Kitabı oku: «Chambers's Journal of Popular Literature, Science, and Art, No. 685», sayfa 3

OUR HINDU FELLOW-SUBJECTS AND OURSELVES

It is a remarkable fact, that although upwards of a century has elapsed since the foundation of our rule in India was first laid, the people of that country and ourselves are as far apart from each other, in all those feelings and sympathies which are calculated to unite different peoples together, as it is possible for us to be. Our religious views and social habits are so diametrically opposed, that the strongest prejudices are in active operation to keep us in a state of chronic alienation. The difficulty in the matter rests in a great measure with the Hindu. Hinduism will not admit us within the pale of free intercourse with its votaries, and its restrictions prevent them from mingling freely with others of another faith. For a Hindu to live under the same roof or to take a meal at the same table with us, would entail upon him expulsion from caste, and religious and social disabilities of the most serious character. In short, the only connection in which we can have any intimacy is that of business in the way of trade, or of duty as officially connected with the state.

It will easily be seen that under such circumstances, personal friendship of a disinterested nature can hardly exist between the Hindus and ourselves. It would be well indeed if we were drawn towards each other by feelings of partiality; but even this degree of attachment cannot be said to exist, except in very rare instances. In a word, open indifference, if not latent antipathy, is the feeling by which our intercourse with each other is characterised.

This state of matters is much to be regretted, more especially if our connection is to be perpetuated; and the good men and true of both races, of whom there are not a few, would rejoice to see the causes which give rise to these untoward feelings removed, the barriers which separate us broken down, and a kindlier feeling established between us; but the more the subject is thought over, the greater the difficulties seem in the way of this desirable end; and the conclusion forces itself upon us, that we must await the course of events, and see what time will unfold.

Meanwhile, it may be useful and interesting to consider somewhat particularly the manner in which our differences have operated to keep us for so many years in a state of social estrangement from each other.

It may be imagined that the relative positions which we hold to each other of rulers and subjects, is of itself sufficient to account for the prejudice against us of the Hindu people; but this view is not borne out by facts. The Hindus have for centuries been a subjugated people, a trodden-down race. The feeling of patriotism which was exhibited in the early period of their history has long since died out, and it seems of little consequence to them who rules, provided they are left undisturbed in the free exercise of their religious practices and social habits. The Mohammedan conquerors who preceded us, stood in the same relative position to them as we do, and it is well known that they were not disliked by the Hindu people, certainly not in the same degree that we are. Let us inquire into the reasons of the difference as regards the Mohammedans and ourselves, for in so doing we may discover what it is in which we have rendered ourselves distasteful.

First, the Mohammedans as orientalists, had no difficulty in accommodating themselves to a certain extent to the outward customs and habits of the Hindu people. The oriental garb, the custom of taking off the shoes on entering a dwelling, the daily ablution at the village well or stream, were habits in common; of no great moment in themselves certainly; still they had a tendency to soften down prejudices and draw the victors and vanquished towards each other. Moreover, after the first burst of conquest was over, and the conquerors began to settle down among the Hindus, the readiness with which a few Mohammedans, thrown entirely among them in the country towns and villages, would humour their religious prejudices, by carefully avoiding contact with impure out-castes, and by abstaining from the use of such articles of food as were repugnant to them, had a conciliatory tendency, which none but those who are conversant with Hindu feeling can fully appreciate.

Again, the avowedly religious character of the Mohammedans had a favourable effect upon the minds of the Hindus, whose every action is supposed to be regulated by their sacred Shastras. In every village a Mohammedan place of worship, a durga, was erected – rude and insignificant in many places, it is true; but in towns and cities, far surpassing in splendour the magnificent temples of the Hindus; and to witness the devout Mohammedans, under the guidance of their priests, or Mùlanàs, worshipping in their durgas, was calculated to affect the minds of any religiously disposed people; how much more that of the superstitious Hindu.

Most if not all the conciliatory traits manifested by the Mohammedans have been wanting in us. Many, as a Christian people, we could not indeed affect. But besides the difference in dress, and apparent discourtesy in uncovering our heads and retaining our shoes on entering a dwelling, and our contempt of external purity, as shewn in not avoiding contact with out-castes, there have been causes much more potent which operated to repel the people, Mohammedans as well as Hindus, from us.

