NEW POLITICAL IDEAS
II. FALSE PATRIOTISM
"Now do I know that love is blind."
ALFRED AUSTIN.
[Sidenote: Cleavage of opinion--European _v._ Native.]
An unpleasant aspect of the new idea is much in evidence at the present
time. On almost every public question, the cleavage of the public
opinion is Europeans _versus_ Natives. Far be it from me to assert that
the natives only are carried away by the community feeling. A case in
point is the violence of the European agitation over the "Ilbert Bill"
of 1883, to permit trial of Europeans by native judges in rural criminal
courts. Our question merely is: How has the new regime affected native
ideas? Given then, say, a charge of assault upon a native by a European
or Eurasian, or the reverse--a case by no means unknown--the native
press and the class they represent are ranged at once, as a matter of
course, upon the native's side. Given a great public matter, like Lord
Curzon's Bill of 1903 for the necessary reform of the Indian
Universities, immediately educated Indians and the native press perceive
in it a veiled attempt to limit the higher education in order to
diminish the political weight of the educated class. The 1904 expedition
into Thibet was unanimously approved by the Anglo-Indian, and as
unanimously disapproved by the native press. Educated India no doubt
joined with the rest of the Empire in wishing success to Japan in the
1904-5 war with Russia, but the war presented itself primarily to the
Indian mind as a great struggle between Asia and Europe. Other lines of
cleavage may temporarily show themselves,--among natives the division
into Hindus and Mahomedans, or into officials and non-officials; but on
the first occasion when a European and a Native are opposed, or when the
Government takes any step, the minor fissures close, and the new
consciousness of nationality unites the Indians. European lines of
cleavage like the division between capital and labour or between
commerce and land have not yet risen above the Indian horizon.
The Indian Christian community occupies the peculiar position of sharing
in the new-born national consciousness as strongly as any, and yet of
being identified with the British side in the eyes of the Hindu and
Mahomedan communities.
[Sidenote: Anti-British bias.]
[Sidenote: India ruled by Indians.]
Thus, almost inevitably, an anti-British bias has been generated, one of
the noteworthy and regrettable changes in the Indian mind within the
last half-century. Probably many would declare that the unifying
national consciousness of which I have spoken is nothing more than a
racial anti-British bias. At all events, hear an independent Indian
witness regarding the bias.[41] "There is a strong and strange ferment
working in certain ranks of Indian society.... Instead of looking upon
the English rulers as their real benefactors, they are beginning to view
their actions suspiciously, seizing every opportunity of criticising and
censuring their rulers.... The race feeling between rulers and ruled,
instead of diminishing, has increased with the increase, and spread with
the spread, of literary education. That all this is more or less true at
present cannot be denied by an impartial political observer." An
up-to-date illustration of the bias appears in the address of the
Chairman of the National Congress of 1906. "The educated classes," he
says, "... now see clearly that the [British] bureaucracy is growing
frankly selfish and openly opposed to their political aspirations."
While regretting that feeling and the prejudice that often mingles with
it, let those interested in India at least understand the feeling. It is
the natural outcome of the new national consciousness. Even educated
natives are in general too ignorant of India, past and present, to
appreciate the debt of India to Britain, and how great a share of the
administration of India they themselves--the educated Indians--actually
enjoy. For every subordinate executive position in the vast imperial
organisation is held by a native of India, and "almost the entire
original jurisdiction of Civil Justice has passed out of the hands of
Europeans into those of Indians."[42] But the anti-British bias, let us
on our part understand. The attitude of educated Indians to the British
Government of India, and to Anglo-Indians as a body, is that of a
political opposition, ignorant of many pertinent facts, divided from the
party in power by racial and religious differences, and with no visible
prospect of succeeding to office. The National Congress is the permanent
Opposition in India. A permanent Opposition cannot but be biassed, and
its press will seize at everything that will justify the feeling of
hostility.
[Sidenote: Illustrations of the bias: Famines.]
An outstanding illustration of the anti-British spirit is the frequently
expressed opinion that the Indian famines are a result of British rule,
or at all events have been aggravated thereby. The reasoning is that
India is being financially drained to the amount of between thirty and
forty millions sterling a year, and that the people of India have thus
no staying fund to keep them going when famine comes. Having said this,
we ought perhaps to quote the opinion (1903), on the other side, of Mr.
A.P. Sinnett, ex-editor of one of the leading Indian newspapers, and, as
a theosophist, very unlikely to be prejudiced in favour of Britain. He
insists "that loss of life in famine time is infinitesimal compared with
what it used to be." "As for impoverishment," he goes on to say, "we
have poured European capital into the country by scores of millions for
public works and the establishment of factories, and we have enriched
India instead of impoverishing it to an extent that makes the Home
Charges--of which such agitators as Digby always exaggerate the
importance--a mere trifle in the balance." Lord Curzon's statement of
three or four years back was that there were eight hundred and
twenty-five crores of rupees (five hundred and fifty millions sterling)
of buried capital in India; and he might have added the easily
ascertainable fact that the sum is yearly being added to. The
anti-British idea was put forward in 1885 by the late Mr. William Digby,
an ardent supporter of the Congress; the Congress adopted it in one of
its resolutions in 1896, and the idea has lamentably caught on. In 1897
a Conference of Indians resident in London did not mince their language.
