Produced by Al Haines
THE
PASSING OF EMPIRE
BY
H. FIELDING-HALL
AUTHOR OF "THE SOUL OF A PEOPLE"
"THE HEARTS OF MEN," ETC.
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"--that
is to say by ideas
LONDON
HURST & BLACKETT, LTD.
PATERNOSTER HOUSE, E.C.
1913
PREFACE
Most people when they talk of India, most books when they treat of
India, are concerned with its differences from the rest of the world.
It is the appearance and the dress of its peoples, their customs and
habits, their superstitions and religions, that are explained and
wondered at.
That is not so here. In this book little or nothing is said of any of
these matters; they do not interest me; they are superficial, and I do
not care for surface things; they are what divide, and truth is what
unites.
It is of the humanity which India shares with the rest of the world,
the hearts that beat always the same under whatever skin, the ideals
that can never be choked by no matter what customs or religions, that
this book is concerned with.
India sees life through different windows than we do; but her eyes are
as our eyes, and she has the same desires as we have. She has been
nearly dead or sleeping for long, but at last she moves. She is awake
or waking. Should it not be our task, our pleasure and our pride, to
help her early steps along the path of conscious strength that leads to
a national life such as that we have been proud of? And to do so must
we not try to understand her?
Have we ever tried?
I do not think we have; but the time is coming when, unless we can go
hand in hand with her along her path to nationhood, she will desert us.
Her destiny is calling her; shall we keep her back?
We cannot keep her back. "No one can be more wise than Destiny." And
if we stand in her way, who will suffer like we shall? For her sake
and for ours should we not try to understand?
This book is an attempt at a beginning.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
PART I
THE OLD INDIA
CHAPTER
I. Indian Unrest
II. The People
III. The Civilian
IV. His Training
V. Criminal Law
VI. Procedure
VII. Civil Law
VIII. The Village
IX. Opium and Excise
PART II
COUNSELS OF DESPAIR
X. The Provincial Councils
XI. The Indian as Civilian
PART III
A NEW INDIA
XII. The New Civilian
XIII. His Training
XIV. Other Services
XV. Law Reform
XVI. Courts Reform
XVII. Self-Government
XVIII. Education
XIX. Conclusion
PART I
THE OLD INDIA
CHAPTER I
INDIAN UNREST
We do not hear so much of the discontent in India now as we did three
or four years ago. There are no reports of seditious meetings,
incendiary propaganda, or disloyal tendencies. The attempt upon the
Viceroy is declared to be an isolated act, springing from no general
cause; a sporadic outbreak of crime which has no importance. No
special measures have to be taken, nor special legislation passed,
though the old repressive legislation is not repealed. In the English
daily papers there is little said of India, and no news is said to be
good news. Therefore in public estimation India has fallen back from
her temporary fever into the immemorial apathy of the East. She is
content, and no one need trouble himself about her. The sedition was
but a froth upon the surface, it had no deep-lying causes; it was
temporary, local, unimportant. We need trouble ourselves no more about
it.
There could be no greater nor more fatal mistake.
There may have been outbursts of irritation like that over the Bengal
partition which have passed because the cause was removed; we may be
now in the trough and not upon the crest of a wave, but that is all
that can be said. The discontent has not passed, nor will it, nor can
it pass. It is deep-rooted in the very nature of things as they are
now. It is not local, nor is it confined to one or two strata of
society, nor is it directed against one or two acts of Government. It
is universal, in all provinces, in all classes, directed not against
this act or that act, but against the Government as a whole. This is
very evident to those upon the spot, has been evident for many years.
The reason more has not been said about it is the absurd notion that
talking of the discontent will tend to increase it, as if real
discontent ever arose from words, or as if it could be understood
unless it were talked about. It should also be evident to those not
upon the spot who reflect on causes and effects. For instance, could
the partition of Bengal have raised such a sudden flame had there been
peace before? People in neither the East nor the West are roused into
such sudden and fierce anger by an administrative change even if the
change is not to their tastes. For there was no real change of
government, nor substantive hardship. The hardship was sentimental
hardship at the worst, not the less a real hardship for that.
No. There was discontent before, and the partition only fanned it into
flame.
And that discontent is not sudden. It has grown slowly for many years.
It is not local; in one province it may be more apparent than in
another, but it is universal. It is not temporary, but increases. So
much is admitted by those who know. Yet no one thinks of diagnosing
it. They shut their eyes, they sit upon the safety-valve, they give
measures which they hope will cause relief but which cannot do so; they
merely accentuate the difficulty and emphasise the ignorance that is
behind it on both sides. How can you cure a fever unless you diagnose
the cause or causes? To administer a drug at random is not likely to
succeed, yet what are the Councils but a random drug? How can they
act? No one knows what the patient suffers from; she herself least of
all, I think. No one can truly diagnose his own illness nor prescribe
his remedy. India feels uncomfortable, and clamours for anything she
can get. The Indian Government gives her what it can, offering
profusest condolence, which is sincere; and for the rest sitting upon
her chest.
