An " Indian Field Officer," to whom the Times allots
very big type, complains of a furlough grievance. Under the rules of 1854 each officer was allowed three years' furlough in his service, but if on the Staff lost his appointment if he stayed at home more than six months. Now, every officer of the old Army is "on the Staff," and consequently if lie takes his legal furlough he loses his regiment, and finds himself on his return a sort of male Peri. The "Field Officer" wants eighteen months' furlough and his Staff pay together. It is a reasonable want enough, but the Indian furlough rules for all services are antiquated and oppres- sive. They were not made for a time when the journey out and back occupies three months, and their secret object is to keep officers in India as long as possible. The true policy is to accept the hunger for Europe as a fact, abolish leave to the Hills alto- gether, and grant one year's furlough to every five of service, with- out loss of pay, allowances, or position. Indians would then be happy, instead of 'being as discontented as Admirals, and Govern- ment would not lose a day of effective work in a man's whole career. Indian officers, of all men alive, know how illness, real illness, can be postponed till it is convenient to go home.
Previous page