There is no doubt that during the early period of our Indian career our style of living and social habits had a great effect in giving the Hindus the most unfavourable impressions regarding us. The cow is one of their principal objects of worship, and therefore to kill it and partake of its flesh is to the Hindu an offence against all laws human and divine, so grievous as to stamp the offender as an utterly vile and loathsome monster. To partake of intoxicating beverages was unknown among the better classes of Hindus; it was indeed a habit indulged in, but seldom to excess, and by the impure out-caste only; and yet they saw with horror that we felt no compunction in rendering ourselves, according to their ideas of this matter, as degraded as the out-caste himself.

Again, our women eating at the same table with their husbands was looked upon by them as a gross violation of female modesty; but when they saw that they moved unrestrainedly in society, and not only freely conversed with the other sex, but actually danced with them in public; the moral feelings of Hindus and Mohammedans alike were so outraged, that they looked upon us as thoroughly demoralised. We were known in the western presidency by the term jangla, wild men, from jangal, a forest; and it was suspected, if not believed by the common people, that we had tails. The jangla was the bogey of the village children; and many a pious Brahman would turn away his face on meeting a European in the streets, rather than pollute his vision by looking at him.

The reader will from all this see at a glance how hateful we must have seemed to the people of India in the days referred to; still these unfriendly feelings might in time have softened down, and our social habits been viewed with some forbearance; for there is no doubt that as we assumed the reins of power in one province after another, it dawned upon the natives, that these, to them degrading customs, were not inconsistent with high intellectual power, deep mental culture, and feelings of active philanthropy. Our administrative abilities, as shewn in our judicial and revenue systems, and the numerous measures adopted for the security of life and property and the general improvement of the country, were not lost sight of by the intelligent portion of the people; and as the different phases of our anomalous character passed under review before them, amazement if not admiration, and awe if not reverence, in turn filled their minds regarding us. Our officials were not unfrequently spoken of as incarnations of the benign Vishnu; and but for an overbearing disposition towards them, which began to develop itself in us at this stage, and which has continued with more or less intensity ever since, the natives might in time have ceased to look upon us, as they were wont, as one of the evil manifestations of the Kali Yuga, or age of vice. This overbearing spirit, arising no doubt from an overweening idea we have entertained of our great superiority as a people compared to them, may be attributed to two causes. First, although India was not conquered by us in a day, still, considering that with scarcely an exception we triumphed in every contest with comparatively insignificant forces, and that our ascendency was established without any great difficulty, we were led from the first to look upon the people as a totally effete cowardly race, utterly destitute of every quality indicative of manly prowess. Again, our subsequent experience has shewn us that a want of truthfulness in the commonest concerns of everyday life is the besetting vice of the Hindu people. It would seem indeed, that so far from honesty being the best policy with them, lying and chicanery are considered the surest means to success in all dealings between man and man. In short, we have found them wanting in the two very traits, which of all others we hold in the highest esteem; and we have made no secret of our feelings on the matter. Moreover, there is no denying the fact that the colour of the natives has had the effect of influencing us to some extent in our unseemly bearing towards them. We are apt to look upon the dark skin, unconsciously perhaps, as a mark of inferiority; and the idea of admitting the owner of it to intercourse on terms of equality is more than our self-complacency will permit.

It must be remarked that the natives submitted tamely for years to our overbearing demeanour; and that it is only since they have made some progress in education, and have been admitted to posts of trust and responsibility under government, that they have manifested any impatience at it; and that particularly in the presidency towns and other places where the European community is large. In the rural districts even at the present time, the natives are slow to resent any rudeness on the part of European travellers who may visit their villages. It will be easily seen from this that the mutual dislike which exists between the natives and ourselves is much more apparent in the higher grades of society, and particularly among government officials, than among the lower uneducated classes. A European of position will but too frequently treat a native of no social standing with indifference if not with unkindness; but the moment a native who assumes to be on a par with him approaches, a feeling of resentment and suspicion as to his motives instinctively creeps over him; and although the native may behave most circumspectly during the interview, no sooner has he taken his departure than some remark is likely to be made relative to the growing arrogance of the 'niggers.' On the other hand, some equally uncalled-for and discourteous expression will be made by the native as to the self-importance displayed by the foreigner. There is, in short, however pleasing outward appearances may often seem, an under-current of mutual aversion, which it will take years to soften down, if indeed such a desirable event be possible.

