(3 of 6)
But in 1939, when the Viceroy, following the Constitution, declared India in the war, the Congress forsook provincial self-government, withdrew its ministries, began demanding Indian independence as the price of war cooperation. Meanwhile India's second largest political party, Mohamed Ali Jinnah's Moslem League, loudly claimed that it could never submit to united Indian self-government unless it had 50% representation, since otherwise India's Moslems would be a permanent minority under the Congress-dominated Hindu majority. The Moslem League claimed heavy discrimination against Moslems, even atrocities, by Congress bureaucracies under the Act of 1935. The League began violent agitation for a separate Moslem state, Pakistan, taking over Moslem-majority provinces.
Still another great yeast cake of dissension were India's 60,000,000 Untouchables (peoples of the lowest caste), whose chief political spokesman was Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. He distrusted Congress ambitions, since they would lead to Hindu majority Governments which might sustain caste discrimination.
The British hold that rifts such as these would be fatal to self-government, that no such government can be established until the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League get together in a constitutional program. The British Government has repeatedly urged them to do so. If anything, they seem to grow farther apart. The British also emphasize the dangers of self-government in a country where only 95 out of 1,000 can read and write, where caste differences still hold firm among the vast Hindu majority, strongly inhibiting any idea of political equality.
Finally, the British case holds that immediate moves toward Indian demands would not galvanize India's war effort. It points out that India's war production has made astronomical increases-for India-in the past two years, that a great Indian Army, recruited as fast as equipment can be provided, has jumped from 170,000 to 1,000,000 since 1939. And despite the Congress' political views, many party leaders have plunged into civil defense, supply and morale activities. In short, the British case holds that India would rise to meet a Japanese attack, far more unitedly under British rule than it could during the internal struggle for political control that would arise between its own factions if independence were suddenly granted.
Indian Cases. Replying to this case for caution, India makes several cases. But they all agree that high-minded British liberalism is still much less evident than imperial British greed. Anti-British India cannot forget the long exploitation of India through British business and finance. It accuses British lust for profit and fear of Indian industrial competition of keeping India's population 75% supported by agriculture, only 2% by modern industry.
For decades India's chief exports have remained the same (cotton, jute, oilseeds, tea, tobacco). Yet India has iron-ore reserves three-fourths the size of U.S. deposits, huge reserves of coal, manganese, bauxite and many other minerals. Despite this raw wealth, Indian steel production, even under the spur of war, is under 1% of world production. India has a hydroelectric potential second only to that of the U.S., but only 3% is used.