...

Dominion Government has ordered the deportation of the Indians who were allowed to land from the Monteagle. . . . It appears that seventy-eight of the Indians on arriving at Hong-kong from Calcutta were unable to obtain accommodation in the first steamer, as it was full, and they had to stay at Hong-kong for a month. The Dominion Government rules that these immigrants are not to be admitted, as they did not come direct from the land of their birth. One hun dred and five Indians came by continuous passage from Calcutta, but the Ottawa authorities demand proof that they are the men who purchased the tickets, and of course this proof is impossible to furnish. . . . I saw the Indians examined by the Federal immigration officer on Sunday. Many wore medals won in the Sudan and other campaigns, medals which a certain member of the British Columbian Legislature recently termed 'tinpot adornments.' . . . There is in Vancouver a well-known Indian official who sails by the Empress of Japan tomorrow. He assumes that there will be grave danger of disaffection, even mutiny, among the native troops, if these men are deported. I can vouch for the fact that there is intense indignation among the Indians. The order spells tragedy for them. 'We are subjects of the King,' they say, 'this is part of the King's dominions. Why do they keep us out?'

A more interesting or more deplorable commentary on the methods of civilised government could hardly be furnished by any other incident in recent times. Here are the subjects of an Empire which professes equal rights for all races and creeds under its sway, and which makes in theory equity and fair treatment the corner-stone of its policy, proceeding from one part of the King's dominions to the other. There is nothing against their conduct, many of them have served their Sovereign in the profession to which civilisation accords the foremost place of honour they possess the insignia of bravery and good conduct. And yet from accident of birth in one continent they are refused permission to abide on the soil of a British Colony and subjected to treatment which shocks even the advocates of exclusion. The feeling which these acts engender in British India can scarcely fail to cause some degree of concern among the responsible Ministers of the Crown. Nor are they likely to forget that the Indian subjects of the Sovereign cannot apprehend the reasons which stand in the way of England in securing for them equal rights in other parts of the Empire. To the people of India she owes special obligations, both by virtue of her pledges and their place in history. Naturally, when the Imperial Government acknowledges its inability to insist upon the same treatment being accorded to them in British Colonies as is accorded to the Colonials in India, it is regarded as a lamentable confession of weakness. So long as this idea does not take an articulate shape it may perhaps be ignored as a factor in Imperial policy, but once it gives rise to a comparison, as it has begun to do, between the power of Great Britain and that of other States to protect its subjects from humiliations and restrictions the matter assumes an aspect that needs serious reflection.

Although little or no analogy exists between the East African possessions of England and the South African Colonies, the spirit

of

exclusiveness and monopoly has begun its work also there. And it is boldly urged on behalf of the few Europeans that have settled in the Protectorate, that British Indians should be debarred from entering this part of the King's dominions. In considering this demand it may be useful to remember what the Colonial Under-Secretary of State said a little while ago at the National Liberal Club, that Indian trade had been for generations intimately associated with the whole development of trade and of commerce throughout that tract, and that the very maintenance of the authority of the Crown was in the hands of Indian soldiers.

For ages this part of the African continent has been permeated by Arab and Indian influence. There are at present, it is stated on good authority, nearly 30,000 Asiatics settled in the country, prosperous merchants, officials, traders, artisans, and labourers. All these it is suggested should be turned out in favour of European settlers. A more extraordinary claim has never been advanced in the name of civilisation. The ostensible reason for their exclusion is that the ordinary so-called 'white' settler cannot compete with the Asiatic in the struggle for existence. The Asiatic's thrift, frugality, sobriety, and temperance give him an advantage which the other does not commonly possess. In his dealings with the natives he is less arrogant and more sympathetic, which is another point in his favour. But these qualities, which in other conditions would ensure his being regarded as a desirable citizen and a pioneer of civilisation among barbarous tribes, make him unpopular among those who are anxious to keep the Continent as a close preserve for themselves.

