Page 261 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 14: John Stuart Mill and His Representative Government

than Marx and Engels. He presided over the relative merits and demerits of Socialism and capitalism Notes
like a referee in a heavyweight boxing context (Thomas 1985: 90).

14.3 Mill’s Views on India

Mill’s Autobiography and his private letters indicated that he looked upon his Indian duties as
essentially belonging to his official employment, rather than of personal interest. He wrote very
little about India, and was influenced by his father’s pessimistic views on Indian culture. He was
skeptical, like Comte and the Saint Simonians, about the feasibility and success of representative
governments in Asia, including India. The reason was the passivity of its people, which was due
to centuries of despotism, preventing them from taking an active posture in the public sphere.
While he conceded that Asian countries such as China and India had attained (in the earlier ages)
high standards of civilization, presently they were dominated by custom and sufficiently unres-
ponsive to the stimulating ideas of individualism and rationalism. This made Eastern societies
essentially passive and stagnant, making it difficult for them to progress on their own volition.
There is very little difference between a liberal Mill, an idealist Hegel and a socialist Marx, when
it came to writing and perceiving the non-European world. All of them remained Eurocentric.
Mill felt that some form of benevolent despotism or rule by a superior people belonging to an
advanced society was best suited for India. At the same time, he had reservations about the
capacity of a foreign government to act in the best interests of its subjects, especially in the case of
India where the British had very little understanding of their subjects, or sympathy for them. In
such a situation, it would be better for the rulers to “govern through” a delegated body which
would give supreme importance to the best interests of the subject people. Mill’s position was very
different from the one articulated by Indian reformers. Rammohun had already rejected the idea
of a delegated body, and insisted that the British Parliament enact laws for India since Indian
society was incapable of changing from within. He defended his view by pointing out that, unlike
the West, where the law emerged from a sovereign authority because of the separation of legislative
and executive powers, in India all the powers were vested with the executive, which deterred
progressive and wholesome legislation. He was sanguine that the British Parliament would have
permanent interests which would benefit India. Rammohun’s arguments seemed more reasonable
and convincing than Mill’s.
Mill, like Burke, was opposed to any kind of interference with religious practices in India, though
these were abhorrent to humanity in general. He was against the official imposition of the English
language and culture, though he regarded it as the duty of the Empire to uproot barbarous
practices like infanticide slavery and sati. He supported legal reforms in India like the Indian
Penal Code and the codes for civil and criminal procedure. Though an ardent champion of educational
reforms in India, he was critical of the education policy that was adopted in 1835 by Lord Bentinck
and Lord Macaulay. The policy decision to withdraw funds from centres of oriental learning implied
a rejection of Indian culture and religion, and that was unacceptable. Mill distinguished between a
limited plan of funding colleges to teach English to potential government employees, and the more
fundamental idea of spreading Western ideas and knowledge throughout the country. The second
could be achieved by disseminating Western ideas through Indian, rather than foreign languages,
with the help of the Indian educated class for the masses to understand and learn.
Mill and Harriet championed the cause of European, and in particular Victorian women, but felt
that Asian women were not ready for equality, individuality and liberty yet. Mill, even on this
score, was Eurocentric. He was willing to use different standards for judging similar practices,
particularly on an issue like gender equality, which was close to his heart since the 1860s.
In fact Bankim abandoned the idea of dissecting the issue, for Mill had stated the case coherently
and brilliantly. This in itself was a great tribute, considering Bankim’s Samya (1879) analyzed the
question of inequality in society.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 255