“New Spirit in India” by H. W. Nevinson.“The Awakening in India” by J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.“India, Impressions and Suggestions” by J. Keir Hardie, M.P.“New India” by Sir Henry Cotton (once an M.P.), late of the Indian Civil Service.“Allen Octavian Hume” by Sir W. Wedderburn, late of the Indian Civil Service (once an M.P.).“Prosperous British India” by Mr. William Digby, C.I.E.“India and the Empire” by Mrs. Annie Besant.“Indian Nationalism” by Edwyn Bevan.“Bureaucratic Government” by Bernard Houghton (late of the Indian Civil Service).“Lord Curzon a Failure” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).“Causes of Indian Discontent” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).“The Indian Ryot” by Sir W. Wedderburn.“The Skeleton at the Jubilee Feast” by Sir W. Wedderburn.“Congress Green Books” (84, 85, Palace Chambers, Westminster, London).———“The New Nationalist Movement in India,” by Dr. J. T. Sunderland.“Indian Famines and Their Cause” by Dr. J. T. Sunderland, 423 West 120th Street, New York.
“New Spirit in India” by H. W. Nevinson.
“The Awakening in India” by J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.
“India, Impressions and Suggestions” by J. Keir Hardie, M.P.
“New India” by Sir Henry Cotton (once an M.P.), late of the Indian Civil Service.
“Allen Octavian Hume” by Sir W. Wedderburn, late of the Indian Civil Service (once an M.P.).
“Prosperous British India” by Mr. William Digby, C.I.E.
“India and the Empire” by Mrs. Annie Besant.
“Indian Nationalism” by Edwyn Bevan.
“Bureaucratic Government” by Bernard Houghton (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“Lord Curzon a Failure” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“Causes of Indian Discontent” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“The Indian Ryot” by Sir W. Wedderburn.
“The Skeleton at the Jubilee Feast” by Sir W. Wedderburn.
“Congress Green Books” (84, 85, Palace Chambers, Westminster, London).
———
“The New Nationalist Movement in India,” by Dr. J. T. Sunderland.
“Indian Famines and Their Cause” by Dr. J. T. Sunderland, 423 West 120th Street, New York.
Books by Indians
“Poverty or Un-British Rule in India” by Dadabhai Naoroji.“India Under Early British Rule” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.“India in the Victorian Age” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.“Famines and Land Assessment” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.“England and India” (Indian Progress, 1785-1885) by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.“The Civilization of India” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.“Speeches of the Honourable Mr. G. K. Gokhale.”“The Swadeshi, a Symposium.”“Recent Indian Finance” by Wacha.“The National Evolution” by A. C. Mazumdar.“The Indian National Congress.”“Speeches of Sir P. M. Mehta.”“The Story of My Deportation” by Lajpat Rai.“The Alipore [Bomb Case] Trial.”
“Poverty or Un-British Rule in India” by Dadabhai Naoroji.
“India Under Early British Rule” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“India in the Victorian Age” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“Famines and Land Assessment” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“England and India” (Indian Progress, 1785-1885) by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“The Civilization of India” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“Speeches of the Honourable Mr. G. K. Gokhale.”
“The Swadeshi, a Symposium.”
“Recent Indian Finance” by Wacha.
“The National Evolution” by A. C. Mazumdar.
“The Indian National Congress.”
“Speeches of Sir P. M. Mehta.”
“The Story of My Deportation” by Lajpat Rai.
“The Alipore [Bomb Case] Trial.”
Periodicals
The Modern Review(monthly). Calcutta.The Indian Review(monthly). Madras.The Hindustan Review(monthly). Allahabad.India(the British Organ of the Indian National Congress, weekly). London.
The Modern Review(monthly). Calcutta.
The Indian Review(monthly). Madras.
The Hindustan Review(monthly). Allahabad.
India(the British Organ of the Indian National Congress, weekly). London.
