Apart from the natural exchange of thought between East and West, the influence of English education, literature and ideals, the effect of travel in Europe, Japan and the United States of America, and other recognised causes for the changed outlook in India, there have been special forces at work during the last few years to arouse a New Spirit in India, and to alter her attitude of mind.  These may be summed up as: 

(a) The Awakening of Asia.

(b) Discussions abroad on Alien Rule and Imperial Reconstruction.

(c) Loss of Belief in the Superiority of the White Races.

(d) The Awakening of Indian Merchants.

(e) The Awakening of Indian Womanhood to claim its Ancient
Position.

(f) The Awakening of the Masses.

Each of these causes has had its share in the splendid change of attitude in the Indian Nation, in the uprising of a spirit of pride of country, of independence, of self-reliance, of dignity, of self-respect.  The War has quickened the rate of evolution of the world, and no country has experienced the quickening more than our Motherland.

The awakening of Asia.

In a conversation I had with Lord Minto, soon after his arrival as Viceroy, he discussed the so-called “unrest in India,” and recognised it as the inevitable result of English Education, of English Ideals of Democracy, of the Japanese victory over Russia, and of the changing conditions in the outer world.  I was therefore not surprised to read his remark that he recognised, “frankly and publicly, that new aspirations were stirring in the hearts of the people, that they were part of a larger movement common to the whole East, and that it was necessary to satisfy them to a reasonable extent by giving them a larger share in the administration.”

But the present movement in India will be very poorly understood if it be regarded only in connexion with the movement in the East.  The awakening of Asia is part of a world-movement, which has been quickened into marvellous rapidity by the world-war.  The world-movement is towards Democracy, and for the West dates from the breaking away of the American Colonies from Great Britain, consummated in 1776, and its sequel in the French Revolution of 1789.  Needless to say that its root was in the growth of modern science, undermining the fabric of intellectual servitude, in the work of the Encyclopaedists, and in that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and of Thomas Paine.  In the East, the swift changes in Japan, the success of the Japanese Empire against Russia, the downfall of the Manchu dynasty in China and the establishment of a Chinese Republic, the efforts at improvement in Persia, hindered by the interference of Russia and Great Britain with their growing ambitions, and the creation of British and Russian “spheres of influence,” depriving her of her just liberty, and now the Russian Revolution and the probable rise of a Russian Republic in Europe and Asia, have all entirely changed the conditions before existing in India.  Across Asia, beyond the Himalayas, stretch free and self-ruling Nations.  India no longer sees as her Asian neighbours the huge domains of a Tsar and a Chinese despot, and compares her condition under British rule with those of their subject populations.  British rule profited by the comparison, at least until 1905, when the great period of repression set in.  But in future, unless India wins Self-Government, she will look enviously at her Self-Governing neighbours, and the contrast will intensify her unrest.

But even if she gains Home Rule, as I believe she will, her position in the Empire will imperatively demand that she shall be strong as well as free.  She becomes not only a vulnerable point in the Empire, as the Asian Nations evolve their own ambitions and rivalries, but also a possession to be battled for.  Mr. Laing once said:  “India is the milch-cow of England,” a Kamadhenu, in fact, a cow of plenty; and if that view should arise in Asia, the ownership of the milch-cow would become a matter of dispute, as of old between Vashishtha and Vishvamitra.  Hence India must be capable of self-defence both by land and sea.  There may be a struggle for the primacy of Asia, for supremacy in the Pacific, for the mastery of Australasia, to say nothing of the inevitable trade-struggles, in which Japan is already endangering Indian industry and Indian trade, while India is unable to protect herself.

