THE
ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD.
By EVELYN WRENCH. THE Imperial Conference devoted three days last week to a discussion of that ever-recurring and most knotty of problems, the status of Indians within the Empire, and an excellent report concerning the debate has been 'issued in which the transcript of the speeches alone occupies 30,000 words. Admittedly, the subject is One of appalling difficulty, nevertheless, distinct head- -way, apart from South Africa's neon. possuraa s, has been made. Briefly the position is as follows-: The present Conference inherits this "status of Indians in the Empire" discussion-from the Imperial Conferences of 1918 and 1921. The former declared the right of each self-governing State in the British Commonwealth "to. control the com- position of its population by means" Of restriction on immigration." The Conference of 1921 stated that in the interests of Imperial unity it was desirable to remove "the disabilities upon British Indians domiciled in other parts of the Empire" and to recognize their full citizenship. The Times has very wisely pointed out that the two questions of Indian status and Indian immi- gration are distinct and must be dealt with separately or else there can be little prospect of a settlement. The resolution of the 1921 Conference was, however, not unanimous. South Africa abstained from voting.
*. * A most eloquent speech. was made by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who put the Indian point of -view with welcotne restraint. Yet he did not sacrifice any of the telling arguments in his case by so doing. Indeed, it is impossible to deny the strength of the Indian claim. In referring to the unanimity of Indian feeling on the subject Sir Tej Sapru remarked : "'We express that feeling in the vernacular of our own country by the comprehensive and delicate phrase Izzat.' When Izzat,' which means 'honour,' :is at stake we prefer death to anything else." But the Indian delegate did not confine himself to picturesque phrases.: he made what appears to be a sensible and reaSonable suggestion which has been accepted by all the parties excepting South Africa. He recommends that the Imperial Government, on behalf of such areas as Fiji, British Guiana, Uganda and elsewhere, and the Dominion Governments which have Indian populations, should appoint committees to confer with a committee to be appointed by the Government of India (not the India:Office be it noted) to explore •" the avenues how best and how soonest the principle of equality implicit in the 1921 resolution may be implemented."
As regards the position of Indians in Kenya, which has recently been the subject of so much discussion in India, Kenya and Great Britain, the Duke of Devonshire, Secretary of State for the Colonies, pointed out that the British Government was not prepared for an immediate reopening of that issue. At the same time he expressed his willingness to set Up in due course a committee at the Colonial Office to confer with a committee from India. This committee would not be debarred from considering the affairs of any Crown Colony, and thus Kenya would not be excluded from its purview.
* * My final two paragraphs concerning this Indian status question must be devoted to South Africa's position about which in its leading article the Times writes : In South - Africa alone the question appears to be
* *
•
insoluble." Certainly .American readers of the Spectator, with their experience of this problem of equality of political status of two races, will be the last to minimize the difficulties. The Indian situation in South Africa is unlike that in any of the other self-governing Dominions, for there are 160,000 Indians in the Union, most of whom dwell in Natal, and as General Smuts pointed out, if the franchise were given to them the white settlers would be outvoted in that Colony. General. Smuts, in his official position as representative of the Union, apparently regards the matter as insoluble and asks his colleagues "to let the matter stand over," though what his own personal views are is another 'matter. Sir Valentine Chirol, in his letter to the .Times, scores a point over General Smuts when he points out that General Smuts, who has recently. pleaded for the application of "the highest standards of justice and freedom in the affairs of Europe," refuses to apply them in South Africa to His Majesty's Indian subjects. We must, however, appreciate the difficulties _of . General Smuts' position. When he talks. of European affairs it is the liberal-minded world-statesman speaking. When he. deals with South African problems it is the Prime Minister of a vigorous democracy talking whose Government is kept in power by a none too large majority.
• * If the situation .remains as it is in South Africa the words which. Sir .Tej Sapru addressed to General Smuts assume added. significance :-- "I tell him (General Smuts) frankly that if the Indian problem
in South Africa is allowed to fester much longer it will pass beyond the bounds of a domestic issue and will become a question of foreigr.
policy of such gravitT, that upon it the unity of the Empire May founder irretrievably."
We seem, therefore, 10 be .up against a blank wall, but surely our statesmanship . can not be quite bankrupt, and, given tact and patience on both sides, there must be a way out. Could not the South African Government send a deputation of three leading men of affairs to India to discuss the matter with the Government of India ? The Maharajah of Alwar announces that he hopes to accept General Smuts' invitation to visit South Africa at' no distant date. If only a committee of, moderate men from both 'sides could be got round the conference table a, settlement satisfactory to both peoples could be arrived at.
* * *, * Last Saturday Mr. Harvey, the retiring American Ambassador to the Court of St. James, and Mr. Lloyd George embarked for their respective homes. Mr. Harvey made a very remarkable statement before leaving Southampton., . He said : "There is now nothing that can disturb the harmonious relations between Britain and America, and the feeling between the two peoples is better— to-day than .long before the Revolution one hundred and sixty years ago." How deeply significant was the statement can only be realized when we recall that Mr. Harvey weighs his utterances carefully and is not prone to exaggeration. .1Ie . thus concluded his valedictory message, "If these two great countries do not hang together, there is nothing left .for the world," to which 'we can all assuredly say, Amen.
* * . 4 * Mr. Lloyd George's return home after a five wecks' tour throughout Canada and the United States has been the occasion of much comment in the American Press. Mr. F. W. Wile refers to his visit as "a month's triumphal progress," and believes that his utterances galvanized "with new life the spirit of the English-speaking frater- nity." All the comment was not equally enthusiastic, naturally, and a small minority, representing those invariably hostile to British-American friendship, dubbed him "an officious propagandist." On the whole, how- ever, there -is no doubt whatever that Mr. Lloyd George scored a great personal success and that he performed yeoman service to the cause, so dear to the Spectator's heart, of British-American friendship.
Previous page
