Chapter I THE POVERTY OF INDIA Tadmit at once that if it could be shown that India has retrograded in material prosperity under our rule we stand self-condemned, and we ought no longer tobe trusted with the control of the country. ~ GEORGE Hamilton, Secretary of State for India The indication of extreme poverty is so appalling that in any other country the Government would have been forced to take up this question into its serious consideration under penalty ofa revolution. = Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha During the decades immediately following the Revolt of 1857, there was general belief among the educated Indians—the tising leaders of the growing Indian nationalism—that British rule in India was productive of considerable benefits to its people. But with lapse of time and as a result of increasing political activity and consciousness’ doubts began to arise about thevalueand area content ofeach benef, though the positive aspects _ id other non-material consequences of British impact were recognized and acknowledged by a section of the Indian national leadership almost to the end of the period under study "Dadabhai Naorji, Speeches nd Writings (Madras, undated) (hereafter referred to a8 Speech), pp. 669-70. "The benefits acchimed most often were peace, law and ondet, western education, centralized administration, political unification of the country and the consequent growth of a feeling of nationality, railways, telegraphs, hospitals, erc. See Naoroji, Eisays, Speeches and Writings, edited by C/ L, Parekh (Bombay. 1887) (hereafter referred to as Essays), pp. 26-7, 37, 131-2, Speeches, pp. 235-6, in The Indian National Congres, Part 1, Congress Presidential Addreses (Madras, undated) (hereafter referred to as CPA), pp. 6-10. For other appreciations of12 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA The general feeling grew that Already in 1867, Dadabhai Naoroji wrote that ‘the mass of the people, even up to the present time, understand but litde of the benefits’ of British rule;” and by 1871 he was fering tothe ‘continuous impoverishment and exhaustion of the country: The series of famines, beginning with that of Orissa in 1865-6, which held India in their grip during the second half of the 19th century,’ and their appalling extent, gave jolt ater jolt to the complacent the benefits of British rule, see, for example, various Congress Presidents in CPA, pp. 4, 81, 115, 307-11, 346, 375-6, 738; G. V. Joshi, Writings and Speeches (Poona, 1912), p. 616; R. N. Mudholkas, “The Economic Condition of the People of India,” in Indian Politics (Madras, 1808), p. 34; Alfred Nundy, “The Poverty of India,” in ibid., p. 106; C. ¥. Chintamani, ‘India and Lord Curzon,’ Hindustan Review and Kayastha Samachar (hereafter referted to as HR), June 1901, p. 451; RC Dutt, Economic History of India—Early British Rule (London, 1956 impression of the edition first published in 1901) (hereafter referred to as EHD), p. vi S. N. Banerjea, Speeches and Writings (Madras, undated) (hereafter referred to as Sand W), pp. 219- 20, 258-9, 303-5, 331. Also see, the Amrita Bazar Pasrika (hereafter referred to as ABP), 3 December 1874, 24 November 1897. BC 1(45-42/1976) ’Naoroji, Essays, p. 28. : * “Ybid, pp..134-5. Bholonath Chandra in’ a relatively unknown but brilliandly wrieten article,‘A Voice for the Commerce and Manufactures of India’, which appeared anonymously in 1873-6 in the Mukerjees Magazine (Calcutta) (hereafter referred to as MM) wrote: ‘Dazzled by the superficial lustre around them, and incompetent to suggest the true economic policy for India, the natives hitherto accepted the views of their superiors upon trust, without any exercise of citicism or judgment. They blindly rested their beliefin them as itwere in a commercial Veda.” But day by day the light of intelligence is clearing up the fog in their minds... The more they are being furnished in the upper storey, the more the truth of the Fact of “a steady narrowing progress ‘0 pauperization” is being felt home by them.’ Volume II, 1873, pp. 83-4. B. G. Tilak illustrated: this shiftin the nationalist approach in avery graphic manner when he wrote in 1893 of how the people were dazzled at first by the discipline of the British. Railways, Telegraph, Roads, Bridges and Schools bewildered the people. “Riots ceased and people could enjoy: peace “and ‘quiet...People began to say that even a blind person can safely travel from Benares to Ramieshwat ‘with gold tied toa stick. But as the influence of the wine does not last long thisillusion arising out of the revolution did not last long, The blind man may travel with gold tied to his stick but day. by day people realized that gold was geting scarce.’ Quoted in G. P. Pradhan and A. K. Bhagwat, Lokamanya Tilak (Bombay, 1958), p. 72. Also see Bengalee, 10 May 1884; Indian Spectator, 18 May 1884; Mahratta, 21 December 1884; A. L. Roy's article in Mahratta, 6 June 1886; G. Subramanya Iyer, Some Economic Aspects of British Rule in India (Madras, 1908) (hereafir referred to u EA), p.3 30; M. Ghose in CPA, p.762. William Dighy in his ‘Prosperous British India, which was to become immediately after its publication in 1901 (London) a virtual text-book of the Indian nationalists, enumerated 18 famines, ‘including the four most terrible famines ever known in India’, from 1876 w 1900. Pp: 127-8,131, 2- THE POVERTY OF INDIA 13 Many of the Indian national leaders initially believed that their rulers 7 . Hence, they desired a thorough investigation of the true state of affairs with a view to i i believed that the existi position should come to be frankly recognised” and discover the best means of improving it." effectively grapple with it: Further, the Indians, ‘growing conscious of their sense of unity and nationhood, wanted to define their atte tarde the contemporary British economic policies in India. Their approach towards these policies and their own course of action in the fiel mic activity as well asin the political field i In the 1870's, tineeequninilantcimeaaygy On 27 July 1870, Dadabhai Naoroji read his famous paper on The Wants and Means of India” at a meeting of the Society of Arts, London, in which he posed the bold question: ‘Is India at present * and «bur the deeper question arose, why should there beso many famines in India, why such a terrible death-rate from starvation? They never heard of such famines in any other civilized country of the world.’ R. C. Dutt, Speeches and Papers on Indian Questions, 1897-1900 (Calcutta, 1904) (hereafter referred, to as Speeches), p. 36. Also see Resolution II ofthe Indian National Congress (hereafter referred to as INC) for 1900. "See, for example, Naoroji, Exays p. 135. Also, ‘when you will know our rea wishes have not the least doubt that you would do justice.’ Ibid. May also see CPA, pp. 13, 22-3, 91-2, 129, 149. 88. 324, 380, 397,405, 475 499. 532. 7 : "See, for example, Naoroji, Essays, p. 128. °G.K Gokhale, Speeches(Madras, 1916), p.52. 1 See for example, Naooj, Poertyand Un-Brish Rule in India (London, 1901) denser referred to as Poverty), p. 147jand Resol Ilof the INC for 1900. "See, for example, Ranade,. say on Indian Economics Bombay, 1898) (hereafter referred toas Essay), pp. 191-2;andG. V. Joshi, op. cit. p.754. "Naoroji, Essays, pp. 97-111.14 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA then answered it in the negative.” In 1873 on the British economic policy in India in the pages of the short-lived Bengali quarterly, the Mookerjee’ Magazine."* started the Mahadev Govind Ranade Poona Sarvajanik Sabha in the late 1870's and, along with G. V. Joshi,’ dissected, for nearly two decades, a matter of fact, almost every Indian publicist of the day wrote articles or books on the economic situation in India or declaimed on the subject from the public platform or in the Council Chambers; and, practically th | i concerned mainly with economic affairs. These investigations reached the apex in the publication, in 1901-03, of R. C Dutt’s invaluable two-volume Economic History of India, written wit the specifi purpose of presenting ‘duty because at the present "Ibid, p.97. “Vols. IV. 1873-6- © ° : 5 “'Naoroji, Poverty pp. 1-142. It consisted of the papers read before the Bombay Branch of the East India Association of London in 1876 and was accompanied by the following note by the author: “These notes in their original draft were placed before the Select Committee on Indian Finance in 1873, They were taken, but not published with the Report, as they did not suit the ‘views of the Chairman (Mr. Ayrton). And I was led to suppose, also of Sir Grant-Duff, who was then the Under-Secretary of Sate for India.” a “G. V. Joshi was one of the most important of the Indian economists of the 19th cencary. Unfortunately, his being a government servant—he was a school teacher and later a headmaster {na government school—kept him away from the limelight and he is not as well known as many ‘of his other, lesser contemporaries. V. G. Kale, the doyen of professional Indian economists in the first quarter of the 20th century, has pointed out in his Gokhale and Economic Reforms that Joshi’s ‘knowledge of administrative and economic problems was almost unsurpassed by any Indian’ (p. 54). G.K. Gokhale, who recognized Joshi as one of his ewo mentors, the other being Justice Ranade, often and very handsomely acknowledged his deep debt to Joshi for helping him in preparation of his speeches, etc. See Gokhale's letters to Joshi dated 16 April. 1897, 14 May 1897, and 10 April 1902. In the lst leter he referred to the public praise of his first budget speech and wrote: Of course it is your speech more than mine—and I almost feel Tam practising «fraud on the publicin thac! letall the credit for it to cometo me. ba "Dute, EH, pp. vand xiii respectively. ites‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 15 As the Indian enquiry proceeded apace, the swell, the economic scene began to be painted in dark, sombre colours and the belief spread thac ‘ “the unexampled prosperity” which has passed into a byword of the Indian cabinet, and the motto of the Indian counting house... is in name, but not in fact.” mic eo pil Pang a 0 0 it. Dadabhai Naoroji described it as ‘the one rock, the one thing, the one test, which in its settlement will either make Britain a blessing to India, ot Heaven knows what distress it may bring forth.”” It was characterized by many as ‘the ~ me : aly omy the whole economic condition of India,” ‘the supreme problem—the problem of problems.” In 1901 i any part of the British Empire hile Bipin Chandra Pal, one of the “spokesmen of the Extremist party, wrote in the same year in the very first issue of his militant weekly Now India Of the perplexing problems that ~ confront New India, "pressing and important.” Justice Ranade in his essay on ‘Indian Political Economy’ emphasized in 1892 the supremacy of the economic questions over the political ones. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, the leading Indian “Bholonath Chandra, lo. cit. Vol.Il, 1873.p.84. °° = "Naoroji, a speech delivered in 1888 on ‘Benefits of British Rule and Poverty of India’ in Eminent Indians on Indian Polite, ed. by C L. Parekh (Bombay, 1892) (hereafer referred to as Eminent Indians), p.161. Earlier in 1876 he had called it ‘the question, of rather the most serious question, of the day (Poveryy,p. 1). an . » “Hindu;27 May 1891. —_ ae Naoroji in CPA, p. 157. He went on to emphasise that ‘this is the question to which we shall have to devote our best energies’. P. 166. : *G. S.lyet. EA, p.9. 13, Bengalee, 14 March 1902 "Dutt, Speeches and Paperion Indian Questions, 1901 and 1902 (Calcutta, 1904) (hereafter referred toas Speeches), p. 86. nr Et bas “New India (Calcutta),12 Aug, 1901. The editorial continued—and this reveals that not all the Extremist leaders were mainly interested in abstract nationalism—’And though never “wishing to ignore any question, whether political, social, or religious, affecting the interests of New India we desire to make a persistent agitation of our present day economic and educational Problems, our speciality’ *Ranade, Essays p.5.] 16 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA nationalist newspaper of the 19th century and an ‘extremist’ in politics from its very birth, wrote on 2 July 1885: ‘The fact is, the people of India are willing to live in content under British rule if they can only get a full meal, and some measure of justice.”” All acts of the British regime in India were to be judged by the Indian leadership at this touchstone:"* How did they affect the condition of the teeming millions of India, and whether progress in the country ultimately meant improvement in their economic status?” : : The British Indian authorities were conscious of the great importance attached by the Indians to this problem of poverty and accepted the challenge to make it the measuring rod of the success’ of their administration. Thus Sir Henry Fowler, Secretary of State for India, told the House of Commons on 15 August 1894: Fae evhae, ‘The question I wish to consider is whether that Government, with all its machinery as now existing in India, has, or has not, promoted the general prosperity of the people of India; and whether India is better or worse off by being a Province of the British Crown. Thatis the test.” The other and more radical side of this approach was pointed out by the same paper on 7 Nov. 1894: ‘A nation, destitute of means to keep body and soul together can never be content—can neverbeloyal. . i ; *In his Presidential Address to the Indian National Congress in 1886, Dadabhai Naoroji declared: ‘All the benefits we have derived from British rule, all che noble projects of our British rulers, will gofor nothing if afterall the country isto continue sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss of destitution.’ CPA, p. 22. The Bengalee, edited by Surendranath Banerjea, wrote on 9 ‘March 1902: And who will hold chat for an. impoverished and starving people daily bread is not 4 greater necessity than even a good and scientific Government which gives them law and order? Law and order are no doubt very good things, but bread is better” Also see, $. N. Banerjea, Speeches 1880-84, Vol. II (Cal., 1885). pp. 3, 5, in CPA, p. 6975 Bengalee, 28 Jan. 1882; Mabratta,30 Dec, 1894; B. Mehta, Speeches and Wrisings (Allahabad, 1905) (hereafter referred to «as Speeches), p. 451; Naoroji, Speeches, p. 389; Bharat Jiwan, 11 Dec. in the Report on Native Press in North-West Provinces and Oudh (hereafter referred t6 as RNPN), 19 Dec. 1809; Advocate, 27 Nov. (ibid.,29 Nov.1901).. G, S. Iyer made a plea while moving, Resolution No. III at the Congress session of 1902. that the Congress should ‘concentrate all it attention and energy, as far as possible, upon this Particular and most important question... the question ofthe poverty ofthe people isa question of paramount and enduring interest, and a satisfactory and correct solution of it alone is the foundation of the improvement of the country in all ocher lines.” Report of the Indian National Conare seeafie fered to as ep, INC) for 1002p, 72 Also see N.K.N. Iyer, Rep. INC for -p. 142. * Hansard (Fourth Series), Vol. XXVIIL. c.1135.‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA coptp a7 The 4 ‘poverty pioblem , therefore, occupied the centre of the stage in Indian ‘politics in ‘the formative period ‘of Indian nationalism. ‘The spokesmen of the British ‘rald i in | India as‘well as the emerging Indian national leadership c cattied ‘ on. prolosi ntroversies around it, There were’ few’ subjects" of contemporary interest on which a greater pulf separated the opinions of the tulers and the’ ruled, and wee any the discuss in of which aroused mote: eanger and violent. denunciation” The first‘issue in this grand ‘debate wad the ‘question’ of ‘the'existence 2 of poverty’ Dadabhai Naoroji was the first prominent national leader to proclaim the existence of absoliite poverty int India: In 1876,in his essay “Poverty of India’, he declared that-“India is suffering seriously in several ways and is sinking in poverty;" and that ‘the masses of India do not get enough to provide the bare necessities of life.”” He made. poverty his ‘special stibject™* and stamped the whole of England for years to fulfil his ‘life-long mission’ of awakening the British public to the true condition of India.” With the ‘growing years," the Grand Old Man, .instead ‘of mellowing, became more and more denunciatoty and started using strong, even ‘violent,’ language. In'1881, he denounced. “the wretched, hieart- o g ‘to talk of speech, 2 dream.” In 1895, hedeclaimed that the Indian ‘is saving, heis _ dying off ac the slightest touch, living on insufficient food’ in 1900 he declared: “The fact was that Indian Natives were mere helots. They ‘were "The anger Sees to 15 — 47 and te diene sill divide che historians ofthe British petted history. | 2 © *Naorojiin sil ded ait 3 © Most of the hundreds of speeches he delivered in England oi reproduced in his three published works cited above as Esays, Speeche a ieon, Many others in full of summary form are to be found in India, the’ iouial of th Babich Comte of the N.C broughtout from London from 1890... ‘ ceo bid. p.88. : Naoroji, Speeches, Appendix A, p.63.. <18 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA. worse than American slaves, for the latter were at least taken care of by their masters whose property they were.” The Indian National Congress took up the question in 1886 and soon made the existence of extreme poverty in India an article of its faith.” At its seventh session in’1891, it passed a resolution affirming ‘that full fifty millions of the population, a number yearly increasing, are dragging out a miserable existence on the verge of starvation, and that, in every decade, several millions actually perish by starvation." This resolution became one of the hardy annuals at Congress sessions.” The successive Congress presidents made the poverty problem an essential part of their annual perorations®. while nationalist writers and speakers found in Indian poverty a favorite theme.“ For instance, as early as 1881, an anonymous *Naoroji, Poverty, p. 652. . “Rosol. I Introduction othe Report ofthe Congres for 1886 pointed out that No single delegate doubted or questioned in any way the fat of the extreme poverty ofthe masses; delegate after delegate from every single province and sub- province of the Empire testified to the great destitution which prevailed amongst the lower clases in their own portions of the country” (p. 18). 7 ° “Resol JH. * : ao “Sec Resol. IX of 1892, Resol. VII of 1893 Resbl, Ill of 1894, Resol XXII of 1895, Resols. Xllland XIII of 1896. and soon. J : : “Forexample, at the Twelfth Congress President R. M. Sayani lamented ‘that Indians area Poor nation, living from hand to mouth—indeed some of them actually starving and many of them having barely one meal a day.’ (In CPA. p. 351), C. Sankaran Nait, President in 1897, bemoaned thatthe poverty of the country reveal itself o us in every direction, in evety shape and form. ibid- p. 383). D. E, Wacha, President in 1901 described poverty “as the normal condition of India, (Ibid, p. 604). Also see S, N. Bancrjea is CPA, pp. 257-8. 684; N. G. handavarkar in CPA, p. 506; L. M, Chose in CPA, p. 761. Other speakers on the Congress Platform invariably and year afer year expatiated on the poveryy ofthe Indian people. “For instance Surendranath Banerea referring tothe Bengal peasant talked of the sad tale of his misery—the story of his starving children, his famished cattle, his wasted fields, and declared that ‘language barely suffices to describe the depth of his poverty or the extent of his fnisery’ S. N. Banerjea. Speeches, 1886-1890, Vol. II (Calcutta, 1890), p. 13. In 1890. he brought tothe attention ofan English audience ‘the degrading, miserable, squalid poverty of the ‘ceming millions of Indi. (ibid, p, 195). Justice Ranade wrote in 1890 that “the existence ofthis Poveny needs no demonstration’, and that “the poverty ofthis country is phenomenal. .. We need only walkthrough our streets, and study che most superficial aspects of our econcmic Population... The appalling amount of misery and suffering tat slready exio all he ‘country over Op. ct. p. 818. RN. Mudholkar.while seconding the Resolution on the Poverty ofho Bar THE POVERTY OF INDIA =) + : 19 writer in the Journal of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha declared:.“This indication of extreme poverty is so appalling that in any other country the Government would have been forced to take up this question into its setious consideration under penalty of a revolution.”® The Indian press recited incessantly, day after day and week after week, the tale of India’s economic woes and miserable plight. The condition of the people of India was described as ‘miserable’, ‘critical’, ‘deplorable’, ‘pitiable’, and ‘no better than that of lower animals,’ The Indians were depicted as living ‘on the point of starvation,’ and having been reduced to “abject” and ‘grovelling, cringing and wallowing’ poverty.” Some of the newspapers gave graphic accounts of India's poverty. For example, the Bengali paper Sulabb Dainik described the lot of the Indian citizen in the following words: He has losis vitality, he has lost his Bucs his very lif-blood has been sucked dry, and he is, economically speaking, no better than a bag of dry bones. He is half-fed, he is half clad. His daily food coasists India at the 1891 session: of the Congres sail "The India of today presents a most mourafal tnd abnormal spectacle.” Rep. INC for 1891, p. 19. R: C. Dutt wrote in 1901: “The poverty of the Indian population atthe present day is unparalleled in any civilised country.’ EH, p. vi Also see his England and India (London, 1897), pp. 115-6, and Economic History of india in the Victorian Age (London, 6tn edition, first published in 1903) (hereafter referred toas EHI). p.v. Foravivid description of the poverty of agriculeural labourers in India see EH. p. 606. C. Y. Chintamani :*.. famines g and pestilence have become the normal conditions of the land and million] upon millions of my innocent and peaceful countrymen are dying of star-vation and the effects thereof” HR. July 1901, p. 447. See also Malaviya, Speeches (Madras, undated), p. 31, ‘Review of “Indian Salt Tax”. Journal of Poona Sarvajanik Sabha (hereafter referred to as JPSS). July 1881 (Vol. IV.No. 1), p.60. sncés are too miany to give here. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, the Bengalee, The Hindu, the Mahratta, and the Rpors onthe Native Pres for various provinces and fr the period under seudy are fll of newspaper commentson the poverty of India See, for example, the Ananda Bazar Patrika, 15 Apt. in the Report on the Native Pres for Bengal (hereafter referred to as RNPBeng,), 24 Apr. 1880; Mitra Vilas. 4 Oct., in the Report on the Native Pres Jar the Punjab, North-West Provinces and Oudh (hereafter referred to as RNPPN); 7 Oct. 1880; Sanjivani, 14 June (RNPBeng., 11 June 1884); Nibandh Male, May, inthe Peport (on the Native Press for Bombay (hereafter referred to as RNPBom.), 13 Nov. 1880; Nainang: 2 March (RNPN. 10 March 1891); Prepunch Mitran, 10 Nov, in the Report on the Native Press for Madras (hereafter teferred to as RNPM), 30 Nov. 1899; Nibandh Mala, June (RNPBom, 31 Dec.” 1881); Burdivan Sanjivani, 30 Dec: (RNPBeng., 10 Jan, 1881); Hindi Pradip, Nov. (RNPPN, 11 Nov. 1880); Harish Chandrika, No 8 (bid; 25 Now. 1880); Bega, 25 Jan 1892. Also Hind, 28 April 1884."Vie tye cata anil 20 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA a Small quancty of rige'and a large quantity of roots and leaves of ants, He a never tasted 4 delicious dish in his life. His clothes are torn to tatters, His homestead ig hovel and ill protects him from the (_ inlemencies of weather" hel : © The Kesari che Marathi wee cy Lame published which Shivaji was health also. ‘The, wicked “aboe (misforcune personified), stalks. with famine throughout. the whole country.”® The ,Victoria Paper from the Punjab went to the extent of asserting in its issue dated 26 January 1893 that those Indians who said people or India were well-off were ‘traitors. "The focus of attention of the India ‘national leadership’ was the condition of the masses and not that of the classes. Their chief concern was the poverty, of he ‘blk of oiit countrymen, whose economic condition is the point at issue Itwas the condition of ‘the middle and lower clases oF our community’, of ‘the agricultural classes’ of ‘the’ staiving, shrunken, shrivelled-up Indian ryot, toiling and moiling from dawn to dark to earn his scanty meal’, of ‘the millions of our poorer classes, who, in normal periods, poor and underfed, in'times of famine “dic like flies” and of ‘tie lower strata of the population’. which was held up as the real test of the icultural classes, it peteenigeed 2Now 1895 (RNPBeng.,9 Nov. 1895). “Cited in Ram Copal. Lokamanya Tilak —a biography (Bombay, 1956), pp. ‘vetss were later used by the government to convict Tilak of edition. , "Goldie, Sperchesp. 934 (Also Joh. 753); Nundy ia Gokhale; Rep. INC for 1895. P-150 G. S. Iyer, EA,P.6 joshi, op. r statement of this position was made by A. Nundy, a prominent leader ofthe Congress in UP, in an esay on "The Poverty of Indi’ published in Indian Politics in, 1898. The agriculturists Practically comprise the India of today, and if their condition is miserable, the material‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA. A 21 was the condition of the agricultural labourers which came in for severe anatior ‘from insufficient food conderpnations” they,wére the ones who suffered of ‘by whom, a it chan: ‘the whole people, ‘palin itself; ‘the first’ and fundamental question’ was whether the'total ‘production ‘of Tadia ‘was sufficient to mect the ofdinary wants'of the “ pepple.” The problem when ‘viewed. from t economic welfare of the people.” This particular interpretation of « ‘problem of poverty: played ‘an important role in the growth of Indian politics. Ie made poverty a broad national issue and helped to unite, instead ng; the different sections of Indian society in raising a common 2 Eat ij iat: : He ea ie " , advancement of the rest is but of litle account.’ Here he quoted Adam Smith: ‘Na society can really be flourishing and happy of which the greater partof the members arc poor and miserable’ {p, 106), Further, ‘what consolation isit co him tofind the money lending class adding to im ill- * gorren gains at his expense; or the export merchant deriving a handsome profit in bartering away ‘what is in fact the life blood of the country?’ (p. 105). He admitted that ‘the few; ‘the Rajahs and ~ -Nabobs in Briigh ercicory, the wealthy zamindar, the rich Mahajans and merchants, and some members of ghe professional and trading classes, ae accumulating cis gold and silver, burt pointed out that ‘the multicude of the people is sinking into greater. poverry (p11 ‘Also see + NAKN. Iyer. Rep. INC for 1901. pp. 140-1." FY pees LS Vp Rie Joshi, op. cit. p.6;8; Dutt, EHI, pp. 605-6; GS. lyer. EA, p. 191. “Duce, BHI p. 6062 +19 14 } ie oti atv i +” Naoroji, Poverty, p. 188. Also his Exays, p. 98; Speeches, p. 591. 0130s oc4 20 F8 *Naorojl, Estays, p. 188; Joshi. op. cit., pp.'755, 819. Joshi denied that Indiari poverty was ‘duéto the abserice of the equable distribuition of wealth, as in sdme of the Countries of the West’ (p.75). The problem, thus, with us hé continued, is nota socialist problem, admitting of the application of any’socialistic remedies (p: 753); with us, the evil of poverty is hot confined to “any particular classes.::' We have heze no unjust inequalities in the distribution of wealth to rectify and no chasms to bridge over, dividing off class from class; we have no “Claims of Labour” ‘to urge, rio “Duties of Capital” to enforce, and no “Rightsiof Property” toplead' (p. 819). “se "BK. Gopalakishnan: Development of Economic Ideas in India, 1880 1950 (New Delhi, +1959). p. 183. Joshi emphasized that the poverty problei was ‘cssencially and emphatically an ‘industrial problem’ (op. cit p: 7533)... "22 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA demand for the abolition of poverty. * Itwas also to some extent responsible for the theory of Indian ‘exceptionalism’, viz., that Indian economic development must take a path different from any traversed by other countries. The problem of poverty was also viewed by many Indians as that of decline in ‘productive capacity and energy’ and the relatively low rate of economic growth as well as a cause for the absence of economic development.” : For some time, the existence of ‘abject’ and ‘stark’ poverty was denied by most of the British Indian administrators, officials and ex-officials, who instead drew a osy picture ofa happy and contented peasantry. Stung by the repeated Indian nationalist charge that the people of India lived in extreme want, Lord Dufferin, the Viceroy of India from 1885-88, ordered in 1887 a confidential official inquiry ‘into the condition of the lower classes of the population’. The inquiry reports were never made public, but the Government of India published in 1888 a resolution based on the provincial reports and in Appendix A to the resolution presented a précis of the reports.