i6 
i.AlNU & WATER 
September 20, 1917 
The Future of India 
By F. A. de V. Robertson 
Tlie writer of this article lids a very mde experience of 
India in several non-official rapacities. Wlun the war 
began, lie uas called out as an officer of (he Indian Army 
Reserve and was present at the second batlle of Ypres and 
I-cstuhert. He has since been invalided out of the Army. 
TUKKE recent events ougltt to turn the attention 
of all Imperialists to the ques^n of reforming the 
constitution of India. They are the approach- 
ing \-isit to Delhi of Mr. Montagu, Secretary for 
Indian Affairs, the speech delivered by Lord Islington early 
last month at the Oxford Summer Meeting, and the publica- 
tion by the Aga Khan of the " political testament" of the 
late Mr. G. K. Gokhale. 
The four names mentioned are all signiticant. Mr. Montagu 
was Under Secretary for India under Lord Morley, who carried 
a far reaching scheme of Indian reform. Lord Islington was 
Chairman of the recent Royal Commission which investigated 
the conditions of the Indian Public Services, and is now Under 
Secretary for India. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a Mahratta 
Bralimah, was the ablest 'and the most respected advocate of 
progressive Home Rule for India ; while the iVga Khan; who 
professes himself in heatty agreement with Mr. Gokhale's 
scheme, is the political leader of Indian Mussulmans. • 
Two reasons readily occur to the public mind for granting 
Indians a greater share in the governing of their country: 
(a) India's loyalty during the war, and (b) the acknowledged 
fact that this is a'war of democracy, and that under its impulse, 
it is the right and the duty of Englishmen to advance the 
democratic principle throughout their Empire. Each reason 
requires some examination, for the circumstances of India are 
not universally known in this country, and they differ consider- 
ably from the circumstances in other parts of the Empire. 
India's loyalty has been manifested in two ways. Her army 
has fought gallantly in three continents, generously supported 
by.the Native States ; while in British India German plotters 
have failed to create a disturbance and Indian politicians 
have rallied to the support of the Government. 
The Military Races 
The valour of the army, however, is only an indirect reason 
for instituting political reforms. The races frgm which the 
soldiers are recruited have slight connection with the educated 
politicians of Bengal, Madras and the Deccan, nor have Indian 
soldiers any cause to love Indian politicians. For years past 
the latter have clamoured for increased military economy, 
and we know now whither military economy has led us. At 
the outbreak of war the Indian sepoy's pay was a miserable 
pittance, and it has only recently been raised. No scheme of 
political reform has yet been advanced by jvhich the martial 
races would gain either power or profit, and it has remained 
for the present Viceroy. Lord Chelmsford, to nominate a 
retii-ed In<Jian officer to "his Legislative Council. On the other 
hand the rally of Liberal and Radical politicians round the 
flag arouses gratitude and gives a sense" of security for the 
future. In short, as there has been no rebellion in India 
during this war we may feel reasonably certain that there will 
not be another, so the British Raj runs no great risk if the 
Government indulges iii political experiments. The only risk 
is that injudicious reforms may do harm to the majority of 
the Indian people. 
As for advancing the democratic principle in India, the 
reformer must ask himself quo vadis and look carefully to see 
if eacli projected reform will take him nearer the desired end. 
Confusion of ideas may easily result in the reformer defeating 
his own purpose. The inhabitants of India are divided among 
themselves by race, language and religion, and the Hindus 
are further divided into hereditary' castes. But for present 
purposes it is enough to bear in mind the division into literates 
and illiterates. The former number a few hundred thousand, 
mostly lawyers and clerks ; the latter number over 300 
million agriculturists. There are, of course, others besides 
lawyers and clerks who are literate, either in their own 
vernacular or even in English. Neariy all the ruling Princes 
and the richer landlords of British India, the subordinate 
officials, the nativ:" bankers and merchants, the Indian officers 
and non-commissioned officers of the Army, all are literate 
at least in tha vernacular, while in Madras most of the domestic 
sen-ants can read and write English. But their interests are 
not identical with those of the English educated party which 
demands political reform. 
