Movatterモバイル変換

Published by
The Pacific Coast Khalsa Diwan Society, Inc.
(Sikh Temple)
Stockton, California.

PREFACE

This work was undertaken at the request of THE PACIFIC COAST KHALSADIWAN SOCIETY, commonly known as the SIKH TEMPLE at Stockton,California. The original plan was to write a comprehensive reply toKatherine Mayo’s book MOTHER INDIA, which was changed later to one ofproducing a handbook on India for general use by the American public.In view of the momentous changes of worldwide interest, which havetaken place in India during recent years, the need for such a book wasquite imminent. And it was only fitting that THE PACIFIC COAST KHALSADIWAN SOCIETY, in its role as the interpreter of Hindu culture andcivilization to America, should undertake its publication.

Only a few years ago, India, like other countries of the Orient, was afar Eastern problem. To-day, if rightly judged, it has already become anear Western issue. Except for the few scholars of oriental history andliterature, who occupied themselves diligently in exploring the hiddentreasures of Hindu civilization, the name of India was an unknown thingto the rest of the American world. For the average man and woman inthe United States the affairs of that oriental country were too remotean issue for them to notice. With the advances made by science duringrecent times, however, different parts of the world have become sonear together, and their business and cultural relations have grown sodesperately interlaced, that[Pg 6] the affairs of one section of the globecannot, and should not, remain a matter of comfortable unconcern forthe other. It has been my aim in the preparation of this book to answerthe various questions that commonly arise in the minds of the Americanpeople regarding the cultural and political problems of India. And if Ihave succeeded in bringing about a better understanding of India by thepeople of America, I consider myself amply repaid.

Wherever feasible I have made free uses of striking passages andphrases from the writings of several authors. Since these were copiedfrom my notes gathered during a course of study extending over severalyears, it has not always been possible for me to trace the source, forwhich I wish to be humbly excused.

I wish to express my sincerest appreciation to my beloved wife forher untiring assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and thereading of the proofs. I wish also to thank my friend Mr. Anoop SinghDhillon for valuable suggestions.

Chapter I

Thus, in the year 200 B. C., wrote Manu, the great law-giver ofIndia—India, whose mind was full grown when the western nations wereyet unborn; India, whose life rolled on while the West, like thedragon fly, lived and died to live again. While Europe was still in astate of primitive barbarism, the Indo-Aryans ofBharat (India) hadreached an elevated state of moral and spiritual perfection; and inthe realm of intellectual culture they had attained an eminence whichhas not yet been equalled by the most advanced of western countries.Not only had they a perfect alphabet and a symmetrical language, buttheir literature already contained models of true poetry and remarkabletreatises on philosophy, science, and ethics when the forefathersof the modern western nations were still clothed in skins and couldneither read nor write. In their firm grasp of the fundamental meaningand purpose of life, and in the organization of their society with aview to the full attainment of the fruits of life, namely, “to takefrom each according to his capacity, and to give to each according tohis needs,” they had attained to a high degree of excellence, which hasbeen recognized by the greatest of both western[Pg 10] and oriental scholars.Says Max Müller, the noted scholar of oriental languages:

Further, of the culture of this ancient people of India SirMonier-Williams, sometime Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the Universityof Oxford, famous translator of Sanskrit drama, and author of manyworks on history and literature, speaks from an intimate knowledge ofIndia derived from long residence in the country when he writes:

Such a civilization has built up the enormous literature of the Hindusembodied in theVedas,Upnishads, the epic poems ofRamaynaandMahabharata, and the immortal works of Kalidasa, a literaturecomprising in itself an achievement of the human mind which may beconsidered sublime, and of which any civilization, ancient or modern,may feel justly proud. The poetical merit of Kalidasa’sSakuntalais universally admitted, and it ranks among the best of the world’smasterpieces of dramatic art. Its beauty of thought and its tendernessin the expression of feeling are exquisite, while its creative fancy isrich, and the charm of its spirit is full. Says Goethe:

The epic poems ofRamayna andMahabharata consist of storiesand legends which form a splendid superstructure on the teachingscontained in the earlier scriptures of theVedas. By relating whatthe men and women of those times thought, said, and did, these poemsillustrate in a highly instructive manner the general character andculture of the early Hindus. The stories contained in these poems,which, in fact, rival the best known epic poems of the world, tellus of the thoughts and beliefs, hopes and fears, joys and sorrows ofthe people of this earliest recorded period. Through these storieswe learn the fundamental concepts which governed the religious andsocial life of the early Hindus; in them are revealed also the basicmoral and spiritual laws which controlled the actions, “not only ofgods and supernatural men, but of ordinary men and women of India.”“They explain—by showing the degrees of danger incurred by suchvices as anger and pride, deception and faithlessness, intemperanceand impiety—the evil consequences of moral transgressions from bothman-made and supernatural laws; and at the same time they emphasize thebeauty of such virtues as patience and self-control, truthfulness andpurity, obedience and filial love.”[3]

As an illustration of the fascinating and elevated nature of its loftyidealism, we shall quote two passages fromRamayna. In the first,Rama, the ideal king, has determined to execute the will of his latefather by staying in the forests as an exile for fourteen years. Sita,his wife and the heroine of the story, begs her lord and husband toallow her to accompany him in his exile to the forests and offers apicture highly expressive of pious conjugal love. Sita says:

In the second selection Rama is heard answering to the entreaties ofBharata, who has tried in vain to dissuade him from carrying out hisdesign. The following is Rama’s answer to the messenger of Bharata:

InMahabharata again we find proof of the high esteem in which themanly virtues of truthfulness, charity, benevolence, and chivalrytowards women were held by the ancient Hindus. The most importantincident in the drama (Mahabharata), namely, the death of Bhishma,occurred when this brave and virtuous man, in fidelity to his pledgenever to hurt a woman, refused to fight, and was killed by a soldierdressed in a woman’s garb.

The drama is full of moral maxims, around each one[Pg 15] of which the poethas woven a story in a beautiful and elegant manner.

These great epic poems have a special claim to our attention becausethey not only illustrate the genius of a most interesting people, butthey are to this day believed as entirely and literally true by thevast population of India. “Huge congregations of devout men and womenlisten day after day with eager attention to recitations of these oldnational stories with their striking incidents of moral uplift andinspiration; and a large portion of the people of India order theirlives upon the models supplied by those venerable epics.”

The subjection of woman was accepted as a natural thing by the entireWest until very recent times. Woman was held in the eyes of the lawas no better than a slave, and she was considered useful in society[Pg 16]merely to serve and gratify man, her master. Truly, such a conditionforms a dark page in the history of the race. Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt,in her foreword to Mill’sSubjection of Women, writes:

That such a state of things was ever tolerated in the advancedcountries of Europe and America seems to us of India incredible. Butit is, nevertheless, true. As in the case of other social laws, thesubjection of woman was the result of the fundamental ideals (or thelack of ideals) which governed the western society of those times. Menwere still in that low state of development in which “Might was Right,”and in which the law of superior strength was the rule of life. Nopretension was made to regulate the affairs of society according to anymoral law. The physical law which sanctioned traffic in human slaves,at the same time sustained the bondage of the weaker sex.

We now live in an age where the law of the strongest, in principleat least, has been abandoned as the guiding maxim of life. It isstill very widely practised in individual as well as in nationalrelationships, but always under the guise of higher social andcultural ends. The law of force as the avowed rule of general conducthas given place to ideals of social equality, human brotherhood, andinternational goodwill. How far such ideals are being actively followedby the different peoples of the world remains to be determined; buttheir profession as the symbol of good culture, at least, is universal.

The emancipation of woman in the West is thus a very recentachievement. Yet it is rightly considered by most thinkers thegreatest single step forward in the advancement of the human race. Itstremendous importance in the future development of the race is realizednow by all classes of people over the entire world. In fact, the socialstatus of woman in any society is regarded by most people, and properlyso, as the test of its civilization.

Through what hardships and dangers, privations and humiliations ran thethorny and uphill path of the early leaders of the women’s suffragemovement. The deeds of true nobility and heroic determination thatwere performed by the pioneers of women’s emancipation are very littleknown to the average man and woman of the present day. How numerousand difficult were the obstacles placed in the way of these pioneersby their brow-beating opponents, how bitter was the nature of theirpersecutions, how mean and foul the character of the insults offeredthem, and blind[Pg 19] and obstinate the attitude of the governing class totheir simple demand for justice are little realized by those who enjoythe legacy left by those liberators.

The high idealism which inspired the movement of the militantsuffragettes in England is manifest in their every word and action.Their methods of peaceful, silent, dignified, conscious andcourageous suffering, contrasted with the treacherous, cowardly,shameful, unmanly, and brutal attacks of their opponents, havereceived considerations of high merit from all sections of honest andfair-minded men the world over. Virtuous women belonging to the higheststations in life and possessing qualities of rare courage, purity, andself-denial were attacked in the most cowardly fashion by bands ofstrong-bodied hooligans, “felled to the ground, struck in the face,frog-marched, and tossed hither and thither in a shameless manner.”“The women speakers were assaulted with dead mice and flocks of livemice, and flights of sparrows were let loose into their meetings. Paidgangs of drunken men were dispatched to the women’s gatherings to singobscene songs, and drown the voices of the speakers with the rattle oftin cans and the ringing of bells. Bands of suffragettes were attacked,struck down unconscious, and driven out over wet roads covered withcarbide by gangs of Liberal volunteers. Suffragette leaders wereimprisoned in the jails of England in groups of hundreds at a time andwere meted out the fancy punishment of forcible feeding through a tubeinserted into the stomach, a process which causes intense and lingeringpain.”[4] This barbarous treatment[Pg 20] excited at once the horror andindignation of the whole civilized world. Yet all these brutalitieswere carried on under the very nose, in fact, at the direction of thefull-fledged Liberal members of the British cabinet.

At a campaign meeting held in Swansea where the suffragettes attemptedto ask Mr. Lloyd-George questions regarding his attitude on the problemof woman franchise, he is reported as having used such language as,“sorry specimens of womanhood,” “I think a gag ought to be tried,”“By and by we shall have to order sacks for them, and the firstto interrupt shall disappear,” “fling them ruthlessly out,” and,“frog-march them.” At another meeting held in Manchester, February4th, 1906, where Mr. Winston Churchill spoke, on asking a very simplequestion, the fourteen year old daughter of Mrs. Pankhurst, Adela, wassavagely attacked, thrown down, and kicked by several men.

The unwholesome and bitter experiences of the peaceful and gentlesuffragettes at the two election campaigns in May, 1907, are describedby Miss Sylvie E. Pankhurst as follows:

This is what happened on October 16th, 1909, at an open-air gatheringnear Dundee, where Mr. Winston Churchill was to speak:

And the most pitiful part of the business was that such conduct seemedto be regarded by its perpetrators as engaging pieces of gallantry.

While a recitation of these incidents might be continued indefinitely,one more will suffice to show with what contempt and dishonor thewestern world has[Pg 22] treated its women. On August 2, 1909, a greatLiberal fete was held at Canford Park, near Poole in Dorsetshire. Therewere sports and games and Mr. Churchill was to deliver an address onthe budget. Annie Kenney with three companions attended the fete, andthe story of what took place is best told in her own words. She says:

The heroism and rare genius of Mrs. E. Pankhurst and her associatesin the suffragette movement will be acknowledged by their friends andfoes alike. Through their sufferings they have bequeathed to women ofthe western world the priceless heritage of Freedom, and thus pushedthe progress of the human race a long step forward. Mrs. Pankhurstpossessed, undoubtedly, a firm character, a lofty mind, a generousheart, strong and vigorous good sense. We shall call the emancipatorof English womanhood a great woman, using that word not as a cheap,unmeaning title but as conveying three essential elements of greatness,namely, unselfishness, honesty, and boldness. She who sacrificedeverything for the voice of justice and submitted herself and her threeyoung daughters to cruel indignities and hardships of jail life forthe sake of her fellow creatures was an unselfish, an honest, a boldwoman,—was a great woman—in the best sense of the word. And at thisdistant time as a proof of our honest affection and admiration for hergoodness and virtue, we can afford to express a feeling of mingledsorrow and joy at her prolonged sufferings and final success.

In India, on the contrary, in the development of their wonderfulcivilization men and women have played an equal part. The two sexeshave worked side by side in every branch of their spiritual endeavor,and women have attained the same eminence as men in higher learning.The Vedic hymns mention both men and women as divine revealers of Truthand as spiritual[Pg 24] instructors of mankind. In fact, The Rig Veda, theearliest scriptural record of the world, contains hymns revealed bywomen; and the Hindu god, Indra, is described as being initiated intothe knowledge of the Universal Spirit by the woman Aditi. Furthermore,the Upnishads, the philosophical portion of the Veda, frequentlymention the names of women who discoursed on philosophical topicswith the most learned men philosophers of the times. Women scholarswere often appointed arbitrators and umpires in important philosophicdebates, and the names of the two women philosophers, Gargi andMaitreyi, are familiar to all students of Hindu philosophy. In otherwords, the paths of intellectual culture were equally open to men andwomen, under exactly similar circumstances. In fact, the very spirit ofsuch equality is inculcated in the minds of the people from both theirlaw and their religion that made no distinction between the sexes inthe award of honors for merit. The law-givers of India, taking theirlessons from the Vedas, established the fundamental equality of man andwoman by defining the relation of the sexes thus:

Not only in the direction of scholarly pursuits, but in thepractical business affairs of the world also, the women of Indiahave distinguished themselves eminently as legislators, ministers,commercial leaders, and military commanders. Men, women, and childrenthroughout India are familiar with the story of Queen[Pg 25] Chand Bibi, whodefended Ahmedanagar during the long siege by the Grand Moghul; poetsalso have sung of her valor and administrative wisdom. Another instanceof the recognition of the ability of women is the story of Nur Jahan(Light of the Universe), the beautiful queen of the Moghul Emperor,Jahangir, who guided the affairs of her husband’s vast territoriesin a highly efficient manner for a period of nearly ten years.Further, and well known to all students of history, is the story ofMumtaz-i-Mahal, Emperor Shah Jahan’s consort, who assisted him in hisworks of administration and in the construction of the famous buildingsof his period. This woman, described as a person of unexampleddignity, delicacy, and charm, during her life-time was the “light ofhis eyes,” and after death the perpetual source of inspiration to thebereaved Emperor. On her death-bed, Mumtaz, the beloved companion ofhis life’s happy days and mother of his six children, asked of ShahJahan that a memorial befitting a queen be placed over her grave. Incompliance with this request, and as a token of his unceasing love forthe deceased queen, the Emperor constructed on her grave the famousTaj Mahal—a monument which by its beauty has made immortal the loveit commemorates. The most beautiful building in the world stands as amemorial to man’s love for his wife—an unconquerable love, unbrokenand unsatisfied. Says Sir Edwin Arnold:

The heroic command of her own forces by the Rani (Queen) of Jhansiduring the Indian War of Independence in 1857 is a familiar and morerecent example of a woman entering into practical affairs. Clad in aman’s uniform, she rode at the head of her troops, and died a braveand patriotic death in the battlefield. The name of Rani Jhansi ismentioned among the renowned heroes of the country, and as a specialtribute to her loving memory her picture in a general’s uniform iskept in many homes. Indian society is not opposed to the activeparticipation of its women in the higher affairs of their nationallife. If the positive declarations of a group of western critics tothe contrary were true, the action of Rani Jhansi would be condemnedinstead of being so universally applauded as it is now by even the mostorthodox of old Hindu ladies.

Throughout the long history of India, then, women have not beenhampered by any man-made restrictions from serving in the country’sreligious life, from fighting on its battlefields, and from holdingpower in its councils. In the present generation we find women againtaking an active and important part in the[Pg 27]affairs of the country.They have the fullest freedom for self-expression, of which theyseem to have availed themselves in a highly creditable and fittingmanner, without sacrificing the admiration and respect of the men. Intimes of their country’s need they have given proofs of patriotismby self-sacrifice which speaks the language of love and devotion tomotherland. With a voluntary desire to coöperate, the men of India havegiven to the women of the country a large share in its councils, andhave invited them to their national conferences of importance. In theinner and more weighty deliberations of its leaders their influence isevident, and on all occasions of national demonstration the women ofIndia are represented.

Shrimati Lajiavati—a frail, delicate figure, but a beautiful model ofwomanly courage and dignity—has won for herself in the Punjab a placewhich is closely akin to worship. She founded, and is now managing asits principal, the Arya Samaj Kanya Mahavidyala (girls’ school) inJallundhar City, Punjab. Another example of India’s modern women, whostands high in her countrymen’s esteem, is Shrimati Ramabai Ranade.Her work as the secretary of Seva Sadhan, a society for social servicework among the women of the country, has been amply recognized. Duringthe debate over the women’s suffrage bill in the Bombay LegislativeCouncil, one honorable member remarked amid the greatest applause ofthe season: “There is no Council which would not be honored, graced,and helped by the presence of such a woman as one who is known to usall, Mrs. Ramabai Ranade.” Mrs. Margaret E.[Pg 28] Cousins, describing herinterview with Mrs. Ranade, says:

Where is the Indian whose heart does not beat with joy at the mentionof Mrs. Sarojini Naidu? Who does not remember with feelings of proudexultation the name of this beloved and revered sister—she who is thesymbol of patriotism and a flower of womanly beauty and culture, fromwhose elevated soul radiate grace, charm, and affection, and who isthe object of her countrymen’s adoration? In 1925, in recognition ofher manifold virtues, the people of India exalted her to the highestposition at their command; she was unanimously elected President of theIndian National Congress.[9]In the entire history of mankind no womanhas been more highly honored by her countrymen[Pg 29]than has Mrs. SarojiniNaidu. Read her poems and you will find the heart of a woman foreverseeking the satisfaction of hungry love:

Listen to her musical eloquence on the nationalist platform of India,and you will hear the cry of a patriot’s heart groaning under the loadof its country’s humiliation from the merciless foreign yoke.

A more striking proof of the confidence and respect which the men ofIndia bear towards their women was given during the debates on women’ssuffrage bills in the provincial legislative councils of the country.The Southborough Franchise Committee, which was formed to study thegeneral conditions in the country with a view to granting the franchiseto the people of India, in its report to the British Government ofIndia (1919) had expressed its decision against granting the franchiseto Indian women. This decision was upheld by the British Governmentof India in the statement, “In the present conditions of India weagree with them [the Southborough Committee] that it is not practicalto open the franchise to women.” To this decision of the GovernmentSir C. Sankaran Nair, the Indian member of the Executive Council,entered a strong protest, based on the strength of the evidence whichwas presented before the Southborough Committee in favor of grantingfranchise to women. His contention,[Pg 30]furthermore, was upheld by theresolution passed at two successive sessions of the Indian NationalCongress (Calcutta 1917 and Delhi 1918). This resolution expressed inan unequivocal manner the opinion of the Indian nation on the importantquestion of woman franchise as follows:

A tremendous agitation was staged in India after the publication of thedispatch of the Government of India, unfavorable to women’s rights. Asa result of this agitation a provision was made whereby the provinciallegislatures were given the power to admit or exclude women fromfranchise at their individual options. True to their traditions andfollowing the teaching of their ancient as well as their modern seersthe majority of the provinces have already granted the franchise towomen on the same basis as to men. This experience is unequalled in theentire history of mankind. Everywhere else where the women enjoy anyrights to vote or possess property, they have had to fight a battleinvolving prolonged hardships and outrageous indignities imposed uponthem by the indignant and oftentimes barbarous ruling sex. India isthe only civilized country of the world in which women in modern timeshave been granted franchise on an equality with men without a singledemonstration of insult or disrespect directed against its aspiringwomanhood. If for no other reason, the respect which the people ofIndia have shown to the desire of their[Pg 31] women for the franchise,should entitle them to a high place in the scale of civilization.

Mrs. Margaret E. Cousins is an international figure in the woman’ssuffrage movement, in which cause she has suffered imprisonmentsin both Ireland and England. She is also the founder and HonorarySecretary of the Women’s Indian Association with its fifty branchesspread over the country, and has lived for twelve years among the womenof India with relations of intimate friendship. Mrs. Cousins is not inany sense of the word addicted to indiscriminate flattery, but she says:

As a distinct contribution towards the solution of the world’s socialproblems, theEast Indians, by allowing woman the exercise of herown free will and the entire responsibility of all her actions, haveestablished the fact that a woman left completely to herself withopportunity to develop freely her instincts and faculties, may equalman in reason, wisdom, and uprightness, and may surpass him in delicacyand dignity.

The Hindu religion has always stood for the absolute equality of womanwith man. In matters religious as well as secular the Hindu woman hasbeen considered the equal of man before the law since the origin ofthe Hindu nation. The admission of women into American universitiesbegan only in recent times, while her partial equality in the sightof law, not yet quite complete, is less than twenty years old. But inIndia women have enjoyed such rights and many more since the beginningof its recorded history. To the western readers who have been veryinjudiciously fed upon missionaries’ tales about India, with theircolorful pictures of the brutality of the heathen towards his womenfolk, this statement may seem incredible. But it is an undisputed factof history that since the beginning of Hindu law, woman in India hasheld more legal rights to acquire knowledge, to hold office, and topossess property than her sisters in America are having today. Shewas never barred from the national institutions of higher learningbecause of sex, and in[Pg 33] the development of her intellectual, moral, andspiritual qualities she was not hampered by any social or religiouslaws whatsoever. She has stood before law as an exact equal of manwith the same rights to possess property, the same rights to gobefore courts of justice and to ask the protection of law. The systemof coeducation prevailed in the ancient universities of Nalanda andTakhshashila. It is a familiar fact known to all western scholars thatSakuntala, the heroine in Kalidasa’s drama of that name, pleaded herown case before the court of King Dushyanta. Indian women have foughton battlefields alongside of men, have taken leading parts in theirhistoric and philosophic debates, have revealed spiritual truths fortheVedas, and have received, as personifications of the Deity, theworship from adoring millions. Above all else, the Indian women haveruled over the hearts of their husbands and children throughout theages with a power that is born exclusively of purity in character, andthe spirit of self-sacrifice and love. They have held their dignitywith a poise which does the female sex a great credit.

Does Hindu religion sanction, then, the bondage of woman, and iswife-beating permitted in Indian society? Is the Hindu wife consideredmerely as an instrument of pleasure, and is her whole ambition in lifeto be a passive and obedient servant of the husband?

The maxims which guide the conduct of Hindu society were laid down bythe great Law-giver Manu, in the year 200 B. C. He says:

That a nation which regularly listens to readings from epic poems ofRamayana and Mahabharata morning and night on every day of the year,and on whose lips the praises of Sita, the ideal wife (heroine inRamayana), dance forever, should be carried away by the desire ofill-treating its womankind, as is actually believed by most westerners,is simply inconceivable. Sita’s equal as a model of womanly chastity,uprightness, kindness, and devotion has not been known in the historyof mankind. The story of her exile with her husband, King Rama, herfidelity, and her spirituality is known to every child born in India;while her character is set as an example before all Hindu women in thecountry. With such ideals as these constantly before their minds, andthe moral influence of the peaceful, chaste family life always aroundthem, women of any nation will develop within themselves a power whichit will be impossible for any group of men, however foul and vicious,to resist. And it must be remembered that the men of India, slow asthey are in catching the militaristic spirit of the competitive westernlife, are to an exceptional degree spiritual and religious in theirgeneral behavior. Sir Monier-Williams says:

And again, in describing the general character of the Hindu women andtheir family life, he writes:

FOOTNOTES:

[9] The Indian National Congress is the largest representativebody of the Indian nation, with its ramifications spread throughoutthe country consisting of thousands of branches. Its meetings are heldannually in different parts of the country.

Chapter II

Irresponsible writers have discussed the marriage system of India in soirrational and inaccurate a manner that the nameIndia has become,in the mind of the westerner, synonymous with child marriage. Thesewriters have tried to show that child marriage is the result of a lawof the Hindu religion, which, according to them, strictly enjoins theparents to enforce the marriage of their daughters at a tender ageunder penalty of heavenly vengeance. They say that the law enjoins thatgirls shall be married before the age of puberty, and, as a result,the majority of Hindu girls become mothers nine months after reachingpuberty. One such writer [13] picks a few lines from the Hindu poetTagore’s essay in Keyserling’sBook of Marriage, and, mutilating itstext by clever omissions, misquotes it to prove the poet a defender ofchild marriage. This unholy attempt of the author to misrepresent thenoted poet and philosopher deserves strong censure. In this chapter weshall discuss the facts about marriage in India and its allied subjectof child marriage.

The Hindu religion strictly forbids child marriage. The followingquotation from the Rig Veda explains the ideal of marriage:

The western method of marriage through courtship is, however, not therule in India. Though the courtship method is being widely copied amongthe educated classes in the country, the prevailing custom of marriageis still through the choice of parents. In earlier times marriageby theSvayambara system, in which the maiden freely selected herfuture mate from a group of suitors, was commonly practised. Thispractice was discontinued, however, with the invasion of India by theforeigners because of the desire of the Indians to keep the pure Aryanstock uncontaminated by foreign blood. Since that time the boys andgirls are mated through the choice of their parents. This custom may bedefended on wide social and eugenic grounds. The contention is that thecomplete dominance of sentiment and individual desire in the courtshipmethod of marriage, is harmful to social discipline, and is, as a rule,detrimental to the race. Marriage is a sacred bond and must be basedon an ideal of the spiritual union of the souls, and not on the lowerdesires for sense pleasures.

In order to enable the reader to understand fully the principlesunderlying Hindu marriage it will be necessary to acquaint him withthe fundamental[Pg 38]characteristics which form the basis of the socialstructure of group life in India. One distinctive feature in the studyof India is the collective character of its communal life. Hindusociety was established on a basis of group morality. Society wasdivided into different classes or communities; “and while no absoluteethical code was held binding on all classes alike, yet within a givenclass (or caste) the freedom of the individual must be subordinatedto the interest of the group. The concept of duty was paramount.”[15]Social purpose must be served first, and the social order was placedbefore the happiness of the individual, whether man or woman.

In India the origin of marriage did not lie in passion. Marriage wasentered into, not to satisfy desire on the part of either man orwoman, but to fulfill a purpose in life. It was the duty of everyindividual during life to marry and propagate for the continuation ofthe race. His marital union did not depend upon the caprice of hiswill; it was required of him as a social obligation. No individual’slife was considered complete without an offspring. To both man andwoman marriage was the most conclusive of all incidents in life; it wasthe fulfillment of one’s whole being. Marriage was not sought as thesatisfaction of human feelings but as “the fulfilment of a ritual dutyto the family in its relation to the Divine Spirit.” “The happinessand fruition of family life were sought not in the tumults of passion,but in the calm and ordered affection of a disciplined and worshipfulpair.” That[Pg 39] strong sexual passion which has been so beautifullysanctified by the grace of poetry and hallowed by the name of romanticlove, and which is the source of immense force and power in many ayoung life in the West, is called by the Hindu idealist “an earthlydesire and an illusion.”

Love as an expression of sentiment is transitory. People who oncefall in love may after some time and for similar reasons fall out oflove. Hence if the ideal basis for the union of the sexes is to bemutual passion, an arrangement must be provided so that simultaneouslywith a break in the fascination on either side, the marriage betweenthe parties shall come to an end. Yet under the existing conditionsover the entire civilized world it would not be possible to make themarriage laws as lax as that. So long as such an arrangement remainsuntried, and so long as there is any truth in the statement that humanhearts are to a high degree fickle, it must follow that successfulmarriages should have other sources of lasting satisfaction thanromantic love. On observation, we find that most marriages, which wereentered into on the strict principle of mutual love, hold together fromhabit, from considerations of prudence, and from duty towards childrenlong after lovers’ joy has totally disappeared from the lives of thecouple. The glimmer of first love very soon fades into nothingness.Closer acquaintance brings to light faults which the lover’s eyes indays of romance had stubbornly refused to see. Unless the partiesare possessed of sensitive souls, unless after a serious search fora foothold they find a basis of common interest and common hobbies,and unless their[Pg 40] mutuality of temperament is found adequate forfriendship, there is left for their future relationships no happiness.Why, then, excite one’s imagination in the beginning, and permitoneself to be deluded by such obviously foolish hopes?

