India -- History -- British occupation, 1765-1947; India -- Politics and government -- 1765-1947
contemporary Indian life, among them the Right Honorable Mr. Fisher,
President of the Board of Education in England. In his book _The Empire
and the Future_ he has observed:
"My impression is that the inhabitants of a well governed native
state are on the whole happier and more contented than the
inhabitants of British India. _They are more lightly taxed_; the
pace of the administration is less urgent and exacting; their
sentiment is gratified by the splendor of a native court and by
the dominion of an Indian government. They feel that they do
things for themselves instead of having everything done for them
by a cold and alien benevolence." (Italics are ours)
But after all that is favourable to the Native States of India has been
said, their existence in their present form remains a political anomaly.
As at present situated, they are an effective hindrance to complete
Indian unity. Although "India is in fact as well as by legal definition,
one geographical whole," yet these Native States, occupying about
one-third of the total area of the country and with a population of
about 70 million will, for a long time, prevent its becoming a
homogeneous political whole. Thus a circumstance which was hitherto
looked upon as a piece of good luck will operate as a misfortune.
"The Native States of India are about 700 in number. They embrace
the widest variety of country and jurisdiction. They vary in size
from petty States like Rewa, in Rajputana, with an area of 19
square miles, and the Simla Hill States, which are little more
than small holdings, to States like Hyderabad, as large as Italy,
with a population of thirteen millions."[1]
The general position as regards the rights and obligations of the Native
States has been thus summed up by the distinguished authors of the joint
Report (Lord Chelmsford and Mr. Montagu):
"The States are guaranteed security from without; the paramount
power acts for them in relation to foreign powers and other
States, and it intervenes when the internal peace of their
territories is seriously threatened. On the other hand the States'
relations to foreign powers are those of the paramount power; they
share the obligation for the common defence; and they are under a
general responsibility for the good government and welfare of
their territories."
As regards the assimilation of the principles of modern life, it is
remarked in the same document:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account