z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-05.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 325
PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE 325
suspend the constitution or to bring into operation the emergency powers given to him by the Government of India Act. This is true. But the question is not whether dyarchy worked. The question is whether it worked as a responsible form of Government. For it must not be overlooked that in
1919 there were many other alternative forms of Government competing with dyarchy for acceptance. There was the Congress League Scheme and there was the Scheme by heads of the Provinces, to mention no others. But all these schemes were rejected in preference to dyarchy because they failed to satisfy the tests of responsible government. Any estimate of the working of the dyarchical system of Government must therefore be based upon that supreme consideration alone. If we bear this fact in mind and then attempt to evaluate the working of dyarchy, the conclusion that in this province dyarchy has been a failure is beyond dispute. Responsible government means, that the Executive continues to be in office only so long as it commands a majority in the House. That is the essence of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Now if we apply this test to the working of dyarchy in the Bombay Presidency and take into account the occasions on which the Council divided on motions relating to the transferred subjects, we find a most unedifying spectacle that the ministers have been defeated time and again on the floor of the House and yet they have continued in office as though nothing had happened. This lamentable tale is told by the following table : —
No. of Government defeats if official block is eliminated
No. of Government successes
Total Year No. of Divisions
No. of divisions in which Government were neutral
No. of Government defeats
No. of ties
1921 .. 3 .. 2 2 1 ..
1922 .. 17 .. 4 8 9 ..
1923 .. 4 1 1 2 1 ..
1924 .. 19 .. 10 14 5 1
1925 .. 30 1 .. 11 18 ..
1926 .. 3 .. .. 1 2 1
1927 .. 26 .. 3 10 16 ..
1928 .. 2 .. 1 1 1 ..
These figures show that in 1921 out of three divisions the ministers were defeated on 2 ; in 1922 out of 17 on 8 ; in 1924 out of 19 on 14 ; in 1925 out of 30 on 11 ; in 1926 out of 3 on 1 ; in 1927 out of 26 on 10 ; in 1928 out of 2 on 1. Notwithstanding this there has never been a case in this Presidency of a minister having resigned. With these facts before us it is impossible to agree to any conclusion which implies the dyarchy has worked as a responsible system of government.