TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Lala Harkishan Lal’s evidence

Lahore, Sunday, August 17, 1924 GREAT importance attaches to the evidence of Lala Harkishan Lal before the Reforms Committee not only because of his recent official experience, but because of his eminent position as a public man of many years’...
Advertisement

Lahore, Sunday, August 17, 1924

Advertisement

GREAT importance attaches to the evidence of Lala Harkishan Lal before the Reforms Committee not only because of his recent official experience, but because of his eminent position as a public man of many years’ standing in this Province. There is, indeed, no other public man in Punjab with the exception of Lala Lajpat Rai who has either so intimate an acquaintance with public life in all its phases or can speak with so great an authority on public questions. It was for this reason that the appointment of Lala Harkishan as a Minister was almost universally welcomed in this Province as the putting of the right man in the right place. It was for the same reason that the failure of Lala Harkishan ot make his mark as a Minister caused such profound disappointment in the public mind. Let there be no misunderstanding as to what we mean when we speak of his failure. The great evil in Punjab during Lala Harkishan’s ministership was the communal policy of his colleague. What the public noticed with growing dismay, as the first “reformed” regime advanced from one step to another, was that Lala Harkishen Lal was neither able to resist the evil nor went out. From a purely personal point of view the great importance of Lala Harkishan’s evidence is that for the first time he has now told the public why neither of these things took place. He could not resist the evil because although” he objected very strongly to Mian Fazl-i-Hussain’s political views, “he was told by the Governor that the impression of the law was that each Minister should act on his individual responsibility.”

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement