§ 9. Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether any active steps have yet been taken to restrain Mr. Ghandi and his associates from stirring up further sedition in India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the Resolution issued by the Government of India in declaration of their policy in the form in which it has reached this country. Local governments are proceeding and have proceeded, against persons who commit offences against the law. There have been in the past two months in Northern India eight cases of prosecution of persons on charges of sedition or attempting to seduce troops. Five have been convicted, and three cases are still pending. Substantial sentences have been awarded by the courts. I can let the hon. Member have details if he desires. The Seditious Meetings Act has also been applied in Delhi, and in three districts of the Punjab, and will no doubt be further extended, if necessary.
§ Following is the copy of the Resolution referred to:
The statement declares that the Government has been reluctant to interfere with the liberty of speech and the freedom of the Press when India is on the threshold of reforms, while they are at all times reluctant to embark on a campaign against individuals, some of whom may be actuated by honest, if misguided, motives. This second consideration is strengthened by the knowledge that action might give the persons against whom it is directed the opportunity of posing as martyrs and thus increasing the number of their adherents. The chief consideration, however, which has actuated the Government is, they state, their trust in the common sense of India. The principal exponents of non-co-operation have frankly avowed that their object is to destroy the present Government, and they have promised that if their teaching be accepted, India will be independent within a year.
The full consummation of their hopes, the official statement proceeds, would leave India defenceless against foreign aggression and internal chaos. The confidence of the Government in the good sense of India, it is added, has been already in great measure justified by The unanimity of her best minds in condemning the folly of non-co-operation. The Government go on to point out that, having failed with educated India, the agitators are endeavouring to stir up the masses and secure the support of immature schoolboys. The appeal to the illiterate has already resulted in one deplorable crime, and "it is certain that the reckless activity of the leaders who wander from one city to another stirring up excitement amongst the masses by inflammatory speeches and by the reiteration of false statements, despite constant contradiction, may at any time result in serious outbreaks of disorder."
The statement concludes by emphasising that the Government trust in enlightened public opinion has led them, so far as has been consistent with public safety, to refrain from repressive action, How long they will be able to maintain that policy must depend largely on the success which attends the efforts of sane and moderate citizens to check the extension of the movement and keep its dangers within bounds.
1859§ Mr. GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, which is, have any active steps been taken to restrain Mr. Ghandi from stirring up further sedition in India? Is it a fact that quite recently—in October this year —Mr. Ghandi defied the Government to prosecute him? He restated the exact words of seditious utterance for which other people at the present time are undergoing trial.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe hon. Member's question referred to Mr. Ghandi and his associates. The action taken with regard to Mr. Ghandi and his associates is described by the Government of India Resolution to which I have referred, which is much too long to read in answer to a Parliamentary question, and the proceedings taken by the local Governments against certain persons. The policy which I propose to adopt—a policy I have often described to this House before—is to leave, with complete confidence, to the Government of India and the local Governments the steps that they deem it necessary to take with regard to an extremely dangerous situation.
§ Mr. GWYNNEMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman disputes the fact that Mr. Ghandi is the leader of this agitation at the present time? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, if he is prosecuting some of Mr. Ghandi's associates, it is incumbent upon him to see that Mr. Ghandi as the leader is prosecuted for uttering the same words for which the Government is prosecuting other people?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI accept full responsibility to the House for the procedure, which I have followed throughout, not to dictate or to suggest to the Government of India from London the action they ought to take in maintaining law and order in India.
§ Mr. GWYNNEHas the right hon. Gentleman not already dictated to the Government of India what steps they should take with regard to punishing other people?
§ Sir H. CRAIKMay I ask if the prohibition of seditious meetings now put in force, is not a reversion to the form of policy which was abandoned after consultation with the India Office, and 1860 against the advice of those acquainted with local conditions?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not know.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWill the right hon. Gentleman say as a matter of fact whether any proceedings of any kind have been taken by any Government against Mr. Ghandi?
§ Mr. MONTAGUSo far as I am aware, the only proceedings taken against Mr. Ghandi at present—at present—are to confine his activities within the limits of the Seditious Meetings Act, wherever the Seditious Meetings Act is in force.
§ Mr. GWYNNEMay I ask why other people are prosecuted for using the same words that Mr. Ghandi has uttered?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am sorry I have not brought it down with me, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the Government of India's explanation of the Resolution, he will see their own justification for the policy they have pursued.
§ Colonel YATEIs not the Government of India's Resolution one long apology for non-action, and is not the pith of it that they have not proceeded against the criminals because they rely on the common sense of the non-criminals? Is that a safe thing in India?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not read the Resolution in that way at all. I would submit, with great respect, that India is more than 6,000 from London, and that it would be very dangerous for us to try and dictate from here the administrative action which the Government of India should take.