Ninety-nine
years ago in August, a group of young revolutionaries orchestrated a
bold train heist at Kakori station in Lucknow. Initially missing their
intended train, they improvised and executed their plan the next day.
The heist, targeting government property, succeeded despite a few
setbacks, and signaled their commitment to India's nationalistic cause.
Railway station at Kakori near Lucknow
It
was in the first week of Aug, exactly 99 years ago, when a group of 10
young men checked into Chhedilal Dharamshala in Aminabad, Lucknow, with a
plan up their sleeves. They reached Charbagh railway station for a
final recce and then returned to their base. On Aug 8, they reached
the Kakori station on foot but as soon as they reached the platform,
they saw the 8 Down train zipping away.
Some
of them argued in sheer disbelief that it was “not their train”, even
one of them saying, “A train in India could not be so regular”. However,
a smarter one rushed to the platform reception and roke the bad news
that it was their train, leaving the members sulking. They were late by
10 minutes. Team leader Ram Prasad Bismil was quick to realise that
the task in their hand was too different from the regular village
hold-ups they were used to and required precision and synchronization to
a degree of which the group was not fully capable. They retreated to
their base and improvised the plan. The next day (Aug 9), they decided to take no chances and left Lucknow to reach the previous station and boarded the train. Three
of them –Ashfaqullah Khan, Rajendranath Lahiri and Bakshi – took second
class tickets and the remaining including Ram Prasad Bismil,
Chandrashekhar
Azad, Mukundilal, Murarilal, Kundanlal, Banwarilal and Manmathnath
Gupta, travelled third and spread over the entire train. According
to the plan, those in the second class pulled the chain. The abrupt
stoppage led to some commotion. The members jumped out to execute the
plan. One of them rushed towards the engine while another headed to
overpower the guard and take charge of the railway treasury. Carrying
Germany-made Mauser pistols, they were quick to overpower the guard who
was made to lie down on his belly. Two men stood on each side of the
railway line while another group pushed out the heavy iron safe carrying
railway collections from the stations on the route. Two of them who
carried a huge hammer and chisel got into action on the safe. Passengers
were being told in Hindustani that the men did not intend to harm them
and that they were only after govt property. They were asked neither to
come out of the carriages nor to protrude their necks from inside the
compartments. From time to time, bullets were sent flying to ensure cooperation from passengers. Everything
was progressing as planned. After some time, the men trying to break
open the safe felt the need for a bigger hammer. Fearing that the plan
would be foiled if the safe did not open, the well-built Ashfaq handed
over the Mauser to his young fellow Manmathnath. He took up the hammer
and began to work with full force. Just at this time, when they imagined
success was round the corner, the rumbling of an approaching train was
heard. The headlight of the other train left them with questions… Could
they have got the news of a train hold-up? Has there been foul play or betrayal? What if it was a military train? The
possibilities left them chilled to the marrow. A few minutes later,
commitment to the cause took over and all decided to face what may come.
Ram Prasad came close to the point of action and said it could be the
usual Punjab Mail passing by. He told Ashfaq and others to drop the
hammer for a while and told others to conceal their weapons and lie low.
With the terrific speed of the train and its deafening clickety clack,
the group’s bad dream had passed by. The rumbling of the train grew
fainter while Ashfaq’s patient clang captured the air. Soon, a big
hole had been made in the armour of the safe. They took the bags and
collected them on a bed sheet. The operation was over and orders for
retreat were given. To mislead the passengers, including some British
Military officers, the group dispersed in a manner to give the
impression of running away from Lucknow, but they detoured and entered
the city from the overcrowded Chowk market. On the way to Lucknow, they
had taken cash and thrown the bags in ditches filled with rainwater. In
Lucknow, the booty was kept at a safe place known only to Ram Prasad.
The weapons also went to prearranged concealing places. Thereafter, the group disintegrated. Some went to hideouts and others lay low in common places like parks.
At dawn, newspaper hawkers were heard announcing on the top of their
voices – ‘Sensational Train Hold-Up at Kakori’ – confirming the success
of their nationalist effort.
Journalist
with the Times of India since August 2004, Shailvee Sharda writes on
Health, Culture and Politics. Having covered the length and breadth of
UP, she brings stories that define elements like human survival and its
struggle, faiths, perceptions and thought processes that govern the
decision making in everyday life, during big events such as an election,
tangible and non-tangible cultural legacy and the cost and economics of
well-being. She keenly follows stories that celebrate hope and life in
general.
A
debate on Indian cotton duties in the House of Commons in 1895.
Naoroji, at center, tells his fellow British MPs, “You are an alien
people.”
Naoroji’s imprint on the news media
mirrored his career. When he first left Bombay for London in 1855, it
made the city’s headlines (and caused a traffic jam at Apollo Bunder,
where his steamer departed). Over the years, Naoroji became a familiar
name to any reader of English and vernacular newspapers in India, as
well as an increasingly broad segment of the British public. But his
name also spread elsewhere: to Ireland, continental Europe, South
Africa, and the United States. By the end of his career, even a few
African-American newspapers in the United States were discussing the
Indian politician.
Listed below is a small section of a voluminous newspaper collection.
These articles come from relatively well-known papers, such as the Mahratta and Kesari in
India, and also from small local papers. I have excerpted a number of
summaries from Native Newspaper Reports from India, since the originals
of many Indian newspapers so longer survive.
Shamsher Bahadur (Gujarati weekly, published in Ahmedabad), 17 December 1873, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 27th December 1873.”
[Malharrao Gaikwad, the ruler of Baroda, appointed Naoroji as
his diwan during troubled times: he had been accused of gross misrule,
which led British authorities to set up a special commission to evaluate
affairs in the princely state.]
The Shamsher Bahadur of the 17th Decemeber, but received on the 22nd,
referring to the proceedings of the commission of inquiry now sitting
at Baroda, observes that the commission, instead of spending its time in
investigating into the complaints of the dismissed servants, &c.,
of the Gaikwad, ought to have given precedence to the inquiry into those
grave and atrocious charges which were so publicly preferred [sic]
against the Baroda Darbar, and to ascertain how much truth there is in
those awful accusations. Fitful and sudden rises and falls of servants
and favourites, their capricious elevations to high ranks and great
emoluments today, and their degradation, reduction to penury and casting
them into prisons tomorrow, are every day occurrences in native states,
and do not deserve any serious inquiry. The complainants are interested
parties, and their statements ought to carry very little weight.
The same contains a communication the writer of which appears to be
an apologist of the rotten state of the Baroda Darbar. He has been
pretty frequently publishing his communications in the Shamsher Bahadur.
He does not openly approve of the administration of Baroda; but neither
does he see any very great evil in it. He is a warm advocate of the
easy and conniving policy of Colonels Wallace and Barr, and dislikes
that of the present Resident Colonel Phayre, which he regards as a great
blunder. Referring to the rumoured nomination of Mr. Dadabhai Nawroji
as Diwan of Baroda, the writer cannot openly disapprove of the
appointment, but implies that this appointment will not prove such a
great success as the out-side public fancies. He admits the great
abilities of Mr. Dadabhai, but states that he has no experience whatever
with the mysteries of a native Darbar. In this writer’s opinion there
is no lack of talents or wisdom in the present Darbaris of Baroda: but
opportunity is not given to them to display these brilliant gifts hidden
in them.
Subodha Patrika (Marathi weekly, published in Bombay), 23 August 1874, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 29 August 1874.”
[Once Naoroji arrived in Baroda, he was caught in the crossfire
between Mulharrao and the British resident, Robert Phayre. Before he
took up the duties of diwan, Phayre tried to block Naoroji from entering
Baroda; afterward, he refused to recognize Naoroji’s appointment,
crippling his administrative abilities.]
The Subodha Patriká of the 23rd August is
exceedingly sorry to hear that Colonel Phayre tried his utmost to
dissuade the Gáikwád from appointing Mr. Dádábhái Nowroji as his Diwán,
and to persuade him to nominate the Assistant Resident to that post.
After failing in accomplishing these objects by conciliatory means,
Colonel Phayre threatened Malhárráw that he (the Resident) would never
recognize Mr. Dádábhái as Diwán and would shup up his office and go
away. The Resident also told the Gáikwád that he would not communicate
to him the recommendations made by the Viceroy besides those
communicated in the Kharitá, unless the Gáikwád told him whom he would
appoint as his Diwán. Thus Colonel Phayre wants to annul the despatch of
the Viceroy. The Gáikwád, however, displayed true spirit,
discrimination and sagacity. Not minding the threats of the Resident, he
exercised his own choice which the Viceroy has given him in his
despatch, to appoint his own Diwán. He nominated Mr. Dádábhái to the
post and reported the fact to the Resident. Though it is upwards of a
week the Resident has not sent an answer to this intimation
acknowledging Mr. Dádábhái’s appointment. He, moreover, left Baroda for
Poona to persuade His Excellency the Governor of Bombay to back him in
his opposition to Mr. Dádábhái’s appointment. Such is the report, and if
it be true, it is the result of the Government not transferring Colonel
Phayre to some other place and retaining him at Baroda. The Patriká highly
praises Malhárráw for exhibiting courage and discrimination on this
occasion, and advises him how to act in future for the improvement of
his administration.
Gujarat Mitra (Anglo-Gujarati weekly, published in Surat), 4 October 1874, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 10 October 1874.”
[By the end of 1874, it was becoming increasingly difficult for
Naoroji and his ministers to manage affairs in Baroda: they repeatedly
tendered their resignations in order to coax Mulharrao to agree to
necessary administrative, judicial, and financial reforms. Aside from
the “old guard” of darbaris that he tried to push out of power, Naoroji
had his share of critics in Baroda, who claimed that he lacked strong
administrative skills.]
The Gujarat Mitra of the 4th October observes
that it is matter of no small regret that there are indications that the
great hopes cherished of Mr. Dádábhái Nawroji’s ultimate success in
bringing about a reform in the administration of the Barodá State will
after all prove delusive. The Pársi writers from want of true
information or from natural partiality to their casteman, sing his
praises; but from what the Gujarát Mitra hears from a reliable
authority, there are fears about the success of the new Diwán. The
salaries of the servants of the State have fallen into arrears for three
months. The Chief has taken the State treasury under his personal
control, and tells the new Diwán to pay the salaries of the State
servants from the proceeds of the State revenues. The Diwán cannot get a
sufficient amount form this source for the above purpose. From this and
another similar fact the writer infers that Mr. Dádabhái [sic], though a
good scholar, is not an able and practical administrator. He has lost
his popularity among the people of Barodá. Khanwelkar still exercises
supreme influence over the Gáikwád, and there is no sign whatever of
that foolish prince awakening to his duties and responsibilities. The
Resident from the beginning opposed the nomination of Mr. Dadabhai as
Diwán, and the Gajarát [sic] Mitra thought he (the
Resident) was in error; but now he appears to have judged the abilities
of the new Diwán correctly. The writer relates a story which shows that
Mr. Dádábhái and his colleagues have no influence with the Gáikwád, who,
at the instigation of his old favorites, who have been only nominally
dismissed but who still enjoy his favour as fully as ever, acts
foolishly, and requests them (Mr. Dádábhái and his colleagues) to give
up their hopeless task and to save their reputation for independence and
wisdom by resigning their posts, where they are not able to achieve any
good.
“A Political Rishi” (most likely Narayan Chandavarkar), “Religious & Social Reform,” Indu Prakash, 23 March 1885.
[A tireless proponent of female education, Naoroji helped pioneer
a network of Indian girls’ schools in Bombay in the early 1850s.
