INDIA. (Hansard, 22 December 1932)

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I rise on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to invite the House to consider with me for a few minutes the subject of the present situation in regard to India. It is some months since this House had an opportunity of a formal kind of discussing this subject. Whether, therefore, the party for which I speak agrees or disagrees with the policy of the Government as unfolded, this, I think, we can claim, that the Government have not been in any way embarrassed by any discussion that we might have initiated in this House. Nevertheless, the situation at this moment is such that it would be a serious failure to discharge our obligations, in our opinion, both as an opposition in this House and also as Members with other Members in all parts of the House, as Great Britain is responsible still for our relationship with that great sub-continent of India, and in discharge, as we deem it, of that obligation, we have thought it desirable to raise, before we adjourn for the holiday, the subject once again.
I want to discuss the matter under two heads. First, I would like to discuss the internal situation as it now presents itself to us in India, and later, and in a more emphasised way, the present situation in regard to the Round Table Conference. It will be clear to everybody that it is at all times difficult to know precisely the exact situation in India. Many of my hon. Friends and I have deemed it our duty to address to the right hon. Gentlemen week after week questions bearing upon specific aspects of the problem of Indian Government, but in spite of that, however full may be the information 1250 which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give to us, there must necessarily still remain a feeling that we are not quite able to get a very clear view of the situation in India by reason of the fact that we are 6,000 or 7,000 miles away from this very large territory.
I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman one question in regard to the economic condition of the people of India. The House has been assisted in its study of Indian conditions by a very compendious report presented to it by the late Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Whitley, and his Commission. The disclosures in that Commission's Report were such as to make every one of us, no matter in what part of the House he sits, feel his cheeks blush and glow with a sense of shame. Let me give one or two facts as I cull them from that Report. Here are a few facts in regard to Bombay City. Seventy per cent. of the houses there are of one room. Ninety-seven per cent. of the working classes of that city are accommodated in one room tenements, with as many as six to nine people living in one room. The infantile mortality in the city is as high as 268 per thousand births. This is an appalling recital of facts which none of us dare ignore if we have in mind clearly our much-vaunted responsibility for that great Continent. In Karachi, one-third of the whole population is crowded at this moment into tenements where there are six to nine persons in one room. Similar conditions prevail in many other cities.
Not only are we told these facts by the Whitley Commission Report, but similar statements as to economic depression are made in a volume which is issued for us, called "A statement as to the moral and material progress of the condition of India." In that volume, for the year 1929–30, on page 115, there is the following statement: The most characteristic feature of the teeming masses of India is, of course, their poverty. On page 116 we have this statement: In any case, it is clearly the fact that a large proportion of the inhabitants of India are still beset with poverty of a kind which finds no parallel in Western lands, and are living on the very margin of subsistence. That statement is made in what I suppose is an official document, and we may take it that it is not an exaggeration but 1251 probably an under-statement of the actual situation. I need not dwell upon that point, except to turn to the economic situation as it is revealed in the factories. Again, I turn to the Whitley Report. They speak of the infants that are taken to the factories by their mothers: They can be found lying on sacking, in bobbin boxes, and other unsuitable places, exposed to the noise and dangers of moving machinery, in a dust-laden atmosphere, and no year passes without a certain number of serious and minor accidents and sometimes even of deaths occurring amongst such children. I will not develop that point further beyond saying that I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, in spite of his many preoccupations concerning the political situation in India, the India Office is not overlooking its responsibility for seeing that some advance is effected in the economic situation in that great territory.
