THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
The first question which comes before us when considering the government
of India is, What right have we to govern it? For an answer to this
question we must betake ourselves to the history of our connexion with
India. This history cannot have for us the interest and fascination of
the history of our own country; but it has strong claims on us as the
subjects of the British Crown, contains much that deserves and repays
perusal, and must be known by us in order to the right understanding of
the position we have obtained.
My reading of Indian history leads me to the conclusion that in all
likelihood we should never have been rulers in India had we not been
grievously injured as traders, in violation of rights accorded to us by
the native powers. All know the story of the black hole of Calcutta,
which led to our waging war on the Nawab. We had previously fought with
the French and French allies in the south, we had contended with other
European rivals, but our rule began with the victory of Plassey. After
that victory our only alternative was either to leave the country
altogether, or to go on conquering till we should become the supreme
power over the whole of the continent. If we had retired from the land
we had conquered, and had sought to remain as traders, our retirement
would have been attributed to weakness, and demands would have been made
on us which would have made trading impossible. If we had determined not
to advance, but simply to retain what we had acquired, and had satisfied
ourselves with repelling attacks, these attacks would have been
continued till we had either gone forward, or resigned our conquest
altogether.
We can understand the course pursued by the founders of the British
Empire in India only when we look on them as placed between the
alternative mentioned. The Directors of the East India Company did not
seek the government of India. They deprecated it. By it commerce was
disorganized and dividends lowered. Some of their servants in India made
enormous fortunes by the new state of things, but this was no comfort to
them. Order after order was sent out against the extension of territory.
Governor after governor was commissioned to carry out the peaceful views
of the home authorities, but still conquest went on under the direction
of these very governors.
[Sidenote: THE POLICY OF THE MARQUESS OF HASTINGS.]
I am far from vindicating all that was done; deeds were committed which
deserve severe condemnation; but it would be a travesty of history to
say that the governors, who set out with peaceful intentions, succumbed
to the lust of conquest. They were often forced to adopt war measures.
Many instances might be adduced. I give only one. The Marquess of
Hastings had denounced the conquering career of the Marquess of
Wellesley. He was selected for the very purpose of reversing his policy,
so far as it could be reversed. If any person could be trusted for
giving peace to India he was the man. Shortly after his arrival our
connexion with the Ghoorkhas, the ruling body in Nepal, became strained.
They made raids into our territory beneath the hills, and murdered and
robbed our subjects. The Marquess was extremely desirous to avoid a
rupture with them. Remonstrances were addressed to them, and proposals
made to settle differences by the better defining of the boundaries
between their country and ours. These proposals were regarded as a proof
of weakness, and the bold demand was made we should give up to them the
great fertile region north of the Ganges. There was no further
hesitation. To yield to this demand, for which there was not the pretext
of right, would have been to announce to all the potentates of India
that we were unable to defend ourselves, and would have led them to
assail us. War was declared, which, after two campaigns and a severe
struggle, ended in the discomfiture of the Ghoorkhas, and in their
cession to us of the large territory they had conquered a few years
previously. Ought the Governor-General to have yielded to the Ghoorkha
demand? Yes, if we were prepared to leave the country altogether, but
otherwise not.
No sooner had the Marquess of Hastings landed in India than he began to
doubt the policy he had formerly advocated, and events soon compelled
him to abandon it. The policy on which he acted was declared by him in
unmistakable terms: "Our object in India ought to be to render the
British Government paramount in effect, if not declaredly so ... and to
oblige the other states to perform the two great feudal duties of
supporting our rule with all their forces, and submitting their mutual
differences to our arbitration."
Till we became confessedly supreme we were not for any length of time
allowed to remain at peace. There were two main reasons for the unrest,
which prepared the way for war. One reason was that the native powers
hated and dreaded us, and were eager for our overthrow even when they
professed the greatest friendliness. When we were involved in
difficulties they were ready to rise against us. Every indication of our
desire to avoid hostilities was interpreted as a sign of weakness, and
thus became an incentive to the renewal of the struggle. Another reason
for the fresh outbreak of war was the treachery of the native princes. I
cannot say that in the matter of treaty keeping we had clean hands. The
gross deceit played on Omichund, as described by Macaulay in his Essay
on Lord Clive, stands nearly alone in our public conduct in India, but
other transactions have been unworthy of our character for high-minded
integrity. It may, however, be confidently affirmed, that looking at our
governing conduct as a whole, it presents by its faithfulness to
engagements a marked contrast to the conduct of those who had entered
into treaty with us. Many of our Indian wars would have been prevented
had there not been on their part the violation of engagements in a
manner which showed they never intended to keep them an hour longer than
they were compelled by circumstances.
If a review of the course pursued by our people in India shows how we
became the governing power, and indicates the ground on which our rule
rests, a review of the history of India for ages previous to our advent,
and of the condition in which we found it, will help us greatly in
answering the question--Has India been benefited or injured by our
having seized the sceptre?
