asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the independence pledge enjoining severance from Great Britain taken by all Congress deputies at Delhi last year and to the fact that one of the men who took this pledge has been severely punished by the High Court of the Mysore State for disloyalty to the Mysore ruler on the ground that that ruler has by treaty acknowledged the supremacy of the King Emperor; and will he make a statement?

I am aware that the Congress deputies to the Delhi Convention last year took a pledge to work for the independence of India; and I have seen a report that, in dismissing a revision petition against a conviction and sentence by a special magistrate for disobedience of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bangalore, the Chief Justice of the Mysore High Court made certain observations of the nature indicated in the question. I have no statement to make on the matter.

How does the Noble Lord reconcile the Congress pledge with the oath of allegiance taken by these Congress members? Does he not think the provincial Governors ought to take parallel action to that of the Government of Mysore?

The question of reconciling one with the other is a matter for the individual. What we are concerned with is whether the law is broken. If it is broken we have ample power to deal with the breach. With regard to the case at Mysore, I would like to say again that the man in question was not punished for taking this pledge, but was punished for disobedience to a lawful order. If similar breaches of the law occurred in British India, I have no reason to suppose that similar results would not follow.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why a book entitled "The Theory and Practice of Socialism," by John Strachey, a former Member of this House, is prohibited from entry into India; and whether, as a similar prohibition in regard to Burma has recently been lifted by the Council of Ministers in Burma, he will instruct the Government of India to rescind prohibitory orders on this book and other similar publications?

This book is held by the Indian authorities to fall within the scope of the general notification of the Government of India dated 10th September, 1932, prohibiting the entry of Communist literature into India. The action taken in Burma does not affect the position in India in regard to the exclusion of Communist literature and my Noble Friend is not prepared to issue any instructions in the matter.

As the ban has been lifted in Burma does not the Noble Lord think it ought to be lifted in India?

I think that the Government of India have as much right to their own opinion as the Government of Burma.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the present attitude of the Congress towards the inauguration of the Federal structure embodied in the Government of India Act; and the extent of the support outside the Congress for its attitude towards the Federal scheme?

The attitude of the Congress towards the inauguration of the Federal provisions of the Government of India Act has been expressed as being one of complete condemnation. On the other hand, my Noble Friend has received a copy of resolutions passed by the Hindu Mahasabha on 1st January last in which that organisation placed on record its deliberate opinion that Hindus should utilise whatever powers are provided for by the Act in the interests of the evolution of Hindustan as a united nation, and urged expedition in the introduction of Federation; and a resolution similar in effect was adopted about the same time by the National Liberal Federation of India.

Can the Noble Lord give an approximation in figures of the support given to the opposition from the Congress and elsewhere?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent famines and floods in British India and the damage and loss of life caused thereby in the different provinces, he can say whether any scheme is under consideration by the Government of India to give the provinces substantial grants from the central revenue or to relieve affected areas of any portion of their contribution to the central Government?

I am not aware that there have recently been famines or floods on such a scale that the resources provided for the provinces under the Act are inadequate to deal with them. The hon. Member will have seen from the Government of India's Budget Statement that the provinces are expected to benefit by assignments of Income Tax amounting in the aggregate to Rs.138 lakhs (£1,035,000) in 1937–38, and Rs.128 lakhs (£960,000) in 1938–39.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India has varied in the present session of the Indian Legislative Assembly the practice which has hitherto obtained in respect of the submission of certain items of expenditure to the vote of the legislature; and whether, as such action has been resented by the entire Indian opposition, including the Congress party, he will make representations to the Government of India with a view to modifying its procedure and bringing it into line with responsible public opinion?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Under the Act of 1935 provision for the pay, allowances and pensions of the members of the Defence Department Secretariat is "charged on the revenues" of the Government of India, and accordingly cannot any longer be submitted to the vote of the Assembly. Opportunities are still available to the Assembly to discuss and criticise Defence policy. In these circumstances my Noble Friend sees no reason for addressing the Government of India as suggested.

What are the opportunities given to the Assembly to discuss the question of Defence?

I think it is by moving the reduction of the vote for travelling and possibly other allowances for the Governor-General or members of the Executive Council.

Could the Noble Lord say under what section of the Act these changes have been made?

Sections 237 and 238.