INDIA (PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES). (Hansard, 14 June 1937)

§ Mr. Lansbury

I am sorry to have to keep the House on the subject that I pro- 164 pose to raise, but it is of so much importance that, at the request of some Indian friends of mine, I felt obliged to take advantage of this the first opportunity of raising the question. I should like to congratulate the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State on his recovery to health. I hope that he will soon be quite strong again, and I wish him good luck in the new office he has undertaken. The situation in India just now and, as far as we can see, as it will be in the near future, is one which the House ought to take an early opportunity of fully discussing unless steps are taken which will bring about a settlement of the difficulty. There are six of the Provinces which have a majority which have declined to take office unless certain misunderstandings in regard to the Governor's powers and to the likelihood of the Governor interfering with the working of those six legislatures are cleared away.

165 As most hon. Members who were in the last Parliament know, many Members were sure that the constitution which we passed after much labour would not work. We voted against the Third Reading because the Measure was not approved by the bulk of vocal opinion in India. The result has shown that up to the present we were right. At that time there was a demand for almost a plebiscite of the Indian people as to the method of organisation under which they wished to be governed. The answer to those of us who spoke in favour of Congress being called in order to draft a Constitution was that the present Constitution would work, and that our opinion was misjudged. In the event, we conceived that the powers which many of us thought ought not to have been introduced, namely, the powers of the Governor's veto and the power of the Governor practically to rule in defiance of a majority, have caused the distrust and the deadlock which at present exist. If this deadlock is not resolved, then, by a provision in the Act setting up the Legislatures, the Governors have power to operate the law and to carry on without the consent of the majority in the Legislatures. That would be a fatal beginning to self-government in India; it would discredit once and for all this latest attempt to start India on the road to self-government.

I do not think any hon. Member would like to contemplate the government of half a dozen Provinces in India simply by the rule of a Governor, but that is what will happen if the majority cannot be brought to understand that the Governor's powers will only be exercised in strict accordance with the law and within reason. Mr. Gandhi, who has taken a definite lead in asking that the Congress members, that is, the majority of the members in these Provinces, should take office, has done his best, I think, to clarify the position, and as I want to put the Indian point of view to the House I should like to read what he has said in his latest interview. I personally know that Mr. Gandhi is very much concerned about the present situation, and is of opinion that unless we can find a solution the difficulties of government in India will be tremendously increased. This question has been discussed backwards and forwards for some weeks, and among the last things that Mr. Gandhi has said publicly is this: 166 I am very anxious that Congressmen should take office, but only if the Government show their willingness to conciliate. The only obstacle so far as can at present be seen is the Congress demand that in the event of serious disagreement between a Governor and the Congress Ministers"— That is, the majority Ministers— the Governor should dismiss them. I do not know very much about constitutional history, but I should have thought that was a reasonable proposition. Mr. Gandhi goes on to say: I personally would be satisfied, however, if the Governor gave an undertaking that in such a case he would demand his Ministers' resignation. The Ministers have either to resign voluntarily or remain in office. Mr. Gandhi goes on: Congress critics said this demand is merely a trifle. As to the question whether the Ministers should voluntarily resign or be dismissed, I would point out that it is very difficult to be charged with running away from a job. Many of us on this side were charged with doing that in 1931, although it was not true; but the point I wish to make is that I cannot see that that slight difference between the Governors and the majority ought to be allowed to stand in the way. Mr. Gandhi goes on: In any case the object that the Congress demands is testing the sincerity of the British Government. Do they want the Congress in office"— That is, the majority in office— or do they not? In South Africa, Britain meticulously conciliated the Boers; in India, however, such a gesture was lacking. Instead, what moves seemed towards resolving the impasse came from the majority, the Congress party, and nothing else had happened. He proceeds to say something which I think is true: Now Congress does not demand any legal change. The argument against the Congressmen is that they wanted the Governors not to carry out their legal duty, but Mr. Gandhi says: It is being talked at instead of being talked to. I should think we ought not to allow it to be said, truthfully said, as it can be said, that Provincial Governors appear to be addressing the world instead of the Congress. I have not the time to say more on that score from Mr. Gandhi, but I would call attention to the fact that the Governor of Bihar on 10th June, seemed to me to have 167 made some approach to reality in the matter.

