Asiatic Quarterly Review (Full Title: The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, and Oriental and Colonial Record): Volume XIII, No. 26 [‎524r] (172/238)

Proceedings of the East India Association. 385
maintain higher education without Government assistance. Strongly as he
(Mr. Digby) was in favour of simultaneous examinations taking place in
India and in England, he should object to seeing it obtained by such
a means as had been suggested. (Hear, hear.) With reference to Sir
William Lee-Warners “ Citizen of India,” he agreed with Sir Roland
Wilson’s remarks. That book had undoubtedly caused a great deal of
strong feeling in some of the scholastic institutions in India, and the
Senate of the University of the North-West Provinces at Allahabad had
had the matter under discussion arising out of the complaints made by
many teachers in large institutions. While thanking Sir Roland Wilson
for bringing the matter forward, he desired to repeat that unless there was
much more to be said in favour of the contentions in the paper than had
been advanced by its author, when it reached India it would be calculated
to cause very serious mischief. For this reason he regretted that one
whose sympathies with, and desire to serve, India were so great as Sir
Roland Wilson’s had made such a suggestion. The Indian people would
rightly, he thought, strongly object to such a proposal. Here was an
instance. He (Mr. Digby) had that morning met an Indian gentleman
who occupied a high administrative position, and had invited him to
attend that meeting. On learning the title and scope of the paper he
declined the invitation, saying it was another proof of what the people
of India were learning every day. That was that the English nation, in its
dealings with India, had lost its old ideals, and meant to bring them back
to a state of barbarism. When he (Mr. Digby) remembered that it was
only through English education there was any possibility of the people of
India rising to a high position in their own country, he did feel that the
teaching of such a paper as that of Sir Roland Wilson’s marked a
retrograde step, which, if taken, would be followed by most serious
consequences. (Hear, hear.) He therefore regretted that it should have
been submitted to the Association.
Mr. J. D. Rees, c.i.e., thought that, in dealing with the question of the
poverty of India, the author of the paper in comparing the average annual
income of a native of India with the weekly wage of a skilled London
mechanic was basing his argument on a wholly fallacious premise. No possible
comparison could be made, and the native of India was better off with his
£2 a year than the London mechanic with the same wage a week. With
reference to Japan, he believed the great changes that had taken place there
had been more the result of the volatile character of the people, and their
love of change, than of their system of education, which, however, was
good. He maintained that the comparison Mr. Digby had made was a
very fallacious one, and if anyone would take the trouble to leave the beaten
track of the tea-houses of Japan, and go into the country, they would find
the people of Japan no richer than the people of India; but if Mr. Digby
would compare the condition of the people of India with the condition of
the people of other Eastern countries, the comparison would be valuable.
Sir Roland Wilson had spoken of the impoverishment of the population by
the payment of the Land Assessment and the Salt Duty, but would Sir
Roland Wilson point to any time when the people of India were better off?
THIRD SERIES. VOL. XIII. BB