® The provincial reports weré unanimous in holding that there was no general insufficiency of food, that the condition of even ‘the ower classes of the agricultural population is not one which need cause any great anxiety at present and that ‘in normal years the people seem to enjoy arude plenty." The Government of India was even more optimistic in 1893. Reviewing the provincial reports on the ‘Material Condition of “Joshi, op. cit, p. 819: ‘Ours is an exceptional case: It is the case of a whole community, opposed to rival communities... What is wanted here is not the Poor Law of Elizabeth nor the Abelirsberionaze ofthe Provisional Government (of France)...but a comprehensive scheme of collective action...” (Emphasis added). By the same token, the British spokesmen in India furned suddenly clase-minded and tried to ‘blame ital’ on the landlords, moneylenders and lawyers and to set class against class in India, : "This will be brought out in greater dealin Chapter II. Alo see Ranade, Euay, pp. 23, (23: 185: 1915 and Joshi, op. ct, pp. 758, 760. 803-04; Dutt. EHI, p. vii oan ‘March (RNPBom. 4 Apr. 1903), ‘less and less work forthe growing hands and less and les food for the growing mouths —this sums up our general industrial position’ (Joshi, op. cit., p. 804). See Resolution of the Gov, of India, Circular No, 96 F/6-59 dated 19 October 1688 (Famine Prog. No. 19, December, 1888), -- - 3 “Ibid, Parad, “Ibid, Appendix A. In Madras, ic was found that's wage of 6 rupees a month enables & whole family to have three mealsa day ofrice and rag (mille), wih oddyor fish (near the roast), and butcher meat once or twice a week. In Bomba, the allegation of insufficiency of food was completely refuted and, referring to the area about which the accusation of poverty was most commonly made in the Marathi press, the Provincial Government denied that there was LTHE POVERTY OF INDIA 23 the People of India’ from 1881-1891, it announced that the country was ‘in a prosperous condition.”® The Third Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report (1891-92) asserted that the ‘ordinary condition of the peasantry, then, from a material standpoint, is one of sufficiency, according to a standard that is gradually and continuously rising.“ Non- official British writers conformed to the official view and, being less responsible, gave more unrestrained expression to their views.” : II. THE PROOF OF POVERTY The method most commonly used by the Indian national leaders to prove the existence of poverty in India was to quote short extracts from the writings of British Indian administrators, believing, obviously, that’ the devil could be best hoisted with his own petard. The two most oft-quoted extracts were those from Sir W. Hunter's book England’ Work in India that ‘Forty millions of the people of India. habitually go through life on insufficient food,’ and Sir Charles Elliotts remark that ‘I do not hesitate to say that half the agriculeural population never knows from one ven end toanother what it is to havea full meal." “widespread dstess anywhere in the Deccan’ Mr. MacKentie, Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, came to the general conclusion that ‘there is no doubt a great deal of poverty, but chere is very litle distress. The people are well-fed.’ Mr. Crooke, Collector of Etah in the North-Western Provinces, considered ‘the peasantry to be a robust, apparently well-fed, population’. © Resolution of the Govt, of India dated 27th Nov.1893 (Dep't. of Revenue and Agriculture [General], File No. 95;. Serial No. 7). The Bengal Report claimed that ‘the lower orders enjoy a high and ever increasing standard of prosperity’. “Scatement Exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during 1891- 91 and Nine Preceding Years (Being the Third Decennial Report), Prepared by J. A.. Baines (London, 1894), p.417. “For example. Sir John Strachey, ex-Finance Member of the Government of India, wrotein his India (new and revised edition, London, 1894): "Now every tenant dresses like a Brahmin or ‘Zamindar of old day's... His wife has often het holiday attire and her silver ornaments, for after providing the necessaries of life there is frequently something left for simple luxuries and for buying jewellery’ (p. 303). Also see John Strachey and Richard Strachey, The Finance and Public ‘Works of India from 1869 to 1881 (London, 1882), p. 8; George Chesney, Indian Polity (London, 1894), pp. 314.349,” “Sir W. Hunter was the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India and Sir Charles Elliot was the BW. Member of the Governor-General’s Council. These two remarks were repeated in innumerable articles and books. See, for example, Naoroji, Speeches, p. 5873 Malaviya, Speeches, p. 227; Joshi, op. cit, p. 763; P. C. Ray, The Poverty Problem in India (Cal.,24 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA income, which were derived by dividing the total ational is by the total population, This reduction of economic welfare, or lack of i, ee ea 5 toa single index could be used to and drama ol well as to compare levels of living over time and across space. Moreover, neat and easily grasped numerals gave the arguments ‘the solidity of a they, had a certain magic about them ‘which cuts quantitative basis’ “ across ,even__ the. peal to their | | The evideice cited most often was that of figures of average per capita | zed st fen wat ato gue of xeage pe we aD imagination.” 1895) (hereafter referred ‘at Povern), p. 149. Nundy in Indian Politics'p: 115; Mudhollar, ‘bid, p.36. Other extractsto be usually found in natioralise literature ofthe period were thése of Lord Lawrence (1864) ‘India ison the whole a very poor country. The mass ofthe population enjoy only a scanty subsistence’; Sir E. Baring (1882)—The tax-paying community is exceedingly poor's Sir A. Colvin (1885)—the masses of people were ‘rien whose ingome at the best is barely sufficient to aford then the sustenance necessaty to support life living'as they do ~ on the barest necessities oflife” Randolph Churchill and the Report af the Famine Commission of 1898 were also ofien cited, Several writers and speakers referred to the results of fein Inquiry of 1888 and quoted extracts from the district official reports. See Joshi, op. cit'» pp. 7636. B.'N. Dhar, Rep. INC jor 1892."p."102;'A. Niindy, Rep’ INC for 1894. ‘pp.'55-6; Mudholkar in Indian Politic, p, 36;S.N. Banerjeain CPA, p.686,: ,.. : Set’ Naotoji, Poverty, p.,188. CE V.KR' i. The National Income of British India 1931-1932 (London, 1940), p,7, and P, A. Wadia and K,‘T. Merchant, Our Economic Problem (Bombay, 1946). p. 522. ee ce EET: “Daniel Thornes; ‘Long'term ‘trends in Output in India’, in Economic Growth: Brazil India, Japan, ed. by Simon Kuzners and others (Dushari, N.C, 1955).p. 105..' ses his Rao, The National Income of British India 1931-1932, * "Those concerned with the methodol \ t : vs . Baerevas i logy ofhis talculations may see pp. 4-2 147- 73 of his Prery and Ur Bris Rule nda In bbe ental ah cde of oe | ‘griculrural production to whick he added an estimate of the total output tor the year from | ‘mines,'industries, fisheries. The meiéré, profits of foreign trade and a large amount for 1 ‘contingencies’ and arrived a the total national income for the year 1867-8. tis to be noted that be explicitly refused ro assign any value to services believing chat they were not genuine but only appropriations of already’ created income (p and 220), For criticism ‘or ° justification of Dadabhais concept of national inedrhe, see R P Masai, Dadabhat Naoroji: Grand Old Man of india London, 1939), pp. 203-4; KT. Shah and KJ. Khambata, Wealth and Taxable Capacity of India (Bomba}, Income 1925-29 (London, 1939), | 1924). p. vii; V1 V. Rao. An Exay on Indias National Pp- 19-22, and National Income of British India (1931-1932).‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 25 but this was, he felt, the best he mation available to him.’ This figui per capita j ‘became in the later years the movement and was widely quoted ‘with he nationalist newspapers, speeches, pamphlets, and rallying, cry: of the’ nati devastatins effect in t Books ee es ‘© "Dadabhai’s “figures -painted 'a picture too’ gruieso: iunichallenged: "The officials had to find an'answer and that too’on the same statlstical and easily comprehensible ‘plane’ as Dadabhaf’s.'In 1882, the Government of India issued an éstimate prepared by Major Evelyn Baring, Finance Member, and David Barbour, in which the total income of British India was ¢alculated at 5.25 billion tupees and per capita income’at Rs. 27:7In 1901; Lord Curzon announced that in 1897-98 per capita income in India was Rs!'30.? When this figure'was attacked by William Digby with an array of statistical arguments,” the cudgels wete taken up by Fred J. Atkinson,'@ high official’ if the! Accounts Department: 6f ‘the sam weah piigp se Acaticaietie de Fete MOET ete AER 'p. 187; Wadia and Merchant! op. cit, pp.'520-23; Surendra J. Patel, “Long ‘Term Changes in ‘Output and incoine in India, 1896-1960" in Indian Economic Journal. January 1958 (Vol. V. .No,3) Paul A. Baron, The Political Economy of Growth (Indian edition. New Delhi, 1957), pp. "36-7. Without going into the theoretical merits of Dadabhai’ approach to national income, it ‘may be briefly pointed oue that a strong case for the usefulness ofthis approach of identifying ‘national income with gross national physical productin case of backward couatries can be made ‘on the basis that as a result of the prevalence of disguised unemployment combined with the socially parasitic character of a’ large part'of the “service sector’, and rapid structural’ and “Institutional ‘changee—for ‘example, increase of-:monetization’ ‘ot s"commodity | production—which these-countties have been undergoing ever since they came,into contact _with the West, only measurements of actual physical production can serve any comparative ot , other purposes in economic analysi Piobhe nee eat 4 : ! "Nasroji, Poversy’ p- 4: At the end of his calculations, Dadabhai remaikéd: “One thing is ceviderit—that I am not guilty of any undetestimate of produce’ (Poverty, p!25): He also pleaded for mote and better iiformation; ‘It is only when such eomplete information is furnished by the Indian authorities that any crue conception can be formed of the actual material condition of India from year to yeat” (sbid., p. 147). In spite of all the limitations, however, it was ‘no lice tribute to his skill chat his estimate of the per capita income of Rs. 20 stood the test of all ~ subsequent research in chat field (Masani, op. ci, p. 204). Also, S 201;Rao, An Essay on India's National Income 1925-29, pp, 16-22. 1 2 Dighy. op. cit, pp, 364, 442-3, This estimate included total material pro services. It should be noted thar the Government of India never published the teparts of the ‘etailed inquiries on which these calculations were based... coud tae tetas |. Lord Curzon of Kedleston, Speeches, Vols. LIV (Calcutta, 1900, 1902, 1904, 1906), Vol. T,ppi289-90. 1,08 z fit ¥ pact ve ds "Digby, op. cit.ChapterXIL:) 3 + - eke26 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA Government of India, who, in a paper read before the Royal Statistical Society in 1902, computed the average income per head in British India to be Rs. 39.5 in 1895 as compared to Rs. 30.5 in 1875.” The Indian leaders were primarily interested in proving the existence of extreme poverty in India and not in legalistic or statistical quibbling. While sticking to Dadabhai Naoroji’s figure, they readily agreed to carry on discussion and controversy on the basis of the official Baring-Curzon estimates of per capita income, which, they felt, though prepared by officials naturally prejudiced in judging their own handiwork and, therefore, being rather too high, exposed equally well the extreme poverty of India.” ‘The figures of Indias per capita income were revealing enough as they stood. The Indian spokesmen were, however, of the view that since poverty was, in away, both a comparative as well as a relative term, the real nature of Indian poverty might be brought out and grasped only when Indian income was compared with that of the other nations or contrasted with the bare minimum needs of a human being. They, therefore, addressed themselves to the task of proving that even by these criteria Indian masses came off rather badly. After considering the income of India the next step was to discuss the question: How did the Indian per capita income compare with that of other ' countries? And the answer was—most unfavorably. This compafison was, once again, most often expressed in easily intelligible statistical terms, often in a tabular form.” According to Fred. J. Atkinson, ‘A Statistical Review of the Income and Wealth ofBritish India,’ Journal ofthe Royal Statistical Society Vol. LXV, Part Qune 1902), p.238. - ~ + "See Naorojiin CPA, pp. 160-1, Speeches, pp. 114. 527; Joshi, op. cit,p. 758; Mudholkar in Indian Politics p. 38; G. S. lyet, The Viceroy onthe Economic Condition of India’. HR, May 1901, p. 355. EA, pp. 27-8:Gokhale. Speeches, p. 17; Dutt, EHII. p. 603. S. N. Banerjea put the whole national point of view in a nutshell in his Presidential Address to the Poona Congress of 1895: "Whether itis Rs. 20 or Rs. 27 per head makesno difference. Iris striking evidence of the deplorable poverty of themasses of our population’ (CPA, p.257). BC2(45-42/1976) "England £41” Scotland £32” Ireland £16 United Kingdom 35.2. France 25.7 Germany 187 Rosia 29 Auman 163 Tay 2 pain . Portugal 13.6 Belgium. 221 Holland 26 | Denmark ° 23.2 °” SwedenandNorway 16.2 Switzerland 16 Greece 11.8 Turkey 4 Europe -18-—-—United States 272. Canada 269°. Australia’ 434 India 2 Naoroji. Speeches, p. 590; Joshi. op.cit, p. 758; ); Banerjea is isa eh See obo its p. 758; Ray, Poverty p.340; Banerjea in CPA, pp- | | | | |— & ‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 27 the Indian leaders, the tabular comparison threw ‘a lurid light’ upon the economic condition of the people; it showed that ‘even such a mis- governed country as Turkey produces twice more per head per annum than India produces, or that ‘India is nineteen times worse off than England’, or that in comparison with India's poverty, ‘even the most oppressed and mis-governed Russia is prosperity itself.” It is this widespread notion of India being ‘the poorest country in the civilised world’,” which explains the immense strength and depth of the ‘poverty feeling’ in Indian hearts during the period under study as well as in later years.” The next question taken up by the Indian leaders was that of the necessary expenditure per head for subsistence. They held that in order to get an accurate idea of the problem, average income must be judged in terms of the existing cost of living and that if it could be shown that what the average Indian earned was not sufficient to meet even his bare wants as a human being, the case regarding the existence of poverty in India would rest on unassailable ground. Consequently, the economists among the Indian nationalists directed their enquiries to this. Studies of cost of living i or nutritional standards were more or less non-existent in those days and they had to rely upon stray estimates of the necessaries of life of emigrant coolies, labourers at famine works, common agricultural labourers, native sepoys, agriculturists, and prisoners in jail. In every case, the per capita income was found to be less than what would have met the needs of any of the categories of men enumerated above." The most effective commentary on Indian conditions was the comparison of the per capita income with the diet and other maintenance expenses of a jail prisoner. Dadabhai calculated from the different provincial reports for the year 1867-68 that ™Banerjea in CPA, p. 257s Naoroji in Eminent Indians, . 