Wedgwood. He rates the generosity and the enthusiasm of the princes and people of India at a higher value and, perhaps, in the light of our subsequent achievement, asks, whether, if Lord Hardinge had made the necessary appeal to the public, sufficient man-power and "material-power" would not have been forthcoming. Decidedly, concludes Wedgwood, on those who failed to do it, on the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Hardinge and Sir Beauchamp Duff, respectively, must be laid the responsibility for the disastrous failure of the campaign. The responsibility of these high efficials is all the greater because they kept the public, and even their constitutional colleagues, ignorant of the whole thing by the imposition of a stupidly rigid censorship; for, but for this censorship, the position would have earlier been depicted to the public at its true gravity and the untimely, ill-equipped and disastrously calamitous march on Baghdad, suggested by Simla, encouraged by Whitehall and undertaken by the dangerous foolhardiness of an over-enthusiastic General might have been postponed to a more auspicious occasion.

The logic of these arguments appears at first sight irresistible; and, but for certain circumstances peculiar to India, will have been unreservedly accepted as correct. The circumstances are however there, and Commander Wedgwood's unsparing indictment of Lord Hardinge was severely discounted by the Indian public. The position, as we said, is peculiar; and we cannot see eye-to-eye with him in this question : for, "Commander Wedgwood looks at it from the point of view of one who thinks that the resources of India have not been thrown into the energetic conduct of the War. That position cannot be maintained except as to man-power, and in that respect India was quite willing to do more and to do promptly, if her proferred co-operation had not been given the cold shoulder."* only necessary to mention Lord Hardinge's defence of his conduct in the Lords, of Sir William Meyer's in the Imperial Council, the financial stringency that the Government of India is experiencing to-day and its relation to the vast field of development work that awaits to be carried out in India, to carry home

* The London letter of the Hindu.

It is

the conviction that the above criticism of the Wedgwood Minute is perfectly just.

iv

As we have already said, however, it is the constructive part of the Wedgwood Minute that is more important and useful than the critical. The recommendations in this part cover a wide area, but they may, for convenience, sake, be brought broadly under two heads those that relate to the formation of an efficient, an elastic, and a contented Indian Army, capable, in times of need, of considerable expansion for the benefit of the Empire. Efficiency, elasticity, and contentment-these indeed constitute the three canons on which any programme of Indian Army reform must, in his view, be based. And efficiency, Wedgwood sought to secure, first, by placing the Indian Army under the War Office, and, secondly, by arranging for the interchange of personnel between the British and the Indian armies. The latter suggestion suggested itself to him by his experience of Africa. It was the practice in Africa to draw periodically officer personnel for the King's African

Rifles from the British Army and draft the officers directly recruited for it to the British Army for a time. The arrangement, in short, operated, whatever the details, as the interchange of officer personnel between the Home and the African armies. This was felt to be very advantageous. The practice enabled the African army to be in constant touch with the latest developments in European warfare by which touch alone could the efficiency of the Army can be maintained in comparison with the armies of other advanced countries. Wedgwood recommended that some such thing should be done in regard to the Indian Army as well. His suggestions to secure elasticity, which implies expansiveness, were first, to grant the King's Commission to a larger number of Indians and thus do away with the defect of lack of officer personnel which was a serious limiting factor in regard to the expansion of the Army. Wedgwood pointed out that the fetish of seeking European personnel was an obstruction rather than a factor in efficiency, and he supported his contention by reference to the Turkish Army whose efficiency was beyond question, but

whose officer personnel was largely made up of the Turks. The experience of the campaigns with Turkey proved that Turkish officers did very well under German guidance; and he concluded that Indian officers would do equally well, if not better, under British guidance. The conclusion was that it was guidance and not personality that was required. The canon of contentment he sought to enforce by the grant of King's Commissions and by better payment and treatment of the Army.

These reforms would, no doubt, bring about the existence of an efficient and numerous Army. But what about the support behind it in the country? The extent of such support, as the War has amply demonstrated, will be the extent of its stable success; for, the fact is that the days of a successful mercinery army are long gone bya fact recognised by none better than Command

er

Wedgwood. Was the extent of such support from India satisfactory? If not, why did not the Indian public support it sufficiently? These were the reasons which Wedgwood inquired into; and his recommend