Chapter II: Part 2

"It has been sometimes questioned whether a democracy can rule an
Empire. I say that in this instance the democracy has never had
the opportunity of trying. But even if the House of Commons were
to give orders to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State
is not his own master. In matters vitally affecting India, he can
be overruled by a majority of his Council. I may be told that the
cases are very rare in which the Council has differed from the
Secretary of State for India. I know one case anyhow, where it was
a very near thing, and where the action of the Council might
without remedy have involved the Government of India in a policy
out of harmony with the declared policy of the House of Commons
and the Cabinet. And these gentlemen are appointed for seven
years, and can only be controlled from the Houses of Parliament by
a resolution carried in both Houses calling on them for their
resignations. The whole system of the India Office is designed to
prevent control by the House of Commons for fear that there might
be too advanced a Secretary of State. I do not say that it is
possible to govern India through the intervention of the Secretary
of State with no expert advice, but what I do say is that in this
epoch now after the Mesopotamia Report, he must get his expert
advice in some other way than by this Council of men, great men
though, no doubt, they always are, who come home after lengthy
service in India to spend the first years of their retirement as
members of the Council of India.

"Does any Member of this House know much about procedure in the
India Office? I have been to the India Office and to other
offices. I tell this House that the statutory organization of the
India Office produces an apotheosis of circumlocution and red tape
beyond the dreams of any ordinary citizen."

His own idea of what should be done at that juncture was thus expressed:

"But whatever be the object of your rule in India, the universal
demand of those Indians whom I have met and corresponded with, is
that you should state it. Having stated it, you should give some
instalment to show that you are in real earnest, some beginning of
the new plan which you intend to pursue, that gives you the
opportunity of giving greater representative institutions in some
form or other to the people of India....

"But I am positive of this, that your great claim to continue the
illogical system of Government by which we have governed India in
the past is that it was efficient. It has been proved to be not
efficient. It has been proved to be not sufficiently elastic to
express the will of the Indian people; to make them into a warring
Nation as they wanted to be. The history of this War shows that
you can rely upon the loyalty of the Indian people to the British
Empire--if you ever before doubted it! If you want to use that
loyalty, you must take advantage of that love of country which is
a religion in India, and you must give them that bigger
opportunity of controlling their own destinies, not merely by
Councils which cannot act, but by control, by growing control, of
the Executive itself. Then in your next War--if we ever have
War--in your next crisis, through times of peace, you will have a
contented India, an India equipped to help. Believe me, Mr.
Speaker, it is not a question of expediency, it is not a question
of desirability. Unless you are prepared to remodel, in the light
of modern experience, this century-old and cumberous machine,
then, I believe, I verily believe, that you will lose your right
to control the destinies of the Indian Empire."

The quick and resourceful mind of Premier Lloyd George at once grasped the situation. He lost no time in deciding what was needed. Probably over the head of his Tory colleagues, possibly with their consent, he gave the Indian portfolio to Mr. Montagu, and told him quietly to set to business. Mr. Montagu's first step was the announcement of August 20, 1917. On that date he made in the House of Commons the following memorable statement:

"The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government
of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing
association of Indians in every branch of the administration and
the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view
to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India
as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that
substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as
possible, and that it is of the highest importance as a
preliminary to considering what these steps should be that there
should be a free and informal exchange of opinion between those in
authority at home and in India. His Majesty's Government have
accordingly decided, with His Majesty's approval, that I should
accept the Viceroy's invitation to proceed to India to discuss
these matters with the Viceroy and the Government of India, to
consider with the Viceroy the views of local Governments, and to
receive with him the suggestions of representative bodies and
others.

"I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by
successive stages. The British Government and the Government of
India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and
advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and
measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the
co-operation received from those upon whom new opportunities of
service will thus be conferred and by the extent to which it is
found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of
responsibility.

"Ample opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of the
proposals which will be submitted in due course to Parliament."

It is obvious that the content of the second sentence of paragraph two in the above announcement is in fundamental opposition to the right of every nation to self-determination, a principle now admitted to be of general application (including, according to the British Premier, even the black races inhabiting the Colonies that were occupied by Germany before the War, within its purview). The people of India are not on the level of these races. Even if it be assumed that they are not yet in a position to exercise that right, fully and properly, it is neither right nor just to assume that they shall never be in that position even hereafter. The qualifications implied in that sentence are, besides, quite needless and superfluous. As long as India remains "an integral part of the British Empire" she cannot draft a constitution which does not meet with the approval of the British Parliament and the British Sovereign. It is to be regretted that the British statesmen could not rise equal to the spirit of the times and make an announcement free from that spirit of autocratic bluster and racial swagger which was entirely out of place at a time when they were making impassioned appeals to Indian manhood to share the burdens of Empire by contributing ungrudgingly in men and money for its defence. This attitude is somewhat inconsistent with the statements in paragraph 179 of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, wherein, after referring to the natural evolution of "the desire for self-determination," the distinguished authors of the Report concede that "the demand that now meets us from the educated classes of India is no more than the right and natural outcome of the work of a hundred years."

