QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT

IN connection with the new policy initiated by the Government in dealing with the non-co-operation movement, four questions will have occurred to everyone. The first of these concerns the opening words of the Bombay Government’s first Press note. There it was stated that the Governor in Council had decided to prosecute the individuals concerned with the full concurrence of the Government of India. Now, as far as we are aware, the concurrence of the Government of India was in no way needed for these prosecutions, and even if the Bombay Government had, as a precautionary measure, obtained the consent of the Government of India to the proposed action, it was by no means necessary to state the fact in the Press note. Why was it so stated? It cannot be denied that the effect of the statement on the lay mind would be to create the impression that not only must the law officers of both Governments have considered the matter before the prosecution was embarked upon but that the prestige of both was equally associated with it. That would be an unfortunate impression alike from the point of view of justice and of expediency, because, apart from the judicial aspects of the prosecution, the Government of India is really the appellate authority in such cases, and as such is expected to keep an open mind on the subject. The second question concerns the statement in the second Press note of the Bombay Government, that Messrs Mahomed Ali and Shaukat Ali were also to be prosecuted on a charge of delivering speeches in Sindh to create hatred and incitement to violence against the Government established by law in British India. Is his statement compatible with the declaration made by His Excellency the Viceroy in a famous speech that so long as the Ali brothers adhered to the pledge of non-violence no action would be taken against them

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.