(4) सर मायकेल ओ’डवायर 29-6-1933

side the Punjab, and are drawn from the higher caste-Hindus. In Madras, where education has been more widespread, the situation is different. It would be very hard to generalise.

3358. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The point I wish to put to you is this : You would not say, I am sure, that if the intellectual classes are drawn from the different strata of Indian society, that there would be the same dichotomy between them and the masses as would be the case if the intellectual classes were drawn from one single stratum ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : I entirely agree with you, there would not be. 3359. Dr. B. R Ambedkar : Therefore I think it would logically follow that such an intellectual class could be trusted to take care of the masses from which they themselves are drawn ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : I think so ; they would be more likely to do so. 3360. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I want to ask you another question : Is it not a fact that the existing Government rather fights shy of a legislative programme of social reform ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes, I think on the whole there is a hesitation to do anything which could be construed or misconstrued interference with religious usages.

3361. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Do you not agree that a large part of the inefficiency of the Indian people is really due to these social evils ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : I think it has been largely due to that. 3362. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : And, therefore a Government which fights shy of a programme of legislative reform in order to remove the causes of social inefficiency of the Indian people is a weak Government ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : I would not say the Government fights shy. The Government hesitates until it feels it has a certain support of a mass of public opinion on its side. I think on that ground it supported the Survey Act. 3363. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, but in the main its legislative programme has been very poor ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes, because legislation can never be too much in advance of public opinion in a country like India. When the Government first introduced legislation of that kind Mr. Tilak was at once up in arms, and said the Government was interfering with religion. The result was an agitation in the Deccan and massacres.

3364. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The Government was frightened by a single individual like Mr. Tilak ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : It was not Mr. Tilak alone ; he had marvellous powers of carrying people with him.

3365. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Indians would not be afraid of Mr. Tilak ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : I think they would. I think very few people would cross swords with Mr. Tilak. Lord Sydenham was one.

3366. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You said you would not transfer Law and Order for the moment. You would transfer all the other before you would transfer Law and Order, and not make any change at the centre. Would you give us any idea of the interval you would like to elapse before Law and Order is transferred ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : I would leave it. Let communal antagonism die down. When Ministers who have been given extended powers have used those powers in the Departments of Land Revenue, Irrigation, and others, and have shown that they are capable of being entrusted with further powers, and when the anti-British agitations which exist and terrorist gangs which exist in certain provinces have been got under, and when conditions are otherwise favourable, then I would favour a transfer of Law and Order. 3367. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You were asked whether there was any section of the Indian public which would be favourable to the sort of scheme which you propose. You said : Yes, there would be some sections in India which would accept that ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes.

3368. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I want to put this to you : Make the other assumption which is being put to you that there is no section in India which will accept that. I ask you to make that assumption ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes.

3369. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Then tell us what would be your next move, supposing you found that there was no section in India which was prepared to accept your proposal ; what would be the advice that you would tender to Parliament in that case ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : I would go ahead on the lines I thought most suitable for the benefit of the people of India.

3370. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Your position is do what you think best and leave the Indians to accept or not accept ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes ; trusting in time that they will see that the restrictions imposed,………… 3371. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : For the sake of argument make that assumption that ultimately, after sufficient waiting, you found no Indian section to accept your scheme, what would be the advice you would then tender to Parliament ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : The advice I would tender to Parliament would be to go ahead with the scheme which you consider feasible and workable in the hope that the people in time will realise that your position is a natural one and will come round to accept a reasonable view. 3372. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I am sorry you are not following my question. My question is a very specific question ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : I might abbreviate it in this way. I do not think people will maintain an unreasonable attitude for an indefinite period of time. 3373. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Supposing they thought the White Paper Scheme, or your scheme, was so bad that they would not touch it ?

Sir Michael O’dwyer : The King’s Government must be carried on upon the best methods by which you could do it.

*****

†3564. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My Lord Chairman, before Sir Michael O’dwyer leaves, may I point out one fact ? Sir Michael, in answer to a question put by Mr. Butler, made the point that the Simon Commission made the recommendation with regard to the Transfer of Law and Order ; it is Volume II of the Simon Commission Report, paragraph 369. This is the paragraph you had in mind, was it not, “In writing this Report we have made no allusion to the events of the last few months in India” ? Sir Michael O’dwyer : Yes, that is it.

3564A. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : But I should like to point out to you that most of us understood by the events referred to here, the events of the NonCo-operation Movement by Gandhi and certainly not the communal riots that took place in India, such as at Cawnpore.

Viscount Burnham : I said that had reference to the communal riots. I understood it in the sense I mentioned, that they did not refer to the Civil Disobedience Campaign, or to the communal riots which were the result of them.

(5)

Mr. F. E. James, Mr. W. W. K. Page, Mr. T. Gavin-Jones, Mr. G. E. Cuffe, Mr. L. A. Roffey, Sir William McKercher and Mr. F. W. Hockenhnll ‡3882. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Just one or two questions. I want to ask Mr. James one question first. Does your Association accept the declaration that was made by Lord Irwin during his viceroyalty, on the 29th October 1929, which said that, according to the view of His Majesty’s Government then in office, the logical evolution of India’s political constitution was Dominion status ? Does your Association accept that declaration ? Mr. F. E. James : I do not believe that that particular statement of Lord Irwin is contained in the White Paper.

3883. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Not, it is not ?

Mr. F. E. James : And my Memorandum deals with the proposals of the White Paper, but I do remember that at the time of that statement the Association made a pronouncement, and I would refer the gentleman to the newspaper files on which that pronouncement will be found. 3884. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Would you give us a summary of that pronouncement ?

Mr. F. E. James : I would not trust my memory to do that just now. 3885. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Let me put my point somewhat differently.

†Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II-A, 29th June 1933, p. 424. ‡Ibid., 4th July 1933, pp. 476-77.