Is it a wild inference to draw from these two significant events
that these people did not want a change in the method of Government
in this country, because they know the present system of Government
is the most profitable to them? If any one draws that inference, is
he to be characterised as a violent speaker? I say the dates and the
speeches speak for themselves. It is idle to say afterwards we were
not against changes, we wanted our interest to be safeguarded. The
fact is they did not want a change and why should they? If I had been
an Anglo-Indian merchant, I should not have wanted a change. They say
that they have sunk capital in this country. I do not know the exact
extent of that capital. My impression is--I speak from my impression
and I am subject to correction, but I think I am right--that for
whatever capital they invested, they have taken out a great deal more
in the shape of profits. But granting that they have sunk capital in
this country, what right does it give them to dictate to the people of
this country that the method of this particular Government is not to
be changed. British capital has been invested in America, France and
Germany. Does any British Merchant ever dream that they have got the
right to dictate to the American, French, or German Government about
the method of their particular Government? Why is it that the sinking
of capital should have such a different effect on the soil of this
country? The reason is perfectly clear. In America, they would not
stand such nonsense, in France they will be asked to keep quiet. But it
is only in this country that these merchants who have sunk capital--I
am assuming that they have and that it still remains unrealised--can
put forward the claim that the Government of this country should be
run in their interest and not in the interest of the people of India.
They see the absurdity of their position and because they see the utter
absurdity of this illogical and extravagant claim which they make in
furtherance of their self-interest they have to say that they are the
real representatives of India. They say: "We are speaking not only on
our behalf but on behalf of the teeming millions of this country. You
are professional agitators," I do not understand what they mean by
"professional agitators"--nobody pays me or Mr. Surendra Nath Banerjea
or any of my friends for making speeches. However, what they mean is
this: that the speakers belong to a particular profession (?) I happen
to belong to law. Many of my friends who have to make speeches belong
to the medical profession or some other profession. But these speakers
of the European Association also belong to some profession or trade.
Sir Archy Birkmyre has also his trade to ply, the other merchants I
suppose make their profits, Mr. Jones of the "Statesman" gets his
wages--and even the fire-eater of the Lamartinaire College must draw
his pay. Mr. Pugh I do not think forgets to send in his bills of costs.
That is not what they mean. They have got to find out some ground of
abuse. Therefore they say "Oh those professional agitators, these
wicked agitators, do not listen to them for one single moment. The
teeming millions of this country do not want them." No, gentlemen, our
countrymen do not want us. They want Mr. Jones of the "Statesman" and
the other celebrities who exhibited their eloquence at that meeting!
These worthies next proceed to demonstrate the utter absurdity of any
idea of self-government for us.