'Memoirs and Recollections of An Officer of the Indian Political Service' [‎50r] (99/156)

of the upper class is a stickler for maintaining his ? izzat' (personal honour and dig-
nity) and would in no circumstances put himself in Wre position to lose face.
I have recounted this incident of controversy, not because 1 wish to give the impression
that all Indian Princes were by nature deceitful and perfidious. Indeed, in my exper
ience, the very reverse was usually the case. The several Rulers I came across during
my political career were in general decent, honourable, well intentioned men, with
tremendous historical traditions behind them. As a body they had shown exemplary
loyalty to the ’Sirkar' since the first half of the 19th century when the majority,
of them were recognised and entered into formal treaties relations with the British
Crown. Few of them sided with the rebels during the Mutiny, and those who did found
no sympathy from their colleagues.
In Kathiawar particularly, the British connection was very strong indeed. Many of the
Rulers had been educated in and had sent their sons to English Public Schools.
Most of them excelled in the different branches of sport; cricket, polo, pig-sticking,
rackets and tennis, golf and nearly all of them could hold their own in any company with
the rifle and the shotgun. Those who could afford it were certainly extravagant and
flamboyant in their life style, but strange as it may seem, this did not demean them
in the eyes of their subjects. Poor as the Indian villager is, and always has been,
he expects a display of pomp and ceremony from his superiors, for in a way he identifies
himself with his masters.
I consider myself fortunate that of the thirteen years that I was in Political employ,
the greater part of it was spent in Indian States or dealing with their problems.
Sadly, the Princely Order has disappeared since the British left India in 1947, and in
my opinion, the country has been the poorer for its passing. There were of course both
good and bad Indian States, depending on the personality of the individual Maharaja or
Nawab An honorific title; an official acting as a provincial deputy ruler in South Asia; or a significant Muslim landowner in nineteenth century India. of the day. The good were very good and models of their kind. Like many of the
British officials who served in the old undivided India, it is my considered opinion
that, alongside the provincial governments of British India, a well run end enlightened
Indian State could easily hold its own. At any rate, its people were governed by
Indians (I use this word in its widest sense to include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Rajputs,
and all the others). The guiding hand of the Political Officer was of course always
there, but it interfered seldom and only if there was no alternative. The paramountcy
of the British Crown, of which the Viceroy was the embodiment, was infrequently invoked;
the deposition of a Ruler was only sanctioned if the degree of his misrule reached the
intolerable, in the most extreme use of the word. "The Manual of Instructions of
Officers of the Political Department of the Government of India", which was mandatory
reading for probationers, contained the following famous or notorious injunction in