The Sun WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1928. HOME RULE OR MOB RULE?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 361, 23 May 1928, Page 8

The Sun WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1928. HOME RULE OR MOB RULE?

AN English writer, commenting on the difficult path of British rule in India, has observed that the old proverb of Central Asian horsemen: “Dilli dur ast”—“it is a far cry to Delhi,” is as true to-day as when Mahmud rode from Ghazni, or Baber left his roses at Samarkand for the gold and jewels of the Ganges. Politically, it is a long road to Delhi. What still is termed the new Constitution for India, as evolved under the pledge given long ago by Queen Victoria, is now nearly ten years old. It has been described fairly as “a splendid experiment, the gallant effort of an alien civilisation to give something it greatly values to another, older, more sophisticated culture.” The Government of India Act, 1919, has wrought many notable reforms, but it has not diminished the native iiolitieal demand for something more than constitutional reform. Indeed, among several of the most voluble sections of Indian Nationalists —their political names and slogans are legion—it has intensified the cry for complete administrative independence. This old cry for self-government, together with the demand for the immediate withdrawal of the British Army from India, can be understood and sympathised with much more easily than it can he answered in a-practical form. Elsewhere, administrators of the British Empire have experienced rather violently the truth that Home Rule can degenerate quickly to bomb rule or mob rule, and conditions in India do not yet encourage an experimental test of that fact. It is true that Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, has admitted quite frankly that Britain lias committed “many errors of judgment and even occasional acts of wrong” in India, but as against these defects of administration must be set the advantages British rule lias given to Hindustan. With all its faults the British Government always has been a worthy trustee of its responsible charge in India and, as it has been well said,'“brought security and prosperity to a land where no man’s life and no man’s wife were safe when Clive won Plassey.” Today, India is more peaceful and prosperous than she has ever been before in her vast history. Occasional hubbubs and even destructive riots in different provinces do not belittle that truth. These merely smudge the picture. Even in that hotbed of trouble, the North-West, tribesmen who excel Irishmen in tlieir love of a fight, have discovered that commerce is more profitable than fighting. The official evidence is convincing: before the World War there were over three hundred raids a year into British districts in the hill country, while last year there were only twenty-nine. Still, irrigation works, good roads, and efficient postal, telegraphic, wireless and telephonic services, to say nothing at all about the measures of political reform, are not enough to appease the native political appetite for constitutional concessions. As , declared hv the South Indian Liberal Federation they want Dominion Home Rule on the lines of the Australian Federal system, with full Dominion status. Though the Australian system may he admirable in principle, it is not yet very, enviable in political practice. But what is feasible in Australia is not yet practicable for India, where the heterogeneous mixture of races and creeds would reduce Home Rule to the confusion of mob rule. Consider the raw material for democratic government in India: To-day, only 7,400,000 inhabitants of British India are eligible to go to the ballot box; 239,000,000 remain unenfranchised. Not many of that multitude are ready for enfranchisement. Ten million animists roam the jungles, often drinking the blood of human sacrifice: five million saddhus and fakirs live by the beggar’s howl; two and a half million girls under ten years of age are married; and a literate peasant is a phenomenon. In addition, the iron laws of caste break down slowly, while Hindu and Moslem are as friendly as king-cobras to each other, and snake eats snake. Yes, all things considered, it is still a far cry to the Delhi of India’s political dreams of Home Rule. AUCKLAND HOSPITAL AUCKLAND Hospital is a “popular” institution. Yesterday 663 patients were there —a record. The Hospital Board is proud of its records. It claims to have the largest hospital South of the Line, and wants to make it even larger. At present there is not a single bed vacant, patients are sleeping on lounges, the infectious diseases wards are taxed to capacity, and fifty people are waiting admission. What would he the position in the event of another epidemic similar to that of 1918? A dangerous situation has existed in the lack of accommodation for cases of infectious disease. Late in the day, the Hospital Board moved to have a new block for these cases built at a cost of £40,000. The sum staggered the economical Director-General of Public Health, and the question has been reviewed, with the result that the board’s architects discover that the cost could he cut by from £3,000 to £5,000, and the Minister of Health has been asked to approve of this expenditure. Dr. Valintine would have been well employed, before going into the question of cost —for which there is every justification—in inquiring into the possibilities of erecting an infectious diseases hospital quite away from the general hospital. There is every need for speedy action in coping with what is a crying need, hut the wisdom of having infectious diseases treated in _ close proximity to the general eases in an overgrown institution, is very seriously questionable. In December last a deputation from the National Council of Women, representing 15,000 members, “viewed with alarm and suspicion the erection of an infectious diseases block in the present grounds,” especially as there was no proper isolation and there was an interchange of staffs between the infectious and general wards. What has the hoard done in reply to this protest? One of the strong points made in urging the need of an infectious diseases block was the ever-present danger of crossinfection. This was denied a few years back. Circumstances alter views, apparently. How is the danger to he removed with an infectious diseases block in close proximity to the general wards? The accommodation is necessary, but is it necessary, or even wise, to provide it where proposed? Further large expenditure was proposed for the erection of an administrative block. Fortunately wise counsels—or the openly expressed wrath of contributing local bodies-—has prevailed on the hoard to postpone adding to the hospital pile in this manner. In any case, the present hospital is quite large enough. There, should be a hospital at North Shore, and the infectious diseases block should be erected far away from the Auckland Hospital, to afford proper ———