Another section of the Indian people, the Indian States, are still lingering on the fence. They say, you should postpone the Constituent Assembly till we come in. I beg to submit, as a student of law, that the position of Indian States is extremely simple and it is this. They say they have their treaties with the Crown. I will assume that they or everyone, one and all of them have their treaty with the Crown and that these treaties go far back to hundred or a hundred and fifty years. But what was the Crown of England 150 years ago? It was the voice of the ruling Government, of the British Cabinet, and, consequently, when they speak of their having had treaties with the Crown, what they do mean is that they have had their treaties with the Government of England for the time being in power. It is an ordinary platitude if I say-if the Crown of England accepted the advice of the British Cabinet 100 or 150 years ago, is it wrong for the Crown of England to-day to act on the advice of the Indian Cabinet? Can the Indian Princes complain that the Crown has got no right to choose its own advisers now? Therefore, their position is a futile one when they speak of their treaties with the Crown. Then, they say that the Crown has got the right of paramountcy. But they forget that the British Government in India has got the right of protecting all the Indian States, from the big State of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad to the smallest State in Kathiawar. And he who has the right of protection enjoys de facto the right of paramountcy. The defence of British India, having been transferred to the Interim Government, the Interim Government became responsible for the security of the Indian Princes, and, consequently, pro tanto that right of paramountcy has passed from the King of England or the Parliament of England to the Interim Government.
