# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 12/Violation of Treaty Rights under British Rule

Violation of Treaty Rights under British Rule
250. Yet it was precisely to prevent the constitutional advancement of States and the political progress of India that the treaty obligations came in handy as a convenient veto. In all other fields, the treaty rights of the States, overborne by the heavy pressure of political practice, vanished into thin air. British statesmen themselves made no secret of their stand that the treaty obligations did not stand in vacuo and that the relations between the Paramount Power and the States were determined not so much by the letter of treaties as by usage and sufferance.
251. Under the Company's regime treaties were honoured more in their breach than in their observance. Internal independence of the States and their territorial integrity were of the essence of these treaties. The exercise of paramountcy powers in the States and the policy of annexation were, therefore, the very negation of the Company's treaty obligations. Even during that period of the Company's rule, when officially the policy of non-intervention held the field, in actual practice there was a great deal of interference by the Company in the internal affairs of the States such as Oudh, Mysore, Nagpur, Udaipur, etc. The nature and degree of interference varied at different phases according to the shifting requirements of Imperial interests and the temperament and the personality of the agents of the Company interpreting those requirements. Indeed, these treaties were a flexible instrument in the hands of the Empire-builders, who used them to suit the exigencies of the times. The whole scope of the relationship between the States and British power wag purposely kept nebulous and vague. "It is impossible", wrote Sir George Campbell in 1852, "to give any definite explanation of what things we do meddle with and what we do not". The entire system was so capricious that even Dalhousie, so well-known for his confirmed convictions and his vigorous policy of annexation, refused to interfere in Hyderabad despite the wretched misrule of the Nizam.
​252. Nor did the position change in any material respect with the assumption of the direct rule of India by the Crown. Canning was emphatic on the Crown's right to intervene in cases of gross maladministration. Elgin equally recognised that the alternative to intervention in cases of gross misrule was annexation. It is evident that even the first two Viceroys did not interpret rigidly either the Act of 1858 or the Royal Proclamation. Lord Curzon, during whose Viceroyalty the rising tide of paramountcy touched the highest level and who so stretched the paramountcy relationship as to make it virtually co-extensive with sovereignty, had the scantiest respect for any of the treaty obligations. Finally Lord Reading formally laid to rest all talks about the Crown's relationship with the States being governed by treaties. "They construed" writes Westlake, "a treaty not by its bare words but as necessarily reserving the right of the Paramount Power to follow its known principles of action". When once the principle was enunciated that the political system of India did not rest upon treaties, it was easy for the political officers so to extend the tentacles of paramountcy as to envelope the entire structure of the States. There was no part of States' life,—legislative, executive and even judicial—which was not touched by the long hand of the supreme power. Even the palaces and the private life of the Rulers were not exempt from the intrusion of the Paramount Power.
253. The Princes groaned under this all-pervading yoke of the Paramount Power; there was, however, no remedy against this persistent and ruthless attrition of their treaty rights. They could have no recourse to a judicial tribunal even in respect of such of the questions arising out of the treaty compacts as were patently of a justiciable nature. They were disentitled to ventilate their grievances in the Press or to appeal to public opinion for support. The Paramount Power firmly held that the Crown alone could determine the confines of paramountcy and the Crown was not disposed to set any limits to its powers.
254. In this context, all talk about the treaties with the Princes being inviolate and inviolable seemed patently unreal. Public opinion in India found it difficult to reconcile itself to the view that the British Government was upholding the outworn system in the States, in direct violation of its professed democratic faith, merely to honour its engagements with the Princes. Obviously, the whole system was governed "by imperial interests and the shifting necessities of the times", as the Butler Committee frankly admitted.