....Previous

But the early rise of civilisation in India was one of causes of its early downfall. For various reasons the increase in population was not compensated by a rise in production. The rise inpopulation can be checked by an unwillingness to raise family or by emigration. Since bare sustenance is easily available in fertile India, people are not averse to marry and raise a family. Indians some however managed to emigrate in large numbers. Thus the rise in civilization contained the seed of its own destruction. Moderate climate and fertility of the soil led to both the early rise of India's civilisation and the poverty of her peasants. Both are due to the operation of inviolable natural laws.

In the opinion of Bankim Chandra the poverty of the labouring classes has led to the terrible inequality in society and their enslavement by those who thrive on mental labour.

Bankim endorses Lecky's views in History of Rationalism in Europe that craving for material wealth has proved beneficial for human progress. The poor peasants of India are easily content. The hot climate of India leads to habitual idleness and lack of initiative and enterprise. Both Hinduism and Buddhism have encouraged aversion to material wealth. Christianity has also taught the same doctrine and medieval Europe remained poor under its influence. Europe was rejuvenated in modern times through the resurgence of the Greek doctrines after the renaissance. In India, however, aversion to material wealth has become second nature.

The poverty of her peasants and artisans has enormous influence on the other classes. The peasants could not produce a surplus for trade. Their easily content nature did not demand any large scale imports. The mercantile classes declined as a consequence. The non-rebellious nature of the ordinary subjects made the rulers and the warriors of India tyrannical and self-centred. The Hindu rulers declined in vigour and became effeminate and were easily conqured by the Muslims owing to lack of an effective opposition from their own subjects.

The decline of the other three classes led to an inordinate increase in the power of the Brahmins who developed an elaborate network of rules governing the minute details of the life of the people in India. Freedom and spontaneity disappeared from India. The Brahmins lost the power of thought and their minds became sterile and nervous. [In a footnote to this passage as reprinted in the Miscellaneous Essays Bankim Chandra comments that his trenchant criticism of decadent Hinduism has to be balanced by other considerations which he has put forward in his later pamphlet Dharmatattwa (The Principles of Religion), He contends that his earlier denunciation and later defence are both correct being two sides of the same coin.]

Bankim Chandra sums up his position by saying that the fertility of soil on India together with her hot and humid climate led both to the early rise and premature decline of her civilisation. The low wages paid to the peasantry of the country resulted in enormous social and economic inequality which in turn produced destitution, ignorance and slavery. The condition, once produced, became permanent owing to the operation of natural social laws. The appalling conditions prevailing in the lowest stratum of society gradually brought down the upper strata and all the castes and classes raced downhill on the same stream.

Bankim Chandra argues, however, that the operation of the natural social laws can be stayed and reversed through the intervention of the human agencies, government and the society at large Just as the renaissance in Italy led to the rejuvenation of Europe, why can we not hope for a brighter future of India by pursuing correct social policies?

In the last of the four essays entitled' 'Law'' Bankim shows how the British Government fell into error by entering into a permanent contract with the landlords over the collection of land revenue. The landlords became the real owners of the land depriving the peasants of the right of ownership. In the Hindu period one-sixth of the produce of the land was directly collected by the King as revenue. When the Muslim rulers came they were not able to collect this revenue efficiently. They appointed, therefore, a large number of middlemen to collect the land revenue on condition that the excess collected may be retained by them. However, these middle men were originally not owners of the land; they were merely revenue-collectors. The British not only continued this system, but made the contract between the Government and the Collectors permanent on the premise that having a permanent stake in the matter, they would be taking long-term measures for agricultural development. Though in the original plan of 1793, Cornwall promised that steps would be taken to protect the interests of the peasants, nothing was done until 1859. The original pledge was, however, only partially redeemed and the oppression of the peasantry continued unabated.

Bankim Chandra's considered opinion was that the Government should have entered into a permanent contract not with any middlemen, but with the peasants themselves. Only then the wealth created as a result of the permanent settlement would not have accumulated in the houses of a handful landlords, but would have been more equally distributed among the contented households of six crores of peasants living prosperously all over the countryside?

Next..