Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

young pleader, practising at Satara. He contacted Kelkar through Govindrao Ranade, a senior pleader of Satara and a friend of Tilak. In a letter written by Tilak to Ranade clarifying the terms and conditions of Kelkar’s service, he refers not only to his own multifarious public activities but also to the fear that the shadows of death were approaching although he was only 40. After promising that he would respect Kelkar’s freedom of holding his own opinions Tilak writes, “Perhaps when he (Kelkar) comes here he may have to live in Poona permanently. From my point of view, I think, my life is almost over and therefore I want in public life a friend and co-worker who will never leave me.” This expectation of Tilak about Kelkar was more than fulfilled and in Kelkar he found a trusted and cultured lieutenant on whom he could rely throughout his life. Kelkar gives an intimate picture of Tilak and his household during this period. Tilak, at this time, lived in a house owned by Sardar Vinchurkar. The office of the Kesari and his law class, besides his own residence, were in this building. Within a fortnight of Kelkar’s coming to Poona, Tilak’s third son Shridhar, alias Bapu, was born. The eldest son Vishwanath had his initiation ceremony performed and attended the High School. He once procured a badminton net and other accessories; but Tilak objected to this. In his opinion badminton was a game fit for women; boys should practise gymnastics as he used to do when he was young. A few days later he had the badminton poles removed. For himself, he took no exercise except occasionally visiting people on some work. For the rest of the time his only entertainment was to sit in the gallery of his house on an easy-chair, chatting with friends while he cracked and ate betel nuts. These chats very often gave rise to discussions and in these Tilak talked so loudly that he could be heard from the other end of the compound... . He was in his middle age and, therefore, friends, who were his equals in age, talked freely with him. Afterwards when he became famous and won a position of high honour, his friends became more respectful; but they had no such restraint at this time. , . . Tilak himself never used a vulgar or obscene word or expression but there were some among his friends, particularly the more orthodox, who taxed his patience by their freedom of expression. Tilak was never idle. He had frequent visitors who came to him at all hours of the day. This ‘nuisance’ Tilak loved so much that he always gave it first preference, however busy he was. He, therefore, worked at night, when the visitors had stopped coming. His writer might feel inclined to doze but Tilak would not even yawn.

He would continue to dictate, tapping the arm of his chair with his palm to stimulate thought.... Tilak’s household affairs were managed by his nephew (sister’s son) Gangadharpant Vidwans. Affairs outside were managed by his initimate friend Vasudeorao Joshi, Manager of the Chitrashala Press. . . . Tilak was always reluctant to deal with money matters and keep accounts and so it was Vasudeorao who managed all this. Besides, Tilak had yet to repay a sum of money that he had borrowed from Joshi. Tilak’s habits, however, were expensive while Vasukaka was economical. Gangadharpant, therefore, found it extremely difficult to get money from him; and though at times, Mami (maternal aunt— Tilak’s wife) needed money she did not get it in time. Joshi often tried to force his economical habits on others and this led to trouble. . . . Tilak used to go, in summer, to stay on Simhagad, the famous hill-fort of Shivaji. Tilak had a house here and though he suffered from hernia at this time he could easily climb the steep slope of the fort. Work in the Bombay Legislative Council Before we come to one of the most stormy periods in Tilak’s life which was to come soon, it is necessary to refer briefly to his work in the Bombay Legislative Council. The influence of Ranade and of the liberal school had made Tilak an adept in the art of manipulating facts and figures and he had contributed a long essay on “Decentralisation of Finance” in the quarterly journal of the Sarvajanik Sabha. Within the limits of the narrow powers enjoyed by the Provincial Councils Tilak did whatever he could do and showed himself to be an able legislator. The function of members of the legislature was strictly limited to mere criticism and in his speech on the budget the Hon. Mr. Tilak in 1896 lodged a complaint that no adequate time was given for the members to study the budget in detail. “A non-official member has to work under a further disadvantage of not having before him all the papers required to understand the details of the budget estimates.” Going into the details of the budget, Tilak complained that the increase in revenue was obtained by taking recourse to methods which were not consistent with the principles laid down by the government and he characteristically referred to the demoralising effect of the new policy: “We have the testimony of Mr. Stuart Elphinstone that when the Deccan Districts were conquered from the

Peshwa, drunkenness was unknown in the Maratha country. This was due to the discouragement of the sale of spirituous liquor and as the revenue from that source was insignificant, the same statesman advised that the government would do well to prohibit it altogether. Seventy-five years of British rule have, however, completely altered this state of things and it can never be too late to begin to check the growth of this evil.” He suggested therefore the closing of a few liquor shops and conferring certain forest privileges upon the people every year. His next complaint was that though all departments such as land, forest, excise were made to yield as much as possible, even to the inconvenience of the people, yet out of the revenue so realised only a small portion had been devoted to the material improvement of the provinces. Various measures and works of public utility were either poorly or not at all provided for in the provincial budget. He demanded, therefore, more grants for education - industrial, technical or liberal - for village sanitation, for roads, canals, etc. His general complaint was that the increase in the expenditure on the various departments whether necessary or otherwise did not directly cause any material improvement of the people. Tilak was elected to the Legislative Council for a second time in 1897 but one who was not satisfied even on the Congress platform could not be expected to be happy with the work in the Council chamber. Very soon two great disasters in the form of a great famine followed by an even greater plague visited Maharashtra. In these twin disasters, when people ran helter-skelter, leaving the dead and the dying to their own fate, Tilak stood firm and by his personal courage set a noble example of selfless service. Out of evil cometh good and out of the twin evils of the famine and pestilence emerged a well-knit body of selfless workers in the cause of public service, headed by Tilak. In this sense, these disasters came at a time when the need of constructive action was felt. The Congress movement appeared now to have come to a dead end. There was a monotonous regularity about its annual sessions, its flamboyant speeches, its spate of omnibus resolutions, which made Tilak, quoting from a Vedic hymn, compare it aptly to frogs, appearing in the rainy season. The Congress stalemate, if it had continued, would have led to degeneration. The Ganapati and the Shivaji festivals, being sentimental, would have dwindled into insignificance or would have degenerated into warrens of orthodoxy or places of puerile entertainment. What was needed was a baptism of selfless sacrifice and suffering for a cause. Famines have always been a regular feature of India’s economy. From 1873 to 1878, there were famines of varying degrees of intensity in different provinces of

