The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 186
[ 187 ] will be open for reconsideration, if so desired by any community after working the recommended system for 10 years. " ( Ibid. p. 50. ) The amendment is quite meaningless. In a representative form of government the decision of the majority is always enforced. This modification gives no guarantee to any minority even if they insist and persist in their demand for reservation of seats that after 10 years reservation of seats will actually be granted to them. What is offered them is that the question of communal representation will only be open for reconsideration. But after the expiration of 10 years the question of communal representation is recon isdered, and the Hindu majority in the Central Govern ment decides rhat no change in the existing law is possible, in what conceivable manner would the Muslims get back their lost rights? In view of the fact, this modification is highly deceptive and is nothing short of jugglery in words. The last but not the least change to which I object is that which is introduced in Clause 4 under the heading • • Communal representation. '' The original recom mendation of the Nehru-Report was '' Reservation of seats, where allowed, shall be for a fixed period of ten years. '' To this clause have been added the words '' provided that the question shall be open for re consideration after the expiration of that period if so desired by any community. " ( Ibid. p. 51. ) This addition is clearly superfluous. The words '· the question shall be open for reconsideration '' lay down no fixed policy, no definite course of action. Evident! of all minorities it is very largely for the sake of t{' Muslims that the. provision for the reservation of seat: ha _ s been m � de � n the Co � stitution. If the exercise of this concession 1s beneficial to them, it requires no