Correspondence
A LETTER FROM INDIA.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.} Sus,—To-day there is a hartal to express the City's dissatis- faction at the constitution of the Parliamentary Commission which, under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon, is to inquire into the working of the Indian Constitution. A hartal is the historic means of expressing discontent in India. Our historical tradition being one of unfettered autocracy, when the autocrat became intolerable, the people went on strike. just as the Chinaman committed suicide on the doorstep of his adversary, so that the offender might be damned hereafter, so the Indian went dharma, and sat idle and silent on the threshold of his enemy, or the whole community in India just struck work when their woes became intolerable.
Mr. Gandhi revived the practice in the excited days of the non-co-operation movement. These hartals left a trail of bloodshed and disturbance in their train. . To-day most of the markets and factories are closed ; many of the shops are shut. To-night an open-air meeting will be addressed by some of the prominent Liberals, who will declare that never, no never, will they have anything to do with a Com- mission which is an " intolerable affront " to India. A hundred or so students waved black flags near the landing place when the mail steamer came alongside this morning. Otherwise we have pursued our lawful occasions without let or hindrance.
It is not easy to summarize, or appreciate, the forces behind this curious movement, but some of them can be indicated. The Act of 1919, which embodied what is called the Reformed Constitution of India, provided that not later than 1929 its working should be examined by a statutory commission. There is no authoritative record of the reason for this unusual provision, but as I was to a certain extent behind the scenes, I may explain it in this way. Mr. Montagu, the then Secretary of State for India, was gifted with political flair. Realizing that no constitution would effectively function unless it had a solid backing of public opinion, he set himself in co-operation with Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, to carry as many people as possible with him. The Constitution framed did not eommand the unqualified support of even moderate men. When it was pointed out that it was only a preparation for fuller responsible government, the reply was that Parliament gave so little attention to Indian affairs that the transitory had the habit of being treated as the permanent. So this provision was made for its examination in not less than ten years, and the scheme was blessed by most men of reason and good will.
Ever since the Councils began to function there has been an insistent demand that the process of reform should be accelerated. Now the date of the appointment of the Statutory Commission has been anticipated by a whole year, possibly two years, there • is this clamour for the boycott of the Commission and all its ways. If the outcry emanated only from the Indian National Congress and the Swaraj Party, it would be of little account. They would have protested equally against any Commission which they did not dominate. Their minds are essentially violent, destruc- tive and negative ; they have always hankered for the fleshpots of non-co-operation, because they do not demand the pains of study and thought. The real force in the boycott movement springs from the Moderates, or the Liberals, as they are alternatively called. These are the men who made the Constitution of 1919 workable. They took office and served in the Councils at the height of the non-co-operation movement and incurred no little odium thereby. Their service so completely stalemated non-co-operation that the Swarajists were driven into the Councils willy-nilly as the only alternative to political extinction. Their opposition cannot be treated as mere factiousness ; it must be under. stood, and if possible met, if the growth of the Indian Con- stitution is to pursue an evolutionary process.
It would be easy, and possibly true in some cases, to dismiss this opposition as the outcome of wounded vanity, but that cannot be the whole truth. If we wish to get into Indian skins, we must first recognize that the strongest force in the country, springing from its peculiar political status, is an almost morbid craving for its self-respect. The Indian Liberals feel then that the total exclusion of Indians from the Commission is an unmerited affront to their self-respect ; that it is a proclamation to the world that in these 319 millions of people not one is found fit to take part in the framing of their own Constitution. Yet again, frankness demands the admission that, the chairman apart—and there could have been none better than Sir John Simon—no member of the Commission is in the first flight of public life. There should be one standard in Britain's relations with India— the best is only just good enough.
Then could anything have been more maladroit than the manner of announcing the appointment of the Commission There was no consultation with Indian public men until the last moment. A few hours before the publication of the personnel in the newspapers a few leaders were called into hurried consultation with the Viceroy and the Governors and asked to give their countenance to the appointed thing. No full explanation was offered in Parliament until opinion had massed itself against the Commission. We are rarely happy in our political relations with India ; we have never been unhappier than this. Even to-day the status of the Committee which the Legislatures are to be asked to set up to work with the Commission has not been defined.
Is there a way out ? If there is, no considerations of prestige ought to stand in the way. I am not looking at the immediate work of the Commission. A considerable section of the Mohammedans will co-operate with it ; they value the communal electorates which secure their political influence, which a Hindu majority would incontinently destroy. The Depressed Classes welcome the Commission ; they are rightly fearful of domination by the orthodox. A boycott being a negation must weaken with time. The Commission may secure sufficient evidence to justify it in producing a report. And after ? What authority will attach to a report so produced ; what vitality will it possess ?
Any informed analysis of political conditions in India leads to plain conclusions. There must be a certain retracing of our steps. The cardinal blunder in the Act of 1919 was not dyarchy, but the attempt to base the authority of the Legislatures on a direct electorate which did not exist, and which cannot be called into existence for generations. Although, given a more stable electorate, there is a con- siderable field for constitutional advance in the Provinces there must be a strong executive. It passes the wit of man to devise for the Central Government an advanced Con- stitution which will embody any elements of strength. The one hope of ordered progress is to carry the Centre with us ; it is now in political outlawry.
The only solution is to treat the present visit of the Com- mission as a reconnaissance, and to leave Sir John Simon and his colleagues to see if they cannot devise sonic means of bringing Indian Liberal opinion into harmony with their inquiry. Any attempt to ram through the investigation by mere force can only lead to a report which will have behind it none of the driving power essential to give it vitality.
—I am, Sir, &e., Yova CORRXMPONDENT IN INDIA.
Previous page
