THE REPRESSIVE LAWS COMMITTEE.

THE Repressive Laws Committee began its sitting on Thursday last. Three things are important in connection with a Committee of its kind: its scope of reference, its personnel and the witnesses it examines. As regards the first of these, there is not much to say in the present case. The list is exhaustive. At any rate, it includes all the more obnoxious measures, such as the Bengal Regulation III of 1818 and corresponding regulations in other Presidencies, the Seditious Meetings Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, the Defence of India Act and the Rowlatt Act. As regards the second, perhaps the most obvious criticism is that the two major provinces where in recent years repression has been practised to a larger extent than in any other are both inadequately represented on the Committee. Bengal is represented by Sir D.P. Sarvadhikary, who may know a good deal about such things as temperance, reform and education, but who has never been connected with our public movements so actively as to have an adequate knowledge of the working of repressive laws; and we are not sure that even he is a sitting member of the Committee, for we have not seen it stated anywhere that he has returned from England. The Punjab is represented by Chaudhary Shahab-ud-Din, who may know a good deal about municipal and other affairs, but whose knowledge of the working of repressive laws in his Province cannot possibly be claimed to be either as full or intimate as that of a good many others one could easily name. But we do not know if we have any right to complain on this score. The Committee is a Committee of the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly, and the Government of India had necessarily to restrict their choice to the members of those bodies.