LETTERS TO EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 134, 2 March 1922, Page 5

LETTERS TO EDITOR

FAMINE IN EUROPE Sir,—ln Thb Dominion of yesterday, “Ono Who Would Help” writes that it is time Wellington did something effective re the above. Something worthy and effective in the name of; New Zealand is indeed rather overdue. Wellington is not alone' in this, but she should lead and not lag. A national effort is called for, and must 1 be hastened. We have been rushing about our daily futilities, perhaps feeling rather helpless. We are not indifferent or callous, though some may in the future think so. What can bo done and done quickly? Why were not shiploads of our almost (to tho grower) worthless moat and wool sent to those to whom it would have been priceless? It is not so much money as food and clothing that is needed, and not money but food and clothing we can best supply; and let us not delay to fatten bulls and bears of exchange and others by our charity, to the perishing. If some of the idle ships and idle men were put to tins growers would gladly . respond. The United' States is sending shiploads of farm produce. The U.S. Grain Cor- v poration is to spend fifty million dol-; lars in food supply. Australia is sending shiploads. Have~we exhausted our charity? It is not a thing to expect pay or reward for, but this would be a sensible way to relieve “slump conditions,” and this charity would, therefore. do. more than reward and replenish itself.—l am. etc., EVELYN MACDONALD. Te Horo. February 28. 1922. REFORM IN INDIA Sir, —Two interesting and useful ar-' tides appeared in last week’s Dominion calling attention to the present, state of affairs in India. One article gives an Anglo-Indian’s point of viewand states that “unrestricted Home Rulo in India is a moral impossibility;' I draw my conclusions from the caste, system.” One wonders why the writer does not forsee changes even in the caste system. Originally there wore only four castes-, the Brahmana .or priestly caste, the Kshaltrya or ruling and warrior caste, the Vaisha or merchant and tho Indra or labourer. Now the writer points out that there are 2378 castes, and fresh castes are formed and new sub-castes hold sway. Of course that is’ one way the breaking down of caste is going on; then or-, ganised efforts arc made by promot- 1 mg interdining at congresses and conferences, and further within a caste the. poorest and wealthiest, the learned and’ ignorant meet on an equal footing aa brothers. Can that be said of tW Western classes? India is evolving its own modified form of democracy, then we must boar in mind [hat the Indian civilisation is Aryan in its most ancient form, and so far it has assimilated all its conquerors. The AngloSaxons were Aryans and strongly held to their village councils which they, called the Ulitenagemot, but this disappeared under Norman feudalism. In India the most democratic form of village council prevailed for centuries 8.C., and on until they were finally repressed under the rule of the East India Company, and the Government __ which immediately followed it. These " councils or Panchyats still exist in some of the native States, and are be-, ing reinstated in parts of British In-' dia. Then is it true to say that Indians are “broken up into an infinite' number of mutually exclusive fragments?” The intense individualism, and class warfare of the .West is only, beginning to show itself in India. The I Indian is intensely religious and he approaches politics in a religious spirit.. The fundamental teaching of Hindu-, ism is the imminence of God —that all, life is One. Hindus acknowledge the need for other religions besides their ' own. One of their superb scriptures, “The Gita” (the Lord’s Song), held in such high esteem by R. W. Emerson, says: “However men approach me even so do I welcome them for the path men take from every side is mine.” Can Christianity sur- j pass that? The Hon. Trivivasa Tastri, who dis-*, tinguished himself at the Imperial and • Washington conferences, is the head of the Servants of India Society, an: intensely religious body pledged to j serve their country. Its members serve I a five years’ probation, and make the, following rigid promises: (a) That country will always be first in his, thoughts, and that he will give to; her service the best that is in him. (b) That in serving tho country he will seek no personal advantage for himself, (c) That he will regard all Indians as brothers, and .will work for, the advancement of all without dietinetion of caste or creed, (d) That h® will be content with such provision for himself and. his family, if any, as the society may be able to make, and will devote no part of his energies to earning money for himself, (e) That he will lead a pure personal life, (f) That he will engage in no personal quarrel with anyone, (g) That he will always keep in view the aims- of th® society and watch over its interests with the utmost zeal, doing all he can to advance its work and never doing anything inconsistent with its objects. Who could say what is possible in re-; form when such organisations exist inIndia? . , ■ The Indian Constitution is- remark-'; ably elastic, and conventions ,or “unwritten laws” are already playing a much more prominent part than they do in any other country. Moderate politicians in India hold that complete self-government can be gained under the existing Government of India Act, within the ten-year period before the Act comes before the British House or Commons for revision. All this, of course, can only be gained by the full, and free use of conventions. Truly, as one writer in The Dominion, dealing with reform in India, said: “It is interesting to watch representative government working under such blind conditions.” Yes, Sir, the, possibilities are great: much more might be said, but enough I —l am, etc., JOHN GRIFFITHS, Hon. Sec., N.Z. and India League. Wellington, February 25, 1922. THE OPPOSITION DEMONSTRATION gi r> —i n the recent speeches at th® Hutt’by the Leader of the Opposition [ and Mr. Statham and In the course of special references to the old Liberal Riirty, the names of the late Hon. R. J. Scddon and tho late Hon- W. H. D. MacDonald were specially singled out tor mention. Both were worthy of all kind things that could' bo said of them, but why was the name of th® Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward omitted? Surelv this was-A_most tactless thing for the men who have received tho Liberal mantle directly from him to do! —I am, etc., HUTT READER.