FOOTNOTES:
[1] A history of Seyyid Jemal-ed-Din Afghani, the well-known leader of Liberal Panislamism will be found in my “Secret History of the Occupation of Egypt,” 1907. Mr. Sabunji had been employed by me in Egypt, and accompanied me there on the present occasion as my secretary as far as Ceylon.
[2] When Robert Bourke, Lord Connemara, was sent as Governor to Madras in 1886, I recommended Ragunath Rao to him, and he gave him once more a post as Minister to one of the Native Princes.
[3] Seyd Huseyn Bilgrami, now member of the Indian Council in London.
[4] This refers to a talk I had had with General C. G. Gordon at the end of 1882 in which he had assured me emphatically that “no reform would ever be achieved in India without a Revolution.” Gordon, it will be remembered, accompanied Ripon, as his private secretary, to India in 1880, but soon after their landing at Bombay had resigned his place. The opposition of the covenanted civil service to any real reform had convinced him that he would be useless to Lord Ripon in an impossible task.
[5] Sir John Gorst.
[6] The late Lord Lothian.
[7] N.B. Precisely this leonine treaty in the form of a perpetual lease was imposed on the Nizam twenty years later by Lord Curzon under circumstances of extreme compulsion.
[8] Compare Lord Cromer’s book, “Modern Egypt,” where this same Mahmud Sami, a poet and a highly educated gentleman, is described as an “illiterate” man—a foolish judgement, typical of the writer’s ignorance of Egyptian character.
[9] See Sir William Hunter’s letter in Appendix.
[10] Sir Alfred Lyall, K.C.B., G.C.I.E., then Lord Governor of the North-West Provinces.
[11] Mr. Beck certainly succeeded and acquired a notable influence with the young generation of Mohammedans. His death, some years ago, caused universal regret.
[12] See Appendix.
[13] See Appendix.
[14] I include in the term “Deccan” the whole geographical area of the central and southern plateau of India; not merely the Nizam’s territory.
[15] Since this was written factories especially for cotton goods have been established by native enterprise in Bombay, but have been met in the interests of Lancashire by measures designed to limit their competition with imported goods. Lord Cromer with the same object imposed “countervailing excise duties” in Egypt.
[16] It was, I believe, a maxim of Sir John Strachey’s that, in the interests of Finance, the Bengal Settlement must by hook or by crook be rescinded.
[17] The literary calibre of the native Indian press has immensely increased since this was written.
[18] The apology was made, a lame one enough and rather tardy; but as Mr. Primrose, Lord Ripon’s private secretary, remarks in his letter of August 29, 1884, forwarding me a copy of it, “The mere fact of a European addressing a formal apology to a native gentleman is worth something.”
[19] Much of what is here recommended as England’s duty towards Islam has within the last two years been taken to heart by our rulers, and adopted as a part of English policy. It is only to be regretted that in India the motive seems to have been the encouragement of Mohammedan loyalty as a counterpoise to the Hindu movement for self-government, 1909.
[20] In reprinting this chapter I have incorporated with it part of another chapter on the Native States.
[21] Note.—The reader must once more be reminded that this chapter, with the three that precede it, was written full twenty-five years ago. Its scheme of constitutional reform was scoffed at then as fanciful and Utopian. But the Asiatic world has marched on, and English opinion to-day seems to have awakened at last to its recommendations as a coming necessity. Whether the concessions now being elaborated so tardily at the India Office will suffice to allay the bitter feelings aroused by the reactionary policy of a whole past generation since Lord Ripon’s time, I forbear to prophesy. It is the common nemesis of alien rule to be too late in its reforms, and, even with the best intentions, to give the thing no longer asked, because its knowledge of the ruled has lagged behind. I deliver no opinion. It must suffice me that I have recorded my full testimony in this volume to a historical understanding of the India I knew in 1883-1884, during the too short rule of its best and wisest Viceroy.
Transcriber’s Notes:
Several proper names do not agree with currently accepted spellings, but have not been changed except to make index entries correlate with the text where possible, as noted below. Uncommon spellings (e.g. adherred, premiss) which were not clearly printing errors were left unchanged. Inconsistent hyphenation (e.g. shop-keeper, shopkeeper) was left as printed, as most likely to reflect the original diary entries.
“congregrated” changed to “congregated” on page 12. ([Egyptian exiles congregated there.])
“Englishmen” changed to “Englishman” on page 156. [(an average Englishman])
“Vice-Chanceller” changed to “Vice-Chancellor” on page 224. ([Vice-Chancellor of the university])
“or” changed to “of” on page 242. ([the great famine of 1877-78])
“betwen” changed to “between” on page 305. ([the connection between England and India])
“Temimi” changed to “Temini” on page 339. ([Eid el Temini])
“Ghalum” changed to “Ghulam” and re-alphabetized on page 339. ([Ghulam Mohammed Munshi])
“Ayar” changed to “Ayer” on page 343. ([Subramania Ayer])
“Trichinopoli” changed to “Trichinopoly” on pages 288 ([such towns as Tanjore and Trichinopoly]) and 343 ([index entry]).