A native gentleman of considerable education told the writer some time ago that there was a great difference in the conduct of Europeans towards his countrymen to the eastward of Suez, as compared with the way they treated them to the west of that place. Here in England, he said, we are treated with kindness and courtesy; but on the other side of Suez, with some exceptions, we are looked upon as fair game for rudeness if not insult. This statement was verified by what appeared in a Bombay paper about two years since, to the effect that a military officer insisted upon a native gentleman, a member of the uncovenanted civil service, being removed from a first-class railway carriage, simply because he wanted it to himself and a party of ladies who were travelling with him. Need it be added that such an incident could scarcely occur in England.

It has already been noticed, that if left to the undisturbed exercise of their religious rites and social customs, the Hindus care little who governs them. With reference to this matter it may here be said, that in so far as overt acts are concerned, they have no more reason to complain of us than they had of their old rulers the Mohammedans; but we have set an agency at work which will prove infinitely more potent in undermining both their religious and social habits than even the most violent persecution. The education imparted in the government schools and colleges, as well as in the seminaries of the missionaries, is certain in time to sweep away every vestige of Hinduism; and this eventuality, already foreseen by the priests and others interested in the maintenance of popular superstition, is an eyesore which influences them in no small degree in prejudicing the people in the rural districts against us. They tell them that by a system of underhand duplicity we managed at first to sow the seeds of discord amongst them and possess ourselves of their country; and that now, under pretence of enlightening them, we are endeavouring to reduce them all to the same dead level of impure out-castes, similar to what we are ourselves.

The influence of the priests, however, has not had the effect of keeping students from the government and missionary schools; but although the education received there weans them from a belief in Hinduism, still it neither induces them, for the present at least, to give up the social caste system, nor makes them more tolerant of ourselves. The rabid abuse heaped upon us at every opportunity by the vernacular press, which is conducted by these men, shews that it is not mere passive dislike but active hostility by which they are actuated towards us. It is not, however, the press alone; the theatrical representations conducted under their patronage are also made use of as vehicles whereby our government, our social habits, and even our religion are occasionally caricatured, and in turns denounced in terms of unmistakable hate.

The fact must not be lost sight of, that the knowledge we are imparting to the natives has not only the effect of enlightening them on religious and social questions, but also leads them into a region of thought which they have not indulged in for centuries. Need it be said that the perusal of those histories we lay open to them, which narrate the successful struggles made by nations of ancient and modern times to throw off the yoke of foreigners, in whatever form it may have existed, has the effect of creating aspirations in the minds of many for a revival of that national life which has so long lain dormant? The far-seeing and reflecting few who indulge in these patriotic breathings know full well that they cannot be realised for generations, if ever; and that it is therefore folly to rave against things as they are, and thus render themselves obnoxious to us; nevertheless, the idea of making common cause with us is foreign to their minds; and the tendency of their influence amongst their less thoughtful countrymen is to direct their minds to an eventuality, which sooner or later will free their country from the presence of the foreigner.

To conclude: it is not by any means gratifying to be forced to acknowledge that all hopes of immediate fraternisation between the natives of India and ourselves are futile; that the antagonism of race and colour, and the dissimilarity in our respective religions and social habits, are such insuperable obstacles to so desirable an event, that we shall for years be found moving in two separate grooves, destitute of any of those mutual feelings and sympathies which tend to unite different peoples, and contribute to the general happiness and well-being of all.

AFTER-DINNER ANECDOTES

It would be an interesting occupation for an otherwise idle man to trace the origin of some of our best after-dinner anecdotes. How often it happens that we hear a story told which in its main features we recognise as an old acquaintance, but with so much alteration in its details that we can hardly believe it to be the same.

'Ah!' we say, with a knowing look, 'I have heard that story before; but I always thought it referred to Lord So-and-so, or the Duke of – ;' as the case may be.

'O no,' replies the story-teller, rather injured that we should doubt his veracity. 'I assure you I heard it from Mr So-and-so, who knew all about it. Indeed he is first cousin to the nephew of Lord – ; and so I can't be wrong.'

'Indeed,' we reply; and the subject drops. But all the same we hold to our previous opinion, and always tell the story our own way.

