proviso did not preclude the Congress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations of the subjects of these states, whilst it clearly prevented the Congress from taking any executive action in connection with them; as for instance holding a hostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs.  The Congress claims to dictate to the Government but it cannot do so by the very nature of its constitution in respect of the Native States.

Thus the Congress has taken three important steps after the greatest deliberation.  It has expressed its determination in the clearest possible terms to attain complete null-government, if possible still in association with the British people, but even without, if necessary.  It proposes to do so only by means that are honourable and non-violent.  It has introduced fundamental changes in the constitution regulating its activities and has performed an act of self-denial in voluntarily restricting the number of delegates to one for every fifty thousand of the population of India and has insisted upon the delegates being the real representatives of those who want to take any part in the political life of the country.  And with a view to ensuring the representation of all political parties it has accepted the principle of “single transferable vote.”  It has reaffirmed the non-co-operation resolution of the Special Session and amplified it in every respect.  It has emphasised the necessity of non-violence and laid down that the attainment of Swaraj is conditional upon the complete harmony between the component parts of India, and has therefore inculcated Hindu-Muslim unity.  The Hindu delegates have called upon their leaders to settle disputes between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and have urged upon the religious heads the necessity of getting rid of the poison of untouchability.  The Congress has told the parents of school-going children, and the lawyers that they have not responded sufficiently to the call of the nation and and that they must make greater effort in doing so.  It therefore follows that the lawyers who do not respond quickly to the call for suspension and the parents who persist in keeping their children in Government and aided institutions must find themselves dropping out from the public life of the country.  The country calls upon every man and woman in India to do their full share.  But of the details of the non-co-operation resolution I must write later.

WHO IS DISLOYAL?

Mr. Montagu has discovered a new definition of disloyalty.  He considers my suggestion to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales to be disloyal and some newspapers taking the cue from him have called persons who have made the suggestion ‘unmannerly’.  They have even attributed to these ‘unmannerly’ persons the suggestion of boycotting the Prince.  I draw a sharp and fundamental distinction between boycotting the Prince and boycotting any welcome arranged