Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

of the articles in the Sudharak, which in his opinion bordered on creating disaffection against the government. As a result of the controversy, it was ultimately decided that the Sudharak should be made a non-political organ and Prof. Patwardhan had to go on leave for one year. The life-members of the Deccan Education Society had to take a pledge that they would not associate themselves with active politics. Tilak’s judgment that with the growth of the political movement there would be a polarisation of social and political issues, proved to be correct and his stand was vindicated. In this context one can certainly appreciate the wisdom of his advice to young men that single-minded devotion to political ideals would reap better results than half hearted efforts in both social and political spheres. Granting the strategic success of Tilak’s stand, one must not lose sight of the fact that it had essentially a local background. This can be particularly realised if one compared Tilak’s views with those of two other great political leaders of his time, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai. Their work of course falls in a later period but conditions had remained unaltered and hence the comparison can be made. Both these leaders advocated social reforms along with radical political views. The difference mainly lay in the local conditions and the differing traditions. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the first great social reformer of India, had set up a new tradition in Bengal and liberal ideals had become a part of the intellectual makeup of the educated Bengalis. Bipin Chandra Pal, who during his impressionable age had come under the influence of Keshav Chandra Sen, became a Brahmo and even though he was disinherited by his father, he pursued his difficult path. Pal Babu’s radical views in politics therefore did not prevent him from expressing his progressive views in social matters. Lala Lajpat Rai also in his early life identified himself with the Arya Samaj movement of which Swami Dayanand was the leader. Swami Dayanand preached the message of the Vedas and condemned the corruption and decay which had crept into popular Hinduism. Lajpat Rai’s patriotism and philanthropy found expression in the field of social and religious reform. It can thus be seen that in the context of all-India forces, nationalism was not coexistent with orthodoxy. In Maharashtra, however, things were different. The advent of British rule came as a particularly mortifying blow to Maharashtra, as it meant the end of the rule of the Peshwas. In spite of the adjustment which the people of Maharashtra were compelled to make, there was always a smouldering discontent in Maharashtra and owing to the deep- seated political antagonism to the British rule, Maharashtra did not react to the liberal values of life in the same way in which Bengal did. The Prarthana Samaj

movement could never take root in Maharashtra’s soil as the Arya Samaj had in Punjab or Brahmo Samaj in Bengal. It was confined to a handful of people. The traditionalist pride in Maharashtra had led to a sceptical attitude about the new values of life. Chiplunkar’s virulent attack on social reformers was an outcome of this attitude. Tilak thus was only conceding the claims of this reactionary tendency when he decided not to hurt the sentiments of people. In doing so he was almost putting his feet on a gliding precipice and the inevitable culmination of his action was his association with the socially reactionary forces. Some people justify Tilak’s action on the ground that a hero shares the limitations of his time and of his followers. This is only a partial truth. For a hero may not fight on all fronts, but in fighting one kind of evil, he can at least make people conscious of other evils lurking in other spheres. Tilak could not have started a crusade against reactionary tendencies, but he could have certainly expressed his disapproval. Instead of this he actually defended them. While admitting the strategic necessity of concentrating all energies on political work, one finds it difficult to understand his vehement opposition to social reform. Another individual, Mr. Malbari, who held views diametrically opposite to those of Tilak, attacked political workers almost in the same way as Tilak opposed social reformers. Dadabhai Naoroji, the veteran leader, expressed his strong disapproval of Malbari’s attacks on politicians and wrote on 15th December 1887: “In the present number of the Indian Spectator you have three times hit the political reformers, who are always for equality between themselves and the English.... Now, my dear fellow, what an amount of unnecessary mischief you are doing. By all means fight for the merits of your cause (social reform) but why unnecessarily discredit and discourage other important movements?” Such disapproval of the sectarian attitude whether of a politician or of a social reformer by an elderly person is absolutely necessary. Morley has said, “Both the social reformer and the politician are equally necessary for an all-out regeneration of society. Of course there are excellent reasons why a statesman immersed in the actual conduct of affairs should confine his attention to the work which his hands find to do. But that the leading statesmen are of necessity so absorbed in the task of the hour furnishes all the better reason, why as many other people as possible should busy themselves in helping to prepare opinion for the practical application of unfamiliar but weighty and promising suggestions by constant and ready discussion of them upon their merits.”3 The main danger of Tilak’s stand was that what was a matter of strategy with

him was apt to be the main plank with those who came after him. The method in such cases is apt to assume the proportion of the objective and means become the end. Those who lacked Tilak’s courage to pit the last ounce of their energy in political agitation kept safely away from radical politics of later day and only cited him in support of their reactionary social views. In all these controversies, Tilak showed himself a past master in stealing a march over his opponents. When he could not draw on the strength of his own arguments, he exploited the weaknesses of his opponents. Never did he lose a single opportunity of pointing out that people who advocated social reforms did not practise what they preached. He would sarcastically describe the event of a child marriage in the family of a social reformer. But instead of criticising the individual in question for falling short of his views, Tilak emphasised the impracticability of all reforms. In the controversies with Agarkar, however, Tilak could not adopt this method because he was aware of the fact that Agarkar faced all trials and braved all attacks in order to assert his point of view.4 But though Tilak could not point out an inconsistency in Agarkar’s words and actions, he used very harsh language in the course of controversies. Agarkar was also equally crushing in his blows and one is pained and surprised to read the articles in the Kesari and the Sudharak written as answers and rejoinders to each other. Prof. V. M. Joshi, who was an admirer of both Agarkar and Tilak, commenting on this controversy wrote: “Hegel has somewhere remarked that real tragedy consists not in the calamity to a great hero but in the calamitous fight between two parties both of which consider themselves to be in the right and are in the right from different points of view. Such a tragedy was the battling between Tilak and Agarkar.” After 1890, the embittered tone in the writings of Tilak and Agarkar became particularly obvious. Human Aspect of the Tilak-Agarka r Relati on ship There was, however, the human aspect of their relationship which prevailed in the midst of all ideological conflicts. In spite of the violent wordy battles the spring of affection between Tilak and Agarkar was not completely dried up. Agarkar was suffering from asthma and his health was failing. He was conscious of the approaching end and was fully prepared for it; but his heart yearned for a meeting with his one-time friend and felt relieved when Tilak went to him. It is not easy to imagine what these two friends, aware of the final parting, talked to

each other about. On such occasions silence is far more eloquent than words. Tilak and Agarkar must have looked at each other; Tilak seeing the shadow of death creeping over his friend, must have been overwhelmed. The two friends must have clasped each other’s hand and re-lived in a moment their former period of companionship. All disputes were now settled because disputes were meaningless at the approach of death. Agarkar died on 17th June 1895. The obituary article which Tilak wrote in the Kesari of 18th June, is an expression of his feeling. It is recalled by friends of Tilak, how he was overwhelmed by grief and how he found it difficult to compose himself and write the article on Agarkar. Tilak generally took half an hour to dictate the editorial of the Kesari. He had a philosophic calm and never appeared perturbed. While writing the obituary on Agarkar, however, he took over two hours and frequently stopped to restrain his emotions. Tilak wrote two articles on Agarkar one on 18th June 1895, immediately after his death and the other on 4th July 1916, when the death anniversary of Agarkar was observed in Bombay. The first article is almost an emotional outburst of a bereaved friend while the other is an appraisal of Agarkar’s work done in a coolly logical manner. In the article written on 18th June 1895, Tilak wrote: “Agarkar and the writer of this article were close and intimate friends for a long time and we are not sure how we shall be able to write this obituary note. During the last five or six years, people knew of the differences of opinion between us, but death is so cruel and overwhelming that we forget these insignificant ‘matters and are bewildered when we vividly remember how we both made some plans for social work in our youth, how we worked in a team and how we developed our plans at home, in public and even in prison. The education we had received in college together had moulded and shaped our minds in a particular way, and we had decided to dedicate our lives to a cause. We spent over ten years of our youth in serving the cause, unmindful of the difficulties and of the effects; and now death has snatched from our midst our comrade. It has fallen to our unfortunate lot to express our grief to the people of Maharashtra, whom Prin. Agarkar and the present writer had decided to serve. We are experiencing the truth of Kalidasa’s saying:

We restrain our grief and write this article as a painful duty.” Tilak has then sketched the career of Agarkar and remarked that Agarkar by his life of sacrifice set a noble example before the educated people of this country. The article is interspersed with sentences such as: “We remember how we had placed the same ideal before us, how we devised methods for realising it and how we together experienced moments of happiness and of sorrow. All such memories make the mind restless and distracted and we realise the momentary significance of human endeavour.” Tilak has summed up the article after pointing out how Agarkar’s death was a loss to Maharashtra, to Marathi language and above all to the Deccan Education Society. Agarkar’s Death: The End of an Epoch Agarkar’s death was the end of an epoch, because he was the last among the radical liberals. Others who came after him and called themselves his followers, advocated social reforms but in the political sphere they were only moderates; and the opposition of the moderate liberals to Tilak had never the strength and the force of Agarkar’s opposition. In spite of their progressive views on social questions, Tilak could ignore them because the political problems had assumed greater importance than the social questions and Tilak with his radical political ideals and with his superb capacity for arousing people easily outshone all his opponents. Henceforth instead of keeping away from reactionary elements, Tilak found a common front with them on the ground that there was a state of emergency. In the political life of almost all countries, during such periods, a cry for a common front becomes urgent and the conservative elements dominate the scene. An understanding of the development of Tilak’s views would not be possible without considering his relations with Agarkar. They were together in the impressionable period of their life, worked together in the educational and journalistic sphere, disagreed and parted company. They differed on fundamentals and quarrelled about a number of issues. But each had his impact on the other. Agarkar at first acted as a sort of an indirect check on Tilak and later on, even when they formed opposite camps, Agarkar’s bold assertion of progressive views stemmed the tide of reaction. With Agarkar’s death, however, the gulf between liberalism and nationalism widened tremendously and the prolific energies of Tilak were directed towards the sole aim of building up a

national movement. The death of Agarkar was thus the end of an epoch. Henceforth in Maharashtra liberalism was always on the defensive and had ultimately to retire to the back-waters of politics. 1 This stand of Tilak was ably supported by such persons as Telang. In a letter to Malbari on the twin issues of widow-remarriage and infant-marriage Telang wrote: “I have not the smallest sympathy with the tyranny of caste, but I have as little with tyranny over caste.” According to Telang the caste system, with its power of excommunication was in a position to deal effectively with any offenders against its rule and government had no right to usurp this right enjoyed by the caste system: Selected Writings and Speeches of K. T. Tekng, p. 254 2 This was a part of the act of purification 3 Quoted by Acharya Javadekar at p. 229 in Adhunik Bharat. 4 The orthodox people of Poona had taken out in procession Agarkar’s effigy when he was alive