And after all, it is not so much a want of truthfulness which is at the bottom of these variations of the same tale, as weakness of memory, or absence of the power of clearly arranging in our minds the different localities and personages which belong to the anecdotes told. There is that story of the parrot, for instance, who at a very dull dinner-party where conversation lagged terribly, was heard to observe in a solemn voice, during one of the 'awful pauses' which occurred so frequently, 'Sorry I spoke!' Only a few days after that anecdote was related to us, we heard that 'there was once a parrot who was present at family prayers, and didn't conduct himself with that reverence which appertains to such times, but would make remarks more or less intelligible, to the world at large. At last the master of the house lost all patience, and signed to one of the tittering domestics to remove Polly from the scene. As he was being carried out of the door the bird was heard to remark in a gruff voice, "Sorry I spoke!" to the utter discomfiture of all present.' Of course we laughed heartily, and apparently enjoyed the joke; but all the same we felt there was something wrong somewhere, and that one of these stories must owe something to the invention of the narrator.

In fact, try as hard as we may, it is almost impossible to retail a piece of information exactly as we received it. Our younger readers (and it would not perhaps be infra dig. for some elder ones) may test this for themselves by playing at the Russian game of Truth. One of the party composes a short story, which is written for future reference. He then communicates it in a whisper to another, who similarly imparts it confidentially to a third, and so on. The last member of the party then states what was confided to him as 'the truth;' and then the last but one; till it has reached the composer of the tale, who then reads aloud what was actually the original of all these various statements. And no comment on the mischief and untruthfulness of gossip could be more pungent than the utter discrepancy which always exists between the different accounts. Sometimes the story is so altered in transmission from one to the other, and that most unintentionally, that we can scarcely recognise the original in the case of the two or three who last heard and repeated it.

How often has that tale been told of an Irishman, which originally came from America. As we first heard it, it stood thus: 'An American lawyer defending a client who was accused of cracking a kettle which he had borrowed, stated that in his defence there would be three distinct points: First, that the kettle was cracked when we borrowed it; second, that it was whole when we returned it; and third, that we never had it at all.' Surely Paddy has 'bulls' enough of his own to answer for without having any Yankee importations to add to the list. Who but an Irishman, when he was told of a man who had had the smallpox twice, and died of it, would have anxiously inquired: 'Did he die the first time or the second? And yet we have heard that story claimed for an Englishman and an American; and we have no means of correcting our informants.

We would strongly recommend to all 'diners-out' who attempt to enliven the company by anecdotes, to be very cautious as to the place where and the time when they tell their stories. Otherwise they may sometimes find themselves placed in very awkward predicaments. How uncomfortable, for example, the lady would have felt who sat next Buckland the geologist at a dinner-party if she had been enlarging on the appearance of a poor stone-breaker by the road-side to whom she had given a shilling, when he – the poor stone-breaker in his dinner dress – so naïvely produced, with a quiet smile, the very coin she had given him! By the way, the same story is told of Professor Sedgwick.

Then there is the warning example of the lady who had lately married an Oxford undergraduate. Before he took his wife to see his university town, where circumstances obliged him to live a little longer, he told her with great difficulty, and after much hesitation, that he had been – er – er – 'what they called "plucked."¹ The hesitation which he displayed was attributed to modesty; and to his astonishment, his wife, in her ignorance of the meaning of the term, joyfully exclaimed: 'Yes; to be sure you were, you clever dear!' He was so completely taken aback by this unexpected reply, that he couldn't put her right by an explanation, which would have been painful to both parties. He therefore left matters as they were. They went to Oxford, and were asked to breakfast with a large party at the rooms of his college tutor. What was his horror when, in the middle of the repast, he heard his wife (and his tutor, who was sitting opposite, evidently heard her too) say to her next neighbour: 'My husband gained such honours when he was up here, you know. He was what you call "plucked," you know!' We draw a veil of oblivion over the poor young man's feelings, and hope the lesson will not be lost upon our readers of both sexes.

There is an unconscious plagiarism about some people which leads them to appropriate to themselves anecdotes which they have heard of the doings or sayings of other and greater people. This is especially the case with the witty and wise sayings of such men as Sydney Smith and Sheridan. How many have claimed to be the author of Sheridan's answer to the lady who accused him of having gone out when he had told her it rained heavily – 'It cleared up enough for one, but not enough for two!' We often wonder whether people who do this kind of thing have invented for themselves a special code of morality, such as that which prevails with regard to other people's umbrellas. Then, again, it must be very unpleasant to hear your own bon-mots attributed to others, or to have some inferior saying of the speaker fathered upon you. Shade of the immortal Shakspeare! how often has that honoured name been used to gain a hearing for some vapid but high-sounding moral axiom; while Solomon's Proverbs have been filched and reproduced, more or less 'watered,' by writers of all ages. Who hasn't been told of Sir Walter Scott the story which belongs of right to Sir William Scott (brother to Lord Eldon). When a celebrated physician said to him: 'You know, after forty, a man is always either a fool or a physician;' Sir William replied: 'Perhaps he may be both, doctor.' It has been well said that, 'in conversation a wise man may be at a loss how to begin; but a fool never knows how to stop.' Perhaps some of our readers are thinking this may apply to an article in a magazine as well. And indeed one story suggests another, till we might fill pages with anecdotes we have heard or read.

