SITUATION IN INDIA

Evening Star, Issue 22618, 9 April 1937, Page 9

SITUATION IN INDIA

STATEMENT BY MARQUESS OF ZETLAND GOVERNORS' RESPONSIBILITIES (British Official Wireless.) . Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright "rugby, April 8. (Received April 9, at 1 p.ra.) A statement on India was made in the House of Lords by the Secretary for India (the Marquess of Zetland), who recalled that the Congress Party was in the majority after the elections in six of the 11 provinces. He related tho circumstances in which the Congress loaders in the six provinces, on being invited to form Ministries, sought assurances from the Governors, which the latter could not give. The Viceroy, with Lord Zetland’s approval, had already reminded the Governors that, while he hoped they would offer to the leaders the fullest support possible within the framework of the Constitution, certain obligations had been imposed upon them by Parliament,

of which, without the authority of Parliament, they could not divest themselves. The All-India Congress Committee had then passed a resolution making acceptance of office by Congressmen conditional upon the assurance that the Governor “ would not use his special powers of interference or set aside advice to the Ministers in regard to their constitutional activities.” It was widely assumed in India that the formula was one which would enable Congress leaders in the provinces to satisfy themselves as to the attitude of the Governors towards them without requiring from them assurances they could not give. However, acting on instructions from headquarters the Congress leaders declined to accept office unless they received every assurance which it. was constitutionally impossible for, the Governors to give. There followed what Lord Zetland described as the “most surprising statement” from Mr Gandhi, suggesting that the Congress formula asked for nothing more than the implementing of a suggestion which Mr Gandhi attributed to British Ministers—that ordinarily the Governors would not use their powers of interference. To contend that there was no difference between such an expression of ; opinion and a request for a pledge by a Governor himself in advance that he would make no use of his special powers was, Lord Zetland said, “ so astonishing that it appears to be explicable only on the assumption either that Mr Gandhi has never read the Act or instrument of instructions or the report of the Joint Select Committee, or that if he has done so he had completely forgotten when he made his statement the provisions embodied in those documents in respect to the special responsibjltiies vested in the Governors.” It was all the more unfortunate that Mr Gandhi should have made such a statement, because large numbers in India were accustomed to accept any statement of his as necessarily correct; therefore he must make it clear beyond the possibility of doubt that the demand made to the. Governors was one which without an amendment of the Constitution they could not possibly have accepted. To illustrate this Lord Zetland cited the example of a Hindu or Moslem majority Ministry, which proposed to curtail the number of schools available to Moslems or Hindus as the case might be. Such action would clearly be constitutional activity on the part of the Ministry which the Congress formula required the Governors not to interfere with, but obligations were imposed on the Governors to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities. Opinions might differ as to the necessity for such safeguards, but it could not be doubted that the Indian minorities themselves attached the utmost importance to them, and the Governors could not divest themselves of the special responsibilities of making such safeguards effective. The House applauded the Minister when he paid a tribute to the public spirit of other political leaders in the six provinces who had undertaken the difficult and distasteful task of serving in a minority of Ministries in order that the King’s Government might be carried on. The Ministers, he said, were absolutely constitutional. The future depended on the Legislatures., The policy of the Ministries might meet with their approval. If not, it would be open to the majority, in accordance with the universally-accepted practice under the system of responsible government to form a Ministry and so do accept responsibility for their action in displacing those in office. Finally Lord Zetland said the reserve powers were an integral part of the Constitution and could not be abrogated except by Parliament itself, and that the governors could not treat the Congress as a privileged body exempt from the provisions of the Constitution by which all other parties were bound. But having said that, he added, there was no reason why the reserve powers of governors should even come into play. Whether they did or not must depend on the policy and action of the Ministries themselves.