The Political Future of India

by Lala Lajpat Rai

The other Committee, of which Mr. R. Feetham was chairman, make detailed recommendations as to the division of functions between the Government of India and the provincial Governments, and also between “reserved” and “transferred” subjects in the provinces. Proposals are made for the modification in some important respects (notably in the powers conferred on the Governor) of the “diarchial” system in the provinces set forth in what is conveniently called the “Joint Report.”

As was indicated in The Times on April 5, Lord Southborough’s Committee have not accepted the appeals addressed to them in the interest of woman suffrage. They found it advocated “rather on general grounds than on considerations of practicability.” They are satisfied that the social conditions of India would make such a step now premature. They are of opinion, however, that at the revision of the constitutions of the councils proposed in the Joint Report 10 years after their reconstitution the matter should be reconsidered in the light of the experience gained and of social conditions as they then exist.

Franchise Qualifications

The general proposals for the franchise are based upon the principle of residence and the possession of certain property qualifications. In addition the enfranchisement of all retired and pensioned officers of the Indian Army, whether of commissioned or non-commissioned rank, is recommended. This step was universally and strongly recommended in the Punjab, and it is to extend to all provinces. The property qualification is adapted to local conditions and is guided by the principle that the franchise should be as broad as possible, consistently with the avoidance of any such inordinate extension as might lead to a breakdown of the machinery of election through weight of numbers. The large proportion of illiterate voters, in the absence of a literary test, may cause difficulty, but it has already been faced successfully in municipal elections in India by the use of coloured ballot-boxes and other like devices.

No rigid uniformity of property qualification has been sought, but the committee have proposed the same qualification for all communities within the same area. A substantially higher proportion of the urban than of the rural population will be enfranchised. At present the total number of electors for the provincial councils is 33,007, and of these no fewer than 17,448 are Mohammedans, since that community enjoys direct representation on an individual basis. The number of voters will be raised under the scheme to 5,179,000, being 2.34 per cent of the total population in the eight provinces, which is nearly 220,000,000.

The long established administrative unit of the “district” is made the territorial area for constituencies but the relatively few cities with large populations are to be separately represented. Occasionally towns are grouped into separate urban constituencies. Single-member constituencies are the general rule, but latitude is left to the local Governments. Plural voting is to be forbidden, but this does not apply to electors in constituencies formed for the representation of special interests.

Special Communities

In conformity with the recognition of the Joint Report that separate Mohammedan representation cannot be abandoned, the scheme provides for Mohammedan constituencies. The compact of the joint session of the National Congress and the Moslem League at Lucknow in December, 1916, is accepted as a guide in allocating the proportion of Mohammedan seats. In the Punjab this facility is to be extended to the Sikhs. Beyond this the framers of the Joint Report did not propose to go; but Lord Southborough’s Committee recommend separate electorates, where the numbers justify that course, for Indian Christians, Europeans, and the domiciled “Anglo-Indians”—i.e., country-born Europeans and Eurasians. It is observed that candidates belonging to these communities would have no chance of being elected by general constituencies. The hope is expressed that it will be possible “at no very distant date to merge all communities into one general electorate.”

Other claims for separate electorates are not conceded. Regret is expressed that the organized non-Brahmans of the Madras Presidency refuse to appear before the Committee. It is pointed out that there the non-Brahmans (omitting the depressed or “untouchable” classes) outnumber the Brahmans by about 22 to one; and on the basis of enfranchisement taken in Madras the non-Brahmans would be in the proportion of four to one. It is held to be unreasonable to adopt the proposed expedient for a community which has an overwhelming electoral strength.

The alternative of reserving a considerable number of seats for non-Brahmans in plural member constituencies did not commend itself to a section of the non-Brahmans, though evidence went to show that such a proposal might be accepted by the Brahmans “if it were the price of an enduring peace.” It is suggested that his Majesty’s Government might afford the parties to the controversy an opportunity, before the electoral machinery for the Presidency is completed, of agreeing upon some solution—e.g., the provision of plural member constituencies and of a certain proportion of guaranteed non-Brahman seats.