STATUS OF INDIA

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 November 1929, Page 5

STATUS OF INDIA

DEBATE IN COMMONS MR. BALDWIN EXPLAINS (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, November 7. In the House of Commons, to-day, Mr. Baldwin, Conservative leader, opened the debate on the British policy in India, with a statement regarding his attitude towards the isshe of the declaration concerning Dominion status for India.

He said that on Friday, September 20, the Secretary for India arrived at Pau, charged with a letter from the Prime Minister, who asked him to concur in the issue of the statement concerning Dominion status, in the event of the Simon Commission being consulted and agreeing, and the consent of all parties being obtained. He replied that so far as he was concerned, he would concur, but he could not speak for his colleagues or party. On October 23, he met his colleagues and learned for the first time that the Simon Commission had not approved of the publication of Lord Irwin’s note. Clearly a new situation had arisen, and therefore he called together the exSecretary for India (Lord Birkenhead) and Lord Salisbury. It was at once decided that he should write to the Prime Minister pointing out that in all circumstances he could not agree to’ the publication of the note. It was not a true, statement that the "shadow Cabinet” of the Conservative Party insisted he should formally repudiate his personal pledge, and required him to write to the Prime Minister withdrawing his approval and support of Indian Home Rule. What actually happened was as soon as he knew the Simon Commission refused to take any responsibility for the publication of Lord Irwin’s letter, he met his colleagues and told them the whole circumstances of his correspondence with the Prime Minister, and then wrote with their approval and not under coercion, his letter to the Prime Minister. Speaking on the general subject of the pronouncement of the Viceroy of India, Mr. Baldwin said it was absurd to talk of a crisis.

THERE WAS NO CRISIS '■> and had been none. The situation had only demanded elucidation. With regard to India’s future, Mr. Baldwin said: “Let us never forget that the whole of the great Indian Peninsula has been for centuries the scene of invasions and struggles, and perhaps the best thing we have ever done, if we- could do no more, is that for a space we have given her internal peace. We have given her Justice and the rule of law. I pray that those three things, peace, justice and the rule of law, may accompany India and ourselves throughout every stage ot the long and arduous journey which is before us. Now at best, it is a difficult journey, a journey that will have to be taken through a tangle of creeds and castes, of ancient interests and immemorial hate. We have promised India, in our declaration, respbn* sible government. All parties in this country are agreed that that pledge shall be honoured. It will form the most responsible task of the Commission of which Sir John Simon is chairman, to point out what steps at this moment it is most desirable to take. “Could there be any doubt whatever in any Quarter of the House/* addjed Mr. Baldwin, “that the position of India with full responsible government in the Empire, when attained, in whatever form it might take so far as internal governing of India is concerned, must be one of equality with other sections of the Empire.” Mr. Baldwin concluded: “No Conservative Party with which I am connected will fail in sympathy and endeavour to help, in our time and the utmost extent of our ability, a solution of the greatest political problem which is before us to-day. We cannot, hope to live to see it realised. Our work must be done in faith, so that when perhaps after long generations to come there are men who will be putting coping stones on this foundation, they happily will not forget those who toiled with faith among the foundations.” MR L. GEORGE’S VIEWS.

Mr Lloyd George, Liberal Leader, said that he was a member of the Government that introduced reforms in India, and he presided over the Cabinet that not only sanctioned but framed the declarations' in reference to the future self-government of India. There was no question, so far as the Liberals were concerned, of going back one single inch from those declarations. Those declarations were considered carefully, not only by the British Cabinet. They were considered during the war at the Imperial Cabinet, where there were representatives of every Dominion in the British Empire, including India. He explained the nature of the pledge which was given to India, and why full partnership was not conceded immediately. It was owing purely to practical difficulties. The first difficulty was that never in the whole history of India, had India or any part of it, ever enjoyed the slightest measure of democratic self-govern-ment until 1919. Secondly, that 95 per cent of the population was illiterate, and thirdly there were as many different races, nationalities and languages as there were in the whole of Europe. All these facts had to be taken into account. The Imperial War Cabinet in 1917, with the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions present, decided that there should be accorded to the public of India, a considerable measure of self-government, limited, restricted, experimental find tentative, but they promised—and this was where the pledge came in—gradually—that if the experiment were successful, to extend it until ultimately India enjoyed full partnership in the Empire, on equal terms with our great Dominions. But they made it clear that the ultimate goal could only be reached by stages, and that the limiting and number of those stages must be determined carefully from time to time by the success which attended the experiments at each stage.

Mr Lloyd George regretted/ that while the report of the Simon Commission was being awaited, the declaration was issued with the consent of the Government, which had created the impression in India that it was intended without delay to confer full Dominion status on India. Mr Wedgewood Benn, Secretary for India, said the Government were not

taking a new step in policy, but w ere taking’ in effect administrative action, and were declaring .and. interpreting. m unmistakeable terms the existing policy. The declaration was a restatement and interpretation of the Montague policy. Lord Irwin s statement meant what it said; no less and no more. The Montague policy stood as the cardinal article of faith. 111 ® rlt ‘ isli poncy toward India. The firs reason for the Government taking the action they did was that they were advised to do so by the Viceroy. He would like to absolve the Viceroy because he came to England as an ambassador of peace, and had gone back to India as a peacemaker. There had grown up in recent years a . doubt in India about British policy. The Viceroy said that for the removal of that doubt it was necessary to issue a clear declaration of the existing policy. The Viceroy also wanted if possible to get a good atmosphere which would be better secured if they could clear up those doubts before the report of the Statutory Commission was issued, it . ■ was because those reasons appeared to the Government to be good and that tfiey took the course they did. Mr Lloyd George had asked whether there had been any change of policy. He (Mr Wedgwood Benn) replied that, using the word in its widest sense, there had been a change. A new spirit had been introduced. An effort had been made to make the Indian people realise the position they occupied in the British Commonwealth, and, •to give them an assurance of equality. A secqnd change that the ■ i Government had made was far more important, namely, in regard to the conference. The conference was to be' fully representative of the different parties and interests (n, India, and in Indian states. , " •

" SIR J. SIMON’S APPEAL.

Sir John Simon, Chairman of the Statutory Commission, said the Commission had endeavoured to discharge their duties and would go on discharging them. The Commission was absolutely determined to do nothing which could be construed or misconstrued as a presentation of the interim report. The functions of the Commission could neither .'be enlarged nor diminished by any declaration or statement made by anybody whatever. Hence, he earnestly asked Parliament to leave the Commission to continue their work undisturbed without Parliamentary conflict. Members of the Commission had an undivided and sincere desire to serve not only India, not only Britain, but both together. One outcome ot the events of the last few days was to make everybody realise that the. future constitutional progress of India was one of the most complicated as well as the most important questions in the whole world. , . . The Prime Minister said that the declaration of the Viceroy was required, because after 1919 propaganda had been started asking the Indian people to believe that the British Government had'departed from its policy. The declaration was necessary in order that a better atmosphere and more confidence should be established pending the publication of the report of the Commission. , The debate ended, the motion for the adjournment being withdrawn.