(This Chapter is contributed by the Scholar Collaborators as under:— (i) Ancient Period — Dr. V. V. Mirashi, formerly in Nagpur University, (ii) Mediaeval Period to British Period (pp.  150-275)—Dr. B. G. Kunte, former Executive Editor and Secretary, Gazetteers Department, (iii) Modern Period  (1840-1947) —Shri K. K.  Chaudhari, Executive Editor and Secretary, Gazetteers Department.)


FROM VERY EARLY TIMES THE MODERN DISTRICT OF BOMBAY had been included in the Vishaya (territorial division) of Shatshashti (modern Sashti) comprised in the modern Thane district. Its ancient history is almost identical with the history of the Thane district. The latter formed a part of Konkan. This country was divided into two parts (1) North Konkan also called Aparanta (the western end), later known as Puri-Konkan after its capital Puri, and (2) South Konkan also called Sapta-Konkan (or the country of seven Konkans). The former comprised the districts of Thane and Raigad and the latter, that of Ratnagiri and Sindhu-durg. This country must have originally been inhabited by the same races as the other parts of Maharashtra, though in the absence of archaeological excavations we have no definite evidence on this point. On account of its numerous ports and creeks this country must have played an important part in the formation of Maharashtra culture by letting in foreign influences in the course of trade and commerce. It is also surmised that the chalcolithic culture of Maharashtra was greatly transformed by the foreign immigrants who entered South India through the ports and creeks of Konkan. They introduced the megalithic culture of Maharashtra. Accord­ing to Haimandorf these megalithic builders were a people of the Medi­terranean stock, who probably came to the western coast by sea, entered South India in about 500 B.C. and spread northward, subduing the earlier neolithic and michrolithic people who were in a semi-nomadic, food-gathering stage of culture. Further, since the distribution of South Indian megalithics was almost conterminous with that of the Dravidian languages, it is this people who should have introduced the Dravidian language (or languages) in the region. And it is their kings the Cholas, the Cheras and the Pandyas, to whom the Ashokan edicts were addressed. Thus the ancient Tamil should go back to about 500 B.C. (H. D. Sankalia, Indian Archaeology Today, p. 96.)

These speculations, though interesting, have not yet been accepted by scholars. Though the Konkan country must have come into contact with the near and far West and had commercial dealings with several western countries such as Iran, Iraq, Africa and Egypt, the chalcolithic culture of Konkan, like that of Maharashtra, may have been affected by the advent of the Aryans of North India rather than by the immigrants from the west.

Indian mythological legends also support this view. It is said that the country of Konkan was rescued from the western sea by Parashurama, who is regarded as an incarnation of the Aryan god Vishnu. After killing Kartavirya, who had murdered his father Jamadagni, Parashurama exterminated the Kshatriyas twenty-one times and conquered the whole earth. He then made a gift of the whole country to the Brahmana Kashyapa. Then for his own residence he made the western ocean recede from the Sahyadri range and formed the country of Shurparaka (modern Sopara in the Thane district), extending 400 yojanas in length. He made a settlement of Brahmanas there and then went to the Mahendra mountain on the eastern coast for practising penance. The hill from which Parashurama is said to have discharged his arrow to make the western ocean retreat is situated near Chiplun on the western coast. The region, known as Parashurama-kshetra, contains a holy temple of Parashurama, which is famous in Konkan and is constantly visited by pilgrims. The inscriptions of the Shilaharas of North Konkan have made an addition to this legend. They say that Shilara, the progenitor of the Shilaharas rescued the ocean from the hardships caused by the arrow of Parashurama. He then founded a family which later became famous as the Shilaharas.

The earliest historical reference to Aparanta occurs in the Edicts of Ashoka, which says that Buddhism was introduced into Konkan during the reign of Ashoka. This is also indicated by a large number of Buddhist caves which were soon excavated for the residence and worship of the Buddhist monks at a number of places along the western coast. There are five groups of caves in the small island of Sashti viz., at Kanheri, Kondivte, Jogeshvari, Kondane and Chandansar of which the caves at Kanheri are specially noteworthy. The excavations include arrangements such as were required for a resident community. There are here in close proximity several viharas or monasteries for associations of devotees, a great number of solitary cells for hermits with halls for lectures and meetings and chaityas or temples with relic shrines not out of proportion in number or size to the dwelling places. Outside the caves are reservoirs for water, a separate one for each cell, and couches or benches for the monks to recline on, carved out of the rock like everything else.

From the way in which Aparanta is mentioned in Ashoka's edicts it is inferred that the rulers of that country, who were the Mahabhojas and Maharathis, enjoyed a sort of semi-independence, though, like several other provinces, they acknowledged his suzerainty. After the death of Ashoka, they seem to have declared their independence. In course of time one of these rulers, Satavahana by name, rose to power and established his supremacy over other local chiefs. He might have received support from some of the Maharathis with whom he formed matrimonial alliances. The family descended from him is called Satavahana. Satavahana is not mentioned in the Puranas, probably because his kingdom was small. He had his capital at Pratishthana, modern Paithan in the Aurangabad district. The Puranas mention several later members of this family whom they call Andhra; but that it originally belonged to Western Maharashtra is proved by its earliest inscriptions which have been discovered at Naneghat near Junnar and near Nasik. The Puranas call it Andhra because they were ruling in Andhra when the Puranic account of the dynasty was compiled in the third century A.D.

The first king of this dynasty who is mentioned in the Puranas is Simuka (Shrimukha). His kingdom comprised at least the Pune, Nasik, Ahmadnagar and Aurangabad districts. When he ended his rule, his son, Satakarni was a minor and so his brother Krishna ascended the throne. Krishna in his Nasik inscription is described as belonging to the Satavahana family. This indicates that he was not a son of Satavahana, but a grandson or some lower descendant.

The next ruler of the family was Satakarni I. He seems to have extended his rule over the whole of the Deccan and even carried his arms north of the Narmada. Satakarni performed the Rajasuya and Ashvamedha sacrifices (the latter twice), which probably commemorated his important victories or supremacy in the Deccan and had political significance. Satakarni left behind two sons : Vedishri and Shaktishri. The Naneghat inscription describes Vedishri as a very brave king who was a unique warrior on earth and was the lord of Dakshinapatha.

Vedishri was followed by a number of princes who are named in the Puranas, but about whom they furnish little information except their reign-periods, which also vary in different Puranas and even in the manuscripts of the same Puranas. But one name among them is note­worthy. It is that of king Hala, the reputed author of the Gathasaptashati, a unique collection of seven hundred Prakrit verses, descriptive of the social, religious and economic life of the period. Hala flourished in the first century A.D. (Mirashi, Studies in Indology, Vol. I (Second Edition), p. 88f)

Some years after Hala's reign Maharashtra and Konkan were conquered by the Shaka Kshatrapa Nahapana, who was probably appointed by the contemporary Kushana Emperor to rule over Konkan, Pune, Nasik and some other districts of Maharashtra as well as some portion of Central  India as far north as Ajmer. Several inscriptions of his son-in-law Ushavadata (Sanskrit, Rishabhadatta) have been incised in the Pajidulena caves near Nasik. These records in the Nasik caves described the conquests and charities of Ushavadata, who was evidently governing North Maharashtra on behalf of his father-in-law. These inscriptions range in dates from the year 41 to 46, which are usually referred to the Shaka era. Nahapana, therefore, flourished in the first quarter of the second century A.D.

The Satavahanas had thus to leave Western Maharashtra and Vidarbha in this period. They seem to have withdrawn to their capital Pratishthana, where they continued to abide, waiting for a suitable opportunity to oust the Shaka invaders.

Later, Gautamiputra Satakarni retrieved the fortune of the family. He made a daring dash into Vidarbha and occupied Benakata or the Wainganga district. Thereafter, he invaded Western Maharashtra and defeated Nahapana somewhere in the Nasik district. The following provinces are specifically mentioned as situated in his dominion : Rishika (Khandesh), Ashmaka (Ahmadnagar and Bid districts), Akara and Avanti (eastern and western Malwa), Suratha (Kathiawad) and Aparanta (Konkan).

Gautamiputra Satakarni seems to have defeated Nahapana soon after Shaka 46 (A.D. 124), the last known year of the latter. Thereafter he called back Nahapana's silver coins and restruck them.

Gautamiputra Satakarni was succeeded by his son Vashishthiputra Pulumavi, who also ruled over a large kingdom, but seems to have lost some northern provinces such as Akaravanti (Malwa) and Saurashtra (Kathiawad) and also Aparanta (North Konkan) to Rudradaman of the house of Chashtana. He was succeeded by his brother Vashishthiputra Satakarni. An inscription of a minister of his queen recording the gift of a cistern near a cave at Kanheri has been discovered, which shows that he had regained possession of North Konkan. Among his successors the most noteworthy was Yajnashri Satakarni, whose inscriptions and coins have been found over a large area. They show that he ruled over a large kingdom extending from Konkan in the west to Andhradesha in the east. He issued some ship-type lead coins indicative of his rule over the maritime province of the Coromandel coast. (Mirashi, Studies in Indology, Vol. Ill, p. 17f)

An inscription of Yajna Satakarni dated in the sixteenth regnal year incised in the Chaitya cave at Kanheri records the king's gift of a sum of money to the monks at Krishnagiri (Kanheri) to be put out at interest and also of a field in the village of Mangalasthana (modern Magathan in the Thane district).

Some of the successors of Yajnashri mentioned in the Puranas are known only from coins discovered at Tarhala in the Akola district of Vidarbha. Thus, the coins of Vijaya Satakarni and Pulumavi IV have been found in the Tarhala hoard. Shivaskandha mentioned in the Puranas as the predecessor of. Yajnashri is probably identical with Khada (Skanda) Satakarni, Shiva being only his epithet, which is also noticed in the case of some other kings of this dynasty. The Tarhala hoard contained the coins of some other kings such as Kumbha Satakarni and Kama Satakarni, who are not mentioned in the Puranas. On the other hand, Shaka Sata­karni, whose coins were found in the Tarhala hoard, may be identical with Mathariputra Svami-Shakasena, who has left an inscription dated in the regnal year 8 in a cave at Kanheri. (J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. VI, p. 6 f) Another Satavahana king, not mentioned in the Puranas but ruling in Western Maharashtra and Konkan was Vashisthiputra Chatarapana mentioned in a record at Naneghat dated in the thirteenth regnal year. R. G. Bhandarkar took Chatarapana to be a corrupt form of Sanskrit Chatushparna or of Chaturapana. In either case it would be a queer name.

Within fifty years after Yajnashri Satakarni the rule of the Satavahanas came to an end. About A.D. 250 the Satavahanas were supplanted by the Abhiras in Western Maharashtra and by the Vakatakas in Vidarbha. The founder of the Abhira dynasty was Raj an Ishvarasena, the son of Shiva-datta.

Ishvarasena started an era commencing in A.D. 250 which later became known as the Kalachuri-Chedi era. The earlier dates of this era come from Western Maharashtra, Gujarat, Central India and Vidarbha. Judging by the expansion of this era, Ishvarasena and his descendants seem to have ruled over a large territory comprising Gujarat, Konkan and Western Maharashtra. Hte was followed by nine other kings, whose names, unfortunately, do not occur in the Puranas.

According to the Puranas, the Abhiras ruled for 167 years. They seem, therefore, to have been supplanted in circa A.D. 415 by the Traikutakas, who were previously their feudatories. This royal family took its name from Trikuta or a three-peaked mountain.

From inscriptions and coins we get the following genealogy of the Traikutakas:—

Maharaja Indradatta
Maharaja Dahrasena
Maharaja Vyaghrasena

That the Thane district was included in the dominion of the Traiku­takas is indicated by a copper-plate inscription discovered in a stupa at Kanheri. Dr. Bird, who made the discovery, has described it as follows :— " Immediately in front of the large arched cave and on a ledge of the moun­tain, some thirty or forty feet below, there are several small topas or monumental receptacles for the bones of a Buddha or Rahat, built of cut stones at the base. The largest of the topas selected for examination appeared to have been one time between twelve and sixteen feet in height. It was much dilapidated, and was penetrated from above to the base, which was built of cut stones. After digging to the level of the ground and clearing away the material, the workmen came to a circular stone, hollow in the centre, and covered at the top by a piece of gypsum. This contained two small urns, in one of which were small ashes mixed with a ruby, a pearl, small pieces of gold and a small gold box containing a piece of cloth ; in the other a silver box and some ashes were found. Two copper plates containing legible inscriptions in the Lath or cave characters accompanied the urn and these, as far as I have yet been able to decipher them, inform us that the persons buried here were of the Buddhist faith. The smaller of the copper plates bears an inscription in two lines, the last part of which contains the Buddhist creed."

The inscription on the larger copper plates mentions that in the year 245 in the reign of the Traikutakas one Buddharuchi, hailing from the village Kanaka in the Sindhu vishaya, erected at Krishnagiri (modern Kanheri) the stupa in which the plate was found and which he dedicated to the venerable Sharadvatiputra, the foremost disciple of the Buddha. The last line mentions dadha or the canine tooth, probably of Sharadvati­putra (Sariputta), a sacred relic, on which the stupa was erected.

The Kanheri plate mentions no king of the Traikutaka family by name, but it probably belongs to the reign of the successor of Vyaghrasena. During his reign the Trikuta country was invaded by Harishena, the last known Vakataka king, who flourished in circa A.D. 475-500. Harishena may not have supplanted the ruling dynasty. As in other cases, he may have been satisfied with exacting tribute from it. (C.I.I Vol. v, p. 103 f)

After the Traikutakas the Kalachuris became supreme in Gujarat, North Konkan and Maharashtra. The coins of Krishnaraja, the earliest known Kalachuri king, have been found in the islands of Bombay and Sashti as well as in the districts of Nasik and Satara. In Bombay they were discovered in the former village of Cavel, which once covered the land now divided by the Kalbadevi road into Cavel proper and old Hanuman lane. (J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XX, p. 7.) These are small coins of silver, which have on the obverse the figure of the king and on the reverse the figure of the Nandi with the following legend along the circular edge : Parama Maheshvara matapitripadanudhyata-shri-Krishnaraja^ (meaning that the coin is of the illustrious Krishnaraja, a fervent devotee of Maheshvara, who meditates on the feet of his father and mother). These coins weighing about 33 grains are imitated from the western issues of the Gupta King Skandagupta.

In the copper-plate grants of the Kalachuris, Shankaragana, the son of Krishnaraja, is described as the lord of the countries between the eastern and western seas. Konkan must, therefore, have been included in the Kalachuri empire, but no grants of land by the Kalachuris have yet been found as they have been in Gujarat and northern Maharashtra. Konkan was probably given by them to a feudatory family. As we shall see later, it was ruled by the Mauryas, who probably acknowledged the suzerainty of the Kalachuris.

Krishnaraja, the first known Kalachuri king, rose to power in circa A.D 550 and ruled from Mahishmati. His coins, have been found over a wide territory extending from Rajputana in the north to Maharashtra in the south and from Konkan in the west to Vidarbha in the east. Krishnaraja was succeeded by his son Shankaragana, who like his father, was ruling over an extensive kingdom extending from Malwa in the north to at least the Nasik and Aurangabad districts in the south.

Shankaragana was succeeded by his son Buddharaja, who was involved in a struggle with the Early Chalukya king Mangalesha on the southern frontier of his kingdom soon after his accession. He received a crushing defeat, but his adversary could not follow up his victory owing to internal dissensions. Buddharaja, therefore, continued to hold his kingdom in tact.

As stated before, north Konkan was ruled by the Mauryas, who were probably feudatories of the Kalachuris. Their capital was Puri, which has not yet been satisfactorily identified. Various places have been mentioned as possible sites of this capital, viz. Thane, Kalyan, Sopara, Chaul, Mangalapuri (Magathan), Elephanta and Rajapuri in the former Janjira State. But Thane, Sopara and Chaul were known by other names in ancient times and have besides, been mentioned together with Puri in some inscriptions. Gharapuri or Elephanta is too small an island to have served as a capital and as pointed out by Cousens, during the greater part of the monsoon it is cut off to a great extent by rough seas. Cousens proposed to locate the place at a site about a mile north of Marol village in the island of Sashti (Cousens,Mediavel Temples in the Deccan,p.79 f. ). This site is not far from Sthanaka (Thane), which is mentioned in many grants as the place of royal residence. This site is not, however, known by the name of Puri at present and has not many ancient remains such as one would expect at the site of a royal capital. Another identification suggested is with Rajapuri in the former Janjira State, but this place would be too far south for a capital of the Northern Shilaharas. The question cannot be definitely settled in the absence of conclusive evidence, but the fact that the only known stone inscription of the Mauryas was found at Vada in the Thane district may lend colour to the location of Puri as suggested by Cousens.

As stated before, the Mauryas were ruling in North Konkan in the sixth and the early part of the seventh century A.D. The Kalachuris, who were fervent devotees of Maheshvara, must have erected splendid temples in honour of their ishta-devata, but none have been discovered so far. But some cave-temples dedicated to Shiva in this period may have been carved under the patronage of the Kalachuiis. Walter Spink, who has minutely studied the architecture and sculpture of these cave temples, thus describes them:—" It is not surprising that the three most important Hindu cave temples in the Konkan, all created between about 520 and 550 A.D. when the Kalachuris were ruling in this region, are dedications of the Pashupata cult. The first of these was at Jogeshvari, near the present centre of Bombay; it contains no less than four separate images of the meditating lord. This little known monument is usually assigned incorrectly to a late period. Actually, it is a crucial missing link between the late fifth century Vakataka excavations in Vidarbha and the other early sixth century Kalachuri excavations in the Konkan. Indeed Jogeshvari is the earliest major Hindu cave temple in India and (in terms of total length) ' the largest'. Jogeshvari contains no inscriptions which fix its date, but it was conceived on such a scale and appears upon the stage of history so dramatically and so suddenly that one must assume it to be the product of a strong and rich patronage." (Walter Spink, Ajanta to Ellora, p. 9.) Spink refers the cave temples at Manda-peshvar and Elephanta to the same age. The temple at the former place, about two Km. from Borivali, which was converted into a church by the Portuguese during their occupation of the island, has a large mandapa measuring 51 ft. by 21 inside, with four pillars richly ornamented in front. In the middle of the back wall there is a garbhagriha, now empty, with two pillars in front. The temple was evidently dedicated to Shiva; for in a room to the left of the Mandapa there is still a large sculpture of dancing Shiva with accompanying figures.

The excavation of the Elephanta caves is attributed by some to the Maurya kings who were ruling in North Konkan in the sixth and early  part of the seventh century A.D. But they were only a feudatory family which could hardly have financed such a great and magnificent work of art. The Early Kalachuris who had an extensive empire in that age were probably responsible for it. There is another circumstance which supports this conjecture. The cave temple was caused to be carved by the Pashupatas. This is indicated by the figure of Lakulisha, the founder of the Pashupata sect, in the recess at the north end of the shrine in the western court of the caves. It is noteworthy that the Kalachuri emperors were followers of the Pashupata sect. From a Kalachuri grant we know that the queen Ananta-mahayi was a Pashupata-rajni. It seems plausible therefore that the Elephanta caves were caused to be excavated by the Kalachuris in the second half of the sixth century A.D.

The Chalukyas of Badami rose to power in the first half of the sixth century A.D. The Badami stone inscription of Pulakeshin I, who is the first independent king of the family, is dated in the year A.D. 543. (E.I.  Vol, XVII, p. 4f) He performed an ashvamedha and several other shrauta sacrifices. He was succeeded by his son Kirtivarman I, who made some conquests in South India and is described as ' the Night of Destruction ' to the Nalas (of the Bastar district in Madhya Pradesh), the Mauryas of North Konkan and the Kadambas of Vanavasi in North Konkan. Like the Nalas, who are known to have flourished thereafter also, the Mauryas were not completely exterminated, but continued to reign in North Konkan till the time of Pulakeshin II as we shall see hereafter.

When Kirtivarman died, his son Pulakeshin II was a minor. So his younger brother Mangalesha succeeded him. He defeated Buddharaja, the Kalachuri king who was ruling over North Maharashtra, Gujarat and Malwa, and also Svamiraja of the Chalukya family, who was governing the Revati-dvipa (modern Redi in the Sindhudurg district).

Mangalesha's reign ended in disaster and he lost his life in a civil war with his nephew Pulakeshin II. Just about this time the Chalukya kingdom was invaded by one Govinda, who probably belonged to the Rashtrakuta family ruling from Manapura in the Satara district. Pulakeshin adopted a conciliatory policy in dealing with him as he was a powerful foe. His descendants do not, however, seem to have held southern Maharashtra for a long time; for Pulakeshin soon annexed both southern and northern Maharashtra and extended the northern limit of his kingdom to the Narmada. That he ousted the Rashtrakutas from southern Maharashtra is shown by the Satara plates of his brother  Vishnuvardhana, which  record the grant of a village on the southern bank of the Bhima. Pulakeshin also defeated the Kalachuri king Buddharaja and annexed his kingdom. He is said to have thereby become the lord of three Maharashtras containing ninety-nine thousand villages. The three Maharashtras were evidently northern Maharashtra, Kuntala or southern Maharashtra and Vidarbha. We know that the Rashtrakutas of Vidarbha, who were previously feudatories of the Kalachuris, transferred their allegiance to the Chalukyas and began to date their records in the Shaka era like them. Two grants of this feudatory Rashtrakuta family have been found in Vidarbha-one dated Shaka 615 being discovered near Akola and the other dated Shaka 631, at Multai in the Betul district now in Madhya Pradesh. Their capital was Padmanagara, which is probably identical with Padmapura near Amgaon in the Bhandara district, once a capital of the Vakatakas. (E.I., Vol. XI, p. 27/; Vol. XXXII, p. 157/; IA., Vol,XVIII p. 230f)

Pulakeshin next invaded Puri, the capital of the Mauryas, which is described in the Aihole inscription as the goddess of fortune of the Western Ocean. He attacked it with hundreds of ships as large as rutting elephants. The Maurya ruler was probably killed in the encounter and his kingdom was annexed. Thereafter North Konkan was probably under the direct rule of Pulakeshin like the adjoining Nasik district, where a copper-plate grant of his, has been discovered.

The capital of Pulakeshin in the beginning of his reign was Badami in the Bijapur district. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang calls him the Lord of Maharashtra. This shows that he must have visited him somewhere in Maharashtra.
After the overthrow of the Kalachuris, Pulakeshin II divided their extensive empire among his relatives and trusted chiefs. South Gujarat, extending from the Kim in the north to the Damanganga in the south, was placed in charge of a Sendraka chief. The Sendrakas ruled over this territory and also in Konkan for three generations. The founder of the family was Bhanushakti alias Nikumbha. His son was Adityashakti and the latter's son was Allashakti.

Pulakeshin II was killed in battle at Badami in circa A.D. 642 by the Pallava king Narasimhavarman, who conquered his capital Vatapi and assumed the title of Vatapikonda (the Conqueror of Vatapi). Pulakeshin II was succeeded by his son Vikramaditya I after a long continued struggle. He appointed his younger brother Dharashraya-Jayasimha to govern South Gujarat, North Konkan and the Nasik district. Jayasimha appointed his elder son Shryashraya-Shiladitya to govern South Gujarat and his younger son Jayashraya Mangalarasa to rule in North Konkan.

From the Manor plates of Mangalarasa discovered recently this event seems to have taken place in A.D. 669-70.

Jayasimha's younger son Mangalarasa, who assumed the biruda Jayashraya, is known to have made three land grants. Of these the second grant of Mangalarasa was found at Balsad in the Surat district. It has not yet been published, but it also was probably made in North Konkan as it is dated in the Shaka year 653 (A.D. 731-32). Had it been made in Gujarat, it would have been dated in the Abhira era, which was then current there. Mangalarasa ruled from Mangalapuri, which was probably founded by him. It is identified by some with Magathan(Mangalashthana), about half a mile east of the Borivli station, which contains several ancient remains of stupas and chaityas.

From two copper-plate inscriptions recently discovered at Anjaneri, a village near Trimbak in the Nasik district, we have come to know of another feudatory family which ruled over Northern Konkan and the Nasik district in the seventh and eighth century A.D.(C.I.I, Vol,IV) This family claimed descent from Harishchandra the famous legendary king of the solar race. Svamichandra, who rose to power in the reign of Vikramaditya I, was the founder of this family. He is said to have ruled over the entire Puri-Konkan country comprising fourteen thousand villages. In some later inscrip­tions the number of villages in North Konkan is stated to be fourteen hundred only. Svamichandra was treated by Vikramaditya I as his own son and was placed in charge of North Konkan. This was perhaps before the appointment of Dharashraya-Jayasimha to the same post.

Three generations of this family are known from the two sets of Anjaneri plates. Svamichandra, his son Simhavarman and the latter's son Bhoga-shakti alias Prithivichandra, who made the grants. Bhogashakti is said to have brought by his valour the whole territory of his dominion under his sway. This was probably at the time of the Chalukya Emperor Vinayaditya's death (A.D. 696), when owing to the captivity of his son Vijayaditya in his northern campaign, there was anarchy in the kingdom. The second set of Anjaneri plates tells us that Bhogashakti granted certain rights, privileges and exemptions to the merchants of Samagiripattana when he resettled the town and the neighbouring villages sometime after their devastation. Bhogashakti's successor was probably overthrown by the Rashtrakuta king Dantidurga, who, from his Ellora plates, is known to have occupied the Nasik district some time before A.D. 715.

Kirtivarman II, the last of the Early Chalukyas, was defeated by Dantidurga sometime before A.D. 754, when he issued the Samangad plates. Kirtivarman continued to rule for a few years more, but he had lost the paramount position in the Deccan.

The Early Chalukyas were devotees of Vishnu, but during their time Buddhism continued to flourish as before in Maharashtra and Konkan.

The Rashtrakutas, who succeeded the Early Chalukyas in the Deccan, originally hailed from Lattalura (modern Latur) when they rose to power, they were probably in the Aurangabad district, where their earlier records have been found. His Ellora Cave inscription records his victories over the rulers of Kanchi, Kalinga, Shrishaila, Malva, Tanha and Lata, but they do not all seem to have resulted in the acquisition of new territory, Though there is much exaggeration in the description of his conquests, there is no doubt that he ruled over Karnataka, Konkan, Maharashtra, Vidarbha and Gujarat.

Dantidurga soon extended his rule to North Konkan. This is shown by his Manor plates dated in the Shaka year 671( A.D. 749-50). Dantidurga appointed a governor named Aniruddha to govern the territory. Konkan was so ruled until establishment of the feudatory family of Shilaharas in North Konkan during the reign of Rashtrakuta Govinda III. Danti­durga was succeeded by his uncle Krishna I, who completed the conquests commenced by Dantidurga and shattered the power of the Chalukyas completely.

Krishna I was not only a great conqueror but also a great builder and caused the great Shiva temple at Ellora to be carved out of solid rock. Krishna I was succeeded by his son Govinda II in circa A.D. 773. Soon after his accession Govinda II abandoned himself to a life of pleasure. He left the administration to his younger brother Dhruva. The latter took advantage of the opportunity and began to secure all power for himself. He also made land-grants in his own name though Govinda II was then the de jure king. Govinda was subsequently deposed by Dhruva in circa A.D. 780.

Dhruva died soon after this grant was made and was succeeded by his son Govinda III. Govinda III proved to be a great conqueror. Several copper plate grants of Govinda III have been found in all the divisions of Maharashtra. Most of these were issued from Mayurakhandi, which was evidently his capital. It has not yet been identified.

Govinda III was succeeded by his son Amoghavarsha I, who was a man of peaceful disposition, but whose reign was full of troubles. He had first to fight with the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi, then the Gangas of Gangavadi and also his relatives in Gujarat. He placed Pullashakti I in charge of North Konkan. The latter states in his Kanheri cave inscription that he was ruling over the entire Puri-konkan country by the favour of Amoghavarsha I. Indra III, the great-grandson of Amoghavarsha I led a victorious campaign in North India. Indra III was succeeded by his son Amoghavarsha II, but he died within a year. His younger brother Govinda IV came to the throne thereafter. He was known for his liberality and rightly had the biruda Suvarnavarsha (the gold-rainer). The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta and the Kalachuris of Tripuri were matrimonially connected and their relations were generally cordial. But in the reign of Govinda IV, they became strained. The Kalachuri king Yuvarajadeva I espoused the cause of his son-in-law Baddiga-Amoghavarsha III, the uncle of Govinda IV, and sent a large army to invade the Rashtrakuta dominion. When it reached Payoshni (modern Purna), it was opposed by Karkara, the ruler of Achalapura, who was a feudatory of Govinda IV. He probably belonged to the feudatory Rashtrakuta family ruling in Vidarbha. A sanguinary battle was fought on the bank of the Payoshni near Achalapur between the Rashtrakuta and Kalachuri forces, in which the latter became victorious.

The Rashtrakuta feudatories who had risen in revolt against Govinda IV deposed him and placed his uncle Baddiga-Amoghavarsha III on the throne. The latter was a man of quiet nature and spiritual tempera­ment, who left the administration of the kingdom to his ambitious and able son Krishna III. Like some of his ancestors, Kiishna also led an expedition in North India and captured the forts of Kalanjara and Chitrakuta. He succeeded his father in A.D. 939.
The Rashtrakuta power became weak after the death of Krishna III. Within six years his large empire crumbled like a house of cards. Taila II, who was a Mahasamanta of the Rashtrakutas, suddenly came into promi­nence. He defeated and killed in battle Karka II, the last Rashtrakuta king and captured his capital Manyakheta. He had to fight against the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Paramaras.

Among the successors of Taila II, the most famous is Vikramaditya VI, the founder of the Chalukya-Vikramaditya samvat. He ascended the throne in A.D. 1075. He had to fight against the Cholas, the Chalukyas of Gujarat and the Hoysalas and signally defeated them. He married a Shilahara princess at a svayamvara held at Karhad. His reign is renowned on account of some learned men who flourished at his court. Bilhana, who was patronised by him, wrote the Vikramankadevacharita, which is the poetical biography of Vikramaditya. Another great writer who flourished at his court was Vijnaneshvara, the author of the well-known Mitakshara, a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti.

Vikramaditya VI was succeeded by his son Someshvara III, who became known as Sarvajna-Chakravarti on account of his extensive knowledge. Taila III, the last known Chalukya king, was overthrown by the Kala-churi Bijjala, who was his commander-in-chief, in A.D. 1156. The Kela-churi usurpation lasted for more than two decades. During the reign of Bijjala a religious revolution took place at Kalyani, the capital of the Later Chalukyas. Basava, who was the prime minister of Bijjala propounded a new doctrine called Lingayata. in which Shivalinga and Nandig were prominent. In a palace revolution Bijjala was killed by a follower of Basava and Kalyani was devastated. This event took place in A.D. 1167.

In about A.D. 1162 the Chalukya prince Someshvara IV wrested some of the provinces of his ancestral kingdom from the Kalachuris. The Chalukyas were, however, soon overthrown by the Yadava prince Bhillama, who rose to power in this period.

During the Rashtrakuta period a feudatory family established itself in the northern and southern Konkan and also in the southern Maratha country comprising the districts of Kolhapur, Miraj, Satara and Belgaum. They bore the title of Tagarapura-var-adhishvara, which indicates that they originally hailed from Tagara (modern Ter in the Osmanabad district). All the branches of this family traced their descent from the mythical Vidyadhara prince Jimutavahana, who offered to sacrifice himself to rescue a Naga from the clutches of Garuda. The family name Shilahara (meaning ' food on a rock') is supposed to have been derived from this incident. The Shilaharas of South Konkan rose to power as feudatories of the Rashtrakutas. Sanaphulla, the founder of this family, is said to have had the favour of Krishnaraja, who is evidently the first Rashtrakuta king of that name.

Rattaraja is the last known king of this branch. He declared his independence during the reign of the Later Chalukya king Vikramaditya V, when the imperial power became weak. But Jayasimha, the younger brother of Vikramaditya, invaded South Konkan, overthrew the reigning king and appropriated his possessions as stated in his Miraj plates dated in A.D. 1024.

North Konkan was conquered by the Rashtrakuta king Dantidurga sometime in the second quarter of the eigthth century A.D. Kapardin I, the first known Shilahara king of North Konkan, was placed in charge of the country by the Rashtrakuta king Govinda III. Since then North Konkan came to be known as Kapardika-dvipa or Kavadi-dvipa. The capital of this branch was Puri, after which the country was called Puri-Konkan.

The genealogy of this branch of the Shilaharas ruling over North Konkan may be stated as follows :—


Kapardin I was succeeded by his son Pullashakti, who has left a much abraded inscription in one of the Kanheri caves. It bore a date at the end, which has now been almost completely effaced. Kielhorn doubtfully read it as shaka 765. The date appears quite plausible; for Pullashakti's son and successor Kapardin II is known from two inscriptions at Kanheri dated shaka 795 and 799.

In the Kanheri cave inscription Pullashakti is called Mahasamanta and is described as the lord of Puri-Konkan, which he had obtained by the favour of the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha I. The inscription records the endowment of 124 drammas made by one Vishnugupta for the repairs of the cave as well as for the raiment and books of the monks residing in the Krishnagiri-Mahavihara. Krishnagiri is Kanheri. (I. A., Vol. XIII, p. 136 f)

Pullashakti II was succeeded by his son Kapardin II, who is called Laghu-Kapardin in the record of his successors to distinguish him from his grandfather, who also bore the same name. He seems to have come to the throne when quite young; for the Thane plates of Arikesarin tell us that though he was an infant, his enemies paid homage to him. Two inscriptions of his reign, dated in the shaka years 775 (A.D. 853) and 799 (A.D. 877-78) in the Kanheri caves, record peimanent endowments of some drammas for the, raiment etc., of the monks dwelling in the caves. (Ibid., Vol. XIII, p. 136f)

Kapardin II was followed by his son Vappuvanna, about whom his successors' records give only conventional praise. In his time a part of North Konkan comprising the Samyana Mandala (the territory round Sanjan in the north of Thane district) was given by the Rashtrakuta Emperor Krishna II to the Arab feudatory Madhumati (Muhhammad). His family ruled in this region for at least three generations. A set of plates found at Chinchani in the Dahanu taluka of the Thane district mentions Madhumati's son of Sahiyarahara, and Sugatipa, who was then ruling. (E.I., Vol. XXXII, p. 45f)  Madhumati, Sahiyarahara and Sugatipa are evidently Sanskritised names of Mahammad, Shahariar and Subakta. This feudatory family often came into conflict with the Shilaharas. Madhumati is said to have conquered all ports on the western coast and established his outposts in them. He did some charitable works. He established some ferries for the crossing of rivers and also a charitable feeding house at Samyana for the use of travellers. He also made some grants of land in favour of a temple of Bhagavati after obtaining the consent of his suzerain, the Rashtrakuta Emperor Indra III. These Arab feudatories seem to have continued to rule over the Samyana-mandala till the downfall of the Rashtrakutas in A.D. 974. Thereafter the Shilahara king Aparajita over­threw them and annexed their territory to his own kingdom. (Important Inscriptions from the Baroda State, Vol. I, p. 35f)

Vappuvanna was followed by Jhanjha. He is mentioned by Al-Masudi as ruling over Samar (i.e., Chaul in the Raigad district) in A.D. 916. He was a very devout Shiva. He is said to have built twelve temples of Shiva and named them after himself. None of them is now existing.

Jhanjha was succeeded by his younger brother Goggiraja, but about him and his successor Vajjada I Shilahara inscriptions give only conventional praise. Vajjada was followed by his brother Chhadvaideva, who is omitted in all later records, probably because he was a usurper. He is known from his Prince of Wales Museum plates, which record the grant of some land in the village Salanka in the vishaya of Panada. These places may be identified with Salinde and Poinad not far fiom Alibag in the Raigad district. The grant was promised by Vajjada, but remained unexecuted during his life time. Chhadvaideva, on coming to know of it, issued these plates recording the gift. (E.I., Vol. XXVI, p. 282f)

Chhadvaideva was followed by his nephew Aparajita, the son of Vajjada. He has left three copper-plate grants. Two of them found at Janjira, both dated in the same shaka year 915 (A.D. 993) were issued by him after the overthrow of the Rashtrakutas by the Later Chalukya king Tailapa. (Important Inscription from the Baroda State,Vol.Ip.35f) But Aparajita, true to his erstwhile suzerain, gives the genealogy of the Rashtrakutas from Govinda I to Kakkala and regretfully records that the light of the last Rashtrakuta king was extinguished by the hurricane in the form of Tailapa. He did not himself submit to the Chalukyas, but began to assume high-sounding titles like Pashchima-samudradhipati (the Lord of the Western Ocean) and Mandalika-trinetra (the three-eyed god Shiva to the feudatory princes). He made several conquests. First he seems to have proceeded against the Arab feudatory family ruling at Samyana and overthrowing it, annexed its territory to his own kingdom. Thereafter, we do not hear of this Arab kingdom on the western coast. He next conquered Punaka (Pune), Sangameshvara and Chiplun and extended his rule to Southern Konkan and the Desha.

Aparajita was an ambitious king. He sought to extend his sphere of influence by alliance with mighty kings of other countires. Aparajita's extensive conquests, bis alliance with the Paramaras, his assumption of grandiloquent titles and his refusal to recognise the suzerainty of the Later Chalukyas exasperated Satyashraya, the son of Tailapa. He invaded the kingdom of Aparajita and pressed as far as the capital Puri. Ranna, the Kanarese poet, says that hemmed in by the ocean on one side and the sea of Satyashraya's army on the other, Apaiajita trembled like an insect on a stick, both the ends of which are on fire.(I.A.,Vol XL.P.41f) Satyashraya burnt Amshunagara in Konkan and levied a tribute of eleven elephants on Aparajita. This invasion seems to have occurred in circa. A.D. 1005. Aparajita did not live long after this humiliation. He probably closed his reign in A.D. 1010.

Aparajita was succeeded by his son Vajjada II, about whom only conventional praise is given in the records of his successors. An inscrip­tion from Hangal, however, tells us that Kundaladevi, the queen of the Kadamba king Chattadeva (Shashthadeva II c. A.D. 1005-1055) was the daughter of the king Vachavya of Thani i.e., Thane. (E.I Vol. XV, p. 333.) As Altekar has conjectured, this king of Thane was probably the Shilahara king Vajjada II.

Vajjada was succeeded by his younger brother Arikesarin. While yet a prince, he had taken part in the Paramara Sindhuraja's campaign in Chhattisgadh and had also marched with an army to the temple of Someshvara (Somanath) and offered his conquests to the god.

It was during the reign of Arikesarin that Konkan was invaded by the Paramara king Bhoja. Two of his grants made in A.D. 1020, one in June and the other in September of the year have been found. (E.L, Vol. XI, p. 182,f; XVIII, p. 322f.)  The causes of this invasion are not known. D. R. Bhandarkar thought that the invasion was undertaken by Bhoja to avenge the death of his uncle Munja by the Later Chalukya king Tailapa. This reason does not appear convincing; for there is an interval of thirty-four years between the murder of Munja (A.D. 975) and Bhoja's invasion of Konkan (A.D. 1019). Perhaps, as Altekar has suggested, Arikesarin acknowledged the suzerainty of the Later Chalukyas, which Bhoja did not like. Bhoja seems to have occupied North Konkan for some time as is shown by his Betma plates. However, the Chalukya king Jayasimha, after overthrowing the Southern Shilaharas and annexing their kingdom, planned to invade North Konkan. (I.A., Vol. VIII, p. 18.) The Miraj plates dated in A.D. 1024 tell us that he was encamped at Kolhapur in the course of his campaign of North Konkan. It is not known if he conquered the country, but it is noteworthy that Chittaraja, in his grant issued soon after this date in A.D. 1026 does not mention the suzerainty of the Chalukyas( Ibid, Vol. V, p. 277f).

Chittaraja succeeded his uncle Arikesarin sometime before A.D. 1026, when he issued his Bhandup plates. These plates record the king's donation of a field in the village Noura situated in the vishaya (district) of Shatshashti. The villages Gomvani and Gorapavali are mentioned in connection with the boundaries of the field. Shatshashti is, of course, the island of Sashti. Noura is now called Nowohar and Gomvani goes by the name of Gowhan. Gorapavali probably occupied the same site as modern Bhandup. Two other records of the reign of Chittaraja have been discovered, viz. the Berlin Museum plates(Z.D.M.G., Vol.XC,p.265 f) issued by him in A.D. 1034 and the Chinchani plates (E.I, Vol. XXXII, p. 63 f.) granted by his feudatory Chamundaraja in the same year. Chittaraja may have reigned from A.D. 1025 to A.D. 1040.

The Shilaharas seem to have suffered a defeat about this time at the hands of the Kadamba king Shashthadeva II. As stated before, Aparajita, the grandfather of Chittaraja, had raided Chandrapura, modern Chandor in Goa and defeated the ruler, who was probably Guhalladeva II, the father of Shashthadeva II. The latter took revenge in the beginning of the reign of Chittaraja, who was a mere boy at the time of his accession. From his capital Chandrapura, Shashthadeva marched to the north. He first annexed South Konkan (called Konkan Nine Hundred) and advancing further, he overran Kavadi-dvipa (North Konkan). The Narendra inscription describes this expedition in the following words :—"As he took Kavadi-dvipa and many other regions, he built a bridge with lines of ships reaching as far as Lanka (i.e., the Goa territory) and claimed tribute from grim barbarians, exceedingly exhalted was the dominion of the Kadamba sovereign which many called a religious estate for the establishment of the worship of Rama." (E.I, Vol. XIII, p. 369.)

Shashthadeva, however, restored North Konkan to Chittaraja on condition that he recognised his suzerainty. There was another attack on the Shilahara kingdom during the reign of Chittaraja. Gonka of the Kolhapur branch of the Shilaharas (c. A.D. 1020-1055) calls himself the lord of Konkan. (J.R.A.S., Vol. IV, p. 281.) He had evidently scored a victory over the Shilahara ruler of North Konkan; for he had already annexed South Konkan as a feudatory of the Later Chalukyas.

Chittaraja was succeeded by his younger brother Nagarjuna, who had probably a short reign. He may be referred to the period A.D. 1040-45. He was followed by his younger brother Mummuni or Mamvani in c. A.D. 1045.

The power of the Shilaharas weakened in the reign of Nagaijuna and Mummuni. The latter had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Kadambas of Goa. When Shashthadeva II visited his court, he received him with great honour. The Narendra inscription describes this incident in the following words : "When the exalted valour Chhattayadeva in his sport upon the ocean reached him, Mummuni of the famous Thaneya, hearing of it, came into his presence, saw him and led him to his palace and displayed intense affection; he bestowed on him his daughter with much pomp and gave his son-in-law five lakhs of gold. (E.I, Vol. XIII, p. 310.)

As the power of the Shilaharas declined, the Modha feudatories of Samyana began to assert their independence and assumed the birudas of the Shilaharas themselves. The Modha prince Vijjalain his Chinchani plates dated shaka 975 (A.D. 1053) calls himself the lord of Tagarapura and bears the proud title of Sharanagata-vajra-panjara, which is usually met with in Shilahara records. Mummuni seems to have overthrown this recalcitrant feudatory sometime after shaka 975 (A.D. 1053), the last known date of the prince Vijjala.

There was a civil war (dayada-vyasana) towards the close of Mummuni's reign, but the contending parties are not known. (LA., Vol. IX, p. 34.) Taking advantage of it, some foreign king, perhaps Guhalla II, the Kadamba contemporary of Mummuni, invaded the territory. He is said to have devastated the country and harassed gods and Brahmanas. Anantapala, the son of Nagarjuna, rescued the country from this calamity, Guhalla had perhaps secured the aid of some Muslim chief in this invasion.

Only one inscription of Anantapala has been found viz., the Kharepatan plates dated in shaka 1016 (A.D. 1094). ( Ibid.,Vol.IX,p.33 f) It states that he assumed the title pashchima-samudradhipati and claimed to be the ruler of the entire Konkan, including Puri-Konkan. The inscription exempts the ships of certain ministers of his from the customs duty levied at the ports of Sthanaka, Shurparaka, Chemulya and others.

Hostilities with the Kadambas seem to have broken out again at the close of the reign of Anantapala. Jayakeshin II, the valiant king of Goa, invaded North Konkan and in the encounter that followed, killed the Shilahara king. The Degamve inscription describes him as ' Death to the king of Kavadi-dvipa. (J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. IX, p. 266.) After this Jayakeshin annexed North Konkan. The Narendra inscriptions dated in A.D. 1125 and 1126 described him as governing Kavadi-dvipa a lakh and quarter, in the time of the Chalukya Emperor Tribhuvanamalla (Vikramaditya VI). The Shilahara prince Aparaditya was reduced to great straits.

Aparaditya was followed by Harpaladeva, several of whose inscriptions ranging in dates from shaka 1070 to shaka 1076 have been discovered in the Thane district. He may therefore have reigned from c. shaka 1062 to shaka 1077 (A.D. 1140 to A.D. 1155). From his reign onward we get only stone inscriptions and they are mostly written in a mixed language of Sanskrit and Marathi. As the inscriptions of Harpaladeva do not give any genealogy, it is not possible to say how he was related to his predecessor, Aparaditya. These inscriptions record gifts made by ministers, private individuals or village communities. The mention of a Sahavasi Brahman in one of them is interesting. These Brahmans later became known as Savase Brahmanas.

Mallikarjuna, who succeeded Harpaladeva, is known from two inscriptions—one found at Chiplun in the Ratnagiri district and the other at Vasai in the Thane district. (Bom. Gaz., Vol. I (old ed.), Part II, p. 19.)

In his Kumarapalacharita Hemachandra gives a graphic description of Mallikarjuna's battle with the forces sent by the Chalukya king Kumarapala. According to Merutunga's account, Kumarapala is said to have felt offended by the title Rayapitamaha (Grandsire of Kings) assumed by Mallikarjuna and sent an army to invade his territory. His general Ambada was defeated by Mallikarjuna and feeling disconsolate, he repaired to Krishnagiri (Kanheri) where he spent some days in black clothing. Kumarapala then sent heavy reinforcements, which enabled Ambada to inflict a disastrous defeat on Mallikarjuna. He cut off his head, mounting daringly the elephant he was riding. He presented it to Kumarapala in the assembly attended by seventy-two feudatories. There is much exaggeration in this account, but Hemchandra also records that Mallikarjuna was killed in the fight. Kumarapala thereafter became the suzerain of the Shilaharas.

Mallikarjuna was followed by Aparaditya II, but his relation to his predecessor is not known. Three inscriptions of his reign, dated in shaka 1106, 1107 and 1109 have been discovered at Lonad, Thane and Parell respectively. In one of them Aparaditya is mentioned with the imperial titles Maharajadhiraja and Konkanachakravarti which show that he had thrown off the yoke of the Gujarat Chalukyas. He may be referred to the period A.D. 1170-1195.

Aparaditya's successor Keshideva is known from two stone inscrip­tions. The earlier of them is dated in shaka 1125 and was found at Mandavi in the Vasai taluka. It records some grant at the holy place of Mandavali in the presence of the god Lakshminarayana. The second inscription, found at Lonad, is dated shaka 1161 (A.D. 1230). It states that Keshideva was the son of Apararka and records the grant of a hamlet attached to the village Bapagama (modern Babgaon near Lonad) to four Brahmans on the Maha-Shivaratri in Magha. As the two dates of Keshideva are separated by as many as 36 years, he may have had a long reign of 40 or 45 years. He may therefore, be referred to the period A.D. 1195-1240.

The successor of Keshideva was Someshvara, who, like Aparaditya, assumed the imperial titles Maharajadhiraja and Konkanachakravarti(Ranvad Inscription (Prachin Marathi Koriva Lekha, p. 159). Only two inscriptions of his reign are known. The earlier of them, datedin shaka 1181 (A.D. 1259) was found at the village Ranvad near Uran and the later, dated shaka 1182 (A.D. 1160), at Chande. Both of them record royal grants, the former to some Brahmanas and the latter to the temple of Uttareshvara in the capital of Sthanaka.

Someshvara is the last known Shilahara of North Konkan. In his time the power of the Yadavas of Devagiri was increasing. The Yadava king Krishna (A.D. 1247-1261) sent an army under his general Malla to invade North Konkan. (H.C.I.P.,Vol.V,p.l92.) Though Malla claims to have defeated the Shilahara king, the campaign did not result in any territorial gain for the Yadavas. Mahadeva, the brother and successor of Krishna, continued the hostilities and invaded Konkan with a large troop of war elephants. Someshvara was defeated on land; betook himself to the sea. He was pursued by Mahadeva. In the naval engagement that followed Someshvara was drowned. Referring to this incident Hemadri says, that Someshvara preferred to drown himself and face the sub-marine fire rather than the fire of Mahadeva's anger. The scene of this fight is sculptured on some Virgal stones found near Boiivli station. Some of the stones show the land battle in which the elephants took part, while others depict the lines of vessels propelled by oars, both in advance upon the enemy and in the melee itself. Since Mahadeva's force was strong in elephants and the stone from the sculptures upon it appears to belong to the 12th or 13th century A.D., it is quite possible, as Cousens has suggested, that these stones may be commemorating the heroes who fell in the battle between Someshvara and Mahadeva. (Cousens, Mediaeval Temples in the Deccan, p. 21, plate XV.)

The battle may have taken place in c. A.D. 1265. Thereafter, the Yadavas appointed a governor named Achyuta Nayaka to rule over North Konkan. His Thane plates are dated in A.D. 1272. Thereafter, we get several inscriptions of the Yadavas from North Konkan.

Though the Yadavas conquered North Konkan, their authority may not immediately have been recognised through the whole country. Thus, we have a stone inscription of a king named Jaitugi, dated in shaka 1188 (A.D. 1266), now deposited in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay. (Mirashi, Studies in Indology, Vol. IV, p. 203.) This king assumes therein the title Maharajadhiraja, Raya-pitamaha and Konkana-chakravarti, which were previously borne by the Shilaharas. Some identify this king with an unknown successor of Someshvara, but according to Hemadri, Someshvara was the last king of the Shilahara branch ruling in North Konkan. Jaitugi was probably a ruler of Mahim in the Palghar taluka. He seems to have been previously a feudatory of the Shilaharas, but after their overthrow, he declared his independence and assumed imperial titles like those assumed by Someshvara. That there was a ruler of Mahim exercising authority in North Konkan till the time of the Yadava king Ramachandra is known from the latter's Purushottampuri plates which mention the Yadava king's victory over him. He is described therein as the ruler of Mahim. He was probably the king Jaitugi.

The Shilaharas ruled over North Konkan for more than 450 years. They gave liberal patronage to art and literature. The temples at Ambarnath, and Walkeshvar, which are still extant, testify to the architectural and sculptural skill of the age. In the Udayasundarikatha Soddhala mentions several Jain and other poets such as Chandanacharya, Vijaya-simhacharya, Mahakirti, Indra and others, who, like himself, flourished at the Shilahara court. Apararka's commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti is a monumental work of that age on Dharmashastra.

In the last quarter of the twelfth century A.D. the Yadavas of Devagiri came into prominence. They had previously been ruling over Seunadesha (Khandesh) as feudatories of the Later Chalukyas of Kalyani. The founder of the family was Dridhaprahara, the son of Subahu. His capital is named as Shrinagara in the Vratakhanda of Hemadri, while, from an early inscription it appears to have been Chandradityapura, which has been identified with modern Chandor in the Nasik district. His son and successor was Seunachandra I, from whom the country ruled came to be known as Seunadesha. It corresponds to modern Khandesh. It comprised the country from Nasik to Devagiri.

Bhillama II, an early Yadava king, assisted Tailapa of the Later Chalukya family in his war with Munja. Seunachandra II, a later member of this family, is said to have saved Vikramaditya VI from a coalition of his enemies and placed him on the throne of Kalyani. Bhillama V of this family made a bid for paramount power in the Deccan. He led victorious expeditions against the Hoysalas, the Paramaras and the Chalukyas and made himself master of the whole country north of the Krishna. He then founded the city of Devagiri, modern Daulatabad, and made it his capital. Thereafter, the Yadavas ruled from that city.

Bhillama V's son Jaitugi or Jaitrapala killed Rudradeva of the Kakatiya family on the field of battle and released his nephew whom he had put into prison. Under Jaitugi's son Singhana the power of the family greatly increased. We get considerable information about his victories from the stone inscriptions of his General Kholeshvara at Ambejogai in the Bid district. (Khare, Sources of the Mediaeval History of the Deccan (Marathi), Vol. I, p. 55f.)

Krishna was succeeded by his brother Mahadeva. From the recently discovered Kalegaon plates we know the exact date of his coronation as the 29th August A.D. 1261. The most noteworthy event of his reign was the annexation of North Konkan after the defeat of Someshvara of the Shilahara dynasty. Mahadeva left the throne to his son Amana but the latter was soon deposed by Krishna's son Ramchandra, who captured the impregnable fort by means of a coup d'etat. Ramchandra won several victories as stated in the Purushottampuri plates dated in the shaka year 1232 (A.D. 1310).

In A.D. 1294 Ala-ud-din Khilji invaded the kingdom of Ramchandra and suddenly appeared before the gates of Devagiri. Ramchandia was taken unawares and could not hold out long. He had to pay a heavy ransom to the Muslim conqueror. He continued, however, to rule till A.D. 1310 at least; for the aforementioned Purushottampuri plates are dated in that year. He was succeeded by his son Shankaragana some­time in A.D. 1311. He discontinued sending the stipulated tribute to Delhi. He was then defeated and slained by Malik Kafur. Sometime thereafter Harapaladeva, the son-in-law of Ramchandra, raised an insurrection and drove out the Muhammedans, but his success was short­lived. The Hindu kingdom ofDevagiri thus came to an end in A.D. 1318.

Like their illustrious predecessors, the Yadavas also extended liberal patronage to art and literature. During their rule a peculiar style of architecture called Hemadpanti after Hemadri or Hemadpant, a minister of Mahadeva and Ramchandra, came into vogue. Temples built in this style are found in Bombay also.



(The portion from Mediaeval Period upto British Period is contributed by Dr. B. G. Kunte, M.A., Ph.D. (Economics), Ph.D. (History), former Executive Editor and Secretary. The matter is however mostly borrowed from the Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol II, 1909.)

The history of Bombay for well over a century after the fall of the Yadavas of Devagiri is very dim by reason of the scantiness of historical materials. Marco Polo tells us that in his days Thane had a king of her own, who owed allegiance to none, but had a mutual understanding with the pirates who infested the neighbouring seas. Friar Odoric adds that by his time (A.D. 1322) Thane had fallen into the hands of the Muslims, while Ferishta records that by A.D. 1429 the seat of Government had been transferred from Thane to Bombay-Mahim. Now a glance at the map will show that this last change, which decided for all time the future of Bombay, must have been made for purposes of defence by a ruler who found Thane too exposed for his capital and who at the same time feared no attack from the western sea. He might well have been Marco Polo's king of Thane, but local tradition places him at the end of the 13th century and avers that his name was Bimb. Of his history there are at least three versions, differing in detail, while on particular points we have as many as six or more varying statements. None of the three versions is older in language than the 17th century; but the most coherent of them purports to have been drawn up at a  great meeting held at Mhalsapuri Jogeshwari in Vikrama Samvat 1505 in order to preserve the traditional lore of the Konkan castes. In all probability the date of the meeting is ashaka date equivalent to A.D. 1583; for in the first place the shaka, and not the Vikrama era was in use in the Konkan at this period; secondly such a meeting would be a natural incident of the Hindu revival of the 16th century, while it is much less likely to have taken place one hundred and thirty-five years earlier, before the days of Eknath; and thirdly it was laid down that Bimb lived just 300 years before the meeting and to date him back Vikrama Samvat 1205 would be to locate him within the Shilahara period.

The precise identity of Bimb has been lost behind the curtains of time. He is said to have been a Suryavanshi Kshatriya like his followers, the Pathare Prabhus, a fact which forbids our connecting him, as previous writers have done, with either the Solankis of Anahilvada or the Yadavas of Devagiri. Then again he may be said to rival Homer in the variety of places which claim to have been his father-land. Kanoj, Gorakhpur, Udaipur, Anahilvada, Champaner and Paithan are each mentioned as his place of origin; and by their very number lead one to infer that the traditionary tale of his coming has been much embroidered. A reasonably probable supposition seems to be that he was simply a leading member of the Pathare Prabhu caste, which, as has been mentioned above, had already held high office during the Shilahara period and which had ample opportunity of setting up a kingdom of its own in the confusion that followed the Muhammedan invasion of the Deccan. The Bimbakhyan certainly includes matter drawn from Shilahara history and legends from other sources, but to decide how much of it represents genuine fourteenth century history is now practically impossible. The chief actors in the drama are more or less definitely fixed, but the role they sustain in the different versions varies enormously. On the Hindu side we have Bimb of Mahim with his sire and his son and Nagarshah of Chaul with his son; while on the Muhammedan side the spectres of Ala-ud-din, Nika Malik and Bahadur Shah stalk across the proscenium and vanish behind the coulisses in most bewildering fashion. Yet with all this conflict of testimony one must in the end accept the fact that a king named Bimb ruled in Salsette about A.D. 1300, that he made Mahim in Bombay his capital and granted various offices and rent free lands to his followers. On the other hand we have good cause for holding that the settlement in the Konkan of Pathare Prabhus, Yajurvedi Brahmans,and other classes who now claim to have journeyed thither in the wake of Bimb was a gradual pi ocess which lasted throughout the Shilahara period and that Bimb's rise to prominence occurred at the end rather than at the commencement of that protracted immigration.

Whoever Bimb may have been, he  left an ineradicable seal upon Bombay. He found Mahim a desert island, washed by the waters of the western sea and sparsely-peopled by families of Koli fishermen and other low-castes and there he built a city which he called Mahikavati, whence the name Mahi or Mahim has been derived. There too he built his palace and a great temple to his family goddess Prabhadevi, nor forbore to set up a court of justice or hall of audience in the area now known to us as Naigaum. The palaces have vanished utteily.

It is also very difficult to locate the site where Bimb once listened to the petitions of his people, though about a 100 years back it was the country house of a Bhatia Maharaj the one visible legacy of his rule was a rude black stone, to which, as representing his spirit, the des­cendants of the people, over whom he once ruled, made occasional offerings of milk, butter and fruits. Yet these scattered traditions, these magical devotions of the residents of our modern city serve together to establish the salient fact, which no criticism can shake, that Bimb the misty king was the indisputable founder of Bombay.

Edwardes in his book The Rise of Bombay has given the following account of Bimba :—

" Now the story of events subsequent to the victory of Alla-ud-din forms a most important portion of the history of our island. It is universally acknowledged that, after the defeat of Ramdev, a certain Bimba or Bhima Raja established himself as ruler of the North Konkan, and colonised the islands of Bombay : and our first duty is to try and discover the identity of a man who was the pioneer in the task of raising Bombay above the level of a mere fishing hamlet.

" An old poem, the Bimbakhyan, relates that king Bimbadev came to the Konkan by way of Anahilvada in the shaka year 1216, that is 1294 A.D., and halted upon the island of Mahim, which he found almost uninhabited. So charmed was he with the scenery of the island, that he caused a royal palace to be built there, and also houses for the accommo­dation of the royal guests and others, who had accompanied him to the Konkan through fear of the Muslim invaders of Devagiri and Anahilwada: with him there came from Paithan, Champaner and other places, 9 families of Yajurvedi Brahmins of the Madhyandin Shakha and 66 other families, that is to say, 27 Kulas or families of the Somavanshis, 12 of Suryavanshis, 9 of Sheshavanshis; 5 of Panchal, 7 of Kunbis or Agris, 1 family of Dasa Lad, 1 of Visa Lad, 1 of Moda, 1 of Dasa Moda and 1 of Visa Moda. Such is, in brief, the teaching of the old Marathi account of the advent of Bimbashah, in which the dates given are inaccurate, and the statements are occasionally so very conflicting that unless corroborated by independent evidence, they can scarcely be accep­ted for the purposes of history.

"Now some authorities, notably the late Dr. Gersonda Cunha, believe that the Bimbadev or Bimb Raja here mentioned was identical with one of the Bhima Rajas of the Chalukya (Solanki) dynasty, which reigned at Anahilvada in Gujarat; and Dr. da Cunha further observes in his Origin of Bombay that Bhim Raja of Gujarat after his defeat by Mahomed of Gazni at Somnathin the year A.D. 1024, " fled from his country, and, to make up for the loss in the north,marched with his colony from Patan into the south and settled at Mahim.

"But it is a well-known historical fact that, immediately after Mahomed of Gazni had departed with his army, Bhima Raja returned to his country of Anahilvada, and in virtue of his devotion to Somnath of Prabhasa, caused the temple of Somnath to be built of stones in lieu of the former wooden temple which Mahomed had destroyed, that he later sent an army against and subdued the chief of Abu, and that he reigned at Anahilvada till his death in the year A.D. 1064.

"Again, the authors of Prabandha Chintamani and Dvyashraya Jain chronicles of Gujarat have recorded the most minute details of the reigns of the Chalukya kings of Anahilvada and had the conquest and colonisation of Mahim or the Konkan by this Bhima Raja and his Gujarat followers actually taken place, they would scarcely have omitted to chronicle so important an event. At the hour of Mahomed's invasion, the Konkan province was under the sway of the Shilaharas; and a copper­plate grant, dated shaka 948; which is A.D. 1025, shows that Chitaraj was then lord of the 1,400 Konkan villages, that Puri and Hamjaman were his chief cities, and that the taluka of Shashashti or Salsette formed part of his possessions. On the other hand, there is no record whatever that any king of the Solanki house of Gujarat ruled over the North Konkan; and this is natural, considering that Kumarpal, who defeated Mallikarjun through his general Ambada, was the only monarch of that dynasty whoever successfully invaded this country. It is indisputable that the Shilahara monarchs ruled these lands until A.D. 1260, and then yielded place, to the Yadavas of Devgiri.

"Thirdly, Bhima Raja II, who reigned in Anahilvada from 1179 to 1242 A.D., was so weak a man that he earned the sobriquet of' Bholo', the simpleton; and the only reference made to him by the Gujarat chronicles shows that ' his kingdom was gradually divided among his powerful ministers and provincial chiefs '. Was this the man to colonise Mahim, to wrest the sovereignty of the North Konkan from powerful Shilahara rulers like Aparaditya and his successor Keshidev ? We think not.

"But who then was Bhimdev, who, according to old Marathi and Persian records, now in the possession of the family of the late Sirdesai of Malad, seized the North Konkan, made Mahi or Mahim (Bombay) the capital of his kingdom, and divided the country into 15 mahals or districts, comprising 1,624 villages ? "(S. M. Edwardes, Rise of Bombay : A Retrospect (Bombay, 1902), pp. 22-25)

"Bimbashah, hearing of thedefeat of his father Ramadev of Devagiri by Alla-ud-din, fled with the Rajguru Purushottam Pant Kavle and eleven umraos by the shore of the sea, and took possession of the fort of Parner, and of Bardi, Sanjan, Daman, Shirgaon and other places. He thus obtained all the territory from Parner to Astagar. He came unto Mahi (Mahim in Bombay), and divided the country into 12 parts, giving the province of Malad and some villages from the province of Pahad unto the Rajguru Kavle. The Bimbakhyan also records that the king gave the village of Pahad to the Raj-purohit Kavle, and the village of Paspavli to the Senadhipati and Kulguru Gangadhar Pant Nayak.

" Now, as Mr. Fleet's Kanarese Dynasties proves, the Nayak family was in high favour with the Devagiri monarchy, for in A.D. 1272 Maha-pradhan Achyut Nayak was Ramdev's viceroy in the province of Salsette.

" Secondly, there is in existence a Persian patent, bearing the seal of Mahomed Dalil, Diwan of Sultan Ala-ud-din of Bedar and dated the first year of the accession to the throne, that is about the year 1436, A.D., which shows that 'in the Shalivahan era 1212 (1290 A.D.) Raja Bimbashah, having taken the ownership and possession of the country from the hands of 'Karson', kept it for himself. The country contains fourteen parganas from the jurisdiction of Saratbhata to the limits of Daman. At the same time, the office of Sirdesai and Sirdeshpande was under the control of Govind Mitkari. The said Mitkari lived for 3 years in the reign of Raja Bimbashah'.

" From the early history of the Deccan, we already know that in the Shalivahan Shaka 1212, a Brahmin named Krishna of the Bharadvaja Gotra was the viceroy of king Ramdev in the North Konkan; and we cannot help being convinced that the 'Karson' of the patent from whom Raja Bimb took possession, was identical with that Krishna.

" Lastly, a Danapatra, or grant of the rights of Sirdesai and Sirdeshpande, made by king Bimbdev to his Rajguru Purushottam Kavle in the Shaka year 1221 (A.D. 1299), shows that the province of the Konkan contained 14 parganas or districts, and 2 kashas or sub-districts, and that the island of Mahim (Bombay) was called a pargana containing 7 hamlets. It further states that 'In the month of Magh Shaka 1220 (A.D. 1298) Maharajadhiraja Bimbshah purchased from Changunabai, widow of Govind Mitkari, the watan of Sirdesai and Sirdeshpande in the provinces of Malad, etc., for 24,000 rayats, and after keeping it in his possession for one year and three months, presented it as a religious offering to his spiritual guide Purushottam Kavle of the Bharadvaja Gotra, on the occasion of a Solar Eclipse in the dark half of the month Vaishakh in the Shaka year 1221 (A.D. 1299), and in the presence of $n assembly consisting of the prime minister Madhavrao Shrinivas, Chitnavis Chandraban Prabhu, Patangrao Nyayadhish and others, merchants, mahajans and jamindars." (S. M. Edwardes, Rise of Bombay : A Retrospect  (Bombay, 1902),   pp.   25-27).

"The above evidence leads us to the conclusion that King Bhimdev, who died in the Shaka year 1225 (A.D. 1303), was succeeded by his son Pratapbimba or Pratapshah, was none other than Bhima Raja, the second son of king Ramdev of Devagiri. It was a common custom among Hindu princes whenever they found their lives or Kingdom in danger, to send to a place of safety a scion of the royal house, in order that the vansha or royal line might not become extinct ; and it seems to us probable that Ramdev, seeing his other son Shankar overpowered, and being surrounded by the advancing army of Ala-ud-din, took the precaution of despatching his second son Bhimdev to the Konkan, which had upto that date been free from Muslim attack, and was indeed in the guardianship of Krishna, a viceroy of his own choosing.

" With the advent of Bhimdev and his followers begins the history of the growth and colonisation of Bombay. The island of Mahim upon which he settled, had, previous to his arrival, been known as ' Mewale' or 'Baradbet' (the desert island); one of a group of isles, sparsely peopled by families of Koli fishermen and other low castes, overgrown with babul trees, and dowered with a fine temple of Walkeshwar and a shrine of the ancient goddess Mumbadevi. Here Bhimdev stayed and built a fair city of temples and palaces, for himself and his followers, which he called 'Mahikavati' (Mahim). Those that accompanied him upon his journey belonged, according to legend, to four main classes who spread themselves over the face of the Heptanesia, throve, multiplied, traded and withal led so peaceful an existence, that men from other countries, both Brahmins and traders, came thither also, seeking the shelter of Bhima's rule." (Ibid. pp. 25-28)

" The traditions of the Prabhus, Panchkalshis, and their priests, the Palshikar Brahmins, distinctly favour the theory that they came from Paltban with King Bhimdev, the son of Ramdev, Raja of Devagiri, at a time when the city of Devagiri was besieged by Ala-ud-din Khilji, emperor of Delhi ; and their view finds support in the old Marathi and Persian records which some of them possess.

" It remains to notice any impressions left upon our island to this day by Bhimdev's Hegira. The aboriginal settlers had formed hut-settlements within her limits and raised rude shrines to Khadakadev; the Shilaharas had built new temples and taught the Koli and Agri customs of a higher order; the immigrants from Devagiri built a capital city, introduced cultivation, built more temples, and made our islands the headquarters of a kingdom. Previously, Bombay had been merely an appendage of 'Puri'; Bhimdev deserted Puri and raised Bombay to the position of a capital under the title of Mahikavati or Mahim.

" Among the most noteworthy legacies of his rule were the special privileges or rights, which many of the castes that came with him enjoyed till quite a recent date.

" Again, there is to this day in the village of Naigaon, which lies between Vadala and Parel, a spot known to the villagers as 'Bhima Raja's Wadi'. At present the place is occupied by the Arshe Mahal or Mirror Palace of Jivanlal Maharaj; but local tradition, prevalent among the descendants of Bhim Raja's followers, declares that here stood of old one of the two palaces, built by that king, the principal seat of nyaya or justice. The second palace was at Kheda, Lower Mahim. Now hard by the halls of justice were quarters reserved for the use of the Raj-guru or royal preceptor, and other Brahmin followers, which earned the title of Brahman AH or Baman-Ali the street of the Brahmins. This is the origin of the name Bamnoli, which clings to the spot unto this day.

"Those well-known names 'Thakurvadi' and 'Bhoivadi' also date from this epoch; for the Thakurs, Bhoirs, and Gawands were three recognised divisions among the lower classes of Bhimdev's retinue. The Thakurs were the petty officers of his army; the Bhoirs or Bhois were his palanquin bearers; and both have left the legacy of their name of the locality in which they made their home.

"The memory of Bhima Raja the Good, the benefactor of Bombay, has not entirely departed from among the children of men. The villagers have defied, and still worship him; for in that Oart, called by them Bhima Raja's wadi and by others the Arshe Mahal, the descendants of old Bhois and Thakurs have set up a black stone, representative of the king, besmeared with red ochre and adorned with flowers, to which they offer, at certain seasons, milk, butter, fruits, and even goats and fowls. Till quite a recent date, an annual jatra or fair, at which animals were sacrificed, was held in his honour; but the new Maharaja, owner of the Oart, a strict Vaishnav, forbade the custom, advising the people that the feeding of Brahmins was a surer method of pacifying Bhima Raja's spirit than the slaughter of dumb creatures. We like the idea, prevalent among the uncultured denizens of Parel, that the spirit of the old monarch still haunts, still watches over, the lands for which he did so much and upon which he set an ineradicable seal.

'In the Shaka year 1225 (A.D. 1303) King Bhimdev died, and was succeeded by his son Pratapbimba, as he is sometimes called. Nothing of importance is known or recorded of him, save that he built another capital city at Marol in Salsette, which he named Pratappur. The name of the city still lives as Pardapur or Parjapur, a deserted village near the centre of Salsette.

"In the year 1318 A.D., after the reduction of Devagiri and the defeat and death of Harpaldev, son-in-law of the Yadava monarch Ramdev, Mubarak, the emperor of Delhi, ordered his garrisons to be extended to the sea, and occupied Mahim and Salsette. But Muhammedan supre­macy was probably not firmly established till later; for old Marathi records show that Pratapshah reigned for 28 years, that is, till A.D. 1331, when he was slain, and his kingdom usurped, by his brother-in-law Nagardev, the chief of Cheul.

"Nagardev reigned for 17 years, that is, till the year 1348, when his dominions passed into the hands of the Muslim rulers of Gujarat; and thus came to an end the sovereignty of old Hindu kings over the island of Bombay and its dependencies."   ( S. M. Edwardes, Rise of Bombay : A Retrospect (Bombay, 1902), pp. 33-36.)



The so-called Muhammedan period of Bombay's history is greatly lacking in historical material, in consequence chiefly of the fact that Mahim was merely one of the military out-posts of a mainland monarchy and possessed no political independence. As stated earlier local tradition affirms that Bimb died about the beginning of the 14th century, and yielded the throne to his son Pratapdev, who was ousted and slain about thirty years later by Nagardev, the chief of Cheul, and it was apparently during the rule of Bimb or his immediate successor that the Muslims first set covetous eyes upon Bombay. For in A.D. 1318 Mubarak Shah I of Gujarat, who ruled from 1317 to 1320 A.D. ordered his out-posts to be extended to the sea and occupied Mahim (Bombay) and Salsette. The considerable Muhammedan population resident in the coast towns of the Konkan might have helped towards the success of that policy of empire which for a short season guided the actions of the Sultan; but general acceptance of Muslim domination was largely imperilled by their wrong policies and actions, which resulted in Bombay in the destruction of the old temples of Mumbadevi and Mahalakshmi. Apparently however by A.D. 1322 the Muhammedans had conquered Thane and the surrounding country, including Mahim; for Friars Jordanus and Odoric, who sojourned in Thane from A.D. 1321 to 1324, remarked that the Saracens hold the whole country, having lately usurped the dominion. They have destroyed an infinite number of idol temples, likewise many churches of which they have annexed the endowments. According to their account, the headquarters of the kingdom was at Thane which was governed by a malik or commandant and by a kazi or civil official. The country was well stocked with big game, notably black lions (probably the black Javan panther) and the rhinoceros.

So far as can be gathered from local legend and external history, Mubarak Shah's possession of Bombay was never firmly established; and during the reign of Muhammad Tughalak (A.D. 1325-50), when the risings in Gujarat and the Deccan left the emperor no leisure to defend small outlying dependencies, Bombay seems to have again reverted to a Hindu overlord. The Bimbakhyan relates that in A.D. 1347 Nagardev, who had slain Pratapdev, was ruling over Salsette and Mahim, and that in consequence of the evil practices of his favourite Jaichuri and the degradation of one of his sardars, Natharao Sindha Bhongle, a revolu­tion took place which ended in that year in the final overthrow of Hindu dominion. For the discontented sardar fled to Vadnagar in Gujarat and besought the Musalman ruler of that place, who was probably one of the amiran-i-Sadah or centurions of the Delhi sultan, to turn his arms against the Northern Konkan. An army accordingly set forth under Nika Malik, one wing of which attacked Pratappur in Salsette, a second marched against Thane, and a third laid siege to Mahikavati (Mahim) which in the absence of Nagardev was courageously defended for a time by his queen and a small body of retainers. The struggle was however hopeless; the queen was slain, the city looted: and finally a pitched battle was fought at Byculla between the Muslim host and the forces of Nagardev, in which the former proved victorious. Bombay thus became for the second time subject to the Muhammedans; garrisons were set up in different places; while Nika Malik and another Musalman officer fixed upon Pratappur and Vasai as their respective headquarters.

Upto the close of the 14th century, little is heard of Bombay except the fact that Mahim witnessed the birth of Sheikh Ali Paru or as he was afterwards styled Makhdum Fakir Ali (the worshipful jurisconsult Ali). But shortly after the establishment of the Gujarat Sultanate, Jafar Khan (afterwards Muzaffar Shah I) was appointed viceroy of the north Konkan by Firoz Shah. On his first arrival Jafar Khan found two governors, one of Mahim and the other of Navasari, who had been appointed by the Khilji generals; and these officials of the Delhi monarchy were very shortly removed in favour of men more directly subordinate to the newly founded dynasty of Gujarat. Thus during the reign of Sultan Ahmad, one Malik-us-Sharq, a Gujarat noble of renown, was posted for some years at Mahim, and in addition to instituting a proper survey of the land, did much to improve the existing revenue system. About the same period also occurred, according to traditional accounts, the rebellion of the Bhongles, who are supposed to have been Bhandari sardars and who, by exciting disaffection among the subjects of the Ahmedabad sultan, are alleged to have ousted the Muhammedan garrison from Mahim. Beyond the statements in the Bimbakhyan to the effect that the Bhongles were masters of Mahim and its dependencies for at least eight years and that their corrupt administration eventually brought about their downfall, we have absolutely no evidence of this event. It is however unquestionable that the Bhandari population of Mahim and Bombay at this date was considerable, that many of them followed the profession of arms, that to this day Bhongle is in use as a surname among the Bhandaris, and that at the outset of British dominion the Bhandaris, under the name of Bhongles, possessed the right to blow the bugle as a signal of the opening of the quarter sessions and were vested with certain privileges at public pageants. It may therefore be inferred that some revolt against Muhammedan rule, in which the Bhandaris played a leading part, took place about the close of the 14th century and resulted in the temporary eclipse of the overlordship of the Ahmadabad sultans.
Mahim however did not long remain independent. Mahim at that time was held by Rai Qutb. It is related that the daughter of the Rai of Mahim was given in marriage to Prince Fateh Khan, the son of Ahmad Shah of Gujarat. This Rai Qutb was probably one of the petty local princes, formerly rulers of Mahim who had embraced Islam and had been allowed by Gujarat rulers to retain a modified independence under them. On the death of Rai Qutb Sultan Ahmad Bahamani of the Deccan despatched an army under Khalaf Hasan Basri to subjugate the north Konkan and oust all contumacious local chieftains, which succeeded in capturing Salsette and Mahim. Hearing of this event the Gujarat sultan at once sent his son Jafar Khan with a well appointed force to recapture the lost territory. An obstinate battle was fought on the shores of one of the island creeks between the forces of Jafar Khan and the army of the Deccan monarch, which had been reinforced by the arrival of a fresh army under Prince Ala-ud-din Bahamani. The Gujarat army won a complete victory, routing their opponents with the loss of 2,000 men and 2 nobles and capturing Husain, the brother of the Deccan general. Notwithstanding this defeat, the Bahamani sultan determined not to relinquish any chance of adding the north Konkan to his possessions; and when a few years later Kutb Khan, the Gujarat commandant of Mahim, died, he again despatched a large army under Malik-ul-Tujjar against Thane and Bombay. Thereupon the Gujarat king sent down a strong force under his son and one Iftikhar-ul-mulk, to stem the tide of Deccani invasion and also bade Mukhlis-ul-mulk, head of the Gujarat naval depot at Diu, aid them with a maritime armament. Collecting seventeen war-ships from Diu, Gogha and Cambay, Mukhlis-ul-mulk hastily joined the Gujarat leaders at Mahim and arranged them with them for a simultaneous attack upon Thane by land and sea. Operations commenced with an attack by Malik Sohrab upon the town which was garrisoned by a large Deccani force under a kotwal. The latter held out bravely for three days; and then, seeing the Gujarat forces daily reinforced and little chance of further aid to himself, he evacuated Thane and fled. This action and the consequent occupation of the town by the Gujarat army forced Malik-ul-Tujjar to retreat to Mahim, pursued by the Gujarat prince, Jafar Khan. Malik-ul-Tujjar threw up on all sides of the island a stockade of thorn trees and martialled his forces for the enemy's onslaught. The struggle which ensued was fiercely waged and lasted till evening fell, when Malik-ul-Tujjar, considering further opposition useless, retired from the field. He subsequently made two fresh attempts to regain possession of Mahim, but discovered that the power of the Gujarat Sultan was too firmly grounded to offer any chance of success and that the latter had considerably strengthened his position by arrang­ing in A.D. 1432 for his son to marry the daughter of the tributary Rai of Mahim.

Some years ago this struggle between the Ahmedabad and Bahamani monarchies on the shores of Bombay received somewhat curious corroboration. The sea, which has ever been encroaching upon the Mahim shoie, washed away a considerable piece of land near the shrine of Sheik Ali Paru and thereby disclosed amid the strata of the beach numbers of bodies interred layer upon layer and in varying stages of preservation. These are supposed to have been the corpses of the men who fell in the battle above-mentioned, and have been responsible for the name Ganj-i-Shahidan or Catacomb by which the spot is known in common parlance to this day.

During the greater portion of the 15th century, from the reign of Ahmad Shah (1411-41) to that of Bahadur Shah (1527-36) Bombay remained in the hands of the Gujarat monarchy. However, the first signal of opposition was raised by Bahadur Khan Gilani. During the years 1491 to 1494 the Sultan's attention was drawn by the piracies on the Gujarat coast of Bahadur Gilani, a nobleman of the Bahamani kingdom in revolt against his master. The greatness of this monarchy came to an end with the unjust and cruel murder of the celebrated minister Mahmud Gavan, and Bahadur, who had been a protege of that minister, broke out in rebellion at the port of Dabhol and soon became master of the whole of the Konkan. He extended his depredations on the coast further to the north so that ships from the port-towns of Gujarat were at his mercy and some of the Sultan's own vessels were captured. One of Bahadur's officers, an Abyssinian named Yaqut, is said by Ferishta to have attacked Mahim, near Bombay, with a fleet of twelve ships, and to have sacked and burnt the place. These insults to his authority were not likely to be tolerated by a ruler so powerful as Mahmud and he decided to take strong action.

Mahmud's expedition to the Konkan : It appears that one expedi­tion sent under Safdar Khan failed disastrously, and the Sultan sent another by land against Dabhol under Malik Sarang, Kiwam-ul-Mulk, while he also despatched a well equipped fleet of three hundred vessels by sea to co-operate with the land army. When Kiwam-ul-Mulk reached the borders of Gujarat at Agashi and Vasai he halted and sent word to the king that he could not attack Gilani without trespassing into the territory of the Deccan ruler. Meanwhile, the ships sent under Safdar-ul-Mulk had met with a severe gale off the coast of Mahim, and being stranded, were taken by the enemy, the admiral himself being made a prisoner. Sultan Mahmud now sent an envoy to the court of the Deccan sovereign requesting him to suppress the marauder. This formal complaint roused the feeble Bahamani government to action, and Qasim Barid, its minister, led a campaign against the rebellious nobleman with the result that, after some protracted operations, Gilani was defeated and slain. Safdar-ul-Mulk was released from prison and the ships which had been captured on the Gujarat coast were restored to their owners. The admiral sailed from Mahim for the north carrying valuable gifts for the Gujarat Sultan from the feeble Bahamani ruler. It may be stated here that in 1490 Malik Ahmad, established the Nizamshahi dynasty of Ahmadnagar, and Yusuf Adil Khan, another Bahamani noble, founded the Adilshahi house of Bijapur. It was not long before these young and vigorous powers began to assail the outlying possessions of the Gujarat Sultanate. The Nizamshahi ruler obtained peaceful possession of Danda-Rajapur and other portions of the north Konkan in A.D. 1490. Subsequent to this event the power of the Bahamani dynasty gradually waned, and their possessions in the Konkan were divided between the rulers of Ahmadnagar and Bijapur.

The reign of Sultan Mahmud Begada witnessed certain events which were destined to exercise a powerful influence over Bombay. The Mirat-i-Sikandari mentions an attack by the Sultan upon certain firangis who had created great disturbances in Mahim. These were undoubtedly the Portuguese who were just commencing to consolidate their power in Bombay, Salsette and Vasai. Mahmud's expedition was of little use for by the time his forces reached Dahanu news was brought that Malik Ayaz, his slave-admiral, had defeated the Portuguese near Bombay, sinking one of their largest vessels and killing nearly 20,000 men. In this war with the Portuguese the Egyptians had cooperated with the Gujarat Navy.

Muslim naval victory at Cheul, 1508 : The Portuguese forces in India were at this time under the command of their first viceroy Francisco D'Almedia, and he was ably assisted by his gallant and popular son Lorenzo, whose exploits resembled those of the heroes of mediaeval romance. When Lorenzo was lying in shelter with a small squadron in the harbour of Cheul, south of Bombay, news reached him that the Egyptian fleet had reached Diu and had been joined by Malik Ayaz. The combined flotilla soon arrived off the bar at Cheul, where took place, in January, 1508, the first great naval battle in the heroic struggle between Portugal and Islam. After a running fight extending over three days, Dom Lorenzo's ship became entangled in a line of fishermen's stakes and was surrounded by a number of the light Gujarat fustas. The young captain refused to escape and fought on till a shot broke both his legs, and he died shortly after, telling his men to surrender to Malik Ayaz and not to the Egyptian admiral. The effect of this victory upon the Portu­guese was but temporary; for from A.D. 1537, when Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat died, they gradually consolidated their predominance in all the ports of the western coast from Diu to Goa, being assisted to no little extent by the internecine dissensions which broke out among the nobles of Gujarat. By A.D. 1572 the old Sultanate of Gujarat disappeared, yielding place to the Mughal dynasty of Delhi under whose greatest representative Akbar, the Portuguese were finally enabled to establish their power in Bombay and the north Konkan.
It will be appaient that the history of the island of Bombay during the era of Muslim supremacy is somewhat indefinite. The salient fact of the period is that Mahim served purely as a military out-post, for the possession of which the forces of the great mainland monarchies on several occasions bared their swords; and in all probability the internal administration of Bombay and the surrounding country was vested in tributary Hindu rais or chieftains, such as the Rai of Mahim whose daughter was betrothed to a prince of the Gujarat Musalman dynasty in A.D. 1432, or the Rai of Bhiwandi who, according to an inscription of A.D. 1464, was in the habit of making grants of land to the people in his charge. The sole legacies of Musalman dominion and immigration are firstly the shrine of Saint Makhdum Fakih Ali at Mahim and secondly the community of half-Arab half-Hindu Muhammedans who, formerly known as Naitias, are now styled Konkanis. It was not till after the establishment of British supremacy that the bulk of the Muhammedan population, Khojas, Bohras, Pathans, Siddis, Julhais, Mughals and others, immigrated into Bombay and the mosques of the city were established, and it was not until A.D. 1818 that any Muhammedan writer appeared to point proudly to the island, lying midway between the islands of Salsette and Colaba, and say 'the best of all things are the middlemost'.

The one architectural legacy of early Muhammedan rule is the shrine of the Saint Makhdum Fakih Ali Paru, built upon the eastern side of the town of Mahim. The inner side of the dome, which rises above the shrine, is ornamented with an Arabic inscription in gilt, giving the name and dates of the birth and death of the saint. Southward thereof lies the grave of his mother and other kindred. During the rule of the Mughals (H. 1085, A;D. 1674), and shortly after Bombay had become a British possession, the shrine was wholly repaired. To the north of the domed enclosure is a wooden mosque, near which stands a very ancient step-well, doubtless intended for the ablutions of the faithful. From the position of certain old graves and other mural structures, which are only revealed to view at low tide, it appears that the sea was originally at a far greater distance from the shrine than it is at present; and in all probability, at the hour when the Hindu Rai ruled the land under the eye of a military official of Gujarat, the island of Mahim covered a considera­bly wider area than in 1843, when Mr. Murphy prepared his chart of the seven islands of Bombay.



The third period of the history of Bombay rightly commences in 1534 with the cession of the island to the Portuguese by Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat. But for several years prior to this, date, the Portuguese had been consolidating their power in the north Konkan and on more than one occasion had visited Bombay. In the latter half of December 1508, for example, Don Francisco D'Almeida, the first viceroy of Goa, set sail from Cannanore to Diu with a fleet of nineteen vessels and an army of 1,600 soldiers, of whom four hundred hailed from the Malabar coast, with the express object of punishing Mir Hosain (Amir Hussein), who had been despatched by the Sultan of Cairo with an Egyptian fleet to expel the Portuguese from India. Leaving Angediv, the Portuguese reach­ed Dabhol, then a city of considerable wealth, on the 30th December, there disembarked, and dividing their forces into three parties, made a simultaneous attack upon the three gates of the city. Its defenders sustained the attack for sometime with great courage, but were eventually put to flight by Nuno Vaz Pereira, who under the viceroy's orders executed a flank movement and attacked the city in the rear. This action put an end to the engagement, which had lasted for five hours and resulted in a loss of sixteen men only on the Portuguese side and fifteen hundred on the side of the defenders. The booty seized by the Portuguese amounted to 1,50,000 ducats; but all looting on a large scale was prevented by the firing and speedy destruction of the city. Leaving Dabhol on the 5th January, 1509, the Portuguese paid their first visit to Bombay on the 21st January with the object of provisioning the fleet. They seized a Gujarat vessel, manned by twenty-four Moors (Muhammedans), in ' the river of Bombay' (i.e., the Bandora creek) and finding the cargo insufficient for their requirements they despatched some of the Muhammedans to the headman of the island, asking him to supply them with provisions for cash. Behind them the viceroy despatched some of his own men with instructions not to cause any unnecessary damage to the island; and they landing without molestation near Mahim fort captured twenty-four sheep and drove them down to the shore of the creek. In the meanwhile the headman who had fled inland probably to Bombay proper, with most of the inhabitants of Mahim, despatched twelve bags of rice and a dozen goats to the viceroy, excusing himself from supplying anything else on the grounds that locusts had destroyed everything on the island. An alternative account is supplied by Gaspar Correa who remarks that "the viceroy departed from Dabhol, passed by Cheul, which, to avoid delay, he did not enter and cast anchor at Bombay, where the people terrified fled away. Our men captured many cows and some ' blacks', who were hiding among the bushes, and of whom the good were kept and the rest were killed. The viceroy happening to see a well-disposed black being carried away, ordered him to be set free, on condition of his taking an oath, according to his law, that he would convey a letter to Din and deliver it to Malik Ayaz. The poor black, delighted at the prospect of freedom, consented; and the letter was delivered to Malik Ayaz twenty days before the arrival of the fleet".

The expedition then set sail for Diu and arrived on the 2nd February, 1509. Between 9 and 10 o'clock on the following morning a sharp engage­ment took place between the Portuguese and Malik Ayaz, who with Amir Hussein had prepared to resist the attack with a fleet of two hundred vessels. The Portuguese gained a complete victory; the ships of the Musalman were plundered; Amir Hussein was seriously wounded; and the colours of the ' Soldan ' (Sultan) were despatched as trophy to Portugal. This success served but to intensify the desire of the Portuguese to build a fortress at Diu, and indirectly led to the despatch of two embassies, in 1513 and 1514, to Sultan Bahadur for the purpose of negotiating for a site. Owing to the action of Malik Ayaz, the embassies met with little success; but when the second, consisting of Diogo Fernandez, Diogo Teixeira and Ganapotam (Ganpatrao), a Hindu inter­preter, conferred with the Sultan at Madoval (Ahmadabad), the island of Mahim (Bombay) was offered as an alternative site. This, however, the ambassadors refused on the ground that they were not authorized to accept any site but Diu. In 1517, during the viceroyalty of Dom Soares de Albergaria, Dom Joao de Monroyo entered the Bandora creek with seven pinnaces and defeated the commandant of Mahim. "Monroyo ", writes Barras, " arrived at the river of Mahim, where he found a ship coming from the Red Sea with merchandise. The crew, to save themselves, entered the river and ran aground. They saved themselves with the best they had, and the rest was taken by our men, who carried all to Cheul. At this capture the commandant of Mahim, Xeque-ji (i.e. Sheikh-ji) was greatly affronted, not only by reason of the vessel having been cap­tured before his eyes, but also because his fortress had been bombarded. On the departure of our men, he hastily despatched three pinnaces after them, to stop the passage at Cheul point. Having attacked our men, the latter behaved in such a manner that his pinnaces fled. Between 1522 and 1524, when Dom  Duarte de   Menezes was viceroy of Goa, the Portuguese were constantly prowling about Bombay for the ships of the Muhammedans and on one occasion drove Malik Ayaz and his fleet to take shelter in Bombay harbour; while in 1528-29 Lopo Vaz, with 40 ships, 1,000 Portuguese, and some native levies, overtook the Gujarat fleet near Bombay, destroyed half the enemy's ships, and captured many prisoners and much cannon and ammunition.   He then seized Mahim fort belonging to the King of Cambay (Sultan of Gujarat) who was at war with Nizamuluco (Nizam-ul-mulk), the lord of Cheul, and handed it over to the latter. " The fleet of the king of Cambay ", writes Gaspar Correa, "consisted of 68 pinnaces under the command of a son of Camalmaluco (Kamal Malik), governor and captain of Diu, and of Ali Shah.  Lopo Vaz de Sampayo  anchored off a small island, where the pinnaces of Ali Shah lay; and the latter then retreated with his rowing boats to the mouth of the Thana river and there cast anchor. During the night the governor sent Vincent Correa to spy upon the enemy. He saw all their boats drawn up at the landing-place, with the exception of two which kept watch at the mouth of the river. Ali Shah under cover of night sailed for the Nagothana  river  with  twenty  well-equipped galleons, having galleries at the stern adorned with pictures (i.e., texts from the Koran). Thither followed Lopo Vaz and ordered Heitor da Silveira to attack the enemy, which the latter successfully accomplished returning to the fleet with a prize of twenty-seven fustas (pinnaces). He then pursued the fugitive Ali Shah to a neighbouring fortress, pillaged the surrounding country and captured much artillery. To escape further annoyance, the thanedar of Thane made himself tributary to the Portu­guese, and promised to pay them annually a sum of 2,000 pardaos (Rs. 750)." Heitor da Silveira then returned to Bombay harbour, where, according to Barros, he was received with great ovations; and when on the 20th March, 1529, the viceroy returned to Goa, Heitor was left behind with twenty bargantins, two galliots and three hundred men to harass the coast as far as Cambay. During the three months preceding the monsoon of  1529 Heitor da Silveira and his men made repeated incursions   into Bombay and the neighbouring  islands, and gave to Bombay the title of a ilha da boa vida (the island of the good life) in token of the abundant food and enjoyment which it supplied.

Bombay again came into prominence in connection with the attempt of the Portuguese to capture Diu in 1530-31. The commandant of the fort, having been deprived of his position by Sultan Bahadur, approached Nuno da Cunha, the viceroy of Goa, and suggested a joint attack upon the citadel. Nuno da Cunha agreed, furnished the commandant with a pass and with a fleet under the command of Gaspar Paes, and then set about preparations for an attack upon his own account. He collected the largest fleet ever seen in India, consisting of four hundred sail, inclu­ding many large ships, but mostly small vessels fitted out by natives, and held a grand naval review in the harbour of Bombay, and a general parade of all his forces upon the plain now known as the Esplanade, taking a roll from each captain of the Portuguese soldiers and sailois, and of the captive slaves who could fight and assist, and the number of musketeers and of the people such as servants. The muster showed the forces to consist of 3,600 soldiers and 1,460 seamen, all Portuguese; 2,000 men from Malabar and Kanara, 8,000 slaves, 5,000 native seamen and 3,000 musketeers. Including the women and children, the whole floating population amounted to more than 30,000 souls. The review ended, the fleet sailed to Daman, which was speedily captured, and thence to the island of Bete (Shial Bet) which surrendered after a stern struggle. Diu was also bombarded, but managed to withstand the siege; whereupon Nuno da Cunha retired to Goa, leaving Antonio Saldanha with sixty vessels to cruise in the Gulf of Cambay and harass the foe. In the months of March and April, 1531, Saldanha rapidly seized and burnt Mohuva, Gogha, Tarapur, Mahim, Agashi and Surat, while Diogo da Silveira plundered Thane, the thanedar of which had attempted to rid himself of the obligation to pay tribute to the Portuguese. In consequence of this success, and later of Nuno da Cunha's capture of Vasai in January, 1533, the islands of Bombay and Mahim together with Bandra became tributary to the foreigner.

Meanwhile Sultan Bahadur Shah of Gujarat had grown apprehensive the power of the Mughal emperors, and observing the successes obtained by Portuguese arms, determined to enlist their aid. Accordingly in 1534 he despatched Xacoes (Shah Khawjeh) to Nuno da Cunha with an offer to hand over Vasai and all its dependencies and revenues by sea and land and on the 23rd December of that year the treaty of Vasai was signed on board the galleon San Mateos, under the terms of which Bahadur Shah gave and bequeathed to the King of Portugal from that day forth and for over the city of Vasai, its territories, islands and seas, with all its revenues, in the same way as he, Sultan Bahadur, King of Gujarat, held them before, provided that all vessels from the kingdom of Gujarat bound for the Red Sea should first call at Vasai for passes, and on return voyage call there again, in order to pay duties under penalty and risk of seizure.

The surrender of Vasai and Bombay was confirmed later by a treaty of peace and commerce between Bahadur Shah and Nuno da Cunha, dated the 25th October, 1535, whereby also the Portuguese were permitted to carry out the long desired wcrk of building a fort at Diu. During the following ten years the Portuguese were constantly at war with Adil Khan, the Sultans of Gujarat, and the Zamorin of Calicut, while troubles also arose at Malacca and Diu was besieged by the Turks under Soleyman Badshaw (Suleiman Pasha), governor of Cairo. The main result was the impoverishment of the Portuguese treasury and consequent inability on the part of Portugal to reward suitably the services of her distinguished servants. This lack of money was doubtless partly responsible for the granting of lands by the crown as rewards for meritorious actions, and for the rise of the feudal system of tenure, which characterized Bombay during the era of Portuguese dominion; although it should be noted at the same time that under the Sultans of Gujarat a system approximating to the feudal had been in force in Vasai, Salsette, Bombay and neighbouring tracts. It appears in any case that from 1534 onwards Bom­bay was, for the purposes both of executive and judicial administration, subordinate to Vasai, and that all the territory of the Portuguese in the north Konkan was divided into manors or fiefs, the land being granted to deserving persons at a nominal rental of 4 to 10 per cent, and the leases being renewable either yearly, triennially, or in some cases for a period of one to three lives. For every distinguished services, and in cases where the grantees were religious confraternities, the lands were handed over in perpetuity. In return, the king of Portugal claimed military service from the tenant which might be commuted into a tax at the discretion of the authorities and the comptroller of the treasury. This system of tenure, which also laid upon the tenant an obligation to cultivate and improve the land, was known as aforamento (i.e., holding subject to the payment of foro or quit-rent) ; and side by side with it existed a minor tenure known as arrendarnento, signifying the annual letting or renting of land for a fixed sum in cash or kind.

In the general distribution of estates which occurred after 1534, the island of Monbaym (Bombay proper) was let to one Mestre Diogo, as tenant or foreiro, for an annual quit-rent of 1,432 1/2 pardaos (about Rs. 537-3-0), payable at the royal treasury in Vasai. The island or kasba of Mahim was similarly rented for 36,057 foedeas (Rs. 751-3-0), the Mandovin, i.e., the mandvi or custom house of Mahim for 39,975 foedeas (Rs. 791-2-9), and the island of Mazagonfor 8,500 foedeas (Rs. 178), while between 1545 and 1548, during the viceroyalty of D. Joao de Castro, the four villages of Parel, Vadala, Sion and Worli were granted to Manuel Serrao for an annual payment of 412 pardaos (Rs. 154-8-0), the villages of Trombay and Chembur to Dom Roque Tello de Menezes, Elephanta island to Joao Pirez for 105 pardaos (Rs. 39-6-0), and the revenue of the custom house at Walkeshwar to one Posagy for 60 foedeas (Rs. 1-4-0). It cannot be definitely stated for what period Mestre Diogo enjoyed the manorial rights of Bombay; but collateral evidence proves that in or about the year 1554 during the viceroyalty of Dom Pedro Mascarenhas, the island was granted to Garcia da Orta, the celebrated physician and botanist, for a yearly quit-rent equivalent to about £85 sterling. In his colloquios dos Simplese Drogas da India (conversations on the drugs and simples of India) he himself speaks of Bombay as ' Mombaim' terra eilha de que El Rei nosso senhor me fes merce, aforada em fatiota' (the island which the King has granted to me on payment of a quit-rent). Bombay apparently remained in his possession until his death in Goa in 1570, after which it appears to have been granted on the same tenure to several parties in succession, the last of whom was Donna Ignez de Miranda, widow of Dom Rodrigo de Moncanto.

