STATUS OF INDIA

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 110, 3 February 1930, Page 11

STATUS OF INDIA

REIGN OF TERROR IN DACCA UNFORTUNATE OUTCOME OF INDEPENDENCE DAY (United Ppoas Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Delhi, January 31. For the past week Dacca has seen Independence in action in a reign of terror. Schools, colleges, and shops are shut, and the streets deserted. People are leaving the town. There have been many stabbings and assaults. The trouble originated in a Hindu procession on Independence Day, the Hindus insisting on playing music near a mosque. THE PROBLEM OF INDIA

(By

H. Collett.)

According to a recent cable message Gandhi sent a message to London that “the complete independence resolution need frighten nobody, as Dominion status for India could only mean a partnership easily dissolvable by either partner. Adverting upon this, Lord Russell denied having said, “Dominion status is not possible for a long time,” and deplored the attitude of Congress and that of the Tories and their Press. More recently Lord Birkenhead said he considered Dominion status for India would mean anarchy. . T . . From the above, opinion in London is very "greatly in variance. The past history of India seems to cast an adverse light upon this question. Kipling, who thoroughly knew India, seems to reach the kernel—even to-day—in his poem published over forty years ago; and it is not hard to surmise that “What Happened”—the title of his poem—-then might easily happen now. At that time the Bengalese, the clerical caste, the least warlike and eourageous of the Indian people, petitioned the Raj (Government) to be allowed to carry arms, without success. They were—and are—owners of most of the native Press; and, as a result, their papers burst into a tornado of invective and febrile declamation. Finally permission was given to this bombastic and effeminate section to carry arms. Unfortunately—for them —this permission was extended to the “fighting castes,” a result the Bengalese apparently had not given consideration to. An epidemic of robbery with violence and gun-running broke out, and the Bengalese were soon as rabidly clamouring for a general disarming. To quote Kipling:— But the Indian Government, always keen to please, ... Also gave parwanae to horrid men like tkese—* Yar Mahomed Yasufzal, down to kill and steal, CMmbu Singh from Blkanlr, Tantla the Bheel. What became of Mukerjee? Ask Mahomed Yar, Prodding Shiva’s sacred bull down the Bow Bazaar; Ask of Bovine Nubbi Buz, question land and sea, Ask the Indian Government—but don t ask me !

Gandhi, whoso full name is Mohandass Karramchand Gandhi, belongs to the Banya or trading caste, one held in contempt by Sikh, Rajpott, Maharatta, Kshattrya, leaving out the Moslems. His name indicates his Hindu caste, and he is certainly not a Kshattrya, or warrior Hindu. Completing his education in England, where he was called to the Inner Temple of the Bar, he returned to India and practised for eighteen months. In 1893 he went to South Africa, where he inaugurated a movement amongst Asiatics of passive resistan/e to British authority. Returning to India, he formed “Satyagraha” (civil disobendience to British rule) as a stepping stone to Swaraj (full self-government). Gandhi appears to have been a victim to an overweening concit or he wquld. not' have attempted the impossibility ot uniting Moslem and Hindu. As a sop to Islam ho even demanded the reinstatement of Turkey to pre-war status. Such a de- ■ mand can only be considered as mere vapouring. The Oriental mind is difficult to fathom. Did he really imagine himself capable of formulating a lasting union of Moslem and Hindu? He even announced he could achieve this in twelve months. Such a happening would have completely subverted the teachings of the Koran, cast a shir' on the memory of the Founder of Islam, made the faithful” unfaithful, an almost utter impossibility. Even had he temporarily fluked such a result, his leadership and power would have been ephemeral, himself a puppet. It is more likely his real ambition was to become “Mahatma in a greater degree and so rank at the summit amongst his co-religionists. Leading a strictly austere and ascetic life, he achieved “Mahatma” in a lesser degree and a reputation for supernatural powers. It does not seem possible that the religious animus actuating Moslem and Hindu alike for centuries has evaporated in the space of forty years. From frequently 'cabled accounts of religious rioting and bloodshed such a state is non-existent. The Moslem is a fanatic as regards the teachings of the Jforan; he must hate Hindus and all Kaffirs—idolaters—with zeal and fervour; the Koran instructs him to exterminate them where possible. Were Britain to withdraw from ruling India Moslem and Hindu would be at one another’s throats at once. The Moslem, though in the_ minority, is the more virile and warlike; Afghan and Beluchi, Islamic in creed, would hasten to the “tamasha” —event —loot, rapine, murder become rampant. India, internally convulsed, divided against herself, would fall an easy prey to Russia, who has long coveted her wealth, resources and territory. - No supporters of “Swaraj have come from Pathan, Sikh. Rajpoot, or the true warrior castes of India; the agitators all belong to the non-warrior castes; castes that, strangely enough, must not destroy life nor spill blood. Would the former blend in with the latter, whom they despise as cowardly and effeminate: or ‘would it be a case of oil and water' Given “Swaraj,” disaster must surely follow, and very speedily at that. It is the impartial, the just administration of Britain that gives prosperity and peace in India, gives that freedom that protects and permits the agitators. Would the machinations of Gandhi have been possible under the rule of Chenghiz Khan. Timur Lung, Akbar, Shad Jelian, or Aurunzebe? Do the powerful Princes of Nepal. Hydarabad. Indore. Baroda. Kajputana and such others encourage the vapourings of “Swaraj and Satyagraha”? ,