HC Deb 31 July 1930 vol 242 cc769-800
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I ask for the indulgence of the House while I refer for a few moments to a matter which was the subject of conversation at Question Time yesterday and of an appeal by me for a ruling on a point of order. No one can approach the discussion of any Indian question at this moment without a deep sense of responsibility, and without very keen apprehension of the difficulties which lie in front of us before we reach a solution of the problem of Indian government. Since the proposal for the creation of a Statutory Commission was made to the House, it has been our good fortune hitherto to act on non-party lines as a really national and representative assembly, and there is nothing that, my friends and I more earnestly desire to avoid than the introduction of any party differences in this great question, or the creation of unnecessary divisions of opinion or a vote. I consulted with my friends in the light of what passed yesterday as to what my action should be, and in the efforts still to preserve that party union, although the Government have rejected the advice tendered to them on behalf of a majority of this House—[Interruption]—yes, tendered on behalf of a majority, for the Government are, in fact, in a minority. Although they rejected that advice, I had decided yesterday, with the concurrence and approval of my hon. Friends, that I would make no Motion, ask for no Division, and content myself with no further appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. But this morning I received a letter which alters the situation, and which I ought to read to the House. It is addressed to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who was the Chairman of the Statutory Commission.

"71, Addison Road, 30th July, 1930.

My dear Chamberlain,

I am grateful for the efforts you and others have been making to secure that I should serve on the Indian Conference. My deep interest in India, and the fact that I have spent so long in studying the Indian problem, would make an opportunity of doing so welcome to me if the Government had so wished, but the Prime Minister stated on Tuesday that there were very strong reasons which made it very undesirable that I should take part. It would, he said, be a profound mistake. He has to-day declared that after consultation with the Viceroy this is the fixed decision of the Government. It is manifest that the Government's view would equally apply to my serving, as my Liberal friends pressed me to do, as a party nominee.

Having taken up this position, the Government cannot withdraw from it without an outcry arising in certain quarters in India that the Conference is thereby prejudiced. I desire to do what I can to make the Conference a success, and I must therefore intervene now. I should not be acting in the public interest if I did not facilitate the decision which is announced. The unanimous report which the Commissioners, under my chairmanship, have signed discharges the heavy duty laid upon us by Parliament, and if the discharge of this duty is regarded as disqualifying us from taking any part in what the Prime Minister describes as a thorough threshing out of all the problems that arise, there is no course open to us but to acquiesce.

Of course, it will be difficult for the report to receive fair or adequate treatment in a Conference which includes no one who can either expound our recommendations with authority or explain on behalf of the Commission the considerations or the evidence which must be weighed before criticism of the report can be regarded as well-founded. But I can well understand that by this arrangement it is hoped to attract some Indian elements which otherwise might be unwilling to come. In any case, the last thing to which I will consent is to be the subject of a wrangle. If the Conference succeeds, no one will be better pleased than I. If it fails, no one shall say that I contributed to its failure. In either event, the opportunity will still remain even for the Commissioners to take part in the discussions which must follow.

Yours very truly, (Sgd.) JOHN SIMON."

I should think it an impertinence to say anything about that letter, except that it is inspired and written in the spirit which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown throughout since he accepted the heavy task to which Parliament and the Sovereign called him. Obviously, in the circumstances, I can make no further appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. I desire, as we all do, the success of this Conference. My friends have accepted the invitation of the Government to be represented in the Conference, and we shall not withdraw our acceptance because the Government have refused in this matter to follow our advice. The decision which has been taken, grave as I think it may not improbably prove to be, is the decision of the Government, and the whole responsibility for whatever consequences follow must be accepted by them.

It is necessary, I think, to add a few words more, in these circumstances and with this interdict placed by the Government upon the presence of any of the Commissioners in that Conference. What was this Commission? It was not like most Commissions, a mere act of the Sovereign upon the advice of the Executive of the day; it was a Commission for which provision had been made and order taken by the very Act of Parliament which established the present constitution of India's Government. It was desired to advance the time at which the Commission should undertake its labours, and, accordingly, a second Act of Parliament passed through both Houses to facilitate the immediate creation of the Commission, and while that Bill was passing through Parliament the names of the Commissioners were given to the two Houses, and were accepted nemine contradicente as a proper representation of Parliament by the Members of both Houses. For more than two years, subordinating all other interests and all other occupations to the task with which they had been charged, these Commissioners devoted themselves to the study of the problem, to the formulation of the results of their inquiry and to the preparation and presentation of the advice which they tendered to Parliament.

6.0 p.m.

There is no body of men in public life who have so complete or up-to-date knowledge of Indian circumstances and Indian conditions, patiently and impartially acquired. There is in our whole Indian history no document to compare with the Report of the Statutory Commission for its completeness, for its care, for the accuracy of its presentation of facts, and for the closely reasoned and knit framework of its conclusions. It is a remarkable thing that, having been drawn from all parties, and carrying out an inquiry so complicated and so difficult, the Commissioners were able to make a report which is unanimous. How did the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister speak of this Report yesterday? What are the generous words of recognition which he thought appropriate to such conspicuous and devoted service, placed so ungrudgingly at the disposal of this House? The Statutory Commission has performed its task with a distinction which will secure for its report a permanent place in our official political literature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1930; col. 496, Vol. 242.] The right hon. Gentleman may dismiss. the Commission to the bookshelves on which he keeps his own speeches, but he will not be able to dismiss the report. That report cannot be laid aside as the Commissioners have been laid aside all the more because the Commissioners are not represented, and there is no one to help to guide the Conference which must refer again and again to the report of the Statutory Commission. At every point the Conference must teat the proposals which come before them by the conclusions that have been submitted for their consideration. They must refer to the report, and any other proposals which they put forward must be judged by the test which they apply, and by the conclusions which they have submitted for our consideration. I think the decision of the Government ill serves this House and the. Conference itself.