One would have thought that with the spread of civilisation and a higher conception of humanity and justice, European communities would evince greater toleration and accord a larger recognition to the rights of weaker nationalities. The desire to seize upon the most favoured spots of God's creation in every part of the habitable globe and prevent others from coming in can hardly be regarded as a commendable characteristic. If civilisation and humanity have any meaning, members of all civilised nationalities have prima facie a title to abide, if they can find room, wherever their presence is of general use. Certainly all subjects of the same Sovereign might be presumed to possess an inherent right to move from one part of his dominions to another without molestation or hindrance. But modern civilisation does not seem to acquiesce in the equitable treatment of all races with which it has civilised dealings, and from which it expects civilised treatment. It places the claims of special communities before those of humanity at large. If the contention be right that European settlers should be allowed to flourish and multiply in new possessions which did not belong to them, and where they have recently established themselves, without the intrusion of Asiatics, might not the latter urge with greater emphasis that the intrusion of Europeans of lower

grades has an unwholesome and demoralising effect on their social systems? The British Indian can easily point his finger to the difficult and complicated problem which civilisation has created in the midst of his people by the creation of a community commonly called by educated Europeans' mean whites' and ' Eurasians.' Might not he ask with equal show of justice that undesirable aliens should be prevented from entering his country?

A little while ago a suggestion was seriously put forward that Asiatics should be 'rigidly and absolutely excluded from the African continent,' which should be specially reserved for Europeans and the black races. In the width of its scope the suggestion was startling; probably this very fact made it more or less innocuous. But the assertion that Europeans are the trustees' for the black races is somewhat humorous. It is one of the anomalies of Western civilisation' that in its dealings with the weak it makes its own interests the standard of the gospel it preaches to the world. The Asiatic cannot ordinarily be reduced to helotage; more or less he is in the same plane of advance as the lower grade European, the same spirit of enterprise takes him into new countries. The black races, save in some special tracts, are in a primitive state; their labours can be exploited for others; they dare not compete with members of the higher or better-endowed nationalities. If they were more advanced we should probably hear less of trusteeship.'

Although civilisation' eschews the word 'slavery,' it requires that the conditions of slavery should be more or less perpetuated for its benefit. We have heard much of the white man's burden'the burden of civilisation he is supposed to carry. But when we come to examine it we find it extremely light. The burden is only nominally on his shoulders; in reality the weight is transferred to those whose labours are exploited for his enrichment and comfort. The galley and the scourge have disappeared; the taskmaster still flourishes, and modern ingenuity has armed him with new instruments of punishment. The names are changed, but the substance remains. That this is no exaggeration any fair-minded student of the subject in the Congo, in parts of South and East Africa, will not hesitate to admit. The fearful havoc the work of civilising the Dark Continent' has caused among the tribes of Africa can be witnessed not only in the Congo Free State but also in the German East African Protectorate, where, according to the German Colonial Secretary, 75,000 natives perished through hunger and war in the course of the last year, whilst the fierce opposition roused by the efforts of the Minister to improve the status of the negroes illustrates the general thesis. The German settler does not clothe his aims or motives in altruistic language, nor does he call himself the trustee' of the black races. He frankly tells the world that the native must be compelled to work for him and that when the use of the stick and

2

whip no longer avails, recourse must be had to the imposition of taxes, which he must be forced to pay by his work if by no other means.' Civilisation has driven the Red Indians into reservations where they are fast disappearing. It has decimated the fine races of Polynesia and Maori-land. One is sometimes shocked to hear the pious hope expressed in unmistakable language that the black races will in course of time disappear, under the same process, from the favoured spots occupied by European settlers, leaving their possessions as assets to civilisation.'