FROM LIBERALISM TO 5 NATIONALISM The Kesari had anticipated almost everything that the Congress was to do later. In stating the aims of India’s political aspirations it went much further than what the Congress was to do during this period. The establishment of the Congress, however, seemed to have curbed some of its lofty flights and the articles after 1888, contributed by Tilak, do not seem to go beyond the constitutional demand of a few rights for Indians or at best self-government within the British Empire. This restraint appears to be inevitable when we take into account the differences in the temperaments of Agarkar and Tilak. Agarkar was an idealist, never satisfied until he had a lofty ideal before him. He was little deterred by the exigencies of the situation. He was a lone crusader and therefore, though the cause for which he was fighting was yet a distant goal he constantly kept it in view. Tilak, cast in a more matter-of-fact mould, concerned himself with the practical and the immediate. The goal of constitutional reform was the legacy of the liberal school and Tilak, as yet, saw no reason to depart from it. This again proved to be strategically successful as it helped to concentrate all energy on the political issues. Tilak’s shrewd commonsense was justified if the objective situation of the country is taken into account. Politics was as yet confined to the intellectual elite, insurrectionary methods proved to be futile; the iron rule of law and order gave little freedom for any other type of action. Where the masses are intellectually quiescent their economic urges are expressed by the enlightened minority and very often this expression takes some simple form of the more abstract interests of the minority. A good deal of effort was needed and a long time was to elapse before the economic urge of the people could dovetail with these simplified ideal ends put forth by the enlightened leadership of the Congress. Intellect and instinct have to combine before great changes happen and an ancient social or political order passes away.1 The Kesari did great service in helping the process of dissemination and propagation of these ideas. A choice was to be made again about the precedence of political as against social reform. This choice gradually assumed growing importance for Tilak and with Dadabhai he came to realise: “One thing you may remember that no people who are

politically debased will ever be and ever have been socially high. It is the political elevation which will give that backbone and stamina, that manliness which would give strength and courage to carry out social reforms.” The constitutional form that the expression of political views took was thus revolutionary in its content. The moral wrath of the people was to be aroused against the foreign power and along with it a sense of confidence in the leadership was to be created. Nothing helps this more than suffering for the cause. The occasional trials and the imprisonments Tilak had to suffer did this work to an admirable degree. General Trend of Tilak’s Articles The articles upto 1888 were mostly contributed by Agarkar, who, as Tilak wrote on his death anniversary, was wholly on the side of Swaraj. Tilak himself wrote after 1888 and though he used strong language in condemning governmental oppression or injustice he does not seem to have gone beyond the moderate demand of a few constitutional rights. In general, his articles lend support to the Congress demands from 1885 to 1895. According to Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, “There is no doubt that the progress of the Congress from its inception in 1885 to 1905 was an even march based on a firm faith in constitutional agitation in the unfailing regard for justice attributed to the English.” The articles of Tilak during this period show “an irresistible statement of facts followed by irrebuttable arguments to prove the justice of the popular cause.... The burden of these utterances was that the English people are essentially just and fair; and that if properly informed they would never deviate from truth and the right, that the problem was the Anglo-Indian and not the Englishman, that what was wrong was the system and not the individual, that the Congress was essentially loyal to the British throne and fell foul only of Indian bureaucracy, that the English constitution was the bulwark of popular liberties everywhere and the English Parliament was the mother of Democracy all over, that the British constitution was the best of all constitutions, that the Congress was not a seditious body, that the Indian politicians were the natural interpreters of the government to people and of people to the government, that Indians must be admitted into public services in a larger measure, should be educated and made fit for high positions, that the Universities, the local bodies and the public services should form the training ground for India, that the legislatures should be thrown open to election, that the right of interpellation and discussion of budget should be conceded, that the Judiciary and the Executive must be separated, and Indians

should be given a place in the Executive Councils of Provincial and Central Governments... that simultaneous competitive examinations should be held in India for services, that the annual drain to England should be stemmed and indigenous industries fostered, that land revenue should be reduced and permanent settlement should be adopted.”2

Characterisation of the British Rule In many of the topical articles Tilak reviewed the process of British domination and gave a characterisation of the British rule. Thus while discussing the reasons that led the government to hold the Civil Service examination in England alone Tilak observes, “Sometimes when we have an open-minded Governor-General like Lord Lytton the truth is very plainly told. India is conquered not for the benefit of India, but for increasing the trade of the rulers so that their children and families might live happily....” The English, according to him were more successful than any of the earlier rulers of India. The seed of a single nationality was being assiduously sown by them, a thing that the Moguls never thought of doing and the Peshwas could never do. Quoting from an essay written by William Wedderburn, Tilak writes on the 24th January 1893 of “how the people were dazzled at first by the discipline and intelligence of the British. Railways, telegraph, roads, bridges and schools bewildered the people. Riots ceased and people could enjoy peace and quiet. ... A letter from Benares could reach Poona in less than a week; the Pendharis were destroyed, the Thugs were uprooted and where under the Peshwas even Nana Fadnawis could hardly get more than Rs. 300 per year now a Mamlatdar could get about Rs. 400 per month. Everyone naturally concluded that God had sent out of kindness these men of destiny.... People began to say that even a blind person could safely travel from Benares to Rameshwar with gold tied to a stick. But just as the influence of wine does not last long, this illusion arising out of the revolution did not last long. The blind man may travel with gold tied to his stick but day by day people realised that gold was getting scarce. . . . The scales, therefore, fell from their eyes and they realised how they are being oppressed.” These references to the popular beliefs of the people are peculiar of the style of Tilak. Where the leaders of the Congress spoke in the high-flown 19th century English, imitating Burke and Macaulay, Tilak translated these thoughts in the homely idiom of the people. In the same essay, he goes on to speak about the break-up of the village structure. “Under the Moguls or the Peshwas the ryots did not suffer from all- round oppression as they are doing today. It was the people who looked after

their own fields, pastures, ponds, rivers and roads. After paying their allotted rents to the King they were free to do whatever they liked. In every village they were free to follow their own trades. Government officers were only in the provincial or district headquarters. Under the English this is all changed and with the destruction of the village community the freedom and happiness enjoyed by the people are every day diminishing.” This loss of initiative and opportunity has resulted in the demoralisation of Indians, who, he says, are reduced to the position of automatons. Speaking about the Honourable K. T. Telang, it is said, “The tree of Indian intellect is being nurtured by the British gardener. It is, therefore, extremely attractive but in a pleasure grove it is not a lofty, sky-kissing tree that is allowed to grow but a tiny plant of which flowers can be plucked easily by the hand....”3 “We have not yet learnt to push forward boldly the peoples cause and have not as yet realised that the best fruit of our learning is an urge to fight selflessly for the peoples rights.”4 However, at times, Tilak seems to be aware of a certain superiority over the English. Speaking about the jury system,5 he says that the English are centuries behind the Indians in humanitarianism.... “The Indian climate may not preserve the viour and grit that a newly advanced state may possess but in non-violence, self-control, abstinence, we have given up acting like beasts”. While quoting with approval Ranade’s essay on “Industrialism”,6 Tilak does not seem to regard the superiority of the British in the industrial and scientific field as an indication of superior intellect: “Before the powers of nature were discovered and the mind directed towards it, people in all countries worked with their hands. Afterwards as the powers of nature were discovered, sciences like statics, dynamics, physics and chemistry came into being with the result that human toil was minimised; but this advantage was not enjoyed by us as it was by Europe and America. There are various reasons for this. Among them, the first is that our country is very wide and very fertile and secondly we are inclined towards the philosophy of renunciation; thirdly for the last seven or eight centuries we have had to fight in order to preserve our freedom. It will not be out of place to mention the climate of our country, too, as a cause of our mental contentment. In short, the power of nature which we could have acquired with a little mental exertion was not acquired by us and the European nations pushed themselves forward...”. Again he says, “It is a wrong conception to say that the British rulers were more anxious

about the welfare of our country than the wise and learned among us.”7

Superiority of British Rule Like the elder leaders of the Congress, Tilak too admits the superiority of the British rule, but he does it only in a grudging manner and almost as a necessary evil: “The system of administration today is more conducive to welfare and is more convenient as compared with the eastern system.” At times he has expressed the hope that if the unity shown by the different castes and creeds in India continues, “the country will prosper even under the British yoke and India which is sunk to the very depth of misery will rise to the pinnacle of glory and England and India would be connected by a bond of affection and lead the world till eternity”.8 He refers again and again to the right conferred by the English rulers upon the Indians, namely that of criticising the English rule.9 “This is a principle voluntarily conceded by the British administrators and they have themselves provided means to the people of India whereby they might know the grievances of the people.... The object of a free press and providing facilities for higher education is precisely this.... We write this so that any doubt that some people may have that the government might frown upon our criticism of their policies and our demands for political rights may be removed.” In all these articles Tilak shows a desire to go from the practical and the topical of the realm of ideas and principles. Politics is an empirical science where ideals and principles have to be based on practical examples and everyday instances. In its practical application politics touches the lives of all people. Like the air that we breathe, it is all- pervading but again just as we do not feel the presence of the air that is about us, the average man does not feel the pressure of politics. It is here that the political leader tries, by propaganda and constant education, to make the impact of politics felt by the average man. For the practical politician discussions of political principles is, therefore, potential action. Each discussion of principles leads to action and every action leads to crystallisation of ideas. If the average man does not understand or does not care for the general principles of politics, he understands the stand taken by politicians in certain concrete cases where specific grievances are redressed. Tilak had said about the criticism allowed by the British Government: “The English are, however, terribly stingy and selfish and so if we want to take anything from them we must make a

ceaseless and all-round effort.”

