CHAPTER XXIX.

THE PEOPLE AMONG WHOM WE LABOUR (Continued).

HINDUS.

I have endeavoured in my account of Benares to describe the Hindu idolatry there practised, and in my account of our missionary preaching I have stated the arguments by which that idolatry is defended. The Hindu system, it is well known, is at once pantheistic and polytheistic. The universe, we are told, is God expanded. Brahm—he alone is the Existent One; but there are several persons and objects in which he is more manifest than in others, and as owing to Maya (illusion) we believe in our separate existence, it is fitting that to these objects special honour should be paid. I have mentioned the hideous aspect of the images worshipped at Benares, and their hideous aspect well accords with the character attributed to the gods worshipped under these forms.

[Sidenote: THE INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM ON CHARACTER.]

We are all familiar with the maxim, Like priest, like people. May we say, Like God, like worshipper? If so, we must regard the Hindus as in the very mire of moral debasement. Just think of a whole people acting like Shiva, Doorga, and Krishna! I think it cannot be doubted by any one who looks at the nature of the human mind, and the power exercised over it by its belief, that the worship of these and similar gods, along with the prevalent pantheistic and fatalistic views, which strike at the very root of moral distinctions, have done much to deprave the Hindu mind. The people, indeed, often assert "to the powerful there is no fault." The gods had the power and the opportunity to do what they did, and therefore no fault attached to their conduct; but ordinary persons have neither the one nor the other, and for them it would be very culpable to pursue the same course. Can a people fail to occupy a low place on the plane of morals to whom the maxim I have quoted would be tolerable? I believe they do as a people occupy a low place, and yet not nearly so low as might have been anticipated.

There is much to counteract the influence exerted on the Hindus by the evil example of their gods, by their excessive trust in outward rites apart from all mental working, and by the pantheistic teaching of their philosophers. They retain a moral nature, and acknowledge the distinction between right and wrong as readily as we do, though the distinction be inconsistent with the views they often express. The requirements of society and of daily life exert a powerful and salutary restraint by the obstacle which they present to a vicious career. The family constitution has conferred immense benefit on the Hindus, as on other nations.

It must be acknowledged that however long we may reside in India, our knowledge of the inner life of the people is very limited. We may be for years on the best terms with them; we may meet them frequently, and converse with them freely on all subjects; there may be not only acquaintance, but to all appearance friendship: and yet we have no entrance into the family circle, we cannot join them in the family meal, we can scarcely get a glimpse into their home life. If they be of the poorer class they would be shocked at our entering their houses, and conversing with their women and children. If of a higher class, they visit us and we visit them. They have a room of audience in which they welcome us. On occasions they prepare sumptuous feasts for Europeans, of which they themselves do not partake. However friendly we may be with natives of rank in Northern India, it is difficult, often impossible, to secure an interview between our wives and the female members of their families. As to English gentlemen, they never see the face of a native lady. Still, notwithstanding our being kept so far outside Hindu family life, we know enough about it to be sure there is often strong family affection. We have many proofs that parents regard their children with the most tender love; and we know that in the lower classes, at least, children often requite this love by sending a large portion of their wages to their aged parents. I myself have often been the channel of communication. It cannot be doubted that this family affection is widely extended, and has a very happy influence on the character and life of the people.

[Sidenote: THE CHARACTER OF THE HINDUS.]

Professor Max Muller, in his recently-published book, "India, what can it teach us?" discusses at length the character of the Hindus. He quotes the views entertained by persons of large Indian experience, who had mixed freely with all classes, and yet differ widely in their testimony, showing that in forming an estimate of the character of a community we are greatly influenced by our temperament and by the standard we employ. Sir Thomas Munro, the famous Governor of Madras, speaks of the character and attainments of the Hindus in the most laudatory terms. He says, "If civilization is to become an article of trade between England and India, I am convinced that England will gain by the import cargo." Sir Charles Trevelyan, on the other hand, speaks of them as a morally depraved people, to whom "the phenomenon is truly astonishing" "of a race of men on whose word perfect confidence may be placed." "The natives require to be taught rectitude of conduct much more than literature and science."

The Professor is evidently inclined to take the favourable view. He thinks the ordinary view of their falsehood and dishonesty is applicable only to the rabble of the cities and the frequenters of our courts, but is most unjust to the unsophisticated people of the country, whose truthfulness he extols. After the laudation of these honest and truthful people, I must say I was amused with the naivete of the learned Professor, when he goes on to show that the excellence of his proteges is not sufficiently strong to be maintained in the face of temptation. He says, "A man out of his village community is out of his element and under temptation. What would be called theft or robbery at home, is called a raid or conquest if directed against distant villages; and what would be falsehood or trickery in private life, is honoured by the name of policy and diplomacy if successful against strangers." The lauded truthfulness and honesty are so delicate that they cannot stand the breath of the nipping cold which has to be encountered when they leave their sheltered enclosure. The excellence is, according to the Professor, though he does not say so in words, merely conventional, as it rests on the principle of mutual insurance among those who form a closely-knitted community, bound together by common interests and associations. Even then excellence needs to be guarded by an oath, which is viewed with superstitious awe. I do not think the Professor's friends will thank him for this defence of the morality of their countrymen.

When I think of the wickedness rampant among large classes in a country like our own, notwithstanding our great privileges, I shrink from applying to the Hindus the strong terms of condemnation which I have often heard. There is among them, as I have already said, much family affection; they are, in ordinary circumstances, very courteous; they often manifest a kindly disposition; almsgiving is reckoned a high virtue; many lead quiet, orderly, industrious lives; and, as Max Muller tells us, from the earliest age satya, "truth," in its widest sense, has been represented by them as the very pillar on which goodness rests, though it must be allowed it has been much more praised than practised.

[Sidenote: THE HINDU AND CHRISTIAN STANDARDS.]

Am I then to say, as many have done, that Hinduism has done its adherents no harm, and that Christianity has done its adherents no good—that the Hindus as a people stand as high morally as we do? With every desire to speak of them as favourably as I can, with a pleasing recollection of many acts of kindness and courtesy, and with every desire to rid myself of prejudice, I must dissent strongly from this view. I cannot forget the lurid light cast on the native character during the Mutiny; the treachery, ingratitude, falsehood, and cruelty shown by many who gloried in their caste purity—relieved, however, it is only right to acknowledge, by notable instances of faithfulness and kindness. I cannot but remember the impression often made on my mind of their low standard of character, the absence of high motive, even when full expression has been given to the distinction between right and wrong. Happily, in our land there are many, in every class of society, who, as the result of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, hate sin in every form, and strive after excellence, an excellence springing from supreme love to God, and prompting to sustained effort for the good of man, for which we look in vain among the best of Hindus, though among them we discern the workings of conscience and the desire to do what is right. The standard of character is undoubtedly far higher among us than it is among Hindus, and this standard, protesting as it does against wickedness, and calling us to aspire after goodness, is in itself an incalculable benefit to a community. For many a day it has been my settled conviction that Hindus are vastly better than, looking at their religion, we could expect to find them, and that we on the other hand fall far below the excellence to which our religion summons us. If Hinduism was allowed full sway over its adherents society would go to pieces, while we should rise to the excellence of angels if we were to come under the full sway of the Gospel.

All have heard of the caste system of India, but only those who have lived among the people can understand its innumerable ramifications and its remarkable effects. Every caste, down to the lowest, is endlessly sub-divided. There are Brahmans who would as soon eat, drink, and intermarry with people of low caste, as with many who like themselves boast of Brahmanical blood. In books the Sudras are described as the fourth, the low, servile caste; but in fact a vast number in Northern India, who are loosely reckoned Hindus, are far below the Sudras, and thus the Sudras acquire a relatively high place. These low-caste people, on whom the people above them look down with contempt, are in their own fashion as tenacious of caste as their superiors, and they, too, multiply their divisions, one class maintaining its superiority to others. We have a large community called Chumars, "leather-people" as the word means, though many of them have nothing to do with leather. One of them once told me there were twelve divisions in their caste. We had near us at Ranee Khet a little colony of Dhobees, washermen, whom I visited now and then. I observed some huts were built separate from the rest, and I asked the reason. The man to whom I was speaking, for his class an intelligent man, expressed his surprise I did not know the reason. He said, with an air of dignity, "These are of an inferior order, and it is requisite their huts should be built apart."

