DR. RUTHERFORDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether 409 he is aware that in 1870 the Thakurs of the State of Bikanir petitioned the Government of India regarding the forcible resumption by the Bikanir Raj of lands held by the Thakurs, and the levying of assessments in excess of those fixed, and that thereupon the Government of India intervened and settled the dispute; that in 1872 Sir Edward Bradford, then political agent at Jeypur, was deputed to inquire into the complaints preferred in that year of non-compliance with the orders and directions given by the Government of India in 1870, and that in 1883, further disputes having arisen between the Bikanir Raj and the Thakurs, a special committee was appointed by the political agent in Bikanir and the agent of the Governor-General in Rajputana to adjudicate upon all such disputes relating to lands confiscated by the Bikanir Raj; whether, having regard to these specific instances of interference by the Government of India in a matter of internal policy with the actions of the Maharaja of Bikanir, he will order an inquiry to be made into the case of Thakur Bhairon Singh and two others, nobles of that State, who have been kept strictly imprisoned within the fort at Bikanir since 2nd January, 1905, and whose estates have been confiscated as the result of various irregular proceedings, and on the alleged charge of seditious conduct in approaching the Government of India for redress of grievances connected with the curtailment of their established rights and privileges as nobles of the State; and whether, in view of the fact that two of these persons are still arbitrarily detained at Bikanir and prevented from taking any action on their own behalf, and that the estates of the third, who has died in confinement, are being withheld from his son and successor, he will ascertain what were the exact orders passed by the Maharaja of Bikanir in each case, what grounds exist for declining to communicate them to the persons affected thereby, and what is the evidence on which they are based.
§ MR. MORLEYI am aware of the history during the period referred to in the first part of the Question. The disturbed state of the country between 1865 and 1883 reached a degree at times which necessitated the interference of the paramount Power in the internal affairs of 410 the State to place the relations of the Maharaja and Thakurs on a stable basis. No conditions of misrule exist at present requiring a departure from the principle of non-interference. The Government of India have reported, as my hon. friend is aware, that a petition to them of the Thakurs had formed the subject of careful inquiry; that the case was not one in itself to justify a departure from the established policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of a Native State. I would point out that, as my hon. friend is already aware, one of the two persons described by him as "still arbitrarily detained" was released in August, 1906, and his lauded property restored to him. In these circumstances I see no reason for instituting inquiries.