Garcia da Orta was in all probability responsible for the building of the quinta or manor-house, which Fryer described in later years as a pretty well-seated but ill-fortified house and which Simao Botelhi recorded as being situated in a park with pleasure grounds, at the cacabe (kasba) of Bombaim, the principal seat of the island near the little fort. It was built sometime between 1528 and 1626; for in the latter year David Davies, the English navigator, who participated in the joint attack by the English and Dutch upon Bombay, referred to it in the following terms in the log-book of his ship the Discovery : " The 13th October we went into the Bay of Bombay and rode without the stakes. The 14th the Morris and the Dutch ships went in near the Great House to batter against it, in which battery three of the Morris ordnance split. The same day we landed 300 men, English and Dutch, and burnt all their cadjan houses and took the Great House with two basses (small cannon) of brass and one saker (heavy cannon) of iron. The 15th, all our men embarked aboard the ships, being Sunday in the evening, and left the Great House which was both a warehouse, a priory and a fort, all afire, burning with other good houses, together with two new frigates not yet from the stocks nor fully ended; but they had carried away all their treasure and all things of any value, for all were run away before our men landed. The chief products of the island during the sixteenth century were the cocoanut palm, brab, jack-tree, jambul, the jangoma, of which few specimens now exist, and mango-trees, one of which supplied the Lord of the Manor with fruit twice a year, once about Christmas, and again at the end of May. Cocoanuts and rice were the staple products of the island of Mahim; Mazagon and Sion were noted for their salt pans, while the numerous settlements of Kolis were responsible for a large supply offish, which was dried upon the island and then forwarded to Vasai for sale to the Moors (Muhammedans). As regards the popula­tion of the island, Bombay appears to have been composed of seven villages subordinate to two cacabas (kashas) or chief stations, at which customs-duty was levied. These villages were Mahim, Parel, Varella (Vadala) and Syva (Sion) under the kasba of Mahim, and Mazagon, Bombaim (Bombay), and Varel (Worli) under the kasba of Bombay.

In addition to these there were probably smaller hamlets, like Cavel, Colaba, Naigaon and Dongri, which had existed from the epoch of Hindu colonization. Bombay itself was not very populous, for it contained some years later (1634) only eleven Portuguese families or married men (cazados) and some native blacks (pretos naturaes), making altogether seventy musketeers able to serve in war. The latter were probably of Koli or Bhandari caste. The Kolis formed perhaps the most numerous class at this date and dwelt in most parts of the island from Colaba in the south to Sion and Mahim in the north. Wearing then, as they still do, their distinctive emblem, a knife suspended round the neck, these aboriginal colonists subsisted mostly by fishing and agriculture, though a few may have been forced to relinquish these duties for that of palanquin-bearing, which formed the subject of many a petition and appeal during the earlier years of the British occupation. A smaller community was that of the Moors (Musalmans) who, according to Garcia da Orta, were solely engaged in maritime trade. "They possessed the land first" he writes, " and are called Naitias, which means mixed or made up first of the Moors who came from abroad and mixed themselves with the Gentiles (Hindus) of this land." A few Musalmans of less mixed descent may conceivably have been living in Mahim or Bombay; but the bulk of the followers of Islam clearly belonged to the Konkani Muhammedan community, whose Arab and Persian ancestors had taken unto themselves wives from among the Hindu inhabitants of the western coast. Then there were Kunbis and Agris (Curumbins), who cultivated the fields and sowed them with rice and all sorts of pulse; there were Malis, who tended the orchards and were styled Hortelaos by the Portuguese, and thirdly Piaes (i.e. peons) or men-at-arms, who were in all likelihood Bhandaris. In Mahim, Bombay and Parel dwelt Parus (i.e. Prabhus) who collect the rents of the King and of the inhabitants and their estates, and are also merchants; while of the three other communities mentioned by Garcia da Orta as resident in Vasai and its subordinate tracts, viz., Baneanes (Banias), Coaris or Esparcis (Parsis) and Deres (i.e., Dheds or Mahars) or Farazes, the last named must from the nature of their duties have been dwelling both in Bombay and Mahim. " They are a people despised and hated by all," wrote da Orta, " they do not touch others, they eat everything, even dead things. Each village gives them its leavings to eat. Their task is to cleanse the dirt from houses and streets." The Banias and Parsis on the other hand did not actually settle upon the island until after its cession to England by the Portuguese.

The history of the dominion of the Portuguese in Western India is to a large extent the tale of the foundation and growth of their religious orders; and it was not long before Bombay became acquainted with the latter. Shortly after 1534, during the episcopate of Dom Fr. Joao de Alphonso de Albuquerque, one Fr. Antonio de Porte, a Franciscan friar, set sail for Vasai and Bombay. One of the conditions of the Treaty of Vasai was that a sum of 5,000 larins (a Persian coin equal to about six pence), which had hitherto been allocated to the mosques from the revenues of Vasai, should continue to be so applied; but so vigorously did Fr. Antonio and others set about the dissemination of their creed, that the king of Portugal eventually passed an order to utilize all funds of this nature for the benefit of missions in Bombay and Vasai. Besides converting about ten thousand natives in Vasai, Thane, Mandapeshwar and neighbouring places, the Franciscans built the church of St. Michael, which still exists in Mahim at the north end of Lady Jamshedji Road, and ranks as the oldest Franciscan building in Bombay. The keynote of Portu­guese policy, indeed, is embodied in Vasco da Gama's famous remark "Vimos buscar Christaos-e-especiaria" (Welcome to seek Christians and spices) and they were slow to realize that the advancement of trade depended on the widest religious toleration as one of its principal factors. Had the Portuguese Government been able to restrain the troublesome and wanton acts of oppression which the religious orders practised under the cloak of proselytism the population and trade of Bombay and surrounding tracts would almost certainly have largely increased. But Bombay was early placed under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Vigario da Vara at Vasai and under his auspices the Franciscan mission was followed in 1542 by a Jesuit mission, the most notable member of which was St. Francis Xavier, and in 1548 by the Dominion order established in Goa in 1545 by one Diogo Bermudes, who constantly visited Bombay to confer with his friends Garcia da Orta. St. Francis Xavier lost no time in obtaining for the Jesuit order a share of the money which was formerly reserved for the benefit of the mosques, and by the year 1570 the Pauli-stines, as the Jesuits were styled, were resident in every town and village of Portuguese territory and had commenced building the church of St. Andrew at Bandra. Franciscan and Jesuit vied with one another in the erection of churches and the conversion of the inhabitants of Bombay. A chapel of Nossa Senhora de Bom Concelho was erected at Sion and affiliated to the church of St. Michael in 1596, and in the same year a church of Nossa Senhora de Salvacao was built at Dadar, both of which were built by the Franciscans and are still in existence. To the latter Fryer referred in 1673 in the words " at Salvasong the Franciscans enjoy another church and convent" and the same order also owned the Romish chapel at Parel, which was confiscated from the Jesuits in 1719, and after serving as Government House and the residence of H.M. the King Emperor during his visit to Bombay in 1875, has finally been transformed into the Haffkine Institute.

By 1585 the Franciscans had obtained practical control of Salsette, Mahim, Bombay and Karanja islands in each of which places was a state-paid official styled 'O Pai dos Christaos' and in addition to the churches mentioned above they had built one on the Esplanade to Nossa Senhora de Esperanza, the earliest parishioners of which were the Koli converts of Cavel. These Roman Catholic ecclesiastics earned larger revenues than even the king of Portugal himself; they founded a college at Bandra, which conferred degrees upon all manner of persons and according to a writer of the seventeenth century " was not inferior as the building nor much [unlike those of our universities"; they lived sumptuously and were generally so influential that even the General of" the North at Vasai felt his position to be precarious. These facts obtruded themselves upon the Reverend John Ovington, who visited Bombay in 1689 and remarked that " Few men can enjoy very peaceable lives who have any fair possessions near the convents of the Jesuits; a pleasant seat and a fruitful plantation can hardly escape their gaining.".

Similarly at Naigaon the Prabhu and Brahman must still have been resident, though the latter found it harder than the former to maintain a livelihood and reputation amongst those who, once his disciples, had been largely persuaded or forcibly driven to become Christians. The Prabhu, on the contrary, being a man of business, could still comfortably subsist by petty trading or by acting as a rent collector and agent of Portuguese landlords. The defences of the island consisted of " several strong castles, such as that of Bombay, that at Dungerrey (Dongri), that at Ley am and that at Mahim". The trade of the islands was not great, being confined for the most part to the sale of dried fish, and the revenues of the Portuguese landlords were drawn mostly from taxes upon rice-lands, payable in kind, upon oil and ghi, and upon the cocoa-nut palms, date palms and arecanut palms, with which the island abounded.

Notwithstanding the poverty, however, the immense natural advan­tages of Bombay aroused the cupidity of the English who recognized its value as a naval base. It was for this reason that they fought the battle of Swally in 1612; that they landed in Bombay and burnt the manor-house in 1626; that in 1652 the Surat Council urged the purchase of Bombay from the Portuguese; and that in 1654 the Directors of the East India Company drew the attention of Cromwell to this suggestion, laying great stress upon its excellent harbour and its natural isolation from land-attacks. By the middle of the seventeenth century the growing power of the Dutch and the disturbances to which Shah Jahan's death gave rise, absolutely forced upon the English Company, both in Surat and London, the need of a station of their own in Western India; and under orders from the Directors the Council at Surat made enquiries, and finally reported in 1659 that every effort should be made to obtain from the king of Portugal the cession of either Danda Rajapur or Versova or Bombay. Thus the train was laid, which culminated in the marriage treaty of Charles II and the Infanta Donna Catherine of Portugal, and placed Bombay island in the possession of the English Crown.



The various attempts of the English to obtain possession of Bombay, were the outcome of the general policy of the East India Company which justly foresaw that British trade interests in India could not flourish unless it secured fortified stations yielding a revenue equal to the charges of them and also maintained at such stations a naval and military force sufficient to render the Company wholy independent of the intrigues and quarrels carried on between the native powers of the continent. In regard to Western India in particular the growing power of the Dutch and the disturbances consequent upon the death of Shah Jahan impressed upon the Company the imperative need of obtaining a fresh station auxiliary to their chief settlement in Surat and it must therefore have been with no little sense of relief that they received the news of the signing of the marriage treaty between Charles II and the Infanta Catherine of Portugal at Whitehall on the 23rd June 1661, whereby the post and island of Bombay with all the rights, profits, territories and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging were handed over to the King of Great Britain, his heirs and successors forever. In pursuance of the terms of the treaty the Earl of Marlborough was despatched frcm England in March 1662 with five ships, five hundred soldiers under Sir Abraham Shipman, and with Antonio de Mello de Castro, Viceroy of the King of Portugal onboard, to take delivery of the island. The fleet arrived at Bombay in September 1662, and the Earl at once sent a formal demand for possession to the Portuguese viceroy and it was then for the first time that the representatives of the English Crown discovered firstly that the island was by no means the considerable possession that the authorities in England believed it to be, and secondly that in spite of its manifest poverty the agents and subjects in India of the Portuguese King had determined not to hand it over to the English without a struggle.

In regard to the first point one may recall Lord Clarendon's misty notion of " the Island of Bombay with the towns and castles therein which are within a very little distance from Brazil"; the statement of Captain Browne of the Dunkirk that the island had been "most strangely represented to His Majesty "; and thewords of Gerald Aungier to the effect that " the place does not answer our King's expectations by four-fifths of what was represented to him. For by the draught which was delivered to His Majesty, Bombay, Salsette and Thane were included all in one island and all under the Name and royalty of Bombay; but Captain Browne and myself having sailed round this island do find it for other­wise, being in extent scarcely one-fifth part of the other two islands and this is all the Portugals intend to surrender to us " Pepys' description of "the poor little island "and his reference to the "inconsiderableness of the place of Bombaim" were fully justified by the evidence of the English authorities in Western India and corroborate Baldeus' statement that by virtue of the marriage-treaty " the English thought to have got a great booty from the Portuguese, whereas they (Tangier and Bombay) are in effect places of no considerable traffic ".As regards the second point it is clear that the Portuguese in India were fully alive to the poten­tialities of Bombay and of its harbour and were very zealous of any infringement of the rights which they as tenants-in-chief of the King of Portugal had enjoyed for more than a century. For as late as January, 1665, when the final orders to cede the island were received from Portugal, Antonio de Mello de Castro, Viceroy of Goa, wrote to the King : " I confess at the feet of your Majesty that only the obedience I owe your Majesty as a vassal could have forced me to this deed (i.e., the cession of Bombay), because I foresee the great troubles that from this neighbourhood will result to the Portuguese and that India will be lost on the same day on which the English nation is settled in Bombay."

Under these circumstances the Viceroy of Goa decided upon a policy of procrastination. On receipt of the Earl of Marlborough's formal demand, he spent five days in consultation and then replied that he was not authorized to hand over Bombay without His Majesty of England's immediate letter confirmed by his own hand and seal, adding that further instructions forbade him to give possession before the end of the monsoon. The King of England's letter was in possession of Sir Abraham Shipman, who did not arrive in Bombay till a month later; and in the meanwhile the Earl, finding that he could make no impression upon the pride of the perfidious Portugal contented himself with asking permission to land the English troops. This however was only permitted on condition that the men came ashore unarmed; and matters remained in an impasse until Sir A. Shipman cast anchor in the harbour. Thereupon the astute Portuguese discovered fresh reasons for delay, objecting that the form of the letters or patents did not coincide with the usual form observed in Portugal and that he must have a fresh authorization from Lisbon and England. And in October 1662, the Earl of Marlborough, seeing that no step towards delivery could be taken pending receipt of final orders from Europe, decided to return to England with the fleet. "All the art of contest I could use," he wrote, " could not persuade the surren­der of this paltry island, most basely deserted to the Arabians the last year. ............................I am more sorry for the King's dishonour and loss than for mine own trouble and care, which yet is like to fall heavy upon me, though not I hope by any default of mine." The Earl eventually set sail with the fleet on the 14th January, 1663; while Sir A. Shipman and the soldiery were forced to land on the unoccupied island of Angediv, twelve leagues to the south of Goa, where lack of proper food and an evil climate caused the death of nearly all of them, including Sir A. Shipman himself.

Just prior to Sir A. Shipman's death in April, 1664 he received a fresh commission from King Charles, dated 23rd November, 1663, which authorised him to receive possession of Bombay from the Portuguese Viceroy; but as he died before any definite step could be taken, the Supreme Court at Goa decided, after some correspondence with Antonio de Mello de Castro, that the island should be handed over to Humphrey Cooke, who had been Sir A. Shipman's secretary and had been nominated by the latter in his will as his successor. Further desultory correspondence ensued in consequence of the fact that Humphrey Cooke was not a persona grata with either the Portuguese or the English at Surat, but eventually the instrument of cession was despatched from Goa on the 17th January, 1665, and on the 18th February of that year Humphrey Cooke took himself personally possession and delivery of the said island of Bombay after signing the instrument of possession in the manor-house of D. Ignez de Miranda, the Lady of the island.

Humphrey Cooke's first action after obtaining possession of the island was to take a muster, at Sir G. Oxenden's request, of the remnant of Sir A. Shipman's forces which had accompanied him to Bombay; and his second was to endeavour to cancel the restrictions which the Portuguese had imposed upon him by the articles of cession. In pursuance of their original policy the Portuguese not only declined to hand over Salsette, but they also declined to deliver up Mazagaon, Parel, Worli, Sion, Dharavi and Vadala, which had clearly been considered a part of Bombay in the original treaty between the monarchies of Portugal and England, alleging that these islands were dependencies of the more important island of Mahim and not of Bombay; and further they inserted clauses, to which Cooke also agreed, whereby Portuguese boats were allowed to pass and repass the island without paying any duty. Cooke fell into great disfavour both with the Government in England and with the Council of Surat for agreeing to these restrictions and generally for signing so derogatory and unjust a convention; but it probably occurred to him that he was likely, by insistence upon the full terms of the marriage treaty, to prolong the negotiations indefinitely and might even be forced to return to an island the climate of which had already caused the death of a considerable number of his compatriots, and that under these circumstances it was better policy to take Bombay with all the restric­tions the Portuguese might impose and trust to cancelling them after he had the island in his grasp. Be this as it may, Cooke at once set himself to counteract what King Charles II styled " the manifest injustice of the capitulation" by seizing on the flimsiest pretexts the lands contiguous to the island of Bombay proper, by imposing a duty upon all Portuguese goods, by inviting native merchants to settle in Bombay, and by endea­vouring to strengthen the garrison. Antonio de Mello de Castro in a letter to the King of Portugal, 5th January, 1666, remarked : " During the last monsoon I informed your Majesty that I had handed over Bombay. Now I will relate to your Majesty what the English have done and are doing every day in the way of excesses. The first act of Mr. Humphrey who is the Governor of that island and whom I knew in Lisbon as a grocer, was to take possession of the island of Mahim in spite of my protests, the island being some distance from the island of Bombay, as your Majesty will see from the map I send herewith. He argues that at low tide one can walk from one to the other, and if this is conceded your Majesty will be unable to defend the right to the other northern islands, as at low tide it is possible to go from Bombay to Salsette, from Salsette to Varagao (Baragaon), so that in order not to lose the north, it will be necessary to defend Mahim. He has done more. He has obliged the Roman Catholics to take an oath, by which they openly deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff and Head of the Church. The inhabitants of the north would have taken up arms and driven out the English from thence, if I had not had my suspicions and prevented them, by assuring them that your Majesty was actually in treaty about the purchase of Bombay. And although the name of Humphrey Cooke appears in all these matters, an awful heretic named Henry Gary, a great enemy of the Portuguese nation, is the author of all these things. I believe, however, that before your Majesty remedies this, the Dutch will drive those people thence, as I am told they are preparing a large armada to besiege Bombay.". While he thus irritated the Portuguese, Cooke also fell foul of the Mugal Government and the factors at Surat. The former strongly objected to his overtures to native merchants, were afraid of his manifest attempts to strengthen Bombay, and found a ready cause of offence in Cooke's unauthorized seizure of one of their ships; while the latter could not brook his rough and ready style of correspondence and were alarmed at the accounts of his personal behaviour which reached them from Bombay. " Humphrey Cooke ", they wrote to the Court of Directors on the 1st January, 1666, " gives us continual troubles in his daily importunities for money, to raise soldiers, forts and we know not what other bold designs, that we have been very weary with answering his letters, and upon our just denial of his unreasonable demands we have received such indignities and opprobrious terms to the great prejudice and dis­honour of the Honourable Company and ourselves that we want both words and leisure at present to express them and him in his right colours".

Under these circumstances the Crown decided to relieve Humphrey Cooke of his duties and supersede him by Sir Gervase Lucas, who accordingly arrived in Bombay as Governor and Commander-in-Chief on the 5th November, 1666. Though instructed, if he thought fit, to offer the post of Deputy Governor to Cooke, Sir Gervase Lucas found matters in Bombay in so serious a condition that he not only could not offer him the post in question but was obliged to incarcerate him on a charge of extorting Rs. 12,000 from the inhabitants and of criminal mismanage­ment of Sir A. Shipman's estate. " Bombay island ", wrote Sir Gervase to Lord Arlington on the 21st March, 1667, "is for its magnitude one of the most pleasurable and profitable islands in India. The whole island is an orto or place planted with trees which yield great profit. And if Mr. Cooke had not sullied His Majesty's Government by taking bribes and as well indiscreetly as unjustly obstructed His Majesty's title to most of the best estates in the island, most of the inhabitants had by this time paid His Majesty's rent." So for a brief space Humphrey Cooke disappears from history. In spite of the verdict which must be passed upon his internal administration of Bombay, he surely deserves credit for inaugurating a policy of aggrandisement primarily designed to benefit English interests in Western India. Notwithstanding the protests of Antonio de Mello de Castro and Ignacio Sarmento de Sampaio, Cooke managed to acquire the villages of Mahim, Sion, Dharavi and Vadala, and had his action upheld by a commission which was locally appointed to decide between the claims of the Portuguese and the English Crown in the matter of these areas; so that by the time Sir Gervase Lucas arrived, Bombay included all the islands except Colaba and Old Woman's Island, which have been united into the modern island of Bombay.

Sir Gervase Lucas did not live long enough to initiate any sweeping alterations, but his policy even during the short period of his governorship was in consonance with that of his predecessor and was designed to satisfy Charles II's hope that Bombay would become " the flourishingest port in India ". Before sailing from England he pointed out the ruinous state of the Bombay fortifications and the need of a strong garrison and was permitted by the Crown to take with him "a reinforcement of 60 men under a lieutenant, together with a supply of clothes, ammunition and stores, and a small vessel to be attached to the garrison"; while, after arrival he was responsible for confiscating on a charge of treason a large tract of land in Bombay to which the Jesuit's College at Bandra laid claim and which they had threatened to defend by force. On Sir G. Lucas' death on the 21st May, 1667 the reins of Government were handed over to Captain Henry Gary who was serving at that time as Deputy Governor. No sooner had the news become public than Humphrey Cooke, who had escaped from durance vile and was living at Goa under Jesuit protection, sent in a claim to Gary to succeed to the governorship. A good deal of correspondence ensued, which ended on the 24th June, 1667 in the following letter from Gary and his council to Cooke : " We thought that the answer we sent you to your last by the same messenger had been so civil and satisfactory that you would not put yourself and us to the trouble of any more scribbling. ............... But finding our expectations deceived and again alarmed with another nonsensical paper from you (for we cannot term it either letter or epistle) we do by these return our sense unto you of your unwarrantable and foolish proceedings. We do every one of us particularly as well as generally protest against you, Humphrey Cooke (according to our bounden duty which we do understand better than you do yours) as a Rebel and Traitor." Smarting under a sense of defeat and urged on by the Portuguese who saw in him a suitable agent for annoying the English in Bombay, Humphrey Cooke voyaged upto Bandra, where with the help of the Jesuits he endeavoured to attack Bombay. For a time matters looked serious, as the Jesuit emissaries had worked upon the mind of the native population. But the Bombay Council managed to hold their own; and at length Cooke, fearing to be arrested as a traitor and finding the Portuguese ill-piepared for a struggle departed to Vasai and died soon afterwards in a monastery belonging to the Order of Jesus in Salsette.

Meanwhile Gary had not been idle. He raised the general revenues of the island from 5,214 1/2 Xeraphins to £ 6,490-17-9 sterling, the tavern dues (excise) from Xs. 400 to Xs. 2,400, the tobacco fa.rm receipts from Xs. 6,000 to Xs. 9,560, and customs receipts from Xs. 4,100 to Xs. 18,000; he enlarged the land-forces by enrolling 150 new Deccanis in consequence of Dutch alarms and mounting the artillery on substantial carriages; he improved the fortifications; and he kept so watchful an eye upon the machinations of the Portuguese that the triumvirate of gentlemen who were carrying out the duties of the viceroy at Goa in January 1670, described him as very astute and an enemy of the Portuguese nation. The chief source of friction with the Portuguese concerned the port-dues which the Portuguese levied on Bombay boats at their own ports and which they declined to pay for their own boats at Bombay. These dues were generally excessive. Humphrey Cooke had been forced to put soldiers on board to resist the levy of a 12 per cent duty imposed upon merchandize and provisions brought by Bombay boats from mainland ports; Sir G. Lucas had great trouble with the Portuguese at Mahim bandar; and Henry Gary likewise fought for recognition of the right of Bombay vessels to exemption from dues at Portuguese ports. But he was unable to effect any amelioration of existing trade-conditions; and he also alienated the council at Surat by granting passes in the king's name to native vessels, which the Company's agents considered an infringement of their prerogatives.

The system of independent granting of navigating passes, the private trading in which the Crown representatives in Bombay indulged, and the hostilities which the latter provoked with Native powers (chiefly the Mughal government) and for which the East India Company were held responsible by those powers, caused endless friction between the Surat factors and the King's agents in the island and eventually led to the transfer of Bombay from the Crown to the Company under a Royal Charter, dated March 27, 1668, which specified that the port and island of Bombay were to be held " in free and common soccage, as of the manor of East Greenwich," at a farm rent of £ 10, payable on the 30th September in each year. The copy of the charter and a warrant from the King to Sir George Oxenden arrived on 1st September 1668, and two days later the Surat Council held a meeting and decided to depute Mr. John Goodier, Captain Young and Mr. Streynsham Masters as Commissioners to take delivery of the island from Captain Gary. The Commissioners reached Bombay on the 21st September 1668, and handed the King's warrant to Captain Gary; and after a day spent in preparation for the ceremony, landed with military honours on Wednesday the 23rd. Thus Sir George Oxenden, as President of Surat, became the first Governor of Bombay under the regime of the East India Company, and upto the date of his death at Surat (14th July 1669) endeavoured through his delegates to carry out the policy of the Court of Directors, which aimed at encouraging trade in all possible directions, encouraging people of all classes to settle on the island, and rendering Bombay proof against all attacks. In pursuance of these objects the Court of Directors despatched several soldiers and artificers to Bombay in 1668, ordered the construction of a custom house, warehouse and quay and appointed a chaplain with an assistant who was also to be master of a free school on the island; while the local authorities indented upon England for a judge-advocate to decide causes of meum and tuum among the litigious inhabitants of the island, commenced building the fortifications, began purchasing land in the vicinity of the Fort, and placed the defences of the island on a better footing. In spite however of orders both from the Court of Directors and the Surat Council, the progress of the island was to some extent jeopardized by the behaviour of the Deputy Governor, Captain Young, who had eventually to be removed from his post for gross misconduct; while the climate had already begun to acquire the terrible notoriety which justified Ovington in describing Bombay at the close of the seventeenth century as " nought but a charnel-house ".

The progress of Bombay did not indeed assume very definite proportions until Mr. Gerald Aungier, " that chivalric intrepid man who dared a not less potent spirit in the Dutch Commodore Van Goen ", became President of Surat and Governor of Bombay in July 1669. In January of the following year he arrived in Bombay from Surat and, after investigating the accusations against Captain Young, he promulgated the Company's regulations for the civil and military administration of the island, " giving the people a taste of the Company's justice by the trial of several cases to their great satisfaction. ".In February Mr. Aungier returned to Surat leaving behind him as Deputy Governor of Bombay Mr. Mathew Gray, who was shortly afterwards succeeded by Mr. Gyfford. Aungier did not return to Bombay until June 7, 1672, in consequence probably of the general political outlook. The Marathas were at this date making constant petty attacks upon Surat, which rendered trading somewhat precarious, while the Mughal Governor did his best to hinder the presi­dent leaving Surat, ostensibly on the grounds that enemies might take advantage of his absence in Bombay to undermine the Company's trade interest, but really because he feared that removal to Bombay would cause an immediate decline in the general prosperity of the Gujarat port. By the middle of 1672, however, internal troubles and the covetous exac­tions of the Mughal had convinced Aungier of the need of moving the Company's headquarters from Surat to Bombay, while continual disorders in Bombay arising from the unruliness of the troops and a considerable influx of weavers and other immigrants impressed upon him the need of personally residing in the island and laying down the lines of its future progress. Accordingly setting sail from Surat, he arrived in Bombay on the 7th June, after nearly losing his life in violent storm, and at once proceeded to deal with the more urgent requirements of the island. The disorders among the military forces were quashed; the English law was publicly introduced in supersession of Portuguese custom; a Court of Judicature was established, Mr. George Wilcox being appointed judge in August 1672; a town was lined out on that parcel of ground which lieth over against the present Fort; a mole was staked out capable of berthing 20 ships of three or four hundred tons ; and finally the famous Convention was promulgated which put an end to the long-standing disputes between the Company and the Portuguese landholders in regard to the ownership of land in the island and enabled the Company to pursue unhindered their policy of colonization. Other innovations of more or less importance wece the establishment of a mint, the improve­ment of the fortifications, the building of a small hospital, the institution of trading privileges for certain corporations, the creation of panchayats or caste councils for the various native communities, the opening of a printing press, the building of houses, and the importation of English women who might be married to the traders and settlers of their own race.

Meanwhile the political outlook was far from promising. Fear of attack by the Dutch and French was rife in 1672; the Portuguese pre­vented the free access of Bombay ships to Thane and Karanja; and by the close of 1673 the Siddi Admiral of the Moghal was committing great insolence on the Island Patekas (Butcher's Island) and the town (Bombay), stealing cattle and vexing and robbing the poor people. The Court of Directors writing in July, 1672, informed their representatives in India of a great English victory over the Dutch, which temporarily calmed Aungier's fears and was made the occasion of a public thanksgiving in Bombay on St. Stephen's day, 1672. "The thanksgiving", wrote the Bombay Council, " was not only held by ourselves but in all the Portu­guese churches with much alacrity and expressions of joy, and for that the hearts of the Portuguese, Banians and others of this island were much dejected by reason of the war and affrighted with the noise of 22 sail of Dutch ships coming against us, we thought good to rouse and cheer up their spirits with a public show. Your Governor and Council marching in the evening of the thanksgiving day with the two companies of the militia with colours flying, drums and trumpets (for by good fortune we have met with two German trumpeters which ran away from the Portuguese and are now entertained in your service). In this posture we marched quite through the town, about 600 men in arms, the Portuguese, Moors, Banians and Gentus and others crying out as we passed "God save the King and the Honourable Company". The day ended with the distribution to the pooi of thirty rupees in pice and bujruks and of two butts of arrack to the militia and soldiers, and with the firing of salvoes and the lighting of a large bonfire. But the tranquillity engendered by this victory was but temporary ; for on the 20th February 1673 a Dutch fleet under Rickloffe van Goen arrived in the hope of taking Bombay by surprise. According to Orme, Aungier exerted himself on this occasion " with the calmness of a philosopher and the courage of a centurion." The Dutch Commodore, discovering to his annoyancp that heavy ordnance had already been mounted on the fortifications and that three war-vessels were lying in the harbour, moved up the western side of the island and prepared for a descent upon the Mahim creek. Aungier at once marched up to Mahim and made a hostile demonstration; whereupon the Dutch with 6,000 men on board sheered off, and after hovering for some time between Bombay and Surat disappeared altogether. Shortly afterwards (17th February 1674) the treaty of Westminster was concluded between England and Holland, which relieved the British settlements in Western India of further apprehension.

It is necessary here to note briefly the relations that existed between Shivaji and the English. The initial intent of the English was not aimed at making territorial gains in India and hence there was no reason for any diiect confrontation between Shivaji and the English on that score. As stated earlier the English had acquired the island of Bombay from their Portuguese neighbours and as Surat was constantly under the threat of an attack from Shivaji, the English were planning to shift their head­quarters from Surat to Bombay. After his escape from Agra Shivaji's power rapidly increased and the English became anxious to secure his goodwill and friendship so that their trading operations might not suffer. The English therefore sent their envoys from time to time to Shivaji, Ustick in 1672, and Henry Oxenden in 1674 at the time of Shivaji's coronation at Raigad with presents from the company along with their congratulations. These exchanges led to a signing of a treaty of mutual trade and friendship between the English and Shivaji and their relations remained cordial during Shivaji's lifetime.

In September, 1675, Aungier returned to Surat, leaving Bombay far more prosperous than at the time of his first vieit. His task had proved by no means easy; for in 1674 the English troops mutinied on the question of pay and provisions; Sambal the Sidi anchored at Mazagaon during the monsoon of the same year and caused much annoyance to the people; and the Portuguese continued to harass British trade. " During my stay here (Bombay)", wrote Aungier to the Deputy Governor, " I have found odd neighbours to deal with; the jealous and envious Portuguese have endeavoured all that lay in their power to obstruct our settlement; the Governor of Surat hath not been wanting also to use his policy to undermine us; and Sidi Sambal with his fleet hath been no small impediment. The Dutch with their powerful fleet designed to have swallowed us up; but blessed be God who hath hitherto preserved us and rendered all their evil designs advantageous. Sevajee only hath proved and that for his own interest sake our fairest friend and noblest enemy. You must expect to encounter many ill offences from the Portuguese, especially in the pass of Karanja, as I have done; but you must not yield in the least to them." In spite of political troubles, in spite of the fact that he had drawn no salary whatever for four years, Aungier held firmly and conscientiously upon his road, and at the hour of his death in Surat on the 30th June 1677 was able to bequeath to his successor an island far more populous, more strongly fortified, better governed than it had been in 1668 and bearing within it the seeds of administrative, commercial and social expansion. The history of this earliest period of British dominion may fitly conclude with the following extracts from a letter written by Aungier and his Council to the Court of Directors on the 15th December 1673, which gives a full description of Bombay at that date and forms a complement to Dr. John Fryer's graphic account of the island.

" Bombay is made by the inroads of the sea into four small islands, passable at low water, (1) Colleo or Old Woman's island, (2) the Palmero grove of Bombay, the town of Mazagon, Parel, Matunga, Sion and Daravee (Dharavi), (3) the Cassabem (Kasba) or Palmero wood of Mahim, (4) the hilly island of Veroly (Varli). The sea hath eaten up about one-third of the island.

" After the first intermission of the rains in May or June and after their total ceasing in October the air and water are unwholesome by reason of the crude pestiferous vapours exhaled by the violent heat of the sun into the air and vermin created in the wells and tanks which renders these months most sickly to the inhabitants and especially to Europeans.

" All the land is employed in rice and cocoanuts ; but it produceth all sorts of trees for timber and fruit, all sorts of plants, roots and vegetables necessary for the use of man for sustenance, health, pleasure or profit. We have experimented by a garden raised this year near the Castle, the produce whereof doth sufficiently evidence the fruitfulness of the soil.

" The town is divided into the two small shires of Bombay and Mahim. The former contains the island Colleo, the towns of Bombay, Mazagon and Parel, with the several parishes of Pallo (Apollo), Deirao (?). The shire of Mahim contains Mahim, Sion, Daravee and Verlee with the several parishes of Salvacaon, St. Michael, etc., precincts.

"The English are employed in trade and in the militia ; the Roman Catholic Christians chiefly in planting the ground, some few in trade, and too many of them as soldiers in your garrison for pure want of English protestants to keep watch and defend the island.

" The Moors have several sects and castes. They are not very numerous as yet, but sensibly increased. Some few old inhabitants are employed in the lands and others do buy possessions. Most are employed in trade, supplying the island with provisions, going to sea in ships and other vessels as lascars or marines, haberdashers of small wares, weavers, tailors, bakers, smiths and other handicrafts very useful and indispensably necessary to the island. The Moors have two places of worship, one at Bombay, the other at Mahim. The latter is the tomb of one of their famous saints there buried, much frequented in the month of October by pilgrimages made thereunto.

"The Jentues (i.e. Gentus, Gentiles or Hindus) comprise Banyans (all traders and brokers), Brahman (priests and traders), purvoos (Prabhus) (farmers of land and rent-receivers), Sinays (Shenvis) (cultivators and traders), Bandareens (Bhandaris) (Toddy distilling and making of Arrack called Phoole Rack) (Mhowra spirit), yielding a considerable revenue. They are also good soldiers, stout, faithful and lovers of the English; Corambeens (Kunbis) (tillers and mowers of lands, as well the rice as the cocoanuts); and Coolys (Kolis) general fisherman of the island, yielding a good revenue to the Company and other useful and indispensable services ; these are as it were the Company's slaves, hardy, unwearied labourers and lovers of the English; the better sort engage in trade and grow rich.

"Also Percees (Parsis), an industrious people and ingenious in trade, wherein they totally employ themselves. There are at present few of them, but we expect a greater number having gratified them in their desire to build a burying place for their dead on the island.

" All provisions and sustenance are procurable at Bombay, all sorts of corn and grain, beef, mutton, veal, lamb, pork, hens, ducks, geese, fish, etc. Most of these are brought from the mainland. Owing to increase of population the price of provisions has doubled.

"The three chief breaches are at Mahalakshmi, between Worli and Mahim, and between Mahim and Dharavee.

" Before the English came the trade was only in cocoanuts and cairo (coir). Now the country merchants drive a great trade with Surat, Broach, Cambay and Gogo, and also to Dabull, Kelsey, Rajapore and Goa, to Mocha, Persia, Scinda, Bussora, in salt, cocoanuts, cairo, betel-nut, rice, elephants teeth (from Mozambique), broad-cloth, lead, sword-blades and some other Europe goods. Last year we disposed in Bombay of 600 pieces of broad cloth, 3,000 maunds of lead, all the perpetuanes and serges, and all the sword-blades. The trade by sea and land is interrupted by the Mughal and Sevajee's fleets and armies. We are trying to open trade with Tuneer (Junnar?) Orungabad, Raybag, Hubily, Vizapore ; with Mocha, Persia, Bussora* Scinda and Patan, the Maldives and Malabar coast; whence we shall get myrrh, aloes, olibanum, cohoseed, tinkall, sena, red earth, carminia wool, pertchock, skins, corryes, pepper and cardamoms and other goods proper for Europe and the South Seas.

" Small lines or parapets and guard-houses have been raised at Mahim and Sion. We intend also to sink in the fords of Mahim and Sion quantities of sharp craged stones, some pieces of old timber stuck with spikes and nailes and to have a good number of crows' feet and spike-balls in readiness to gall either horse or foot that shall endeavour to pass those fords.

" The Castle of Bombay lies upon a neck of land between two bays ; a quadrangular Fort whereof three points command the port and the two small bays, the fourth with two of the others commands the town and the plain before the castle. It is of small circumference and irregularly built, owing to the ignorance of the engineers. The landward wall is 27 feet high and 25 feet broad, consisting of an outer and inner wall of stone and terraphene of earth; the two seaward platforms are 20 feet high and 42 feet broad, to carry 36 ordnance besides those on the bastions. Three bastions are finished, mounted with 50 pieces of ordnance ; the seaward bastion is incomplete. The powder rooms inside will contain two thousand barrels of powder.

" In the middle of the fort is the Governor's house built formerly by the Portugals, but was burned by the Arabs of Muscat when they sur­prized and took the island from the Portuguese in 1661, so that when the English took possession of the island there was little more than the walls left. But since it came into the Company's hands it hath been much repaired; the front is fair and beautiful enough, but the rooms within are not so well contrived as we could wish either for lodging or other accommodation. Yet by degrees we are endeavouring to render it more and more capacious. Under the walls are raised lodgings for the soldiers with the corps on guard.

"A large spring or tank lies 100 paces outside the wall which the Engineers ought to have included. Instead they were obliged to build a new tank. There is no ditch or moat; but a fausse-bray has been raised twenty feet from the wall outside the castle and two home-works.

" The great bay or port is certainly the fairest, largest and securest in all these parts of India, where a hundred sail of tall ships may ride all the year safe with good moorage. In the small bay to the north of the castle ships of 400 tons have been haled ashore to repair, there being 15 foot of water at the springs; but this bay hath been spoiled by those who built the fort, who broke off the rocks which kept off the violence of the sea and carried away the stones to the fort. We are casting more stones to keep off the sea and secure the ships. In the lesser bay to northward of the fort ships of 300 tons may be haled ashore. At Mazagon ships of 200 tons may be haled ashore ; also at a place called Drumgo(?) there is an excellent bay where 50 sail of 200 tons each may winter and repair safely. For small frigates, gorals and other vessels there are very many places.

"The President supeivises all foreign and domestic matters and all trade. The Deputy Governor has charge of treasury, militia, garrison and public works. The accountant keeps accounts under garrison, fortifications, shipping, building, house-keeping, and supervises military stores. The attorney-at-law, James Adams, looks after the Company's revenues and lands and defends the action and rights of Government before the law; he acts as a preventive-officer and as storekeeper to the garrison. The warehouse keeper takes charge of all goods received and sold, and has to take steps for increasing the indigenous trade. The Judge hears all suits and has charge of the register for probate of wills, etc. All these are in Council which meets Monday, Wednesday and Friday every week from 8 a.m. to 12 at the toll of the Castle dell. Francis Day acts as Secretary  to  the  Council.

" The Court of Judicature is held in a room near the Fort, and two justices of the peace sit with the Judge. There are two days a week for civil suits and one day a month for criminal matters.

" There are two garrison companies of 200 men apiece. Of these one hundred are employed in the Company's frigates; the rest in bands of 75 each garrison the castle in turn. The guard is relieved every morning and trained. There are also three companies of militia, one at Bombay, one at Mahim and one at Mazagon, consisting of Portuguese black Christians. More confidence can be placed in the Moors, Bandareens and Gentus than in them, because the latter are more courageous and show affection and goodwill to the English Government. These companies are exercised once a month at least and serve as night-watches against surpiise and robbery.

"The revenue of the island is 70,000 xeraphins. The Portuguese still claim the Colliarys (Koliwadas?) or right of fishing in the open bays of Bombay, Mazagon, Veroly (Varli) and Parel. The people of Mazagon who fled at the approach of the Dutch fleet have returned to the number of 10,000, Their houses and lands have been restored to them; but Alvaro Pires (de Tavora) refused to return and intrigued with the French, Bassein and Goa. He has, therefore, been declared unfit to serve again on the island, and his estate has been temporarily granted to his mother in trust." ( c.f. Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. II, 1909, pp. 65-70.)

1677-1722 : On the 30th June 1677 the Council at Surat wrote as follows to Bombay : "It hath pleased God to oui great sorrow after a tedious sickness to take out of this life our worthy President, Gerald Aungier, who died this morning between four and five of the clock of which we thought good to give you this timely notice that you might pre­vent all innovations or disturbances upon the island," to which the Bombay Council, acknowledging the receipt of the letters, replied : " We cannot rightly express the reality of the grief we conceived at the perusal of the deplorable news, of the death of our late noble President. Multiplicity of words may multiply the sense of our loss, but cannot depaint its greatness and the knowledge we have of the true worth and integrity of his succes­sor, and it shall be our continual prayer for a blessing on your great affairs." For a brief space after Aungier's death Henry Oxenden was at the head of the Government of Bombay, but was succeeded soon afterwards by Mr. Thomas Rolt, who assumed the pompous title of Governor of Bombay, President of India, Persia, Arabia, etc, and in turn yielded place at the close of the year 1681 to Sir John Child, who under the title of Captain General and Admiral of India administered the affairs of the island until his death in 1690. During the following four years Mr. Bartholemew Harris held the reins of Government and was succeeded by Sir John Gayer, who ruled at Bombay with the revised title of General until 1704.

The governorship of each of these four gentlemen was marked by inter­nal and external troubles of no mean magnitude, which for the time being resulted in the almost total eclipse of the island's prosperity. " The last quarter of the 17th century was not only devoid of any great achievement or of any appreciable progress in manners and morals," wrote Dr. Da Cunha, " but was on the contrary a witness to sedition, strife, immorality, unhealthiness and anarchy at home, and invasion, piracy and arrogance abroad." The dangerous climatic condition of the island had already been reported by Aungier to the Court of Directors in connection with serious mortality among the English troops; and by 1689, when the Reverend John Ovington arrived in Bombay, one of the pleasantest spots in India seemed no more than a parish graveyard. Of the twenty-four passengers who sailed with him twenty died before the rains ended, and fifteen of the ship's crew also. Overcome with horror of the island the Chaplain wrote :—" As the ancients gave the epithet of fortunate to some islands in the West, because of their delightfulness and health, so the moderns may in opposition to them denominate Bombay the unfortunate one in the East, because of the antipathy it bears to those two qualities "; and added that the island was " nought but a charnel-house, in which two musoons were the age of a man ". The chief diseases were, according to Fryer, "fluxes, dropsy, scurvy, barbiers or loss of the use of hands and feet, gout, stone, malignant and putrid fevers " and a disease named "mordisheen" by the Portuguese, which was extremely prevalent. Between 1686 and 1696 there was a severe outbreak of plague in Western India, which wrought great havoc in Vasai, Thane and Chaul, and helped to deplete the population of Bombay. At the close of 1691 there were only eighty Englishmen left upon the island, of whom many were ill; there were only five civil servants and they had dwindled to three in January 1692; while by October 1696 only twenty-seven Englishmen, exclusive of moribund military officers, were alive. Matters were unchanged as late as 1706, for Sir Nicholas Waite wrote in January of that year : " We are only eight covenant servants including the council and but two that write, besides two raw youths taken ashore out of ships, and most of us sick in this unhealthful, depopulated and ruined island, " and later wrote again : " We are six including your Council and some of us often sick. It is morally impossible without an overruling providence to continue longer from going underground if we have not a large assistance." A year later he made his final appeal for help in the words: "My continued indisposition and want of assistance in this unveryhealthful (sic) island has been laid before the managers and your Court. Yet I esteem myself bound in gratitude and I will briefly inform what material occurs till I leave this place or the world."

The Court of Directors did what lay in their power to ameliorate the circumstances of their agents in Bombay by despatching surgeons on the munificent salary of 45 shillings a month and consignments of medicines from England which not infrequently were found to have deteriorated on the voyage and the Council at Surat also helped with the provision of a medical man at a time when the only physician on the island had died. But such aid was of little avail against the deadly character of the climate. " Of what use, " wrote Anderson " was it to send trusty factors and hardy soldiers thither? They breathed the poisonous air but a few short months, after which their services and lives were lost to their employers for ever. ". The chief causes of the general mortality seem to have been the gradual silting-up of the creeks, which at high tide divided Bombay into several islands, the system followed by the native oart-owners of buckshawing i.e., manuring the toddy-palms with putrid fish, and, in the case of the European residents, the extra­ordinarily loose living in which they indulged. In 1684 the Council at Surat remarked in a letter to the Directors that " Although the island may have the name in Europe of being unwholesome, it is no such thing really; but it is a pleasant sweet place and sober people may enjoy their healths there as well as in many other places in India. But when men come new out, drink punch toddy and country beer, besides that are disordered and tumble on damp ground it cannot be expected but disease must be contracted. ". The soldiers of this period were described two years later as debauched broken tradesmen and renegade seamen; and the immorality of the civil population, to which Anderson referred, is well described by Ovington, the chaplain, in the following words: " I cannot without horror mention to what a pitch all vicious enormities were grown in this place. Their principles of action, and the onsequent evil practices of the English forwarded their miseries and contributed to fill the air with those pestilential vapours that seized their vitals and speeded their hasty passage to the other world. Luxury, immodesty and a prostitute dissolution of manners found still new matter to work upon. ". The native population also suffered severely from fever and plague during the closing years of the seventeenth century, and lost much property in a severe storm which raged over Bombay from the 20th April to the 8th May 1697.

Meanwhile the trade of Bombay suffered not a little from the internal feuds and domestic troubles of the Company. About 1680 private traders or interlopers, as they were styled, commenced to fit out ships, to form illicit trade-connections with the Company's servants in India, and to trade direct between English and Indian ports with the object of diverting the Company's trade into their own hands. Among the best-known of the interlopers on the Western Coast were John Petit and George Bowcher, who had once been in the service of the Company and who undoubtedly encouraged Keigwin's rebellion. These and others in increasing numbers, set themselves to harass the Company as much as possible, and in addition to being able to undersell the Company in every article imported into England from India, led native merchants, particularly Muhammedans, to offer all manner of indignities to the Company's agents on the grounds that the Company was rent by internal feuds and was quite powerless on that account to retaliate. The Court of Directors thereupon appealed for help to the King, who ordered a man-of-war to intercept all interloping vessels; but the annoyance continued more or less unchecked until the end of 1693, when in the words of the Court " after a multitude of conflicts with the interlopers and their adherents and all others that have envied or emulated the Company's former prosperity, we have obtained of their present Majesties King William and Queen Marp a charter of confirmation of our present and all our former charters, and are in possession of it, under the Great Seal of England, bearing date the 7th instant. Of this charter we shall send you copies by our shipping, and think it fit before that comes to your hands, upon receipt of this letter, you should make such solemn public intimation of it to the natives as is usual upon such occasions. "

A brief review of the relations between the English of Bombay and the Marathas after the death of Shivaji would not be out of place here. Sambhaji after assuming the royalty had first to face the challenge of the Portuguese whom he harassed and then of the Siddi of Janjira who at the instance of Emperor Aurangzeb raided Maratha territory right up to the fort of Raigad towards the end of 1681. A great war ensued but Sambhaji had to retire due to the march of the Emperor in the Deccan. Aurangzeb cowed down the English trading establishment at Surat and Bombay, as also the Dutch and Portuguese possessions on the Western coast into abject submission and calling upon them to attack Sambhaji, Sambhaji also made similar demands upon the English. But the English clearly avoided taking sides and managed not to come into scrape with either by sending their envoys to both in order to present their neutrality.

The year 1683 witnessed also a very serious rebellion upon the island, which may conceivably have accelerated the transfer of the Company's Government from Surat to Bombay in 1685. In March 1681 Captain Richard Keigwin had been appointed by the Court of Directors, Comman­dant of all the forces on the island and third member of Council. The exiguous salary of the Commandant was the result of a general desire on the part of the Company to retrench their military expenditure and in 1683 Sir John Child, in pursuance of the Company's object, ordered a further reduction by 30 per cent of all military salaries . " The military gentlemen " writes Hamilton, " had made contracts in England for their salaries, though paid at 20 per cent loss—yet to show himself a good economist for his master's interest he (Sir John Child) sent his Deputy (Charles Ward) orders to reduce their pay to 30 per cent less than it was before, though it was so small that they could hardly bring both ends to bear at the month's end. That hard pill the sons of Mars could not swallow and so bent their minds on a revolution; and having come to some knowledge of Mr. Ward's tampering with the Sevajee to land on the island they detected some letters of his to that purpose, which gave them ground for a revolt ". There is little doubt that Keigwin was actuated not only by discontent at the niggardly action of the Com­pany but also by a conviction that Sir John Child and his Deputy were grossly mismanaging the affairs of Bombay, and he complained bitterly of the oppression of the Company's government in a memorial, dated January 1684, addressed to Prince James, Duke of York and Albany, " whom we (the mutineers) look upon as the North Star of our firmament by which we are resolved to steer our course ". Accordingly on the 27th December 1683, Keigwin, aided by Henry Fletcher, Thomas Wiekins, Stephen Adderton and a fourth described by the Chaplain, John Church, as " that little false Scot Thorburne " raised the standard of revolt, seized and confined the Deputy-Governor Ward and others who adhered to him, took possession of the Company's ship Return and the frigate Hunter, and made a public proclamation before the assembled troops and militia that Bombay was henceforth to be under the Government of the King. Ward, who according to his own account was closely watched and was supplied neither pen, ink nor paper, managed to have the news conveyed by stealth to Surat, whereupon the Council decided to appoint Charles Zinzan, Francis Day, and George Gosfright as Commissioners to enquire into the naughtiness and wicked actions of some on Bombay and to suppress the revolt. The trio accordingly voyaged to Vasai, and thence sent letters promising pardon to several of the mutineers, if the island was at once restored to- the Company. To their expressions of cajolery Sir John Child added his in a letter dated February the 1st 1684, and couched in the following quaint terms: " For the expressions that I am told fell from Captain Adderton and Ensign Thorburne my particular obligations to them might have persuaded them to use me with more respect, two that I have tenderly loved and taken some care of—Oh! Johnny Thorburne, thy ingratitude is of a deeper dye, but the God of Heaven and Earth forgive thee and pardon you all and put into your hearts to return to your obedience. Come one, two or three of you and look on your Governor. I am the same that lived among you not long since and then had wars with Sambaji Raja and great disturbances from the Portuguese, yet preserved you all with God's blessing and plentifully supplied you with all provisions. Nay you well know my care, and how I kept batty at 22 xeraphins a more (muda) when all about us was at 28 and 30 xeraphins."

The mutineers, who had meanwhile memorialised the King, saying that they would hold the island till his wishes should be known, replied firmly to the Commissioners and Sir John Child that they would not retreat from their position; whereupon the latter after some further correspondence, in which he styled Keigwin's replies as " a parcel of stuff that sufficiently discovers your ignorance and naughtiness ", issued a proclamation on the 29th February 1684, declaring them all traitors. As soon as the news of the revolt reached England, Charles II issued a royal command, dated August 23rd, 1684, to Keigwin to deliver the island to Child, and a free pardon was offered to all except the four grand incendiaries, for whose apprehension rewards were publicly offered : and eventually on the 19th November 1684 Keigwin, on receipt of a promise of free pardon, handed over Bombay to Admiral Sir Thomas Grantham, who had been despatched with a force from England to quash the rebellion. Keigwin was placed for the time being under arrest, in which plight he shewed himself as impudent as Hell, the notorious naughty rascal, and was eventually taken back by the Admiral to England in July 1685. During the eleven months that he held possession of Bombay, he proved himself to be possessed of great determination and considerable administrative capacity. One of his first actions was to send envoys to Sambhaji and conclude a treaty, under the terms of which he was peimitted to trade in any pare of the Maratha dominions and also received payment of an old debt of 12,000 pagodas due to the Company. He also built small fortifications at Mahim and Sion; collected much of the money due to the company from native debtors, and administered the affairs of the island in such a way that Gladman, one of the Commissioners accompanying Sir Thomas Grantham, was forced to admit that the Rebels had managed very well. The rebellion being thus brought to a close, Sir John Child became Governor once again, with Sir John Wyborne as Deputy Governor in Bombay: and in imitation of the Dutch at Batavia the Court of Directors decided that Bombay should be constituted a regency, and that the Governor should, for the sake of dignity, be furnished with a life-guard of twenty grenadiers, commanded by a captain. In spite, however, of this assumption of independent power, some years were to elapse ere Bombay resumed the tranquillity which she had enjoyed during Aungier's regime.

At the close of the century, when Sir John Gayer held the reins of Government in Bombay, the Company's progress was again obstructed by the machinations of the new English Company, to which king William III had granted a charter in 1698, and which owed its incorporation to the discontent felt by English merchants at monopoly enjoyed by the London East India Company. In January 1700 Sir Nicholas Waite, the English Company's President for Surat, arrived off Bombay and notified to Sir John Gayer his appointment as the King's Minister and Consul-General for the English nation. On these grounds he demanded compliance with his orders. Sir John Gayer however refused to acknow­ledge that he had any authority over the servants of the London Company. Sir Nicholas Waite, finding he could make no impression on Sir John Gayer and his Council, sailed for Surat. On reaching that port he notified his Royal Commission of appointment to the President and Council and required them to strike the St. George's or Company's flag, as he bore the commission of Vice-Admiral and would allow no other flag than his own. The President and Council refused to comply with his request. The Governor of Surat also informed Sir N. Waite that the Commission or Phirmaund of the King of England was of no authoiity at Surat unless the Emperor chose to regard it as valid. He also added that the flag of the London Company flew by the permission of the Mughal. Sir N. Waite now tried force and landed two of the commanders of the ships with fifty men and ordered them to strike the flag. The Governor on hearing that the flag had been struck, issued orders that it should be re-hoisted. Sir Nicholas Waite, finding that force did not answer, used baser arts to gain his end. By bribery, by suggesting that the old Company were in league with pirates and by hinting that they might any day leave Surat with debts unpaid, he undermined its power. Sir John Gayer also committed the blunder of leaving the fortifications of Bombay and going to Surat to counteract the influence of his rival; for while he was there orders arrived from the Imperial Court to seize him. " The Governor's son " as an old record runs, " secured Sir John and his Granaders and then entered the lodge, obliged the Lady Gayer out of the bed; carried her, Mr. Somaster and others to accompany the General to Surat, before the Tavistock's people had notice or could come ashore to their rescue, and being brought over the river in an open boat the Lady was put into a hackery covered with a cloth and carried to the Governor's room, where with Sir John and ethers were confined to one room; and some hours after the Governor sent for President Colt who going with two of his Council accompanied Sir John in the said prison; which triumphant act, as it is esteemed of the Meer, was wrote that night to the Emperor to the no small dishonour of the old Company's General in India," The chief and the factors were confined for twelve months within the walls of the factory; but neither threats nor starvation would force them to yield to the unjust demand of the Imperial Court. At length, however, on the 20th February, 1701, the Bombay Council were able to congratulate Sir John Gayer upon his release in the following terms:—

" We heartily rejoice for the good news and we render all due praise and thanks to the Almighty God for your release from so close a confinement, and that it hath pleased him to make our innocence appear and the wicked designs of our malicious adversaries in their true colours before the face of the heathens. Now Sir Nicholas may have time to look into his actions, strictly examining himself, and at last say:— " O what have I done ! May the shame and infamy to which he most maliciously exposed his fellow-subjects together with all other his undigested politics fall heavy on his head, being but the just reward for such evil ministers. We hope with your Excellency that the general certificate sent to Court, attested by all the eminent merchants, may meet with the desired effect to the confusion of our enemies." Sir John Gayer's release synchronized with a decline in the mutual rivalry and hostility of the two companies. Both were alike inimical to anything approaching freedom of trade, and they discovered that their common interests could be effectually secured only by amalgamation. Accordingly hostilities were abandoned, and in 1702 the two companies were united under the designation of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies. The Directors of the two companies then advised their servants in India to bury the hatchet; but owing partly to the obstinacy of Sir N. Waite and partly tc the mutual rancour existing in India, the union of 1702 was reduced to a mere formality, and the resolve of the two companies to obliterate all past heats was carried to no practical issue until the Earl of Godolphin, after patient enquiry into all matters of dispute, published his famous award of the 29th September, 1708.

During a considerable portion of the period under review, the peace of Bombay was jeopardized by the presence of the Sidi Admiral of the Mughal and his fleet. During Aungier's regime, in October 1672, the fleet under the Sidi Yakut entered Bombay harbour with the object of ravaging Shivaji's kurlahs, that is the land and villages of Panvel, Pen and Alibag. As Aungier refused to let them land in Bombay they withdrew to Janjira, but returned on the 24th December and were grudgingly allotted houses in the town of Mazagon, several of which they subsequently burned. In May 1673 the Mughal and Sidi fleets anchored off Bombay and required, permission to winter (May-October) on the island. This permission Aungier, who was afraid of enraging the Mughal Emperor, accorded, and further allowed the four principal Mughal frigates to be hauled ashore under shelter of Bombay Castle. On September of the same year the Sidis, after launching the frigates and pillaging the Ratnagiri coast, returned without warning and laid waste Pen and Nagothana, in spite of Aungier's protests to both the Sidi and the Governor of Surat. On the 24th April, 1674, they were driven in by a gale and again anchored in the harbour. They were at once ordered to leave, but refused; and then despatched several boats up the Mahim creek, landed at Sion and drove the people out of their houses. All attempts by the Bombay garrison to dislodge them failed. In 1675 Aurangzeb strengthened the Sidi fleet with two large ships, two frigates and two thousand men; and this fleet arrived in Bombay harbour under the command of Sidi Kasim and Sidi Sambal in April 1677. The former was accommodated near the fort, apparently in the original custom-house near the present mint, while the latter took up his residence in Mazagaon. In October of that year Sidi Sambal and Sidi Kasim quarrelled about the command of the fleet; and Sidi Kasim with 300 men marched from his quarters and attacked Sambal and his 300 followers in Mazagaon. The sound of the firing reached the castle which detached the best of the garrison and a troop of horse to quell the riot; and Sambal thereupon retired leaving Kasim in possesion of the fleet, which eventually sailed away in November. Between 1678 and 1682 the Sidi made continual use of Bombay as a military base, and thence fortified Underi, pillaged Pen, sold Maratha captives in the Maza­gaon market, attacked Kenery and endeavoured to signalise his victories by adorning the Mazagaon shore with a forest of Maratha heads stuck upon poles; and the Company felt powerless to oppose his enormities for fear that the Mughal might hinder their trade at Surat if they did so.

After the cold weather cruise in March 1683, the Sidi and Mughal fleets returned to Bombay, and the former remained at Mazagaon more insolent than ever. The presence of both fleets raised food to famine-prices, and in May of the same year two unarmed English soldiers were brutally cut down in the Mazagaon market by two of the Sidi's Pathans. By way of expressing their annoyance the Bombay Council in July des­patched a crazy councillor and an intoxicated sea-captain to board Sidi Kasim's ship. They were at once overpowered and sent back, whereupon the captain fired a broadside into the Sidi vessel which did little injury, except in Surat where the mob, on learning the news, crowded the streets demanding vengeance on the English. Under Keigwin's regime the Sidi received no encouragement and was forced to give the island a wide berth ; but in 1689, after the rupture with the Mughals which formed part of Sir John Child's ambitious scheme for increasing the power of the English ; Sidi Yakut landed at Sewri with 20,000 men, made himself master of the small fort there, plundered Mahim, and hoisted his flag on Mazagaon fort, which had been abandoned on the news of his arrival at Sewri. A fruitless attempt was made to dislodge him; and by the 15th February 1689 he was master of the whole island except the castle and a certain area of land to the south of it. He then proceeded to raise batteries on Dongri hill, which disturbed the garrison very much, he put four great guns in the custom house, commonly called the India House, and raised a battery at the Moody's house within 200 paces of the fort, and another in the Lady's house that the General had been so unkind to, so that it was dangerous to go out or in at the Castle gate. " We passed the months from April to' September very ill, " adds Hamilton, " for provisions grew scarce by the addition of 3,000 Shivajis that were employed as auxiliaries in the service of the Company." The impossibility of making any head­way against the invaders by force made Sir John Child sick, and accordingly in December 1689 he despatched two envoys to Aurangzeb's court to sue for peace. Their object was aided by certain external factors, namely the jealousy of the Mughal General Mukhtyar Khan, the represen­tations of the native merchants in Bombay who realized that they would lose all if the Sidi remained master of the island, and lastly the secret influence of the Portuguese, who knew that they would probably lose Salsette if the Sidi held Bombay. Accordingly in February 1690 Aurangzeb issued a new firman to the Company, which consented the withdrawal of the Sidi on condition that moneys owing to his subjects should be paid, that recompense (Rs. 1,50,000) should be made for the Mughal losses, and that Mr. Child who did the disgrace, be turned out and expelled. Sidi Yakut eventually evacuated Bombay on the 8th June 1690 ; but to quote Hamilton's words, " he left behind him a  pestilence which in four month's time destroyed more men than the war had done, and for joy made a malicious bonfire of his headquarters, Mazagaon fort ". From that date Bombay suffered no further annoyance from this opponent.

Meanwhile the prevalence of piracy in Indian waters added further checks to the growth of Bombay. The Bombay Council writing to London in 1691 remarked that trade was greatly hampered by the large numbers of pirates along the coast, who were alleged to be Danes but probably were of diffeient nationalities. Guillam, an Englishman, for example was caught red-handed off Junagad ; the Arabs at Muscat were perpetually marauding ; the Cota or Malabai pirates swarmed about the southern coasts ; and John Avery and Captain Kidd between them terrorised the merchants of both the East and West Indies. It was Avery who seized the Mughal pilgrimship Gunsway (Ganja Savai) in 1695, which so enraged the Musalman populace of Surat that the Governor was obliged to put the President and all the other English residents in irons, to prevent their being torn to pieces by the mob. In July 1696 a procla­mation was issued by the Lords Justices of England in the King's name against all pirates ; but apparently had little effect, for between March the 22nd and October the 30th of that year at least seven serious out­rages upon the high-seas were reported by the Surat Council to the Court of Directors as exemplifying the causes of the hostile attitude of the Mughal government. But the most powerful of all the sea-rovers of this period was Angre, who in 1698 was appointed Admiral of the Maiatha fleet and proved himself a brave and daring commander. He became the warden of the West Coast. As a head of the Maratha navy his career is well known in the Anglo-Maratha history. His ships crept along the coast plundering every vessel and sailing up every creek to sack the undefended towns. Shivaji had guarded every creek with a fort, and these fell into the hands of Angre who became the founder of a coastal empire extending from Goa to Bombay. The fleets of Angre consisted of fast sailing-vessels of small burden and rowing boats of forty or fifty oars, manned with desperate men. From the wik or creek in which their fleet lay these wikings or creekmen of the Konkan pounced upon their prey. They would gather astern of their victim and fire into her rigging until they succeeded in disabling her, whereupon the rowing-boats closed in and the crew sword in hand boarded her from all sides.

Kanhoji had vastly extended his power during the regime of Tarabai and when in 1707 Shahu was released from Mughal confinement he readily joined him in the latter's struggle with Tarabai, the wife of Rajaram for political supremacy. However subsequently he went over to Tarabai's party and started war upon Shahu capturing several forts above the ghats belonging to Shahu. It was however Balaji Vishwanath, Shahu's Peshwa, who ultimately won over Kanhoji Angre to Shahu's cause. The complete understanding between Shahu's Peshwa on the one hand and Kanhoji Angre, the supreme commander of the Maratha navy, had its natural effect upon the policy of the Sidi of Janjira and the English of Bombay, two constant enemies of Kanhoji, who had all along shown determined oppression to any Maratha ambition. The Sidi readily concluded a peace with Angre on 30 January, 1715 but the English of Bombay, would not so easily give up the game and needed a lesson. Angre's first attack was levelled against Mr. Chown, the Company's Governor at Karwar, and his wife, and ended in Chown's death and in his wife being held to ransom on Kenery island. This was followed by a two years' peace between Angre and the Bombay Council, after which Angre again attacked Captain Peacocke in the Somers and Captain Collet in the Grantham and thereafter continued at intervals to harass the trade of Bombay. By the 26th December 1715, when Mr. Charles Boone assumed the Governorship of Bombay, he had became extremely powerful, and was the subject of a petition to the Governor from the inhabitants of Bombay who complained of the heavy oppressions and injuries they had received from Angre who was then at Golabey (Kolaba) and had also the island of Kenery with the strong casde of Gere y (Gheria), the channel of whose harbour is very difficult to find out. The continual attacks committed both by Angre and European buccaneers at length caused so much alarm to the Court of Directors that they besought the King to despatch an expedition against them; and accordingly in February 1721 Commodore Matthews sailed with a squadron from Spithead, and arrived in Bombay in September of that year.

Downing who had accompanied Charles Boone to Bombay gives an account of this expedition, and tells us that " the Commodore much resented the President's not saluting him on his arrival in the harbour The President of Bombay knew the length of his own commission, and as he was President for the King and a Governor for the Company he imagined, as all other great men in such stations would, that he was something superior to a Commodore of a squadron, though the Directors of the Company had sent orders by the Grantham for him to salute the Commodore on his arrival. After many messages to and fro, disputing who should fire first, the President in Council complied to salute him and then the Commodore thought fit to go on shore. The island of Bombay was now thronged with the Navy officers who looked as much superior to us as the greatness of their ambition could possibly lead them. There were daily duels fought by one or other of them and challenges perpetually sent round the island by the gentlemen of the navy. Having such a great number of gallant heroes we were in great hopes of totally demolishing Angria". In consultation with the Bombay Council the Commodore decided to attack Angre in Alibag, making Chaul his base of operations, and the Viceroy of Goa and the Portuguese General of the North at Vasai were both invited to assist in the attack. " The Viceroy with much pretended zeal came in person, designing to head such forces as he had raised. The General of the North also came down to Bombay and was most magnificently entertained by the President." Unfortunately the attack, though well-planned, entirely failed, owing chiefly to the timidity and duplicity of the Portuguese. On the day of the attack, for example, " the Viceroy of Goa went aboard his ship, pretending that he was very ill. The Commodore sent his own doctor to him to offer his services and supply him with such medicines as should be convenient for him, if he was really taken ill. But the doctor returned and reported to the Commo­dore that he did not perceive anything to be the matter with him." The behaviour of the Viceroy was reflected in the conduct of the Portuguese troops, who failed to advance, as arranged, at the critical moment, and the final scene depicts the choleric Commodore " coming ashore in a violent rage, flying at the General of the North and thrusting his cane in his mouth, and treating the Viceroy not much better ".Up to the date of Governor Boone's departure, with which the period under review closes, no further action was taken against Angre.

The ill-behaviour of the Portuguese on the occasion of this attack was in keeping with the line of policy adopted by them throughout the period. Aungier had endeavoured prior to his death to arrange a treaty with them, under which Portuguese boats were to be free of all port-dues at Bombay in return for a similar concession to Bombay boats at Thane and Karanja, but on the strength of advice given to the Prince Regent of Portugal by the Viceroy of Goa the proposals were rejected. In 1679 serious friction arose over a demand made by the Governor of Bombay for payment of duty amounting to Rs. 100 on a Portuguese vessel which had loaded at Karanja; in 1684 Dr. St. John, Judge of Bombay, informed the King that the Portuguese were secretly aiding the interlopers and had given help to Keigwin; in 1685 the Portuguese seized a riceboat and ship; belonging to President Giffbrd and imprisoned the crew and passengers; and in 1691 the Bombay Council were obliged to size all the land belonging to the Jesuits in Bombay in revenge for the help accorded by the latter to the Sidi. These and other events such as the imprisonment of Fra John de Gloria by Vauxe for having converted Nathaniel Thorpe to Roman Catholicism, originated in the antagonism which first sprang into existence with the marriage-treaty between Charles II and the Infanta Catherine, and continued until Chimnaji Appa strode victorious over the battlements of Vasai. "They (the Portuguese) have stopped all provisions from coming to the island," wrote Sir John Gayer in 1700. " All this puts the poor inhabitants into such a consternation that they think of nothing but flying off the island to save their little, for fear they should lose all as they did when the Sidi landed." About twenty years later similar attacks and reprisals were still taking place ; for according to Downing, a Portuguese boat in his time ran past Bombay without paying duty whereupon "Mr. Home, the English Chief at Mayham (Mahim) sent out a gallivat to bring the Portuguese boat to. Accordingly the gallivat fired a gun, which was soon returned by the Portuguese fort at Bombay, opposite to Mayham, the river not being above musket shot over. The English soon answered their shot and they kept cannonading each other almost four days. Then we sent up some mortars, which soon beat their church and town about their ears. However, Governor Boone sent Mr. Bendall to the General of the North to adjust this affair. The President and Council also sent Mr. Cowing to the Viceroy of Goa, with complaints of the behaviour of the General of the North."

Up to the date of Charles Boone's arrival the island was continually menaced by European and Native enemies, and the progress of trade was hampered by an impoverished treasury and by internal schism. The letters and documents of the last quarter of the seventeenth and the opening years of the eighteenth centuries portray the anxiety felt both by the Court of Directors and the Bombay Council at the power of the Sidi, the Pirates, the Marathas, the Mughal Government and the Portuguese. By 1681 Sambhaji and his rival were in possession of Henery and Kenery whereby " the administration of the island of Bombay has been the most difficult as well as the most embarrassing part of our duty "; Sambhaji's twelve armed gallivats interrupted trade; the presence of the Mughal fleet exposed the island to sudden attack. The Bombay Council had no alternative but to try and keep peace with both Maratha and Musalman, and determined not to precipitate a struggle with the Marathas as long as they were powerful enough to seize Bombay boats as in 1701, and insist upon making Bombay the arena of their conflicts with the Sidi Admiral of the Great Mughal. There were French alarms also; reports of three French ships that lay at anchor off Old Woman's island, weighed and betook themselves to a clean pair of heels, and portents in the shape of a Danish fleet which, cruising too near the island, "hindered our trade and made our merchants fearful of going to sea." In consequence of these circumstances the population of Bombay decreased, the Company's coffers were gradually depleted, the defences of the island were neglected and trade languished.

But with the arrival of Charles Boone on the 26th December, 1715, a brighter day dawned. His first achievement was to render Bombay secure from attack. With that object in view he carried out the plan which Aungier had formulated forty years earlier and in the words of Downing, " built a wall round the town of Bombay and fortified the same with a strong guard, kept at Mendon's (Mendham's) point on the south part of the island, with strong gates and a large bastion, on which they could mount twelve fine cannon, and in the lower part were four large cannon that commanded all the harbour, each carrying shot of 48 pounds. The west and north gates were as strongly fortified. He also extended the old dock-yard in the Fort, established the Marine, and encouraged the erection of several buildings, in particular the Church, now St. Thomas' Cathedral, which was opened with considerable pomp on Christmas Day, 1718. He also settled quarrels about custom dues in a treaty with the Portuguese (dated December 1716); but the Portuguese would not observe the treaty, and continued to intrigue with Angre against the English. Under his auspices the depredations of Angre were to some extent checked ; a secret war committee was appointed ; and an expedition against Angre's chief stronghold was despatched under the command of Mr. Walter Brown. On the 17th October 1720 " the Defiance, the Elizabeth and a gallivat from our fleet before Gheria " brought news that Mr. Brown had landed a detachment, slain a large number of the enemy and destroyed some of Angre's shipping. With the Portuguese also Boone dealt summarily. In May 1720 he ordered all Portuguese priests and bishops to quit the island within twenty-four hours, on the grounds that they were implicated in Rama Kamati's supposed treasonable dealing with Angre, to which the Portuguese responded by stopping several Bombay ships, beating Bombay workmen, and seizing Bombay letters addressed to Madras. Thereupon, in July 1720, Boone issued a proclamation "requiring all persons who live in other parts to repair hither with their arms in the term of twenty-one days, on pain of having their estates confiscated to the Right Honourable Company "—a proceeding which so greatly annoyed the Portuguese, many of whom owned property in Bombay, that they erected a gibbet at Bandora and " hoisted up and let down again three times De Chaves and another man, both inhabitants of the island, who were sent hence to give Fernando de Silvera notice of the proclamation ". Boone thereupon confiscated all the Portuguese estates and had a rule passed that no one, who was not a regular inhabitant of Bombay, would for the future be allowed to purchase any land in the island.

The one blot upon Boone's governorship was his treatment of Rama Kamati in the matter alluded to above. This man had been an old ally of the Company and apparently had given the Bombay Council much assistance in times of stress; for in a letter to Bombay of June 30th, 1690, the Surat Council wrote : " On the island is Ramagee Comajee (Rama Kamat-ji) an old trusty servant of the Right Honourable Company and one that has stood by them on the island all the wars and has been very assisting on all occasions not only in procuring men but in encouraging them to fight the enemy. He is one the general had a great kindness for, for his good services, and knowing him to be a great sufferer by the war promised him encouragement. Those that know him give him a very good character." In spite of this, however, Rama Kamati was arraigned for high treason in 1718, the chief evidence against him being a letter dated October 12th, 1718 purporting to have been written by him to Kanhoji Angre, which commenced as follows : " To the opulent, magnificent as the sun, valorous and victorious, always courageous, the liberal, prudent and pillar of fortitude, the essence of understanding, the protector of Brahmins, defender of the faith, prosperous in all things, honoured of kings above all councillors, Senhor Kanhoji Angre Sarqueel,—Ramaji Kamati your servant writes with all veneration and readiness for your service, and with your favour I remain as always. Our General here has resolved in Council to attack and take the fort of Cundry (Khanderi or Kenery), and thus it is agreed to environ the said fort on the 17th October, and the armada, powder and ball and all other necessaries for war are ready. I therefore write your honour that you may have the said fort well furnished." It is possible that the trial, which caused considerable excite­ment throughout Bombay and Western India, might have ended in the acquittal of the accused, but for the action taken by Boone. " On his own responsibility ", writes Philip Anderson, " the Governor examined the clerk (i.e., Rama Kamati's clerk) respecting the contents of the letter, but could not induce him to make any disclosures." So availing himself of his antiquarian knowledge and remembering, we presume, that the treason, His Honour resolved to try whether the secret could be wrenched out, and to use his own words, the man " did not confess till irons were screwed on his thumbs, the smart whereof brought him to confession." Govindji himself was then examined and although he denied all knowledge of the letter, his equivocation betrayed him, so that it became necessary to squeeze the truth out of him also. His Honour, as chief inquisitor, had the terrible irons applied and Govindji confessed all that was required. These confessions turned the scale against the unfortunate Shenvi who was at once found guilty and sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in the trunk (i.e., Portuguese tronco-jail) and to have his property worth Rs. 40,000, confiscated. His fate was shortly afterwards shared by Dalba, a Bhandari, who was likewise convicted of treason. The justice of the sentence has been severely commented upon by posterity and there is some ground for holding that the documentary evidence against Rama Kamati may have been forge. " We have no reasonable doubt", writes Philip Anderson, " that Government was the tool of a base conspiracy and as such committed a cruel act of oppression. It is probable that the prisoner, with the native love of intrigue, had so far played a double game as to hold secret communication with Angre, but the evidence adduced to prove that those were treasonable was damnably false. Never even in Indian Courts of Law were perjury and forgery used with less scruple and more subtlety. Many years afterwards when the condemned man had pined in prison his family were sunk in the depths of poverty, and his judges reposing comfortably in the belief that they had administered impartial justice, it oozed out that vile caitiffs had forged the letters which were produced against Rama and attached to them fictitious seals! "

Excluding this business of Rama Kamati's trial Charles Boone's services to Bombay were of the highest value ; and the results of his governorship are suitably portrayed by Downing in his account of Boone's departure from the island in January 1722. " The time limited for the Government of the Honourable Charles Boone Esquire was expired ", he remarks, " and the Court of Directors appointed the Honourable John Pitts (Phipps ?) Esquire to succeed him. Governor Boone had behaved in so honourable a manner that it was with the utmost reluctance that all ranks of people at Bombay parted with him. And it may be truly said that none of his predecessors in that post ever deserved so much on all accounts or had such real respect paid them. He left the island of Bombay in January 1722, and embarked on board the London (Captain Upton) and had with him the Greenwich in company (Captain Barnes). Though this honourable gentleman was defeated in most of his undertakings against Angre with no small trouble and concern to himself, he left the island in a good posture of defence both by sea and land. He found the same unguarded and very poor, but left it flourishing in trade, and many merchants were come from Madras and Bengal to settle there. After His Honour was attended to the waterside by most of the inhabitants, he took his leave and returned them his hearty thanks for the sincerity of their friendship and subjection during his Government. When the London was under sail and the other Governor taking his leave, he delivered up the keys and the charge of the island, with all the proper writings in a large box. At His Honour's embarking the guns fired all round the Fort, as did the shipping and naval forces of the island, except the men-of-war."

1722-1764 : Upto the middle of the eighteenth century the policy of the Company in Bombay was to temporise with the various Native powers in Western India and to utilise the comparative tranquillity thus engendered in gradually strengthening their political and commercial position. Com­plete isolation was impossible ; but having decided which of their natural enemies was likely to prove the most troublesome, the Bombay Council endeavoured to keep on good terms with that party ; and whenever it became necessary to side with one power or the other, they sought to afford such assistance to the weaker as would prevent its being too speedily overwhelmed. In the matter of Angre and the Sidi, as also in the case of the Portuguese and Marathas their policy was based on these considerations. They fully comprehended that the power of the Sidi was waning, that Angre was an extremely dangerous neighbour, and that any successful attempt; to subjugate the latter required a long period of preparation ; and in consequence they determined by supporting the former to use him as a foil to Angre until such time as they should themselves be ready to stand alone. This settled policy towards external forces, as also a settled domestic administration, were rendered possible by the fact that the dual control of affairs by the Presidents at Bombay and Surat and internal schism, which had marred all progress at the close of the seventeenth century, had disappeared and yielded place to unity of interest and purpose.

In regard to the Sidi, the President reported in 1724 that " Sidi Saut of Anjanvel or Dabhol has at sundry times sent off to our vessels provision and refreshment, while cruising off that port, and has been otherwise very courteous in his advices in relation to Angre. In order to keep him in the like good disposition it is resolved to make him a present of three yards of scarlet cloth, a pair of pistols, and a gilt sword." Eleven years later (1735) the Bombay Council advanced a loan of Rs. 30,000 to the Sidi, in order to prevent his making peace with the Marathas and possibly plundering the country round Pen, although by that date his entire fleet had fallen into the hands of the Marathas and Angre, and he himself was incapable of acting on the offensive. This was probably the last occasion on which the Bombay Council found it necessary to treat the Siddi as a possible enemy; for in 1737 they actually enlisted Siddi troops for the defence of Sion fortress and in 1746 after England had declared war with France and Spain Captain James Sterling was sent to Janjira to treat with the Sidi chief for the enlistment of 200 men, who were to form an emergency camp in the centre of Bombay. The compliment was returned a year later when Sidi Masud, who had caused much trouble at Surat by his conflict with the Muhamadan governor, was permitted to enlist troops in Bombay and was furnished by the marine storekeeper with two 4 pounder and six 6-pounder iron guns for the use of his grab, at the rate of Rs.18 per cwt. Subsequent to this date his once troublesome opponent sinks into complete insignificance, and confines his diminished activity to consolidating his own position in Jafarabad and Janjira.

The tale of Bombay's dealings with Angre is somewhat more stirring. At the outset of the period (1722) we find Bombay in attacking some of Angre's grabs at Worli and carrying one of them back to Bombay the pirate retorts by capturing a Bombay ship in 1728 and attacking another in 1730.

After the death of Kanhoji Angre his son Manaji with the assistance of Portuguese resisted his brother Sambhaji's efforts to displace him. Forming an alliance with Marathas he tried to capture fort of Anjanvel under the guns of which lay the fleet of Siddi.

After the monsoon of 1755, the naval and military strength of Bombay was increased by the arrival of Admiral Watson with the Royal Squadron and of Colonel Robert Clive with a large detachment of the King's troops from England. The troops had been sent to attack the French and their allies in the Deccan, but the Bombay Government thought they might first be employed with advantage in destroying the power of Angre. Admiral Watson consented on certain conditions to employing the King's ships in reducing the fastness, and Colonel Robert Clive tendered his services. Commodore James was sent with three ships to reconnoitre the fortress which was believed to be as strong as Gibralter and, like that, situated on a mountain inaccessible from the sea. He however reported that the place was not high nor nearly so strong as it had been represented. On the 7th February 1756, the fleet sailed from Bombay. It consisted of 12 men-of-war (six of the royal fleet and six of the Company's), five bomb-vessels, 4 Maratha grabs and 50 gallivats. Aboard the ships, to co-operate with them on the land side, was a force of 800 Europeans, a company of King's Artillery, and 600 Native troops. Before the fleet sailed the chief officers met to determine how the prize money should be divided. According to the King's proclamation Clive was only entitled to the same share as the captain of a ship, but Watson generously consented " to give the Colonel such a part of his share as will make it equal the Rear-Admiral Pocock's".

On the 11th the squadron arrived off Gheria and found the Maratha force camped against it. Tulaji Angre terrified at the strength of the British fleet, left the fortress in charge of his brother and took refuge in the camp of his own countrymen. The Maratha general then endeavoured to persuade the admiral to postpone the commencement of hostilities, promising to bring Tulaji in person the next morning to arrange a peaceful surrender of the fortress. But as he failed to keep his word, the admiral gave the signal for attack. On the 13th February at 6-23 p.m. the flag in Gheria was struck, and an officer with sixty men marched into the fort and took possession; at 6-36 p.m. the English flag was hoisted. The following day Clive marched in with all the land forces, and then despatched a boat to Bombay with letters recording the capture of the Fort and the destruction of Angre's entire fleet. Thus the power of the Angre disappeared for ever from the political arena and in due course he settled down to the life of a country-landholder, subject to the laws of the British Government.

The whole episode shows that the English behaved contrary to the terms of the treaty agreed upon with the Peshwa in regard to the forts in the possession of Angre as also in appropriating his valuables. However the fact cannot be denied that it was the Peshwa who sought the naval co-operation of the English for putting Tulaji and therefore a part of the responsibility for the destruction of the Maratha navy has to be squarely placed on the Peshwa's shoulders. Manaji Angre died on 23rd September 1758 and his death materially damaged the ambition of the Peshwa to subjugate the Siddi of Janjira. After Manaji's death his eldest son Raghuji was entrusted with the hereditary titles of Sarkhel and wazart mali Raghuji maintained a steadfast friendship for the Peshwa's house but could no longer recapture the glory of the House of Angre's which was lost with the defeat of Tulaji and the destruction of the Maratha navy.

Meanwhile the forward march of the Marathas had introduced a new political element into the consultations of the Bombay Council. " The power, " remarks a writer in the Bombay Quarterly Review, " which of all others, was every day becoming more formidable, not only on account of its great resources, but also of a certain mystery which in the opinion of the English hung about it, was that of the Raja of Satara, or rather of his ambitious minister. The active and marauding Shivajees, as the Marathas had been called, now mustered regular armies, with well-equipped trains of artillery, and not content with levying blackmail in the open country, were prepared to batter down walls, and capture their neighbours' fortresses. Their propensities were indeed feline rather than canine, and preferring weak to strong enemies they set their covetous eyes on the Portuguese possessions which lay at intervals between Goa and Surat, ail of which they had sanguine expectations of acquiring. In the vicinity of Bombay their progress was more alarming than elsewhere. As they advanced, the Portuguese resisted, sometimes with desperate courage, like some wild beast at bay, which may for a while stagger the hunters by the ferocity of its aspect, but unable to save its own life, can at worst only inflict mortal injury upon one or two of its numerous assailants. Year by year the power which since the days of Albuquerque, had added romantic pages to Indian history; which instead of being content like the British with the monotonous details of commerce, had been distinguished alike by the brilliancy of its heroism and the magnitude of its vices, by the sack of cities, the plunder of helpless ryots, the establishment of the inquisition and other such tender appliances for the conversion of the heathen, by the multitude of its slaves and the capaciousness of its Hidalgos' harems—year after year that power was being curtailed by the encroachment of its enemies, and ever and anon tidings reached Bombay that the Marathas had seized another Portuguese fort or appropriated to themselves the revenues of another Portuguese district. In 1731 Thana was threatened, and the Government of Bombay, disposed at the time to assist the weaker side sent three hundred men to garrison it, but soon afterwards withdrew their aid and rather countenanced the aggressors. The Portuguese territories adjacent to Bombay ', they wrote,' have been suddenly invaded by the Marathas, a people subject to the Sow (Sahu) Raja, who have prosecuted their attempts so successfully as to render even our Honourable Master's island in danger .' In 1737 the Maratha army sat down before Thana, and although the Portuguese repelled two assaults with bravery, the third struck them with panic, and the place was taken."

Hence en the 27th April 1737 the President recommended his Council " to take into consideration what part it will be proper for us to act in the present juncture, though it will not be prudent to come to a final resolu­tion till we know for certain what force the Portuguese can raise. An idle proposal has been made for permitting the Marathas to conquer Salsette and privately treat with them for delivering it to us. Besides the perfidy of such an action in regard to the Portuguese and the mischief it might bring upon our Honourable Masters from that nation, so many objections and difficulties occur against so treacherous a scheme that we can by no means think of undertaking it, were we even secure of the event ".It was finally decided to hold aloof from the struggle for the present and to despatch Ramji Prabhu, a person of capacity and experience, to discover what were the exact intentions of Chimaji Appa, the Maratha general. Closer and closer pressed the invaders round the Portuguese, who repeatedly taunted the English with not making common cause against the idolators and the common enemies to all European nations, and finally sent Padre Manuel Rodrigo d'Eastrado from Vasai to Bombay to plead for assistance. In spite of the specious arguments of the priest, the Bombay Council adhered to their position of neutrality and desired the President to write to that effect to the General of the North. The end came in 1738. Once again the Portuguese raised a despairing cry for help, to which the Governor replied in the words " I dare not hazard to increase our charges by a rash and abrupt declaration of war against these people not only without the orders of my superiors, but without a force to support it and carry it through with dignity and reputation. From Goa also came a final appeal to which the Council responded by venturing a loan even at the hazard of our own private fortunes, in case of the same being disavowed by our employers;" and then—the curtain fell upon Portuguese dominion in the North Konkan. Bassein yielded to Chimnaji Appa's hordes, her inhabitants fled to safety in boats provided by the Bombay Council, and Salsette with its churches, monasteries and its Christian population became the property of the imperial banditti. "

The Bombay Council were thus called upon to decide what policy to adopt towards the Marathas, and they wisely resolved to court their friendship for the time being. No sooner had Vasai fallen, therefore, than they despatched an emissary to Chimnaji Appa with a letter of congratulation and a present of several yards of cloth, and in 1739 concluded through Captain Inchbird a treaty with the Peshwa, whereby they were permitted to trade freely throughout his dominions. The same officer was appointed to act as mediator between the Portuguese and Marathas in the matter of the transfer of Chaul in 1740 ; and throughout the ensuing twenty years the Bombay Council never lost an opportunity of streng­thening the bonds of friendship between themselves and the government in Pune, being encouraged in their policy by the Directors of the Company in England who to their advices on the subject of alliance with the Marathas ever added a note of warning against possible acts of treachery or hostility. In 1757 when the prospect of a French invasion was immi­nent, the Marathas offered to accommodate all European ladies and children at Thane; in 1759 a new embassy was sent to tht Peshwa who was reported to be annoyed at the Bombay Council not having assisted him to capture Janjira; while in 1760 one Govind Shivram Pant delivered at the Company's new house an elephant presented by Nana (i.e. the Peshwa) to Honourable Masters. In this manner, by the constant exchange of presents and expressions of good-will, Bombay contrived to avoid open rupture with a power which, while thoroughly distrusting, she knew she was not yet strong enough to meet on equal terms. One by one the Sidi, the Angre and the Portuguese had succumbed: but their capacity for opposition was very small compared with that of the Marathas; and the Bombay Government very wisely set themselves to the cultivation of an open friendship until they had improved the military and marine forces of the island.

The proximity of the Marathas, coupled with the declaration of war by England against France and Spain in 1744 which lasted with intervals of comparative peace till 1762, and coupled also with the possibility of commercial rivalry with the Dutch between 1756 and the close of the period under review, was responsible for a marked strengthening of the Bombay fortifications. All trees within 120 yards of the outer Fort wall were cut down, and in 1739, after the fall of Vasai, the principal Native merchants subscribed Rs. 30,000 towards the construction of a ditch all round the Fort, which was finally completed in 1743 at cost of Rs. 21/2 lakhs. Between 1746 and 1760 continual additions in the shape of bastions and batteries were made to the Fort, while the old fortress on Dongri hill was partially dismantled as being dangerously close to the town. The military forces were increased by the enrolment of larger numbers of native troops; the dockyard was extended; a marine was established; and in 1735 Lavji Nasarwanji the Wadia, Shipbuilder, was brought down to Bombay from Surat and was actively engaged throughout the whole period in building new vessels for the Company. The growth of the Company's political status went hand in hand with the social and economic develop­ment of Bombay. In 1728 a Mayor's Court was established; reclamation of a temporary nature was carried out at the Great Breach at Mahalakshmi; communications with Salsette and the mainland were improved; sanitary administration was introduced by the appointment of a member of the council as town scavenger in 1757, by the promulgation of building rules in 1748, and by the allotment of new areas for building outside the Fort in 1746; land was taken up for public thoroughfares; the old burial-ground at Mendham's Point was demolished and replaced by Sonapur in 1760; and every encouragement was given to both Europeans and Natives to build outside the walls.

By the end of 1764 Bombay had been rendered almost impregnable and far more compact than at the close of the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Colaba was still separated from Bombay by the tide, but the dam at Varli, which Captain Bates had constructed by 1727, had operated to check the inroads of the sea and had rendered the central portions of the island partly available for cultivation and habitation. The Fort, crowded with European and Native dwellings, the former white-washed and with covered piazzas, with warehouses, shops, and workyards was still the centre of business and urban life in virtue of its docks, its Green, charity schools, Courts of Justice, Mint and Church, but north of the outer wall a new town was springing into existence between Dongri hill and the oarts, and house-dotted gardens along the shore of Back Bay. Portions of Malabar Hill were let to the native inhabitants of this new town, and practically the entire area between the modern Grant Road and the Bandra creek was under cultivation, the inhabitants of the extra-mural area being strongly protected from attack by small forts at Mazagaon, Sewri and Varli and by the larger fortifications at Mahim and Sion. In a word Bombay, with her population of roughly 1,00,000 and her largely increased commercial relations, was practically ready by 1764 to appear in the arena and give proof of her political power, and only awaited the psychical moment to fight for the mastery of the whole of Western India.

It may be noted here that Peshwa Balaji Bajirao alias Nanasaheb had died on June 23, 1761 after the tragic Maratha defeat at Panipat and his son Madhavrao had succeeded him to Peshwaship on July 20 of the same year. He immediately came to grips with the difficult situation that cooperated him and by chastising Janoji Bhosle who had partnered the Nizam in the sack of Pune and by defeating Haider Ali restored the lost Maratha prestige to some extent. Madhavrao was alert to the menace the English paved and the relations between the two inspite of their recent co-operation in the defeat of Tulaji Angre was neither cordial nor inimical. The Marathas it may be recalled sought the help of the English at Bombay when Nizam Ali in 1761 threatened an attack upon Pune by sending their agent Govind Shivram and the English agreed to lend a military contingent with certain stipulations. However when Raghunathrao sent counter proposals with Gangadhar, the English demanded in return for such help the cession of Vasai and the whole of the island of Salsette. Raghu­nathrao wrote a biting reply that Vasai could never be parted with. Again when the Peshwa undertook operations against Haider Ali, the English at Bombay tried to take advantage of the discontent and captured the fort of Malwan belonging to the Chhatrapati of Kolhapur on 25th January 1765.

1764-1819 : The political history of Bombay during the latter portion of the eighteenth century is concerned almost wholly with the relations subsisting between the Company and the Maratha Government. Between 1763 and 1770 the Dutch made a final attempt to secure a factory in the neighbourhood of the island by secret negotiation with the Peshwa Madhva Rao; while danger of war with France was not wholly absent. Letters from Madras in 1771, for example, observed that an outbreak of hostilities was probable, and in 1777 Mr. Mostyn, the British agent in Pune, despatched such alarming accounts of French intrigues at the Peshwa's court, that the Bombay Council applied toSir Edward Hughes or his successor to bring the Royal Squadron to Bombay as early as possible. A year later the French factory at Surat was seized by the Company, and all the Frenchmen in the city, with the exception of the Consul and his family, were deported to Bombay. But as Mr. Horsley pointed out to the Governor-General in a letter of the 2nd August 1779, there was little fear of direct attack upon Bombay; there was only the possibility that Nana Phadnavis, who was at the head of the military party in the Peshwa's government, might encourage the French by grants of territory to settle between English and Maratha territory and thus place the power and trade of Bombay in jeopardy. But the steady pursuance of a peaceful policy in earlier years had placed the island in a very strong position; and the intrigues of the French merely resulted in the adoption of measures for greater security. The confidence which now characterized the Bombay Council is shown in the despatch of an expedition to Persia in 1768. Since the destruction of Angre at Gheria they had been largely engaged in prosecuting the Company's commercial affairs at Gombroon and in the Persian Gulf and in fostering trade through Basra with the interior of Persia. In 1767 one of their ships, the Defiance, which was cruising in the Gulf, was blown up; and almost immediately afterwards the Bombay Council entered into an offensive alliance with Karim Khan, one of the local chiefs, against Carrack and Ormuz, and despatched ships, men and military stores to po-operate with him at the opening of the following year. ( Bombay Gazetteer Materials, Part I; Edwardes' Rise of Bombay.)

The close of the preceding period, it will be remembered, was marked by the existence of friendly relations between Bombay and the Marathas, albeit the English were keenly alive to the possibilities of hostility on the part of the Maratha power. " All the States in India " writes Grant Duff " were inimical to Europeans of every nation, and even when bound down by treaties, they were at best but faithless friends, whose jealousy no less than their prejudice would have prompted them to extirpate the foreigners." Clive himself, at the time of the expedition against Angre, had clearly proved to Bombay that no reliance could be placed upon the bona fides of the Peshwa's representatives, and by 1764 the Council had decided once for all that exceptional prudence was necessary to prevent the undermining of the Company's position in Western India and the precipitation of hostilities. For the first few years of the period under review therefore the old policy of friendship was pursued, combined with orders, such as that of March 22, 1765, prohibiting the supply of arms, cannon and marine stores to any country power. In 1766 the Court of Directors, learning that Tulaji Angre's two sons had escaped from confinement in a Maratha fort and had fled to Bombay for protection, urged upon the Council the possibility of the Marathas taking umbrage at this event and the consequent advisability of dismissing the fugitives as early as possible; while in 1767 the dread of the influence of Hyder Ali led to the despatch of a fresh embassy to the Peshwa. In their letter of instructions to their envoy, the Bombay Government declared that the growing power of the Marathas was a subject much to be lamented, " and has not failed to attract our attention as well as that of the Presidencies of Madras and Bengal, inasmuch that nothing either in their power or ours would be omitted to check the same as much as possible ". The envoy was to attempt to negotiate an alliance against Hyder. On the 29th November 1767 Mr. Mostyn reached " a pagoda called Ganeshkhind within one kos of Poona ".He resided at the capital for three months and had many interviews with the Peshwa. "He was always treated with great courtesy by the Sovereign and Ministers, and many intricate negotiations were begun, but none were brought to any definite conclusion, because both parties were watching the tide of events ." (Selections from State papers (1885), Maratha Series, xi-xii)

The mission however obtained no material results as its intentions had become too obvious to the Maratha Government to be ignored. The party returned to Bombay in great disappointment on 27th February 1768. The only gain they made was the valuable information they gathered about the acute dissension then raging between the Peshwa and his uncle Raghunathrao. The prohibition of the export of iron which Bohras and others sent across the harbour for the service of the Marathas was a further measure of precaution, taken by the English dictated by the knowledge that before long they should have to meet the army of the Marathas; while in 1771 the Board recorded their strong objection to the sale or export from Bombay of " Europe naval stores, on the grounds that they led to an increase of the Marathas' naval force, very much against the interest of the Company."

But from the year 1771 when Mr. William Hornby assumed the office of Governor of Bombay, the Company's policy suffered a radical altera­tion. The hour had arrived for Bombay to emerge as a military power; and dissensions among the Marathas themselves afforded the President and Council the opportunity of casting aside the role of a purely mercantile body and putting to the test the military and political capacity which for many years they had been steadily perfecting. (Bengal was declared to be the seat of the Governor-Generali n Council in 1773 by Act 13th Geo. Ill Cap. 63, and Bombay and Madras were created Presidencies subject to Bengal, Eleven years later (1784) the administration of Bombay was vested in a Governor and three Councillors (Auber's Analysis, p. 380).)

In April 1772 when Madhavrao was on his deathbed, the President of the Bombay Council received orders from the Home authorities to try to acquire from the Marathas some pieces on the mainland of India like Salsette, Vasai, Elephanta, Karanja and other islands in the vicinity of Bombay and to station an English agent at Pune to join that object. Accordingly Mostyn was deputed for second time being already acquainted with the Pune Court. He arrived on 13th October, 1772. On November 18, 1772, Peshwa Madhavrao died. The English seized this opportunity to attack the Maratha ports of Thane, Vasai, Vijayadurg and Ratnagiri on the west coast but these moves of the English were counteracted by Dhulap, the Maratha naval officer of Vijayadurg and Trimbak Vinayak, the sar-subha of Vasai and the Konkan and the English attack was repelled. After the death of Madhavrao, his younger brother Narayanrao had assumed the Peshwaship. It was not however destined to last long for his scheming uncle Raghunathrao encompassed his murder and assumed the Peshwaship himself. It is not necessary here to discuss the details of the controversy that raged in the Maratha court but suffice it to say that prominent Maratha diplomats headed by Nana Phadnis came together and formed a group which came to be called the Barbhais with the specific intent of ousting Raghunathrao. They had pinned all their hopes on the pregnant wife of the murdered Peshwa, Gangabai, and rallied round her. When Gangabai gave birth to a son, the plot against Raghunathrao succeeded beyond measure who now became a fugitive hunted down by the forces of the Pune court. It was at this juncture that the English agent residing at Pune created fresh trouble. He suddenly left Pune and visited Bombay on 8th December, 1773. Hornby was then the president of the Bombay Council. He offered to assist Raghunathrao to regain the gadi on condition that he would cede to them Broach, Jambusar and Oplad, Vasai and its dependencies, the island of Salsette and Karanja, Kenery, Elephanta and Hog islands in Bombay harbour. The Company had for some time coveted Salsette, Vasai and Karanja, knowing fully well that possession of them would preclude other nations from access to the most commodious port in India and would secure the principal inlet to the Maratha country for woollens and other staples of England, the annual imports of which amounted at that date to some fourteen lakhs of rupees. They had, previous to their proposals to Raghu­nathrao, endeavoured to obtain these islands by diplomatic measures and had despatched a Resident to negotiate with the Peshwa at Pune; but the negotiations proved fruitless. The acquisition of the islands was eventually accelerated by a sudden movement on the part of the Portu­guese. At the very moment when negotiations with Raghunathrao were in progress news reached the Council that the Portuguese intended to take advantage of the discord which prevailed at Pune to seize Salsette and other places. " Had this event taken place," the Bombay Government wrote to the Governor-General and Council, " it would not only effectually have prevented us from ever acquiring Salsette for the Honourable Company, but the Portuguese would then again have had it in their power to obstruct our trade by being in possession of the principal passes to the inland country and to lay whatever imposition they pleased upon it, which in former times on every occasion they were so prone to do, which of course would have been of infinite prejudice to the trade, revenue and interests of the Company in these parts, in so much that we should in great measure have been subject to the caprice of the Portuguese." (For further particulars see Danvers' Report on Portuguese Records, pp. 108-10, and Edwardes' Rise of Bombay.)

