Dyarchy must go

Lahore, Thursday, August 14, 1924

THE keynote of the evidence given by NK Kelkar, an ex-Minister from the Central Provinces, before the Reforms Committee is that like Mr Chitnavis he is entirely opposed to the continuance of dyarchy, even if such defects in its working as experience has disclosed are removed. “I am not in favour of dyarchy”, he said in reply to Mr Jinnah. “It must be done away with. I would not accept dyarchy even if certain imperfections are removed. I won’t work it again. Past experience has shown that it is unworkable.” The same view was reiterated by the witness with even greater emphasis in reply to a question by Dr Paranjpye, when he said that “in the best of circumstances dyarchy cannot be worked”. As in the case of Mr Chitnavis, one strong reason which the witness gave in support of this view was that he had to please two masters, and that, to quote his own words, “for all practical purposes it is the Governor who is really in charge of the transferred subjects, because Ministers are merely advisers.” Incidentally, he made one or two statements which show how intolerable the position of a Minister is in the present conditions. He is supposed to be responsible for the administration of the subjects of which he is in charge, not to the Government of India or the Secretary of State, but to the Legislature. And yet in actual practice, he has not the power to have his policy carried out in detail by the permanent officials, especially the heads of departments, who have not only the ordinary human right to differ from him, which is just and proper, but the right to go over his head to the Governor in case of a difference of opinion between them and him.