Gopal Krishna Gokhale made certain allegations against British troops carrying out anti-plague operations in Poona and he later apologised to the Governor of Bombay when he found he could not substantiate his charges. THE HINDU: “We hope we will be pardoned if we tell him (Governor) that no sensible person will change his opinion for all that His Excellency has said in the Council. The Professor of Poona (Gokhale) has no doubt been smashed; but some facts have survived that misfortune and will live till an impartial public enquiry disproves them. Thousands of people in India and England will continue in the conviction that Lord Sandhurst was guilty of a serious blunder in employing British soldiers in a business in regard to which the most experienced and cautious civilians are apt to blunder seriously”.
AUGUST 6, 1897
Lord Sandhurst’s speech
POOR PROFESSOR GOKHALE IS DISCREDITED AND ALMOST crushed for the present. Our friends of the Anglo-Indian press call him names, make fun of him, and heap abuse upon him. It is a strange fatality that he of all men should be the cause of a great blow to the National Party. A more sincere, well-meaning and loyal Indian there does not exist. A young man of great talent and character, he would make his mark in any walk of life and if he were worldly-minded, would make as large a fortune as any other educated man. But disdaining mere money and pleasure, he has devoted himself to the cause of his country’s advancement. That such a man should now stand before the world humiliated and that his error should be the cause of our enemies’ triumph can be understood only as the misfortune of the country. Lord Sandhurst has accepted his apology, but has not failed to remark that though he had made a prompt and full apology, the mischief he has done in a far-off land will remain. No doubt it will, but the mischief will undoubtedly affect the cause which Mr. Gokhale represents more than the official authorities of Bombay. His Excellency’s position is peculiarly strong. Having been appointed as Governor of Bombay, by a Radical Government he has the support of the present Opposition in the House of Commons; and the Tory Secretary of State, being partly responsible for the conduct of the government in India, feels bound to support him through thick and thin. Thus His Excellency is assured of complete support from both sides in Parliament. In India, the whole Anglo-Indian community has rallied round him with enthusiastic support and he is its hero for the moment. In fact, it is the policy of the Anglo-Indian press – a policy of repression – which it has urged during the last twenty years, that Lord Sandhurst is carrying out. In his speech in the Legislative Council at Poona, he assumed naturally a high tone, a tone of courageous selfvindication and injured innocence. He took upon himself the whole responsibility for the policy of the plague operations, he praised the officials and praised soldiers, a great deal exceeding in his praise the bounds of decency, “he was proud to be the head of men who had grappled with famine and suppressed such a plague”. He reiterated his contradictions of the allegations against the Plague Committee. All this is what as the head of the Executive Government with traditions of despotism and secrecy, His Excellency was expected to do. But we hope we will be pardoned if we tell him that no sensible person will change his opinion for all that His Excellency has said in the Council. The Professor of Poona has no doubt been smashed; but some facts have survived that misfortune and will live till an impartial public enquiry disproves them. Thousands of people in India and England will continue in the conviction that Lord Sandhurst was guilty of a serious blunder in employing British soldiers in a business in regard to which the most experienced and cautious civilians are apt to blunder seriously. Our morning contemporary of the Madras Times frankly says that he is “still altogether disinclined to admit that British soldiers were well employed as plague hunters in an Indian city.” “No one who had the smallest sympathy for the feelings of the people or any intelligent conception of their ways,” our contemporary adds, “would have dreamed of setting soldiers to such work, and the intense opposition that the procedure raised is in itself the strongest proof of the great mistake that was made.” This will be the opinion of many people, notwithstanding Lord Sandhurst’s vehement contradictions and praises. The extravagance of his praise of the soldiers and of everybody connected with this muddle will defeat its object and will foster an impression that there must be something wrong at the bottom if such vehement praise was thought necessary. If Lord Sandhurst believes that the information he received from his officials regarding the signatures to the petitions is true, then he must be a very simpleminded gentleman. Does he believe that after the reign of terror established in Poona, in the face of arrests and deportations and the practically irresponsible power of the police any man caring for his liberty or peace of mind will acknowledge his signature to a petition that has caused so much trouble? Why was not a similar inquiry held when the petition was first forwarded to the authorities? At the present moment, when the public mind has been frightened by the Government’s proceeding and nobody is sure of what will happen to him the next moment, every piece of information obtained from the people is absolutely worthless. It is said that only 144 out of the 721 names attached to the petition could be found. That even so many were found is wonderful. Discretion is the better part of valour, and the Poona signatories are not fools to place themselves in the hands of the Police for such favours as they may condescend to show to them. In fact, no enquiry made in the present state of the town, into matters concerning the plague operations, can be worth anything. It is evident that Lord Sandhurst is not in a mood to take the people into his confidence. To the question that was asked in the Legislative Council as to the number of petitions addressed to the Plague Committee, who forwarded them and how they were disposed of, Lord Sandhurst made answer that no good purpose would be served by supplying such information. We entirely differ from His Excellency. We think the information asked for will serve a very good purpose by showing what feeling the operations of the Committee produced in the minds of the public. We are glad that His Excellency will not allow the occurrences of the past few days to alter his feelings towards the people of India – a feeling which we trust will be one of sympathy and love. But will it not be worth His Excellency’s while to inquire why a people so deserving of sympathy and love become disaffected and disloyal the moment they get a smattering of English? The education given in our schools must be most mischievous indeed to convert a contented and loyal people into mischievous seditionmongers. And then the mystery is enhanced by the fact that it is Englishmen that give instruction in the best colleges in the country. Has Lord Sandhurst any means of knowing what impression his recent measures have produced on the people towards whom he assures us he will continue to cherish the same feeling of love with which he first came to Bombay? It is his ignorance that is turned to account by clever designers against the advancement of the people.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I