KING GEORGE opened the conference on November 12, 1930. The British delegation was made up from the three main political parties; the Indian delegation consisted mainly of princes of sovereign states whose independence under British suzerainty is virtually unchallenged and whose loyalty to Great Britain has never been questioned.
At its opening the conference had before it the Simon report, Lord Irwin’s memo, and the proposals of the Indian delegation.
The Simon report provided for India’s progress toward self-government as a federation of autonomous provinces, subject to the maintenance of large reserved powers and of control over the Army by Britain. This report is voluminous but the recommendations do not provide for reaching the ultimate goal of dominion status during any definite period nor for such strides in the reformation that such a status would come in the near future.
Lord Irwin’s plan was more generous to India than the Simon proposals, and though not suggesting a dominion, made many concessions on internal and imperial affairs, emphasizing the necessity of immediate action towards India’s self-government instead of putting the reforms off to some distant future. In his plan he placed first those subjects in which the interest of Parliament might be continuous, such as defense, foreign affairs, preservation of general tranquility, and the fulfillment of financial obligations; second, those in which Parliament might have only an occasional interest, if and when necessary to safeguard her purpose, such as taxes, tariff, and commercial policy and management of railways; and finally those subjects wherein seldom, if ever, would the popular policy come in conflict with the responsibilities of Parliament and which would comprise general economic development, the industrial policy, questions of labor and general administration, such as education, agriculture, health, etc. The London press criticized this plan, stating it would put a damper on India’s hopes, and make possible an autocratic regime of the viceroy due to his wide power and Indian control of the Army. The Gandhist press rejected the plan, though British Indian papers (British owned) approved.
The Indian proposals of course were for immediate and complete dominion status with the stipulation that for a limited transitory period the British would retain control of the Army.
The first week was taken up in presentation of claims, debate, and discussion by the different factions.
The Indian representatives were united in demanding immediate self-government, which status the British themselves have held as being the eventual goal. They were firm in stating that whatever form of government was to be eventually agreed upon it must be autonomous with the prime minister and cabinet responsible to a legislature elected by the Indian people. Contrary to the assumption on the part of the Simon commission and Lord Irwin (viceroy of India), the princes joined in the plea for an Indian dominion and thereby removed one great barrier to a possible agreement and removed also the excuse, often made for delay in giving India autonomous government. The princes and others generally agreed that great dangers lay ahead no matter what the conference decided, but failure to do anything would become a catastrophe.
The Conservative and Liberal members of the conference insisted that the Simon report be the “basis of discussion,” but took a moderate stand in their pronouncements on India and expressed their willingness to see her given a degree of responsible self-government. Lord Peel (leader of the Conservative delegation) particularly backed the Simon plan and insisted that dominion status for India must be obtained gradually. Dr. Moonje for the Hindus and Maulana Ali for the Moslems then practically demanded dominion status and gave warning that if Great Britain were to follow the policy as laid down by Lord Peel that a revolution, caused by India’s extremists, would be inevitable.
At the close of the first week’s debate Premier MacDonald gave assurance to the Indian delegates that his Labor government accepted everything that had been said since 1917 in behalf of Great Britain concerning constitutional reforms in India, including dominion status, which the viceroy and other British statesmen have repeatedly declared to be the ultimate goal. He also stressed the fact that the problem of the conference was to supply answers to such questions as the nature of the component units of the federation, the nature of the central coordinating structure, the relation of this structure to the provinces, the relation to the states, the necessary provisions to secure willing cooperation of the minorities and special interests in general, the power, functions, and responsibilities of the general structure. He states that the practical answers to these questions could then be embodied in an act of Parliament. He concluded by urging honest, laborious thinking in the work of the committees, and requesting that final words be reserved until the closing meetings at which time he hoped they would be able to register an agreement which would enable all of them to go their various ways with friendships strengthened, and the desire to cooperate amplified. Indian delegates looked to Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Benn, Secretary of State for India, as their champions in endeavoring to obtain for India what she wanted.
It was Mr. Montague, when he was head of the Indian office, who made the famous declaration in the House of Commons in 1917 that “the policy of his Majesty’s government is to increase the association of the Indians in every branch of the administration and bring about the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.” That was the war-time promise which has been fulfilled in large measure but which has also led to the present upheaval in India because Mahatma Gandhi and the radicals of the Nationalist party insist that the time has now come for its complete fulfillment.
