THE VOTE OF CENSURE

ABOUT the result of the debate on Mian Fazl-i-Hussain’s policy in the Punjab Legislative Council, there is not much to be said. No man with any knowledge of the constitution of the Council could have had any doubt on the subject. They do a grave injustice to the mover of the vote of censure and his supporters who imagine that they themselves expected a different result. Their one object was to show that the Hindu and Sikh communities, not only in the Province where the feeling is much stronger, but as represented in the Council itself, have no confidence in Mian Fazl-i-Hussain’s policy, and in this they were successful. That the Mussalman and the official members, who have acted as allies, would so act on this occasion and would have no difficulty in defeating the motion, was as well-known to them as to their critics. In all this there is no room for disappointment in the speeches of the three principal speakers in the debate. Raja Narendranath brought forward the motion in a speech characterised by true dignity and self-restraint and free from the least trace of personal or racial animosity. Of course, he had to indulge in some plain speaking, and to give expression to the views of those whom he represented regarding Mian Fazl-i-Hussain’s policy; it would scarcely have been worthwhile moving the amendment without doing this. But he discharged the unpleasant duty well. Sir John Maynard who, as he himself declared, spoke only to make the position of the official benches clear, could have acquitted himself better. After all, Mian Fazl-i-Hussain was in this matter only an ally of the bureaucracy, and self-interest no less than gratitude required that the bureaucracy, while it had a vote and while the rules did not specifically forbid its use of that vote, should give that vote in favour of Mian Fazl-i-Hussain.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.