In their opinion, "of all the evils and terrible misery that India has
been suffering for a century and a half, and of which the latest
developments are the most deplorable famine and plague arising from
ever-increasing poverty,... the main cause is the unrighteous and
un-British system of Government, which produces an unceasing and ever
increasing bleeding of the country," etc. etc.[43] Such language, such
ideas, do not call for refutation, here at least; they are symptoms only
of a state of mind now prevailing, out of which educated India must
surely grow.
Nor need it be forgotten that the rise of the anti-British feeling was
foreseen and political danger apprehended when the question of English
education for natives of India was under discussion. A former
Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, declared to a committee of the
House of Commons in 1852, that England must not expect to retain her
hold on India if English ideas were imparted to the people. "No
_intelligent_ people would submit to our Government," were his words--a
sentiment repudiated with indignation by the learned Bengali, the late
Rev. Dr. K.M. Banerjea. In the same spirit, apparently, Sir Alfred Lyall
still contemplates with some fear the rapid reformation of religious
beliefs under modern influences. He sees that the old deities and ideas
are being dethroned, and that the responsibility for famines, formerly
imputed to the gods, is being cast upon the British Government. "The
British Government," he says, "having thrown aside these lightning
conductors [the old theocratic system], is much more exposed than a
native ruler would be to shocks from famines or other wide-spread
misfortunes." "Where no other authority is recognised, the visible ruler
becomes responsible for everything."[44] Fortunately, "policy" of that
sort has not prevailed with Indian statesmen in the past, and Britain
can still retain self-respect as enlightener and ruler of India.
[Sidenote: Championing of things Indian.]
The championing of all things Indian is another recent phase of the same
national consciousness. As the work of Britain is depreciated, the
heroes, the beliefs, and the practices of India are exalted and defended
as such. Idolatry and caste have their apologists. At almost every
public meeting, according to the late Mr. Monomohun Ghose of Calcutta,
he heard the remark made "that the ancient civilisation of India was far
superior to that which Europe ever had."[45] In the political lament
over a golden past, there is glorification by Hindus of the Mahomedan
emperor Akbar, praise of the Native States and their rule as opposed to
the condition of British India, and there are apologies for leaders in
the Mutiny of 1857. Much of that is natural and proper patriotism, no
doubt, and no one would deny the ancient glories of India or the many
admirable characteristics of the people of India to-day. It is the
self-deceiving patriotism, the blind ancestor-worship, of which we are
speaking as a phase of modern opinion. As an instance when Indians
certainly did themselves injustice by this spirit, we may single out the
celebrated trial in 1897 of the Hon. Mr. Tilak, member of the
Legislative Council of the Governor of Bombay. The Mahrattas of Western
India look back to Sivaji as the founder of their political power, which
lasted down to 1817, and have lately instituted an annual celebration of
Sivaji as the hero of the Mahratta race. One great blot rests on
Sivaji's career. In one campaign he invited the Mahomedan general
opposing him to a personal conference, and stabbed him while in the act
of embracing him. It was at one of these Sivaji celebrations in 1897
that Mr. Tilak abandoned himself to the pro-Indian and anti-British
feeling, glorifying Sivaji's use of the knife upon foreigners. "Great
men are above common principles of law," ... he said. "In killing Afzal
Khan did Sivaji sin?" ... "In the Bhagabat Gita," he replied to himself,
"Krishna has counselled the assassination of even one's preceptors and
blood relations.... If thieves enter one's house, and one's wrists have
no strength to drive them out, one may without compunction shut them in
and burn them. God Almighty did not give a charter ... to the foreigners
to rule India, Sivaji strove to drive them out of his fatherland, and
there is no sin of covetousness in that." Practical application of Mr.
Tilak's language was soon forthcoming in the assassination of two
British officers in the same city of Poona. Mr. Tilak, victim of his own
eloquence and of the spirit of the day, was necessarily prosecuted for
his inflammatory speech, and was sent to prison for eighteen months. But
it is not too much to say that the _unanimous_ feeling of educated India
went with Mr. Tilak and regarded him as a martyr.
[Sidenote: Boycott of British goods.]