Chandavarkar recalls an incident from this time when Naoroji convinced a
skeptical Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy to fund girls’ schools.]
[…] But here I should not omit to say that it was Mr. Cursetjee Cama,
who enabled the young champions of female education to supply a want
most sorely felt by them by establishing regular schools for girls.
There is another incident relating to the instructive history of female
education among the Parsis which ought to be recorded here for it has
also served to further its cause. On one occasion—which, I daresay, Mr.
Dadabhai Naoroji now recollects as a memorable one in the history of
female education among the Parsis—he put his thoughts on the subject on
paper and wrote to Sir Jamsetji Jijibhoy, requesting the favour of an
interview. Mr. Dadabhai received a prompt answer from the generous
Baronet. The young champion of female education was desired to meet at
the office of the Parsi Punchayet. The Baronet arranged that Mr.
Dossabhoy Sorabjee Munshi, a leading but strongly conservative Parsi of
the day, should be present at the interview. The interview took place.
Sir Jamsetji asked Mr. Dadabhai to state his thoughts; and when they
were stated, he turned to Mr. Dossabhoy saying:— “Well, Moonsee Sahib,
what do you say to that?” The Moonsee sahib of course could not quite
relish the novel idea of educating females. He said in words such as
these:—“The young man wants to educate females. But what do females want
education for? It will only spoil them. You see, you should not supply
more oil to a lamp than it can bear, for, otherwise the light is sure to
extinguish itself.” The comparison, however, was turned to advantage by
the Baronet most ingeniously. Turning to the Moonshee he said:—“Well,
Moonshee Sahib, I quite agree with you there—the lamp should have no
more oil than it can bear. But you see this young man does not wish that
females should receive more knowledge than they want. He wants to give
them a moderate education. So your illustration supports what he
wishes.” The Moonshee opposite thus disarmed and Sir Jamsetji promised
Mr. Dadabhai to […] matter. Shortly after, Sir Jamsetji opened four
schools for Parsi girls in connection with his Benevolent Institution.
“Editiorial Notes,” Indian Spectator, 2 January 1887, pp. 5-6.
[This editorial was most likely written by Behramji Malabari, the editor of the Indian Spectator
and one of Naoroji’s closest friends. The two men, however,
fundamentally disagreed on the relationship between political reform and
social reform in the Indian National Congress: Naoroji, like many of
his fellow nationalists, worried that bringing up social reform issues
would fracture the young organization. Malabari disagreed and ultimately
distanced himself from the Congress. This piece ran after the 1886
Calcutta Congress, where Naoroji served as president. ]
Mr. Joykissen Mookerji, who proposed Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji as
chairman, must henceforth be called the blind seer of Bengal. A patriot
of his age addressing the Congress in the way he did was doubtless a
pathetic sight.
In Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji the Congress secured the best qualified man
to reside over its deliberations. His opening address was wise and just,
as the effort of a ripe politician. As we have repeatedly explained, it
is because of the British supremacy over India that the educated
classes have gained a voice in the administration of the empire, and to
the same liberalizing presence may be traced their desire for further
advancement. What higher compliment could be paid to foreign rulers? And
they know that it is a genuine intelligent homage.
But what do Mr. Dadabhai’s remarks on the social question imply? Is
it wise to draw a sharp line between social and political progress? It
is certainly not consistent; for certain political leaders were telling
us only last year that the two questions were only branches of one large
question. If the telegram represents Mr. Dadabhai correctly, we
understand him to say that the Congress is a political body. But why
should it be political any more than social or economical? We are
further told that social questions are not fit for discussion before a
Congress consisting of different races. But the bulk of the attendance
is Hindu—with a sprinkling of Musulmans and Parsis. The worthy chairman
does not, of course, underrate the importance of social questions. No,
only it must be discussed at the proper time and place. Is the proper
time 360 years hence, when the contending parties, the wise public and
the virtuous Government, up to seven generations, will have gone to
their grave? If a Congress like this doe not afford time and place for
the consideration on certain public aspects of the social problem (for
even this wretched little social question has its national bearings
considered both by the community and by the State), when and wherefrom
are the child wives and girl widows of India to obtain redress? It is a
thousand pities that attempts should be even apparently made to divorce
moral from material progress. Mr. Dadabhai is not one of those who shift
their position as soon as an inconvenient question is broached to them,
and who talk of it with bated breath lest their reputation be
compromised. That reputation must be very fragile which dreads contact
with truth or accepts error because it comes with the impress of
popularity. Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji is so accustomed to look straight at
things, even though he many not always see into them, that we can
scarcely believe he has blinked at an obvious duty in this instance. No
one suggested that the Congress should mix up social with administrative
questions. But surely the large body of Hindu representatives might
have talked over the former quietly and have come to some general
conclusions to be worked out at the centre represented by each,
conformably to local conditions.
[In August 1888, Dadabhai Naoroji became the official Liberal
candidate for Parliament for the constituency of Central Finsbury.
However, his nomination was immediately challenged. The Star, a
Liberal paper, was one of Naoroji’s most vocal critics. It dismissed
the idea that an Indian could be a viable candidate for Parliament. The
paper also broadcasted the view that Naoroji’s selection was invalid
because only about a hundred of the 300 members of the Central Finsbury
Liberal and Radical Association attended. What the Star
neglected to mention, however, is that the association was in complete
disarray and many of the 300 listed members were dead or no longer lived
in the area. The Star‘s opposition to Naoroji might have had
something to do with the fact that a rival Liberal candidate for Central
Finsbury was, apparently, a major shareholder.]
We publish in another column an account of the proceedings which led
up the so-called selection of Mr. Naoroji as the Liberal candidate for
Central Finsbury. Nobody can read this account without being confirmed
in the opinions we expressed yesterday. It is evident that the other
competitors for the favor of the Association were greatly handicapped by
the active canvass made on Mr. Naoroji’s behalf by his indiscreet
friends, and to some extent by himself. If any candidate should take the
trouble to go about canvassing for weeks through an association, he
would be pretty certain of success. Members, even of associations, are
careless, or good-natured, or unimpressed with the gravity of their
duties, and in many cases they thus are ready to promise their support
to the first man that asks it. It should be understood in these affairs
that either all or none of the candidates should canvass. Without some
such understanding, honorably carried out, the selection of a candidate
by a caucus may degenerate into mechanical wire-pulling and sharp and
skilful intrigue.
The account of the proceedings at the meeting at which Mr. Naoroji is
said to have been selected, which was given by its chairman to our
representative, clearly shows that they were irregular. In the first
place but a small proportion of the Association appeared at all. The
Association consists of 300 members, and the voting does not show that a
third of this entire number were present. Then after the voting between
Mr. Naoroji and Mr. Eve, there was not the acceptance of Mr. Naoroji by
the meeting which is absolutely necessary to make the candidate
regular.
Under such circumstances we are not surprised to find that there is a
movement on foot to have the whole question properly reconsidered. We
sincerely trust that the next meeting may come to a wiser selection. We
have, as we said yesterday, great personal respect for Mr. Naoroji, and
we have the most profound sympathy for the dumb millions to whose cries
of distress he wants to give voice. The great argument used in his favor
is that it would do India so much good to have him elected to
Parliament. So it would, but what good would it do to India to have him
defeated, and defeated beyond question he will be. Instead of India
being benefited by one of her own people being thrust upon a
constituency which he could not win, India would be deeply prejudiced.
The swashbucklers who shout aloud against the concession of even the
smallest bit of self-government to the natives of India, would shout the
louder when they were able to point to the rejection of a native Indian
by a London constituency. Furthermore, the chances of such a selection
in the future would be almost entirely destroyed. If Mr. Naoroji were
badly beaten—and badly beaten he would be—then no Indian native would
have the smallest chance of nomination by any other Liberal Association.
The experiment of running an Indian native for a London constituency
has been already tried, and with disastrous results. Mr. Lalmohun Ghose
stood for Deptford, and Mr. Ghose had qualities which Mr. Naoroji has
not. He is an orator of extraordinary power. On one occasion, at
Manchester, Mr. Ghose fairly took the whole audience of their feet; and
Lord Rosebery, who had to follow him, confessed that he felt almost
unable to follow a speech and a speaker so remarkable. But Mr. Ghose
tried Deptford twice and failed, and failed more completely on the
second than on the first occasion.
We have not said these things against Mr. Naoroji because we are
writing in the interests of any other candidate. We take up the contrary
position. We believe that neither Mr. Naoroji nor any one of his
competitors should now be chosen. There were many friends of Mr. Eve in
the Association, and Mr. Eve would have been in our opinion just the man
to win Central Finsbury. But we would strongly counsel Mr. Eve to
withdraw his candidature. The same advice we would give to Mr. Dodd and
Mr. Ford. If any of the gentlemen already before the constituency were
selected, then there might be dissatisfaction among the friends and
adherents of the other candidates who were rejected; and such
dissatisfaction might lead to a want of that absolutely harmonious
action without which the seat cannot be won. It will be too bad if we
lose the seat through sheer mismanagement and ferocious egotisms. We are
winning all over the country; in London our progress is more marked
than in almost anywhere else—except perhaps, in Scotland. There is
nothing to stand between us and a great Liberal majority in the London
representation, but the selection of candidates who whatever their
merits, have not the crowing and supreme quality for a candidate—the
quality of being able to win.
W. Martin Wood. “Central Finsbury.” The Star, 23 August 1888, p. 4.
[W. Martin Wood, a friend of Naoroji and a proponent of the rights of Indian princely states, penned this letter following the Star‘s attacks on Naoroji.]
SIR—On your front page to-day the opinion is set
forth, with much emphasis, that Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji’s “selection as a
candidate for a London constituency is a most unwise one.” Having fully
stated your own opinion you will, perhaps, allow me, as an independent
looker-on, to express a different view of the matter, albeit the men of
Clerkenwell ought to know better than either of us. There are two
questions in this candidature—first, as to the chances of success;
second, as to the fitness of the candidate in question. It is only the
first that you deal with; but in asserting that in choosing Mr. Dadabhai
Naoroji the Finsbury executive committee are “making a present of the
seat to the Tories,” you ought to have better grounds than are set out
in the paragraph. The facts of the case point the other way. So far from
the local association having “gone out of its way to select” the
candidate chosen by the executive, allow me to state that may of its
members and some of its patrons have gone out of their way to select
others, but who are now put out of the way by the decision which the
majority have deliberately adopted.
You will find on inquiry that some half score of candidates have
tried their paces before the committee, and after the protracted testing
that has been patiently conducted the one at last selected ought to be
regarded as the best and safest.
As to the prospect of success, the electors directly concerned ought
to be supposed to be the best judges. They have taken great pains to
arrive at a fir and sensible choice. There has been no hasty laying hold
of the one chosen, as your paragraph would seem to imply’ and if there
has been any “skilful manoeuvring” it has been on behalf of two or three
protégés of one of the ground landlords, or other
conventionally “influential” persons, who are now eliminated from the
list. It remains for the General Council of the borough to finally
decide; and while The Star or any other son of the morning may
have a right to express an opinion on the matter, it seems scarcely fair
to the electors to try to override their judgment whilst that final
decision is still pending.