[Sidenote: MUHAMMADAN RULE.]
For centuries Muhammadans were the rulers of India. They entered, not
to avenge wrongs done to them, but as the servants of Allah, called to
put down idolatry, and entitled to rule over the nations they subdued.
Centuries elapsed before the extension of their rule beyond the
North-West region. Gradually it extended to other parts of India. The
seventeenth century was well advanced before the greater part of
Southern India came under the rule of the Emperor of Delhi--the
Shah-un-shah, King of kings, as he was called. His suzerainty was
generally acknowledged in those lands which continued under Hindu
rulers.
As we turn over page after page of the Muhammadan rule in India, what
scenes of strife, of bloody war, of treachery, of desolated countries,
continually meet our view! No sooner did an emperor die than the
struggle commenced for the vacant throne between his many sons, brother
fighting with brother till one became the victor, and then woe to the
vanquished! The governors of Provinces, as soon as they thought they had
sufficient power, rebelled against the sovereign, and struggled--not
infrequently with success--to secure an independent throne. In the
course of these civil wars countries were overrun, towns and villages
levelled with the ground, their inhabitants massacred, and their
property pillaged. We read of rival dynasties which contended with each
other for empire. We are told of terrible invasions like those of Timour
and Nadir Shah. There were no doubt great emperors, such as the
illustrious Akbar, during whose rule India suffered comparatively little
from war, and enjoyed great prosperity. Governors were now and then firm
and just rulers. Looking at the whole period of Muhammadan rule, during
no part of which India was free from the scourge of war, and during a
great part of which war on a large scale was carried on, untold misery
must have been endured by many of its inhabitants, and there was little
security for life and property. The aristocracy of the emperors' courts
was mainly that of office, and only to a limited degree that of blood
and ancient possession. We find persons of mean birth rising to
greatness, and persons on the very pinnacle of honour cast down to the
ground. There was a succession of emperors called Slave Emperors, as
they had originally been slaves in the court, whence they rose to
supreme power. When we consider the teaching of the Quran respecting
those who do not submit to Islam, we may suppose what the condition of
the Hindus was under Muhammadan rulers, so far as they acted out their
principles. Happily during this period, though constantly exposed to
terrible disasters, the people in their villages were often left to
manage their own affairs.
[Sidenote: THE REIGN OF ADVENTURERS.]
When our nation commenced its conquering career in the middle of the
eighteenth century, the Muhammadan Empire was in a state of collapse.
Within thirteen years of Aurungzeb's death, in 1706, six sovereigns were
seated on the imperial throne. Shah Alum was nominal emperor from 1759
to 1806, and all the time he was a wanderer, a prisoner, or a pensioner
of the Mahrattas, the Rohillas, or the English. He was as melancholy an
example of fallen greatness as can well be conceived, a greatness which
retained its title while its bearer was subjected to every indignity. He
had been for some time in the hands of the Mahrattas, who used his seal
freely, and at the same time treated him with the utmost cruelty. The
food supplied was so insufficient that he and his household were almost
starved. When Lord Lake took Delhi from the Mahrattas in 1803 he found
the poor old blind emperor under a tattered canopy, trembling at what
might now befall him. Some years previously his eyes had been gouged out
by one of his Rohilla keepers. At once he was treated by us with the
highest consideration. Power was not given, but a handsome pension was
assigned, and he was personally treated with all the honour due to a
reigning sovereign. When these facts are remembered, it is strange we
should be charged with overthrowing the Muhammadan Empire in India.
Whoever was injured by our conquest, Shah Alum and his family were
assuredly benefited.
Our contention was with those whose only claim to rule rested on the
sword. Bold adventurers had risen everywhere, and were snatching at the
fallen sceptre. There were still emperors, as we have mentioned, and
their prestige gave value to documents bearing their seal, but they did
not retain a shred of power. Daring Europeans, helped by native allies,
had set to carving out principalities for themselves. The viziers and
nawabs that ruled in the name of the emperors rendered them neither
obedience nor tribute. Our first great battle was fought with Suraj ud
Dowla, the Nawab of Bengal, the grandson of Aliverdi Khan, an Afghan
adventurer, who had acquired the government of the country. In the South
we fought with Hyder Ali, a trooper who gathered under him a marauding
band, and by courage and craft rose to being a sovereign, and with his
son Tippoo Sahib. Our longest and most severe contests were with the
Mahrattas, a warlike tribe of Hindus in Western India, who came first
into prominence in the seventeenth century under Sivajee, a petty
chieftain, and gradually advanced under various leaders till they became
for a time the paramount power. Their hordes of horsemen scoured the
country in all directions, north and south, east and west, demanding
the _chauth_, the fourth part of the revenue, and returning to their
capitals laden with spoil. The leaders with whom we had most to do,
sometimes in the way of friendship, far more frequently in the way of
warfare, were the Peshwa, the head of the Mahratta confederacy, the heir
of Sivajee; Ranojee Bhonsla, a private horseman, who became Prince of
Nagpore; Pilajee Gaikwar, a cowherd, who ruled in Baroda; Ranojee
Scindia, a menial servant of the Peshwa, who made Gwalior his capital;
and Mulhar Rao Holkar, a shepherd, who became Maharajah of Indore. Not
one of their number professed to belong to the ancient ruling families
of India.
As we glance at India as it was under Muhammadan rule, and consider its
state when our conquering career began, we find there were no elements
of stable government: the Imperial power had become a shadow; ambitious
leaders were everywhere striving for the mastery, ready to beat down all
opposition within their own immediate sphere, and then prepared to wrest
power from neighbouring chiefs. India had at that time a very dark
prospect before it.
This review of the past history of India may seem an unduly long
introduction to a brief statement regarding its condition under our
rule, but it is only by looking to the past a right answer can be given
to the questions: What right have we to govern India? From what evils
has our government delivered it? What benefits have we conferred on its
population? Inattention to the past has led many to give in some cases
an utterly wrong, in other cases a very inadequate, answer to these
questions. It is clear that India has been brought under our rule by
what may be rightly called aggressive war only to a very limited
extent. It is also clear that the hostile forces we encountered were not
those of the ancient princes of the land, but of adventurers who were
struggling to rise on the ruins of the disorganized empire. At the
present time, on the mere ground of the length of possession, our rule
has a stronger claim than that of the potentates whom we overthrew.
[Sidenote: THE ADVANTAGES OF BRITISH RULE.]
A review of the past prepares us to see some of the advantages our rule
has conferred. No longer are armies marching over India, supplying their
wants by the plunder of its people, and leaving ruin in their track. No
longer has the husbandman, when he sees at a distance the dust raised by
the tramp of the Mahratta cavalry, to flee to his walled village, if he
has one to flee to, or to his hamlet if he cannot do better, leaving his
field, perhaps ready for the sickle, to be trodden down by the unwelcome
stranger. No longer are hosts of marauders like the Pindarees, who
scarcely professed to be anything else than marauders, allowed to roam
over fertile and populous regions in their robbing and murdering
expeditions. No longer are professional robbers called Dacoits allowed
to set out on excursions, and make their way under various disguises to
towns, to rise at an arranged signal, attack the houses of the rich, and
force them, often under torture, to reveal their treasures. No longer
are Thugs, professional murderers, left to arrange their plans for
insinuating themselves into the goodwill of travellers, with a view,
when the opportunity came, to throttling their victims, robbing them,
and then burying them, that all mark of their deeds might be effaced.
From Dacoity and Thuggery Europeans had nothing to fear, but natives
suffered frightfully; and special departments were formed for their
suppression. In Northern India, at least, these bands of robbers and
murderers have been broken up. No longer are the lives and property of
the people at the disposal of their rulers, as was to a large extent the
case previous to the British era. They are now under the ægis of law.
If any one think that the advantages thus conferred by the establishment
of a stable government are of little value, all we can say is they have
no conception of the misery brought on thousands from generation to
generation, when these advantages were unknown.
Never was a comparatively small nation entrusted with so vast a work as
that committed to us by our undertaking to administer the government of
a continent thousands of miles from our shores, inhabited by two hundred
and fifty-four millions, who differ widely from us in language,
religion, habits, history, associations--in almost everything in which
one nation can differ from another. Two hundred millions are under our
direct rule, and the rest are under native rulers who acknowledge our
Queen as suzerain. It would have been a miracle had we not in the course
of our government, during more than a hundred years, done many unwise,
many wrong, even many cruel things. He would be a bold man who would
stand forth and maintain we had done good, and only good, to the nations
of India. We take no such optimist position. You can adduce many things
in our dealings with the people which the best of the officials have
themselves condemned, and you can mention evils which have followed our
rule for which we can scarcely be said to be responsible. This, however,
we say with the fullest conviction, as the result of long residence in
India and of extensive observation: that considering our position as
Western strangers, and the difficulties with which we have had to
contend, our Government has had a success far greater than could have
been anticipated, and has conferred vast advantages on the country.
[Sidenote: BRITISH ADMINISTRATORS.]
It would be difficult to find in the history of the world a more
remarkable class of men than those who have been engaged in the
administration of India. There have been inefficient, selfish, idle,
unprincipled men among them. In former years we used to hear of John
Company's bad bargains; and now that India has come directly under the
rule of Queen Victoria we now and then hear of John Bull's bad bargains.
These have been the exception, not the rule. There has been in
succession a band of men who have earnestly sought the good of the
people, and have shown a capacity for administration which I have no
doubt surprised themselves, as it has those who have watched their
progress. Sir John Kaye has given interesting sketches of some Indian
worthies, but it would require a series of volumes to record the deeds
of the many who have taken a warm interest in the people, have toiled
for their good, and have been trusted, and in some instances literally
adored, by them. I have had a considerable acquaintance with the
_personnel_ of the Government of the North-West Provinces, from some
occupying the highest position down to assistant magistrates. I cannot
say I admired all, but I can say that I have been surprised at the
number who did their duty faithfully, were thoroughly interested in
their work, and rejoiced when they had achieved any measure of success.
With a few exceptions the Governor-General has been an English nobleman
who has filled some important office at home; but Lieutenant-Governors,
and not infrequently Governors, have been persons of large Indian
experience, who have passed with honour through all the grades of the
Civil Service. These, assisted by the Commissioners of Provinces,
exercise a strict supervision over the entire administration. Officials
have continually to report their doings, and irregularities are quickly
discovered. We know of no class who have more onerous duties to
discharge than magistrates of districts and their subordinates. They
have long hours in crowded courts in an exhausting climate, decide many
intricate cases, maintain order within the bounds of their jurisdiction,
receive reports of what is being done and give directions, prepare
reports for the Government, and they are expected to give a courteous
reception to native gentlemen when they call, however long these
gentlemen may be inclined to prolong their visit. We have been at times
in a position to see the daily life of some of these men, and have been
struck with the amount of work devolving on them, and the patience they
have shown where there was strong temptation to impatience.
[Sidenote: INCIDENTAL EVILS OF OUR RULE.]
As strangers, it is difficult for us to understand the people, and the
result is that with the best intentions we have at times adopted
measures utterly unsuited to them. Our very attempt to secure the rights
of all classes by the careful drawing up of civil and criminal codes,
and by the institution of courts where they are administered, has
fostered the litigiousness of the people, and has led to a fearful
amount of perjury. Litigiousness got no play where courts did not exist,
and perjury could not show itself where witnesses were not examined. It
is said that in one of our most recent acquisitions, the Punjab, the
people have deteriorated under our rule. Runjeet Singh had no prisons.
Thieves caught in the act were maimed and allowed to go their way.
Murderers and other great offenders were at once put to death. We can
scarcely adopt this primitive mode of maintaining order, and by our
codes, courts, judges, and witnesses we have no doubt opened the door to
evils of which the Punjab knew nothing in Runjeet Singh's time. If the
early colonists of New York and Boston had retained their primitive
simplicity, those cities would not now be disgraced by the slums, with
their vice, crime, and misery, which make them too closely resemble the
cities of the old continent. When society makes progress, new, social,
and political, arrangements are indispensable, the countervailing good
being much greater than the incidental evils which come in their train.
In India there are Regulation and Non-Regulation Provinces, the
Regulation Provinces being those which have been long under our rule,
and are subject to all our laws; and the Non-Regulation Provinces being
those to which our codes are only partially applied, and where much is
left to the discretion of the administrator. In the former the chief
offices belong to the regular Civil Service, while in the latter
military men as well as civilians are employed. Both classes have
furnished most able and capable men.
[Sidenote: TAXATION.]
Considering the resources of India its taxation is heavy. Our Government
pays its servants of every description, high and low, civil and
military, with a regularity utterly unknown under native rule, and the
income must in regularity keep pace with the outlay. When we read of
seventy millions as the expenditure, it must be remembered that what is
called the land-tax is really rent, for in India the land has always
been considered the property of the state. This is kept before the mind
of the people of Madras by the yearly assessment of the tenants, and
before the people of the North-Western Provinces by the new assessment
made every thirtieth year. By the perpetual settlement of Bengal, the
tax-collectors were at once raised to the position of landholders, of
which they have often taken undue advantage. It must also be remembered
that a considerable sum is expended on remunerative works, such as
canals and railways. The expenditure on the army is great. I cannot
conceive why our Government keeps up so large a native army. It would
appear to those who are outside the Government circle, that its
reduction would conduce to safety as well as to economy. The European
part of the army is comparatively very small, and it would be most
perilous to lessen it. Years before the Mutiny, Sir Henry Lawrence said
it was the backbone of our strength, and events proved how true his
remark was. Yet it is, and must continue to be, very expensive, like
every other form of European agency. The Mutiny among its other results
left behind it heavy pecuniary responsibilities, which have added to the
debt and led to increased taxation. Many are of opinion that the
amalgamation of the Royal and Indian armies was an unwise measure, and
has caused much unnecessary expense. Often complaints have been made
that successive home Governments, from their unchallenged control over
the affairs of India, have imposed an unjust burden on its resources by
keeping at home too large a force at its expense, and by undue charges
for stores sent out, as well as by making it pay sums which were more
properly due by the imperial exchequer.
