designs and secret counsels of Providence, there is nothing more to be said.

It is a notorious fact, however, that soldiers are very slow of comprehension where political questions are concerned; and those of them who have attained to anything like respectable political success, after a military career, have been very few. Being accustomed to absolute command, and to expect prompt obedience, the soldier never sees any need for reason or persuasion; he knows little or nothing of logical argument; he is impatient and obstinate. And, to his last day he never sees a horizon farther than the boundary of his own narrow groove, The one exception to this in our time is Lord Roberts; he saw, in a certain direction, farther and clearer than any man of his day. But what he saw was what the Soldier in him saw; a military problem, not a political one.

And

Lord Roberts was right, because he was speaking on a subject of which he had more experience than any of his contemporaries, as well as sound theoretical knowledge; but Lord Wolseley, speaking on the Channel Tunnel question, was not dealing with a military subject at all; but with a question concerning the development of the natural resources of two great lands and of peoples who would have benefitted enormously from the project condemned by him. It was a broad question of international economics; a question on which a soldier was the very worst possible judge. we have quite recently had another example of this, in a frothy effusion by General O'Moore Creagh; the only use of which is to show that an Englishman may spend many years in India without feeling a particle of sympathy for the aspirations of the Indian people, without evincing the smallest mite of toleration for those whose opinions differ from his own. Such stodgy-minded men are doing their utmost to hinder the natural development of a large part of their fellow-subjects under the Crown. And they forget-that is, if they ever knew it-one of the most striking lessons of all history, namely: If any man, or any nation, strive to impede the natural development of mankind: if the policy of any man or any nation be in direct opposition to the Spirit of the Age: the result will be not only failure, but absolute and total ruin.

And here We come across one of the most puzzling problems in connection with the downfall of the great German Empire. If there is one subject more than another upon the knowledge of which the statesmen and soldiers of Germany prided themselves, that subject

is History, in all its bearings and with all its lessons. How is it that they failed to read History correctly, and to profit by their knowledge? They should have learnt that supreme rule over the human race is never for any one man, nor for any one nation. The idea of such domination is not a new one; it was tried by the Romans, by Barbarossa, by Charles V. and Philip II. of Spain, by Louis XIV. and Napoleon; in every case with the same inevitable and well-known results. The objects and aims of Germany in the Great War have been more ambitious and far-reaching than those of the former failures; and, naturally, the German failure has been of all the most complete and catastrophic. The German idea was this: That all the States and Peoples of Europe should be under German leadership and rule; that the countries which had been formerly independent should sacrifice their independence, and be satisfied to beg respectfully for official permission to act, or speak, or think, or write, or breathe the free air. Prussia was to be the model for all other States: there was to be only one political system: the German. The word "independence was to be expunged from the dictionaries of all non-German countries religion was to be a State-guided belief in the sacred "doctrine of conquest; leges were to be mainly for the study and glorification of the "philosophy of Imperialism." Though these things are already known, still it is well that they should be repeated; lest men forget from what a horrible existence England has protected and saved humanity.

col

That peculiarly hateful brand of officialism which owes its origin to Prussia was to be the enforced rule of life for all the subject peoples; because the Prussian authorities well knew that there is nothing which can sap the independence of any people so quickly as a narrow and insidious officialism. And when once the independence of a people is undermined, the brutalising process, which is the next step, is rendered much easier. Germany has passed through the whole machine in less than half a century. In countries where the people have no sense of independence, such as some of the so-called Republics in South and Central America, there is little or no officialism of the Prussian brand. In Russia, before the liberation of the serfs, when the great majority of the real Russian people did not know the meaning of the word "independence", there was no officialism, properly so called. But in countries where the idea of independence, with all it connotes, is coming into existence, or taking

root, there officialism is of necessity most active. On the other hand, in a country like England, where the independence of the individual is not only assured, but looked upon as something sacred, the official is compelled to sink small, and officialism has to be very careful not to overstep the bounds of prudence and moderation. And in the civilised world generally, the words "official" and "autocratic" have become unsavoury in the nostrils of men; these words have to some extent become synonymous with "Prussianism," in which sense I wish them to be understood.

Now the advocates and supporters of officialism have always a stock reply ready for those who find fault with its abuses. They ask, Would you have a country ruled without officials and offices? To which we reply, By no means: but we would have officials who are merely officials, and nothing more. Then again they say, But surely the officials are only doing their duty. Now this Pecksniffian plea of Duty covers more sins than Charity; and we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be taken in by it. Let us ask any intelligent, unprejudiced man who has had knowledge of, say, one hundred official acts. How many of these have been due to a pure and undiluted sense of Duty, uninfluenced by any outside consideration? We can make a good guess at what the answer would be.