Now, as to the other question, that of suitability, I venture to
submit that the there is much to be said in favor of the Clerkenwell
electors’ choice. This emphatically applies to the one great topic of
the day, “the reconciliation of England and Ireland.” There is scarcely
anyone, Irish leaders excepted, who more thoroughly understand his
subject, or who is more competent to vindicate the Home Rule cause than
is Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji. There is also additional weight in his support
of the cause, seeing that he gives to it the convictions arrived at
through the investigations of an impartial politician coming to it with a
fresh mind. Thus the executive committee being satisfied as to the
great question of home politics, were free to offer to the constituency a
candidate who could also do Finsbury credit as an Imperial
representative, and who, as such, can do more than any 10 English
members to influence the Parliament on behalf of the unrepresented
millions of India. Is not this quite the reverse of a “complimentary
candidature”?—
Yours, &c. W. MARTIN WOOD. National Liberal Club, 17 Aug.
One word as to the personal question. It is much to be regretted that The Star
has followed the strange mistake of the Manchester paper in instituting
a comparison between Mr. Lalmohun Ghose and Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji. Quite
true that the Bengali orator has a gift of eloquence, which, as you put
it, can on occasion take an “audience off their feet”; but that is
certainly not a mode of treatment that the House of Commons desires. Mr.
Naoroji’s moderate manner and clear argumentative style, together with
his extensive and exact political knowledge, are qualities that the
House will appreciate highly, while the exercise of these by its chosen
representative will do Finsbury great honor, and go far to restore its
ancient political fame. Yours &c.,
W.M.W. 18 Aug.
“The Honorable D. Naoroji on Poverty”, Weekly News and Chronicle, 20 October 1888, p. 4.
[As a parliamentary candidate, Naoroji had to delve deep into
British and local affairs. In the article below, he formulated his views
on poverty—not in India but in England. Naoroji laid out a progressive
platform, endorsing “free education, a greater fairness of contract, a
better distribution of wealth” and some form of land reform.]
At the lecture hall, Exmouth-street, Clerkenwell, on Wednesday
evening, the Honorable D. Naoroji held one of a series of ward meetings,
with reference to the representation of Central Finsbury, and for which
he is the accepted Libaral [sic] and Radical candidate. Mr. J. Shilton
presided, and there was a very large attendance. The chairman, in
opening the proceedings, said they were there to hear an address from
Mr. Naoroji, on the subject of poverty in England and India, a subject
which he need not remind them was one of vast importance, and one that
demanded the gravest consideration; this, he was sure, Mr. Naoroji had
given to it, and he would, therefore, leave it in his more able hands.
The Honorable D. Naoroji, who was received with much enthusiasm, then
gave an address, which, though over an hour was occupied in its
delivery, was listened to with rapt attention, and repeatedly applauded
as the different points were made, and the statistics quoted, these
alone showing the earnest researches that had been made into this vast
and but too little understood question of poverty, its causes, effects
and remedies. In the course of his lucid and eloquent address, the
honorable gentleman said the question of poverty was one which, in the
interest of them all, the deepest sympathy must be felt. To him it
seemed anomalous that in England, which had the no empty boast of being
the richest among nations in wealth and social position, there should be
found, side by side with luxury and wealth, a large class of people
steeped in destitution, and even dying from starvation in our midst. He,
for one, could not but lament it, but would do his best to put the
practical remedies into operation. (Hear, hear.) It had been truly said
that in every city could be found its East-end, with all its poverty, as
well as the West-end, with its vast wealth.
[…]
The lowest stratum of the poor is the towns, and there most of the
suffering and degradation which this grinding poverty produces [sic].
If, however, it be meant that this is exclusively a poor man’s question,
I must demur to such a statement. Not only does the spread of
destitution create and intensify a discontent which threatens the very
existence of civilised society, but its effect darken for every
sensitive man the whole leaven of social life. Let them look for a
moment at the state of things which must exist; a statement of the
unemployed in London showed in the four districts, namely Eastern, St.
George’s in the Eat, Western, selected portions of East and West
Battersea, the Northern, Hackney and South Hackney, Southern, St.
Paul’s and St. Nicholas, Deptford [sic]. By this it would be seen that
out of the returns made of 29,451 men there were in work 21,443, out of
work 8,008, or a fearful proportion of 27 per cent. By the public
announcement he was to speak of poverty in India, and he would assure
them that however deep the poverty was here they could form no
conception of what it was in India. Would they realise for a moment the
fact that out of the 250 millions of people in India, no less than 40
millions lived through the whole term of existence upon insufficient
food? (Shame.) But this he would return to presently. They might,
perhaps, ask to be shown the way they were affected by the question. If
so, just turn to the judicial statistics for costs of the Criminal
Classes alone, and they would find paid by Her Majesty’s Government, on
account of criminal prosecution, and for proceedings under the Summary
Jurisdiction Act of 1879, by indictment, £119,251, summary, £22,078, the
commitments for the year ending March 31, 1888, £172,467, occupations
of those committed, labourers, &c, 89,069, mechanics, 23,310, total
cost for the year 1887-8, £340,483; these were certainly stupendous
figures, and led them to consider in which way poverty was a loss to the
community. Directly it was 1, Poor’s Rates; 2, expenditure against
crime indirectly; 3, loss of production; 4, the mass of misery,
degradation, crime and intemperance; 5, loss of consumption for the
shopkeepers, manufacturers, house owners, if so much wealth had been
utilised in society. (Hear, hear.) Intemperance alone, a fruitful source
of poverty cost £13,600,000 or nearly £4 per head. Following on with a
vivid description of destitution in its lowest forms, he pointed out
what Professor Thorold Rogers, M.P., had said in 1884, “It might well be
the case, and there was every reason to fear it was the case that there
is collected a population in ouu great towns which equals in extend the
whole of those who lived in England and Wales six centuries ago; but
whose condition is more destitute, whose homes are more squalid, whose
means are more uncertain, whose prosepects are more hopeless than those
of the poorest serfs of the middle ages, and the meanest drudges of the
mediaeval cities […]”
[…]
Dealing, then, at length with some of the causes and effect, he then
proceeded to what he and others suggested as remedies; one of these
recommendations was the limitation of the hours of labour, so that the
benefits of trade would be more widely spread. (Hear, hear.) Another was
what was called nationalisation of the land. Now, with reference to
this: the land of India was nationalized, while in England it was not;
but the result was curiously the same; in both instances the rich became
richer, and the poor poorer, every day. (Hear, hear.) In England the
land paid a very small percentage to revenue, and was, therefore, the
exclusive privilege of the few; while in India the land was everything,
and was taxed to the uttermost, and in both cases the landlords got the
whole, or nearly the whole slice, while those who wrought the
cultivation were put off with a pittance—a state of things which should
be reversed. (Cheers.) The remedies he proposed were, he thought, simple
and fair: they were free education, a greater fairness of contract, a
better distribution of wealth, and the land to contribute its fair share
towards supplying the revenue of the country. (Applause.) With
reference to India, the contrasts were well pointed out, when, in
confirmation of a speech made by Mr. Grant Duff, Lord Mayo said:–
“I admit the comparative poverty of this country, as compared with
many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am
convinced of the impolicy and injustice of iposing budens upon this
people which may be called either crushing or oppressive. Mr. Grant
Duff, in an able speech which he delivered the other day in the House of
Commons, the report of which arrived by the last mail, stated with
truth that the position of our finance was wholly different from that of
England. ‘In England,’ he stated, ‘you have comparatively a wealthy
population. The income of the United Kingdom has, I believe, been
guessed at £800,000,000 per annum; the income of British India has been
guessed at £300,000,000 per annum; that goes well on to £30 per annum as
the income of every person in the United Kingdom, and only £2 per annum
as the income of every person in British India.’ I believe that Mr.
Grant Duff has good grounds for the statement he made, and I wish to
say, with reference to it, that we are perfectly cognisant of the
relative poverty of this country as compared with the European States.”
And the fact remained and had been proved by the Finance Minister who in
his speech on the Income Tax described the mass of the people as “men
whose income at the best is barely sufficient to afford them the
sustenance necessary to support life, living, as they do, upon the
barest necessaries of life.” After going into voluminous details dealing
with the shipping, proportionate commerce and other matters in
illustration of his arguments, the honorable gentleman concluded an
exhaustive and brilliant address with the statement of his opinion, that
all power came from the people, and must revert to the people; it was
for them to claim and maintain their own, until that was done, no
country would be regarded as truly prosperous and free. (Loud cheering.)
A vote of thanks to the lecturer, embodying the wish that he should be
returned as member for Central Finsbury, was passed nem. con., amid applause, and the customary vote of thanks to the chairman closed the second meeting of the promised series.
“The Central Finsbury Liberals”, Finsbury and Holborn Guardian, 10 January 1891.
[Well after the Star ceased its attacks on Naoroji, the
Indian candidate’s race and foreign origin continued to be rallying
points for his opponents, who endorsed a rival Liberal candidate.]
We are glad to see that the Liberals and Radicals of Central
Finsbury, who are represented by what is known as the Old Association,
have taken advantage of their annual meeting to thoroughly vindicate the
position they have taken up. It was entirely a mistake to suppose that
the representative Liberals of the division had withdrawn from active
work, and left the field to the irresponsible and self-elected section
which is speaking to boom the candidature of Mr. NAOROJI. The old
association has preserved silence in the hope that differences might be
patched up, and that a slip of the party might be avoided. Strenuous
efforts in this direction have been made but without avail, and the
official Liberals can no longer remain in their tents. If necessary they
must enter on the campaign without one section of the army, but in the
hope that when the note of battle is sounded the whole of the party will
rally round the old banner. What is the position of Mr. NAOROJI? He is a
carpet-bagger of the first water. He has no claims on the constituency,
and to do him justice we believe he would just as soon fight another.
When he first appeared on the electoral horizon he showed a preference
for the South of the Thames. Would that, he were there now! Then he was
attracted to Holborn, and now he has moved to Clerkenwell. We have no
objection to the presence in the English House of Commons, of Indian
subjects, but if they come before the constituencies as Liberal
Candidates, they must abide by the same rules as other Liberal
Candidates. Mr. NAOROJI having once retired, ought to keep out of the
field, and not split the party to which he professes to belong. This is a
case of “England for the English,” and we hope that he will see his way
to stand out of the way and permit a fair fight. The Liberals are we
hear prepared with a good candidate who would have a splendid chance of
winning back the seat, and perhaps when his name is announced, Mr.
NAOROJI may be induced to retire from the contest, in which he has not
the faintest chance of success, and where the very least harm he can do
is to lessen the Liberal majority. We say this because we think it just
possible that even with Mr. NAOROJI in the field, the official Liberal
candidate may be successful, but we sincerely trust that the battle will
not be a three-cornered one.
Advertisement for Naoroji, Finsbury and Holborn Guardian, 2 July 1892, p. 4.
CENTRAL FINSBURY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, 1892.
MR. D. NAOROJI, The Liberal and Radical Candidate, ADVOCATES THE FOLLOWING POLITICAL PROGRAM:—
Home Rule for Ireland.
Home Rule for London in the endowment of the London County Council
with Full Municipal powers, including control of Police, of Water and
Gas Supplies, Public Markets, Trams, and ALL other Municipal
necessities.
Free Education, and under Popular control (it is not quite Free
now)—Triennial Parliaments—Abolition of the Hereditary System of
Legislature.
A Simple System of Registration, and by responsible Public
Registration Officers only—Residential Adult Suffrage—One Man One Vote
only—One and the Same Day for Parliamentary and Municipal Elections—One
Register for all Electors.
All London to be one Registration Area for Successive Occupations.
Legal Eight Hours—Industrial Courts for Industrial
Disputes—Reformation of the Land Laws so as to include Taxation of
Ground Rents and Land Values—Division of Rates between owner and
Occupier—Taxation of Mining Royalties—Direct Popular Veto of the Liquor
Traffic—Extension of the Factory Acts.
