INDIAN PRINCES

Evening Star, Issue 21966, 28 February 1935, Page 11

INDIAN PRINCES

BRITISH MINISTER ALLAYS FEARS “DIE-HARD" MOTION REJECTED (British Official Wireless.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, February 26. In. the course of his speech in the House of Commons on the India Bill, Sir Samuel Hoare (Secretary of State) said that if the draughtsmanship of the Bill failed to show that the Government had in every respect carried out the agreements with representatives of the princes he would see that the drafting of the clauses was readjusted and the position made clear beyond the shadow of doubt. “If it appears that there are irreconcilable differences between the Government and the princes I will immediately inform the committee, and will give an undertaking that we will reconsider the whole position.” Sir Samuel Hoare said he believed that many of the questions were already adjusted in the Bill, and that the princes did not yet realise in detail how far their legitimate desires had

been effectively met. Where they had not been met he 'had given an undertaking to meet them. There was no reason for the committee to delay the discussions. Many of the points in which the princes were interested came at a later stage in the Bill. The princes had not changed their view with regard to federation, and at present he could not see that there was any irreconcilable difference between them. The princes’ resolution was in no- sense' a pronouncement against the general sell erne of the Bill. Both the States and the Government had, he was sure, the same broad object in view. They both felt that accession by the rulers to the' federation should mean effective participation by the States in the federal organisation, It was for a ruler alone, subject, of course* to acceptance of his accession by the Crown, to determine the extent of the field over which the federal authority should operate in his State. The Government proposal was that the princes should accept, the whole Act, and then in instruments of accession they should set out the subjects in relation to which the Act was accepted, making it clear, first, that the Act does not touch any other subject; secondly, that the Act does not detract from the princes’ sovereignty in any other respect. The Government was prepared to safeguard the princes’ position. He believed that when the princes had studied the clauses of the Bill and there had been further opportunity for the Government to discuss difficulties with them, it would be ’possible most effectively to safeguard the princes’ position in every respect, whilst retaining the general Federal structure of, the Bill. The Government was just as determined as it had always been to make it clear that it regarded the treaties between the Crown and the Indian States as inviolate. So far as he could judge, none of the points raised seemed to be questions of principle, but all seemed questions of detail that could be very well and in some cases easily adjusted. » Mr Winston Churchill said the accession of the princes was the linchpin of the whole story, and the linchpin had been pulled out. The princes, who were most amenable beforehand, were now falling into line with the rest. The Ministers of the States were also represented as being in agreement with the princes, thus all the articulate elements of Indian political life, from the Congress to the princes, were ranged against the Bill. Mr Morgan Jones (Labour) agreed that the princes’ decision changed the situation fundamentally. Labour was unwilling that, as a price of Federation, the rest of British India should be subjected in perpetuity to autocratic princes’ demands. . Mr Neville Chamberlain said they must go forward with the Bill, trying to remove the princes’ apprehensions where they were well founded, but he was unwilling to allow the House to be driven into a Dutch auction for the support of the princes. Mr Churchill’s motion was defeated by 283 votes to 89, the minority including about 45 Conservatives. The ‘ Daily Mail ’ says the Government is seeking an early conference with the Indian princes. Sir Samuel Hpare spoke over the radiophone to India, and many cable messages have been exchanged. ‘ The Times,’ in a leader, says: “ The House of Commons majority should dispel the first impressions produced as a result of the Indian princes’ attitude. If the princes had decided against Federation, they would have gone further than describing the reforms as unacceptable without modifications.” [When the House on Tuesday resumed consideration of the Bill in committee Mr Winston Churchill moved to report progress in view of the princes’ resolution, which, he said, created a new political situation so far as the Bill’s future was concerned. Mr Churchill said the question of accession of the princes was the foundation of the whole policy, and expressed the view that the federal scheme was dead.]

GOVERNMENT'S AMENDMENTS EXPLANATION BY SIR SAMUEL HOARE. . (British Official Wireless.) Pr»*» Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. •RUGBY, February 27. (Received February 28, at noon.) Discussion was resumed in the House of Commons to-day of the Government amendments to clause 6 of the India Bill dealing with the accession of the States to the Federation. Sir Samuel Hoare explained that these amendments wore not intended to meet the crisis, nor were they forerunners of amendments designed to change the whole structure of the Bill. They were moved entirely on their merits. Turning to the points raised by Mr Winston Churchill, Sir Samuel Hoare said there could be uo question of accession of the states to the federation on the limited liability system. It was contemplated that items 1 to 45 now appearing in the list of fifty-six subjects reserved to the Federal Legislature by the seventh schedule attached to the Bill would be the normal field over which the States would surrender their powers. Those items covered a very wide field of government. If a State attempted to make terms which would make its entry of little or no value to the federation, there must he power of refusing entry for that state. The states would be invited to accept the first forty-five items in the federal list, but would be free to, accept the remaining subjects if they wished. There would inevitably be some variation in the number of subjects accepted, or the qualifications attached to the acceptances within a list of forty-five subjects, such as would arise from varying local conditions in a state. It would, however, rest with the Crown to accept or reject the proposals, for accession, and the House of Commons in due course would be in full possession of all the facts on which acceptance or rejection had been based. AMENDMENTS CARRIED LONDON, February 27. (Received February 28, at 1.5 p.m.) Sir Samuel Hoare said he, noticed that an organ of the extreme Left and another of the extreme Right had declared that he had spent a sleepless night composing a recantation of the Federal scheme, and that he had spent a good part of yesterday in telephone talks with tb© Maharajah of Patiala, and had invited the Indian Princes to come to England immediately to discuss the amendments. There was not a vestige of truth in any of these fantastical statements. He had not spoken by telephone to India since the service opened two years ago. He thought it would be better for the Government of India and the Viceroy to manage their own affairs without his constant interference. It would be most improper of him to engage in panicky conversations with' one great Indian Prince behind the Viceroy’s back. The Government’s, amendments were carried without division. COMMENT BY ' THE TIMES ' RUGBY, February 27. (Received February 28, at noon.) ‘ The Times,’ referring to the India question to-day, considers that the apprehensions of the princes, wherever they prove to be well founded, must be removed, and their views as to the redrafting of certain passages in the Bill must be carefully studied before it takes its final' shape. “If will, however, bo quite unnecessary,” says ‘ The Times,’ “ to suppose that these modifications or elucidations will make any fundamental change in the structure and intention of the Bill. In respect to the federal scheme itself, the princes still stand exactly where they stood before they accepted it on condition their rights and sovereignty would not be impaired. The Government is ready, and has always been ready, to safeguard the position" of the Indian States.”