"The net land revenue has risen in the ten years beginning 1870-71 from
£20,335,678, or nearly half the total net revenue of £42,780,417, by
about two millions sterling, to £22,125,807, with a total net revenue of
£49,801,664. The gross revenue of the latter year, 1879-80, was
£68,484,666, the difference being derived from sources other than
taxation, such as the opium monopoly. The revenue of 1880-81 was
£72,920,000, and the gross expenditure £71,259,000. Including the land
revenue as land-tax, the 200 millions in the twelve Provinces of British
India pay about 4s. a head of imperial taxation, besides municipal or
local and provincial cesses, which purchase such local advantages as
roads, schools, police, and sanitary appliances. This incidence of
taxation varies from 5s. 6d. per head of the land-owning classes to 3s.
3d. for traders, 2s. for artisans, and 1s. 6d. for agricultural
labourers. The fiscal policy of the Government has of late been to
reduce the burden of the salt monopoly, which is a poll-tax, and to
abolish import duties. The 54½ millions in the Native States pay only to
their own chiefs, who enjoy a net annual revenue of fourteen millions
sterling, and pay £700,000 as tribute, or less than the cost of the
military and political establishments maintained on their account" (Dr.
George Smith's "Geography of British India"). Deducting land-tax, opium,
railways, irrigations, post-office, and suchlike remunerative services,
the taxation is reduced to 2s. per head of population.
If the European army in India be the backbone of our military sway,
European administrators are, I believe, the backbone of our government.
During the terrible years 1857 and 1858, the services rendered by those
who were engaged in civil employment were of the highest value in
restoring peace to the distracted country, and in re-establishing our
government. European officials of every grade showed equal zeal and
determination. There were many native officials in these Provinces, some
of them highly paid and greatly trusted. A few remained faithful and did
good service, though the help rendered, when summed up, cannot be
reckoned great. Many proved unfaithful, and some became our bitter
enemies. If instead of Englishmen as judges, magistrates, and
collectors, we had had at that time highly educated natives of Bengal
holding these offices, the men who receive for themselves the best
hearing in England, can we suppose that, however well inclined, they
could have borne the brunt of the contest, and aided largely in securing
the victory? It would ill become me to speak against these men. I know
some of the class for whom I have not only a high esteem but warm
affection. Among them there are not a few who are great in attainment,
keen in intellect, and strong in purpose to do the right. Still I do not
think they themselves would maintain they have the physical courage, the
firm mental calibre, the moral strength, and the high place in the
confidence of the community, which would qualify any of their number to
occupy the position of Governor-General, Governor, Lieutenant-Governor,
and Chief Commissioner, or would make it desirable they should form the
leading body of the administrative staff. The successful candidates for
the Civil Service have come, we believe, exclusively from the
highly-educated youth of the Presidency cities, between whom and the
millions of their own Provinces there is no such bond as unites the
so-called leaders of the Irish with the majority of their countrymen. In
the other countries of India they are little known, and are regarded
with no special interest.
[Sidenote: HINDUSTANEES AND BENGALEES.]
Many mistakes would be prevented if English people would remember that
we have in India nations differing widely from each other. We have a
striking illustration of this fact in the part of India in which we have
lived. Bengalees abound in the public offices in the North-West
Provinces and in the Punjab. They are deemed sharper in intellect, and
are better educated, than the Hindustanees, and on account of their
superior education they have got situations which would have been filled
by natives of the country, had their educational acquirements been
equal. These Bengalees are not strangers in these Provinces to the same
extent as Englishmen, but they are strangers, and are looked upon as
such by the people. Where they are numerous they keep mainly to
themselves, and however friendly they may be with Hindustanees they are
regarded as belonging to another country. When you meet them you know
them at once by their look, dress, language, and habits. A part of
Benares, called Bengalee Tola--Bengalee district--is inhabited almost
wholly by Bengalees, and when you enter it you feel you have come among
another people, who speak a different language and present a different
appearance. During the Mutiny they were regarded in the North-West with
suspicion, as half-English, and many were happy to seek shelter where we
were able to keep our footing. If the question was put in Hindustan
Proper to any large body of people--Would you have Bengalees or
Englishmen for your magistrates and judges? I think in most places the
well-nigh unanimous response would be, The Englishman.
If my opinion is to rest on my own observation, I would confidently say
that notwithstanding the injustice and unkindness charged against some
English officials, the people generally have profound trust in our
justice--in our _insaf_--and as a rule, except when they think the
native partial to themselves, they prefer to have their cases tried
where an Englishman presides. When on a journey I once came up to two
men engaged in eager talk. I heard them use frequently the words,
_Ungrez_ and _Insaf_--_Englishmen_ and _Justice_--and on stopping I
heard the one telling the other of the bribes taken by native officials
in a case he had, and of the justice done when the Englishman took it
up. He ended with the words, "What a wonderful people for _insaf_ these
English are!" to which remark the other man assented. I thanked them for
their good opinion, and held on my way.