In spite of this uncalled for reservation in the announcement, it is perfectly true that "the announcement marks the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one." What makes the announcement "momentous," however, is not the language used, as even more high-sounding phrases have been used before by eminent British statesmen of the position of Warren Hastings, Macaulay, Munroe, Metcalf and others, but the fact that the statement has been made by the Secretary of State for India, as representing the Crown and the Cabinet who, in their turn, are the constitutional representatives of the people of Great Britain and Ireland. The statement is thus both morally and legally binding on the British people, though it will not acquire that character so far as the people of India are concerned, unless it is embodied in a Statute of Parliament. Is it too much to hope that when that stage comes the second sentence of the second paragraph might be omitted or so modified as to remove the inconsistency pointed out above?

We have no doubt, however, that the language of the announcement notwithstanding, the destiny of India remains ultimately in the hands of the Indians themselves. It will be determined, favorably or unfavorably, by the solidity of their public life, by the purity and idealism of the Indian public men to be hereafter entrusted with the task of administration, by the honesty and intensity of their endeavor to uplift the masses, both intellectually and economically, by the extent to which they reduce the religious and communal excuses that are being put forth as reasons for half-hearted advance, and by the amount of political unity they generate in the nation. The well known maxim that those who will must by themselves be free, is as good today as ever. They will have to do all this in order to persuade the British Parliament to declare them fit for responsible Government. Once they show their fitness by deeds and by actual conduct, no one can keep them in leading-strings.

Coming back to the announcement itself, would it not be well to bear in mind that what differentiates this announcement from the statutory declarations of the Act of 1833 and the Royal proclamation of 1858 is not the language used but the step or steps taken to ascertain Indian opinion, to understand and interpret it in accordance with the spirit of the times and the frankness and fairness with which the whole problem is stated in the joint report of the two statesmen, who are the present official heads of the Government of India. Nor can it be denied that the announcement and the report have received the cordial appreciation of the Indian leaders.

We, that is, the Indian Nationalists, have heretofore concerned ourselves more with criticism of the British administration than with the problem of construction, though our criticism has never been merely destructive. We have always ended with constructive suggestions. Henceforth, if the spirit of the announcement is translated into deeds it will be our duty to coöperate actively in constructive thought. Not that we refused coöperation in the past, but the conditions and the terms on which we were asked to coöperate made it impossible for us to make an effective response.

Several British critics of the Indian Nationalists have from time to time charged them with lack of constructive ability. They ignore the fact that political conditions in India were an effective bar to any display of ability.

The first attempt at constitution making was made by the Congress in 1915, and as such was bound to be rather timid and half-hearted. The situation since then has considerably improved and the discussions of the last twelve months have enabled the Secretary for India and the Viceroy to claim that, in certain respects, at least, their scheme is a more effective step towards responsible Government than the scheme promulgated jointly by the Congress and the Muslim League. How far that claim can be substantiated remains to be seen. This much is, however, clear: come what may, along with the rest of the world, India cannot go back to the pre-war conditions of life. The high functionaries of the British Government in India are also conscious of that fact, as one of them, the present Lieutenant Governor of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, a member of the Indian bureaucracy, remarked only recently in a speech at Allahabad:

"Nothing will ever be the same," said Sir Harcourt Butler; "this much is certain, that we shall have to shake up all our old ideals and begin afresh ... we have crossed the watershed and are looking down on new plains. The old oracles are dumb. The old shibboleths are no more heard. Ideals, constitutions, rooted ideas are being shovelled away without argument or comment or memorial.... Our administrative machine belongs to another age. It is top-heavy. Its movements are cumbrous, slow, deliberate. It rejoices in delay. It grew up when time was not the object, when no one wanted change, when financial economy was the ruling passion of Governments, imperial and provincial. Now there are the stirrings of young national life, and economic springtime, a calling for despatch, quick response, bold experiment. Secretariats with enormous offices overhang the administration. An eminent ecclesiastic once told me that Rome had, by centuries of experience, reduced delay to a science; he used to think her mistress of postponement and procrastination, but the Government of India beat Rome every time. Only ecclesiatics could dare so to speak of the Government of India. I, for one, will not lay audacious hands on the chariot of the sun."

