Showing 2 results

179 City Road, E.C.1.—Suggests holding another meeting of the informal all-party group that sent an open letter to India last December. Is concerned at the state of negotiations between the British Government and Indians.

—————

Transcript

179 City Road, E.C.1.
9th October, 1941.

Dear Pethwick-Lawrence†,

I believe that the time has come when it might be valuable to have another discussion among the small informal All Party Group that joined together to write an open letter to India last December.

I must confess that I am not happy about the Indian situation. It is quite possible to find logical grounds for comforting oneself and saying that the British Government has done everything possible and that it is for Indians to make the next move. Nevertheless all the time it seems to me that things are going in India in such a way that there is being built up beneath the surface a situation which will ultimately confront us with another Ireland on a much larger and more dangerous scale. By that I mean a situation which has deteriorated beyond repair. I think it is dangerous to be comforted by the mere outward signs of the declining Congress membership and the steady flow of recruits to the Colours. After the war public interest will swing back to internal political problems and it will be political extremists, embittered beyond repair, who will control the situation. On the British side there has clearly been a hardening recently. I need only refer to two such matters as the further extension of Linlithgow’s term of office by a year and the Prime Minister’s deliberate, pointed reminder that, so far as India was concerned, it was for the British Government to interpret the Atlantic Charter. I am not saying that either of these things is right or wrong; but I do feel that they represent—as I have said—a hardening on the British side and have been interpreted with a good deal of misgiving, even among our friends in India. Sir Sikander Hyat Khan’s comment on the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the Atlantic Charter was significant.

Hopeless as the situation seems I feel that it is still up to all those who have the time to be interested in India to consider without resting whether there are any constructive steps that can be taken which might result in breaking the deadlock.

Can you let me know whether it would be possible for you to attend a meeting? It seems to me most likely that we should be able to get everybody together if the time could be fixed at 5 p.m. on some day when Parliament is sitting. Can you suggest a day to me when such a time would suit you?

Yours sincerely,
George Schuster

The Rt. Hon.
F. W. Pethwick-Lawrence†, M.P.,
House of Commons, S.W.1.

—————

† Sic.

‘The Times of India’, 4 Albemarle Street, London, W.1.—Responsibility for the partition of India does not lie with the British Government, as implied by Sir Henry Craik at yesterday’s meeting of the East India Association, but with Jinnah.

—————

Transcript

The Times of India, London Branch:
4 Albemarle Street, London, W.1
9th Oct. 1953

The Rt. Hon. Lord Pethick-Lawrence,
11, Old Square,
Lincoln’s Inn,
London. W.C.2.

Dear Lord Pethick-Lawrence,

Had Sir Henry Craik not been moving the vote of thanks at yesterday’s meeting I would have liked to comment on one of his remarks. He said that the Partition of India ruined the life-work of people like himself who had been connected with the Punjab, of which he was at one time Governor. He inferred that the British Government were in some way responsible for this, either by agreeing to the Partition of India or by leaving India too soon. But, as I know well, the Partition of the Punjab was due not to the British Government but to Mr. Jinnah. Nobody believed more in the unity of the Punjab than its former Prime Minister, Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan, who I daresay you know. When Sikandar used to come to Bombay to attend meetings of the Council of the Muslim League he used to tell me—with the object of enlisting my willing help—that he would make a determined stand against Jinnah’s “nonsense” of splitting the Punjab. But he never did. Nobody could stand up to Jinnah, and I gather that at each meeting he completely dominated Sikandar and others of like mind and made mincemeat of their arguments. The breaking up of the unity of the Punjab, which made it so great a province, was a great tragedy, but the real author of that tragedy was, as I have said, not the British Government, but Jinnah. And Jinnah was embittered beyond all hope of conciliation by the Congress refusal to form coalition governments in the provinces in 1937 by taking in the provincial cabinets a representative or representatives of the Muslim League. I shall never forget the bitterness with which he said to me after that decision: “This is the finish. Since we cannot obtain justice in India we must form our own state”.

In closing may I congratulate you on the clear way in which you put the British Government’s case.

Yours sincerely,
Francis Low
(Sir Francis Low)