The Crawford Case One such effort of his was the prominent part he took in the Crawford case. He became the accredited leader of the people through his championship of lost causes. The part he played in the Crawford episode is ample proof of his grit and perseverance in getting a grievance redressed. It is necessary to give a history of this case which had its echoes in the British Parliament as well. The Indian Civil Service has contributed its quota of eccentrics and there is no queerer specimen than Mr. Crawford, a rare combination of contradictory characteristics. Very intelligent but indolent, he liked to roll in luxury. A model of hospitality to his European friends, he was chivalrous in the extreme. It was said that a number of English ladies received generous presents from him. His resources, therefore, always fell short of his expenses and to meet them he compelled people to give him very generous gifts and to advance him huge loans which, he could never return. Repeated warnings were given to him and though for a time all his activities were carried on secretly, the corruption could not be concealed for long. Mr. Crawford was suspended and one Mr. Hanmantrao who had acted as Crawford’s agent was prosecuted. Hanmantrao was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and was fined Rs. 2,000. Hanmantrao’s conviction naturally intimidated certain people and some mamlatdars gave a confession that they had helped Crawford in taking bribes. A commission was appointed to investigate the matter. The commission acquitted Mr. Crawford of the charge of corruption but found him guilty of accepting loans and he was dismissed from service. As a result, the mamlatdars who had given a confession of acting as Mr. Crawford’s agents got into trouble though the main accused went scot free. The mamlatdars who had turned approvers in the case, became the accused and the assurance of pardon given to them before the confession was not adhered to by the government. Eight mamlatdars were thus dismissed and many others were committed to trial. It was evident that as the Commissioner, Mr. Crawford, was corrupt, the mamlatdars, who were his subordinates, dared not displease him and had to become accomplices in the crime of corruption. This could only be explained by remembering that Crawford was after all an Englishman, a member of the ruling race, and, therefore, could escape punishment; whereas the mamlatdars were natives and, therefore, their victimisation was unavoidable. Tilak, who always put character above everything, would not either shelter or

defend a corrupt person. In the Crawford case, however, he was convinced that the Indians were made scapegoats in order to whitewash the crime of a British official. He, therefore, decided to plead the case of the mamlatdars. He organised a public meeting on the 1st September 1889, in which a resolution was passed urging the government to abide by the promise given to the mamlatdars, viz. that they would not be punished if they helped the course of law by giving evidence against Mr. Crawford. Tilak’s First Public Speech At this meeting, Tilak made his first public speech and showed all the qualities of an astute lawyer, when he showed the parallel between the case of dismissed mamlatdars and that of the Master of the Rolls in the macclesfield case in 1725 in the reign of George I. He spoke of the confidence inspired by the British rule which made the mamlatdars give evidence believing in the government’s promise of indemnity: “Such an act of confidence,” he said in his speech, “would have been impossible a generation ago.... It is the growth of years, and it has taken seventy years of good British rule to beget it. Break the faith now, and the prestige of the British rule for veracity will be gone, and hundred more years of good rule would not suffice to restore it.”10 This appeal, therefore, was in the interest of the fair name of British justice and honour. In fact it was to preserve the eternal principle of justice that he took such a prominent part in the Crawford case. He wrote in the Kesari,11 “Crawford Saheb is to be with us for a few days only but we are connected with the Goddess of Justice throughout our lives. The stronger her rule the more we shall advance.” Referring to the advice given by some people that since Crawford was an Englishman and the rulers were also English an Indian interfering in the case would be unnecessarily crushed; he declares his faith in truth and justice: “We are young and vigorous. Our opinions are not tainted by adverse experience which lead to such disastrous results. We believe in the motto Truth Alone is Victorious’. We are fully convinced that in the end justice shall prevail.”12 This remark with its air of sullen defiance is characteristic of a public worker who has to encounter the usual opposition of the cynics and pessimists grumbling against every public-spirited effort. It also raises a topical and controversial issue to the realm of ideas and principles.

Petitions were submitted to the government on behalf of the mamlatdars requesting that the dismissed mamlatdars should be reinstated. At last the government of India passed a bill which was published on the 28th October 1889, and, as a result, part of the grievance was redressed and many of the mamlatdars were given amnesty, though in all twelve of them were dismissed. Tilak represented their case right up to Parliament though it did not serve much purpose. Tilak’s main aim in pleading the case of the mamlatdars was to expose the contradiction in government’s decision. His keen legal acumen and his persistent efforts made the mamlatdars feel assured and though Tilak did not accept a pie for all the work he had done, the mamlatdars, who came to be known as Crawford mamlatdars, presented him a wrist-watch and an ‘Uparane’ (upper garment) as a token of their gratitude. Crawford was greatly offended when all his malpractices were exposed by Tilak and, in 1898, he vented his feelings against the Poona-Brahmins through the columns of some British newspapers.

Bapat Commission Tilak had helped the mamlatdars out of a sense of public duty. His next effort of a similar nature was to help a close friend in difficulties of a like character. Bapat, an intimate friend of Tilak, was an Assistant Commissioner in the Baroda State and was the right-hand man of Mr. Eliot, the Chief Officer of the Revenue Survey Settlement in Baroda. The Resident of Baroda, Col. Bidlny, received many complaints against the department of Mr. Eliot. Eliot, however, retired and the Resident decided to make Bapat a scapegoat in the matter. He encouraged people to lodge more complaints and used all unscrupulous means to collect evidence against Bapat. Bapat requested Tilak to help him in the difficulty and Tilak readily agreed to do so. Bapat was suspended and a commission was appointed on 13th August 1894 to make all the enquiries. Pherozshah Mehta and afterwards Branson, Bar-at-Law, aided by solicitors Bhaishanker Kanga appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, the Diwan of Baroda. Gokhale, a pleader of Baroda, appeared on behalf of Bapat. But as a matter of fact Tilak, who had gone to Baroda specially for the cause, did the work of preparing the case. He sifted through all the evidence, directed the cross-examination of witnesses and gave the defence of Bapat which came to 200 foolscap pages. A commission was appointed to make enquiries but it transgressed its terms of reference and convicted Bapat to six months’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000. When the Maharaja of Baroda returned from England, he appointed two legal experts to consider all the evidence and at last Bapat was acquitted of all the charges. Tilak did not practise as a pleader any time in his life and yet the way in which he conducted the Bapat case, will sustain the belief that if he had persevered in his profession as a lawyer he would have been at the top. He must have felt that all his untiring efforts were rewarded when Bapat came out of the trial with his reputation untainted. The Congress Session, 1889 In 1889, Tilak attended the fifth session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay. This session was known as the Bradlaugh Congress as Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., popularly known as ‘Member for India’ for his championship of the Indian cause, attended and addressed this Congress. Tilak moved an

amendment to a resolution putting forth a skeleton scheme for the reform and reconstitution of the Legislative Councils. The official Congress report adds a footnote to the page on which Tilak’s speech is reported, to the effect that he is “one of the ten gentlemen connected with the Fergusson College, Poona, who deliberately putting aside the prizes that the learned professions offer to such men, have settled down on the smallest pittance on which they can support themselves and their families to promote by their personal exertions die education of their countrymen.” This amendment, the report says, was ably put forth and supported. The supporter was none other than Professor G. K. Gokhale. This amendment of Tilak was “moved from a sense of duty to his province”. According to Tilak, “The question was whether we should have one electoral body or more than one.” His plea was that as indirect representation had been adopted in the Provincial Councils, the natural sequel was that the Provincial Councils should elect the Imperial Council. This amendment was however defeated on the ground that this delegation of the function of the electorate to the Provincial Legislatures would be illegal. In this Congress, Tilak was elected to the Subjects Committee for the session of 1890. During the preceding four years the Congress had made the humble beginning of asking for a representation in the administration and had attracted the attention of the members of Parliament. It was suggested that Bradlaugh who attended this session of the Congress should bring in a bill in Parliament embodying the skeleton scheme proposed by the Congress, “for the reform and reconstruction of the Council of the Governor-General for making laws and regulations, and the Provincial Legislative Councils”. Bradlaugh promised to introduce this bill but also spoke of a possibility of the government introducing the bill itself. This was done and the India Councils Act of 1892 was passed at the initiative of Gladstone’s Liberal Government. Thus the government had yielded pardy to the persistent demand of the Indian people which was voiced ever since the foundation of the Congress in 1885. Propaganda was also carried on in England. A deputation of Congress representatives visited England, to press for the consideration of the British public, the political reform which it advocated. A journal called India was also started in London in 1890 “to place before the British public the Indian view of Indian affairs”.

Hume Agitation “Hume, the founder of the Congress, carried on a vigorous propaganda of agitation among the masses on the model of the Anti-corn Law League. Hundreds of public meetings were held, many in country districts; pamphlets and leaflets were soon broadcast among the people with the object of enlightening them as to their rights as citizens and as to the demands made by the Congress and of arousing in them a strong determination to carry on agitation until those demands were conceded. Mr. Hume, in fact, resorted to the only effective method of constitutional action, viz. the stirring of the masses, a thing which was unknown since the days of the Mutiny and which the government had never thought of with equanimity.”13 By the year 1892 the Congress therefore survived a very serious crisis. The help and encouragement given by the government did not last long. Already in 1889 the fourth Congress at Allahabad had to encounter government opposition. In 1890 a circular was issued by the Bengal Government to all secretaries and heads of departments banning their attendance at the Congress session. In a Government of India Notification in 1891, the rights were restricted and a ban was imposed on the “publication of the newspapers containing public news or comments on public news without the written permission of the political agent”. The Muslims also had started opposing the Congress, obviously at government’s instigation. The Kesarì sounds a note of warning and quotes many examples of government oppression.

