|
Bande Mataram { CALCUTTA, October 30th, 1906 }
The Statesman’s Voice of Warning
The Statesman has been sadly uneasy and troubled ever since the appearance of the new party as a force in politics. Probably, it feels its secure and comfortable position as a [......] and worshipped patron of the Indian people threatened by the emergence of an obdurate and unpatronisable element. And it is at a loss how to deal with this unexampled situation. Sometimes fatherly, sometimes magisterial, now menacing, now superiorly argumentative, now solemnly exhortatory, this father Prospero tries to conjure the unwelcome spirit back to the [............]. Dissatisfied with the result, it has called in an ojha all the way from England. The warning of the liberal M. P. which the Statesman introduces with a flourish of trumpets contains at least one salutary truth which our countrymen would do well to take to heart. We are in the habit of attaching an absurdly exaggerated importance to Sir William Wedderburn and Sir Henry Cotton and the small group of so-called friends of India who figure so largely in the news sent over to this country. But in England these men do not figure largely. There is not one of them who can command the house or even get by his eloquence a decent number of members to listen to him; there is not one who has any influence with the Liberal Ministry; there is not one who can get a hearing from the country. Anyone who knows intimately the working of politics in England, will realise that such a group can get no substantial measure carried through the house. For practical purposes a single Bradlaugh would be worth the whole clan of them. The interest which the British press has recently been showing in India was not brought about by this insignificant clique, it is the Swadeshi, the boycott, the violent unrest in Bengal which
Page – 193 have compelled the lordly Briton [...........................................] his [......]. There is only one process which can rouse him from his comfortable prosperous sleep and that is to prod him continually in the ribs, there is only one way to make him feed his cow as well as milk her and that is for the cow to kick over the pail and refuse to be milked. Flattery may please the Briton and it always delights him to play the lordly and generous patron, but he will take good care never to purchase this pleasure by the sacrifice of any substantial interest. For he is above all things a practical man of business. Tears and prayers do not move him, for he finds them [......] and contemptible. Abuse has not any lasting effect on him, for it wounds his self-respect without hurting his interests or awaking his fears. But the strong determined man who can make himself permanently unpleasant and ever dangerous, awakes his respect and seems to him a force to be reckoned with; in any tussle of interests he will try to cajole and outwit him, he will try to intimidate, bully and coerce him but, failing, he will finally concede what is wanted, shake hands and make friends. This is the simple psychology of the Briton which the Congress agitation has throughout ignored. Our agitation has been a wonderful feminine mixture of flattery, abuse, tears and entreaties; it is only from that we are trying the effects of strength and determination. For thirty years we have used the weapons of women; now, very late in the day, we are trying to use the weapons of men. The Statesman‘s Liberal M.P. warns us against [............] change of trend. He [............] John Bull to us as a bull indeed, good-natured and magnanimous when unprovoked but chafing at any red rag of sedition and capable of showing a very nasty temper. We do not think he is right when he attributes Mr. Morley’s refusal to unsettle the Partition to irritation at the methods employed in Bengal: for Mr. Morley himself gave quite a contrary reason; and though he did not probably reveal the more important reasons at the back of his mind, we do not suppose Mr. Morley would tell an unnecessary lie. But in the rest of his analysis, he may not be far from the truth. We cannot, however, draw the same lesson from the fact he alleges. “England
Page – 194 is angry at your contumacy,” cries the Statesman, “you, her once timid and obedient slaves; mend your ways then, before you are whipped; run and kiss the feet of Lord Minto.” On the contrary, we say, persist without wavering in the course you have adopted. The generosity of John Bull when unprovoked is a passive generosity; it will give you ease if you [......] liberty; it will give you small privileges if you prefer these to the one great privilege of becoming a free nation; but it will expect in return the persistent drain of your wealth and manhood. On the other hand his chafing and nasty tempers are excellent signs. They mean that, for the first time, he has come to think the Indian problem a serious thing which demands handling; and we can predict how he will try to handle it. The Government will set themselves against the new school and the new methods and try to repress them by coercion; they will harass the organs of the new party; they will strike at the new method wherever they raise their head too aggressively. But on the other side they will make quiet advances to the old school of politics. They have already laid their hands on the Exhibition by the offer of a small bribe and, if the precedent unconstitutionally created by our leaders in Calcutta is condoned and repeated in future years, the Exhibition will be officialized. They will try also, by slower stages, to officialize the Congress. To most of our readers this may seem a startling and improbable prediction, but let them watch events and wait. The Legislative Councils will be “reformed”; the Congress, if purged of its “extremist” elements, will be recognized as a loyal and legitimate body, its views often consulted and its minor prayers often granted. The higher prizes or the services and the law will be more often given to Indians. Every effort will be made to gild the chains. But the essentials of autocratic rule, absolute control over legislation, over the executive, over the finances, will in no way be relaxed except under dire necessity. This is the traditional policy of Great Britain when faced with such a situation as now exists in India and it is the policy we may expect to see in play for the next few years if Mr. Morley remains at the India Office. How far it will succeed, will depend on the growth of the forward party which