In the absence of anyone who can give the reasons for any statement made in the report, if it is challenged, or the proof of any facts which are queried, who can tell us, when some other proposal is made, whether the Commissioners ever heard of that proposal, and if they did hear of it, who can tell us for what reason it is not in their report? If Changes are proposed in the report, who can call our attention to the effect that the change will have upon the rest of the scheme and tell us why the Commissioners, in considering this change, thought it was better not to make it? The absence of anyone on the Conference who can give that information makes the task of that Conference infinitely harder. It is no use arguing that the services of a secretary or a clerk or even a stenographer can be utilised to explain what is wanted or explain why the Commission came to that decision. This will make the work of the Conference much harder, and it will certainly detract from the authority which that Conference can have in this House. It will also detract from the responsibility and authority of any proposals which the Government may make after the Conference when they are brought to this House in due course, and referred to the Joint Committee, when we may look forward again to the services of our Commissioners of which we have been deprived by His Majesty's Government.

Major GRAHAM POLE

I do not propose to say very much on this subject because, in my opinion, the less that is said on the subject of India and the Round Table Conference at the present time, the better. I wish to refer to a discussion which took place in another place where several grave inaccuracies were put forward by a Noble Lord. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that the Government will explain by means of a secretary or stenographer what the Statutory Commission think, but, if their own representative in another place and their own report cannot explain that matter, no one else is likely to explain it. To say that the report gives us an up-to-date knowledge of Indian conditions and circumstances is simply foolish. The report of the Commission states that they have not taken into consideration the events of the past few months. It is over a year since the Commission left India and therefore the report they have issued cannot have taken into consideration anything that has happened in that time during which the whole situation has changed. Consequently, to that extent, the report is out of date.

One of the criticisms which has been made in India with regard to the report of the Simon Commission is that there is too much insistence on points of difference, and too little insistence on points of unanimity. We have been told of the large number of different religions in India, but we must not forget that there is a large number of different religions in this country. There are 320,000,000 people in India, and 285,500,000 of them are either Hindus or Moslems. Quite a number of different languages and dialects are spoken in India, but the point to be stressed is that there are at least 100,000,000 people in India who speak Hindi and 50,000,000 who speak Bengali. We want to make the roundtable conference a success, and one would have thought that this would have appealed especially to hon. Members opposite, because, if we do not make it a success, we are going to lose all our trade with India. A day or two ago the Simla correspondent of the "Times" said: On the other hand, there is a disturbing increase in the movement to boycott British goods, which is spreading to an alarming extent throughout the country. That kind of thing is bound to go on until some settlement is arrived at which satisfies the Indian people. The Simla correspondent of the "Morning Post" states, in that journal, on the 11th July: The total of cotton goods imported from England during April and May, compared with the total for the corresponding period last year, showed a decrease of 23½ per cent. No wonder that there is unemployment in Lancashire. The Simla correspondent of the "Morning Post" goes on to say: Foreign cloth shops in most of the larger towns have been continuously picketed, and it has been difficult for importers even to honour contracts made with Lancashire before the outbreak of the movement. Only the other day the "Morning Post" pointed out that India normally takes about one-third of Lancashire's production of cotton goods. At the present moment scores of spinning mills and weaving sheds in the county have been closed, and there is no hope of re-opening them until active trade is resumed with India. Whether we like it or not, there is a danger of creating in India the impression that the Government are going back on the agreement which has been announced to India and that the Round Table Conference might be dominated by members of the Statutory Commission.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

How do you know that?

Major POLE

I know that it is so, because I am constantly receiving a large number of letters and cables from India which lead me to that conclusion. There was great difficulty in getting the Indian representatives to agree to come to this country, and it is very difficult to get them to co-operate with us, because they do not believe in the sincerity of a three-party Conference. Recently we have seen some signs of an active attempt at co-operation which I hope we shall really help and not hinder. There is a feeling among the Indian people that we are inclined to depart from our undertakings, and that we are going to limit the scope of the Conference. In another place, it was said the other day by a member of the Commission: That Sir John Simon's letter was exclusively confined to adjusting the relations between British India and the Indian States. The Chairman of the Commission and the Prime Minister realised that it was necessary to deal with the whole problem of the Indian States and British India and the Constitution and not merely to adjust our relations with the Princes. I hope nothing will be said in this debate that will make it more difficult for us to get Indian representatives to attend the round-table Conference. We want the Indian people to realise that they are coming to a free conference and that they are not dominated by one report and one report only. They should understand that anything which they wish to lay before the Conference will be sympathetically examined, and that they will have a chance of presenting their own views before a scheme is adopted for all sections in India. I want to ensure that the Indian representatives will get a fair hearing for their suggestions and that they should be convinced that there is no intention of putting one point of view before them the whole time.

Mr. BROCKWAY

It would be out of place for me to express the feeling, which, however, I am certain is general in the House, of the very deepest appreciation of the letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) which was read here this afternoon, but, because of my interest in India, I cannot fail to say on my own behalf a word of gratitude, not only for the decision in that letter, but for the temper in which it was written. From the very beginning of the Simon Commission, I have differed from the method of its appointment, its procedure, and, finally, its report; but never, during the whole of the proceedings of that Commission, have I withheld appreciation of the conscientious, and, if I may use the word, distinguished services which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and his colleagues were rendering. They have, in preparing that report, faced very great difficulties—difficulties, sometimes, of a personal nature; and, if one has criticised their recommendations, I think that the frankest possible acknowledgment ought to be made of the service which they have rendered in preparing that report. I do not say that because I wish to criticise; I say it sincerely, because of the great public action which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has taken on this particular occasion.

May I add to that, and I add it with reluctance in view of that action, that I think the Government have been absolutely right in the decision which they have taken in this matter? Rightly or wrongly, the politically alert mind of India has come to regard the Commission, and has come to regard its report, as absolutely obstructing the way to any settlement of the Indian question, and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley himself recognises, the mere fact of his membership of that Commission would have deterred the kind of representation which it is absolutely necessary to have at the round-table Con- ference, if that round-table Conference is going to be representative, and if it is going to be effective in its results.

