Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/308

Government was provided, and we urged it with unequivocal em- phasis in our report, as we did in our evidence before the Joint Committee and in all our representations. The concession has not yet been made. There is no reason why it should be deferred. If diarchy is practicable and possible in the province, it should be tried in the Central Government with the exclusion of such depart- ments as the Army and the Indian States.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Report recommended the appoint- ment of two committees, subsequently known as the Franchise Committee and the Functions Committee. The Franchise Com- mittee was to determine the franchise, the electorates, and the numerical strength of the Councils, the proportion of Hindu and Mohamedan representatives in them, and other cognate matters. The Functions Committee was to make recommendations regard- ing the departments that were to be 'reserved' and those that were to be 'transferred. I was appointed a member of the Franchise Committee. The Committee consisted of six members—three Europeans and three Indians, exclusive of the Chairman. The three Indian members were the Rt. Hon. Mr. Shastri, Mr. Aftab Mohamed, member of the India Council, and myself. The Euro- pean members were Sir Frank Sly, Sir Malcolm Hailey and Sir Malcolm Hogg. The Committee was thus, within a small compass, representative of all interests, European and Indian, official and non-official. Its personnel, representing divergent and sometimes conflicting interests and points of view, would, one might expect, operate as a bar to the harmony of its proceedings and the unani- mity of its decisions. But, as we set to work and proceeded with the business before us, our difficulties grew fewer and fewer until there was hardly a question which did not admit of a solution assented to by all. Here and there points of difference cropped up; but harmony and general unanimity were the predominant features of our deliberations. This result was largely due to Lord South- borough, and the general spirit of 'give and take' that prevailed. Lord Southborough was an ideal chairman, broad-minded, sym- pathetic, and with an inborn courtesy that disarmed all opposition. I well remember the marvellous resourcefulness he displayed when, after a prolonged debate upon some knotty and controversial point, he would come forward with a form of words, reconciling the different views and solving the situation. I sometimes thought he would make an excellent Viceroy. But that was not to be. He did not keep good health in India, and at one of our meetings at Lahore