference was
held over the weekend of 25th and 26th May 1929 in Bombay. C.Y.
Reception Committee. Govind Lai Shivlal and Ramdeoji Poddar were vice-
Mani Shankar Trivedi were secretaries while L.M. Doshi was appointed
Treasurer.^
The most important resolution that the 2nd AISPC adopted was to
meet Gandhiji and other Congress leaders at the forthcoming Lahore session
271
negotiations and the new Federated India. This was a direct response to the
let down they suffered with the acceptance of the Nehru Report by the
that in any federal scheme, the states’ people will have to be given the same
criticized the Paramount Power and the Princes for their obstructive
pointed out that the problem of the Indian States had two aspects -- the
internal and the external. The external aspect related to the organic bulk
of the states with British India and was akin to the two terms of references
decided by the Butler Committee wliich had already submitted its report.
The internal aspect related to the form of government existing in each state
in them. The AISPC contended that thr Butler Committee and the Simon
Commission did not touch upon this internal aspect and was therefore
unacceptable to them. It was indeed ironical tliat while so much was being
Ill
^ the Princes of India and the Imperial Rulers had been proposed to discuss
the future federation. The princes had categorically refused to join any
Nehru in his Report had gone thus far and no further, leaving the doors
espouse the perpetuation of the princely order and autocratic rule on India,
Earlier the AISPC had sent eight delegates to attend the All Parties
such as rights of association, free speech, free pres and security of person
and property. The Congress further assures the people of the Indian States
of its sympathy and support in their legitimate and peaceful struggle in the
Iyengar,* President of the INC which had held its session in Gauhati
into it and the delicacy arises because we have one view for British India
274
and another for the Indian states. 1 share to the full the sympathy of all
those who think that the Indian states are a kind of very imperfect Swaraj.
They remind us of the high estate from which we have fallen and our
ought in their own interests and in the interests of their subjects, to content
occupy the very dubious and anxious position he does at present. He will
then, if he is just and a wise ruler be in a safe, freer and more dignified and
deserve any protection either from the present government or from Free
India.
heard in the states. The people of British India, when they are fighting for
Swaraj, are entitled to have the Indian states brought into line with British
India. Matters affecting the relations of the Government with Indian states
relating to the affairs of such states, ought not to be excluded, as they are
connected with those in the Indian states that it is impossible to deny them
our help in their aspirations and their grievances. The people of each state
safeguard their interests till each Indian state obtains a system of responsible
government."
Committee chaired by Sir Harcourt Butler. The delegation that had gone
to England in 1928 presented its report and discussions were held about the
response of the British Press to the cause of tlie states subjects. The AISPC
England. "When I was in England people asked me why they had not until
then heard anything about the Indian India and the political discontent in the
states,"
said Abhyankar in his speech. "I am perfectly convinced that there we must
the Jamsaheb had resorted to imprisonment without trial and the oppressive
the entry of the Mehta and members of the Praja Parishad into the state and
three prominent leaders were jailed. Thus in the AISPC agitation had failed
to elicit any positive result. In Jodhpur the Durbar banned the Jodhpur State
in the State. While in the State of Wadhwan the state police would
appointed the Patiala Enquiry Committee'® which was charged to look into
were called to give evidence and statements were recorded about charges
and even aiding and abetment murder. The States leaders chose the
opening day of the session of the Chamber of Princess to issue the highly
James A.O. Fitzpatrick, agent to the governor-general for the Punjab States.
exonerating the Maharaja of all charges against him.'- The events of the
times had made it imperative to let Patiala off the hook. The Government
lim to avoid demonstrations both in his State and at Bombay from where
As a result of the support that the British now gave Patiala, who
most’,'"* inevitably began to tow the British line in as far as the federation
connected with the Enquiry under the malevolent glare of the princely eye.
