# Young India (1916)/Appendices

Layout 2
APPENDICES
I
EXTRACTS FROM SIR HENRY COTTON’S
“NEW INDIA.”
Feudatory Chiefs Powerless. “ It would perhaps be ungenerous to probe too narrowly the dependent position and consequent involuntary action of the feudatory chiefs. They are powerless to protect themselves. There is no judicial authority to which they can appeal. There is no public opinion to watch their interests. Technically independent under the suzerainty of the Empire, they are practically held in complete subjection. Their rank and honours depend on the pleasure of a British Resident at their Court, and on the secret and irresponsible mandates of a Foreign Office at Simla” (page 34)Gross Insults to Indians. “ That intense Anglo-Saxon spirit of self-approbation which is unpleasantly perceptible in England itself, and is so often offensive among vulgar Englishmen on the Continent, very soon becomes rampant in India.
“There are innumerable instances in which pedestrians have been abused and struck because they have not lowered their umbrellas at the sight of a sahib on the highway. There are few Indian gentlemen even of the highest rank who have not had experience of gross insults when travelling by railway, because Englishmen object to sit in the same carriage with a native” (pages
APPENDICES
II
SOME OPINIONS ABOUT BRITISH INDIA
Industrial Ruin of India. Gokhale. “ When we come to this question of India’s Industrial domination by England, we come to what may be described as the most deplorable result of British rule in this country. In other matters there are things on the credit side and things on the debit side. . . . But when you come to the industrial field, you will find that the results have been disastrous. You find very little here on the credit side and nearly all the entries on the debit side. Now this is a serious statement to make, but I think it can be sub-stantiated.”
India a Mere Possession. Gokhale. “ India formed the largest part of the Empire, but was governed as a mere possession of the British people. Three features showed that it had no part or lot in the Empire. In the first place, the people were kept disarmed; it was thought to be dangerous to allow them to carry arms. Secondly, they had absolutely no voice in the government of their own country; they were expressly disqualified from holding certain high offices, and practically excluded from others. Lastly, they were not allowed a share in the privileges of the Empire in any portion outside British India, except a limited one in the United Kingdom itself.”—Mr. Gokhale.
Masses Starved. Sir C. A. Elliott. “I do not hesitate to say that half our agricultural population never know from year’s end to year’s end what it is to have their hunger fully satisfied.”—Sir C. A. Elliott, onetime Lieut.-Governor of Bengal.
Sir W. W. Hunter. In 1880. “ There remain forty millions of people who go through life on insufficient food.”— Sir W. W. Hunter.
William Digby. In 1893. The Pioneer sums up Mr. Grierson’s facts regarding the various sections of the ​population in Gaya: “ Briefly, it is that all the persons of the labouring classes, and ten per cent, of the cultivating and artisan classes, or forty-five per cent, of the total population, are insufficiently clothed, or insufficiently fed, or both. In Gaya district this would give about a million persons without sufficient means of support. If we assume that the circumstances of Gaya are not exceptional,— and there is no reason for thinking otherwise — it follows that nearly one hundred millions of people in British India are living in extreme poverty.” In 1901. “ The poverty and suffering of the people are such as to defy description. In fact, for nearly fifteen years there has been a continuous famine in India owing to high prices.”
70,000,000 Continually Hungry People in British India. W. Digby. “ Since Sir William Hunter's remarks were made the population has increased (or is alleged to have increased) by nearly thirty millions. Meanwhile the income of the Empire has greatly decreased during thism period. Wherefore this follows: that is, if with the same income, in 1880 forty millions were insufficiently fed, the additional millions cannot have had, cannot now have, enough to eat; this, again, ensues: —
40,000,000 plus, say, 30,000,000, make 70,000,000; and there are this number of continually hungry people in British India at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.” —William Digby, C. I. E.
Deaths from Famine from 1891 to 1900 alone: 19,000,000.
Total area under cultivation. In the year 1911-12, the total area under food grains was over 195 million acres, plus 7.5, i. e. over 202x/z million acres.
