§ 3. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether Pir Mahbub Shah was recently convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Sind for advocating the expulsion of the British by force; whether the sentence was remitted and whether this was part of a general policy of clemency approved by the Secretary of State; whether Zafar Ali Khan was convicted in the Punjab last month for seditious writing and sentenced to five years transportation; and whether the same clemency will be shown in his case?
§ Mr. MONTAGUPir Mahbub Shah was convicted and sentenced as stated for sedition, in respect of a violent speech advocating Jehad. His sentence was remitted on his signing a declaration of his repentance with a promise to make no more speeches of the kind and to remain obedient and loyal to the Government. The answer to the third part is, the remission of his sentence was not initiated from here: to the fourth part, yes; to the last part, I have received no intimation that it is intended to release Zafar Ali Khan.
§ Sir H. CRAIKMay I ask whether in regard to the release in question, the administration of Sind was not overruled by the Governor of Bombay?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not propose to concern myself with these allegations. The responsibility is that of the Governor of Bombay, and I propose to approve and accept responsibility for the action taken by him.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that the Administrator of Sind has since been removed from office?
§ Mr. MONTAGUPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question. I do not propose to intervene between the Governor of Bombay and his officers.
§ Major GLYNIs it not the fact that the whole of these circumstances were gone into very carefully by Sir George Lloyd, and that as a result of his action there has been no further outbreak of sedition?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am given to understand that the position in Sind has improved materially. I would ask the House to realise how difficult it is to answer questions of this kind. If I refuse to answer them suspicious-minded people think that the action has been promoted from India. If I answer them there might be an impression that I am throwing over those who acted on their own responsibility. In this case I have answered that the action was not initiated by the India Office, and I accept full responsibility for and if necessary give my approval to the action that has been taken.
§ Colonel YATEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise the truth of what was said in the "Times" yesterday, that it is to ignorance and fanaticism that the appeals of Gandhi are being made, and how dangerous it is in a country like India to allow those appeals to go unchecked?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI think that ignorance and fanaticism are very dangerous things whether in India or on the benches in this House.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWhich benches?