The Hume Circular A number of articles refer to the Hume Circular of February 16th, 1892. In this circular, which was marked private and confidential, Hume had sounded a note of warning that events in India were fast moving to a crisis. The existing system of administration was pauperising the people and was also preparing the way for “one of the most terrible cataclysms in the history of the world”. According to Hume, it was no consolation that the people were patient, mild and humble. So were the people of France before the Revolution but they were changed into an army of wolves almost overnight by hunger and misery. Hume, therefore, sounded a note of warning particularly to the rich and well-to-do: “Do not fancy that government will be able to protect you or itself. No earthly power can stem an universal agrarian rising in a country like this. My countrymen will be as men in the desert vainly struggling for a brief space against the simoom. Thousands of the rioters may be killed, but to what avail, when there are millions and millions who have nothing to look forward to but death, nothing to hope for but vengeance; as for leaders - with the hour comes the man, be sure, there will be no lack of leaders. This is no hypothesis it is a certainty.” Hume, therefore, urged the Congress committees to collect evidence and flood Britain with pamphlets and thus awaken the British public about the reality of the situation. Though Hume’s object was the very opposite of inciting people to violence, the Anglo-Indian press raised a hue and cry, when one of the Congress committees most wantonly published this confidential circular. The British Committee of the Congress passed a resolution regretting the publication of such a letter and repudiated the “unjustifiable conclusions” of Hume. A letter was sent to the Times, condemning Hume, to which even Dadabhai was one of the signatories. In a number of articles14 Tilak upheld the contention of Hume and branded all attempts to dub Hume as seditìonist as acts of ingratitude, indifference and cowardice. He refers to the words of Maclean, who declared in Parliament that Hume should be shot. Any attempt to disrupt the Congress by attaching undue importance to the wanton attacks on the Congress, according to Tilak, would be worse than mischievous. These attacks were made by interested parties who were eager to hasten the death of the Congress. People in India, says Tilak, should rather rely on the encouragement they receive from people like Max Mūller and Gladstone.

Another article on the 6th December 1892, refers to an article published by D. E. Watcha, Secretary of the Congress, in which he very ably supported Hume’s contention by giving facts and figures culled from official reports. Tilak also quotes from an essay read by Ranade before the Deccan College gathering which lends support to Hume’s thesis and sounds a note of warning that in such difficult times unless something is done to better the condition of the peasantry it will certainly rise in revolt. “If any danger or calamity is to befall the English, it will neither be from the North nor the North-West. The government is strong enough to ward off such invasions; but if the whole population, robbed of its food, rises in revolt, the situation would be difficult and nothing would avail to avert it.” Tilak, therefore, seems to be equally apprehensive as Hume was about any possible recurrence of the agrarian riots and feared the consequences of the lawlessness that they would give rise to. He lends support to Hume’s plea for a countrywide agitation to make the British public realise the true situation in India. No support, however, was given to Hume except by Tilak and Agarkar and Hume returned to England in 1892. The reforms of 1892 diverted the attention of the Congress leaders thus averting the split between the extremists and the moderates which threatened to develop at this time.

Election of Dadabhai Naoroji The year 1892 was memorable in another instance also, Dadabhai Naoroji was elected to the British House of Commons from Central Finsbury on a Liberal ticket. While congratulating Dadabhai Naoroji on his election to the British Parliament, Tilak refers to the fact that the bureaucracy in India broke all the pledges given in the Queen’s Proclamation and made invidious distinctions between the ruling race and the ruled.15 The electors of Finsbury, according to him, had however shown that “even among the English all are not black in mind. Thus the Central Finsbury electors have demonstrated to the whole world and have thus made themselves famous for ever. They have thus not only held the people of India eternally under their debt but have also stabilized the foundation of the structure of the British empire by their generosity, foresight and wisdom.” Tilak also tries to remove the suspicion of certain people regarding the real advantage of sending only one member to the British parliament when even the 80 members from Ireland have not achieved much. “In our opinion such a doubt is totally wrong and thoughtless. It is foolish to regard that all the members of the British parliament will be Indians and then alone we shall get all the powers of government in India. The reforms that we are striving to get are of a totally different type. That we are the subjects of the Queen and that our country is a part of her vast kingdom and that our welfare is inextricably linked up with the British empire are facts which must be taken for granted.... If our demands are moderate then by agitating in England and not in India we shall surely find a way of getting them granted.” Later on in the same article he admits, “The majority of people in England are indifferent about India; but they do not share the prejudice with which the minds of British officials in India are full. Indifference can be removed by ceaseless effort but prejudices never. We shall not get justice easily from the prejudiced English people in India, but the whole structure of the British rule is so strange that those who have the keys of any constructive authority are generally free from all prejudice. We have already said that there would be no changes in what are considered to be the permanent characteristics of the British rule however much we may pray for them; but leaving this aside, there are many things conducive to our welfare which are yet to be achieved. If we, therefore, continue our efforts and keep up our agitation all the aspirations of a national-minded

person will be fulfilled as Dadabhai’s have been.” According to Tilak,16 Dadabhai was a new preacher of political religion (Rajadharma). Dadabhai’s election, the election of a black man, is clear proof of the sense of justice, possessed by the British and one who has given us proof of this may be called, “a new preacher of political religion who has taught that India is our motherland and Goddess, that we are dwellers in India, in our common bond of brotherhood, and that our religion is to strive selflessly with single- handed devotion to ameliorate the political and social conditions of our country.” Tilak inclines to hope that this new political religion will spread throughout India, and the moral is “service with sincerity and integrity and do not pause till you achieve your objective and sooner or later the English people will not be hesitating in fulfilling your desire”.

Transition in Views By the year 1890 or so Tilak’s opinions on religion were being crystallised. He had read the articles of Max Mūller, praising Hinduism. He was already impressed by Theosophy and had noted with very great admiration the success achieved by and the acclamation accorded to Swami Vivekananda in America. Right from the beginning of the Kesari the editors had noted the break-up of the old order and time and again they lamented the feeling of rootlessness shown by the English-educated generation in matters of religion. Tilak’s mind was not the mind of a faithful devotee as Ranade’s was. In the first year of the Kesari, the editors had announced that they were indifferent to religion. The Kesari was started not for religious or ethical propaganda but for pure secular and worldly matters. In the opinion of the Kesari, “There is a middle province between religious faith and atheism and the Kesari was unfortunately a dweller of this midland.”17 However, the Kesari had always condemned the Prarthana Samaj as being un-Hindu and merely imitative of Christianity. In his personal life Tilak followed all the orthodox practices and showed himself to be a conservative. In college, he was inclined towards agnosticism by a reading of Mill and Spencer, though he never gave up his orthodox practices. He had confessed later that by a mere reading of western philosophy the mind gets confused and so a comparative study of eastern and western philosophy was necessary. By the year 1893, this comparative study seems to have progressed to an appreciable extent and Tilak was more and more inclined to favour the philosophy and practices of Hinduism. He upheld the Varna system by pointing out the defects of the western civilization founded on individual liberty and wanted to explore the possibilities of utilising the caste system for industrial progress. In two brief editorial notes that he wrote in the Kesari of 23rd February 1892, on “Our Religion”, he refers to a universally observed truth that people begin by believing in the religion and social customs of the rulers. “When western learning was first introduced to us some of our people were so daz2led by their scientific knowledge and method that they regarded our ancient learning as useless and rushed to the Western sciences. Little did they care to study the real nature of our religion or what it has to say about the relationship of man and God. They did not care to know what books we have on these subjects much less to know what was written in them. They could not find out the relationship

between these thoughts and our conduct in everyday life. They, therefore, went after the prayers of an impersonal God and tried to found a good many sects and propagate them. This tendency did not, however, last long. Though these people did not approve of the discussions in our religious book regarding Knowledge, Action and Devotion (Jnana, Karma and Bhakti), the writings of Europeans who had studied these things were eye-openers. Sanskrit scholars like Max Mūller and institutions like the Theosophical Society once again brought into light the brilliant principles of Hinduism. ... It was realised that certain principles of philosophy were beyond the world of senses and after a comparative study of different religions the hope grew that the star of India would be on the ascendant. In short we knew what we had in our house only after the foreigner had directed us! And we also realised how futile all our efforts were during the last half a century or so. If the turn that is now being given to our religious ideas continues in the same direction our country is certainly going to be benefited.” These thoughts, he says, “have been occasioned by the lectures of Professor Max Mūller and these have attracted the attention of the Europeans towards Hindu religion and philosophy. Prof. Max Mūller is reported to have said that Hindu thought was neglected so far and it was only because the Hindus did not know how to kill others that they were now in their present dependent condition.... When people turned their attention to the physical sciences the world of spiritual sciences fell into the background and these are now being studied by Max Mūller who is showing to the world that the Hindu religion is the most tolerant and reasonable of the world religions.”

Vivekananda At this time the dynamic personality of Swami Vivekananda sent a thrill throughout India. Essentially a man of action, Vivekananda had turned to sanyas from agnosticism. He preached the message of Vedantic Hinduism in a modern way, intelligible to westerners and in the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 he preached Hinduism to a western audience and was given a tremendous ovation. He sought to make Vedantism into a spiritual science which far from being incompatible with western science, would go beyond it. Vivekananda’s success synchronised with Tilak’s comparative study of the Hindu and western thought. Tilak sought to prove the superiority and antiquity of the Vedas over the western religious thought and philosophy and the fruit of his researches was embodied in the two papers submitted to the Oriental Congress in London, to which reference has akeady been made.