In 1912-13, India exported foodstuffs of the value of over 260 million dollars.
In 1913-14 she exported about 216 million dollars’ worth of foodstuffs.
Famines of Money, not Food. Lord G. Hamilton. “ The recent famines are famines of money, and not of ​food"— Lord G. Hamilton, former Secretary of State.
Causes of Famines. 1. National industries deliberately crushed by the East India Co. cannot revive under existing conditions.
2. Annual drain of India.
3. Lack of such education as will enable people to develop their resources.
Drain. Montgomery Martin. “ The annual drain of £3,000,000 from British India has mounted in thirty years,at 12 per cent, (the usual Indian rate) compound interest,to the enormous sum of £723,900,000 sterling.”— Montgomery Martin.(In 1830.)
Digby. “ During the last thirty years of the century the average drain cannot have been far short of £30,000,000 per year, or, in the thirty years, £900,000,000, not reckoning interest! ”— Sir William Digby.
Enormous Foreign Tribute. Rev. J. T. Sunderland. Rev. J. T, Sunderland in his work “ The Causes of Famine in India,” like all impartial writers, has conclusively proved that neither “ failure of rains ” nor “ over population ” is the cause of famines in India.
He has stated that the real cause of famine is the extreme, the abject, the awful poverty of the Indian people caused by “ Enormous Foreign Tribute,” “British Indian Imperialism ” and the destruction of Indian industries.
Government assessment too high. Sir W. Hunter. “ The government assessment does not leave enough food to the cultivator to support himself and his family throughout the year.”— Sir William Hunter, K. C. S. I., in the Viceroy’s Council, 1883.
The Ryot. Herbert Compton. “There is no more pathetic figure in the British Empire than the Indian peasant. His masters have ever been unjust to him. He is ground until everything has been expressed, except the marrow of his bones.”—Mr. Herbert Compton in “ Indian Life,” 1904.
​Hindustan is an extensive agricultural country and the average land produces two crops a year, and in Bengal there are lands which produce thrice a year. Bengal alone produces such large crops that they are quite sufficient to provide all the population of Hindustan for two years.
Indian Plunder. Adam Brooks. Adam Brooks says, (“Laws of Civilization and Decay,” page 259-246) “Very soon after the Battle of Plassey (fought in 1757) the Bengal Plunder began to arrive in London and the effect appears to have been almost instantaneous. Probably since the world began, no investment has yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder. The amount of treasure wrung from the conquered people and transferred from India to English banks between Plassey and Waterloo (57 years) has been variously estimated at from $2,500,000,000 to $5,000,000,000. The methods of plunder and embezzlement, by which every Briton in India enriched himself during the earlier history of the East India Company, gradually passed away, but the drain did not pass away. The difference between that earlier day and the present is, that India’s tribute to England is obtained by “indirect methods,” under forms of law. It is estimated by Mr. Hyndman that at least $175,000,000 is drained away every year from India, without a cent’s return.”
Swami Abhedananda. “ India pays interest on England’s debt, which in 1900 amounted to 244 millions sterling, and which annually increases. Besides this, she pays for all the officers, civil and military, and a huge standing army, pensions of officers, and even the cost of the India Building in London, as well as the salary of every menial servant of that house. For 1901-2 the total expenditure charged against revenue was $356,971,410.00, out of which $84,795,515.00 was spent in England as Home Charges, not including the pay of European officers in India, saved and remitted to England.—Swami Abhedananda (“India and Her People”).
Alfred Webb (late M.P.): “In charges for the India ​Office (in London); for recruiting (in Great Britain, for soldiers to serve in India); for civil and military pensions (to men now living in England, who were formerly in the Indian service); for pay and allowances on furloughs (to men on visits to England); for private remittances and consignments (for India to England); for interest on Indian debt (paid to parties in England); and for interest on railways and other works (paid to shareholders in England), there is annually drawn from India and spent in the United Kingdom, a sum calculated at from £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 (Between $125,000,000 and $150,000,000).”
