UNITY IN INDIA

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 April 1941, Page 10

UNITY IN INDIA

MR. AMERY’S APPEAL [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY, April 22. e A call to the people of India to y unite and settle their personal differences was issued in the House of *'• Commons by the Secretary of State “ for India (Mr. L. S. Amery), when he “ moved a resolution extending the n proclamation under which; in October r 1939, consequent on the action of the s Congress Party, certain provinces asn sumed powers vested in the provin- -. cial authorities. o Mr. Amery said that he hoped that a the gravity of the war situation might y bring the people together. No change e could be made in the Constitution in d war time, but there was no reason n why the leaders should not encourage d preliminary discussions. He' paid a tribute to the services of Indian d troops in Libya and East Africa, who d were playing a major part in winning the war. Mr. Amery also referred to India’s young navy, which had received the highest commendation from the Admiralty for its work east of Suez. Mr. Amery reminded the House that the resolutions concerned only seven British Indian provinces, while those of Bengal, Assam, Sind, and the Punjaub containing one-third of the whole population of British India, it continued provincial self-government h uninterrupted by under-composite itl governments consisting of both Mosis .lem and Hindu Ministers. In these - provinces, he continued, some 100,u 000,000 Indians had, for four years, ” been enjoying democratic self-gov-d ernment, and their Ministers were gaining experience and making an

I effective contribution -within the British sphere of authority as well as to?wards India’s general war effort. I Turning to the remaining seven (provinces, which, Mr. Amery said, I had been forbidden to build up the practice and tradition of self-govern-ment by a ukase of the Congress high (command, he said that the “electors, i had shown no signs of distress at the suspension of parliamentary government. The change to direct personal government by the governors < and permanent officials has met with geh-. ■ eral acquiescence and indeed goodwill,” he continued. “Whatever political unrest there may be in India today has certainly not arisen in any (way from the suspension of prpvinicial self-government. There has been (no discontinuity or abrupt reversal in either the administrative or legislative policy.” ! . Mr. Amery then discussed the action of Congress, which he described :as “a complete disregard Misplayed by (the most powerful Indian party for (the responsibilities of self-govern-jment.” The responsibility of parliajmentary government, he continued, (was threefold: — .. (1) The general duty of maintaining the substantial continuity and efficiency of the government. ; (2) The responsibility of ParliaJment as an institution relying upon the authority of a chairman or speaker, and upon the rights of the minori- ■ ties which were -in his keeping; (3) And subject'to these, other do- : mmating responsibilities of a government were to its supporters in parlia- : me ,. . for promotion of particular i policies.