Kitabı oku: «India Under British Rule», sayfa 8

Constitution of Hindu villages.

The village community was originally a brotherhood, consisting of a tribe, family, or clan, who settled in a particular locality, and distributed the land, or the produce of the land, amongst themselves. The area was called a village, but was more like an English parish. The village community managed its own affairs, and claimed a joint proprietorship in all the land within the village area. They rented out waste lands to yearly tenants, strangers and outsiders, who were treated as tenants, and shut out from the management. Some of these tenants acquired rights of occupancy by prescription or length of possession, whilst others were only tenants at will.

Hereditary officials and artisans.

The village commonwealth had its own hereditary officials, such as a village accountant, who kept a record of all transactions between the joint proprietors, and all accounts between the joint proprietors and their tenants. There was also a village constable or guide, who watched the crops and looked after strangers. Sometimes, when a brotherhood had decayed, a head man ruled the village in their room; and the headman, with the help of the accountant and constable, managed all the domestic affairs of the village, and conducted its relations with the outer world. To these were added hereditary artisans, such as a carpenter, potter, blacksmith, barber, tailor, washerman, and jeweller. In like manner there was an hereditary schoolmaster, astrologer, and priest, who were generally Brahmans. The higher officials were remunerated with hereditary lands, held rent free; but the others were paid by fees of grain or money. Traces of these institutions are still to be found in Behar and Orissa, but in Bengal proper the village life has died out. Hereditary artisans still remain, but hereditary officials have become the servants of the zemindar.

Land revenue.

These village communities contributed a yearly revenue to the government of the day, either as joint proprietors or through a head man. In theory they claimed possession of the land because they had cleared the jungle, and cultivated and occupied a virgin soil. But they paid a revenue to the Raja in return for protection, or to satisfy the superior right of the sovereign, or as black-mail to prevent the Raja from carrying off their crops and cattle.

Talukdars or zemindars.

After the Mohammedan conquest the mode of collection differed according to circumstances. Sometimes officials were appointed by the sovereign. Sometimes a local magnate, or a revenue farmer, was employed, who collected the revenue from a group of villages, and paid a yearly block sum to the sovereign. They were middle-men, getting what they could out of the village communities, and paying as little as they could to the government of the day. These local chiefs, or revenue contractors, were known in the North-West Provinces as talukdars. They corresponded to the zemindars of Bengal, and often, like them, assumed the rights of ownership over the villages.

Settlement with joint village proprietors.

Lord Wellesley ordered that the land revenue in the North-West Provinces should be settled with the talukdars at fixed rates, like the perpetual settlement with the zemindars in Bengal. Fortunately, there was a preliminary inquiry into the conflicting rights of talukdars and village proprietors, which terminated in favour of the villagers. Lord William Bentinck travelled through the North-West Provinces, and eventually the land revenue was settled direct with the joint village proprietors.

Madras villages: Hindu colonisation.

§17. The Madras Presidency seems to have been originally distributed into village communities of joint proprietors. A Hindu legend has been preserved to this day, which tells the story of old Hindu colonisation. A Raja of the southern country had a son by a woman of low birth. The people refused to accept the prince as their Raja. Accordingly the young man crossed the river Palar with a band of emigrants, and cleared the forest to the northward, near the site of the modern city of Madras. For six years the emigrants paid no share of the crops to the Raja. In the seventh year they were brought under the revenue administration.²³

Joint village proprietors.

The modern history of this locality is equally interesting. It was ceded by the Nawab of the Carnatic to the East India Company during the wars of the eighteenth century, and was known as the Company's Jaghir. It was found to be in the possession of joint village proprietors of the same constitution as those described in the North-West Provinces, and a settlement of the land revenue was made with these joint proprietors.

Disappearance.

During the latter half of the eighteenth century the rights of the joint village proprietors in Southern India faded away under the tyranny of Asiatic rulers, but the hereditary officials, artisans, and professionals still survived. Few, if any, joint village proprietors in their full entirety could be found in any villages under the Nawab's officials; whilst those within the Company's Jaghir had been duly respected and preserved by the British officials. Under such circumstances it was proposed to settle the revenue of the Carnatic territory, acquired in 1801, with individual ryots or landholders under what was afterwards known as the ryotwari system.

Perpetual settlement ordered.