Abhyankar was offered two choices. First was to take up the post of Prime
in the Hindu on 10th March 1930. "I have read with amazement the report
Admittedly, the enquiry was one sided and the report is an exparte
evidence that is given certainly supports the conclusion that a strong prima-
facie case has been made out. It is monstrous that such charges should be
made and no attempt made to disprove them should be made by one who
has autocratic control over the lives and property of large numbers of
280
this accusation, much less can a prince a public man. For those who are
rapidly. The Gandhi-Irwin pact had failed following close on the heels of
composition, which was charged with the task of inquiring India’s fitness
opted for civil disobedience and declared that its goal was Complete
this claim upon the attention of the Congress but the break down of
amazed and overwhelmed not just those who had stood aloof but the entire
world. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "The fire of great resolve is in him and
scorches and love of freedom that inspires." Exhorting the youth of India,
Jawaharlal went on, "the field of battle lies before you, the flag of India
beckons you and freedom herself awaits your coming. Do you hesitate
now, you who were but yesterday so loudly on her side? Will you be mere
lookers on this glorious struggle and see your best and bravest face the
might of a empire which has crushed }'our country and her children? Who
by banning all its committees, arresting the leaders wholesale and outlawing
propaganda etc. At the same time special attention was paid to prevent the
282
Muslims of the rest of India from joining tiie civil disobedience movement
....T he Viceroy as the man on the spot witnessed the daily deteriorating
Indian people. The fear of the Viceroy had come true, he had alienated
extinguish the spirit of revolt against law and government... The report of
the Statutory Commission which was published on June 13 and 24, 1930
dyarchy was to be abolished, but the autonomy was hedged by the grant of
fixing an early date for the meeting of the Conference, in order to turn the
who would participate in the Conference and 3) determining the agenda and
the basic principles for discussions. Irwin’s endeavour was to soften the
shock of the Simon Commission Report by side tracking its importance and
gone awry. His plan was to repair the damage done by his first mistake,
foundering. "If, on the one hand, he persisted with the Conference without
delegation would be chosen to create the impression that India was fully
represented and that Congress was only one of the many parties that was
absent by virtue of their being a extremist body which was opposed by all
unreality.
The first RTC had the following categories of members who had
industrialists.
parliamentary parties.
the Paramount Power in case of misrule - a provision that the Princes were
the identical issue in the latter part of your address was raised by me
Chimanlal Setalvad, who was present, supported it, saying that the
issue should not be raised now that the power of interference will
certainly come of its own accord and that we must now quietly allow
Sastri contented that "If British India now 1 ^ their power it could
recover it (if it ever could) by a long process of friction and strife during
287
harassment and even tyranny. The Dewan told me: "You, people of British
India want to gain a great deal at the expense of the present British power.
Why should not the Princes at this good opportunity, shake off this power
Indian politicians don’t quite realise the danger... Please don’t make public
anything I say here. But you should know. The debate that night in
Bangalore was long and rather warm. 1 put full force into all your
considerations."
swing. S.G. Vaze, of the Servants of India Society and editor of the
’Servant of India’ was one of the delegates had sought advice from
Abhyankar about what might be the thing he would need in London. "My
much touched by your letter in which, in the midst of your own anxieties
to us, but do try to arrange a deputation and come over yourself. This is
an opportunity of serving the states which will not return for years. If you
don’t come I am afraid no one else will and the subjects’ case, which is so
of the States Subjects at the Round Table Conference. In a letter dated 25th
London, Vaze made an assessment, "There are several men who will be
willing to take up the cause of Indian states, if only they can be assured of
used to approach are not much good - Graham Pole and the rest. For one
thing they won’t do much, for another they don’t carry much weight.
Others are more cautious and therefore more difficult to convince. But
when once convinced they will exert themselves more and their
championship will go farther and tell better. It’s a pity that no Indian
spokesman can be here now. I quite see your difficulties. The thing cannot
it was "very desirable on the part of the people of British India and Indian
affirmatively and Simon implied in his report Sir Leslie Scott’s opinion.
have, it is true, lawyers of great eminence on our side, but they will
necessarily be regarded as interested parties, and for this reason their law
demand at least 300 guns if he put his hand to such an opinion". "Please
do consult Mr. Kelkar, Mr. Abhyankar, and others and let me know .... I
m atter."
During the months preceding the RTC hectic discussions and debates
ensued amongst the delegates, members of the British government and other
influential British politicians. It was Vaze’s constant letters that kept the
290
references to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s views on the problem of the States’
subjects and popular agitation in the Princes States, that were always
dictated by expediency.