164; R. M, Sayani in CPA. p. i 347;Naoroji, Speeches, p. 3105 respectively. : Naoroji in Eminent Indians, p. 164. Also see, for example, Banerjea, Speeches, Vol. Ill, p. 4 12;,ABP, 30 March 1882. several modern economists hold that national income statistics ‘are not of great value in international comparisons’, due to many statistical difficulties and relativism of values involved i (Wadia 8c Merchant, op. city p. 523). But obviously a ‘suitably devised formula’ can be found, ‘ for such comparisons are a common practice, See Colin Clarke's Conditions of Economic Progress referred ton ibid, p.528. In any case, where divergence in incomes is sharp and can be measured in multiples of 2or more; as was the case with the compatison drawn by the Indian leaders, sch ‘contrast does acquire a certain ‘rough and ready" validity. : “Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 25-31s]Joshi, op. cit, pp..759-60; Mudholkar, Rep. INC for 1891, p-20,G.S. Iyer, EA, p. 28.eae 28 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA theofficial costoffood and clothing only for prisoners jail was Rs. 3] for the Central Provinces, Rs. 27 and As. 3 for the Punjab, Rs. 21 and As. 13 West Provinces, Rs.31 and As. 11 for Bengal, Rs. 53 and As. 4 foe Madins and Re. 47 and As°7 for Bombay.” Similar calculations were «cde by’ somte’othet India writers.” When the per cipica ine 2 "compared with the figures of cost per jhead in jails, the Conclusion was “obvious and céling ehat “ven for Such food and clothing as @ criminal “Gbtaine: there’is hardly enidugh ‘of prodition even in good season, ingalone all lite nies, al Social and feligious Wane, all expenses of and sorrow, and any provision | "rightly concluded, they felt, tha n ‘and lived below the Dadabhai Nasroji, G. V. Joshi, G. Subr: ‘Suren Banerjea als tealized filly wel tat the word average, being “3A Recnémid’ fiction: hides a inuleipliciy of Siné and ‘thar the’ poorer i ‘ectionis of the population ddid not get the full share of the average income. | ‘The’ average (per capita income included the inicomes of the foreign capitalists and the highly ald foreign civil service, the big zamiidars, the ‘ity merchants and thé rural anid urban middle and up; r-imiddle dlasses. "And; therefor: for the lower strata OF the populatioit the Feal income must ‘af life inuch moré difficult than ‘Which, in’ the 'a8 ‘conclusive \ iti ty veal ai : nationalist view," highlighted ‘th Pied “+Nagroji, Poverty p. 31. Interesting light on this aspect of the problem is thrown by the Dufferin Inquiry and Resolution of 1888. The Civil Surgeon of Nellore, Madras, ne that prisone’improve in weight afer sometime in jail. The answer ofthe Madras Board of Revenue \ ‘was that jal diet was very liberal and ail work was less harsh. Also jail came asa relief toa prisoner after che worry of his case The Government summary of the Provincial Reports had this interesting commento make: This question of isin weight during incarceration is one of some i importance, and has been fotced in other provinces’ See Government of India Resolution of \ [9th Oct. 1888, op, cit.. AppendixA. =” * 1 "Naorojiy Poverty, 32, in CRA, p. 160, Speeches, pp. 528, '589, Appendix. p. 18 62-3; Banerjea in CPA. p. 258; C. S. Iyer. EA, p. 28. That there existed regional \ siburion was also recognised by ‘Dadabhai. See Speeches, Appendix, \Sass... =... ‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 29 evidence of the abject poverty ‘and the chronic starvation of the maises. They indicated ‘a greater evil—the permanent poverty’ ‘of the Indian population, in ordinary’ years’; revealed ‘the complete exhaustion of the nation’; provided ‘additional proofs of the prostration, the utter destitution and helplessness of the bulk of the population in this country’s ‘conclusively demonstrated, beyond all other facts and all other statistics, the existence of the poverty of India...s and were but the ‘outward signs’ of poverty." S ead art 5 ‘Apart from’ advancing positive grounds to prove the existence of extreme. poverty, the national leadership conitroverted vigorously the counter-arguments put forth by the British Indian administrators and writers to show that there was abundance and prosperity in the land. In the absence of a single objective norm by which Indian people might be held tobe well-off, the British spokesmen took recourse to subjective standards. “They argued that the Indian masses were as prosperous as they wanted to be-the fict of their having low income only showed that they had few waits and not that they were poor.” What appeared to be poverty from an absolute point of view tured into its opposite when considered in relation to the few wants of the people. The keynote of this argument was that ifthe peasant was satisfied, he was ipso, facto well-off too. “His wants are few and easily satisfied, commented the Bengal Report on the Material Condition of the People, 1880-91: ‘Judged from their own standpoint, the peasantry of Bengal aie happy and prosperous." The writer of the Report for the North-West Provinces and Oudh was ‘astonished to' discover ‘on what dismal sustenance the Hindu cultivator can live and yet keep more healthy “Duce, BHI, p. vir ABP. 11 March 1897: N. M. Samarth, Rep- INC for 1896. pp. 158-95 Sayani in CPA, p, 366; Admcat, 2 Feb. (RNPN. 4 Feb, 1905) Respectively. Alko se, for example. Malaviya, Speeches, p. 248: Resol. XIf of the INC for 1896: Resol. IX of the INC for 1897; C Sankaran Naizin CPA. p: 385: D. E. Wncha in CPA. p. 560: Dut. Speeches Zp. 55. Kesari, 22 June (RNPBom., 26 June'1897). The intertelation berween poverty and famines is ‘examined in gredter detail below. 9° eee ee : afer havin declared that ‘aie all, poverty and wealth are felaive terms’. Lord Elgin opiitdl in’ 1899: "| do. not believe that che great mass of the people think themselves itmpovershed,Iftheirinconi is small, it sufices fo ther simple wane (Speche (Cal 1899), p. 491). ea * Provincial Reports om the Material Condition ofthe People, 1880-91, (Simla, 1894), Bengal nena! eco ee a a |30 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA. and hearty, if not fatter, than many well-fed persons.”” A corollary of this argument was the assumption that due to the teachings of religion and long-standing social values, the Indian peasant was more interested in spiritual contentment than the satisfaction of his material needs.” Using this subjective and relativistic approach, the British officials and ex. officials also tried to counter the Indian tendency of comparing the Indian per capita income with that of the European countries. The more sober among them declared that in view of widely divergent wants and values, it ‘was hopeless task to compare the standard and cost of living in India with those of the European nations; they must be judged only in relation to India’s own needs” The less cautious of the British officials went much farther in remarking upon the superior lot of the India peasant 2s compared with that of his European counterpart. Thus, John Strachey observed in 1894 that if the physical ease and comfore of the average Indian peasant were compared with those existing among the same classes in a greater part of Europe, “it cannot be doubted that “the advantage "Ibi, Report for NW. 8 O., p. 19. See also Strachey, Indie (1894), pp. 301-3. Again and again British administrarors referred to this ‘fatalis’ concept of prosperity so far as the Indians were concemed. Strachey wrote: The immediate requirements of ife are eal satisfied n in the winter he suffers lite from the cold’ India, 1894, pp. 301-3) For the Dufferin Inquiry of 1888, ‘many a district and provincial oficial sent in conclusions based on this outlook. For example, che Cellecor of Maldah wrote chat che small ulvatos ‘have in ordinary years more than enough tolve upon in away thatimplis the bet physical condition of which the climate and ther habits adm, aed the Collector of Hooghly was convinced that ‘Judged from their o1n poins of views, by theit own standard, they are prosperous and contented” (Emphasis added), Govermuere of ludia Resolution of 19th Oct, 1888, op cit, Appendix A. "Provincial Report on the Material Condition of the People, 1881-91, Ben tt, pI. Also Collector of Hooghly quoted in Resolution ofthe Gove, Ca dated ETE th, or theacq outer wages ate he jes ofthe Indian’ wot). Res. ate Adtionl Mob ct he or General's Council, in one of the major apologias for the British Re} in print, TreReslindia London, 1908), pp.319-20. EN ABRA)toappearin prin "The Thind Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report, p. 419, See also Rees, op. cit, p. i es peed Transition in India (London, 1911), pp. 159-60. rison opined that ‘nothing but confusion of thoughe ai incomparables(p. 160). = 2 the comparison of nee oesTHE POVERTY OF INDIA jot would probably be greatly in favour of the former.” Grant-Duff, ex- Governor of Madras, had earlier adopted the same attitude in a magazine article in 1887.” The lesser officials were even less restrained, The Commissioner of Dacca arrived in 1888 at the startling conclusion that ‘looking to their needs, the peasantry of Eastern Bengal are about the most Prosperous in the world.’ Tayner, the Collector of Hooghly, was no less enthusiastic: “The condition of the poorer classes in this district, compared with that of the same classes in England, may unhesitatingly be described as superior in every respect... and I doubt not that there are thousands upon thousands of the English poor who will gladly change their places with them." The Indian leaders described the entire approach on which this reasoning was based as cruel and heartless.” They vehemently rejected the theory that the Indians have few wants” or that they were incapable of wanting and enjoying higher standards of material comfort.” “Their existing low standard of living could not serve as a vindication of the denial to them of the right to improve their lot.” The heart of the matter was that: The British first take away their means, incapacitate them from producing more, compel them to reduce their wants to the wretched means that are left to them, and then turn round upon them and, "India (1894). p. 301. The Famine Commissioners, whom he was quoting, added, however, the interesting proviso, which was unconsciously ironical, ‘although his life may be shorter and subject to greater risks.’ Similarly, H. H. Fowler. Secretary of State, asserted in 1894 that in rural India, from the nature ofthe climate, the poorer classes have fewer wants than in this country, and can satisfy those, wants more easily than the poor of England can satisfy theirs’ Hansard (Fourth Series). 15 Aug. 1894. Vol. XXVIII, ct.1138-9..- Quoted in Naoroji, Speeches, p. 583. Also Rees in. commenting on Atkinson's paper, loc. ‘it, p.276. “Emphasis added. Government of India Resolution of 19th Oct. 1888, op. cit.. Appendix ‘A. Many other officialsadopted a similar approach in theie reports. G.S. Iyer. EA. p.20. “On the other hand, tohave few wants (EHI. p. ’ See the manners,’ pointed out Dadabhai Nao‘oji, ‘in which the tich Hindoos and ‘Mahommedans of Bombay live” (Essay, p. 134). “Once the Britons were wandering in the forests of this country and their wants were fews had they remained so for ever what would Britain have been to-day?’ asked Dadabhai (Speeches, re R. C. Dutt. “The poorer classes are trained by lifelong hunger’ 311).32 ‘Tike RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA i adding insult to injury, tell them: ‘See, you have few ‘wants; you must | femain poor and of few wants. Have your pound'of riée—or, more : «generously, we would allow you two pounds of rice—scanty clothing ett chelter eis we who must have and would have great human wants and human enjoyments; and you must slave and drudge for us like “mere animals asourbeastsofburden. 7"! 8 8 + bme indian leaders denounced the ascetic utlook and refused to exalt poverry in the name of spiritualism. Instead, they placed material comfort gn a high pedesal."® They were imbued with the deste to augment the oe snirial wealth of the nation to the greatest possible extent by increasing its physical productive, since, according to them, satisfaction of human, wants was proportional to the available quantities of material goods." The emphasis oftheir entire economic agitation was on the removal of poverty and not of ‘unhappiness, their immediate goal was limited to getting two square meals a day for the starving poor, and the burden of their attack was that even the few wants of the Indians were not being satisfied... __ HIL,WAS POVERTY GROWIN' eer ‘As a result of the nationalist agitation, independent, enquiries, and the repeated. visitations. of famines which affected'-vast, areas -and: large population’ and’ which knocked out any: pretence of prosperity, the nationalist view regarding the prevalence of widespread poverty in the country came to be tnore of lesé universally accepted not only by the people of India but also by theit rulers. The Resolution on the Economic Inquiry of 1888, while stating that the condition of the lower classes of agricultural population was ‘not one which need cause any great anxiety at present’, admitted that there was ‘evidence to show thatin all parts of India there is a numerous population which lives .from hand to mouth," and * Ibid, pp.311-2. Are Oe : ot "This was made very explicit by G: V, joshi:'“A high standard of comfort is the vi inersige—the resisting moral force which nerves us to greater exertion and endurance in adverse \ times, and enables us to tde over them. The worst misforeunes that can befall nation have no i terror. if they do not depress is standard of comfort, and the blessings of enforced tranquillicy- become a curse, when a nation slides itslfinto willing reconciliation with a lower standard oflife (op. cit. p..768). . oe joes eh oR z ~ ™\Gopalakrishnan.op.cit.p. 183. Also Resolution IX of the INC for 1892- "See Reslutin IX ofthe INC for 1892 and similar resolutions of theater Congress "Govt, of India Resolution of 19 Oct. 1888... op. cit. para 4, |‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 33 that it was ‘not an exaggeration to say that over the greater part of the continent the small cultivators and labourers live from hand to mouth.’