Puslapio vaizdai

These exceptional conditions have produced a situation quite unlike anything else in the world, and have kept India for ages divided and impotent. India is, in fact, a gigantic paradox. Possessing a fundamental geographical unity, India has never known real political union save that recently imposed externally by British rule. Full of warlike stocks, India has never been able to repel invaders. Occupied by many races, these races have never fused, but have remained distinct and mutually hostile, sundered by barriers of blood, speech, culture, and creed. Thus India, as large and populous as Europe or China, has neither, like China, evolved a generalized national unity, nor, like Europe, has developed a specialized national diversity; but has remained a formless, unstable indeterminate, with tendencies in both directions which are never carried to their logical conclusion.

For more than a century Great Britain has ruled India. This British Raj is a system of government unique in the world's history. Until the reforms of the last few years, when Indians have been given an increasing share in the administration, it was a government by a few hundred highly skilled British administrative experts, backed by a small professional army, ruling a vast agglomeration of subject peoples. It was frankly an absolute paternalism, governing as it saw fit, and with no more responsibility to the governed than the native despots whom it had displaced. But it governed well. In efficiency, honesty, and sense of duty the Government of India is probably the best example of benevolent absolutism that the world has ever seen. It gave India profound peace. It played no favorites, holding

the scales even between rival races, creeds, and castes. Lastly, it made India a real political entity, something which India had never been before. For the first time in its history India was firmly united under one rule-the rule of the Pax Britannica.

Yet the very virtues of British rule sowed the seeds of future trouble. Generations grew up, peacefully united in unprecedented acquaintanceship, forgetful of past ills, seeing only European shortcomings, and, above all, familiar with Western ideas of selfgovernment, liberty, and nationality. In India, as elsewhere in the East, there was bound to arise a growing movement of discontent against Western rule a discontent varying from moderate demands for increasing autonomy to radical demands for immediate independence.

British Raj.

Down to about twenty years ago the discontented elements in India were confined almost exclusively to the Western-educated "intellectuals," who were also mostly Hindus. The Indian masses in both town and country were too much preoccupied with the everpresent problem of getting a living to bother their heads much about the British Raj. Furthermore, the Mohammedans were suspicious of the "Nationalists," because the latter were dreaming of the glories of the old Brahmanical India before the Moslems came. The Indian Moslems were, to be sure, also exhibiting "Nationalist" symptoms, but these were of a Panislamic character, looking toward a Mohammedan-ruled India in close touch with the rest of the Moslem world. Thus the first result of political unrest in India was a revival of those smoldering animosities between Hindu and Mohammedan which had torn

India to pieces before the establish- mental report recommending concesment of British rule.

For this reason the first wave of open sedition against British rule, which passed over India between the years 1906 and 1909, was almost entirely Hindu. During those years the malcontents committed many acts of terrorism, answered by stern repression by the British Government. However, the party of violence proved to be a small minority, the conservative Hindu leaders condemning terrorism and urging their fellow-countrymen to seek the realization of their aspirations by peaceful means. The British Government, on its side, passed the Indian Councils Act of 1909, granting a considerable measure of local self-government and enlarging the share of Indians in the administration. These These concessions, while by no means satisfying Indian political aspirations, were accepted by the moderates as a first instalment of wider concessions, and revolutionary agitation died down. King George's visit to India in 1911 evoked much loyal enthusiasm, which augured well for the future.

This era of good feeling persisted substantially unaltered down to 1914. Seditious unrest did exist, but it was confined to a small element. When the Great War broke out, India rallied to the empire and contributed her full share of money and men. However, these very sacrifices inspired the Indians to ask for a much larger degree of self-government. So impressed was the British Government with the extent of these demands that in 1917 it sent out Mr. Montagu, then secretary of state for India, to make a thorough investigation of conditions in India. For months the problem was carefully weighed, and the upshot was a monu

sions far beyond any hitherto made. As a matter of fact, this report was substantially enacted into law by the British Parliament in 1919. By this legislation India then received a modified home rule, and it was explicitly stated that further concessions would be made a decade hence if the new reforms should have worked well in practice.

