1. Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India have, over a long period of years, sold land in the civil station of Bangalore to private persons and public bodies, sales which have been ratified by the granting of British titles under the authority of the Secretary of State for India; and whether he is satisfied that these titles are valid?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)I cannot say how titles in land have been regulated in the past, but I am making inquiries.
Duchess of ATHOLLIs it not the case that they have been ratified by my right hon. Friend and his predecessor?
§ Sir S. HOAREI have just told my Noble Friend that I cannot say how they have been regulated, but I am making inquiries.
2. Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered a joint memorial, dated 4th September, 1934, from the Bangalore Trades Association, the Southern Division Ratepayers Association, Bangalore, the Bangalore Ratepayers' Association, and the Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European Association in Bangalore, protesting against the proposed retrocession of the civil station to Mysore, on the ground, among others, that much land in the station has been sold by the Government of India to private persons and public bodies; is the said retrocession to be one of the conditions of Mysore State entering the proposed All-India Federation; and will he abandon the proposed handing over of loyal British and British-Indian subjects against their will to Indian rule?
§ Sir S. HOAREI have seen a copy of the representation to which the Noble Lady refers, but I understand that the original was addressed through the Resident in Mysore to the Viceroy. I have not received any indication of the views of the Government of India on this representation. The conditions on which Mysore State should be admitted to Federation can obviously only be settled when an Act to provide for a Federation has been passed, but there is no direct connection between the question of retrocession which is being considered on its merits and the constitutional proposals. With regard to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the Noble Lady's question of 30th July.
3. Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the memorial from 30,000 Moslems in the civil and military station of Bangalore, protesting against the proposed partial retrocession of the station to Mysore on the grounds that, as subjects of a Hindu State, their interests, culture, and existence as a separate community would be adversely affected; is there any precedent for such a proposal for handing over loyal British-Indian subjects against their will to Indian rule, and will he now abandon it?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe position regarding the Moslem representation is the same as with the representation of the Bangalore Trades Association.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESIs it not the fact that the Prime Minister of Mysore is himself a Moslem?
§ Sir S. HOAREThat is the case.
§ Mr. KIRKPATRICKIs it not the fact that the State of Mysore was represented at the last Round-Table Conference by a high official who was a Mussulman?
§ Sir S. HOAREThat is also the case.
§ Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXAre all Mussulmans agreed on the subject?