I beg to move

It must be the case that after every great Act such as that which we passed in the last Parliament there are many points to work out. These Orders taken together mark the final stage in the establishment of these two Provinces of Sind and Orissa. For some considerable time their constitution as separate Provinces has been pressed before expert bodies. It was pressed before the Montagu-Chelmsford inquiry, and before the Statutory Commission, and it was considered by several bodies, such as the Joint Select Committee, which have considered the problem of Sind and Orissa since. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition interested himself in the Province of Orissa when he accompanied my right hon. Friend on his visit to India with the Statutory Commission, and I think he agreed at that time, as the House agreed when we were considering the Government of India Act, that we should set up these two Provinces as separate units.

The decision to separate, therefore, has already been taken under Section 46 of the Government of India Act. Section 289 (2) of that Act made plain that these Provinces would assume a separate existence before the Act came into force, but the actual date of the setting up of these interim Constitutions and the type of constitution for the interim period between the date of their establishment and the inauguration of Provincial Autonomy are still left for the decision of the House. It is those two points—the inaugural date that we suggest should be 1st April of this year, and the type of constitution which we suggest for an interim period should be fairly simple—that the House will have to decide upon in considering these Orders.

It will be convenient, I think, if, in explaining these somewhat long Orders, I take five questions which hon. Members might legitimately ask in order to explain to the House what these Orders mean. The first, I suggest, should be the reason why it is desirable to separate these Provinces appreciably before Provincial Autonomy, that is, autonomous government in the Provinces, under Part III of the Act. Secondly, how long may this transitional arrangement which we are considering be expected to last? In the third place, what sort of constitution do we suggest for this transitional period? Fourthly, what is the financial position in those areas for the interim period, and, finally, some information on a few technical points in the Orders themselves.

Let me take those questions and try to answer them, and if I do so successfully, I think that the House will have before it sufficient information upon which it can make up its mind. First of all, as to the reason why we think it advisable to bring these Provinces into existence before the establishment of Provincial Autonomy. We think that this is essential in order that these areas should find themselves as administrative units before they take on the responsible form of Government which we suggest under Provincial Autonomy. Sind is at present part of Bombay. It is, at the same time, a separate tract of territory. Geographically it covers an area of about 46,000 square miles and has a population of about 3,500,000. Orissa at the present moment is administered with Bihar under the Province known as Bihar and Orissa. We suggest that its boundaries shall take in an appreciable bit of Madras, a small bit of the Central Provinces, and that it shall be divided from Bihar. The Province, we suggest, shall cover about 32,000 square miles and take in a population of a little over 8,500,000.

We consider that it would be too much to ask these areas to pass from the present dyarchical Constitution which they enjoy straight to Provincial Autonomy, which is complete responsible government, and at the same time ask them to constitute themselves as administrative units and make all the necessary arrangements for integrating themselves out of the Provinces of which they at present form part. It would be an immense job to pass from dyarchical to Provincial Autonomy complete without having the unit integrated, and without letting the unit find itself administratively, and we suggest this short interval in which a unit may make its arrangements for proper administration before it assumes a completely autonomous form of government.

The second reason is that administrative organisation is essential. There are such questions as these: The settlement of the cadres of the Services for the two new Provinces and the settlement of what officers shall serve in the new Provinces and the organisation of the original cadre between the parent Province and the new Province. There is the question of the decision of the joint use of certain institutions whether educational, medical or other. There is, in the case of Orissa, the necessity to reorganise districts in the south—actual district headquarters and so forth. All these questions have already been thought of, but they must be worked out, and we want the intervening period in order to work them out. There is another reason: the administrative side of finance. Hon. Members will see that the Schedules to these Orders are long and complicated, and that the Second Schedule, for instance, to the Sind Order, and the Third Schedule to the Orissa Order relate to adjustments between the parent Province or Provinces and the new area. They are called, "Provisions as to Apportionment." The decisions as to the Provisions as to Apportionment are set out in the Order, but these decisions must be worked out. These joint concerns possess at the present moment large quantities of tangible assets, and have incurred considerable financial liabilities, and the actual adjustments consequent upon the decisions in these Orders will take some time to work out. It is really a ease of the unravelling of a complex series of financial connections between the areas in question. The final reason why we think it necessary to set up these Provinces for an interim period is that, once the policy of setting them up as independent units was taken under Section 46 of the Government of India Act, it seemed a pity and undesirable to leave these areas under Governments or legislatures which will shortly cease to have an interest in them.

Let me take my second question: How long may the transitional arrangements be expected to go on? First of all, we wish them to start on 1st April next, which seems to us to be a suitable date. It is in India the beginning of the financial year, and will enable the new Government and the new administration to start off at the beginning of the financial year. We, therefore, suggest that 1st April should be the date of the starting of this provisional Constitution. The actual length of the transitional period is rather difficult to assess since the date of the introduction of Provincial Autonomy has not yet been settled. The House has to approve an Order naming a date for the introduction of Part III. My Noble Friend is well satisfied with the progress being made and the work which is being done before a new constitution can be brought into operation, and provided that the forthcoming report of Sir Otto Niemeyer shows that there is no financial obstacle in the way, hopes to be in a position before the Summer Recess to ask Parliament to consider bringing Part III of the Act of 1935 into operation early in 1937. A year therefore is the sort of period that we have in mind for the interim period. We must, however, work upon the assumption which I have just mentioned, and this forecast is an attempt to help the House and, for the reasons given, must depend upon our expectations being fulfilled. It is, naturally, our wish to do all we can to introduce Provincial Autonomy in the form I have described, and the House may be assured that we shall do our utmost to fulfil what we have said. The Constitution of which I shall speak next is only for an interim period, and if by any unhappy, unforeseen chance any considerable delay which we do not anticipate should occur, it is clear that we should have to come to the House for some revision of the temporary Constitution that is proposed.

