The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 148
[ 148 ] law only 66% of the total votes is all that is required. In order, therefore, to give the Muslim elen1ent a proper weight in the Government, they should be allotted not 33 % , but 34 % of the seats in both the houses of Parlia ment. The Hindus under this arrangement lose nothing, for in any case, they retain the majority position. The Muslims do not de�and the right to rule the country. They demand only such rights as would obviate the danger of an infringement of their rights. They can rule India with 34 % of seats as }jttle as with 25 %. The Hindu contention, that in a Representative Government it is the majority that rules and therefore a minority has no right to demand representation in excess of their num bers, does not hold good, for the simple reason that Re presentative and elective Governments are originally based on the fundamental principle of individual free dom, and if this principle is unsound and invalid, then Representative Government is altogether a meaningless thing. But if this principle is sound, then 80 millions of Mu§salmans are certainly entitled to say that, when Representative and elective Governments are established in order to safeguard individual freedom, how can they reconcile themselves to a form of government that leaves the interests of ¼ of the population absolutely undefend ed? They do not desire for themselves a majority posi tion, but are they not justified to demand even so much power as would be a secu:::-ity for the continued enjoyment of those rights, which an elective and Representative Government is intended to ensure, and for the sake of which, individuals impose limitations upon their own free dom. If a majority, because of its permanent position of vantage, has right to rule, then what is the difference between the Representative and the Despotic for,ns of Government ? Nor should it be forgotten that the majority, to wh:ch