Young India, Viking Press, 1924-1926/The Naked Truth
19th November, 1925
THE NAKED TRUTH
“We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at missionary mectings that we conquered India. We conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword and by the sword we should hold it. (“Shame.”) Call shame if you like. I am stating facts. I am interested in missionary work in India and have done much work of that kind, but I am not such a hypocrite as to say we hold India for the Indians. We hold it as the finest outlet for British goods in general, and for Lancashire cotton goods in particular.”
This is reported to have been said by Sir William Joynson-Hicks. But he is not the first minister to have reminded us of our serfdom. Why should truth be at all unpalatable? It must do us good to know ourselves as we are—destined to be ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ for the benefit of whomsoever will claim us by the prowess of his sword. It is good too that due emphasis is laid on Lancashire goods. The sword will be sheathed as soon as Manchester calico ceases to be saleable in India. It is much more economical, expeditious and possible to give up the use of Manchester and therefore foreign calico than to blunt the edge of Sir William's sword. The process will multiply the number of swords and therefore also miseries in the world. Like opium production the world manufacture of swords needs to be restricted. The sword is probably responsible for more misery in the world than opium. Hence do I say that if India takes to the spinning wheel she will contribute to the restriction of armament and peace of the world as no other country and nothing else can.