THE CLAIMS OF INDIA
By SIR STANLEY REED, M.P.
NO one can have listened to the debate on Indian affairs in the House of Commons last week, or read the White Paper on India and the War, without being impressed by the large measure of agreement between Indian opinion and British. There is complete unity of purpose between India and Britain on the character of the tremendous struggle in which the Commonwealth is engaged. Not even the Prime Minister has more clearly expounded the principles behind our war effort than the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, when it said, " We must unhesitatingly condemn the aggression of the Nazi Government in Germany against Poland and sympathise with those who resist." Who could wish for greater support than that which Mr. Gandhi proffered when he said the Congress Party " wanted to help Britain by giving her moral support, which was her speciality, and the only thing it could give " ?
On our side there was not a dissentient voice raised against the ardent desire of Britain to extend to India full self-government as soon as there is a measure of agreement in that land, and to accord to the government of the country full Dominion status. Gone are the days when we could falter in treading the path to the inevitable and splendid goal of self-government in India. If there are any who think that this self-governing country is to have anything short of the status of Canada and Australia in our assembly of free nations he lives in a world of illusion. It would be a tragedy indeed if this impressive unanimity of purpose strayed into the wilderness of non-co-operation.
Our difficulties in India spring from the failure of the great Act of 1935 to function in full. In the Provinces it is fulfilling its purpose, and Lord Linlithgow is entitled to claim that experience shows the scheme of the Act to be essentially sound in this sphere. Provincial Ministries have made mistakes ; they have aroused the apprehensions expressed by important communities in the annexes to the White Paper ; but they have been free from the inter- ference of Governors and have addressed themselves to social problems with vigour and resolution. The constitu- tion lacks the coping-stone—the Federal Government at the Centre which was to have carried India so far on the road to self-government, and the lack of any element of responsibility in the Centre is accentuated by the with- drawal of the Congress members in protest against the failure to consult the Assembly before a declaration of war.
To my mind, the failure to implement the great purpose of the Act—the establishment of a United India with a wide measure of responsibility in the administration—is lamentable. I have never been able to share the fears of the Indian States ; I am convinced that any surrender of part of their sovereignty would have been more than counterbalanced by an integral place in the government. Nor of those in British India who feared the association of nominated members from the Indian States and the creation of two opposing blocs; the problems of India are social and economic ; they would have found expres- sion in regional groupings ; moreover, the association of the representatives of the Indian States with the elected representatives of British India would inevitably have reacted towards the evolution of representative institutions in the States themselves. But let that pass. The fact remains that the Act has not functioned at the Centre because of the abstention of those it was intended to benefit. It never will function in its present form. Amend- ment is essential ; the only question is when and how, and what shall be done in the interim, for no one can seriously advocate the reconstruction of this complex measure at a time like the present.
The desires of political India have been aptly summarised under four heads—a part in the conduct of the war-effort of India ; an assurance that the war aims of the Allies are based on moral foundations ; a voice in the framing of the peace ; and an assurance that without unnecessary delay self-govern- ment shall be consummated. As to the last, nothing could be more definite than the pledges given by Sir Samuel Hoare on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Should there be any insuperable difficulty in satisfying the other three? Does not the issue narrow itself down to this—how can Indian opinion be associated with the governance of the land pend- ing the reconsideration of the federal structure?
After discussions with all interests, the Viceroy proposes the establishment of a representative consultative group. That may have many merits, but the term " consultative " carries a disappointing meaning. An alternative proposal is the appointment of political leaders to seats in the Executive Council, with or without portfolios. It is impossible here to dogmatise ; any such appointments must most certainly embrace representatives of the Indian States and the Moslem community. All we can do is to suggest principles. Here I would urge that we should take our courage in both hands. Difficulties beset any path we may pursue ; but they are small in comparison with the difficulties we shall have to face if we fail to take account of the natural, nay righteous, desire of the peoples who are with us heart and soul to share in the shaping of the policies they are asked and wish to support. Though many deprecated the debate in Parlia- ment it served a useful purpose. It cleared the air. It placed the sincerity of successive declarations of Dominion status for India, with all the implications of the Statute of Westminster, beyond the possibility of doubt. On us now lies the task of supporting the Viceroy in associating political India with the Government until such time as all parties can sit down to fashion anew the constitution which will make India united and free.
Previous page