India and this experience of famines had made government formulate a famine code, after considering the question of famine relief on scientific lines. The famine of 1896-97 was “the most intense and severe famine” ever known under the British rule. “By the spring of 1897, over four millions were receiving relief and mortality was extremely heavy.

Famine The difference between the famine of 1876 and that of 1896 according to Tilak was that the government was now duty bound to help the ryot under the terms of the Famine Relief Code. The Kesari, therefore, tried to give a summary of the Code for the benefit of its readers and also gave a prominent place to the complaints of the sufferers. It, also tried to point out the shortcomings and mistakes of the code. Government machinery was, as always, slow-moving and the bungling of officials frittered away whatever little relief the people were entitled to receive. The Kesari, therefore, sounded timely notes of warning against the lower officials’ habit of riding rough-shod over the popular interests and urged the people to put up a determined stand against the high-handedness of the government. Tilak tried his best to dissuade people from riots or looting the rich. The way he pointed out was “to go to the government and make applications to the Collector urging him to give them remission in land revenue, to provide them with work and to grant them ‘tagai loans.’ The machinery of the newly captured Sarvajanik Sabha was used effectively by him to ventilate the legitimate grievances of the people, to represent to the government genuine cases of tax remission and suspension of knd revenue in famine-stricken areas. The Sabha was thus carrying on the policy of Ranade and was doing the same type of constructive work that it had done twenty years ago. Tilak thus sought to make the peasantry conscious of their own rights and also brought home to them the need of fighting for them. Weavers’ Guild Another of Tilak’s important constructive activities for the direct amelioration of the condition of the backward classes was the help he gave to the weavers of the Sholapur District. There were a number of weaver families here, who during the famine were given manual labour of rubble breaking. The daily wages that they got in return were inadequate to support them and Tilak pointed out that it was cruel and inhuman to make craftsmen do such work. The famine code had stipulated that such craftsmen should be provided with capital, yarn, looms and other accessories to carry on their craft. Tilak suggested to the government to give effect to these provisions to which vague replies were given and the bureaucracy showed the usual recalcitrance to move. Tilak thereupon sought the

co-operation of the rich merchants of Sholapur and with their help he arranged to supply yarn to the weavers on a co-operative basis and also took guarantees for the sale of the cloth produced by the weavers. This resulted in the establishment of a Weavers’ Guild which is still in existence.2 “Owing to this guild, the weavers’ families could get enough work during the famine and even afterwards. As they carried on their activities on lines chalked out by Tilak they improved their condition to such an extent that the famine of 1900 had no terrors for them. These people, therefore, left their petty labour jobs and became independent and prosperous craftsmen. The Lokmanya’s name, therefore, became a cherished one particularly in this class.” It was estimated that the work brought relief to more than one thousand families comprising a total of about four to five thousand persons. To return to the work of the Sarvajanik Sabha among the peasantry. The workers of the Sabha, went to the villages and tried to explain to the people the famine code and also brought home to them that it was the duty of the government to relieve their distress and therefore it was perfectly within their rights to demand remission and that government had no right to confiscate the cattle of the farmer. “Remember,” wrote Tilak on the 15th December 1896, “that this government is based on law and not aggression. If you have to fight you must also fight legally. Then alone we shall get our rights.” He referred to the message sent by the Queen and said that it was the desire of Her Majesty that no one should suffer in her kingdom. The bureaucracy, he reminded the people, would try to recover the land revenue from them by filing suits, or by threats or even by shooting them. “But let the people remember that if they should be determined to fight for their rights even at the risk of being shot at, it is the duty of leaders to help them fight. It is possible that even while fighting legally the tables may be turned against us but people must be ready for this. If they are not, then, according to the English maxim, instead of bread they will get a stone. Charity of philanthropic people, however laudable, will do little. It is to the government that the people should look to.” Even though Tilak was trying to keep strictly within the limits of the law this language of his was fiery and it must have done much to make the people bold and defiant. Intellectual ideas and abstract principles of freedom, justice or equality have little or no appeal to the masses. They learn through actual suffering and instinctively recognise a leader. As Tilak’s agitation now centred around a vital economic issue it touched them at once. Within the limits of the law, Tilak did his best to make them self-reliant