But that will avail nothing--how can it? The fever is deep-seated, it
is remittent, it affects the whole system. It is becoming dangerous
both to the patient and her physician. For their lots are bound
together. India cannot yet do without us. She has not got the
organism to govern herself yet. She has no structure, but is an
inchoate mass of people. Did we part, India could not protect herself
against her neighbours by sea or land. She would be a prey to any
enterprising Power. Internally she would dissolve into anarchy. No
one, I think, doubts this. Some claim to doubt it--do they?
And as to England, what would we be were India reft from us?
Further, there is this: you cannot hold India by force alone. Force
has its place, but it cannot stand alone. We conquered and have
governed India by the consent of the people. In fact, she conquered
herself and gave herself to us. We never had to fight peoples, except
in Upper Burma, but only Governments--effete, discredited and weak.
The peoples accepted us: if not with gladness, yet they did accept.
Without that acquiescence we could have done nothing. This must be
thoroughly realised, for it is an essential truth. Anyone can see it
for himself. Given any superiority you like to assume of Englishman
over Indian, could a handful of English officials and seventy thousand
or less British troops conquer and rule three hundred-and-fifty
millions of people, living in a climate suitable to them but deadly to
us, against their will? It is impossible, incredible, absurd. There
has been always a tacit and generally an active consent. Now that
consent is disappearing. Why? And what is to be done? It must be
discovered. Therefore what I propose to do in this book is: First, to
show what our rule was at first and why it was so successful.
To explain how these factors of success gradually disappeared, while at
the same time the people progressed.
To show briefly the state of things to-day--how widely Government and
the people have drifted apart, and how unsuitable Government has become.
To examine the cures proposed and indicate how useless they must be.
Finally, to show how alone Government and the people can be brought
into harmony and the legitimate desires of both be fulfilled.
Let us go back on history, and recount the past so that we may explain
the present.
Some hundreds of years ago--it varies for different places--there were
in India kingdoms that were stable and strong and free. The peoples
were enterprising, active and intelligent, and a high degree of
civilisation was common throughout all classes. I don't think it is
generally realised that five or six hundred years ago India was ahead
of Europe in most matters.
Gradually all this decayed. How and why it decayed this is not the
place to explain; there were several causes, the principal being
religion; but these systems of government all crumbled into dust. It
was not merely dynasties or ruling classes that passed, but that the
whole fabric of its civilisation became weakened and lifeless. The
organisms that held the people together dissolved, and instead of
kingdoms India became simply a mass of village communities, with no
organism above that.
Into this more or less anarchical country came the Moguls from the
north, and established an empire. This Empire was accepted for the
same reason that ours subsequently was accepted--because the people
wanted first of all peace; and as peace could only be found under a
strong government, and the Mogul was the only strong power, they
accepted it. They had, moreover, no organisations to enable them to
resist.
But this Mogul power had no root in the soil, not in any soil. It had
cut itself away from its base, and it could not become rooted in India.
It had, therefore, never any real vitality. The Normans in England
coalesced with the people after a time, and drew strength from them and
their institutions, but the Mogul Empire did not.
Nevertheless, it did to a certain extent enlist the people on its side,
accept them into its organism. There was in the early Emperors no
fanaticism. "As tolerant as Akbar" almost became a proverb. Hindus
and Mussulmans worked together in harmony for the benefit of the
Empire. That is why it succeeded at all, because the line of division
was almost ignored. Then came the fanatic Aurungzebe, who by his zeal
for religion began the destruction of the Empire, which came very
quickly. And when the ruling power was weakened and began to pass,
nothing remained. It was simply a government from above. It had built
up no system; it was the head of no organism. When its rulers weakened
there was nothing to support them. A king in England might be weak or
be deposed, but the nation's life went on because the organism was not
dependent entirely on the head. Its strength came from below, not
above.
Very rapidly the government was dissolved in all but name, became
effete, corrupt, and useless.
Then came the East India Company and overthrew it, establishing a new
domination. This again was actively or passively accepted by the
people because they wanted peace and order, which are the first wants
of all humanity.
This English government was still more foreign than the Mogul
domination, but it had one great advantage, it was rooted in the soil.