I turn to another aspect of the situation. We have repeatedly in this House during the last 15 months raised the subject of the ordinances of India. Those ordinances have been in operation for 13 or 14 months. I have made certain representations to the right hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House on information presented to me, and from time to time the right hon. Gentleman, out of a sense of loyalty to his staff—a loyalty which we naturally expect from the right hon. Gentleman—has felt obliged to repudiate the allegations which I made. It is very difficult for people who live here and have never been in India to be able to support these statements from any first-hand information, but I submit that while the right hon. Gentleman is in his office in Whitehall he is under the same disability, because he is confined to England and depends upon information from India, provided for him by other people. There has been an unofficial delegation, not an official Labour party delegation, recently in India, composed of three people, two of whom have been Members of Parliament and one has been a Parliamentary candidate. They may, therefore, be presumed to be people of some substance and some reliability. They come back and tell us that, having made, within the limits of the time at their disposal, as impartial inquiry as they could, many of these allegations seem to them to be founded upon good ground.
1252 The right hon. Gentleman gave a reply the other day in this House to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), on this subject. I shall not dwell upon that answer beyond saying that I owe it to these people, who happen to be personal friends of mine, to make a statement across the Floor of the House, so that it, may have as much publicity as the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave. The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman that no great effort was made by that delegation to secure interviews with official people. He said that the hon. Member of the Viceroy's Counsel was seen by Miss Wilkinson. I am authorised by the delegation to say that they saw the Viceroy himself, the Home Member and the Law Member of the Council of India. They interviewed at least four Governors of Provinces. Miss Wilkinson was the guest for a week end of a distinguished Governor in one of the most disturbed areas. They were escorted to the North-West Frontier by a highly-placed officer of that particular area. They interviewed Indian officials and British-Indian officials, and took, as far as they could, fairly elaborate steps to get to know not only what is called the Congress side but the Official side as well. It is fair to these people to make that point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not object to my making it, because it would be undesirable for the impression to go abroad that they deliberately went out with the intention of presenting a biased report in favour one particular side. Having said that, I leave the matter.
I could recite a number of incidents that have been reported to me, but I will not do so. I will merely take a reply which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House and placed on the table in the Library. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked the Secretary of State for India, on the 31st October last: Whether he can give a list of the newspapers in the various Provinces from which a deposit of security has been demanded by the Government as a condition of their being allowed to continue publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1932; col. 1413, Vol. 269.] The right hon. Gentleman said that he would furnish the information, and he has fulfilled his promise by placing in the Library a very formidable list. Here it 1253 is, page after page, giving the names of newspapers in India which have been called upon to present deposits as a guarantee of their good behaviour. A better interpretation would be—a guarantee that in the future their matter would be innocuous. Really, we are up against a very important principle, the right of free speech, the right to discuss public affairs in the Press. However well managed and well governed a country may be good government, in my judgment, is no adequate substitute for self government, and, whatever form of government may be, unless there is freedom to discuss the actions of the Government of the day without fear of suppression or repression then clearly a very substantial element of freedom is removed and the consciousness of the removal of that element does not make for cordial co-operation between the Government and the public. Since the days of John Milton the question of the freedom of the Press has been fought out in this country. Some Milton may yet arise in India and write an Aeropagitica in the defence of the right of the Press to discuss the actions and activities of the Government of the day. I submit that this formidable list indicates that the powers vested in the authorities in India would seem to be used not merely to deal with delinquencies but largely to suppress what is a legitimate right to discuss the actions of the Government.