Let me answer my third question. What type of Constitution is suggested for this interim period? We suggest for the interim period a simple form of Constitution, for the purpose of settling administrative problems. We might well be asked why we have not suggested Dyarchy for the interim period, but that would mean the necessity of taking decisions on questions of policy, and it might further mean the continuation of the present Sind members of an old legislature elected for another purpose continuing to work in a newly constituted Sind Legislature on an old franchise, or it might mean a new election on an old franchise to be followed by another election in a few months for Provincial Autonomy. We think that arrangement too complicated and not really necessary.

We feel that fresh departures of policy in these areas should and must wait for Provincial Autonomy, and we think the interim period should be used fundamentally for re-arrangement of the areas and for administration. We, therefore, vest all the executive powers in the Governor and not in the Governor in Council. Under paragraph 9 of the Order, the Governor will have an Advisory Council to aid him. Under paragraph 10 he will be able to ask one or more persons to assist him, not necessarily as Ministers in the sense of Ministers in the present dyarchical Constitution, but to assist him in whatever way he thinks most suitable and helpful. If one man is not all that he requires, he may appoint a special committee of the Council to assist him. All the existing members of the Bombay Legislature sitting for Sind will be automatically appointed to the Sind Advisory Council, so that they will continue to aid the Governor in the way they have done in regard to Sind in the Bombay Legislature. Similarly, the representatives on the present Bihar and Orissa Council will automatically become members of the Orissa Advisory Council. The Governor will at the same time have power to appoint members of this Council up to the number described in the Order. The Constitution, therefore, is a simple one for administrative purposes for a limited period. I have attempted to show how long we think it is likely to last. We do not intend that it should last for long. It is an attempt to make the arrangements for the future satisfactory, so that when the Provinces jump to a completely responsible form of Government they may be properly arranged for the purpose.

Let me now answer my fourth question as to what the financial position will be in these areas. Under Paragraph 12 the Budget must be laid before the Advisory Council for discussion, so that the Governor will have the advantage of the advice of members of the Council in making his financial arrangements. It was always contemplated that these areas will be deficit Provinces, Sind for a number of years and Orissa, perhaps, permanently. Let me give an idea of the financial position for the interim period in Sind. To sum up, it looks as if there will be a deficit of just over Rs.100 lakhs. The actual extra cost of separation will only be about lakhs 7.83, a comparatively small amount. The rest will operate by way of relief to Bombay. Besides this deficit grant for the interim period, there will be a small non-recurring grant of six lakhs granted by the Central Government which will constitute for a large part of it an opening balance to enable the Province to start off. The slight difference between this figure and the one originally suggested to the House is largely accounted for by the fact that in this interim period we do not contemplate that new taxation will be attempted. New taxation to the extent of 12 lakhs, or perhaps a little more, would reduce the deficit to nearer the figure that we originally gave to the House. I mention that in order to explain any little difference there may be compared with the estimate that we gave before.

In the case of Orissa, the deficit is estimated for the interim period to be about 40 lakhs, of which the cost of separation will be nearly 20 and the rest will operate by way of relief to the parent Provinces. There will be a non-recurring grant of about 10 lakhs, part of which will be given as an opening balance to set the Province on the way, and part by way of famine relief. I have given these estimates of the interim finance. A forecast of future finance must depend upon the receipt by the Government of the Neimeyer Report and the laying of a further Order under Section 142 of the Government of India Act, passed last year. Therefore, the House need at this stage only concern itself with the finance of the interim, period, realising that a, further order must be made describing the future financial arrangements, and a forecast of the future finance for these areas.

Let me answer my last question: Are there technical points common to both orders or any particular points which affect Orissa in which hon. Members might be interested? Orissa deserves a separate word, since her boundaries must be settled. Sind being an independent area her boundaries are clear, but in the case of Orissa the Schedule describes her new boundaries. She has three parent Provinces. If hon. Members refer to paragraph 6, they will see that it is common to both Orders that the Government of India's existing powers of supervision will apply pending Provincial Autonomy. Under paragraph 11 there is a regulation giving power for the interim period. In paragraph 21 of the Sind Order and paragraph 23 of the Orissa Order there are arrangements for officers to serve in either area. Under paragraph 24 of the Sind Order and paragraph 26 of the Orissa Order the law in force in part of any of the new Provinces will not be altered immediately by reason of separation. These are some of the technical provisions which are worth pointing out. With regard to Orissa, the main problem is that all her boundaries are set out at length in the Schedule of the Orissa Order and follow the decision arrived at by the Joint Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) was a member, and in which the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) took a particular interest. The great detail in the Orissa Order on the subject of the land boundaries is due to the division of the Estate of Parlakimedi which was decided by the Joint Select Committee.

I have put five questions before the House and have endeavoured to answer them. I have given reasons why it is desirable to separate these Provinces and give them Provincial Autonomy, and have indicated how long we anticipate these arrangements will last, what sort of constitution we suggest and what the financial position for the interim period is likely to be. I have also touched on one or two technical points. It now only remains for me to ask the House to approve the Order and to warn hon. Members that I shall have to ask for the Debate to be adjourned this afternoon before the Motion is carried, so that the hands of the House will be free, before it finally votes the Address, to consider any modifications which may be suggested in another place. The reason for this is that under the Act both Houses have to agree upon the text of the draft of any given Order before they vote their respective Address. If no modifications are made in another place, I trust that the final voting on the Address will be a formality in this House.

It remains for us to wish these Provinces, which are starting out on their career as individual units, the very best in the future. It is not too much to say that while there may be different points of view about details, while some may find it difficult to understand the interim arrangements, there is a feeling that it is just common sense to set them out on this short interim period as administrative units. After many considerations about their future it is legitimate to feel some satisfaction that Sind, which earlier than any part of Moslem India was established as a separate unit, should be on the high road towards responsible government as a separate part of India under the Government of India Act. It is also a legitimate source of satisfaction that the Holy land of Orissa should be about to be set up as a separate unit. The civilisation and individuality of this homogeneous area, which will be actually the most homogeneous area in India, has been remarkably preserved during the centuries, first of Moslem and then of British rule. Let us be generous in wishing well to these two new governments, setting out to render the future task of responsible government in their own areas more easy and more effective. Let us politicians, whether it be here or in Orissa or in Sind, forego for the moment our search for different forms of political government and remember the old saying:

11.40 a.m.

Once again the hon. Member has placed the House under a deep obligation for the clear and concise statement he has presented in explanation of the draft Order which we are now to consider. We on this side will not think it necessary to delay the House from arriving at such a conclusion as can be arrived at to-day in so far as the details of this particular Order are concerned. May I say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is unfortunately prevented from being here this morning. He has taken a very lively interest in this question, and I know that he would have been glad to have taken part in the Debate. No doubt the Prime Minister is aware that my right hon. Friend is taking conference with people in a northern part of this island. The Undersecretary has said that we are called upon to discuss the first Order under the Act of Parliament which occupied so much of our attention last year, and remarked that it marks the final stage in the creation of the Provinces of Sind and Orissa. We are not called upon to discuss whether it is wise that these two separate Provinces should be created. That decision has already been taken by the House and I am not going to discuss it, but I should like to say that in taking the line of action which we propose to take this morning we are in no wise departing from the general attitude we took up last year in relation to the Government of India Act.

The hon. Member has made it clear that we are engaged to-day only in establishing an interim form of government for these two areas, and I was glad to hear him say with such clarity that it is the purpose of the Government that this arrangement shall be an interim arrangement only, and that indeed the Government desire to set a term to the arrangement. I gather that they propose to inaugurate the more complete system at the beginning of 1937, I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that. There is not much reason for disputing the necessity for some sort of interim arrangement to tide over the period between now and a more complete form of government being established. The arguments which the hon. Member adduced were, on the whole, convincing. It is obvious that in any case the problems which confront areas like these new Provinces must be very complex in character. All sorts of problems and adjustments will have to be considered, and I think it is a fair point for the hon. Member to make that to expect a new Province to be faced immediately with all these complex and perplexing problems will be a very severe strain upon them. Therefore, I think the case is strong for the establishment of some interim arrangement. If we invited the present Government to undertake this task, even that would not be entirely satisfactory, because, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, they would be discussing subjects of which presently they would have to take leave, so to speak. It is, as I say, desirable that an interim arrangement should be established, and therefore we take no objection to the proposal now before the House.

I wish, however, to ask the Undersecretary one question on a point concerning which I have some little misgiving. As I understood his speech it has removed a part of my misgiving, but I should like some further information. In studying this Order I have wondered what arrangements the Government have in mind for securing some sort of continuity between the proposed interim arrangement and the more permanent arrangement which is to be established in 1937. The Government, I understand, will be empowered to appoint a council of not more than 25. At the end of the period, unless the Government have some special proposal in mind, those 25 people may perchance completely divest themselves of responsibility, I understood from the hon. Gentleman that members who are now members of the legislative councils in Bombay and elsewhere will be available for this interim council and that in that way there will be provided a means of securing continuity between the interim period and the period when a permanent form of Government has been established.

If I am right in my supposition, that, I think, will be an advantage. Even so, and in spite of the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that there will be a definite link between those who function in the interim period and those who are to be responsible for affairs after Provincial Autonomy has been established, I am not yet quite sure on the point. However I do not think it necessary to delay the House any longer. Generally speaking, we accept the proposal of the Government on the understanding that it is for a limited period only. An assurance to that effect has been very frankly given by the Under-Secretary in commending the Order to the House. I can only re-echo the sentiments expressed by him in saying that we trust that those who are to be in charge of the affairs of these new Provinces, not only during the interim period but also during the later period, will be abundantly blessed with wisdom and discretion, and that their efforts will be attended with overwhelming success.

