Communal representation
Lahore, Tuesday, September 2, 1924
THE keynote of two out of the four speeches made by Sir Malcolm Hailey in reply to the address recently presented to him at Ambala is the passionate earnestness with which he threw himself into a defence of communal representation. Communal representation is one of those things of which a wise administrator, who is not also a courageous and farsighted statesman, would make such restricted use as it was necessary to make of it while it lasted, but about which he would take care to say as little as possible. The reason is clear. Theoretically, it is utterly indefensible, and, as the authors of the Joint Report pointed out with convincing force, absolutely inconsistent with the democratic ideal. Practically, its mischievousness has been demonstrated during the last three years. It is no mere accident that of the four ex-Ministers who have been examined by the Reforms Committee, three have condemned communal representation, while the fourth has only defended it on the ground that political India is committed to it through its most important political bodies, and that it has the merit of enabling the two communities to avoid friction at an election. Had this gentleman given a little closer thought to the matter than he appears to have done, he would have seen that this freedom from friction at the time of an election has to be purchased by the perpetuation of friction at all other times and in all other cases. Hindu and Muslim candidates, once they are elected on a communal basis to the Legislative Councils and other bodies, can never lay aside the communal point of view in the actual working of those bodies.