I do not want to exacerbate opinion in this matter. I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—I could dwell upon this much longer, but I forbear for a specific reason. We are to-day taking leave of each other for the Christmas season, and I wonder whether I might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that he should examine this question of the retention of the Ordinances in the light of the sentiment which pervades all our hearts at this time. Of course, it is possible for the Government to say that they are willing to forgive if the Congress people will give formal expression of their wish to withdraw the civil disobedience movement and abandon it. The Government claim—I will not controvert the claim at the moment—that they have largely destroyed the effectiveness of the civil disobedience movement. The Government can, of course, crush 1254 by force movements of this sort, but as the Government claim that it has crushed the movement then they can now afford to do the generous and big thing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the time has not now come when the Government, as an act of grace, could make a generous gesture in India.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute this proposition. His problems are difficult enough and if he can get in India a willingness to listen to what he has to say, a preparedness to consider any proposal he may make, his task will be made considerably lighter. A very substantial contribution towards the creation of a better atmosphere in India would be for the right hon. Gentleman at this Christmas time to declare to India that the Government are prepared, shall I say, to bury the hatchet, to let bygones be bygones and invite these people in a generous spirit to co-operate with the Government in the severe and heavy tasks which are imposed upon them. I hope that appeal will not fall upon deaf ears, because I am sure that there is not a single Member on this side of the House who takes any sort of joy in having to recite the various cases they have had to bring forward during the last 12 months. We have only done so through a deep sense of obligation and duty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it that we are making this present suggestion in all good faith and with a sincere hope that he will give it his most sympathetic consideration.
I turn to the question of the Round Table Conference. I want to ask in the plainest possible terms what is the present position? First of all let me recall the very important White Paper which contains the pronouncement of the Prime Minister on the 1st December, 1931. In that White Paper the Prime Minister stated explicitly the policy of the Government and, broadly speaking, it was largely the same as that of the preceding Government. We have now lived 12 months longer, and we have a gathering called the Round Table Conference meeting within the precincts of this House. Is it a Round Table Conference in the same sense as the old Round Table Conference? Does the pronouncement of the Prime Minister still hold? Is it still the policy of the Government to implement in 1255 spirit as well as in letter the statement made on behalf of the Government by its head some 12 months ago? May I put it more particularly? What is the view of the Government concerning provincial self-government and responsibility at the centre? This is a most serious question; and we deem it necessary to repeat it. I feel that the situation is such that we are entitled to ask for a repetition, a re-endorsement, of the declaration made on behalf of the Government. This question is justified by one or two facts.
In the first place, there seems to be a change in the constitution of the Conference. I make no reflection on the honour of the gentlemen who have come all the way from India. No sort of personal reflection is implied. But even these gentlemen will not controvert this proposition, that they are here strictly in their personal capacity and that they cannot be regarded as delegates representing a point of view and speaking authoritatively on behalf of groups of opinion. That, I think, is a substantial change. Not only is there change in that sense, but there is also change in method. During the last Conference there was a considerable degree of publicity regarding the proceedings. Here are we, Members of the House of Commons, very largely in the dark as to what, has been happening in the last month or five weeks. All we know is from bits of gossip that dribble out from the Conference room. Of course the Government must decide for itself, and it may be a wise decision—