I wanted, however, this afternoon, to deal not merely with that matter but with rather wider matters relating to the present Indian situation. Perhaps I may repeat what I have said before in debates on India in this House, namely, that there is no one who recognises the difficulties which have faced both the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India, more than I do; and I not only recognise those difficulties, but I recognise the spirit in which the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India have faced them. I would put this point. The fact that you had a Viceroy, and the fact that you had a Secretary of State for India in this country, who have been animated wholeheartedly by sympathy towards the Indian people, and yet, nevertheless, that you have had the results which are now occurring in India, shows that more than that good will and more than that spirit were required—that a great change of policy was required, and action much more courageous and much more comprehensive than has been followed.

Nine months ago, when this issue of India was raised from these benches, a settlement with the representatives of India was comparatively easy. To-day it is still possible, and I hope I am not going to say a word in the debate which will make that settlement more difficult. But in six months' time, if the possibilities of settlement which now exist are not accepted, a settlement will almost become impossible. Why do I say that nine months ago a settlement was comparatively easy? I say so for this reason, that, if certain things had been done to which the Labour party and the Labour Government are pledged, the civil disobedience campaign of this year would never have occurred, and we should now have been looking forward to a roundtable conference which would have been attended by representative Indians, including Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Motial Nehru, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, and Mr. Malaviya, four men who represent Indian opinion to-day more than any other four men whom you could select in India. We should have been approaching a roundtable conference to which these men would have come confidently, hopefully, in a spirit of agreement, seeking a solution of the problem that now divides India and this country.

Nine months ago it was only necessary for our Government to say that the object of the round-table Conference would be to secure full responsible Government for India, and that that round-table Conference should work out an agreed basis for the transition period between British domination and full Indian self-government. That was the first essential thing, and, because it was not done nine months ago, we have the present situation in India. The second essential thing was this. There were laws in India which were resulting in the continued imprisonment of Indian leaders who, by speech and by writing, were criticising the administration of India. In addition to the arrests and imprisonments which were taking place under those laws, there were prisoners in Indian gaols of a political kind who had been there for many years. If, nine months ago, the Government had been able to follow the kind of declaration which I had suggested by an amnesty to political offenders, to those who had not been guilty of violence, who had not been guilty of incitement to violence, but whose offence was entirely of a political character, namely, criticism of the administration of the time, you would have created in India an atmosphere which, again, would have made a round-table Conference successful.

Thirdly, it was essential at that time that India should have confidence regarding Indian representation at the Round-Table Conference. There cannot be the least doubt, on the part of anyone with a knowledge of the conditions in India, that the Indian, National Congress is expressing the vast majority of what I. would call politically, alert opinion in India, and, therefore, it was desirable that there should be adequate representation of the point of view of that Congress when the Round-Table Conference took place. I say quite emphatically, knowing the conditions about which I am speaking, that, if these three things had been done nine months ago, we should now have been approaching the Round-Table Conference with full Indian co-operation, and with full reason for hoping that there would be, as a result of that Conference, a settlement which would not only be acceptable in this country, but which would be acceptable in India and which would be operative in India. Unfortunately, those things were not done, and, because they were not done, the civil disobedience campaign began, and we now have to look upon a situation in India which has been enormously aggravated as a result of the clash and the conflict that has occurred.

About the present civil disobedience campaign in India, I want first to say that Parliament will make a very great mistake if it considers that that civil disobedience campaign is not one of very formidable proportions. When it began, the march of Mr. Gandhi to the coast was ridiculed. That is because of the difference between the Indian temperament and the British temperament. In Great Britain, if a campaign is begun, it is begun in a spectacular way. It is begun with a view to getting the greatest impression at once; it is begun simultaneously. Those who are organising it realise that publicity and initial impression will be largely responsible for its success or its failure. Mr. Gandhi began on exactly the opposite basis. He was desirous that his campaign should be carried out in a spirit of non-violence, and he, therefore, chose a small group of his own followers, from his own ashram, to make a beginning—men upon whom he could rely—but, although the beginning was made in that way, it soon became necessary to change the attitude of ridicule with which that march and that campaign was met.

Secondly, the attitude was followed, and I remember that it was the attitude in this House, that the disturbances were only sporadic, that they had occurred in a few cities, that they did not represent any great mass movement of the people in India. I pointed out at that time that if, in Europe, disturbances had occurred in London, in Paris, in Berlin, in Rome and in Vienna, one might say that they were sporadic, but it would be perfectly clear that there was a movement spreading all over Europe of which they were a part. I do not believe, and I am perfectly sure that it is not the view of the Secretary of State for India, that anyone with a knowledge of opinion in India now doubts the formidable character of the civil disobedience movement there. To that general statement I want to add. this, that it has become clearer and clearer as that movement develops that the distinctions which are drawn between religious communities in India are rapidly ceasing to be of account. I know that there are leaders of the Moslem community; I know that there are leaders of the Hindu community, leaders of the Sikh community, leaders of the Parsi community; but a fact which is very frequently overlooked is that, while the men in India who obtain recognition as leaders of particular communities are those who emphasise the sectarian point of view of those communities, there are within those communities men of just as great influence over the masses of those communities themselves, who, because they are thinking in terms of the interest of India as a whole rather than of their own particular community, are not regarded as religious leaders.

Whatever may be said of leaders, it is becoming increasingly true, and it has been specially represented in the great city of Bombay, that, within the mass movement of the civil disobedience campaign, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Parsis are all being drawn, because a greater issue than religious difference has now arisen, the great national issue of India in which they are all so much concerned. When one sees in Bombay day after day, first a procession of Hindus, then a procession of Moslems, then a procession of Parsis, one sees how the Indian national movement is uniting those differences which used to exist between the religious communities.

