Puslapio vaizdai

worked off in a day. It is noteworthy that the subject of pensions is dealt with by itself in 24 (3), that the rules regarding them can be varied or added to only by the Secretary of State, and that it is not proposed to authorise him to devolve any part of this power on the Governor-General in Council. It is not easy to explain this discrimination; under safeguards, which could be provided without much ingenuity, the rules as to pensions should likewise be made alterable by the India Government.

Public Service Commission.

The purposes for which a Public Service Commission is to be appointed permanently by clause 26 are not clearly stated. In para 55 of the Despatch of the Government of India dated March 5, one of the purposes is stated to be the protection of the Service from political influence and the difficulties arising from Ministers' control. We realise the need and note with satisfaction that the Commissioners will be appointed and controlled by the Secretary of State. As in the United Kingdom, these Public Service Commissioners should conduct public examinations of two or three grades and regulate admission to employment under Government without the suspicion of partiality or bias. It is to be hoped that this consummation is definitely contemplated. Otherwise jobbery might establish itself firmly and bring inefficiency and corruption in its train. No greater calamity could be imagined. India


Mrs Annie Besant.

We insist on the necessity for some measure of responsibility being introduced into the Central Government as indeed is implied in the claim for fiscal autonomy. Without this the announcement of August 20, 1917, is truncated, for provincial responsibility even if complete, is not secure with autocracy in the centre; all our worst evils, coercive legislation, arbitrary interference with liberty, supersession of Indian interests, injustice in customs, excise duties, and the like, come wholly from the Central Government, and as the Hon. Mr. Srinivasa Shastri pointed out, autocracy there renders the liberties granted in the provinces of small avail.

CABLE from South Africa brings the news that the British Indians in the Transvaal are taking the vow of passive resistance as a protest against the recent Asiatic Land and Trading Amendment Bill reported to have been passed by the Parliament of the Union of South Africa. This measure contravenes the Smuts-Gandhi agreement of 1914 and is an iniquitous attempt to deprive Indians lawfully resident there, of their vested interests. In the words of Mr. Gandhi, it "virtually deprives the Indians of the Transvaal from holding fixed property even as share-holders of companies or as mortgagees. This they have hitherto successfully and legally done. It further deprives them of the right of obtaining new trade licences throughout the Transvaal. This means that the Indian settlers, if they are not now efficiently protected, will be reduced to the status of menial servants no matter what their capacity might be. It was bad enough to restrict so as almost to prohibit fresh immigrants; it is intolerable to confiscate the economic and natural rights of legally admitted immigrants and their descendents." When an attempt is thus made to confiscate their rights, it is

Personally, I believe that Mr. Montagu sees the great ideal which has fired the heart of many of us, the commonwealth of free nations, the greatest servant of humanity. I believe that he is honestly striving to open the way to that freedom of India which shall be the glory of unborn generations, and the glory also of the England whom we have loved as the pioneer of liberty, who has placed in his willing hand the appropriate and splendid task of leading a mighty nation out of the house of bondage into the Promised Land.-" Daily Chronicle."




by no means surprising that the Transvaal Indians should resort to passive resistance. We trust the Imperial Government will take early steps to prevent the legislation from taking effect and thus avert an agitation which is bound to grow more and more not only among the Indian residents of South Africa but in their mother country as well. It is the good fortune of the South African Indians that Mr. Gandhi is now in India to advocate their cause and that he has been able to enlist the sympathy of H. E. the Viceroy to obtain for them the elementary rights of citizenship and the barest justice which is denied to them purely on account of racial and ecor on ic jealousy. It is a matter for satisfaction that the campaign against Asiatics in the Transvaal is confined mainly to the inferior white traders while some of the better class of their community recognise the justice of the claims of the Indians. The attitude of hostility to the Indian settlers in the Transvaal on the part of some of the white population, if not checked at the outset, will gravely imperil the growth of the true spirit of comradeship which has been promoted by the war that has just closed.



HERE is a distinct social menace in the welfare work now carried on by large industrial establishments in India, judging from the experience of similar welfare work and its results in America. The writer has had occasion during the last six months to visit many large industrial concerns in India and to discuss social questions with a number of progressive leaders. Welfare work has been pointed to with pride by industrial managers, and seems to have the welcome sanction of social students. It may be well therefore to consider some of the reasons why American labour is fundamentally opposed to welfare work as such.

