THE GREAT INDIAN FACT.
A GREAT fact in India—nay, why should we not throw affected modesty on one side, and say at once, the great fact in that great country—is the position occupied in the most flourishing Indian communities by our humble—pooh! why blink the truth—our noble selves!
India is a country of contrasts—of wealth and want, of prosperity and and decay, of independence and servility, of self-government and despotism.
The want, the decay, the servility, and the despotism are to be found among all the native races—Bengalee and Madrassee, Maratta and Telinga, Canarese and Tamul, Bheel and Ghoorka, Khoond and Rohilla, Sikh and Aheer—it will be seen that we too have been getting up our India;—under all sorts of authorities—Potails and Zemeendars, Kardars and Jagheerdars, Ameers and Mokaddams, and Deshmucks; with all kinds of tenures—Zemeendaree and Ryotwaree and Jagheerdaree. But the wealth, the prosperity, the independence, and the self-government, are to be met with in one class of communities, under one form of authorities, among one kind of holders only. These oases in the desert of Indian native existence are those in which Punch—the Punch—the Mr. Punch—in one word the Indian representative of OURSELVES—bears sway!
This remarkable circumstance—so deeply gratifying to us of course—is no imagination of our own brain, no dream of our self-satisfaction, no figment of any of our numerous flatterers and admirers; but an historical truth, recorded in his distinctest and dryest manner by one of the distinctest and dryest writers upon India—Mr. Campbell, whose work has been much bought, much read, and unblushingly cribbed from by pillars of the state in the House of Commons, and by leading columns of the morning papers.
Hear then upon this great fact Mr. Campbell—of the Bengal Civil Service—whose civil service to Punches in general, and Indian Punches in particular, Punch is glad here to acknowledge. Hear Mr. Campbell, on the nature and effects of the authority and administration of Punch in India. Where Punches preside, "the system" he tells us "is infinitely better than anything we have hitherto seen." The revenue is larger and more easily collected; the condition of the cultivator more flourishing; property more secure, and the police better administered. Each village, under the beneficent and equal rule of its Punch, "is one community, composed of a number of families, all possessing rights in the soil, and responsibilities answering to their rights." Still Punch is no tyrant. "The Democratic Punch has no official power or authority except as representing this body of proprietors"—- like ourselves, who have no authority except in so far as we represent the people of Great Britain, which we flatter ourselves we do in most things.
"The Punch," Mr. Campbell tells us (page 88), "is as a rule of the plural number"—(that is, there are several contributors);—"a clever well-spoken man, who has a good share of land" (we substitute brains), "and is at the head of a number of relatives and friends" (in our case, readers and admirers), "becomes one of the Punch, which office he holds for life, if he continues to give satisfaction to his constituents" (the public and proprietors are enough for us); "but if he becomes very old, or incompetent, or unpopular, some one else, probably, revolutionises himself into the place" (and serve the old, incompetent, unpopular contributor right). "The office of Punch is much coveted" (we should think it was), "and all arrangements are by the Punch collectively" (if the gentle reader could be present at one of our Saturday dinners, he would see what very small beer we think of the Editor). "They act not as persons having authority over the community, but always as representatives, and on many subjects they consult their constituencies before deciding." (When did we not consult public opinion, and when did we claim any other authority than as representing the country at large?) "There is generally in the village a leader of opposition," (poor creature!) "perhaps the defeated candidate for the last Punchship" (obviously a rejected contributor), "who leads a strong party" (oh, dear no! Mr. Campbell, you are misinformed on that point), "accuses the Punch of malversation, and, sometimes, not without reason, of embezzlement" (not on this side the water), "and insists on their being compelled to render an account of their stewardship" (our proprietors' books are open to all the world); "for there are abuses and grievances in all corporations, in all parts of the world" (i.e. "even Punches are not perfect"—a truth, probably, though we trust we shall never exemplify it in our own case).
Such is the rule of the Punches of India—and now for its effect. It produces communities, "strong, independent, and well-organized" (page 90). It is established over what Mr. Campbell styles "a perfect democratic community."
In short, this rule of Punch is the only one Mr. Campbell is able to rest on with entire satisfaction, as the model to which all the other native organizations of India ought to be, as far as possible, assimilated.
Yes—give every community its Punch, and India would be something like what it ought to be—something like what England has become since the rule of Punch was firmly established here—something which would render altogether unnecessary these dreadful Indian debates, and the immense amount of Indian "cram" which members, journalists, and conscientious persons, who follow the Parliamentary reports, are obliged to bolt, and of which we have disgorged a sample, with great relief to ourselves, at the beginning of this article.