it, could be referred to the Institutions established by the League for the purpose.

10. Looking to the history of the establishment of the British paramountcy in India, it is clearly seen that the first step it took was to isolate every indigeneous state it came into contact with by entering into a treaty, or engagement with or conferring a Sanad- an engagement in the nature of a favour on it, and under these sorts of agreements it left to the states various attributes of sovereignity. But in all cases the relations between the two have been clearly defined and leave no ambiguity.

II. No greater mistake could be made than to suppose that all the Indian States are feudatories of the British Government. There is a class of states known as such with corresponding rights and duties, but its existence is due to distinct causes. At the other extreme, there is a class of States, which have no inferior status to that of allies. Between these two lie States, which have agreed to different terms with the British Government.

12. The reasons for these differences are many, but they are mainly due to the circumstances existing at the time the treaties were made. The Maratha Empire which held sway in India before the British supremacy, had subjugated most of the states in India. This is the main cause for distinction between the treaties which are divisible into two main groups. In the treaties with Nizam, who had an unbroken alliance with the British Government, Scindia and Holkar, their absolute internal autonomy is recognised and and no indefinite obligation of any sort-Military aid for instance-is laid. In the case some others who perhaps owed a similar obligation to the Marathas, an obligation for rendering Military aid, is laid and an assurance has been given to them that "British jurisdiction shall not be introduced" into their territories.

13 As a matter of fact the bulk of the states enjoy more self-government than the British Colonies. Like the latter they cannot enter into relations with foreign states, but unlike the British Colonies, the states exercise full civil and criminal jurisdiction. Appeals from the highest Courts in the Colonies are heard by the Privy Council in London, but no appeal lies to it or any other British Court from the Indian States. Except the right of making peace or war, which they have agreed not to exercise independently

of the British, they have unimpared the right to administer Civil or Criminal justice, the right to legislate and all other rights which form the attributes of sovereignty.

There have been breaches in the rights guaranteed by treaties to the states on the part of the British Government due either to the helpless condition of the former or a misunderstanding on the part of the latter. But it would be going against justice, conscience and equity to assume that these lapses could over-ride solemn engagements. Indeed, the British Government have in a special protocol at the Conference of London which was held to abrogate the provisions in the treaty made with Russia after the Crimean War regarding the use of Black Sea Ports have laid down the principle that it was

"An established principle of the Law of Nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagement of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting party by means of an amicable engagement."

15. Sir William Lee Warner in his article "The Native States of India" (published at pp. 83-89 of Volume XXIII of the New Quarterly Review, London) observes,

"The treaties (with the Indian States) themselves have been formally accepted by a Parliament as binding upon the Crown and Nation of the United Kingdom since the transfer of the administration took place in 1858. The highest Courts of Justice have treated them with the respect due to international obligations for more than a century from January 1793 to 1897. In the former year Lord Commissioner Eyre held that the treaty with the Nawab of Arcot was a treaty between two Sovereigns and consequently not a subject of private Municipal Jurisdiction. In the latter year, the Lord Chancellor rejected a claim put forward by the Government of India of the right to arrest a fugitive criminal on a Railway passing through the territory of the Nizam of Hyderabad. He relied upon a principle of International Law, that 'The Authority to execute any criminal process must be derived in some way or other from the Sovereign of that territory'.

16. "But the distinguished position of the Indian States has been clearly recognised by the British Government in making commercial treaties with other Nations. The fact is not perhaps so widely known, much less appreciated, as it ought to be."

To quote the authority once more,

"A further instance illustrative of the breach of constitutional guage between British India and Native States is supplied by our treaties with foreign powers and it is more noteworthy because, as already shown, the States have lost one great attribute of Sovereign Power, namely control over external affairs."

Sir William continues,

"In our Commercial Treaties, it is usual to give and receive full liberty of conscience and free authority for the purchase of property to the subjects of negotiating powers. These rights can be, and are, readily insured in British India, but in the Native States there are limitations and reservations in

matters of worship and trade. Accordingly, in the negotiation of such commercial treaties the British Government recognises the necessity for differential treatment, and guarantees in the Protected States no larger measure of freedom of contract for the foreigner than that which it is able to secure for its own British Subjects."

17. As late as December 1911 when His Highness the Gaekwar of Baroda was made party to a suit for dissolution of marriage in London he was declared to be exempt from the jurisdiction of British Courts in his capacity as a Sovereign. In another case, a Coochbehar Prince was declared to be outside the jurisdiction of the British Civil Courts. As Sir William observes :

"The question is not one of mere academic interest, because the answer to it must make all the difference in the attitude of the public mind towards the Ruling Chiefs, and in their confidence in our intentions."

