UNREST IN INDIA

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 123, 17 February 1921, Page 5

UNREST IN INDIA

DISSATISFACTION WITH KING’S MESSAGE AUSTRALIAN EMBARGO RESENTED By Telegraph—Press Association-Copyright. Delhi, February 15.

In an interview the editor of a prominent moderate vernacular paper said that all classes iu India were dissatisfied with the King's Message read at tho opening of the legislative Chambers. The Message was apparently expected to express contrition over the Amritsar incidents and announce the-rectification of the treatment of Indians throughout the Empire. The latter question was causing great discontent, and was alienating the moderates, who favoured co-operation with Government measures. He referred to the treatment of Indians in East Africa, South Africa, Fiji, and Canada, and was particularly bitter regarding Australia. He was an Indian gentleman, a British subject, yet he was unable to go to Australia. Was it British justtet that Australians could come to India and establish great trading agencies, while Indians were forbidden to do similarly in Australia? “Unless the embargo is relaxed,” ho said, "when we get self-gov-ernment, which undoubtedly is coming, we will forbid Australians in India.” He expected these questions to be given early consideration by the new Legisla-tures.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. DEBATE IN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SPEECHES MARKED BY MODERATION. (Rec. February 16,>5.5 p.m.) Delhi, February 15. The Duke of Connaught has departed from Rawalpindi. The city shops were again closed in connection with the non-co-operators* refusal to join in tho welcome to the Duke.

Thirty-four martial law offenders have been released for offences committed during the war, and the sentences of 345 others reduced.

In the Legislative Assembly Jamnadass Dwardass, of Bombay, moved a resolution recommending the Governor-General, firstly, to declare tho firm resolye of the Raj to maintain that connection of India with the Empire which is based on the principle of equal partnerships and perfect racial equality, Indian lives being held as sacred as British; secondly, expressing regret that martial law in the Punjab had departed from these principles and was calculated to deeply wound the self-respect of Indians; thirdly, to compensate the families of certain. Indians who had suffered in the Amritsar troubles, on the same scale as Europeans, and to further punish the officers guilty of improper exercise of their duties.

After a lengthy discussion the motion was withdrawn. The speeches were marked by seriousness and moderation, with an evident desire on all sides to avoid bitterness and comply with the Duke of Connaught’s appeal to forget and forgive. —Reuter.