THE CASE FOR INDIA

The Presidential Address Delivered by Annie Besant at theThirty-Second Indian National Congress Held at Calcutta26th December 1917

FELLOW-DELEGATES AND FRIENDS, Everyone who has preceded me in this Chair has rendered his thanks infitting terms for the gift which is truly said to be the highest thatIndia has it in her power to bestow. It is the sign of her fullest love, trust, and approval, and the one whom she seats in that chair is, forhis year of service, her chosen leader. But if my predecessors foundfitting words for their gratitude, in what words can I voice mine, whosedebt to you is so overwhelmingly greater than theirs? For the first timein Congress history, you have chosen as your President one who, whenyour choice was made, was under the heavy ban of Government displeasure, and who lay interned as a person dangerous to public safety. While I washumiliated, you crowned me with honour; while I was slandered, youbelieved in my integrity and good faith; while I was crushed under theheel of bureaucratic power, you acclaimed me as your leader; while I wassilenced and unable to defend myself, you defended me, and won for merelease. I was proud to serve in lowliest fashion, but you lifted me upand placed me before the world as your chosen representative. I have nowords with which to thank you, no eloquence with which to repay my debt. My deeds must speak for me, for words are too poor. I turn your giftinto service to the Motherland; I consecrate my life anew to her inworship by action. All that I have and am, I lay on the Altar of theMother, and together we shall cry, more by service than by words: VANDEMATARAM. 

There is, perhaps, one value in your election of me in this crisis ofIndia's destiny, seeing that I have not the privilege to be Indian-born, but come from that little island in the northern seas which has been, inthe West, the builder-up of free institutions. The Aryan emigrants, whospread over the lands of Europe, carried with them the seeds of libertysown in their blood in their Asian cradle-land. Western historians tracethe self-rule of the Saxon villages to their earlier prototypes in theEast, and see the growth of English liberty as up-springing from theAryan root of the free and self-contained village communities. 

Its growth was crippled by Norman feudalism there, as itsmillennia-nourished security here was smothered by the East IndiaCompany. But in England it burst its shackles and nurtured aliberty-loving people and a free Commons' House. Here, it similarlybourgeoned out into the Congress activities, and more recently intothose of the Muslim League, now together blossoming into Home Rule forIndia. The England of Milton, Cromwell, Sydney, Burke, Paine, Shelley, Wilberforce, Gladstone; the England that sheltered Mazzini, Kossuth, Kropotkin, Stepniak, and that welcomed Garibaldi; the England that isthe enemy of tyranny, the foe of autocracy, the lover of freedom, thatis the England I would fain here represent to you to-day. To-day, whenIndia stands erect, no suppliant people, but a Nation, self-conscious, self-respecting, determined to be free; when she stretches out her handto Britain and offers friendship not subservience; co-operation notobedience; to-day let me: western-born but in spirit eastern, cradled inEngland but Indian by choice and adoption: let me stand as the symbol ofunion between Great Britain and India: a union of hearts and freechoice, not of compulsion: and therefore of a tie which cannot bebroken, a tie of love and of mutual helpfulness, beneficial to bothNations and blessed by God. 

GONE TO THE PEACE. 

India's great leader, Dadabhai Naoroji, has left his mortal body and isnow one of the company of the Immortals, who watch over and aid India'sprogress. He is with V. C. Bonnerjee, and Ranade, and A. O. Hume, andHenry Cotton, and Pherozeshah Mehta, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale: thegreat men who, in Swinburne's noble verse, are the stars which lead usto Liberty's altar:

 These, O men, shall ye honour, Liberty only and these. For thy sake and for all men's and mine, Brother, the crowns of them shine, Lighting the way to her shrine, That our eyes may be fastened upon her, That our hands may encompass her knees. 

Not for me to praise him in feeble words of reverence or of homage. Hisdeeds praise him, and his service to his country is his abiding glory. Our gratitude will be best paid by following in his footsteps, alike inhis splendid courage and his unfaltering devotion, so that we may winthe Home Rule which he longed to see while with us, and shall see, erelong, from the other world of Life, in which he dwells to-day. 

CHAPTER I. 

PRE-WAR MILITARY EXPENDITURE. 

The Great War, into the whirlpool of which Nation after Nation has beendrawn, has entered on its fourth year. The rigid censorship which hasbeen established makes it impossible for any outside the circle ofGovernments to forecast its duration, but to me, speaking for a momentnot as a politician but as a student of spiritual laws, to me its end issure. For the true object of this War is to prove the evil of, and todestroy, autocracy and the enslavement of one Nation by another, and toplace on sure foundations the God-given Right to Self-Rule andSelf-Development of every Nation, and the similar right of theIndividual, of the smaller Self, so far as is consistent with thewelfare of the larger Self of the Nation. The forces which make for theprolongation of autocracy--the rule of one--and the even deadlierbureaucracy--the rule of a close body welded into an iron system--thesehave been gathered together in the Central Powers of Europe--as of oldin Ravana--in order that they may be destroyed; for the New Age cannotbe opened until the Old passes away. The new civilisation ofRighteousness and Justice, and therefore of Brotherhood, of orderedLiberty, of Peace, of Happiness, cannot be built up until the elementsare removed which have brought the old civilisation crashing about ourears. Therefore is it necessary that the War shall be fought out to itsappointed end, and that no premature peace shall leave its objectunattained. Autocracy and bureaucracy must perish utterly, in East andWest, and, in order that their germs may not re-sprout in the future, they must be discredited in the minds of men. They must be proved to beless efficient than the Governments of Free Peoples, even in theirfavourite work of War, and their iron machinery--which at first bringsouter prosperity and success--must be shown to be less lasting andeffective than the living and flexible organisations of democraticPeoples. They must be proved failures before the world, so that theglamour of superficial successes may be destroyed for ever. They havehad their day and their place in evolution, and have done theireducative work. Now they are out-of-date, unfit for survival, and mustvanish away. 

When Great Britain sprang to arms, it was in defence of the freedom of asmall nation, guaranteed by treaties, and the great principles sheproclaimed electrified India and the Dominions. They all sprang to herside without question, without delay; they heard the voice of oldEngland, the soldier of Liberty, and it thrilled their hearts. All wereunprepared, save the small territorial army of Great Britain, due to thegenius and foresight of Lord Haldane, and the readily mobilised army ofIndia, hurled into the fray by the swift decision of Lord Hardinge. Thelittle army of Britain fought for time; fought to stop the road toParis, the heart of France; fought, falling back step by step, andgained the time it fought for, till India's sons stood on the soil ofFrance, were flung to the front, rushed past the exhausted regiments whocheered them with failing breath, charged the advancing hosts, stoppedthe retreat, and joined the British army in forming that unbreakableline which wrestled to the death through two fearful winters--often, these soldiers of the tropics, waist-deep in freezing mud--and knew nosurrender. 

India, with her clear vision, saw in Great Britain the champion ofFreedom, in Germany the champion of Despotism. And she saw rightly. Rightly she stood by Great Britain, despite her own lack of freedom andthe coercive legislation which outrivalled German despotism, knowingthese to be temporary, because un-English, and therefore doomed todestruction; she spurned the lure of German gold and rejected Germanappeals to revolt. She offered men and money; her educated classes, herVakils, offered themselves as Volunteers, pleaded to be accepted. Thenthe never-sleeping distrust of Anglo-India rejected the offer, pressedfor money, rejected men. And, slowly, educated India sank back, depressed and disheartened, and a splendid opportunity for knittingtogether the two Nations was lost. 

Early in the War I ventured to say that the War could not end untilEngland recognised that autocracy and bureaucracy must perish in Indiaas well as in Europe. The good Bishop of Calcutta, with a courage worthyof his free race, lately declared that it would be hypocritical to prayfor victory over autocracy in Europe and to maintain it in India. Now ithas been clearly and definitely declared that Self-Government is to bethe objective of Great Britain in India, and that a substantial measureof it is to be given at once; when this promise is made good by thegranting of the Reforms outlined last year in Lucknow, then the end ofthe War will be in sight. For the War cannot end till the death-knell ofautocracy is sounded. 

Causes, with which I will deal presently and for which India was notresponsible, have somewhat obscured the first eager expressions ofIndia's sympathy, and have forced her thoughts largely towards her ownposition in the Empire. But that does not detract from the immense aidshe has given, and is still giving. It must not be forgotten that longbefore the present War she had submitted--at first, while she had nopower of remonstrance, and later, after 1885, despite the constantprotests of Congress--to an ever-rising military expenditure, due partlyto the amalgamation scheme of 1859, and partly to the cost of variouswars beyond her frontiers, and to continual recurring frontier andtrans-frontier expeditions, in which she had no real interest. They weresent out for supposed Imperial advantages, not for her own. 

Between 1859 and 1904--45 years--Indian troops were engaged inthirty-seven wars and expeditions. There were ten wars: the two ChineseWars of 1860 and 1900, the Bhutan War of 1864-65, the Abyssinian War of1868, the Afghan War of 1878-79, and, after the massacre of the KabulMission, the second War of 1879-80, ending in an advance of thefrontier, in the search for an ever receding "scientific frontier"; onthis occasion the frontier was shifted, says Keene, "from the line ofthe Indus to the western slope of the Suleiman range and from Peshawarto Quetta"; the Egyptian War of 1882, in which the Indian troopsmarkedly distinguished themselves; the third Burmese War of 1885 endingin the annexation of Upper Burma in 1886; the invasions of Tibet in 1890and 1904. Of Expeditions, or minor Wars, there were 27; to Sitana in1858 on a small scale and in 1863 on a larger (the "Sitana Campaign");to Nepal and Sikkim in 1859; to Sikkim in 1864; a serious struggle onthe North-west Frontier in 1868; expeditions against the Lushais in1871-72, the Daflas in 1874-75, the Nagas in 1875, the Afridis in 1877, the Rampa Hill tribes in 1879, the Waziris and Nagas in 1881, the Akhasin 1884, and in the same year an expedition to the Zhob Valley, and asecond thither in 1890. In 1888 and 1889 there was another expeditionagainst Sikkim, against the Akozais (the Black Mountain Expedition) andagainst the Hill Tribes of the North-east, and in 1890 another BlackMountain Expedition, with a third in 1892. In 1890 came the expeditionto Manipur, and in 1891 there was another expedition against theLushais, and one into the Miranzal Valley. The Chitral Expeditionoccupied 1894-95, and the serious Tirah Campaign, in which 40, 000 menwere engaged, came in 1897 and 1898. The long list--which I have closedwith 1904--ends with the expeditions against the Mahsuds in 1901, against the Kabalis in 1902, and the invasion of Tibet, before noted. All these events explain the rise in military expenditure, and we mustadd to them the sending of Indian troops to Malta and Cyprus in 1878--asomewhat theatrical demonstration--and the expenditure of some£2, 000, 000 to face what was described as "the Russian Menace" in 1884. Most of these were due to Imperial, not to Indian, policy, and many ofthe burdens imposed were protested against by the Government of India, while others were encouraged by ambitious Viceroys. I do not think thateven this long list is complete. 