18. Although in 1877 was held at Delhi the First Imperial Assemblage to announce the assumption of the title of Empress of India by the Queen of England, yet at it and at subsequent such assemblages it was announced by Royal Proclamations that the treaties with the Indian States would be kept in-tact and that no change was meant in the status of their Rulers. These solemn assurances conveyed by formal Royal Proclamations have continued unimpaired the binding character of the treaties or other engagements.

19. Obviously in oblivion of these facts it was that on 21st August 1891, the GovernorGeneral of India announced,

"The principles of International Law have no bearing upon the relations between the Government of India as representing the Queen Empress on the one hand and the Native States on the other."

Says Sir William Lee Warner in his Article already referred to,

"But happily, the Government of India have never acted on the qualified denial of justice according to International Law, and did not so act in the case before them. No principle of International Law was even slighted in the Manipur Case."

20.

A formidable breach in the treaty rights is caused in practice by the exercise of residuary jurisdiction in the territories of Indian States by the British Authorities. It seems to derive its authority or rather confir

mation of the previous practice by an order in Council of the British Sovereign. The latter may protect the Officers acting under its provision, but its propriety, if not its having regard to the fact that Extra-territorial legality, can be questioned. In any In any case, rights were exercised by the European Powers in the territories of otherwise sovereign States, such as Turkey, before the war, or China, the character of the Indian States as fully self-governing or sovereign States continues inviolate.

21. To sum up in the words of Sir William Lee Warner who besides being a recognised author on the subject of Indian States, held the port-folio of the Foreign and Political Secretary to the Government of India :

"It is evident that Parliament, Judges and our diplomatists recognise the sovereign powers of the protected Princes of India and their peculiar position outside the constitutional system of British India. These Officials in their working attire regard the protected princes from the point of view of International Law."

22. The British Government itself, when it selected a representative Indian Prince as one of its delegates to the meetings of the League or its Assembly seems to have been conscious of the rights of the Indian States to a participation in the constitution of the League. But this sop to the feelings of the Indian States cannot be a substitute for the exercise of their right by them.

treaties with the British Government, which is an original member of the League, and larger areas and population than many of the 69 states, the treaties of which have been registered with the League, they have every ground for asking to be made members of the League. An action like this on the part of those at least who are mindful of their

status and can bear the financial burden consequent upon their position, will not fail to strengthen the British Empire, in the integrity of which lies their salvation. The registration of the treaties with the League and the reference to arbitration on the permanent Court of International Justice of matter arising therefrom follow as a matter of course.

A and

Ta time when the question of ownership management of railways engages public attention in all the principal countries in the world, and the problem of the future management of railways awaits solution in India, the publication of Rai Saheb Chandrika Prasad Tiwari's work on Indian Railways is a most opportune one. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Tiwari is no novice in the matter with which he deals. His various utterances on the subject, as also his work on Agricultural Co-operation in Denmark, written and published a few years ago, after a careful examination, at first hand, of the conditions existing in some of the European countries where agriculture was a flourishing industry, and a comparison of those conditions with the circumstances prevailing in India, had already given indications of his powers of close observation, his accurate knowledge of facts, and, above all, his earnestness of purpose. The railway system of a country exercises a potent influence, among other things, on the economic advancement of the people concerned, and in India the railways constitute one of the largest revenue-producing departments of the State. When, however, one considers the great importance of railways in the future development of the country, one regrets to acknowledge that the public interest in the matter is as inadequate as the general knowledge of the subject is meagre. The author of "Indian Railways" is one of those few Indians who have studied various questions relating to the policy and administration of railways with some care, and the experience that he gained in the working of railways has stood him in good stead. His object, Mr. Chandrika Prasad says in his Preface to his work, is to acquaint the Indian

The Indian Railways : Their Historical, Economical and Administrative Aspects: By Rai Saheb Chandrika Prasad Tiwari, Retired Assistant Traffic Superintendent, B. B. & C. I. Railway, Ajmer, 1921. Price Rs. 10 net.

public with questions relating to railway administration and economics, and further to bring about a healthy reform in the administration of Indian railways, and he is fully justified in claiming that his work is the first of its kind, giving expression as it does, to the Indian view of the matter.

One of the most interesting chapters in the work under review is that in which Mr. Chandrika Prasad refers to the economic effects of the Indian railway policy on India and her people. He agrees that properly utilised railways are of very great economic value to a country. He does not deny that railways facilitate and cheapen transport, and by stimulating trade and stimulating trade and commerce help to multiply industries and increase production. and, thereby, cheapen prices. Railways, however, as he adds, have a double blade acting both ways.

