HC Deb 18 April 1944 vol 399 cc155-66
The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery)

I beg to move, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 15th February, 1941 copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively. I understand that there is to be a full day given to the discussion of Indian policy, which will naturally cover not only political issues but the whole field of administrative and economic policy, and therefore I do not suppose that the House will expect me At this late hour to do more in connection with these Resolutions for the continuation of Section 93 in certain Indian Provinces than explain briefly their immediate purport and necessity. The Act of 1935 provided in Section 93 that, if the Governor of a Province found that Parliamentary government in accordance with the provisions of the Act could not be carried on, he was empowered by proclamation to announce that he was himself, in his own discretion, taking over any or all the functions of government. That situation arose in October, 1939, when the so-called "high command" of the Congress Party ordered Congress Ministries in eight Indian Provinces to resign their functions, in order in part to embarrass the general conduct of the Government of India, and also in order to make it clear that they would dissociate themselves from any responsibility for contributing to or co-operating in the conduct of the war. Those proclamations were valid only for six months unless confirmed and continued by Parliament for 12 months at a time.

Originally there was a limit of three years for the continuation of the proclamations but, in view of the war situation, Parliament in 1942 decided that they could be continued from year to year by Parliament so long as the war period lasted. These Resolutions affect only five out of the 11 Provinces of British India. Originally, seven Provinces were adminis- tered by Governors under Section 93, but in the course of the war, first of all the Province of Orissa, and, during the last 12 months, the North-West Frontier Province, have found it possible to provide self-governing Ministries supported by adequate majorities in their Legislatures. So that to-day a majority of the Provinces of India are enjoying within the very wide sphere of their authority democratic responsible Parliamentary self-government. That affects a population of something like 110,000,000, or well over one-third of the population of British India. In those Provinces a very wide field of legislative and executive authority, covering most of the subjects which occupy the attention of this House in time of peace, fall entirely within the scope of Ministers subject to Parliamentary responsibility. Those same Governments have actively co-operated in the war effort in support of the central Government. They have equally cooperated, and very effectively, in the maintenance of law and order. It is essential, I think, for the House to remember that when the very grave disturbances, which were instigated by Congress, occurred in the autumn of 1942, they were dealt with effectively in these Provinces, not by the Central Government of India, but by the Provincial authorities.

Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)

Does the right hon. Gentleman really state that these regrettable disturbances were actually instigated by Congress?

Mr. Amery

Yes, Sir, most certainly. The whole campaign for creating mass sabotage and for paralysing, to use the words of the resolution of 8th August, the activities of the Government of India, was most certainly one for which Congress leaders were responsible. It was the Governments that enjoyed responsible self-government which dealt with those disturbances.

Mr. Cove (Aheravon)

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be opening a very wide Debate. I do not know whether we shall be allowed to follow him.

Mr. Amery

If there are any special points raised I may perhaps, with the leave of the House, reply to them afterwards. I was dwelling on the fact that these Motions, which we all regret, apply in fact only to a minority of the Provinces of British India. In the majority of Provinces the traditions and experience of self-government have been continued and developed during these difficult war years, and that is something which it is well worth bearing in mind. It is, of course, a matter of regret to all of us that the same opportunities for developing the traditions and experience of self-government have been denied to the other Provinces, but not by the responsibility of His Majesty's Government or of the Central Government of India or of the Governments of the Provincies concerned. When parliamentary government was stopped in those Provinces by the order of the Congress high command, there was no kind of deadlock or difficulty within those Parliaments or in the relation of ministries to Governors. The ministers concerned were, in fact, to the best of my information, reluctant to have to resign their offices in obedience to orders from without.

I do not think that anybody can therefore describe what has happened and the action of the Congress Party as a vindication of democracy. On the contrary, it seemed to me to have been a clear assertion of the totalitarian principle against democracy in the field of provincial government. Since then there has been no change in the political situation so far as that is concerned. Every opportunity during the next three years was given to Congress leaders to come to some compromise or understanding, both with the Government and, what is no less important, with other important elements in India, but none of those opportunities were taken advantage of. I need only mention the declaration which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production took to India two years ago. That declaration, if accepted, would automatically have involved the resumption of Parliamentary self-government in all the Provinces. Unfortunately, the Congress leaders did not see their way to accept those very generous proposals which, I may add, still stand in what the Prime Minister described as their full scope and integrity. They are, as the Viceroy reminded the Assembly a few weeks ago, an essential part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. There has been no change in that situation and there is nothing that the Congress leaders have done that would suggest a desire or disposition for a change. ' It is obvious that those who consistently take up that atti- tude, an attitude which definitely led to those grave, tragic disturbances in the summer of 1942, which might very well have endangered the whole fate of India in the presence of imminent Japanese invasion—