One of the commonest errors in certain parts of the British Empire is when disagreement with, or disobedience towards, an official is placed on the same footing as disloyalty to the Crown. It is an error which, up to the present, has caused much trouble; and, unless remedied, is likely to cause more in the future. The official is in no way a representative of the Crown; and, in many cases, it is a very good job for the dignity of the Crown that he is not. He is not a representative of the Crown even to the extent in which a commercial traveller is the representative of the firm that employs him. He administers the law for the King, and is well paid for doing So. There are cases where officials are endowed with personal character which entitles them to the highest respect; but it will be found that these are the very last to lay claim to that loyalty which every good subject feels only towards the ruler of his Country. Those who claim worship of this sort do not deserve it, while those who deserve it do not claim it.

Twenty years ago any Chinaman who even mentioned the name of the "Son of Hea-, ven" was put to death. That was yesterday. To-day the world of yesterday has

new

passed away, never to return. Whether those in power have yet fully grasped this fact, or try to ignore it, does not alter the fact in the least. We see all round us that the pain of travail is not absent: that mankind is suffering from the birth pangs of a life. And it will be the fault of man himself if the new life turns out to be worse than the old one. New thoughts and new ideas are springing up wherever there are thinking human beings. People are beginning to ask themselves and others questions they never asked before. They are no longer content to take everything for granted. They are asking, for instance, what are the grounds on which any Government demands the obedience and loyalty of its subjects? It would require another J. S. Mill to do full justice to this. Is a superiority of Force by itself sufficient to establish the claim? Ask "Count William of Hohenzollern," who is in a position to answer. Is the mere fact of conquest sufficient? It would seem that some people think so; and therefore, according to them, it would be our duty to be as loyal and submissive to a successful Bolshevik invader of India as we are now to His Imperial Majesty King George the Fifth. But if the ordinary man in the street" be asked why he considers it right to be loyal and submissive to Government, he will say, "I am loyal and submissive to this Government because it is the best Government my country has ever had or is likely to have; because my life and property are secure; because the Government protects me from my enemies, and deals out pure justice to every man.' If only officials would act in such a manner as to cause this sentiment to be generally expressed by the children of the people, then all political troubles would automatically cease; the agitator would find his occupation gone; peace would reign plenty and prosperity would fill the land.

66

To those of us who have been carefully following the course of events in India for the past twenty or thirty years: who have not been merely looking on at them from a distance, and through the colored glasses of other men; who have observed and studied facts for ourselves on the spot: to those who have no axe of their own to grind, and who strive to keep themselves free from all the error that blind prejudice breeds in stubborn minds: to such the signs of the times are clearly visible: the faint nurmurings of the distant storm are plainly heard. And what is happening in India just now is neither surprising nor unnatural. It is due to a variety of causes; and there are so many of them, the difficulty is to know where to

6.

66

There is no good in historians coquetting with the idea of Imperialism, as is the fashion with some of them: calling it Philosophic Imperialism" as does M. Selliere, or Democratic ImpeStill rialism," like the late Professor Cramb there is a good deal in what M. Selliere has to say on the point. He is careful to state that British Imperialism differs materially from other forms of Imperialism; and he goes on to say: "Imperialism for the English means concern for their Colonial Empire, now become so considerable in the world. Amongst English Imperialists some think only of maintaining the Unity of this Empire and of strengthening its cohesion; others study questions of administration and economics, and simple problems of internal politics. But again, others meditate extending, when occasion offers, their domains overseas; Kingsley. for instance, in 1855; Seely and Kipling, in history and literature."

This learned French author might have added something more, on the side of British Imperialism. Even the bitterest enemy of Great Britain cannot deny that she has done more than has any other State to open up and develop lands which were formerly inhabited by peoples too slothful or too ignorant to turn these lands to the best use. Englishmen, in which term is, of course, included men of the United Kingdom, have always been first in opening up and developing new tracts of the earth for the benefit of mankind. Enemies of England may and have put forward, in reply to this, that she has taken good care to profit by her explorations and to exploit them. Well, even suppose she has, who has a better right?

And still the fact remains-and it is a fact to which every impartial student of modern History must subscribe England has devoted herself far less to the exploitation of subject races than has any other Imperial Government in the world's history. Just think of Germany in South-West Africa. Turn to India: Would any other Government, Imperial or otherwise, be satisfied with the very moderate profits which our Government takes from the irrigation Canals in India? When those who wish to find fault with English rule and administration prate about "exploitation," they should at least be honest, and should not wilfully close their eyes to what English rule has done and is doing every day.

Still, Imperialism must go. The recent glorious victory of the Allied Forces is the defeat of the Imperialist idea; and from August 1914 the Allies have been anti-Imperialist. The Allies took the field to fight for the liberty of the weak

and oppressed to protect the smaller nationalities from the claws and talons of Imperialism.

Imperialism has always meant what it still meant in August 1914: repression, coercion, hostility to the idea of racial equality, and the absolute rule of a dominant race. This cannot be denied.

