BRITAIN AND INDIA.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18404, 11 August 1931, Page 9

BRITAIN AND INDIA.

EXTENSION OF FREEDOM

SHOULD NOT MEAN INDEPENDENCE INFLUENTIAL AMERICAN'S VIEWS. The following article by William Randolph Hearst, the American newspaper proprietor, appeared in the Dally Mall. The world Is progressing and it has progressed largely through ths

precept and example, and perhaps partly through the compulsion, of the white races. Undoubtedly the sword has often ploughed fallow’ fields In preparation for the growth of civilisation. but there is little place for the plough after the field has been planted. The question In India and in the Philippines, however. Is not so much ■what has been done in the past and to what purpose, but how far are we governing these dependencies to-day for their own good and how far for our own good? If we can establish the fact that we are governing them even partly for their own good as well as partly for our good, we have excellent argument for continuing our sovereignty—that is, from the viewpoint of world welfare. It is hard, however, for these subject races, or at least for the politicians of these subject races, to regard the situation entirely from the viewpoint of world welfare.

India’s Large Minority.

A certain personal selfishness and a certain national selfishness enter into t?ielr calculations. Also, there exists the spiritual urge of a people to be free, not only regardless of world welfare but even at the sacrifice of some material national benefits.

One of our Philippine politicians reeently expressed this idea when he •aid, "We would rather be badly governed by ourselves than well governed by the United States." Tho Important question here is whether “we" means the Philippine people or the Philippine politicians. It is passible that the people might prefer good government by the United States while the politicians might find a bad government of their own more patriotic—and more profitable. In India, however, you know that ■ the majority of the Indian people are in favour of independence. Nevertheless, a very large fraction are opposed to It, and the British Empire has a very definite duty to this minority which believe in the Empire, have co-operated with the Empire, and depend upon the Empire tor protection. By the Test of Empire. The question, therefore, is not entirely “Is India ready for self-govern-ment?” There is also the equally important question, "is the British Empire ready tor Indian self-govern-ment?" In fact, to be comprehensive, there are three questions to be considered :— First, will the Independence of India be best for the welfare of the world? Second, will It be best for all the people of India? and Third, will It be best for the British Empire, that great political Institution which has meant so much for the progress and development and enlightenment of the world ? I have just enough provincialism—which is the new word used by the Internationalists in place of patriotism—to believe that the most important thing In .the world to an American is the welfare of the United States, and the most Important thing to an Englishman is the welfare of the British Empire. Freedom —Not Independence. Furthermore, in all probability the most important thing In the world is to preserve the integrity and Influence of those two great democratic political institutions —the United States ot America and the British Empire, which have for the past 150 years, at least, led the spiritual and material progress of the world. Western Civilisation has still a great work to do in guiding the East, ! and the two great leaders of Western Civilisation must do the greater part of that work, and should do it side by side and hand in hand. The danger to be apprehended from a generous measure of home rule to India lies chiefly in the possible failure of the Indian people and also of your own politicians to realise clearly and fully that freedom does not mean independence. Accompanying that realisation should go the corerlative understanding that independence does not necessarily mean freedom. India had independence under its Maharajahs and was the most oppressed nation in the world. It has bad a constantly Increasing measure of freedom under English rule, but it has not had independence. Clear Declaration Noaded. Personally. I should think that the situation in India ami at home ami throughout the world would be very greatly clarified if a very distinct, definite, and convincing declaration were made that, no matter how much freedom India were allowed, under no circumstances whatever would India be permitted Io have independence. There l». perhaps, no reason why Mr Gandhi should not be allowed to preach passive resistance as long as that policy .S met With passive resistance. but a policy of violence would doubtless be not with violence under the natural and logical assumption (Cdallnued in next column.)

that what is good for the goose is good for the Gandhi. It also seems to me that, not only in India, but everywhere, it is vitally | and basically important 'that the integrity and unity of the British Empire should be scrupulously and positively preserved, and that the fixed determination of the English people to preserve it should be clearly stated and thoroughly understood. i As an American observer of British Imperial conditions, it seems to me that the English should consider this Imperial integrity just as important as Americans considered the preservation of the integrity and unity of the United States—even by force of arms—in 1861. NV hat would have become of the I idled States if it had allowed itself to lie divided, and what will become of tlm British Empire if it allows itself bit by bit to be dismembered and dissolved? Furthermore (as a sop to the internationalists), how will it benefit the world to have these two great nations, leaders of progress, lose their leadership? I 1 do not believe much in interna- [ tionalisni as it is propounded and practised. There is too much duplicity in it on the part of other nations and too much gullibility on the part of our own. We in our simplicity grow hysterical over the problems of other peoples, but not even Hie watery eyes of our most emotional sentimentalists have ever observed other peoples sitting up nights in the endeavour to solve our complications. So. regardless of the internationalists and internationalism, let us preserve the power and Influence of our two great nations to the full, and let us make that power and influence as effective as possible through tlie possible co-operation.