Reforms for India.
And, generally, all the Newcastle Program of the Liberal Party.
VOTE FOR D. NAOROJI Complete Radical Unity.
J. EDGELL SEARLE, Election Agent. Central Rooms. 21, Spencer-street, Goswell-road, E.C.
Mahratta (English daily, published in Poona), 5
March 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the Bombay
Presidency for the week ending 11th March 1893.”
[Naoroji introduced a bill into the House of Commons to allow
civil service examinations to be simultaneously held in India and Great
Britain. These exams were only held in Great Britain, a stipulation that
barred most Indian candidates from qualifying: few Indians had the
money to sail to Britain and undertake months of necessary tutorials.
Naoroji believed that, if the exams were also held in India, Indians
would quickly make up an influential portion of the civil service and
would therefore be able to institute reforms from within. It was a step
towards self-government. Needless to say, Naoroji’s bill was immediately
shot down by the secretary of state for India, Lord Kimberley, who did
not want to open a Pandora’s box within the “steel frame” of the Raj.]
The Mahrátta, in its issue of the 5th March,
writes:–Mr. Dádábhái Navroji is not a man to allow the grass to grow
under his feet. True to his promise, he introduced into Parliament on
Wednesday night a Bill for holding simultaneous examinations in England
and India of candidates for the Indian Civil Service. We are glad that
the matter has at last been formally brought to the notice of
Parliament, and we have no doubt that if Mr. Dádábhái is fortunate
enough to get a day for the second reading of his Bill, no efforts will
be spared by him as well as other friends of India in Parliament to do
full justice to the claims of Indian people. It is a most scandalous
anomaly that examinations for appointments in India should be held in
England. The proper and natural course would be to hold them on the
spot, that is, in India itself; but, as considerations of policy will
never permit the British Government to adopt this course, the people of
India have wisely limited their demand and only ask for a simultaneous
examination, so that they might be at least partially relieved of the
dangers and inconveniences of sending boys to England for the mere
chance of passing. Though all appointments under the Government are
ostensibly thrown open to all of Her Majesty’s subjects, Indian as well
as British, the former are practically shut out from them by this
unnecessary and unjust rule of holding the examination in England alone.
People have been agitating this subject for many years past, but their
demands have been systematically ignored by the Indian Government. At
one time the appointment of the Public Service Commission raised
considerable hopes that some concession would be made; but the result of
that Commission was wholly disappointing, and the new Provincial
Service, which was ostensibly inaugurated on its recommendations, has
made our position worse than before. The frogs that wanted a king were
given a log of wood. No other remedy was therefore left but to bring the
matter before Parliament. Mr. Dádábhái has rather been late in the
field, but now that his Bill is introduced, he will not have, we think,
much difficulty in getting a hearing on some Wednesday when the House is
said to go home, that is, considers private Bills only. That we await
the result with great eagerness need not be told.
Native Opinion (Anglo-Marathi bi-weekly, published
in Bombay), 30 March 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the
Bombay Presidency for the week ending 1st April 1893.”
The Native Opinion, in its issue of the 30th March, writes:–There is not the least doubt that Mr. Dádábhái Navroji’s little Bill anent
the question of simultaneous Civil Service Examinations will provoke a
strong protest, nay a powerful opposition, from the Anglo-Indian world,
who, at any rate most of whom, are habituated to look upon the Indian
Civil Service as their special preserve. Undoubtedly it is too much to
expect the Bill to pass into law in one session, nay even in two
sessions, seeing that the hands of the Ministry are fully occupied with
Irish affairs; but at any rate a debate on it will give the Indian
public some idea as to how the question is viewed by the British public.
If passed, the Bill must throw open the doors of the Civil Service
still further, and do full justice to the claims of those who, as the
sons of the soil, have preferential claims to the great prizes of the
Civil Service. Indeed, the service does contain a number of Natives,
but, compared to the population of the country as also to the number of
the posts constituting the said service, their number is ridiculously
small, and no independent person, influenced by a strong sense of
justice, will ever look upon the present move as untimely. To us the
still further widening of the door seems to admit of the possibility of
securing material still better fitted to answer the present financial
needs of the country. We want no favour, but fair field. For we believe
that if Indian candidates be relieved of the present disturbing
restrictions put upon them, they will carry the great prizes just with
as much ease as an English or Scotch candidate. No doubt, the
apprehension of the Civil and Military Gazette that the Civil
Service lists will be full of Indian names will be fully realised, but
those who may make capital out of these apprehensions must know that
selfishness is not the right basis of any system of true government. The
public does appreciate the presence of Europeans in the service and the
tone their presence gives to it, but the powers to effect all this is
not the exclusive heritage of Englishmen. The very success of the
Natives actually in the service must tell every unprejudiced mind that a
further admixture of Natives in the service will be an undoubted
advantage to Government as also to the country. Anglo-Indian journals
may crack jests at the expense of our people, but in a matter where the
strength of a great service is concerned raillery can have no place.
Indian intellectual aptitudes are by many Englishmen held at discount on
the ground that mere intellectual ability without the qualities of
presence of mind, unflinching courage and devotion to duty on an
emergency is of no value. Admitted that mere intellectual ability
without the qualities above mentioned will be no right standard of an
individual’s capacity, but, so far as we are aware, none of the Natives
in the service, some of whom hold distinguished posts, have shown any
want of them on any occasion. One fact is of greater value than a
hundred fictions, and those who indulge in drawing imaginary pictures in
this direction ought to arm themselves with facts and figures in
support of the thesis they often advance. From an Englishman’s point of
view all this sort of caricaturing may seem justifiable, but it is for
those on whom the real responsibility of government rests to see that
full justice is done to the claims of Natives.
Shri Shivaji (Marathi weekly, published in Poona),
28 April 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the Bombay
Presidency for the week ending 6th May 1893.”
[Naoroji’s agitation for Indian civil service reform coincided
with debate over Irish home rule, leading to Prime Minister William
Gladstone’s failed Irish home rule bill of 1893.
Indians keenly observed the public and parliamentary debates
surrounding Irish home rule, knowing that it was a harbinger for British
reactions to Indian political demands.]
While writing on the same subject, the Shri Shiváji, in its issue of 28th
April, says:–From the debate on the Home Rule Bill, the people of India
can take many lessons. One of these is that the very officers of the
Government who evince a desire that the Irish people should not be dealt
with unjustly by Parliament become deaf and blind when a question about
doing justice to India is raised, as witnessed by the result of the
Bill for simultaneous examinations in India and England for the Indian
Civil Service recently brought forward by the Honourable Mr. Dádábhái
Navroji. It is very strange that even with respect to such an
insignificant question as the one concerning the Civil Service
Examination the most liberal members of the British Cabinet could not
deal honestly with the people of India. Their love for truth cannot,
therefore, be said to be quite disinterested. It was only after the
Irish people had raised an agitation, given Government immense trouble
and disturbed Parliament in its deliberations that one of the political
parties in England was roused to action and began to consider the
grievances of the Irish, and when the impatience of the Irish people
grew more and more intense the consideration of Irish affairs became
more serious and drew the attention of the English people. The people of
India are, however, meek and do not complain against Government, though
they know that it is dealing dishonestly with them. Some of them are
even so foolish and selfish as to be ready to sing the praises of
Government. Such being the case with India, members of the party of the
Right Honourable Mr. Gladstone, who himself is a just and truthful
statesman, have no hesitation in trampling down poor and meek Indian
people just as they like. Any display of love of truth and justice by
British statesman, therefore, requires some other causes, and this fact
ought to be well borne in mind by our people. They must learn from the
Irish Home Rule Bill that unless they are incensed by the acts of
injustice done to them and unless their complaints resound in all
directions so as to terrify the English officers, the latter would,
without fail, crush them like so many insects, and must regulate their
conduct accordingly.
Kaiser-e-Hind (Anglo-Gujarati weekly, published in
Bombay), 11 June 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the
Bombay Presidency for the week ending 17th June 1893.”
[Since Parliament failed to take up his Indian civil service
reform bill, Naoroji attempted the next best option: getting the House
of Commons to pass a non-binding resolution endorsing civil service
reform. He did this by basically catching his opponents asleep: late in
the night of 2 June 1893, after key members of the opposition and the
Liberal ministry had retired, a Scottish MP, Herbert Paul, brought this
resolution before the Commons. Naoroji had worked behind the scenes to
cobble together support, and the resolution was narrowly carried in
spite of opposition from Gladstone’s ministry. This left Gladstone
red-faced: it was the first defeat of his government since the 1892
election, and it had been orchestrated by a fellow Liberal.]
The Kaiser-e-Hind, in its issue of the 11th June,
writes:–It must have been an agreeable surprise to the Indian party in
the House of Commons to find themselves in a majority of eight on the
subject of the simultaneous examinations for the Indian Civil Service.
We are not told by Reuter what was the actual strength of the House at
the time of division. It is quite possible to conceive that many on both
sides may have remained neutral. Be that as it may, we take the number
who voted in favour of rendering India that justice which has been
denied to her for the last 33 years—not a short period of weary
waiting—to be a most satisfactory one, albeit that the resolution may,
perhaps, prove to be sterile for a time. However Anglo-Indians may wish,
and the wish is father to the thought, it will be vain for them to
battle against what is destined to be inevitable in the near future.
They may create as much noise as they can. They may entire their
protests as loud as they please. They may overwhelm the ignorant and the
unthinking with any number of plausible pleas against the examination.
The march of ideas, the growing feeling among right-minded Englishmen at
home that India’s sons have been baulked of their just right for years
past, owing to sheer selfishness of the governing caste, and the
advancing tide of the Indian agitation itself—all these will be
contributory in the long run to wresting form the unwilling bureaucracy
of the land and its counterpart at Westminster that concession which is
their birthright. It is from this point of view that we consider the
number of men who voted in support of Mr. Paul’s proposition to be
highly satisfactory. To find that at least one-tenth of the House of
Commons was willing to render Indians justice is the most hopeful and
encouraging sign of the prospects of this reform. Even if Mr. Gladstone,
after consulting his Cabinet, decline [sic] to take any action on the
present resolution, it would make no difference as to the ultimate
success of the cause. We are bound to succeed, because righteousness and
justice are on our side. All the stock please pleaded before against
the examination, and which are once more paraded, will have not the
slightest influence on matured English opinion. The Englishman at home
may be difficult to move at first. His inertia on all matters, whether
it be English, Indian, or Colonial, is well-known. But the moment the
huge glacier of conviction begins to take its place all opposition thaws
and resolves itself. As the glacier moves with rapidity and tears down
all obstacles in its way, so does educated English opinion. We have deep
and abiding faith in it. Indians may therefore be of good cheer and
bide their time, contenting for the present with the absolute fact of
the advance of public opinion in the matter. The eighty-four are certain
to swell their ranks by double that number next year or the year after,
until the majority is a compact majority and a formidable phalanx to
the feeble force of those who would perforce keep India in servitude and
tutelage for all times to come. Had John Bright and Bradlaugh
been living to-day the victory of the Indian party in the House would
have been complete and decisive. The earnest eloquence of the former,
burning in its zeal for the good of the Indians and overpowering in its
righteousness of thought, to render justice where justice is due; and
the trenchant and vigorous criticism of the other, given with all the
force and strength of the Teutonic Thor—these would have secured India a
victory as pure and spotless as their own spotless reputation.
Indu Prakash (Anglo-Marathi bi-weekly, published in
Poona), 26 June 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the
Bombay Presidency for the week ending 1st July 1893.”