Ever since the Government of India was taken over by the Crown, Indiahas been regarded as an Imperial military asset and training ground, aposition from which the jealousy of the East India Company had largelyprotected her, by insisting that the army it supported should be usedfor the defence and in the interests of India alone. Her value to theEmpire for military purposes would not so seriously have injured at onceher pride and her finances if the natural tendencies of her martialraces had been permitted their previous scope; but the disarming of thepeople, 20 years after the assumption of the Government by the Crown, emasculated the Nation, and the elimination of races supposed to beunwarlike, or in some cases too warlike to be trusted, threw recruitmentmore and more to the north, and lowered the physique of the Bengalis andMadrasis, on whom the Company had largely depended. 

The superiority of the Punjab, on which Sir Michael O'Dwyer sovehemently insisted the other day, is an artificial superiority, createdby the British system and policy; and the poor recruitment elsewhere, onwhich he laid offensive insistence, is due to the same system andpolicy, which largely eliminated Bengalis, Madrasis and Mahrattas fromthe army. In Bengal, however, the martial type has been revived, chieflyin consequence of what the Bengalis felt to be the intolerable insult ofthe high-handed Partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon. 

On this Gopal Krishna Gokhale said:

 Bengal's heroic stand against the oppression of a harsh and uncontrolled bureaucracy has astonished and gratified all India. .. . All India owes a deep debt of gratitude to Bengal. 

The spirit evoked showed itself in the youth of Bengal by a practicalrevolt, led by the elders, while it was confined to Swadeshi andBoycott, and rushing on, when it broke away from their authority, intoconspiracy, assassination and dacoity: as had happened in similarrevolts with Young Italy, in the days of Mazzini, and with Young Russiain the days of Stepniak and Kropotkin. The results of their despair, necessarily met by the halter and penal servitude, had to be faced byLord Hardinge and Lord Carmichael during the present War. Other results, happy instead of disastrous in their nature, was the development of gritand endurance of a high character, shown in the courage of the Bengallads in the serious floods that have laid parts of the Province deepunder water, and in their compassion and self-sacrifice in the relief offamine. Their services in the present War--the Ambulance Corps and thereplacement of its _materiel_ when the ship carrying it sank, with thesplendid services rendered by it in Mesopotamia; the recruiting of aBengali regiment for active service, 900 strong, with another 900reserves to replace wastage, and recruiting still going on--these areinstances of the divine alchemy which brings the soul of good out ofevil action, and consecrates to service the qualities evoked byrebellion. 

In England, also, a similar result has been seen in a convict, releasedto go to the front, winning the Victoria Cross. It would be an act ofstatesmanship, as well as of divinest compassion, to offer to everyprisoner and interned captive, held for political crime or on politicalsuspicion, the opportunity of serving the Empire at the front. Theymight, if thought necessary, form a separate battalion or a separateregiment, under stricter supervision, and yet be given a chance ofredeeming their reputation, for they are mostly very young. 

The financial burden incurred in consequence of the above conflicts, andof other causes, now to be mentioned, would not have been so muchresented, if it had been imposed by India on herself, and if her ownsons had profited by her being used as a training ground for theEmpire. But in this case, as in so many others, she has shared Imperialburdens, while not sharing Imperial freedom and power. Apart from this, the change which made the Army so ruinous a burden on the resources ofthe country was the system of "British reliefs, " the using of India as atraining ground for British regiments, and the transfer of the men thustrained, to be replaced by new ones under the short service system, thecost of the frequent transfers and their connected expenses beingcharged on the Indian revenues, while the whole advantage was reaped byGreat Britain. On the short service system the Simla Army Commissiondeclared:

 The short service system recently introduced into the British Army has increased the cost and has materially reduced the efficiency of the British troops in India. We cannot resist the feeling that, in the introduction of this system, the interest of the Indian tax-payer was entirely left out of consideration. 

The remark was certainly justified, for the short service system gaveIndia only five years of the recruits she paid heavily for and trained, all the rest of the benefit going to England. The latter was enabled, asthe years went on, to enormously increase her Reserves, so that she hashad 400, 000 men trained in, and at the cost of, India. 

In 1863 the Indian army consisted of 140, 000 men, with 65, 000 whiteofficers. Great changes were made in 1885-1905, including thereorganisation under Lord Kitchener, who became Commander-in-Chief atthe end of 1902. Even in this hasty review, I must not omit reference tothe fact that Army Stores were drawn from Britain at enormous cost, while they should have been chiefly manufactured here, so that Indiamight have profited by the expenditure. Lately under the necessities ofWar, factories have been turned to the production of munitions; but thisshould have been done long ago, so that India might have been enrichedinstead of exploited. The War has forced an investigation into hermineral resources that might have been made for her own sake, butGermany was allowed to monopolise the supply of minerals that Indiacould have produced and worked up, and would have produced and worked uphad she enjoyed Home Rule. India would have been richer, and the Empiresafer, had she been a partner instead of a possession. But this side ofthe question will come under the matters directly affecting merchants, and we may venture to express a hope that the Government help extendedto munition factories in time of War may be continued to industrialfactories in time of Peace. The net result of the various causesabove-mentioned was that the expense of the Indian army rose by leapsand bounds, until, before the War, India was expending, £21, 000, 000 asagainst the £28, 000, 000 expended by the United Kingdom, while thewealthy Dominions of Canada and Australia were spending only 1-1/2 and1-1/4 millions respectively. (I am not forgetting that the UnitedKingdom was expending over £51, 000, 000 on her Navy, while India was freeof that burden, save for a contribution of half a million. )

Since 1885, the Congress has constantly protested against theever-increasing military expenditure, but the voice of the Congress wassupposed to be the voice of sedition and of class ambition, instead ofbeing, as it was the voice of educated Indians, the most truly patrioticand loyal class of the population. In 1885, in the First Congress, Mr. P. Rangiah Naidu pointed out that military expenditure had been£1, 463, 000 in 1857 and had risen to £16, 975, 750 in 1884. Mr. D. E. Wachaascribed the growth to the amalgamation scheme of 1859, and remarkedthat the Company in 1856 had an army of 254, 000 men at a cost of 11-1/2millions, while in 1884 the Crown had an army of only 181, 000 men at acost of 17 millions. The rise was largely due to the increased cost ofthe European regiments, overland transport service, stores, pensions, furlough allowances, and the like, most of them imposed despite theresistance of the Government of India, which complained that the changeswere "made entirely, it may be said, from Imperial considerations, inwhich Indian interests have not been consulted or advanced. " India paidnearly, £700, 000 a year, for instance, for "Home Depôts"--Home beingEngland of course--in which lived some 20, 000 to 22, 000 Britishsoldiers, on the plea that their regiments, not they, were serving inIndia. I cannot follow out the many increases cited by Mr. Wacha, butmembers can refer to his excellent speech. 

Mr. Fawcett once remarked that when the East India Company was abolished

 the English people became directly responsible for the Government of India. It cannot, I think, be denied that this responsibility has been so imperfectly discharged that in many respects the new system of Government compares unfavourably with the old. .. . There was at that time an independent control of expenditure which now seems to be almost entirely wanting. 

Shortly after the Crown assumed the rule of India, Mr. Disraeli askedthe House of Commons to regard India as "a great and solemn trustcommitted to it by an all-wise and inscrutable Providence. " Mr. GeorgeYule, in the Fourth Congress, remarked on this: "The 650 odd members hadthrown the trust back upon the hands of Providence, to be looked afteras Providence itself thinks best. " Perhaps it is time that India shouldremember that Providence helps those who help themselves. 

Year after year the Congress continued to remonstrate against the costof the army, until in 1902, after all the futile protests of theintervening years, it condemned an increase of pay to British soldiersin India which placed an additional burden on the Indian revenues of£786, 000 a year, and pointed out that the British garrison wasunnecessarily numerous, as was shown by the withdrawal of large bodiesof British soldiers for service in South Africa and China. The very nextyear Congress protested that the increasing military expenditure was notto secure India against internal disorder or external attack, but inorder to carry out an Imperial policy; the Colonies contributed littleor nothing to the Imperial Military Expenditure, while India bore thecost of about one-third of the whole British Army in addition to her ownIndian troops. Surely these facts should be remembered when India'smilitary services to the Empire are now being weighed. 

In 1904 and 1905, the Congress declared that the then militaryexpenditure was beyond India's power to bear, and in the latter yearprayed that the additional ten millions sterling sanctioned for LordKitchener's reorganisation scheme might be devoted to education and thereduction of the burden on the raiyats. In 1908, the burdens imposed bythe British War Office since 1859 were condemned, and in the next yearit was pointed out that the military expenditure was nearly a third ofthe whole Indian revenue, and was starving Education and Sanitation. 

Lord Kitchener's reorganisation scheme kept the Indian Army on a Warfooting, ready for immediate mobilisation, and on January 1, 1915, theregular army consisted of 247, 000 men, of whom 75, 000 were English; itwas the money spent by India in maintaining this army for years inreadiness for War which made it possible for her to go to the help ofGreat Britain at the critical early period to which I alluded. She spentover £20 millions on the military services in 1914-15. In 1915-16 shespent £21. 8 millions. In 1916-17 her military budget had risen to £12millions, and it will probably be exceeded, as was the budget of thepreceding year by £1-2/3 million. 

Lord Hardinge, the last Viceroy of India, who is ever held in lovingmemory here for his sympathetic attitude towards Indian aspirations, made a masterly exposition of India's War services in the House of Lordson the third of last July. He emphasised her pre-War services, showingthat though 19-1/4 millions sterling was fixed as a maximum by theNicholson Committee, that amount had been exceeded in 11 out of the last13 budgets, while his own last budget had risen to 22 millions. Duringthese 13 years the revenue had been only between 48 and 58 millions, once rising to 60 millions. Could any fact speak more eloquently ofIndia's War services than this proportion of military expenditurecompared with her revenue?