** In 1898, the Lyall Famine Commission found that the lower strata of the agricultural population were still steeped in extreme poverty and did not have enough food even in normal years.’ In the later years of his viceroyalty, Lord Curzon frankly confessed that there was ‘enough, and far more than enough’ of poverty in India.'* The official per capita income estimates released by Major Baring and Lord Curzon, though debatable in other respects, revealed in a striking manner the utter poverty of the Indian masses. Thus by the close of the 19th century belief in the existence of poverty in India had acquired the currency and force ofamaxim. “The focus of the propaganda battle between the British rulers and the emerging Indian national leadership shifted, therefore, to an even more explosive question: was the poverty of India ‘growing more or growing less’?"” The question was of great importance because the answer to it would decide—and that is why the question was posed by both sides in this form—whether India was better off or worse off for being a British colony." The British in India were more touchy—and tightly so—over this question than over that of the existence of poverty, since acceptance of the fact’ that India was growing poorer would not only mean self- condemnation but lead to serious political repercussions. This was recognised fully well by the highest British authorities, and Lord George ""7bid,, Appendix A. Lord Dufferi’s comment on his own Resolution was ‘any one who can derive much satisfaction from the result must be cither of a very sanguine ora very callous temperament Lord Dufferin, Speeches (Calcutta. 1889). p. 241. Asa matter of fact, many ofthe dlistict and provincial reports published as Appendix A to the Resolurion went a long way in proving the existence of utter poverty and destirution in India. All that the Government Resolution succeeded in establishing was that there was no permanent famine in India. This was asmall consolation indeed! : 7 ™ Reportofthe Indian Famine Commission, 1898 (Calcutta, 1898), paras 591-2. Curzon, Speeches. Vol. Il, p. 149. Similarly, George Hamilton, Secretary of State, agreed that there existed ‘a dense mass of poverty in India, Jndian Debates.3 Feb, 1902, . 108. “The question was posed lucidly in this manner by Lord Curzon. Speeches, Vol. IV, p. 36. ‘As carly as 1838, Babu Ram Copal Ghosh of the Young Bengal group had expressed a desire ro investigate the question: ‘s wealth increasing or decreasing? Are the comforts ofthe great body of the people increasing or diminishing and what are the causes? Quoted in Ram Copal Sanyal’ A General Biography of Bengal Celebrisies (Calcutta. 1889), p. 175. ‘tand an answet had to be given. No relativistic arguments could cloud the issue here. Both sides could notbe right; one had to be wrong. Cf. Digby, op. cit, p-xix.ee 34 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA Hamilton, Secretary of State, accepting the full challenge of the problem, declared in the House of Commons on 16 August 1901: ‘I admit at once that if it could be shown that India has retrograded in material prosperity under our rule we stand self-condemned, and we ought no longer to be trusted with the control of the country.” The subject was also important | because if the disease was not acknowledged, it was useless to look for its | causes and remedies. t For years the Indian leaders had taken the position that not only was India poor, but that she was growing poorer day by day. They hammered incessantly at the theme of the ever growing, ever-deepening poverty ofthe Indian masses, For example, G. K. Gokhale made this the keynote of his i famous budget speech of 190 and, after examining the question from all angles, came to the conclusion that the material condition of the mass of the people in India was ‘steadily deteriorating’, and that the phenomenon ‘was ‘the saddest in the whole range of the economic history of the world” At its very second session in 1886, the Indian National Congress stated their conviction regarding ‘the increasing poverty of vast numbers of the population of India’,'" and reiterated the proposition session after session. ‘The nationalist press was no less vehement in its denunciations of the ‘daily growing’ poverty, which, it was said, had become a ‘palpable’ and an ‘established’ fact.” { “" Hansard (Fourth Series). Vol. XCIX, c. 1209, Similarly, he again declared on 3 February 1902: ‘I have more than once stared my opinion that our main claim, our only claim, to rule India is the belief that we can improve the material prosperity of those who live within its borders.’ (Indian Debates,3 Feb. 1902,c. 105). : Gokhale, Speches, p. 19, Also see, ibid, p. 934; Naoroji, Poverty, p. 186, and Speeches, Appendix D, p. 167; Lai Mohan Ghose, Speecher (Calcurta. 1883), p. 87, in CPA, p. 756: Milaviya, Speeches, pp.219, 238; Joshi, op. cit, pp. 738, 752-3; Mudholkar in Indian Politis, p. i Nundy, ibid. p. 101; Wacha in CPA, p. 560; G. S, Iyer, EA, p. 6; Dutt, Speeches II, pp. 28, "Resolution If of INC for 1856. Also Wacha, Rep. INC for 1886, p. 60. : See, for example, Hindu, 10 Sept. 1884, 29 Aug, 1887, 1 Feb, 1898: Mahratta, 21 Dec. 1884. 11 Nov. 1900; Native Opinion, 13 April (RNPBom..19 April 1884); Navavibhakar, 7 Jan. (RNPBeng, 7 June 1884); Sedharani.27 July ibid..27 Aug, 1884); Sanjivani, 18 July (ibid, 25 July 1885): Dayan Frakash, 19 March (RNPBom., 21 March 1885); newspapers covered by the Voice of India (hereafter referred to as VON). Oct, 1887; Umballa Gazette, 27 June (RNPP,7 July 1888); Pasa Akhbar, 13 Apr. (ibid. 18 Apr. 1891); Dost-i-Hind, 12 June (Ibid, 20 June 1891); Kesar, 22 june (RNP Bom..26 June 1897); Bharat fiwan.25 July (RNPN. 3 Aug, 1898); ABB. 17 June 1898, 12Oct. 1901; Bengalee,9 March 1902. | t | ! | || t | ! | | THE POVERTY OF INDIA 35 On the other hand, most of the British officials in India, and the British writers in general, maintained that under the British regime the ‘material well-being of the people was constantly improving, and that not only was the increasing-impoverishment theory baseless and completely delusory, but the future was full of hope and promise as India was already starting on the high road to prosperity.” The staunchest exponent of this theory was Lord Curzon who returned to this subject again and again in practically every one of his annual speeches on the budget." In 1901, he calculated, as pointed out earlier, that India's per capita income had gone up from Rs, 27 in 1882 to Rs. 30 in 1898, and, though not satisfied with the rate of progress, proclaimed that the movement was ‘distinctly in a forward and not in a retrograde direction’.'" By 1904, he felt even more confident. Jeering at his Indian critics like G. K. Gokhale and comparing them to an amiable eccentric who put up his umbrella and insisted that it was raining when the sun shone, he asserted that India was ‘exhibiting every mark of robust vitality and prosperity’."* By 1905, he had become completely convinced that the material progress of India was ‘without czamae in the previous history of India and rare in the history of any Af people ‘When it came to examining the rival contentions in detail, the two sides argued, more often than not, on the basis of the same economic indicators, which were, however, interpreted in diametrically opposite Grant-Duff in 1886, quoted in Naoroji, Speeches, p. 583; John Strachey and Richard Strachey, op. cit, Chapter I; Dufferin in 1888. Speeches, p. 241; Strachey, India (1894), p. 303; General Sir George Chesney, Indian Polity (London, 1894), p. 394; Henry Fowler, Hansard (Fourth Series), 15 Aug. 1894. Vol. XXVIII, c, 1139; Elgin, Speeches, pp. 360-1; Report of the Famine Commission of 1898. Para 592: Statement Exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India During the Year 1901-02 and the Nine Preceding Years (Being the Fourth Decennial Report), prepared by Francis C. Drake (London, 1903), p. 332; Financial Statements for 1901-02 (Para 136). for 1902-03 (Para 90), for 1903-04 (Para 117). In 1902, Fred J. ‘Atkinson calculared that India’s per capita income had gone up by 29.5% between 1875 and, 1895 (loc. cit, p.238). "Curzon, Speeches. Vol. I, p. 158, Vol. Il, pp. 165, 288-90, Vol. Ill, pp. 148-9, 389 and Vol. IV. pp. 36-7, 211-2. “bid. Vol. UL, p.290. Similarly, George Hamilton claimed: ‘But though slow, so.as at times tobe almost imperceptible, the material advance has been continuous.’ Hansard (Fou.th Series), 1 Aug, 1901, Vo. XCIX, cs, 1208-09. Also Indian Debates, 3 eb, 1902 c.108, 110. ™fbid. Vol Il, p.389. "Ibid. Vol.IV, p.212.36 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA manner. Even when there was agreement on some factors leading to material progress, the Indian leaders held that these were more than counterbalanced by the disappearance of still greater agents of national Prosperity. To the national leadership, famines were clear proof of India's poverty, and their ever increasing intensity, extent, and mortality," an ‘infallible index’ of the growing impoverishment of the county." To the British, on the other hand, famines were the result of nature's caprice, and had little to do with human efforts.” The Indians looked upon the increasing indebtedness of the peasantry and the consequent transfer of land from the caaultivating to the non-cultivating classes as sign of their growing lack of means.” some of the British officials and writers denied that indebtedness indicated a state of poverty for the peasant.” Alternatively, they considered indebtedness to be a cause and not an effect of his poor condition."* G. V. Joshi and Gokhale also pointed to the rising death rate, “The famines which have desolated India within the last quarter of the ninexeenth ‘century are unexampled in their extent and intensity in the history of ancient or modern times’ (Dutt, EH p.vi). "ls it possible to overlook the significance of these famines’, queried Siirendranath Banerjea from the Congress presidential chair in 1902, ‘with their increasing severity and frequency and the silent bur conclusive testimony which they bear to the material retrogression cof che people’ (in CPA, p. 683). Alo se G. S. Iyer, Rep. INC for 1900, p.29; Dutt. Speeches I P-28. Also se below. This artiude is examined in detail below. "Joshi. op cit p. 420; Billi, Rep. INC for 1892, p. 98; Mudholkar in Indian Politics 3%: Nundy, sid. pp. 116-7;G. S. Iyer, Repor of the Royal Commission onthe Administration of the Expendicure of India (hereafeer refered to as Welby Commision), Minutes of Evidence, Vol. tl, Papers (House of Commons), 1900 Vol. 29. C 130. Qs. 19615-6 and EA, p. 15; Wacha in CPA. p. 560; Dur, Open letters to Lord Curzon (Cale. 1904) (hereafter referred to 438 Open Leen), p. 17; Banerjeain CPA. p.689; Gokhale, Speeches p. 53; Resolution IV of INC. C204 and the speeches on this Resolution, Rep. INC for 1904, p. 128. Also Chapter X ™ does not necessarily imply poverty, certainly not distress, and the position enn sop at een ron cverdraws it™.” The Third Decennial Moral and Material Progres Repors, p. 435. ‘Another offical publication went even farther: ‘It is rather a sign of credit, and thercfore the India Resluronef Scher mn of 19th Oct. 1888, op. cit, Appendix A. "See below Chapter X.THE POVERTY OF INDIA 37 independent of famine and plague, as showing that ever-larger number of people was being underfed.'"* However, while offering these positive proofs of India’s growing poverty, the Indian leadership, as a whole, paid much more attention to the demolition of the British case for increasing prosperity. It obviously believed that the burden of proof lay on those who madea positive assertion. ‘The British spokesmen opened their case by appealing to History, the Grand Judge.. They maintained that the basis of comparison. for pronouncing upon the relative material results of the British Raj had to be the condition of India under pre-British rulers. In this comparative light, they argued, the British rule shone quite brightly as India was completely impoverished before the British came.'” The Indian leaders were quite willing to accept a judgment based on their past. Some of them readily acknowledged that Indian poverty had historical roots and was ‘an old, a very old Inheritance’, prosperity."” But most of them believed that India’s present misery and poverty had no ‘parallel at any former period’ and that the British rule was the greatest curse with which India has been ever afflicted’.'” Many of them tried to prove that the Indian people were better off in the times of and that India of the past was no haven of “Joshi, op. cit. pp. 227,769-705 and Gokhale, Speeches, pp. 18, 52. ™ General George Chesney, ex-Military Member, wrote in 1894: “The wealth at any rate is the creation of our rule, we found India poverty-stricken as it always had been before, and as doubtless it would still be if we had not appeared on the scene” (op. cit. p. 397). ‘But if you compare India of to-day with the India of Alexander, of Asoka. of Akbar or of Aurangzeb,’ remarked Lord Curzon in 1904, you will find... higher standards of material well-being, than that great dependency has ever previously attained’ (Speeches, Vol. IV, p. 37). Also see, H, G. Keene, ‘An Alien Yoke”, Calcutta Review, Oct. 1904, p. 442; Rees, op. cit, p.384. ““Ranade, Essays, p. 182. A young Indian writer, who took active part in National Congress affairs of Bengal, went to the extent of admitting that Indian peasantry had been ‘a rack-rented and unhappy class of people, in all the various stages and epochs of Indian history—ever “the sport of fortune, and the plaything of avarice” (Ray, Poverty, p. 199). But even he added that ‘under British administration the misery has only deepened’ (ibid. p. 214). Also see Mudholkar, Rep. INC for 1891, p.21. ™ Ananda Bazar Patrika, 13 Apr. (RNP Beng., 24 Apt. 1880). “*Naoroji, Poverty, p. 579. An Indian writer, Kailas Chandra Kanjilal. wrote in the Calewtta Review that British rule had ‘produced a degree of misery that never existed under the Hindu, or the Mughul, Tippu Sahib or the Peshwa’ (Calcutta Review, Oct. 1901. pp. 309-10).38 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA Akbar and some other Indian rulers." Some of the national spokesmen even glorified the past and loudly bewailed the loss of wealth and splendor of the days gone by.” The official contention was neatly countered by Alfred Nundys poser: ‘If it was to relieve the suffering poor that the English merchants were first attracted to India, or is it, as their own historians say, that they came here attracted by the wealth of India.” The increasing imports of ‘enormous’ quantities of precious metals into India and their consequent accumulation in the hands of the people enjoyed great favour with the British Indian officials and writers as a positive indication of the growing wealth of the country.” One of them, Fred J. Atkinson, calculated in 1902 that during the years. 