(From an editorial)
If one now takes account of the measure of misrepresentation that is being indulged in by the reactionaries in Britain, both inside the Parliament and out of it, one might well despair of the Parliament doing justice by this country. Every opportunity is taken to discredit even the Hunter Committee’s feeble disapprobation of most monstrous acts by questioning the credentials of its members. Following Sir Michael O’Dwyer’s audacious opinion that the Indian members of that Committee were incapable of impartiality and the European members devoid of ability and that in effect only his nominees could be at once impartial and capable, his willing tools in the Commons have been the authors of a series of suggestio falsi in the Commons. The question about Pandit Jagat Narain’s impartiality is typical of this sort of heckling that the Parliamentary advocates of O’Dwyerism at present indulge in. Pandit Jagat Narain, it was suggested, could not be impartial because he had made a speech questioning Sir M. O’Dwyer’s policy! If Pandit Jagat Narain, an eminent advocate, could not, because of a speech, impartially assist, not alone, but along with half a dozen and more others, in a quasi-judicial enquiry, does it not strike them that, were that same process of reasoning followed in the case of Sir Michael, the constant, open, impudent vilifier of whole classes of people, Sir Michael ought not for a moment have been allowed to sit in judgment, not along with others, but alone, not over the political conduct, but over the lives and destinies of the millions whom he detested and treated with contempt? And yet Sir Michael is applauded by these very men as an impartial ruler, nay, the saviour of the people.
