THE FUTURE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT[20]
Before considering the case for self-government in British India, a
few words may be said about the semi-independent Native States.
There is an interest attaching to these Native States which is
twofold for the political observer. They present in the first place
a picture, instructive if not entirely accurate, of the India of
past days, and so serve in some measure as landmarks and records of
the changes for good and evil our rule has caused. And secondly,
they afford indications of the real capacity for self-government
possessed by the indigenous races.
When one has seen a native court, with its old-world etiquettes,
its ordered official hierarchies, and its fixed notions, one
learns something, which no amount of reading could teach, about
the tradition of paternal government long swept away in Madras and
Bengal. One recognizes how much there was that was good in the
past in the harmonious relations of governors and governed, in
the personal connection of princes and peoples, in the tolerance
which gave to each caste and creed its recognized position in the
social family. One is surprised to find how naturally such adverse
elements as the Hindu Brahmin and the Mohammedan nobleman lay down
together under a system which precluded class rivalry, and how
tolerant opinion was in all the practical details of life. One does
not readily imagine from the mere teaching of history the reason
which should place a Mussulman from Lucknow in command of the
army of a Rajput prince, or a Hindu statesman in the position of
vizier to a Nizam of the Deccan. Yet seeing, one understands these
things, and one recognizes in them something of the natural law
existing between “the creatures of the flood and field” which makes
it impossible “their strife should last.” In the traditional life
of ancient India there was an astonishing tolerance now changed to
intolerance, an astonishing order in face of occasional disorder,
and a large material contentment which neither war nor the other
insecurities of life permanently affected. It is impossible, too,
after having visited a native court, to maintain that the Indian
natives are incapable of indigenous government. The fact which
proves the contrary exists too palpably before one’s eyes. The
late Sir Salar Jung was as distinctly a statesman as Lawrence or
Dalhousie; and among the Mahrattas there are not a few diwans to be
found in office capable of discharging almost any public function.
At the same time it is abundantly clear that in all that
constitutes intellectual life the India of old days, as represented
in the still independent States, was far more than a century behind
the India of our day. Mental culture is at the lowest ebb in the
capitals of the native princes. They possess neither schools on any
large plan, nor public libraries, nor are books printed in them nor
newspapers published. I was astonished to find how in the centre of
busy intellectual India large flourishing towns were to be found
completely isolated from all the world, absorbed in their own local
affairs, and intellectually asleep. At certain of the native courts
history is still represented by the reciter of oral traditions,
letters by the court poet, and science by professors of astrology;
while the general politics of the Empire hardly affect, even in a
remote degree, the mass of the unlettered citizens. Last winter’s
storm over Lord Ripon’s internal policy left the native States
absolutely unmoved. There is both good and bad in this.
With regard to their material prosperity, as contrasted with
British India, I can only speak of what I have seen. The
territories of the native princes are for the most part not the
most fertile tracts of India; and one cannot avoid a suspicion that
their comparative poverty has been the cause of their continued
immunity from annexation. Nearly the whole of the rich irrigated
ricelands of the peninsula are now British territory; and the
estates of the Nizam, and the two great Mahratta princes Holkar
and Scindia, comprise a large amount of untilled jungle. These
countries possess no seaports or navigable rivers, and their arable
tracts are not of the first order of productiveness, while the
Rajput princes are lords of districts almost wholly desert. It
would be, therefore, misleading to compare the material wealth of
the peasantry in any of these States with those of Bengal or the
rich lands of the Madras coast, for the conditions of life in them
are not the same. But, poor land compared with poor land, I think
the comparison would not be unfavourable to the native States.
I was certainly struck in passing from the British Deccan below
Raichore into the Nizam’s Deccan with certain signs of better
condition in the latter. Most of the Nizam’s villages contain
something in the shape of a stone house belonging to the head man.
The flocks of goats, alone found in the Madras Presidency, are
replaced by flocks of sheep; and one sees here and there a farmer
superintending his labourers on horseback, a sight the British
Deccan never shows. In the few villages of the Nizam which I
entered I found at least this advantage over the others, that there
was no debt, while I was assured that the mortality during the
great Deccan famine was far less severe in the Nizam’s than in her
Majesty’s territory.
It must not, however, be supposed that in any of the native
States the ancient economy of India has been preserved in its
integrity. Free trade has not spared them more than the rest.
Their traditional industries have equally been ruined, and they
suffer equally from the salt monopoly; while in some of them the
British system of assessing the land revenue at its utmost rate,
and levying the taxes in coin, has been adopted to the advantage
of the revenue and the disadvantage of the peasant. On the whole
the agricultural condition of the Hyderabad territory seemed to me
a little, a very little, better than that of its neighbour, the
Madras Deccan, and I believe it is a fact that it is attracting
immigrants from across the border. The Rajput State of Ulwar,
where I also made some inquiries, was represented to me as being
considerably more favourably assessed than British Rajputana.
The best administered districts of India would seem to be those
where a native prince has had the good fortune to secure the
co-operation of a really good English assessor, allowing him to
assess the land, not with a view to immediately increased revenue,
but the true profit of the people. Such are to be found in some
of the Rajput principalities, where the agricultural class is
probably happier, though living on a poor soil, than in any other
part of India; for the assessor, freed from the necessity which
besets him in British territory of raising a larger revenue than
the district can quite afford, and having no personal interest
to serve by severity, allows his kindlier instincts to prevail,
and becomes--what he might be everywhere in India--a protector of
the people. I trust that it is understood by this time that I am
far from affirming that Englishmen are incapable of administering
India to its profit. What I do say is that selfish interests and
the interests of a selfish Government prevent them from so doing
under the present system in British territory. Thus it is certain
that the Berar province of Hyderabad under British administration
has prospered exceedingly; and its prosperity affords precisely
that exceptional instance which proves the general rule of
impoverishment. What may probably be affirmed without any risk of
error is, that the best administered districts of the native States
are also the best administered of all India.
With regard to the town population, I found the few independent
native capitals which I visited exhibiting signs of well-being
in the inhabitants absent in places of the same calibre under
British rule. With the exception of Bombay, which is exceptionally
flourishing, the native quarter, even in the Presidency towns, has
everywhere in British India a squalid look. The “Black Town” of
Madras reminds one disagreeably of Westminster and the Seven Dials:
and there is extreme native misery concealed behind the grandeur of
the European houses in Calcutta. The inland cities are decidedly
in decay. Lucknow and Delhi, once such famous capitals, are shrunk
to mere shadows of their former selves; and there is a distrustful
attitude about their inhabitants which a stranger cannot fail to
notice. The faces of the inhabitants everywhere in Northern India
are those of men conscious of a presence hostile to them, as in
a conquered city. In the capitals of the native States, on the
contrary, there is nothing of all this, and the change in the
aspect of the natives, as one passes from British to native rule,
is most noticeable. The Hyderabadis especially have a well-fed
look not commonly found in the inland towns, and are quite the
best dressed townsmen of India. There is a bustle and cheerfulness
about this city, and a fearless attitude in the crowd, which is a
relief to the traveller after the submissive silence of the British
populations. Elephants, camels, horsemen--all is movement and life
in Hyderabad; and as one passes along one realizes for the first
time the idea of India as it was in the days when it was still
the centre of the world’s wealth and magnificence. That these gay
externals may conceal a background of poverty is possible--English
officials affirm that they do so; but at least it is better thus
than that there should be no gaiety at all, nor other evidence of
well-being than in the bungalows of a foreign cantonment.
Nor is the cause of the better condition far to seek. Whatever
revenue the native court may raise from the people is spent
amongst the people. The money does not leave the country, but
circulates there; and, even where the profusion is most irrational,
something of the pleasure of the spending remains, and is shared
in and enjoyed by all, down to the poorest. In British India the
_tamachas_ of governors-general and lieutenant-governors interest
no one but the aides-de-camp and their friends; and a large portion
of the revenue goes clean away every year, to the profit of other
lands and other peoples.
Of the administration of justice in the native States I had no
opportunity of forming an accurate opinion, but I am willing to
believe that it is less satisfactory in these than in British
India. The only advantage that I could distinctly recognize in
compensation was, what I have already mentioned, the absence of
the Civil Courts, which are so loudly complained of in the latter
on account of the encouragement they give to usury. It is worth
repeating that the only villages I found free from debt in India
were in the Nizam’s territory. With this exception, it is probable
that British justice is better everywhere than “native” justice,
and there is certainly not the same check exercised in a native
State by public opinion over the doings of magistrates and judges.
In all this the native States are far behind the Imperial system,
for the despotic form of rule is the only one recognized in any
of them, Hindu or Mohammedan, and there is no machinery by which
official injustice can be inquired into or controlled. The ideas of
liberty are spreading slowly in India, and the native States are
hardly yet touched by them.
Having said this much about the native States, in which there is as
yet no clamour for reform, I will go on to the question, one quite
apart from them, of British India proper.
Unless I have wholly failed to make my reasoning clear, readers
of these essays will by this time have understood that, in answer
to the question propounded at the outset of this inquiry--namely,
whether the connection between England and India is of profit to
the Indian people; and to the further question whether the Indian
people regard it as of profit--I have come to conclusions on the
whole favourable to that connection.
My argument, in a few words, has been this: seeking the balance
of good and evil, I have found, on the one hand, a vast economic
disturbance, caused partly by the selfish commercial policy of the
English Government, partly by the no less selfish expenditure of
the English official class.