Coming, as it does, from a member of the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy, this statement means much more to the Indian people than even the words of the British Premier. If this statement is not mere camouflage, but represents a genuine change of heart on the part of the British bureaucracy in India, then it is all the more inexplicable to us why the new scheme of the Secretary for India and the Viceroy should breathe so much distrust of the educated classes of India. Any way, we have nothing but praise for the spirit of frankness and fairness which generally characterizes the report. However we might disagree with the conclusions arrived at, it is but right to acknowledge that the analysis of the problem and its constituting elements is quite masterly and the attempt to find a solution which will meet the needs of the situation _as understood by them_ absolutely sincere and genuine. This fact makes it all the more necessary that Indian Nationalists of all classes and all shades of opinion should give their best thought to the consideration of the problem in a spirit of construction and coöperation, as distinguished from mere fault-finding. Nor should it be forgotten for a moment that Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford were all the time, when drawing their scheme, influenced by considerations of what, under the circumstances, is practicable and likely to be accepted, not only in India by the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy and the non-official European community, but by the _conservative_ British opinion at home. It is the latter we have to convince and win over before the scheme has a ghost of a chance of being improved upon. When we say _conservative_ opinion we include in that expression the Liberal and Labour Imperialists also. We should never forget that it is hard to part with power, however idealistic the individual vested with power may be, and it is still harder to throw away the chances of profit which one (and those in whom one is interested) have gained by efforts extending over a century and a half, and in the exercise of which one sees no immediate danger. I am of the opinion that hitherto Indian representation in England has been extremely meagre, spasmodic and inadequate to the needs of the situation. Outside England, India's voice has been altogether unheard. We have so far displayed an almost unpardonable simplicity in failing to recognise that the world is so situated these days that public opinion in one country sometimes reacts quite effectively on public opinion in another. It is our duty, therefore, to increase our representation in England and to keep our case before the world with fresh energy and renewed vigour, not in a spirit of carping denunciation of the British Government of India, but with a desire to educate and enlist liberal and right-minded opinion all over the world in our favor. In the following pages an attempt is made to examine the Montagu-Chelmsford report in a spirit of absolute candour and fairness, with practical suggestions for the improvement of the scheme in the light of Indian and British criticism thereupon.

II

DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

A nation that can sing about its defeat is a nation which is
immortal.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"Serbia." Speech delivered at the Serbian
Lunch (Savoy Hotel), August 8, 1917.

Before we take up the report of the Secretary for India and the Viceroy we intend to clear the ground by briefly meeting the almost universal impression that prevails in educated circles in the West, that democratic institutions are foreign to the genius of the Asiatic peoples and have never been known in India before. The latest statement to this effect was made by Mr. Reginald Coupland of the _Round Table Quarterly_, in an article he contributed to the _New Republic_ (September 7, 1918) on "Responsible Government in India." We have neither the time nor the desire to go into the question as it relates to other Asiatic countries, though we might state, in general terms, that an impartial study of Asiatic history will disclose that in the centuries preceding the Reformation in Europe, Asia was as democratic or undemocratic as Europe. Since then democracy has developed on modern lines in Europe. While Asia has gradually disintegrated and fallen under foreign domination, Europe has progressed towards democracy. As regards India, however, we intend to refer briefly to what historical evidence is available.

Firstly, we wish to make clear what we understand by "democracy." There is no desire to enter into an academic discussion of the subject nor to burden this book with quotations from eminent thinkers and writers. In our judgment, the best definition of democracy so far has been furnished by Abraham Lincoln, viz., "the government of the people, by the people and for the people," regardless of the process or processes by which that government is constituted. One must, however, be clear minded as to what is meant by "the people." Does the expression include all the people that inhabit the particular territory to which the expression applies, regardless of sex, creed, color and race, or does it not? If it does, we are afraid there is little democracy even in Europe and America today. Until recently half of the population was denied all political power in the State by virtue of sex. Of the other half a substantial part was denied that right by virtue of economic status or, to be more accurate, by lack of economic status considered necessary for the exercise of political power. Even now the Southern States of the United States, Amendment XV to the American Constitution notwithstanding, effectively bar the colored people from the exercise of the franchise supposed to have been accorded to them by the amendment. In Europe, religious and social bars still exist in the constitutions of the different states. As Great Britain is supposed to be the most democratic country in Europe, we cannot do better than take the history of the growth of public franchise in that country as the best illustration of the growth of democracy in the terms of President Lincoln's formula.

Travelling backwards, the earliest democratic institutions known to Europe were those of Greece and Rome. In applying the term "democratic" to the city republics of Greece and Rome it is ignored that these "republics" were in no sense democratic. "Liberty," says Putnam Weale, "as it was understood in those two celebrated republics of Athens and Sparta meant abject slavery to the vast mass of the population, slavery every whit as cruel as any in the Southern States of the American Union before the war of Liberation.... In neither of these two republics did the freemen ever exceed twenty thousand, whilst the slaves ran into hundreds of thousands, and were used just as the slaves of Asiatics were used.[1] Thus the Greek republics were simply cities in which a certain portion of the inhabitants, little qualified to exercise them, had acquired exclusive privileges, while they kept the great body of their brethren in a state of abject slavery."[2] Discussing the nature of Roman citizenship Putnam Weale remarks (p. 25) that "in spite of the polite fiction of citizenship, the destinies of scores of millions were effectively disposed of by a few thousands." This was true not only with regard to the outlying parts of the Empire but even as to Italy itself. "Roman liberty," continues Putnam Weale, "though an improvement on Greek conceptions, was like all liberty of antiquity confined really to those who, being present in the capital, could take an active part in the public deliberations. It was the liberty of city and not of a land. It was therefore exactly similar in practise, if not in theory, to the kind of liberty, which has always been understood in advanced Asiatic states--the system of Government by equipoise and nothing else. The idea of giving those who lived at a distance from the capital any means of representing themselves was never considered at all; and so, it was the populace of the capital (or only a part of it), aided by such force as might be introduced by the contesting generals or leaders, which held all the actual political power. _Representative Government_--the only effective guarantee of liberty of any sort--_had therefore not yet been dreamt of_." [The italics are ours.]