The Hindu system of marriage reverses these considerations. There,marriage is a form of vocation, a fulfillment of a social duty, it isnot the enjoyment of individual rights. In its ethics, designed forthe communal basis of life, individual desire and pleasures must besubordinated to the interest of group morality. “Thus the social orderis placed before the happiness of the individual, whether man or woman.This is the explanation of the greater peace which distinguishes thearranged marriage of the East from the self-chosen marriage of theWest; where there is no deception there can be no disappointment.”[16]

In this manner the champions of the system justify the Indian method ofmarriage, in which marriages are arranged by the parents or relatives.But, however ably its partisans may defend the old system, and inwhatever glowing colors they may exhibit its spiritual values, itmust go sooner or later. With changing times the ideals that governIndian society have changed also. Men and women of the present day aredemanding their individual freedom after the fashion of their brothersand sisters in the West. Rightly or wrongly, they feel a desire toexpress themselves according to the spontaneous dictates of theheart. Simultaneously with the industrialization of the country[Pg 41] therestraints put upon the individual from outside through the medium ofsocial and religious laws are fast disappearing. The younger generationof the Indian nation appears more concerned for rights than for duties.

Those who care may lament over the past, but we shall welcome thechange with joy, because it brings new light and new hope into thestereotyped and set system of Indian life. Marriage in human society isafter all nothing but a plunge into the unknown ocean of the future.Its ultimate outcome alone can tell whether the entrants were destinedto sink or swim.[17] Marriage has been a lottery in the past, and itwill remain so in the future, unless our lives are so modulated asto give to the forces of the spirit a larger and a freer scope. Itis impious blasphemy to seek to stifle the celestial senses, insteadof guiding and harmonizing them. It is hoped, however, that in theirnew role as imitators of the West, men of India will not change theirattitude of tenderness, confidence, respect, and delicacy towards thefemale sex; and that the women of India will retain the calmness anddignity of their attitude, the self-respect and poise of their innerlife.

All classes in India idolize motherhood. Among no people in the worldare mothers more loved, honored, and obeyed than among Indians. Itmight be interesting to point out that a pregnant woman in Indiahas nothing of which to be ashamed or which she wishes to hide.She is considered auspicious and must be accorded high respect andconsideration. We sometimes[Pg 42] believe that the East Indian’s highgood humor and calm in life are the fruits of the Indian mother’sunusual cheer and hope during the period of pregnancy. How unlikethe attitude of the Indian is to the westerner’s silly notions ofbeauty, fine shape, and grace wherein pregnancy is made an object ofmore or less open ridicule. Would that the women of America and otherwestern countries would forsake their restlessness and nervousness andlearn from their humbler eastern sisters the art of possessing poise,composure, and serenity! Would that they would imitate the easternmother’s delicate benevolence, generosity of heart, loftiness of mind,and independence and pride of character!

This subject of marriage is so important a matter to India that wedesire to elucidate still further the ideals underlying it. We shallquote at length from Keyserling’sBook of Marriage an essay byTagore, than whom no one is better fitted to speak. Says Tagore:

The poet then offers his own personal contribution to the discussion ofthe marriage question generally and concludes thus:

Such is the Hindu poet’s explanation of the ideals underlying theinstitution of marriage in the communal society of the Hindus. Onefeels through his closing lines the poet’s sorrow at the sight ofthe misery caused by a wrong conception of marriage throughout thecivilized world. The poet cherishes, however, the fond hope that a dayof the reign of spirit will dawn over the world, when mankind willrecognize the necessity of giving to the forces of love a free play inthe wide concerns of life.

Marriage in India involves two separate ceremonies. The first ceremonyis the more elaborate, and judging from the permanent character of itsobligations, the more important. It is performed amid much festivityand show. The bridal party, consisting of the bridegroom with his chiefrelatives and friends, goes to the bride’s home in an elaborate musicalprocession. There the party is handsomely feasted as guests of thebride for one or more days, according to the means of the host. Thegroom furnishes the entertainment, which consists of music, acrobaticdancing, jugglers’ tricks, fireworks, and so forth. The day is spentin simple outdoor amusements like hunting, horseback riding, swimming,or gymnastic plays, the nature of the sport depending upon thesurroundings. In the evening, by the light of the fireworks, and in themidst of a large crowd of near relatives and spectators, the ceremonyof the “union,” namely, the spiritual unification of the near relativesof the bride and the bridegroom, is staged in a highly picturesquemanner. In order of their relation to the bride and groom—father ofthe bride with the father of the bridegroom, first uncle of[Pg 46] the onewith the first uncle of the other, and so forth—the near relativesof the future couple embrace each other and exchange head-dresses asa symbol of eternal friendship. Each such pledge of friendship isbeautifully harmonized with a song and a blessing from the daughtersof the village. Later in the evening, the girls lead the guests to thebridal feast, singing in chorus on their march the “Welcome Home.”

Marriage in the Indian home is thus an occasion of great rejoicing.The atmosphere that prevails throughout the entire ceremony is one ofextreme wholesomeness and joy. Nothing could surpass the lovelinessand charm that surrounds the evening march to the bridal feast. Thepretty maidens of the village, who are conscious of their dignity aspersonifications of the Deity and are inspired with a devoted love fortheir sister bride, come in their gay festival dresses, with mingledfeelings of pride and modesty, to lead the procession with a song;their eyes moistened with slowly gathering tears of deep and chasteemotion, and their faces wrapped in ever changing blushes, give tothe whole picture a distinctive flavor of an inspiring nature. On thefollowing morning the couple are united in marriage by the officiatingpriest, who reads from the scriptures while the husband and wife pacetogether the seven steps. The vow of equal comradeship which is takenby both the husband and the wife on this occasion reads thus:

The marriage ceremony being over, the bridal party departs with thebride for the bridegroom’s home. On this first trip the bride isaccompanied by a maid, and the two return home together after anovernight’s stay. The bride then remains at her parental home untilthe performance of the second ceremony. The interval between the twoceremonies varies from a few days to several years, depending mainlyupon the ages of the married couple and the husband’s ability tosupport a home.

This dual ceremonial has been the cause of a great deal of confusionin the western mind. To all appearances the first ceremony is themore important as it is termed marriage. After it the bride begins todress and behave like a married woman, but the couple do not beginto live together until the second ceremony has also been performed,and these two acts may be separated from each other by a considerablylong period. In other words the so-called marriage of the Hindu girlis nothing but “an indefeasible betrothal in the western sense.” Thecustom of early marriage (or betrothal, to be more exact) has existedin some parts of the country from earlier times, but it became morecommon during the period of the Mohammedan invasions into India. Theseforeign invaders were in the habit of forcibly converting to Islamthe beautiful Hindu maidens, whom they later married. But no[Pg 48]devoutMohammedan ever injures or thinks evil towards a married woman. Hisreligion strictly forbids such practice. Thus, to safeguard the honorof their young daughters the Hindus adopted this custom of earlymarriage.

The girl’s marriage, however, makes no change in her life. Shecontinues to live with her parents as before, and is there taught underher mother’s supervision the elementary duties of a household. She isinstructed at the same time in other matters concerning a woman’s life.When she becomes of an age to take upon herself the responsibilities ofmarried life, the second marriage ceremony is finished and she departsfor her new home.

It is true that the standard of education among East Indian women ascompared with that of other countries is appallingly low. We shallleave the discussion of the various political factors which havecontributed to this deplorable state of things for a later chapter.For the present it will be sufficient to point out that even thoughthe Indian girl is illiterate and unable to read and write, she is notuninstructed or uninformed in the proper sense of the word education.

She knows how to cook, to sew, to embroider, and to do every other kindof household work. She is fully informed concerning matters of hygieneand sex. In matters intellectual her mind is developed to the extentthat “she understands thoroughly the various tenets of her religion andis quite familiar with Hindu legends and the subject matter in the epicliterature of India.”

My mother was the daughter of a village carpenter. She was brought upin the village under the exclusive[Pg 49] guidance of her mother and didnot have any school education. Mother, in her turn, has reared sevenchildren who have all grown to be perfectly healthy and normal boys andgirls. Even though we could easily afford a family doctor, we never hadone. Mother seemed to know so much about hygienic and medical sciencethat she did not need a doctor. Her little knowledge she had acquiredfrom her own mother; it consisted of a few simple rules, which sheobserved very faithfully. As little children, we were required to cleanour teeth with a fresh twig, to be individually chewed into a brush,every morning before breakfast, and to wash the mouth thoroughly withwater after each meal. For the morning teeth cleaning we were suppliedwith twigs from a special kind of tree which leaves in the mouth avery pleasant taste and contains juices of a beneficial nature. Also,chewing a small twig every morning gives good exercise to the teeth andfurnishes the advantage of a new brush each time. We were told thatdirty teeth were unmannerly and hurt a person’s eyesight and generalheath. A cold water bath once a day and washing of both hands beforeand after each meal were other fundamental requirements.

For every kind of family sickness, whether it was a headache, afever, a cold in the head, or a bad cough, the prescription wasalways the same. A mixture of simple herbs was boiled in water andgiven to the patient for drinking. Its only effect was a motion ofthe bowels. It was not a purgative, but had very mild and wholesomelaxative properties without any after reactions. Fasting duringsickness was highly[Pg 50]recommended. In nearly every month occurredsome special festival day on which the whole family fasted. Thisfast had a purifying effect on the systems of growing children. Asanother precautionary measure, my mother prepared for the children,every winter, a special kind of preserve from a bitter variety ofblack beans, which is supposed to possess powerful blood-purifyingproperties. With the exception of quinine during malarial epidemics, wewere never given any drugs whatsoever. These simple medicines, combinedwith a fresh vegetable diet for every day in the year, constituted mymother’s only safeguards against family sickness. And from my knowledgeI know that her system worked miraculously well.

During pregnancy it is customary to surround the young girl with everyprecaution. She returns to her parental home in order to secure freedomfrom sexual intercourse during that period. In the months before myeldest sister bore her first child, I remember how she was instructednot to permit herself to be excited in any way. Pictures of the idealwife,Sita, and of national heroes and heroines were hung all overthe house for my sister to look at and admire. She was freed from allhousehold responsibilities in order that she could devote her time toreading good stories from the Hindu epics. Every kind of irritant,like pepper and spices, was rigidly excluded from her diet, and afterthe child was born she refrained from injudicious combinations of fooduntil the child was a year or more old.

Every night at bedtime my mother had a new story to tell the children,a story which she herself had heard[Pg 51] at bedtime when she was young.These stories were drawn from the great Hindu epics, and there wasalways a useful maxim connected with them. The tale was told to bringhome to the growing children some moral maxim like truthfulness,fidelity to a pledge once given, conjugal happiness, and respect forparents. In this manner the children in the most ignorant homes becomefamiliar with the ethical teachings of their nation and with thehypotheses underlying their respective religions. Almost everyone inIndia down to the most ignorant countrywoman understands the subtlemeaning of such intricate Hindu doctrines as the laws ofKarma, thetheory of reincarnation, and the philosophy ofMaya.

As was stated earlier in this chapter, much misinformation about theso-called child marriage has been spread by ignorant missionaries,and has been eagerly swallowed by most western readers. It may bewell to observe here that the two expressions “child marriage” and“early marriage” are very widely apart in meaning. The psychologicalimpressions conveyed by the two expressions are distinctly different.If the first ceremony of the Hindu marriage is to be taken as meaningmarriage, what is practised in India perhaps more than anywhere elsein the world isearly marriage and not child marriage. Even at that,early marriage is essentially wrong in principle. Its usefulness inearlier times, when it was first recommended by the Hindu lawgivers asa necessary measure to preserve the communal life of the nation, cannotbe denied.

Like many other laws of those times, it has outlived its usefulness,and through the influence of many[Pg 52]corruptions which have been addedto the practice during ages, it has become a curse to the country.This fact is frankly admitted by the leaders of modern India. In thewritings and speeches of the most prominent among them the custom ofearly marriage has been condemned as a “deadly vermin in Hindu sociallife,” and a “ghastly form of injustice.” Beginning with the days ofthe eminent Hindu reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the whole literatureof social and religious reform in India is full of loud and emphaticdenunciations of early marriage.

As a result of the untiring, self-sacrificing efforts of Hindureformers a great measure of success has already been achieved. TheHindu girl’s age of marriage has been steadily increasing during thelast fifty years. According to figures from the official Census Reportof India (1921) only 399 out of every 1000 girls were married at theend of their fifteenth year. In other words, 60 per cent of Indiangirls remained unmarried at the beginning of their sixteenth year.Moreover, in the official records of India every girl who has passedthrough the first ceremony of her marriage is included in the marriedclass. If we allow a little further concession on account of the warmerclimate of India, which has the tendency to lower the age of maturityin girls, we shall concede that the present conditions in India inrespect to early marriage are not strikingly different from those inmost European countries. At the same time it must not be forgotten thatin India sex life begins invariably after marriage, and never beforemarriage. Those familiar with the conditions[Pg 53] in the western countriesknow that such is not always the rule there.

One evening the writer was talking in rather favorable terms to a smallgroup of friends about the Hindu system of marriage. While severalnodded their habitual, matter-of-fact, courteous assent, one younglady (Dorothy), a classmate and an intimate friend, suddenly said inan impatient tone, “This is all very foolish. By using those sweetexpressions in connection with the Hindu family life you do not mean totell me that marriage between two strangers, who have never met in lifebefore, or known each other, can be ever happy or just. ‘Felicity,’‘peace,’ ‘harmony,’ ‘wedded love,’ ‘idealization of the husband’—thisis all bunk. Thatyou should approve the blindfold yoking togetherfor life of innocent children in indefeasible marriage, is outrageous.The system is shocking; it is a sin against decency. It is war againstthe most sacred of human instincts and emotions, and as such I shallcondemn it as criminal and uncivilized.” Yet the young lady was in nosense of the word unsympathetic or unfriendly to India. She is, and hasalways been, a great friend and admirer of India.

Dorothy is not much of a thinker, but she is very liberal and likes tobe called a radical. You could discuss with her any subject whatsoever,even Free Love and Birth Control, with perfect ease and lack ofrestraint. She is twenty-five years of age and unmarried. She has been“in love” several times, but for one reason or the other she has notyet found her ideal man. She would not tell this to everybody, but toone of her boy friends, “whose big blue eyes had poetic[Pg 54]inspirationin them,” and who seemed to be fine and good and true in every way,better than the best she had ever met before, and whom she loved quitegenuinely, she had given herself completely on one occasion. Thishappened during a week-end trip to the mountains, and was the firstand last of her sexual experience. She said it was the moral as wellas the physical feast of her life. Later she saw him flirting in adoubtful manner with a coarse Spanish girl, which made him loathsome inher eyes. Gradually her love for him began to dwindle, until it diedoff completely, leaving behind, however, a deep mortal scar in herspiritual nature. For a period, Dorothy thought she could never loveany man again, until she began to admire a young college instructor ina mild fashion. He is, however, “so kind and intelligent and differentfrom the rest,” with a fine physique and handsome face—his powerfulforehead setting so beautifully against his thick curly hair—that shecalls magnificent. It matters little that he is married, because shewrites him the most enchanting letters. Dorothy’s love for the handsomeprofessor is platonic. She says it will exist forever, even thoughshe entertains no hope of ever marrying him. Yet while she talkedabout her latest “ideal,” a stream of tears gathered slowly in her bigluminous eyes. They were the tears of hopeless resignation. Dorothy isbeautiful, and possesses rare grace and charm of both body and mind.She is well situated in the business world, and is not in want of menadmirers. But yet she is unhappy, extremely unhappy. She has had thefreedom, but no training to make proper use of it. While she was stillin her early teens she started[Pg 55] going on picnic parties with differentboys. Under the impulse of youthful passion she learned to kiss anyone and every one in an indiscriminate fashion. This destroyed thesanctity of her own moral and spiritual nature, and also killed, at thesame time, her respect for the male sex. Sacredness of sex and respectfor man being thus destroyed in her early years, she could not easilyfind an ideal husband in later life. If she had been a stupid creaturewith no imagination and no deep finer feelings she would have fallensuddenly in love anywhere—there to pass the rest of her humdrum andjoyless existence in an everlasting stupor. Surely Dorothy did notremember her own tragedy when she condemned the lot of the Hindu girlsin such vehement manner. Vanity is an ugly fault, yet it gives greatpleasure.

Unlike India, where from their very childhood girls are initiatedinto matters of sex, and where the ideal of acquiring a husband and afamily is kept before their minds from the beginning, American boysand girls are brought up in utter ignorance of every thing pertainingto sex. Sex is considered as something unclean, filthy, and nauseous,and so unworthy of the attention and thought of young children. And yetthere is no country in the world where sex is kept more prominentlybefore the public eye in every walk of daily life than in America.The first impression which a stranger landing in America gets is ofthe predominance of sex in its daily life. The desire of the Americanwoman to show her figure to what Americans call “the coarse eye ofman,” expresses itself in short skirts and tight dresses. “Americanmovies are made with no other[Pg 56] purpose in view than to emphasizesex.” A college professor was recently told by one of the six biggestdirectors of motion pictures in Hollywood, through whose hands passeda business amounting to millions of dollars, that in making a motionpicture sex must constantly be borne in mind. The story must be basedon that knowledge, scenes selected with this view, and the plotexecuted with that thought in mind. Vaudeville shows, one of America’snational amusements, are nothing but a suggestive display of thebeautiful legs of young girls, who appear on the stage scantily dressedand touch their foreheads with the toes in a highly suggestive manner.

The writer was told by an elderly American lady that the Americannational dances had a deep religious connotation. A spiritual thoughtmay exist behind American music, and its effect on the Americanyouth may be quite uplifting, but certainly such dances as the onecalled “Button shining dance,” in which a specially close posture isnecessary, was invented with no high spiritual end in view. A wholesalepublic display of bare legs to the hips, and a close view of the restof their bodies in tight bathing suits may be seen on the nationalbeaches. Young couples lie on the sands in public view closely lockedin seemingly everlasting embraces.

While all this may be very pure, innocent, harmless, and even upliftingin its hidden nature, its outward and more prevalent characterindicates an almost vicious result of the ideal of bringing up thenation’s youth improperly instructed in matters of sex and its properfunction.

The immediate effect of this anomalous condition in America resultingfrom the misinstruction regarding sex by its youth on the one hand,and the most exaggerated prominence given sex in its national life isparticularly disastrous and excessively humiliating. Using the wordmoral in its popular conventional meaning, it may be very frankly saidthat the morals of the American youth are anything but exemplary.Judge Ben B. Lindsey, who is fully authorized to speak on the subjectfrom his experience as head of the Juvenile court in Denver for overtwenty-five years, and who is one of the keenest contemporary thinkersin America, has stated facts in his book,The Revolt of Modern Youth,which are appalling. He writes:

This situation is alarming, and the leaders of the country must takeimmediate notice of it. When fifteen to twenty-five girls out of everyhundred in any country indulge in irresponsible sexual relationshipsbetween the ages of fifteen and eighteen, that country is not in ahealthy moral condition. The effect of these early sexual intimaciesbetween young girls and boys is ruinous to their later spiritualgrowth. How the situation may be remedied is a serious problem, whichis not the task of any foreigner, however honest and friendly, to solve.

It may be of value to point out here how the Hindu thinkers soughtto control this situation. We quoted above the frank opinion of anAmerican college girl regarding the Hindu system of marriage. Theill opinion of the Hindu system of marriage held by most westerners,springs, however, not from their knowledge of the situation, but fromits very novelty, and from the dissociation of the name romance fromits system. The western method of marriage emphasizes freedom forthe individual, and as such its fundamental basis is both noble andpraiseworthy. From the exercise of freedom have developed some of thefinest traits of character; freedom, in fact, has been the source ofinspiration for the highest achievements of the human race. But freedomin sex relationship without proper knowledge transforms itself intolicense, as its exercise in the commercial relationships of the worldwithout sympathy and vision develops into tyranny. An illustration ofthe former consequence may be seen in the disastrous effect of thewrong kind of freedom on the morals of the American youth; the slumsof the[Pg 59] industrial world are the results of thelaissez faire policywhen it is allowed to proceed unchecked, on its reckless career.

In India marriage is regarded as a necessity in life; in the case ofwoman it is the most conclusive of all incidents, the one action towhich all else in life is subsidiary. From marriage springs not onlyher whole happiness, but on it also depends the fulfilment of her verylife. Marriage to a woman is a sacrament—an entrance into the higherand holier regions of love and consecration—and motherhood is to hera thing of pride and duty. From childhood she has been trained to bethe ideal of the husband whom marriage gives her. Dropping longinglyinto the embrace of her husband with almost divine confidence inhis protection and love, she begins to look at the whole universein a different light. “Are the heavens and the earth so suddenlytransformed? Do the birds and trees, the stars and the heavens above,take on a more brilliant coloring, and the wind begin to murmur asweeter music?” Or is it true that she is herself transformed at thegentle touch of him who is henceforth to be her lord?

So limitless is the power of human emotion that we can create inour own imagination scenes of a joyful existence, which, when theyare finally realized, bring about miraculous changes in us almostovernight. This miracle is no fiction; it is a reality. An overnight’sblissful acquaintance with her husband has altered the constitution ofmany a girl’s body and given to her figure nobler curves. I have seenmy own sister given in marriage, a girl of 18, a slender, playful, fondchild with barely a sign of womanhood in her habits and[Pg 60] carriage;and after a month when I went for a visit to her home I found itdifficult to recognize my own sister. How suddenly had the maritalunion transformed her! In the place of a slender, sprightly girl wasnow a plump woman with a blooming figure, seeming surcharged withradiant energy; in the place of a straight childish look in the eyesthere was a look of happiness, wisdom, understanding that was inspiringand ennobling. The atmosphere around my sister, once a girl, now awoman, was of such a divine character and her appearance expressedsuch exquisite joy that I fell spontaneously into her arms, and beforewe separated our eyes were wet with tears of joy. Seeing my sister sobeautiful and so happy, I was happy; and in her moment of supreme joyher brother, the beloved companion of early days, became doubly dearto her. Some moments in our lives are difficult, nay, impossible toforget. This experience was of so illuminating a nature that it isstill as vivid in my mind as if it had happened yesterday.

The explanation is very simple. In the mind of my sister, as in themind of every other Indian girl, the idea of a husband had beenuppermost since her very childhood. Around his noble appearance, finecarriage, and handsome expression she must have woven many a beautifulstory. Each time she saw one of her girl friends given in marriageto a “flower-crowned bridegroom, dressed in saffron-colored clothes,riding in procession on a decorated horse,” and accompanied by musicand festivity, she must have dreamed. And then when the ideal of herchildhood was realized, no wonder she found in his company that heightof emotional[Pg 61] exaltation which springs from the proper union of thesexes and is the noblest gift of God to man. The American girl thinksmy sister married a stranger, but she had married an ideal, a creationof her imagination, and a part of her own being.

The wise Hindu system which keeps the idea of a husband before thegirls from their childhood will not be easily understood by theconventional western mind. Those who consider sex as something “uncleanand filthy” and have formed the conviction that its thoughts and itsvery name must be strictly kept away from growing children must learntwo fundamental truths. In the first place, nothing in sex is filthy orunclean; on the other hand, sex is “the purest and the loveliest thingin life and if properly managed is emotionally exalting and highlyuplifting for our moral and spiritual development.”[20] Secondly, toimagine that by maintaining a conspiracy of silence on the subjectof sex one can exclude its thought totally from the lives of growingchildren is to betray in the grossest form ignorance of natural laws.

In India, however, sex is considered a necessary part of a healthyindividual’s life; it is a sacred and a lovely thing; and, as such,it is to be carefully examined and carefully cultivated. The sexualimpulse is recognized as the strongest of human impulses, and anyattempt to thwart it by outside force must result in disaster to theindividual and in ruin to social welfare. To overcome sex hunger bykeeping people ignorant of it is the meanest form of hypocrisy. To denyfacts is[Pg 62] not to destroy them. It is not only stupid but cowardly toimagine that one could make people moral and spiritual by keeping themignorant and superstitious. Show them the light, and they will findtheir own way. Teach children the essentials of life, encourage in themthe habit of independent thought, show them by example and precept thebeauties of moral grandeur, and they will develop within themselves thegood qualities of self-respect and self-restraint which will furtherinsure against many pitfalls. Says the Hindu proverb: “A woman’s bestguard is her own virtue.” Virtue is a thing which must spring fromwithin and can never be imposed from the outside.

The atmosphere in the Hindu household and the attitude of the eldermembers of the family to each other is of such a nature that the boysand girls gradually become aware of the central facts of nature. Infact, no attempt is made to hide from the children anything about theirlife functions. The subjects of marriage and child birth are freelydiscussed in the family gatherings. Children are never excluded whena brother or sister is born, and no one tells them stories of littlebabies brought in baskets by the doctors or by storks. Whenever thegrowing children ask curious questions about physiological facts, theyare given the necessary information to the extent that it will beintelligible to them.

The experience in India has clearly demonstrated the fact that if youngboys and girls are properly instructed in the laws of nature, and ifthe knowledge is backed up by the right kind of moral stimulus andidealism, these young people can be relied upon to[Pg 63]develop invinciblepowers of self-restraint and self-respect. Such boys and girls willhave noble aspirations and will grow into fine-spirited men and womenof healthy moral character and of unquestionable poise.

The writer has no desire to eulogize the Hindu system of marriage, orto disparage the Occidental. An attempt has been made to diagnose theprevalent consequences of two systems. The Hindu customs certainlyneed modification in view of the rapid economic and social changes;the western system displays a deplorable lack of adjustment to newconditions in those countries. The writer merely asks the reader toremember that just because a system is different, it need not beoutrageous.

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter III

The distinctive feature of Hindu culture is its femininity. While thenorthern branch of the Aryan family represented by the European grouphad to undergo hard struggle with unyielding nature on account of abarren soil and the severity of cold climate, which developed in themthe masculine qualities of aggressiveness, force, and exertion, thesouthern branch of the Aryan family, who migrated into the smilingvalleys of the Indus and the Ganges, found in their new home abundanceof physical comfort. The extreme fertility of soil and the warmclimate made existence easy and left them leisure for speculation andthought—conditions which have tended to make the people of Indiaemotional, meditative, and mystic. The bounty of nature released themfrom struggle, and the resulting freedom from material cares andsecurity of existence developed in the Hindu character the benevolentqualities of tolerance and thankfulness.[21]

The peace-loving nature of the Hindu mind shows itself in its earlyventures into the study of the higher and deeper problems of life.When they began to inquire into the secrets of the universe and itsrelationship to human life with a view to discovering the mystery ofour existence on this planet, they were dominated solely by an absoluteand unqualified love of[Pg 65] truth. “They never quarreled about theirbeliefs or asked any questions about individual faiths. Their onlyambition was to acquire knowledge of the universe,—of its origin andcause,—and to understand the whence and whither, the who and whatof the human soul.” The early pioneers of Hindu thought lay down forrest on the open, fertile plains of the Ganges during the fragrantsummer nights of India, and their eyes sought the starry heavens above.Then they looked into themselves, and must have asked, “What are we?What is this life on earth meant for? How did we come here? Whereare we bound for? What becomes of the human soul?” and many anotherdifficult question. The answer that the Hindu sages of old gave tothese difficult questions is to be found in the one simple rule of theUnity of All Life: One Supreme Being is the source of all joy; He isthe master of all knowledge; He is eternal, stainless, unchangeable,and always present as a witness in every conscience; He alone is realand lasting, and the rest of this material universe ismaya, a mereillusion. Human soul is made of the same substance as the Supreme soul.It is separated from its source through ignorance. Through succeedingincarnations it strives to reach its ultimate goal, which is itsidentification with the Supreme Being. That is the final end of allhuman effort—the realization of the Self—which accomplished, man’sexistence becomes one with the rest of the Universe, and his lifethereafter is one of limitless love. His soul unites with the Universalsoul and he has obtained hisMoksha (salvation). He begins to see“All things in self and self in All.”

