240 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
supplementary questions along with interpellations, to move resolutions on the Financial Statement and on matters of general public interest. But a little analysis is enough to show that even this attempt was of a piece with the old endeavour of liberalizing the Legislature without impairing the supremacy of the Executive. [1] This supremacy of the Executive was maintained (1) by means of a permanent majority of officials of the government nominated to the legislature, and (2) by controlling the rules of procedure. Although election [2] was admitted by the Act of 1892 as a basis of the composition of the Legislature, the elected members were in a minority, so that they could not give effect to the wishes of the people whom they represented. They were entitled to move resolutions if permitted by the Executive [3] but the Executive was not bound to carry them out. They served only as recommendations, and were not binding upon the Executive. This direct thwarting produced irritation between the Executive and the elected members of the Legislature. In a certain sense the reforms of 1909 were a bad piece of engineering. Before
1909 whatever conflict there was was manifested outside the Legislature. For by the rules of election and procedure the Legislature was entirely muzzled : it could do no mischief. By the reforms of 1909, however, an attempt was made to make the Legislature independent and at the same time to muzzle it. This attempt, ingenious as it was, only served to bring to the surface the deep-seated conflict between the Executive and the forces agitating the minds of the people. Election procedure or business procedure governing a legislature is, in the words of Prof. Redlich, as it were a political pressure gauge, indicating the tension in the parliamentary machine and thence in the whole organism of the State. [4] It is possible that this pressure gauge in the first instance may either be badly constructed or may become
1 It was Lord Morley, of world-wide fame as a champion of Liberalism by supporting the cause of Irish Home Rule, who said in introducing the political reforms in India : “If I knew that my days, either official or corporeal, were twenty times longer than they are likely to be, I should be sorry to set out for the goal of a Parliamentary system in India. The Parliamentary system in India is not the goal to which I for one moment aspire.”
2 It was, however, a system of selection. The only difference between the Act of
1861 and the Act of 1892 was that under the former Act the Executive Government was to nominate anyone it liked to the Legislature. Under the latter the Executive Government was to nominate “upon the advice of such sections of the community as are likely to be capable of assisting in that matter.” But as the Government was not bound to appoint the person selected, the second, howsoever concealed, must really be regarded a case of nomination by the Executive as much as the first.
3 Legally the President of the Council, i.e. the Viceroy ; but he is supposed to be invariably acting on the advice of the executive Council.
4 Cf. J. Redlich, Parliamentary Procedure, Vol. III, p. 198.