Vol. 2 · pages 776–780

755 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS particularly for those who are really interested in setting up an AllIndia Federation, to concentrate upon setting up some kind of provisional government upon the assumption either that Federation is never coming into existence, or that Federation is only coming into existence in the very indefinite future. I believe myself that Members of the Committee and Indian Delegates who make proposals of that kind, although they do not wish the result of their proposals to be in the least what it will be, are really putting Federation further and further into the distance. I only go on repeating my own opinion, and I must rely upon my British and Indian friends to see that time after time it is not misrepresented by our enemies outside. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I pursue this a little further. Do you think Federation is more important, or responsibility is more important ? 7025. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : Or neither ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I do not see the point of Dr. Ambedkar’s question. 7026. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My point is this : If you are not prepared to consider any alternative for a transitional period the conclusion is that there can be no responsibility unless there is Federation ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Really now Dr. Ambedkar is raising issues that we have been discussing for three years. For three years we have assumed in every discussion we have had that these proposals are based upon a foundation of All-India Federation, and I am not prepared today, after three years of these discussions, to reopen this question. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: It is true. I do not want to pursue the matter. I am only suggesting an alternative for your consideration. I have two more questions to ask, but I do not know whether they will be within the ambit of the topic we are discussing. One is in relation to the qualifications of candidates for the Federal Upper Chamber. Archbishop of Canterbury: I think that would more properly come under franchise, would it not ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I would like to ask a question or two about financial safeguards. Archbishop of Canterbury: I think that clearly comes within finance. 7027. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I want to ask a question or two about defence. You remember that the Sub-Committee on Defence in its report recommended that there should be a Military Council. I do not find any proposal in the White Paper dealing with that ? Archbishop of Canterbury: For the very good reason that we do not think that is a constitutional proposal. It is an administrative proposal. 7028. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Are you going to have it? Archbishop of Canterbury: I have always myself been in favour of having in India something in the nature of the Committee of Imperial Defence here. I believe in actual practice it will be found to be necessary. It is very important to bring not only the Defence Ministers, and the Defence officials, in touch with Defence problems, but now that

756 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Defence covers so very wide a field of the life of a nation we have found here it is of great value to have a Committee of some kind in which the appropriate Ministers can be had in for specific discussions, and there is a strong body, not only of civil opinion, but also of military opinion in India that is in favour of the development of some such Committee as this, but essentially it is an administrative question rather than a question that can be dealt with in an Act of Parliament. ***** 7033. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: With regard to the reserved subjects, you do not propose to make that part of the budget votable ? Sir Samuel Hoare: That is so. 7034. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: That is opposed to the theory of Reserved Departments as it exists now under the Government of India Act ? Sir Samuel Hoare: It is based upon all our previous discussions and I thought, although there was a good deal of discussion at the Round Table Conferences about certain features of Defence, there was a very general agreement upon the point that the monies should not be votable. 7035. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Do you see any very great danger if the Legislative Assembly vote upon it, and the Viceroy had the power to certify, if he found any drastic cut was made ? Sir Samuel Hoare : I think it is better in a matter of this kind, in which the responsibility of the Viceroy is clear and unquestioned, that whilst opportunities should be given for discussion, the necessary expenditure should be non-votable. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The next question is with regard to the appointment of the commander-in-chief. I do not find any specific proposals dealing with that in the White Paper. Section 19 of the Government of India Act merely states that commander-in-chief shall be appointed by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. 7036. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru : It is a curious accident that in the present Government of India Act there is no reference to the appointment of the commander-in-chief. All it does is to provide that if the commander-in-chief is a Member of the Executive Council he should take precedence over the other Members of the Executive Council. White Paper or not, it is intended to continue the appointment of a commander-in-chief. 7037. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Section 19(1) of the present Government of India Act says : “The Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Forces in India is appointed by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual” ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes; that would probably go on in much the same way. 7038. Lord Irwin: Is not the matter referred to in Proposal 6 at the foot of page 39 of the White Paper ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes, paragraph 6, page 39.

757 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS 7039. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Paragraph 6 does not say how his appointment is going to be made — on whose advice ? Sir Samuel Hoare : By the Crown. 7040. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: On whose advice ? Sir Samuel Hoare: The appointment is made by the Government here. 7041. Sir Austen Chamberlain: By His Majesty acting on the advice of Ministers at home ? Sir Samuel Hoare : Yes. 7042. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I look up the other day the Debates in the Legislative Assembly dated the 17th February, 1921, and Sir Godfrey Fell described the circumstances under which the Commander-in-Chief was appointed in these terms : “The appointment of the Commander-in-Chief is made by His Majesty the King on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet naturally turns to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the highest military authority in the British Empire, for advice.” So the position is that the Commander-in-Chief under the present law or practice is appointed by the Cabinet on the advice of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff ? Sir Samuel Hoare: He is not appointed by the Cabinet; he is appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister, or whatever it may be—the Secretary of State for India here. 7043. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: The point I want to put to you is this : Do you think this practice is consistent with the new sort of Government we are contemplating, considering that Defence is to be largely a responsibility of the Indian people and the Indian Legislatures ? Sir Samuel Hoare : I think it is quite inevitable with Defence a Reserved Department. 7044. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: But it is also going to be a responsibility of the Indian people and the Indian Legislatures. How is the appointment of an important officer who is going to be in charge of a very important Department under the new Government, who is appointed not on the advice of the Secretary of State, not on the advice of the Governor-General, but on the advice of the Cabinet in consultation with the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, compatible with a Government whose Defence will be a responsibility of the Indian people ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Surely, if Defence is a Reserved Department the Government to whom those Reserved Departments are responsible should make the appointment. 7045. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I can understand the Viceroy making this appointment; I can understand the Secretary of State making the appointment ? Sir Samuel Hoare: That is what it comes to. ***** †7125. Marquess of Salisbury: Your plan, as I understand (or I ought †Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-B, 20th July 1933, pp. 813-15.

