India. On the other hand social requirements varied according to race, caste, and creed, so that they had to be dealt with by separate organizations; but, as a general rule, it was found that the workers for political progress were the most active friends of social reform.
We have now to consider the main contention between Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Hume. Sir Auckland considered the propaganda premature and mischievous ; Mr. Hume considered it necessary for the safety of the State. Which was right ? To those unfamiliar with Indian affairs, it may seem strange that there should be this acute difference of opinion between two experienced officers, both members of the same service, both sympathetic with Indian progress, both keenly anxious for the public welfare. But the interpretation is simple, and is well understood by every Indian. The difference of opinion is an irreconcilable one, depending on the point of view, whether of the ruler or the ruled. For 'after his retirement from the service in 1882 Mr. Hume had identified himself with the Indian people, hving among them as one of themselves. The difference therefore between the Lieutenant-Governor and the Congress leader, was the difference of the view held by the British administrator judging his own work, and that of the Indian subject with personal experience of its defects. Mr. Hume tells his friend how he may learn the truth : I can clearly see, he says, that you '^ still look upon our government through the rose-tinted official spectacles that so long obscured my sight. But leave the service, become a nobody, mix freely with the people, hear what they have to say when not afraid to speak their minds, study the reverse of the shield, and, knowing you as I do, I know well that you would wholly change your views." The one way of learning the truth is^ as Mr. Hume says, to " mix freely with the people " — the people of all
