spite of repeated foreign conquests, is still the village-community.
Some of these political units will occasionally combine or be combined
for common purposes (such a confederacy being called a grama_g_ala), but
each is perfect in itself. When we read in the Laws of Manu[29] of
officers appointed to rule over ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand of
these villages, that means no more than that they were responsible for
the collection of taxes, and generally for the good behavior of these
villages. And when, in later times, we hear of circles of eighty-four
villages, the so-called Chourasees (_K_atura_s_iti[30]), and of three
hundred and sixty villages, this too seems to refer to fiscal
arrangements only. To the ordinary Hindu, I mean to ninety-nine in every
hundred, the village was his world, and the sphere of public opinion,
with its beneficial influences on individuals, seldom extended beyond
the horizon of his village.[31]
Colonel Sleeman was one of the first who called attention to the
existence of these village-communities in India, and their importance
in the social fabric of the whole country both in ancient and in
modern times; and though they have since become far better known and
celebrated through the writings of Sir Henry Maine, it is still both
interesting and instructive to read Colonel Sleeman's account. He
writes as a mere observer, and uninfluenced as yet by any theories on
the development of early social and political life among the Aryan
nations in general.
I do not mean to say that Colonel Sleeman was the first who pointed
out the palpable fact that the whole of India is parcelled out into
estates of villages. Even so early an observer as Megasthenes[32]
seems to have been struck by the same fact when he says that "in India
the husbandmen with their wives and children live in the country, and
entirely avoid going into town." What Colonel Sleeman was the first to
point out was that all the native virtues of the Hindus are
intimately connected with their village-life.
That village-life, however, is naturally the least known to English
officials, nay, the very presence of an English official is often said to
be sufficient to drive away those native virtues which distinguish both
the private life and the public administration of justice and equity in an
Indian village.[33] Take a man out of his village-community, and you
remove him from all the restraints of society. He is out of his element,
and, under temptation, is more likely to go wrong than to remain true to
the traditions of his home-life. Even between village and village the
usual restraints of public morality are not always recognized. What would
be called theft or robbery at home is called a successful raid or conquest
if directed against distant villages; and what would be falsehood or
trickery in private life is honored by the name of policy and diplomacy if
successful against strangers. On the other hand, the rules of hospitality
applied only to people of other villages, and a man of the same village
could never claim the right of an _Atithi_, or guest.[34]
Let us hear now what Colonel Sleeman tells us about the moral
character of the members of these village-communities,[35] and let us
not forget that the Commissioner for the suppression of Thuggee had
ample opportunities of seeing the dark as well as the bright side of
the Indian character.
He assures us that falsehood or lying between members of the same
village is almost unknown. Speaking of some of the most savage tribes,
the Gonds, for instance, he maintains that nothing would induce them
to tell a lie, though they would think nothing of lifting a herd of
cattle from a neighboring plain.
Of these men it might perhaps be said that they have not yet learned
the value of a lie; yet even such blissful ignorance ought to count in
a nation's character. But I am not pleading here for Gonds, or Bhils,
or Santhals, and other non-Aryan tribes. I am speaking of the Aryan
and more or less civilized inhabitants of India. Now among them, where
rights, duties, and interests begin to clash in one and the same
village, public opinion, in its limited sphere, seems strong enough
to deter even an evil-disposed person from telling a falsehood. The
fear of the gods also has not yet lost its power.[36] In most villages
there is a sacred tree, a pipal-tree (Ficus Indica), and the gods are
supposed to delight to sit among its leaves, and listen to the music
of their rustling. The deponent takes one of these leaves in his hand,
and invokes the god, who sits above him, to crush him, or those dear
to him, as he crushes the leaf in his hand, if he speaks anything but
the truth. He then plucks and crushes the leaf, and states what he has
to say.
The pipal-tree is generally supposed to be occupied by one of the
Hindu deities, while the large cotton-tree, particularly among the
wilder tribes, is supposed to be the abode of local gods, all the more
terrible because entrusted with the police of a small settlement only.