The contact of a vigorous and progressive nationality with communities who had become stationary, or lost the genius for striving for advancement, might in India have given birth to an eclectic civilisation such as was witnessed after the settlement of the Arabs in Spain. There the result was achieved by making racial coalescement the goal. Such a consummation does not seem possible in India. Racial assimilation, owing to national idiosyncrasies, is not practicable: friendly relations between the West and the East afford the best and most likely means of bringing the two on a common platform. Intermixture of ideas where intermixture of races is not possible acts as a solvent to the ignorance and prejudices of both. And an Indian Sovereign has proved how successful this process can be.

To think of impressing European civilisation on the country, and not to enter into the feelings of the inhabitants; of promoting their welfare without attempting to reach their hearts; to talk of Western culture and its requirements and not to understand the virtues or idiosyncrasies of those among whom it is sought to be introduced; to contemn Oriental ways and yet to perpetuate in public life the methods which are deprecated in Oriental Governments, is mere waste of energy.

A few students turned out from one or two institutions with a pat on the back, as the products of advanced education conducted on Western lines, are hardly the harbingers of that progress to which we all look forward with anxiety and hopefulness. The high priests of European culture would probably obtain better results if they were to encourage in the first place among their neophytes the cultivation of originality of thought, independence of character, manliness of spirit, and self-respect, and not merely opportunism or intellectual imitativeness.

6

At no period in the world's history has there been so much talk about international peace with such ill-disguised preparation for war; so many protestations about and yet such unashamed contempt for the rights of weaker nations; such high appreciation of civilised morals with such flagrant disregard for the dictates of ordinary morality. In olden days nations and individuals made no special claims to special virtue, and their shortcomings passed unnoticed. Nowadays the assumption of superiority naturally attracts criticism.

2

Morning Post, 18th of March 1908; debate in the Reichstag.

In the United States of America 'graft,' an euphemism for what the Penal Code of India, with a touch of grim humour, calls 'illegal gratification,' has become a science, and the art of manipulating justice and politics has been carried to perfection. In the struggle for wealth little heed is paid to the conventional rules about mutual trust and fidelity. Even racial riots may be manufactured in the States and delivered at a fixed charge in neighbouring countries. All this, though no doubt the outcome of the highest development, is little calculated to commend civilisation' to less advanced communities, whilst it is hardly possible for its missionaries, with the picture in their minds of the streets of New York and Chicago, to speak to the outside world with the earnestness of conviction in the new gospel that is sometimes assumed towards followers of other cultures.

The ordinary Western mind has rather a vague conception of the East of its varied creeds and divers cultures. They are all classed in one category; some are viewed with positive dislike, others regarded with a certain indifference. But the deficiencies of the West that make it sometimes so helpless to influence the East often escape notice. To exercise a stimulating effect on Eastern thought, the Western world must learn to cultivate a spirit of toleration, to understand the genius of the nations among whom it seeks to work. Above all it has to realise not only the conditions of society that have led to the evolution of particular ethical and social systems, but also its own limitations. To condemn Eastern polygamy, but to close one's eyes to the polyandry of the West, is hardly calculated to foster a proper reverence for Occidental culture. The Oriental practice sanctioned by ancient usage, and confined within recognised limits by the rules of law, is suited for particular stages of development; it ensures to the issue of polygamous unions a degree of humanity that is impossible under the Western practice. Promiscuity cannot secure to the offspring humane treatment or rational rearing. Baby-farms and foundling hospitals are the natural results of abnormal social conditions. Eastern civilisations have condemned for ages the vice of drink; in the West drastic legislation seems needed to teach the people the value of temperance. Sobriety, however, is a virtue which cannot spring into existence under the influence of an Act of Parliament. Its growth is due in the East to ages of fostering," which the West is so far unaccustomed or unwilling to give. The preciousness of child-life has been taught in the East from immemorial times; the conscience of the West is just beginning to realise the need of its protection.

The difference in the standpoints of Europe and Asia, with regard to social conventions and duties of life, make it essential that in endeavouring to introduce Western civilisation among Eastern communities their ethical standards should be raised and not lowered.