The vote [on Herbert Paul’s resolution] is nothing but a tactical
advantage, and yet on this flimsy basis we have chosen to build the most
imposing castles in the air. Yet if this were an isolated instance of
blindness it might be allowed to pass without comment, but it is only
one more example of a grave illusion that possesses the Indian mind. We
constantly find it asserted that the English are a just people and only
require our case to be clearly stated in order to redress our
grievances. It is more than time that some voice should be raised—even
though it may be the voice of one crying in the wilderness—to tell the
press and the public that this is a grave and injurious delusion, which
must be expunged from our minds if we would see things as they really
are. The English are not, as they are fond of representing themselves, a
people panting to do justice to all whom they have to govern. They are
not an incarnation of justice, neither are they an embodiment of
morality, but of all nations they are the most sentimental; hence it is
that they like to think themselves, and to be thought by others, a just
and moral people. It is true that in the dull comedy which we call
English politics Truth and Justice—written in large letters—cover the
whole of the poster, but in the actual enactment of the play these
characters have very little, indeed, to do. It was certainly not by
appealing to the English sense of justice that the Irish people have
come within reach of obtaining some measure of redress of their
grievances. Mr. Parnell was enabled to force Mr. Gladstone’s hand solely
because he had built up a strong party with a purely Irish policy. We
have Mr. Dádábhái Navroji and Sir W. Wedderburn both staunch friends of
India; we have Mr. Swift McNeill, true son of a high-souled and
chivalrous race; we have Mr. McLaren, Mr. Paul and many others pledged
to champion the Indian National Congress movement: but well nigh all
these are Liberal members who must give their support to Mr. Gladstone,
whether he is inclined to do justice to India or not. It is evident that
if we wish to obtain any real justice from Parliament we must secure
the pledges, not of individual Liberals, but of the responsible heads of
the party, and that is just what we are least likely to obtain. For we
must remember that within the last twenty years the immense personal
influence of Mr. Gladstone has been leavening and remoulding English
political life, and the tendency of that influence has been to convert
politics into a huge market where statesmen chaffer for votes. In this
political bazaar we have no current coin to buy justice from the great
salesman, and if he is inclined to give the commodity gratis he will
jeopardise many of the voters he has already in his hand. What lever
have we then by which we can alter the entire fuse of English opinion on
Indian matters? It is clear that we have none. […]
“The Arrival of Mr. Dadabhai Naoroiji” [sic], The Englishman, 4 December 1893, p. 4.
[On 3 December 1893, Naoroji returned to Bombay for the first
time since his election to Parliament. He was welcomed with a massive
demonstration; one estimate puts the crowd that day at 500,000 people.
Many of Naoroji’s supporters hoped that this demonstration would be a
fitting reply to George Chesney, a Conservative MP who charged that Naoroji could never be a truly Indian representative since he was a Parsi.]
FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT. BOMBAY, DEC. 3.
The large crowds of Native inhabitants of Bombay, who turned out this
morning to welcome Dadabhai Naoroji, were much disappointed. It was
expected that the mail steamer Siam with the Parsi member for Finsbury
on board, would reach this port about midnight, and it had been arranged
that he should be accorded a grand reception on landing this morning.
The reception committee and Native papers had been busy during the past
week in impressing upon the Native communities the importance of turning
out in great force in order to show the English people that Mr.
Dadabhai was not, as was observed recently by Sir George Chesney, an
alien, but one who had the sympathy and confidence of the Indian public.
The appeal had the desired effect. Thousands of people turned out early
in the morning and wended their way to the Apollo Bunder which was
fairly decorated. The passengers’ pavilion at the head of the Bunder was
decorated with flags and bunting and wreaths of flowers and evergreens.
In front of the structure facing the harbor was the motto in letters
“Glad to welcome, Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, M.P.,” its companion matto [sic]
on the other side being “God save our Queen-Empress, and the British
Empire.” The pier was decorated with venetian masts, from which banners
and bannerets were floating, and attached to these venetian masts were
festoons of evergreens and flowers and multi-coloured bunting. To the
north of the pier was put up a motto “Welcome member for Finsbury,”
while to the south side appeared the words, “Thanks to the Finsbury
Electors.” Mr. Vincent, Acting Commissioner of Police came to the Bunder
at an early hour in the morning and gave orders for the regulation of
the vehicular and passenger traffic, which went on increasing as time
wore on, and at 7-30 A.M., which was the hour fixed according to the
programme for the starting of the procession the whole pier was full to
overflowing with all classes and sections of the different Native
communities. The people became rather impatient at 7-30, when they found
that the steamer had not been signaled, and that even if she was they
would have to wait in the sun for a couple of hours before landing could
take place, and the committee agreed to postpone the landing until four
in the afternoon, when a large concourse again assembled on the Bunder.
A deputation went to the Princes Dock and brought Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji
in a steam launch, when he was accorded an enthusiastic welcome. He was
received by Mr. Mehta,
but before he had time to greet even the members of his family and
other friends the crowds rushed forward to embrace him and shake hands
with him. Mr. Mehta with the assistance of some of his friends succeeded
in getting Mr. Dadabhai into a carriage-and-four belonging to
Gordhandas Goculdas Tejpal, which was waiting for him, and gave orders
to drive away. It was intended that the committee should follow in
procession, but the rush was so great that the police could not prevent
the public in their carriages following Mr. Dadabhai’s equipage. As he
left the bunder a number of Hindu and Parsi girls who were stationed in
Mr. Green’s refreshment rooms sang songs composed in honour of the
occasion. Near Dady Sett’s fire temple in Hornby Row, a halt was made,
and a number of Parsi priests blessed him in their own peculiar fashion.
A short distance further on another stoppage was made outside Messrs.
Whiteway’s and Laidlaw’s new premises, where the contractor, a Madrasi,
and his men presented Mr. Dadabhai with flowers, and for a considerable
distance from here deputations of mill hands bearing flags and banners
lined the street. From this point Mr. Dadabhai had to stand in his
carriage and bow to the crowds that thronged the thoroughfares. The
balconies of the public buildings on Cruickshank Road were packed with
spectators, who gave him an enthusiastic welcome. It was probably in
Kalbadevi Road that the ovation reached its climax. The street was
profusely decorated with bunting and festoons of flowers and evergreens,
and the crowds were most demonstrative. Several halts had to be made.
The Parsi girls sang songs in his honor and greeted him in a manner
peculiar to the community. Numerous garlands were presented to him until
the carriage was filled to overflowing, while flowers were showered
upon him from all directions. On turning into Bhuleshwar Road Brahamis
[sic] came out from their temple, and blessed him. By this time darkness
had come on and from Cowasjee Patel Street to his destination in
Khetwady fifth lane the route was brightly illuminated. On arriving at
his residence, a modest one-storied house, he was received by the
members, and the outer gates had to be closed to prevent the crowds in
their desire to do him honour entering the premises, only a few personal
friends being admitted. There were dense crowds along the whole route.
Kaiser-e-Hind (Anglo-Gujarati weekly, published in
Bombay), 10 December 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the
Bombay Presidency for the week ending 16th December 1893.”
The Kaiser-e-Hind of the 10th December, in its
English columns, writes:–In the annals of India, the third day of
December will indeed be a red-letter day. For, never in her history
before was there to be witnessed the indescribable spectacle that
presented itself to view on that historical occasion. The spontaneity of
the demonstrations and the unbounded enthusiasm of the population were
in themselves an indisputable index of the genuine love and esteem in
which India held her “Grand Old Man,” as Mr. Dádábhái is most
appropriately called. Demonstrations by the scores there have been in
the past, more or less in honour of Viceroys and other more exalted
personages. These have, again, been accompanied by all the pomp and
pageantry which the State has been able to display at the expense of the
millions of tax-payers. But it would be historically incorrect to say
that those demonstrations, save in two or three instances, were anything
but official. Stiff and haughty as they have been, the tax-payers have
always eyed them askance. The bureaucracy of the land knows that the
people have never shown their sympathy with such. The essence of
demonstration lies in its spontaneity and sincerity. And so far it may
be observed with absolute truth that the only demonstrations in which
those essential elements were fairly discernible were those that were
witnessed on the occasion of the arrival of the popular and much beloved
Prince of Wales and on the departure of the ever-to-be remembered and
equally beloved Marquis of Ripon.
But the singularity of the unprecedented and unparalleled
demonstrations with which Mr. Dádábhái Navroji was greeted on his
landing on Sunday last lies not only in its spontaneity, but in the
character of the person. India to a man, as it were, was fired with
enthusiasm. There was a glow in every heart that the man who was
returning from England was deserving of a warm welcome, aye, more than a
warm welcome. He was deserving of a right royal reception—a reception
which only a sceptered monarch enjoying the widest esteem and affections
of his people can ever hope to obtain. It was in every sense of the
word a unique popular demonstration, and as such it severely contrasted
with the official demonstrations to which India has been familiar on the
arrival of royal personages, foreign princes, Viceroys, and Governors et hoc genus.
In the eyes of the people demonstrations of the official character are
unmeaning and valueless. For instance, who attaches the least
significance to the tamáshas got up in honour of the retiring
Viceroy? And who believes in got-up addresses which are generally in
evidence on the occasion of almost all departing Viceroys? Is a ghost
required to tell the people that they are worthless and meaningless? But
a genuine popular demonstration in which the people themselves join and
take a warm and active part is another thing. It has a significance of
its own, of which the temporarily exalted personages cannot fail to take
note. Popular recognition and popular enthusiasm are always a sure and
certain index of demonstrations in honour of a private citizen like Mr.
Dádábhái. The honour they are meant to confer is a real honour and
differs as much from the artificial honour rendered to ruling
authorities by official and unofficial cliques. The difference is as
wide as between gold and pinchbeck. In this respect it is indeed most
singular to notice that the eyes of the Indian people are at this moment
almost wholly attracted towards the receptions of the peoples of Madras
and Bombay accorded to Messrs. Hume and Dádábhái than to those given
lately at certain localities to the departing Viceroy. Is it necessary
to say whom the people hold more in estimation? But to return to the
reception given in honour of Mr. Dádábhái. It is superfluous to say it
was unique and unparalleled. All classes of the people joined in it—men,
women and children, Hindus, Muhammadans, Pársis, Jews, Portuguese—in
fact, all nationalities save the Anglo-Indians, be it said to their
discredit. For, in such a national rejoicing, if any community should
have been foremost, it was the Anglo-Indian. It was not only, in our
opinion, a proud day for India, but a proud day for England also. But
for free England and her free institutions where would Mr. Dádábhái have
been to-day? Is he not really one of the best and brightest products of
the British? Is it not to the credit and glory of the English nation
that her statesman-like policy of the past towards unenlightened India
has brought to the surface a gem of the purest ray serene as Mr.
Dádábhái, and has enabled him to gain entrance into Parliament? Is it
not a national event of which both the nations should be feel proud and
rejoice at it? In this instance, Lord Harris
has been truer to this genuine British instinct than all the
Anglo-Indians put together in Bombay. He truly gauged the spirit and
significance of the popular demonstrations, and at once sympathizing
with them wrote a letter congratulating the honourable gentleman and
cordially inviting him to Government House. This action of Lord Harris
is sufficient to put to shame those, especially those belonging to the
official classes, who have been indiscreet enough to display their
heart-burning, and that, too, in a spirit which excites Native contempt
and ridicule. Meanwhile, let us one more tell them that Mr. Dádábhái’s
is a name to be conjured with. As the poet says, “Whatever record leap
to light, he never shall be shamed.”
