GENERAL SMUTS AS VICEROY
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Some time ago I read in a Home paper the plea of a distinguished journalist that General Smuts should be made Viceroy of India. Now I see in your issue of February 1st, a letter fp:p.m Mr. Glorney Bolton (who has been in India and should know better) the same proposal.
We have seen such psychological blopders in regard to India, for example, the appointment of the Simon Com- mission without an Indian member, and the recent omission in the J.S.C. Report 'and the Bill of the phrase "Dominion Status", that it is even possible that this extraordinary pro- posal Might be taken seriously by a Prime Minister or General Smtits or both, and that we might wake up one morning to read of his appointment.
So it is perhaps worth while to point out what in India is obvious, and that is that no South African, either British or Dutch, but least of all Dutch, need attempt to be Viceroy of India: The indignation would be universal. Like most people I have the greatest admiration for General Smuts, as a philosopher, a statesman, and a soldier. But there is, as the Indian Press frequently points out, too big a gap between General Smuts's principles and the practices which he in commOn with other South 'Africans adopts towards Indians When in power.
The Indo-African question is a burning one. No South African Dutchman could conceivably succeed as Viceroy, however glamorous his personality or unique his qualifications.
General Smuts is sympathetic towards India, and he can render Indians great service, But his work for India begins at home in Africa. He has indeed his work cut out.—Yours
Previous page
