they co-operate with the Paramount Power to fulfil its obligations of neutrality; they help to enforce the duties of the Paramount Power in relation to the suppression of the slave trade. Since a foreign power will hold the Paramount Power responsible for injuries to its subjects committed in an Indian State, the Paramount Power is under obligation to see that those subjects are fairly treated. Of these duties Professor Westlake very truly says that they are owed by the states to Great Britain as the managing representative of the Empire as a whole," and that they consist in helping Great Britain to perform international duties which are owed by her in that character. On the other hand the Paramount Power when making treaties, will, in view of special circumstances existing in the Indian States, insert reservations in order to meet these special circumstances. In all such cases there is, in practice, no difference between the states and the Paramount Power, but the states ask that they may be consulted, where possible, in advance before they are committed to action. This request is, in our opinion, eminently reasonable and should be accepted. Interstatal relations. 47. Until quite recently the Paramount Power acted for the states not only in their relations with foreign countries, but also in all their relations with one another. During the present century circumstances have combined to lead to greater intercommunication between the states. But they cannot cede, sell, exchange or part with their territories to other states without the approval of the Paramount Power, nor without that approval can they settle interstatal disputes. 'As we do not allow the states to go to war with one another, we claim the right as a consequence, and undertake the duty, of preventing those quarrels and grievances which among really independent powers would lead to international conflict." This principle, stated by Sir Henry Maine in 1863, still holds good. Defence and protection. 48. The Paramount Power is responsible for the defence of both British India and the Indian States and, as such, has the final voice in all matters connected with defence, including establishments, war material, communications, etc. It must defend both these separate parts of India against foes, foreign and domestic. It owes this duty to all the Indian States alike. Some of the states contribute in different ways to the cost of this defence by the payment of tribute, by the assignment of lands, by the maintenance of Indian States Forces. the states rallied to the defence of the Empire during the Great War, and put all their resources at the disposal of the Government. All But, whether or not a state makes a contribution to the cost of defence, the Paramount Power is under a duty to protect the states. It follows from this duty of protection, first, that the British Government is bound to do everything really necessary for the common defence and the defence of the states; secondly, that the states should cooperate by permitting everything to be done that the British Government determines to be necessary for the efficient discharge of that duty; thirdly, that they should cooperate by abstaining from every course of action that may be declared dangerous to the common safety or the safety of other states. These obligations are generally accepted and the states work together with the British Government to their utmost ability. It follows that the Paramount Power should have means of securing what is necessary for strategical purposes in regard to roads, railways, aviation, posts, telegraphs, telephones, and wireless cantonments, forts, passage of troops and the supply of arms and ammunition. Princes and people. 49. The duty of the Paramount Power to protect the states against rebellion or insurrection is derived from the clauses of treaties and sanads, from usage, and from the promise of the King Emperor to maintain unimpaired the privileges, rights and dignities of the Princes. This duty imposes on the Paramount Power correlative obligations in cases where its intervention is asked for or has become necessary. The guarantee to protect a Prince against insurrection carries with it an obligation to enquire into the causes of the insurrection and to demand that the Prince shall remedy legitimate grievances, and an obligation to prescribe the measures necessary to this result. Popular demands in states. 50. 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 misgovernment, but to a widespread popular demand for change, the Paramount Power would be bound to maintain the rights, privileges and dignity of the Prince; but it would also be bound to suggest such measures as would satisfy this demand without eliminating the Prince. No such case has yet arisen, or is likely to arise if the Prince's rule is just and efficient, and in particular if the advice given by His Excellency Lord Irwin to the Princes, and accepted in principle by their Chamber, is adopted in regard to a fixed privy purse, security of tenure in the public services and an independent judiciary. Intervention. 51. The history of intervention has already been described. Intervention may take place for the benefit of the Prince, of the state, of India as a whole. For benefit of Prince. 46 52. Lord Canning's adoption sanads of 1862 recited the desire of the Crown that the Governments of the several Princes and Chiefs in India who now govern their territories should be perpetuated, and that the the representation and dignity of their houses should be continued." In order to secure the fulfilment of this desire the Paramount Power has assumed various obligations in respect to matters connected with successions to the houses of the Ruling Princes and Chiefs. In the first place, it was laid down in 1891 that "it is the right and the duty of the British Government to settle successions in subordinate Native States. Every succession must be recognised by the British Government, and no succession is valid until recognition has been given." In 1917, however, this view of the position was modified and in a Memorandum on the ceremonies connected with successions" issued by the Government of India, it was laid down that where there is a natural