The government of India is perhaps the most elaborate in the world; the highest powers of statesmanship have been manifested by the successive rulers during more than a century in the development of a State which is extraordinary no less in the complication of its provisions and details than in the wise adaptation of human laws to meet the multitudinous exigencies of this great conglomeration of peoples. It should also be remembered that British statesmen in their work of legislation in India, and in their coordination of laws, have not only had to consider the manifold character of the different portions of the population of the land; what is more difficult still, they have been compelled to ingratiate themselves with the Indians by conserving, so far as possible, those myriads of ancient laws and customs which obtain there. The laws of Manu and of other writers of twenty-five centuries ago have been handed down by this people through the ages and have accumulated authority and reverence with increasing time, until today all Hindus regard them as divinely given and as possessing irresistible claim upon them for all time. So that, while it may be said on the one hand that the laws of India are largely built upon western foundations, and savour of Christian principles and modern ideas; it should also be remembered, on the [pg 038] other hand, that the dicta of ancient Hindu lawgivers find a large place in the legal codes of that land.

Yea, even more than this is true. There are a host of caste rules and customs which have no further sanction than the fact that they have become customs, and yet which have been dignified with the authority of law. This is of course due chiefly to the fact that most customs in India have a religious basis and interpretation, and therefore draw to themselves that sanctity and claim which belong to things religious. Thus, for instance, every caste in South India has its own marriage customs. Most of these are highly incongruous with modern ideas and rights, and most of them absolutely disregard the rights of the wife. And yet it has been deemed wise by the State to conserve and to give the sanction of law to these multitudinous marriage customs which are enough in themselves to constitute an extensive code.

Some conception of the magnitude of the work carried on by the Indian Government may be gathered from the following description by Bishop Thoburn:—“With a population greater than that of the five great powers of Europe put together; with a revenue exceeding $350,000,000; with a foreign commerce worth $768,000,000 annually; with a standing army 230,000 strong, more than two-thirds of which are composed of native soldiers; with a drilled police force of more than 150,000 men; with a code of laws in many respects superior to those found on the statute books of European countries; and with courts of justice as impartial and as faithfully conducted as any to be found in the world, [pg 039] India may well claim a place among the great empires of the present era.”

The British Government has respected the possessions of native chiefs in whose hands still remain about one-third of the country. But these so called native territories are so largely under English control and guidance that we may well regard them as essentially a part of the British Domain.

The Secretary of State for India has practically the control of British Indian affairs. He, with his council in London, has the final word in Indian matters of paramount importance. Nevertheless, the Indian Government finds this power rarely antagonistic in matters whereon it has firmly made up its mind.

The British possessions in India are distributed into twelve governments, each separately organized and yet all of them constituting parts of the Supreme Government of India. This Supreme Government is administered by a Governor-General or Viceroy with whom is associated a Council of six members. This Council constitutes the Viceroy's Cabinet and each one has charge of a separate department of the government.

Of the Provincial Governments of India, the principal ones are the Province of Bengal with 71,000,000, under a Lieutenant-Governor; United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, with a population of 47,000,000, under a Lieutenant-Governor; Presidency of Madras, with 35,500,000, under a Governor; Presidency of Bombay, with 18,800,000, under a Governor; and the province of Punjab, with 20,800,000, under a Lieutenant-Governor.

The unit of government in India is the District. [pg 040] The whole of India is divided into 235 Districts. At the head of a District is placed an officer known as Collector, Senior Magistrate, or Deputy Commissioner, who is practically ruler of that division. He is the administrative representative of the government. In each District there is also a District Judge and a few other officers at the head of various departments. These Districts vary in size and population, covering areas from 14,000 to 1,000 square miles, and containing from 3,000,000 to 250,000 population. The average population of a District is 800,000. Nothing impresses the careful observer more than the large amount of responsibility and the multifarious duties which devolve upon these District officers. During recent years, however, authority has been withheld increasingly from Collectors and centralized in the Provincial Governments; for at the head of every Province also there is a government patterned somewhat after the Supreme Government in Calcutta.

No greater mistake can be made than to think that India is either crudely or poorly governed. Owing to the great poverty of the land it is extremely difficult to maintain so costly and elaborate a rÉgime as the present one; and many claim that for the support of so expensive a luxury the people are taxed beyond their ability and resources. The taxation imposed by a government on its people is rightly considered, both in its extent and character, as a measure of the wisdom of the State. The critics of the Indian government are prone to dwell upon the alleged injustice of its taxes. It is, however, difficult to understand why this matter should be pressed unless it be on the ground, apparently maintained, that the poverty of [pg 041] the people should exempt them from any of the burdens of taxation—a theory beautifully generous to the people but fatal to the maintenance of any government. The salt tax does certainly seem cruel in its severe pressure upon the very poor; and yet it is the only one whereby this very large part of the community can be reached at all, and made to contribute its mite to the State which protects it.