and his inspiring lead in effect went much beyond the moderate demands of requests and petitions. It is remembered, however, that his work was not merely negative but he showed great constructive ability in making use of the government machinery to give success to the peasantry He was unsparing in his efforts. It was a common sight, according to the testimony of contemporaries, to see him going from shop to shop in the grain market of Poona, requesting shop- keepers not to sell grain at too high a price to the poor people. No wonder that the government should not like this work of the Sarvajanik Sabha and would look upon its work as a gross interference. The Anglo-Indian papers had already raised the cry of sedition and had accused Tilak that he was in reality trying to start a no-rent campaign on the models of the Irish no-tax campaign. A meeting, addressed by Professor Sathe, one of the workers of the Sabha, was held under heavy police vigilance and this was described by Tilak in the Kesari as “a meeting held within the firing range of the police.”3 Going into the causes of the famine, Tilak saw that it was because Indian trade was monopolised by Britain, that the pressure on land had increased and agriculture was made unproductive. The officials also were too highly paid. “It is true that lack of rain causes famine but it is also true that the people of India have not the strength to fight the evil. The poverty of India is wholly due to the present rule. India is being bled till only the skeleton remains... all the vitality of the people is being sapped and we are left in an emaciated state of slavery.” Tilak sent two petitions to the government urging immediate relief to the people in the famine-stricken areas. All this agitation was resented by the government and it refused to recognise the Sarvajanik Sabha as a representative body, when one of its workers in Dharwar went a little out of the way and distributed handbills in which he made the statement that it was the order of the Commissioner to give remission to peasants. The government wanted the Sabha to disown the worker which the Sabha refused to do. As a result the government refused to recognise the Sabha. In an article, “Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and the government”,4 Tilak condemns the action of the government and calls it a misuse of authority. Institutions like the Sabha, according to him, become an eyesore to the government because they come in the way of their autocratic rule. Finally he dismisses this refusal of the government to recognise the Sabha’s representative character as childish and says that so long as the Sabha was fighting legally it was the duty of the government to answer it legally. If, however, the government thinks that by trying to bypass the Sabha it will diminish its importance that

would be a mistake. He quotes from a Sanskrit verse which says: “If the Creator (Brahma) was angry with the swan, he could drive the swan away from the lotus pool; but he cannot take away the natural power that the swan possesses of separating water from milk.” In the same way the main work of the Sabha of ventilating the grievances of the people will never be taken away even if the government refuses to give it due recognition. The workers of the Sabha carried on their work of explaining the terms of the Famine Code to the people and representing genuine cases of remission or suspension of land revenue to the government. By December 1896 the Sabha and its workers had fallen foul of the government to such an extent that cases were filed against three of them. Tilak returned in haste from the Calcutta Congress and declared in a meeting: “The present rule is a rule of the law. If Professor Sathe is prosecuted for explaining to the people the meaning of government law, there is all the more reason why I should be prosecuted because I do the same thing on a much wider scale.” In these cases, Professors Paranjpe, Sathe and Shri Apte were acquitted and thus Tilak’s bold stand and the fearless championship of the people’s right by the Sarvajanik Sabha were vindicated. How powerfully Tilak had captured the public mind is clearly seen from an incident during 1896 narrated by Ramchandra Narayan Mandlik.5 “The huge meetings of nearly ten thousand people each will never be forgotten by people of Pen. Before the commencement of the case of Professor Paranjpe, thousands of people gathered around the tent of Mr. Brooke, the Collector. They started shouting slogans and cried ‘Victory to Tilak’. The police failed to restrain the people or to scare them away. Brooke, therefore, requested Tilak to go out and speak to the people and see if they could be pacified. Tilak succeeded in doing this. The case was over in five minutes. Professor Paranjpe was released and the other cases were postponed. Brooke then invited Tilak for a special interview. I remember Brooke to have said in this meeting: ‘I have never seen either in India or in England such a crowd of illiterate farmers gathered at a case of this nature. I was reminded of the Seven Bishops’ case when I saw this crowd. This crowd is a testimony of your popularity’.”

The Plague Havoc As Tilak foresaw, the government now looked for an opportunity to gag him but it did not come before the catastrophe of the plague that came in the footsteps of the famine.6 There may have been plagues before but the one of 1897 was of an unprecedented nature and caused great havoc.7 In trying to stay its ravages various methods were adopted by the government. The causes of the disease were unknown but it was generally believed to be contagious. Every effort was, therefore, made to segregate the victims. Houses were searched. At Poona, British troops were employed as search parties. In Bombay this work was entrusted to a committee consisting of an engineer, a doctor, a municipal commissioner and an army officer. In Poona, Mr. Rand, an officer of the rank of an Assistant Collector, was placed solely in charge of the plague operations. These extraordinary measures caused panic among the people and there was popular resentment. In an informative article in the Kesari on 16th February 1897, Tilak speaks in favour of segregating the patient but also alludes to the superstitious folly of the people who regard the hospitals as chambers of death. He urges the government, therefore, to do the work of segregation and house- searching with the willing consent of the people and also advises separate arrangements for upper class persons and ladies in the plague hospitals. Commenting upon the preventive measures ordered by the government, Tilak commends the foresight of the Governor and dismisses all the charges made by the people as mere prejudice. “It is important that the government must know where the disease is located. For this there must be a house to house search after every two or three days. Men must be appointed for this work. There are rumours that these men will oppress the people but they are wholly baseless and false. The searches are made so that patients should not be hidden in the house as at present. Force will be used only if attempts are made to hide the patient, otherwise there are strict orders of the Governor not to molest the people in any way. There is a strict rule that no male servant will touch a woman and for this a lady doctor will be appointed. The Governor himself has given instructions to the workers not to enter in any part of the house and pollute the Gods or hurt the religious sentiments of the people.” The same article goes on to condemn the cowardice of those who are leaving the towns and advises them to remain where they are and help the plague committee.8

Tilak did not spare himself and did his best to help the plague committee. It was mainly as a result of the lead taken by him that a plague hospital for Hindus was built in Poona. He stayed in the town during the worst days of the epidemics and condemned the “educated leaders” who ran away as soon as the epidemic became severe. On the 9th March, two military officers were appointed to the committee to help Rand and then the real trouble started. The tone of Tilak’s articles in the Kesari too changed and he refers to the “Havoc caused in Poona”. Even to this day there are old people who tell harrowing accounts of the plague days — accounts of how whole families succumbed to the epidemic, how extremely difficult it was to get men to carry the dead bodies for cremation, of how, to escape detection and the subsequent horrors, corpses were hidden in a thousand and one ways. In the article in the Kesari of the 16th March 1897, it is important to remember that Tilak only expresses mild resentment at the employment of the soldiers. “We do not understand why these soldiers have been brought. There was no reference to them in the Governor’s speech. In Bombay they have not been employed. We believe that this idea must have originated from some subordinate official....” And still he is liberal enough to pay a compliment to the soldiers: “Though the soldiers have come it is gratifying to note that they are behaving in an orderly manner.” Referring to the complaints made against the soldiers that they had polluted the deities by entering the houses, Tilak is more disposed to blame the ‘native gentlemen’ who accompany them; for it is natural, according to him, that the soldiers do not understand the customs of the Hindus but it is the native gentlemen who should guide them. He goes a step further and says that these search parties were unnecessary. “Had the government only passed an order that anyone who does not report a patient would be punished all this trouble would have been averted.” Letters from citizens of Poona complaining against the indiscretion of the soldiers were printed in the Kesari and they make it quite clear that the people were exasperated beyond expression by the plague administration. In a memorandum written to the committee, prominent citizens of Poona made several serious complaints about the misbehaviour of the soldiers. Even Pandita Ramabai complained to the papers about the utter indifference and neglect of the patients in the Poona plague hospitals and to all this the government turned a deaf ear. Ramabai’s eyewitness account was termed “grossly inaccurate and misleading”. The vernacular press headed by the Kesari cried itself hoarse and was termed seditious and disloyal. Fair-minded English

journals were quick to lay the blame at the doors of the indiscretion of the government in employing European soldiers. Thus the Daily News (London) wrote: “If everything was done at Poona, as at Bombay, to consult the religious and social sentiments of the natives, why was there disaffection at Poona and not at Bombay? Mr. Rand himself directed that native women should no longer be examined in the streets of Poona to see whether they had the plague. If they had not been so treated where was the necessity for the prohibition? If they had been, the practice is surely hard to justify, or again,” it was pointed out, “self- complacency and enormous contempt for the natives mar a good deal of our administrative work in India” Sir Lepel Griffin was quoted by the Manchester Guardian as saying, “The English soldier does not understand native ways and prejudices and unintentionally gives offence and becomes unpopular; while the work would have been as well done by native troops and police, whose unpopularity was a matter of no importance.” The paper continues: “There were no outrages but there was tactlessness.” References were made to the irrepressible sense of humour of Tommy Atkins which was apt to be resented by the Poona population. Matters reached a crisis and the nerves of the people of Poona were on edge. Tilak sounded a note of warning; but among other things he also wrote certain things, not directly connected with the plague but which later were construed to have led to the murder of European officers. Tilak was presiding over a lecture by Prof. Bhanu on Shivaji. Prof. Bhanu had referred to the killing of Afzalkhan and had said that no blame attached to Shivaji in this. This theory he had already propounded in an article contributed to the Deccan College Quarterly in April 1896. In his speech, as reported in the Kesari of the 15th June 1897, Tilak said,9 “There is no need to find out new historical information regarding the assassination of Afzalkhan. Let us proceed on the assumption that Shivaji killed Afzalkhan by a preconceived plan. The question — is this act of the Maharaja good or bad? — is to be faced not from the standpoint of the Penal Code, nor of the Smritis of Manu and Yajnavalkya, nor is it to be considered in the light of moral principles enunciated by both occidental and oriental systems. Laws regarding the regulation of society are for the observance of us common people. No one cares to investigate the family origin of the Rishis, nor does anyone attempt to stick a crime on the person of a King. Great men are above the common principles of (Shastra) law. The view of these principles falls short of the plane in which great people stand. In killing Afzalkhan did Shivaji sin? The

answer to this question is in the Mahabharat itself. In the Bhagwadgita, Shrikrishna has counselled the assassination of even one’s elders and blood- relations. There is no blame when you do actions without wishing for their fruit. Shri Shivaji Maharaj did nothing in order to further his own interest. He killed Afzalkhan with the righteous objective of the public good. If thieves enter one’s house, and one’s wrists have no strength to drive them out, one may without compunction shut them in and burn them standing. God Almighty did not give a charter engraved on a copper plate to the foreigner (Mlenchha) to rule India. The Maharaja strove to drive them out of his fatherland, and there is no sin of covetousness in that.” Professor Bhanu clarified his stand in the Times of India of July 8th, 1897, that he had given the same address as the one at the History Club held in the Deccan College, Poona, under the presidentship of Professor Bain. Professor Bain had thrown the hint that “supposing Shivaji to have been on the aggressive, students of history cannot impeach him for violating rules of ordinary morality. His conduct could be defended on the ultra-moral grounds.” Professor Bhanu says that he only amplified this hint by giving evidence and concluded with a reference to the present day’s political situation. On June 30th, 1897, Tilak wrote to the Times clarifying his position and explaining the nature of his work, under the caption “Sedition or Prejudice”. J. Chaudhari, Bar-at-Law, of Calcutta, writes10 how Tilak’s counsels, two Calcutta barristers Messrs. Pugh and Garth, “expressed great admiration for Tilak’s command over the English language, and the close and logical reasoning by which he controverted the charges brought against him and his political activities. Mr. Garth was a conservative in politics and his interest in other things seldom went beyond his profession and horses. Yet he got so enthusiastic over Mr. Tilak’s correspondence in the columns of the Times of India that he obtained some extra copies for taking them home so that he might show them to his father, Sir Richard Garth, the ex-Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.” According to Tilak, the continued malicious remarks about him and the journals published by him compelled him to write the letter. He expected the Times to be at least fair; but it had grossly misrepresented the matter. He goes on to explain how he had supported ‘stringent measures’ and had also urged upon ‘the leaders of the people’ to assist the government. He had called upon them to form committees to work for the people, his slogan being ‘Do not complain but

