There was a claim being made in those days that British rule had brought India the benefits of security of life and property. Questioning this claim Dadabhai Naoroji's remarked:
The romance is that there is security of life and property in India; the reality is that there is no such thing. 'There is security of life and property in one sense or way-i.e, the people are secure from any violence from each other or from Native despots...But from England's own grasp there is no security of property at all, and, as a consequence, no security of life. India's property is not secure. What is secure, and well secure, is that England is perfectly safe and secure, and does so with perfect security, to carry away from India, and to eat up in India, her property at the present rate of £30,00,000 or £40,00,000 a year. I therefore venture to submit that India does not enjoy security of her property and life. To millions in India life is simply "half-feeding" or starvation, or famines and disease.
The romance is that there is security of life and property in India; the reality is that there is no such thing. 'There is security of life and property in one sense or way-i.e, the people are secure from any violence from each other or from Native despots...But from England's own grasp there is no security of property at all, and, as a consequence, no security of life. India's property is not secure. What is secure, and well secure, is that England is perfectly safe and secure, and does so with perfect security, to carry away from India, and to eat up in India, her property at the present rate of £30,00,000 or £40,00,000 a year. I therefore venture to submit that India does not enjoy security of her property and life. To millions in India life is simply "half-feeding" or starvation, or famines and disease.
No comments:
Post a Comment