Lord Wellesley, however, interfered, and ordered that perpetual settlements should be concluded with zemindars. Somehow this zemindari settlement had a fascination for British statesmen of the period. It was believed that the creation of an aristocracy of landlords would guarantee the permanence of British rule in India. Accordingly, Lord Wellesley was deaf to all arguments in favour of a ryotwari settlement, and threatened to remove any public servant in the Madras Presidency who should hesitate to carry out his orders.

No zemindars.

Madras had no alternative but to submit. There were zemindars in the Telugu country to the northward, which had been conquered centuries previously by the Mohammedan Sultans of Golconda; and with these zemindars it was easy to conclude a perpetual settlement. But there were no zemindars in the Tamil country to the southward.

Zemindars created.

In this extremity there was no alternative but to manufacture zemindars. Accordingly zemindars were created in the Madras Presidency by the old Bengal process of grouping villages together, selling them by auction, and treating the lucky buyer as a zemindar. But the new zemindars failed to pay the stipulated revenue. The groups of villages were again brought into the market, and as Lord Wellesley had left India, the estates were bought in by the Madras government, and the revenue resettled with individual ryots or cultivators.²⁴

Military bond-holders.

In Malabar and Canara on the western coast the proprietors of land did not live in villages. They were landholders of the old military type, clinging to their lands with hereditary tenacity, employing serfs or slaves to cultivate them, and paying no revenue except feudal service and homage to their suzerain. Eventually Malabar and Canara were conquered by Tippu of Mysore, and the landholders were compelled to pay revenue, or to surrender their lands.

Thomas Munro: ryotwari settlement.

Thomas Munro is the real author of the ryotwari settlement. He was a cadet in the Madras army, who landed at Fort St. George about the time that Hyder Ali was desolating the Carnatic. In 1792 he was employed in settling the revenue in Malabar and Canara, which had been ceded by Tippu to Lord Cornwallis; and there he formed his ideas of a settlement direct with individual landholders. The controversy between Madras and Bengal raged for years, but in the end Thomas Munro was victorious. He converted the Board of Control and Court of Directors to his views. He was knighted, and appointed Governor of Madras. He died in 1827, after having triumphantly introduced the ryotwari. The zemindars in the Telegu country still retain their estates with the proprietary rights of landlords.

Bombay: Mountstuart Elphinstone.

Meanwhile the Bombay Presidency had been vastly enlarged by the acquisition of the dominions of the Peishwa. Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, the contemporary of Sir Thomas Munro, was appointed Governor of Bombay. He introduced the ryotwari settlement into the Mahratta country, and framed a code of laws which remained in force throughout the Bombay Presidency until 1860, when it was superseded by the Penal Code.

Madras collectorates.

Lord William Bentinck's system of commissioners of divisions was introduced into the North-West Provinces and Bombay; but the Madras Presidency was without commissioners or divisions, and was distributed into twenty large districts or collectorates, which on an average are as large as Yorkshire. In Bengal and the North-West Provinces the districts on an average are no larger than Devonshire. In each Madras district there was a collector, who might be described as a proconsul, and a civil and sessions judge, corresponding to those in the other Presidencies. The administration of the Madras Presidency, revenue and judicial, has always been distinguished by a larger element of Asiatic officials than either Bengal, Bombay, or the North-West Provinces.

Charter Act of 1833: India Thrown open.

§18. The last and most important changes in the rule of the East India Company were carried out during the administration of Lord William Bentinck, under the charter Act of 1833. Before, however, dealing with this radical reform, it may be as well to review the successive stages in the relations of the East India Company towards parliament and the crown.

Company and Crown, 1600-1688.

During the seventeenth century, the first of the Company's existence, it mainly depended on the favour of the crown. It had obtained a charter of exclusive trade from Queen Elizabeth. It prevailed on James I. to send Sir Thomas Roe as ambassador to India, to propitiate the Great Mogul and secure his good offices for the Company's trade. It sold 600,000 lbs. of pepper to Charles I. on the security of bonds on the customs, and enabled that sovereign to raise £60,000 for the expenses of his war with Parliament. Oliver Cromwell however did not approve of trade monopolies. The Lord Protector was willing to help the English Company to fight the Dutch Company, but he was of opinion that every Englishman had as much right as the Company to trade in the Eastern seas. Charles II. and James II. renewed the Company's original monopoly and privileges, and received presents in return, which however rarely exceeded the modest sum of £1,200 a year.