It has been often shown that this caste system is most baleful. It narrows the sympathies of the people, keeps them in the same groove, fetters their minds, represses individuality, and is a bar to progress. It would be unfair, however, to say that all its consequences are pernicious. It so far benefits those bound by it that it restrains them from some forms of evil, and secures mutual helpfulness, just as the close trade guilds of our own country did, of which we have happily got rid. When the clan system was in full force among the Scotch Highlanders, there were broken men, men who had left the clan or were expelled from it, and these were notorious for their crimes. In like manner there are persons who break away from caste, and are the worst members of the community.

The patriarchal system, the system so prevalent in India, by which the people, instead of forming separate families in their separate dwellings, all form one household, to a large extent with a common purse and under a common rule, is perhaps still more fitted to fetter the mind and to obstruct progress than even caste itself. Those who have embraced Christ as their Saviour have often suffered more from their own kindred, dwelling together, than from their caste brethren.

[Sidenote: THE DISINTEGRATION OF CASTE.]

Many things tend to the disintegration of caste, such as education, the subjection of all to the same laws, the growing demands of commerce, and travelling together in railway-carriages. The attractions of the railway, notwithstanding its disregard of class distinctions, are irresistible. Thousands of pilgrims thus make their way to distant shrines, though by travelling in this easy fashion they lose the merit which suffering would bring. When railways were constructed, a proposal was made by leading Hindus to have separate carriages for separate castes, but compliance with the proposal was of course out of the question; and now high Brahmans and low Chumars—who are never seen in the same temple even though they worship the same gods, as the presence of a Chumar there would be deemed a profanation—may be seen packed in the same carriage in as close contact as two human beings can be. When they separate the Brahmans have recourse to lustrations, and satisfy themselves the impurity has been washed away.

In the great Presidency cities caste is no doubt greatly weakened. Many openly violate its rules, and are never called to account, but these very persons take care to maintain their caste position for certain domestic and social purposes. Leaving these cities and a small class scattered over the country, the mass of the people seem as much bound by caste as they ever were, so far as its outward requirements are concerned, though, as I have said, there are no doubt influences widely spread which tend to its relaxation. This is the case in Northern India, at any rate.

Much has been said about the Brahmist movement. The number of its professed adherents is very small, but many of the educated class are imbued with its spirit. Years ago branches of the Brahmist Sumaj were formed in the great cities of the North-West by young Bengalees employed in the public offices. For a time their services were kept up zealously, but soon they declined. The last time I heard about these communities most had ceased to exist, and only two or three had any sign of vitality. So far as I have learned, the Brahmists have had very few adherents from the Hindus of the North-West. At first sight Brahmism seems an advance towards the Gospel, and a preparation for its reception, but the best of our native Christians in Calcutta look on it as furnishing a welcome abode to those who cannot remain Hindus, and yet for various reasons refuse to embrace Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Its avowed hostility to definite doctrine, to what is denounced as dogma, the dreamy sentimentalism characteristic of the system, the ignoring to a great extent of the terrible facts of man's depravity and guilt, and the coquetting with Vedism, do little towards bringing its adherents to the feet of Jesus. The Brahmists used at one time to taunt us with our divisions, but for a long time they have had two separate Sumajes, composed respectively of Conservatives and Liberals. In consequence of Chunder Sen's Hindu proclivities in his later years, the Liberals became divided among themselves, the majority having seceded, while a few remained his devoted followers, who are likely to settle down into a Hindu sect, tinged with Christian thought and feeling.

[Sidenote: HINDU REFORMERS.]

From time to time reformers have appeared among the Hindus. Gautam, the Sakya Saint, was one of the earliest and greatest of the class. Successive reformers have had a great following, but the stream has not risen above its source. From Gautam downward some fundamental principles of Hinduism have been retained, and in the end these principles have asserted much of their former sway. This threatens to be the case with Brahmism. Notwithstanding its assertion of the Divine Unity, it has a strong pantheistic tinge, and already we see its effect. As it has arisen in a measure as the result of Christian teaching, and among a people to whom the Gospel is made known, it may be hoped that many, influenced by it, may travel upward to the light, instead of turning to the darkness from which they have emerged.

Increasing effort has been put forth in late years for the menial and spiritual improvement of the female portion of the population. From the commencement of missions, the wives of missionaries have bestowed much labour on the women and girls to whom they could find access. These have been well-nigh exclusively either Christians, or of the lower class of society. Very occasionally individuals of a higher class come under Christian teaching. A daughter of the late Rajah of Coorg, a state prisoner at Benares, was for a time under the tuition of Mrs. Kennedy. She was brought daily to our house, sat with us at table, and was taught with our children. The Rajah wished her to be brought up as a Christian and an English lady, in the hope that he might thus be helped in getting back his kingdom. Eventually she was brought to England, was baptized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen standing sponsor, and was married to an English officer. She survived her marriage a very short time. This was altogether an exceptional case. It has been most difficult for the wives of missionaries to obtain even an occasional interview with native ladies, as I have already intimated, though their husbands have been our frequent and friendly visitors. From the Reports of Zenana Missions we learn that of late years access has been obtained to many native families which had till recently been excluded from all Christian, and, indeed, from all European influence. The lady physician is often welcome where the ordinary teacher can find no entrance. In a city like Benares—and I suppose it is the same elsewhere—except for the lady physician in her professional capacity, and only rarely even in that capacity, the door of the Zenanas in the houses of the great magnates continues shut against all who would seek to awake and guide the dormant minds there.

[Sidenote: THE POSITION OF WOMAN AMONG THE HINDUS.]

Nothing can be conceived more deplorable than the condition of the ladies of India, living, as the phrase is, behind the curtain. They are, as a rule, utterly uneducated, know nothing of books, are shut out from the world, and have no refuge from ennui in such employments as needlework, knitting, and embroidery, for which the nimble fingers of the sisterhood are so well adapted. They have no society beyond the women of the household, their husbands and their children. An occasional glimpse has been got by our ladies into their state, and, as might have been expected, their minds have been found utterly childish and dwarfed. Happily for themselves the vast majority of the women of the country are under no such bondage. Their husbands cannot afford to curtain them. They move about freely as they do in our country, only with the hood ready to come down over the face. They are seen in the streets of Benares as they are seen in the streets of our own towns.

All have heard of the low view of woman entertained in India, and of the humiliating customs to which she is subjected; but nature asserts itself there as elsewhere, and notwithstanding all the inferiority with which she is charged, she exercises a profound influence on the male portion of the community. This is recognized by the people always saying, Ma, Bap—Mother, Father—not Father and Mother, as we say. It is well known that in the large households of which I have spoken the dowager lady is the supreme ruler, often the tyrant—not the less a tyrant because in her youth she had been treated as a slave. The state of widows, many of them mere children, is sad indeed.

Shut out though we be to a large extent from native families, we have many proofs presented to us of the power of female influence, a power often most perniciously exerted, as it is the power of ignorance and superstition, a power opposed to all intellectual and spiritual progress. The devout women of India are often our most formidable enemies, as they were of Paul in Antioch in Pisidia, and no doubt in other places. Some of our converts have known from painful experience what their opposition to the Gospel is, and it cannot be doubted that many have been prevented from joining us by the pressure brought to bear on them by their mothers, wives, and sisters. Well may every friend of India pray earnestly that Zenana Missions may be crowned with success.

A returned missionary is often asked what are the prospects of missions. From careful and trustworthy statistics we learn the number of Christians is increasing rapidly. It is right to observe that this increase has come mainly from the non-Aryan tribes, and people of low caste. We have valuable converts from the higher castes, but they are few. When we leave statistics we have recourse to impression, and that impression depends greatly on circumstances, and still more, perhaps, on the temperament of the observer. It is very difficult to gauge public opinion. When we think of all the influences at work, such as education, both primary and more advanced, Christian literature, missionary effort in many forms, railway travelling, commerce, and a Government bent on doing justice, we look forward with hope to an awaking of the Hindu mind, under which it will seek and embrace the highest good.

