THE INDIAN REFORM SCHEME.
[To THE EDITOR or TER SPECTAT011."1 Sin,—You were good enough last year to publish a letter from use in which I joined other old Anglo-Indians in protesting against Mr. Montagu's sketch of Indian reforms. Events move fast, and since those days we have had Lord Southborough's Report on the overgrown and impossible constituencies which it is proposed to set up in eight Provinces, and Mr. Feetham's Report on "reserved" and " transfeired " subjects, whose importance is explained further on. Now appear the Reports of the Governors of nine Provinces (including Burma, which is excluded from the scheme) objecting in more or less strong terms to the new regime to which it is proposed to subject them. Finally, wo have what the Times calls "The new charter for India," a Bill introduced by Mr. Montagu giving effect to his proposals which has now to be considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
The situation cannot be summed up better than in the words of the Times, which is itself a supporter of Mr. Montagu:- " But it will not do to ignore the fact that they [i.e., alterna- tive proposals] have been put forward by many of the most experienced British administrators in India, and we are bound to .say that the opinions of the local Governments on the Montagu-Chelmsford Report muster a body of evidence against granting even a pleasure of responsibility to India which is very impressive. However, the bulk of articulate Indian opinion is jest as strong against the Montagu-Chelmsford pro- posals for the opposite reason—that they go not nearly far enough."
Now the Governors go very far in granting responsibility to India, but otherwise the paragraph accords with the facts. The natural conclusion would be that it is a case of a house divided against itself, that we cannot possibly carry on rule in India with the Governors confessing themselves unwilling to work a new system, and that we must follow their opinion. To satisfy the India Press and intelligentsia is impossible. But no. Mr. Montagu, supported by Lord Chelmsford, must have his own way and carry his Bill through Parliament. What will happen in the future if he succeeds we do not care to contemplate.
I for one am grateful to you, Sir, for the support that you have given to the opposition in this matter. What has been happening makes one rub one's eyes. It is the result of the war. When the war began the Indian politicians proclaimed openly that they would take advantage of the situation and would force the. pace. The arrival of a new Viceroy, amiable and accomplished, but not strong enough nor experienced enough for his great post, was taken advantage of to stir up violent agitation. Lord Chelmsford, perplexed by the situation, invited a visit from the new Secretary of State to help him to evolve the necessary °chance. Mr. Montagu, extremely able and ambitious, but with no'experience of controlling difficult situations in public affairs, listened very kindly to everybody and issued a charming Report. I decline to think that Lord Chelmsford, though he concurred, took an active part in drafting it. All the difficulties are ignored, a complicated scheme is sketched out, and pleasant platitudes on the bless- ings of autonomy are repeated again and again ad nauseam. By his powers of personality, and specially because all men's ideas were dominated by the war, Mr. Montagu successfully hypnotized Lord Chelmsford- and his colleagues and his own associates at Whitehall into giving their assent to his plans. More than this, he got his own colleagues in the Ministry (including Lord Curzon!) to give some sort of half-hearted approval to his going forward with his scheme. He got the powerful support of the Times and the approval of the handful of members of the gOttae of Commune who. followed Indian
affairs. In the House of Lords, which is infinitely stronger than the Lower House in the understanding of the situation because it numbers several Indian ex-Viceroys and Governors. his proposals were sharply and independently criticized.
But it was not until the Provincial Governments were Con- sulted formally and bad spoken up that it became apparent in view of legislation how hollow and illusory were the new ideas. I fear it is necessary, at the risk of wearying your readers, to explain what are the alternative proposals. We have two plans before us. All Government work has been arbitrarily divided into " reserved " and " transferred " subjects. The " trans- ferred" are perhaps the most popular subjects, involving expenditure on risible benefits, such as Education, Public Works, Municipalities, &c.; while the " reserved " include Police, Justice, Land Revenue, and so forth. By the first plan each Governor's Council would include one or two non-official Indians, chosen by the Governor from his Legislative Council. There would be no formal distribution of business into " trans- ferred" and "reserved," but the Governor would naturally confide the " transferred " subjects to the portfolios of the new Indian members. The whole of the work would be carried on, as at present, in the name of the Coeernor in Council. By the second plan, now embodied by Mr. Montagu in his Bill, the Governor's Council would be divided into two parts, dealing respectively with " reserved" and with " transferred " sub- jects. The "reserved" subjects would he disposed of as at present under the style of the Governor in Council. But the more interesting " transferred " subjects would be admin- istered by the non-official Indians, chosen as in the first plan. They would be called "Ministers," would be largely independent of the Governor, and their acts would go forth in the name of the "Governor and the Ministers." They would be Tribunes of the people, so to speak. If they prove awkward customers, in the last resort they may be pulled tap by the Governor's veto.
These then are the alternative plans on which Lord Ghettos- ford consulted his Governors. All nine of them (including the Lieutenant-Governor of Burma) commented more or less strongly on the grave objections attaching to the Government scheme. They deprecated the sacrifice of practical experience to Constitutional theory. Lord Pentland (Madras) considered that it was a revolution rather than a reform that was pro- posed. Lord Willingdon (Bombay) condemned the new " diarchy," as it is proposed to call the new system. Sir Harcourt Butler (United Provinces) wrote: " It is in fuel impossible to translate the term ' responsible government' into any vernacillar spoken in the Province is a way that will convey meaning to any ordinary person."
With these hostile Reports before him, Lord 'Chelmsford summoned his Governors to Delhi last January and made a strong appeal for some sort of agreement. Even so, with the exception of Bengal and Bihar and Orissa, the other Provinces stood out against having a Government which will rentai a portly •esponsible to the Secretary of State and Perliainent and partly to the elected representatives of the people of India. Their Governors expressed their wish to maintain the unity of the Administration, thinking that the proposed clualkot breaks away from all experience and divides Government against itself. They expressed their belief that theirs will be a more liberal scheme in that it will associate Indians with every branch of the Administration. This strong agreement between the Governors who are responsible for the work of their Provinces is well worthy of the attention of all who are interested in India. To my mind, it outweighs the opinions of the authorities on the other side. Mr. Montagu has clone admirable work while representing India at Paris, by original promotions, such as that of Lord Sinha to be Under-Secretary for India, and in other ways. But it would be fatal to let laim have his way over his new Bill for India, and to disregard the opinions of the absent Indian Governors, Lieutenant-Governors. and Chief Commissioners who would work on safer lines.—I
Previous page
