2. The first series of our joint meetings with the States Negotiating Com- mittee were held on the 8th and 9th February, 1947. The discussion largely centred on the scope of subjects to be negotiated between the two committees. It was urged by the States Negotiating Committee that there had been no decision yet on the part of the States to enter the Constituent Assembly, and that it would not be possible for them to decide this issue till they received satisfactory assurances on a number of points mentioned in the resolution adopted on the 29th January, 1947, by the General Conference of Rulers (Appendix A). On the other hand, we pointed out that most of those points could only be discussed by a fully constituted Constituent Assembly including the representatives of the States; they were in any case clearly beyond our competence as a committee, our own functions being limited to the matters laid down in the resolution of the Constituent Assembly passed on the 21st December, 1946. But while we were not prepared as a committee to discuss matters going beyond our mandate, we raised no objection to discussing, in a friendly and informal manner as individuals, certain difficulties, and to removing certain misapprehensions which seemed to be causing concern to the Princes. The more important of the points cleared up in the course of these discussions were summarised by Pandit Nehru as follows:
The first thing to be clear about is to proceed with the full acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s statement. Apart from the legality of that Statement one thing also seems to me obvious, namely, that the scheme is essentially a voluntary one, where no compulsion, except, as I said, compulsion of events, is indicated. No doubt, so far as we are concerned, we accept it as a voluntary scheme where people may join as individuals, as groups, or Rulers or otherwise. We are not trying to force any to join if they do not want to. It is a matter for negotiation throughout.. Now, to go back, apart from the acceptance of the scheme which is basic, some points were raised yesterday. One was about the monarchical form of Government. That question has not arisen at all in the Constituent Assembly nor, so far as we can see, does it arise at all from the statement. But it has been repeatedly stated on our behalf in the Constituent Assembly as outside that we have no objection to it, we accept that, and we do not want to come in the way of the monarchical form of Government at all. This has been made perfectly clear.
Another point that we raised in our discussion yesterday was about some apprehension about territorial readjustments. I tried to point out that the resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly had no reference in the minds of those who framed the resolution or who proposed it there, to any change regarding the States. It has no relation to the States. It was an indication that there will be provision made in the Constitution or in the process of re-grouping units, etc., where some changes may have to be made. It had no reference to changing boundaries. I can concede territorial boundaries being changed for economic reasons, for facilitating governmental purposes, etc., but any such territorial readjustments, we are quite clear, should be made with the consent of the parties concerned, and not be forced down. I say, for the moment we are not thinking in terms of any such thing, but if this question arises, it should be essential that the parties concerned should consent to it.
The scheme, as has already been stated, is a voluntary one, and whether in regard to the entry into the Constituent Assembly or subsequently when the Constituent Assembly decides and comes to conclusions there will be no compulsion, and the States will have the right to have their say at any stage just as anybody else will have the right to have their say at any stage. So the coercive factor must be eliminated from that. In regard to some confusion which has possibly arisen in regard to subjects and powers, we go on what the Cabinet Mission’s statement specifically says. The Cabinet Mission’s statement said: “The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.” That is perfectly clear, we accept that statement, we accept that entirely. Generally speaking, those are the matters that came up yesterday in the course of discussion, and perhaps we might proceed on that basis and consider matters now.
We further explained that the Constituent Assembly could not possibly take up the position that they were not prepared to discuss matters with States not represented on the Chamber of Princes Negotiating Committee; or with representatives of State peoples, as that would involve an element of compulsion which was contrary to their conception of the scheme.