The Many Meanings of Divisible Sovereignty: Princely States, British Officials, and the Indian States Committee, 1928-1929 - Priyasha Saksena

***Please note the change of date ***

The Edinburgh Centre for Global and International Law presents

The Many Meanings of Divisible Sovereignty: Princely States, British Officials, and the Indian States Committee, 1928-1929 

Dr Priyasha Saksena, Leeds Law School

 

About the seminar
In recent years, a number of scholars have attempted to unpack the relationship between international law and empire. Some argue that the existence of empires was an aberration in an otherwise equal world, and was corrected by the process of decolonization. Others argue that empires were central to the creation of modern international law, and particularly the concept of sovereignty, which is, therefore, encoded with ideas of civilizational difference.

Although imperialism was crucial for the construction of the idea of sovereignty, it is essential to examine the many manifestations of imperialism. Colonial powers like Britain exercised different degrees of control in dominions, protectorates, protected states, colonies and mandates. I focus on the “princely states” of colonial South Asia, which were territories that were not directly ruled by the British, but remained under British influence. I examine debates around their legal status to trace arguments made by British and South Asian politicians, lawyers, civil servants, and intellectuals on the idea of sovereignty.

Specifically, I focus on the arguments made before the Indian States Committee, established in 1927 to report upon the relationship between the British Government and the princely states. I will argue that both British officials and princely state representatives relied on the concept of “divisible sovereignty” to defend their visions of imperial and global order, although they had very different understandings of the idea. Both sides argued that the sovereignty of the princely states was divided between the British Government and the state in question; however, the princely states argued that this division was based on the consent of both sides, while the British argued that the division was based on “imperial interests.”

Focusing on entities like the princely states, therefore, shows that there were multiple articulations of sovereignty in the age of empire, which were used for a variety of purposes, including to legitimate and resist colonial domination. I suggest that the idea of sovereignty was both the key tool and the terrain of legal and political struggle between the British and the South Asians in the early twentieth century.

This event is free and open to all but registration is required.

Event Link

Register on Zoom