Alison in his _History of Europe_, Vol. I, says: "The states of Florence, Genoa, Venice and Pisa were not in reality free; they were communities _in which a few individuals had usurped_ the rights, and disposed of the fortunes, of the great bulk _of their fellow citizens, whom they governed as subjects or indeed as slaves_. During the most flourishing period of their history, the citizens of all Italian republics did not amount to 20,000, and these privileged classes held as many million in subjection. The citizens of Venice were 2500 and those of Genoa 4500, those of Pisa, Siena, Lucca and Florence taken together, not above 6000." [Italics ours.] Coming to more modern times we find it stated by Morse Stephens in his _History of Revolutionary Europe_ that "the period which preceded the French Revolution and the era of war from the troubles of which Modern Europe was to be born may be characterised as that of the benevolent despots. The State was everything, the nation nothing." Speaking of the eighteenth-century conditions in Europe, Stephens remarks that "the great majority of the peasants of Europe were throughout that century absolute serfs"; also that "the mass of the population of Central and Eastern Europe was purely agricultural and in its poverty expected naught but the bare necessaries of existence. The cities and consequently the middle classes formed but an insignificant factor in the population." These quotations reveal the real character of the European democracy in ancient and mediæval and even in early modern Europe up to the end of the eighteenth century, or, to be more accurate, to the time of the French Revolution. Compare this with the following facts about the political institutions of India, during the ancient and mediæval times:

(1) First we have the testimony of ancient Brahmanic and Buddhistic literature, preserved in their sacred books, about the right of the people to elect their rulers; the duty of the rulers to obey _the law_ and their obligation to consult their ministers as well as the representatives of the public in all important affairs of State.

The Vedic literature contains references to non-monarchial forms of Government,[3] makes mention of elected rulers and of assemblies of people, though the normal as distinguished from universal form of Government according to Professor Macdonald was by Kings, "a situation which, as in the case of the Aryan invaders of Greece and of the German invaders of England, resulted almost necessarily in strengthening the monarchic element of the constitution."[4]

In the _Aitreya Brahmana_ occur terms which are translated by some as representing the existence of "self-governed" and "kingless" states. These authorities have been collected, translated and explained by K. P. Jayas Wal and Narendranath Law in a series of articles published in the _Modern Review_ of Calcutta.

The _Mahabharata_, the great Hindu epic, makes mention of kingless states or oligarchies. "In fact," says Mr. Banerjea, "all the Indian nations of these times possessed popular institutions of some type or other."[5]

Professor Rhys Davids has said, in his _Buddhist India_, that "the earliest Buddhist records reveal the survival side by side with more or less powerful monarchies, of republics with either complete or modified independence." He names ten such republics in Northern India alone. In regard to the system of Government effective within one of the tribes that constituted a republic of their own, the same scholar observes: "The administrative and judicial business of the clan was carried out in public assembly, at which young and old were alike present in their common Mote Hall. A single chief--how and for what period chosen we do not know--was elected an officeholder, presiding over the sessions, or, if there were no sessions, over the State. He bore the title of _Raja_, which must have meant something like the Roman Consul or the Greek Archon."[6] There is no evidence of the existence of slaves or serfs in these communities. Evidently all were freemen.

(2) We have the evidence of Greek historians of the period who accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic Campaign, or who, after Alexander's death, represented Greek monarchs at the courts of Indian rulers. "Even as late as the date of Alexander's invasion," says Mr. Banerjea, "many of the nations of the Punjab lived under democratic institutions." Speaking of one of them called Ambasthas (Sambastai), the Greek author of _Ancient India_ says: "They lived in cities in which the democratic form of Government prevailed." "Curtius," adds Mr. Banerjea, "mentions a powerful Indian tribe, where the form of Government was democratic, and not regal."[7] Similarly Arrian, another Greek writer, is quoted as mentioning several other independent, self-governing tribal communities who lived under democratic forms of government and bravely resisted the advance of Alexander. One of them, when making submission to Alexander, told him that "they were attached more than any others to freedom and autonomy, and that their freedom they had preserved intact from the time Dionysos came to India until Alexander's invasion."[8] There were some others which had an aristocratic form of Government. In one of them mentioned in _Ancient India_, "the administration was in the hands of three hundred wise men."