Feudatory Chiefs Powerless.“It would perhaps be ungenerous to probe too narrowly the dependent position and consequent involuntary action of the feudatory chiefs. They are powerless to protect themselves. There is no judicial authority to which they can appeal. There is no public opinion to watch their interests. Technically independent under the suzerainty of the Empire, they are practically held in complete subjection. Their rank and honours depend on the pleasure of a British Resident at their Court, and on the secret and irresponsible mandates of a Foreign Office at Simla” (page 34).
Gross Insults to Indians.“That intense Anglo-Saxon spirit of self-approbation which is unpleasantly perceptible in England itself, and is so often offensive among vulgar Englishmen on the Continent, very soon becomes rampant in India.
“There are innumerable instances in which pedestrians have been abused and struck because they have not lowered their umbrellas at the sight of a sahib on the highway. There are few Indian gentlemen even of the highest rank who have not had experience of gross insults when travelling by railway, because Englishmen object to sit in the same carriage with a native” (pages 68-69).
Industrial Ruin of India. Gokhale.“When we come to this question of India’s Industrial domination by England, we come to what may be described as the most deplorable result of British rule in this country. In other matters there are things on the credit side and things on the debit side.... But when you come to the industrial field, you will find that the results have been disastrous. You find very little here on the credit side and nearly all the entries on the debit side. Now this is a serious statement to make, but I think it can be substantiated.”
India a Mere Possession. Gokhale.“India formed the largest part of the Empire, but was governed as a mere possession of the British people. Three features showed that it had no part or lot in the Empire. In the first place, the people were kept disarmed; it was thought to be dangerous to allow them to carry arms. Secondly, they had absolutely no voice in the government of their own country; they were expressly disqualified from holding certain high offices, and practically excluded from others. Lastly, they were not allowed a share in the privileges of the Empire in any portion outside British India, except a limited one in the United Kingdom itself.”—Mr. Gokhale.
Masses Starved. Sir C. A. Elliott.“I do not hesitate to say that half our agricultural population never know from year’s end to year’s end what it is to have their hunger fully satisfied.”—Sir C. A. Elliott, one-time Lieut.-Governor of Bengal.
Sir W. W. Hunter.In 1880. “There remain forty millions of people who go through life on insufficient food.”—Sir W. W. Hunter.
William Digby.In 1893. ThePioneersums up Mr. Grierson’s facts regarding the various sections of thepopulation in Gaya: “Briefly, it is that all the persons of the labouring classes, and ten per cent. of the cultivating and artisan classes, or forty-five per cent. of the total population, are insufficiently clothed, or insufficiently fed, or both. In Gaya district this would give about a million persons without sufficient means of support. If we assume that the circumstances of Gaya are not exceptional,—and there is no reason for thinking otherwise—it follows that nearly one hundred millions of people in British India are living in extreme poverty.”
In 1901. “The poverty and suffering of the people are such as to defy description. In fact, for nearly fifteen years there has beena continuous famine in Indiaowing to high prices.”
70,000,000Continually Hungry People in British India. W. Digby.“Since Sir William Hunter’s remarks were made the population has increased (or is alleged to have increased) by nearly thirty millions. Meanwhile the income of the Empire has greatly decreased during this period. Wherefore this follows: that is, if with the same income, in 1880 forty millions were insufficiently fed, the additional millions cannot have had, cannot now have, enough to eat; this, again, ensues:—
40,000,000 plus, say, 30,000,000, make 70,000,000; andthere are this number of continually hungry people in British India at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.”—William Digby, C. I. E.
Deaths from Famine or Consequent Diseases, 1891 to 1900 alone: estimated by a correspondent of theLancet, 19,000,000.
Total area under cultivation.In the year 1911-12, thetotal areaunderfood grainswas over 195million acres, plus 7.5,i.e.over 202½million acres. In 1912-13, Indiaexported foodstuffsof the value of over 260 million dollars.
In 1913-14 she exported about 216 million dollars’ worth of foodstuffs.
Famines of Money, not Food. Lord G. Hamilton.“The recent famines are famines of money, and not offood.”—Lord G. Hamilton, former Secretary of State.
