INDIA'S FUTURE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 123, 20 November 1941, Page 10

INDIA'S FUTURE

SIGN OF DISCONTENT

MINISTER'S REPLY

THE BRITISH OFFER

(By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright.)

NEW DELHI, November 18,

The Council of State, by 10 votes to 6, carried a motion recommending the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, to convey to the British Govern- | ment the Council's deep discontent regarding Mr- ■, Churchill's statement that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to India. The motion expressed the opinion that this statement was likely to prejudice India's war effort. Government members of the Council did not vote on the motion. (Rec. 1 p.m.) ' RUGBY, Nov. 19. Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for India, speaking at a luncheon in Manchester, said: "There could be no more typical instance of loose thinking than the clamour for what is called the application of the Atlantic Charter to India, and the protest against the Prime Minister's per-'j fectly clear explanation that Article 3 of the Charter primarily referred to the restoration of national life in Europe, and in any case did not qualify in any way our own declaration as to India's future, with which it is in. entire harmony. "After all, what does the article say? It says that among the principles on which Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt] base their hopes for a better futurej } for the world is respect for the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they live. I can well imagine, if, in answer to the demand for a statement of our Indian policy, we had answered'■ merely in terms of the Atlantic Charter, the derision and indignation which would have met so vague and unsatisfactory a reply. ■ OFFER OF DOMINION STATUS. "The answer we did give In .August last year was no less" far-reaching in its scope, and.far more definite in the procedure envisaged and in the pledge involved. It defined as our proclaimed and accepted goal that free and equal partnership in n . the British Commonwealth which is usually referred to as Dominion status. That status, combining as it does all the advantages of unfettered freedom with those of an association of incalculable value both in peace and in war, is, I venture to assert, the highest in the world. . . . p "The answer went. : on in the very spirit of the Atlantic ■charter to make it clear that we wished India-to enjoy that position under a f Constitution framed ...primarily by Indians,: for Indians, in accordance with India's conceptions. We added that while the completion of that undertaking obviously could not take place in the middle of a life and death struggle, we were ready to welcome and promote any steps representative Indians might take to come together and prepare the ground, and that* we agreed to the setting up, with the least possible delay after the war, of a body representative of the principal elements of India's'■'national life, and pledged ourselves to lend every aid in our power to hasten " decisions on all relevant matters. 1... The--actual timetable is in the main in. the hands of the Indians themselves;" BRITISH FORCES IN INDIA. Mr. Amery continued: "So long as the defence of India requires the permanent presence—as .distinguished from help in a great emergency—of British forces, it is obvious that the Government which provides those forces is entitled to retain measures of control over their employment in peace, as well as over the external policy which may call for their employment in war. That is not a derogation of status, but a concession to the facts of a particular situation." The framing •* of a scheme of free self-government had never been possible except on a basis of free negotiation, compromise, and eventual agreement between the many elements concerned. Insistence upon the necessity of agreement ruled out any Constitution decided by a mere-majority vote. The Congress had demanded a settlement by a constituent assembly elected by universal adult suffrage over the whole of India, but had yet to learn that the conditions under which it could exercise its influence and fulfil the ideals of self-government of India had yet to be agreed with other elements which were not prepared to consider a Congress majority as having moral authority over them, or any other material sanction than that of the existing British authorities. TASK FOR INDIANS. "What we—and most Indian politicians in the past—have overlooked is that our type of Constitution can only work in a relatively homogenous community, in which parties are the machinery for the expression of differences, either of way of life or underlying loyalties'. Unfortunately these, conditions do not exist in India, at any ] j rate in the India of today. That is why | the All-India Federal Constitution of 1935. dev,ised with such infinite care or forethought, has failed to command support. ... I am not going to suggest any particular direction in which 'an alternative solution can best be sought. That is precisely the task which we have inyited Indians to undertake for themselves, in accordance with their own conceptions and their own conditions, and for which they are clearly best fitted. The task before Indian statesmanship is no doubt immensely difficult, but it is cer-, tainly not hopeless. Beneath all the differences of religion, culture, race, and political structure there is 3n underlying unity. There is the fundamental geographical unity which has walled slndia off from the outside world, at the same time erecting no j serious internal barriers. 'There is the i broad unity of race, which makes InI dians as a whole, whatever their difference-!? among themselves, distinctively a typ<= among the main races of mankind. There is the political unity which she has enjoyed from time to time in her history, and which we have confirmed in far stronger fashion than any of our predecessors in unity of ] administration of .the law of economic '■development and of.communications, ij , would say. indeed. Hint if some sortj |of Indian unity had not existed it j i would have had to be invented." I