An Open Letter to Mr Edwin Samuel Montague

8/11/2019 An Open Letter to Mr Edwin Samuel Montague

1/38

AN OPEN LEER

O

HE RIGH HONORABLE

EDWIN SAMUEL MONAGUEHis Brittanic Majestys Secretary o State or India.

Whitehall, London.

BY

LALA LAJPA RAI

WWW.HINDUSANBOOKS.COM2012

First published in 1917 NewYork


2/38


3/38

OHER BOOKS BY LAJPA RAI

YOUNG INDIAAn Interpretation and a History o theNationalist Movement rom Within

ENGLANDS DEB O INDIAA Historical Narrative o Britains

Fiscal Policy in India

HE ARYA SAMAJAn Account o its OriginsDoctrines and Activities

AN OPEN LEER O DAVID LLOYD GEORGEPRIME MINISER OF GREA BRIAIN

HE POLIICAL FUURE OF INDIA

HE PROBLEM OF NAIONAL EDUCAION

IN INDIA

REFLECIONS ON HE POLIICALSIUAION IN INDIA

HE UNIED SAES OF AMERICAA HINDUS IMPRESSIONS AND A SUDY


4/38


5/38

O

HE RIGH HONORABLEMR. EDWIN SAMUEL MONAGUEHis Brittanic Majestys Secretary o State or India.

Whitehall, London.

Dear Sir:Permit me to congratulate you most heartily on

your appointment to the high office you now hold whichmakes you virtually the Supreme ruler o the teemingmillions o India. Te Secretary o State or India, underthe law as it stands, wields in both theory and practice,greater powers, over a greater area, covering a larger pop-ulation, that the Grand Moghul o India ever did, even

in his halcyon days, or than any other single monarch orruler does in these days except the President o the Unit-ed States or the President o China. India has been aptlysaid to be the brightest and I may add, the biggest jewelin the Crown o Great Britain and Ireland. It is in actthe onlypossession, which constitutes the British Empire,

as the rest o the Empire, excluding the sel governingDominions, has either arisen out o it or is held or thepurpose o saeguarding British supremacy there. It is theonly part o the Empire which pays and has in the pastpaid well. It is the only part, outside Great Britain itsel,which has a history and a past, great and glorious-whosepeople were once not only ree and rich, but highly

civilized, the originators and ounders o a civilizationwhich still shines with a splendour and richness o itsown. Any one may consequently be proud o holding the


6/38

2 AN OPEN LEER

www.hindustanbooks.com

office, to which you, Sir, have recently been appointed by

the Prime Minister o Great Britain. Tere is hardly anyother office in the British Empire which can compareavorably, either in possibilities or in potentialities, in theextent o the power which it coners on its holder or inits importance in relation to the rest o the Empire, withthe one you are filling at the present moment. Tere isno other office, the holder o which exercises his power

without any responsibility to the people whose destinyor good or or evil he controls. Even the Prime Ministeris subjected to a greater amount o direct criticism thanalls to the lot o the Secretary o State or India. Teonly occasion on which the Secretary o State or Indiaeels the burden o his office arises when some untoward

event happens which directly affects the British elector,or touches British lives and British prestige abroad.

Such an occasion was urnished in this war by theMesopotamia incident. Te all o Kut, the loss o pres-tige caused thereby, the importance o the disaster in thepresent emergency, the loss o valuablelives which it is

said could be prevented by more prudent managemento the campaign, have moved the British public in suchmanner as ew other incidents in connection with theadministration o India, have done since the mutiny o1857, i at all. I my memory does not deceive me this isperhaps the only occasion in the history o British rule inIndia, at least afer the crown assumed the direct man-

agement o Indian affairs, when British public opinionasserted itsel so strongly and so effectively as to orcethe Secretary o State or India to resign his office. But


7/38

O EDWIN SUMUEL MONAGUE 3


the history o the British administration o India is ull o

incidents which resulted in greater losses o human livesin India and outside than on this occasion, but these liveswere mostly those o the natives and they apparently didnot matter much. Te millions who died by preventableamines, by inefficient and inadequate handling o thebubonic plague, the millions who die by preventableunsanitary conditions and by diseases brought about by

insufficient eeding and horrible housing, have neverseemingly moved the British public so deeply and in-tensely as the Mesopotamia affair has done.

From the Indian point o view it is something tohave had a Mesopotamia disaster. It has opened the eyeso the British public to the real nature o what is the

Government o India. Even the Jingoes have discoveredthat it is wrong to entrust such vast powers to one or twomen. A writer in the Evening News(11th July) is orcedto admit that to all intents and purposes India, with itspopulation o 300,000,000, and its vast area and resourc-es, is under the autocratic rule o two men the Secre-

tary o State and the Viceroy. It is true that both o thesehigh personages have Councils to assist them, but in allmatters affecting the internal and most o the externalaffairs o India, their word goes, and is unchallengedand uncriticised. Tey can make and unmake, cut downor expand, issue inexorable decrees which may alterthe lives o millions o the Kings subjects, and, in act,

play with this great Empire almost as they will. So arthe Imperialist had insisted on trusting the man on thespot. It was repeated ad nauseum, in season and out o


8/38

4 AN OPEN LEER


season, that the Indian Services, Civil and Military, were

the acme o perection and that they should be absolutelytrusted in Indian affairs. Any criticism by Parliament orby Members was considered officious and impertinent.Te ew members who called the attention o the Brit-ish public to the condition o affairs in India and to thegrievances o the natives, were called names and brandedas little Englanders, mischie makers, meddlers and

so on. Afer over a century o misrule, it has been discov-ered that it was wrong to leave the actual Rulers o Indiaso little controlled by Parliament or public opinion asthey have been. Adds the writer in the Evening News:

What really influential voice has this country orParliament in the Government o India ? Te Secretary

o State, although nominally responsible to the PrimeMinister, is really uncontrolled. Old, encrusted customhas resulted in the practical abolition o supervision,either by the Premier personally or by the Cabinet. Itis true that the Secretary o State may consult his col-leagues, but none o them would dispute any o his find-

ings or those o the Viceroy-the man on the spot. And the Indian debates in the House o Commonshave always been perunctory and uninteresting. Tegreat majority o the members did not listen or take partin them ; India was so ar away, and, besides, they knewnothing o the complex machinery which was used in itsadministration. So all comment on Ministers statements

was lef to the small body o Indian members, who hada ew questions to ask as to military or commercial mat-ters in which they might be personally concerned.


9/38



COMPOSIION OF HE COUNCIL.

Te India Office has stood aloo and somewhatmysterious to the ordinary run o Englishman. Very littleis known outside as to the composition o its council orthe manner in which it is elected. As a matter o act theCouncil consists o a dozen members, mostly Anglo-In-dian officials, one military member, and two memberso the Indian community. It meets weekly or ortnightly,

and takes the advice o the permanent officials on mostmatters.

Permanent officials have not been a great successin the English Civil Service, and the India Office providesno exception. Tese men, autocrats in their own spheres,have an admirable knowledge and experience o routine,

and aithully adhere to the system o their predecessors,but the two most essential qualities in a successul heado a department, common sense and imagination, arenot conspicuous in their efforts. And it must be remem-bered in this connection that the Secretary o State andhis Council take their action largely on the advice o the

permanent officials. In India the Viceroy can over-rule a decision o hisCouncil, and is, in act, an absolute monarch; a despot,though a benevolent one....

Later on the writer draws the ollowing picture othe Indian officials.

When he (Lord Curzon) was in India, Lord Kitch-

ener, always intolerant o superior authority, objected tothe military member o the Viceroys Council being anofficer junior (sic) to him. He had his way, but the result


10/38

6 AN OPEN LEER


is that, under the present arrangement, the Command-

er-in-Chie is the one who directs the Viceroys militarypolicy, and no independent voice can be raised againsthim.

It is easy to imagine what a breeding ground orsycophancy and intrigue is afforded by such a system,outside the control o public or parliament, and in whichull power is in the hands o one or two men. We have

seen something during this war o the way in whichwomen can bring influence to bear in high military quar-ters at home. But in the Indian services the amount ointrigue is appaling.

Tose who know anything about the way appoint-ments are made, both in Civil Service and the Army o

India, were not surprised at the ailures disclosed in theMesopotamia report, although they were staggered atthe amount o incompetence and misjudgment attained.Mesopotamia is not the only field where high Indianofficials blundered.

In too ew cases are efficiency and merit the step-

ping stones to promotion and influential position. Se-niority, although it carries along with it stupidity, andavour gain the Plums. Many civil servants and Army o-ficers in India, burning with desire to leave things betterthan they ound them, have been snubbed or their zeal,and black listed by the mandarins owing to the evidenceo ability and ideas they possessed....

I have given this lengthy quotation in support o mystatement as to the unique nature o the position held bythe Secretary o State or India and the Indian Services


11/38



under him. It is, thus, the greatest and most responsi-

ble office under the crown. Sir, to which you have beenraised, on a historic occasion like this. Your appointmenthas met with a mixed reception. Te Liberals o Englandare satisfied, the Natives o India are pleased, the o-ries are shocked and the Anglo-Indian Jingoes terrified.Te very act that the ories have been shocked by yourappointment and the Anglo-Indian jingoes terrified; the

reasons adduced by them in their chorus o disapprovaland dissatisaction (one o them, Lord Beresord, had themeanness to say that you were disqualified or the postbecause you were not ully o British blood) are a fortiori,good grounds or the exultation o the Indians over yourappointment. But they have something more than this

to rely upon. Your work as Under Secretary o State orIndia under Lord Morley, and your subsequent, particu-larly more recent utterances relating to India, have filledthem with hope. Tey eel as i they have ound a Mes-siah in you. It is here that I have my misgivings. WhileI can join with them in sincerely congratulating you on

your well deserved elevation, my studies o the Englishpolitical system and past experience o English dealingswith India, give me no reason to be over-optimistic aboutyour ability to effect such radical changes in the systemo administration in India as alone will satisy the mostmoderate o Indian nationalists. However, your selectionwas perhaps the best that could be made by the Premier

and or that we may well be grateul to him.What, however, damps our spirit and mars enthusi-

asm is the sad disillusionment we have had in the past,


12/38

8 AN OPEN LEER


particularly in the case o Lord Morley. In 1906 when

the late Sir Henry Campbell Banneman came to pow-er, the Indian political organizations throughout Indiacabled their congratulations to him, at the same timepraying that John Morley be appointed Secretary o Stateor India. As ate would have it, one o these cablegramswas drafed by me on behal o the Indian Association oLahore. When our request was actually granted and the

appointment o Mr. John Morley as Secretary o Stateor India was announced, all India rejoiced and elt asi their moment o delivery had come. But to their sor-row and disappointment John Morley was not in officeor 12 months beore they ound out that even he couldnot do anything worth doing. Tey had hoped that he

would undo the mischie done by Lord Curzon in thepartition o Bengal, that he would give them some kindo sel-government, that he would make education reeand compulsory and that he would lay the oundations oan Industrial India; but beore long they discovered thatthe bureaucracy in India and the Jingoes in England had

succeeded in spreading their spell over the soul o JohnMorley. John Morley not only reused to undo the parti-tion o Bengal but went several steps urther in discard-ing the great principles o his lie as regards the sacred-ness o human liberties. He sanctioned deportationswithout trial and inaugurated a general regime o coer-cion and repression. Te writer o this letter, one o those

who had prayed or his appointment, was the first victimo John Morleys changed soul. Te disillusionment thatollowed was terrible and gave birth to the Indian Rev-


13/38



olutionary party, which has now become a permanent

eature o Indian lie. We do not know what were the in-ner influences that brought about the change in Morley;nor whether his convictions were reversed or whetherhe ound his environment too strong or him. Te actremains that when in actual office, John Morley ailedto act up to his principles and that it was the constantworry o being reminded o this act by his colleagues o

the ministerial benches in the House o Commons whichreconciled him to let honest John be metamorphosedinto Viscount Morley. Te birth o the noble Viscountwas the death o the great Commoner. What I am araido, is that the same ate might be awaiting you in the nearuture. Tose who know what a great personality John

Morley was in British politics in 1906, find it rather diffi-cult to believe, much against their wishes, that you wouldsucceed where John Morley had ailed.

Yet it is because o that hope that the Indians o allclasses and shades o opinion have hailed your appoint-ment as the head o the Government o India with joy,

with hope and with enthusiasm.Much water has flowed down the Indus since LordMorley retired rom the office o the Secretary o Stateor India. Events have happened on the Tames, theDanube, the Elbe, the Rhine, the Volga, the igris andthe Nile, that oretell momentous changes in the world.Afer this bloody war in which millions have died and

millions have been maimed or lie, which has devastatedthe whole o Europe and laid waste large tracts o Asiaand Arica, which has brought to dust the proudest heads


14/38

10 AN OPEN LEER


and the sharpest intellects o Europe, it is inconceivable

that the world will revert to pre-war conditions o lie.India o 1917 is also quite different rom India o1907. Hindus and Mohammedans have sunk their differ-ences and are making a united stand in their demand orpolitical liberties. Te Anglo-Indian plans o creating anIndian Ulster have miscarried and never beore duringthe British domination was India so united in its politi-

cal and economic ideals as to-day.In 1907, we were yetbabies crying or the moon. We had not yet grasped the

fundamentals of the situation. Our horizon was cloudedby sectarian boundaries and we were fighting or crumbs.In 1917 we are a united people no longer praying orconcessions, but demanding rights. Our earnestness has

stood the tests which are usually applied in such cases.Te records o criminal courts, the prisons in India andoutside, the large list o patriots who have willingly givenaway their lives or the cause o reedom, the battlefieldso France, Flanders and Mesopotamia, the internationalcentres o the world are all evidences o our determina-

tion to winour rights, be the cost what it may. Yes, allthis is true but it is equally true that while the world hasadvanced and is advancing, has changed and is changing;while India o to-day is so radically different rom Indiao 1907, the Curzons and Sydenhams o British politicsare, as regards India, still standing where they were tenyears ago. Who knows but that in spite o a clear brain

and a willing heart, you also may eventually succumb tosinister influences? It may be that these apprehensionsare unounded and that your appointment as Secretary


15/38



o State or India is an earnest o the united mind o

the Cabinet about the uture Government o India, andthat Mr. David Lloyd George has afer all persuaded hiscolleagues to take a broad view o things and save India

for the Empire, by conceding to her what is afer all herdue. Tis is however in the womb o uture. In the mean-time we may well consider what the situation demands. Ipropose to examine the situation rom the point o view

o the moderates.

IILet us first see what the undamental grievances o

India are. Our first grievance is that the Government oIndia is an absentee landlordism, in no way responsibleto the people o India, the latter having no voice in its

constitution or in its renewal. Our second grievance isthat the Government o India is principally carried onin the interest o the British capitalists and that Britishinterests take precedence in the determination o Indianfiscal policy. Te act that India is governed by a bu-reaucracy oreign in race, religion and nationality, that

the Indians are treated as Helots, unworthy o carryingarms and keeping and manuacturing them, that theyare denied the benefits o ree education, ree speech andree press, and that they die in millions rom amine andepidemics and unsanitary conditions or want o ade-quate measures to protect them rom the causes thereo,

all ollow rom the two undamental causes mentionedabove.Great Britain and her allies in the war have been

objectingto Prussian autocracy, Prussian bureaucracy,


16/38

12 AN OPEN LEER


Prussian militarismand Prussianjunkerism. Yet in India

all these monstrosities exist in an extraordinary degree andevery effort to dethrone them is vehemently opposed bypersons who want the world to believe that they are fight-ing to establish democracyand to enorce the principleso democratic Governments all the world over. Whatthe Indians are asking or, is nothing but the applicationo these principles to the Government o India and it is

obvious that no reorm could be satisactory which isnot in accord with these principles. It may be, that the

vested interests o the Empire do not permit o a boldand decisive step being taken at once in democratisingthe personnel o the Government o India, but surely noreorm o the Indian Administration can be even a step

toward the goal which does not secure fiscal autonomyto the people o India. India cannot and ought not, in thewords o Mr. Austen Chamberlain, to continue to be thehewer o wood and the drawer o water or the rest o theEmpire as she has been in the past.