The Great War began on August 4th, and in that very month and in theearly part of September, India sent an expeditionary force of threedivisions--two infantry and one cavalry--and another cavalry divisionjoined them in France in November. The first arrived, said LordHardinge, "in time to fill a gap that could not otherwise have beenfilled. " He added pathetically: "There are very few survivors of thosetwo splendid divisions of infantry. " Truly, their homes are empty, buttheir sons shall enjoy in India the liberty for which their fathers diedin France. Three more divisions were at once sent to guard the Indianfrontier, while in September a mixed division was sent to East Africa, and in October and November two more divisions and a brigade of cavalrywent to Egypt. A battalion of Indian infantry went to Mauritius, anotherto the Cameroons, and two to the Persian Gulf, while other Indian troopshelped the Japanese in the capture of Tsingtau. 210, 000 Indians werethus sent overseas. The whole of these troops were fully armed andequipped, and in addition, during the first few weeks of the War, Indiasent to England from her magazines "70 million rounds of small-armammunition, 60, 000 rifles, and more than 550 guns of the latest patternand type. "

In addition to these, Lord Hardinge speaks of sending to England

 enormous quantities of material, . .. Tents, boots, saddlery, clothing, etc. , but every effort was made to meet the ever-increasing demands made by the War Office, and it may be stated without exaggeration that India was bled absolutely white during the first few weeks of the war. 

It must not be forgotten, though Lord Hardinge has not reckoned it, thatall wastage has been more than filled up, and 450, 000 men represent thishead; the increase in units has been 300, 000, and including othermilitary items India had placed in the field up to the end of 1916 overa million of men. 

In addition to this a British force of 80, 000 was sent from India, fullytrained and equipped at Indian cost, India receiving in exchange, manymonths later, 34 Territorial battalions and 29 batteries, "unfit forimmediate employment on the frontier or in Mesopotamia, until they hadbeen entirely re-armed and equipped, and their training completed. "

Between the autumn of 1914 and the close of 1915, the defence of our ownfrontiers was a serious matter, and Lord Hardinge says:

 The attitude of Afghanistan was for a long time doubtful, although I always had confidence in the personal loyalty of our ally the Amir; but I feared lest he might be overwhelmed by a wave of fanaticism, or by a successful Jehad of the tribes. .. . It suffices to mention that, although during the previous three years there had been no operations of any importance on the North-West frontier, there were, between November 29, 1914, and September 5, 1915, no less than seven serious attacks on the North-West frontier, all of which were effectively dealt with. 

The military authorities had also to meet a German conspiracy early in1915, 7, 000 men arriving from Canada and the United States, havingplanned to seize points of military vantage in the Panjab, and inDecember of the same year another German conspiracy in Bengal, necessitating military preparations on land, and also naval patrols inthe Bay of Bengal. 

Lord Hardinge has been much attacked by the Tory and Unionist Press inEngland and India, in England because of the Mesopotamia Report, inIndia because his love for India brought him hatred from Anglo-India. India has affirmed her confidence in him, and with India's verdict hemay well rest satisfied. 

I do not care to dwell on the Mesopotamia Commission and itscondemnation of the bureaucratic system prevailing here. Lord Hardingevindicated himself and India. The bureaucratic system remainsundefended. I recall that bureaucratic inefficiency came out in evenmore startling fashion in connection with the Afghan War of 1878-79 and1879-80. In February 1880, the war charges were reported as under £4millions, and the accounts showed a surplus of £2 millions. On April 8ththe Government of India reported: "Outgoing for War very alarming, farexceeding estimate, " and on the 13th April "it was announced that thecash balances had fallen in three months from thirteen crores to lessthan nine, owing to 'excessive Military drain' . .. On the following day(April 22) a despatch was sent out to the Viceroy, showing that thereappeared a deficiency of not less than 5-1/4 crores. This vast error wasevidently due to an underestimate of war liabilities, which had led tosuch mis-information being laid before Parliament, and to the suddendiscovery of inability to 'meet the usual drawings. '"

It seemed that the Government knew only the amount audited, not theamount spent. Payments were entered as "advances, " though they were notrecoverable, and "the great negligence was evidently that of the headsof departmental accounts. " If such a mishap should occur under HomeRule, a few years hence--which heaven forbid--I shudder to think of thecomments of the _Englishman_ and the _Madras Mail_ on the shockinginefficiency of Indian officials. 

In September last, our present Viceroy, H. E. Lord Chelmsford, defendedIndia against later attacks by critics who try to minimise hersacrifices in order to lessen the gratitude felt by Great Britaintowards her, lest that gratitude should give birth to justice, andjustice should award freedom to India. Lord Chelmsford placed before hisCouncil "in studiously considered outline, a summary of what India hasdone during the past two years. " Omitting his references to what wasdone under Lord Hardinge, as stated above, I may quote from him:

 On the outbreak of war, of the 4, 598 British officers on the Indian establishment, 530 who were at home on leave were detained by the War Office for service in Europe. 2, 600 Combatant Officers have been withdrawn from India since the beginning of the War, excluding those who proceeded on service with their batteries or regiments. In order to make good these deficiencies and provide for war wastage the Indian Army Reserve of Officers was expanded from a total of 40, at which it stood on the 4th August, 1914, to one of 2, 000. 

 The establishment of Indian units has not only been kept up to strength, but has been considerably increased. There has been an augmentation of 20 per cent. In the cavalry and of 40 per cent. In the infantry, while the number of recruits enlisted since the beginning of the War is greater than the entire strength of the Indian Army as it existed on August 4, 1914. 

Lord Chelmsford rightly pointed out:

 The Army in India has thus proved a great Imperial asset, and in weighing the value of India's contribution to the War it should be remembered that India's forces were no hasty improvisation, but were an army in being, fully equipped and supplied, which had previously cost India annually a large sum to maintain. 

Lord Chelmsford has established what he calls a "Man-Power Board, " theduty of which is "to collect and co-ordinate all the facts with regardto the supply of man-power in India. " It has branches in all theProvinces. A steady flow of reinforcements supplies the wastage at thevarious fronts, and the labour required for engineering, transport, etc. , is now organised in 20 corps in Mesopotamia and 25 corps inFrance. In addition 60, 000 artisans, labourers, and specialists areserving in Mesopotamia and East Africa, and some 20, 000 menials andfollowers have also gone overseas. Indian medical practitioners haveaccepted temporary commissions in the Indian Medical Service to thenumber of 500. In view of this fact, due to Great Britain's bitter needof help, may we not hope that this Service will welcome Indians in timeof peace as well as in time of war, and will no longer bar the way bydemanding the taking of a degree in the United Kingdom? It is alsoworthy of notice that the I. M. S. Officers in charge of district dutieshave been largely replaced by Indian medical men; this, again, shouldcontinue after the War. Another fact, that the Army Reserve of Officershis risen from 40 to 2, 000, suggests that the throwing open of King'sCommissions to qualified Indians should not be represented by a meagrenine. If English lads of 19 and 20 are worthy of King's Commissions--andthe long roll of slain Second Lieutenants proves it--then certainlyIndian lads, since Indians have fought as bravely as Englishmen, shouldfind the door thrown open to them equally widely in their own country, and the Indian Army should be led by Indian officers. 

With such a record of deeds as the one I have baldly sketched, it is notnecessary to say much in words as to India's support of Great Britainand her Allies. She has proved up to the hilt her desire to remainwithin the Empire, to maintain her tie with Great Britain. But ifBritain is to call successfully on India's man-power, as Lord Chelmsfordsuggests in his Man-Power Board, then must the man who fights or labourshave a man's Rights in his own land. The lesson which springs out ofthis War is that it is absolutely necessary for the future safety of theEmpire that India shall have Home Rule. Had her Man-Power been utilisedearlier there would have been no War, for none would have dared toprovoke Great Britain and India to a contest. But her Man-Power cannotbe utilised while she is a subject Nation. She cannot afford to maintaina large army, if she is to support an English garrison, to pay for theirgoings and comings, to buy stores in England at exorbitant prices andsend them back again when England needs them. She cannot afford to trainmen for England, and only have their services for five years. She cannotafford to keep huge Gold Reserves in England, and be straitened forcash, while she lends to England out of her Reserves, taken from herover-taxation, £27, 000, 000 for War expenses, and this, be it remembered, before the great War Loan. I once said in England: "The condition ofIndia's loyalty is India's freedom. " I may now add: "The condition ofIndia's usefulness to the Empire is India's freedom. " She will taxherself willingly when her taxes remain in the country and fertilise it, when they educate her people and thus increase their productive power, when they foster her trade and create for her new industries. 

Great Britain needs India as much as India needs England, for prosperityin Peace as well as for safety in War. Mr. Montagu has wisely said that"for equipment in War a Nation needs freedom in Peace. " Therefore I saythat, for both countries alike, the lesson of the War is Home Rule forIndia. 

Let me close this part of my subject by laying at the feet of HisImperial Majesty the loving homage of the thousands here assembled, withthe hope and belief that, ere long, we shall lay there the willing andgrateful homage of a free Nation. 

CHAPTER II. 

CAUSES OF THE NEW SPIRIT IN INDIA. 

Apart from the natural exchange of thought between East and West, theinfluence of English education, literature and ideals, the effect oftravel in Europe, Japan and the United States of America, and otherrecognised causes for the changed outlook in India, there have beenspecial forces at work during the last few years to arouse a New Spiritin India, and to alter her attitude of mind. These may be summed up as:

 (a) The Awakening of Asia. 

 (b) Discussions abroad on Alien Rule and Imperial Reconstruction. 

 (c) Loss of Belief in the Superiority of the White Races. 

 (d) The Awakening of Indian Merchants. 

 (e) The Awakening of Indian Womanhood to claim its Ancient Position. 

 (f) The Awakening of the Masses. 

Each of these causes has had its share in the splendid change ofattitude in the Indian Nation, in the uprising of a spirit of pride ofcountry, of independence, of self-reliance, of dignity, of self-respect. The War has quickened the rate of evolution of the world, and no countryhas experienced the quickening more than our Motherland. 

THE AWAKENING OF ASIA. 

In a conversation I had with Lord Minto, soon after his arrival asViceroy, he discussed the so-called "unrest in India, " and recognised itas the inevitable result of English Education, of English Ideals ofDemocracy, of the Japanese victory over Russia, and of the changingconditions in the outer world. I was therefore not surprised to read hisremark that he recognised, "frankly and publicly, that new aspirationswere stirring in the hearts of the people, that they were part of alarger movement common to the whole East, and that it was necessary tosatisfy them to a reasonable extent by giving them a larger share in theadministration. "

But the present movement in India will be very poorly understood if itbe regarded only in connexion with the movement in the East. Theawakening of Asia is part of a world-movement, which has been quickenedinto marvellous rapidity by the world-war. The world-movement is towardsDemocracy, and for the West dates from the breaking away of the AmericanColonies from Great Britain, consummated in 1776, and its sequel in theFrench Revolution of 1789. Needless to say that its root was in thegrowth of modern science, undermining the fabric of intellectualservitude, in the work of the Encyclopædists, and in that ofJean-Jacques Rousseau and of Thomas Paine. In the East, the swiftchanges in Japan, the success of the Japanese Empire against Russia, thedownfall of the Manchu dynasty in China and the establishment of aChinese Republic, the efforts at improvement in Persia, hindered by theinterference of Russia and Great Britain with their growing ambitions, and the creation of British and Russian "spheres of influence, "depriving her of her just liberty, and now the Russian Revolution andthe probable rise of a Russian Republic in Europe and Asia, have allentirely changed the conditions before existing in India. Across Asia, beyond the Himalayas, stretch free and self-ruling Nations. India nolonger sees as her Asian neighbours the huge domains of a Tsar and aChinese despot, and compares her condition under British rule with thoseof their subject populations. British rule profited by the comparison, at least until 1905, when the great period of repression set in. But infuture, unless India wins Self-Government, she will look enviously ather Self-Governing neighbours, and the contrast will intensify herunrest. 