In order to face these larger issues with equanimity, the Empire requires a contented, strong, self-dependent and armed India, able to hold her own and to aid the Dominions, especially Australia, with her small population and immense unoccupied and undefended area.  India alone has the man-power which can effectively maintain the Empire in Asia, and it is a short-sighted, a criminally short-sighted, policy not to build up her strength as a Self-Governing State within the Commonwealth of Free Nations under the British Crown.  The Englishmen in India talk loudly of their interests; what can this mere handful do to protect their interests against attack in the coming years?  Only in a free and powerful India will they be safe.  Those who read Japanese papers know how strongly, even during the War, they parade unchecked their pro-German sympathies, and how likely after the War is an alliance between these two ambitious and warlike Nations.  Japan will come out of the War with her army and navy unweakened, and her trade immensely strengthened.  Every consideration of sane statesmanship should lead Great Britain to trust India more than Japan, so that the British Empire in Asia may rest on the sure foundation of Indian loyalty, the loyalty of a free and contented people, rather than be dependent on the continued friendship of a possible future rival.  For international friendships are governed by National interests, and are built on quicksands, not on rock.

Englishmen in India must give up the idea that English dominance is necessary for the protection of their interests, amounting, in 1915, to L365,399,000 sterling.  They do not claim to dominate the United States of America, because they have invested there L688,078,000.  They do not claim to dominate the Argentine Republic, because they have invested there L269,808,000.  Why then should they claim to dominate India on the ground of their investment?  Britons must give up the idea that India is a possession to be exploited for their own benefit, and must see her as a friend, an equal, a Self-Governing Dominion within the Empire, a Nation like themselves, a willing partner in the Empire, and not a dependent.  The democratic movement in Japan, China and Russia in Asia has sympathetically affected India, and it is idle to pretend that it will cease to affect her.

Discussions abroad on alien rule and Imperial reconstruction.

But there are other causes which have been working in India, consequent on the British attitude against autocracy and in defence of freedom in Europe, while her attitude to India has, until lately, been left in doubt.  Therefore I spoke of a splendid opportunity lost.  India at first believed whole-heartedly that Great Britain was fighting for the freedom of all Nationalities.  Even now, Mr. Asquith declared — in his speech in the House of Commons reported here last October, on the peace resolution of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald — that “the Allies are fighting for nothing but freedom, and, an important addition — for nothing short of freedom.”  In his speech declaring that Britain would stand by France in her claim for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, he spoke of “the intolerable degradation of a foreign yoke.”  Is such a yoke less intolerable, less wounding to self-respect here, than in Alsace-Lorraine, where the rulers and the ruled are both of European blood, similar in religion and habits?  As the War went on, India slowly and unwillingly came to realise that the hatred of autocracy was confined to autocracy in the West, and that the degradation was only regarded as intolerable for men of white races; that freedom was lavishly promised to all except to India; that new powers were to be given to the Dominions, but not to India.  India was markedly left out of the speeches of statesmen dealing with the future of the Empire, and at last there was plain talk of the White Empire, the Empire of the Five Nations, and the “coloured races” were lumped together as the wards of the White Empire, doomed to an indefinite minority.

The peril was pressing; the menace unmistakable.  The Reconstruction of the Empire was on the anvil; what was to be India’s place therein?  The Dominions were proclaimed as partners; was India to remain a Dependency?  Mr. Bonar Law bade the Dominions strike while the iron was hot; was India to wait till it was cold?  India saw her soldiers fighting for freedom in Flanders, in France, in Gallipoli, in Asia Minor, in China, in Africa; was she to have no share of the freedom for which she fought?  At last she sprang to her feet and cried, in the words of one of her noblest sons:  “Freedom is my birthright; and I want it.”  The words “Home Rule” became her Mantram.  She claimed her place in the Empire.

Thus, while she continued to support, and even to increase, her army abroad, fighting for the Empire, and poured out her treasures as water for Hospital Ships, War Funds, Red Cross organisations, and the gigantic War Loan, a dawning fear oppressed her, lest, if she did not take order with her own household, success in the War for the Empire might mean decreased liberty for herself.

