INDIA. (Hansard, 24 March 1932)

§ Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

The House has listened to a number of Debates on the Indian situation during this Session, and I regret having to delay the departure of Members for the Easter vacation, by calling attention, once again, to the serious position which prevails in all parts of that unhappy country. There does not appear to be any lack of goodwill on the part of the Government, or the Secretary of State for India. I have read the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Debate of 2nd December, and I am confirmed in the impression which I received at that time, that he has a generous sense of his responsibility to the Indian people and the larger view which entitles him to justice in his responsible position. It must cause him pain and disappointment at the delay in what he described as a vigorous approach to the goal of India's ambition. Those speeches more than three months ago, following the Prime Minister's friendly leave-taking of the Indian Delegation at the Round Table Conference, had raised our hopes that the long negotiations had not been fruitless.

This House expressed approval of the White Paper and the Prime Minister's words by an overwhelming majority, and I am sure there is an equally overwhelming number of Members who deplore the failure to continue the negotiations after the Delegation had returned to India. We have never been told quite clearly why Mr. Gandhi failed to get into conference with Lord Willingdon, and why the amnesty proposed by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, and so cordially endorsed by the Prime Minister in his speech to the Delegation, did not operate. We now appear to be further back than we have been for years, not because there is any absence of desire for settlement, but apparently because the machinery of conciliation has broken down. When we compare the parting words of the Prime Minister with the recital of recent events 1206 in India., we feel that there is something which is incompatible with the wishes of the Government and of this House. It is becoming universally acknowledged that even moderate opinion in India is more profoundly anxious than it has been for a very long time, and Britain's best friends are disturbed and alarmed at the course of Indian events.

I shall not quote information that has reached me, because I know that the House does not wish to be detained too long, but I want simply to give reasons why the Secretary of State should give the House satisfaction, and that his words may travel beyond this House and give hope to those who are striving for happier conditions in India. The Secretary of State has given the House week by week an official report of the disorders and the penalties and deterrents which have been substituted for the law in India. It all seems so different from the picture to be drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister. Let us recall those words. The Prime Minister, speaking to the Delegation, said: Now I want you to take it from me that the attitude of the British Government…. is nothing more than an overpowering desire to leave you to settle your own affairs. We are not pro-Hindu, we are not pro-anything else. If we are animated by anything, it is by the conception of India herself—India a unity, India feeling behind and below and above and beyond her communal differences that mystic bond of unity which the great poets, the great philosophers, and the great religious teachers of India have always felt. Believe me, the British Government has no desire to use your disagreements for any ulterior purpose. Quite the opposite. Our one ambition is that, being in a sense kith and kin with you (since history, whether you liked it or whether we liked it has woven our destinies somehow together), we may use that unity with you in order to pave your way and smooth your path to that much required internal unity amongst yourselves. 11.30 a.m.

A great deal has happened since then, only three short months ago. Members have been supplied with copies of the East India Emergency Measures, and I find that exceptional powers have been taken by the Government in Ordinances of one form or another. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile those generous statements of the Prime Minister with the terms of those Ordinances. In Ordinance No. 11 of 1932 the Government have taken powers of a very special character, and in reading this I realise that British 1207 rule as we knew it in the past no longer obtains in India. Something has been substituted for the ordinary machinery of law which restricts and confines the Indian people to limits that are perfectly intolerable. In paragraph 4 of Chapter 2 of Ordinance No. 11 I find that power to control suspected persons has been given in these words: The Local Government if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person has acted, is acting, or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or peace [or in furtherance of a movement prejudicial to the public safety or peace], may, by order in writing, give anyone or more of the following directions, namely, that such person—

(a) shall not enter, reside or remain in any area specified in the order;
(b) shall reside or remain in any area specified in the order;
(c) shall remove himself from, and shall not return to, any area specified in the order;
(d) shall conduct himself in such manner, abstain from such acts, or take such order with any property in his possession or under his control, as may be specified in the order."

I really do not know what all this means. I do not think there is any Member of this House, whether of the legal profession or a layman, who can tell me what that means. The English of the paragraph does not convey very clearly to any ordinary reader what is intended, but I can imagine every phase of personal liberty being taken away from anyone in India under that Section. There is hardly the right to breathe. I will skip over the Ordinance, but there are many objectionable features in it. There are powers to issue search warrants, general powers of search, and so on. Offensive, inquisitorial, restrictive provisions of all kinds are coming into operation because there is a movement in India asserting itself, possibly unwisely in the opinion of many people in this country, but a movement to which response is made by very large numbers of Indian people, and which is growing and spreading all over India, despite all the powers taken by the Government in these Orders.

