Date: 8 December 1915
Location: London
Speaker: Aga Khan III
Source: Speeches of Aga Khan III – K K Aziz
Full Text
A tribute to Sir Pherozeshah Mehta – his principles – attachment to the British connection for marching to Indian nationhood – his faith in English culture and civilization – his defence of Indian interests and representative institutions – extreme Indian attitudes of violent advocacy or constant flattery- influence of Liberalism on Mehta – ability to take criticism – services to Bombay-inspiring lesson for the Indian youth -local government-tribute to Gokhale and Buddrudin Tayyabji.
It was with pride and mournful satisfaction that I received the invitation to preside at this meeting to do honour to the memory of the greatest citizen of Bombay, my own native city; whose death, following so quickly upon that of his great younger friend and pupil, Mr. Gokhale, we so keenly deplore. It is true that Sir Pherozeshah Mehta had attained to three score years and ten an age, alas, far too seldom reached by Indian leaders- and that he had spent well nigh half a century in the devoted service of his country; but we could ill afford to lose him at a time when the great principles he so strenuously upheld need to be pursued, for the good of India and of the Empire at large, with more stedfast determination than perhaps ever before. In order to direct attention to those principles by which his valuable career was inspired and guided, I must refrain from dwelling, as I would like to do, upon the many attractive personal characteristics which were disclosed to me by one whom I had the honour of knowing ever since childhood, and with whom I was during the last few years closely united by political and personal friendship. .,.
At this hour of menace to British civilization and liberal insti tutions, it is fitting to speak first of all of this great patriot’s firm hold, amid all mutations, of the need for the maintenance of the British connection with our country as an essential condition of the march to Indian nationhood and ultimate self-government within the Empire. Very shortly after the outbreak of the war he presided at a great meeting of Bombay citizens which proclaimed to the world the devotion of India to the British cause in its day of fierce testing. With an eloquence natural to him, but never more earnest or convincing, he set the tone of an enthusiastic assembly which tendered to the King-Emperor the assurance that “treasuring the prerogative of British citizenship as their dearest possession, the citizens of Bombay are ready cheerfully to submit to all inevitable consequences of the state of war, firmly believing that Great Britain has justly drawn the sword in defence of inter national rights and obligations.” These were no empty assurances on the part of the chairman of the meeting. He was in hearty sympathy with, and by voice and example contributed to, the suspension of political controversy for which the Viceroy asked, in order that attention might be concentrated on the all important issue of the prosecution of the war to a successful issue.
This attitude of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta conformed to the prin ciples he applied throughout his public life. Amid the storm and stress of years of political activity, he never departed from the spirit of his confession of faith as President of the sixth session of the Indian National Congress at Calcutta in 1890. He then said that he had unbounded faith in the living and fertilizing principles of English culture and English civilization as applied to Indian problems. I can do no better than quote the words in which he declared his political faith in England, which I know was also the lifelong faith of Gokhale, and which is mine also: “When, in the inscrutable dispensation of Providence, India was assigned to the care of England, one can almost imagine that the choice was offered to her as to Israel of old: ‘Behold, I have placed before you a blessing and a curse: a blessing if ye will obey the commandments of the Lord your God: a curse if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God but go after other gods whom ye have not known.’ All the greatest forces of English life and society,~-moral, social, intellec tual, political, are, if slowly yet steadily and irresistibly, declaring themselves for the choice which will make the connection of England and India a blessing to themselves and to the whole world for countless generations.”
Time and experience served only to deepen and ,confirm these convictions; so that many years later, when the voice of the Extre mist was heard in the land, he reasserted his declaration of hearty acquiescence in British rule “as a dispensation so wonderful that it would be folly not to accept it as a declaration of God’s will.”
As hundreds of reported debates in the Provincial and Supreme Legislatures, in the Senate of the University of Bombay, and in the Corporation meetings attest, no one could fight more strenuously and powerfully in defence of Indian interests and representative institutions or in advocacy of developments on Western lines than Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. But no one realised more clearly that progress could be best promoted by co-oper ation with the Government whenever possible, and that mere destructive criticism was harmful. A strong barrier against destructive tendencies, he did great work for India in helping to form and guide a body of moderate opinion which encouraged Lord Morley and Lord Minto to shape their great reform scheme on liberalizing lines.