1800 t0 1895 India had imported gold worth £141,705,000 and silver worth Rs. 4,792,403,000. After making deductions for coins, etc., he arrived at the figure of Rs. 26 per head as the hoarded wealth of India.™ This line of argument failed, however, to impress the Indian leaders. While admitting thar there had been net imports of precious metals throughout the 19th "See, for example. Sanjivani, 14 June (RNPBeng., 21 June 1884); Gramuarta Prakasika, 9 ‘Aug, (ibid. 16 Aug. 1884); S. N. Banetjea, Rep. INC for 1896, pp. 135-6; Keari, 22 June (RNPBom, 26 june 1897).and 14 Jan, (ibid, 18 Jan, 1902);N.K.N. Iyer, Rep, INC for 1901. p. 140-1; C. ¥. Chintamani, “The Economic Aspects of British Rule in India’, HR, Dec. 1901, Pp. 48546; Bengale,22.Oct. 1903. Also see, Naoroji, Speeches, p. 389; Tilak, quoted in Pradhan and Bagwat, op. cit, p.72; Ray. Poverty p.75, : “India was at one time’, wrote the Amrita Bazar Patriba, ‘the wealthiest country in the world (22 May 1884), Delegate after delegate to the Congress referred year after year to the past riches ofthe country. See the Reps, INC for the years 1899-1904. Dadabhai reproduced in his The Poverty and Un-Britch Rule in Indian 1901 an essay he had written in 1853 on “The State and Government of India Under the Native Rulers'in which, by quoting various British authors, he tried to show that at the date of Alexander’ invasion, and for centuries befor it the Indian people ‘enjoyed a high degree of prosperity which continued to the breaking up of the Mughul Empire (p. 584). This esay wa virally eproduced by GS lyerin 1903 in his Some Economie Aipect of British Rule in India Sc also Nundy in Indian Politcs,pp. 103, 105.110, Raoad’s The | "In Indian Politics,p, 110, t ' "Grant-Duff, quoted in Naoroj, ches, p. 619; Fowler, Hansard (Fourth Series), 15 Aug. 1894. Vol. XXVIIL cs. 1139-40: J. cle Wall VoL, 18255;Chacey Peile, Welby Commision, Vol. Il Q. 18235; Chancy. Gt p. 394: Atkinson, lo. eit, pp. 240-51; Curcon. Speecher Vol. TL. 289, Vol. IV, Strachey, India (1903), p. 192. ee ee Atkinson oe. cit, pp.269 and 260. Tisincluded omaments,‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 39 century, they denied that this should be regarded as a sign of increasing prosperity ot as an addition to national wealth. They pointed out that the major portion of the total import of silver was meant not for hoards or jewellery but for meeting the pressing financial and commercial needs for currency. The imported silver was mainly used up by coinage, the demand for which had steadily increased over the years due to the necessity of paying land revenue in cash and financing the expanding foreign trade of the country.” What was left of the net imports of the precious metals, after providing for coinage, wear and tear treasury balances, etc., was too paltry to be used as a proof of the advancing prosperity of the people™ Even this petty amount was primarily consumed by the upper and middle classes and it seldom trickled down to the poorer sections of the populace,” Dadabhai Naoroji further emphasised that gold and silver imports were'no net additions to wealth as they were not made to make up for a positive balance of trade. India had an excess of exports over imports after the import. of precious..metals had already been. accounted jfor by a corresponding export of other goods. These imports were, therefore, more aloss of subsistence than an accumulation of wealth.'* : ‘As an evidence of India’s advancing prosperity the British Indian authorities rejoiced at the rapid expansion over the years of India's foreign trade, both in value and volume. On the one hand, they argued that only a country growing in wealth would. increase its’ imports. of foreign *Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 86-7, Speeches, p. 6125, Joshi, op. cit, p. 661; Mudholkar in Indian Palities,p. 46. -Naoroji Poverty, pp. 86-8. Speeches, pp. 611-2; Ranade, Essays, p. 188; Joshi, op. cit, pp- 660-3; Mudholkar in Indien Polisi, p. 46; R, C. Due, England and Indi, p. 131: Gokhale, Welby Commission, Vol. Ill, Q. 18238; G. S. Iyer, ibid, Q. 18715. + "Joshi, op. cit. p. 756: Dutt, England and India p. 132; Nundy in Indian Politics, p. ua Gokhale, Speeches, p. 16,and Welby Commision, Vol. III, Q. 18238. “Naoroji, Poverty pp. 88-9. In a brilliant passage, which deserves reproduction, Dadabhai wrote: ‘If give out £20 worth of goods to anybody, and in return get £5 in other goods and £5 in silver, and yet if by so doing, though I have received only £10 worth in all for the £20 I have parted with, I am richer by £5 because I have received £5 in silver, then my richness will be very tunenviable indeed. The phenomenon in fact has 2 delusive effect. Besides not giving due ‘consideration to the above circumstances, the bewilderment of many people at what are called enormous imports of silver in India is like that of a child which, because it can itself be satisfied ‘with a small piece of bread, wonders ata big man eating up whole loaf, though that loaf may be bbucavery “scanty subsistence” forthe poor big an (ibid p. 88). Also see Joshi op cit pp. 755+ 6; Gokhale, Welby Commission, Vol. IIl, Qs. 18239-43, io40 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA manufactures at a regular and high rate; on the other, they held that, | increasing exports must be putting more and more money into the pockets of the peasantry.” The Indian leaders took a contraty view of this phenomenon. Their approach towards foreign trade is examined in a subsequent chapter. Here, it is sufficient to point out that, according to them, not only was the growth of foreign commerce not a source of gain, but it was instead a major source of national loss, since the little good it did ‘was more than countered by the greater evil of industrial prostration thatit produced by displacing the indigenous manufactures. Further, this increase was more an indication of the increasing ‘drain’ of wealth from India than of growing welfare. Moreover, while its evils were visited upon the Indians, its fruits were enjoyed by the foreigners." ‘The British Indian administrators pointed to the steadily improving revenues of India; which increased without additional measures of taxation, and congratulated themselves on ‘the elasticity exhibited by our main heads of revenue’ and ‘the steady growth of receipts from those sources which indicate purchasing power and prosperity." They referred in particular to the growth of revenue from customs duties, post office, salt tax, income tax, stamps and excise taxes as indicating ‘an improving margin of wealth and comfort in the country’. Indians, whose point of view was presented vigorously by G. K. Gokhale in his budget speeches of 1902 and 1903 for which he was applauded by the entire nationalist opinion, were not willing to accept the increase in revenue as an indication of material progress. They looked upon high taxation as a major cause of John Strachey and Richard Strachey, op. cit, pp. 312, 329; The Third Decennial Moral ‘and Material Progress Report, p. 433; Chesney, op. ct, pp. 328, 394; Strachey, India (1894). p. 304; Elgin, Speeches, pp. 360-1; Curzon, Speeches, VoL I, p. xxv and Vol. Il. p. 289; Financial Statements for 1901-02 (Para 127). for 1902-03 (paras 14-5). for 1903-04 (Para 127); The Fourth’ Decennial Moral and Matetial Progress Report, p. 332; George Hamilton. Hanard (Fourth Series), 16 Aug, 1901, Vol. XCIX, cs, 1212-3, and Indian Debates 3 Feb. 1902.c. 110. See ‘Chapter IV below. ‘Curzon, Speeches, Vol Il, pp. 449-50. Also see George Hamilton, Indian Debates. 3 Feb, Pilsen | Statements for 1901-02 (Para 104), for 1903-04 (Para 35)- » Speeches, Vol. Il, p. 450- See also ibid. Vol IIL, p. 148; Chesney, op. cit. pp. 328, 331; Financial Statements for 1901-02 (paras 109-11), fr 190203 (Para). For 1903.04 ara [19). For 1904-05 (Para 45); The Fourth Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report, 332. Interestingly, increased litigation as indicated bythe increase in stamp revenue was also cited asa cause of Indian poverty. See below. 4 ; ‘ At| | | ' | i | ‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 41 India's poverty." They also disagreed with the British view regarding the heads of revenue whose growth would be a pointer to improvement in the condition of the people. Increase in excise revenue, they believed, signified the nation’s march on the road to intoxication and misery rather than prosperity. It should be condemned by a civilized government instead of being held up for approbation The increase in customs duties indicated only an expansion of foreign trade, which was, as has been seen earlier, itself condemned. The only two taxes whose yields could serve as an index of the country’s material condition were income tax and salt tax—the former in respect of the middle classes and the latter in relation to the masses." The revenue from income tax, it was pointed out, had remained more or less stationary over the years," while the yield from salt tax had not expanded in proportion to the increase in population.’ This latter fact, pointing to a fall in the per capita consumption of such a basic and essential ingredient of human consumption as salt, was in reality a major witness to the deteriorating condition of the masses." + The British Indian authorities referred to the expansion in the area under cultivation and to the increased productivity of land as yet another proof of the growing prosperity of India, as these resulted in larget agriculeural incomes and greater availability of foodstuffs in the country.” “’SeeChapterXI below. 2 + > : : “See section on Excise in Chapter XI below. Also Gokhale, Speeches, p. 17; Malaviya, Speeches, pp. 380-1. “°Gokhale, Speeches,p. 17. Ibid. and Rep. INC for 1904, pp. 166-7; Malaviya, Speeches, p. 381, Moreover, it was pointed out that the extremely low receipts from this tax went to prove the extreme poverty of the ‘country. Nundy in Indian Politics, p.119. f “Gokhale, Speeches, p. 17, and Rep. INC for 1004, pp. 166-7. “4Gokhale, Speeches, p. 18; Joshi, op. cit, pp. 200, 217; D. E. Wacha gave in his presidential address to the Congress following figures: In 1886-87 the consumption per head was 13.9 Ibs. and in 1890-1900, 12.7 Ibs. CPA. p. 603. Also Banerjea in CPA, p. 686. » “The Third Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report, p. 433; the Fourth Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report, p. 332; Curzon, Speeches, Vol. Il. pp. 290-1; Atkinson, op. cit, pp. 215-20, 269, Curzon calculated in 1901 that area under cultivation had increased from 194 millions ofacres in 1880 to 217 millions of acres in 1898, or‘an increase in virtually the same ratio as the increase in population’. He rested his case for greatet availability of food per head on die increase in yield pet acte of food crops from 730 lbs. in 1880 to 840 Ibs. in 1898. Speeches, Vol. Il, pp. 290-1. According to Atkinson, per head food production increased from 1.701 Ibs. per day in 1875 to 1.739 per day in 1895. .42 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA. The Indian leaders countered this argument by maintaining that the area under cultivation and the total food supply were not growing in | proportion to the increase in population, particularly in the older provinces." Moreover, increase in the cultivated area under food crops had been very meagre compared with the increase in area under commercial crops." The extension of cultivated area was also “not commensurate with the increase in export of agricultural products.’ In any case, this extension had taken place as a result of encroachment upon forests, natural pastures, and fallow lands.” Moreover, they held views diametrically opposed to. those of the British on the question of improvementin the fertility of land which had, in their opinion, fallen due to the extension of cultivation to inferior soils on ‘a non-economic basis because of the pressure, of population on land consequent upon the displacement of indigenous manufactures,’ and due to soil exhaustion brought about by continuous, unmanured cropping.””® They, therefore, concluded that India was suffering from a severe and: continued agricultural depression, which found reflection in repeated famines. ‘An interesting evidence of the improved condition of the people that the officials offered was the increase in prices, the obvious assumption being that high prices, on the one hand, put more money into the pockets of the cultivating classes and, on the other, reflected the growing demand for food and other consumer goods generated by the increased purchasing Power of the masses.” To the nationalist economists, this view of the role “Joshi, 6p. cits pp. 227, 334, 355, 839; Nundy, in Indian Politics, p. 109; Sayani in CPA, P.365; Wachain CPA, p.595; Sanjiueni, 15 Feb, (RNPBeng, 22 Feb. 1890), Gokhale, Speeches, a i 0p. cis,p. 839; Sayaniin CPA, p. 363, "yoshi is. pp. 841-3; Nundy in Indian Politics, p.109. >: Josie. cit p. 832, 835.841, 844,852: Nundy in Indien Politi, p.109. "Joshi op Pp.217,333, 338, 753; Gokhale, Speeches, p. 19. 7 ram i 696: Gabbe Speco pp 18,32 ’ 7 Third Decennial Moral and Material 428; R i Famine Commision, 1898, para590; Financial: Satie oo ies . one xe | | © 'Sayaniin CPA, pp.363-4; Joshi, op ci, p 839, | oF 1 i I ' t| | | | | ' ' | A i ‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 43 of high prices was superficial and fallacious. For several years they denied that a general or considerable price rise—as opposed to a partial, local or temporary rise—had taken place in the country.” Later on, the fact of a general increase in prices was admitted, but its significance was interpreted differently. They argued that the price rise was not a sign of the higher purchasing power of the masses but a grave symptom of falling national production and declining agriculture.” It was moreover the result of the increasing exports of agricultural products and of the influence of high prices in the European markets." In any case, some of them pointed out, the benefit of higher prices was not reaped by the actual producer but was intercepted by the middleman, the moneylender, and the export merchant." They were also quick in pointing out that the wages of agricultural and other labourers, the poorest sections of the population, had not increased pari passu with the rise in prices—they, had even declined in some cases—and for them, as well as for the petty cultivators, “*Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 66, 72. 