Letters to the Editor
GREAT BRITAIN AND INDIA
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Very many readers must have felt—as I for one have— high appreciation of the breadth and impartiality with which the Spectator is treating this subject, both editorially and in the publicity given.to a variety of views in the Letter pages.
If I may be allowed to say so, I would suggest that this is emphatically a problem in which it is needful to take long- sighted views. Look at it from a historical point of view, and compare it with similar controversies in other countries. Ireland, for instance. Of course, no two cases are on a precise parity, and Ireland and India differ vastly in numbers and variety of population and in other ways. There is, however, enough analogy to provide useful guidance, and the underlying principles of the Irish and Indian controversies are the same : a determination to have autonomy, on the one side, and a hesitation to grant it—or as to how far it may be panted— on the other.
In actual incidents of the controversy we find quite sur- prising likenesses. There were in Ireland the imprisonments of Nationalist leaders, and attempted negotiations with them while they were there. "The arrest of Mr. Parnell," says the late John (Lord) Morley (Gladstone, III, 62 and 64), "was no doubt a pretty considerable strain upon powers conferred by Parliament to put down village ruffians ; but times were revolutionary " ; Mr. Chamberlain, however, attempted a negotiation with "the prisoner in Kilmainham," to ascertain "what use for the public good could be made of Mr. Parnell's changed frame of mind." The attempt came to nothing, and the conflict went on.
It consisted, on the Irish side, of all or most of the methods now used in India : boycotting, intimidation, and so on ; and on one occasion (see Morley, III., 243-4) even Lord Salisbury recognized boycotting as a weapon natural to "the passing humour of the population," and hard or even impossible to put down.
It is now plain that, deplorable though those old Irish conflicts were, the agitations led to remedy of evils. "'Suppose I am told,' he [Gladstone] said in notable and mournful words, 'that without the agitation Ireland would never have had the Land Act of 1881, are you prepared to deny that ? " (Morley, III., 410). There even was (Morley, III., 366-8) an attempted Round Table Conference, but it failed, and "coercion was the key to the new situation." Thereafter the struggle went on, until it was settled in 1921 on terms practically equivalent to independence : and the evils expected even from moderate home rule have failed to appear under a far wider scheme.
Looking at these matters from a historico-philosophic viewpoint, the student is probably led to conclude that when a nation (and no nation is entirely homogeneous) desires independence, neither denial nor compromise will be a solu- tion ; that struggles and vain efforts will result from the demand ; and that eventually that demand will succeed, with advantage to both sides in the conflict.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