Soon after making the declaration Mr. Montague went to India where he worked on the problem for five months. The results of his investigations were embodied in the famous Montague-Chelmsford report, which is the basis of the present law by which India is governed.
The Indian Nationalist movement in its present form dates from the first All-Indian Nationalist Congress which met in 1885, although opposition to British rule burst into flame during the mutiny of 1857. The activities since the World War are those mostly affecting the present problem and center about two disobedience campaigns led by Mahatma Gandhi. The first was from 1919 to 1922, and rose not so much from the inadequacy of the Montague-Chelmsford reforms, as from the Sedition Act and the Amritsar massacre which led many educated Indians to regard as useless the sacrifices made by India on England’s behalf during the war. The appointment of the Simon commission in 1927 again set the revolutionary forces in motion as it led the Indians to believe that England was determined to retain strictly in its own hands control over any further measure of constitutional reform that might be granted.
At Lahore in December, 1929, the All- Indian Congress went on record in favor of independence and preparations were made for a second campaign of non-violent noncooperation which was inaugurated in March, 1930. The progress of that movement had a direct bearing on the deliberations in London where the stand of the Indian delegates was dictated, at least in part, by the conditions they expected to meet on their return.
At the opening session of the conference Mr. MacDonald was made chairman and as soon as the speechmaking was over the problem of the conference was to decide to what degree India is to assume responsible self-government.
The agreement of the princes to unite in pleading for dominion status did much to brighten the prospects of the conference. Additional strength and unanimity were also added to the whole Indian appeal, and chances of tangible results were considered enhanced by both Indian and British delegates, when the Brahmans and other high- caste Hindu delegates, by throwing aside India’s 5,000-year-old caste system, agreed in writing that the “untouchables” should have political equality in proportion to their numbers. The representatives of the “untouchables” stated that they would rather take their chances in the future with Indian rulers than continue under British government. A third crumbling of Indian customs was evidenced when an Indian woman delegate added her testimony on home rule, and sat at the council table, debating political freedom on even terms with the men of India and Britain.
On November 25 an appeal was made to Premier MacDonald by several members of the Indian delegation to release Mahatma Gandhi and 50,000 political prisoners in India who have not been guilty of violence, claiming that such a gesture on the part of Great Britain would break down not only the skepticism existing generally in India, but the open opposition on the part of the extremists in the Gandhi party as well.
The agenda for the conference was announced on November 28. It contained a preamble and twelve subjects, the first being “The component elements of the federation.” The possibilities were, theoretically, first a union of all the states on the one hand combining with British India to form a federation; second, a federation of British India and all states, each of the latter coming in singly; and third, a federation composed of all provinces of British India, taken separately, and each state. The Indians claimed that the agenda was vague and did not once mention dominion status, but Lord Sankey, head of the federal relations committee, stated his plan did not bar discussion of such a status.
On December 1, Burma gained her long- desired promise of separation from India. Her representatives had refrained from taking part in the discussions relative to an Indian federation for fear of prejudicing their cause. Burma is a province of British India, having an area of 230,000 square miles with 13,000,000 inhabitants, all of whom are Buddhists. They are free from religious warfare and with the exception of a few tribes are homogeneous. The women have never known the purdah and are as free as the men. Illiteracy is much less than in India. The Labor government favored the move and both Earl Peel and the Marquis of Reading, representing the Conservative and Liberal parties at the conference, voiced their assent, so that the requisite ratification from the British Parliament is expected. The subcommittee of the conference on Burma also decided that partition between India and Burma could be made without financial harm to either country, and that the financial details involved are mostly technical and should be finally decided by an impartial tribunal. It was also decided that the rights of the 800,000 Indians in Burma should be safeguarded, and ample protection should be afforded other minority groups and that future immigration laws of Burma should not discriminate against Indians desiring to enter in the future. The committee asked the British government to make a public announcement of acceptance in principle of the separation, and also of its assurance that this separation would not prejudice the future constitutional advance toward her desired status as a dominion instead of a crown colony.
The members of the committee formulating a constitution for India were in virtual accord on a score of matters, many of which they based on American laws. However, there were a number of controversial matters, namely: (1) defense of India; (2) external relations; (3) relations between independent states; and (4) political prosecutions.
