THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1925. THE PROBLEM IN INDIA.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19528, 10 July 1925, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1925. THE PROBLEM IN INDIA.

A difficult task confronted Lord Birkenhead in the delivery in the House of Lords of his first important speech relative to Indian policy, and it was not to be anticipated that his utterance would give all-round satisfaction or escape severe criticism. Unfortunately among even those who should be competent to speak with authority on the Indian problem there is considerable disagreement. The position is exceedingly complicated, and the various considerations which have to be taken into account in the framing of a statement of Government policy seem to have imparted to Lord Birkenhead’s pronouncement a measure of colourlessness, almost of uncertainty. As to how order and progress are to bo substituted in India for something approaching the political chaos that has developed since the introduction of the Constitution of 1910, the speech is somewhat indefinite. Tho GuT-ornmnnt accepts the mow that this Constitution has‘neither so-:clerical

nor failed, while it regards the revision of it, sooner or later, by a Royal Commission, as originally contemplated, as an essential condition that remains clear and precise. It has no intention of suggesting a reconsideration on a broad scale until it sees everywhere among the leaders of India’s thought “evidence of a genuine desire to co-operate in making the best of the existing Constitution ” How long a period may elapse before such evidence is discernible there is no saying. How to bring about such co-operation—there, it may be said, is the rub. The Swarajist movement, with its programme of obstruction, has been a serious obstacle to the achievement of such a result. Mahatma Gandhi is still talking: he may be a spent force in India, as some affirm, or it may be, as others assert, that his influence among the masses is still unshaken. In recent speeches m Bengal he declared: ‘‘Our villagers have no village industry left, and this is the darkest charge against the British rule in India. Until Englishmen repent and help to restore the Indian village industries I cannot co-operate.”

The tone of Lord Birkenhead’s speech is distinctly conciliatory in its offer of full consideration of “any responsible scheme advanced by Indian critics,” and it contains promise of immediate action in the direction of giving effect to recommendations embodied in the Merriman report. The committee from which this report emanated was set up last year “to inquire into the difficulties arising from, or difficulties inherent in the working of the Government of India Act and the rules thereunder, and to investigate the feasibility and desirability of securing remedies for such difficulties or defects, consistent with the structure and policy and purpose of the Act.” Two reports were presented, one signed by the three English members and two Indian members of the committee, and the other signed by the four remaining' Indian members. The majority report accorded to the Reformed Constitution the somewhat moderate testimonial that, whilst the period during which it had been enforced had been too short to enable a well-founded opinion to be formed as to its success, the evidence was far from convincing that the Constitution had failed. Lord Birkenhead’s reference to “diarchy” as obviously not a sacred principle, implying that at some future date, if need be, the system may be jettisoned, touches a question round which controversy has been heated. The majority of the Reforms Inquiry Committee. while taking a non-committal position in this connection, quoted the judgment of the Governqr-in-Council of the United Provinces that the “partial diarchy” of the Reformed Constitution was “a complex, confused system, having no logical basis, rooted in compromise, and defensible only as a transitional expedient.* They expressed the view that if a complex sjstem like diarchy had not achieved the expected measure of success it was because it was not worked on the lines and in the spirit which were intended. The minority of the committee considered that diarchy had been fairly tried and had failed. The one conclusion that seems unavoidable is that a policy of compromise, however much it may appear to have been justified, lias not been attended by the desired results. The recommendations to which, as Lord Birkenhead has intimated, the Government proposes to give effect are intended to diminish friction and introduce greater efficiency into the working of the Constitution. Lord Olivier, a prolific writer on the Indian question, said in a recent article: “None of these recommendations really touches the inherent vices of the diarchical Constitution in regard to its main purpose of forming a training ground in the working of parliamentary institutions.” His experience in, office in India has convinced him, he declares, of the trnth of the statement that “the strongest force in India to-day is the irrestible impulse towards responsible government and full national status.” The situation is one that calls for the wisest statesmanship. Lord Birkenhead’s cheerful repudiation of jeremiads concerning the “lost dominion” recalls the fact in the records of the Mother of Parliaments there is the prophecy of Lord Palmerston that “if India is ever lost to the British Crown it will be lost on the floor of the House of Commons.”