HC Deb 24 March 1936 vol 310 cc1150-7

8.12 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG

I rise to call attention to a matter which concerns the relations of this country with India rather than the relations of this country with Palestine. But before the House turns finally from the subject of Palestine I should like to record my strong agreement with the majority of those who have contributed to the discussion this afternoon, and to express the hope to the right hon. Gentleman—who I see has just left the House—that he will find it possible to reconsider the policy, obviously the cause of such great anxiety in all quarters of the House of Commons and the other place.

The point I wish to raise is the grant-in-aid paid by this country, the sum of £1,500,000 paid by this country in aid of the military expenditure drawn from Indian revenue. This grant-in-aid, as the Estimates explain, is based on the award of a tribunal which reported in 1933, and it is by no means the only addition to our Estimates which has lately also arisen out of that contribution. The Indian contribution to our own Estimates, the contribution to meet the training of officers and men in this country, has been reduced during the period from £1,400,000 to £1,200,000. This country meets the cost of the Indian battalion which is stationed in Hong Kong. That is another £70,000 on our Estimates.

I am very glad to see in these Estimates a grant of £50,000 in relief of the sufferers by the earthquake at Quetta. I mention these things in order to make it clear that this House is not behaving ungenerously towards India at the present time. No one can say that, and if I question the merits of this particular Vote it is certainly not in any niggling spirit so far as India is concerned. What are the reasons given for this grant-in-aid? They are to be found on page 98 of the Civil Estimates. The first of them is the availability of the Army in India for use in an emergency in the East. That was the statement made by the tribunal which reported in 1933. I am doubtful whether that view could have been well sustained even in 1933, and a great deal has happened in India and in the world since 1933. For one thing, the India Act is now on the Statute Book and the whole policy enshrined in that Act is based on our guarantee of law and order for India. I do not think that anybody would question that this placed a greater responsibility upon the British forces in India, and that if it ever became necessary to remove regular troops from India they would have to be replaced by Territorial battalions or some equivalent. I believe that in the War Indian troops were replaced by Territorials, and I very much doubt whether the case can be sustained that British troops kept in India are likely to be available in any other part of the East, let alone any other part of the world.

The second reason given for this grant-in-aid is even more disappointing. It is "the value of India as a training ground for British troops."

I cannot believe that that argument was ever accepted by the War Office. I should think it must have been repudiated at the outset by the War Office. The needs of internal security in India to which a large proportion of our troops there are applied, prevent adequate training because of the cost. I know of one division the brigades of which are each 600 miles apart, and the divisional training of these troops, including exercises which are valuable from our point of view, are impossible. I do not think that that division has come together at any time during the last few years, and to talk of India as a training ground for troops which are scattered like that in little pockets for the sake of internal security is to put forward a ground of payment by this country to India which is unsubstantiated.

Even if it were true that India is a training ground, the kind of training that troops receive in India is not likely to be of much use for troops which are to be used in European conditions. The conditions are changing so fast. If we are to get an expeditionary force in this country—and that is to be our contribution to the system of collective security in Europe, the Secretary of State told us—then we must have specially equipped and trained troops, because that is the kind of preparation which is being made in other countries. The training that such troops receive in India bears little relation to the training they would require if they were to be useful as an expeditionary force to be used in Europe. Not only that, but under the award of the tribunal this country pays for all troops in the Reserve. These payments are calculated not only on Colour service but on Reserve service. Therefore, we pay for all these troops on Reserve even if their whole training has been in India. I do not think that anyone can argue that troops whose whole training has been done in India arc of use as Reserves for an expeditionary force to be used in Europe under present conditions.

