THE PROBLEM OF INDIA.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 319, 19 December 1929, Page 3

THE PROBLEM OF INDIA.

SITUATION TO-DAY. i Self Government Proposal.

S. N. Ziman

4 (By

No. 3. Democracy a Novelty. In fact, the reforms were really of a two-fold nature. Not only was the British Government in India replaced by an Indian administration, but a patriarchal, or miscalled bureaucratic, system was replaced by a democratic one. Democracy is even more novel to India than self-government. Both were experiments about which there was reason for misgivings. If the divisions and diversities of the Indian people give little hope of them ■welding themselves into a self-gov-erning nation, still less does India seem a fruitful soil for democratic institutions. The essential basis of democratic institutions, an intelligent electorate, is wanting. It has been possible to extend the franchise to but 7,000,000 out of the 240 millions of British India, and of these a large proportion are illiterate, and literacy in India means only the capacity to write one’s name. As most of the middle and upper classes are educated it is easy to realise how appalling in this respect is the condition of the Indian labourer and cultivator, when it is stated that the literates number about 22 millions only. Progress is being made, but it is very slow. Lack of education, especially amongst the masses, is one of the main causes of India’s ills, social, economic and political. But the remedy is not as simple as would appear. The country is vast and communications poor. The majority of the people are poor and ignorant, “ bound by iron tradition and age-old custom.” Above all, women teachers are by reason of religion, sentiment and tradition scarcely available at all. Educated men drift invariably from the village to the town, and the village schoolmaster is isolated “ too feeble a ray to dispel the surrounding gloom of ignorance unaided.”

5 ■ Disappointments. On the whole it seems that the reforms have worked smoother and caused less disorder than was expected. With a few notable exceptions they have been disappointing in the matter of producing Indian statesmen. They have been still more disappointing to those who hgped that the Indian legislatures, with power, would achieve a sense of ■responsibility. Despite the fact that very soon the Legislative Assembly of India and the Legislative Councils of the provinces eclipsed in influence and prestige the important unofficial bodies such as the Indian National Congress -or the Moslem League. The Assembly and the councils have proved themselves irresponsible, irresolute and capricious, though certain improvement was shown as time passed. Religious Animosities.

The most pronounced and most disastrous feature of Indian politics since the reforms has been the growth of religious and communal animosities. Other causes such as the unrest due to the war, the revival of Mahomedanism in the form of the aggressive Pan-Islamic movement, the religious and social movements in Hinduism such as that associated with Gandhi, may have contributed to this inter-communal feeling. The chief cause, however, is the fear of oppression by the majority, felt by a community in a minority in any one place. With the strong and just hand of Britain removed, the Hindu minority in the Punjab or Bengal knew they would suffer at the hands of the Mahomedan majority, while elsewhere the Mahomedan minorities had reason to be afraid. The Non-Brahmins of the Dekhan and Madras knew that the abler and better organised Brahmins would soon seize the reins of power and feared accordingly. The Hindu-Ma-homedan hatred, flaring out into spasmodic riots, has been a feature of the history of India since the reforms, a feature which hardly existed during the previous 100 years. It is this which more than anything else makes well-wishers of India despair of the success of democratic selfgovernment there. Report of Commission. The Act of 1919, with an underlying implication that the reforms are an experiment, makes provision for reforms after ten years, i.e., in 1929. reforms after ten years, i-e., in 1929. As a concession to the continuous agitation for further changes and with a realisation of the defects in the Act, this stocktaking was advanced by a year. The Commission presided over by Sir John Simon commenced work early last year, and

its report is expected very soon. Unfortunately the prospects of co-oper-ation by Indian politicians with the Simon Commission were jeopardised by a slavish adherence to the strict interpretation of the law when none but members of the British Parliament were appointed to it. The omission of any Indians fron this Commission was taken by Indians of all shades of thought to be either a studied insult or an indication that the report of the Commission was intended to be reactionary. Both of these ideas are purely imaginary. However, the constitution of the Commission, though technically correct, had a very grave disturbing effect on Indian public opinion and has hampered the Commission very seriously in its work. A belated attempt was made to concilitate Indian opinion by the appointment of committees of the Indian legislatures to cooperate with the Commission, and issue separate reports; but this has only been partially successful. On the whole the Mahomedans have cooperated with the Commission while j the Hindus have held aloof.

“ Dominion Status.” The situation has again been suddenly changed during the past few weeks. A declaration was made, by the Viceroy, of the intention of the British Government to call together a conference of representatives of Native States, and Indian politicians representing all parties, to discuss the position of the Native States in the event of “ Dominion Status ” being granted to British India. This is the first time that the term “ Dominion Status ” has been used officially in connection with India though it has often been on the lips of Indian politicians. The position of the Native States, whose rulers do not appear keen to be subordinated to an Indian parliament, is indeed a pressing problem and one to be dealt with in the manner of the Viceroy’s declaration. But the interpretation placed on the declaration by the Indian press was that, ignoring or anticipating the result of the Simon Commission, “ Dominion Status ” was to be conferred on India immediately. This was strengthened by the message sent to India by a number of Labour members of the” Brit-

ish Parliament stating their intention of working for the immediate grant of “ Dominion Status.” The true meaning of the "Viceroy's declaration has. been given, namely, that the conference was to determine the position of Native States, if and when Dominion Status was granted, without any intention of anticipating or ignoring ( the report of the Simon Commission or the action to be taken on it. However this may be, the impression has evidently been created in India that Dominion Status, whatever this rather vague term may imply, is about to be conferred, and this is bound to force the hands of the British Government; The Die is Cast..

The present position seems to be that Britain is committed to grantl ing self-government to India under a democratic system, in the very near future. The whole trend of events illustrates the fallacy of regarding any change in political matters as an experiment. The first step commits the nation to the whole future course of action. There can be no withdrawal, and even the rate of change is out of the control of the origin-

ator. In 1917 Britain was committed by the proclamation of the Secretary of State to granting complete selfgovernment to India and the time is drawing near, when this destiny is to be fulfilled, although the communal strife and tension in India cause j grave misgivings for the future. The I die is cast and the future of India is I soon to be in her own hands. j

1 The Future. The pessimists remind us that India has never been a nation except under the control of a strong foreign power, while the optimists hope that the 100 years of training and preparation under British auspices will bear fruit and with responsibility will come prudence and wisdom. Personally I see in the future an India with an inefficient government; with a deterioration in her people and misery amongst her masses, but without disorder so bad or misrule so flagrant as to warrant interference by force. I see the great edifice of British India not destroyed at a blow, but gradually crumbling, without becoming an utter ruin for a long time.

Like pigmy giants do we stride the earth. Our clumsy fingers fumbling on ttie loom, And as the shuttle flies, we seek to weave ! A braver pattern from the tangled I skein. We dare not pause, though dim our I eyes with tears, l And scarcely can we see to choose ! aright. . Too oft we err betwixt the orange thread Of sunshine and the yellow thread of fear, The blood of war and scarlet sacrifice, The blue of heaven and the ocean’s deeps. Or green-eyed jealousy and fragrant Spring. Alas, now seldom do we weave therein The master thread of gold, the thread of love. We are like Gods who labour without end. We are like worms that burrow in the dust. Vishnu and Shiva in a fast embrace. Breathing destruction as they build a world. But God, who lives above, alone can . tell Whether the work be badly wrought or well.