If the administration of India in its present state must, in its chief
offices, remain in the hands of Europeans, it must be expensive. The
great officers of state, considering the dignity they have to maintain
and the establishments they have to keep, must be highly paid. When we
think of the qualifications required by those who are charged with the
ordinary administration, the great expense to which they are put, the
years they spend in laborious work in an exhausting climate, and their
unfitness as a rule for work in England on their retirement, I do not
think their income or pension can be to any large extent safely or
justly reduced. The era of nabobs, returning with vast wealth to
astonish the English people, has long since passed away. These men had
small pay, but great perquisites. The pay has been greatly increased,
but the perquisites are gone, and India has benefited vastly by the
change.
Indian magistrates have much to tell of the litigiousness of the people,
their constant attempts to overreach each other, the carefully woven
lies which they have daily to unravel, the trust put in bribes to
influence decisions, and the deeply ingrained notion in the minds of
native officials that they should get more for their services to the
public than the bare pay, the _sookha tulub_--_dry wages_--as it is
contemptuously called.
[Sidenote: THE POVERTY OF THE PEOPLE.]
The people of Northern India are mainly agricultural, and they are
unquestionably poor. Our very success has in one aspect tended to their
impoverishment. With very few exceptions they marry young, and during
the many years of peace which have passed over them, with the exception
of the short sharp crisis of the Mutiny, the population has greatly
increased. Whenever an epidemic breaks out, means are at once employed
to check it. There is a vaccination department for the purpose of
preventing the ravages of small-pox. Female infanticide, which had
prevailed to a frightful extent among certain castes, has been
diminished, though not, it is feared, wholly suppressed. It is well
known that famines have been sadly destructive of life, but there is
evidence that previous to our rule, when there were few roads and little
communication between one part of India and another, famines were still
more so. Among so vast a population directly dependent on the soil, in a
country where rain is so indispensable, and is now and then a failure,
we have too much reason to fear famines may yet recur; but such
provision is now made against their ravages, that it is hoped the
catastrophes of the past will be escaped.
It is believed that, as the result of the new order of things, India at
the present time has by many millions a larger population than it ever
had previously. Mention has been made of the improvement effected in
the Province of Kumaon; and other parts of India present instances of
equally successful administration, but the area of new cultivation has
not kept pace with the increase of population. It is sad that so many of
the people should be underfed. In our own country and in Ireland this
question of sufficient food for the entire population is one of the
pressing difficulties of the day. Much is within the power of people
themselves to improve their condition. We know it is so at home, and it
is so in India. There, there is a vast body of sturdy beggars, under the
guise of religious devotees, who feed on the people. Lending and
borrowing go on at a most hurtful rate. If a person finds himself
possessed of some twenty or thirty rupees, he either puts it into jewels
for the female members of his family, or lends it at an exorbitant rate
of interest. It has sometimes seemed as if creditors and debtors
included the entire population. Debt, not by law but by custom, is
hereditary, and a man is expected to pay the debts of his grand-parents.
Marriage expenses are so heavy, that very often a debt settles down on a
man on his marriage day under which he lies till the day of his death.
Government has done much to induce leading men to bind themselves to a
moderate expenditure on the occasion of marriages, in the hope that the
example might prevent the unreasonable and pernicious profusion of the
marriage season. If the habits of the people were changed the pressure
of poverty would be greatly lightened.
[Sidenote: IMPROVEMENT.]
There is much room for improvement in the incidence of taxation. The
land-tax, we may say the land-rent, is the main source of revenue, but
it is alarming to think of dependence on the opium monopoly for the
millions it contributes. Intoxicating drugs are largely used in India,
and among them opium holds the favourite place. Permission to the people
to grow and manufacture opium for themselves would be as hurtful as
permission to distil whiskey and gin would be to our country. It is
devoutly to be wished the present system may come to an end, and that in
its place a fiscal system be adopted similar to that of England in
reference to alcoholic drinks. In reference to spirits, every effort
should be made to discourage their sale, however much the revenue may
suffer in consequence. The salt-tax has been so productive that it has
been kept up in a manner which has borne heavily on the people. It has
been reduced, and it is hoped that it will be reduced still further.
Regarding some of the questions at present much discussed, I can only
say that every friend of India, I may say every friend of justice, must
desire that the people be largely entrusted with the management of their
own affairs, that local government be encouraged, and every facility
given to the admission of natives, so far as they are qualified, into
the rank of administrators. Much is being done in this direction, and
still more will be done in the future. The police has been improved, but
it stands much in need of further improvement.
Happy changes were expected from the assumption by the Queen of the
direct government of India. Progress has been made since that time, but
I do not think it is in any large measure owing to the change. For some
time previously increased attention was given to the sanitation of
towns, the improvement of roads, the laying out of market-places, the
planting of public gardens, the building of hospitals, dispensaries, and
town houses. Many wealthy natives, stirred up by magistrates, have
contributed liberally to these improvements. Of late years these works
have been carried on with increasing zeal. In 1877 we saw some of the
principal towns in Northern India, and were struck with the contrast
they presented to their condition during the early years of our
residence. The filthiest place in Benares, which almost sickened me
every time I came near it, is now a beautiful garden, with a fine
town-house attached to it. The very bulls of Benares have been got rid
of. No longer are these brutes encountered in the streets.