I have found the Indian peasantry poor, in some districts to
starvation, deeply in debt, and without the means of improving
their position; the wealth accumulated in a few great cities and
in a few rich hands; the public revenue spent to a large extent
abroad, and by an absentee Government. I have been unable to
convince myself that the India of 1885 is not a poorer country,
take it altogether, than it was a hundred years ago, when we first
began to manage its finances. I believe, in common with all native
economists, that its modern system of finance is unsound, that far
too large a revenue is raised from the land, and that it is only
maintained at its present high figure by drawing on what may be
called the capital of the country, namely, the material welfare of
the agricultural class--probably, too, the productive power of the
soil. I find a large public debt, and foresee further financial
difficulties.
Again, I find the ancient organization of society broken up, the
interdependence of class and class disturbed, the simple customary
law of the East replaced by a complicated jurisprudence imported
from the West, increased powers given to the recovery of debt, and
consequently increased facilities of litigation and usury. Also
great centralization of power in the hands of officers daily more
and more automatons and less and less interested in the special
districts they administer. In a word, new machinery replacing, on
many points disadvantageously, the old. I do not say that all these
things are unprofitable, but they are not natural to the country,
and are costly out of proportion to their effect of good. India has
appeared to me at best in the light of a large estate which has
been experimented on by a series of Scotch bailiffs, who have all
gone away rich. Everything is very scientific, very trim, and very
new, especially the bailiff’s own house; but the farms can only
be worked now by skilled labourers and at enormous expense; while
a huge capital has been sunk, and the accounts won’t bear looking
into.
On the other side, I have found an end put to the internecine wars
of former days, peace established, security for life given, and
a settled order of things on which men can count. I have never
heard a native of India underrate the advantage of this, nor of
the corresponding enfranchisement of the mind from the bondage in
which it used to lie. A certain atmosphere of political freedom
is necessary for intellectual growth. Where men were liable to
fine, imprisonment, and death for their opinions there could be
no general advance of ideas, and the want of personal liberty had
for centuries held India in mental chains. No one had dared to
think more wisely than his fellows, or, doing so, had speedily been
stopped by force from teaching it to others. But under English
rule, with all its defects, thought has been free, and men who
dared to think have kept their heads, so that a generation has
sprung up to whom liberty of opinion has seemed natural, and with
it has come courage. The Indians in the towns are now highly
educated, write books, found newspapers, attend meetings, make
tours of public lectures, think, speak, and argue fearlessly, and
an immense revival of intellectual and moral energy has been the
result. It is not a small thing, again, that the gross licence
of the old princely courts has given place to a more healthy
life--that crime in high places is no longer common; that sorcery,
poisoning, domestic murder, and lives of senseless depravity are
disappearing; that the burning of widows has been abolished, and
child-marriage is now being agitated against. These things are
distinct gains, which no candid Englishman, any more than do the
candid natives, would dream of underrating. And, as I have said
before, they supply that element of hope which contains in it a
germ of redemption from all other evils. This is the “per contra”
of gain to be set in the balance against India’s loss through
England.
It would, therefore, be more than rash for Indian patriotism to
condemn the English connection. Nor does it yet condemn it. There
is hardly, I believe, an intelligent and single-minded man in the
three Presidencies who would view with complacency the prospect
of immediate separation for his country from the English Crown.
To say nothing of dangers from without, there are dangers from
within well recognized by all. The Indians are no single race;
they profess no one creed, they speak no one language; highly
civilized as portions of their society are, it contains within its
borders portions wholly savage. There are tribes in all the hills
still armed with spear and shield, and the bulk of the peaceful
agricultural population is still in the rudest ignorance. The work
of education is not yet complete, or the need of protection passed.
All recognize this, and with it the necessity for India still of an
armed Imperial rule. Were this withdrawn, it is certain at least
that the present civilized political structure could not endure,
and it is exceedingly doubtful whether any other could be found
to take its place. I do not myself see in what way the issue of a
rupture could be made profitable to the Indian nations, nor do I
understand that the exchange from English to another foreign rule
would improve their condition.
At the same time I recognize that it is impossible the present
condition of things should remain unchanged for more than a
very few years. For reasons which I have stated, the actual
organization of Anglo-Indian government has become hateful to
the natives of India, and however much their reason may be on
the side of patience, there is a daily increasing danger of its
being overpowered by a passionate sentiment evoked by some chance
outbreak. Nor do I believe that it will be again possible for
England to master a military revolt, which would this time have the
sympathy of the whole people. Moreover, even if we should suppose
this fear exaggerated and the evil day of revolt put off, there is
yet the certainty of a Government by force becoming yearly more
costly and more difficult to carry on. It is a mistake to suppose
that India has ever yet been governed merely by the English sword.
The consent of the people has always underlain the exercise of our
power, and were this generally withdrawn it could not be maintained
an hour. At present the Indian populations accept English rule as,
on the whole, a thing good for them, and give it their support. But
they do not like it, and were they once convinced that there was
no intention on the part of the English people to do them better
justice and give them greater liberty than they have now, they
might without actual revolt make all government impossible. It
cannot be too emphatically stated that our Indian administration
exists on the goodwill of the native employés.
What then, in effect, should that reform be, and towards what
ultimate goal should reformers look in shaping their desires and
leading the newly awakened thought of India towards a practical
end? While I was at Calcutta I attended a series of meetings at
which this question was put in all its branches, and at which
delegates from all parts of India discussed it fully; and in what
I am now going to say I can therefore give, with more or less
accuracy, the native Indian view of Indian needs. Many matters of
social importance were debated there, many suggestions made of
improvements in this and that department of the administration,
and the financial and economic difficulties found their separate
exponents; but it was easy to remark that, while all looked forward
to the realization of their special hopes, none seemed to consider
it possible that any real change would be effected as long as what
may be called the constitution of the Indian Government remained
what it now is. The burden of every argument was, “No reform is
possible for us until the Indian Government is itself reformed.
It is too conservative, too selfish, too alien to the thoughts
and needs of India, to effect anything as at present constituted;
and just as in England reformers at the beginning of this century
looked first to a reform of Parliament, so must Indian reformers
now look first to a reform of the governing body of the country.”
Constitutional changes are needed as an initial step towards
improvement; and it is the strong opinion of all that nothing
short of this will either satisfy Indian hopes or ward off Indian
troubles.
The Indian Government as at present constituted is a legacy from
days when the advantage of the natives of India was not even in
name the first object with its rulers. Its direct ancestor, the
East India Company, was a foreign trade corporation which had got
possession of the land, and treated it as a property to be managed
for the exclusive advantage of its members, either in the form of
interest on the Company’s capital, or of lucrative employment for
relatives and friends of the shareholders. The advantage of the
natives was not considered, except in so far as their prosperity
affected that of the Company; and in early days there was no
pretence even of this. India was a rich country, and for many years
was held to be an inexhaustible mine of wealth, and was treated
without scruple as such. Nor was it till the trial of Warren
Hastings that any great scandal arose or any serious check was put
to the greediness of all concerned. The directors in London, and
their servants in the three Presidencies, had a common object of
making money, and the only differences between them were as to the
division of profits, while all alike grew rich.
The government of the country was then vested in a Board of
Directors sitting at the India House, and delegating their
executive powers to a civil service of which they themselves had in
most instances been originally members, and whose traditions and
instincts they preserved. It was a bureaucracy pure and simple,
the most absolute, the closest, and the freest of control that
the world has ever seen; for, unlike the bureaucracies of Europe,
it was subject neither to the will of a sovereign nor to public
opinion in any form. Its selfishness was checked only by the
individual good feeling of its members, and any good effected by
it to others than these was due to a certain traditional largeness
of idea as to the true interests of the Company. It was only on
the occasion of the renewal of the Company’s charter that any
interference could be looked for from the English Parliament and
public; and so it continued until the Mutiny.
In 1858, however, the Company as a Company came to an end. The
Board of Directors was abolished, dividends ceased to be paid to
owners of Indian stock, and the Government of India was transferred
nominally to the English Crown. At that time there was a great talk
of reforming the system of administration, and it was publicly
announced that India should for the future be governed in no other
interest than its own. A royal proclamation gave the natives of
British India their full status as British subjects; they were no
longer to be disqualified for any function of public trust, and no
favour was to be shown to English rather than to native interests
in the Imperial policy. The programme was an excellent one, and
was received in India with enthusiasm, and caused a real outburst
of loyalty to the English Crown which has hardly yet subsided.
Its only fault, indeed, has been that it has never been carried
out, and that while the Indians have waited patiently the plan has
been defeated in detail by vested interests too strong for the
vacillating intentions either of the Government which designed the
change, or of any that have succeeded it. In spite of all official
announcements and statements of policy, and royal proclamations,
the principle of Indian government remains what it has always
been--that is to say, government in the interests of English trade
and English adventure. The more liberal design has faded out of
sight.
The explanation of so great a failure I believe is this. When the
sovereign power was transferred from the Company to the Crown,
it was considered convenient to preserve as far as possible the
existing machinery of administration. The East India Company had
formed a civil service composed of its own English nominees,
whose interests had gradually become part and parcel of the
general interest of the concern; and they had obtained rights
under covenant which secured them in employment, each for his term
of years, and afterwards in pension. These rights the English
Government now recognized, and the same covenant was entered into
with them as had formerly been granted by the Company, and thus a
vested interest in administration was perpetuated which has ever
since impeded the course of liberal development.
