Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  For a great part of the century Victoria was Queen of England. She belonged to the German House of Hanover, which had given a number of Georges to the English throne during the eighteenth century. She came to the throne in 1837, as a girl of eighteen, and she reigned for sixty-three years till the end of the century, 1900. This long period in England is often referred to as the Victorian Age. Queen Victoria thus saw many great changes in Europe and elsewhere, old landmarks disappearing and new ones taking their place. She saw the revolutions in Europe, the change in France, and the rise of the Italian kingdom and the German Empire. By the time she died she was a kind of grandmother to Europe and European monarchs. But there was one other ruler in Europe, a contemporary of Victoria’s, who had a similar record. This was Francis Joseph of the house of Hapsburg of Austria. He was also eighteen when he came to the throne of his ramshackle empire in the year of revolution, 1848. For sixty-eight years he reigned, and managed to keep Austria and Hungary and other parts under him held together. But the World War put an end to him and his empire.

  Victoria was more fortunate. During her reign she watched the power of England grow and her empire spread out. There was trouble in Canada when she came to the throne. The colony was in open rebellion, and many of the colonists wanted to break away from England and join their neighbours, the United States of America. But England had learnt a lesson from the American war, and she hastened to appease the Canadians by giving them a large measure of self-rule. Soon afterwards this developed into a full self-governing dominion. This was a new type of experiment in empire, for freedom and empire go ill together, but circumstances forced England’s hand, as the alternative was the loss of Canada. As the majority of people in Canada were of English descent, there was a strong sentimental bond with the mother-country. The new country, being a vast undeveloped land with a sparse population, had to rely a great deal on English manufactures and English money for development. So there was no conflict then between the interests of the two countries, and the curious and novel relationship between them was not put to any strain.

  Later in the century this method of giving self-government to British settlements abroad was extended to Australia, which had been a convict settlement till almost the middle of the century. By the end of the century Australia was a free dominion in the Empire.

  On the other hand, in India the British hold was tightened, and war after war of conquest extended the British Indian Empire. India was a dependency of the British. There was no shadow of self-government. The Revolt of 1857 was crushed, and India was made to feel the full weight of the Empire. I have told you elsewhere how she was exploited in a variety of ways by England. India, of course, was the Empire of Britain, and to proclaim this fact to the world Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of India. But, besides India, Britain also had many other smaller dependencies in various parts of the world.

  The British Empire thus became a curious medley of two types of countries: the self-governing countries, which later became the free dominions, and the dependencies and protectorates. The former were more or less family members acknowledging the headship of the mother-country, the latter were definitely the servants and slaves of the establishment, looked down upon, ill treated and exploited. The self-governing dominions consisted of British people or other Europeans and their descendants, the dependencies were all non-British, non-European. This difference between the two parts of the British Empire has persisted till now.

  England with her wealth and empire was more or less a satisfied Power; not wholly so, because the imperialist instinct is never satisfied with any frontier and always wants to expand. Still England’s main worry was not to take more, but to protect what she had got. In particular, India was her star possession, to which she wanted to hold on to the last. All her foreign policy revolved round her possession of India and the safety of the sea-routes to the East. She meddled in Egypt, and ultimately dominated the country because of this; likewise she interfered in Persia and Afghanistan. By a clever move she bought up the shares of the Suez Canal Company, and thus gained control over the canal.

  Most of the continental Powers of Europe did not worry her for the greater part of the nineteenth century, as they were full of their own troubles and were often fighting each other. England continued her traditional game of keeping the balance in Europe by playing off one country against another and taking advantage of continental rivalries. Napoleon III of France seemed dangerous, but he collapsed, and France took some time to recover. Germany was still too young to be considered a serious rival. But one country seemed to challenge the British Empire, and this was Tsarist Russia, backward Russia, but on the map still a great country. As England had spread in India and south Asia, Russia had spread in north and Central Asia, and her frontier was not far from India. This nearness of Russia was a constant nightmare to the British. I have already told you, when dealing with India, of the British invasions of Afghanistan and the Afghan wars. These were almost entirely due to fear of Tsarist Russia.

  In Europe also England and Russia came to blows. Russia longed to have a good seaport which was open all the year round and did not freeze in winter. In spite of her vast territories, all her ports were somewhere near the Arctic circle, and were frozen up for part of the year. In India and Afghanistan she was stopped by the British from reaching the sea; so also in Persia. The Black Sea was bottled up by the Turkish possession of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. In the past she had tried to take Constantinople, but the Turks were too strong for her. Now the Turks were weak and the coveted prize seemed almost within grasp. She tried to take it. But England stood in the way and, for entirely selfish reasons, she became the champion of the Turks. By war in 1854 in the Crimea, and later by the threat of another war, Russia was kept back.

  It was during this Crimean War of 1854-56 that Florence Nightingale led a gallant band of women volunteers to nurse the wounded. This was an unusual thing to do at the time, for Victorian middle-class women were stay-at-home folk. Florence Nightingale set a new example of active service to them and drew many out of their drawing-rooms. She has thus an important place in the development of the women’s movement.

