CRISIS IN INDIA.

Wairarapa Age, 11 March 1922, Page 5

CRISIS IN INDIA.

' SENSATIONAL DESPATCH. SECRETARY FOR INDIA RESIGNS, (Press Association—Copyright.) London, March 8. —The papers comment at length on a despatch from the Government of India, appealing for th e revision the Sevres Treaty, for the evacuation of Constantinople, the suzerainty of the Sultan over the hoI}/ 1 }/ places of Islam, and the restoration of Ottoman Thrace. CABINET NOT CONSULTED. THE SECRETARY CENSURED. London, March 9.—ln the House of Commons Mr Austen Chamberlain, referring to the publication of the telegram, said it was published by the Government of India with the sanction of the Secretary for India (Mr E. S. Montagu). No other Mnister had been consulted. Mr Chamberlain said he desired to abstain from comment on the telegram, although the terms exceeded those demanded by the Turks’ warmest friends. This was a matter for discussion at the Conference in Paris. Mr Chamberlain stated that the Government was unable to reconcile the publication of the telegram on the sole responsibility of Mr Montagu with the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, or with th© duty which all Governments of the Empire owed to each other in matters of Imperial concern. Such independent declarations destroy ed the unity of policy which was vital to preserve foreign affairs, and gravply imperilled the success of the pending negotiations. MR MONTAGU RESIGNS. London, March 9.—Mr E. S. Montagu (Secretary for India) has resigned. “A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.” (Received 5.5 p.m.) London, March 9.—Mr Montagu’s resignation may further delay Mr Lloyd George’s holiday. Lord Sydenham, interviewed, said: ‘‘The Government of India’s step is a dangerous precedent, which is thoroughly unconstitutional, though it is natural that, being in a position of gravest difficulty, which Mr Montagu’s guidance helped to create, it should grasp at any straw wihch it had been induced to think might help to save the situation. I do not believe the fulfilment of Lord Reading’s demands, which are impossible, would have the smallest effect in ameliorating the dangerous position in India, where Mohammedan excitement has passed beyond control.” •‘A COWARDLY SURRENDER.” General Sir O’Moore Creagh (Com-mander-in-Chief in India, 1909-14) con siders Lord Reading’s proposals an absolutely cowardly surrender to Gandhi, and opposed to the wishes of orthodox Mohammedans in India.—(A and N.Z.) MR. MONTAGU’S EXPLANATION. (Received 7.5 pm.) London, March 9. —Mr E. S. Mon tagu, in a letter to Mr Lloyd George -resigning his portfolio, says: “After cur conversation this morning I feel it my cluty to resign. In sanctioning the publication of the views of the Government of India I did not see much, if anything, which it had not said again and again. Since the peace conference I have been fully seized with the grave difficulties which resulted in India from the Treaty of Sevres, ana I felt I was doing my duty to do everything in my power to support the Government of India. When, therefore, I was assured that the Gov ernment of India regarded the matter as one of great urgency, I felt justi tied in the action I took. I believe much would be gained, and little lo*‘. by pubilicity of these matters.' “I regret leaving the Government, but, despite the present difficulties, I feel the present policy of the Government in India will win through to s ic cess.” —(A. and N.Z.) LLOYD GEORGE’S REPLY. ACTION INDEFENSIBLE. GREAT PRINCIPLE INVOLVED. (Received 7.25 p.m.) London, March 9 —Mr Lloyd George, replying, said: “I do not doubt you were actuated solely by a sense of public duty. Nevertheless, without pressing necessity, and without consulting either the Cabinet, the Foreign Secretary, myself, or anyone of my colleagues, you published a telegram raising a question the importance of which extends far beyond the frontiers of India or the responsibilities 1 of your office. Such action was to- ■ tally incompatible with the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to the Sovereign and Parliament. “I cannot doubt that on reflection you will share my view that after wh<.t has occurred we cannot usefully co-operate in the same Cabinet. I must add that the right of the Government of India to stat© its views on the Eastern question is not in dispute. The Government has afforded Moham - medan opinion in India every possible opportunity of expressing its views. “If the Governments of the Empire were all to claim liberty of publishing declarations on matters vitally affect ing the relations of the whole Empire with foreign Powers, the unity of our

foreign policy would be broken an 1 the very existence of the Em pin jeopardised. | “The moment chosen for your ' tion, moreover, is indefensible fr••m ’ the standpoint which must govern < r | action on broad Imperial interests. A. i conference on the Near East is about to take place, and the questions to br ' discussed there are of the utmost deli- : cacy. The weight of responsibility | which the Foreign Secretary will have , to carry wiil in any case be \nost se r . ; ous, and your action has added consid- ! erably to the difficulties of a task which is already delicate enough.” A postcript adds that publication of 1 a telegram from Mr Montagu to the Viceroy would aggravate the bad effects of the maniferto, and the Government could not consent to such a course. —(A. and N.Z)