Then I find that there are definitions of offences in Ordinance No. 5 of 1932, and it is really astonishing to read the definition of molestation, which is as follows: 1208 For the purposes of this Chapter, a person is said to molest another person who—

(a) with a view to cause such other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such other person or anyone in whom such person is interested or loiters at or near a house where such person or anyone in whom such person is interested resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him or hinders him in the use thereof, or
(b) loiters at or near the place where such other person carries on business in such a way or with intent that any person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place or does any other act at or near such place which may have a like effect."

Lower down there is a definition of "boycott." India has many debts to Britain, and she has borrowed a word which is very British, but it is a long step from Captain Boycott to the Ordinances in India. This offence originated in Northern Ireland, and it is now defined for the purposes of British rule in India in these words: A person is said to 'boycott' another person who refuses to deal or do business with, or to supply goods to, or to let a house or land to, or to render any customary service to such person or any person in whom such person is interested, or refuses to do so on the terms on which such things would be done in the ordinary course, or abstains from such professional or business relations as he would ordinarily maintain with such person. How many Members of this House would retain their freedom for one hour if an Ordinance like this was in force in this country? The whole thing is intolerable, and such an Ordinance is very bad for the future relations between Britain and India. I received yesterday—and I am sorry that I did not give the Minister notice of this last night—a copy of a telegraphed dispatch which was stopped in transmission from India to this country. It was signed by Madon Mohan Malaviya. It was a long telegram, and I shall read only extracts from it. It gives the view of the Ordinances from the other end. It is the view of an Indian Nationalist who is counted of moderate opinion and a man of great ability. He refers to the Secretary of State by his surname, but this is not to be taken offensively in a telegram: 1209 Reply Hoare circulated House of Commons 15th inst., on political situation India which indicated improvement from Government point view several respects incorrect and misleading. Hoare admitted boycott now chief activity Congress. This been so since commencement civil disobedience movement this time and it has shown no sign slackening contrary been deepening penetrating interior all parts country. In towns generally large numbers merchants not placing orders foreign cloth British goods. In number places they separated sealed up such goods in stock at others this work proceeding with help peaceful picketing quiet house to house persuasion. As things going on may safely assumed unless great change public sentiment such as brought about Gandhi-Irwin pact despite all ordinances measures repression sale British cloth other goods will continue running downward course. Women playing most important part this phase movement. Other directions also movement growing stronger spirit resistance unjust oppressive orders stiffening extending.… According reports daily press published under ordinance regime total number arrests all over India to date 46,531 which in nature of the circumstances cannot include large number of arrests in far off villages in the interior.… In two places Gujerat villages not allowed carry water to wash after attending calls nature which is lifelong practice. Police tore off clothes and left people naked.… In Bikar volunteers stripped and one man's moustache pulled out. National flag removed several municipal buildings. Father sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment for refusing payment sons fine … Shopkeepers, hotel keepers arrested warned against providing Congress wallas food and shelter.… I am informed volunteers Peshawar been subjected such brutal revolting repression that finding it absolutely unbearable and yet determined to keep their vow nonviolence under gravest provocation many left Peshawar to carry on work elsewhere. This can hardly be called improvement in the situation.… Properties relations seized by police for fines of volunteers. Ladies taken in lorries several miles dropped out of the way uninhabited places. Volunteers beaten half dead then left on road stripped of all clothes. Two persons tied behind a horse cart mercilessly dragged long distances and whipped on demanding water. Persons beaten even after their becoming senseless. Hospital closed patients turned out. Educational institutions also declared illegal even small boys whipped. Some persons interned their own houses. 80 years old lady jailed. Belongings of the Swadeshi League Allahabad forcibly seized. Films featuring Gandhi, Sardar, Patel banned. And so on. I come to the latter part of the telegram, which shows that the man who sent it is not hopelessly biased: Impossible convey complete idea present repression but the very large number of 1210 persons arrested and imprisoned and reports in Press show far from having cowed clown people severe and rigid measures adopted and suffering inflicted upon people have only stiffened their backs and aroused spirit of resistance among them to join movement in unprecedented numbers. Country as a whole seething with bitter discontent. Even those who not Congressmen and who so far never concerned themselves with politics are sympathising with movement and helping it where they can. Trade and business ruined. Prestige of Government lowered as never before. Financial bankruptcy overtaking Government. Present policy has now been sufficiently tried proved be utterly ineffecive for suppressing determination people win freedom their country. Not only on grounds of humanity justice but also lower selfish grounds trade relations Britain and India Parliament should insist immediate abandonment present policy and on undoing so far as possible the wrong been done India in pursuit that policy and on resumption policy conciliation anti co-operation on footing of real equality to establish full… at earliest possible date. That is a report from India. Though I have never visited that country I have imagination enough to visualise that great country, with its primitive conditions, and its great mass of poverty-striken people, who are seeking some way out of their present conditions, believing that even for them there is escape from poverty and misery. Oppressive measures may be successful here and there. There are Members in this House who may derive satisfaction from the way in which the firm hand has been shown, but they are very few. Whether the policy of Ordinances can be justified on any ground is another question. What is the effect on the national consciousness of India of these widespread scenes of revolt and suppression, of the tales that are spread from mouth to mouth, and, wherever print is allowed, from village to village, from one end of India to the other? Sometimes the Ordinances contain provisions for the suppression of rumours and false news, but who can stop them? The tongue works freely in moments of excitement. We hear rumours inside this House. People give way to irresponsible utterances even here. In a country like India, without education and without the discipline that centuries of education have given to western people, it is far more difficult to prevent garbled reports being spread about.

