Page images
PDF
EPUB

distinct improvement. So too should the power of popular control over the budget, after allotments shall have been made for the Government of India and for reserved heads. But there must be full powers of taxation, outside the heads reserved to the central government, and of borrowing. Better, far better, that the provinces should pay a slightly enhanced rate of interest on their loans than that their rate of progress should be hampered and their sense of responsibility undermined by meticulous control from Simla. The men behind the new governments will not be exactly babes and may be trusted to look after provincial interests in money matters.

As with reserved and transferred heads in the councils, so with heads of provincial taxation and legislation, it is of first importance that those allotted to the higher power-in this case the Government of India-should be scheduled and not those of the inferior. This is the rule with most federationsCanada is an exception—and the reason is obvious. Whereas the inferior can scarcely encroach on the domain of the superior, the latter may, and probably will usurp functions of the inferior. "D'interprétation en interprétation," a writer has acutely remarked, "le gouvernement central irait toujours absorbant, envahissant et réduisant les attributions des états." And if this provision has been found necessary in countries accustomed to full or partial popular control, how much more. is it called for here, where there is in question a supreme government saturated with intense centralizing and bureaucratic traditions?

For most Indians and not a few Europeans the most disappointing portion of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report will be that dealing with the Government of India. This is left practically unreformed. True, the official bloc disappears from the Imperial Legislative Assembly, which will have a large popular majority. But the Assembly is shorn of all power by the creation of a second or nominated chamber, to be called the Council of State, created avowedly to serve the purposes of the former bloc. Nor is the reason for this far to seek. Unlike the famous report of Lord Durham, the Montagu-Chelmsford Report has been influenced by supporters of the existing

régime. It is signed jointly by the Viceroy, who is and has always been very much in the hands of the Simla officials, while the tour of the Secretary of State in India was "conducted" by the same persons. Is it surprising, then, that the report bristles with excuses for the failures, both administrative and political, of the Government of India, or that again and again it harps on the need of maintaining the responsibility of Simla to Parliament? Responsibility to Parliament! What does this mean in practice but absence of all real control, liberty to rule in accordance with bureaucratic traditions. Did this responsibility avail to prevent the Mesopotamia muddle or ten years of agitation and of gathering thunder-clouds under the Morley-Minto constitution? Though that constitution was, as already stated, foredoomed to failure, its collapse had not been so complete but for the attitude of the Government of India. Imagine an auditor charged to inquire into the affairs of a bank which was going badly. If his report were signed jointly by himself and the chairman, would it not call up a smile to read that while the branch establishments needed reform, the directorate and head office, being responsible to the shareholders, must remain unchanged?

The Government of India is charged by Indians with being the head and front of offending; they see in it the soul of that bureaucracy which is choking their life and destroying their self-respect. The keystone of all good government is the selfrespect of the individual, but against that ideal Simla has warred and will ever war. No scheme which leaves the Government of India practically untouched can command even temporary assent, nor, looking to the history of the MorleyMinto constitution, will Indians believe that under it any reforms, however well designed, can have a fair chance of success. There can be no real reform in India without reform of the Government of India. The addition of another Indian to the executive council is quite insufficient. Nor is a bureaucracy which has turned a deaf ear to the elected members of the present council, likely to be influenced by the votes of the proposed legislative assembly or, what it really amounts to, advisory council. The least measure that offers any hope of

satisfaction to Indian aspirations and of reform in the central government, would be the division of the portfolios into reserved and transferred, the latter, as in the provinces, in charge of a minister or ministers having the confidence of the assembly. Elected, as that body will be, on a restricted suffrage, there need be no fear of wildcat resolutions or revolutionary legislation. The debates in the existing council show the innate moderation of Indian statesmen and the sobriety of their views; they compare not unfavorably with the proceedings of the Imperial Parliament. Such a measure would do more to quell any "anarchy" or "sedition "-the Indian Government makes play with these words exactly as did Napoleon III with le Spectre Rouge than the recommendations of fifty Rowlatt Commissions with their truly Prussian outlook. It would signalize to Indians that England was indeed in earnest in the desire to place them on the road to self-government and that she did not cherish one ideal for the rest of the world and another for India. At present educated Indians charge the British with hypocrisy. It is a stigma that may require some living down.

