Scrapbook of newspaper cuttings about Afghanistan [‎104r] (211/312)

It is, no doubt, of tha highest importance for us
to know whether or not the greatest of modern
experiments in the art of government—the British
Empire in India—is a failure. But an Englishman,
before pronouncing it to be so, is bound to pause
and to weigh his words well. An indictment against
British rule in India based upon insufficient know
ledge of the facts and inadequate powers of gene
ralization would be at any time unbecoming, but is
peculiarly inopportune at the present crisis in Anglo-
Indian policy. We print a letter to-day from
Mr. H yndman , who has recently written upon
this subject, under the sensational title of
"the Bankruptcy of India," in the Nineteenth
Century. He defends himself with some acer
bity and at considerable length against the brief
and trenchant criticism of a writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. of au
thority, signing himself " C., 1 ' whose remarks
we published on Saturday. We cannot perceive
that Mr. H yndman has either successfully re
pelled the argument contained in " C.'s " letter, or
established his general contention that India is
being impoverished, and that oppressive taxation
has brought the country to the verge of a collapse.
Mr. H yndman , accepting with implicit confidence
the assertions of a native writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. , affirms that the
whole value of the agricultural produce of India
amounts to no more than £277,000,000 per annum.
I Upon this estimate he founds his calculation that
the income of the people of India is only 31s. 6d. a
head, and he thence proceeds to prove in various
ways that the population is overburdened with
taxes and ground to the earth.
But, as " 0." has pointed out, an examination of
Mr. H yndman's figures (or rather of those which
he borrows from his native instructor) will show a
j state of things by no means so formidable. Taking
the Punjab as an example, it appears that the sale
of one-sixth of the wheat crop would cover the Go
vernment land assessment, which constitutes two-
thirds of the whole taxation, and that the re
mainder of the grain grown in the province gives
J 2lb. per head daily for food, in addition to garden
vegetables and milk. The Punjab, besides, produces
other crops—oil seed, cotton, hemp, sugar-cane,
: indigo, tobacco, spices, drugs, dyes, poppies, and
tea—the aggregate value of which may be taken at
£3,750,000. It is impossible to contend that
17,600,000 people with 21b. of grain per head
I daily, and with saleable produce to the amount we
i have statad, can be so utterly overwhelmed in misery
as Mr. Hyndman would have us believe. In his
reply he says that the Punjab is an unfair example,
because it is " the least impoverished province in
" India,"—although,as a matter of fact,the Punjab
is poor in comparison with Lower Bengal and many
parts of the Beccan. He complains, too, that " C.
has made no allowance for seed corn or for the
support of live stock. But leaving the amount of
the proper deduction for these to be settled by
statisticians, we must decline to concede to Mr.
; H yndman that the omission to estimate them
i " renders ' C.'s ' calculation utterly worthless,
i It is a rough calculation, perhaps, but so is Mr.
H yndman's . Oidy a very rash and inexperienced
economist would venture to draw rigorous
inferences from so loose a reckoning as the
calculation of the aggregate national income
must be in any country, and especially in
a country like India. It is probable that the
amount is really much larger than Mr. H ynd
man's estimate, but in any case a comparison such
as he institutes between what he puts down as the
average yearly income of the Indian peasant and
the sum spent in supporting a convict in an Anglo-
Indian gaol must be misleading. The former is a
vague guess at an average, the latter is the ascer
tained cost of maintaining a prisoner at the public
expense. But there is no parity of conditions be
tween the peasant consuming the produce of his
own holding and the Government purchasing pro
visions for the prisons in the markets of the large
towns.
We may pass, however, from the question of the
average Indian peasant's income to that of his past
and present burdens. Assuming that he has to
subsist upon a share of the produce of the soil in
credibly small if measured by English or European
standards, we have still to consider whether he is
better off now than he was before he became sub
ject to British rule. Mr. H yndman's answer would
be in the negative, but he offers no proof of a
charge which, if true, condemns our whole Impe
rial system in the East as a blunder and a crime.
