CLAUSE 1 (Postponement of certain general elections.) (Hansard, 11 September 1941)

§ Mr. Silverman
I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the discussion which has taken place, in which he had only one supporter, and that one half-hearted, should not have felt it necessary to reply to the arguments put before him.

§ Mr. Amery
There is the Third Reading.

§ Mr. Silverman
I will withdraw my complaint and await the Third Reading. With regard to this Clause, what is the position with regard to by-elections that might be necessary from time to time? I understand that a great many members of these Legislative Assemblies are now, under Defence Regulations in India, sometimes under actual charges, in prison, and that when a member of these Legislative Assemblies is in prison in India under a Defence Regulation, or under 375 some political charge, the Government then proceed to do what the Government hesitate to do in the case of the hon and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay). They declare the seat vacant. How many people are now in that position in these Assemblies, and what is to be the position in regard to the vacancies? Are there to be by-elections, or has the Governor the right to allow a by-election in some cases and refuse it in others? In one case there was a place where Nehru was tried. After that trial there was a by-election in the constituency. There were three candidates. One was a Congress candidate, another was, I suppose, some kind of Government candidate—he was in opposition to Congress—and a third candidate got seven votes. We may disregard him. The Congress candidate got, I understand, 15 votes for every vote his opponent got. His opponent therefore lost his deposit, and the Congress man was elected. I do not know whether the Government in India have authorised any by-elections since then. I wonder what the position will be under this Clause about these by-elections. Is there to be any opportunity, such as we retain in this country, after the prolongation of our term, in by-elections from time to time to test public opinion?

§ Mr. Amery
The only effect of the present Bill is to postpone the date of the compulsory dissolution. It does not affect in any way the ordinary procedure in regard to by-elections, which remains in India as it is here.

§ Mr. Amery
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think it would be the wish of the House for me very briefly to turn to some of the arguments adduced on Second Reading. May I say, with all deference to Members opposite, that they seem to have entirely mistaken the reasons which I gave for this particular Measure? The main reason was the reason for which we have passed a similar Measure here, namely, that an election in the middle of 376 a struggle for life would involve interference with the war effort. That was the main reason I gave. It applies to India as it does here. I added that an additional reason in time of war for not holding these elections was the undoubted existence in many parts of India of very keen communal tension, which in recent months has led to a good deal of loss of life and property, and would undoubtedly be exacerbated by the holding of an election. I gave a third reason peculiar to the Indian situation. In certain Provinces Ministries have refused to serve, and presumably would continue to refuse to serve if an election were held, so that an election would, under those conditions, until this situation changes and until that policy is modified, be a purely futile procedure. What some hon. Members have ignored is that there are four great Provinces in India, with a population of something like 100,000,000 persons, in which normal democratic government is in effect to-day, with regard to which the position, so far as postponement of elections is concerned, is similar to that in this House. There is no reason to believe that if elections were held there, there would be returned anyone not fully supporting the war effort. I think that is all I need say on the immediate and narrow purposes of this Bill.
It would not be in Order for me on Third Reading to go into wider issues beyond just saying this in answer to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). It is not in one party only in this House of Commons but in the whole of this House and the country that there is a genuine desire to see India find her position as soon as possible as a free and equal partner in the British Commonwealth. That is a matter of principle in which we have taken the lead before the Atlantic Charter, which introduces no new principle, was ever promulgated. It is also a matter which has to be carried out in practice, and I, in my position, would be very grateful if Members who are so eager for immediate action would help me by giving me their precise scheme under which control of Indian affairs could be given to an Indian Government able to continue by agreement among Indians themselves.