House of Commons in 1852, that England must not expect to retain her
hold on India if English ideas were imparted to the people. "No
_intelligent_ people would submit to our Government," were his words--a
sentiment repudiated with indignation by the learned Bengali, the late
Rev. Dr. K.M. Banerjea. In the same spirit, apparently, Sir Alfred Lyall
still contemplates with some fear the rapid reformation of religious
beliefs under modern influences. He sees that the old deities and ideas
are being dethroned, and that the responsibility for famines, formerly
imputed to the gods, is being cast upon the British Government. "The
British Government," he says, "having thrown aside these lightning
conductors [the old theocratic system], is much more exposed than a
native ruler would be to shocks from famines or other wide-spread
misfortunes." "Where no other authority is recognised, the visible ruler
becomes responsible for everything."[44] Fortunately, "policy" of that
sort has not prevailed with Indian statesmen in the past, and Britain
can still retain self-respect as enlightener and ruler of India.

[Sidenote: Championing of things Indian.]

The championing of all things Indian is another recent phase of the same
national consciousness. As the work of Britain is depreciated, the
heroes, the beliefs, and the practices of India are exalted and defended
as such. Idolatry and caste have their apologists. At almost every
public meeting, according to the late Mr. Monomohun Ghose of Calcutta,
he heard the remark made "that the ancient civilisation of India was far
superior to that which Europe ever had."[45] In the political lament
over a golden past, there is glorification by Hindus of the Mahomedan
emperor Akbar, praise of the Native States and their rule as opposed to
the condition of British India, and there are apologies for leaders in
the Mutiny of 1857. Much of that is natural and proper patriotism, no