This idea of spiritual freedom, which is the release of the selffrom the ego concept, forms the foundation of Hindu culture, and hasinfluenced the whole character of India’s social and religious ideals.Let us try to explain it a little more clearly. The recognition ofthe unity of all life assumes the existence of one God, “one source,one essence and one goal.” The final purpose of life is to realizethis unity, when the human soul becomes one with the Universal Spirit.Ignorance is the cause of all evil, because it forever hides fromus the true vision. The wise man continually strives to overcomeignorance through the study of philosophy and through self-restraintand renunciation. He seeks to achieve knowledge of Self, in orderthat he may see God face to face. Then he will attainMoksha(salvation). Until he has realized the absolute Truth, he must holdon to the relative truth as he sees it, which is accomplished throughthe exercise of such virtues as universal love, faith, devotion,self-sacrifice, and renunciation.

“Despising everything else, a wise man should strive after theknowledge of the Self.”

Human life on this earth is a journey from one village to the other.We are all pilgrims here, and this abode is only our temporary homeand not a permanent residence. Instead of being continually in searchof material wealth, of power, of fame, and of toiling day and night,why should we not regard life as a perpetual holiday and learn to restand enjoy it? Would it not be better if we had a little less of work,a little less of so-called pleasure, and more of thought and peace? Itdoes not take much to sustain life;[Pg 67]vegetable food in small quantitieswill maintain the body in good health, and the shelter of a cottage isall that a man requires. That he should build palaces and amass richesproves his lack of knowledge; that he should try to find happinessfrom the ruin of the happiness of his fellow beings, the inevitableconsequence of the building up of great fortunes, is absurd. Nothingis real except His law and His power. Human life, like a bubble onthe surface of a mighty ocean, may burst and disappear at any moment.“There is fruit on the trees in every forest, which everyone who likesmay pluck without trouble. There is cool and sweet water in the purerivers here and there. There is a soft bed made of the twigs of thebeautiful creepers. And yet wretched people suffer pain at the door ofthe rich.”

Thus the doctrine of Maya has taught the people of India that allmaterial things are illusion.

Thus, guided by the vision of Universal Spirit, which sustains theentire creation, and saved by the right comprehension of the doctrineof Maya, the Hindus have developed a civilization in which people areinspired largely by the ideals of human fellowship, by love and byspiritual comfort. The wisdom of the Hindu’s retiring, passive attitudetoward life will not readily be acknowledged by his sturdy, aggressive,and combative brothers in the western world. The[Pg 68] Occidental’snecessities of life have assumed such immense proportions, and socialrelations have become so intricate and insecure, that a man’s wholelife is spent in making sure of mere existence, and in providingagainst the accidents of the future. Such is the deadening influenceof the continual hurly-burly of every-day life around him, that he hasbegun to regard life as synonymous with work. He has never himselftasted the sweetness of security and peace, and when he hears anyoneelse discuss it, he is likely to brand the doctrine as dreamy, unreal,and impractical. “But is it surely wise to destroy the best objects oflife for the sake of life? Is the winning of wealth and the enjoyingof pleasure always a superior choice to that of spiritual freedom?” Tolove leisure, ideals, and peace has been the criterion of Hindu wisdom.Those who have closely studied the history of the Hindu nation know theillumination, the peace, the joy, the strength that its lessons bringinto the lives of those simple, virtuous people.

Hindu civilization has been, on the whole, humane and wholesome, andthe life of the people of India has been one of unalloyed usefulnessand service to humanity. India has always been the home of variousreligions and its people have always been divided into innumerablefaiths. At no period of its long history, however, has religiouspersecution been practised by any class of people in the country.“No war was ever waged in or outside of India by the Hindu nation inthe name of religion. India has never witnessed the horrors of aninquisition; no holy wars were undertaken, and no heretics burned alivefor the protection[Pg 69] of religion.” In the entire history of the Hindunation, not a drop of blood has ever been shed in the name of religion.To those who have read the accounts of the bloody tortures and themassacres that have been enacted for the sake of religion among theChristian nations of the world, thisis saying much.

The hobby of the Hindu is not Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodism,or any other form of ism known to the western world; his interestdoes not lie in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism. His passion is forreligion. “He loves nota religion;he lives for religion.” It washis love of religion which an old English missionary found among theinhabitants of a small village in Northern India. Tired from walkingin the hot summer sun, this wandering friar lay down under the coolshade of a banyan tree for rest, and fell asleep. How long he slept andwhat brilliant dreams of His Master Lord Christ’s mercy this humblemendicant had, no one knows. When in the late afternoon he opened hiseyes, he saw a beautiful young girl gently fanning his face, while herlittle brother stood near, carrying in his arms a basket of choicefruits and a jug of fresh, cool water. As the old friar’s eyes finallymet the maiden’s kindly gaze, he exclaimed: “At last after all theseweary travels I have found a Christian people!”

Religion to the Hindu is not one among the many interests in life. Itis the all-absorbing interest. The thought of a Universal Brotherhoodtaught in his religion guides every social, commercial, and politicalact of his life; while the hope of divine sanction inspires his effortsin the intellectual and spiritual spheres.[Pg 70] Religion is not the mereprofession of a certain theological faith, whose ritual may be observedon appointed occasions and then be forgotten till time again comes forworship and prayer. Religion is the “Yearning beyond” on the part ofman, and when once its essence is realized, the spirit must influenceevery interest of the individual’s life. This is the way in whichreligion is understood in India. “It is not a matter of form, but ofmind and will. To the Hindu, it is more religious to cleanse the souland build a good character than to mutter prayers and observe a strictritual. Morality should form the basis of religion, and emphasis shouldbe laid, not on outward observance, but on inward spiritual culture.”

The main purpose of life is the realization of Self, to which all otherinterests must be completely subordinated. The material things of theworld are but a means to this end; and the end being religion, itsthought must not be lost sight of in arranging the details of life.Hence, religion pervades the entire fabric of Hindu society. StudyIndian art, law, ethics, and political economy; everywhere you willfind the same thought of God and his all-embracing mercy underlyingthem all.

The religion of the holy Jesus, who taught the doctrine ofnon-resistance and whose Sermon on the Mount is resplendent with lovefor humanity, has inspired many a Gandhi in the East. It has, however,[Pg 71]been the cause of much bloodshed and slaughter. Under its bannerslavery was sustained until the economic conditions throughout theworld made its abolition inevitable and imperative. The negro-traffic,involving human brutality which makes us shudder and horrors whichfreeze our blood and leave us aghast, was carried on by Christianpeople with the express sanction of the most holy See and her augustlieutenants of God. As late as the end of the nineteenth centuryChina was subdued in the name of Christian religion. The immediateprovocation of the Boxer War was the murder of two white missionariesin the interior of China. What deeds of chivalry the soldiers ofthe western nations, who were sent to China for the defence ofChristianity, did, are recorded by Mr. Gowen in hisAn Outline Historyof China thus:

The religion of the Hindu requires him to practise love toward hisfellowman, tenderness toward animal life, and toleration of religiousdiversities with other people. He believes that the Christians,the Mohammedans, and the Jews may be as good men in their humanrelationships as he and be on as straight a road to heaven as he is.He does not question the divine revelation of the holy books of otherreligions, nor does he deny “that Christ was the Son of God, andMohammed the Prophet of God.” All that he[Pg 72] wishes in this life is thathe should be allowed to worship his Deity as he chooses. Says Krishnain Bhagvat Gita, the Bible of the Hindus: “Whosoever come to Me,through whatever form, through that I reach him; All men are strugglingto reach Me through various paths, and all the paths are Mine.”

“There is in the Hindu religion a doctrine calledAhimsa, namely,non-injury to any form of life, which transcends any ethical idealknown to the western ethics. The idea finds expression in the Societyfor Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Animals.” The Hindu religionis the only religion in the world which forbids the eating of animalflesh. If all life is of one essence, if the animal pleading for lifesuffers as truly as man under the same conditions, is it fair to killthe animal for the sake of a simple pleasure? This gentle doctrine ofharmlessness has helped to develop in the Hindu character the noblevirtues of benevolence and universal love. The Hindu may lack theso-called “manly virtues”; his spiritual nature may be shocked to hearthat perfectly civilized men and women kill animals for sport, thatthey go on pleasure excursions on the ocean to shoot the flying fish.The fish is harmless, and when shot merely falls into the ocean; merelyin shooting it lies the sportsman’s amusement. Which of the two extremedoctrines is right, we shall leave the reader to judge for himself.But the general doctrine of “harmlessness” must commend itself to theenlightened moral sense of the West. A right comprehension of thisprinciple will assist greatly in getting rid of the curse of crueltyand war.

Two features in the Hindu character which stand out most conspicuouslyare truthfulness and chivalry towards women. The name for truth in theSanscrit language issatya, which meansto be. “So truth in theHindu’s language means that which is. It may not necessarily be thesame as that which is believed by the majority of people. Again, thehighest praise given to the gods in the Veda is that they are truthfuland trustworthy. We know that people will ascribe to their gods thesame qualities which are held in highest regard among themselves.The whole literature of ancient and modern India is full of episodesproclaiming the virtue of truth. Rama’s answer to Bharata in the epicpoem ofRamayna [quoted on page 13] is typical of the Hindu’s regardfor truth. In Mahabharata again we find the same devotion to a pledgeonce given. Bhisma, for example, was willing to suffer death ratherthan to disregard his pledge never to hurt a woman. The poets of theVedas, the sages of Upnishads, and the writers of the law books wereall inspired by feelings of profound love and reverence for truth. Thewhole literature of India is vibrant with the same keynote—highestregard for truth.”[22] A perusal of the accounts of the character andculture of the people of India left by foreign travelers in ancient andmodern times shows that the traveler was most deeply impressed in eachinstance by the Hindu’s love of truth. Let us examine a few of theseaccounts.

Major-General Sir W. H. Sleeman, K. C. B., who resided in India nearlya quarter of a century, and who was during this period employed invarious capacities in which he came in direct contact with hundreds ofpeople every day, writes of the Indians thus:

Finally we shall quote from a speech made by Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilsonin 1913 when he was retiring from the high office of Finance Member ofthe Indian Government:

Comment after these unequivocal testimonies of eminent foreignchroniclers of India is unnecessary. Where else in the world couldthe experience of the Finance Member Sir Guy Wilson be repeated? Ifeveryone who visited the country was equally impressed by the truthfulcharacter of the Hindus there must surely be meaning in the statementthat the[Pg 76] Hindus are honest, truthful, and straightforward. Foreigntravelers have visited other lands during various historical periods,but nowhere else were they so singularly impressed by the integrity ofthe people as in India. But we are not obliged to look into ancienthistories to establish the Hindu’s honesty and love for truth. Goto-day into any town of India. Walk in the business section of Bombay,Calcutta, or Karachi and there you will find transactions amountingto hundreds of thousands carried on day after day without a receipttaken or given. An entry in the ledger books of both parties is allthat is held necessary in such cases. In my own family, low-paidhousehold servants drawing salaries up to a couple of hundreds a yearwere intrusted in the course of their duties with the handling of manythousands of dollars. And there was no least feeling of hesitationor anxiety on the part of the family, not because the servants werebonded, but because they were trusted.

A people who respect truth so highly must be lovers of learning. Atevery period in the history of India, a genius has been recognized andaccorded assistance, even if his thesis ran contrary to the popularprejudice of the day. Whether a new sage lifted his head in the fieldof religion, or a thinker in the philosophical or scientific field wasborn, he was always allowed an opportunity to express himself under themost favorable circumstances. He did not have to fear persecution onaccount of his ideas. So long as he had a message to offer to mankind,he was assured an audience. “Freedom of thought has always prevailedamong all classes of people in India.”

Chivalry toward women, which has been named as another outstandingfeature of Hindu character, has already been discussed in a previouschapter.

To review in detail the achievements of Hindu civilization wouldrequire volumes. India’s contributions to the world’s study ofphilosophy, science, religion, and social organization are legion.While the continent of Europe was still in a state of barbarism, theHindus invented the sciences of grammar, arithmetic, and astronomy.They were already masters of a perfect alphabet, of a polishedlanguage, and of the most complete systems of law and social ethicsthat the world has ever seen. When the forefathers of the Anglo-Saxonraces roamed in forests with painted bodies, the Hindus had anextensive literature, an established religion, and a developedcivilization. In fact, India has ever been esteemed as the birthplaceof the most natural of natural religions, as the nurse of sciences,as the inventress of fine arts, and as a fertile home for all formsof genius. Her lawgivers evolved the most wonderful fabric of socialorganization, and composed systems of ethics worthy of the highestpraise; her philosophers invented six most profound systems ofphilosophy famous for their subtlety of thought and acuteness of logic;and her religious teachers formed the two greatest religions of theworld, which are to this day professed by more than half of the humanrace. Even in the domain of natural sciences Hindus have advanced toa high state of development, a fact which is little realized by mostpeople. Says Sir Monier-Williams:

The Hindus belong to a race of mankind which has outlasted all thenations of the earth. “Before the days of Abraham India had achieveda great civilization. Other civilizations had lived and died. Egypt,Babylon, and Assyria—each came and went. After India had beenflourishing for more than two thousand years, Greece appeared andpassed on. The vast Roman Empire, dominating half the earth, paid hugetribute to the art and industry of India, then closed its day while theHindu people continued to develop magnificent achievements in science,literature, art, architecture, law and government, philosophy andreligion.” Lord Curzon, whose judgment undoubtedly was not biased infavor of India, writes:

We have thus shown that as a nation the people of India have devotedtheir efforts more to the development of the spiritual side of lifethan the material. Unlike the aggressive and combative character ofwestern civilization, the prominent features of Hindu culture are apassive and reflective attitude toward life. Compared with the recordof her sister nations in the West, the history of the country has been[Pg 79]happier, less fierce, and more peaceful and stable; the inhabitantshave been more careful and thoughtful, passive and tolerant.

Two great civilizations of the world—India and China—separated onlyby a long border, have flourished for centuries, and not once in theirentire history have they been at war with each other. They earlyrealized the truth that the object of human life is not possession ofimmense wealth and dominion over weaker races for the sake of physicalcomforts. The aim of human effort, as they saw it, should be thedevelopment of the “mental, moral, and spiritual powers latent in man.”The Hindus evolved for themselves the idea of a God that was omnipotentand all-merciful, of a human soul that was part of the Universal souland must be pure, of a life that has the divine spark in it and mustbe boundless and consecrated to the service of all. Truthfulness,generosity, kindness of heart, gentleness of behavior, forgiveness,and compassion were taught in India as everyday precepts long beforeany such thing as ethics existed in any other part of the world. Theirinsistence upon kindness and charity are marks of true virtue; theirbelief that ethics must form the basis of religion and a moral life isthe criterion of religious mind; their realization that all men arebrothers and that a virtuous slave is better than a corrupt master,mark the Hindus as a race of highly intelligent and moral people.

Many of these statements may not be novel, but they have for usa significant appeal in the fact that “they were thought out andenunciated many[Pg 80]centuries ago, and that they reflected life, not asit might be imagined in a Utopia, but as it was actually lived by thecommon people in the small villages and towns of India.”

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter IV

The caste system of India is the most widely discussed subject all overthe world; it is also the least understood. It is really surprising howlittle people outside of India know about the institution of caste,as it was originally evolved and perfected to form the basis of thecountry’s social, political, and economic structure. Even studentsof Hindu philosophy and arts have but a very dim perception of themeaning of caste. You cannot talk about India for five minutes to anyperson without being confronted with the questions: “How about yourcaste system? Isn’t it true that the upper classes refuse to marry theuntouchables, and even to come into any kind of physical contact withthem? Have not the Brahmans of India always lorded over the classesfor their own benefit? Wouldn’t they seize the power again for theirown benefit if the English left India today? Don’t you see that wehave given freedom to the negroes in this country? They have thesame political rights as white men to vote and to hold office in ourgovernment. They can come into our homes and do the cooking for us andwe feel no repulsion for them. Would you permit such association of theclasses in India? This equality of spirit is democracy, and until Indiagives up her old aristocratic habits and changes to the new democraticideals of the age, she will never be free politically, morally, orspiritually—talk what you will of your spirituality and ethics.”

I have heard such sermons over and over again from Americans ofevery status in life. College professors and their wives, universitystudents, teachers, ministers, shirt dealers, insurance agents,street-car conductors, bootblacks, and railroad porters have asked mesimilar questions. In reply, I do not deny that one class of peopleis called “untouchables” and that no other class will intermingle orintermarry with them. I question most seriously, however, the truth ofthe premise of the second statement. Brahmans have not always ruled thecountry with purely selfish motives. The priestly class has wieldedimmense influence in India’s political and social life at differentperiods of its history, but they have used their power mostly for theadvancement of its culture and arts. To the Brahmans we owe in generalthe elaboration and systematization of Hindu philosophy. The vasttreasures of Hindu literature and fine arts were both produced andpreserved by the same class, who for unknown ages have been the solerepositories of knowledge in India. They have abused their authority atseveral periods, but on such occasions a great reformer like Buddha orNanak always appeared among the Hindus and gave the corrupted priestsfresh warning for their mistakes.

The power of the Brahmans was at its lowest when the British acquiredIndia, and the Brahmans have found in the English rulers of thecountry great champions, who have succeeded first in demoralizingthem and then in assisting them to demoralize in turn the rest ofHindu society. England with its mighty governing hand of steel is thestrongest bulwark of aristocracy in India. And those who say thingsto the[Pg 83]contrary either do not know the facts or they deliberatelymisrepresent them. We shall explain later how the subtle methods of ourforeign rulers work.

Lastly, I do not deny that India needs a reorganization of itsantiquated social system in order to fit properly into the modernworld. Her caste regulations have given to her numerous races andclasses only the negative benefits of peace and order at the expense ofthe positive opportunities of expansion and movement. If India is tolive, and if it hopes ever to occupy its proper place among the familyof nations, it must cut out of its system the cancer of untouchability.However manifest are the evils of India’s rigid caste system and thenecessity of its immediate overhauling, the contrast with America seemsso unjust. With typical complacency, the Americans declare that thereis no caste in the United States. Yet the American negro, although hehas a right to vote and to hold office, has absolutely no opportunityto make use of these privileges. A child of ten has more chance ofbeating the world’s heavyweight champion in a prize-fight than anAmerican negro with the highest moral and educational qualificationshas of becoming a governor of the smallest state in the Union. Theworld knows that in most states the law prohibits marriage betweenwhites and negroes, while society everywhere will, in its own directand emphatic American way, ban the union of a white girl to a negro.It is also true that in most states negro children are taught inseparate schools, and that on Sunday colored people must go for prayerto separate churches. In the South, the center of the negro populationin the United States, negroes must travel[Pg 84] in separate carriageson railroad trains and use separate waiting rooms at the stations.It is also a matter of history that on the average more than sixtynegroes are lynched in America every year by mobs for crimes, which ifcommitted under similar conditions by white persons, would be punishedthrough the regular course of law.

This condition in the United States does not justify the injustice ofcaste in India or anywhere else in the world, but it may help to givethe sharp critic of the Hindu system a milder temper in his judgment byreminding him that human nature everywhere has its virtues and faults.We shall now proceed to examine the origin and the function of thecaste of India.

The Sanskrit word which has been wrongly translated into caste isVarna, which means color. Thus the derivation of the term shows thatthe original classifications in Hindu society were made on the basisof color or race.[25] When the Aryans first migrated into India, theyfound themselves face to face with hordes of savage tribes belonging toinferior and aboriginal races. The position of those Aryan forefatherswas analogous to that which later confronted the immigrants of Europeinto the continents of America and Australia. While these latterinvaders have sought to simplify their race problems by exterminatingthe original inhabitants of these countries, the early Hindus undersimilar conditions accepted the inferior races as units in their socialstructure and gave them a distinct place in the scale of labor, thenature of their functions[Pg 85] being strictly determined according totheir qualification. Even in our present stage of advancement we findthat caste prevails throughout the civilized world. Its ugly symptomsare most prominent in America, Australia, and the white colonies ofAfrica. In the United States, the lynching of negroes in the South andthe strict anti-Asiatic regulations of the state of California, andin Australia the “Keep Australia white at all cost” spirit among thepopulation,—both of these show how deeply the spirit of race hatredhas penetrated into the system of the dominant white races of theworld. In the state of California, which is the center of orientalpopulation in America, law prohibits the Asiatics (Japanese, Chinese,Hindus) from owning property and even from temporarily leasing landsfor farming purposes. Another statute rules against marriage betweenwhites and mongolians. The anti-Asiatic land lease regulations ofCalifornia have given a severe blow to the oriental population ofthe state. The Japanese, Chinese, and Hindu immigrants to the UnitedStates were chiefly agriculturists. In the early days of Californiathese frugal, honest, hard-working people contributed materially to thedevelopment of agriculture. And the fact cannot well be denied that theintensely hot regions of the Imperial Valley and the mosquito-ridden,swampy northern counties were brought under cultivation almostexclusively through the initiative of the Japanese and Hindu farmers ofCalifornia. The Chinese, in conjunction with the other oriental races,had much to do in developing the largest asparagus growing region inthe world, represented by the deltas of the Sacramento Valley. ImperialValley is[Pg 86] today the richest vegetable growing colony in the world.The northern counties produce the finest qualities of California ricein immense quantities, while the Delta asparagus has made California’sname famous throughout the world as the producer of the choicestqualities of both white and green asparagus. But the simple, peaceloving, industrious, and retiring Asiatics who toiled to make the nameof agricultural California great are barred by law from making even anhonest, meager living through farming on a small scale. And all becauseof the caste of race! As one of the state senators exclaimed not longago: “We must keep California safe from the yellow peril.” To whichan eminent Hindu publicist humorously replied: “I have seen no dangerof a yellow peril in California except that of the ‘Yellow Cabs’.”

When a small group of immigrants in any land find themselves surroundedby an endless environment of barbarous tribes, we grant that thesituation is critical. The small group of Aryan immigrants in India,however, unlike the American colonists, who exterminated most of theoriginal inhabitants of the country, sought to assimilate the barbaroustribes, and hence found themselves confronted with a difficult problem.They were inspired with the desire to preserve the purity of theirsuperior race and culture on the one hand, and to assimilate in theirsocial system the aboriginal races as well as they could, in order tosave them from annihilation. On the other hand, they felt it necessaryto safeguard their race by refusing to intermarry with people on alower scale of civilization. The Aryan forefathers of India, by givingto the original population of[Pg 87] the country a distinct place in itssocial life, however low, have preserved them on the one hand fromextermination and on the other from slavery of person. “Was this notthe very solution which suggested itself to the American emancipatorLincoln, when at a much later date he faced the same problems undersimilar conditions? That adjustment of their racial differences thathad been declared wise and that had been practised by the Hindus manythousand years ago, was at last acknowledged by the leaders of thewestern world as the only salvation from their difficult situation.” Inthe meantime, whole populations had been obliterated, and generationafter generation of human beings had been subjected to the tortures ofslavery,—to injustice and suffering of the most loathsome kind.

Before we judge the Hindu too harshly for refusing to drink the samewater as the non-Aryans and to eat food cooked by their hands, we mustremember that most of the aborigines of India were carrion eaters andwere more unclean than their Aryan neighbors. The Aryan would notperform any act of life without previously taking his morning bath; hewas scrupulously clean in all his habits. He felt, therefore, that itwas merely a hygienic precaution not to allow the filthy barbariansaccess to his person or his house. But it is the nature of caste toconvert temporary inhibitions into permanent barriers. In so far asthe early Hindu sociologists safeguarded the superior Aryan culture bylaying down strict rules—such as the refusals to intermarry and todrink the same water—,they were in the right. Therein they recognizedthe diversity of races and the necessity of keeping separate the[Pg 88]most highly developed and the least civilized. “But they erred mostdangerously in not grasping the fact that differences between humanbeings are not fixed like the physical barriers of mountains, but aremutable and fluid with life’s flow.”[26] “It is the law of life tochange its shape and volume through the impact of environment.” “Wasit not expected that contact with the civilized Aryans would developamong the aboriginal inhabitants of India the wholesome qualities ofcleanliness, honesty, peace, and love characteristic of an advancedrace?”[26] To have thus bound in an iron frame the growing body of ahealthy people was not only an intellectual blunder, but a spiritualcrime. As a result, India, which is fundamentally one nation, is nowtorn into innumerable castes and communities. And this is the cause ofher degradation and ruin. India, which should be the mightiest nationof the world today, on account of her ancient culture and history andthe nobility and height of her spiritual idealism, is now fallen. Ifthere exists anywhere the law of Karma, the Hindus of the present ageare atoning for the sins of omission of their ancient forefathers. Thegreat, great, great grandchildren of those who denied their fellowhumans the natural rights of humanity have been cast out of the world’sprogressive life as the black pariahs of the race. In a recent decisionof the United States Supreme Court, which has ruled out the nativesof India as ineligible to the citizenship of America, the HonorableJustice remarked: “Hindus of the high caste belonging to the Aryanor Caucasian[Pg 89] race, are not white persons.” Those Hindus who pridethemselves astwice-born Brahmans should take notice of this language.

Let those who wish clamor loud about their Nordic superiority orBrahmanic purity. What is needed in the world today is not the purityof the race so much as the purity of the human soul and its motives.How far the soul of the western people is clean I would not say, butbeing myself a Hindu, I do know that the soul of India is black. Bydenying to their fellow brethren their rightful position as humanbeings, the upper classes of India have sinned most atrociously againstthemselves and their gods. “Where the touch from a fellow human beingpollutes and his shadow corrupts, there the gods can never reside, ortruth prevail.” The laws of nature are immutable. You may err againstthem for a short time, but you cannot afford to ignore their existenceforever. In the ultimate reckoning nature will fall upon you in a madfury and wreak for your mistakes a terrible vengeance. Thus, those whoset out to humble and degrade others are in turn humbled themselves.“In the act of tyranny, the tyrant loses sight of his ideals anddevelops the pride of power, which is another name for the lowering ofhis soul. Like a man under the influence of liquor, he may feel for thetime powerful and strong; yet from the moment an individual loses holdof truth, the insanity of cruelty and injustice starts its deadly work,which will end in his ruin and death.”[27]

If the Hindus wish to survive, they must first humble themselves beforethe members of the lower classes against whom they have long sinnedso terribly. They must purify their souls and promise to sin no more.Unless they can do this, it is foolish to expect national freedom, andit is idle to desire it. Those who will not grant freedom to thosebelow them, are themselves not fitted to have freedom.

The high-born Hindu should think over the situation in which he findshimself today. When he despises the Mohammedans and the lower casteHindus to such an extent that the mere physical touch from the mosthighly cultured and clean of their kind will spoil the cooking of thewretchedest of the so-called high-caste, how in the name of God, man,or the devil can he expect them to love and serve him? The entirehistory of mankind does not afford one instance in which an oppressedclass has fought to protect the honor or power of its oppressors. Itis idle to hope that the oppressed classes of India will ever consentto shed their life-blood to win the freedom of their country. They mayat some time make immense sacrifices in the service and at the biddingof such a universal soul as Gandhi, or perhaps unite to drive out anintensely hated foreigner like the British. True liberation, however,can be brought to the nation only through the spiritual unity of itspeoples; under the present social regulations the hope of such a unionis not only visionary but idiotic.

