§ LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask whether, in view of the speeches and communications to the Press that have been recently made in this country, His Majesty's Government will not relax the embargo enforced on Dr. Nair or any other Indian from expressing his opinion; and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hour is late, but I think I shall be studying the general convenience of those who are interested in this question if I put it now. My reason for again troubling your Lordships' House with this matter is that since I last addressed you there have been many writings in the Press and meetings held, and I have myself enjoyed the hospitality of some distinguished Indians now in this country; and I frankly confess I have been very much impressed by the views I have heard in favour of the Indian Report. I have not heard the other side, the position being analogous to what it would be if while a Home Rule Bill was being supported here and outside the walls of Parliament the diffident Peer of whom we heard yesterday wished to come over here and express the alarm that he felt at the proposals which the measure contained, but was debarred from doing so because the Government had placed an embargo upon Mr. de Valera and the Countess Markiewicz. It would be quite wrong to put these two gentlemen on the same plane, but I think it would be much better even if Mr. Tilak did come to this country. In the first place he has already, as stated in the Press, announced his hostility to the Indian Report, and secondly I think if he were to address democracy in this country in the same tone as he adopts in India he would find that it would not meet with the reception calculated upon.
§ I think, perhaps, it is all the more reasonable that we should hear everything that can be said on this question and lighten it as much as possible, because we 240 all feel that there are those in India who view with alarm and anxiety the provisions contained in the Report. In paragraph 144 of that Report it is said that the one object and intention is to disturb the placid, pathetic contentment with which, at the present time, Indians regard our rule in India. That is a very momentous thing to do, and surely those who desire to retain this rule, and thereby be contented, should be allowed to voice their fears in this country. It would create a most dangerous precedent if those who do regard with anxiety what may be their future position should be denied the opportunity in this country of explaining their alarms before this country comes to a final decision in the matter.
§ The noble Lord who answered me the other day did not refer to one point that I asked—namely, under what possible Regulation was this done? Not even, I fancy, with the help of "Dora" and her long arm could Dr. Nair, an elector of Edinburgh University, be debarred from stating his opinion in this country, in public or in writing. I do not think that the Government, even with all the powers of "Dora" could prevent Dr. Nair or any other Indian from speaking. I hope the noble Lord will give me some answer—I trust he may be able to say that there has been a decision which, perhaps, will meet my view that this country deserves full enlightenment on this subject from every point of view. I regard the proposals contained in the Report with far greater favour than I did before, but at the same time I want to be assured that there are not in India those who will be injured by the adoption of the proposals.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I do not rise to discuss the Report to which my noble friend has referred. I was quite ready to discuss it last night, but I did not get the opportunity. But I do wish to join with the noble Lord in appealing to my noble friend opposite in the hope that he may be able to give us a more favourable answer than he gave last week. I quite recognise the force and the logic of what he said then, but surely each of these cases can be decided on its merits, and one need not necessarily follow the decision of the other. I was quite convinced by what the noble Lord said last week that it was undesirable that Mr. Tilak should be given full opportunity to come here and say anything that he liked. I 241 feel very strongly that nothing but good can come from anything Dr. Nair can say. Surely it is possible for the India Office and for His Majesty's Government to contemplate that they might take up the attitude that if it is safe for one man to say things it is not safe for another, and I hope we may have a more favourable answer.
§ LORD SYDENHAMMy Lords, I should like to say that Dr. Nair is the only Indian in this country who can speak for the working classes of India, who form the vast majority of the population and do all the real work in India, and of whose views and aspirations and feelings we never hear in this country. For that reason, I hope my noble friend will be able to say that Dr. Nair will be allowed to speak, as we have asked he should.
§ LORD CARMICHAELMy Lords, I will not keep you many moments at this late hour, but I promised my noble friend that I would say something on his behalf. I know Dr. Nair. I knew him in Madras, and long before I went to Madras. I believe he is a thoroughly loyal and honest man. I know he is a very capable one, and he has a good following in India.
