East and West and the disaster which awaits a failure to supply their adequate solution by

realizing and expressing the principle of Government for which we stand. We must then

go on to suggest a treatment of India in the general work of Imperial reconstruction in

harmony with the facts adduced in the foregoing chapters. And all this must be done with

the closest attention to its effects upon educated opinion here. We must do our best to

make Indian Nationalists realize the truth that like South Africa all their hopes and

aspirations are dependent on the maintenance of the British Commonwealth and their

permanent membership therein.”

This letter, written on 13 November 1916, was addressed to Philip Kerr but was

intended for all the members of the Group. Sir Valentine Chirol corrected the draft, and

copies were made available for Meston and Marris. Then Curtis had a thousand copies

printed and sent to Kerr for distribution. In some way, the extremist Indian nationalists

obtained a copy of the letter and published a distorted version of it. They claimed that a

powerful and secret group organized about The Round Table had sent Curtis to India to

spy out the nationalist plans in order to obstruct them. Certain sentences from the letter

were torn from their context to prove this argument. Among these was the reference to

Central Africa, which was presented to the Indian people as a statement that they were as

uncivilized and as incapable of self-government as Central Africans. As a result of the

fears created by this rumor, the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League formed

their one and only formal alliance in the shape of the famous Lucknow Compact of 29

December 1916. The Curtis letter was not the only factor behind the Lucknow agreement,

but it was certainly very influential. Curtis was present at the Congress meeting and was

horrified at the version of his letter which was circulating. Accordingly, he published the

correct version with an extensive commentary, under the title Letters to the People of

India (1917). In this he said categorically that he believed: "(1) That it is the duty of those

who govern the whole British Commonwealth to do anything in their power to enable

Indians to govern themselves as soon as possible. (2) That Indians must also come to

share in the government of the British Commonwealth as a whole." There can be no

doubt that Curtis was sincere in this and that his view reflected, perhaps in an extreme

form, the views of a large and influential group in Great Britain. The failure of this group

to persuade the Indian nationalists that they were sincere is one of the great disasters of

the century, although the fault is not entirely theirs and must be shared by others,

including Gandhi.

In the first few months of 1917, Curtis consulted groups of Indians and individual

British (chiefly of the Milner Group) regarding the form which the new constitution

would take. The first public use of the word "dyarchy" was in an open letter of 6 April

1917, which he wrote to Bhupendra Nath Basu, one of the authors of the Lucknow

Compact, to demonstrate how dyarchy would function in the United Provinces. In writing

this letter, Curtis consulted with Valentine Chirol and Malcolm Hailey. He then wrote an

outline, "The Structure of Indian Government," which was revised by Meston and

printed. This was submitted to many persons for comment. He then organized a meeting

of Indians and British at Lord Sinha's house in Darjeeling and, after considerable

discussion, drew up a twelve-point program, which was signed by sixty-four Europeans

and ninety Indians. This was sent to Chelmsford and to Montagu.

In the meantime, in London, preparations were being made to issue the historic

declaration of 20 August 1917, which promised "responsible" government to India. There

can be no doubt that the Milner Group was the chief factor in issuing that declaration.

Curtis, in Dyarchy, says: "For the purpose of the private enquiry above described the

principle of that pronouncement was assumed in 1915." It is perfectly clear that Montagu

(Secretary of State in succession to Austen Chamberlain from June 1917) did not draw up

the declaration. He drew up a statement, but the India Office substituted for it one which

had been drawn up much earlier, when Chamberlain was still Secretary of State. Lord

Ronaldshay (Lord Zetland), in the third volume of his Life of Curzon, prints both drafts

and claims that the one which was finally issued was drawn up by Curzon. Sir Stanley

Reed, who was editor of The Times of India from 1907 to 1923, declared at a meeting of

the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1926 that the declaration was drawn up by

Milner and Curzon. It is clear that someone other than Curzon had a hand in it, and the

strongest probability would be Milner, who was with Curzon in the War Cabinet at the

time. The fact is that Curzon could not have drawn it up alone unless he was unbelievably

Перейти на страницу:

Поиск

Нет соединения с сервером, попробуйте зайти чуть позже