Under these circumstances the Bombay Council hastily signed a treaty of alliance with Raghunathrao and commenced (1774) the 1st Maratha war by invading Salsette and laying siege to Thane. On the day the forces set out against Thane, the Portuguese fleet appeared off Bombay, and "the commander, so soon as he gained intelligence of our proceedings, delivered a formal protest by direction, as he said, of the Captain-General of Goa, which shows the necessity of the measure we have pursued; " to which the Council replied in the following terms: "As to the claims of your nation to the countries situated between Chaul and Daman, we are perfectly unacquainted with them. Though part of those countries did formerly belong to your nation, yet they were taken from you by the Marathas about seven and thirty years ago. During all the intervening time we have never understood that you ever made any attempt to recover them.". After a long and wearisome march, " the distance from Sion to this place having been much misrepresented ", our troops took posses­sion of the town of Thana. The siege of the fortress was a more difficult task than was anticipated. Mr. John Watson, Superintendent of the Bombay Marine, and General Gordon, who were sent to co-operate with each other for the good of the service, differed as to the method of reducing the fort; but the views of the latter eventually prevailed and the siege was commenced with the utmost vigour. During the operations a can­non ball came through an old wall near which Mr. Watson was standing, driving the dust into his eyes, while a stone struck him on the arm. The wound at first did not seem to be dangerous; but a few days later he had to leave Thane, and in the diary of the 26th December, 1774, we read : " The body of the late John Watson, Esquire, was interred this morning in the burying ground without the town (Sonapur), being attended by the principal inhabitants. Every public honour his memory." It was also unanimously resolved that a handsome monument be ordered to his memory in the church with a suitable inscription on it at the Honoura­ble Company's expense. On the 27th December an attempt was made to fill up the ditch; but, wrote the General, " the loss in killed and wounded was so great that I was obliged to order them to retreat before the passage across the ditch could be completed.". Next day the fort was taken by assault, and the slaughter was very great from the resentment of the soldiers from their former sufferings.

Thane having fallen, the whole of Salsette and the smaller islands were occupied by Bombay troops. As has been stated already, Raghunathrao had become a fugitive. The Pune ministers followed the capture of Thane by the English by blocking the coastal trade of the latter and stopped supplies reaching Bombay from outside but it did not help the recovery of Thane. It was at this juncture that Raghunathrao took the most suicidal step by asking the English for armed help by sending his agents to Mostyn at Pune in October 1774 and to Robert Gambier at Surat. Raghunathrao evading the Maratha forces that were pursuing him reached Cambay where he was received by Mr. Malet, agent of the English factory, when he implored for shelter and safe transport to Surat. Mostyn had already prepared the ground and instructed various British workers for extending hospitality to Raghunathrao who was enabled by Malet to travel by land to the harbour of Bhavnagar whence the English ship conveyed him to Surat on 23rd February. On the 7th March 1775 the long-deferred treaty between Raghunathrao and the Bombay Government was signed at Surat. Under the terms of this treaty (1) a military contingent of 2,500 men including 700 Europeans with sufficient artillery was to be placed at the disposal of Raghunathrao, the expenses whereof viz. one and a half lakhs were to be paid every month in advance; (2) Rs. 6 lakhs or an equivalence in jewellery was to be deposited with the English and-(3) in addition Raghunathrao was to cede to the English in perpetuity all the Bombay islands including Thane, Vasai and Salsette and the talukas of Jambusar and Oplad near Surat.

In pursuance of this agreement an English force under the command of Colonel Keatinge left Bombay and reached Surat. This naturally brought about war between the Marathas and the English, in which the latter were worst sufferers. When these events were taking place, changes were implemented  in   the  administration of  the  company with  the  Governor-General  assuming  supreme  powers   under   the Regulating Act.

It may be noted that Colonel Keatinge found his task most irksome and invidious. The war with the Marathas in Gujarat was also to the disadvantage of the English. There also arose unforeseen complications owing to a change at this time in the character of the Company's admini­stration. Under the Regulating Act Warren Hastings was appointed the Governor-General of the three Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras of which new position he assumed charge on 26th October, 1774. Hornby, the President of the Bombay Council, preferred to acknowledge Hastings' authority who had addressed a strong remonstrance to Bombay reminding the President that he had acted without authority by contrac­ting the treaty of Sural in violation of the existing relations with the Maratha government. He also called upon the Bombay authorities to withdraw their forces and stop the war which they had started. However the Bombay authorities took no notice of these orders of the Supreme Government and in open defiance of them continued the war on their own account. On this the Calcutta Council wrote another strong protest to Bombay which said " Our duty imposes upon us the painful necessity of declaring that we wholly condemn the measures which you have adopted, that we hold the treaty which you have entered into with Raghoba invalid and the war which you have undertaken against the Maratha State, impolitic, dangerous, unauthorized and unjust; both are expressly contrary to the late Act of Parliament. You have imposed on yourselves the charge of conquering the whole Maratha Empire for a man who appears incapable of affording you any effectual assistance in it; the plan which you have formed instead of aiming at a decisive conquest, portends an indefinite scene of troubles, without an adequate force, without navy or certain resources to extricate you from him. We solemnly protest against you for all the consequences and peremptorily require you to withdraw the Company'^ forces to your own garrison in whatever state your affairs may be, unless their safety may be endangered by their retreat. We expect your punctual compliance with our commands. It is our intention to open a negotiation with the ruling party of the Maratha State at Pune as soon as possible." (Forrest, Maratha Series, p. 238; MahadJi Sindia by Natu,p. 280; Secret Committee's Vth Report, p. 80.)

Warren Hastings also wrote to the Pune Court concerning this dispatch to Bombay informing the Pune Court of his intention to send a trusted and competent agent to stop the war and negotiate a friendly under­standing with the Marathas. Upon this Sakharam Bapu wrote a letter to Hastings outlining the position of the Bombay Council vis-a-vis Raghunathrao. This interference from Calcutta was highly resented by the Bombay Council who dispatched a special agent to Calcutta to explain matters personally and at the same time referred their complaints for decision to the home authorities in England. Warren Hastings sent Colonel Upton to Pune in spite of the protests from Raghunathrao and assured the Pune Court that full powers had been granted to Colonel Upton for negotiating the terms of peace and that whatever he would settle would be faithfully carried out by both Calcutta and Bombay. Colonel Upton was requested by the Bombay authorities to visit them first before proceeding to Pune which he refused. Upton reached Purandar on 31st December, 1775. The Pune Court annoyed by the duplicity of the English authorities at Bombay and Calcutta tried to conciliate Raghunathrao but he was not amenable to such a move. The discussions between the Maratha Court and Colonel were long and vexatious. Upton demanded permanent cession of Vasai, Salsette and Broach and the long stretch of the Bombay Court to which the Maratha Court would not agree. Upton wrote to Hastings about this situation and the latter concluded that the only cause lay in war for the resumption of which he issued fresh orders. However an unforeseen emergency viz., the escape and rebellion of the pretender of Sadashivrao Bhau from Ratnagiri on 18th February, 1776 forced the hands of the Maratha Court which relaxed in its old demands. Accordingly a fresh treaty was signed on 1st March, 1776 which annulled all engagements with Raghunathrao on conditions that the English were not disturbed in the possession of Broach (captured by assault in 1772) Salsette, Karanja, Elephanta and Hog islands. Vasai remained in the hands of the Marathas. This arrangement was communicated by Upton to Bombay and Calcutta calling upon the former to stop their hostilities towards the Marathas. Raghunathrao was of course least expected to agree to an arrangement in which he was deprived of all poweis but the Bombay Council equally disliked the treaty and appealed to the Home Government over the heads of the Governor-General and his Council. The Bombay Council though it was disgusted with the antics and vain boasts of Raghunathrao did not; agree to the demand of the Pune Court for the surrender of his person and instead informed the Pune Court that they had already withdrawn their support to Raghunath­rao and the ministers could secure his person in any way they liked. He now tried to seek the protection of the Portuguese of Goa and was on his way there but found his way blocked by a Maratha force near Tarapur. Mahadaji Shinde was also in the vicinity in pursuit of the pretender of Sadashivrao Bhau and tried to seize Raghunathrao, who made his way to Bombay on 11th November in an English ship sailing from Tarapur with his son Amritrao, where he lemained as the guest of the English. Colonel Upton was in Pune for a full year after the treaty and after he left the Bombay Council again sent Mostyn to Pune in March 1777. The Bombay authorities were however determined with the original treaty of Surat even by recourse to open hostilities. Inci­dentally they won in their battle against the Governor-General, the home government on the representations made by the Bombay Council deciding to overrule the objections of the Calcutta Council and to seize this opportunity of acquiring some Maratha territories on the mainland opposite the Bombay island. The Maratha Court was well aware of these develop­ments and decided to counter these moves of the English by making friends with the French. The English who had suffered a reverse in the war with the American colonies naturally took an alarming view of this situation. Even Hastings who was at loggerheads with the Bombay Council authorised it to conduct Raghunathrao to Pune, place him as their own nominee as Peshwa and seize the Maratha possessions on the west coast and ordered, against the advice of his Councillor Francis and the Bombay Council to renew the war with the Marathas. The state of Mr. Hornby's mind becomes clear from what he wrote in one of his minutes dated the 10th October, 1777: "Maratha affairs are fast verging to a period which must compel the English nation either to take some active and decisive part in them or relinquish forever all hopes of bettering their own situation in the west of India.". Even Hastings wrote to Bombay on 26th February, 1778 that" for the purpose of granting you the most effectual support in our power, we have assembled a force near Kalpi with orders to march by the most practicable route to Bombay. We ars exceedingly alarmed at the steps taken by the French to obtain a settlement on the coast of Mulbar, to establish a political influence in the Maratha State, the object of which must be the overthrow of our Bombay settlement. As we have no property in the fort of Chaul, we cannot authorise you to prevent the French from forming an establish­ment at that place. You must not on any pretence become the aggressor by commencing direct hostilities.". Hastings took this step after overruling the jealous impatience of the independent action of Bombay evinced by Mr. Francis and Sir Eyze Coote. The affairs at the Maratha Court were in a disarray and a party headed by Morobadada and Tulaji Holkar favoured the return of Raghunathrao to Pune as envisaged and planned by the English. Moroba sent hurried and repeated calls to Raghunathrao at Bombay to come at once and occupy the Peshwa's seat. But the Bombay authorities had not sufficient forces then at hand to escort Raghunathrao to Pune. There was another difficulty, viz., the President of Bombay under orders both from the home authorities and the Governor-General, was strictly prohibited from making any engagement with Raghunathrao unless a formal written invitation to that effect had been received from the first Minister Sakharam Bapu alone or jointly with the others. Sakharam Bapu flatly refused to sign such an invitation to Bombay, which would have been a clear evidence to prove his treason; and Moroba's single invitation was not considered sufficient by the Bombay authorities. The force of Colonel Leslie travelling from Bundelkhand had not yet arrived, and as the season had advanced, Raghunathrao could not leave Bombay in time to support Moroba's plan at Pune. This was an unforeseen hitch which ruined Moroba. In the meanwhile Mahadaji Shinde had arrived in the Deccan and seeing the futile danger of allowing the English to have a upper hand took Tukoji Holkar in his confidence and practically revived the defunct Barbhai Council by forcing its members to affirm their loyalty to the young Peshwa. Moroba in the face of this solidarity ran away from Pune, but was captured and imprisoned. Mr. Hornby as stated earlier had disapproved of the initial policy of Hastings and his subsequent treaty with Raghunathrao and prior to the change in Hastings' policy had made a fresh treaty with Raghunathrao stipulating for the cession of Vasai and Kenery as well as the other islands and promising to assist him with a force of 4,000 men. (In all these treaties the exclusion of the French from the Maratha territories was one of the stipulations, the Peshwa as well as the English Government being alarmed at Bussy's successes in the Deccan.) Now Warren Hastings sanctioned the new treaty with Raghunathrao and dispatched a force of six battalions of Bengal sepoys under Colonel Goddard across India to take part in the war with the Marathas, ordered the Madras authorities to join in the war and allowed full power of action to Hornby at Bombay. (Warren Hastings was totally unscrupulous in the devious means he utilised to overcome the Marathas to which his voluminous correspondence with the authorities in England, Bombay, Madras, the ministers of Pune, Raghunathrao and the individual members of the Maratha State, the Nizam and other potentates of India bears testimony.) But the Bombay government without waiting for the arrival of this force concluded a fresh agreement with Raghunath­rao, formed a separate expedition under Colonel Egerton, an officer infirm in health and totally unacquainted with India to place Raghunath­rao in power at Pune. Two civilians viz., John Carnac and Thomas Mostyn were attached to the party which consisted of 3,900 men with Raghunath­rao with an army of his own numbering seven thousand. The expedition left Bombay harbour on 24th November, reached Panvel and from thence marched with many delays to Khopoli at the foot of the Bhor ghat. Ascending the ghat the force reached Khandala on the 23rd December, and was formed into three divisions, which advanced alter­nately at the rate of about three-quarters of a mile daily. The Marathas, encouraged by this appearance of timidity, drew near and cut off communication with Bombay at Talegaon. Colonel Egerton and Mr. Carnac (a member of the Bombay Council, who had accompanied the force) then determined to retreat, and led the troops back to Wadgaon, where the Marathas attacked and inflicted a serious defeat upon them. This defeat led to the disgraceful convention of Wadgaon, whereby, in return for getting a free passage for their troops to Bombay,the English agreed to abandon the cause of Raghunathrao and cede Broach and the islands about Bombay.

Mr. Farmer who negotiated the treaty of Wadgaon has left a few pertinent remarks on this regrettable affair, which deserve to be quoted :—

" The Government of Bombay should have waited the arrival of Goddard's detachment and acted in conjunction with it against the Maratha Government on our own footing, disconnected with the pretensions of Raghunathrao. Instead of this, the Government of Bombay misled by the assurances of poor Mostyn, resumed the romantic projects of blindly asserting the rights of Raghunathrao and declaring to all the world that the English meant to re-establish him in the possession of those rights. Such an attempt and such a line of policy naturally united against us, all the leading chiefs of the Maratha Empire and all the powers who had cause to be alarmed at our ambition : as they (the Bombay Government) wanted also to engross the whole honour of this project and would not wait for the aid of Goddard, their attempt was attended with ill-success that might have been expected. Mr. Hastings surely is not answerable for their measures nor for the horrid disgraces which were the consequences of them and which by effacing that sacred opinion of our arms, conduced to the confederacy that subsequently came to be formed against us." (Dodwell, Warren Hastings'' Letters, p. 176.)

The essence of the whole matter as Lyall put it is that the Marathas were at this period far too strong and too well united to be shaken or overawed by such forces as the English could then afford or bring against them. It may be pointed out that this relative position remained practically unchanged right upto the battle of Kharda and the death of the young Peshwa Madhavrao II.

The decade ending 1780 thus witnessed the debut of Bombay as a military power. The garrison was greatly strengthened on the advice of Lord Clive and General Lawrence, Cailland and Carnac and in view also of the fact that Salsette and its outposts required the services of a consi­derable military force. The Fort and Gastle were again surveyed and the fortifications improved under Colonel Keatinge's supervision. The out-forts at Sion and Reva were rendered more impregnable, and Dongri fort, after some delay and doubt, was finally blown up in 1769, anew fortress called Fort St. George being commenced in the following year. Parsons, describing the island in 1775, remarked that " Between the two marine gates is the castle properly called Bombay Castle, a very large and strong fortification which commands the bay. The works round the town are so many and the bastions so very strong and judiciously situated, and the whole so defended with a broad and deep ditch, as to make a strong fortress, which while it has a sufficient garrison and provisions, may bid defiance to any force which may be brought against it. "The construction of ships and the repair of the fleet were likewise actively prosecuted. In 1769 it was decided to build a new dock at Mazagaon for the use cf ships not exceeding 300 tons burden, and in 1781 a letter was received from Rear-Admiral Sir Edward Hughes, warmly acknowledging the assistance which the marine department had given in docking, repairing and refitting His Majesty's squadron. (Sir Edward Hughes' fleet was at anchor in Bombay harbour in February, 1775, among the vessels of the fleet being the Seahorse, which carried Nelson, then a youth of 18 years. Nelson left England in this ship in 1773 and remained in the East Indies for 18 months. He first saw " The light of Old Woman's Island near Bombay " at 2 a.m.on August 17, 1774 (Douglas' Bombay and W, India) Progress also characterized the Council's domestic administration. A regular ferry boat between Bombay and Thane was established in 1776; markets were built; estimates were prepared for town-drainage; the police force was reorganized; and in 1772 an accurate survey of the whole island was agreed upon, in order that " the situation of the farmed-out villages, namely, Malabar, Sion, Parel, Matunga, Dharavi, Naigaon, Vadala, Mahim and Bamancally and of all the Honourable Company's oarts and grounds may be exactly laid down, as well as those of all persons whatever ". In other directions also the spirit of progress was manifested. The year 1773 witnessed Mr. Holford's successful journey up the Arabian Gulf, and the earliest voyage of English ships direct from Bombay to Suez; while three years earlier, during the governorship of William Hodges, Bombay commenced to trade in cotton with China, owing to " a considerable famine in that country and an edict of the Chinese government that a greater proportion of the lands should be thrown into the cultivation of grains". The demand for cotton continued to increase until the scanty supply during the Maratha war, the inatten­tion to the quality, and the many frauds that had been practised, prompted, the Chinese again to grow cotton for their own consumption. (Edwardes' Rise of Bombay.)

Meanwhile the aspect of the town was undergoing a gradual alteration. In 1770 the Kolis' houses on the summit of Dongri hill were removed; the dwellings of hamals and other indigent people between Church Gate and Bazar Gate were demolished; and in 1772 an order issued prohibiting any but Europeans to build south of Church street, which obliged the Moormen, oartowners and others to build new houses to the north of Bazar Gate outside the walls. The Esplanade underwent considerable alteration, being levelled in 1772, extended to the distance of 800 yards and cleared of all buildings and rising grounds in 1779, and subsequently further extended to a distance of 1,000 yards. Barracks, officers' quarters and a kanji, i.e., gruel or correction-house were erected on Old Woman's island, while the old powder-magazine between Church Gate and Apolio Gate, which had gradually spread to within 210 yards of the Stanhope Bastion, was relinquished in favour of new powderworks at Mazagaon. Malabar Hill, which was at this date partly waste and partly utilized for grazing, was chiefly remarkable for a lofty tower near Walkeshwar, in which Raghunathrao spent the period of his exile from Pune and whence he occasionally sallied forth to pass through the Holy Cleft (Shrigundi) at Malabar Point. Parel and Sion were being quarried for lime-stone; in Byculla an English officer of artillery had rented a certain area of waste land for building purposes; while in 1768 the old Mazagaon estate was divided up into plots which were leased to various individuals for a term of fourteen years. Perhaps the most remarkable alteration in the outward aspect of the island arose from the construction of the Hornby Vellard (i.e., Portuguese vallado, a fence) between 1771 and 1784.(Maclean (Guide to Bombay) records an amusing anecdote about the Vellard Hornby (who appears to have possessed unusual energy and determination), perceiving that the first step towards improving the sanitary condition of Bombay was to shut out the sea at Breach Candy, fought hard throughout his term of office to obtain from the Court of Directors permission to execute this work at the cost of about a lakh of rupees. The Directors steadily refused to sanction such extravagance. At last Hornby, having only 18 months more to serve, commenced the work without sanction, knowing full well that he could finish it before the Directors could possibly interfere. Accordingly about the time the Vellard was finished, Hornby, opening with his own hand the despatches found an order for his suspension, which, his term of office being nearly expired, he put in his pocket, until he had finally handed over charge to his successor. The Court of Directors were excessively irate and sent out an order that the Governor should never open the despatches in future, but that they should be first perused by one of the Secretaries to Government.) An attempt had been made in earlier years to check the inroad of the sea; but the dam then constructed was hardly strong enough. Accordingly during William Hornby's governorship the Vellard was built, which rendered available for cultivation and settlement the wide area of the flats and resulted in welding the eastern and western shores of the island into one united area.

A general description of Bombay at this date (1775) is given both by Parsons, the traveller, and by Forbes, the author of the Oriental Memoirs. The former remarks that " The town of Bombay is near a mile in length from Apollo Gate to that of the Bazar, and about a quarter of a mile broad in the broadest part from the Bunda (Bandar) across the Green to Church Gate, which is nearly in the centre as you walk round the walls between Apollo and Bazar Gates. There are likewise two marine gates, with a commodious wharf and cranes built out from each gate, beside a landing-place for passengers only. Between the two marine gates is the castle, properly called Bombay Castle, a very large and strong fortification which commands the bay...................... Here is a spacious Green, capable of containing several regiments exercising at the same time. The streets are well laid out and the buildings so numerous and handsome as to make it an elegant town. The soil is a sand, mixed with small gravel, which makes it always so clean, even in the rainy season, that a man may walk all over the town within half an hour after a heavy shower without dirtying his shoes. The Esplanade is very extensive and as smooth and even as a bowling-green, which makes either walking or riding round the Town very pleasant. ". Forbes was of opinion that the generality of the public buildings at this epoch were more useful than elegant. " The Government House ", he writes, " custom-house, marine house, barracks, mint, treasury, theatre and prison included the chief of these structures. There were also three large hospitals, one within the gates for Europeans, another on the Esplanade for the sepoys, and third on an adjustment island for convalescents. The only Protestant Chuichon the island stood near the centre of the town, a large and commodious building with a neat tower. There was also a charity-school for boys and a fund for the poor belonging to the Church of England. There were seldom more than two chaplains belonging to the Bombay establishment. When I was in India (1766-84) the one resided at the Presidency, the other alternately at Surat and Broach, where were considerable European garrisons. The Roman Catholics had several churches and chapels in different parts of the Island and enjoyed every indulgence from the English government. The English houses at Bombay, though neither so large nor elegant as those at Calcutta and Madras, were comfortable and well furnished. They were built in the European style of architecture as much as the climate would admit of, but lost something of that appearance by the addition of verandahs or covered piazzas to shade those apartments most exposed to the sun. When illuminated and filled with social parties in the evening, these verandahs gave the town a very cheerful appearance. The houses of the rich Hindus and Muhammedans are generally built within an enclosure surrounded by galleries or verandahs not only for privacy but to exclude the sun from the apartments. This court is frequently adorned with shrubs and flowers and a fountain playing before the principal room where the master receives his guests, which is open in front to the garden and furnished with carpets and cushions. The large bazar or the street in the black town within the fortress contained many good Asiatic houses and shops stored with merchandise from all parts of the world for the Euro­peans and Natives. These shops were generally kept by the Indians, especially the Parsis who after paying the established import customs were exempted from other duties."

However all was not well so far as the relations between the English and the Marathas were concerned. After the defeat of the former at Wadgaon, General Goddard sent by Hastings arrived from Bengal with fresh troops and the Bombay authorities in consultation with him decided to repudiate the treaty and urged the Governor-General to support this policy. Hastings thereupon informed the Maratha court that the treaty of Wadgaon could not be ratified and he had therefore authorised Goddard to bring about a fresh treaty. The Maratha court of course could not agree to such a proposal and demanded the surrender of Raghunathrao. The refusal of the English involved the Bombay government in a costly war and led to anti-English confederacy of the Indian powers including Bhosles of Nagpur, Haider Ali of Mysore and the Nizam of Hyderabad besides the Maratha State. If the confederacy had succeeded, it would have considerably affected the history of the sub-continent but the English succeeded in seducing the Bhosles of Nagpur and thus making a dent in the confederacy. Though it is not necessary to detail here the progress of the war between the Marathas and the English fought on the continent elsewhere, confrontation did take place between the two in the environs of Bombay. In 1780 large parties of Maratha troops descended through the ghats and so completely devastated the environs of Bombay that the English at Bombay became very nervous. Their plan to capture all important islands of Bombay along with Vasai and Kalyan initially did not make any headway against the manoeuvre of Visaji Pant Lele, the Maratha Governor of Konkan, which forced the Bombay Government to seek immediate relief from Goddard who was operating in Gujarat. Goddard sent Colonel Hartley from Baroda but he was defeated near Panvel with heavy loss. However the English garrison at Thane made a sudden dash on the weakly defended port of Kalyan and captured it and plundering it with vengeance carried the booty to Bombay. The Bombay authorities now decided to make a strong effort against Vasai, the most coveted Maratha possession on the mainland north of Bombay and accordingly General Goddard was ordered to besiege Vasai. " The European part of his army was sent down to Salsette by sea, the battering train was prepared in Bombay, and the sepoys were to march by land. Early in October the whole of the disposable force at Bombay and in the neighbourhoods, consisting of five battalions, was placed under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Hartley, who was instructed to drive out the enemy's posts and cover as much of the Konkan as possible, so as to enable the agents of the Bombay Government to collect apart of the revenues and secure the rice harvest, which is gathered at the close of the rains. There is perhaps no part of Mr. Hornby's minute more expressive of the distress under which the Government laboured than that where, alluding to the field forces they were preparing, he observes ' our troops will better bear running in arrears when employed on active service and subsisting in the enemy's country'; for it is a principle with the British Government and its officers in India than which nothing has more tended to the national success, always to consider the peasantry under their strictest protection.   After a spirited action, Hartley was enabled to cover so successfully the siege of Vasai that the city capitulated on the 11th December, 1781." (Macleans' Guide to Bombay.) It was a severe blow to Maratha pride as Vasai formed a living memorial of their former exploits. This victory encouraged the English to march once more on Pune through the Bor ghat but the campaign proved disastrous in spite of the hurried reinforcements sent from Bombay. General Goddard went back to Bombay suffering severe losses and privations in his retreat. A newsletter from Bombay records on 5th May : " Such a set back was never experienced by the British before. All Bombay disparages this performance with open ridicule. Prices have gone terribly high and famine prevails throughout. Most of the bankers and merchants have become bankrupt and the country depopulated. What population remains has no food to eat; the plight of Bombay is extremely grave and the authorities there are begging for such terms as the Marathas would impose on them." (Dodwell, Hastings' Letters, p. 142.)

Meanwhile Hyder Ali of Mysore had been endeavouring to form a confederacy of all the Native Powers of India against the English, and the Governor-General therefore decided to make peace with the Marathas and utilize against Hyder the forces which were engaged against ths former. General Goddard was accordingly directed to offer terms to the Court at Pune, while Shinde was vigorously attacked in his own dominions by another division under Colonel Carnac. Of Goddard's advance to the foot of the Bor ghat and his disastrous retreat to Panvel, with a heavy loss of 466 in killed and wounded, of whom eighteen were European officers, it is needless to speak at length; for hostilities were eventually closed by the Treaty of Salbai in 1782, whereby Bombay at last gained permanent possession of Salsette, Elephanta, Karanja and Hog islands, but gave back Vasai and all conquests in Gujarat to the Peshwa and made Broach over to Shinde. The Marathas on their side agreed to ally themselves with the English against Mysore, and the Peshwa pledged himself to hold no intercourse with Europeans of any other nation. The cause of Raghunathrao was definitely abandoned by the English and he became a prisoner of the Peshwa. " The treaty was a good stroke of imperial policy " writes Maclean, " for it set the English free to deal separately with Hyder Ali; but in spite of some brilliant feats of arms in Gujarat, the Konkan and Central India, it cannot be said that the reputation of the British arms had been raised by a war in which they had suffered two such reverses as the capitulation of Wadgaon and the retreat of General Goddard."

The treaty was ratified by Hastings at Fort William on 6th June, 1782 but signed by Nana Phadnis much later on 24th February, 1783 when Hyder Ali was dead. The man behind this Anglo-Maratha reconciliation was Mahadji Shinde and one regrets that both Nana Phadnis and Mahadji Shinde could not be on the spot in negotiating this important instrument because Nana Phadnis had played no insignificant part in containing the aggression of the English at Bombay and elsewhere. It may also be noted that the singular exploits of the Maratha Navy off the coast of Ratnagiri doubtless imparted a wholesome lesson to the Bombay authorities since they realised what they would have to look for from the Maratha navy if the war had continued and peace had not been concluded.

Even though the hostilities between the English and the Marathas came to a close, the English continued their war with Mysore where Tipu had succeeded his father Hyder Ali. The treaty of Salbai was in contravention of the terms of the anti-English confederacy and was clearly a betrayal by the Marathas and Hyder Ali before his death and his son Tipu regarded it as such. The English now demanded Maratha help in their war against Tipu as on their own they found totally incapable of countering the tactics of Tipu. The theatre of war had now shifted to Madras and when the Governor of Madras, Lord Macartay, opened negotiations with Tipu, the move was bitterly resented by the Govern­ments of Bombay and Bengal. Because earlier in 1781 the Bombay Government had dispatched an expedition under Colonel Humberstone which took Calicut and Ponani and now to relieve the pressure on Madras Government, the Bombay authorities sent a strong force by sea to the Malabar coast under General Mathews. This force gained some initial successes but it was totally defeated by Tipu who recaptured all the places taken by the English forcing the garrison to surrender. The English had to conclude a most humiliating treaty with Tipu. Tipu also showed scant respect towards the Maratha-Nizam alliance against him whose territory he devastated with vengeance. This seemed to bring the Marathas and the English together, the consequences of which Tipu was shrewd to understand and he came to a compromise with the Marathas in March 1787. It may be noted that in 1785 Hastings had retired and his place was taken by Lord Cornwallis who was bent upon destroying the power of Tipu and securing the mood of the Marathas and the Nizam concluded the tripartite treaty of alliance, after protracted negotiations. In this context, the Maratha envoy in Bombay wrote to Nana on October 12, 1788 that " Malet has been here these ten days, holding long discussions with the Governor. The subject of their talk is the projected war with Tipu and the possibility of French help coming to him.". Malet again stayed in Bombay from 29th March to 11th April next year. The treaty of alliance was the result of Malet's and Kenneway's persistent labour. Cornwallis under whose directions the operations were organised placed the Company's Bombay contingent under Maratha command during the period of war to disarm Maratha suspicion. It is not necessary here to detail the progress of war with Tipu. Tipu ultimately submitted and a treaty was concluded on 25th February, 1792. The Marathas by helping the English to destroy Tipu exposed their state to aggression by English and Tipu's ultimate warning to Haripant Phadke that " you must realise that I am not your enemy. Your real enemy is the Englishman of whom you must beware " came to be true.

It may here be noted that the system of posting an English Resident at the Court of Pune was proposed to the Government of Bombay by Nana Phadnis himself and which the former readily accepted, for the simple reason that it would minimise the importance of Mahadji Shinde who was now proving to be a source of danger to the English. This was a strategic move on the part of the English and dangerous step on the part of Nana who misunderstood and misconstrued the notices of Shinde. Malet was the first Resident at the Maratha Court and he remained there for full 11 years leaving Pune finally after Bajirao II hadbeen initiated as Peshwa. Tipu's prophecy, Nana's vacillating attitude and the English interest in driving a wedge between Nana and Mahadji Shinde have to be understood in the broader perspective of the Indian political scene in which the English ultimately succeeded. Of course, reconciliation was brought about between Nana and Shinde when the former was convinced of Shinde's power but valuable time was lost which was taken maximum advantage of by the English. Mahadji Shinde died  on February 12,1794.and trouble started bearing between the Marathas and the Nizam on the question of the payment of arrears of the chauth of the six subhas of the Deccan resulting in the battle of Kharda in which the Nizam was defeated. The English maintained a perfectly neutral attitude and refused to be drawn in the conflict. The battle of Kharda fought on March 11,was followed by the death of Peshwa Madhavrao II on October 27, 1795. His death let loose all the evil forces in the Maratha regime, destroying the unity and cohesion and hastening the final ruin of the state in less than a quarter of a century. The English played no mean role in this and the conflicting policies of Nana, Bajirao II, Shinde and Holkar contributed in no lesser degree resulting in the Treaty of Vasai and the campaign of Assaye. In 1798, Sir John Shore retired and Lord Wellesley succeeded him.

The main object of the policy of Lord Wellesley, who succeeded Sir John Shore as Governor-General in 1798, was to drive the French out of India. To attain this end, he compelled the Nizam to accept a British subsidiary force in lieu of a French contingent, crushed Tipu Sultan, and used all his means of persuasion to induce the Peshwa and Shinde to become subsidized allies of the Biitish Government. Nana Phadnis, the Maratha Machiavel who for the last quarter of the eigtheenth century was the principal political personage at the court of Pune, always steadfastly opposed the admission of the English into the Deccan, and; even when Mahadji Shinde marched to Pune with the design of upsetting the authority of the Brahmans and becoming master of the Deccan, Nana did not ask for the fatal aid of English troops to secure himself in power. Mahadji died at Pune at the moment when his ambition seemed on the point of being fully gratified; and Daulatrao who succeeded him in 1794 had not the capacity to carry out his plans. The influence of Shinde's military power remained however supreme in the Deccan. The young Peshwa Madhavrao, in a fit of despondency at being kept in a state of tutelage by Nana Phadnis and forbidden to recognize his cousin Bajirao, son of Raghoba, threw himself from his palace window and died from the effects of the fall and Bajirao, obtaining the support of Shinde was proclaimed Peshwa to the temporary discomfiture of Nana Phadnis, who however subsequently had the address to reconcile himself with Bajirao and Shinde, and to regain the office of minister, which he held till his death in 1800. The Governor-General tried to persuade Shinde to return from Pune in order to defend his dominions in the north-west against the Afghans, but instead of listening to this advice, Shinde and the Peshwa meditated joining Tipu against the English, and were only disconcerted by the rapidity and completeness of the English success. The weakness of the Peshwa's Government and the natural disinclination of the predatory Marathas to abandon the pleasant habit of plundering their neighbours caused the greatest disorders throughout the Maratha country, and every petty chief with a band of armed followers made war and raised revenue on his own account. In Pune itself lawless excesses of all kinds were committed, and the Peshwa and Shinde were both at the mercy of a turbulent and rapacious soldiery. In 1801 a new power appeared on the scene. The Holkar family had for many years been kept in check by Shinde; but Yashvantrao Holkar, one of the celebrated Maratha Sardars, succeeded in getting together an army strong both in cavalry and in disciplined infantry and artillery. Marching on Pune in 1802 he won a complete victory over Shinde in a desperately contested battle; and the pusillanimous Peshwa, who had not appeared on the field, fled first to the fort of Sinhgad and thence to Revadanda on the coast, where he found an English ship to take him to Vasai.

The entreaties of Yashwantrao Holkar failed to convince Bajirao and before he went over to the English he wrote on 30th October, 1802 the following letter to Jonathan Duncan, the Governor of Bombay. " My servants Holkar and his party are carrying on intrigues and wrongs against me. Much alarmed at their base conduct, I have resolved to seek an alliance with your Honour on condition that should any of these rebels demand my person, it should be positively denied. Nor must your Honour tell me to go. Should these propositions meet your approbation, you must make provision for my expenses. Also be pleased to furnish me large armed vessels in the harbour of Mahad. For further particulars on this head I refer your Honour to the bearer Naro Govind Auty." The Governor discussed this letter with John Malcolm who was then in Bombay and on the advice given by him acted on it on all his future negotiations with Bajirao. Bajirao fearing capture from Yashwantrao proceeded to Harnai and from then boarded an English ship where he was welcomed and supplied with two lacs of rupees by Capt. Kennedy the English agent at Bankot under instructions from the Governor of Bombay. He reached Vasai on 16th December, 1802.

This situation appeared to Lord Wellesley to afford a most favourable opportunity for the complete establishment of the interest of the English power in the Maratha Empire. Hence negotiations were set afoot. As a matter of fact Bajirao and his brother Chimnaji on his way to Vasai had called upon the Governor of Bombay and was received with great hospi­tality and entertained with dinners and presents. Chimnaji tried to persuade Bajirao to desist from following the suicidal policy of completely surrendering to the English but to no avail and the result was the Treaty of Vasai signed by Bajirao on 31st December, 1802 after much vacilla­tions on his part and threats from the English. Under the terms of the treaty Bajirao bound himself to accept a subsidiary force of 6000 men and to assign territory worth 26,00,000 rupees for their pay, to give up his claims on Surat, to accept the company as arbiter in the disputes of the Peshwa with the Gaikwad, to admit no Europeans in his service, and not to negotiate with any other power whatever without giving notics and consulting with the Company's Government. In return the company undertook to restore him to the office of the Peshwa and did so on the 13th May 1803 by a concerted action fielding well over 60,000 troops, the Bombay army being organised under Colonel Murray. This action of the English brought on the campaigns of Assaye, Adgaon and Laswadi against Shinde and the Bhosle. The Bombay forces were employed during the campaign in successfully reducing the fort and district of Broach and the possessions of Shinde in Gujarat and to the southward of Narmada. The war of 1803 was followed by war with Holkar in 1804, which was finally concluded by the peace of 1805. During the eleven years which followed, the Bombay Government preserved a hollow peace with the Maratha power headed by the weak kneed Peshwa Bajirao.

Before proceeding to record the final scene in the struggle with the Peshwa, it would be well to record briefly the success attained by the Bombay government in other parts of India. The success of the Bombay contingent in the wars with Mysore in 1781 and 1799 have already been noted. However the role of Bombay Government in the 1799 war was so outstanding and to such good purpose that the Marquis Wellesley, then Governor-General, expressed in the warmest terms to Mr. Jonathan Duncan, Governor of Bombay, his appreciation of the work of the Bombay contingent, declaring that "the merits of Generals Stuart and Hartley, as well as of Colonel Montiesor and other officers, have seldom been equalled and never surpassed in India." In reply to an address from the inhabitants of Bombay on the termination of the war Lord Wellesley wrote :—" The distinguished part which the settlement of Bombay has borne during the late crisis in the labours and honours of the common cause, has repeatedly claimed my warm approbation, and will ever be remembered by me with gratitude and respect. In your liberal and voluntary contribution towards the exigencies of your native country, and towards the defence of the Presidency under whose Government you reside, and in the alacrity with which you have given your personal services for the military protection of Bombay, I have contemplated with pleasure the same character of public spirit, resolution and activity which has marked the splendid successes of the army of Bombay from the commencement to the close of the late glorious campaign." Other noteworthy events which marked Bombay's increasing military importance were the despatch of an expedition in 1799 to occupy the island of Perim and initiate political relations with the Arab Chief of Aden, the equipment of an expedition to Egypt under Sir David Baird in 1801, when the troops embarked in five days after the requisition was made for them and the whole business was conducted with regularity and rapidity, and thirdly the operations against the pirates of the western coast. In spite of Angre's disappearance raids were still carried on by Maratha cruisers which issued from Malwan and Savantwadi, while to the north of Bombay no serious attempt had yet been made to harry the nests of raiders who had sheltered from time immemorial in the creeks and islands along the coasts of Gujarat, Cutch and Kathiawad. During this period Bombay bestirred herself to rid the western seas for ever of the sea-rovers, who had plundered the shipping ever since the days of Ptolemy and Marco Polo and had given the name of "Pirates' Isle" to sacred Bet. In 1807 the Kathiawad States were taken under British protection; in 1809 Colonel Walker, the Political Agent, induced the Rao of Cutch to sign a treaty binding himself to co-operate with the British Government in the suppression of piracy, while in 1812 treaties were made with Kolhapur and Savantvadi, whereby the sovereignty of Malwan and Vengurla was ceded to the English and all vessels found equipped for war were given up.

By 1805, therefore, Bombay had attained a very strong political posi­tion. The marine had established its supremacy along the Malabar coast; the Bankot district had become British territory; and in Gujarat the authority of the Gaikwad was practically wielded by servants of the English Government. The year 1800 witnessed the transfer to the Company of the whole administration and revenue of Surat, whose ruler received in exchange a pension. Finally the peace of 1805 left Bombay in possession of political authority almost co-extensive, if we exclude the province of Sind, with that which she now enjoys. She supplied subsidiary forces to the Gaikwad of Baroda and the Peshwa and garrisoned the Portuguese city of Goa, occupied by English troops during the continuance of the French war. She could despatch expeditions to foreign lands and success­fully guard her own territory against attack, for English policy and arms had successively subdued all the native powers and reduced to mere ciphers those of them that still retained a nominal independence.

This expansion of Bombay's sphere of influence was reflected in the strengthening of the administration. In 1785 a marine board was created and a comptroller of maiine was appointed in the following year ; a marine survey was established ; and in 1785 the business of government was divided among a board of council, a military board, a board of revenue and a board of trade. " Our president and Council", wrote the Directors, "will still continue to act in their double capacity of public and Secret," and then proceeded to lay down the constitution of the military board and the board of trade, adding that all subsequent despatches will be addressed to the Bombay Government in its public, secret, military, revenue and commercial departments. Four years later the political department was instituted as also the post of Private Secretary to the Governor's Office, carrying a salary of Rs. 500 a month. In 1798 the recorder's court was founded in supersession of the old Mayor's court, and in the same year the first justices of the peace were appointed. In 1793 the Governor and Members of Council were the only justices of the peace and in 1796 sat in a Court of Quarter Sessions, inviting two of the inhabitants to sit with them. This system continued until 1798 when the sessions of Oyer and Terminer were transferred to the Recorder's Court. In 1807 the Governor and Council were empowered by Act 47, George III, to issue commissions appointing as many of the Company's servants or other British inhabitants as they should consider qualified to act as justices of the peace, under the seal of the recorder's court. The first commission was issued in 1808, and a bench of twelve justices was appointed whose principal duties were to attend to the proper cleaning and repairing and watching of the town, to raise money for this purpose by assessment and to grant licenses for spirituous liquors. Among other noteworthy events was the establishment of regular postal communication with Madras in 1787.

Meanwhile the town had been expanding with great rapidity. In 1787 encroachments within the walls had become so numerous that a special committee, composed of the Land Paymaster, the Collector and the Chief Engineer, was appointed to examine the private buildings which natives were erecting and decide how far they might prove prejudicial to public works and the general health of the inhabitants. The committee made various suggestions for improvement, which might have taken years to carry out had not the great fire of the 17th February 1803 in­directly aided their plans. How the fire originated was never definitely known ; but, to quote the words of the Honourable Jonathan Duncan in a letter to the Court of Directors, " so great and violent was the con­flagration that at sunset the destruction of every house in the Fort was apprehended. The flames directed their course in a south-easterly direc­tion  from that part of the Bazar opposite to the Cumberland Ravelin quite down to the King's Barracks. During the whole of the day every effort was used to oppose its progress, but the fierceness of the fire driven rapidly on by the wind baffled all attempts ; nor did it visibly abate till nearly a third part of the town within the walls had been consumed." Altogether 471 houses, 6 places  of worship and 5 barracks (the tank barracks) were  destroyed. The last embers were hardly extinguished before the  Bombay  Government  was initiating improvements,   and endeavouring to persuade the people to rebuild their houses outside the walls of the Fort. In writing to the town committee they expressed a hope that, that body would be able " to convince the natives in question of the unadvisableness of their residing in a garrison crowded with lofty structures, filled with goods and merchandise and intersected by such narrow streets as existed before the late fire ; and that from the conviction forced on their minds   by the late sad  calamity they will willingly concur in the expediency of their dwelling houses and families being without the Fort, where they ought to be sensible that under the advantage of our insular situation both will be in perfect security. " To further this object the Bombay Government chose a new site outside the walls for the import and traffic in oil, dammer, ghi and other inflammable substances, and authorized the committee to grant compensation to those persons who were willing to relinquish their sites in the Fort and rebuild their houses on less valuable plots outside the walls. The permanent advantages arising out of the conflagration were remarked by Milburn who gave the following description of the town between 1803 and 1808:— " Between the two  marine gates is the castle called  Bombay   Castle, a regular quadrangle, well built of strong hard stones. In one of the bastions is a large  tank or reservoir for water. The fortifications are numerous, particularly towards the sea, and are so well constructed, the whole being encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, which can be flooded at pleasure, that it is now one of the strongest places the Company have in India. Besides the castle are several forts and redoubts, the principal of which is Mahim situated at the opposite extremity of the Island, so that properly garrisoned Bombay may bid defiance to any force that can be brought against it. In the centre of the town is a large open space called the Green which in the fine weather season is covered with bales of cotton and other merchandize, entirely unprotected ; around the Green are many large well-built and handsome houses; the Government House and the Church, which is an extremely neat, commodious and airy building are close to each other on the left of the Church Gate. On the right of the Church Gate is the Bazar, which is very crowded and populous and where the native merchants principally reside. At its commencement stands the theatre, a neat handsome structure. This part of the town suffered much by a destructive fire, which broke out in February 1803 and destroyed nearly three-fourths of the Bazar, together with the barracks, custom­house and many other public buildings, and property of immense value belonging to the Native merchants. Many houses in the' neighbourhood of the castle were battered down by the Artillery to stop the progress of the flames and preserve the magazine, or in all probability the whole town would have been destroyed. Since the fire of 1803 this part of the town has been rebuilt and the whole much improved, at a considerable expense to the Company." The two most important works carried out by the Company outside the town walls were the Sion Causeway which was commenced in 1798 and completed in 1803 and the Common Goal at Umarkhadi, built in 1804.

The opening of the nineteenth century was marked by the presence in Bombay of several distinguished men. Major-General Wellesley, afterwards Lord Wellington, was resident here during March and April 1801 in connection with Sir D. Baird's expedition to Egypt and again from March to May 1804, after the battle of Assaye. The Honourable Jonathan Duncan was resident in the old Government House in the Fort 1795 till his death in 1811, and took a leading part in the public thanksgiving of Bombay citizens in November 1800 for His Majesty George Ill's escape from assassination, the celebration of His Majesty's birthday on the 4th June 1801 and the jubilee celebration in 1810. Viscount Valentia was banquetted by Ardeshir Dady, one of the principal Parsi inhabitants in November 1804; and in May of the same year Sir James Mackintosh, who succeeded Sir W. Syer, the first Recorder, arrived in Bombay.

Sir James Mackintosh's arrival synchronized approximately with a very severe famine in the Konkan, occasioned by the failure of the rains of 1803. The part played by the Bombay Government during the crisis alluded to by Forbes in the following words:—" What infinite advantage, what incalculable benefits must accrue from a wise and liberal admini­stration over those extensive realms which now form part of the British Empire, is not for me to discuss. What immense good was done by the wise policy of the Bombay Government alone during a late famine we learn from the address of Sir James Mackintosh to the Grand Jury of that island in 1804. No other language than his own can be adopted on this interesting subject ...... The upright and able magistrate, after descanting upon famine in general, enters into particulars of that in the Konkan, occasioned by a partial failure of the periodical rains in 1802 and from a complete failure in 1803, from whence, he says a famine has arisen in the adjoining provinces of India, especially in the Maratha territories which I shall not attempt to describe and which I believe no man can truly represent to the European public without the hazard of being charged with extravagant and incredible fiction. Some of you have seen its ravages. All of you have heard accounts of them from accurate observers. I have only seen the fugitives who have fled before it and have found an asylum in this island. But even I have seen enough to be con­vinced that it is difficult to overcharge a picture of Indian desolation. I shall now state from authentic documents what has been done to save these territories from the miserable condition of the neighbouring country. From the 1st September 1803 to the present time (October, 1804) there have been imported or purchased by Government 414,000 bags of rice and there remain 180,000 bags contracted for, which are yet to arrive. ...... The effects of this importation on the population of our terri­tories, it is not very difficult to estimate. The population of Bombay, Salsette, Karanja and the city of Surat I designedly underestimate at 400, 000. I am entitled to presume that if they had continued subject to Native Governments, they would have shared the fate of the neighbouring provinces which still are so subject. I shall not be suspected of any ten­dency towards exaggeration by any man who is acquainted with the state of the opposite continent, when I say that in such a case an eighth of that population must have perished. Fifty thousand human beings have therefore been saved from death in its most miserable form by the existence of a British Government in this island..................... The next particular which I have to state relates to those unhappy refugees, who have found their way into our territory. From the month of March to the present month of October, such of them as could labour have been employed in useful public works and have been fed by Government. The monthly average of these persons since March is 9,125 in Bombay, 3,162 in Salsette, and in Surat a considerable number  ....................   Upon the whole I am sure that I considerably understate the fact in saying that the British government in this island has saved the lives of 1,00,000 persons, and what is more important that it has prevented the greater part of the misery through which they must have passed before they found refuge in death, besides the misery of all those who loved them oi who depended on their care. "

It is now time to revert to the course of affairs in the Deccan. Upto 1817 Baji Rao remained ostensibly an ally of the English, who had restored him to his throne in 1803. But as, Maclean has pointed out, a prince who is called independent, but who knows that his authority depends on the good-will of a Political Resident and a body of foreign troops must be endowed with rare magnanimity if he does not both oppress his own subjects and chafe under the limitations placed on his sovereign power to make war and conclude treaties with other States. The consciousness that he is protected by a force strong enough to keep him on his throne in spite of all the efforts of discontented subjects removes the only curb the dread of rebellion which restrains an unprinci­pled despot from gratifying to the utmost the evil passions of cruelty, lust and covetousness; while at the same time a restored tyrant in nine cases out often resents his obligations to the foreigners who have given him back his kingdom, feeling that he is but a puppet in their hands when they keep him from indulging his ambition in warlike enterprises and bid him be content to stay at home and be absolute master of the lives and fortunes of his own people. The thirteen years which elapsed from the date of Baji Rao's restoration to his open declaration of hostilities are replete with instances of the grossest tyranny against his own people, and at the same time of treacherous intrigue against his European defenders. Neglect of the civil administration, accumulation of personal gain by sequestration and extortion led to considerable unrest and rendered his sway abhorrent to the inhabitants of his kingdom. His rooted hostility to the English provoked him to stultify a guarantee of safety which the latter had granted to the Gaikwad's agent, Gangadhar Shastri, who visited Pune in 1815 for the purpose of settling certain claims preferred against his master by the Peshwa. The agent was treache­rously murdered by Trimbakji Dengle, the Peshwa's infamous minister, who was subsequently handed over to the British Resident, Mountstuart Elphinstone, and imprisoned at Thane. Thence he escaped in 1816, and finding his way back to Pune persuaded the Peshwa to ally himself with the Pendharis and with Shinde, Holkar and the Bhosle in a confederacy to overthrow the British power. The hesitation which formed a considerable element in the Peshwa's character, prevented his joining issue with the English for some days; and the latter profited by the respite to obtain reinforcements from Bombay, which covered the whole distance from Panvel to Pune with only one halt and arrived in the Deccan capital on the 30th October, 1817. On the 5th November was fought the battle of Kirkee, which sealed the doom of Maratha regime. An army of 18,000 horse and 8,000 foot was powerless to save his kingdom for Bajirao, who fiom the hills overlooking the plain of Kirkee watched his ranks shiver and break. Accompanied by a small band of personal attendants the Peshwa escaped and passed the next few months in concealment, to avoid arrest by the English, who overran the Deccan and Southern Maratha Country. Eventually on discovering that his last chance of effecting anything against the English had passed away, he surrendered himself to Sir John Malcolm and renouncing for himself and his family all claims to soveieignty was permitted to rethe on the enormous pension of Rs. 8,00,000 a year to Bithur on the Ganges, where he doubtless instilled into the mind of his adopted son, Nana Saheb, that hatred of the British which bore such terrible fruit in 1857. With the exception of a tract reserved for the imprisoned Raja of Satara, Kolhapur, Savantvadi and Angre's possessions in Kolaba, the whole of the Peshwa's dominions were annexed to the Company's territory in 1818 and the Bombay Government settled down to the task of peaceful administration.

The year 1819 witnessed the final extinction of a piracy on the western coast of India. The arrangements made to undermine their power in 1807, 1809 and 1812 led naturally to disorder and insurrection among the turbulent classes of the population; and the final blow was not given to the pirates of Kathiawad till 1819 when a British force under Colonel Stanhope escaladed Dwarka and put the whole garrison, who refused to ask for quarter, to the sword. This action sounded the knell of organised raids in Western India; the last of the rover galleys, a goodly and impo­sing looking vessel having a lofty poop and beaked rostrum was seen by Colonel Tod lying high and dry upon the shore, and Bet, the robber' isle, bade adieu to her chieftain, who preferred the prospect of peace and a pension from the Bombay Government to the chance of amassing more wealth by acts of violence on the high seas.

Before closing the history of these years, we may draw attention to the rule, ordinance and regulation for the good order and civil Government of Bombay, which was passed in Council on the 25th March, 1812. The regulation provided for the appointment of two magistrates of police, , the senior of whom exercised authority over the Fort and harbour and the junior over the remainder of the island: it provided for the institution of a court of petty sessions, composed of the peace; and for the appoint­ment of European constables; it provided for the removal of encroach­ments, the safeguarding of wells, the registration of hired vehicles (hackereys), the prevention of nuisances, the regulation of dangerous trades, the registration of drinking and gambling houses, the carrying of weapons, the sale of poisons, the prevention of false coining, the regulation of religious rites and processions, the registration of the population and the maintenance of annual mortality and birth registers, and the emanci­pation of imported slaves. This was followed by Regulation III of the 4th November, 1812 which laid down building rules and the lines of set­backs both within the Fort and upon the principal roads outside it, and dealt generally with matters now falling within the scope of the Municipal Act.

About the same date the trade of the island commenced to exhibit distinct signs of progress. Up to the year 1813, the East India Company retained exclusive possession of all trades, private individuals being allowed to indulge in commerce only with the Company's licence. " Private enterprise ", writes Maclean, " had little or no chance in Bombay at a time when the Company and its servants had the pick of the trade, and Milburn gives the names of only nine independent European firms. The commanders and officers of the Company's ships employed Parsi dubashes or agents to manage their investments. The tonnage of the merchant ships in 1811 was 17,593 tons, some of the ships carrying 1,000 tons, and the largest class could take a cargo of 4,000 bales of cotton. There was only one insurance office, the Bombay Insurance Society, with a capital of 20 lakhs, but much underwriting was done by private persons." These conditions were, however, radically altered in 1813 by the passing of Lord Melville's bill which abolished the exclusive trade of the Company with India, but secured to it for twenty years longer the mono­poly of the trade with China, the latter exception being introduced because the Ministry were afraid of losing the revenue derived from duties on tea. The removal of old privileges gave immense encouragement to the trade of Bombay; and this circumstance, combined with the Company's military successes in the Deccan, paved the way for the educational and economic progress which characterized the island during the nineteenth century.

The annexation of the Deccan, which followed upon the battle of Kirkee and the dethronement of the Peshwa, was one of the three great events which contributed to the making of the modern city of Bombay. (The Editor does not agree with this view.) Free and uninterrupted trade between Bombay port and the mainland, which had suffered greatly in the past from the restrictions of the Maratha Government, was thereby assured; the milder sway of the English in the Deccan permitted more regular intercourse between the inhabitants of that area and the people of the coast. About the last days of the Peshwa rule in the Deccan Mr. J. M. Maclean gives a dismal picture, as quoted below, which Indian historians may not agree. "So extreme was the misrule—justice being denied to every one who could not use force to obtain it, while cultivators and citizens alike were ground down to the dust by ever increasing taxation—that only the court favourites and military chiefs and adventurers regretted the change of Government. Even the soldiers' pay was in arrears, and many of Bajirao's troops entered the service of the British Government within thirty-six hours after the proclamation of the Peshwa's dethrone­ment. But while the rise of the English power must be ascribed in some degree to the radical incapacity of Hindus (?) to do any work, which they undertake thoroughly and completely, and to the more systematic and strenuous character of western civilization, it should never be forgotton that the conquest of India is really the fruit of the incomparable fighting qualities of the British soldier." The year 1817 thus witnessed the freedom of Bombay from all fear of attack by Native powers. For a century and a half she had followed a policy which enabled her to gradually strengthen her own hand  and deal one by one with surrounding rivals until the last and most powerful of all was defeated.

By good fortune the affairs of Bombay were entrusted to a man of the highest genius at the very moment when supreme prudence and statecraft were required to repair the damages arising from centuries of desultory warfare. Ths Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone who was appointed Governor in 1819 fostered so vigorously the expansion of trade, the moderate and uniform settlement of the revenues, and the education of the people that Bishop Heber was moved in 1827 to remark that " on this side of India there is really more zeal and liberality displayed in the improvement of the country, the construction of roads and public building , the conciliation of the native and their education than I have yet seen in Bengal. " His policy ", wrote the Bishop elsewhere, " so far as India is concerned appeared to me peculiarly wise and liberal; and he is evidently attached to and thinks well of the country and its inhabitants. His public measures in their general tendency evince a steady wish to improve their present condition. No Government in India pays so much attention to schools and public institutions for education. In none are the taxes lighter, and in the administration of justice to the natives in their own languages, in the establishment of panchayats, in the degree in which he employs the natives in official situations, and the countenance and familiarity he extends to all the natives of rank who approach him, he seems to have reduced to practice almost all the reforms which had struck me as most required in the system of Go\ernmtnt pursued in those provinces of our Eastern Empire which I had previously visited.''

One of Mountstuart Elphinstone's earliest orders was directed towards securing better communication between the Deccan and Bombay. As early as 1803 General Wellesley had constructed a road for his transport up the Bor ghat, which had been designedly destroyed by the Peshwa; and this road the Governor determined to reconstruct. By the time Bishop Heber arrived in Bombay a tolerably good road had been com­menced. " From Campoolee " he wrote, " I walked up the Bhorel Ghat four and a half miles to Khandala, the road still broad and good but in ascent very steep, so much so indeed that a loaded carriage or even a palanquin with anybody in it can with great difficulty be forced along it. In fact every one walks, or rides up the hills and all merchandise is conveyed on bullocks and horses. The ascent might, I think, have been render­ed by an able engineer much more easy. But to have carried a road over these hills at all, considering how short a time they have been in our power, is highly creditable to the Bombay Government.". The work begun by Elphinstone was completed by his successor Sir John Malcolm, who refers in the following words to the achievement. "On the 10th November, 1830, I opened the Bbor Ghat which though not quite completed was sufficiently advanced to enable me to drive down with a party of gentlemen in several carriages. It is impossible for me to give a correct idea of this splendid work which may be said to break down the wall between the Konkan and Deccan. It will give facility to commerce, be the greatest of conveniences to troops and travellers, and lessen the expense of European and other articles to all who reside in the Deccan. This road will positively prove a creation of revenue."

Improved communication by sea was likewise sought, and by 1830 a project was afoot for regular communication with England by steamers navigating the Red Sea and Mediterranean. Eight years later regular monthly communication between Bombay and London by the overland toute was established, the pioneer of the venture being Mr. Waghorn who left London in 1829 to explore the overland route. The mail was carried by the steamers of the Indian Navy between Bombay and Suez; but their further conveyance beyond Suez seems to have been often a matter of great uncertainty. In 1838 for example the Bombay Chamber of Commerce recorded an explanation by Waghorn of the delay in transmission to Bombay of the portion of the June mail addressed to his care; and considerable anxiety was often left as to whether a steamer would be available for the despatch of the mails in any particular month. Nevertheless, in spite of the delay and difficulties of the journey across Egypt, the service was carried on with more or less regularity and contributed in no little degree to increasing the importance of Bombay during these years.

The settlement of the Deccan naturally resulted in an increase of the trade of Bombay. About 1825 Bombay exports became considerable, and from 1832 onwards a rise in the price of American cotton which was caused by the operations of the bankers of the United States resulted in increased exports of Indian cotton to England. Between 1835 and 1836 these exports expanded by the large total of a million bales: and this fact coupled with a very marked increase in the number of independent European mercantile firms led in 1836 to the foundation of the Chamber of Commerce which since that date, as Maclean has remarked, "has taken an important share in the formation of public opinion and the direction of affairs".

Under the head of administration, the chief event of note was a procla­mation by Government on 23rd April, 1834 appointing the Earl of Clare to be the first Governor of Bombay under a new Act for the better government of Indian territories, with William Newnham and James Sutherland as members of Council; whileon the 18th August, 1837 another proclamation was issued declaring " Queen Victoria Supreme Lady of the Castle, Town and Island of Bombay and its Dependencies". Meanwhile the growth of trade and population was responsible for various improve­ments in the island, notably the construction of the Colaba Causeway in 1838. Colaba, which up to that date formed the only remaining vestige of the original seven islands constituting Bombay, had been gradually built over ever since the year 1743, when Mr. Broughton rented it of the Company for Rs. 200 per annum. About 1830 the island was held on a yearly tenure by the widow of General Waddington though the buildings erected by her husband were considered to be military quarters in the possession of Government. The junction of Bombay and Colaba was immediately followed by "commercial speculation in recovering a certain portion of ground for building factories, wharfs and the greater facility of mercantile operations". The scheme eventually proved a failure; but for the time being property in Colaba, hitherto considered of little worth, rose about five hundred per cent, in value, land was purchased by a large number of people and building operations were feverishly prosecuted. One of the chief improvements to the north of Colaba was the construction of the Wellington Pier (Apollo Bundar) which was opened for passenger traffic in 1819; while a new mint was commenced in 1825, orders for a new hospital in Hornby Road were issued in the same year, and the Elphinstone High School and Elphinstone College were founded respectively in 1822 and 1827. The erection of the Town Hall likewise dates from this period. Sir James Mackintosh had first proposed to build a Town Hall in 1811, " the object in view being to provide a suitable building for public meetings and entertainments, and also to make a home for the library and museum of the Literary Society, and for the reception of statues and public monuments of British art". Lotteries were set onfoot in 1812 and 1823 in the hope of raising sufficient funds for the building, a site for which had been granted by the Company in 1817; but eventually it was found necessary to hand over the work, commenced in 1821, to Government who provided funds for its completion in 1833.

Outside the walls of the Fort also the face of the land was undergoing change. The town was gradually creeping over the reclaimed higher grounds, westward along Back Bay and northward to Byculla, so that by 1835 new communications became essential. One of the earliest of these was the great main road, named after Sir Robert Grant and constructed during his Governorship (1835-38). Douglas has recorded the existence of country-houses in Mazagaon, of four bungalows at Malabar Hill and of Market, Mandvi, Umarkhadi and Bhuleshwar providing homes for a constantly increasing population. Another writer, speaking of the fragile residences which the European population constructed on the Esplanade during the fair season, mentions " groups of pakka built and handsome houses to be found at Girgaum, Byculla, Chinchpugli and other places". Government House, Malabar Point, which Sir John Malcolm had constructed, was in common use as the hot weather retreat of the Governor by 1835; while another well-known edifice was the Panjrapol or home for aged and diseased animals which was erected by a Prabhu in the office of Messrs. Forbes and Company who had amassed considerable wealth with the object of devoting it to charitable purposes. By the year 1838 there were two large bazais in the Fort, the China and Thieves' bazars, the latter crowded with warehouses where European articles were disposed off at a small profit, and three great bazars in the native town, from which branch innumerable cross roads, each swarming with its busy crowds. "During the Jast few years", wrote Mrs. Postans, "the leading roads of the native town have been watered and even tolerably lighted. This has proved very advantageous after all the inconveniences which attended the old system of dust and darkness. It is still however only for an hour or two after sunrise that horsemen or carriages can pass unimpeded by stoppages of varied character. The most profitable trade carried on in these bazars is the sale of toddy; to so considerable an extent has the general use of this intoxicating beverage increased that Government have been constrained to issue an order; forbidding the existence of toddy stores within a regulated distance of each other. On a moderate computation, however, every sixth shop advertises its sale." The native town comprised roughly a portion of the modern C ward, most of B ward, Byculla, Mazagaon and Kamathipura, and was just commencing to absorb the modern areas of Dhobi Talao, Girgaum, Chaupati and Khetwadi. Parel was fairly populated but had not yet been transformed into a teeming warren of industry. Sion, Sewri and Mahim contained much the same population as they did at the beginning of the century; but Matunga which had at that period served as an European artillery station, was totally deserted by 1835 except for a couple of small hamlets sheltering the descendants of those who once performed the office of menials to the military camp.

The rapid increase of the town and of its population is to some extent portrayed by two occurrences, namely the water famine of 1824 and the Parsi-Hindu riots of 1832. In the former year only 25 inches of rain had fallen by the end of August and the wells which by Mr. Elphinstone's orders had been sunk on the Esplanade at the commencement of the drought proved totally inadequate to supply the whole population. Government thereupon appointed a committee of tanks and wells composed of the Revenue Collector, the Chief Engineer and the Secretary to the Medical Board, and placed at their disposal the services of an Engineer to frame plans and estimates of such works as they might consider necessary for relieving the scarcity. Under their superintendence several wells were repaired and improved and new wells were sunk in localities in which an additional water supply was most wanted. At considerable expense to Government many of the large tanks in Bombay and Mahim were also deepened and widened. The riots referred to above broke out in July 1832 among the Parsis and one or two Hindu sects in consequence of a Government order for the destruction of pariah dogs which at this date infested every nook and corner of the island. A couple of European constables, stimulated by the reward of eight annas a dog, were killing one in the compound of a native dwelling, when they were suddenly attacked and severely handled by a mixed mob composed of the sects above mentioned. On the following day all the shops on the island were closed and a party of about three hundred people commenced to terrorise anyone who attempted to prosecute his usual daily occupation. The bazar was deserted; and the mob forcibly destroyed the provisions intended for the Queen's Royals who were on duty in the Castle and prevented all supplies of food and water being conveyed to Colaba and the shipping in the harbour. As the mob continued to be reinforced, Mr. De Vitre, Senior Magistrate of Police, asked for the assistance of the garrison troops who speedily put an end to the disturbance.

Before describing the chief events of the latter portion of the period under review, it will not be out of place to quote the following description of Bombay in 1838 by an anonymous writer in the Asiatic Journal of that year:—

" In point of striking scenery, and its immediate contiguity to antiquities of the most interesting nature, Bombay possesses great advantages over the sister-presidencies; but these are counterbalanced by inconveniences of a very serious nature, to which, in consequence of the limited extent of the island, many of the inhabitants must submit. Bombay harbour presents one of the most splendid landscapes imaginable. The voyager visiting India for the first time, on nearing the superb amphitheatre, whose wood-crowned heights and rocky terraces, bright promontories and gem-like islands are reflected in the broad blue sea, experiences none of the disappointment which is felt by all lovers of the picturesque on approaching the low, flat coast of Bengal, with its stunted jungle. A heavy line of hills forms a beautiful outline upon the bright and sunny sky; foliage of the richest hues clothing the sides and summits of these towering eminences, while below, the fortress intermingled with fine trees, and the wharfs running out into the sea, present, altogether, an imposing spectacle, on which the eye delights to dwell.

"The island of Bombay does not exceed twenty miles in circumference, and communicates with that of Salsette by a causeway built across a channel of the sea which surrounds it. It is composed of two unequal ranges of whinstone rock, with an intervening valley about three miles in breadth, and in remoter times was entirely covered with a wood of cocos. The fort is built on the south-eastern extremity of the island, and occupies a very considerable portion of ground, the outworks comprehending a circuit of two miles, being, indeed, so widely extended, as to require a very numerous garrison. The town or city of Bombay is built within the fortifications, and is nearly a mile long, extending from the Apollo gate to that of the bazar, its breadth in some places being a quarter of a mile; the houses are picturesque, in consequence of the quantity of handsomely carved woodwork employed in the pillars and the verandahs; but they are incoveniently crowded together, and the high, conical roofs of red tiles are very offensive to the eye, especially if accustomed to the flat-turreted and balustraded palaces of Calcutta. The Government house, which is only employed for the transaction of business, holding durbars—a large, convenient, but ugly looking building, somewhat in the Dutch taste—occupies one side of an open space in the centre of the town, called the Green. The best houses, and a very respec­table church, are situated in this part of the town, and to the right extends a long and crowded bazar, amply stocked with every kind of merchandize. Many of the rich natives have their habitations in this bazar, residing in large mansions built after the Asiatic manner, but so huddled together as to be exceedingly hot and disagreeable to strangers unaccustomed to breathe so confined an atmosphere. One of the principal boasts of Bombay is its docks and dock-yards : they are capacious, built of fine hard stone, and are the work of Parsi artisans, many of whom, from their talents and industry, have risen from common labourers to be wealthy shipbuilders. Many splendid vessels, constructed of teak wood the best material for building have been launched from these docks, which contain commodious warehouses for naval stores, and are furnished with a rope-walk, which is the admiration of those who have visited the finest yards in England, being second to none, excepting that at Portsmouth.

"The island of Bombay, from an unwholesome swamp, has been converted into a very salubrious residence; though enough of shade still remains, the superabundant trees have been cut down the marshes filled up, and the sea-breeze, which sets in every day, blows with refreshing coolness, tempering the solar heat. The native population, which is very large, has cumbered the ground in the neighbourhood of the fortifications with closely built suburbs, which must be passed before the visitor can reach the open country beyond, at the further extremity of the island. The black town, as it is called, spreads its innumerable habitations, amidst a wood of coconut trees—a curious, busy, busting, but dirty quarter, swarming with men and the inferior animals, and presenting every variety of character that the whole of Asia can produce. The coconut gardens, beyond this populous scene, are studded with villas of various descriptions, the buildings within the fortifications being too much crowded together to be desirable; those belonging to European residents are, for the most part, merely retained as offices, the families seeking a more agreeable situation in the outskirts. Comfort, rather than elegance, has been consulted in the construction of the major portion of those villas but any defalcation in external splendour is amply compensated by the convenience of the interior ................Those persons who are compelled, by business or duty, to live in the immediate vicinity of Government house, only occupy the houses inside the fortifications during the rainy season; at other periods of the year they live in a sort of al fresco manner, peculiar to this part of the world. A wide Esplanade, stretching between the walls of the fort and the sea, and of considerable length, affords the place of retreat. At the extreme verge a fine, hard sand forms a delightful ride or drive, meeting a strip of grass or meadow-land, which with the exception of a portion marked off as the parade ground of the troops in garrison, is covered with temporary building: some of these are exceedingly fantastic. Bungalows constructed of poles and planks, and roofed with palm leaves, rise in every direction, many being surrounded by beautiful parterres of flowers, blooming from innumerable pots. Other persons pitch tents, which are often extensive and commodious, on this piece of ground, covering them over with a chupper or thatched roof, supported on slender pillars, and forming a verandah all round.

" Of the native community, as it has been already stated, a large majority are Parsis, who, at a very remote period—the eighth century of the Christian era—were driven by the persecution of the Mahomedan conquerors of Persia, to take refuge in Hindustan. The lower classes of Parsis are in great request as domestics at Bombay; they are far less intolerant in their principles than either Mussalmans or Hindus, and will, therefore, perform a greater variety of work, and are more agreeable to live with; but in personal appearance, they cannot compete with Bengal servants; whose dress and air are decidedly superior. The greater portion of the wealth of the place is in the hands of Parsi merchants, who are a hospitable race and, though not extravagant, liberal in their expenditure. The houses of these persons will be found filled with European furniture, and they have adopted many customs and habits which remain still unthought of by the Mussalmans and Hindus. The women, though not jealously excluded from all society, are rather closely kept; they have no objection to occasionally receive the husbands of the European ladies who may visit them, but they do not mingle promiscuously with male society. The Parsi females are not distinguished for their personal appearance being rather coarse and ill-favoured ; but many employ themselves in a more profitable manner than is usual in native women. Work-tables fitted up after the European mode, are not unfrequently found in their possession ; they know how to use English implements in their embroidery, and they have English dressing-cases for the toilet. Considerable pains, in some instances, are bestowed upon the education of the daughters, who learn to draw and to play upon the piano; and one Parsi gentleman, of great wealth, contemplated  the  introduction  of an English governess, for the purpose of affording instruction to the young ladies of his family.

" The Jews are more numerous, and of a higher degree of respectability in Bombay than in any other part of India ; they make good soldiers, and are found in considerable numbers in the ranks of the native army. There are Armenians also but not nearly so many as are settled in Calcutta ........................    The   Portuguese  inhabitants  rear  large   quantities of poultry; but game is not plentiful on the island, in consequence of its limited extent : red-legged partridges are however found, and on some occasions, snipe. The European inhabitants are usually supplied with their fruit and vegetables from the bazaar, as there are comparatively few gardens attached to their houses ; great quantities of the productions sold in the markets are brought from the neighbouring island of Salsette, which is united to that of Bombay by a causeway—a work for which the inhabitants are indebted to Governor Duncan, who constructed it over a small arm of the sea. This communication, which has a draw-bridge in the centre, is a convenience both to the cultivators and to the residents of Bombay, who are thus enabled to extend and diversify their drives, by crossing over to Salsette. A great portion of Salsette is now under cultivation, the Parsis and other wealthy natives possessing large estates on the island.

" The favourite residence of the Governor (who has three residences upon the island) is usually a villa at Malabar Point, a particularly beautiful situation, being a woody promontory, rising so abruptly from the sea, that its spray dashes up against the terraces. The principal residence of the Governor is at Parell about six miles from the city, and here he gives his public entertainments. It is a large handsome house, well constructed and appointed, having spacious apartments for the reception of company.

" The large Portuguese village or town of Mazagong, which is dirty and swarming with pigs, is however, finely situated, occupying the shore between two hills, and is moreover celebrated as being the place at which the fine variety of mango, so much in request, was originally grown. The parent tree, whence all the grafts were taken which have supplied the neighbouring gardens, was said to be in existence a few years ago, a guard of sepoys being stationed round in the proper season to preserve its fruit from unhallowed hands. From these groves in the time of one of the most luxurious Moghal emperors, Shah Jehan, the royal tables of Delhi were furnished with their principal vegetable attraction, couriers being despatched to bring the far-famed mangoes to the imperial court. Moore has alluded to the circumstances in "Lalla Rookh", attributing the acerbity of the critical Fadladeen's temper to the failure in the supply of mangoes. Mazagong-house was the residence of Sterne's Eliza; but the interest which this heroine of the ultrasentimental school formerly existed, has become very much faded, and there seems to be some doubt whether her existence will be remembered by the next generation.

"A great number of the poorer inhabitants of Salsette, Elephanta and the other islands of Bombay, subsist by fishing : cultivation is, how­ever, extending in the interior; and in the course of a few years, the influx of visitors to Bombay, which must be materially increased by steam-navigation to India, will doubtless direct the attention of persons desirous to colonize, to ths purchase of land in these fertile but somewhat neglected scenes. The various remains left by the Portuguese show that in their time agriculture flourished in places now reduced to jungle, from the usual consequences of Maratha conquest; and although the invaders subsequently ceded their territories to the British Government, they have never recovered from the ravages committed by a people, who may with justice be styled the most destructive upon earth."

Among the chief military and political events, which occurred just prior to the middle of the nineteenth century, were the appointment of a British resident to Savantvadi in 1838, the inclusion of Angre's Kulaba in British territory in 1841, the bombardment of Aden in 1839, the assumption of the right to administer the affairs of Kolhapur in 1842, the conquest of Sind in 1843 and the annexation of Satara m 1848. These actions doubtless served to impress upon the public mind the fact that Bombay was now the paramount power in Western India, but had little effect upon the progress of the island as compared with the internal reforms initiated during the twenty years preceding 1860. Foremost among the latter was the introduction of railway communication. In 1844 the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, to which Sir B. Frere offered the motto primus in Indis, was projected; the first sod was turned by Mr. Willoughby at Bombay in 1850, and the first twenty miles to Thane were opened in 1853. Two years Jeter (1855) the monthly mail service, which had reached a state of inefficiency and disorganisation calling loudly for reform, was reorganised; the employment of ships of the Indian Navy for this purpose was to the relief of travellers discontinued; and a contract was granted to the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company for the carriage of passengers and mails twice a month between Bombay and Aden in con­nection with their Calcutta and Mediterranean service. In 1857 even the bi-weekly voyage was decried, and an agitation was set on foot for an effective weekly mail service which bore fruit in 1868. It may be noted that an event of great political significance took place in 1852. The Company's charter was to be renewed in 1853. The political leaders of Bombay decided to start a political organization to vent public grievances and the first political organization of the Bombay Presidency was started in Bombay in this year under the name of Bombay Association, in a meeting of the citizens of Bombay on 26th August 1852.   The report of the meeting opens with the introductory remarks of Hon. Shri Jagannath Shankarshet, the Chairman of the meeting.

Hon. Shri Jagannath Shankarshet's speech.—"I wish on such an inleresting occasion this chair was occupied by Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, who, I regret, owing to indisposition, has not been able to attend, or by my friend Bomanjee Hormusjee, Esq., or other individual better able than myself to do justice to the objects for which we are here assembled.

" We meet here today to consider a most important subject. In the newspapers a notice was printed convening a public meeting of the native inhabitants of Bombay, which I shall read. From this you will see that it is considered highly desirable to form an association in Bombay, to ascertain and note the wants and wishes of the people living under this Government; to consider what measures are calculated to improve their condition; and to submit the results of these inquiries to local Government and to the authorities in England. By these means it is hoped, under providence, that we may be able to suggest a great many things to our rulers which otherwise may pass unnoticed, and we trust, that the results will prove highly beneficial to the people of this country, parti­cularly the poorer portion who know little or nothing of the feelings of their rulers regarding them. The anxiety of the British Government is to improve the condition of the ryots as well as of the other classes. The grand aim of this meeting at which I am called to preside, is to secure the happiness of millions of our countrymen, and as such I have no doubt that every one of you here do feel warmly interested, and that you will strain every nerve to forward the objects in view. Gentlemen, I know your good feelings and good sense are such, that no further exposition on my part is necessaiy. The objects of this meeting, I again repeat, are most noble, such as I believe we never proposed to ourselves before on this side of India. To every one to whom his country and its people are dear, the subject cannot fail to commend itself to their best attention and energies, and I shall conclude with the earnest hope, that success may crown our doings. Many, I have reason to believe, are of opinion, especially among those who have not moved in European society, that the British authori­ties are opposed to frame or concede measures simply for the benefit of our country; I mean such as do not at the same time involve their own pecuniary or other interests. But I assure such persons, in common with many here, that efforts on the part of natives to improve their own condition cannot but be looked on with pleasure by the paternal and enlightened Government that rules over this country, and meet with encouragement in proportion to their reasonableness and justice."

The following propositions were then unanimously adopted :—

Proposed  by  Bomanjee  Hormusjee,  Esquire,  and  seconded  by Maneckjee Limjee.

" 1. That an association be formed in Bombay with the object of ascertaining the wants of the natives of India living under the Government of this Presidency, and of representing from time to time, to the authorities, the measures calculated to advance the welfare and improvement of the country."

Proposed by Cowasjee Jehangeerjee, Esq., and seconded by Vurjeewandass, Madhawdass, Esquire.
"2. That the association be denominated the Bombay Association."

Proposed by Cursetjee Nusserwanjee,  Esquire, and seconded by Maneckjee Nusserwanjee, Esquire.

"3. That the association shall take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the enquiries, now being made in England, into the nature and constitution of the India Government, to represent to the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain such reforms and improvements in the existing system of government as are calculated to procure the most efficient administration of public affairs, and to secure the general welfare and interests of the people of India, and that the association do, in connection with those latter objects, open communications with, and seek the co-operation of the societies formed for the same purposes at Calcutta and Madras."

Proposed by Framjee Nusserwanjee, Esquire, and seconded by Bapoo Jugunnath, Esquire.

"4. That the association shall from time to time, on occasions arising, memorialize the Government authorities in India, or in England, for the removal of existing evils, and for the prevention of proposed measures which may be deemed injurious, or for the introduction of enactments which may tend to promote the general interests of all connected with this country."

Proposed by Narayan Dinnanathjee, Esquire, and seconded by Bhawoo Dajee, Esquire.

" 5. That a subscription list be opened for the purpose of raising funds necessary to carry into effect the objects of this association."

In moving the above proposition, Mr. Narayan Dinnanathjee said:—

" Gentlemen, I am very happy to see that this association has been formed; the advantages to be derived from it are so various and so numerous, that I am unable to describe them. The language (Gujarati) in which I now speak not being my mother-tongue, at present I labour under a disadvantage. ' Two heads are better than one'—thus runs an English proverb. What one cannot do, many can; union is power. If one person alone were to state the grievances of his country, no one would listen to him; but in an assembly formed from the community at large, such as the present one, the members can, as a body, represent to the proper authorities their grievances. In societies, if any one has any doubt on any subject, it can be removed by another member. There are innumerable advantages arising from our meeting in a body, but I am not going to enumerate them here at present."

Proposed by Nowrojee Furdoonjee,Esquire, and seconded  by Dadabhoy Nowrojee,  Esquire.

" 6. That the following  be   adopted as the rules of  the Bombay Association."

Mr. Nowrojee Furdoonjee observed:—

" Gentlemen, before reading the rules I propose for adoption, I beg to say a few words. It is usual in all civilised countries, especially in those of Europe, for the principal inhabitants to hold public meetings to deliberate on the existing and proposed measures and policy of the Governments under which they live, and to form associations like that which has this day been inaugurated, for the purpose of respectfully representing their grievances, and suggesting measures calculated to promote the welfare and prosperity of their country; and to such representations the rulers always attach due weight and importance. The want of well-regulated and well-constituted associations of this description has long been felt in this part of the country; and I am delighted to find that the want has this day been supplied at this meeting. An association like this—for the regulation and conduct of whose proceedings clear and well-defined rules are laid down, composed as it is of the heads and representatives ot the native community of this Presidency, gentlemen of influence, respectability, rank and intelligence, whom I rejoice to see here—cannot fail to command attention. The British Government, which is an enlightened and liberal Government, and professes to govern Indian for its own sake, will, I feel confident, be always ready and willing to hear the respectful appeals, the reasona­ble remonstrances, and the earnest representations which its native subjects may consider it proper to make for the amelioration of the conditions of this country and the welfare of its people. It will be the paramount duty of this association carefully to ascertain and lepresent the wants of the natives living under the Government of this Presidency, and such reforms and measures as are calculated to procure the most efficient administration of public affairs, as well as to memorialize the Government authorities from time to time for the removal of existing evils and the prevention of proposed injurious measures or enactments. Thus this association will be permanent one, and will be of great use and advantage not only at the present juncture, but also at all times in future whenever occasions arise." He then placed the draft of the rules of the association for the approval of the meeting.

In seconding Mr. Nowrojee Furdoonjee's motion to adopt the rules of the Association, Dadabhoy Nowrojee observed :—
" Many ask what this association means to do, when it is well known that under our present Government we enjoy an amount of liberty and prosperity rarely known to the inhabitants of India under any Native sovereign. In reply to this it is said, we ought to demand redress for our grievances. But what are those grievances? There may be many or none, yet nobody here is at this moment prepared to give a decided reply; and when we see that our Government is often ready to assist us in everything calculated to benefit us, we had better, than merely complain and grumble, point out in a becoming manner what our real wants are.

" We are subject to the English Government, whose, principal offers being drawn from England, do not, except after a long residence and experience, become fully acquainted with our wants and customs.

" Though they may always be anxious to do good to us, they are often led, by their imperfect acquaintance with the country, to adopt measures calculated to do more harm than good, while we, on the other hand, have no means of preventing such occurrences. The most we can do is to complain through the medium of a paper. In time all is hushed up, and the people carry with them the impression that Government has been unkind to them in not attending their complaint.

" We have, therefore, to consider what we ought to do, so as to secure our own good, and at the same time keep up a good understanding between us and Government.

" If an association like this, formed by the great Seths of our community, be always in readiness to ascertain by strict inquiries the probable good or bad effects of any proposed measure, and whenever necessary to memorialize Government on behalf of the people, with respect to them, our kind Government will not refuse to listen to such memorials. This, therefore, gentlemen, is one of the principal objects of the association. There are various departments of Government, such as revenue, judicial, political etc., conducted according to certain regulations. Of these some may be beneficial, some injurious. Take with it the case of the Cunbis. Much is being said about their poverty and destitution. But it is necessary to inquire into the true causes of this wretched­ness. It may be owing, for aught we know, either to bad administration, wholly or partially, or to some other causes. The committees of this association shall have therefore to institute inquiries into the natures of the various acts to which we are already subject, as well as of those which might be proposed for future administration, and to report to Government in a proper manner the results of their inquiries. I see no better means of preventing the adoption of injurious measures than by a combination of the people, in the manner in which this association is proposed to be formed, and I therefore second, with great pleasure, my friend Mr. Nowrojee in his motion to adopt the rules he read over to you."
The Chairman then placed the following proposition before the meeting:—

" 9. That a copy of the proceedings of this meeting be submitted to Government, with an expression of the earnest hope of this meeting, that the objects of this association will receive the support and co-operation of Government, as the association seeks only to advance the welfare of the people of this country, which cannot but likewise be the aim and object of government."

In moving this proposition, the Chairman said—

"I have already explained that the object of this association is to ascertain what measures will promote the interests of the Natives. Now as the British Government acknowledge their duty to be to effect whatever good they can for the benefit of this country, it is clear that their object and our object are one and the same. We are not in opposition to Government, nor can Government be opposed to our objects, if it be shown that the good of the country is what we seek. The Government have the power to do much good, and we have many proofs that they have the will also. I need not go far for these proofs. Witness this noble institution which they so generously support, in which so many who are now present have received a most excellent education. Witness also the Grant Medical College, where so many have been gratuitously taught the science of medicine, and have been prepared to gain a respectable livelihood, and to occupy an honourable position. I might refer also to the recent appointment of many Natives to the highly responsible situations of deputy collectors and magistrates. The Government are willing, I am sure, to; do what good they can, and when they are correctly informed they will always be ready to act for the advantage of the people over whom they rule. But they are not in possession of full and correct information of all subjects connected with the welfare of the people. Besides their official sources of informa­tion, Government will be glad to have other channels of information on which they can rely. An association like the one now established will doubtless be listened to with attention in respect to all matters which concern the wants and wishes of the people, which of course Natives have better means of knowing than gentlemen whose time is engaged with the duties of their official situations. I feel confident that the Government will be glad to receive suggestions from an association of respectable Natives, who intend to enquire carefully what the interest of the people may require, and seek to promote these interests in a temperate manner through the co-operation of the authorities themselves."

Subsequently in 1853 the Bombay Association submitted a petition to the British Parliament.

The progress of trade during the years 1840-60 was evidenced in various directions. The old system of houses of agency gradually disappeared in favour of joint-stock banks, of which the earliest, the Bank of Bombay, was opened in 1840. The Bombay Times of April 15th 1840, remarked that "the Bank of Bombay opens for business this day, three years and nearly four months having elapsed since the first subscription to it, and after surmounting a series of such difficulties and obstacles, as we believe no similar institution ever encountered before and such as we may safely predict no institution for the public good will encounter again." The difficulties attending the opening of this bank, however, appear to have exercised no check upon the formation of similar institutions; for in 1842 the Bank of Western India was established and by 1860 the Commercial, the Chartered Mercantile, the Agra and United Service, the Chartered and the Central Bank of Western India had all gained an assured position. The commencement of the cotton spinning and weaving industry also dates from this period. In 1850 even the model of a cotton mill could not have been found in Bombay; but shortly afterwards the enormous imports of piece goods and yarns from Lancashire set the merchant community wondering whether it might not be feasible to fight Manchester with her own weapons and themselves supply the demands of the island and the Presidency. In 1854 the first mill, the Bombay Spinning and Weaving Company's Mill, commenced working, and by 1860 six more had been opened and had attracted to the island a considerable industrial population.

Meanwhile the influx of population engendered by the above causes impressed upon all minds the need of improved communications, more space for building and a better system of conservancy. The Fort this date (1850) was described as looking like "a large basket stuffed so full of goods that they threatened to tumble out of it." "The dreary, treeless, sunburnt wilderness of the Esplanade during the hot season with its few dusty narrow roads leading to the native town was appalling. Almost universal darkness prevailed as soon as night set in : all traffic ceased, and people traversing the maidan after 9 p.m. were in mortal fear of thieves and robbers. The Fort was like a city of the dead; neither foot-passengers nor carriages could be seen, and if a man passed he walked as it were by stealth and flitted away like a spectre. Had anyone the misfortune to arrive with baggage after dark at any of the three gates through which entrance could be obtained, his vehicle was gruffly stopped by the sentinel on duty and he was told that nothing could come in." In 1841, a year after reclamation on a small-scale had been initiated by Messrs. Skinner, Brownrigg and Richmond, the public press had condemned the Fort as an obsolete and troublesome burden upon the community and under the auspices of Lord Elphinstone (1853-60), the pioneer of Bombay urban improvement, some attempt was made before 1860 to clear away the oldest portion of the defences. The delay which occurred in demolishing the whole of the ramparts and the deci­sion of the Fort Improvement Committee in 1848 to remove merely the ravelins and art works was partly due to the opposition of the native community who in an appeal to Government in that year pointed out that fresh space for the extension of the town was readily available in Colaba, Girgaum, Dhobi Talao and Breach Candy.

The conservancy of the town was likewise a subject of constant discussion at this period. Public health and the conduct of civic affairs were originally in the hands of the Justices of the Peace, who had been succeeded by Courts of Pretty Sessions, Magistrates of Police, and finally by a Conservancy Board in which " obtuseness, indifference and party spirit appeared to have completely overcome whatever medium of public spirit was still conserved among its members". Consequently in 1858 an Act was passed abolishing the conservancy board and substituting for it a triumvirate of Municipal Commissioners, which existed till 1865. It was during their regime that the Vihar waterworks, for the opening of which the city was indebted to the determination and liberality of Lord Elphinstone, were taken in hand, whereby a population annually liable to decimation by water-famine was for the first time supplied with a sufficiency of good water. They also prepared a rough scheme of drainage which was published in 1861. These projects were rendered imperative by the rapid expansion of the town. Prior to the date of the Mutiny the most important improvements were the Bellasis Road with its two gaping black ditches on either side and the construction of the Mahim causeway, which was opened in 1845 and was described as " a stupendous mound which cuts off an arm of the sea and promises to give to the husbandman what has hitherto been an unproductive estuary, a bridge which enables the traveller to pass a dangerous ferry in safety". But subsequent to 1857 the town expanded to such an extent that apathy in the matter of public improvements was no longer possible. Malabar Hill, Breach Candy and Mahalakshmi were eagerly seized upon by the European and upper class native residents; the ancient oarts and gardens were peopled by the poorer classes, whom the prospect of lucrative employment enticed from the districts of the mainland. " On the whole of the district," wrote a correspondent of the Times of India in 1860, " lying between the sea and Girgaum Back Road, building operations have been in active progress for some years past but have within the last two years been pushed on with unprecedented rapidity. Houses are rising in all directions and what was some few years ago merely a cocoanut plantation will within the next half century be as thoroughly urban as Mandvi or Khara Talao. Cavel and Sonapur are utterly destitute of cross-thoroughfares and illustrate what will be the future condition of the whole oart district if systematic proceedings are not at once adopted."

Two serious breaches of the public peace occurred during this period. The earliest occurred at Mahim on the last day of the Muharram, 1850, in consequence of a dispute between two rival factions of Khojas and resulted in the murder of three men and the wounding of several others. The later riots broke out between the Muhammedans and Parsis in Octo­ber, 1851, in consequence of a very ill-advised article upon the Muhammedan religion which appeared in the Gujarathi. The Muhammedans, enraged by the Parsi editor's strictures upon the Prophet, collected at the Jama Masjid on the 17th October in very large numbers, and after disabling a small police patrol which had been posted there to keep the peace fell to attacking any Parsi they met and destroying the property of members of that community. The public conveyance stabled at Paidhoni were wrecked, liquor shops were broken into and rifled, shops and private houses were pillaged. Captain Baynes, the Superintendent of Police, aided by Mr. Spens, the Chief Magistrate, managed with a strong force to disperse the main body of rioters, capturing eighty-five of them; but towards evening, as there were signs of a recrudescence of violence and the neighbourhood of the Bhendi Bazar was in a state of practical siege, the troops of the garrison were marched down to Mumbadevi and thence distributed in picketing parties throughout the disturbed area. This action had the effect of finally quelling the disturbance and the annual Muharram festival, which commenced on the 27th October passed off quietly.

The period of the Mutiny was fraught with anxiety to the European residents of Bombay, and more than one native of standing narrowly escaped arrest for high treason, as the result of false complaints laid before the authorities by interested parties. Among those thus secretly impeached was Mr. Jagannath Shankarshet (1804-65) who might concei­vably have incurred the same fate as Rama Kamati in earlier years, had Lord Elphinstone been less calm, circumspect and resolute. Jagan-nath's guilt was firmly believed in by several Europeans of influence, who brought the facts to the notice of the Governor: and he ordered an investigation to be made by Charles Forjett, Superintendent of Police, who was able to satisfactorily prove that the stories were wholly un­founded. Nevertheless the widespread anxiety in Bombay between May and September 1857 was by no means groundless. There were at this date three sepoy regiments on the island and only one European force of 400 men under Brigadier Shortt. The native troops were implicitly trusted by their officers and the chief danger apprehended by the Bombay Government was from the Muhammedan population which numbered at this date about 150,000. Besides the troops, Mr. Forjett was in charge of a number of native and 60 European police. Forjett, who was born and bred in India and could disguise himself as a native without fear of detection, was convinced that the towns people would not stir without the sepoys; but he knew that the latter were planning mutiny and much to the disgust of the Brigadier made no secret of his views. The Muharram was approaching, which is always an occasion of anxiety in Bombay even in times of peace; and the plans made by Government to keep order involved the splitting up of the European troops and police into small parties. Forjett by no means approved of an arrangement by which there would be no Europeans to oppose a mutiny of the sepoys at the place where it was likely to begin. As regards the troops he could do nothing, but he told the Governor—that he felt obliged to disobey orders as to the location cf the police. " It is a very risky thing," said Lord Elphinstone, " to disobey orders; but I am sure you will do nothing rash."

Forjett did disobey orders, in spite of risk. He wandered round the city in disguise every night of the Muharram and whenever he heard anyone sympathising with the success of the mutineers in other parts of India, he at once whistled for his men, some of whom were sure to be near. The scoundrels of the town were so alarmed at these mysterious arrests, which seemed to show that the authorities knew everything, that they remained quiet. But towards the end of the Muharram, a drunken Christian drummer belonging to one of the sepoy regiments insulted a religious procession of Hindus, and overthrew a god that they were escorting. He was at once arrested and placed in custody; but the men of his regiment, incensed at the action of the police, whom they detested on account of Forjett's hostility to themselves, hurried to the lock-up, rescued the drummer and took him with two policemen to their lines. A European constable and four natives went at once to demand that their comrades should be released and the drummer given up. They were resisted by force; a struggle ensued, and the police fought their way out, leaving two sepoys for dead. The sepoys were in the utmost fury and excitement, and Forjett was summoned by his police. Forjett was equal to the emergency. He ordered his European police to follow him, and galloped to the scene of the mutiny. He found the sepoys trying to force their way out of the lines, and their officers withdrawn swords with difficulty restraining them. On seeing Forjett their anger could hardly be controlled. " For God's sake, Mr. Forjett," cried the officers, " go away ". " If your men are bent on mischief," he replied," the sooner it is over the better". The sepoys paused while Forjett sat on his horse confronting them. Soon his assistant and fifty-four European constables arrived,.and Forjett cried," Throw open the gates—lam ready for them!" The sepoys were not prepared for this prompt action; and in the face of the European force judged discretion to be the better part of valour.

A few days later, Forjett erected a gallows near the police office, sum­moned the chief citizens whom he knew to be disaffected, and pointing to the gibbet told them that on the slightest sign that they meditated an outbreak they would promptly be hanged. The hint was taken. But there was still danger from the sepoys. Forjett learnt that a number of them were systematically holding secret meetings at the house of one Ganga Prasad. He immediately had this man arrested, and induced him to confess what he knew. The next evening he went to the house and through a hole in the wall gathered from the sepoys' conveisation that they meant to mutiny during the Hindu festival of the Diwali in October, pillage the city and then leave the island. His report of this to the officers was received with incredulity; but Forjett persuaded Major Barrow, the commandant of one of the regiments, to go with him to the house. " Mr. Forjett has caught us at last !" said Brigadier Shortt when the facts were reported to him. Court-martials were promptly held, the two ring-leaders—a native officer of the Marine Battalion and a private of the 10th N.I. were blown from guns on the Esplanade, and six of their accomplices were transpor­ted for life. The Diwali passed off quietly, and thus by the prescience of the Superintendent of Police, Bombay was saved from the horrors of mutiny.

The town meanwhile had watched the course of affairs in Bengal with feverish interest. A great meeting was held in the Town Hall in July 1857 to form a fund for the relief of those who had suffered in the mutiny; the Parsis met en masse on the beach at Back Bay and thence moved to the fire temple, in Chandanwadi to prey for the success of British arms against the rebels; and after the Queen's Proclamation, which was read from the steps of the Town Hall on the 1st November, 1858, thanksgiving was offered in every temple, mosque and church upon the island and all sections of the people were present at the festivities and illuminations arranged in honour of that event.

A mention may here be made of the proselytising activities of Christian missionaries who were actively helped by responsible officials as for example Mr. Fisher, acting Governor of Bombay (1841). These activities soon assumed aggressive proportions and caused great commotion in Bombay. The Parsees were much agitated and large amounts of money were spent by them on carrying on counter propaganda against missionaries by publication of books, pamphlets, booklets etc. Vishnubuwa Brahmachari next took vp the challenge (1855) and carried on his woidy crusade on Chaupati sands. But he was gagged by Government. This agitation went on vigorously till about 1857.

Government in the beginning appeared to be having a strictly impartial policy in religious matters. They did not want to give any offence to the people, on the contrary they wanted to assure them that they would not allow any propaganda in favour of Christianity.