In my question I asked the Government to take action, through the Governors, to see that the Legislatures were called together quickly, and that we should not wait until September, when this House had adjourned. It is thought in India, and I think it would be better, that if this conflict is to continue, it should come to a head while this House is sitting, so that it can realise what is happening. Instead of democracy being able to function, we should have what was virtually a dictatorship in those Provinces where the disagreement is taking place. I would earnestly beg the Noble Lord to persuade his chief now to call the leaders of the majority into consultation at once, or that the Viceroy should be advised to do so, in order to make an effort to bridge what seems to be a very easily bridgeable gulf between them. There does not seem to be any real question between them. It may be asked: Why does not Congress give way? Congress does not give way as there is a tremendous feeling of distrust among Indian politicians. It is one of those cases where a strong Government ought to make the necessary approach.

I have always hoped that this Act would work, even though I thoroughly disagreed with it and voted against it. It has been passed, and I would like to see it tried right out. I hope that the Government will help men like Mr. Gandhi and others who want the Act tried out, and will take the necessary means for helping them to carry the rest of the Congress party, by making this concession. It is not a concession to break the law, but only one to arrange how best that law can be carried out without day-by-day interference, or any interference which Parliament never contemplated.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley)

I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for his very kindly personal references but also for giving me a more convenient opportunity of answering his question than would have been afforded earlier in the afternoon. I am afraid I shall have to answer him very briefly, even now, but I am sure he will understand that the reason is the short time at my dis- 168 posal. The right hon. Gentleman is pessimistic, I think prematurely, as to the working of the Constitution. I would rather dwell at this stage on the points of agreement between us than on the points of difference. I think the points of agreement are many. We are both equally anxious that, where Congress is in the majority in a province, its representatives should take office, and that in that event the legislature should be summoned as early as possible. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree also that to bring this about we shall have to have recourse, and we have already had recourse, to very delicate and careful discussions, and while it is right that we should give these discussions all the help and encouragement we can, I believe that if we were to press them too hard and insist upon premature action we should be likely to do more harm than good. It is obvious that, when once these Legislatures meet, the whole matter will be brought to a head, and if they meet before the time is ripe, before the Governors have a chance of considering some form of agreement with the majority party, I think the whole political future of the Province will be very greatly prejudiced. Much the better way is that the Governors should make every effort to make arrangements with the leaders of Congress before the Legislature is assembled, even if it does take time. As I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question this afternoon, the decision must lie with the Governor of each individual Province. Our general plan of campaign and our general intention throughout the whole of British India is the same, and yet in each Province local circumstances must vary so greatly that local conditions must outweigh every ether consideration, and therefore the decision must remain with the Governor of the Province. In the two minutes that remain, I should like to say a few words about the right hon. Gentleman's appeal that we should try to meet the Congress party half-way, which I am only too glad to say, we are more than ready to do. Perhaps we may differ from the right hon. Gentleman as to the best means of approach. Although he did not say so in his speech to-night, I rather think his belief is that the best means of approach is to go straight to the head representatives of Congress. My Noble Friend, on the contrary, remains absolutely convinced that the 169 natural and constitutional place for the discussion as to taking office must be between the individual congress leaders in the provinces and the Governors. I do not think any assurances are necessary from this Box as to the desire of each and every Governor to meet Congress leaders half way, and to do everything they can to assist them to solve their problems, and they are only too ready to meet them at any time if the members of the majority party are ready and desire to do so. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made a reference to a speech made in India only a few days ago. I might also refer to the recent speeches of my noble Friend, who has made it clear that it is the 170 earnest desire of every one of these Governors not to act as a watchdog over the Constitution, not to try to find fault with their new Ministers, but rather, whatever their party may be, to act towards them as friends and collaborators. If we all try to work the Constitution in that spirit, I believe it is likely to succeed, and the result will give satisfaction to all sides.