In this connection Lord Sankey’s committee received more details from the princes in which they insisted that first the independent states of the princes be represented in federal legislature by members chosen by the states’ governments, and not by mere personal delegates of the princes; second, the several states must have the privilege of entering the proposed federation separately, each at its own chosen time; and third, the independent states must retain their present sovereignty except insofar as they voluntarily surrender a part of it for the sake of perfecting a federal organization. The princes would not federate with British India as now organized as a unitary government, but insisted that it too become a federation on its own account, and that the several provinces of British India must bear the same relation to the central government as the states will bear, and must not be controlled by a central government in one block. The British Indians desired the same thing. However another step forward was made when the princes agreed to a two- chamber legislature instead of a single-chamber parliament.
The one greatest divergence of opinion was between the Hindus and Moslems on the communal question, in which the Hindus demanded proportionate representation in the provincial legislatures. This was opposed by the Moslems, who were in the minority. There are in India approximately 220 million Hindus and 70 million Moslems. Mr. MacDonald took a personal hand in an endeavor to reconcile the two factions but for a while the negotiations resulted in a deadlock, and for a time it was believed that the British government would have to resort to the recommendation of the Simon commission to continue separate electorates, if an agreement could not be reached. In fact not only was a dispatch protesting against concessions on the part of their delegates at the conference sent by the Moslems of Bengal, but a conciliatory spirit was lacking among the Moslems on the question of separate electorates and representation proportional to population.
Except for the religious question, the conference moved rapidly toward an agreement between the Indian and the British representatives. Lord Peel, head of the Conservatives, in the hope of arousing public opinion in advance against the government’s liberal course toward India, expressed doubt of their ability to approve the proposed constitution when presented to Parliament, and consulted with Mr. Baldwin and others who believed India is not ready for more self- government than they have at present. Winston Churchill voiced condemnation of the conference and Labor moves toward self- government for India, but his attack did not have much effect at the time, and the Indians, many of whom are schooled in politics, considered Mr. Churchill’s declaration as the voice of a small section of the Conservative party unlikely to influence the present negotiations. The prime minister, in ironic language, censured Mr. Churchill and compared him to George III who lost his American colonies. Lord Reading, presiding at a dinner, said in a speech “we are going to arrive at something even though it can be only provisional at this stage; but it must develop in such a way as to give satisfaction to the whole of India in the end,” thereby indicating the attitude of the Liberal party when the cause reaches Parliament.
Two workers in speeches before the subcommittee on franchise urged universal suffrage for all adults, claiming that illiteracy should not bar anyone from voting. A British speaker contended that with such an enormous population the electorate would be too vast to handle and branded the idea as fantastic. The committee, however, agreed that the basis for the franchise should be broadened from the present rate of about 3 to 25 per cent of the population, since the present percentage was not enough on which to build up a system of increased self-government. Dr. Ambedkar, representing the “untouchables” also insisted on a franchise for all men and women over twenty-one years of age, regardless of other qualifications.
On December 22, the two women delegates made an appeal for equal political rights for their sex, insisting that their safeguards be incorporated at the outset in the new constitution itself, and not left to chance legislation of the future. Under the existing law, the only Indian women having the vote are those qualified as property owners. They not only demanded the vote, but also assurance that a fair number of women should be elected to the federal and provincial legislatures.
Certain reservations were always considered extremely desirable but as the Hindu- Moslem deadlock continued with no possibility of breaking it, certain safeguards became essential; one in particular being that of protecting the minorities. Others were the control of defense, finances, foreign and native states’ relations, and the tribes.
The autonomy granted India would undoubtedly be covered by a federal constitution under which the provinces and independent states would be component parts somewhat like the United States. The self- government proposed would be more lenient than provided for in the Simon report, and would follow closer toward the position taken by Lord Irwin. The Indian delegates in London assured their acceptance of such a constitution, though British authorities are not blind to probable flare-ups and hope that nothing worse will happen than in Ireland, and that in the end India will become peaceful and remain a part of the empire.
Heeding a warning that the Indian people might reject the whole conference plan if delayed too long, the committees sped up the work on the basic law. The Indian delegates favored a viceroy or governor general appointed by the crown, but pleaded for a responsible Indian ministry in all departments excepting Foreign Affairs and Defense. A British Liberal delegate, M.P., declared in a speech “before the session closes there will be a declaration of British policy. The declaration will open a new chapter in the history of India and will be one of the cardinal events in the history of the empire. The control of India has to pass to the Indian people—of that there can be no doubt.” Lord Reading pledged the Liberal party’s support to the new constitution in process of construction, and the success in Parliament of erfacting legislation seems assured with the uniting of the Laborites and Liberals. Sir Samuel Hoare expressed grave doubts concerning the workability of the constitution, but did not state what the Tory attitude would be in Parliament.
