CRISIS IN BENGAL

Grey River Argus, 3 April 1943, Page 6

CRISIS IN BENGAL

GOVERNOR ISSUES STATEMENT. .SUSPENSION OF SELFGOVERNMENT. ' LONDON, April 1. The Governor of Bengal (Sir John Herbert) has temporarily suspended self-government in the province and has himself taken over the administration. This follows the resignation yesterday of the Premier of Bengal (Mr. Fazlul Huq). A communique issued by the Governor says that the suspension of self-government was decided on in order to solve difficulties arising out of the Budget. The. Budget debate had not been completed when the political crisis arose, and grants had to be passed in April. Self-govern-ment would be restored at the earliest' possible moment, with a regularly constituted Government. Mr. Huq’s Government had recently been weakened by defeats in the Legislature. In a statement after his resignation, Mr. Huq said he had had a conference with the Governor, at which various proposals had been discussed, including the formation of a National Government. He could not accept some of the proposals and the Governor had requested his resignation.

May Not See Gandhi V.CEROY’S REPLY TO INLiAN LEADERS. NEW DELHI, April 1. Lord Linlithgow rejected the request of Mr. Rajagopalachari and othei; Indian leaders, who in a memorandum to the viceroy asked for facilities to visit Gandhi in order to ascertain his reaction to events since his arrest, and explore the avenues towards reconciliation. They contended that wartime economic problems can .be tackled only by a Government enjoying the people’s local co-operation, hence a solution is essential. . / Lord Linlithgow, replying, pointed out that the signatories of the memorandum did not condemn the Congress campaign of violence, as the nublic was entitled to expect. The Viceroy emphasised that organised violence and crime for which preparations had previously been made, and which followed the arrest of Gandhi and others, had encouraged the Axis Powers and severely affected India’s war effort, neither Gandhi nor the leaders had condemned these activities, and while the Congress creed was unchanged,

India would again be exposed to grave danger if it were given full liberty of action. If ' Gandhi were prepared to repudiate the Congress resolution of last August, and condemn the incitements to violence, and also if he and Congress were prepared to give assurances acceptable to the Government for the future, then the matter could be further con- ' sidered.