It is ever so. The sacred cause of Indian progress invariably has been served best by those who have shared with Mehta and Gokhale the attitude of which I have spoken. The ideal of nation hood and the development of free institutions can only be retarded seriously by violent and intemperate advocacy on the one hand; or conversely a senseless and de basing demeanour of constant flattery of every official measure – a cringing attitude that makes superficial observers believe that Indians are incapable of anything except self-humiliation or violent vituper ation. It is to the irreconcilable spirit that we owe the Press Act and other measures of prevention and restriction with which Government have found it necessary to arm themselves. By sharp and searching contrast, the career of the great Indian we mourn teaches that the youth who ranges himself on the side of Extremism, under the influence of the ferment of Western ideas he has not assimilated, is doing the greatest disservice to his country, and is contributing to put back the clock of progress.
One influence which greatly contributed to the formation of Sir Pherozeshah’s character as a public man, and which has had a beneficient [sic] influence on India, is perhaps not as widely known as it ought to be. In his younger days in this country, he came very deeply under the influence of that sturdy, old fashioned Liberalism which some of my friends say has vanished from among you. I do not know whether it has or not – perhaps it has only been transformed – but I do know that for the remainder of his life Sir Pherozeshah maintained a deep and sincere reverence for the traditions of Gladstone and Bright.
That was the secret of much of his outlook on public affairs and the explanation of his invariable moderation and loyalty. I believe it was also the secret of his simple and powerful oratory. He never resented criticism however fierce. “He knew how to stand firm,” and I believe he even enjoyed it, like every good fighting man. He learned in this country the valuable lesson never to be restive under criticism.
But there is another and even more important lesson for Young India, so well represented at this meeting, to be gained from the principles which animated our far-sighted and courageous statesman. The lesson of the need for local patriotism is more important, because of more general application than the temp tation to Extremism or self-seeking flattery. Sir Pherozeshah will be remembered for generations to come as a devoted son of the city of his birth. He gave to “Bombay the Beautiful” his best thought, his most earnest effort, his most constant and untiring service. It was largely the great local influence he won in advoca ting municipal reform, in helping Lord Reay’s Government to shape the great measure of 1888 and in diligently serving as a member of the Corporation, that contributed to his importance in the wider political sphere. In this respect his career inevitably recalls that of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the illustrious father of the Secretary of State for India, who first came into fame as a singularly successful reformer of municipal government in Bir mingham. Not only did Sir Pherozeshah, like, the English statesman, remain faithful to the city where he won his spurs to the last day of his life; but when he found that service in the Imperial Legislature took much time and effort from civic affairs, he retired in favour of Mr. Gokhale, and contentedly went back to the nominally smaller stage of provincial and civic polity. If, as is generally acknowledged, Bombay has been more successful than any other Indian city in municipal administration, and this is partly due to the well-devised constitution Sir Pherozeshah assisted Lord Reay to shape, it is also largely due to his stedfast and noble example of devoted citizenship. His dominant power in the counsels of the Corporation was rarely challenged with any chance of success; but this remarkable ascenoency would not have been maintained for a generation and more by the mere exercise of his great debating powers and his talent for affairs. It rested on the solid foundation of love for the “Town and Island ” and determination in everything to seek its welfare and progre;s.
His “uncrowned kingship” was a status willingly conferred by the representative of the second city of the British Empire under the assurance, confirmed by long experience, that his power would be exercised at all times with a single eye to the public interest.
No more inspiriting example could be set for the emulation of Young India. Too often, I fear, Indian youths educated here return to the motherland filled with ambition to shine in the political firmament, to quickly figure in the legislature, to be known the country over as “leaders.” But as necessarily only a few can reach the top, a large number gradually lose all connec tion with public life, and devote themselves entirely to their personal and professional affairs. They wish to begin where the most successful men in public life gained footing after years of apprenticeship in local affairs or other apparently undistin guished service of the people. On the part of the disappointed m~ority, the opportunities that lie close at hand are despised and neglected. Hence much fine material for the advancement of India runs to waste, and progress in local self-government has been much less marked than would have been the case had it been more generally recognised that local patriotism and seemingly minor service are the seeds of larger opportunities, beside being in themselves worthy objects of ambition for pro moting communal good. This is constantly seen by those who look below the surface of English life with its manifold local and unpaid civic activities. The lesson is writ large in the life of Gokhale as well as that of Mehta, for we can never forget the long years of professional drudgery on merely nominal pay the former passed in the Fergusson College, nor the fact that he prized no later office or honour more than his helpful member ship of the Poona Municipality. It is by attention to local affairs, by the exercise of local patriotism and effort, in the constructive spirit shown by these two great sons of India, that our country will advance most assuredly and most steadfastly to the realization of her great destiny and that our dreams of progress under the British Crown within the Empire will best be realized.