From the pro-Indian feeling to the anti-British Boycott feeling is only
one step along the road that new-educated India is treading. The boycott
of British goods in 1905 has been the next step. The provocation alleged
by the politicians who organised the boycott was the division of the
province of Bengal. Whether that was cause sufficient to justify the
boycott or a mere pretext for another anti-British step is now of
secondary importance. The plea of encouragement of native industries we
may set aside as an afterthought. The boycott has been declared, and
what concerns us is to see the national feeling now take the form of a
declaration of commercial war upon Great Britain--none the less
disconcerting because some of those concerned clearly have an eye,
however foolishly, upon Boston in 1773 and the war thereafter. It gives
pause to India's well-wishers. "India for the Indians," will that come
next? There no friend of India dare wish her success, to be a possible
prey to Russia or Germany, or even to Japan. But reasoning to the
logical issue, we get light upon our premisses. _India for what
Indians?_, we ask ourselves. For Hindus or Mahomedans; for the million,
English-speaking, or the many-millioned masses? For many a day yet to
come it will be Britain's duty to hold the balance, to instruct in
self-government and to learn from her blunders.
That the national feeling of Indians may become a main strand in a
strong Imperial feeling, as is the national feeling of Scotland, must be
the wish of all friends of India. But how is the Indian feeling to be
transformed?
[Sidenote: Remedies.]
[Sidenote: Instruction in History and Political Economy.]
[Sidenote: High-minded Anglo-Indians.]
The new Social Ideas of India have asserted themselves in spite of
opposing ideas, deep-rooted; on the other hand, the new Political Ideas
are in accordance with the natural ambition of educated Indians, and
have had no difficulty in expanding and spreading. In comparison with
the new social ideas, in consequence, the new political ideas are a
somewhat rank and artificial growth, forced by editors and politicians,
and warped by ignorance and prejudice. The widely current idea that,
owing to British rule, the poverty of the Indian people is now greater,
and that the famines are more frequent and severe than in former
dynasties, is the outstanding instance of the rank growth. Neither the
allegation of greater poverty nor the causes of the acknowledged low
standard of living have been studied except in the fashion of party
politicians. Another of the ideas, as widely current, is that every ton
of rice or wheat exported is an injury to the poor. A third is that the
payments made in Britain by the Government of India are virtually
tribute, meanly exacted, instead of honest payment for cash received and
for services rendered. Again, what can be the remedy? In the early part
of the nineteenth century, the Foreign Mission Committee of the Church
of Scotland objected to Dr. Duff, their missionary, teaching Political
Economy in the Church's Mission College, the General Assembly's
Institution, Calcutta. They feared lest the East India Company would
deem it an interference in politics.[46] In 1897, after the Tilak case
already referred to, the writer on Indian affairs in _The Times_
complained of the teaching of historical half-truths and untruths in
Indian schools and colleges, instancing the partisan writings of Burke
and Macaulay, and many Indian text-books full of glaring historical
perversions. The remedy for such erroneous ideas is certainly not to
withhold the present dole of knowledge, but to teach the whole truth.
The recent History of India and Political Economy with reference to
India should be compulsory subjects for every student in an Indian
University. It ought to be the policy of Government to select the ablest
men for professors and teachers of such subjects. If, along with that
remedy, more Anglo-Indians would take a high view of their mission to
India, and of their residence in that country, much of that regrettable
bias and bitterness on the part of Indians would surely pass away. If
instead of adopting the attitude of exiles, thinking only of the
termination of the exile and how to while away the interval,
Anglo-Indians would take some interest in something Indian outside their
business, much would be gained! The best Anglo-Indians are eager to
promote intercourse between Europeans and Indians, but many
Anglo-Indians, whatever the cause, seem incapable of friendly
intercourse. On the matters that should interest both them and their
fellow-citizens in India, they have in them nothing save unreasoned
feelings. These form the numerous class, of whom Sir Henry Cotton spoke
in an address in London in February 1904, to whom it is an offence to
travel in the same railway-carriage with Indians. These are the
corrupters of good feeling between Britons and Indians, as sympathetic
men are the salt that preserves what good feeling may still exist. In
every Indian sphere the men of the latter class are well known to the
native community, and are always spoken of with cordiality. The writer
remembers trying to have a talk with a British soldier about the
generals of the army, and how the man seemed unable to do more than say,
with enthusiasm, of Lord Roberts and General Wauchope and others, "Yon
was a man!" and as depreciatorily of others again, "Yon was no man at
all." Such sympathetic "men," instinctively discerned, India has much
need of, if this anti-British feeling, so far as it is not inevitable,
is to be checked. In such "men" the new Indian feelings of manhood and
citizenship and nationality will find recognition and response, in spite
of displeasing accompaniments, for such feelings we must look for under
British rule and from English and Christian education. From such "men,"
also, the new Indians will accept frank condemnation of social
irrationalities or political exaggerations, as _e.g._ the notion that
those have right to claim full share in the British Empire's management
who would outcaste a fellow-Indian for visiting Britain, even had he
gone to state their case before the House of Commons. To speak of laymen
only, there are no Anglo-Indians more trusted than those who make no
secret of their desire for the advancement of India's welfare through a
religious reformation, who hold that this purely pro-Indian national
feeling is as yet imperfect because divorced from the idea of the unity
of mankind and the concomitant idea of the progress of the whole race.