« AnkstesnisTęsti »
trol, in the interests of the Indian producer, the Indian working man and in the ultimate interests of the Indian consumer. It is useless to pretend that protection does not raise priees to the consumer in the beginning, but, in the long run, as the case of the American industries shows, it lowers prices, provided combinations are not formed behind the tariff wall.
Protection is the only means by which foreign competition can be effectively controlled. The economic history of France, Germany, the United States of America and Japan shows what protection, judicially applied, can do for native manufactures. Great Britain herself at one time, before the days of power-driven machinery, made use of protection to develop her industries. She abandoned protection when she had no longer any use for it. And recently the growth of Germany, Japanese and American competition, which has seriously affected some British industries, has revived the agitation in favour of protection. In view of this fact does it not seem desirable that the question of a protective tariff for India should be reconsidered?
Zollverein. They cannot give up protection. A that they can do is to give British imports a preference by taxing foreign imports at a higher rate. This is recognised by British statesmen. speech delivered in June 1905 before the members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association when they visited Birmingham and were entertained at the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said :
I know there are difficulties. We all know there are difficulties. You have your difficulties. I recognise the limitations which your conditions impose upon your statesmen. I can see how impossible it would be for a great country with unlimited resources and opportunities and policies like Canada to mortgage its future to make a treaty which would hamper the progress of its natural industries; which would either injure them in the present or prevent their development in the future. I recognise that that with you is a cardinal condition of a treaty.
In another speech delivered in February 1905 on "Preference, the true Imperial Policy," Mr. Chamberlain had said:
I quite agree that at the present moment you cannot get free trade from the Colonies. Rightly or wrongly they believe in a certain amount of Protection. They are not going to hand over their growing industries entirely to competition, even from the mother country. Very well, you cannot get that. But are you like a child that has set his heart on the moon? Will you not be satisfied with, say, a bun instead? You can get the bun.
Some time ago the British Cabinet declared itself in favour of Imperial Preference as the fiscal policy of the Empire. What is the meaning of Imperial Preference? There is an idea that Imperial Preference means Imperial free trade, that it means the formation of a Zollverein within which trade will be entirely free, while imports from foreign countries into any country which belongs to the Imperial Fiscal Union will pay protective duties. That is not the meaning of Imperial Preference. Imperial Preference, we are told, does not mean Imperial free trade.
"The idea of the 'Preference' is" says Mr. Chiozza Money "that each part of the Empire should remain an independent fiscal unit and levy such duties for revenue or protection as may seem good to it, but should relax them in part in favour of other parts of the Empire, thus taxing foreign goods on a higher scale than British goods."
The British self-governing Colonies object to a
The bun means a share in the home industries of the colonies and a large part of the trade of the colonies with foreign countries.
Mr. Bonar Law gave expression to a similar sentiment in a speech delivered at Newcastle in October 1907:
No one either at home or in the colonies who advocates Preference has ever suggested that the result of it will be to induce the colonies to cease to develop their own manufactures, to confine themselves simply to the production of raw material, and to buy their manufactured goods from us. Such an aim, even if it were desirable, is obviously impossible. The Colonies would never make such a bargain, and more than that, I do not believe that there is any one who looks upon the Empire as a whole, who considers that the increasing strength of any part is an increase in the strength of the whole, who would desire that such an arrangement should be made even if the Colonies were willing to accept it. The development of a country which depends solely on raw material must be extraordinarily slow, and it is therefore in the interest of the whole Empire, not only from the point of view of
natural strength, but from the point of view even of our trade, that the Colonies should develop in the most rapid way possible. Imperial Preference does not mean free trade within the Empire. If there were free trade, there could be no Preference. The case for Colonial Preference is, and always has been, that even after the Colonies have developed their own industry to the greatest extent that they find desirable or possible, there will still be an enormous surplus of manufactured goods which they must import from somewhere and that it is greatly to our advantage that they import this surplus from us.
Unless the British colonists now think differently, and likewise, the British statesmen, Imperial Preference means for the self-governing Colonies protection not only against the foreigner but also against the United Kingdom. For the United Kingdom Imperial Preference means protection against the foreigner in her own markets and a limited amount of protection in the colonial markets. What amount of protection will the United Kingdom get in India against the foreigner? To answer this question we must consider the position of India under Imperial Preference.
British statesmen have repeatedly declared that they do not want to force free trade upon the colonists if the colonists do not want free trade. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, as we have seen, would have been well satisfied with a 'bun' from the Colonies; and he asked his countrymen to accept the 'bun' because they could not get the "moon."
Now India wants protection quite as much as the Colonies. She, in fact, wants it more. remedy for present evils can be complete," wrote the Famine Commissioners of 1880, "which does not include the introduction of a diversity of occupations through which the surplus population may be drawn from agricultural pursuits and led to find the means of subsistence in manufactures, or in some such employments." For other countries, the question of industrial development and protection is a question of higher profits and higher wages; for us it is a question of life and death. The improvement of our industries would insure
us against famine. For this, if for no other reason, India should be allowed to adopt a protective tariff with the object of lessening the intensity of foreign competition.