  The form of government in Britain was what is called a constitutional monarchy or a “crowned republic”. This meant that the wearer of the crown had no real power, but was just the mouthpiece of the ministers whom Parliament trusted. Politically he (or she) was supposed to be just a puppet in the ministers’ hands; he was “above politics”, it was said. As a matter of fact no man of intelligence or will can be a mere puppet, and the English king or queen has plenty of opportunity of interfering with public affairs. This is usually done behind the scenes, and the public seldom know of it till long afterwards. Any open interference would probably be greatly resented, and might imperil the monarchy. The one great virtue that a constitutional monarch must possess is tact; if he has this he can carry on and make himself felt in many ways.

  Constitutionally and legally, the presidents of republics (like the President of the United States of America) have far more power than the crowned heads of parliamentary countries. But the former change frequently, and the latter remain for long periods and can influence affairs continuously, though quietly, in any particular direction. The king also has numerous opportunities of intriguing and exercising social pressure, for in the social world he is supreme. Indeed, the whole atmosphere of royal Courts is one of authoritarianism, of precedence and titles and classes, and this sets a standard for the whole country. It is not compatible with social equality and the abolition of classes. There can be no doubt that the presence of a royal court in England has had a great deal of influence in moulding the Englishman’s mentality and in making him accept the class division of society. Or perhaps it is more correct to say that it is because of this acceptance of classes one above the other that the institution of royalty has managed to survive in England although it has disappeared from almost all the great countries of the world. “Every Englishman
loves a lord” is an old saying, and there is much truth in it. Nowhere in Europe or America, and perhaps nowhere in Asia, except in Japan and India, are class distinctions so sharp as in England. It is strange that England should be so backward socially and so fundamentally conservative, when she was the leader in the past in political democracy and industrialism.

  The British Parliament is called the “Mother of Parliaments”. It has had a long and honourable career, and in many matters it was a pioneer in the fight against the king’s autocracy. That autocracy gave place to the oligarchy of Parliament—that is, rule by a small landowning and governing class. Democracy then came with a flourish of trumpets and, after many a tussle, votes for electing members to the House of Commons were given to the majority of the population. In effect, this resulted not in real democratic control, but in the control of Parliament by the rich industrialists. Instead of democracy there was plutocracy.

  The British Parliament developed a strange system for doing its business of governing and legislating. This was the two-party system. There was not much difference between the two parties, they did not stand out for any opposing principles. Both of them were rich men’s parties accepting the existing social system. One of the parties had a greater number of the old landowning classes, the other had more of the rich factory-owners. But it was a question of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They used to be called Tories and Whigs; later, in the nineteenth century, they came to be styled Conservatives and Liberals.

  In other European countries it was very different, and real parties with different programmes and ideologies fought each other passionately in parliaments and outside. But in England it was all like a family affair, and opposition itself became a kind of cooperation, and each party took its turn of office and opposition. The real clash and class conflict between the rich and the poor did not show itself in Parliament, as both the big parties were rich men’s parties. There were no religious questions of importance to rouse people’s passions, nor were there any racial or national questions (as there were on the Continent). The only real element of excitement was brought in later in the century by the Irish Nationalist members, for with them Ireland’s freedom was a national question.

  When two such big parties run members for Parliament, it becomes very difficult for independent individuals or small groups to get elected. In spite of democracy and the vote, the poor voter has little say in the matter. He can either vote for the candidate of one of the parties or stay at home and not vote at all. And the members of the parties in Parliament have little independence left. They have to carry out the orders of their party chiefs and vote, and can do little else. For only in this way can they develop solidarity in the party and strength to defeat the rival party and thus gain office. This solidarity and uniformity is no doubt good in its own way, but it is very far from real democracy.

  And we see that even in England, which is often held up as an example of democratic progress, democracy was not a brilliant success. The great problem of government, as to how the best men should be chosen by the people to govern them, was not satisfactorily solved. Democracy in action meant a great deal of shouting and public speaking and the poor voter being induced to choose a person about whom he knew nothing. General elections have been described as public auctions where all manner of promises are made. However, in spite of all these drawbacks, this pseudo or false democracy continued because England was prosperous and this prosperity prevented breakdowns of the system and brought a measure of content.