If we are to have an expeditionary force in this country for use if necessity arises in Europe, we shall have to recognise that the close interdependence which has been established for 60 years between our Army system in this country and the organisation of the Army in India is no longer workable and will have to be reconsidered. That. must raise the question of Army organisation in India, and it must, I think, persuade the House that it is entitled to some report, some explanation of the way our troops are used in India. It is years since this House has been told anything about Army organisation in India, despite the fact that our manhood goes out there in great numbers every year and spends an important part of its youth there. This House ought to know about the organisation of the Army in India, but I do not believe that it is told anything. If we provide the men, as we do, some account of the way in which they are used seems to be due to us. I trust that some occasion will be found, if possible on the India Office Vote or some similar occasion, when an account can after this long interval be given to the House of the way in which the Army in India is organised for the different purposes for which we maintain it. It is common knowledge now that our troops do not like going to India. The dislike is particularly marked in other ranks, but the service is not pop liar in any part of the British Army. I think that one of the reasons is unquestionably that the accommodation for all ranks in India is so bad.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the maintenance of the Army in India is paid for from Indian revenues and not out of any moneys in the Consolidated Fund.

Sir E. GRIGG

The Vote we are discussing is a contribution towards the maintenance of the Army in India.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is a contribution for certain specific purposes, and so long as the hon. Member keeps to those he is in order. The Indian Budget no longer comes before the House, and we cannot discuss those matters which would have been in order if it had now done so.

Sir E. GRIGG

The purposes to which this Vote is to be used are not specified, and the House has no information as to the way in which the money is used except in one particular. We know that £130,000 of it goes to pay part of the cost of transport in India. Otherwise, out of the sum of £1,500,000 we do not know how the funds are expended, and I think we are entitled to information. I go further and say that if we make this considerable grant-in-aid to the maintenance of the Army in India, we are entitled to ask that some at least should be used to improve the accommodation of the Army in India. After all, we only ask India to provide for internal security and for local aggression—what is called minor danger. We ourselves guarantee India against any major danger, that is, attack by any great Power. It is not too much to ask, inasmuch as this House makes this contribution for the maintenance of the Army in India, that British soldiers in India should be properly looked after.

8.23 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). The hon. Member asked why a contribution of £1,500,000 appears upon the Civil Estimates and is allocated for the reasons described on page 98 of the Estimate for the purposes of the defence of India. The hon. Gentleman inquired in particular into two reasons which were given by the Garran Tribunal which reported in 1933 for saying that a contribution should be made to Indian revenues for the purposes of defence. I may remind the House that this Garran tribunal had very distinguished personnel. Besides its chairman, after whom the tribunal was called, there were Lord Dunedin and Lord Tomlin, the then Chief Justice of the High Court at Allahabad and the Chief Justice of the High Court at Lahore. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), then Secretary of State, told the House in 1934, this tribunal considered the subject, which had been a vexed question for very many years and had for a long time led to controversy, and decided, as the hon. Member has told us, that the availability of the Army in India for use in an emergency in the East and the value of India as a training ground for British troops constituted valid reasons for making a contribution to India to aid her in the cost of her defence. The majority agreed upon a contribution. I would remind the House that this does not mean that a minority of the members were not in favour of contribution. The minority were the Indian members, and they found broader grounds than these more limited grounds for a contribution being made. A contribution was later agreed to by the then Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the amount was fixed at £1,500,000.

Sir E. GRIGG

The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that on one of the main recommendations of the Committee the majority consisted of the chairman and the two Indian judges and that the two British judges were in a minority.

Mr. BUTLER

I say that the two Indian members found broader grounds for saying the contribution should be granted. I think, therefore, the House would be wrong were it to consider that it was justified in discarding the findings of so important and weighty a tribunal after the scheme which it has suggested has been in operation for about two years. As I have mentioned; the personnel of the tribunal was a very distinguished one. It considered at great length the cases of the different departments concerned and heard counsel for all those Departments, and then issued this Report, Command Paper 4473, which sums up its conclusions. The hon. Member is, of course, well entitled to his point of view, but the House ought to remember that this distinguished tribunal came down definitely in favour of a contribution, and I should strongly advise the House to be impressed by the findings of so distinguished a tribunal which took evidence over so considerable a period.

