Many British individuals, like C. F. Andrews—known reverently as Deenabandhu—came to India as missionaries but soon transcended their original purpose to become true friends and allies of India’s freedom movement. Alongside Mahatma Gandhi and others, they worked for the upliftment of the Indian people in meaningful, sacrificial ways (see Ramachandra Guha, Rebels Against the Raj1).
However, while a few missionaries answered a higher call of genuine service, most missions never abandoned their agenda of conversion. Despite this, some, moved by compassion, served Indians with sincerity and humility. In stark contrast to these were those who retained an air of racial superiority—some even unashamedly expressing their hegemonic views in public forums. One such example is found in the words of Sir William Joynson-Hicks, a British politician, who candidly articulated the raw economic motives behind British rule in India.
Though not a missionary himself, Joynson-Hicks2 was deeply involved in public life and occasionally spoke on missionary work in India. But his remarks—stripped of all pretense—reveal a colonial mindset far removed from the ideals of service, justice, or Gospel humility. His blunt admission stands as a testimony to the utilitarian logic that underpinned much of British policy in India. When one claims to be serving while actually dominating, it not only betrays the people but also disfigures the message of the Gospel. Statements like these shame not only the speaker but also the institutions and ideologies they claim to represent.
History must be read not only to understand what happened but also to remember how we were treated—especially by those who arrived claiming moral superiority. Many who claimed to come as servants left as rulers, all while cloaked in religious rhetoric. This contradiction between preaching and practice remains one of the great moral failures of the colonial enterprise.
A Missionary’s Naked Confession?
The following quote, though not from a missionary, reflects a mindset often echoed in missionary and imperial circles alike. Let the reader judge what it reveals—about empire, about mission, and about moral duplicity.
We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know
it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the
level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet
for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword and
by the sword we should hold it. (“Shame!”) Call shame if you like.
I am stating facts. I am interested in missionary work in India and
have done much work of that kind, but I am not such a hypocrite
as to say we hold India for the Indians. We hold it as the finest outlet
for British goods in general, and for Lancashire cotton goods in particular.Young India, 19-11-1925, CWMG, vol. 28, p. 454This is reported to have been said by Sir William Johnson-Hicks.
Gandhiji’s Response
Mahatma Gandhi did not shrink from the uncomfortable truth Joynson-Hicks stated. On the contrary, he welcomed it as a moment of clarity. If India was truly being exploited for British goods, Gandhi argued, then the most effective resistance was not the sword but the spinning wheel. He urged Indians to reject foreign cloth—especially Lancashire’s Manchester cotton—as a peaceful yet powerful response. “The sword will be sheathed,” he wrote, “as soon as Manchester calico ceases to be saleable in India.”
In Gandhi’s view, this economic boycott was not just an act of national resistance but a contribution to world peace. “If India takes to the spinning-wheel,” he argued, “she will contribute to the restriction of armament and peace of the world as no other country and nothing else can.”
Rather than be humiliated, Gandhi transformed the insult into inspiration—a call for self-reliance, nonviolence, and a deeper form of moral and political independence.
Ashram May 21, 2025
Footnote
1 Ramachandra Guha, Rebels Against the Raj: Western Fighters for India’s Freedom, Gurugram, Penguin Random House India Pvt. Ltd. 2022. Also see: https://dayanandbharati.in/rebels-against-the-rajreview/
2. Sir William Joynson-Hicks (1865–1932), later Viscount Brentford, was a British Conservative politician and Home Secretary from 1924 to 1929. Known for his strong imperialist views and moral conservatism, he often spoke on empire, religion, and public morality. Though not a missionary, his engagement with religious discourse and political control of colonial policy made him an influential voice in shaping attitudes toward India and its people.
Appendix
245. NOTES
This is reported to have been said by Sir William Johnson-
Hicks. But he is not the first minister to have reminded us of
our serfdom. Why should truth be at all unpalatable? It must
do us good to know ourselves as we are — destined to be hewers
of wood and drawers of water for the benefit of whosoever will
claim us by the prowess of his sword. It is good, too, that due
emphasis is laid on Lancashire goods. The sword will be sheathed
as soon as Manchester calico ceases to be saleable in India. It
is much more economical, expeditious and possible to give up
the use of Manchester and, therefore, foreign calico than to blunt (p. 454)
1 As in the source
the edge of Sir William’s sword. The process will multiply the
number of swords and, therefore, also miseries in the world. Like
opium production, the world manufacture of swords needs to be
restricted. The sword is probably responsible for more misery
in the world than opium. Hence do I say that, if India takes
to the spinning-wheel, she will contribute to the restriction of
armament and peace of the world as no other country and nothing
else can.—Young India, 19-11-1925, CWMG, Vol. 28, pp. 454-455
Leave a Reply