Indian Spectator (English weekly, published in
Bombay), 17 December 1893, in “Report on Native Papers Published in the
Bombay Presidency for the week ending 23rd December 1893.”
The Indian Spectator, in its issue of the 17th
December, writes:–In the ovation which was given to Mr. Dádábhái Navroji
on his arrival in Bombay, it was a marked peculiarity that Hindus were
anything but behind-hand in manifesting their love and good will towards
him. This exhibition of esteem and respect was quite spontaneous. It
explains to all, except to those who will not see, in what sense Mr.
Dádábhái is the representative of India This, however, is going over
trodden ground. But if his opponents are not tired of misjudging and
belittling him and his actions, it may be no sin to repeat what has been
in one shape or another mentioned before in his favour. In the
different presidencies there may be men locally better known that Mr.
Dádábhái. Some Bengáli, for example, may have a wider fame in Bengal
than Mr. Dádábhái. On the Madras side, similarly, there may be a local
celebrity whose name and fame are more familiar to the inhabitants of
that presidency than those of the Pársi member of Parliament. Yet,
speaking of India as a whole, there is none that occupies such a space
in the thoughts of the inhabitants as the person whom all turned out
recently to honour. Divided as the country, or rather the continent, is,
little accustomed, too, as it is to stand shoulder to shoulder, as some
European countries do, for political or party purposes, the mere fact
of Hindus of the different presidencies loving to call him, an alien by
race and religion, as their own man, their fittest representative,
should excite wonder. There must be something in the man—a rare
combination of virtues to attract to one who is a non-Hindu the entire
confidence and esteem of all Indian races, and notably of all Hindus.
And it is to the credit of Englishmen that they have given their
confidence to the best man among Indians. As regards the qualities which
endear him to his countrymen, any man may be proud to have them.
“The Indian National Congress and its President: A Professional Politician once more to the Front”, Indian Sociologist, November 1906, p. 41.
[By 1906, Indian nationalism had undergone a fundamental transformation. Within the wideningdivision
between moderates and extremists, Naoroji occupied a curious place:
some moderates found Naoroji too extremist, while some extremists found
Naoroji too moderate. Unlike Pherozeshah Mehta or Gopal Krishna Gokhale,
Naoroji was never the primary target of extremist opposition, but his
politics did nevertheless elicit criticism. It was at this moment that Shyamji Krishnavarma emerged as Naoroji’s most vocal critic, going so far as to claim that his career had been a “sad failure.”]
It is announced that Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji is going to be the
President of the forthcoming Indian National Congress at Calcutta. Let
us calmly consider his claims to that position and see whether he
fulfills all the conditions that are necessary for being a leader of the
Indain people. We have taken some pains to ascertain the value of his
work during his long and active career in England spread over a period
of about fifty years and we find that his political work has been a sad
failure.
To give only one instance of his incapacity and want of forethought,
we may cite the case of the East India Association of which he was the
principal promoter having secured much pecuniary help from India for its
maintenance and which, as he himself knows, is now altogether inimical
to Indian interests, governed as it is chiefly by retired Anglo-Indians
who now use the funds of the Association for objects entirely different
from those originally intended by their donors.
As to the political propaganda of Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji the only
measures with which his name is identified are the Resolution of the
House of Commons in favour of Simultaneous Examinations and the Royal
Commission on the Administration of Expenditure in India.
It is bad enough to tempt such Indians as can proceed to England and
pass the requisite tests for joining “the Imperial Service of India” to
become unjust agents of an oppressive foreign government; but what are
we to say of a proposal which, if carried out, would inevitably and
permanently reduce the people of India to a state of complete political
and moral degradation and which would thus prove the truth of Professor
Seeley’s memorable dictum:–“Subjection for a long time to a foreign yoke is one of the most potent causes of national deterioration.”
That is the view of a former Regius Professor of Modern History in the
University of Cambridge. Now let us turn to a former Regius Professor of
Modern History in the University of Oxford—Professor Goldwin
Smith—whose knowledge of the subject is unique, and who says:–“The
dominion of the foreigner almost inevitably excludes from public
employments the real worth of a country, because the real worth of a
country almost always dwells in the same breasts with its pride.”
Under these circumstances it is an unpardonable sin to tempt the flower
of the Indian youth to “furnish a new supply of unjust agents” to an
unjust government by the old trick of “simultaneous examinations,”
repeated so late as last December by Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji in his message
to the Indian National Congress.
As to the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, all who are aware
of the facts know that, as its result, England has taken more from India
than she ever gave back. At the banquet given by “The Sukha Samiti” on
March 23rd, 1905, when many Indian and English gentlemen were present, Sir William Wedderburn praised the doings of this Commission, known as Lord Welby’s Commission. On that occasion Mr. H.M. Hyndman
retorted in the presence of Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji himself that that
Commission had been a failure and that it had done absolutely nothing
towards relieving India of its enormous burdens.
We have ample evidence to show that Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji is ever
ready to oblige his Anglo-Indian friends at the cost of his country. He
belongs to a clique composed of a few Anglo-Indians, two or three Parsis
and a handful of Hindus, who engineer the Indian National Congress
which has no Constitution at all as recently pointed out by “The Times
of India” and as referred to by us in another column. He knows the value
of judicious self-advertisement regardless of the claims of his
countrymen. Remember the recent jobbery perpetrated by him in connection
with the Editorship of “India”—the accommodating journal which is
always ready to proclaim his sayings and doings to the world. Remember
also how in his last message to the Indian National Congress he
vociferously praised above all other Englishmen his Anglo-Indian friends
connected with the British Committee of the Congress, which is in a
fair way to become an ally of the East India Association. In that
communication he altogether ignored the services of such a true friend
of India as Mr. H.M. Hyndman whose name he seems to be afraid to mention
on any public occasion, lest he should offend his Anglo-Indian patrons.
At a recent meeting of the London Indian Society, when Mr. Dadabhai
Naoroji presided, a lecture was delivered severely criticising his
connection with the British Committee of the Indian National Congress
and exposing the inconsistency of some of his public utterances.
One may now well ask—What is it that makes this man with the burden
of eighty-one years on his shoulders jump at an informal offer of the
Presidentship of the Indian National Congress, particularly as he has
already occupied that position twice and as the name of a most deserving
patriot has been before the Indian public for some time? We may lay
down as a general principle that the public weal of a country demands
that the highest position in its National Assembly should not be filled
by an individual, however eminent, beyond a certain limit or period.
Every student of American politics knows that according to a settled
rule no President of the United States of America has ever served more
than two terms. “When Washington had served his second term,” says the
Rt. Hon. James Bryce in his “American Commonwealth,” “he absolutely
refused to serve a third, urging the risk to republican institutions of
suffering the same man to continue constantly in office.” We still hope
that Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji will pause and reconsider his position,
particularly as the ugly facts revealed by the high-handed conduct of
his principal supporters in the Reception Committee at Calcutta impose
on him the necessity of avoiding a breach in the Congress Camp. He is
placed, so to say, on his honour to prevent a deadly struggle between
the contending parties, and it remains to be seen if he will rise to the
occasion.
We have known Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji for nearly thirty years and it
causes us no pleasure to say unpalatable truths about a man who for very
many years had the reputation of labouring disinterestedly in his
country’s cause. We have approached him both privately and publicly in
order to give him an opportunity for reconsidering his position, but so
far he has not shown any inclination to save the situation by
withdrawing from the present deplorable contest. On the contrary before
his election by the Reception Committee at Calcutta he showed such
indecent haste in booking his passage to Bombay “as a precautionary
measure,” to quote his own organ “India,” that we have no hesitation in
re-regarding him as a mischievous partisan in this unfortunate struggle.
It is not against the old friend but against the new enemy of our
country that we are constrained to make these strictures; and we trust
that Indians will take these remarks in good part and show their wisdom
by selecting a man worthy in every respect to be a leader of their
country.
In conclusion we may repeat what we said last year in the November number of The Indian Sociologist, while recommending Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak
for the office of President of the Indian National Congress, that
Indians will yet learn to show “reverence for a worth demonstrated by
conduct and achievement.”
Indian Sociologist, via Hind Swarajya (Anglo-Gujarati
weekly, published in Bombay), 29 December 1906 & 6 January 1907, in
“Report on Native Papers for the week ending 5th January 1907”.
The Hind Swarajya reproduces the following from the Indian Spectator
published in London:–“Professor Goldwin Smith has said: ‘In a conquered
country governed by the stranger, liberty has no place, and to utter
the name is a mockery and a profanation’…. We find that the present
leaders of the Indian National Congress, while professing to champion
the cause of their country, do not infrequently recommend a hypocritical
course of conduct to their followers. They often betray unpardonable
inconsistencies in their public utterances, which deserve to be
thoroughly exposed. For this purpose we take the case of their chief Mr.
Dadabhai Navroji….Mr. Dadabhai Navroji, in the course of his
Presidential address at the Lahore Congress of 1893, said:–‘Our faith in
the instinctive love of justice and fair-play of the people of the
United Kingdom is not misplaced. I for one have not the shadow of a
doubt that in dealing with such justice-loving, fair-minded people as
the British. We may rest fully assured that we shall not work in vain.
It is this conviction which has supported me against all difficulties. I
have never faltered in my faith in the British character and have
always believed that the time will come when the sentiments of the
British nation and our Gracious Sovereign proclaimed to use in our Great
Charter of the Proclamation of 1858 will be realised.’ Contrast this
with what he said in December 1902, while delivering an address at the
Newington Reform Club, Walworth:–‘One of the arguments put forward in
defence of the system was that the British prevented the different
people of India from plundering each other. That was only a half-truth:
the whole truth was that they prevented the different peoples from
plundering each other in order that they themselves might plunder all.
Then they were told that the British had introduced security of property
and security of life, for which Indians ought to be very grateful. Yes,
they had introduced security of property, but only in order that they
might carry it away with perfect security. As to security of life it was
said that the old oriental despots used to kill thousands and thousands
and harass the people. If that was so, the British Government with
great ingenuity and scientific precision was killing millions by famines
and plagues and starving scores of millions….The Anglo-Indians, or the
British, were like clever surgeons who, with the sharpest scalpels, cut
to the very heart and drew every drop of blood without leaving a scar.
Law and order were vitally important and necessary to the existence of
Englishmen in India. That was the reason why they were so anxious for
law and order, for without it Englishmen could not stay there one week.’
Readers of The Indian Sociologist know that, according to Mr. Dadabhai Navroji, ‘Patriotism means making an end of foreign rule.’ In a letter dated April 21st, 1905, to the Daily News,
he pertinently asked an English correspondent: ‘Supposed by some
mischance England came under French or German or some alien despotic
Government in the same condition and under the same circumstances as
India is at present, will he not, as an Englishman, do his utmost to
throw off “the heaviest of all yokes, the yoke of the stranger” even
though all Englishmen were full of all the faults which the
Anglo-Indians, rightly or wrongly, ascribe to Indians? Will he not as an
Englishman at once tell me, “Corrupt or not corrupt, faults or no
faults, a Briton shall never be slave”? And yet he cooly [sic] justifies
and assumes the right divine of making other people slaves! Not only
make them slaves, but in addition to eating up their substance in the
country itself, carry it away out of the country, leaving the people of
the country to perish, to say nothing of the deplorable consequences of
the evil, bastard system, begotten of the unholy union of hypocrisy and
greedy despotism.’ The quotation we have just given ought to satisfy all
unbiased men that Mr. Dadabhai’s views regarding an independent form of
national government for India are not different from those put forward
by us, but unfortunately he reverts to his old ideas of ‘the love of
liberty and justice’ among the English people and to the Resolution of
1893 in favour of Simultaneous Examinations in his message to the
Benares Congress of December 1905.”