Te Mesopotamia disaster has brought to light the

undamental weakness o the Government o India itsirresponsibility. What is the Government o India? Tecivil and military servants recruited in England consti-tute the Government o India. Tey govern India in thename o the British people. Tey make no secret o theact that they are in no way responsible to the peopleo India. But are they responsible to the British nation

? In theory, yes. In practise, no. Te British nation andtheir representatives in Parliament exercise no controlover the Government o India, have neither the wish


17/38



nor the time to do so. Te Services are sel-contained

and sel-controlled. Tey have in the course o the lastsixty years evolved an ethical code o their own, whichbrooks no intererence or control rom without-whichlays down the standards by which everything relating tothe unctions o Government in India is judged. Te firsttest o everything is, how does it affect the Services-theirstatus, their salaries, their prospects, last but not least

their prestige. Nothing which cannot pass through thesecrucibles can be good or India or or the Empire. Tecivil and military servants that rule India are so manyGods, with their Goddesses by their sides, who orman oligarchy whose interests and comorts and prestigedominate all the activities o Government in India. Tey

are there to saeguard and protect the interests o theEmpire-viz., those o the British capitalist and the Brit-ish manuacturer. Te Government o India is a kind oclosely organized trade guild or trade union, in whichthe non-unionist has no chance and the like o which theworld has not known beore. Te difference between an

ordinary Indian and an Indian Civil Service man maybest be judged by the difference between their economicpositions. Te lowest salary o an Indian Civil Servant isR450 a month to which substantial additions are allow-able in the shape o allowances, etc. Te lowest salary oan Indian Government employe is R7 a month. So anordinary Indian is worth only 7/450 as compared with

an Englishman in the lowest grades o the Indian Civ-il Service. Te human needs o the two, their personaland amily needs oughtto be the same but even making


18/38

14 AN OPEN LEER


allowances or the special needs o a ruler imported rom

a oreign climate, the difference between their economicpositions is a standardising o human degradation sanc-tioned by Democratic England. Once you accept thesestandards as valid and legitimate, the rest ollows as amatter o course. In my humble judgment the crux othe situation lies here. Are the rank and file o In-dianshuman beings? Are the rank and file o the Anglo-In-

dians in India, or even the highest o them Gods, to beworshipped by the ormer? Are they entitled to treat the

former as if they existed for their use or for the uses oftheir masters,the British capitalists? Has India any rightso her own or is she merely the drudge o the Empire?Must she continue to be the mere hewer o wood and the

drawer o water or the rest o the Empire ?!!! What is theposition o the Government in India ? Are they rulersimposed rom without by orce or are they servants, dele-gated to perorm the unctions o Government by theree choice and consent o the people? Does the Govern-ment exist or the people or the reverse o it? Must India

be governed rom the outside or is she to govern hersel?Is she to continue to be the milch cow o the Empire, amere possession to be exploited by the masters, or is sheto occupy a position o equality and be an equal amongequals? I the British statesmen honestly mean to conera position o equality on India then they must cease totalk o India in the language o patronage. Te question

then is not, how ar and how many Indians can be admit-ted into the Government o their country, but how ar itis necessary, in the interests o India, to employ Britishers


19/38



o non-Indian origin. Te question is not how England

should govern India, but how India should govern her-sel.Let there be no misunderstanding on this point,

Mr. Montague. Moderate India is prepared to share theburdens o the Empire in proportion to the benefits shereceives rom the Empire, in a spirit o amily co-opera-tion, but no more. What we stand or, are our rights and

liberties and not a ew posts in the Services or a ew seatsin the Councils. We ask or no avors. We demand ourrights.

Te British element in the Indian Administrationmust disappear; whether it disappears now or in tenyears or even in twenty is not material. Any scheme that

ignores this point o view is doomed to ailure. Te ex-tremists are or absolute independence because they donot believe that the British will ever concede that point.Te moment that point is conceded in genuine honesty of

purpose,the cult o extremism will lose the vast bulk oits adherents.

We are a part o the British Empire; we have largelycontributed to make the Empire as it is today. But so ar,we have shed our blood, given our substance in wealthand labor in making the Empire or the benefit o oth-ers. Henceorth we shall like to reap the benefits thereo,shouldering the burdens in proportion to our means.Henceorth the test to be applied in deciding all ques-

tions relating to the constitution o the Government oIndia should be how ar a contemplated scheme accordswith that principle. All such questions must in uture be


20/38

16 AN OPEN LEER


submitted to the judgment o the Indians. No decision

should be imposed on them in the arriving at which theyhave had no direct share.Let us apply this test to the different schemes put

orward or the uture Government o India and thendecide, in mutual consultation, which o them is likely tosatisy the Indians. So ar we have three schemes beoreus:

(a) Te one ormulated by the joint Committee othe Indian National Congress and the Muslim League,which is substantially the same as was submitted by theelected members o the Supreme Legislative Council oIndia.

