INDIAN REFORM BILL

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 February 1935, Page 7

INDIAN REFORM BILL

SUPPORTED IN COMMONS

PRINCES’ APPREHENSIONS

(BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

RUGBY, February 26

In the House of Commons. Sir Samuel Hoare said that 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 effectively had been 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 a Federation,' and at present he could not see that there was any irreconcilable difference between them. The Princes’ resolution in no sense was a pronouncement against the general scheme of the Bill. Both the States and the Government had to be sure of the same broad object in view. They both felt that the accession by the rulers to the Federation should mean effective participation by the States in the Federal organisation. It was for the ruler alone, subject, of course, to the acceptance of Ins decision by the Crown, to determine the extent of the field over which Federal authority should operate in the State. The Government proposal was that the Princes should accept the whole Act, and then, in the instruments of accession, they, should set out the subjects in relation to which the Act was accepted, making it clear, firstly, 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 studied the clauses of the Bill, and there had been a further opportunity for the Government to discuss the 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 were just as determined as they had always be-en, to make it clear that they 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 a question of principle, but all seemed questions of detail, that could be very well, and in some cases easily. adjusted. Mr. Winston Churchill said that 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 in line with the rest. The Ministers of the States were also represented as being in agreement with the Princes. Thus all of the arti culate elements of Indian political life, from the Congress to the Princes, were ranged against the Bill. Mr. Morgan Jones agreed that the Princes’ decision had changed the situation fundamentally. Labour, he said, was unwilling that, as the price of federation, the rest of British India should be subjected in perpetuity to these autocratic Princes’ demands. Sir Austen Chamberlain said that they must go forward with the -Bill, trving to remove the Princes’ apprehensions where these were well founded; but lie would be unwilling to allow the House to be driven into a Dutch auction for the support of the Princes.

Mr. Churchill’s motion to report progress was defeated by 293 to 89. I'll® minority included about 45 Conservatives. The “Daily Mail” says that the Go vernment is.seeking an early conference with the Princes. Sir Samuel Hoare spoke over the radiophone to India, and many cablegrams have been exchanged. “The Times,” in a leading article, says that the House of Commons majority should dispel the first impressions produced as the restilt of the Princes’ attitude. If the Princes had decided against federation, they would have gone further than describing the reforms as unacceptable without modifications.

STATES AND FEDERATION. (Received February 28, 1 p.m.) RUGBY, February 27. Dischssion was resumed in the commons, to-day, of the Government amendments to Clause 6 of the Indt« Bill Dealing with the accession ot the States- to the Federation, Sir Samuel Hoare explained that these amendments were not intended to meet the crisis, nor were they . the forerunners of amendments designed to change the whole structure ol the Bill. They were moved entirely on their merits. Turning to the points raised by Mi Winston Churchill, Sir Samuel Hoare said there could be no question ot the accession of the States to the Fedeia-

tion, on a limited liability sy'Stem. It was’contemplated that items Nos. 1 to 45, now appearing in the list of 56 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 be power of refusing entry for that State. The States wouid be invited to accept the first <l5 items in the Federal list, but would bo free to accept the remaining subjects if they wished. There would inevitably' he some variation in the number of subjects accepted, or the qualification attached to the acceptances within the list of 15 subjects such as would arise from varying local conditions in the State. It would, however, rest with the Crown to accept, or reject th? proposals for accession, and "the Commons would in due course be in full possession of all the facts on which acceptance or rejection had been based. 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 of the Bill must be carefully studied before it takes final shape. “It is, however, quite unnecessary, says the “Times,’ “to suppose that these modifications or elucidations will make any fundamental change in structure or intention of the Bill. In respect of the Federal scheme itself,

the Princes still stand exactly where thev stood before they accepted it, on condition that their rights and sovereignty will not be impaired, and the Government is ready, and has always been ready, to safeguard the position of the Indian States.’’ STATEMENTS DENIED. (Recd. February 28, 1.45 p.m.) LONDON, February 27. Sir Samuel Hoare, in tho Commons, said ho noticed that an organ of the extreme left, and another of the extreme right, had declared that he spent, a sleepless night, composing a recantation of the Federal scheme, and that he spent a good part of yesterday in telephone talks with the 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. lie had not spoken by telephone to India since the serwas opened, two years ago. lie thought it would bo 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 of the great Indian Princes, behind the Viceroy’s back. The Government's amendments were carried, without a division.