In their punchayets, Sleeman tells us, men adhere habitually and
religiously to the truth, and "I have had before me hundreds of
cases," he says, "in which a man's property, liberty, and life has
depended upon his telling a lie, and he has refused to tell it."
Could many an English judge say the same?
In their own tribunals under the pipal-tree or cotton-tree,
imagination commonly did what the deities, who were supposed to
preside, had the credit of doing. If the deponent told a lie, he
believed that the god who sat on his sylvan throne above him, and
searched the heart of man, must know it; and from that moment he knew
no rest, he was always in dread of his vengeance. If any accident
happened to him, or to those dear to him, it was attributed to this
offended deity; and if no accident happened, some evil was brought
about by his own disordered imagination.[37] It was an excellent
superstition, inculcated in the ancient law-books, that the ancestors
watched the answer of a witness, because, according as it was true or
false, they themselves would go to heaven or to hell.[38]
Allow me to read you the abstract of a conversation between an English
official and a native law-officer as reported by Colonel Sleeman. The
native lawyer was asked what he thought would be the effect of an act
to dispense with oaths on the Koran and Ganges-water, and to
substitute a solemn declaration made in the name of God, and under the
same penal liabilities as if the Koran or Ganges-water had been in the
deponent's hand.
"I have practiced in the courts," the native said, "for thirty years,
and during that time I have found only three kinds of witnesses--two
of whom would, by such an act, be left precisely where they were,
while the third would be released by it from a very salutary check."
"And, pray, what are the three classes into which you divide the
witnesses in our courts?"
"First, Sir, are those who will always tell the truth, whether they
are required to state what they know in the form of an oath or not."
"Do you think this a large class?"
"Yes, I think it is; and I have found among them many whom nothing on
earth could make to swerve from the truth. Do what you please, you
could never frighten or bribe them into a deliberate falsehood.
"The second are those who will not hesitate to tell a lie when they
have a motive for it, and are not restrained by an oath. In taking an
oath, they are afraid of two things, the anger of God and the odium of
men.
"Only three days ago," he continued, "I required a power of attorney
from a lady of rank, to enable me to act for her in a case pending
before the court in this town. It was given to me by her brother, and
two witnesses came to declare that she had given it. 'Now,' said I,
'this lady is known to live under the curtain, and you will be asked
by the judge whether you saw her give this paper: what will you say?'
They both replied: 'If the judge asks us the question without an oath,
we will say "_Yes_;" it will save much trouble, and we know that she
_did_ give the paper, though we did not really _see_ her give it; but
if he puts the Koran into our hands, we must say "_No_," for we should
otherwise be pointed at by all the town as perjured wretches--our
enemies would soon tell everybody that we had taken a false oath.'
"Now," the native lawyer went on, "the form of an oath is a great
check on this sort of persons.
"The third class consists of men who will tell lies whenever they have
a sufficient motive, whether they have the Koran or Ganges-water in
their hand or not. Nothing will ever prevent their doing so; and the
declaration which you propose would be just as well as any other for
them."
"Which class do you consider the most numerous of the three?"
"I consider the second the most numerous, and wish the oath to be
retained for them."
"That is, of all the men you see examined in our courts, you think the
most come under the class of those who will, under the influence of
strong motives, tell lies, if they have not the Koran or Ganges-water
in their hands?"
"Yes."
"But do not a great many of those whom you consider to be included
among the second class come from the village-communities--the
peasantry of the country?"
"Yes."
"And do you not think that the greatest part of those men who will
tell lies in the court, under the influence of strong motives, unless
they have the Koran or Ganges-water in their hands, would refuse to
tell lies, if questioned before the people of their villages, among
the circle in which they live?"
"Of course I do; three-fourths of those who do not scruple to lie in
the courts, would be ashamed to lie before their neighbors, or the
elders of their village."