From the correspondence published in the name of 'a native' in the Bombay Samachar (A Gujarati weekly 11th February, 1841) and also from the comments in the Bombay Courier (4th March, 1841) it seems that two Parsi boys were converted to Christianity by the local Presbytarian Mission. The Courier states, " As both the boys gave up the religion of their forefathers, there was great excitement amongst the native (Parsi) population. The Parsis boycotted the missionary schools with­drawing their children from them, whose chief aim was the spread of Christian religion. The Parsi community organized resistance on this occasion. They sought legal assistance and went up to the Supreme Court. It seems they also lodged complaints with highest authorities in England; but nowhere they could succeed. How the highest Government officials also used to take part in such activities was proved when a public recep­tion arranged in honour of the Hon. Mr. Fisher was effectively boycotted by the Bombay public (February 1841). Mr. Fisher who was the senior member of the Governor's Council had also worked as acting Governor. It was alleged that Mr. Fisher had helped the missionaries in their proselytising activities when he was acting Governor. At the time of Mr. Fisher's retirement from the service a public meeting was organized as mentioned above by the Europeans in the city of Bombay in appreciation of his long meritorious services by creating scholarships in a missionary medical school from a memorial fund which was proposed to be raised from the public of Bombay. This meeting was opposed by the native population of Bombay particularly the Parsis. A correspondent in the Bombay Samachar (11th February, 1841) stated " I am sure nobody would join in the move for the collection of the fund. Anybody who gives money to patronize a missionary school will help proselytisation of the natives. So no native should attend this meeting.". This meeting was duly held in the Town Hall on the 19th February, 1841, under the chairmanship of Mr. James Henry Crawford. The native population effectively boycotted it. Only two natives, one Parsi and the other Muslim attended it. The Europeans were surprised by this demonstration of unity and strong opposition. One of them Mr. John Iskiner went to the length of saying, " the natives have shown their ingratitude to Mr. Fisher who had done so much for their welfare and who was their true friend. The natives thus have insulted Mr. Fisher.". Mr. Iskiner even proposed a resolution at the meeting recommending that natives be excluded from contributing to the fund. However, better counsel of the chairman prevailed and the proposal was rejected (Bombay Samachar, 21st February, 1841).

The then Governor Sir J. Rivett-Carnac while speaking before the students of the Elphinstone Institution took pains to emphasise the value and use of English education which was meant for their happiness and welfare. He asked the Europeans also to help the natives without any selfish motives (Bombay Samachar, 25th March, 1841). Sir Carnac in his talks with the professors and scholars of the said Institute declared that in order to banish fear of proselytisation and other apprehensions, small or big, the Government had instituted a board of education and entrusted to it the work of education {Bombay Samachar, 1st April, 1841).

Another incident of conversion to Christianity created the same sort of hue and cry in the city in the month of May 1841. This was described as " Zulum on the pattern of the Pindharies " by some newspapers. In this instance a 16-year old boy Sorabji according to the report in the Bombay Samachar (27th May, 1841) left his house and was traced in the house of a missionary. His old mother and sisters went there and tried to persuade him to come back but they did not succeed. Sorabji, because of the various inducements and temptations offered by the missionaries refused to go with his mother. He was the only son of the aged mother. She cried and cried and also sought police help. The police took the boy to the Mazagaon Police Court where in the enquiry it was found that the boy was illiterate but it was his wish to adopt Christianity. The lad refused to go home to his mother. So the police took him the next day to the missionary's home where he was converted to Christianity.

The Bombay Samachar writing on this incident states, " we cannot describe in words the misery and torture of the mother of the converted boy. She is suffering from old age and poverty. Have these missionaries and those who patronize them thought for a moment how miserable they themselves would be if their son was beguiled to court a religion other than that cf his forefathers ? We ask, " what domes this immature and illiterate boy who does not know his mother language properly (Gujarati) nor has any knowledge of his own religion understand about the Christian religion ? And what advantage the missionaries bring to their religion by converting such boys of tender age and who have not much intelligence also?"

Criticising the attitude of Government the paper writes " When the British ruk in India began the people were given a guarantee that their religion would be protected and no harm would come to the people. Last time when two Parsi boys were converted to Christianity the Native made a petition to the Government expressing their grievance and feelings. The authorities replied that they would not interfere with religious matters and would keep aloof. This would not do. They should do more than that.".

"In earlier times Pindharies plundered and tortured the people and the rulers (native) connived at it and allowed them to plunder as they (rulers) also used to have their share in the loot. Similarly the Government of the day do not prevent the missionaries who are like the Pindharies and allow them to torment the people and do what they like. The Government only says, "we do not interfere". Old rulers used to serve their cause through the missionaries. This is confirmed, if what we read in Calcutta newspapers is tiue. If that is true then we would say that the Government is openly helping the missionaries. We read from Bengal newspapers that the Government intends to bring a bill to enable the Hindus to share in their ancestral property even after their conversion to Christianity. This proves that the Government has employed Christian Missionaries for the spread of Christian religion in the country."

At the end of the article the paper has appealed the Government to stop this "Pindharies like zulum of the missionaries and to restore the trust and contentment among the people wherein alone lie the security and strength of the State."

It would be worthwhile to reproduce the comments of the Bombay Times of 15th January, 1859 on the " Deadly National Rebellion" as it deals with the great uprising of 1857.

" If you choose to turn your eyes to the truth and call it, as some of your high civil officials in 1857 called it, a mere Military mutiny, the blame of keeping up a large Sepoy Army with an absurdly small number of European soldiers in the country, with the Empire daily extending, lies at the door of the Court of Directors. If you call it by its right name a deadly national rebellion, more fierce and sanguinary than ever occurred in France, the blame of annexing Oude against solemn treaties (as now admitted by every Member of Parliament, but long ago ineffectually dinned into Lord Dalhousie's ears by the whole press of India, save the " Friend "), lies at the door of their pet servant whom they rewarded with a pension of Rs. 50,000 a year, to be paid out of the revenues of the very land which he had so cruelly despoiled. Who, but the Court of Directors, refused to allow Nana Dhoondoo Punt (the notorious Nana) to sit on the gadee of the Great Bajee Rao Peshwa, in defiance of the shastras on the false plea that a Hindoo's adopted son was not a legal heir, and on the same plea deprived the Nana of a pension of Rs. 8,00,000 per annum? Who, but the Court of Directors refused to entertain the just and equitable prayer of the Ranee of Jhansi, to have her husband's adopted son placed on the Masnad, and punished her by annexing her territory? Who but Lord Dalhousie, forgetting the period of history when the Company's servants had to beg of Shah Alum for a small bit of territory known as the Dewanny of Bengal, forgetting the immense wealth, influence and power of the whole line of Muhammedan Emperors that ruled India from the Throne of Delhi in the days of Yore would so far insult and exasperate the old King (now on his way to the Cape), as to inform him that on his death (he was then 70 years of age) his throne would be extinct and his pension of rupees 1,20,00,000 per annum resumed? Who, but Lord Dalhousie would have annexed the large provinces of Nagpore and appropriated a revenue of about Rs. 15,00,00,000 per annum, merely because the Ranee of the late Raja desired to place the Raja's adopted son on the throne; and so we might go on tearing to tatters all those mighty acts of spoliation in India which the blind Ministers of England, misled by the Court of Directors, were wont to call great political achievements.

Irresistibly then will the conclusion force itself upon every impartial inquirer that, to the Government chiefly, to its breach of faith and breach of sacied Hindoo Laws in its relation with Muhammedan and Hindoo Princes, to its oppressive and defective Revenue Laws and still more defective administration of justice, civil and criminal, are we, the European residents of India, indebted for the loss of our dearest kinsmen whom the Government cannot replace and for the loss of our houses and house­hold property, the accumulations of 20 and 30 and sometimes 40 years of hard toil in a foreign land, which the Government can and is bound to replace. The Government of India will do well to abandon the pernicious habit of disguising the true causes of this rebellion."

The years which elapsed between 1820 and 1860 were emphatically years of steady improvement. Yet, notwithstanding the building of mills, the opening of institutions like the Grant Medical College and the projection of water works the town had still to be decked in a manner worthy of her position as a possession of the British Crown. Increasing commerce demanded new facilities for transit and new wharfage and pier accommodation. Fortunately for posterity the administration was entru­sted at this juncture to one who clearly realized the need for expansion and urban improvement and possessed the energy and determination to carry it out in face of the obstruction and indignation of the Government of India; while circumstances, to be referred to hereafter, placed at the disposal of Bombay the funds needed to perfect her transformation from a mercantile town into a splendid and populous city. Modern Bombay really dates from the year 1860 and was brought into existence by the achievements of Sir Bartle Frere's administration.

The period between 1860 and 1865 was one of feverish activity in Bombay, and was marked by progress in every branch of the administra­tion. In the case of the island's railway communication the advance was particularly noticeable. At the close of 1860 the Great Indian Peninsula Company had opened their line as far as Thane, and three years later, on the 22nd April 1863, the Bor Ghat incline was opened. Sir Bartle Frere was present at the opening ceremony and in recalling the words of Sir John Malcolm, in 1830 said : " When I first saw the Ghat some years later, we were very proud in Bombay of our mail cart to Poona, the first and at that time, I believe, the only one running in India; but it was some years later before the road was generally used for wheeled carriages. I remember that we hardly met a single cart between Khandalla and Poona. Long droves of pack bullocks had still exclusive possession of the road and probably more carts now pass up and down the Ghat in a week than were to be seen on it in a whole year. But the days of mail cart, and bullock cart, as well as the Brinjari pack bullocks, are now drawing to a close". The value of the railway in fostering the growth of Bombay has been well nigh incalculable; both European and Native profited by the saving of time and expense thereby assured and a journey to the Deccan, which once cost £ 6 and lasted twenty-four hours, became by virtue of a splendid feat of engineering, an easy achievement costing but a few rupees and lasting only for about six hours. Nor was Gujafat forgotten. Communications in that part of the Presidency were inferior to those of the Deccan and Konkan, by reason of the entire absence of made roads. This mattered but little in the fair season when communication by sea was open; but for three or four months every year the inhabitants of Gujarat were denied all means of access to Bombay and many a luckless resident of Kathiawar, Ahmedabad or Baroda died of sickness that might have yielded to treat­ment in another climate. The opening of the first section of the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway in 1860 therefore brought relief to many, and was followed by the opening of the Broach ajid Baroda section in 1861 and of the Ahmedabad section in 1863. Finally in 1864 the line which the Company had been forced by Government to commence at a distance from its base of operations was completed southwards as far as Bombay. The original proposal, made by Sir George Clerk when Governor of Bombay, had been to give the Bombay and Baroda Railway a concession of the shallow waters of Back Bay, which had been converted by the inhabitants of the adjacent undrained native town into a noisome and pestilential foreshore, on the sole condition of their constructing their railway across it at an estimated cost of about £ 90,000. This outlay would have been more than covered by the sale of the land reclaimed between the railway embankment and high water mark. The Home Government, however, objected to this being done by the railway with their guaranteed capital, and the concession was given to a company of Bombay merchants, the agreement being that the Back Bay Reclamation Company, after reclaiming from the sea and making over to the Government the land required for the railway and other public purposes, should make its profit out of the rest of the reclaimed land.

Further encouragement was afforded to trade by the institution of a regular service of coasting steamers and by the opening of the Suez Canal. In 1866 Government arranged with the Bombay Coast and River Steam Navigation Company for the maintenance of steam ferries between Bombay and Mandva, Karanja, Revas, Dharamtar, Uran and Ulva ; while the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 effected a complete revolution in the carrying trade of Bombay, which had up to that date been restricted by a lengthy voyage round the Cape. Early in the previous year a weekly mail service had been instituted in response to the agitation ccmmenced in 1857 and Bombay had become the port of arrival and departure for all the English mails. The claims of Bombay to be regarded as the imperial port of India had become too strong to be disregarded for the sake of local interests ; arid by 1875 Bombay harbour had become acquainted not only with the P. & O. weekly mail steamers but with the Government transports conveying the annual reliefs to India, and with the passenger steamers of the Austrian-Lloyd, the Rubattino, the Anchor, the Clan and the Hall Lines. The British India Company also had entered into a contract with Government for the carriage of mails from Bombay to all the other large ports of India. Finally, to complete the record of what was done during these years to improve communication between Bombay and the rest of the world, we may mention that a direct sub­marine cable was laid down from Suez to Bombay in 1870, in connection with the cable from Falmouth to Gibraltar. A cable had been previously laid down in 1860, but it became useless after one or two messages had been transmitted through it. Telegraphic communication between England and Karachi by a Persian Gulf cable was however successfully established in 1865.  

The third fundamental cause of the growth of Bombay was the enor­mous increase of the cotton-trade and the subsequent Share Mania of the years 1861-65. The outbreak of the civil war in America, which at once cut off supply of American staples, is calculated by Maclean to have given to Bcmbay roughly 81 millions sterling in five years over and above what she had in former years as a fair price for her cotton. " Allowing " says he, "a liberal margin for errors of valuation at the Cus­tom House, we may compute the clear addition to the wealth of Bombay at 70 to 75 millions sterling a tolerably substantial foundation for speculators to build upon. An unexampled exportation of cotton continued as long as the war lasted ". " The produce of all the great cotton fields of India, Nagpur, Berar, Gujarat and the Southern Maratha Country ", writes Sir Richard Temple, " found its way to Bombay in order to be exported to England with all possible despatch, while the high prices ruled and the blockade of the South American ports lasted. So sudden was the demand, so high the range of price, so vast the profits, that an economic distur­bance set in, Money seemed to lose its purchasing power, the prices of almost all articles rose simultaneously and the wages of labour were enhanced in proportion ". Dealers were absolutely indifferent to quality, so long as they could hurry on the staple to the market and gain the fortune spread before their eyes. The press voiced the forebodings of the wiser portion of the public, but was not heeded. The economic history of most commercial countries has shown that when money in vast quantities seeks for and fails to find sound investments, it will be wasted. The wastage takes the form of unwise or insane speculation. It was to such speculations that Bombay fell a victim during these years.

At the outset, speculation was confined to ventures in cotton and piece-goods ; but as the money made in this way accumulated, and adventures from all parts were attracted to Bombay all sorts of ingenious schemes were devised for putting the newly-acquired wealth to use. By 1864 the whole community of Bombay, from the highest English official to the lowest native broker, became utterly demoralized and abandoning business gave themselves up to the delusion that they could all succeed in making fortunes on the stock exchange. Up to the end of 1863 almost the only new form of enterprise brought before the public had been the creation of joint slock banks ; but in that year the Bombay Ship­ping and Iron Shipping Companies were started to make Bombay merchants independent of English ship-owners, and the shares of the former company went to nearly 200 per cent, premium and were retained at that rate, the promoters being men who were reputed to have made millions in cotton and who had already secured public confidence by the successful manner of their launching of the Asiatic Bank. Then came the year 1864, when the prospect of the conclusion of the American war seemed, thanks to the genius of Lee and the stubborn valour of his soldiers, to be further off than ever. No bounds therefore, it was assumed, could be set to the flowing tide of Bombay's prosperity, and everyone hastened to plunge in and let himself be borne upwards to fame and fortune. It is literally the case that in 1864 banks were brought out by the dozen and financial associations, a new engine foi the promotion of speculation, by the score. The first, afterwards known as the old Financial Association, appeared in June and had its shares run up to nearly 100 per cent, premium on the nominal capital of Rs. 400 per share, while only Rs. 100 had been paid up and no business done. The lucky receiver of an original allotment could therefore make about £ 40 on each £ 10 share, without putting himself to any immediate trouble beyond that of signing his name. It is needless to say that there was a frantic rush for shares ; and that soon the newspapers were crammed with announcements of new financial associations. But all other speculation was dwarfed by the magnitude of the Back Bay Reclamation project, which was designed in the first place to provide the land on the shore of Back Bay along which the B.B. and CI. Railway  ran, and  afterwards to use the residue of the ground reclaimed for the purpose of providing sites for marine residences. The value of land had been trebled and quadrupled in Bombay, the population was daily increasing in numbers, and as the available space within the island was very little, every additional foot tacked on seemed likely to be worth its weight in gold. Fierce opposition was made to the grant to a private company of so valuable a conces­sion; and the Bombay Government which had determined  to make something for itself out of the rage for speculation by taking a number of Back Bay shares, was forced by the Government of India to abandon such a partnership. The astute promoters of the company then sold these shares by public auction, the brokers ran them up to Rs. 25,000 a share on Rs. 4,000 paid up, or more than 600 per cent., and this sale may be said to have sent the city quite mad.

A share list published on the 31st December 1864 shows that at that date there were in existence 31 banks, 16 financial associations, 8 land companies, 16 press companies, 10 shipping companies, 20 insurance companies against 10 in 1855, 62 joint stock companies where in 1855 none had existed. The Back Bay Company's transactions had proved too great a temptation for the merchants of Bombay and the chance of making 600 per cent on one's money was too strong to be resisted. "Were there not other sites as valuable as the barren sands of Back Bay? Were there not the flats to be filled up and built over, the pleasant slopes of Trombay to be covered with country houses, to which the weary specula­tors of Bombay might retire every evening by means of a branch railway crossing reclaimed ground at the northern end of the harbour ? Were there not banks of mud at Mazagaon and Sewri which could be con­verted into docks and wharves to accommodate the ever-expanding trade of the greatest port in Asia ? To crown all, when Bombay and the islands in the harbour had been exhausted, and even the most keen-eyed speculator might have looked in vain for a square foot of muddy fore­shore not yet appropriated by a local land company, a new plague fell upon the city in the shape of an importation from Calcutta of certain public-spirited promoters who were anxious to point out to Bombay capitalists what a splendid field for investment was offered to them by the swamp known as Port Canning near Calcutta. The bait took and early in 1865 the Port Canning Company appeared before the public with a list of influential directors that was alone sufficient to send the shares up to several hundred per cent premium.   This was the climax. It was impossible to surpass the Port Canning Company ; and in the spring of 1865 a sudden end was put to further speculation by a telegram announcing the surrender of Lee's army and the termination of the war in America.

Then the reaction set in. The price of Dhollera cotton in the Liverpool market, which at the beginning of the year had been 19 1/2 pence per pound fell to 11 pence before the end of April; and as it was evident that in the natural course of things there must be a further heavy fall, the prices of all securities gave way in sympathy with cotton. Men who had been trading or speculating beyond their means found themselves unable to meet their engagements; a leading firm of Parsi merchants set the example by failing for 3 millions; and a panic ensued which baffles description. Every one soon discovered that the nominal capital of the numerous companies in existence only represented so much paper money; that a few shrewd men had first started banks and run up the shares to a premium, and then obligingly started Financials to lend money to other people to buy these shares from them. The banks again had been able to do no business beyond advancing money on the shares of land companies brought into being by the financial associations; and so the whole show of wealth of these various establishments had depended on nothing but dealing in one another's shares. When the crash came, there was nothing to meet it but paper, and the whole elaborate edifice of speculation toppled down like a house of cards. The shares of land companies might have been supposed to represent valuable property; but the fall in cotton was followed by a depreciation in land which brought down shares from 500 or 600 per cent, premium to a discount. The scales fell from the eyes of the public and they saw the worthlessness of the properties they had bought under the influence of a strong delusion. A wild rally made at the end of 1865, when the price of cotton was temporarily forced up again—leaching in December 17 3/4 pence a pound—was quickly followed by a relapse and by the terrible commercial crisis of the spring of 1866 in England ; and then the panic at Bombay set in with renewed intensity. Finally the master-spirits of the speculative era were themselves pressed hard, and in their fall they brought down institutions whose credit had been deemed beyond suspicion. By the end of 1866 every one of the financial associations had failed and gone into liquidation ; all the banks, with the exception of the Oriental, the Chartered Mercantile, the Chartered, the French Bank, and one or two others, which had not their headquarters in Bombay, had also been swept out of existence; and not a land company remained that was not insolvent, with the exception of the old Colaba Company and the Elphinstone Company. The latter had done good work and possessed a valuable property; and it was able to keep on its way for some years till a sympathetic Govern­ment relieved it of anxiety by buying all its shares at par. The collapse of the Bank of Bombay created much scandal in India and in England; and the causes of it were investigated by a Royal Commission and discussed two or three times in Parliament. The disasters that befell the surface of society formed but a fraction of the misery occasioned by the failure of the leading merchants and firms. The impossibility of realising land assets for cash and distributing the proceeds gave rise to a wide­spread under current of distress, blighting careers once promising and condemning many lives to a hopeless and degrading bondage. By the close of 1867 the panic had subsided, and commercial affairs which fortunately suffered no permanent injury from the wild excesses of these five years commenced to regain a normal aspect. Moreover, the future financial independence of Bombay was placed in its own keeping by the opening in 1868 of a new Bank of Bombay, which was to form an impregnable centre of commercial stability. The new bank, as the contemporary press remarked, had the strongest negative guarantee for safety in the history of the four years downfall of the old Bank.

The Share Mania by good fortune did no permanent injury to the trade of Bombay; while it, at the same time, was responsible for improvements which might reasonably have taken many years to introduce. At the outset when the piles of gold commenced to stream into the city, the public mind was directed towards improvements that might render the island more spacious and more wholesome; and at the head of the Government was just the one man who could stimulate the public desire and guide it by zeal and enthusiasm to a practical issue. " The old town of Bombay was ill-built, ill-drained, or rather not drained at all, very dirty and very unhealthy. Land for building was urgently required by the rapidly increa­sing population, and space for more airy streets and houses. Frere was a keen and ardent sanitary reformer, abreast of all the latest knowledge on the subject. He had obtained a report on the condition of the city from Dr. Leith, President of the Bombay Sanitary Commission; and he called to his assistance Dr. Hewlett, then recently returned from England, where he had been making a special study of sanitation." It was Sir Bartle Frere who was mainly responsible for the final orders of 1862 for the removal of obsolete fortifications and useless public buildings and of the old ramparts of Bombay which were not only useless for purposes of defence but occupied a large space between the busiest portions of the town. The high walls interfere with the circulation of air, and the ditches contained foul and stagnant water, which was responsible for a considerable amount of disease. Accordingly, under the Governor's, auspices, the walls were levelled, and the old Fort, which had frowned upon the Malabar pirate and had watched the Company's fleet sail forth to punish Angre, disappeared forever. The space, thus set free, was partly laid out in roads, open spaces and public buildings; and the remainder, comprising a considerable area, was sold under conditions arranged so as to secure the interests of the public and for a sum which was sufficient to cover the whole expense of the work done.

The task of driving back the ocean was also undertaken. " The traveller landing at Apollo Bandar about the year 1855 ", writes Maclean, " would have found a foul and hideous foreshore from the Fort to Sewri on the east, from Apollo Bandar round Colaba and Back Bay to the west. All round the island of Bombay was one foul cesspool, sewers discharging on the sand, rocks only used for the purposes of nature. To ride home to Malabar Hill along the sands of Back Bay was to encounter sights and odours too horrible to describe, to leap four sewers whose gaping mouths discharged deep black streams across your path, to be impeded as you neared Chaupati by boats and nets and stacks of firewood, and to be choked by the fumes from the open burning ghat and many an ancient and fish-like smell. To travel by rail from Bori Bandar to Byculla or to go into Mody Bay was to see in the foreshore the latrine of the whole popula­tion of the Native town". Of the wealth which found its way into Bombay subsequent to 1860, about six million pounds sterling was devoted to regulating and advancing into the sea below low water mark the whole of the Island's foreshore. Handsome works were carried out on either side of the Apollo Bandar, extending south westward almost to Colaba Church and stretching from the Custom House to Sewri along Mody Bay and the Elphinstone, Mazagaon, Tank Bandar and Frere reclamations—a distance of at least five miles. On the other side of the island was the great Back Bay reclamation from Colaba to the foot of Malabar Hill, whereon was constructed a good read and bridle-path. The area thus reclaimed amounted to more than 4,000,000 square yards, and resulted by 1872 in an increase of the area of the whole Island from 18 to 22 square miles. Simultaneously much energy was displayed in the construction of new roads and the widening of old tracks, among the chief works of this nature being the widening ?nd rebuilding of the Colaba Causeway in 1861-63, the com­mencement of the Esplanade, Rampart Row and Hornby Roads, the widening of Cruickshank and Carnac Roads in 1865 and 1866 and the completion of the Carnac, Masjid and Elphinstone overbridges in 1867.

More striking than new reclamation and communications were Ihe great buildings and architectural adornments of the city which were projected and commenced during Sir Bartle Frere's tenure of office. The embellish­ment of Bombay was carried out by both Government and private citizens, both equally actuated by the spirit of the age, which demanded that some part of the newly acquired wealth should be allocated to the permanent advantage of the city. " It should never be forgotten," writes Maclean," that the splendour of the public buildings and useful and benevolent institutions of new Bombay is due to the munificence of the speculators of 1861-65." Thus Mr. Premchand Raichand, "the uncrowned king of Bombay " in those days of financial delirium, gave four lakhs for the building of an University Library building and a tower, to be named after his mother, the Rajabai Tower; the Jamsetji Jijibhoy School of  Art came into existence; forty drinking fountains were by the liberality of Mr. Cowasji Jehangir erected in various quarters of the city; the Parsi community opened an ophthalmic hospital and a hospital at Colaba; a hospital for incurables was established at Byculla; and subscriptions were readily offered for the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Sassoon Mechanics Institute. Public companies also played their part in the general progress of improvements. The Railway Companies opened new and extensive workshops at Parel; the Gas Company laid down their plant in 1862 and lighted a portion of the town with gas for the first time in October, 1866; and the P. and O. Company commenced the conversion of the old Mazagaon dock into the largest and most perfect timber-slip in Bombay. Lastly may be mentioned the Elphinstone Circle, the scheme for which originated with Charles Foijett, was sanctioned by Sir George Clerk and was completed during his successors' tenure of office. The site of this imposing collection of buildings—the old Bombay Green, was purchased by the Municipality and resold by them at a profit in building lots to English mercantile firms, who gradually transformed the dusty open space, inhabited for the most part by crowds of pigeons, into an imposing example of street architecture. The suggestion that the circle should bear the name of Lord Elphinstone emanated from the firms concerned in the building thereof, who held a public meeting in 1862 at the office of Messrs. Ritchie, Stuart and Co. The proposal testifying to the support which Lord Elphinstone had accorded to the scheme in its infancy, was approved by Government, and under the name of the Elphinstone Circle one more striking improvement was added to the list of those executed during this period.
On the one hand, therefore, were private individuals and public firms, working during these years with one fixed idea of improving and enlarging the city, to which their several destinies had driven them. On the other hand were Sir Bartle Frere and his Government, actuated no less keenly by the same wish. "As lands for building purposes were very much needed " writes Sir Richard Temple, "and would command a high price, a project was formed for throwing down the walls of the Fort, taking up a portion of the plain, and making allotments of ground available for building. Sir Bartle Frere took up this project with his accustomed zeal, and obtained large sums in purchase money from those who bid for the allotments. The means thus acquired, together with grants from the Government, were collected and formed into a special fund for the construction of public offices and buildings for Bombay. The forma­tion and management of this fund caused much correspondence with the Government of India ; but the scheme held good and was duly carried into effect. Previously these buildings had been found unsuitable for the growing needs of a capital city, being cramped in space, badly situated and imperfectly ventilated; they were erected at a time when civilization was but little advanced in the settlements of the East India Company, and when architectural taste was almost unknown in British India. The oppor­tunity was to be taken of giving Bombay a series of structures worthy of her wealth, her populousness, and her geographical situation. The designs were to be of the highest character architecturally ; therefore architects were obtained from England to frame them elaborately and due thought was given to artistic effect. The operations were planned deliberately and were begun while Frere was still in Bombay. Their completion was arranged by his successors very much on the lines which he had laid down. They comprise the Government Secretariat, the Univer­sity Library, the Convocation Hall, the High Court, the Telegraph Depart­ment, the Post Office, all in one grand line facing the sea. Other buildings in a similar style were built in other parts of the city, such as the Elphin-stone College, the Victoria Museum, the Elphm stone High School, the School of Art, the Gokuldas Hospital, the Sailor's Home and others. Few cities in the world can show a finer series of structures ; and those who admire the buildings after the lapse of fifteen years from the begin­ning of the work, may well be reminded that it is to Sir Bartle Frere that Bombay owes the origination and inception of this comprehensive project. It would be a mistake to attribute too much to individual Governors ; for when work is demanded by the spirit of the age, it will be done in some shape or other, whoever may be in power. But in justice it must be said, that Frere deserves the lion's share in the credit of this undertaking, and that without him the work would never have reached that magnitude which is now beheld by all English spectators with a feeling of national pride." In addition to the great buildings mentioned by Sir Richard Temple, we read of improvements to the Cathedral, new Police Courts in Byculla and the fort, the expenditure necessary for which was sanctioned by Government in 1866 ; of new light-houses on Kennery and the Prongs ; of Harbour defences, batteries at Oyster Rock, Cross island and middle ground ; of a Wellington Memorial Fountain; and of a European General Hospital; and many other works of utility and adornment. " Upwards of a million sterling, " says the Bombay Builder of 1866-67, " has already been expended upon the various works which have been undertaken by this Government in Bombay; and about a million and-a-quarter is the estimated cost of completing works already in progress. Two millions more will be required for projected works, including the Military canton­ment at Colaba. More has been done for the advancement of important works during the present than during any previous administration. The works of progress that remain are blessings to Bombay ; those that have miscarried are landmarks to guide the coming administration; and those that are retarded belong more to the financial policy of the Government of India than to the policy of Sir Bartle Frere."

No retrospect of this important period would be complete without a reference to the change and growth of Municipal Government, which was necessitated in the first instance by the increase of the city and of its population. Sir Bartle Frere, in speech delivered at the laying of the foundation-stone of the Elphinstone Circle in October 1864, remarked that " the three great objects which Lord Elphinstone had ever kept in view were, firstly, the water-supply of the city; secondly, the efficient drainage of the whole town and island; and, lastly, the reclamation of the flats." The first object had already been brought to a practical issue by the construction of the Vehar Lake ; but by the time Sir Bartle Frere took up the reins of Government, the triumvirate of Municipal Commissioners, appointed by the Act of 1858, had effected little or nothing towards the consummation of the two latter desiderata. Moreover, the administration of 1858 had not met with the favour of the public, and was not so constituted as to be able to effect the radical improvements in conservancy and communications which were demanded by the spirit of those years. One of the most notable features, therefore, of Sir Bartle's administration was the abolition of the old triumvirate and the passing of Act II of 1865, whereby the Justices for the Town and Island of Bombay were created a body corporate, and entire executive power and responsi­bility was vested in a Commissioner, appointed by Government for a term of three years. A contemporary writer, in reviewing the events connected with the name of Sir Bartle Frere, remarked that " this Act at first sight appears quite unconnected with the building or improvement question, with which we now have to deal. But when it is remembered that the large revenues of the Municipality will come in part to be expended on works of public utility in coming years, and that the Municipal credit will be pledged for carrying out vast and costly undertakings, our readers will confess that in the passing of the Municipal Act a rich vein of progress and development has been struck, which will yet in point of magnitude of operation and success distance even the efforts of Government and of public companies." The new system was unfortunately marred by one flaw, which eventually led in the closing year of the period under review to its discontinuation, and to the passing of a new Municipal Bill. Munici­pal administration, as has been remarked, was conducted by a Commis­sioner and the Bench of Justices; but the powers of the Commissioner were so extensive that he was practically irresponsible; and, in an age so fertile of great and costly works, he was open to a temptation to spend the money of the rate payers in a far too lavish manner. Had there only existed some constitutional check upon his powers and inclinations, the municipal system of 1865 might have lasted beyond 1872. But, as the Act contemplated no such check, costly works were set on foot, necessitating the disbursement of such immense sums, that something akin to a popular revolution took place in 1871, and Government felt itself compelled to create a new municipality, in which the rate-payers themselves should, by their representatives, have an authoritative voice. The first real experi­ment, for as such it has always been regarded, in municipal government in India was made by the Municipal Bill which passed the Legislative Council of Bombay, and received the sanction of the Government of India in 1872. The first municipal elections were held in the month of July 1873; and there came into existence from that date a Municipal Corporation, consisting of 64 persons all of them rate-payers resident in the city of Bombay, of whom 16 were nominated by Government, 16 were elected by the Justices of the Peace resident in the island, and 32 were elected by the rate-payers.

Short as was the period, during which the municipal constitution of 1865 lasted, considerable progress was made in sanitation and communications. An efficient health department was organised, and came into existence on November 1, 1865, which at once directed its attention to drainage, to the condition of burial grounds and to the presence of dangerous and offensive trades. The drainage question had for many years troubled the minds of those responsible for the welfare of the island. As early as 1863, journalism broke into a paean of praise over the prospect of such a reform, declaring that " Bombay is to be drained at last;" that " the Municipal Commissioners have taken steps for break-it ing ground at once in the Fort and in a fortnight or so, we may expect to see the beginning of the greatest sanitary reform, that can possibly be introduced, applied to Bombay." The unfortunate triumvirate was un­equal to the task. Though the work was commenced in 1864, the feebleness of the old commission militated against a satisfactory issue thereof; and, in the meantime, the public had discovered that the most vital point connected with through drainage—namely, the location of the sewage outfall—was still undecided. The importance of deciding this question was put forward in 1865 by a special committee, appointed to deal with the drainage of flats, and it was not till after the Municipality of 1865 had been constituted that any definite advance in sanitary engineering was recorded. The Municipal Commissioner also returned his attention to the crying need of well-conducted markets and slaughter­houses, the best-known of those erected prior to 1870 being the Arthur Crawford markets which have been described as " the noblest and most useful of all the public improvements executed in Bombay, and as forming a grand monument to the energy and administrative capacity of the gentleman whose name they bear, and who was Municipal Commissioner of Bombay from July 1865 till November 1871". The increase of the Vehar water supply, the initiation of the Tulsi water works, and the reclamation of the flats with town-sweepings were further measures of utility introduced prior to 1872.

The birth of Bombay as a populous and beautiful city is ascribable, therefore, to the joint labours of Government, the Municipality, private firms and public-spirited citizens, who strove in their several spheres to render the once inconsiderable island worthy of her position as one of the outposts of a wide Empire. At the same time it must be remembered that the decade 1860-70 was responsible for the introduction of those conditions of urban life which have rendered the city a hot-bed of disease, and have necessitated the creation by a later generation of a special board, charged with the relief of overcrowding and the sanitary regeneration of the island. The evils arising from an unprecedented influx of population and the absence of any Act to regulate building and obviate overcrowding were clearly portrayed in the report of the health officer in 1872, whose description of the city proper forms a starting contrast to the agreeable account recorded by Maclean of the more salient features of the island. The death-rate in the Market section was unusually high in consequence of the condition of the houses in that locality; land in the Mandvi section was so valuable that the houses were built very high, the streets were narrow, and the people overcrowded, while the imperfect drains were often choked. Chakla was full of dark and ill ventilated milch cattle-stables. Naoroji Hill had already been mined by its owner " who let out plots of land to persons to build as they pleased, without any definite plan to ensure breadth of streets and ventilation of houses. In the heart of Dhobi Talao was " the dirty irregular labyrinth of Cavel. a Vehicles can only pass a very short distance into it, and one of the principal thoroughfares thither is through a liquor-shop in Girgaum road". Phanaswadi was honey combed with sewers; Bhuleshwar contained the indescribably filthy quarters of the milk-sellers known as Goghari ; while Kumbharwada ranked as a shamefully neglected district, where the inhabitants sleep in atmosphere tainted with sulphurated hydrogen. Khetwadi was being rapidly covered with houses notwith­standing that during the monsoon the storm-water from the Falkland road main drain was ponded up in the Khetwadi back road to a depth of three or four feet. Chaupati and Girgaum were full of cesspools ; the state of Malabar Hill was such as to cause grave anxiety to the guardians of the public health. Tardeo was beginning to attract so many people to its mills that a properly laid out village for mill-employees appeared desirable. Khara Talao possessed many houses in which it was essential to carry a light by day ; the villages of Sindulpada, Agripada and Julhaipada were well nigh untraversable owing to the presence of an open drain ; the thickly populated villages and hamlets of Parel were wholly undrained. The condition of Mazagaon and Sewri was more satisfactory. The former, however, still lacked a road across the waste ground reclaimed by the Elphinstone Company, which separated it from the Fort on one side and the native town on the other. The foreshore of Sewri had been vastly improved by the Frere reclamation, but the section was handicapped, from a sanitary point of view, by the detached hamlets of Ghorup-deo and Jackeria Bandar in which dwelt the labourers and quarrymen of that time. Mahim was covered with thick cocoanut plantations and formed an agreeable resort during the morning or evening hours.

Of social events which occurred during this decade one may remark the rejoicing of the 1st May 1863 on the occasion of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, when the entire town was decorated and a huge children's fete was held on the Esplanade. This was followed by the visit of H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh on the 11th March 1870, in commemoration of which H. H. Khande Rao Gaikwad of Baroda, gave a munificent donation for the new sailors' home, and by the visit of Lord Northbrook, the Viceroy, in November 1872, who held a huge darbar of Native princes in a shamiana on the Esplanade and in whose honour the Northbrook Gardens in Grant Road were thrown open to the public. Improved communications by sea not only brought Bombay into contact with notabilities of the western world, such as Livingstone the explorer who sailed from Bombay for Africa in January 1866, but also inculcated a desire for travel in the minds of the Natives of India. Members of the Vani community began about this date to visit England in the interests of commerce, while several Khojas, Bohras and Marwadis, overcoming their inherited prejudices against foreign travel, set out for China.

The enormous increase of population engendered by the Share Mania of 1861-65, which led Sir Bartle Frere to order a census to be taken in 1864 in face of the opposition of the Home Government, naturally introduced fresh problems into the police administration of the city and for the first time brought the guardians of law and order face to face with the difficulties attendant upon the presence of a large and fanatical Eastern population. Both in 1872 and 1874 the orderly course of urban life was broken by riots of a serious character. The Muharram celebration of the former year formed the signal for a violent outburst of antagonism between the Sunni and Shia Muhammedans of the city, which was admirably held in check by the police under Mr. Frank Souter, but not before about sixty persons had sustained more or less severe injuries; while about a month later a somewhat serious fracas occurred outside the gates of the Towers of Silence on Gibbs Road between two factions of the Parsi community. But these outbreaks were almost trivial by comparison with the Parsi-Muhammedans riots of February 1874, which were caused by a scurrilous attack upon the Prophet written and published by a Parsi resident. Shortly after 10 a.m. on the morning of the 13th February a mob of rough Muhammedans collected outside the Jama Masjid and thence, after hearing the exhortations of the Mulla, began attacking the houses of the Parsi residents in the neighbourhood. Two fire-temples were broken open and subjected to desecration by a band of Sidis, Arabs and Pathans, who next proceeded to loot and damage every Parsi residence in the street and to attack with sticks and stones any stray Parsi whom they met. On the arrival of the police, the mob gradually dispersed, leaving about seventy of their number in custody, but not before considerable damage to person and property had been perpetrated in Bhendi Bazar, Khetwadi and parts of the Dhobi Talao section. The chief feature of the riot was the refusal of the Governor, Sir Philip Wode-house, to call out the troops until the police were breaking down, in spite of urgent appeals from the leaders of the Parsi community. Sir Philip believed his powers in this matter to be restricted, but was subsequently informed by Lord Salisbury that extreme constitutional theories could not be safely imported into India and that therefore troops might be legitimately used to render a riot impossible.

The year 1870 was remarkable for the formation of the Bombay Port Trust, though the board of trustees was not actually appointed till June 1873. The decision to constitute a board originated in an apprehension on the part of Government that trade-interests were seriously endangered by the possession by private companies of a monopoly of the landing and shipping facilities at the port, the salient case being that of the Elphinstone Land Company, mentioned above, which had been granted extensive rights of reclamation on the eastern foreshore of the Island in return for its undertaking to provide land for the terminus of the G.I.P. Railway Company. The Company did very good work between 1862 and 1866, but, like all other firms in Bombay, suffered considerable loss when the Share Mania declined; and in 1866-67 its finances had sunk so low that it was forced to apply to Government for assistance. At this juncture (1867) the Government of Sir Seymour Fitzgerald strongly urged upon the Government of India the importance of buying out the company, thus regaining possession of the harbour foreshore and of placing the future administration of the harbour and wharves in the hands of a public trust. This proposal was sanctioned by the Secretary of State in 1869 and the Company went into voluntary liquidation in the following year, their property being transferred to the Secretary of State in consideration of the payment of the purchase money in 4 per cent Government of India stock. With effect from the date of purchase, May 1st, 1870, the whole of the property of the Company was managed by a department of Government in anticipation of the formation of the new Port Trust.

In November 1875 H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, the King-Emperor, landed in Bombay at the outset of his Indian tour, and was received with universal expressions of loyalty and goodwill, and two years later (1st January 1877) Her Majesty Queen Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India. Bombay was en fete that day. The seamen of the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine were feasted in the Sailors' Home, the military and naval pensioners were feted in the old Sailors' Home; after which, Her Majesty's Proclamation was publicly read out before the troops and the people in front of the Queen's statue on the Esplanade. The day concluded with illuminations and with the despatch of congratulatory addresses to Her Majesty from the leading communities of the city. Equally spontaneous expressions of loyalty characterised the arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught in 1883, the jubilee celebration of February 16th, 1887, and the visit of the late Duke of Clarence and Avondalein 1889. Meanwhile the two great railway companies threw out fresh lines and linked themselves with more remote railroads, until the island became the central terminus of a series of arterial railways, radiating in various directions across the continent of India. Communication by sea became yet more regular to the advantage of the inhabitants of the coast-villages who thereby were brought into even closer touch with the life of the city. Trade rapidly increased and with it the demand for labour, which was responsible for an enormous increase of the Maratha popu­lation by the year 1882. " Bombay ", said the members of the Municipal Corporation in their address of 1875 to the Prince of Wales, " may lay claim to the distinction of being a Royal City; for this Island, first became an appanage of the Crown of England through forming part of the Dowry of Charles the Second's Portuguese bride; and during the two centuries that have elapsed since then, Bombay has had every reason to be grateful for this fortunate change in her destiny.   From a barren rock, whose only wealth consisted in coconuts and dried fish, whose scanty population of 10,000 souls paid a total revenue to the State of not more than £ 6,000 a year whose trade was of less value than that of Thana and Bassein. and whose climate was so deadly to Europeans that two monsoons were said to be the age of a man, she has blossomed into a fair and whole­some city, with a population which makes her rank next to London among the cities of the British Empire, with a municipal revenue amounting to £ 30,000 a year, and with a foreign commerce worth forty-five millions and yielding in customs duties to the Imperial treasury three millions a year". The mill-industry throve apace during these years. Id 1870 there were only 10 mills on the island; in 1875 when the Millowners' Association was first established there were 27; in 1880, 32; and in 1890, 70 mills. The foundation of each new mill or new press, the opening of each new spinning or weaving department augmented the numbers of the industrial population, so that by the time the census of 1881 was taken, 8.4 per cent of the total labouring  population were  classed as mill workers. Meanwhile building operations and reclamations were steadily progressing. Three hundred new houses were yearly  constructed  in different parts of the city; new police stations were erected at Paidhoni and Bazaar Gate between 1871 and 1881; churches, temples and mosques sprang into existence and new water works were projected to supply the rapidly growing needs of the city.

"The Vehar Lake", writes Sir Richard Temple, " was found insufficient for the growing community, and the formation of an additional lake was undertaken in the time of my predecessors. The work was completed in my time and water was conducted to a higher level than before.". The Tulsi water works were completed in 1879; but even they failed adequately to supply the whole city. Accordingly in 1884 the Bhandarwada and Malabar Hill reservoirs were constructed, and in 1889-90 Mr. Tomlinson's scheme for works in the Pawai valley was put into execution. But these improve­ments were of minor importance compared with the great Tansa water works which were commenced about 1885. Sir William Hunter char­acterizing the project as the most important undertaking of the years 1885 to 1890 observes that " the city was and is for the present supplied with water from the Vehar and Tulsi lakes. But the growth of population has been so rapid that the supplies from these sources, though comparatively recently provided, soon proved inadequate. The Municipality therefore decided, on the 19th November 1885, to adopt a magnificent project that will provide the city with an inexhaustible water supply. The scheme when carried out will afford another splendid proof of the public spirit of the citizens of Bombay and the skill of English engineers.". The Tansa works were finally opened in the year 1891-92 by the Marquis of Lansdowne who, referring to the magnitude of the achievement, congratulated Bombay upon the true measure of municipal self-government which she had been the first among all cities in India to introduce.

Another great work was the construction of the Prince's Dock, the first stone of which was laid by the Prince of Wales in 1875. It was designed by Thomas Ormiston as part of a scheme for improving the whole fore­shore of the harbour, and was finally opened on the 1st January 1880, the earth which had been excavated during the process from an area of 30 acres being applied to the further reclamation of the Mody Bay fore­shore. Land reclamation was also steadily progressing. Fifty acres of swamp at Sion and Kurla were reclaimed with town sweeping and conver­ted into a garden; a part of the foreshore near the wilderness was reclaimed by a member of the Petit family; the flats near Tardeo were being rapidly filled up by the Municipality; and a considerable area near Arthur Road was rendered fit for building operations. Tramway communication was instituted between 1872 and 1877. Some attempt at this form of communi­cation had already been made in Colaba in earlier years, but a properly organised system was not projected till the date of Sir Philip Wodehouse's administration. By 1880 the Company's line had reached from the Fort to Girgaum, Byculla and Grant Road. Throughout this period also the Municipality was actively engaged in widening old streets, opening new roads, setting aside new sites for burial grounds, extending the lighting of the city and opening public gardens, such as the Victoria Gardens opened in 1873 and the Northbrook Gardens opened in 1874. Systematic drainage of the island was also taken in hand. " Much had already been done," wrote Sir Richard Temple in 1882, " at great cost and labour for the drai­nage of the city. Still a mass of sewage entered the harbour to the great detriment of all concerned. So additional drainage works were under­taken for diverting the sewage to a quarter where it would not be hurtful.". A comprehensive scheme had been prepared by Mr. Pedder, the Municipal Commissioner and Major Tulloch, R. E., and this was scrutinized and reported upon by a special commission in 1878. As a result of the Commis­sion's report the Municipal Corporation resolved in the same year to commence the scheme immediately and raised a loan of 27 lakhs for that purpose.

The progress of Bombay between 1870 and 1880 is summed up by Sir Richard Temple (1877-80) in the following words : " The City of Bombay itself with its vast and varied interests, and its fast growing importance, claimed constant attention. The police, under the able management of Sir Frank Souter, was a really efficient body and popular withal. The public structures, begun or designed under Sir Bartle Frere's administration, were advanced towards completion; and although these showed a goodly array, still not a year passed without several new buildings being undertaken, as the demands of an advancing community in a great seaport are incessant. The stream of native munificence continued to flow, though somewhat diminished in comparison with former times by reason of agricultural and commercial depression consequent on the famine. A marble statue of the Queen had been erected by the Native community on the Esplanade. Sir Albert Sassoon presented to the city a bronze equestrian statue of the Prince of Wales, in memory of the visit of His Royal Highness. The new Sailors' Home, built partly through the munificence of Khande Rao, Gaekwar of Baroda, in honour of the visit of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh had become a noble institution. The new Wet Dock, accommodating the largest ships, was named the Prince's Dock, because the first stone of it was laid by the Prince of Wales.

"The elective principle had been introduced into the Municipality of Bombay by Sir Seymour Fitzgerald and established by Sir Philip Wodehouse, and I found it to operate advantageously. The citizens and rate payers exercised their franchise judiciously, electing good and able men, Europeans and Natives, to serve on the Municipal Corporation."

" The resources of Bombay were tested when in 1878 an expeditionary force was despatched to Malta. Within fourteen days after the receipt of orders from the Governor-General in Council (Lord Lytton), the Bombay Government, of which Sir Charles Staveley, then Commander-in-Chief, was a member, despatched 6,000 men and 2,000 horses, with two months' supplies of provisions and six weeks' supply of water. They all arrived at their destination in good condition, and after some months returned equally well; still the risks attending the navigation of the Red Sea, in sailing ships towed by steamers, caused us anxiety."

The first decade of the period under review (1880-90), during which Sir James Fergusson, and Lord Reay held the office of Governor in succession, was characterized by much activity in Municipal administra­tion, by the further growth of the island trade and by large public benefactions. During Lord Reay's tenure of office a new Municipal Bill was passed, which not only served to consolidate the enactments of 1865, 1872 and 1878, but also introduced alterations designed to systematize the prosecution of drainage works and water works, the registration and assessment of properties, and the expansion of education. Street-widening and urban improvement were actively prosecuted during the decade, nearly a lakh of rupees being spent on the former object during the year 1889-90; more than 12 lakhs were sanctioned by the Corporation in 1882 for the completion of a scheme of surface-drainage and storm-water drainage; the Matunga leper asylum was founded in 1890 chiefly through the exertion of Mr. H. A. Acworth, the then Municipal Commissioner; the Joint Schools Committee, which was charged with the task of educating the masses, came into existence; the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute was founded in 1887; and much good work was accomplished in the matter of communications, the erection of hospitals, and the general sanitary administration of the city. But the improvement of Bombay was not permitted to devolve wholly upon the Municipality. In January 1888 Sir Dinsha Petit offered more than a lakh for the construction of a hospital for women and children as an extension of the Jamsetji Jijibhoy Hospital; he founded a patho-bacteriological laboratory in connection with the Parel Veterinary College, and subscribed handsomely towards the foundation of a gymnastic institution; and he also presented Government with the property known as the Hydraulic Press, valued at Rs. 3 lakhs, in exchange for the Elphinstone College buildings which were converted into the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute. Bai Motlibai, widow of Mr. Naoroji Wadia, founded an obstetric hospital in connection with the Sir J. J. Hospital; Mr. Framji D. Petit gave nearly a lakh of rupees towards the foundation of a laboratory in the Grant Medical College; the Albless family established an obstetric ward in the Cama Hospital and quarters for the lady doctors of the Cama Hospital; and Mr. S. C. Powalla founded a gratuitous charitable dispensary in the Fort. Besides donations for medical objects by Sir M. M. Bhownaggree, Mr. Cama and Mr. Dwarkadas Lallubhai, funds were provided by a Parsi lady for the establishment of an animal hospital at Parel which was opened by Lord Dufferin in 1884, an anglo-vernacular school for poor Parsis was opened with the help of Mr. Byramji Jijibhoy in 1890, and a handsome fountain was erected in Bazaar Gate Street by a charitable Parsi in the memory of Bomanji H. Wadia.

Among the institutions and landmarks of the island, which owe their existence to the action of the Bombay Government during these years, are the Victoria Teiminus of the G.I.P. Railway (The Victoria Terminus, G.I.P. Railway, is situated on the original site of the old Mumbadevi temple near the Phansi Talao or Gibbet Pond. The old temple was removed by Government in 1766 to allow space for fresh fortifications, a new shrine being erected by a Sonar, Pandurang Shivaji in the city proper. The old gibbet remained till 1805, when it was re-erected close to the Umarkhadi Jail.) and the European Hospital, which was erected on the ruins of the old St. George Fort and to which Lord Reay, on laying the foundation-stone in February 1889, gave the name of St. George's Hospital. The Government Central Press building, which subsequently became the Elphinstone College, and the Presidency Magistrate's Police Court on the Esplanade were also com­menced during these years. Nor were the defences of the harbour for­gotten. In 1884 the Press pointed out that they were practically useless, Colaba Battery being untenable, the turretships out of order, and the batteries at Middle Island, Cross Island, Malabar Hill and Breach Candy being wholly inefficient. In the following year a new scheme of defence was sanctioned and was carried into effect by the year 1890. The Port Trust, which, in spite of yearly reductions of dues, showed a steady surplus of revenue between 1880 and 1889, was responsible for the construction of a new light house in 1884 and of the Victoria Dock, of which the first sluice was opened by Lady Reay in February 1888. The Mere wether Graving Dock was subsequently projected and opened by the Governor in 1891.

With the exception possibly of the year 1889-90, the commercial prosperity of the island increased year by year and was referred to by Lord Reay in the following terms at the jubilee celebrations of 1887. " The prosperity of Bombay ", said His Excellency," is one of the most remarka­ble events of the Victorian reign. Its internal appearance is as much changed as its external condition. It is one of the most beautiful towns of the Empire, if not of the world. Its sanitary condition is also vastly improved. Fifty years ago the exports amounted to nearly 60 millions of rupees and the imports to little more than 47. In 1885-86 the exports amounted to more than 419 millions and the imports to nearly 440 millions. In 1885-86 the value of cotton exported amounted to more than 84 millions of rupees, of pulse and grain to more than 43 millions. The municipal income has risen from 18 to 42 lakhs. The Prince's Dock would do credit to any port in the world.". The growth of the mill-industry during this decade was responsible for the further colonization of the northern areas of the island; and the industrial population which flocked from the Deccan and Konkan found work not only in the cotton-spinning factories but also in the flour-mills and workshops which sprang into existence at this date. Complaints regarding the smoke nuisance were for the first time brought forward in 1884; the Millowners' Association were reported in 1883 to be about to despatch travelling agents to open up new markets for Bombay piece-goods in Europe and Africa; and in 1890 a Factory Commission had perforce to be appointed for the regulation of female and child labour. A strike of female operatives in the Jubilee Mill was reported by the daily papers of 1890; a monster-meeting of millhands was convened at Parel in the same year to protest against the closing of factories for eight days in the month; and by 1890 the Tardeo, Parel, Byculla, Nagpada and Chinchpokli sections of the island had expanded by the forward march of industrial enterprise into the populous dwelling places of a huge immigrant labour population.

To one visiting Bombay after a long absence, the change in the appea­rance of the city must have seemed extraordinary. " Bombay of today ", remarked Sir Edwin Arnold in 1886," is hardly recognizable to one who knew the place in the time of the Mutiny and in those years which followed it.". Augustus said of Rome, " I found it mud; I leave it marble;" and the visitor to India after so long an absence as mine might justly exclaim, 6 M left Bombay a town of warehouse and offices; I find now a city of parks and palaces.". The expansion of the population went hand in hand with the growth and adjournment of the island. All the tribes of Western India seemed to have flocked to Bombay like the Adriatic tribes who sought refuge in the city of the lagoons and settled in certain definite areas accor­ding to traditional belief, social instincts or tribal affinities. The Parsi sought the home of his ancestors in the Fort or Dhobi Talao; the Yogi and Sanyasi found a resting place near the shrines of Mahalakshmi, Kali or the God of the Sand (Walkeshwar); the Goanese and Native Christians were never absent from Cavel, the old home of early converts to Roman Catholicism; the Julhai silk weaver sought Madanpura; the grain-merchants were a power in Mandvi; the Bene-Israel owned their Samuel Street and Israel moholla; the dancing girls drifted to Khetwadi and Byculla, the scarlet women to Kamathipura; in the Null Bazaar and Umarkhadi lived the Siddis; in Parel, Nagpada and Byculla were mill-hands from the Konkan and labourers from the Deccan; many a Koliwadi, from Colaba to Sion, sheltered the descendants of the aboriginal fishing-tribes of Bombay; the Musalman was a power in Mandvi, Chakla and Umarkhadi; the Arab haunted Byculla; and in Girgaum the Brahman had made his home. This huge population of more than 8,00,000 lived in perfect contentment under the rule of perhaps the greatest monarch the world has ever known and contributed largely to establishing Bombay's position as the Gateway of India.



(The History of Bombay—Modern Period has been, contributed by Shri K. K.Chaudhari, Executive Editor and Secretary, Gazetteers Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.)

THE MODERN PERIOD IN THE HISTORY OF BOMBAY can be said to have dawned in the eighteenthirties. The quarter of a century beginning with 1840 is appropriately characterised as the most significant epoch in the history of Bombay. This period marks the emergence of a prosperous, modern and progressive city. The city's fortunes rose and fell, and finally settled on a stable basis. Bombay received a much needed face-lift, and several momentous changes revolutionised her educational and economic status. There was an all-round awakening in the matters of education, a vibrant press and administration of justice, all of which contributed to her emergence as a vibrantly progressive and modern city of the world. This metamorphosis was the result mainly of the collaborated efforts of a truly enlightened and dedicated section of citizens.

The period was most remarkable for the keen, and hitherto absent, public spirit so predominantly displayed by a segment of the Bombay men, both European and Indian. The same fervour created a multi-sphered collaboration between the rulers and the ruled. Both Indians and Europeans were represented, although not equally, on various fronts : the Board of Education, the Chamber of Commerce, the Bench of Justices, the Press, the Courts of Law and the Governor's Legislative Council. During this quarter of a century the Governors of Bombay were highly motivated by a zeal for the common good. But it was also outside the government circles that men like Dr. John Wilson, Jagannath Shankarshet, Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, Muhammad Ibrahim Mukba, Mahomed Ali Roghay and Balshastri Jambhekar strove hard to further the progress of the island. The young intellectual elite always sought the blessings of their enlightened elders. And it was the moral and financial support extended by the latter that crowned the manifold efforts of Young Bombay with success.

Bombay's commercial fortunes during this period, particularly during the Cotton Boom, greatly augmented her prestige. Although many individuals suffered irreparable losses after the collapse of the boom, the city herself surged forward, with her economy placed on a stable base. The Share Mania of the sixties shot up Bombay's finances to great heights. It hastened the economic resurgence of Bombay. Moreover much of the wealth created in the speculative era was utilised to embellish the city. Not only was the material prosperity utilised to embellish Bombay, but her citizens also benefited by the advantages of education and awakening. It is true that education did not percolate downwards to the entire masses but created an elitist society in Bombay. It engendered the spirit of self-reliance. The new air of confidence that was manifest in the active participation of Indians, newly admitted into the Governor's Council, and more so in the righteous indignation against discrimination evinced in the proceedings of the Bombay Association, was the consequence of this education.

The alert and vigilant Press, particularly vernacular, became the mouthpiece of the people. Karsondas Mulji's(Famous Maharaja Libel Case).vehement outburst against adultery perpetrated by revered religious heads unleashed a fury of pent-up denunciation of hypocracy and blind allegiance to tradition. The vigilance against the encroachment on rights was frequently expressed in the working of the Chamber of Commerce, the Bench of Justices, and the Board of Education.

The revision of the various law codes and the creation of the High Court ushered in reforms of the system, and the administration of justice in India provided for greater participation of Indians.



The history of Bombay is closely related with the growth of modern Western education. The rise of what is termed as the intelligentsia (The intelligentsia of the period is defined, after Christine Dobbin, " as all thosein Bombay who received English education in the collegiate classes of the Elphin­ stone Institution before the founding of the University, and those who gained University degrees after that date. The term also comprises those who attended professional institutions, such as the Grant Medical College and the Government Law Classes ". Christine Dobbin, Urban Leadership in Western India. Politics and Communities in Bombay City, 1840-1885 (Oxford Historical Monographs, OxfordUniversity Press, 1972), p. 28.) in this premier city was a precursor of the upsurge in political and social awakening. The intelligentsia, also styled as ' Young Bombay ' in colla­boration with the rich shetias( The word was used to mean a great man, a rich man, and a man of influence and respectability.) initiated the process of national awakening. Bombay became the leading centre of higher education in the middle of the nineteenth century, both because of its position as headquarters of the British Government in Western India and the virtual lack of any realistic alternative. The foundations for educational progress were laid by the benevolent Mountstuart Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay (1819-27), who desired the educated enlightened Indians to participate in public administration. Under his presiding influence the Bombay Education Society (Bombay Education Society was started in 1815 by some members of the Churchof London. The Charity School of the St. Thomas Church, established in 1718by   Richard  Cobbe, was probably the first English School   for   Europeans.It was patronised by the East India Company in 1807.) decided, in August 1820, to extend its activities by openingschools for natives, and the first important English school was started in 1825. The first college classes were projected from public and Govern­ment subscriptions in 1827. The Bombay Native Education Society was commenced in 1827, under which name it continued until April 1840 when the school and the college became one, under the name of the Elphinstone Native Education Institution. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, p. 27.) It was in 1835 that two Elphinstonian professorships were endowed from a public fund to comme­morate the distinguished services of Mountstuart Elphinstone, and Prof. Harkness and Prof. Orlebar commenced teaching English literature and arts, and European science, respectively, in the Town Hall. The collegiate classes attached to the Elphinstone High School were renamed as the Elphinstone College School and later the Elphinstone Native Education Institution in 1840. The Elphinstone College became an independent institution in 1856. The overall control of education was vested in the Board of Education in 1840 (The functions of the Board including co-ordination of education in the Presidency were transferred to the new Department of Public Instruction at Pune in 1855.) under Sir Erskine Perry, a devoted imagina­tive man. Although the Board was under European domination, it did have Jagannath Shankarshet, Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai (He was knighted in 1842, and obtained baronetcy in recognition of his charities in 1857.) and Muhammad Ibrahim Mukba as its members.

Under Elphinstone's influence, educational facilities in Bombay steadily increased. Magnates like Jagannath Shankarshet, Framji Cowasji, Jamshetji Jijibhai and Mahomed Ali Roghay were the patrons of education.

The Grant Medical College was founded in fulfilment of a resolution in a public meeting in the Town Hall on 28 July 1835, and commenced on 3 November 1845. Jamshetji Jijibhai and Jagannath Shankarshet were among the native inspirators. The Government Law College, the first of its kind in India, was founded in 1855 on public demand under the inspired leadership of Shankarshet.

Thus, the Elphinstone College, the Grant Medical College and the Government Law College, came to form the apex of Western education. The Free General Assembly's Institution, later named as Wilson College after its founder, Dr. John Wilson, was another seat of Western education. The Elphinstonian institution along with the institutions started by Dr. John Wilson, a missionary, philosopher and educationist, and his wife, generated an enquiring spirit and liberal enlightenment eager for improvement and advancement of natives. Western learning was hoped to work a moral, cultural and scientific transformation of the Indian scene. (A detailed history of all the colleges and the University of Bombay is given later in this Chapter).

The University of Bombay founded in 1857 after the Calcutta Univer­sity not only formalised the educational structure in Bombay but also gave birth to the intelligentsia and epoch-making forces.

Jagannath Shankarshet and Dr. Bhau Daji Lad, as leaders of the Bombay Association, played a very active role in the foundation of the University. It is a great tribute to Indians that among the Fellows men­tioned by name in the Act of Incorporation of the University, there were five Indians, Jagannath Shankarshet, Bhau Daji, Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, Bomanji Hormusji and Mahomed Yusuf Moorgay. Shankarshet, a protagonist of the synthesis of oriental and occidental cultures, was a member of the Senate ever since its foundation, till his death in 1865. Dadabhai Naoroji, a product of the renaissance, and one of the inspiring spirits of the times, was also one of the founders of the University. Sir Alexander Grant, John Wilson, Justice James Gibbs, Sir Raymond West, Dr. Mackichan and many other enlightened Europeans devoted themselves to the mission of educational expansion in Bombay which had a startling impact on the growth of all-round awakening and far-reaching results.

The first four graduates of the University, Mahadeo Govind Ranade, Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar (1837-1925), Bal Mangesh Wagle and Vaman Abaji Modak, awarded B. A. degree in 1862, were great luminaries and distinguished persons of the times. They were shortly joined by Pherozeshah Mervanji Mehta (1864), Kashinath Trimbak Telang (1867) and Rahimtula Muhammad Sayani (1868). Balshastri Gangadhar Jambhekar, Atmaram Pandurang Parmanand and Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik were also vital constituents of the intelligentsia. The Parsis were just beginning to emerge from their mercantile mould. Pherozeshah Mehta, Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, Naoroji Furdunji and Sorabji Shapurji Bengali emerged on the scene and enriched the elite in Bombay under the inspiring spirit of Dadabhai Naoroji.

It was precisely this galaxy of luminaries who were to be precursors of the intelligentsia and the rising social and political awakening in Bombay.

Sir Erskine Perry, president of the Board of Education, was the man associated with the spread of education in the Presidency in the forties. He was proud of his work in Bombay, where he found the growth of a true intellectual awakening accompanied by a rising public spirit and closer communication between the rulers and the ruled. (cf Report of the Board of Education, Bombay, 1849, app. iii, pp. 69-91.  There arose a controversy over the medium of instruction. A compromise was finally reached and cemented in 1854 by the Wood Educational Dispatch: higher education was to continue in English, but more attention was to be paid to the vernacular instruction of the masses. As per Government the two aims of higher education in English were to raise up a class of Indian ' gentlemen' and to train the best class of natives suitable for Government service. The Government had wished to associate the city's rich shetias with its educational plans. (Ibid).However the rich shetias of Bombay, with a few exceptions, took no interest in the new education, and English education was mainly confined to Brahmins and other literary castes and middle class Parsis. The fact, however, remains that many shetias did, in fact, become patrons of education, either privately helping poor students or founding Anglo-Vernacular schools, as did Jagannath Shankarshet, Goculdas Tejpal and Varjivandas Madhavdas, or endowing the Bombay University with buildings and scholarships like Sir Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney, (Knighted in 1872.) Premchand Raichand and Sir Mangaldas Nathubhai. (Received Knighthood in 1875). Sir Alexander Grant continued to propagate English education among the merchants, and Shankarshet, the second Jamshetji Jijibhai, Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney and Goculdas Tejpal were made Fellows of the University.

Considering the smallness of its number, the Elphinstone College contained a quite startling quantity of talents in the period. These were the persons to make an important mark in the life of the city and of the country. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, p. 36.) Among the teachers in the College were Balshastri Gangadhar Jambhekar (1812-46), and Naoroji Furdunji (1817-85), the latter distin­guishing himself as one of the architects of the political organisations in Bombay, jambhekar was an acting professor of Mathematics in 1842. In 1850 Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917) was appointed as acting professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. Of a later generation, M. G. Ranade (1842-1901) was appointed professor of English, R. G. Bhandar-kar (1837-1925) as professor of Oriental Languages in the Elphinstone College and B. M. Wagle at Poona College. (Ibid., p. 41. Poona Sanskrit College, founded in 1821, was renamed Deccan College in 1867). These were choice positions for Indians in those days.

Among the distinguished Elphinstonians who were later on to play an excellent role in the social and political history of Bombay, the following were the most honourable. Dr. Bhau Daji Lad (1822-74) who later became one of Bombay's first medical graduates from the Grant Medical College, was an antiquarian. He was one of the most active members of the Bombay Association of which he was a secretary for many years. He played an outstanding role in the political life of the city throughout his life. R. N. Khot (1821-91), who became extremely rich through trade, was  a  great  conservative  in  Bombay  politics.

Atmaram Pandurang Tarkhadkar (1823-98) distinguished himself in medical studies, and was destined to found the reformist Prarthana Samaja.( First Report of the Elphinstone Native Education Institution, 1840.) S. S. Bengali (1831-93), an elite Parsi, was a noted journalist, political activist and social reformer of Bombay, though for a short time. Kharshedji Rastamji Cama (1831-1909), renowned for his subsequent researches in the Zoroastrian religion, completed college education, and occupied an important position in the intellectual ferment in Bombay.

The most noteworthy Elphinstonians included V. N. Mandlik (1833-89), who later distinguished himself by playing many roles in Bombay's political history, particularly as a pioneering Marathi journalist and political activist. Javerilal Umiashankar, achieving highest academic honours in the college, became a leading Gujarati political figure. Naramdashankar Lalshankar (1833-86), a Gujarati poet, and Karsondas Mulji (1832-71), a Bania reformer, were among those who adorned the public life of the city of Bombay.

The next generation of distinguished Elphinstonians included Dinshaw Edulji Wacha (1844-1936), the politician and writer who dominated the Congress politics not only in Bombay but also in India, for several decades. Badruddin Tyabji (1844-1906), one of the first Muslim students, later became a leader of the Muslim community and the Indian National Congress, and a Judge on the Bombay High Court. Also worth mentioning is Narayan Mahadev Paramanand (1838-93), the religious reformer and journalist.

Pherozeshah Mervanji Mehta (1845-1915), one of the greatest of the Bombay luminaries, a " Lion of Bombay ", and a Congress leader of unrivalled status of the day, gained his B.A. in 1864 and was allowed to appear for his M.A. in the same year.( Homi Mody, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta : A Political Biography (Asia Publishing House, London, reprinted in 1963), p. 192.) He was instrumental in several political, municipal and social reforms, besides University reforms throughout his lifetime. Kashinath Trimbak Telang (1850-93), who was awarded B.A. in 1868 and M.A. the following year, distinguished himself at the High Court Bench and the activities of the Bombay Presidency Association, as well as other political organisations. His work in the Legislative Council, civic government and Congress politics, was outstanding. R. M. Sayani (1847-1902), Telang's contemporary, was an important politician of 1880's, a Congress president and a Muslim leader.




The Charter of 1833 granted to the East India Company by the British Parliament for the governance of India had specifically laid down that there should be no bar against anybody in addring any position in the Company's administration on account of religion, race or caste.( Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, 1818-85, Vol. I (Government of Bombay, 1957).) How­ever this benevolent clause in the Charter was observed by its breach by the Company. The distinction between covenanted and uncovenanted services was tantamount to the distinction between the white and coloured races. This state of affairs was keenly felt by the enlightened Indians. At this juncture the Company's charter was to be renewed in 1853. Against this background the political leaders of Bombay decided to start a political organisation to vent public grievances, and accordingly, the Bombay Association was established on August 26, 1852 at Bombay. It was the first political organisation of the Bombay Presidency, and was founded at the inspiration of luminaries like Jagannath Shankarshet, Dr. Bhau Daji Lad, and Dadabhai Naoroji. The architects of the organisation felt that although the British had established a rule of law and peace, their motive was economic exploitation of India, that the promises in the Charter of 1833 were bluntly violated by the Company Government; and that the better mind of England would improve the situation with petitions and pursuances.

A public meeting was held under the chairmanship of Jagannath Shankarshet in the meeting hall of the Elphinstone Institute on August 26, 1852, wherein the objectives of the Bombay Association were spelt out. Besides Jagannath Shankarshet, Dr. Bhau Daji Lad and Dadabhai Naoroji, the distinguished participants in the meeting, and so to say the functionaries of the Association, were: Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, Bomanji Hormusji, Cowasji Jehangir, Cursetji Nasarvanji, Manakji Nasarvanji, Framji Nasarvanji, Naoroji Furdunji, Manakji Limji, Varjivandas Madhavdas, Bapu Jagannath, Narayan Dinanath, Manakji Kharshedji, etc.( I have attempted to standardise the spellings of Indian names in the body of the text. For Parsi names I have followed the spellings used by D. F. Karaka in The Parsees : Their History, Manners, Customs and Religion (London, 1858), except where usage has made this unacceptable. A few variants, however, have crept in due to the particular spellings in the sources used.)

As unanimously adopted in the public meeting, the object of the Association was to ascertain the wants of the people in Bombay Presidency and to represent to Government regarding the measures for achievement of welfare of the people. It was decided to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by enquiries in England as regards the constitution of the Indian Government, and to represent to the British Parliament in the matter of reforms in the system of efficient Government so as to safeguard Indian interests and welfare of the people. It was decided to seek co-operation of similar Societies at Calcutta and Madras.

It was also resolved to memorialise the Government for the removal of existing evils and for the enactment for promotion of. general Indian interest. Subscriptions were prescribed for raising necessary funds. The Rules of the Association were also adopted.

The object of this political body was not to offer opposition to Government, but was to secure the largest good by persuasions. Jagannath Shankarshet in his speech, appreciated many good things done by Government, such as " gratuitous " teaching in Grant Medical College, appointments of natives as Deputy Collectors and Magistrates, etc. The gravamen of the deliberations of the distinguished gathering in Bombay was to create a forum for assessment of the measures essential for the welfare of the natives, and to represent to the Government in India or England regarding redressal of grievances. (For text of propositions and speeches in the meeting refer Source Material fora history of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I, pp. 133-39.)

Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, the first Baronet and an elite citizen of Bombay, was elected the first president of the Bombay Association, while Jagannath Shankarshet was elected executive chairman, and Dr. Bhau Daji and Vinayak Shankarshet as secretaries. Throughout the life of the association Bhau Daji (1822-74) worked with deep devotion and involvement. As a matter of fact, he was concerned closely with practically every movement of public interest and social organisation in Bombay from 1851 to 1874.

The Association prepared an elaborate petition to be sent to the House of Commons (Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland.) which was adopted at a meeting held in the Elphinstone Institution on October 28, 1852 under the presidentship of Jagannath Shankarshet. Dr. Bhau Daji was one of the principal architects of the petition which was signed by 3,000 enlightened citizens from Bombay, Pune and Thane.

The petition was drafted with great care after collection of information from people in various districts, as regards the drawbacks and despondency in administration. The petition entreated upon the British Parliament for an enlightened system of Government, with the participation of qualified and trustworthy natives in the civil services. It sought for establishment of a University in each Presidency for educating Indians to man the civil services. The authors of the petition demanded an increase in allocation of funds for education and a measure of local self-governing councils.

This petition was followed by another very elaborate petition sent to the House of Commons in May 1853. It was also competently drafted by Dr. Bhau Daji.( This account is based on the text of the Petition given in Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. I, pp. 139-49.) It recalled that the enquiries made by the Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which had examined only persons of vested interests and beneficiaries of the covenanted service of the East India Company, were by no means thorough nor impartial. The petitioners sought the services of the ablest and most experienced persons in Indian affairs and a review of the existing system of local government. There was an interest and spirit of inquiry, in certain circles in England, about the Indian problem, but it did not form part of evidence collected by the Committee of the House of Commons. The Courts of the East India Company in the Bombay Presidency were on no better footing as regards judicial fitness and capacity than those of Madras.

The petitioners sought for efficient and properly constituted local governments as the prevailing government was " quite unequal to the efficient discharge of its duties and that nothing but the impenetrable veil of secrecy.............. protects it from Universal condemnation."

The Government of the Presidency then consisted of a Governor, a Commander-in-Chief and two civil servants as members of the Council. The business was conducted primarily by four secretaries and two deputy secretaries, each secretary having a separate department of his own and being the adviser of the Governor. The latter, who generally lacked local knowledge and experience, was obviously in the hands of secretaries, and was compelled to adopt the minutes they placed before him. The Commander-in-Chief, pre-occupied with army matters and being least acquainted with civil affairs, hardly could devote time to civil government. He used to enter the Council apparently merely to record his assent to the minutes of the Governor. Although knowing nothing of the subjects in hand, the Commander felt it his duty invariably to vote with the Governor. Several boxes full of papers on revenue and judicial matters were sent to him at one time which, it has been stated, he used to return from his house to the other members of the government within one hour after putting his initials. (Petition of the Bombay Association, May 1853, cf. Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. I, pp. 139-49,)

The Civil members of the Council were appointed from those who enjoyed the confidence and personal favours of the Court of Directors without due regard to their ability. The appointment was more in the nature of a gift bestowed on a favoured member of service about to close his Indian career, by the Court of Directors. The Civil members had no specific duties to discharge and little or no responsibility, and their views were very often liable to be outvoted by the Governor and Commander-in-Chief. The practical effect of a Government so constituted was that for the most part each secretary in his own Department was almost like the Governor. The secretaries, exceptions apart, selected from the Civil Service, having passed their lives in the subordinate agencies of Government, were suddenly called upon to discharge the most onerous duties for which their previous training did not at all qualify them. Their lack of knowledge of the economy, systems of the country and requirements of the people, coupled with the short time at their disposal, compelled them to dispose of the greater part of their business in a very imperfect manner. The net result of the government so constituted was that the actions of government were executed in -an arbitrary manner and they were protected with the most rigid secrecy. In everything that came before Government, an impenetrable secrecy was preserved to escape public scrutiny. The most cruel justice was done even with the best intention. As the petition said "as a system it is the very worst that could be devised and the very last which good sense would indicate as adopted to strengthen British Rule in India by giving it a hold on the affection of the people. On the contrary its obvious tendency is to engender and perpetuate among the young servants of Government an illiterate and despotic tone to give full scope to the prejudice, the ignorance and the self-sufficiency of all, to discourage progress, to discountenance all schemes of improvement emanating from independent and disinterested sources and not within the view of the officer to whose department they are referred, and to cramp all agriculture or commercial energy, all individual enterprise."( Petition of the Bombay Association, May 1853, op. cit. pp. 144-45.)

The petition entreated upon the British Parliament to abolish the Councils as they were constituted and to create an useful and efficient Council of which the judges of the Supreme Court in legislative matters, and some of the European and native citizens should form part. Persons experienced in public offices in England were urged to be inducted in the local government with greater advantage to strengthen the hands of the Executive Government.

Trustworthy and qualified natives were excluded from the higher grade of judicial, revenue and regular medical services to which covenanted Europeans sent from England alone were appointed. Such exclusion was contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 87 of the Charter Act of 1834, being injust and impolitic. The petitioners prayed that the invidious and unjustifiable distinction between the covenanted and uncovenanted services, which exclude the natives from higher offices, be abolished and that qualified Indians be appointed. Even competent Indian physicians and surgeons trained by the Grant Medical College and the Medical College at Calcutta were not appointed in superior service. The distinction between covenanted and uncovenanted was rigidly preserved, and even meritorious persons were refused admission to covenanted services.

The Petition proposed the establishment of a University for imparting education to Indians in various faculties so as to qualify them for efficient administration of Government and administering the necessary justice in the country.

It was also proposed to separate the judiciary from the executive services, and to appoint Indians as Zilla judges along with Europeans who should know Indian jurisprudence, the law and constitution of India, and her modern history. As regards legislation by Parliament on Indian affairs, it was proposed to have subject-wise legislation instead of a single enact­ment comprising all subjects, such as, constitution and powers of several local governments, judiciary, revenue, etc. The petition also urged upon the House of Commons to be placed before its Committee on Indian affairs for proposing appropriate legislation.

The petition was well-timed as the Committee of British Parliament was then studying Indian affairs. It had won over many sympathisers in Great Britain, and enabled a number of friends of India to understand the Indian problem. Englishmen like Sir Edward Ryon, Sir Erskine Perry, Lord Monteagle, John Bright and Joseph Hume, championed the Indian cause in England. A meeting of the Friends of India was convened in London on March 13, 1853, and it constituted itself into what was termed as the Indian Reform Society with Danby Seymour (a Member of the British Parliament) as its president and John Dickinson as secretary. Although its efforts could not influence much the enactment of the House of Commons, a significant change was effected in the constitution of the Court of Directors of the Company. Accordingly the Court was reconstituted by reducing the number of members to 18, of whom six members were to be nominated by the British Crown from among persons who should have resided in India for a minimum of ten years. Another salutary change was that the appointments to civil and medical services in India were thrown open to public competition. The outcome was, however, not very favourable to Indians as the competition was to be conducted in Great Britain, and Indians were practically held ineligible for contesting on various grounds. This invited protests. All said and done, the net outcome was that the concerted agitation had wrung from the British Ministers more than it was considered possible.

The memorials of the Association were always restrained and dignified. However, a section of Englishmen considered it a rebellious body, while men like Mr. Cobden could see no advantage either to the Indians or their British masters in the vast possession called India. Some of the members of the Bombay Association itself ventilated the misgivings of the Englishmen. Mr. Manakji Kharshedji, for example, had opposed its activities and published a pamphlet containing libellous statements against Dr. Bhau Daji, its staunch leader. The latter was obliged to file a suit of defamation against the former which was heard with great interest in the Supreme Court. Bhau Daji was acquitted.

The British press, as it could be expected, did not respond favourably to the Indian demand, although it felt the inevitability of administering Government of India with the concurrence of Indians. Many Englishmen like Col. Pope considered the Bombay Association a political body which was opposed to English rule. Naoroji Furdunji and Bhau Daji came in for criticism frequently.

During the presidentship of Nana Shankarshet, the English friends of India like Danby Seymour (M.P.), president of the Indian Reform Society in London, paid a visit to Bombay to study the points of view of the Bombay Association. In a meeting of the citizens of Bombay held at Nana's house on 13 February 1854, Danby Seymour complimented the Association on its efforts to educate the British intelligentsia on the Indian problem. He also expressed that a section of people in England was eager to obtain authentic information, and desired the deputationists to be self-reliant and be prepared for a long drawn out movement. Another member of the British Parliament Mr. A. H. Layard visited Bombay in 1857-58 (Date not known.) who was briefed competently at Nana's house by Bhau Daji, Nana, Naoroji Furdunji, Bomanji Hormusji, Framji Nasar-vanji and many others. Mr. Layard appreciated the Bombay Association as an institution which reflected the mind of the people, and as a good link between the Indians and the Government. The Association functioned as per the guidelines given by,the above referred Englishmen.

The matters taken up by it included joining the cotton producing tracts of Khandesh and Berar with Bombay by railway, which was already opened upto Thane; appointment of Indian judges; revival of gold coinage; publication of the Government Gazette in provincial language; representation before Parliament about the treatment given to Indians by the English; and increase in expenditure on education, etc.

After the demise of Nana (1865) who was its president for 12 years, the Bombay Association became defunct. Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik and N. M. Paramanand, the other celebrities of the day, tried to revive it in December 1867. The two celebrities who were publishing the Native Opinion from 1864, convened a meeting on December 14, 1867, wherein a new executive committee was appointed. Its office bearers were as under : Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai Batliwala (Hon. president), Mangaldas Nathubhai (working president), Framji Nasarvanji, Vinayak Jagannath, Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney and Byramji Jijibhai (vice-presidents), and Naoroji Furdunji (secretary), Bhau Daji, V. N. Mandlik, V. G. Shastri and Bal Mangesh Wagle (members). The Association, however, did not survive for long as it had to fight against manifold difficulties.

It was during this period that the foundations of modern Bombay were laid and embellishment of the city was initiated. The birth of Bombay as a beautiful modern city could be ascribed to the joint labours of Government, public-spirited citizens associated with the Bombay Association and a few private firms who strove in several spheres. (Details of developments in the city are furnished in an earlier section in  this Gazetteer and in Chapter 9 of this Gazetteer.)The leaders of the Association persistently pursued the authorities in Government and the Municipality for improvements in almost all spheres.

The success of the Bombay Association was precluded by internal dissensions from the very beginning. There were many supporters of British rule whose creed was that India required the undisturbed peace and tranquillity of British rule, without participation in the highest levels of Government. On the contrary ardent men like Bhau Daji and Naoroji Furdunji determinably expressed their views on the political needs of India in a plain and unmistakable language. (Times of India, 10 October 1885.) The spirit of the first petition was not particularly moderate. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 82.) It characterised the existing system of Government as " but little suited to the present state of the country, and the fair demands of the people of India." The second petition dispatched in May 1853, and detailed above, drew on the more extensive pamphlet literature collected by the ardent leaders.

Although the intelligentsia were ardently working behind the scene, the public face which the Association presented was increasingly that of its shetia leaders. The Association, at one stage, described itself as comprised of men " mostly possessed of considerable property and all deeply interested in the efficiency of those Departments of Government which are charged with the preservation of order, the protection of life and property, and the vindication of the Law." (Proceedings of the Third Annual General Meeting of Bombay Association, 1856.)

These interests were exemplified in the main question dealt with by the Association during the 1850's. Although the problems of civil service and educational policy were not neglected, they received far less attention than the two questions of immense interest to the mercantile community, the administration of justice in the Presidency, and the encouragement of public works. The dominance of these matters was, of course, made possible by the fact that they were also of interest to the intelligentsia working in courts, like Naoroji Furdunji, and like Dadabhai Naoroji, engaged in commerce. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 84.)  The last petition of the Bombay Associa­tion to the British Parliament in 1857, protesting against certain aspects of the supercession of the Supreme Court by the High Court, warned that no change could afford to ignore the grim fact that the entire prosperity of Bombay rested on the application of the English mercantile law to commercial transactions in Bombay. The Association along with the Chamber of Commerce(The desire of European businessmen to exert pressure on government culminated in the establishment of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce in 1836, comprising 15 European and 10 Indian firms.) demanded extension of railway and improvement of means of communications.

The Elphinstonians kept in touch with the activities of their colleagues through their newspapers. They were aware that Government was recognising their importance increasingly. Jambhekar was the first Elphinstonian to be appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1840, and although wealthy shetias continued to dominate the Bench, in time all the outstanding Elphinstonians became Justices of the Peace. " Above all they were aware of their own importance, and a sense of mission. Trained in school and college to believe that they were the regenerators of their country, they could not permit their own city to slip through their hands." (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 86.)

The powerful weapon of the press was under their command. The Rast Goftar began to direct their fire against the society and its shetia members. The Rast Goftar inflicted heavy criticism against the mercantile interests in the Bombay Association, and accused it of' servile imbecility' and decried it as ' a disgrace to the community', ' the laughing stock of all thinking men' and of being incapable of even terminating ' its imbecile existence'. The most important shetias were proclaimed totally unfit to provide political leadership, both because of their lack of knowledge and interest in anything beyond their commercial interests.

The problem of political leadership was made more evident in 1862 by the desire of the Bombay Government to appoint natives to the Governor's Council. (Ibid., p. 87.) The organs of the intelligentsia, the Native Opinion, this time taking a leading part, decried the Government to induct the mercantile magnates in the Council, branding them as foreigners to the people in the country. (Native Opinion, 24 January 1869.)

During this period the Bombay Board of Censors, a private society, was founded by European merchants, civil servants and army officers. Its aim was to bring public opinion to bear on the basically autocratic Government. It used to discuss government policies pertaining to services, legislation, agriculture and education. Bhau Daji, Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney, Mangaldas Nathubhai and A. H. Gubbay were associated with this body which afforded them a good deal of political experience. It, however, collapsed in March 1864, owing to the fear of public exposure by those Government servants and army officers involved. Meanwhile, although the Bombay Association did show signs of life in 1865 with a petition against Income Tax, it was moribund for all practical purposes. Jagannath Shankarshet had died in 1865 and Jamshetji Jijibhai in 1859.

The collapse of the unprecedented boom and Share Mania of 1861-65 also caused a collapse of many mercantile magnates of Bombay. This paved the way for the revival of the intelligentsia and of the Bombay Association. The revived Association was also under influence of the shetias without whose donations it was difficult to manage its day-to-day affairs. However, the intelligentsia were well represented this time. Along with Bhau Daji, Narayan Dinanathji and S. S. Bengali, prominent new graduates of the Government Law Classes (College), such as V. N. Mandlik, Shantaram Narayan, B. M. Wagle and the solicitor Kamruddin Tyabji, were inducted in the committee in 1867. In 1869 their number was strengthened by the addition of R. G. Bhandarkar, M. G. Ranade and Nanabhai Haridas. Of the 40 members of its committee in 1867, only 16 were Parsis, the rest being Brahmins, Banias and Muslims. Its membership increased from 87 in 1867 to 141 in 1869. With the increased participation of the intelligentsia in the revived Bombay Association, its first activities were directed towards the burning problem of appoint­ment of natives to the covenanted and higher grades of civil service. A memorial was dispatched to the Secretary of State. The memorial reiterated the earlier demands for simultaneous examinations in India and England, and a raising of the age limit for Indian students. It protested against privileged position of Europeans in courts and the conditions in the Colaba lunatic asylum. It also dealt with the government Bill for assessment of lands in cities and towns, and with the construction of public works.

A remarkable feature of the late sixties in Bombay was the growth of popular interest in municipal affairs. The Bombay Association channelised the growing public interest. The first public meeting, to adopt the civil service memorial in March 1868, was an attempt to mobilise public opinion on behalf of the intelligentsia. The second public meeting with more than 600 participants, held in October 1869, was on behalf of the mer­cantile interests. The meeting held in Town Hall protested against the Bombay Government's measure to treat the adulteration of cotton as a criminal offence. It was opposed on the ground that it would hamper the trade and cultivation of cotton in Western India.

The third meeting, attended by about 2,000 in the Town Hall, protested against the increase in income tax by the Government of India. The London Times noted that the meeting attracted not only the leaders of society, but also small traders in large numbers, all concerned to memo­rialise the Secretary of State to disallow the Indian Income Tax Act of 1870. The speeches were delivered by Mangaldas Nathubhai, Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, V. J. Shankarshet, Nanabhai Beramji Jijibhai and Narayan V. Dabholkar. They ventilated the points raised in the native newspapers, and attacked the heavy military expenditure. Narayan Dabholkar urged for English political institutions for India, and censured the existing system of representation in the Councils 'as a farce and delusion'. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, the third son of the first baronet, warned the British that they should take congnizance of a rising power in the state.

Consequent upon the meeting, the Association sent a petition to Parliament, and Naoroji Furdunji (secretary) was deputed to London to give evidence before the Fawcett Committee on Indian Finance. The petition was doubtless prepared by educated members. The Times of India of 7 April 1871, described the petition as " the Indian Grand Remonstrance of 1871 ". It was on the eve of Bombay's own great financial crisis that the petition condemned almost in toto the entire financial system of India. The excessive public expenditure and mismanagement of public finance had inflicted an intolerable burden on the people. Naoroji Furdunji expounded the Indian cause and the point of view of the Bombay people in his London interviews with prominent Members of the House of Commons. Asking for a Select Committee of Parliament to inquire into Indian affairs, he painted a picture of an India burdened with heavy taxes, and impoverished by a drain of wealth to England. The solution was grant­ing of representation to Indians in the Governor General's Council and Local Legislative Councils in the matters of public finance and legislation. (For details refer Proceedings of the Third Annual General Meeting of the Bombay Association, 1871.)

This petition on the financial conditions of the country was followed by an identical memorial from Bombay's second political association, the Bombay Branch of the East India Association. It also demanded greater representation of Indians in the Legislative Councils, a broad scheme of decentralization, investigation of uncalled for military expenditure, and reforms in the civil service. (Journal of the East India Association (J.E.I. A.), V, 1871, Part ii, pp. 130-34.)

A deep crisis was provoked within the Bombay Association by the municipal reform agitation of 1871 and 1872, during which it was quite active. It was this crisis which led to its ultimate dissolution. The mer­cantile magnates along with Narayan Dabholkar, V. J. Shankarshet, R. N. Khot, Beramji Jijibhai and his son deserted the body because they could not oust Naoroji Furdunji. They ended that body completely. They incorporated a rival association, the Association of Western India with the help of anti-reform rich persons. " It was alleged that the inspiration behind new association was Narayan Vasudev Dabholkar." (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, p. 186.)

After his prominence in the civic reform debates, he was unwilling to go into oblivion once the reform question had been settled. V. J. Shankar-shet was also eager to acquire the influence and position which his illustrious father had possessed. The municipal reformers had, in the opinion of Pherozeshah Mehta, done considerable harm by their espousal of' exploded fallacies'. (Bombay Gazette, 14 May 1873).

Sir Pherozeshah Mehta had claimed that the new Association of Western India had higher aims than the Bombay Association. It was aimed at training the people in political observation and discussion, and teaching them the administrative policy of India, instead of perpe­tually putting up grievances before the rulers. However, the published aims of the new Association differed little from those of the Bombay Association. Its creation provoked violent criticism from the organs of reform, both European and Indian. The Times of India described its members as "those who have injured Bombay in every way." (Times of India, 25 April 1873.) It remained more or less a moribund body and died with its principal shetia supporters, V. J. Shankarshet in October 1873 and Narayan Dabholkar in August 1874.

Although the Bombay Association survived the demise of its rival body, its activities appeared very sporadic in comparison with those of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha which was a very active body of enthusiasts, established in 1870. The ardent Naoroji Furdunji and Bhau Daji, who dominated the committee, did prepare a good report on the low standard of living of agriculturists which was attributed to the revenue assessment system. They also strived for numerous reforms. But the Associa­tion's lack of contact with rural areas and the loss of talents were res­ponsible for its desultory activity. Bhau Daji died in 1874. Justice Ranade had migrated to Pune. Pherozeshah was alienated from the Association. Dadabhai Naoroji was in England, and Badruddin Tyabji was busy in his profession and Muslim problems. The remainder members viz. Naoroji Furdunji, Telang, Mandlik, Wagle, Bhandarkar and Atmaram Pandurang with the help of Morarji Goculdas, Kesowji Naik, D. M. Petit and Sorabji Jamshetji Jijibhai tried to save the Association. Jam-shetji Jijibhai as honorary president, Mangaldas Nathubhai as president and F. N. Patel and K. N. Cama were still there. However, it became practically moribund.

" The real reason for the lack of political dynamism in Bombay was the very dislike of the majority of shetias—including those prominent in political associations—for any activities which involved public criticism of Government, coupled with their basic lack of sympathy with the English educated group who promoted the criticism." (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, pp. 188-89.) There was personal criticism from within. Naturally Naoroji Furdunji and Mangal­das Nathubhai resigned by the end of 1875, and the end was doomed. After its faltering revival by the Elphinstonians, it was declared dormant in 1879, (Times of India, 5 May 1879.) due to lack of support. It is pertinent to note that many news­papers including the Rast Goftar, Indu Prakash and Native Opinion had expressed the advisability of founding a political association purely of the intelligentsia, and basically different from the Bombay Association. This idea came into reality when Dadabhai Naoroji, while in a visit to Bombay, established the Bombay Branch of the East India Association, in May 1869.


Although intended to be an organ of the intelligentsia, the Bombay Branch of the East India Association was constituted in collaboration with the mercantile magnates of Bombay. This was particularly because of financial requirements and the influence of the shetias on the public life in Bombay. A formula was therefore evolved whereby the Managing Committee was comprised largely of Elphinstonians, while president and vice-presidents were mercantile magnates, many of whom were also taken on the Committee. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai was chosen president, while eight of the ten vice-presidents were shetias such as Mangaldas Nathubhai, F. N. Patel, Beramji Jijibhai, Dinshaw M. Petit, K. N. Cama, etc. Dr. Bhau Daji was chairman of the Managing Committee, Mr. William Wedderburn was the vice-chairman and Pherozeshah Mehta and B. M. Wagle were honorary secretaries. The 31 ordinary members of the Managing Committee were almost overwhelmingly Elphinstonians, such as V. N. Mandlik, Shantaram Narayan, S. S. Bengali, M. G. Ranade, R. G. Bhandarkar, Javerilal Umiashankar and K. N. Kabraji. They were all active members of the Bombay Association as well. The notable absentees were Naoroji Furdunji, who did not leave Bombay Association, Badruddin Tyabji who joined later, and K. T. Telang. Despite Bhau Daji's opposition, the princes and chiefs of the Southern Maratha Country, Gujarat and Kathiawar, were admitted as life members at the instance of Dadabhai Naoroji. They numbered about 25 in July 1871. The total membership of the association swelled to 700 by end of 1871. (Journal of East India Association, vi (1872), 253-54.)

The Bombay Branch of East India Association did not fare better than the Bombay Association, although the former was equipped with better talents. It was still led by mercantile interests. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai died in 1877 and was succeeded by Mangaldas Nathubhai as president. Its main work was shouldered by K. T. Telang who was its joint secretary throughout the period, in combination with J. U. Yajnik. Other committee members included Dadabhai Naoroji, V. N. Mandlik, Atmaram Pandurang, R. G. Bhandarkar, B. M. Wagle, K. C. Bedarkar, M. M. Bhavnagari, D. A. Khare, etc. "Although Telang was become an important political figure in Bombay, his leadership as never parti­ cularly dynamic..... J. U. Yajnik was similarly never thought of as an activist. Mandlik was a difficult colleague to work with. His newspaper already provided him with a forum for his views, and he was not particularly popular because of his well-known ambition, his grandilo­quence and his aristocratic notions. Of the remainder Dadabhai Naoroji was frequently absent whilst Bhandarkar, Atmaram Pandurang and others were more interested in religious and social questions." (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, pp. 190-91.) Pherozeshah had withdrawn after the Crawford affairs while Badruddin Tyabji was otherwise busy.

Hence, the body could do little to further its original objectives. The furore over municipal reforms in the city also distracted the energies of the leaders.

It should, however, go to the credit of the Association that it strived for the grant-in-aid system in education. It fought for the cause of Indian entry into the Indian Civil Service. It submitted a memorial to Government advocating a wholly elective Municipal Corporation for Bombay. Its enthusiasm in the initial period under the Elphinstonians was commendable.

The most significant contribution of this body was to the contemporary political ideology of India. Dadabhai Naoroji elaborated a theory of drain of wealth from India. It was natural that this theory was first systematised in Bombay by men educated in Western political philo­sophy and mercantile practices. In July 1870 Dadabhai invited attention to the high cost of foreign rule in India, leading to a drain of one crore pound sterlings per annum from India. (Journal of East India Association, viii (1874), pp. 33-80.) He elaborated the losses to India by foreign rule, in various meetings. The managing committee under Telang suggested investment in agriculture and growth of industries by utilizing Indian raw material and labour, and induction of natives in public service.

The Press Act, which circumscribed the freedom of press and the rule of law under the Viceroyalty of Lord Lytton, gave a fresh lease of fife to the Bombay Branch of the East India Association. This body attacked the involvement of India in the Afghan War and the Egyptian contingent. However, the opening of the eighties witnessed decline in the membership from 700 in 1871 to 153 in 1882. Telang was still there. But Mangaldas Nathubhai was replaced by D. M. Petit, whilst Mandlik took over as chairman on the resignation of R. N. Khot. Moreover the domination of Richard Temple over the parent body in London was a still greater handicap. Hence after its faltering existence it went defunct in 1884.

There was a certain amount of political activity in Bombay even outside the associations described above. Public meetings were organised on some occasions by the leaders of public opinion. The Town Hall was very often the chosen venue. The salt pan owners in the city organised such a meeting for attacking the Salt Bill of 1873, while the public meeting in April 1876 was arranged to oppose the Revenue Jurisdiction Bill. The latter was addressed by Mandlik and Telang. The 1878 meeting over the Licence Tax on trades and dealings was more spectacular. An interesting episode in the history of Bombay was the furore over the decision of the leading shetias to join the Anglo-Indian officials in voting an address and statue to Sir Richard Temple on his retirement as Governor of Bombay (March 1880). Despite the bitter criticism by the Native Opinion and the intelligentsia, the third Jamshetji Jijibhai and his supporters including Badruddin Tyabji, did in fact express their gratitude to Richard Temple in the meeting.

Lord Lytton left India as possibly her most unpopular Viceroy. His unpopularity had begun to assume serious proportions after the middle of 1877 on account of the hardships caused by the famine of 1876-77. The hurried enactment of the Vernacular Press Act (March 1878) further exposed his despotic and 'patriarchal' rule, as denigrated by Telang. The Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in January 1877 at which Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Empress of India, threw open to doubt the intentions of the British to establish a despotic rule in this country. These events coincided with the Governorship of the unpopular Sir Richard Temple, of Bombay (April 1877 to March 1880). The Vernacular Press Act with its severe limitation on the freedom of press was received as a shock in Bombay. A meeting was held in Bombay comprising, besides representatives from Pune, Nashik, Thane, Ratnagiri, Dhule and Surat, the city's most influential men like Pherozeshah Mehta, Telang, Cowasji Jehangir, and Nanabhai B. Jijibhai. The Marathi press was more unequivocal in its criticism than the Gujarati papers. M. R. Jayakar has given a vivid account of his impressions about the Marathi press during his studenthood. ( M. R. Jayakar, The Story of My Life (Bombay, 1958), i. 10.) The reaction against the Act was, however, not well-organised in Bombay due to some conservative elements, although it was formalised into a campaign by the Poona Sabha. The Bombay Association did not memorialise to Parliament, but the BombayBranch of the East India Association submitted a memorial to the House of Commons, signed by Telang and Bhavnagari. (Jim Masselos, Towards Nationalism: Group Affiliations and the Politics of  Public Associations in Nineteenth Century Western India (Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1974), p. 196.)