The recognition of the right of the Indian Government to make its voice heard in Imperial matters, when they were under discussion in an Imperial Conference, was a step in the right direction.  But disappointment was felt that while other countries were represented by responsible Ministers, the representation in India’s case was of the Government, of a Government irresponsible to her, and not the representative of herself.  No fault was found with the choice itself, but only with the non-representative character of the chosen, for they were selected by the Government, and not by the elected members of the Supreme Council.  This defect in the resolution moved by the Hon. Khan Bahadur M.M.  Shafi on October 2, 1915, was pointed out by the Hon. Mr. Surendranath Bannerji.  He said: 

My Lord, in view of a situation so full of hope and promise, it seems to me that my friend’s Resolution does not go far enough.  He pleads for official representation at the Imperial Conference:  he does not plead for popular representation.  He urges that an address be presented to His Majesty’s Government, through the Secretary of State for India, for official representation at the Imperial Council.  My Lord, official representation may mean little or nothing.  It may indeed be attended with some risk; for I am sorry to have to say — but say it I must — that our officials do not always see eye to eye with us as regards many great public questions which affect this country; and indeed their views, judged from our standpoint, may sometimes seem adverse to our interests.  At the same time, my Lord, I recognise the fact that the Imperial Conference is an assemblage of officials pure and simple, consisting of Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the self-governing Colonies.  But, my Lord, there is an essential difference between them and ourselves.  In their case, the Ministers are the elect of the people, their organ and their voice, answerable to them for their conduct and their proceedings.  In our case, our officials are public servants in name, but in reality they are the masters of the public.  The situation may improve, and I trust it will, under the liberalising influence of your Excellency’s beneficent administration; but we must take things as they are, and not indulge in building castles in the air, which may vanish “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

It was said to be an epoch-making event that “Indian Representatives” took part in the Conference.  Representatives they were, but, as said, of the British Government in India, not of India, whereas their colleagues represented their Nations.  They did good work, none the less, for they were able and experienced men, though they failed us in the Imperial Preference Conference and, partially, on the Indentured Labour question.  Yet we hope that the presence in the Conference of men of Indian birth may prove to be the proverbial “thin end of the wedge,” and may have convinced their colleagues that, while India was still a Dependency, India’s sons were fully their equals.

The Report of the Public Services Commission, though now too obviously obsolete to be discussed, caused both disappointment and resentment; for it showed that, in the eyes of the majority of the Commissioners, English domination in Indian administration was to be perpetual, and that thirty years hence she would only hold a pitiful 25 per cent. or the higher appointments in the I.C.S. and the Police.  I cannot, however, mention that Commission, even in passing, without voicing India’s thanks to the Hon. Mr. Justice Rahim, for his rare courage in writing a solitary Minute of Dissent, in which he totally rejected the Report, and laid down the right principles which should govern recruitment for the Indian Civil Services.

India had but three representatives on the Commission; G.K.  Gokhale died ere it made its Report, his end quickened by his sufferings during its work, by the humiliation of the way in which his countrymen were treated.  Of Mr. Abdur Rahim I have already spoken.  The Hon. Mr. M.B.  Chaubal signed the Report, but dissented from some of its most important recommendations.  The whole Report was written “before the flood,” and it is now merely an antiquarian curiosity.

India, for all these reasons, was forced to see before her a future of perpetual subordination:  the Briton rules in Great Britain, the Frenchman in France, the American in America, each Dominion in its own area, but the Indian was to rule nowhere; alone among the peoples of the world, he was not to feel his own country as his own.  “Britain for the British” was right and natural; “India for the Indians” was wrong, even seditious.  It must be “India for the Empire,” or not even for the Empire, but “for the rest of the Empire,” careless of herself.  “British support for British Trade” was patriotic and proper in Britain.  “Swadeshi goods for Indians” showed a petty and anti-Imperial spirit in India.  The Indian was to continue to live perpetually, and even thankfully, as Gopal Krishna Gokhale said he lived now, in “an atmosphere of inferiority,” and to be proud to be a citizen (without rights) of the Empire, while its other component Nations were to be citizens (with rights) in their own countries first, and citizens of the Empire secondarily.  Just as his trust in Great Britain was strained nearly to breaking point came the glad news of Mr. Montagu’s appointment as Secretary of State for India, of the Viceroy’s invitation to him, and of his coming to hear for himself what India wanted.  It was a ray of sunshine breaking through the gloom, confidence in Great Britain revived, and glad preparation was made to welcome the coming of a friend.

