HC Deb 03 November 1920 vol 134 cc338-9
2. Colonel YATE

asked the Secretary of State for India what provision has been made by the Government of India requiring a deposit from each candidate for election to the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils, to be returned if the candidate secures a prescribed number of votes, but otherwise to be for feited, the same as in the United Kingdom

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu)

The Government of India considered a proposal to include such a provision, but decided that conditions in India are not as yet ripe for the introduction of a penal rule of this kind, and that it was preferable to leave the question to be settled later as experience of the working of the new constitution may suggest. The Joint Select Committee endorsed this view.

Colonel YATE

If such provision be necessary in this country and in the Colonies, is it not equally necessary in India?

Mr. MONTAGU

The question is how soon? I think it as well to see if there are any frivolous nominations. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend desires to bring the Indian Constitution to the same position as the British Constitution, but I think a little patience in this matter is advisable.

Colonel YATE

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Report it was laid down that with coming changes there must be greater liberty of action to the public servant in India and that he ought not to leave the task of political education entirely to the politician, but that he must explain and persuade and argue and refute, he will state for what reason were orders lately issued in India forbidding any Government servant to interfere or use his influence in any way in an election to a legislative council except that he may record a vote if he is qualified to do so; and whether he has sanctioned these orders?

Mr. MONTAGU

The orders issued in India forbidding Government servants to interfere in elections appear merely to have taken the form of drawing attention to a long-standing prohibition of the kind in the Rules of Conduct for Government Servants. The opinions in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, were directed to the advantages of a freer exposition of the policy of the Government by its servants, they did not suggest that Government servants should be allowed or encouraged to turn themselves into electioneers or canvassers.

Colonel YATE

Is it advisable then to leave the political education of India entirely to agitators?

Mr. MONTAGU

I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not in the interests of the Service itself to interfere in elections.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The Indian Civil Service is different from what it is here, and really almost all the political knowledge is, from an English point of view, contained in that Service. Would it not be wise to use the knowledge they have to help the new Constitution which my right hon. Friend has instituted?

Mr. MONTAGU

I think there are many opportunities other than interfering directly with elections.

Colonel YATE

What was the necessity for issuing this strict Order?

Mr. MONTAGU

I do not know the circumstances.