SIR S. CRIPPS’ MISSION

Grey River Argus, 28 April 1942, Page 1

SIR S. CRIPPS’ MISSION

A White Paper Issued ON INDIAN QUESTION. LONDON, April 26. “I regret that the recent statements in London bv Sir S. Crippi make it clearer than ever there is nc common ground between Ue Government and the Congress, sam Mr.’ Nehru, Indian Congress spokesman in a statement. “Britain still speaks in the same pre-war patronising language. Sir S. Cripps -s rmstaken if he thinks the position in India has improved. The gulfbetween us is greater chan ever, ihere is some improvement in the evacuating of Indians from Burma, aixhougn separate routes are maintained tor Indians and Europeans.” The Secretary of State ior_ Indi(Mr Amery), speaking at Birmingham said, Sir Stafford Cripps’s visit to India could produce nothing biu o-ood. He had made clear Britain s sincerity of purpose and they migm find in the long run that that was worth a great deal more than any immediate settlement. • A similar view is taken by a weukhown authority on India, Ml- - Coalman. In a letter to tne “Manchester Guardian” to-day, Mr. Coalman .writes: “The fact that Sir Stafford Cripps’s mission came so near success is more than a noteworthy political achievement, it gives reasonable ground for hope. Renewed effort, with the same basic objectives and necessarily conforming to the same limiting conditions for interim settlement, may complete his work.” A White Paper .on Sir Stafford Cripps’s mission to India was issued yesterday. It contains the original announcement on March 11 by Mr. Churchill, the British Government’s draft declaration for discussion with Indian leaders (dated March 30), correspondence between Sir Cripps and the President of the Moslem League (Mr. Jinnah), and resolutions or decisions of various Indian sections and parties. Most o£ Sir Stafford Cripps’s correspondence had been published, but the Indian resolutions show how complex are the conflicting issues which the British Government has been trying to reconcile. The India States’ delegation declared the States would make their contribution in every reasonable manner compatible with their sovereignly and integrity towards framing a now constitution. They shomd be assured, however, that any States noi finding it feasible to adhere to a union should have the right to form a union of their own with full sovereign status. The Indian National Congress Working Committee resolved that no other status except independence for the whole of India could be agreed to or would meet the essential requirements of the nresent situation. It objected that the Indian States might become barriers to the growth of Indian freedom, because they were not democratic. The Congress thought the British proposals encouraged and would lead to attempts at separation and create friction just when the utmost co-operation and goodwill were most needed. The All-India Moslem League Working Committee, ..after the failure of all efforts of reconciliation with the Hindus, was convinced that one Indian union was neither just nor possible. This appeared to be the main British object, as the creation of more than one union was relegated to the realm of remote possibility and was purely illusory. That being so, it would be unfair to compel Moslems to enter a constitu-tion-making body whose main object ,was the creation of a union, The Moslem League thought i[ a matter for the States to decide whether they should join the union or not

The Hindu Mahasabha decided that, as some essential features or the proposals were not acceptable ,it had no alternative but to reject the scheme as a whole. It could not be party to any proposal involving political partition. The option of nonaccession was a serious menace to security and unity, and might load to civil war.

For the depressed classes, Dr. Ambedkar and Mr. Rajah wrote that the proposals were calculated to do the greatest harm to those classes and were sure to place them under unmitigated/ Hindu rule, as in the black days of the past. The Sikh Parties’ committee rejected the proposals because, instead of maintaining Indian integrity, provision was made for the separation of provinces from the union and because the cause of the S’khs had keen “lamentably defrayed.” Last, the White Paner includes a memorandum bv the Liberal Leaders (Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Justice Jayakar), who except for certain points, were in general agreement with the British proposals.