Coll 1/23 'Aden, Administration and Control: changes consequent on Indian Constitutional Charges; transfer to HMG' [‎40r] (84/1106)

ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
3
^nfi'ts
Abbs.
seimt
on, aBj')-
ndia nl;
ilemktis
i Man
iPod it;
lich k ;■
s endot*:
as wel i
ther tsbi
la Easi St
sent oai!
oftleCe
their«
20° Novembris, 1933.] Memorandum by Sir Phiroze [Continued.
c. Sethna, O.B.E., ON THE Future Constitution oe Aden.
sferred tf.
ici laiH
table fe
ne in®
lave i'
no Hei®
ir of till!
jletleft-
io part i * 3
in ^
mcil^
for®' P
ihat A^ 1 '
oint, f:;
very A 1 "
vision
0
estion n
as fol lo,r
rafiofl flfE
say
.tyAo^
th i s ^
made an announcement which simply staggered the Assembly. It came as
a bolt from the blue. His Excellency said that the military and political
adi^istration of Aden had been definitely transferred to the Home Cov-
enflbt, and this, as I say, without any previous reference to the legis
lature. Sir, this was not enough. The announcement went on to add as
follows:— .
“ ‘ As Honourable Members are aware, the Settlement of Aden itself
is peopled to a very great extent by our fellow Indian subjects. The
Government of India have thought it right that their welfare and
interests should not go outside the ken of the Government of India, it
will accordingly be retained; that part of the Settlement and ^the
municipality of Aden will remain under the Government of India.
“ I would ask the House to note very carefully that what I am pro
posing in my motion to-day is in substance what the Commander-in-Clnet
announced as I have just stated.
“ The Commander-inAUhief’s announcements surprised the Assembly and
it is no wonder that in both the Houses there was very severe criticism
of the attitude of Government in regard to this matter. Not only was the
Indian Legislature kept in the dark, but even the Provincial Government
immediately concerned, namely, that of Bombay, was entirely m the dark,
and that in spite of the fact that the Government of India knew the views
of the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. on the question. In this House we have
official representatives of the different Provincial Governments. We a
not often favoured with an opportiunity of hearing their voices, and it i
only on very rare occasions, and when such Provincial Governments think
that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of such Provmcia 1 Gover
ments that their view should be placed before the House, that their repre
sentatives do get up and talk. Such was an occasion when A moved y
Resolution in September, 1921. The then representative of the Bom my
Government, the Honourable Mr. Pratt, a Member of the ^an Civil
Service, used words which showed the feeling which ne .,
Bombay entertained on the question of the transfer o cen.
“ ‘ The transfer of Aden to the Colonial Office is a qiuestion in which
the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. is deeply and closely interested. Towards
that question the attitude of the Bombay Government cannot m any
circumstances be one of neutrality and I have been authorised to give
expression to the provisional views of the Bombay Government a i
stage of the discussion of this question. Their position is that they
have had very little notice and indeed very little time for the co-
sideration of this question. They have had very little information of the
grounds upon which the transfer has been considere . is a so a
that public opinion both in Bombay and Aden has expressed
very strongly against the proposed transfer. Very s rong pr s
been recorded by the trading communities of Bombay and Aden, and
that reason for the present the Bombay Government objects to a y
change in the status quo.’
“ Now Sir the Bombay Government have not changed their views as is
evident fVomVhatf„Tw«l in the Bombay Council exactly a week after the
announcement made by His Excellency the tommander^m-Chief in the
Assembly. That announcement, as I have already sa.d wan made ^3.d
March 1927 On 10th March, 1927, the Home Member of the Bombay
Government Sir Ernest Hotson, introduced a Bill called the Aden Civil
anTcririnkl Justice Bill in the Bombay Council and m regard to the
A 2
19356