The only real change introduced in 1858 was to substitute
appointment by examination for appointment by nomination; but the
composition of the service has remained practically the same, and
the English covenanted civilian is still, as he was in the days
of the Company, the practical owner of India. His position is
that of member of a corporation, irremovable, irresponsible, and
amenable to no authority but that of his fellow-members. In him
is vested all administrative powers, the disposal of all revenue,
and the appointment to all subordinate posts. He is, in fact, the
Government, and a Government of the most absolute kind.
But the covenanted Civil Service is also a wholly conservative
body. Composed though it may be admitted to be in large part of
excellent and honest men--men who do their duty, and sometimes more
than their duty--it has nevertheless the necessary vice of all
corporations. Its first law is its own interests; its second only
those of the Indian people. Nor is it casting a reflection on its
members to state this. There has never been found yet a body of men
anxious to benefit the world at large at the expense of its own
pocket; and the Indian Civil Service, which is no exception to the
rule, sees in all reform an economy of its pay, a curtailment of
its privileges, and a restriction of its field of adventure. Such a
service is of its very nature intolerant of economy and intolerant
of change.
When, therefore, I say, in common with all native reformers,
that the first reform of all in India must be a reform of its
covenanted Civil Service, I am advocating primarily the removal of
an obstruction. But the covenanted service is also at the present
day an anachronism and an entirely needless expense. Fifty, and
forty, and even twenty-five years ago, it may have been necessary
to contract on extravagant terms and for life with Englishmen of
education, in order to obtain their services in so remote a country
as India then was. Such men a generation since were comparatively
rare, and the India House, and after it the India Office, may
have been right in establishing a special privileged service for
its needs, and in granting the covenants it made with them. But
modern times have altered all this, and now the supply of capacity
is so great that quite as good an article can be obtained without
any covenant at all. The commercial companies have all long ago
abandoned the old idea, and get their servants for India now as
for other parts of the world, in the open market; nor do they
find the quality inferior because they enter into no lifelong
engagements with them. And so also the Indian Government must
do in times to come if it is to keep its head financially above
water. It is altogether absurd at the present day to contract
with men on the basis of their right to be employed and pensioned
at extravagant rates as long as they live. It is not done in the
English diplomatic service, whose duties are somewhat similar, nor
in any other civil service that I know of. I feel certain that
as good Englishmen could be obtained now at a third of the pay,
and without any further covenant than the usual one of employment
during good behaviour, as are now at the present rates and under
the present conditions. If not, it would be far better to dispense
with English service altogether, except in the highest grades, and
employ natives of the country at the lower rates, which would still
be high rates to them. The excessive employment of Englishmen has
been a growth of comparatively recent date, and is working harm in
every way.
Instead of the covenanted Civil Service, therefore, there would be
an uncovenanted service obtained in the open market, and endowed
with no more special privileges than our services at home. The
members of this would then be under control and, in a true sense of
the word, the servants of the State. Now they are its masters.
That they are its masters has been abundantly proved by the success
of their efforts to thwart Lord Ripon’s policy during the last
three years. Lord Ripon came out to India on the full tide of
the Midlothian victory, and quite in earnest about carrying out
Midlothian ideas; nor has he faltered since. But the net result of
his viceroyalty has been almost _nil_. Every measure that he has
brought forward has been defeated in detail; and so powerful has
the Civil Service been that they have forced the Home Government
into an abandonment, step by step, of all its Indian policy. This
they have effected in part by open opposition, in part by covert
encouragement of the English lay element, in part by working
through the English press. When I arrived in India I found Lord
Ripon like a schoolboy who has started in a race with his fellows
and who has run loyally ahead, unaware as yet that these have
stopped, and that all the world is laughing at his useless zeal.
The Anglo-Indian bureaucracy had shown itself his master in spite
of Midlothian.
But if the covenanted Civil Service is an obstructive and
burdensome legacy from the defunct Company, so too is the
constitution of the Indian Government in London. In 1858, when
the Company came to an end, the India House was replaced by the
India Office, and the Board of Directors by the Indian Council:
a change which was doubtless intended to signify much, but which
in practice has come to signify hardly anything at all. The India
Office represents of necessity the traditions of the past, and
the Council, which was designed to check it, has proved a more
conservative and acquiescent body than even the old Board of
Directors, its prototype and model. The reason of this is obvious.
The Council, composed as it is almost exclusively of retired civil
or military servants, views Indian matters from the point of view
only of the Anglo-Indian service. It is even less amenable than
this is to the influence of new ideas, and is more completely out
of touch with modern native thought. Its experience is always that
of a generation back, not of the present day, and it refuses, more
persistently even than the younger generation in active service, to
admit the idea of change.
Thus the Secretary of State, who is dependent on this blind guide,
is in no other position at home than is the Viceroy in India.
Ignorant, as a rule, of all things Indian, and dependent for advice
on the India Office and his Anglo-Indian Council, he never gets at
the truth of things, and blunders blindly on as they direct. It is
almost impossible for him, however robust his will, to hold his own
as a reformer.
The reforms, therefore, at home and in India which native opinion
most strongly and immediately demands are, as regards India, that
the active Civil Service should be remodelled, by the abolition of
all covenants for lifelong employment, and by the liberal infusion
of native blood into the non-covenanted service. It is proposed
that as vacancies occur a certain proportion--say a third or a
fourth--should be reserved exclusively for men of Indian birth, and
that thus by degrees the whole Civil Service, with the exception of
the highest posts, should become indigenous. Also, as regards the
Government at home, that the Secretary of State for India should
have the advice of native as well as Anglo-Indian retired officials
on his Council in London. Until this is done they consider that the
Government of India will continue to be carried on in the dark, and
thus that reform will remain as hitherto, abortive.
It is obvious, however, that such initial changes are a first
step only in the direction of reforms infinitely more important.
What India really asks for as the goal of her ambitions is
self-government--that is to say, that not merely executive but
legislative and financial power should be vested in the native
hands. At present the legislative authority of each Presidency
resides in the Governor in Council, and there is no system
whatsoever of popular representation, even of the most limited
kind. The Councils are composed wholly of nominees, and, except
in very small measure, of English official nominees, and their
functions are limited to consultation and advice, for they are
without any real power of initiative or even of veto. In each of
these Councils a few natives have been given places, but they are
in no sense representatives of the people, being, on the contrary,
nominees of the Government, chosen specially for their subservience
to the ideas of the Governor of the day; and their independence is
effectually debarred by the further check that their appointment is
for three years only, and reversible at the end of such period by
the simple will of the Governor. All the other members--and they
form the large majority--are English civil or military officers,
who look to appointments on the Councils as the prizes of their
service, and who usually represent the quintescence of official
ideas. Lord Ripon, indeed, took pains to get together men of a
liberal sort in his own supreme Council; but as a rule those who
enjoy this position are anxious only to secure reappointment at
the end of their three years’ term. Thus, instead of representing
the ideas current among the native classes from which they spring,
they serve merely as an echo or chorus to the Governor, or to the
permanent officials who sway the Governor. This is not a healthy
condition of things. The remedy should be, as a first condition,
that the native councillors should be elected by the various
classes of the community, and that their tenure of office should
be made independent of the Governor’s pleasure. I am convinced
that the system would work with good results; and if also the
number of councillors were increased and their powers of debate
and interpellation enlarged, an excellent basis would be laid for
what all Indian reformers look to as the ideal of their hopes,
provincial parliaments. That India is unfit for local parliamentary
institutions of at least a rudimentary kind I cannot at all admit.
Indeed it seems to me that few people would profit more rapidly
from a public discussion of public affairs than the temperate
conservative Hindus. For a while, indeed, it would doubtless be
necessary to retain a large English element in their councils,
but the Indian mind educates itself with great rapidity, and in
another generation they might probably without danger be entrusted
with the sole care of their own domestic legislation, and the sole
control of their finances.
At the same time, I would not be understood as advocating for
India anything in the shape of an Imperial parliament. Empires and
parliaments to my mind have very little in common with each other;
and India is far too vast a continent, and inhabited by races
far too heterogeneous, to make amalgamation in a single assembly
possible for representatives elected on any conceivable system.
Possibly in the dim future some such thing might be, but not in
the lifetime of any one now living, and any attempts of the sort
at present would find for themselves the inevitable fate of the
Tower of Babel. The Imperial power should, on the contrary, if
it is to be effective, remain in the hands of a single man; and
instead of weakening the Viceroy’s authority I would rather see
it strengthened. But with the provinces and for all provincial
affairs, self-government is a growing necessity, and the present
age is quite capable of witnessing it in practice.
The crying need of India is economy, and for this the
decentralization of finance is the only cure. Each province should
have its own budget and its own civil lists, which should be voted
annually by the Council of the province. Its civil service should
be its own, its police its own, and its public works its own,
without any right of interference from Calcutta, or any confusion
of provincial with Imperial accounts. At present, from the vastness
of the country ruled, and the variety of Imperial services which
have their seat at Calcutta or Simla, waste and jobbery receive no
adequate check. Places are multiplied, men without local knowledge
are employed, and the accounts are confused. Supervision by
those who bear the burdens of taxation under such a system is
all but impossible, and no one knows precisely how and why the
expenses charged in the general budget are incurred. But, were
the provincial accounts held strictly separate, and subjected
to the inquisition of a local assembly composed of men who, as
natives of the province, would know the needs and capabilities
of the province, none of the present abuses would have a chance
of surviving. With the best will in the world, the heads of
departments at Calcutta cannot really control the details of
expenditure in Madras or the Punjaub, and as a matter of fact there
is everywhere enormous waste and enormous jobbery.
