In the city of Bombay, in the second half of the 19th century, the famous Triumvirate, namely Phirozeshah Mehta, K. T. Telang and Badruddin Tyabji, gave a fillip to liberal, secular, moderate nationalism.
Mehta was a Parsi western educated lawyer and prominent
political leader of the city of Bombay. He was the secretary fo Bombay branch
of the East India Association (EIA), member of the Bombay Association, the
Western India Association and a powerful leader of the moderate faction of the
Indian National Congress. During 1884-85 he was the chairman of Bombay Municipal
Corporation. For Mehta, secretaryship of EIA was an important steppingstone to
leadership and fame. By the close of the century he had emerged, along with
Gopal Krishna Gokhale as an acknowledged political leader of the country. Mehta
and K. T. Telang concentrated their activities from 1870s onwards in building
up their power base, within the decade they made a successful bid to capture
the leadership of the city.
P. M. was a liberal. He was in favor of reform, especially
of municipal affairs of Bombay. Although, in 1874, he was a supporter of the
(corrupt) Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, Arthur T. Crawford, he struggled
for popularly elected body for the Bombay Municipality. P. M. supported the
campaign for a complete reform of the electoral system. In his view, the
continued appointment of the Justice of Peace for life by the government was
bad. Hence, he demanded a popular and responsible corporation, elected by the
‘ratepayers’ themselves.
At a public meeting held in April 1883, Mehta, Tyabji,
Telang, Mandlik and Dadabhai Naoroji affirmed that the educated intelligentsia
should participate fully in the administration not only of their city but of
India as well. They urged the English educated Indians to unite and present a
united front to their rivals for prestige and power i.e., the Anglo-indians.
They told them to be prepared for sacrifice and struggle until they had won a
status of equality with the ruling race. But as P. H. Mody writes, Mehta, like
Naoroji, had a sincere faith in the sense of justice and fair play of the
British.
P. M. rendered unforgettable service to the systematic organization
of the municipal corporation as a member and mayor. According to G. K. Gokhale,
by pacing his outstanding abilities freely at the disposal of the city for
nearly 50 years, Mehta attained a position ‘unrivaled predominance’ in the
corporation and in the country’s affairs.
P.M. was liberal and moderate in politics. He always was
fair and sought justice in the politics of the British in India. His grasp of
things and vigour of his intellect and his fearless independence together
dignity and judgment won him a prominent place in the public life of Bombay. In
the legislative council of Bombay, he showed himself to be a match for the
ablest of his Anglo-Indian opponents.
M. highlighted in the council debated the indifference of
the civil servants to the grievances of the Indian people and public opinion.
As president of the Indian National Congress, he urged the adoption of direct
election and enlargement of the functions of Legislative Councils so that the
people were not left at the mercy of an indifferent officialdom.
P.M. was a champion of the Free Press. Therefore, he
severely criticized the vernacular press Act of 1878 which imposed severe
limitations on the freedom of the press. He denounced this autocratic measure
of Lord Lytton as a ‘narrow minded policy of autocratic imperialism’. He went
to the extent of opposing the proposal of giving a public address and erecting
a memorial to Sir Richard Temple, the retiring Governor of Bombay Presidency.
He had faith in the capacity of the Indians to manage
representative institutions. He also believed that ‘the time was past when
strong popular opinion on any subject could be successfully resisted by
Government for any length of time’. As an active member of the Bombay Branch of
the East Indian Association, Bombay Association, Western India Assciation and
founder member of the Bombay Presidency Association, Mehta strove through resolutions,
memorials and public meetings to focus the general feeling of the community on
matters of common interest as well as to attract the governments attention
towards grievances of the people.
P. M. was one of the founded members of the Indian National
Congress and soon came to be recognized as one of its pillars. A moderate and
constitutionalist, Mehta was elected President of the Congress in 1890. He put
the case of the Congress in a nutshell when he said that it had survived the
ridicule, abuse, misrepresentation and charges of sedition and disloyalty.
According to Mehta, ‘It is because the masses are still
unable to articulate definite political demands that the functions and duty
devolve upon their educated and enlightened compatriots to feel, to understand
and to interpret their grievances and requirements and to suggest and indicate
how these can best be redressed and met’.
By 1980, P. M.’s position in the political life of
Maharashtra and at the All India level had become almost unassailable. He was
President of the Congress in 1890, a member of the Bombay Legislative Council
from 1887 to 1893, in 1893, he was elected to the viceroy’s Legislative
Council. His position within the Bombay Presidency Association was equally
strong. He had close personal contacts with J. N. Tata and D. M. Petit, the leading
capitalists of Bombay. Thus, he came to dominate the city of Bombay and was
hailed as the ‘Lion of Bombay’.
P. M. was a staunch nationalist. He believed that despite
differences India was acquiring a general will as a political community which
gave it the status of a nation, a consciousness of political unity. This spirit
was evident, he believed, in the Congress. The members of the Congress ‘met
together as men on the common basis of nationality influenced for weal of woes
by the system of administration urged by like impulses to secure the rights and
be relieved of like burdens…’ he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment