India -- Description and travel; India -- Politics and government -- 1765-1947
“The distress caused by high prices has undoubtedly affected
all classes, and has pressed with great severity on the urban
populations, and on all who are dependent on small fixed incomes.
But the more painful conditions which we associate with widespread
famine in India—the emaciation, the aimless wandering, the
disruption of social ties, and the increase of crime—are as yet
so rare and exceptional as to be scarcely noticeable. The energy
and determination with which the people have themselves faced the
calamity have been observed on all hands, and we may reasonably
hope that if the coming season is favourable the progress of the
country will resume its normal course, without any such check as a
famine on a similar scale would have caused in bygone times.”[57]
That sounds fairly simple, and, of course, its hopefulness was
justified; but the whole question of the famine brought one up short
against problems that may be common to all countries, but are perhaps
more difficult in India, because under our rule the economic stages
are becoming mixed together. What Mr. Baker, for instance, says about
the pressure upon urban populations and small fixed incomes owing to
the famine is true; but then the pressure appears to be permanent,
famine or no famine. The rise in price of ordinary provisions seems
to be continuous and general. I heard the same complaint in the
Deccan, in Eastern Bengal, Calcutta, Benares, Allahabad, Delhi, and
Lahore. Within twenty years wages may have doubled, but the cost
of common food has quadrupled. In Bengal, for example, Mr. Chunder
Nath Bose, Fellow of the Calcutta University, who knew the prices
as a boy, says they have gone up fourfold or even tenfold for the
staples of Bengal diet, such as rice, wheat, potatoes, brinjal, dal,
fish, and, what is worst, for milk and ghi (clarified butter).[58]
Many explanations were given me by English and Indian alike—the
export of grain, the growth of jute, the fixing of the rupee, the
increased circulation of rupees before 1893, and the transition from
payment in kind to payment in cash. Some of these explanations are
contradictory, and all of them have been vehemently contradicted. But
as to the result, there appeared to be no doubt: life is becoming
harder for all working people, especially for all workers on fixed
incomes, and the only people who do not notice the increasing burden
are the few with “rapidly expanding business” and those who could not
possibly eat up to their incomes if they tried.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account