The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 30. INDIA AND SEA POWER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 42, 30 May 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 30. INDIA AND SEA POWER.

There is no greater marvel of government than the holding of India by the British people. When it is considered that about two hundred and fifty million .people are directly ruled by British soldiers and civilians, and that many native provinces besides the fourteen subject to Britain are under the suzerainty of the Crown, the results are very wonderful The Indian Army, both in regard to the British soldiers and the splendid native troops, has a magnificent reputation not only for fighting, wut for work, organisation, and tact. The Indian civilian, when uninfluenced by social considerations, is the best type of official in the world. It is generally held that India is not particularly vulnerable from the north except by an immensely powerful enemy willing; to sacrifice a great deal, and it is not within the present range of possibility that China will swarm over the border into the rich mysterious' land where Britain rules peoples speaking hundreds of languages, having many varieties of religions, customs, and habits, and being generally fatalistic in tendency. It seems to be the habit of these peoples to be subject, although 'their princes and leaders are men of great influence, mental power, and immense wealth. There is no doubt that if the Indian Empire was lost to Britain the magnificent territory would still' be subject. The Empire has an enormous coastline, held by naval experts to be vulnerable at many points, but, curiously, India herself makes no attempt at naval protection. Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, one of the soundest naval critics in the Empire, has lately interested himself in the matter of naval protection for India. The Admiral points out thait it is very strange, seeing that the naval position in the Australasian colonies is being thoroughly investigated, that the master of Indian naval defence is allowed to remain a matter of no official interest. India used to have a navy, for as far back as 1613 the company which was granted a charter in East India raised a very fine navy necessary for the protection of the coast from pirates- and sea criminals generally. Admiral Bridge quotes Colonel Stanhope as having said: "Never was there a ship of the Bombay Marine which lowered tier flag to an enemy of equal force." When the Crown assumed the government of India, it took over the navy and made it the Royal Indian Navy, but the supposition is that jealousy from headquarters was the reason of its disbandment. A navy manned, recruited, and l kept up by a company, however efficient, did not please the Admiralty. Before the extinction of the Indian Navy the average annual cost was about £350,000. The revenue of British India was then twenty-one million pounds. It is now nearly four times that amount; and the Admiral points out that India could well afford to pay a million and a quarter pounds annually for naval defence. The Spectator calls attention to the grave neglect by India in the matter of Imperial naval co-operation. In the opinion of that paper, India does not at present contribute her proper share to the naval power of the Empire. India has of late failed to give any support to British supremacy at sea. India is peculiarly liable to invasion by sea. If, •then, we lost command of the sea, not only should we lose India, but it may be taken for certain that the Power to which the sceptre of the sea had been transferred would ultimately fill our place in India and become the master of her three 'hundred millions. The Spectator is -perfectly sure that no Indian, however much he may detest the British, would desire to see our place taken by any other European Power, least of all by Germany. We ought to restore the Bombay Marine, or to give it its older

and better title, the Indian Navy. The Spectator adds: "We most sincerely trust that the British people will take up the consideration of this question and will insist that India shall not be deterred from contributing to the naval force which secures the command of the sea for Britain by any Admiralty punctilios—e.g., the contention that the naval force raised by the Indian Government would be worse than useless because, it would have two masters. Such a force proved anything but useless in the past, and would not prove worthless in the future." We in New Zealand are naturally vitally interested in the matter, not only because the conquest of India would mean the partition of the Empire, and our great danger, but because we, who need naval protection far less than does India, contribute according to our small means to the upkeep of the Navy. Australia has become quite convinced of the value of naval protection not only by helping with an adequate sum, but by building the nucleus of a navy of her own, and in training Australians in the British Navy. Although we in New Zealand are not apparently concerned with India, its future is of creat' concern to ns. We do not want India to fall into the hands of any other Power than Britain, because we do not want New Zealand to fly any other flag than the Union Jack. And the Power that takes India can take New Zealand "blindfolded and with one hand tied behind its back." to use one of Admiral Beresford's forcible remarks. The "maintenance of the Empire" may have a sound of jingoism about it, and individuals may scoff at preparations for

its defence. If the scoffers will read the story of only one war—any war will do —and will imagine the conquered country to be New Zealand, they will scoff no more. The upkeep of an Indian Navy, iau Australian Navy, a Canadian Navy—the whole glorious Imperial Navy —means that you will be. allowed to walk this country and to talk your own language and to be a fairly free man. The partition of the Empire what would it mean? Turn to your history books and read what it has always meant to the subject races.