Another Greek writer, Diodoros, speaks of _Patala_ as "a City of great note with a political constitution drawn on the same lines as the Spartan." It may safely be presumed that the Greek meant what he said. Chanakya, the author of a great treatise on political science, mentions many powerful oligarchies that existed down to the fourth century A. D. In one of the inscriptions, said to be of the sixth century A. D., the _Malavas_ are referred to as living under a republican form of Government.[9]

(3) Even when kingship became an established institution the idea that the King was only a servant of the people survived for a long time. His "remuneration" was fixed at one-sixth of the produce. His subjects had the right to depose him or to turn him out if he failed in his duty. The authorities on these points are collected by Mr. Banerjea on pp. 72 and 73 of his book.

(4) Similarly many authorities are quoted by Mr. Banerjea on pp. 74 and 75 of his learned work showing that, according to Hindu ideals practised in ancient times, the king was not above the law. He was not an autocrat. He was as much bound by the law as his subjects. Laws were not made by kings. "Legislation was not among the powers entrusted to a king," says Mr. Banerjea. "There is no reference in early Vedic literature to the exercise of legislative authority by the king, though later it is an essential part of his duties," says Prof. Macdonell.[10]

(5) Assemblies and councils are quite frequently mentioned both in the Rig and the Atharva Vedas. "The popular assembly was a regular institution in the early years of the Buddhistic age (500 to 300 B.C.)" Chanakya mentions that in the King's Council the decision of the majority should prevail.[11] Sukraniti lays down elaborate rules of procedure for the conduct of business in these assemblies. "The Council was the chief administrative authority in the kingdom. The King was supposed not to do anything without the consent of the Council."[12] In _Kerala_ State, South India, during the first and second centuries of the Christian Era, there were five assemblies one of which consisted of "representatives of the people summoned from various parts of the State."[13] "From the Ceylon inscriptions we learn that in that island all measures were enacted by the King in Council, and all orders were issued by and under the authority of the Council."

While all this is true of Ancient India, we cannot claim the existence of the same system of Government for mediæval India. Even as regards Ancient India, all that is claimed is that it possessed as much democracy, if not more, as Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome. The non-existence of slavery in Northern India gives it therefore a superior character to that of the Ancient republics of Greece and Rome. In the South, it is believed slavery did exist. Coming to mediæval times generally known as the Mohammedan period of Indian History consisting of two epochs, from 400 to 1200 A.D. and from 1200 to 1800 A.D., we notice that the country enjoyed a durable kind of government, cities under absolute rule, and villages, as before, self-governed. The absolute rule was a benevolent or malevolent despotism according to the character of the Hindu or Moslem sovereign who reigned. But in the villages India maintained a democratic form of government right up to the beginning of British rule; and though under British rule, it has been practically superseded by the rule of the officials, yet in some parts of the country the spirit is still alive, as will appear from the following testimony recorded by Mr. Sidney Webb in his Preface to Mr. John Matthai's volume, _Village Government in British India_:

"One able collector of long service in Central India informed me
that he had been, until a few months before, totally unaware that
anything of the sort existed in any of the villages over which he
ruled. But being led to make specific inquiries on the subject, he
had just discovered, in _village after village, a distinctly
effective if somewhat shadowy, local organization, in one or other
form of panchayat, which was, in fact, now and then giving
decisions on matters of communal concern, adjudicating civil
disputes, and even condemning offenders to reparation and fine_.
Such a Local Government organization is, of course, 'extra-legal'
and has no statutory warrant, and, in the eyes of the British
tribunals, possesses no authority whatever. But it has gone on
silently existing, possibly for longer than the British Empire
itself, and is still effectively functioning, merely by common
consent and with the very real sanction of the local public
opinion."

Mr. Matthai has also made a similar remark in Paragraph 22 of his book (Introductory).

Village councils ordinarily called village _panchayats_ have often been confounded with caste panchayats and that fact has been emphasised to prove that these Indian _panchayats_ were or are anything but democratic. Mr. Sidney Webb and Mr. John Matthai both have controverted that position and upon good evidence. Says Mr. Webb:

"One suggestion that these fragments of indigenous Indian Local
Government seem to afford is that we sometimes tend to exaggerate
the extent to which the cleavages of caste have prevailed over the
community of neighbourhood. How often is one informed, 'with
authority,' that the _panchayat_ of which we catch glimpses must
be only a caste _panchayat_! It is plain, on the evidence, that
however frequent and potent may be the _panchayat_ of a caste,
there have been and still are _panchayats_ of men of different
castes, exercising the functions of a Village Council over
villagers of different castes. How widely prevalent these may be
not even the Government of India can yet inform us. But if people
would only look for traces of Village Government, instead of
mainly for evidences of caste dominance, we might learn more on
the subject."

Later on in the same paragraph Mr. Webb remarks that, even where caste exists it has, in fact, permitted a great deal of common life, and that it is compatible with active village councils.