J. H. Thomas, Minister for the Dominions, presiding at the subcommittee on defense, stated on January 9 that the British government had accepted the idea of Indian- ization of the Army in India, and his committee would work out the details. The replacing of British officers by Indians would have to be undertaken with due regard for the safety of the country, and would not necessarily imply that all British officers would be retired eventually from the Indian military service. He advocated the establishment of an officers’ training school in India, on the lines of Great Britain’s school at Sandhurst, but expressed the hope that Indians would continue to come to England for military education as in the past.
Sir B. Nath Mitra, foremost financial expert of India, said that India has ample gold supply of her own to set up a reserve bank without outside aid. He scouted any debt repudiation, and said that provision for interest and sinking fund will be the first charges against Indian revenue. He further stated India’s willingness, in case of a financial dispute with England, to submit the question to the Imperial Tribunal for the settlement of empire disputes and referred to his country as the dominion of India.
The chairman of the federal structure committee on January 12 outlined the Indian constitution, which was largely patterned after that framed in 1787 for the United States. The similarity was especially evident in the legislative branch, the senators, probably 100, being elected by provincial legislatures, and the lower house, for which no name has been selected, elected by direct vote. There will be a prime minister, and a cabinet of ministers, over which will be a governor general, the latter appointed by the crown. The ministry can be overthrown, but instead of by a mere majority, a two-thirds vote of both houses in joint assembly is necessary. The governor general is to hold the balance of power, will control foreign policy, defense, finance, and in a crisis can rule alone. Disputes similar to those which have occurred in the United States are probable, and a clash of federal and state rights is foreseen.
Earl Peel and Sir Samuel Hoare, Tory members, presented a memorandum to the committee in which they stated dissatisfaction with the proposed constitution as not being adaptable or containing sufficient safeguards, and expressed the opinion that it will be impossible to introduce the new Indian government law in Parliament for two years.
Three Hindu leaders proposed that the Hindu-Moslem dispute be settled by arbitration and suggested the names of Mr. MacDonald, Lord Sankey, Mahatma Gandhi, and Professors Murray and Salvador de Madariaga of Oxford, as the arbitrators. It was believed that if Mr. Gandhi would consent to help settle the difficult problem he would then withdraw his opposition to the conference as a whole, and thereby abate the opposition of the whole Congress party to the conclusions of the conference. Sir Muhammad Shaft, speaking for the Moslems, said that rather than risk wrecking the conference and its major scheme to give India a constitution, his followers had decided to make further concessions and accept 49 per cent of the seats in the legislature of Punjab. Unexpectedly, however, the leader of the Sikhs, Sardar Sahib Ujjal Singh, demanded 24 per cent representation when they have but 11 per cent population, upsetting everybody’s hope that their troubles were over.
On January IS the Lord Sankey report, outlining the framework of India’s future federal government, was adopted in committee, and the next day a resolution proposed by Mr. MacDonald in which he stated the reports of nine subcommittees had been received, was adopted.
A flurry was created in conference circles by a report that the Maharaja of Bikaner had proposed the liberation of all political prisoners in India, a total of about 50,000. The Maharaja is a powerful Indian potentate, and has always been a staunch friend of Great Britain.
At the final meeting of the conference on January 19 Premier MacDonald announced the British government’s policy on India, the chief points of which are as follows:
- Amnesty for India’s 50,000 political prisoners if “civil order” is restored in India.
- An invitation to the Indian extremists to participate in the negotiations still to come, before the new Indian government is established.
- Establishment of full responsible self-government in India, with the Imperial British government reserving control of finance, foreign affairs, and defense.
- Extension of the voting franchise in India and lifting of restrictions based on religion and caste.
- Establishment of a legislature of two houses modeled along the lines of the Congress of the United States.
- Encouragement of Indians to settle their own communal problems.
- Uninterrupted continuance of negotiations to settle the details of the new government.