There is indeed a lion in the path, though he does not live in India. If, as should be the case, the imperial budget were placed under the control of the assembly, the latter would, in all probability, impose protective duties. As the report truly states, there exists in India a general and strong feeling on this subject. Such a possibility will rouse the hostility of Lancashire and, we may assume, of the Indo-British Association. But is it right, is it just, is it in accordance with British traditions of fair play to bind India in economic thraldom to the United Kingdom? Why should there be one law for the colonies and another for India? There is no plea for such a policy except the shameful one of self-interest. Even those who have forgotten the lesson of the tea chests in Boston harbor might have some regard for the fair name and the reputation of England among a fifth of the human race. She has dared to overrule Lancashire in the matter of the cotton duties. Does she not dare to set aside the whole evil fabric and allow Indians to regulate their finances according to their own wishes? Will a nation that has not shrunk from a death grapple for the

sake of liberty fear, at the bidding of interested men, to grant a boon for the sake of justice and honor?

Unhappy as is the scheme with respect to the powers of the Indian Legislative Assembly, it is not less so as regards the constitution of the Council of State. The raison d'être of the council is frankly to serve the purposes of the defunct official bloc. Surely that is a rather short-sighted view. Assuming, as we ought to assume, that the goal of Indian government is federation, the upper chamber should be designed to represent the provincial governments, at first perhaps with a strong official tinge in the membership, but still to represent these governments. In most federations the object of the first chamber is to reflect the views of the governments of the states, that of the second, of the people as a whole. One stands for local autonomy, the other for unification in the great essentials. Together they ensure the full development of national life, while preserving what is equally precious, the local life and independent being of the component states. This, and not the saving of official face, should be the general idea underlying any scheme for a reformed central government. Remember, the Simla Government is no organic part of Indian national life, born of the soil and endeared to the people by a thousand ancient traditions. It is an artificial domination imposed from outside. There is, then, no question of amending it continuously, piece by piece, so as to conserve its life and spirit. bureaucratic spirit is precisely what we want to get rid of. The better course seems to be to bear steadily in mind the future federation of India-a future which may be much closer than many now suppose and to frame reforms so as to facilitate the introduction of such a polity.

The

The report concludes with some excellent recommendations on the British aspects of Indian government. The reform of the Secretary of State's Council so as to make it, not as now a citadel of bureaucracy, but a body really conversant with the conditions of a changing India, the placing of the Secretary of State's salary on the British budget and the appointment of a select committee in the Commons, are all steps in the right direction. They will inform Parliament's control and stimulate

its interest. So, too, is the revival of the rule that prevailed in the days of the East India Company, that of a periodical commission of inquiry into Indian affairs. But the period proposed -ten or twelve years-seems much too long. Things in India march quickly nowadays. There are more changes now in five years than there were in twenty under the company. It will probably be found that after the lapse of five years there will be ample grounds for the issue of a parliamentary commission. The problems raised by the memorable report of Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford are indeed worthy of all the statesmanship, all the genius of Parliament and the nation. Their settlement has admittedly been too long delayed. Though Orientals are proverbially patient, there may be limits even to their self-restraint. The gravity of the situation in India is still quite unrealized in England, but that it is grave, any false step inspired by reactionary counsels will quickly make manifest. It will not do to belittle, to ignore or to despise Indian nationalism. We are face to face with a gigantic movement, the greatest save one in human history. But yesterday it was feeble; today it is strong, it electrifies all the confines of India; tomorrow it will be overwhelming. Can we set bounds to the march of three hundred million souls or bind with cords the swelling forces of an empire? The only way to success, the only way compatible with statesmanship and with the fair name of England, lies, not in listening to the prattle of ex-officials, dreaming of a dead past, or to the sophistries of a government that clutches at departing power, but in honestly joining hands with India and helping her forward.

ABBOTSHAM, NORTH DEVON, ENGLAND.

B. HOUGHTON.

« PreviousContinue »