work.’ If this is sedition, he says, then the Anglo-Indian vocabulary must be more comprehensive than common English! As for his own share in the work, Tilak narrates how he organised such committees and started a plague hospital, and gave meals at cheap rates to the people. It was, therefore, doing sheer injustice by representing that either he or his paper did anything to excite feelings of disaffection among the people. At the same time, he could not shut his eyes to complaints and grievances which he knew from personal knowledge to be well founded. Unnecessary stringency of the plague measures and not the writings of the native press, were, according to him, responsible for the feelings of dissatisfaction. In conclusion he said, “I may, however, say that it is extremely foolish to ignore all the work done by individuals and the good sense and the patience of a community as a whole, simply because a fanatic took it into his head to perpetrate a horrible deed, which, as I have said above, all of us equally deplore. Further discussion must, I think, be reserved for cooler times, when we shall be ready to look at men and things with unjaundiced eyes.” Tilak also wrote three articles on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Jubilee in the Kesari entitled “Glory to her Majesty the Queen Empress”.11 They are in his usual mixed strain. While giving all due credit to the British, Tilak utilised this occasion to ventilate the grievances of the people. The first of these articles refers to the prosperity of England under the Queen, who, in spite of the fact of having a good many prerogatives, never used them arbitrarily like the previous sovereigns. In the second article,12 he makes a historical survey of the expansion of the British Empire. First, the extent of the Empire: “Fifteen longitudinal degrees make the difference of an honour, but no such fifteen degrees can be found on the surface of the globe which do not contain at least one island under the British rule”. This expansion of the empire was due to such qualities as pluck, intelligence, courage and enterprise shown by the British and the qualities have expanded because of the growth of the empire. Tilak concludes the article by saying: “We also participate in their joy as they are our rulers; only it cannot be said that we have prospered like them during the last sixty years.” The third article is “Condition of India”13 Speaking about the change that has taken place in the condition of India during the same period, he refers to the

contrast between the highly prosperous position of England and the poor lot of India. Looking to the latter he feels that this was the sixtieth jubilee of its decline! He refers to Ireland which he says was indifferent to the jubilee, though he also refers to a report that it was at the instance of the Queen that certain important improvements were made in the great Proclamation of 1858. The concluding portion of the article refers to the duty that the rulers owed to the people of India of translating the principles and promises of the proclamation in to practice.

The Rand Murder The harassment of the people of by the Poona plague officials still continued till the midnight of the 27th June 1898, when Mr. Rand, the chairman of the Plague Committee, and Lt. Ayerst were shot while returning from the jubilee banquet at Government House in Poona. Lt. Ayerst succumbed immediately to the wounds and Mr. Rand died a few days later in the hospital. A search of the road the next day revealed the two swords, a bottle and a stone, hidden under a bridge. A reward of Rs. 20,000 was declared by the government to anyone who would help to discover the assassin. The news sent a thrill of horror all over the country and the Anglo-Indian Press, headed by the Times of India, declared that the Poona Brahmins were hatching a plot to overthrow the British Government. Suggestions were also made to the government that Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code should be amended so as to bring within its scope offending journalists who incite the public to violence. The Times hinted that Tilak was responsible for the outrage. On June 28, Mr. Lamb, the Collector of Poona, convened a meeting of prominent residents of Poona and gave a warning and a threat. He asked them to range themselves unmistakably and actively on the side of law and order. “Those particularly among you, who enjoy the largest share of position and privileges, see to it that this position and these privileges are not placed in jeopardy by the violence and criminal folly of any member or section of the community. For if disloyalty and sedition, conspiracy and assassination go unchecked amongst you, I am here to solemnly warn you that what you prove yourselves unable to check, government will inevitably adopt stern measures to check for you”. This typically school-masterly attitude towards an errant member of a class of school-boys which he cannot control, shows the panic of the officials. Severe repercussions were to follow. The Governor imposed punitive police on Poona for two years at a cost of nearly three lakhs of rupees. Indian gentlemen were forbidden to enter the cemetery at the funeral of Rand and it was reported by the vernacular press that even Dr. Bhandarkar was stopped at the gate by the police. Tilak was one of the guests at the jubilee banquet and commenting on the murders in the Kesari on the 29th June 1895, Tilak called them “the terrible happening of Tuesday night”. He refers to the acrimonious and malignant allegations of the Times of India and the speech of the Collector and wonders

how such things were said when the whole matter was sub judice. He conjectured that the murderers must be habitual lawbreakers or discharged military men. He concludes, “This is not the first time that die Poona people have had to face such calumny. In 1876 when the Budhwar Palace was burnt similar accusations were made. But people should not lose heart and as far as possible continue to help the government as they have been doing now.” Gradually, however, his tone became more and more heated as on the subject of the famine or plague administration. He indignantly asked on the 6th July 1897 if the government had its head in the right place. He condemned all attempts made by Anglo-Indian and government circles to lay the responsibility of die crime at the doors of the vernacular press, school boys led astray by English education or the Shivaji celebrations. On the 13th July 1897, he reminded the government that to rule is not to take revenge. He referred to the opinion of the Hon. Justice Badruddin Tayyabji who declared that he did not believe the suspicion against the Hindu community or a section of it. He urged the Governor, Lord Sandhurst, to curb the frenzy and the panic of the Anglo- Indian papers and also of the Collector. Questions were asked in the House of Commons by Mr. Bhownagree, M.P., whether the government did not consider the articles and speeches of Mr. Tilak seditious, to which Lord George Hamilton gave the reply that it was a matter of law upon which the Bombay Government had not yet arrived at a final opinion. On the 20th July 1897, Tilak commented on the proposed amendment to Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. He quotes from the speech by the Hon. Justice Badruddin Tayyabji, who gave the opinion that the present law was quite sufficient to bring to book any seditious or inflammatory writings in newspapers. Tilak pointed out that under the existing law criticism of the government, however severe, could not be termed seditious unless it directly incited the people to acts of violence or unlawful overthrow of the government. Tilak outlined the policy that the Kesari had all along been following. “Our main task is to make use of the knowledge that we have obtained from English education, to make people conscious of their lawful rights and teach them how to agitate constitutionally for their fulfilment. It is not our desire that the British rule should disappear or that it should be insulted. It is our ardent desire that under the aegis of the British rule we should get more rights, that we should not be oppressed and that we should prosper.”

