The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 131
• - [ 131 ] is evident that the electorate is opposed to that particular view-point. Under the circumstances, how would the presence of a Hindu candidate increase the weight of the representation, unless it be by resort to unfair means; and unfair tactics are in any case unfair. Another answer to the argument is that, under some circumstances, the rights of the electorate are bound to be circumscribed. And the Nehru Committee also has done so, when, for example, it has proposed an age limit of 21 years for a voter. This is a restriction im posed upon individual liberty, for there are men who attain discretion before they are 21. Why should then such a restriction be upon the electors? Similarly, the condition of nationality has been passed over by the Committee. !It prevails in all other civilised countries, and so it will surely be imposed upon Indians as well. Now, is it not possible that the electorate might wish to elect a non-Indian, who may be a well-wisher of the country, and who may also be willing to be natu1- alised as an Indian but prevented for the time being by the technicalities of law? In short, the Nehru Committee, even in its recom mendations, has already restricted the rights of the elec torates ; and when the details of the constitution will be worked out, the rights are sure to be restricted still further. Restrictions, therefore, are not '' a negation of the principle of representative government. '' It is only unfair restriction that is opposed to Juch principle. And when the majority community of a province demands such restrictions as a matter of right, and such restric tions do not infringe the rights of any other community, they can by no means be considered unjust ; and hence, they cannot be deemed to negate the pr�nciple of repre sentative government. All that we can say is that, in--