Page:White Paper on Indian States (1950).pdf/150

 Government of India, if it is to be of the Dominion type, will not be so acceptable. This in plain English means that the past and present Governments of India were acceptable because they were essentially foreign in their composition and not responsible to the Indian electorate and that the future responsible Government of India would not be acceptable to the Indian Princes because it will consist of their own countrymen and because it will be responsible to all electorate of their own countrymen. But supposing that this is so, is there any authority for the proposition that when a "contract" may be performed by an agent the choice of that agent does not rest with the principal but with the other party to the "contract"?"

259. The theory that the head of a State could, in his personal capacity, enter into treaty engagements having far-reaching effect on the destinies of the people, is too anachronistic to be maintained in the 20th century. However, the theory came to stay; it further widened the cleavage between the Princes and the people and drove the Princes deeper into the Imperial fold.  

260. The new concept encouraged separatist trends and obstructionist tactics in Princely quarters. Coupland comparing the attitude of the Princes with that of the Muslim League observed "but there can be no doubt that they (Princes) would insist quite as firmly on disrupting India rather than accept an all-India system of government which over-rode their rights and put them at the mercy of the Congress and the High Command". "Nor would it be" he went on to say, "reasonable on the British Government's part to rule that out". No wonder that fed on such theories, the Princes subscribed, even so late as the eve of the Cripps Mission, to the policy embodied in the following resolution unanimously adopted by the Chamber of Princes:—

"That this Chamber has repeatedly made it clear that any scheme to be acceptable to the States must effectively protect their rights, arising from the Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads or otherwise and ensure the future existence, sovereignty and autonomy of the States thereunder guaranteed and leave them complete freedom duly to discharge their obligations to the Crown and to their subjects; it therefore notes with