was one of the richest in the world. And in 1914 the British government purchased a controlling interest in the AngloPersian Company, to make sure of controlling this supply of oil, in so far as control was necessary, for the British navy.

Barren Persia, it turned out, was a treasure-house of oil, the most eagerly sought for prize of post-bellum diplomacy. Persia was a nation, or rather a conglomeration, of eight or ten million persons, mostly Persian by tongue, and mostly poor, living over untold wealth of oil. The development of the oil industry may mean an end of Persian independence; but in these days of more subtle forms of imperialism, Persia is more likely to remain nominally independent, while her underground wealth is owned and exported by foreigners, from whose prosperity a few crumbs of economic benefit will fall to Persia's share, in the form of taxes, increased commerce, increased business.

CENTRAL ASIA

A postscript must be added on the fortunes of the other Middle Eastern countries, notably Afghanistan, Tibet, and Turkestan, since the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907. The first of these, a mountainous country somewhat larger than France, inhabited by warlike Mohammedan mountaineers, was assigned to be a buffer state, more or less under British control, as the reader will recall. From 1907 to 1919 the arrangement worked well enough. The reigning Amir, Habibulla Khan, accepted a salary and advice from Great Britain; having visited India, he strove to institute in his own country the progressive policies he had there seen in operation; he had a few factories built, introduced telegraph and telephone, reorganized his army, established schools, and above all, built good roads. The curious fact that there are no railways in the country is explained partly by the reluctance of the British government to permit their construction, lest they prove a menace in time of war.

All went well until in 1919 Amir Habibulla was shot in his tent, and his son, Amanulla, proclaimed Amir in his stead. Amanulla promptly declared his independence and got in touch with the Russian Bolshevists, who were seeking to arouse Asiatic peoples against British imperialism. With fatuous courage, and Russian encouragement, he now proclaimed a holy war against

the British, only to be summarily defeated. Peace was made a few months later, and confirmed by a treaty of Nov. 22, 1922, which recognized the complete independence of Afghanistan. Once a vassal, Afghanistan is now one of the few independent countries left in Asia or Africa.1

Tibet, that bleak plateau and mountain country sparsely peopled by inhospitable Buddhists, was to be a sort of "no man's land," as far as Russia and England were concerned, according to the Agreement of 1907. China was to be recognized as suzerain of Tibet, and no dealings were to be had with the Tibetan Dalai Lama except through China. When the Chinese Revolution occurred in 1911, and Chinese patriots planned to incorporate Tibet more definitely in China, the Tibetans rose in arms, expelled the Chinese officials and garrison, demanded independence, and thereby caused China to undertake the reconquest of the country. Just at this point, Great Britain interfered, imperiously demanding the withdrawal of the Chinese army. China was only "suzerain," not "sovereign" of Tibet, Great Britain firmly pointed out. The British proposed-quite openly in violation of the Anglo-Russian Agreement-that Tibet should be divided into two portions, one under Chinese control, the other "autonomous." Autonomous, in this case, would doubtless have meant under veiled British control. China refused, however, and there the matter rested, until Great Britain should find it to her interest to go further.

Finally, a word about Western Turkestan. This wide stretch of desert, steppe, and irrigated farmland had been appropriated by Russia in the 1860's and 1870's. Here there has been no great battle of international diplomacy, nor any significant conflict between imperialism and nationalism. The native peoples-akin to the Turks in race and language, and Mohammedan in religion, would doubtless have preferred independence, but they gave no sign of national rebellion. As a matter of fact, the native races were antagonistic toward each other: there were the pastoral Kirgiz herdsmen in the north, and the Turkoman herdsmen in the south, and the Uzbeg-Sarts, more civilized agriculturists, artisans, and merchants, between them. Under Rus

1 Parl. Papers, Treaty Series No. 19 (1922), Cmd. 1786. See the interesting agreement of the German Afghan Company and the Afghan Government, in Europäische Gespräche, Nov. 1925, p. 576.

sian rule, the Turkomans ceased their favorite avocations of brigandage and slave-stealing and settled down, to some extent, as farmers and cattle-growers; the other races made even more marked progress. Russian railways afforded an outlet for cattle and dairy products, for millions of Astrakhan (Karakul) lambskins from Bokhara. But perhaps the most remarkable development was the introduction of cotton-growing on a large scale.