"You think that the people of the village-communities are more ashamed
to tell lies before their neighbors than the people of towns?"
"Much more--there is no comparison."
"And the people of towns and cities bear in India but a small
proportion to the people of the village-communities?"
"I should think a very small proportion indeed."
"Then you think that in the mass of the population of India, _out of
our courts_, the first class, or those who speak truth, whether they
have the Koran or Ganges-water in their hands or not, would be found
more numerous than the other two?"
"Certainly I do; if they were always to be questioned before their
neighbors or elders, so that they could feel that their neighbors and
elders could know what they say."
It was from a simple sense of justice that I felt bound to quote this
testimony of Colonel Sleeman as to the truthful character of the
natives of India, when _left to themselves_. My interest lies
altogether with the people of India, _when left to themselves_, and
historically I should like to draw a line after the year one thousand
after Christ. When you read the atrocities committed by the Mohammedan
conquerors of India from that time to the time when England stepped in
and, whatever may be said by her envious critics, made, at all events,
the broad principles of our common humanity respected once more in
India, the wonder, to my mind, is how any nation could have survived
such an _Inferno_ without being turned into devils themselves.
Now, it is quite true that during the two thousand years which precede
the time of Mahmud of Gazni, India has had but few foreign visitors,
and few foreign critics; still it is surely extremely strange that
whenever, either in Greek, or in Chinese, or in Persian, or in Arab
writings, we meet with any attempts at describing the distinguishing
features in the national character of the Indians, regard for truth
and justice should always be mentioned first.
_Ktesias_, the famous Greek physician of Artaxerxes Mnemon (present at
the battle of Cunaxa, 404 B.C.), the first Greek writer who tells us
anything about the character of the Indians, such as he heard it
described at the Persian court, has a special chapter "On the Justice
of the Indians."[39]
_Megasthenes_,[40] the ambassador of Seleucus Nicator at the court of
Sandrocottus in Palibothra (Pa_t_aliputra, the modern Patna), states
that thefts were extremely rare, and that they honored truth and
virtue.[41]
_Arrian_ (in the second century, the pupil of Epictetus), when
speaking of the public overseers or superintendents in India,
says:[42] "They oversee what goes on in the country or towns, and
report everything to the king, where the people have a king, and to
the magistrates, where the people are self-governed, and it is against
use and wont for these to give in a false report; _but indeed no
Indian is accused of lying_."[43]
The Chinese, who come next in order of time, bear the same, I believe,
unanimous testimony in favor of the honesty and veracity of the
Hindus. [The earliest witness is Su-we, a relative of Fan-chen, King
of Siam, who between 222 and 227 A.D. sailed round the whole of India,
till he reached the mouth of the Indus, and then explored the country.
After his return to Sinto, he received four Yueh-chi horses, sent by a
king of India as a present to the King of Siam and his ambassador. At
the time when these horses arrived in Siam (it took them four years to
travel there), there was staying at the court of Siam an ambassador of
the Emperor of China, Khang-thai, and this is the account which he
received of the kingdom of India: "It is a kingdom in which the
religion of Buddha flourishes. The inhabitants are straightforward and
honest, and the soil is very fertile. The king is called Meu-lun, and
his capital is surrounded by walls," etc. This was in about 231 A.D.
In 605 we hear again of the Emperor Yang-ti sending an ambassador,
Fei-tu, to India, and this is what among other things he points out as
peculiar to the Hindus: "They believe in solemn oaths."][44] Let me
quote Hiouen-thsang, the most famous of the Chinese Buddhist
pilgrims, who visited India in the seventh century.[45] "Though the
Indians," he writes, "are of a light temperament, they are
distinguished by the straightforwardness and honesty of their
character. With regard to riches, they never take anything unjustly;
with regard to justice, they make even excessive concessions....
Straightforwardness is the distinguishing feature of their
administration."