My misguided Hindu brethren of India should remember what the followersof Nanak, the Sikhs, have already done, and what the Arya Samajists aredoing[Pg 91] now in the Punjab. They can do the same and much more! If theyneed a leader to guide them, they can find no one holier or wiser inthe whole world today than Mahatma Gandhi, who will show them the lightas soon as they are ready to see it. Gandhi, the Mahatma (the GreatSoul), the leader of millions, has adopted an untouchable girl intohis family, whom Mrs. Gandhi is bringing up with their own children intheir home. This action has made Gandhi no smaller in the sight of Godor man. Will it make other Hindus smaller if they come forward and sayto their brethren: “Come, brothers, we embrace you. We shall forget thepast and be one again. Children of the same Father, we are all equalbefore His law. There shall be, in future, no high or low among us.Brahman and Sudra, Mohammedan and Parsi, we shall join hands and striveto bring our motherland back to its former vigor.” Then and then alonewill the regeneration of India be possible.

We find that quite early in the country’s history Hindu society fellinto two main divisions, the Aryans and the non-Aryans. The formerwere again divided into three orders represented by priests, warriors,and Aryan farmers or merchants; while the non-Aryans constituted theservant class or the Sudras. The division of society into the threepriestly, warrior, and merchant classes is a natural one. We find itsparallel in ancient Persia, where the division of the community intopriests, warriors, and husbandmen is shown in the Avesta. “In fact, thecaste sentiment prevails in greater or less degree in all monarchicalcountries of the world. In mediæval Europe the sentiment of caste[Pg 92] grewso strong that it found expression in literature and law.”

1. Brahmans, the priestly class, were the teachers of the rest ofmankind. Their function was to study the Vedic scriptures and variousbranches of knowledge such as science and philosophy. They were tooffer spiritual guidance and to assist all other classes in theperformance of religious rites and ceremonies. Everyone dependedupon them for favor with the gods, for they were believed to bespecially favored to interpret the Veda. As a tribute to the Brahmans’spirituality and learning, they were respected and loved by the otherclasses. Their simple physical needs were amply provided for, so thatthey were absolutely free from any form of material care. Within therealm of their appointed duties they were the free, intellectual lordsof the Universe. This rule applied to the entire class of scholars andreligious teachers, and not to any chosen group among them. A parallelstate of intellectual freedom could be reached in the modern westernworld ifall of its professors and religious instructors were bornwith independent means. The Brahmans’ threefold function of teaching,studying, and renunciation inspired among the masses of mankind thefeelings of reverence and affection for them. “A Brahman’s body was onthat account regarded as sacred, and to hurt him in any way was theheaviest sin; while to kill a Brahman was an unpardonable sin whichcould not be expiated even by penance through an unlimited number ofsuccessive rebirths.”

While the priestly class thus received the love and homage of thepopulace, they at the same time enjoyed many immunities and exemptions.From certain punishments a Brahman was always exempt, and his high ranksecured him pardon for numerous crimes. On the other hand, specialrules were laid down for his class in order to preserve its sanctity.“He could never drink, eat meat, or enjoy the coarser pleasures oflife.” In fact, the law codes of the different castes specify that forcertain offences a Brahman should be punished many times more thana man belonging to the lower classes. This severity was due to thebelief of the law-givers of India that “greater knowledge demandedgreater restraint, and that with the raise in a person’s status hisresponsibility must also rise.” The rule for a Brahman as given byVasistha is this: “Those are true Brahmans who, well-taught, havesubdued their passions, injure no living being, and close their fingerswhen gifts are offered them.” Again, the same teacher has said that aBrahman by birth is not a true Brahman but a slave unless he lives avirtuous and clean life devoted to study and restraint. Says Manu, thegreat law-giver of India: “A Brahman who does not live as a Brahmanis no better than a slave.” He could be made an outcast and demotedsocially into a lower rank.

Thus we find that while on the one hand their higher status won forthe Brahmans respect and reverence from the populace, on the otherhand their better position imposed upon them special restraints. It isdifficult for us to realize the wisdom of this dictum, yet the Hindulaw which prohibited its intellectual[Pg 94] classes from possessing propertyand otherwise amassing wealth was one of the most profoundly wise lawsin the social history of man. Looked at in conjunction with the text“that a householder obtains high merit in this life and hereafter bygiving food, drink, and raiment to Brahmans,” the dictum against theacquiring of wealth by the Brahman class will appear not only wise buthighly just. “Here was a class of scholars, leaders of mankind, whowere safe from the two great evils which are the curse of their nobleprofession—the anxiety of making a livelihood and the temptation toacquire fortunes.”

Lest it be supposed that the scholars of India lived on the charityof other classes, a condition which is not regarded in the West ashonorable, it may be added here in the form of a corollary that charityin India has an altogether different meaning from that in the West.The motives behind such acts in India and the western countries arequite different. According to Hindu theology, the giver of a gift andnot the recipient is the beneficiary. Absolutely no sense of pride orself-importance is attached to the bestowing of gifts. Such deeds arealways accompanied by a sense of deep humility and thankfulness in theheart of the householder. “It is thedharma, which may be translatedas theman-ness of man, of every householder to provide handsomelyfor the needs of a Brahman, and he does this from a sense of religiousand social duty as well as from a desire for a religious blessing.”It is as much the householder’s duty and joy in life to accommodate aBrahman as it is the hope and delight of every mother to comfort herchild. To assist a strange[Pg 95] scholar in his work is considered no morean act of charity in India than is the support of a son at collegein Europe or America. The experiences of Mrs. Margaret E. Noble, anEnglishwoman of literary eminence, who went to India for a study ofits philosophy, are illustrative of the Hindu psychology in thismatter. She relates in her bookThe Web of Indian Life the story ofher residence in the Hindu section of Calcutta. After news reachedthe neighborhood that she had come to India as a student, she foundin front of her door one morning a jar of fresh milk and a basket ofprovisions left by some unknown visitor. This experience was repeatedalmost every day of the year until her departure. Yet the donors ofthese simple presents never made themselves known to Mrs. Noble, norwas she ever questioned by anyone of her neighbors regarding her viewson Hindu life. They did not care whether she was friendly or hostileto them in her judgments. The fact that she had come among them as astudent was sufficient reason for them to provide for her.India isthe only country in the world where poets and priests never starve.

2.Khashatriyas or the royal and military class were the rulers ofthe country, and their duty was to protect the other classes. TheKhashatriyas constituted the knightly caste of India. They were braveand chivalrous. The enjoyment of the senses and of pleasures subject tosuch laws as may protect the weak from the strong were the legitimaterewards of this class. Many a deed of extreme heroism committed by thisclass under the noble impulse to protect justice or to serve Cupid isrelated in the epic history of India.

“Chivalry taught them the lessons of gaiety and enjoyment. They learnedto admire and desire beauty. Unlike the austere ascetic Brahmans,passion and pleasure in the company of woman was sought by the gallantsuitors of the warrior class. Women were often objects of jealousy, andthey always exercised great power through their beauty and charm. Fine,full-blooded creatures they were, who knew how to get and give love.Both men and women loved superbly and passionately. Their passions werestrong and consuming and their thirst for love great.” Theirs was alove about which a poet sung:

3. TheVaishya or the merchant and husbandman class constituted thebody of the people. Theoretically they were the equals of the otherclasses of the Aryan family; but “practically this class togetherwith the fourth caste, namely the Sudras, formed the majority of thepopulation, whose duty it was to support and serve the two upperclasses.” They managed the business life of the country and wereresponsible for the maintenance of the other classes. They tilled thesoil and managed the entire commercial and industrial[Pg 97]affairs of theland. This class was again subdivided into various groups according totheir profession. This classification of the middle class of India onthe basis of occupation was founded upon a thorough understanding ofthe laws of heredity—“the purpose being to develop the best qualitiesthrough heredity transmission. Thereby an attempt was made to developfurther the brain of the scholar, the skill of the craftsman, and theingenuity of the trader through the cumulative influence of carefulselection from generation to generation.” By thus shutting differenttrades and professions into air-tight compartments the Vaishya deprivedthemselves of the benefits of the infusion of young blood into the oldsystem. While on the one hand it had the wholesome effect of reducingthe evils of competition to the minimum, on the other it has graduallytended “to turn arts into crafts and genius into skill.”

4.Sudras or the servant class constituted the entire aboriginalnon-Aryan population of the country, whose function was to domechanical service in the household life of the community. Accordingto Manu the highest merit for this class was to serve faithfully theother three classes. The Sudras performed the most degrading tasks, andwere allowed to come into contact with the Aryan population only asmenials. On account of their filthy habits these aboriginals were notallowed a close approach to the persons of the higher classes—hencethe origin of the term “untouchable.” Yet the fact stands that eventhe “untouchables” are members of the Hindu family group. At marriagesand other festivals gifts are freely exchanged between[Pg 98] them and theupper classes. For a householder it is equally important to participatein the ceremonies of the village “untouchables” and his own cousins.I remember very clearly how as a young boy I was instructed by mymother to bow each morning before every elder member of the family, norforgetting the servants, or Sudras.

Bhagavad Gita, the Bible of the Hindus, lays down the following rulesfor the different castes of India:

This division of duties among the different castes “in accordance withtheir nature-born qualities” needs special notice. We find here thatthe original distinctions between different classes were made on thebasis of their natural qualifications. “The purpose of the early Hindusociologists was to design a society in which opportunity was allowedto everyone for only such experience as his mental and spiritualstatus was capable.” In the beginning, castes were not fixed by ironbarriers, nor were the occupations and professions[Pg 99] of the peoplehereditary. There was freedom for expansion, and everyone enjoyed theprivilege of rising into the higher scales of social rank through ademonstration of his power and ability to do so. It is a curious factof Hindu history that nearly all of its incarnations,—namely, Buddha,Rama, Krishna—belonged to the second or military caste. But the Hinducastes had already lost their flexible natures as early as the sixthcentury B.C., when Buddha once again preached the doctrines of equalityto all classes of people. Through the influence of Buddhist teachingsand for over a thousand years during which Buddhism reigned overIndia, artificial hereditary caste divisions among peoples were almostentirely demolished and forgotten. “Buddha gave to the spirit of castea death-blow. He refused to admit differences between persons becauseof their color or race. He would not recognize a Brahman because hewas born a Brahman. On the other hand he distinguished between peopleaccording to their intellectual status and moral worth.”[29] He whopossessed the qualities of “peace, self-restraint, self-control,righteousness, devotion, love for humanity, and divine wisdom” wasalone a true Brahman. To the Buddhist, caste was less important thancharacter. His Jataka tales preached this doctrine in a simple buthighly eloquent manner:

About 600 A. D. however, when Buddhism declined and the Brahmansregained their power, caste was once again established on the oldhereditary lines. Since that time the influence of the vicious systemhas prevailed, except when it was checked by such teachers as Chaitynawho have regularly appeared at critical periods of the country’shistory. Nanak’s influence in modern times has been the strongest inbreaking down the barriers of caste. He was born near Lahore (Punjab)in the year 1469 A.D. and became the founder of the Sikh religion. Herecognized the equality of all human beings, irrespective of theircolor, rank, or sex. In one of his most popular verses he says:

Even in the present day the followers of Nanak are a tremendous forcein demolishing caste. In a recent general assembly of the Sikhsheld at Amritsar (the official headquarters of the Sikh religion)it was announced that at all future gatherings of the community,and in all of its free kitchens everywhere, cooks belonging to the“untouchable” class shall be freely employed and even given specialpreference. As a beginning of this policy the usual pudding offeringof the Sikhs was distributed by “untouchable” men[Pg 101] and women to agroup of nearly twenty thousand delegates at the convention. Priorto this, resolutions condemning “untouchability” had been passed oninnumerable occasions at social service conferences; but never beforehad the ages-old custom been trampled upon, in a practical way, by anyother community belonging to the Hindu religion. May this auspiciousbeginning inaugurate a triumphant conclusion. It is sincerely hopedthat the leadership of Gandhi and the virile followers of Nanak inremoving the curse of “untouchability” will soon be recognized by theentire Hindu community. This alone could insure the enthusiastic Hindunationalists political economic freedom for their country. Had it notbeen for the selfishness of the Brahmans during the mediæval period,—aselfishness which has tended to segregate the Hindus into differentsections through the strict caste restrictions of various types,—Indiawould occupy today the vanguard of the world’s progress instead ofthe rear. In spite of her present weakness India possesses, however,within herself a marvelous reserve force which will enable her to passthrough this crisis. While the haughty West, which has always delightedin taunting the Hindus for the latter’s caste, has not even begun toexamine her problem of race-conflict, India is already on its way tosolving her own caste problem. Gradually, as the younger generationamong the Hindus gains more power, “untouchability” and its allieddiseases will disappear. Personally, I believe that the leaders ofIndia are headed in the right direction, and that soon equality amongmembers of the different castes will be[Pg 102]established in the country asa permanent part of its social structure.

“In the Hindu system, once the people were divided into differentcastes, equality of opportunity for all prevailed within theirown castes, while the caste or group as a whole had collectiveresponsibilities and privileges.” Each caste had its own rules andcode of honor; and so long as a man’s mode of living was acceptableto his caste-fellows, the rest of the community did not care about itat all. On the other hand, a man’s status in the outside world or hiswealth made no change in his rank within the caste. I shall offer anillustration from my own experience. During the mourning week after thedeath of a near relative of His Royal Highness, the ruling Prince ofthe native State of Kashmir, Her Royal Highness gave a state receptionto the sympathizing friends. Whereas she greeted the wives of the twohighest officials in the State, the English Resident and the PrimeMinister, with a nod of the head from her seat, Her Royal Highnesshad to receive standing the humble housekeeper in my brother’s home,because the latter belonged to the same caste as the ruling prince.“Society thus organized can be best described by the term GuildSocialism.”

Another distinctive feature in the study of its caste is the communalcharacter of Hindu life. Hindu society was established on a basis ofgroup morality. No set of rules were held binding on all classes alike,but within a given caste the freedom of the individual was subordinatedto the interest of the caste. Men lived not for their own interestsor comfort, but for the benefit of the community. It was a life of[Pg 103]self-sacrifice, and the concept of duty was paramount. The good ofcaste, of race, of nation stood first, and that of the individualsecond. Social welfare was placed before the happiness of theindividual. “For the family sacrifice the individual, for the communitythe family, for the country the community, for the soul all the world.”

Which of the two ideals, the communism of the Hindu or theindividualism of the Westerner is the better? Says Rabindranath Tagore:“Europe may have preached and striven for individualism, but where elsein the world is the individual so much of slave?”

On the other hand it must be remembered also that all ideals aregood only so far as they assist the individual to develop his fullmanhood, and the moment they begin to hamper him in his natural growthand thwart his own will they lose their value. So long as the casteregulations of the Hindus assisted them in their spiritual development,they were justified. But the moment they began to lose their originalcharacter and became an oppression in the hands of the priestlyclasses, who used their authority to stifle the nation’s spirit, theyhad lost their usefulness and invited the ridicule and censure of allintelligent thinkers.

Where finer feelings of fraternal human-fellowship prevailed overself-interest and individual gain, in such a community no voice criedin vain at the time of distress. When deaths in the family left smallchildren parentless, or sickness and misfortunes made homes penniless,the protection of other members of the caste was always available forthose in need. Orphans and helpless members within the caste were takeninto the homes of caste brothers and carefully brought up and[Pg 104] fedwith the rest as members of the family. Here the lucky and the unluckywere brought up side by side. Thus there has never arisen in Indiathe necessity of orphanages and poorhouses. As was said by an eminentEnglish writer:[31] “For to the ripe and mellow genius of the East ithas been always clear that the defenceless and unfortunate require ahome, not a barrack.”

Let us now review the entire subject of caste thus: The Aryan invadersof India found themselves surrounded by hordes of aboriginal andinferior races. Under similar conditions the European invaders ofAmerica and Australia exterminated the original population by killingthem off, or converted them into human slaves; the Hindu Aryansavoided both of these inhumanities by taking the native inhabitantsof the land into their social life. They gave these inferior peoplesa distinct place in the scale of labor, and assigned to them theduties of menial service, for which alone they were qualified at thetime. Further, to safeguard their superior culture, the Aryan leaderslaid down strict rules against intermarriage with their non-Aryanneighbors. And as these aboriginals were filthy in their habits andmostly carrion-eaters, it was also ordained as a measure of hygienicprecaution that the Aryans should not be allowed to drink the samewater or eat food cooked by non-Aryan hands. This was the beginning ofuntouchability.

Simultaneously with this racial division rose a functional divisionamong the Aryan population separating[Pg 105] it into three orders of priests,warriors, and husbandmen. This constituted the four-fold division ofthe Hindu caste system—the Aryan inhabitants of the land forming thefirst three castes of Brahmans, Khashatriyas, and Vaishyas, while thenon-Aryans constituted the fourth caste of servants or Sudras. At firstthese divisions into different castes were flexible and persons in thelower castes were allowed to rise into the ones higher by virtue oftheir merit. We find that most of the historic religious teachers ofthe Hindus, namely, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, came from the secondclass.

Gradually, however, the castes began to lose their flexible nature,and before the birth of Buddha in the year 600 B. C. they had alreadyacquired a hereditary character. The teachings of Buddhism had thetendency to break down the hereditary barriers of caste, and during athousand years of its reign the people of India had forgotten theircaste boundaries. “Around 600 A. D. Buddhism began to decline and theBrahman priests gained fresh prestige. They set up the different casteson the old hereditary lines once again, and, except for a few localbreaks through the appearance of such leaders as Nanak in Punjab andChaityna in the South, the spirit of caste has prevailed throughoutHindu India since the decline of Buddhism.” The greatest champion ofthe lower classes who has appeared in recent times is the peacefulleader of India’s silent revolution, Mahatma Gandhi. He has spoken andwritten against untouchability and its allied evils more bitterly andlonger than against other vital political and economic wrongs of thecountry. He has told his[Pg 106] countrymen time and again that India’s soulcannot become pure so long as untouchability stays amongst the Hindusto defile it. And as a proof of his own sincerity in the matter he hasadopted in his own family an untouchable girl whom he calls the joy ofthe household.

The evils of caste are quite manifest. It has tended to divide theHindu community into various groups and thus destroyed among themunity of feeling which alone could insure national strength. Lack ofunited power opened the way for foreign invasions, which, again, hasresulted in dragging India down from her former place of glory to herpresent state of humiliation and ruin. Yet alongside with the manyevils of India’s caste system several advantages have accrued fromit. Its existence has tended to make the people of India conservativeand tolerant. With the institution of caste they felt so wellfortified within themselves that they did not fear the influx of newideas into their midst. India offered a safe and welcome home to theoppressed minorities from other lands. The Parsis and Jews came andsettled there. They were not merely tolerated but welcomed by theHindus, because the latter, assured of their own wonderful powers ofresistance, had nothing to fear from outside influences. The Hinducaste system may be described as “the social formulation of defenceminus all elements of aggression.” Since the beginning of her historyIndia has been subjected to numerous invasions, but she has stoodagainst them successfully. In the cultural sense India, instead ofbeing conquered, “has always succeeded in conquering her conquerors.”[Pg 107]The invaders belonging to different civilizations and races have comeand disappeared, one after the other; but India still survives.[32]

Again, in the Hindus’ scheme of the division of labor care was taken toassign to every man his task and remuneration in such a manner as toavoid all unnecessary friction among the different classes. Its valuewill be readily recognized by those who are familiar with the evilsof modern industrialism, arising from the intense hatred within thedifferent classes.

Finally, it must be said to the credit of Hindu sociologists that, atleast, they had the courage to face the problem of race-conflict with asympathetic mind. The problem was not of their creation. The diversityof races existed in India before these new Aryan invaders came intothe country. The caste system of the Hindus was the result of theirsincere endeavors to seek a solution of their difficult problem. Itsobject was to keep the different races together and yet afford each oneof them opportunity to express itself in its own separate way. “Indiamay not have achieved complete success in this. But who else has? Itwas, at least, better than the best which the West has thought of sofar. There the stronger races have either exterminated the weaker oneslike the Red Indians in America, or shut them out completely like theAsiatics in Australia and America.” “Whatever may be its merits,” saysTagore, “you will have to admit that it does not spring from the higherimpulses of civilization, but from the lower passions of greed andhatred.”

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter V

Mohandass Karamchand Gandhi is today the acknowledged leader ofthree hundred million inhabitants of India. He is the author of theNon-violent Non-coöperation movement, adopted by the Indian NationalCongress as a weapon of passive resistance wherewith to win India’sfreedom. In March, 1922, because of his public activities in Indiaas a leader of this movement, Gandhi was convicted on the charge ofpromoting disaffection towards the British crown, and was sentencedto six years’ incarceration. He was released from prison, however, in1924 by a special order of the British Labor Government. Since thattime he has remained the most powerful and beloved public figure in thenationalist movement of India.

His movement has aroused great interest among the different peoples ofthe world. But the information given to the outside public has been sovague and disconnected that it has led to very erroneous conclusions.So much of pure nonsense in the form of praise and ridicule of Gandhiand his activities has been passed around that it has become difficultfor the earnest student to separate the real from the fictitious.Therefore it is only fitting that we should make a careful study of theman and his message.

A sufficient number of scholars, students, missionaries, travelers,and writers have studied him[Pg 109]carefully enough to enable them toform a reliable opinion. Irrespective of their missions, opinions,and designations, these investigators all agree as to the magneticpersonality of Gandhi and to the purity of his private and publiclife. “His sweet, subtle sense of humor, and his profound confidencein the ultimate triumph of truth and justice as against falsehood andoppression never fail to influence and inspire everyone who comes hisway.” Even the very judge who, seven years ago, sentenced him to sixyears’ incarceration could not resist the temptation to call him “agreat patriot and a great leader,” and to pay him the tribute: “Eventhose who differ from you in politics look up to you as a man of highideals and as leading a noble and even saintly life.”

Gandhi, born at Ahmedabad (India) in October, 1869, had all theadvantages of an early education under careful guidance. His father,Karamchand Gandhi, a wealthy man and a statesman by profession,combined in himself the highest political wisdom and learning togetherwith an utter simplicity of manner. He was respected throughout Deccan,in which (province) he was prime minister of a native state, as ajust man and an uncompromising champion of the weak. “Gandhi’s motherwas an orthodox Hindu lady, with stubborn religious conceptions. Sheled a very simple and dignified life after the teachings of the HinduVedas.” She was a very jealous and affectionate mother and took a deepinterest in the bringing up of her children. Gandhi, the favorite“Mohan” of his parents, was the center of all the cares and disciplineof his loving relatives. He inherited from his father[Pg 110] a determinationof purpose and the tenacity of a powerful will, and from his mothera sense of religious and moral purity of life. After graduating froma native school in his home town, he was sent to England to finishhis education. He fitted himself for the bar at the University ofLondon, and on his return to India was admitted as an advocate ofthe High Court of Bombay. While still in London, Gandhi acquired thehabit of passing the best part of his days in solitude. From thetemptations of the boisterous London life he could find escape onlywhen he sat alone by his window, violin in his lap, and thought ofan unconquered spiritual world in his mind. A product of the earlyfavorable circumstances and all the advanced education, Gandhi is thusa highly cultured gentleman with finished manners. He possesses a happytemperament with but a tinge of melancholy pervading his life andconduct.

As a patriot and leader of an oppressed people struggling for freedom,Gandhi belongs in the category of the world’s great liberators withsuch men as Washington, Lincoln, and Mazzini. As a saintly person whohas dedicated his life to preaching the gospel of love and truth, andwho has actually lived up to his preachings, he ranks among such of theworld’s great sages as Buddha, Jesus, and Socrates. On the one hand adangerous political agitator, an untiring and unresting promoter ofa huge mass revolution; yet on the other an uncompromising championof non-violence, a saint with the motto, “Love thine enemies,” Gandhistands unique, supreme, unequalled, and unsurpassed.

His theory of a non-violent mass revolution aiming at the dethronementof a powerful, militaristic government like the British Bureaucracy inIndia, though strange and impractical at first thought, is yet verysimple and straightforward.

“Man is born free, and yet,” lamented Rousseau, “he is everywherein chains.” “Man is born free, why should he refuse to live free?”questions Gandhi. Freedom is man’s birthright. With unlimited libertyin thought and action man could live in perfect peace and harmony oncondition that all men would rigidly observe their own duties and keepwithin their own rights. “But men as they are and not as they shouldbe, possess a certain amount of animal nature. In some it is subdued,while in others, let loose, it becomes the cause of disturbance anddislocates all freedom.” To safeguard against the encroachment of suchnatures on the “natural rights” and privileges of others, men haveorganized themselves into groups called states. “By so doing, eachvoluntary member of this state foregoes some of his personal rightsin exchange for certain individual privileges and communal rights tobe secured under its protection. The government of a country is thusa matter of voluntary choice by its people and is organized to carryon such functions as shall conduce to the highest good of the maximumnumber.” When it becomes corrupt, when instead of protecting itsmembers from every form of evil and disorder, it becomes an instrumentof the forces of darkness and a tool of corruption, citizens havean inalienable right to demand a change in the existing order. Theymight first attempt peaceful reform, but[Pg 112] should such attempts come tonought, the right of revolution is theirs. It is indeed their rightto refuse their coöperation, direct or indirect, with a governmentwhich has been responsible for the spiritual decadence and politicaldegeneracy of their country. Gandhi explains his attitude thus:

For a period of more than twenty-five years, Gandhi coöperated with theBritish Empire whenever it was threatened and stood in need. Thoughhe vehemently criticized it when it went wrong, yet he did not wishits destruction until his final decision of non-coöperation in 1920.“He felt, that in spite of its abuses and shortcomings, the system wasmainly and intrinsically good.” Gandhi joined in the World War on theside of the Allies. When the war started, he was in England, where heorganized an Ambulance Corps from among the group of his compatriotsresiding there. Later on, in India, he accepted a position in theBritish Recruiting Service as an honorary officer, and strained himselfto the breaking point in his efforts to assist Great Britain.

“Gandhi gave proofs of his loyalty to the Empire and of his faithin British justice by valuable services also on the occasion of theAnglo-Boer war (1899) and the Zulu revolt (1906). In recognition ofhis services on the two latter occasions he was awarded gold medals,and his name was each time mentioned in the dispatches. Later, on hisreturn to India, he was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal by LordHardinge in recognition of his humanitarian services in South Africa.”These medals he determinedly, though regretfully, returned to theViceroy of India[Pg 114] on August 1, 1920. The letter that accompanied thembesides other things contained this statement:

His statement in court at the time of his conviction in March, 1922,when he pleaded guilty, reads:

The chief distinction between Gandhi and other liberators, the chiefdifference between him and other leaders was that he wanted hiscountrymen to love their friends, and yet not to hate their enemies.“Hatred ceaseth not by hatred; hatred ceaseth by love” was his soleplea to his fellowmen. He enjoined them to love their oppressors, forthrough love and suffering alone could these same oppressors be broughtto see their mistakes. Thus, following his public announcement ofthe non-coöperation policy he embarked upon an extensive tour of thecountry. Wherever he went he preached disaffection towards the existinggovernment.

Gandhi’s whole political career is inspired by a deep love for hissuffering countrymen. His heart burns with the desire to free hiscountry from its present state of thraldom and helpless servitude.India, the cradle of civilization and culture, for ages the solitarysource of light and of wisdom, whence issued the undying message ofBuddhist missionaries, where empires flourished under the carefulguidance of distinguished statesmen, the land of Asoka and Akbar, liesto-day at the tender mercy of a haughty conqueror, intoxicated andmaddened by the conquest of a helpless people. “Her arts degenerated,her literatures dead, her beautiful industries perished, her valordone,” she presents but a pitiful picture to the onlooking world.Gandhi, the heroically determined son of India, feels the impulseto save his motherland from the present state of “slow torture,emasculation, and degradation,” and suggests to his countrymen theuse of the unique yet powerful weapon of peaceful non-coöperation.[Pg 116]Through this slow process of “self-denial” and “self-purification” heproposes to carry his country forward till the goal of its politicalemancipation and its spiritual freedom is fully realized. Politicalfreedom might be secured by force, but that is not what Gandhi wishes.Unsatisfied with mere freedom of the body, he soars higher and strivesfor a sublimer form of liberty, the freedom of the soul. To thequestion, “Shall India follow the stern example of Europe, and fightout its struggle for political and economic independence?” Gandhireplies with an emphatic and unqualified “No.” “What has Europe’spowerful military and material organization done to insure its futurepeace?” Romain Rolland answers: “Half a century ago might dominatedright. To-day things are far worse. Might is right. Might has devouredright.”

