The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-22
state Socialism In India.

meet with unanimous concurrence IN
Great Britain. What is curious, the
most rancorous critics Of the methods
Of government followed in British India
r the well known Socialists Mr.. kerr
HARDIE and Mr.. HINDMAN, although,
as is pointed out in the London Times,
no more impressive embodiment Of so
cialistic principles exists on earth than
il presented in that vast dependency.
Nowhere else on earth has a Government
travelled so far In the direction Of IA
t~ionalizing land and capital.
The London Times points out in Its
issue of September 4 that in India the
State has never parted with it's proprie-
tary rights in the land. As a matter Of
fact, the soil Of British India lie already
nationalized in the only sense in which
a Matchmaking policy can practically be
carried out. From the enforcement Of
it's proprietary rights in the land the
Calcutta Government derives an income
Of about sos, 900, 900, or more than a fifth
of its total revenue Two methods are
employed by the State for turning It's
claim Of ownership to peCuniary ac-
count. In some provinces a tar is i'm
posed upon rents equivalent to one-half
the incomes derived from land by pri-
vate intermediate landlords; this tax is
periodically revised so as u secure to
the State a fair proportion Of the I'M
earned increment. In other provinces
the State leases the land directly to the
ryot, or peasant, at a rent which varies
from 4 to 20 per cent. Of the gross
produce Of his fields: this rent also is
subject to periodic revision. In effect,
therefore. if not in 30 many words, the
Calcutta Government acknowledges the
truth Of the socialistic assertion that
the land Of a given country In the joint
property Of all the inhabitants; and the
Government, as the representative of
the people. simply allows the use Of it
to certain individuals upon payment OF
sums that vary according to the advan-
tage they derive from the exploitation
of public property.
In the naturalization Of capital, like
wise, the Calcutta Government has gone
to notable lengths. For instance, the
State supplies the capital for those gi-
gantic operations which in the Indian
system Of accounts are classified as
commercial undertakings The rail-
ways, the canals and the forests Of India
are all managed upon socialistic prin-
ciples. Nor does this represent by any
means the limit of the India Govern
ment's experiments in the naturalization
of capital. In addition to the manage
ment Of very large industrial concerns,
the State in India actually supplies,
under certain conditions, the capital
needed for the development Of pri-
vate enterprises. This, as the London
Times points out, is an application Of
sOcialistic principles to a society which
is still in~trinsically individualistic, that
ought to attract tnc attention Of Social
lists all over the verdi, for the aso
that it seems peculiarly suitable for an
era of transition. As there is now prac-
tically ONLY one industry surviving in
India, to wit, agriculture, the assist
ance given by the Government to private
enterprise consists for the most part in
advancing to small tenants, or peasant
proprietcrs, the capital needed to develop
their holdings. Such loans Of state
capital are regulated by two laws, passed
respectively in 1889 and 1884, and in
tended TO supplement each other. Under
the first act money is advanced for
specific modes Of land improvement,
- -. A. .aaoAI To- aAol A.tkIa
and miscellaneous agricultural purposes.
The sums advanced TO the peasants Of
India under these two acts amounted to
more than $50, OOO, 900 in the last ten years
of the nineteenth century. Though the
aggregate is considerable, the advances
were individually small, and in almost
every case they were repaid with such
%punctuality that the general integrity Of
the peasant Dor overs was recognized by
a Government commission.
There is reason to think that in this
form Of the naturalization Of capital
the Calcutta Government has only made
a beginning. The Irrigation Commits
sion Of 1901 expressed regret at the
smallness of the total amount borrowed
in the past, and recommended that
measures should be taken to stimulate
the demand Of the peasants for advances.
1t laid down the principle that IL is the
duty of Government officers to create
such a demand, and advised that not
only should liberal allotments be placed
at their disposal, but that a strict in
quiry should Re made into the causes Of
a failure to spend up to them. We could
understand economists Of the "laissez-
faire" Manchester school Directing to the
policy Of State help for agriculturists,
but VIC concur with the London Times
in deeming it nothing short of astound-
ing that English Socialists should de-
scribe a Government that deliberately
sanctions the practice which we have
mentioned as a dead failure