THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1930. THE CONFERENCE ON INDIA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20690, 9 October 1930, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1930. THE CONFERENCE ON INDIA.

The conference which is to attempt so much for the future of India is coming nearer. It was fixed for this month, and, it may be assumed, as soon as the Imperial Conference deliberations allow it will be opened. The personnel of the British delegation, to represent not only the Government but all parties and both Houses of Pai'liament, has been announced. The membership is distinguished. If the Opposition section presents greater first-hand experience of Indian affairs than the Government, that is merely a reflection of recent political history. The two older parties naturally include more men who have done tours of duty in such parts of the Empire as India. This is one of the reasons why the British representation should be of an all-party nature. The more first-hand knowledge of India there can be at the table the better. The task for the gathering is an immense one. It will endeavour to work out a system of independent government that will eventually hold authority over 300,000,000 human beings. Meetings called for the deliberate purpose of drafting a Constitution to govern a community are not new. Yet has there ever been one held when the country concerned contained such a mass or such a diversity of human beings? It is very doubtful. The India that is to receive the Constitution will be, if the Simon recommendations are followed, much greater than the British India of today. It will also eventually include the Native States. They cannot well be forced into a federated India. Their entry must be voluntary. That is one of the factors making the task ahead so delicate in nature. The Constitution, or system of government, must be framed so that the States will be attracted into a federation. Otherwise it will be impossible to reconcile British India's aspirations and Britain's responsibilities toward the native princes.

The weight of the jtask the conference will meet to attempt is well summed up in a recent article by Earl Winterton, who has had practical experience of Indian affairs. The grant of self-government, ho writes, "must be a lengthy and highlycomplicated process of devolution of functions from Whitehall to Simla and from Simla to indigenous India, hedged by safeguards, some permanent and some temporary, for the security of India as a whole and her numerous minorities; safeguards which, be it noted, all the genuine enthusiasm of Indian Nationalists has not yet been able to devise to this satisfaction of Indians themselves." There are stated in small compass the circumstances which make so complicated the architectural work the conference will try to do. The apparent simplicity of the ultimate objective should not be permitted to suggest that it can be reached in one step, or a series of simple steps. India, it is suggested, is to become a self-governing Dominion within the Empire. Very well; the grant of self-government to Canada, following the historic Durham report, established a precedent by which the grant of constitutions to other Dominions became easy. In some instances there was a single constitution, in some a federal was established. Surely, it may be argued, there are enough precedents, there is enough experience now, to enable a constitution for India to be drafted easily and quickly. That would be true if the examples were really comparable, but they are not. The difference may be perhaps expressed best by saying (lie community in the ordinary Dominion divides horizontally into political parties in which there is room for differences of religion, and even of race, which cause no difficulty. India is divided vertically by mutually exclusive, differences of religion. caste, race and language, and the difficulties in the way of any fusion have so far defied both Indian ,'ind British ability to overcome them.

One of the most, significant exemplifications i>f what the consti-tution-builder faces is the fact (hat when the present reforms were established, communal franchises were embodied. Different religious communities were given separate representation in the various legislative bodies. That naturally meant unequal representation in point of numbers. The Moslem community in particular clings to this feature with unshaken tenacity. It was able to convince the Simon Commission that the system was indispensable. Having been conceded the Moslems, the principle could not be

denied the Sikhs, the native Christians, the resident Europeans, the outcasts. The Simon Commission was convinced it could not bo dispensed with, and the Indian Nationalists themselves have not been able to convince their fellowcountrymen that it could be dropped. Where is the precedent elsewhere in the Empire for such a method of representation 1 The French Canadians, though they have sought and been granted special safeguards for their language and religion, have neither demanded nor been given special representation in the Canadian Parliament. If this special question of the communal franchise typifies, it does not exhaust the difficulties in the way of framing a Constitution. The politically conscious Indian demands self-govern-ing status, and it has been noted lays more emphasis on the status itself than on tho practical consequences. From the British view that status must be accompanied by a democratic system modelled on the Western plan, eventually founded on European philosophy and ideals. Yet an enormous section of Indian opinion resists the advance of Western philosophy and ideals, stigmatising them as materialistic and far inferior to the ancient philosophies of India. The conference about to meet will attempt to work out practical ideas of self-govern-ment, but it must also recognise that fundamental difference in the British and Indian points of view. That is why its task will be so complicated as well as of such vital importance to both India and the Empire.