REFORM IN INDIA

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1930, Page 6

REFORM IN INDIA

' , IMPERIALISTS’ VIEWS. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Oct. 31. The King has directed that Sir Dinshah F&rdunji Mull a be sworn a member of the Privy Council and that he be appointed a member of the Judicial iCommittee of the Privy Council under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1929. , . The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and representatives, of the Free Churches ha.v© issued jointly a request for prayer on behalf of the Indian Round-Table Conference. LONDON, Nov. 2. The Indian Committee of the Royal Empire Society, including former eminent Anglo-Indian administrators, declares that the adoption of the unrevised Simon Commission scheme in India will lead to a inasmuch as that the proposed Provincial and Indian Parliaments are too large, and the electorates are too small, which would reisult, so the Committee fears, in oligarchy, and town rule. The Committee advocates the enfranchisement of one hundred million villagers divided into groups of twenty, each group orally electing one spokesman. These five million spokesmen would form electoral colleges for the illiterate electors, the Parliamentary candidates being drawn from the spokesmen alone. The Committee does not approve of the'•enfranchisement of several million women without a grasp of political problemte, though it urges that the provincal Governors should ensure an adequate representation of the women in the councils. It favours Second Cahmbers for all of the Provinces and also tfhe relieving of inexperienced and overworked Governors by Deputy Governors.

The Committee emphasises the importance of maintaining discipline and morale in the police force, and says that for this purpose, a) strong committee should he appointed to fix an irreducible personnel and also the expenditure for tlie police force in each Province during the coming ten years. The Committee state the retention of British control of the Army is essential, but that any promising scheme of Indianisation of the Army should be pushed on. The Committee add that the premature introduction of responsible government is hedged with the gravest risks, though there is at present no alternative to further advance on lines adopjpflr . v-y ./ i•