I should like, therefore, to see each province of India entirely
self-managed as regards all civil matters, raising its own revenue
in its own way, providing for its own needs of internal order,
public works, and administration of all kinds, and controlled by
the constant supervision of its own provincial assembly. In this
way it would be possible to differentiate at once between the
various provinces as to their special needs and the composition of
their special services. In some the expenditure, and with it the
taxation, might be at the outset reduced by the employment almost
entirely of native servants; in others the substitution of native
for English service would have to be more gradual. In some, large
public works might be profitably afforded; in others, economy would
have to be the rule. In all there would be an incentive to reduce
unnecessary expenditure, seeing that the burden of providing for it
would fall directly on the province.
On the other hand it is clear that, as long as India remains under
the protection of England, certain charges on the revenue and
certain executive and legislative functions would have to remain
Imperial. These would be, first, charges and responsibilities in
respect of the army and navy; secondly, the diplomatic relations;
thirdly, the general debt; and fourthly, the customs.
With regard to the army, there can be no doubt that the charge
should be an Imperial one, for though Southern India has little
need of troops to preserve order within her borders, she enjoys,
in common with the North, that immunity from invasion which the
army alone can guarantee, and she should have an equal share of
the burden of its cost. To adopt a system of provincial armies
would, in my view of the case, be both a mistake of economy, and an
injustice to those provinces which lie upon the frontier, as well
as a considerable danger from the rivalries they might engender:
a mistake of economy, inasmuch as the higher commands would be
multiplied, and the less warlike provinces would at an equal cost
provide inferior material to the general strength of the empire; an
injustice, inasmuch as the North-Western provinces would have to
bear nearly the entire burden of defence. Strongly, therefore, as I
advocate decentralization in all matters of civil administration,
I as strongly advocate centralization in matters military. The
Imperial army, according to my ideas, should be under the sole
control of the Viceroy, officered, I think, by Englishmen, and
composed of the best fighting material to be obtained in India,
irrespective of prejudice in favour of this or that recruiting
ground. It is manifestly the first condition of an army that it
should be efficient, and the second that it should be without
political colour, and on both grounds I am inclined to think that
Englishmen would prove more useful servants to India in a military
capacity than any native class of officers could be. Much as I
believe in Indian capacity for civil duties, I accept it as a fact
that Englishmen make better commanders of troops, and are worth
more even in proportion to their superior pay; while there is no
question that they would be exempt, as native officers would not,
from religious and caste influences, and thus more reliable as
impartial executors of Imperial orders. The Indian Sepoy army,
then, as I would see it, should be as distinctly Imperial and
English as the civil services should be provincial and native. In
saying this I am stating my private opinion only; I believe that
native opinion is in favour of native military service. But, as I
understand India, the time has not come for that. When India is a
nation it will be time enough to think of a national army.
The diplomatic relations, again, of India must of necessity remain
Imperial, and their management vested solely in the Viceroy. Indian
diplomacy, as at present managed, is a complicated and costly
thing; but in the India of the future we may hope this will be much
simplified. Two cardinal points of policy might with advantage be
observed: the first, to keep wholly apart from foreign intrigues
and foreign wars; the second, to keep rigid faith with the still
independent native princes within the border. Of foreign wars
India has long had enough, and more than enough. The Chinese, the
Persian, the Afghan, the Abyssinian, the Egyptian, and now the
Soudanese, all these India has been forced to take part in, solely
against her interest and her will. Apart from their money loss,
there is in these wars a loss of dignity, which the Indian people
are beginning to resent. Those who have been educated in the humane
literature of Europe find it humiliating that they, a conquered
people, should be used as the instrument for conquering others.
What quarrel had India with the unfortunate Egyptians? What quarrel
has she with the unfortunate Arabs? The educated Indians resent it
bitterly, too, that India is made to pay the cost. But these things
need no comment. They are but a part of that absolute selfishness
which has been the principle of all our past relations with India,
and in the new birth of India these too must be changed. The
diplomatic relations with the native States have been a tissue
of fraud and aggression. In the policy of the future, aggression
must be abandoned. There is but one true policy towards the native
States; and that is, by giving them the spectacle of a British
India more happy than their own to invite their inhabitants to
share its advantages. Who can doubt that were India self-governed,
prosperous, and happy, the old native principalities would one by
one spontaneously be merged in it.
With regard to the Debt, much as we may regret that it was ever
incurred, it must remain, I fear, in our new India a charge on the
Imperial Government. Its annual interest, like the cost of war
and diplomacy, should be apportioned as a fixed charge to each
province in proportion to that province’s wealth, except in so far
as it relates to the guarantees of railways, which might be made a
charge on the provinces served by them. It should, however, be a
cardinal point of policy that no further debt should be incurred
and no further guarantees given for Imperial works. The provinces
henceforth should be charged with all works of communication,
irrigation, and improvement, the utility of which they will best
appreciate.
Remain the Customs. These too must remain an Imperial matter; and
it may be hoped that when, in the future, India’s interest, not
England’s, comes to be considered in her government, they may
be made to return a fair profit to balance some of the Imperial
charges. To India free trade has proved no blessing, and a return
to import duties is a first principle of sound finance, which
self-governing India will undoubtedly insist on. The majority, I
believe, of our English colonies see their advantage in these, and
so will India, unless, indeed, some fair equivalent be given. As it
is, all the profit is on England’s side, on India’s all the loss.
Such, very briefly and imperfectly given, is my scheme of
self-government for India. That it is one possible--I do not say
easy--to realize few will doubt who have marked the wonderful
success achieved in a case not very dissimilar nearer our own
shores. The Empire of Austria, within the recollection of men
of the present generation, was a bureaucratic despotism of the
harshest and least sympathetic kind. It had got within its rule, by
conquest or inheritance, a half score of nations, owning no ties
of birth or language, and united only by a common hatred of their
oppressors. The Austrian official of 1847 was a byword of arrogance
and self-sufficient pride, and while vaunting to the world the
virtues of his own method of rule, was preparing the way for a
general revolt against the Empire. Few who watched the history of
those days believed that Austria was not doomed to perish, and
none that she was destined to achieve the love of her people. Yet
we have lived to see this. We have lived to see the Hungarians
reconciled, and the very Poles who in their despair had filled
Europe for fifty years with their denunciations, thanking Austria
for her share in their ruin. If this has been possible through
the gift of self-government, all things are possible; and India
by the same means of honest government, each province for itself,
may become happy and thankful, as the Austrian nations have. One
principle keeps these together without force, their loyalty to the
wearer of the Imperial crown; and fortunately this is a principle
we have in India already framed to our hand. There is no question
that the Indian populations are possessed with a strong feeling of
personal attachment for her Majesty the Queen, and while they grow
yearly more and more estranged from their Anglo-Indian masters they
yearly look with more and more hope to England and to her who sits
upon the English throne. This is a sentiment of the utmost value,
and one which may yet prove the salvation of the Indian Empire, in
spite of all the Anglo-Indians can do to wreck it. I look to it
in the future as the true bond of union which shall retain for us
India, not as our inheritance, for it will not be ours to possess,
but as a co-heir to our good fortunes. India will not then be lost
to England, but will remain to us a far greater glory than now,
because it will have become a monument of what we shall have been
able to achieve for the benefit of others, not merely for ourselves.
I dare not, however, dwell too much upon this prospect. I know
the huge perils which surround the birth of every new thing in
the political world, and I know the unscrupulous rage of vested
interests threatened. The interests of the Anglo-Indians stand
stoutly in our way, and the interests of an ever more hungry
commerce and an ever more pitiless finance. Commerce and finance
find their gain in the present system. Manchester must be appeased
before India can hope to live, and to stop suddenly the career of
Indian extravagance would injure trade in many a North of England
town. Debt in India unfortunately means dividends in Lombard
Street; and so I dare not hope. I am tempted rather to quote as
only too likely to prove true certain desponding words which I once
heard uttered by General Gordon when, speaking of the prospect of
reform in India, he told me, “You may do what you will. It will be
of no use. India will never be reformed until there has been there
a new revolt.” But what will that revolt be, and how will it leave
our power of reformation?[21]
FOOTNOTES:
[20] In reprinting this chapter I have incorporated with it part of
another chapter on the Native States.
[21] _Note._--The reader must once more be reminded that this
chapter, with the three that precede it, was written full
twenty-five years ago. Its scheme of constitutional reform was
scoffed at then as fanciful and Utopian. But the Asiatic world
has marched on, and English opinion to-day seems to have awakened
at last to its recommendations as a coming necessity. Whether
the concessions now being elaborated so tardily at the India
Office will suffice to allay the bitter feelings aroused by the
reactionary policy of a whole past generation since Lord Ripon’s
time, I forbear to prophesy. It is the common nemesis of alien rule
to be too late in its reforms, and, even with the best intentions,
to give the thing no longer asked, because its knowledge of the
ruled has lagged behind. I deliver no opinion. It must suffice
me that I have recorded my full testimony in this volume to a
historical understanding of the India I knew in 1883-1884, during
the too short rule of its best and wisest Viceroy.
APPENDIX I
THE MOHAMMEDAN UNIVERSITY
SCHEME FOR A UNIVERSITY, FORWARDED TO THE NIZAM, JANUARY 24, 1884
The lamentable decline, during the last forty years, of the
Mohammedan community of India in wealth and social importance,
while at the same time it has been numerically an ever-increasing
body, makes it a matter of anxious consideration with those who
love their religion to consider by what means best to avert the
danger attending such a condition of things, and to restore
prosperity to the community and its activity as a living and
beneficial influence in the progress of the Empire.