Parliament interposes, 1688-1708.

Under William of Orange the monopoly of the East Indies was again in danger. Parliament voted that every Englishman might traffic wherever he pleased. The Directors scattered bribes with a lavish hand; but parliament insisted upon searching the books of the Company. Then discoveries were made which were scandalous alike to the Company and the nation. Every man in power, from the highest to the lowest, had taken money from the India House. In 1693 about £90,000 had been spent in corruption. The Duke of Leeds was impeached in the House of Commons for taking a bribe of £5,000, and £10,000 was traced to the illustrious William. In this extremity the King prorogued parliament, and proceedings were brought to a close.

The United Company.

The parliamentary vote however had abolished for a while the monopoly of the trade with the East Indies. A second East India Company was formed and the two rivals nearly ruined each other. At last the two Companies were united into one, and a large loan was advanced to government by the new corporation. Under this new arrangement the trade monopoly was secured to the united Company throughout the eighteenth century.

Old East India House.

In those early days every shop in London exhibited a sign or emblem. The first old East India House was a quaint building with a large entablature in front, bearing three ships in full sail and a dolphin at each end. The business was distributed amongst the Directors, and transacted in committees. All the Directors put their names to the letters sent to India, and signed themselves "Your loving friends." To this day the business of the India Office is conducted by committees, but the "loving friends" vanished with the East India Company.

New India House.

In the early half of the eighteenth century a new India House was built in Leadenhall Street. It was here that the Directors grew into merchant princes, and administered the affairs of provinces, until they built up our Anglo-Indian empire. Here too began the later conflict between the Company and the House of Commons. George III. was bent on coercing parliament and removing his ministers at will. But during the coalition ministry of Lord North and Charles James Fox, there was a battle royal between parliament and the crown.

Fox's India Bill.

In 1783 Fox introduced his bill for abolishing the Court of Directors, and transferring their power and patronage to seven commissioners nominated in the bill. An agitation arose which threw the whole kingdom into a ferment. The King claimed the right of governing all countries conquered by his subjects. Accordingly he claimed the right of nominating the seven commissioners, and thus getting all the power and patronage of the Court of Directors into his own hands. But the House of Commons would not trust the King. Whigs and Tories saw that their liberties would be endangered by such additions to the royal prerogative, and they passed Fox's bill by large majorities.

Hostility of George III.

King George was furious. His only hope was that the obnoxious bill would be thrown out by the Lords. He caused a message to be conveyed to every peer, that his Majesty would withdraw his friendship from any one who voted for the bill. Accordingly the bill was thrown out by the Lords. Fox and Lord North were ignominiously dismissed, and William Pitt the younger became prime minister.

Pitt's India Bill.

Pitt's India Bill of 1784 was a marvel of statesmanship. The Court of Directors was left in the full exercise of all patronage as regards first appointments in England to the ranks of the Indian civil services, or to cadetships in the armies of the three Presidencies. All promotions in India were left to the local governments and to the Governor-General in Council. Parliament exercised a constitutional control over the whole administration of the Anglo-Indian empire; and the patronage, whether in England or in India, was wisely kept out of the hands of either ministers or the crown.

Abolition of monopoly.

Under the charter act of 1813 the trade of the Company with India was thrown open to the British nation, but the Company still retained its monopoly of trade with China. The Company, however, suffered little by the loss of its monopoly as regards India. It was an old-established firm of two centuries standing. Its settlements and shipping were all in full swing, and it continued for twenty years longer to carry on a splendid business, which suffered but little by the rivalry of private interlopers. Meanwhile, as already seen, it had become the paramount power in India by its successful wars against Nepal and Burma, the extinction of the Peishwa, the humiliation of Sindia and Holkar, and the extermination of the predatory system.

End of Company's trade.

Under the charter act of 1833 all trading on the part of the East India Company, whether with India or with China, was brought to a close. The East India Docks were emptied of the Company's shipping, and the trade of Europe in the Eastern seas was thrown open to the whole world.

Licensing system.

Another radical change was also effected. Ever since the first establishment of the Company's settlements in India, no British born subject, not in the service of the Company, had been permitted by law to reside in India without having previously procured a license from the Court of Directors. This license system was brought to a close in 1833, and any British born subject might take up his residence in India, and trade or travel wherever he pleased.

