medan, Sir Sayad Ahmad Khan, a few years ago said: 'Suppose that all the English were to leave India, who would be the rulers in their place? Is it possible that under those circumstances Mohammedans and Hindus could sit on the same throne and equal in power? Most certainly not It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other, and thrust it down.… Until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.'
And supposing the whole of India were at last combined, does it seem likely that people who are totally unaccustomed to sea life would be able to organize such a navy as would be required to defend their coasts against the great sea forces of the other European and Asiatic nations who would be pressing on it? It seems impossible to conceive of India standing alone, and the longer we stay there the more difficult does it become to leave.
In regard to Egypt, a similar view was held that we should train the Egyptians to stand by themselves, and then depart. The leaders of both political parties made most solemn announcements, and sincerely meant what they said, that we intended to leave Egypt as soon as we were able to leave there a stable native government. But when I passed through Cairo last December, I did not observe British officials packing up their trunks in readiness to go, nor any signs of their handing over their offices to Egyptians. On the contrary, I saw many indications that the Egyptians themselves had come to regard our permanent stay there just as inevitable as the Indians regard our stay in India; and certainly investors in Egyptian enterprises did not anticipate that we would leave the country within any measurable time.
In both India and Egypt we have to take account of great forces operating on the whole of mankind, and cannot regard the question as simply between us and