The rule of Lytton and Richard Temple led to increasing interests in political questions among the young graduates, manifested in the press. The newspapers in Bombay were over-joyed by the success of the Liberals in England in 1880 and also by the appointment of Lord Ripon as the Viceroy of India.

The Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon really galvanized Bombay politics. A number of issues raised during Ripon's regime, particularly pertaining to the future of India, and the role of Indians in the administration, aroused hopes and stimulated the minds of the educated and generated a sense of solidarity among them. Lord Ripon's Local Self-Government Bill of 1882, which was an instrument of political and popular education granting the principle of elective representation, was highly welcomed in Bombay. It stimulated political thought and a feeling of common interest in the educated people. By a small extension, the arguments in favour of local self-government were applied to the larger issue of representation in the Legislative Council. The elective principle which had earlier been introduced in the Municipality of Bombay during the Governorship of Sir Seymour Fitzgerald(From 6 March 1867 to 5 May 1872). and Sir Philip Wodehouse( From 6 May 1872 to 29 April 1877) was extended further. Unfortunately, however, "Sir James Fergusson and his executive council proved most reluctant to accept the basic principles of the Resolution so that the two bills introduced as a consequence, the Bombay Local Boards Bill and the Bombay District Municipal Act (Amendment) Bill, made few real concessions. Though they did grant the right of election, they failed to concede any real responsibility to the new committees and boards which were to be controlled by an official chairman." (J. Masselos, op. cit„ p. 225)

 A more important episode of the days was the Ilbert Bill crisis of 1883, in Lord Ripon's regime. The aim of the bill was the removal of an anomaly whereby Indian District Magistrates and Sessions Judges were prevented from hearing cases involving Europeans. It sought to remove judicial disqualifications based on creed or race. Its promulgation caused an uproar among the Anglo-Indian community, who were able to get the Bill modified to their own advantage after uproar. Although Bombay remained fairly quiet throughout the Ilbert Bill agitation, the question did reactivate the city's political life. The meeting of 28 April 1883 was convened by the Bombay Branch of the East India Association which constituted the first major demonstration of Indian support for Lord Ripon and the Bill. It was a widely representative meeting of over 4,000. Almost all the public leaders of the city were present, the intelligentsia, industrialists, merchants, etc. Dadabhai's great popularity was seen from the uncommon warm ovation he received. However, the speeches of Pherozeshah, Telang and Badruddin made the greatest impact. (J. Masselos, op. cit, p. 214) Mehta appealed for Indian unity and self-sacrifice, and observed that the conflict was a conflict of opposing ideas about the future of India, and about the policy of Indian participation in administration.

However, Ripon was forced to grant some concession to the Anglo-Indians. By this time (second half of 1883), William Wordsworth, Principal of Elphinstone College and A. O. Hume emerged as European sympathisers of Indian cause. Prof. Wordsworth was in contact with the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha.

The Indian leaders were frustrated by the final terms of the Bill. The Bombay Branch of the East India Association sent a memorial to Government for raising the age limit of civil service candidates to its former level, after a large public meeting in August 1884. Another meeting of 15,000 was held in December at the Town Hall to express thanks to Lord Ripon for his administration. Practically the entire city seemed to have turned out among noisy rejoicing, to bid farewell to Ripon. The Times of India (19-12-1884) acknowledged that for the first time in Indian history the people of India have learnt how to demonstrate and agitate as a whole, irrespective of caste.



In view of the political excitement in the city it was felt that Bombay should have a political organisation to direct public activity, particularly because the Bombay Branch of East India Association (The London headquarters had become more conservative and even hostile towards Indian interests in the 1880's, and hence the Bombay Branch was handicapped,) was almost defunct. Accordingly the triumvirate, Mehta, Telang and Tyabji, assisted by leaders of the earlier generation, Mandlik, Dadabhai Naoroji and Naoroji Furdunji, founded a new political association, the Bombay Presidency Association, on 31 January 1885. It was inaugurated at a public meeting at the Framji Cowasji Institute. It was established on the crest of a wave following the Ilbert Bill agitation and the Ripon farewells. Its architects had designed it to be a truly national association. Its aims were to give information to Government, and to enlighten the people about public affairs. While advocating Indian national rights, its aim was to remain loyal to the throne.

The intelligentsia dominated the Presidency Association, although the presence of wealth was acknowledged in its hierarchy. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, the third Baronet, was the first president, although his influence in the body was limited. Of the 16 vice-presidents, eight were rich men, such as Mangaldas Nathubhai, D. M. Petit, (He was also a Baronet.) Beramji Jijibhai, Varjivandas Madhavdas, F. N. Patel, R. N. Khot, M. A. Roghay and Kamruddin Tyabji. The three secretaries were Mehta, Telang and D. E. Wacha. Six of their collaborators, including Mandlik, Dadabhai, Bengali and N. Furdunji were made vice-presidents. It had 300 members even before its inauguration.
In its meeting on 29 September 1885 it was decided to enlighten the British electorate in Indian problems. Leaflets on Indian issues were already being distributed in England. It was decided to support John Bright and W. S. Blunt of the Liberal Party in elections. Dadabhai's resolution marked the beginning of Indian attempt to ally with a particular political party in England, and seek its support for Indian issues. Sir Jamshetji objected to the resolution and resigned under pressure from English friends. D. F. Karaka also resigned. D. M. Petit, Bombay's leading industrialist, became the new president.
The Association focussed its attention on issues of imperial significance. It was more in unison with other associations and particularly the Poona Sabha. It did considerable propaganda work in England and sent several telegrams to educate British friends of India. Funds were raised to support Lai Mohan Ghose's (He was defeated along with ottyer candidates who were supported by Indian associations.) candidature to the House of Commons and attempts were made to bring Indian opinion before the British electorate.
Mandlik as a vice-president and a member of the Legislative Council had some influence in the Association. But successful attempts were made to reduce his influence. Dadabhai's role was significant until he left Bombay for England in March 1886. He, however, wielded influence upon the politics in Bombay till his death.
The Presidency Association was dominated by Pherozeshah, Telang and Badruddin. Governor Lord Reay considered Telang as " undoubtedly the foremost man in the Presidency. " He was responsible for the energy and enthusiasm which rendered the Association so vigorous an entity in its first few years. He was appointed judge on the Bombay High Court in 1889, since when he withdrew from public affairs. His early death in 1893 left the field open to Pherozeshah. Badruddin, who was also closely connected with the Congress, gained popularity during his opposition to the Bombay local self-government bills. He wielded influence in public meetings of the Association. However, after his elevation to the High Court in 1895 he also withdrew from public life.
Consequently Pherozeshah assumed a dominating position in the Association, and became the city's major leader, appropriately called the " Lion of Bombay ". He had a leading role amongst the Parsis and a stronghold of influence in the Municipality, where he was a chairman from 1884 to 1886. During 1887-88 he led the battle for a representative and yet workable constitution for the Municipality, and was considered largely responsible for its new form. His position had become unrivalled by 1890. He was chosen president of the Congress in 1890, and was a member of the Bombay Legislative Council from 1887 to 1893 when he was elected to the Viceroy's Legislative Council. His position within the Presidency Association had also been nothing but formidable. His leadership was accepted by the educated and the lawyers who met regularly in his chambers, where most of the decisions of the Association were taken. His bonds with industrialists, including J, N. Tata, who was rising in the nineties, and D. M. Petit and others, brought support, funds and goodwill for the Association from industrialists and the rich. D. M. Petit, who conti­nued to be its president until well unto the twentieth century, and Tata ensured the general support of Bombay's rich class to this body. Pheroze­shah, working in close co-ordination with Dinshaw Wacha, the secretary, and being supported by the intelligentsia and the wealthy persons, con­tinued to dominate till the Presidency Association's control went into Dinshaw's hands. By then, new factions of younger graduates and lawyers had emerged in and outside the Association to win its control. (J. Masselos, op. cit, p. 242,)
In subsequent years the young educated desired to bring the Association more close to the Home Rule ideology. The Presidency Association made numerous representations to the governing authorities on local, provincial and imperial matters. It used to call public meetings for ventilating the grievances of the people. It sent N. G. Chandavarkar as a delegate to London on the occasion of the general elections of 1885 in England to submit Indian public opinion to the British Electors. He was one of the three delegates, the other two being Man Mohan Ghosh and Ramaswamy Mudaliyar. In 1897 the Association was invited by the Government of India to select a representative to give evidence before the Royal Commis­sion on Indian Expenditure. The Government had granted it a privilege to select a Director for the London Imperial Institute, which undoubtedly was a recognition of its importance as a representative body. Although the propaganda and pamphleteering work of the Indian organisations did not influence the British electorate, it did have some impact. As Pheroze­shah observed, if the delegates had not set the Thames on fire, they had certainly kindled a spark in the hearts of the British public. It had won over many friends among the Englishmen, such as, Lord Reay, Lord Rosebery and Mr. Bryce.
The Presidency Association sent its delegates to all sessions of the Indian National Congress held from time to time. Its name became synonymous with that of the Congress in the Bombay Presidency, and very few important decisions were taken without its prior approval. Its formidable position was due to various reasons as under: (1) It was a stable body with strong leadership. (2) It could raise large funds and could undertake energetic work for the Congress. (3) There were close personal bonds between the Bombay politicians and A. O. Hume, W. Wedderburn, Ranade and others throughout India. (4) With Wacha becoming its secretary, it had an upper hand in the Congress. " Thereafter no key decision was taken without Pherozeshah's approval although there was, of course, discussion and consultation with other leaders throughout the country ".(J. Masselos, op. cit, p. 245)
The first Bombay Provincial Conference emerged in November 1888 as a means of concerting policy and action for the forthcoming session of Congress in Bombay. Its goal was also to deal with local grievances. Bombay leaders obtained a significant foothold in the conference.
Badruddin Tyabji of the Presidency Association was the president of the Congress of 1887. He possessed a national and strong regional reputation. His opposition to the Bombay local self-government bills in 1884 had enhanced his reputation not only as a leader of the Muslims but also of " the whole native community".
Two stalwarts of the Bombay Presidency Association, Pherozeshah and R. M. Sayani, were appointed to the provincial Legislative Council in 1894. The former was elected by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, while the latter was nominated by the Governor, Lord Harris. The Association had effectively superceded all earlier political clubs in Bombay. It functioned almost as the nerve centre of the Congress for many years.
The period 1860-1885 can be styled as the period of petitions and memorials by various associations. The Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was one of the leading political organisations of India in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It was founded on April 1870 in lieu of the Poona Association, established in 1867. It is interesting to contrast the role of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha with that of the Bombay Association. The difference between the two was that the former used to go to the people and create informed public opinion in support of its demands. It was not a mere petition making body. The relief measures organised by the Sabha at the time of the famine in 1878-79 and also the sober agitation conducted by it, compelled Government to accept many of over many friends among the Englishmen, such as, Lord Reay, Lord Rosebery and Mr. Bryce. The Presidency Association sent its delegates to all sessions of the Indian National Congress held from time to time. Its name became synonymous with that of the Congress in the Bombay Presidency, and very few important decisions were taken without its prior approval. Its formidable position was due to various reasons as under: (1) It was a stable body with strong leadership. (2) It could raise large funds and could undertake energetic work for the Congress. (3) There were close personal bonds between the Bombay politicians and A. O. Hume, W. Wedderburn, Ranade and others throughout India. (4) With Wacha becoming its secretary, it had an upper hand in the Congress. " Thereafter no key decision was taken without Pherozeshah's approval although there was, of course, discussion and consultation with other leaders throughout the country ".(J. Masselos, op. cit, p. 245) The first Bombay Provincial Conference emerged in November 1888 as a means of concerting policy and action for the forthcoming session of Congress in Bombay. Its goal was also to deal with local grievances. Bombay leaders obtained a significant foothold in the conference. Badruddin Tyabji of the Presidency Association was the president of the Congress of 1887. He possessed a national and strong regional reputation. His opposition to the Bombay local self-government bills in 1884 had enhanced his reputation not only as a leader of the Muslims but also of " the whole native community". Two stalwarts of the Bombay Presidency Association, Pherozeshah and R. M. Sayani, were appointed to the provincial Legislative Council in 1894. The former was elected by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, while the latter was nominated by the Governor, Lord Harris. The Association had effectively superceded all earlier political clubs in Bombay. It functioned almost as the nerve centre of the Congress for many years.

The period 1860-1885 can be styled as the period of petitions and memorials by various associations. The Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was one of the leading political organisations of India in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It was founded on April 1870 in lieu of the Poona Association, established in 1867. It is interesting to contrast the role of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha with that of the Bombay Association. The difference between the two was that the former used to go to the people and create informed public opinion in support of its demands. It was not a mere petition making body. The relief measures organised by the Sabha at the time of the famine in 1878-79 and also the sober agitation conducted by it, compelled Government to accept many of its proposals. (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. I, 1818-85, p. 1£1,) The names of top rank leaders like M. G. Ranade, G. V. Joshi (Sarvajanik Kaka), Tilak and Gokhale were associated with it. Poona Sabha's preoccupations and many of its general objectives carried the hallmark of the association catechism : the concern with the welfare of the people and the adoption of a role as mediator between the government and the subjects. It reflected the broad conceptual approach of its guiding spirit, M. G. Ranade. It staunchly advocated measures for amelioration of economic miseries in rural areas. In the late 1870's it was a dominating public body in Poona and rural Maharashtra. "For while the Sabha had established a leading position for itself both in the public life of the Presidency and in rural affairs specifically, the Bombay Association had failed even to maintain a consensus regarding its role within Bombay City." (J. Masselos, op. cit, p. 131.)

The latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a rapid growth of the cotton textile industry in Bombay. While an enterprising class of enlightened industrialists was coming to the fore, many native newspapers like Native Opinion, Indu Prakash and Rast Goftar were strongly advocating the cause of the manufacturing industry in Bombay. In the wake of growing industry, the influence of the free trade doctrine in England and its application to the disadvantage of India was taken with alarm by the press as well as the intelligentsia in the city. The Bombay Branch of the East India Association memorialised to Lord Northbrook to withdraw the tariff on raw cotton in 1875. Economic issues came to the fore when Lord Lytton abolished custom duties on imported cotton goods in 1879. This caused a stir in the quiescent political life in Bombay. The political forces in the city joined hands, and a public meeting was held on 3 May 1879, under the leadership of Telang, Mehta, Tyabji, Mangaldas Nathubhai, Morarji Goculdas, Beramji Jijibhai and Nanabhai, representing the intelligentsia and the millowners. " For perhaps the first time in the history of Bombay politics the speakers from both sides echoed identical sentiments : that over the question of import duties……India was unfairly treated by Britain".(Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 204,)

The Bombay Millowners' Association was formed in February 1875 in order to protect interests threatened by possible factory and tariff legislation. Common interests tended to promote group consciousness amongst the millowners. The Parsis comprised the wealthiest section, although Bhatias and Banias were equally significant.

After the intelligentsia and the millowners, the third force of organised workers in cotton mills was making itself felt in Bombay's political life in the eighties. It was a new class in Bombay politics. N. M. Lokhande, the father of the labour movement, formed the Millhands' Association in 1884. It consisted of the head jobbers in cotton mills in Bombay. At a public meeting of about 4,000 mill workers (23 September 1884) at Parel, Lokhande read a petition of demands concerning hours of work, regular payment of wages and appointment of two representatives of workers on the Factory Commission (1884). Under N. M. Lokhande's influence, the Bombay workers were heard by the Commission. The Millhands' Association was received with mixed reactions in the press. Even papers like Native Opinion and Indu Prakash seemed to have misunderstood its aims, and showed more regard for the mill industry rather than for the workers.

The Bombay Government had recommended to the Secretary of State, for the enactment of factory legislation in 1874 in view of the rapid growth of mills in Bombay. Surprisingly even patriotic newspapers like the Native Opinion, the Jame Jamshed, the Bombay Samachar and the Gujarati denounced the whole concept of factory legislation, which argued that such interference would crush Bombay's rising cotton industry. The Rast Goftar, and later, the Indian Spectator were the chief supporters of the Factory Bill which was introduced into the Viceroy's Council in November 1879. Naturally the Bombay Millowners Association vehemently opposed the Bill as well as Government efforts at factory legislation. It protested in a memorial to Government that any restrictions in the hours of work would harm the industry, and that the Bill was unsuited to Indian conditions and that government interference in sueh matters was objectionable in principle. It lauded the benefits enjoyed by a mill worker fortunate enough to get a job.

In spite of opposition from vested interests the Bill was passed in the Viceroy's Council in March 1881. The official and non-official opposition to the Bill was reflected in its provisions. (The Factory Act provided for a 9-hour day for child labour under 12, forbade child labour under seven, ensured one hour rest every day and four holidays in a month) Even before the Act came into force in Bombay a movement for its amendment and for alternative provincial legislation, was started. The Rast Goftar and the Indian Spectator, as also official opinion in Bombay was in favour of amending the Act. Accordingly the Bombay Government appointed a Commission in 1884 to investigate into the working of the Act. Many representatives of the 31,812 workers in Bombay mills, under the leadership of N. M. Lokhande were heard by the Commission/However, the latter body reported against amendment of the 1881 Act, and the Government fell in line. The Act was ultimately amended by enactment of the Factory Act of 1891.



The renewal of the Charter of the East India Company was an occasion for a comprehensive restatement of educational policy of Government. A select committee of the House of Commons under Charles Wood prepared a comprehensive document known to history as Wood's Educational Despatch of 19 July 1854 which has been regarded as the starting point of modern university education in India. It may be recalled that the distinguished citizens of Bombay including Jagannath Shankarshet, Sir Cowasji Jehangir, Naoroji Furdunji, Dadabhai Naoroji, Bhau Daji, Varjivandas Madhavdas, David Sassoon, Beramji Jijibhai, Muhammad Ibrahim Mukba, etc. established the Bombay Association in a public meeting in the Elphinstone Institution on 26 August 1852, and sent petitions to British Parliament regarding improvements in the system of government and education. Undoubtedly the suggestion in the petitions to establish in each Presidency a University for qualifying persons for various professions, must have weighed with the Court of Directors in issuing the Despatch, in supersession of their earlier decision of 1845. (S. R. Don&erkery, A History of the University of Bombay, 1857-1957 (University of Bombay, 1957), p. 9) A ground had also been prepared by the Elphinstonian institutions and by the efforts of Jagannath Shankarshet and Dr. Wilson for higher education leading to University stage. Accordingly the Bombay University (The Calcutta University was established a few days earlier in the same year. The Madras University was founded a little later than Bombay in 1857) was established under Act XXII of 18 July 1857 during the Governorship of Lord Elphinstone. It was on the model of the London University and was a purely examining body like the model body. Its jurisdiction extended over the whole of the Bombay Presidency including Sind upto 1947 after which the jurisdiction became more and more circumscribed as regional universities were founded. (For details see S. R. Dongerkery, History of the Bombay University, 1857-1957)

With the founding of the University the educational structure was formalised. The first Matriculation examination was held by it in October 1859 and the first B.A.s were granted in 1862. It was reconstituted from time to time by the Acts of 1904, 1928 and 1953.

The first graduates of the University to receive B.A. degree in 1862 were M. G. Ranade, R. G. Bhandarkar, B. M. Wagle and V. A. Modak. Justice Ranade was destined later to play important roles in the progress of the University and in the initiation of political and social reforms, while Dr. Bhandarkar was destined to shed lustre as a great Sanskrit scholar and Vice-Chancellor.

For more than 17 years the University was without a permanent building of its own and its offices were located in the Town Hall. The convocation hall, named after Sir Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney who had donated a munificent donation of one lakh as early as 1863, was completed in November 1874 until which convocations were held in the Town Hall. The Cowasji Jehangir Hall, representing an early type of French architec­ture of the thirteenth century, is a magnificent structure which, in the beauty of its architecture, its excellent proportions and its spacious interior with a lofty receiling, is one of the finest buildings the city can boast of. Few universities even in the West are the proud possessors of a Senate Hall such as this, as has frequently been observed by academic visitors from abroad. Its actual cost of construction was Rs. 3.79 lakhs. (S. R. Dongerkery, op. cit., p. 22.)
The University Library and Rajabai Tower is unique among the buildings which enhance the beauty of Bombay and has amply fulfilled the desire of the donor that it should be "an ornament to this city, and by becoming a store house of the learned works of past and future generations promote the high ends of the University." The Clock Tower, one of the most attractive features of the city, rises to a height of 280 feet. Above the first gallery, in niches cut in the pillars at the corners of the octagon, are large figures carved out of Porbunder stone, representing the different races and costumes of Western India, and higher still is another series of figures of the same description representing the features and mode of dress of the different communities of Bombay State. The building was completed in November 1878 at a total cost of Rs. 5.48 lakhs covered by the gift of Rs. 4 lakhs generously donated by Premchand Raichand in 1864 and the interest which had since accumulated thereon. The donation was made by him in commemoration of his mother. (Ibid, p. 20.)
This was the first university in India to admit women to all degress in 1883. (London was the first British University to throw its degree open to women, in 1878. Oxford and Cambridge took a much longer time to get over their prejudice against the fair sex.) There was a long drawn out controversy over the desirability of general education as against specialisation upto B. A. level. The stalwarts like Telang, Bhandarkar, Pherozeshah Mehta and Chimanlal Setalvad who wore the robes of vice-chancellorship, were ranged on the side of general education.
The constitution of the University remained unaltered until 1904. The Indian Universities Commission of 1902 appointed by Lord Curzon, became a subject of controversy in Bombay. Justice Chandavarkar was invited to join the Commission for the purpose of the enquiry relating to Bombay University. Pherozeshah criticised the Commission very severely in regard to its constitution, encroachment upon university autonomy, recommendation of courses of study and perfunctory approach, in the debates in the Senate. The echoes of the debate in the Senate were voiced in the columns of the daily press, and there were many protests against the encroachment on university autonomy and officialisation of higher education which the Bill had purported. Gopal Krishna Gokhale combated against infringement of autonomy in the Imperial Legislative Council. In spite of the powerful opposition from stalwarts like Pheroze­shah and Gokhale, the Indian Universities Bill was passed into law in 1904. The battle was really between Lord Curzon, who was determined to bring universities under Government domination and the leaders of public opinion like Pherozeshah and Gokhale who stood for university autonomy and Indian interests in higher education. Lord Sydenham did in fact interfere with the University affairs in a subsequent year as foreseen by Pherozeshah and Gokhale. The tall claims made for the Bill by Lord Curzon have also not been justified by events in the following period. The Act of 1904 had, however, some redeeming features, as conceded by Gokhale, such as better control of the University over colleges, enabling the former to increase efficiency of the colleges by inspection, etc.
In pursuance of the provisions in the Act of 1904, concrete steps were taken towards the transformation of the affiliating university into a teaching university in 1914-15, and post-graduate lectures were arranged at the University in Economics, History, Philosophy, Sanskrit and Persian. The University Department of Sociology was founded in November 1919 under the able Prof. Patrick Geddes. This was a right step towards a transition to teaching university. Another landmark in the history of the University was the foundation of the Department of Economics in September 1921 under Prof. K. T. Shah. The Civics and Politics depart­ment followed suite in 1948 with the help of the Pherozeshah Mehta Memorial Fund and a grant from the State Government. These three departments constituted a single administrative unit, called the University School of Economics and Sociology until June 1956, when they were reorganised into independent units. The Departments of Chemical Technology and Statistics were founded in 1934 and 1948, respectively. Several other departments were opened during the last about 25 years. The Departments of Economics, Politics, Sociology and Technology have helped to bring the commercial, social and industrial life of the city into close relationship.
The Bombay University Act of 1928 was a great advance over the Indian Universities Act of 1904 in many respects. It was a great step forward towards democratisation of the University which was under Government domination with four-fifths of the Senate members nominated by Government. The Senate was made more broad-based to represent principals of colleges,  headmasters,  municipalities,  local bodies,  Chambers of Commerce and the Millowners' Associations of Bombay and Ahmedabad, besides graduates and faculties. The University thus assumed a more democratic character and echoed the voices of academicians, educated public as well as commercial interests in the city.
The 25 years after the Act of 1928 constituted a momentous period in the history of the University. It was marked by horizontal and vertical expansion and changes in university education. This was but natural because the country was passing through the vicissitudes of the Second World War, the enthusiasm and pangs of the struggle for freedom, the Quit India movement of 1942, the partition of India, and " the ferment of new ideas of linguistic loyalties which was a concomitant of the political movement, and which was to lead to the decentralisation of university education on a linguistic basis." The expansion of collegiate education may be judged from the fact that the number of affiliated colleges increased from 29 to 79 and the student population swelled from 11,059 to 41,829 from April 1927 to March 1947. Even after formation of separate universities for Sind, Poona, Karnatak and Gujarat, there were 31 colleges with 34,000 students in the city of Bombay in 1956. The expansion of the University activities in the direction of teaching and research was remarkable. The School of Economics and Sociology expanded rapidly and produced celebrities like K. T. Shah, C. N. Vakil, J. J. Anjaria, D. T. Lakadawala, M. B. Desai, M. L. Datwala, Patrick Geddes, G. S. Ghurye, P. R. Brahmanand, A. R. Desai and a galaxy of great men. The Department of Chemical Technology which shifted to the magnificent building at Matunga in 1943, was expanded very rapidly from time to time. The University Hostel and the Birla Hostel (through donation by the Birla Education Trust) were inaugurated in June 1952 for accommodating 148 students.
It was in 1937 that the bifurcation scheme was introduced under which students were required to exercise a choice between arts and science studies from the commencement of the University course. Prior to that year, the first year course used to be a composite one, and the student had to choose between arts and science courses only at the intermediate stage. This scheme was extended to commerce colleges from 1938. The Matricula­tion examination conducted so far by the University was abolished from 1949 as the S. S. C. Examination Board for the Bombay State was created for conducting the S. S. C. Examination. Thus, the supervision of the University over secondary schools ceased for ever.
The Poona University was fully constituted in February 1949, when all colleges in its jurisdiction were affiliated to it. This was a culmination of the prolonged efforts of persons like Narayan Chandavarkar, M. R. Jayakar, G. S. Mahajani and others in the Bombay Legislative Council and outside. The Marathi Sahitya Sammelan in its Bombay session in 1926 had earlier urged the Government, princely states and the educated to help the foundation of a university for Maharashtra. Similarly separate universities were constituted for Gujarat (November 1949) and Karnatak (March 1950). The Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University was given a statutory recognition in 1949. Thus, the jurisdic­tion of the Bombay University became circumscribed, and it emerged as a City University worthy of the first city of India which had given its birth. It then became a " teaching and federal" university by virtue of the Bombay University Act of 1953 which came into force on June 1 1953, and under which the colleges have become constituent parts or limbs of the University.
At the dawn of the University, there were only four faculties, viz., Arts, Law, Medicine and Civil Engineering. The Faculty of Science was started much later in 1917, in lieu of the Faculty of Civil Engineering. There are at present seven Faculties : Arts, Science (1917), Law, Medicine, Technology (1933), Commerce (1949) and Dentistry (1956).
One of the most historic events in the life of the Bombay University was the opening of a new campus atKalina in Santacruz area in July 1971. Its jurisdiction now extends over far and wide territories including Greater Bombay, Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts and the Union Territory of Goa.


The history of the Bombay University or even of Bombay city would not be complete without a brief account of the great men and luminaries who paved the way for its foundation or strived to build up the noble traditions which are associated with it in the public mind today. Mount-stuart Elphinstone, John Wilson and Jagannath Shankarshet as pioneers of education had prepared a ground for the University. As stated earlier Shankarshet and Bhau Daji had played a very active role in its founda­tion. It is a great tribute to Bombay that among the Fellows mentioned by name in the Act of Incorporation of the University there were five Indians, namely, Shankarshet, Bhau Daji, Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai, Bomanji Hormusji and Mahomed Yusuf Moorgay. Shankarshet was on the Senate ever since its foundation till his death in 1865.
Bhau Daji, although a medical graduate, was an antiquarian and a Sanskrit scholar and was for a long time a syndic. He is rightly commemorated by the Bhau Daji Prize, awarded since 1876 to the highest in B.A. Sanskrit of the University.
Dadabhai Naoroji, a product of the renaissance which had given birth to the University, had also a claim to be included among the founders of the University. He was the second Indian professor in the Elphinstone Institution of which he was very proud.
Sir Alexander Grant,(The Succession List of Vice-Chancellors of the University is given at the end in an Appendix ) one of the most distinguished Vice-Chancellors, which position he adored twice, brought the University in its infancy the high academic tone of the Oxford University. A protagonist of university autonomy and scholarly traditions, he is said to have left his noble impress on the personality of a distinguished student like Pherozeshah Mehta.
John Wilson, a great scholar in Sanskrit, Persian and Philosophy, and one of the founders of the University, succeeded as Vice-Chancellor in October 1868. He enhanced the reputation of the University and fostered its growth on sound footing. The Wilson Philological Lectureship and his bust in the Library serve as a fitting memorial to him. Justice James Gibbs who succeeded Dr. Wilson as Vice-Chancellor (March 1870) and continued to adore that position for more than nine years, helped development of modern Indian languages and academical buildings. A bust statue and the " Gibbs Testimonial " in the library section were raised in his honour as a memorial to his services. Sir Raymond West, who adorned the vice-chancellorship for three terms extending over a period of eight years imparted strength to the University and strove for its autonomy and development into a teaching university. He is remem­bered for his services to the University in drafting a Bill seeking autonomy which was, however, unfortunately rejected by the Government of India, although approved by the Bombay Government. It was during his regime that a new degree in Science was instituted in 1880, specialisation at the B.A. level was allowed, and women were admitted to the degrees.
Dr. Mackichan was Vice-Chancellor four times, and almost conti­nuously a member of the Syndicate for 30 years, besides being in the echelons of higher education in the city for 42 years. He had not only become one of the living institutions and landmarks of Bombay but also a maker and moulder of the University. The duration of the B.A. course was extended from three to four years during his tenure.
Justice K. T. Telang was the first Indian to be appointed Vice-Chancellor in August 1892, which position he adored worthily till his death on 1 September 1893. He was one of the brightest alumni of the University, and was endowed with a sweet persuasive reasonableness illumined by a diffused radiance of feeling. He served the University faithfully for 16 years. His name will always be remembered for reforma­tion of the B.A. and LL.B. degree courses, which are known as " Telang courses ".He was a protagonist of all-round development of a graduate, which can be achieved through knowledge of English, Sanskrit, Mathe­matics, Logic, Political Economy and Physical Sciences. As a member of the Indian Education Commission, 1882, he held independent views. Besides being a nationalist leader, he was a great Sanskrit scholar and a distinguished Judge of the Bombay High Court.
Although not appointed as a Vice-Chancellor, the services of Justice Ranade to the University were devoted and highly meritorious. He gave the benefit of his talents to the University as Fellow, Syndic and Deccan till his death. Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar, one of the most pre-eminent oriental scholars of his day, was also a distinguished Vice-Chancellor of the University (1893-95). He was a syndic of the University from 1873 to 1882. He was keenly interested in the improvement of curricula, and was a great protagonist of general education as well as research. Dr. Bhandar-kar's works included treatises on Sanskrit grammar, critical editions of Sanskrit texts, reports on Sanskrit manuscripts and contributions to proceedings of learned societies and journals. His book Ancient History of the DeccanhsLS been acclaimed as the most authoritative work on the subject. A strong adherent of the critical and historical school of Philology, and unrivalled in the accuracy and thoroughness of his scholarship and literary criticism, Dr. Bhandarkar soon attained a world-wide reputation for oriental learning. In 1904, the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, an extremely rare honour, was bestowed upon him. The Bhandar­kar Oriental Research Institute(It was formally inaugurated by Lord Willingdon, Governor, on 6 July 1917.) was founded at Pune by his disciples and admirers as a temple of learning.
Sir Pherozeshah Mehta's association with the University was much longer than the brilliant trio, Bhandarkar, Telang and Ranade. However, it was not until the Senate was rocked by the controversy over the reforms in university administration, sought to be introduced by Lord Curzon in 1902, and again, over the attempt by Lord Sydenham to interfere with the autonomy of the University in framing its curricula, that Sir Pheroze­shah threw himself with full vigour into the debate on the floor of the Senate to meet the challenge to the University's independence and autonomy. Although his tenure as Vice-Chancellor was brief, he will be remembered for the work done earlier. He rose to the full height of his powers, when he was opposing any measure which he regarded as unjust or undemocratic, whether in political, civic or academic sphere. There were three occasions when he took a lead in the Senate which no historian of the University can lightly pass over. These were : (/) the constitution of the Indian Universities Commission of 1902 by Lord Curzon; (ii) consi­deration by the Senate over the Commission's recommendations; and (iii) the Senate Committee's report on Sir George Clarke's (Governor of Bombay.) letter which came up before the Senate in January 1910. " Sir Pherozeshah was at that time unquestionably the strongest and ablest politician in India.

The University lay near his heart." (Mr. Lovat Fraser.) His services have been commemorated by a life-size painting on Venetian glass and a marble bust in the University Buildings.
It was in the Viceroy's Council as well as in the Senate that Gokhale fought valiantly along with his political guru, Pherozeshah, for the sake of University autonomy. His political pre-occupations, however, prevented him from participating in the affairs of the University actively.
Sir Narayan Chandavarkar who succeeded Dr. F. G. Selby in January 1909 continued to be Vice-Chancellor till August 1912. Earlier he had adorned the Bench of the High Court in succession to Ranade. He was closely associated with Pherozeshah and Dinshaw Wacha in public life. He was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1900, and represented the University in the Bombay Legislative Council from 1897 to 1901. After leaving Chief Ministership of Indore State (1912-14), he return­ed to active public life. He was a great social reformer, a protagonist of female education and depressed class reforms. In 1920, he was one of the three distinguished recipients of the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.
Sir Narayan was the first non-official president of the Reformed Bombay Legislative Council from 1921 to his death in 1923. " He displayed a wide knowledge of parliamentary precedent and custom, and established in the Legislative Council a procedure founded upon the best traditions of the House of Commons." (Resolution of the Government of Bombay, May 1923.) An extremely fierce controversy over Sir George Clarke's (Lord Sydenham) attempt at violating autonomy of the University arose during Chandavarkar's vice-chancellorship. This was a historic combat (In the course of this combat, at one stage, Chandavarkar disallowed Pherozeshah's address to the House, which incident came perilously near wrecking the life-long friendship between them. The dignified tone of Pherozeshah and the admirable temper of Chandavarkar, however, did not leave any bitterness.) between the Government and the protagonists of autonomy.
Sir Chimanlal Setalvad had the unique distinction of occupying Vice-Chancellorship for 12 continuous years (1917-29), the longest period for which any one has hitherto been privileged to serve the University. He was on the Senate from 1895 till his death in 1947, and on the Syndicate from 1899 upto 1929. He represented the University on the Municipal Corporation for 20 years and on the Bombay Legislative Council for 12 years. He succeeded Gokhale as a member of the Imperial Legislative Council on the former's death in 1915. He acted as Advocate General for sometime. He was a Judge of the Bombay High Court in 1920 but resigned shortly to participate in active public life and politics.
He strived for the progress of the University, and was instrumental in establishment of the School of Economics and Sociology. He was appointed Chairman of the Committee on University Reforms (1924-25), the report of which bears the impress of his personality. His contribution towards the establishment of the G. S. Medical College is noteworthy. A marble bust of Sir Chimanlal stands in the Convocation Hall side by side with the busts of the distinguished Vice-Chancellors, Telang and Pherozeshah.
The account of Vice-Chancellors, which has necessarily to be brief, is illustrative and not exhaustive. Among the celebrated Vice-Chancellors of the later period, Justice M. C. Chhagla, Dr. P. V. Kane, Justice N. H. Bhagwati, Dr. John Matthai and Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar deserve a mention.


The Elphinstone College, the oldest institution of its kind in Western India, occupies a unique position in the annals of education as also of the growth of all-round awakening. It has produced men of outstanding merit in all spheres of life. The College was opened as a befitting memorial(Public contributions amounting to Rs. 4,43,900 were collected for the memorial, the Maharaja of Satara and the young widow of Nana Phadnavis donating Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 1,000, respectively.) to Mountstuart Elphinstone on his retirement as Governor, in recognition of his valuable services to the cause of Indians. The college assumed independent existence as Elphinstone College in April 1856 and was formally affiliated to the Bombay University in 1860. The College classes were first held in the Town Hall, and were shifted opposite the Grant Medical College in 1855. After 1862, the college migrated to the Tankar Villa near Gowalia Tank, and then to Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney building on Parel Road in 1871. Finally, it was housed in the present magnificent building with high stone walls and mediaeval arches, and was inaugurated by the Governor, Lord Reay, on 4 February 1889.
The celebrated professors of the Elphinstone College as well as its distinguished alumni which constituted the intelligentsia of Bombay have, already been mentioned in an earlier account in this Chapter.
The robe of the Vice-Chancellor of the Bombay University has often been worn by Elphinstonians like Telang, Narayan Chandavarkar, Pheroze­shah Mehta, Chimanlal Setalwad, Vithal Chandavarkar and Justice Bhagwati. Maharshi Dhondo Keshav Karve, the founder of the S. N. D. T. Women's University, C. D. Deshmukh, former Finance Minister of India, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India and S. R. Dongerkery, the first Vice-Chancellor of the Marathwada University, belong to the galaxy of great Elphin­stonians. Famous cricketers like Vijay Merchant, Khandu Ranganekar, Madhav Mantri, Datta  Phadkar, Subhash Gupte and Madhav Apte were Elphinstonians. (Ibid.,p.) Lokamanya Tilak, the father of Indian unrest, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a constructive statesman and nationalist, were the distinguished Elphinstonians who played eminent roles <n India's struggle for freedom. There are numerous others who have rendered meritorious service to the cause of India, whose names cannot be mentioned here for paucity of space.
Dr. Wilson, the missionary scholar, opened an English School in his house at Girgaum on 29 March 1832. The school was shifted to the Military Square and was named as General Assembly's Institution in 1835. Dr. Wilson formed the college division of the Institution in 1836, and himself taught many subjects. On 31 April 1855, new buildings for the Institute were opened by Dr. Wilson on the site now occupied by Wilson High School in Girgaum. The college was affiliated to the Bombay University in 1861. The college grew in numbers and reputation, and its traditions of scholarship and all-round enlightenment were firmly founded when Dr. Wilson died in December 1875. He was closely connec­ted with the Bombay University from its foundations, and during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor the foundation stone of the University Library and the Rajabai Tower was laid'. He was a great protagonist of the study of Indian languages. The College was moved from Girgaum to Chowpati with the zealous efforts of Dr. Dugald Mackichan. The original building, built in Domestic Gothic, was inaugurated by Lord Reay, Governor, in 1889. Dr. Mackichan was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Bombay University four times, a unique record. Dr. Mackenzie, who succeeded him as Principal of the Wilson College and held that post upto 1944, was a great educationist. He was also Vice-Chancellor of the University from 1931 to 1933. The Pandita Ramabai Hostel for Ladies, attached to the college, was opened in February 1932 out of the funds collected in commemoration of Pandita Ramabai, an emanci­pationist of women. The College has produced illustrious men and women of outstanding merit. The first two Chief Ministers of Bombay State after Independence viz., B. G. Kher and Morarji Desai were Wilsonians. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir (Bombay, 1957), p. 34.) It is remarkable that Morarji Desai distinguished himself in national politics for about a quarter of a century, and adorned Prime Ministership of the country from 1977 to 1980.
The Government Law College, Bombay, the first of its kind in India, was established in 1855 on public demand under the leadership of Jagan-nath Shankarshet. It was affiliated to the University in 1860. The College has produced a galaxy of eminent men who have made history both in the legal profession and national life. Only a few of them are mentioned here : H. J. Kania, the first Chief Justice of India, Nanabhai Haridas, the first permanent Judge of the High Court, M. G. Ranade, K. T. Telang, B.   G. Tilak, Badruddin Tyabji, N. G. Chandavarkar, Ghimanlal Setalvad, Bhulabhai Desai, M. R. Jayakar, K. M. Munshi, D. F. Mulla, Dinshaw Davar, G. V. Mavlankar, B. R. Ambedkar, M. C. Chhagla, Justice N. H. Bhagwati, C. Coyajee, S. R. Tendulkar, M. C Setalvad, Haribhau Pataskar, Mangaldas Pakvasa, H. P. Mody, B. G. Kher, Jamshedji Kanga etc. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 47.)
By the latter half of the nineteenth century, legal profession was the only profession respected by the English ruling class. Indians' admission to this profession was not barred by political considerations. The rich in Bombay went to England also for advanced learning in law, and ultimately gained leadership in the Bombay intelligentsia. Badruddin Tyabji, Pheroze-shah Mehta, G. V. Karkare, Kharshedji Manakji and Hormasji A. Wadia were among the first generation of Barristers, who formed the nucleus of an India-wide fraternity. While studying in England, the Bombayites, along with Bengalis like W. C. Bannerji and Man Mohan Ghosh, formed a circle around Dadabhai Naoroji. Such early friendships were to prove invaluable in the political field in the following decades. (The first Baronet.)
Modern education in medicine was deliberately encouraged by Govern­ment. The idea of a medical college was first originated by Robert Grant, Governor of Bombay, in 1835. After his death, the citizens of Bombay with Jagannath Shankarshet and Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai,3 resolved in public meeting in the Town Hall on 28 July 1835 that the proposed college may be named to commemorate Robert Grant. Accordingly the Grant Medical College was inaugurated on 3 November 1845 by George Arthur, the Governor. The main building was raised out of funds contributed by the East India Company and public subscriptions in equal measure. The idea of a hospital was mooted in a public meeting on 16 March 1838, in which Jamshetji Jijibhai offered a munificent donation of Rs. 1,64,000. The East India Company contributed an equal amount, and the J. J. Hospital was opened on 15 May 1845. Since then many hospital buildings were constructed in charity in the premises by benevolent donors. The C.J. Ophthalmic Hospital was opened on 21 July 1866 out of a donation by Sir Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney. Bai Motlibai, widow of Naoroji Wadia, founded the Obstetric Hospital which was inaugurated by Lord Harris, Governor, in March 1892. Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit constructed the Petit Hospital for Women and Children which was also opened in March 1892. It was on the same date that the Governor inaugurated a dispensary in the J. J. Hospital premises donated by Dwarkadas Lallubhai.
The Grant Medical College awarded its first diplomas in 1851 and first degrees in 1862. From the beginning it attracted a large number of Parsis, while Hindus were repugnant to the modern system of medical education. Bhau Daji Lad and Atmaram Pandurang were among the first 15 medical graduates from this college. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 48.)
Another teaching hospital affiliated to the Grant Medical College, namely G. T. Hospital, was inaugurated on 8 April 1874. It owes its foundation to the munificent donation of Goculdas Tejpal, an enlightened public figure and patron of English education in Bombay. Goculdas TejpaPs donation of Rs. 15 lakh deserved particular appreciation because it came forth during the bad days of the general economic crash in Bombay after the Share Mania.
The other teaching hospital affiliated to the Grant Medical College owes its origin to the movement by Sorabji Shapurji Bengali, a journalist and political figure, and Pestanji Hormasji Cama, a philanthropist. It was the Cama Hospital opened on the Esplanade in August 1886. In connection with this hospital, the Jafar Suleman Dispensary was opened in the same year which was followed by the Bomanji Edulji Albless Obstetric Hospital in 1890.
While the above hospitals were established for natives out of philan­thropy by the generous citizens of Bombay, the St. George's Hospital was raised by Government for Europeans in December 1892. Erected on the site of the historic Fort St. George, it is also a teaching hospital.
To resume the story of general education, it is certain that Government was not alone in the field of education. Missionaries had been quite active from the beginning. The shetias were ambivalent in their approach. While they desired to train their boys in English, they were averse to their children studying in government or mission schools. This was not only because of their aversion to profundity in literary education but also because they did not wish their children to mix with poorer children in government and mission schools. They, therefore, began to arrange for at least a smattering of English language and culture by organising their own seminaries, run mainly by British ex-army officers. Jagannath Shankarshet, D. M. Petit, Beramji Jijibhai and Mangaldas Nathubhai were educated in such a school. (Times of India, 4 Feb, 1884) Gradually the shetias became concerned at their self-imposed exclusion from university education, and the Fort Proprietary School was opened in 1859.
The St. Xavier's College was one of the early protagonists of Western learning and owed its origin to the St. Mary Institution and St. Xavier's High School. It was affiliated to the Bombay University in January 1869.
The Sydenham College owed its origin to the pioneering efforts of K. Subramani Aiyar, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey, Sir Dinshaw Wacha, Manmohandas Ramji and Lord Sydenham (Governor), and to some philanthropists of Bombay. The degree of Bachelor of Commerce was first instituted in India by the Bombay University in 1912. The college was named after Lord Sydenham in 1916, and was moved into its newly built present premises as late as 1955.
Veterinary education in Western India was initiated by the establishment of the Bombay Veterinary College in August 1886 in collaboration with the Bai Sakarbai Dinshaw Petit Hospital for Animals, which was estab­lished by D. M. Petit as a wing of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The work of medical relief was entrusted to the Municipal Corporation in 1907 under the famous Police Charges Act which came into being after an incessant protracted fight by Pherozeshah Mehta, both in the Legisla­tive Council and the Corporation. (The account has already been given elsewhere.) The municipal authorities then proceeded to formulate plans for developing additional hospital facilities in the city. The sad demise of King Edward VII occurred soon after, and the enlightened citizens of Bombay, under the leadership of Pherozeshah Mehta, raised a fund to be utilised for building a hospital in memory of King Edward VII. The Memorial Fund Committee raised about Rs. 7 lakhs inclusive of Rs.1.20 lakhs donated by Sir Currimbhoy Ibrahim Entertainment Fund, rupees one lakh from Purshottamdas M. Nathubhai in memory of his wife Bai Lilavati, and Rs. 30 thousands from the estate of Dr. Habib Ismail Jan Mahomed. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, p. 68.)  The balance of the money from the celebration fund for the visit of King George V in 1911 was also handed over to the Corporation for naming a ward after the King. Government also contributed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and rendered considerable help by granting rebate on construction cost. The eminent citizens like Pheroze­shah, Narayan Chandavarkar, Chimanlal Setalvad and D. N. Bahadurji who were trustees of the Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Estate, offered a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs for endowing a medical college in connection with the proposed hospital. The zealous efforts of the elite bore fruit, and the Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College was started in June 1925, and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in February 1926, under the deanship of Dr. Jivaraj N. Mehta, who later played an important part in the Governments of Bombay and Gujarat States. The college and hospital were formally opened by Leslie Wilson, Governor of Bombay, on 22 January 1926. (The college was affiliated to the University of Bombay in August.)  Unfortunately Pherozeshah did not live to participate in the inaugural ceremony.

The foundation of the K. E. M. Hospital was followed by construction of the Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital in 1927 and the Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children in 1929, in the immediate neighbourhood. Both these hospitals owe their origin to the munificence of the Wadia brothers, Sir Ness Wadia and Sir Cusrow Wadia.
The role of Dr. D. D. Sathe in the public life of Bombay is too well-known. It was he who started the National Medical College on 4 September 1921 in collaboration with some patriotic doctors in Bombay. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, p. 100) He was inspired in this endeavour by the spirit of the Non-co-operation Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi. The patriotic zeal of the pioneers was responded by Dr. Nair's munificent endowment. This paved the way for opening of the B. Y. L. Nair Hospital, in memory of his mother, in July 1925, and of the college building on 28 November 1927. Later the college was renamed after Motiram Desai Topiwala, a generous donor, with the zealous efforts of S. K. Patil. It was S. K. Patil, one of the most eminent men of Bombay, who prevailed over the Municipal Corporation to take over the college as well as the hospital in November 1946. It was affiliated to the Bombay University in the same month. The Nair Hospital Dental College was started by the philanthropist Dr. A. L. Nair in the Dental Department of the B. Y. L. Nair Hospital in 1933. It is now housed in a separate building, in the neighbourhood, erected by the Corporation, and has been affiliated to the University since June 1954.
The Ismail Yusuf College, established in 1929-30, owes its origin to the generosity of Sir Mahomed Yusuf who had donated eight lakh rupees for higher education of Muslims, way back in 1914. It has, however, been a cosmopolitan institution. (Ibid., pp. 77-78.)

The Shikshan Prasarak Mandali of Pune, who expanded Western education after the Dcccan Education Society, established two colleges in Bombay, viz., Ramnarain Ruia College in 1937 and R. A. Podar College of Commerce and Economics in 1941. The first one received a donation of Rs. 2 lakhs from the house of Ruias and the second one Rs. 1.46 lakhs from the house of Podars, (Ibid., pp. 80, 85.) both of which have many textile mills and other business to their credit in Bombay. The colleges were named as per the desire of the donors.
The Sikh community also contributed to the expansion of educational facility in the city. The Khalsa College was established in 1937 by the Gurudwara Committee of Shri Nankana Sahib, the birth place of the founder of the Sikh religion, Shri Guru Nanak. (Ibid., p. 82) The Partition of India inflicted severe miseries on the Hindus in Pakistan and thousands of Sindis had to migrate to Bombay in 1948. Although displaced from their native land, they made Bombay their home and participated in the public life of the city. Naturally they founded many institutions which have contributed to the enrichment of the educational and other fields of life. Accordingly the Jai Hind College and Basantsing Institute of Science was founded in June 1948 by the migrant professors from Karachi. The new building of the college at Churchgate, constructed out of donations and government grant, was inaugurated by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, then Vice-President of India, in 1952. The National College, Bandra, the second college to be established in the suburbs of Bombay, (The Ismail Yusuf College was the first in the suburbs.) stands testimony to the undaunted spirit of the Sindis. It was opened in June 1949 by the Hyderabad Sind National Collegiate Board at the efforts of H. G. Advani and Prof. K. M. Kundnani. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, p. 113) The munificence of the houses of Wassiamull Assomuland Kishinchand Chellaram, and Bagomal Trust helped the emergence of the college as a successor of the two colleges at Hyderabad Sind, which were shattered after Partition of India. The K. C. College was the second remarkable venture of the above mentioned Board in 1954.
The Sophia College for Women was founded by the Society for Higher Education of Women in India in 1940. It is a unique institution striving for all-round development of ladies.
Although a cosmopolitan first city of India, Bombay lacked a college entirely managed by persons belonging to the scheduled castes, till 1946. It was in that year that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar launched the People's Education Society for propagation of higher education among the down­trodden. The society and its Siddharth College stand testimony to the keen interest and passionate urge of Dr. Ambedkar towards the emancipation of the downtrodden by opening the portals of the University to them. Besides the Arts and Science College founded in 1946, Dr. Ambedkar opened the College of Commerce and Economics in June 1953. The institution was shifted to its present premises in 1951.
Bombay, and in fact India, owes the initiation of technical education to the immense foresight and zealous efforts of such public spirited leaders as Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, M. G. Ranade, Dinshaw Wacha and Badruddin Tyabji, as well as to the support of Lord Reay, the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Bombay Mill-owners' Association. The foundation of the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute in 1887, which is probably the oldest institution of its kind in India, was mainly due to the endeavour of these men of vision and the organisations which actively supported the cause. (Ibid., p. 97) The Institute wasnamed to commemorate the Jubilee of Queen Victoria and was housed in the old Elphinstone College building at Byculla which was donated by Sir D. M. Petit. It was later shifted to its present premises at Matunga in 1923. It was initially awarding diplomas, and started degree courses from June 1946, and is now one of the famous institutions of its type in the country. It has excellent teaching and material testing laboratory facilities, and has produced eminent engineers.


Bombay as the first city of India has provided a haven to a number of research institutes, besides those imparting general and professional education. They have contributed towards the enrichment of the hoards of knowledge and of the cultural heritage of this city of gold as well as of the country as a whole. Many of them have earned an international reputation and have given birth to renowned scientists and scholars. Although there are many such organisations, a detailed account of all of them is beyond the scope of this study. Hence only a selected few research institutes which have played a historical role are mentioned below. (Information about many voluntary social service organisations in Bombay, including a few research institutes, is given in Chapter 18 of this Gazetteer. Hence, repitition of the same is avoided as far as possible.)

The Haffkine Institute is one such celebrated organisation. It is the biggest research institution of its kind not only in India, but also in the whole of Asia. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir t p. 162,) The building and the site where it stands have a long history. The Shiva temple stood on this site in Parel in olden times. A monastery and a chapel managed by the Jesuites, flourished here during the Portuguese regime. During the British rule, the building was construc­ted as Government House, and made the Governor's Palace. It was in 1882 that the Government House was permanently shifted to the Malabar Hill. This abandoned old magnificent building was used as a hospital from 1896 when a virulent epidemic of plague attacked Bombay.
It was in 1899 that Dr. Waldemar Mordecai Wolfe Haffkine, a brilliant student of Dr. Louis Pasteur, laid the foundation of the Plague Research Laboratory in this building, wherein were conducted some of the most fundamental researches in plague epidemiology and plague prophylaxis. Dr. Haffkine fought a crusade against the deadly epidemic by evolving an anti-plague vaccine and propagating it among the hostile native citizens. This zealous scientist gave public demonstrations by injecting the vaccine in his own body to get over popular hostility of the conserva­tive natives, who opposed it due to orthodox beliefs. The Laboratory was renamed as the Bombay Bacteriological Laboratory in 1906 as it was further expanded to undertake research in   other infectious diseases, besides plague. In 1923, the Biochemistry department and Rabies section were added. This facilitated anti-rabic treatment which was available only at Coonoor and Kasauli in India till then. The Laboratory did excellent work in the control of tropical diseases in India, and was there­fore aptly renamed as Haffkine Institute in 1925 (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, p. 163) after its founder whose inspiration and work bestowed enormous benefits upon mankind in general and India in particular.
The Entomology department was formed in 1938 for systematic studies in tropical diseases. The Second World War gave a great impetus to the Institute as it was the only one that supplied plague vaccine to an area stretching from the Mediterranean to Japan. The Blood Bank also played an important role in saving life during the war. The Insti­tution was further expanded from time to time for the research and manufacturing of anti-bacterial vaccines, T.A.B. vaccines, antivenene, anti-tetanus, anti-diphtheria, anti-gas-gangrene, polyvalent anti-venene and a number of sera and vitamin preparations. A number of facilities were provided to equip the Institute for research in biological products and medical health problems in connection with endemic and epidemic diseases. It collaborates with different international organisations like WHO, UNICEF, Colombo Plan, etc. It also conducts post-graduate and doctorate research and training on behalf of the Indian Council of Medical Research and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, as also the Bombay University.
The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), which was founded by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Bombay Government in 1945, owes its origin to Dr. Homi Bhabha and the enlightened house of Tatas. It was initially started out of the funds provided by the Dorabji Tata Trust, the Bombay Government and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, at temporary premises at Peddar Road, declared open by Sir John Colville, Governor of Bombay, on 19 December 1945. (The work had commenced on 1 June 1945 at the Indian Institute of Science,Bangalore, and its venue was shifted to Peddar Road in December 1945.) The Institute shifted to the old Yatch Club in September 1949 and then to present campus at Colaba. The Atomic Energy Commission of the Government of India, established in 1948 at the instance of Dr. Bhabha and JawaharJal Nehru, was faced with the acute problem of the shortage of nuclear scientists. The Government of India, therefore, entrusted to the TIFR a concerted programme of training scientists for the future requirements of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1948-49. It was in February 1956 that the Government of India recognised the TIFR as the national centre for advanced study in Nuclear Physics and Mathematics, and a tripartite agreement was concluded between the Government of India, the Bombay Government and the Dorabji Tata Trust, in April 1956, as regards the financing and management of the organisation. (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, p. 160.) There is no parallel to this institute in India which has made great contributions to the theory of elementary particles and advanced studies in Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology. The country owes a debt of gratitude to the TIFR for producing scientists of international reputation such as Dr. Homi Bhabha, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, Dr. H. N. Sethna, Dr. Raja Ramanna and Dr. Jayant Naralikar.
Institute of Science : Dr. Dugald Mackichan, who made a great impress on the educational life of Western India, inspired the necessity of scientific research and an institution devoted to science in Bombay in 1903. Shortly Dr. Morris W. Traverse also stressed the importance of such an institution. Lord Sydenham took the initiative and appealed to the generous citizens of Bombay. Sir Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney (He was called " Readymoney" because he was always ready to give money in charity.) pioneered the project by donating Rs. 3.25 lakhs for the building of the Institute and Rs. 4.75 lakhs for a public hall, which is still known after him. Sir Jacob Sassoon made another magnificent donation of Rs. 10 lakhs, while Sir Currimbhoy Ibrahim generously donated Rs. 4. 50 lakhs. (Of this fund, one lakh rupees were reserved for endowment of scholarships for Muslim students of the Institute.) A total of Rs. 25 lakhs including Rs. 5 lakhs by the Government of Bombay were collected for the building of the Institute. The foundation stone was laid by Lord Sydenham on 5 April 1911. King George V was pleased to allow the word ' Royal' to be associated with the name of the Institute. The building was completed in 1915. But it was requisitioned by Government for the Gerard Freeman Thomas Hospitals, in memory of the son of Lord Willingdon who was killed in the First World War. Even after cessation of the War, the building was not allowed to be used for its legitimate purpose. It was on 27 March 1920 that the Governor of Bombay, Leslie Wilson formally inaugurated the Royal Institute of Science and the Cowasji Jehangir Hall (University of Bombay, Centenary Souvenir, 1957.) Since then this premier Institute in India has contributed immensely in various fields of scientific research, and some of the scientists produced by it have adorned honourable seats in the Indian Science Congress. It was after Independence that it was renamed as Institute of Science.
With the increasing interest in social service, there was a keenly felt need for professional education of social workers in Bombay. The Sir Dorabji Tata Trust in keeping with its rich traditions, came forward, and founded the Sir Sorabji Tata Graduate School of Social Work in 1936 which was renamed as Tata Institute of Social Sciences in 1944. (Ibid., p. 169.) The Institute is recognised to guide students for Ph.D. degree of the Bombay University.
The Mumbai Marathi Grantha Sangrahalaya, established in 1898, (Ibid., p. 150.) has been rendering excellent reading and research facilities to citizens of Bombay. It has had the benefit of guidance of eminent public men like M. G. Ranade, Bhalchandra Bhatavadekar, Lokamanya Tilak, M. R. Jayakar, P. B. Gajendragadkar and S. K. Patil and eminent scholars like P. V. Kane, A. K. Priolkar, N. R. Phatak, P. M. Joshi and K. P. Kulkarni. The Marathi Samshodhan Mandal was established as its wing in 1948.
The Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society is one of the most distinguished institutions of its type in India. The names of several distinguished scholars of Bombay are connected with it. They included Bhau Daji Lad, Telang, V. N. Mandlik, R. G. Bhandarkar, Bhagwanlal Indraji, Jadunath Sarkar, P. V. Kane, Erskine Perry, John Wilson, James Mackintosh, James Campbell, Dr. Buist, Dr. Bird, John Malcolm, Maneckji Cursetji, Prof. Orlebar, Malcolmson, Carter, Dr. Lisboa, Buhler, Peterson, Dr. Gerson da Cunha, George Grierson, John Marshall, Ganganath Jha, Prof. Thomas, V. S. Sukthankar and many others. (A.D.Pusalker andV. G.Dighe, Bombay—-Story of the Island City (Bombay, 1949). The Bombay Literary Society owed its origin in 1804 to James Mackintosh. It was in 1825 that the Royal Asiatic Society of London was founded which adopted the Bombay Society as its child. The latter was made an integral part of the former under the appellation of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1829. It received gifts of money and books from princely Bombay men like Jagannath Shankarshet, Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney and Premchand Raichand. It now functions as a central library. (Details can be seen in Chapter 18 of this Gazetteer.)

The Bombay Historical Society, established in 1925, has done a good deal of work relating to research in Indian history, epigraphy, archaeology, numismatics and allied subjects, more particularly on Bombay and Western India. It is functioning in association with the Prince of Wales Museum. (Pusalker and Dighe, op. cit.)

The Gujarat Research Society at Khar was founded in 1936 for promo­tion and co-ordination of research in all branches of knowledge, particularly with reference to Gujarat. (See Chapter 18 for details.) The Indian Historical Research Institute of the St. Xavier's College founded in about 1925, maintains a historical and archaeological museum and rare books and manuscripts, and an excellent reference library. It was founded by Father Heras. The Islamic Research Association was founded on 1 February 1933 for encouragement of Islamic culture, religion, history, literature and biography. It has published several volumes on history, religion, etc.
The K. R. Cama Oriental Institute inaugurated on 18 December 1916, was founded in memory of the late Kharshedji Rastamji Cama, (A. D. Pusalker and V. G. Dighe, op. cit.) the pioneer of the Avesta Studies on Western lines. The Institute is equipped with a good library of oriental literature and has always encouraged oriental studies.
The Prince of Wales Museum of Western India was established under Bombay Act No. Ill of 1909 in commemoration of the visit of Prince of Wales (later King George V) to Bombay in 1905. The magnificent building and galleries were raised through munificent donations by Currimbhoy Ibrahim, Cowasji Jehangir, Ratan Tata, Dorabji Tata, etc. The building, on completion in 1914, was allowed to be used as a war hospital during the First World War, after which the Museum comprising three main sections—Art, Archaeology and Natural History was opened to the public in 1922. (Ibid). The exhibits include a rich varied collection including the loan collections of the Royal Asiatic Society, specimens lent by the Bombay Natural History Society, the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute and several hoards from public institutions and individuals.

The Victoria and Albert Museum, now known as Dr. Bhau Daji Lad Museum, was founded in 1858 and finally housed in the Victoria Gardens, where it was inaugurated on 22 May 1872. Its ownership was transferred to the Bombay Municipality from 1 October 1885. The Museum stands testimony to the pioneering zeal of Dr. Bhau Daji.



In Bombay in the eighteenseventies, majority of the communities became aware of the necessity to reorganise themselves so as to enable them to present a united front on questions relating to them. There was also a movement for internal reforms to losen the shackles of conservatism and ostracism. However, there was an increasing tension between the communities. Traditional enmities, such as those between Parsis and Muslims, flared into large-scale rioting in 1851 and 1874. The Parsis very often referred to the alleged favouritism of Hindus by Government in the matter of employment. (D. Framjee Karaka, The Parsees : Their History, Manners, Customs and Religion (London, 1858), p. 38).

There was an unprecedented awareness of education in several communities, particularly the Parsis and Hindus, in those days. In 1842 Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai established a fund which evolved into the Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai Parsi Benevolent Institution for education of the Parsis in Bombay and Gujarat. (Ibid., pp. 285.88.) B. M. Malabari was one of the champions of education and regeneration of cultural heritage of the Parsis. Jamshetji Jijibhai, the first Baronet, upheld the interests of his community till his death. The succeeding second Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai was rather unconcerned about social involvement. The other enlightened Parsis of the day who took great interest in community advancement included Sorabji Jamshetji, N. M. Wadia, K. N. Kabraji, D. M.Petit, M. F. Pandey, H. H. Sethna and K. F. Parekh.

Riots broke out in the city between Parsis and Muslims in 1851. "An article written by a Parsi Youth on Prophet of Arabia gave umbrage to the Muslims. At a meeting held on 7 October 1851, they proclaimed a. jihad (holy war) against the Parsis. They overwhelmed the small police force on duty and marched triumphantly to the Parsi quarters of the Bombay town. The Parsis were 'belaboured mercilessly by the rioters'. 6 For weeks together that part of Bombay was a scene of pillage and destruction, and the Parsis had to put up with shocking atrocities such as defilement of corpses.' Throughout the trouble, the Parsi community failed to secure any police protection." (R. C. Majumdar (ed.), History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I, p. 493.)

In February 1874 similar riots broke out in Bombay between Parsis and Muslims. An objectionable reference to the Prophet in a publication by a Parsi gave rise to the unfortunate episode. The publication was suppressed by Government, and the Governor of Bombay, Sir Philip E. Wodehouse (1872-1877) laid the blame for the riot on the Parsis. The Muslims " invaded Parsi places of worship, tore up the prayer-books, extinguished the sacred fires and subjected the fire-temples to various indignities. Parsis were attacked  in the streets  and in  their houses, and free fights took place all over the city....... Considerable loss of life and damage to property were caused." (Homi Mody, op. cit., pp. 81-88.) The riot continued for several days till the military was called out.

Both Pherozeshah Mehta and Dadabhai Naoroji, who were eye­witnesses and who could not be accused of having any special animosity against the Muslims or the Government, laid emphasis on the callousness of the police and the indifference of the Government. The attitude of the Commissioner of Police was particularly hostile and objectionable. Even the Governor advised a Parsi deputation, that waited on him, to make its peace with the Muhammedans and to learn the lesson of defending itself without dependence on the authorities. (Ibid.)

It is noteworthy that but for the question of riots, the Parsi leadership in the seventies was far from united. In 1877 they were divided on the issue of leadership of the community when it was proposed by Pherozeshah Mehta that the third Jamshetji Jijibhai should be formally acknowledged as the head of the Bombay Parsis. Although the intelligentsia rallied behind Mehta, 600 eminent Parsis met on 25 July 1877 under the chairmanship of K.N. Cama to oppose the above proposition. On 29 July 1877, 5,000 Parsis with F. N. Patel, Pherozeshah, S. S. Bengali, Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney, H.N. Saklatwala, Naoroji Furdunji and H. D. Pleader met in Bombay, and resolved that the present Sir Jamshetji should act in concert with the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat, as also the heads and leaders of the community, and enjoy the position of a president. (Times of India, 31 July 1877.)

The Pathare Prabhus, among the Marathi speaking communities, were also aware of the need for community reforms. The Pathare Reform Association was founded by Moroba Kanoba and Nana Moroji in 1863 for helping persons from the caste and fighting a crusade for widow remarriage. However, the Association could not rise to expectations till J. J. Jayakar and his friends appeared on the scene and strived for its revival. It was in 1879 that the caste managed to put its affairs on a more regular footing. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 225.)

In 1876 the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus of Bombay organised themselves to raise funds for improvement of their educational and social condition. The Panchkalshis, a prosperous old caste of Bombay, but depressed to the level of carpenters due to the loss of their land to the Portuguese, also were awakened to raise their status by education. They preferred to call themselves Somavanshi Kshatriyas, and introduced many reforms in marriage and other rituals. In 1884, they founded the Kshatriya Union Club for the cause of education and care of the poor.

The Sonars under the able leadership of Jagannath Shankarshet's son Vinayakrao founded the Daivadnya Dnatiya Association for welfare of the community. (Times of India Directory, 1869.) The Daivadnya Caste Charitable Fund was organised for monetary assistance to kinsmen in marriages and education. It published its own newspaper, the Daivadnya Samachar.

The first Brahmin Club in Bombay was established in about 1890. This was followed by clubs and conferences of Saraswats, Prabhus and Shimpis. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 226.) Mahatma Phule opened a branch of the Satya Shodhak Samaj in Bombay in 1874. The Hindu Gujaratis established the Gujarati Social Union in 1879, while the Jain Association was formed in 1882 in Bombay. The coming of the Jesuits encouraged foundation of manyschools. The St. Xavier's College started by them in 1869 was an important addition to Bombay.

Bombay owed a lot to Kamruddin Tyabji and Badruddin Tyabji. The former was the city's first Muslim solicitor, while the latter was the first Muslim barrister. The Tyabji brothers promoted the cause of Muslim education and social reforms. They were joined in their endeavours by Mahomed Ali Roghay, a very rich man from the ship-building family, and a great liberal. Roghay's interest in Syed Ahmad Khan brought him into contact with Ghulam Muhammad Munshi. At the latter's suggestion Roghay consulted the two Tyabjis, and in March 1876 the Anjuman-i-Islam of Bombay was established, (Times of India, 27 May 1876.) under presidentship of Kamruddin Tyabji. R.M. Sayani, (Sayani was the only Khoja pleader in Bombay in 1870s, and was a member of Government Commission on Laws relating to Khojas.) Badruddin and a group of Khojas were among the founder members, besides the three mentioned above. The Anjuman aimed at amelioration of the Muslims, and at improvement in their educational and social condition. As per the Times of India (2 October 1876) Muslims of Bombay had no real identity as they were far from united. The Anjuman opened the Anjuman-i-Islam school for English education through Urdu medium in September 1880. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 236.) The Tyabjis did a great deal in regard to Muslim education and unity, although their position was never undisputed. One Dr. Kassim, trained in the Grant Medical College as a surgeon, was their great critic. He was instrumental in foundation of the Bombay National Mahommedan Association in April 1882, as a rival body for Muslim welfare. (Ibid., p. 239.) It was, however, soon realised that the Muslims languished behind other communities in education, employment and material progress. This feeling was aired before the Education Commission (1882) by Badruddin Tyabji and Sayani. It was admitted by the Bombay Government also that there was an exceedingly small proportion of Muslims in the public service. ( Ibid., p. 242.)

On behalf of the Anjuman the Tyabji brothers drew up a memorial on 25 April 1885, on the question of Muslim education and employment. It demanded a share for Muslims in proportion to their population. After considering the pros and cons the Muslims were guaranteed a number of free studentships in Government high schools. The number of free studentships available to advanced classes, viz. Brahmins, Parsis and Europeans was curtailed. This measure came in for criticism by these classes and the press.

Meanwhile, despite the personal differences of the past and the political differences heralded by the founding of the Congress, the Muslims of Bombay appeared to have moved closer together for communal purposes in the 1880 (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., p. 246.)



The entire history of the struggle for freedom and the mass political mobilisation in India is intimately connected with the Indian National Congress. The foundation of the Congress was one of the most important political events in the later nineteenth century. It soon became recognised as the symbol of nationalism in this country. " Few other nationalist organisations in Africa and Asia can match the long history of the Indian National Congress or rival its political sophistication, and even fewer have survived so successfully the ending of the imperial rule. Almost everything about the Congress is remarkable, and yet it did not spring into existence by chance. It emerged within a particular constitutional context and it was this that determined the form the Congress took and ensured its ultimate pre-eminence in Indian Politics." (Gordon Johnson, Provincial Politics and Indian Nationalism : Bombay and the Indian National Congress, 1880-1915 (Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 5-6.)

A study of the Congress is central to any understanding of the political history of Bombay as also of India after 1885. The Congress, in the initial stages, found a congenial home in Bombay and Poona. At least for the first about 40 years of the organisation's history many of its most important leaders and constant supporters came from Bombay city and Poona. The politicians from these two cities provided the core of national leadership.

Whatever might be the genesis of the Congress, the credit of organising it rightly or wrongly goes to Allan Octavian Hume, a retired I.C.S. Officer, who " was deeply impressed by the general discontent in India threatening imminent danger to the Government." (R. C. Majumdar, History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I, p. 389.) He discussed his plans with many leaders of Pune and Bombay, such as Justice M. G. Ranade, Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, K. T. Telang and Badruddin Tyabji. The ball was set rolling, and the culminating point was that the Indian National Union decided in March 1885, to hold a conference at Pune from 25 to 31 December, and immediately a circular letter was sent all over. Pune was considered the most central and suitable venue, and accordingly the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha forming a reception committee made extensive preparations. The place selected was Peshwe Park at the foot of Parvati hill. However, the venue of the first Congress was shifted at the eleventh hour to Bombay on account of the outbreak of cholera epidemic in Pune.

The Bombay Presidency Association came to the rescue and promptly shouldered the responsibility of the first historical meeting of the Congress. The Association convened the meeting in concert with the Sarvajanik Sabha. The trustees of the Goculdas Tejpal Sanskrit College and Boarding Trust, Telang being one of them, placed the grand building above the Gowalia Tank at the disposal of the Bombay Presidency Association and also supervised the furnishing and lighting of these large premises on behalf of the' Association who played a host. The Representatives began to arrive in the morning of 27 December, by which time preparations were complete.

It is noteworthy that Europeans like Sir W. Wedderburn, Justice Jardine, Colonel Phelps and Prof. Wordsworth(Principal of Elphinstone College.) and several leading citizens of Bombay welcomed the Representatives and expressed their sympathy with the endeavour, and participated in the Congress.

The first meeting took place on 28 December 1885. Very close on 100 gentlemen attended, but a considerable number of them being Government servants like M. G. Ranade (Member of the Legislative Council and Small Cause Court Judge of Poona), Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar (Deccan College), Mr. D. S. White (Eurasian Association), R. Raghunath Rao (Collector of Madras), Lalla Baijnath (Agra), Prof. A. V. Kattawate (Ahmedabad), Prof. Kadambi Sundararaman and Mr. T. N. Iyer, did not participate in the political discussions, although they gave some advice. The number of active participants was 72. (Source  Material for a History   of Freedom   Movement, 1885-1920,   Vol. II (Government of Bombay, Bombay, 1958), p. 14.)

The worthy speakers on the grand occasion included Dadabhai Naoroji, Hume, W. C. Bannerjee (who was elected president), K. T. Telang, Subrahmania Aiyar, Pherozeshah and Wacha. Dadabhai made a strong plea for the transfer of the actual Government of India from England to India under the simple controlling power of the Parliament and Secretary of State. He also made a plea that the whole power of taxation and Legislation be transferred to representative councils in India, with full financial control and interpellary powers. Pherozeshah's share in the proceedings was not inconsiderable. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 104.)

" The Congress was the culmination of much that had been hoped for by the Bombay intelligentsia, and, of the 17 delegates sent by the city, only one, Tribhovandas Mangaldas Nathubhai, had any connection with shetiadom. The delegates consisted of 7 Parsis, 5 Maratha Hindus, 3 Gujarati Hindus and 2 Muslims, and comprised nearly all the names— Telang, Mehta, Wacha, Sayani, Wagle, Malabari, Yajnik and Dadabhai Naoroji—prominent in Bombay politics over the past decades. Of the 17, 11 were in some way connected with the legal profession.....Para­ doxically, although they had still not captured their own city, they had been able to unite to capture the Indian political leadership of the country." (Christine Dobbin, op. cit., pp. 215-16.)

The delegates were mostly lawyers, school teachers, newspaper editors and others who represented the intellectual power of India. They demanded political power and political changes giving an increased share to natives in the governance of this country. The Indian Council came in for wrath, while a Standing Committee of Parliament was demanded in place of the former. There was an expression of patriotic feelings, but a tone of loyalty to the British Crown pervaded all proceedings. The Queen Empress was applauded, and the beneficial effects of British rule, such as, education, law and order and material benefits were mentioned with gratitude.

In an editorial on the Congress, the Times(The Times, London, cf, Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, pp. 18-21.) (of London) observed that Bombay had been making a noteworthy effort to substantiate its claim to be a leading city of India. It was at Bombay that India had given proof of national spirit for the first time. The Congress was not satisfied with the slender political power which the natives of India possessed. It demanded a larger share in the deliberative and executive functions of Government. The memory of Lord Ripon's administration was still held in honour in Bombay. The Congress was in favour of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the working of the Indian administration. The delegates had sketched a scheme of reforms, (This was to be put up before the Royal Commission.) which included, (i) abolition of the Indian Council; (ii) constitution of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons; (iii) the Supreme Legislative Council and Provincial Councils in India to be expanded with more elected members; (iv) the examination for the Indian Civil Service (I.C.S.) should be held simul­taneously in England and India by removing the disabilities imposed on natives; (v) military expenditure to be deduced; (vi) customs duty to be reimposed, etc. (The Times disapproved most of the demands, and sarcastically opined, " If India can govern itself, our stay in the country is no longer called for".)

The Times observed that every important political society in India sent its delegates to Bombay, but no Mahomedan took any part in the proceedings, and that the question of social reforms was not even touched. K. T. Telang, one of the secretaries of the Congress, however, had made it clear that two leading Muslim leaders, viz., R. M. Sayani and A. M. Dharamsi did attend the Congress. Both of them were graduates of the University and attorneys of standing at the Bombay High Court. Sayani was the Sheriff of Bombay the previous year, and was appointed by Government as a member of the Khoja Law Commission. He was also a member of the Municipal Corporation and Town Council of Bombay for many years. Mr. Dharamsi was also a member of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Tyabji brothers who were important office bearers of the Bombay Presidency Association could not attend because they were out of station. Telang further observed that the main object of the Congress was a political one. Hence the question of social reforms was allowed to be raised on the third day of the meeting when Diwan Bahadur Raghunath Rao and M. G. Ranade gave eloquent addresses on social questions. (K. T. Telang's letter, dated 9th March 1886 to the Times, cf Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, pp. 22-23.)

The main result of the first session was that it quickened the political consciousness of the people. The Resolutions passed by it were widely circulated and discussed by the local political associations. The newspapers also heartily welcomed the new organisation as the most powerful organ of Indian political opinion.

The Congress was always in need of money, and it was to Bombay that other Indian politicians looked to provide it. In the initial stages the largest contributions often came from the Parsis, such as D. M. Petit, although Gujarati rich persons like Varjivandas Madhavdas were also persuaded to donate. However, the city politicians occasionally resented the burden of fund collections. In June 1889 D. E. Wacha reported to Dadabhai Naoroji: "Pherozeshah and Telang flatly say they cannot dance attendance on the rich and influential.". (Dadabhai Naoroji MSS, file I: Wacha to Dadabhai, cf Christine Dobbin, op, cif) The founding of the Congress also created other strains in Bombay. The political leaders of the Parsis and Muslims, who had worked together with other groups in Bombay in the past, now split among themselves over the wisdom of supporting the Congress movement. (Ibid.)

The second session of the Congress was held in Calcutta in December 1886 under the presidentship of a Bombay luminary, Dadabhai Naoroji. Bombay was represented by Pherozeshah, N. G. Chandavarkar, Dadabhai Naoroji and many others. The third session, held at Madras in 1887, was also presided over by an eminent Bombay leader, Badruddin Tyabji.
Thereafter the sessions of the Congress became regular annual events. The objective of this study is, however, limited to the political history of Greater Bombay. Hence the scope of narration of Congress activities in the following pages is limited to the sessions of the Congress in Bombay, and the political activities of the city politicians. The narration is focused mainly to the association of Bombay politicians with the national movement, and their role in the Indian politics.

The Bombay politicians provided the core of national leadership. The reasons are obvious. They were the beneficiary of liberal Western education, and came closely in contact with British institutions and political thought. Their literate occupations and business interests also brought them into contact with the day-to-day working of the Government and the European Community. Naturally they were tempted to politics. It is noteworthy that 22 of the 39 non-official members of the legislature who held office between 1893 and 1899 habitually lived in Bombay city itself. Many of them represented mofussil interests on the Council and were proposed by constituencies in the districts. The rules for election to the Council laid down a minimum qualification for members of the Council based on property. Thus, many men who usually lived in Bombay were able to use the|fact of holding some property outside as a circumstance qualifying them for election from that district. The Bombay Government had also observed that a flexible interpretation of the rule about ownership of property " gives perhaps undue weight to residents of Bombay, (but) it is difficult to interpret the rule more strictly without excluding some most valuable candidates. While a stricter interpretation might ensure a more exact representation of local interests.............. it would certainly entail a lower standard of intelligence and education among the candidates for election by bodies outside the city of Bombay.". (Bombay Legislative Proceedings, 1899, Vol. 5772, India Office Records) Most of the native legislators were lawyers from the city and a few from Poona.

The Bombay politicians expressed their demands through the Bombay Presidency Association, the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and the Congress. The demands related mainly to the following issues : (i) reform of the Legislative Councils in India to include more natives, (ii) reform of the civil service so as to enable Indians an easier entry into Government, (iii) reform of judicial administration on lines of English law, (iv) abrogation of discriminatory racial legislation, (v) economic development, and (vi) changes in taxation laws. For example, K. T. Telang moved a resolution in the 1885 Congress session recommending reform of the Legislative Councils. This proposal was repeated in some form or the other every year until 1894, and intermittently for many years later on. Another example, Dadabhai Naoroji told the 1885 Congress in Bombay that increased Indianisation of the administration was the most important key to our advancement. This feeling was echoed in various public meetings in the city.

Bombay men attained prominence in the upper ranks of the judiciary also. Telang, Tyabji, Chandavarkar and Ranade, all sat on the bench of the Bombay High Court, and were highly respected by Indians and the English alike. They were also deeply concerned about the poverty of India. Naoroji's economic  essays exercised an  overwhelming influence on economic thought in India at the end of the nineteenth century. He formulated the theory of economic drain purporting that Indian poverty was mainly due to a drain of wealth to England. (R. P. Masani, Dadabhai Naoroji: The Grand Old Man of India (Kavyalaya Publishers, Mysore, 1957). He left for England in 1886 for contesting election to the British Parliament. But he was defeated in the election. He was later on elected to the Parliament in 1892, (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 153.) and was the first Indian Member in the British Parliament.

The Bombay Presidency Association had taken over from all earlier political clubs in Bombay. Many of its leaders made Congress politics their life's work. They considered that control of the Congress was of vital importance. Dinshaw Edulji Wacha was the secretary of the Congress from 1895 to 1913. He acted practically in every capacity on behalf of the more powerful patrons of the organisation in Bombay. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 43.) During the more important years 1903-08 Gopal Krishna Gokhale was appointed as an additional joint secretary. (Hume retired permanently to England in 1892 and the main burden fell on the joint secretary.) He was succeeded by D. A. Khare in 1908, who helped Wacha in paper-work. " All three of these men were members of the Bombay Presidency Association, and it is to this association that we must look for the hard core of Congress leadership during this period. When the leadership of Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta came under attack between 1904 and 1908, the Bombay Presidency Association's hold over such formal Congress organisation as existed was to'prove a decisive advantage." (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 43.)

Bombay was honoured again as a venue of the fifth session of the Congress in December 1889, although Poona had shown considerable interest. A consideration of the relative merits of Poona and Bombay went in favour of the latter city. The session proved to be the most memorable gathering of the " unconventional conventions " that had yet taken place. Very few Congress sessions indeed have surpassed it in brilliance. (Homi Mody, op. cit., 134.) Sir William Wedderburn, who had retired from service two years ago, and was loved and honoured by all, was the president of the session. (Glowing tributes were paid tohim at the time of his retirement from office, by the leaders of public opinion in Bombay at the Town Hall. The same feelings found expression on the occasion of the 1889 session.) Charles Bradlaugh, a sympathiser of the Indian national move­ment, had graced the occasion. His magnetic eloquence had thrilled audiences in England. He took keen interest in Indian questions. His object in visiting India (on the occasion of the 1889 session) was toascertain personally the maturity of views of the educated Indians on certain points in his Bill for the reforms of the Legislative Councils in India. The presence of Sir Wedderburn and Mr. Bradlaugh, who had come from England, was regarded as a further stimulus to the Indian cause." No Englishman living is more trusted or more respected through­out India than Sir William Wedderburn, and the news that he had consented to come out to India to preside over the assembly, undoubtedly gave a further stimulus to the country.". (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, pp. 92-93.)

It was a great assembly with 1,248 delegates(There were 1889 delegates according Homi Mody, op. cit.) who represented about three million people in India who had taken a direct part in the election. The delegates included representatives of the Sarvajanik Sabhas of Poona, Satara, Ahmadnagar, Wai and Berar as well as other bodies in Belgaum, Surat, Broach, Nagpur, Nadiad, Thana, Vasai, Ratnagiri, Ahmedabad and Bombay. There were even delegates from the caste associations in Bombay. (J. Masselos, op. cit., p. 244.)

A very large and picturesque structure was erected on a site at Byculla belonging to Sir Albert Sassoon, (He was head of the Jews in India.) and next to his grand mansion, the " Sans-Souci", to accommodate the delegates and visitors, who numbered nearly 6,000. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 135.) The burden of making arrangements on the occasion was shouldered by Dinshaw Wacha, the secretary of the Reception Committee. His untiring efforts to promote the success of the Bombay session were later on appreciated by the Reception Committee. Pherozeshah was the chairman of the Reception Committee. Mr. Bradlaugh was charmed at the magnificent deliverance and eloquence of Pherozeshah. Many others like D. A. Khare and Motilal M. Munshi, also from Bombay, really did exert themselves.

The Bombay gathering in the quaint picturesque hall represented all the multitudinous clans and peoples of India. A considerable section of Europeans attended. Not less than 10 lady delegates graced the assembly, one elected by men at a public meeting and the others by various ladies associations. (Official Reports of the Congress Sessions,) They included European and native Christians, a Parsi, an orthodox Hindu, and three Brahmo Samaj ladies. Pandita Ramabai Ranade was one of the most distinguished persons in the assembly, and was known for her ardent services, well-known not only in India but also in Europe and America. (Ibid.)

Although open opposition had ceased, a considerable section of the European officials and police were still credited by the people with a secret hostility towards the Congress. There was, however, no opposition from them.

Pherozeshah addressed the session with the best exhibition of his gifts of oratory, full of sarcasm, banter and ridicule of opponents. It gave a vindication of loyalty to the Government and of inflinching national spirit. The policy of the Congress was seditious, but conservative of public welfare and dignity of the Crown. The Congress was credited with the growth of the national idea among the people, and with the initiation of a series of reforms. Pherozeshah dealt with the opposition to the Congress which had culminated in the formation of the Anti-Congress United Patriotic Association. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 136. ) The speech was well received and appreciated. The newspapers spoke of it as an eloquent and vigorous pronouncement.

Two incidents in this memorable Congress are worth mentioning. One was an address to Mr. Bradlaugh, which was in the nature of a resolution moved by Pherozeshah on the second day of the session. It was presented in the Congress Hall attended by Europeans and Indians. Mr. Bradlaugh's speech appealed and won the audience. He encouraged them to persevere ceaselessly. A resolution was passed to collect a sum of Rs. 45,000 for the expenses of Congress work in India and England. (Ibid, p. 139.) A handsome collec­tion was made instantly. A Congress deputation was also appointed to represent in England the Congress opinion on political reforms. Five members of the deputation to England, Surendranath Bannerji, R. N. Mudholkar, W. C. Bannerji, Norton and Hume, went and addressed a large public meeting and many private meetings, and rendered a useful service to the Indian cause. (Others on the deputation were Pherozeshah, George Yule, Adam,  Manmohan Ghosh, Sharfuddin and J. E. Howard.)

The Congress of 1889 thus proved an unqualified success from every point of view. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 139,)
Pherozeshah was chosen president of the Calcutta Congress held from 26 to 30 December 1890. His devotion to public movements, oratorial excellence, generosity and towering personality, elevated him to the presidentship. His election was greeted by the public of Bombay and the press.

In 1889, the Parsis of Bombay mounted an attack on the Congress. They, however, did not get a following outside. The editor of the Rast Goftar, K. N. Kabraji, once a staunch member of Young Bombay, had organised the attack. His opposition was partly due to an apprehension of Government disapproval of Congress, and partly due to strained relationship with Pherozeshah.  However,  Parsis   attended the  1889 Bombay session five times more than the earlier sessions, although they were apathetic. The non-Brahmins of Bombay and Pune had also organised a movement against Congress in 1889 on the ground that it was the monopoly of Brahmins. The Din Bandhu (founded in 1871) and the Din Bandhu Sarvajanik Sabha under N. M. Lokhande launched the attack. An anti-Congress petition was circulated, and a series of meetings were organised. But their petition did not succeed.

The Ripon Club, founded by Pherozeshah in 1885 for social and semi-political objects, occupied a distinctive place among the social institutions of the day in Bombay.

It appears that some of the chiefs of Native States had subscribed to the Reception Committee of the Congress of 1889. Some of them had contributed out of fear that their mis-government might be exposed. The British Government had always discouraged the chiefs from spending State money on philanthropic schemes outside their own territories. Even contributions from personal private funds by the chiefs were looked with hostility. (P. D. Volume 212 of 1889.)

Pherozeshah's presidential speech in the 1890 session at Calcutta "was a sober, eminently practical and refreshingly vigorous presentment of the Congress cause".(Homi Mody, op. cit, p. 141,) He pledged support of the Parsis to the national cause. The question of reforms of Legislative Councils was also dealt with. The Bombay Gazette observed that Bombay by providing a president had contributed something of its own spirit to the assembly.
On 12 April 1890, Lord Reay handed over the reins of governorship of Bombay to Lord Harris. This event was regretted in Bombay whose fortunes he had guided with ability and a high sense of duty. He was instrumental in giving to the city the charter of local self-government, measures of technical education and a spirit of progress. The Bombay Presidency Association, hence gave a worthy send off to him. (Ibid., p. 148,)

Developments in Bombay City : It may be interesting to refer here to the enactment of the Bombay Municipal Act of 1888. The Bill was introduced in the Legislative Council in July 1887. It was drafted mainly by the Legal Remembrancer (Mr. Naylor) and the Municipal Com­missioner (Charles Ollivant). The only Indian of outstanding merit in the Council at the time was Mr. Telang. Lord Reay appointed Pherozeshah as additional member of the Legislative Council which position he held from 1887 to 1893. In its original form the Bill was retrograde as it sought to enlarge the authority of the Commissioner at the expense of the Corporation, and as it reserved to Government wide powers of initiative and interference in civic matters. It was referred to the select committee which comprised Pherozeshah and Telang, beside high officials. Dinshaw Wacha helped Pherozeshah in this process, the latter's performance being excellent. (For deeper study, readers may refer to Dinshaw Wacha's graphic history of municipal institutions in his Rise and Growth of Bombay Municipal Government, 1913.) The strenuous efforts of Pherozeshah and Telang, backed by Frank Forbes Adam, helped removing many drawbacks in the Bill. Lord Reay's fair attitude also contributed to enactment of the Bombay Municipal Act of 1888. The Act fulfilled the cherished desires of Telang and other Bombay men. In the Legislative Council, Lord Reay paid tributes to Pherozeshah and Telang who laboured for five years to give Bombay a pure and progressive charter of local self-govern­ment. It is remarkable that while the Bombay luminaries deserve the credit for the charter, the liberalism of Lord Reay was equally responsible for the same. He set a liberal tone to the Council, and the debates through­out maintained a high level of ability, moderation and good sense. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 113,) This piece of legislation gave Bombay an "inestimable boon of a sound and progressive municipal administration, which has been regarded as a model for the whole country. (Ibid., p. 114,)As observed by the Duke of Connaught, the municipal constitution of Bombay " bears the indelible mark of genius impressed upon it by the late Sir Pherozeshah Mehta ".

After his tenure in the Legislative Council (1887-93), he was elected to the Viceroy's Legislative Council in 1893. He strongly opposed the Police Bill in the Council in 1895, which elevated his public position immensely.

Arthur Crawford inquiry of 1889 was one of the notable events of Lord Reay's regime. The dominating and dynamic officer, after his brilliant but extravagant administration of Bombay as Municipal Commissioner, was, at the time of his tragic downfall, the Commissioner of a Division. It was during this tenure that an unparalleled corruption prevailed, which amounted to a public scandal. He developed a widespread network of graft and bribery involving local officers. There was a furore all over; which led to the appointment of a Commission of Enquiry by Lord Reay in 1889. Although Arthur Crawford was adjudged not guilty of the specific charges levelled against him, the Commission held that grave irregularities had been committed during his regime. He had, therefore, to resign from service.

This created a furious campaign of vilification and misrepresentation against Lord Reay's Government among the organs of bureaucracy. The note written by the Inspector-General of Police who was in charge of the case, excited the Parsi community. The incident was cleverly manipulated by the opponents of Lord Reay's Government. Pherozeshah played a dominating role in persuading the Patsis to abstain from agitation. The episode did, however, a considerable damage to the political life in Bombay.

The Governorship of Lord Reay (1886-90) was characterised by many beneficial developments in Bombay. Besides the charter of local self-government, a good deal of urban improvement and street widening was executed. There was a considerable expansion of education. The Acworth Leprosy Hospital, named after the then Municipal Commissioner, was established in 1890. (Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. II, 1909, p. 186.) The Joint Schools Committee was founded for mass education. The Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, one of the pioneers in the field, was founded in 1887. Much good work was accomplished in the matter of communication, education, medical facilities and sanitation in the city. (Ibid.)

The Jubilee celebration in honour of Queen Victoria's reign was celebrated in 1887 at Bombay under Lord Reay. The Victoria Terminus of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, a colossal monument of Gothic architecture, which is one of the finest stations in the world from the architectural point of view, was completed in 1888 at a cost of Rs. 16,35,562. On the Jubilee Day 1887, the building was named in honour of Queen Victoria. The station proper was erected and opened earlier on 1 January 1882. The foundation stone of the St. George Hospital was laid by Lord Reay in February 1889 on the ruins of the old Fort St. George. It was originally named as the European Hospital, the present name being given by Lord Reay at the time of the foundation. The Government Central Press building which was subsequently occupied by the Elphinstone College, and the Presidency Magistrate's Court on the Esplanade were also commenced during these years. The first sluice of the Victoria Dock was opened by the Governor's wife in February 1888. The Merewether Graving Dock was opened by the subsequent Governor in 1891. (Ibid., pp. 187-88.)

The philanthropists in the city also came forward with several schemes for public welfare. In January 1888, Sir Dinshaw Petit, an eminent millowner, offered more than a lakh for the construction of a hospital for women and children, as an extension of the J. J. Hospital. He founded a patho-bacteriological laboratory in the veterinary college at Parel, and subscribed handsomely to the foundation of a gymnastic club. The widow of Naoroji Wadia, Bai Motlibai, founded an obstetric hospital within the J. J. Hospital. Framji D. Petit donated nearly a lakh of rupees for the Laboratory in the Grant Medical College. The Albless family constructed the obstetric ward in the Cama Hospital. Mr. Cama, M. M. Bhavnagari and Dwarkadas Lallubhai also contributed generously for medical facilities, etc.

The great Tansa water-works and two well-known hospitals were opened in 1892 by the Marquis of Lansdowne. Technical schools and orphanages were opened and mills and factories increased before the end of the 19th century. Immense new dock-works had been projected. A number of other projects were also taken up.

The new building of the Elphifistone College was opened by Lord Reay on 4 February 1889. (C. Y. Chintamani (ed.), Speeches and Writings of the Honourable Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (Allahabad 1905,) p. 265.) Reay retired as one of the popular Governors of the Presidency. A public meeting was held in the Town Hall on 9 April 1890 for the purpose of arranging to raise a suitable memorial to commemorate the distinguished services of Lord Reay. Badruddin Tyabji and Pherozeshah appreciated the services of the former Governor in the fields of education, local self-government, justice and public comforts. (Ibid., p. 287.)

Shortly after Lord Reay left India, the relations between the Government and the Municipal Corporation became very strained. The bureaucracy was determined to impose its will on the body which was to be a self-governing institution. The Coiporation, led by Pherozeshah and others, however, wanted to guard its independence and dignity. One of the points of dispute was the comparative responsibility of the Government and the Corporation for the cost of primary education in Bombay. The protracted controversy dragged on for 17 years. The dispute was sparked off by a government letter to the Corporation, raising the entire question of their shares in respect of primary education. Under the Act of 1888, primary education was a joint liability, but the manner of sharing the liability was not clarified. The matter was discussed in the Corporation on 17 July 1890, Pherozeshah championing its cause. It was resented that the Government was shifting new burdens without transferring equivalent revenue. Pherozeshah held that Government had done very little for primary education, when the liability was on their shoulders, as was the case upto 1888. Now that it was a joint responsi­bility, they wanted the Corporation to bear all sorts of burdens. Municipal funds were to be saddled with mounting burden, which the Government never showed any inclination to shoulder. The Corporation was, however, saved from such an uncertain liability mainly because of the determined and skilful fight given by Pherozeshah. (Homi Mody, op. cit., pp. 149-150.)

Another point of dispute between the Government and the Corpo­ration was due to the insistence by the Government that the latter should provide a hospital for infectious diseases in Bombay, failing which a " bludgeon" clause provided in the Act of 1888, was to be used. It was a threat to the Corporation that the cost of the same would be recovered in a court of law. There was an acute controversy within and outside the municipality, as the dispute also related to the dignity of the local body. A. O. Hume congratulated Pherozeshah for his stand by which the municipality stood firmly. The Corporation represented to the Government of India on this issue. But the Government was very firm about its decision, " and in October 1892, for the first time in local politics, the . bludgeon' clause was applied, and the Corporation was bullied into submission to a high-handed and indefensible proceeding." (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 153.)

Pherozeshah enjoyed a commanding supreme position in the civic Government of the day. The Municipal Commissioners of the day were obliged to convince the ' Lion of Bombay ' on any measure contemplated by them, failing which the measure could not be carried through. He, however, never abused the power he had won by sheer force of character, ability and devotion to civic matters. (Ibid., p. 153.)

Dadabhai Naoroji's election to the British Parliament (He was elected from the Central Finsbury constituency in England.) in 1892, was one of the important occasions in the political history of modern India. It was a successful culmination of a seven year war, the opening campaigning of which had taken place in the rooms of the Association in 1885. The Bombay Presidency Association held a public meeting at the Town Hall on 23 July 1892, under the chairmanship of Dinshaw M. Petit, to congratulate the ' Grand Old Man' as the first native of India ever elected to the House of Commons. Lord Harris, the Governor, also expressed his pleasure through a message. The citizens of Bombay, in the meeting, gave " expression to their boundless satisfaction at the success which has crowned his unselfish and devoted exertions for the welfare of this country and which have earned for him the respect, affection, and admiration of the people." (Resolution moved by Pherozeshah Mehta, quoted from Speeches and Writings of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, edited by C. Y. Chintamani.) Dadabhai's election was upheld as a means of championing the Indian cause in the House of Commons. It enabled the discussions of the Indian question in the party politics in Great Britain, and a direct appeal to the British electors.

Dadabhai came for a brief spell to India to preside over the Lahore Congress in December 1893. There was a remarkable demonstration at a mass meeting of welcome to him in Bombay by her citizens. The elite of Bombay as also the working class in great multitude, gathered at the time of the Dadabhai's landing on the shores. Dadabhai was welcomed at Poona the next day in a public meeting organised by Lokmanya Tilak and his friends. Similar receptions were arranged at Lahore and other places on the way, Dinshaw Wacha accompanying him.

The enlargement of the Legislative Councils in 1892 offered the represen­tatives of the people an opportunity to criticise the administration. The first non-official member in all India to be elected to the new Councils was Pherozeshah. He was unanimously chosen by the Corporation, which had been empowered to return one representative. The first meeting of the provincial Legislative Council was held on 27 July 1893 at Pune, the monsoon capital of the Presidency. The other representatives included Ranade, Naoroji N. Wadia and Chimanlal Setalvad. The main questions before the Council were, Government grant to the University, the contri­bution of the Bombay Corporation to the city police force and separation of judicial from executive functions. The Corporation had to shoulder, under the Act of 1888, three-fourths of the cost of maintaining police in the city. This was ultimately changed in 1907, and the Corporation was spared of the liability of police expenses in return for taking over the full responsibility for primary education and medical relief. This issue is dealt with separately below. The problem of separation of judicial from executive functions, however, remained unsolved.

