The sun., 1909-02-27
BRrTIsH RULE IN INDIA.
An Engiisbman's Reply 10 Charges Tha'
IL IL Predatory and Inhunhan.

An Englishman's Reply 10 charges Tna'
IL Il Predatory and Inhunan.
To TIE EDITOR OF TIE SUN-Sr; Fol
some time past have been following with
n certain amount Of interest and consid-
erably more amazsment the progress OF hr
Myron II. Phelps's campaign Of oalumny
against British rule in India, IL has sew
eral odd features. One OF them 10 that
Mr.. Phelps seems unable TO determine
when, II ever. he visited India. In bis
letter that appeared In THE SUS on Feb
ruary 2 he says: Il myself have ouite
recently been In India; but 10 letter
which appeared in the Brooklyn Edots
on December S Mr.. Phelps declared ~
that he had not been in India for a mum.
Der Of years; (?) that he could not speak oil
present conditions there from first hand
knowledge; (3) that he had not even per-
sonal acquaintance with most OF his Indian
correspondents. whose allegations. none
the less, he still continues to disseminate
throughout the American press without
the slightest inquiry or examination or the
least regard to their. accuracy or even
their probability. When In q letter to the
Edpie | exposed dozen or so OF the mis-
statements to which he was giving currency
Mr.. Phelps calmly rejoined that he did
not put them forward as OF final author
ity" and could not undertake to vouch
for them."
What 1t comes to. therefore. 10 that Mr
Phelps Is simply the mouthpiece for any
accusation that the astute Bengal thinks
will go down with the American public
have not the least objection TO Mr.. Phelps's
acting In that or in any other capacity that
appeals to his taste, but 1 wish that he
would not dignity the process OF retailing
secondhand tittletsttlo by the sonorous
title OF laying the truth before the Ameri-
can people"
In his letter In THE Sun OF February 2
however. Mr.. Phelps at last comes out with
some statements OF his own. At any rate,
they are not In quotation marks, and do
not suppose that Mr.. Phelps will deny he is
committed to them. But when look them
over am uncertain 10 which Of them should
be given the palm for sheer misrepresenta-
tlon. When Mr.. Phelps declares-it Is not
really declaration but guess, and q guess
quite unsupported by any authentic evil
dencs-that the income . head Of the
natives OF India has declined from about
four cents day In 1880 to about cent and
half in 1900: when he talks Of Indis's
export trade as though II were all loss to
India and all gain to England; when he
speaks Of the millions mulcted from the
overoredulous and unresisting Indian" and
purposely omits to add that every rupee
raised from India Is spent on India; when
he argues that the Indian people. so far
from being enriched. are positively impov-
srished by railways aud canals: and whom
he declares that the very poorest pay more
than dollar head q year In taxes. when
he knows. or should know. that the direct
Ia aIation falling annually on the population
OF British India is about forty-three cents
a head. or II We include land revenue. which
in any other country would be equiva-
lent 10 including rent, about eighty cents
head. and that there Is no country In
the world possessing a civilized govern
ment In which the public burdens are 90
light-when Mr.. Phelps lends his name to
such arguments and statements as these
, one can but marvel at the mixture Of ignor-
ance and dialecticsl unsorupuousness with
which he conducts his propaganda.
For the moment. however. 1 propose to
concentrate attention on his specific asser-
tion that during a single decade, from
1891 TO 1901. $4,000. 900 Of people died from
famine In that period there were two
famines, one in is9e-e7, the other in 1892
1900 In 1897 and 1900 the general NOR
talty OF India, In consequence OF famine
conditions" was considerably in excess
OF the normal. but the mortality due TO
starvation or to exceptional and syoidable
privation was small, Mr.. Phelpss error
| a grotesQue error for one who processes to
| know something Of india to fall into-les
in assuming that all deaths In excess Of the
normal were due to starvation: but even
on this assum ption he has grossly exagesr-
ated the mortality figures. The number
OF deaths from all causes in British India
was 7,65s. a., In 1897 and s.3s< 1855 In ieOo; and
the average mortality for the remaining
eight years OF the ten was e.33e. $50.
Tho excess number OF deaths in 1897 and
1900 over the average for the remalnine G
years was therefore 3.sis.0io. This and
not 49, .O00. 900 is the utmost figure for which
starvation or privation can possibly be
made responsible In the ten years and even
this figure is subject to enormous ded uo-
tions. The official returns show that the
excess mortality OF 1897 and 1900 was very
largely due to specific diseases. such as
cholera, dysentery and fevers. Therefore
| the mortality attributable TO privation OF
a preventable kind was certainly very much
less than the }, 3,3i9, ,Ole deaths in excess OF the
normal. The death rate for 1897 and 1900
was 37.4 q thousand, OF which 2s Al was due
TO cholera, dysentery and fevers. The
death rate for the other eight years was
| 30 o., OF which - 30 was due to these dis
eases. The death rate from other causes for
1
other eight years 7.03. II the whole OF this
difference of 200 a thousand were attrib-
uted to starvation it would at most repre-
sent about 422 600 deaths; but even this
would bo an unwsrranted assumption. as
the deaths from causes other than cholera,
dysentery and fevers" include many which
are unconnected with privstion or starva-
ton. but which yet are promoted by the
exceptionally unhealthy conditions Of .
season OF drought.
Mr.. Phelps could have found all this out
for himself il he had cared to take tho
trouble. He preferred. however. to launch
the egregious fslsehood that IL. .0OO. 900 Of the
people died from famine between 1891 and
1901. The true figures at the outside should
be. as have shown. about 400, 900. EI pede
Hercuiem. From this single instance you
can Judge the amount OF orsdibillty to be
attached to any and every statement about
India made by Mr.. Phelps.
SYDNEr BROOKS.
LONDON. February 10.