Mr. Cove

On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is an issue of immense importance both to this country and the Empire, and the right hon. Gentleman is making very wide and, from some points of view, very contentious statements. To raise these issues at this time of day seems to me to be curtailing the opportunities of the House to discuss them as they should be discussed. To range over the whole issues as the right hon. Gentleman is doing is derogatory bath to the issues which are at stake and to the power and influence of this House.

Mr. Speaker

We should, if possible, bring the Debate back to the Motions, and the general issues should be held over to the later Debate. We cannot discuss the general situation of India now.

Mr. Sorensen

May I ask whether it will be possible to comment, at least briefly, on some of the statements already made?

Mr. Speaker

Of course that must be so, because the statements have been made, but I hope that hon. Members will not comment at length.

Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)

It would be valuable if we could come to an understanding on this point. My right hon. Friend began by saying that there would be an opportunity for a fuller discussion. If it is the intention to embark on a full discussion at this stage I should be inclined to raise a protest because it would be an unseemly thing to do. We have given a considerable portion of Parliamentary time to-day to the discussion of Kingston-upon-Hull, which has a population of about 300,000. We are now going to discuss affairs which concern a population of 120,000,000.I think that my right hon. Friend was following a wise course when he said that we would have a full day later to discuss India, and I suggest that now we should confine our discussion to the proposed Orders.

Mr. Amery

I certainly would not wish to introduce, in presenting these Resolutions, anything which was irrelevant. I thought it was necessary to remind the House that the situation which led to the Proclamations originally has not altered. The difficulties in the way of resumption of self-government in the Provinces still continue. It has always been not a matter only of good will on the part of the Governors concerned, but a matter of constitutional duty and obligation on their part that if at any time it should appear to a Governor that there were prospects of sufficient Parliamentary support for a stable Ministry in any Province, it would be his duty to summon those who were capable of forming a Ministry, and of bringing back the resumption of Parliamentary government. That situation has, unfortunately, not arisen. Therefore, very reluctantly, we are compelled for another 12 months, or at any rate for the time being, to ask for the prolongation of these Resolutions. I think that is all I need say. I did not mean really to raise anything in a controversial spirit just now. I hope, therefore, on the understanding that there is to be a full Debate for all constitutional issues to come before the House, that we can get these Resolutions through without undue delay.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)

I must say that I think the Government and the right hon. Gentleman have handled this matter in about the worst possible way I can imagine. First, they realise that this is a very large and fundamental issue that ought to have a proper discussion. They try to arrange for a Debate at the tail-end of a day when there has been a great deal of other business and we cannot have a proper discussion. Having done that, and got the unwilling consent of a number of Members to curtail their speeches, the right hon. Gentleman gets up and makes one of the most provocative speeches on the Indian situation to which I have ever had the misfortune to listen.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

Nonsense.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

That may be the hon. Member's view, but that is not my view. We have had to forgo our right to have a discussion, because this matter was not to be put forward in a controversial way. If the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that he was being controversial, it convinces me that he is totally unfit for the office which he holds in the Government. I say that after very careful.consideration. The fact that he does not realise that his remarks are contraversial, and are likely to arouse fierce feeling in India, only proves that he does not understand the psychological reactions which lie behind the tragedy which is going on at the present time.

In response to your request, Mr. Speaker, and because of the obvious feeling on the part of other Members, I will refrain from making the remarks I had intended to make on this matter. I can see the disadvantage, in a thin House, of raising this matter to the status to which it aught to be raised. The temperature which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced drags this matter much below the level of world importance, to which the India problem really belongs. Having said that, I think the best thing is to leave my proposals until another time, still disapproving entirely, as I believe a large number of people in this House and outside do, of the kind of frail mind which the right hon. Gentleman brings to this grave and very important issue.

Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the discussion has taken a most unfortunate turn, but these are merely the symptoms of the attitudes we have got into in this House for far too long regarding the India problem. It is a matter on which many of us feel very deeply. I hope that when we discuss this matter in a full Debate properly arranged, we shall be able to clear up much of the misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman was a little severe in his criticism. I remember an occasion when there appeared on the Order Paper two Questions, one about Provinces of India and the other about trees in Hyde Park. These things do come about, but the arrangement to-day was certainly unfortunate. I hope that what has happened here to-night will not be the overture for the discussion which is to take place when we have a full Debate, perhaps in the not very far distant future. I hope that we shall then make an effort to escape from the attitude of mind that usually limits our discussions and that we shall have more regard to the safety and the future of India.

