INDIAN TERMS

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1930, Page 5

INDIAN TERMS

Refused by British

(United Press Association—By Meotrie ■-' 1 Telegraph—Copyright).

DELHI, Sept. G

Tile talks which have been proceeding for the sixth month between two Moderates, Mr M. B. Hay aka land Sin'Tej Bahadur Sapru, and Mahatma Gandhi, and tlie other prominent National Congress leaders, who: are in gaol, in an endeavour to effect a settlement of the Indian poltic.nl situation, have definitely failed.

The Government refuses to accept tho National Congress terms of com•prqtmse. The Congress terms for catling off the civil disobedience movement were:

(1) The recognition of 'lndia’s right to secede from the British Empire.

(2) A complete National Government, including' the control of defence.

(3) Tim right to refer to an independent tribunal such British claims and concessions (including the “so* called public debt of India”) as may seem unjust to India's people. It is emphasised, however, that the picket* mg of the liquor Shops and the cloth shops, aiid the manufacture of -salt by the. tmlian people would continue,

Other demands of the National Congress include: The release of all the civil resistors, and political! prisoners, and the remission of the property that has been confiscated under the Salt Act, the Dress Act and the Revenue Act; the remission of the fines. and securities that have been taken from convicted ■ resisters and political prisoners, anl the repeal of ari of the Ordinances.

INDIAN FAILURE. PRESS COMMENT. (Official Wireless.) ; (Received this day at 11 a.m.» RUGBY, Sept. 6. -The failure of unofficial efforts of Moderate Hindu leaders to restore peaceful conditions and cessation of the Civil Disobedience Campaign in India, prior to the meeting of the Round fable Conference, is now confirmed in a statement issued by the Hindu meditators Sapru and Jayakar. The failure is due to the over-reaching demands.

The Viceroy (Dord Irwin) informed the intermediates that a discussion of such proposals was impossible and commented upon, the blank refusal of the Nationalist leaders to recognise the grave injury being done to India by the Civil' Disobedience Movement.

The “Times,” -oohiMehtiilg Oil the correspondence, says it is clear that any tendency Oil tile p&ft'of Gandhi to compromise was ovei'howed by Nehi'us, and adds : “It is quite unjustified to assume that a refusal of the Congress party' to attend tlie Round Table Conference except on terms which no selfrespecing Government could accept, will wreck the conference. Vocal ana well organised as it is, the Congress Party is no more than a party lacking in cohesion, united only in opposition to, the Government, which has so far ■given no evidence of constructive ability, beyond a scheme for the constitution, which all Indian minorities have rejected. All other sections of British and Indian opinion will be represented at tlie Conference in London, and it should he remembered that in its essentials there is no great difference in principles between the demands of the Moderate Hindu party and those of the Congress party. It was desirable that the Congress should be represented, but tlie presence of their delegates is not indispensable, and Government and CoOperators can continue their preparations for meetings in London with a clear conscience.”