DYARCHY.*
THE experiment of applying a measure of Western democracy to India is being made for good or ill. Mr. Curtis, in a volume just published, has collected his own contributions to the subject, with some official documents, to illustrate the controversy excited by Mr. Montagu's Report. He disclaims . any share in the concoction of that deplorable piece of rhetoric, but he admits that he and his friends devised the strange dual form of respon- sible. government—first called " dyarchy " by Sir William Meyer—which Mr. Montagu made the principal feature of his scheme for the provinces of India. " Dyarchy " was elaborated in a draft memorandum written by Sir William Duke and revised after an Oxford conference early in 1916. Mr. Curtis maintains that it was found to be -the- " least dangerous " of all possilte courses, after " searching and impartial" inquiry, especially by Lord. Selborne's Joint Committee. We shall not argue the point now, but we may take note of the fact that the chief advocate of " dyarchy " claims for it only a negative merit ; " whether it provides a real solution, experience alone can show." The " Duke Memorandum " was sent to Lord Chelmsford in May, 1916, and privately printed by the Indian Government. Mr. Curtis went to India in 1916 and stayed there until February, 1918. He became involved in controversy with some of the NatiOnalista and published a defence of his scheme in A Letter to the People of India, and in A Letter to Mr. B1sependra Nath Base, which evoked a number of highly instructive comments from various correspondents. He conducted a conference of Euro- peans and natives, who presented a joint address on reforms to the Viceroy and Mr. Montagu in the autumn of 1917. Mr. Curtis says that he was consulted by Lord Chelmsford and Mr. Montagu, but that he left India before the drafting of their Report was begun, and that he had -nothing to do with that singular document. In a paper submitted to Lord Selbome's Joint Committee and printed in this.book, he criticizes the Report somewhat severely on the ground that it would have left the provincial Governors with insufficient, power - to carry out the tasks for which they were and are to he responsible. The Joint Committee, he thinks, remedied- this grave defect in Mr. Montagu's proposals. The- Committee's recommendations. and the Act itself are printed in the appendix.
Mr. Curtis's book deserves careful reading inasmuch as it
contains a good account of the structure of the- administration and of the.difficult question of land revenue, as well as -a survey of the political agitation among the very small -educated or half- educated minority. Mr. Curtis's views are not ours, but we are bound to say that he deals fairly with controversial matters and argues his case temperately and 'reasonably: Unlike the Secre- tary of State, he does not, as a rule, allow himself- to indulge in • Rapers Relating to the .11ppitten of the Procipteof DOT*, to the Government of India. With. an Introduction. by L. Curtis. Oxford : at tha Clarendon • Press. [31s. 6,1. net.] the rhetorical extravagances of the platform. His caustic analysis of the "hypnotic catchword " of " self-determination " is a good example of his refusal to be blinded by phrases. Yet we cannot help regretting that this ablepulilicist allowed himself to address a letter to " The People of India," for he knows as well as we do that India is inhabited not by one people but by many peoples, and that it is as incorrect and misleading to speak of " the people of India " as it would be to speak of " the people of Europe." If the three hundred millions inhabiting India were one people, the problem of Indian government would be immensely simplified and would solve itself. But the population is -made up of many races, differing widely from one another in every respect, and it is fatal to ignore these fundamental differ- ences. Mr. Curtis himself says (p. 71) that " the question how races as different as the world contains are to live together and manage their own affairs in a Commonwealth which includes more than a quarter of the human race " is " the greatest problem which has ever confronted men." He is fully conscious, for example, of the magnitude of the problem presented by the " depressed classes," numbering many millions, whom the Brah- min politician—if he were allowed—would treat as Lenin treats the unhappy peasants of Russia. He admits that the different races, castes, and religious bodies receive such even-handed justice from British officials as they would not get from the Nationalists. He says bluntly (p. 475) : " You must have the nerve to see Indian electorates hurt others—the helpless as well as themselves. It is the only way in which the spirit of trusteeship can be called into being and made to grow." We question whether many of those who echo the question-begging phrase, " Home Rule for India," really understand the full import of Mr. Curtis's admission, or can conceive of the misery to which many millions of harmless peasants and artisans would be condemned if the British Raj ceased to protect them from the higher castes. Mr. Curtis's book, and especially the comments, in the third section, of persons who know India, should be informing on this matter.
Mr. Curtis rightly denounces those Englishmen living in India who treat the natives with contumely. We cannot believe that there are many such people. Bad manners are not peculiar to any race. Mr. Curtis himself records an instance of rudeness on the part of a high-caste Brahmin. Still, it is clearly the duty of the Indian Government to remind British residents of their duty to their country, and to expel notorious offenders. .Mr. Curtis, we think, treats the matter too seriously when he suggests that the few native anarchists have received their first impulse to crime from some insult offered them by an ill-mannered Euro- pean. His strong protest is well meant, but we cannot help remarking that a handful of British officials could not have governed India peacefully for generations if tact and courtesy had not been among their virtues. The influence of British education, imperfectly grasped, has probably much more to do with Indian agitation than the brusqueness of minor British employees in India.
Previous page
