I THINK it was a philosopher or a statesman or both that laid down the dictum that the rule of one nation over another, however beneficent the rule might be, was essentially bad. The philosopher probably spoke from general principles and the statesman from his experience. Normally it may be a sound assumption that a philosopher makes a bad statesman and a statesman makes a bad philosopher. But so far as this particular dictum is concerned, we may safely agree with both. All history proves it. The Romans ruled over England and gave the English people protection from Celtic aggression, witness the great Roman Wall, good roads and taught them the urban, civilised way of life. When the Romans had suddenly to quit England on account of troubles nearer home, doubtless there must have been many Englishmen who regretted their withdrawal and the discontinuance of the benefits that Roman rule had conferred on England. But which Englishman now doubts that on balance it was good for England that its natives were left free to work out their own destiny?

Similarly there are good, patriotic Indians who regret that British administrative ties with India are being severed but all the same it is good for India that from 15th August onwards it is left free to look after itself. I have heard some gloomy predictions. There are persons who have told me that after the “appointed” day, a certain amount of laxity will creep into the day-to-day administration, the railway trains will become more unpunctual (nobody has the hardihood to claim that they run punctually how), the post offices will become even more lax in dispatching and delivering letters, the Government Secretariats will sleep over files even longer hours than they do now, the roads will deteriorate, and law and order will be treated with even less respect than they are today.

... contd.