Causes of Famines.1. National industries deliberately crushed by the East India Co. cannot revive under existing conditions.
2. Annual drain of India.
3. Lack of such education as will enable people to develop their resources.
Drain. Montgomery Martin.“The annual drain of £3,000,000 from British India has mounted in thirty years, at 12 per cent. (the usual Indian rate) compound interest, to the enormous sum of £723,900,000 sterling.”—Montgomery Martin.(In 1830.)
Digby.“During the last thirty years of the century the average drain cannot have been far short of £30,000,000 per year, or, in the thirty years, £900,000,000, not reckoning interest!”—Sir William Digby.
Enormous Foreign Tribute. Rev. J. T. Sunderland.Rev. J. T. Sunderland in his work “The Causes of Famine in India,” like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither “failure of rains” nor “over population” is the cause of famines in India. He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by “Enormous Foreign Tribute,” “British Indian Imperialism” and the destruction of Indian industries.
Government assessment too high. Sir W. Hunter.“The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year.”—Sir William Hunter, K. C. S. I., in the Viceroy’s Council, 1883.
The Ryot. Herbert Compton.“There is no more pathetic figure in the British Empire than the Indian peasant. His masters have ever been unjust to him. He is ground until everything has been expressed, except the marrow of his bones.”—Mr. Herbert Comptonin “Indian Life,” 1904.
Hindustan is an extensive agricultural country and the average land produces two crops a year, and in Bengal there are lands which produce thrice a year. Bengal alone produces such large crops that they are quite sufficient to provideall the population of Hindustan for two years.
Indian Plunder. Adam Brooks.Adam Brooks says, (“Laws of Civilization and Decay,” page 259-246) “Very soon after the Battle of Plassey (fought in 1757) the Bengal Plunder began to arrive in London and the effect appears to have been almost instantaneous. Probably since the world began, no investment has yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder. The amount of treasure wrung from the conquered people and transferred from India to English banks between Plassey and Waterloo (57 years) has been variously estimated at from $2,500,000,000 to $5,000,000,000. The methods of plunder and embezzlement, by which every Briton in India enriched himself during the earlier history of the East India Company, gradually passed away, but the drain did not pass away. The difference between that earlier day and the present is, that India’s tribute to England is obtained by “indirect methods,” under forms of law. It is estimated by Mr. Hyndman that at least $175,000,000 is drained away every year from India, without a cent’s return.”
Swami Abhedananda.“India pays interest on England’s debt, which in 1900 amounted to 244 millions sterling, and which annually increases. Besides this, she pays for all the officers, civil and military, and a huge standing army, pensions of officers, and even the cost of the India Building in London, as well as the salary of every menial servant of that house. For 1901-2 the total expenditure charged against revenue was $356,971,410.00, out of which $84,795,515.00 was spent in England as Home Charges, not including the pay of European officers in India, saved and remitted to England.—Swami Abhedananda(“India and Her People”).
Alfred Webb(late M.P.): “In charges for the IndiaOffice (in London); for recruiting (in Great Britain, for soldiers to serve in India); for civil and military pensions (to men now living in England, who were formerly in the Indian service); for pay and allowances on furloughs (to men on visits to England); for private remittances and consignments (for India to England); for interest on Indian debt (paid to parties in England); and for interest on railways and other works (paid to shareholders in England), there is annually drawn from India and spent in the United Kingdom, a sum calculated at from £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 (Between $125,000,000 and $150,000,000).”
“Narrow and Shortsighted Imperial Policy.”Sir Archibald R. Colquehoun.“The present condition of affairs undoubtedly renders the struggle for existence a hard one, as may be realized when it is considered that a vast population of India not only from the inevitable droughts which so frequently occur,but also from a narrow and shortsighted imperial policy which places every obstacle in the way of Industrial development and imposes heavy taxes on the struggling people. According to various authorities, Russia’s demand upon landowners in her Central Asian possession are not so exacting as ours in India,for the British Government insists on a fifth of the produce, making no allowance for good or bad years; while Russia is said to ask only a tenth and allow for variation of production.” (Pages 135-6, “Russia Against India,” bySir Archibald R. Colquehoun, Gold Medalist, Royal Geographical Society.)
