Date: 17 June 1928
Location: Paris
Speaker: Aga Khan III
Source: Speeches of Aga Khan III – K K Aziz
Full Text
Disagreement with optimistic expressions on the economic future of Bombay – protective measures for the mill industry – other remedies – the mills as the backbone of the prosperity of Bombay.
His Highness the Aga Khan writing from Paris regretting the medical interdict on his coming to preside, said he was unable to agree entirely with Sir Stanley’s optimistic expressions on the economic future of Bombay. He saw little hope for the mill industry unless the Government of India, with the support of public opinion, recognised the necessity for definitely protective measures for a few years enabling the readjustments according to changed conditions to be made. Many valuable subsidiary measures could be taken, notably the development of luxury trades during winter months, so as to draw affluent people from the interior. Cheap electricity would go far to meet some of the economic difficulties of Bombay, but present prices could not be regarded as cheap. If the capital energy sunk in the mill industry were crippled, he saw no great future for the developments whether towards sea or land. The Aga Khan could see nothing to replace the mills as the backbone of the prosperity of Bombay. …
Source: The Times of India, Bombay, 19 June 1928.
A full report of the meeting as published in The Times of India is as follows: “Sir Frederick Sykes presided over a large meeting of the East India Associ ation when Sir Stanley Reed delivered a lecture on ‘Bombay to-day and to morrow.’ “Sir Stanley opined that there was good reason for the complaint of step motherly attitude of the Government of India towards the mill industry, which should be treated as a national enterprise demanding the constant support of the Government of India, the local authorities and the public. But, the shareholders must take to heart Mr. Baldwin’s advice to Lancashire, and some of the practices associated with the system of managing agents must go. Given these premises, Sir Stanley was no pessimist with regard to the mill industry. “Sir Amberson Marten forecasted a great development for Bombay harbour as a yachting centre. His experience of the High Court and elsewhere showed that the Indian and the Englishman could work together in Bombay cordially without disagreement. “Sir Thomas Strangman said the Bombay Customs arrangements and race meeting compared most favourably with those in England. Whatever opinions Sir- Frederick Sykes held now, Sir Thomas thought he would be a warm sup porter of the totalisator after the quirquemium. “Mr. P. R. Cadell dwelt on the contribution of efficient administration of the municipality to the progress of Bombay. “Replying to the points raised during the debate with regard to the depression in the mill industry, Sir Stanley Reed pointed out that the competition of upcountry mills could not be retarded by protective duties. “Sir Frederick Sykes said he first saw Bombay as a subaltern in the year of Lord Lamington’s assumption of the Governorship of the Presidency during the most strenuous and interest in [sic] years of his life. Then he began to realise the vastness and fascination of India. There, too, were his thoughts towards speedier communications between England and India first mouled [sic]. He had every reason to look forward to returning to Bombay and try to help in any way he could [sic]. They must agree with Sir Stanley, Sir Frederick proceeded, that with Bombay’s basic advantages, there was no need to fear for the future. All knew the richness of Bombay in kindness, friendship and gen erosity and in what a high degree she exemplified the bond of men that exists in cities. “Lord Lamington, referring to the Back Bay, said he. always held private enterprise under Government supervision the best method, superior to the execution of work departmentally. “[Mr. Baldwin’s message to Lancashire, referred to above, is embodied in the following message dated London, May 16:-‘In view of the critical condition of the cotton industry great importance is attached to the speech of Mr. Baldwin at the luncheon given by the British Cotton-growing Association at Manchester to-day, which was attended by 500 members of the Association and representa tives of the banking institutions in Lancashire and north England. Lord Derby presiding said that the whole industry must be reconstructed and new capital must be brought in. Mr. Baldwin in his speech referred to the group possibilities in South Africa and elsewhere in the Empire for cotton-growing and purchasing British goods. Referring to the depression in the steel trade, the Premier mentioned that for every shilling he had when he took office, he had something under a penny to-day. The capital of the steel trade must be reduced until it represented live assets before it could hope for better times, and every section of the cotton industry must get together somehow and cut out the dead wood and clean up the mess made in 1919 (cheers)]’.”
LONDON, June 18. “He said that in some respects Bombay was passing through a very uncomfort able stage of transition namely ‘a cold fit of construction when everyone is uncomfortable with the toes being trodden on.’ He pointed out the value of the reclamation in view of the scarcity of open spaces and also of ‘the finest sea face in the world’ hitherto unused. Sir Stanley Reed visualised a great promenade in the future stretching from Chaupatti to Colaba Point bordered by cafes and clubs where men might meet their friends in better atmosphere than ‘sodden bar or heated card club.’ He expressed the opinion that the dominant characteristic of Bombay to-day was ‘depression,’ but considered that the material future of Bombay was assured, and pointed out that signs of real economy were difficult to find. – Reuter.”
The Times of London reported the lecture very briefly in the following paragraph: “MAJOR-GENERAL SIR FREDERICK SYKES, Governor-designate of Bombay, pre sided at a large meeting of the East India Association yesterday at the Caxton Hall, when Sir Stanley Reed spoke on ‘Bombay To-day and To-morrow.’ “Referring to the long continued depression in the Bombay mill industry, SIR STANLEY REED said the industry must be treated as a national enterprise demanding the constant support of Government, the local authorities and the public. Shareholders must take to heart the advice which Mr. Baldwin gave to Lancashire. Capital which was lost could not be regained by regarding the figures printed on share certificates as sacrosanct; and some of the practices associated with managing agents must go. He was no pessimist on the subject.
The material future of Bombay, after all, was assured. What did depress him was the note of materialism in their daily life.”
However, the Aga Khan’s message was printed in full at the end of the report.
The most authoritative account of the history of Bombay is contained in The Imperial Gazetteer of India, London, 2nd. ed. 1885, Vol. 3, pp. 74-7: “The name of Bombay was erroneously supposed to have been given by the Portuguese, on account of the geographical position of the island – Bom-bahia or Boa-bahia, ‘statio fidissima nautis.’ Colonel H. Yule, however, traces it back to the latter half of the compound name Tanna-Maiamba or Mayamba, which, according to Barbosa, circ. 1516, was used to designate the kingdom of the Konkan in the 16th century. The name appears as Maimbi in the very early geographical Sommario de R.egni, translated from the Portuguese in Ramudio, written probably 1520-25. There can be little doubt that this word, in its turn, was a corruption of Mamba-devi, a goddess who had a famous shrine in the neighbourhood, mentioned in Forbes’ Ras Mala, circ. 1630. The Portuguese of the 16th century call it Mombain or Bombaim, never Bom-bahia or Boa-bahi’a..
The Maratha name of Bombay is Mumbai, from Mahima, ‘Great Mother,’ a title of Devi. In support of the popular etymology from Buon Bahia, ‘fair haven,’ it may be said that Bombay undoubtedly possesses one of the finest harbours in the world. But the evidence leaves little doubt that the true derivation is from the Maratha Mumbai, i.e. Mahima, ‘the Great Mother,’ or Devi. It thus happens that both the great British capitals of India, Bombay on the western cost, and Calcutta (q.v.) on the eastern, take their names from titles or desig nations of the same goddess, the wife of Siva, the lord of death and reproduction. “The history of Bombay begins with the cession of the island by the Portu guese to Charles IL in 1651, as part of the dowry of his queen, Catherine of Braganza. The aqjoining islands, however, of Salsette and Karartja still remained in the possession of the Portuguese. At this time the population was estimated at 10,000 souls, and the revenue at 75,000 xeraphins, or £6500. The king appears to have found his distant acquisition unprofitable, and in 1668 he transferred it to the East India Company on payment of an annual rent of £10 in gold.
The Company forthwith took steps for the strengthening of the fortifications and the encouragement of European settlers. Dr. Fryer, who visited the island in 1673, describes the population as numbering 60,000 – ‘a mixture of most of the neighbouring countries, mostly rogues and vagabonds.’ He has left an elaborate description of the place as it then existed. The fort or castle was armed with 120 pieces of ordnance; and the town, which lay at some distance, was a full mile in length. The greater number of the inhabitants, especially of the suburb of Mazagon, were engaged in fishing. The Portuguese still had several churches on the island. Between Parel and Ma.him, the sea had made a wide breach, drowning 40,000 acres of good land. But the most striking point in all the early accounts is the excessive unhealthiness of the place, which cannot be attributed solely to the mode of life of the residents. Fryer declares it as his opinion that out of every 500 Europeans who came to live on the island, not 100 left it. A current proverb affin:ned that two monsoons (or rainy seasons) were the age of a man. The most fatal disease, called by the Portuguese practitioners ‘the Chinese death,’ has been identified with cholera. The name arose, apparently, from a fanciful French or Latin etymology for the ‘mordexim’ or ‘mor-de-chin,’ the old west-coast term for cholera. Garcia d’Orta (1568) dis tinctly states that it was an Indian word, morxi. It is, in fact, a corruption of the Marathi and Konkani words modachi and modshi, meaning cholera. “In Fryer’s time (1673) the factory of Surat, established sixty years before the cession of Bombay, was the chief possession of the East India Company in western India. Bombay itself was exposed to the ill-will of the Portuguese on Salsette island, who were able to cut off all direct communication with the mainland. The most formidable enemy, however, was the Sidi or Abyssinian admiral of the Mughal fleet, whose descendants are represented at the present day by the Nawab of Janjira. In 1668, the Sfdi wintered at Mazagon, and laid siege to Bombay castle; and the town was only saved by a direct appeal to the Emperor. During this period also, the English in India were greatly hampered by domestic dissensions. In 1684, orders were received to transfer the chief seat of the Company’s trade from Surat to Bombay, and the transfer had been effected by 1687. In 1708, the two Companies privileged to trade with the East were fused into the United East India Company, and Bombay was chosen as the seat of one of the three independent Presidencies, each of which was ruled over by a Governor-in-Council. It was not till 1773 that Bombay was subjected to the control of the Governor-General. Henceforth the history of Bombay city merges into that of the Presidency. The only event that need be specially recorded is the first Maratha war (1774-1782), which