(b) Mr. Gokhales scheme recently made public in

the columns o the imes.(c) Lord Islingtons scheme, outlined by him in a

speech at Oxord, on August 8, 1917.In weighing Mr. Gokhales scheme, it should be re-

membered that it was drawn up (a) when he was very ill;(b) in the early days o the war, long beore the develop-

ments o 1915, 1916 and 1917 had taken place. Te worldhas since then advanced much further than could havebeen imaginedby Mr. Gokhale. Te scheme bears uponit the stamp o over-cautiousnessand is more a kind ohalting compromise than a record o his wishes. I yield tonone in my respect for Mr. Gokhale.I do not think Indianpublic lie, during British rule, has produced a man o

greater depth o patriotism, more sincere love o countryand finer sentiments o honor and sel-respect than he.His disinterestedness and incorruptibility were above


21/38



suspicion. In his conceptions o possibilities, however, he

was rather timid and over-cautious. He was araid o be-ing called a dreamer. Te charge which he dreaded mostwas that o a visionary. Hence his mind always halted inmaking even just demands. He was rather a poor negoti-ator.1

But what makes his scheme impracticable and un-acceptable is that it lacks in all saeguards against uture

economic exploitation o India by the rest o the BritishEmpire. No scheme can be acceptable to India whichdoes not protect us rom that. India is poor, has grownpoorer under British rule. But what is most deplorable isthat its masses are the most illiterate and suffering lot onthe ace o the earth. No scheme o Government can be

accepted which does not make sufficient provision underproper guarantees or the uplif o the Indian masses,both educationally and economically. In act these two gotogether. Te Indian ryot and the Indian working man

1 Since the above was in type, we have read the ollowing para-graph which appeared in India, London, o August 31, 1917:

A Bombay telegram o August 22, brings particulars o an import-

ant statement on the subject o Mr. Gokhales political testament whichhas been made by Mr. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, member o the ImperialLegislative Council, and successor o Mr. Gokhale as senior member othe Servants o India Society. Te memorandum, says Mr. Sastri, wasonly a rough draf prepared with a view to consultation with Sir Pheroze-shah Mehta and the Aga Khan. It does not represent Mr. Gokhale s finalconclusions, or what, in his opinion, the people o India were fit or; butonly what might, i spontaneously announced by the Government, avert

agitation during the war and assure the ullest co-operation o the peopleo India. Mr. Sastri expresses the belie that, i Mr. Gokhale were aliveto-day, he would voice the most progressive and enlightened phase opublic thought compatible with the saety o the Empire and with orderedprogress in India.


22/38

18 AN OPEN LEER


must be lifed up rom the lowest depths o the economic

slough in which they at present are. Tat is not possibleunless India gets fiscal autonomy. Mr. Gokhale seemsto provide or it by suggesting that in financial mattersthe Government o India, constituted as proposed byhim, should be reed rom the control o the Secretaryo State. Unhappily, however, he ignores that under hisscheme the Government o India shall always have a

standing majority o non-Indians, on both the Executiveand the Legislative side. So long as the final taxing pow-er is in the hands o non-Indians, it is utile to expectthat the fimancial interests o India can be sufficientlyprotected. It does no good to ignore human nature. TeBritishers in India, official or non-official, cannot be

expected to put the interests o India and o the Indianmasses above those o Great Britain and the Empire. Allthe misortunes o India in the past have proceeded romthat assumption. Individual Britishers have here andthere risen above that human weakness styled the loveo ones own country and ones own people, but generally

they have ailed. o ormulate any scheme or the utureGovernment o India which is based on the above as-sumption and which does not secure economic indepen-dence to India is to give the, shadow while denying thesubstance.

Mr. Gokhales scheme does not make adequateprovision or this. He seems to have thought that making

the Government o India independent o the Secretaryo States control in financial matters insures that. Itwould, i the Government o India were made responsi-


23/38



ble to a Legislative Council, having a majority o elected

Indian members. But not otherwise. An official majorityin the Viceroys Council is in practise a negation o In-dias right to lay down its own fiscal policy.

Lord Islingtons scheme, which everybody who hasany political sense can understand, probably lays downthe general lines on which the British statesmen in theCabinet are thinking, adopts the harmless provisions o

Mr. Gokhales scheme, but rejects the only saeguard thathe provides against the uture economic exploitation oIndia. Lord Islington tells us that the Secretary o StatesCouncil cannot be abolished nor will the Secretary oStates control and veto be done away with. In the lighto past experience, let us see what this means. Suppose

the Legislative Council o India passes a financial mea-sure which, though obviously beneficial to India likethe cotton duties, is supposed to be harmul to Britishcommercial interests, what will the Secretary o State orIndia, who is always a party man, do ? In nine cases outo ten he will do what Lord Salisbury did in 1876, i.e.,

overrule and veto the measure passed by the LegislativeCouncil o India; perhaps he will nip the idea in the budand will not allow or sanction legislation at all. In 1876Lord Salisbury disapproved o the tariff on cotton goodsimposed by Lord Northbrook, with the concurrence othe majority o his Council. When inormed o it, LordSalisbury, as Secretary o State, not only objected to

the legislation, but also expressed his resentment at theGovernment o India having undertaken the legislationwithout his sanction. Lord Northbrook resigned, and


24/38

20 AN OPEN LEER


since then the Government o India has been the willing

slave o the Secretary o State.Tis state o things is bound to continue i the Sec-retary o States veto is retained and also i the ViceroysCouncil is so constituted as to give a majority veto toofficials. Now this must not be. Te Indian Legislature,having a majority o non-official Indians, must have thesupreme power o saying what taxes they will raise and

how they will spend them. Te most that can be con-ceded in the matter is that Indias contribution to-wardsImperial purposes may be fixed by Parliament and anyreduction o that may be put outside the jurisdiction othe Indian Legislature.