But even if she gains Home Rule, as I believe she will, her position inthe Empire will imperatively demand that she shall be strong as well asfree. She becomes not only a vulnerable point in the Empire, as theAsian Nations evolve their own ambitions and rivalries, but also apossession to be battled for. Mr. Laing once said: "India is themilch-cow of England, " a Kamadhenu, in fact, a cow of plenty; and ifthat view should arise in Asia, the ownership of the milch-cow wouldbecome a matter of dispute, as of old between Vashishtha andVishvamitra. Hence India must be capable of self-defence both by landand sea. There may be a struggle for the primacy of Asia, for supremacyin the Pacific, for the mastery of Australasia, to say nothing of theinevitable trade-struggles, in which Japan is already endangering Indianindustry and Indian trade, while India is unable to protect herself. 

In order to face these larger issues with equanimity, the Empirerequires a contented, strong, self-dependent and armed India, able tohold her own and to aid the Dominions, especially Australia, with hersmall population and immense unoccupied and undefended area. India alonehas the man-power which can effectively maintain the Empire in Asia, andit is a short-sighted, a criminally short-sighted, policy not to buildup her strength as a Self-Governing State within the Commonwealth ofFree Nations under the British Crown. The Englishmen in India talkloudly of their interests; what can this mere handful do to protecttheir interests against attack in the coming years? Only in a free andpowerful India will they be safe. Those who read Japanese papers knowhow strongly, even during the War, they parade unchecked theirpro-German sympathies, and how likely after the War is an alliancebetween these two ambitious and warlike Nations. Japan will come out ofthe War with her army and navy unweakened, and her trade immenselystrengthened. Every consideration of sane statesmanship should leadGreat Britain to trust India more than Japan, so that the British Empirein Asia may rest on the sure foundation of Indian loyalty, the loyaltyof a free and contented people, rather than be dependent on thecontinued friendship of a possible future rival. For internationalfriendships are governed by National interests, and are built onquicksands, not on rock. 

Englishmen in India must give up the idea that English dominance isnecessary for the protection of their interests, amounting, in 1915, to£365, 399, 000 sterling. They do not claim to dominate the United Statesof America, because they have invested there £688, 078, 000. They do notclaim to dominate the Argentine Republic, because they have investedthere £269, 808, 000. Why then should they claim to dominate India on theground of their investment? Britons must give up the idea that India isa possession to be exploited for their own benefit, and must see her asa friend, an equal, a Self-Governing Dominion within the Empire, aNation like themselves, a willing partner in the Empire, and not adependent. The democratic movement in Japan, China and Russia in Asiahas sympathetically affected India, and it is idle to pretend that itwill cease to affect her. 

DISCUSSIONS ABROAD ON ALIEN RULE AND IMPERIAL RECONSTRUCTION. 

But there are other causes which have been working in India, consequenton the British attitude against autocracy and in defence of freedom inEurope, while her attitude to India has, until lately, been left indoubt. Therefore I spoke of a splendid opportunity lost. India at firstbelieved whole-heartedly that Great Britain was fighting for the freedomof all Nationalities. Even now, Mr. Asquith declared--in his speech inthe House of Commons reported here last October, on the peace resolutionof Mr. Ramsay Macdonald--that "the Allies are fighting for nothing butfreedom, and, an important addition--for nothing short of freedom. " Inhis speech declaring that Britain would stand by France in her claim forthe restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, he spoke of "the intolerabledegradation of a foreign yoke. " Is such a yoke less intolerable, lesswounding to self-respect here, than in Alsace-Lorraine, where the rulersand the ruled are both of European blood, similar in religion andhabits? As the War went on, India slowly and unwillingly came to realisethat the hatred of autocracy was confined to autocracy in the West, andthat the degradation was only regarded as intolerable for men of whiteraces; that freedom was lavishly promised to all except to India; thatnew powers were to be given to the Dominions, but not to India. Indiawas markedly left out of the speeches of statesmen dealing with thefuture of the Empire, and at last there was plain talk of the WhiteEmpire, the Empire of the Five Nations, and the "coloured races" werelumped together as the wards of the White Empire, doomed to anindefinite minority. 

The peril was pressing; the menace unmistakable. The Reconstruction ofthe Empire was on the anvil; what was to be India's place therein? TheDominions were proclaimed as partners; was India to remain a Dependency?Mr. Bonar Law bade the Dominions strike while the iron was hot; wasIndia to wait till it was cold? India saw her soldiers fighting forfreedom in Flanders, in France, in Gallipoli, in Asia Minor, in China, in Africa; was she to have no share of the freedom for which she fought?At last she sprang to her feet and cried, in the words of one of hernoblest sons: "Freedom is my birthright; and I want it. " The words "HomeRule" became her Mantram. She claimed her place in the Empire. 

Thus, while she continued to support, and even to increase, her armyabroad, fighting for the Empire, and poured out her treasures as waterfor Hospital Ships, War Funds, Red Cross organisations, and the giganticWar Loan, a dawning fear oppressed her, lest, if she did not take orderwith her own household, success in the War for the Empire might meandecreased liberty for herself. 

The recognition of the right of the Indian Government to make its voiceheard in Imperial matters, when they were under discussion in anImperial Conference, was a step in the right direction. Butdisappointment was felt that while other countries were represented byresponsible Ministers, the representation in India's case was of theGovernment, of a Government irresponsible to her, and not therepresentative of herself. No fault was found with the choice itself, but only with the non-representative character of the chosen, for theywere selected by the Government, and not by the elected members of theSupreme Council. This defect in the resolution moved by the Hon. KhanBahadur M. M. Shafi on October 2, 1915, was pointed out by the Hon. Mr. Surendranath Bannerji. He said:

 My Lord, in view of a situation so full of hope and promise, it seems to me that my friend's Resolution does not go far enough. He pleads for _official_ representation at the Imperial Conference: he does not plead for _popular_ representation. He urges that an address be presented to His Majesty's Government, through the Secretary of State for India, for official representation at the Imperial Council. My Lord, official representation may mean little or nothing. It may indeed be attended with some risk; for I am sorry to have to say--but say it I must--that our officials do not always see eye to eye with us as regards many great public questions which affect this country; and indeed their views, judged from our standpoint, may sometimes seem adverse to our interests. At the same time, my Lord, I recognise the fact that the Imperial Conference is an assemblage of officials pure and simple, consisting of Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the self-governing Colonies. But, my Lord, there is an essential difference between them and ourselves. In their case, the Ministers are the elect of the people, their organ and their voice, answerable to them for their conduct and their proceedings. In our case, our officials are public servants in name, but in reality they are the masters of the public. The situation may improve, and I trust it will, under the liberalising influence of your Excellency's beneficent administration; but we must take things as they are, and not indulge in building castles in the air, which may vanish "like the baseless fabric of a vision. "

It was said to be an epoch-making event that "Indian Representatives"took part in the Conference. Representatives they were, but, as said, ofthe British Government in India, not of India, whereas their colleaguesrepresented their Nations. They did good work, none the less, for theywere able and experienced men, though they failed us in the ImperialPreference Conference and, partially, on the Indentured Labour question. Yet we hope that the presence in the Conference of men of Indian birthmay prove to be the proverbial "thin end of the wedge, " and may haveconvinced their colleagues that, while India was still a Dependency, India's sons were fully their equals. 

The Report of the Public Services Commission, though now too obviouslyobsolete to be discussed, caused both disappointment and resentment; forit showed that, in the eyes of the majority of the Commissioners, English domination in Indian administration was to be perpetual, andthat thirty years hence she would only hold a pitiful 25 per cent. Orthe higher appointments in the I. C. S. And the Police. I cannot, however, mention that Commission, even in passing, without voicing India's thanksto the Hon. Mr. Justice Rahim, for his rare courage in writing asolitary Minute of Dissent, in which he totally rejected the Report, andlaid down the right principles which should govern recruitment for theIndian Civil Services. 

India had but three representatives on the Commission; G. K. Gokhale diedere it made its Report, his end quickened by his sufferings during itswork, by the humiliation of the way in which his countrymen weretreated. Of Mr. Abdur Rahim I have already spoken. The Hon. Mr. M. B. Chaubal signed the Report, but dissented from some of its most importantrecommendations. The whole Report was written "before the flood, " and itis now merely an antiquarian curiosity. 

India, for all these reasons, was forced to see before her a future ofperpetual subordination: the Briton rules in Great Britain, theFrenchman in France, the American in America, each Dominion in its ownarea, but the Indian was to rule nowhere; alone among the peoples of theworld, he was not to feel his own country as his own. "Britain for theBritish" was right and natural; "India for the Indians" was wrong, evenseditious. It must be "India for the Empire, " or not even for theEmpire, but "for the rest of the Empire, " careless of herself. "Britishsupport for British Trade" was patriotic and proper in Britain. "Swadeshi goods for Indians" showed a petty and anti-Imperial spirit inIndia. The Indian was to continue to live perpetually, and eventhankfully, as Gopal Krishna Gokhale said he lived now, in "anatmosphere of inferiority, " and to be proud to be a citizen (withoutrights) of the Empire, while its other component Nations were to becitizens (with rights) in their own countries first, and citizens of theEmpire secondarily. Just as his trust in Great Britain was strainednearly to breaking point came the glad news of Mr. Montagu's appointmentas Secretary of State for India, of the Viceroy's invitation to him, andof his coming to hear for himself what India wanted. It was a ray ofsunshine breaking through the gloom, confidence in Great Britainrevived, and glad preparation was made to welcome the coming of afriend. 

The attitude of India has changed to meet the changed attitude of theGovernments of India and Great Britain. But let none imagine that thatconsequential change of attitude connotes any change in herdetermination to win Home Rule. She is ready to consider terms of peace, but it must be "peace with honour, " and honour in this connection meansFreedom. If this be not granted, an even more vigorous agitation willbegin. 