heir in the direct line he succeeds as a matter of course and it was arranged that in such cases the recognition of his succession by the King Emperor should be conveyed by an exchange of formal communications between the Prince and the Viceroy. In the case of a disputed succession, the Paramount Power must decide between the claimants having regard to their relationship, to their personal fitness and to local usage. In the second place, Lord Canning's sanads guaranteed to Princes and Chiefs the right, on failure of natural heirs, to adopt a successor, in accordance with Hindu or Muhammadan Law. But such adoption in all cases requires the consent of the Paramount Power. In the third place, the Paramount Power has, in the case of a minority of a Ruling Prince, very large obligations to provide for the administration of the state, and for the education of the minor. These obligations, obvious and admitted, of the Paramount Power to provide for minorities afford, perhaps, as strong an illustration as any other of the way in which usage springs up naturally to supply what is wanting in the terms of treaties that have grown old. Usage, in fact, lights up the dark places of the treaties. For benefit of state. 53. The conduct of the Prince may force the Paramount Power to intervene both for the benefit of the state and the benefit of the successors to the Prince. It is bound to intervene in the case of gross misrule; and its intervention may take the form of the deposition of the Prince, the curtailment of his authority or the appointment of an officer to exercise political superintendence or supervision. In all these cases a commission must, under a recent Resolution of the Government of India, be offered, to enquire and report before any action is taken. The Paramount Power will also intervene if the ruler, though not guilty of misrule, has been guilty of disloyalty or has committed or been a party to a serious crime. Similarly it will intervene to suppress barbarous practices, such as sati or infanticide, or to suppress torture and barbarous punishment. For settlement and pacification. 54. The small size of the state may make it difficult for it to perform properly the functions of government. In these cases the Paramount Power must intervene to carry out those functions which the state cannot carry out. The general principle was stated by Sir Henry Maine in 1864, in reference to Kathiawar. He said Even if I were compelled to admit that the Kathiawar States are entitled to a larger measure of sovereignty, I should still be prepared to maintain that the Government of India would be justified in interfering to the extent contemplated by the GovernorGeneral. There does not seem to me to be the smallest doubt that if a group of little independent states in the middle of Europe were hastening to utter anarchy, as these Kathiawar States are hastening, the Greater Powers would never hesitate to interfere for their settlement and pacification in spite of their theoretical independence.' For benefit of India. 55. Most of the rights exercised by the Paramount Power for the benefit of India as a whole refer to those financial and economic matters which fall under the second part of our terms of reference. They will be dealt with later in our report. At this point it is only necessary to note a fact to which due weight has not always been given. It is in respect of these financial and economic matters that the dividing line between state sovereignty and the authority of the Paramount Power runs ; and, apart from interferences justifiable on international grounds or necessary for national defence, it is only on the ground that its interference with state sovereignty is for the economic good of India as a whole that the Paramount Power is justified in interposing its authority. It is not justified in interposing its authority to secure economic results which are beneficial only or mainly to British India, in a case in which the economic interests of British India and the states conflict. British jurisdiction in certain cases. 56. Some of the treaties contain clauses providing that British jurisdiction shall not be introduced into the states; and it is the fact that the states are outside the jurisdiction of the British courts, and that British law does not apply to their inhabitants, which is the most distinct and general difference between the states and British India. Nevertheless the Paramount Power has found it necessary, in the interests of India as a whole, to introduce the jurisdiction of its officers in particular cases, such as the case of its troops stationed in cantonments and other special areas in the Indian States, European British subjects, and servants of the Crown in certain circumstances. Impossible to define paramountcy. 57. These are some of the incidents and illustrations of paramountcy. 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 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 fulfil its obligations, defining or adapting itself according to the shifting necessities of the time and the progressive development of the states. Nor need the states take alarm at this conclusion. Through paramountcy and paramountcy alone have grown up and flourished those strong benign relations between the Crown and the Princes on which at all times the states rely. On paramountcy and paramountcy alone can the states rely for their preservation through the generations that are to come. Through paramountcy is pushed aside the danger of destruction or annexation. Princes should not be handed over without their agreement to new government in India responsible to Indian legislature. 58. Realising this, the states demand that without their own. agreement the rights and obligations of the Paramount Power should not be assigned to persons who are not under its control, for instance an Indian government in British India responsible to an Indian legislature. If any government in the nature of a dominion government should be constituted in British India, such a government would clearly be a new government resting on a new and written constitution. The contingency has not arisen; we are not directly concerned with it; the relations of the states to such |