Immediately after the announcement of the British government policy on India, newspapers in India clamored for the release of Gandhi and the thousands of political prisoners, insisting that the delegates returning from London could not get a proper hearing on the results of the conference nor would any constitutional scheme receive cooperation and active support of the great congress organization so long as those people were in prison.
Gandhi and many of his aides were released on January 26, and proceeded to Bombay. He stated at the time that he had no policy mapped out and no ill feelings but was waiting to discuss the situation with his friends.
In an interview on January 27, Mahatma Gandhi stated that the civil disobedience campaign would continue uninterrupted not for the purpose of registering resistance to the government but as a protest against abuses which the India Congress party is determined shall cease. The abuses mentioned were the use of intoxicating liquors, the use of foreign cloth, and the repression of the “national right” of the people in India to make their own salt.
Out of respect to the returning Round Table Delegates the All-India Nationalist Congress committee had delayed formally publishing a resolution to the effect that the civil disobedience movement must continue but due to an impression rapidly spreading throughout India that civil disobedience had been suspended the resolution was promulgated on February 2. Business men in India are earnestly endeavoring to bring about an early settlement of differences in the interest of trade.
The attitude of the House of Commons toward the work of the conference was shown on January 26 when Mr. MacDonald received the support of the leaders of both opposition parties. Tribute to the accomplishments at the conference were paid by many. Mr. Churchill alone criticized the results, which action was repudiated by Mr. Baldwin.
Since the Conservative party has approved the work of the conference the prospects for the adoption of a new constitution for India depends not so much on Parliament as upon how quickly the Indian people themselves are able to iron out their own local differences, and on what part Mr. Gandhi and his Congress party are to play in the negotiations.
An agreement reached late March 3 between the British government of India and Mahatma Gandhi contained the following principal concessions: Permission to manufacture salt by natives on sea coasts, the government to maintain control of its manufacture and distribution in inland areas; Gandhi will no longer press his demands for an inquiry into police excesses, and will end the civil disobedience campaign.
Immediately after signing the agreement with the viceroy, Gandhi began taking steps to end the civil disobedience campaign. The most vital question in connection with the negotiations is to what extent Gandhi’s word will bind the Congress party as a whole. Gandhi, though accepting the agreement and admitting that it gave much to the Nationalists, again served notice to Great Britain that India’s ultimate goal is complete independence.
The Secretary of State for India read the terms of the agreement to the House of Commons on March 5. Though a battle with the Conservatives is probable, approval of the terms of the settlement by the House is expected.
On March 6 the viceroy lifted ordinances dealing with illegal assemblies, publication of news sheets, and picketing. Also an order ending civil strife was promulgated and civil disobedience prisoners were released. Gandhi defined the meaning of “Swaraj” as used in their demands as calling for “self- rule from within” but not separation from Britain.
Gandhi returned in triumph on March 9 to Ahmedabad whence a year ago he started his civil disobedience campaign and vowing he would never return until his country’s independence had been achieved. He returned with a truce which freed his followers, ended civil strife, and pledged his party to work for self-government in cooperation with the British. Almost fanatical acclamation was accorded him on every hand.
A few days later the die-hards of the Conservative party, headed by Mr. Churchill and Lord Beaverbrook, repudiated the government's policy on constitutional reform and stated that the Conservatives would not take part in future conferences. This action did much to cause unrest and uncertainty in India but Mr. Baldwin immediately denounced this attitude in his party and declared his own loyalty to the Indian cause.
On March 16 in India the princes gathered to discuss among themselves details of a proposed federation for all India. There was a wide difference of opinion among them, Gandhi showing a peaceful attitude while Pundit Nehru plead for a fighting spirit and demanded a complete independence in internal affairs while Pandit Patel urged the burning of all foreign cloth.
The Indian Congress the last of March ratified the Irwin-Gandhi truce and agreed to participate in the conference to be held in London on the basis of a federated India (with safeguards).
This congress voted a program of twenty- four points which embody principles of the American Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, Magna Charta, and the Constitution of Soviet Russia. They comprise full independence with control of the Army and equality with the British.
Gandhi decided that since the second round table conference will deal only in fundamentals where the doctrine of strength in numbers will not hold, he will be the only delegate to London. He will be accompanied by a number of advisers.
The ultimate success of negotiations depends largely on Gandhi’s power to control his party and on the results of efforts to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the dispute between the Hindus and the Moslems.