"Of the loyalty and devotion of the fighting races of the Punjab,
Sir Michael Odwyer has spoken in terms which everyone of us in this
room will cordially endorse. But the spirit of the Punjab has not
been manifested in other provinces." Gentlemen, so far as Bengal is
concerned--and this speaker was speaking amidst Bengalees, so far as
Bengal is concerned, I say, for anybody to charge that Bengal has not
contributed to the war by money or by manpower is a libel on the whole
Bengalee race. I say it is adding insult to injury. When did you allow
the Bengalees to wear arms? When was it for the first time that you
called upon them to wear arms and to go and fight our enemy? It was
only the other day. Do you expect, does any reasonable man who wants
to put forward reasonable argument expect that a whole people who have
suddenly been called upon to take arms and march against an enemy,
that they will at once, as if by a magic, turn out a very large army?
Whose is the fault? Is it the fault of Bengal that to-day you do not
find thousands and thousands, lacs and lacs of Bengalees fighting for
the empire? Whose is the fault? You deprive them of their arms, you
tell them that they are enemies (shame, shame), you declare to the
world that they were never fit for military service and when suddenly
you call upon them to take arms and fight, can anybody say that Bengal
has not responded to the call sincerely, earnestly and if I may say,
valiantly? I say a speech of this description is adding insult to
injury. That is what these speakers say of the people of Bengal. Let me
now place before you one or two passages which show their attitude to
the government of this country when the government has resolved upon
doing justice to the people of this country.
"MEDDLING MUDDLERS"
I quote from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Ironside. It is rather a long
quotation but I am afraid that I must place this before you to bring
out the quality of Anglo-Indian agitation. I hope you will bear with
me. He says:--
"At any rate, we don't want any from the House of Commons, and I would
commend this remark to Mr. Montagu, for we distrust them root and
branch. At this distance we watch the unhealthy game which proceeds at
Westminster and to honest men it is enough to make one weep for one's
country; and I think, you will agree with me, gentlemen, that we have
none of it here. This is no time for meddling, least of all from a
representative of a Ministry who one and all by their words and deeds
brought the old country to the verge of internal ruin, vilified honest
men and patriots slithered into unprepared, and having made a mess of
everything have hung on to their self-elected posts like limpets until
a second time the destruction of the empire was nearly effected. We are
not taking the same risk here. Mr. Montagu, I believe, started in a
department created for the definite purpose of helping to win the war.
Had it been of any use, I presume, he would have stayed there but being
one of a party of meddling muddlers, he has found his way back to the
Indian Office."
This is language of moderation applied to the Secretary of State for
India who is entrusted by the British Parliament with the government of
this country. I can assure you gentlemen if anything half as violent
as that had been said by any one of us, this gentleman would have been
furious and would have exhibited his fury ten times more; and the
"Statesman" newspaper would have said that speakers who make use of
such language should be punished by the State so that their speeches
may not create disaffection. But when you call the Secretary of State a
meddling muddler, I suppose that is allowable. When you heap contempt
upon the whole of the British Parliament, I suppose it is allowable. If
only an Indian says that the bureaucratic Government has been found to
be wanting, it has failed in its duties, it has failed in its charge of
the administration of this country, it is such violent language that
the State must put down.