It may be thought that in the preceding sketch I have been aiming at the
conclusion that British dominion is in danger of extinction either by
foreign invasion or internal insurrection. Nothing is more foreign from my
views. I firmly believe that British rule in the East was never so strong,
never so able to protect itself against all attacks from without or from
within, as at the present moment. In a foreign dominion such as ours,
where unforeseen contingencies may any day arise, and where a considerable
amount of disaffection must always exist, constant watchfulness on the
part of Government is no doubt required; but this position is thoroughly
recognised by all statesmen who occupy themselves with Indian affairs. I
do not for a moment delude myself with the idea that we have succeeded in
gaining the affections of the natives. No foreign rulers who have kept
themselves apart as a separate caste from the conquered nation have
succeeded in accomplishing this feat. There is something of
incompatibility between the European and Asiatic, which seems to forbid
easy amalgamation. Lord Stowell, in one of his fine judgments, has pointed
out the constant tendency of Europeans in the East to form themselves into
separate communities, and to abstain from all social intercourse with the
natives around them, and he illustrates his position with the happy
quotation--
Scyllis amara suam non intermiscuit undam.
The English perhaps are distinguishable among all European nations by the
deep-rooted notions of self-superiority which their insular position and
great success in history have engendered. The southern races of Europe,
the Spanish and Portuguese, have shown no reluctance to intermix freely
with the native races of America, India, and the Philippines, such as has
always been exhibited by inhabitants of the British Isles when expatriated
to the East or West. But where race, color, religion, prejudice intervene
to prevent social intercourse between the English in India and the
natives, what a wide gulf is placed between them!
In justice, however, it must be stated that, although the haughtiness of
demeanour and occasional brutality in manners which the _aristocratie de
peau_ sometimes engenders in our countrymen are much to be deprecated, the
estrangement which exists in India between the English and the natives is
not wholly, nor even principally, attributable to the former. A Hindu of
very humble caste would think himself polluted if he sat down to dinner
with the European governor of his Presidency. In this instance, as in so
many others, Hindu opinions have permeated the whole native community; and
other races transplanted to India, such as Mahomedans and Parsis, are
equally exclusive in their social life. When I was in Bombay I made an
attempt to break through the barrier which the latter caste had
voluntarily erected for themselves. Sir Jamshedji Jijibhai, an able,
self-raised man, was then the acknowledged head of the Parsi community,
and was distinguished for his benevolence and enlightened views. I
endeavored to persuade him to set his countrymen an example, and to come
to a dinner at which I would assemble the chief authorities of the island;
and I proposed to him as an inducement that he should send his own cook,
who should prepare for him his wonted fare. But the step was too startling
a one for him, though I was glad to find that his son, the second baronet,
was able to get over his prejudices on his visit, some years after, to
London. A ludicrous example of the same exclusive feeling has been related
in connection with a Governor-General. His lordship, desirous to break
down any notion of social inferiority on the part of a distinguished
native who was paying him a visit, placed his arm round his neck as they
walked up and down a verandah engaged in familiar conversation. The
high-bred Oriental made no sign, but as soon as he could extricate himself
from the embraces of his Excellency, he hastened home to wash away the
contamination of a Mlecha's touch.
It may also be observed that the mutual repugnance of the two races to
such close social intercourse as intermarriage, for example, would
produce, gives rise to two excellent results. First, there is every reason
to suppose, judging by what we see of the native Portuguese in India, that
the English and Hindu would make, in the language of breeders, a very bad
cross; and it is therefore satisfactory to find that English rulers in
India, unlike the Normans in England, or the Moguls in India, have never
intermarried with the natives of the country. The second result is closely
connected with the first. What has led to the downfall of previous
foreign dynasties has been that the invaders of the country had become
effeminate by their long possession of power, and had lost the original
energy and vigour which had enabled their predecessors to gain a throne.
The constant recruitment of English rulers from their fatherland wholly
prevents this cause of internal decay from making its appearance among the
British.
It is not, then, by our hold on the affections of the people that we
maintain our dominion in India. The strength and probable endurance of our
rule are based on our real power, on our endeavours to do justice, on our
toleration. The memory of the excesses committed under Mussulman rule has
probably become dim with the great bulk of the people, but it is very
vivid among educated Hindus. A strong conviction prevails among them that
if British rule were to disappear in India, the same rise of military
adventurers, the same struggles for power, and the same anarchy as
prevailed during the first half of the last century would again appear.
The latest expression of Hindu opinion on this subject which I have met
with is contained in a pamphlet published in the present year by Mr.
Dadoba Pandurang.[5] He is an aged scholar, and though not a Brahmin, well
versed in the Vedas, but, above all, he is distinguished by his devout
views and by his desire to elevate and improve his fellow-countrymen. He
writes:--
If there is a manifestation of the hand of God in history,
as I undoubtedly believe there is, nothing to my imagination
appears more vivid and replete with momentous events
calculated for the mutual welfare and good of both countries
than this political union of so large, important, rich, and
interesting a country as Hind in the further south-east with
a small but wisely governed island of Great Britain in the
further north-west.... Let us see what England has done to
India. England, besides governing India politically, has now
very wisely commenced the important duty of educating the
millions of her Indian children, and of bringing them up to
the standard of enlightenment and high civilization which
her own have obtained. She has already eradicated, I should
add here, to the great joy of Heaven, several of the most
barbarous and inhuman practices, such as Sutti,[6]
infanticide, Charak Puja,[7] and what not, which had for
ages been prevalent among a large portion of the children of
this her new acquisition. These practices, which had so long
existed at the dictation of an indigenous priesthood, except
for the powerful interference of England could not have been
abolished.
Opinions like these, I am persuaded, prevail throughout the educated
community, and the presence of British rule amongst them is recognised as
indispensable in the present state of Hindu society.