It is acknowledged that the evil has been principally brought about
by the changed condition of the country. From a ruling and favoured
race, the Mohammedan community has become only one of many bodies
unfavoured by the State; and the fall from their high station was
at the time accompanied by a corresponding collapse of energy;
while, later, accidental circumstances, such as the change of the
official language from Persian and Urdu to English, still further
aggravated their misfortunes.
These, though they may regret them, the Mohammedans now know
that it is useless to complain of. They have ceased to look for
any reversal of the political settlement of India as a British
province; and accepting the fact, they are fully aware that a new
departure is necessary for them in correspondence with their new
circumstances. Nor is this conviction lessened by the consideration
that it would seem to be the tendency of the age to put every year
more and more administrative power back into native hands, so
that in the future there may be expected to be an ever-increasing
competition between the various sections of Indian society for
advantage under the imperial rule.
Again, it is no less acknowledged that, in the modern conditions
of Indian life, that which principally conduces to the advantage
of each community is its superiority in education. The force of
natural character is no longer a sufficient element of success, and
acquired intelligence is daily asserting itself more strongly as
the condition of all participation in public life. Instruction in
the arts and sciences of the Western world is at the present day an
absolute necessity for high success; and even in the lower walks
of life a certain knowledge of these things has become desirable
for all perhaps but the lowest class bound to agricultural labour.
Certainly no large community, such as is the Mohammedan in India,
could hope to hold its own without a general increase of learning;
and it is no longer contended by any section of the community that
secular knowledge can be dispensed with, or that it is, if rightly
directed, at all opposed to the best interests of religion.
On the other hand, it is equally certain that the vast majority of
those who profess the faith of Islam look upon that faith as the
most precious inheritance bequeathed them by their fathers, and
decline to put it in peril for the sake of any worldly advantage.
They consider that, in seeking the general good of a Mohammedan
community, the first and absolute essential to be considered is the
good of the Mohammedan religion; and this is their first thought,
too, when the practical question of individual education comes
before them. All Mohammedan fathers are desirous that, before
everything else, their sons should inherit their own gift of faith
in the one true God and the teaching of His apostle.
Thus, then, it happens that, while recognizing fully the necessity
there is for worldly knowledge, the mass of respectable Mohammedans
have held back, and still hold back, from the purely secular
education afforded in Government schools and colleges to Hindus
and Christians with themselves. They look with suspicion on the
teaching, and with more than suspicion on the teachers. They refuse
to believe that any education can be a sound one which is without
a religious basis. They see that neither history nor philosophy
nor Western literature can be taught by unbelievers in the divine
mission of their Prophet without serious risk of undermining their
pupils’ faith; and they find no institution in India in which these
necessary branches of human learning are taught to Mohammedans
wholly by Mohammedans. Neither the Indian University, nor the
Calcutta Madraseh, nor the Hooghly College, nor even the College of
Aligarh entirely fulfil this condition. In the Indian University
there is at the present moment no single Mohammedan professor.
At the Madraseh, the president and many of the professors are
Englishmen; and at Aligarh also the principal is an Englishman, and
there are English and Hindu teachers. In none of them is there the
certainty that religious influence other than Mohammedan shall not
be brought to bear upon the students.
Lastly--and this is the most important consideration of all to the
leaders of the Mohammedan community of India--they find in all
the Empire, no central school of religious thought such as is to
be found in other Mohammedan lands. Although their population is
the largest of any now existing in the world, they are without a
recognized seat of learning which can claim for them to be the
fountain head of orthodox opinion. They have no central body of
Ulema, whose teaching and discussion should serve to keep alive the
intellectual activity of the religious teachers and so give its
tone to the whole mass. They feel this to be the most serious want
of all of their situation in presence of the growing intelligence
of other religious bodies around them.
In view of all these circumstances, the following resolutions have,
therefore, been suggested, and are now put before the Mohammedan
community at large:
1. That in each town a Provincial Committee shall be formed, to
consider where and under what conditions it will be best to found
an educational establishment on a large scale, which shall equally
satisfy the religious and the secular wants of the community; and
to raise subscriptions for that purpose.
2. That, this being done, a Central Committee shall be convened,
the same to be composed of one delegate from each of the Provincial
Committees, in order finally to decide the questions raised in the
Provincial Committees.
3. That, if possible, his Highness the Nizam of the Deccan be asked
to become the patron of a Central Establishment, as being the most
powerful Mohammedan prince now reigning in India, and that a humble
petition be addressed to his Highness in that sense. The following
suggestions also are made:
1. That the educational establishment should take the form of a
university, to be called the Deccan (?) University, empowered to
grant degrees in religion and in secular knowledge, and to appoint
professors in both branches of learning for such as shall repair
to its metropolis (say Hyderabad) for their education. It is hoped
that his Highness the Nizam may be pleased to grant a building to
serve as university hall and lecture-rooms.
2. That, under the university, each province of the Indian Empire,
or, if funds suffice, each great city, should erect or purchase at
its own cost a building for its own students in the metropolis, the
same to be called the college of that province or city, at which
lodging (not board or furniture) should be provided at nominal
rates to the students. These colleges should be the property of
the provinces or cities erecting them, and should be managed by
provincial or city trustees appointed by themselves in such manner
(subject to the general laws of the university) as they shall
themselves think most desirable. Thus each province or city would
practically pay for and manage its own education.
3. That an appeal be made to the Mohammedan princes, noblemen,
talukdars, zemindars, and rich merchants to found professorships
for the university, the same to bear the name of their founders,
and to be vested as religious endowments in the hands of
university trustees, the duty of the professors being to give
gratuitous public lectures to all students of the university. A
donation of Rs.30,000 shall be considered equivalent to founding
a professorship, and shall entitle the donor to have his name
perpetually connected with it--this, although it may be hereafter
considered necessary to increase the provision out of university
funds. Such donors should moreover be granted the title of
“Founders” of the university, and should form its special council.
4. That a similar appeal be made to poorer men to found
scholarships under the like conditions, except that Rs.10,000
should be the sum entitling the donor to perpetual remembrance--the
said scholarships to be granted in the form of monthly stipends of
thirty rupees to such students as, having graduated in religious
and secular knowledge in the university, may be chosen by special
competition, on the condition that they shall act as schoolmasters
in provincial towns and districts. The object of this provision
will be to spread religious and secular education throughout
the country. The founder of three scholarships to have the same
privilege and title as the founder of a professorship.
5. That special provision be made in the scheme for the religious
needs of the Shiah as well as of the Sunni communities.
6. That his Highness the Nizam be prayed to grant a perpetual
charter regulating the university according to the rules usual in
such institutions.
7. That a memorial be at the same time addressed to his Excellency
the Viceroy of India, stating the objects of the university, and
humbly praying the countenance of the Imperial Government for the
scheme.
Hyderabad Deccan,
_February 13, 1884_.
MY DEAR MR. BLUNT,
I am desired by his Highness to inform you, in reply to your
letter of the 24th of January, enclosing a memo. embodying a
scheme for the formation of a Mohammedan University, that his
Highness cordially approves of your suggestions, and will give
every support in his power to any attempt that may be made
to carry them out. His Highness had the honour of holding a
conversation with his Excellency the Viceroy during his short
sojourn here, in the course of which he understood that his
Excellency was prepared to countenance and support the scheme.
I am to say that his Highness regards the scheme as one
calculated immensely to advance the cause of Mohammedan progress,
and that he will be glad if Hyderabad is given the honour, by
preference, of becoming the centre of the movement. As, however,
the scheme has originated with you, and you have taken the
trouble of ascertaining the views of the leading Mohammedans
in all parts of India, his Highness would have wished that you
had prolonged your stay in this country so as to see it carried
out. In any case, if your other engagements give you time to pay
another visit to Hyderabad, his Highness will be gratified to
have your assistance in the matter. His Highness is glad to say
that his Excellency the Viceroy has promised him his.
Believe me, yours very sincerely,
SALAR JUNG.
APPENDIX II
SIR WILLIAM HUNTER TO MR. BLUNT
Calcutta,
_6th January, 1884_.
DEAR MR. BLUNT,
I have been unable to procure a copy of the “Settlement
Handbook.” But here is one which I have borrowed. With regard to
the Madras settlement, some detailed facts will be found at pp.
668 and 672, among other places.
The rules are: (1) First calculate the actual average produce
and actual average value of it, over a period of years. Say
the actual gross produce thus ascertained is 100 bushels. (2)
Then deduct from the average actual gross produce one-sixth,
as an extra allowance for risks of the season; leaving 83⅓
bushels. (3) Take an average of one-fourth, or 25 per cent., from
this reduced gross produce as Government Revenue; this is four
eighty-thirds and a half, = 20-3/4 bushels.
The 20-3/4 of bushels are about one-fifth of the actual gross
produce (100 bushels), which has already included the risk of
seasons, for it is the actual produce yielded, as a matter of
fact, on an average of many years and seasons.
The 20-3/4 bushels are about one-half of the _net_ produce after
allowing for cost of cultivation and all possible risks; and this
is probably what your _raiyat_ friends meant in Madras.
The actual yield of each class of land is estimated by many
experiments, sometimes 1,300 in a single district. The Famine
Commissioners, by independent inquiry, came to the conclusion
that the average land tax throughout India was only 5-1/2 per
cent. of the gross produce; but their calculation included Bengal
and the Permanently Settled Districts. I have not been able to
examine afresh the evidence on which they based this conclusion;
but they were careful men, and by no means favourers of the
_status quo_.
