INDIAN REFORMS

Southland Times, Issue 22487, 24 November 1934, Page 5

INDIAN REFORMS

NEW CONSTITUTION

CONTROVERSY BEGUN

DISCUSSION ON REPORT

VALUABLE DOCUMENT

(British Official Wireless.)

Rugby, November 22. The controversy on the Joint Select Committee’s report on Indian Constitutional Reform has already begun in the Press, but in more responsible quarters it is generally recognized that the report must inevitably rank as one of the great State papers of Britain s political history. The Times says that the amendments to the White Paper, while neither few nor negligible, do not affect the main principles of the new constitutional scheme for the freedom of Indians to develop as the years go on. These amendments, affecting in particular the police and pensions, free trading and powers of governors, many of which will remain a dead letter if all goes well with India, are bound to decisive effect on the reception of the report in England. The Manchester Guardian pays a tribute to the breadth and dignity with which the authors of the report have handled their task, and it also emphasizes that after a year and a half of the most searching examination by some of the wisest and most experienced statesmen, proposals for the federation of all India and for wide, experienced and responsible government among her peoples are left unshaken. Turning to details, the Guardian regards the stiffening of safeguards as mostly ■ strengthening of form rather than constitutional substance, while few, though still too few, useful concessions have been made to Indian opinion.' Grave Fears Aroused. The Morning Post expresses strong opposition to general confirmation of the White Paper proposals, which, it says, have aroused grave fears in India and England. It notes as an ominous feature of the proceedings of the committee fundamental differences between the majority and minority, and lays emphasis on the view expressed by the Conservative minority which endorses the Simon Commission and’ would maintain strong government at the centre responsible to Westminster. The Daily Telegraph examines these committee differences and remarks that on most matters a remarkable degree of unity is shown. Differences of opinion, it says, will continue to find expression, but the Select Committee has ensured that opinion shall be informed. The News-Chronicle says the report represents a great landmark of British history. Now that reservations are not ’ on the whole of very great importance it would have liked to have seen India’s aspirations met with greater sympathy and less suspicion, but it thinks opinion in the end, however critical, would be well advised not to magnify them out of the true perspective. Critical Indian Comment. Indian Press comments are in the main highly critical and disposed to magnify the safeguards and special responsibilities placed in the hands of the Governor-General and provincial governors. The extreme section _of Conservative opinion in Britain maintains with equal vigour that the reforms go too far and too fast. In between there is jammed a body of moderate opinion, both in India and in Britain, which recognizes the momentous nature of the proposals, but is not afraid. . , _ , , The chairman of the Joint Select Committee, the Marquis of Linlithgow, referred to the subject of safeguards in a broadcast. Responsible government, he pointed out, was not an automatic device which could be manufactured to specifications anywhere. It depended for successful working on the existence of certain conditions which were as essential as they were difficult to define. The committee held that there was no doubt that if free play were given to powerful forces—be they communal, racial or religious—which would be set free by an unqualified system of parliamentary government in India, the consequence would be disastrous to India and perhaps irreparable. They were satisfied to grant responsible government. If the grant was to be a reality it demanded the presence of certain statutory safeguards. These in some form or other found a place in most constitutions, no less in the Constitution of Britain, though their existence was often forgotten because with Britain’s long parliamentary tradition the need for emphasizing them had largely disappeared and because they for the most part were based on custom and convention and not on any statutory enactment. Safeguards of this kind, said the Marquis of Linlithgow, were not only not inconsistent with some form of responsible government, but in the present circumstances in India they were in truth a necessary complement to any form, and without them it could have little hope of success. It was in exact proportion as Indian fellow subjects showed themselves to be capable of taking and exercising responsibility and able to supply those elements in their political life which only experience could give, that the safeguards and their use would, as in Britain, disappear. Mr George Lansbury declares that the Labour Party cannot accept any responsibility for the India proposals, which he considers will not be passed by a House representing the whole nation, but by a House in which onethird of the electors cannot join in telling India that these are the British nation’s proposals. INDIAN NATIONALISTS INDIGNATION OVER REPORT. (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) Bombay, November 22. The Nationalist Newspapers are blazing with indignation against the report. The chairman of the Indian Merchants Chamber declares that commercial safeguards are entirely provided in the interests of British trade and industry. Bengalis are especially bitter over the communal award. A vernacular newspaper alleges that it aims to promote discord and provincial jealousies. Congressmen, business men and prominent people are reserving their opinion until the report has been perused and discussed. , A message from Delhi states that the report is not likely to prove so unacceptable as extremists like to suggest.