The British Government appointed an all-white commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon to go into the question of constitutional reforms for India, THE HINDU: “The statutory commission on Indian reforms is an insult to India. It stands for the betrayal of the most solemn pledges, the repudiation of the fundamental principles of Britain’s own constitutional practice, the cynical disregard of those eternal moral scruples which should regulate the conduct of states no less than of individuals. ‘Cooperation and more co-operation’ has been the constant refrain of Britain all these eight years and at last here we have in concrete form her idea of the kind of co-operation she expects from us – the cooperation of the slave in chains with the overseer who superintends his agony whip in hand and not the co-operation that exalts equals and draws the ties of friendship tighter.”
NOVEMBER 9, 1927
A monumental farce
INDIA HAS HAD TO SUFFER MANY INDIGNITIES AT THE HANDS OF Britain but it was reserved to Mr. Baldwin’s Government to strike upon the most irritating and malignant of them all. An all-British Commission made up of amiable mediocrities is the response that Britain has seen fit to make to India’s unparalleled sacrifices in the service of the Empire, her undaunted efforts at attaining a position of equality in the eyes of nations and her unconquerable hopes for the future. And yet she will throw up her hands in despair and pretend to commiserate India on her short-sighted folly when the latter answers, as she must, insult with contempt and injury with inflexible determination to carve her own future, regardless of Britain’s frowns or favours. No one can read the laboured, unconvincing and half-hearted statement issued by Lord Irwin in defence of his masters’ decision to send out an all-British Commission to judge of India’s fitness for further reforms without feeling infinite compassion for him and realising with all the terrible grimness of finality that it is fatal folly to look for our political salvation outside our own determined and united efforts or to expect the vested interests that hold India in their grip to rise to the heights of self-eliminating altruism and help this country to realise its honourable ambitions. The mental processes by which, according to the Viceroy, His Majesty’s Government arrived at their decision are as revealing as the decision itself. It has taken them nearly eight years to realise that “the uncertainty of what constitutional changes might be imminent may have served to sharpen” communal antagonism. But when this patent fact was being repeatedly impressed upon their attention by the nation’s leaders they wilfully shut their eyes to it and refused to do anything.
Even more significant is Lord Irwin’s declaration regarding the nature and object of the Commission and its task. It takes for granted that “Parliament must, in any circumstances, be the final arbiter” of India’s destiny, and that Indians, far from claiming a predominant voice in the shaping of their own future, should be grateful to His Majesty’s present Government for their graciously deigning to take account of their aspirations. Lord Irwin says, “For myself I cannot doubt that the quickest and surest path of those who desire India’s progress is by the persuasion of Parliament.” In other words, the Preamble is to be regarded as immutable for all time like the Laws of the Medes and the Persians. And yet, we have it on his own assurance that the Government of India Act (much less the Preamble thereto) “never professed to incorporate irrevocable decisions.” India has never agreed and will never agree that the British Parliament should be the arbiter of her destiny. And for a good reason. Let us glance for a moment at Parliament’s qualifications for the task and also how it proposes to discharge it. Parliament is to decide the fate of three hundred million people, but it requires to be assisted by a Commission which would not only “be unbiased and competent to present an accurate picture of facts to Parliament” but also “willing to take whatever action a study of these facts may indicate to be appropriate.” In other words, the Commission, while nominally acting as the eyes and ears .of Parliament, will in sober fact be the real judge and arbiter. For a Parliament, whose ignorance of India is abysmal whose constitutional scruples have been set at rest and vanity flattered by the appointment of a Committee of its own members and which has shown itself servilely subservient to the present Tory Government, will deem its task done when it has crossed the t’s and dotted the is in the Commission’s report and consign India with a sigh of relief to the limbo of oblivion. How far is this Commission, which will be entrusted with one of the most onerous tasks of the twentieth century, fitted to discharge the duties? A casual glance at the list of names will suffice to show that the most malignant ingenuity could not have thought of a worse set of persons. But for the Chairman, the Commission is composed entirely of third-rate men who have absolutely no knowledge of India and who, if they had been the free choice of Parliament, would have blasted for all time its reputation for discrimination, while its compulsory acquiescence in their selection must scout its pretensions to be regarded as India’s judge in the eyes of all thinking men. And the Commission’s claim to freedom from bias is as debatable as its competence. Sir John Simon, great lawyer and constitutional expert though he is, far from having any sympathy for the victims of imperialism, is an orthodox successor of Mr. Asquith in this respect. Four of the members are Conservatives, so that the others, even if they were minded to dissent from the views of those representatives of Toryism, would find themselves in a minority. It is not for nothing that the proprietor of the most influential of Conservative newspapers, a paper which has been consistently hostile to Indian aspirations, should be on the Commission; from this brilliant stroke Mr. Baldwin’s Government undoubtedly anticipate that British opinion would be carefully prepared to accord a favourable reception to the Commission’s findings and quietly bamboozled into the belief that the Commission was received with delirious enthusiasm in India. As for the two Labourites, who have been pitch-forked into the Commission to give it a representative complexion, men of their modest position in public life could hardly be expected to swim against the tide.
