itself to their peculiar predilections, naturally dislike any reference to Mr. Pal’s interpretation of Indian “self-government,” and would even impugn his character in order the better to question his authority.  But they cannot get over the fact that in India, very few “moderate” politicians have had the courage openly to repudiate his programmes, though many of them realize its dangers, whilst the “extremists” want a much shorter cut to the same goal.  It is only by pledging itself to Swaraj that the Indian National Congress has been able to maintain a semblance of unity.

Moreover, if any doubt still lingers as to the inner meaning of Swaraj and Swadeshi, and other kindred war-cries of Indian Nationalism, the language of the Nationalist Press remains on record to complete our enlightenment.  However incompatible with the maintenance of British rule may be the propositions set forth by Mr. Bepin Chandra Pal, they contain no incitement to violence, no virulent diatribes against Englishmen.  It is in the Press rather than on the platform that Indian politicians, whether “extreme” or merely “advanced” are apt to let themselves go.  They write down to the level of their larger audiences.  So little has hitherto been done to enlighten public opinion at home as to the gravity of the evil which the recent Indian Press law has at last, though very tardily, done something to repress that many Englishmen are still apparently disposed to regard that measure as an oppressive, or at least dubious, concession to bureaucratic impatience of criticism none the less healthy for being sometimes excessive.[1] The following quotations, taken from vernacular papers before the new Press law was enacted, will serve to show what Lord Morley meant when he said, “You may put picric acid in the ink and the pen just as much as in any steel bomb,” and again, “It is said that these incendiary articles are ‘mere froth.’  Yes, they are froth, but froth stained with bloodshed.”  Even when they contain no definite incitement to murder, no direct exhortation to revolt, they will show how systematically, how persistently the wells of Indian public opinion have been poisoned for years past by those who claim to represent the intelligence and enlightenment of modern India.  Only too graphically also do they illustrate one of the most unpleasantly characteristic features of the literature of Indian unrest—­namely, its insidious appeals to the Hindu Scriptures and the Hindu deities, and its deliberate vilification of everything English.  Calumny and abuse, combined with a wealth of sacred imagery, supply the place of any serious process of reasoning such as is displayed in Mr. Pal’s programme with all its uncompromising hostility.

In the first place, a few specimens of the hatred which animates the champions of Swaraj—­of Indian independence, or, at least, of Colonial self-government.  The Hind Swarajya is nothing if not plain-spoken:—­