[Sidenote: OBSTACLES TO CONVERSION.]

The obstacles to success are most formidable, so formidable that, notwithstanding promising appearances, we should despair if we were not assured that the work is of God. The literature of our own country is strengthening the opposition to us. The unbelief of many educated natives, an unbelief springing both from repugnance to the Gospel and from dread of the sacrifices to which its acceptance would subject them, is fortified by the perusal of sceptical books and periodicals. Years ago I met a Bengalee far up in the mountains, who told me I need not speak to him about Christianity, for all reasonable people in England were abandoning it. In proof he put into my hands a letter from Professor Newman in answer to a letter he had sent to him. The Professor counselled his correspondent to worship God as his conscience and reason directed him, and to keep apart from the Christian Church.

Notwithstanding these obstacles to the reception of the Gospel, there are persons to whom it has come with a Divine sanction, but who are so bound by family and social ties that they do not avow their faith. Striking instances of this failure to act in accordance with conviction have come under my observation. I mention only one. I once had an interview with a dying young Hindu, who had been taught in a mission school and was well acquainted with the Gospel. With tears in his eyes he said all his trust for salvation was in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he knew it was his duty to avow his faith, but he could not, for if he did his relatives would one and all abandon him. He seemed to dread any one but myself hearing the confession of his faith. I have known others who have had a strong drawing to the Saviour, but they have stifled their convictions, and have become, as I remember with sadness, bitter foes of the truth. Let only the tide set in in favour of Christianity, and many, I doubt not, will be ready to flow with it.

It ought ever to be remembered that in India we have a vast population. In the North-Western Provinces and Punjab alone there is a population twice as large as that of Great Britain and Ireland. Those of this population who may be said to be educated in a high degree are the merest handful. You travel hundreds of miles through regions full of towns, villages, and hamlets, where you find that the partially educated are very few compared with the wholly uneducated many. Even most of the shopkeepers who can keep accounts well are unable to read a book with ease, as the written and printed characters are very different. All know that their English rulers are called Christians; those who live near the great lines of road hear an occasional address from a passing missionary, many frequenters of melas have come under the sound of the Gospel, but the vast majority have not the slightest conception of its meaning. When Christianity had spread to a considerable extent in the Roman Empire, country districts were so little affected by it that pagani (villagers) became soon synonymous with "heathen," the only meaning which attaches to the word as it is now used by us. A vast work has to be done before the villagers of Northern India cease to be pagans in our sense of the word. The work of evangelization is only in its initial stage. It is yet with us the day of small things—but it is the day, not the night. The morning has dawned; over a great part of Northern India we can only see the faint streaks of the coming day, but the light will spread, the darkness will vanish, and the millions of that great country will yet be gladdened by the beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

I mention, and merely mention, help which India gives for the solution of some great questions:—

(1) The immobility of the Eastern mind. In manner of life, in salutations, in offerings of inferiors to superiors, in many customs, the far East, like the nearer East, continually reminds us of the East as presented in the records of antiquity—above all as presented to us in the Bible. He must be a very careless observer who has not been struck with the resemblance. The restless changing West furnishes in this respect a striking contrast to the staid, unchanging East. There has been no such immobility as to religious opinion and practice. There, as elsewhere, it holds true that man's mind never remains in one stay. The Hindus of the present day speak of their Vedic ancestors with profound reverence, but if they were to rise from their graves and act as they did when denizens of earth—kill cows, disregard caste, drink largely of the intoxicating juice of the som plant, and worship in an entirely different manner—their reverence would turn into horror and detestation. We cannot say that the modern Puranas do not rest in any degree on the Vedas; some Vedic principles are manifest in them: but in the gods they set forth for worship and in the practices they enjoin, there is between them and the Vedas a marked diversity. The numerous sects which have arisen from time to time among the Hindus show that they too have had that measure of mental activity which has led to new forms of thought and practice.

[Sidenote: RETROGRESSION.]

(2) The genesis and evolution of religion. In the dim remote past to which the Vedas introduce us, we find the Hindus a religious, a very religious, people. There is no indication of any period when they could be called secularists. Their religious views and practices have changed, there has been an evolving process; the connection may be traced, and we see the result in the Puranic system of our day. Has this movement been forward, or backward? Has the fittest survived and the weak and useless perished? The Vedic system little deserves the praise often lavished on it, but surely it is preferable to that which has taken its place. There has been deterioration, not improvement. Has not this ever been the case in reference to religion, so far as the working of the human mind is concerned? Is not modern Buddhism a falling off from ancient Buddhism? Does not Rabbinical Judaism belittle and dwarf Old Testament Judaism? Does not Roman Catholic Christianity materialize New Testament Christianity? The facts of man's religious history prove incontestably that his constant tendency is towards retrogression, not towards advancement.

[Sidenote: THE BIBLE AND THE HINDU SCRIPTURES.]

(3) Comparative religion. On this subject elaborate treatises have been written with the object of proving that all religions have had their origin in the human mind, and have been evolved under purely human conditions. Some of the writers, prompted, we may hope, by a devout feeling, allow in vague terms an influence exerted on the evolution by Providential arrangements. Still, in the result we are not to see in any case the effect of a supernatural revelation, but in all cases an approximation in different degrees to truth, secured by the unaided working of the human mind. Does a comparison between the sacred books of the Hindus and the Bible support this view? Listen to a Sanscrit specialist like Professor Max Mueller, who has spent years in the study of the Veda, and who has every conceivable motive to say everything he can on its behalf: "That the Veda is full of childish, silly, even to our mind monstrous conceptions, who would deny? But even these monstrosities are interesting and instructive. I could not even answer the question, if you were to ask it, whether the religion of the Veda was polytheistic or monotheistic. Monotheistic in the usual sense of the word it is decidedly not." The dreamy, vague teaching of the Veda has hardened into the unmistakable polytheism and pantheism of modern Hinduism. In no country in the world has mind been more active than in India; in no country have the learned had such abundant leisure, such full opportunity for quiet, sustained thought—and you see the result. We follow with deep interest and sympathy the straining of these minds to understand themselves and the world around; as they grope after God we find they occasionally obtain a glimpse of the highest truth, but the darkness, though for the moment relieved, is not dispelled. The truth has continued to elude them. They have not arrived at the knowledge of even the first principles of a theology worthy of God, and fitted to direct, purify, and guide man. Excellent, high-toned sentiments are no doubt found in Hindu writings, but these do not alter their general character. The Bible, by its teaching regarding God and man, above all by its record of the peerless excellence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the provision made through Him for the supply of man's deepest wants, presents a marvellous contrast to the Veda, to the great epic poems of the Hindus, to their philosophical treatises and their Puranas. I know a good deal of what has been said to show that the characteristics of the Bible may be accounted for on merely human principles, but the certain facts of the case refute, to my mind, the arguments adduced. Max Mueller says in one of his writings—I cannot quote his exact words—that we are not to look in the songs of the Veda for anything so advanced as we find in the Psalter. Why not? Had not the Pundits of India far more cultured minds than David and the hymnists of Israel? Their works are different, for their teaching came from different sources. One benefit I have got from my residence in India, a conviction deepened by every successive glimpse into Hindu teaching and practice: that in the Bible we have a supernatural revelation of God's will, and that in building on it we are building on a rock which cannot be shaken.

(4) The migration of nations. Few things in the history of the world are more surprising to us than whole nations making their way to new and remote countries. I have thought I have got a little help towards understanding these movements when I have observed large bands of people—men, women, and children—pursuing their journey, carrying with them all they deemed necessary, and lying out at night on the bare ground, with a blanket, which they had carried over their shoulder, as their only covering. They took food with them when they knew that at their halting-place it could not be procured. Very differently do our native regiments travel. They are attended by a host of camp-followers, and have a formidable amount of baggage. I once saw a party of woodmen in the hills sleeping under a tree when there was frost on the ground; and on the remark being made it was a wonder they could live, a hillman remarked, "Has not each got his blanket? What hardship is there?" When nations migrated they no doubt sent out scouring parties, who seized all the food on which they could lay their hands. When travelling alone in the hills I had commonly with me a tent so small that a man carried it on his head, but I must acknowledge I could not approach the simplicity of the native traveller's arrangements.



