INDIA QUESTION

Hokitika Guardian, 5 December 1931, Page 5

INDIA QUESTION

MR GANDHI'S VIEW. “THE PARTING OF THE WAYS.” ("United Press Association. —By Electric j. oiv&i opn.—Uopyiiglli/. j LONDON, December 4. “I have formed the tentative conclusion mat Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s declaration means the parting of the ways,” said Mr Gandhi, when interviewed regarding the statement of British policy in India by the Prime Minister. “However, I have promised to read the declaration three times before deciding. Any way, there is no possibility of the revival of civil disobedience in connection with the •declaration, which is a national affair, until I have reached India and discussed the decisions with the National Congress Committee, although the Commutes is entitled to begin disobedience in connection with any local grievance. If the Bengal Ordinandi were persisted with, it might lead to disobedience on' a national scale; because there is no justification for. that ordinance, which means legalised martial law; whereas the ordinary law is sufficient to deal with the situation. No self-respecting nation could accept such a thing as the Bengal Ordinance, for, in my opinion, it is unworthy of a civilised government.

LAND QUESTION.

NO RENT CAMPAIGN.

CALCUTTA, December 3,

The situation in United Pi'ovino.s of India, as the result of the Indian Congress agitation among the peasants for a no-rent agitation, is causing the Government concern, *n-cf is the subject of prolonged discussions by the ' Viceroy’s Executive Council. Measures to cope with tne movement are likely to be taken next week.

EMPTY BOMB SHELLS

CALCUTTA, December 3

Coolies working in a jungle near the village of Tezzaon, five miles from Dacca, in East Bengal, discovered a tin trunk containing twenty-three empty aluminium bombshells, similar to those used in an attempt to assassinate Sir Charles Tegart, Police Commissioner, last year. COMMONS DEBATE. DEALINGS WITH INDIA. RUGBY, December 3. The debate on the Government’s Indian policy was continued. flie Labour attitude towards tne Prime Minister’s pronouncement was stated by MajoF Atlee, who said lie believed that a solution to the quesuotis between Europe and Aria would largely depend on what wna done by this country in its dealings with India, The Opposition welcomed the reaffirmation of the principles laid down at the beginning of the year. The method of negotiation adopted by the Conference was the only means of reaching a solution, but it was unfortunate that more time was not given the Conference, and that the discussion on certain essential matters was confined to only a few days. He hoped that the Government would keep a firm view of the negotiations, whatever happened in India. Sir S. Hoare said that although the Conference failed in finding an agreement on many details, it played a very useful part. A.s a result of the friendships and associations formed during the Conference, the Indian controversy would n'ever again be bitter as in the past. He disputed the view expressed in some quarters, that the idea of an all-India Federation had drifted into th'e vague background; It still definitely held the field. After referring to safeguards, he defined the Government’s objective as, firstly, an all-India federal exeutive; secondly, autonomous provinces; thirdly, safeguards, without which India’s safety and credit could not be maintained. Mr Churchill moved a qualifying amendment, despite the explanations offered by the Prime Minister and Sir S, Hoare. Mr Churchill, while noeepting Sir S. Hoar’s statement that they hud to reconcile the obligations of th'e long British partnership with India, with the legitimate aspirations of the Indians to take a. greater part in their own Government, renewed- ! hi® criticism of the Viceroy’s declaration of October, 1929. n.s being 'n, departure from constitutional procedure, and as prejudicing the work of the Simon Commission, and said that he was bound to make’ a, “rugged affirmation” of bis objections.

He was answered immediately by Sir .T. Simon, who said that •Mr Churchill appeared to be under a, misapprehension. 'The Prime Minister’s statement at the close of the Bound Table Conference was not a- document drepared by onte individual, but by the united deliberate decision of the whole Cabinet. Mr Churchill’s speech in" Tensed the desirability that tlvs House should confirm the Government’s policy. The cleavage was between those who really meant actively to promote the achievement of responsible. G in* India, and those who did not-. TTo would bo the 1 last- to deny the difficulties, TTufc . Tiow | they rated the obstacles was not the question.. It was what was underlying the spirit and purpose of Parhamenv. Many Indians' sincerely ,doubted the intention of the British statesmen. He asked the House, by a unanimous 1 port of the declaration made on bej half of the whole Cabinet, to make it plain that the achievement of respon-

sible Government in India was the definite purpose of British policy. Referring to Mr Churchill’s amendment, he said that there had never been, from the beginning to the end, any doubt as to securing in future an Indian, Constitution with proper guarantees of not only British traorng rights, but the rights of minorities as a whole.

Mr Churchill’s amendments were defeated by 369 to 43.

THE DIEHARDS.

LONDON, December 4

The minority voters in the division on the India policy included Mr Churchill, Sir C. Oman, Sir H. PageCroft, Sir W. Davidson, Sir W. Wayland,’Mr Manzoni, Mr Reiner, and George Balfour.

BALDWIN’S SPEECH. A STATESMANLIKE NOTE. LONDON, December 4. In the Honda of Commons, referring to India, Mr Baldwin said: “Having educated the Indians foi two or three generations and encouraged their students to come to Oxford, Cambridge and London, we could not turn round anti’say: ‘Dtemocrary is for us—not for you.’ That is an impossible position. The Indian Conference has been a failure. It has taught as ' a l o t, and it' has taught the Indians a. lot.” Both sides, he said, were beginning to realise the difficulties, and that would bring India and Britain closer. Mr Baldwin hoped that whatever form of consti--1 tution was framed, the village life o'* India would play a great part in it, and would not be sacrificed to urban life, as it bad been in Englana. What the Government was asking was the approval of the House to Tne general lines in which it was going®to proceed. Courage and 'statesmanship were called for. and the Government desired to he fortifi * bv a large major? tv,-. which weu’,l give a mandate of goodwill to deal with one of the greatest ta-ks that the Empire had ever entered upon.