The Press WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1947. Drift in India

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25303, 1 October 1947, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1947. Drift in India

At first sight it may be difficult to see any good purpose that can be served by Pakistan’s appeal to Britain and the Dominions for help in solving the communal problem. Where appeals by their own leaders for moderation, restraint and sanity have failed, Hindus, Moslems, and Sikhs are unlikely to be influenced by exhortations from outside. Armed intervention is out of the question, even if Pakistan or India, or both, approved it; and even if they did, it would have to be on a scale far greater than the British Commonwealth could presently undertake. Nor can the strife in India be ended or even limited by those economic sanctions which ordinarily can take away a people’s capacity to make war. Firearms are used, of course, but the combatants in this savage, hysterical orgy of slaughter are not dependent on outside supplies of weapons or ammunition. They use whatever is to hand—swords, daggers, axes, crowbars, stones, and the incendiarist’s torch. The Delhi correspondent of “ The Times ” described the warfare as “ a sort of infective hys- “ teria or mental derangement

The carriers [he saidl are the refugees. The incubation period is the time it takes a large number of refugees to move from one part of the country to another. It requires a suitable climate in the shape of a latent cleavage, usually economic, between the two communities. Auxiliary irritants which accelerate an outbreak are irresponsible politicians and journalists and those gangster elements who profit from anarchy. The outbreak is correspondingly severe if the resistance offered to it by the body politic—namely, _ the normal machinery of maintaining law and order—is reduced in strength. . . .

One of the symptoms of this disease is that each side passionately believes the other to be solely responsible. The outside observer studying this gigantic and terrible phenomenon wonders W questions of “responsibility” and blame” are not irrelevant. Either an parties concerned are responsible, officials wno have sanctioned communal solutions and politicians who have made inflammatory speeches equally with illiterate peasants who nave speared women and children, or else there are certain cataclysms in human affairs in which men do not retain control over their destinies.

j The greatest tragedy of the Indian situation, and the greatest danger, is the widening gulf between the two Governments. For . a time there was some reason to , hope that they would be drawn to- > gether by the imperative need for i impartial measures within their , respective areas, against lawless elel ments in majorities and minorities alike. That tenuous link has not withstood the pressure of i events. More correctly, perhaps, it . should, be said that the leaders of > the respective have not been strong enough to resist the extremists who denounce moderation and impartiality as weakness and who can count on the approval of ignorant and fanatical millions for their attitude. *ln Pakistan there have been demands from district Moslem League Councils and from influential organisations and individuals for the expansion of the army, the fortification of the IndiaPakistan frontier, compulsory military training for both women and men, and the development of ammunition factories. Extreme Hindu elements have clamoured for the replacement of the present Indian Government with “ a strong Hindu “Government” willing to put the country on a war basis. They have sought to have all Moslems regarded as fifth columnists and to have the professing of Islam declared unlawful. It is not surprising that the leaders of both Dominions have tended to become more provocative and their public statements more bitter and recriminatory. A climax in the exchange of charges and counter-charges was reached with the threat of Sir Zafrulla Khan, chief of the Pakistan delegation to the United Nations Assembly, that, unless the Government of India took steps to end the slaughter of Moslems the Pakistan Government would file a formal complaint, with the United Nations and, if satisfaction were not obtained, would “resort to direct “ measures ”. Clearly the road the two Governments have been following leads to , war. Mr Churchill may not seem to have exaggerated when he said, “We are only at the beginning of “ these horrors and butcheries ”. Yet there is evidence that the lead- . ers of both India and Pakistan, see- ■ ing the danger are anxious ! to turn back. A joint Indian and Pakistan communique on Septem- < ber 20 announced an agreement of ‘

the two Governments to co-operate to establish peaceful conditions, to have frequent consultations; and “ to avoid irritating statements, pre- “ vent inflammatory reports and “ provide more security for minori- “ ties ”. Since then official announcements have been worded more soberly and individual leaders’ speeches have been more conciliatory, the one—and surprising—exception being Mr Gandhi’s recent statement which, however it is interpreted and whichever version is accepted, must have an unfortunate effect. This is the more regrettable because Mr Gandhi has been almost the only leader to oppose, consistently and resolutely, . communal violence in all its forms, and his stand has-been extremely helpful. The two Governments are facing dismaying tasks. To the problems of carrying out one of the greatest mass migrations in history there will almost certainly be added those of economic collapse and famine. Everything that can be done to bring the two Governments together, to induce them to work together and to strengthen their hands against the extremists in their own Dominions, must be done. It is in this direction that the com-; bined moral influence of the mcm- j bers of the British Commonwealth i should be of value. v ’