“Narrow and Shortsighted Imperial Policy.” Sir Archibald R. Colquehoun. “The present condition of affairs undoubtedly renders the struggle for existence a hard one, as may be realized when it is considered that a vast population of India not only from the inevitable droughts which so frequently occur, but also from a narrow and shortsighted imperial policy which places every obstacle in the way of Industrial development and imposes heavy taxes on the struggling people. According to various authorities, Russia’s demand upon landowners in her Central Asian possession are not so exacting as ours in India, for the British Government insists on a fifth of the produce, making no allowance for good or bad years; while Russia is said to ask only a tenth and allow for variation of production” (Pages 135-6, “Russia Against India,” by Sir Archibald R. Colquehoun, Gold Medalist, Royal Geographical Society.)
Taxation. Lord Salisbury. The British policy of bleeding Indian people. “The injury is exaggerated in the case of India where so much of the revenue is exported without a direct equivalent. As India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood is congested or at least sufficient, not to those already feeble for the want of it.”—Lord Salisbury.
III
FACTS AND FIGURES
Plague, Deaths from. Plague deaths from 1897-1913: 7,251,257.
Death Rate. Death rate was: 34.28 for the year 1907-11; 32 for the year 1911, and 29.71 for the year 1912.
Rural from 41.8 to 23.5.
Urban from 47.6 to 22.7.
Indian Finance. The budget figures of the government of India for 1914-15 show the total estimated income for the year to be slightly over 85 millions sterling, of which more than 17 millions are given out as railway receipts and about 4½ millions for irrigation work, thus leaving the pure revenue to be about 63 millions.
Land Tax. The principal source of revenue is the land tax, which alone furnishes a little over 21 millions of pounds, of which, if we deduct 9 millions shown as the “direct demand on the revenues” only 12½ millions are left for general purposes.
The military expenses alone are estimated at about 22 millions, which is even in excess of the gross total receipts from the land tax, and is more than one-third of the total revenues from all sources.
The figures for income are a little misleading, because out of a total of about 17 millions (17 millions and 33 thousand) shown as railway receipts about 13 millions (13,409,000) shown as paid for interest and other miscellaneous charges on the expenditure side, should be deducted. Similarly about 4½ millions are shown as receipts under the head of irrigation, and over 3½ millions are shown against that head as expenditure.
Among the other heads of income, excise brings slightly ​over 9 millions. Income tax is included under “Other Heads,” which show a total figure of slightly over 5 millions.
Income Tax. The income tax, which is levied on incomes other than those derived from agriculture, is only 6½d. in a pound on incomes of £133 or more, a year, and almost 5d. a pound on incomes below that figure. The minimum taxable income is £66 a year, which shows that all incomes of between 5-6 pounds a month, or between 25-30 dollars a month, are taxed. The large fortunes made by Europeans and Indians by trade, speculation, manufacture, and unearned increments of valuation, are thus easily let off. The principle burden of taxation falls on the poor ryot.
Income from agriculture is supposed to be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent, of the net income of the landlord, or at the rate of 20 per cent, of the gross produce of the ryot, under the ryotwari system. In some cases it exceeds these proportions and is as high as 65 per cent. (See Lord Morley's reply to C. T. O’Donnell.)
Customs. Customs, which furnish the principal source of revenue in the United States and Germany, in India only yield about less than 7½ millions. The imports are charged ad valorem duty of 5 per cent. with special conditions as to textiles, and “a large free list.” The textile woven goods pay a duty of 3½ per cent, and Lancashire is protected by a corresponding excise duty on textile goods produced in the country. Iron and steel pay only a nominal duty of one per cent.
The other principal source of revenue is the drink traffic, from which the government of India makes an income of about nine millions sterling. How much loss in morals it inflicts thereby on the country may better be imagined. That however is another story.
TRADE FIGURES FOR 1913 to 1914
| Imports (manufactured articles forming 80 per cent. of the total): | £127 millions |
| Treasure: | 29 millions |
| | £156 millions |
| Exports (chiefly raw produce and articles of food): | £163 millions |
The shipping is entirely in European hands and it would be interesting to enquire how much does India pay for the shipping of its imports and exports, and how much do the foreigners make by way of insurance and other charges. The exact gain to Great Britain and other European countries from Indian trade is simply incalculable. The great bulk of the foreign trade on both sides is in the hands of foreigners.