Mahratta (English weekly, published in Poona), 30 December 1906, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 5th January 1907”. [paper edited by Narsinh Chintaman (N.C) Kelkar, with circulation of 950]
[In spite of some extremists expressing disappointment with
Naoroji’s address at the 1906 Calcutta Congress, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and
his associates regarded it as a victory for the extremists and a defeat
for the moderates. Tilak and N.C. Kelkar were particularly pleased with
Naoroji’s wholesale advocacy of swaraj.]
Mr. Dadabhai in his inaugural address struck a new key as compared
with previous presidential orations. The burden of his song was Swaraj. Self-government occupies the whole address. To Mr. Dadabhai, Swaraj
is everything; without it all reforms are nothing. In favour of this
view the address quotes the opinions of no less than four prominent
members of the present ministry and proves beyond dispute the necessity
of giving self-government to India if her millions are to be saved from
plague, famine and chronic starvation. Bitter is the experience of Mr.
Dadabhai as a political worker, driving him to complete despair
bordering on the spirit of rebellion. However, the revival of liberalism
in England induced him to advise the Calcutta Congress to repose
implicit confidence in the sense of justice and fair-play of the great
Liberal party. We have no doubt as to the revival of liberalism in
England, but the Liberal party disposes of in a liberal spirit only
those questions that are recognised as coming within the pale of
practical politics. Mr. Morley
has declared that the Government of India must remain personal and
almost absolute. By this Mr. Morley, as the responsible minister of the
Liberal party in charge of Indian affairs, means that the claims of the
Congress to Swaraj are beyond the range of practical politics.
To make any question fall within the pale of the practical politics of
the Imperial Parliament depends solely on the doings of the Indians
themselves. The revival of liberalism in England has nothing to do with
it. It is for the Indians alone to make the question of
self-government—a question of practical politics in England and not
merely a question for academic discussion. If by our patriotic deeds,
backed by a firm and united resolve, we succeed in thrusting our demands
on the attention of England and inducing the Liberal party to count our
questions amongst the questions of practical politics, then we may
depend on the sense of justice and fair-play of English politicians and
the revival of liberalism for the favourable and just solution of Indian
problems. But how to force an entrance into this reserved enclosure of
practical politics? The presidential address is truly disappointing to
those who expected an answer to this query. As an exposition of the aims
and objects of the Congress movement, the address will be looked upon
as the political gospel of new India, but in devising the methods and
means to secure the accomplishment of Swaraj, India will have to follow the lead of new guides and give up the hackneyed tracks of old coaches.
Vihari (Marathi weekly, published in Bombay), 31 December 1906, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 5th January 1907”. [edited by Balkrishna Narayan Phatak, circulation 1,000]
Never was the speech of a President of the Congress so insipid,
meaningless and timid as that delivered by Mr. Dadabhai this year.
People were in high hopes that Mr. Dadabhai would, in his speech, point
out the means of attaining self-government. But they were disappointed
to find that the keynote of his address was mendicancy. It is needless
for us to dwell here on the futility of this method of agitation. The
Boers obtained self-government within a few years after their conquest
by the British, not because they are a more capable people than the
Indians, but because they love liberty dearer than their lives and have
among their leaders men who boldly and openly preach armed resistance to
their English rulers, should the latter refuse their political rights.
Mr. Dadabhai should have in his speech referred to this real cause of
the attainment of self-government by the Boers. It would also have been
more appropriate if his speech had contained a reference to the measures
adopted by the British people themselves in wresting a constitution
from their kings when all peaceful methods of agitation had failed, such
as rising in rebellion against them or banishing or beheading them. In
quoting a number of worn-out platitudes instead, the venerable President
of this year’s Congress sorely disappointed the people of India.
Kesari (Marathi weekly, published in Poona), 1 January 1907, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 5th January 1907”. [paper edited by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, with circulation of 18,000]
The last session of the Congress, which attracted an unprecedentedly
large number of delegates and spectators owing to the rumours of a
probable split in the Congress camp, passed off without any hitch. The
grand ovation accorded to Mr. Dadabhai Navroji at Calcutta might well be
envied by kings and princes. The garbled reports of the private
meetings of delegates, held previous to the commencement of the Congress
sessions, which have appeared in certain papers, make it appear that
the extremists were utterly routed by the moderates. But subsequent
events have utterly falsified these rumours and made it clear that the
policy advocated by the Kesari has left its thorough impress on
the national gathering. The presidential address strikingly bore out
the fact that the Congress was entering upon an era of plain speaking.
The keynote of the address lay in the fact that it exhorted the Indians
to place self-government in the forefront of their demands. Mr.
Dadabhai, in openly declaring his adherence to swadeshi as best
adapted to the unnatural economic conditions prevailing in this
country, has tacitly given his support to boycott, and we recommend his
attitude in this matter for the consideration of our hyper-sensitive and
alarmist politicians of the city of Bombay. Though Mr. Dadabhai
confessed that his repeated disappointments in political matters had
sometimes driven him almost to rebel, he appears still to have great
confidence in the sense of justice of Englishmen. But we venture to
assert that if he had spent the last few years in India, he would have
come to a different conclusion altogether. Mr. Dadabhai found no time in
his address to elaborate the ways and means by which the demand for
self-government was to be driven home, but the Congress made up the
deficiency by passing the boycott and the swadeshi resolutions.
The first part of the former resolution is intended to lay down that
boycott is a legitimate weapon to be used against Government whenever
the latter turns a deaf ear to the complaints of the people, while the
latter part holds up the example of Bengal as worthy of imitation by
other provinces. As regards the resolution on swadeshi, it
includes all the points for which the extremists had been fighting. Our
Anglo-Indian contemporaries were not far from wrong when they declared
that the last Congress was a triumph for the extremist party, and we
daresay that all thinking men, who watched its proceedings, must come to
the same conclusion.
Kesari (Marathi weekly, published in Poona), 8 January 1907, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 12th January 1907”.
As already pointed out by us in our last issue the dominant note of
the Calcutta Congress was to place the demand for self-government in the
forefront of the Congress programme. The credit of giving this new turn
to the deliberations of the Congress belongs entirely to Mr. Dadabhai.
Very few amongst the moderates ever dreamt that he would go so far as he
has done, but as the new position has been most clearly defined by
their own idol, they have to make the best of the situation. It should
be noted that the term swarajya, so familiar to the inhabitants
of Maharashtra, has been deliberately used by Mr. Dadabhai to denote
the new demand and the Congress and swarajya are now so
indissolubly connected together that however much the moderates may
dislike the combination, they will have to put up with it. The Congress
has not only formulated the demand for swarajya, but has also
indicated the manner in which it is to be achieved.Mr. Dadabhai plainly
stated in the course of his address that the keen disappointments which
he had had to face in his political career would have driven any other
man to rebel. What lesson are we to learn from these disappointments of
Mr. Dadabhai? Are we to learn to tread the new path of self-reliance or
continue to move in the old grooves of mendicancy? This question has
been satisfactorily solved by the last Congress by passing the
resolutions of boycott and swadeshi and whatever
interpretations the moderates may put upon these resolutions it cannot
be gainsaid that the nation has definitely pledged itself to a new line
of activity after due deliberation. We have not the least doubt that
this new programme will lead us to success.
Kaiser-i-Hind (Anglo-Gujarati weekly, published in Bombay), 20 January 1907, in “Report on Native Papers for the week ending 19th January 1907”. [published in English columns]
We will not say that Mr. Dadabhai Navroji performed a miracle in the
battlefield of Indian politics, but surely he did something next to it.
By his open-mindedness, his patience and tolerance of all shades and
varieties of opinion on matters on which Congressmen had been unhappily
divided, by his great tact, sound judgment and, above all, by his temper
which was as sweet as it was seraphic, he appeased the passions which
had been aroused in the Congress camp before his arrival, steered, as
only a veteran captain could steer, the bark of the Congress clear of
the shoals and quicksands which surrounded it, and brought her safe to a
haven of rest amidst universal thanksgiving. It is not given to an
ordinary leader to perform the feat which the veteran of eighty-two
accomplished. Hence the great jubilation of the people when he accepted
the Presidentship of the Calcutta Congress, and hence the storm of
applause which has greeted him since he accomplished his most arduous
and responsible task. It is indeed pathetic to note how the G.O.M. at
the call of duty donned his armour, crossed six thousand miles of land
and sea to assume the generalship of a four days’ most difficult field
operation and displayed the highest traits of the practised
soldier—patience and endurance, apart from skill and ability—brining it
to a brilliant and successful close. And more pathetic still to notice
him doffing the same armour, receiving the homage of all, humble and the
great, midst a series of triumphant demonstrations unparalleled in
Indian annals, from Bombay to Calcutta and back, till the last hour of
his departure, and quietly and modestly embarking on board the mail
steamer midst the deafening cheers of a grateful and gratified public,
who perhaps may never see him again. It was indeed a fitting compliment
which the citizens of Bombay paid him in the Town Hall on Thursday last
where had congregated the public of Bombay to pay him their last puja
and bid him a cordial farewell with best wishes for the prolongation of
a strenuous life which has never known rest. For him life has been one
long spell of duty—duty nobly discharged and most conscientiously and
unselfishly accomplished. In the world’s field of battle, in the bivouac
of life, Mr. Dadabhai has acted as a hero, pure and without reproach, a
very Bayard indeed of all India who has made his life sublime, and who
has now departed from his native shores once more, leaving indelible
foot-prints, which it is to be hoped generations yet unborn will tread
making their lives equally sublime and heroic.
“The Grand Old Man of India,” Indian Opinion, 19 November 1903.
[Mahatma Gandhi relied upon Naoroji to broadcast the plight of
Indians in South Africa to the Indian and British public as well as to
relevant authorities in London. While Gandhi eventually repudiated many
of Naoroji’s tactics, he had great reverence for Naoroji, even
proclaiming him to be a “mahatma” and the “father of the nation.”
Gandhi’s Indian Opinion regularly ran articles on Naoroji around the time of his birthday.]
The mail papers to hand from India contain very long notices of the
birthday anniversary of Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, who is undoubtedly to
India what Mr. Gladstone was to Great Britain. He has entered upon his
79th year, and the whole of India has celebrated the anniversary in a
manner befitting the occasion. Millions of voices have gone up to Heaven
praying for the blessings of the Almighty to be showered upon the grand
old man and for many years of life on this earth. We join the millions
in their prayer. Mr. Dadabhai is loved from the Hindukush to Cape
Comorin and from Karachi to Calcutta as no other living man in India is
loved. He has given a lifetime to the service of the country of his
birth, and though a Parsi, Hindus, Mahomedans, Christians and all revere
him just as strongly as the followers of Zoroaster. He has sacrificed
for the cause of India ease and luxury, and has imposed upon himself a
long exile. He has devoted his wealth also to the cause. His is the
purest type of patriotism and comes from a sense of duty to the
motherland. Nor is this all. Mr. Dadabhai’s private character has been
also a perfect pattern to be copied by the rising generation in every
respect, and if we are not much mistaken, there is behind all his
political work a strong religious pious fervour which nothing can
quench. The land which is capable of producing a Dadabhai has every
reason to hope for the best in the long run. Soon after he was elected
member of the House of Commons, an honour conferred by a British
constituency for the first time on an Indian, he paid a visit to India,
and those who were privileged to witness his triumphal progress from
Bombay to Lahore have testified that the enthusiasm with which he was
received was only equalled, if at all, by that which accompanied the
progress of the ever to be remembered Lord Ripon when he retired from
his Viceroyalty. The nation certainly honoured itself by honouring such a
man. To us in South Africa, a life of so much devotion and so much
self-sacrifice in the midst of enormous difficulties (and Mr. Dadabhai
had, as many of our readers will remember, much to suffer) should be a
very rich lesson in loving our country and our people, and also in
patience. In the political struggle, victories are not won in a day.
