LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [Correspondents are requested to keep their
letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suita5le length is that of one of our " News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.]
THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF INDIA
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR.—In the recent discussion in Committee as to whether
or not there should be a Preamble to the India Bill declaring the policy of Parliament regarding the ultimate Constitutional Status of India, Colonel Wedgwood saw fit to make the following remarks :
" A great many people in India, like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mr. Jayakar and others, have been clamouring for some statement of policy. Will these people be really disappointed if this does not go in I Will they be in the least affected by the Government Amendinent ? I say emphatically that they will not. These people accepted Federation, but they found, when the Bill was introduced, that Federation was unpopular in India, and that, -if they were to retain their hold upon. Indian opinion, they must find some reason for changing their minds. They changed their minds on the absence of a Preamble from this Bill. 11 hat really changed their minds was the attitude of the Indian people. . .
It may be recalled that both Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Jayakar had long since committed themselves to quite definite views on the subject of a formal declaration on the future Constitutional Status of India. They had been prompt to note the silence of the White Paper on the subject, and, on July 26th, 1933, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, supported by Mr. Jayakar, addressed a Memorandum to the Joint Select Committee, at the very beginning of which he said :
" I have come to the conclusion that no constitution which fails to satisfy certain essentials will meet the needs of the situation in India, or rally round it a sufficient body of men willing to work it in the spirit-in which it should be worked. In my opinion those 'essentials aro : . . .
" (5) The constitutional position of India within the British Commonwealth of Nations to be definitely declared in the Statute."
In the concluding paragraph of his Memorandum, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru re-states his position as follows :
" It seems to me to be vitally necessary that the constitution itself should provide for India's equality of status with the other Dominions, as soon as she is able to set up under an Act of Parlia- ment complete responsible government."
• With these views Mr. Jayakar concurred. He did more. He associated himself with his other colleagues of the British Indian Delegation to the Joint Select Committee, in a Memoranchim, dated November 17th, 1933, to the Committee, at the outset of which the signatories state : " We consider that the Preamble to the Constitution Act should contain a definite statement that the ' natural issue of India's consti- tutional progress is the attainment of Dominion Status.' " When both Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Jayakar noted, npon the publication of the Joint Select Committee's Report and of the India Bill that no such formal statement as they
had deemed to be essential to satisfy Indian opinion on this aspect of the problem was apparently contemplated, they
,naturally criticized its absence. To attribute this to a change of opinion on their part on the question of Federation or to a desire " to retain their hold upon Indian opinion ", by finding au excuse for " changing their minds " on the question of Federation is not in accordance with facts, for ,they remain firm supporters of Federation.
Colonel Wedgwood is entitled to his wn views on Federa- tion. but he is not entitled to allege that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. Jayakar have changed theirs, or to attribute
unworthy motives to these two distinguished Indian public men. Who are not present in Parliament or in this country to contradict him or to defend themselves.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