I want especially, as a Member of the Labour party, to draw attention to the policy to which this very formidable movement of resistance has led the Government to resort. The Secretary of State, more than any other man, has stood for personal liberty and for racial liberty. Before I was in the House I read again and again with admiration the manner in which he urged a settlement of the Irish question, in which he urged that repression would not succeed, and in which he again and again opposed the aggressive measures that were taken. I am not saying that in bitterness. I believe that faith in liberty is still his. I am saying it because I want to contrast the results which inevitably have occurred in India because of the policy the Government have pursued. It has suppressed the Indian Press. They insisted upon deposits, which have led to the closing of one Indian paper after another. That policy has been futile. In Bombay the Congress has been able to publish by cyclo-style day after day its bulletins, which have Lad a much greater circulation than any ordinary newspaper, would have had. The Government have arrested the editor one week, only for another editor to be appointed the following week. They have confiscated the cyclo-styles and duplicators one week only for others to be used another week. Sometimes a circulation of 100,000 copies has been obtained for the bulletin. They have reached me week by week. It is absolutely impossible by your Press laws effectively to suppress the expression of public opinion when there is that determination among large masses of opinion that their views shall be expressed.

I take another instance of the method of repression. In this country the Labour party and the trade union movement have stood up strongly for the right of picketing, but in India, when the right to picket is urged in a national form, an ordinance is issued giving power to prohibit it and day after day, week after week, men and women are being arrested for picketing the liquor shops, not on the ground of violence, but merely on the issue of picketing. I could take the fact that even wearing apparel, like the Ghandi cap, has been repressed. I could take a hundred things of that character, but I want to take more particularly the situation that has arisen because the Government have been prohibiting the processions and demonstrations. I want, as an instance of that, to take what occurred on the esplanade of the City of Bombay, where a demonstration was prohibited of unarmed Indians, of Indians who were vowed to the method of non-violence, who were specially chosen because of their capacity for self-restraint when faced by violence. When that demonstration was prohibited, men and women marched to the esplanade. They were ridden down by armed police, and 500 were injured. The ranks formed and re-formed. They were charged and, when the blows fell upon them, the men kept their hands at their sides and refused to respond to any of the blows that were struck. Particularly, when a small group of Sikhs were attacked in that way, 20 women formed a cordon about them and the blows from the police fell upon the women as well as upon the men. I admit that an appeal was made to the women to withdraw, but they asserted that they were prepared to receive the blows equally with the men. I will read the report that appeared in the "Daily Telegraph": Some messages may describe yesterday's affair as a battle. It can in no way be thus named. Rather it was a terrible test of strength between the indomitable spirit of non-violence, determined to defy the law, and 500 native lathi armed police, some of them mounted, charged with the painful task of clearing from the Maidan these would-be martyrs. I am perfectly sure that that kind of action is repulsive to the Secretary of State. It is repulsive to us all. It is the inevitable result of the kind of policy that has been pursued, and unless there is a change in that kind of policy, there may be repetitions of those scenes.

I also want to draw attention to the very serious effect of the strength of the Indian civil disobedience movement upon the trade of our own country. 42 per cent. of the workers in the Lancashire textile industry are now unemployed. In the two months of April and May, at the very beginning of the campaign, the imports of cotton goods to India fell by 23½ per cent. During the three months ending June, the Customs revenue of the Indian Government fell by £795,000, and it is clear that these figures, grave as they are, represent only the beginning of a boycott which will become graver and graver in its effects. If it is said that the boycott will strike India as well as Britain, my answer would be that, when the Netherlands were threatened with occupation by an alien Power, they voluntarily laid their land under water in order that they might more effectively resist that Power. I am sure the spirit of India is such, not merely among the workers, but even among the employers, that they will be prepared to suffer trade loss, if trade loss is necessary, rather than call off this boycott before the basis of some agreement is reached.

I have emphasised the seriousness of the present position. I want very seriously, and choosing my words very carefully, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman steps that may still be taken in order to secure a settlement of this difference between Great Britain and India. The Government announced this week that the representatives at the round-table Conference will include nominees of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and the Prime Minister was very careful to declare that the Government would retain the right to declare the Government policy. I want to put this point to my right hon. Friend. There can be no doubt whatever what the pledged policy of the Labour party is. There can be no doubt whatever of the expectation of the pronouncements of the Prime Minister himself. We are absolutely pledged to give India self-government. Almost exactly two years ago the Prime Minister, addressing a Labour Conference, expressed the hope that within a few months—not years—India would have full Dominion status. I want to put this point in all sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman, that the fact that the Conservative and Liberal parties are going to be represented at this Conference frees him, and frees the Government, to make a definite declaration of Government policy on the lines of the declared policy of the Labour party, both in its annual conferences and in the hopes that have been held forth by the Prime Minister himself. If it were made clear to the Indian people that, whatever the attitude of the Conservative or the Liberal party, the Labour party stands by the declaration of its right of self-government for India, you would have taken the first step to break down the difficulty which now prevents Indian representation at the coming round-table Conference.

Secondly, I want to urge again that, if you are to have an atmosphere of good will in India, where alone a settlement can be reached, you must have, prior to your round-table Conference, an amnesty for political offenders. A year ago they numbered 1,000, 1,200 or 1,500, to-day at the lowest estimate they number 5,000. The representatives of India who can speak with the greatest authority for India are in Indian prisons. They are wanted at the round-table Con- ference. Can it be expected that they will come and leave their comrades and their colleagues in the prisons from which they have been brought forth? I say again that, if you are to have the conditions of a successful round-table Conference, you must carry out that amnesty in order to get the atmosphere in India in which that round-table Conference may be successful. Thirdly, it has become clear during the last few months, whatever was the situation before, that the Indian National Congress represents a vast mass of the politically-minded people, that the masses of India, are now behind that, Conference—[Interruption]. I will not delay my argument, because I have spoken long enough already. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very long."] If I have spoken long, it is because I am very keenly interested in India. It is because it was the land of my birth and, next to this country, I love its people more than any people on earth. It is because my family have long been there, and are still there. It is because I know many of these men in prison as my personal friends, and it is for one reason more than any other, that I desire a settlement of this issue without the situation getting worse and worse, without more repression, more revolt and more bloodshed, and I see those tragic possibilities unless changes of policy take place.