Unfortunately, before the "Montagu-Chelmsford reforms" became law at the end of 1919, a series of events had plunged India into a turmoil of unrest graver than that of the years 1905-09. To begin with, the war had had a profoundly unsettling effect upon India, as it had elsewhere, and on top of this were a number of special factors: a terrible epidemic of influenza, devastating crop failures, wide-spread famine, an Afghan war, and Bolshevist propaganda. All these factors encouraged the extremist faction, which had of course denounced the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms as a delusion and a snare, and demanded nothing less than immediate independence. The upshot was a fresh wave of militant unrest, displaying itself in an epidemic of riots, terrorism, and seditious activity. So alarmed were the authorities that they felt compelled to enact special legislation to combat sedition. This new law, known as the Rowlatt Act, aroused a storm of protest. Stigmatized as the "Black Cobra Act," its repeal was demanded by monster mass-meetings held in many parts of India. These meetings gave place to wholesale rioting, assassination of officials, and destruction of property. By the spring of 1919 India appeared to be almost on the verge of revolution.

The Government, however, stood firm. Violence was met by stern repression. Riotous mobs were dispersed by rifle- and machine-gun-fire or were scattered by bombs dropped from lowflying aëroplanes. The most noted of these occurrences was the so-called "Amritsar Massacre," where British troops fired into a seditious massmeeting, killing or wounding over two thousand persons. In the end the Government got control of the situation. Order was restored, the seditious leaders were swept into custody, and the revolutionary agitation was once more driven underground. Moral peace, however, was not attained. Indian public opinion remained sore and resentful at the Government's drastic measures, and the revolutionary elements, though temporarily silenced, were strengthened for future trouble.

Thus, when the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were enacted into law in the autumn of 1919, they encountered a popular state of mind most unfavorable for their successful application. As a matter of fact, affairs in India continued to go from bad to worse. By 1920 a new complication arose-Mohammedan unrest over the settlement of the Near East. Hitherto Indian unrest had been almost purely Hindu. But the way in which the Ottoman Empire was partitioned at the peace conferences and the sultan-calif was shorn of his spiritual power infuriated Moslems everywhere, notably in India. Feeling that Islam was in danger, the Indian Moslems tended to make common cause with the Hindus, and these in turn backed up the Moslems in their demands for better treatment of the Turks. Here, obviously, was a development highly alarming to the

British authorities. Once before in Indian history Hindus and Mohammedans had made common cause against their British rulers, and the result had been the Mutiny.

It was at this moment that there appeared the extraordinary figure of Gandhi. Rejecting violence, Gandhi was, nevertheless, an extremist, demanding nothing less than virtual independence for India. In fact, Gandhi protested not merely against British rule, but also against the whole spirit of Western civilization. Gandhi proposed to attain his ends by wholesale passive resistance, or, as he termed it, "non-coöperation." His idea was a gigantic boycott of everything British. No attention was to be paid to the Montagu-Chelmsford political reforms, voters were to stay away from the polls, and thus elect no members to the new legislative bodies; lawyers and litigants were to avoid the courts; taxpayers refuse to pay imposts; workmen were to go on strike; shopkeepers to refuse to buy or sell British-made goods; even pupils to leave the schools and colleges. This wholesale outcasting of everything British would make the English in India a new sort of pariahs-"untouchables." The British Government and the European community in India would be left in absolute isolation; and the Raj, rendered unworkable, would have to grant the extremist demands for virtual independence.

Such was the non-coöperation idea. In practice it has not disrupted British rule, but it has thrown India into confusion and has intensified unrest. In fact, despite his great moral authority, Gandhi has not succeeded in preventing violence, which is increasing steadily. The most ominous feature of the

situation seems to be the tendency of the masses to break away from their own leaders and fall into anarchy. It is against this dread contingency that the British authorities are to-day preparing the sternest measures. At the same time they are trying to rally the moderate elements in India to the cause of order and are endeavoring to placate the Mohammedans by concessions to the Turks and to the Egyptians, as narrated last month.

What the near future will bring in India, no one can say. Unquestionably, the next few months will witness events of great importance. The thing to be remembered is that India to-day faces the acutest crisis since the Mutiny. In fact, the present crisis is intrinsically much graver than the Mutiny, because the issues involved are much more complex and profound. The Mutiny was, in the main, a revolt of dissatisfied native troops and native princes, which remained more or less localized within certain areas, the rest of India continuing undisturbed. The present unrest involves every part of India, and is not merely political, but economic and social as well.