CHAPTER XXX.

EUROPEANS IN INDIA.

The climate of India precludes the possibility of its being a sphere for European colonization. With the exception of the hill districts, the intense heat during the greater part of the year makes out-door occupation trying even to the native, and well-nigh unendurable for Europeans—a heat uncompensated by the coolness of the night, for in the North-West, at least, the stifling closeness of the night is more trying than the heat of the day. If this heat lasted for only a few days, as in Southern Australia, it might be borne, though a hindrance to work; but in India it lasts for months, and it is succeeded by months of drenching rain, during a great part of which the moisture and mugginess are as unpleasant as the previous dry heat had been.

Apart from climate, there is no room for us as colonists. In India we have not to do with rude tribes, as in America, New Zealand, and Australia, and in a measure in Southern Africa, that cannot be said to possess the land over which they and their fathers have long roamed, or of which they have cultivated a very small part. We have to do with ancient nations that have taken full possession of the land by cultivation of the soil, and by pursuit of the arts of civilized life. We find in India no tribes wasting away before the white stranger, but a people growing in number under the security of our government. There are districts in the North-West more densely peopled than any districts in Europe occupied by an agricultural population. The emigration of coolies to the Mauritius, to Bourbon, to the coast of South America, and to the West Indian Islands, has done little to relieve the pressure. Migration to unoccupied parts of Central India and Assam has been carried out to a small extent, and it is very desirable this migration should increase. Non-Aryan tribes occupy a large part of the mountains and forests of Central and Eastern India. They have no wish for accession from the people of the plains, and still less do they wish for the entrance of Europeans. I can say nothing about the mountains of the South, but so far as I have travelled over the sub-Himalayan range in the North there is no place for Europeans in it, except for officials or employers, and managers of native labour, such as tea-planters.

While India presents no sphere for European colonization, it presents an increasingly wide field for European agency in the civil and military services, in the departments of education, commerce, manufacture—for instance, of cotton goods, railways, indigo, and tea. In these different departments Europeans are in constant intercourse with natives of every class from the highest to the lowest. There is often much pleasant and courteous intercourse between them; but in language, habits, religion, in almost everything in which human beings can be separated from their fellows, they are so different that they remain to a great degree strangers to each other, however kindly may be their mutual feeling. English people never call India "home," though they may have lived in it the greater part of their life. This name is always reserved for our fatherland. (I had better say that the term English, as used in India, includes all from Great Britain and Ireland, and to them also the term European is mainly, though not exclusively, applied.) I have heard persons of pure English descent, who had never been out of India, speak of England as "home." The reservation of the word to the land from which we have gone, indicates the fact that in India we are strangers, and cannot cease to be strangers. Colonists in America and other lands may make a similar reservation; but living as they do among their own people, in a country which they expect to be the home of their descendants, the term as applied to England is deprived of much of its endearing force.

[Sidenote: EUROPEAN AND NATIVE INTERCOURSE.]

In the great Presidency cities, and in a less degree in other cities throughout the country, we have a large educated class of natives, who are well acquainted with our language and literature. They have pursued their studies in the hope of securing good situations, and this hope is in a large measure realized. They are found all over Northern India occupying responsible and well-paid positions. Many persons of this class come daily into close intercourse with Europeans in the discharge of their duties, and have means of knowing them which no other class possesses. The intercourse is generally courteous, in not a few cases friendly, and they talk freely with each other on a great variety of subjects. There is, however, not infrequently an underfeeling with educated natives that they are not sufficiently appreciated—that they do not get the place due to them—that they are treated as an inferior race; and there is consequently a suspiciousness fatal to cordiality. I am far from thinking that Europeans always treat educated natives with the courtesy due to them. I have known instances of marked discourtesy; but I am sure many of our people are bent on treating them with all justice and kindness, and sometimes, at least, this friendly feeling has not been reciprocated. Human nature being what it is, however much we may regret, we need not wonder at the grating between parties that have so much in common, and yet owing to that very circumstance have clashing feelings and interests.

Many native gentlemen, some of the highest rank, cultivate European society, and every European who has anything of the gentleman in him treats them with the courtesy due to their position. Natives of this class are, as a rule, most gentlemanly in their demeanour, and intercourse with them is very pleasant.

[Sidenote: THE FAITHFULNESS OF SERVANTS.]

Between Europeans and most natives with whom they have to do, there is such a difference of station there is no room for jealousy. To some Europeans they stand in the relation of agents, clerks, and labourers; to a greater number in the relation of servants. In India, as in our own country, there is a great variety in the character of both masters and servants. There, as here, there are hard, selfish, unreasonable masters and mistresses, and there are undoubtedly bad, false, dishonest servants; but I have no hesitation in giving my impression—I may say stating my belief—that native servants are generally well treated, and that this treatment draws forth no small degree of gratitude and attachment. This was strikingly shown in the Mutiny period. Servants often remain for years with the same masters, render most useful and faithful service; their wages are continued in whole or in part during the temporary absence of their masters from India; on their return they are found waiting for them at the port of debarkation, and on final departure for Europe it is not unusual for old Indians to pension those who have been faithful to them. When I speak of faithfulness, I do not mean that, with the exception of very rare cases, full dependence can be placed on their truthfulness, or even on their honesty in the strict sense of the term. It is very difficult for them to resist the temptation to tell a lie, when a fault is to be screened or benefit to be obtained, and there are certain understood perquisites of which they are inclined to avail themselves in too liberal a degree; but they are at the same time very careful to guard the property of their master against all others, and are deeply concerned for the honour of his name. As a rule natives, both servants and others, are treated with less justice and kindness by the lower class of Europeans than by persons better educated and of a higher position. There are indeed soldiers and others who look on "niggers," as they call all natives, with contempt, and are inclined to abuse them, so far as they are permitted, to the full bent of their rude nature. The term "nigger" is used by some who call themselves gentlemen. All I can say of such gentlemen is that I wish they would speak in a manner worthy of the name.

Of late years the position of Englishmen in India has greatly changed. By the overland route, and by the weekly postal communication, England and India are brought near to each other in a degree which could not have been deemed possible in former days. Persons on leave for three months can now spend a month or five weeks with their friends in England, and at the end of their leave be ready to resume their duties. Every week a stream of literature, in the shape of newspapers, periodicals, and books, is poured over every part of India, reaching the European in the most remote part of the land. Hill stations have become very accessible by rail, and to these Europeans betake themselves in great numbers for the hot months. All these things give greater force than ever to the home feeling, by strengthening home sympathies and ties. The result is our people in India are birds of passage as they never were before, ready to return to their own land as soon as circumstances will allow them.

There are some advantages from this altered state of things. Many of the early residents became, to their own deep injury, too intimate with the people of the land. They learned their ways, and became like them in character. It was often said, when the Mutiny broke out, that the officers of native regiments had in former days maintained friendly intercourse with the Sepoys, and thus secured their attachment, and that the cessation, or at least the lessening, of this intercourse was one great cause of the outbreak. If good resulted from it in the weakening of national antipathy, in many cases evil resulted from it in the deterioration of character. Many of our countrymen at an early period formed native connections, and by doing so brought themselves down to the level of their new friends. Some became so entangled that they gave up all thought of returning to their own country. It must not be supposed that all who settled down in India for life were of this character. Some who had kept themselves aloof from all improper connection with natives became so attached to India and to the mode of living there, that they made it their permanent abode. A few of this class remain, but their number is rapidly decreasing, and none are taking their place. The persons who have thus made India their home have often had a large circle of attached native friends.