The third point that I was urging when I was interrupted is that it is necessary that at that round-table Conference there should be adequate representation of the Indian National Congress, which now clearly speaks for the vast majority of the politically-minded people of India. If those three things are done, even now, late as it is, it is possible that the roundtable Conference may reach a solution, but, unless those three things are done, my great fear is that the situation may get worse and worse, the repression may become greater, and the whole tendency will be for all those conditions which can bring about a settlement to be destroyed. With the greatest earnestness I can possibly command, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a policy which will enable the round-table Conference to be successful.

Sir CHARLES OMAN

The very eloquent young gentleman who has just sat down—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order—

Sir C. OMAN

I wish to correct myself. The very eloquent young Member of this House who has just sat down—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) to refer to the hon. Member sitting behind me as "young gentleman"

Mr. SPEAKER

I wish someone would address me as "young gentleman."

Sir C. OMAN

I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having called him a young gentleman. I should have said the "young Member of this House." He says that he was born in India. So was I. So was my father and so was my grandson. I think that I know as much about India as he does. While listening to that speech that feeling was being borne into me more and more until there came the final paragraph, when he called the weapon which is used not only by the police but by many other less authorised persons in India, the lathi. The "lathiarmed" police he called them. For one who has been in India the hon. Member gave such extraordinary mispronunciations of common words that I think he must have been a very long time absent from India, or had a very short stay in India as a child. But that is a point upon which I shall not detain the House. I shall only speak for 10 minutes. The point I wish to make is that the Government defended by the hon. Gentleman opposite have, as I understand, refused to allow the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to be at the round table Conference as one of the regular participating parties at that meeting. The reason given is that it will be offensive to many of the Indian representatives. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has prepared the most wonderful book on India that ever was written. Nobody honestly can say that it was not a wonderful book, and that it does not contain facts and facts and facts. The reason for excluding the right hon. and learned Member from the round table Conference is, apparently, to be that he is not persona grata with some of those Indians who may be invited to that meeting. I cannot imagine any more intolerable reason being given. Because the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley knows more about India than anyone because he has just produced an important work about the present condition of India and because he is thoroughly versed in all problems of Indian government he has to be excluded if you please from the meeting. He may be called upon, and his report no doubt, it is said, will form part of the State archives of Britain. That is to say the report will go into the pigeon hole and the author will be boycotted. I cannot imagine any more trivial declaration of a Government or any more shocking defence of that action than that which I have heard this afternoon.

The next point is that the hon. Member who spoke so eloquently has been talking of India, India, India. He is as well aware as I am that there is not one India but fifty Indias, fifty nations, more than a hundred tongues. There is no nation of India. The thing that he calls India is, as he ingenuously put it on severl occasions, merely a majority of the Congress Wallahs who "represent the more active form of the Indian 'Intelligentsia," which is politically minded." That is to say, perhaps 3 per cent. of the whole country. To call 3 per cent. of the whole country India I must confess vexes me, particularly when I remember that to a, large extent that 3 per cent. is composed of failed Calcutta B.A.'s, the unemployed vakils, and the other "politically mined" people who hope, when the British Raj disappears, to take the place of the present governing body. It is a case of ôtez-vous de là que je m'y place —I want your job. That is largely the explanation of the Congress agitation.

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman who spoke for his daring statement that "Communal estrangement," that is, religious bitterness, is rapidly dying down in India, and is at the present moment showing signs of vanishing. The reason given for that was that some Mohammedans took part in one procession in Bombay with some other people. But by far the worst religious riots seen for years have been the recent Dacca riots, absolutely bitter communal fighting which has taken place for many days during the last few weeks; they were the worst that had been seen in India since the still greater riots between Hindus and Mohammedans in the Arrah district some 10 years ago. Therefore, far from it being the case that communal bitterness is dying down, there is not the least doubt that the very worst riots which had been seen in India for years took place this very month. There is no doubt about it. What is the use of making fine harangues about feeling dying down when Mohammedans are killing scores of Hindus in Dacca and are themselves murdered by retaliation of the opposite side?

It is all very well talking about the reconciliation of peoples, but some regard should be had to facts. As to that pathetic picture of the Gandhi followers standing to suffer the batons of the police! It is no doubt the fact, but it is only one of the ways of passive resistance known to Hindus for ages. The sitting down in public places by way of protest is one of the oldest habits of Hindus. This "sitting Dharma" is considered effective. It is the practice of the country, and I see nothing very extraordinary in its being utilised again by followers of these seditious persons. As to the fact that there are a great many people now in gaol in India, I am under the impression that there are now a great many people in gaol in England for very good reasons. I have no doubt that the people in India are there for very good reasons also. Sedition and conspiracy are admirable reasons for putting people into gaol. That they should terrify us by their numbers is absurd. After all there are 230,000,000 people in India and naturally they can supply a certain proportion of persons for locking up, and that is my explanation of these rather big figures. I promised that I should not speak for more than 10 minutes. I will keep my promise by protesting that the word "India" must never be used synonymous with the "majority of the more active and politically-minded young people in the Congress."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE

I rise with some diffidence to speak to-day on the particular matter which has been raised because I feel, as has been said already, that it is, perhaps, a pity to say too much as to the future of India at the present time. I have a further difficulty inasmuch as I do not find myself entirely in agreement with some of the views which have been put forward from my own Conservative Front Bench already to-day. With every word, however, that has been said on both sides of the House, and more particularly with every word that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) in praise, in admiration and in gratitude for the Report of the Commission, I desire most fully to associate myself. I cannot conceive that this House could imagine a document of more value to India than the Report—not only because of the recommendations, which must form, I believe, the foundation for the whole of the discussions of the round-table Conference, but also because of the immense value of the first volume which provides this country with information in a form and with a completeness which have long been wanted. Holding this view, if I felt for one moment that the decision of the Government not to include members of the Commission in the membership of the round-table Conference was in any way intended as slighting them or in any sense a belittling of the immense work which that Commission has done, I should be one of the first to join issue with their decision.