If we turn to the accounts given by the Mohammedan conquerors of
India, we find Idrisi, in his Geography (written in the eleventh
century), summing up their opinion of the Indians in the following
words:[46]
"The Indians are naturally inclined to justice, and never
depart from it in their actions. Their good faith, honesty,
and fidelity to their engagements are well known, and they
are so famous for these qualities that people flock to their
country from every side."
Again, in the thirteenth century, Shems-ed-din Abu Abdallah quotes the
following judgment of Bedi ezr Zenan: "The Indians are innumerable,
like grains of sand, free from all deceit and violence. They fear
neither death nor life."[47]
In the thirteenth century we have the testimony of Marco Polo,[48]who
thus speaks of the _Abraiaman_, a name by which he seems to mean the
Brahmans who, though, not traders by profession, might well have been
employed for great commercial transactions by the king. This was
particularly the case during times which the Brahmans would call
times of distress, when many things were allowed which at other times
were forbidden by the laws. "You must know," Marco Polo says, "that
these Abraiaman are the best merchants in the world, and the most
truthful, for they would not tell a lie for anything on earth."
In the fourteenth century we have Friar Jordanus, who goes out of his
way to tell us that the people of Lesser India (South and Western
India) are true in speech and eminent in justice.[49]
In the fifteenth century, Kamal-eddin Abd-errazak Samarkandi
(1413-1482), who went as ambassador of the Khakan to the prince of
Kalikut and to the King of Vidyanagara (about 1440-1445), bears
testimony to the perfect security which merchants enjoy in that
country.[50]
In the sixteenth century, Abu Fazl, the minister of the Emperor Akbar,
says in his Ayin Akbari: "The Hindus are religious, affable, cheerful,
lovers of justice, given to retirement, able in business, admirers of
truth, grateful and of unbounded fidelity; and their soldiers know not
what it is to fly from the field of battle."[51]
And even in quite modern times the Mohammedans seem willing to admit
that the Hindus, at all events in their dealings with Hindus, are more
straightforward than Mohammedans in their dealings with Mohammedans.
Thus Meer Sulamut Ali, a venerable old Mussulman, and, as Colonel
Sleeman says, a most valuable public servant, was obliged to admit
that "a Hindu may feel himself authorized to take in a Mussulman, and
might even think it meritorious to do so; but he would never think it
meritorious to take in one of his own religion. There are no less than
seventy-two sects of Mohammedans; and every one of these sects would
not only take in the followers of every other religion on earth, but
every member of every one of the other seventy-one sects; and the
nearer that sect is to his own, the greater the merit of taking in its
members."[52]
So I could go on quoting from book after book, and again and again we
should see how it was love of truth that struck all the people who
came in contact with India, as the prominent feature in the national
character of its inhabitants. No one ever accused them of falsehood.
There must surely be some ground for this, for it is not a remark that
is frequently made by travellers in foreign countries, even in our
time, that their inhabitants invariably speak the truth. Read the
accounts of English travellers in France, and you will find very
little said about French honesty and veracity, while French accounts
of England are seldom without a fling at _Perfide Albion_!
But if all this is true, how is it, you may well ask, that public
opinion in England is so decidedly unfriendly to the people of India;
at the utmost tolerates and patronizes them, but will never trust
them, never treat them on terms of equality?
I have already hinted at some of the reasons. Public opinion with
regard to India is made up in England chiefly by those who have spent
their lives in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, or some other of the
principal towns in India. The native element in such towns contains
mostly the most unfavorable specimens of the Indian population. An
insight into the domestic life of the more respectable classes, even
in towns, is difficult to obtain; and, when it is obtained, it is
extremely difficult to judge of their manners according to our
standard of what is proper, respectable, or gentlemanlike. The
misunderstandings are frequent and often most grotesque; and such, we
must confess, is human nature, that when we hear the different and
often most conflicting accounts of the character of the Hindus, we are
naturally skeptical with regard to unsuspected virtues among them,
while we are quite disposed to accept unfavorable accounts of their
character.
