Charles H. Heimsath

The Origin and Enactment of the Indian Age of Consent Bill, 1891

The Indian social reform movement in the nineteenth century, like the political reform movement, remained unorganized on an all-India basis until the 1880s. Local groups functioned throughout the country in many cases along similar lines, but without regular and specific knowledge of each other. Virtually the only effort for social reform well publicized throughout the country had been Vidyasagars Widow Remarriage movement, which however was never nationally organized and which found local support only when a reformer felt inclined to press for it; the founder himself lost interest in the cause long before his death in 1891. Unlike the political reformers, the social reformers gave no evidence, so far as the present writer knows, of concern about the absence of a national organization to direct and stimulate their activities. If it had any strength, such an organization would, in fact, embarrass them into a unity of principles and methods for which, before 1880, they were quite unprepared.

WALTER CROCKER. Nehru: A Contemporary Estimate. Pp. 186. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Much more surprising are the claims which Mr. George makes regarding Menon’s influence in the months before independence. It was, indeed, worth setting out the variety of tasks which he undertook, mainly at the instance of Nehru, on his return to India in 1946: a report on the organization of the foreign service, another on defense, and even a draft constitution for India before the Constituent Assembly had begun. But the author assumes too readily that much work means much effect. He makes it appear that it was Menon’s advice which led Nehru and Congress to accept the Cabinet Mission’s plan for a Constituent Assembly, that it was Menon who &dquo;convinced Nehru of the tactical advantages of forming an interim government,&dquo; and that the device of Dominion status as a means of permitting a speedy transfer of power came first from Menon. It is only fair to add that Mr. George reports that Menon himself only says that &dquo;some of the crucial decisions were thrown at him as faits accomplis.&dquo; On Menon’s three big post-1947 roles, however, Mr. George is right to stress his positive aims: as High Commisioner in London, to project assertively independent India in the home of her former rulers while at the same time cementing IndoBritish friendship; as India’s United Nations representative, to put the new third world on the international map, moderating its own brash aggressiveness, and seeking a reconciling place between the hostile blocs; and as Minister of Defense, to get India’s armed forces modernized and backed by her own ordnance production. On each his achievements were not negligible, but on each something went wrong. He lost people’s confidence. Menon would probably not appreciate being described as wellmeaning ; yet his intentions were better than he ever got others to believe. Even his final fall was not manifestly deserved; he was a handy scapegoat and not more blameworthy than others; and he was no crypto-Communist. It is a sad, fascinating man whom we meet through Mr. George: intelligent, brave-as his devotion in London’s bombing agony showed-and ardent, but also bitter, unlovable, and with, as the author says, a &dquo;propensity to alienate friends and antagonize people&dquo;; a crusading agitator, then, not a politician; and fundamentally perhaps-as his frequent histrionics (about which Mr. George is too simple) suggest-