My readers will observe that I am far from agreeing with those who
describe our rule in India as an unmixed blessing to its inhabitants. It
is undeniable that our rule, because foreign, lies under great
disadvantages. I am still farther removed from agreement with the
extremely pessimist views which are sometimes advanced. The history of
India rebuts the assertion that we have acquired our sovereignty mainly
by fraud; and whatever may be said of other parts of India, no one
acquainted with Bengal and the North-Western Provinces can say that he
has there seen "the awful spectacle of a country inhabited only by
officials and peasants." When one thinks of the atrocious crimes, upheld
by religious sanctions, such as suttee and infanticide, which we have
put down in the face of determined opposition and even threats of
rebellion from the most honoured classes of the community, it is strange
to be told that "before we went the people were religious, chaste,
sober, compassionate towards the helpless, and patient under suffering,"
and that we have corrupted them. We are told that "while we have
conferred considerable advantages, the balance is wofully against us."
As the result of long residence in India, and of reading about India, I
have come to the conclusion the balance is immensely in our favour.
[Sidenote: WHENCE IS IMPROVEMENT TO COME?]
All friends of India desire the improvement of its government, and the
increasing welfare of its people. Whence is the improvement to come? We
are told "nothing is to be hoped for from the Indian official class."
From whom is anything to be hoped for? From the Home Government? The
leaders of our political parties have passed measures beneficial to
India, but they have again and again taken advantage of its helplessness
to impose on it burdens to which it ought not to have been subjected.
Are we to look to the people at home for relief? How difficult is it to
secure attention to the subject, or to make them understand it when
their attention is gained! Are we to look to the non-official class in
India? I have nothing to say about the Ilbert Jurisdiction Bill, except
that while officials have been divided about it, many of the most
eminent being in its favour, non-officials almost to a man have been
bitterly opposed to it. Where I have spent the greater part of my life,
nothing has been more common than complaints by Europeans of injustice
done to them by partiality shown to natives at their expense. Are we to
look to the great landholders, bankers, merchants, shopkeepers, and
well-to-do classes in the cities of Bengal and the North-West, who have
benefited most by our rule? What may be expected from them is
illustrated by the fact that when the finances were thrown by the Mutiny
into confusion, many protested against an income tax, and some of high
position proposed that the finances should be rectified by an increase
of the salt-tax! In these influential classes there are high-minded and
benevolent individuals, but if we look at them in their collective
capacity we shall be disappointed. When we look at the long roll of
distinguished Indian officials, mark their achievements, hear their
protests against what they deemed hurtful measures, and their advocacy
of beneficial changes, I think we find in them India's warmest friends,
who have done it the most signal service, and from whom more can be
expected than from any other class.
There are ample materials for arriving at correct views regarding the
condition of India and the way in which it is governed. No Parliamentary
Committee, no Royal Commission, is required to elicit the facts. The
recently completed "Gazeteer" of India, in which Dr. Hunter and his
assistants had been engaged for years, furnishes full and reliable
information. The state of India is described in that imperial work with
a frankness and fulness which leave nothing to be desired. If one of our
great writers, who has secured the ears of our country, would set to the
drawing up of a volume of moderate size, founded on the "Gazeteer,"
showing in a readable interesting form what has been done and what has
been left undone, what has been done well and what has been done ill,
and if the intelligent people of our country could be induced to give it
a careful perusal, untold good would be done both to England and to
India. Nothing would please Indian officials more than the eye of
England being thus fixed on their doings and misdoings, that the whole
truth might be known, and praise and censure be justly distributed, and
still more that the changes most beneficial to the people might be
effected.
[Sidenote: THE BEST GOVERNORS FOR INDIA.]
It is undeniable, as already said, that our rule because foreign lies
under great disadvantages. When the ancestors of the present Hindus
crossed the Indus and gradually made their way into the Continent before
them, they subdued and to a great degree enslaved its inhabitants. For
many a day their rule was foreign. This was also the case with the
successive Muhammadan conquerors. Rule founded on the suffrages of the
people remains to the present day unknown. There is, however, this
difference between the previous rulers of India and the English, that
they remained in the country, and gradually became amalgamated with its
inhabitants, while we show no disposition to make India our home. As we
do not, it would be far better if Hindustanees were the rulers of
Hindustan, Bengalees of Bengal, the members of other Indian nations of
their respective nations, provided they were qualified by character,
attainments, and the estimate entertained of them by the ruled, with a
strong central power to secure order throughout the Continent, while
leaving unfettered the general administration. Towards this ideal
strenuous efforts should be directed; but when we look at India as it is
now, with its divergent and antagonistic elements, with the weakness
induced by ages of superstition and despotism, what a long road has it
to travel before it can reach this goal! The question, then, is not what
is absolutely best, but what is practicable. Thus regarded, we are shut
up to the continuance of our rule. Every friend of India must desire
that it may be improved in every possible way, so that it may be in an
increasing degree a blessing to its teeming population.
