NATIVE OPINION IN INDIA. (TO THE EDITOR or THE SPEOTATOR.1
SIR,—Allow me to tell you of the gratification with which I read your article on "Native Opinion" in the last number of the Spectator. Views such as those you express seldom appear in the papers, and nowhere have I seen a clearer exposition of what I believe to be truth regarding the feelings of the natives of India towards us,—an exposition very necessary, I think, because the general idea on this subject is so very far from the truth.
Look at any Indian article in our leading papers, look at our egislation in India itself. Do not all proceed on the same assump- tion, that the wisdom and justice of our rule are perfect, and that the natives of India, though they may object to some parts of our system, nevertheless prefer our rule to that of their own princes ; -that, in fact, they are totally wanting in that pride, common to all other nations of the world, pride in their country, in their fore- fathers, and in themselves?
If an opposite opinion is expressed, the speaker is stared at in -amazement. "What, prefer oppression,cruelty, disorder, misrule, to their opposites!" We harp upon our own justice, and lose sight of the fact that there may be and are considerations involving deep sentiment which to the native mind compensate largely for the said oppression, cruelty, &c., and far outweigh all substantial advan- tages of an equitable foreign rule. Did justice alone ever yet win affection ? Would the Almighty himself be loved for His justice alone? Then, again, how does our justice exhibit itself in India? in cases between man and man, so far, at any rate, as honest intentions go, we are, perhaps, blameless ; but as between ourselves and those who stand in our way, in the way of our ex- tension of territory or predominance of influence, where is our justice ? I do not now refer to conquests won by the sword, but rather to our generally successful attempts to obtain cessions of land and other peaceful modes of acquisition.
Look, for instance, at the case of the Nizam. We take an enormous slice from him (the Ceded Territories), on condition of keeping up a force to protect him from foreign attack and domestic disorder. We do neither, but simply make use of the force to keep him in order. We were bound by treaty to assist him in asserting his authority in his own dominions, but as soon as that treaty was executed we refused to do so, and the Nizam was consequently obliged to keep up an irregular force of his own for the purpose. We grudged him that, took it, kept it at his expense, at a cost far exceeding that of a similar strength in our own armies, ran him into debt, and compelled him, by actual threats of force, to assign us certain districts (the Berars) to pay for the keep of this force, so long as he should wish it to be kept up.
Now, when by good administration the Nizam's Minister is able himself to pay the force, and offers to do so—or can do without it, and says so—we refuse to give up the districts assigned for its maintenance. "What!" say we, "thrust back an unwilling people under the feet of their oppressors?"
But are they an unwilling people ? Do they think the Nizam's government oppressive? Are we to do certain wrong for our own immediate gain, on pretence of preventing conjectured hard- ship to others ? The result of our constant ill-treatment of the Nizam, from almost our first connection with him until now, has been to increase and strengthen the sentiment of his subjects in his favour. In no country of the world, so far as I am competent to form an opinion, does a more reverential and affectionate regard for the ruler prevail. They may cheat him, and in many ways oppose him, but at the same time they would, high and low, sooner be governed by him than by us.
Is it very different, by the bye, with the Gaekwar ? Did his subjects complain of him? What was the nature of the oppres- sion proved against him ? Was his conduct towards his subjects criminal, or was it merely that his administration, in fact, his revenue collection, had got into a state of confusion? It would appear to have been the latter only, otherwise the Viceroy would not have given him time to reform. A period of grace was allowed him. The agent of our own Government, Sir Lewis Pelly, reported that reform was progressing. Yet before the period has expired our Government, not punishing him for an offence for which he has been tried, dethrone and banish him for misrule. In other words, they, by one act, break their word, and being, from some cause or other, unable to sentence the man for the offence for which he has been tried, they punish him for another which they had previously temporarily condoned ! Yet hear the Press chorus, "Substantial justice has been done." What does that very vague phrase mean ? Does it not mean simply that an act of gross injustice has been perpetrated, in order to arrive at a conclusion which the speaker approves? After such examples, what must the natives of India think of the justice of our rule? Mind, I am not upholding the Gaekwar ; my own personal conviction is that he was guilty ; nor did I blame the Government for appointing the Commission. I took it for granted (like most other people, I suppose) that before doing so they had carefully examined the evidence, and were convinced of its absolute strength. I merely speak with reference to the general principles of justice, which, it seems to me, have been violated in this case. But 1 must stop. If you think this letter worth publishing, pray do so.—I am, Sir, &c., Beech Hill, Haddington, NB., May 27. G. U. YULE.
Previous page