States leaders in their agitation. Time and again on crucial issues, the States
Leaders were let down by the Congress leadership. The fact was that
were in the horns of a dilemma. The negative response from the Congress
after 1917 which was the period that marked the ascendancy of Gandhi to
the helm of affairs, left the states leaders with no ciioice but to forge an
borrowing a page from the Congress book, they continued negotiations, and
291
fact was that while the dedication of the early pioneers of the states’
subjects movement enabled the establishment of the apex body, the major
drawback was finance. This in the early years was entirely dependent on
donations by members. This was the reason why the AISPC could not
generally adopted a low profile thus preventing the states people from
of India, the Princes of India and the Congress was need based - it was
by capturing it. Vaze writes, "I don’t attach much value to what Sir Tej
a serious mistake in regard to Patiala. For the moment much of the work
done so far has been almost thrown awry. The trouble with the movement
292
constitutional agitation at all. They are ahnost on the look out for an
excuse to start non-cooperation and their voice prevails, because they are
Sastriar by his friends and admirers, would safeguard the States’ Peoples’
is once roused... the princes have already been anticipating the worst
trouble from him." But Vaze wanted that "(we must) keep up our cry for
shown a great deal of interest in India in general and the Indian States in
Commons, though he did not belong to the left wing of the party. It would
appear from Vaze’s letter that Smith had offered to raise questions relating
It would also appear that through the efforts of the members of Servants of
India Society, who had gone to London neither as delegates or advisors, the
293
As the date for the first RTC drew near the Princes and their
of the various schemes wrote, "I am not sure... that they may not have
some ideas in their minds of using federation to get rid of the exercise of
j
motives that the states’ representatives put forward, when they arrived in
This decision quite suddenly dispelled the gloom that had beset the official
British mind which had earlier been obsessed with the fear that when
demand for Dominion Status from both the Princes and the British Indian
to both the Conservative and Liberal parties. The first was to use the
second was to use it in dealing with the vexed problem of how much power
Sapru, head of the Indian liberal delegation, who had arrived in London
was obliged to reconsider federation with the States as the only means of
position.
While the various combinations were being worked out, revised and
concerned at the total exclusion of even any reference to the States Subjects
as a legitimate entity continued to use all their resources not just to gain
representation for the AISPC at the Round Table Conference, but ensure
Patwardhan, "You and Abhyankar perhaps think that this is all too good,
but you must carefully consider just what it is that this demand implies."
Vaze feared, as did V.S. Srinivasa Sastri and Sir C.P. Sivaswamy Aiyer
would retain jurisdiction over only those subjects which were of common
concern to both, devolving upon the provinces such sensitive subjects like
civil and criminal law that were hitlicrto vested in the centre. Finally
vesting all residuary powers with the provinces would render the centre
wrote, "The Moslems want a federal system in their own interests. Other
moslems and will very likely support the Princes’ demand (though
296
Ambedkar is an out and out opponent of federation, but he does not count).
The only group which might be expected to resist federation is that of the
liberals, but among them too many have already been won over. Sapru, for
instance, who framed the Nehru constitution on the unitary basis, is now
hesitation, adopt a unitary plan; but since the Princes are willing to come
Shastriar alone will fight, but he will be completely isolated for I do not
For the States’ People the most disquieting feature of the Princes’
demand for immediate federation was the demand that their "dynastic and
Baroda was the only ruling prince who seems quite willing to let the future
Government of India deal with the "personal and dynastic question." But
at the conference, will be prepared to incur the odium of the other Princes
attitude would be in the face of this united demand. "But even here we
cannot hope for much support. Sapru himself has gone over. He argued
with the Crown with the Nehru Report, but he says he then argued against
the legal claims as distinct from the political claims, and now as it is the
political claims that are in question he can lend his support to them. What
the distinction is between the legal and political claims I for any part don’t
know. It’s a sheer quibble, and a clumsy one at that. But he has persuaded
298
himself that there would be no inconsistency on his part if the author of the
of India Act. Thus Vaze suggested that the only option left to the States
the States for dealing with local affairs." Another imperative qualification
that Vaze felt was necessary before admitting the States into the federation
more than doubtful, whether he would do so and press them on the attention
from time to time in the names of Kelkar and other close friends of his by
cable. My own impression is that he needs such goading and would not
misunderstand it."^^
299
States’ subjects.