A retrospective review o the Government o Indias

military policy would show that India has so ar beenspending a greater proportion o her revenues on theArmy, than has ever been done by any other part o theEmpire. Mr. Yusa Ali, late o the I.C.S., quoted the fig-ures in the Nineteenth Centuryor February, 1917.

Military Budgets o the British Empire or 1913-1914Millions oPounds

Percentage ootal Budget oRevenue

Great Britain 28.2 14.5

India 18. 22.

Australia 2.5 10.Canada 1.5 5.

South Arica 1.15 7.7


25/38



Yet we observe that the Mesopotamia Commission

has ruthlessly criticised the conduct o the Indian financeminister who is said to have reused to sanction greateroutlay on the army in India at a time when no war was insight.

In India money has been spent like water on rontierdeences, rontier wars, and rontier railways. OutsideIndia, we have paid or wars which were waged in British

interests and or Imperial purposes. A reerence to theevidence given beore the Royal Commission on Indianexpenditure in 1896, will show how India in the pastwas saddled with the expenses o oreign wars. Now wedo not object to sharing the burdens o the Empire inproportion to our means and in proportion to the ben-

efits we get or our connection with the Empire, but westrongly object to being bled in the interest o the otherparts o the Empire. Te extent to which revenues raisedrom the starving ryots have hitherto been spent on theArmy, has resulted in starving those departments o civillie without which civil progress o any kind is impos-

sible, or example, education, sanitation and industries.Tis state o things cannot continue. Te uture orga-nization o the Army should be placed on such lines asto secure the greatest amount o protection at the leastexpense. A national militia may be organized by which alarge number o trained Indians may be kept in reservewithout being paid ull salaries. Te number o British

soldiers may be reduced. An Indian Navy manned byIndians may be organised and the cost charged to Indianrevenues. Anyway, Indias contributions to the military


26/38

22 AN OPEN LEER


strength o the Empire may be fixed by Parliament and

thus placed outside the power o the Indian Legislature.Te quota thus fixed should be urnished by both BritishIndia and the Native States. Te Native States ought tobear their proportional share o the burden. I am con-fident that the moment military careers are opened tothe Indians on terms o honor and sel-respect a largenumber o Indian volunteers would be orthcoming or

the deence o the country and or the maintenance ointernal order.

So ar, India has been the goat o the Empire. Inuture she reuses to be so. Te heads o Federal revenuesmentioned by Lord Islington,customs, post-office, rail-ways, telegraphs, orests, salt, mint, tributes, are such as

to make it impossible or any improper discriminationsto be made by the Indians among themselves, so no earneed be entertained on that score. Te memorandum lefby Mr. Gokhale was his personal opinion prepared at atime when his health was ailing. He never discussed thematter with his riends and colleagues. His opinions do

not in any way bind the rest o India and any attempt totake shelter behind the authority o his great name in de-nying substantial fiscal autonomy to India will be deeplyresented. Young India cannot be bound by the opinion oone man, however illustrious that man may have been.2

2 Tat Nationalist-India is taking this view o Mr. Gokhales

scheme is apparent rom Keuters telegrams to the imes. wo Mo-hammedan gentlemen resident in England have said the same thing in a

signed letter to the Manchester Guardian.


27/38



aking the other items o the two schemes, both

Mr. Gokhale and Lord Islington, seem to be agreed thatthe Governors should be appointed rom England. Soar good, but we ail to see why Governorships cannotbe thrown open to Indians. Indians are administeringNative states. Why cannot they govern British provinces?Why must the governors be always Englishmen? Do youreally think, Sir, that men like Lord Pentland, Sir Mi-

chael 0. Dwyer, Lord Sydenham, Sir James Laouche, SirCharles Rivalz, Sir Louis Dane, are such superior beingsthat no Indians o that calibre could be ound in thelength and breadth o India? Let our past history and therecords o Native states answer this question.

As to the Executive Councils o the provinces, Mr.

Gokhales memorandum fixes the number at six, Lord Is-lington proposes only our. Mr. Gokhales memorandumis silent as to the method o selection o Indian members,while Lord Islington says that election in their case is outo the question. Lord Islington is discreetly silent aboutthe strength and composition o the Provisional Legisla-

tive Councils, while Mr. Gokhales memorandum makesdefinite recommendations on these points, and adds thaton the Provincial Legislative Councils there should beno nominated non-official members except as experts.He fixes the proportion o elected non-official members aour-fifhs. But the act that he makes the tenure o officeo the members o the Provincial Councils independent

o the Legislative Councils reduces considerably the val-ue o his scheme as a measure o sel-government.

Coming to the other points, we find that both Mr.


28/38

24 AN OPEN LEER


Gokhale and Lord Islington have said nothing about the

uture recruitment o the Services. Tere are many peo-ple who know what Mr. Gokhales opinions in the matterwere. Mr. Justice Abdul Rahim has expressed them in hisminute o dissent. Even in this memorandum Gokhalehas said that in provinces the services should be provin-cial. Now the term provincial has come to possess atechnical meaning and i Mr. Gokhale has used it in that

sense then it means that he did not want the provincialservices to be manned by the I.C.S. men. I so, the I.C.S.men would, under his scheme, be employed only in thedepartments under the Government o India and theirnumber would necessarily be limited. Te recommen-dations o the Royal Commission in the matter o the

uture recruitment o the services have been so widelyand thoroughly criticised in India and in England that Ineed not say anything on that score.

But it should be distinctly understood that no re-orm o the Indian Administration would be ruitul un-less the bureaucratic character o the Services is changed.