It can be shown, we feel assured, that the former
Governments of India took from the peasant a Tar
larger proportion of his crops than the Anglo-In
dian system of taxation. In addition to this, no man
under Mogul, Mahratta, or Sikh rule was secure in
the enjoyment of what the tax-gatherer left him, or
even of his life and his family honour. The im
measurable advantages of a just and orderly
government have added more to the sum of human
happiness in India than an increase of taxation
twofold could take away. But Mr. H yndman
contends that the Indian people, in spite of the
benefits of order and justice—which ho does not
contest, though he lays no stress on them—are
becoming poorer every year. He is on this
point at issue with those who know India
—we must take leave to say—infinitely
better than he does. Take, for instance, " the
" Moral and Material Progress of India " Blue
Book for 1875-76, a publication which Mr. H ynd
man frequently cites, and look at the statements of
the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab. He
says,—No one who compares the condition of
" the village proprietors now with what it was 24
" years ago (at the date of the British annexation)
" can doubt that a large increase of general pro-
" sperity has occurred." To evidence of this kind
Mr. H yndman can only oppose the fact that in
some parts of India an improvident peasantry are
losing their live stock. His main argument, how-
j ever, is that there must be impoverishment where
there is increase of taxation. Undoubtedly there
has been an increase of taxation since the period of
the Mutiny, but the greater part of that increase
points to improvement, and not decline. The aug
mentation of the land revenue arises either from
the increase of assessments where the introduction
of railways and canals has given additional value to
agricultural produce, or to the reclamation of rich
land from the jungle which has been going on rapidly
in Bower Bengal and elsewhere. The increase of the
revenue from Excise j Customs, and Salt duties, which
form the principal items of receipt apart from the
land, is in part due to an increase of the rates of im
post, bat in part also to an increase of consumption.
It can hardly be contended, however, that the in
creased duties are crushing when they are accompa
nied by an increased demand for the articles taxed.
The augmentation of the receipts under the afore
said heads of revenue from £5,700,000 to £11,500,000
within twenty years would hardly warn an English
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country was
sinking under its burdens.
But Mr. H yndman discerns another cause of
alarm. The country, he says, is being drained of
its capital by the necessary result of a foreign
Government—the expenditure of a large part of
the produce by absentees. There is first the
military demand for " home charges/' a stand
ing disfmte between the Indian and the
Home Governments. Then there are the pen
sions of retired officials of every kind, the
savings of officers on service, civil and mili
tary, the interest on loans, the dividends of the
railways, and a number of other payments which
India makes to England. That there isa " drain "
of this kind cannot be denied, and that it is
to some extent economically injurious is cer
tain, but it is inseparable from the condi
tions of our rule in India, and we feel con
vinced that India obtains full value in exchange
for it. Can it be seriously argued, for instance,
that the Indian railways, which are accountable
for a considerable part of the drain, have not con
ferred benefits on Indian people infinitely greater
than any that could have sprung from the capital they
have drawn away if it had been left to " fructify ''
in India ? They have given a value to agricultural
produce that it never had before, and they are work
ing social changes the effect of which will be visible
in another generation. Can it be argued that
it would be better for India if English merchants
and planters never made fortunes in India, but left
trade and agriculture to stagnate as they do in most
of the native States ? The cost of the Government
and the army is not really open for discussion. It
is the first condition of prosperity, and almost of
existence, for India that the country should have a
just, enlightened, progressive, and vigorous Govern
ment, guaranteeing security within and without.
For this a price must be paid, and it is for the
interest of India that it should be paid. We have
no doubt whatever that India is well able to pay
that price. To hand over the country, as is calmly
proposed, to native administration would be to
. surj-ender.Qim^reat L experiment to be ruined by
iz 7 fpi^op^w) •qist -^9 'oapjg b^joipujcr pjot
(eaiBtngrj) -q^ ^ TWH IO eW
I ... ' n o^p nAi ug
. i:—-.:. fnnnntrii_
It is, no doubt, of tha highest importance for us
to know whether or not the greatest of modern
experiments in the art of government—the British
Empire in India—is a failure. But an Englishman,
before pronouncing it to be so, is bound to pause
and to weigh his words well. An indictment against
British rule in India based upon insufficient know
ledge of the facts and inadequate powers of gene- ;
ralization would be at any time unbecoming, but is
peculiarly inopportune at the present crisis in Anglo- .
