Page:Allan Octavian Hume, C.B.; Father of the Indian National Congress.djvu/145

 Of the six members of the Commission only one was an Indian, Mr. Romesh Dutt, while all, including the chair- man, were of the official class. Independent Indian opinion was therefore wholly unrepresented. And this initial defect was aggravated by the fact that the three Anglo-Indian civilians, who constituted half the Com- mission, belonged to the class of headquarters officials who are little in touch with the people, whose views generally differ from those of the rank and file of the service, and who are mainly responsible for the existing over-centralization.

As might have been expected, the Commission was a failure. Nothing was done to promote local self- government on a popular basis ; on the contrary, some of the recommendations in the report were of a retro- gressive character ; and the great mischief recognized by Lord Morley remained without alleviation. But though its conclusions were impotent, the Commission recorded some valuable evidence of Indian witnesses, notably that given by Mr. Gokhale on behalf of the Bombay Presi- dency Association. Mr. Gokhale showed that local self- government must be built up on the natural foundation of the village community; and, as in old times, the "Panchayat," or village council, should have the manage- ment of all matters pertaining exclusively to the village. As regards the district administration, the chief proposal was to strengthen the position of the District Officer by giving him a small District Council, partly elective and partly nominated, which he 'would be bound to consult on all important occasions. Large additional powers might be delegated to him, provided these powers were exercised in association with his Council, so that ordinary questions of administration would be disposed of promptly on the spot, without unnecessary reference to higher authorities. If such additional resources had been