Mr. E. BROWN

What else can it be?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE

If the hon. Member will allow me, I will endeavour to tell him. I cannot, however, read it that way. To my mind it is purely a practical issue. Is it to the advantage of the Conference that it should have upon it the members of the Commission or is it not? At this point I want to make it equally clear that I do not pay a very great deal of attention to the idea or theory so often expressed that if any member of the Commission were appointed to act upon the Conference we should not get the co-operation of the people of India. That may be or may not be the case. I rather doubt if it is strictly an accurate statement. Even if it were accurate and I felt that there was an urgent necessity or great advantage for the members of the Commission to be members of the Conference or that their not being so appointed was in any shape or form a slight on any member of the Commission or upon their work, I would pay no attention whatever to that consideration. But there are, to my mind, other considerations of a practical character.

This document, the report, as I have said, is to my mind certain to form the basis of the whole Conference discussion. It is immaterial whether members who come from India, try to ignore it or not. It is a document which is too important and of too much weight to be ignored. To my mind it will be the foundation on which the discussion of the Conference will take place irrespective of the results to which the Conference may eventually come. The Conference must work on some definite basis, and it must build upon some sure foundation, and the foundation of the very surest character is the report of the Commission, Which so far puts forward the only agreed proposals for the future. Consequently, I say to myself: Is it necessary, and, indeed, is it advisable to have the authors of that report sitting in the same room discussing matters which are largely going to arise out of their own work? It do not think it is.

7.0 p.m.

I can conceive conditions in which it might be extremely difficult for members of the Conference, wherever they come from, to criticise certain aspects of that report in the presence of the members who signed it as clearly and openly as they could do in their absence. For that reason alone, I do not think that it is necessary or desirable. There is another reason why I think it is not essential. The round-table Conference is only the next stage, and the whole question of the future of India is to be dealt with in stages. At and from the Round-Table Conference come the proposals which will doubtless be laid before Parliament. It is then that in one form or another we may be able to congratulate ourselves that the Commissioners have not been members of the Round-Table Conference, for the results of the Conference will then be discussed freely and this House will have the advantage of the criticism which the Commissioners with their unique knowledge can bring to bear at that stage.

There is a third reason why I think the Government have acted wisely. For three years past members of this Commission have been working for India in what may be described as an entirely non-party spirit. They have greatly assisted in creating a non-party attitude for India and helped to raise the Indian question largely out of party politics. When the time comes for examining the results of the Conference, their impartial attitude and reputation will add great weight to the views they then express. I am glad therefore that the Government have come to this decision. It is not easy for me to express these views, but I felt it to be necessary for me to do so holding the view I do. I want however to emphasise that if there was the slightest idea in my mind that any members of the Commission were ignored or that there was no gratitude for their great labours, I would not have said one sentence of what I have uttered, but would have urged their inclusion so that the House of Commons should in this way express their appreciation and give them that measure of praise which the Government are to blame for not having so far given publicly to the work which the Commission has done. That is my only complaint in this respect against the Government. They have not been generous enough in showing our gratitude and the gratitude of the country to these Members of both Houses of Parliament.

The hon. Member who spoke from the Government back benches referred to affairs in India with great conviction. He had no doubt as to how affairs in India should be settled. I would say that the longer he is connected with the question of the future of India, the less definite he will be as to what we should do. All we can hope at present is to bring about a spirit of good feeling for this Round-Table Conference. I was struck the other day at a meeting held at the East Indian Association with a speech made by the Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, who is personally well known to many Members here, and is one who has done great service, not only for India but for the Empire as a whole. For weeks past he has been making eloquent speeches very critical of the recommendations of the Commission's report. I was much struck with his attitude the other day when it was put to him whether it would not be necessary for everyone to come together in a spirit of good will and drop some of their preconceived ideas. He said he was prepared to drop three-quarters of his criticisms and, presumably, his demands in order to get a settlement. If we can get that spirit, then I believe there is a great opportunity for this round-table Conference. There is moderate opinion in India. A Member of the back bench said that the Indian Congress spoke for certain active political opinions in India. That may be so, but vocal political opinion in India represents a small portion only of the community. There is a vast mass in India who so far have not made their voices heard. The Viceroy has gone further to work with moderate Indian opinion than could be expected or demanded. It is not possible to say whether he has not almost gone too far to try and work with all reasonable men and endeavour to bring about that spirit of peace and good will among all sections of the Indian people which alone would make a satisfactory Conference possible. But, at any rate, it is clear that what this House has to do is to make it clear that the round-table Conference is intended to be a real Conference in which every possible shape of opinion may be expressed. But equally this House must make it clear, if necessary, that the decision of the Government is in no sense a reflection on the members of the Commission, and that we desire to express our sense of gratitude for the wonderful work which the Commission has done, the result of which, as I have said, must form the basis for our further considerations and discussions.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn)

Really, I think it is unnecessary for me to say anything. We thought on these benches that, on the whole, the best interests of India were served by as little being said as possible. So far we have had the whole Session without debate. I do not know exactly what has arisen in the form of criticism of the Government in this debate. If it has given us the chance to associate ourselves with the tribute which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) paid to the work of the Statutory Commission, then I am glad the debate has taken place and would associate myself fully with what he said about that work. It does not seem necessary to say anything further about the decision of the Government as to the membership of that Conference. The case has been put in words, with which I find myself entirely in accord, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne). The decision was based on the simple ground that in the Conference the British delegates would meet the Indian delegates with open minds.