No people, no nation has ever won or ever can win real freedom throughviolence. “Violence implies the use of force, and the force isoppressive. Those who fight and win with force, ultimately find it bothconvenient and expedient to follow the line of least resistance; andthey continue to rely upon force in time of peace as well, ostensiblyto maintain law and order, but practically to suppress and stifleevery rising spirit. The power may thus change hands, yet leave theevil process to continue without a moment’s break. Non-violence doesnot carry with it this degeneration which is inherent in the use ofviolence.” Gandhi is highly eloquent on this score when he says:

“One must love one’s enemies while hating their deeds; hate Satanismwhile loving Satan” is the principal article of Gandhi’s faith, andhe has proved himself worthy of this lofty profession by his ownpersonal conduct. Through all the stormy years of his life he has stoodfirm in his noble convictions, with his love untainted, his faithunchallenged, his veracity unquestioned, and his courage undaunted. “Nocriticism however sharp, no abuse however bitter, ever affected theloving heart of Gandhi.” In the knowledge of his life-long politicalassociates (members of the Indian National Congress and of other suchorganizations), Gandhi has never, even in moments of the most violentexcitement, lost control of himself. When light-hearted criticismshave been showered on his program by younger and more inexperiencedcolleagues, when the bitterest sarcasms have been aimed at him by olderassociates, he has never revealed by so much as a tone of his voice theslightest touch of anger or the slightest show of contempt.His limitof tolerance has not yet been reached.

During the last ten years of his political life in India when he guidedthe destines of his countrymen as leader of a great movement, Gandhiagain gave unmistakable proofs of the vastness of his love for mankind.That his love is not reserved for his compatriots[Pg 118] alone, but extendseven to his bitterest enemies, he revealed clearly throughout the mostcritical period of his life. His enemies, the British bureaucrats,tried to nip his movement in the very bud by using all the powerat their command to discredit him in the eyes of his countrymenand of the world outside. Calumnies were heaped upon him from allsides. He was called a “hypocrite,” an “unscrupulous agitator,” a“disguised autocrat.” The vast number of his followers were brandedas “dumb-cattle,” and hundreds of thousands of them were flogged,imprisoned, and in some cases even shot for no other offense than thatof wearing the coarse hand-spun “Gandhi cap” and singing the Indiannational hymn. Even in such trying moments he remained firm in hisfaith, and loyal to his professions. Evidence as to the undisturbed,peaceful condition of his mind and spirit is amply furnished by thefollowing statements which he gave to the Indian press in thoseturbulent days:

It must be remembered that all this was at a time when Mr. Gandhiheld undisputed sway over the hearts of his three hundred millioncountrymen. Setting aside all precedence his countrymen unanimouslyelected Gandhi dictator of the Indian National Congress with full powerto lead the country in emergencies. A word from him was sufficient toinduce the millions of India to sacrifice their lives without regret orreproach. No man ever commanded the allegiance of so great a number ofmen, and felt at the same time so meek.

Through the successive stages of “self-denial” and “self-purification”he is gradually preparing his countrymen for the final step in hisprogram, the civil disobedience. Once the country has reached thatstate, if his program is carried through, the revolution will have beenaccomplished without shedding a drop of blood. Henry David Thoreauonce wrote: “When the officer has resigned office, and the subjecthas refused[Pg 120] allegiance, the revolution is accomplished.” That willbe the dawn of day, hopeful and bright. The forces of darkness andof evil will have made room for those of light and of love. But thiswill not come to pass unless Gandhi’s policy is literally adopted, andultimately triumphs. He explains:

Gandhi has been bitterly assailed by both friends and foes for havingconsented to render assistance to the cause of the World War incontradiction to his own teachings of non-resistance. Gandhi has beenaccused of inconsistency and even his most ardent admirers often failto reconcile his doings during the war with the doctrine of “Ahimsa”(non-violence to any form of life). In his autobiography he has triedto answer these objections, which we shall now examine. He writes:

This statement shows that his reasons for going into the war weredifferent from those of the Quakers, who think it is an act ofChristian love to succor the wounded in war. Gandhi, on the contrary,believes that the person who made bandages for the Red Cross was asmuch guilty of the murder in war as were the fighting combatants.So long as you have consented to become a part of the machinery ofwar, whose object is destruction, you are yourself an instrumentof destruction. And however you may argue the issue[Pg 122] you cannot beabsolved from the moral guilt involved. The man who has offeredhis services as an ambulance carrier on the battlefield is helpingthe war-lords just as much as his brother who carries arms. One isassisting the cause of the war-lord by killing the enemy, the other byhelping war to do its work of murder more efficiently.

I am reminded of the argument I once had with a very conscientiousfriend of mine, who is a stubborn enemy of war and yet who recalls thefollowing incident in his life with a sorrowful look in his face. Oneday while he was living in London, a young friend of his came to sayhis farewell before leaving for the front. Poison gas had been justintroduced into the war as a weapon. The combatants were instructed toprocure gas masks before departing, but the supply was limited, and hisyoung soldier friend had to go without a gas mask. He left his permit,however, with the request that my friend should get the mask when thenext supply came in and send it to his regimental address. Two dayslater the gas mask was mailed to this boy soldier at the battle front.Before it reached there, however, the soldier was already dead. On thefirst day after the arrival of the regiment, it was heavily gassed bythe enemy, and all of those who had gone without the protective maskswere killed. The parcel was returned to my friend at his London addresswith the sad news that his friend was here no more. He was bitterlydisappointed that the mask had not reached the beloved young man intime to save his life. I interpret the whole affair in this way: Insending a gas mask to this English soldier, my pacifist[Pg 123] friend wasconspiring, however unconsciously, to kill the Germans. He wanted tosave his friend from death, but did he realize that at the same time hewas wishing more deaths on the enemy? He was, in fact, helping to saveone young man in order that this young man might kill more young men onthe other side. How does Gandhi justify his action in joining the war,then? We shall let him speak once again. He writes:

How far Mr. Gandhi’s explanation can answer the objections of hiscritics we shall leave our readers to judge for themselves. Thequestion is debatable, and admits of differences of opinion. If hisargument does not carry conviction with other believers in the doctrineof non-resistance, Gandhi will not be surprised or offended. What aneminent pacifist friend of mine wrote me after she had read the answerof Gandhi may be summed up thus:

Gandhi’s argument is entirely wrong. When she was asked to help the RedCross, she was also told that she had the protection of the army andthe navy. To this she replied that she did not wish the protection ofthe army and the navy. As a conscientious objector to war, she felt ither duty to resist war to the best of her ability and power. When shestood against war with her full might, instead of being a mere cog inthe wheel of war, she was like a loose bolt in the machinery. Thus inher resistance “she was a positive force against war.”

Such in brief is the man Gandhi. As a specimen of the praise andaffection that have been heaped upon him from all quarters, we shallin conclusion give the sketch of Gandhi from the artistic pen of hishonest admirer, Mr. Romain Rolland:

Chapter VI

In a previous chapter we discussed the character and spirit of MahatmaGandhi into whose hands has fallen the duty of leading a countryof 300 million people through a political revolution. It must beunderstood, however, that Gandhi is the leader of the revolution andnot its creator. Modern thinkers universally admit that individuals orsmall groups of reformers do not make revolutions. “Agitators or menof genius and ability in a backward community might stir up sporadicrevolts and cause minor disturbances, but no human agency can evercreate mass revolutions. A successful revolution requires a state ofpolitical and social evolution ready for the desired transformation.The history of the world’s important political and social revolutionsfurnishes sufficient evidence in support of this theory.”[33] Theinsurrection of the slaves headed by the able Spartacus, in spite oftheir early admirable victories, could not overthrow Roman domination.The early attempts of the proletarian revolutionists, supported asthey were by leaders of genius and daring, were doomed to failure.India’s revolt against English rule in 1857 was ably led, yet itcould not succeed. In all these cases the same argument holds. Thetime was not ripe for the desired change. In the present case, Gandhihas been eminently successful because[Pg 127] India was prepared beforehandfor a mass revolution. Passive resistance, or no passive resistance,the Indian revolution was bound to come as a necessary consequenceof the country’s long continued political oppression and economicexploitation. The people were already growing desperate when a unitedmass uprising was precipitated by the English government’s brutalactions of 1919. During the war the English parliament had promised ameasure of self-government to the people of India as a reward for theirloyalty to the Empire. Early in 1919, when the country was agitatingfor the promised self-government, the English government of Indiaforcibly passed against the unanimous opposition from all sections ofthe people, special repressive measures in order to check the spreadof nationalism in India. Peaceful demonstrations directed against thenewly passed bills were organized all over the country. Once again thegovernment acted harshly in using inhuman methods in the form of publicflogging, crawlings and so forth, in the effort to suppress the risingspirit of freedom throughout the land. Just at this time Gandhi came onthe stage, and proposed to his countrymen the use of passive resistancefor the accomplishment of their political revolution. His resolutionof non-violent non-coöperation was officially adopted by the IndianNational Congress, and the nation in its fight for freedom pledgeditself to non-violence. What are passive resistance and non-violentnon-coöperation?

“The ethics of passive resistance is very simple and must be known toevery student of the New Testament. Passive resistance in its essenceis submission to[Pg 128]physical forceunder protest. Passive resistanceis really a misnomer. No thought is farther away from the heart of thepassive resister than the thought of passivity. The soul of his idealis resistance, and he resists in the most heroic and forceful manner.”The only difference between his heroism and our common conceptionof the word is in the choice of the weapon. His main doctrine is toavoid violence and to substitute for physical force the forces oflove, faith, and sacrifice. “Passive resistance resists, but not blowfor blow. Passive resistance calls the use of the physical weapon inthe hands of man the most cowardly thing in life.” Passive resistanceteaches men to resist heroically the might and injustice of the untrueand unrighteous. But they must fight with moral and spiritual weapons.They must resist tyranny with forbearance, hatred with love, wrong withright, and injustice with faith. “To hurl back the cowardly weapon ofthe wicked and the unjust is useless. Let it fall. Bear your sufferingwith patience. Place your faith in the strength of the divine soulof man.” “The hardest fibre must melt before the fire of love. Whenthe results do not correspond, the fire is not strong enough.” “Theindomitable tenacity and magic of the great soul will operate andwin out; force must bow down before heroic gentleness.” This is thetechnique of passive resistance.

The actual application of this principle to politics requiresexplanation. Individuals or groups have a right to refuse submissionto the authority of government which they consider unjust and brutal.“The people of India,” says Gandhi, “have been convinced, after longand fearful trials, that the English[Pg 129]government of India is Satanic.It is based on violence. Its object is not the good of the people, butrapine and plunder. It works not in the interests of the governed, andits policies are not guided by their consent. It bases itself finallynot on right but on might. Its last appeal is not to the reason, northe heart, but to the sword. The country is tired of this creed and ithas risen against it.” Under these conditions the most straightforwardcourse to follow is to seek the destruction of such an institution. Thepeople of India can destroy the thing by force, or else they can refusetheir coöperation with its various activities and render it helpless;then refuse their submission to its authority and render it useless.

Just consider the case of a country where all government officersresign from their offices, where the people boycott the variousgovernmental institutions such as public schools and colleges, lawcourts, and legislatures; and where the taxpayers refuse to pay theirtaxes. The people can do all this without resort to force, and sostop the machinery of the government dead, and make it a meaninglessthing without use and power. To quote Thoreau once again: “When theofficer has resigned office, and the subject has refused allegiance,the revolution is accomplished.” This is exactly what the people ofIndia have set out to do by their present policy of passive resistance.However simple the theory may be, the practice of it is difficultand perilous. When a people resort to these peaceful means for theaccomplishment of political revolution, they must be prepared toundergo unlimited suffering. The enemy’s camp will be determinedand[Pg 130]organized; from it will issue constant provocations and brutalexhibitions of force. Under these difficult circumstances, the onlychance for the success of the passive resister is in his readinessfor infinite and courageous suffering, qualities that in turn imply apowerful reserve of self-control and an utter dedication to the ideal.Evidently to prepare a nation of 300 million people for this tremendoustask must take time and require great patience and courage. To quoteGandhi:

The people of India are moving on the road to freedom with dignity.They are slowly nearing their goal. On their way the passive resistersare learning their lessons from bitter experience, and are growingstronger in faith every day. That they are headed in the rightdirection and are quietly pushing forward we do know in a definite way,but when they will emerge victorious we cannot say. To help the readerto catch the subtle spirit behind this movement, we shall quote a fewmore lines from the pen of its leader:

The wearing of home-spun cloth by all classes of people, rich andpoor alike, is one of the most important items in the non-coöperativeprogram. Yet every time I have tried to justify it before my Americanfriends, I have received as response a shrug of the shoulders. Not onlythe layman, but serious students of economics have replied: “That isgoing back into mediæval ways. In these days of machinery home-spinningis sheer foolishness.” Yet one does not have to be an economist to knowthat “labor spent on home-spinning and thus used in the creation ofa utility, is better spent than wasted in idleness.” The majority ofthe population of India lives directly upon the produce of the soil.They remain in forced idleness for a greater part of the year. Thereare no industries in the country, cottage or urban. So the people havenothing to occupy them during their idle months. Before the Englishconquest, agricultural India had its supplementary industries on whichthe people could fall during their idle time. But these industries havebeen completely destroyed by the English fiscal policy for India, whichwas formulated with the desire to build England’s own fabric and otherindustries upon the ruins of India’s industries. The country producesmore cotton than is needed for its own use. Under ordinary conditionsthis cotton is exported out of the country, and cloth manufactured inthe mills of England is imported into the country for its consumption.For want of a substitute people are forced to buy this foreign cloth.And they are so miserably poor that the great majority of them cannotafford one meal a day. Nothing could be more sensible for these people[Pg 132]than to adopt home-spinning during their idle hours. This will help tosave them, partially at least, from starvation. Let me quote Gandhi onthis subject:

The people of India have made mistakes in the past, and theywill probably make others in the future. But that in sticking tonon-violence they are fulfilling the noblest ideal ever conceived byman, and in staying[Pg 133] loyal to the spirit of passive resistance theyare following a truer and a richer light will not be questioned. Willhumanity at large see the wisdom of passive resistance? To me in ourpresent state that seems very doubtful. It will be easy to convince thecommon man of the virtue and wisdom of non-violence. But unfortunatelythe reins of our destiny are not in the hands of common people. Thosewho hold the power over the nations of the world have other intereststo look after than the common interests of the average man. They arepledged to the service of other masters whose welfare is not thewelfare of the whole race. “The world is ruled at the present day bythose who must oppress and kill in order to exploit.” So long as thiscondition continues, there is little hope for the reformation of humansociety. We must all suffer because we would not learn.

Mankind will not always refuse to listen to the voice of reason. Atime will come when the great masses all over the world will refuse tofight, when exploitation and wars will cease, and the different groupsof the human race will consent to live together in coöperation andpeace.

An illustration of the might of passive resistance was furnished duringthe conflict between the British Government of India and the AkaliSikhs over the management of their shrines. This incident shows to whatheights of self-sacrifice and suffering human beings can reach whenthey are under the spell of noble idealism. Sikhs are a virile race offighting people. They are all members of a religious fellowship andform nearly one-sixth of the population of the province of[Pg 134] Punjabin the northwest part of India. They constitute by themselves a veryimportant community, which is closely bound together by a feeling ofcommon brotherhood. They all go by the name of Singh, meaning thelion, and are rightly proud of their history, which though brief inscope of time, is yet full of inspiring deeds committed by the Sikhforefathers in the defense of religious freedom and justice during theevil days of a few corrupt and fanatic Moghul rulers of India. As arule Sikhs belong to the agriculturist class and both men and women arestalwart and healthy-looking. Their men are distinguished by their longhair and beards. They are born with martial characteristics and arenaturally very bold and brave in their habits. Once aroused to sense ofduty towards the weak and the oppressed, they have always been foundwilling to give their lives without remorse or regret. Sikhs constitutea major portion of the military and police forces of India and ofseveral British colonies. Those tourists who have been in the East willrecall the tall, bearded Sikh policemen of the British principalitiesof Shanghai and Hongkong. Since the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, Sikhs havealways been regarded as the most loyal and devoted subjects of theBritish Crown in India. “On the battlefields of Flanders, Mesopotamia,Persia, and Egypt they have served the Empire faithfully and well.Their deeds of heroism were particularly noticed during the most tryingmoments of the World War.”

Before the British acquired the province in 1849 Sikhs were the rulersof the Punjab. During the period of their rule Sikh princes had maderich grants[Pg 135] of land and other property to the historic temples andshrines of their religion. Because of the introduction of irrigationcanals some of these properties have acquired immense values in recentyears, their annual incomes in several cases running up to a millionrupees or more.

The Sikhs have always regarded the temple properties as belongingto the community. And when it was brought to the notice of theirprogressive leaders that the hereditary priests at some of the historicand rich Sikh centers had become corrupt and were wasting the templemoney in vicious pleasures, the Sikhs organized the Central ShrineManagement Committee. The object of the committee was to take awaythe management of all important Sikh shrines from the corrupt priestsand to vest it in the community. The committee was first organized inNovember, 1920, and its members were elected on the basis of universalfranchise open to both sexes. The method of procedure followed by thecommittee was that of arbitration. A local sub-committee, consistingof the leading Sikhs in the neighborhood, was formed to watch over theaffairs of every shrine. This sub-committee was to act in coöperationwith the temple priest, who was henceforth to be a subordinate and notthe sole master. Whenever the priests agreed to arbitrate the matter ina fair manner, they were allowed free use of their residence quartersand were awarded liberal salaries for household expenses. By thismethod the Central Shrine Committee in a short time became masters ofsome of the very rich and important Sikh shrines.

While in several of the smaller places such[Pg 136]transfer of ownership wasaccomplished through peaceful means, in some of the bigger templesthe community had to undergo heavy losses in life. For instance atNanakana Sahib, the Jerusalem of the Sikhs, a band of one hundredunarmed followers of the Central Committee were surrounded by a bandof armed hirelings of the priest. They were first shot at, thenassaulted with rifle butt-ends, and later cut into small pieces orburnt alive after being previously soaked with kerosene oil. The priestpersonally supervised this whole affair of daylight butchery which didnot finish until the last one of the Sikhs had been consumed by thebloody bonfire. Later it was discovered that the priest had preparedfor the bloodshed long before, and that he had hired the armed ruffiansand barricaded the temple premises after consultation with the localEnglish Justice of the Peace. The leading dailies of the countryopenly stated that the English civil commissioner was a co-partner inthe crime, but the government took no notice of the fact. The Hindupopulation was not surprised that the priest who had murdered onehundred innocent, inoffensive, devout Sikhs escaped capital punishmentin the British courts or that in his prison he was surrounded with allthe princely luxuries of his former palace.

Guru Ka Bagh is a historic Sikh temple, situated at a distance ofnearly eight miles from the central headquarters of the Sikhs in thecity of Amritsar. Through an agreement drawn between the CentralShrine Committee and the temple priest on January 31, 1921, Guru KaBagh had come under the management of a local board assisted by thepriest. Six months later,[Pg 137] presumably at the suggestion of the civilcommissioner, the priest burned all the temple records and drove therepresentative of the Central Committee out of the temple premises;whereupon the Central Committee took full charge of the temple. Theywere in uncontested possession of the premises until trouble started,a year later, from the arrest of five Akali Sikhs, who had gone out tocut firewood from the surrounding grounds attached to the Guru Ka Bagh.A formal complaint was obtained by the civil commissioner from theousted priest to the effect that in cutting wood for use in the templekitchen the Akalis were trespassing on his property rights. The cuttingof wood on the premises went on as usual until the police began to makewholesale arrests of all so-called trespassers.

This procedure continued for four days till the police found outthat large numbers of Akalis (immortals) were pouring in from allsides, everyone eager to be arrested in protecting the rights of hiscommunity. Then the police began to beat the Akali bands with bamboosticks six feet long and fitted with iron knobs on both ends. As soonas Akalis, in groups of five, started to go across for cutting wood,they were assaulted by the police armed with these bamboo sticks andwere mercilessly beaten over their heads and bodies until they becameunconscious and had to be carried away by the temple ambulance workers.

The news of this novel method of punishment at once spread throughoutthe country like wild fire and thousands of Sikhs started on their wayto Amritsar. The government closed the sale of railroad tickets to allAkali Sikhs wearing black turbans, which[Pg 138]constituted their nationaluniform. The various highways leading into the city of the GoldenTemple, Amritsar, were blocked by armed police. But after a call forthem had been issued at the official headquarters of the Central ShrineManagement Committee, nothing could stop the Akalis from crowding intothe city. Where railroads refused passage they walked long distanceson foot, and when river and canal bridges were guarded against them,both men and women swam across the waters to reach their holy templeat Amritsar. In the course of two days the huge premises of the GoldenTemple were filled with Akalis of every sort and kind—boys of twelvewith feet sore with blisters from prolonged walking, women of allages—and still many were fast pouring in.

“Among them were medaled veterans of many wars who had fought forthe English in foreign lands and won eminent recognition, and hadnow rushed to Amritsar to win a higher and nobler merit in theservice of their religion and country. They had assembled there to beruthlessly beaten and killed by the agents of the same government forwhose protection they had fought at home and across the seas.” Theseold warriors, disillusioned by their English friends, who were nowconspiring to take from them the simple rights of worship in their owntemples, had not lost their independence and courage. They had alwaysbeen the first to leap before the firing guns of the enemy on thebattlefields of England; they were first again here to throw themselvesat the feet of their Central Shrine Committee, willing to sacrificetheir lives at its bidding. All were eager, one more than[Pg 139] the other,to offer themselves for the beating at Guru Ka Bagh.

Seeing that their efforts to stop the Akalis from gathering at Amritsarhad been wholly unsuccessful, the Government issued strict ordersagainst any person or group of persons from proceeding to Guru Ka Bagh.Sizing up the whole situation, the assembled leaders of the communityrepresented in the Central Shrine Committee at once resolved on twothings. First, the community would contest its right of peacefulpilgrimage and worship at Guru Ka Bagh and other temples until thelast among the Sikhs had been killed in the struggle. Secondly, theywould steadfastly adhere to the letter and spirit of Mahatma Gandhi’steachings of non-violence. Thirdly, they decided to send Akalis to GuruKa Bagh in batches of a hundred each, in direct defiance of the ordersof the British Government. Before starting on the march, each Akaliwas required to take an oath of strict non-violence; that he would notuse force in action or speech under any provocation whatsoever; thatif assaulted he would submit to the rough treatment with resignationand humility; that whatever might be the nature of his ordeal he wouldnot turn his face backward. He would either reach Guru Ka Bagh and goout for chopping wood when so instructed, or he would be carried to thecommittee’s emergency hospital unconscious, dead or alive.

The first batch started towards Guru Ka Bagh on August 31, 1922, afterpreviously taking the vow of non-violence. The Akalis were dressed inblack turbans with garlands of white flowers wrapped around[Pg 140] theirheads. On their way, as the Akalis sang their religious hymns inchorus, they were met by a band of policemen armed with bamboo sticks.Simultaneously the Akalis sat down and thrust their heads forward toreceive blows. An order was given by the English superintendent, andon rushed the police with their long bamboo rods to do their bloodywork. They beat the non-resisting Sikhs on the heads, backs, and otherdelicate parts of their bodies, until the entire one hundred was maimedand battered and lay there in a mass unconscious, prostrate, bleeding.While the volunteers were passively receiving blows from the police,the English superintendent sportively ran his horse over them and back.His assistants pulled the Sikhs by their sacred hair, spat upon theirfaces, and cursed and called them names in the most offensive manner.Later, their unconscious bodies were dragged away by the long hair andthrown into the mud on either side of the road. From the ditches theywere picked up by the ambulance workers and brought to the emergencyhospital under the management of the Central Shrine Committee.

In this way batches of one hundred, pledged to the principle ofnon-violence, were sent every day to be beaten by the police in thisbrutal fashion and then were picked up unconscious by the ambulanceservice. After the tenth day Akalis were allowed to proceed freely ontheir way. But the beatings in Guru Ka Bagh at the stop where wood forkitchen use had been cut, continued till much later. After a few overfifteen hundred non-resistant and innocent human beings had been thussacrificed, several hundred of whom had[Pg 141] died of injuries received andmany others had been totally disabled for life, the Government withdrewthe police from Guru Ka Bagh and allowed the Sikhs free use of thetemple and its adjoining properties.

It was an acknowledgment of defeat on the part of the BritishGovernment and a definite victory for the passive resisters.Non-violence had triumphed over brute force. The meek Sikhs hadestablished their moral and spiritual courage beyond a doubt. Those whoearlier had laughed at Gandhi’s doctrines now began to reconsider theiropinions and wondered if it were not true that the soul force of manwas the mightiest power in the world, more powerful than the might ofall its armies and navies put together. “Socrates and Christ are bothdead, but their spirits live and will continue to live.” Their bodieswere destroyed by those who possessed physical force, but their soulswere invincible. Who could conquer the spirit of Socrates, Christ, orGandhi when that spirit refused to be conquered? At the time of theGuru Ka Bagh incident the physical Gandhi was locked behind iron barsin a jail of India, but his spirit accompanied every Sikh as he steppedacross the line to receive the enemy’s cowardly blows.

The amazing part of this whole story is the perfect peace thatprevailed throughout its entire course. The program of passiveresistance was carried to completion without one slip of action on thepart of the passive resisters. No community in the whole length andbreadth of India is more warlike and more inflammable for a righteouscause than the Sikhs; and nothing is more provoking to a Sikh than aninsult[Pg 142] offered to his sacred hair. Yet in hundreds of cases theirsacred hair was smeared with mud and trampled upon, while the bodies ofnon-resisting Sikhs were dragged by their hair in the most maliciousmanner by the police; but the passive resisters remained firm in theirresolve to the last and thereby proved their faith both in themselvesand in their principles.

Those who have not grasped the subtle meaning of passive resistancewill call the Akali Sikhs cowards. They will say: “Well, the reasonwhy the Akalis did not return the blows of the police was because theywere afraid; and it was cowardice and not courage that made them submitto such insults as the pulling of their sacred hair and so forth. Atruly brave person, who has a grain of salt in him, will answer theblows of the enemy under those conditions and fight in the defense ofhis honor until he is killed.” Although we do not agree with the firstpart of our objecting friend’s argument, we shall admit the truth ofhis statement that it takes a brave man to defend his honor at therisk of death itself. Yet we hold that the Akali who, while defendinghis national rights, voluntarily allowed himself to be beaten to deathwithout thoughts of malice or hatred in his heart against anybody was amore courageous person than even the hero of our objecting friend. Why?To use Gandhi’s illustration: “What do you think? Wherein is couragerequired—in blowing others to pieces from behind a cannon or with asmiling face approaching a cannon and being blown to pieces? Who is thetrue warrior—he who keeps death as a bosom-friend or he who controlsthe death of others? Believe me that a man[Pg 143]devoid of courage andmanhood can never be a passive resister.”

