India and the Commission
rrHE British public is deeply interested in India, and JL has long since accepted the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme as implying that some day India will govern herself. But not everyone at home has realized that the transition period may be not only prolonged, but also troublesome, and that we need to exercise infinite patience and make the fullest allowance for the difficulties of the Indian politicians.
At the present moment the situation in India, if inter- preted literally and judged from a purely British stand- point, is paradoxical in the extreme. The Parliamentary Commission headed by Sir John Simon is about to proceed to India, charged with the duty of reporting to the Imperial Parliament on the working of the reforms of 1920, and of recommending, perhaps, a further instalment of self-government. The Commission is responsible only to Parliament and not to India, and therefore it is com- posed entirely of British public men. But the Commis- sioners are anxious to learn the opinions of representatives of all classes, races and religions in India, and especially the views of the members of the central and local legis- latures. They anticipated no difficulty on this score, and were surprised to find themselves threatened with a boycott last spring, on the ground that Indians ought to share in the labours of the Commission.
Sir John Simon, who has shown commendable tact in handling the great and thorny problem, promised that the Commission would, before leaving India, consult with a Central Committee nominated by the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly. He assumed that this concession would go far to satisfy the Nationalists. Again he was disappointed. The Council agreed to name its delegates for the Central Committee, but the Legis- lative Assembly definitely refused. Moreover, a number of the more active Nationalists, to mark their repudiation of Sir John Simon and his fellow-Commissioners, organized a so-called "All-Parties Conference" at Lucknow to draft a new Constitution for India. Sir John Simon, taking them at their word, telegraphed to the Viceroy, asking him to nominate that section of the Central Committee which the Legislative Assembly had declined to fill. The Nationalist leaders immediately denounced Sir John for urging the Viceroy to commit "a grave constitutional impropriety." They would seem to be illogical in first demanding Indian representation on the Commission and then attacking the chairman when he tries as far as possible to ensure that leading Indian politicians shall share in the Commission's labours. For, if the Nationalists had their way, the Central Committee would remain incomplete and unrepresentative.
Arrived at this point we must still exercise patience, and remember that the Indian politicians who demand " Swaraj "or Home Rule do not always mean what they say, or say what they mean. Most of them are fully conscious that complete " Swaraj " in the near future is impossible, and that it would be a calamity for India, and for themselves in particular, if the British adminis- trators and troops suddenly left the country as the Roman officials and legions left Britain early in the fifth century. No such withdrawal can take place or will take place. The rational Home Rulers want to expedite the transition to complete self-government, but they assume that British administrators will remain to help Indian Ministers and that British troops will stay to keep order. There is, in reality, no fundamental quarrel between them and the British advocates of Indian constitutional progress. It is a question of the speed at which, and the time when, the next stages in India's development are to be carried out. We are not thinking of the extremists, who cannot be placated, but in any event they are few and possess little influence.
It must be remembered, again, that most of the ad- vanced Indian politicians have been trained to criticize and to oppose. They delight in the applause which they gain by attacking what Mr. Gandhi calls the " satanic " Government. It is easier to be in opposition than to take part in the dull work of administration and thus expose oneself to criticism. In the autobiography of Sir S. Banerjee, for instance, it was easy to see how that eloquent and attractive Bengali patriot, when he was at. last persuaded to take office, regretted the freedom and irresponsibility which he had enjoyed on the Oppo- sition benches. No doubt the Irish Free State Ministers feel the cares of office just as deeply, now that mistakes can no longer be put down to the ill-will of Whitehall. We must make full allowance for these over-ingenious Indian Nationalists who devote their talents to criticism when they might be employed more profitably. Time is the only cure for their vagaries. They are gradually overcoming their unwillingness to take office, and ten years hence they will perhaps look back with wonder and regret at the opportunities that they have misused. Experience in the actual work of the departments, which is now open to them, may be trusted to modify the exalted ideas of any Swarajist. But British opinion must remain steady. Any suggestion that Parliament wishes to go back on what it granted India after the War, or curtail the measure of self-government, would merely add fuel to the Nationalist flame and delay the healing process.
We have had a reminder this week that India includes more than the territories under direct British adminis- tration. A third of its area and a fifth of its population are governed by the Indian Princes, some of whom are very great potentates and all of whom are guaranteed by treaty the support of the British Empire. What would happen to them if the British left India ? The Nationalist politicians do not face this question, but it cannot be ignored. There have been signs of increasing Swarajist agitation directed against the Indian Princes, but those rulers are fully capable of keeping order in their territories. The Princes protest their loyalty to the Crown, and they are assured of its protection. Their future relations with a self-governing India cannot be defined without much careful discussion and inquiry. To suppose that the question will solve itself is sheer fantasy. Still here again we do not believe that the Nationalist leaders are not conscious of the difficulty. They arc really waiting for Parliament to suggest a solution, though it is their cue to profess a sublime indifference to British opinion,
Previous page
