SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1910. THE DANGER IN INDIA.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 740, 12 February 1910, Page 4

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1910. THE DANGER IN INDIA.

i Nothing could indicate more | clearly -the anxiety, which rccent events in India have created inGreat Britain than tho rumour that Lord Kitcheneb will bo appointed to succeed' Lord Minto. The London . Times, ■. speaking, , obviously, with some knowledge of tho intentions of the India offioe, gives a correction of the-rumour that only heightens its seriousness and significance. / Lord Kitchener, according.to the Times, "will only be appointed ; if the. situation assumes ,; a dangerous aspect. Othorwise, Lord Minto's-successor will be a civilian," Although it is much more to. the point , just- now to consider what measures are required for the suppression of the current campaign of murder and sedition than to inquire who is responsible : for the present grave situation, yet such an inquiry throws; a necessary light upon the policy which it would be Lord Kitchener's duty to modify. Speaking on India' somo tinle ago, Lord Mob-' ley paid-a high., tribute, to the , qualities of Lord Curzon,' but he indi-cated-that in his opinion Lord Curzon, when Viceroy, relied too exclusively upon efficiency and - neglected the conciliating'foroe; of, "moderate and. statesmanlike /concessions," Lord Morley was of course here affirming tho policy which Liberals; believe is ordered by'. Liberal princi; pLes • for application to the. government of subject : raoes, . /It is/not neoessary to discuss here the reasons which'/convict/this , policy .'of ''invar lidity, and of non-relationship to practical .Liberalism. '/ It'-,is, the. policy, which has, led to the, present: evil case of India. , In the January number of the Nineteenth Century, Sib i Bampfylde ," Fuller, . the first lieu-tonant-Goverrior ' of Eastern Ben--gal, in an .-.article; of. extremo moderation advances ' evidence:' to show that the aediiibp'ih India. is the fault, of. the present British Government. Sir' Bamtfylde Fuller ' re-, signed his post, some four years ago; because, contrary . to the_ wishes of ,the .Government,;he.' insisted upon certain repressive .' -which' the tome 1 Government had to adopt,, in: a still; more . drastic/ form, within six mohths'of his]. :• . ' The first point dealt with by this distinguished; authority ia the British Government's contention that the "distressing heritage which burdened Lord - Morley's succession to offioe" was tbe/oonsequencs of Lord Curzon's -administration.., He shows that, in the/bohcludirig : months of Lord Quezon's vice-royalty "India was absolutely tranquil," The outlook was so calm, dnd bright that the [ authorities, civil and military, concurred in Lord Kitchener's / proposal, to defend the frontier in/case of war.- by moving, practically / the wholo Indian Army to the scene— a plan ''whjcJi would deprive-India of the greateri.and most effective part ?f its garrison at a time when, owing to the .advarioe of an invader, any fermenting sedition- which : existed would have. ■ itsbert/ occasion for an foutbreak.", There' was hot even a, whisper of sedition: in the Native Army; - tho Nationalist theme of : the present day—that India / is seething with discontent and sedition —had not, entered the head of the, bitterest of-their writers; "of antiBritish conspiracies, • of - open defiance of law, - of assassinations in the,name of politics there was no thought, not to say no mention." But what, it may be asked, about the boycott which followed the partition of Bengal—was. it not pro-, claimed before Lobd Curzon's departure ? Sib Bampfylde Fulleb, whose authority; on this subject is above question has a completely satisfactory reply to /this question. The boycott "did- riot settle /down into- an; orga,nised system of. compulsion until it became evident that ; illegal interference with trade would not be checked by any ; direct efforts of the State." Rendered courageous by the comfortable ; compliance of the Government, the boycott leaders spread the movement, very- rapidly, ,and out of-it grew the sedition arid anarchism of to-day. These .malignant outgrowths, however, were undeveloped for months. "It was riot till a. year later that it became impossible for the Viceroy.; to movo freely about Calcutta without risk of insult, that magistrates': in -Bengal needed guards for their,protection, and that, as ,in tlie shadow of the'- Mutiny, the officers of Government took to carrying revolvers." When the Liberal party came into offioe, the movement was within the power of control by the Government, but the Government did not seize.ite opportunity, and tho. boycott "grew into general activity, with its offshoots of sedition and outrage, because, without, doubt, its leaders were confident that some members of the Liberal party viewed it with sympathy, and that; the party as: a whole was unwilling openly to withstand it." Kepressive measures were resorted to—more drastic than those the' advocacy of; which made Sib Bampfylde. Fuller- .distasteful to the British Government—but' tho measures" have not' been :'adequate.; No .'serious attempt' was' made; to bridle the licenco of the Native Proas; mon. Mwae areestod and do-'

ported; and afterwards set at liberty.

The difficulties of the British Government were in no small measure due to the sedition-mongers in the British press, such as the Daily News, and in the House of Commons,such as Mr. Keie Haedie, Sib. Henby Cotton, Mb. Mackarness and Dr. Rutherford. .These true enemies of British rule in India have never missed an opportunity to vilify Lord Ctjrzon. Yet Lord Cubzon's term of office was of great value to Britain. His unpopularity with the Army, arose of his determination to suppress the ill-treat-ment of natives by soldiors; his unpopularity with - the Bengalis ■ was the outcome, of three very nccessary measures—the improvement 'of ' the municipal government in Calcutta, wnich was scandalous, the reform of the Calcutta University, and the partition of Bengal. Few people with authority to speak would condemn any of . these reforms.. Their crowning vice in tbo eyes of the "Hindophils" of Britain was their affront to tho self-«steem of the'natives. To : the pressure which these "Hindophils" can exert in tho House of Commons is attributable, in Sib Bampfylde Fuller's opinion, the' discouragement of the British public servants in India. Disheartened by their liability to be snubbed or censured or thwarted, they have been unable to maintain- their prestige with the • Hindus.. Tho whole trouble is summed up in these words .of Sin Bampfylde Fuller:

A foreign Government, such as that of India, i$ always on its 'defence against a spirit of_ hostility, moTo or less extended, whioh is:: oasentialbv irreconcilablej its object is the annihilation of the alien authority, and it will be content with nothing less. It cannot be conciliated; but it can be isolated and neutralised,by giving active .suppoVt. to such, conservative sentiments ; as are in favour of - tho State and dread •; the subversion of law and order; Liberal -policy.; has not grasped this situation; by attempting to conciliate the extremists it has put tnem' iii-'good. heart; .while men of moderate or loyal views, finding the battle stand-:, ards .lowered and -the war cries silencedj hicve drifted. across' to the extremist camp, or have abandoned in hopelessness a'struggle in which their leaders assist the opposite sidoi

Every true. friend of India -and the-.Empire must hope -that the new Press Bill portends a Liberal awakening to; tne poril of the policy of drift and complacency.