Not in the soil of India, of course, but in that of England. It was a
branch of the English tree of government which had its roots deep down
in English life. Therefore it had and has a strong vitality. It
established over India such peace and order as had never been known.
To do this it had to establish a complete system of government, for
there was none of the old machinery left.
It did this on the English fashion. I do not mean that it borrowed the
English system. At the beginning it did try this, as the Municipality
of Madras and the Permanent Settlement of Bengal show. But so
obviously was this absurd that it discontinued transplanting, and
framed a system of its own. This was, of course, adapted to the
circumstances. Like the Mogul system it was a government from above.
It hung, as it were, suspended from the Viceroy and Council. It had no
roots in the soil in India; it was not and is not indigenous in any
way. Its vitality is derived from England, transmitted through the
Secretary of State and the Viceroy. That is the way its life-blood
circulates. Were that artery cut, the whole system would die at once.
The connection severed, in a few months there would not be a vestige
left of the whole great fabric of the Indian Government.
If you follow the current of responsibility you will see that this is
so. The lowest official in the Indian hierarchy is the Township
officer. He is in charge of, say, two or three hundred square miles of
country. To whom is he responsible--the people under him? Not in the
least. He is responsible to the Subdivisional officer, he to the
District officer, and he--either directly or through the
Commissioner--to the Local Government. The Local Governments are
responsible to the Viceroy in Council, he to the Secretary of State in
England, the Secretary to the Prime Minister, he to Parliament, and
Parliament to the constituencies. Where do the Indian people come in?
Nowhere.
Again, take responsibility of another kind. Suppose India is
attacked--who is responsible for its safety--India? Not so. It is the
English people, who defend it with ships, with troops, with money.
India, for instance, has no credit in herself. The Indian Government
gets credit as a branch of the English Government, with English credit
behind it. If the Indian peoples pay it is because England makes them
pay, not because by the system of government there is any
responsibility to pay.
The government of India has no existence apart from England. It is
only 'Indian' inasmuch as it governs India, not that it proceeds from
India or is composed of Indians. The truth by which it lives is that
it is purely English.
This is most important; it must never be forgotten. The whole system
of the government of India down to the last detail is alien, is exotic.
It could not by any possibility be rooted in India. Neither the whole
nor any part could be taken over as a going concern by any
self-government India might develop. It was created by, and is adapted
to, the genius of the English in India governing from above, and to
that need only. The reader can see that for himself, and I beg that he
will try to see it, because it is an essential truth.
Such was the principle of the English Government, one from above; and
such were the people, a heterogeneous mass of diverse races, tongues
and religions, with no organisation above that of the village.
That the people at large accepted our government as not only the best
available government, but at the time the best conceivable government,
there is no possible doubt. Nor, as I have said, was this acceptance
merely passive. The ease with which Sepoy regiments were raised in all
parts of India shows that the people had no antipathy to our
government, but were glad to help it to restore and maintain order.
For these troops were for internal purposes, and not for foreign
service, which has always been most distasteful to them.
But there was more than this. The more you study governments and
peoples the more clearly you see that to ensure smooth working there
must be some relationship between them. Some emotion or some sentiment
must unite the two, and so render their relative position endurable.
Laws and restrictions are irksome; are never true; are negatives, not
positives. There must be some tie between those who impose them and
those who bear them to humanise them.
Now, there are two and only two systems of government that have ever
been even partially successful anywhere in the world--one is
self-government in such an organism as will allow the people not only
to enforce their will but to form a right judgment as to what they
should desire; the other is government by personality.
No complete form of either system has ever existed; the nearest to the
former were the governments of Athens, Sparta, Rome in its early days,
Venice, Florence, and some other self-governing cities. Instances of
the latter are the temporary dictatorships of Rome, the rule of
Alexander, Julius Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon for the individual form;
and the feudal system in England and the Continent for the aristocratic
form. People in difficulties will trust personalities whom they admire
and who have shown sympathy to them more than they will trust
themselves, conscious that the former are more capable of seeing truly
and of acting efficiently.
That which makes either of these systems of government a success is an
emotion, a relationship.
With a really self-governing people this relationship is the sense of
oneness between government and governed. However much the people may
chafe under the laws and restrictions placed upon them they can console
themselves with the idea that it is their own doing. Government is
their own, part of themselves, and to that representative of self they
can condone many things. Knowing it is their own, they realise that it
does its best for them, however hard it may seem. They pardon because
they can understand.
With an alien rule this sentiment cannot exist, and therefore another
must take its place. That sentiment is personal feeling between the
governed and the individual officers of government. Now that in India
was very strong. For the soldiers and civilians who made India were
personalities, and all people East and West admire strong
personalities; moreover, they were sympathetic personalities who
attracted confidence as well as admiration. District officers were the
fathers of their district and stood up for their people against Law and
Government.