The campaign of virulent attacks opened by Anglo-Indian papers was soon taken up by British papers. Here is a typical attack in the Daily Mail: “There is nothing fanatic about the Poona murder. Poona is the centre of much of the sedition and mutiny hatching of the whole country. The Poona Brahmin is notorious throughout the whole of India, and the educated among them particularly so. By their newspapers, by their secret messengers and signs, they are endeavouring to stir up a revolt against the British power.” The British papers had another opportunity of coming down with all their might and main on the Indian press and the Indian leaders, by an echo of the plague affair in London. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who was then in London to give evidence before the Welby Commission, gave an interview to a correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. In it, he made very serious allegations against the British soldiers. The report of the interview appeared in the Manchester Guardian of July 1897: “I saw what was taking place before I came away. I have read the detailed accounts of oppression which the Poona newspapers, avoiding general declamation, have been printing during the past three months, and since I arrived in London, I have received many private letters from Poona, giving fresh instances of atrocious outrage, and begging me to move in the matter. What has happened is briefly this. When I left Poona on March 5th, the work of inspecting, fumigating and lime-washing the houses and searching for plague-stricken persons had been entrusted to British soldiers. Most of the people who were at all well-to-do had already left the place, and the arrival of the soldiers spread panic among the poor people who remained. All who could leave Poona promptly ran away. Those who stayed had, for the most part, suffered tremendously through the famine and it was upon this highly inflammable material that the soldiers were let loose. Nowhere else had they been employed upon such work. Ignorant of the language and contemptuous of the customs, the sentiments and the religious susceptibilities of the people, they gave offence in a score of ways which an Englishman could only with difficulty understand. But the nature of many of their excesses is intelligible enough. In defiance of the rules of the Plague Committee, they entered kitchens and places of worship, contaminating food and spitting upon idols or breaking them and throwing them into the street. They destroyed the little property of the unhappy people in a wanton manner, not merely confiscating the clothing and the bedding of persons suffering from the plague but breaking open boxes, appropriating jewellery and burning furniture. One of the soldiers appears to

have said that it was good fun to have so many bonfires every day and they seem to have regarded the whole matter as a joke. But that was not the worst; women were dragged into the streets and stripped for inspection, under the pretext that there was not light enough in the houses and my correspondents, whose words I can trust absolutely, report the violation of two women, one of whom is said to have committed suicide rather than survive her shame. Petition after petition was sent to the Plague Committee, calling attention to the disregard of their own rules, and praying that the method adopted in Bombay where General Gatacre dealt with a more difficult task with conspicuous success might be extended to Poona. But it was all to no purpose. The complaints were unheeded. A deputation to Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner, was snubbed and when an appeal was made to the Government of Bombay, the fatal regard for what is called in India ‘prestige’ prevented the reversal of a policy once started upon. The soldiers accordingly remained to do the work of inspection in Poona until it was finished.” Questions were again asked in Parliament and Lord Hamilton, the Secretary of State for India, dubbed the charges of Gokhale as a malevolent invention. Gokhale hoped to substantiate his allegations by referring to his own friends whom, he said, he had known for years but unfortunately this evidence was not forthcoming and Gokhale in his anxiety to shelter his informants had to withdraw his more serious allegations and tender a public apology. As an alternative to substantiating his allegations, Gokhale took the only course open to a gentleman; but there is no doubt that the apology coming as it did at that time was an irrecoverable blow to India’s national prestige. Tilak, commenting later on the incident, remarked to Dr. Munje that it was a mistake on the part of Gokhale to take back his remarks; for it would have been possible to bring forward evidence in support of his allegations, had occasion arisen. ...And the Arrest Tilak gave a warning to the government in the Kesari on the 20th July and appealed to the people to send their complaints to the Kesari. Equipped with these, he hoped to give a rejoinder to the government by publishing some of these complaints in the Bombay press. Accordingly, he went to Bombay on Tuesday, the 27th July, and was arrested on the same night under Section 124, I.P.C., and placed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Bail was applied for