It is quite true that many socially-minded employers and factory owners are sincere in their attempt to help the worker. It is likewise true that a larger percentage of owners introduce welfare work because it pays, and not a few "farsighted" managers look upon it as "strike insurance." Schools, playgrounds, baths, hospitals, libraries, entertainments, and the like, are of course valuable to the employee, and at their inception no doubt are of real social worth. But welfare work must not be judged by the results achieved in a year. It must be judged by its results over a term of year. Such results are available from American experience.

First, welfare work is a menace because it tends to blind our eyes to the basic fact that it is democracy and justice that are needed in industry, and not charity. The very fact that welfare work exists is a virtual acknowledgment of the indictment that the industrial order as it stands denies the worker certain privileges in life that are rightfully his. The owner, however, does not see this. He feels that he is giving the employee something, and that it is his privilege to revoke the gifts on certain conditions. But education, recreation, health, freedom, justice, and much more, are fundamental rights of men, and giving or refusing them ought not to be left to the discretion of an employer. Furthermore, it is said that the employer pays for welfare work. Actually, the employee pays. He has largely produced the wealth all along, but by some inexplicable method he receives but a small portion of the wealth he produces in the form of wages, the employer of course fixing the wage. Since then the worker has certain rights, which the very fact of welfare work proves he has been denied, since he pays for the privileges handed down, it is

unwise socially to speak of welfare work as benefi cience. It is a left-handed acknowledgment of rights denied to workmen, at once a social menace and a denial of democracy, confusing the issue which is in reality a question of justice or injustice.

Second, welfare work is a menace because it tends to become a weapon in the hands of the employers. In America large employers bought great tracts of land and erected model dwellings. The schemes were lauded to the skies in the capitalist press. But what actually happened was this: A little later when the workers saw profits ascending at a dizzy rate and wages remaining practically stationary with food prices soaring, they decided to organize and strike for higher wages. Upon hearing of their organization, the owners ordered every family off the company property and out of the houses. Married men hesitated before they would endanger their families, the attempt to strike was thwarted, and the men were forced to return to the same unfair conditions. The much advocated model dwelling for industrial workers in India, may become a real weapon to employers when India steps into the next stage of industrial development, namely that of collective bargaining.

Third, it is a menace because it tends to retard the organization of the workers, the only sure method of securing permanent justice in our present economic order. In practically every

concern where the writer found welfare work in India, there was found a very firm refusal on the part of the employer to allow the employee to organize. The employer seemed to feel that welfare work would keep the worker a docile being, easily controlled. This control is necessary to keep the worker from gaining power to successfully demand a larger share of the wealth he actually produces. While visiting one of the outstanding welfare factories of India, it was pointed out that welfare directors were not allowed to talk over matters of organization with the workers, that the employees were not allowed to assemble together, that wages were little higher than the average, and that twelve hours was the regular day's work. If welfare work is too often "strike insurance," as a leading Indian social. worker who is in close touch with it, declared it was, it most certainly is a menace to industrial development, if we think of industrial

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

development in terms of democracy and life, instead of in terms of feudalism and profit.

Fourth, welfare work is a menace because of the fact that certain privileges given the workers by private corporations has a tendency to slow up the demand for the community provision of such privileges. "Why," say the tax payers, "do we need a community playground when the corporation has one?" But these are community duties, and should be carried on by the people, with the final word as to their use and purpose in the hands of the people. In America some corporations went so far as to build churches for their employees and employed the preacher. He was warned not to preach anything that would stir up the workers, and in some cases, when this warning was ignored, the pastor found himself looking for another church. Community needs must be met by the community under a real social control. Industrial despotism is as bad as political despotism.

Fifth, welfare work has proven a weapon to slow up the demand for industrial democracy, even in its simpler forms of collective bargaining. Political democracy has won its battle in the minds of thinking men. Government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Industrial democracy, wherein industry shall be of the people, by the people, and for the people, is on the horizon. It is a travesty in these days of democratic preaching to think of actual needs being handed down by private corporations with

ORD BRYCE is one of the small band of Victorian statesmen still left to us. He is one of the few living representatives of that race of scholar-statesmen which flourished in the Victorian era but has become almost extinct now. In this respect Lord Morley and Lord Bryce, colleagues in more than one Cabinet stand together. But unlike Lord Morley, intellectual and Quaker though he is, Lord Bryce took the national side at the moment of the supreme crisis which has settled the political fate of the "bold Cobdenite.", Having taken the national attitude in the war, Lord Bryce, occupying no official position, has seen his influence grow. At home, no great Commission or Report during the war was authoritative without his

[ocr errors]

the power in hand to revoke them if they so desire. All the advantages are held up before the worker and he is told that if he strikes or expresses himself as a component and essential factor in the production of wealth, he will lose his pension, his home, his child's education, his job. Why has American labour so strongly opposed welfare work? Because it has proven a menace to the development of the labour movement. Labour demands its fair share of the product of industry under the present system, and states it will do its welfare work in the home or pay taxes and have the community do it. When industrial democracy arrives, the very phrase "welfare work" will be a misnomer, since it is a frank violation of the fundamental principles of democracy, for its posits on the one hand a benevolent overlord and on the other a recipient serf.


