The British Empire and India

Northland Age, Volume IX, Issue 18, 5 December 1939, Page 1

The British Empire and India

pOREIGN writers on Britain have always commented on the curiously illogical nature of the British Empire. It has grown up haphazardly (“the British acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind”). It is governed by no philosophy, either as to the relations to the various parts to one another or to the Motherland; these have been improvised to suit . changing circumstances. It includes , all forms of social and political organisation from pure democracy to pure , despotism, with all shades between • and some novel variants. For ini stance, Newfoundland, which up to a few years ago was a self-governing i Dominion, got into financial difficulties, and at its own request had its constitution suspended and had receivers put in to manage its affairs as if it were a bankrupt business. (There are dismal prophets among us who predict the same fate for us if the Labour Government stays long enough in office.) The words “Empire” and “Imperialism” have been rather out of favour since the last war and British Empire has been officially displaced by the term British Commonwealth of Nations. That fits Britain and the Dominions, but all together they are only a fraction of the communities under King George, whose title of Emperor of India records the fact that India is still governed as an Imperial possession, which is the antithesis of his kingship over New Zealand. Up to the middle of the eighteenth century, Britain, or rather England, had a clear-cut philosophy of empire, and carried it out consistently. Overseas possessions existed for the benefit of Britain and were to be exploited accordingly. The policy was applied to Ireland, and some of the effects we are suffering from to-day. It was applied to the North American colonies with the result of turning them from communities as loyal to the then King George as we are to his successor to successful rebels. It was a shock to the imperialist philosophy, and with their usual sound sense the British profited by it. There was even a tendency to rush to the opposite extreme; to look upon colonies as an unprofitable nuisance, to be encouraged to set up for themselves at the earliest possible moment. We know how the first colonists of New Zealand had to fight against that spirit, and with what a bad grace the then British rulers took New Zealand into the Empire, and how early and gladly self-government was offered. Under free trade colonies were of little commercial advantage, or so it was thought at the time, and therefore they were at best a bother and at worst a source of weakness. How greatly view's have altered, with the growth of nationalism and the spread of protection needs no pointing out. How India Was Gained In India the exploitation policy was pursued openly and frankly. The East India Company went there as a trading company, with the sole object of making profits for its shareholders (quite a legitimate object, of course). It fought and smashed its French rival to gain a monopoly, made treaties with Native Princes to secure and further its trade, made peace and war with the same object, and found itself at last with an empire on its hands which it ruled in the commercial spirit and with the commercial morality of the time. For the welfare of the people it cared nothing, except so far as it would contribute to dividends, or. was forced on them by the not easily shocked public opinion at Home. A Change of View It took the shock of the Indian Mutiny to rouse that public opinion to the evils of the system, with the result that India passed under direct British rule, with the avowed intention of ruling for the benefit of the people. That ideal has been consistently, if rather blunderingly, pursued ever since. Kipling, poet of the Imperialism that flourished at the end of the last century, sang of it as “the white man’s burden,” but more of ruling them as children than gradually raising them to the status of men able to control their own lives. British officials did strive honestly and earnestly, and to a large extent successfully, to benefit those they ruled. They gave peace, security and settled government to a land that had not known these for centuries. They fought the periodic famines with schemes of irrigation and food transport; fought disease; fought illiteracy, strove in every way for the good of

the people according to their ideal of what they thought good for them, which unfortunately often war not what the people themselves considered good. British rule in India was often blundering, but was always wellmeaning. A good deal of the mischief done in this world is done with the best possible intentions (which makes it often the harder to forgive), but well-meaning people are always : respected. A large section of the Indian people hate British rule, and I would be as glad as the Irish were to ■ see the last British soldier and the j last British official leave India for | ever. But even the most rabid Naiion- | alist has nothing but respect for bis ; alien rulers, and has no doubt that | they mean him nothing but good. India Backs Britain

