8
LETTER TO LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE REGARDING STATEMENT ISSUED BY CABINET MISSION.
“22, Prithviraj Road,
New Delhi,
Dated, 22nd May 1946.
Dear Lord Pethick-Lawrence,
In reading the statement issued by the Cabinet Mission I have found that on certain points there is much ambiguity. They are set out below :—
(1) Whether the term “minorities” in paragraph 20 of the statement includes the Scheduled Castes ?
(2) Paragraph 20 lays down that the Advisory Committee on the rights of citizens, minorities and tribal and excluded areas should contain full representation of the interests affected. Who is to see whether the Advisory Committee does in fact contain full representation of the interests affected ?
(3) Whether, in order to see that there is full representation of the interests affected, H.M.G. propose to reserve to themselves the right to add to the Committee by nomination of persons from outside the Constituent Assembly representing such interests ? The necessity for nomination from outside seems to be essential, for otherwise there is no other method for securing representation of tribal and excluded areas from within the Constituent Assembly. If the necessity for nomination is admitted, will the principle of nomination of members of the Scheduled Castes from outside the Constituent Assembly be extended to secure full representation of the Scheduled Castes on the Advisory Committee ?
(4) In paragraph 22 of the statement there is a provision for a treaty between the Union Constituent Assembly and the United Kingdom providing for certain matters arising out of the transfer of power. Will this proposed treaty include a provision for the protection of the minorities as was stipulated in the Cripps proposals? If Treaty is not to have such a provision, how does H.M.G. propose to make the decisions of the Advisory Committee binding on the Constituent Assembly ?