State for India expressing his desire to raise the question of the subjects of
the ways in which some protection could be given to the people of the
Rights (eg. Poland, Irish Republic)... The Nehru Report also contains a
chapter dealing with the question of what is called the declaration of rights
for British Indian Citizens. If this is necessary in the case of British Indian
autocratically governed. I wish to raise this question under one or the other
a spoke in their wheel. The raging controversy over the modus operandi
grounds that they did not interfere in the internal affairs of the States. As
might be recalled the question of the status and representation of the Indian
301
states subjects had been raised in tiie House of Commons and replies tabled
on the 12th and 26th November 1928, in connection with the refusal of the
the debate initiated by Lord Olivier in the House of Lords on 5th December
1928 as regards the constitutional advance in the Indian States. There was
Bikaner who had said earlier in a speech tliat the term ’State’ included
contended that the people of the State have no stake or should have no voice
in effecting a change in the existing relations between the States and the
regard to any British Indian Subject. A federal constitution for the whole
of India must naturally affect the status and position of the Indian States.
What will be their future rights and obligations to their own states and to
the new government of federated India? Tlie terms on which this double
is being circulated. In any case, it can hardly be stopped. S/S cannot but
see RCR as he asks but he can presumably disclaim any power himself to
mystery. On 28th November 1930 Vaze wrote "Would you believe it?
Ramachandra Rao did not show me your cable of 11th instant, though you
had specially asked him to do so. He only spoke to me about it and as for
the contents told me just this much, that you insisted on a declaration of
seems to think that the princes have a sort of natural and indefeasible right
of choosing their own representatives for either house (on the question of
' Srinivasa Aiyer’s reasoning in this, but the other principle which Aiyer
, condition which you mentioned in your cable, viz., that States should be
It appears from Vaze’s letter that only Joshi, Shiva Rao and
cause of the states people as of all other oppressed classes. In any case, so
strong was the Princes’ lobby and the tacit support they had from the
urge of British Indian nationalists to gain power in the Centre that "you will
being accepted for the States." Already the negotiations outside the
Conference and within it had begun to show stress. Vaze records "Sapru
has become very overbearing and dictatorial. Relations between him and
Chintamani have become very strained... Sapru has threatened to resign the
prospect. As Shastriar said this morning, if, with the princes creating
be God’s own handiwork; for our part we are doing best to hinder it.'"*^
the states were to be represented in both chambers. The report said "the
for the States themselves.""’^ Meanwhile the princes who had envisaged
and demerits of the various schemes that several of them had put up.
princes to come into the lower chamber as well as the upper. And the
petition went not only from Sapru who is more royal than the king, but
from C.P. and Jaykar. Shastriar alone did not join. Vaze was annoyed
with the States Peoples Leaders, "but why on earth don’t you send cables
to others, it will cost a trifle... By this time cables from various persons
and groups, variously worded, should have rained upon the Conference.
Every other interest is alert, but the States’ people are asleep. Well, you
know that in the wake o f the onslaught o f the Civil D isobedience m ovem ent
in India and a sharp polarisation within the AISPC. T he m ovem ent that
a confidential letter to Kodanda Rao, Vaze wrote, "I hope you have not let
letters. It is now clear that these views are not shared either by Shastriar
Princes are not likely to agree to this, they are willing to let them have the
make them introduce representative institutions for the m anagem ent o f local
Joshi and I — would break up the Conference rather than agree to it. Not
Sastriar and H ariji... A clear difference o f view and tactics has em erged,
and I would beg you therefore to wipe from your mind all that I have
written in the past and determ ine your policy in the light o f the views which
307
Shastriar and Hariji hold."'*’ This was the ominous sign of things to come
1931, "all the difficult questions are left undecided, the communal
the centre, the conditions mentioned are ahnost impossible. The only good
far as the Stats’ question is concerned, we have lost all along the line. The
last stages of the Conference were so hurried that even a proper dissent
could not be expressed. Still Joshi raised the point in his speech - the point
viz. of popular representation, but he had just a minute or two for that and,
poor man, he could not do much. The most encouraging thing was that
States’ representatives must come in by election just like the British Indian
States must now be wide awake. All is not lost yet. Many questions are
End Notes
6. History of the Associated Movements ed. R.L. Handa vol. Ill states
that among others the 2nd AISPC was attended by Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Jamnalal Bajaj. I have not
found any reference to this at the India Office and the fact that one
of the resolutions adopted at tiiis session authorised some leaders of
the AISPC to meet Gandhi to elucidate their case, suggests to the
contrary.
