INDIAN PROBLEMS ARE DISCUSSED

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19268, 3 January 1931, Page 1

INDIAN PROBLEMS ARE DISCUSSED

MODERATE LEADER EXPRESSES OPINIONS. (United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Received January 3, 12.30 p.m.) RUGBY, January 2. Further progress with the work of the Indian Round-Table Conference was made to-day when the Federal Structure Sub-committee discussed the question of the constitution, character, powers and responsibility oflhe Federal Executive. The whole of the afternoon session was occupied with a speech by one of the leading representatives of moderate opinion in British India. Addressing himself to the constitution as it at present exists, he objected to the possession by the Viceroy of certain powers respecting which he was really subject to the Secretary of State for India, and which the Viceroy had to exercise sometimes in a way contrary to his own views and those of the Executive Council. He objected to the powers of certification which prevented the Legislature rising to its full height, and he contrasted the position in this respect with that prevailing in the self-governing dominions at present. He declared that neither the Governor-General nor the Executive Council were answerable to the Legislature. Their responsibility was to the Crown and Parliament through the Secretary of State. If the Legislature knew that it was responsible and that its vote might throw out the Government it would act with more moderation in dealing with the problems of Government and administration. He would likg the GovernorGeneral to continue to be appointed by the Crown, as at present, and would like to make it impossible for the Commander-in-Chief to be a member of the Executive. He would not hesitate to replace the present Executive Council by a ministry chosen from members, or groups of members, of the Legislature representing the majority and working under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Obviously a period of transition would be necessary, during which certain subjects should be reserved, for example the Army and foreign policy. He recognised that there was need for caution, and these subjects, or any matters described as (Town subjects, should be administere! by a Minister appointed by the Governor-General, to whom the Minister would be responsible. The rest of the Ministry should be selected from elected members of the Legislature. He suggested that the subjects suitable for administration by Ministers responsible to the Legislature might include the portfolios of Home Affairs, Industry, Commerce and Labour, and those of the legal members and the member for education and lands. He asked that the Gov-ernor-General’s choice of the Minister for Crown Subjects should be without restriction as to race and thought. The Army portfolio might well go to an Indian. He said that it should not be difficult to fashion a clause in the constitution acknowledging in the clearest terms India’s liability to meet debts and interest. Every decentminded Indian was prepared to stand by any liability he inherited, and he desired also to see the pensions, salaries and allowances of the services protected in every way.

Concluding, he appealed to Britain, whose Government had done more for liberty than any Government in the world to restore India’s faith, and notably that of those who in many cases were in gaol because of acts done arising out of lack of faith.

During the morning session of the sub-committee the subject of direct, or indirect, election was discussed, and there was general agreement that indirect election was the only possible system for the L T pper House, while direct election was largely favoured for the Lower House. Regarding the latter, there was full recognition of the difficulties due to the size of the con-

stituencies, which might extend to 00,000 square miles in some rural areas, and the impracticability of contact between constituents and their representatives. It was felt that too precise a definition of direct election need not be insisted upon.

When discussing the question of the constitution, character, powers and responsibilities of the Federal Executive, the chairman. Lord Sankey, observed that it would be useless for Great Britain to suggest to India something which was not worth having, and it was equally useless for India to demand what Great Britain could not at present grant.

It is anticipated that as a result of daily sessions this week, the Federal Structure Sub-committee will complete its discussions by Thursday, and that

during the following week the report, which will be prepared by its chairman, Lord Sankey, will be available for consideration.