The constant communication of Englishmen with their native land, frequent visits to it, and the anticipation of getting away from India at the earliest possible period, tends to lessen their interest in Indian affairs, and weaken their sympathy with the native population. The closer connexion with England is, however, attended with some advantages. It can be confidently affirmed that many of our countrymen in India are bent on promoting the good of the people with whom they come into contact, and strive to perform their duties faithfully. We may hope that home influence may strengthen them for the more efficient discharge of their work, and may thus prove a benefit to the people.

[Sidenote: IMPROVEMENT OF EUROPEAN SOCIETY.]

In many respects there has been a marked improvement in European society. The small house near the large one, significantly called the Zenana, is never seen near the houses of recent erection. Even in the smaller stations there are places for Christian worship, where Europeans meet on the Lord's Day, when some official reads the prayers of the Church of England, and, if he be a zealous man, a sermon. A chaplain pays occasional visits to these places. The attendance on public worship is far from being what it ought to be, and we have much reason to fear it is often very formal; but it furnishes a pleasing contrast to the neglect which formerly prevailed. Along with this church-going there is, no doubt, a great deal of unbelief in India. I have already said we have in India Christians who are earnest for the honour of their Lord, and do all they can to promote His cause; but the greater number of our people are not, and have never been, friendly to the propagation of the Gospel. I am afraid the unfriendliness has been increased by the sceptical tone of much of the literature of the day. I have known gentlemen giving to their native subordinates for perusal periodicals and books which could only lead them to the conclusion that Christianity was dying out in England.

There are, happily, counteracting influences. Christian as well as sceptical literature makes its way to India, and is telling on many minds. And then, at our larger stations, where Europeans and Eurasians are in the greatest number, more is done for their spiritual benefit than at any previous period. Well may every Christian heartily desire success to all such effort, for nothing would do more to bring the people of the land to the feet of Jesus than the prevalence of living godliness among our own countrymen.



CHAPTER XXXI.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

The first question which comes before us when considering the government of India is, What right have we to govern it? For an answer to this question we must betake ourselves to the history of our connexion with India. This history cannot have for us the interest and fascination of the history of our own country; but it has strong claims on us as the subjects of the British Crown, contains much that deserves and repays perusal, and must be known by us in order to the right understanding of the position we have obtained.

My reading of Indian history leads me to the conclusion that in all likelihood we should never have been rulers in India had we not been grievously injured as traders, in violation of rights accorded to us by the native powers. All know the story of the black hole of Calcutta, which led to our waging war on the Nawab. We had previously fought with the French and French allies in the south, we had contended with other European rivals, but our rule began with the victory of Plassey. After that victory our only alternative was either to leave the country altogether, or to go on conquering till we should become the supreme power over the whole of the continent. If we had retired from the land we had conquered, and had sought to remain as traders, our retirement would have been attributed to weakness, and demands would have been made on us which would have made trading impossible. If we had determined not to advance, but simply to retain what we had acquired, and had satisfied ourselves with repelling attacks, these attacks would have been continued till we had either gone forward, or resigned our conquest altogether.

We can understand the course pursued by the founders of the British Empire in India only when we look on them as placed between the alternative mentioned. The Directors of the East India Company did not seek the government of India. They deprecated it. By it commerce was disorganized and dividends lowered. Some of their servants in India made enormous fortunes by the new state of things, but this was no comfort to them. Order after order was sent out against the extension of territory. Governor after governor was commissioned to carry out the peaceful views of the home authorities, but still conquest went on under the direction of these very governors.

[Sidenote: THE POLICY OF THE MARQUESS OF HASTINGS.]

I am far from vindicating all that was done; deeds were committed which deserve severe condemnation; but it would be a travesty of history to say that the governors, who set out with peaceful intentions, succumbed to the lust of conquest. They were often forced to adopt war measures. Many instances might be adduced. I give only one. The Marquess of Hastings had denounced the conquering career of the Marquess of Wellesley. He was selected for the very purpose of reversing his policy, so far as it could be reversed. If any person could be trusted for giving peace to India he was the man. Shortly after his arrival our connexion with the Ghoorkhas, the ruling body in Nepal, became strained. They made raids into our territory beneath the hills, and murdered and robbed our subjects. The Marquess was extremely desirous to avoid a rupture with them. Remonstrances were addressed to them, and proposals made to settle differences by the better defining of the boundaries between their country and ours. These proposals were regarded as a proof of weakness, and the bold demand was made we should give up to them the great fertile region north of the Ganges. There was no further hesitation. To yield to this demand, for which there was not the pretext of right, would have been to announce to all the potentates of India that we were unable to defend ourselves, and would have led them to assail us. War was declared, which, after two campaigns and a severe struggle, ended in the discomfiture of the Ghoorkhas, and in their cession to us of the large territory they had conquered a few years previously. Ought the Governor-General to have yielded to the Ghoorkha demand? Yes, if we were prepared to leave the country altogether, but otherwise not.

No sooner had the Marquess of Hastings landed in India than he began to doubt the policy he had formerly advocated, and events soon compelled him to abandon it. The policy on which he acted was declared by him in unmistakable terms: "Our object in India ought to be to render the British Government paramount in effect, if not declaredly so ... and to oblige the other states to perform the two great feudal duties of supporting our rule with all their forces, and submitting their mutual differences to our arbitration."

Till we became confessedly supreme we were not for any length of time allowed to remain at peace. There were two main reasons for the unrest, which prepared the way for war. One reason was that the native powers hated and dreaded us, and were eager for our overthrow even when they professed the greatest friendliness. When we were involved in difficulties they were ready to rise against us. Every indication of our desire to avoid hostilities was interpreted as a sign of weakness, and thus became an incentive to the renewal of the struggle. Another reason for the fresh outbreak of war was the treachery of the native princes. I cannot say that in the matter of treaty keeping we had clean hands. The gross deceit played on Omichund, as described by Macaulay in his Essay on Lord Clive, stands nearly alone in our public conduct in India, but other transactions have been unworthy of our character for high-minded integrity. It may, however, be confidently affirmed, that looking at our governing conduct as a whole, it presents by its faithfulness to engagements a marked contrast to the conduct of those who had entered into treaty with us. Many of our Indian wars would have been prevented had there not been on their part the violation of engagements in a manner which showed they never intended to keep them an hour longer than they were compelled by circumstances.

If a review of the course pursued by our people in India shows how we became the governing power, and indicates the ground on which our rule rests, a review of the history of India for ages previous to our advent, and of the condition in which we found it, will help us greatly in answering the question—Has India been benefited or injured by our having seized the sceptre?

[Sidenote: MUHAMMADAN RULE.]

For centuries Muhammadans were the rulers of India. They entered, not to avenge wrongs done to them, but as the servants of Allah, called to put down idolatry, and entitled to rule over the nations they subdued. Centuries elapsed before the extension of their rule beyond the North-West region. Gradually it extended to other parts of India. The seventeenth century was well advanced before the greater part of Southern India came under the rule of the Emperor of Delhi—the Shah-un-shah, King of kings, as he was called. His suzerainty was generally acknowledged in those lands which continued under Hindu rulers.

As we turn over page after page of the Muhammadan rule in India, what scenes of strife, of bloody war, of treachery, of desolated countries, continually meet our view! No sooner did an emperor die than the struggle commenced for the vacant throne between his many sons, brother fighting with brother till one became the victor, and then woe to the vanquished! The governors of Provinces, as soon as they thought they had sufficient power, rebelled against the sovereign, and struggled—not infrequently with success—to secure an independent throne. In the course of these civil wars countries were overrun, towns and villages levelled with the ground, their inhabitants massacred, and their property pillaged. We read of rival dynasties which contended with each other for empire. We are told of terrible invasions like those of Timour and Nadir Shah. There were no doubt great emperors, such as the illustrious Akbar, during whose rule India suffered comparatively little from war, and enjoyed great prosperity. Governors were now and then firm and just rulers. Looking at the whole period of Muhammadan rule, during no part of which India was free from the scourge of war, and during a great part of which war on a large scale was carried on, untold misery must have been endured by many of its inhabitants, and there was little security for life and property. The aristocracy of the emperors' courts was mainly that of office, and only to a limited degree that of blood and ancient possession. We find persons of mean birth rising to greatness, and persons on the very pinnacle of honour cast down to the ground. There was a succession of emperors called Slave Emperors, as they had originally been slaves in the court, whence they rose to supreme power. When we consider the teaching of the Quran respecting those who do not submit to Islam, we may suppose what the condition of the Hindus was under Muhammadan rulers, so far as they acted out their principles. Happily during this period, though constantly exposed to terrible disasters, the people in their villages were often left to manage their own affairs.

