Sri Aurobindo
Karmayogin
Political Writings and Speeches — 1909-1910
Karmayogin: A Weekly Review
Saturday 8th January 1910 — No.27
Facts and Opinions
The Non-Official Majority
Sir Edward complains strongly of the attribution of motives to the Government in the matter of the non-official majority.
He argues in effect that the non-official majority cannot be described as unreal or a sham merely because the electorates are so arranged as to return a majority of men favourable to Government.
The majority is a non-official majority, but it is not a popular 
majority.
Sir Edward answers that it was never intended to be a popular majority.
It was meant only to represent the “honest” public opinion which is capable in most things of seeing eye to eye with the Government; all the rest of public opinion is not honest and therefore unfit for representation.
A most delightful specimen of bureaucratic logic!
The plain question rising above all sophisms is this, is the Government aware or is it not that the great body of educated opinion in India demand a change in the system of Government involving popular control in the administration, a change which Lord Morley, with all Anglo-India to echo him, has declared impossible?
If the Government doubts it, dare they take a plebiscite of literate opinion on the question?
They dare not, because they know what the result will be.
Is not this knowledge the reason for so manipulating the electorates that they shall mainly represent special interests easily influenced by the Government and not the mass of the literate population?
We do not charge the Government with a breach of faith or a departure from their original promises.
We do say that the Reforms are purely a diplomatic move to strengthen the Government and weaken the popular interest.
Sir Edward stigmatises the popular sentiment which sees an opposition of interest all along the line between the bureaucracy and the people, as dishonest and unfit for self-government.
What of the very fundamental opposition of interest we have pointed out?
It is easy to fling epithets; it is not so easy to disprove facts.
We do not wish to be unfair to anyone and we acknowledge that Sir Edward Baker has shown a liberality of purpose far superior to that of any other provincial ruler.
If there were a chance of any of the Councils being a genuine popular assembly, Sir Edward's creation would have the best chance.
But it is not that and cannot be.
If he is satisfied with its present composition, his admiration is not shared by the people of this country.
He says in effect that it is quite as dignified as any previous Council.
We agree, even more so.
But it is not dignity to which popular sentiment is advancing, it is democracy.
If the Councils do not provide a channel for the advance of that sentiment, it will seek other means of self-accomplishment.