The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1928. THE INDIAN COMMISSION.

Evening Star, Issue 19843, 17 April 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1928. THE INDIAN COMMISSION.

Sia John Simon does not despair, as the result of the first visit of his Commission to India, that good will come of its political study of that vast complexity of peoples. Undoubtedly! he states, the boycott of the Commission had weakened before its departure, and it was now assured of the goodwill and co-operation of important sections of the Indian population. He is confident that the sympathy will spread to many Indian politicians, who kfiow in their hearts that the boycott is useless as a political instrument. Sir John Simon would be the wrong man for his task if he did not put the best face, at this early stage of its endeavour, on difficulties that have been made for the Commission, but to a spirit not resolved to see the most hopeful side they must have been sufficiently discouraging. The special correspondent of the ‘ Observer,’ writing at the end of February, reported that the Commission was, indeed, having greater success in establishing contacts with the people in the provinces than befell it in Delhi. The opposition had not been successful in making effective counter-demonstra-tions in Calcutta to the welcome accorded by the Mohammedans, the Europeans, Anglo-Indians, and some prominent Hindus. The Madras Swarajists had called off the “ hartal ” (cessation of business) which they had arranged for the Commission’s arrival, and Madras supporters had planned a full round of activities for it. But lie added that no decisive importance, unfortunately, could be attached to the Council of State’s resolution in favor of co-operation with the Commission. The Indian political situation at the top was visibly deteriorating. The Opposition was harder and more businesslike than in the height of the Gandhi movement. Unless a miraculous change of' heart took place there was no likelihood ol the British Government's plans of procedure being carried out.

‘‘ The situation lias become hu[>elessly paradoxical,” he went on to write. “ One ot the arguments for the exclusion of Indians from the Commission was that their inclusion would lead to minority reports, but now tho principal official argument for tho formation of Indian committees is to enable Indians to produce separate re]K>rts. The second line of argument is that .Indians arc likely to get more through a purely Parliamentary Commission, which may well prove true, but it is disconcerting to some of its distinctly moderate backers.” The Government of India’s parliamentary weakness appeared to this observer to bo disquieting. In three first-class debates in one week no member of the Viceroy’s Council had spoken. The Opposition was making political capital out of the silence of the leader of the House, Sir Mohammed Habibuliah, concerning which a communique had been issued saying’ that, as the home member, whose department was principally concerned, did not speak the leader of the House did not think it necessary to .speak, Tho extent of the social pressure exercised upon all Indians who defend a British, as opposed to a mixed, Commission could be judged from the fact that only one Indian member of the Government had so far spoken on tho subject, awl his utterance, was distinctly an apologia. An Indian exofficiai, quoted in our cable news tho other day, refers to a feeling throughout India that it will ho impossible for the Commission to submit a report which will ho satisfactory to all factious. That, no doubt, was inevitable from the commencement. The question is whether modifications in rhe administration can be advised which will give more satisfaction than the present system. The ex-official in question thought that an almost insuperable obstacle to a successful form of administration is the bitterness between the Hindus and the Mohammedans', and a writer in the latest ‘ Round Table,’ who does his best to survey the position hopefully, comes very near to the same opinion. “ The boycott movement,” lie declares, “ has already pushed Hindus and Mohammedans further apart; it has even caused dissension among Mohammedans themselves; and it is separating Hindu groups and communities front each other, still further estranging already estranged ‘ leaders,’ and making more and more remote tho possibility of the formation of real political parties, which is perhaps the most vital condition of all for the political progress of the country.”