Difference with the Liberals In political ideology, he still stuck to the liberal principles but differences between him and the liberals were becoming more and more marked on matters of strategy. He wished to concentrate all his energies on the political front and hence his opposition to social reform being mixed up with political agitation. In this he wholly subscribed to what Telang had written in 1887 on political reform: “In political matters we can all unite at once. Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, the people of eastern India, southern India, western India, northern India all can unite and not only can they do so in theory, they have actually done so in fact, as demonstrated at the National Congress held last Christmas.” Tilak had thrown himself heart and soul in the political activity as outlined by the Congress and did yeoman service in spreading its message through the vernacular and middle classes. By 1893, when the Congress had already survived a major crisis, Tilak must have realised that the liberal leadership of the Congress was against any widespread agitation and that it was scared if the bogey of sedition was raised. This was clearly demonstrated in the threatened split between the liberals and the extremists at the time of the Hume circular. Tilak had also parted company with Agarkar and was already crossing swords with him on the question of social reform. He constantly refers now to the need of a more resolute and realistic stand on the part of delegates of the Congress and stresses the representative character of the Congress. While seconding a resolution on land tenures in the Lahore Congress in 1893 Tilak remarked, “This is one of those resolutions which furnish a complete answer to the charge brought against the Congress that it exists for the benefit of the educated classes of the country. We are not seeking to benefit that class but the poor classes and I shall point out, coming as I do from Bombay, I don’t plead for the zemindars but the ryots of Bombay.” Politically, therefore, Tilak had come to realise the need of taking the message of the Congress to the hearths and homes of the masses as he had already taken it to the door-step of the middle class people in Maharashtra through the Kesari. He had noted with regret the predominantly Western character of the Congress leaders. Again and again, in the Kesari he harps on the rootlessness of the westernised generation. The decay of morals and the growth of self-complacency and selfishness he attributes to the loss of a wider principle or institution to

which the individual going beyond himself would owe allegiance. “During a great part of history men had found significance of their social order in its relation to the universal purpose of religion. It stood as one rung in a ladder which stretched from hell to paradise and the classes who composed it were the hands, the feet, the head of a corporate body which was itself a microcosm imperfectly reflecting a larger universe.” According to Tilak, the Hindu system of the four Varnas was a similar idea. It allotted a functional basis to the castes and it is for this reason that Tilak upheld it. He had realised that there was no point of contact between leaders and the masses of people in the country, who drifted in their own traditional ways, unconcerned about their past, present and future. He had also come to realise now that Hinduism can be a powerful force of regeneration and union. This was only a partial truth. The Varna system had long outlived its utility and was now only a reactionary principle retarding progress. Tilak’s mind was now working in the direction of giving a deep-rooted cultural basis to the political movement by breaking through the routine of the somewhat academic nature of the Congress movement and he strove to bridge the gulf between the present and the past and to restore continuity to the political life of the nation. He wanted to develop, in the words of Sri Aurobindo, “a language and spirit” and use methods which would Indianise the movement and bring it to the masses. The Ganapati and the Shivaji Festivals It is with these ideas that two movements shaped themselves in his mind which were educative in the wider sense of the term. By this time, he had again emerged as a public leader with unmistakable powers of organisation and execution. His work in the Crawford case and in the Bapat Commission, the zeal with which he helped to organise the various industrial and provincial conferences and his championship of Hindu social customs as against the reformers had already made him a leader of the people. His sense of confidence in his own ability was enhanced by his study of Hindu religious books and philosophy and his researches into the Vedas. He had crossed swords with elders like Ranade and Bhandarkar and had carved a unique position for himself in the public life of Maharashtra. Now was the time to build up a solid organisation behind him for the propagation of his political ideas which were gradually turning from

liberalism to nationalism. Communal Riots and Government’s Responsibility Before an idea takes an objective form in a movement, agitation or consideration, a concrete stimulus of some actual incident is often required. Tilak tried to use the religious fervour of the people for political purposes by reviving the Ganapati festival. The Ganapati festival, in honour of Ganesh, the elephant—headed God, the most popular of all Hindu deities, was celebrated on a large scale in Maharashtra at the time of the Peshwas, but with the advent of the English rule this festival had lost its national importance. The immediate occasion was a number of communal riots which occurred in different parts of the Bombay Presidency, during the period from 1890 to 1894. One riot also occurred in Poona. Tilak wrote a number of articles on the riots and analysed their causes and suggested methods for a more amicable and peaceful relationship between the two communities. He urged very strict measures to be taken against the rioters,18 and noted the instigation of the third party - the rulers. The best way to bring about good understanding and unity among the two communities was to make them realise that each is capable of resisting any aggression by the other.19 Tilak also pointed out that historically the two communities had lived amicably for centuries but it is no use going into history.20 Today both communities must realise that nothing is to be gained by these riots. He, however, deplored the tendency shown by such people as Mr. Beck of Aligarh who tried to brand all Hindus as seditionists, though he appreciated the fact that Beck was trying to educate the Muslims. Tilak makes it quite clear, that even though the Ganapati celebrations were revived to bring together the Hindus and though the immediate cause was the Hindu-Muslim riots, the object was not to foster a spirit of enmity against the Muslims. An important feature of the festival, he notes, is the enthusiasm shown by all castes and communities among the Hindus. Tilak himself being essentially a man of the masses has given a vivid description of the festivals. He shows the jubilation of the promoter of a novel idea who sees the popular response that it has evoked. He was fighting reformers so far on the social front in lectures or by

writing articles against them. The great enthusiasm shown by all classes of people in the Ganapati festival, Tilak thought, was a fitting answer to the atheistic and anti-religious feelings let loose by the reformers. He says: “It is particularly gratifying to note that in spite of the propaganda of Christian missionaries and atheistic reformers the heart of the society, viz. the Marathas, were yet true to their religion. If this spirit continued he is quite confident that under the British rule India would reach the pinnacle of glory and a new bond of affection would be created between England and India.”21 Tilak felt particularly ekted because he could see now that these classes of society which had remained aloof from the politics of the Congress could now be brought together and made politically conscious. After paying an enthusiastic tribute to the orderly manner in which the festival was celebrated in Poona and at other places Tilak speaks about the wider importance of the celebration. According to him such festivals are an important means of bringing about national unity. If people come together with the object of public worship their minds are moulded in a particular way and the sense of brotherhood for all fellow-worshippers is developed. Once the mind and the heart reach a particular state of culture it is possible to use them for other purposes as well. How can a person who does not feel proud of his religion, be proud of his country? That is how religion and nationality are interconnected.22

National Festivals In another article entitled “The Need of National Festivals”, Tilak refers to the part pkyed by them in Greece and Rome. In India religion will always be regarded as of primary importance and as such our celebrations will naturally have a religious colour. Formerly such occasions were used for keeping the religious sense alive and to give ethical, social and political education to the people. In the time of the Vedas, the great sacrifices were in the nature of national celebrations. The rishis gathered at the time of the sacrifices carried on discussions on ethical and religious problems. Such festivals were revived by the saint Ramdas in the days of Shivaji. It is the duty of the educated people, therefore, to take an active part in these celebrations instead of lecturing on Bhakti or uttering the name of God behind closed doors. When writing about the function of the Brahmin class in modern society, Tilak had spoken of the necessity on the part of the Brahmins to take up the work of social education by turning into missionaries. He calls them ‘Graduate Ramdasis’, recalling how in the time of the saint Ramdas a number of his disciples had wandered over the length and breadth of Maharashtra, preaching the message of Hindu national revival under the Muslim rule. Need of a Mass Basis to the Congress On the Congress front also Tilak seemed to be growing more and more critical of the exclusive attitude of the Congress leaders and showed an impatience to give it a real mass basis. In a review that he has taken of the Congress, ten years after its establishment, in the Kesañ of the 8th January 1895, he says that upto its fifth year it was only an assembly of delegates, criticising the government. With Bradlaugh’s patronage it became a political assembly and carried its agitation abroad with the establishment of a Congress Committee in London. He refers to the twofold crisis which the Congress survived, viz. the stalemate that overtook it threatening its dissolution with the Hume circular and secondly the communal riots. Plans must, therefore, be made, according to him, to establish the internal organisation of the Congress on a sound footing, such as the establishment of a permanent committee, starting district and provincial committees, sub- committees, etc. The work of the Congress which had been verbal so far and of a

very general propaganda nature should now be made more particular and pointed. Instead of making it annual fare it must be given a day-to-day function. In another article written after the llth Congress at Poona, he says that the Congress had been the ideal basis of national unity and solidarity. It had brought the intellectual elite together; but looking at the resolutions of the past decade there appears, to him, to be a monotonous uniformity about them. He also refers to the statue of a famished peasant which was raised by a critic of the Congress at its pandal-doors in the Poona session and says that it was the duty of the Congress to make the peasants understand the significance of Congress resolutions. The time had now arrived to take the message of the Congress to the hearths and homes of the masses.

