In discussing the events and affairs of India, Mr. Thompson is dealing with a period and a drama in which-he has been aa actual player. Mr. Upton Close, in the limited amenities of Shanghai, possibly has not been acquainted with this information, otherwise he would have hesitated before persisting his, confusion of Baghdad' and Jerusalem. And, further to expose the absurdity of Mr. Upton Close's hysteria, with special reference to his tribute to Mr. S.K. Ratcliffe, it may be mentioned that Mr. Ratcliffe and Mi Thompson are'men with almost. identical outlook, and are exceedingly well acquainted with each other. As Mr. Upton Close quite rightly says, Mr. Ratcliffe's able exposition of British problems in India, hi been widely appreciated by th best class of American, whi Mr, Thompson kas actually beea' lecturing to one of the most distinguished Universities America, and it is more thab probable that he will be invit to repeat the experience—it has not done, so already, As literary critic, as a writer, and as a man who knows his facts about India, Mr. Thomipson can afford to smile at Mr. Upton Close's hysterical abuse.
Mr. Close, in his breathless denunciation of Mr. Thompson, bursts forth into a frenzy of delight at the thought that the British Empire is about to fall. He is welcome to this delicious dream and to his rather banal denunciation of an Imperialisor which docs not exist. He appears to have selected Railway development in India as a text for his condemnation of Britisia rule, It is not possible to detect the exact basis of his comparison between Indian railways and American railways. The cost of construction in two different countries over different periods of development is hardly comparable. It i however possible to compare the operating ratios of Indian and American railways and the result is not unfavourable to India: U.S.A. 72.53 pet cent. India 61.89 per cent, This is a most unfortunate department of Indian administration for the purpose of Mr,' Close argument. The 40,000 miles of Indian railways have tot only, contributed to the industrial and social progress of the countrys, but have ably reinforced the magnificent work of the irrig jon canals in making famine—once the haunting spectre over India's prosperity—a figment of the past. Mr, Close complains that Mr, Thompson is hairsplitting. To anyone" who, with knowledge of India hag read "Eminent Asians" the wonder indeed is at Mr. Thompson's moderation. The sketch of "Mahatma Gandhi" poatively bristles with gross me accuracies, misrepresentations at distortions, Mr. Thompson made a restrained selection, Mi Close's reply is ludicrously inept
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.