The Commission's work is done, its report is presented, and they have given us their solution of this very difficult problem. The Conference will consider that and many other matters; its members will meet without pre-conceived plans. The absence of the Commissioners from the Conference is a natural and proper thing and to represent it as being in some way, as it certainly was not intended to be, a slight on their distinction and knowledge is an entire mistake. The Conference has been called in order that members of all parties in this House may meet delegates from India and hear what they have to say. Although it is perfectly true that much evidence was tendered from many quarters in India, it is equally true to say that many sections of Indian opinion have not tendered their evidence, and the Conference will give them an opportunity to put forward their point of view. Beyond that I do not think there is really anything that I can say. I do not know, after listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said, what his purpose was in bringing forward this debate. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), its interest and its sympathy must have impressed all members and was in striking contrast to the lamentable exhibition of the hon. Member opposite, whose speech seemed to be intended to exasperate feeling and insult members of another race rather than advance the task of reconciliation. The hon. Member for East Leyton speaks about emergency legislation, amnesties, and so on. I can only tell him that emergency legislation passes with the emergency. As to amnesties, the Government is entering upon the Conference, which is a golden opportunity for the two peoples to come together and for a solution to be reached with a will to peace and a will to success.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I wish we could have heard from the Secretary of State a more adequate explanation of why the Government have taken the very grave step of barring the door of the Conference, which is to settle the future Government of India, against men who were chosen not merely by the Government and the country, but by both Houses of Parliament to study that question, on our behalf. The right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to do so. I think he will find that that will not be the opinion which will be formed by the majority of the people of this country. It is quite true that this is a Conference to secure agreement, but an agreement involves agreement of both sides. It is not merely an agreement among those who come from India, nor agreement between Indians and probably the Government, but it is an agreement between the people of this country and the people of India. In a conference where you are trying to secure agreement, I should have thought it vital to have there representatives of a commission which has studied this matter with great care and with a great measure of research and with infinite patience and ability, to assist the Conference in its deliberations.

The right hon. Gentleman said that this Conference would give an opportunity to its members to hear for the first time the evidence of those who had not submitted their testimony to the Simon Commission. Is it not important that members of the Simon Commission should have that opportunity which they did not get for one reason or another which I will not examine now? I do not want to use any provocative language, but for reasons adequate at any rate to satisfy those in India they did not come before the Commission. Now it is proposed that they should come here and that members of the Government and representatives of the other two parties should hear what they have to say. Would it not have been valuable to have had the head of the Commission to hear evidence of importance of this kind? I should have thought it would have been helpful to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of thinking that the head of the Commission would go there as an advocate with a sort of vague obsession about his own report, fighting for it line by line. That is not my view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He has examined such evidence as he has had with calm, judicial impartiality, with great penetration, and with one of the best trained legal minds in the whole of the country. I think he is without exception the most distinguished constitutional lawyer in the whole Empire. His practice has been largely that of interpreting the constitution of the various Dominions and Dependencies and Protectorates of the Empire for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He has an acquaintance with all those constitutional problems in reference to the different portions of the Empire such as no other man in the Empire possesses.

It would have been invaluable to have had a man of his equipment, training, and experience there who would have heard for the first time evidence such as was not vouchsafed to him in the first instance. Would not the Government have found him helpful? Suppose that after hearing that evidence, the Chairman of the Commission had come to the conclusion that, having heard this new evidence, he was prepared to modify his views. I do not say that he would, but suppose that he had, would it not have been of infinite value to him, to the Government and to all, to have had that from the head of the Commission? If the head of the Commission had said: "If I had heard that before, and if that is all that is between us and an agreement, personally I would not object,' an opinion of that kind, coming from the head of the Commission, would have carried weight with us, and I am sure with right hon. and hon. Members on the other bench as well.

I do not know what the numbers of the members of the Conference will be but there will be something between 50 and 100, so far as I can understand from the suggestions that have been made. At any rate, it is to be a very considerable body. An hon. Member opposite spoke about the dominating position that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley would have at the Conference. He would be one out of 50 or 100. If he dominated the Conference he would dominate it by his knowledge, his ability, his mastery of the whole thing, and if that is the only way in which he would dominate it, why should he not dominate it? The great leader of the Nationalists in India Mr. Motilal Nehru is a man of singular ability. I think he is a lawyer. I know that when two lawyers come together there is a spirit of cameraderie which overcomes difficulties, and I venture to say that Mr. Motilal Nehru, whatever his opinion may be about the Commission and its report, would have listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, who would have influenced him as a man of singular ability. Mr. Nehru, as the head of the Congress party, is a man of exceptional ability, and with a broad mind. The head of the Commission would have the advantage of hearing what Mr. Motilal Nehru and other persons would say, and, on the other hand, Mr. Motilal Nehru would have the advantage of hearing what my right hon. and learned Friend the head of the Commission had to say.

I do not think that the Government are gaining very much in India by their attitude. Is it unreasonable that, as one out of 50 or 100, there should have been on that Conference the most distinguished lawyer in the country, who has been chosen by both Houses of Parliament to examine the Indian problem? He would have been one out of a 100 in the Conference. I do not believe that the leaders of the Congress are men of such a type that they would think it unreasonable that he should attend the Conference, especially if everybody went there and said: "We are not committed to the recommendations of the Commission." I say personally, and it is the attitude of my hon. Friends on these benches, that we are not committed to the recommendations. Whichever of us goes to the Conference will go with a perfectly open mind, to hear what is to be said for every proposition that comes before the Conference. Supposing the Government had said, "It would help to an agreement to have the head of the Commission at the Conference." But they said, "We object." His name is blue pencilled the moment there is any objection from India. Do the Government really think that they are making any impression upon Indian leaders and Indian opinion except an impression—which I think is a fatal one for the Conference, if they want an agreement—that all that you have to do is to threaten to wreck or resist, or say that you will not accept it, and the Government can be squeezed to any extent. That is a very fatal impression to give in India. If I were in the position of the Secretary of State for India or of the Government, even if I did not agree with the Report, I should have thought it an advantage to have at the Conference the person who wrote that remarkable Report of the Commission, one of the greatest State documents of modern times, to have had him there with his very calm, cold analysis of the situation and with his judicial temperament. I should have thought it most desirable to have him there.