Tere is a great deal o sense in the ollowing obser-va-tions o the writer in the Evening News, London: Te whole system has been described as rotten

to the core. Without going so ar as that, it may be saidthat Parliament should exercise more control over Indi-an affairs, that the appointments to the Councils shouldbe open to criticism, that a systematic clearance o all

incompetents should be made in both civil and militaryservices, and a chance given to broad-minded, intelligentmen who can be ound to serve India. Permanent is a


29/38



word that should be wiped out o existence in the matter

o officialdom, and a man should be retained in his officeonly by reason o his fitness or and his success in it. It is good news to hear that Mr. Austen Chamber-

lain is developing a scheme to give India more controlover her own affairs, but he will meet with ailure at theoutset i he allows the ordinary type o Indian officialtoo much voice in his new system. I he is able to get the

armers, and the business men, as well as the ruling class-es, to take an intelligent and helpul share in the manage-ment o the Empire, there will be no more Mespots andIndia will be able to look orward with some hope to thatprogress which is now suffocated by apathy and red-ta-peism.

What is needed is that or ordinary purposes theServices be recruited by competitive examinations heldin India. But all appointments requiring expert knowl-edge like the heads o the Finance, Engineering, Medical,Education departments, should be made only or a num-ber o years, thus providing or the inusion o new blood

with up to date ideas on these subjects. Te heads ogreat departments should not be appointed by seniority,but by selection on merit, such selection including mennot in the permanent services. Why should Indian taxesbe spent in paying big salaries to men who received theireducation and succeeded in passing examinations whenthe world was still backward in scientific development?

Knowledge is advancing with rapid strides. Men who arenot up to date in such subjects as sociology, criminology,psychology, social psychology, crowd psychology, psy-


30/38

26 AN OPEN LEER


cho-analysis, etc., ought not to be allowed to preside over

Courts o Justice or lay down principles o administra-tion. I have known Judges presiding in the highest crim-inal courts o the country, who were promoted to theseoffices rom lower grades, who had as much knowledgeo criminology and psychology as we have about the manin the moon. Men have been appointed to High CourtJudgeships who had had no judicial training, who had

never practiced law, simply because their seniority in theservice entitled them to promotion. Civil servants haveofen been pitch-orked even into departments requiringtechnical knowledge. All this must cease i India is toreceive the value o her money.

Te Mesopotamia Commission report shows how

men o anti-diluvian views bungled the administrationo such departments as the medical and transport, etc.What happened in these departments is happening inother departments. Te transport and the commissariatservices, the public works and the medical departmentsare corrupt to the core because the service codes o

honor protect them rom exposure. Every Indian knowshow native commissariat agents and contractors pro-it rom wars and huge public works with their Englishcolleagues and patrons in the services. Men o no conse-quence get rich quick. Te money does not all rom theskies. It is made possible or them to make huge profitsby incompetent and corrupt heads o departments. Te

contractors and the agents share with the engineer andthe transport officer and thus public revenues are squan-dered. Tis is by no means peculiar to India. It has hap-


31/38



pened in the past, even in democratic England, repub-

lican France and in the United States. Te difference isthat in these countries these things are easily detectedand cannot be perpetuated. Te heads o departmentsare not appointed rom permanent services. Tey areconstantly changed and so are not protected by thetraditional caste codes about prestige. All these abus-es will disappear i the people o the country through

their representatives get a voice in the management otheir affairs. It will be to their interest to bring to task allcorrupt officials. Tey will eel personal interest in thepublic purse. Every penny saved will count. At presentthey think that the moment a tax is collected it becomesthe property o a oreign bureaucracy in which they have

no urther interest. I the native contractor or the nativecommissariat agent does not profit, they argue, someEuropean would. Besides, all complaints o corruptionand bribery against European officers are systematicallydiscouraged by the authorities. It is elt that the exposureo a European official affects the Government prestige.

So the fiction o the purity and the incorruptibility o theServices is maintained. It may be said to the honor o theIndian Civil Service that the vast majority o them areree rom financial corruption; but can the same be saido the army departments, or public works and railways,etc., the great spending departments ?

o sum up, fiscal autonomy must be the cornerstone

o any reorm o Indian Administration i it is to satisyIndian Nationalists. Te other cornerstone is the democ-ratised control o the public services. Any scheme which


32/38

28 AN OPEN LEER


does not provide this will be still-born and will ail.

IIII observe that some British statesmen are making aetish o the principle that the edifice o sel-governmentshould be built rom below and that experience in themanagement o local affairs must be a necessary qualifi-cation or shouldering provincial and Imperial responsi-

bilities. Now this is a principle which does not admit ouniversal application. In act the verdict o history is atleast as much against it as in its avor. We have the caseo Japan beore us which disproves the universality o thetheory. Yet no Indian o any sense opposes the develop-ment o local sel-government. In act, obstruction to thedevelopment o local sel-government, the destruction

o indigenous institutions, by which village, town andcity governments were conducted in India beore Brit-ish rule, is one o the principal charges which we bringagainst the present bureaucratic system o centralizedgovernment in India. Beore the advent o the British,the country was mainly sel-governed, except in Imperial

matters. Te British have destroyed those institutions bytaking all the strings o government in their hands. It isnow proposed to re-establish the Panchayet system in

villages. Anyone who has closely studied village lie inIndia, what it is now under the British, and what it was inpre-British days, will unhesitatingly say that it is almost

impossible to revive the village Panchayets (Councils).Te conditions o lie which had originally brought thePanchayets into existence and which made them theefficient instruments o administration in pre-British