but refused and the case adjourned to 30th of July. Messrs. Russell and Deshpande, Barristers-at-Law, instructed by Mr. Bodas, High Court Pleader, appeared for the defence. From the time the Anglo-Indian papers raised the cry of sedition Tilak knew that he was going to be arrested. Pressure was brought on him that he should modify his language and after his arrest it was also suggested that he should withdraw his remarks and apologize. The Indian Nation - English weekly of Calcutta - wrote after the trial: “Great interest attaches, and, when history comes to be written, will attach, to the letter which Mr. Tilak wrote to a friend shortly before the trial:14 “The other side expects me to do what amounts to pleading guilty. I am not prepared to do so. My position amongst the people entirely depends upon my character; and if I am cowed down by the prosecution - in the heart of my hearts I know the case for the prosecution is the weakest and that was even placed before a jury - 1 think, living in Maharashtra is as good as living in the Andamans. On the merits of the case I am confident of success though I cannot, in this letter and in the present state of my health, give you all my reasons. I am afraid only of a non-Marathi-knowing jury and not of justice. You as well as I know that we are incapable of nourishing any sinister feeling against British rule and it is thus impossible for any of us to be convicted of such a heinous charge as sedition. Such risks, however, we must take if we dabble in politics. They are the risks of our profession, and I am prepared to face them. If you will advise, I am prepared to go only so far as this; I don’t think that the articles are seditious, but the advisers of the government think otherwise. I am sorry for it. But this will not satisfy the government. Their object is to humiliate the Poona leaders, and I think in me they will not find a ‘kutcha’ reed as they did in Professor Gokhale and the editor of the Dnyan Prakash, Then you must remember beyond a certain stage we are all servants of the people. You will be betraying and disappointing them if you show a lamentable want of courage at a critical time. But, above all, as an honest and honourable man, how can I plead guilty to the charge of entertaining sedition when I had none? If I am convicted, the sympathy of my countrymen will support me in my trouble.” On the 28th July, Keshavrao Bal, publisher of the Kesari and the Mahratta, was arrested and a number of documents and papers were confiscated from the office of the Kesari and the Mahratta. A warrant was issued for the arrest of Hari Narayan Gokhale, proprietor of the Aryabhushan Press, but as he was out of Poona it could not be executed. Kelkar, the editor of another Marathi paper, was also arrested at Talegaon and brought down to Bombay to meet charges of

sedition, etc. On Wednesday the 28th July, Sardar Balwant Ramchandra Natu and his brother Hari Pant were arrested under warrants issued by the government and deported to places outside the limits of Poona District, where they were to be detained at the pleasure of the government. All the arms in the possession of the Natu family were seized by the police and their landed and other property attached by the government. The government had to rake up an old and musty regulation passed in 1827 in support of these repressive measures against the Natus. On the 29th June, a bail application on behalf of Tilak was made to the High Court which was disallowed; but permission was given to apply again. It was not until August 2nd, when the case was committed to tne High Court Sessions, that bail was admitted by Mr. Justice Badruddin Tayyabji, the presiding judge. The application was made by Mr. Davar, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Messrs. Bhaishankar and Kanga, Solicitors.

The Trial Tilak’s arrest aroused wide interest and expressions of sympathy too were nation-wide. A Tilak Defence Fund was started simultaneously in Bombay and Calcutta and soon reached the respectable figure of Rs. 47,000. The Indian press, with the exception of Anglo-Indian papers like the Times of India, was loud in condemning the government for its high-handed policy which reminded one of the days of Mogul rule. The arrest was also welcomed in certain quarters as it afforded Tilak an opportunity to clear himself of certain charges that were ceaselessly levelled at him by his enemies. Thus an Englishman writing from London to the Champion of Bombay on July 30th, 1897, observes: “The action of the Bombay Government in arresting Mr. Tilak and others on the charge of sedition has attracted attention here. Generally the action of the government is approved for it is felt that there have been so many rumours in the air that it is better that the whole matter be placed before a judge and jury and the truth, if possible, be discovered.” However, one thing particularly noticeable was the fact that the British press prejudged the issue, insinuated that Tilak and the Natus were directly connected with the murders and blamed the government for having followed a weak-kneed policy in respect of sedition-mongers. The Standard (London) went even so far as to declare, “The refusal of Lord Sandhurst to exercise his right of veto when Mr. Tilak was elected a member of the Provincial Legislative Council has been denounced as an indication of administrative imbecility which was certain to encourage further outbursts of sedition.” However, some of the more liberal journals in England took a different view. Referring to the Memorial sent by the citizens of Poona complaining against the Plague Administration and the evasive replies given to it by Lord Sandhurst, the Daily News observed, “It is quite possible that the Memorial is an absolute fabrication, a tissue of lies from the beginning to end... but one may well doubt whether any such result will be obtained or approached by quartering a punitive force upon the impoverished inhabitants of Poona.” Regarding the dismissal of the Poona Memorial it was pointed out by another English journal, “Red-tape is becoming far too plentiful, nothing is more fatal to good government. Is self-complacency a criterion of good government?” Others had already demanded a full and searching inquiry into the charges and had sounded the warning that “Nothing can be more

criminally striped than a policy of hushing up the facts of the case or a mere brute force suppression.” The case against Tilak came up for hearing on the 8th of September and lasted for a week. Mr. Justice Strachey was the presiding judge and the jury consisted of six Europeans, two Hindus and one Parsee. Tilak was defended by Mr. Pugh, of the Calcutta Bar, assisted by Mr. Garth, who also hailed from Calcutta. The Hon. Mr. Basil Lang, the Advocate-General, conducted the prosecution. A case of this nature and its proceedings were unprecedented in modern Indian history. The Englishman, after 80 years of rule, was still a foreigner and a stranger in India, and therefore had always a feeling that he was sitting on the top of a volcano that would erupt any time. No wonder therefore that the Indian Penal Code and the whole paraphernalia of the law were brought forth to demonstrate the might of Imperial Britain and crush any disruptive, seditious voice. As Tilak was fully aware, it was not merely a case against an individual. He had become symbolic of a tendency and represented a trend in Indian politics and the government was sure to do its best to check this tendency by adopting the most ruthless measures. The merest scrap of evidence to incriminate him in the Rand murder would be exploited to the full by the government. Mr. Bruin, the special officer appointed by the government to investigate the Rand murder, had several meetings with Tilak and did his best to connect Tilak with it. The meetings between Tilak and Bruin were bouts of wit between two shrewd persons and Tilak emerged victorious out of them, though each felt admiration for the other’s talents. An account of the trial has been given by J. Chaudhari, Bar-at-Law, of the Calcutta Bar, who says:15 “Prosecution for sedition in those days was rare. Prosecution of such an eminent leader of public opinion like Mr. Tilak for sedition, shocked the whole of India.” Mr. Chaudhari refers next to attempts made in Calcutta to engage an eminent barrister to defend Tilak; but as the trial was to take place in September, which was the time of the long vacation for the Calcutta High Court, no eminent barrister was forthcoming. At last Messrs. Pugh and Garth were engaged on payment of an honorarium of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. “Before the trial commenced, we had long consultations with Mr. Tilak. At these consultations Mr. Pugh, Mr. Garth, myself, Mr. Tilak and his solicitors were present. Mr. Pugh and Mr. Garth were greatly impressed with the great ability, keenness of intellect, strong common sense, spirit of

