Reconstitution of the Council of State

IF the action of leaders of the Swarajya and Independent parties in consulting their political lieutenants and followers regarding the desirability of resigning their seats and then seeking re-election on the reforms issue (which, as we have said, must include the reconstitution of the Council of State) required any justification, it has been furnished by the Viceroy’s speech at the close of the Council’s final session. That speech clearly and conclusively demonstrates the truth of our observation in a recent issue that “the Council of State was brought into being with the sole object of thwarting the people’s House in all those matters in which the views and wishes of the people are opposed to those of the bureaucracy,” and that “during the five years of its first term, it has seldom missed an opportunity of fulfilling this object of its founders.” The certificate of good conduct which the Viceroy gave to the Council, the glowing panegyric he pronounced upon its achievements, is susceptible to no other interpretation. “It was decided”, said His Excellency, “that the Government of India should surrender its majority and trust the Council of State. It has been a source of great gratification to me as Governor-General that his policy of trust has been amply justified.” Does this not mean in plain English that the Council of State has acted exactly as the Government would have liked to it act?