11.50 a.m.

Although I was one of those who strongly opposed, on various grounds, the creation of these two Provinces, yet as Parliament has been pleased to pass the Government of India Act, 1935, I consider that the Government have taken the very best line possible in providing for those ad interim arrangements. I speak from a long administrative experience when I say that the creation of a new Province or the junction of bits of two Provinces to one another, as is the case in Orissa, must bring forward many difficult problems. That I agree does not apply so much to the case of Sind as to the case of Orissa. People who are transferred from one Province to another carry with them certain territorial laws and traditions. Consequently the officers of a newly-constituted Province have to make themselves familiar with particular territorial laws—tenancy laws and so forth— in respect of population that is being transferred from another Province.

There are many other points of administrative detail which require to be threshed out in these cases by those who have administrative experience. I myself, had long ago advocated an advisory council. Even in the days before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, during the period of the Minto-Morley reforms, a proposal for an advisory council of this kind had been advanced. When the Central Provinces of which I was then the chief administrator fell out of the Morley-Minto scheme, because it was only a Chief Commissionership, I was the first to propose that the ad interim arrangement, pending qualification for a separate legislature should take the form of an advisory council. Later on, however, the Act was amended so that Chief Commissioner's Provinces could be given legislatures and within two or three years there was a legislature for the Central Provinces. In the circumstances which have been so clearly described by the Under-Secretary, there can be no question about the fact that this is a very wise measure to take in this case. I may be pardoned for saying that I would have liked a rather more extended period of probation than is likely to arise, unless, indeed, financial considerations postpone the introduction of Part III of the Government of India Act.

There are one or two matters in respect of which I should like to feel that I understand exactly what is contemplated. For example, in the Orissa Order reference is made to the Province continuing as at present under the Patna High Court, presumably under the arrangements which at present prevail for separate sessions of the judges, of the Patna High Court within the limits of Orissa. In the case of Sind there is no such reference. Presumably it is intended that the existing court in Sind shall continue for the time being, but I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary what is the actual proposal in that respect.

There is another matter in connection with the transfer of officers—officers serving under the Crown as I think they are called—from one Province to another. I understand that as far as possible the wishes of the officers will be consulted. Of course there will be the local district and divisional staffs which will remain as they always have, in the particular areas in which they have been recruited. But in the case of the higher officers there has always been, in similar circumstances—as in cases such as the creation of the new Provinces of Bihar and Orissa cut off from Bengal, and the Provinces of Eastern Bengal and Assam— a certain amount of choice. In similar cases, so far as I know, although the Government had the right to allot the officers to whichever Province they thought right, at the same time a certain amount of choice was exercised, so that officers might go willingly. There are questions that might arise as to climate and rate of remuneration, and I understand that it is intended that they should be protected from a salary reduction in the new scale of pay that they may have if they are moved from, say, the Presidency of Bombay to Sind against their wishes. Naturally in the higher ranks of the service they are liable to serve in any Province to which they may be posted, but in the ordinary course of things such transfers are somewhat exceptional, and they are generally arranged on a voluntary basis. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reassure the House that the services will have considerate treatment in this regard.

The financial question, of course, depends a great deal on the ultimate decisions made when the Niemeyer report on the finances has been received. In the meantime these arrangements are on the whole as little expensive as it was possible to provide, having regard to the changes that are being made. Some Members in this Parliament may not be so familiar with the question of how many rupees constitute a lakh and so forth as many Members were in the last Parliament, but a lakh of rupees may roughly be taken as something over £7,000, and six lakhs, therefore—well, lion. Members can do the calculation for themselves. Considering all things, although I opposed very strongly the creation of these Provinces on various grounds, yet that having been decided the other way, I can only congratulate the Undersecretary of State on the sound administrative principles upon which this Order has been framed.

11.58 a.m.

As one who supported the Government throughout on the Government of India Bill, I think it is extraordinarily satisfactory that we should have one of the die-hards of those Debates who, now that Parliament has agreed to that Measure, is willing to co-operate with the Government in putting these Orders through. I think we are also very fortunate to-day to have a Minister who understands the subject so well. Anybody who knew nothing whatever about the subject must have been impressed by his ability to ask himself a question and to reply intelligently. I am reminded of the opposite case of a candidate at the Election who said, "You know, as I came along here I very nearly asked myself a question." A man in the audience said, "It is a good thing you didn't, guv'nor, or you would probably have given a d—silly reply." My hon. Friend asked and answered questions which really gave us the full scheme which is laid before the House in these three Orders, and I am sure we are all very pleased indeed that he has done so, because in reading these papers it is very difficult for an ordinary layman to understand what is proposed. I rose merely to say how extraordinarily pleased I am that there is such an efficient Minister in the House to explain these things, so that everybody may understand them.