Besides the evidence furnished by the texts of Hindu codes, law books and political treatises (like the _Arthasastra_ of _Kautalaya_), and Nítí Shástrá, etc., other good evidence has been produced by Mr. Matthai in support of the above-mentioned proposition.

In Paragraph 23 he refers to the _Madras Epigraphic Report_, 1912-13, in support of the statement that "there were village assemblies in South India in the tenth century A.D., which 'appear to have consisted of all the residents of a village including cultivators, professionals and merchants.'"

"In the _Private Diary of Anandaranga Pillay_, who served as agent
to Dupleix, the French Governor in South India in the middle of
the eighteenth century, there is an entry referring to a village
meeting to consider a case of desecrating the village temple 'in
which people of all castes--from the Brahman to the Pariah--took
part.'"

In Paragraph 24, he points out that a village council (_Panchayat_) might either be an assembly of all the inhabitants of the village or only a select committee consisting of representatives selected on some recognized principle. The first are common among less developed communities like those of the aboriginal tribes and the latter in more highly organized communities.

Evidences of bigger assemblies consisting of representatives of more than one village, sometimes of more than one district, to decide cases of importance or dispute between whole villages are also cited in Paragraphs 26 and 27 and 32. On the strength of certain South Indian Inscriptions relating to the Tamil Kingdoms of the 10th century A.D., it is stated that the administration of the village was carried on by no less than five or six committees, each vested with jurisdiction relating to certain definite departments of village life, though there was no fixed rule on the point. In Paragraphs 33 and 34 the mode of election to the committees and the qualifications for membership are set down in detail. The procedure seems to have been quite elaborate, though suited to the level of intelligence of the people concerned. These village councils and committees looked after education, sanitation, poor relief, public works, watch and ward, and the administration of justice. To describe the methods by which these departments of village life were administered by the village councils requires too much space, but we give two excerpts from Chapter II on education:

"The history of village education in India goes back perhaps to
the beginnings of the village community. The schoolmaster had a
definite place assigned to him in the village economy, in the same
manner as the headman, the accountant, the watchman, and the
artisans. He was an officer of the village community, paid either
by rent-free lands or by assignments of grain out of the village
harvest."

"The outstanding characteristics of the schools of the Hindu
village community were: (1) that they were democratic, and (2)
that they were more secular than spiritual in their instruction
and their general character.... Nevertheless, when we speak of the
democratic character of these early Hindu schools, it is to be
understood that they were democratic only in this sense, that they
were open not merely to the priestly caste but to all the four
superior castes alike. There was never any question of admitting
into the schools those who lay outside the regular caste system
whose touch would have meant pollution, nor to the great
aboriginal populations of the country."

"This is very similar to the public schools in the Southern
States, in the United States, where schools for the white children
are closed to coloured children and vice versa."

From what has been stated above it appears that the general impression that democratic institutions are _entirely_ foreign to India is nothing but the survival of a prejudice originally due to ignorance of Indian history. In collecting his evidence Mr. Matthai has principally drawn upon South Indian sources. There can be no doubt that abundant evidence of a similar kind is available as regards North India and is waiting to be collected, collated and sifted by other Matthais. We do not contend that India had the same kind of representative institutions as Modern Europe has. In fact no part of the world had. They are all recent developments. The democratic nature of an institution does not depend on the methods of election but on the people's right to express their will, directly, or through their representatives, in the management of their public affairs. It is clear that that idea was never altogether absent from Indian life either in theory or in practise. Even under the most absolute autocracies, the bulk of the people managed their collective affairs themselves. They organised and maintained schools; arranged and paid for sanitation; built public works; provided for watch and ward; administered justice, and for all these purposes raised revenues and spent them in a democratic way. They did so, not only as regards the internal affairs of a village, but applied the same principles in the larger life of their district or districts. Such a people cannot be said to have _always_ lived a life dictated and held together by force. Nor can it be said with justice that the introduction of modern democratic methods in such a country, among such a people, would be the introduction of an exotic plant, with the spirit and working of which it will take them centuries to be familiar.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is extremely doubtful if there were any slaves in India in the corresponding period of Indian history. At least, Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador at the Court of Chandra Gupta, did not find any in northern India, though his opinion is not accepted as quite correct. It is said that slavery did exist in a mild form in the southern peninsula.

[2] _The Conflict of Colour_, by PUTNAM WEALE, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1910, pp. 20-21.

[3] _Public Administration in Ancient India_, by P. BANERJEA, Macmillan, London, 1916, p. 42.

[4] _Vedic India_, by MACDONNELL & KEITH. Vol. II. p. 210.

[5] BANERJEA, p. 43.

[6] _Buddhist India_, p. 9.

[7] _Ancient India_, _Alexander's Invasion_ (MCCRINDLE, p. 292), quoted by Mr. BANERJEA. p. 44.

[8] ARRIAN, _Anabasis_ (MCCRINDLE), p. 154; quoted by Mr. BANERJEA, p. 154. If the Greek writers were familiar with the conceptions of democracy and republicanism they knew what they meant by the use of these terms in relation to Indian institutions.