Channelising the Religious Fervour In another article, ‘The Ganesh Festival”, Tilak is more explicit about his primary aim of channelising the religious fervour of the people for political ends. The aims of such national festivals are the twofold aims of entertainment and public education. A nation fettered by the foreigner rarely sees such days of glory and happiness. Dassera was the only day of national rejoicing in Maharashtra but today under a foreign yoke celebrate in its true spirit. It is not again a new thing; religious festivals are age-old and our religious sentiments naturally surge up at their mere mention. They are ways devised by our ancestors to keep up the religious faith of the people, to vitalise our ethical and political life and to keep the flame of our nationalism burning bright. The educated people, therefore, are betraying a sacred trust by not joining these festivals. Why should these occasions not be utilised for industrial exhibitions of indigenous products? Why should the educated people not use these fairs for the propagation of various ideas? After all this will not be as expensive as the National Congress. Besides, the educated person can easily do here the work that can never be done by the Congress. Why should not these faks be converted into huge meetings? Will not your political agitation enter the huts in the villages by these methods? Can you not spread the ethical and religious knowledge that you have acquired after a good deal of labour by these methods which are so easy and which cost so little? Why should not the educated people bring home to them the real state of the country? Why not those who call themselves wise enlighten people about the tyranny of the Government? Or again why should they not strengthen our feeling of nationalism on the basis of religious faith?.... There is no greater folly than considering the educated classes as different from society. The educated are, after all, a part and parcel of society. They will sink and swim with society.23 Tilak’s expectations were more than fulfilled, for the Ganapati celebrations were held in all parts of Maharashtra and people from all communities took part in them. They provided one of the cheapest means of varied entertainment and besides they were used as a ground for political propaganda as Tilak had envisaged. Its choirs of-singers or melas, mostly recruited from the gymnasts, sang songs which had a political or ethical import. These songs did yeoman service in popularising Swadeshi and carried on effective propaganda for the anti-drink campaign; as it normally happens it also developed certain obnoxious

traits later, but at the time of its inception it more than fulfilled the expectations of its promoter. In 1894, Tilak was elected to the Bombay University Senate. In the same year he wrote a petition to the House of Commons on the question of taking the I.C.S. examinations simultaneously in England and India. In 1895 he was elected to the Poona Municipality and in the same year became a member of the Bombay Legislative Council. In this election, the six districts of Maharashtra, Khandesh, Nasik, Sholapur, Satara, Ahmednagar and Poona sent their elected representatives to the provincial legislature for the first time. The election was by indirect representation: The local board members of the six Districts, being empowered to constitute the electoral college. Tilak was elected by a comfortable majority. His opponents were, Garud from Dhulia and Rao Bahadur Jathar, supported by Ranade. Out of a total polling of 63 votes (the constituency consisted of 65 votes) Tilak polled 35 votes, Garud 26 and Rao Bahadur Jathar 2. Attempts were made by Anglo-Indian papers to recommend to the Governor that he should not give his approval to Tilak’s election; but on the 12th June 1895, Tilak’s election was formally approved of by the Governor. These successes of Tilak were a clear testimony to his popularity among the different classes of people. His plea for a common front on political issues had borne fruit. He could command support from the upper classes by his scholarship; he had earned a place in the hearts of the middle classes by his championship of lost causes and he had succeeded in bringing together the masses through the Ganapati festival and had succeeded in modernising them to a certain extent. He was an ardent supporter of indigenous industry and had enthusiastically applauded the opening of the first cloth mill in Poona. He had also become popular among the newly rising merchant and capitalist classes.

The Shivaji Festival Tilak now wanted to give his political activities a really national turn by arousing the sentiments of the people around a national hero. No better figure in Maratha history was so respected by all sections of the public as Shivaji. The forts standing in different parts of the Sahyadri ranges in Maharashtra were a living testimony of Shivaji’s prowess and in Poona, as also in other parts of the Deccan, a number of places were still remembered for their association with the exploits of Shivaji. However, as in the case of the Sacred Books of the East and of the Renascent Hinduism in general the inspiration for the Shivaji festival also came from Europeans. Like the Ganapati festival, this festival too was used by Tílak for a wider national education and in its initial stages he could enlist the support of the rulers of Maratha States and the Sardars. Karkeria’s Paper The immediate occasion for the Shivaji festival seems to have been a reference made to the dilapidated condition of the tomb of Shivaji on the Pratapgad fort by Douglas, a civilian, in his book Bombay and Western India. A paltry sum of Rupees five per annum was sanctioned by the government for the repair of the tomb but this was inadequate. Already in 1885 the Kesari had referred to a grant made by Lord Reay, the then Governor of Bombay, for the repair of the tomb and had also referred to the endeavours made by the public to raise funds for the repair. On 20th April 1894, R. P. Karkeria, a noted Parsee scholar, read a paper on the Pratapgad fort before the Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay. In his paper Karkeria tried to disprove the commonly accepted theory that Afzalkhan, the Mogul emissary, was treacherously murdered by Shivaji. On the contrary, according to Karkeria, it was more plausible to think that it was Afzalkhan who had come with treacherous intentions only to find Shivaji quicker than he. This lecture gave rise to a controversy in the columns of the Times of India between a correspondent who signed himself as M.J. and Karkeria. Tilak, writing in the Kesari on the 23rd April 1895, called the attention of the people of Maharashtra to their criminal neglect of the historical monument. He urged the rulers of the State and the common people to raise a fund for the repair of the tomb and also suggested that there should be an annual celebration at

Raigad in honour of Shivaji. Again on 30th April, he expressed satisfaction that his appeal had “caused a movement at some places at least.” A student sent a donation of two anr as. Tilak’s comment was characteristic: “Though this amount is very small there is no doubt that the peonle of Maharashtra will be pleased to see the pride in ‘Swarajya’24 that has awakened in the mind of the said student.” Once an idea had taken shape in his mind Tilak was not a man to let things drift. With characteristic vigour he chalked out a plan of action. What would have remained an intellectual idea closed in the annals of an academic journal or a subject of discussion among scholars was made the foundation of a vigorous programme of national regeneration. Tilak enlisted the support of the rulers of Maratha States and the Sardars. A meeting was held on May 30, 1895, in the Town Hall in Poona. Invitations were issued under the joint signatures of Tilak and Senapati Dabhade, descendant of Shivaji’s general. The Kesari of 4th June 1895 gives a very enthusiastic account of this meeting. Describing “the unprecedented character of the meeting”, the Kesari wrote that the presence of the Sardars of Maharashtra was its most conspicuous feature. A meeting of such a character had never been held in Poona. The meeting passed several resolutions concerning the celebrations at Raigad and decided to start a fund for the repair of the Shivaji Monument. Telegrams lending their support to the idea were received from Hon. Justice Ranade and many others. Tilak was appointed one of the secretaries of a committee of fifty gentlemen including the leading Sardars, Jahgirdars, Inamdars, Rao Bahadurs and others. Accordingly, 15th April 1896 was fixed as the date of the first celebration at Raigad and the Kesari gives another glowing account of it on the 21st April 1896. Tilak had to approach the Governor to overcome some of the technical objections raised by the Collector of the area on the grounds that Raigad was a forest area and as such a fair could not be held there. The first celebration was, however, a great success and the villagers from all over Maharashtra had gathered at the place, some of them walking several miles.

Object of the Celebration From the time he started the idea of repairing the Shivaji Monument, Tilak was very explicit about the objective of the celebration. To him Shivaji was a national hero and at a time when national qualities of solidarity, patriotism, hatred of tyranny were absent it was right that an appeal should be made to the glorious times of the great national hero. “On one day at least in a year,” he said in a speech at Amraoti, “every person should think about his town, his country, his community and the nation. He should ask himself the question whether the condition of the country is in a flourishing state or has decayed. If it is unfortunately the latter he must try to find out means for its betterment. It is with this end in view that the Shivaji festival is being celebrated.” He cites the example of the jubilees celebrated by the British and says that the jubilee celebration conjures up a picture of the growth of the empire in the minds of the British. In these days, in schools, there is the Kindergarten system by which a clear idea is given of an object to the child by showing it to him. In the same way, celebrations of heroes are object lessons by which ideas of national uplift are instilled in the minds of the people.... We have a number of religious festivals but we must have political celebrations. They will enable us to understand politics and we will also know the state which we are in.

Need for Political Festivals In an English speech in Calcutta, where the Bengalis had picked up this idea of Shivaji celebrations, he was still more definite about the aims and objects of the Shivaji celebrations: “Human nature is so constituted that we cannot do without festivals. Unfortunately we had no political festival, except the National Congress, to keep up the memory of our heroes. This is the reason why the Shivaji festival was started in Maharashtra with the hope that it will spread all over India, without distinction of caste and creed.” The central idea of the festival, Tilak thought, was that you must take the spirit from the life of Shivaji. “It is to give a corporal shape to our political ideas that we Hindus should have festivals like these. History tells us that in the worst days of Mahomedan rulers Mahomedans worshipped Shivaji with the same enthusiasm as the Hindus.” In another article in the Mahratta, dated the 24th June 1906, he answers some of these objections: “Hero-worship is a feeling deeply implanted in human nature and our political aspirations need all the strength which the worship of a Swadeshi hero is likely to inspire into our minds. For this purpose Shivaji is the only hero to be found in Indian history. He was born at a time when the whole nation required relief from misrule; and by his self-sacrifice and courage, he proved to the world that India was not a country forsaken by providence. It is true that the Mahomedans and the Hindus were then divided; and Shivaji, who respected the religious scruples of the Mahomedans, had to fight against the Mogul rule that had become unbearable to the people.” It is important to remember here that the first case for sedition against Tilak also arose out of a speech that he delivered in one of the Shivaji festivals, the report of which was published in the Kesari of the 15th June 1897. This speech was the presidential address delivered by Tilak after Prof. Jinsiwalle’s speech on the murder of Afzalkhan by Shivaji but some of the words were alleged to have a direct bearing on the contemporary political situation and Tilak was charged with giving incitement to violence. Two great convulsions of the period had aroused popular indignation against the government and Tilak, who had taken up the people’s cause with his usual fiery ardour, was looked upon as a trouble- maker by the government. These two convulsions were a result of the twin calamities of the great famine of 1896 and the plague.

Final Break with the Moderates Before we sketch these momentous events in Tilak’s public career a mention has to be made of his final break with the Moderate party and his capture of the Sarvajanik Sabha. The early history of the Sarvajanik Sabha clearly shows how under the able guidance of Ranade and the zeal of Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi it had become the premier political organisation in the country. There was no question of public importance on which the Sabha did not give its audioritative opinion. It was consulted by other provincial associations; invitations were given to the Sabha to all important official and non-official functions and the Sabha sent its representatives and lost no opportunity to voice the grievances and demand the legitimate rights of the people. Tilak was a member of the Sabha for several years but with the widening rift between him and the Moderate group he now thought of capturing the Sarvajanik Sabha, which was dominated by persons belonging to Ranade’s party, with G. K. Gokhale as its Joint Secretary along with Shivram Hari Sathe. Tilak found his opportunity on the 14th July 1895 at the annual meeting of the general body of the Sarvajanik Sabha. Tilak enlisted a large number of members and secured a majority for himself. Almost all the important offices were filled in by members of the Tilak group excepting the post of the secretary, which was still filled by Gokhale. By this move Tilak ensured Gokhale’s isolation by surrounding him with men belonging to his own party. Gokhale, however, resigned and the controversy regarding the elections went on bitterly in the press. The editorship of the quarterly journal of the Sabha was taken up, at the instance of Tilak, by Mahadeo Ramchandra Bodas, who, besides being an M.A., LL.B., was a very good writer, both in English and in Marathi. In the very fkst number Tilak wrote a well-supported and informative article on, “Decentralisation of Finance”, and showed that he was capable of carrying on the traditions set by Ranade and Gokhale.

