real increase. On the other hand the value of ten rupees has been fixed at 13s. 4d. since 1898; and the increase in cotton imports, and the decrease in machinery and mill works, since that year, are real. They show the baneful effects of the excise imposed on the mill manufactures of India, which will be fully described in the next chapter. When every civilised Government on earth is endeavouring to help home manufactures, the Indian Government has cruelly repressed the infant mill industry of India under the mandate of Lancashire, even in respect of coarse cotton fabrics with which Lancashire does not compete. The results broadly stated are-a decline in cotton manufactures, a decrease in the demand for machinery and mill-work, and an increase in the import of cotton manufactures from 23 millions to over 27 millions of tens of rupees within three years. Silk manufacture continues to decline in India in spite of the experiments which have been referred to before; and the import of manufactured silk increased from a million to 1 million tens of rupees between 1898 and 1901. The import of woollen manufactures nearly doubled within that period. Reference has been made to the legislation undertaken to repress the import of bounty-fed sugar into India. Its success is seen in the decline of sugar imports in 1898-99 and 1899-1900. But it has failed in the long run, and the import of 1900-1901 exceeded the import of any previous year in the history of India. The import of hardware, cutlery, and plated-ware shows a steady increase. But India imports raw metals in larger quantities. In 1900-1901 she imported iron and steel to the value of over three millions sterling, and brass to the value of over six hundred thousands sterling.1 The only other large item of import, exceeding two millions sterling in value in 1900-1901 is mineral oil, 1 Iron and steel, £3,048,421; brass, £611,422. mostly from Russia. The import of liquors exceeds a million.1 We now turn to India's exports, and the following table shows the principal articles. In examining the figures of this table it is necessary to bear in mind once more the varying value of the rupee. The apparent increase in the export of cotton and cotton goods, in grains, seeds, and other articles in the early 'nineties, is largely owing to the fall in the value of the rupee. We are on more safe ground from 1898 when the value of 10 rupees was raised to 13s. 4d. and ultimately fixed at that sum; and the increase in exports shown in the last four years of the table is real. Cotton manufactures show only a slight increase. The unjust excise tax imposed on the rising mill industry of India retarded the natural progress of the cotton manufactures. Raw jute shows a steady increase from seven to nearly eleven millions of tens of rupees during the last three years of the century. The export of jute manufactures also increased from 5 millions to 7 millions of tens of rupees. The export of indigo has steadily decreased owing to the invention of artificial indigo in Europe; while the export of tea has steadily increased to nearly 10 million tens of rupees, or 6 millions sterling. Silk and wool are minor items, and have not been shown in the following table. The export of raw silk was only £354,102, and of manufactured silk only £119,203, in the year ending with March 1901. Raw wool to the value of £819,748, and wool manufactures to the value of £227,681, were exported in 1900-1901. The export of rice, wheat, and other grains showed the most remarkable variations during the last four years of the century. The export was 14 million tens of rupees, or 10 millions sterling, in 1897-98, and it went up to 27 million tens of rupees, or 18 millions sterling, 1 Mineral oils, £2,305,235; liquors, £1,077,939. Exports from India to all Countries in Tens of Rupees. 12,374,505 1879 7,914,091 937,698 1,644,125 9,802,363 3,097,561 3,800,426 12,993,985 1880 1881 1882 11,145,453 1,163,946 1,573,970 9,866,906 1884 14,401,902 1,983,019 2,326,018 17,623,582 4,666,788 1885 13,295,124 2,506,617 2,080,017 13,895,442 4,936,510 1886 10,782,021 2,841,555 2,248,973 17,612,364 5,336,229 1887 13,475,962 3,418,008 2,436,344 18,027,614 5,149,357 4,370,032 14,323,314 1888 14,413,544 4,146,731 2,798,854 15,738,038 4,860,380 1901 1889 15,045,679 5,318,614 2,872,631 16,152,771 4,746,007 16,816,596 4,524,360 6,040,379 10,067,764 19,812,212 4,698,771 7,602,010 5,186,738 6,848,493 11,077,669 7,360,683 3,494,334 4,682,512 2,960,463 3,170,118 3,061,867 in 1898-99. Our readers, who have perused the previous chapters on trades and manufacture in the present work, will not be at a loss for an explanation. The trade of India is not natural but forced; the export of food grains is made under compulsion to meet an excessive Land Revenue demand. The year 1897-98 was a year of widespread famine in India, and millions of people died of starvation. Nevertheless, the Land Revenue was collected to the amount of 17 millions sterling; and cultivators paid it largely by selling their food grains, which were exported to the amount of 10 millions sterling in that calamitous year. In the following year the crops were good. The agriculturists sold large quantities of their produce to replace their plough cattle, and to repair the losses of the previous famine year. Unfortunately, too, the Government realised the arrears of the Land Revenue with a vigour as inconsiderate as it was unwise; and vast quantities of the new produce had to be sold to meet this pressing Land Revenue demand. Both these causes operated to increase the export of food grains to a figure which it never reached before. Those who judged the prosperity of India by its revenue collection were jubilant. A Land Revenue collection of over 18 millions sterling gave them the evidence they relied upon. The usual misleading statements were made in India, and in the House of Commons, about the recuperative power of India. of India. Few cared to inquire if the enormous exports and the enormous Land Revenue collection had left any stores of food among the people. The Nemesis followed soon. The following years were years of scanty harvests. Bombay and the Central Provinces had been denuded of their food resources. And those Provinces suffered from a three years' continuous famine, which is unparalleled in the history of modern times. Nature set a limit which the cultivators had not obtained from the moderation of their rulers. Popula tion decreased in Bombay, and still more in the Central Provinces. Miles of cultivated land became waste. Jungle grew on homesteads, wheat lands, and rice lands. The Land Revenue demand of the Government could no longer be collected. Then, with a reluctant confession of blunder,1 the demand was revised. Both in Bombay and in the Central Provinces the demand was reduced in District after District. The Land Revenue in the years immediately succeeding did not reach 18 millions sterling. The export of the food grains has never reached 18 millions sterling since. But the relief is only temporary. There is nothing to restrain Settlement Officers from screwing up the Land Revenue demand again on the first signs of prosperity. There is nothing to give an assurance to the people as to the limits of the State demand from the produce of their fields. A system which is virtually one of adjusting the demand to the utmost paying capacity of an agricultural population demoralises the nation, and makes any permanent improvement in their condition impossible. The people ask for some rule limiting Land Revenue enhancements to definite and specific grounds. The Marquis of Ripon granted them such a rule, but it was withdrawn the month after his departure from India. Lord Curzon has declined to grant them such a rule, as we have seen in the last chapter. The facts stated above also show the unwisdom of judging the condition of the people of India by the volume of India's foreign trade. Englishmen find this a fairly correct test in their own country, and make the natural mistake of applying it to India. Englishmen live to a large extent on their commerce and manu 1 "Mr. Dutt seemed to think that, in the Central Provinces, the Government of India were exacting an exorbitantly high Land Revenue. He [Lord George Hamilton] was very reluctant to dogmatise as to what was, and what was not, a reasonable Land Revenue; and he should be very sorry to say that in the past they might not, here and there, have placed the Land Assessment too high."-Report of Lord George Hamilton's speech in the House of Commons, the Times, April 4, 1900. |