I am no favourer of that _status_ in many parts of India; and if
you care to go into the question I shall be happy to send you
my exposure in Council of the heavy burden imposed by our Land
Assessments on the Deccan peasant. The speech was telegraphed
verbatim to the “Times” fourteen months ago; but, if you did not
see it, and care to look at it, I can get you a copy.
I send you the foregoing facts, not to convert you to a system
which has grievous defects, but to enable you to deal with that
system without running into little inaccuracies which would be
laid hold of as vitiating your main argument.
I have been much impressed by your sympathy for the hard lot
of the peasant, whether in Egypt or in India, and by your
determination to find out the facts for yourself. If at any time
you desire to compare the information thus collected with the
statistics officially accepted by the Government, I shall be
happy to render you any assistance in my power.
Very faithfully yours,
W. W. HUNTER.
APPENDIX III
MAJOR CLAUDE CLERK TO MR. BLUNT
9, Albert Hall Mansions, Kensington Gore, S.W.
_November 15th, 1904_.
DEAR MR. BLUNT,
Very many thanks for your “Ideas about India” which you have so
kindly sent me. I look forward with pleasure to reading your
work, and I know I shall find much in it of the greatest interest
to me. Although I have only just glanced at what you then wrote,
I can see that all you say is as true now as it was then--the
impoverishment of the millions, and the reckless extravagance of
their effeminate rulers, living away from the people in their
mountain retreats nine months usually out of the twelve. You may
put down much of India’s woes to the farce of a government whose
officials are perched away in the clouds, absorbed in their own
amusements, etc., “in the hills,” and unmindful of their duty to
the people. Lord Curzon has done something to break down this
Simla curse of India. Lord Randolph Churchill was a very great
loss to India. Had it been fated that his time at the India
Office could have been prolonged, he would have set many things
to rights there. The hard work he did do there went a long way to
break him down, as it did to a good man of the name of Moore he
found there, and who died, I think, about the same time as Lord
Randolph Churchill. I should like some day, when you are again
in England and I alive, to send you a copy of a letter I wrote
to Lord Ripon, and of an official report I sent in showing what
the state of things was during the last years of the Nizam’s
minority, affecting as it did his training, etc. I much doubt
whether this ever got beyond the Residency.
I had no idea that your knowledge as to what was really going
on at Hyderabad had so largely influenced Lord Ripon. You are
perfectly right in what you say as to his being put away at
Bolarum, removed from the city, etc. I had offered my house but
was told there was fear of cholera! That matters went wrong
subsequently between the young Salar Jung and his master was no
fault of what Lord Ripon did. Foiled in what they had aimed at,
the party in power had other sinister objects in view, and with
the underhand support of the Residency these they carried out.
They, of course, saw that a difference between the Nizam and his
young minister opened the road to their designs, especially as
the latter--who was throughout in the wrong--was supported by
Cordery, which, of course, made matters worse. From the first,
when Salar Jung asked me, when here in England, to take up the
appointment--which I declined at first and for some weeks--I
determined, when I had accepted it, to hold myself entirely
aloof from the Simla clique and its ways, of which I was not
an admirer. After you left, my summary removal by the party in
power was an object to be kept in view. But the first attempt was
so clumsy that even Cordery could give it only a half-hearted
support. Afterwards they succeeded. My agreement with Salar
Jung was to serve ten years, and fifteen if required to do so.
The young Nizam, unknown to me, as I was in England on sick
leave for three months, had asked to retain my services for the
full period, but the Government of India, of course prompted by
Cordery, abruptly refused the Nizam’s request.
Pray pardon all this personal recollection of what occurred
then, but my pen has run on! Your pp. 132, 133, as to the
Emir-el-Kabir, the colleague forced by Lord Lytton on Salar Jung,
this is what was written of him by Sir George Yule, one of the
best men we ever had as Resident at Hyderabad and who retained
Salar Jung’s friendship to the day of his death:
“In spite of Salar Jung’s repeated remonstrances, we have
forced upon him as his colleague a man who was notoriously
his personal enemy, a man who had heavily bribed others in
scandalous intrigues against him, and whose servant had openly
tried to murder him.” This was the man--the tool--we wanted to
work Salar Jung’s humiliation to the bitter end. Such had been
his iniquitous intrigues in former years that a more honest
Government than Lord Lytton’s had ordered that he was _never_ to
be present at any Durbar where English officers were present.
Very truly yours,
CLAUDE CLERK.
* * * * *
9, Albert Hall Mansions,
_April 29th, 1905_.
I often look at your “Ideas about India,” and find always
something to interest me and to inform me. Lord Ripon’s policy in
making the young Salar Jung _Dewan_ was of course a risky one.
But it was, as you well know, the right course. That it would
have been crowned with success there is no doubt whatever--I
was behind the scenes throughout--in my mind, had Lord Ripon
gone only one step further and changed the Resident. Cordery
was bound hand and foot by the action of those with whom he
was associated, and they were supporting the very party in the
city--which Cordery went so far as to call “our party”--who had
determined on the moral ruin of the Nizam during a two years’
prolongation of the minority, during which they would have kept
the lid of the Treasury open without scruple of any sort or
kind. As it was, Lord Ripon had not been gone from Hyderabad
for a month before that party, supported through thick and
thin by Cordery, had gained the ascendancy. The difference,
originally but a trifle, between the Nizam and his Dewan, was
skilfully fanned by the bribed members of the Nizam’s and the
Dewan’s entourage, and an open breach between the two was then
inevitable. How our Government acted to retain the young Salar
Jung in power--when they knew it was too late--is an amusing
story, but too long to trouble you with here. But I would like
some day when you are again in London to send you my official
reports for the last years of the Nizam’s minority. These were
written by me yearly and submitted to H.H.’s Government and
then sent on through the Resident to the Government of India
(Foreign Department). I ought to have been called on to explain
the statements I had made, or H.H. ought to have been desired
to dismiss me on the spot, considering what I had stated. But
this only being the truth, the Government of India did neither,
fearing the result. My reports were left entirely unnoticed and
this after the Government of India’s repeated declarations that
it, the Government of India, was _the guardian_ of H.H. and
deeply interested in his education, welfare, etc. But I was much
in the way of the party in power, and soon opportunity was found
of getting me out of Hyderabad.
Yours very truly,
CLAUDE CLERK.
INDEX
Abd-el-Ghaffar, Mohammed, 129.
Abd-el-Hak of Hyderabad, 191, 194, 195, 196, 202.
Abd-el-Latif, Nawab, head of the Sunni Mohammedans at Calcutta, 14,
86, 97, 98, 99, 104, 110, 111, 127, 131, 134, 138, 219;
his son-in-law, Seyd Mohammed, 134, 136;
his son, Abd-el-Rahman, 99, 108, 109, 117.
Abd-el-Rahman Minni, Sheykh, Arab horse-dealer of Bombay, 208, 209,
211, 212, 216.
Abd-el-Rahman, Seyd, of Madras, 41;
his Eurasian wife, 41, 44.
Abraham, Mr. Matthew, of Bellari, 53.
“Abu Nadara,” James Sanua, editor of, 13, 64, 123.
Afghans and Persians, 14, 98, 188, 192.
Agha Khan, The Chief of the Khoja sect, residing at Bombay, 210,
211, 212, 213.
Agricultural danger, the, 82, 236-254.
Ahmed, Mulvi, Municipal Councillor of Calcutta, 110.
Akbar Huseyn, translator of “Future of Islam,” 119-124, 146, 163.
Ali Abdallah, of Hyderabad, 62, 68.
Aligarh College, 119, 155-160.
Ali Hamid Bey, Turkish Consul at Bombay, 211-215.
Allahabad, 144-150.
Amir Ali, the Honble. Seyd, Leader of the new school of Mohammedans
at Calcutta, 86, 87, 96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113,
121, 128, 131, 138, 219.
Amir Hassan, Rajah of Mahmudabad, 125, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155,
229.
Amir Huseyn, Mulvi Seyd, Deputy-Collector, 93, 97.
Anjuman i Islam meeting at Calcutta, 124, 126.
Arab horses, 61, 62, 66, 67, 110, 129, 208, 212.
Arabi Pasha, 15, 22, 23, 25, 88, 98, 112, 113, 118, 124, 289.
Arabs in India, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 71, 209, 211, 212, 213, 287.
Bafiti, Mohammed, Sheykh es Saadat of Medina, 139.
Bailey, Sir Stuart, 78, 92, 93, 109, 117, 182.
Banerji, Surendra Nath, the Calcutta orator, 102, 109, 114, 137.
Baring, Sir Evelyn, Lord Cromer, 11, 14, 55, 120, 167, 177.
Barrow, General, 152.
Beck, Mr., of Aligarh College, 156.
Behar, Province of, 139.
Bellari, 50-55;
famine at, 54.
Benares, 142, 143, 144.
Benares, Maharajah of, 120, 142, 143.
Bengal Permanent Land Settlement, 86, 94, 108, 221, 252.
Bengal Rent Bill, 86, 93, 94, 102, 108.
Bentinck, Lord William, 95.
Berar Provinces, intrigue for the retention of, 58, 74, 75, 77, 83,
89, 91, 149, 179, 184-205, 206, 336.
Bilgrami, Seyd Ali, 61, 63, 204.