[9] BANERJEA. p. 46.

[10] MACDONELL & KEITH, _Vedic Index_, Vol. II, p. 214.

[11] BANERJEA. p. 95.

[12] Footnote, _Ibid._, p. 96. Original authority quoted by Mr. BANERJEA in footnote on p. 103.

[13] _Ibid._, p. 104.

III

THE PRESENT IDEALS

The wishes, the desires, and the interests of the people of these
countries [speaking of German colonies] themselves must be the
dominant factor in settling their future government.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"Causes and Aims of the War." Speech delivered
at Glasgow, on being presented with the freedom
of that city, June 29, 1917.

Every nation has a fundamental right to determine, fix and work out her own ideals. Any interference with this right by individuals or nations of foreign origin is unnatural and unjust. The consent of the governed is the only logical and just basis of governments. These principles have been reiterated with added force and masterly eloquence by President Wilson in his addresses during the War. They have been accepted and adopted by the Allied statesmen. No statesman or publicist of standing in any of the Allied countries can dare question the principles. The difficulty, however, arises when we come to apply them practically. At this point the practical politician's genius for diplomacy discovers flaws that provide excuses for the non-application of those principles if such course seems helpful to his nation or his sovereign.

President Wilson has asseverated that "the day of conquest and aggrandisement is gone," which, in plain language, means that the day of Imperialism is over. And, in conformity with the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence, that "All nations have the right to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them," President Wilson has also said that "every people have a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live"; that "national aspirations must be respected, and that 'self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril." Yet as _practical men_ we must not ignore the facts of life. The world is not at once going to be an ideal place to live in even if it may become one. It may be that the advanced nations of the earth which just now divide the political and economic control of the world between themselves may accept the underlying policy of the following statement (of President Wilson) that

"This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small
nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force
to make good their claim to determine their own allegiance and
their own forms of political life."

and the proposed League of Nations might see that a continuance of the injustice thus far done to small or backward nations is no longer permitted. Being practical men, however, we cannot build on the assumption that at the end of this war the world is at once to be transformed into a paradise and that full justice will be done to all nations and all peoples alike. We already notice a tendency to restrict the application and the enforcement of these principles to the nations of Europe by the more frequent use of the term "free nations." "Free nations" do not need to be freed. It will be wise, therefore not to be carried off our feet by these declarations and statements. Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford have pointedly reminded us of the Indian saying, "hanoz Delhi Dúr Ast" (i.e. "Delhi is yet far away"). But even if they had not done so we were not so simple as to be swept away by the mere language of the war declarations. The wording of the announcement of August 20, 1917, itself did not leave us in doubt about the truth of the saying quoted by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford. We have, therefore, to test our ideals and aspirations by the touchstone of practicability and expediency. Happily for us there is, in theory, at least, a full agreement between the political goal set up by the Indian Nationalists of the Congress school (since endorsed by the Home Rulers) and that set up by the authors of the announcement of August 20th. This goal is "Self-Government within the Empire on terms of equality with the other parts of it," in the language of the Congress school or, "Responsible Government as an integral part of the British Empire," in the language of the announcement. There is a party of Indian politicians who want complete independence, but at present their number is so limited that we need not take serious consideration of their position in the matter. The vast bulk of the educated classes are agreed:

(_a_) That they are content to remain within the British Empire if
they are allowed a status of equality with the self-governing
dominions of the Empire.

(_b_) That what they want is an autonomous Government on the lines
of Canada, Australia and the South African Union.

(_c_) That they do not want any affiliation with any other Foreign
Government.

Much has been written and said about the loyalty of the people of India to the British Government. Opinions, however, differ as to its nature. Some say it is the loyalty of a helpless people or, in other words, a loyalty dictated by fear or force. Others say it is the loyalty of opportunism. The British maintain that the loyalty is the outcome of a genuine and sincere appreciation of the blessings of the British Empire. Be that as it may, it is in the interest of both to bring about circumstances and conditions which would transform this loyalty whatever its nature into one of genuine affection and interest. The announcement of August 20, 1917, may be considered as a first step towards the creation of such loyalty, but much will depend on the steps that are taken to give practical effect to the policy embodied in the said announcement and on the spirit in which the proposed reforms are carried out. Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford's conception of the "eventual future of India is a sisterhood of states, self-governing in all matters of purely local or provincial interest, in some cases corresponding to existing provinces, in others perhaps modified in area according to the character and economic interests of their people. Over this congeries of States should preside a Central Government increasingly representative of and responsible to the people of all of them; dealing with matters, both internal and external, of common interest to the whole of India; acting as arbiter in interstate relations and representing the interests of all India on equal terms with the self-governing units of the British Empire."[1] The only changes that we would propose in the language of this statement are (i) the omission of the word "increasingly" which is rather misplaced in the conception of an ideal, and (ii) the substitution of the word "Commonwealth" in place of "Empire." His Highness the Aga Khan considers the use of the term "responsible" government instead of "self-government" in the announcement as unfortunate because it carries the technical meaning of a government responsible for its existence to an assembly elected by the people. On the other hand, self-government can comprise many and varied forms of expression of the popular will. Further, he is convinced that the words "responsible government" were used in order to carry with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister some more conservative members of the small war cabinet. It was camouflaged so that the Executive government hereafter might contain Englishmen, while at the same time the administration became sufficiently liberal to be responsible to the people. With due respect to the Aga Khan we do not see the logical connection between the two. Responsible government may or may not involve the necessary inclusion of Englishmen in the Cabinet. Although we may not approve of the interpretation of the expression "responsible" government given to it by the authors of the report, in our judgment its use as an ideal to be attained expresses more forcibly the right of the people to choose their government than the use of the general term "self government" would.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Paragraph 349 of the _Report_.