The Deccan Sabha The moderates, headed by Ranade, now knew that they could not carry on with the extremist group headed by Tilak and therefore established a new association called the Deccan Association. On 31st October 1896, the moderates gathered at Mundhawa, near Poona, and deliberated on the starting of the new association. In the announcement of the new association Ranade first used the words, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Liberal’, which were going to play a dominant part in the political and social life of the country for the next quarter of a century: “The spirit of liberalism implies a freedom from race and creed prejudices and a steady devotion to all that seek to do justice between man and man, giving to the rulers the loyalty that is due to the law they are bound to administer, but securing at the same time to the ruled the equality which is their right under the law. Moderation implies the condition of never vainly aspiring after the impossible or after too remote ideals but striving each day to take the next step in order of natural growth by doing the work that lies nearest to the hand in a spirit of compromise and fairness. After all, political activities are chiefly of value not for the particular results achieved, but for the process of political education which is secured by exciting interest in public matters and promoting the self- respect and self-reliance of citizenship. This is no doubt a slow process but all growth of new habits must be slow to be real.” This clear enunciation of the liberal creed shows in the first place how Indian liberalism was derived from its Western counterpart and, like it, wanted to keep the freedom and equality of the individual as its goal. By the term moderation the liberals wanted to distinguish themselves from the extreme views advocated by Tilak; and thus like him there could also he differences in stretching the meaning of the term loyalty to the rulers’ and to what extent ‘the ruled’ were prepared to resist Government encroachment on their rights. Tilak’s Views on the Moderate Schism When the announcement of the new party was made Tilak was indignant and very severely criticised Ranade and his party. His contention was that there was no need to start a new party even though the differences between the two groups

were admitted. Leaving aside the acrimoniousness of Tilak’s remark it has to be remembered that Tilak was here trying to enunciate an important principle in politics, to which he was to subscribe all his life. According to him, in spite of differences it was a retrograde step to start a new party or a rival organisation. A rival group based on fundamental and honest differences of opinion could have a place in any democratic organisation or institution and the best way to carry the organisation with you is to capture it by the democratic method of making a majority and thus carrying public opinion with you. It was the same view that he was to put forth in the Congress party as well and though ousted by the liberal majority he did not subscribe to the fissiparous tendency of founding a new party. He maintained that it was always necessary to remain united to fight for the rights of the people and to oppose the British government. Tilak’s policy in this instance as also throughout the part he played in the Congress struggle had a constitutional basis though his goal was revolutionary. He was convinced that the goal of political emancipation could be achieved only through the combined agitation carried on under the aegis of a representative and democratic organisation like the Congress. The capture of the Sarvajanik Sabha was, therefore, a step consistent with his views and it is against this background that his criticism of Ranade for starting a rival body had to be judged. The controversy had also a sequel that showed the large-mindedness of Ranade and his awareness that Tilak stood for a new force in political life. Vagbhat Narayan Deshpande, a liberal of Satara, writes: “Certain people tried to persuade Ranade that he should file a libel suit against Tilak for his articles in the Kesari. They made an influential friend of Ranade write a letter to him insisting on a prosecution and thus teach Tilak a lesson. Ranade wrote: ‘Referring to the case against Tilak my first thought is that I must be sure that our party does not really suffer from the faults that he has pointed out. Though I decided my line of action after giving it complete thought and though in our opinion it may be perfectly right, I cannot guarantee its infallibility. Tilak’s patriotism and sacrifice are unquestioned. In intellect and learning he is no whit less than I am. I shall not, therefore, be so bold as to deny the faults that he sees in me and my party. The proper use of Tilak’s articles should be to make us introspective and try to remove whatever faults we have. If we do this we have to thank Tilak rather than blame him. Then, secondly, Tilak is also one of us and he is serving the country in his own way. Will it be proper to prosecute him even if it is granted that he has gone wrong? Besides, if two persons, considered to be leaders of the society, who are working for the same cause begin to quarrel on such matters and rush to the

court, our words will have no value in government circles nor shall we be respected by the people. If we cannot preserve unity amongst ourselves, how can we bring about unity in the nation?” The differences between Tilak and Ranade were not, therefore, personal differences but were matters of principle. Tilak symbolised a different trend in politics of which Ranade was fully aware. Ranade must also have realised the basic weakness of the moderate position and knew that co-existence with the extremists would have eliminated them from public life. The Sarvajanik Sabha and the Deccan Sabha henceforth were rival organisations. Tilak, however, was prepared to set aside differences in supporting the worthy cause. In 1896 an Indian barrister by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi visited Poona and called on Tilak. Gandhi had made a name for himself in South Africa for his championship of the cause of Indians in that part of the world. The novel method of passive resistance that he had used in the struggle against the Europeans had attracted the attention of the whole world. In Indian nationalist circles Gandhi’s name was being mentioned with respect as an ardent fighter for the rights of Indians. This is the account given by Gandhi himself:25 “In 1896 I met almost all the known leaders of India in connection with my South African Mission. I went to Poona. I was an utter stranger there. However I knew that the Sarvajanik Sabha was controlled by the Lokmanya, while Mr. Gokhale was connected with the Deccan Sabha. My host first took me to Tilak Maharaj. I met him surrounded by his companions. When I spoke to him about my intention to hold a meeting in Poona, he asked me if I had seen Gopal Rao. I did not understand whom he meant. He therefore asked me again if I had seen Mr. Gokhale and if I knew him. ‘‘ ‘I have not yet seen him. I know him by name and mean to see him,’ I replied. “ ‘You do not seem to be familiar with Indian politics,’ said the Lokmanya. “ ‘I stayed in India only for a short time after my return from England, and had not then applied myself to political questions, as I thought it beyond my capacity’ I said. “ ‘Lokmanya then said: ‘In that case I must give you some information. There are two parties in Poona, one represented by the Sarvajanik Sabha and the other by the Deccan Sabha.”

“I replied, ‘I know something about this matter.’ “Lokmanya: ‘It is easy to hold a meeting here. But it seems to me that you wish to lay your case before all the parties here and seek to enlist the support of all. I like your idea. But if a member of the Sarvajanik Sabha is selected to preside over your meeting, no member of the Deccan Sabha will attend it. Similarly, if a member of the Deccan Sabha were to preside, members of the Sarvajanik Sabha would absent themselves. You should therefore find out a non-partisan as chairman. I can only offer suggestions in the matter, and shall not be able to render any other assistance. Do you know Prof. Bhandarkar? Even if you do not know him, you should see him. He is considered a neutral. He does not take part in politics, but perhaps you can induce him to preside over your meeting. Speak to Mr. Gokhale about this, and seek his advice too. In all probability he will give you the same advice. If a man of the position of Prof. Bhandarkar consents to preside, I am certain that both the parties will see to it that a good meeting is held. At any rate you can count upon our fullest help in the matter.” After this Gandhi observes, “I have no firm impression of Lokmanya Tilak except to recall that he shook off my nervousness by his affectionate familiarity.” To resume the account of Tilak’s activities, one of the reasons why Tilak turned his back on the educated elite in the Congress and approached the masses directly was a controversy, insignificant in itself but fought with all the zest, to which Poona had now become accustomed. Tilak was one of the secretaries of the Congress and was busy making preparations for the Congress session in Poona of 1895. An objection was raised by some of his friends from the nationalist party that the pandal of the Congress should not be used by the Social Conference as was the practice. As secretary of the Congress, Tilak knew full well the great responsibility that Poona had undertaken in holding the Congress in Poona but his more orthodox friends like the Sardars Natu were opposed to holding the Social Conference in the pandal of the Congress. Tilak was candid enough to condemn those who were carrying on a propaganda to the effect that no one should subscribe to the Congress unless a decision was reached on the point of allowing its pandal to the Social Conference. Tilak tried to find a middle way and said that it would be equally disastrous for persons like Balasaheb Natu as also some of the younger people among the reformists to be entrusted with the work of the Congress. He appealed to them to patch up their differences. In the meanwhile a section of Ranade’s followers who were members of the

working committee were alarmed and sent telegrams to Mehta and Watcha complaining that the work of the Congress was being neglected. Some others suggested that the Congress should be held in the small and slightly out of the way district town of Satara. The implication was that since Satara would be unacceptable the Congress would be held in Bombay. Matters reached a crisis, Mehta and Watcha invited both the contending parties to Bombay and suggested a compromise by appointing two persons from each of the parties. This however did not end the matter. Those who were opposed to the Social Conference found a leader in one of the noted eccentrics of the day, Shridhar Vithal Date, who held a meeting in the Reay Market and threatened that if the reformists still persisted in holding the Social Conference in the Congress pandal there might be a fire. Date had earlier strengthened Tilak’s hands by promising to stand security for a sum of Rs. 10,000, thus enabling him to take up the challenge thrown by the opposing party that Tilak and his party would not be successful in collecting the huge amount requked to make the Congress a success. Mehta and Watcha visited Poona personally and took the decision that Tilak should continue the policy of the old working committee and hold the conference in the Congress pandal. This left Tilak no option except to resign his secretaryship, which he did. He however succeeded in extracting an assurance from Ranade that the Social Conference would not be held in the same pandal. Ultimately therefore Tilak and party carried the day but not before bitter and acrimonious bickerings, one of which was between Tilak and Gokhale when the latter accused Tilak that he was trying to carry out his measures “on the strength of brute force.” Tilak violently objected to the use of the term “brute force” and said that the reformists had called him and his party ‘brutes.’ Tilak’s literal interpretation was intentional and sought to belittle the standoffish and superior attitude of the moderate leaders. This controversy widened the gulf between the reformists and the orthodox sections. However unjustified Tilak’s accusation of Gokhale in this particular instance was, one thing was clear that Tilak looked to the masses and the majority, while the moderates were apprehensive of the forces that the awakening of the masses might unleash. By the year 1895, therefore, Tilak seems to have reaped the fruits of his social ideas in the political sphere. His advocacy of the status quo in social matters had aligned him with the orthodox section in society who formed a majority of the middle class. The revival of historical festivals like the Shivaji celebration or religious celebrations like the Ganapati festivals brought him into direct contact with the masses. The revivalist method that he used was political in its intent.