Bilgrami Seyd Huseyn, private secretary to Salar Jung, now member of
the Indian Council in London, 61, 64, 68, 74, 75, 77, 79, 93,
185, 186, 190, 191, 199, 200.
Bolarum, 174, 190.
Bombay, 82, 173, 174, 208-226.
“Bombay Gazette,” 191, 208.
Bose, Mr., Secretary of the National Conference at Calcutta, 114,
118, 121.
Bulbul of the Deccan, 198, 199, 201, 203.
Burmah, 16, 17.
Bushir-ed-Dowlah, nobleman of Hyderabad, 69, 73, 76, 91, 180, 182,
185.
Calcutta, 85-138.
Calcutta races, 110.
Caliphate, Arabian, 13, 119;
Ottoman, 63, 119, 124.
Canning, Lord, 95, 270.
Ceylon, 19-26.
Chandanagore, 113.
Cheragh Ali, Mulvi, of Hyderabad, 64, 70, 79, 197.
Christians, Native, 24, 46, 51, 55, 100, 282.
Churchill, Lord Randolph, 9, 12, 83, 84, 146, 175, 177, 230, 334.
Clerk, Major, the Nizam’s tutor, 65, 67, 184, 198, 204;
his letters in Appendix, 335, 336;
Mrs., 137, 196, 197.
Colombo, 19, 26.
Colvin, Sir Auckland, 8, 113, 150, 272.
Connaught, H.R.H. the Duke of, 55, 165.
Connemara, Lord, 43.
Constitutional Reform, plan of, 215, 310-326.
Cordery, Mr., Resident at Hyderabad, 58, 80, 89, 136, 150, 174, 178,
179, 182, 184, 185, 190, 191, 193, 196, 199, 203, 206, 219, 228,
335, 336.
Cornwallis, Lord, his land settlement of Bengal, 86.
Council, Indian, in London, 215, 316.
Councils, Provincial, 316, 317, 318, 319.
Couper, Sir George, 154.
Covenanted Civil Service, 36, 40, 43, 47, 55, 60, 75, 83, 95, 114,
116, 206, 215, 234, 267, 268, 273, 275, 310-318.
Curzon of Kedleston, Lord, 91, 205, 334.
Debt, Public, 323.
Debts, Village, 7, 42, 232, 243-246.
Deccan College, 81.
Deccan horsemanship, 67.
Delawar Huseyn, Deputy-Magistrate at Calcutta, 115.
Delhi, 161-171;
capture of, 169, 170;
horrors committed at, 163, 164;
last King of, 163, 167, 169.
Deportation, 13, 80, 235.
Dobbs, Colonel, 191.
Dravidians, 23, 34.
Dufferin, Marquess of, 177, 202, 229.
Durand, Sir Mortimer, Secretary to the Calcutta Foreign Office, 117,
180.
Eden, Sir Ashley, 100.
Eid el Temini, Sheykh, Arab horse dealer at Bombay, 209, 217.
Emperors of Delhi, 172.
Englishwomen in India, 248, 261, 262.
Eurasians, 41, 44, 51, 52.
Famine, 2, 50, 54, 216, 232, 241.
Ferdunji Nowrosji, Parsi Councillor at Bombay, 223.
Fergusson, Sir James, Governor of Bombay, 209, 219-224.
Ferid-ed-Din Ahmed, Mulvi of Cawnpore, 119, 125, 126, 139, 144, 145,
147, 148, 189.
Ferukshah, Prince, 134.
Finance, 247-254.
Flying foxes, 65.
Forest Laws, 42, 210, 216, 224, 241, 242.
Frere, Sir Bartle, 81, 249.
“Future of Islam,” 62, 112, 119, 123, 124, 126, 158, 231, 295.
Future of self-government, 107-118, 234, 235, 299-326.
Gaignaud, Mademoiselle, Governess in Salar Jung’s household, 70, 200;
her account of Sir Salar Jung’s death, 200, 201.
Geary, Mr., editor of “Bombay Gazette,” 191.
Ghaleb Jung, an Arab of Hyderabad, 59.
Ghose, Dr., of Calcutta, 137.
Ghulam Mohammed Munshi, of Bombay, 212.
Gladstone, Rt. Honble. W. E., 1-5, 9, 14, 83, 96, 106, 146, 208,
211.
Godley, Sir Arthur, 180.
Gordon, General C. G., 83, 95, 167-168, 189, 194, 208, 213, 230;
my letter to, 168.
Gordon, Sir Arthur, 24.
Gorst, Sir John, 83, 84, 175-185.
Gough, Major, in the Nizam’s service, 69.
Grant-Duff, Sir Mount Stewart, 36, 37, 41, 45, 53, 177, 193, 196,
219.
Gregory, Sir William, 23, 25.
Hamilton, Sir Edward, private secretary to Mr. Gladstone, 9, 11,
122, 177, 180.
Hanna, Mr., a Christianized Hindu, 51.
Henderson, Mr., of the Secret Police, 186, 196, 204.
“Hindu Patriot,” 94.
“Hindu Prakash,” 81.
Hindu worship, 24, 31, 32, 46, 48, 49, 282-285.
Hodson, Colonel, 166, 169.
Holkar, Maharajah, 301.
Hörnli, Dr., Swiss Director of the Calcutta Madrasa, 98, 105, 124.
Humayum, Emperor, his tomb at Delhi, 169.
Humayum Jah Bahadur, head of Mohammedan community of Madras, 41.
Hunter, Sir William, statistician, 130, 132, 133, 138, 239, 291;
his letter in Appendix, 332.
Hyderabad, 57-82, 175-207, 304.
“Ideas about India,” 231, 335.
Ik-Balet-Dowlah. See Vikar-el-Omra.
Ikhram Ullah, of Delhi, Seyd Ahmed’s nephew, 121, 158, 161, 163,
164, 170.
Ilbert Bill, 5, 16, 17, 44, 85, 96, 100, 102, 103, 106, 108, 109,
111, 113, 121, 132, 133, 145, 177, 269, 271, 272, 273.
Ilbert, Mrs., 96, 130, 132;
Sir Courtenay, 132.
Import duties, 223, 224, 250, 251, 253.
Income Tax, 223, 251, 252.
“Indian Club,” 115.
“Indian Mirror,” 85, 106.
“Indian Spectator,” 82, 132.
Industrial ruin, 213, 239, 240, 247-251, 253, 306.
Insults to Natives, 121, 141, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 157, 174,
263-266.
Jehan Kadur, Prince, brother of the King of Oude, 120, 125.
Jemal-ed-Din Afghani, Seyd, 12, 13, 63, 80, 97, 99, 108, 112, 123,
128.
Jeypore, 172.
Jijibhoy, Sir Jamsetji, 88, 95, 214.
Johnstone, Dr., Bishop of Calcutta, 99.
Kabraji, Kaikhosna Nowrosji, editor of the “Rast” of Bombay, 214,
215.
Kaisar Bagh meeting, 155.
Kalbarga, 81, 198, 203, 204, 206, 207.
Keay, Seymour, Mr., 58, 116, 118.
Kebir-ed-Din, Mohammedan editor in Calcutta, 106.
Kerr, Rev. Schomberg, S.J., Lord Ripon’s chaplain, 87, 179, 182.
Kimberley, Earl of, Secretary of State for India, 18, 96.
Knight, Mr., editor of “Statesman,” 92.
Kokhnis, 213, 287.
Kolapur, Mahratta Diwan of, 218.
Kottub, the, 165, 170.
Krishna, Maharajah of, 130, 131, 137.
Kristo Das Pal, editor of “The Hindu Patriot,” Member of the
Legislative Council, 94, 133.
Laik Ali, Salar Jung (the younger). _See_ Salar Jung.
Lambert, Mr., head of Secret Police, 182, 185.
Land assessment, 42, 86, 87, 130, 155, 171, 207, 213, 218, 221, 222,
225, 239.
Land Settlement, Permanent, 94, 213, 216, 221, 222, 225, 241, 242,
252;
recommended, 252.
Local Self-Government Bill, 85, 213, 246, 270, 271, 272.
Loharo, Chief of, 161, 165, 169.
Lucknow, 150-155.
Lyall, Sir Alfred, Lieutenant-Governor of North-West Provinces, 6,
11, 107, 117, 120, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157, 177.
Lytton, Robert, Earl of, 6, 7, 79, 89, 94, 177, 202, 216, 335.
Madhava Rao, Sir, 38, 88.
Madras, 35-45, 303.
Madrasa, Culcutta, 135.
Madura, 29-33.
Mahbub Ali. _See_ The Nizam.
Mahdi Ali, Prince, of Lucknow, 153, 154.
Mahdi, the Soudanese, 112, 123, 125, 168, 180, 189, 194, 197, 203,
208, 209, 210, 217, 223.
Mahmud Sami Pasha, 19, 25, 120.
Malabari, Behramji, Parsi editor of the “Indian Spectator,” 82,
173, 177, 211, 225.
Malays of Ceylon, 23.
Malkum Khan, Prince, 188.
Mandlik, Mr., 178.
Manockji Rustemji, Mr., 88, 95.
Mayo Hall meeting at Allahabad, 145, 149.
Mazhar, Abd-el-Rahman, Cadi of Bagdad, 120.
Meade, Sir Richard, 58, 84, 93.
Mehdy Hassan, Mulvi, of Lucknow, 79.
Mir Alum tank, 61, 193.
Mirza Agha Khan, the Nizam’s Persian tutor, 204.
Moguls, Last of the, 143, 144.
