FUTURE OF INDIA

Taranaki Daily News, 29 March 1933, Page 7

FUTURE OF INDIA

COMMONS BEGIN DEBATE AIM AT STABLE GOVERNMENT UNPRECEDENTED MOTION LABOUR URGES SELF-RULE LIBERALS RECALL IRELAND (British Official Wireless.) Rec> 5.5 p.m. Rugby, March 27. Great interest is taken in the discussion which arose out of the Government’s motion providing that before Parliament was asked to make a decision on the Indian proposals a joint select committee of Lords and Commons with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and British India should be appointed to consider the future Government of India.

The Opposition, although it has decided to appoint representatives to serve on the committee, considers the Government’s proposals inadequate. On the other hand a group of Conservative members, who constitute the Indian Defence Committee, considers the proposals go much too far, but in view of the. declaration that the joint committee is to be set up “before Parliament is asked to take decision” they will move no amendments but will content themselves with vigorous protest. Liberal members are supporting the Government. Opening the three-day debate in the House of Commons, the Secretary for India (Sir Samuel Hoare) said it was in view of the extremely difficult and highly controversial nature of Indian problems that he had proposed to the House the unprecedented procedure under which a joint select committee of inquiry should be set up before any decisions were taken.

POLICY NOT ALTERED. “It is all moonshine." said Sir Samuel, “to suggest the Government has in any way altered its general line policy or modified its proposals of procedure as a result of pressure from any section of the House.” 'The Indian States would be free to enter the federation or not as they wished, he said. Effective accession of a sufficient number of States was a fundamental condition of the whole proposals. One of the great advantages of the federal scheme was the opportunity it would give the great provinces of developing on their own lines. Sir Samuel believed the proposal for decentralisation might well be one that would give new life to Indian development. Sir Samuel defended the safeguards that had been attached from both sides as the key questions of the Government proposals. They were safeguards if need be that could be carried into full effect.

The importance of maintaining the credit of India, which was an essential condition to success of the federation, had been kept fully in mind. He emphasised that Parliament must remember the history of last century, and that year after year India had been led to believe in the continuous bestowal of due instalments of constitutional progress. The outstanding conclusion of the Simon Commission was acceptance of the fact that great changes were now inevitable. EMPHASIS ON ESSENTIALS. The Government proposed to concentrate upon essentials and define responsibility. It agreed it was essential that the executive Government, both in the centres and the provinces, should be strong and the White Paper recently issued in the House of Commons contained a comprehensive scheme to that effect The Government had tried to give the fullest possible scope to Indian aspirations, and safeguards were introduced which wqre believed to be necessary in the interests of stable government Major C. R. Atlee (Labour), a member of the 1927 Indian Statutory Commission, said Labour desired to see the successive pledges given India fulfilled. He reaffirmed the right of the Indian people to full self-government and equality with other members of the British Commonwealth. The White Paper seemed in direct conflict with earlier pledges, and it appeared to be designed to placate Mr. Winston Churchill and his followers. The safeguards went beyond necessities, and the whole idea of Dominion status had gone, even as the ultimate goal. In effect India would have only a dynarchy which he and his colleagues on the Simon Commission condemned. Sir Herbert Samuel said the Liberals thought it the House of Commons’ duty to show that a solid mass of responsible public opinion was behind the proposals, as in the main was European opinion in India. Britain, in relation to India, was now in much the same position as it was toward Ireland when self-govern-ment was first proposed in 1886. “If we missed the present opportunity in India there may be a rebellion and bloodshed, as there has been in Ireland,” Sir Hubert added. The debate was adjourned.