Let us stretch the point a little further in order to make it moreclear. During the martial law days at Amritsar in 1919, the commandingofficer ordered that all persons passing through a certain lane, wherepreviously an Englishwoman had been assaulted by a furious mob, shouldbe made to crawl on the bellies. Those living in the neighborhood hadsubmitted to this humiliation at the point of British bayonets. Later,when Mahatma Gandhi visited the lane, he is reported to have made aspeech from the spot which may be summarized thus: “You Punjabees, whopossess muscular bodies and have statures six feet tall; you, who callyourselves brave, submitted to the soul-degrading crawling order. I ama small man and my physique is very weak. I weigh less than a hundredpounds. But there is no power in this world that can makeme crawlon my belly. General Dyer’s soldiers can bind my body and put me injail, or with their military weapons they can take my life; but whenhe orders me to crawl on my belly I shall say: ‘Oh foolish man, don’tyou see, God has given me two feet to walk on? Why shall I crawl on myknees, then?’” This is an instance of passive resistance. Under thesecircumstances, would you call Gandhi a coward? You must remember thisdistinction between a coward and a passive resister: a coward submitsto force through fear; while a passive resister submits to forceunderprotest. In our illustration of the crawling order those persons whohad submitted to the order because they were afraid of the punishment[Pg 144]involved if they disobeyed it were cowards of the first degree. ButGandhi would be a passive resister, and you would not call him acoward, would you?

Let me give you a sample of the sublime heroism displayed by the Akalisat Guru Ka Bagh. In one instance the policeman’s blow struck an Akaliwith such violence that one of his eyeballs dropped out. His eye wasbleeding profusely, but still he walked forward towards his goal untilhe was knocked down the second time and fell on the ground unconscious.Another Akali, Pritipal Singh, was knocked down eight times. Each timeas soon as he recovered his senses, he stood on his feet and startedto go forward, until after the eighth time he lay on the ground whollyprostrate. I have known Pritipal Singh in India. We went to schooltogether for five years. Pritipal was a good boy in every way. He wasthe strongest person in our school and yet the meekest of all men. Hehad a very jolly temper, and I can hear to this day his loud ringinglaugh. Inoffensive in his habits, he was a cultured and a lovingfriend. When I read his name in the papers and later discovered howcruelly he suffered from the injuries which finally resulted in hispremature death, I was indeed sorrowful. That such a saintly person asPritipal Singh should be made to go through such hellish tortures andthat his life should be thus cruelly ended in the prime of youth wasenough to give anyone a shock. But when I persuaded myself that withthe passing of that handsome youth there was one more gone for truth’ssake, I felt peaceful and happy once more.

Lest the reader be at a loss to know what this[Pg 145] whole drama of horribletortures on the one hand and supernatural courage on the other was allabout, we shall give the gist of the whole affair as follows:

At the time when the issue was precipitated in Guru Ka Bagh the CentralShrine Management Committee had already acquired control over manyof the rich Sikh shrines, and become a powerful force in the upliftof the community. The committee was receiving huge incomes from thevarious shrine properties, which it proposed to spend on educationaland social service work. Those at the helm of affairs were profoundlynationalistic in their views. Naturally, the British Government beganto fear their power, which it desired to break through suppression.Hence the issue at Guru Ka Bagh was not the chopping of fuel wood. Theghastly motive of the Government was to cow the Sikhs and crush theirspirits through oppression. How it started to demonstrate its powerand how shamefully it failed in its sinister purpose has already beenexplained.

Many other examples of the victory of soul force over brute strengthcould be cited from the recent history of India. I chose the Guru KaBagh affair as the subject of my illustration for two reasons. Inthe first place, it was the most simple and yet the most prominentdemonstration of the holiness and might of passive resistance; andsecondly, the drama was performed in my own home town by actors whobelonged to my own community and were kith and kin to me in the sensethat I could know fully their joys and sorrows, their hopes and fears.

FOOTNOTE:

Chapter VII

In this chapter we shall relate briefly the story of what occurred inPunjab during the troubled days of 1919. These incidents, popularlyknown as “the Punjab wrongs,” led to far-reaching consequences in therelationship between England and India, and knowledge of them is verynecessary for a proper understanding of what has happened in Indiasince. We shall begin with the beginning of the World War and followthe various incidents in the sequence of their occurrence.

It is a matter of common knowledge now that the people of Indiasupported the British Empire throughout the period of the war in a veryliberal and enthusiastic manner. “India’s contributions to the war bothin its quota of man-force and money were far beyond the capacity of itspoor inhabitants.” Leaders of all states of opinion joined hands toassist the Empire in its time of need. It has been stated before thatGandhi overworked in the capacity as an honorary recruiting officeruntil he contracted dysentery, which at one time threatened to provefatal.

India was “bled white” in order to win the war. But for her support inmen and money England would have suffered greatly in prestige. Exceptfor Indian troops the German advance to Paris in the fall of 1914 mightnot have been checked. The official publication, “India’s Contributionto the Great War,” describes the work of the Indian troops thus:

While the issue of the war still seemed doubtful, the BritishParliament, in order to induce the people of India to still greaterefforts in their support of the Empire, held out definite promises ofself-government to India after the war as a reward for their loyalty.Mr. Montague, His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India, made thefollowing announcement on August 20, 1917:

The text of the above announcement was widely published in theentire press of India. Then followed the famous message of PresidentWoodrow Wilson to[Pg 148] the Congress with its definite pledge of“self-determination” to subordinate nations. This helped to brightenstill more India’s hopes for home-rule.

Naturally, after the Armistice was signed, the people of India expectedthe fulfilment of the war promises. “But the British Government,anticipating that soon after the war ended there would be a loud clamorin the country for home-rule, gave instead of self-government theRowlatt Act, which was designed to stifle the nationalistic spirit inits infancy.” The act gave unlimited power to the police to prohibitpublic assemblies, to order indiscriminate searches of private homes,to make arrests without notification, and so forth. “Its main purposewas in such a manner to strengthen the authority of the police andto enable them to root out of the country every form of liberal andindependent thought.” The plans of the British Bureaucracy were,however, defeated in their entirety, because the passage of the act didnot go through the Legislative Assembly as smoothly as was expected.The whole country cried out in one voice against the Rowlatt Act, butit was passed by the British Government of India in the teeth of theunanimous opposition ofall elected as well as government appointedIndian members of the Legislative Council.

This was once again followed by mass meetings and parades in protest,petitions to the British Parliament, delegations to the Viceroy, and anation-wide demonstration against the Rowlatt Act. But the Governmentaltogether ignored the sentiments of the country in this matter, anattitude which in turn helped to inflame the masses still more.

Gandhi considered the existence of the act on the statute books ofIndia a national humiliation, and in protest he ordered the people ofIndia to observe April 6, 1919, as a day of fast and nationalhartal.Hartal is the sign of deep mourning, during which the whole businessof the country is stopped and the people wander about the streets ingrief and lamentation. It was observed in ancient times only at thedeath of popular kings or on the occasion of some other very seriousnational calamity.

The response to Gandhi’s appeal for thehartal was very general. Itwas surprising how quickly the sentiment of national consciousness hadspread throughout the country. Overnight Gandhi’s name was on the lipsof everybody, and even the most ignorant countrywomen were talkingabout the Rowlatt Act. I remember that on the afternoon of April the6th, while I was walking toward the site of the mass meeting in mytown, the like of which were being held all over India, and at whichresolutions of protest against the Rowlatt Act were passed, I saw agirl of six nearly collapse on the street. After I had picked her up,and she had rested from the heat of the sun, I asked her who she wasand where she was going. The little girl replied: “I am the daughter ofBharat Mata (Mother India) and I am going to the funeral of Daulat(Rowlatt). Mahatma Dandhi (Gandhi) has called me.”

The day passed quite peacefully except for slight disturbances in a fewplaces. But the excitement throughout the country, particularly in thePunjab, was very great. The situation was so tense that[Pg 150] Gandhi senthis strong admonitions of non-violence to his people in a continualstream. The activity at Amritsar started when, on the morning of April10th the English Commissioner invited Dr. Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal,the two popular young leaders of the city, to his residence and orderedtheir deportation to some unknown place. When it became known thattheir leaders had been treacherously removed the citizens went on asuddenhartal, and a huge mob began to gather in front of the maincity gate. The mob soon organized itself into a procession, whichstarted to move toward the District Commissioner’s residence to requestthe restoration of Doctors Kitchlew and Satyapal. While crossing therailroad bridge, the procession was met by armed police who sooncaused six casualties among the peaceful, unarmed mob. The mob soonturned back and fell upon the city in a wild fury. It divided itselfinto different groups and expended its rage by setting fire to thecity hall, two English banks, and a local Christian church. Two bankmanagers, the only Englishmen present in town on that day, were cruellymurdered. An English nurse who happened to be passing through a narrowstreet was also assaulted by the mob, but was soon rescued by thecitizens and carried to a place of safety. Later on, this benevolentChristian lady greatly endeared herself to the people of Amritsar byrefusing to accept any other indemnity for the assault than the priceof her wrist watch which was lost in the scramble.

Immediately after the news of Amritsar reached the other towns in theprovince, similar outbreaks of[Pg 151] popular frenzy occurred in many places,with this difference however, that at no other place besides Amritsarwere English residents injured. There were casualties on the side ofthe mob everywhere, but none on the side of the English. On April 11ththe authority of the civil government was withdrawn, and martial lawwas declared in most sections of the province of Punjab.

Thus did the trouble begin that resulted in the massacre of Amritsar.On that fatal day, April 13th, a mass meeting had been announced totake place in Jallianwalla Bagh, an open enclosure in the heart of thecity of Amritsar. As it happened, April 13th was also the Baisakhi day,which is observed all over India as a day of national festival. Largecrowds of country people had gathered into the city on that account.On the morning of the 13th, General Dyer, the commanding officerof the city, issued from the headquarters an order prohibiting theJallianwalla Bagh meeting, and notices to that effect were posted inseveral places in the city. It should be mentioned here that unlike thetowns of America, there were in Amritsar at the time no universallyread daily papers which could convey the Commanding Officer’s orderall around in the short interval between its issue and the time of themeeting. Under these circumstances General Dyer’s prohibitory ordercould reach only a small fraction of the people in the city.

Now let us come to the scene of the meeting. People began to assemblein Jallianwalla Bagh at 3 o’clock. There were old men, women whocarried babies in their arms, and children who held toys in theirhands.[Pg 152] They were all dressed in their holiday gala-dresses. “Whilea few had come there to attend the meeting knowingly, the majorityhad just followed the crowd and drifted in the Bagh out of simplecuriosity.” Whatever may have been its nature otherwise, it iscertain that the crowd at the Jallianwalla was not composed of bloodyrevolutionists. Not one of them carried even a walking stick. They hadassembled there in the open inclosure peacefully to listen to speechesand perhaps at the end to pass a few resolutions. At four o’clock themeeting was called to order, and the speeches began. No more than fortyminutes of this peaceful gathering, and the audience were listeningin an attentive and orderly manner to the speaker who stood on araised platform in the center, when General Dyer walked in with hisband of thirty soldiers and suddenly opened fire on the crowd withoutgiving them any warning or chance to disperse. There was a sudden wildskirmish in the inclosure. People began to run toward all sides to savetheir lives; those who fell down were run over by the rest and crushedunder their weight. Others who attempted to escape by leaping over thelow wall on the east end were shot dead by the fire from the general’ssquad. As the crowd centered near the only escape from the unfinishedlow wall, the general directed his shots there. He aimed where thecrowd was the thickest, and inside of the fifteen minutes during whichhis ammunition lasted he had killed at least eight hundred men, women,and children and wounded many times that number.

It was already late afternoon when General Dyer, his ammunition havingrun out, departed to his[Pg 153]headquarters without providing any kind ofsuccor or medical aid to the wounded who lay bleeding and helpless atthe scene of slaughter. Before the people of the neighborhood recoveredfrom their consternation, it had already begun to get dark. As oneof the rules of martial law strictly forbade walking in the streetsof Amritsar after dark, it was impossible for any person or group ofpersons to bring organized relief to the wounded at Jallianwalla. Thehorrible agonies of those that lay in the Bagh disabled and desertedwere heard with grim patience all through the night by the faithfulwife Rattan Devi, when she sat there “in the midst of that ghastlyhuman carnival” holding in her lap the dead body of her belovedhusband. She had run to the scene after the shooting in a mad searchfor her husband. After she had looked underneath a dozen heaps of deadbodies and stumbled over many others, her eyes were drawn to the spotwhere her husband’s dead body lay flat on the ground. Rattan Devi’shusband was already dead and beyond human aid. The devoted wife couldnot restore the dead man to life, but how could she afford to leave hislifeless body in the stark neighborhood over night? She was too weak tocarry it home all by herself and there was no aid available. So she satthere through the night holding a dead man in her lap.

The horrors of that night of suffering were related by Rattan Devi inher evidence before the Indian National Congress sub-committee, inwhich she described “the fearful agony of dying human beings, who keptcrying for drinks of water all through the night.” No friendly aid cameto these departing souls in their last[Pg 154] hours of deep distress. Afraidof General Dyer’s deadly vengeance their fellowmen had stayed away,while dogs from the neighboring streets wandered freely inside the Baghto feast on the bleeding human bodies.

At the following session of the Indian National Congress which was heldat Amritsar, I myself saw at its exhibition twenty pairs of littleshoes, belonging to babies from a few months to a year old. These hadbeen picked up in the Jallianwalla Bagh by various persons after theshooting, and they belonged to twenty innocent babies in their mothers’laps who had been completely obliterated in the mad scramble that hadaccompanied the shooting. All that was left of these children was thosetiny shoes. May God bless the souls of the dear little ones and manyothers who fell victims to the haughty general’s bloody mood on thethirteenth of April, 1919, at Jallianwalla Bagh.

Later, when General Dyer was cross-examined before Lord Hunter’sCommittee, which was appointed by the British Parliament to report onPunjab disturbances, he testified to the following:

1. That there was no provocation on the part of the people of Amritsarfor the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre either on the day of the shootingor immediately before it. He had the situation well in hand and theatmosphere was quite calm and peaceful.

2. That his order prohibiting the meeting was issued the morning beforethe meeting and reached only a fraction of the people in Amritsar onthat festival day of the thirteenth.

3. That when he arrived on the scene of the[Pg 155]meeting with his squad, hefound the people listening to the speaker in a calm manner and therewas no show of resistance offered to him. On the other hand, on seeinghim enter the premises, the audience began to run off in all directions.

4. That he opened fire at the assembled meeting without giving thepeople any warning or chance to disperse, and he continued firing whilehis ammunition lasted—all the time directing his shots at places wherethe crowd was the thickest.

5. That he had brought a machine gun with him, which he had to leaveoutside because the lane was too narrow for it to enter. And headmitted that the casualties would have been much greater if he hadbeen able to use the machine gun.

6. That his reason for the massacre at the Jallianwalla was to teachthe people a lesson, and he did not stop shooting after the crowd hadbegun to disperse because he was afraid they would laugh at him. Thegeneral wanted to show the people the might of the British rule.

7. That he did not think to or care to provide succor to the wounded atJallianwalla. It was not a part of his business.

Reproduced below is a part of General Dyer’s testimony before LordHunter’s committee:

Q. At once? A. Immediately. I had thought about the matter and don’timagine it took me more than thirty seconds to make up my mind as towhat my duty was.

Q. How many people were in the crowd? A. I then estimated them roughlyat 5,000. I heard afterwards there were many more.

Q. On the assumption that there was that risk of people being in thecrowd who were not aware of the proclamation, did it not occur to youthat it was a proper measure to ask the crowd to disperse before youtook that step of actually firing? A. No, at the time I did not. Imerely felt that my orders had not been obeyed, that martial law wasflouted, and that it was my duty to immediately disperse by rifle fire.

Q. When you left Rambagh [his headquarters] did it occur to you thatyou might have to fire? A. Yes, I had considered the nature of the dutythat I might have to face.

Q. What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assemblyto leave the Bagh, they would not have done so without the necessityof your firing and continuing firing for any length of time? A. Yes, Ithink it quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps evenwithout firing.

Q. Why did you not have recourse to that? A. They would have all comeback and laughed at me, and I should have made what I considered a foolof myself.

Q. And on counting the ammunition it was found that 1,650 rounds ofammunition had been fired? A. Quite right.

Q. Supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars togo in, would you have opened[Pg 157] fire with the machine guns? A. I think,probably, yes.

Q. I take it that your idea in taking that action was to strike terror?A. Call it what you like. I was going to punish them. My idea from themilitary point of view was to make a wide impression.”

During the course of its history mankind has witnessed many massacresof a bloody and ruthless nature, but in every case before a massacreoccurred, there was a provocation of some kind. Jallianwalla Baghstands out unique in this respect—that it was an unprovoked,premeditated and pre-arranged, coldblooded massacre of at least eighthundred innocent men, women, and children, who were assembled in apeaceful meeting on the day of their national festival, with no thoughtof evil in their minds nor any desire to offer resistance of any sortor kind to anybody.

The most interesting part of the story is that what had happened atJallianwalla Bagh on the thirteenth of April was considered so trivialand unimportant a matter that it took four months for the news to reachofficial London. After the report of Lord Hunter’s committee had beenpublished, and all the horrible details of the massacre were fullydisclosed, General Dyer was retired from the military service on fullpension. But on his return to England he was handed a purse of tenthousand pounds sterling, which amount had been raised by voluntarysubscription by the English people to recompense the general for his[Pg 158]heroic work at Jallianwalla Bagh. Such was the reaction of the Englishnation to the massacre.

Gandhi’s interpretation of General Dyer’s “heroism” is, however,different. He writes:

The reader will be in a position now to understand the meaning ofMahatma Gandhi’s letter to the Viceroy of India, dated August 1,1920, and quoted on page 114 in which Gandhi gave his reasons for hisdecision not to coöperate with the British Government of India. Itmay be recalled that one of Mahatma Gandhi’s reasons was the “callousdisregard of the feelings of Indians” betrayed by the House of Lords.It must be remembered here also that the massacre of Jallianwallaoccurred on April 13, 1919, and it was exactly a year and three monthslater that Mahatma Gandhi made his decision to boycott the BritishGovernment. During this interval he had persistently hoped for a changein the British attitude.

The massacre at Jallianwalla was only one part of the awful Punjabstory. What occurred at Amritsar and other towns in the province duringthe martial[Pg 159] days of 1919 was even more shameful and unworthy, “onaccount of the outrage of human dignity it involved.” The issuing ofcrawling orders and the throwing of bombs from aeroplanes over peacefultowns constituted in part the doings of the military and police duringthe unfortunate days of martial law. Nor was that all. Mrs. SarojiniNaidu, the first woman president of India, said while speaking on the“Punjab wrongs” before a large London audience (Kingsway Hall, June 3,1919):

The ingenuity of the English officials during the martial law period ininventing fancy punishments showed itself conspicuously in the town ofKasur where, according to the findings of the Congress sub-committee,

“1. School boys and men were whipped, ‘with no particular object,’ andthere was no question of any martial law offense. Prostitutes wereinvited to witness the ceremony.

4. Those who failed to salute Europeans were made to rub their roses onthe ground.

6. Public gallows were erected which were later abandoned. In all,eighteen persons were hanged in the Punjab during the martial lawregime, many of whom were totally innocent.”

We shall give below the evidence of Gurdevi, the[Pg 160] widow of Mangal Jat,before the Congress sub-committee on what had occured at Manianwalla:

Cowardice, thy name is Bosworth Smith! Moral degradation in a humanbeing could not go any lower than this. Search the entire historyof mankind, and you will fail to find the equal of this act in itsferocity and barbarism. How curious! The world believes still thatEngland’s mission in India is that of civilizing a backward people.

The Jallianwalla massacre and other “Punjab wrongs” gave a greatimpetus to the nationalist movement in India. What the Indian NationalCongress had failed to accomplish in its steady work of thirty-twoyears, the Punjab persecutions and humiliations did in the course ofa few months. It has helped to arouse in the minds of the people ofIndia a powerful national consciousness. It has been truly said thatthe blood of the martyrs at Jallianwalla Bagh has made the heart of allIndia to bleed.

Those who ask the question, “Why does India revolt?” may find a part oftheir answer in the word “Jallianwalla Bagh.”

FOOTNOTE:

Chapter VIII

Only two hundred years ago India was the richest country in the world.Today it is the poorest. The gorgeous palaces of its kings with theirenormous treasures were the objects of admiration and wonder for theother nations of the world. Its flourishing industries and its highlylucrative trade excited the greed and envy of the merchant classeseverywhere. Its merchant ships laden with cargoes of valuable spices,silken and cotton manufactures, and precious jewels sailed into theharbors of England and other countries of Europe. How the maritimenations of the world vied with each other to possess the trade of theEast Indies and fought over concessions in the Empire of the mightyMoghuls is a matter of common knowledge to all students of history. Itwas the fame of India that excited the imagination of Columbus when heset out westward on his historic voyage; it was only by accident thathe discovered America. He had undertaken his voyage in search for a newroute to the fabulous riches of India, so that America really owes herdiscovery to the fame of that ancient land. Pick up any standard workon mediæval history or classical literature and you will find that theriches of India and the splendor of the courts of its kings had becomeproverbial among the nations of Europe.

That fame of East Indian wealth which had inspired the careers of manya European explorer,[Pg 163]military commander, and financial genius hadtotally disappeared long before the end of the nineteenth century; withthe disappearing of the Indian kings the splendor of their courts hadalso vanished; with the extinction of the Indian fabric industries herflourishing trade had ceased; and simultaneously with the loss of itshandicrafts and independence the prestige and prosperity of the nationhad come to an end. As early as the year 1900 A.D. India had begun tobe regarded by the historians as the poorest country in the world.Her daily per capita income was fixed at three quarters of a penny(equivalent to one and nine-sixteenths cents), and it was estimatedthat the dawn of the twentieth century found among the inhabitants ofIndia one hundred and sixty million people who did not know what itwas to have one square meal a day. The percentage of literacy, whichincluded a knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic, had droppedfrom thirty-three per cent in 1757 to less than four per cent in 1900.

What is the cause of this astounding change in the condition of anancient people like the East Indians? How did it happen that the sameperiod which witnessed a sudden rise in the prosperity of most othernations of the world found in the Hindu nation an equal or even moresudden fall? What was the cause of the ruin of India’s famous silkand cotton industries and of the loss of its political and economicindependence? How did India drop from the highest rank to the lowest,from the proudest position to the humblest?

For this state of things in India writers have[Pg 164]offered differentexplanations, several of which are so weak in nature that they wouldnot stand even a superficial examination. The downfall of the countryhas been variously attributed to the low, immoral character of itspopulace and the selfishness and cowardice of their leaders, to a largeincrease in its population, to the inertia and extravagance of itsagricultural class, to the rigorous caste system, and to the hatred andanimosity which separates the different classes of its people. Some ofthese evils were responsible in some measure for the political downfallof India, but the reason for India’s economic ruin must be sought forelsewhere. I maintain that the political subjugation of the country byEngland, and the pursuance by the latter of a fiscal policy dictatedexclusively by the interests of British industries at the expenseof the native claims, forms the basis of India’s poverty and of itsconsequent “ills and woes.”

We shall first examine, in order, the various reasons for the country’spoverty which have been given by others, and which I believe to beunsatisfactory. Later I shall attempt to prove the truth of my thesis,that the cupidity of English financial and industrial lords has beenthe direct cause of India’s ruin.

In the preceding pages much has been said concerning the moralcharacter of the people of India. Those who have lived among them andhave studied their habits and ideals at first hand know what heightsof moral and spiritual purity the inhabitants of that ancient landonce attained. Even in their present condition after generationsof political subjection and economic poverty, both of which have atendency to[Pg 165] degrade the character of a people, it can be confidentlysaid that the people of India, when measured by any moral, ethical,or cultural standard, will equal if not surpass any other peoplethroughout the entire world. In order to judge the moral condition ofthis race at the time when their prosperity began to disappear, weshall let those speak who knew them at first hand.

Warren Hastings, whose name has been immortalized through hisimpeachment by Edmund Burke, had spent the best part of his life inIndia. Starting his career as a low-paid assistant of the East IndiaCompany, he had risen to the position of Governor-General of India. Noone knew the people of that country better than did Warren Hastings,because of all foreigners he had the best opportunity to come in closecontact with them. Yet he was no unqualified friend of India, as wasfully disclosed during his impeachment by the House of Commons inEngland. Twenty-eight years after his retirement from India, WarrenHastings gave the following testimony before the British Parliament:

It has been affirmed that overpopulation is the[Pg 166] great cause of India’sbackwardness. But is India really over-populated? Has its populationincreased very largely during the last two hundred years? When wecompare the census reports of the various countries of Europe, we findthat several of them, England included, are more densely populated thanIndia. If we compare England and India, we shall find that the increasein population in the latter has been no greater than that in the formersince their political connection. In fact, since the beginning of thetwentieth century the population of India has actually decreased, whilethat of England and several other countries of Europe has increased.

That the agricultural class of India is a race of thrifty,hard-working, abstemious, and experienced farmers who understandthoroughly the art of tilling the soil, has been attested by manyforeigners, who had the opportunity to study their habits at closerange. The quality of their knowledge of the farming profession andthe extent of their initiative and perseverance may be judged fromthe achievements of Hindu farmers in California. Here was a class ofagricultural people who had found it hard to make a decent living inthe “land of five rivers,” the Punjab. The Punjab is famous for itsfertile soil and has an irrigation system which is regarded as thebest in the world. Yet its agricultural population is in a state ofsemi-starvation because of top-heavy taxation and other unprogressivefeatures of the country’s administration. The moment these farmers fromthe Punjab were settled in the favorable environment of California theymade a success of farming which is[Pg 167] acknowledged by friends and foesalike. At the present time the anti-Asiatic laws of California prohibitHindus from farming, but it is a matter of common knowledge that Hindufarm labor is paid higher wages in most sections than is Americanlabor, because the Hindus are “steady,” “hardworking,” “informed,” and“dependable.”

Ignorance and sluggishness do not keep the Hindu farmer in a worsecondition than is his own class in other countries; the small area ofhis holdings, excessive taxation, and lack of capital are continuallydragging him backward. Eighty per cent of the people of India dependupon agriculture for their sole support. They live on the soil andby the soil. In former times India was also the home of flourishingcottage industries, that helped to increase the income of its enormousrural population. The invasion by English manufactures, caused by theselfish English fiscal policy for India, has completely uprooted thefabric industries of the Indian villages, a change which in turn hasdriven the entire people to the land for their livelihood, therebybringing the total ruin of their economic prosperity.

Lack of moral stamina in the people, overpopulation, ignorance orsluggishness of the agricultural class are thus not the real causes ofIndia’s poverty. The economist who wishes to determine the cause of anycountry’s poverty will have to ask himself the same questions whichthe Hindu historian, R. C. Dutt, asked in regard to India a quarterof century ago. “Does agriculture flourish? Are the finances properlyadministered, so as to bring back to the people an[Pg 168] adequate return forthe taxes paid by them? Are the sources of national wealth widened by aGovernment anxious for the welfare of the people?”

If it is true that in the same ratio as English power advanced in Indiaeconomic prosperity of the country began to decline, we might as wellinquire into the nature of British rule in India. We shall restrictour inquiry to the answers of the following two questions: “WhyEngland acquired India?” and “Why England holds India?” It is a factthat England first came in contact with India through the medium of atrading company, whose object in establishing its trade stations inthe Eastern country was profit-making. It is asserted that the Britishrulers of India have been guided in their work of governing the countryby altruistic and humanitarian motives of a high quality. To whatextent this claim of the English nation is founded on facts we shallexamine presently. In any case such humanitarian principles as mayhave inspired the English rule in India, were of a much later origin.The primary reason for which England established its connections withits Eastern dependency was one of pure commercial greed. At the timewhen the East India Company was organized in England the people ofEurope had not been trained in the use of such terms as “altruism” and“civilizing the backward peoples.” These high-sounding epithets areproducts of much later times. The minds of the Directors of the EastIndia Company were ruled by thoughts of large dividends and big profits.

