# White Paper on Indian States (1950)/Part 2/Relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States

Relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States
41. As already stated the paramountcy of the British Crown was not co-extensive with the rights of the Crown flowing from the Treaties. It was based on Treaties, Engagements, Sanads as supplemented by usage and sufferance and by decisions of the Government of India and the Secretary of State embodied in political practice. The rights that the Paramount Power claimed in exercise of the functions of the Crown in relation to the States covered matters both external and internal.
42. For external purposes State territory and State subjects were, for all practical purposes, in the same position as British territory and British subjects. The States had no international life and in consequence of the loss by them of their power of negotiation and legation, the Paramount Power had the exclusive authority of making peace or war or negotiating or communicating with foreign States. The rights and duties assumed by the Paramount Power in regard to external affairs carried with them consequential rights and duties. The Paramount Power was responsible for implementing its international commitments; the Princes were required to give effect to the international obligations entered into by the Paramount Power.
43. The right of intervention in internal affairs could be exercised for the benefit of the Ruler of the State, of India as a whole, or for giving effect to international commitments. The authority of the Paramount Power could thus be interposed inter alia for the prevention of dismemberment of a State, the suppression of a rebellion against the lawful sovereign, the prevention of gross misrule, the economic growth of the whole of India, checking inhuman practices or offences against natural law or public morality.
44. The Paramount Power was responsible for the defence of both British India and the Indian States and exercised full control over all matters connected with defence, such as the establishment of cantonments, the regulation of the strength of the armed forces of the States, the procurement of supplies, free passage of troops, supply of arms and ammunition, etc.
45. Lastly, the Paramount Power claimed certain important rights as derived from the Royal Prerogative. These included the exclusive right to settle precedence and to grant honours; to regulate ceremonies; to recognise all successions and to settle disputes as to succession; to impose or remit nazarana or succession duties; to take charge of the States of ​minors and to provide for their education; and to impose the duty of loyalty to the Crown.
46. Paramountcy thus made serious incursions into the internal sovereignty of the States and it was natural that the Rulers should seek codification of the political practice. The appointment of the Indian States Committee in 1927 to report upon the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States was an outcome of these efforts. The Committee, however, found it impossible to evolve a formula which would cover the exercise of Paramountcy. It expressed the view that "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".
Such was the political set-up of the Indian States under the Paramountcy of the British Crown.