The truth of the matter is that India is to-day a battle-ground between the forces of evolutionary and revolutionary change. It is a supremely critical time. The old order is obviously passing, and the new order is not yet fairly in sight. The hour is big with possibilities of good and evil, construction and catastrophe.


The bloody revolt in the gold-mining districts of the Transvaal, South Africa, is one more symptom of that militant social unrest which to-day afflicts the

entire world and which crops out in the most distant regions. The Transvaal gold-fields have more than once been the scene of bitter industrial strife, but the recent outbreak was far more revolutionary in character than previous disturbances had been. General Smuts, the prime minister of the South African Union, has stated categorically that nothing less than a Bolshevist revolution and the establishment of a Soviet republic was contemplated, and all the evidence seems to prove that he was correct.

The Transvaal gold-fields, known as "the Rand,” are an extensive district surrounding the large city of Johannesburg. The Rand is the largest single gold-producing area in existence, nearly one fifth of all the world's supply of gold being there produced. The ore, however, is not of particularly high grade, so that, despite the large aggregate output, the expense of extraction is great, and the margin of profit not particularly high. This makes the wages factor an item of capital importance. And, unfortunately for industrial peace, the labor problem is complicated by an acute race problem. South Africa is a land inhabited by two races, whites and blacks. The whites are a minority, the census of 1911 showing that out of the union's 6,000,000 inhabitants only 1,300,000 were white, while 4,700,000 were colored. Furthermore, the whites are divided among themselves. The majority are of Dutch descent, the socalled Boers, while the minority are mostly of British origin, with certain other European elements in the towns and mining regions.

Throughout South Africa there is a strict color-line, which applies to industry as much as to social relations.

Whites and blacks do not work together in the same trade. On the contrary, trades are run along race lines. The skilled occupations are reserved for whites, and no black man is admitted, whatever his personal qualifications. On the other hand, no white man, however hard pressed, would drop to an occupation conducted by blacks. Such occupations are called "Kafir's work," and would degrade a white laborer engaging therein into a social outcast. Furthermore, wages are likewise determined on race lines. The black standard of living is so much lower than the white standard that whites would starve on what is ample for the blacks. Generally speaking, white labor is paid about three times as much as black labor.

Bearing these general facts in mind, we are now in a position to understand the reasons for the industrial crisis which arose on the Rand a few months ago. During the war gold was at a premium in the world-market. Accordingly, the Rand prospered, and high wages were paid. But since the war the value of gold has lessened. Thus, with profits turning into losses, the mines were faced with the alternative of shutting down or cutting wages. The mine-owners proposed to do this in two ways-by cutting wages all along the line, and by opening certain lines of work to colored labor. This latter method was perfectly feasible, because it had been shown that blacks could do many of the semi-skilled jobs fully as well as the whites, who were holding the jobs by custom or agreement and were drawing two or three times the wages which blacks would accept.

Naturally, this spelled trouble. The white workers, solidly organized, not only rejected the proposed changes,

but countered with a demand for the nationalization of the mines, precisely as the coal-miners of England and Wales had recently done. Feeling rose steadily on both sides, compromise failed, and the mines were tied up by a general strike.

Thus far the affair had run along industrial lines. But the strike had scarcely begun when symptoms of political revolutionary agitation cropped out. The basic cause for this seems to have been a change in the racial makeup of the white laboring population itself during the last few years. Before the war most of the white workers on the Rand were of British origin. During the war years, however, when the demand for labor rose and high wages were paid, many Boers entered the mines. These Boers were mainly of the poor-white-trash type. They were at once densely ignorant and politically disaffected, since they tended to belong to the irreconcilable element which had never forgotten the Boer War and desired to smash the union and set up their independent republics

once more.

To these Boer irreconcilables was added another radical element-the aliens from eastern Europe. Even before the war their numbers were considerable. After the war their numbers were increased still further by immigration. Many of these new-comers were professed Bolshevists, while some of them were skilled agents of the Third International of Moscow. To these agitators the Boer laborers, together with the more radical workers of English extraction, lent a ready ear. The result was the formation of a genuine Bolshevist party, supported from abroad and ready for revolutionary action. That a revolutionary

« AnkstesnisTęsti »