Great Britain and India
The Round Table Conference
We are glad to have the opportunity of publishing the views of Sir T. 13. Sapru, one of the delegates to the Round Table Con- ference and one of the negotiators in the recent discussions with Mr. Gandhi. The Spectator has opened its columns each week to a free discussion of Indian problems because it recognizes the significance of Sir T. B. Sapnes statement that " a loss of faith in the intentions of England is the outstanding feature of Indian political life." We think, however, that many in India ignore the large and, we believe, growing section of opinion in Great Britain that recognizes India's right to decide her own future —En. Spectator.] Tim general feeling in India about the issue of the Round Table Conference is undoubtedly one of pessimism. The refusal of the Congress to participate in the Conference, followed as it has been by a vigorous campaign against those who have decided to participate in it, has added to the piquancy of the situation. The Congressmen argue that the very fact that the Conference is to be a free Conference invests it with the character of a debating society and makes the chances of an agreement between the Indian section and the English section of the Conference highly problematical.
It is argued that all that has been said authoritatively is that Dominion Status is the ultimate goal of England's policy towards India, and even this declaration has been challenged by certain leaders of the opposition and retired Anglo-Indian administrators. What India wants, so it is argued, is not promises but the immediate fulfilment of promises already made, not goals but the completion of the journey, not high sounding expressions of sympathy with her demands but the translation of that sympathy into the actualities of a free and democratic constitution enabling her to claim equality of status with the self-governing domin- ions of the British Commonwealth. This may be said to represent not only the sentiments of the well-meaning and sensible section of the Congressmen, but also many others who differ from the present-day disruptive activities of the Congress and its new war-cry of Independence.
The fact is that a loss of faith in the intentions of England is the outstanding feature of Indian political life. I am stating the fact and not its justification. It is necessary that this fact should be stated bluntly, so that the approach to the solution of the problem may not be covered by a jungle of wrong ideas and confused thinking. There is a section of opinion in England represented by certain retired administrators of a bygone period which refuses to recognize that India has changed, or that it is no longer prepared to acquiesce in the claim of the Secretary of State or the Government of India to play the part of an earthly providence.
The advocates of " force or martial law and no d—d nonsense " forget that there are obvious limitations to the application of their political creed or methods in dealing with a population of hundreds of millions spread over a country of the size of India. I am no believer in Mr. Gandhi's philosophy of life, or his economic theories or his famous " eleven points." To me much of that philosophy of life appears to be a thinly veiled edition of the ancient Hindu doctrine of self-abnegation and suffering which has been a continuous thread in our history. There is nothing peculiar about it except that it has survived up to the present day in our national life. The history of the early Christians is not without parallels to it, and one can come across remarkable parallels to it even in our own times in other countries. Tolstoy was its exponent in Russia and Mr. Gandhi has emphasized it in our day in India and found a ready response mainly because his philosophy makes such a traditional appeal to the Indian mind.
His economic theory, howsoever lacking in modernity, finds ready acceptance with so many minds because it embodies a protest against the dominance of the West in our economic and political life and makes a powerful appeal to the imagination of the millions of the have-nots in India. His eleven points are like the proverbial curate's egg—but it is no longer a secret that even the Nehrus—father and son—are not free from scepticism_ about their soundness. Mr. Gandhi's theories may be sound or unsound, that is
not the point ; the point is that they are occupying the field, they are filling the minds of men and impelling them to action. Dissent from them is denounced as " Un- patriotic." During my recent journeyings I have seen some- thing of the new ferment and I have often asked myself the question—whither and what next ?
If the Round Table Conference does not mean to toy with the problem it must bring to bear upon its work courage, frankness and vision. None of these qualities is neees. sarily opposed to caution or fairness to all.
The Conference will fail if the English section of it refuses to recognize that the day of " doles " of reforms is over and past recall, and that it is only a big constructive scheme which can save the situation in India and remove the conflict between Indian patriotism and Indian loyalty to her connexion with England.
Similarly the Conference will fail if the Indian section shut their eyes to the real difficulties which must be faced. The settlement of the, minority question, the protection of the interests of what are called the depressed classes, the adjust- ment of the relations between British India and Indian States are some of the difficulties which must be solved. Even more important than these is the question of self- defence. No one who has applied his mind to these questions can ignore them or minimize their importance, but it is one thing to face difficulties and to try to solve them and another to catalogue them as barriers in our way.
Given good will on all sides, and a genuine desire to help progress, I do not see why we should not be able to come to a satisfactory working settlement of all these outstanding problems. The real thing is that the status of India should be one of equality with the Dominions, which implies the transference of power into Indian hands. Indian and English prudence and statesmanship can come to a settlement as to such limitations upon the functioning of the Dominion Constitution for the period of transition as may seem to be of primary importance in the interest of public safety. If such temporary limitations are the result of an agreement and are not forced on India, the future may be looked forward to with confidence.
I am aware that constitutional purists hold that to the English mind Dominion status is an achieved result, an accomplished fact and quite different from an attempt to achieve that result. Mr. Wedgwood Benn himself spoke some time ago of Dominion Status for India being already in action so far as its representation on the League of Nations or at the Imperial Conference was concerned. Similarly to the extent to which India can as a result of the Round Table Conference regulate her internal policy in domestic and fiscal matters, it will be a case again of Dominion Status in action—the rest being in abeyance for the period of transition. Never- theless, her status will have been determined, the functions enlarged, some limitations imposed by agreement upon those functions, only to be removed not in the indefinite future, but as soon as India has gained sufficient confidence to he able to do away with those limitations.
It would be a mistake to ignore or to treat cavalierly the present Indian psychology or to sacrifice considerations of practical statesmanship at the altar of constitutional purism or mere logic. I can only enter one warning without going into details. Whether the Constitution of India is to be of the federal or unitary type, it would, in my opinion, be courting disaster to transfer power and responsibility in the provinces, and to leave the centre as it is only because it is held that the Central Government should not be weakened. I am myself a believer in strong Central Government, but to establish a central legislature and to require a small irrespon- sible Executive to face such a legislature from day to day is not to provide for a strong Central Government, but to make that Government a weak Government, and, what is worse, to give it an odious appearance in the eyes of the public. I refrain from developing the point, as it must be thrashed out at the
Previous page