Indian policy. We print a letter to-day from ;;
Mr. H yndman , who has recently written upon
this subject, under the sensational title of
"the Bankruptcy of India," in the Nineteenth
I Century. He defends himself with some acer-
1 bity and at considerable length against the brief
! and trenchant criticism of a writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. of an-
thority, signing himself " C.," whose remarks
we published on Saturday. We cannot perceive
that Mr. H ynjdman has either successfully re
pelled the argument contained in " C.'s " letter, or
established his general contention that India is
being impoverished, and that oppressive taxation
has brought the country to the verge of a collapse.
Mr. H yndmam , accepting with implicit confidence
the assertions of a native writer The lowest of the four classes into which East India Company civil servants were divided. A Writer’s duties originally consisted mostly of copying documents and book-keeping. , affirms that the
whole value of the agricultural produce of India
amounts to no more than £277,000,000 per annum,
j Upon this estimate he founds his calculation that
the income of the people of India is only Sis. 6d. a
head, and he thence proceeds to prove in various
ways that the population is overburdened with
taxes and ground to the earth.
But, as "0." has pointed out, an examination of .
Mr. H yndman's figures (or rather of those which
he borrows from his native instructor) will show a
I state of things by no means so formidable. Taking
the Punjab as an example, it appears that the sale
of one-sixth of the wheat crop would cover the Go- %
vernment land assessment, which constitutes two-
thirds of the whole taxation, and that the re
mainder of the grain grown in the province gives
2lb. per head daily tor food, in addition to garden
vegetables and milk. The Punjab, besides, produces
other crops—oil seed, cotton, hemp, sugar-cane,
indigo, tobacco, spices, drugs, dyes, poppies, and
tea—the aggregate value of which may be taken at
£3,750,000. It is impossible to contend that
17,600,000 people with 21b. of grain per head
1 daily, and with saleable produce to the amount we
have statad, can be so utterly overwhelmed in misery
as Mr. Hyndman would have us believe. In his
reply he says that the Punjab is an unfair example, -
because it is " the least impoverished province in
" India,"—although,as a matter of fact,the Punjab ,
is poor in comparison with Lower Bengal and many
parts of the Beccan. He complains, too, that " C.
has made no allowance for seed corn or for the
support of live stock. But leaving the amount of
the proper deduction for these to be settled by
statisticians, we must decline to concede to Mr.
H yndman that the omission to estimate them
! " renders ' C.'a ' calculation utterly worthless.'' |
It is a rough calculation, perhaps, but so is Mr.
^ H yndman's . Only a very rash and inexperienced
economist would venture to draw rigorous
inferences from so loose a reckoning as the
■ calculation of the aggregate national income
must be in any country, and especially in
a country like India. It ia probable that tha
amount is really much larger than Mr. H ynd-
man's estimate, but in any case a comparison such
as he institutes between what he puts down as the
average yearly income of the Indian peasant and
/ the sum spent in supporting a convict in an Anglo- j
Indian gaol must be misleading. The former is a
vague guess at an average, the latter is the ascer-
tained cost of maintaining a prisoner at the public |
expense. But there is no parity of conditions be
tween the peasant consuming the produce of his
JS own holding and the Government purchasing pro
visions for the prisons in the markets of the large
towns.
We may pass, however, from the question of the j.
average Indian peasant's income to that of his past
and present burdens. Assuming that he has to ;
subsist upon a share of the produce of the soil in- ,
credibly small if measured by English or European
v standards, we have still to consider whether he is
better off now than he was before he became sub
ject to British rule. Mr. H yndman's answer would
be in the negative, but he offers no proof of a
charge which, if true, condemns our whole Impe
rial system in the East as a blunder and a crime.
