Showing 5 results

The Western India National Liberal Association ask for the Army Commission to include one or more additional Indians experienced in public life and familiar with the wants, conditions, and aspirations of Indians under British rule with regard to military commissions and training. Expresses concern at the Viceroy’s announcement [see A2/19/3] that the Commission to investigate recent disorders is to be appointed by the Government of India, and that an Indemnity Bill will be passed as soon as possible. Since the inquiry is into the martial policy sanctioned by the Government of India itself, it ought to have been entrusted to an independent Royal Commission; while the need for an Indemnity Bill depends on the results of the inquiry, and it should therefore be abandoned for the present.

(Ticker-tape pasted to printed forms.)

They too have considered the question in Council, though in view of Chelmsford’s [forthcoming] tour the actual text of the message has not yet been approved. Discusses the four alterations to their proposals suggested by Montagu. (1) They do not agree that a general amnesty should precede the inquiry and synchronise with the Indemnity Bill: Local Government has dealt with the question of remissions quickly, and the handling of convictions by summary courts will also be quick, and as regards minor offences will approximate to an amnesty. There is an important difference between this discretional remission by the head of the province and an indiscrimating amnesty, which would be wrongly ascribed in India to pressure brought to bear on Montagu in England. (2, 3) They agree, with some misgiving, to the inclusion in the scope of reference of an investigation into immediate causes and to the inquiry being public, but if a garbled presentation of details in the press leads to ill-feeling and unrest the chairman should be able to hold part of the inquiry in camera. (4) They should prefer a judge as chairman of the committee, and would have welcomed Lord Dunedin if he had been available, but suggest instead Sir Edward Moon or a non-political peer like Lord Inchcape; they could not accept either Sir Lawrence Jenkins or Sir Walter Lawrence, the two men suggested by Montagu. If a suitable chairman is chosen they will ask Gait to serve [on the committee], as it is essential to have a senior administrative officer with experience of conditions in northern India. As regards a military member, they await Montagu’s suggestion. For a high court judge they recommend Rankin. The three Mohammedans suggested by Montagu—Ameer Ali, Baig, and Abdul Rahim—they consider unsuitable and therefore adhere to their recommendation of Rauf. For a Hindu member they prefer Chandravarkar, but will not object to Setalvad. Their only substantial difference from Montagu is on the matter of an immediate amnesty. Urges him to give definite orders as soon as possible.

(Mechanical copy of typed original.)

Chelmsford has not yet sent a copy of his speech, and Montagu has been receiving telegrams protesting against the Indemnity Bill. Suggests that false impressions may be gaining ground in India that ought to be contradicted. Refers to a copy of a telegram from Chandavarkar [see A2/19/2b], and suggests informing him that the appointment of the Commission by the Viceroy will not affect its independence, and that the Indemnity Bill will not affect or limit the action that may be necessary as a result of the inquiry.

(Typed, with handwritten alterations. Used for transmission.)

(Typed copy of A2/19/1. Probably used for transmission to Lord Chelmsford. See A2/19/2a.)

(Carbon copy of A2/19/2b.)