JAITO IN THE ASSEMBLY

WE have no hesitation in saying that public opinion all over the country will strongly deprecate the action of the President of the Legislative Assembly in disallowing Pandit Malaviya’s motion for adjournment of the House to discuss the occurrence of February 21 at Jaito. The decision would have been regrettable from every point of view, even if the authority of the rules quoted by the President in support of it had been clear, though, of course, in that case he would have had no choice in the matter. But as Pandit Malaviya pointed out with convincing force, the present case was easily distinguishable from those contemplated in the rules. The territory in which the incident occurred was undoubtedly Indian state territory, but the administration was wholly British and was carried in the name and on behalf of the Government of India. When such an administration makes itself responsible for an incident which deeply stirs the heart of the whole country, every consideration of logic, of expediency and fairness, of common sense itself demands that it should come under the purview of the Legislature. But the case is even stronger than that. As Pandit Malaviya pointed out, it was not merely that the Government of India was wholly responsible for the administration of the state, but the persons who in this case had been either killed or wounded as a result of the firing resorted to under the orders of the administration were all His Majesty’s subjects. Suppose for an instant that such an incident had taken place not within the territory of an Indian state but in an absolutely foreign and independent country. Does anyone really believe that the Indian Legislature could have remained unconcerned in regard to it?