Now these four stigmata of Imperialism may, in some circumstances, be expedient, or even necessary. For instance, it is the duty of any State, Imperial or otherwise, to repress that which is evil in it; so, in this case, repression becomes a necessary and laudable duty. To have recourse to coercion is always unpleasant, but is often unavoidable; though a ruler who has only this weapon in his armoury is dangerously weak in defence. A hostility to the idea of racial equality is a feeling which is rampant even in the democratic United States of America. Whilst with regard to the question of the absolute rule of a dominant race, there are clear cases in History where it has proved a positive blessing: to France and Saxon England under the Normans; to Spain under the Moors; to India under the earlier Moghuls; and to the Central Asian Khanates, Khiva, Merv, and Bokhara, under the Imperial Government of Russia. And it is more than probable that had absolute British rule been substituted for the rule of the East India Company, in 1858, the people of India to-day would have been the better for it. But a policy which might have been expedient in the fifties of the last century will scarcely suit the twentieth year of the twentieth century; because in History the mill-wheel cannot be driven with the water which has gone by.

Now, having fairly put forward all that can be said in favour of Imperialism, let us turn to the other side. And, first of all, let us ask, is it wise or politic to expect that any normal people, or collection of peoples, will in these times tamely submit to repression, coercion, racial contempt and absolute rule? Well, towards the end of the eighteenth century there was a German King ruling in England who believed in the heel of the jack-boot and the efficacy of the dog-whip; and the result is deeply engraved on the iron pages of history. Then British Statesmen took that lesson to heart; and, from that time till now, British Empire-paradoxical as it may seem-has been explicitly based upon anti-Imperial ideas. Would any British statesman of to-day dream for a moment of applying coercion to Canada or Australia ?

the

Again, when the pseudo-independence of the

South African Republics was wiped out, England had the sublime moral courage to carry out a new stroke of anti-Imperial policy hitherto unheardof in the history of any other Empire. She gave a full measure of self Government to the Boers. Of course we do not forget that there were some "Little Englanders "-among them the Imperialist Poet-Laureate-who foamed and raged and protested against this noble measure of high statesmanship. What can these persons say for themselves to day? Like stupid and ignorant school-boys, they can only say they are "sorry they spoke." In granting Self Government to South Africa, England stood out for Justice and Freedom; and she has been justified in the results. It is well to state that by the word "Freedom" here I mean political equality; nothing more nor less. No former Empire ever granted political equality to its subjects; but, as the historical fact has been often conveniently forgotten, I wish to call particular and public attention to it here the Mussulmans were the first of all peoples to proclaim the political equality of men; and this they did in their Sacred Book, fully twelve hundred years before Mirabeau spoke or the Bastille fell. This stands to the everlasting glory of the Great Prophet of Islam.

Now to deal with the delicate question of "Hostility to the idea of racial equality." When the Great War broke out, England called Indian troops to her assistance. And it must be remembered that she called upon India exactly as she called upon Australia and Canada; that is, as a great favour, from a friend and equal. The call was in no sense in the nature of a command. India responded: in what manner is well known and will be never forgotten. And the presence of Indian Troops on the European battle-fields is in itself a most dramatic recognition of racial equality: a complete overthrow of all the old theories of Imperialism: an innovation bound to produce the most far-reaching results. By so valorously discharging their military duties on the European battlefields, Indians have established their claim to the rights of full citizenship, and they henceforth cease to be a subject race. Soldiers who can fight and die, side by side, for the glorious cause of human freedom, are equal in the eyes of God and man. A Government which deliberately employs Indian troops in a European War can no longer deny the ultimate equality of The Indian soldiers did not go to Europe as mercenaries or slaves; they were not employed as the Roman Empire employed the

the Indian races.

the races.

This equality of race, established and cemented by blood, must be admitted in India itself, not only theoretically but practically. Yet, before this can be done, two very necessary qualities for peace, now generally conspicuous by their absence, must be taken up and cultivated by all parties in India. The first of these is Tolerance; the next, Sympathy. India will never be free from conflict and political trouble until all classes are actuated by a fuller sympathy with their fellow-men; until they are inspired with the true spirit of toleration. For it is well-known that intolerance of others, an obstinate refusal to see their point of view, is at the root of all strife, of all hatred and bad feeling, whether between individuals or between nations. A great deal is being said and written just now about "putting an end to War." It is a simple matter; but, as Von Moltke said of strategy, "its very difficulty lies in its simplicity." Put an end to the sentiment of intolerance and you have put an end to War. For it is in the sentiment of intolerance alone that the bed-rock cause of war has always been found. Perhaps the terrible calamities through which the world has just passed may do something to weaken or destroy this intolerance, and substitute for it a generous toleration, truly based upon Respect, and not upon Contempt. At present, the most formidable obstacles to the promotion and cultivation of tolerance and sympathy in India are the daily newspapers; but, far from being ashamed of this disease, some editors glory in it; and they make their livelihood by exhibiting their sores to the crowd, as leprous beggars do in the public streets.

The two main pillars of intolerance are class