Having thus secured in advance impartiality and a high standard in the Commission, the Government graciously recognise, in the words of the Viceroy, that “Indian opinion has a clear title to ask that, in the elaboration of a new instrument of Government, their solution of the problem or their judgment on other solutions which may be proposed should be made an integral factor in the examination of the question and be given due weight”. But the precise value of this admission may be judged from the fact that, in Lord Irwin’s view, the opinion of British official members is entitled to exactly as much weight as those of Indian leaders. This dictum, taken in conjunction with the proposal to ask the Central Legislature to set up a Select Committee from its elected and nominated non-officials to make representations to the Commission, points to an implication of which the Viceroy was evidently not aware – that the Government are so fully convinced of the identity of outlook of the Commission and of British officials in India that they consider representation of the latter before the Commission a superfluity. If this precaution be deemed insufficient there is, of course, the safety-valve alluded to mysteriously by the Viceroy when he said that “the task of taking evidence on the more purely administrative questions should be undertaken by some other authority which would be in the closest touch with the Commission.” This latter body will in all probability be composed exclusively of members of the steel-frame; in which case, what time a Select Committee of the Legislature would be presenting petitions and making representations with bated breath and whispering humbleness, the bureaucracy, strong in the consciousness that the Commission was its sworn friend, would engage gaily in the task of doctoring corroborative evidence to entrench itself more firmly than ever in its position of top-dog in unfortunate India.
The Statutory Commission on Indian Reforms is an insult to India. It stands for the betrayal of the most solemn pledges, the repudiation of the fundamental principles of Britain’s own constitutional practice, the cynical disregard of those eternal moral scruples which should regulate the conduct of States no less than of individuals. “Co-operation and more co-operation” has been the constant refrain of Britain all these eight years and at last here we have in concrete form her idea of the kind of co-operation she expects from us – the cooperation of the slave in chains with the overseer who superintends his agony whip in hand, and not the co-operation that exalts equals and draws the ties of friendship tighter. Let India give the only possible reply to the arrogant gesture of the British Cabinet. They count upon our mutual differences, our personal and communal jealousies and the much-tried faith of our Moderates in Britain, to keep us apart and make us fall an easy prey to their scheming and make ourselves the laughing-stock of the world. Shall it be said of us that we sold our birthright for a mess of pottage and merited the curse of unborn generations? To these questions the Indian National Congress has only one reply to give -it will have nothing to do with the Commission. It is for other parties to consider whether they will range themselves with the Congress which is determined to liberate India or with those who are fully resolved to keep us in bondage. Let them not be misled by the specious plea that the Indian Legislature has been given its rightful place in our rulers’ counsels by this device of a select committee. Apart from the fact that such a Committee will in no way be representative of India, it will have no more rights than any other body or any individual, however insignificant, since it will have no power to influence the recommendations of the commission in the slightest respect. As will be seen from a special cable published elsewhere, our Labour friends in Parliament roundly condemn the exclusion of Indians from the Commission, but by long experience we know that the Labour Party is a broken reed for us to lean upon; otherwise, would it have allowed two of its members to accept places on the Commission? Once again let it be remembered that our salvation lies in our own hands. In the name of the glorious India of the future which every loyal son sees with the mind’s eye, we implore all Indians irrespective of caste, creed, community or party, to rally to the cause of the Congress which is the cause of the country.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I