A MAULVI ON THE _ SIMON COMMISSION . . .
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—If any strength is left in the boycott movement it will fritter away dining the next six months, because the whole movement is based on wrong grounds. The challenge of Congress to Parliament's right to decide what form Ofgovern- meat would suit India, without at least 'producing a rival constitution supported by the. oppressed minorities, is not statesmanship: To .go into. the Councils created by an Act a. Parliament whose statutory. right to decide the issue is challenged, not for the purpose of " mending or ending them," but ", working them for what they are worth," and to boyc-ott the •Commission -appointed by the same body, betrays the 'deplorable inconsistency. of the Swarajists' tactics. It -appears paradoxical that those who cannot come to even a -temporary settlement on such trifling questions as the killing -of cows, and music before the mosques,- should • arrogate to themselves, at this stage of India's political development, the -highly complex task.of framing a constitution for India without -seeking-the help of England. .The example of-the boycott- by -.Egypt-of .LOrd-. Milner's _ConimiSsion, :tO .which :reference 'ha been made in some Swarajist papers, does not at all apply to India. The tension and the mutual mistrust 'and 'suspiCion
that permeate the whole communal life of India to-day did not exist in Egypt when - Mihier's Commission visited that country. There was no Hindu Mahasabha in Egypt to spurn the decisions of the All Parties Conference, and no minorities clamouring against the usurpation of their rights by the majorities and fearing more for their existence than being desirous of the extension of the Reforms, no " untouchables " deprived of the elementary rights of humanity. India's self- respect would certainly have been wounded by the non- inclusion of the .Indians in the Commission or by the refusal of the Secretary of State for India to grant equal status to the Committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly, if there could be found in the country seven men of unimpeachable integrity commanding its full respect and entire confidence. Who does not know that those from among the Liberals, the Responsivists, and the few followers of Mr. Jinnah who stand aloof from the Commission on the plea of a wounded sense of India's self-respect, were never very much in India's confidence ?
There appears to be more consistency in the professions and practices of the die-hards among the non-co-operators who, since 1921, have boycotted all Government institutions, than in the actions of those who believe in the British Parliament and yet boycott the Commission appointed by the same Parliament. The boycott policy would neither strengthen India's self-respect nor serve any other purpose. These highly placed politicians with their prototypes in the Assembly are accustomed to deal more with theories than with hard facts. It is the Provincial politicians who are more intimately acquainted with the needs of the real India, and this is why, in spite of the. Assembly's decision to boycott the Commission, the Punjaub, Burma, and Assam Councils have decided to co-operate with it, and on the opening of their summer sessions the Bengal ,and Bombay Councils are expected to follow suit. It seems possible that the Commission on its return to India in September next will meet with a better reception than was accorded to it in February, and will be able to bring its delicate and laborious task to a successful close.—I am, Sir, &c., 63 Melrose Road, S.W. 18.
Previous page