12 noon.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I would like first to reply to the few points that have been raised in this Debate. With regard to the question of continuity, raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), there is, of course, as he has observed, continuity between the old system and the present proposal. In the future it will continue in the person of the head of the Government, and it will continue in the members of the Council, in so far as they get themselves re-elected, but there will have to be elections held for the new Sind Council; and certainly we hope that not too many of them will not find a place in the new council, and I see no reason why they should not. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), the judiciary in Sind will be constituted in the shape of the Sind Judicial Commissioners' Court, which will continue unchanged during this transitional year 1936–37. On the introduction of provincial autonomy, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Judicial Commissioners' Court will be deemed to be a high court, though not a Letters Patent high court, for the purposes of chapter 2 of Part IX of the Act of 1935 and will, of course, have to comply with the provisions of that chapter. Its future, of course, will depend on the recommendations of the Sind Legislature and the consideration of any such representations. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the High Court of Bihar will exercise jurisdiction over Orissa in the manner he described.

With regard to the question about the wishes of officers, it is true that the officers will be looked after in the way he described. For instance, under paragraph 23 of the Orissa Order, take the case of officers serving between Madras and Orissa. Under sub-paragraph 2 it is possible to make arrangements for any Madras official who prefers not to serve under the Orissa Government.

Does that apply to the rank-and-file and the clerical staffs?

Officers include servants of the Crown and certainly will include those in the Civil Service, so that there is no question of differentiating between the classes of officers. The All-India services are separate from the other services, but these Orders refer to all servants of the Crown who serve in India. I am obliged for the kindly references of the hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), and I am glad that I do not correspond with the gentleman whom he described. For the reasons I described in my original speech, I will now move the adjournment of the Debate.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 20th January, 1936."—[ Mr. Butler. ]

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

12.5 p.m.

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 31st January, 1936, subject, however, to the following modifications, namely:

In the Schedule, Part II, page 2, line 36, leave out 'Sherpur and Susang Parganas,' and insert 'Dewanganj, Sribardi, Nalitabari, Haluaghat, Durgapur and Kalmakanda police stations.'

In the Schedule, Part II, page 3, line 2, after 'tahsil,' insert 'and.'

In the Schedule, Part II, page 3, line 5, leave out the second 'and,' and insert 'in.'"

The House will remember that some of the areas included in this Order were included in a Schedule to the Act of 1935. When the Measure was passing through the House an Amendment was moved by Major Cadogan, who was then Member for Finchley, and was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) who has taken such an interest in this subject of the aboriginals, and in our method of suggesting areas which should be totally or partially excluded. There was a general feeling at that time that there was need for a close inquiry into the question of what areas under the Government of India Act should be excluded or partially excluded. The Government thought that there was a legitimate case for withdrawing the Schedule and causing an investigation to be made. The Schedule was therefore withdrawn and the Government undertook to investigate the matter. A letter was sent to India from the India Office which I think embodies all the requirements which hon. Members desired in the course of the original Debate on the Schedule. It can be found on page 1 of the Blue Book "Government of India Act, 1935. Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas." This letter had as a reply the Dispatch from the Government of India which was received by my Noble Friend about a month before the Order was laid. It sets out very clearly and fully the areas which the Government of India considered should be regarded as totally or partially excluded. This Dispatch from the Government of India forms the first few pages of the Blue Book. I think I can safely tell the House that this Blue Book constitutes the best and fullest inquiry into this subject which has been made, and that the evidence upon which hon. Members can form their views is in the form of reports from local officers in every province and district in India in which there are aboriginals.

Has this Report been available in India?

Yes, and the results of the inquiry have been made known. This is the fullest inquiry which has been made, and the reports of the local officers provide the House with sufficient evidence upon which to base their views. The Order was laid on 31st January within six months of the passing of the Act, and my Noble Friend's views contained in the draft Order were framed in the light of the Government of India's dispatch after the fullest consideration. After careful consideration, my Noble Friend accepted in toto and without any modification the contents of the Dispatch, and embodied them in the draft Order which is now before the House. The actual contents of the Order appear slightly different from the areas described in the Government of India's Dispatch, but, in fact, the difference between those areas defined in the Schedule and the areas described in the Dispatch are differences only in definition. The areas covered are actually the same. There is one case on page two of the Order of the district of Mymensingh in Bengal, where I am asking the House to accept a modification of the original Order and to describe it in terms of police stations. The expression "Sherpur and Susang Parganas" is not now correct. It is a Mogul definition of an area which is not used to-day. Therefore, in asking for this modification we are asking for a clearer definition of the area in the Mymensingh district in which the tribe which we wish to protect live. The other modifications are simply substitution of "and" for "in" to correct an error in the deciphering of telegrams.

Probably paragraph 134 of the Government of India's despatch seems to put as clearly as possible the difference between the contents of this Order and the contents of the original Schedule to the Bill. I can summarise the result, I think, as follows. Four new areas have been added to the totally excluded list, about two of which I warned the House when I discussed the matter on the Government of India Bill. Several areas have been added to the partially excluded list. Ten of these, which are described in Paragraph 134 of the Government of India Dispatch, have been taken from those suggested in the original Amendment moved by Major Cadogan and supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough. This is by no means all that was asked for, but we have conceded that 10 of the areas in the Amendment are suitable for partial exclusion. I think that this, although it does not go all the way, goes a considerable way to meeting the Movers of the Amendment, and shows them that upon inquiry there was to that extent every justification for their Amendment. All the different proposals in the Amendment have been closely examined. The House will see from the Blue Book that every suggestion has been carefully considered, and that in cases where we have not been able to accept the suggestion convincing reasons are given why we cannot.