The attitude of India has changed to meet the changed attitude of the Governments of India and Great Britain.  But let none imagine that that consequential change of attitude connotes any change in her determination to win Home Rule.  She is ready to consider terms of peace, but it must be “peace with honour,” and honour in this connection means Freedom.  If this be not granted, an even more vigorous agitation will begin.

LOSS OF BELIEF IN THE SUPERIORITY OF WHITE RACES

The undermining of this belief dates from the spreading of the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society.  Both bodies sought to lead the Indian people to a sense of the value of their own civilisation, to pride in their past, creating self-respect in the present, and self-confidence in the future.  They destroyed the unhealthy inclination to imitate the West in all things, and taught discrimination, the using only of what was valuable in western thought and culture, instead of a mere slavish copying of everything.  Another great force was that of Swami Vivekananda, alike in his passionate love and admiration for India, and his exposure of the evils resulting from Materialism in the West.  Take the following: 

Children of India, I am here to speak to you to-day about some practical things, and my object in reminding you about the glories of the past is simply this.  Many times have I been told that looking into the past only degenerates and leads to nothing, and that we should look to the future.  That is true.  But out of the past is built the future.  Look back, therefore, as far as you can, drink deep of the eternal fountains that are behind, and after that, look forward, march forward, and make India brighter, greater, much higher than she ever was.  Our ancestors were great.  We must recall that.  We must learn the elements of our being, the blood that courses in our veins; we must have faith in that blood, and what it did in the past:  and out of that faith, and consciousness of past greatness, we must build an India yet greater than what she has been.

And again: 

I know for certain that millions, I say deliberately, millions, in every civilised land are waiting for the message that will save them from the hideous abyss of materialism into which modern money-worship is driving them headlong, and many of the leaders of the new Social Movements have already discovered that Vedanta in its highest form can alone spiritualise their social aspirations.

The process was continued by the admiration of Sanskrit literature expressed by European scholars and philosophers.  But the effect of these was confined to the few and did not reach the many.  The first great shock to the belief in white superiority came from the triumph of Japan over Russia, the facing of a huge European Power by a comparatively small Eastern Nation, the exposure of the weakness and rottenness of the Russian leaders, and the contrast with their hardy virile opponents, ready to sacrifice everything for their country.

The second great shock has come from the frank brutality of German theories of the State, and their practical carrying out in the treatment of conquered districts and the laying waste of evacuated areas in retreat.  The teachings of Bismarck and their practical application in France, Flanders, Belgium, Poland, and Serbia have destroyed all the glamour of the superiority of Christendom over Asia.  Its vaunted civilisation is seen to be but a thin veneer, and its religion a matter of form rather than of life.  Gazing from afar at the ghastly heaps of dead and the hosts of the mutilated, at science turned into devilry and ever inventing new tortures for rending and slaying, Asia may be forgiven for thinking that, on the whole, she prefers her own religions and her own civilisations.

But even deeper than the outer tumult of war has pierced the doubt as to the reality of the Ideals of Liberty and Nationality so loudly proclaimed by the foremost western Nations, the doubt of the honesty of their champions.  Sir James Meston said truly, a short time ago, that he had never, in his long experience, known Indians in so distrustful and suspicious a mood as that which he met in them to-day.  And that is so.  For long years Indians have been chafing over the many breaches of promises and pledges to them that remain unredeemed.  The maintenance here of a system of political repression, of coercive measures increased in number and more harshly applied since 1905, the carrying of the system to a wider extent since the War for the sanctity of treaties and for the protection of Nationalities has been going on, have deepened the mistrust.  A frank and courageous statesmanship applied to the honest carrying out of large reforms too long delayed can alone remove it.  The time for political tinkering is past; the time for wise and definite changes is here.

