« EelmineJätka »
Such are a few of the signs of national progress. Those of moral advancement are necessarily less easily reduced to a small compass. But there is annually laid before Parliament a 'statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India,' being, in fact, a resumé of the action of each department of the Government of India, and of the progress of each separate province. The course of legislation, the administration of justice, the operation of the police, the progress of education-in fact every department of Government-is scrutinized, and every subordinate government gives in its account to the Supreme Government. Every collector of a district gives in his report of its fiscal progress to the Board of Revenue of his Presidency, and every magistrate a report of its penal statistics to the High Court. By these authorities the whole is digested and laid before the Government. The whole forms a most valuable body of information annually laid before Parliament, and is the source from which the future historian of Indian civilization will derive his most authentic materials. It bears, in fact, a strong resemblance to the Exposé de la situation de l'Empire,' which by France is annually presented to the Senate and Legislative Chamber.
We believe that it is impossible for any one to glance at these 'statements' without being satisfied that each year a great advance is being made in India in all that secures the well being and elevates the character of a nation. To peruse the whole would task the patience of any one not personally engaged in Indian administration. But if selection be made of any one department or of any one province, the reader will soon be satisfied that in that department or that province there is a body of administrators trained from their youth to the work, labouring zealously and wisely for the improvement of their charge, and that amelioration is going on with sure and steady steps. For the body of administrators so employed, India pays. But no one with a candid mind who studies the work on which they are engaged, or sees the results of their labour on India itself, will say India pays too dearly. If it is a gain to England that her sons should be thus employed and thus trained to the highest and noblest duties that can occupy the human mind and surely a more admirable outlet could not be found for the sons of our professional classes-it is a far greater gain to India that she should secure the services of such a body of men. While some of the ripest intellects of England are engaged in the reform of the laws, an able body of administrators is spread over the provinces as fiscal officers and magistrates, developing their resources and repressing fraud and wrong.
A skilful body of engineers is covering the country with a network of railways, canals, and telegraphs, but beyond all this, a staff of able officers employed in the educational department is engaged in training the people of India to perform these functions for themselves. There may be occasional errors, there may be disappointments, there may be shortcomings, but every department shows signs of energy and of progress.
But supposing it to be proved, as we believe it to be by these facts, that many great advantages accrue to England from her connexion with India, it is still important to inquire whether this is secured by any strain on the resources of England which counterbalances these advantages, and renders India in reality a splendid weakness. This is the more necessary because the writings of many of our public journalists are calculated to give rise to this impression, and when the value of our connexion with India is not denied, it is often spoken of as if it were purchased at a cost which threatens to tax the resources of England beyond their power.
Now what is the call which India makes upon England in return for the wealth she confers? It is merely the permission to employ, and to pay for, the civilians and soldiers necessary for the public service. It is estimated that a force of seventy thousand English soldiers is required for the security of India; and the number of recruits required to supply the wear and tear of this force is reckoned at something under five thousand a year. England, who yearly sends forth 208,000 emigrants, is only required to allow five thousand of these to follow the profession of arms, to be trained and employed entirely at the cost of India. This is the only strain upon England's resources; and in return the splendid army, trained, paid, and kept in active discipline at the cost of India, is available for the service of England. India has been the training field of our best generals and our best soldiers, and in the Russian war and the China war England found a large portion of her resources in the army of India. Unless England is prepared to withdraw altogether from her place among the nations of the world, her connexion with the East must be maintained. But it is the army of India, for which India alone pays, which maintains it. This army garrisons Aden, and protects our communications with China, by forming the real strength of Galle and Singapore. During our last naval wars, the dockyards of India supplied our best ships, and in any future struggle her teak forests and her harbours will be of incalculable value.
The case is often much misrepresented, and a very false Vol. 120.-No. 239. impression
impression is consequently conveyed. The prevalent idea certainly is that England is obliged to maintain and pay for a large standing army in consequence of her possession of India. Thus, in a recent number of the 'Westminster Review,' the writer of an article on India (in which, by the way, Sir John Lawrence is attacked with singular and most undeserved acrimony,) exclaims:
'Are the people of England prepared to maintain seventy thousand men, the greater proportion of all the armies of the kingdom, in permanent garrison in India?'
'But supposing that it were decided upon in all contingencies to maintain the British force in India at its highest athletic standard, so as to render a second rebellion impossible, the danger to England would only assume another and perhaps more fatal form. This we cannot more appropriately indicate than by quoting, in conclusion, the words of Mr. Bright, which, though uttered years ago, are equally applicable now: "I hope it will never be said that the time had come when the arms of England were irrisistible in India, but that India was avenged, inasmuch as she broke the power of England by the intolerable evils she imposed upon her, the vast amount of men and money required to keep India in subjection being a burden she was unable to bear."
