§ LORD SNELLMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on the position in India as disclosed by the announcement and correspondence published by the Governor-General which appeared in Monday's newspapers.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to make some observations on this matter, and the House will, I hope, forgive me if my answer runs to some little length. I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government share the profound regret of the Governor-General at the failure of consultations which he has been holding during the last week to produce an agreement between representatives of the Congress on the one hand and of the All-India Moslem League on the other.
I may remind the House briefly that the previous discussions which the Governor-General had been so patiently conducting for several weeks past had convinced him that there was little, if any, prospect of securing agreement on plans which he had been considering with the object of bringing Indians into association with the Central Government of India in the conduct of the war, unless some accommodation could first be reached of the difficulties felt by the Moslems as to their position in the Provinces where Congress Governments were in power. As the House will have seen from the documents published yesterday, the Congress definitely refuse to consider any concrete plans such as those outlined by the Governor-General unless His Majesty's Government should be willing first to make a declaration to the effect that India is an independent nation, and that His Majesty's Government will raise no opposition to her future form of 1696 government being determined without their intervention by a Constituent Assembly to be formed on the widest possible basis of franchise, and by agreement in regard to communal representation. The Congress have further consistently taken the line, which they still maintain, that the fact that there are racial and religious minorities in India is of no relevance in that connection and that it has always been the intention of the Congress to secure, through the Constitution to be framed by Indians themselves, such protection for their rights as may prove acceptable to the minorities.
His Majesty's Government find it impossible to accept this position. The long-standing British connexion with India has left His Majesty's Government with obligations towards her which it is impossible for them to shed by disinteresting themselves wholly in the shaping of her future form of government. Moreover, one outstanding result of the recent discussions in which the Governor-General has been engaged with representatives of all Parties and interests in India has been to establish beyond doubt the fact that a declaration in the sense proposed, with the summary abandonment by His Majesty's Government of their position in India, would be far from acceptable to large sections of the Indian population.
But this does not mean that we have in any sense weakened in our determination to assist India by such means as are in our power to reach without avoidable delay the position in the British Commonwealth of Nations to which we are pledged. And let me take this opportunity of removing some doubts and suspicions which appear to have been felt in India about the reference in the recent Indian debate by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal to "the Dominion status of 1926" as being the status we contemplate for India. The suggestion, I understand, has been made that the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 has produced for the Dominions to which that Statute applies a status which somehow differs from, and is superior to, the relationship described in the Balfour Declaration contained in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926. This House at all events will have no difficulty in believing me when I say there is no foundation for any such suggestion. My right honourable friend 1697 referred to "the Dominion status of 1926" because it was in that year that the Imperial Conference described the status of the Dominions, and the status so described has not been altered by anything which has since occurred, the Statute of Westminster having merely given legal effect to certain consequences of the constitutional position as then recognised.
It was our hope that the plans which the Governor-General had indicated, including as they did the incorporation of leaders of the main political Parties in the Central Government, if they could have been brought into play would have done much towards facilitating the removal of the outstanding obstacle at present in India's path. The Governor-General has made it clear that he is not deterred by his present failure from hoping for a reconsideration by the parties interested, and His Majesty's Government warmly approve the readiness which he has expressed to be of such service as he can whenever opportunity offers.
Meanwhile, my Lords, the position at the moment is that in Bengal, the Punjab and Sind the Ministries, which in those Provinces do not owe allegiance to the Congress Party, remain in office; in five of the remaining eight Provinces where Congress Governments have been in power those Governments have now resigned; and in the other three Provinces the Governments are expected to resign in the very near future. There appears to be in one Province—the Province of Assam—a possibility of an alternative Government. But with this one exception the Governors have found, or will very shortly find, themselves with no option, since alternative Ministries in a position to command the confidence of the Legislature are not forthcoming, but to assume to themselves by Proclamation the powers which provisions in the Act enable them to assume in such a situation. But let me make it plain that Section 93 of the Act under which this action has been taken is in no sense a penal provision; it simply provides the machinery, the possible necessity for which Parliament in its wisdom foresaw if, to quote the words of the Act itself,
"a situation has arisen in which the government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions 1698 of this Act," for carrying on the King's Government.
