Vol. 6 · pages 61–65

46 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES same mischievous hand which contrived in Sections 26,27,28 to secure the entire immunity, irresponsibility, and personal autocracy of the secretary of state.” After showing that Lord Stanely and the Earl of Derby who had so much to do with the framing of the statute were united in including the neglected proviso the writer quotes the opinion of Mr. Gladstone regarding Section 55 as follows :— In my view it was the purpose of this clause to require the Preliminary consent of parliament to the issue of Indian money for the purpose of operations carried on by the forces charged upon India beyond the Indian frontier, except in certain special cases, which were very carefully defined. It was, in fact, to prevent the use of Indian money for military operations. I remember this; for I myself was the author of the clause, and the present Lord Derby, who was Secretary of State for India at the time, concurred with me as to its objects.” The same writer goes on to say : “There are few, if any causes, that have brought more disaster and financial damage to “India of the Queen” than has the utter disregard of the safeguards ostensibly ordained under these despised and neglected provisions of the Act. We are well aware that, even had the saving word “previous” been included in the Section, the clamour on behalf of pseudo-Imperial interests, or the exigencies of party schemes, might have sufficed to override the claims and rights of the Indian people. But that word would, at least, have secured an invaluable respite, during which the voice of reason might have been heard.” The non-fiscal sections of this Act were :— (1) The territories of the East India Company were vested in her Majesty, the Queen, and the powers exercised by the East India Company and the Board of Control were vested in the Secretary of State for India. He was to have a Council of fifteen members who would hold office during good behaviour, and each member was to have a salary of £ 1200 a year out of the revenues of India. The pay of the Secretary of State and all his establishment would similarly be charged to India.

47ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY (2) The Secretary of State was empowered to act against the majority of the Council except in certain specified matters. And on questions of peace and war (which had hitherto been dealt with by the Board of Control through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors), the Secretary of State was empowered to send orders to India without consulting his council, or communicating them to the members. (3) The Governor-General of India and the Governors of Madras and Bombay would henceforth be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen; and the appointments of Lieutenant-Governors would be made by the GovernorGeneral subject to the approbation of Her Majesty. Rules should be framed by the Secretary of State for admission into the Civil Service of India by competition. The evil tendencies of the administrative section above referred to have been attested to be (1) autocracy, (2) secrecy, and (3) irresponsibility, all of which are inimical to the good administration of the country. It is lementable that the Act made no provision for enlisting the voice of the natives in the administration of their own country. In this vital respect, can any one say that the administration of the Company differed very much from the administration of the Crown ? In order to give publicity to the provisions of this Act, Queen Victoria asked Lord Derby (apparently not being satisfied with the first draft of it) to issue a Proclamation which, as she said, “should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence, and religious toleration, and point out the privileges which the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the train of civilization.” This Proclamation was read out in India and has been regarded as the Magna Charta of India not that the Magna Charta contained the rights of people but that it was a Great Document. It remains, however, to estimate the contribution of England to India. Apparently the immenseness of India’s contribution to England is as much astounding as the nothingness of England’s

48 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES contribution to India. Both are, however true statements if looked at from economic points of view. But from another point of view, if India’s tribute cannot be weighed in the scales of justice and humanity then England’s contribution cannot be weighed in the scale of gold and silver. The last statement is both literally as well as figuratively true. England has added nothing to the stock of gold and silver in India : on the contrary, she has depleted India— “the sink of the world.” Her contribution lies in an uneconomic realm : but just the same, it is too great to be measured in terms of coin. “Englishmen can look back on their work in India, if not with unalloyed satisfaction, at least with some legitimate pride. They have conferred on the people of India what is the greatest human blessing—Peace. They have introduced Western education, bringing an ancient civilized nation in touch with modern institutions and life. They have built up an administration which, though it requires reform with the progress of the times, is yet, strong and efficacious. They have framed wise laws, and have established Courts of Justice, the purity of which is as absolute as in any country on the face of the earth. These are results which no honest critic of British work in India regards without high admiration.” But whether mere animal peace is to be preferred to economic destitution, let every one decide for himself. zz