Failure of dyarchy

Lahore, Thursday, August 21, 1924

AS an effective exposure of the ‘reformed’ regime, the highly interesting evidence given by CY Chintamani before the Reforms Enquiry Committee completes the process begun by the evidence of SM Chitnavis from the Central Provinces. Chintmani is the fourth ex-Minister examined by the Committee so far, and the story he tells is substantially identical with that told by the other three. Like each of the other three, he is able to make a special contribution of his own to the interesting volume of evidence bearing on the manner in which dyarchy has been worked. The veil which has hitherto shrouded the relations between the Ministers on the one hand and the Governor and his Executive Councillors on the other is at last torn asunder, and the public has a vision of the reality in all its nakedness. Chitnavis, as we have seen, complained of there being no ministry in the proper sense of the term, of a complete absence of corporate responsibility, of the Governor having far too excessive powers over the administration of the transferred subjects, powers greater than he possessed in relation to the Executive Councillors, of the existence of the official bloc, not only generally but in relation to the transferred subjects, and lastly and above all, of the severe and cramping restrictions imposed by the Finance Department. Mr Kelkar went a step farther and complained that not only were the members of the Executive Council treated preferentially as compared with the Ministers, but even the departmental heads and Secretaries, who were the Minister’s official subordinates, were so treated.