  The two great leaders of the English political parties in the second half of the nineteenth century were Disraeli and Gladstone. Disraeli, who later became the Earl of Beaconsfield, was the leader of the Conservatives and many times Prime Minister. This was a remarkable feat for him, as he was a Jew with no important connections, and Jews are not liked by the English. But by sheer ability and perseverance he conquered the prejudice against him and forced his way to the front. He was a great imperialist, and it was he who made Victoria Empress of India. Gladstone belonged to one of the rich old English families. He became the leader of the Liberal party, and was also Prime Minister many times. So far as imperialism and foreign policy were concerned, there was no racial difference between Gladstone and Disraeli. But Disraeli was frank about his imperialism; Gladstone, typical Englishman as he was, covered it up with fine phrases and pious exhortations, and seemed to make out that God was his chief adviser in everything he did. He led a great campaign against Turkish atrocities in the Balkans, and of course Disraeli in sheer opposition took up the side of the Turks. As a matter of fact both the Turks and their subjects of different nationalities in the Balkans were to blame, and they indulged alternately in the most frightful massacres and atrocities.

  Gladstone also championed Home Rule for Ireland. He did not succeed, and so great was the English opposition that the Liberal party itself split up, and one part of it joined the Conservatives, now called the Unionists, as they desired to continue the union with Ireland.

  But I must tell you more of this and of other happenings in the Victorian Age in a subsequent letter.

  136

  England Becomes the World’s Money-Lender

  February 23, 1933

  The nineteenth-century prosperity of England was due to her industries and to her exploitation of her colonies and dependencies. In particular, her growing wealth was founded on four industries— “basic” industries they might be called; these were cotton, coal, iron, and ship-building. A host of other industries, heavy as well as light, grew up round these and apart from these. Great business houses and banking houses were built up. British merchant-ships were to be found in almost every part of the world, carrying not only British goods, but also the goods manufactured by other industrial countries. They became the chief carriers of merchandise in the world. The great insurance office of Lloyd’s in London became the centre of the world’s shipping. These industries and businesses dominated Parliament.

  Wealth poured into the country, and the upper and middle classes grew richer and richer; some part of it reached the working classes also, and raised their standard of living. What was to be done with all the wealth that the rich were getting? To keep it unused was folly, and everybody was keen on pushing industry, and thus producing more and more goods and getting more and more profits. A great part of this wealth went into new factories and railways and such-like undertakings in England and Scotland. After a while, when there was a very great number of factories and the country was thoroughly industrialized, the rate of profit naturally grew less, as there was more competition. Capitalists with money then looked abroad for more profitable fields of investment and found plenty of opportunities. All over the world railways were being built, and cables and telegraph lines and factories. The surplus money of Britain was poured into many of these undertakings in Europe, America, Africa, and the British dependencies. The United States of America, rich as they were in their resources, were rapidly growing, and. they absorbed a good deal of British money for their railways, etc. In South America, and especially in the Argentine, the British owned huge plantations. Canada and Australia were built up with British capital. In China, I have told you something of the battle of concessions. In India, of course, the British were dominant, and lent money for railways and other works on their own rather extravagant terms.

  Thus England became the money-lender to the world, and London was the world’s money market. But do not think that this meant that huge bags full of gold or silver or cash were sent from England to other countries when money was lent. Modern business is not carried on in this way, or there would not be enough gold and silver to go round. Foolish people attach a great deal of importance to gold and silver, but they are just a means of exchange and of circulating goods. One cannot eat them or wear them or use them in any way, except of course as ornaments, which does little good to anybody. Real wealth consists in possessing goods which can be used. So when England, or rather British capitalists, advanced money, it
meant that they had invested a sum in a foreign industry or railway, and instead of hard cash, British goods were sent out. British machinery or railway material would thus be sent to foreign countries. This helped British industry, and at the same time offered opportunities to the British investing class to invest their surplus cash at a handsome profit.

  Money-lending is a profitable business; and the more England adopted this profession the richer she grew. A huge leisured class grew up, which lived entirely on the profits and dividends from this business. They did not have to work to produce anything. They held shares in some railway company or tea plantation or other concern, and dividends came to them regularly. English colonies of these leisured people grew up in many desirable places, like the French Riviera, Italy, and Switzerland; but of course most of them remained in England.

  How did all the countries that had borrowed money from England in this way pay their interest on it or dividends? Again, they could not send it in gold or silver. They did not have enough of these to pay year after year. They paid therefore in goods, not so much in manufactured goods, as England was herself the leading manufacturing country, but in food products and raw material. They poured into England in an unceasing stream wheat, tea, coffee, meat, fruit, wines, cotton, wool, etc.

  Commerce between two nations consists of an exchange of articles. It is not possible for one country to go on buying and the other selling. If this were attempted, payment would have to be made in gold or silver, and soon there would be no more gold or silver left, or else the one-sided trade would stop of itself. In mutual trade an exchange takes place which adjusts itself, and is sometimes in favour of one country, sometimes in favour of the other. If we were to examine the trade of England during the nineteenth century, we would find that on the whole she received more goods than she sent out. That is, although she exported a vast quantity of goods, she actually imported more goods in value, with this difference, that she exported manufactured articles and imported principally food articles and raw materials. Thus apparently she bought more than she sold, which does not seem to be a good way of carrying on business. But as a matter of fact the excess of imports represented the profit on the money lent out. It was the tribute paid by debtor countries as well as dependencies like India.