The question of dyarchy

NOTHING shows either more clearly or more convincingly the immense superiority of the minority over the majority report than the difference between the two as regards the manner in which they respectively deal with the vitally important question of whether dyarchy should be permitted to continue. To the conclusion of the majority on this subject, we have already referred at length. It remains only to add that this conclusion is, on the majority’s own showing, contrary to the almost unanimous evidence of Indian witnesses. “Generally speaking, most of the Indian witnesses”, they write, “have attacked the present Constitution as having been found after trial to be unworkable and have advocated the immediate grant of provincial autonomy to the Province and the introduction of a measure of responsibility to the Legislature in the Central Government.” This is valuable admission. No less noteworthy is the summary way in which the majority has disposed of these recommendations. “It is clear,” it writes, “that these recommendations both for the grant of provincial autonomy and for the introduction of a measure of responsibility in the Central Government are beyond the scope of any recommendation which we are empowered to make. We do not propose, therefore, to discuss them further.” What importance can possibly be attached to a conclusion arrived at in such conditions? It was only to be expected that the minority, which did not consider itself precluded by the term of reference from indicating its views on the wider aspects of the matter, would follow a very different method with regard to these recommendations.