3. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for India if Pandit Jagat Narayan, who, in 1917 accused Sir Michael O'Dwyer of having imprisoned thousands of people without trial, and who subsequently undertook to make a public withdrawal of this false charge, has yet done so; if this person is identical with the Mr. Naryan who has signed the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Commission on the Punjab disturbances; and, if so, will he state who was responsible for placing on the Commission a person who had already, by his own confession, been guilty of false and seditious statements of a glaring character?
§ Mr. MONTAGUPandit Jagat Narayan Singh, who signed the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Committee, made a speech in which he brought this charge in 1917. On being informed of its inaccuracy in 1918 he offered to withdraw it publicly, but in view of the lapse of time the provincial Governments concerned thought it unnecessary to ask him to do so. He was appointed to the Committee in 1919 by the Government of India, acting in close consultation with myself and with the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces. The habit of bringing unfounded charges against the Government is not confined to India, although we could all wish that the willingness to withdraw them when disproved were less exceptional. If the hon. and gallant Member really takes the view that he appears to take of the matter, he will, of course, discount the Pandit's recorded opinion accordingly. If he wishes to know my views on that opinion, he will gather them from the Papers which have been presented.
Sir F. HALLMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think it would have been more advisable to put somebody on this Commission who had not got a debit balance standing against his name; and is he aware that perhaps not everybody right through the country has the same opinion with regard to whether or not it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to put such people on the Commission?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every effort was made to get Indian representatives put on this Commission who were impartial. The 1228 fact that a very highly distinguished and esteemed member of the United Provinces Legislative Council made a mistake once, which he offered to withdraw, does not, in my opinion, show he was a partial inquirer.
Sir F. HALLAs that offer of withdrawal had been suggested, does not my right hon. Friend think it would have been advisable that the Government should have accepted it and not have put this gentleman on the Commission?
§ Mr. MONTAGUAs a matter of fact, although it would not have affected my judgment on the subject, neither the Government of India nor I knew of this case when he was appointed, but I am not going to censure the local Governments concerned when they advised this gentleman a year afterwards that it was not necessary to make a public withdrawal and that it was sufficient that he had offered to do so.
§ Commander BELLAIRSWere the Government of the Punjab asked their opinion as to the qualifications of this gentleman to serve on the Commission?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThat I do not know. I do know that this question of the unfortunate speech of this distinguished gentleman was brought to the notice of the Government of India, after his appointment, by the Government of the Punjab, who at the time stated that they did not wish on that ground to object to his appointment.