758 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES to say the plan you prefer of three plans), was to add to the representation of the Princes already in the Assembly a proportion of the other Princes’ representation on the same proportion as those already admitted. Is that so? Sir Samuel Hoare: I do not know what Lord Salisbury means by saying “upon the same proportion as those already admitted.” 7126. Marquess of Salisbury : I understand one of the States which came in would have say, 10 seats ? Sir Samuel Hoare: I see what Lord Salisbury means. I think very likely it would work out on those lines. 7127. Marquess of Salisbury: There is only one other question I want to put as regards the Provincial distribution, that is to say, the distribution of seats in the Provinces. He is aware, of course, that there is a great deal of difference of opinion on that. I am not going into the difference of opinion, as to whether the communities are properly represented in Bengal under the Poona Pact. I am not going into it; but I am going to put this question to the Secretary of State : Whether he has any statement at all to make upon that subject ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Upon the Communal decision of the Government ? 7128. Marquess of Salisbury: In the case of Bengal, I am speaking especially ? Sir Samuel Hoare: No, I have nothing to add to the Memorandum that I circulated to the Committee and Delegates on the 26th May. upon the Government’s Communal decision. The Government made it quite clear that they regarded their decision as final and they were only prepared to accept a variation if it was clear to them that the variation had been agreed by the accredited leaders of the various communities ; and, as a Member of the Government, I am not prepared to add anything further to that statement of Government policy. Chairman: Secretary of State, do you desire to hand in the Memorandum to which you have just referred ? Sir Samuel Hoare: Yes, the Memorandum is as follows : — MEMORANDUM—COMMUNAL AWARD I think it may be useful to my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee who have not been familiar with the developments leading up to the White Paper, if I give for their information a very brief account explaining the scope of what is known as the “Communal Award”, the history of its origin, and why it stands, so far as the Government is concerned, on a different footing from the other proposals in the White Paper. 2. Both the first and second sessions of the Round Table Conference found progress much impeded through the failure among the Indian, delegates to reach mutual agreement both on the number of seats which the various great communities in India were to secure in the Legislature and on the method of election to those seats. The main issue as regards election

759 EVIDENCE : RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL HOARE AND OTHERS was whether separate electorates were to be maintained or the system of joint electorates with reserved seats ; employed. (For an explanation of these terms see paragraphs 149 and 150 of Vol. I of the Statutory Commission’s Report). Repeated failure, after many attempts, to reach agreement on these problems had not only left this vital gap in the Constitution so far outlined, but was preventing some of the minority communities from proceeding any further with discussion of other aspects of the Constitution which had a communal bearing until they knew where they stood as regards their representation in the Legislatures. 3. Accordingly, in order to remove this obstacle to progress, the Government were very reluctantly compelled to give a decision on these points which was more or less of the nature of an arbitral award. The Government undertook to incorporate the provisions of the award in their proposals to Parliament. This award covered the composition of the Provincial Legislatures and the method of election to them. It was found impossible to isolate the more purely communal questions involved from such matters as the number of seats for special interests, and the size of the Legislatures. On such points, however, the Government had had the benefit of the advice of the Indian Franchise (Lothian) Committee. The award was issued on the 16th August, 1932, and presented to Parliament as Cmd. 4147. 4. Subject to an alteration in respect of the Depressed Classes explained further below, the provisions of the Award are reproduced on pages 91 and 93 of the White Paper (those regarding election on page 91 being a slightly abridged version). 5. The announcement prefaced to the Award contained the following very important passage : — Paragraph 4. “His Majesty’s Government wish it to be most clearly understood that they themselves can be no parties to any negotiations which may be initiated with a view to the revision of their decision, and will not be prepared to give consideration to any representation aimed at securing the modification of it which is not supported by all the parties affected. But they are most desirous to close no door to an agreed settlement should such happily be forthcoming. If, therefore, before a new Government of India Act has passed into law, they are satisfied that the communities who are concerned are mutually agreed upon a practicable alternative scheme, either in respect of any one or more of the Governor’s Provinces or in respect of the whole of British India, they will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that alternative should be substituted for the provisions now outlined.” 6. Since the Award there has been one important modification in respect of the representation of the Depressed Classes, the history of which is shortly as follows : On the issue of the Award Mr. Gandhi expressed his intention to fast