BRITAIN AND INDIA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4789, 15 December 1924, Page 3

BRITAIN AND INDIA.

WINNING BACK CONFIDENCE. ADVICE BY MR. S. R. DAS. Mr S. R. Das, Advocate-General of Bengal, discusses in the Asiatic Review the “almost universal distrust of the English which prevails not only among the educated and semi-educat-ed among us, but has even permeated the masses.” ‘‘There are, fortunately,” he says, ‘‘still a large number who believe in England's good faith, but with the propaganda that is being carried on by the Swarajists their number is daily dwindling. It is now useless reiterating all that England has done for India if people are not in a mood to listen to it. When it was proclaimed in Parliament that Eng'and would grant self-government to India when England .thought India to be fit for it very large section of my countrymen did not believe it. When the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were introduced the Indian National Congress practically attributed to them a design to hoodwink the Indian public into a belief that real power was conferred on them in the administration when, in fact, no power had been conferred

‘‘So long as England’s promises for the future of India are stated to be based on considerations of Indian interests alone they will not be believed. Conferment of further benefits, such’ as fiscal autonomy, would not be accepted as given solely from a consideration of India’s interests. England will never get back India’s trust by mere concessions. If no other motive can be assigned, they will be treated as wrung from her unwillingly. MUTUAL INTERESTS. "Lei. the relations between the two countries be placed on the basis of the interests of England, which to my mind are the same as those of India. Let her say straight out that she is and means to be in India to serve her own interests; let her explain to India that she realises that she cannot for ever hold India —no nation in hi«toiy hap.been able to hold another nation in subjugation for ever —but that it is to her interest to hold on to India as long as she can. rather than grant self-government to an India likely to be hostile to her, or likely to revert back to the anareny which prevailed when she took ovci her administration. Let her point oiit to India that she realises that her connection with India will last longer if India is able to" govern and defend herself, and can be induced to remain a friendly partner in the British Empire, and that it is to her interest that India should attain that position, and for that and no other reason she is anxious that India should have selfgovernment, provided she is satisfied that India will not revert to anarchy, and is likely to remain a friiendlv partner in the Empire. “And then, if she proceeds to explain that it is equally to the interests of Inida that she should co-oper-ato with England and remain within the. Empire, India will ur.derstani, and England may get back the confidence she seems to have lost. TOO MUCH UNCERTAINTY. “I do not intend to suggest that England’s motives in the government of Inola- have been purely selfish. There have been and there are still great Englishmen who have considered, and are prepared to consider the interests of India alone, but India as a .-. hole knows them not, and hears very little of them. As matters now stand in India, England’s promise to give self-government to India in time it more likely to be believed if it is put oi. the ground of England’s interests “The great difficulty in India at the present moment is the uncertainty of the policy England proposes to pursue in India. No one knows where he is. Those of my countrymen who are against’ the Swarajist methods find it difficult, to convince, others that these methodjs will not bring about further concessions, because they are themselves not sure that they will not; and they are naturally unwilling to commit themselves to statements which may turn out to be foolish the very rext day.

“Certainty as to the future policy of England towards India is essential, and I would ask England seriously to consider whether, having regard to the grave situation in India, the time has not come for the leaders of the three great parties in England to sit down together and lay down definitely the lines on which they propose io deal with India, not only as regards the present 'crisis, but for bringing

‘ the relation between the two countries suggested at the beginning of this article. ‘‘There has been a great outcry in India against dyarchy,” says Mr Ras. The Swarajists have never given it a trial, and do not want it. Some Moderates, including some ex-Ministers, who have given dyarchy a trial under very difficult conditions, say that-it is unworkable. Members of the Civil Seevice. practically none of whom are enamoured of it, have, some of them, honestly tried to give it a fair trial: others have been quite indifferent co its success, and have worked the Act mechanically, following the letter rather than the spirit of the reforins. ( The oon-official Europeans—my experience is confined to Bengal only—have honestly endeavoured to give it a fair trial. I have had some experience of its working during the three years I was in the Bengal Council. I do no': agree that dyarchy is unworkable, though, of course, no scheme of r forms can be worked if the people of the country refuse to co-operatc. I do not think dyarchy has had a fair trial; a large section of our people refused even to look at it.”