Our ‘irreconcilables’

IN a recent issue, we took note of an article contributed to a British newspaper by one of our leading “irreconcilables”, which closed with the significant observation that if worth the price which Great Britain may have to pay in the shape of its relaxing its imperial grip on India”, “Great Britain’s trust and friendship is also worth the price which India may have to pay for it”. We have just come across an equally significant observation made by another leading “irreconcilable” in the course of the debate on the Steel Industry (Protection) Bill in the Legislative Assembly, which we have been re-reading in the Official Report. The question before the House was whether the Bill should not include a safeguard against the steel industry gradually passing into the hands of foreign capitalists starting firms in India for the manufacture of steel in the shape of a provision to the effect that the protection afforded by the Bill should not extend to any firm “except under such condition as to the proportion of Indian capital and the Indian element in the management as may be determined by the Governor-General in Council in concurrence with the Indian Legislative Assembly”. Moving an amendment, Pandit Motilal Nehru spoke as follows:– “I do not at all mean to convey that I agree with those members who suspect that the real object of the Bill is to introduce foreign companies into this country. That is an extravagant assumption to make, and I cannot be party to it. But that the Bill leaves a very wide door open for such companies to come in, there is not the slightest doubt.”