Page – 195 is determined to be satisfied with no concessions that will not give the people control over the essentials of Government. Only when John Bull fails to cajole and coerce will he finally come to terms unless indeed the Gods drive him mad and then neither the method of prayers nor the method of passive resistance will avail with him. __________
Sir Andrew Fraser
We are assured by the Hindu Patriot which has always played the part [of a] demi-official organ of Sir Andrew Fraser’s Government, that Sir Andrew “has not the remotest idea of laying down the reins of his office before time”— and like the old man in the Arabian Nights he will, in spite of the repeated snubs he has received from his official superiors, continue to embarrass us for two more years. It matters little who rules the province. The policy of the bureaucracy is fixed and one individual in charge of the administrative machinery is as good as another. But the remarks of the Hindu Patriot are rather painfully amusing. The Patriot would not have taken any notice of the rumoured resignation of its patron “if our silence was not being widely construed as indicating the truth of the report”. This is how the Patriot shamelessly proclaims to the world generally (and to Native chiefs and office-seekers specially) its close connection with the head of Government. Old Haris Chandra Patriot— “This is all remains of thee!” We are told by this connoisseur of sound administration “that its interests are safe in the hands of Sir Andrew Fraser.” At least the interests of the Patriot are. We are next assured that Sir Andrew “loves the people, and the people love him”. Sir Andrew may love the people,— he must love the post and the pay to come back after repeated rebuffs. But why talk of the people’s love for him? The people cannot love a civilian who was made a Lieutenant-Governor because he had undertaken to support the partition of the Province. And the less the officialised Patriot talks of the people the better for all concerned. Since the dawn of the Sarvadhicary ascendancy it
Page – 196 has been the aim and ambition of the Patriot to please Anglo-Indian officialdom. The weekly was converted into a daily to satisfy the literary fecundity of a Secretary and the way in which the Patriot behaved when the Victoria Memorial site was being discussed was a novel departure from that fixity of principles which alone can make people attach any value to the opinions of a paper. And a revaluation of property properly appropriated by Government for the purposes of a lunatic asylum should be enough to make additions to the existing “aristocracy”. ___________
By the Way
Necessity Is the Mother of Invention
Archimedes is said to have set his inventive genius to work at the bidding of the Tyrant of Syracuse. When King Henry VIII was in a hurry to marry Anne Boleyne he is said to have addressed the following instructions to Lord Rochford:— “Take this doctor (Thomas Cranmer of Cambridge) to your country-house and there give him a study and no end of books to prove that I can marry your daughter.” Such is the history of many an invention.
*
The London Times and the Pioneer of Allahabad seem to have received a commission from the Government of India to take occasional excursions into the region of History and Political Economy to prove that the foreign despotism in India cannot but make for the good of the people. The other day, we pointed out in these columns that the Allahabad Oracle has stumbled upon some economic and scientific theories to show that our complaint about the drain of wealth is only midsummer madness. He is perhaps still prosecuting his researches vigorously and will perhaps someday take us by surprise with inventions equally startling.
*
Page – 197 Now is the turn for the Times of London. The Thunderer from his superior heights has let fall his thunder against our economic fallacies. He has enunciated the great truth that the impoverishment of a people has nothing to do with the cost of Government in their country. A Government may be a veritable leech but that is no reason why the people should be poor. The spirit of Ruskin is perhaps trembling in his place in heaven at this latest discovery of the orthodox school of economists. However close to the skin the shears may be applied, the lamb should not bleat. Heavy taxes need not matter much to the people, it is the manner of spending them that makes all the difference. Now, as it is admitted on all hands that the hard-earned money of the people has got them an efficient white administration, they have got their money’s worth; and no sensible man can sympathise with their womanish complaints about impoverishment as the necessary result of a foreign domination.
*
It is the inherent defects of the industrial organisation of the country to which should be set down the poor output of wealth which is no doubt an indisputable fact. Instead of clamour against the expensive Government and the home charges, let your industries be directed by knowledge and intelligence and there will be plenty in the land.
*
We are thankful to the Times for such a simple solution of the poverty problem in India. The Times has, however, his misgivings about the capitalist organisation of the European type and have even some good words for those that obtain in our country. It is a strange logical performance, this article of the Times. It starts with one proposition and a few lines down we come across its contradiction. In this labyrinth of novel economic theories and their contradictions the poverty-stricken ryot has to find his way out. But there is some amusement to be had in watching the intellectual gymnastics performed by English publicists in their endeavour to justify the foreign despotism.
Page – 198 |