Hypocrisy or self-deception?

WHEN Lord Birkenhead tells us that the question of an early revision of the Constitution can and will arise only when “we see everywhere among the responsible leaders of Indian thought evidence of a sincere and genuine desire to cooperate with us in making the best of the existing Constitution,” what is it that he means? One of the provinces in which, on his own showing, the responsible leaders of Indian thought have cooperated with the British Government in making the best of the existing Constitution is Madras. We will quote his words: “In Madras, the transitional Constitution has worked with a great measure of success. The ministers have used their influence to steady public opinion and feeling and have displayed a general moderation and no small measure of statesmanship. The Governor in Council has stated that if an earnest endeavour to work on constitutional lines is a qualification for political advance, the Madras Presidency has shown itself fitter for an advance than any other province.” If these words means anything, they mean that in Madras, at any rate, the condition laid down by Lord Birkenhead has been fully satisfied. In that province, then, if nowhere else, a case has indisputably been made out for an early revision of the Constitution, especially as the Secretary of State declared in his speech that “each province is to be afforded an opportunity to work out its constitutional salvation in its own way.” And yet how is that province treated? Lord Birkenhead holds out no hope of an early revision of the Constitution in Madras.

Advertisement