A commission was appointed to enquire into cer tain irregularities alleged to be done by Bannerjea, while the latter was an Assistant Commissioner. Their report was adverse. Those were days when encroachment on the sanctum of the service by Indians was zealously guarded against. The lenient view entertained by his brother officers was that as a young officer, Bannerjea was rather lazy and careless. But the stricter interpretation of his fail ing was that he deliberately made wrong entries in official documents. In any case, a stern rebuke or suspension of promotion for a short period might well have been an adequate penalty. But officialdom surpassed itself by demanding the instant dismissal of such a brilliant acquisition to the service, for his first dereliction of duty.
He appealed to the Secretary of State for India personally, who refused to intervene, and upheld the decision of the Indian authorities. Bannerjea faced this great calamity—he was quite impecunious by this time—with great fortitude, never allowing this unpleasant memory to influence his views or com promise the friendship he has always cherished with England's great men.
Mr. Bannerjea is a confirmed believer that per manent friendship between England and India is necessary for the welfare of both, and hence he has never swerved from his ideal of political autonomy within the Empire. Yet no one has offered a more scathing indictment of that Neo-Imperialism — represented by such able and influential exponents as e.g., Lord Curzon—which teaches that Asiatic
nations must sit for all time at the footstool of European civilisations, and that Indians must " think imperially," that is to say, according to Lord Curzon, that they should hug and kiss their chains as if these were symbols of distinction and regard their captors as if they were a guard of honour.
But this reactionary policy and purblind vision should not, according to Bannerjea harden the hearts of Indians against the more progressive and enlight ened views concerning Empire which obtain in democratic circles throughout Britain.
No one has given saner advice or lent more power ful support to the cause of Swadeshi in Bengal as elsewhere. He had sufficient political sagacity to see that the particular occasion when resentful feelings against the partition rose to fever-heat and Sir Bandylde Fuller's policy of " Divide and rule " produced very unhappy, if not tragic consequences in its train—that that was the psychological moment when the swollen volume of political unrest should be diverted along profitable channels, to fertilise many a barren field of action, as also to provide legitimate outlets for energies which might easily become dangerous, if not properly utilised. His advocacy of Swadeshi disarmed the boycott propaganda carried on by the National Volunteers.