The simple facts of the case are that the British went over to India astraders in order to make profit[Pg 169] out of India. They found the peopleof that vast and prosperous country divided among themselves, andscenting the favorable opportunity, they set out cleverly to capitalizethe weakness of the natives for their own gain. Yet according to thestandards of the times nothing in their behavior was unusual or wrong.The world had never actually been ruled by altruism. The East IndiaCompany set the greedy, but innocent and confiding princes and peoplesof India one against the other, and using the natives as their tools,became masters of the land. They have ever since held them under thelash as chattels and slaves, “hewers of wood and drawers of water” forMother England. “Divide and rule” has been their constant motto. “Teachand liberate” has never crossed their minds. Such phrases have beeninvented by shrewd politicians merely to amuse and satisfy a class ofidealistic people in England and abroad who fall innocent victims toartfully told lies. Such slogans were never intended as rules of statepolicy. Study carefully the tragic result of this long and laboriousprocess of “liberating” a traditionally cultured and civilized people,and you will be convinced of the truth. The motto of “Divide and rule,”on the other hand, they used mercilessly to emasculate a nation ofhelpless people, whom they made the innocent victims of their lust andgreed. For the details of this early exploitation and “treading underfoot” of the people of India read Edmund Burke’s impeachment of WarrenHastings. Thus he closed his immortal condemnation of the barbaritiesof his own people on the soil of India:

Mr. Wm. Digby, another Englishman, who lived in India for overtwenty years as a member of the Indian Civil Service, gives valuablehistorical and economic data on the subject of English Imperialism inIndia, in his book ironically entitledProsperous British India. Thebook is a scholarly work on history and economics and deserves theperusal of all thoughtful students. Mr. Digby shows that

1. Since the beginning of the English rule in the country the percapita income of the people of India has been gradually diminishing.The daily per capita income was

2. That in 1900, proportionately to income, the Indian subject ofthe British Crown was taxed more than four times higher than was hisScottish fellow-subject, and three times higher than his Englishcompeer. He quotes the following figures from theStatesman’sYearbook, 1900-1:

3. In 1900 thirty-four and one-fifth days’ income of every inhabitantof India was carried to England in the form of home charges. “Was eversuch a crushing tribute exacted by any conqueror at any period ofhistory?”

4. Since the British have been in the country famines have been morefrequent, more widespread, and more deadly. “In the first quarter ofthe nineteenth century there were reported only four famines in thecountry, all of which were local. In the last quarter of the samecentury there occurred twenty-two famines which were general and spreadall over the land.”

A great nation was held a slave, was looted and routed, and yet theworld never heard of such a thing as British injustice in India.But, let us ask, how was this great injustice perpetrated, this hugeexploitation continued? This question is eminently sane and pertinent,and should be truthfully answered.

The English people were too intelligent not to profit by the experienceof past conquerors and rulers over foreign races. As a result, theydid not evidently hold India down, but they kept her down. First, theydisarmed the natives totally. This procedure prevented armed rebellion,and the world was saved the news of consequent repressions. In otherwords, the English did not kill the people of India; they killed theirspirit. They robbed them of their land and of their daily[Pg 172] meals,and made them submissive and weak. The English novelist, Thackeray,described as follows the early stages of English rule in India:

It is an unfortunate fact of recorded history which no well-informedperson may ignore, that under British rule the sources of nationalwealth in India have been narrowed in many ways. In the eighteenth[Pg 173]century India was a great manufacturing as well as a greatagricultural country. How its greatness disappeared totally, and it wasleft as a very poor agricultural country only, has been explained bymany English and Indian writers. The decline of Indian industries hasbeen attributed to the pursuance of a policy of commercial greed on thepart of the British manufacturers. The English historian, H. H. Wilson,remarks:

We shall not tax the patience of our readers with irritating details ofthe ways in which this arm of political power was actually employed.But as a specimen we shall relate some of the incidents which helped tobuild the cotton fabric industry of England at the expense of India.It was the time of the home and cottage industries, when individualsor small groups of hand weavers owned their establishments and workedtheir business on a coöperative plan. The English merchants foundthey could not compete with the highly skilled and efficient Indianweavers; so they resolved to eliminate them altogether. This is whatthey did. The agents of the East India Company went to the village withthe county magistrate (himself an employee of the Company, because theCompany was then the Government), and called together all the weaversof the village. The agent offered loans and advances to those weaverswho would work for the[Pg 174] Company. When the weavers refused to accepttheir offers, the agents of the Company forcibly tied the money in thenapkins of the weavers, as a sign of their acceptance. The agents thendrove the workers back to their homes until such time as the Companyshould demand their services. Thus they were forced to leave their ownlooms and to work in the Company’s factories. There they were paid suchlow wages that many of them fled from their homes, and hundreds andthousands of others cut their thumbs and forefingers in order to renderthemselves immune from this forced labor.

By such means and others equally unfair “the prosperous class of Indianweavers was made tradeless and homeless, and many were driven intothe jungle to starve and die.” At the same time England completed theprocess of ruining the trade of India by charging an excise duty of65% to 75% on Indian manufactures imported into England and admittingEnglish-made goods into British India free of duty. These statementsare not exaggerated. This procedure actually happened, and datagathered by the English themselves is freely available. But should theaccount be doubted when such and worse things happen in our own dayeverywhere?

All the high offices of governmental control, civil and military, weregiven over to Englishmen, and Indians were employed as menials andclerks. To be explicit: during the first one hundred and twenty-fiveyears of British rule in India not one Indian sat on the provincial ornational executive councils of the country. Until after the World Warno Indian held[Pg 175] the commission of a lieutenant colonel in the Britisharmy of India. If during this period India was not governed for thegood of the Indians, it is no wonder. How full of meaning are the wordsof John Stuart Mill:

Let me quote Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the “nightingale of India,” as tothe effect of British rule in India: “Our arts have degenerated, ourliteratures are dead, our beautiful industries have perished, our valoris done, our fires are dim, our soul is sinking.”

All this has actually happened. Yet the world believes that England’smission in India is unselfish and holy, that she is there to savethe souls of a demoralized people and to educate an ignorant andunprogressive nation. The nations have been made to believe thatwithout her influence there would be social and religious tyranny inIndia, and that the weak would be left without a champion. The facts,however, read differently. The people are poor and weak. They areto a degree fanatic, and local conflicts occur occasionally betweenreligious groups. But do the English rulers of India prevent thesedivisions or do they foster them? This is the important question.

The English are our masters. They make their laws as stringent as theyplease; they hold their grip as tight as they wish. They say to us:“People of India, you are weak. Weakness is recognized in our[Pg 177] systemas a crime. Therefore you are doomed.” So they show the power in theirhands and use it as they will. But when they say to us: “People ofIndia, cease to quarrel and live in peace,” they are not only cruel butunjust and hypocritical, for the quarrels are their own creation, andour divisions they recognize as their main support. Says the Premier ofEngland, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald:

Perhaps the reader will now be ready to concede that England acquiredcontrol over India and has succeeded in holding her mastery over thecountry through the policy of “Divide and rule.” He may grant also thatthe existing fabric industries of India have been destroyed by theunfair use of political power in the interest of the growing Britishmanufactures. Then followed the invasion of the power loom in Europewhich completed the ruin of India’s cotton industry. In the firstplace India had been impoverished[Pg 178] to such an extent that she couldnot find the necessary capital to utilize the latest inventions; andwhen at last she did succeed in setting up steam mills their progresswas nipped in the bud through the imposition of an excise duty on allhome manufactures. Here was an evident inversion of the natural orderof things. When machinery began to be introduced into the country,a protective tariff was required to assist the infant industries.Instead, the foreign rulers of India imposed an excise duty on cottonfabrics, while foreign fabrics continued to be admitted free of duty.

A similar mischievous policy was adopted in regard to the agriculturalindustries of India. A government which has the welfare of the nationin mind tries in every way to improve the condition of the governed byincreasing their sources of income. It grants its farmers subsidies,helps them to improve the quality of their crops, and extends theirmarkets. What it exacts from them in the form of taxes is expended inthe improvement of their general condition. “It identifies itself withthe nation, and grows richer with it.”

In India from the time when the East India Company became the rulersof the country, this natural process has been reversed. These foreignrulers of India regarded their possessions as a “human plantation,” andtheir policy was to extract from the people all that was possible inorder to swell the profits of the Company’s stockholders in England.Taxes on agricultural land were placed at the highest possible pointin the beginning, and were then increased at every successive revenuesettlement. The over-assessment[Pg 179] and collection of taxes with the mostcallous disregard for the material condition of the farmers, plungedthe country into misery. Soon they began to flee from their housesinto the jungles, leaving the country desolate. India was visited bythe most horrible famines, and while natives died in the streets fromhunger, the Company’s agents had the gratification of reporting anincreased collection from land taxes. It is estimated that the famineof 1770 carried away with it one-third of the entire population ofBengal, and yet in the following year the land revenue of Bengal wasraised and actually collected in cash.

The two letters which were written from the Company’s Government inIndia to its directors in England in the years 1771 and 1772 are ofpeculiar interest in this matter.

Dated 12th February, 1771: “Notwithstanding the great severity of thelate famine and the great reduction of people thereby, some increasehas been made in the settlements both of the Bengal and the BeharProvinces for the present year.”[40]

Dated 10th January, 1772: “The collections in each department ofrevenue are as successfully carried on for the present year as we couldhave wished.”[40]

It is needless to say that in making a collection of an increasedrevenue, following a devastating famine, a great deal more ingenuitywas needed. Every sort of advantage was taken of the distress of thepeople. Their crops were monopolized, and in most cases the[Pg 180] seed fortheir next year’s crops was sold to realize the Company’s revenue. Thehereditary owners of the lands were driven away from their holding, andtheir properties were transferred to the highest bidders for the landrevenue collection.

A comparison between the land taxes claimed by the previous rulers ofIndia and by the East India Company may be made from the followingfigures:

The total land revenue collected by the last Mohammedan ruler of Bengalin 1764, the last year of his administration, was £817,533; withinthirty years the British rulers collected an annual land revenue of£2,680,000 in the same province. During this interval the countryhad been visited by two of the most terrible famines of its history.Colonel Briggs wrote in 1830: “A land tax like that which now exists inIndia, professing to absorb the whole of the landlord’s rent, was neverknown under any Government in Europe or Asia.”[41]

Aside from the heavy assessment of the Government there were, moredisastrous still, the extortions and premiums of the Company’sservants. Besides serving in the pay of the Company, each young clerkor old veteran officer was ambitious to make a sudden fortune to becarried with him to England. Nearly everyone of the Company’s servantscarried on his private trade. This evil was stopped, however, by Clivein later years. English traders used all the tools at hand to takeimproper advantage of their customers and of rival native traders.

A typical case of this injustice occurred during the controversy overexcise duty in the Province of Bengal between its Nawab, Mir Kasam,and the Company’s servants. The English victory at Plassey (1757) hadgreatly enhanced the prestige of the Company. In exchange for itsprotection, the Nawab of Bengal granted to the East India Company theright to carry on its export and import trade, free of duty, within histerritory. This right the Nawab granted to the trade of the Companyand not to the private trade of the officials of the Company. In spiteof the repeated complaints from the Nawab, however, the Company’sservants continued to carry on their private business without thepayment of any duties into the treasury of the Nawab. This arrangement,of course, helped the private traders to rear colossal fortunes in avery short period, but the Nawab’s treasury soon felt severely theloss of its revenue. Moreover, the suffering of the native merchantswho had to pay heavy duties on their goods and thus found it difficultto compete with these law-breaking traders, reached a critical state.Overwhelmed from all sides, and finding his complaints to the Company’sagents unheeded, the generous Nawab in a moment of noble and royalindignation abolished all inland duties. By this act he personallylost a large income from his revenues, but he placed his subjects onequal terms with the employees of the East India Company. What followedwill be scarcely believed by our readers. The Executive Council ofthe Company at Calcutta protested against this action of the Nawab asa breach of faith towards the English nation. “The conduct of the[Pg 182]Company’s servants upon this occasion,” says James Mill in his historyof India, “furnishes one of the most remarkable instances upon recordof the power of interest to extinguish all sense of justice, and evenof shame.” “There can be no difference of opinion,” writes anotherEnglish historian, H. H. Wilson, “on the proceedings. The narrow-mindedselfishness of commercial cupidity had rendered all members of thecouncil, with the two honorable exceptions of Vansitart and Hastings,obstinately inaccessible to the plainest dictates of reason, justiceand policy.”[42] More comment upon this is unnecessary.

Here was a class of officials in India who regarded the country, whichthey had been called upon to govern in the name of God Almighty, asno other than a fishing pool. They declared that the purpose of theirgovernment was to restore order in place of chaos, and justice insteadof corruption. But when one of the native princes, inspired by nobilityof heart, ordered a cancellation of his own revenues in order tobenefit his subjects, the government of the Company flared up in a rageand called his act of unselfish benevolence a breach of faith againstthe English nation. Edmund Burke was after all right when he spokeabout the East India Company’s officials thus:

After Plassey (1757) the English control over India began to expandrapidly, and the East India Company acquired the real nature ofa government instead of a mere trading company. Gradually as thepolitical power of the Company grew in India and abuses crept in, theEnglish Parliament undertook to control all Indian affairs throughappointed representatives. This policy was carried out in so far thaton the eve of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857), which led to the transfer of theGovernment of India to the British Sovereign, the English Parliamentalready supervised the India affair through a cabinet minister anda council board in England, and a governor-general appointed by theBritish cabinet in India.

The resentment of the people of India against the British rule andits consequent political and economic humiliations found its tragicexpression in the[Pg 184]rebellion of 1857, commonly known as the SepoyMutiny. The masses of the country led by the native army burst forthin mad fury against the yoke of their foreign rulers. The rebellionstarted in the United Provinces and at once spread like wildfirethroughout the British territories. Once again the British played thenatives against each other. The rebellion, which at one time threatenedthe complete overthrow of the British power in the country, was crushedwith the assistance of Sikh regiments from Punjab. The suppression ofthe rebellion involved a terrible loss of life, and some of the deedsof horror which were committed by the infuriated English soldieryremain as fresh in the minds of the Indian people to this day as theywere in 1857. The last of the Moghul emperors was deposed and all ofhis heirs were fired from the mouths of cannon. Thousands of rebelswere hung, and their dead bodies were left hanging from the branches oftrees in order to excite terror in the minds of the populace. Kaye andMalleson’sHistory of the Mutiny gives the most horrible account ofthe butchery which the English officers carried on during the bloodydays after the Mutiny in the most indiscriminate and barbarous fashion.The authors of this memorable account of the Mutiny state: “Alreadyour military officers were hunting down the criminals of all kinds,and hanging them up with as little compunction as though they had beenpariah-dogs, or jackals, or vermin of a baser kind.” So ferocious wasthe temper of the white soldiers, and so strongly had the fierce hatredagainst all “who wore the dusky livery of the East” possessed them,that on one occasion in the[Pg 185]absence of tangible enemies they turnedon their own camp-followers and murdered a large number of their loyaland unoffending servants. Sir Charles Ball writes: “Every day we hadexpeditions to burn and destroy disaffected villages and we had takenour revenge. We have the power of life in our hands and I assure you,we spare not.” Innocent old men and helpless women with sucking infantsat their breasts felt the weight of the white man’s vengeance just asmuch as the vilest malefactors. It is recorded that in several placescow’s flesh was forced by spears and bayonets into the mouths of Hinduprisoners because the English knew that the Hindu so abhors cow’s fleshthat he will rather die than eat it. Kaye and Malleson write:

Following the Sepoy Mutiny an act was passed in the British Parliamentby virtue of which the government of India was transferred from theEast India Company to the British Crown. The English King thus becamethe ruler of India, but the people of India paid the price of purchase.The shareholders of the Company were recompensed for this change, andthe amount paid to them was added to the national debt of India. Thegovernment of the country changed hands, but virtually no change wasmade in the policy. Even in the times of peace that followed the publicdebt of India continued to increase. The new rulers were determinedto promote English industries at the expense of Indian manufacturersjust as had been done under the rule of the Company. India remainedhenceforth a colony of the Empire for the production of raw materialsat very low prices in the English factories. The manufactured goodswere afterwards re-shipped to India for the native consumption. Theposts of dignity and high emolument in the government service continuedto be regarded by the Englishman as his sole monopoly. No confidencewas placed in the natives; they were given no positions of authority,and were excluded from offices of responsibility as much as possible.In other words, the interests of Indians were completely subordinatedto those of the Englishmen. “The roads to wealth and honor were closedto the natives. The highest among them were considered unworthy ofthose places of[Pg 187] trust in the state employments which were held byyoung English boys fresh from school. The springs of Indian industrywere stopped, and the sources of the country’s wealth were dried up.”

As a result of the direct British rule over India the public debt ofthe country rose from £51,000,000 in 1857 to £200,000,000 in 1901.The agricultural class of India, moreover, the backbone of nationalprosperity in a country whose main occupation is agriculture, hadbecome so poor that in one district in 1900 85% of the land revenuewas directly paid to the Government officials by money-lenders, thelandowners being wholly unable to meet their obligations. It wasestimated by the leading medical journal of the world (The Lancet,June, 1901) that during the last decimum of the nineteenth centurynineteen millions of British Indian subjects had died of starvation,and one million from plague. And yet at the beginning of the twentiethcentury according to the financial arrangements of the country halfof its total revenue was sent out of India to England each year. Thisincluded the upkeep of the India office in London, pensions to retiredofficials residing in England, and interest on public debts.[44]

With these facts in mind the reader will not wonder that India ispoor. Place any other country in the world under the same conditions.Let her government be carried on by a foreign power with the completeexclusion of the sons of the soil from positions of responsibility;let her fiscal policy be determined by[Pg 188] the parliament of a rivalcommercial nation without a single representative of the governednation sitting in its councils; let its industry be crippled ordestroyed by a malicious use of political power by its foreign rulers;let its agriculture be subjected to a heavy and uncertain land tax; lethalf its total revenue be carried away annually to a foreign land; andyou will not be surprised if the most prosperous nation in the worldsinks in the course of a few years to the lowest depths of poverty anddegradation.[45]

A nation prospers if its government is wisely administered in theinterest of the people, if the sources of wealth are widened, and ifthe proceeds from taxation are spent for the uplift of the people andamong the people. It is impoverished if its government is carried onby an outside power for the purpose of exploitation; if the sourcesof its wealth are narrowed from the crippling of its industries, andif its revenues are largely remitted out of the country without aneconomic return. Americans stand in awe before the single monopolyof the Standard Oil Company. They are appalled by the magnitude andtyranny of its power. They should remember that the Standard Oilmonopoly is a pigmy before the British monopoly of India. England hasexercised for nearly two hundred years exclusive and undivided controlover the affairs of India. She has had power to shape the destinies ofthree hundred million people according to her will, being responsibleto no one but herself. She[Pg 189] has held not only the government of India,but its commerce, its finances, and its industry. In conclusion letus repeat the poignant remark quoted earlier, “The national wealth ofIndia did not sprout wings and fly away. It had to be carried away.”

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter IX

Before discussing at length the problems of Indian nationalism, let usconsider whether India is really a nation, or is merely a composite ofpeoples inhabiting the same country. India’s fundamental unity as anation has been denied often by prominent scholars, while its historicand cultured oneness has really never been acknowledged by the Englishrulers of the country. Sir John Strachey remarks:

We believe that Sir John Strachey is profoundly wrong in his assertionthat India is not a nation in the “physical, political, social, orreligious” sense. On the contrary, it can be proved easily thatgeographically, historically, culturally, and spiritually India isfundamentally one. Cut off from the north and the east by the snow-cladHimalayas, and surrounded on the south and the west by the mightyIndian Ocean, India is geographically, one country. Every part of theinterior is freely accessible from all sides. No natural boundary lineswithin the country divide it into different parts; nor do any highmountains[Pg 191]obstruct the free passage from one part of the country tothe other. In fact, India is a physical unit, much more distinct thanany other country in Europe or America.

When we study the history of India, from the ancient Vedic period tomodern times, we find again the whole of the Indian peninsula, fromBengal to Gujrat, and from Ceylon to Kashmir, mentioned always as onemotherland. “The early Vedic literature contains hymns addressed tothe Motherland of India. The epic poems speak of the whole of BHARATas the home-land of Aryans.” We hear nowhere any account of separatenationalities within the country. The literature of India is full ofthoughts about Indian nationality; but there is no mention of separateBengal, Madras, Gujrat, or Punjab nations, based upon geographicdivisions. Powerful emperors in ancient as well as modern times haveruled over the entire peninsula in peace and security. “In fact, thebelief in the unity of India was so strong in ancient times thatno ruler considered his territories complete until he had acquiredcontrol over the entire peninsula.” Asoka ruled over the whole ofIndia in perfect harmony. Akhbar’s power spread to the farthest endsof the land. And when, later on, the different governors of the borderprovinces rose in revolt and refused allegiance to the successors ofAkhbar, it was the great distance from the capital that suggestedrevolt to the population of these distant provinces, and not a feelingof separate nationality.

Culturally, again, India is one nation. In their daily habits, theirethical standards, and their spiritual responses the Indians ofevery religion and locality[Pg 192] are fundamentally alike. “Their familylife is founded on the same bases; their modes of dress and cookingare the same. Their very tastes are similar.” They respect the samenational heroes and worship the same ideals. They have the same hopesand aspirations in this life and in the hereafter. As a result,their mental and spiritual behavior is similar. In fact, they arefundamentally one in mind and in spirit.

It is true that more than one dialect is spoken in the country. Until1920 the business of the Indian National Congress itself was carriedon in the English language because no other language was common tothe whole of India. It was really tragic that a people who wereso profoundly proud of their national heritage and who aspired topolitical freedom were obliged to use at the meetings of their nationalassemblies an utterly foreign language. That the variety of languageswas in fact a very slight difficulty was demonstrated at the sessionof the Indian National Congress in 1920. From the Congress platform atAmritsar in 1919 Mahatma Gandhi had announced that at all subsequentmeetings the business of the Congress would be conducted in the Hindilanguage, which is spoken by more than a third of the population ofthe country. Teachers were sent immediately to different parts of thecountry to instruct the people in the Hindi language and when theCongress convened again in 1920 its business was carried on in Hindi.Delegates from Bengal, Madras, and Bombay made their speeches in Hindias fluently as those from the United Provinces and the Punjab. Everyone felt satisfied at the change.[Pg 193] A miracle had happened;India hadacquired a common tongue in the course of a year.

The population of India is composed of many different peoples, whocame to the country originally as invaders, and later settled thereand became a part thereof. Through the process of assimilation andadaptation extending over generations, the original Afghan, Mongol, andPersian conquerors of India have lost their peculiar characteristics,and become one with the rest of the population in their language,ideas, and loyalties. The position of these foreign types in India isexactly analogous to peoples of different nationalities, who migratedfrom Europe into America in the early times. The interval of a singlegeneration was usually sufficient to transfer the loyalties of Europeanimmigrants from their native countries to the United States. Thedifference between India and the United States in this respect ismerely that the Indian must go back many more generations to reach hisimmigrant than must the American.

The chief barrier in the way of spiritual unity among the peopleof India, is religion. Hinduism and Mohammedanism are the dominantreligions of the country. The main portion of the population is Hindu,but seventy millions of Mohammedans are scattered over the wholecountry in small groups. The Mohammedans came to India originally asinvaders and conquerors, and now occupy a position in the countryof mixed authority and subjection. Wherever they form the majoritygroup, they dominate the followers of other religions; while inother places they are held down as minorities. Since the beginningof their[Pg 194]contact the Hindus and the Mohammedans of India have neveragreed. Intervals of peace and harmony between the two communitieshave occurred occasionally during the reigns of benevolent emperorslike Akhbar and Shah Jahan; but their hearts were never joined intrue companionship even before the beginning of English influence.The modern rulers of India have helped to strengthen the differencesbetween the Hindus and the Mohammedans in so far that the animositiesbetween the two religious groups were no less bitter in 1918 than theywere three hundred years ago. Since the days of Gandhi’s leadership,however, a great deal has been accomplished in building up a feelingof genuine comradeship and love between the Hindus and Mohammedans ofIndia. When the Moslems all over the world were in a state of deepdistress at the Khilafat issues after the Severes treaty, the Hindusof India made common cause with the Moslems of the world. Khilafat wasincluded in the Congress program as one of India’s main issues. Thisliberality helped to win the hearts of the Mohammedan population ofIndia toward their Hindu compatriots, and the Hindu Gandhi was idolizedby both religious groups, as leader and savior. It was an auspiciousbeginning of friendship between these two isolated factions in India,and ever since it has been enthusiastically followed up by the youngergeneration of the country. It may be confidently expected that as theyouth of India acquire influence in the affairs of the country, thefriction between the Hindus and the Mohammedans will cease, and theirage-long battles based upon superstition and error will come to an end.

Worse still in their ethical and spiritual significance are thedifferentiations between the caste groups among the Hindus. Numeroussocial reform societies are working at the present time to remove thebarriers of caste within Hindu society; and until the work of buildingup a human fellowship among the different caste and religious groupsof India, based upon the highest moral teachings of the Hindu sages,is completed, the political as well as spiritual regeneration of thecountry will remain an idle dream.

We have seen that in the cultural sense, on account of the samenessof feelings and instincts, the Hindus, Mohammedans, Sikhs, Parsis,Bengalis, Mahratas, and Madrasis are fundamentally alike. Yet thebitterness between these warring elements of the country had growninto such immense proportions at one time that a communal feeling ofneighborhood and human decency among them seemed inconceivable. Twohundred years ago, when the English first began to acquire controlover the country, the people of India were divided into perfectlyhostile groups; and no power then existed which could bring togetherthese warring factions. Among the causes that have secretly conspiredto develop a spirit of unity among the different religious and socialgroups of India, the foremost has been British imperialism in thecountry. Britain gave to India, in the first place, a long reign ofpeace. This enabled the people of different parts of the country tohave a more direct and steady intercourse than was possible in earliertimes. The English also gave to the higher classes of India a knowledgeof English history and classical literature, whose study[Pg 196] breathedinto the minds of the educated Indians a love of liberty. Acquaintancewith the spirit of European nationalism created a desire for Indiannationality. A national consciousness soon sprang into existence andfound expression through the medium of the Indian National Congress.

Greater than everything else, however, in its direct consequences ofuniting the people of India into one nation has been the universalantagonism toward British rule. As the tyranny of foreign rulegradually began to be felt, hatred against it increased. The differentfactions in the country were forced to unite for the purpose ofdriving out of the country the arrogant intruders. Whatever else maybe doubtful, one thing is certain about India: “The sentiment ofantagonism toward British rule and of resentment against its iniquitouscharacter is both universal and profound.”

The principal grievances against English rule are its alien characterand its exploitation of the country’s wealth. Mahatma Gandhi calls it“Satanic,” because it is founded not upon the consent of the governedbut upon the military strength of the ruler. “It is based not on rightbut on might. Its last appeal is not to reason or to the heart but tothe sword.” Gandhi writes:

We said just now that one of the main grievances against English rulein India is its alien character. It may be asked: “Why should thealien origin of a rule itself be such a strong argument against it?”“Is it not true that England has given to India peace and efficiencyin government? That constitutes the chief function of governmentseverywhere, and the rule which has successfully achieved this purposejustifies its existence. If it is true elsewhere, it should be true inIndia also.” Our questioner may be both profoundly right and profoundlywrong. However, the acceptance or rejection of a foreign lordship bythe heart is a matter of such subtle sentiment, that the only way toexplain its meaning to the reader is to create a situation where heshall be called upon to judge in the matter.

Let us suppose that by some trick of fortune Japan obtained masteryover America. Let us grant, at the same time, that the Japanese ruleover America was more efficient than the American rule, and in thelight of our modern knowledge it is not beyond the limit of probabilityto imagine that Japanese efficiency in government could be greater thanAmerican efficiency. How would our reader feel about the situation?Would he be willing to discard his own indigenous native governmentfor the sake of a more efficient rule under the[Pg 198] Japanese Mikado?What would be his reaction if he saw his own “stars and stripes”replaced by the Imperial flag of Japan? Certainly, he would not feelat ease about the matter. The condition of the native of India underBritish authority is exactly similar in cause and consequence. Inits fundamental aspect the rule of a country by an alien power isessentially wrong in principle. It is unnatural and hence utterlyimmoral. Whether it is the Japanese in Korea, the United States ofAmerica in the Philippine Islands, or the English in India—it isall unnatural and immoral. There can never be any ethical, moral, orspiritual justification of an other than native rule in a country.“The government of a people by itself,” says John Stuart Mill, “has ameaning and reality; but such a thing as government of one people byanother does not, and cannot exist.”

