“He (Montagu) was genuinely attached to India and inside the Cabinet he so stoutly championed her cause that he lost grace with the coalitionists and this championship ultimately cost him his office… As his principles solidified into ‘schemes’ and the schemes into fenactments’ they were seen to have been cast in progressively less attractive moulds. But Mr. Montagu, with all that was a great and undoubted friend of India. His advocacy secured for a time for India a status superior to that of a dependency. He was instrumental in admitting Indians into the inner councils of the Empire and if his efforts lacked solidity and permanency it must be conceded that he is not wholly to blame”.
NOVEMBER 17, 1924
The late Mr. E.S. Montagu
THE NEWS OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF MR. E. S. MONTAGU, FOR close on six eventful years the Secretary of State for India, will be received with the deepest regret throughout the country. The country was not in the least prepared for it. We know that since his return from the British financial mission to Brazil some months back he was not doing well and that, on account of illness, he was obliged to cancel a visit to South Africa which he had planned. These facts were, however, hardly such as to lead us to infer that his condition was grave. The first intimation that his illness had developed dangerous symptoms was conveyed to us in the message which we published on Saturday. That message was followed yesterday with the announcement that a career which showed such brilliant promise but two years back had abruptly come to a close on the morning of the 15th instant. For, reckoning by age and ability and character, Mr. Montagu might have lived many more years and, indeed, if Mr. Asquith’s hopes of Liberalism be not an idle dream, have risen to the highest rank of responsibility in the Empire. The brief sketch of his career, which we publish elsewhere, will show how rapidly he rose in the ranks of his party and in reputation. Mr. Asquith, as whose Private Secretary Mr. Montagu served in the beginning of his career, early marked him out as a man of promise. And before he completed 31 years, Mr. Montagu had been appointed Under-Secretary of State for India under that exacting scholar-statesman, Lord Morley. This office Mr. Montagu filled with noteworthy distinction. He had an onerous task: for, his chief being a peer and thus obliged to sit in the Upper House, the duty of defending his policy in the Commons fell to Mr. Montagu. Mr. Montagu made the most of his opportunity and so satisfactory had been his work that when the Secretary’s place fell vacant on the next occasion by the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain following the Mesopotamia Report, the post was offered to Mr. Montagu. From his acceptance of the office in 1917 to the date of his resignation, Mr. Montagu had a most strenuous time of it. He had earlier fitted himself for the post, not only by the opportunities he had at the India Office as Under-Secretary, but also subsequently in the short interval while he was out of office. His now famous criticism of the Indian system of government in his speech on the Mesopotamia Report showed that he had put his experience in India – he visited this country while he was Under-Secretary as well as later as Secretary – and his knowledge about India to good purpose. He had conceived an Indian policy of his own and was only waiting for an opportunity to put it into effect. His opportunity came though unfortunately as later events proved it did not enable him to satisfy India. He enunciated excellent principles of constitutional reform, most of them unexceptionable and even beautiful while they remained in the realm of theories, and, judging by his speeches alone, there was perhaps no greater champion of constitutional freedom for India than he. He condemned the bureaucratic system of Government; he showed utter contempt for what he called “government by dispatch”, he waxed enthusiastic over his substitute therefor, namely, “government by vote”. He had a soft comer for the civil service of whose interests he regarded himself as the sole protector so much so that when on one occasion Sir C. Oman claimed to represent the Services, he rose to his feet and protested that he, as the Secretary of State, was their sole protector. But he wanted the civil servant to keep to his place of advising “how the secretariat can carry out most efficiently the orders and wishes of its political superiors.” Mr. Montagu had a grand conception of the Empire to which he gave expression more than once. He envisaged its future as that of a commonwealth of democratic, self-governing dominions. He was genuinely attached to India and inside the Cabinet he so stoutly championed her cause that he lost grace with the Coalitionists and this championship ultimately cost him his office. Of the lasting quality of his achievements we need say little. As his principles solidified into “schemes” and the schemes into “enactments”, they were seen to have been cast in progressively less attractive moulds. But Mr. Montagu, with all that, was a great and undoubted friend of India. His advocacy secured for a time for India a status superior to that of a mere dependency. He was instrumental in admitting Indians into the inner councils of the Empire and, if his efforts lacked solidity and permanency, it must be conceded that he is not wholly to blame. As we said on the occasion of his resignation with all Mr. Montagu’s failings – they were numerous and we have been unsparing in our criticism of his views and methods – we cannot withhold from him our admiration for his undeniable love of India, his tireless devotion to duty, his great tenacity of purpose and his uncommon parliamentary abilities. If he discerned the attainment of India’s great destiny at too great a distance to be appreciated by those of us who are able to see things more clearly as well as near at hand, he at least distinguished himself from the rest of his colleagues by being a man of vision.” It was a tribute to his services for India that, when he was unjustly hounded out of his office by the rising tide of reactionarism in Mr. Lloyd George’s disreputable Coalition, the legislatures of India, from the Assembly downwards, placed on record their sense of gratitude to him. There have been many “friends of India” whose claim to that title rests on far less substantial foundations than Mr. Montagu’s and India, always grateful to those who try to serve her, will cherish the memory of one who had so much vision and whose devotion to her interests was so entirely wholehearted.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I