Justice K. T. Telang passed away on 1 September 1893 which cast a gloom over the city. He belonged to the earliest cadre of brilliant Elphinstonians who had devoted themselves to the advancement and upliftment of their countrymen under the guidance of Dadabhai, and had sowed the first seeds of national awakening. As a scholar, lawyer, judge and politician, he had won equal distinction. A memorial meeting was held in the Town Hall on 6 October under presidentship of the Governor, Lord Harris, which testified to the warm regard and esteem in which Telang was held by all classes of people. His elevation to the Bench when he was less than 40, was a well-deserved recognition of his high character and attainments. His death in the prime of his life was, therefore, a great blow to the Bombay men as also to many Indians. (Homi Mody, op. cit, p. 169.)

It was on 2 June 1893 that the House of Commons passed a motion to the effect that the open competitive examinations for the I.C.S. be held simultaneously in India and England. This was in fulfilment of the long cherished aspirations of the Bombay elite. A meeting attended by Pherozeshah, Gokhale and J. U. Yajnik, greeted the decision. (Ibid., pp. 170-71.)

Pherozeshah Mehta was elected to the Imperial Council, also called Viceregal Council, in October 1893, as a representative of the Provincial Legislative Council. The first measure of importance before the Imperial Council was the Cotton Duties Bill introduced in December 1894. In January 1895 came another important measure before the Council, namely, amendment of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1879. This was followed by the amendment of the Police Act of 1861, amend­ment of the Civil Procedure Code, the Cantonments Act of 1889, the question of the restitution of conjugal rights in Hindus, and several other legislative measures. Pherozeshah did splendid work in the Council for which he was highly applauded in Bombay. " All classes of people vied with each other to do honour to one who had come to .be regarded as 'the uncrowned King of Bombay'." (Homi Mody, op. cit, p. 195.) The Ripon Club gave him a public banquet. This was followed by rich tributes to him at the Novelty Theatre, present Excelsior, on 20 April 1895, at the Eighth Provincial Conference held at Belgaum on 4 May 1895 and at the Gaity Theatre on 20 December 1895. The last one mentioned was probably the most remarkable. The Elphinstonians presented him with a massive silver centre-piece which he preserved as a proud possession. The Municipal Corporation passed a worthy resolution congratulating Pherozeshah, and " recorded the great and valuable work done by him for the country and the Empire in mani­fold directions, and the exemplary self-sacrifice and rectitude of purpose with which he had served the city of Bombay for more than a generation."

It was Lord Curzon who recommended the conferment of the distinction of the title of K.C.I.E. on Pherozeshah in appreciation of the latter's brilliant abilities and eminence. This was particularly noteworthy because he was the most formidable opponent of the great Viceroy, and had waged many a war against the Viceroy on the issues of University reforms and measures of local and national magnitude.

Plague and Riots : The close of the nineteenth century was characterised by the misfortunes of a virulent plague which first appeared in 1896 in a chawl near the Masjid railway bridge. It wrought the greatest havoc upto the dawn of the twentieth century. The year 1897 might be said to have marked the zenith of the city's misfortunes. (Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. II, 1909, p. 190) It was also the blackest year in the history of India as the country suffered from plague, famine, earthquake, cyclone, sedition and frontier wars. In a single week in 1897, over 10,000 persons fled away from Bombay. The condition of the city resembled that of Constantinople in the sixth century. In 1898 occurred riots due to plague and a strike of dock and railway workers, which paralysed life for some days. The early months of 1899 were marked by a fresh exodus from the city, to save life, However, the migrants to native places were not spared by the acute famine. They were, therefore, compelled to return to the city, and they preferred death from plague to death from hunger. This increased mortality in the city. The epidemic again swept through the city, and the people fled from the unseen death. (S. M. Edwardes, Rise of Bombay : A Retrospect (Bombay; Times of India Press,1902). The old Government House at Pare] which was vacated by the Governor earlier, was used as a hospital for plague patients from 1896.

The situation did not improve in 1900 or 1901. The cotton mill industry was adversely affected due to the flight of workers. There was acute shortage of labour, which led to intense bidding for labour at street corners. While almost all the mills had to drastically cut their operations to three days in a week, some mills had remained closed. (For condition of the industry see account of Cotton Textile Industry in Chapter  5 of Greater Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. II.) Between 1891 and 1898 the total number of factories in Bombay rose considerably in spite of the fact that the China market, the chief outlet for Bombay's output, was being rapidly glutted. But the condition of the industry was "most critical” in 1899 according to Sir George Cotton.

The years 1904-05, however, witnessed a reversion of this state of affairs. The cotton mill industry had started showing conspicuous improvement. The Swadeshi movement gave a great impetus for the growth of the indigenous industry.

The virulent plague epidemic which ravaged Bombay from 1896 to 1901, shocked the conscience of Government as well as of the public men of Bombay. It created an awareness and a compelling necessity for improvement of public health and medical facilities in Bombay. This situation gave birth to two great organisations, namely, the City Improve­ment Trust in 1898 and the Haffkine Institute in 1899. Lord Sandhurst, the Governor, was the architect of the former, while the inspiring spirit behind the latter was the world-famous Dr. Haffkine. The account of these organisations is given elsewhere in this chapter.

On 11 August 1893 a very serious riot (For details of the riots refer Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. II, 1909, pp. 192-96.) took place between Hindus and Muslims in Bombay. The unfortunate episode commenced with an attack on a Hindu temple in Hanuman lane. Within a very short time, the entire areas of Parel, Kamathipura, Grant Road, Chinchpokli, Mazagaon and Tank Bunder were under mob rule. The tumult was enormous. At about 4 p.m. the Police Commissioner secured the help of the army. The troops were posted in different areas, but the fighting still continued, and the infantry was required to fire on the mob in the Grant Road area. The crowds, raging from street to street, desecrated temples, idols and inflicted fatal assaults. The riots continued on the 12th August in all parts of the city, and casual murders and assaults took place on the 13th also. But from the evening of the 13th tranquillity was gradually established. About 80 lives succumbed to injuries, and 1,500 were arrested by the police. The damage to temples and mosques, exclusive of the value of property stolen, amounted to three quarters of a lakh. (Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. II, 1909, p. 193.) The riots had deep repercussions in the Salsette island and even beyond. The butchers at Bandra observed a strike in consequence. (Ibid., p. 194.)

There was another serious riot in Bombay on 9 March 1898. It started with a sudden outbreak of hostility against the measures adopted by Government for suppression of plague among the Julhai. The trouble commenced with an attempt on the part of a plague-search party to remove a patient. The Julhai community thereupon turned violent and assaulted the police in Ripon Road area. The Presidency Magistrate ordered to fire. The rioters dispersed, but very shortly the uproar spread to Bellasis, Duncan, Babula Tank, Parel, Grant, Falkland and Foras Road areas. Attempts were made to set fire to plague hospitals, the fire brigade station at Babula Tank road was attacked, and two European soldiers were murdered in Grant Road. The army was deployed instantly, and peace was restored the next day. The casualties of the riot were 19 killed and 42 wounded. About 205 were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

The third unfortunate episode of a riot in this period took place on 23 March 1904, on the fifth day of Muharram, between the Sunni and Shia sects of the Muslims in Bombay. Casual fighting between the Bohras and theSunnis occurred upto the 27th March, and the police were forced to cancel the licence for the tabut procession from Rangari moholla. This enraged the Sunnis, and the police were attacked. There were conditions of panic among the Bohras, and the Police Commissioner thereupon sought military aid. Stray incidents continued upto April 1, about 34 persons being injured.

The fourth unfortunate riot flamed forth between the Sunni and Shia Muslims at the Muharram of 1908. A quarrel took place, in the morning of the 13th February, between a tabut procession composed of Julhais, Mughals, Khojas, Bohras and some Sunni Muslims congregated in a mosque on Falkland Road area. The news of the encounter quickly spread and resulted in a general refusal of the Sunnis to take out their tabut procession. Spasmodic attacks were made which resulted in serious rioting late in the afternoon in Parel area. The police had to take recourse to firing. The military forces were called out in the evening, which guarded the troubled areas until the next day. (S. M. Edwardes, The Bombay City Police, 1922.)

To resume the story of the Congress, its growth necessitated the creation of local public bodies which became Standing Congress Committees. By 1892, there were about nine committees in the Bombay Presidency with those at Bombay and Pune being the most important. By and large, these were merely the Bombay Presidency Association and the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha under a different name. (Mahratta, 6 November 1892.) The name of the former was synonymous with the Congress in the Presidency, and almost all decisions were taken with its approval. This was due to the towering leadership of the Association and its ability to raise funds for the party. It was also attributable to the close relationship between the Bombay leaders and Congress leaders like Hume, Wedderburn, Ranade, etc. Dinshaw Wacha's assumption of secretaryship of the Congress also gave Bombay an upper hand in the party. Thereafter no key decision was taken by the Congress without Pherozeshah's approval. (J. Masselos, op. cit.)

The first Bombay Provincial Conference emerged in November 1888, convened by the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha as a means of concerting policy and action for the coming session of the Congress. It was also intended to deal with local problems. The first six sessions were all held in Pune. Bombay did not join the provincial conference until its fifth meeting in 1892. It was from the 1892 meeting that Bombay played a dominating role in this body. Pherozeshah presided over the Pune meeting in 1892. He " at once lifted it up from the narrow platform of parochialism to something higher and nobler and more national." (Wacha to Naoroji, 12 November 1892, Naoroji Papers.) His reputation was distinctly enhanced by the part he played in the Poona Conference.

At this juncture Lokamanya Tilak was engaged in taking over the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and in reasserting the influence of Pune over Bombay, in respect of domination on the Congress. However, the Congress could not function without Bombay. The city was to contribute Rs. 15,000 out of the total of Rs. 40,000 needed for the Poona Congress session of 1895. (Mahratta, 29 September 1895.) Pherozeshah, controlling the Bombay Presidency Association, and Wacha, the Congress secretary, " were too essentially part of the Congress fabric to be more than polemical target for Tilak, and they steadfastly refused to take any notice of Tilak's public meetings." (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 121. The author has dealt with the discordant views between Tilak and other Congress leaders.) It was in the Bombay Congress Committee meeting on 26 October 1895 that the Bombay leaders elected Surendranath Bannerji as president of the Poona Congress of 1895. It was decided not to recognise Tilak's Reception Committee.

The Congress at Pune turned out to be a greater success than what even the most sanguine had expected. Unfortunately, however, Tilak's activities had fluttered the dovecots. The association of Ranade and Gokhale with Pherozeshah and Wacha, besides the jealousy between the politicians in Bombay and Pune automatically drew the Congress Committees into the quarrel. Tilak wanted the Social Conference to dissociate from the Congress. His much publicised conduct and utterances in Pune embarrassed the Congress in many ways. These aspects are, however, beyond the scope of this study.

Mr. R. M. Sayani, a popular enlightened citizen of Bombay who belonged to the school of thought of Pherozeshah Mehta, adorned the presidentship of the Calcutta Congress session of 1896. He gave quite a good impression as a leader of the party and as president. The success and excitement of the Poona Congress was followed by a sort of disinterest and languidness in the organisation. Attendance at the annual sessions dropped, and the proportion of local delegates increased. After the 1900 session at Lahore even Dinshaw Wacha lost his enthusiasm and considered giving up his post of joint secretary. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit.., pp. 124-25.) He once complained to Dadabhai in England, " Your big leaders now-a-days don't care to attend the Congress, so we have a minor crew most of whom try to boss themselves without judgement and wisdom." (Wacha to Naoroji, 16 February 1901, Naoroji Papers.)

This period coincided with the unprecedented plague and distress in Bombay which is dealt with above in this chapter.



Lokamanya Tilak was undoubtedly the embodiment of the spirit of the new school of politics in the beginning of this century. He rebelled against the attitude of prayerfulness and importunity and the method of mendicancy which characterised the Congress. He strove hard to make the movement truly national by bringing into it the mass of people. He and his followers regarded the redemption of the motherland as the true religion, and as the only means of salvation. It was but natural that he came into conflict, very often than not, with the Moderates, as they came to be known later on. The Moderates wanted reforms in administration under the aegis of the British rule, while the Extremists strongly held that 'good government is no substitute for self-government'. Tilak admirably summed up the position in one sentence: "Home Rule is my birth-right and I will have it." He endeavoured to introduce the cult of Shivaji and to organise the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals in Bombay and the rest of Maharashtra.

The revolutionary activities of Tilak in Bombay and the Deccan, and of Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Madame Cama and Shyamji Krishna Verma in England had many ramifications in Bombay. (S. M. Edwardes, The Bombay City Police, 1922.) The vernacular newspapers disseminated patriotic fervour and incitement to sedition. This had a definite impact on the people of Bombay.

Lord Curzon came to India (1899-1905) with a strong determination to stem the rising tide of nationalism. He inflicted one contemptuous measure after another to which the people took strong exceptions. (Gazetteer of India, Vol. II, History and Culture (Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, 1973), p. 562.) He deprived the universities of their autonomy by forcing the Indian Univer­sities Act (1904), and in the same year, the Official Secrets Act extended a good deal the scope of the term' sedition'. The climax was reached by the partition of Bengal (1905) which was regarded to be a subtle attack on the growing solidarity of Indian nationalism. Curzon's obstinate refusal to pay any heed to popular views sounded the death-knell of constitutional agitation. Hence amidst unprecedented scenes of enthusiasm, resolutions were passed at a huge public meeting held on 7 August 1905 at Calcutta, to boycott British goods, and adopt swadeshi goods and to spread national education. (Ibid., p. 563.)

The ineffectiveness of the Congress to change the decision of the Government enabled the Tilakites to make their voice felt in deliberations of the Congress. And it was in the Calcutta session of 1906 presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji that the Congress not only endorsed their plans, but for the first time in its history laid down as its goal, ' the system of Government obtaining in the self-governing British colonies'. This goal was summed up by Dadabhai in one word ' Swaraj (Ibid .)

The gestation of the new spirit of swadeshi and boycott had, however, been progressing for some years prior to these events.

The politicians in Bombay were ostensibly moderate nationalists who followed a policy of mendicancy and persuasion. At the dawn of this century the Congress was still under domination of Bombay, particularly Pherozeshah Mehta, D. E. Wacha, Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. The latter although from Poona was identified with the Bombay leaders.

At the dawn of the twentieth century the Congress seemed to lose its vitality and enthusiasm. It was, however, in 1903 that the political pendulum in England started swinging in the direction of the Liberal Party. Sir William Wedderburn, a former Bombay civilian, was now a Liberal Member of Parliament and an inspiring spirit of the British Committee of the Congress. He exhorted Indians and his Bombay friends to revitalise the Congress. The most significant results were: firstly, Pherozeshah and his colleagues in Bombay invited the 1904 Congress to Bombay, and secondly, G. K. Gokhale was appointed an additional joint secretary to take over command of the Congress. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit, p. 43.)

In the mean time Pherozeshah was persuaded by his friends to attend the Madras session of December 1903 ostensibly to save the Congress from Extremists. Pherozeshah handled the situation adroitly. He, however, did not maintain a close and personal touch with the organisation in subsequent years. (Homi Mody, op. cit, p. 251.) But all said and done his influence in Congress sessions in Bombay was absolutely supreme.

Bombay Congress of 1904 : As said earlier, he took the cue from Wedderburn's exhortation and invited the next session of the Congress to Bombay. The three-day session was held on the Oval(Speeches and Writings of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, p. 254. According to Homi Mody the vast gathering had assembled in the spacious pandal erected on the site on which the Prince of Wales Museum stands now.) ground from 25 December 1904. Sir Henry Cotton, a distinguished personality, presided over the session, Pherozeshah being the chairman of the Recep­tion Committee. William Wedderburn and Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P., graced the occasion by their presence. Henry Cotton was described as a staunch and devoted servant of India. William Wedderburn had always cherished the fulfilment of the aspirations of India. Samuel Smith had quietly and unostensibly, but earnestly, raised hip, voice in England to further the cause of India. Their presence at the Bombay session of 1904 was, therefore, an important factor. They suggested that Indian delegations be sent to England for gaining support of the British public. The gathering, however, missed the presence of Dadabhai, Hume and W. C. Bannerjee. It was representative in all various ways. (Speeches and Writings of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta.) The delegates represented all strata, the intelligentsia, advocates and persons experienced in Government mechanism.

Pherozeshah's welcome speech, running into 19 printed pages, struck a note of robust optimism calculated to drive away counsels of dispair. (Text is reproduced in Speeches and Writings.) He accepted the British rule as a wonderful dispensation, but scouted Lord Curzon's notion that the salvation of India was not to be sought in the field of politics in the existing stage of her development. Achievements of the Congress from 1885 were put on record. Its greatest triumph lay in the awakening of the soul of the nation.

The official report of the Bombay Congress session of 1904 peaks in grateful and eloquent terms of Pherozeshah's share in the success of the session. (As per D. E. Wacha there was no other Indian who could rival Pherozeshah in the manner and matter of his public speeches on high politics. Two specimens may be discerned in his addresses to the 1889 and 1904 Congress sessions.) The Times of India also paid high tributes to him. It was at the Bombay session, however, that a mild revolt against his authority broke out. Lala Murlidhar from the Punjab, in a heated discussion, complained bitterly against Pherozeshah overthrowing all opposition, and carrying everything in his own way.

The Bombay city politicians and their allies gave a firm lead to the Congress in 1904. They strived for widespread support and emphasised the unity of the movement by controlling critics. Besides working in Bombay and Pune, Gokhale visited Bengal, Madras, and the C. P. and Berar to stimulate interest in the Congress prior to the December session. The Bombay session not only marked the reawakening of the Congress, but it also underlined the supremacy of Bombay city leaders in the all-India movement. About 20 per cent of the delegates had been elected by the council of the Bombay Presidency Association at a meeting held at Pherozeshah's chambers. The council had approved 256 names, of whom 202 actually attended the 1904 Congress. (Bombay Presidency Association papers,  cf., Gordon Johnson.)

The Bombay session of 1904 had endorsed the strategy of putting its main emphasis on campaigns in England in view of forthcoming elections. William Wedderburn had desired Pherozeshah to lead the delegation. The latter, however, did not go. It was therefore decided that G. K. Gokhale and Mr. Jinnah should go as the representatives of Bombay on the Indian deputation. They went to London in 1905 to present the Congress case before the British public and to campaign for the Liberal Party. Gokhale addressed 45 meetings during his 7-week stay in England. On his return to India he was elected president of the Congress at Banaras (1905).

Gokhale was earlier elected to the council of the Bombay Presidency Association on 17 June 1893. His alliance with the Bombay politicians became his great political strength. (Gokhale was reported in 1909 saying that he had no supporters among the ignorant masses, but he could count upon the educated in Bombay as his supporters.) It was his Bombay friends on the provincial legislature who decided in 1902 to send him as the Bombay representative to the Viceroy's Legislative Council. The Bombay Presidency Association raised money for his visit to England in 1905, and also supported his next two trips in 1906 and 1908. It was through the Bombay connection that Gokhale not only became recognised by the Government as the main Congress spokesman, but he also became a key figure in maintaining the all-India alliance which constituted the Congress itself. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., pp. 116-17.)

As stated earlier, Dadabhai Naoroji was the president of the Calcutta Congress of 1906. This again meant influence of Bombay over the orga­nisation. This session was a notable landmark in the history of the Congress. It placed Swaraj as a goal before the party in distinct terms. It had urged more activity in India and more self-help. National education and Swadeshi were endorsed by the delegates. The Congress had re-affirmed the legitimacy of boycott as a political weapon. This was, however, not much to the liking of the Moderate leaders from Bombay, particularly Pherozeshah and Gokhale, the former having kept the Congress as the undisputed domain of his leadership.

Congress Split : A number of situations developed whereby the wrangles between the Moderates and the Extremists became more and more acute. The Bombay leaders were inclined in the initial stage to hold the 1907 session at Nagpur, relying on G. M. Chitnavis and B. K. Bose to keep it out of difficulties. The Extremists tightened their sinews to ele^t Tilak as president. There was no possibility of a compromise between the two camps. The neutral negotiators had failed to mediate which led to the conclusion, " no Congress at Nagpur this year".(Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 164.)

A vexatious wrangle between the Moderates and the Extremists was inevitable. The Bombay leaders decided to shift the venue of the 1907 Congress which was earlier decided to be at Nagpur. The Central Standing Congress Committee was summoned to Pherozeshah's house at Napean Sea Road on 10 November 1907. The following members attended: Pherozeshah Mehta, Wacha, Gokhale, Jinnah, Tilak, Khaparde, Khare, Mudholkar, Kolhatkar, Desai and Parekh. (Khaparde Diary, 10 November 1907, Khaparde papers, National Archives of India, New Delhi.) Pherozeshah carefully arranged to send the Congress to Surat. The Reception Committee at Surat, composed largely of Pherozeshah's followers, set itself to the difficult task to arrange the session within a short time. Throughout December 1907, Mehta, Gokhale and the Moderates worked to secure a majority at Surat. The Bombay Presidency Association elected 219 delegates to go to the Congress. Tilak, N. C. Kelkar, Khaparde and the Extremist followers were also tightening their sinews. Pherozeshah had already made attempts to fill the 25 Bombay seats on the Subjects Committee. Tilak was out­numbered in the Bombay delegation on the Committee. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 168.) Rash Behari Ghosh of the moderate camp was chosen president. Tilak felt that the Bombay leaders were retreating from the Calcutta resolution, which had adopted Swaraj as a goal on the lines of self-governing colonies, and had endorsed for Swadeshi, boycott and national education. Tilak denounced such retrogression on the part of the Bombay leaders as suicidal for India. The draft resolutions were reactionary. Tilak's willingness to negotiate was spurned. He was left with no alternatives. His attempts for leadership at Surat were all foiled. (Ibid.)

The Bombay leaders and Gokhale were in a majority, but they had also an unnerving experience. The Surat meets on 27-28 December were tumultuous, tempestuous and ended in pandemonium. (A Deccani shoe was hurled on to the dias whjch struck Surendranath Bannerji and Pherozeshah. See Homi Mody's Pherozeshah Mehta, op. cit.)

Tilak alleged that Pherozeshah and Gokhale sought to pervert the Congress from a national into a sectional movement. He had hoped that his popularity in Maharashtra could be utilized to capture the Congress from the Bombay city leaders and Gokhale. However, it was he who was to be excluded from it in future. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit., p. 172.)

The split of the Congress and the desire for reunion were almost simultaneous. (Mahratta, 23 February 1908.) The desire for reconciliation was initially stronger amongst the Extremists than the Congress leadership. Bombay city leaders saw no point in patching up with Tilak. They felt that Tilak and his followers had to be excluded from the Congress once for all. The Bombay Presidency Association (The Allahabad Convention where the Bombay men were stronger ended all hope of an immediate rapprochement.) was in a stronger position and there were no signs of rapprochement.

In the first quarter of 1908, several things happened which changed the political situation completely. The summer of 1908 saw the disintegration of the extremist leadership. After Bipin Chandra Pal's going to London, the severest reversal in fortune rapidly followed. Tilak was arrested on 24 June 1908 and charged with sedition for writing an article in the Kesari of 12 May 1908. The article headed " The Country's Misfortune " relating to the Muzzaffarpur murders, was construed by Government to justify terrorism. He was placed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on 25 June and remanded to jail till the 29. On 27 June he was again placed before the above court for a similar offence in respect of an article headed " These remedies are not lasting " which had appeared in the Kesari of 9 June 1908. Tilak was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court to six years transportation and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, on 22 July 1908. (According to some sources the date was 23 July 1908.)



During the trial of 1898 the judicial authority had agreed to release Tilak on bail on a security of one lakh rupees. It was Dwarkadas Dharamsi, (He was father of the famous Home Rule Leader, Jamnadas Dwarkadas,) a millowner of Bombay, who ventured boldly to deposit security of the amount to secure release of Tilak on bail. He had many friends among the rich, but the fear  of government wrath prevented them from the venture. Hence the importance of Mr. Dharamsi's action which secured the release of India's great patriot. It will be interesting to note that Tilak's advocate in this trial was Mr. Davar, (Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Political Memoirs, (United Asia Publications, Bombay, 1969), pp. 29-30.) who later sentenced Tilak to six years rigorous imprisonment in July 1908.

A brief narration of Tilak's trial of June-July 1908 may not be out of place as it is an important event in the history of India's freedom struggle. During this protracted trial he stood towering in the box of the accused. He delivered his extempore memorable address to the Judge and the Jury which lasted for six days. (Ibid., p. 31). The Jury returned the verdict of ' guilty ' as was expected, and Justice Davar pronounced the sentence with strictures that were unwarranted and in bad taste. Tilak said to the Judge, " Despite the sentence passed on me, I feel and know that I am innocent, but I believe that there are higher powers who rule the destinies of nations, who feel that the cause I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free. Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it."

The impact of Tilak's imprisonment on the people was greater than ever had been the case at any moment in the past. The workers, students and the entire middle class society were all galvanized into displaying sympathy to him and expressing their angry protests against Government. For the first time in the history of India students deserted their schools and colleges and refused to attend them. (Dwarkadas Jamnadas, op. cit, p. 32.) There was a massive hartal. The rich in Bombay, completely cowed down, helped the Government in restoring order. (Ibid.)

Tilak's trial was received as an electric shock in Bombay as in rest of Maharashtra. The modus operandi of the trial was condemned with indignation and public fury. The newspapers with nationalist views reacted very sharply. The Dnyan Prakash of 24 July 1908 wrote, " This is an occasion for greater sorrow than that felt for the death of Ranade. It is greatly to be lamented that we have lost the services of such a talented and heroic man at his age.................... Government wanted to see Mr. Tilak out of the country in the present political situation and preferred to resort to the law court to accomplish that end to deporting him outright." (Report on Native Papers for the week ending 25 July 1908, p. 31.) The staunch Kal of 31 July 1908 wrote, " There was a mockery of justice, not justice. It is sheer madness to argue that there was a possibility of obtaining justice where everything was going on according to a pre arranged plan...........The present crusade undertaken by government is very dangerous, and we should meet it in a becoming spirit. Government are enraged at the Swadeshi and Boycott movement, but cannot oppose it publicly. They want to kill the agitation by having recourse to subterfuges and by removing the renowned leaders of it from our midst Mr. Tilak was sent to Mandalay not because he caused any personal loss to the Governor, but apparently because the Swadeshi movement which he organised so successfully made the Manchester mills work half time." (Report on Native Papers for the week ending 1 August 1908, p. 33.)

It may be of great interest to give here a brief account of the intense disturbances incidental to Tilak's trial in Bombay. The account is mainly based on the report of Mr. H. G. Gell, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to the Secretary to Government. (The report is published in Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement,Vol. II.)

Mr. S. M. Paranjape, Editor of the Kal, a supporter and admirer of Tilak, was arrested in Pune on 11 June 1908, and convicted in the, Bombay High Court and sentenced to 19 months rigorous imprisonment on 8 July 1908. This caused a good deal of excitement in the city. Meanwhile Tilak was arrested in Bombay on 24 June.

From the moment of Tilak's arrest many nationalists descended upon the mill area in Bombay. The working class understood that Tilak had been arrested because he was the friend of the industrial workers, and had tried to obtain better wages for them. The probability of a disturbance was foreseen by the authorities. British regiments, Indian infantry and cavalry were held in readiness, while the Commissioner of Police took all precautions to circumscribe the area of the outbreak. Several officials and non-officials were appointed Special Magistrates and were posted at important points to watch the progress of events, assist the police, and take all feasible measures for securing peace in the city. However, some of the precautions were superfluous. (S. M. Edwardes, The Bombay City Police, 1922.)

The first hearing of Tilak's case came on in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court on 29 June which was greeted by disorderly and turbulent crowds. There was also desultory stone-throwing on Europeans. The High Court refused Tilak's application for bail. This caused as much consternation as his arrest, and demonstrated the animus of Government against him. There was a feeling that Tilak's gospel of Swadeshi and boycott had antagonised the rulers who were for protection of the interests of England. Tilak's sympathizers and nationalist papers stirred up the feelings of the people, and particularly the millhands in Bombay.

There were 85 mills employing about one lakh workers in the city. This was a formidable mass of people which could be fomented against the Government. Just before his arrest, Tilak had addressed meetings at Chinchpokli on 15 December 1907, and 6 and 7 June 1908, to educate the millhands in his gospel of Swadeshi and evils of drinking. He had won their admiration.

The trial began on 13 July before Justice Davar and a special Jury. Tilak was removed from the common Jail and was kept in the High Court lock-up. During the trial 20 European police officers, 11 armed, 190 unarmed, 30 mounted native officers and men were on duty in and around the court. There was also a military detachment posted in the University hall. The millhands were dispersed away from the court. On 16 July, workers from the Queen and Lakmidas Mills and four other mills struck work as a protest against the trial. On 17 July, about 35,000 workers from 28 mills stopped working, and the spirit of unrest seemed to seize them. There were unruly incidents at DeLisle Road. Europeans were mobbed and assaulted at Currey Road by a mob of 6,000. The Commissioner of Police who arrived was greeted by a volley of stones. The cavalry had to take action. All mills were closed on 19 July, but every thing was quiet.

There was violent stone throwing and a turbulent situation arose on 20 July. The workers from the Jacob Sassoon Mill prevented the working of the Moiarji Goculdas Mill by violent methods. Police officers including the Commissioner had to take recourse to firing revolvers. Casualties were not known. Arrival of the military dispersed the crowd. The next day witnessed closure of four mills. The coolies in the grain bazar obstructed and over-turned carts carrying goods belonging to the Englishmen, along Frere Road.

Tilak was convicted and sentenced to six years transportation, and was immediately sent away to Ahmedabad by a special train on 22 July 1908. The employees in the Mulji Jetha Market held a meeting and decided to observe strike for six days as a protest against rigorous imprisonment of Tilak. The news of conviction spread in the city on 23. Nine mills struck work, while the cloth, grain, freight and share markets and Cotton Exchange also closed their business out of sympathy for the leader. A crowd in Girgaum and Princess Street area forced shops to be closed. Two persons were convicted.

As many as 70 mills stopped work on the 24th morning. A crowd at Kala Chowki stoned the Bombay Cotton Mill which had commenced work, and forced its closure. The crowd then proceeded along Chinchpokli road, and forced the workers of Rachel Sassoon Mill and E. D. Sassoon Mill to come out, by stoning the mills. The City of Bombay Mill was similarly closed. The police and the cavalry had to fire revolvers, killing three and wounding others. There was another confrontation between the police and rioters at the junction of Gholupdeo and Connaught road. The police force was stoned savagely. Meanwhile the military had been sent for from the Byculla Bridge, where a detachment of 50 Royal Scots had previously been stationed, and while they were coming by train the crowds along Parel road stoned them. The mob not daunted by the approaching military force stoned it, and further continued to do so in spite of the Magistrate's (Mr. C. H. Setalvad) orders to disperse. Seven rounds were fired, one person being injured.
About 9 a.m. on 24 July there were encounters between the cavalry and the rioters in the Gholupdeo area. Further in the neighbourhood there was a skirmish between the military assisted by police and mill-hands armed with sticks. One man was found dead. At noon, 1,400 employees of the G.I.P. Railway workshops at Parel repudiated orders and struck work. They went away peacefully. A dye works at Mahim was attacked, and the care-taker was brutally assaulted. The manager had to use his gun in defence. The police and military had to intervene. The latter on their way to headquarters were confronted by mill workers at Pipe road. The military opened fire, killing two and injuring one. The Currey Road railway station was partially wrecked. The military was ordered to fire again which killed five and injured 15 persons.

On the morning of 25 July the mills began to work satisfactorily. This was disturbed by a hoard of workers in the Standard mill. There was firing, but the crowd was still hostile. Ultimately a fresh military detachment, which arrived, could avert a further calamity. Seventy-six mills struck work this day.

The Governor, George Clarke, arrived at Bombay from Pune on 26 July, which was a day of strike. It was rumoured on 27 July that the Governor intended to drive through the native town via Shaikh Memon street for assuaging the feelings of the people. This was at once seized upon as a good opportunity to make a demonstration in favour of Tilak. The Shaikh Memon street was densely crowded by hostile and demonstrative people. There were confrontations with the police. The military was also stoned. Four rounds were fired, and four persons were found to have succumbed to bullets. The military and police had to attend many calls for action.

On 28 July 1908, workers in Maneckji Petit mill struck work after commencing work. They shouted slogans in favour of Tilak and became turbulent. Even the ordinarily peaceful area of Thakurdwar was infested with strife, and military was required to take action. Later on the whole of Girgaum was in a state of disorder intermittently. The police and the military were greeted with stones. Nine rioters were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The feeling against Europeans was most hostile. It was only military action throughout the Island which could avert further troubles.

The presence of George Clarke in the city, for some days, until peace was restored, was much helpful in relieving the situation.

The Bombay National Union with, its mouthpiece, the Hind Swarajya popularised Tilak in Bombay. This newspaper was produced under support of the revolutionary, Shyamji Krishna Varma. The Vihari and the Arunodaya, Marathi newspapers, preached Tilak's philosophy (The editors of these papers were prosecuted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, (see Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, p. 269). Besides newspapers, many Tilakites harangued audiences on Chowpati sands in favour of his preaching.

Mr. Gell had opined that if Tilak had been tried elsewhere than Bombay' the agitation would not have been carried on in the city to the extent it was. The agitation was engineered, in his opinion, by Brahmin clerks in mills. More than anything else Tilak's address to the Jury gained him sympathy. This address, which occupied 21 hours, " was made not so much to the jury as to the gallery and he seized this opportunity to make what was a vehement political attack on British administration ".

The Bombay Millhands Defence Association was formed after Tilak's inspiration. The mill workers were the chief instrument used for disorder. " But they had no organisation, no leader, no common object and no weapons other than stones. They broke the windows of mills..................... but that was because some of their number stuck to their work and they wanted them to come out. Had all the mills closed down simultaneously, the probability is that the millhands would have been at a loss as to what to do."

The police force in Bombay, in 1908, consisted of 85 Europeans armed with revolvers, 2,038 native constables armed with batons, 100 native sowars armed with sabres and 70 native constables armed with breech loading, smooth bore, 476 rifles firing buck shot. The Bombay Garrison was comprised of three companies of the Royal Garrison Artillery, half a batalion of British Infantry, one regiment of Native Infantry and a force of 1,274 volunteers. (The Commissioner suggested to Government a thorough reorganisation of the police force in Bombay, after this event.)

The Mahratta (From Report on Native Papers for the week ending 1 August 1908, p. 26 cf Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II.) of 2 August 1908 gave a plausible analysis of the riots in Bombay. According to the newspaper, in the initial stage the disturbances were a mere passive expression of sympathy, sorrow and respect for Tilak by the workers. This assumed the form of a temporary cessation of work. But the imprudent authorities and the Anglo-Indian Press took umbrage at it. Some mills were kept going in spite of the unwillingness of  the workers.   A   kind of coercion   was   also used to   keep them working. The consequence was that with one class of workers clamouring outside, and another coerced to work inside, the passive expression of sympathy at once assumed the form of a disturbance. The same thing happened in the case of markets in Bombay due to unwise meddlesome officers.

The effects of the prosecution and conviction of Tilak were great and enduring. Some months later, the Rashtramat, an organ of Tilakites, admitted that the sudden removal of Mr. Tilak's towering personality threw the whole province into dismay. It not only dampened extremist political activity, but also affected the Moderates. G. K. Gokhale was shocked at the severity of Tilak's sentence, and saw in it a great blow to the party and a threat to other nationalist leaders. The Hindu Punch went so far as to suggest that Gokhale had instigated Tilak's arrest. Gokhale, however, denied the allegation and prosecuted the editor of the newspaper.

It is also asserted that " the agitation that followed the passing of the sentence on Tilak was to a large extent responsible for the Morley-Minto Reforms initiated in 1909. The letters that passed between Lord Minto, the then Viceroy, and John Morley, the then Secretary of State, throw a flood of light on the reaction of the agitation on both of them, especially on Lord Morley................................................. The cumulative effect, however, was that the British cabinet was bestirred into facing and trying to solve the problem." (Jamnadas Dwarkadas, op. cit., p. 32.)



A number of important schemes were taken by the City Improvement Trust and the Municipal Corporation, which were changing the face of Bombay at this time. With the enormous growth of population, the need for wide roads to disperse the population northwards was becoming increasingly apparent. A broad road known as Mahomed Ali road was cut right through the heart of the bazar from north to south. The Improvement Trust was endeavouring to make Bombay a model city. People were beginning to look towards Back Bay as a site providing "the most unique opportunities for reclamation which it has ever been the lot of any city to possess". Another important project was that for an overhead railway between the Victoria Terminus and the Mazagaon-Sewri area which was being reclaimed, to provide additional transport accom­modation and facilities for storing cotton, grains, oil-seeds and manganese ore. (Raymond J. F. Sulivan, One Hundred Years of Bombay: History of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce 1836-1936 (Times of India Press, Bombay, 1937), p. 136.) The construction of the Harbour Branch of the G. I. P. Railway from Kurla upto Reay Road station was completed in 1910. The work of construction of the permanent way and bridges for this railway was done by the great contractor, Mr. Walchand Hirachand. The overhead railway between Reay Road and Masjid Road railway stations opened a new chapter in the history of transport and commerce of Bombay. It facilitated transport of goods to and from the business quarters in the Fort area as also from the Bombay Harbour.

The completion of the Nagda-Muttra railway section on the B. B. and C. I. Railway in 1909 fulfilled the long cherished ambition of securing for Bombay a direct trade route with North India. (Ibid., p. 128.)

The Alexandra Dock was opened by the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, on 21 March 1914, (Ibid., p. 138.) which was to prove a great boon during the First World War, broken in August 1914. It doubled the dock area of the port. Attached to the Alexandra Dock was the Hughes Dry Dock, built to accommodate the largest battleships. The total expenditure on these and other related works amounted to 6 1/2 million pounds.

The Bombay Chronicle which was to play an important role in the national movement till Indian Independence, saw the light of day in April 1913 after tireless efforts of Pherozeshah and his friends in Bombay. Within a short time, it began to exercise an enormous influence over public affairs. Under the able editorship of B. G. Horniman, it became a very powerful organ of satyagraha, non-co-operation, civil disobedience and every other facet of the Gandhian movement.

One of the most memorable events of Lord Curzon's Viceroyalty was the controversy which raged over the question of University autonomy under the guise of reforms. Lord Curzon's Universities Commission of 1902 recommended a raising of college fees and examination standards, a reconstitution of the Syndicate and the Senate, the imposition of stringent conditions with regard to the recognition of affiliated insti­tutions, and a general discouragement by various devices of private enterprise in the field of education. As per the Commission, it was " better for India that a comparatively small number of young men should receive a sound liberal education, than that a large number should be passed through an inadequate course of instruction leading to a depreciated degree ". Pherozeshah Mehta delivered heavy indictments against the report of the Commission and the Bill in the Senate of the Bombay University, while G. K. Gokhale combated against the infringement of university autonomy in the debates in the Imperial Legislative Council. (Also see the account given under University Education, for their work) Despite powerful opposition the Indian Universities Bill was passed into an Act in 1904 which enabled the Government to interfere with university autonomy and to curb proliferation of education.

Whilst Lord Curzon had excited bitterness, disaffection and alarm heedless of the currents of national life and thinking, the Prince of Wales (later King George V) was to visit Bombay. The announcement of the Royal visit created limitless enthusiasm and preparation. The Bombay Government, however, out of obduracy announced that the Royal pair will be accorded reception by the Government in disregard to the privilege of the civic body. This created a wild indignation and uproar in the city. While the Extremists among the nationalists including Tilak were opposed to any type of reception to the imperial heir, many sections of the people in Bombay were also either hostile or indifferent to the same. In the Corporation the obduracy of Government created fury. The Chief Secretary to Government of Bombay was given to understand the consequences of disregarding the right of the Corporation. Consequently Lord Lamington, the Governor (1903-07), saw an alarm, and conceded the privilege to the Corporation of which Pherozeshah was the president. The incident left no bitterness mainly due to the tactfulness of the latter. The Prince of Wales and the Princess were greeted at the Apollo Bunder on 9 November 1905, and an Address, drafted by Pherozeshah himself, was presented by him in a gaily-decorated shaniiana in the presence of the Viceroy. Hundreds from the Presidency had attended the gay ceremony. The Prince expressed his thanks for the magnificent preparations made by the city in his honour. (Homi Mody, op. cit, pp. 277-79.)

In 1906-07, there arose an excitement and bitterness known as ' the battle of clocks' in the city. Bombay was thrown into the controversy after Lord Curzon's proposal of adopting a standard time. Bombay clocks were to be put 39 minutes in advance of the local time. This gave rise to unfortunate controversy in the civic body and outside. (Ibid.,, pp. 281-84.) It was decided on the motion of Sir Bhalchandra Krishna in the Corporation that the municipal clocks should not be altered. The issue, however, had not been upon the merits of the standard time, but upon personal issues. The controversy was shelved after sometime.

Caucus (Account is based on Homi Mody's account in Sir Pherozeshah Mehta,.-pp. 284-94.): Bombay was convulsed, and her harmony was seriously impaired by a discreditable movement relating municipal elections, by Mr. Harrison (Accountant General, Government of Bombay), Mr. Lovat Fraser {Times of India), Mr. Gell (Commissioner of Police) and Mr. Hatch (Collector of Bombay). Mr. Harrison began a series of manoeuvres, unparalleled in the history of municipal elections, to put an end to the powerful regime of Pherozeshah and to undermine his unquestionable domination over the Bombay municipality. The organisers of the Caucus issued a "ticket" containing the names of 16 nominees of their choice for the 16 seats allotted to the Justices of Peace, for the general elections to the Corporation in February 1907. The nominees were from different communities, and were dubbed as' Independents '.Pressure and persuasion were employed by the high officials to get all the Justices who hung on their favours, or were afraid of their frowns, to vote for the ticket'. Mr. Fraser (Mr. S. A. Wahed had contracts with the Municipality, and was hence disqualified.) sought the help of Aga Khan also for influencing his followers.

The Caucus was the talk of the town. A violent wave of feeling swept over Bombay, and even distant parts of India. A majority of the news­papers expressed public indignation against the Caucus. The election took place among scenes of wild excitement on 22 February 1907. The citizens raised eloquent slogans, such as, " Pherozeshah means the Corporation and the Corporation means Pherozeshah ". However, the Caucus was successful. The only outsider elected was Dinshaw Petit, Pherozeshah being the 17th on the list. This was received with deep resentment and anger throughout India. Newspapers gave a full vent to public opinion against the Caucus. The observations of the Madras Standard and the Indian Patriot were quite representative of the public feeling for Pherozeshah and against the Caucus. Pherozeshah was, however, inducted into the Corporation due to the disqualification2 of one of the candidates of the Caucus.

The unfair election was challenged by a petition in the Small Causes Court. There was a long and protracted trial. "Some dramatic incidents were witnessed, some damaging disclosures were made, and many people had to look foolish in the course of the inquiry." (Homi Mody, op. cit, p. 290.) The petition however failed in the court as also at Government level, as the Caucus had the support of people in high places. (Lord Lamington was the Governor then.)

A mass meeting was held at Madhav Baug on 7 April 1907 to give expression to the universal feeling of condemnation of the unconsti­tutional action of Government officials in interfering in the purity and freedom of the election. G. K. Gokhale who was in the chair referred to Pherozeshah's position in Bombay Corporation as without any parallel in India. Thousands from all communities attended the demonstration. As decided in the meeting a memorial was addressed to the Government of India.

Although the Caucus had won the elections, its candidates could not undermine the position of Pherozeshah, because they had no policy, no programme of their own. He still held sway. The ranks of his supporters had been thinned, but the civic body continued to be dominated by him.

As Homi Mody observes, " The Caucus had   triumphed, the Caucus had failed." (Homi Mody, op. tit, p. 292.) " The Caucus forms a sad chapter in the civic annals of Bombay." (Ibid., p. 294).

There was another controversial issue mentioned earlier which occupies an important chapter in the annals of Bombay. This was over the constant vexation over the cost of maintenance of the police force, between the Corporation and Government. By the Municipal Act of 1865, the entire cost of police force in Bombay was charged on the municipality. There was a vague proviso under which a proportion of the cost was to be borne by Government under some conditions. This led to many petitions by the municipality to the Government of India and the Secretary of State in London. Lord Ripon's resolution on local self-government which sought to relieve municipal bodies of the police charges in exchange of the expenditure on primary education and medical relief, was not implemented by the Bombay Government in its spirit. Hence the vexation continued in a protracted manner. The Bombay Municipal Act of 1888 also did not strike out a definite line of policy. It provided that a certain proportion of the charges of the police was to be borne by the Bombay civic body, and the cause of the friction continued further.
Several petitions were sent to Government. During his speeches in the Legislative Council, Pherozeshah appealed to Government to remove the obnoxious cost of police. The question became acute when it was decided to increase the police force after the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1893. The hostility of the Corporation against Government on the question of police charges grew constantly. This also affected the settlement of the policy with regard to primary education and medical relief, which was another cause of friction. After a protracted wrangle, Lord Lamington's Government showed its willingness to solve the question relating to transfer of liabilities. It proposed to hand over to the Corporation the liability of primary education and medical relief in the city, and to relieve that body of the police charges. The Bill to that effect was introduced in the Council in July 1907 which was enacted two months later. The protracted vexation was thus put to rest. The Act may be regarded as one of the most constructive achievements of Pherozeshah's career. (Ibid., p. 319-21.)



The agitation against the Universities Act (1904) was but a prelude to the massive Swadeshi Movement which followed another spurious measure of Lord Curzon, viz, the partition of Bengal. The anti-partition protest! ed to the Swadeshi Movement, and its " right hook " the boycott of foreign goods. This political and economic campaign in Bengal made a tremendous impact on Bombay. The gestation of the Swadeshi was initiated first by Lokahitwadi Gopal Hari Deshmukh. (Gazetteer of India, Vol. II (Government of India, 1973), p. 540.) In 1905-06, however, it was attempted to widen the Swadeshi Movement from a mere boycott of British goods to a boycott of everything British. After the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi, the Non-co-operation Movement was essentially a revival of the Swadeshi on an all-India scale. (The idea  was  expounded  with its economic  implications   in the   1840s   by Lokahitwadi, and in the seventies by M. G. Ranade.) It urged the people to resign from government jobs, shun the British law-courts, withdraw from schools and colleges and boycott the elections. But we shall turn to these events afterwards.

Tilak was the principal advocate of the Swadeshi in Bombay. The Swadeshi Wastu Pracharini Sabha, Bombay, comprising patriotic mill owners, businessmen and political workers in the city was quite active. In September 1905 Tilak exhorted the Bombay millowners to extend their helping hand to the movement by supplying dhotis produced by them at moderate rates. Their response, however, was in the negative. Tilak presided over a large public meeting in the city on 15 October 1905 in which it was resolved to encourage indigenous goods and to request the mills of Bombay to stop the price rise. His speech was eloquent and bristling with political suggestions, and he vehemently attacked the Times of India for reactionary views. Tilak was on the platform in Bombay often and on for the same mission. (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement,  Vol. II, p. 213.)

The Swadeshi Wastu Pracharini Sabha organised a meeting in September 1906 under Tilak who exhorted his audience to the cause of swadeshism. He also expressed his sympathy for the employees who participated in the postal strike. (Ibid., p. 214.) The Sabha organised another meeting on 9 October 1906 presided over by Tilak who deprecated the extension of railways with British capital investment on the score of its facilitating the export of Indian goods which was to the advantage of England's economy. Tilak also advocated the anti-free trade policy, and asserted that swadeshism and boycott were inseparable. (Ibid., p. 215.)

On 21 October 1906, Tilak explained to the Bania merchants at the meeting of the Swadeshi Wastu Pracharini Sabha that the essence of swadeshism did not lie so much in boycotting foreign articles as in making efforts to reduce foreign imports and to increase exports of India. He advised them to transact their business direct and not through foreigners. Tilak,was reported to have interviewed the Russian, German and Austrian Consuls ostensibly to obtain letters of introduction to commercial firms in those countries with a view to purchase goods and machinery in furtherance of the Swadeshi Movement.

During the Governorship of George Clarke, later Lord Sydenham (1907-1913), a number of controversial issues ruffled Bombay. He, as it appears, decided to put the coping stone on Lord Curzon's work, and lost no time in formulating his ideas and setting things in motion for carrying them into effect. Hostilities commenced with a letter from Government to the University, dated 18 December 1908, stating that radical reforms were necessary if the teaching of science and higher education geherally were to be brought into harmony with modern requirements. (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, p. 216). It was an attempt by Government towards infringement of university autonomy in academic matters. The issue came before the Senate for the first time in January 1910, and subsequently in 1910 and 1911. The bureaucratic imagination had taken fright at the idea of the young students being fed on the noble story of the struggle for freedom which enriched the pages of English history. Pherozeshah was vehemently opposed to the change, (Homi Mody, op. tit, p. 332.) while the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Narayan Chandavarkar took a complacent attitude towards Government machinations. Even Sir R. G. Bhandarkar unfortunately charged Pherozeshah with employing obstruc­tive tactics. (Ibid., p. 335.)  The machine-made majority had gathered obedience to carry out the behests of the reactionary Governor. (Ibid., p. 332.)

With the retirement of Lord Sydenham and the advent of Lord Willing-don, a Governor with liberal tendencies, in 1913, there came a change over the spirit of the Secretariat/The new Governor, brought up in the vivifying atmosphere of the House of Commons, (Ibid., p. 359.) had the sagacity to recognize critics of Government as valued assets. During the last two years of his career Pherozeshah wielded a great influence over the intelligentsia as well as in the Legislative Council.

The First World War broke out in August 1914, and it was on 13 August that the citizens in Bombay held a meeting in the Town Hall to give expression to the feelings of loyalty which the war had aroused among large sections of the people. Pherozeshah presided and delivered one of the most memorable speeches he ever made. (Ibid., p. 361.) According to a newspaper report, it was " a great resolve expressed in noble words; it found an echo in every speaker who followed and it was greeted with unparalleled enthusiasm by the audience which crowded the historic Town Hall".

Mahatma Gandhi's Home-Coming : The most important event in Bombay early in 1915 was the home-coming of Mahatma Gandhi. During his earlier career he had sojourned in the city for an aggregate of about five years at intervals. On arrival in Bombay Gandhiji and Kasturba were accorded a most cordial welcome at the Apollo Bunder by a large concourse of distinguished people including J. B. Petit, Sir Bhalchandra Krishna, B. G. Horniman, Bahadurji, Narottam Morarji, Narandas and Revashankar Jagjivan (Gandhiji's host). Gandhiji had a meeting with Gokhale who gave him appropriate counsels, and also saw the Governor at the latter'sdesire. A series of receptions were arranged in Gandhiji's honour in the city, the most grand of which was organised at J. B. Petit's residence(Mount Petit at Malabar Hill.) on 12 January 1915 by an influential committee comprising Pherozeshah, M. A. Jiiuiah, Dinshaw Wacha, J. B. Petit, Sir Richard Lamb, Sir Claude Hill, Pattani and K. M. Munshi. Pherozeshah as president of the meeting, said that for the last few years the whole country had resounded with the tale of Gandhi's great deeds, his courage and great moral qualities, his labours and his sufferings in the cause of the Indians in South Africa. In a welcome accord to Gandhiji by the Gujarat Association, Girgaum, Jinnah recounted Gandhi's illustrious services, and expressed an absolute unanimity of the Indians in presenting a united front to the enemy of the Empire at war and the Indian loyalty to British Government. The Bombay Branch of the Servants of India Society under Gokhale gave a befitting reception to the newly arrived hero. The Bombay National Union at Hira Baug with Tilak, the citizens of Ghatkopar and the women of Bombay at an assembly at Madhav Baug (The speakers included Ramabai Ranade, Lady Pherozeshah Mehta, Lady Cowasji Jehangir and Lady Tyabji.) also arranged for warm receptions in honour of Gandhiji and Kasturba. (The account of receptions is based on K. GopaUwami's Gandhi and Bombay (Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1969).)

G. K. Gokhale passed away on 19 February 1915 within six weeks of Gandhiji's return to India, while he was engaged in a solution of the momentous problems that confronted India at one of the turning points in her history. His death seemed to be nothing short of a national calamity. Bombay gave fitting expression to her sense of loss at a very impressive gathering in the Town Hall on 5 March 1915. Lord Willingdon was in the chair, and " in a singularly felicitous vein paid a tribute to the departed leader. The pathos of the situation struck the audience.". (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 361.)

During his visit to Bombay the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge desired Pheroze­shah to accept the vice-chancellorship of the Bombay University, which he accepted in March 1915, but did not live long to enjoy the chair. His services to the august body were distinguished and highly meritorious.

The Municipal Corporation of which he was the creator and uncrowned king, celebrated its Golden Jubilee on 2 March 1915, under the presidentship of Sir Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy. (Homi Mody, op. cit., p. 369.)

Pherozeshah Mehta, the towering figure which had dominated the stage for more than a generation, died at Napean Sea road in Bombay on 5 November 1915. Public sorrow over the event was profound and universal. The Municipal and University offices as great many institutions observed mourning. Rich tributes were paid even by bitter political opponents like Tilak and Lord Harris, Lovat Fraser and Bhavnagari in a memorial meeting in London presided over by Aga Khan. The remarkable memorial meeting of the citizens of Bombay. which took place a little later, provided a befitting culmination to the demonstration of popular feeling which marked the great Bombay citizen's death. It was held on 10 December 1915, in a Shamiana erected for the forthcoming session of the Congress, as the Town Hall would have been too small for the occasion. The meeting of over 10,000 was presided over by Lord Willing-don, the speakers being Chandavarkar, Mr. Birkett, (Representative of British mercantile community.) Ibrahim Rahimtulla, Dr. Mackichan and many others. (Homi Mody, op. cit., pp. 377-82.)

The first number of the Young India was published on 17 November 1915 under editorship of Jamnadas Dwarkadas in Bombay. (Jamnadas Dwarkadas, op. cit., p. 90.) This paper was destined to become the mouthpiece of the freedom movement.



Enormous fortunes were reaped on imports and exports and the large princely merchant houses had become established in Bombay in the first half of the nineteenth century. The wealth of Bombay's leading merchants gave them power and social prestige. It also earned them the title of shetia. By about 1840 the shetias had assumed a distinct public role in the city's life. Many of them regarded Bombay as their home and were concerned for its embellishment. The Par sis were in the forefront in this respect. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai Batliwala, the first Baronet (1783-1859), Framji Cowasji, Cowasji Jehangir, Jagannath Shankarshet, Goculdas Tejpal and Roghay were among the business magnates and public spirited philanthropists of the day. They were deeply involved not only in the nexus of the economy of the city but also in its public life. The Government associated the shetias with significant official positions and committees in Bombay. Many of them were appointed as Justices of the Peace and as members of the Board of Conservancy. A good many shetias functioned as Commissioners of the Court of Requests and as members of the Board of Education. They were acclaimed to be the representatives of the natives as a whole. They had developed a sense of corporate identity and a certain public role as leaders of society.

As early as 1829, leaders like Shankarshet, Jamshetji Jijibhai and Framji Cowasji, had urged the House of Commons, through a petition, that Indians be included in the hitherto solely European Bench of Justices, a body which was responsible for the functioning of municipal affairs and for raising revenues. The shetias had also requested the Government for induction of natives in the Grand Jury and positions of office. When Indian Justices were finally appointed in 1834, twelve of the thirteen were shetias. (Of them 9 were Parsis, 2 Marathi and 1 Muslim, cf J. Masselos. op. cit., p. 18.)

A great deal of wealth and public influence in Bombay in the early nineteenth century was concentrated in a few families such as, the Jamshetji Jijibhais, the Banajis, the Readymoneys, the Wadias, the Camas, the Dadyshets, Varjivandas Madhavdas, Mangaldas Nathubhai, the Tyabjis, the Roghays, the Ghatays, etc. Dadaji Dhakji was an eminent Prabhu millionaire of the forties. Jagannath Shankarshet (1802-65) was the most prominent Maratha shetia who had inherited money-lending business from his grandfather and trading from his father. His own banking activities ensured that he remained a wealthy man. However, his status was based not so much on the vast riches typical of the Gujarati shetias but more on his own force of character, his unique position in the Marathi speaking population and the respect with which his advanced ideas were regarded by Government. (Bombay Gazette, 1 August 1865, cf. Christine Dobbin, op. cit.)

With the opening of the China trade and the rise in the price of American cotton after 1833, there was a large increase in the number of independent European mercantile firms in Bombay. Nearly all these firms had Parsi guarantee-brokers, (H. B. Wadia, B. H. Wadia, Jijibhai Dadabhai, Dadabhai Pestanji Wadia, Manakji N. Petit, Cowasji Jehangir, etc. were the leading guarantee brokers of many European firms. Dadabhai P. Wadia was regarded as the greatest Parsi house in Bombay until it collapsed in the early fifties, Dinshaw Wacha, Shells from Sands of Bombay (Oxford, 1972).) who guaranteed the solvency of the constituents and advanced huge capital to enable them to carry on trade. The families most closely associated with the China trade comprised the Readymoneys, the Petits, the Camas, the Banajis and the Jamshetji Jijibhais. The Ready-money family owned several ships and their prosperity was assured by the association of Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney with the prosperous ship­building family of Roghay. The Readymoneys had come to Bombay from Navsariin the eighteenth century. Upon arrival they established the China trade, and Sir Cowasji Jehangir acquired a slight knowledge of English at the Sykes' School. At 25 he was appointed guarantee broker of two European companies and eventually became one of the richest persons. (Anon, Representative Men of the Bombay Presidency (Bombay, 1900), p. 73.) The Petits, one of the first mill-owing families in Bombay, were the early migrants from Surat Sir D. M. Petit was an agent for French vessels (hence the name), and his son Sir Dinshaw Petit began his career in 1840 as a clerk in a European concern and afterwards a manager for other European firms. Meanwhile, the family had become very wealthy on its own account and had opened textile mills in the city. (Ibid., p. 70.) The Wadia family, the most successful and forward-thinking of the Bombay millionaires, was well-established as shipwrights to the East India Company during the heyday of the Bombay Docks in the eighteenth century. It was in 1735 that Lavji Nasarvanji Wadia was brought down to Bombay from Surat, and was actively engaged throughout the whole period in building new vessels for the Company. The family continued a tradition of shipbuilding till about 1880. (R. Wadia, The Wadia Dockyard and the Wadia Master Builders.) K. N. Cama (1815-85), the founder of the Cama family, became one of the most successful merchants trading between India and China. They built ships and were the first Indians to establish a mercantile firm in London in the mid-1850s. The Banajis owned many ships and had extensive trade with China and Burma. Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai (1783-1859), the first Baronet, was, however, the most prominent among them all. He built his own fleet of ships and was by far the greatest trader with China. He earned huge profits in cotton exports and also a reputation for being the most enlightened philanthropist in Bombay. By virtue of his being the head of the Parsi Panchayat the title of " Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai " was continued on the head of the family for generations ahead. The Tatas migrated to Bombay early in the nineteenth century and by 1859 they were general merchants, contractors for the British and China traders. Jamshetji, the future giant of industry, received English education in the Elphinstone College and had gained experience of the Lancashire cotton industry. (F. Harris, Jamshetji Nusserwanji Tata : A Chronicle of his life (Bombay, 1958),pp. 1-10.)

The Thackerseys, a Bhatia family from Kathiawar, had their fortune founded by Damodar Thackersey Moolji who began to establish intercourse with the European export-import houses of Bombay in about 1866 and acquired wealth power through trade and industry. (Anon, op. cit., pp. 114-15,) The Currim-bhoy house was established in the city prior to the advent of industry, and was mainly engaged in trade with China. This Khoja family hailed from Cutch where they used to ply country crafts between Mandvi, Arabia and Zanzibar. They acquired mill agencies, and in 1888 startedtheir own mills, and eventually built an empire of their own in Bombay. (S. M. Rutnagur, op. cit., pp. 697-732). The Sassoons were another successful family, the largest millowners in Bombay. These Baghdadi Jews who had come to Bombay in 1832, entered the Gulf trade and opium business. (S. Jackson, The Sassoons (London, 1968), pp. 17-22.) They were a westernised family enjoying important positions and contacts with Englishmen.

Many of the Banias of the 1850 period were equally prosperous as the Parsis. They were cotton traders, bankers and guarantee brokers.

The decline in China trade in the middle of the nineteenth century was instrumental in the economic decline of the Parsis and the Muslims who, besides being traders, were also shipbuilders. This period witnessed the emergence of David Sassoon(Bartle Frere, Governor of Bombay, described him as ' the first of our non-European merchants in wealth and respectability'.) and other Jews as men of wealth.

The decline in old spheres of influence, was, however, partially compen­sated for by the rise of new ones. There was an enormous increase in cotton trade. The outbreak of American Civil War in 1861 and the consequent spurt in export of cotton to England contributed enormously to the economic growth of Bombay. The Parsis, Banias and Bhatias amassed huge fortunes in cotton trade. (The value of cotton exports increased from 5.25 millions in 1860 to 80 millionsin 1865.)All sorts of ingenious schemes were devised for channelising the money earned. The economic situation was characterised as the Share Mania of 1861-65. The economic life of the city was electrified during the Share Mania. The super abundance of wealth stimulated investments in shipping, banking, trade and land reclamation. Enormous money was injected into the city which trans­formed Bombay into the most important mercantile centre, the Urbs Prima in Indis. The cessation of the war in 1865, however, brought a general disaster on the economy of the city and the textile industry was overwhelmed by a stagnation.

It was between 1818 and 1860 that road and railway communications were established between the city and the mainland. The opening of the first railway ever constructed east of the Suez Canal (16 April 1853) was one of the most important landmarks in the annals of Bombay as well as of India. The railway was extended from Thane to Kalyan on 1 May 1854. The railway sections upto Igatpuri were opened from time to time until 1 January 1865. (For details see Chapter 7—Communications in Greater Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. II,) The cherished goals of the public spirited men in Bombay to link the cotton producing tracts of Khandesh and Berar with the city by railway were fulfilled in 1865. The rail link from Kalyan to Khandala was opened on 14 May 1863, and was extended further to Pune. Bombay, thus, became the nerve centre of trade and industry. Its fine natural harbour, and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, made it the most important international port in India; (Development of the Bombay harbour was commenced in 1736. The history of railways, harbour, docks and roads is furnished in Chapters 7 and 9 in Greater Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. II.) The opening of the sub-marine cable to England in 1870 provided a sensitive link with the markets of the world.

Besides the several changes in physical infrastructure, the administration of commerce was improved by trade regulations, and new joint-stock legislation. There was a change over to the joint-stock principle. The growth of trade and the collapse of many houses of agency, stimulated the establishment of many banks. In 1840 the Government-sponsored Bank of Bombay was established/This was followed by the Bank of Western India in 1842 and the Commercial Bank of India in 1845. (Christine Dobbin, op. cit, p. 18.) Shankarshet was a director of both the latter banks. Dadabhai Pestanji Wadia, Framji Cowasji Banaji, Jamshetji Jijibhai, Jijibhai Dadabhai, B. H. Wadia and Cowasji Nanabhai Davar, were all connected with the banks. The mercantile magnates, headed by Framji Banaji, took up shares when the G. I. P. Railway Company was projected. Insurance companies were beginning to attract attention. The establishment of banks opened up new opportunities in the field of brokerage in stocks and shares. Premchand Raichand was by far the greatest name in this sphere.

These developments paved a way for the pioneering of the cotton mill industry in Bombay. The first mill in the city, the Bombay Spinning and Weaving Company was floated by a shareholders agreement on 7 July 1854. It was ventured by Cowasji Nanabhai Davar (1814-73). The profits of the same exceeded all expectations, and many mills followed. The Oriental Spinning and Weaving Company, floated in 1855 under the leadership of M. N. Petit, Beramji Jijibhai, Varjivandas Madhavdas, E. Sassoon and two Europeans, started functioning in 1858. M. N Petit's entry into the mill industry marked the transition of his family from trade to industry. Prosperity of the industry attracted a number of shetias. Mangaldas Nathubhai floated the Bombay United Spinning and Weaving Company in February 1860. B. H. Wadia and Kesowji Naik promoted one mill each in the same year. There were ten mills with 6,600 employees in the city in 1865.

A good many mercantile magnates were close personal friends by virtue of their business partnerships. They promoted not only trade and industry but also were munificent in their charities. The total sum donated by Jamshetji Jijibhai in his lifetime amounted to Rs. 25 lakhs. Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney, likewise, became famous for his charities, which included large donations for the University and for hospitals, amounting to Rs. 14 lakhs. (Christine Dobbin, op. tit, p. 21.) Other philanthropists included Jagannath Shankarshet, Mangaldas Nathubhai, Goculdas Tejpal, Framji Banaji, F..N. Patel and M. N. Petit.

The Bombay Chamber of Commerce was established by Europeans, inducting three Indians on its first committee, in 1836. Although not a political body, many complaints made by the Chamber to Government had attracted Indian political associations in subsequent years. It showed its concern for development of communications in the Presidency and growth of Bombay. Its members, including Framji Banaji and Jamshetji Jijibhai established the Bombay Times in 1838.

Besides the men of amazing commercial career mentioned above, the other pioneers of industry in Bombay included, Dinshaw Petit, Nusser-wanji Petit, Bomaiyi Wadia, Dharamsey Punjabhai, David Sassoon, Merwanji Pandey, Khatau Makanji, Tapidas Varajdas, James Greaves, George Cotton, Morarji Goculdas, Mancherji Banaji, Mulji Jetha, Thackersey Moolji, Jamshetji Tata and many more. They were said to be men of initiative and integrity. Jamshetji Tata emerged as an enterprising industrialist who was the first to introduce economies in cotton mills, a fair deal to workers and a system of bonus and provident fund to employees. He went to England to study the Lancashire mill industry in 1865, and started the Alexandra mill in 1869 and the Swadeshi mill in 1886, while the Tata mills was established after his death in 1915.

Morarji Goculdas established a mill which bears his name even today, in 1870. Thackersey Moolji floated the Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Company in 1873. This was followed by the mills of David Sassoon in 1874 and of Khatau Makanji in 1875. The progress of the industry was particularly rapid from 1875 to 1885. The Greaves Cotton and Company and the firms of D. M. Petit and the Thackersey family expanded their textile ventures by establishing many new mills. The number of mills in the city increased to 70 in 1895. The new mills which saw the light of the day during 1885-95 included those floated by Currimbhoy Ibrahim and Sons, Sassoon J. David and Company and E. D. Sassoon and Company.

The progress of the industry was, however, retarded by a depression, an unprecedented plague and famine. Many inefficiently managed companies went into liquidation or changed Agents.

The outbreak of the First World War and the stoppage of imports of machinery from Lancashire hampered establishment of new mills in Bombay for many years to come. While Bombay had been exporting yarn to China on a large scale upto 1914, the exports slumped rapidly due to Japanese competition. Surprisingly, Japanese yarn and piecegoods were imported in Bombay as their cost of production was much less. The number of mills, therefore, declined gradually after 1915.

The role of the Bombay Millowners' Association in the pre-Independence period was particularly beneficial to the industry. It is one of the oldest trade organisations in the country, established on 1 February 1875. It advocated the cause of the industry in regard to its advancement, safeguarding of interests and arbitration with Government, in matters of commercial and fiscal policies. The mills owe a debt of gratitude to this body which functioned as its mouthpiece. Increasingly the mills became the predominant source of wealth and investment. It was on this basis that the owners and their Association built up their social position and standing in the public life of Bombay. They financed the charities which earned them influence and esteem.

Although the Millowners' Association was a body of vested interests of the owners of mills, it often extended its helping hand to the nationalist movement. Many of its members were closely associated with the Bombay Presidency Association and other public organisations in Bombay. The mercantile class and shetias which this body represented had always their impress on the political activities in city. They provided timely finance not only to the Bombay Presidency Association but also to the Indian National Congress from time to time.

The Bombay Millowners' Association welcomed and supported the Swadeshi Movement in so far as it suited industrial interests. The ideas of Swadeshi were kept alive and brought to every door by articles in newspapers, processions and enrolment of volunteers to keep vigilant watch and by occasional bonfire of foreign cloth. The British interests complained that the Bombay millowners made huge profits on account of the Swadeshi sentiment for buying indigenous cloth. Undoubtedly the movement supplied a momentum to the cotton mills in Bombay.

The formation of the Bombay Port Trust in June 1873 was one of the most important landmarks in the history of economic development of Bombay. It originated in the apprehension of the Bombay Government that trade interests were seriously endangered by the monopoly of private companies in regard to landing and shipping facilities at the port. The properties vested in the Port Trust included the Elphinstone Estate, the Mody Bay reclamation, the Apollo Bay reclamation, the Wellington reclamation, the Apollo Pier, the Tank Bunder Estate, the Customs bonded warehouses, the Kasara Bunder, and the whole of the property of the Harbour and Pilotage Board, the Mazagaon Pier, etc. During 1873-83 it mainly executed the works on the Elphinstone Estate, including construction of the Prince's Dock which was opened on 1 January 1880. The Frere road was also completed. During 1883-93, the Victoria Dock and Merewether Dry Dock were constructed for the convenience of growing trade and shipping. Work on the Apollo Pier was completed; additional cranes were purchased and channels of the Prince's Dock were improved. The Trust purchased the property on the foreshore at Sewri. Although no major work was done during 1893-1903, works were designed to facilitate trade and to develop property of the Trust. During the subsequent period important schemes for expansion of dock accommodation and construction of new docks were executed in Bombay. The Ballard Pier was farther extended to meet the rquirements of increased overseas traffic. The existing docks were also improved from time to time.

The most spectacular work of the Bombay Port Trust was, however, the construction of the Port Trust railway in 1915. (A detailed account of the Bombay Port Trust and Docks is given in Chapter 7 of the revised Greater Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. II, and the Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island, Vol. Ill, 1910, pp. 66-81.) The post-war boom gave a burst of energy to the budding cotton textile industry of Bombay. By 1917-18, Bombay had 43.7 per cent of the total number of spindles in India and 50.5 per cent, of the looms. (A. K. Bagchi, Private Investment in India, 1900-1939 (Cambridge, 1972), p.  234.) Although cotton textile was the principal industry, there were also the railway workshops and engi­neering works which prospered during the period. The railway workshops were the second largest employers of labour. Between 1860 and 1920 the entire market economy of the city grew apace in association with the growth of the mill industry.

The opportunities afforded by the progress of trade, industries and communications attracted considerable number of merchants, entrepreneurs and workers to Bombay from all over Western India. Among the migrants the businessmen were from Gujarat, Cutch and Rajasthan, millhands from Ihe Deccan and Konkan and clerks from South India The enterprising men of industry and trade included Parsis, Banias Bhatias, Marwaris, Khojas, Memons and Jews. By 1921, an enormous 84 per cent population of the city had been born outside it. (Census of India, 1921, IV, p. 15.)

The Parsis (84,868 in 1921) had a powerful central organisation, the Parsi Panchayat whose traditional leader was Sir Jamshetji Jijibhai. Although they were a more or less homogeneous group there were some recalcitrant elements and nationalists like Mr. K. F. Nariman who had shown their resentment at the Parsi merchant princes. For example, middle class Parsis boycotted the address arranged in honour of the Prince of Wales who had come to Bombay in 1921. Besides the Parsis, the old merchant communities of Bombay included the orthodox Surati Banias, the Bohras and the Jains. The Marwaris arrived in substantial numbers during the 1916-21 boom. In the   1930s they moved into the mill industry in substantial numbers, buying up the Currimbhoy empire, and later, the Sassoons. (A. D. D. Gordon, Businessmen and Politics : Rising Nationalism and a Modernising Economy in Bombay, 1918-1933 (Australian National University Monograph, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1978), p. 50.)

By the dawn of the twentieth century, Bombay exhibited a division between the old native town housing the bustling markets and the masses of the proletariat, and the modern section housing fashionable establishments and the westernised gentry. As Joseph Baptista, later Mayor of Bombay, said in 1913, "Bombay was the graveyard of the poor, although its rapid rise was remarkable, although it was then the first city of India, the second in the British Empire and the tenth in the world and although its potentialities were prodigious." By 1921 Maharashtrian labourers from the Konkan and the Deccan constituted more than half of the recently arrived manual workforce of 2,30,000. (Burnett Hurst, Labour and Housing in Bombay (London, 1925), pp. 3-4.) The labour force was, at this time, highly volatile and lacking in a definite leadership. The growth of modern industry as a result of the boom of 1916-21 attracted educated middle-class professionals and clerks, mainly from Kanara, Cochin, Goa and Madras. In 1921, Bombay supported 3,709 lawyers, 6,651 doctors and 2,450 teachers. A high percentage of doctors were Parsis and South Indian Christians. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 47.)

By the end of the World War I it was overwhelmingly those industrial or business houses, with a few notable exceptions, which were well-established in Bombay prior to 1850 that were able to capitalise on the new mill industry. The prominent industrial or business houses included the Petits, the Wadias, the Readymoneys, the Thackerseys, the Currimbhoy family, the Sassoons, and the Tatas. All of them owned several mills and huge wealth.

The Sassoons were however, the largest millowners in Bombay in the 1920s. The Currimbhoy house owned the second largest number of mills in this period.

These business houses constituted an " inner circle " among the mill-owning companies in the city. They were highly westernised and adept in modern business methods. There was a close liaison on the social and business levels between them and Europeans. The Willingdon Sports Club at Hornby Vellard was founded by Lord Willingdon during his Governorship with the specific objective of promoting harmony between Ind ians and Euro­peans, and it served an admirable venue for meetings and rapprochement between the bureaucracy and the industrialists till Independence. (After 1947 it, however, became more of an entertainment club for the rich thananything else.)

Most of these families sent their sons to England, and were the members of several westernised clubs. The cultural affinity between the Englishmen and the Bombay industrialists was so close that the Willingdon Club was treated with scorn. Many of them were members of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce and the Indian Merchants' Chamber which were under European domination. Men like Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Sir C. V. Mehta and many others were closely associated with European firms. (Frank Moraes, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas' (Bombay. 1957)

The industrialists in Bombay also enjoyed Government patronage and substantial representation in various institutions ever since the mid-nineteenth century. After the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 both the Indian Merchants' Chamber (hereafter called IMC) and the Bombay Millowners' Association (BMA) were granted representation on the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Port Trust, the Bombay City Improvement Trust and the Bombay Legislative Council. Besides, many industrialists were either elected or nominated to the legislatures on independent basis because of their economic power, while some of them sat on the Governor's and Viceroy's Executive Councils. Victor Sassoon, Currimbhoy Ibrahim, Lallubhai Samaldas and Manmohandas Ramji, all sat in the Legislative Assembly during the 1920s, while C. V. Mehta, Cowasji Jehangir Jr., D. M. Petit, Vithaldas Thackersey and others were members of the Bombay Legislative Council. Ibrahim Rahimtoola, C. V. Mehta and Cowasji Jehangir Jr., were on the Bombay Governor's Council, and Hussenbhai Lalji was a member of the Viceroy's Council. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., Notes on p. 265)

The industrialists as a group could also exercise influence because of their economic power, and the Government was dependent upon them for political support. Many of the Governors of Bombay impressed upon the Viceroy or the Secretary of State about the importance of maintaining the friendship Of the Bombay interests. The industrialists had extended financial support to the War Loans. Naturally many times the Governors were compelled to persuade the British Govern­ment not to offend them on tariff and fiscal matters. Sir Leslie Wilson (Governor, 1923-28), was faced with such a predicament in 1927 when he wrote to Lord Irwin (Wilson to Irwin, 22 June 1927, MSS. EUR. D. 703 (15) to do something to retain the goodwill of these people. Sir Frederick Sykes (Governor, 1928-33), had similarly to urge to Lord Irwin (Sykes to Irwin, 16 April 1930, MSS. EUR. F. 150 (2).
) on several occasions that the Bombay industrialists should not be alienated by Government fiscal policy. Besides, the powerful industrialists such as Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola and Sir Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy could influence bureaucrats in the Presidency as well as at New Delhi. Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola was in close association with Lord Willingdon and Sir George Lloyd. Sir Fazul­bhoy Currimbhoy had the ear of Sir Leslie Wilson, and Sir Ness Wadia was almost an adviser of Frederick Sykes in the matters relating to cotton industry and trade.

The entire mill industry and other industries owned by Indians, as well as most of the Indian-owned modern financial institutions, were controlled by about 50 individuals. Five great family-based managing agencies, namely Currimbhoy Ibrahim and Company, E. D. Sassoon and Company, Nowrojee Wadia and D. M. Petit and sons, controlled over half the spindles and looms in Bombay mills. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. tit., p. 62.) A small core of 18 men, two of whom were Europeans, between them controlled 77 companies registered on the Bombay Stock Exchange in 1924, and four giants, Sir Sassoon J. David, Sir Jamsetji Jijibhai, F. E. Dinshaw and Purshottamdas Thakurdas sat each on the boards of more than 22 companies. In fact F. E. Dinshaw, at one time, was on the boards of 65 companies. This shows the oligopolistic control of Bombay industry by a few magnates. This concentration was partly due to the dearth of managerial talents, but largely due to the managing agency system which was imported to Bombay by the Petits in I860. (Ibid., p. 63.) Agencies such as the Tatas, Currimbhoys, and later Walchand Hirachand, spawned great conglomerates which handled all stages of production.

The mill ownership in Bombay was overwhelmingly in the hands of Indians. Between 1912 and 1935 the estimated gross assets of the British in the city fell from 43 per cent of the total to 10 per cent and the European paid-up capital decreased from 30.8 to 21.6 per cent. This decline was mainly due to the withdrawal of capital by the European entrepreneurs during the Civil Disobedience Movement and the depres­sion. This was coincident to the general withdrawal of British capital in India. Even among the mills controlled by the Europeans a large portion of the share capital was held by Indians. In seven of the eleven European-owned mills in 1930, for which data is available, there were 5,356 Indian shareholders holding shares worth Rs. 72.11 lakhs. (Ibid., p. 64.)

Among the Parsi millowners, the Wadias were the most successful. They controlled the Bombay Dyeing, Spring and Textile mills with a total of 180,296 spindles and 4,810 looms. Sir Ness Wadia was the most prominent among them, and was adept in gaining political conces­sions for the millowners. The Tatas under Sir R. D. Tata, controlled four mills in Bombay with 211,996 spindles and 5,708 looms in 1925-26. R. D. Tata and F. E. Dinshaw were in league with the conservative elements in the Congress on the one hand and the anti-nationalist elements in the Government on the other. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 66.) Sir D. M. Petit, a mill magnate, was a supporter of the Non-co-operation Movement, although he later changed sides.

Bhatias and Marwaris were prominent among Hindu millowners. The Thackerseys controlled 124,144 spindles and 3,104 looms (S. M. Rutnagur, op. cit.) in the 1920s. Sir Vithaldas Thackersey,. the most noteworthy among them, had a distinguished career as a member of the Municipal Corporation, City Improvement Trust, Imperial Legislative Council and the All-India Home Rule League. He died in 1922. Hansraj Pragji Thackersey was also a noted nationalist, member of the Municipal Corporation as well as the All-India Home Rule League, and a'treasurer of the Satyagraha Sabha. " Of the millowning families, the Thackerseys along with the Morarjis, were the least paradoxical in their relations with the nationalists." (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 66.) Walchand Hirachand was another nationalist industrialist who advocated the doctrine of economic nationalism. By and large the Hindu millowners as a group were more involved in marketing than in industry.

The Muslim and Jewish mills were owned by a few families. The Sassoons controlled 513,850 spindles and 11,400 looms in 1924. (S. M. Rutnagur, op. cit., p. 59.) Sir Victor Sassoon, the most prominent Jew millowner, was a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Sassoons, however, gradually shifted from industry to trade with China in the 1920s, and were international bankers. The Currimbhoys controlled 509,458 spindles and 9,744 looms, and enjoyed government favour through an unswerving loyalty to the British. Sir Ibrahim Currimbhoy was a longtime member of the Bombay Legislative Council, while he and Sir Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy were members of the Municipal Corporation.

In the 1920s there was, surprisingly, a good rapprochement between the industrialists and the intelligentsia in Bombay, who were opponents formerly. The leading Advocates, for example, had a close political and economic relationship with the millowners through the National Liberation Federation and the Independent Party, and through the induction of the former into the lattei due to the paucity of managerial talents and the exigencies of company law. Eminent persons such as Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Barrister Jinnah, M. R. Jayakar, F. E. Dinshaw and Sir Lallu-bhai Samaldas, became rich in the practice of company law. Samaldas was on the boards of 12 companies. Sir Homi Mody, Samaldas and Dinshaw were inducted into industry at management level and Mody eventually came to be totally identified with the millowners. He became head of the Tatas, and in 1927 the permanent chairman of the Bombay Millowners' Association. Mody was a disciple of Pherozeshah Mehta. The industrialists and the intelligentsia also became composite as an elite class, and they mixed socially in clubs and on the racecourse as well as in business. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 67.)

The marketeers who arrived in the later waves of migrants to Bombay were the antithesis of the industrialists. They were not represented in the Bombay Legislative Council and the Municipal Corporation, and were excluded from positions of authority in the city. Their inability to speak English was also their great handicap. For example, they were unable to influence the Indian Tariff Board of Inquiry into the cotton textile industry or the Cotton Contracts Bill of 1918 in the Bombay Council due to lack of knowledge of English. They did not rely on lateral business organisations like the Millowners' Association. They were fragmented into myriads of small associations dealing in one specific commodity. This also contributed to their political weakness in contrast to industrialists. (Ibid., pp. 69-70.)

The Bombay cotton market was the largest in the East, with an annual turnover of about three million bales. (Onebale=2/3 ton.) The ready cotton market was shifted from Colaba to the open space at Cotton Green (Sewri) in 1924, due to the dearth of adequate space at Colaba for the ever growing market. The future market was located at Kalbadevi, and attempts to shift it were defeated by the stalwarts of the Marwari Bazar, as it was called. Cotton exports were dominated by European firms such as the Bombay Company, Forbes Forbes and Campbell, Ralli Brothers and Volkarts.

The Bombay Cotton Trades Association founded in 1875 was a joint-stock company which admitted very few Indians and that too, only millowners and exporters. The Indian merchants had, therefore, founded the Bombay Cotton Exchange in 1890. In 1913 the muccadams and importers of cotton founded the Bombay Cotton Merchants' and Muccadams' Association under impetus from one Mr. Breul, an anglicised German in Bombay. The Bombay Cotton Brokers' Association was founded in 1915 in opposition to the Bombay Cotton Trades Association and the Bombay Cotton Exchange which were dominated by millowners. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 75.) Anandilal Poddar, Begraj Gupta and Mathurdas Vassanji were the leading lights of the Cotton Brokers' Association. Anandilal Poddar held nationalistic views and had gifted Rs. 2 lakhs to the Tilak Swaraj Fund in l921. (Ibid.,)

The end of the First World War left the Bombay cotton market in a state of flux. The Bombay share market which had received an un­precedented impetus during the Share Mania of 1861-65 was the largest of the indigenous money markets. After the towering influence of Premchand Raichand had ebbed, it was formalised into the Bombay Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association (BNSSBA) from about 1887. Sir Shapurji Broacha held sway over it till about the end of the First World War. However, the market was hardly well-organised upto the period under review.

There were three main piecegoods markets in the city in the 1920s viz., the Mulji Jetha Market (Shaikh Memon street), Morarji Goculdas Market (Kalbadevi) and Lakhmidas Market (Shaikh Memon street). The Mulji Jetha Market was, however, the largest and the most important. It housed the Bombay Native Piecegoods Merchants' Association (BNPMA) and about 374 shops. This as well as the other two markets were politically important because throughout the Non-co-operation and Civil Disobedience Movements the merchants extended their full-support to the Congress and Gandhiji. Their participation in the free­dom struggle was all the more important because the millowners very often changed sides between the nationalists and Government. This point will be illustrated later on.

Bombay dominated the bullion trade of India, and most of the bullion entering India came through the city. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 79.)The Bombay Bullion Exchange played an important role in the market, the leading brokers being G. D. Birla, a great nationalist, C. B. Mehta and Somani. G. D. Birla always supported the nationalist movement and was a close associate of Gandhiji.

The groundnut and oil-seeds market was another large market in the twenties, situated at Dana Bunder, near Masjid railway station. However, it was not very significant politically. Perhaps the most influential of all the Bombay markets was the traditional money market. This is because of the close financial relationship that existed between the shroffs and traders, and because most of the shroffs were also themselves traders in commodities. (Ibid,, p. 81.) The shroffs were known, in the nineteenth century, even to have financed Government. They continued to finance crops in the Presidency, share dealings and bullion trade till about Independence. They were jealous of the encroachment of modern financial institutions on their sphere of activity. They were represented by the Marwari Chamber of Commerce which assumed great political importance during the Civil Disobedience Movement.

The War, the reforms of markets by statutory provisions and growth of industrialisation, wrought great economic changes in Bombay during the twenties. On the one hand rapid industrialisation created enormous physical and social problems in the city, while on the other the economic reforms and the war cost the Government of Bombay good many financial resources, which it might have used to overcome these problems. The failure of Government to solve the problems of Bombay contributed to the political response of the city businessmen to the Congress agitations.



The municipal politics in the city by the last decade of the nineteenth century revolved around three interest groups, namely, the landlords, large merchants and industrialists. The working class was still a minor group. There were conflicts between the three groups about the development strategy as well as about the question who should pay for the development. The ravages of the bubonic-plague of 1896 which persisted for quite long, were an eye-opener to all. About one quarter of the population fled away the horrors of plague. The city was faced with commercial extinction. This prompted the European dominated Bombay Chamber of Commerce, by itself an interest group, to urge upon the Government the necessity for proper drainage, reticulation of clean water and planned reclamation in the city. It was against this background that Lord Sandhurst, Governor, created the Bombay City Improvement Trust (BCIT) in 1898, on the pattern of the Glasgow City Improvement Trust. It was intended to be a parallel organisation, if not actually a rival, to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. It is said that the Municipal Corporation was not so much amenable to the will of Government, and sometimes confronted the latter. The Government could not easily renege on civil freedoms. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 121). This prompted the Governor to introduce an additional element into local politics, a parallel organisation to the Corporation. It was established with the express purpose of developing the city in a planned way. It was charged with the laying of new roads, improvement of crowded localities, construc­tion of sanitary tenements for the poor, reclaiming of further lands and providing accommodation for the police. (Ibid.) Its constitution and powers were similar to the Bombay Port Trust. In keeping with Government's reliance on millowners and business magnates, it was dominated by these interests throughout its existence. The scheme, having been generally approved by the Municipal Corporation, the Port Trust and the Chamber of Commerce, was finally legalised by enactment of Act IV of 1898, and the Trustees commenced work from 9 November 1898. The Trust started quite well and effected clearance at several localities such as Nagpada, Mandvi, Koliwada, Naoroji Hill, Kholbhatwadi and Bhatwadi. Besides, the congested localities of Guzari Bazar, Memonwada, Tulsirampada, Anantwadi, Pathakwadi and Vithalwadi, were improved and provided with important arteries such as Mohammed Ali road, Princess street and Sandhurst road. Further clearance of Kamathipura, Nagpada, Sewri and Worli-Koliwada could not be undertaken due to financial constraints, although the same was proposed. (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay : Monographs on the occasion of Centenary Celebrations, 1973.)

The road schemes of the Trust were primarily designed to maintain a north-south thoroughfare for speedy transport. Schemes were also prepared for opening out areas of congestion. The broad road from Carnac road to Sewri was constructed. A road section from Carnac road to its junction with Parel road was newly laid out, opening out the Memonwada, the worst congested locality.

Hughes road was cut through Malabar Hill. Areas lying between Malabar Hill and Gowalia Tank road were thus made suitable for residen­tial purposes. Hughes road was developed into a western artery connecting Peddar Road. The Princess street opened areas around Dhobi Talao, Crawford Market, Chandanwadi, Vithalwadi, etc. Sandhurst road was another east-west link between Chowpati to the Dock area. The Chunam Kiln lane and the Gilder road on the north were widened into the present Lamington road. The Cuffe Parade was developed into another grand promenade on the reclaimed land.

The BCIT had all along conceived the reclamation of the low-lying northern areas for accommodating the poorer sections, thereby decongesting the central parts of the city. The scheme did not achieve the desired end as the cost of reclamation placed the value of plots beyond the reach of the poor. It included the Dadar, Matunga, Sewri, Wadala and Sion areas. Agripada was similarly reclaimed and made available for residential development. (Ibid.)

The accommodation schemes of the BCIT were two-fold, rehabilitation of those displaced by clearance schemes and residential accommodation for the police. The tenements were constructed by the BCIT at Agripada, Princess street, Chandanwadi and Mandvi and Koliwada. The Kohinoor mill and the Century mill constructed chawls for their workers at Naigaum and Worli, respectively, in consequence of amendment to the Trust Act.

The development of Bombay was being done by different public and private institutions without any co-ordinating link and without any regard to the interests of the masses. The Railways were acquiring valuable lands on the eastern and western parts of the city although it was felt that they should have concentrated on the eastern fringe alone to serve the harbour and the large population around. The B. B. and C. I. Railway, however, had extended to Colaba in the interest of the cotton merchants at Cotton Green. This involved heavy bullock cart traffic between the Harbour and Colaba. Hence the Cotton Green was removed from Colaba to the Sewri reclamation. Consequently, there was no apparent justification for the continuance of the rail link to Colaba. (Ibid.)

Whilst the several schemes were still on the anvil, Government issued a questionnaire on 9 December 1907 relating to (i) segregation of areas according to income groups, (ii) co-ordination and improvement of different channels of communication and (iii) a mode of travelling suitable for the displaced population. However, in this instance too, it was the industrial and business magnates who had the final say, and most of the replies received had a bias in favour of the replier's respective interest. Based on the replies received Government embarked upon a policy in 1909 which was to govern Bombay for the next 20 years. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 122.) It was recommended that the western shores should provide accommodation for the wealthy class (as they already did); that Salsette should provide accommodation for the middle class; that broad arterial roads should be knocked through the congested areas of themiddle island; and that the Back Bay reclamation was the only solution. (Ibid.) It was decided to transfer the right of Back Bay reclamation from the Trust to Government by a suitable legislation. No specific areas were earmarked for the middle class except for the land rendered vacant by the shifting of the rich class. The northern areas were being developed for those who could afford. Factory workers were "benevolently " to be accommodated near their place of work. (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay .Monographs on the occasion of the Centenary Celebrations, 1973.) The road system was also sought to be improved. The suggestion to terminate the B. B. and C. I. Railway at Grant Road was dropped as it was necessary to serve the reclamation areas. So also suggestion to terminate the B. B. and C. I. Railway at Victoria Terminus via Parel was dropped on the grounds that it would cause serious congestion of traffic and would prevent expansion of the G. I. P. Railway. ( Ibid.)

In 1913 Government decided to review the progress made with a view to ascertain if any change was necessary in the order of priorities. It, therefore, appointed a Development Committee which submitted a plan known as the Report of the Bombay Development Committee in 1914. The Committee did not suggest substantial changes in the policy of 1909. It held that mills should not be moved from their present situation, and that new mills should be concentrated in the north-east of the island. The Committee advocated land reclamation, particularly the Back Bay scheme, which, it was claimed, would fulfil the twofold purpose of providing middle class housing and offices as well as a thoroughfare between the wealthy residential areas on the western foreshore and the offices at the Fort.

The industrialists and magnates including Vithaldas Thackersey, Dinshaw Petit and Sassoon David favoured the reclamation, while Ramji Manmohandas and Purshotfamdas Thakurdas, on behalf of the IMC, and Ibrahim Rahimtoola on behalf of the landlords, opposed the scheme. The IMC felt that the emphasis of expansion should be to the north, to the Mahim Woods. The landlords opposed the scheme due to their fear that additions to the area of the island would reduce rents and land values. Most of the supporters of the reclamation were guided by a desire to enhance the prestige of Bombay as a mercantile centre as well as by personal interest as contractors. These interests gave rise to a syndicate involving R. D. Tata, his contractor lieutenant Walchand Hirachand, Shapurji Broacha, Lallubhai Samaldas, Sassoon David, Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy and Vithaldas Thackersey. (A.D. D. Gordon, op. cit, pp. 125-26; Back Bay Inquiry, 1926,1, p. 346.)

The Trust in adherence of Government policy followed a policy suited to the magnates, and not to the Corporation. It concentrated on activities such as widening of streets, probably its most valuable activity, and reclamation. By 1920 it had provided 21,387 new tenements in slum areas, which had involved demolition of old dwellings of an equal number. By 1918 it had accumulated 11 percent of the total area of the island although two-third of this land had remained undeveloped. On the other hand, by 1924-25 it successfully undertook a large reclamation at Colaba, and fully drained, paved and lit 29 kilometres of roads, while a further of 47 kilometres of roads were in the process of improvement. (A.D.D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 126.) The follow­ing quotation gives a fairly accurate assessment of the BCIT's work in 1925: " That body has followed a cautious policy by paying attention rather to the widening and bettering of streets, and in a measure, to the improvement of the actual structure for human habitation, than to the problem of over-crowding, and the insanitation which results as a consequence of it ....  the evil of overcrowding remained as acute as ever." (K. Shah and Bahadurji, Constitution, Function and Finance of Indian Municipalities(Bombay, 1925), p. 221.)

While the Government was trying to circumvent the Corporation unsuccessfully, that august civic body had done little since 1898 to alleviate conditions in the city. The expenditure of the Corporation on public works increased by 88 per cent, while that on public health only by 14 per cent over 15 years from 1900 to 1915. "On.the eve of the war time inflation and influx of people and the attendant social disorder, there was no public body prepared to handle the enormous physical problems faced by Bombay, and that these problems were largely the result of years of empire-building on the part of government and the large business magnates, and of obstruction on the part of landlords." (A. D.D.Gordon, op. cit., p. 128.)

Sir George Lloyd, a personal friend of Lord Montagu (Secretary of State), a clear-headed and hardworking man, but an imperialist, assumed the office of Governor in late 1918. He could execute his massive schemes in spite of the apathies of the bureaucracy qf the Government of India because of his friendship with Montagu. (See Lloyd to Montagu, 20 Dec. 1919, MSS. EUR. D. 523 (24).

George Lloyd believed that the housing problem contributed to political unrest in the city. He wrote to Montagu that the situation was so acute that the only solution was a combination of a northward expansion of the city and reclamation of Back Bay. He designed a massive scheme for housing and development, and decided to undertake the same on behalf of Government rather than entrusting it to the Improvement Trust or the Corporation. He formed the Bombay Development Department (BDD) in 1920 as a specially formed organisation under a civil servant. The department was financed from a development loan (The loan was mounted under the catchword," By Bombay for Bombay ".) and a one-rupee town duty levied on each bale of cotton entering the city.

George Lloyd had, thus, brushed aside the business magnates, the members of the 1918 syndicate, and usurped their right to 'develop' the city. This was bound to have ramifications in the local politics of Bombay.

In 1920 there were three authorities engaged in the development and improvement of Bombay, viz., Municipal Corporation, Bombay City Improvement Trust and Bombay Development Department. The Corpora­tion under the domination of industrialists was jealous of the BCIT and the BDD, while Lloyd himself was frustrated by the civic body denigrating it as a "wisp of Landlords".

Municipal Reforms : It may be necessary at this stage to examine the movement for municipal reforms as it developed after 1918.
The reforms movement was led initially by the Municipal Reform Association under the leadership of Joseph Baptista and the European Association. The former wanted a wholly elected civic body and a wholly elected standing committee. A Franchise Sub-Committee was appointed to go into the problem of enlarging franchise. The sub-committee comprised eight nationalists, i.e., the followers of the Congress and the Home Rule Leagues. Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola, a member of the Governor's Council, had aligned himself with the landlord faction. In the end, Bombay Act IV of 1922, which established the new Corpo^ ration, fixed the franchise at Rs. 10 and the total number of corporators at 106, 80 elected by the ratepayers, the Chambers of Commerce and the University, 17 nominated by the Government and 10 co-opted. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 137.)

As a result of the Reforms, there was a surge of nationalists into the Corporation in the 1923 civic election. They, however, could not capture the Corporation, which came under domination of the Progressive Party of Homi Mody. In fact V. J. Patel, leader of the Municipal Nationalist Party (MNP), lost the 1923 mayoral election to Mody. The MNP represented professionals, millowners, merchants and landlords in the 1923 and 1926 elections.

The important members in the Corporation at the time included Jamnadas Mehta, V. J. Patel, Homi Mody, K. F. Nariman, Bhulabhai Desai, S. H. Jhabwalla, L. R. Tairsee, Ranchhoddas Gandhi and Dinshaw Petit (2nd Bart.). An overtly communal element was introduced into municipal politics for the first time in the 1926 elections. (Ibid., p. 146.) The Corpora­tion ostensibly represented millowners, business magnates, landlords and professionals, while Maharashtrian workers, non-Brahmins and the middle class were totally out of municipal politics. (Ibid., p. 148.) This situation was voiced by R. V. Vandekar, a leader of the Peoples' Union in 1925 saying that the Corporation was dominated by powerful " monied interests " representing less than half the population of the city. (General Department, Bombay Government, 28 Feb. 1925.) The MNP was "also said to be representative of Gujarati interests. The Maharashtrians pleaded Government to nominate more members of the working class and Maharashtrians to the Corporation. " In a sense it is true to say that Maharashtra separatist movement of the late 1950's can be found in embryo in this upsurge of the mid 1920s." (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 149).

It is noteworthy that throughout the period there was an intense conflict in the city between different groups over the question, who was to pay for the increased revenue needs of the Municipal Corporation, the Bombay Development Department and City Improvement Trust. Mill-owners, merchants and landlords vied to thrust the burden of the new taxes necessitated by the crisis onto each other. The BMC had a desire to wrest the BDDand the BCIT. Another area of conflict developed over the amount and type of municipal expenditure.

This conflict concerned which development projects were essential. Projects like the East-West road were costly, and the MNP was opposed to them. Bhulabhai Desai moved that a retrenchment committee be appointed to see if certain development schemes, and those involving compulsory acquisition of land for roads in particular, could not be dropped. (BMC Proceedings, 1923-24,1(A). p. 705.) The committee suggested drastic reductions, but there was disagreement as to the cuts and who was to decide them.

The manner of Government spending invited acute discontent. The Municipal Commissioner, a Government Officer, very often awarded contracts to patrons of Government, Europeans and Muslims. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 150.) Hence, there was a feeling that the Corporation should be given the right to appoint the Commissioner.

It was in 1917 that Ibrahim Rahimtoola made the first demand to transfer the BCIT to the Corporation on the plea that its work was entirely a local self-government function, and that the Trust was originally intended to be a temporary body. Now the Corporation overwhelmingly supported Rahimtoola. The Trust invited opposition partly due to its limited achievements in the matter of housing schemes, but mainly because the Corporation had no control over its functioning in spite of contribution to the Trust funds. The landlords and contractors were also opposed to the Trust because it controlled 19 per cent of the land of Bombay Island. (Ibid, pp. 150-51.)

The Bombay Government, however, resisted stubbornly the transfer of the Trust on the belief that the Corporation was a stronghold of landlords. The struggle of the Corporation towards this end was joined, by the Swaraj Party which challenged the Government in the Bombay Legislative Council on the issue in 1925, but was defeated. The Trust was ultimately dissolved in 1926, and the bulk of its work was then entrusted to the Corporation under the Bombay Improvement Trust Act of 1925. The same Act was repealed in 1933, and its main provisions were incorporated in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888.



