Why Must Wavell Go?

Wanganui Chronicle, 22 February 1947, Page 5

Why Must Wavell Go?

Lively Note To Debate In The Commons

Recd. 6 p.m. London, Feb. 21 Termination of the appointment of Lord Wavell a§ Viceroy of India and the appointment of Admiral Lord Louis Mount batten to that position led to lively criticism in the House of Commons yesterday, after the Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee) had made the announcement of the intended change.

Mr. Attlee said that Admiral Mountbatten would remain on the navy's active list and his future naval career would not be prejudiced. Mr. Attlee said that Lord Wavell’s was a war appointment, which it was now decided to terminate. Admiral Mountbatten would be entrusted with “responsibility for the government of British India in a manner to ensure India's future happiness and prosperity." ANSWER DEMANDED. Mr. Churchill then rose and repeated the question. The Opposition cheered and shouted, “answer.” Mr. Churchill said: “Surely the Prime Minister did not wake up one morning and say, ‘Let’s get another viceroy.’ There must be some reason behind this.” Mr. Attlee remained seated, with his feet resting on a table. r. Attlee replied to Mr. Clement Davies that the Government would welcome a full debate on the statement. He did not answer a question whether the statement meant the Government had now fixed a definite date for transferring power, and whether or not there was an agreement Mr. Churchill again pressed Mi. Attlee for the reason for the charge. “Now that Lord Wavell has been dismissed, may not we know what difference arose to lead to the dismusal?,” he asked. Mr. Attlee remained silent. Replying to Sir John Anderson, Mr. Attlee said he made a statement naming a definite date to remove uncertainty whether responsibility for India could finally be handed over. The Government could not let things drift.

REASONS WANTED FOR CHANGE Mr. Churchill said that Lord Waveh was entitled to be treated reasonably. He asked what had led to his removal or dismissal. Mr. Attlee replied: “Lord WaveL was not appointed for a fixed term. It was thought that the changed phase of the Indian problem was a suitable time to make a change.” Mr. Churchill: "What disagreements have arisen between Lord ’ Wavell and the British Government?” Mr. Attlee: “I don’t propose to add anything to my statement.” Mr. Churchill then asked why this moment was chosen for this momentous departure. “Why shouldn't we be told the truth?” Cries of “answer” followed Mr. Churchill’s questions. Mr. Attlee declined to amplify his statement and he did not reply when Mr. Churchill asked if Lord Wavell was to be permitted to make a public statement. MR. ATTLEE STILL SILENT. Mr. Churchill again unsuccessfully attempted to get an answer to the

“The Daily Telegraph’s” New Delhi correspondent says the first reaction to Cabinet's decision was widespread sympathy for Lord Wavell,. it is thought, had an impossible task, and is now made to apjMtf the scapegoat for failure of the Government to bring Indian parties together.

question whether the Government and Lord Wavell had disagreed. Mr. A. Henderson (Liberal). “Does Mr. Attlee realise that his refusal to answer must lead to the conclusion that sharp differences of opinion have arisen?” Mr. Attlee did not reply. He later walked from the Chamber, talking animatedly with Mr. Churchill. Otner members gathered around them, delaying the business if the House lor several minutes. “The Times,’ commenting on Mr. Churchill's "persistent cross-examina-tion ’ of Mr. Attlee, said the debate developed a noisy turbulence, mounting at times to uproar. Mr. Churchhill pressed his points with emphatic vigour, and hearty thumps of a dispatch box. Mr. Attlee was not moved to elaborate his statement. He lay back on the Treasury Bench tightlipped, and with a flush on his cheeks as Mr. Churchill, "in all humility,' repeated his questions about Lord Wavell to a rising chorus from tne Opposition of “Answer! answer!” . Reuter’s diplomatic correspondent says Lord Mountbatten has been appointed to succeed Lord Wavell largely because of his reputation for getting things done. His appointment has no reference whatsoever to his connection with the Royal Family. Lord Mountbatten is known throughout the world for his charm and personality and ability to secure cooperation. It is expected he will succeed in speeding up the process of disentangling Indian affairs.

The “Daily Telegraph,” in a leading article on India, says should civil war break out, history will place the blame at the door of the present British Government, which simply washes its hands of a problem that invites disorder throughout India and far beyond India’s borders. It is little wonder tnat in the circumstances Lord Wavell should feel his usefulness is ended. “Lord Wavell’s withdrawal will be a shock to British people, who rightly felt complete confidence in his character and abilities,’ says “The Times.” “Lord Mountbatten can count on the utmost goodwill from all sides. He has given proof of qualities fitting him for leadership in peace as well as in war.”

The “Daily Mail's” political correspondent says Lord Wavell had no alternative but to relinquish his post when he found his policy was not supported from Home. “The breach is said to have begun when the Congress Party sought to persuade Britain to compel the Moslems to withdraw from the Interim Government because of their failure to join the Constituent Assembly,” says the paper. "Lord Wavell resisted this pressure, but the British Cabinet, under threat of Congress withdrawal from the Interim Government, came down on the Congress side. Lord Wavell wanted to ren the Moslem members in the hope ...„t the agreement would spread more widely.”