It can ba shown, we feel assured, that the former
Governments of India took from the peasant' a fa?}
larger proportion of his crops than the Anglo-In
dian system of taxation. In addition to this, no man
under Mogul, Mahratta, or Sikh rule was secure in
the enjoyment of what the tax-gatherer left him, or
even of his life and his family honour. The im
measurable advantages of a just and orderly
government have added more to the sum of human
happiness in India than an increase of taxation
twofold could take away. But Mr. H yndman
contends that the Indian people, in spite of the
benefits of order and justice—which he does not ^
contest, though he lays no stress on them—are
becoming poorer every year. He is on this
point at issue with those who know India
—we must take leave to say—infinitely
better than he does. Take, for instance, " the |
*' Moral and Material Progress of India " Blue
Book for 1875-76, a publication which Mr. H ynd-
man frequently cites, and look at the statements of
jthe Financial Commissioner of the Punjab. He
says,—" No one who compares the condition of
" the village proprietors now with what it was 24
" years ago (at the date of the British annexation) !
" can doubt that a large increase of general pro-
" sperity has occurred." To evidence of this kind
Mr. H yndman can only oppose the fact that in
some parts of ludia an improvident peasantry are
losing their live stock. His main argument, how- i
ever, is that there must be impoverishment where
there is increase of taxation. Undoubtedly there
has been an increase of taxation since the period of
the Mutiny, but the greater part of that increase i
points to improvement, and not decline. The aug
mentation of the land revenue arises either from
the increase of assessments where the introduction "
of railways and canals has given additional value to -
agricultural produce, or to the reclamation of rich i
land from the jungle which has been going on rapidly i
in Lower Bengal and elsewhere. The increase of the I
revenue from Excise, Customs, and Salt duties,which p
form the principal items of receipt apart from the ,
land, is in part due to an increase of the rates of im- |
post, bat in part also to an increase of consumption, j
It can hardly be contended, however, that the in- u
creased duties are crushing when they are accompa- ;;
nied by an increased demand for the articles taxed. |
The augmentation of the receipts under the afore- ;
said heads of revenue from £5,700,000 to £11,500,000
within twenty years would hardly warn an English
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country was
sinking under its burdens.
But Mr. H yndman discerns another cause of
alarm. The country, he says, is being drained of |
its capital by the necessary result of a foreign |
Government—the expenditure of a large part of 2
the produce by absentees. There is first the
military demand for " home charges," a stand- '
ing dispute between the Indian and the
Home Governments. Then there are the pen-
sions of retired officials of every kind, the %
savings of officers on service, civil and mili- |
tary, the interest on loans, tho dividends of the
railways, and a number of other payments which
India makes to England. That there isa " drain " i
of this kind cannot be denied, and that it is :
to some extent economically injurious is cer- i
tain, but it is inseparable from the condi- i
tions of our rule in India, and we feel con- |
vinced that India obtains full value in exchange
for it. Can it be seriously argued, for instance,
that the Indian railways, which are accountable
for a considerable part of the drain, have not con
ferred benefits on Indian people infinitely greater
than any that could have sprung from the capital they
have drawn away if it had been left to " fructify ''
in India ? They have given a value to agricultural
produce that it never had before, and they are work-
ing social changes the effect of which will be visible ;
in another generation. Can it be argued that
it would be better for India if English merchants
and planters never made fortunes in India, but left
trade and agriculture to stagnate as they do inmost
of the native States ? The cost of the Government
and the army is not really open for discussion. It
is the first condition of prosperity, and almost of
existence, for India that the country should have a
just, enlightened, progressive, and vigorous Govern- i'?
ment, guaranteeing security within and without. C
For this a price must be paid, and it is for the K:
interest of India that it should be paid. We have
no doubt whatever that India is well able to pay
that price. To hand over the country, as is calmly
proposed, to native administration would be to
surrender our great experiment to be ruined by
corruption, weakness, and oppression. India would
have reason to curse the short-sighted philanthropy
which iu the vague hope of reducing taxation would
throw back the country into anarchy and give a
loose rein to every kind of plunder.