The liberal reformers could not avail themselves of this; to awaken national sentiment they would invoke Mazzini as Surendranath Banerjee had done in Bengal but Mazzini would not appeal to the people as a hero as Shivaji would. Through revivalist method Tilak could touch the hearts of people and establish a contact with traditionalist mass psychology. Tilak, with growing experience of politics also realised that there were a number of people in Maharashtra who were not in sympathy with social reform but who were secretly preparing for political revolt. They were the relics of the old aristocracy or rulers of certain States. Though politically awakened they were socially orthodox. Groups of ‘wandering medicants’, referred to by the Times of India in 1884, and the seditious work of the religious orders, to which a reference had been made by Hume in his letter to Lord Dufferin, were a reality in Maharashtra. Some of the persons who had taken part in the mutiny of 1857 were wandering about in the guise of sanyasis, trying to organise people once again for a similar type of revolt. Aurobindo Ghose had come in contact with some of these people in Baroda. In Poona, Annasaheb Patwardhan, a medical man by profession, known as Maharshi Patwardhan for his yogic studies and saintly way of life, had around him a group of such revolutionaries. They were mostly orthodox Brahmins and Tilak had come into close contact with them. His break with Agarkar increased his affinity with these groups. Though the exact nature of his contact with them remains unknown, still, like them he looked to religion as a unifying force and used the revivalist method to awaken the sense of hope and self-confidence among the people so that they might be conscious of their own strength. His motive in appealing to the religious faith of the people was to use this faith as a means to national awakening and to give an ethical and moral basis to the political struggle. To him, men like Dadabhai were the teachers of a new political religion which kept before the people of India the common goal of patriotism, irrespective of class or creed. He felt, however, that the way of the realisation of this new principle lay through revivalism. His intention, therefore, was to revive the creative spirit of the old times and not the form of the old institutions or religion. Through such a revival of the creative spirit he knew that people would learn to be proud of their country. This would give them confidence in their own strength and once this was done their vast energies could be released for a national regeneration. It is the belief of all revivalists that there are certain eternal principles in the traditional history of a people. To them everything is not relative; there are also certain absolutes such as justice, truth, goodness, freedom or the revolutionary spirit. It is these eternal

verities that Tilak wished to revive. The rational part of Tilak’s faith in the revivalist method was the desire to pick up the thread of progress by harping on these eternal verities. His concentration on the political issues through the method of revivalism was thus a correct step both from the point of view of expediency and from his understanding of mass psychology. In the primary state of political agitation this method was soon to prove invaluable but there are potential dangers of the revivalist method. It has to be used purely as a means in the initial stages of mass awakening and has to be discarded as soon as that stage is passed; but very often what is used as a means usurps the position of the end. The spirit of revivalism is lost and only the dead form of routine and the dreary desert sands of habit remain. In the hands of followers, again, the form becomes more important than the spirit. What was once a creed of action becomes a drag, retarding progress. Action stagnates into lifeless ritual. For the advanced classes freedom meant a fight with the foreigner but to the backward classes it was fight with the advanced classes as well. The fight for political liberty satisfied all the urges by the intellectual elite that led the Congress and Tilak could afford to relegate social reform to second place so long as the masses were not conscious of their rights. For the masses, on the other hand, real freedom from the tyranny of the advanced classes could come only through social reform. When they were awakened, therefore, the limitations of the revivalist movement became clear indeed. Revivalism is thus a good servant but a bad master. In 1895 it was used by Tilak as a potent and powerful force to awaken the different sections of the people. The masses were educated politically and were acquainted with new forms in which their traditional pride could find expression. What was to degenerate in the hands of the isolated terrorists and revolutionaries into puerile attempts at stray murders was in Tilak’s hands a means of awakening mass energy. Soon he was to demonstrate his marvellous powers of organisation and teach the people how to stand up against injustice in any form, even if such a stand meant facing trial and incarceration. 1 ‘See Adventures of Ideas by A. N. Whitehead, P. 85, Pelican Books. 2 History of the Indian National Congress (1885-1935) by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, pp. 98-99. 3 4 Ibid., p. 152. 5 Ibid., p. 166.

6 Ibid., p. 342 7 See J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England (1890): A book that Tilak read at this time and was obviously influenced by it: “Next I have led you to consider what may be the effect of our Indian empire upon India itself. We perhaps have not gained much from it; but has India gained? On this question I have desired to speak with great diffidence.... This means no doubt that vast benefits will be done to India, but it does not necessarily mean that preat mischief may not also be done” (pp. 304-5). And again, “Our western civilisation is perhaps not absolutely the glorious thing we like to imagine it Those who watch India must impartially see that a vast transformation goes on there, but sometimes it produces a painful impression upon them; they see much destroyed, bad things and good things together; sometimes they doubt whether they see many good things called into existence.” 8 9 laid., p. 197. 10 Page 43 from the Procedings of a Public Meeting of the Citizens of Poona on 1-9-1889, P. 8. 11 “Kesari 23rd April 1889. 12 Kesari, 21st May 1889. 13 R. G. Pradhan : India’s Stntggk for Swaraj. P. 26 14 Kesarí, 5th April 1892. 15 Kesari, 12th July 1892 16 “Kesari, 19th December 1893. 17 Kesari, 27th September 1881. 18 19 Ibid, p. 208 20 Ibid, p. 233. 21 lbid, p. 239. 22 Ibid, pp. 487-88. 23 Kesari, 8th September 1896. 24 The High Court Translator’s note says here, “Shivaji’s rule was known by this name.” 25 Gandhi : The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

STORM AND STRESS 6 The resurgence of nationalism in India was due to external causes also, one of them being the war between China and Japan in 1894 and the crushing defeat inflicted by Japan on China. “Though it was a fratricidal war between one Asiatic nation and another, its significance was fully realised by Indian leaders. They saw, in the victory won by Japan, the dawn of a new era for the whole of Asia. Tilak, whose views on matters like this might be regarded as thoroughly representative, wrote in the Kesari that the condition of Japan was a clear indication of the revolution that was taking place all over Asia and it was bound to inspire hope in the minds of all Asiatic people.”1 In an article in the Kesari on the 14th May 1895, Tilak analyses the causes of China’s downfall and Japan’s rise: “The Chinese people are intelligent, talented and skilful but they have not prospered because they seem to have made a resolve, as it were, to stick to their traditional, social and political systems. ... A few years ago Japan also was like China, but then light dawned upon the people of Japan in time; they made the desired changes in their conduct of life, in their social and political systems. The present victory, in spite of the comparative smallness of the country in area, population and resources is an important event in the history of the world. This war is bound to give a new form to the history of the world. Russia, England and France have begun to realise that they have now an enemy of equal might to contend with.” As for the lesson that India could learn from the rise of Japan, Tilak says, “The lesson taught by Japan to India is not a small one. India is like China: intelligent, considerate, but too fond of sleep. If we stick to our religious or social prejudices and do not allow knowledge, conducive to welfare, enter our minds, we shall never rise. If we leave aside our intransigence, tread warily to grasp knowledge wherever possible, we shall learn to act in concert, learn discipline and self- control, adventure and industry. Japan has shown us that our salvation lies in imitating the European nations judiciously. If we fail to grasp this lesson, we shall get as great a blow as China.” ‘This victory of Japan,” says Tilak, “is sure to compel England to make friendly

overtures to Japan to forestall Russian inroads in India via Afghanistan.” And this again, according to Tilak, was bound to have beneficial effects on India. ‘People with liberal views feel that all people should be free, powerful, rich in knowledge and action. Such people see the divine hand in Japan’s victory. They also do not feel that China would continue to sleep in the same way as before. On the contrary they are sure that Asiatic countries will rise like Japan and forbid the European powers from subduing them and further, countries like India will once more be premier seats of learning. We do not go so far as this but we sincerely wish that this might happen.” End of an Old Friendship and Beginning of a New One The year 1896 was again a stormy period in the personal and social life of Tilak. It was the end of another old friendship and also the beginning of a new one. On the 13th January 1896, Namjoshi died and Tilak wrote an editorial in the Kesari and paid tribute to the administrative and organisational abilities of Namjoshi. Tilak had called Agarkar’s death as the fifth in the Deccan Education Society, the four previous ones being those of Chiplunkar (1882), V. S. Apte (1892), V. B. Kelkar (1895) and Dharap (1894). All these had died prematurely, the oldest being Dharap who was 43. The premature deaths of the English—educated people had become a subject of serious discussion and Dr. Bhandarkar, the first ‘native’ Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bombay, had referred to this in his Convocation Address in 1894. This had prompted Ranade to write to various persons and associations and collect from them statistical information about the incidence of premature deaths among graduate Maharashtrians. Tilak also took part in this discussion and had his own analysis of the situation but the effect of the premature deaths of so many of his assocktes stirred him deeply. Namjoshi was only 43 and though only a matriculate had, by sheer ability, won a unique place for himself in the public life of Maharashtra. Tilak refers to his pioneering efforts in establishing the New English School, Fergusson College, Metal Factory, Reay Museum, Industrial Exhibition, Provincial Conference and also the prominent part he took in the Municipal affairs. In fact Namjoshi was largely instrumental in establishing a contact between the merchants and trading class and the extremist party led by Tilak. Tilak’s multifarious public activities now made him anxious to find a person on whom he could rely. In March 1896 his choice fell on N. C. Kelkar, a versatile