No one can predict the future of India. Within its borders there are
many who for various reasons would be delighted with our overthrow,
while I believe the vast majority in the parts of India I know best
would deprecate our departure as a dire calamity. It is a notable fact
that when our own native soldiers, sworn to uphold our rule, rose
fiercely against us, and rebellion in many districts followed in the
wake of mutiny, not a single native prince of the highest rank availed
himself of the opportunity to throw off the suzerainty of our Queen.
The army of the Prince of Gwalior rose against us, but by doing so they
rebelled against their own sovereign. When in 1877 we were in a native
state in Rajputana, a gentleman, who knew well the temper of the people,
said that if our control was withdrawn the Rajputs and Mahrattas would
be at each other's throats in a month. Our army has something better to
do than to uphold an alien government. It has to prevent the outbreak of
war which would desolate India from one end to the other. Happily its
prestige is sufficient to avert this terrible evil, but the prestige can
only continue while the army exists. By the suppression of the Mutiny
our prowess was shown in a manner which has made an indelible
impression. It is scarcely conceivable we can again have to encounter a
similar outbreak, though trouble may come from unanticipated quarters.
Our immensely improved means of communication contribute largely to our
security. Good government, the conferring of manifest benefits on the
people, will do more to establish our rule than all other things
combined. It is obvious to all who have any just conception of our
position in India, that never was a nation charged with greater
responsibilities, never was such a tremendous task committed to a
people, and never was there a more urgent call for the highest
qualities, if the duties devolving on us are to be worthily discharged.
Our Government cannot, and ought not, to undertake its evangelization,
but if the work of government be rightly done, it will indirectly, but
very effectually, help the Christian Church in giving the Gospel to the
millions of India, which, when accepted by them, will purify and elevate
their character, improve their condition, and fit them for true,
healthy, national life, while securing their spiritual and eternal
good.
STATISTICS.
Area of India and British Burma, 1,495,574 sq. miles. Population in
1881, 254,899,516.
Under British rule 197,815,508
Under Native rule 57,084,008
Hindus 187,931,450
Muhammadans 50,127,585
Buddhists--almost entirely in British
Burma 3,418,884
Sikhs 853,426
Aborigines--mainly Demon worshippers 6,426,511
_Christians_
Europeans[4] 142,000
Eurasians 62,000
Protestant Native Christians[5] 492,882
Roman Catholics 865,643
Syrians--about 300,000
-------- 1,862,525
Other Creeds not specified 4,479,135
The increase of the Native Christian community connected with Protestant
Missions from 1851 to 1861 was 53 per cent.; from 1861 to 1871, 61 per
cent.; and from 1871 to 1881, 86 per cent. The number of communicants
rose from 14,000 in 1851 to 113,000 in 1881. Within the last decade the
number of native ordained agents has risen from 225 to 461; of native
lay preachers from 1,900 to 2,400; of native Christian teachers from
1,900 to 3,400; of native Christian female agents from 800 to 1,600. The
number of male pupils in Mission schools in 1851 was 50,000; in 1881,
129,000. The female pupils increased within that period from 11,000 to
56,000. The increase in Zenana pupils was from 1,900 in 1871 to 9,100 in
1881.
[Footnote 4: Including 65,000 British soldiers.]
[Footnote 5: Including 75,510 in British Burma, but not the 35,708 in
Ceylon.]
[Illustration]
UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.
[Transcriber's Note: The following typographical errors from the
original edition have been corrected.
In Chapter III, in the sentence beginning "Forty-four years have
elapsed" the word "sittting" has been changed to "sitting".
In Chapter XI, in the sentence beginning "It was my privilege for
years" the word "intineracies" has been changed to "itineracies".
In Chapter XVII, in the sentence beginning "So great was the
danger" the word "thouands" has been changed to "thousands".
In Chapter XXII, in the sentence beginning "The Government has now
entered" the word "largerly" has been changed to "largely".
In Chapter XXV, in the sentence beginning "I am surprised when
Christians speak" the word "achieve" has been inserted between
"to" and "full"; in the sentence beginning "I have been confining
my remarks" the phrase "who his still" has been changed to "who is
still"; and in the sentence beginning "Looking beyond our Benares
missions" the word "beyound" has been changed to "beyond".
In Chapter XXVI, in the sentence beginning "It occurred to me" the
word "occured" has been changed to "occurred".
In Chapter XXXI, in the sentence beginning "The great officers of
state" the phrase "must he highly paid" has been changed to "must
be highly paid".]