The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 147
[ 147 ] and religiou§ rights. It js meaningless to urge that there should be mutual trust. 1 1f that solves the difficulty, then why don't the Hindus trust the Muslims and grant them a majority of the seats as a gesture of confidence? Further, the situation in the States and in Governmental offices has got enough lessons for us. And if in spite of such warning, the Muslims should fail to provide adequate safeguards for their future position, it will be nothing short of national suicide. In short, the case of a permanent minority with another permanent majority cannot be decided on the same principles, as that of a changing minority with a changing majority. Its decision should follow the same pro�edure a� is observed in the case of a settlement be tween two hostile governments. And if under these cir cumstances, the Mussalmans demand increased repre sentation, their claim cannot be denied. There is no gainsaying the fact that Representative Governments are always run by majorities. When the Muslims are making such a big sacrifice as to entrust the Central Government into the hands of the Hindu majority, are they not en titled to so much as to say that no change in the consti tutional law should be made without their consultation? I have already referred to the conditions laid down by the Nehru Committee for changing the constitutional law, namely, that two-thirds of the members must vote for a such an amendment. Now, even if the Musli� repre sentation should be in proportion to their population, they would have only ¼ of the total seats. In other words it means that, even if not a single Muslim should vote in favour of an amendment, it may still be passed, for on a population basis not more than 25 % of seats would be allotted to the Muslims, while the Hindus would occupy as many as 75 % , and for amending the constitutional