INDIAN POLICY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19819, 6 January 1930, Page 5

INDIAN POLICY.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

VICEROY'S PROCLAMATION.

MR WEDGWOOD BENN EXPLAINS

ixnox ou» cm coaaaspoNDSHT.) LONDON, November 14. People awaited the debate on India in the House of Commons with great interest. There were several mysterious things to be explained. At the conclusion of the debat% it may be said the whole matter was much clearer to everybody,. and Mr Wedgwood Benn's explanation on behalt or his Government probably satisfied a great many of the critics. Mr Baldwin opened the debate with a personal explanation. He addressed himself at once to the attack directed against him personally in the "Daily Mail" a week previously. The charge made against Mr Baldwin, as he summarised it in his speech, was that he had committed his colleagues in the Conservative leadership, without their kno\ i-'Jge. in the course of an interview with the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, to the reference to "Dominion Status in the Viceroy's announcement of Sir John Simon's proposal for a conference between the Government and the Indian political leaders. Mr Baldwin had denied the accuracy of the new* paper article on the same day as it appeared, November Ist. In the course of his personal explanation he said that on Friday, September 20th, the private secretary or the Secretary of State for India arrived at Bourges in France charged with a letter for him from. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister asked him to concur in the issue of a statement concerning Dominion status m the event of the Simon Commission being consulted and agreeing and the consent of all parties being obtained. The Prime Minister was pressing him lo reply as he was leaving very shortly for America. Mr Baldwin's Conditions. "I was alone at Bourges when I got that message," said. Mr Baldwin. "What would anyone in my position have done? He could have done one of two things; he could have taken the coward's course and have said 1 win give you no answer.' I took upon myfelf personal responsibility with some risk, as I have done before and shal do again if necessary. (Cheers.) l felt, I am asked to concur m a situation in which the and the Government .ot India and the Simon Commission concur, and in no other situation; it is not for me to consider what answer any other political Party might give. 1 was brought up in the traditions of the Partv to which I belong, and one of our traditions is never to let a friend down—and I stand by it. I replied that so far as I was concerned myself I concurred. I could not speak for my colleagues because they were scattered; I could not speak for the Party, but when I got home, if the circumstances of the situation were that the other concurrence was obtained, I would do my best to persuade them to take my view. There was only one matter with which I could possibly state my agreement—namely, to support the Prime Minister in the event of the Simon Commission expressing approval of what the Prime Minister proposed to do. This agreement, in the circumstances, I was prepared to accept. There was nothing else that I was asked to agree to. _ "I received no further communication from that date from the Government. I took no further step in the matter, and it was not my duty to do bo. Only when I returned to fulfil a public engagement in Liverpool and met my colleagues of the late Cabinet on October 23rd, I learned for the first time that the Simon Commission did not approve the publication of Lord Irwin's Note. Clearly an entirely new situaation had arisen. I therefore called together the ex-Secretaries of State for India among my colleagues, together with Lord Salisbury, and it was at once decided to write to the acting-Prime Minister referring to the terms of the Prime Minister's letter to me of September 19th, and pointing out that in the altered circumstances I and my Party could not agree to support the publication of the Note." Mr Baldwin went on to show in detail where the statements made in the "Daily Mail" were untrue. In conclusion, he said, " a friend of mine who knows more of journalistic effort than I, has told me that this article was merely a journalistic 'stunt.' I am an etymologist and I agree. lam glad to think that the word 'stunt' is as little English as its derivation and origin, and character as the whole of that article."

The Political Issue. He then came to grips with the political ißSue, beginning with the migrations of the primitive Aryans and ending with the Aryan controversy. There were passages in his survey of extraordinary dignfty and felicity. He was extremely good on the contrast between the political-mindedness of our own people, and the other-mindedness of the Indian people. He insisted that we must be loyal to the promises of 1917 and 1919, but he fought shy of the metaphysics of what exactly was meant by Dominion status. Whatever was meant, we would honour our promise. If and when India attained self-government, she would be equal amongst equals within the British Empire. But what he wanted to know was whether all the conditions attached to the old promises still held, and whether, in faet, there has been any change of the substance or in the time of those declarations. He exhorted the House to give the Simon Commission the encouragement which it had a right to ask for, and his loyal praise of Lord Irwin achieved real eloquence.

Mr Lloyd George, in his speech, was ridiculing the idea that no change in policy was intended by the issue of the Viceroy's declaration with regard to Dominion status, and in support of his contention quoted the now famous message from Mr Lansbury, the First Commissioner of Works, sending his love and congratulations to the people of India.

"Why," asked Mr Lloyd George, "if there was no change should the First Commissioner issue that message of joyf He did not do so because he thought there was no change. He danced before the Ark. He was under the impression that his friend the Secretary for India had smashed the old tablets of the law and had put in new ones. "This pocket edition of Moses," went on the Liberal leader—and everyone understood his reference to be directed to Mr Benn, who is very short in stature. Suddenly Mr Benn got up, and in a loud voice said, "At any rate I never worshipped the Golden Calf."

