Abstract
AK English resident in ike Punjab writes taking exception to views expressed in these columns in a reference to Mr. L. S. Amery's review of the political situation in India in August last (see NATUKE, 146–255; 1940). He points out that while it is true that there a.re differences among the Indians themselves, all parties are at one in desiring Home Rule. To attain Home Rule is, or is supposed to be, the purpose of the Indian National Congress; and the prepon-derancy of the Hindu community in it merely reflects the fact that Hindus are a large majority in the country. It is stated that Moslems are by no means all anti-Nationalist or anti-Congress, and in fact only one party of them is so-the Moslem League, a reactionary conservative body composed, of big landlords, title-holders and the like. Indeed, he adds, if a straight vote could be taken without confusing the issue by an appeal to communal fanaticism through such cries as “religion in danger”, it is very doubtful if the Moslem League would have a majority over the combined votes of progressive Moslem parties. It was in fact decisively defeated in the last elections in the four provinces which have Moslem majorities. As for the Princes, they are, he says, a relic of feudalism, and do not represent their people. Although Mr. Amery's last offer, haying regard to the conditions, was not so bad, it encouraged minorities to believe that however fantastic their claims, the British Government would support them, or at least allow them to hold up Home Rule indefinitely, thus lending colour to the Indian view that Britain does nqt really mean to give up her power and is playing the game of “divide and rule”.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Issues, and Parties in India. Nature 147, 353 (1941). https://doi.org/10.1038/147353b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/147353b0