Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JAN 21, 1928. THE TRUTH ABOUT INDIA.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 45, 21 January 1928, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JAN 21, 1928. THE TRUTH ABOUT INDIA.

Some correspondence that has taken place m the Welling'ton press anent the commission wnicli lias been set up to inquire into and investigate generally the constitution and government oi India is so indicative 'of a want ol knowledge of tke reasons for setting up such a commission, and of the position in India generally, as to call for a little more liglit on a much misunderstood position. The commission has been set up by the Baldwin Government under the Indian lieforms Act of 1919, which requires, at the expiration of ten years from the passing of the Act, that, with the concurrence of both Houses of the British Parliament, persons should bo appointed to act as a commission “to inquire into the working* of the Indian constitution, and to consider the desirability of establishing, extending, modifying, or restricting the degree of responsible government then existing there.” The Government has merely anticipated the date for the setting up of that commission, with the Bight Hon. Sir John Simon, K.C.V.0., K.C., M.P., a Liberal in politics, as its chairman, two Unionists and two Socialists being included in its personnel. A statement issued by the Government has it that the Central Indian Legislature is to be- invited to appoint a joint select committee, chosen from its elected and nominated unofficial members, which is to draw up its views and proposals in writing and lay them before the commission. It is further suggested that a similar procedure should be adopted with the provincial legislatures. As to the more purely administrative questions it was suggested that evidence should be taken up by some other authority which would be in the closest touch with the commission. The statement concluded :

When the commission has reported and its report Ims been examined by the Government of India, and His Majesty’s Government, it will be the duty of the latter to present proposals to Parliament. But it is not the intention of His Majesty’s Government to ask Parliament to adopt these proposals, without first giving a full opportunity for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute its view upon them. And to this end it is intended to invite Parliament to refer these proposals to consideration by a joint committee of both Houses, and to facilitate the presentation to that committee both of the views of the Indian Central Legislature by delegations, who will be invited to attend and confer Wjth the joint comriiittee, and also of tlio views of any other bodies

whom the joint Parliamentary committee may desire to consult.

British rule in India lias been subjected to much loose criticism by people who have no real understanding of the magnitude of the task involved, and to whom the phrase “self-determination” in all governing matters has become a more or less meaningless shibboleth, in keeping with that blessed word “Mesopotamia,” which is reported to have brought so much relief to the distressed mind of the old lady who was tortured by her doubts and fears. Some of our Labour friends have talked of “the cruel repression of the Indian people, of their exploitation by greedy British capitalists, of the arrogance of the official classes and have declared that India is only kept in subjection by the sword, and that British rule is alone responsible for the evil conditions prevailing among large portions of the population.” So far from the condition of affairs in India being as thus depicted, all authorities having knowledge of Indian conditions show the direct opposite.

BRITAIN NOT TO BLAME

Mr J. E. Woolacott has stated the case for Britisli rule in India in his recently published book “Britain’s Record in India.” lor many years Air Woolacott was editor of The Pioneer, and, m that capacity, acquired an intimate and almost unrivalled knowledge of the subject on which he writes. He sets out to refute the allegation that “India is rightfully struggling to be free, and that England is wrongfully resisting this legitimate and praiseworthy aim.” And he shows that, “if England is at fault at all, her error lies in hastening reforms for which India is as yet unprepared.” He shows further that the policy of the Government has been to put more and more trust in the Indian natives, in the replacement of British officials in the civil service by Indians, and that there has been a steady decline in the number of the former and an equally steady rise in the latter. That is also true of the Indian police and Indian medical services. Three out of the seven members of the Governor - General’s executive council are Indians, and, in each Provincial Government, there are included Indian Ministers who are in charge of the Public Health, Education, Agricultural and other departmental services. The greatest difficulty that the British administration has to contend with is the caste system, the rigidity of which hinders and nullifies many efforts at reform. He quotes an eminent Indian, Sir M. Visvesvaraya, K.C.1.E., _ late

Dewan of Mysore, as saying 1 m refrence to this caste system:

“Social distinctions exist in every country distinctions based on wealth, birth, or occupation. No country outside India has, however, a social system which cuts at the very root of human brotherhood, condemns millions of persons to perpetual degradation, makes people hyper-cxclusivc, magnifies religious differences and disorganises society.”

An investigation, conducted by the Government of Madras, revealed the astonishing fact that in no less than six districts of the province more than one person in every live was theoretically not allowed to come within a distance of 04 feet of the higher castes without causing pollution, and the public water supply was forbidden in nearly every village to castes representing one-sixth of the population. An American lady, Miss .Katherine Mayo,- who is not at all projudiced in favour of British rule, in her book, “Mother India,” not only vindicates the British administration but shows that the religious differences, customs and habits of the people are the chief barriers against any improvement of their conditions. “The British administration of India” (she writes) “be it good, bad, or indifferent, has nothing whatever to do with the conditions indicated. Inertia, helplessness, lack of initiative and originality, lack of staying power and of sustained loyalties, sterility of enthusiasm, weakness of life—vigour itself — all are traits that truly characterise the Indian not only of to-day but of long past history. _ . . . His soul and body are indeed chained in slavery, but he himself wields and hugs his chains and with violence defends them.” Mr Woolacott, again, quotes the Maharaja of Benares as saying at a recent banquet given by him in honour of the Viceroy:—“The ever indulgent British Government eager to reward India for its war services made fateful pronouncements in 1917, anticipating the actual state of things by at least half a century and attempting to build a twentieth century constitution with materials of the Middle Ages. It was not strange,” High Highness added, “that the attempt had not been successful,” and he declared that “India would not be able to do without British protection for centuries.”