INDIA’S NEED.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1921, Page 8

INDIA’S NEED.

FOR RULE OF BRITISH.

CORRUPTION MAKES HOME RULE AT PRESENT IMPOSSIBLE.

(The Christian Science Monitor.) Calcutta, March 17.

There are many people who speak about home rule for India, who judge the position on western standards and western ideas alone, completely ignoring the state of affairs which actually exists. In previous dispatches it has been pointed out how the caste question and the kaleidoscopic mixture of religions, races and interests makes it impossible for a satisfactory government to be formed within these factors, which will be satisfactory for the whole. There is yet another factor of enormous importance and that is the inherent corruption among the Indians themselves. Every thinking man will admit, firstly, that it is impossible for a nation, the individual members of which are inherently corrupt, to devise any form of government which will not be as corrupt as the individual; and secondly, that rule by the British is infinitely preferable to rule by a corrupt Indian Government, more especially in a country where nearly the whole population consists of petty cultivators, ignorant and incapable of protecting themselves. \

A GLARING EXAMPLE.

Corruption in the East is oroverbial. There is the example of practically every Asiatic nation ruled by itself, where the poor man has no hope of jus rice, where might and money are right, entailing misery and . injustice to millions for the benefit of a rich few’. India itself, before it was taken over by the British, was one of the most glaring examples in history. Quite apart from this general statement there is independent and convincing evidence of this corrupt mo”al state of India as it stands to-day, namely, the legislation and precautions which it has been necessary for the British to introduce into their form of government in order to cope with this evil. Take the point of evidence in criminal cases. There is probably not a nation in the world where it is more difficult to obtain a conviction on given evidence than in India.

A perusal of the Indian Evidence Act will show what extraordinarily severe limits are fixed, to rule what is relevant evidence in a court, and how carefully it has been necessary to lay down the procedure for recording and obtaining evidence. For example; no statement made in the pre’ence of a police officer is relevant, that is to say, that a criminal may make a full confession of Ahis crime to a police officer, and yet t!»at police officer may not mention the that a confession has been made when the case comes up for trial. It may be asked, “Why\ all these precautions?” Simply because experience has shown the British that -witnesses and evidence can be so easily bought, and that .the individual is so corrupt, that they are absolutely necessary in the interests of justice.

NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS.

Again, there exists a government rule to the effect that no government servant may accept a present, even of fruit or flowers, from any person within his district; nor may he-buy or sell anything valuable within his district. These are merely precautions to prevent the Indian officials from accepting, bribes under cover of presents or purchases or sales. Again, a perusal of the various provincial police codes will show what precautions are necessary to cope with this evil. A police officer must record every official movement or action taken by him immediately on his station dairy. When investigating a case he must record all steps taken, all developments, anu every bit of evidence as it occurs, or is received. This dairy he must dispatch to headquarters every evening. This is a precaution to prevent the Indian police officer from altering subsequently facts and statements to fit his case. More than half the w’ork laid down for superior officers consists of supervision over subordinates to prevent justice being bought and sold. The above are merely examples of the precautions taken throughout every public department to cope with corruption. That it has been necessary to frame sup}’ stringent rules is proof positive of the extraordinary corruption inherent in the Indian and it is just this corruption which makes rule of India by Indians so impossible. It takes all the ingenuity of the European services to prevent corruption and extortion of the worst order from prevailing in the administration of India.

RIGHT AND WRONG FOR INDIA.

To remove the European would be to do away with justice and right; the latter would be might, and the former a matter of payment simply. The poor man—i. e., in India, the low caste petty cultivator —would suffer terribly and the rich man—i. e., the high caste educated man—would do exactly as he pleased and his pleasure is no nice matter to contemplate. India is chiefly comprised of the petty low caste cultivator, and not the educated high caste man, who alone is seen or heard of by the westerner. When one considers what is right and what is wrong for India, it is what is right and what is wrong for the petty cultivator ’ and for nobody else. With the admittedly high moral standard of the British services in India, there is no possible doubt that British rule is absolutely necessary for the present for the petty cultivator.