THE UNTOUCHABLES AND THE PAX BRITANNICA 85
always to have been more sepoys than Europeans on the side of the Company. And let us observe further that we do not hear of the sepoys as fighting ill, or of the English as bearing the whole brunt of the conflict. No one who has remarked the childish eagerness with which historians indulge their national vanity, will be surprized to find that our English writers in describing these battles seem unable to discern the sepoys. Read Macaulay’s Essay on Clive; everywhere it is ‘the imperial people,’ ‘the mighty children of the sea,’ ‘none could resist Clive and his Englishmen.’ But if once it is admitted that the sepoys always outnumbered the English, and that they kept pace with the English in efficiency as soldiers, the whole theory which attributes our successes to an immeasurable natural superiority in valour falls to the ground. In those battles in which our troops were to the enemy as one to ten, it will appear that if we may say that one Englishman showed himself equal to ten natives, we may also say that one sepoy did the same. It follows that, though no doubt there was a difference it was not so much a difference of race as a difference of discipline, of military science, and also no doubt in many cases on difference of leadership.
Observe that Mill’s summary explanation of the conquest of India says nothing of any natural superiority on the part of the English. ‘The two important discoveries for conquering India were ; 1st the weakness of the native armies against European discipline, 2ndly the facility of imparting that discipline to natives in the European service’. He adds ; ‘Both discoveries were made by the French.’
And even if we should admit that the English fought better than the sepoys, and took more than their share in those achievements which both performed in common, it remains entirely incorrect to speak of the English nation as having conquered the nations of India. The nations of India have been conquered by an army of which on the average about a fifth part was English. But we do not only exaggerate our own share in the achievement; we at the same time entirely misconceive and misdescribe the achievement itself. From what race were the other four-fifths of the Army drawn ? From the Natives of India themselves! India can hardly be said to have been conquered at all by foreigners ; She has rather conquered herself.” [1]
This explanation of Prof. Seely is correct as far as it goes. But it is not going far enough. India was conquered by the British with the help of an Army composed of Indians. It is well for Indians as well as for the British not to overlook this fact. But who were these Indians who joined the army of their foreigners ? That question Prof. Seely did not raise. But it is a very pertinent question. Who were these people who joined the army of the East
- Seely, Expansion of England, p. 200—202.