INDIA’S GRADUAL EVOLUTION

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 105, 28 January 1931, Page 9

INDIA’S GRADUAL EVOLUTION

Conference Work is Hopefully Reviewed

APPEAL FROM PRIME MINISTER

Baldwin’s Views: Favours Unity of Parties

“If you wish to bind India to you by bonds of confidence and make her happy within your Empire and Commonwealth; if you wish to hear her praise you in gratitude and remain with you in pride, then accept the work which has been done by the Conference, and instruct the Government to proceed with it to a complete conclusion,” Thus the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, concluded a review of the work of the India Conference in the House of Commons. In the gallery sat the Viceroy-Elect of India, Lord Willingdon. Following criticisms by Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Stanley Baldwin gave an assurance that tlie Conservative Party would “implement what was done at the conference.”

United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright

(Rec. January 27, 5.5 p.m.)

Rugby, January 26.

The Prime Minister, in his address to the House on the Conference, emphasised that the present position of the Indian problem was the result of evolution and had been reached step by step, each with its inevitable consequences of steps later on. He specially reminded Mr. Winston Churchill, who was so critical of the present policy, that it was the sequel to statements made and stages reached when other Governments, 3 of which Mr. Churchill had been a member, were in power. -

The Prime Minister paid a tribute to the Indian delegates who came to the Conference at grave inconvenience, loss, and risk to reputations. He said that the raw material of the Conference was the Simon Report, for which India owed a debt which in the future she would be better able to appreciate. What they meant to do and what they had done was to agree in advance upon the principles which should be applied to Indian Government and made the foundation cf any Constitution ultimately drafted.

Everything Provisional.

Everything was provisional, and the stability and success of the work done depended on how the structure as a whole was to be built. He believed most sincerely that the structure could be built. But the first stage was to remove Indian problems from the field of suspicion, to get the Indians to accept candour and goodwill and to get them to see exposed in all its naked weakness the policy of so-called “passive resistance” which was only a sort of oral cloak for lawlessness.

At this moment, said the Prime Minister, Indian representatives are on the way home sworn champions of the work which had been done, convinced of our sincerity, advocates of the cessation of strife, and sworn to do their best to inaugurate a regime of goodwill and co-operation in finding solutions of the various problems which presented themselves in St. James's Palace.

Dealing with the work of the Conference, the Prime Minister emphasised that the safeguards contained in the proposed Constitution were not the result of distrust and were not meant for use In ordinary times, but only in the event of emergency. There were safeguards in the background in every free State in the world. He asked the House to agree to the Government’s pursuing the problem in detail in consultation with representative Indians and constitutional experts here.

“Certain Obligations.”

Sir Samuel Hoare, one of the Couseuvative delegates at the Conference, again defined the Conservative attitude. ' While they recognised the great change which had taken place in the East, there were certain solemn obligations which could not be abandoned. Indian defence still rested on Britain, foreign affairs and international obligations should be controlled by the Crown, and in the interests of India no

less than in Britain internal security and financial stability must be effectively safeguarded. The protection of minorities was also a solemn obligation. There must be no unfair economic or commercial discrimination against British, traders, and the rights of the services recruited by the Secretary of State must be observed. If those legitimate demands were satisfied and if the Constitution for allIndia was framed with effective safeguards, if the system of Government had a reasonable chance of working, the Conservative would not quibble over minor details. They were entering on a new phase of Anglo-Indian relations, in which partnership must be made a moving principle and co-opera-tion the basis of action. "Two Great Things.” Sir John Simon said that the Conference accomplished two great things. The Indian Princes had been brought into discussion not only with British statesmen, but with their compatriots in British India. Four conclusions he reached were: — (1) He rejoiced at the success of the Conference in securing the adhesion of the Princes to the general idea of an all-India Federation. (2) It was inevitable in the time available that the Conference had not been able to produce a practical solution on so many very difficult and cardinal matters. (3) While recognising how much satisfaction the formula of responsibility with safeguards could give, he could not regard unformulated safeguards on vital matters as details. How the safeguards were to work was really the essence of the scheme itself. Lastly, the good work of the Conference should be recognised as the beginning and not at all as the end. Churchill Antagonistic. Mr. Winston Churchill, not speaking on behalf of either the Opposition or

Mr. Baldwin, said that he considered the handling of India during the past eighteen months had been most unfortunate. The London Conference had been mutilated by the exclusion of the Simon Commission,. Indian Congressmen had no power to conclude or enforce an agreement, but had formed themselves into a wholly unauthorised Constituent Assembly to frame a Dominion Status Constitution, entailing the right of secession from the Empire. Only a few months ago every party in the House would have condemned such proceedings. There has been a rapid landslide in British disloyalty, accompanied by increasing unrest, disorder, disloyalty, and assassination in India. The Viceroy had to coupie his own kindly, generous sentiments with repressive measures and restrictions on liberty, resulting in the gaoling of sixty thousand political prisoners.

Baldwin’s Assurance.

Mr. G. R. Lane-Fox, Conservative, who is a member of the Indian Statutory Commission, asked what was the use of Mr. Churchill making that speech now. It was to ignore the realities of the situation. Mr. Baldwin, explaining that he would not have intervened if Mr. Chur-

chill had been silent, declared that the attitude of the Princes had entirely changed the situation. If the Conservatives changed places with Labour, it would be their duty to implement as far as they could what had been done at the Conference, and use every effort to achieve a Federal solution.

He proceeded strongly to advocate the unity of parties even if it meant some Labour members not going as far as they liked, hut recognised that the difficulties were stupendous. He intended, if he became responsible to do all in his power to carry out the undertakings given repeatedly to the peoples of India by the Governments of Britain. The debate then closed. LEADERS RELEASED Still Talk of Amnesty GANDHI GOES TO BOMBAY (Rec. January 27, S p.m.) \ Delhi, January 27. All the Congress leaders released under the Viceroy’S gesture left gaol yesterday. Mr. Gandhi left late last night to avoid demonstrations. Personally he thanked the gaol staff for its courtesy and kindness. He arrived in Bombay at dawn. There is still talk of an amnesty, combined with the calling off of civil disobedience, and a resolution ~to this effect is likely to be tabled in the Assembly to-day. It is significant, however, that the main Moslem group in the Assembly is opposed to the Gray amnesty until the attitude of the Congress leaders toward the Premier’s declaration is known. Viceroy’s Statement. The Government of India’s official communique, announcing the unconditional release of Mr. Gandhi and other Congress leaders, was issued last night, according to a London message.

The Viceroy’s message states: —“I am content to trust those who will be affected by our decision to act in the same spirit as inspires it, and I am confident that they will recognise the Importance of securing for these grave issues calm and dispassionate examination.” Action Condemned. The “Daily Mail” condemns the Viceroy’s action, for which it says there is not a shadow of justification in view of the extremely grave conditions in India, and the “Morning Post” doubts the wisdom of the experiment. The “Daily Telegraph” says that while there is no assurance whatever that events will take the course hoped for by the Viceroy, some reliance has no doubt been placed on a favourable reception of the outcome of the Conference by Indian parties and interests apart from Congress, also on the desire of a section of the Congress for the abandonment of non-co-operation. "Gesture of Goodwill.”

The “Manchester Guardian” believes that the “freeing of Gandhi will encourage the moderate elements in Congress. It is a gesture of goodwill and a break with-an unhappy past. It suggests that as the result of the Conference a new situation has arisen. The “Daily News” says that “as all intelligent well-wishers of India, we will earnestly hope that those released will seize the opportunity offered them. There can be no doubt that a general amnesty will follow. The bold step already taken is a guarantee of that”