That was strikingly shown in the last war, when every class in India sank for the time their very real grievances and fell in solidly behind Britain. It is being as strikingly shown now. In spite of great unrest, in spite of the resignation of eight of the eleven Indian Provincial Ministers, and the consequent collapse of a hopeful beginning of Indian selfgovernment, India is with the nation in its struggle against Nazi-ism. The articulate portion of the Indian people, those whose whole energies are not absorbed in gaining a scanty portion of daily bread, realise clearly that the only hope for India lies in a British victory. The Congress Leaders’ Opinion The “World Review” (whose current number may be the last owing to the war) publishes three letters from typical Indian leaders, that in various degrees emphasise this. The bitterest opponent of British rule in India is Jawaharial Nehru, chairman of the Indian Congress, who has gone to jail several times for anti-British'activi-ties. He says (rather grudgingly): “India’s freedom will not be worth many days’ purchase if Fascism and Nazi-ism dominate the world. Our own existance is bound up with the fate of freedom and democracy in the world. Only a union of freedomloving peoples and their mutual cooperation can avert the common peril. For that India must stand “England and France have still the instinct of democracy, although this may be hidden by the Chamberlains, Halifaxes and Simons; their peoples still care for freedom. If this instinct finds proper expression and really stands up for the defence of democracy, then India can certainly look favourably upon it and lend her hand in support.” What a Hindu Thinks A Hindu merchant, Ardeshir Edalji Bengali, says: “What has not been sufficiently stressed is the moral viewpoint. The debt of gratitude which modern India owes to great Britain is incalculable. Great Britain can proudly claim to have contributed in a large measure to the maintenance of political stability in India, to the gradual evolution of a democratic form of government, and to the evolution of a system of law for this country. In the social sphere the contribution is as satisfactory as in the political and legal spheres. A cursory perusal of Indian law books relating to social reforms will at once convince us of the honest and conscientious efforts of the British Government to uplift and modernise the social life of the Indian people. “In the economic sphere of Indian life the efforts of the British Raj were as commendable as those of the present Native Governments. Think of the state of India at the beginning of the 18th century and compare it with the conditions—economic, political, social and moral—prevailing now. “It would be monstrous ingratitude on the part of the Indian people and their leaders if they refused or even betrayed reluctance to stand the British people in good stead in a European war.” A Moslem Opinion Here is a view of a Moslem, Barkatullah Khan, one of the race that ruled over most of India before the British took possession: “A perusal of Indian history strengthens the belief that the British in ruling India have not acted upon the law of nature, of the weaker being swallowed by the strong, as is found in the histories of other countries. When the British came to this country they were decidedly stronger than any other community over here. They could have acted on this law; but they came with the intention of trade; with goodwill and peace, the necessary background for trade. But they saw that the peoples of this country were not at peace; that industries were not

flourishing; that trade was practically nil; that the state of the roads and communications were practically deplorable; and that travelling was not at all safe. A man going a distance of some fifty miles had to bid goodbye to all his family lest he be killed by plunderers and dacoits. Education was not common. The masses were utterly ignorant, and were quite at the mercy of educated Brahmas and Maulvis. “In the towns also citizens were not safe; dacoities and thefts, murders and plunderings, were daily occurrences. There was hardly any hospital that deserved the name. Once a man was attacked by a serious illness he had to prepare himself for death. Native States were quarrelling with one another on very trifling matters. Slavery, kidnapping of children and young girls were not unusual. If the culprit was a rich man punishment was out of the question. In short, might was right. “The first thing the British Governors did was to rescue the various provinces and States from their rulers. By gradual reforms they brought the peoples under one Government and made them realise that all people—a Brahaman or a Chamar, a Syed or a non-Moslem—are all alike beloved in the eyes of the Government. Anyone who breaks the law of the land will be punished without regard to his caste, creed, colour, status or position. Justice was the rule. Education was imparted, universities .were established, and metalled roads opened. It was easy now for a Calcutta man, a Bengali, to walk barefooted to Bombay without any fear of being plundered on the way. In the lapse of fifty years those notorious clans of dacoits on hills miraculously disappeared, and at the present day are occupied in peaceful trades. “The result of this sort of rule by the British Government was that in the space of some fifty years many Indians became highly educated, infant mortality and the number of crimes and death and sufferings have gone 'down, whereas the number of educated children, births, cures, trade statistics and passengers increased enormously. Cultivators reap a sure harvest and the citizen sleeps with all his wealth without the least fear of destruction or plunder . . . . ” There is much in the relations of Britain and India for us to be ashamed of. But there is also much in which

we can take pride, and Britain will reap the reward now.