VAMBERY: ENGLAND IN THE ORIENT - 2

In the face of these undeniable facts we are well entitled to ask : What is the reason that the English have succeeded so splendidly in their work of reform in Asia, and how can they perpetuate their rule over vast multitudes far away from their insular home? The answer is very plain. Like the rest of mortals, Britons or Americans do not possess superhuman or miraculous powers; all their astounding success is simply the outcome of those ethnical, political and moral qualities, through which they have distanced other European nations, and by which they very naturally over-awe Asiatics. An eminently strong individuality, fostered by a liberal political constitution, and by the spirit of freedom, has at all times encouraged their spirit of enterprise; stimulated them to acts of daring, and made them persevering and courageous under the most critical circumstances or the greatest dangers. The quiet temper and the indifference so frequently shown by a single English traveller amidst the hootings and clamorous behavior of the Oriental mob, by which he finds himself surrounded in the populous bazaars of Eastern towns, offers an excel- lent pendant to the attitude adopted by the English Trading Company in India on their first appearance on the coast of Bengal. Surrounded, pushed, threatened and attacked on all sides, the British troops valiantly held their own against the far more numerous armies of the Moguls, until the latter, overawed by the courage, tenacity and perseverance of the intruding foreigner, became gradually accustomed to the uncalled-for visitor, and even submitted to him. Next to this ranks the gravity and calmness with which the Englishman appears amongst Asiatics, who hate levity of character, and who are particularly inspired with respect for a man of dignified manner and serious demeanor. This quality of the English, degenerating, alas! very often into coldness and haughtiness-particularly in the case of the half educated-may well prevent a mutual rapprochement between the conqueror and the conquered, and it has also in many cases essentially injured the friendly relations of both. On this account the Russian conqueror is ahead of the English, for the former, being himself an Asiatic, will much more readily entertain a close and intimate relation with Orientals than will the Briton of higher education, who enters his field of Asiatic enterprise quite fresh from Oxford or Cambridge. It would be not only useless but culpable to disregard this national error, to which must be ascribed more than one calamity which has befallen the English in the East. On the other hand we ought not to conceal from ourselves the fact that an Oriental is accustomed to respect a stern master; in fact, the ruler in whom he discovers an easy-going mind and puerile habits will never be able to influence his character or to bring him round to obedience. According to Oriental notions, gravity of character and sense of justice are qualities inseparable from each other; the Oriental patiently bears the one in order to enjoy the benefits of the other, and consequently he finds it quite natural that the rule of his English master is, above all, just and equitable, and that he never has to apprehend any unfair treatment. It is the relation between the father and his grown-up children which serves as a bond between the English ruler and his Asiatic subjects, and if this ruler, in fulfilling his paternal duties, shows himself truly liberal and generous, as the English do, owing to their innate sense of liberty and fair play-and Oriental rulers never do or did-then the mutual understanding must unavoidably result in those happy relations which we find to-day between Great Britain and her Asiatic subjects, in whose loyalty and contentment lies the most eloquent proof of the superiority and the solidity of British rule in Asia.

Superficial critics, men unacquainted with the real spirit of the East, have frequently declared that English rule and English views, representing the highest degree of Western civilization, must be too strange to the totally different notions of mankind in Asia, and that consequently British institutions must be un- palatable to the genuine Asiatic. Although I have heard this remark from many statesmen and eminent philosophers of our day, it is nevertheless a fallacy which needs refutation, for no Asiatic is so shortsighted as not to perceive the good qualities of the English rule compared with the disorderly, rapacious and despotic government of his native princes. Difference in religion, which with an Asiatic outweighs all possible considerations, has been and will long remain the great stumbling block in the way of a thorough appreciation of the superior qualities of the foreign conqueror, and will prevent a close contact between the ruler and the ruled, but religious tolerance-a virtue totally unknown to the Asiatic-tends to mitigate this evil. The non-interference with the religious customs and habits, nay, the respect paid by the Christian conquerors to certain rites, has particularly struck the Mohammedan portion of the Asiatic world, and furnishes an evident proof of justice on the part of the English, and if we add that the English ruler does not officially countenance the work of Christian missionaries, and that before the law all religions enjoy equal right and protection-which cannot be said either of Russia or of other Christian rulers in the East-then it will be easily understood that British rule is not by any means oppressive to the natives of Asia, and that, having once submitted to it, they become patient and happy subjects. It has often been said that the Asiatic, having served from time immemorial as a blind tool of despotism and tyranny, will never be able to acquire a taste for political freedom and liberty of action. Politicians on the Continent have frequently reproached England with being too liberal in her dealings with Asiatic societies and have warned the foreign ruler of India of the evil consequences and dangers which must follow. This, too, I am glad to say, is another fallacy. Liberty is a golden fruit towards which mankind, whether in Asia or in any other part of the world, has always eagerly stretched forth a hand, and those who have tasted it will certainly not readily renounce its enjoyment. The truly liberal institutions which have emanated hitherto from our Western world to the Asiatic are mostly, if not exclusively, of English or American extraction, and we have only to look at Japan and India to see that they have not fallen on barren soil, but that they have taken root and promise to thrive as well as they do in the West. A long correspondence with Japanese and Hindus, brought up amid European surroundings, has taught me that these Oriental fellow-men of ours value highly our liberal institutions; it is not the least strange or troublesome to them to raise their heads from the dust of abject slavery, and they are sometimes even too fiery and too hasty in the path of liberalism, as proved by the Beuzali Balms, who had found their political ideal in the late Mr. Bradlaugh, or by young Turkey, who delighted in Robespierre and Danton. The truly liberal spirit of government, far from being a menace or a danger, is the real stronghold of British rule in Asia, and whilst it outshines the rule of the rest of foreign conquerors in the old world, so does it afford the best guarantee of stability and duration. England in the Orient: Part 1. by Arminus Vambery