IF A CLASH COMES

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4815, 26 July 1939, Page 2

IF A CLASH COMES

INDIA AND THE CRISIS.

AID IN RETURN FOR FREEDOM

It is hardly possible or profitable to think of India in these days except in relation to world affairs, writes J. T. Groynn in the Manchester Guardian. What leaps to the eye is that India has a population of three hundred odd million, with potential resources hardly inferior to those of Russia. In the lining-up of forces that we see beginning, on which side will India take her stand? Can we reckon on having her man-power and resources behind us?

There is not much room for doubt about the answer. If India were satisfied that the struggle is indeed for freedom and justice against the rule of bru-e force, then she would be with us far more whole-heartedly than in 1914. For she recognises that the philosophy behind the policies of the dictators and Japan rejects all that is most characteristic in Indian thought and threatens India with a new serfdom beside which the British Raj would appear freedom unalloyed. But —and a very big but —India, though seeing this the struggle is against might, has not yet been convinced that it is for right and freedom. Situated as she is, it is far easier for her to see it as a contest between two rival imperialisms—older and more easy-going empires facing younger and more efficient if more brutal rivals.

No Unanimity Possible.

So long as this view of the contest prevails there will be no unanimity among Indians as to the course to be pursued. A few will be for another act of faith in British good intentions. More will say "Seize the opportunity to throw off the British yoke that we feel to-day. It will then be time enough to face the next task, evading the yoke of some new empire." The great majority will prefer a policy of querulous inactivity, restricting India's sacrifice to a minimum which cannot safely be refused to one side or the other. On this supposition we shall get little help. For the methods by which Sir Michael O'Dwyer in 1918 drew out the resources of the Punjab could no longer be applied with success or even safety. Would it be possible to convince India that the struggle is not between two rival imperialisms, but rather for liberty? A study of what has recently been printed in the Indian-edited Press suggests that it would not be impossible—not even very difficult. If India had selfgovernment she would at once realise that the downfall of England and France would imperil her newlywon liberty. "But," our cynic will say, "this is idle talk, since India has not selfgovernment nor is England prepared to concede it." What has escaped his notice is the fact that India is already more than self-governing, and that she can, with but a slight exertion of her weight, take out of the hands of Whitehall the controlling power that still remains there. Who, with any knowledge of Indian affairs, will deny that Congress could, within a few months, work up an all-India agitation which in the present state of the world we should not venture to suppress? ' Why is there no sign of Congress '

doing so? For three reasons. First, because Congress leaders do not desire a Hindu-Moslem civil war or a spread of Socialist and Communist ideas among the workers and peasantry, and there is no doubt that these are probable by-products of any violent agitation for self-govern-ment. Secondly, there is Mr. Gandhi's deep-rooted objection . to violence, and, thirdly, because Mr. Gandhi seems to be satisfied that the balance of power has shifted decisively in Indias' favour and that full selfgovernment will come to India as soon as India is ready for it. Consider these words extracted from some sound advice which he recently addressed to the Indian Princes and !their subjects:—

"The paramount power itself growingly lives on the will of the nation, including the people of the States. If the nation realises that it can develop strength through truth and non-vio-lence the paramount power will be voluntarily replaced by the power of the people."

Is it unfair, then, to present the situation as follows? Rather than make the effort necessary to secure self-government with the risks and obligations it entails in a dangerous world, India is tempted to prefer to mark time, remaining as she is, cherishing her grievances and declining responsibility. She complains with good reason of the military authority's reluctance to Indianise the army and entrust the direction of it to Indian brains. But she sees to-day that genuine self-government will mean an immense increase in military expenditure,, and she is not entirely sorry to have a good excuse for refusing to shoulder the burden. Evidently this state of affairs is demoralising for India and not helpful to us. Might it not be better to require India to accept her freedom now and not ten yeai's hence, and to •join with other nations in defending it? We may surely now rule out the old War Office argument that India is unable to produce officers unfit to lead. Officers and men are needed now in numbers without regard for race, and modern war has little respect for the traditions of the War Office. But perhaps we should consider more seriously the difficulties arising from old Hindu-Moslem jealousy and the problem of the States.