resulted, after many military vicissitudes, in the permanent occupation by the English of all the Bombay group_of islands, and of the town of Thana on the mainland. The city had long been a refuge for the fugitives from Maratha oppression, who could there alone find safety for their industry and commerce; but after the downfall of the Peshwa in 1818, Bombay became the capital of a large territory, and from that year may be dated her pre-eminence in Western India. She was especially fortunate in her early governors. From 1819 to 1830, she was ruled successively by the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone and Sir John Malcolm. The first founded the present system of administration; the second, by opening the road through the Bhor-Ghat, broke down the natural barrier that separated the sea-coast from the table-land of the Deccan. The next stage in the course of onward prosperity was reached when Bombay was brought into direct com munication with Europe through the energy and exertions of Lieutenant Waghorn, the pioneer of the Overland Route. In the early years of the present century, express couriers or adventurous travellers used sometimes to make their way to or from India across the isthmus of Suez, or occasionally even through Persia. A monthly mail service was commenced by way of Egypt in 1838, and the contract was first taken up by the Peninsular and Oriental Company in 1855. Bombay is now recognised as the one port of arrival and departure for all the English mails, and also for the troopships of the Indian army. But the city could not have attained this position, if the means of com munication on the landward side had not received a corresponding development. In 1850, the first sod was turned of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, and three years afterwards the line was opened as far as Thana, the first railway in the country. By 1863, the railway had been led up the formidable Bhor-Ghat to Poona, by a triumph of engineering skill. In 1870, through communication was established with Calcutta, in 1871 with Madras. The city has a successful tramway system. There is now a prospect of more direct railway communication being established, via Nagpur in the Central Provinces, with Calcutta. “But it is not only as the capital of a Presidency, or as the central point of arrival and departure for Indian travellers, that Bombay has achieved its highest reputation. It is best known as the great cotton market of Western and Central India, to which the manufacturers of Lancashire turned when the American war cut off their supplies. Even in the last century the East India Company was accustomed to export raw cotton as part of its investment, both to the United Kingdom and to China. This trade continued during the early years of the present century, but it was marked by extreme vicissitudes in quantity and price, the demand being entirely determined by the out-turn of the American crop.
The war between the Northern and Southern States was declared in 1861, and the merchants and shippers of Bombay promptly took advantage of their opportunity. The exports of cotton rapidly augmented under the stimulus of high prices, until in 1864-65, the last year of the war, they reached a total value of 30 millions sterling, or nearly ten-fold the average of ten years before. Large fortunes were acquired by successful ventures, and the wild spirit of speculation thus engendered spread through all classes of the community. The scenes of the South Sea Bubble were revived. No joint-stock project seemed too absurd to find subscribers. Banks, financial associations, and land companies, each with millions of nominal capital, were started every month, and their shares were immediately run up to fabulous premiums. The crash came in the spring of 1865, when the news was received of the termination of the American war. A panic ensued which baffles description, and the entire edifice of stock exchange speculation came toppling down like a house of cards. Merchants and private individuals were ruined by hundreds, and the quasi-official Bank of Bombay collapsed along with the rest. But despite this sudden flood of disaster, honest trade soon revived on a stable basis; and the city of Bombay at the present day, in its buildings, its docks, and its land reclamations, stands as a monument of the grand schemes of public usefulness which were started during these four years of unhealthy excitement.”
The history of Bombay is sketched with varying details in P. B. M. Malabari, Bombay in the Making, London, 191 O; W.R. S. Sharpe, The Port ofB ombay, Bombay, n.d.; S. T. Sheppard, Bombay, Bombay, 1932; M. D. David, History of Bombay, 1661-1708, Bombay, 1973; John Burneli, Bombay in the Days of Queen Anne, London, 1933; B. R. Banaji, Bombay and the Sidis, Bombay, 1932; E. C. Cox, A Short History of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1887; J. G. de Cunha, The Origin of Bombay, Bombay, 1900; James Douglas, A Book of Bombay, Bombay, 1893; S. M.
Edwardes, The Rise of Bombay, Bombay, 1902; G. W. Forrest, Cities of India, Westminster, 1903; J. H. Gense, How Bombay was Ceded, Bombay, n.d.; Govern ment of Bombay, Bombay Gazetteer; 1893-94, 3 parts, Bombay, 1894, Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Bombay, Vols 1 and 2, 1909, Vol. 3, 1910, Statistical Atlas of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 2nd edn, 1906 (edited by H. S. Lawrence), and its 3rd edn, 1925 ( edited and corrected by H. H. Mann); B. Arunachalam, “Bombay City: Stages of Development”, Bombay Geographical Magazine, Vol. 3 (1935); C. B. Joshi, “The Historical Geography of the Island of Bombay”, ibid., volume 1956; T. K Tope, “Transfer of Bombay from the Portuguese to the British Hands”, ibid., Vol. 1 (1953);John Cadell, “The Acquisition and Rise of Bombay”,Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, volume 1958; and F. B. Tyabji, “Social Life in 1804 and 1929 amongst [the] Muslims in Bombay”,journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 6 (1930), pp. 286-300.