INDIAN REFORM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22422, 17 November 1934, Page 16

INDIAN REFORM

DEBATE AT CONSERVATIVE CONFERENCE A CLOSE VOTE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 5. The most important donate on the opening day of the conference, of the National Union of . Conservative and Unionist Associations was that relating, to Indian reform. The conference gave a rousing ovation to Sir Henry Page Croft when he moved his resolution warning the Government of the dangers of their Indian policy. The resolution contained thfe words: "This conference, while prepared to support proposals for a greater measure of self-government in the provinces of India,' step by step, in accordance with the Government of India Act, recordsets emphatic opinion thdt the partnership of Britain and India in the _ Ceptral Government of the Indian Empire must not be dissolved, and urges the Government to assent to no proposals which would imperil the future of India within the Empire or impair the confidence and unity of the Conservative Party in view of the menace of Socialism.” If they had strong views in this matter, said Sir Henry Page Croft, it was their duty to express them now, before .Parliament or Mr Baldwin was committed. The members of the conference had just as much right to say what their views were to the Joint Select Committee as had the scores of’lndians who had come over here to give their evidence. , The White Paper meant the end of the partnership of British and Indians in association in the internal government and administration of India-—(cries of No ) —but Conservatives refused to end that partnership, which they regarded as vital not only to the masses of India, out to the Imperial connection.. They were, however, prepared, not without serious misgivings, to go so far’ as. a tremendous experiment with self-government—home rule —in the provinces of India on the lines of the report of the Simon Commission, but they could not consent to abdicate at the centre. ' OPPOSED TO CONSERVATIVE TRADITIONS. The White Paper policy was initiated by the last Socialist Government and Lord Reading. It was opposed to the traditions of the Conservative Party. It was a reversion to the ideals of Cobden. There was no demand for this policy among the British people, and it was not wanted in India. The provinces dreaded it, and the Indian Liberal leaders only urged its acceptance in order to emulate Mr de Valera. There was only one force) that could save India for the Empire, and. that was the Conservative Party.— Lieutenant-commander Agnew, M-P-, seconding, said that the question of India had never been laid before the people of this country. There was no mandate to proceed with a scheme of federahsed democracy, such as w r as laid down in the White Paper. He was dismayed that proposals sponsored by the Socialist Party had been taken up by a Government fourfifths of whose supporters were members of the Conservative Party. THE AMENDMENT. Alderman John Inskip (Bristol) moved the following amendment;—-“ That in view of the decision of the conference last year at Birmingham, that it would not come to any final conclusion on the proposals for a new constitution for India until the Joint Select Committee had made its recommendations, it is not in the interests of the party that this conference should pass any resolution, particularly as it has been decided that a special meeting of the council of the National Union should be held to take counsel with the leader of the party when the report of the Joint Select Committee Is published.” _ _ _ He said that Sir Henry Page Croft would have the conference believe that the amendment was tantamount, to suggesting that the delegates had no views of their own and had no right to express themselves. It was idle to suggest to a great assembly representative of the Conservative Party that they had no wills of their own. The question was not whether they should have the right to express those views, but whether this was the time and place to express them on that question.— (Cheers.) . He invited the conference to await the report of the Joint Select Committee before passing any resolution, and that was the decision of the Conservative Party last vear at the Birmingham conference. Did they want to tell the world that thev were prepared to surrender their Indian policy now to internal and party considerations?—(Cheers.) The resolu-J

tion could never b* effective. 1 Thereafter the conference made it plain that it wished to vote as, soon as possible. The Duchess of Atholl was given ;» second term of five minutes, which the delegates promptly followed up by refusing to listen to her. When she sat down the closure was moved and carried, although the conference .bad apparently overlooked the fact, until Miss. Evans, the chairman, firmly pointed it out, that Sir Henry Page Croft had thus been; deprived of his right of reply.! There was a babel of noise when the vote was taken. V, 543 AGAINST 520. ~ ’ ■ The result of the show of hands was obviously so close, that the decision to take a ballot was generally welcomed. The proceedings closed at 5 o’clock,, but a large proportion of the, delegates re; mained behind until half-past 5, when, amid cheers' and counter-cheers, the chairman announced that the amendment bad been carried by 543 votes to- 520. ■ At Birmingham last year a similar amendment was carried by 737 votes: to 344, so that practically the same number of delegates took part, in the ballot on each, occasion. ' SIR H. PAGE CROFT INTERVIEWED. Speaking of the debate ■ afterwards, Sir Henry Page Croft said: — * ' “ I think it is a dramatic and remarkable result, and I imagine that it can only have the effect of influencing the whole policy of the Government in regard to India. , ' ' “ I was amazed to find,that the closure was applied, in view of the fact that Mr Baldwin had advocated {he utmost frankness and freedom in his recent correspondence with me. . "The result shows.a remarkable increase in the vote of those who realise the perils of the Indian reforms. . " It was, in my view, a great mistake to bring the discussion to a close, as the debate had only been in progress a very short time. ■ - "It seems very atrange that Nora Ampthill, who wgs Governor of Madras for five years, and Viceroy of India for a year, during the late Lord Curzon a absence, should have been precluded from addressing the conference for the first time, and prevented from uttering his warning. Sir Alfred Knox, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, was another of those prevented from addressing the conference.'' . . " I feel very strongly about that, and this conduct is extraordinarily strange and may account for the small majority which thev obtained for the amendment^ ■ "T do not wish to say very much about the methods which were adopted to carry that amendment but it is even suggested that a member of the Select Committee voted in the division, which, to my mind, is most improper."