LOSS OF BELIEF IN THE SUPERIORITY OF WHITE RACES

The undermining of this belief dates from the spreading of the AryaSamaj and the Theosophical Society. Both bodies sought to lead theIndian people to a sense of the value of their own civilisation, topride in their past, creating self-respect in the present, andself-confidence in the future. They destroyed the unhealthy inclinationto imitate the West in all things, and taught discrimination, the usingonly of what was valuable in western thought and culture, instead of amere slavish copying of everything. Another great force was that ofSwami Vivekananda, alike in his passionate love and admiration forIndia, and his exposure of the evils resulting from Materialism in theWest. Take the following:

 Children of India, I am here to speak to you to-day about some practical things, and my object in reminding you about the glories of the past is simply this. Many times have I been told that looking into the past only degenerates and leads to nothing, and that we should look to the future. That is true. But out of the past is built the future. Look back, therefore, as far as you can, drink deep of the eternal fountains that are behind, and after that, look forward, march forward, and make India brighter, greater, much higher than she ever was. Our ancestors were great. We must recall that. We must learn the elements of our being, the blood that courses in our veins; we must have faith in that blood, and what it did in the past: and out of that faith, and consciousness of past greatness, we must build an India yet greater than what she has been. 

And again:

 I know for certain that millions, I say deliberately, millions, in every civilised land are waiting for the message that will save them from the hideous abyss of materialism into which modern money-worship is driving them headlong, and many of the leaders of the new Social Movements have already discovered that Vedanta in its highest form can alone spiritualise their social aspirations. 

The process was continued by the admiration of Sanskrit literatureexpressed by European scholars and philosophers. But the effect of thesewas confined to the few and did not reach the many. The first greatshock to the belief in white superiority came from the triumph of Japanover Russia, the facing of a huge European Power by a comparativelysmall Eastern Nation, the exposure of the weakness and rottenness of theRussian leaders, and the contrast with their hardy virile opponents, ready to sacrifice everything for their country. 

The second great shock has come from the frank brutality of Germantheories of the State, and their practical carrying out in the treatmentof conquered districts and the laying waste of evacuated areas inretreat. The teachings of Bismarck and their practical application inFrance, Flanders, Belgium, Poland, and Serbia have destroyed all theglamour of the superiority of Christendom over Asia. Its vauntedcivilisation is seen to be but a thin veneer, and its religion a matterof form rather than of life. Gazing from afar at the ghastly heaps ofdead and the hosts of the mutilated, at science turned into devilry andever inventing new tortures for rending and slaying, Asia may beforgiven for thinking that, on the whole, she prefers her own religionsand her own civilisations. 

But even deeper than the outer tumult of war has pierced the doubt as tothe reality of the Ideals of Liberty and Nationality so loudlyproclaimed by the foremost western Nations, the doubt of the honesty oftheir champions. Sir James Meston said truly, a short time ago, that hehad never, in his long experience, known Indians in so distrustful andsuspicious a mood as that which he met in them to-day. And that is so. For long years Indians have been chafing over the many breaches ofpromises and pledges to them that remain unredeemed. The maintenancehere of a system of political repression, of coercive measures increasedin number and more harshly applied since 1905, the carrying of thesystem to a wider extent since the War for the sanctity of treaties andfor the protection of Nationalities has been going on, have deepened themistrust. A frank and courageous statesmanship applied to the honestcarrying out of large reforms too long delayed can alone remove it. Thetime for political tinkering is past; the time for wise and definitechanges is here. 

To these deep causes must be added the comparison between theprogressive policy of some of the Indian States in matters which mostaffect the happiness of the people, and the slow advance made underBritish administration. The Indian notes that this advance is made underthe guidance of rulers and ministers of his own race. When he sees thatthe suggestions made in the People's Assembly in Mysore are fullyconsidered and, when possible, given effect to, he realises that withoutthe forms of power the members exercise more real power than those inour Legislative Councils. He sees education spreading, new industriesfostered, villagers encouraged to manage their own affairs and take theburden of their own responsibility, and he wonders why Indian incapacityis so much more efficient than British capacity. 

Perhaps, after all, for Indians, Indian rule may be the best. 

THE AWAKENING OF THE MERCHANTS. 

 * * * * *

THE AWAKENING OF INDIAN WOMANHOOD. 

The position of women in the ancient Aryan civilisation was a very nobleone. The great majority married, becoming, as Manu said, the Light ofthe Home; some took up the ascetic life, remained unmarried, and soughtthe knowledge of Brahma. The story of the Rani Damayanti, to whom herhusband's ministers came, when they were troubled by the Raja'sgambling, that of Gandhari, in the Council of Kings and Warrior Chiefs, remonstrating with her headstrong son; in later days, of Padmavati ofChitoor, of Mirabai of Marwar, the sweet poetess, of Tarabai of Thoda, the warrior, of Chand Bibi, the defender of Ahmednagar, of Ahalya Bai ofIndore, the great Ruler--all these and countless others are well known. 

Only in the last two or three generations have Indian women slipped awayfrom their place at their husbands' side, and left them unhelped intheir public life. But even now they wield great influence over husbandand son. Culture has never forsaken them, but the English education oftheir husbands and sons, with the neglect of Sanskrit and theVernacular, have made a barrier between the culture of the husband andthat of the wife, and has shut the woman out from her old sympathy withthe larger life of men. While the interests of the husband havewidened, those of the wife have narrowed. The materialising of thehusband tended also, by reaction, to render the wife's religion lessbroad and wise. 

The wish to save their sons from the materialising results of Englisheducation awoke keen sympathy among Indian mothers with the movement tomake religion an integral part of education. It was, perhaps, the firstmovement in modern days which aroused among them in all parts a keen andliving interest. 

The Partition of Bengal was bitterly resented by Bengali women, and wasanother factor in the outward-turning change. When the editor of anExtremist newspaper was prosecuted for sedition, convicted andsentenced, five hundred Bengali women went to his mother to show theirsympathy, not by condolences, but by congratulations. Such was thefeeling of the well-born women of Bengal. 

Then the troubles of Indians outside India roused the ever quicksympathy of Indian women, and the attack in South Africa on thesacredness of Indian marriage drew large numbers of them out of theirhomes to protest against the wrong. 

The Indentured Labour question, involving the dishonour of women, again, moved them deeply, and even sent a deputation to the Viceroy composed ofwomen. 

These were, perhaps, the chief outer causes; but deep in the heart ofIndia's daughters arose the Mother's voice, calling on them to help Herto arise, and to be once more mistress in Her own household. Indianwomen, nursed on Her old literature, with its wonderful ideals ofwomanly perfection, could not remain indifferent to the great movementfor India's liberty. And during the last few years the hidden fire, longburning in their hearts, fire of love to Bharatamata, fire of resentmentagainst the lessened influence of the religion which they passionatelylove, instinctive dislike of the foreigner as ruling in their land, havecaused a marvellous awakening. The strength of the Home Rule movement isrendered tenfold greater by the adhesion to it of large numbers ofwomen, who bring to its helping the uncalculating heroism, theendurance, the self-sacrifice, of the feminine nature. Our League's bestrecruits are among the women of India, and the women of Madras boastthat they marched in procession when the men were stopped, and thattheir prayers in the temples set the interned captives free. Home Rulehas become so intertwined with religion by the prayers offered up in thegreat Southern Temples, sacred places of pilgrimage, and spreading fromthem to village temples, and also by its being preached up and down thecountry by Sadhus and Sannyasins, that it has become in the minds of thewomen and of the ever religious masses, inextricably intertwined withreligion. That is, in this country, the surest way of winning alike thewomen of the higher classes and the men and women villagers. And that iswhy I have said that the two words, "Home Rule, " have become a Mantram. 

THE AWAKENING OF THE MASSES. 

 * * * * *

CHAPTER III. 

WHY INDIA DEMANDS HOME RULE. 

India demands Home Rule for two reasons, one essential and vital, theother less important but necessary: Firstly, because Freedom is thebirthright of every Nation; secondly, because her most importantinterests are now made subservient to the interests of the BritishEmpire without her consent, and her resources are not utilised for hergreatest needs. It is enough only to mention the money spent on herArmy, not for local defence but for Imperial purposes, as compared withthat spent on primary education. 

I. THE VITAL REASON. 

What is a Nation?

Self-Government is necessary to the self-respect and dignity of aPeople; Other-Government emasculates a Nation, lowers its character, andlessens its capacity. The wrong done by the Arms Act, which Raja RampalSingh voiced in the Second Congress as a wrong which outweighed all thebenefits of British Rule, was its weakening and debasing effect onIndian manhood. "We cannot, " he declared, "be grateful to it fordegrading our natures, for systematically crushing out all martialspirit, for converting a race of soldiers and heroes into a timid flockof quill-driving sheep. " This was done not by the fact that a man didnot carry arms--few carry them in England--but that men were deprived ofthe _right_ to carry them. A Nation, an individual, cannot develop hiscapacities to the utmost without liberty. And this is recognisedeverywhere except in India. As Mazzini truly said:

 God has written a line of His thought over the cradle of every people. That is its special mission. It cannot be cancelled; it must be freely developed. 

For what is a Nation? It is a spark of the Divine Fire, a fragment ofthe Divine Life, outbreathed into the world, and gathering round itselfa mass of individuals, men, women and children, whom it binds togetherinto one. Its qualities, its powers, in a word, its type, depend on thefragment of the Divine Life embodied in it, the Life which shapes it, evolves it, colours it, and makes it One. The magic of Nationality isthe feeling of oneness, and the use of Nationality is to serve the worldin the particular way for which its type fits it. This is what Mazzinicalled "its special mission, " the duty given to it by God in itsbirth-hour. Thus India had the duty of spreading the idea of Dharma, Persia that of Purity, Egypt that of Science, Greece that of Beauty, Rome that of Law. But to render its full service to Humanity it mustdevelop along its own lines, and be Self-determined in its evolution. Itmust be Itself, and not Another. The whole world suffers where aNationality is distorted or suppressed, before its mission to the worldis accomplished. 

The Cry for Self-Rule. 

Hence the cry of a Nation for Freedom, for Self-Rule, is not a cry ofmere selfishness demanding more Rights that it may enjoy more happiness. Even in that there is nothing wrong, for happiness means fulness oflife, and to enjoy such fulness is a righteous claim. But the demand forSelf-Rule is a demand for the evolution of its own nature for theService of Humanity. It is a demand of the deepest Spirituality, anexpression of the longing to give its very best to the world. Hencedangers cannot check it, nor threats appal, nor offerings of greaterpleasures lure it to give up its demand for Freedom. In the adaptedwords of a Christian Scripture, it passionately cries: "What shall itprofit a Nation if it gain the whole world and lose its own Soul? Whatshall a Nation give in exchange for its Soul?" Better hardship andfreedom, than luxury and thraldom. This is the spirit of the Home Rulemovement, and therefore it cannot be crushed, it cannot be destroyed, itis eternal and ever young. Nor can it be persuaded to exchange itsbirthright for any mess of efficiency-pottage at the hands of thebureaucracy. 

