LABOUR AND INDIA

EVERY day, it tends to become increasingly clear that the Labour Government has, at any rate at present, no policy in regard to India, except the policy of its predecessors, which is exactly the policy of the Government of India. In reply to a question in the House of Commons by Mr George Lansbury, the Under Secretary of State for India Robert Richards said that the attitude of the government on the subject of a round-table conference had already been indicated by the speeches of Sir Malcolm Hailey, that the Government of India was initiating an inquiry on the lines indicated in those speeches, and that it was continuing to seek other avenues, whereby the present situation might be eased. What these avenues are the Under Secretary did not say. The statement, in fact, was as indefinite as it could possibly be, and the fact that speaking nearly a week after the Secretary of State made his famous statement in the Lords, the Under Secretary was not able in any particular way to improve upon it shows the leisurely way in which the British Government is proceeding in this vitally important matter in spite of all the pressure of Indian opinion. But the indefiniteness of the remark seems to be nothing better than a camouflage. In reality, these so-called ‘other avenues’ can mean nothing substantial. In reply to a question by Sir Henry Craik enquiring whether the Government intended to adhere to the provisions of the Act of 1919 for deferring the revision of the Constitution for a decade, Richards said, “That is exactly the position.” If that is so, why trouble to seek these avenues which you can never find?

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.