PERSONNEL OF THE GOVERNMENT
Secretary of State and all Under Secretaries, as well as Assistant Under Secretaries:
| Council: | British | British Indians | Total |
| | 8 | 2 | 10 |
All Office Establishment and Secretaries: British.
All salaries and other expenses paid by India.
Governor General and Council and staff (i.e., the British Indian Cabinet).
Members of the Executive Council: British 7; one only is an Indian.
Revenue and Agriculture Department: All Secretaries down to the Superintendent of the Office: British. (Total strength, 7.)
Finance Department: 21; all British except that one Assistant Secretary is an Indian, and one Superintendent is an Indian.
​Foreign Department: 6; all British except that one Attaché is an Indian.
Education Department: 8; one Assistant Secretary is an Indian.
Legislative Department: 7; only one Legal Assistant an Indian.
Army Department: 10; one Office Superintendent an Indian.
Public Works: 15; no Indian.
Commerce and Industry: 11; 3 Office Superintendents are Indians.
Railway Board: 4, no Indian.
Post Office and Telegraph Department: no Indian
Indo-European Trade Department: no Indian.
Geological Survey: 5; no Indian.
Botanical Department: 5; no Indian.
Archæological Survey: 9; one Indian.
Miscellaneous Appointments: 39; one Indian.
The Indian Legislative Council: —
Total strength 67, out of which 35, besides the Governor General are always officials, only one of which is an Indian; of the remaining 32, 28 are Indian members, including 3 nominated by the Government, i.e., a total of 20 out of 67.
Provincial Government: All Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and Chief Commissioners of Provinces are British.
In Provinces having Executive Councils of three or more, one is an Indian.
Secretaries and Heads of Departments are all Britishers. Of the large army of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, perhaps one in each Province is an Indian.
Services:
Army: No Indian is eligible to a commissioned rank.
Indian Civil Service: (on the first of April, 1913) out of a total cadre of 1318, only 46 were Indians. ​Indian Medical Service: Little over 5 per cent. are Indians.
In Provincial Legislative Councils having very restricted powers of legislation, the elected Indians are in a minority everywhere.
FIGURES ABOUT EDUCATION AND LITERACY:
(Figures taken from the Year Book of 1914) :
| Area, 1,773,168 square miles. |
| Population, 315,132,537. |
| Universities in British India, 6. |
| Number of High Schools for males | 1273 |
| Number of High Schools for females | 144 |
| Primary schools for males | 113,955 |
| i.e., not even 1 for every 10 miles. |
| Primary schools for females. | 13,694 |
| Literally. |
| Males, 106 per 1000, i.e., about 10½ per cent. |
| Females, only 10 per 1000, i.e., about 1 per cent. |
| All these figures are taken from the Indian Year Book, published by the Times of India Press, Bombay, for the years 1914 and 1915. |
IV
THE FLOGGING OF POLITICAL PRISONERS
(An extract from New India, a paper edited by Mrs. Annie Besant.)
The tragedy of Mr. Ramcharan Lal, the ex-editor of the Swaraj, continues. Mr. Macleod, the city magistrate of Nagpur, has sentenced him to an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment after his sentence has expired for 'refusing to work.' Our readers will remember the ​case. This unfortunate political prisoner — whose analogues in foreign countries have been welcomed and protected on British soil — under-going a sentence of imprisonment, was so brutally flogged for refusing to do work, which he says was more than he could do, that the prison doctor admits that he would have been unable to work for four days after the flogging, and six weeks after it the skin was still discoloured and two serious scars remained. Now he has a heavy sentence of six months’ additional imprisonment. Is this British treatment of a political prisoner? Why did Britons protest against the use of the knout on political prisoners in Russia? Is there no one in the House of Commons who will ask a question on this case, and demand an enquiry into the treatment of political prisoners in India?