There has never been a time in the history of India when there was greater scope for all kinds of co-operation by all classes of the community than there will be when the war comes to an end. There has never been a time in the history of the earth when so many experiments in government have been made, as will then be in progress. There will be 12 Governments in Europe at least looking to us for guidance and I hope that some of them will look to us for assistance which we can provide. Do not let us think that the only solution of the Indian problem is in the continuing discussion of these disastrous barren and sterile topics. One was raised at the meeting of the Indian Liberal Federation the other day when reference was made to the obvious determination of the British Government to do nothing to solve the deadlock during the war. Whether such words fall from the mouths of people in this country or in India, they lead nowhere. We need a new outlook and a new spirit and I hope that we shall escape from these shadows of the past.

Mr. G. Nicholson

I cannot remain silent in face of remarks, which I can only characterise as astounding, which fell from the lips of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). As he knows, I have the greatest personal esteem, and a great deal of political esteem, for him, and I feel, therefore, that he will regret the violent attack which he made upon my right hon. Friend. I challenge him now to tell me what was said by the Secretary of State which departed from the barest statement of fact.

Mr. Sloan (South Ayrshire)

That is controversial.

Mr. Nicholson

He cannot answer.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

On the contrary, I can certainly answer the hon. Member, but I do not think it is a suitable moment to make a second speech. The speech of the Secretary of State was based on attacking the Congress leaders. Is this helpful, at a time when the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are not to have a full Debate? I am bound to say that if the hon. Member thinks that it is a helpful and not a provocative attitude, I cannot agree with him.

Mr. Nicholson

I am again surprised at my right hon. Friend. Congress was not criticised by the Secretary of State for India, who, in the main, made a plain statement of the actions of Congress. If that is an attack on Congress, Congress is responsible for that. If my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh had got up and said that it would have been wiser to pass these Resolutions "on the nod" and without explanation, I should not have contradicted him, but I understand that he announced that he would speak, so that rules that out. I feel extraordinarily angry at the violent words used by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He made a violent and bitter personal attack on the Secretary of State for India, than whom no man has given more thought to the problems of India, and than whom no man is better qualified to speak on them, than whom no man either in this House or in this country has more good will towards India. I protest most vehemently against the attack. I feel in such an extraordinary bad temper about it that I shall not say any more.

Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)

We have heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has made a violent personal attack on the Secretary of State for India. This has been followed by a comment on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite that his anger is rising. If I follow suit and go still further, in the scale of temperature, the temperature of this House will become considerably hotter than in the country about which we are talking. I do not therefore propose to increase the temperature, but I must deal with one or two observations very briefly. I shall do so because of the further contentious statement made by the previous speaker. I am a non-contentious person myself, though that may sound strange to some, but at least I try to avoid contention as much as possible. The previous speaker does not seem to appreciate that if the Secretary of State for India makes a statement it does not mean that therefore his words are not provocative and contentious to some of us. The statement he made was both provocative and contentious to my mind. I do not want to break the general agreement to abbreviate our remarks, but when he says that Congress instigated the disturbances I entirely disagree. I would contend that, on the contrary, there is no evidence that that is so. The Secretary of State later, perhaps as an unconscious modification of his first statement, told us that Congress was responsible. That certainly is a matter of opinion. To say "instigated", however, means that consciously and deliberately they made plans which resulted in those most unfortunate and tragic disturbances which involved the death of about a thousand Indians and from a dozen to twenty Englishmen, the flogging of nearly 1,000 Indians and the wounding of between 3,000 and 4,000. I mention that to show how contentious that statement really was.

I could mention other statements but I will not do so except to say that when he referred to the totalitarianism of the Indian Congress, in my view he was also flagrantly contentious although I know it is the contention in more than one quarter. I know also that is the sort of argument used about not only Congress but even the whole Nationalist movement. I do not interpret events in that way. The difference between myself and others is a sincere one. They have their interpretation and I have mine, but it is none the less contentious to put it forward, and even with a certain amount of complacency, and ask us to accept it as gospel truth. While we shall not enter into a long Debate on this matter for more reasons than one, we by no means accept the unfortunate preliminary statement of the Secretary of State for India.