Since the Bolshevist revolution in Russia, a curious development has taken place in Russian Turkestan.1 A small number of Russian colonists, aided by a minority of the native Mohammedans, followed the Russian example, set up Soviet republics, and remained bound to Russia. The significant aspect of this event was not that the Russians retained control even under a supposedly anti-imperialist Bolshevik government, but that Turkestan afforded a sort of corridor through which Russian Bolshevik propaganda could flow into Persia, Afghanistan, India, and China, stirring up Asia to throw off the galling yoke -so the Bolshevist phrase goes-of European imperialism. Russian propaganda was one factor, as we have seen, in expelling Britain from Afghanistan, and it has had marked influence elsewhere in Asia. Whether it succeeds or not in creating Asiatic rebellions, more or less serious, is probably of less moment than the certainty that it has already stimulated the growth of selfconsciousness, of the spirit of self-determination, of resentment against European imperialism, among the peoples of Asia.

'See Current History, Jan. 1925, p. 534.

CHAPTER XIII

IMPERIALISM IN SOUTHERN ASIA

FROM CHARTERED COMPANY TO EMPIRE

"IN India," said Theodore Roosevelt, "we encounter the most colossal example history affords of the successful administration by men of European blood of a thickly populated region in another continent. It is a greater feat than was performed under the Roman Empire. The successful administration of the Indian Empire has been one of the most notable and the most admirable achievements of the white race during the past two centuries." 1 Set this statement over against the words of Mohandas Gandhi, the "holy one" who led India in passive resistance to British rule, in 1920-22:

I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically. . . . The Government established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town-dwellers of India will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime against humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history."

Colossal achievement, or unequalled crime, or perchance both achievement and crime, British rule in India is unquestionably the foremost example of modern imperialism.

When Indian patriots question the benevolence of British rule, or when British statesmen feelingly speak of England's benefits to India, there is danger of forgetting that the reason why the British first entered India, and the primary reason they have remained there, was not to benefit India, but to benefit Great Britain. It may indeed be true, as an eminent British scholar asserts,3 that "the Emperor of India is the only sovereign known to history who does not draw one penny from the pockets New York Times, Jan. 19, 1909.

'Gandhi, Speeches, pp. 753-4.

Ramsay Muir, The Expansion of Europe, p. 296.

of his subjects," but it is irrelevant. The plain historical fact is that British rule in India was established for purposes of commerce. The social and educational and political reforms which England has accomplished in India, the patriotic pride which Englishmen have learned to take in their great Asiatic Empire, important as they are, nevertheless are by-products of commercial imperialism. It was a commercial company, the East India Company, that first established British authority in a part of India. Commerce was the original purpose; unto it were added, later, sentimental and humanitarian motives.

How immense are the British business interests in India, and how rapidly they have grown in the last half-century, may well be emphasized at the very outset. Take first the capital invested. Though the precise amount cannot be stated, some rough estimates can be made. The public debt, that is, government bonds, of India, much of which is held by British investors, amounts to 3.5 billion dollars; the 634 foreign, chiefly British, companies doing business in India have a paid-up capital of two and onehalf billion; of the 5,194 companies incorporated in India, with a total capital of one billion, a considerable portion are British owned; and in addition there are unincorporated investments.1

Add trade. Great Britain sells to India each year goods worth about half a billion dollars-a tenth of her total exports; and buys from India two-fifths of a billion dollars' worth, a ninth of her total imports. The importance of India, however, is even greater to certain powerful and well-organized industries than to British industry as a whole. No industries are more influential in British politics than cotton and iron, and both of these are supremely interested in India, for about one-fifth of their exports goes to India. India, in other words, means about $225,000,000 a year to the British cotton manufacturers. To the iron and steel industry, with the allied manufacturers of machinery, railway rolling stock, and automobiles, it means a hundred million dollars. Nor should we forget the interests of British importers. It may be a bit surprising to learn that tea is India's greatest export to Britain; that this item alone runs to 120 million dollars a year. Nor should one forget the mil

'Sir George Paish estimated British pre-war investments in India at £379,000,000 or $1,895,000,000. This, however, does not include the important item of British companies doing business with India.