By the spring of 1940 the Congress ministries had resigned, the Muslim League had adopted its Lahore Resolution, and Gandhi was weighing a new campaign of civil disobedience against India's involvement in the war. Jawaharlal Nehru, who since 1939 had also been president of the All India States People's Conference, wrote this piece at Andheri, near Bombay, on 23 April 1940. He asks where the states, and their people, stand in the coming struggle. It is a short published statement, not a speech.
Nehru argues that the princes owe their survival to Britain: "The States were partly the creation of the British Raj; all of them have subsisted for these long years because of the protection of British Imperialism." He accuses rulers of backing communal bodies against the national movement, "a political coming together—reaction clinging to reaction." Following Gandhi's advice, he does not want the states' people to launch civil disobedience automatically when the Congress does. But his verdict on the princes is final: "The Indian Princes have hitched their wagon to the chariot of imperialism. They have both had their day and will go together."
[p. 47] What of the Indian States in this crisis? What are the people there to do now, or later, if satyagraha envelops the land? These questions are repeatedly put to me, and I confess that I find it difficult to answer them. The difficulty arises from a variety of factors. The States are so numerous and so various, their political and economic development varies so enormously, that a uniform policy for all is hardly possible. It is true that fundamentally the problem is the same in all the States, and that problem is a part of the all-India problem. It is obvious that the policy that the States' Governments are pursuing is inspired and controlled by the Political Department of the Government of India. There is a patent uniformity in that policy, as there must be when the source is one and the same. The reaction of the States' people should also, therefore, be uniform, in so far as this can be brought about.
Let us look at the problem of the States in its larger context. The States were partly the creation of the British Raj; all of them have subsisted for these long years because of the protection of British Imperialism. There can be little doubt that but for this shelter and protection they would have changed enormously during the last hundred years. They look still, as of old, to this imperialism for protection, and British Imperialism looks to them for support against the powerful nationalism of the Indian people. It is a combination for the mutual benefit of each other, and aimed at the Indian people, whether they live in the Provinces or the States. The whole scheme of Federation contained in the 1935 Act was aimed to give strength and stability to this combination and to disable the Indian people from challenging it effectively.
In recent years there has been much talk about the so-called [p. 48] independence of the States. And yet the fact is that they are far more under the thumb of the Political Department of the Government of India now than they have ever been before. Apart from privately exercised control, we see vast numbers of British officers, previously connected with the Political Department or with the Imperial Services, in high offices in the States, completely controlling the administration there. It will be found that wherever this is so there is usually greater repression of the people of the State. The Rulers are hardly in the picture at all.
In the crisis that is upon us it is clear that the Indian States Governments stand fully ranged with British Imperialism. Not only that, they have flirted and come to private arrangements with all reactionaries. It is well known that communal organizations are in high favour with the authorities in the States. There is nothing communal about this marriage of convenience. It is a political coming together—reaction clinging to reaction. And so Hindu Rulers come to terms with and encourage Muslim communal organizations, and Muslim Rulers are friendly to Hindu communal organizations. The opposition of both is to progress and freedom and the growth of national unity and strength.
The old intrigue has borne fruit, and the British Government relies upon communalism and the feudalism of the States to meet the tide of advancing nationalism. Let us realize fully who our opponents are. Recent developments are to be welcomed for this reason at least, for they separate the wheat from the chaff, and all of us can see the picture of present-day India in all its brutal nakedness.
What are the States people to do? In this hour of crisis discipline is needed and no two voices should command. It is for our leader in the struggle, Mahatma Gandhi, to issue directions, and we should adhere to them. As I understand him, he does not want the States people to launch satyagraha the moment Congress starts it in the rest of India. Obviously widespread satyagraha in India [p. 49] will have a powerful effect on the States and their people. The whole of India will be shaken up and no one knows what the consequences will be, except that they will be far-reaching. The States people cannot be mere lookers-on, and they will have to bear many trials and tribulations. They must prepare themselves for them and be ready for all eventualities. What they ultimately do will depend on the course of events and their own strength. The ultimate decision will rest with them.
While, therefore, the States people should not automatically join a Congress satyagraha movement, some of them may have to start their own satyagraha for reasons which apply to them. Even today a satyagraha movement would be justified in many States where the cup of humiliation and repression is overfull. But let them not act hastily or precipitately, but with deliberation, which is the sign of strength. Haste at the wrong moment leads to adventurism and demoralization. The time of trial and testing will come soon enough; let them work hard and get ready for it. The Indian Princes have hitched their wagon to the chariot of imperialism. They have both had their day and will go together.
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India: Collected Writings, 1937–1940 (London: Lindsay Drummond, 1941), pp. 47–49, dated Andheri, 23 April 1940.