Stunting the Race. 

Coming closer to the daily life of the people as individuals, we seethat the character of each man, woman and child is degraded and weakenedby a foreign administration, and this is most keenly felt by the bestIndians. Speaking on the employment of Indians in the Public Services, Gopal Krishna Gokhale said:

 A kind of dwarfing or stunting of the Indian race is going on under the present system. We must live all the days of our life in an atmosphere of inferiority, and the tallest of us must bend, in order that the exigencies of the system may be satisfied. The upward impulse, if I may use such an expression, which every schoolboy at Eton or Harrow may feel that he may one day be a Gladstone, a Nelson, or a Wellington, and which may draw forth the best efforts of which he is capable, that is denied to us. The full height to which our manhood is capable of rising can never be reached by us under the present system. The moral elevation which every Self-governing people feel cannot be felt by us. Our administrative and military talents must gradually disappear owing to sheer disuse, till at last our lot, as hewers of wood and drawers of water in our own country, is stereotyped. 

The Hon. Mr. Bhupendranath Basu has spoken on similar lines:

 A bureaucratic administration, conducted by an imported agency, and centring all power in its hands, and undertaking all responsibility, has acted as a dead weight on the Soul of India, stifling in us all sense of initiative, for the lack of which we are condemned, atrophying the nerves of action and, what is more serious, necessarily dwarfing in us all feeling of self-respect. 

In this connexion the warning of Lord Salisbury to Cooper's Hillstudents is significant:

 No system of Government can be permanently safe where there is a feeling of inferiority or of mortification affecting the relations between the governing and the governed. There is nothing I would more earnestly wish to impress upon all who leave this country for the purpose of governing India than that, if they choose to be so, they are the only enemies England has to fear. They are the persons who can, if they will, deal a blow of the deadliest character at the future rule of England. 

I have ventured to urge this danger, which has increased of late years, in consequence of the growing self-respect of the Indians, but theostrich policy is thought to be preferable in my part of the country. 

This stunting of the race begins with the education of the child. TheSchools differentiate between British and Indian teachers; the Collegesdo the same. The students see first-class Indians superseded by youngand third-rate foreigners; the Principal of a College should be aforeigner; foreign history is more important than Indian; to havewritten on English villages is a qualification for teaching economics inIndia; the whole atmosphere of the School and College emphasises thesuperiority of the foreigner, even when the professors abstain from openassertion thereof. The Education Department controls the educationgiven, and it is planned on foreign models, and its object is to serveforeign rather than native ends, to make docile Government servantsrather than patriotic citizens; high spirits, courage, self-respect, arenot encouraged, and docility is regarded as the most precious quality inthe student; pride in country, patriotism, ambition, are looked on asdangerous, and English, instead of Indian, Ideals are exalted; theblessings of a foreign rule and the incapacity of Indians to managetheir own affairs are constantly inculcated. What wonder that boys thustrained often turn out, as men, time-servers and sycophants, and, finding their legitimate ambitions frustrated, become selfish and carelittle for the public weal? Their own inferiority has been so driveninto them during their most impressionable years, that they do not evenfeel what Mr. Asquith called the "intolerable degradation of a foreignyoke. "

India's Rights. 

It is not a question whether the rule is good or bad. German efficiencyin Germany is far greater than English efficiency in England; theGermans were better fed, had more amusements and leisure, less crushingpoverty than the English. But would any Englishman therefore desire tosee Germans occupying all the highest positions in England? Why not?Because the righteous self-respect and dignity of the free man revoltagainst foreign domination, however superior. As Mr. Asquith said at thebeginning of the War, such a condition was "inconceivable and would beintolerable. " Why then is it the one conceivable system here in India?Why is it not felt by all Indians to be intolerable? It is because ithas become a habit, bred in us from childhood, to regard the sahib-logas our natural superiors, and the greatest injury British rule has doneto Indians is to deprive them of the natural instinct born in all freepeoples, the feeling of an inherent right to Self-determination, to bethemselves. Indian dress, Indian food, Indian ways, Indian customs, areall looked on as second-rate; Indian mother-tongue and Indian literaturecannot make an educated man. Indians as well as Englishmen take it forgranted that the natural rights of every Nation do not belong to them;they claim "a larger share in the government of the country, " instead ofclaiming the government of their own country, and they are expected tofeel grateful for "boons, " for concessions. Britain is to say what shewill give. The whole thing is wrong, topsy-turvy, irrational. Thank Godthat India's eyes are opening; that myriads of her people realise thatthey are men, with a man's right to freedom in his own country, a man'sright to manage his own affairs. India is no longer on her knees forboons; she is on her feet for Rights. It is because I have taught thisthat the English in India misunderstand me and call me seditious; it isbecause I have taught this that I am President of this Congress to-day. 

This may seem strong language, because the plain truth is not usuallyput in India. But this is what every Briton feels in Britain for his owncountry, and what every Indian should feel in India for his. This is theFreedom for which the Allies are fighting; this is Democracy, the Spiritof the Age. And this is what every true Briton will feel is India'sRight the moment India claims it for herself, as she is claiming itnow. When this right is gained, then will the tie between India andGreat Britain become a golden link of mutual love and service, and theiron chain of a foreign yoke will fall away. We shall live and work sideby side, with no sense of distrust and dislike, working as brothers forcommon ends. And from that union shall arise the mightiest Empire, orrather Commonwealth, that the world has ever known, a Commonwealth that, in God's good time, shall put an end to War. 

II. THE SECONDARY REASONS. 

Tests of Efficiency. 

The Secondary Reasons for the present demand for Home Rule may be summedup in the blunt statement: "The present rule, while efficient in lessimportant matters and in those which concern British interests, isinefficient in the greater matters on which the healthy life andhappiness of the people depend. " Looking at outer things, such asexternal order, posts and telegraphs--except where political agitatorsare concerned--main roads, railways, etc. , foreign visitors, whoexpected to find a semi-savage country, hold up their hands inadmiration. But if they saw the life of the people, the masses ofstruggling clerks trying to educate their children on Rs. 25 (28s. 0-1/4d. ) a month, the masses of labourers with one meal a day, and thehuts in which they live, they would find cause for thought. And if theeducated men talked freely with them, they would be surprised at theirbitterness. Gopal Krishna Gokhale put the whole matter very plainly in1911:

 One of the fundamental conditions of the peculiar position of the British Government in this country is that it should be a continuously progressive Government. I think all thinking men, to whatever community they belong, will accept that. Now, I suggest four tests to judge whether the Government is progressive, and, further, whether it is continuously progressive. The first test that I would apply is what measures it adopts for the moral and material improvement of the mass of the people, and under these measures I do not include those appliances of modern Governments which the British Government has applied in this country, because they were appliances necessary for its very existence, though they have benefited the people, such as the construction of Railways, the introduction of Post and Telegraphs, and things of that kind. By measures for the moral and material improvement of the people, I mean what the Government does for education, what the Government does for sanitation, what the Government does for agricultural development, and so forth. That is my first test. The second test that I would apply is what steps the Government takes to give us a larger share in the administration of our local affairs--in municipalities and local boards. My third test is what voice the Government gives us in its Councils--in those deliberate assemblies, where policies are considered. And, lastly, we must consider how far Indians are admitted into the ranks of the public service. 

A Change of System Needed. 

Those were Gokhale's tests, and Indians can supply the results of theirknowledge and experience to answer them. But before dealing with thefailure to meet these tests, it is necessary to state here that it isnot a question of blaming men, or of substituting Indians forEnglishmen, but of changing the system itself. It is a commonplace thatthe best men become corrupted by the possession of irresponsible power. As Bernard Houghton says: "The possession of unchecked power corruptssome of the finer qualities. " Officials quite honestly come to believethat those who try to change the system are undermining the security ofthe State. They identify the State with themselves, so that criticism ofthem is seen as treason to the State. The phenomenon is well known inhistory, and it is only repeating itself in India. The same writer--Iprefer to use his words rather than my own, for he expresses exactly myown views, and will not be considered to be prejudiced as I am thoughtto be--cogently remarks:

 He (the official) has become an expert in reports and returns and matters of routine through many years of practice. They are the very woof and warp of his brain. He has no ideas, only reflexes. He views with acrid disfavour untried conceptions. From being constantly preoccupied with the manipulation of the machine he regards its smooth working, the ordered and harmonious regulation of glittering pieces of machinery, as the highest service he can render to the country of his adoption. He determines that his particular cog-wheel at least shall be bright, smooth, silent, and with absolutely no back-lash. Not unnaturally in course of time he comes to envisage the world through the strait embrasure of an office window. When perforce he must report on new proposals he will place in the forefront, not their influence on the life and progress of the people, but their convenience to the official hierarchy and the manner in which they affect its authority. Like the monks of old, or the squire in the typical English village, he cherishes a benevolent interest in the commonalty, and is quite willing, even eager, to take a general interest in their welfare, if only they do not display initiative or assert themselves in opposition to himself or his order. There is much in this proviso. Having come to regard his own judgment as almost divine, and the hierarchy of which he has the honour to form a part as a sacrosanct institution, he tolerates the laity so long as they labour quietly and peaceably at their vocations and do not presume to inter-meddle in high matters of State. That is the heinous offence. And frank criticism of official acts touches a lower depth still, even _lèse majesté_. For no official will endure criticism from his subordinates, and the public, who lie in outer darkness beyond the pale, do not in his estimation rank even with his subordinates. How, then, should he listen with patience when in their cavilling way they insinuate that, in spite of the labours of a high-souled bureaucracy, all is perhaps not for the best in the best of all possible worlds--still less when they suggest reforms that had never occurred even to him or to his order, and may clash with his most cherished ideals? It is for the officials to govern the country; they alone have been initiated into the sacred mysteries; they alone understand the secret working of the machine. At the utmost the laity may tender respectful and humble suggestions for their consideration, but no more. As for those who dare to think and act for themselves, their ignorant folly is only equalled by their arrogance. It is as though a handful of schoolboys were to dictate to their masters alterations in the traditional time-table, or to insist on a modified curriculum. .. . These worthy people [officials] confuse manly independence with disloyalty; they cannot conceive of natives except either as rebels or as timid sheep. 

