Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya and Prof. N. G. Ranga have said some very interesting things about the position of the Governors of Indian Provinces in the spacious days of Swaraj. While they are at one in believing that, in future, our Governors ought to draw smaller salaries and maintain less pomp and show than at present, they differ widely in their conceptions of the Governor's position. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya is emphatic that all Governors should be Indians, and even suggests that Pandit Motilal Nehru ought to be the first Governor of Utkal. Prof. Ranga, on the other hand, pleads for the retention of British Governors for some decades. This difference of view regarding the personnel of our future Governors is more fundamental than might appear at first sight. On principle, there can be no objection to inviting eminent British or Colonial statesmen to preside over our provincial governments, so long as India is willing to maintain the British connection and owe allegiance to the King-Emperor. Similarly, South Africa, Canada and Australia, might accept Indian Governors nominated by the King on the recommendation of the Dominion Government. All parts of the ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ may profit by the talents and experience of the best men available. But this is not the ground on which Prof. Ranga bases his argument. He is concerned about preserving the British character of Indian administration, and the maintenance of the best traditions of parliamentary government under the guidance of men trained in British public life. We are afraid too much is being made of this ‘guidance’ from Britain. Indian parliamentary institutions may in the first instance, be copied from Britain, but they are bound to develop on their own distinctive lines in conformity with Indian genius and Indian tradition. India may make its own contribution to the Science and Art of Government. Day-to-day contact with Indian public life and personal knowledge of political institutions abroad, gained by extensive travel, ought to fit our foremost men for the position of Governors. To suggest, as Prof. Ranga does, that the Swaraj Government of India might not rise above communal or parochial considerations in recommending Governors, is to argue for the indefinite continuance of our present vassalage.

The Governor, according to the Professor, is to be the leader of society in his Province and the Patron of Art and Literature. If, under Swaraj, we wish to develop the Art and Literature of India, what could be more appropriate than that eminent Indians should be called upon, in their capacity of Governors, to take a leading part in the Cultural Renaissance of India?

K.R.

Whether the signing of the mutilateral treaty renouncing war as an instrument of national policy will mark a new era in international relations or will go down to history as merely another futile effort, another meaningless gesture, that would serve to swell the task of the future chronicler, remains yet to be seen. In post-war events of world interest, there has not been one so stirring or so significant as the Kellogg Pact. It is not a little curious that when the old world is still rent with jealousies of a staggering variety, the olive branch of peace should come from across the Atlantic to keep the political equilibrium of Europe undisturbed. The ceremonial pomp that characterised the historic event at Paris on the 28th August was nevertheless marked or marred by two disagreeable incidents. A feminist movement headed by Miss Doris Stevens and Viscountess Rhondda was responsible, in not a little measure, for disturbing the placid atmosphere. Although the bludgeon of the Police was successful in preventing a demonstration, it showed tile spirit behind the movement, and Mr. Kellogg was not behind-hand in acknowledging the necessity for a consideration of the causes that prompted the Suffragette agitation. Another was the eternal question of Franco-German relations in the Rhineland. Dr. Stress man, sick as he was, attended by a Doctor, had conversations with M. Poincaire and the result was as uncertain as the wind. The French were unrelenting. The Germans were insistent. And both were smarting under wrongs done and disgraces heaped. Harmony seems a distant hope.

This clearly indicates how imperfect and perhaps ineffective the Kellogg pact may ultimately, even immediately, prove to be. The very Treaty, if we begin to analyse it, will reveal how it is hedged in by qualifying clauses and interpretative notes that nullify the very basic principle. The ‘World Tomorrow’ has the following in its editorial comment on the Kellogg Pact;

"According to these interpretations, at least four kinds of war are permissible; in self-defense: in defense of third parties: in cases of armed intervention by great powers: in certain regions. The latter reservation especially will destroy much of the value of the Pact if allowed to remain. Under it, Great Britain reserves the right ‘to wage war in defense of Egypt, Gibraltar, the Suez Canal Zone, the Persian Gulf and India, Indeed the interpretation may be stretched to cover most of the earth. It is highly significant that Secretary Kellogg did not challenge the validity of this interpretation, How could he, as long as the United States reserves the right to wage war in the Caribbean under the so-called Monroe Doctrine?"

Nobody could legitimately question or contradict the intent of the Kellogg Pact:

1. That the signatories are deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind.

2. That they are persuaded that the time has come when the frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made, so that the existing peaceful and friendly relations may be perpetuated.

It all sounds truly platitudinous, but how transitory the ideals were and how hypocritical the professions and what an unbridgeable gulf yawns between solemn asseverations and sincere practice, has become regrettably apparent even while the Pact was on the anvil, let alone after it was signed. Sir Austen speaking on the subject made the following staggering but frank observations:

"There are certain regions of the world, the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is, to the British Empire, a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that H. M's Government in Great Britain accept the new Treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States have comparable interests, any disregard of which by a Foreign Power they would regard as an un-friendly act."

