Page:The Independent Hindustan Volume I Number 4.djvu/4



It is reported by the Associated Press that an agreement has been reached by the Russian Bolsheviki and Turkish Nationalists to liberate India from the British rule.

India undoubtedly will welcome such an agreement. It will inspire and encourage the people of India. Though they are fully prepared to attain independence, relying on their own resources, yet, the outside help will bring the result quicker. We want the people of India to study the forces of the world, remembering that they will render a signal service to the cause of humanity and freedom, if they succeed in destroying British imperial system.

The tragedy of Armenia is bound up with the tragedy of India, Ireland, Persia, and other countries. Armenia would have been free long ago, had she not been battered by the plottings of the imperialists. It is England which has conspired with Czarist Russia and Imperial Turkey to keep Armenia in the present stage so that she can be compelled to guard a gate to India.

After elimination of Czar from the arena of world-politics, the Near East recognises that the British imperialism stands in the way of solution of Near Eastern problems. Through mediation of the present Russian government, independence of Armenia was assured, and the Armenians were ready to shake hands with the Turks. But as England despises peace, she connived to upset the plan. She sees the red flag flying over her empire, and at once, Robert Cecil through the British-made League of Nations pleads for the case of Armenia.

Robert Cecil's move is very clear. The republics of Azerbaijan, Georgian, Persia, Mesopotamia, Turkey and other countries are hostile to the British. The only way England sees to maintain her imperial interests is to have Armenia as a base of operation against the revolutionaries of India and other Near Eastern countries. And as she is bankrupt, Cecil asks America to pay a bill of $20,000,000 so that England could free Armenia from the red peril.

We strongly advocate that Armenia should be free from all entanglements and establish her national independence. But as long as British imperialism remains intact, the success is very remote. Taking advantage of nominal freedom of Armenia, the cunning statesmanship will set the Armenians against the Persians, Mesopotamians and New Turkey, there by incurring displeasure of the people of those countries. The very thing the British are doing by using nearly 125,000 Indian troops to suppress the risings of the Near Eastern countries. It will be well for Armenia and peace of the world, that Armenia should cooperate with all those who are directing their forces against British imperialism, without invoking any aid from the people, Cecil represents.

India has passed the stage of Home Rule agitation. Yet, if there such a callous mind exists as not to conceive the reasons why India should not remain within the British empire, we ask them to acquaint themselves with the view of an English Missionary, Rev. C. F. Andrews. He was asked, would not the idea of Home Rule or self-government within the Empire be sufficient for India?

He emphatically says "No." "For the simple reason," he continued, "that it always breaks down in practice. It is a camouflage and nothing else. There is not a single self-governing dominion (such as South Africe, Canada, Australia, etc.) within the British Empire which does not repudiate in every action it takes the idea of equal partnership of Indians with themselves within one empire,—however much they may pass pious resolutions of reciprocity at Imperial Conferences. Look at South Africa from where I have just returned. The government of South Africa is now doing its best to induce not only Indentured Indians, but even South African born Indians to leave the country. There is an almost universal anti-Indian agitation, whose one object is to drive every Indian out of South Africa. Is there the very slightest idea of a common brotherhood within the empire, when this is the treatment of the Indians? Or take again East Africa,— hardly a single Englishman there is willing to admit that Indians can be politically and socially equals. The very idea is to them unthinkable. I tell you plainly and bluntly as far as my experience goes there is no part of Africa where Indians are less welcome than within the British Empire. I have seen with my own eyes the difference of treatment in Portuguese Africa and in British East Africa. I have lived in both places. In Portuguese East Africa, Indians are treated as gentlemen. In British East Africa, they are subjected every day to petty dailv insult. They are made to feel their own inferiority of position every moment of their lives."

Mr. A. B. Keith, in his book "Imperial Unity and the Dominions" (p. 27-8) corroborates the statement of Mr. Andrews. He says:

". . . it is true that in practice the self-governing dominion of the Union of South Africa treats British Indians worse than any foreign possession, and that they were less harassed in German possessions in Africa than in Natal, to the prosperity of which they have contributed so greatly."

In view of these conditions and for many other reasons, Mr. Andrews advocates complete independence for India. He says: "Most decidedly, I can imagine no other position which will give self-respect. I am a Christian and the golden rule which Christ himself gave was this: 'Whatever ye would wish that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.' Now let us take that rule. I am an Englishman. I value above anything else my English freedom and