However, I do not want to answer my hon. Friend by a mere reference to the weight of this tribunal as against his own experience, and I would therefore like to take up the different points which he raised. He said that he did not consider the first reason given, that there was in India an emergency force ready to take the field, to be a valid one. He asked whether, in fact, the Army in India, constituted of Indian and British units, could ever spare any proportion of its effectives to go overseas and to take part in any action or to render any service in what could be regarded as an emergency. Assistance has been given by Indian troops on many occasions in the past, from as early a date as 1856. There have been some dozen or more occasions when, for various reasons, Indian troops have willingly gone overseas. The most recent occasion was when Indian troops went to Shanghai. The understanding has been that assistance has been given in the past only if the external and internal situation of India allowed the troops to be spared. India has not failed in the past, and I see no reason, providing the internal and external situation allows the troops to be spared, why she should fail in the future. As regards the present circumstances, about which a right hon. Gentleman opposite interjected a remark, the House may rest assured that in the present emergency India has been willing to render the same service as she has rendered in the past. In particular, a certain force has been sent to Aden, and a company, as reported in the Press, was sent to Addis Ababa as a guard for the British Legation there. Therefore, looking to past history and to the present emergency, it has been possible for India, consistent with the undertaking as to the external and internal situation of India allowing it, to send troops abroad for specific purposes. The tribunal considered this matter most carefully, and I see no reason why the Government should alter the decision that was come to.

On the question whether India really forms a training ground for active service, the hon. Member said divisions in India did not come together, that they were scattered about and, in fact, gave the impression that the Army in India was a somewhat scattered force which did not provide a suitable training ground for emergencies or for the use of troops as an expeditionary force. I am advised, and I think that in my modest experience I have been able to see that it is so, than, India provides one of the best training grounds possible for the British Army. I think all our military experts would be agreed that that was so. It gives frequent opportunities for active service in minor affairs, and all ranks gain the greatest experience of the Army on what is more or less the equivalent of a war footing. Indeed, the battalions in India may be regarded as active service battalions. India maintains a full complement of educational and instructional establishments, which are open to all ranks, keep the troops efficient, and give every opportunity to the young soldier going out to India.

I cannot accept the hon. Member's view that the divisions in India are not closely in touch with each other. I should say that the Army in India is to-day at as high a level as it has ever been, that the units are as closely in touch with each other as one would expect in a modern army, and that army exercises are carried out in the way the House would expect a modern army to carry them out. The recent Mohmand operations were carried out with extreme efficiency and illustrate that the Army in India, both in its equipment, its adequacy and, I would say, in its humanity, is as efficient an instrument as hon. Members could hope to find. Hon. Members will recall that a programme for the re-oraganisation, mechanisation and re-equipment of the Army and Royal Air Force in India was sanctioned in 1928, and has been gradually put into force ever since, so that they will realise that the Army in India is receiving all the advantages of modern invention. There are still about two crore remaining of the original 10-crore programme started in 1928, and the main reasons for the total sum of money not having been spent are partly the economic crisis and partly the face that the Army in India is waiting, I think very wisely to find the latest forms of equipment and the latest experience of the West to add to their own equipment, and they have a certain sum of money still to spend on this important programme.

I believe that the duties which the Army in India carried out hitherto, of internal security, and will still carry out under the new Constitution, to which the hon. Member referred, have been and will be of first-class value. Perhaps the hon. Member is right that this is not the occasion to go in great detail into the condition and position of the Army in India, or in greater detail into the happiness and the contentment of British troops. I think Mr. Deputy-Speaker would rule that that would not be in order. In final reply to the hon. Gentleman I would say that I hope my words have shown him that the Army in India is an efficient force at the present moment. I would assure him that every effort is being made to make the life of British troops as agreeable as possible. I would just give an instance, which is that ventilating in the Plains is now carried out by electricity, which is a great improvement upon the old days about which Kipling-used to write. I only add that to show that the money that the House puts aside, in accordance with the recommendations of the Government and the tribunal, is well worth while, and that the availability of the Army and the availability of India for use as a training ground for British troops are very valid reasons for consideration in this House. I am very glad to have had an opportunity of assuring the hon. Gentleman that the Army in India is an efficient force.