Mohammed Ali Bey, Master of Nizam’s Horse, 193, 201.
Mohammed Ibrahim, Chief Mujtahed at Lucknow, 153.
Mohammed Yusuf, Member of Calcutta Council, 123.
Mohammedan Question, 278-298.
Mohammedans of Southern India, 27, 28, 29, 41, 45, 287, 288, 289.
Mohunt, the, 49.
Monier Williams, Professor, 226.
Moore, Colonel, 165, 166, 167, 179, 184, 187, 191.
Moors of Ceylon, 23, 25-27, 287, 288.
Mukerji, Rasbihari, of Uttarpara, 101, 120;
Sambhu Chandra, 106;
family of, 124.
Mullen, Dr., at Ulwar, 171.
Mulvi A. M., 104, 107, 112, 136.
Muteswami, Judge, of Madras, 40, 42, 44.
National Conference at Calcutta, 114, 116, 117, 118.
Native States, 299-305.
Nawaiz Jung, Sultan El Kaiti, Prince of Hadramaut at Hyderabad, 65,
66, 79, 80.
Nizam, Mahbub Ali, the, 62, 66, 67, 72, 77, 110, 137-183, 186, 189,
190, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 203-206, 210, 212, 219, 330, 334,
335, 336;
his stables, 61, 66;
intrigue against, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 89, 90, 91, 93, 109, 117,
119, 136, 179, 205, 206, 228;
his installation, 91, 109, 119, 132, 155, 159, 175-207.
Norendro Nath Sen, editor of the “Indian Mirror,” 85.
Nur-el-Huda, Seyd, of Patna, 100, 139.
Oude, King of, 120, 125.
Palmer, Professor, his mission, 15, 16, 19, 166, 167.
Parsis, 214, 285-287.
Patna, 139-141;
outrage case, 141, 146, 147, 174, 178, 182, 194, 264-266.
Patterson, Mr., 147.
Peishkar, the, Minister of the Nizam, 62, 70, 71, 76, 78, 137, 185,
186, 201.
“Pioneer, The,” Anglo-Indian newspaper of Allahabad, 8, 149, 150,
159.
Pollen, Walter, A.D.C. to Lord Ripon, 85, 177, 180, 194.
Poona, 81.
Poverty of India, 50, 213, 236-246, 254.
Press laws, 2, 235.
Press, Native, 255.
Primrose, Sir Henry, Lord Ripon’s private secretary, 9, 85, 142, 167,
177, 179, 180, 191, 266.
Princes of India, 35, 38, 162, 164, 301, 302, 304.
Purani Palace at Hyderabad, 204.
Queen Victoria, 2, 3, 132, 325;
her proclamation, 132, 312.
Race hatred, causes of, 73, 74, 100, 101, 102, 231-235, 255-277.
Ragunath Rao, a distinguished Mahratta Brahmin of Madras, 38, 42,
43, 88, 178, 194, 219.
Rajputana, 171, 172.
Ramanatha, Mr., head of the Tamil community at Colombo, 24.
Rangiar Naidu, Zemindar of Madras, 41, 50.
Rasul Yar Khan, Nawab, of Hyderabad, 14, 59, 63, 71, 80, 182, 185,
187, 197, 198, 201, 203, 204.
Raza Huseyn, Seyd, Kadi of Patna, 129, 139.
Ripon, Marquis of, 1-4, 36, 37, 55, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 88-91, 95,
96, 109, 122, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 141, 147, 148, 177-184,
186, 187, 189-196, 202, 203, 205, 206, 219, 228, 229, 232, 253,
268-273, 315, 334-336;
his character, 3, 4, 55, 96, 97, 148, 269, 270, 326;
reasons of his failure, 5, 6, 53, 55, 95, 122, 130;
his ideas, 37;
talks with, 89, 90, 91, 92, 178, 179, 190, 194, 195, 196;
his opinions about Berar, 91, 183, 184;
his speech at the Nizam’s installation, 186, 187;
his great popularity, 270-273.
Roberts, Field Marshal Sir Frederick (Lord Roberts), 187, 189, 192,
193, 196.
Rogay, Mr. Mohammed, wealthy Moslem of Bombay, 82, 139, 210, 211,
223, 225, 263.
Saadut Ali, Salar Jung’s brother, 186, 193.
Sabunji, Mr., 12, 13, 19.
Salar Jung, Sir (the elder), 61, 63, 74, 89, 90, 149, 186, 191;
his death, 63, 89, 173, 200, 201, 212, 300, 335.
Salar Jung (the younger), Laik Ali, 66, 68, 70, 72, 76, 77, 90, 91,
93, 99, 109, 132, 180, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194,
195, 197, 201, 202, 204, 205, 228, 330, 334, 335.
Salt tax, 2, 36, 41, 50, 53, 95, 140, 158, 207, 218, 222, 223, 224,
232, 242, 243, 254.
Sami Ullah, Mulvi, of Aligarh, 103, 105, 155, 156, 157.
Sandwal, Dr., a Christian Hindu, 100.
Sanskrit College, 46, 49.
Scindia, Maharajah, 301.
Sebapathy Ayar, a Christianized Hindu, 55, 204.
Self-Government, the future of, 299-326.
Seyd Abdallah, merchant of Mecca, 71.
Seyd Ahmed Afghani, 187-188.
Seyd Ahmed, Mulvi, of Aligarh, Founder of Aligarh College, 117, 127,
155-160, 181, 188.
Shankar, Rao, Pandit, Oriental translator to Bombay Government, 222.
Shere Ali, Amir of Afghanistan, 187, 188.
Shiahs and Sunnis, 63, 72, 134, 151, 153, 154, 163, 212, 213, 295.
Shooting accident, 157.
Shustari, Seyd Ali, a poet and wag, 69, 71, 201, 203.
Sirhadé Huseyn, of Patna, 140.
Siva Prasad, Rajah, 120, 125.
Solomon, our servant, 46, 174.
Souter, Sir Frank, 216, 217.
Southern India described, 27;
Moslems of, 27-29, 41, 45, 287-289.
“Statesman, The,” 136, 191.
Stewart, Sir Donald, High Court Judge, 146, 187.
Strachey, Sir John, 6, 142, 147, 240, 246, 253.
Subramania Ayer, journalist of Madras, 36.
Suleyman Kadur, Prince, 120, 125.
Suliman Jah, Prince, of the Mogul family, 161, 162, 164, 165.
Sultan, Ottoman, 13, 63, 64, 79, 111, 125, 161, 230.
Tagore, Sir Jotendro Mohun, 86, 87, 96.
Tamils, the, of Ceylon, 23, 27.
Tanjore, 34.
Tea Planters, 17, 18, 145.
Telang, Kashinath, member of Bombay Council, 220, 223.
Temple, Sir Richard, 216, 218, 249.
Tenth Hussars, 153.
Tippara, Rajah of, 115.
Tirupati, 46-49.
Trevelyan, Sir Charles, 40.
Trevor, Mr., 60, 67, 80, 92, 93, 178, 199, 201.
Trichinopoly, 33.
Tuticorin, 27.
Tyabji, Bedr-ed-Din, of Bombay, 225.
University, Mohammedan, 98, 117, 119, 126, 127, 131, 133, 134, 167,
179, 190, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 212, 227;
scheme of, in Appendix, 337.
Ulwar, 171, 172, 229.
Uttarpara, 101.
Varada Rao, of Madras, 38, 42, 45.
Viceroy’s Council, Debate on the Ilbert Bill, 132, 133.
Vikar-el-Omra, Ik Balet Dowlah, nobleman of Hyderabad, 64, 67, 69,
73, 137, 157, 182, 188, 193.
Village evictions, 242.
Village poverty, 50, 53, 54, 55, 87-94, 95, 102, 118, 140, 158, 207,
213, 232, 236, 237, 306.
Villayet Ali, Nawab of Patna, 140, 141, 183, 264.
Wedderburn, Sir William, Bart., 213, 215, 216, 240;
reforms recommended by, 215.
West, Mr., Vice-Chancellor of the Bombay University, 219, 224.
“Wind and the Whirlwind, The,” 14, 136, 153, 184.
Yemen, politics of, 123;
horses of, 128, 129;
a sheykh of, 128.
[Illustration]
CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
Transcriber’s Notes:
Several proper names do not agree with currently accepted
spellings, but have not been changed except to make index entries
correlate with the text where possible, as noted below. Uncommon
spellings (e.g. adherred, premiss) which were not clearly printing
errors were left unchanged. Inconsistent hyphenation (e.g.
shop-keeper, shopkeeper) was left as printed, as most likely to
reflect the original diary entries.
“congregrated” changed to “congregated” on page 12. (Egyptian
exiles congregated there.)
“Englishmen” changed to “Englishman” on page 156. (an average
Englishman)
“Vice-Chanceller” changed to “Vice-Chancellor” on page 224.
(Vice-Chancellor of the university)
“or” changed to “of” on page 242. (the great famine of 1877-78)
“betwen” changed to “between” on page 305. (the connection between
England and India)
“Temimi” changed to “Temini” on page 339. (Eid el Temini)
“Ghalum” changed to “Ghulam” and re-alphabetized on page 339.
(Ghulam Mohammed Munshi)
“Ayar” changed to “Ayer” on page 343. (Subramania Ayer)
“Trichinopoli” changed to “Trichinopoly” on pages 288 (such towns
as Tanjore and Trichinopoly) and 343 (index entry).
End of Project Gutenberg's India Under Ripon, by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt