to believe that our progress towards our goal is impossible without British connection.  It is this superstition which makes some of the best of us tolerate the Punjab wrong and the Khilafat insult.  This blind adherence to that connection makes us feel helpless.  The proposed alteration in the creed enables us to rid ourselves of our helpless condition.  I personally hold that it is perfectly constitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there may be dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement for complete independence, the doubtful and highly technical adjective “constitutional” has been removed from the altered creed in the draft.  Surely it should be enough to ensure that the methods for achieving our end are legitimate, honourable, and peaceful, I believe that this was the reasoning that guided my colleagues in accepting the proposed creed.  In any case, such was certainly my view of the whole alteration.  There is no desire on my part to adopt any means that are subversive of law and order.  I know, however, that I am treading on delicate ground when I write about law and order for, to some of our distinguished leaders even my present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder.  But even they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word ‘constitutional’ cannot protect the country against methods such as I am employing.  It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, but any such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business.  The other important alteration refers to the limitation of the number of delegates.  I believe that the advantages of such a limitation are obvious.  We are fast reaching a time when without any such limitation the Congress will become an unwieldy body.  It is difficult even to have an unlimited number of visitors; it is impossible to transact national business if we have an unlimited number of delegates.

The next important alteration is about the election of the members of the All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically the Subjects Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes of the Congress on a linguistic basis.  It is not necessary to comment on these alterations, but I wish to add that if the Congress accepts the principle of limiting the number of delegates it would be advisable to introduce the principle of proportional representation.  That would enable all parties who wish to be represented at the Congress.

I observe that the Servant of India sees an inconsistency between my implied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the published draft constitution is concerned, and my recent article in Young India on that Committee and the newspaper India.  But it is well known that for several years I have held my present views about the existence of that body.  It would have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest to my colleagues the extinction of that committee.  It was not our function to report