There is no doubt that the inquiry from that point of view has been worth while. Other areas have been added on the recommendation of the Provincial Governments. There are two in the case of one Government and two in the case of another, while certain areas have been added after reconsideration by the Government of India.

It may be useful if I sum up the methods which are now available for protecting the aboriginals and primitive tribes under the Government of India Act. The method of total and partial exclusion ensures that the legislation in those areas is adapted to the requirements of the primitive population and that the administration in it suits their needs. Under total exclusion the entire control will be with the Government, but there are a very limited number of totally excluded areas.

Under the method of partial exclusion the initiative in legislation and administration rests with the responsible Minister, but the Governor has a power under his special responsibility to differ if either the legislation or the administration is in his view inimicable to the interests of the aboriginals living in those areas. So that the method of partial exclusion leaves the initiative in the hands of the Minister. This system of using partially excluded areas does not cover every patch of aboriginals in India. We have taken as our criterion that we must cover by this method areas of a certain size. Otherwise, the operation of this system would be impossible. Hon. Members will see that the size in each case is no smaller than a revenue district. We have also tried to find areas in which these aboriginals may be said to form the great majority of the population; we have looked for homogeneous areas of a certain size. With regard to, the scattered patches of aboriginals, the question of protection really comes back upon the special responsibility of the Governor for minorities. When we come to discuss the draft Instruments of Instructions the House will find that the definition of minorities which we are going to propose and which we must discuss at that time, will cover scattered patches of aboriginals.

There are two paragraphs in the Dispatch about a special officer. We were asked whether we could appoint in the Provinces special officers to look after the aboriginals. That is an administrative question and I cannot discuss it upon this Order, further than to say that my Noble Friend will interest himself to see that every Governor over any area in which it appears that the services of a special officer would be advisable or necessary will carefully consider whether such an appointment is necessary, and will appoint a special officer if suitable. There are references to the special officer in paragraphs 135 and 136 of the Government of India's Dispatch. I should perhaps also mention the question of the reservation of seats in the Provincial Assemblies. The aborigines can claim a person suitable to represent them.

Now, under the Government of India Act and this Order, I hope that these populations, in whom hon. Members have shown such an interest, will receive consideration in the future. The Government is always ready to acknowledge when it has had the collaboration of hon. Members; it is always ready to acknowledge when it has profited by the collaboration of the House. I confess that this inquiry has been well worth while, and I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with its comprehensive nature, and with the Order that has resulted from it. We have carried out the inquiry in the letter and spirit of the promise that we gave. A great deal of trouble has been taken by hon. Members, by the officers of the Government of India, and the Government of India was aided by an officer specially equipped to deal with the subject, by district officers all over India and by the India Office at home, and I am sure we are indebted to all of them for the great trouble they have taken to produce so comprehensive a report.

12.19 p.m.

I rise again to say that we on this side of the House take no objection to this Order to-day. In all the discussions that took place on the Bill I think I felt more helpless in regard to this subject than in regard to any other. I was handicapped, as many others were no doubt, by the fact that I had never travelled in India and had never come into actual contact with the people of India and their problems; but for all that I am afraid I have to confess that I am almost as ignorant at the end as at the beginning. So it is very difficult in all these discussions to determine what ought to be an excluded area, what ought to be partially excluded, and what ought not to be excluded at all. In the absence of definite personal knowledge one naturally has to fall back upon the guidance and advice of those who ought to know better.

There is presented to us this Order. I have not been able to read in detail the voluminous document to which reference has been made, but I believe it is a most excellent document and one for which those who framed it are entitled to our thanks. But I have one little difficulty and I express it on my own behalf. For myself I would have preferred if this Order were not being presented to us today, because I would have been glad to have seen what are the reactions of the Indian people to this Order. I understand that the Legislative Assembly is meeting in India this week, and if my information is correct there is to be presented to the Assembly a Motion for the discussion of this particular matter. I would have been glad to have fortified myself with some knowledge of the discussion there in order to help me in arriving at a conclusion on the matter. However, our own Government here has decided otherwise and has presented this Order to-day, and for my part, helpless and handicapped as I am for lack of knowledge of this particular matter, I can offer no objection to the Order, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition desires that the party here should offer no objection.

12.23 p.m.

The Undersecretary of State was kind enough to refer in his speech to the interest that I have taken in this matter, and I may be allowed to make a few remarks on this new Order. It would be ungrateful of me not to express my thanks to the India Office for the trouble they have taken and for the thoroughness of the reconsideration they have given to this problem. The Blue Book issued last Saturday is an absolute model of what is required, and I feel ashamed of myself for having doubted, as I did doubt, that the Government would give us so complete a re-examination of the subject. Certainly they have carried out their promise in the letter and in the spirit. I think that the alterations made do perhaps justify the anxiety that many of us felt in the last Parliament; and I also feel that had it not been that we had the support from Members of all parties, including most generous assistance and sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Opposition, we would not have had this re-examination carried out. Nevertheless I contend that the results of this inquiry are not wholly satisfactory and are indeed to some extent disappointing. It is perhaps asking too much to ask that they should be made better now, but it appears to me, after having studied the 248 pages of the Blue Book carefully, that there is justification in it for a considerably wider measure of partial and total exclusion than the Government of India have given us.