79; Joshi, op. cit., pp. 663, 898; G. S. Iyer, “Railways in in India, in Indian Politics, p.191, welby Commission Vol. T1.Q. 18063. '*Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 69, 80; Joshi. op. cit., p.900. “Joshi, op. cit, p. 900 Ray. Poverty pp. 174-5; G. S. Iyer in Indian Politics, p. 191, in HR. May 1901. p. 352. Both these contentions got remarkable support later from the Dutta Report of the Commitee om Rise in Prices and Wages, p. 61, and Imperial Gazeter of India (Oxford, 1908). Vol Il, p.461. "This view was epeatedly stressed by GS. Iyerin many newspapersand othe articles. For alucid and clear exposition, the following passagefrom his book Some Economic Aspects of British ‘Rule in India stands out: “The fact is, the profits arising from increased prices are intercepted by middlemen. In most cases, the ryots are unable to choose their own time or conditions in the disposal of their produce. The great majority are so poor that the produce of the land hardly suffices to feed the family for more than some months in the year; the deficiency being made good by wages camed in the village or in the neighboring town. The ryot cannot, therefore, meet from his produce the requirements of himself and his family as well as the demands of the ‘Government and of the money-lender. For one or the other, often for both purposes, the ryot borrows ata usurious rate of interest; what produce he makes up his mind to sell off, he sels off when the pressure from the Government or the Sowcar is most tight, at prices which are ‘considerably lower than the prices prevailing at certain seasons in the year or in adjacent towns or at the seaports. To the question, who intercepts the profits of the producer from increased prices, the reply is, partly the Sowcar, and partly the middleman who buys the grain from the villager and sells it at a time when the market is dear(p. 225). Also see, Ray, Indian famines, p. 63; Hindustani, 13 Apt. (RNPN, 21 Apt. 1892); Gokhale, Welby Commission, Vol. Ill, Q. 18313; Mabratia,16 Nov. 1902; Wacha in CPA, p. 601.44° Tie Rise AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA who did not have much surplus to sell and who purchased part of their food requirements, high prices had produced misery not prosperity. There was, however, one aspect of contemporary Indian economic development, viz., the rise and growth of modem industry and means of transport, which was looked upon with approval, and recognised as a source of economic strength by both sides of the propaganda barricade. But even on this front, the Indian leaders pointed with dismay to the fast proceeding decay of the indigenous industry. The heavy loss caused to the livelihood of the masses by this industrial prostration was not yet made up in any perceptible manner by the growth of modern machine industry.” Moreover, the domination of modem Indian industry by foreign capital took away a great deal from its beneficent results.“ Nor were the railways, in their opinion, an unmixed blessing.” The Indian leaders scored over the British Indian administration in one respect. Firm in their beliefs, both as regards the extreme poverty of India as well as its worsening nature, they were always willing to stand the test of an open and impartial enquiry ‘to reach the bottom of the truth’. As a matter of fact, they made the institution of such an enquiry an integral part of their agitation on the problem of India’s poverty. Dadabhai Naoroji demanded it persistently throughout his active political career—in his essays, in the House of Commons, as the President of the Congress, and in his evidence before the Select Committee on East Indian Finance and the Royal Commission on the Administration of the Expenditure of India (the ‘Welby Commission). In 1900, the National Congress put forth the demand for ‘a full and independent enquiry into the economic condition of the people’" and when in 1901 the Indian Famine Union in England asked for a detailed enquiry into the economic condition of a number of ‘typical villages in India, che Congress gave the proposal its whole-hearted ““Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 82, 85; Joshi. op. cit, p. 228; Ray, Poverty, 176, and Indian Famines, pp. 62-3; Nundy, op. cit. pp. 119-20; G. S.Iyes, Welby Commission, Vol Il, Qs. 18963, 19016, in Indian Politics, p. 192, EA, pp. 223, 225-6, 259; Mabnatua, 16 Now. 1902; Wacha in CPA p. 601. Also see Gokhale. Welby Commision, Vol. III, Q.'18308. “See Chapter IL. “*See Chapter IIL “See Chapter V. ““Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 147, 193; ». 124-44; in x ‘Appendix, pp. 184. 188-9; Ibid, p. 308. 7 ees "Resolution Il of the INC for 1900.‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 45 backing," Indian leaders often insisted upon the publication of the results of the Barbour Enquiry of 1882 and the Dufferin Enquiry of 1888, and chided the officials for betraying, by withholding such publication, lack of confidence in their own publicassertions.”"” IV. THE CAUSES OF POVERTY The battle of words on. the issue regarding the growing poverty or prosperity of India was waged to exhaustion by both sides. However, though this controversy continued to enliven Indian politics for years, at the most it succeeded in establishing only two propositions: firstly, that the standard of living of the poorer strata of the population was extremely low, so low that it could not perhaps be pushed down any further; and, secondly, that material progress, or retrogression, ifany, was taking place at too meagre a rate and within too narrow limits to be scientifically established. " In other words, the material condition of India was that of stagnation at alow level of poverty. “Resolution IV of the INC for 1902; Resolution XIII of the INC for 1903; Wacha in CPA, pp. 566-7, 596-75 Hindu, 28 Now. 1901;'ABP, 27 Feb. 1902; Gokhale, Speeches, p.20; G. S. Iyer. EA, pp. 4, 6; papers covered by the RNPBeng. for 22 March 1902; many Indian nationalist newspapers had supported a similar demand in 1897. See Mahrarta, 28 Feb. 1897; ‘Advocate, 23 Feb Indian Mier 28 Fel Bar Hel 27 Feb. Indian Spectator and Voc of India (hereafter referred to as ISVOM), 28 March 1897]. “Resolution Ill ofthe INC for 1902; S, N. Banerjeain CPA, pp. 680-1;Gokhale, Speeches, 20. Also see Wachain CPA. pp. 589,595. "This was admitted in many official and semi-official pronouncements. See above. The Famine Commissioners of 1898 remarked in a much quoted Excerpt: “There always has existed, and there still does exist, a lower section of the community living a hand-to-mouth existence, with a low standard of comfort, and abnormally sensitive to the effects of inferior harvests and calamities of season. This section is very large and includes the great class of day labourers and the least skilled of the artisans. So far as we have been able to form a general opinion upon a difficult question from the evidence we have heard and the statistics placed before us, the wages of these people have not risen in the last ewenty years in due proportion to the rise in prices of their necessaries of life. The experience of the recent famine fails to suggest that this section of the community has shown any large command of resources or any increased power of resistance. Far from contracting, it seems to be gradually widening, particularly in the more congested districts. Its sensitiveness or liability to succumb, instead of diminishing, is possibly becoming more accentuated’ (Report of the Indian Famine Commission, 1808, Para 592). A. recent study by an American scholar, George Blyn, ‘The Agricultural Crops of India. 1893-04 to 1945-46: A Statistical Study of Output and Trends’ unpublished MS, South Asia Regional Studies Department, University of Pennsylvania, 1951, has estimated that output of food crops per year per capita was falling steadily in the period of the study. In the years 1893- 94 to 1895-96 it was 587 Ibs. in 1936-37 to 1945-46, it had come down to 399 Ibs. Quoted inry ™ 46 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA To the Indian leaders the question of the direction in which the country’s economy was moving was of importance mainly because it focused the attention of the public and the government on the poverty problem, and, at a later date, helped apportion responsibility for it”; ‘Their main concern during the major part of the period under study was, however, the removal of the universally accepted, acute poverty of India and not to cry ‘over spilt milk’.'” The foreign rulers as well as the Indian leaders paid greater attention to unravelling and discussing the factors responsible for the acute poverty of the country, since they were conscious of the fact that proper remedial measures could be recommended or undertaken only when the obstacles standing in the path of economic Progress had been discovered.” Various explanations of the phenomenal poverty of India were offered by the British Indian writers and administrators from time to time. The Indian nationalists, however, invariably rejected these as superficial, inadequate and unsatisfactory. Quite often the British administrators put the blame for poverty on ‘the size and growth of the population’ which by rapidly outrunning the means of subsistence made poverty inevitable.” ‘Above all, what land is exposed to such imminent danger’ asked Lord Dufferin in his St. Andrew's Dinner speech in 1888, ‘by the overflow of the population of large districts and territories whose inhabitant’s arc yearly multiplying: beyond the ‘Thornes, lo. cits p. 123. Another recent writer has calculated that Indian per capita income from all sources fell by eight per cent during 1896 to 1945, Surendra J. Patel, ‘Long Term Changes in Ourput and Income in India: 1896-1960, Indian Economic Journal, Jan, 1958, Vol V, No. 3. 7 Wacha in CPA, p.598. 5 "NG, Chandavatkarin CPA, p.512 The pasthad been bad, “bleeding and degrading’s det the furure bbe good yet—prospering and elevating,’ pleaded Dadabhai Naoroji in his statement submitted to the Indian Committee of 1898 (Poverty, p. 548). Justice ieved that ‘The question of our comparative i | et ituation is instructive’ (Esays, p. 182). | Resolute ir 270: Malaviya. Speche, pp. 262-3; Dut, England and india, 126: ion Il ofthe INC for 1900, and the Resolut a i P-559;Dut, EHL pv, an lutions of the later Congresses; Wacha in CPA, | Curzon, Speeches, Vol Il, p. 149. Also ibid. Vol. I, pp. 194, 289: Bengal Governments. | Summary in the Government of India Resolution of 19 Oee Lae vee in As | micas lution of 19th Oct. 1888, op. cit, Appendix A;THE POVERTY OF INDIA 47 number which the soil is capable of sustaining?” Interestingly enough, increasing population was also referred to in 1891 as an evidence of the material advancement of the country by Lord Lansdowne, his successor as Viceroy.” The Indian leadership rejected this contention in its entirety. They denied that the Indian people were multiplying very fast, or that India was overpopulated, or that the size and growth of its population were responsible for its poverty.'” The rate of growth of population in India was in reality so small that it spoke ‘volumes for the instinctive regard of the people of this country for those prudential restraints on which Malthusian economists lay so much stress, and for which we are fairly entitled to take ctedit."" In any case, miserable living conditions did not necessarily go together with dense populations, for were not most of the West European countries more thickly populated than India and were yet more wealthy?” Nor was a growing population incompatible ‘with increasing wealth since population multiplied much faster in many of the West European countries, including England, than in India and yet their material welfare also increased instead of decreasing,” In a brilliant article, that stands to this day as an outstanding example of contemporary economic analysis, on the ‘Economic Situation in India’,"" G. V. Joshi unraveled in 1890 the Dufferin, op. cit, pp. 240-1. = , = "Lansdowne, Speeches (Calcutta), Vol. Il. p. 376. Also, The Thind Decennial Moral and Material Progress Repors, pp. 432-3; and George Hamilton. Hansard (Fourth Series). 26 July 1900, Vol. XLV, c. 539. This contradiction was duly noted with amusement by the Indians, one ‘of whom was quick in pointing out that ‘this increase of population serves the double purpose of acting on certain occasions asa proof of the material advancement of the country, and on other ‘occasions as areason for the poverty of the country’ (Nundy in Indian Politics, p.107). ""Naoroji, Poverty, pp. 216-7, Speeches, p. 620; Joshi. op. cit., p.771;G. S. Iyer, Rep-INC for 1900. p. 295 N. G. Chandavarkar in CPA. p. 514; S. N. Banerjea in CPA, p. 684; Perraju, Rep. INC for 1902, p. 75; Dutt, England and India, p. 132. Speeches I, p. 26, EHI, p. Sadharani, 27 July (RNP Beng, 2 Aug. 1884); ABP, 5 Aug. 1886; Sanjivani, 15 Feb. (RNPBeng. 22 Feb, 1890); Hindu. 6 July 1898; Madras Standard, 5 Aug.s Swadesamitran, 5 Aug, (RNPM, 10 Aug. 1901). "Joshi, op. cit. p.773. Also Duttin CPA, p. 477; S. N. Banerjea in CPA, p. 684. Naoroji, Speeches, pp. 325-6.621; ABP, 5 Aug. 1886; Ray, Poverty pp. 168-9. “*Naoroji, Poverty pp. 620-1, Speeches, p. 324; Joshi, op. cit. p. 772s Ray. Poverty, p. 197; Dim. England and India, p. 1.32, Open Lesters, p. 17; N.G. Chandavarkai in CPA. pp. 514-5; SN, Banerjeain CPA, p. 684; G. S. Iyer. Welly Commission, Vol. Il, Qs. 18648-9. Rep. INC for 1900, p. 29; Hindu, 6 July 1898; Senjivani, 15 Feb. (RNPBeng., 22 Feb. 1900); Kesar. 31 March (RNPBom., 4 Apr. 1903):N. Srinivasachariar, Rep. INC for 1903, p.66. “Published in the January and October 1890 issues of the Journal ofthe Poona Sarvajanik ‘Sabha and reproduced in his Speeches and Writings.2... 