Non-Official Anglo-Indians. 

The problem becomes more complicated by the existence in India of asmall but powerful body of the same race as the higher officials; thereare only 122, 919 English-born persons in this country, while there are245, 000, 000 in the British Raj and another 70, 000, 000 in the IndianStates, more or less affected by British influence. As a rule, thenon-officials do not take any part in politics, being otherwiseoccupied; but they enter the field when any hope arises in Indian heartsof changes really beneficial to the Nation. John Stuart Mill observed onthis point:

 The individuals of the ruling people who resort to the foreign country to make their fortunes are of all others those who most need to be held under powerful restraint. They are always one of the chief difficulties of the Government. Armed with the prestige and filled with the scornful overbearingness of the conquering Nation, they have the feelings inspired by absolute power without its sense of responsibility. 

Similarly, Sir John Lawrence wrote:

 The difficulty in the way of the Government of India acting fairly in these matters is immense. If anything is done, or attempted to be done, to help the natives, a general howl is raised, which reverberates in England, and finds sympathy and support there. I feel quite bewildered sometimes what to do. Everyone is, in the abstract, for justice, moderation, and suchlike excellent qualities; but when one comes to apply such principles so as to affect anybody's interests, then a change comes over them. 

Keene, speaking of the principle of treating equally all classes of thecommunity, says:

 The application of that maxim, however, could not be made without sometimes provoking opposition among the handful of white settlers in India who, even when not connected with the administration, claimed a kind of class ascendancy which was not only in the conditions of the country but also in the nature of the case. It was perhaps natural that in a land of caste the compatriots of the rulers should become--as Lord Lytton said--a kind of "white Brahmanas"; and it was certain that, as a matter of fact, the pride of race and the possession of western civilisation created a sense of superiority, the display of which was ungraceful and even dangerous, when not tempered by official responsibility. This feeling had been sensitive enough in the days of Lord William Bentinck, when the class referred to was small in numbers and devoid of influence. It was now both more numerous, and--by reason of its connection with the newspapers of Calcutta and of London--it was far better able to make its passion heard. 

During Lord Ripon's sympathetic administration the great outburstoccurred against the Ilbert Bill in 1883. We are face to face with asimilar phenomenon to-day, when we see the European Associations--underthe leadership of the _Madras Mail_, the _Englishman_ of Calcutta, the_Pioneer of_ Allahabad, the _Civil and Military Gazette_ of Lahore, withtheir Tory and Unionist allies in the London Press and with the aid ofretired Indian officials and non-officials in England--desperatelyresisting the Reforms now proposed. Their opposition, we know, is adanger to the movement towards Freedom, and even when they have failedto impress England--as they are evidently failing--they will try tominimise or smother here the reforms which a statute has embodied. TheMinto-Morley reforms were thus robbed of their usefulness, and a similarattempt, if not guarded against, will be made when the Congress-LeagueScheme is used as the basis for an Act. 

The Re-action on England. 

We cannot leave out of account here the deadly harm done to Englandherself by this un-English system of rule in India. Mr. Hobson haspointed out:

 As our free Self-Governing Colonies have furnished hope, encouragement, and leading to the popular aspirations in Great Britain, not merely by practical success in the art of Self-Government, but by the wafting of a spirit of freedom and equality, so our despotically ruled Dependencies have ever served to damage the character of our people by feeding the habits of snobbish subservience, the admiration of wealth and rank, the corrupt survivals of the inequalities of feudalism. .. . Cobden writing in 1860 of our Indian Empire, put this pithy question: "Is it not just possible that we may become corrupted at home by the reaction of arbitrary political maxims in the East upon our domestic politics, just as Greece and Rome were demoralised by their contact with Asia?" Not merely is the reaction possible, it is inevitable. As the despotic portion of our Empire, has grown in area, a large number of men, trained in the temper and methods of autocracy, as soldiers and civil officials in our Crown Colonies, Protectorates and Indian Empire, reinforced by numbers of merchants, planters, engineers, and overseers, whose lives have been those of a superior caste living an artificial life removed from all the healthy restraints of ordinary European Society, have returned to this country, bringing back the characters, sentiments and ideas imposed by this foreign environment. 

It is a little hard on the I. C. S. That they should be foreigners here, and then, when they return to their native land, find that they havebecome foreigners there by the corrupting influences with which theyare surrounded here. We import them as raw material to our owndisadvantage, and when we export them as manufactured here, GreatBritain and India alike suffer from their reactionary tendencies. Theresults are unsatisfactory to both sides. 

The First Test Applied. 

Let us now apply Gokhale's first test. What has the Bureaucracy done for"education, sanitation, agricultural improvement, and so forth"? I mustput the facts very briefly, but they are indisputable. 

_Education_. The percentage to the whole population of childrenreceiving education is 2. 8, the percentage having risen by 0. 9 since Mr. Gokhale moved his Education Bill six years ago. The percentage ofchildren of school-going age attending school is 18. 7. In 1913 theGovernment of India put the number of pupils at 4-1/2 millions; this hasbeen accomplished in 63 years, reckoning from Sir Charles Wood'sEducational Despatch in 1854, which led to the formation of theEducation Department. In 1870 an Education Act was passed in GreatBritain, the condition of Education in England then much resembling ourpresent position; grants-in-aid in England had been given since 1833, chiefly to Church Schools. Between 1870 and 1881 free and compulsoryeducation was established, and in 12 years the attendance rose from 43. 3to nearly 100 per cent. There are now 6, 000, 000 children in the schoolsof England and Wales out of a population of 40 millions. Japan, before1872, had a proportion of 28 per cent. Of children of school-going age inschool, nearly 10 over our present proportion; in 24 years thepercentage was raised to 92, and in 28 years education was free andcompulsory. In Baroda education is free and largely compulsory and thepercentage of boys is 100 per cent. Travancore has 81. 1 per cent. Ofboys and 33. 2 of girls. Mysore has 45. 8 of boys and 9. 7 of girls. Barodaspends an. 6-6 per head on school-going children, British India oneanna. Expenditure on education advanced between 1882 and 1907 by 57lakhs. Land-revenue had increased by 8 crores, military expenditure by13 crores, civil by 8 crores, and capital outlay on railways was 15crores. (I am quoting G. K. Gokhale's figures. ) He ironically calculatedthat, if the population did not increase, every boy would be in school115 years hence, and every girl in 665 years. Brother Delegates, we hopeto do it more quickly under Home Rule. I submit that in Education theBureaucracy is inefficient. 

_Sanitation and Medical Relief_. The prevalence of plague, cholera, andabove all malaria, shows the lack of sanitation alike in town andcountry. This lack is one of the causes contributing to the low averagelife-period in India--23. 5 years. In England the life-period is 40years, in New Zealand 60. The chief difficulty in the way of thetreatment of disease is the encouragement of the foreign system ofmedicine, especially in rural parts, and the withholding of grants fromthe indigenous. Government Hospitals, Government Dispensaries, Government doctors, must all be on the foreign system. Ayurvaidic andUnani medicines, Hospitals, Dispensaries, Physicians, are unrecognised, and to "cover" the latter is "infamous" conduct. Travancore givesgrants-in-aid to 72 Vaidyashalas, at which 143, 505 patients--22, 000 morethan in allopathic institutions--were treated in 1914-15 (the Reportissued in 1917). Our Government cannot grapple with the medical needs ofthe people, yet will not allow the people's money to be spent on thesystems they prefer. Under Home Rule the indigenous and the foreignsystems will be treated with impartiality. I grant that the allopathicdoctors do their utmost to supply the need, and show greatself-sacrifice, but the need is too vast and the numbers too few. Efficiency on their own lines in this matter is therefore impossible forour bureaucratic Government; their fault lies in excluding theindigenous systems, which they have not condescended to examine beforerejecting them. The result is that in sanitation and medical relief theBureaucracy is inefficient. 

_Agricultural Development_. The census of 1911 gives the agriculturalpopulation at 218. 3 millions. Its frightful poverty is a matter ofcommon knowledge; its ever-increasing load of indebtedness has beendwelt on for at least the last thirty odd years by Sir Dinshaw E. Wacha. Yet the increasing debt is accompanied with increasing taxation, landrevenue having risen, as just stated, in 25 years, by 8crores--80, 000, 000--of rupees. In addition to this there are localcesses, salt tax, etc. The salt tax, which presses most hardly on thevery poor, was raised in the last budget by Rs. 9 millions. Theinevitable result of this poverty is malnutrition, resulting in lowvitality, lack of resistance to disease, short life-period, hugeinfantile mortality. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, no mischievous agitator, repeated in 1905 the figures; often quoted:

 Forty millions of people, according to one great Anglo-Indian authority--Sir William Hunter--pass through life with only one meal a day. According to another authority--Sir Charles Elliot--70 millions of people in India do not know what it is to have their hunger fully satisfied even once in the whole course of the year. The poverty of the people of India, thus considered by itself, is truly appalling. And if this is the state of things after a hundred years of your rule, you cannot claim that your principal aim in India has been the promotion of the interests of the Indian people. 

It is sometimes said: "Why harp on these figures? We know them. " Ouranswer is that the fact is ever harping in the stomach of the people, and while it continues we cannot cease to draw attention to it. AndGokhale urged that "even this deplorable condition has been furtherdeteriorating steadily. " We have no figures on malnutrition among thepeasantry, but in Madras City, among an equally poor urban population, we found that 78 per cent. Of our pupils were reported, after a medicalinspection, to be suffering from malnutrition. And the spareness offrame, the thinness of arms and legs, the pitiably weak grip on life, speak without words to the seeing eye. It needs an extraordinary lack ofimagination not to suffer while these things are going on. 

The peasants' grievances are many and have been voiced year after yearby this Congress. The Forest Laws, made by legislators inappreciative ofvillage difficulties, press hardly on them, and only in a small numberof places have Forest Panchayats been established. In the few cases inwhich the experiment has been made the results have been good, in somecases marvellously good. The paucity of grazing grounds for theircattle, the lack of green manure to feed their impoverished lands, theabsence of fencing round forests, so that the cattle stray in whenfeeding, are impounded, and have to be redeemed, the fines and otherpunishments imposed for offences ill-understood, the want of wood forfuel, for tools, for repairs, the uncertain distribution of theavailable water, all these troubles are discussed in villages and inlocal Conferences. The Arms Act oppresses them, by leaving themdefenceless against wild beasts and wild men. The union of Judicial andExecutive functions makes justice often inaccessible, and always costlyboth in money and in time. The village officials naturally care more toplease the Tahsildar and the Collector than the villagers, to whom theyare in no way responsible. And factions flourish, because there isalways a third party to whom to resort, who may be flattered if his rankbe high, bribed if it be low, whose favour can be gained in either caseby cringing and by subservience and tale-bearing. As regards thecondition of agriculture in India and the poverty of the agriculturalpopulation, the Bureaucracy is inefficient. 

