INDIA’S FUTURE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 291, 7 November 1929, Page 9

INDIA’S FUTURE

DOMINION STATUS? VICEROY’S STATEMENT DEBATED LABOUR PEER IN DEFENCE. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received November 7, 9.5 a.m. RUGBY, Nov. 6. The Marquess of Reading, former Viceroy of India, called attention in the House of Lords to-day to the recent statement issued by the Viceroy of India regarding the attainment by India of Dominion status. Lord Reading asked the Government (1) to state their reason for the extraordinary course of making this pronouncement without having consulted the Statutory Commission upon it, and before the commission had reported ; (2) whether the conditions contained in the declaration of 1917 to the Government of India Act remained in full force and effect, and are applicable to Dominion status; and (3) wh.ether_th.is statement implies any change In policy hitherto declared or in the time when this status may be attained.

Lord Reading stated that the change of procedure whereby a conference of politicians representing all parties in India would be held before and not after the Government had formulated its proposals was very important. He welcomed it, and hoped that it would help to satisfy Indian opinion. The other parties approved of it. But when the Secretary for India made a further proposal that reference should be made to the future of India in the language or something approaching the language used in the \ iceroy’s statement, he at once took objection. “Let me make it plain that neither I nor my party objects to Dominion status regarded as the ideal which we eventually hope to reach in relation to the Government of India.” MISLEADING PHRASE. Lord Reading objected to the use of the term because it had never appeared before in any document, and because "it would be impossible to make a statement of this character without the assent of the Simon Commission. Nevertheless, it was proposed by the Government that a statement should be made which must affect the prestige, influence and authority of,, the Simon Commission. He himself, when Viceroy, had been careful never to use the words “Dominion status.” The verv phrase conjured up at once a position to some extent at lepst in advance of what might be ascribed to responsible government. Such a phrase was liable to be misunderstood in India, and by many people in this country. Mr Lloyd George took exactly the same attitude as himself. The Conservative party refused to assent to the statement regarding Dominion status. On October 27 he wrote to the for India, expressing his grave regret at the proposal of the Government and the Viceroy to make a pronouncement. The statement, unless it was corrected, would be heralded throughout India as a promise to give at once Dominion status. He wanted the Government, to make, it clear, without any ambiguity, throughout Indian that the language used by the Government in its pronouncement was only an interpretation of the ultimate goal to which India might .attain wljen various obstacles were surmounted.

Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said he could find no ambiguity in the pronouncement. The Viceroy issued it in order that Indian opinion might be educated and that Indians Who were doubtful before would now have a full assurance as regarded the political and constitutional future of India. Nothing could be clearer in the pronouncement of the Viceroy than that the reservations in the declaration of 1917 were retained without altering and without exception. Though Dominion status was the ultimate goal, the Government and the Viceroy drew a distinction between the purpose and the means whereby that goal might be reached. The purpose remained unaltered and unchanged. The question of ■ policy with respect to the time in which Dominion status might be attained could not be considered, and ought not to be considered until the Statutory Commission and the Indian Central Committee had submitted their reports and the Government in consultation with the Government of India, had considered those matters in the light of the material available, and furthermore until after the meeting of the conference it was intended to summon. COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY. Lord Parmoor contended that _ the pronouncement in no way undermined the authority of the Simon Commission. The Government was well advised in leaving the commission alone in making a statement of policy of this kind. * It would be wrong if it should, be thought in India that there was no special connection between the Government for the time being and the Simon Commission. Dealing with the reasons for making the pronouncement without having consulted the Statutory Commission, Lord Parmoor said that it was considered by the Government, with the full concurrence of the Viceroy, that, in view of the impending open invitation to representatives of British India and the Indian States to attend a conference, it was very desirable to restate clearly what was the purpose or Great Britain in regard to the Government of India. It was ascertained that the commission was averse from being associated in correspondence in which the reaffirmation should appear and the- Government decided that it should be made in a document The Government was aware that the Statutory Commission did not wish to be so associated, but it did. not think that precluded it from making reaffirmation. The Government had the deep-

est anxiety to do nothing which would in any way prejudice the position of the Statutory Commission. AVOIDING A CRISIS. Political feeling in regard to the India declaration, as reflected in the Press, has now moved more strongly in the direction of avoiding a crisis, and the Leader of the Opposition has intimated that the Indian question will be raised in the House of Commons on Thursday, not on votes of censure, but merely on ia motion for the adjournment of the House. The Manchester Guardian says that Mr Baldwin, in his statement, will explain his position as far as may be necessary, but the effect of his speech will be to minimise tlio incident. This course, it is stated, will be in full accordance with the wishes of the majority of his followers, who desire as far as possible to relieve the Viceroy and the Simon Commission of unnecessary difficulties. Reports from India continue to reveal that Lord Irwin’s statement is receiving widespread support, and the prospect of a conference between the representatives of the British Indian States and the British Government, after the Simon report has been presented, has pleased all parties.' Several of the leading Indian princes have already definitely approved the proposal for a conference. The announcement of this project, together with the restatement of the ultimate purpose of British policy, is reported to have had the effect of modifying the attitude of extremists. AIR CLEARED. NEWSPAPER COMMENT. Received November 7, 9.5 a.m. LONDON, Nov. 6. The opinion is expressed in Conservative circles that the debate in the House of Lords has cleared the air by eliciting from Lord Parmoor a statement that the Viceroy’s pronouncement did not mean any change in policy as regards India on the part of the British Government.

The Daily Telegraph accepts this assurance, but states that the effect in India of this belated frankness has now been seen. The Morning Post states: “As Lord Birkenhead pointed out, Dominion status has not been defined, and may mean one thing one year and another thing next year. It is used by the Irish Free State as a euphemism for independence. Such a definition, if applied to India, would mean the destruction of that Empire.” The Daily Chronicle states: “The Government say they merely reaffirmed old promises, but that is not what India understood by l Lord Irwin’s statement.”

SOMETHING INDEFINITE. LORD BIRKENHEAD’S VIEWS. Received November 7, 9.5 a.m. LONDON, Nov. 6. Lord Birkenhead, speaking in the House of Lords, in reply to Lord Parmoor, brushed aside contemptuously the idea that it was not intended to suggest any change to the people of India. It was plain what was intended.- It was intended to appease them because a grave threat had been made subservient of the Civil Government in India. It was because we were menaced at the end of the year with a campaign of civil disobedience that it was thought some announcement of this kind, misleading in scope, would avert the threat to law and order. He had drawn one deep lesson from the study of Indian history during the past, sixty years, that the way to discharge our fiduciary obligations to India was never to yield to threats. Lord Birkenhead asked what was the meaning of Dominion' status. It did hot mean now what it meant five years ago, and no one knew what it might mean five years hence. Yet here, with crude ignorance, the Government had flung into the disputations m India an indication officially never made before, that Dominion status was the goal. • * r ;-; No sane man could essay any approximate date when it was possible to conceive India attaining Dominion status. What man could see the time, even in a hundred years, when the people of India would be capable of taking such oontrol of the Army, Navy, and Civil Service as is assumed by the selfgoverning Dominions. The result' of the pronouncement would be. that the people of India would say they' had been cheated. The Government had mishandled the situation in every conceivable way at every con- ,. ceivable stage.