Such are the lessons which the great and honoured career of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta is calculated to teach. If they are duly learned by India’s alert and eager young men, he will still do great things for our beloved country. He being dead will still speak by precept and example, and speak with eloquence and power. I can imagine nothing finer or better for a young Indian patriot than to take heart and carefully study the life-long prin ciples and practice of three men whom I consider three of India’s greatest and soundest sons – each an example and an inspiration to all his countrymen and to his own community as well – Mehta, Gokhale, and Buddrudin Tybejee (Loud applause).
Source: The Times of India, Bombay, 8 January 1916.
The meeting was held in London, and the report of its proceedings reached India rather late, “no uncommon thing nowadays when the mails are disorgan ised”, as the newspaper put it. “We give it nevertheless because of the interest in the occasion”, it added.
Mter the Aga Khan’s speech two main resolutions were passed. The press report continues: “The main resolution expressed keen sense of the loss suffered by India and her people, and high appreciation of Sir P. M. Mehta’s public services extending over half a century, ‘during which period, by his sagacious counsel, his unrivalled eloquence, his whole-hearted devotion to the promotion of the public weal, and his fearless advocacy of the rights of his countrymen, he contributed in a conspicuous degree to their political, educational and civic advancement.’ It was moved by Lord Harris, whose speech was somewhat lacking in conciseness, owing as he told us, to his having been asked to address the meeting only on entering the hall. He also admitted that he laboured under the disadvantage of being separated by from 20 to 25 years from personal contact with this great Bombay citizen. With more recent experience he could have spoken, he said, with greater accuracy, though certainly not with greater sympathy. But he could speak with accuracy from his recollection of Sir Phero zeshah’s political capacity, for while he was Governor probably his mental activities were at their keenest and highest. ‘I daresay,’ added Lord Harris, to the amusement of his audience, ‘that if he had been asked before he passed away which of the Governors of Bombay gave him most trouble he would have said it was me. We were very keen opponents on certain questions, particularly questions in which the Municipal Corporation was largely interested, such ques tions as education and police charges. I am glad to say this – that while he was a most determined fighter, very keen in pressing his arguments, and very resolute in adhering to the principles which he believed to be right, he was as fair a fighter as I have ever come across, either in India or in England. I should be very sorry to say at this distance of time that in these controversies I was invariably right, and he was invariably wrong. I am certain of this-that at that time I knew I was right. (A laugh). But looking back to those struggles in the softer lights lent by distance, at a maturer age perhaps with less vivid desire to succeed in controversy, I acknowledge that Sir Pherozeshah’s arguments were often unquestionably sound, and possibly were sometimes right.’ “Mr. Abbas Ali Baig seconded the resolution. “Mter brief speeches from Mr.]. M. Parikh, and Dr. John Pollen, Sir Krishna Gupta moved a resolution of sympathy with Lady Mehta and the family. This was seconded by Mr. T. ]. Bennett, who said that Sir Pherozeshah had been spoken of repeatedly as first and foremost a great Bombay citizen. But what did that mean? Bombay had a population almost equal to that of the newest of the Dominions – New Zealand – and therefore anyone who devoted his life mainly to the service of such a city was something more than a local politician.
Sir Pherozeshah had his critics, no doubt – but they recognised the high tone of his public life, the high principles for which he fought, and his keen patri otism. Mr. Bennett went on to say that in his recollection of Sir Pherozeshah the first things which stood out were his services to the city-under the old Municipal Act. Along with Naoroji Furdonjee, Shapmjee Bengalee, Dosabhoy Framjee, and other great and good citizens of those times, he tried to get as much music as he possibly could out of that somewhat inadequate instrument.
And when the instrument was replaced by the Act of 1888, in the shaping of which he had fought hard to secure the fullest possible measure of local self government for Bombay, he was keen and alert in standing up for the full establishment and preservation of those liberties. People called him a dictator – but to call a man names did not carry us very far. What happened was that, thoroughly understanding the Act, he wanted to make it efficient, and to make the whole administration of the Municipality as efficient as possible. At that time many men who were working the new Act needed a leader, a teacher, a guide. Successive Municipal Commissioners had borne testimony to his most useful service in this respect. He knew of one who acknowledged that he could not have run the Corporation satisfactorily without the assistance of Sir P. M.
Mehta. Mr. Bennett closed his speech with one of the most striking things said at the meeting: ‘On larger public questions, Sir Pherozeshah took a very cau tious view. Whatever his critics may say of him, there is this fact – that for nearly 50 years he had a prominent part in the municipal and political life of Bombay.
For a considerable part of that time he was a foremost political leader and teacher. The opinion of Bombay, as largely led and moulded by him, is unques tionably the sanest, the most reasonable, and the most moderate opinion of any part of India.’ “