Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Letters

Fragment ID: 6362

(this fragment is largest or earliest found passage)

Sri Aurobindo — Baroda’s Resident

1903

Draft of a Reply to the Resident on the Curzon Circular¹

My dear Sir,

In reference to your letter of the 11^th February last, conveying the remarks and views of the Government of India on the representation of His Highness’ Government dated the 19^th December 1902, I am to express to you His Highness’ extreme disappointment that the Government of India has not seen its way to give a more favourable consideration to the representation, I had the honour to submit in December last. That letter expresses a hope that His Highness will now withdraw his objections to the provisions of the circular. It further makes certain remarks on the delay in sending the protest, the absence of His Highness from Baroda and its results on the administration of the State.

I am anxious therefore to place before the Government of India certain facts and circumstances relating to those matters and in explanation of His Highness’ objections to the circular.

It must be admitted that the protest reached the Government of India more than 2 years after the circular was issued but in explanation of that circumstance I have to state in the first instance that no copy of the circular has ever been formally and officially communicated to His Highness’ Government and even now any knowledge they may have of the contents of the circular is that which they share with the general public and which is drawn from the portion extracted in the Government Gazette and the public prints of the country. It was indeed His Highness’ wish to disregard the absence of a formal intimation and submit a protest forthwith but I may perhaps be allowed to say that as things are constituted it is naturally felt as no light thing to appeal to the Government of India against its own orders. This course was therefore abandoned under the advice of His Highness’ responsible officers that it would be inadvisable and might be thought premature and uncalled for to submit any protest before the circular was officially communicated to this Government or it became clear on occasions arising that what would involve in the case of the Baroda State an important change of procedure was really intended to apply to this State. Such occasion first arose in 1902 when in answer to this Government’s intimation of His Highness’ wish to proceed to Europe on account of ill health the Government of India required His Highness to conform to the provisions of the circular for the first time. This was in May 1902 about 2 years after the circular had been issued. Thereupon the protest was forwarded in December last. This explanation of the apparent delay in sending the protest will it is hoped serve to dispel the doubt which seems to be conveyed in your letter as to the strength of His Highness’ feelings on the subject of the circular.

The next point which calls for an explanation is the implication clearly conveyed in the letter that no efficient administration of the State is possible during the absence of H.H. from Baroda. With reference to this I beg to submit that the administration of the Baroda State has been systematically regulated by H.H. so that it can be worked by his officers even when he is not present in person at the Capital. It stands therefore on a very different footing from unregulated administrations in which every detail is dependent on the personal will of the ruler. Further His Highness when going to a hill station during the hot months of the year takes with him his staff and office and the supervision of administrative work goes on with the same regularity as at Baroda. Indeed it is a fact that owing to better health and greater freedom from harassment more work is done by H.H. outside than at Baroda.

In the case of absences in Europe efficient control is no doubt more difficult but on such occasions H.H. has to delegate some of his powers and those matters which require reference to him can in these days of easy communication be answered in a comparatively short space of time and in urgent cases orders can even be obtained by wire. Incidentally it may be remarked here that in making arrangements for the conduct of administration during the absence of H.H. in Europe H.H. is not allowed a free hand which his close knowledge of the administration and the people and the intimate and permanent manner in which his interests are bound up with the good government of the State would seem to require. If greater freedom of action were allowed H.H. feels that more satisfactory arrangements could be made than are now possible.

It may be added that the administration of a Native State when regularized is largely a matter of routine; no new and considerable problems are to be apprehended and such questions as do arise, can with the thorough knowledge of the administration which H.H. possesses be easily grasped by him even when he is not on the spot.

With regard to the discontent consequent on the injury to the administration referred to in your letter, I wish to state that His Highness’ Government is not aware of any genuine dissatisfaction which has resulted from his absence from Baroda. It must be remembered that there are grievance mongers everywhere especially in a Native State where there is the representative of the paramount power to whom they can prefer their complaints whether imaginary or real. The amount of credence given to them must in the nature of things depend on the judgment and discretion of the individual officer who for the time being represents the paramount power. From the reports of that officer, the Government of India derives its information whilst His Highness’ Government has generally hardly any occasion to give its own version of the contents of those reports. This is an inevitable disadvantage of the position in which Native States are at present placed, but as I have said so far as His Highness’ Government is aware no real injury has up to now resulted to the administration by the absence of His Highness from Baroda much less any discontent consequent on such injury.