[Sidenote: THE REIGN OF ADVENTURERS.]

When our nation commenced its conquering career in the middle of the eighteenth century, the Muhammadan Empire was in a state of collapse. Within thirteen years of Aurungzeb's death, in 1706, six sovereigns were seated on the imperial throne. Shah Alum was nominal emperor from 1759 to 1806, and all the time he was a wanderer, a prisoner, or a pensioner of the Mahrattas, the Rohillas, or the English. He was as melancholy an example of fallen greatness as can well be conceived, a greatness which retained its title while its bearer was subjected to every indignity. He had been for some time in the hands of the Mahrattas, who used his seal freely, and at the same time treated him with the utmost cruelty. The food supplied was so insufficient that he and his household were almost starved. When Lord Lake took Delhi from the Mahrattas in 1803 he found the poor old blind emperor under a tattered canopy, trembling at what might now befall him. Some years previously his eyes had been gouged out by one of his Rohilla keepers. At once he was treated by us with the highest consideration. Power was not given, but a handsome pension was assigned, and he was personally treated with all the honour due to a reigning sovereign. When these facts are remembered, it is strange we should be charged with overthrowing the Muhammadan Empire in India. Whoever was injured by our conquest, Shah Alum and his family were assuredly benefited.

Our contention was with those whose only claim to rule rested on the sword. Bold adventurers had risen everywhere, and were snatching at the fallen sceptre. There were still emperors, as we have mentioned, and their prestige gave value to documents bearing their seal, but they did not retain a shred of power. Daring Europeans, helped by native allies, had set to carving out principalities for themselves. The viziers and nawabs that ruled in the name of the emperors rendered them neither obedience nor tribute. Our first great battle was fought with Suraj ud Dowla, the Nawab of Bengal, the grandson of Aliverdi Khan, an Afghan adventurer, who had acquired the government of the country. In the South we fought with Hyder Ali, a trooper who gathered under him a marauding band, and by courage and craft rose to being a sovereign, and with his son Tippoo Sahib. Our longest and most severe contests were with the Mahrattas, a warlike tribe of Hindus in Western India, who came first into prominence in the seventeenth century under Sivajee, a petty chieftain, and gradually advanced under various leaders till they became for a time the paramount power. Their hordes of horsemen scoured the country in all directions, north and south, east and west, demanding the chauth, the fourth part of the revenue, and returning to their capitals laden with spoil. The leaders with whom we had most to do, sometimes in the way of friendship, far more frequently in the way of warfare, were the Peshwa, the head of the Mahratta confederacy, the heir of Sivajee; Ranojee Bhonsla, a private horseman, who became Prince of Nagpore; Pilajee Gaikwar, a cowherd, who ruled in Baroda; Ranojee Scindia, a menial servant of the Peshwa, who made Gwalior his capital; and Mulhar Rao Holkar, a shepherd, who became Maharajah of Indore. Not one of their number professed to belong to the ancient ruling families of India.

As we glance at India as it was under Muhammadan rule, and consider its state when our conquering career began, we find there were no elements of stable government: the Imperial power had become a shadow; ambitious leaders were everywhere striving for the mastery, ready to beat down all opposition within their own immediate sphere, and then prepared to wrest power from neighbouring chiefs. India had at that time a very dark prospect before it.

This review of the past history of India may seem an unduly long introduction to a brief statement regarding its condition under our rule, but it is only by looking to the past a right answer can be given to the questions: What right have we to govern India? From what evils has our government delivered it? What benefits have we conferred on its population? Inattention to the past has led many to give in some cases an utterly wrong, in other cases a very inadequate, answer to these questions. It is clear that India has been brought under our rule by what may be rightly called aggressive war only to a very limited extent. It is also clear that the hostile forces we encountered were not those of the ancient princes of the land, but of adventurers who were struggling to rise on the ruins of the disorganized empire. At the present time, on the mere ground of the length of possession, our rule has a stronger claim than that of the potentates whom we overthrew.

[Sidenote: THE ADVANTAGES OF BRITISH RULE.]

A review of the past prepares us to see some of the advantages our rule has conferred. No longer are armies marching over India, supplying their wants by the plunder of its people, and leaving ruin in their track. No longer has the husbandman, when he sees at a distance the dust raised by the tramp of the Mahratta cavalry, to flee to his walled village, if he has one to flee to, or to his hamlet if he cannot do better, leaving his field, perhaps ready for the sickle, to be trodden down by the unwelcome stranger. No longer are hosts of marauders like the Pindarees, who scarcely professed to be anything else than marauders, allowed to roam over fertile and populous regions in their robbing and murdering expeditions. No longer are professional robbers called Dacoits allowed to set out on excursions, and make their way under various disguises to towns, to rise at an arranged signal, attack the houses of the rich, and force them, often under torture, to reveal their treasures. No longer are Thugs, professional murderers, left to arrange their plans for insinuating themselves into the goodwill of travellers, with a view, when the opportunity came, to throttling their victims, robbing them, and then burying them, that all mark of their deeds might be effaced. From Dacoity and Thuggery Europeans had nothing to fear, but natives suffered frightfully; and special departments were formed for their suppression. In Northern India, at least, these bands of robbers and murderers have been broken up. No longer are the lives and property of the people at the disposal of their rulers, as was to a large extent the case previous to the British era. They are now under the aegis of law.

If any one think that the advantages thus conferred by the establishment of a stable government are of little value, all we can say is they have no conception of the misery brought on thousands from generation to generation, when these advantages were unknown.

Never was a comparatively small nation entrusted with so vast a work as that committed to us by our undertaking to administer the government of a continent thousands of miles from our shores, inhabited by two hundred and fifty-four millions, who differ widely from us in language, religion, habits, history, associations—in almost everything in which one nation can differ from another. Two hundred millions are under our direct rule, and the rest are under native rulers who acknowledge our Queen as suzerain. It would have been a miracle had we not in the course of our government, during more than a hundred years, done many unwise, many wrong, even many cruel things. He would be a bold man who would stand forth and maintain we had done good, and only good, to the nations of India. We take no such optimist position. You can adduce many things in our dealings with the people which the best of the officials have themselves condemned, and you can mention evils which have followed our rule for which we can scarcely be said to be responsible. This, however, we say with the fullest conviction, as the result of long residence in India and of extensive observation: that considering our position as Western strangers, and the difficulties with which we have had to contend, our Government has had a success far greater than could have been anticipated, and has conferred vast advantages on the country.

[Sidenote: BRITISH ADMINISTRATORS.]

It would be difficult to find in the history of the world a more remarkable class of men than those who have been engaged in the administration of India. There have been inefficient, selfish, idle, unprincipled men among them. In former years we used to hear of John Company's bad bargains; and now that India has come directly under the rule of Queen Victoria we now and then hear of John Bull's bad bargains. These have been the exception, not the rule. There has been in succession a band of men who have earnestly sought the good of the people, and have shown a capacity for administration which I have no doubt surprised themselves, as it has those who have watched their progress. Sir John Kaye has given interesting sketches of some Indian worthies, but it would require a series of volumes to record the deeds of the many who have taken a warm interest in the people, have toiled for their good, and have been trusted, and in some instances literally adored, by them. I have had a considerable acquaintance with the personnel of the Government of the North-West Provinces, from some occupying the highest position down to assistant magistrates. I cannot say I admired all, but I can say that I have been surprised at the number who did their duty faithfully, were thoroughly interested in their work, and rejoiced when they had achieved any measure of success.