I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has preserved the dignity of the occasion by refraining from elaborating the discussion, but I must confess that at one time I was rather astonished at the way the Secretary of State was going, because of a certain understanding that so vast a subject should be left for another day when we could embark on the matter with dignity. He then proceeded, no doubt quite unconsciously, but with a revealing state of mind, to trail his coat in a most provocative fashion, so that I was tempted to jump on it and engage in the upset but I will follow the example of my right hon. Friend in front. The proposals now made for the continuation of these Proclamations are in themselves a tragic confession of failure. It is continuing a deadlock which cannot remain as it is. In some ways it is exhibition of a kind of paralysing complacency. Whatever we may think about the blame to be attached to Congress, the fact remains that it is a shocking state of affairs that for the third time five Provinces of British India, including the most important Provinces of Madras and Bombay, are to accept what is virtually despotic government. They will have that despotic government at a time when we are still waging a prolonged and terrible war for the reverse principles, and also at a time when Japan threatens the Eastern part of India. I only wish there had been more signs than there have been up to now of the almost cosmic significance of the present situation.

The only other word I would say is that the sooner we move away from the standpoint of censorious judgment on those now detained in prisons and internment camps in India, and be realists, the better it will be for our future and the future of India. We may have our judgments regarding the Indian leaders. We may think them wise or unwise, but the worst crime that they have committed is that of being, according to their lights, supreme Indian patriots. Even non-Congress men have pleaded again and again for some little step to be taken at least to ease the atmosphere. They have pleaded for permission for contact between Congress leaders and non-Congress leaders. That has been refused. They have pleaded for the resumption of negotiations. Nothing has been done. Instead we have this proposal at this hour, in almost a perfunctory way, that we should accept the criticism and censure of the Indian leaders without giving them on the other hand a chance to answer back. Surely this is not typically British, or realist, or an appreciation of the gravity of the situation? I can only express the hope that when the full dress Debate does come along, the fact that some of us have said a few words will not preclude the possibility of our speaking on that occasion. I trust that in addition to the heat that has been engendered to-day a certain amount of light may illumine our darkness and help us to face up to the realities of the situation more than we are able unfortunately to do now.

Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)

I think there is one thing to which all the House will agree, that we all regret that a matter of such immense importance should have to come before the House in existing circumstances; we all must regret that. I am sure the Secretary of State regrets it. I want to back up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) and express the hope, which I think is shared not in just one quarter of the House only, but very widely, that we may look away as far as possible from the past, and look towards the future and endeavour to get our fellow subjects in India to do the same, and try to find points on which we can agree instead of concentrating on the points on which we differ. I would from that point of view venture to emphasise that while some of us may have regretted very deeply some of the words which fell from the Secretary of State there were other words of his that meant a great deal for the future of India.

He spoke of having to introduce this Measure very reluctantly. That is not the act, nor are those the words, of a tyrant. If he wanted to impose an alien rule on a reluctant India, he would not introduce these provisions very reluctantly. He wants them to be unnecessary at the very earliest date; and I think he has made that perfectly clear. He said that not only was there good will on the part of the Government towards the reestablishment and the fuller establishment of democratic government in India, but that it was the duty of the Government to do what they could to get self-government realised at the earliest possible date. He has re-emphasised once again, on behalf of the Government, that the great offer that was made in the name of the Government, and on behalf of the Government, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Minister of Aircraft Production, still stands as an integral part of the policy of the Government of this country. That is a thing which we cannot emphasise too much. I hope that, while we all recognise that this is no time to have a full discussion on so immensely important a subject, we may pass this Motion to-day with great reluctance, but not without hope of a better future.

Mr. Amery

May I, with the permission of the House, just say that I would like to echo the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), that, when we come to the full discussion of these matters, we should look not to what he called the threadbare events of the past, but to the immense possibilities that the future may bring to India. If I did touch on controversial matters just now, I did not do so with any deliberate intention of arousing controversy, but because I felt it necessary to explain why these regrettable circumstances were caused. I have not got up to start a new controversy, but rather to direct our minds in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead directed them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 5939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 55th February, 5943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively.—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bombay on 4th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 15th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on 3rd November, 1939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 1st December. 5939, and 12th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, 16th January, 1940, and 10th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar on 10th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 2nd December, 1939, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively.—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bihar on 3rd November, 5939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 3rd December, 1939, and i3th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, 16th January, 1940, and 10th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]