Comparing present taxes with those of the past, we should certainly expect heavier imposts now, because the government furnishes today, as an equivalent of protection and blessing, infinitely more than former dynasties did. And yet Sir W. Hunter has ably shown from a comparison of taxes levied by the present government and by the Moghul government that the modern Hindu is vastly better off than was his ancestor of two and three centuries ago. Today, five and one half per cent. is collected in land tax; under the Moghul rule they had to pay from thirty-three per cent. to fifty per cent. Besides this, the Mohammedan imposed various other taxes, many of them upon non-Mohammedans as a religious penalty. Nor were the Hindu governments one whit better off; and even today the native states are much harder upon the people than is the British Raj.

The famine commission is the highest authority on the subject. In its exhaustive report of 1880 it writes:—“In the majority of native governments the revenue officer takes all he can get, and would take treble the revenue we should, if he were strong enough to exact it.”

If we pursue the comparison to that of European [pg 042] peoples, Indian taxation would seem but a trifle. Placing even English taxes side by side with India's, we shall find instruction. The average income in the United Kingdom is £40, while the tax assessed is 44s, or five and one-half per cent. In India, alas, the average income is only 36s. But then the tax is only 1s, 9d per capita which is a trifle smaller per capita than that for England. Here again we are impressed with the reasonableness of the tax imposed.

The opium and liquor traffic in India is one which has drawn forth much criticism. From the moral standpoint the critics have a very strong case. The evil which the opium traffic of India has inflicted upon China—against her will too—has been enormous. The large army of opium eaters which it has created, only to destroy with a terrible death, has long been an argument to which no nation of England's position and pretensions can render satisfactory reply.

In like manner, the State monopoly of the drink traffic is neither honourable nor wise. It not only gives unwonted and unwarrantable dignity to a disreputable business, it also involves the State in the business of making a large army of drunkards in the land. To take up a traffic like this, for the revenue there is in it, is to trifle with the higher interests of the subjects and to become instrumental in the corruption and misery of the people whom it is bound to protect. It is questionable whether any other civilized government has involved itself in such unworthy means of creating a revenue. Doubtless, opium and drink represent, morally, the weakest part of this government. Of course, the all important [pg 043] defense lies in the revenue thus acquired. These two items of revenue flow more easily than any others into the depleted treasury of State. To give these up in behalf of what is termed sentiment, would necessitate the imposition of other heavy taxes. This is an aspect of the question which too easily silences and secures the acquiescence of the people of India. But, its evil is great and is spreading.

The drink curse is rapidly becoming one of the trying problems of India. It was slanderously remarked some years ago that if the English then left that country the only monuments left behind of their life would have been broken whiskey bottles! There is indeed ground today for the fear that if England were to abandon the land, it would leave, as the saddest monument of its past, an immensely increasing army of drinkers; and this evil is further enhanced by the mean ideal of life which the ordinary Englishman sets before Hindus by his passion for the cup. Half a century ago an Englishman died while on duty in the jungles in South India, and his body was there buried in the wilderness. The natives soon erected a shrine over his grave and, for a long time, offered, in true sobriety, whiskey and cheroots to appease his thirsty and unsatisfied spirit! It is not strange that the natives should recognize a continuity of spirit-taste in the here and the hereafter of the Sahib!

The recent utterance of the Archbishop of Canterbury on this subject should be heeded by the State. “The true principle of morals,” he says, “is to have nothing whatever to do with that which is shown to be necessarily productive of evil. The English nation [pg 044] caused the opium evil in China and we are responsible for that evil. I also protest against the principle of raising revenue by temptations to evil. It might be right for a government to pause before interfering with private trade; but, in this case we ourselves are carrying on the evil trade. Such a thing on the part of a great government is, I think, without a parallel in the whole world.”

The Army in India is a necessary but great evil in the expense which it involves to the government, no less than in the evil life which it leads among, and the evil example which it sets, the native community. Its influence is deplorable. It is the most vulnerable to attack of all departments of government, both on the score of expense and character. “Tommy Atkins” is the greatest trial to the Hindu, and brutally rides rough-shod over all his sensibilities. If he could only be left at home with safety to British interests in the land, it would help largely to improve the situation between the two races. It would also save England from the terrible disgrace of immorality which the army is instrumental in carrying as a plague wherever it goes. Awful indeed is the prevalence of the social vice in the native community itself; but the English Army spreads the demoralization in a most disgraceful way.

Considering the government as a whole, then, it is wonderful, both in the extent of its operation and in its numberless activities and agencies. Its purpose is generally noble, and its wisdom, both in the framing of laws and in general administration, has been most marked. The occasion of most of its failings and weaknesses is the poverty of the people [pg 045] whereby the government has, at times, been driven to subterfuges to avoid bankruptcy.