Taxation. Lord Salisbury.The British policy of bleeding Indian people. “The injury is exaggerated in the case of India where so much of the revenue is exported without a direct equivalent. As India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood is congested or at least sufficient, not to those already feeble for the want of it.”—Lord Salisbury.
Plague, Deaths from.Plague[98]deaths from 1897-1913: 7,251,257.
Death Rate.Death rate was: 34.28 for the year 1907-11; 32 for the year 1911, and 29.71 for the year 1912.
Rural from 41.8 to 23.5.
Urban from 47.6 to 22.7.
Indian Finance.The budget figures of the government of India for 1914-15 show the total estimated income for the year to be slightly over 85 millions sterling, of which more than 17 millions are given out as railway receipts and about 4½ millions for irrigation work, thus leaving the pure revenue to be about 63 millions.
Land Tax.The principal source of revenue is the land tax, which alone furnishes a little over 21½ millions of pounds, of which, if we deduct 9 millions shown as the “direct demand on the revenues” only 12½ millions are left for general purposes.
The military expenses alone are estimated at about 22 millions, which is even in excess of the gross total receipts from the land tax, and is more than one-third of the total revenues from all sources.
The figures for income are a little misleading, because out of a total of about 17 millions (17 millions and 33 thousand) shown as railway receipts about 13 millions (13,409,000) shown as paid for interest and other miscellaneous charges on the expenditure side, should be deducted. Similarly about 4½ millions are shown as receipts under the head of irrigation, and over 3½ millions are shown against that head as expenditure.
Among the other heads of income, excise brings slightlyover 9 millions. Income tax is included under “Other Heads,” which show a total figure of slightly over 5 millions.
Income Tax.The income tax, which is levied on incomes other than those derived from agriculture, is only 6½d. in a pound on incomes of £133 or more, a year, and almost 5d. a pound on incomes below that figure. The minimum taxable income is £66 a year, which shows that all incomes of between 5-6 pounds a month, or between 25-30 dollars a month, are taxed. The large fortunes made by Europeans and Indians by trade, speculation, manufacture, and unearned increments of valuation, are thus easily let off. The principle burden of taxation falls on the poorryot.
Income from agriculture is supposed to be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent. of the net income of the landlord, or at the rate of 20 per cent. of the gross produce of the ryot, under the ryotwari system. In some cases it exceeds these proportions and is as high as 65 per cent. (See Lord Morley’s reply to C. T. O’Donnell.)
Customs.Customs, which furnish the principal source of revenue in the United States and Germany, in India only yield about less than 7½ millions. The imports are chargedad valoremduty of 5 per cent. with special conditions as to textiles, and “a large free list.” The textile woven goods pay a duty of 3½ per cent. and Lancashire is protected by a corresponding excise duty on textile goods produced in the country. Iron and steel pay only a nominal duty of one per cent.
The other principal source of revenue is the drink traffic, from which the government of India makes an income of aboutnine millionssterling. How much loss in morals it inflicts thereby on the country may better be imagined. That however is another story.
The shipping is entirely in European hands and it would be interesting to enquire how much does India pay for the shipping of its imports and exports, and how much do the foreigners make by way of insurance and other charges. The exact gain to Great Britain and other European countries from Indian trade is simply incalculable. The great bulk of the foreign trade on both sides is in the hands of foreigners.