The first secret of our success in India was the personality of our
officers. Other things helped--the state of the country, the
discipline of our English troops, the ability of the Home Government to
help; but it was the personality of our officers that gave us India.
Read all their records, right from Clive and Warren Hastings to
Havelock, Lawrence and Nicholson. It was their personality that won.
For personality alone can make bad laws bearable, can make mistakes
forgiven and forgotten, can lead and draw men. And remember that it
was not only the men at the top who were personalities, but all, right
away down to the lowest ranks of both services. What personality is I
do not know, but I know that it is the magic power of the world. It is
the positive where all else in government is negative. I know it gave
us India. I know that with the passing of personality there is coming
the passing of the Empire. Read this story that has been given to me:
"An old General, who had served long in India, told me recently as
follows: He still hears from time to time from his native subordinates
in India. One of them wrote recently an account of his first meeting
with the young official lately appointed to his station. As soon as
was proper after the arrival of the official, the old Subadar went to
pay his respects. He buckled on the sword which had descended to him
from his father, took his father's medals in a packet in his hand,
arrayed himself in his best uniform and called.
"After long delay he was introduced into the Presence, where he beheld
a very untidy youth without coat or waistcoat busily writing at a
table, surrounded by papers and stout books of reference.
"The great, tall, shy man modestly approached the table and laid his
father's sword and his father's medals on it as a token of obeisance.
"After a while the scribe glanced up with angry and distracted
expression, pushed all these tributes away disdainfully, and in a
bitter voice complained of interruption.
"'Sir,' said the Subadar, 'these are the medals of my father who fought
for you. This sword has been red with the blood of my own
fellow-countrymen slain by my father in defence of your Raj, but as
they do not interest you I will take them away.'"
So he went away.
But why blame the young civilian? He is as his teachers made him. I
doubt not that he too once had a personality before his teachers killed
it.
It is a common shibboleth amongst English writers on India that the
"Oriental understands only personal government," and it is exactly the
frame of mind that can invent such sayings that is the great
stumbling-block to our understanding India. For neither in this nor in
any other fundamental attitude does the East differ from the West.
Look at England under Gladstone. There was again government by
personality, and the country let him do things it would allow no one
else to do. Nowadays in England the personality has gone on both
sides, as well as self-government.
We gave India government by personality, that is to say, a government
wherein alien laws, alien ideas, alien methods were rendered endurable
by the medium through which they reached the people.
Therefore in the beginning, say from a hundred and fifty years ago till
fifty years ago, the government and people were well suited to each
other. In that time neither changed very greatly. Change there was,
of course, but it was slow and slight. Then from the middle of the
last century the rate of change was accelerated. Now life is change,
and without change you can have only death; therefore there is nothing
to regret in this. Had the change been in drawing more nearly together
it would have been entirely fortunate. But it was not so. They were
more nearly together in the beginning than ever since, and all progress
has been away from each other. Instead of time bringing greater
community of thought, greater mutual respect, and better understanding,
with every year that passed, it widened and deepened the gulf between
them. Instead of government becoming more suited to the people, it has
grated on them more and more; instead of its efficiency increasing with
the perfection of the machine, it has become less. In development, in
intricacy, the government of to-day is to the government of a hundred
years ago as a "Mauretania" to a "Great Eastern"; but whereas of old
the wheels went easily, now they stick and try to stop; were there not
a strong driving power behind them they would stop.
Let us see how this has occurred.
Yet before beginning to read this attempt to diagnose the state of the
government of India and the paralysis that has come over it, I would
ask the reader to remember this:
This book is not a mere criticism of government and its methods, nor of
the people and their defects. I have a remedy to propose for both. It
is a remedy that I have thought over and worked at for years, and I
believe it is the only remedy possible.
But before disclosing it I wish the reader to understand the present
state of things. If he retains the complacency which says that "all is
for the best in the best of all possible governments, it is the
people's fault entirely, visit it on them," then he will not realise
that any remedy is wanting. Even if he do admit that something is
wrong he will not know what it is, and cannot judge if that proposed be
of any use.
Therefore I ask him to bear with the diagnosis of the earlier chapters.
He must get to know first what the constitution of the government of
India is, what made its strength in the past, and why that strength has
departed from it. Only after a true diagnosis can a true cure be
suggested. Therefore I ask him to carefully follow the line of thought
in the chapters which show in what way government now fails. He will
then see what government should be and must be--and is not. Only then
can he judge if the proposed remedies are likely to be successful, and
perhaps he will be able to amend them or to better them.