33/38



days have ceased to exist. Te old Panchayets were the

outcome o the old conditions o lie. Te villages weremostly sel-contained, with not much communicationwith the outside world. Te Panchayets generally ruledby moral orces which have been immensely weakened,i not destroyed now. Village communities are no lon-ger the compact, closely related, inter-dependent bodieswhich they once were. Under the old system the com-

munal ties were so strong as to make it impossible oranyone to disobey or disregard the communal decisions.Freedom o movement into and rom communities wasrestricted within the castes, all the reins o power werein the hands o caste councils. All inter-caste affairswere managed by caste organizations; all community

interests looked afer by the village councils. Te villagePanchayets had the power o taxation, which broughtthem sufficient revenue or communal purposes; theyprovided or education, sanitation, watch and justice. Te

villages did not pay any taxes or these purposes exceptto the Panchayets. All this has now been changed. Te

district authorities realize the road cess, the school cess,the Chaukidaraand all other local cesses. In ormer daysthere was a small tax paid by all proessions and tradesnot connected with land. Tis revenue was used or com-mon purposes. Tus the old village councils had powerand responsibilities. All this is now changed. Te villageindustries have been ruined, never to be revived again.

Te days o cottage industries are gone, most probablyorever. Te lands in villages are reely bought and sold,subject only to a precarious law o pre-emption, which is


34/38


35/38



to raise the income o the ryot and the laborer and give

him more to spend on himsel and his amily. Tis is notpossible unless the land tax is reduced. Any reductionin the land tax is impossible unless the oreign agencywhich rules India is done away with. At present the aver-age income per capita in India is two pounds; the averagetaxation, seven shillings. Te problem beore the countryis to raise the income, per head o population, increase

the revenues or public improvement and education, andreduce the incidence o taxation.

It thus will be seen that in the case o India, thetheory that you must build sel-government rom belowis untenable. Tis is a case where reorm must come romabove. Te Government o India must be democratised

in order to tackle the question o revenues and the costo Administration. Tey will show the ways and meansto local bodies and make it possible or them to inaugu-rate effective sel-government. With the Government oIndia or the Provincial Government squeezing every-thing possible rom the people in the shape o taxes and

spending it on the Army and on a oreign administrativeagency and in paying the interest on oreign investments,nothing is lef or local bodies to do. Te latter cannotextract any blood rom where there is none. With a taxo 7% per cent ad valoremon Justice (which reaches thefigure o 22.5 per cent by the time the case is decided bythe final Court o Appeal and Eevision), with the bulk o

the revenues rom the local cesses going into the Federaland Provincial treasuries in one orm or another, hard-ly any sources o revenue are lef or the local bodies.


36/38

32 AN OPEN LEER


What we demand is that sufficient power be conceded

to local bodies (district, town and village), to make localsel-government effective. Tis cannot be done unless theconstitution o the Federal and Provincial Governmentsis so ar democratised as to make it possible or therepresentatives o the people to lay down a fiscal policywhich will enable them to shoulder the Imperial, theFederal and the Provincial liabilities, and yet leave suffi-

cient margin or local bodies or local needs.Te real issues then are, how can India get fiscal au-

tonomy, with power to reduce the cost o administration,by reducing the strength o the oreign agency, or doingaway with it? At present the scale o salaries which weare paying to the oreign administrators is tremendous as

compared with the other countries o the world. Com-pare these salaries with what is allowed in the UnitedStates, in Germany, in Great Britain, in France, in Japan,and see what a great difference there is.

Permit me respectully to point out to you that theIndians are no longer children politically. Tey under-

stand their affairs thoroughly. Any attempt to hoodwinkthem by conusing the real issues and raising clouds odust, will react on those who attempt to do so. Whatwe want is real political power. We are prepared to paya reasonable price or our connection with the Empire,but the present position must change. As soon as we getfiscal autonomy, we shall set ourselves to the great task

o securing such a just distribution o whatever wealthwe earn as will secure decent lives to the masses o ourpeople. Afer all, it is they who orm the nation. With


37/38



the strings o power in the hands o British capitalists

represented by the Secretary o State, and with a oreignbureaucracy controlling our lives day in and day out, wecannot help being sullen and discontented. Te wonderis not that India is discontented, but that the people areso law abiding, docile and loyal. Any urther strain ontheir loyalty might end in atal results.

You have a great opportunity, Mr. Secretary, or

winning the gratitude o an historic nation, comprisingone-fifh o the human race. Remember that you willbe making history in a way such as has not allen to thelot o any o your predecessors. Your place in historywill be determined by the amount o conscious courageand honesty o purpose you display in your great office.

Remember, please, that India has been on this earth orthousands o years and will endure or all time to comeunless some geologic cataclysm overtakes it, even aferthe Curzons and Sydenhams and the Morning Posthave gone and been orgotten. India has had all kinds ogood, bad, indifferent, benevolent and oppressive rulers.

Tey are gone. Teir memory the good, the badand the indifferent abides in their deeds. So will it bewith the British administrators also. Let it not be said byposterity that British statesmen at a psychological mo-ment in their history (in 1917) ailed to read the signs othe times. Te time is with the people and the hands othe clock cannot be set back even by a Canute.

LAJPA RAINew York, U. S. A.September 15, 1917.


38/38

Documents

An Open Letter to Mr Edwin Samuel Montague