The application of Mr. Gokhale's first test to Indian handicrafts, tothe strengthening of weak industries and the creation of new, to thecare of waterways for traffic and of the coast transport shipping, theprotection of indigo and other indigenous dyes against their Germansynthetic rivals, etc. , would show similar answers. We are suffering nowfrom the supineness of the Bureaucracy as regards the development of theresources of the country, by its careless indifference to the usurpingby Germans of some of those resources, and even now they are pursuing asimilar policy of _laissez faire_ towards Japanese enterprise, which, leaning on its own Government, is taking the place of Germany inshouldering Indians out of their own natural heritage. 

In all prosperous countries crafts are found side by-side withagriculture, and they lend each other mutual support. The extremepoverty of Ireland, and the loss of more than half its population byemigration, were the direct results of the destruction of itswool-industry by Great Britain, and the consequent throwing of thepopulation entirely on the land for subsistence. A similar phenomenonhas resulted here from a similar case, but on a far more widespreadscale. And here, a novel and portentous change for India, "aconsiderable landless class is developing, which involves economicdanger, " as the _Imperial Gazeteer_ remarks, comparing the censusreturns of 1891 and 1901. "The ordinary agricultural labourers areemployed on the land only during the busy seasons of the year, and inslack times a few are attracted to large trade-centres for temporarywork. " One recalls the influx into England of Irish labourers at harvesttime. Professor Radkamal Mukerji has laid stress on the older conditionsof village life. He says:

 The village is still almost self-sufficing, and is in itself an economic unit. The village agriculturist grows all the food necessary for the inhabitants of the village. The smith makes the plough-shares for the cultivator, and the few iron utensils required for the household. He supplies these to the people, but does not get money in return. He is recompensed by mutual services from his fellow villagers. The potter supplies him with pots, the weaver with cloth, and the oilman with oil. From the cultivator each of these artisans receives his traditional share of grain. Thus almost all the economic transactions are carried on without the use of money. To the villagers money is only a store of value, not a medium of exchange. When they happen to be rich in money, they hoard it either in coins or make ornaments made of gold and silver. 

These conditions are changing in consequence of the pressure of povertydriving the villagers to the city, where they learn to substitute thecompetition of the town for the mutual helpfulness of the village. Thedifference of feeling, the change from trustfulness to suspicion, may beseen by visiting villages which are in the vicinity of a town andcomparing their villagers with those who inhabit villages in purelyrural areas. This economic and moral deterioration can only be checkedby the re-establishment of a healthy _and interesting_ village life, andthis depends upon the re-establishment of the Panchayat as the unit ofGovernment, a question which I deal with presently. Village industrieswould then revive and an intercommunicating network would be formed byCo-operative Societies. Mr. C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar says in his pamphlet, _Co-operative Societies and Panchayats_:

 The one method by which this evil [emigration to towns] can be arrested and the economic and social standards of life of the rural people elevated is by the inauguration of healthy Panchayats in conjunction with the foundation of Co-operative institutions, which will have the effect of resuscitating village industries, and of creating organised social forces. The Indian village, when rightly reconstructed, would be an excellent foundation for well-developed co-operative industrial organisation. 

Again:

 The resuscitation of the village system has other bearings, not usually considered in connection with the general subject of the inauguration of the Panchayat system. One of the most important of these is the regeneration of the small industries of the land. Both in Europe and in India the decline of small industries has gone on _pari passu_ with the decline of farming on a small scale. In countries like France agriculture has largely supported village industries, and small cultivators in that country have turned their attention to industry as a supplementary source of livelihood. The decline of village life in India is not only a political, but also an economic and industrial, problem. Whereas in Europe the cultural impulse has travelled from the city to the village, in India the reverse has been the case. The centre of social life in this country is the village, and not the town. Ours was essentially the cottage industry, and our artisans still work in their own huts, more or less out of touch with the commercial world. Throughout the world the tendency has been of late to lay considerable emphasis on distributive and industrial co-operation based on a system of village industries and enterprise. Herein would be found the origins of the arts and crafts guilds and the Garden Cities, the idea underlying all these being to inaugurate a reign of Socialism and Co-operation, eradicating the entirely unequal distribution of wealth amongst producers and consumers. India has always been a country of small tenantry, and has thereby escaped many of the evils the western Nations have experienced owing to the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The communistic sense in our midst, and the fundamental tenets of our family life, have checked such concentration of capital. This has been the cause for the non-development of factory industries on a large scale. 

The need for these changes--to which England is returning, after fullexperience of the miseries of life in manufacturing towns--is pressing. 

Addressing an English audience, G. K. Gokhale summed up the general stateof India as follows:

 Your average annual income has been estimated at about £42 per head. Ours, according to official estimates, is about £2 per head, and according to non-official estimates, only a little more than £1 per head. Your imports per head are about £13: ours about 5s. Per head. The total deposits in your Postal Savings Bank amount to 148 million sterling, and you have in addition in the Trustees' Savings Banks about 52 million sterling. Our Postal Savings Bank deposits, with a population seven times as large as yours, are only about 7 million sterling, and even of this a little over one-tenth is held by Europeans. Your total paid-up capital of joint-stock companies is about 1, 900 million sterling. Ours is not quite 26 million sterling, and the greater part of this again is European. Four-fifths of our people are dependent upon agriculture, and agriculture has been for some time steadily deteriorating. Indian agriculturists are too poor, and are, moreover, too heavily indebted, to be able to apply any capital to land, and the result is that over the greater part of India agriculture is, as Sir James Caird pointed out more than twenty-five years ago, only a process of exhaustion of the soil. The yield per acre is steadily diminishing, being now only about 8 to 9 bushels an acre against about 30 bushels here in England. 

In all the matters which come under Gokhale's first test, theBureaucracy has been and is inefficient. 

Give Indians a Chance. 

All we say in the matter is: You have not succeeded in bringingeducation, health, prosperity, to the masses of the people. Is it nottime to give Indians a chance of doing, for their own country, worksimilar to that which Japan and other nations have done for theirs?Surely the claim is not unreasonable. If the Anglo-Indians say that themasses are their peculiar care, and that the educated classes care notfor them, but only for place and power, then we point to the Congress, to the speeches and the resolutions eloquent of their love and theirknowledge. It is not their fault that they gaze on their country'spoverty in helpless despair. Or let Mr. Justice Rahim answer:

 As for the representation of the interests of the many scores of millions in India, if the claim be that they are better represented by European Officials than by educated Indian Officials or non-Officials, it is difficult to conceive how such reckless claim has come to be urged. The inability of English Officials to master the spoken language of India and their habits of life and modes of thought so completely divide them from the general population, that only an extremely limited few, possessed with extraordinary powers of insight, have ever been able to surmount the barriers. With the educated Indians, on the other hand, this knowledge is instinctive, and the view of religion and custom so strong in the East make their knowledge and sympathy more real than is to be seen in countries dominated by materialistic conceptions. 

And it must be remembered that it is not lack of ability which hasbrought about bureaucratic inefficiency, for British traders andproducers have done uncommonly well for themselves in India. But aBureaucracy does not trouble itself about matters of this kind; theRussian Bureaucracy did not concern itself with the happiness of theRussian masses, but with their obedience and their paying of taxes. Bureaucracies are the same everywhere, and therefore it is the system wewage war upon, not the men; we do not want to substitute Indianbureaucrats for British bureaucrats; we want to abolish Bureaucracy, Government by Civil Servants. 

The Other Tests Applied. 

I need not delay over the second, third, and fourth tests, for theanswers _sautent aux yeux_. 

_The second test, Local Self-Government:_ Under Lord Mayo (1869-72) someattempts were made at decentralisation, called by Keene "Home Rule" (!), and his policy was followed on non-financial lines as well by LordRipon, who tried to infuse into what Keene calls "the germs of HomeRule" "the breath of life. " Now, in 1917, an experimental and limitedmeasure of local Home Rule is to be tried in Bengal. Though the Reportof the Decentralisation Committee was published in 1909, we have not yetarrived at the universal election of non-official Chairmen. Decidedlyinefficient is the Bureaucracy under test 2. 

_The third test, Voice in the Councils:_ The part played by Indianelected members in the Legislative Council, Madras, was lately describedby a member as "a farce. " The Supreme Legislative Council was called byone of its members "a glorified Debating Society. " A table ofresolutions proposed by Indian elected members, and passed or lost, waslately drawn up, and justified the caustic epithets. With regard to theMinto-Morley reforms, the Bureaucracy showed great efficiency indestroying the benefits intended by the Parliamentary Statute. But thethird test shows that in giving Indians a fair voice in the Councils theBureaucracy was inefficient. 

_The fourth test, the Admission of Indians to the Public Services:_ Thisis shown, by the Report of the Commission, not to need any destructiveactivity on the part of the Bureaucracy to prove their unwillingness topass it, for the Report protects them in their privileged position. 

We may add to Gokhale's tests one more, which will be triumphantlypassed, the success of the Bureaucracy in increasing the cost ofadministration. The estimates for the revenue of the coming year standat £86, 199, 600 sterling. The expenditure is reckoned at £85, 572, 100sterling. The cost of administration stands at more than half the totalrevenue:

 Civil Departments Salaries and Expenses £19, 323, 300 Civil Miscellaneous Charges 5, 283, 300 Military Services 23, 165, 900 ___________ £47, 772, 500 ___________

The reduction of the abnormal cost of government in India is of the mostpressing nature, but this will never be done until we win Home Rule. 

It will be seen that the Secondary Reasons for the demand for Home Ruleare of the weightiest nature in themselves, and show the necessity forits grant if India is to escape from a poverty which threatens to leadto National bankruptcy, as it has already led to a short life-period anda high death rate, to widespread disease, and to a growing exhaustion ofthe soil. That some radical change must be brought about in thecondition of our masses, if a Revolution of Hunger is to be averted, ispatent to all students of history, who also know the poverty of theIndian masses to-day. This economic condition is due to many causes, ofwhich the inevitable lack of understanding by an alien Government isonly one. A system of government suitable to the West was forced on theEast, destroying its own democratic and communal institutions andimposing bureaucratic methods which bewildered and deteriorated a peopleto whom they were strange and repellent. The result is not a matter forrecrimination, but for change. An inappropriate system forced on analready highly civilised people was bound to fail. It has been rightlysaid that the poor only revolt when the misery they are enduring isgreater than the dangers of revolt. We need Home Rule to stop the dailysuffering of our millions from the diminishing yield of the soil and thedecay of village industries.