§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary whether he has official knowledge of the fact that a recently published pamphlet by Mr. Mackarness on the methods of the Indian police in the twentieth century has been proscribed and declared forfeit by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam under the new Press Act; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the grounds of such action?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe pamphlet in question has been declared by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam and by five other local Governments to be forfeited to His Majesty under Section 12 (1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910, on the ground that it contains words which have a tendency to bring the Government established by law in British India into hatred and contempt. The Secretary of State considers that these Governments were fully justified in their action, and sees no reason for shrinking from applying the same law to obnoxious matter transmitted from England as is applied to similar matter produced in India itself.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIs the hon Gentleman aware that only fifty copies of this pamphlet were sent to India altogether, and that the Governor's Council has declared these pamphlets forfeited; and 350 whether the pamphlet itself does not consist chiefly of extracts from official reports and replies given in this House?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIt must be obvious to the hon. Member that the damage done by a particular pamphlet does not depend upon the numbers of the pamphlet imported. If the hon. Member will read the pamphlet in connection with the documents from which it purports to quote he will see how very mischievous has been the use that has been made of the quotations.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIs there one single statement in the pamphlet that is not a correct extract from some official document, and are statements of that kind not to be allowed to circulate either in India or in any part of the dominions?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. Member will confer with me after questions I will go through the pamphlet with him, and I will explain to him the enormous number of inaccuracies contained in every page.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEOn the proper occasion I shall endeavour to obtain information for the use of the public as well as for myself.
§ Mr. REESMay I ask whether the publication of obnoxious matter like this and attacks of this character upon the police do not cruelly misrepresent the Indian people from whom the police are recruited, beside adding to the difficulty the police experience in detecting and punishing crime?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEvery effort is made every year, both here and in India, to improve the Indian Police Force, and attacks upon the force which are wholly unsustained by evidence must produce a very serious effect upon the capacity of that force to retain public confidence and to preserve order.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of his statement that the pamphlet contained inaccuracies, and was also likely to cause a breach of the peace, he will consider the advisability of proceeding for libel against the author?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not think I said anything about a breach of the peace
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary whether he had any official knowledge of the fact that in five civil suits in the district of Dinajepore, in 351 Eastern Bengal, damages were obtained against a sub-inspector of police for wrongful confinement and for the recovery of money alleged to have been extorted, and that the district superintendent of police, subsequent to the decree, took up the case departmentally and found the sub-inspector not guilty; and whether any further action has been taken in this case by the Government?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Secretary of State has seen the report of a question and answer on this subject in the Eastern Bengal Council. He does not know whether any further action has been taken in the case, but he will inquire.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether Maulvi Mazharul Huq, lately deputy-superintendent of police at Midnapore, whose conduct in the Midnapore conspiracy case was the subject of animadversion by the Chief Justice of Bengal, has been promoted to officiate as a district superintendent of police; and whether there is likely to be any further delay in the issue of orders on the result of the official inquiry into the conduct of the police and of other authorities which was directed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal in consequence of the judgment of the Chief Justice?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIt is the case that this officer, who holds the substantive appointment of deputy-superintendent of police at Sonthal Parganas, and has served in the police force for thirty-one years, has been appointed to officiate temporarily as superintendent of the Police of that district during the absence of the permanent incumbent on leave. The arrangement is in accordance with regular practice, the object being to avoid unnecessary transfers by appointing the officer on the spot to fill a casual vacancy of a few months. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me on 1st March to the Member for Roxburghshire.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEHow long has this temporary appointment been made, and are we to imply from the appointment that there is no other officer capable of performing the duty to which this censured person has been promoted?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am afraid I do not know without notice how long the appointment has been made, but it is temporary. If the hon. Member will consult the 352 references I gave him he will understand this matter cannot be dealt with pending the decision of the civil courts, which may not be for some months yet.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHDoes the hon. Gentleman consider it advisable in the public interest that a police officer publicly censured by a judge for malpractices should be promoted immediately after?
§ Mr. MONTAGUAn inquiry is being held, and the result of the inquiry cannot be made public at present. Pending that there is no reason why he should not hold a temporary appointment.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIs not that tantamount to censure upon the judge?