The Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1942. THE WAR AND INDIA.

Evening Star, Issue 24324, 13 October 1942, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1942. THE WAR AND INDIA.

There was no cause for the suggestion of American ‘ Life * that Britain is delaying a second front in Europe—in which Americans, presumably, would play a great part—out of motives which put the interests of the British Empire before those of the Allies as a whole. The interest of the British Empire is in winning the war in the shortest time that is possible. When and whore the second front shall he established is a matter for expert military determination, both American and British, pure and simple. ‘ Life ’ is not likely to have any knowledge which could suffice for a decision on that transcendent question, but the writer of its “open letter to the people of Britain ” might have shown more knowledge of the British Empire and India. He describes America as fighting for “ certain principles of freedom,” which it is implied are not manifest in Britain’s rule in India. America, like every other country, fights first and foremost for herself, though that does not diminish the need for all the Allies to fight together, in accordance with a common plah as far as possible. Their war will tax the most complete energies of all of them before it is made victorious, and if each of them is to claim the right, suggested _by ‘ Life’s ’ article, of revising constitutions and setting limits of rule for the others, so that a “ new order ” for all the world shall comply with its own ideas, that also promises to be a stupendous task. It would ho well to leave it, at least, till the war of arms against a common enemy is over. A first necessity of it might bo more study of the problems involved than has yet been given. It is in the bones of most Americans to suppose that India is ruled far less well at any rate than Americans would rule dependencies, and should be given its independence to-morrow. The author of the open letter in ‘ Life ’ takes the weakest ground when he deplores, by inference, what Britain is doing in India jioiv. It is not a bad record, as another American journal, the ‘ Christian Science Monitor,’- has summarised the position; Following a long process of similar devolution “ the Cripps Mission offered India dominion status after the war and a gradually expanding voice in the direction of its affairs during the period of hostilities. The proposal was rejected by all major groups.” And each of those major groups, it might be added, has a programme of its own, all of them irreconcilable with one another. How many Indias, helpless before a Japanese assault, would some critics like to see? Presumably the “ now ” in ‘ Life’s ’ indictment refers to the imprisonment of Mr Gandhi and his colleagues, and refusal of the Government of India to yield to forces of disorder. It is significant that those acts were endorsed completely by Dr Ambedkar, leader of India’s depressed classes numbering forty millions, and, under the 'British regime himself one of the rulers of India, being a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Actually, the Government by which the acts were ordered was predominantly Indian.

Theodore Dreiser, another American with ideas of his own about India, lias heard _ somewhere about “ Churchill’s whipping posts,” which will be a “ new one ” to British readers. Under British rule, the native population of India at least increases at a rapid rate, which has not been the history of all native races or even of all “ Indians,” and it is surprising how few British have any share in control. The Indian Civil Service numbers not many more than 1,000 persons, of whom half are Indian. “ Law enforcement,” to quote Mr John Gunther, an American, “ is handled by Indians, and, except in the event of grave national crisis, tho British may only ‘consult and advise.’ ” Tho Army consisted, in times of peace, of 00,000 British troops and 150,000 Indians. It is not a system that leaves much room for “ whipping posts ” The question is hardly worth asking whether dominion status, which India has been promised after the war, implies the right to technical, as well as practical, independence. What is certain is that if a united India, advanced so far, should still press for full political independence, no Power in the world would be strong enough long to refuse it. But India is not united. It has no common plan The first rconirement for a Government, more ‘‘ national ” than that now existing, which would not mean chaos, remains to be supplied by Indians themselves.