Unscientific Uses Of The Term ‘State’

As we have said above, the word ‘State’ is sometimes used in an unscientific manner. For example, each of the units of the USA is described as a ‘State’, e.g., the New York State. Similarly, in pre-Partition India, the native princes ruled certain parts of the Indo-Pak subcontinent, which were called the ‘States’, e.g., the Hyderabad Deccan State, or the Swat State in Pakistan.

Hence questions may be asked: (a) Was Hyderabad or Swat State a State? (b) Is New York State a State? In the same way a question may be asked whether the U.N.O. can be regarded as a State or not (d) Is a British Dominion a sovereign State? (e) Is Peshawar or Lahore Corporation a State?

(i) Hyderabad (Deccan) State:

It was a ‘State’ in British India. But it was a misnomer to call it a State, because it had no independence and no foreign policy of,its own. It was under the paramount power of the British rulers of India, who interfered even in its internal administration and law. The Bharat Government, which succeeded the British, has therefore dismembered and put qn end to it, without any international reactions, because it was an ‘internal matter’ of Bharat Similarly Pakistan has annexed such princely State as Swat, Chitral, Bhawalpur, into its territories.

(ii) New York State:

It is one of the 50 ‘States’ of the U.S.A. It is a component unit of a federal State, but it is not a ‘State’ in the sense as understood in Political Science. No doubt, it has the three essentials, namely, people, territory and government But it does not possess the most essential element of sovereignty. New York State has no army, no defence or foreign policy of its own. In this respect, it obeys the authority of the Federal Government of die U.S.A. at Washington D.C.

(iii) U.N.O.:

It is also not a State. Although it has a rudimentary kind of governmental organisation, e.g., a General Assembly, a Security Council, a Secretary-General and an International Court which might be regarded as its legislative, executive, administrative and judicial organs, like that of a State government yet it lacks all essential elements which constitute a State. It has no people whom it can rule, no territory which is its own and, above all, no sovereign authority.

It is not even a-‘super-State as it is sometimes claimed. It is only an association of independent, sovereign States, which have agreed to participate in its discussions and decisions for their national ends and interests, and to obey it only in those matters which suit their own interests or purposes. It is claimed by some American and European writers that the U.N.O. would become the world-State of the future. But such an evolution seems to be quite improbable, because it would violate one of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter, viz., the sovereignty and independence of its member-States. The U.N.O. is only a glorified International Postal Union or such other international organisation.

(iv) British Dominions:

British’ Commonwealth of Nations comprises several States which enjoy what is called a Dominion Status. They are Canada, Australia, New Dominion a sovereign State? (e) Is Peshawar or Lahore Corporation a State?

(v) Municipalities and other local self-governing bodies:

Is a municipality, like Lahore Corporation, a State? No, it is not. Though the local self-governing bodies possess the three features of the State, viz., population, territory and a governing body, yet they are not sovereign. They exercise delegated powers from the Central Government, which is really supreme and final in authority. In short, they lack sovereignty. Hence they are not States.

(vi) Ancient city-States and Modem mini-States:

In ancient Greece and Rome, the States were no larger than a city or town, called ‘polis’ or ‘civitas’ in Greece and Rome respectively. It usually comprised a few thousand citizens, besides slaves and foreign residents, and extended over a small territory and villages around the city or town. In spite of its small size and population, the ancient city-State exercised all powers and sovereignty of modern nation or country States, which contain large populations and extend over vast areas.

There are a few tiny city-States even in the modern times, like Monaco on the coast of France. But they are not States in the real sense, for they are not recognised as such by other States of the world. They have no place or position in International Law and relations.

In recent times, however, especially after the Second World War, several small-sized States have come into being in former colonies and dependencies of the Western Imperialisms, as we mentioned above. A few of them, like Singapore, Kuwait, are even of city-size dimensions. They might better be called ‘mini-States’ or ‘pigmy’ States, as a Secretary-General of the U.N.O. described them. They are, however, full-fledged States are internationally recognised and are members of the international bodies, like the U.N.O. Their populations are a couple of lakhs.

The strangest development in this respect is the attempt of a tiny island in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Central America, called Anguilla, to become another ‘mini-State* though its population is no more than 16,00 persons. Presently its former colonial master, Great Britain, is restraining its efforts to become a sovereign State. But if it succeeds in its independence struggle, Anguilla will become the tiniest of the ‘mini-States’ in the world to-day. It is, on the whole, an interesting experiment in the evolution of the States in the modem times. But it seems to be a reductio ad absurdum of the modern State, as shown by the fate of such tiny States as Bhutan, Sikkim, Maldives, and others, which are subjugated by India, their powerful neighbour.

 

  • Add Your Comment

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.