The Hawera Star. FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 1931. INDIA AND ITS PROBLEMS

Hawera Star, Volume L, 9 January 1931, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 1931. INDIA AND ITS PROBLEMS

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in Hawera, Manaia, Kaupokonui, Otakebo, Oeo, Pihama, Opunake, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Ngaere, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Te Kiri, Mahoe, Lowgarth, Manutahi, Kakaramea, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Whenuaknra, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere, Fraser Road, and Ararata.

All the overseas dominions must necessarily be affected by any degree of federation or autonomy or other constitutional change that is achieved in India; for gradually the questions of reconsideration of tariffs, immigration laws, and reciprocity will arise. In the interests of clear thinking about this vast subject, and with a view to the understanding of Lord Sankey's document on t|he three possibilities of federation, it is well that certain existing political and constitutional facts which are fundamental in the situation should be borne in mind. First of all, as Sir 'Sidney Low makes quite clear, India is not a nation, and never has been one; but is a congeries of different races and religions and with more languages than are to be found in Europe. At the present time there are, politically, two distinct Indias, for which Lord Sankey’s document endeavours to set forth a modus vivendi, or rather some means of fusion or harmonising of political status. One India is British India, controlled by the Central Indian Executive and Legislature, and, as its name implies, finally under the control of the British Cabinet and Parliament. The other India comprises a group of 448 Protected States, the inhabitants of which are not British subjects. These States are autonomous under their own ruling princes, who, however, are in permanent alliance with the British Crown. They have no foreign or military policy except through the Government of India, and are thus dependent on Great Britain for protection from invasion and, if necessary, for the checking of disorder. Exclusive of Burma, these native States form nearly two-fifths of India. They have an area of 711,000 square miles, but their population is not, in proportion to their extent, comparable with that of British India, for it amounts to about 72,000,000 only out of a total population of 31'5,000,000. The native States lying athwart the main lines of communication are scattered in such a manner through India as to break up the solidity of British India. In the eourso of his exposition to the Conference of the scope of the component elements of a federation, Lord Sankev said that his first lieading might seem to invite discussion whether Burma should lie a component. unit. This reference to Burma is, of course, duo to its distinctive position not only in geography and history, but also in the vital fields of religion and ethnology. In fact, Burma was only annexed to India in 1885. The enormous difficulties of the whole question are manifested by two proposals for a solution in the Political Quarterly, one by Mr Sastri, who is a delegate to the Round 'Table Conference, and the other by an authority on Indian affairs whose position compels him to remain anonymous. Both these writers applaud the Simon Commission’s report in its.

emphasis on the essential oneness of' India. Mr .Sastri disapproves of the proposal that the Crown must remain in India with forces of its own to protect the princes, as this would, he says, malcc it impossible for British India to attain dominion status at any time. In each of the eight major provinces of British India, including Bengal, Madras, Bombay, and the Punjab, the Simon Commission would have a sovereign legislature established, with emergency control by the provincial ‘Governor, the 'GovernorGeneral, and the Secretary of State, this emergency control being intended to secure the safety of the province and to prevent injustice being done to any one section of the community. The anonymous authority, after pointing out many difficulties and dangers, says, in his article, that the safest course is to go forward and to supplement a responsible provincial Government by a responsible central Government, with emphasis in each case on the word ' e '' c responsible. ” A homogeneous and stable 'Government can be established only under the aegis of Britain. The princes of the native States desire the parainountcy of the Crown; whereas Mr Sastri contends that paramountcy belongs to the Government of India, as the sole constitutional agent of the Crown in India. For the princes, according to Mr Sastri, the devil they know' is better than the devil they don’t know. This, being interpreted, seems to imply that the princes do not know' what an Indian Government v'ould mean for them. Mr Sastri proposes, therefore, to leave these States out of the Constitution of British India, except in so far as they w r ould be included for mutual consultation in the Council of Greater Incjia. In his pentrating and judicial study of the problems Mr Sastri gives an illuminating picture of the psychology of his fellow Indians, —so framed, he says, that each individual thinks of sectional religious and economic. interests, and not of pan-Indian interests. The vision of one sovereign, one law, one people, one set of liberal institutions has not yet been potent enough to turn the Indian’from his devotion to the immediate and disintegrating claims of his narrow environment.