Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/377

had gone back on the principles of my past life, for I have always pleaded for retrenchment in public expenditure and the curtailment of high salaries. But they conveniently overlooked the fact that, in regard to this one matter, I made an exception. Let me quote my evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on this point. Here are the question and answer:

Q. 'If you consider a dual form of Government acceptable in principle, are there any points of detail, the modification of which you regard as necessary? If so, what are those points and what modifications would you suggest?

A. I consider it essential that (1) there should be a common purse, accompanied by joint deliberation of both parts of Government, before the Budget is framed; (2) the Budget resolutions of the Legislature, whether on reserved or transferred subjects, should be binding on the Executive, subject to the power of certification provided for in the Joint Report; (3) the Executive Council should consist of two members only, one of whom should be an Indian; (4) the Ministers should occupy the same position as to salary, status, etc., as members of the Executive Council; (5) there should be standing Committees both as to reserved and trans- ferred departments, and Under-Secretaries, as suggested in the Joint Report; and (6) that "taxation for provincial purposes" should be a transferred subject, and no proposals for taxation should be brought forward before the Legislature without the approval of the Ministers.'

What was at the back of the mind of all India was equality of status, based upon equal emoluments as between Ministers and members of the Executive Council. I deliberately expressed this opinion, and never wavered from it. It would have been disastrous to the usefulness and the authority, the invisible power that the man in authority, apart from his official position, exercises over his fellows, if it went forth that a difference had been made between the popular Minister and the Executive Councillor who were both members of the same Government, wielding similar powers. Finan- cial considerations are valuable; but in this case there was yet another factor more important, affecting the fate of a great and novel experiment. Nor was the slightest shade of an argument adduced to show why the opinion of united India in 1918 and 1919 should be brushed aside in 1921. It was all party spirit, reinforced by personal feeling and the lurking desire to wreck the Reforms. The sacred name of retrenchment was invoked as a mask to cover a movement that had a far less righteous purpose to serve.

I think I may fittingly close this chapter by referring for a moment