It is our hope that, in the absence of opposition from the supporters of Congress or from other quarters, the Governors with the aid of their official advisers and the members of the Public Services will succeed in conducting smoothly and efficiently the administration of the Provinces, the difference being—obviously a very fundamental difference—that their actions will be decided in responsibility to this Parliament and not in pursuance of advice tendered to them by Ministers responsible to a Provincial Legislature. We greatly regret that the Ministries which have with so much zeal been carrying on the government of their great Provinces and tackling with energy and resource the many problems with which administration has naturally brought them into contact should have found it necessary to withhold their further services from their country. But we refuse to believe that this withdrawal will be for long, and we shall continue to hope, so long as any grounds for such hope remain, that the Proclamations by the Governors need have only a temporary duration, for I can assure your Lordships that the Governors will be only too ready to recall to their counsels responsible advisers as soon as they are available.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ LORD SNELLMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for the statement that he has made, and I am sure the whole House will share the regret that he expressed that the working arrangements in India have for the time being broken down. My judgment upon the situation after listening to the statement that has been made, is that some further effort, a keener effort, should be made than the statement foreshadows to keep the door open. The declaration as made by Congress appears, as we heard it, to be somewhat harsh, but we do not know what qualifications there may be behind the written word, and I hope that we shall not accept this failure as inevitable without trying once and twice and three times to patch up whatever difficulties have arisen. Congress appear to want to settle the matter without reference to outside influence. In that they may merely dislike official influence being exerted in 1699 any conference that may be held, but it is possible that unofficial advisers, who could interpret the mind and hopes of England, might not meet with the same negative response from them.
We cannot in this country compel either agreement or toleration in India, but it is quite obvious that the differences that exist there are based upon deep-rooted fears or prejudices, and we can only encourage every effort that is made to try to find a solution for the difficulties that have arisen. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be a tragedy, after the great success that has taken place in provincial government—a success which has raised the prestige of India in the world—if because of communal differences the system of provincial government should now be suspended. We can only hope that a way will be found which will enable all Parties to continue to co-operate in common service to their country. The last word that I will say will be that the statement, as I have heard it at this moment, does not appear to lead to any next step. It rather leaves the situation in the air, and I feel that in circumstances that are so important the Government might give a lead by indicating a little more clearly than they have what they propose as the next step. Do they merely propose to sit and wait until things get either better or worse, or have they any other step to take which will help to provide the solution that we all hope will be found?
§ 3.49 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, the statement to which the House has just listened is one of great gravity. It is the most serious statement with regard to India that we have heard for many years past. Regrettable at any time, it is particularly deplorable in this critical time of war. The methods that have been adopted to meet the present emergency by the Viceroy and the Provincial Governors are obviously the only methods possible in the circumstances, but they can only be interim methods, as the noble Marquess has explained, and while they are in force, as he has told us, the responsibility for the government of India in the Provinces must rest with these Houses of Parliament since it no longer rests with the elected representatives of the people of India. No doubt 1700 this House and the other House will in due course have to consider very seriously what steps they can take—if indeed they can take any steps—to promote some form of settlement.
We debated this question here in only a brief discussion a few days ago, and then I ventured to express the view that Congress had acted wrongly in calling out the Ministries in those Provinces in which it held a Parliamentary majority. At the same time the present crisis in India is due to what I felt bound to describe as the undue delay in fulfilling the expectations that had so long been held out to the Indian people for a wide constitutional advance. We can only share the hope expressed by the Secretary of State that the present situation will not last for long. We must sympathise with the deep disappointment of the Viceroy in the non-success of the efforts that he has so sincerely and earnestly made to arrive at accommodation. While it is impossible to-day, after the first hearing of the statement that has been made, to enter fully into these matters, I have no doubt that your Lordships will desire at no distant date to engage in a further review of the situation.