To recapitulate the story of the Congress, in 1910 it was the turn of the Moderates to initiate moves for reunion after the split at Surat. Gokhale got the impression that the time was ripe for a move toward reunion. Efforts were made in that direction. Unfortunately., however, the gulf between the secessionists and the Moderates remained unbridged for various reasons. Lokamanya Tilak after his imprisonment at Mandalay was released in Pune in the early hours of 17 June 1914. (Gordon Johnson, op. cit, p. 185,) His political utterances, after the release, suggested his eagerness for unification of the factions. Gokhale also felt encouraged. Mrs. Annie Besant and N. Subba Rao, among a few others, campaigned for reunion. Mrs. Besant argued thatTilak if he was persuaded to return, could be adequately kept under control by constitutional safeguards in the Congress constitution. But a trail of events made the Bombay politicians adamant. Pherozeshah, Wacha and Gokhale opposed the entry of the Nationalists into the Congress at this juncture. Sir Vithaldas Thackersey invited the next Congress of 1915 on behalf of Bombay. (Ibid., p. 190.) It seemed as though once again Tilak had been outmanoeuvred. However, several changes occurred in Indian politics which rapidly brought an end to the Maha-rashtriah quarrelling, as it was called. Gokhale died in Pune on 19 February 1915. Pherozeshah, the most obdurate of the Bombay men, also passed away on 5 November 1915. The death of the two opponents greatly weakened the opposition to Tilak. Infirmities of advancing years were creeping upon Wacha. Sir Narayan Chandavarkar was already a spent force in politics. Surendranath Banrierji was not quite in tune with the new thought. In 1915 Tilak should have been the uncrowned king not only of Maharashtra, but of the whole of India. (Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, Vol. I. (Pajdma Publications, Bombay, 1946), p. 120.) But the hostility towards him was still strong enough, and he himself preferred not to attend the Bombay Congress or 1915. The reconciliation between him and the Congress in the following year, however, went almost unnoticed, for there were more important things to consider. It was against this background that the Congress session was held in the Chiistmas of 1915 in Bombay. It was essentially a moderate Congress. The president chosen for the year was Sir Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, an ex-Law Member of the Government of India, who had left office in favour of the freedom movement. He was an eminent learned man largely influenced by the elderly Congressmen. Dinshaw Wacha was chosen chairman of the Reception Committee due to the demise of Pherozeshah.

The session opened with great interest as there were high hopes for reunification after the Surat imbroglio. Not less than 2,259 delegates attended the Bombay gathering and the resolutions that were passed covered a large variety of subjects, (Ibid., p. 122.) some of which were quite important.

Gandhiji attended the session, although he played an unconvincing and minor part in the proceedings. He was nominated to the Subjects Committee by the president as he was not elected. Among the distinguished leaders at the session were : Sir S. P. Sinha, Surendranath Bannerji, Malaviya, Jinnah, Annie Besant, Wacha, Vithaldas Thackersey, Mazharul Haq and many others. The Congress was certainly poorer for the loss of Gokhale and Pherozeshah.

One achievement of the session was that the constitution of the Congress was suitably amended to enable the entry of the Nationalist delegates, who were allowed to be elected by public meetings convened under the auspices of any of the associations having the object of attainment of self-government within the British Empire by constitutional means. This paved the way for Tilak's entry into the Congress.(Pattabhi Sitaramayya,op.cit., Vol.I,p.124 )



Mrs. Annie Besant had been making stout attempts for formation of the Home Rule League. She propounded that the Congress was, at best, a deliberative body, and hence the Home Rule League would become the executive arm of that body. She convened a conference at China Baug in Bombay soon after the Congress session. It was attended by Bannerji, Malaviya, Srinivasa Sastri, Motilal Nehru, Jinnah, Sapru, Jehangir Petit and Chimanlal Setalvad. Tilak was not invited at his own suggestion. The conference proved abortive mainly because the Congressmen were suspicious that Annie Besant wanted to start a rival organisation and " they abhorred the very idea of others taking up political activity." (Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Political Memoirs, (United  Asia Publications, Bombay, 1969), p. 92.) The influence of Government in those days was so appalling that the leaders were susceptible to its malevolent effects. (Ibid, p. 93.)  They advised Mrs. Besant to refrain from starting another organisation for the time being. Later on the All-India Home Rule League was inaugurated by Mrs. Besant at Madras in September 1916. (Ibid., p. 105.) Meanwhile Tilak had already started his own Home Rule League in May 1916, the activities of which were mainly restricted to Maharashtra. So after the Madras inaugural, seven persons from Bombay, namely, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Dr. V. S. Trilokekar, Ratansi Morarji, Umar Sobani, Shankarlal Banker, L. R. Tairsee, and Kanji Dwarkadas, met formally in China Baug and inaugurated the Bombay Branch of the Home Rule League. (Ibid., p. 106.) They engaged themselves in vigorous pamphleteering and propaganda activity educating the people on the evils of British rule and the urgency of securing home rule for India. Their hands were strengthened by the starting of the Young India by Jamnadas Dwarkadas. The reactionary elements in Bombay scoffed at first. For example, Mr. F. E. Dinshaw, a financier and industrial magnate made a fun of the Home Rulers. (Ibid., p. 107.)

In the mean time the repressive Press Act of 1910 spread its tentacles far and wide, and the process of unprecedented repression was helped by the unjustified use of the Defence of India Act. There was a great resentment in the vernacular press in Bombay and Pune. The Government launched a prosecution against Tilak in the High Court for certain articles he had written. Jinnah was Tilak's counsel and he fought so competently that the Judge Mr. Batchelor was compelled to dismiss government plea. B.G. Horniman, President of the Journalists' Association and some of the stalwarts of the Congress and Jamnadas Dwarkadas took a deputation to the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, in March 1916, against the abuse of the Defence of India Act. Though the latter's response was not favourable, this and several other occasions were exploited to give wide publicity to the misdeeds of Government.

The incarceration of Annie Besant in June 1917 was greeted with hostility in Bombay; particularly by the Home Rulers. They organised a public meeting in Bombay, wherein Gandhiji also spoke. By this time the younger generation had taken hold of Bombay and the Moderates realised that their power was almost gone. ( Ibid., p. 111.) Besides the Home Rulers mentioned above, Joseph Baptista was also a staunch protagonist of Mrs. Annie Besant, in Bombay. He was elected president of the League, and led it for several years.

Mrs. Besant's internment brewed a storm, and many started to identify themselves with the League.In Bombay, Jinnah, M.R. Jayakar, Horniman, K. M. Munshi, Vithalbhai Patel, Bhulabhai Desai, Jehangir Petit, D.N. Bahadurji, M. S. Captain, S. R. Bomanji, and several other persons enrolled themselves as members. Eventually Jinnah became the Bombay Home Rule League's president. They held many meetings for the release of Mrs. Besant. A whirlwind propaganda campaign was started in the city. Bhulabhai Desai, K. M. Munshi, Jamnadas and Indulal Yajnik used to address public meetings. Gandhiji supported and guided the movement, although Annie Besant did not always agree with him. Government was forced to release her and her companions three months later.

The conclaves at Shantaram's Chawl led by Horniman, Umar Sobani, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Dr. M. B. Velkar and Dr. D. D. Sathe, and occasionally Baptista and Jinnah, were inaugurated during the agitation over Annie Besant's internment. They dominated all district organisations throughout the Presidency. ( Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II p. 693.)

The Home Rule Leagues were the first of the post-war movements to bid for support of the mill workers in Bombay. The Leagues were mainly middle class in character, and provided a political outlet for the young professional persons who were disgusted with the leadership of the Bombay Presidency Association. (Richard Newman, Workers and Unions in Bombay : 1918-1929, A Study of Orga­nisation in the Cotton Mills (Australian National University, Canberra, 1981), pp. 92-93.) Besides the Bombay Branch of the All-India Home Rule League, the other League was the Indian Home Rule League. It was mainly Maharashtrian with a few Marwaris. Its leaders in Bombay were Joseph Baptista, Dr. M. B. Velkar and Dr. D. D. Sathe, its outstanding figure being Tilak. Relations between the two Leagues were generally harmonious as their aims were similar. Some of the followers of Dr. Annie Besant like the Dwarkadas brothers took a warm and paternalistic interest in the lot of the workers. They had friends among the millowners and drew a large proportion of its member­ship from mill clerks, cloth brokers and other people on the fringe of the workforce. (Ibid., pp. 93-94.) Naturally they sought to extend their influence among the millhands. However, their connection with millowners, and the barrier of language did weaken their position among the Marathi speaking workers. Tilak's position among the workers was hardly better. The spirit of the 1908 millhands' strike on Tilak's imprisonment had almost withered away. (R. I. Cashman, The Myth of the Lokmanya: Tilak and Mass Politics in Maharashtra (University of California Press, Berkelay and Los Angeles, 1974). Tilakites, in fact, engaged a Maratha lawyer, V. M. Pawar to organise the Bombay labour and to launch pro-League news­papers in English and Marathi. (Richard.Newman, op. cit, p. 94.) Tilak also encouraged Vithal Ramji Shinde, the leader of the Depressed Classes Mission, to establish Maratha Leagues in Bombay and to harness them for propagation of the Home Rule gospel. (AITUC—Fifty Years, Introduction by S. A. Dange, All-India Trade Union Congress. 1973.) Tilak, of course, did organise the meetings of the Bombay labour with success. His vast reputation was another asset for him. However, Tilak had no time at his disposal for linking his political tactics with the economic grievances of workers.

The world-wide influenza epidemic raged through Bombay from September to December 1918, causing hundreds of deaths per day. Many charitable organisations extended a helping hand, and started enrolling volunteers for supplying medical relief to the victims and cremating the dead. The Home Rulers wanted to organise relief services under their own auspices with an eye on winning away labour support. However, they were handicapped due to the paucity of a cadre of volunteers. On the contrary the Social Service League of N. M. Joshi did an excellent job which earned the organisation and her leader an immense popularity among the working class. (V. B. Karnik, N. M. Joshi—The Servant of India (United Asia Publications, 1972), pp. 29-30.) The Home Rulers were at a loss, and could not make inroads in to the working class in Bombay.

Another episode in December 1918 showed the handicap of the Home Rulers in Bombay. The occasion was the Lord Willingdon Memorial incident. Several prominent mercantile magnates and citizens requisitioned the Town Hall for a public meeting to present the outgoing Governor, Lord Willingdon, with a memorial extolling his services to Bombay. The requisitionists comprised leading industrialists and professional men, and the moderate politicians. The Home Rulers took this as a challenge to their principles and influence. A joint committee of the two Leagues was framed for disruption of the Memorial meeting in the Town Hall and its environs. The mill workers were highly useful for such a manoeuvre. A rally of workers was arranged in Lower Parel area, and famous Marathi journalists were called from Pune to address the rally. Umar Sobani declared a holiday in his mills to enable the workers to participate in the rally and achieve the disruption of the Town Hall meeting. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 95.) However, the cloth merchants and their servants, led by Mavji Govindji were heavily in evidence among the anti-requisitionists at the meeting. The Mulji Jetha and the Morarji Goculdas cloth markets observed a total hartal. (A.D.D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 167.) The bulk of the support to the anti-requisitionists came from the cloth markets and the personal followings of the Home Rulers. However, the requisitionists succeeded in gathering a large throng of mill workers from their own mills. “To some extent the hands came out of loyalty to the social workers, most of whom belonged to the requisitionist camp, but the crucial factor was the requisitionists'ability to mobilise them........... It is difficult to tell which crowd was the larger and whether the carrying of the memorial resolution in the midst of the uproar was a victory for the requisitionists or their opponents. What is certain is that the Home Rulers had not demonstrated their authority over the mill area." (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 95).

War Conference at Bombay, 1918 : The Governor, Lord Willingdon, convened the Provincial War Conference at Bombay on 10 June 1918. The object of the Conference was professedly to seek the co-operation of the people in the war measures which Government thought it necessary to take in the Presidency. A similar conference had been called by the Viceroy at Delhi a little earlier. Lord Willingdon had designed it to be a Conference rather than a public meeting for fear of Lokamanya Tilak's attacking stance. The eminent invitees to the Conference included Tilak, Gandhiji, N. C. Kelkar, Horniman, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Jinnah, S. R. Bomanji, Narayan Chandavarkar and Ibrahim Rahimtoola. The whole procedure and resolutions before the Conference were prepared in the Secretariat and no sub-committees were formed as it was done at the Delhi Conference. (Home Department Special, File No. 398-J, Cutting from the Bombay Chronicle, dated 12 June 1918). Consequently, the participants in the proceedings, were prompted to move amendments to them in the Conference. But Government had decided before hand that no amendments were to be allowed, nor even changes of wording were to be suggested in speeches. Some of the Home Rulers, Messrs. Tilak and Kelkar, proceeded to make speeches by way of explaining their position as non-officials invited to co-operate with Government in recruiting man-power and carrying out other war measures. Tilak protested that the loyalty resolu­tion had an addendum which deserved his criticism. Lord Willingdon peremptorily stopped him before he had uttered a few sentences, on the ground that no political discussion was to be allowed on the resolution expressing loyalty to the Crown. (Ibid.) Kelkar followed and shared the same fate. The only self-respecting course for Tilak and his followers was to refuse to take further part in the Conference and to retire from it. Accord­ingly Tilak, Kelkar, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, S. R. Bomanji, Horniman, Gandhiji, Jinnah and R. P. Karandikar left the Conference Hall.

The contention of the leaders was : " The entire procedure at the Conference was peculiarly inequitable and unfair But to a hide bound programme of resolutions and procedure, prepared in the Secretariat, His Excellency added a high-handed and indefensible exercise of his authority as Chairman The resolution was more than a mere expression of loyalty to the King Emperor... (It) invited the fullest discussion in regard to the whole of the proposals and methods adopted by the Govern­ment for the purpose of translating into action the loyal determination of the Presidency to do her duty, methods and proposals to which we were unable wholly to assent." (Letter by Tilak, Jamnadas Dwakadas, Bomanji, Kelkar and Horniman, published in the Bombay Chronicle of 12 June 1918.) The Home Rulers had in fact expressed their full loyalty to the Crown. " But they desired to point out why the Presidency could not possibly do her duty ' to its utmost capacity' so long as certain existing conditions were not altered." (Ibid.)

The main ground of objection on the part of the Governor was that of political discussion. He impugned the speeches of Tilak and Kelkar as out of order, and stopped them. This was taken as an insult. Hence the outcry on the same. Gandhiji had not spoken on the advice of Tilak, although he fully endorsed the great patriot's stance, both in a straight forward personal letter to Lord Willingdon and in the huge public demon­stration which followed. Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, who spoke last in the Conference, entirely endorsed the Governor's ruling and dissociated himself from the action and sentiments of Tilak. (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, p. 710)

This episode was followed by a huge outcry against Willingdon's bungling and insulting behaviour at the War Conference. It developed into an anti-Willingdon agitation. A huge rally of 10,000 was organised at the Shantaram's Chawl (Kandewadi) to protest against the Governor's provocative remarks about the Home Rule League. The meeting was presided over by Gandhiji. It was the culmination of the Home Rule Day.

It was contended in the public meeting that the Governor's aspersion upon the Leaguers was a tactical blunder, and Tilak was the idol of the people. India was willing to co-operate with Britain's war efforts, but is bound to strive for Home Rule in the quickest possible time.

This public meeting on 16 June 1918, which was also observed as the Home Rule Day anniversary, passed two resolutions which were cabled to the British Prime Minister. The first resolution purported that the distrust toward Indians, discrimination, delay in the amendment of the Arms Act, the prohibition of Indians in the commissioned ranks in the Indian Army, and their admission to military colleges, were the factors making it difficult for the leaders to secure whole-hearted support of the people in regard to military service. The second resolution related to the condemnation of the Governor's treatment and aspersions cast on the Home Rule leaders.

There were some differences of opinion among the Congress and Home Rulers about the support to Government in the matter of recruitment to the Indian Army, in the following days in Bombay. But that need not detract us.

Another important event of the day was the War Loan public meeting held in the Town Hall on 12 June 1918. It was summoned by the Sheriff of Bombay on a requisition of the leading citizens. Actually it was inspired by the Governor who presided. The Home Rule leaders not only abstained from it but also opposed it. The millowners were quite active in supporting the Governor's appeal. Chandavarkar appealed to the Bombay men to contribute to the War Loan, which was readily responded to by the mill-owners and mercantile magnates. There was an expression of support to the Government in the hour of need. The Bombay Government viewed the results of the two meetings (of 10 June and 12 June) with cheerful equanimity. The striking demonstration on the occasion of the War Loan meeting constituted a success for Government. (Ibid., p. 707.)

Labour Activities : The first important strike in the textile industry began rather unobtrusively (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 120.) in January 1919, although the ground for it was being prepared in December 1918. On 9 January, several thousand strikers and crowds assembled at the mill gates and succeeded in bringing the workers out to join them. Police and troops were quickly deployed, but they made no serious attempt to prevent the strike from spreading, because it was clear that no show of force could stem the tide of discontent. (Ibid., p. 121.) During the next few days the strike spread southwards to Madanpura and Tardeo, and finally to the Bombay United mill at Girgaum. Only a few mills were unaffected. "The scale oi the dispute was unprecedented, as was the driving force behind it. So heavily did the cost of living weigh upon the millhands that the slightest protest from one group of workers was capable ot creating a general revolt." (Ibid., p. 122.) Prices had risen sharply in Bombay, which was accompanied by drought in the Deccan. It was at this stage that the idea of bonus, as a boost to wages, emerged as the strikers' aim. Although the workers were not educated, they had definitely some economic intelligence.

The official correspondence suggested that the Home Rule Leagues were the driving force behind the strike. (Sir George Lloyd to Lord Montagu, 10 Jan. 1919.) Mr. H. B. Mandavale, an advocate and a member of the All-India Home Rule League, appro­ached the workers and encouraged them to form the Girni Kamgar Sangh. The Home Rulers addressed meetings of workers, and a plan of aibitration was endorsed. However, the intervention of the Home Rulers was a failure. The Government was happy that the Home Rulers could not make effective inroads among the work-force, and attempted a solution through the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Vincent, (Mr. Vincent had been commemorated by naming the long and broad road from Byculla to King's Circle after him. This road was recently renamed Dr. Ambedkar Road.) who played the most important role not only in maintaining law and order but also in settling the industrial dispute. Mr. Vincent summoned the most influential millhands, rather than non-worker leaders, to his office and arranged for negotiations with the Governor, Sir George Lloyd. Mill-owners like Jamshetji Jijibhai also responded to the Governor's call, and their concessions were posted on the mill gates over Vincent's signature on 22 January. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 126.)

Mr. N. M. Joshi, rightly honoured as the father of Indian labour movement and a great servant of India, was appointed India's delegate to the first International Labour Conference. This invited criticism of Government by union leaders in Bombay. In a neat accommodation of the claims of the two groups, Tilak and B. P. Wadia, the Madras labour leader and supporter of Annie Besant, were put forward as the peoples' nominees to the Conference. Unhappily, their credentials were immediately disputed by the Kamgar Hitwardhak Sabha, which objected equally to Tilak and Joshi on the grounds that both were Brahmans and were connected with the millowners as friends or clients. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract of Intelligence, 25 Aug. and 8 Sept. 1919.) The Government, however, clung to its decision to send N. M. Joshi as India's representative.

Tilak exhorted the Bombay millhands to foster communal harmony and to form trade unions. He was chosen the workers' representative for the Washington Labour Congress. The labour leaders convened a large public meeting behind the Elphinstone mills on 29 November 1919 for presenting an address to Tilak. Mawji Govindji presided. (Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement, Vol. II, p. 317.) The Tilakites in Bombay continued to influence the millhands. The Gujarati leaders, however, lost their influence. The sporadic violence during the general strike and the Rowlatt Satyagraha had shocked them. They were, there­fore, prompted to rebuild their relations with the workers on the basis of welfare work. At the end of 1919, the future of labour organisation in the mill area mainly lay with Maharashtrians, among whom the Tilakites and the Hitwardhak Sabha were the most prominent. In practical terms, the leading organisers were S. K. Bole, H. A. Talcherkar, S. B. Gavade and D. G. Pandit. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 130.)

The second general strike in Bombay occurred in January 1920. It started spreading from 2 January, and by the 12th instant all mills had been caught up in the dispute. The grievances of workers related this time, as in the case of the 1919 strike, to hours of work, payment of bonus and increase in wages by 60 per cent. This time, however, there was no able negotiator like Mr. Vincent, who had retired, and the new police chief was neither able nor willing to intervene. Into this vacuum stepped the trade unions. The Girni Kamgar Union and the Bombay Labour Association then emerged into the picture. This provided an opportunity to leaders like L. R. Tairsee, Joseph Baptista, and F. J. Ginwala to make their mark in the trade unions in the city. The Social Service League which, hitherto was mainly a social service organisation, crystallised its thinking, and joined the two unions in the strike. A united Labour Settlement Committee had been established with a strange combination of forces such as Baptista, a Home Ruler, and Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, an eminent liberal supporter of Government. But the Home Rulers needed to use the contacts of the liberals with employers and officialdom. (Bombay Chronicle, 14 Jan. 1920.) Chandavarkar continued his exchanges with the millowners, and prompted the Governor to intervene. However, the strike ended on 2 February 1920 very suddenly. Joseph Baptista emerged as a respectable labour leader during this strike. He was an able barrister and an intelligent politician. His circle of friends was as wide in politics as it was in club rooms. In his six-year term as chairman of Municipal Standing Committee, he steered every proposal in the committee to a successful conclusion with diplomatic skill. He was later elected to the Legislative Council in 1924, the Mayor of Bombay in 1925, and to the Central Legislative Assembly in 1926. After this he did not enjoy good health and faded quickly from public life, to die in 1930. (K. R. Shirsat, Kaka Joseph Baptista : Father of Home Rule Movement in India (Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1974); S. P. Sen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. I (1972), pp. 136-38.)



The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 divided authority between Governments of the Provinces and the Government of India at New Delhi. The latter was comprised of the Viceroy's Executive Council and a bicameral legislature with a majority of non-official members, but a minority of elected members, in both the houses. The Central Government controlled all important subjects such as external affairs, civil and criminal law, industry and commerce, customs and excise, and the subjects not specifically allotted to the Provinces. The Viceroy had many special powers in reserve. Bombay's commercial interests were represented in the Council of State where there was a reserved seat for European businessmen, and in the Legislative Assembly where there was a seat for the Indian Merchants' Chamber and Bureau and another one occupied in rotation by the Bombay Millowners' Association and its counterpart in Ahmedabad. There were two nominated seats for labour in the Assembly, one of which was occupied almost continuously from 1921 to 1947 by N. M. Joshi, the most celebrated of Bombay's labour leaders and social workers.

The Bombay Government consisted of a Governor, an Executive Council and Ministers responsible to a Legislative Council with a majority of elected members. Government administration was divided into two categories. The Executive Council controlled 'reserved' subjects, such as, police, justice, industrial disputes and labour welfare, and it could over­ride the legislature across all matters through the exercise of emergency powers of the Governor. Ministers in the Legislative Council were allotted 'transferred' subjects such as local government, education, agriculture and public works. Bombay city and its businessmen were well represented in the legislature by virtue of the system of franchise based on ownership of property. The city elected nine members in the triennial elections: one European, two Muslims and six non-Muslims, of whom one had to belong to the Maratha caste. In addition there were special electorates for the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, the Bombay Millowners' Association, the Bombay Trades' Association, and the Indian Merchants' Chamber and Bureau, and there was also a seat for a nominee of the cotton trade. There were three nominated members to represent labour and two nominees of the backward castes. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 86.) Labour originally had only one seat, but its representation was raised to three in 1926. Among the nominees were S. K. Bole, Kanji Dwarkadas and Syed Munawar, who were all prominent in the cotton textile unions in Bombay.

The publication of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report raised an angry outcry from the extremist organs. Tilak and Annie Besant had denounced it strongly. A special session of the Congress, held at Bombay in 1918 under the presidentship of Hasan Imam, had condemned the proposals as 'disappointing and unsatisfactory' and had suggested some modifications as absolutely essential to constitute a substantive step towards responsible government. It also decided to send a deputation to England, to press the Congress views on the British democracy. These reforms were, however, acceptable to the Moderates, who formed an organisation distinct from the Congress, known as the Indian National Liberal Federation. (Gazetteer of India, Vol. II, History and Culture (Govt, of India, 1973), p. 570.)

Gandhiji was at first in favour of giving a fair trial to the new consti­tution. The Congress had also decided accordingly in 1919. But certain factors soon caused considerable excitement in India. Economic troubles, due to additional taxation and rise in prices, produced extreme hardships for the people and accentuated discontent everywhere. Muslim sentiment in Bombay was deeply stirred by the Khilafat Movement on the question of the dismemberment of Turkey after her defeat in the World War1. Shaukat AH and Mohammed Ali, and Abul Kalam Azad, organised the Khilafat Movement. India's hopes for a true responsible government were soon belied in the face of unmitigated governmental repression. The Rowlatt Bills were calculated to perpetuate the extraordinary powers given to the Government during the War for suppressing political activity and depriving Indians of the ordinary rights and privileges of trial and defence provided by law. As a protest against this, Gandhiji organised a great movement and emerged as a great force.



Prior to 1919 Mahatma Gandhi was merely a peripheral figure in the national politics. He had joined the ranks of the politicians in the pursuit of great causes. As a matter of fact he was not prompted by any political ambition, and was content with smaller dints of limited leadership. He did not make any eifort at wresting leadership even though he dis­agreed with the stalwarts of Indian Nationalism. The Great World War had just ended in November 1918, and consequently, the British bureaucracy had cast off its' velvet glove and came out with a massive dose of repression calculated to scotch every form of patriotic activity. After preparation of the ground for four years, Gandhiji made a bid for leadership. The Home Rule agitation, the anti-Willingdon outcry in Bombay and the Kaira episode, had already enthused the people, who found in him a promising leader. And now the occasion for a transition from peripheral to committed leadership, from local to national leader­ship, was furnished by the satyagraha against the repressive Rowlatt Bills.

Bombay was the centre of his activities for the next three years, till his incarceration in 1922, indeed till his release in 1924. Civil disobedience against the Rowlatt Bills was followed by a movement against the deportation of B. G. Horniman, the Khilafat Movement, the Tilak Swaraj Fund, the Non-co-operation Movement, and the visit of the Prince of Wales. All these acts of the national drama were played on the Bombay stage under the inspired directorship of the Mahatma.


The Rowlatt legislation was a sequel to the war-time British policy of conciliation and repression. Before the lapse of the Defence of India Act after the War, the British were gravely concerned with the loss of coercive power against conspiracy and political agitation, which they had anticipated. The Government, therefore, appointed a committee under Mr. Justice Rowlatt to review the situation, in December 1917. The Committee recommended that the Government should have emergency powers to deal with subversion and political agitation. The Bill received the assent of the Viceroy on 21 March 1919. It threw a wave of indignation throughout the country as it meant a determined policy of repression.

" Once the bill became law verbal protest was useless and the politi­cians' unanimity disintegrated. The episode had showed up the poverty of their limited politics, built on the assumption that the raj and the politicians could best serve their interests by coming to a mutually, acceptable agreement about the division of power. On the rare occasions, such as this, when the raj was adamant, the politicians had no leverage, and they were at a loss to know what to do. Protest in Council and public meetings had got them nowhere, and they could not take to violence, even if they had countenanced such methods, without inviting more repression and proving to the government that the Rowlatt legislation was indeed necessary. They had reached a political impasse, and the man who stepped forward to offer them a way out was Gandhi." (Judith M. Brown, Gandhi's Rise to Power, Indian Politics 1915-1922 (Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 163.)

Gandhiji saw a national wrong which could possibly be set right only by his methods, and a way of bringing the entire country nearer to his ideal of Swaraj through the strategy of Satyagraha.

The first phase of the Satyagraha, the phase of deliberations and preparations, lasted from February to the observance of hartal at the beginning of April 1919. Bombay city and Ahmedabad were the main centres of the movement. Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Sarojini Naidu, B. G. Horniman (editor of the Bombay Chronicle) and Umar Sobani from Bombay, were joined by Vallabhbhai Patel, Chandulal Desai, K. Thakoor and Anasuya Sarabhai from Ahmedabad. From the meeting there emerged Gandhi's Satyagraha Sabha, a majority of whose members were from Bombay, and the city, therefore, became its headquarters. (K. Gopalswami,  Gandhi and Bombay  (Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Bombay, and Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1969), p. 67.) Gandhiji prepared a manifesto containing a satyagraha pledge for its members. He wrote to the Viceroy about his intentions on 24 February 1919 and also to politicians and newspapers. The Satyagraha Sabha canvassed actively and expounded the principles of satyagraha. Bombay responded enthusiastically and within a few days 100 signatures were obtained. (Ibid., p. 67,) Earlier the Home Rule League had held a large public meeting in the mill areas of Bombay. It was emphasised that the Rowlatt Bills would deprive them of personal liberty and enable officials to rule despotically.

As observed by the Commissioner of Police, on 3 March 1919, the Rowlatt Bills were the talk of the town, and since Gandhi's return to Bombay on 1 March, he was constantly visited by the Home Rule leaders of the city. Speculation was rife as to the manner in which the passive resistance movement would be effected. The younger generation was profusely enthused, and the cloth merchants were determined to follow Gandhiji at any cost. The people were agitated, and they expressed that such a legislation after the armistice was unwarranted. The agitators successfully campaigned that Government machinery would collapse in the face of this movement. Posters printed by the Dnyansagar Litho Press, Girgaum Road, were exhibited in all parts of the city. The signatories of the satyagraha pledge, in a meeting held in Bombay in March, appointed the Executive Committee with Gandhiji as president and Horniman as vice-president. Dr. Sathe, Shankarlal Banker and Umar Sobani were secretaries, the other members of the committee being Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Sarojini Naidu, Dr. Erulkar, Manu Subedar, L. R. Tairsee, Azad, Dr. Velkar, Jamnadas M. Mehta, L. G. Khare, V. A. Desai, Mrs. Avantikabai Gokhale, Chunilal Ujamsi, R. N. Mandlik, Jethmal Narandas, Hansraj Pragji Thackersey and Vithaldas Jerajani with the later addition of Pandharinath K. Telang, Dr. C. M. Desai, and Kanji Dwarkadas. (Bombay Government records.)

In spite of Mrs. Annie Besant's dissuasions to Gandhiji from his plan of a mass civil disobedience and her later opposition to the movement, Gandhiji's main lieutenants were the Home Rulers in Bombay. They dominated the Executive Committee of the Sabha, actively campaigned for the satyagraha pledge, and their local branches held meetings in support of a satyagraha in provincial towns and villages. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919, para. 378 (b) f(g)) They were, however, not experienced in guiding a movement of the Bombay working class. Gandhiji also was not interested in winning over the factory workers or to involve them into his movement for many a long day.

The news of passing of the Rowlatt Act reached Bombay on 19 March 1919, and the merchants at the Mulji Jetha Market, the Lakhmidas Khimji Market and the Morarji Goculdas Market, observed a hartal on 21 March spontaneously. The Bombay Native Piecegoods Merchants' Association took a very active part in the hartal.

Gandhiji had, however, to face opposition on several fronts from established political leaders. His opponents included Sir D. E. Wacha, Sir Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy, S. N. Bannerji, T. B. Sapru, M. M. Shafi, Srinivasa Sastri and G. S. Khaparde. (Judith M. Brown, op. cit. (Referred to hereafter as J. M. Brown).) Mrs. Besant created trouble for Gandhiji throughout, because she believed he was stealing away her followers in Bombay. She visited Bombay in Gandhiji's absence, and tried to wean her men from the satyagraha. (J. M.Brown,op.cit.,p.169.)

The second phase of the satyagraha started with Gandhiji's decision of a hartal as a novel form of protest and self-purification. The hartal was scheduled on Sunday, 6 April 1919. Gandhiji arrived in the city a couple of days earlier. He, along with Mrs. Naidu, Horniman, Dr. Savarkar and others, organised meetings in Bombay. The 6 April was observed as a "Black Sunday". The Bombay Chronicle of Horniman gave a vivid account of the same as under. ( Bombay Chronicle, 7 April 1919.)

Bombay presented the sight of a city in mourning on the occasion of the day of national humiliation, prayers and sorrow at the enactment of the Rowlatt Act, and observed 24 hours' fast. The Back Bay foreshore was humming and throbbing with life much before sunrise. The people had come to Chowpati to bathe in the sea before the day's programme. The women of Bombay came out of their seclusion to join in the demonstration. They fasted and marched in procession to Chowpati, clad in black saris symbolising the nations's sorrow. Gandhiji was one of the first to arrive, and was joined by Sarojini Naidu, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Horniman and others. The crowd swelled to one and a half lakh, and represented Muhammedans, Hindus, Parsis and even one Englishman. ( K. Gopalswami, op. cit., p.73.)

Gandhiji's speech, read for him by Jamnadas, (As Gandhiji was ill it was read out by Jamnadas.) was a stirring one. Gandhiji's two resolutions, charity for the bereaved in the Delhi hartal and prayer for repealing the Rowlatt Act, were passed amidst silence. After the meeting the procession went to Madhav Baug temple to offer prayers. Gandhiji addressed a meeting in a mosque at Grant Road which stirred the 5000 Muslims as well as Hindus present. He made a strong plea for emotional integration and eternal friendship of the two communities. Mrs. Jayakar organised a ladies'meeting.

" The hartal in Bombay was a complete success. Full preparation had been made for starting civil disobedience." ( K. Gopalswami, op. cit., p. 76.) Two of Gandhiji's books, Hind Swaraj and Sarvodaya, which had been proscribed were sold out within no time. The police admitted that the whole effect was a strategic success for Gandhiji.

On 7 April Gandhiji issued, from the hallowed Mani Bhavan, an unregistered newspaper, the Satyagrahi, in open defiance of the Indian Press Act. Its copy was sent to the Police Commissioner. The principles of satyagraha and civil disobedience were explained through it. The Satyagraha Sabha issued a statement regarding the scope and limitations of civil disobedience. Proscribed literature was disseminated, and a few laws were selected for disobedience.

The Bombay Government did not deem it fit to arrest Gandhiji for his illegal newspaper as it would involve cumbersome proceedings. But he was prohibited from leaving Bombay Presidency as it was feared that his entry into Delhi or the Punjab would precipitate the agitation. Gandhiji, however, left Bombay on 8 April to promote satyagraha in Delhi and Amritsar on receipt of a telegram from Delhi. Near Delhi he was served with an order prohibiting his entry into the Punjab. Hence, on 9 April he was removed from the train near Delhi, and sent back to Bombay, to be set free. The news of his " arrest" became public on 10 April which precipitated the events in Bombay, and excited the masses.

The Police Commissioner, Mr. GriffithsVown version of what happened in Bombay is quite suggestive. "There were unmistakable signs of trouble brewing. Shops were closed and crowds were seen loitering about in the neighbourhood of Pydhonie, Bhuleshwar and Abdul Rehman Street. Trams were being stoned and passengers forced to alight on Kalbadevi Road and at Bhuleshwar, and shops which had been kept open were being stoned at Maharbourie........... Reports came from Pydhonie that the temper of the crowds in that locality was extremely ugly and that they were getting out of hand. The Mounted Police were compelled to charge on four or five occasions, but the effect of this manoeuvre was very transitory. I proceeded to Pydhonie with 2 platoons of Indian Infantry, while 2 platoons marched up Abdul Rehman Street to the same point................ The mob steadfastly refused to obey the orders of the Magistrates to disperse..... The Mounted Police made a few more charges but the result was very evanescent. Matters culminated at about 3 p.m. when the stoning became very violent ...... At this juncture the Cavalry patrol arrived.Their appearance was the signal for a fresh outburst of stone-throwing and a number of troopers were hit. The Cavalry continued to patrol the streets for some 2 hours and were on occasions compelled to charge the mob particularly when they were belabouring a British officer and two troopers who had been dehorsed."

Gandhiji was very much upset at the brutal action of the police, and addressed a mass meeting at Chowpati in the evening. He expressed deep agony at mass violence and breach of the principles of satyagraha. He said, " I do not see what penance I can offer excepting that it is for me to fast and if need be, by doing so, to give up this body and thus prove the truth of satyagraha........... .. I appeal to you to peacefully disperse and to refrain from acts that may, in any way, bring disgrace upon the people of Bombay."

The situation in the Punjab had already assumed dangerous proportions. At Amritsar, on 10 April, mob violence, burning and looting ensued, and four Europeans were murdered. This culminated into the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre by General Dyer's troops. The atrocities at Jallianwala Bagh inflamed the Bombay workers. Jawaharlal Nehru, who had come to Bombay to consult Gandhiji, suggested that Gandhiji should defy the prohibitory order and go to the Punjab. Gandhiji saw that his defiance of the order would lead to his arrest and further tensions. He, however, went to Gujarat to study the grave violent situation at Ahmedabad, Nadiad and Viramgaum. He was filled with remorse at his failure to enthuse the masses with the true principles of satyagraha, and returned to Bombay on 18 April. He was deeply distressed at what he discovered, and admitted publicly the "Himalayan miscalculation" in offering civil disobedience to people insufficiently prepared by the discipline  of satyagraha  to practise it. (M. K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, pp. 391-92.) He underwent a three day fast in penitence, and suspended the civil disobedience part of the satyagraha programme on 18 April 1919. However, the really operative part of the movement, namely, preaching and practice of truth and non-violence continued through leaflets published in Bombay by Shankarlkl Banker. At this point Gandhiji also acquired the Young India (English) and the Navajivan (Gujarati) newspapers, which he very effectively used for preaching satyagraha. (Ibid., p. 395. The Young India was upto that time controlled by Sobani and Banker, and the Navajivan  by Indulal Yajnik.)

The All-India Congress Committee met in Bombay on 21 April 1919, and condemned the Government action in preventing Mahatmaji from proceeding to Delhi. It drew attention of Government to the fact that had he been allowed to proceed to Delhi, the situation in Delhi and the Punjab would not have deteriorated to that extent. There was an informal conference of satyagrahis from different parts of the country on 28 May 1919. Gandhiji suggested that, if the Government would not appoint a commission of enquiry into the Punjab disturbances, the administration of martial law and the sentences imposed by martial law tribunals, civil disobedience should be resumed, but only by individual satyagrahis chosen from Bombay, in order to avoid violence. All present, with the exception of Jamnadas, (Jamnadas felt that volience would take place if Gandhiji or any other prominent satyagrahi was airested. He formally resigned the Satyagraha Sabha on 3 June 1919.) agreed. While the preparations for renewal of civil disobedience were going on, Gandhiji was attempting for some kind of agreement with Government. He told the Police Commissioner of Bombay on 1 July 1919 that he intended to violate the orders restraining him within the Bombay Presidency, but said that if Government showed signs of relaxing its attitude on the Rowlatt legislation, he would postpone civil disobedience indefinitely. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919, para. 901). The Governor of Bombay, Sir George Lloyd, took Gandhiji's hint. After the interview with the Governor on 12 July, Gandhiji thought that there was a hope of withdrawal of the Rowlatt Act, and said that he would postpone civil disobedience, if the Viceroy so desired. The Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, announced that this was his desire also, and issued a warning of the consequences of the resumption of the movement. In response to this and the desire publicly expressed by many persons, Gandhiji informed the press on 21 July that he had decided to suspend civil disobedience as a practical way, although it could be resumed, if the Rowlatt Act was not repealed. (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol. 15 (Government of India), pp. 468-71.)

The important assumption of Government policy towards Gandhiji was that it must avoid making him a martyr. Officials admitted that Gandhiji had done his best in restoring peace in Bombay and Ahmedabad in April, and even the police noted that he had done his utmost to prevent outburst, when B. G. Horniman was deported in late April by the Bombay Government. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract 1919, para 598.)

Aggrieved satyagrahis, mainly from Bombay, felt abandoned by Gandhiji's suspension of civil disobedience, and blamed him for stopping it, just when it had assumed enough momentum to be productive, and argued that nothing could be achieved without bloodshed. Such hostility increased when Gandhiji refused to permit demonstrations against Horniman's deportation. Gandhiji said that he had received a number of letters protesting against his inaction, some of which threatened him with poison and murder. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919, paras, 574, 598 and 625.) After his second suspension of civil disobedience the satyagrahi critics became more vehement, and in a Bombay meeting of about 200 of them on 26 July, he was mercilessly cross-examined on his decision. (Bombay Police Commissioner's note, Source Material for a History of FreedomMovement in India, Vol. II, pp. 788-89.) Gandhiji was publicly and unfavourably compared with Tilak, who suffered 'martyrdom' in jail, and even ini the cloth market, people were known to be calling him a murderer. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919, para. 1063.) The Hindu, a Gujarati newspaper of Bombay, styled Gandhiji as a murderer. The Police Commissioner reported that at a subsequent meeting of satyagrahis, Gandhiji was severely heckled. They questioned him whether he had received any definite promise from the Government that the Rowlatt Act would be repealed, if civil disobedience was suspended. Some argued that his policy had interfered with the good work that was being done by the Home Rule League and other associations. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919). Such was the violent reaction of some of the satyagrahis.

Gandhiji's opponents, on the other hand, vehemently criticised him for undertaking the civil disobedience movement. For example, Sir Dinshaw Wacha who represented the Moderates as well as industrialists in Bombay, branded it " as a grave mischief Gandhi has consciously or unconsciously created by his fantastic propaganda, utterly illogical, utterly unconcerned and utterly devoid of an atom of political sagacity." (Sir D. E. Wacha to G. A. Natesan, 12 April 1919, G. A, Natesan Papers.) Srinivasa Sastri and Mrs. Besant had been opposing him from the beginning. Ambalal Sarabhai came down to Bombay from Ahmedabad to persuade Gandhiji to abandon civil disobedience permanently. Surprisingly, even B. G. Horniman, one of his staunchest supporters, and vice-president of the Satyagraha Sabha, urged that all satyagraha activity should be suspended temporarily, because the movement had been utilised and corrupted by unscrupulous  elements, with objects totally opposed to our own, and calculated to defeat our ideals, resulting in the recent deplorable revolutionary outbreaks. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1919, Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol. II, p. 111.)

Gandhiji had considered Umar Sobani, Shankarlal Banker, Horniman and Jamnadas Dwarkadas as the main props of satyagraha in Bombay City. Unfortunately Horniman was deported and Dwarkadas yielded to renewed pressure from Annie Besant and even resigned from the Satya­graha Sabha (29 May 1919) on the ground that the resumption of civil disobedience and its extension to the Punjab, would precipitate violence further. Gandhiji had no popular appeal in the rest of Maharashtra. Tilak was for Maharashtra what Gandhiji was becoming for Gujarat. Khaparde's adherence to Tilak blocked the way for Gandhiji's satyagraha in the Marathi speaking C. P. (Fortnightly report from C.P. for the second half of April 1919, Home Political,Deposit, July 1919, No. 47.) The satyagraha disintegrated in all other parts of India also.

" The Rowlatt Satyagraha, as a political campaign on the lines which its author conceived, was a manifest failure. It did not obtain its object, the repeal of the Rowlatt Act. It erupted into violence, though its essence was intended to be non-violence. It petered out miserably in the summer months of 1919 instead of becoming the constructive campaign laying the foundations of true Swaraj which Gandhi had envisaged. Nonetheless, as Gandhi's first essay in all-India leadership, it was remarkably instructive to those who could read it correctly, since it showed both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Mahatma in politics." (J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 185.) The Rowlatt Satyagraha showed Gandhi as an all-Indial eader of immense potential. His personality, his ideology, his novel approach to politics, and his technique of satyagraha enabled his campaign to become the focus for multifarious local grievances and gave him access to the power they generated. (Ibid., p. 187.)

The ban on Gandhiji's entry into the Punjab was lifted on 15 October 1919. The Royal Proclamation of December 1919, which accompanied the Reform Act better known as Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, was one of the most important landmarks in the constitutional history of India. In the 34th session of the Congress at Amritsar from 27 December 1919 to 1 January 1920 Gandhiji, Jinnah, Pattabhi Sitaramayya and Malaviya welcomed the reforms, although they thought them to be inadequate, while Tilak, C. R. Das, and others condemned the reforms.

An all-party public meeting was held in Bombay to demand the repeal of the Press Act on 5 March 1920. In the same month Gandhiji was persuaded successfully to accept the presidentship of the All-India Home Rule League.



Before 1919 Mahatma Gandhi was merely a peripheral figure in the politics of nationalism. It was the Rowlatt Bill agitation which furnished him with an occasion for a transition from peripheral to committed leadership, and from local to national leadership. The enact­ment of the Rowlatt Bill had cast a spell of helplessness among the established stalwarts. "They had reached a political impasse, and the man who stepped forward to offer them a way out was Gandhi." (J. M. Brown,   op. cit., p.   163.) Although the Rowlatt Satyagraha was a manifest failure, as it deflected into violence in the Punjab as well as in Bombay, Gandhiji's campaign became the focus of interest.

It were, however, the leadership of the Khilafat agitation and the inauguration of Non-co-operation which hastened Gandhiji's rapid emer­gence as an all-India political leader who was markedly different from the politicians, who had previously dominated India. The pre-eminence of satyagraha as a method of resolving conflict, the Hindu-Muslim unity as a prerequisite for India's peace and the assertion of the people's rights, were the three aims which propelled Gandhiji to assume control of the Khilafat and Non-co-operation Movement. He maintained that his sense of moral responsibilities made him take up the Khilafat question. (Young   India, 28 April 1920.) And it was Bombay city which provided a congenial home for the growth and blossoming of Non-co-operation. As a matter of fact, the events of 1920 in Bombay centred round the Non-co-operation and Khilafat Movement. It is, therefore, essential that a narration of the movement in the city, in details, should be furnished here.
The first phase of the Khilafat Movement lasted until-December 1919, by which time the sympathy for the Muslim cause had received institu­tional expression in the Central Khilafat Committee. The leaders of the Committee were a middle group within the Muslims, mainly prosperous Bombay merchants. It was only in March 1919 that the Bombay Khilafat Committee, with Mia Mohamed Chotani as president, was elected in a public meeting in the city on the 19th. Meanwhile the Muslim League despatched to London a deputation consisting of M. A. Jinnah and G. M. Bhurgri from Bombay along with two others. In Bombay the non-Muslim press, rather than Muslim papers, were busy rousing opinion on the Khilafat issue. (Fortnightly report from Bombay, 1 October 1919, Home Political,  Deposit,Nov. 1919, No. 15.) The Khilafat Day was observed in the city, as in India, with the persistence and the purses of Bombay men, on 17 October. A majority of Muslims in the city were, however, averse to any plan of boycott of foreign goods, because over three-quarters of the city's Muslim merchants dealt in British goods. They were content with expres­sion of disapproval of the British policy throughout this deliberative phase.
The second phase of the movement was inaugurated with the release of the Ali brothers at the end of December 1919. Bombay remained the seat of the Central Khilafat Committee of India. Late in January, the Alis were accorded a grand welcome in the city in a public meeting organised by the Home Rule League and the Bombay National Union, at which Tilak pledged the Hindu's help on the Khilafat issue. (Bombay Police, File No. 4044/M/I. However, the Bombay Tilakites stayed away from many other Khilafat meetings.) The next policy discussion occurred at the All-India Khilafat Conference from 15 to 17 February 1920 in Bombay. No definite line of action emerged from this meeting. Gandhiji, however, saw the signs of restlessness among some Muslims, and organised the observance of the Khilafat Day with a hartal on 19 March. The threat of Non-co-operation was mentioned for the first time in a mass meeting of all communities in the city. The Bombay men still carried considerable weight because of their financial support and because they still had the benefit of Gandhiji's alliance. (J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 207.) When the Central Khilafat Committee met in Bombay from 11 to 14 March, Gandhiji suggested that the ground for Non-co-operation should be prepared thoroughly before it is attempted. (Ibid.) Meanwhile discussion of Non-co-operation began in earnest among Hindu-Muslim leaders.
The first National Week was organised by Gandhiji in Bombay from 6 to 13 April in commemoration of the first anniversary of the Rowlatt Satyagraha and the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The entire week was devoted to the collection of funds for the Jallianwala Bagh memorial. Bombay responded generously. Gandhiji' addressed three meetings in Bombay. A mammoth public meeting of the citizens of Bombay was held under the joint auspices of the Bombay Presidency Association, the Provincial Congress Committee, the Bombay branches of the Home Rule Leagues and the National Union, at the open space near the French Bridge, on 6 April 1920. In response to Gandhiji, Jinnah, Dinshaw M. Petit (K. Gopalswami, op. cit., p. 105.) and Annie Besant, a sum of about Rs. 5 lakhs was raised in the city with the active co-operation of the Bombay Native Piecegoods Associa­tion, the Stock Exchange Association, the Bombay Bullion Merchants' Association, the Bombay Millowners' Association and the Indian Merchants' Chamber.
Another public meeting of the citizens of Bombay was held under the auspices of the Central Khilafat Committee of India by Gandhiji under the presidentship of Mia Mohamed Chotani. Mahatmaji moved the following resolution: " This meeting of the Hindus, Mohammedans and other inhabitants of Bombay, trust that the Khilafat question will be solved consistently with the just demand of the Mohammedans of India and with the solemn pledges of His Majesty's Ministers, and this meeting records its opinion that in the event of adverse decisions being arrived at, it will be the duty of every Indian to withdraw co-operation from the Government until the pledges are fulfilled and Muslim sentiment conciliated."
The National Week was concluded by another public meeting near French Bridge under the auspices of the Home Rule League and the Bombay National Union, Jinnah presiding. It was resolved that whilst mob excesses at Amritsar, although committed after grave provocation, were worthy of condemnation, the deliberate and calculated massacre, without warning, by General Dyer, of the innocent and defenceless people at Jallianwala Bagh, was an unexampled act of barbarity. The Bombay Home Rule League and the National Union under leadership of Gandhiji and Jinnah, demanded, in another meeting on 26 June 1920, for the impeachment of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and an appropriate punishment to General Dyer for the barbaric massacre at Jallianwala Bagh. The Hunter Committee's Report also came in for condemnation. Throughout this period Gandhiji persistently harped on the people's grievances against the Rowlatt Act, the Punjab episode and the Khilafat wrong, and built up the spirit of Non-co-operation (K. Gopalswamy, op. cit., p. 107.), which was later formally sanctioned by the Congress at the Calcutta special session in September 1920.
The third phase of the Khilafat movement lasted from mid-May to 1 August 1920, when it merged with the agitation over the Punjab, into a single movement of Non-co-operation. (J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 216.) The publication on 14 May of the proposed allied peace treaty with Turkey was a staggering blow to the Indian Mussulmans'. At this stage Gandhiji advocated that Non-co-operation was the only way to secure justice and avoid violence. M. M. Chotani was reported to have moved away from his original moderate stand. The Central Khilafat Committee also decided to vigorously take up Non-co-operation. (Bombay Chronicle, 18 May 1920.) Now Gandhiji was the only guarantor of Hindu support to the Khilafat leaders, and they accepted him as a virtual dictator of their movement. The Congress leaders were also forced to rely on him for securing a Muslim alliance and avoiding violence.
The Central Khilafat Committee as well as Gandhiji, sent memorials to the Viceroy to the effect that Hindu-Muslims would resort to Non-co-operation from 1 August if the Khilafat question was net settled amicably. Actually many Muslim traders refused to jeopardize their trade by boycott. Even Jinnah and Bhurgri had not come out in favour of Non-co-operation, and the Muslim League had not given its support either. The disciples of Annie Besant including Jamnadas Dwarkadas were not only sceptical but were also opposed to the move. A majority of Hindus were also apprehensive. Gandhiji was searching for a mechanism for a communal alliance between the Hindus and Muslims. The Punjab issue provided the missing link. On 30 June he linked the Punjab and Khilafat issues as twin reasons for resorting to Non-co-operation, including the boycott of the reformed councils, to gain Indian self-respect. (J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 245. Tilak was frustrated in the face of Gandhiji's stand on Punjab.)

" The reluctance of Hindu politicians to commit themselves to non-co-operation before the discussion of it at the Special Congress in September, made Gandhi act on his own authority".(J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 251.) The Non-co-operation sub-committee of the Central Khilafat Committee published instructions for observance of 1 August. Gandhiji was the soul behind. The people were urged to pray, fast and hold meetings approving Non-co-operation, but not to hold processions or commit civil disobedience, and the holders of titles and honorary posts were advised to resign.

Mahatmaji himself inaugurated the Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay by returning his Zulu and Boer War medals and his Kaiser-i-Hind gold medal to the Viceroy with the explanation that the Khilafat and Punjab ' Wrongs' had estranged him from the raj and convinced him that a new type of politics was necessary in India. It was a Sunday. An impressive peaceful hartal was observed in the city. Gandhiji and Chotani went round the town and helped maintenance of peace.
The inauguration of the movement synchronised with the sad demise of Lokamanya Tilak in the Sardargriha Hotel, and the celebration of the third Khilafat day. In accordance with the call of Gandhiji many persons renounced titles, resigned public offices and Honorary Magistrateships. A few Mohammedans also made a start in this direction by renouncing titles and resigning J.P.ship. Vithalbhai J. Patel and Sheriff Devji Kanji, resigned their membership of the Legislative Council. Several candidates belonging to the Congress Democratic Party, while disapproving the boycott of Councils, resolved to withdraw their candidature for the Legislative Council. Accordingly Joseph Baptista, H. P. Thackersey, Dr. M. B. Velkar, Dr. D. D. Sathe, Dr. M. C Javle, Vithaldas Damodar Govindji, F. J. Ginwala and V. M. Pawar from Bombay, withdrew their candidature for elections. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City. 1920-25. (Gazetteers Department,Govt, of Maharashtra, 1978), pp. 9-10.) M. R. Jayakar (Bar-at-law), Jamnadas Madhavji Mehta and Jehangir B. Patel, suspended legal practice. About 16 Justices of Peace, 14 of them being Muslims, renounced the office. One Mr. A. H. Mohammed surrendered his title of Khan Saheb. Four teachers and a lecturer in a college resigned their jobs in Government institutions in Bombay. Three distinguished students, namely, R. S. Nimbkar, B. R. Modak and V. G. Sardeshmukh, renounced their college education in favour of the freedom movement, while a scholar J. P. Bhansali renunciated his scholarship from the Bombay University. (Ibid., p. 10.) Such was the response to the call of Non-co-operation.

The Bombay Police Secret Abstract dated 7 August 1920, furnishes a Government version of the events on the Non-co-operation day in Bombay which is summarised below:
The first of August passed peacefully in Bombay. There was no mani­festation of violence and no regrettable incidents occurred anywhere. The suspension of work was complete in the heart of the city and in the business quarters. It was complete during the middle hours of the day, after the news of Tilak's death had become generally known. All the mills and most of the markets were closed. No performances were given in the theatres during the day, but in the evening the cinemas were open. Very few public conveyances were to be seen, though the tramways, like other municipal and public services, worked as usual on Sundays.
Throughout the forenoon large crowds thronged the neighbourhood of the Sardargriha Hotel in the verandah of which the dead body of Tilak was seated in state, in full view of the spectators below. Shortly after the arrival of the special train from Pune, the funeral procession (Gandhiji, Shaukat Ali and Dr. Kitchlew, shouldered the bier turn by turn). started from Carnac Road. After traversing for three hours some of the densest parts of the city, the body was finally placed, between 5 and 6 p.m., on a pyre erected on Chowpati foreshore and there burnt in the presence of a large crowd. But for the heavy rain which fell at intervals throughout the day, the mourning crowds would have been larger even than they were. Two more special trains arrived from Pune later in the day. The evening meeting at Mastan Tank was attended by 4,000 persons. As a test of the strength of feeling in regard to Non-co-operation, the day was a failure (?).(This is the version of the Police authorities.) Hindus and Mohammedans participated in normal proportions in all the day's observances.
The hartal was continued as a mark of respect for Tilak throughout 2 August. Though less generally observed than on the previous day, it caused some anxiety and occasioned some minor disturbances. Interference with traffic was reported from Ripon Road, Grant Road, and Frere Road. At Colaba, the Cotton Green employees compelled the stoppage of work in the mill. In the north of the Island a few mills closed down in the early morning, and a larger number after midday. Seven hundred men of the B. B. and C. I. Railway Workshops at Paiel refused to work, while all work ceased at the G. I. P. Railway Workshop at Matunga. Throughout the day, large crowds visited the place of Tilak's cremation. During the evening an unruly crowd, several thousand strong, and carrying a large black flag, suddenly appeared at Sandhurst Bridge. However, the police on duty, reinforced by a heavy shower, restored order and dispersed the mob. The day's observances ended with a public meeting presided over by Khaparde to mourn Tilak's death.
In the morning of the 3rd of August, a large crowd of millhands tried, but failed to stop, working mills. The hartal on Tilak's tenth day obser­vances was general and, if anything, more complete than that of 1 August. No previous hartal had evoked so much interest among the millhands, the dock labourers and the railway workmen of Bombay. The mills were all shut, and though the docks and the railway workshops remained for the most part in action the men absented themselves therefrom in large numbers. Crowds streamed down to Chowpati throughout the day for the purpose of visiting the spot where Tilak was cremated. Numerous processions moved through the larger thoroughfares towards the sea or to the public meetings. But the peace was never broken. This Police report, although partial, speaks for the mass involvement.
The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee approved of Non-co-operation with 36 members for and 21 against, but left the actual details to the Special Congress to decide. The Bombay followers of Tilak appear to have calculated that it was better for them to align with Gandhiji than to risk absorption into the ranks of Annie Besant's local faction.
The Special Congress in Calcutta (A Congress special train was plied from Bombay to Calcutta),(September 1920) endorsed the Non-co-operation programme, including surrendering of offices, titles and nominated seats, withdrawal of students and teachers from. Government owned or aided institutions, boycott of courts and foreign goods, boycott of elections to the Legislative Council which were to take place in November, etc. This enhanced Gandhiji's prestige in Bombay as all over India.
The All-India Congress Committee met at Bombay under the presidency of Pandit Motilal Nehru on 2 October 1920. It reiterated the policy of non-violent Non-co-operation which was to be continued until the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs were righted and Swaraj was established. It further advised adoption of Swadeshi in piecegoods on a vast scale and revival of hand-spinning in every home and hand-weaving on the part of the millions of weavers in the country. The boycott of titles was to be secured through non-violence. Government owned or aided schools were to be boycotted because Government was trying to consolidate its power through them. The establishment of the Swaraj Fund was also decided.
During the first week of October, there was a spate of political activity in furtherance of Non-co-operation. Placards had been posted up in large numbers urging the people to have nothing to do with the Council elections. The Indian Merchants' Chamber and Bureau also decided, at this time, to join the Non-co-operation Movement, and out of its 500 members, one-half signed a requisition asking the Chamber to adopt the boycott of Councils. The arrival of the Khilafat deputation from Europe on 4 October 1920 activated the political workers, and a public meeting was held at Mastan Tank to welcome the deputation. Gandhiji addressed a meeting of millhands and other workers on 3 October (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 30 October 1920.) so as to seek their participation in the movement.

The Muslim leaders of public opinion guided by Gandhiji and Shaukat Ali, were quite active on the Khilafat issue. They exerted on the Muslim candidates to withdraw from the Council elections. The Bombay Native Piecegoods Association decided, on 10 October 1920, to boycott the Council elections. The propaganda continued for a month by way of holding public meetings. Doctors D. D. Sathe and N. D. Savarkar addressed the millhands persuading them not to vote for candidates to the Council. (Ibid., 23 October 1920.)

It was late in October 1920 that Gandhiji announced a change in the name of the Home Rule League into the Swarajya Sabha, and its aim was to strive for Swaraj of the people's choice without recourse to violence. The Swarajya Sabha worked as a subsidiary body of the Congress. It had many followers in Bombay, although a few following Jinnah, resigned from the organisation due to differences of opinion. Those who joined Jinnah included M. R. Jayakar, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Kanji Dwarkadas, Jamnadas Mehta, H. P. Thackersey, Mangaldas M. Pakvasa, K. M. Munshi, H. D. Divatia and Gulabchand Devchand. ( The Times of India, 11 October 1920.)
The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the Bombay Congress Democratic Party, in a joint meeting on 15 November 1920 under leadership of Dr. Sathe, urged the audience to abstain from elections. On the same day about 500 students of the Wilson College attended a meeting under Mr. Ginwala and protested against the attitude of the authorities. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 23 October 1920.) Gandhiji, Shaukat Ali and Sathe addressed a public meeting of about 5,000 including 1,000 students, on the 14th instant for the propagation of Non-co-operation. There were processions for collection of money for the Swaraj Fund in Bombay. The merchants in the Mulji Jetha Cloth Market promised to donate about Rs. 1,25,000 to the Swaraj Fund. (On 13 November 1920.)

As stated earlier, the leaders of the Congress Democratic Party withdrew their candidature for elections to the Bombay Legislative Coun­cil. All the staunch nationalists abstained from the elections and 12,000 voters signed the memorandum denouncing the candidates who entered the Councils. However, eight Moderates, namely S. K. Bole N. M. Dumasia, C. A. Fernandez, K. E. Dadachanji, A. M. Surve, S. S. Batliwala, Ebrahim Suleman Haji and M. H. Haveliwala did participate in the elections. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, p, 25,)
Non-co-operation and National Education : Soon after the emergence of the Swarajya Sabha, it began to identify itself fully with Non-co-operation activities. It devoted itself to the establishment of national schools in Bombay. Under the auspices of the Young Nationalists League, 300 college students were exhorted in Bombay by Gandhiji, Shaukat Ali and R. S. Nimbkar (26 October 1920) to emulate the students of the Aligarh College. Pandit Motilal Nehru and Gandhiji exploited other venues for the boycott of colleges and propagation of national education in Bombay. In November 1920 the students of Goculdas Tejpal High School started an agitation for severing the school's connec­tion with the Bombay University and for surrendering Government grant. This led to the foundation of the Gujarati National School on 29 Novem­ber 1920. It was accommodated in the Marwadi Vidyalaya and the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya on Sandhurst Road. This school began to progress after the Nagpur session of the Congress. Within a year its strength rose to 650, although it failed in the subsequent years. The first National Marathi School was founded in the city on 6 January 1921. The Lokamanya Tilak Girls' School, a national school, was inaugurated by Gandhiji on 22 June 1921. Like other national schools, this institution also made remarkable progress but declined from 1924.
The National College, Bombay, founded on 1 February 1921, with S. V. Puntambekar as principal, and about half a dozen nationalist professors, was an important move towards national education. It, however, declined badly in 1925. The most progressive of the institutions established under the movement was, however, the National Medical College which was founded through the efforts of the eminent patriotic doctors like R. H. Bhadkamkar, A. P. Kothare and D. D. Sathe. The phenomenal progress of this college with a strength of 430 students in July 1923, could partly be attributed to the inadequate accommodation at the Grant Medical College and partly to the nationalist zeal among the sponsors and the students. The college secured its   own   building at Victoria Gross Road, Byculla, out of funds raised by public subscrip­tions and the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee's loans. The affiliation of the College to the Bombay University was, however, in contravention to the pledges of Non-co-operation. Hence there were protests and resignations by staunch nationalists like Dr. D. D. Sathe. The management, however, gained the upper hand and went ahead with the affiliation proceedings. This college is now known as Topiwala National Medical College attached to the Nair Hospital.
Antagonistic Movement : While the Non-co-operation Movement was making a strong headway in the city, a counter antagonistic movement was also initiated by the Liberals and Moderates. These vested interests organised a forum in the city, and strongly condemned the Non-co­operation Movement under the auspices of the Western India National Liberation Association which met under the presidentship of Sir Dinshaw Wacha on 23 October 1920. Sir Narayan Chandavarkar was another leading light of the counter movement. Sir Narayan issued a manifesto on behalf of the anti-Non-co-operation Movement, in a pamphlet, appealing to the country against Gandhiji's movement. (The first part of the pamphlet appeared in the Bombay Chronicle of 22 October 1920.) While trying to dissuade the people from joining the Non-co-operation Movement, Sir Narayan's manifesto said, " Non-co-operation is deprecated by the religious tenets and traditions of our motherland nay, of all the religions that have saved and elevated the human race." The manifesto and the movement naturally gained support from the European mer­cantile community as well as the Indian industrialists in Bombay. The Bombay Millowners' Association was a great protagonist of this anta­gonistic movement. Sir Homi Mody, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and F. E. Dinshaw, were great enthusiastics of the antagonistic stance, as they were more keen about their business interest, for which they required Government favours. Their opposition to the nationalist movement was also evidenced by their opposition to the All-India Tilak Swaraj Fund.
Mahatma Gandhi very effectively contradicted Sir Narayan's mani­festo, and justified the Non-co-operation Movement, both on the grounds of religious tenets and a practical philosophy of nationalist struggle. (Young India, 4 August 1920  published in his book   Young India  by  RajendraPrasad,  1924 edition.)
The Liberals led by Dinshaw Wacha and Sir Narayan, wanted to support the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the Councils. An anti-Non-Co-operation Committee was elected, its members being industria­lists and a few Servants of India. (Bombay Chronicle, 12 October 1920.) Anonymous funds were forthcoming from R. D. Tata through mediation of Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, who along with Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, was an honorary secretary. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 159.) By November 1920 Mrs. Annie Besant and some of her theosophist followers were also supporting the Committee, and Liberals like Sethna and C. V. Mehta were also involved. (Ibid.)
Jinnah, Jayakar, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Mavji Govindji Seth, Joseph Baptista and many of Annie Besant's followers in the city were also opposed to Non-co-operation, as they were the advocates of Council entry. Some Marathas, of course a few, were also opposed to the boycott of the Council. The polling in Bombay city was, however, only 8 per cent despite these vested interests.
It is noteworthy that during this period, the Marwari and Gujarati traders were fairly consistently pro-nationalists, while the industrialists were consistently pro-Government. (Ibid.) This issue is dealt with at length elsewhere in this chapter.
After Nagpur Congress : The decisions of the Calcutta Special Congress (September 1920) were confirmed at the Nagpur session of December 1920. The discussion centred round the change in the creed of the Congress and the Congress constitution. The amendment read as under : The object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swaraj by the people of India through " all legitimate and peaceful means ", the omission of the qualification within the British Empire being deliberate. It was decided to raise a national fund to be called the All-India Tilak Memorial Swaraj Fund for financing the Non-co-operation Movement and the Indian National Service. The latter was organised as a band of national workers for service to the country. A special emphasis was laid on non-violence as an integral part of the Non-co-operation Move­ment. Swaraj was sought to be attained within an year. Communal harmony was strongly urged and an anti-untouchability movement was launched.
Another important outcome of the Nagpur session was the re-organisa­tion of Congress bodies. The All-India Congress Committee (hither after referred to as the AICC in this narration) at Nagpur divided the country into 21 different provinces on a linguistic basis, and allocated 356 seats among the various provinces. Bombay city was allocated seven seats in the AICC. Under the new constitution of the Congress, the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee was organised with 150 representatives (three from the depressed classes) elected by the seven District Congress Committees formed in the city. The Committees with the number of their elected representatives, were asunder : Fort 14, Mandvi 20, Bhuleshwar 28, Girgaum 26, Byculla 25, Parel 17, Dadar 17, and depressed classes 3. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, pp. 31-32) The city was authorised to send 23 delegates to the Indian National Congress including seven members of the AICC.
Boycott of Duke of Connaughfs Visit: The Swarajya Sabha in Bombay, in accordance with the Nagpur resolution on S.R. Bomanji and Gandhiji's advice, initiated an agitation for refraining from the Royal functions in honour of the Duke's visit in February 1921. The Bombay Native Piece-goods Merchants' Association decided to close the Mulji Jetha Cloth Market for three days. The New Share Bazar in the city did likewise. Many traders voluntarily suspended their business. Five public meetings were held during the week of the Royal visit expressing popular determination to boycott it. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1921.) The boycott was, however, not so very successful.
Tilak Swaraj Fund: The AICC which met at Bezwada on 31 March 1921, resolved to place a constructive programme, commonly known as the Bezwada Programme, before the country, namely (i) collection of one crore rupees for financing Non-co-operation Movement, (ii) enlist­ment of one crore members, and (iii) introduction of 20 lakhs of charkhas into households, before the end of June 1921. Bombay was the scene of Gandhiji's activities in this respect from April to June. He employed every kind of strategy for building up the Tilak Swaraj Fund. He had budgeted for Rs. 60 lakhs from Bombay and Rs. 40 lakhs from the rest of India. A happy beginning had been made in Bombay. Earnest workers, themselves endowed with riches, were working ceaselessly for the collec­tion. (M. K. Gandhi, Young India.) Labour leaders like A. B. Kolhatkar, R. S. Nimbkar, D. R. Mayekar and Jamnadas Mehta joined hands with Gandhiji. The drive was mainly for the Swaraj Fund.
The city had given the largest sum for the Jallianwala Fund, and it was capable of giving a large sum to the Tilak Fund. Mandvi Ward contributed Rs. 60,000 through Velji Lakhamsey Napoo. Ghatkopar presented Gandhiji with an address and a purse of Rs. 40,000 for the Tilak fund. He put his trust in the four communities in the city, namely, Bhatias, Memons, Marwadis and Parsis. The citizens of Santacruz, which was Gandhiji's abode when he was practising as an advocate, presented him with Rs. 30,000. Bandra, Vile Parle, Borivli, Malad and other suburbs also made good contributions. (K. Gopalswami, op. cit., pp. 149-50,) The cotton merchants and workers of the Bombay Cotton Brokers' Association presented Gandhiji with a purse of Rs. 2,50,000. (Ibid., p. 150,) This was a sign of awakening in the mercantile class in the city.
According to Mrs. Fatima Ismail, her brother Umar Sobani gave a cheque to Gandhiji for one crore; but Gandhiji insisted that the money must come from the people. Umar underwrote the target amount and left the cheque with Gandhiji in the presence of only Shaukat Ali. Some­how the news reached the Government, which broke the cotton corner created by Umar Sobani by bringing into Bombay special trainloads of cotton by orders of the Viceroy. This measure ruined Umar's mills, and he sustained a heavy loss and paid out Rs. 3.64 crores. (K. Gopalswami, op. cit, pp. 149-50.) Umar Sobani was a staunch supporter of Gandhiji, and a great patriot till his death in 1926. He opposed his father, Haji Yusuf Sobani, who contested the office of the Sheriff of Bombay, simply because he did not want his father to enjoy an office under the British. Umar was successful, and Sultan Chinoy's father became the Sheriff.

Mr. A. B. Godrej, a Parsi merchant prince and staunch nationalist presented Gandhiji with a handsome donation of Rs. 3 lakhs(Ibid.) at the Mani Bhavan, which was throbbing with Gandhian activity throughout the period. One Jainarayan Indumal Dani was, however, the biggest single donor who donated a munificent sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, Mr. A. B. Godrej being the second with three lakhs and Anandilal Podar5 the third, with a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, p. 59,) Bombay city totally contributed about Rs. 37.5 lakhs to Tilak Swaraj Fund at the call of Gandhiji. It was at about 10 p.m. on the last targeted day that the managers of the Fund totalled up an amount of about Rs. 98 lakhs from all over India. News­paper reporters were frantically telephoning for news whether the target had been reached. Jamnalal Bajaj, Shankarlal Banker and others suggested that the press be told that the one crore mark had been reached. Gandhiji, however, insisted that they must tell the truth. On the next morning a message from Calcutta came that three-four lakhs had already been collected there which had not been accounted earlier. Thus, the Bezwada target for the Fund was more than fulfilled, Bombay's generosity earned for the city the sobriquet, " Bombay the beautiful ", at the hands of Gandhiji in the Young India of 6 July 1921.

Although Bombay city was the single biggest contributor to the Tilak Swaraj Fund, the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee decided to spend it on constructive programme all over India. A special committee with Raghavji Purshottam, Velji Napoo, Revashankar Jhaveri, Umar Sobani, Jamnalal Bajaj, A. B. Godrej, Shankarlal Banker and L. R. Tairsee, was appointed to control and manage the funds. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee did an act of self-denial by extending the funds to other regions for spread of khadi, upliftment of depressed classes, national schools and prohibition of liquor.  It also made room for the election of two Muslim representatives to the AICC from the city. (K. Gopalswami, op. cit., pp. 152-53.)

As a part of the Bezwada programme, about 19,756 Congress members were enlisted, and 1,887 charkhas were introduced in the city upto May 1921. As many as 18 centres for spinning khadi were opened, while arrangements were made for the manufacture of charkhas at Lalbaug, Kalbadevi, Kumbharwada, Khetwadi, Sandhurst Road and Chowpati (at S. G. Banker's house). (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, pp. 48, 60, 61.)
Anti-Liquor Picketing : The anti-liquor agitation in Bombay was first suggested by A. B. Kolhatkar, the editor of the Sandesh, in its issue of 19 May 1921. The ' G ' Ward Congress Committee took up the issue first in Dadar area on 3 June 1921. By the middle of the month prohibition propaganda was launched in Girgaum, Golpitha and then in Mandvi, Frere Road, Mazagaon, Dhobi Talao, Jacob Circle and Arthur Road. Liquor shops were picketed by volunteers and prohibition education was imparted zealously. The BPCC formed a vigilance committee to weed out bad characters from the agitation. Picketing was, however, temporarily suspended from 14 July 1921 due to rowdyism, and resumed from 20 August under the vigilance of Shaukat Ali and P. G. Sahasrabuddhe. Many picketers were prosecuted during the movement. A number of liquor and toddy shops were burnt or damaged during the November riots in the city. (Ibid., pp. 70-73.) The agitation was, therefore, suspended.
Currency and Exchange Policy Problems : The currency and foreign exchange policy of the Government of India was highly detrimental to Indian industry and trade. Naturally it roused protests and petitions by the business community in Bombay. The Congress Working Committee also took up the issue so as to enlist the support of businessmen. The Indian Merchants' Chamber and Bureau, Bombay Native Piecegoods Merchants' Association, Woollen Piecegoods Merchants' Association, English Bleached and White Shirting Merchants' Association, Fancy Prints Association, Bleached Dhoties and Fancy Goods Association, all from Bombay, were actively seeking the Congress support for their protests to Government. It was advocated that Government interference with the currency and exchange issue was highly detrimental to Indian interests, as it was dictated by Britain's interests.
This issue is dealt more at length subsequently.
Boycott of Foreign Cloth : The AICC met in Bombay from 28 to 30 July 1921 to congratulate the citizens for their splendid response to the Tilak Fund. It resolved to attain a total boycott of foreign cloth by the end of September, and advised people to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales. The Bombay Native Piecegoods Association had earlier resolved to stop trading in foreign cloth. Gandhiji stayed in the city for the most part of July, August and September, mainly to direct the boycott campaign. He exhorted the millowners to regularise their profits and to manufacture mainly for the Indian market, and the importers to abandon buying foreign goods and to dispose of existing stocks outside India. He appealed the consumers to wear only khadi cloth, mill cloth being retained for the poor. The citizens were also to destroy imported cloth. Narandas Purshottam and Jamnalal Bajaj were very active in the campaign, and the latter tried his best to dissuade the Marwadi cloth merchants and commission agents from dealing in foreign clotb. Several public meetings were held. The response from the Mulji Jetba Market was favourable, although the movement in general met with a limited success. Two thousand posters containing Gandhiji's message of swadeshi and khadi were published by Swarajya Sabha. In response, piles of foreign clothes were received. Umar Sobani was reported to have given clothes worth Rs. 30,000.
The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the non-co-operators tried their best for the success of the movement. Besides public meetings, house to house propaganda was raised. The discarded foreign clothes were collected Ward by Ward, and processions were organised. Gandhiji lighted a bonfire of a huge pile of foreign cloth, about 20 feet high, in the compound of the Elphinstone mill owned by Umar Sobani, on 31 July 1921. The all-India leaders who were in the city for the AICC meeting also attended the bonfire programme in the presence of over 12,000 people. They addressed public meetings on the Chowpati. The response of the millowners and merchants of foreign cloth was, however, much less than expected. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, pp. 49, 74, 76, 78.)
The second bonfire of foreign clothes was held on 9 October 1921 in the compound of the Elphinstone mill in the presence of a vast crowd with boundless enthusiasm. It was impossible to pass along the Elphinstone Bridge. A disciplined meeting was addressed by Gandhiji, Lalaji, Maulana Azad, Sarojini Naidu, Rajendra Prasad and Sobani. Gandhiji's speech was full of pathos and sorrowfulness at the failure of the people. The sight was extremely impressive: the vast audiences, the burning clothes and the passionate speakers under God's sky in the growing night!
This touching event was preceded by the arrest of Shaukat Ali in Bom­bay on 16 September 1921, and of Mohammed Ali at Waltair, in connec­tion with the Karachi resolution which was alleged to have tampered with the loyalty of army troops. The arrest of the Ali brothers invited the wrath of the mill hands which resulted into a stoppage of work in 14 mills in Bombay. Most of the mills were in the Muslim localities, and undoubtedly the strike was intended to demonstrate the political loyalties of the Khilafat rank and file, which included at least, some of the Muslim millhands. Even so, the strike was brief and half-hearted, and was promptly condemned by the Congress and Khilafat Committees. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 98.)

Mr. Chotani suggested that the third bonfire of foreign cloth on the day of arrival of the Prince of Wales should be so big that the flames might be easily seen from Apollo Bunder and that the Prince be impressed by Indian determination for Swaraj and Swadeshi. Accordingly the third bonfire was lighted by Gandhiji in the presence of an impressive gathering of more than 25 thousand in the compound of the Elphinstone mill on 17 November 1921. The bonfire as planned, coincided with the landing of the Prince of Wales at Apollo Bunder. It was accompanied by a general hartal in the city.

All these bonfires were symbolic of India's determination for the Swadeshi and Swaraj. They were all held solemnly with a splendid and spectacular show of discipline and self-denial. Gandhiji's speeches were full of emotional appeals. At the time of the second bonfire, some tears were to be seen in his eyes, the tears of sorrow at the failure of the people to fulfill their duty towards the country. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, November 1921.)

Prince of Wales Riots : The Prince of Wales's visit was intended to uphold the prestige of the British Government, although it was most inopportune and uncalled for at the time. The AICC as well as the Congress Working Committee which had met in Bombay from 28 to 30 July and 5 October 1921, respectively, had resolved to boycott the Royal visit and to observe a general voluntary hartal throughout the land. During the six weeks preceding the Prince's visit, 19 public meetings had been held in Bombay for the express purpose of rousing all patriotic citizens against the visit. Accordingly Bombay was to observe a hartal on the day of the Prince's landing at Bombay, and the citizens were directed by Gandhiji to religiously refrain from attending charities, fetes or fireworks organised for the purpose. No ill-will or insult was intended to be shown to the Prince. However, the Prince's visit itself and the circumstances attending the ceremonials arranged and the public money wasted for the royal functions, constituted an unbearable provocation. And yet Bombay had remained self-restrained initially, although the Swarajya Sabha's office was needlessly raided by the police.

The purpose of the bonfire, apart from its obvious symbolism, was also to provide a counter-attraction to the extravagant ceremonies going on in the Fort area, where the Prince was beginning a royal tour of India. (Mahatma Gandhi, Young India (Date not available)).

The mills continued to work as Gandhiji had proposed, but some of them had apparently to close later because their workers slipped away to watch the spectacle. There was no disturbance in the north of the city that day. The focus of events was in the south, where trainloads of Congress and Khilafat volunteers returning from the bonfire, disembarked at Marine Lines and Charni Road railway stations and found themselves face to face with Parsis and Europeans leaving the route of the Prince's procession. Full scale rioting developed across the city from Tardeo and Girgaum in the west to the lower reaches of Parel Road. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 98.)

There was stone-throwing at cars and trams and the decorations were dragged down and burned. Tramway services were totally paralysed. The persons returning home after the Prince's State procession were assaulted. The military had to be summoned and 13 people were killed as a result of firing.

As D. G. Tendulkar records : " The Parsis as a community having joined in the demonstration of welcome to the Prince, in defiance of the wishes of the general body of people, had been the target of attack. When they were returning home from the reception ceremony, the foreign caps and foreign garments on their persons were seized and consigned to flames. A Police station and another building were set on fire. Four policemen had been beaten to death and some sustained injuries. Gandhi arrived and witnessed the scene. A huge crowd had gathered and there was a terrible noise and confusion all around. When they saw Gandhi in their midst, they gave themselves up to frenzied demonstrations and began to shout, Mahatma Gandhi-Ki-Jai. He reproved them and ordered them off. Sprinkling water on the faces of the injured policemen, he remained there for some time nursing them. After having made arrangements for their removal to the hospital, he left.

" From every part of the city reports of frightful excesses of murder or rioting continued to pour in till ten in the night. Gandhi had been an eyewitness to such dreadful scenes, and the agony he suffered was unbearable Weighed down by grief and remorse, he went on recalling the high hopes with which he had been directing the movement. But these hopes had now vanished into thin air....."

" The next morning, November 18, the Parsis, the Anglo-Indians and the Jewish residents, were adequately armed and, frantic with rage, were thirsting for revenge. Meanwhile the Congressmen went round the city, trying to pacify the people. But the situation was hopeless. Reprisals led to reprisals, and there was no knowing how things would end.

" Gandhi felt as if all his strength had vanished.............................. He was not afraid of sacrificing himself. But what use? 'If I allowed myself to be torn to pieces by justly incensed Parsis or Christians, I would only give rise to greater bloodshed. Whilst as a soldier I must avoid no unavoidable risk, I must not recklessly run the risk of being killed. Then what was I to do ?' At last came the idea of a fast to his rescue...... On November 19 he called back his son Devdas to Bombay and he gave out that Devdas had been brought back on purpose. He was to be sent out as a ' sacrifice' for slaughter by the rioters, should a fresh outbreak occur in neighbouring areas." (D. G. Tendulkar, Mahatma : Life of Mohanchand Karamchand Gandhi.)

The millhands, the white-collared gentry and even the intelligentsia, were involved in rioting. Bhendi Bazar was a great scene with not less than 20,000 unwilling to listen to any body, and frantically out on an operation destruction. Gandhiji and Sobani were ultimately successful in restoring peace there. In some areas there were painful events of molestation of Parsi sisters. (For details see K. Gopalswami, Gandhi and Bombay, pp. 121-38.)

The situation had deteriorated rapidly on the second day. Parsis were hacked to death in the streets, and Parsi youths responded against Muslims and Hindus with equal savagery. Gangs of Muslims moved north from Madanpura along DeLisle Road, intimidating the millhands and closing down the mills, so that by the afternoon, the central part of the mill area had come to a standstill. The millhands, however, did not allow themselves to be caught up in the violence, and went back to work again the next day. Meanwhile the rioting continued in the area south of Grant Road, where it eventually subsided about five days later. " The riots were only the culmination of months of tension between the Congress volunteers and the Parsi community, arising out of the latter's refusal to wear khaddar or close down their liquor shops in response to Gandhi's con­demnation of alcohol. Apart from a small number of workers who were drawn into political events by their individual links with non-co-operators of other social classes, the millhands were hardly involved in any of the agitations of the time, and the evidence suggests that the nationalist leadership did not intend them to be." (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 99.)

The Government openly took sides, and armed and aided the Parsis and Christians in retaliatory madness; and neglected to protect the Hindu and Muslim victims of the former's wrath. The police and the military looked on with callous indifference. Over 50 persons were reported to have been killed and 400 injured in the carnage and insolence which persisted for five days upto 21 November. Gandhiji and others including Sarojini Naidu, Azad, Sobani, Jayakar, Jamnadas Mehta, Dr. Sathe and Mouzam Ali, strived to restore peace. Gandhiji undertook an indefinite fast in penance, from the 19th instant. Ultimately peace appeared to have dawned on 21 November, and leaders belonging to all communities, non-co-operators and co-operators, convened a meeting on that day. There were speeches of goodwill and harmony by a representative of each community. (K. Gopalswami, op. cit., p. 132.) And Gandhiji was persuaded to break his fast. The injuries and wounds of the event were gradually healed.

The Congress Working Committee (henceforth called the CWC) was called at Mani Bhavan on 22 and 23 November 1921. Resolutions were passed deploring the tragic occurrences in Bombay, and inviting Congress workers and Khilafat bodies to be vigilant about violence. The CWC also warned all Provincial Congress Committees against embarking upon Mass Civil Disobedience without first making certain of a peaceful atmosphere. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, p. 85.)

The disturbances gave a real setback to the Non-Co-operation, Mass Civil Disobedience and boycott movements, and no material progress towards advancement of the boycott programme was made until at the close of the year.
Gandhiji's success in collection of a crore of rupees for the Tilak Swaraj Fund and other programmes made him more and more popular towards the end of 1921. The people reposed their faith in him, and it was at the Ahmedabad Congress (December 1921) that he was appointed as the ' Dictator ' of the Congress giving him all powers to appoint a deputy in case he was arrested. During January-February 1922 the activities of the Congress workers in Bombay were confined to the enrolment of national volunteers.

Boycott of Councils, schools and courts, collection of funds, Swadeshi, had all been tried in succession : each aspect of Non-Co-operation had attracted some support, but none gave the movement more than a tempo­rary momentum. Violence was its worst enemy. By and by a good deal of mutual recrimination developed in the carefully built Hindu-Muslim brotherhood. (J. M. Brown, op. cit., p. 335.) Tension developed between Gandhiji and the Ali brothers. There were many among the Muslims who argued that nothing had ever been achieved by non-violence. (Comments of  the  Bombay  Police   Commissioner,  25   January   1922, Home Political, 1922, No. 551.) That was a formidable danger to the movement.

By mid-March 1922, the three bases on which Gandhiji had built up the movement, collapsed. Many of the Hindu and Muslim leaders realised that non-co-operation was not a profitable tactic through which they could pursue their own aims. It could neither guarantee a communal alliance nor secure them the power they sought. Into this ferment, Gandhiji dropped his bombshell of suspending civil disobedience after the Chauri Chaura violence.

Soon after, Gandhiji was arrested on 10 March 1922 and sentenced to six years' simple imprisonment. His incarceration created a general depression and frustration, although the BPCC continued to pursue his constructive programme in the city. There was practically a lull in the city throughout 1922, except for the usual Gandhian programme. (Khadi propaganda was activated, and the sale proceeds from Khaddar in the city, reached Rs. 1,39,000 during the last months of the year. Bajaj and Chotani were appointed treasurers of the Congress.)


While eminent Tilakites including Jayakar and Kelkar denounced the triple boycott, even Congressmen like Vithalbhai Patel and Jamnadas Mehta clamoured to contest the January 1923 elections to the Municipal Corporation and to seek an entry into the Council in repudiation of the pledge of Non-co-operation. They organised the Municipal Nationalist Party, while pledging their adherence to the Congress creed, both inside and outside the Corporation. As many as 67 members of the Municipal Nationalist Party contested the Municipal Corporation election held on 29 January 1923, of whom 47 were elected. The most important of the elected members included V. J. Patel, Mia Mohammed Chotani, V. L. Napoo, Dr. Velkar, H. P. Thackersey, Sarojini Naidu, B. N. Motiwalla, L. R. Tairsee, K. F. Nariman, Jamnadas Mehta, Dr. Sathe, S. L. Silam, A. H. S. Khatri, V. A. Desai, P. G. Sahasrabuddhe, F. J. Ginwala, Avantikabai Gokhale, Joseph Baptista, Dr. G. V. Deshmukh and Umar Sobani. (For the names of the ward-wise contestants and the elected candidates refer toNon-co-operation Movement inBombay City, 1920-25, pp. 147-50.)

However, these 47 members could not capture the Corporation and, except for a few specific issues, the loyalists, Government nominees and members of Homi Mody's Progressive Party, dominated the municipality. Actually, V. J. Patel, the leader of the Municipal Nationalist Party, lost the 1923 mayoral election to Homi Mody, by three votes. Yet the Progressive Party comprising professionals, landlords, rich merchants and millowners, was by no means a homogeneous group with regard to the interest of its members. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 139.)

The clash between the Municipal Nationalist Party and Progressive Party was significant in so far as it related to the crucial question which group was destined to bear the brunt of the burden of the rising taxation consequent upon the Municipal Reforms Act of 1922. The nationalists were still dependent upon the support of a number of landlords in the civic body. (It may be necessary to review a few past events to understand the role of the Municipal Nationalist Party and other pressure groups in the city. " The Corpo­ration prior to the reforms of 1922 was, in essence, a landlord-millowner-large merchants Corporation and was overtly antinationalist. However, intense agitation for reform of the franchise for municipal voting had been going on since early in 1918. It was led at least initially, by strange bed-fellows— the European Association and the Municipal Reforms Association, the latter being led by the nationalist and future mayor of Bombay, Joseph Baptista. By the end of 1919 these voices had been joined by a group of quasi-worker and lower middle class South Indian associations, including the People's Union, the Clerks' Union and the Tenants' Association." (A. D. D. Gordon, p. 131.) At this stage, the Maharashtrian labourers had not yet begun to take deep interest in municipal reforms, although they were eventually to replace the Gujaratis and the Parsis as the dominating influence in civic government.

The Municipal Reforms Association wanted a wholly elected corporation to avoid the situation wherein the nominated members were servile instruments of the Municipal Commissioner. George Lloyd, the Governor, was also urging for a wide extension of franchise, in 1919, to reform the landlord dominated civic body. The landlord faction in the Corporation received the support of Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola, a member of the Governor's Council in charge of the General Department (A. D. D. Gordon, p. 136). He was one of the biggest landlords in the city and had a great influence over the civic body. At one stage Lloyd was " in constant friction with Sir Ibrahim over the housing scheme."
There was some kind of polarisation of forces in the Corporation, and a more expected result of the reforms was a surge of nationalists into the body. It was against this background that the emergence of the Municipal Nationalist Party was an important factor.)

The nationalists, with the support of professionals and merchants dominated the Municipal Nationalist Party. However, it could not be claimed to be an anti-landlord party. " On the other hand, it might also be termed the party of the traditional Hindu merchants who had hitherto been denied a voice in the affairs of the city. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., pp. 139-40.) Many of such merchants found a berth in the Corporation on the support of the Municipal Nationalist Party during the 1923 and 1926 elections. Their leaders, V. L. Napoo, G. G. Nensey and Mathuradas Tricamji (grain and cloth merchants), had come to the forefront as non-co-operators. The conflict between the landlords, millowners and merchants related mainly to taxation and its incidence. This is, however, a very complicated issue which need not detain us.

An important activity of the Municipal Nationalist Party was in connection with its protests against voting an address to Sir George Lloyd on his retirement, in the last quarter of 1923. In spite of their protests, the Corporation did arrange for the farewell address to the outgoing Governor and welcome to the incoming Governor, Sir Leslie Wilson (1923-28). The Municipal Nationalist Party boycotted the functions in the spirit of Non-co-operation, and held protest meetings on the Chowpati sands and other places on the day previous to the old Governor's departure. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, pp. 124-125.)

It was in April 1924 that V. J. Patel succeeded in being elected the Mayor (President) of the Corporation, and K. F. Nariman was appointed leader of the Municipal Nationalist Party. During his regime as mayor the Corporation presented an address to Gandhiji on 29 August 1924. V. J. Patel had the courage to boycott the Viceregal function in spite of the Corporation's resolution to that effect. He resigned the mayorship in repudiation of the Corporation's action. At the next meeting of the Corporation, however, he was allowed to occupy the Mayor's chair and was re-elected as Mayor again on 5 January 1925.

To resume the chronological narration of the Non-co-operation movement, Sarojini Naidu, Vallabhbhai Patel, Jamnalal Bajaj and Vithalbhai Patel continued to strive for the Tilak Swaraj Fund by holding public meetings throughout February 1923. (Ibid., p. 130).The Bombay Chronicle announced large amounts contributed to the Fund. (Bombay Chronicle, 7 Feb. 1923.) The 18th of every month was continued to be celebrated as a Gandhi Day in furtherance of the Swaraj Fund, enrolment of national volunteers, propagation of khaddar, and a fight against untouchability. The Marwadi Vidyalaya Hall was a favourite venue for meetings of leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel and Sarojini Naidu.

A Congress Employment Bureau was formed with a view to helping the non-co-operating young men, who had renunciated government services, in securing jobs. This was in pursuance of the resolution of the Congress Working Committee in Bombay in January 1923. The city firms and nationalist employers were exhorted through meetings and columns of the Bombay Chronicle to notify vacancies to the Bureau of which Mathuradas Tricamji was the secretary. There was, however, not much progress in this respect in the year.

The labour sub-committee of the Congress under Dr. Sathe, S. A. Dange and L. G. Khare, appears to have become active at this juncture. It approached the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee to allot Rs. 50,000 for the labour movement in Bombay. The fact, however, remains that the nationalists could not make deep inroads in the millhands. This aspect is examined further subsequently.

Nagpur Flag Satyagraha : The courageous Flag Satyagraha under the leadership of Jamnalal Bajaj at Nagpur (May to August 1923), evoked tremendous enthusiasm in Bombay. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee sent volunteers to participate in the agitation at Nagpur. Sarojini Naidu was an inspiring force behind the movement in the city. The Bombay Grain Merchants' Association and the Marwadi Bazar appreciated the patriotism of Jamnalal by observing a hartal on 19 June 1923. The Gold and Silver Satta Bazar and the Marwadi Bazar in Bombay protested against the conviction of Jamnalal with a closure of business for the second time on 11 July. Kasturba Gandhi played an important role in activating the ladies in the city by organising meetings and processions on the occasion.

The Nagpur Flag Satyagraha evoked so great an interest in Bombay that the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the District Congress Committees in the city, sent a great many volunteers including a member of the Birla family, to Nagpur. Several processions were held and patriotic activities were sponsored. Many youths from Bombay were convicted and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. (A list of the convicted is given in Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, pp. 174-76.)

Nabha Abdication : The Bombay Congressmen, and Sikhs in particular, condemned the action of the Government of India in bringing about a forced abdication of the Maharaja of Nabha as being unjust and unconstitutional. The citizens of Bombay congratulated the Akali martyrs, and applauded their courageous stand against the repression by the Punjab Government under the pretext of putting down the Babbar Akalis. The Sikhs in Bombay expressed full sympathy with the gallant struggle of the Akalis (July and November 1923).

Kenya Betrayal : The adverse decision of the British Government on the Kenya question roused indignation in Bombay in August 1923. The Swaraj Party as well as the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the Central Khilafat Committee, were active against the Kenya Betrayal. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the Khilafat Committee gave a call for the observance of a hartal on 27 August after the disembarkation of the Kenya Deputation. (It consisted of Jinnah, Khaparde, Sastri and Jamnadas Dwarkadas.) The citizens emphatically condemned the betrayal of Indian interest in Kenya by the British.

Swaraj Party : After the Gaya Congress, Chittaranjan Das issued instructions to Jayakar and Jamnadas Mehta for the formation of a Bombay branch of the Swaraj Party, which had accepted the principle of Non-co-operation, but stood for the creation of an atmosphere of resistance making Government by bureaucracy impossible. While accepting Civil Disobedience as a powerful weapon, the party felt that the country was not yet ready for it. Accordingly M. R. Jayakar, J. M. Mehta and K. Natarajan, convened a meeting to form the Bombay branch on 25 March 1923. They, however, decided initially to subscribe to the Congress programme and creed, and postponed the formation of the party till the dawn of May. It was on 8 May that the Swaraj Party (Bombay branch) was organised. Its leading lights were : K. Natarajan, Jayakar, V. J. Patel, J. M. Mehta, J. K. Mehta, A. G, Mulgaonkar, Purshottamdas Tricumdas, S. H. Jhabwalla, B. G. Kher, Shantaram N. Dabholkar and M. D. Nanavati. The main thrust of the policy of the party was on carrying on a constitutional fight in the Legislative Council. The manifesto was announced the same day. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, 1923.) Although not a rival party, it was undoubtedly a faction bent upon entering the Councils in difference with the programme of non-co-operation and boycott. By the middle of May 1923, it opened four branch offices in different areas in Bombay for collection of funds and enlistment of members. The main plank of their propaganda was that Non-co-operation had been a success in so far as it had caused an awakening among the people, but at the same time Non-co-operation had given the bureaucracy an opportunity to consolidate its powers. The Swaraj Party was founded to undermine those powers. The boycott of the Councils had been a failure as had been the boycott of schools and colleges. Government continued to enact unjust laws in the name of reforms, while undesirable elements found a berth in the Councils. The Swarajists decided upon a policy of obstruction against the bureaucracy. B. G. Kher, who later became the Prime Minister of Bombay State, emerged as a Swarajist at this juncture.

Unfortunately differences of opinion fermented very soon between Jayakar and Natarajan on the one hand and V. J. Patel and Jamnadas Mehta on the other, over the issue of nomination of candidates for the Assembly and the Councils. The differences culminated in the resignations of Tayakar, Natarajan, Dabholkar and eight others. (Times of India of 9 July 1923. The signatories slated that there was a certain section in the party in Bombay (probably referring to Patel and Mehta), from which they were fundamentally and irrevocably separated in principles and. methods.) The unfortunate breach in the party made it imperative for the central leaders to reorganise its hierarchy with V. J. Patel as the president; J. M. Mehta, M. B. Velkar and Bhulabhai Desai as vice-presidents; and J. K. Mehta, R. N. Mandlik, Bhadkamkar and Appabhai Desai as its secretaries in September 1923.

The Bombay Swaraj Party further patched up the internal dissentions and launched a vigorous campaign for elections to the reformed Councils and the Legislative Assembly to be held on 14 November 1923. It is noteworthy that the Congress Party which was opposed to Council-entry as a matter of principle, suspended its propaganda against Council-entry by virtue of the decision in the Special Congress session held in the middle of September. This had undoubtedly a favourable impact on the election results from the point of view of the Swarajists vis-a-vis the Moderates.

The Swarajists aimed at mending or ending the Councils and the Assembly, if the demands of the Indian National Congress were not conceded. The election results were quite startling and encouraging. Vithalbhai J. Patel, president of the Swaraj Party of Bombay, was elected to the Central Legislative Assembly from the Bombay city non-Muslim constituency, while the other Swarajist candidate from the Muslim constituency, namely, Hussenbhai|A. Lalji, lost to his rival. The perfor­mance of the Swarajists in the elections to the Bombay Legislative Council was rather spectacular. Of the nine seats from the city, the Swarajists captured six. The successful Swarajists included K. F. Nariman, M. B. Velkar, J. K. Mehta, Punjabhai Thackersey, Jafferbhai Lalji and Jayakar. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, p. 160.) Mr. Jayakar had contested the election from the Bombay University constituency as a Swarajist after some rapprochement. He was elected leader of the Council Swaraj Party in January 1924, which formulated a policy to be adopted in the legislature. The policy contemplated continuous obstruction of bureaucratic high-handedness, abstention from any office or commission and opposition to budgetary demands and grants. (Ibid., p. 156.)