The question of protection for India is outside the sphere of practical politics, we are constantly told. But how can England refuse our demand for protection when she wants to adopt it herself? If Imperial Preference does not mean Imperial free trade, then India has as good a right to protect her industries from British competition as the Colonies. Mr. Chiozza Money says:
"As I have pointed out in the case of our selfgoverning colonies, if we decide that our old established industries which do as much export trade as that of America and Germany put together, need Protection, it is illogical to deny import duties to newly established colonial industries, which with reason regard the British manufacturer as their chief competitor. And if our self-governing colonies are protected, and we also are protected, who shall deny Protection to the industries of India ?"
Even if Imperial Preference meant Imperial free trade, England, in fairness to us, cannot deny protection to our industries. Imperial Preference is simply another name for protection for the British manufacturer against foreign competition in the Colonial and Indian markets. The chief object of Imperial Preference is to enable the United Kingdom to recover her old supremacy in our markets. To gain that end she is willing to sacrifice her laissez faire traditions in matters of trade. That being so, how can she deny Protection to us?
India was forced to adopt free trade because England thought that free trade was for India's good, and because she herself was a free trade country. It was not denied that the abolition of protective duties would benefit English manufacturers, but it was not this fact which determined the decision of the fiscal question in 1878.
Free trade, it was said, was essential to India her- . self. It was not desirable that the Indian cotton industry should grow up under unhealthy conditions.
"Whether the question be regarded as it affects the consumer, the producer or the revenue," wrote Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for India in 1878, “1 am of opinion that the interests of Indian imperatively require the removal of a tax which is at once wrong in principle, injurious in its practical effect and self destructive in its operation."
Sir John Strachey who was then the Finance Member thus comments upon the opposition to free trade in India in his "India, its Administration and Progress :"
"Popular opinion in India had always in regard to questions of fiscal reform been obstructive and ignorant and the fact that the abolition of customs duties would be favourable to English manufacturers was enough in the belief of many to prove that the party purpose of obtaining political support in Lancashire and not any care for the interests of India, was the real motive of the Government. This foolish calumny deserved no notice or reply. The opposition to the reform of cotton duties satisfied Lord Lytton that he must carry out the measure himself or acquiesce in nothing being done. He believed that the interests of India required it and he was not to be deterred by the imputation of base motives."
India was never quite convinced that the cotton duties were abolished in her interests, and it would be still more difficult to convince her that the proposed change in the fiscal policy of the Empire is in her interests. This is recognised by English economists. If it is decided to adopt preferential tariffs, then so far as India is concerned, there would be two alternatives before British statesmen, says Lees-Smith.
"It is possible for them to assert unashamedly that India is merely a 'plantation' whose good must be sacrificed to the interests of British Capital. They can acknowledge that their arguments and pledges in the past were mere hypocrisy, which having served their purpose, can now be abondoned. This alternative is, of course, inconceivable. The only other is to grant India her fiscal freedom and to allow her to erect a protective tariff."
India, let it be clearly understood, wants Protection, and not Imperial Preference. Some English writers are fond of talking about the "Indian offer of Imperial Preference" as if India could not get along without a preferential tariff and begged England's permission to adopt one.
"The Indian Offer of Imperial Preference," the title of Sir Roper Leithbridge's book published in 1913, was probably suggested by a resolution re preferential tariffs moved in the Imperial Legislative Council by Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis on March 17th 1913. But the Hon'ble mover himself regarded protection as a necessity to India. In the course of his speech, he said :—
"Sir, I have said more than once that protection is a necessity to us. We have infant industries to protect. Granted even that as free traders we lose wealth thereby, yet wealth is not the only thing that nations desire...... We want protection because we have to find employment for our people and to foster our growing industries. The question is not whether free trade or protection is the most profitable policy, but whether the benefit that we expect to get from protection is worth the price that we shall pay for it. I contend that it is."
As every one knows, public opinion in India is sincerely protectionist; and most of us understand the difference between protection and Imperial Preference. The late Mr. Gokhale once drew a valuable distinction between two kinds of protection, the right kind and the wrong kind. The right kind of protection gives the necessary to nascent encouragement industries. The wrong kind of protection is that under which powerful combinations and interests receive assistance to the prejudice of the general tax payer. "And I beleive," said Mr. Gokhale, "that the right kind of protection, if available, will do good to India." But if the right kind of protection was not available, and the choice lay between Imperial Preference on the one hand and the existing system on the other, India will know what to choose..