Lest I should seem to be pleading too much on the native side of the
question, and to exaggerate the difficulty of forming a correct estimate
of the character of the Hindus, let me appeal to one of the most
distinguished, learned, and judicious members of the Indian Civil
Service, the author of the "History of India," Mountstuart Elphinstone.
"Englishmen in India,"[53] he says, "have less opportunity than might be
expected of forming opinions of the native character. Even in England,
few know much of the people beyond their own class, and what they do
know, they learn from newspapers and publications of a description which
does not exist in India. In that country also, religion and manners put
bars to our intimacy with the natives, and limit the number of
transactions as well as the free communication of opinions. We know
nothing of the interior of families but by report, and have no share in
those numerous occurrences of life in which the amiable parts of
character are most exhibited." "Missionaries of a different
religion,[54] judges, police-magistrates, officers of revenue or
customs, and even diplomatists, do not see the most virtuous portion of
a nation, nor any portion, unless when influenced by passion, or
occupied by some personal interest. What we _do_ see we judge by our own
standard. We conclude that a man who cries like a child on slight
occasions must always be incapable of acting or suffering with dignity;
and that one who allows himself to be called a liar would not be ashamed
of any baseness. Our writers also confound the distinctions of time and
place; they combine in one character the Maratta and the Bengalese, and
tax the present generation with the crimes of the heroes of the
Mahabharata. It might be argued, in opposition to many unfavorable
testimonies, that those who have known the Indians longest have always
the best opinion of them; but this is rather a compliment to human
nature than to them, since it is true of every other people. It is more
in point, that all persons who have retired from India think better of
the people they have left, after comparing them with others, even of the
most justly-admired nations."
But what is still more extraordinary than the ready acceptance of
judgments unfavorable to the character of the Hindus, is the
determined way in which public opinion, swayed by the statements of
certain unfavorable critics, has persistently ignored the evidence
which members of the Civil Service, officers and statesmen--men of the
highest authority--have given again and again, in direct opposition to
these unfavorable opinions.
Here, too, I must ask to be allowed to quote at least a few of these
witnesses on the other side.
Warren Hastings thus speaks of the Hindus in general: "They are gentle
and benevolent, more susceptible of gratitude for kindness shown them,
and less prompted to vengeance for wrongs inflicted than any people on
the face of the earth; faithful, affectionate, submissive to legal
authority."
Bishop Heber said: "The Hindus are brave, courteous, intelligent, most
eager for knowledge and improvement; sober, industrious, dutiful to
parents, affectionate to their children, uniformly gentle and patient,
and more easily affected by kindness and attention to their wants and
feelings than any people I ever met with."[55]
Elphinstone states: "No set of people among the Hindus are so depraved
as the dregs of our own great towns. The villagers are everywhere
amiable, affectionate to their families, kind to their neighbors, and
toward all but the government honest and sincere. Including the Thugs
and Dacoits, the mass of crime is less in India than in England. The
Thugs are almost a separate nation, and the Dacoits are desperate
ruffians in gangs. The Hindus are mild and gentle people, more
merciful to prisoners than any other Asiatics. Their freedom from
gross debauchery is the point in which they appear to most advantage;
and their superiority in purity of manners is not flattering to our
self-esteem."[56]
Yet Elphinstone can be most severe on the real faults of the people of
India. He states that, at present, want of veracity is one of their
prominent vices, but he adds[57] "that such deceit is most common in
people connected with government, a class which spreads far in India,
as, from the nature of the land-revenue, the lowest villager is often
obliged to resist force by fraud."[58]
Sir John Malcolm writes:[59] "I have hardly ever known where a person
did understand the language, or where a calm communication was made to
a native of India, through a well-informed and trustworthy medium,
that the result did not prove, that what had at first been stated as
falsehood had either proceeded from fear or from misapprehension. I by
no means wish to state that our Indian subjects are more free from
this vice than other nations that occupy a nearly equal position in
society, but I am positive that they are not more addicted to
untruth."