If we turn to the events that followed the Pact, one shudders at the degree at which national morality stood. What about the Anglo-French Naval Pact whose secrecy has become celebrated? The U.S.A's chagrin at this has been undisguised, and no amount of contradictions regarding its innocent character or explanations of an attenuating nature, can serve to relieve either France or England from the charge of criminal outrage on the essentials of the Pact. It is a terrible indictment against the reprehensible reservations that nullify national concessions. It is an indisputable proof of the war-thirst of Europe. The Kellogg Pact may form another ineffectual document, another addition to the catalogue of political curiosities.

M. V.R.

The ringing words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at the Conference of the Students of Bengal leave upon one the impression that he figured there, not as the inevitable President of an annual show, but as the herald of a new era, the prophet of a new message. He strikes one predominant note throughout the address, the note of fearless thought and reckless action, evoking a sympathetic response from the youth of India. There is no wonder if a Government trading upon the ignorance of its subjects should view his utterance as smacking of ‘rebellion’, or if those steeped in conservatism and disabled by age-long paralysis of thought and action should receive a violent shock. But, ‘the youth can think and are not afraid of the consequences of thought ‘. They can no longer desist from applying the cross-fire of logic to every institution, however hoary, and pull it down if a better one is needed in its place. Its mere persistence through the ages, like the Sahara, lends it no charm, for the past is not for the youth. Why should they, after all, conjure up before their vision the ghost of the dead past, while the magnificent vista of the infinite future is still before them, yet to be unfolded and only asking to be moulded by them? They cannot browse too long upon the Past without losing the incentive to action, while the elusive ideal of the future–indeed, the ideal is always of the future–and the absorbing actual of the present, call for their earnest attention. They can feel for the misery of the world and seek a remedy for it. Communism may or may not suit our needs, and Jawaharlal does not plead for Communism so much as for a drastic change in the existing order of things, which has brought untold suffering to humanity. The plea that a particular solution is not perfect is no reason why the misery of the World should not be recognised as a fact and as an evil to be remedied. The economist shuddering at the mere mention of social or economic equality raises a cry that the doctrine disturbs the equilibrium of society. But if the economic balance of our society is so cunningly designed that it must needs be hopelessly over-weighted on one side in order to maintain equilibrium, our society certainly stands self-condemned. It is monstrous to suggest that any system, however old, is too sacred for discussion and criticism, when God himself has been the subject of incessant controversy among different schools of Philosophy. Why should any system be afraid of logic and reasoning, if our inertia were not its security and our mental torpor its sheet-anchor?

The country can no longer listen to messages of moderation. To plead for more circumspection in our people is to teach more slowness to a bullock cart, or to bargain for even more calculation in a Shylock. Coldness and callousness, caution and calculation, we have in abundance. What we really need is dash and daring, energy and enthusiasm, and Jawaharlal's message comes as a timely warning to those of us who are inordinately fond of ease and inaction. There is a section of reactionaries among us who object to the spread of such doctrines, especially among the youth, who are susceptible to generous impulses and are by temperament jubilant over revolutions. It must, however, be remembered that new ideas can only be grafted upon the mind, while yet it is green and seeds of idealism should be sown while yet the heart is living.

Jawaharlal Nehru, thoroughly imbued with the spirit of youth, is the forerunner of the coming era of rebellion, rebellion against all that is old and rotten, and it is no surprise that while Nehru, the elder, is engaged in constitution making, the younger Nehru is interested in constitution-breaking.

B.R.

The Public safety Bill has met with a well-merited fate and is laid to rest in decent burial. We do not expect its ghost to afflict the public eye within a year. Should it then emerge into vision, the Assembly can be depended upon to give it a condign treatment. The absurdities of this most pernicious Bill have been fully exposed both on the floor of the Assembly and in the columns of the Indian Press. In expounding the necessity for the Bill, the Government staked everything on the power of mystery to generate panic. They professed to have something very terrifying up their sleeve about Bolshevik plots and intrigues and conspiracies, but would not bring it to light on grounds of public policy. A Government with a reputation for high political morality can probably occasionally afford to keep its justification for suspicious measures under a bushel, but with the questionable record of the Bengal Ordinance and the Criminal Law Amendment Act disfiguring it, the omission of the Government to place convincing data before the public was bound to be regarded as equivalent to the absence of such data. The official strategy was bound to fail. It therefore failed. High-placed members of Government in India have developed a thick skin impervious: to the ordinary decencies of a sane political existence, but had they not been so shielded, they would have realised what an ignominious position it is for the rulers of a vast Empire to be refused to be taken seriously at a moment of alleged immense peril, even by a Legislature copiously packed with their own nominees and underlings. The Assembly vote on the Bill is in the nature of an ultimatum to all those whom it may concern, that Nationalist India is in no mood to forge fresh fetters for herself.

S.R.