THE ENGLISH IN INDIA.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."1
Sin,—I am thankful to Mr. Blunt for the interest he has evinced for India ; but I must say his observations are several of them erroneous. He seems to apprehend that circumstances are tending to a revolution. He says he noticed a distrust of the Government, fear of officials, and a certain vague disquiet.
This is contrary to my experience. It is true that here and there there are individual officials who are suspected to be adverse to the interests of certain classes of people or certain religionists. But, taken as a whole, there is the greatest possible confidence in the ability, wisdom, and justice of the British Government, and I doubt if any Native State is trusted more than the British Government. The general belief is firm that the British nation will do justice. The angry articles now and then appearing in the public prints are but mere ripples. When people see men like Sir Thomas Munro, Sir Charles Trevelyan, or the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, they cherish their memory with great love. I know with what feelings the Madura people remember Mr. Blackburne. Where natives see that an official is impartial, patient of hearing, and takes trouble to give them justice, and is inclined to explain himself a little when he does anything which seems contrary to popular ideas of justice, they are sure to love him. They will gladly overlook even an unjust decision.
The Ebert Bill period was an exceptional one. Both Euro- peans and Natives, in the heat of the controversy, made rash and angry statements, which I am sure they will not utter in calmer moments. Mr. Blunt's opinions, based on facts observed at the Ebert Bill period, ought to be corrected. Even in the Ebert controversy, the mass of the people did not care a bit. The educated section tried to show a bold front, and got up a show of general opposition. Notwithstanding appearances on the surface, there is a substantial belief that the British Ad- ministration is like the Hindoo's own "Rama Rikjyam." Mr. Blunt talks of the overwhelming poverty of the peasants. His picture is certainly overdrawn. It is true that one does not pass even half-a-dozen towns, or even one village (in a railway journey of 700 or 800 miles), which have a prosperous look. I beg to know whether a hundred years ago there were such things to be seen. If prosperous towns and villages which existed before have become ruins, that is another question. The rail- way company always chose inferior tracts of country- for the railway line, and avoided cultivated fields and broad rivers. The lands on either side of the line continue to lie waste as they used to be. Making allowance for the late famine, cultivation accounts show every year that a larger extent is brought under the plough. Natives seldom build private houses with stones, though they freely use stones for chattrams and pagodas. As for whitewashing, that is a new idea to them. If we go into villages, we see that mud-plastering is what is extensively used. The black, glossy surface they produce with charcoal, mud, cow-dung, and the juice of leaves is really more comfortable than the dazzling white wall in the middle of the day. If whitewashing be evidence of wealth, I should say the country is richer now.
The eenti-nudity of the people.—This is not necessarily an evidence of poverty in a tropical country, where clothing is more for decency than to protect one from the inclemency of the weather. Coats and turbans are not the natural dress of the people.
The use of millet for food, 4^0.—This is not due to poverty. The working-classes exchange paddy for the dry grains, which are stronger as food than rice. In fact, nearly all the facts mentioned as evidencing poverty are really not evidence of it at all. There is much truth in what the writer says about over-taxation and the new Forest law. It is also desirable that remieions be more liberal at Jumnabundi. The substitution
of money-rent for a share of the crop is favourable to Govern- ment. Government dannot revert to the waram system. Under the waram system the advantage to the ryot is that he does not pay for waste ; but where a whole holding is expected to be paid for, the ryot is compelled to cultivate all the fields every year. He has to mortgage his crop by oral agreement in order to pay the kists, and he is unable to wait and sell his produce at the best market. The land deteriorates by cultivating every year, and costly manures are out of the question. When rent is fixed in money, there is a natural unwillingness to remit waste. We often pass judgment on the ryot after getting the water account of a whole year, and do not sufficiently consider the position of the ryot when he is unable to decide whether or not he can depend on a particular shower or small quantity of water in the tank. I agree with Mr. Blunt as regards the desirability of remissions being liberal and of kiats being so arranged that the ryot may not be asked to pay in advance. Our December and January kist is really asking the ryot to give Government a share of the produce before harvest.
As regards salt-tax.—Notwithstanding the high monopoly price, facilities in the means of communication have had a tendency to prevent a rise in the cost to the consumer. The rigour of the law against the use of even saline earth for Krerai, tobacco, sholum, and other grains, is felt exceedingly oppressive, and, I must say, iniquitous. Even the high monopoly price may be tolerated, but not the law about salt- earth.
Mr. Blunt says the agricultural classes used to carry on manufactures when there was no work in the fields. This, I think, is not true. I believe there is truth in the statement that in the preparation of the Budget, English interests are allowed too much consideration ; but as regards the alleged extravagance of Europeans, I think it is good that money got from India is spent in India. Mr. Blunt suggests remedies,— (1), import duties ; (2), shifting of the burden of taxation from agriculturists to merchants to some extent; (3), permanent settlement on the Bengal plan.
I am against the permanent settlement. Population increases much more rapidly than the productive power of the soil by means of improved agriculture. The result must be increase of consumers, and consequently the rise of prices. The Bengal assessment was fixed in money at a time when the market value- of the Government share of produce was about one-fifth of what it is now. The ryot-warry system has given permanent property in land. Ryots are not tenants-at-will. The per- centage of the crops which may be considered the Government share may be fixed, but not its value in money. Another very desirable measure seems to me the improvement and main- tenance of irrigation works. The revenue from a house is properly the rent minus the cost of repair. So in the case of irrigation works, the first charge should be their maintenance, and the surplus the revenue. If this principle be acknowledged, there will be a perceptible relief given to ryots.
As regards race-hatred, my opinion is that it has nearly died out. If it is kept alive anywhere, it is by imprudent officials, who take a pride in publishing imprudent advertisements, say- ing that they do not want particular caste men. I have no- objection to any officer so adjusting his selection as to give a fair share to all classes consistently with the efficiency of his establishment; but when a gentleman openly avows that he will not take men of a particular caste, that caste is led to mis- understand his acts.
I am sorry this has grown too long, but I fear I have not said
[This letter is a genuine effusion of native sentiment by an eminent native, who is not seeking promotion.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