"If the people are intelligent enough, they can turn both blades to their own benefit, otherwise foreigners may reap benefits at their expense, as has actually been the case so far in India. Great care is, therefore, necessary to guard against this double blade being turned against the people's interests."

In western countries the introduction of railways has generally been followed by a general development of industries, but in India what has actually happened is the reverse of this. This result Mr. Chandrika Prasad ascribes to the inability of the people to take advantage of the facilities opened out by railways owing to their lack of technical training and of their ignorance of modern methods of industry and commerce. There is considerable force in his argument that were it not for the foreign competition that the introduction of railways facilitated, India would have continued her manufactures by adapting herself to modern conditions and circumstances. The old manufacturers, as he says, had no chance of saving themselves; they were, as if, suddenly attacked in sleep and could not even rise to see how to protect themselves. Because India did not

If

learn the modern arts of cheap manufacture, she lost her wealth and became poor. India were efficient in these arts, the railways would have very largely helped her in develop ing her resources to her Own benefit. Mr. Chandrika Prasad believes that Indian railways can even now be made to achieve this object, if they are worked properly.

The object of our railway policy, as the author of "Indian Railways says, should be primarily to develop the industries, agricultural trade and general welfare of the country. If this is to be accomplished it is of essential, importance that the causes that have so far stood in the way of the realisation of this object should be completely removed. Mr. Chandrika Prasad seems to think that the Indianisation of the main departments of Railways and the appointment of a strong committee with a majority of Indians, entrusted with the duty of overhauling the whole system of railway working, so as to effect retrenchment of unnecessary expenditure and to organise the machinery on a sound basis, would facilitate the introduction of the reforms needed in the administration of our railways.

It has long been a standing complaint that Englishmen have made a sort of monopoly of the higher railway posts to the exclusion of Indians. Mr. Chandrika Prasad writes in this connection :

"The foreign agency now employed is too expensive for the people to pay and gain any material advantage from the railways. Such agency should accommodate itself acco:ding to the economic circumstances of the country. It is true to some extent we need experts from foreign countries. We should pay them liberally in order to have full advantage of their skill and experience, but we do not need so many of the officials who pass under the class of experts from overseas countries and are maintaining a prohibitive standard of pay and allowances, which is difficult for the country to pay. officials are for the country and not the country for the officials."

The

The

It was in the seventies of the last century that the Secretary of State for India impressed on the Government of India the need of employing Indians in posts of importance on Indian railways to a larger extent than they had so far done. The Government of India had, however, neither the inclination nor the courage to go against the wishes of the powerful clique whose interest it was to keep the appointments as a close preserve for British youths. Royal Commission on Public Services, whose report was published in 1916, and the Indian Industrial Commission, who reported later, made important recommendations urging the recruitment of educated Indians more and more to those services. But these recommendations still remain almost unheeded. And, even the Acworth Committee (1920-21), which was appointed by the Secretary of State for India to enquire into the administration and working

of Indian railways, were unanimous in complaining that Indians had not been advanced to higher posts. They expressed their regret that even in the subordinate posts of the official staff there were not more of them, and recommended that the process of employment of Indians in the higher posts should be accelerated.

"We think," they said, "the Government of India might consider the propriety of establishing a minimum percentage of Indians to be reached within a fixed period. The minimum would have to be higher, or else the period shorter in the traffic than in the engineering or locomotive departments."

Very closely connected with the question of Indianisation of the higher railway services is the question of provision of technical education necessary for the men to be appointed to the various superior grades in those services. Referring to the training of officers subordinates for the technical departments of State railways, the Royal Commission on Public Services said:

and

"A determined and immediate effort should be made to provide better educational opportunities in India, so that it may become increasingly possible to recruit in that country (India) the staff needed to meet all normal requirements."

The Hon. Sir Mahadev B. Chaubal in a separate note stated:

"This recommendation has my full concurrence, and I only wish the recommendations as regards these services be given effect in practice with the same sympathetic spirit in which they have been conceived The fear entertained as regards these services is that perhaps an indefinite length of time may be taken in 'Indianising' them and that as they become India-recruited, Asiatic-Indians would not be selected for them in due proportion, and they may become like the present recruited-in-India services, in which as pointed out later, the proportion of Asiatic Indians to Europeans and Anglo-Indians is only 23, 8.2 and 6.3 per cent. in posts with salaries of Rs. 200 and above, Rs. 500 and above, and Rs. 800 and above, respectively."

Commenting on these observations, Mr. Chandrika Prasad very appropriately remarks:

"The fears are very well-founded, for has not the European and Anglo-Indian combination completely kept Asiatic-Indians, during the last 47 years, out of the appointments of Foremen mechanics, which were ordered by the Secretary of State for India in 1870 to be made entirely in India from among AsiaticIndians, and Europeans or Anglo-Indians.'