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)
It was the Conference that decided.

§ Mr, JONES
The Conference, I am told, has decided. From the point of view of the general public and especially from the point of view of Members of this House, it is very unfortunate that we have not been able to get official information or communiqués from time to time, if not daily, indicating not in the brief and somewhat brusque tenms—

§ Earl WINTERTON
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Every day a full communiqué has been issued. Has the hon. Member not read the "Times"?

§ Mr. JONES
Perhaps the Noble Lord will keep himself in patience. I was in the middle of a sentence when he interrupted me. I want communiqués, not of the brief kind that have appeared in the Press, but of a more detailed kind giving us some idea as to the pros and cons of the discussions, a fuller account by far flan that which has appeared in the Press from time to time.

§ Earl WINTERTON
A communiquë has been issued every day.

§ Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE
Cabinet secrets.

§ Mr. JONES
They could not be Cabinet secrets. The Conference is not a Cabinet meeting. These people attending the Conference are important in their private capacity, but they have no more right there, and no more responsibility there, than I have, except that they happen to be members of the Conference. Can we get to know to-day what conclusions, if any, have been reached? This may be an inconvenient time to ask the question —I do not know. As the Secretary of State knows, we presumed that the Conference would be over yesterday or the day before, and we hoped to-day to be in possession of full information about it. Still this is the House of Commons, and we are entitled to ask whether any conclusions have yet been reached upon any of the subjects which have been discussed. Secondly, if conclusions have been reached or are to be reached, may we anticipate an agreed public statement, either in the form of a White Paper or in some other form, concerning the matters that have been decided?
Thirdly, I want to ask, as a corollary to the point I have made concerning the personnel and change of method, what the Government had in their mind in convening the Conference on this occasion. Were the Government merely seeking to ascertain the opinion of these people as people of substance and authority in their respective spheres in India, or was this Conference convened for the purpose of seeking agreement? The information I have is that up to now all that has happened for all practical purposes is that speeches have been delivered on one side or the other, but I understand that there is no practical issue coming out of these discussions. Those attending the Conference merely listen to each other. What 1257 is the object aimed at? Is the Round Table Conference to be brought to an end after these respective speeches without focussing the discussions to a definite conclusion, or is it the purpose of the Government, having heard opinions, to retire as a Government to Whitehall and to frame proposals with a view to presenting those proposals later to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses?
We are now some three days away from Christmas, two days beyond the date which we were told was to see the windup of the Conference. It is a most serious situation if these people, who have been brought some 6,000 or 7,000 miles from their country, are to go back without anything definite and substantial to show to their people. They have made great sacrifices in coming. They have taken great personal risks to their own reputations. Surely they are not expected to go back to their native land without being able to say, "This has been settled in this way and that is that. Such and such have been achieved. Such and such have been postponed." Surely the Government have not brought these people all this way merely to hear their opinions expressed formally, since they are fairly well-known people in India and their opinions broadly would be known before they arrived?

§ Mr. HALES
Was not the Conference called at the express wish of the leaders themselves?

§ Mr. JONES
The hon. Gentleman is able to answer that question better than I am, and I leave it to him. I say to the Secretary of State seriously that it would be a disaster if the Conference were brought to an end without some definite issues having been finally recorded.

§ Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE
Does the hon. Member mean settled without the consent of the House of Commons?

§ Mr. JONES
Nothing of the sort. I am not implying that decisions arrived at would be final for all time—obviously not. What I suggest is that before the Conference has formally concluded those who are members of it should be able to say, "This and this and this have been decided." That is all I am asking. I mean decided for further recommendation to Parliament in one way or another.

§ Mr. LEVY
The decisions would not be definite. Therefore nothing could be definitely decided.

