Evening star., 1939-12-04
Asks ImportioI Study
Of the Case Of India
Denial Of independence Held
Contrary to Dictates
Of Fair Ploy

Ss " s"oSPSSS ''S
Controry to Dictates
Of Fair PIoy
TO the Editor Of The Star:
A perusal Of the news Of the Indian
situation is interesting and highly anus
ing, considering the fact that the cor
respondents and, especially, editorialists,
seem to know nothing whatever about
the Indian side-except what they get
from British ofncials. It amounts to this:
The slave wishes freedom from the mas
ter-so in order to get the slaves story,
we 60 to the master for It'll
Not logical procedure, but this is
exactly what is being done, year after
year, In regard to the question Of India's
freedom. How pitiful that we, who
point with such pride at our own Revo-
lutionary leaders, have become so un-
American as to begrudge to others what
we believe to be the sacred right Of all
to "life, liberty and the pursuit Of happi-
ness" Or does that only apply to races
and nations with whom we are taught to
sympathize by propagandists, press and
otherwise? It is regrettable that we
cannot be more impartial in our atti-
tudes toward humanity aid ask our
selves, for instance, just Why we were
full of sympathy for the Ethiopians
during the italian invasion of their
country, and so lacking in sympathy for
the Indian people who have been under
foreign domination for more than $50
years, during which time they have been
so ill-treated, politically Inundated and
physically tortured that study OF the
facts will prove to be absolutely horrify-
ing to any one who happens to possess
originality enough to fish for some
actual statistics. Let no person who
values and prizes his own freedom harbor
any doubts as to the desire OF the entire
Indian people for freedom and the prog
ress that naturally accompanies it. The
desire fol liberty is universal urge to
progress and to deny 1t is to deny life
itself. II this Is true Of ourselves, it Is
true Of all humanity. AS to the right of
Britain to hold an ancient and cultured
nation such as India in bondage, no
earnest student can find any justifca-
ton for the existence of such situation
In Star editorial the writer says "con-
duct Of the war requires unity of the
empire, unity which Is shaken to its
roots by the turbulence which is sweep
Ing India" Did India ask to be in the
empire? No. decidedly not. She was
subjugated by the same methods that
Italy employed in Ethiopia and Hitler in
Czecho-Slovakia. In answer to Britain's
oft-repeated claim that India is her
sacred trust" let me quote from letter
written by Mr. Bernard Houghton, a
member Of Parliament, who long held a
high position In the British civil service
in India. He says:
wherever there is a trust some one
with authority must have made the trust.
Who was 1t in the case Of India? Where
and when was the deed consumated?
AS history tells us, England acquired
India by the sword; in parts, indeed, by
means even more questionable than the
sword 1t will hardly do, then, to say
that Providence has intrusted England
| with India, for that would be to impute
to Providence methods which all humane
men must look on with adherence and
which fout alike all dictates of justice
and the principles of liberty. The
people OF India no more handed them
selves over to English rule than did the
Alsatians In 1871 give themselves to Ger
many or the Poles Of the 18th century
to the Car. Whence does the supposed
trust arise? Contract explicit or implied,
there Is none.
Such deception is what comes of sub
stituting dreams for reality. We know
full we'll that the East India Co. con-
quered India for its own profit. We know
how, in the 18th century, hundreds of
its servants returned to England loaded
with the loot of the annexed territories.
We know further that when this shame
less confiscation was ended it was re-
placed by a system which, though legal,
places an intolerable burden In the shape
OF high salaries on the neck of India,
which subordinates her trade to the In
terest Of England, which seQuestrates the
major portion Of her revenues to main
tain an army to hold India in subjection
and to fight the battles of the British
Empire in other lands.
"A trusteeship is an honorary post,
an often thankless task, involving much
labor and not little anxiety, with no
monetary reward. But India has been
to England from the first matter Of
profit. It was conquered by the East
India Co. for the sake of profit. 1t was
held onto by England for profit, profit
IN trade, in prestige, in military force
and in the great number of careers it
offers to sons of the governing class. It
is In fact, what businessmen call pay
Ing proposition Again, quoting Mr..
Houghton, England is not the trustee
of India in any sense except one that is
absolutely fiction, and every Englishman
knows it. The only trustee of India is
the Indian people"
Concerning India, her people and their
history, let another eminent Englishman
speak. Lord Curzon, while Viceroy Of
India, said in his address at the great
Delhi Durbar in 1901: Powerful empires