Constitutional changes.

The constitution of the British government in India was remodelled. The Governor-General of Bengal was created Governor-General of India with increased control over Madras and Bombay. The Council of India, which hitherto consisted of the Governor-General as President, two Bengal civilians, and occasionally the commander-in-chief of the Bengal army, was increased by the addition of a law member. Mr., afterwards Lord, Macaulay was appointed to the new post. His labours will be noticed hereafter in dealing with the constitutional changes of 1853.

Centralisation.

Henceforth all legislative authority and financial control were centred in the government of India; and the governments of Madras and Bombay were stripped of all power to enact laws, and prohibited from creating any new office or making any grant of money, without the consent of the Governor-General of India in Council, or the sanction of the Court of Directors.

Stagnation at Madras and Bombay.

The charter of 1833 was not an unmixed good. It stopped all progress in Madras and Bombay by bringing those Presidencies too closely under the control of Bengal. For twenty years they had no representatives in the Council at Calcutta. They had framed their own systems of land revenue. They were relieved of the cares of trade, which had been a worry to Governors and Governors-General from the days of the Marquis of Wellesley to those of Lord William Bentinck. But after the year 1833 they were more or less paralysed by the loss of all discretion and responsibility in matters of legislation and expenditure. Great events were about to agitate Northern India, but for twenty years Madras and Bombay were without a history, and the work of administration was as lifeless and monotonous as the working of a machine.

Popular administration of Bentinck.

Lord William Bentinck left India in 1835. His administration had been eminently popular with all classes of the community; and his memory is preserved to this day as that of a just and able ruler, who paid due regard to the rights and claims of Asiatics as well as of Europeans.

Sir Charles Metcalfe, 1835-6: coming collisions with Asiatic powers.

Sir Charles Metcalfe, the Bengal civilian, who was sent on a mission to Runjeet Singh in 1808, and since then had filled some of the most responsible posts in the Anglo-Indian empire, acted as Governor-General between the departure of Lord William Bentinck in 1835 and the arrival of Lord Auckland in 1836. A new era was beginning to dawn upon India. Great Britain was about to appear, not only as mistress of an Anglo-Indian empire, but as an Asiatic power coming more or less into collision with four other Asiatic powers—Persia, Russia, Afghanistan and China.

CHAPTER IV.—FOURTH PERIOD: RISE TO ASIATIC POWER.—1836-56

§1. Russian advance checked by Nadir Shah, 1722-38. §2. First Cabul war under Lord Auckland, 1838-42. §3. Lord Ellenborough, 1842-44: return from Cabul and conquest of Sind. §4. War in Gwalior: reduction of Sindia's army. §5. Lord Hardinge, 1845-48: Sikh rule in the Punjab. §6. First Sikh war: Moodki, Ferozshahar, Aliwal, and Sobraon. §7. Lord Dalhousie, 1848-56: Second Sikh war: Chillianwalla and Goojerat: annexation of the Punjab. §8. British rule: patriarchal government. §9. Second Burmese war, 1852: annexation of Pegu. §10. Lord Dalhousie as an administrator: no roads in India. §11. Trunk road, trunk railway, telegraphs, Ganges canal. §12. Annexations of Nagpore, Satara, Jhansi, and Oudh. §13. India Bill of 1853: new competitive Civil Service. §14. New Legislative Council: Lord Macaulay and the Penal Code. §15. Departure of Lord Dalhousie, 1856. §16. Lord Canning, 1856-62: expedition to the Persian Gulf. §17. Mogul family at Delhi. §18. Condition of Oudh.

Lord Auckland, 1836-42: jealousy of Russia.

Lord Auckland landed in Bengal at a grave political crisis. Great Britain was growing jealous of Russia as regards India, and tact and common sense were required, not to promote a war, but to prevent one. Jealousy of Russia was a new sensation. Great Britain had been indignant at the partition of Poland, but the two nations had become reconciled during the wars against France and Napoleon. Later on Russia began to extend her empire, and to menace Turkey on one side and Persia on the other; and at last it dawned on the people of the British Isles that unless there was a speedy understanding between British and Russian diplomatists, the Cossack and the sepoy would cross swords on the banks of the Oxus.

Central Asia: Afghanistan and Turkistan.