At this there was a terrific outburst of cheers from the Socialists, and the Conservatives roared with laughter. The demonstration lasted for nearly a minute, during which Mr Lloyd George, who has seldom if ever been so shrewdly hit in Parliament, remained standing. He took it well, however, with a smile,

and when the cheers had subsided said, "The right hon. gentlemen has shown a very shrewd appreciation himself or what is known as the main chance, and the calf which has been sacrificed for him has its golden side." This was appreciated as an allusion to the fact that Mr Benn left the Liberal Party for the Socialist Party, and was early rewarded with office, ana the Socialists shouted objection to the taunt. With a smile Mr Lloyd George observed, "Take as well as give."

Mr Bonn's Reply. The substance of Mr Wedgwood Benn's speech was to make it clear that the declaration was issued on the advice of the Viceroy (Lord Irwin) himself, and that the Government concurred because it believed that advice to be good. . He admitted without reservation that both the Conservative and Liberal Parties had advised the Government against the issue of the declaration and that the Simon Commission would take no responsibility for it. "Liberals were against it," said the Minister, "Conservatives were against it. The Commission was unwilling to participate. What did the Government do? They governed. "Before I say why the Government acted as they did, I want to say one word about the declaration itself. The declaration was a re-statement and interpretation of the Montagu policy. Lord Irwin's statement must stand as it was drafted, and no gloss must be put upon it. It means what it says, no less and no more. The Montagu declaration was embodied in the preamble to an Act of Parliament, and so long as that Act remains the preamble remains. If and when Parliament sees fit to alter the preamble, it can exercise its sovereign right and do so. It is not necessary that I should support the policy of the past 12 years by quotations from well-known authorities with which, of course, every student of these matters is familiar. The Montagu policy stands as a cardinal article of faith in British policy towards India. (Cheers.)

Advised by the Viceroy. "That is what we proposed to do and there was the opposition facing us. We decided to do it. Why? The first reason was thiß. We were advised to do so by the Viceroy. But let us make this perfectly plain. I should like to exalt the "Viceroy in this matter because he came to England as an ambassador of peace and he has gone back to India as a peacemaker. (Cheers.) We do not shelter behind the Viceroy. He offered advice and we were free to reject it. We did not reject it, because it agreed with our convictions. (Cheers.) Why did he offer this advice and suggest that this declaration should be made? He said, in the first place, that doubts had existed in India as to the sincerity of British Parties in the matter of the Montagu policy. Does anybody doubt that of recent years there has grown up a feeling, and it has constantly been said, that British policy was altering, that the tone was altering, that sympathy was gone, that the days of Mr Montagu were past? The Viceroy said that these doubts existed and that for the removal of these doubts it was necessary to issue a clear declaration of existing policy. We did so.

Good Atmosphere for the Beport. "The second reason he gave was this —that the Statutory Commission was going to report, and we wanted, if we could, to make a good atmosphere for the Beport. We wanted to have an atmosphere of goodwill, and that would be better secured if we could clear up the doubts which existed in tin. minds of Indians who have been assisting the British Government and co-operating with us and helping the work of the Montagu schemes, and to remove the webs of mistrust which it was necessary to clear away. That was the purpose, and these were the reasons alleged by the Viceroy and given to the Cabinet as reasons why we should take this course. It was because those reasons appeared to us to be good and sound that the Government took the course which they did take."

Mr Wedgwood Benn maintained that the proclamation had done good in India. In the broad sense it marked a change—a change of spirit. "We have got rid,'' he exclaimed, "of the Birkenhead tone." Another change was the suggestion of a conference upon the Commission's report, which would give all sorts of Indian opinion a chance to influence a future instead of merely commenting upon a past decision.

View of the Commission. Sir John Simon spoke next, picking his way delicately between political stumbling blocks. He declared that the Commission would do nothing which might be construed or misconstrued as an interim report, in anticipation of their final report early next year. That was why they had, on September 24th, declined association with the Viceroy's statement. It was elementary that the function of the Commission could not be enlarged or diminished, and that it was quite independent of both the British Government and the Government of India. It wanted, therefore, neither heated champions nor abject apologists. The whole incident had added to their difficulties, but it had at least roused a public opinion to the existence of those difficulties. The Commission, therefore, only asked that it might go on with its work, without further Parliamentary controversy. The effect of this appeal on the House was instantaneous. The PVime Minister seized the chance to suggest that the debate had been long enough. The Speaker appeared to think so too. When the Government asked leave to withdraw the motion for adjournment b.H declared it carried, although several members had risen, and although there was some dissent on both sides of the House.

What Matters Most. "The Times," in a leading article, examines the effect of the Viceroy's pronouncement upon Indian opinion. "No doubt," says "The Times," "it would be easy to make too much of all these first expressions of opinion in India. Our milder experience in England proves that the Moderate of today may be the Extremist of to-mor-row. But the main conclusion to be drawn at present from all the Indian news is that there has in fact been a very palpable rally to the side of reason. Lord Lytton is probably right in saying that at the moment 'Lord Irwin has secured a greater measure of unanimity than has hitherto been obtained by any statesman of our generation.' The atmosphere is better, because a fresh door has been opened to co-operation. The Viceroy's statement that the goal is unchanged has been welcomed at its face value, no more and no less. The only people who have misread it have done so deliberately; they would have been in precisely the same position without it. For the first time it may be predicted with confidence—and the thought should bring comfort to the Statutory Commission—that their report has a real chance of being pondered and discussed in the country which it most concerns. That, after all, is what matters most, and that is the point to which vesterday's debate came back in the end; for nothing could have been better, either in substance or in tone, than the remarks with which Sir John Simon brought it to a conclusion."