The House I think will be ill-advised to reject what has been given, but it would be easier for us to accept it if it were possible for the Under-Secretary to explain to us some of the machinery whereby he hopes that the alternative safeguards to which he has alluded are going to be operated. I should particularly welcome it if the hon. Gentleman found it possible to give the House some further information as to the actual machinery for future de-exclusion. This was a point which I and other Members raised in the last Parliament on the India Bill. We know that there will be an Order in Council, but I should like to know on whose initiative in the first place the proposal for de-exclusion will be made. Through what channels in India will those proposals have to go, and what safeguards have the Government of India and the India Office in mind for the purpose of ensuring that de-exclusion is not unduly accelerated or delayed, because this matter cuts both ways. There is, of course, no machinery for an extension of exclusion, but I do, not think we have been told at any stage of the Debates how the machinery for de-exclusion will work. I would like to quote four lines from the Blue Book which will explain my point. Paragraph 129 of the Dispatch from the Government of India reads follows:

Another point to which I would like to refer is that there will inevitably be, in respect of some areas, political pressure put upon the responsible administration for de-exclusion. Anybody who has been in these areas knows that many of them form a reserve grazing ground of immense importance in time of famine, and the villagers of the plains go into the forests for timber for building and for forest products. There will be constant pressure to get areas de-excluded from the land of the aborigines, and there has been a great deal of this in the past. After all, a spirit of toleration is as yet somewhat incomplete.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said just now that he would have liked to have been able to wait to hear what Indian opinion is on this matter. I am sure the hon. Member will be interested to hear of a lecture given by Dr. Mukerjee, the well-known economist, which was reported in the "Statesman" of 12th November, 1935. I will not quote from it, but I have the report in my hands and I will give it to him afterwards. This lecture illustrates how informed Indian opinion on this subject also recognises that special protection is still necessary for the exterior castes.

Returning to the question of de-exclusion, I imagine that what will happen is that the Government of India will forward to the Government here recommendations received from the Provinces. If they are going to forward recommendations, it means that they are going to endorse them, and what I am not quite clear about is what facilities the Government of India will have for examining the proposals which they will have to endorse, unless a special department is set up for the purpose. After all, the Governor-General, as well as the Provincial Governors, have a special responsibility in this matter. The aborigines have special needs, and these needs and these responsibilities seem to need co-ordination.

This brings me to the letter from the India Office to the Government of India on which this Bill is founded. Reference has already been made to Paragraph 4, so that there is no need for me to quote it, but this Paragraph refers to the appointment of special officers in the Provinces. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly next looks at the Blue Book, I hope that he will read the memorandum by the Commissioner of Nagpur, a most admirable document which I think epitomises the whole case for an extension, and also for the provision of special officers. If he would like to see the other side of the case excellently set out, in a manner with which I am in total disagreement, will he also refer to the letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Chanda, a subordinate officer of the Deputy Commissioner for Nagpur? When I first received the Blue Book I looked at that part "which refers to Chanda, an area which I knew very well. Admirably as is that case set out, I think it reinforces the argument for a special officer. If we could be given asurances on this matter, I think it would make our acceptance of this Order in Council very much easier.

In conclusion, may I refer to one other thing? The fact that this subject has been re-examined and that the Bill has been so improved is, I think, wholly due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir Samuel Hoare). It was on his initiative that I was first encouraged to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee because, as he said, although he did not know what substance there might be in my views, he did not want any part of the Government of India Bill not to be subjected to the most strict and impartial investigation. It will be within the recollection of many Members of the House that during the passage of the Bill he appeared to resent any proposal to extend the Schedules. Nevertheless, such is the objectivity and impartiality with which he seems to approach every problem that, despite the attitude he assumed during the passage of the Bill, he withdrew the original schedules and initiated an inquiry. The improvement which has appeared in the Bill is wholly due to the foresight and vision of the right hon. Gentleman, whose temporary absence from the Front Bench I think we all deplore. Those of us who watched the passage of the Government of India Bill saw the exhaustion which came over him as the result of four years of unremitting toil and responsibility. I think that at this moment, in the epilogue of the Government of India Bill, it is right to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who, I am glad to see, is soon coming back to England to resume, I hope, his activities, which are badly needed upon the Front Bench.

12.33 p.m.

I do not intend to make a long speech, but with all due deference to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) I must dissociate myself from any responsibility for this Order. I listened carefully to the very clear and very soothing explanations of the Under-Secretary respecting his attitude to the aborigines, and the protection that is offered to them. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself once occupied adjoining cells in a prison in Scotland, and there was a governor there, with all kinds of officials, to protect us from going wrong in any way. We were excluded. We were aborigines. If there were any real understanding of this question, instead of keeping the aborigines in excluded areas and appointing all kinds of officials to protect them, all our power and wealth ought to be directed towards bringing the aborigines into line with the general development that is going on in India. But no exclusion, no excluded areas. Therefore, while I am not calling for any Division on this Order I want to register the fact that I am not giving any support or encouragement to this idea of excluded areas and of protection. I know what is meant by the protection that is given by Governors and the officials who operate under Governors. As I listened to one of the Members who was speaking in a previous discussion I almost heard the jangling of the keys.

