THE SIMON COMMISSION'S REPORT
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,– On one essential point, the defence of India, you have misread the proposals of the Simon Commission. They con- template the permanent retention of the present Indian Army under Imperial control for external defence, and advise the creation of a new Indian Army which might be controlled by a Minister for the purpose of internal order. They no doubt plead for the continued Indianization of the Army, but cer- tainly not with the ultimate aim of transferring it to the control of a self-governing India. Some passages are annexed to this letter to prove this contention. They will show that you are wrong in saying in one place " the defence of India should remain an imperial obligation while the Indianization of the Army was bring pressed steadily forward," and later on " the defence of the frontiers should be a strictly Imperial obligation for the present." The limitation as to time, implied in the italicized expressions is net the Commissioners' but yours. •
" India and Britain are so related that Indian defence cannot, now or in any future time which is within sight, be regarded as a matter of purely Indian concern." (Para. 208.)
" It seems to us that the only possible method would be to recognize that the protection of the frontiers of India, at any rate for a long time to come, should not be regarded as a function of the Indian Government in relation with an Indian Legislature, but as is matter of supreme concern to the whole Empire, which can only he effectively organized and controlled by an Imperial agency." (Para. 205.)
"If and when the Government of India became responsible to a Central Legislature, it would first be necessary to ensure cooperation by definite agreement (between the Indian Government and Imperial authorities) and to devise machinery for settling differences or resolving deadlocks." (Para. 210.)
Kensington Palace Mansions, IV. 8.
I The passages quoted do not suggest "permanent retention." —En., Spectator.]
Previous page