While discussing the question in their Report the Indian Industrial Commission made the following significant observations:

"Railway workshops are, as we have stated, in many cases already receiving European and AngloIndian apprentices, to whom some degree of technical training is given with the object of enabling them to obtain posts as foremen or in special cases, even higher appointments. There is, however, a note. worthy absence of provision for the middle-class Indian,"

How unsatisfactory the position still is in the matter of employment of Indians in the higher railway services will be seen from the following extract quoted from the Report of the Acworth Committee:

"At the date of the last report there were employed on the railways of India about 710,000 persons; of these, roughly 700,000 were Indians and only 7,000 Europeans, a proportion of just I per cent. But the 7,000 were like a thin film of oil on the top of a glass of water, resting upon but hardly mixing with the 700,000 below. None of the highest posts are occupied by Indians; very few even of the higher. The position of a District Engineer, District Traffic Superintendent, or of an Assistant Auditor is, with one or two exceptions, the highest to which Indians have hitherto attained. The detailed figures in Appendix No. 2 show that on the principal railways of the country, out of 1,749 posts classed as superior, 182, or rather more than 10 per cent, are filled by Indians. Of the 182 Indians, 158 occupy posts as assistant district officers in the various departments; 24 have reached the higher grade of district officers."

The Acworth Committee, of course, recognise the need for the adoption of adequate measures for introducing technical education in order that Indians qualified by training and experience may be appointed to the superior posts in the railway services more largely, and urge that substantial funds should be made available for the purpose. But the Government do not appear to be in a mood even now, as before, to listen to such advice. Else how is it that while enormous sums of money are being spent in establishing new Universities of the old type, practically nothing has so far been done for the introduction of a suitable and properly planned system of technical education, so essential for the industrial development of the country?

Neither the Indianisation of the higher railway services nor the appointment of a Committee, such as that suggested by Mr. Chandrika Prasad, would go far enough to solve the railway problem in India. These are undoubtedly steps in the right direction, but what is demanded is a change of a more fundamental nature. The vital need of the moment in the matter, is the abolition of Company Management and the introduction in its place of State control combined with a popular system of management. Mr. Chandrika Prasad deals with the question at considerable length and he quotes the opinions of well-known authorities and experts in support of State Management. He meets most of the arguments put forward by the advocates of Company Management against management by the State and shows how preposterous their proposals are.

"It is remarkable," he says, "that the European commercial bodies, both in India and in England, are from the earliest times, great advocates of Company Management, but none of them has taken any risk

whatever on account of the Indian railways. Even capitalists of England have failed to invest their money in Indian railways as an unaided private enterprise. They have always insisted upon a Government guarantee of high interest. The European commercial bodies who offer gratuitous advice in favour of employing private companies secure undue advantages from the British companies at the expense of Indians and have enjoyed all facilities provided by the railways to push on their trade. It is the people of India who have borne all the burden and they alone should decide the great question now at issue."

Again :

"The system of leasing Indian State railways to private companies virtually amounts to this, that the people of India defray the costs and expenses of building up the property, while the profits and other advantages of ownership are shared and reaped by others. In the early days of these railways when the traffic returns were low and did not pay the expenses, interest and other charges, the people of India defrayed all the deficits. When the time came for profits, the companies have stepped in and got hold of the railways, practically becoming masters of the same, sharing in the surplus profits, and exercising powers over large expenditure and lucrative appointments, keeping Indians in the lowest grades of the service."

Nothing could be simpler and more reasonable than the proposition that those who own a property should themselves manage it and secure the profit that it brings for their own use. Those who demand the introduction of State Management of railways combined with popular control do not ask for anything more than this. But, in view of the fact that the contract of the East Indian Railway expires in December, 1924, and that of the Great Indian Peninsular- Railway in July, 1925, a hue and cry has been set up against direct State management by people interested in the perpetuation of the present system.

The scheme formulated by the five members of the Indian Railway Committee who oppose State Management provides that the management of the undertakings in question should be transferred from English to Indian companies, having nothing more than a minority interest in them, and the Government remaining the predominant partner should appoint one-half of the Directors and nominate the Chairman and thus retain the control. No device could be clumsier and more incongruous than this. And, yet it is being perpetually dinned into our ears that it is in this proposal that its authors have reached the acme of wisdom. Sir William Acworth, the President, and the four members of the Committee, including the Right Hon. Srinivas Sastri, and Mr. Purshottamdas Thakurdas, the indomitable and wide-awake Chairman of the Indian Merchants Chamber and Bureau, Bombay, who resist all proposals for continuing the present system, under a