Page:The Modern Review (July-December 1925).pdf/403

Rh does not betoken the relinquishment of any principle; because all his life he and his party had agitated for many things less important than the rights which the Reforms gave.

Though our political principles have been at different from those of the hero who has departed from our midst, we have tried as much as we could to place his career in the light in which he would like it to be placed. The time for a fuller and more critical estimate would come hereafter.

We close with what he said to Mahatma Gandhi in the last meeting which he had with him. He said that he belonged to the school of Vidyasagar, and declared that he would devote his energies in the remaining years of his life to the cause of the widows of Bengal. He did not live to do what he intended. The best way to show respect to his memory would be to fulfil his heart’s desire by ceaseless work for the amelioration of the condition of widows.

The speech with which the Viceroy opened the autumn session of the Legislative Assembly has been generally pronounced disappointing. Disappointing it is in the literal sense to those who expected anything; to others it is not, because they expected nothing. It was not at all striking in any way.

Criticisms on most passages of the speech would be a string of repetitions of what has been said over and over again. But a few passing remarks may be allowable. A single sentence in the speech suffices just to refer to the death of Mr. C. R. Das and Sir Surendranath Banerjea, which “has left India in mourning.” That is true. But could Lord Reading spare not a word more to express regret at the death of even Sir Surendranath who rendered service to Government as Minister and incurred thereby the odium of a large section of his countrymen? We ask this question because his lordship takes a long paragraph “to mention the loss which has befallen me and my Government, nay more, India and the Empire in the sudden and tragic death of the late Lord Rawlinson”—a paragraph surcharged with emotion and high praise. Contrast with this the bare, brief and cold mention of Das and Banerjea.

The servants and would-be servants of Government among India’s public men should take a note of this fact. Others need not much care for official praise or blame.

Lord Reading had much to say on Agriculture, and the improvement of cattle. These subjects should undoubtedly receive great attention. But attempts at improvement in these directions cannot succeed unless there is universal education (including adult education). Government arrangements are generally top-heavy, and that characteristic is probably going to be aggravated, as the following extract will show:—

"My Government for some time past had under consideration a proposal for the establishment of an all-India agricultural organisation which would help towards co-ordinating the activities of the various provincial departments of Agriculture, promote research in agricultural education, co-operation and other established aids to agriculture, and serve as a medium for agricultural propaganda throughout the country."

All this is certainly necessary. But what Indians would note is that the proposed all-India agricultural organisation will fill the pockets of some highly paid European officers imported for the purpose without making the agricultural population better educated to profit by the research, etc., carried on by the organisation. Let us have education and sanitation, and let us have Indian agricultural officers trained for the purpose who can speak to the peasants in their mother-tongues.

In announcing the appointment of the Royal Currency Commission, the Viceroy observed:—

"“It will be apparent that every care has been taken to obtain an independent and impartial examination of this important subject.”"

From the Indian point of view, it seems that his excellency would have been absolutely right if he had inserted the word “not” between the words “taken” and “to.” For the chairman of the commission is an Englishman and of the remaining nine members four are Indians and five Englishmen. Altogether there are six English members to four Indians. It goes without saying that Englishmen are above all patriotic; they will not agree to India’s having a system of currency which will not be advantageous to Britain. Among the Indian members one is a servant of the Government, one has always been pro-Government, one is a person whose independence has never been of a pronounced character and there is only one who may be spoken of as independent. From the all-India point of view we are obliged to make one other remark. Bombay is undoubtedly pre-eminent so far as the Indian section of industrialists, merchants and other men of business are concerned.