So far there have existed only two principles for the government ofany country in the world, one is the government of a country by itschosen representatives, who are held responsible to their constituents,and are necessarily required to rule the country in the interests ofthe governed. This system was described by an American emancipator as“government of the people, by the people, for the people.” When welook back over the histories of the different countries of the world,we find that, without a single exception, the countries which haveadvanced in their material and cultural possessions, during the pasttwo hundred years, have been those whose governments were based on theprinciple of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

In the modern world we find that the governments of the United Statesof America, England, France, and Germany are typical for theirrepresentative characters. It goes without saying that the progresswhich these nations have made during recent times would not have beenpossible under any other system of government. Take the case of anyof these countries, America for example; you will find that “Americahas been made great by the democratic character of its governmentalinstitutions. Its colossal achievements in the mechanical arts, thehigh advancement in its cultural and artistic life, the mammothnature of its commercial and industrial progress, the magnitude ofits educational equipment, its institutions of learning and research,and its high standard of living—all these owe their origin to thebeneficent character of the American government,” whose foundationwas laid upon the noble principles contained in the Declaration ofIndependence:

There is still another principle (or lack of principle) on which thegovernment of a country could be based. This occurs where the countryis governed by an alien power, which derives its authority not from theconsent of the governed, but from some outside source. As a naturalconsequence of this system the[Pg 200] rulers of such countries are notconcerned with the benefits to be derived by the ruled country. In suchcases the interests of the subject nation are completely subordinatedto those of the master country. “The commerce of the ruling power isexpanded at the expense of the ruled; the industries of the governingcountry are enhanced at the cost of the extinction of those of thegoverned.” “The material, cultural, and moral life of one people isenriched at the expense of the life sources of a more helpless andunfortunate people.” The process begins with the impoverishing of thesubject nation through a system of economic exploitation of its wealthresources by the dominant powers. Poverty in its turn degrades thecharacter of the people, and the nation becomes morally flabby. Thedegeneration of an impoverished and suppressed people is assisted bythe deteriorating influence of the other policies of the foreign ruler,such as the disarming of the subject people, the introduction in theirmidst of an alien system of education so designed as to form in itshigher classes a group of miseducated “snobs” and to create in theupper sections of the country contempt for its past history and culture.

This kind of government has existed in India for the past two hundredyears. To begin with, England carried away all the tangible wealthof the country “in the form of indemnities, grants, and gifts fromits princes, and assessments and taxes from the people.” At thesame time the industries of the country were destroyed, and itscommercial prosperity was checked by a selfish policy of enriching themanufacturing classes of England at the expense of those in India.[Pg 201]The entire population of the country was disarmed as the next step.Thus were the natures of the people degraded, their martial spirit wascrushed, and “a race of soldiers and heroes converted into a timidflock of quill-driving sheep.”

The introduction of an utterly alien system of education was stillanother step in rooting out of the country the remnants of nationalhonor and pride. According to the scheme of English education in thecountry, formulated by Lord Macaulay, English was made the medium ofinstruction for all branches of study. English history and Englishliterature received preference over Indian history and Indianliterature. The text-books for schools and colleges were prepared byEnglish agents of the government; and from them sentiments of love andadmiration for Indian civilization and culture on one hand, and respectfor the character and behavior of its princes on the other, wererigidly excluded. In its place the English kings, the English people,the English religion, the English government, the English institutions,in fact everything English was held up as ideal. According to thehistory texts, whenever a battle was fought between the English andthe native princes, the former were always in the right and the latterforever in the wrong. The English were always the victorious, and thenatives always the beaten party. Mir Jafar, the arch-traitor of thecountry, was a noble and worthy prince, while Mir Kasam, the benevolentprotector of his subjects against the injustice of the East IndiaCompany’s agents, was a hypocrite and a debauché. The reason for theexaltation of Mir Jafar and the[Pg 202]execration of Mir Kasam is, however,easily understood. Mir Jafar was the commander-in-chief of the armyof Siraj-ud-Daulah, who stood against the forces of Lord Clive on thebattlefield of Plassey. At a suggestion of bribery from Clive, MirJafar led the whole of his army over to the side of the enemy, and thussecured for the English the victory of Plassey, which was the beginningof their real power in the country. On the other hand, Mir Kasam wascontinually fighting against the encroachments of the East IndiaCompany over his own territories and the rights of his subjects. Whichof the two princes was a real man and a worthy hero among his people,Mir Jafar or Mir Kasam? Mir Kasam, according to every kind of moral andethical standard of nobility and courage; Mir Jafar, according to thecorrupt standards of British Imperialism in India.

After the Indian youths had finished their scanty education, the futurethat lay before them was of a very uninviting nature. As all the highoffices in the service of the country were monopolized by the English,the only positions left for the educated classes of Indians werethose of low-paid clerks and assistants in the government offices. Noprospect of fame, or wealth, or power opened before them. There was nogreat stimulus for the pursuit of higher knowledge. The young scholarsno sooner began to know their positions in the world than they realizedthe uselessness of great attainments. Of what use was their learning ifthey were not to have employment as responsible public administratorsof their country and so use their knowledge in the service of India?The[Pg 203] extent of the exclusion of the native inhabitants of the countryfrom offices of dignity and high emoluments in the government servicemay be realized from the following figures. According to the figures of1913, out of 2,501 civil and military offices in British India carryingmonthly salaries of 800 rupees ($266.00) or more, only 242, less thanten per cent were held by Indians; out of the 4,986 appointmentscarrying a monthly salary of 500 rupees ($166.00), only 19 per centwere held by Indians; and out of the 11,064 appointments carrying amonthly salary of 200 rupees ($66.00) only 42 per cent were held byIndians. Conditions have not changed much since 1913.[46]

In order to enable the American reader to realize fully the magnitudeof injustice involved in the wrong policies of the English governmentin India regarding the country’s systems of education and publicemployment, we shall use our previous illustration once more. Let it besupposed that simultaneously with the consolidation of Japanese powerin America it was ordered by the Mikado that henceforth the Japaneselanguage should form the sole medium of instruction in the schools andcolleges throughout the United States. The American children would berequired to learn the Japanese language before reaching school. Thetexts given to the youths of the country to study and digest would bebooks written and published in Japan, from which the names of suchnational heroes as Washington and Lincoln were excluded, but in whichthe praises of Japan were sung in high chorus.[Pg 204] Shakespeare, Milton,Emerson, Longfellow, and Hawthorne would be excluded from the Americanschool curriculum, and Japanese literature substituted in its place.The business of all governmental departments would be conducted inJapanese, and its official circulars and reports would be printed inJapanese. All the higher posts in the service of the country wouldbe reserved for the Mikado’s own countrymen. The president and hiscabinet; supreme, district, and superior court judges; the governors ofthe states,—all would be appointed in Tokyo from among the Japanesein favor with the government of the Mikado. Native-born Americanswould be employed only as stenographers, postmen, grammar schoolteachers, and street car conductors, and then only at starvation wages.Buddhism would be made the state religion of America. What would anyself-respecting American say if all this were done to his country?What would he do when his children and his grandchildren raised a cryagainst the injustice done to their country and its manhood, and thiscry was drowned by the declaration of the Japanese imperialists thatJapan was carrying the Yellow Man’s burden in the United States ofAmerica.

The feeling of a deep and passionate resentment felt by the peopleof India regarding these matters was expressed by the late Mr. G. K.Gokhale thus:

If, therefore, the world sees the spectacle of an indignant India inrevolt against the English rule, it should not be surprised. It is onlynatural that the English should resent the attempts of the Indiansto secure their independence. It is hoped, however, that the othernations of the world will not feel hostile against the battle cry ofthe Indians against the British oppression in their country. If theEnglish imperialists try to prove the virtue of their rule in India,please remember that the question is not whether the English rule isgood or bad, but whether the principle underlying it is right or wrong.No self-respecting American citizen desires to see Japanese lordshipestablished in his native land; he would call a condition intolerablein which the Japanese held all the positions of power in the governmentof his country. The full-blooded inhabitants of India feel in muchthe same way about the British supremacy in India. The reason of thisattitude of both American and Indian nationalists is the same. Theself-respect of an honest man revolts against foreign domination. Theeyes of Modern India have been opened, and her people realize “thatthey[Pg 206] are men, with a man’s right to manage his own affairs.” As wasexpressed by Mrs. Annie Besant in her presidential address before theIndian National Congress in 1917: “India is no longer on her knees for‘boons’; she is on her feet for Rights.”

The first voice of organized Indian nationalist opinion demandingreform in the British government of India, was heard in 1885. Inthat year the first session of the Indian National Congress was heldin Bombay. The Congress began as a gathering of a small group ofprogressive nationalist leaders from different parts of the country.Gradually, as its function became known, the ranks of the congresswere swelled by delegates from all sections of India, and soon itsresponsible character as the representative organ of Indian progressiveopinion on political matters was recognized in both England and India.

The Congress began its career as a critic of British policies inthe country. It submitted a request to the English nation for aninquiry into Indian affairs and presented claims for reforms in theirresponsible and autocratic character of the British Government in thecountry. As time passed and the real nature of English rule began to bedisclosed, the Indian nationalists became “bolder in their criticismsand more ambitious in their claims for reform.” Except for minorconcessions granted through the courtesy of a few sympathetic viceroysnothing positive in the direction of the better government of India wasaccomplished by the Indian National Congress until the Morley-Mintoreforms of 1909. Yet in spite of its enormous difficulties, arisingfrom the stubbornness of British[Pg 207]bureaucracy in India and the cold,unconcerned attitude of the English Parliament towards Indian claims,the Congress had done excellent work in arousing the educated classesof the country to a realization of their political wrongs.

The Indian nationalist movement received a great impetus during theharsh reign of Lord Curzon as the high-handed Viceroy of India. One ofthe acts of Lord Curzon was the partition of Bengal in 1905,—“an actwhich aroused in the entire population of Bengal a violent outburst ofpopular disapproval.” The purpose of the English Viceroy in dividingthe province into two portions was to destroy the unity of Bengal, andto sow at the same time seeds of bitter Hindu-Muslim feuds. But theBengalee youths were determined not to accept the dismemberment oftheir ancient land of Bengal, and the entire province was in a stateof anarchy for a period of six years. In spite of the attempts of theEnglish to quiet the agitation, it gradually spread all over Indiauntil at last the hated act was repealed by royal proclamation at theDelhi coronation Durbar in 1911.

In the meantime the Morley-Minto reforms, sponsored by John Morley,the noted biographer of Gladstone and at that time Secretary of Statefor India, and Lord Minto, the Viceroy of India, had become law bythe India Council Act of 1909. The reforms were accepted by a fewmoderate leaders as “generous,” but on the whole public opinion inIndia regarded them as inadequate and petty. For the first time seatsin the executive councils of the provinces as well as those in theIndian government were thrown open to Indians.[Pg 208] The provincial andcentral legislative councils were enlarged and made to include more“elected” Indian members. Henceforth the provincial councils were tocontain a majority of “non-official” “elected” members as distinguishedfrom the “official” and “non-official nominated” members, the officialbeing the officers of the Government who sat in the councils asex-officio members and the non-official nominated who were nominatedto their positions as council members by the governor of the provincefor provincial councils and by the Viceroy in the case of the centralcouncil.

The powers of the reformed councils, however, were limited. “Thecouncils,” says Prof. Parker T. Moon, “could pass resolutions subjectto the British Parliament’s overriding authority; they could discussthe budget and other measures; they could criticise and suggest. Theycould not oppose and propose, but neither depose nor dispose. Theycould not overthrow the administration, or tighten the purse strings.They were, in short, experimental debating clubs.”[47]

Those who had put their confidence in the Morley-Minto reforms weresoon disappointed. The real nature of the new councils as mere“debating clubs” was discovered and found unsatisfactory. The people ofIndia had demanded the right to control the affairs of their country’sgovernment, and they had been granted merely the right to discuss andto criticize, with no authority whatsoever to alter the policies ofits officials. The helplessness of the Indian members in the Councilswas proved after the World War during the[Pg 209] agitation over the RowlattBills. The uproar against this piece of repressive legislation was sostrong that all Indian members of the Central Legislative Council,including those who were nominated by the government, voted againstits passage. But in spite of the solid opposition from Indian membersin the Council and an unprecedented revulsion against the Bills amongall classes in the country, they were made law by the Viceroy. Thatlegislation was a “direct slap in the face of nationalist India.” It isa matter of common knowledge that it led to thesatyagraha of MahatmaGandhi, which in turn crystallized into the non-violent non-coöperationmovement.

After the reforms of 1909, the Indian National Congress continued toarouse the masses of the country to a national consciousness and to ademand for representation in the government of the country. In 1914all groups of Indians joined in a spirit of loyalty to assist theBritish Empire during the World War. India made heavy contributions tothe war-time needs of England in both man-power and money power; as arecompense for her loyalty the people of India were promised liberalhome rule after the war. In the meantime the Indian National Congressand the All-India Moslem League (founded in 1912 by the Mohammedans ofIndia) had agreed to present the joint claims of all communities in thecountry for home rule. The scheme formulated by these two organizationsat Lucknow in 1916, and known as the Congress-League Scheme, had forits aim the attainment ofSwaraj (home rule) within the BritishEmpire. They proposed a plan by which India within a period of fifteen[Pg 210]years should acquire the same rights as the self-governing colonies ofthe Empire.

Before the end of the war, the Secretary of State for India, Mr.Montague, was sent to India by the British Parliament for the studyof the conditions of the country with a view to launching a schemeof wider influence for its people. A joint report prepared by theSecretary, Mr. Montague, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, waspublished in 1918, and after slight modifications was passed by theBritish Parliament as the Act of 1919.

Although the Montague-Chelmsford reforms were an improvement overthe reforms of 1909, all sections of the Indian people except afew isolated moderates at once declared them to be unsatisfactory.Besides enlarging the existing councils and providing for more electedmembers in them, the reforms of 1919 introduced the new principle of“dyarchy” into the provinces. The various departments of the provincialgovernment were known as “reserved” or “transferred.” The control ofthe “reserved” departments remained in the hands of the governors,who were not responsible in any way to the legislatures. Theseincluded law, order, justice, and police. The class of “transferred”subjects included among others education, agriculture, and publichealth. Their control was placed in the hands of ministers electedby and responsible to the provincial legislatures, which contained amajority of elected members. The system of “dyarchy” in the provincialgovernments, however, was not a success. No sooner had the new schemebegun to function than difficulties over the budget[Pg 211] arose betweenthe ministers in charge of different departments. The ministers oftransferred subjects were given the privilege of managing theirdepartments according to popular demand, but they were not providedwith the funds necessary to make possible the proposed reforms. “Thestrings of the purse were still held by an outside power,” a conditionwhich made work of these responsible ministers wholly ineffective. “Indefiance of Lincoln’s principles regarding the fate of a house dividedagainst itself,” comments Prof. Moon, “the British Government madeit a principle to divide the administration of India. India was tobe ‘half free, half slave.’ Autocracy and self-government were to betwin columns supporting British imperialism. It is interesting to notethe subjects which were reserved as of interest to Great Britain—therepression of disorder was a prime interest. Ingenious as it was, thescheme was by no means an unqualified success.”[48]

Yet it must be admitted that the reforms of 1919 were never givena fair trial by the people of India. Before the time came for theinstallation of the new councils, the Indian nation had alreadylaunched upon its career of non-violent non-coöperation against theBritish Government. How the agitation against the Rowlatt Bills ledto martial law in the Punjab and to the massacre at Amritsar, whichin turn drove Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to thepolicy of boycott against English rule, has already been explained ina previous chapter. One of the items[Pg 212] in the non-coöperation programof the Congress was the boycott of councils, and as a consequenceof this item all the responsible nationalist leaders withheld theirnames and support from the council elections. When after the arrestof Mahatma Gandhi in 1922, one wing of the Indian nationalists underthe leadership of Mr. C. R. Das, decided to go into the councils,they did so with the purpose of breaking them up. The avowed objectof followers of Mr. Das, who were henceforth called the “Swarajists,”was to capture the councils with a view to breaking the machineryof the government from within by obstructing its business at everystep. Even though the “Swarajists” finally did succeed in holding themajority seats in different legislative councils of the country, andin causing considerable annoyance to the government officials by theirobstructionist methods, yet they were far from being able at any timeto halt the government machinery.

The point at issue between India and England is this: India hasoutgrown its old habit of submission. It does not bend its knee to begfor reforms and concessions. It is standing on its feet and demandingits rights, and the methods it is using to secure the rights of thepeople to govern themselves are of its own creation. The surprisingthing in this whole affair is not that India has lost faith in theBritish sense of justice and has decided to boycott its English rulers;the amazing thing is that it took the people of India so long to findout the truth about England’s interests in the country and their ownwelfare. It is a sad commentary upon the genius of Indian leadershipthat it[Pg 213] took the Indian National Congress thirty-five years todiscover the path of non-coöperation towardsSwaraj (home rule). Toexpect from the English nation, which rewarded General Dyer for hismassacre of 800 unarmed civilians with a purse of £10,000 ($50,000),a grant of self-government was stark nonsense. And yet until the newpath was struck out by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920, Indians of all shadesof opinion persevered in their belief that freedom could be acquiredby begging. Mahatma Gandhi was the first man among Indians to realizethe fact that freedom is never got by gifts of the rulers, but on thecontrary is won by the might of the ruled. Freedom is a thing whichcannot be given to a nation from outside; the ability to acquire itmust be developed from within.

It is really amazing how old habits stick with beings long aftertheir uselessness has been established. A case of this occurred inIndia after the incarceration of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. The Mahatmahad started the country on the lines of non-coöperation, and theywere proceeding quite successfully, when he was suddenly arrested andsentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Soon after he had disappearedfrom the scene of the Congress, there sprang up in its midst a newparty which at once resolved to go back into the councils, as if theyhad not had enough experience with the council business in previoustimes. What prompted the “Swarajists” to this action has alwaysremained unintelligible to me. Did they really believe that theycould conquer the English bureaucracy of India through speeches inthe council chambers, or frighten them into submission through their[Pg 214]obstructionist terrors? If they did, it was a typical case of thetriumph of hope over experience. If ever anyone made the English rulersof the country quake in their shoes it was Gandhi. He did not do thisby the politician’s tricks. He who fights against the English nationwith those weapons works against heavy odds, because the English arealready past masters in the art of diplomacy. The bureaucrats wereterrified by Gandhi because he used the weapon of passive resistance,which was native to himself and his countrymen but foreign to theBritish militarists. The rulers of the country were completely baffledby Gandhi’s methods. They simply did not know what to do. If it hadbeen an armed insurrection of a rebellious nation, they possessedenough military force to suppress it with success; but their beststrategists failed when they had to encounter a mass of three hundredmillion disobeying and yet non-resisting people, who had risen insudden revolt against their established authority at the bidding of asaintly leader.

Gandhi’s non-violent non-coöperation still forms the creed of theIndian National Congress. The masses all over the country have beenmade conscious of the loss of their national dignity under the rule ofthe British; the blood of the martyrs at Jallianwalla Bagh has made theheart of India bleed; and it is hoped that before the present agitationin the country is slackened, India will have achieved its nationalfreedom, and have become able once more to offer its contribution ofart, beauty, and culture to the rest of the world.

Other outside influences besides the injustices of[Pg 215] the British rule inthe country, that have conspired together to strengthen the nationalistmovement of India during the twentieth century, were the Japanesevictory in the Russo-Japanese war, and the lowering of the white man’sprestige in the minds of all Eastern nations during and after the WorldWar. The crushing defeat of the Russian forces at the hands of theEastern islanders during the Russo-Japanese war broke forever the spellof the invincibility of white man’s arms against Eastern foes; and thisincident gave a great impetus to the nationalistic movements in allcountries of the East.

Again when during the World War native regiments from the differentcolonial possessions of the fighting powers were gathered in thebattlefields of Europe to witness the “white man’s holocaust,” theirrespect for his supposed superior civilization disappeared. At the sametime the World War weakened the potential powers of the imperialisticwhite nations, thereby increasing considerably the chances of successfor the rebellious peoples in the East. The high-sounding sentimentsof “Self-determination” for weaker nations, and “a world made safe fordemocracy” uttered by the allied statesmen, during the period of war,had, ever since the ending of the World War on Armistice Day, quickenedthe hopes not only of India but of other dependent nations as well toseek in every direction for the realization of the ideals expressed bythese eloquent orators of the allies. What will the end be?

Since this was written some developments of a[Pg 216] momentous characterhave taken place in the political situation of India, of which anappropriate notice may conveniently be taken here.

At the 1928 session of the Indian National Congress held at Calcuttaa scheme of self-government, jointly prepared by all parties inIndia, was presented to the British Parliament for enaction intolaw. This scheme, known as the Nehru Report, was accompanied by anultimatum to the effect, that if Dominion Status equivalent to thatof other self-governing dominions of the Empire like Canada and SouthAfrica was not granted to India by the British Parliament before themidnight of December 31st, 1929, the Indian National Congress wouldhenceforth declare complete independence as its immediate goal. Sinceno satisfactory response was made to this ultimatum by the BritishParliament within the prescribed time limit, the Indian NationalCongress at its annual session held at Lahore during the last week of1929 committed itself to complete independence and a severance of allrelations with the British Government. The Independence resolution ofMahatma Gandhi was carried by an overwhelming majority of 2,994 votesagainst only 6. January 26th, 1930, was chosen by the Indian NationalCongress as the day of Indian Independence. It was observed by allIndians, in India and abroad, amidst spectacular demonstrations, duringwhich the national flag was hoisted with ceremony, and the Declarationof Independence read to the masses. Resolutions of approval were passedat nearly 750,000 meetings, and pledges of support given to the IndianNational Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, by[Pg 217] theenthusiastic crowds, everywhere. At a later date the All-India CongressCommittee consisting of 300 members transferred its authority to guidethe policies of the Congress to a working committee of ten chosenleaders of the people, who in turn have expressed their implicit faithin the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

After all efforts at reconciliation with the British Government hadfailed, Mahatma Gandhi embarked on his campaign of Civil Disobedienceon March 9th, 1930. On that day he left his home at Ahmedabad witha batch of 79 volunteers to reach Jalalpur, a village on the oceanshore and 150 miles distant, where he and his followers will startmanufacturing salt in open defiance of the British Government’smonopoly of salt manufacture in India. This will be symbolic ofGandhi’s program of Civil Disobedience. On this historic journey Gandhiand his followers have been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm by thegeneral populace, who have gathered in numbers of hundreds of thousandsand lined Gandhi’s march all along his journey.

The plan of Gandhi is very simple. He, with his batch of volunteers,will start manufacturing salt at Jalalpur. Since this involves thedisobedience of the civil authority of the British Government, it willbe compelled to arrest Gandhi and his followers. The volunteers in caseof their arrest will be replaced by other batches of equal numbers. Inthis way the campaign will continue until one of the parties withdraws.The Government will either succeed in breaking up the power of Gandhi’sfollowers or yield to the[Pg 218] demands of nationalistic India. On the onehand Gandhi has openly defied the British Government to arrest him, andon the other hand he has strictly enjoined his followers to maintain aspirit of non-violence. In a recent statement to the press he declaredthat he was not afraid so much of the wrath of the British Governmentas of the mad fury of his own countrymen bursting forth into openviolence.

Gandhi’s march to Jalalpur has aroused universal enthusiasm allover the country. Huge demonstrations are taking place everywhere.Indication of the British Government’s policy of repression hasshown itself already in the arrest of Gandhi’s chief lieutenant, Mr.Vallabhai Patel, and the mayor of Calcutta, Mr. Sen Gupta. The masseshave so far maintained the spirit of non-violence. Gandhi has givento the British Government of India the choice between a peacefulsettlement and violence. He has been able so far to hold his countrymenin a calm mood of peaceful agitation. If he is arrested and theGovernment starts repression with its customary display of violence,the revolution in India may take a different course. In such a case theresponsibility will be all England’s.

FOOTNOTES:

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY MOTHER INDIA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions willbe renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyrightlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the UnitedStates without permission and without paying copyrightroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use partof this license, apply to copying and distributing ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by followingthe terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for useof the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything forcopies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is veryeasy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creationof derivative works, reports, performances and research. ProjectGutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you maydo practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protectedby U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademarklicense, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the freedistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the FullProject Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online atwww.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree toand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by allthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return ordestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in yourpossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to aProject Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be boundby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the personor entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only beused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people whoagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a fewthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic workseven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. Seeparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of thisagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“theFoundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collectionof Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individualworks in the collection are in the public domain in the UnitedStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in theUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do notclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long asall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hopethat you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promotingfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping theProject Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easilycomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in thesame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License whenyou share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also governwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries arein a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of thisagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or anyother Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes norepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in anycountry other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or otherimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appearprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any workon which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which thephrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work isderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does notcontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of thecopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone inthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you areredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must complyeither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 orobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is postedwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distributionmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and anyadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional termswill be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all worksposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at thebeginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of thiswork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute thiselectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, withoutprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 withactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the ProjectGutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, includingany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide accessto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a formatother than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the officialversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expenseto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a meansof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “PlainVanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include thefull Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ worksunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providingaccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic worksprovided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms thanare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writingfrom the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager ofthe Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as setforth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerableeffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofreadworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the ProjectGutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, maycontain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurateor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or otherintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage orcannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Rightof Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the ProjectGutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim allliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legalfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICTLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSEPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THETRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BELIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE ORINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover adefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you canreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending awritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If youreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the mediumwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided youwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy inlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the personor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a secondopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. Ifthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writingwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forthin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NOOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain impliedwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types ofdamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreementviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, theagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer orlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity orunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void theremaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, thetrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyoneproviding copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works inaccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with theproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any ofthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of thisor any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, oradditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) anyDefect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution ofelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety ofcomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. Itexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donationsfrom people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with theassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’sgoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection willremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secureand permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and futuregenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, seeSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of thestate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the InternalRevenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identificationnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted byU.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and upto date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s websiteand official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project GutenbergLiterary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespreadpublic support and donations to carry out its mission ofincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can befreely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widestarray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exemptstatus with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulatingcharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the UnitedStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes aconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep upwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locationswhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SENDDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular statevisitwww.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where wehave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibitionagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states whoapproach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot makeany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received fromoutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donationmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of otherways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. Todonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the ProjectGutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could befreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced anddistributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network ofvolunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printededitions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright inthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do notnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paperedition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG searchfacility:www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how tosubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Chapter		Page
I.	Woman’s Position in India. Is She Bond Or Free?	9
II.	The Hindu Ideal of Marriage	36
III.	The Civilization and Ethics of India	64
IV.	The Caste System of India	81
V.	Gandhi—The Man and His Message	108
VI.	India’s Experiment With Passive Resistance	126
VII.	Jallianwalla Massacre at Amritsar	146
VIII.	Why is India Poor?	162
IX.	Indian Nationalism—Its Origin And Growth	190

in 1850	2	pence
in 1880	1½	pence
in 1900	¾	pence.

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofMy mother India

MY MOTHER INDIA

PREFACE

CONTENTS

Chapter I

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter II

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter III

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter IV

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter V

Chapter VI

FOOTNOTE:

Chapter VII

FOOTNOTE:

Chapter VIII

FOOTNOTES:

Chapter IX

FOOTNOTES:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

Proportion of Taxation to Income
in 1880 Scotland with £45 per head as average, one-seventeenth	India (outside 1,000,000 well-to-do people) with 12s. perhead as average, nearly one fourth.