§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 5.35 p.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThis Clause only deserves momentary notice, because it is the Clause which prescribes the use of the English language in the Federal Assembly. Indeed, it is not necessary to prescribe it, because it is the only language in which the many different races of India can transact common business, and I think that it is worth public notice that this vehicle of the English language and everything else that is being done through the influence and authority of the British Raj has promoted and built up such unity of India as exists. When we hear the talk which goes on about all India a nation, and India is represented as an identity, it is worth while realising 436 how very superficial, artificial, and recent is this veneer of British civilisation and organisation which has been spread over this vast and heterogeneous area. Certainly it would be a pity for us to pass this Clause, with which I am entirely in accord, without noticing the fact that when even the most hostile conspiracies are levelled against this country by different Indian races, the preparations for them have to be conducted in the English language, and surely as our influence and authority diminish, so surely will the hope of any form of Indian unity die.
§ 5.37 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWill the hon. Gentleman be good enough to state approximately how many Indians can speak the English language, and whether all these proceedings in the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Assemblies will be translated into the English language? 437 If not, will they be translated into the local languages suitable for particular areas, or, what other channels has the hon. Gentleman in mind through which to inform those who will be called upon to elect the lower assemblies and the Federal Assembly?
§ 5.38 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLERI am afraid I have not the exact statistics of the number of Indians who speak English, but I dare to say that a very large number transact their daily business in English, and I should like to pay a tribute to the genius of the British race in giving India this opportunity for a unifying language, as was claimed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), as to how the proceedings in the legislatures which are conducted in English shall reach the ears or eyes of the masses, there is the vernacular Press, on which I think we can rely to inform the masses as to what is proceeding in these assemblies.
I notice that the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), a colleague and friend of the right hon. Member for Epping, who has always expressed such hopes and wishes on behalf of the masses, had an Amendment down to this Clause which would have omitted the proviso that those who did not understand the English language should be allowed to address the Legislature if necessary in the vernacular. That, I think, would have cut out some of the poorer and more modest representatives of those very masses, and the depressed classes perhaps, or representatives of labour or others who might not have satisfactorily mastered the English language through lack of opportunity. It is strange that such an Amendment should have been placed upon the Paper by the Noble Lord. I do not wish to enter into controversy on this Clause; I only thought fit to draw attention to that point.
Apart from that, I should like to support what the right hon. Member for Epping has said and to say that it is due to the English language that so much unification has been achieved. It has been a rule in the Legislature that English should be the language. This proviso which is included has been a proviso in 438 the present rules of business of the Indian Legislature during the last 12 years of the reforms, and we are merely preserving the situation as it exists at present in India.
§ 5.40 p.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am sorry the Under-Secretary of State went out of his way to criticise my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). As a matter of fact, there is a great deal to be said for querying the proviso, because the proviso seems to a very large extent to take away the sense of the Clause, and, if worked in a certain manner, it would destroy the sense of the Clause; but it is sufficient, as the question is raised, to state that the matter has worked well on this basis. But why, when my Noble Friend did not move his Amendment in order to expedite business, the Under-Secretary of State should go out of his way, in the hope of making a score at his expense, to occupy several minutes of our time, I am unable to say.
§ 5.41 p.m.
§ Mr. DONNERAs my name is down to the Amendment which has not been moved, I should like to point out that there is some justification for the Amendment, inasmuch as we are dealing with the Central Assembly. I should like to point out to the Under-Secretary of State that there is no similar Amendment with regard to the Provincial Legislatures. It was merely a matter, therefore, of dealing with the Central Assembly, considering the fact that the members of it are elected on an indirect vote.
§ 5.42 p.m.
§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDIf we are ever to achieve unity in India, we shall only do it through the universal use of the English language. Therefore, as the Government are professing to try to achieve federal unity, I am very much surprised that they do not accept the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANNo Amendment is before the Committee.
§ Sir W. WAYLANDI agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said with regard to the English language. If the English language only is used in India, what follows? All those who desire to represent their fellow countrymen will learn English. It will compel the majority 439 to learn the only language which is in any degree the universal language in India. Therefore, I certainly think it would be a step absolutely in the right direction, towards unity, if the English language only was used in the Federal Assembly.