Anyone who has had experience of Nationalist movements knows what occurs. There are Irish Members in the 1211 House, possibly, who will not be offended when I say that I have listened to most irresponsible interpretations of the historical relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Memories are long, and assumed injustices of long ago have become permanently impressed upon their memories. I am partly Welsh and partly English by descent, but I have lived in Wales and have inherited the Welsh tradition, and I recall from my childhood days the songs and tales of Saxon oppression over the Welsh hundreds of years ago. No doubt they are based upon unsubstantial evidence, but memories are long. In India similar stories circulate, and build up a tradition of wrong and injustice in the hearts of the Indian people which is not a good augury for the fulfilment of the hopes which the Prime Minister has expressed time and again in this House. There is a feeling that the British Government is not to be trusted, that the British people cannot be held to their bond. I have travelled widely for a man in my situation of life and I deplore the fact that our people, the most generous and most kindly people on earth, are held responsible for happenings far away from home such as no ordinary body of British people would tolerate if they had control over them. The kindly omnibus conductor and the workman we see in London streets do not believe in that kind of thing, and would not allow it if they were responsible.

The Indian people must be told that we do not wish India to remain for ever under this oppression and tyranny, for tyranny it is, in its application to the everyday life of the Indian people, those millions of people labouring under disabilities of all kinds, especially the great disability of poverty. We here know something about unemployment and economic depression, but the British workmen can still spend in shillings where the Indian workman spends in pennies. He has at least 12 times the purchasing power of the Indian worker. I am sorry I have been delayed so long on this subject, but I would like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for India and the Lord President of the Council to take note of these things. The Lord President is a good Englishman. If I were to criticise him the only fault I should find in him is that he is too English. I believe that in his heart he 1212 firmly believes that God is an Englishman. He has almost said so in this House. He did once say that wherever there is a specially difficult piece of work to do God calls upon an Englishman to do it. I doubt whether a Welshman, a Scotsman or an Irishman would be allowed even to hold the tools for the Englishman while he does the job. The Lord President of the Council believes in mahatma and pandits. [Interruption.] They do not happen to be Indians. They were Greeks, and they have been dead a long time. He is not void of that spiritual sense which is required in the handling of this problem. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have spoken fair words, but the leaders of Indian nationalism are more and more getting into conflict with police of their own nationality, with Indian police who carry out these Ordinances, and English officers who are carrying out onerous and disagreeable duties.

I do not know exactly where the power of the Secretary of State begins and ends. I understand that he has considerable responsibility, and I do not want to add to the difficulties with which he has to contend, miles away from India, as the head of an administrative machine which he must operate and which is a complicated and intricate machine. The main thing which has kept India and Britain apart is a failure to concede to each other that measure of respect which is the basis of all good relations. There are people who believe that no measure of accommodation is possible between East and West. East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. That idea cannot stand. We meet, we live together, we are under the same general rule. The English race has given many services to the world. One of the services which it has given, perhaps involuntarily, is the spreading of the great English language. The English language is rapidly becoming the language of ordinary intercourse in India and all over the East. There we meet on common ground. We have met in conferences and fair words have been spoken and worthy ideas have been expressed on behalf of this country. In words we have already conceded almost all that India wants of us, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to go one stage further and implement those promises. He should 1213 extend an invitation to further conferences between the leaders of Indian Nationalism and the Government of this country, and withdraw at the very earliest possible date the obnoxious, oppressive and un-British Ordinances to which I have referred.