separates the rulers from the ruled.  He quotes with approval Sir Rajendra Mookerjee’s complete, albeit facile, exposure of the fallacy, dear to the hearts of many Indian press writers and platform speakers, that Indian interests suffer by the introduction of British capital into India.  “It is wise,” Sir Rajendra said, “to allow British capitalists to interest themselves in our industries and thus take an active part in their development.”  He prefers to dwell on the points of similarity which unite rather than on the differences which separate Hinduism and Christianity.  “The two religions,” he says, “have so much in common when one gets down to essentials that it seems to me this ought to furnish a great bond of sympathy between the two peoples,” and he urges that “every attempt should be made to utilise the Hindu University to remove the spirit of segregation which unquestionably exists between the Christian Government in India and its Hindu subjects, and thus pave the way to harmonious co-operation between the Aryan rulers and the ruled in India.”

It will be as well, however, to turn from these points to what Mr. Mitra considers the shortcomings of the British Government.  He is not sparing in his criticisms.  He freely admits that British statesmen have devoted their energies to improving the conditions of the masses, but he adds, and it must be sorrowfully admitted that he is justified in adding, “Material advantages set forth in dry statistics have never made a nation enthusiastically loyal to the Government.”  He urges that, especially in dealing with a population the vast majority of which is illiterate, “it is the human element that counts most in Imperialism, far more than the dry bones of political economy.”  In an interesting chapter of his book entitled British Statesmanship and Indian Psychology, he asks the very pertinent question, “What does loyalty mean to the Indian, whether Moslem or Hindu?” The answer which he gives to this question is that when the idea of loyalty is brought before the native of India, “it comes in most cases with a jerk, and quickly disappears.”  The reason for its disappearance is that no bond of fellowship has been established between the rulers and the ruled, that the native of India is not made to feel that “he has any real part in England’s greatness,” that the influence and high position of the native Princes receive inadequate recognition, and that no scope is offered to the military ambition of the citizens of the Indian Empire.  “Under the Crescent, the Hindu has been Commander of a Brigade; under the Union Jack, even after a century, he sees no likelihood of rising as high as a little subaltern.”