§ Mr. JONES
This matter cannot be pushed off. Let me remind the House of a report which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on 6th November, of a speech delivered by Sir Arthur Watson, editor of the "Statesman" of Calcutta. Here is one passage in that speech: He was convinced that the one alternative to a constitution that would be accepted by a large body of Indians would be a doubled British army in India, a trebled police and a trebled Civil Service. For these things India could not pay. Great Britain would have to find the money, and after 20 years of resolute Government she would still be faced with the problem which confronted her to-day. This is not a statement of a partisan of my party but of a person who has occupied high journalistic office in India, addressing the Conservative Members of this House recently. It is as clear as the noonday sun that we cannot allow this problem to be indefinitely postponed. We must settle it and the Government must come to some final conclusions concerning it. Finally, I remind the House that in 1921 the Duke of Connaught speaking in India on behalf of the King used these words: For years, it may be for generations, patriotic and loyal Indians have dreamt of swaraj for their motherland. To-day you have the beginning of swaraj within my Empire and the widest scope and amplest opportunities for progress to the liberty which my other Dominions enjoy. Those words were spoken on behalf of His Majesty the King in 1921; they were a pledge and a promise, and I invite the Government to-day to indicate that there is not the slightest ground for supposing that this Government has departed in the slightest degree from the full implications of that speech made 11 years ago.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Let me say at the outset that I in no way resent this Debate. Indeed I welcome it, for I think it will be the means of clearing up a number of misunderstandings. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) always puts his case in a very reasonable and sober way and I think I shall be able, in my answer, to satisfy him that there is little ground for a great many of the anxieties which he has expressed. Let me begin by dealing with two or three of 1259 the more detailed points which he raised at the beginning of his speech. First, he raised the question of the disgraceful conditions, in many parts of India, under which industrial labour works and lives. I agree with everything he said. My difficulty is this, that the administration of labour questions is, as he knows, a provincial subject and we here have, therefore, little or no direct control. But I can tell him that my advisers and I here are fully alive to the need for a great improvement in labour conditions. I have had more than one talk with Mr. Whitley on the subject and all the influence that I can exert here is exercised in the direction of helping both the central government and the provincial governments to do everything they can to raise standards generally.
Next the hon. Member raised, in connection with the present state of affairs in India, the evidence that has just been brought back by two or three friends of his own and of hon. Members opposite. I do not want this morning to get into anything in the nature of a bitter wrangle as to whether the evidence which they brought back is reliable or not. I will just give him one or two examples that convince me at any rate that these people, excellent as they may be in many respects, only saw one side of the picture and that they were, during the whole of their visit, very much prejudiced against seeing the other side of the picture. For instance there was the fact quoted the other day by me in the House that a large proportion of their expenses apparently were paid from Congress funds. There is no doubt about this. I have the particulars.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I am not doubting that but if that argument is to be relied upon, then let it be remembered that every member of the Round Table Conference has his expenses paid by the Government.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I do not think the two things are on the same footing. We have had a large body of evidence taken from Congress sources showing that, from the very start, Congress made it its business to stage-manage the kind of picture which they wished this delegation to see. Here is an extract from a document from one of the principal Congress headquarters. I quote the exact words: 1260 The delegation that is coming from England is one which may carry impressions of an important nature. We are hound therefore to try our best to place before them all that we wish to reach people outside India. It would be effective if Congress activities like processions, picketing, etc., dispersed by lathi charges happen to be seen by them or even if the things occur during their stay such things leave a better impression if seen than heard of. There is in addition to that extract, a large body of evidence and I could go further into the matter to show that scenes were stage-managed for this delegation and that from start to finish they saw this carefully arranged side of the picture. While I quite agree that they had talks with Government officials and one or two governors, the impression which they left upon every one of my correspondents in India, from the Viceroy downwards, is that from start to finish they were biased in the views which they took.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from some document which is in his possession and is, presumably, official. In those circumstances, I take it he will lay that document on the Table of the House in order that we may be, able to judge it.

§ Sir S. HOARE
No, this is not an official document at all. It is a letter from Congress Headquarters.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
These documents have come into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in his official capacity as Secretary of State. He has quoted them here in support of the case which he is putting to the House and I submit that under the Rules of the House he must lay those documents on the Table.

§ Sir S. HOARE
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not an official document but a quotation from a communication from Congress headquarters.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Before you give your decision, Mr. Speaker, may I submit that it is a communication supplied to the right hon. Gentleman officially and that he is acting in this matter not as a private citizen but as Secretary of State.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is the ordinary rule, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that when a Minister or anybody else quotes from an official document the document has to be laid on the Table, but the House has had nothing to show that this is an official document.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Are we to understand, then, that the Government may quote from documents officially in their possession and make a case—I am not saying this in any offensive sense—against certain people whose conduct is called in question and that we are not entitled to treat those documents as official? Are we to understand that it is for the Government to decide whether they will lay a paper on the Table or not and what papers shall or shall not be laid on the Table. It seems to be quite a new procedure.

§ Earl WINTERTON
On a point of Order. Is it not very clearly defined, may I say with respect, that there is an official document and a non-official document? There is no suggestion that this is an official document. My right hon. Friend has said that this is a statement issued by Congress.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from documents received from official sources. I have a great respect for the Noble Lord and his knowledge of procedure, but the right hon. Gentleman has quoted an official communication which he has received, especially in regard to the money which has been subscribed, as he says, to pay this expense and so on. They can only have come into his possession officially, and certainly must have come in the ordinary official manner. If he quotes them here in support of his case, I submit that they should be laid on the Table. Very respectfully, I do not think that it is within the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman to withhold them or submit them.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Again let me say that these are not official documents.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
They must be.