FACTS ABOUT INDIA.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 23 March 1922, Page 2

FACTS ABOUT INDIA.

A MOSAIC OF RACES

SIR M.'O'DWYER'S CRITICISM

LONDON, Jan. 20 Sir Michael O'Dwyer, late LieutenantGovernor of the Punjab, was the first to deliver a lecture, under the auspices of the Overseas Club, in their new headquarters at Vernon House. Sir Michael, it \»ill be' remembered, figured very prominently in the discussions in regard to the Amritsar riots; and, as the chairman remarked when introducing the i lecturer, he stood manfully by the sol- ; dier (General Dyer) who he thought had done his duty. The popular conception of India, said Sir Michael, was that it was a very big and hot country, inhabited by many millions of people, and divided into two great races—Hindus and Mohammedans—who were formerly fighting each other, and who* had now settled down and were working together in harmony for the good of their Motherland; that these two races now wished to take their destiny in their own hands, arid thatit j was for us, in the sacred name of selfI determination, to concede what they asked, and to clear out of the country as soon as possible. That was a com- ' mon conception of our Imperial responsibilities as regards India. I If that description were true, India would be only a magnified Ireland. There might be an artificial resemblance between India and Ireland, but there I was no real parallel.' In Ireland we had . been endeavouring to restore a system 'of government which existed down to the union. In India/on the other hand, I we had been endeavouring to establish a system which had hitherto been alien to all Oriental people and had never . succeeded. We were trusting to the genius of the British race to make it succeed in India, as elsewhere. That demanded much confidence. The difficulties met with in Ireland were multi plied a hundredfold in India, because of the diversity of race, civilisation, religion and language. He denied that India was ready for Dominion status. How important it was. he said, that the question of ( capacity for self-defence should be con- ! sidered as part of the question of the capacity for self-government. When j pointing to the part India took in the late war it should be' remembered how specialised jn race and caste the soldiers from India were. It should be remembered that the educated and literary class looked down upon fighting as something beneath their dignity, and it was this class which was most desirous of self-government. Owxjig to the cleavage of races, religions, and civilisation, India never had been, and could not be a nation. All that could be said was that there was great possibility of something being done under a strong central Government. So far as the Government of India Act was concerned, a very small body of politically-minded Indians —perhaps 2 per cent, of the population —whose co-operation this country relied upon for the success of the scheme, was at- present divided into three classes. There was Gandhi's party, who would have nothing to do with the British Government, and who had stigmatised it as a Satanic Government. That party was frankly separatist—clearly heading straight for chaos and revolution. It must be remembered that once the idea spread in India that the Government was afraid, then its prestige was gone. Gandhi was admittedly the cause of the Punjab rebellion in 1919, and of the Moplah rebellion, which was still unrepressed, and which had caused the loss of 5000 lives and an infinity of misery and loss to 1,500,000 people. After the outbreak in Bombay the Government was compelled • to* take action, which, unfortunately, it had delayed in taking. Ten thousand people all over India were arrested and brought to trial for their connection with the terrorist movement. ' In his belief if, a year ago, ten- persons had been arrested it would not bnvo been necessary to arrest ten thousand to-day.

Ihe.next section was those sensible ' and reasonable men —who would be' more numerous if they received more ' encouragement—who accepted the reform scheme, its conditions and quali- ! ncations, and were moving in their own quiet and steady way on the lines of safe constitutional progress. These men however, though loyal and patriotic were rather apt to be outnumbered and : out-voted by the third class—those poll- i ticians who wished to keep in the lime- i light, and who realised that the easiest '■ way to do so was to connect themselves with violent agitation. Therefore, the third class was the most vocal in the council, on the platform, and in the press. They resented every Government attempt to repress disorder. They said the remedy for the present unrest was to grant complete autonomy to the provinces at once,.-and complete Home Rule to India in 1929. The real point was that the object of the class of poli- ; ticians who clamoured . for immediate Dominion Home Rule was to get rid of British control and British officials as soon as possible. It was the weaken- 1 ing of British authority and rule which. ] had allowed appalling disaster's and j bloodshed to take place in India. India '• was a mosaic of races and religions and a babel of tongues. We were told that a good diplomat must. be able, to lie j efficiently in six languages. A good servant of the Government of India, I must be able to get at the truth in six languages, and that was no easy matter. There were in India fifty million people j whom the caste system had degraded' into outcasts. Were the bulk of the ' peopie of India ready to admit equality ! and brotherhood? Were they ready to recognise these fifty million of outcasts as human beings and grant them the -ordinary privileges as citizens? It seemed to him that until they did this they had no right to claim equality of treatment in those British countries where they had settled. Only one man in sixteen, said Sir Michael, could read and write, and only one woman in sixty had these accomplishments. This fact might be held to reflect on British policy in India, but we had been so busy with the problems relating to the restoration of peace and order, and securing better conditions of life, that we had not had time for educational matters. The Morley- j Minto reforms made the first attempt to " [introduce representative institutions to India, and. when the war came a new angle was added to our vision, and the principle of self-determination was brought in as a political policy. There was _a, compjete absence of the democratic spirit in India,"and he maintained that the political institutions that were suited to Great Britain and the Dominions could not be successfully transferred to India. Any success the Engj lish rule had had in India had been the I work of administrators, and not of politicians. If India were left to govern herself the country would become a • paradise for military adventurers, and, instead of a democracy, we should find iin the shortest possible time a ruthless autocracy like that in Russia to-day.