Divided counsels

ORGANS of British opinion appear to be hopelessly divided regarding the policy to be followed in India. In a single column yesterday, we published the views of three influential British journals, and they are as unlike one another as the views of any three people could possibly be. At one end, there was the Spectator which, referring to the suspension of conversations between Lord Birkenhead and CR Das and the statement that the Government did not intend to invite Das to London, said that it was a pity not to use the better atmosphere which had recently drifted across Indian politics. The paper realised the difficulty of carrying on regular, formal negotiations in the immediate future, until, at any rate, Lord Reading had an opportunity of talking things over with the British Government, but added that an informal conversation conducted on the understanding that they were only “feelers” could do no harm and might do a great deal of good. At the other end was the Saturday Review, which not only justified the suspension of the conversations, but asked the British Government to follow exactly that woodenheaded policy with regard to India that Mr Montagu condemned in a famous speech, and which is undoubtedly responsible for much of the present trouble in India. “There is no occasion,” it wrote, “for any conference in London, and there can be no excuse for any bargain which involved a departure from policies which Lord Birkenhead and Lord Reading feel to be for the benefit of India. We must remind those who weep over lost opportunities that the problem is not how to adjust the British Empire to the convenience of Mr Das, but to govern India.”