15. B.J. Clancy’s note on the Chamber Session, January 1935, Private
Papers, India Office Records, L/PO/88. Patiala and other princes
however retracted from their support to the Federation by the Second
RTC.
16. G.R. Abhyankar: Private Papers, Nehru Memorial M&l, New Delhi.
This was confirmed by Abhyankar’s son, Lt. Col. M.G. Abhyankar
who recalls much consternation within the family at the assassination
threat. Characteristically G.R. Abhyankar ignored both offers.
21. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
26. Amritlal Sheth was jailed in reprisals that followed the ’Indictment
of Patiala’ by the All India State People’s Conference in February
1930.
28. Ibid. An extract from S.G. Vaze’s letter to Mr. A.V. Patwardhan,
August 13, 1930.
30. Harley to Irwin, 20th November 1930, Halifax Collection, No. 19.
32. The first schemes put up for consideration was by Kailas Haksar and
K.M. Panikkar on behalf of the Special Standing Organization of the
Chamber. This was contained in their book Federal India that was
released on the opening day of the London Conference. It
contemplated the grant of complete responsible government to British
India save for the transfer to a federal council of matters of common
concern to the States and British India. Federal India was in fact
largely devoted to describing how, in return for British India,
achieving central responsibility, the states would obtain complete
internal autonomy safeguarded by a supreme court.
Sir Mirza Ismail, Dewan of Mysore, put forth another scheme.
Concerned as he was with the growth of vocal opinion among the
subjects of the state (refer ft.#23), Ismail was also influenced by the
consideration that if Mysore entered a federation it might gain relief
from the heavy burden of tribute which it paid the British
Government. He suggested a federal constitution that provided full
autonomy in the Provinces, responsibility at the centre and a closer
association between British India and the states in matters of
common concern.
In September 1930 yet another scheme was initiated by Sir
Akbar Hydari on behalf of Hyderabad. The responsible British
Indian Centre envisaged int he Haksar-Panikkar and Ismail schemes,
was a severe threat to Hyderabad’s existence and autocracy of the
Nizam. Hydar’s plan for federation therefore involved the abolition
of the British Indian centre, and its replacement by a small
’aristocratic’ federal assembly consisting of 36 provincial
representatives. 24 State representatives and 12 Crown nominees.
All matters of common concern were to come under federal
312
33. The Indian States’ Delegation included all members of the Standing
Committee - the Rulers of Alwar, Bhopal, Bikaner, Kahsmir, Patiala
and the Jain Sahib of Nawanagar; Manubhai Mehta and Kailas
Haksar from the Chamber’s Special Organisation, plus seven
members chosen by Irwin. Four of the premier states were
represented - Hyderabad by Sir Akbar Hydari, Mysore by Sir Mirza
Ismail, Gwalior by Sahibzada Ahmed Khan, and Baroda by the
Gaekwar. Prabhashankar Pattani represented those stats under
minority administration; Gulab Singh, the Maharaja of Rewa,
represented the so called conservative states; and the Chief of Sangli
was chosen to represent the smaller states.
Source; S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards
Indian States 1905-1936, London, fn. pp. 154.
34. Harley to Irwin, 14th November 1930, Halifax Collection No. 19.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
313
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. G.R. Abhyankar: Private collection, copy of Mr. Vaze’s letter 28th
November, 1930. Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, New Delhi.
46. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid. Copy of Mr. Vaze’s letter to Mr. Kodanda Rao, I9th
December 1930.
51. Ibid.