But it is not on that ground that I appeal to my noble friend to allow Dr. Nair to speak. It is on this ground. I know that already people in India are beginning to compare, I think unfortunately, and I hope wrongly, what they believe to be the attitude here towards Dr. Nair and the attitude of the Viceroy in India. They are referring to the words which the Viceroy used on February 6 when talking about a certain deputation that was expected to come to this country Lord Chelmsford said—
The same inten[...] ion may exist in other quarters";and I am told that in India it is generally believed that Lord Chelmsford was then referring, possibly to others, but certainly to Dr. Nair. The Viceroy also said—I think that is a course worthy of consideration, and I would not have it thought there is any desire on the part of the Government to hamper any such representation. On the contrary, I would gladly give all the advice and all the help which lies in my power to give.I know it is easy to argue that these words have no immediate application to the case of Dr. Nair, but I also know that this sort of argument carries no more conviction with the Indians than with the ordinary elector in this country.242 The first result of that, I am bound to say, is an unfortunate one, because it will be used by those who are called extremists—I think we should all call them extremists—to try and force those who are moderates, and whose support would generally go to the Government, to act with the extremists. I am quite sure my noble friend appreciates that point, and that is why I hope the Government will see their way to allow Dr. Nair to speak.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON)Your Lordships will remember that on July 12 I endeavoured to explain to the House the circumstances in which the Government considered it necessary to prohibit Dr. Nair from taking part in political activity on his arrival in this country. As your Lordships will remember the case of Dr. Nair, as I pointed out then, had to be considered with reference to the case of Mr. Tilak, who it was contemplated would shortly be in this country. His Majesty's Government were strongly impressed at that time with the importance of not attempting in any way, to differentiate between the treatment of Indians holding different and divergent political opinions.
Since the debate to which I have referred the Government have further considered the matter, with particular reference to the fact that during the interval certain prominent Indians in this country have expressed their views on Indian public questions. This, of course, became inevitable on the publication of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms. As has been truly said, it was in fact realised on the publication of that Report that comment and criticism should be elicited upon it. After taking these facts into careful consideration His Majesty's Government have decided to release Dr. Nair from his undertaking, and he has been informed accordingly.
At the same time, in view of the principle, to which I have already alluded, of non-differentiation, the Government have further considered the case of Mr. Tilak, who is shortly to arrive in this country, in connection with a lawsuit. Mr. Tilak, in coming to this country, has accepted certain restrictions, similar to those which were imposed on Dr. Nair, but in doing so he expressly stated that he reserved the right, on arrival in this country, to appeal to the Government for a re-consideration of those conditions 243 I may say that in withdrawing the prohibition, therefore, from Dr. Nair, the Government feel it necessary to state, and desire me to say, that they propose to consider further on Mr. Tilak's arrival the case as to the appeal that he may make. That matter must be left until his arrival, and until the whole situation is placed before His Majesty's Government. For the time being I hope that your Lordships will be content for it to be left at that. At all events, I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House—especially of those noble Lords who have spoken so strongly on the point this evening—that the restriction has now been removed from Dr. Nair.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the answer that he has given, which is satisfactory in some respects. I still demur, however, to any comparison being made between Mr. Tilak and Dr. Nair. One, I gather from Lord Carmichael, is a devoted and loyal subject of this country, and the other, according to The Times, has had a career of sedition in India, and was recently branded as being an apologist of public assassination. I think such a comparison is a slur on Dr. Nair. I have never met him in my life, but to make such a comparison is, I think, extremely unfortunate. At the same time I hope that Mr. Tilak will be allowed to speak freely.
§ LORD ISLINGTONMy Lords, may I intervene for a moment, for I should not like the House to be under a misunderstanding? Owing to the late hour, I did not go into this subject so deeply as I did when I spoke during the last debate. I endeavoured on that occasion to point out to the House that whilst the same condition was imposed on these two gentlemen their characters were of a very different kind. If I did not emphasize that again to-night, I hope that it will not be in the mind of any member of the House that in saving that there should be no differentiation as between Indians of different opinions I implied by that that I placed Mr. Tilak in the same category with Dr. Nair.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, I should like to say one word in support of what my noble friend has just said. No intention existed in his mind, any more than it did in mine, of suggesting for one moment that the character of these two gentlemen rested on the same footing. It does not. There is, as has been more 244 than once pointed out, a distinct differentiation between the two, and upon that differentiation I, among others, have constantly insisted. With regard to the case of Mr. Tilak, what my noble friend said was true—namely, that his case is held apart, and will be treated on its own merits when Mr. Tilak comes to this country and presents the petition which we understand he is about to lay before His Majesty's Government The case, therefore, of Dr. Nair has been judged on its merits in the sense which my noble friend stated to the House.