Disappointments are often the lot of people who are engaged in them. We
have in South Africa a very fair share thereof, and if we would but
remember that Mr. Dadabhai has been struggling for the last forty years
or more, we would find in the thought a great deal to console us that,
after all, our struggle has only just commenced, and that we have not
been without silver linings to the clouds which have hung over us. Amid
all his labours, Mr. Dadabhai has always found time to attend to the
question in South Africa, and has been one of the most zealous patrons
of our cause. May he continue to enjoy health and vigour of mind for a
long time to come, and may he yet be privileged to serve his country is
our sincere prayer to the Almighty.
“The G.O.M. [Grand Old Man] of India,” Indian Opinion, 7 October 1905.
[The article references Naoroji’s final parliamentary campaign, in North Lambeth in early 1906].
Our Indian exchanges bring news with reference to the meetings held
to commemorate the eighty-first birthday of Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, the
Grand Old Man of India, on the 4th September last. Public meetings were
held all over India. The services rendered by Mr. Naoroji to India, in
our humble opinion, are far greater than the services rendered by
England’s Grand Old Man to England. Mr. Naoroji’s work has been pioneer
work, and when he commenced it, few indeed were his helpers. The
self-sacrificing devotion with which he has pushed forward the cause of
India, in season and out of season, has hardly any parallel in India;
and it is no wonder that he stands unequalled by any one in the
estimation of millions of his countrymen. The spectacle of an old man of
over eighty years wooing a British constituency, not for the sake of
glory or honours, but in order that he may serve India the more, is most
pathetic and magnificent. If the electors of North Lambeth send Mr.
Naoroji to the new Parliament, they will have done themselves a unique
honour. We echo the prayers that were offered by the millions in India
for long life and health to Mr. Naoroji.
“Petition to Dadabhai Naoroji,” Indian Opinion, 3 July 1909.
[This was delivered to Naoroji when he was 84 years old,
demonstrating his continued interest in Indian affairs in South Africa.]
TO THE HON’BLE DADABHAI NAOROJI
SIR,
We, the undersigned, British Indians residing in the Transvaal hereby
approach you as the father of the Indian nation that is to be, with
reference to the gigantic struggle in which we are engaged in this
Colony. Through you we appeal to the whole of India.
We will not go into the history of the struggle, but will state the
question as it stand today. The Indian inhabitants of the Transvaal have
asked for repeal of the Asiatic Registration Act of 1907, so that
Indians possessing educational attainments, be they ever so few, even
six per year, may enter the Transvaal on the same terms as the other
immigrants. To-day, by reason of the Registration Act read together with
the Immigration Act of the Colony, no British Indian can immigrate into
the Colony unless he has been previously domiciled. The laws of the
Colony, therefore constitute a colour bar. No other British Colony
possesses such legislation. Indians have, therefore, publicly entered
into a solemn covenant not to submit to the Registration Acts of the
Colony but to suffer imprisonment and other hardships until the national
insult is removed.
Under the covenant, during the past two years and six months, over
2,500 Indians have suffered imprisonment mostly with hard labour. Many
homes have been broken up, many families have been ruined, in the
struggle. Fathers and sons have gone to gaol at the same time, leaving
behind them weeping wives and mothers. Many families are being supported
from charitable funds raised by us. At the present moment, nearly two
hundred Indians are suffering imprisonment for conscience’ sake. The
hardship felt has been so great that many have succumbed owing to sheer
exhaustion. Others have left the Colony and are probably today starving.
A resolute band of over 300 continues an active struggle. Some have
passed through the Transvaal gaols five times.
The covenanters are derived from all classes and strata of Indian
society. Hindus, Mahomedans, Parsees, Sikhs and Christians are all
fighting India’s battle. Merchants who have never undergone physical
exertion and have been brought up in the lap of luxury are breaking
stones, or doing scavenger’s work, or wheeling barrows of earth and
living on coarse mealie meal and boiled potatoes or rice and ghee.
We ask India to come to the rescue and demand from the Indian
Government a removal of the bar sinister. Until the racial taint from
the Transvaal legislation is removed, the little band of Indians
referred to above will suffer unto death. We pray for relief.
Charles Alexander, “Boston on Lynching,” Christian Recorder, 13 September 1894.
[Naoroji met Ida Wells,
an African-American journalist who later helped found the NAACP, when
she toured Great Britain to highlight lynchings in the American South.
He subsequently joined an anti-lynching organization in Great Britain.
The Christian Recorder, an African-American newspaper based in Philadelphia, still exists today.]
[…] Mr. Moncure D. Conway was introduced as “an old fine abolitionist
and author.” He made a very interesting address, telling of the work
that Miss Ida Wells has been doing the anti-lynching cause in New
England. He said:
“Miss Wells, the daughter of a slave, is a young lady of education
and refinement. Were Longfellow or Whittier alive they would frame her
in poetry. The result of her visit [to Great Britain] was the formation
of anti-lynching committees, whose objects, quoted exactly are: ‘to
obtain reliable information on the subject of lynching and mob outrages
in America, to make the facts known and to give expression to public
opinion in condemnation of such outrages in whatever way may best seem
suited to assist the cause of humanity and civilization.’
“Among the members of this committee are such defenders of American
rights as the Duke of Argyll, Jacob Bright, M.P., Justin McCarthy, M.P.,
Sir Joseph Pease, M.P. The committee was founded in the house of Mr.
Clayden of the Daily News, an organ ever faithful to American interest, and its Treasurer is Passmore Edwards of the Echo.
Among the clergymen are such distinguished men as Wicksteed, Buting,
Clifford, Shuttleworth, Francis Channing, M.P., grand nephew to the
great Boston preacher. There is a Hindu Member of Parliament, Dadabhai
Naoroji, from the land to which America sends missionaries; his name in
the list reminds us that lynching is a barbarity unknown to countries
called heathen, a product of regions themselves Christians.”
William Jennings Bryan, “England’s Policy is Our Warning,” New York Journal, 22 January 1899, p. 29.
[In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, American
anti-imperialists and Progressives like Bryan studied British rule in
India, using it as a warning against American colonization of the
Philippines. It is likely that George Freeman, an Irish-American
journalist and member of the Clan-na-Gael,
served as the conduit between Naoroji and Bryan, passing on the Indian
politician’s writing to the American Progressive leader. The resolutions
that Bryan quotes were likely drafted by Naoroji, who served as the
president of the London Indian Society.]
[…] On the 28th of December, 1897—only a year ago—a meeting of the
London Indian Society was held at Montague Mansions and strong
resolutions were adopted. Below will be found an extract from the
resolutions:
“That this conference of Indians, resident in the United Kingdom, is of opinion—
“That of all the evils and ‘terrible misery’ that India has been
suffering for a century and a half, and of which the latest developments
are the most deplorable famine and plague, arising from ever increasing
poverty, the stupid and suicidal frontier war and its savagery, of the
wholesale destruction of villages, unworthy of any people, but far more
so of English civilization; the unwise and suicidal prosecutions for
sedition, the absurd and ignorant cry of the disloyalty of the educated
Indians, and for the curtailment of the liberty of the Indian press; the
despotism—like that of the imprisonment of the Natus—and the general
insufficiency of the Administration—of all these and many other minor
evils, the main cause is the unrighteous and un-British system of
government which produces an unceasing and ever increasing bleeding of
the country, and which is maintained by a political hypocrisy and
continuous subterfuges, unworthy of the British honor and name, and
entirely in opposition to the wishes of the British people, and utterly
in violation of acts and resolutions of Parliament, and of the most
solemn and repeated pledges of the British nation and sovereign.
“That unless the present un-righteous system of government is
thoroughly reformed into a righteous and truly British system,
destruction to India and disaster to the British Empire must be the
inevitable result.”
Mr. Naoroji, an Indian residing in England, in supporting the
resolution, pointed out the continuous drain of money from India, and
argued that the people were compelled “to make straw, but even without
clay.” He insisted that England’s trade with India would be greater if
she would allow the people of India a larger participation in the
affairs of their own government, and protested against the policy of
sending Englishmen to India to hold the offices and draw their support
from taxes levied upon the inhabitants. He complained that British
justice is one thing in England and quite another thing in India, and
said: “There (in India) it is only the business of the people to pay
taxes and to slave, and the business of the Government to spend those
taxes to their own benefit. Whenever any question arises between Great
Britain and India there is a demoralized mind. The principles of
politics, of commerce, of equality which are applied to Great Britain
are not applied to to India. As if it were not inhabited by human
beings?”
Does any one doubt that, if we annex the Philippines and govern them
by agents sent from here, questions between them and the people of the
United States and for the benefit of the people of the United States? If
we make subjects of them against their will and for our own benefit are
we likely to govern them with any more benevolence?
The resolutions quoted mention efforts made for the curtailment of
the liberty of the press. Is that not a necessary result of governmental
injustice? Are we likely to allow the Filipinos freedom of the press if
we enter upon a system that is indefensible according to our theory of
government? […]
“Notes from Dublin, ” New York Times, 20 January 1907, p. 8.
[Here is a unique perspective, from an American paper, about
Indian-Irish links. The article contains a number of errors: the 1906
Congress was held in Calcutta (not Madras), Naoroji was elected to
Parliament in 1892 (not 1895), and, lastly, Lord Clive never stepped
anywhere near Kashmir.]
The Irish Home Rulers are watching with sympathetic interest a
growing agitation in India for home rule for the Hindu. The
silken-robed, be-gemmed, perfumed India of the sixteenth century, the
famine-wasted India of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth
century, is taking courage from the spectacle of Canada, Australia, and
Boerland and soon Ireland, enjoying self-government, in spite of an
alien flag, and hopes to get in line for her birthright, too, which she
lost 150 years ago, when Lord Clive first floated his standard over the
Vale of Cashmere. There was a National Congress in Madras [sic]
recently, and its presiding officer was Mr. Naoroji, a Parsee, 80 years
old, but vigorous as if only 50, who has lived in England for the past
twenty years. In 1895 [sic] he represented an English constituency in
Parliament. He is very fond of Ireland and everything Irish, and in the
House of Commons worked and voted with the Irish Party. He expects great
things from the Liberal Government, and counts on the help of the
Irish members in winning radical measures of relief for India.
He said in his address opening the Hindu Congress: “If even a good
Government could never be a substitute for a Government by the people
themselves, how much less can an economically evil Government and a
constitutionally unconstitutional Government be a substitute for
self-government?”
Mr. Redmond
and Mr. Naoroji have clasped hands across continents, and both have
behind them peoples well united and determined. Both have great
confidence in the Liberal Ministry of to-day, and both are alike in the
feeling that whether they win to-day or to-morrow or years hence, it is
theirs to keep on working for the fullest measure of self-government for
their country.
“India,” Horizon, February 1907, pp. 8-9.
[Horizon was edited by W.E.B. Du Bois,
who retained a lifelong interest in India and Indian nationalism. He
quoted a portion of Naoroji’s 1906 Congress speech, which has not been
transcribed below.]
The speech of Naoroji before the National Congress of India was
worthy of men who want to be free. […] The dark world awakens to life
and articulate speech. Courage, Comrades!
