The Butler Committee, 1927

A UPSC question once offered four plausible-looking answers for what a 1927 committee was really for. Provincial powers, the Secretary of State, press censorship, or India’s princely states — only one is right, and mixing it up with British India’s own constitutional reforms is the easiest way to lose that mark.

1.Why did the princes themselves demand this committee?

1.1What exactly was left undefined about British power?

• British India had provinces ruled directly under British law. The princely states kept their own rulers and many local powers, yet the British Crown still claimed the highest authority over them. This claim was called paramountcy.
• British officials drew that authority from treaties, written promises called sanads, and past practice. Here’s why that vagueness worried rulers so much: nobody could say exactly how far paramountcy reached.
• Princes feared new plans for elected government in British India. They wanted to know who would control their ties with the Crown once that change arrived. A ruler might accept Crown authority over defence, yet resist taxes set by a future British Indian cabinet.

1.2Who actually asked for the inquiry, and what did the committee investigate?

• At a Simla meeting in May 1927, a group of princes requested an inquiry. Britain appointed three members on 16 December 1927: Sir Harcourt Butler chaired the committee, with Sidney Peel and William Holdsworth as the other two.
• The committee had two tasks. It examined the Crown’s rights and duties toward the states, and it examined money and trade issues between the states and British India.

2.What did the committee actually decide about paramountcy?

2.1Did the report end British power over the states, or protect it?

• The committee visited 15 states for discussions, plus a short visit to Dholpur — which is why some summaries say 16. It travelled roughly 8,000 miles, heard witnesses, and read state replies.
• The committee said no short formula could define every use of paramountcy, and it kept the Crown’s broad claim rather than proposing to end it. This was the opposite of what a student might guess from the word “committee.”
• It said princes should not be moved into a new relationship with an Indian elected government without their consent. It also favoured the Viceroy as the Crown’s agent in dealing with rulers, and proposed independent committees to advise on major disputes.

2.2Whose voice actually shaped the final report?

• The committee heard princes’ views and received written replies from rulers directly. People living under the princes also asked to speak, but the committee said their grievances fell outside its formal task.
• Here’s why that limit matters. The rulers had a strong voice throughout the process, while ordinary people living in the states had far less room to be heard.

3.Why did a 1929 report still matter in 1947?

3.1What question did the consent principle answer, two decades later?

• Indian constitutional plans soon raised a hard question: could princely states be placed under a new elected central government without being asked? The Butler report said the rulers’ agreement mattered for any new relationship.
• This was a recommendation, not a treaty signed by every ruler. Each state had its own past ties and its own powers, so no single rule could fit them all. The committee’s narrow task also left ordinary people’s demands for a voice in government inside the states unresolved.
• The Government of India Act, 1935 later proposed a federation with princely-state participation, though the full federation never started. In 1947, British paramountcy ended under the Indian Independence Act, and the states then faced their own decisions about accession.

3.2Why do students keep confusing this with the Simon Commission?

• The Simon Commission reviewed British India’s own constitutional reforms. The Butler Committee focused specifically on princely states and their relationship with the Crown — two entirely separate bodies with two entirely separate jobs.

4.Exam Angle: The Real Question on the Butler Committee’s Purpose

All three wrong options belong to other, entirely separate colonial reforms. The word “states” in this question means princely states specifically, not today’s Indian states. Mixing up that one word is the single most common way to lose this mark.

Related: All Modern History Articles