THE FAILURE OF NONCO-OPERATION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 162, 12 June 1925, Page 4

THE FAILURE OF NON-CO-OPERATION.

Ghandi (described by the way in The International Sunbeam, which forms a sort of text book in the Socialistic Sunday schools, as “the greatest man that ever lived”) started the non-co-operative movement with the idea of peacefully overthrowing British rule in India. He neither advocated, nor contemplated the use of force in the business, for lie knew that, if he could induce the natives who were co-operating with the Government in carrying out the orders of the British “Raj,”, to withdraw from the service, the whole edifice of government would collapse. But, although Ghandi was regarded much in the light of a prophet, and was credited with greater wisdom than most men, the natives were wiser than Ghandi. The non-co-opera-tive movement failed, and, in the opinion of the writer we have already quoted, must continue to fail, “because the people of India in the mass realise that they cannot do without English protection and rule.” The “self-determination” craze has no appeal for them, and although the agents of the Moscow Third international have attempted to woo them over to the idea of Soviet rule and its Communistic principles, they remain largely urmmVed. It was only in one or two of the bigger centres that tiro non-co-operative movement found any marked response, and even in such places it was built on such flimsy foundations that it soon collapsed. For one thing, the number of Indians who take an interest in politics is very small—incredibly so; for another, “only 18,000,000 out of the 300,000,000 men and women aro able to read a letter in their own script, and of these the larger number live in the cities.” More than 90 per cent, of the population, however, reside in small villages, but they have learned to appreciate the advantages of British rule to a far greater extent than the city dweller. “They have (we are told) learned, during a century and a-half, chat the European has a respect for abstract principles of law, order and impartial justice—• a conception which no Asiatic ruler, however competent and benign, has ever attempted to put into practice.” The British “Raj” has given them an equality in law which they never previously possessed. They are no longer the oppressed people that the British found them, with their lives and fortunes at the mercy of their native rulers. The contrast between the old and the new regime is kept vividly before them by the stories handed down from generation to generation of the treatment of their forefathers by the Indian “Raja” or landholder, and of their cruel oppression by the native princes to whose rule they were subject. The mass of the people recognise the advantages they enjoy under British rule, so much so “as to distrust their own fellow countrymen oven when they preside over courts in British India and are as upright as any cold, impartial Englishman. And they express what they consider their relation to the Government by styling its representatives. ‘Man-Boys,’ which is the Hindustani for mother and father.” Only under British rule has it been possible to avert the fierce, fanatical outbursts of strife between Hindus and Mahommedans, and to give to all religions that free expression which comes of benevolent toleration and respect for the rights of conscience. While self-government is the goal towards which educated Indians are moving, it is recognised that the British occupation of India must be maintained until the people “become sufficiently enlightened to frame a government for themselves and. to conduct and preserve it.” But that is not yet. The demand of the Indian Intelligentsia for complete Dominion Home Rule cannot be conceded until the India people are fit for self-government, and the British authorities are assured that the welfare and happiness of India’s hundreds of millions of people will be safeguarded.