The ruling Princes are not British subjects, and are not 
directly concerned. The landlords vary in their opinions, but 
on the whole incline to favour caution rather than speed 
in altering the constitution. It is safe to say that were any 
system established of open voting by all literates, the class 
which chiefly consists of lawyers and clerks would sweep 
the polls. But, as is shown below, it is not likely that such a 
system will be' introduced. It is inconceivable that the 
illiterate can receive the franchise, and it remains to be seen if 
they will benefit by the bestowal of a wider franchise on the 
literates. The question of caste also affects the matter, as it 
affects all Hindu questions. Castes are based upon hereditary 
occupations, and the literate class for the most part come 
from castes whose occupations are sedentary^ — Brahmans, 
Kayasthas, etc. In relation to British officials the Hindu 
literates are Liberals or Radicals ; in relation to the mass of the 
Indian peasantry they are an hereditary oIigarch3'. 
Reform Schemes 
But perhaps it is not necessary that reform schemes should 
be labelled democratic, despite the entente between the party 
which Mr. Gokhale led and the party to which Lord Morley 
and Mr. Montagu belong. Let us briefly examine the scheme 
put forward by Lord Islington (who declared that he spoke 
only for himself) and Mr. Gokhale. They are ver>' similar 
in many points. Both favour a large extension of provincial 
autonomy, and there are few with long experience of India 
who will quarrel with this principle. India is too vast and 
varied to be satisfactorily ruled in detail by one central 
Government. A federal model was indeed contemplated by 
Lord Hardinge's Government in the despatch of 1911 which 
proposed the substitution of Delhi for Calcutta as the capital of 
India. One of the best reasons for the change of capital was 
that the Government, which in reality ruled all provinces, was 
apt to be influenced by the opinions of the province of Bengal, 
when it resided at Calcutta, while Madras and Burma com- 
plained of neglect. The provinces of India differ from each 
other as do the countries of Europe. The present writer has 
worked in five of the provinces and can vouch that each trans- 
fer seemed like a move to a new country — as indeed it was. 
In fact it is a question whether the provinces should not be 
further sub-divided, Oudh separated from Agra, Orissa and 
Chota Nagpur from Bihar, and Malabar, Canara and the 
Telugu country from Madras. But this by the way. 
Into all the details of provincial autonomy as proposed 
by Lord Islington and Mr. Gokhale it is not necessary' to enter 
here. The most radical change proposed is Mr. Gokhale's 
wash that not less than four-fifths of a provincial Council 
should be elected. This would at first throw great power 
into the hands of the literate class of Indians. Mr, Gokhale 
would reserve two safety checks in the Government's veto 
and in the official majority in the Governor-General's Legis- 
lative .\ssembly. These hardly seem adequate, as either could 
only' be used sparingly. There is already a majority of non- 
official members in each Provincial Legislative Council, and 
it is obvioufr that any reform framed to satisfy the demands 
of educated Indians must increase that majority. But so 
large an elected majority as four-fifths would be unwise. Eng- 
land cannot yet resign the greater part of her responsibility 
for the welfare of India. 
Moreover, the educated Hindus will not have things all 
their own way. The principle of community representation 
has come to stay in India, thanks chiefly to the Aga Khan. 
Mohammedans will everywhere elect their own representatives, 
and may secure a majority in the Punjab. The important 
communities of British planters, merchants and tradesmen 
must have a voice in proportion to their importance. Wealthy 
zavtindars (squires) will be a notable factor, especially in 
Oudh, and any scheme which ignored their great stake in the 
country would be defective. In Madras the quick-witted 
Pariahs and Native Christians (they are often but not in- 
variably identical) ought soon to be able to make their influence 
felt ; and finally as primary education spreads, the peasants 
will be able to elect their own members to the Council board. 
Both Lord Islington and Mr. Gokhale desire a develop- 
ment of Local Self-Govemment in municipalities and district 
boards. This was the sphere in which the British people 
learnt to rule themselves, and by this medium it was hoped 
that the Indians would learn the same lesson. Considerable 
opportunities have been offered for some time past, but on 
the whole the results have been disappointing. Again we 
must hope for an improvement in time. 
Both reformers also desire an extension, or rather a revival, 
of the powers of Punchayats, or village councils. This must 
be heartily approved. The Punchayats are truly native 