IV

THE STAGES

There is no protection for life, property, or money in a State
where the criminal is more powerful than the law. The law of
nations is no exception, and, until it has been vindicated, the
peace of the world will always be at the mercy of any nation whose
professors have assiduously taught it to believe that no crime is
wrong so long as it leads to the aggrandisement and enrichment of
the country to which they owe allegiance.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"No Halfway House." Speech delivered at Gray's
Inn, December 14, 1917.

In the chapter on ideals we have shown that there is almost complete agreement between the bulk of Indian educated men and the British authorities as to the immediate goal of Government in India. There is no such agreement, however, as regards the stages by which that goal is to be reached, nor on the steps which should be immediately taken to carry us to the first stage. The four formulas by which Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford profess to be guided in their recommendations are not accepted in their entirety by the spokesmen of the Indian people. These formulas are:

(1) There should be as far as possible complete popular control in
local bodies and the largest possible independence for them of
outside control. (Paragraph 188.)

(2) The provinces are the domain in which the earlier steps
towards the progressive realization of responsible government
should be taken. Some measure of responsibility should be given at
once, and our aim is to give complete responsibility as soon as
conditions permit. This involves at once giving the provinces the
largest measure of independence, legislative, administrative, and
financial, of the Government of India which is compatible with the
due discharge by the latter of its own responsibilities.
(Paragraph 189.)

(3) The Government of India must remain wholly responsible to
Parliament, and saving such responsibility, its authority in
essential matters must remain indisputable pending experience of
the effect of the changes now to be introduced in the provinces.
In the meantime the Indian Legislative Council should be enlarged
and made more representative and its opportunities of influencing
government increased. (Paragraph 190.)

(4) In proportion as the foregoing changes take effect, the
control of Parliament and the Secretary of State over the
Government of India and provincial Governments must be relaxed.
(Paragraph 191.)

There is no difficulty in accepting the first and the fourth formulas. There is some complaint that the actual steps recommended for immediate adoption to give effect to the policy of the first formula are not in keeping with the spirit of the formula and are inadequate. But this we can reserve for future consideration.

No objection can be taken to the first and the last sentences of the second formula; though there is a great divergence of opinion as regards the content of the second. It is maintained by some, and their number is by no means small,[1] that full responsibility should be conceded to the provinces at once and that there is nothing in the conditions mentioned in the report which justifies the postponement thereof.

The third formula, however, is the one about which there is not even a semblance of agreement. All political parties and all qualified persons in India (we mean, of course, Indians of Indian origin) are agreed that the assumptions and presumptions upon which this formula is based are wrong and unacceptable. Native Indian opinion is fairly unanimous on the point.

There are some who claim full autonomy at once. There are others who claim full autonomy except as regards foreign relations, the control of native States, the Army and the Navy. All insist that a beginning of responsible Government must be made in the Central Government also, and point out the absolute necessity of conceding some measure, even if not full, of fiscal autonomy. They can see no reason why "the Government of India must remain wholly responsible to Parliament" and why "its authority must remain indisputable." On these matters Indian opinion joins issue with the distinguished authors of the report. We will revert to the subject in another chapter.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The non-official members of Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces have made that demand, which has been endorsed by the Indian National Congress and the All-Indian Muslim League.

V

THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM

Let us, at any rate, make victory so complete that national
liberty, whether for great nations or for small nations, can never
be challenged. That is the ordinary law. The small man, the poor
man, has the same protection as the powerful man. So the little
nation must be as well guarded and protected as the big nation.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"The Pan-German Dream," Speech delivered at
Queen's Hall on the third anniversary of the
Declaration of War, August 4, 1917.

The eminent authors of the report have devoted an entire chapter to a consideration of what they call the "conditions of the problem." These may be considered under two different heads: (a) those that necessitate a rather radical reorganisation of the Government of India; (b) those that prevent the authors from recommending immediate responsible government and justify the limitations of their scheme.

IMMENSITY OF THE PROBLEM AND THE GRAVITY OF THE TASK