To these deep causes must be added the comparison between the progressive policy of some of the Indian States in matters which most affect the happiness of the people, and the slow advance made under British administration.  The Indian notes that this advance is made under the guidance of rulers and ministers of his own race.  When he sees that the suggestions made in the People’s Assembly in Mysore are fully considered and, when possible, given effect to, he realises that without the forms of power the members exercise more real power than those in our Legislative Councils.  He sees education spreading, new industries fostered, villagers encouraged to manage their own affairs and take the burden of their own responsibility, and he wonders why Indian incapacity is so much more efficient than British capacity.

Perhaps, after all, for Indians, Indian rule may be the best.

The awakening of the merchants.

The awakening of Indian womanhood.

The position of women in the ancient Aryan civilisation was a very noble one.  The great majority married, becoming, as Manu said, the Light of the Home; some took up the ascetic life, remained unmarried, and sought the knowledge of Brahma.  The story of the Rani Damayanti, to whom her husband’s ministers came, when they were troubled by the Raja’s gambling, that of Gandhari, in the Council of Kings and Warrior Chiefs, remonstrating with her headstrong son; in later days, of Padmavati of Chitoor, of Mirabai of Marwar, the sweet poetess, of Tarabai of Thoda, the warrior, of Chand Bibi, the defender of Ahmednagar, of Ahalya Bai of Indore, the great Ruler — all these and countless others are well known.

Only in the last two or three generations have Indian women slipped away from their place at their husbands’ side, and left them unhelped in their public life.  But even now they wield great influence over husband and son.  Culture has never forsaken them, but the English education of their husbands and sons, with the neglect of Sanskrit and the Vernacular, have made a barrier between the culture of the husband and that of the wife, and has shut the woman out from her old sympathy with the larger life of men.  While the interests of the husband have widened, those of the wife have narrowed.  The materialising of the husband tended also, by reaction, to render the wife’s religion less broad and wise.

The wish to save their sons from the materialising results of English education awoke keen sympathy among Indian mothers with the movement to make religion an integral part of education.  It was, perhaps, the first movement in modern days which aroused among them in all parts a keen and living interest.

The Partition of Bengal was bitterly resented by Bengali women, and was another factor in the outward-turning change.  When the editor of an Extremist newspaper was prosecuted for sedition, convicted and sentenced, five hundred Bengali women went to his mother to show their sympathy, not by condolences, but by congratulations.  Such was the feeling of the well-born women of Bengal.

Then the troubles of Indians outside India roused the ever quick sympathy of Indian women, and the attack in South Africa on the sacredness of Indian marriage drew large numbers of them out of their homes to protest against the wrong.

The Indentured Labour question, involving the dishonour of women, again, moved them deeply, and even sent a deputation to the Viceroy composed of women.

These were, perhaps, the chief outer causes; but deep in the heart of India’s daughters arose the Mother’s voice, calling on them to help Her to arise, and to be once more mistress in Her own household.  Indian women, nursed on Her old literature, with its wonderful ideals of womanly perfection, could not remain indifferent to the great movement for India’s liberty.  And during the last few years the hidden fire, long burning in their hearts, fire of love to Bharatamata, fire of resentment against the lessened influence of the religion which they passionately love, instinctive dislike of the foreigner as ruling in their land, have caused a marvellous awakening.  The strength of the Home Rule movement is rendered tenfold greater by the adhesion to it of large numbers of women, who bring to its helping the uncalculating heroism, the endurance, the self-sacrifice, of the feminine nature.  Our League’s best recruits are among the women of India, and the women of Madras boast that they marched in procession when the men were stopped, and that their prayers in the temples set the interned captives free.  Home Rule has become so intertwined with religion by the prayers offered up in the great Southern Temples, sacred places of pilgrimage, and spreading from them to village temples, and also by its being preached up and down the country by Sadhus and Sannyasins, that it has become in the minds of the women and of the ever religious masses, inextricably intertwined with religion.  That is, in this country, the surest way of winning alike the women of the higher classes and the men and women villagers.  And that is why I have said that the two words, “Home Rule,” have become a Mantram.

The awakening of the masses.