1 MARCH 1930, Page 21


[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]

SIR,—It has constantly been pointed out and explained that India is made up of what is practically a collection of different nations like Europe, with equal variations in religion, customs, languages, etc., and yet, politicians, who neither know the country nor the language, wish to form a democratic govern- ment, on lines that are, suitable to our ways in the West.

One third of India is under Indian rulers, but it is in the two- thirds under British rule that trouble arises. Why should not the two-thirds of British India be divided up into Indian states and in some cases, added to the already existing ones ; and all the present trouble would probably cease? The Indian PlInces may not rule according to our Western ideas, but what is more important, they understand their people, and these latter seem satisfied with their rulers. The loyalty of the Indian Princes has been tested and proved, and they re- main staunch to the British Crown.

If India could be apportioned as suggested into States, this would surely simplify the greatest problem which now con- fronts the Empire in Dominion Status. With regard to the defence of India : were India to be given Dominion Status such as Canada, it would be quite incapable of maintaining a sufficiently competent force for its own protection, and the country would soon be lost by conquest.

On the other hand, if India were made up of states as sug. gested above, British troops could still be maintained in these states for protective purposes as they are now in those that already exist.—I am, Sir, &c., R. M. Poona. Wimitorne.