The Government, in my judgment, have made one mistake after another in regard to this question. I always thought that the Viceroy's declaration was a great mistake, being made before the Report of the Commission. I felt at the time that it was really torpedoing the Commission. I will not say that it was deliberately done, but it had all the appearance of deliberation. There is no doubt that that has been the effect. How could you expect India to give a fair, calm examination of the Report of the Commission when you had practically in advance told them that you were going to give them a good deal more than anything that appears in the Report? You could not expect it. It was vital that the document should be examined most carefully by Indian opinion. I have a feeling of uneasiness about the whole position as to where we are going and that, somehow or other, the Conference is being manipulated and manoeuvred towards an objective which has already been determined upon, certainly in India if not here—an objective which is more than half concealed from English opinion—with the hope that when that objective has been reached it may be said that it is too late to return. I have had that sort of feeling about the whole business during the last two months.

I am all for a free and open conference, and when I say a free and open conference I mean a conference where everything will be sympathetically examined and where you will not exclude the consideration of any proposals from any delegate representing Indian opinion or British opinion, but that you will examine them with a perfectly open, judicial mind and with a real desire to get an agreement that will satisfy both Indian and British opinion. I think that in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India—I think he is very largely responsible—he will find that he has put difficulties which were quite unnecessary in the way of reaching the very agreement which he desires, and I am bound now, for the last time I may have an opportunity of doing so, to enter my firm protest against the course that has been taken.

Earl WINTERTON

I have been concerned in this matter considerably in the past and I should like to express my agreement with all that has been said by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I, in common with most of those who sit on this side of the House, have done my best, as far as I was able to do it, to avoid not only any party question but any controversial question arising between this side of the House and the other side on the subject either of India or of the Commission, and I say deliberately that if a controversy has arisen now it has been caused by the action of the Government. The Secretary of State for India in his reply said, and I think he said it rather casually, that the beat interests of the House and the country would be served by little being said in this House about India at the present time. What an extraordinary attitude to take towards one of the biggest problems of the day. The problems of this country in India will I hope always be solved in a spirit of partnership. How are we going to solve them by ignoring the position of one of the partners? How are we going to solve them by saying that it is dangerous and unsafe to discuss in the British House of Parliament questions affecting the Government of that great country of India. There has been too much mystification on this question for months in this House and elsewhere. We have been told that we shall embarrass this person or that person. The time has come when it is necessary that we should know a great deal more about this matter than we have been told, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the House far more into his confidence. I think he might have made more of a considered reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He did not intend to be impolite—I am sure that would be the last thing he would wish to do—but he said that there was no case to answer. There is a case to answer and a very considerable case, and I hope that some other Cabinet Minister will answer the very powerful case that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham.

Mr. BENN

The Noble Lord will remember that I invited the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and himself to speak before me.

Earl WINTERTON

That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham had made out no case to be answered. I say that my right hon. Friend made out a very powerful case to answer. He read a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, and it is a remarkable fact that the Secretary of State in his reply never referred to that letter. I must say, quite frankly—the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is a personal friend of mine but I am not in his political confidence and in what I am about to say I must not be taken as expressing his views—that the Secretary of State's attitude towards the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley in this matter has, I am bound to say, approached the casual. I think it would have been seemly if in his reply he had referred to the letter which was written by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. He has attempted no answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. There has been a lamentable absence of any answer and a lamentable absence of any reason given in favour of the exclusion of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley from the Conference.

I want again, although I do not intend to go over the old ground, to point out to the House what a very remarkable achievement the Commission has succeeded in accomplishing. Here was a Commission composed of men who have been engaged for years in controversial politics, some of them men with a very considerable controversial record, and that Commission has succeeded, as the result of most arduous and patient work for two and a-half years, and by a cer- tain amount of personal risk, in producing a unanimous report. One would suppose from the attitude of certain hon. Members opposite that the members of the Commission were men of no account. Two of the members are members of their own Government. The attitude which the hon. and gallant Member opposite took up was such as might lead one to think that those two members of the Commission have not the reputation which they have in his own party. The Commission produced a unanimous report, a very remarkable achievement, and under the circumstances it does seem astonishing that no representative of the Commission which produced that report should be on the Conference. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any argument against it.

There is only one argument against it, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention and it is this, that certain interests in India fear that if the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley is included in the Conference, they will be at a disadvantage, because they will be meeting the head of a Commission which has produced the only possible solution which has been produced up to the present. There may be other solutions, but this is the only solution so far put forward, and although invited to do so by Lord Birkenhead it is a notorious fact that Indians themselves have produced no agreed solution. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Nehru"?] Do hon. Members really think that that report was an agreed solution? It has been riddled from top to bottom by Indians themselves. It has not been accepted by a single section of Indian opinion, and has been dropped altogether. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion in Indian politics is that the Nehru report, which was produced with such a flourish of trumpets, and which I admit was an honest endeavour on the part of Motilal Nehru, was riddled from top to bottom from the moment it was produced. The real truth is that in all these months and years Indian leaders have never been able to produce any solution of their own, and, therefore, when we have an unanimous solution put forward by certain hon. and right hon. Members of this House it is intolerable that no member of that Commission should be present at the Conference. It is a great pity and I am sorry that the Government have taken this action.

The Conference is going to be very difficult business in any case. Everyone hopes that it will succeed, but the Government are depriving it of the presence of the man who more than any other individual would be likely to find a solution. In my opinion it is a calamity. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that the decision of the Government will be taken in India as wiping out the report of the Statutory Commission. That will be a profound mistake for Indians to make. The Conference, even if it succeeds, is not the end of the business. We shall have to consider the proposals' of the Conference in this House, and it would be a great mistake if it went out in India that we in this House are going to ignore the recommendations of the Simon Commission. They will form an important part of our discussions, and it is a, great pity that before the proposals of the Conference come before this House that there should not be in the Conference someone with the knowledge and authority of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley to put forward the views of the Commission in the Conference.

Forward to