Regarding the definition of the word there is some difference of opinion. It has been urged that since the word ‘Rajpramukh’ means that he is a Pramukh amongst several other Rajas it may not be quite appropriate with regard to such States where there is only one ruler. This is sought to be got over by the definition of the word “Rajpramukh” which will be duly placed before the House. The definition recognises the differences existing in various States and says that so far as Hyderabad is concerned “Rajpramukh” will mean the Nizam of Hyderabad. So far as Jammu and Kashmir and Mysore are concerned, it will mean the Maharaja, subject to the stipulation that they should be recognised as such by the President of the Union. There is nothing surprising in this. There was a stipulation of recognition even under the old set-up when the British Paramount power was here and there is nothing of a very different nature that is proposed now. So, though a more appropriate word could have been found for the constitutional head of the States, in view of what has been embodied in the covenants that have been already entered into, where the word “Rajpramukh” has already been used, it is proposed to retain that word.