Professor of History, Pachiappa's Collage, Madras.

Of course it may be urged that communities in India cannot take over these duties at present. This may or may not be true. But in choosing welfare work as a real advance in the interests of the industrial worker, it may prove worth while to note the experience of America. The West has made many fatal errors in its industrial development. It does not desire to pass on its mistakes, but rather to share its experience so that the emerging New India may be a land where the principles of justice, of brotherhood and love are pregnant forces in the industrial, political and social life.

name, and, abroad among neutrals his utterances on the war have been listened to with an attention which would have been denied to the official spokesmen of England. Hence this collection* of Lord Bryce's Essays and Addresses in War Time has a peculiar value and interest.

These Essays and Addresses are concerned with (1) the justification of England's position in the war (2) an analysis of German political philosophy (3) the bearings of the principle of nationality on the war and the problems after the war. Now, the causes that led England into the war form a more-than-twice-told tale. There is nothing new that we learn from Lord Bryce's statement All the

* Essays and Addresses in War Time by James Bryce (Viscount Bryce), Maemillan & Co.

Essays dealing with this theme were written before the publication of Prince Lichnowsky's famous Memorandum. No statement against the German case could be more damning than that. But although there is nothing new, yet all of it is stated with such moderation, such a grip of the essential facts, natural to a historian who has also been an administrator, and with such a desire to be fair to the other side, that Lord Bryce's defence of England's policy must carry conviction even to the lazy cynic who thinks that the best way to decide between two parties in an issue is to decide against both.


In his analysis of the political theory and practice of the German state also Lord Bryce says only, albeit with his own distinctive flair, what has been said times without number during the But the curious thing about this English condemnation of the Prussian philosophy of the state is that it came a great deal too late. It was only when England was at war with Germany that English writers began to criticise and condemn Prussia and Trietschke. Till then they were the intellectual fashion in England, a fashion to which Lord Bryce also succumbed as in his references to modern Prussia in the "Holy Roman Empire." The German successes of 1870 made representative intellectuals like Morley and Meredith bow the knee to Baal. There was only one man in England before the war who believed that the Prussian danger was the greatest danger that remained to be encountered by the Anglo-Saxon race." But then Lord Acton was hardly a representative Englishman. However that may be, Lord Bryce's dispassionate condemnation of the German theory of the state is sufficient lustrum for the English admiration of Politics made in Germany which was so fashionable in the days before the war.


The Essay on the "Principle of Nationality" contains a clear account of the essential elements of nationality and ought to prove useful to those who wish to thread their way through the maze of questions that are clamouring for settlement. The break-down of the Central Empires has allowed a number of nations with a claim to statehood to spring up, of whom the man in the street had never heard, Croats, Slovaks, Slovenes, Letts, Lithuanians, Ruthenians and so forth. Lord Bryce recognises that the principle of nationality cannot be applied ad libitum. If every little people, whatever its political antecedents or aptitudes, is to be made into a state, then Europe would have its hand full-it would not only have o make national states, but it would have to keep

them. But we do not find in the essay any recognition of the fact that in Bohemia, Hungary, and other non-German parts of the Central Empires there is a considerable German fringe, and that this German fringe constitutes a powerful element in any Hungarian or Czecho-Slav state that may be created, and that these German settlers monopolise the industry and commerce of these countries. The creation of an independent Hungary, Czecho-Slavonia, Jugo-Slavia will not put a term to the problems of Central and Eastern Europe.

Lord Bryce as a Jurist and pacific statesman would like the coming of an era of perpetual and universal peace, and he entertained the idea of a "League of Nations to enforce Peace" even as early as the first months of the war. He bases his belief in the success of a scheme to enforce international peace on the case with which national peace or the King's peace as it is called in the British Empire is enforced, Just as "law and order have been established within every civilised country" so, he argues, ought law and order to be established between nations and states. It is astonishing how such a learned historian and practical statesman as Lord Bryce could have made use of this false analogy. Are nations as equal to each other as individuals in a state, do they share the same aspirations, benefit by the same policy, acknowledge the same culture and civilisation as do individuals in a state? Not till nations have been ground down to something like the position of Individuals in a state, can the analogy between nations and Individuals, between International Peace and National Peace be pressed with any profit to political thought. Lord Bryce however makes a good point in this essay when he acknowledges that "it is idle to construct a system of international law without Force behind it." And this Force he finds "in a Combination of Nations, a League for securing Peace, able to make its will to Peace prevail against the will to violence of bellicose nations." But who is to judge between the League of Peace and the bellicose nations? Or have the members of the League of Peace received a charter of perpetual grace which has washed them clean of the original sin of nations?