12.37 p.m.

:I feel that many people in India are under a great debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Welling-borough (Wing-Commander James) and Major Cadogan for having brought this point forward, and on a Friday, a short day, I would speak only upon one Province, the Province of Assam. I am very glad to see on page 2 of the Schedule the areas which have been totally excluded. I do not think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has done justice to the officials of the Indian Civil Service, who really do protect these aborigines. They protect them from everybody in India. If a European company or a European goes over the border into an excluded area and starts to open a tea garden or any other business he is made to leave, because the land there is definitely reserved for the aborigines. I know from my own experience of a tea garden in Assam which was opened up on the edge of a hill-district area about 25 years ago. The Deputy-Commissioner of the district insisted that the tea bushes should be ripped up again and the money spent on planting them was lost. That is only one instance among many petty business transactions which occur every year in which these people need to be helped.

Is it the desire to keep these people as aborigines until they die out, or to bring them into the general life of India?

The desire is that gradually they should come in, but such a development must be slow. At the moment they have a different civilisation and different standards. The people of those hill tribes are not Hindus. The Hindus look down upon them, although we do not, because they eat cows and pigs, just as we do. The Hindus definitely look down upon them as being of a much lower standard of civilisation and at present do not accept them as equals. I suggest to the hon. Member that a perusal of this Blue Book would well repay his attention and, indeed, there are many pages in it which are instructive to anybody. With reference to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said about never having been in India, all I can say is that he disguised that fact very well, because as I listened to him when he was speaking again and again during the Debate on the India Bill I thought he had been there several times. At any rate, he displayed a very great knowledge of all the questions which we were discussing. I do not object to anything on page 2 of the Schedule, but I do object to some of the things on page 3, for example:

With regard to the Garo and the Mikir Hills, I can see no justification in these pages for those places being included as a partially-excluded area. I think they should be totally excluded. My knowledge of these people is that they are not yet fit for the rough and tumble of political life, and they are in very isolated districts. If one reads pages 231, 232 and 233 of the Report one can see what the Deputy-Commissioner of the Garo Hills district himself says. I think the Government are taking a very grave risk when they make the Garo and the Mikir Hills into a partially-excluded district, and I hope that in future years the people of those districts will not regret what is being now done. On the other hand, we have to thank the Government for having considered this question again, and I think that what they have done will be of general good to all the people of India.

12.42 p.m.

I wish to offer only a few observations on this subject, in which I have taken very much interest. I feel that we owe thanks to the Government of India for the very careful way in which they have examined the report and opinions of the various district officers and the various Governments and administration. They have presented them in a most admirable manner in their own despatch summarising the whole question. There is no one who knows every one of these tracts personally. Some can testify to one, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who spoke of Assam. Personally, I can speak with Very detailed knowledge of all the areas in the Central Provinces and Berar. I know them well and have toured most of them, and it is certainly most desirable that some territories which were left out of the original Schedule are now in the partially-excluded list. In most of the Zamindaris which we see in the Chanda district the owners, are old feudal chiefs, who are aboriginals themselves and who get on extremely well with their people. The difficulty has been to protect these people, who are very simple, from more cunning people who go in there to trade. For example, there are parts of the Central Provinces where the beaters, if there is a beat for tigers or panthers, prefer to be paid in salt rather than in money, because they have to buy their salt from pedlars, who charge them very high prices. That is only one instance of the primitive character of some of these areas.

In view of the deep interest which I take in all these parts of India, which I have been personally engaged in administering, I am very pleased to find how thorough has been the inquiry, and in respect of my old Province to see how these areas have been included. There is one observation I would like to make about the question of special officers. I do not think that that should be entirely dropped, and I believe that the Secretary of State himself does not wish that particular point to drop out as of no value. The interests of these people are looked after in individual districts by those district officers who have the time and the taste to go into the mentalities, customs and difficulties of tribes of this kind.

I did not contemplate when I made this proposal previously that there would be much staff of officers of this kind. You must depend upon the district officers, and upon officers who are most competent to deal with these questions, such as some of our forest officers. They work among these people, who are very useful for purposes of forest conservation and so forth. The forest officers may establish villages, and it is those villages which are the particular care of forest officers. It is they who supply the labour for extinguishing forest fires and cutting and tracing lines and boundaries through the forest. Apart from that, there might be officers with headquarters in each Province who might be able to sit round, combining this with some other duty, and discuss these questions, in order to bring them to the notice of the Government. Otherwise, it might be difficult to obtain information when it is desirable.

I have nothing further to add, but to congratulate the Government upon the action that they have taken, and to express thanks on behalf of those Members of the House who brought forward this problem with a result for which I am sure they are very grateful. I support most cordially this Order and the distribution in the manner in which it is being effected.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.