“A British Premier early in this century very truly observed, ‘Good government can not be a substitute for self-government.’ Says a recent writer in a well-known British periodical, ‘Every Englishman is aware that on no account, not if he were to be governed by an angel from heaven, would he surrender that most sacred of all his rights, the right of making his own laws.... He would not be an Englishman, he would not be able to look English fields and trees in the face, if he had parted with that right. Laws in themselves, have never counted for much. _There have been beneficent despots and wise law-givers in all ages who have increased the prosperity and probably the contentment and happiness of their subjects but yet their government has not stimulated the moral and intellectual capacity latent in citizenship or fortified its character or enlarged its understanding. There is more hope for the future of mankind in the least and faintest impulse towards self-help, self-realisation, self-redemption, than in any of the laws that Aristotle ever dreamt of._[13] The ideal, therefore, of self-government is one that is not based merely on emotion and sentiment, but on the lessons of history.” What is, however, most significant, is his reply to the criticism often made by ignorant and prejudiced Englishmen and others as to what would be the fate of India if England were to withdraw from India and as to the Indians’ fitness to manage their affairs or to fight their battles. He observes: