refusal was to be reconsidered if other Powers interfered. In the meantime the Treaty of 1857 was faithfully observed by our maintaining a Vakeel or native agent at Cabul without asking to place European officers in any part of Afghanistan. Shere Ali was much vexed that we did not take his part against his brothers: probably his brothers were equally vexed that we did not take theirs. They did not understand strict neutrality, at least when it operated to their own disadvantage. But whatever secret vexation they may have had, nothing resembling hostility was shown, or, so far as we can tell, existed. That policy was followed without break by six Governors-General, from Lord Dalhousie to Lord Northbrook, and by five Secretaries of State, from Lord Halifax to the Duke of Argyll.

11

CHAPTER II.

6
THE FORWARD POLICY.'

We have now to explain the views which prevailed among Indian authorities respecting the expediency of occupying, either directly or under the guise of a Protectorate, a larger extent of territory, when the proposal to do so was brought forward. After the year 1842, when we abandoned Afghanistan, first Sind and afterwards the territories of the Sikhs were added to the British dominions, with the effect of greatly advancing the whole of our North-West frontier. No further advance was proposed, at least in any official form, till the year 1865, when Sir S. Northcote forwarded to the Government of India a Memorandum,' written by Sir Henry Rawlinson (vide A., pp. 31–41), in which he enlarged on the great dangers to which we were exposed from Russia, and, though he did not recommend any military advance, strongly advised an attempt to extend our authority. His conclusions were as follows:

In conclusion, the remedial measures recommended for adoption in the present state of the Central Asian question may be briefly recapitulated. They are few, but not unimportant. Shere Ali Khan should be subsidised and strengthened at Cabul, our position at that capital being rendered as secure and paramount as would have been Burnes's position at the Court of Dost Mahomed Khan in 1837, if he had been supported by the full weight of Lord Auckland's authority and resources. The next step should be to recover our lost ground in Persia, so as to prevent the possibility of Russia making use of that country as an instrument to facilitate her own advances towards India. Locally also our communica

I See this Memorandum discussed from its Quetta side (inf., pp. 205-9).

tions with the Afghan frontier, considered especially as military lines, should be completed and improved. It is a crying reproach to us that up to the present day no progress should have been made in laying down a railway from Lahore to Peshawur, and that we should still be dependent on the dilatory and uncertain Indus navigation for our communications between Mooltan and the sea.

The only other point refers to the proposed establishment of a fortified outwork at Quetta, above the Bolan Pass, a measure which has been strongly advocated in some quarters, and as strongly opposed in others. No one will be inclined to question the military advantage of such a work. As a place d'armes it would cover the frontier, and being held in too great strength to admit of being masked, would, in the event of invasion, delay an enemy sufficiently to enable us to mass our full forces in the rear. Perhaps also, under present circumstances, the erection of such a fortress would have a salutary effect upon the native mind in India. Our friends are now said to be dispirited at our inactivity, while our enemies acquire fresh confidence and power. Breaking ground at Quetta would cheer the one class and would check the other. It would show that our repose had been the repose of strength, that we were fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and prepared to move immediately that the occasion arose. But, on the other hand, it is doubtful how such a proceeding would be regarded at Candahar and Cabul. If our position were already secured with Shere Ali Khan, and he could thus be led to look upon the Quetta post as a support to his own power, then we should hardly be deterred from undertaking the work by mere considerations of expense; but if, as is more probable, the tribes in general regarded this erection of a fortress-above the passes, although not on Afghan soil as a menace, or as a preliminary to a further hostile advance, then we should not be justified, for so small an object, in risking the rupture of our friendly intercourse.

The opinions elicited from Indian officers by this Memorandum will be found in A. pp. 43-81. They were on the whole strongly adverse to the policy recommended. Most of them are long, and run much into detail; and, though very valuable to study, cannot be extracted here. We give here the principal passages which relate to general considerations from the minute

of Lord Sandhurst, the then Commander-in-Chief (vide A., p. 75); and also the whole minute of Mr., now Sir R. H. Davies (vide A., p. 78), an officer of great experience in the Punjab, and afterwards LieutenantGovernor of the Punjab. We select this minute for a specimen, as being one of the shortest and of the most strictly confined to general considerations.