With a few exceptions the Governor-General has been an English nobleman who has filled some important office at home; but Lieutenant-Governors, and not infrequently Governors, have been persons of large Indian experience, who have passed with honour through all the grades of the Civil Service. These, assisted by the Commissioners of Provinces, exercise a strict supervision over the entire administration. Officials have continually to report their doings, and irregularities are quickly discovered. We know of no class who have more onerous duties to discharge than magistrates of districts and their subordinates. They have long hours in crowded courts in an exhausting climate, decide many intricate cases, maintain order within the bounds of their jurisdiction, receive reports of what is being done and give directions, prepare reports for the Government, and they are expected to give a courteous reception to native gentlemen when they call, however long these gentlemen may be inclined to prolong their visit. We have been at times in a position to see the daily life of some of these men, and have been struck with the amount of work devolving on them, and the patience they have shown where there was strong temptation to impatience.

[Sidenote: INCIDENTAL EVILS OF OUR RULE.]

As strangers, it is difficult for us to understand the people, and the result is that with the best intentions we have at times adopted measures utterly unsuited to them. Our very attempt to secure the rights of all classes by the careful drawing up of civil and criminal codes, and by the institution of courts where they are administered, has fostered the litigiousness of the people, and has led to a fearful amount of perjury. Litigiousness got no play where courts did not exist, and perjury could not show itself where witnesses were not examined. It is said that in one of our most recent acquisitions, the Punjab, the people have deteriorated under our rule. Runjeet Singh had no prisons. Thieves caught in the act were maimed and allowed to go their way. Murderers and other great offenders were at once put to death. We can scarcely adopt this primitive mode of maintaining order, and by our codes, courts, judges, and witnesses we have no doubt opened the door to evils of which the Punjab knew nothing in Runjeet Singh's time. If the early colonists of New York and Boston had retained their primitive simplicity, those cities would not now be disgraced by the slums, with their vice, crime, and misery, which make them too closely resemble the cities of the old continent. When society makes progress, new, social, and political, arrangements are indispensable, the countervailing good being much greater than the incidental evils which come in their train.

In India there are Regulation and Non-Regulation Provinces, the Regulation Provinces being those which have been long under our rule, and are subject to all our laws; and the Non-Regulation Provinces being those to which our codes are only partially applied, and where much is left to the discretion of the administrator. In the former the chief offices belong to the regular Civil Service, while in the latter military men as well as civilians are employed. Both classes have furnished most able and capable men.

[Sidenote: TAXATION.]

Considering the resources of India its taxation is heavy. Our Government pays its servants of every description, high and low, civil and military, with a regularity utterly unknown under native rule, and the income must in regularity keep pace with the outlay. When we read of seventy millions as the expenditure, it must be remembered that what is called the land-tax is really rent, for in India the land has always been considered the property of the state. This is kept before the mind of the people of Madras by the yearly assessment of the tenants, and before the people of the North-Western Provinces by the new assessment made every thirtieth year. By the perpetual settlement of Bengal, the tax-collectors were at once raised to the position of landholders, of which they have often taken undue advantage. It must also be remembered that a considerable sum is expended on remunerative works, such as canals and railways. The expenditure on the army is great. I cannot conceive why our Government keeps up so large a native army. It would appear to those who are outside the Government circle, that its reduction would conduce to safety as well as to economy. The European part of the army is comparatively very small, and it would be most perilous to lessen it. Years before the Mutiny, Sir Henry Lawrence said it was the backbone of our strength, and events proved how true his remark was. Yet it is, and must continue to be, very expensive, like every other form of European agency. The Mutiny among its other results left behind it heavy pecuniary responsibilities, which have added to the debt and led to increased taxation. Many are of opinion that the amalgamation of the Royal and Indian armies was an unwise measure, and has caused much unnecessary expense. Often complaints have been made that successive home Governments, from their unchallenged control over the affairs of India, have imposed an unjust burden on its resources by keeping at home too large a force at its expense, and by undue charges for stores sent out, as well as by making it pay sums which were more properly due by the imperial exchequer.

"The net land revenue has risen in the ten years beginning 1870-71 from L20,335,678, or nearly half the total net revenue of L42,780,417, by about two millions sterling, to L22,125,807, with a total net revenue of L49,801,664. The gross revenue of the latter year, 1879-80, was L68,484,666, the difference being derived from sources other than taxation, such as the opium monopoly. The revenue of 1880-81 was L72,920,000, and the gross expenditure L71,259,000. Including the land revenue as land-tax, the 200 millions in the twelve Provinces of British India pay about 4s. a head of imperial taxation, besides municipal or local and provincial cesses, which purchase such local advantages as roads, schools, police, and sanitary appliances. This incidence of taxation varies from 5s. 6d. per head of the land-owning classes to 3s. 3d. for traders, 2s. for artisans, and 1s. 6d. for agricultural labourers. The fiscal policy of the Government has of late been to reduce the burden of the salt monopoly, which is a poll-tax, and to abolish import duties. The 541/2 millions in the Native States pay only to their own chiefs, who enjoy a net annual revenue of fourteen millions sterling, and pay L700,000 as tribute, or less than the cost of the military and political establishments maintained on their account" (Dr. George Smith's "Geography of British India"). Deducting land-tax, opium, railways, irrigations, post-office, and suchlike remunerative services, the taxation is reduced to 2s. per head of population.

If the European army in India be the backbone of our military sway, European administrators are, I believe, the backbone of our government. During the terrible years 1857 and 1858, the services rendered by those who were engaged in civil employment were of the highest value in restoring peace to the distracted country, and in re-establishing our government. European officials of every grade showed equal zeal and determination. There were many native officials in these Provinces, some of them highly paid and greatly trusted. A few remained faithful and did good service, though the help rendered, when summed up, cannot be reckoned great. Many proved unfaithful, and some became our bitter enemies. If instead of Englishmen as judges, magistrates, and collectors, we had had at that time highly educated natives of Bengal holding these offices, the men who receive for themselves the best hearing in England, can we suppose that, however well inclined, they could have borne the brunt of the contest, and aided largely in securing the victory? It would ill become me to speak against these men. I know some of the class for whom I have not only a high esteem but warm affection. Among them there are not a few who are great in attainment, keen in intellect, and strong in purpose to do the right. Still I do not think they themselves would maintain they have the physical courage, the firm mental calibre, the moral strength, and the high place in the confidence of the community, which would qualify any of their number to occupy the position of Governor-General, Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Chief Commissioner, or would make it desirable they should form the leading body of the administrative staff. The successful candidates for the Civil Service have come, we believe, exclusively from the highly-educated youth of the Presidency cities, between whom and the millions of their own Provinces there is no such bond as unites the so-called leaders of the Irish with the majority of their countrymen. In the other countries of India they are little known, and are regarded with no special interest.

[Sidenote: HINDUSTANEES AND BENGALEES.]

Many mistakes would be prevented if English people would remember that we have in India nations differing widely from each other. We have a striking illustration of this fact in the part of India in which we have lived. Bengalees abound in the public offices in the North-West Provinces and in the Punjab. They are deemed sharper in intellect, and are better educated, than the Hindustanees, and on account of their superior education they have got situations which would have been filled by natives of the country, had their educational acquirements been equal. These Bengalees are not strangers in these Provinces to the same extent as Englishmen, but they are strangers, and are looked upon as such by the people. Where they are numerous they keep mainly to themselves, and however friendly they may be with Hindustanees they are regarded as belonging to another country. When you meet them you know them at once by their look, dress, language, and habits. A part of Benares, called Bengalee Tola—Bengalee district—is inhabited almost wholly by Bengalees, and when you enter it you feel you have come among another people, who speak a different language and present a different appearance. During the Mutiny they were regarded in the North-West with suspicion, as half-English, and many were happy to seek shelter where we were able to keep our footing. If the question was put in Hindustan Proper to any large body of people—Would you have Bengalees or Englishmen for your magistrates and judges? I think in most places the well-nigh unanimous response would be, The Englishman.