These questions are the best kind of compli ment one can pay to Lord Bryce's writings. This book like his other works testifies to his great historical knowledge, his political sobriety and that justesse of outlook which is the finest flower of scholarship.

[ocr errors]



T may be said without exaggeration that Sankar's philosophy has been misunderstood to a great extent-more especially by the English educated men. The fault does not lie with Sankar but with the readers who have not taken pains enough to study his philosophy in the original. Sankar's vedanta is an idealism in a sense not understood by Western philosophy. The idealistic philosophy of the West considers mind to be a reality and the world outside to be a projection of the mind. The contrast there is between the mind and the world. Having taken mind to be be a reality, Western philosophy strives to prove that the world outside is only its projection, and goes to the length of asserting that there is no objective world. The mountains, the rivers, the land sceneries, the forests, the palaces and the thousand and one phenomena that confront us in the outside world, dissolve when philosophically examined, into a multitude of ideas, whose abiding place is the mind. Berkley says there is no heat in the fire but in the mind within us; there is no smell, there is no taste, there is no sound, there is no visible object outside The existence of the world consists in the Hume goes perceptions that reside in our mind. even a step higher and does not believe in the doctrine of necessity-the law of causation. All the primary and secondary qualities of matter have been placed into the mind, and what appears to an ordinary man, a physical object has been reduced to a mere illusion-a figment of imagination, in which only the uninitiated believe.


English educated men have interpreted Sankar's idealism in this light. The doctrine of Maya is an ample raison-de-tre for this interpretation. They try to show that Sankar considers this world to be a mere illusion-as having no existence outside the mind. They seem to understand that just as the ultra-idealist of the West considers the objective world to be a mere projection of the mind, having no reality in itself, so Sanker also assigns no reality i.e., the objective existence to the phenomena of the world. But this is not Sankar's point of view. He believes in the outside existence of things as contrasted with the ideas of the mind, and in fact, advances a series of arguments in favour of the realistic world. His commentary on the second chapter of the Vedant Shutras may be referred to in this connection. It was the Buddhistic philosophers who did not believe in the outside world just like Western

idealistic philosophers. They were called Vyganvadees. Sankar took up cudgels against them and knocked down their position with the sledge hammer blows of his arguments. Although Sankar takes up a bold position in favour of the realistic world, he is not a realistic philosopher in the sense in which these words are generally understood. He is the idealistic of the ultraidealistic philosophers. His idealism does not recognise mind to be real in opposition to the external world. To him the whole external and internal world is unreal. The only reality which Sankar believes in, a is Atma-the under-lying principle of all consciousness, existence and bliss. Every thing else is unreal. The whole psychological apparatus is unreal. According to the Hindu philosophy, the psychological apparatus consist of Buddhi-the principle of understanding, manasa-the principle of all perception, memory etc., and Jnan Indryas-the organs of sense, Karma Indryas-the organs of action and the five-fold Pranas-the principle of breathing. All these pyschological factors constitute what is called in Vedanta, Suksham Sharir-the subtle body which, in contact with the Atma which is passive, is man's soul or ego for all practical purposes. It is this soul-the Jiva which migrates from birth to birth and assumes responsibility for all moral actions. Sankar does not recognize even this Jiva, to be real as compared with the real Atma that is eternally behind it.

Sankar's idealism begins with this subtlest Jiva and ends with the grossest particle of matter. To him all these internal and external phenomena are unreal, but his unreality is not an illusion. It means phenomenal existence in opposition to the real existence which he assigns only to the Atma.

Just as mind and its phenomena exist in their own unreality, so do the objective world and its multifarious appearances. Both these unreali ties are common only in so far as they are not of the nature of the reality of the Atma but are different from each other in as much as they are Western idealism existences. two separate asserts that the objective world is unreal and the subjective world is real. Sankar says both the worlds are unreal-only the Atma is real. Western idealism does not recognise the separate existence of the objective world-it having arisen out of the mind, Sankar recognizes its separate existence opposed to the existence of the

« AnkstesnisTęsti »