INDIA’S FUTURE

Evening Star, Issue 21881, 19 November 1934, Page 16

INDIA’S FUTURE

TREMENDOUS ISSUE BRITAIN MUST DECIDE THE BEST COURSE Fire voung Imperialists—Sir Adriqn Uaillie, M.P., Captain Cazalet, M.P., Ford Dufferin, Wing-Commander James, M.P., and Mr Mark Patrick, M.P.—have written a pamphlet on the future of India. I confess that 1 picked it up without enthusiasm, writes Harold Stannard in the ‘ Daily Telegraph.’ ]f it does not discuss -the White Paper proposals, .1 thought, it will not enlighten me an the matters nn which I most need enlightenment. If it does discuss them it will attempt to anticipate the verdict of the Joint Select Committee, a much more authoritative body whose judgment it would he wrong to discount in advance. By the time I had read the first paragraph f had altered my opinion. ‘ India From a Back Bench ’ is the most helpful contribution to clear thinking about India that I have seen since the publication of the first volume of the Simon Report. It is short; it is admirably clear; its statement _of facts is impressive; and its underlying philosophy is profound. It is a credit to English politics and deserves to he widely read and no less widely appreciated. OUR GREATEST TASK.

The future of India, the connection between Britain and India, the. relationship between East and West, which is the central theme of the world’s history, are all involved in the pending .India Bill. These tremendous issues are obscured by the controversies already beginning to rage over such details as responsibility at the centre and law and order in ' the provinces. The authors of the pamphlet at once restore them to their proper position in the foreground. “ Our connection with her (India) represents the highest endeavour we have ever made to extend our conceptions of good government to an alien people, if this endeavour breaks clown, or degenerates into the repression by force of an antagonised population, we shall have to admit failure in perhaps our greatest Imperial undertaking.” The men who could write that (though I should myself have omitted the qualifying “ perhaps ” of the last phrase) have already proved themselves good guides to a spirit in which the Indian problem ’ should be approached. And approach is everything, if wc are to solve a problem we must set its elements in proper perspective, so as to be able to pick out those which must be dealt with. 'That is the method of this pamphlet, it works its way up to a statement of the questions to which any India Bill must offer answers. CHANGE MUST COME. Then it turns to the White Paper, it does not anticipate the Joint Select Committee’s report. On the ■ contrary, it observes that the committee is “ one of the strongest ever set up by Parliament,” and that “ there will be no one, in fact, whatever view he or she may have taken of the White Paper, who should not have much to learn from its findings.” But the authors of the pamphlet point out that the White Paper meets the test of answering the essential questions. They go further. Stung to retort by the efforts of its opponents to dispose of the Indian issue by such parrot cries as ” Scuttle,” “ Abject surrender,” and the like, they show that the answers which the White Paper gives are in themselves reasonable, and are supported by a body of opinion whose weight cannot be ignored. The first important point taken is that change is now inevitable. Even if it were possible to go on as we are, honour forbids, since the system set up in 1919 was avowedly provisional. “ The only real question is, therefore, what sort of changes should be made?” Are we to go forward or to go back ? It -is possible to go back. With the Army and a highly trained civil administration we could run a Government. But since it would lack the cooperation and good will of the governed, it would be a bad Government according to our own standards. On the oter band, we have been teaching Indians for a century to think of their political future in Western terms.

“ If India asks for a more representative form of government it is because we ourselves have taught her to do so; to say nothing of having given her to understand that ultimately she will have it.” NOT SOUND. The notion that we can satisfy her aspirations by provincial autonomy coupled with a strong official Government at the centre will not stand examination. “ Either the Provinces could , not be genuinely autonomous, or the Central Government could not be ‘ strong.’ ” Moreover, if India is ever to attain political unity, the Princes cannot be left out, and “ the Princes have made it plain that they would enter a Federation only on the condition that they would thereby secure a measure of responsibility for All-India a flairs.”

As to the capacity of Indians to undertake the responsibilities of government, “ factors such as communal feeling, or the Hindu conception of the family, may expose to strong temptation some of those with patronage to exercise.” But here again the rule of the Princes shows what Indians can do.

It is noted that in tiie matter of literacy three Indian States show better figures than any Indian Province. (The point is worth remembering by those who like to represent the Princes as despots stifling independence of thought among tiieir subjects.) There remains the economic difficulty. It is objected that a self-governing India would refuse to trade with us. Would she? Her exports “for generations to come ” must consist mainly of primary products, for which she can find preferential markets only in this and in the Umpire. On the other hand, a non-self governing India will certainly refuse to trade with ns, and the boycotts organised by Congress a few years ago “ provided an excellent illustration of how hard it would he to force goods on unwilling buyers.” The pamphlet drives this vital point home. Goodwill is some-, thing which figures in business accounts. The business results of the policy of securing India’s goodwill are already manifest. “ The alternative, if if, can be called an • alternative, is a policy of the ‘ strong band.’ Let those who feel attracted by it remember that, applied to India, it could not. put one unemployed Lancashire operative back lo work, or contribute sixpence towards a dividend.”-

THE CLIMAX. The climax of ' the argument is reached with the following statement of questions which no scheme can shirk, together with a summary of the White Paper’s answers to them: — 1. How can India’s demands for more responsibility, and her genuine belief that we intend to give it her, best be brought into accord with her own interests and those of the Empire? White .Paper answer: Responsibility with safeguard. 2. How can India’s vast size, and the alnifet unlimited variety of -her economic and cultural development, best he allowed for in framing a constitution which must be applicable to the whole sub-Continent?

White Paper answer; Provincial autonomy. 3. How can the sharply contrasted political systems of the. States on the ono side and British India on fho other he brought together in one workable scheme?

White Paper answer: Federation. 4. How can the religious and racial divisions which, unhappily, _ still exist, best be minimised without injustice to maiorities or minorites? White Paper answer; Communal electorates.

5. Lastly, but not least, how can trade between this country, India, and the Empire best be safeguarded ;«wl developed P White Paper answer: The principles of Ottawa, with safeguards against discrimination. WORKING WITH INDIANS. In regard to special points arising out of these answers, the pamphlet prints the evidence of experts. Twelve witnesses are called. All are of recent Indian experience, and the authors state, out of their own knowledge, that their views are those “ of a great majority of Englishmen now in India.” This evidence throws helpful light on a matter which must have troubled all who study Indian affairs from a distance. Hitherto we have rilled India from above.

An epigrammatic pen once described the Itaj as a despotism of despatchboxes tempered by the occasional loss of the keys. Will men trained in this school make good colleagues of democratic Indian Ministers? Will our officials show themselves sufficiently human? To this question two of the pamphlet’s witnesses give most encouraging answers. One is Sir Charles Stead, who retired from the Indian’ Police last year after twenty-five years’ service. He candidly admits that, when it was first put forward, the idea of transferring control of the police to an Indian Minister responsible to the electorate struck him as “ absurd and outside practical politics.” He changed his mind after his experience in working with Indians to master Civil Disobedience.

The other witness ,is Sir Frederick Sykes, who thus describes the scheme which he started when Governor of Bombay for tbe improvement of Indian agriculture :■ Its essence was to guide the villager to help hjinself. It was based upon the principle that human well-being is largely achieved by human beings themselves in their own immediate surroundings, rather than by something which descends upon them from the Government.

That last sentence alone is proof that if the democratic spirit has touched Indians it lias equally touched Englishmen in India, and that the new relationship essential to the working of an Indian Federal Constitution is already established. Whatever difficulties may confront us, at least we have no need to fear the disaster consequent on putting new wine into old bottles.