It is true that in 1894 considerable agitation was created in the State against its land policy, but this was due in His Highness’ opinion entirely to the policy itself and not to his absence and the agitation would have soon subsided if the Resident had not unfortunately taken a position of active hostility to that policy which eventually turned out to be an unjustifiable attitude.

Further in regard to these trips to Europe it has always to be borne in mind that there is such worry and difficulty in making arrangements for them that they can never be undertaken except under the strongest necessity. Even were it otherwise the deep interest which H.H. takes in the administration of his state – an interest which has been testified to by more than one Resident – who have warned him against an excess of zeal rather than its deficiency, would not admit of his frequent absence from India. Thus it happens that H.H. has not been out of India for more than 4 years during the 22 years of his active rule and his trips have always been necessitated by considerations of health.

It need hardly be stated that in sending the protest nothing was further from His Highness’ mind than either to challenge the policy of Government or to question their authority. What His Highness intended was to place before the Government of India his feelings and present for their consideration the effect which the Circular was calculated to produce on his status and dignity as a Ruler. The Circular it is stated in itself establishes no new principle and that the Government of India always exercises the right to give advice on the subject of His Highness’ trips to Europe. But such advice both by its form and the rare occasions on which it is given is more suited to the position and dignity of His Highness whilst the necessity now imposed of an application for permission in every instance leaves no independent power of movement out of India and gives room for the inference that in the estimation of the Government of India H.H. if left to himself cannot be trusted to enjoy this privilege in a reasonable and judicious manner. At least this is the view which would be taken by the public at large. The advice again was given and received confidentially so that the public had no authentic means of knowing whether the trip was given up because vetoed by the Government of India or by the Prince himself of his own motion.

It fell in with the policy of the Government of India to maintain the prestige of Indian Chiefs by allowing their public acts to bear the appearance of having proceeded from the Chiefs themselves rather than by direction of the Government of India. It may be that some Princes fell short of their responsibilities but a general rule which applies equally to all is calculated to discourage those who may have been devoting their whole time and energy to the welfare and good Government of their subjects.

Your letter no doubt contains an assurance that there is no idea of curtailing the judicious and moderate enjoyment by Native Chiefs of the privilege of absenting themselves from their States. What is a moderate enjoyment, however, would in the nature of things have to be determined by the Resident in the first instance and ultimately by the Government of India. In your letter you calculate the absences of H.H. from Baroda at 7½ years since 1886, thereby probably implying that they were not moderate. Of these only 4 years were spent out of India and that too during the course of the 22 years of his rule. It would seem to H.H. that this was not an immoderate exercise of the privilege but possibly it is thought otherwise by the Government of India.

In the same way though previous absences may not have been frequent still a particular trip may not be considered to be judicious and as it is not possible to define the requirements of a judicious trip, no definite meaning is conveyed to the mind as to the extent to which the privilege will hereafter be allowed.

These are some of the objections to the Circular which still hold good. His Highness therefore can only express his regret that the Government of India could not see their way to alter its provisions.

¹ 1903. In 1900 Lord Curzon, Viceroy and Governor-General of India, issued a circular letter requiring the rulers of princely states to obtain the permission of the government before leaving the country. Although worded in general terms, the circular was directed specifically against the Maharaja of Baroda, who had refused to return from Europe to meet the Viceroy that year. Two years later the Maharaja informed Baroda’s Resident – the name given to British political agents in the larger states – that he intended to revisit Europe. He was told that the Government of India would not grant him the necessary permission. A protest was submitted to “the Residency” (that is, the office of the Resident). The Resident replied in February. The present document is a draft of a reply to the Resident’s letter. The final version would have been sent over the signature of the Naib Dewan or Dewan.

Back