Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/370

an ideal system, but because it seems to be the only feasible system for giving effect to the message of August 20, 1917. It provides for Responsible Government at the first start, and it brings Res- ponsible Government within sight by providing progressive stages, and therefore we support it.'

I recognize that in the attack now made upon diarchy several ex-Ministers and prominent leaders of the Liberal or Moderate party have joined. One may differ from them, but no one can call their motives in question. They supported diarchy at the first start. They have now turned against it. Their assault, however, stands upon a different footing from that of the Swarajists, who are out to wreck the Reforms, and are not scrupulous as to the means that they employ. The late Secretary of State, Lord Olivier, despite the restraints of his official position, felt constrained to charge their leaders with intrigue, bribery and corruption. However much we may admire the organization of the Swarajists, we must whole- heartedly condemn their tactics, and scan with scrupulous care their political shibboleths and their resonant war-cries. In August, 1923, when the question of Ministerial salaries came on for dis- cussion before the Bengal Legislative Council, a member who was to have recorded his vote in favour of the Ministers was besieged in his house by a Swarajist crowd, and by a sheer demonstration of force prevented from attending the meeting. The newspapers publish particulars of definite sums given for abstention from the recording of votes. The dominance of the Swarajists has demora- lized the public life of Bengal. The purity of the past is gone. Force and fraud have become determining factors in deciding public issues.

Has diarchy then so hopelessly failed, beyond the possibility of correction or improvement within the period still left to it for trial, that it must forthwith be given up? Or has it been so com- pletely successful that further trial in the progressive stages is no longer necessary? The last point has not been raised. It is attacked because it is said to have been a failure, a hopeless failure due to radical defects in the system. The point needs examination. I can- not say that diarchy has failed in Bengal. It would have been more successful if we did not suffer from financial stringency, and if we were not encumbered by the stepmotherly attentions of the Finance Department. It is the Meston award and the Finance Department that between them checked some of the beneficent activities of the department of which I was in charge.

This is not the place in which to enter into a discussion of the