Minute by Mr. R. H. Davies on Sir H. Rawlinson's Paper on Russian Progress in Central Asia, dated December 27, 1868.

A perusal of Sir H. Rawlinson's paper leads me to the conclusion that he has failed to make out any sufficient case for the measures which he proposes. It is not indeed altogether consistent with itself, for while he professes to regard an invasion of India by Russia as a contingency not requiring to be guarded against, he nevertheless draws an alarming picture of the descent of 50,000 Persian Surbaz, supported by a Russian column, and hints that it might be successful, owing to the prevalent disaffection of the Mahomedan population of India.

His immediate object however is to bring some kind of increased diplomatic pressure to bear on the Rulers of Cabul and Persia.

One argument for interfering at Cabul is founded on the general advantages of keeping good order in a country adjoining our frontier; but a second plainly points to the creation by our agents of a confederacy of the Mahomedan States in antagonism to Russia. The various composition of such a league, and the utter bad faith of the parties to be consulted, would, I think, render.such a scheme impracticable, as well as dangerous. The Russians would regard it as threatening their position in Bokhara, and as justifying any reprisals. Nothing but overt aggression on their part would, in any degree, recommend such a project.

The argument for interfering in Persia is that Russia may otherwise seize Herat. Various modes of intervention are suggested, all more or less involving expenditure on our part.

Now, does past experience warrant our augmenting our diplomatic interference in the affairs of those countries? Can we forget our former failure in Afghanistan, and its fatal consequences? Can we forget that, when Persia went to war in

1832 with Turkey, in 1826 with Russia, in 1832, 1836, and 1837 against Herat, she, in each instance, did so contrary to the remonstrances of the British Minister; and, in the case of Mahomed Shah, commenced hostilities immediately after we had aided his accession to the throne, with troops drilled by our officers? Is there any hope of our efforts and expenditure now being more effectual? Shall we find less slippery materials to work with,-instruments more reliable, than Dost Mahomed Khan and the Candahar brothers, or the vainglorious Shahs bygone? Neither Oriental character nor the circumstances of these Mahomedan Governments have changed. Under the unplastic law of the Koran, every vacancy in the Musnud is liable to be contested with the sword. To side with one candidate is to make the other, and perhaps a strong party with him, an enemy; to side with neither is to pretermit the purpose of the negotiator; and, while thus all the old elements of failure await him, is there any fresh cause of alarm? Does the position of Russia in Khokand, Bokhara, or Mongolia, in any way lessen the stupendous physical difficulties of the route to Cabul by Bamian, or to Kashmir by the Karakoram? Russia has been any time during the past thirty years as well able as she is now to aid Persia in the seizure of Herat. She has refrained from doing so. She refrained even at the time of the Sepoy mutiny. Is it to be imagined that she will attempt the precipitous and sterile passes of the Hindoo Khoosh and Karakoram, so long as she has the Candahar route as an alternative? And yet her approach to these, our natural and impregnable ramparts, is the pretext for advocating the transfer of our scanty surplus from public works and defensive preparations to the fallacious projects of an unavailing, if not mischievous diplomacy.

Much of the superstructure of Sir H. Rawlinson's conjurations rests on Sir R. Temple's report of the disaffection of the Mahomedans in India. I do not deny that there is truth in it, more especially as regards the cities of Hyderabad and of Delhi before the mutiny, which were immediately referred to. It is also in a less degree applicable to the Pathans of Rohilkund, who still constitute a dominant colony, and are capable of combination. But it is much exaggerated if the general Mahomedan persuasion be in contemplation. The well-to-do majority are not likely to respond to the electric shock of Russian sympathy.

The space which the subject fills in the thoughts and aspirations of the population of India is also, in my humble opinion,