The Washington herald., 1922-01-01
New Way of Warfare.

The visit of the Prince of Wales
to India has not been one of COM
plcte enjoyment. Originally planned
as tour to make the prince ac-
quainted with India and the Indians,
il developed. before he left England.
that the trip was to be of a more
serious character. Events and an
nOuncements made it plain that the
Indian malcontentS would make the
visit of the Prince the occasion of
demonstrations, and violence even
to his person was feared. On his
arrival in Bombay, riots took place.
These were repudiated by "Mahatma"
Gandhi, leader of the Non co-opera-
tionists who took upon himself to
do penance for the actions of the
rioters. Gandhi's method is not vio-
lence but refusal to cooperate with
the British authorities in the man.
agement of India. The tour of the
prince has given the Non co-opera
tionists a great opportunity to DEM
onstrate, to agitate. to advertise and
to organize. There seems to be no.
doubt that Gandhi has gathered to-
gether truly formidable percentage
of the vast population of India. II
is stated that Gandhi's real object is
not a complete separation from the
British Empire. but a greater degree
of self-government for India.
In considering the possibility of
Indian independence, il must be borne
in mind that the population of India
Is about as great as that of all
Europe, that this population is not
less varied in race than the popula-
tton Of Europe and that. furthermore
1t Is not less varied in religion. To
unite India in an independent repre-
sentative government is, therefore, a
project akin to uniting Europe in one
independent, representative govern
ment. The British in India are no
more allen conquerors than have been
the rulers of India Of the past, nor
are they much more alien rulers
than would be those who might
attain the rule IL the British
withdrew. 1t must not be thought
that Great Britain's entry into India
supplanted a unified Indian nation.
Such was not the case by any means.
as India has never been united in a
voluntary political organization in
all her history. In fact, British rule
in. India is the nearest that India
has come to union of a sort in which
the people of India have had. any
representation at all. II "a more
popular form Of government eventu-
ates, and 1t seems not impossible,
this will be the result of British oc-
cupancy. made possible by the unity
ing action of British rule in India.
Those who are advocating further ex-
tension of participation in govern
ment to the Indians, might bear in
mind that, without British rule, a
"Mahatma" Gandhi could not have
arisen. II one makes a violent as
sumption and assumes that Gandhi
might have arisen in an India ruled
by Oriental despots. the career Of such
a Gandhi would have been short-lived.
The fact Is that Britain, in gradually
spreading modern ideas in India, has
been conscious that the outcome would
be an Indian movement such as now
exists. This has been well under
stood for a long time, but, neverthe-
less. Britain has persisted in her
course
Gandhi wakes Patrfotfsm.
1t is generally thought that Gandhi.
In his compr ehensive and continuous
campaign, has united Indian ele-
ments as they have not been united
before. The question is. in just what
way they are united. 1t is, of course,
impossible for Gandhi to unite the
Indians racially. and 1t is quite GER
tain that they have, not been united
relgiously. He seems, however. to
be giving them a consciousness of
Indian nationality, that Is, to be in
culcating patriotism such as Is known
in the Western countries, which
Indians despise. It may well be
doubted whether this consciousness