§1. Central Asia is a new world which has been slowly opening up to European eyes. It includes the vast territories of Afghanistan and Turkistan, which intervene between British India, Persia, Russia, and China. It is a region of desert and mountain, ruined gardens and dried-up springs—the relics of empires which flourished in the days of the so-called Nimrod and Sennacherib, and the later days of the fire-worshippers, but were brought to rack and ruin by the Tartars and Turkomans in the armies of Chenghiz Khan and Timur.

Cradle of India.

The whole of this region, and, indeed, the whole of Central and Northern Asia, has been the cradle of the people of India from the remotest antiquity. Hindus and Mohammedans are all immigrants from beyond the Indus. The Dravidian races, the pre-Aryan people, brought their devil worship and noisy orgies from Northern Asia into Hindustan. Eventually they were driven to Southern India by the Aryan people, who brought the Vedic gods and hymns, the sacred hôma and the ministration of Rishis, from Persia and Media into Northern India. The Rajputs, the Greeks, and the Indo-Scythians of Hindustan, were all strangers from the north-west. The Turks and Afghans, who invaded India during the Crusades, and the Moguls, who established their empire in the days of the Tudors, were all sojourners from the same remote region. Thus Russia is only following the old instinct of Dravidians and Aryans, as she advances southward from the steppes towards Persia and India. She expands on land just as Great Britain expands on the sea.

Russian advance to Persia, 1722.

The marches of Tartar, Turk, Afghan, and Mogul belong to a distant period. The march of Russia began in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Peter the Great had been humiliated by Turkey on the banks of the Pruth, and looked to Persia for compensation. Persia was on the brink of ruin. In 1722 the Afghans had advanced to Ispahan; and the Czar and the Sultan prepared to divide her remaining territory. Turkey took the western provinces, whilst Russia occupied the provinces along the south of the Caspian. The Caspian was a base for an advance on India, and had Peter lived he would have found his way to India. The road was easy viâ Meshed to Herat, and the Mogul empire would have fallen into his hands like an over-ripe plum. The British at Calcutta were a little hive of traders, who would have been helpless to resist a Russian invasion. Most probably they would have preferred Russia to the Mogul, and would have sent a deputation to the Russian camp to pray for the protection of the Czar.

Checkmated by Nadir Shah, 1727.

But Peter the Great died in 1727, and Nadir Shah, the last of the "world stormers," stepped in and snatched Persia from Russia. Nadir Shah was a Turk of the noble tribe of Afshar; a brigand in his youth, but destined to be as great a general as Cyrus or Napoleon. In 1727, the very year that Peter the Great died, Nadir Shah joined the dethroned Shah of Persia, drove the Afghans back to their own territories, and conquered Khorassan as far as Herat. Eventually he imprisoned the Shah, and usurped the throne of Persia. He compelled Turkey to retire from the western provinces, and Russia to retire from the provinces on the Caspian.

Persian invasion of India, 1738-39.

In 1738 Nadir Shah captured Candahar, invaded the Punjab, and entered Delhi in triumph. His battalions of Persians and Turkomans, trained and disciplined under picked officers, were irresistible against Afghans and Moguls. He did not want to conquer India, but only to plunder it. He carried off the treasures of Delhi, the spoil of Hindustan, and the peacock of jewels which had blazed for a hundred years over the throne of the Great Mogul. Thus, within twelve years of the death of Peter the Great, the parade of jewels, which might have adorned the Kremlin, became the prize of Nadir Shah.

Nadir Shah and his Persian officers.

Nadir Shah was the last of the line of Asiatic warriors that began with Sargon and Cyrus, and culminated in Chenghiz Khan and Timur. He was tall, powerful, and loud-voiced, with an eye of lightning, and an expression that alternately terrified and charmed. He stood out head and shoulders above his Persian officers, arrayed in a plain cloak lined with black lambskin from Bokhara, a crimson turban, a richly-mounted dagger in his belt, and a huge battleaxe of steel in his hand. He was ever at work from morn till night, inspecting troops, administering justice, dictating letters, or transacting business by word of mouth. His fare was of the plainest boiled rice, with a little meat, bread, cheese, radishes, and parched peas whilst his drink was butter-milk or water. His officers were Asiatic dandies, clad in rich pelisses trimmed with furs, smart vests with gold and silver lace, crimson hats with four peaks, or arrayed in coats of mail with steel helmets and sharp pikes. They scorned the frugal fare which satisfied their Turkish master. They delighted in Persian dishes, such as pillaws stuffed with plums and raisins, savoury stews, dainty bits of meat known as kabobs, together with grape jelly, and confections; and they revelled in wine and strong waters, to the horror of all strict Mohammedans.

