PROTECTION 167 



theory; but the reason for my doing so is that, 

 if I may say so, the arguments making for Protec- 

 tion are more prominent in the mind of Indian 

 publicists than those which are hostile to it, and, 

 although I am very far from suggesting that this 

 Council approaches the subject with a bias in 

 favour of Protection, I am anxious that they 

 should clearly realise the facts which India would 

 have to face if such a policy were ultimately 

 adopted. On the other hand, I have refrained 

 from touching upon some of the most powerful 

 reasons that ought to make a country hesitate 

 before embarking on a Protectionist policy. For 

 example, I have not attempted to allude to the 

 financial aspects of Protection. That branch of 

 the subject would require a very lengthy explana- 

 tion. It would have to take cognisance of the 

 great alteration which a tariff wall in India would 

 effect in the balance of our trade, in the arrange- 

 ments that now exist for the payment of our ex- 

 ternal debt, and in the whole of our exchange 

 policy. This aspect of the question is one of 

 extraordinary complexity, as well as of no small 

 speculation; and I need hardly say that it would 

 have to be most exhaustively considered before 

 any steps could be taken towards Tariff Reform. 

 I have avoided any reference to the ethical aspects 

 of Protection as a State policy, but I would ear- 

 nestly ask all to study the inner history of the 

 influence of Protection upon political morality 

 in the countries where it has been established for 

 any length of time, and to consider with care 

 whether the risks which other countries have 

 experienced would be a fair burden to throw upon 

 the awakening political life of India. 



