KENYA SETTLEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 81, 3 October 1923, Page 15

KENYA SETTLEMENT

VICEROY'S ATTITUDE

MR. SASTRI'S BITTER DENUNCIATION

"BLASTED HONOUR OF BRITAIN."

(FROH OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON, 3rd August.

Earl Beaachamp yesterday brought up the subject of the Kenya Settlement in the House of Lords when he asked the Secretary for India whether his attention had been drawn to the Press accounts of the speech made by the Viceroy on proroguing the Indian Legislature, and in particular to the statement that if the Government of India had to submit to the decision of His Majesty's Government regarding Kenya, its submission was, Avith due respect to His Majesty's.Government, under protest; and/ whether such a statement, as reported, accurately refleoted the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government 'of India. ! . .

Viscount Peel (Secretary for India) replied that the passage from the Viceroy's speech had in some quarters been taken to mean that it was open to the Government of India to consider whether or not it would submit to the. decision of His Majesty's Government in this matter. , He had no doubt that the Vjceroy' had no intention of making himself responsible for such a doctrine. He had' been in conimunication with the Viceroy on this matter, and his interpretation was right. The passage of the speech, taken with its context, was intended to imply that until the Government of India-had received the actual text of the document containing the decision of-.His Majesty's Government it could not judge what further action it might be at liberty to-take,-or how far it might be open to it to make representations as to details. The Viceroy made it clear that there was no idea on 1)18 part, or on the part of his colleagues, of challenging a decision communicated to them by His Majesty's Government.

At an "at home" given at the Hotel Cecil last evening by Sir AH and Lady Imam to many hundreds of Indian students the Kenya settlement was strongly denounced by Mr. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri -and other speakers. Sir Ali Imam said that the Kenya decision foreboded a political development in India of which it was impossible to think without the., gravest misgiving. It would giye a turn to political thought in India,.that was bound .to overrun the boundaries of moderation unless steps wove taken to give India self-govern-iment. . -„.

Mr. Sastri, in reviewing the terms of the Kenya settlement, said there was one gain of immense significance and that was the clear recognition that the interests of the African native were paramount and must take precedence of those of the immigrant communities. Another gain, though partial, was the rejection of all proposals for residential and commercial segregation. Segretion, howeyer, in respect of the Highlands was to be perpetuated, and segregation was to be introduced, though not in a.physical sense, in the political and municipal franchise oi the Colony.

THE WHITE'MAN'S MISSION.

The new franchise segregated coloured fronj white . coimiHiiritiesV. ■ The communal .iysto'm...rendei:ed possible to establisH another great "Hisparity between th©:; communities, and' iii Kenya . they would find an adult franchise.for -the. white citizen and a suffrage limited by qualifications for the Indian citizen. The citizenship, of the Indian, was a decisive humiliation. Though he greatly outnumbered the white citizen and was no less important and made, no .less contrj-, bution to the State's resources, he was only to return five members to the legis-, lature, against eleven allotted to the favoured community. In regard to immigration the subtle cynicism of the- White Paper was most perceptible. The theory propounded favoured the Indian, but the practice prescribed was all to the benefit of the white. Did anyone believe that the white man* once established in political ascendency over the semi-civilised' people, would ever help along sin the path of political evolution and . surrender responsible government into his hands? Did the experience of Ireland, Egypt, or India, justify such a forecast?' "The" white man's mission to rule, to domineer, to annex, is blazoned forth on every page of history."

BRITAIN'S HONOTOW

Where were the pledges of equality and ungrudged partnership in the Empire? . After earning equal treatment a hundred times over the Indian had been cruelly betrayed. His faith in tho character for justice and impartiality of the Empire seemed almost incurable, but he was at last undeceived. Great Britain in making war-on the South African Republic professed to teach President Kruger "righteous principles of Government." President Kruger was now fully avenged. ' Not -only were Indians worse treated under the Union Jack than ever before, but the colour bar of South; Africa, was spreading over the British Empire, and it was now infected with the poison of the Boer spirit. India had looked for one sign that Greeat Britain recognised her right to equality, and the denial of it was written large on the White Paper. The settlement "blasted at once the hope of India and the honour of Britain."

Mr. Sastri added he had here and in interviews expressed his own views^ and he could not say what would be done in India. He would say this, however, that India had lost many times because she had never shown she could resent indignities in the only way in which a strong Western Power understood resentment. „

Sir Te] Bahadur Sparu, in thanking the chairman and Mr. Sastri, said that India would hot accept the decision as final. The only.remedy was that India should be _ allowed to protest herself if the Imperial Government was not able to do so, and that could only be achieved by her attaining full Dominion status.