Do not such expressions as these imply that England has long been bearing, and still bears, the expense of maintaining an army for the use of India? Whereas the truth is that India is maintaining a vast army which, though paid by India, is available at any moment for the service of England. Of these troops, paid from the revenues of India, no less than 10,000, on the average, are actually stationed in the Home depôts, and form a part of the defences of England available at all times.
Some public journalists write as if the strength of the English army was wasted by the unhealthy climate of India, and its discipline demoralised by cantonment life in a distasteful service under a tropical sun. That there are disadvantages in the Indian service, and that there is much to be improved in the management of our troops in India no one can deny. But no one who studies the history of the past century can believe that the Indian army has been the weakness and not the strength of England. Egypt, the Isle of France, the Cape, Java, Ceylon, the Crimea, China, and Persia, all bear witness that in case of emergency England can and does draw a portion of its
* Se 'Westminster Review,' July, 1865, p. 219.
resources from the army of India, maintained in efficiency and readiness by the revenues of India until called for by England.
If, then, the connexion between England and India is found to be conferring benefits on both countries, and any impression that India draws largely on the pecuniary resources and strength of England has been removed, we may with advantage revert to the second subject, which we have said we believe to be the source of much misconception in England with regard to our Indian possessions, we mean our colonial experiences, and the habit of drawing deductions from that experience and applying them to India. When interests so large are at stake, it must be our duty to consider how the connexion between the two countries can be best preserved and strengthened until that time shall come when India is prepared for self-government. This is the more necessary at the present time, when the relation of England to her colonies is undergoing much discussion, and measures will probably be adopted which will guide the policy of England for many years to come. There is abroad at present a prevalent desire to contract our responsibilities with reference to our outlying dependencies, and to throw them upon their own resources, and it is in this respect that it is so important that we be not misled by a false analogy between our colonies and our Indian possessions into measures both prejudicial and unjust. Our connexion with India involves responsibilities of which England cannot divest herself until India is ripe for self-government. We did not hang Clive, but made him a Peer, and declared the countries which he conquered to be the possessions of the Crown of England, and we must take the consequences of having done so.
To fulfil these responsibilities towards India it is most important to observe the wide distinction which exists between her position and that of our colonies. Whatever may be the future of India, her present position differs widely from that of our colonies. The government is entirely the Government of England. Every member of the local government is a nominee of the British Crown. By England the taxation is determined. The foreign relations of India are dictated by England, and by England the duties on the trade between the two countries are determined. In short, although the whole cost of the government is imposed upon India, India is governed by the English Ministry, through Her Majesty's Secretary of State. India is in no respect self-governing, and at present is not capable of being so.
To grant independence to a colony ripe for self-government is most desirable, and to train our conquered dependencies for selfgovernment will be the glory of England. But to give to a nation the form of independence without the reality, to give it the semblance and responsibilities of a freedom which it neither possesses nor is capable of possessing, may be a serious injustice. This error we have not altogether escaped in our past policy, and it is for this reason that it is highly important to mark the distinction between our colonies and India.
Now, to show how great that distinction really is, let us suppose a bill made out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, not only for the expenses of all the regiments serving in the colonies, but for their depôts and ineffectives in England; and, besides this, for his own salary and office expenses; and let him add the expenses of investing colonial governors with orders of merit, and the cost of a new colonial office, to be erected in St. James's Park, and, in short, let him include every charge incurred in England on account of her colonial possessions; and having apportioned this, to the several colonies, let him direct their governors each to collect his share and remit it to England-let him further depute an officer as financial minister, to determine by what taxes the necessary revenue shall be raised. He will then do exactly what is done with regard to our Indian possessionstill this is done there is no analogy between the
Or, again, let us draw a comparison between two countries in which war has been lately going on: we mean New Zealand and Bhotan. In New Zealand the policy and acts of the local government, over which England has a very imperfect control, have involved the country in war, but of this war England must bear the responsibilities, and a large portion of the expense. In India it is exactly the reverse-the policy with regard to Bhotan is entirely that of the English Government, in which the people of India have no voice whatever, but of the cost England does not pay a farthing. The whole is defrayed from the revenues of India, and it will not be seen named in Mr. Gladstone's budget.
These two facts are sufficient to illustrate the difference between the position of our Indian dominions and our colonies. Whether our policy with regard to our colonies has been altogether wise, we need not here inquire. Perhaps we have been premature in conceding to the local legislatures a degree of independence which may in many cases be embarrassing, so long as we undertake to carry on the defence of the colonies. Perhaps the real criterion