THE FUTURE OF INDIA
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sia,"—Will you allow me as a senior member of the Indian Civil Service to make some comments on Lord Meston's interesting review of recent publications on Indian subjects in your issue of March 27th ? I ash leave to do so because, though Lord Meston may be right in deprecating constitution- mongering at the present stage, I do feel that something of the nature of a reasonable and practical objective for the near future is an urgent need both for the moderate Indian politi- cian and for those of us who sympathize with aspirations for political progress if we are to have any definite purpose behind our actions.
Lord Meston examines the various alternatives suggested and finds none of them satisfactory. Mr. Archbold's con- clusion in favour of a federal bureaucracy he rejects as an impotent one and the scheme of Mr. Rao and Major Pole as impractical idealism. He criticizes any attempt at devising a federal scheme as " devotion to the arid mechanism of politics to the neglect of the spirit of humanity which alone can make progress a reality." One gathers that he would have- India content with dyarchy for the present, pending the evolution of a more permanent constitution at some future date. But it is really because dyarchy is rigidly mechanical and lacks the spirit of humanity that it is proving unsatisfying to the Indian politician.
Sir Valentine Clairol in his recent work on India in the " Modern World " series expressly refrains from speculation on the future. He describes how a very small dose of Swaraj at once resulted in creeds and races figuring out for themselves what it would really mean for each, and in its being robbed of most of its fascination in the process ; and he concludes with an expression of his faith in the undiminished value of British rule as a great agency of permanent progress.
The truth of Sir Valentine Chirol's lesson is being repeatedly.' driven home by events. And yet, it was Swaraj in the shape of responsible government of India by Indians themselves that the Reform Scheme offered, and one fears that there is now some danger of Indians feeling that they have been offered an objective which is only remotely realizable, if at all, and we may use immediate failure as an excuse for reaction.
Is it not possible that, without losing sight of Swaraj as an ultimate goal, an objective more immediately attainable may be found in the equal partnership of the British and Indian peoples in the working out of India's political salvation ? As it was well put the other day, it would seem that, at the present stage at any rate, the British race, as well as the people of India, has its vital and peculiar contribution to make to India's future.
We have been misled by mechanical analogies into imagining that the British element in modern India is a mere piece of the machinery which can be removed and replaced at once by indigenous products. During the century and a half of our rule it has so grown into the life of India that it cannot be cut out without grave danger, and our purpose must be to foster its contribution to the future growth. From this point of view it is clear that the non-official British community holds a more important place than is commonly realized, for on it will largely depend the value of the contribution we can make.
Is it not possible also that, though Mr. Archbold may be wrong in his conclusion, there is this to be said for his theory ? The bureaucrat or professional administrator has in the future a more important part to play in the direction of affairs than he has under less complex conditions. In a country with a very varied and very deeply stratified population he may be
needed to bring cohesion to the whole and to ensure continuity,
Previous page