Russian advance: war declared, 1838.

§2. A century passed away. Nadir Shah was forgotten, and Russia was again menacing Persia and dabbling in the Caspian. In 1837 Persia was besieging Herat under the pretence that it had formed part of the empire of Nadir Shah; but Russia was in the background putting forth Persian claims as a cat's-paw for seizing Herat. Great Britain, however, was resolved that neither Persia nor Russia should take Herat from the Afghans, to whom it had properly belonged ever since the death of Nadir Shah. In October, 1838, Lord Auckland declared war to compel Persia to retire from Herat. It was also determined to dethrone Dost Mohammed Khan, the ruler of Afghanistan, because he had been carrying on a suspicious intercourse with Russia, and to set up Shah Shuja in his room, because he had been dethroned many years previously by Dost Mohammed Khan, and was therefore the rightful ruler of Afghanistan. Moreover Shah Shuja had been living many years in British territory under British protection, and was therefore likely to prove a more faithful ally against Russia, than Dost Mohammed Khan.

Political mistakes.

The declaration of war was a mistake. Persia had already taken the alarm, and raised the siege of Herat. Dost Mohammed Khan may have been a usurper, but he had been accepted by the Afghan people as their ruler, and he was a man of undoubted capacity. If he had been properly treated in 1836-37 he might have become as useful an ally to the British government as he proved himself to be twenty years later. Shah Shuja, on the other hand, whom the British wished to set up in his room, was a weak and worthless prince, and it was doubtful at the time whether the Afghan people would accept him as their ruler, especially if he were forced upon them by the British government.

First Afghan war, 1838-42.

Thus began the first Cabul war. The British army was shut out from the Punjab by Runjeet Singh, and compelled to take a circuitous route through Sind. A bridge of boats was constructed to carry the army over the Indus at Sukkur; but in those days Sind was a foreign territory, and no reliance could be placed on its rulers. Indeed, had the British met with a defeat in Afghanistan, the Amirs, or rulers of Sind, would possibly have destroyed the bridge, and cut off their return to India.

British advance to Cabul, 1839.

In February, 1839, the British army crossed the river Indus, and advanced along the Bolan Pass to Quetta, and thence to Candahar. Major Rawlinson remained at Candahar as minister and envoy of Shah Shuja, supported by a force under the command of General Nott. The main army, under Sir John Keane, advanced northward, captured the important fortress of Ghazni, and conducted Shah Shuja to Cabul, whilst Dost Mohammed Khan fled away northward to Bokhara. Shah Shuja was placed on the throne of Afghanistan, under the guidance of Sir William Macnaghten, the minister and envoy at Cabul, protected by the British army under Keane, who was subsequently created Baron Keane of Ghazni.²⁵

British successes, 1840.

The year 1840 brought unexpected good fortune. Runjeet Singh died in 1839, and his successor opened the Punjab to the march of British troops. Russia sent a counter expedition from Orenburg towards Khiva, but it was stopped by snows and want of water, and compelled to return. Shah Shuja, however, was only maintained on the throne at Cabul by British arms and gold. The Afghans cared nothing for him. So long as they received subsidies from the British authorities they remained loyal, but there was no enthusiasm. The hill tribes, who occupied the passes into the Punjab, were equally loyal so long as they received pay, but otherwise might turn against the British at any time, and cut off their return to India. The shopkeepers and bazaar dealers at Cabul were satisfied, for they reaped a golden harvest from their British customers. Towards the close of 1840 Dost Mohammed Khan returned to Cabul and surrendered to Sir William Macnaghten. This was a stroke of luck which for a brief space threw the destinies of Central Asia into the hands of British rulers. The Dost was sent to Calcutta as a prisoner but treated as a guest, and often played at chess at Government House. Meanwhile British officers and officials fancied they were perfectly safe, and were joined by their wives and families, who gladly exchanged the depressing temperature of India for the cool climate of Cabul.