A General Lull : It can broadly be said that the entire year 1923 was characterised by a wrangle between the Swarajists and the No-change factions of the Congress in the city. The temporary patch up on Council entry was rather a tactical move. The news of Gandhiji's grave illness and his removal from Yeravada prison to the Sassoon Hospital in Pune on 13 January 1924, cast a spell of gloom in the nationalist circles. Sarojini Naidu, president of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee, had just left Bombay for Mombassa on 9 January 1924. Consequently there was a general lull in the political activities in the city for about six months. (The Congress Working Committee met in Bombay from 30 January to 2 February 1924 under the presidency of Mohammed AH and passed resolutions of a routine type.)

Gandhiji's release on 5 February 1924 was greeted with enthusiasm and delight in the city. The entire cloth market, Share Bazar and the Cotton Association, observed closure to celebrate the happy occasion. The month commencing from 18 February to 18 March 1924 was observed as a Gandhi month under instructions of the Congress Working Committee, while the District Congress Committees in the city, carried out the usual constructive programme. Gandhiji with S. G. Banker and Mrs. Anasuya, came to Bombay on 11 March for a week's convalescence in Narottam Morarji's bungalow at Juhu. The Chowpati Beach was the scene of a very large gathering under K. P. Khadilkar, the journalist, politician and ardent follower of Gandhiji and famous playwright. Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali also became active within the Congress and Khilafat circles in Bombay.

Gandhiji's first reaction to Council-entry was not favourable, but he conceded that it had become a fait accompli and gave it the imprimatur of the Congress. The talks between Gandhiji and the Swarajists, parti­cularly Motilal Nehru and C. R. Das, continued from March to May 1924. After recuperating his health, Gandhiji left Bombay at the end of May, and toured the country extensively for the rest of the year. " As the year wore on, Gandhi realised in increasing measure the futility and harm of the wrangle between the two wings of the Congress. He struck a bold blow for unity by ' surrendering ' to the Swarajists. The gap was eventually closed at Calcutta in November, when a joint statement was issued by him and the Swarajists, which was later endorsed by the All-India Congress Committee." (K. Gopalswami, op. tit, pp. 206-07.)

The year was also significant for the nomination of Gandhiji as the president of the Congress to be held at Belgaum. It was the first and the last time that he held any formal office throughout his life.

The Bombay Municipal Corporation, on behalf of the citizens, offered felicitations to the Mahatma on the occasion of his recovery from serious illness and release from prison, on 29 August 1924. It was the second address presented to a national leader by the Corporation, the first having been presented to DadabhaiNaoroji.The brief but brilliant felicitation was offered at the Sir Cowasji Jehangir Hall in the presence of a distinguished gathering. The address was encased in a simple silver casket.

Meanwhile there were communal clashes between Hindus arid Muslims in the city and several parts of India. Bombay was deeply moved by Gandhiji's 21-day fast from 18 September 1924 at Delhi, (The fast was undertaken at Mohammed Ali's house at Delhi. The fast brought about a conference of leaders of all communities who took a pledge for communal peace.) in self-purification against communal disharmony. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and several other bodies in Bombay appealed for communal harmony and prayed for the Mahatma's life. The native Share Bazar closed its activities for a day as a mark of respect for the fast.

All-Party Conference : The All-Party Conference convened by the Congress president, Mohammed Ali, at the Muzaffarabad Hall in Bombay on 21 and 22 November 1924, was one of the most important events of the day. Nearly 275 prominent members of the All-India Congress Committee and about 200 delegates of different political parties graced the occasion. Nearly 50 non-party persons, such as solicitors, doctors and merchants also participated. The prominent among those present were: Gandhiji, Mohammed Ali, Shaukat Ali, Annie Besant, Sarojini Naidu, Dinshaw Petit, Sastri, Motilal Nehru, C R. Das, B. G. Pal, J. B. Petit, Jinnah, Jayakar, Vallabhbhai Patel, V. J. Patel, Natarajan, C. Y. Chintamani, the Dwarkadas brothers, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, K. P. Khadilkar, Dr. Ansari, Abul Kalam Azad. Hakim Ajmal Khan, Brelvi and Dr. Savarkar. Sir Dinshaw Petit, a non-party person, was voted to the chair. The Conference was motivated " to unite all parties and induce those who in 1920 felt called upon to retire from the Congress to rejoin it and to meet the recrudescence of repression which is evidently aimed at the Swaraj Party of Bengal".

The main point of discussion was an alteration of the Congress programme in such a manner as to bring on the Congress platform all the parties which had seceded from it. (Bombay Police Secret Abstract, Nov. 1924.) Gandhiji made it clear that he had conceded sufficient concession in the alteration of the programme as laid down in the joint statement issued by him, C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru, and that he would not yield further.

As there were sharp differences of opinion among the delegates on the various issues before India, Gandhiji tried to secure unanimity on the questions on which there was an agreement. It was therefore decided to appoint a committee representing the several parties at the Conference for the preparation of a draft resolution on the repressive measures adopted by the Bengal Government and the Bengal Ordinance promulgated by the Government of India. (Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1924.) The Conference strongly condemned the Ordinance, empowering the Government to invade upon individual liberty and to suppress constitutional political activity. At the same time it disapproved the anarchical terrorist activities, but urged immediate withdrawal of the Ordinance as well as Regulation III of 1918. (See Bombay Police Secret Abstracts for detailed accounts.)

On the other question of achieving unity of all the parties, Gandhiji told the Congress Working Committee, that if they handled other questions such as the creed of the Congress and the spinning franchise, there might arise disagreement which would be prejudicial to the main object of calling the All-Party Conference. Therefore, a committee representing different shades of ideology was appointed to consider " the best way of reuniting all political parties in the National Congress, and to prepare a scheme of Swaraj including the solution of Hindu-Muslim and like questions in their political aspects". The committee included Gandhiji, Mohammed Ali, Azad, Jinnah, Sastri, Chintamani, Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Baptista. (For names of all members of the committee see Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, p. 199.)

The next day after the All-Party Conference (23 November) the All-India Congress Committee met at the Muzaffarabad Hall and ratified the Gandhi-Das-Nehru Pact, which had earlier been arrived at Calcutta. The ratification of the pact ( Two No-changers voted against it.) paved the way to political unification of the Congressmen and Swarajists. However, the question of political unity for which the All-Party Conference had been convened, was rele­gated to the background, and ultimately shelved by the appointment of a committee. (Non-co-operation Movement in Bombay City, 1920-25, p. 200.)

The entire year 1924 had been one of continual drift marked by paper pacts and compromises, but by no practical achievement. There was also a feeling of uncertainty regarding the future programme of the Congress. (Ibid., p. 201.)

Responsive Co-operation : The Congress had to give further concessions to the Swaraj Party throughout 1925. Ultimately Councilentry was officially recognised by the All-India Congress Committee as part of the Congress programme. Thenceforth elections would be contested not by the Swaraj Party but by the Congress itself. The Non-co-operation organisation was virtually wound up, and the political activity was taken over by the Swaraj Party. The year 1925 also witnessed a sliding back within the latter, slackening of discipline and the first rumblings of ' responsive co-operation (K. Gopalswami, op. cit, p. 229.)

The protagonists of responsive co-operation conferred with leaders of other parties in Bombay, and consequently the Indian National Party was born in April 1926. The objective of the new creation was to prepare for establishment of Swaraj of the Dominion type by all peaceful and legitimate means, excluding mass civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes. Gandhiji was all the while a silent spectator. (In the meantime the Congress House was inaugurated by Gandhiji on 26 March 1925,) By and large the millhands were left outside the Non-co-operation Movement. They did not join the Congress organisation in any significant number. " There was, it is true, a minority of members in the Congress Committees, whose imagination had been fired by the possibility of giving the workers an active role and extending the Congress organisation downwards to promote, both social and political reform, but the minority was consis­tently outvoted by a conservative majority reflecting professional and mercantile interests. The result was a paralysis of Congress labour policy and drift towards socialism and communism  among  the  frustrated radicals." (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 99)

The Khilafat Movement was mainly instrumental in increasing political consciousness among the Muslims in Bombay. Maulana Shaukat Ali commanded influence in Madanpura, and he built a hierarchy of local leaders between the Khilafat Committee and contingents of volunteers. (R. Kumar, " From Swaraj to Purna Swaraj Nationalistic Politics in the city of Bombay, 1920-32, in Congress and the Raj : Facets of Indian Struggle, 1917-47, D. A. Low (ed.) (Arnold-Heinemann, London, 1977), p. 81) But the main inspiration of the Khilafat organisation was religious. Hence it also could not make deep inroads among the proletariat.

While the Congress and the Khilafat organisations were preoccupied with Non-co-operation, an organisation of the remnants of the old elite of business and professional leaders, combined with Moderates, emerged in Bombay. It was formalised into the National Liberal Federation. This, rather reactionary body, comprised Sir Dinshaw Wacha, SirNarayan Chandavarkar,SirR.P.Paranjape (aminister in the Bombay Government), and Sir Homi Mody. They actively opposed Non-co-opera­tion, and regarded the Montagu-Chelmsford constitution as a vindi­cation of their policy of collaboration with the British Government. They played a major part in conciliar Government, (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 100) both in Delhi and Bombay. Their electoral influence was rather diminished by the extensions of the franchise, but they still wielded a substantial share of the reserved and nominated seats in the legislatures. Their source of influence also lay in their informal contacts with the British (Ibid) bureaucrats, which were strengthened in the clubs and gymkhanas in Bombay. Among the liberal camp, Homi Mody, a lawyer, businessman, an arbiter of municipal politics and nternational diplomat for the textile industry, emerged as a rising star.i It is true that the relations between Government and industrialists were not as cordial after 1922 as they had been before, mainly due to differences over the measures against the economic recession in the city. In fact, some of them extended feelers to the Swaraj Party, as and when possible. Even then these Liberals maintained their ties with the British.

Another political movement of growing importance in Bombay was non-Brahminism. (Ibid,) It was growing up for over half a century in the central and southern districts of the Deccan, partly in Ratnagiri also, against the predominance of the Brahmins. Bombay provided a congenial home to the movement. An interesting  feature of thenon-Brahmin movement was that it was hostile to Congress politicians in the Presidency because of their high caste origin. The protagonists of the movement, therefore, chose to co-operate with the new constitution under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. They captured many of the elected seats in the provincial council, occupied one of the transferred portfolios in Government and controlled many district boards in the Presidency. Had they not been divided by factionalism; they would have accomplished much more. (I. Rothermund, Garidhi and Maharashtra (1971), pp. 56-73, and Government of India, Reports on the Working of the Reformed Constitution, 1927, pp. 137-47.) B. V. Jadhav, Minister of Education, and later of Agriculture, led one group which opposed Brahmins whenever possible, and exploited the rural prejudices of the Bombay workers to win their support. Another non-Brahmin group represented by S. K. Bole and R. S. Asavale collaborated with the Moderates and Liberals to continue the traditions of social reforms and welfare activities in the hope of achieving a shift of power before the dawn of independence. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 101.) Bole, Asavale and their associates worked closely with the Social Service League and similar bodies in the furtherance of their objectives. They also occupied the Council seat reserved for Bombay Marathas: (Ibid.)

The politics of the industrial city of Bombay rather tended to emphasise caste loyalties instead of diminishing them. Prior to the World War I men belonging to S. K. Bole's group included both Marathas and untouchables (so called) in the reform movements for the backward castes. By 1930, however, the untouchables had explicitly repudiated such a combination by emphasising their own distinctive interests. (Ibid., p. 102.) This was mainly due to the large-scale migration of the Mahars to Bombay during the post-war boom and the modernising consequences of urban life and recruitment into the army, mills and railways. The non-Brahmin movement could not reduce the hostility of the Mahars to the Marathas to any appreciable degree. It was at this juncture that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar emerged as the greatest leader of the untouchables. By about 1927, their's had become a self-conscious and much more self-confident protest movement. They published a newspaper of their own, held conferences and used the strategy of satyagraha (Dhananjay Keer, Ambedkar (1971), E. M. Zelliot, Dr. Ambedkar and the Mahar Movement (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1969)) for their own good.

Such were the influences working upon the Bombay proletariat at the times. The non-Brahmin movement, the responsive co-operationists and Liberals were all urging the Government for social reforms. The Government had also to subscribe to their kind of reformism because of the pressure of liberal ideas from abroad.

Swaraj Party and Industrialists : The economic recession in Bombay in the mid-twenties was attributed to the currency policy of the Govern­ment of India. All aspects of the recession were interpreted in terms of the high exchange ratio adopted by Government, following the World War. This state of affairs forged an alliance between the Swaraj Party and the industrialists in Bombay. The Swarajists needed funds for nationalist activities, while the industrialists needed the Swarajists' support in the Legislative Assembly against Government policy. Although men such as J. B. Petit were extending financial support to the Swarajists right from 1924 without any strings, most of the industrial magnates donated on a reciprocal basis. Motilal Nehru's appeal for money through Lalji Naranji was partially responded in 1925 only on a basis of quid pro quo. The All-India Congress Committee accounts show that the Tatas contributed through Sir F. E. Dinshaw, a nationalist. (All-India Congress Committee Papers, F. 27.) The mill-owners, particularly, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas and G. D. Birla, campaigned for the Congress only to gain the latter's support for their argument that the high ratio had damaged industry, workers and peasants. They also appealed to Gandhiji for his support. The Gauhati Congress of 1926 responded to the deliberations of the industrialists by instructing the Congress Working Committee to decide upon the currency policy the Congress was to support. The Indian Merchants' Chamber, the Bom­bay Millowners' Association and the Currency League, in their replies to the questionnaire of the Congress Working Committee, emphasised the adverse effects of the 18 d. to one rupee exchange ratio on labour and agriculturists. The Congress Working Committee, therefore, decided in favour of the 16 d. sterling ratio. (Ibid., F. G. (2), 1927.)

The position of the millowners within the legislature was further consolidated in 1926 by the establishment of the Indian Nationalist Party of responsive co-operators. This party enjoyed a certain degree of support from the Swaraj Party; and along with the support of Indepen­dents like Jinnah, it could form a good opposition during these years. The Swarajists, Nationalists and Independents could secure 69 out of 144 votes in the Assembly. (B. D. Shukla, History of Indian Liberal Party (Allahabad, 1960), p. 295.) Consequently they lost to the Government which had managed to gain the support of loyal Muslims. Government had also played its trump card, the threat of increased taxation in the event of the Assembly opting for 16 d. ratio. (Indian Legislative Assembly Debates, 1927.)

The rapprochement between the Swarajists and industrialists was bound to decline as the former had reasons to suspect the motives of the latter in response to Government measures.  However, between certain Swarajists and industrialists friendship lingered on after 1927. For example, during the 1928 Assembly elections and the sitting of the Nehru Committee, industrialists contributed some money to Motilal Nehru for the election funds. (Nehru to Thakurdas cf. A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit„ p. 187.)



The battle over the Bombay Development Department was the most fierce and long-fought. The most prominent engagement of this battle was fought over the reclamation of the Back Bay. The issue became a rallying point for all the discontent felt over the Bombay Government's "usurpation" of functions of the municipality. Reports from the popular press show that the battle was the concern of the whole of Bombay rather than the specific concern of the Municipal Corporation. Indeed, it was actually fought out in the courts of law and in the Bombay Legislative Council rather than in the municipal forum.
The Back Bay scheme was vehemently attacked after the financial crisis incidental to the post-war slump in the city. Earlier in 1921, land­lords and small merchants had been critical of the project. However, they were unable to obstruct the scheme in the Legislative Council where the businessmen, and industrial magnates had fully supported it. " Although nationalist merchants were involved at this stage, it was not until 1924 that the nationalist leaders and commercial magnates were actively engaged in criticism of Back Bay scheme and the Development Department in general. When they did, moreover, it was for ostensibly different reasons than the reasons for the involvement of the small merchants. " (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 152.)
It was K. F. Nariman who was the greatest crusader in the Back Bay engagement. He tenaciously pursued the Bombay Government of Sir Leslie Wilson (1923-28) over the issue, from 1924 onwards, both in the Municipal Corporation and the Legislative Council. It was at his instance that a vigilance committee was appointed by the municipality to watch over the Back Bay project. (Bombay Chronicle, 23 April 1926.) It was alleged that he was prompted to the move by the petitions of disappointed contractors, and the business partner of the Tatas, Walchand Hirachand, was one such contractor who had approached Nariman in 1925. (Times of India, 31 Oct. and 7 Nov. 1927.) Walchand Seth had also expressed his bitterness at Government's decision to undertake the work by itself at the time of the Back Bay Inquiry of 1926, when he submitted a joint statement on behalf of the contractors of the city. He was associated with the syndicate of 1918. Other members of the syndicate were equally bitter. The Governor, Leslie Wilson, reported to Birkenhead, on 8 October 1926, that the disappointed contractors were behind some of the criticism of the scheme. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 152.)

The substance of Nariman's complaint was as under : (i) development should have been a transferred subject under the head " Public Works " under the Devolution Rules of the Government of India Act of 1919; (ii) although the Municipal Corporation paid a cotton cess towards the chawl building programme of the department, it was not represented in the latter body; and (iii) the Back Bay Scheme was extremely costly. He said, " This mad and chimerical venture has practically mortgaged the resources of the Presidency for at least a generation to come ".(Back Bay Inquiry, 1926,1.) The most electrifying accusation, against the Government, by Nariman related to mismanagement and malpractice within the Development Department. Sir Lawless Hepper, the head of the department, was accused of falsehood when he gave a favourable report on the scheme to an interim inquiry conducted in 1925. The department was accused to have favoured specific contractors by illegal gratification, as well as of gross financial bungling. (Ibid.)

The Corporation and the millowners fully supported Nariman at this stage. The Progressive Party and the Municipal Nationalist Party submitted a joint statement when the Corporation testified before the Inquiry of 1926. The Indian Merchants'Chamber expressed the fury of the businessmen of Bombay against the scheme.

" If 1925 was the year of currency issue in Bombay, 1926 was the year of the Back Bay ' scandal', for thus Nariman's accusations had dubbed the scheme. That year the papers were full of it, and when Nariman was sued for defamation for his remarks made before the Back Bay Inquiry Committee, publicity reached fever-pitch Millowners, small merchants and landlords, all sank their differences over the issue because each had been alienated by government in a different way The Back Bay scandal furnished the nationalists with their greatest triumph in city politics of the 1920-30 decade. As a result of the scandal the Government was put under a cloud, a cloud that was all the blacker because the scandal was exposed by a nationalist."

"Generally speaking, however, the incursion of nationalists into local city politics in Bombay was not marked with singular success." (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, pp. 153-54.)

If Nariman, later commemorated by the Nariman Point and the Veer Nariman Road in South Bombay, was the crusader in the Back Bay battle, it was also he who was involved in the unfortunate Nariman episode of 1937 which ousted him from the city's public life. The episode is dealt with separately in this chapter.



The Congress split of 1918 was not at first absolute in Bombay. It had been setting in for long, and the prestige of the politicians such as Dinshaw Wacha, Sir F. E. Dinshaw, Sir Lallubhai Samaldas and Sir Vithaldas Thackersey was such that their influence in nationalist circles lingered on even after the parting of ways. Whenever an issue affected Bombay in particular, or outraged Indians in general, it was they who chaired protest meetings. Thus, for a time after 1918, the Moderates in conjunction with the nationalists, opposed the Rowlatt Bills. It was only when Mahatma Gandhi launched the passive resistance movement against the Bills that certain moderates like Wacha, Homi Mody, Cowasji Jehangir Jr. and Fazulbhoy Currimbhoy signed a manifesto against passive resistance. They coalesced the Western India Liberal Association into the Bombay branch of the National Liberal Federation. This Association was the main focus of moderate thought during the period under review. A further dividing of ways between the Moderates and nationalists occurred in 1920 when Gandhiji took over the All-India Home Rule League and renamed it as Swarajya Sabha, having complete independence as its goal. A number of members resigned the Sabha, and the Swarajya Sabha split was a completion of a process started with the Congress split of 1918. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 157.)
The Bombay industrialists as a group were overwhelmingly in favour of the moderate line as they enjoyed government patronage. There were, however, several noteworthy exceptions. Both J. B. Petit and Sir Dinshaw Petit maintained their nationalist stance. J. B. Petit was an early associate of Gandhiji and had worked with him on African problems. (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. XIII (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi). Dinshaw Petit, being a big landlord, was opposed to Govern­ment's anti-landlord activities. The Morarjis were adherents of economic nationalism. Ratansi Morarji and Tricamdas Morarji were both promi­nent members of the All-India Home Rule League. Another notable exception was A. B. Godrej, the maker of safes, and, after 1920, of swadeshi vegetable soaps. In 1921, A. B. Godrej gave a munificent sum of Rs.6 5 lakhs to the Tilak Swaraj Fund. But the millowners did not support either swadeshism or boycott as they were absolutely loyal to the British rule. They were not active participants in the political agitations between 1918 and 1922. Some, indeed, were active opponents. The Liberals met in October 1920 under the presidency of Dinshaw Wacha, and resolved that (i) public opinion should be mobilised against non-co-operation, '(it) lecture committees should be formed for the purpose, and (iii) a fair trial should be given to the new Legislative Councils under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Afterwards an Anti-Non-co-operation Committee comprising of the Servants of India and industrialists, was elected. (Kanji Dwarkadas—Gandhiji Through My Diary Leaves (K. Dwarkadas, Bombay, 1950), pp. 33-34.)

In contrast to the industrialists of Bombay, the Marwari and Gujarati marketeers were pro-nationalists quite consistently during the 1918-22 period. The turbulent currency crisis created by the war resulted in the rationing of the sale of Council Bills, (Council Bills were used for remittances between the U.K. and India, and Reverse Councils for remittances between India and U.K.) during 1917-18. The sale of the Bills was strictly limited to financing of export articles for use in the prosecution of the war. There was a strong agitation by the merchants against these measures. The nationalists in Bombay such as J. B. Petit, S. R. Bomanji, Hansraj Pragji Thackersey and Manu Subedar (Expert in exchange matters, a professor of Economics and an industrialist.) took up this issue into the December 1920 session of the Nagpur Congress, as also in the columns of the Bombay Chronicle. They also ventilated this issue in a public meeting in Bombay. The merchant delegates at the Nagpur Congress expressed their anger against the Government for the post-war readjustment of the exchange rate of the rupee. (J. M. Brown, op. cit, p. 293. This issue is also dealt with more at length elsewhere in this Chapter) The businessmen boycotted financial relations with Europeans and invoked the help of the Satyagraha organisation in the matter of foreign exchange.

The Income Tax Act of 1917 and the subsequent changes were greeted with wide agitation by the Bombay businessmen who regarded any measure of direct taxation with hatred and fear. The traditional accounting system and the pattern of joint-family firm, conflicted with the western mode of business. The new taxation measures were attempts to graft British Taxation Law onto Indian conditions. The administrative changes, necessitated by the war, actually succeeded in bringing many businessmen, brokers and commission agents into the taxation structure for the first time. Consequently several petitions and complaints were sent by the merchants to the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Viceroy. Eminent nationalist leaders and Home Rule protagonists such as Bhulabhai Desai, Velji Lakhamsey Napoo, Lalji Govindji, Goculdas Jivraj Dayal and many others, provided leadership to the agitating businessmen in Bombay. August and September of 1918 witnessed several memorials by about 71 associations, except the Indian Merchants' Chamber and the Bombay Millowners' Association, (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit.) which were dominated by industrialists and Europeans. In short, the agitation of the marketeers over the foreign exchange and taxation policy of Government, brought them more closer to the nationalist movement. The industrialists, however, had their own vested interests.

A number of businessmen in the city contributed to the nationalist treasury in the form of the Jinnah Memorial Hall Fund and the Tilak Swaraj Fund, which has been dealt with at length earlier. The Jinnah Hall Fund of 1918-19 had 517 recorded contributions including those who contributed more than once. (Bombay Chronicle, 21 December 1918, and 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 January 1919.) Of these, only one, H. P. Thackersey, was an industrialist. In contrast, there were 37 merchant firms and 184 members of merchant associations. Gujaratis, Hindus and Marwaris comprised 45 per cent of the contributors, while 5.6 per cent were Muslims and 30 per cent Maharashtrian Hindus.

Gandhi's ardent appeal for the Tilak Swaraj Fund received a worthy response from the rich merchants from Cotton Green, who gave him four lakhs of rupees, the next largest amount being donated by the jewellers of Bombay. The piece goods dealers were another group of donors, and Gandhi told them that it was they who had made possible the Bezwada Congress promise (March 1921) regarding the Tilak Memorial Swaraj Fund. Gandhi's main followers in this drive were Gulabchand Devchand, who, besides campaigning among the shroffs and jewellers, gave his house (Shanti Bhavan) for the movement, Anandilal Podar (Rs. 2 lakhs), and S. H. Ruia (Rs. 60,000). (Ibid., 1 and 7 July 1921.)

A deep involvement of the marketeers in the nationalist movement is further evidenced by the fact that 680 signatories from Bombay signed the satyagraha pledge at the call of Gandhiji, 74 per cent of whom were merchants or merchant firms. (Ibid., 5 March 1919.)

The merchants responded quite well to the call of Gandhiji and the Home Rulers at several events. The favourite venue for meetings of the Home Rule League was the Shantaram's Chawl in the heart of the cotton speculation area. The Home Rule League's call for boycott of the Willingdon Memorial, which was debated for many days in Bombay, was also responded to by the cloth merchants and their servants. The cloth merchants led by Mavji Govindji conducted an anti-requisitionist movement by observing a complete hartal in the Mulji Jetha and Morarji Goculdas Markets on the day of the presentation of an address to Lord Willingdon. (Source Material for a History of Freedom, Movement, Vol, II, p. 719.) Invariably the nationalist marches during 1918-22 were organised to pass through the business quarters of old Bombay (i.e. Kalbadevi, Shaikh Memon Street, Girgaum, etc.). At Gandhiji's call, the workers in Mulji Jetha Market and the middle class people signed the satyagraha pledge at the house of S. G. Banker in March 1919. The piecegoods merchants in the Morarji Goculdas and Khimji cloth markets and the share market, observed a complete hartal against the Rowlatt Bills. (Ibid., pp. 746-47.) There was also a complete business hartal in the cotton, cloth and bullion markets along with the Marwari Bazar and Mulji Jetha Market on Gandhiji's arrest. (Ibid., Some of these points have been elaborated earlier in this account.)
With the cessation of agitation in 1919, a Swadeshi Movement was introduced as a substitute which Gandhiji advocated first in Bombay. It was reported that the Swadeshi Movement was being shaped and handled by businessmen, and many of them had taken the swadeshi vow. However, the businessmen involved in this, included all merchants rather than industrialists. Cloth merchants, jhaveri and other commodity dealers, were in the forefront. (Bombay Chronicle, 20 June 1919.) Unfortunately the booming mill industry ridiculed the Swadeshi Movement through its journal, the Indian Textile Journal
In regard to the boycott movement, the " right hook " of Swadeshi, the pattern was similar: the merchants, particularly the cloth merchants, joined it with enthusiasm after its inception in 1920. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 168.)
Throughout these times the Bombay Chronicle was an advocate of economic nationalism.
There was a deep involvement of the marketeers in the agitational nationalist politics in Bombay during 1918-20. There was also a significant co-relation between the leaders of merchants and their associations and the organisers of the All-India Home Rule League and the Satyagraha Sabha. For example, V. P. Shah, Gulabchand Devchand and H. V. Desai, who were close associates of Gandhiji and the nationalist orga­nisers, were also prominent in the Bombay Shroffs' Association. V. P. Shah was later named the Bombay Congress 'Dictator'. The nationalist organisers among the merchants, also included V. L. Napoo (a close associate of Vithalbhai Patel), Manmohandas Ramji, Lalji Vassanji, Vithaldas and Mavji Govindji and Naranji Dayal who were all connected with the Grain Merchants' Association or the Piecegoods Merchants' Association. Jamnadas Dwarkadas, son of the millowner Dwarkadas Dharamsi (who had fallen on bad times), was one of the most prominent Home Rulers in the city and was an importer of textile dyes. The band of activist Home Rulers and Congressmen among the share brokers and cotton brokers in Bombay also included W. T. Halai, Vithaldas Govindji and Mavji Govindji and Narandas Purshottam, who worked in colla­boration with the original band of Home Rulers such as Jamnadas Dwarkadas, S. G. Banker, L. R. Tairsee and Umar Sobani.
The rapprochement between the nationalists and the merchants was partly due to the clash between the latter and the industrial oligarchy in the city. The clashes in the Indian Merchants' Chamber which represented both merchants and industrialists from 1907 (The Chamber was established in 1907 by Manmohandas Ramji and PurshottamdasThakurdas.) and 1932, were, quite well-known. During the period of agitational politics from 1918 to 1922, the tradition of dominance by the industrialists over the chamber, came under attack for the first time. Although the issues were nominally political, many of them related to economic and social frictions. The Indian Merchants' Chamber was granted a prerogative of electing one member of the Bombay Legislative Council under the Reforms of 1919. The nationalist element in the body, mainly merchants, wanted to boycott the Council in keeping with Congress policy of Non-co-operation.
In 1921 the Indian Merchants' Chamber was split again on the issue of the proposed Back Bay development and other proposals, such as the East-West Road. While the industrialists had supported the schemes, the nationalist members of the Indian Merchants' Chamber had exhorted for a satyagraha, if Government persisted with the scheme. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 171.) A similar skirmish between the two factions of the Indian Merchants' Chamber occurred over the decision of the body to present an address to the Prince of Wales at the time of his visit on 17 November 1921.
The Home Rule or Congress organisers made deliberate attempts on several occasions to woo the merchants, often using the political and economic battle between the merchants and industrialists as a focus for their efforts. Conversely, the merchants appealed many times to the nationalist organisations for help against the industrialists and Govern­ment. For instance Bhulabhai Desai, S. R. Bomanji and H. P. Thackersey were involved in the anti-taxation agitation, currency agitation, and the call for satyagraha over the Back Bay issue. (Ibid., p. 172.)
Right from 1917, the Home Rulers such as Jamnadas Dwarkadas, S. G. Banker, Halai, Sobani and Narandas Purshottam used to arouse the merchants against the industrialists and Government. Even Gandhiji himself paid special attention to the cloth merchants, particularly in 1919 and 1921. The involvement of Congress with the economic and political grievances of the merchants, continued throughout the decade 1920-30. It was in 1929 that the nationalists gave additional support to the cotton brokers when they introduced a Bill into the Legislative Assembly to repeal the hated Cotton Contracts Act of 1922.
" While the nationalists and Bombay industrialists were opposed to each other prior to 1922, later events created a climate in which they achieved a rapprochement lasting until 1930 and which at times was close........ This approchement was largely a case of combined forces to meet a common enemy, in this case the economic policy pursued by government in the climate of a deteriorating economy in Bombay." (Ibid., p. 174.)
The collapse of the post-war boom was particularly severe in the Bombay mill industry, which persisted almost upto 1932. There was a slump in demand and a failure of costs to readjust, particularly on account of the rigidity in wage rates. The slump was reflected in a crisis in the share market at the end of 1922. Many industrialists including Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Ibrahim Rahimtoola and Lalji Naranji faced near ruin, although Tatas and Wadias remained reasonably strong. (S. M. Rutnagur, op. cit.) Generally the picture was one of extreme gloom. The strike of 1925 gave another blow to the cotton mills in Bombay. By 1926, more than eleven mills or 14 per cent of the total number, besides those closed by the strike of 1925, were closed down, throwing more than 20,000 persons out of employment. (Times of India, 9 January 1926.) In addition, seven mills had changed hands and five had been liquidated by 1926. As late as 1929, seven mills were still not working, and the Government of Bombay reported in its White Book that the industry had been severely hit by a period of depression. (Bombay Merchants9 Association Annual Report, 1930.)
The invariable concomitance was unemployment, unrest, and political capitalisation by the nationalists and labour leaders. N. M. Joshi, Jamnadas Mehta, V. J. Patel, Manu Subedar, Bhulabhai Desai and S. H. Jhabwalla, entered the fray. There was a series of strikes, and a generation of labour leaders emerged on the horizon of the city. (A detailed history of labour movement and its relationship with freedom struggle is given separately in this Chapter.)
The Bombay industrialists used the Bombay Merchants' Association, the Indian Merchants' Chamber and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry as a forum to fight government policy and European influence. The Assembly was also used with success for this purpose. The Bombay press and the nationalist leaders were woed for support from time to time. Bombay's economic recession came to be attributed to the high exchange ratio, fiscal policy and British protection to Lancashire, after the war. In eply, Government continued to use the arguments adopted by the Babington Smith Committee with regard to inflation, and the need for consumer protection, as well as by the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance, 1926.
In 1925 Purshottamdas Thakurdas, an advocate of the "Bombay point of view ", introduced two money bills into the Legislative Assembly, on behalf of the Indian Merchants' Chamber. He was supported in public forums by B. F. Madon, Prof. C. N. Vakil, Prof. K. T. Shah, Prof. P. A. Wadia, Prof. G. N. Joshi and J. A. Wadia. The Government attempted to split the Swarajist ranks which attempt was foiled, particularly by Jamnadas Mehta. The money bills prompted Government to appoint Thakurdas as the Presidency's sole representative on the Royal Com­mission of 1925-26. The Indian Currency League was founded in 1926 as a synthesizer of the Bombay and Ahmedabad industrialists and the Swarajists with M. R. Jayakar, Mrs. Naidu and Jamnadas Mehta and J. Dwarkadas. Perhaps its most important propaganda activity was the funding of the Free Press of India news agency, founded in 1924, and run by a coalition of Bombay industrialists and journalists. (The other spokesmen of industrialists were the Indian Daily Mail of 1. B. Petit,the Prajamitra of the Tatas and the Indian Social Reformer of Samaldas, Thakurdas and Jayakar.)
The new relationship between the Swarajists and the industrialists was reciprocal—the former needed funds for political activity, while the latter needed support for their point of view in the Assembly. J. B. Petit was donating to the Swaraj Party as early as 1924. The Tatas also contributed heavily towards the Swarajists funds, while the millowners helped Motilal Nehru and Pandit Malaviya to purchase the Hindustan Times(All-India Congress Committee Papers F. 27 (Naranji to Motilal, 22 March 1925).
The Indian National Party was founded in April 1926 in Bombay by way of a coalition of Liberals and other responsive co-operators. It was overwhelmingly liberal in membership, with a few of Jayakar's followers. This party enjoyed a certain amount of support from the Swarajists and Independents like Jinnah. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit) Its object was to prepare for establishment of Swaraj of the Dominion type. But it was opposed to mass Civil Disobedience. Gandhiji was not associated with it.
The other government measures which invited the wrath of the Bombay businessmen was an increase in taxation, stamp duties, court fees and excise duty, in the 1920's. The millowners attributed the slump to unfair Japanese competition through the use of cheaper labour, and the higher rate of exchange. The millowners were also disturbed because the Communists began to get a grip on the trade union movement in Bombay from the strike of 1925. (For details see the section on Emergence of the Communists in this Chapter.)

The Bombay Government, on several occasions, was influenced by the millowners, and in 1925 the Governor, Leslie Wilson expressed strongly against the cotton excise duty both to the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. On another occasion Frederick Sykes, Governor of Bombay, protested to the Viceroy as well as to the Secretary of State against the exchange rate and tariffs.



Bombay was in the vanguard of the Civil Disobedience Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi. The salt law was violated in Bombay on the same day (6 April 1930) when Gandhiji broke the salt law at Dandi. Vile Parle was the headquarters of the Salt Satyagraha in Bombay/ Although the satyagrahis in the city wanted Gandhiji to lead the move­ment in Bombay, he had nominated Jamnalal Bajaj to head the agitation. The eminent leaders in Bombay to be sentenced to jail on the occasion were, K. F. Nariman, Gokulbhai Bhatt and Kishorelal Mashruwala, besides Jamnalalji. These events heralded a mass agitation throughout the city.

With the advent of the Congress campaigning of Civil Disobedience, the Bombay industrialists who were ardent campaigners against the British in the earlier years, quickly reverted to the role they had played during the agitation of 1918-22. This pould probably be attributed to two principal reasons. Firstly, the Great Depression of 1930 had affected Bombay with particular severity generating acute unemployment. The labour force had become highly volatile, its intransigence being fomented by recession, wage cuts, retrenchment and inflation over the years. Consequently, the workers injected an element of violence in the Civil Disobedience Movement from the beginning. Secondly, the movement was accompanied by the boycott of foreign goods and of European firms.

The industrialists argued that the boycott movement tied up valuable capital, and so deepened the depression in Bombay. It also resulted into retrenchment in the boycotted mills. Further, the hartals and boycott of foreign firms created friction between industrialists and businessmen. The Congress and the businessmen, however, countered these arguments and attributed the depression directly to the fiscal policy of the Government of India. " These two interpretations of the depression in Bombay soon became the central planks of a propaganda battle which raged throughout the course of civil disobedience." (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 201.)

Even among the industrialists, persons like G. D. Birla, Naranji and Ambalal Sarabhai, felt that the Government itself had forced the depression on the country, and it was only Mahatma Gandhi's movement which had diverted the people from violence to his non­violent methods. However, the supporters of the Congress campaign were in a minority.

The industrialists were alienated from the Civil Disobedience Move­ment due to two main reasons. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 203.) Firstly, during the Great Depression, the Government of India maintained a high exchange rate, balanced the budget by merciless fresh taxation, and tied the rupee to sterling after England abandoned the gold standard. The deflationary budget of 1931 raised a storm of protest. Government's rigid approach deepened the crisis. The depression caused closures and liquidation of several mills in the city. The Fazulbhoy, Madhavrao and Scindia mills had been closed in 1929, and in January 1930 the Petits closed four of their mills. At the same time E. D. Sassoon group notified closures of three mills. By August 1930, a total of 12 mills went out of production. By October, 24 mills or over 25 per cent of the total, had closed. (Ibid., p. 205.) Acute unemployment was the natural corollary, which was further intensified by rationalisation of production. Consequently the average daily employment in the city mills, declined from 154,398 in 1927 to 136,774 in 1930; 129,057 in 1931, 129,534 in 1932 and 119,943 in 1933. (Bombay Millowners. Association Annual Report, 1933.)

The Bombay Port also experienced a sharp decline in trade, in spite of the fact that the depression forced a constant stream of valuable " distress gold "which passed through the port, and increased the value of exports. The insurance companies were also hit hard. The cotton merchants were perhaps the worst hit. Although no reliable estimates of unemployment are available, the 1931 Census estimated that 1,50,000 people were forced away from the city due to unemployment, and that 54,694 workers were thrown out by industries between 1921 and 1931. (Census of India, 1931, IX, I, p. 948.)

The Indian Merchants' Chamber informed Government in February 1930 : " Trade is at a standstill. The cotton mill industry is in imminent danger of being ruined. Unemployment has been on the increase and is still increasing." (See Indian Merchants' Chamber Annual Report, 1950, p. 234.)

The second factor which alienated the industrialists from the movement was boycott and hartals. The Congress policy of boycott was not clearly spelt, and ad hoc expedient measures were adopted, which led to confusion among the rank and file. The Bombay Millowners' Association negotiated with the Congress through Motilal Nehru, who had links with Thakurdas and Birla, in the city. However, with Nehru's arrest, the " disruptive section in the Congress " went ahead with its original criteria of signalling non-swadeshi mills. Accordingly, the Congress workers banned 24 Bom­bay mills which directly affected 51,000 millhands, which formed more than a third of the total. The aggregate investment by Indians in the banned mills was over Rs.1.8 crores, while 342,000 bales of cotton remained unutilised. This was responded with grave concern by shareholders and millowners. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee was also embarrassed, and negotiations were opened with all concerned. After negotiations, 15 mills employing 34,000 workers and producing about 25 per cent of the gross production in the city, were kept on the banned list. (Bombay Chronicle, 2 September 1930.) Even as late as October 1931, many mills were still branded as swadeshi for some days and non-swadeshi afterwards. This state of affairs shook the sense of security in the industry during the depression. Hartals further raised several problems for the mills. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 210.)

The foreign cloth dealers also suffered immensely during the boycott. Initially their associations passed boycott resolutions in April 1930. By October, however, they felt the strain of it, as they had to lay off the employees, and large amounts of capital and stocks were blocked. In November, they were forced to approach Vallabhbhai Patel to lift the boycott in their case. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee also found itself cast in the role of implementing an unpopular central decision. (All-India Congress Committee Papers, F.G.-150, 1930.) Consequently, in March 1931, Gandhiji, Banker and Jawaharlal Nehru, devised a scheme under which a syndicate of millowners under the leadership of Sir Ness Wadia, was created which was to buy the foreign stocks and re-export them. The scheme, however, proved a failure. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit, p. 211.)

The entire Mulji Jetha Market had been closed either by hartals or picketing for four months early in 1932. It was only after four months of continuous closure of Bombay's largest cloth market that Sarojini Naidu was finally able to open a special swadeshi wing at the market. The mills had, therefore, to open retail stores at some places such as the Victoria Terminus.

There were tensions between industrialists and merchants in the Bombay raw cotton market. These added to the intensity of the Civil Disobedience campaign, and there were almost constant hartals after the commencement of the movement. The millowners complained that they were not able to obtain supplies of cotton in order to take advantage of the Swadeshi Movement. The hartals and boycott in the cotton market were initiated by the Bombay Cotton Brokers' Association in concert with the Congress. The matters led to a closure of the market for three days a week, refusal to do forward business and to deal with English firms, permission for the Congress to picket the market, and refusal to do future business on the Liverpool Exchange. (Fortnightly Report, 16 February to 4 March 1932 from Home Department of Bombay Government to Government of India) Thus, the most important market in Bombay was virtually closed, trading being interrupted for 93 out of 159 working days between January and August 1932.

The closure of the cotton market in 1932 was particularly embarrassing to the Bombay Government. It tried every means to reopen the market during 1932. The Governor, Frederick Sykes, urged the Viceroy to solve the problems of cotton traders, and accordingly the Cotton Contracts Bill of 1932 was passed.

The Civil Disobedience campaign also affected almost all other markets to some extent. After Gandhiji's arrest in 1932, the Share Bazar was often closed, and processions of businessmen frequently set out from it. (Bombay Chronicle, 6 May, 21 and 25 June 1930) The Stock Exchange was fairly consistently closed during 1930(It was closed for about three months in 1930, Bombay Chronicle) and again after Gandhiji's arrest in 1932, in spite of the efforts of some shroffs to keep it open with Government support. Share prices were closely related to the political situation. (Bombay Chronicle, 11 July 1930)

Politics and Economics were closely entwined in the bullion market too. The Marwaris were very active nationalists in the Bullion Exchange. The sale of silver by Government had slumped the price of the white metal, and hence the Government came in for criticism. There was enormous " distress sale " of gold by the people through economic constraints. The distress gold was allowed to be exported on a large scale by Government on the plea that it was necessary to strengthen the rupee. The Congress placed an embargo on the export of gold as there was a cry to save India's gold. (Bombay Congress Bulletin, II, 247, 17 October 1932)

The boycott and hartals engendered uncertainty in business and industry. Even the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee complained to the Working Committee that its position in the matter of swadeshi was hopeless and that the indigenous manufacturers were faced with hardships. The industrialists felt that the ill-effects of the boycott far outweighed the benefit of swadeshi after the initial euphoria had worn off. Purshottamdas Thakurdas, on behalf of the Millowners' Association, wrote : " The continuous Hartals have completely dislocated business and brought about a paralysis of the economic structure if immediate steps are not taken to relieve the situation, it may very soon end in a disaster from which Bombay may not recover for a decade." (Thakurdas to Bombay Millowners' Association, 20 August 1930)

Others who opposed the boycott on economic as well as ideological grounds, included F.E. Dinshaw, Sir Phiroze Sethna, Cowasji Jehangir Jr., Setalvad and Ness Wadia. Dinshaw felt that Civil Disobedience had brought Bombay to the brink of financial ruin. (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., p. 218.)

The depression contributed to a noticeable tendency of labour to enter the Civil Disobedience Movement with increasing vigour and violence. Earlier in 1928 the city had experienced a severe riot which was economically triggered, and had killed 298 and injured 739 persons in the city. The 1928 great strike in mills had also wrecked the industry thoroughly. In such an atmosphere there came the Civil Disobedience Movement. The workers began to practice frequent hartals and conduct civil disobedience with increasing violence. The violence was detrimental to the movement as it tarnished its non-violent image. By June 1930 the Congress had not only failed to harness labour as a non-violent cadre in the movement, but also was on the defensive that its campaign had not created unemployment. The Congress tried to gain the allegiance of labour which was rewarded with a little success. The attitude of labour to the boycott and hartals was a very complex affair. This aspect has been separately dealt with elsewhere in this chapter, particularly because the Labour Movement in Bombay has a distinct history of its own.

The millowners felt that their best interests lay in destruction of Civil Disobedience, or in seeking peace between Congress and the Government. In June 1930 the Millowners' Association (Bombay Millowners' Association Annual Report, 1930) issued a statement that the time had come for an unequivocal declaration by the British Government that Round Table Conference was designed to win for India complete independence with Dominion Status. The Government of Frederick Sykes was active in disseminating propaganda linking depression with Congress activities. As early as 1930 the Bombay police distributed a pamphlet, namely, Boycott on British Goods, tarnishing the Congress movement. Sir Sykes in a speech in the Bombay Legislative Council, in March 1932, pointed out the signs of trade migrating elsewhere and the danger of " Bombay being passed by in the returning flood of prosperity ". Homi Mody adopted a similar line of argument.

The Times of India and the Indian Daily Mail disseminated government propaganda and published series of interviews with industrialists attributing Bombay's economic recession to the Civil Disobedience Movement, The Bombay Chronicle, however, marshalled the Congress arguments effectively. It published a series of articles by academicians such as P. A. Wadia and V. K. R. V. Rao, journalists like Vithaldas C. Bhuta and many nationalist writers. The Bombay Chronicle wrote : " The National Movement has disorganised trade but it has also created a wonderful spirit of swadeshism and boycott which will help trade.... There is a world depression of trade and continuous reduction of prices to meet a continuous decline of purchasing power consequent upon the deflation policy of foreign countries. The (currency?) inflation policy adopted by the Indian Government, the exchange ratio and the growing government expenditure and loans since the end of the war, have produced the effect of reducing the peasants' purchasing power." (Bombay Chronicle, 30 August 1930.)
Congress leaders countered the damaging propaganda of Government and squarely blamed the Government's fiscal policy for the severe un­employment. They explained to the ryots that the low prices were not due to political agitation. In August 1930, Pandit Malaviya and V. J. Patel addressed 1200 cotton merchants at Sewri. Malaviya told them that trade depression had become severe because the masses had lost their purchasing power due to a loss of Rs. 400 crores through exchange manipulation. He also addressed a huge meeting of cloth merchants(Ibid., 12 August 1930.) and another one of shroffs in Bombay. The shroffs and the cloth merchants appreciated the Congress arguments. Hirachand V. Desai, in an extraordinary meeting of the Bombay Shroffs' Association in 1930, explained the adverse effects of exchange ratio on the shroffs, the ruin of indigenous banking by joint-stock banks in collusion with Government and foreigners, and the prejudices of the exchange banks, Income Tax Department, railways and insurance companies, against Indian merchants. He praised Gandhiji's fight which was " meant to save the country from economic ruin ". V. P. Shah and other shroffs were in the forefront of picketing against the Imperial Bank and exchange banks in Bombay. (Ibid., 24 April 1930.) K. M. Munshi also waged a war against the industrialists. He remonstrated Victor Sassoon that it was not the boycott which had closed 24 mills in Bombay, but rather it was over-production and depres­sion. (Ibid., 18 October 1930.) Only seven of the 24 mills were on the boycott list. He argued that the boycott of foreign cloth had done much to stimulate production of cloth by swadeshi mills. (Ibid., 18 October 1930.) The All-India Congress Committee also participated in the economic debate, and it issued a pamphlet arguing that the riots were cooked up by the British in conjunction with the Muslims for breaking the powerful boycott movement organised by the Congress in Bombay. (All-India Congress Committee Papers, F. 2,1932.)

While disseminating propaganda against boycott and hartals, the industrialists under the leadership of Thakurdas and the Indian Mer­chants' Chamber, sought to end Civil Disobedience by mediating between the Congress and Government. They worked mainly on Gandhiji and Vallabhbhai. M. R. Jayakar, Sapru and Motilal Nehru were also involved in the process. The industrialists tried to woo the Government and the Congress, and demanded that the Round Table Conference should be convened.

The industrialists and the Liberals had earlier attempted to offer an alternative to the Congress, in January 1930, in the form of the All-Parties Conference. The main organisers in Bombay were Thakurdas, Sethna, Setalvad and Rahimtoola. But the efforts were defeated due to the intransigence of the Marwaris and the Hindu Mahasabha.

After failure of the efforts of the Indian Merchants' Chamber, M. R. Jayakar played a key role in helping Thakurdas contact the Congress. Lalji Naranji and Chimanlal Setalvad and others, tried to impress upon Gandhiji and Vallabhbhai in Bombay, after their release from prison in January 1931, to restore peace. (Thakurdas papers, F. 107.) At one stage, Thakurdas threatened Vallabhbhai that he and his friends might " come out into the open against Congress".(Viceroy to Secretary of State, 4 January 1931, L/PO/53, Private Office Papers.) He also personally reported to the Viceroy what transpired between the industrialists and the Congress leaders in Bombay. It was against this background that the Bombay industrialists greeted the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931 with enthusiasm. (Bombay Chronicle, 6 March 1931.)

After failure of the Round Table Conference, the businessmen were against the renewal of the Civil Disobedience Movement. Even a nationalist like G. D. Birla preferred to continue negotiations with Government through the second Round Table Conference rather than resume the struggle.

The Bombay Citizens' Conciliation Committee was designed by businessmen to establish communal peace which was greatly disturbed, although its motive was to end Civil Disobedience. (Thakurdas to Birla, 4 August 1932.) The Welfare of India League was formed as a " dinner club "(Bombay Chronicle, 2 April 1932.)furnishing a platform for those Europeans and Indians who stood for a system of Government for India, assuring her a place as an equal partner in the British Common­wealth of Free Nations. Throughout 1932, both Birla and Thakurdas continued to mediate between the Congress and Government.

The traders, as distinct from the industrialists, continued to be the backbone of the Congress Civil Disobedience Movement throughout the period. Most of their leaders were sworn Congressmen. Virachand Panachand Shah was, for example, nominated the Congress " Dictator " or head of the War Council in 1930. The other staunch Congressmen and leading merchants included Hirachand V. Desai, Begraj Gupta, Mathuradas Matani, Mathuradas Tricamji, Mulraj Karsondas, Vithaldas Jerajani, Vithaldas Govindji, C. B. Mehta and Velji Napoo.

As Phiroze Sethna wrote to Sapru in February 1931, that the Indian Merchants' Chamber came to be entirely controlled by the Congress clique, throwing out himself, Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Homi Mody. The industrialists further lost their control over the chamber in 1932. The old stalwarts like Manmohandas Ramji, Matani and Manu Subedar, became active radicals, and passed a resolution condemning Purshottamdas Thakurdas for attending the Round Table Conference. (Indian Merchants. Chamber Annual Report, 1932) They also got the Indian Merchants' Chamber to pass a motion condemning Gandhiji's arrest and the ordinances. (Thakurdas Papers, F. 107(3))

The condition of Bombay's economy deteriorated with the boycott campaign in 1932, which as in 1930, reached significant proportions. Again a vicious circle developed of depression generating support for Congress and its strategy, which in turn, contributed to the disruption of the city's economy. Picketing was resumed, particularly against foreign cloth shops, but in a lesser degree against chemists and druggists. There were protracted hartals in Mulji Jetha Market, and the Stock, Bullion and Cotton Exchanges. Cotton trade was the hardest hit. The Mulji Jetha Market observed hartal for the first three months of the year, but even when traders began to deal again in swadeshi cloth in April 1932, the threat of picketing dissuaded them from opening the foreign cloth section, and many foreign cloth merchants shifted into Kalbadevi and adjacent areas. It was not until October 1932 that the East India Cotton Association, under satyagrahi zeal, decided to rescind the boycott. The proprietors of the cotton market offered to reduce rents by over half, if traders would return. About eighty of them did return, but they were nervous about stocking goods there and dealt covertly for fear of picketing. English cotton merchants were subject to severe pressure. Some of them were blacklisted for boycott in a Congress leaflet, and the Japanese Consul had to admit that his compatriots were afraid to deal with British companies lest they should also be boycotted. (Judith M. Brown, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience: The Mahatma in Indian Politics 1928-34 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977), p. 294) Bombay's European companies, unlike their Calcutta counterparts, were heavily dependent on Indian co-operation, and were ambivalent about resorting to government help in these circumstances. Some of them began to negotiate with their Indian associates for terms of open trade. A few of them, against the advice of the Bombay Government, signed a statement that they shared the national sympathies of their Indian colleagues in the cotton trade, in October 1932, to gain a relaxation. They also agreed, among many other things, to close trade on all Mondays which were observed as . Gandhi Days' in the city. It cannot be said that all the Indian merchants were in favour of the Congress campaign, but the Bombay Cotton Brokers, the Native Share and Stock Brokers, and the Bombay Shroffs' Association, were among the prominent supporters of boycott in the city. The Bombay Government was seriously worried that such groups of businessmen could disrupt the whole markets, and that the cotton market was beyond the control of the East India Cotton Association. (Ibid). As referred to earlier, the Government, therefore, got enacted the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act to gain control over the operations in the cotton market; by this Act it would supersede the Association's Board of Directors to secure free trading. The power was, however, not used because the boycott tailed off from the autumn of 1932. (For details see Bombay Congress Bulletins for 1932, and Daily Reports of the Police Commissioner to Secretary, Home Department, Bombay Government.)

The Governor, Lord Sykes, noted that the Police Commissioner believed that the Congress had more power than Government in the cotton market. He himself admitted, " That upto the present they have achieved a considerable measure of success, if success is to be measured by interference with normal trade and influence over a particularly susceptible section of the Bombay Commercial community." (Sykes to Lord Willingdon, 13 May 1932, MSS EUR. F. 150(4).) Bombay being the major port affected by boycott, the value of import of piecegoods in India dwindled by about 26 per cent.

Mr. P. A. Kelly, Police Commissioner, reported to M. H. Haig, Home Member, Government of India, that the Gujarati part of the city was as hostile as ever. Not only was the Congress able to show its power in the cloth market and in picketing, but also it continued to publish the Bombay Congress Bulletin despite police attempts to track it down and totally destroy its publication network.

From February to March 1933, Civil Disobedience became steadily languid, and the decline culminated in the Poona Conference in July, at which even ardent leaders like B. G. Horniman expressed the desire that the movement be abandoned. (Bombay Chronicle, 10 and 13 July 1933.) In September 1933, Walchand Hirahand, Vithaldas Govindji and Subedar, supported a deputation of Indian Merchants' Chamber to persuade Gandhiji to call off the movement.

It is interesting to note here that the millowners' leaders such as Homi Mody and Thakurdas, did a good deal of exercise to bring about a bilateral agreement between Bombay and Lancashire mill interests.

In return for this trade agreement Lancashire was to offer no resistance to the Government of India Act of 1935. They kept up their word in the debate in the House of Commons. (D. R. Mankekar, Homi Mody—A Many Splendoured Life (Bombay, 1968), p. 73.)

It may be concluded that the working out of the Civil Disobedience Movement was extremely complex in Bombay City. There was acute unemployment, and the labour force was a victim of over-rapid industrialisation in a confined area. The market structure was unable to serve the needs of industry upon which the city was dependent. The worsening economic situation shattered the ability of the city to withstand the depression. The depression itself had a paradoxical effect upon the Civil Disobedience Movement. It did create unrest amongst the industrialists as their profits depleted. " Finally it sapped the will of Bombay to fight, taking away the Congress supporters in the markets who were so vital to a non-violent campaign." (A. D. D. Gordon, op. cit., pp, 236-37.)



(This author is indebted to Richard Newman for the information about the early lives of the Communists, which he collected by personal interviews and newspapers.)

Tilak was the main inspiration of the young radicals in Bombay. Admiration for Tilak led the Bombay Students' Brotherhood into a clash with the authorities of the Wilson College which developed into a students' campaign, and the intervention of the nationalist leaders into their affairs. The circumstances helped the emergence of S. A. Dange and R. S. Nimbkar. These two youths with considerable intellectual calibre and oratorial powers were to become the most prominent Bombay Communists of the inter-war years. Nimbkar was flamboyant, restless and eager for results, while Dange was calm, patient, meticulous and thorough. Dange's personality has always been something of an enigma. Dange and Nimbkar were joined by K. N. Joglekar from Pune and L. M. Pendse from Bombay, in matters of labour organisation.

Almost all these future Communists were active non-co-operators. They had reservations about Gandhiji's methods, but they were impressed by the magnitude of his movement and its potential as an instrument of reform. It was for these reasons that they were all the more disheartened when the Non-co-operation Movement was temporarily abandoned in 1922. Nimbkar and Pendse were involved in the Mulshi Satyagraha in Pune district, while Nimbkar became the secretary of the Maharashtra Provincial Congress Committee for about two years and supported M. R. Jayakar's responsivist group in the Swaraj Party.

Some other young radicals in Bombay were also emerging. Their mentor was R. B. Lotwala, a successful businessman but an avid reader of socialism. He encouraged study groups and subsidised socialist periodicals, and built up a library out of his own money. His secretary, C. Q. Shah, an enthusiastic convert to Marxism, had joined the student coterie as its local ideologist. S. A. Dange, K. N. Joglekar and T. V. Parvate, with the financial support of Lotwala, launched a monthly newspaper, the Socialist. S. V. Ghate, a Mangalorean graduate working in a tea-shop in the city, and S. S. Mirajkar, a non-Brahmin, were among the early converts to communism. Mirajkar could win over the millhands with his rhetorics and histrionics, and was successful in organising many trade unions.

While Marxism provided an intellectual justification for organising industrial workers, most of the radicals were participants in the Non-co-operation Movement. They had also a background of public work. They had earlier attended the All-India Trade Union Congress which met for the first time in October 1920(One of Tilak's acts of his last days had been to plan formation of a trade union federation in Bombay. Unfortunately he did not live to attend the first meeting  of the All-India Trade Union Congress.) in Bombay, although they could not play a significant part in the work of its federating unions until the middle of the decade.

Undoubtedly the Bombay Communists were not so much Communists as nationalists before everything else. They did not make any efforts to Bolshevise the Indian Trade Union Movement. (N. M. Joshi, Joshi to H. W. Lee, 25 February 1926.)

Moreover, for most of the time, the Bombay Communists were not committed to any firm political ideology or strategy. They hesitated for long whether to work independently of the national movement or to collaborate with the nationalists. They found that the revolutionary potential of the proletariat in Bombay was very much limited on account of caste differences and lack of class consciousness. Probably, therefore, they remained firmly in the nationalist camp. Although the Communist Party of India was established in 1925, it was to remain in the background (Bombay Chronicle, 8 June 1927, resolutions of the Communist party of India.) and the Communists decided to function within the broad current of nationalism.

Under these circumstances, the radicals under Dange were hoping that the Congress resolutions passed at the Nagpur and Gaya sessions would set in motion a programme of labour organisation. (The Indian National Congress 1920-23 (All-India Congress Committee 1924), pp. 34, 237.) They started campaigning within the Congress hierarchy for implementation of the labour resolutions. By the middle of the 1920s, most of the Communists became members of the District Congress Committees in the city. There were 17 of them in the Provincial Congress Committee. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 107.) They ventilated their proposals in the AICC, under the leadership of Joglekar and Nimbkar. They also endeavoured to gain some foot-hold in the Legislative Council. But they were frustrated by a hostile majority in the AICC. Hence the Communists had to rely increasingly on a nationalist party of their own creation, inside the main body of the Congress. They experimented with many political forums in the 1920s, but the only one to achieve any momentum was the Workers and Peasants Party of 1927-29. (Ibid., p. 108.)
Dange and some other Communists were arrested in March 1924, tried at Kanpur and were declared guilty of participating in an inter­national conspiracy. Dange was in jail until May 1927. This was a serious set-back to the Communist movement.

After Dange's release in May 1927, the Bombay Communists received considerable help from abroad, including the Communist Party of Great Britain. Under the guidance of the Communist visitors from England, the left wing faction of the Bombay Congress was reorganised into the Workers and Peasants Party. The latter organised new unions in the docks, printing industry, tram services and municipal workers. The Communists attempted to supersede N. M. Joshi and the moderates as the controlling influence in the AITUC. (Ibid., p. 171.) Their aim was to infiltrate the labour movement in the city. Much of their work was of a propagandist type, educating the workers against the antagonisms created by a capitalist system.

The policy of the Bombay Communists can be summed up as : the use of specific grievances to build trade unions and a genuine working class leadership. On the wider political level, they hoped, through the vehicle of the Workers and Peasants Party, to develop class consciousness and give the masses a decisive role in the national movement. (Ibid., p. 110.)

Assertions by Labour : The cotton textile industry was in the grip of a depression from 1922. The entire period upto the end of the decade was plagued by stagnation and glut, and the resultant measures of economy by the mills. The millhands on their own part, became assertive of their rightful share in the products of their labour. The inevitable concomitance was a struggle between the employees and the owners. The entire decade was, therefore, characterised by fateful strikes, some of which are of great historical importance.

As it was to be expected, the millowners announced the abolition of annual bonus in July 1923. The Millowners' Association firmly asserted that the payment of bonus was dependent on ' profits and goodwill'.

Both were now in short supply. They made no secret of the fact that they were contemplating a cut in regular wages in the course of time. This produced a ripple of concern among the millhands. Labour leaders and politicians in the city such as Joseph Baptista, N. M. Joshi, Ginwala, Kanji Dwarkadas (a labour representative in the Legislative Council) and S. K. Bole, tried to organise opinion against the millowners. Some of them persuaded the millhands to avoid intransigence and wait till the intensity of the depression is reduced. But the audiences were unreceptive and in no mood to surrender their bonus without a struggle, a course which the leaders regarded as disastrous, since it was obvious that the employers were waiting for an opportunity to close the mills and clear their accumulated stocks. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 142.) Baptista and others sought for the intervention of the Governor. The latter refused to oblige because he saw no wisdom in risking his prestige at a moment when the owners were utterly implacable.

The inevitable happened. Trouble began in mill after mill from 17 January 1924 and by 1 February the industry was at a standstill in Bombay. (This account is based on issues of the Bombay Chronicle and Times of India.) As the strike was a protracted one, the millhands started forsaking Bombay for their villages, and the exodus started mounting.

The results of the Settlement Committee, appointed by the Governor, were not tangible, but only of an academic and legalistic nature. The workers started showing signs of despair, and riots broke out in several parts of the mill area. The millowners' stratagem was ultimately successful. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 148.) On 17 March 1924, a trickle of men began to enter the mills, and within a few days the frustrated workers resumed work. The middle-class leaders comforted themselves that their strategy had own for labour' the principle of arbitration'.

It is obvious from the survey of the labour movement in the period that although many of the labour leaders were actively associated with the nationalist movement, the millhands did not have an open involvement in the political organisations. The radical Congressmen like Joglekar, D. M. Deshpande, V. H. Joshi and D. R. Thengdi, who had Communist leanings, were, however, actively associated with the trade unions.

The Strike Against Wage Cut-1925 : The Bombay Millowners' Association announced their intention to cut wages and reduce hours, or both. The millowners attributed the 'deplorable condition' of the industry to Japanese competition, foreign exchange policy of the Government of India and the excise duty. The millowners further came with a proposal, on 29 July 1925, to reduce the dearness allowance. Their decision was criticised in the press universally. (Case Against a Wage Cut, AITUC (1925), pp. 2-11.) The workers had no option but to resort to a general strike. This time only a few Swarajists like Satyamurti tried to seek a political solution to the problem through the Swaraj Party. But they were brushed aside by the millhands themselves. The latter had a well ventilated and clearly defined grievance, an erosion of their earnings. Ultimately the strike became complete by 1 October 1925. As the Bombay Chronicle reported, " We cannot recall any strike of such magnitude being produced in such an atmosphere of serene compliance; there is no heat, no sensational collision." The workers migrated to their villages during the strike. Altogether about 60,000 workers deserted the city. (Bombay Chronicle, 23, 24 September, 17 October 1925. Bombay Police Secret Abstract of Intelligence XXXVIII, pp. 611-12 (28 September 1925).) It was futile for labour leaders to conjure up a compromise, and they concentrated mainly on relief to the needy workers. They received contributions from several sources in the country and abroad, particularly from the International Federation of Trade Unions in Amsterdam and the International Textile Workers' Federation in London. The Municipal Corporation under the mayorship of Baptista, employed many strikers on reclamation projects and other public works in the city.

The Governor was widely criticised for his inaction. As a matter of fact he was persuading the Government of India in the matter of abolition of the excise duty. The latter obliged to do so on 1 December 1925, and the Millowners' Association immediately agreed to restore wages to their old level. The strike had been another remarkable victory for the millhands, remarkable not only for its outcome, but also for the praiseworthy relief work. " Even at a time of economic crisis, the millhands could not easily be brushed aside." (Richard Newman, op. tit, p. 159.)

The successful conclusion of the strike of 1925 inspired the leaders to organise a permanent union. Accordingly a well-organised body with economic objectives emerged in the form of the Bombay Textile Labour Union (BTLU) by amalgamating the Madanpura Union, the Bombay Textile Workermen's Union and the Girni Kamgar Sangh.

Great Strike of 1928 : The Bombay millowners had to reconcile to the harsh realities of international competition and technical innovation in the mid-1920s. The millhands were also confronted with the grim economic situation which made necessary to organise themselves into unions. Consequently the Bombay Millowners' Association increasingly became the mouthpiece of the industry and a forum for evolving a common approach to the problems. During 1927, there was a growing involvement of young Communist members of the Provincial Congress Committee, in the industrial life of Bombay. The Workers and Peasants Party, under inspiration from British Communists, became vigorous in organising new unions and infiltration into old ones. The Communists strived hard to supersede Joshi and the moderates, as the controlling force in the AITUC and its provincial subsidiary. (Bombay Police Secret Abstracts, XL, 1927.)

The rationalisation programme and efficiency system in the Sassoon group mills and the Spring, Finlay, Kohinoor, Apollo and Manchester mills, sparked off sporadic strikes. (Bombay   Chronicle, 5 January 1928.) The Workers and Peasants Party and radical Communists favoured an immediate show-down with the mill-owners, while there was an acute rupture in the Mahamandal, wherein Joglekar, Mirajkar and their allies subscribed to such a course of action. There were acrimonious charges of Bolshevism and counter-charges of strike-breaking.

N. M. Joshi believed that technical reforms were in the long term interest of the workers. An honest humanitarian that he was, his paramount concern was the prevention of poverty and suffering of the workers, and he was more inclined to compromise than to counter-attack. The Communists, on the other hand, believed that nothing short of a general strike would save the workers from piecemeal defeat. It is true that the Communists were still only partners in the industrial relations in the textile industry. But with the spread of rationalisation and the collapse of sporadic strikes in 1927-28, the millhands began to listen to the Communists, with a new respect. " It was, therefore, to Dange, Nimbkar and Mirajkar rather than to Joshi, that the millhands turned for advice as the industry slid into the greatest crisis of its history." (Richard  Newman, op. cit. p. 178.)

The millowners also launched a strategy of 'nibbling off' wages, extra rules and stricter discipline. A number of factors were contributing to the rising tempo and bitterness of industrial conflict, and it was realised that the Communists' predictions were to become a reality. Hence the Mahamandal voted to declare a general strike.

Bombay's greatest strike began to evolve on 16 April 1928. The sudden spread of the strike was neither a Communist plot nor a show of class solidarity; it was only a conglomeration of sporadic disputes over economic matters. It was due, as much to management policy, as to the Communist urging, the ineptitude of the police and the threat of unemployment.

Eventually a Joint Mill Strike Committee was appointed on 30 April. It included moderates like Joshi, Ginwala, Asavale, Munawar and S. V. Parulekar; militants like Dange, Nimbkar, Mirajkar and Bradley; and others like Jhabwalla, Alve, K. A. Desai, K. R. Avasekar and P. T. Tamhanekar. It was within a day or two that the seventeen demands that set out the strikers' case were published. The Joshi-Dange partnership became, as time went on, something more than an alliance of convenience. These two men, so different in age and attitudes and yet so alike in their qualities, developed a mutual understanding, and drew upon each other's intellectual capacities to master technicalities of the industrial dispute.

The Millowners' Association played its tactics to divide the union leaders, but to no tangible results. There were recriminations and well-worn arguments between the owners and the unionists during their meetings. But the only result was a hardening of the strike. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 199.) The Strike Committee organised picketing and relief operations. The millhands had started migrating to their villages right from May. The Government estimated that 50,000 workers spent the strike away from Bombay. (Ibid., p. 202.) The Strike Committee provided rations and food to the striking workers out of public contributions. A good amount of contribution was received by Joshi from foreign countries like England, Belgium and the U.S.S.R. The Social Service League also performed a very good job by providing relief. The number of strikers receiving doles rose to 30,140 on 4 July.

While there were diehards among the millowners, cracks began to appear in the carefully preserved facade of the owners' intransigence. The managements with lesser efficiency had always resented standardisation because it compelled them to increase the wages on parity with the common level. Such kind of owners captured the opportunity of the deadlock in negotiations, and desired to make separate agreement with the Strike Committee.

Dange and Joshi drafted a standardisation scheme and pitted it against the owners' version, item by item. They envisaged a wage level that was higher than the owners' proposals by 30 per cent. (Ibid., p. 206.) In the course of time millowners and strikers were coming to the point of exhaustion.

The Millowners' Association decided to reopen the Morarji Goculdas mill, on 20 September as a test case because its pay and conditions were already close to standard levels. Eventually the other owners were too exhausted to wear the strike in this Way, and they agreed to attend the new conference of owners and labour leaders as proposed by Government. The conference agreed that the Government should appoint an independent body, the Bombay Strike Enquiry Committee, to examine the standardisation scheme and the seventeen demands of the unionists. The Committee recommended that the wages were to be on par with those in March 1927, except for certain categories. Cases of disputes were to be referred to the Committee for adjudication. The agreement was signed by the General Member of the Bombay Government, Joshi and J. B. Petit, on 4 October 1928. Accordingly the mills reopened officially on 6 October.

"The settlement was a victory for the millhands, in spite of its qualifications. The owners had been forced to accept terms which they had rejected at the beginning of negotiations; wages had been restored to their former levels, if not quite to the levels of 1925 ........ The whole issue of wages and working procedures was now on the anvil of the Enquiry Committee, where Dange and the other unionists could hammer it into a more acceptable shape.

" The most remarkable feature of the strike was undoubtedly, the behaviour of the men. In depriving their employers of the output of 22 million working days, they sacrificed Rs. 3.5 crores of their own wages." (Richard Newman, op. cit, pp. 207-08.)

The workers' commitment to the strike was impressive, and gave the lie to the first hasty judgement of the officialdom that the issues were ' not so much economic as political'. (Labour Office to Government of India, 23 April 1923, H. Police, 8/VIII/1928, National Archives of India.) The Communists and radicals might have prophesied the strike, but it was the millhands who launched it and the jobbers who brought about its consummation. Rationalisation and retrenchment provided the foundation of protest, standardisation, the unity of purpose, and the jobbers and the Strike Committee translated these elements into a form of industry-wide organisation. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 208.)

The strike radically altered the balance of power among the unions. The Communists were transferred from a faction of Congressmen to a band of popular heroes. Dange wrote, " The strike was not our creation, but we were the creation of the strike." (Meerut Communist Conspiracy Case, Statement, p. 2426.) The Communist alliance with Joshi and the moderates, strengthened their own position, and they could give a successful resistance against the mighty Bombay Millowners' Association. The Communist orators found an eager audience in Bombay. They forced the millowners to recognise them as the spokesmen of millhands.

Labour Movement on Trial : Although the outcome of the strike of 1928 was a victory for the workers and the unionists, it led inexorably to a new phase of conflict for which the Communists were extremely well prepared. The ambiguities of the settlement made themselves to be felt as soon as the workers resumed work. The workers discovered that they were required to implement the ' efficiency systems'. The Communists, very soon, started to combat the settlement terms, and started preparing for another revolt against rationalisation. Their principal motive was to organise the working class, and they realised that negotiations as well as agitation could be a means to that end. The discontended workers appeared to have thrown their lot to them. Encouraged by such circum­stances, the Communists captured the Girni Kamgar Union (GKU), and converted it into an instrument for conflict between the workers and the employers. Dange and Nimbkar gained a tremendous influence over the mill managements, while Joshi and Bakhale were being completely ignored. This was not to the liking of the Labour Office of Government. However, the GKU became so influential that employers' best hope of controlling the workers, lay in the Communists. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 212.)

While the Strike Enquiry Committee was arbitrating in various disputes, it had no jurisdiction over the issue of victimisation. This lacuna forced workers to align with the GKU. It became a vital force in the daily life of the mill area. (It should however be admitted that the GKU never really succeeded in wresting the Muslims from the BTLU, North Indians and the backward class workers were also outside its fold.) The union membership swelled to one lakh in January 1929. (Labour Gazette, VIII, 5 (Jan. 1929), p. 457.) The Communists very methodically educated the workers to organise and manage branch unions. The Kranti was an organ of Communist propaganda.

At this juncture, the non-Brahmin reactions against the Communist leadership began to come to surface in Bombay. The Kaivari, a Marathi weekly edited by D. S. Javalkar, began to attack the high-caste characteristics of the Communists. This movement had the blessings of B. V. Jadhav, a minister in the Bombay Government. (P. G. Kanekar to N. M. Joshi, 18 Mar. 1928, Joshi Papers.) The Workers and Peasants Party as well as the GKU felt some impact of the movement.

The Hindu-Muslim riots which broke out in February 1929 were the second instance of communal tension and a major crisis in radical labour movement in general and GKU's activities in particular. Although the Union's authority had proved stronger than communalism, the riots did cause much heart searching among the Communists.

The incarceration of the Communists in the city in connection with the Meerut Communist Conspiracy on 20 March 1929 had far-reaching consequences on the labour movement as well as political life in Bombay. All the senior leaders including Dange, Joglekar, Nimbkar, Mirajkar, Alve and Kasle were arrested. (Pendse, V. H. Joshi and B. T. Ranadive were left out.) The action was part of a Government plan which had been maturing since the previous May. The Meerut arrests were the prelude to a third phase of industrial strife which culminated in the general strike of 1929. The persons who succeeded to the leadership of the Communist movement lacked influence, a fixed strategy and tactical finesse of Dange. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 237.)

However, the junior leaders like G. L. Kandalkar, Pendse, V. H. Joshi, V. K. Tawde, Tamhanekar, S. V. Deshpande (He was not so close to the Communists as to the Congress. In fact he was a member of Provincial Congress Committee.)  and B. T. Ranadive, rallied quickly. Ranadive had just graduated from the Bombay University, and was a man of exceptional intellect, a brilliant debater and a voracious worker.

The Strike Equiry Committee published its report on 24 March 1929.

This committee approved rationalisation as well as standardisation, but recommended the postponement of wage cut incidental to standardisation as a gesture of goodwill. The reactions of the GKU as well as the Mill-owners' Association were of a mixed nature. Further negotiations were initiated between the two. However, there was a resentment among the unionists at the victimisation of union workers in the Wadia and Currimbhoy groups. Sir Homi Mody, chairman of the Miiiowners' Association, was a hard nut to crack. Henceforth the problem of victimisation became the main issue in industrial relations. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 238.) The GKU had been preparing its members for a strike, and ultimately decided to call a strike from 26 April 1929.

The 1929 strike was a turning point in the conduct of industrial relations. This was the first strike of millhands called by a union's orders to defend its own existence. The workers showed an impressive discipline; there were no processions, no picketing or violence. However, as regards the desirability of the strike, sober labour leaders like V. B. Karnik accused the GKU leadership of recklessness, sectarianism or blind obedience to the revolutionary policy advocated by the Communist International in 1928. (V. B. Karnik, Strikes in India (Manaktalas, Bombay, 1967), p. 200.)

The Miiiowners' Association took an aggressive attitude after the strike became a reality. They launched a vigorous propaganda campaign and organised the Blue Flag Union. They recruited strike-breakers from distant places like Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Indore. (Labour Office weekly report, 17 Aug. 1929) These tactics gradually reduced the scale of the strike. Naturally the union was driven to wage a battle for its own existence. There were growing tensions in the mill area, and street affrays were a daily occurrence. Some of the miiiowners exploited communalism and started recruiting Muslims. A new outburst of communal rioting had already been in progress when the strike had broken out, and it was only a matter of time before it developed into clashes between Muslim workers and Hindu strikers. (Bombay Riots Enquiry Committee Report, 1928-29, p. 19. Bombay Chronicle, 2 May.) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar also urged the backward class workers to return to work. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 247.)

Union appeals for solidarity of workers fell on deaf ears. The millhands were finally forced back to work on the owners' terms. Thus, the GKU destroyed its own foundations. The failure of the strike left the union penniless and demoralised. It was a shattering blow to the working class in the city. To make matters still worse, the cotton textile industry was about to slide into the vortex of the world depression, and the workers were helpless to resist wage cuts, lay-offs and mill closures that were to be imposed upon them during the next few years. (Ibid., p. 249.)

As the strike crumbled, recriminations flew thick and fast among the Communist factions. The new leaders were in no way as skilful as those imprisoned at Meerut. None of them was a substitute for Dange in either ability or energy, or a feeling for popular mood. Naturally fratricidal squabbling did nothing to improve their performance. By the end of 1929 they appeared to be scattered and powerless. Undoubtedly, however, " their experience remained to form a backbone for the organisations of the next decade." (Ibid., p. 250.)

There is a general supposition that there was a close relationship between the Bombay millhands' unrest and post-war nationalism and communism. Richard Newman, (Ibid., p. 250.) however, shows in his study that the Bombay millhands were hardly touched by nationalist agitations. The two main currents in the Congress—-the Gandhian and the Swarajist— ebbed and flowed around the edges of the mill area and carried off very few of the millhands. Those workers, who were drawn into an alliance with the Congressmen, apparently acted from class motives rather than from the desire to topple the British rule. " It is an even grosser distortion to suggest, as some writers have done, that the AITUC was an industrial wing of the Indian National Congress and that its foundation was symp­tomatic of the spread of rationalism to the working classes. In Bombay at least, the majority of AITUC leaders were either not Congressmen at all, or Congressmen who were far removed from the mainstream of their movement. Their motives in founding the AITUC were as much to strengthen their position against the pro-Gandhian elements in local politics as to contribute to the spread of nationalism." (Ibid., p. 263) There is also no evidence to show that the mill workers were influenced in any way by Communist ideas and methods in 1919 and 1920. Price inflation, and not Marxism, was the cause of unrest in the immediate post-war period. The real importance of the political activities lies in the changes of attitude which were being germinated within the millhands. Many activists in the Non-co-operation Movement established the first links between the workers and the nationalists and Communists. They also formed a nucleus of experienced organisers who could induct millhands into political demonstrations.

Communal Riots of 1929 : The communal tension between the Hindus and Muslims, which broke out in February 1929, was a great stigma on the fair name of Bombay whose cosmopolitan population usually maintained communal harmony. It was rumoured that Pathans were kidnapping children. The kidnapping scare had culminated on 3 February 1929 in Pathans being specially singled out for attack. (Police Report on the Bombay Riots of February, 1929 (Bombay Government, 1929,) p. 12.) The Commissioner of Police opined that the Pathans were singled out because they were employed as blacklegs by the Burmah Shell Company, the Standard Oil Company and the Indo Petroleum Company, in place of the employees who were on strike at the instigation of the Communists. (Ibid., p. 12.) The strike leaders were annoyed that the Pathans were enabling the oil companies to carry on. Consequently there were several stray attacks on them from January itself. The quiet locality of Sewri was converted into a battle­field by the strikers. As the situation worsened further, the Governor summoned military regiments from Pune and Deolali on the 7th. Besides, district police were also deployed along with the city police. In spite of these arrangements disorder showed no signs of diminution. A stern curfew order enabling the authorities to ' shoot at sight' was clamped. This had a salutary effect. The situation was so tense that military pickets were gradually withdrawn only from 17 to 20 February, while the district police were retained till the 27th. The riots took a heavy toll of life and property as 149 persons lost their lives. The number of injured persons, as per hospital returns, rose to 739. Property worth about Rs. 4.63 lakhs was looted in Princess Street, Dongri, Nagpada, Pydhonie, Maharbourij Agripada and Lamington Road areas. (For details see the Police Report on the Bombay Riots of February 1929.)

Animosity against the Pathans in the mill area was essentially economic in character, an outgrowth of strikes past and present. (Meerut Communist Conspiracy Case, p. 951-T.)

The tragic episode of February was repeated shortly in April-May 1929. The old tensions began to reappear among the millhands during the course of the 1929 strike of mill workers. Street affrays became a daily occurrence. The serious riots of February had left behind a feeling of mistrust amongst the lower classes of both the communities, which culminated in a serious riot on 23 April 1929. The hooligan element took advantage of the disorder, and the trouble spread to other parts of the city. There was a fresh series of attacks and counter-attacks on 27 April, and it was only a matter of time before it developed into clashes between the two communities.

Concurrently the Girni Kamgar Union (GKU) under Communist domination had launched the general strike of millhands (26 April 1929). During the strike some millowners selected Pathans as picketers and brought in gangs of Muslims to replace Maratha weavers, from the Konkan. Many Muslims were recruited in Madanpura for work in the northern mills, and police escorts were provided for them to and from suburban railway stations. (Richard Newman, op. cit., p. 246.) This contributed immensely to the communal tensions in the city.

Under these circumstances, the Hindu millhands driven to desperation fully participated in the riots. The situation did not return to normal until 9 May. The military was on duty from 3 to 18 May. The Government appointed a Court of Enquiry under the Trade Disputes Act, presided over by a Judge of the Calcutta High Court.

But the pertinent point here is that these tragic episodes preceded the fateful mass Civil Disobedience Movement which was to take deep roots in Bombay.



The Council entry programme of the Swarajists had proved a disillusionment. The Congress was groping in the dark for quite some time, while Gandhiji was watching the situation. Government increased repressive measures against trade unionists and Communists which culminated in the arrest of Dange, Joglekar, Nimbkar, Mirajkar, Alve, Kasle, Jhabwalla and many others from the city in connection with the famous Meerut Trial. The Viceroy announced the intention of convening a Round Table Conference, but refused to concede the demand for Dominion Status.

Under such circumstances the year 1929 witnessed the re-emergence of Gandhiji as the undisputed leader of the Congress and India. The Bombay Provincial Congress Committee along with nine other provincial Congress Committees voted for Gandhiji as the president of the Lahore Congress of 1929. It was, however, at his will that Jawaharlal Nehru was elected in his stead. The Lahore Congress abrogated the Councilentry programme and defined Swaraj as " complete independence ".

The All-India Congress Committee, which met at Bombay in May under Gandhiji's (The year 1929 also witnessed brisk activity in the propagation of khadi and boycott of foreign cloth in the city. Gandhiji opened the Khadi Bazar organised by the Bombay League in the Jinnah Hall and later a khadi printing and dyeing factory at Girgaum. The Foreign Cloth Boycott Committee which met at Mani Bhavan on May 23 and 24 under Gandhiji invigorated the boycott programme. He also opened the Umar Sobani Library in the newly constructed building in the Congress House compound.) leadership, resolved that in view of the cruel campaign of repression and barbarous treatment to the All-India Congress Committee members and the Meerut trail detenues, nation should be prepared for a prolonged Civil Disobedience Movement.



The Civil Disobedience Movement was the zenith of Gandhiji's achieve­ment in his political life. It was a crowning point in terms both of the establishment of his absolute leadership and of the universal acceptance of the preaching of truth, non-violence, swadeshi and khadi,and the brave and fearless defiance of authority and evil. Mass Civil Disobedience was a grand saga of stoic determination and peaceful resistance. Bombay, which had besmirched its name in 1919 and 1921 (and later in the Quit India Movement), again came in the vanguard in this movement. The citizens withstood the most cruel reprisals of Government with a mounting zest. "The city wrote patriotic poetry with its blood. Bombay's part in the salt satyagraha was a model for the rest of India-raids on the Wadala salt depot, boycott and picketing, bhoi-patrikas, prabhat pheris and mass processions, desh sevikas and vanar senas, 'war councils', 'dictators' and Congress bulletins, making the textile mills sue for peace and leaving the Government totally helpless. Its enthusiasm in 1930 and in the years following was unique, not bettered in any other part of the country or at any other time, except perhaps in 1942-44—but the latter was stained with violence. " (K. Gopalswami, op. cit., p. 239.)

It was in accordance with the proclamation of independence at Lahore that Gandhiji asked the Congress Working Committee to fix January 26, 1930 as the " Independence Day ". Gandhiji tested public temper by seeking response to the " pledge " on that day in Bombay and other places. The celebration of the " Independence Day " (After three decades, the Constitution of India was adopted on 26th January which has since been celebrated as a Republic Day.) made it clear that the time was ripe for Mass Civil Disobedience and that the breach of the oppressive salt law (The Bombay researchers propagated that as early as 1836 the Salt Commission had recommended that Indian salt should be taxed to enable English salt to be imported in India. The imports of English salt was also intended to boost up the traffic of British ships. Thus, Bombay provided the economic and political  justification for violation of salt law.) would be a symbolic appropriate measure.

On 14 February, the All-India Congress Committee at Ahmedabad gave Gandhiji and his followers full powers to initiate civil disobedience wherever and in whatever manner they chose. All Congressmen were to adhere to complete non-violence, notwithstanding any provocation. Boycott of law courts and schools was also recommended. In pursuance to the " charter of freedom ", as Gandhiji termed it, which was given to him by the Working Committee, he wrote to the Viceroy to concede the substance of independence immediately, failing which a mass movement was contemplated. On hearing from the Viceroy's private secretary to the contrary, Gandhiji set out from Sabarmati to the Dandi beach on 12 March, where he proposed to make salt in defiance of the salt laws. Gandhiji formally infringed the law on the Dandi beach on 6 April, and this was a signal for the mass violation of the salt laws throughout the Presidency. (Bombay—1929-30 : A Review of the Administration of the Presidency (Bombay Government, Government Central Press, 1931).

The inauguration of Civil Disobedience is an important landmark in the history of Bombay. The advent of the movement generated a polarisation of political, economic and social forces in the city. Civil Disobedience along with the devastating Great Depression affected Bombay with great severity. Unemployment incidental to depression was a significant political factor because the labour force was highly volatile. The volatility was built up from years of inflation, recession, wage cuts and retrenchment. The Government had failed to solve the city's pressing social problems. Hence civil disobedience also brought in its trail an element of violence. Secondly, it also brought with it boycott of foreign firms and goods, while Government and industrialists vociferously propagated that civil disobedience had intensified the evil effects of the depression. The Congress had a ready audience for the view that Government's fiscal policy was the root of the depression, amongst the marketeers and the middle class society. It is, therefore, particularly necessary to furnish a rather comprehensive narration of the ominous Civil Disobedience Movement in Bombay.

The mass movement was inaugurated by Jamnalal Bajaj on 6 April 1930 at Vile Parle as decided by the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee and the Maharashtra Provincial Congress Committee. Jamnalal was nominated the first " Congress dictator " of the satyagraha in city at the instance of Gandhiji. The Bombay headquarters were located at the Vile Parle camp where Kasturba Gandhi was camping till the camp was declared illegal in August 1930.

The outbreak of the movement coincided with the national week cele­bration by the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee which organised a mass meeting on the Chowpati exhorting the people of all communities to participate in the satyagraha. The four cloth markets, the share bazar and shops at Mandvi were closed in sympathy to the movement. The activists, besides Jamnalal Bajaj, included K. F. Nariman, Prof. D. R. Gharpure, Pandit Sunderlal, Sardar Sardul Singh Kahishwar, Ali Bahadur Khan and Mohiuddin Kasuri. They announced a programme for action for the city in the very first meeting. According to the programme, Nariman, Mrs. Avantikabai Gokhale, Mrs. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Yusuf Meherali and Ali Bahadur Khan, organised salt making at the Haji Ali park on the next day. They organised a mammoth meeting at the Chowpati on the 7th which was followed by the arrest of K.F. Nariman (president of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee) in the same night. This was greeted with a sharp commotion and partial hartal in the city. (Police Commissioner  of  Bombay  to G. F. S.  Collins,   Secretary   to Bombay Government,   Home Department, 8 April  1930   (Daily Reports on Civil Dis­ obedience, Head Police Office, Bombay). Although the response of the Parsis and Muslims was rather unfavourable, the middle class crowds and Marwari merchants pledged themselves to participate in the campaign.
The movement was organised in Bombay with forethought and thoroughness. The leaders had anticipated arrests, and hence, they had prepared long lists of " dictators " and " War Councils " in advance to keep the campaign undeterred, so that immediately after the arrest of one, the next in line stepped into the breach. And this went on for days, weeks, months and years.
The secret daily reports of the Police Commissioner of Bombay to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay Presidency, Home Department, are a valuable treasure of information of the happenings in Bombay. But appraisal of them all is beyond the scope of this study. Hence the narration of happenings in the city during only the first few days is furnished below for the benefit of students of history.
The members of the Bombay " War Council " including Mrs. Kamala­devi Chattopadhyaya and D. R. Gharpure launched upon a programme of making salt from sea-water on the terrace of the Congress House by boiling the water and making salt in cement salt pans on the terrace from 8 April. The sentence inflicted on K. F. Narimanj Jamnalal Bajaj and others was greeted with a mammoth rally of 30,000 on the Chowpati the same evening. The novelty of the rally was that about 200 ladies actively participated. (Police Commissioner to Mr. Collins, 9 April 1930.) The Satyagraha Committee of the Bombay Provincial Con­gress Committee was in an unrelenting mood. The contraband salt was sold at Vile Parle and many other places in the city. The police raided the Congress House, destroyed the salt pans and arrested three prominent members of the war council  viz., Y. J. Meherali (vice-president of the Bombay Youth League), Abidali Jafferbhai (secretary of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee) and M. Sadik (editor of a nationalist weekly), on 10 April. They were sentenced to imprisonment on the next day. (Ibid., 11 April 1930.) The war council was undeterred by the police action. They cons­tructed new salt pans and sold contraband salt which fetched fantastic money for the campaign, practically every day. Several patriots including ladies courted arrest. The brave and worthy activities of eminent ladies like Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Avantikabai Gokhale, Perin Captain, Laxmiben Dosani, Laxmibai Bhide, Ratanben Mehta, etc. encouraged the womanhood to fight for the national liberation war. The contraband salt was auctioned, and there were patriots to buy it at fantastic prices. This went on for months together in the city. The movement also comprised the boycott of liquor and foreign cloth.
The last day of the national week, 13 April was marked by four large processions to the Chowpati where they culminated into a mass rally of 50,000 including about 1,000 women. The principal speakers were Sarojini Naidu, Kamaladevi, Perin Captain, Mrs. Abidali Jafferbhai, Gharpure, K. P. Khadilkar, Dr. D. D. Sathe, Dr. J. N. Chowksy and Ganapatishankar Desai (newly elected secretary of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee). There was a complete hartal in the cloth markets, while shops at Mandvi, Bhuleshwar and Girgaum were closed in the after­noon. (Police Commissioner to Collins, 14 April 1930.) The arrest of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on the 14th was strongly reacted in the city the next day. The Cotton Brokers' Association, the Grain Merchants' Association, the Bombay Shroffs' Association, the Indian Merchants' Chamber, the Rice Merchants' Association, the Bombay Native Piecegoods Merchants' Association and the Sugar Merchants' Association closed the various markets under their control. Even the Municipal Corporation adjourned its sitting on the motion of Jamnadas Mehta. Besides the usual speakers, S. K. Patil, who was later to become the uncrowned king of Bombay, Mrs. Hansa Mehta and B. F. Bharucha enthused the mass rally to carry out the civil disobedience programme. (Ibid., 15 April 1930.) The eminent lawyers and solicitors of the Bombay High Court such as Bhulabhai J. Desai and K. M. Munshi were the loudest in their condemnation of Government. They along with many of their colleagues renunciated legal practice, while K. M. Munshi resigned from the Bombay Legislative Council. (Bombay Chronicle. 15 April 1930.)
The most demonstrative coup against the salt laws in Bombay was an invasion of the Government salt depots at Wadala by an army of more than 1,000 young men and women on 16 April. They were led by Kamaladevi, and had to encounter lathi charges by the police. Three days later, the salt works were raided again in which many volunteers were injured and 25 were arrested. On 25 May, 100 volunteers, accompanied by 2,000 spectators, carried out a further determined raid. The police handled them mercilessly and even opened fire. Wadala was the scene of many heroic raids by satyagrahis. The most demonstrative raid, however, took place on the morning of 1 June 1930, when 15,000 volunteers and spectators participated in the great mass action. Time after time the satya­grahis broke through the police cordons, they invaded the salt pans, and carried away salt. The police could not cope up with the situation and the mounted police charged into the crowd with rearing horses, striking bare heads with clubs.
The Bombay lawyers demonstrated their solidarity behind Gandhiji's movement in an exemplary manner. At least 102 advocates and solicitors in the city took a pledge in support of the Swadeshi Movement. The Bombay Chronicle of 19 April 1930 published the names of the signatories. The 20th April was marked by a huge impressive rally of a lakh, on the Chowpati, under the leadership of the usual persons, besides K. M. Munshi, Lilavati Munshi, V. V. Jairajani and others. (Bombay Chronicle, 21 April 1930.) K. M. Munshi and K. K. Master were arrested the next day. They were followed by the militant D. R. Gharpure (president, Bombay Provincial Congress Com­mittee), G. N. Desai (secretary, Bombay Provincial Congress Committee), and S. K. Patil (Police Commissioner to Collins, 22 April 1930.) (joint secretary of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee). On several occasions the Congress volunteers were meted with brutal outrages by the police. But their spirit was indomitable and exemplary, and they persistently continued with their activities. (Congress Bulletin, 21 April 1930 (Bombay Provincial Congress Committee).
Many women offered ornaments and jewellery which were auctioned for large sums, again and again, for the sake of the movement. The Bhatia Baug satyagraha of 20 April, was a grand testimony to the deter­mined but peaceful and disciplined behaviour of the men in spite of tyranny of government. Among the notable arrests were B. G. Kher, J. M. Mehta, K. M. Munshi and G. V. Ketkar (president, Maharashtra Provincial Congress Committee). (Ibid.) The whole atmosphere was surcharged with subdued excitement and solemn determination for pursuit of the goal of independence. Even the Police Commissioner was moved by the stirring scenes. (Congress Bulletin, 23 April 1930.) The Mandvi front was another great success for the Congiess. There was a grand victory procession on the 26th, and a national flag salutation ceremony at several places which culminated into large public meetings at Chowpati and Shivaji Park, which stirred the masses on the 27th. (Police Commissioner to Collins, 28 April 1930.) The Bombay Native Piecegoods Merchants' Association, which was with Gandhiji all the while, was the most active of the business organisations during this movement. The Bombay Satyagraha Committee's intense propaganda in the labour area generated great enthusiasm for the Congress message. The principal activists were Kamalatfevi, Sarojini Naidu, C. K. Narayanswami, C. B. Johri, S. K. Pupala, Prof. Kosambi, Mohamed Ibrahim, Dr. Chowksy and W. P. Kabadi. (Bombay Congress Bulletin, 28 April 1930.)
As directed by Mahatma Gandhi, women were particularly chosen for picketing against liquor and foreign goods in Bombay. Among the women activists in the city were Lilavati Munshi, Avantikabai Gokhale, Kamaladevi, Ratanben Mehta, Jankibai Bajaj, Gangaben Patel, Gajjar, Perin Captain, Hansa Mehta, Ramibai Kamdar and Miss Khandvala. They organised a Desh Sevika Sangh and conducted an intensive house to house campaign for the propagation of swadeshi by obtaining signatures for the swadeshi pledge. Many times, however, the Satyagraha Committee could not channelise a sufficient number of women volunteers. (Police Commissioner to Collins, letters from time to time.)
Gandhiji advised the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee to enrol a lakh of active volunteers to carry on propaganda for the boycott of British goods and the use of khaddar. He was willing to come to Bombay when the city was ready with its quota of volunteers, and he would then lead the raid on the salt depot at Bombay. (Police Commissioner to Collins, 1 May 1930. Gandhiji's advice was conveyed through R. S. Padbidri (secretary, Bombay Provincial Congress   Committee), S. K. Pupala and C. B. Johri) But he was arrested shortly.
The promulgation of the Press Ordinance infringing on the rights of the press was greeted with strong protests by the Journalists' Association of India as well as by popular leaders in the city. The Ordinance was defied in many cases. The citizens also reacted very sharply to the tragedy at Peshawar, and congratulated those who suffered silently and bravely for the cause of the nation.
Even a few foreigners had participated in the movement. For example, Cyril Walter Thornton, a young Australian, arrived in Bombay to help the movement. He was initiated as a salt satyagrah with due ceremony at the Congress House. He told the gathering that he was very keen to help the cause of Indian Independence for which he had specially come from Australia. He signed the swaraj pledge and became an activist.
Gandhiji's Arrest: The climax of the agitation was reached on 5 May when Gandhiji was arrested at Karadi (Gujarat), and secretly taken to Yeravada via Bombay. The news thoroughly stirred the city, and was greeted with a complete hartal in all the principal markets and business quarters. The Cotton, Share, and Javeri Markets and the Mandvi Market observed a hartal for two days, while the Mulji Jetha Market decided to close down for six days. (Police Commissioner to Collins, 6 and 7 May 1930. He, however, writes that the Muslims and Parsis did not conform to the hartal, and that mills functioned as usual except the Jubilee and Morarji Goculdas mills, which is contradictory to some of the paragraphs in his letters.) There was a series of mass rallies at the Esplanade (presently Azad Maidan), the Dana Bunder and Lalbaug. The GKU activists picketed in the mill area and got the mills closed for the day. The railway goods yards and workshops, and docks were also paralysed.

The meeting of the Municipal Corporation was adjourned. The Bombay Shroff's Association, the Bombay Cotton Merchants' Association the Bombay Seed Merchants' Association, the Indian Merchants' Chamber, the Marwari Chamber of Commerce and other organisations, expressed their high sense of patriotism by advising the members to participate in the hartal and propagate the Congress pledge. There was a mile-long procession led by women, and followed by Pathans, Sikhs and other martial races, all peaceful. About 65,000 workers abstained from work to swell the procession. Two hundred volunteers decked six donkeys in foreign clothes and paraded the thoroughfares exhorting the public to burn foreign cloth. (K. Gopalswami. op. cit., p. 245.)

It is noteworthy that the volunteers showed an indomitable courage to pull down the Union Jack from the flag staff of the Municipal Corporation building, and replacing it by the national flag facing Pherozeshah Mehta's statue. The municipal officers were present, but nobody took any objection. (Police Commissioner to Collins, 7 May 1930.) Such was the spirit of the day.

Government servants including