If my opinion is to rest on my own observation, I would confidently say that notwithstanding the injustice and unkindness charged against some English officials, the people generally have profound trust in our justice—in our insaf—and as a rule, except when they think the native partial to themselves, they prefer to have their cases tried where an Englishman presides. When on a journey I once came up to two men engaged in eager talk. I heard them use frequently the words, Ungrez and Insaf—Englishmen and Justice—and on stopping I heard the one telling the other of the bribes taken by native officials in a case he had, and of the justice done when the Englishman took it up. He ended with the words, "What a wonderful people for insaf these English are!" to which remark the other man assented. I thanked them for their good opinion, and held on my way.

If the administration of India in its present state must, in its chief offices, remain in the hands of Europeans, it must be expensive. The great officers of state, considering the dignity they have to maintain and the establishments they have to keep, must be highly paid. When we think of the qualifications required by those who are charged with the ordinary administration, the great expense to which they are put, the years they spend in laborious work in an exhausting climate, and their unfitness as a rule for work in England on their retirement, I do not think their income or pension can be to any large extent safely or justly reduced. The era of nabobs, returning with vast wealth to astonish the English people, has long since passed away. These men had small pay, but great perquisites. The pay has been greatly increased, but the perquisites are gone, and India has benefited vastly by the change.

Indian magistrates have much to tell of the litigiousness of the people, their constant attempts to overreach each other, the carefully woven lies which they have daily to unravel, the trust put in bribes to influence decisions, and the deeply ingrained notion in the minds of native officials that they should get more for their services to the public than the bare pay, the sookha tulub—dry wages—as it is contemptuously called.

[Sidenote: THE POVERTY OF THE PEOPLE.]

The people of Northern India are mainly agricultural, and they are unquestionably poor. Our very success has in one aspect tended to their impoverishment. With very few exceptions they marry young, and during the many years of peace which have passed over them, with the exception of the short sharp crisis of the Mutiny, the population has greatly increased. Whenever an epidemic breaks out, means are at once employed to check it. There is a vaccination department for the purpose of preventing the ravages of small-pox. Female infanticide, which had prevailed to a frightful extent among certain castes, has been diminished, though not, it is feared, wholly suppressed. It is well known that famines have been sadly destructive of life, but there is evidence that previous to our rule, when there were few roads and little communication between one part of India and another, famines were still more so. Among so vast a population directly dependent on the soil, in a country where rain is so indispensable, and is now and then a failure, we have too much reason to fear famines may yet recur; but such provision is now made against their ravages, that it is hoped the catastrophes of the past will be escaped.

It is believed that, as the result of the new order of things, India at the present time has by many millions a larger population than it ever had previously. Mention has been made of the improvement effected in the Province of Kumaon; and other parts of India present instances of equally successful administration, but the area of new cultivation has not kept pace with the increase of population. It is sad that so many of the people should be underfed. In our own country and in Ireland this question of sufficient food for the entire population is one of the pressing difficulties of the day. Much is within the power of people themselves to improve their condition. We know it is so at home, and it is so in India. There, there is a vast body of sturdy beggars, under the guise of religious devotees, who feed on the people. Lending and borrowing go on at a most hurtful rate. If a person finds himself possessed of some twenty or thirty rupees, he either puts it into jewels for the female members of his family, or lends it at an exorbitant rate of interest. It has sometimes seemed as if creditors and debtors included the entire population. Debt, not by law but by custom, is hereditary, and a man is expected to pay the debts of his grand-parents. Marriage expenses are so heavy, that very often a debt settles down on a man on his marriage day under which he lies till the day of his death. Government has done much to induce leading men to bind themselves to a moderate expenditure on the occasion of marriages, in the hope that the example might prevent the unreasonable and pernicious profusion of the marriage season. If the habits of the people were changed the pressure of poverty would be greatly lightened.

[Sidenote: IMPROVEMENT.]

There is much room for improvement in the incidence of taxation. The land-tax, we may say the land-rent, is the main source of revenue, but it is alarming to think of dependence on the opium monopoly for the millions it contributes. Intoxicating drugs are largely used in India, and among them opium holds the favourite place. Permission to the people to grow and manufacture opium for themselves would be as hurtful as permission to distil whiskey and gin would be to our country. It is devoutly to be wished the present system may come to an end, and that in its place a fiscal system be adopted similar to that of England in reference to alcoholic drinks. In reference to spirits, every effort should be made to discourage their sale, however much the revenue may suffer in consequence. The salt-tax has been so productive that it has been kept up in a manner which has borne heavily on the people. It has been reduced, and it is hoped that it will be reduced still further.

Regarding some of the questions at present much discussed, I can only say that every friend of India, I may say every friend of justice, must desire that the people be largely entrusted with the management of their own affairs, that local government be encouraged, and every facility given to the admission of natives, so far as they are qualified, into the rank of administrators. Much is being done in this direction, and still more will be done in the future. The police has been improved, but it stands much in need of further improvement.

Happy changes were expected from the assumption by the Queen of the direct government of India. Progress has been made since that time, but I do not think it is in any large measure owing to the change. For some time previously increased attention was given to the sanitation of towns, the improvement of roads, the laying out of market-places, the planting of public gardens, the building of hospitals, dispensaries, and town houses. Many wealthy natives, stirred up by magistrates, have contributed liberally to these improvements. Of late years these works have been carried on with increasing zeal. In 1877 we saw some of the principal towns in Northern India, and were struck with the contrast they presented to their condition during the early years of our residence. The filthiest place in Benares, which almost sickened me every time I came near it, is now a beautiful garden, with a fine town-house attached to it. The very bulls of Benares have been got rid of. No longer are these brutes encountered in the streets.

My readers will observe that I am far from agreeing with those who describe our rule in India as an unmixed blessing to its inhabitants. It is undeniable that our rule, because foreign, lies under great disadvantages. I am still farther removed from agreement with the extremely pessimist views which are sometimes advanced. The history of India rebuts the assertion that we have acquired our sovereignty mainly by fraud; and whatever may be said of other parts of India, no one acquainted with Bengal and the North-Western Provinces can say that he has there seen "the awful spectacle of a country inhabited only by officials and peasants." When one thinks of the atrocious crimes, upheld by religious sanctions, such as suttee and infanticide, which we have put down in the face of determined opposition and even threats of rebellion from the most honoured classes of the community, it is strange to be told that "before we went the people were religious, chaste, sober, compassionate towards the helpless, and patient under suffering," and that we have corrupted them. We are told that "while we have conferred considerable advantages, the balance is wofully against us." As the result of long residence in India, and of reading about India, I have come to the conclusion the balance is immensely in our favour.

[Sidenote: WHENCE IS IMPROVEMENT TO COME?]

All friends of India desire the improvement of its government, and the increasing welfare of its people. Whence is the improvement to come? We are told "nothing is to be hoped for from the Indian official class." From whom is anything to be hoped for? From the Home Government? The leaders of our political parties have passed measures beneficial to India, but they have again and again taken advantage of its helplessness to impose on it burdens to which it ought not to have been subjected. Are we to look to the people at home for relief? How difficult is it to secure attention to the subject, or to make them understand it when their attention is gained! Are we to look to the non-official class in India? I have nothing to say about the Ilbert Jurisdiction Bill, except that while officials have been divided about it, many of the most eminent being in its favour, non-officials almost to a man have been bitterly opposed to it. Where I have spent the greater part of my life, nothing has been more common than complaints by Europeans of injustice done to them by partiality shown to natives at their expense. Are we to look to the great landholders, bankers, merchants, shopkeepers, and well-to-do classes in the cities of Bengal and the North-West, who have benefited most by our rule? What may be expected from them is illustrated by the fact that when the finances were thrown by the Mutiny into confusion, many protested against an income tax, and some of high position proposed that the finances should be rectified by an increase of the salt-tax! In these influential classes there are high-minded and benevolent individuals, but if we look at them in their collective capacity we shall be disappointed. When we look at the long roll of distinguished Indian officials, mark their achievements, hear their protests against what they deemed hurtful measures, and their advocacy of beneficial changes, I think we find in them India's warmest friends, who have done it the most signal service, and from whom more can be expected than from any other class.