Imperial Preference is protection of the wrong kind for two reasons. In the first place in the actual framing of the tariff, British interests may receive more consideration than Indian. The kind and amount of protection required for British industries may not in all cases be exactly that which Indian industries require. And if a conflict arises between Indian and British interests, while the final decision in settling the
details of the tariff, directly or indirectly, rests with the British people or their representatives, it would be too much to expect, human nature being what it is, that British or Imperial' interests will not be regarded as of greater importance than Indian. In the second place, a preferential tariff would most certainly injure the Indian consumer; whether it would be of any great assistance to the Indian producer is doubtful. The Indian consumer will have to pay the full price of protection; the benefit of it will be largely reaped by British manufacturers, unless the Indian industries are protected to some extent against British competition also. British manufacturers need protection against the competition of Japan, the Central Powers and the United States of America; Indian competition, they can, in most cases, disregard. But he would be a bold man who would say that Indian producers can ignore British competition. In spite of the growth of foreign imports into India during the last twenty or thirty years, about 60 per cent
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN INDIA
I. BY HIS HONOUR SIR HARCOURT BUTLER.
OOKING back over 28 years, I see vast strides in the education of this province One great change is the extension of the hostel system which has done much already and assuredly will do more as an agency for forming character. If we compare India of to-day with European countries at a corresponding stage of development, we need not be ashamed of our achievements. England did not get facilities for compulsory education until 1870 and it took six years, until 1876, before education was made generally compulsory. For several years after that, the teachers in elementary schools in England were largely illiterate. Secondary education
of the imports in 1913-14 came from the United Kingdom. Imperial Preference is no solution of the difficulties of the Indian producer, unless he is protected against British competition also. The effect of British competition upon our industries is the same as that of German or Japanese competition-in both cases the growth of our industries is retarded. The imports of certain classes of British goods into India have decreased in recent years, the proportion of most other imports is smaller now than what it was about forty years ago, and the chief object of a preferential tariff is to enable the United Kingdom to regain what is called her 'natural' share of Indian trade. The adoption of a preferential tariff by India will certainly help in the attainment of that end, but how will that assist the development of Indian industries? From the point of view of the Indian consumer Imperial Preference is worse than free trade; from the point of view of the Indian producer there is not much to choose between the two.
in England is still unsatisfactory, although there has been great improvement in the last few years. True, our own educational ideals in India are still far from clear. Our educational machinery is in part worn out and rusty. But still it has accomplished much. Faulty and makeshift as it necessarily has been our education has made modern India. It has purified the public services; it has increased the number of men who think; it has prepared the way for new ideas and larger conceptions of civic duty; it has opened new avenues of employment; it will end, I trust, in the growth and the spread of imperial ideas. There are still great walls of ignorance to be
battered down. There are many and great temples of education to be built up. There is a call for the highest service from the best of India's sons. But the' embers have been stirred. The beginnings of a desire for free and compulsory education are manifest, Great hopes thrive and grow. In a short time we have fulfilled a long time. Sir Alfred Lyall said truly in his inaugural address: "Whatever else may be said of the English administration of India, no one can assert that in the matter of education the English have not been open-handed and unreservedly, almost audaciously, liberal." We have tried to give education to India on the basis of trust and common aspiration.
policy much as a stream of lava changes this country at the base of some great volcano, or a tidal wave changes some island in the Pacific ocean. The war has broken up the despotism of the humanities and has installed a federation of the sciences and humanities. This is the great, the master change. For centuries education has, to use Macaulay's phrase, disdained to be useful. It must be useful now. And yet one may hope that the humanising of science, the scientific use of the humanities will go on side by side. No mere materialistic education will ever satisfy India. Over and above us all towers the peak of sheer educational power, over us all is still cast the spell of the ideal.
Some of you will remember how Sir Auckland Colvin preached the importance of science to this University, and how his arguments were then regarded as an insidious undermining of political aspiration. I have seen one of our public men attacking Government in those days for its designs on humanistic studies and of late attacking Government for its neglect of science in education. I welcome the change of view. I will do my best to help you to meet the new demand, to promote "research and discovery and the application of knowledge for the improvement of mankind."
In England the epoch-making report of Sir J. J. Thomson's committee has pealed the bells of a new era. On every side one hears the cry for more and more applied science. The day of the specialist has dawned at last. Chemistry, as Sir Thomas Holland aptly said, is the foundation of all modern civilised activities. India's great need to-day is the application of chemistry to agriculture and industry.
HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES.
Nó country is satisfied with its educational system. All are trying to improve it. We in this province, the Government and the people, are striving shoulder to shoulder to better things. It is mainly a question of finance, in other words, of material progress. For education and material progress go hand in hand. As education improves, so material prosperity advances; and with the advance of material prosperity funds become available to make education more efficient. The United States of America with a population one-third of that of India spend 160 million pounds sterling annually upon education. In India, we cannot yet anticipate such an expenditure; but every sacrifice made for the cause of education will bear fruit a hundred fold in the years to come. Never forget that education breeds prosperity and prosperity breeds education.
None appreciates more than I do the value of a liberal education for its own sake. But we have to face things as they are. Every educational system-rests on certain social order. The social order has changed and with this there must be a change of educational system. Even before the war, new ideals of educational policy were in the air; and the war has changed the aspect of
REFORM OF UNIVERSITIES.
The question of university reform will soon come upon us. The policy of the Government of India has been to restrict the area under which the affiliating universities have control by securing, in the first instance, a separate university for