48 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA true nature of India's ‘overpopulation’. His starting point was the assumption that ‘increase of numbers is per se not necessarily or always an evil, as Malthusian writers assert’. But while conceding that ‘when a country reaches the limit of its material resources of production and no further development by the application of science, skill, or labour is possible, such increase constitutes a great evil and will have to be provided inst’, he was of the opinion that this reasoning was obviously not truein case of underdeveloped countries, like India, ‘whose material resources of productive wealth are still awaiting the hand, che skill, and science of man’. In such countries, increase of population could itself be, on the contrary, a major source of wealth ‘rather than a curse as Malthusian economists would expect’. The economic history of the rwo great industrial countries of the world, the United Kingdom and France, was a witness to this phenomenon. The population of the United Kingdom had increased from 15 million in 1806 to 34.6 million in 1882, and yet its national income had skyrocketed from £170 million to £1,247 million during the same period. In France, while population had gone up from 26 million in 1780 to 37.6 million in 1882, the increase in national income was from £160 million to £965 million. Obviously, the Malthusian law of geometrical progression of population as compared with the arithmetical progression of production was held in abeyance in this instance. This was so because ‘increase of population in this case means increase of productive labour, and such increase, when accompanied by the growth of conditions which | make labour and capital more efficient, ought to lead to increase of | production’. In India too, increase of population ought to be, because of her unlimited and untapped natural resources, a source of economic growth. The conclusion was, therefore, obvious. So far as India was concerned, the source of mischief lay ‘not so much in the fact of an alleged overpopulation as in the admitted and patent evil of underproduction."” The issue was further clarified and clinched by G. V. Joshi in the following passage: There is always a normal ratio between population and production which determines the average standard of life of every community. | When both population and production advance at an equal and | normal rate, the ratio is maintained and there is no disturbance of the | : | | "Joshi, op. cit, pp.773-5 (emphasis added).‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA 49 national standard of living. When, however, population multiplies at an abnormal rate while production keeps up its normal level, there is properly speaking the evil of overpopulation. But when production falls off while population is advancing at its normal rate, we have what 1. we may:call the evil of underproduction..The capitalist Political Economy of the West, looking only to one term of the: ratio, confounds the two evils—in their nature so different, and styles them as overpopulation in either case. In India, as we have seen before, population is not increasing beyond its normal rate, and if the total production’ of the country does not come up to the level of its requirements, where there is such a wealth of material resources, we have clearly not what Political Economists call the evil of overpopulation to deal with, but the evil of underproduction, which they donot recognise." Further, if population was increasing the result need not be growing poverty, for it could and should be countered with faster industrialization, “The question of providing bread for the growing population of this country is no doubt a pressing and serious one at the present moment, but to our thinking, more serious and more pressing is the question of providing adequate work for our growing workers." This position was indirectly adopted by the entire Indian leadership when it went out of its way to assert that Indian agriculture was indeed overcrowded, but this was the result not of overpopulation but’ of the unplanned and forced destruction of India’s indigenous industry, which was itself a product of British supremacy in India." “To talk of overpopulation at present is just as reasonable as to cut offa man's hands, and then to taunt him that he was not able to maintain himself or move his hands." In these circumstances, "”Ibid., pp. 774-5- The same idea had been put forth, though rather incoherently, by the Amrita Bazar Patrika, a few years earlier on 5 Aug. 1886: ‘It has been proved that in any given state of civilization, agricultural or otherwise, a greater number of people can, within certain broad limits; be collectively better provided than a smaller.’ Also see Naoroji, Speeches, p. 391: “Let them (the British) withdraw their hand from India's throat, and then see whether the increase in population is not an addition to its strength and production instead of British-made famines and poverty. Also see G. S. lyes, Welby Commission, Vol. III, Qs. 1873-6. "Joshi, op. cit, p. 851-Also Ranade, Exays, p. 207; Wacha in CPA, p- 600. “See Chapter Il. ““Naoroji, Poverty p. 217.50 THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA it was sai, che theory of overpopulation was a mere attempt ‘to divert public attention from the real issues’ and added ‘a distressful insult to | agonizing injury’."” : Another stock official explanation of poverty was: the general thrifilessness and extravagance of the Indian people, which found expression in their propensity to spend recklessly on marriages and other social functions."® “The absence of thrift’, stated the Resolution on the Economic Enquiry of 1888, ‘is a very prominent characteristic of the ne A . : .”"” The tendency of the ryots to take frequent recourse to law courts was also stated to be an expression of the same prodigality."® It was also held sometimes that the Indian peasants and labourers could not ¢ Indian leadership vehemently denied that the Indian ryot was improvident or that thriftlessness was a fault basic to Indian national character. 1 2 As far as marriage and other similar expenses were concerned, © they were, in reality, small and occasions for them arose but rarely; they "BC Ray, Indian Femines (Calcutta, 1901), p. 35 and Naoroji: Poverty, p. 217, ae 7 : ie 1 Dufferin, Speeches, p- 240; Third Decennial Moral and Material Progress Repos p34; Fourth Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report p. 354; Curzon, Speeches, Vol. in, p. 149: Resolution ofthe Govt, of India No. 1, dated the \6th January 1902 (Cal, 1902), Para31). "Resolution of the Govt, of India, dated 19th: Oct 1888, op. cit, Appendix A. "Carson. Speeches, Vol... 166; Resolution of The Goveoflindia, dated 1GthJan. 1902, op-cit, Paral. : oan _pResolution ofthe Gov, ofndia, dated 19th Oct 1888, op. ci. Appendix A. ™Durt, EH1, p. vi Also Ranade, ‘Land Law Reforin and Agricultural Banks’. JPSS, Oct. Peal Wal. IV, No.2). .55 (We have G. A. Mankar’ authority thatthe article was penned by | Rane Sechis A Skich of the lf and Worksof he late Mr Justice M. G. Ranade, Vole Bombay, 1002, Vol. I p.215); Joshi. op. cit. p. 778; Ray. Poverty pp. 194-5; B. Mehta, Speeches, pp. 663- EN G.Chandavatar in CPA, p. 516; Dutvin CPA, p. 478. 480. Open Lenon, p. 17, EHIL p. Hi N. KN. yer. Rep. INC for 1901, p. 1405 Sri Ram. LCR, 190, Vol. XL pp. 146-7; .N. Banereain CPA. pp.684-5;J. Benjamin, Rep. INC for1904,p, 128. met “Un che cas ofan average rota ew new earthenware afew wild flowers, the village tom- ia ama nach fl meal, bad arece mut and beel-lenves and afew salks of cheap bacco andTHE POVERTY OF INDIA 51 could not, under the circumstances, be a source of the ryot’s poverty. In any case, were not the Indian masses entitled to some moments of brightness and joy, or did they have ‘no right or business to have any advancement in civilisation, in life and life's enjoyments, physical, moral, mental and social? Must they always live to the brute’s level—must have no social expenses—is that all extravagance, stupidity, want of intelligence, and what not?"” Looking at the problem from a different angle, and his usual insight, G.V. Joshi observed that living beyond one’s means was, like overpopulation, . It could mean either spending more ‘If our earning power is so low as at present and our income hardly ever comes up to the level of our necessary expenditure, the evil does not lic in our over- spending propensities, ”© The Indian leadership also observed that the Indian ryot was: not more fond of festivals and celebrations than his counterpart in other countries.” Similarly, the ryot could not also be accused of indolence; he was one of the most industrious and hardworking of workers in the world.”* Moreover, to the extent that improvidence, ignorance, and lack of spirit were to be found in the ryot, they were not the causes: but the results of unsound economic arrangements which offered him no incentive or opportunity to improve, as might be seen from a study of the transformation that occurred in the habits and nature of the French peasant at the end of the 18th century after the abolition of feudalism. ” It must, however, be noted that in a different context—not as an excuse for poverty but as a social evil which stood in the "“Naoroji, Speeches, p. 619; Swadesamitran, 3 Apt. (RNPM, 30 Apr. 1897); Nundy in Indian Politics,'p. 117; P. Mehta, Speeches, p. 663; G. S. Iyer, EA, p. 14;N. G. Chandavarkar in CPA, p. 516;S.N. Banerjea in CPA, pp. 68: "*Naoroji. Speeches, p. 312. Also il (Chandavarkar in CPA, p.516. . ooh i op. cit., p. 775. Also Wacha, Rep. INC for 1886. p.61. : ""Naoroji, Poverty pp. 87-8; N. G. Chandavarkar in CPA, p. 51$-Swadesamitran, 3 Apt. (RNPM. 30 Apr. 1897); Madras Standard, 5 Aug, and Soadcsamitran, 5 Aug. (RNPM, 10 Aug, 1901). . “*Ranade, ‘Land Law Reform and Agricultural Banks, lo. ct.. p. 55; Naoroji. Essays, p. 368; Joshi, op. cit. p. 773; C. Sankaran Nair in CPA. p. 384; N. G. Chandavarkar in CPA, p. 521;N. KN. Iyer, Rep. INC for 1901, pp. 140-1; Dutt, EH, pp. “"Ranade. Essays, pp. 52-3.256; Joshi, op. cit., pp. 347,362, 852. 870. 905; Ray, Poverty p. Lp. 619; B Mehta. Speeches. p. 664; N. G. 190.52 THE Rise AND GROWTH OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM IN INDIA path of India’s uplifi—the Indian leaders were quite anxious to condemn i t.”” So faras the action of the courts in impoverishing the ryot was concerned, the nationalists, while alleging that the courts were a product of the British regime itself, The Indian leaders also controverted the view that —> Their view is examined in detail in Chapter X of this work. In brief, they held that the \d not a causative factor responsible for ryot’s poor condition; he was the result, not the cause, of ryot’s poverty, since only the already impoverished went to him for help. ‘When, at the end of the 19th century, India was repeatedly ravaged by disastrous famines, which shocked the conscience of the whole world and, as has been seen earlier, brought the problem of poverty to the Jorefront of Indian politics, ‘While the British Indian authorities blamed the famines for the misery and material losses occurring during the years of famine and after, the nationalists held poverty of the people itself responsible for the famines, their frequency, intensity and destructive nature. The question, therefore, arose as to what led to famines? According to Lord Curzon, who undertook to provide an answer in 1900 in his vi i teal source of the recurring famines was He argued that if the huge losses of agricultural production, which were the inevitable results of ‘a great Indian drought’, were kept in view, it would become clear that no **Ranade, Esay,p. 326; Joshi, op. it. p. 852; Ray. Poversy, p. 191; G. S. Iyer, EA. p. 78: Bengalee, 24 May 1901; HR, Apr. (RNPN, 31 May 1902). : ae | "ABP. 24 Dec. 1874, 17 July 1884, 31 Jan, 1892, 2 Jan. 1901; Ganesh W. Joshi, JPSS, July 1879 (Vol. IL No. 1), p. 80; Resolution passed by a public meeting at Poona on 4 May 1879, | ‘ibid. p. 84; Ranade, ‘Deccan Agriculturists Bll’. JPSS, Oct. 1879 (Vol. Il, No. 2),p.55(CE | Manas op. ct, Vol.1,p.214), ‘Land Law Reform and Agricultural Banks, loc. cit, pp-43-4L. M. Chose, Speeches, p. 8; Hinds, 26 Nov. 1885; Bengalee. 12 March 1892; Ray, Poveryy, pp. i 195,236;N. G. Chandavarkar in CPA, pp. 518-9: Dustin CPA, p.493. England and India, pp. 147-8. Speeches], pp. 14.27, EHI, p.xxG.S. Iyer Rep. INC for 1900, p.29.. "For British view, sce Dufferin, Speeches, p. 240; Chesney, op. ci, p. 395; Curzon, Speeches, Vol. Il, p. 166; “letter from Sir ‘Antony MacDonnell, Proideat of the Famine ‘Commission of 1901, to Dighy, quoted in the lates” book, op. cit, p. 32‘THE POVERTY OF INDIA : 5 53 government could control the skies or take any steps ‘to anticipate the consequences of a visitation of nature on so gigantic and ruinous a scale.’™® By 1902, the Viceroy and Governor-General me even more convinced that eaten. the hand of man could do nothing to stay or deflect: 7 But to ask any Government to prevent the occurrence of famine in a country, the meteorological conditions of which are what they are here and the population of which is growing at its present rate, is to ask us to wrest the keys of the universe from the hands of the Almighty... in the autumn of the past yeat, it was by the dispensation of Providence alone, when the monsoon suddenly revived... that what might have been famine conditions were turned into prosperity conditions during the:present winter. The best Government in the world could not have accelerated that change b by a single second; the worst Government could not have retarded it. ‘Famines had always been endemicin Indiaand would vn ili immeasurable distance of time to come; the utmost that a humane Fn nationalist opinion, on the other hand, held that Indian famines were the product not of the caprice of nature but of human failings and It admitted that the immediate cause of famines was failure of rains.”” But to stop at this stage of explanation was not enough: Insufficiency of rains did not fully explain famines, since "Curzon, Speeches, Vol. I, pp. 313-4. ‘When the vast majority of the inhabitants of a country are dependent upon an industry which is itself dependent upon the rainfall, it is clear that a failure of the latter must unfavorably, and in extreme cases calamitously, affect the entire agricultural community” Government of India Resolution, of 16th January, 1901, op. cit, Para 3. Also Fourth Decennial Moral and Material Progress Report, p.331. Curzon, Speeches, Vol. Ill, p. 160. Also see Elgin, Speeches, p. 345; George Hamilton, Indian Debates, 3 Feb. 1902, s. 108-09; Strachey, India (1903), . 210. **Curzon, Speeches, Vol. III, pp 160-1 Dutt, Speeches, p. 56: Naoroji, Poverty p. 655. Also, ‘however unkind Nature may be, and however harvests may be deficient owing to the ‘inadequacy of the rainfall, famine itself, chat is, the condition of destitution and suffering to which masses of people are reduced by drought; vas prevetible.” Wacha in CPA, pp. 556-7. Also see R. M. Sayan, LCP, 1897, Vol. OXXVILp, 191;N. K.N. Iyer. Rep. INC for 1901. p. 139. *"Joshi. op it. pp-346. 853; Tilak quoted in Pradhan and Bhagwat. op: cit, p.102;N.G. Chandavarkar in CPA, p. 514; Dutt. Open Letters p. 18; Ray, Famines, p. 24 Iyer. Rep. INC for 1901, p. 134; Kesari.25 Dec. (RNPBom.,29 Dec. 1900)!