Secretary of Stateand all Under Secretaries, as well as Assistant Under Secretaries:
Secretary of Stateand all Under Secretaries, as well as Assistant Under Secretaries:
All Office Establishment and Secretaries:British.All salaries and other expenses paid by India.Governor General and Counciland staff(i.e., the British Indian Cabinet).Members of theExecutive Council: British 7; one only is an Indian.Revenue and Agriculture Department: All Secretaries down to the Superintendent of the Office: British. (Total strength, 7.)Finance Department: 21; all British except that one Assistant Secretary is an Indian, and one Superintendent is an Indian.Foreign Department: 6; all British except that one Attaché is an Indian.Education Department: 8; one Assistant Secretary is an Indian.Legislative Department: 7; only one Legal Assistant an Indian.Army Department: 10; one Office Superintendent an Indian.Public Works: 15; no Indian.Commerce and Industry: 11; 3 Office Superintendents are Indians.Railway Board: 4, no Indian.Post Office and Telegraph Department: no Indian.Indo-European Trade Department: no Indian.Survey: no Indian.Geological Survey: 5; no Indian.Botanical Department: 5; no Indian.Archæological Survey: 9; one Indian.Miscellaneous Appointments: 39; one Indian.The Indian Legislative Council:—Total strength 67, out of which 35, besides the Governor General are always officials, only one of which is an Indian; of the remaining 32, 28 are Indian members, including 3 nominated by the Government, i.e., a total of 20 out of 67.Provincial Government:All Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and Chief Commissioners of Provinces are British.In Provinces having Executive Councils of three or more, one is an Indian.Secretaries and Heads of Departments are all Britishers. Of the large army of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, perhaps one in each Province is an Indian.Services:Army: No Indian is eligible to a commissioned rank.Indian Civil Service: (on the first of April, 1913) out of a total cadre of 1318, only 46 were Indians.Indian Medical Service: Little over 5 per cent. are Indians.In Provincial Legislative Councilshaving very restricted powers of legislation, theelectedIndians are in a minority everywhere.
All Office Establishment and Secretaries:British.
All salaries and other expenses paid by India.
Governor General and Counciland staff(i.e., the British Indian Cabinet).
Members of theExecutive Council: British 7; one only is an Indian.
Revenue and Agriculture Department: All Secretaries down to the Superintendent of the Office: British. (Total strength, 7.)
Finance Department: 21; all British except that one Assistant Secretary is an Indian, and one Superintendent is an Indian.
Foreign Department: 6; all British except that one Attaché is an Indian.
Education Department: 8; one Assistant Secretary is an Indian.
Legislative Department: 7; only one Legal Assistant an Indian.
Army Department: 10; one Office Superintendent an Indian.
Public Works: 15; no Indian.
Commerce and Industry: 11; 3 Office Superintendents are Indians.
Railway Board: 4, no Indian.
Post Office and Telegraph Department: no Indian.
Indo-European Trade Department: no Indian.
Survey: no Indian.
Geological Survey: 5; no Indian.
Botanical Department: 5; no Indian.
Archæological Survey: 9; one Indian.
Miscellaneous Appointments: 39; one Indian.
The Indian Legislative Council:—
Total strength 67, out of which 35, besides the Governor General are always officials, only one of which is an Indian; of the remaining 32, 28 are Indian members, including 3 nominated by the Government, i.e., a total of 20 out of 67.
Provincial Government:
All Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and Chief Commissioners of Provinces are British.
In Provinces having Executive Councils of three or more, one is an Indian.
Secretaries and Heads of Departments are all Britishers. Of the large army of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, perhaps one in each Province is an Indian.
Services:
Army: No Indian is eligible to a commissioned rank.
Indian Civil Service: (on the first of April, 1913) out of a total cadre of 1318, only 46 were Indians.
Indian Medical Service: Little over 5 per cent. are Indians.
In Provincial Legislative Councilshaving very restricted powers of legislation, theelectedIndians are in a minority everywhere.
Literally.
Males, 106 per 1000, i.e., about 10½ per cent.
Females, only 10 per 1000, i.e., about 1 per cent.
All these figures are taken from the Indian Year Book, published by the Times of India Press, Bombay, for the years 1914 and 1915.
(An extract fromNew India, a paper edited by Mrs. Annie Besant.)