But before we stop we may perhaps be allowed to quote a most excellent rule for the guidance of all who tell stories which involve other people. It is this: Before you begin, ask yourself – Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? Perhaps you have the gift (and it is a most valuable one) of being able to tell a good story well; if so, remember what the mother of Philip, Duke of Orleans, said of her son: 'Though good fairies have gifted my son at his birth with numerous qualities, one envious member of the sisterhood has spitefully decreed that he shall never know how to use any of these gifts.' There is an old proverb (not Solomon's) which says, 'Never play with edge-tools.'

WATCHMAKING BY MACHINERY.

Geneva, as is pretty well known, has long been a busy centre of the Swiss watchmaking trade, the work executed being minute, elegant, and trustworthy. The trade in watchmaking, however, is also a staple in the cantons of Neuchatel and Berne. Tourists in Switzerland have often occasion to pass through secluded valleys, the inhabitants of which, a peaceful and industrious race, are almost all devoted to watchmaking. It is a craft pursued in cottages, as a kind of domestic manufacture; and proficiency in fabricating the delicate mechanism has come down from father to son for several generations. We are reminded of the old-fashioned hand-loom system of weaving, which used to prevail in English and Scotch villages in times passed away. Just as that old system of weaving vanished in the introduction of the power-loom moved by machinery, so is watchmaking by hand about to pass away in Switzerland, and some other quarters. Watchmaking by machinery on a large and comprehensive scale has been brought to a wonderful degree of perfection in various parts of the United States. Immense quantities of American watches of a useful kind will soon, as is anticipated, greatly damage the system of making by hand.

It would be idle to waste time in complaining of change of fashion in any kind of manufacture. Skill, capital, and machinery are sure to carry the day. In the progress of affairs the old must give place to the new. In such cases the best plan is not to maintain a useless struggle, but at once to go over to the enemy – try to rival him on his own ground. Still one does not like to see an old and respectable trade ruined. It is stated that at least forty thousand men and women have hitherto been engaged within a limited district in Switzerland upon the watch-trade, all of whom must now alter their course of operations, quitting their rural resorts, and emigrating, or possibly becoming workers in factories. We are sorry for the crisis, but in economics such is the rule of the game.

A Swiss correspondent in the Times (January 5) presents some interesting particulars concerning the watch-trade, as it has till now been carried on. The division of labour has been immense in completing a single watch. He says: 'A repeating watch goes through the hands of no less than a hundred and thirty different workmen before being delivered to commerce. With such a division of labour, long apprenticeship was rendered almost superfluous; so that any man, without being acquainted at all with the watch industry before, might be able to learn a branch of it in the course of a few weeks. This last circumstance, together with the relatively high wages offered, induced during the time of prosperity of the trade a good many agricultural labourers to leave their former occupation and dedicate themselves to the watch industry. A superabundance of hands soon ensued, accompanied by a falling of wages, and besides, the quality of the products manufactured became yearly worse and worse. Only some few tradesmen continued to manufacture watches of higher qualities, while the majority of them supplied the markets with the lowest kind of products.' Here we have an explanation of at least one cause of the decline of the Swiss watch-trade. An over-confidence in monopoly led to deterioration of the article. The result was that Swiss watches fell into discredit in the United States. The imports fell from a hundred and sixty-nine thousand watches in 1864 to seventy-five thousand watches in 1876. There was ultimately a diminution in value to the extent of four hundred and twenty-three thousand pounds in four years. The diminution did not alone arise from fair competition. All European watches introduced to the United States are charged with a duty of 25 per cent. Few manufacturers can stand so heavy a tax. At the same time the poor Swiss had another rival to contend with. The manufacture of watches in the Swiss style had been introduced into Besançon in France, whereby there was a still further limitation of exports from Switzerland.