Reforms Enquiry Committee

Lahore, Saturday, October 25, 1924

FROM October 16, when the Reforms Enquiry Committee re-assembled at Simla after a month and a half’s adjournment, to October 22, the last day for which the proceedings of the committee are before us at the time of writing, six witnesses were examined by the committee. Before we attempt an analysis of the evidence given by those witnesses, it may not be out of place to say a word about the witnesses themselves. Of the six, five are Indians and one a European, while of the five Indian witnesses, two are Muslims. Two of the five Indians are ex-ministers, both from Bengal, while a third is an ex-Executive Council, the European witness being the only one who is an official at present. All six have experience of either a Provincial Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly; all six are sitting members of one or other of our legislatures. The evidence of the European witness has already been examined at some length. He appeared before the committee not in his private capacity but as a representative of a local government and laboured under the further disadvantage of having a comparatively limited purpose to serve, that of removing certain misunderstandings alleged to have been caused by the evidence of some preceding witnesses, notably one. In spite of these limitations, the evidence he did give was interesting and important. Of the evidence given by the Indian witnesses, the most interesting as well as important was that of Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, not only because of his eminent position as a representative of the Indian Merchant’s Chamber, but because he was the man who, judging from what he said, could claim to be a faithful representative of political India.