The tragedy of Mr. Ramcharan Lal, the ex-editor of theSwaraj, continues. Mr. Macleod, the city magistrate of Nagpur, has sentenced him to an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment after his sentence has expired for ‘refusing to work.’ Our readers will remember thecase. This unfortunate political prisoner—whose analogues in foreign countries have been welcomed and protected on British soil—under-going a sentence of imprisonment, was so brutally flogged for refusing to do work, which he says was more than he could do, that the prison doctor admits that he would have been unable to work for four days after the flogging, and six weeks after it the skin was still discoloured and two serious scars remained. Now he has a heavy sentence of six months’ additional imprisonment. Is this British treatment of a political prisoner? Why did Britons protest against the use of the knout on political prisoners in Russia? Is there no one in the House of Commons who will ask a question on this case, and demand an enquiry into the treatment of political prisoners in India?
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,K,L,M,N,P,R,S,T,V,W,Z
AAbul Fazal,52Abul Qasim,70Ahmad Khan (Sir Syed),115Akbar,71,72,73,74Alberuni,52Alexander the Great,68Al-Hilal,62Asoka,9,11,12,69Aurangzeb,52,73,95BBall, Charles (Indian Mutiny),105Bankim, Chandra,190,191Bannerjea (Sir G.),171Bonnerjea, W. C.,133Barendra,194Bengalee(newspaper),24Besant, Annie,50,115Blavatsky,115Burke, Edmund,76,77,99CChamberlain, Austen,28Chirol (Sir V.),1,29Colvin (Sir A.),124Comrade,62Curzon (Lord),29,88,89,147,156,158,159,239,240DDalhousie,97D. A. V. College,165David, Rhys,68Dayal, Har,152,156,195 to 199,211Dayanand (Saraswati),115Dickinson (Lowes),5Dufferin (Lord),121,122,138,142EEnglishman (The),168,169,182FFaizi,52Fergusson College,164Fuller (Sir W. B.),177GGaekwar (Baroda),88Gálib,52Ghosh, Arabinda,152,155,172 to 175,183,205,209,211Gokhale, G. K.,135,137,159 to 161,181,199,216,237Gossain (Narendra),194Govind (Singh),95,102Greece,11Gupta Empire,13Gupta, Chandra,9,10,68,69Gupta, Samundra,13,14HHamdard,62Hardinge (Lord),121,184Hastings, Warren,99Havell, E. B.,12Holmes (History of the Sepoy War),104;(History of the Indian Mutiny),105Hume (A. O.),122,124 to 127,130,135,137,140,144IIbn, Batuta,52Ilbert (Bill),119KKali,189,190Kaye (History of the Mutiny),103,104,106Kipling, Rudyard,1LLancashire,62,75Law, Bonar,28Leader(newspaper),27Lincoln, Abraham,31Lytton, Lord,116,118MMacdonald, J. Ramsay,181,182Macdonnel, Lord,29,239,240Malleson (History of the Mutiny),103,104,106Manchester,62Mazhar-ul-Haq,53Megasthenes,69Mill (History of Br. India),68Minto (Lord),179Mohani, Abul Hasan Hasrat,183Müller, Max,1Muslim League,49,52Muslim Gazette,62NNaoroji Dadabhai,133,137,179Nath, Ajudhia,133National Council of Education,171National Congress, Indian,122-145National College,173Nepal,13Nevinson, H. W.,181,182Noble, Miss,1PPal, B. C.,162,183,190Partap, Rana,71,72,73Pillai, Chidambaran,183Plassey,96Pratt,3Prithvi, Raj,70RRai, Lajpat,181,183Ramakrishna Mission,215Ranade,115,133Rawlinson,10,11Reay, Lord,123Ripon, Lord,119 to 122Roberts (Charles),28Robertson, Sir G. Scott,29Roy, Ram Mohan,111SSamaj, Arya,117,215Samaj, Brahmo,111,215Savarkar,210,211Seleucus,68Sher Shah,52,73Shah Jahan,52Sikhs,73,102Sinha, Sir S. P.,31Smith, Vincent,10,11,12,13,15Sivaji,95,129Surat,148Swadeshi,148,168Swaraj,148Sydenham, Lord,29,239,240TTagore,5Teg, Bahadur Guru,95,102Theosophical Society,117Tilak (Bal Ganga Dhar),28,133,155,162,183Tod, Colonel,73Tyabji,133VVictoria, Queen,13Vidyasagar,164Vikramadityas,14Vivekananda,115,193WWacha,39,41Wedderburn (Sir W.),122,128,137,144Wellesly, Lord,97.Wilson (History of India),94ZZamindar(newspaper),62
YOUNG INDIA
BYLAJPAT RAI
COMMENTS ON THE FIRST EDITION
New York Evening Post:
“He must be indifferent or unimaginative indeed who can read unmoved the pages of this volume. They are so instinct with passion of a consuming emotion, so fired with the force of a national conviction, that it is impossible to believe they can fail to impress all to whom liberty is more than a name and country more than a mere geographical expression. Of the facts and aspirations they so vividly record, few are more competent to speak than their author, for Lajpat Rai has long been in the forefront of the Indian Nationalist movement, and has suffered as well as striven in the promotion of its cause.”
The New Statesman(London):
“This is emphatically a book to be read by the Secretary of State for India himself, as well as by the members of the Council and the clerks in the India Office. It ought to be pondered over by every Indian civilian. It is not that it brings any new indictment against British rule in India, though much that Mr. Lajpat Rai says is very uncomfortable reading; but it reveals, alike to the Indian bureaucracy and to the British public, how unexpectedly acute and well-informed is the criticism to which our somewhat slow and stupid Administration is subjected, how completely it is out of touch with the thought of educated ‘Young India;’ how far we are from getting into sympathetic accord with the feelings and aspirations of the educated classes, Mussulman as well as Hindoo.... Those who read Mr. Lajpat Rai’s very significant volume (Will the Indian Government even allow it to enter India?) will not agree with all his statements or proposals. But they deserve to be widely read and carefully weighed. Every Briton would be the better for reading them. And they deserve an answer—not merely a reasoned refutation by the India Office of that which it thinks erroneous or perverse, but, what is much more important, a prompt reform of all that the India Office does not venture to defend.”
Reedy’s Mirror(St. Louis):
“The book is profoundly interesting as showing what the native thinks of British rule in India. Heretofore we have seen almost wholly through Caucasian eyes—mostly the eyes, of Englishmen, members of the government bureaucracy or missionaries, who have represented England as the great benefactor of India. Through the eyes of Mr. Rai we see an entirely different India—an India under a perfect despotism, in the main a benevolent despotism, but which does not hesitate to use the mailed hand when opposed.”
The Nation(London):
“The whole book is a definite and we believe an accurate statement of the present feeling among a rapidly increasing body of young and educated Indians who have learnt the value of political freedom and the difficulty of winning or retaining it.”
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR (IN ENGLISH)
THE ARYA SAMAJ
An account of its origin, doctrines and activities, with a Biographical Sketch of the Founder. With an Introduction by Professor Sidney Webb, LL.B., of the London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London.) With 10 Illustrations.Crown 8vo. pp. xxvi+305, price, $1.75 net.Professor Sidney Webb in the Preface which he has written to this book says—“I believe that this is the first book dealing with what may possibly prove to be the most important religious movement in the whole of India.” The author, Mr. Lajpat Rai, gives a biographical account of the Swami Dayananda, who was the founder of the Arya Samaj, and died in 1883. Since then the organization which Dayananda founded has increased enormously, and numbered 243,000 members in 1911, having more than doubled since 1901.
The Arya Samaj aims at a thorough reformation of the religion of Hinduism. It advocates the abolition of the worship of Idols and desires that the Hindu religion should be restored to the pure and lofty Monotheism of the Vedas which it believes to be the sole source of religious truth. Mr. Blunt, I.C.S., in the census report for the United Province for 1911 calls it “the greatest religious movement in India of the past half century.”