independence, and the remarkable knowledge of law that Tilak displayed in course of the consultation.” They were at once convinced that their client was no ordinary man. Cultured Englishmen always admire a man when they find elements of greatness in him, although they may not always fall in with his views. “One of their questions to Mr. Tilak and the answer that he gave them, are still fresh in my memory. His counsel asked him, ‘Surely, Mr. Tilak, you desire self- government for India and not absolute independence.’ Tilak laughed, as he often did when any awkward question was put to him, and answered, ‘Desire for independence on the part of a subject people is nothing dishonourable and is no crime.’ He quoted from memory some passages from some English writers as also legal dicta in support of his views. Then he laughed again and told his counsel that they might take it that self-government for India was his present political aim and absolute independence was then beyond the range of practical politics.” The Advocate-General in the opening speech for the prosecution read out Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, under which the two accused were being prosecuted. He also read out the explanation of the words “Disaffection” and “Disapprobation”, given by Sir Comer Petheram, the Chief Justice of Bengal, who said, “Whenever the prefix ‘dis’ is added to a word, the word formed conveys an idea the opposite to that conveyed by the word without the prefix. Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in another words, dislike or hatred. Disapprobation means simply disapproval. . . . The meaning of the two words is distinct....” Reference was made next to the two incriminating articles in the Kesari, entitled, “Shivaji’s Utterances”, a sketch of Shivaji’s career was drawn and lastly Tilak’s references to the murder of Afzalkhan were cited. Seven witnesses were called forth to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution and the main contention rested on the meaning and explanation of certain Marathi expressions. The whole process was extremely cumbrous, for the judge and at least six of the jury, in addition to the counsels for defence and prosecution, did not know Marathi. Tilak himself advised his counsel about the interpretation of certain words and when called upon by the judge, gave grammatical explanations of the incriminating words. The defence decided not to call any witness and Mr. Lang addressed the jury. He spoke about the stormy atmosphere of the city of Poona and dwelt at length

on the high social position of the accused. “He is, therefore, a person of position in Hindu society and a man, who, you may imagine, would have a certain amount of influence.” He referred next to the fact that Tilak had made a deliberate attempt to give a political aspect to the Shivaji celebrations and to take advantage of the fact to excite disaffection towards the present rulers. He referred in detail to the lectures by Professors Paranjpe and Jinsiwalle which were reported in the kesari articles and pointed out, “Tilak suggested that it was perfectly justifiable for anyone to remove persons in the same way as had been done in the French Revolution”. Tilak’s articles on the Jubilee celebrations were also cited as evidence to show that the accused had not the slightest feeling of loyalty for the British Government or the Queen. In his speech for the defence Mr. Pugh pointed out that as Marathi was the language of the Court of Poona the case should have been tried at Poona and not at Bombay. He referred to the considerable delay that had occurred in launching the prosecution. The incriminating article was first published in the Kesari on the 15th June 1897. In the meanwhile letters signed as ‘Justice’ appeared in the Times of India, and questions were asked in Parliament. Reading between the lines, “The government at home were much exercised over this matter, and they thereupon sent out a mandate to have it cleared up, and the result is that this trial is instituted.” Regarding the objection that the Shivaji celebrations were used for political purposes, Mr. Pugh said, “There was no doubt a great jubilation over Shivaji, just in the same way as any of you, gentlemen of the jury, who are Scotchmen, would have done while celebrating the memory of Bruce and Wallace, in Scotland, in India or anywhere else.... We like to keep up the spirit of patriotism which we desire to cultivate amongst the people.... The Shivaji festival was instituted entirely upon the western model...”, and further, “There was nothing in the articles which incited murders or hatched a plot for the overthrow of the empire.” Paying a tribute to the work done by Mr. Tilak in the plague, Mr. Pugh remarked, “Here is a man who has been working heart and soul with government during the time of the plague.... He was loyal while the people were disturbed and perturbed.... Tilak had no animus against the government.” Lastly, Mr. Pugh appealed to the jury to dismiss all the prejudices in this case and consider it fully upon its merits. Concluding his speech, he said, “And I will say if you will do that, you cannot... come to any other conclusion but that you have here an honest man before you, who might perhaps have said things, but who never for a moment intended to preach disaffection against government.”

In his summing up, the judge referred to the Shivaji passage and said, “In his justification of the killing of Afzalkhan it is satisfactory to find that Tilak draws a sharp line between the rule to be applied to a great man or hero, and common man like himself. It does not seem to me, however, that a discussion as to how far great men are bound by ordinary rules of morality was a proper one to circulate about. I do not say it never ought to be done, but scrupulous care ought to be exercised, especially by a leader of society like Tilak.” Regarding the question as to whether the accused by these articles wanted to star up rebellion, the judge said “that was not the test of guilt under the section. It was sufficient for the purpose of the section if the feeling the prisoner intended to incite was enmity against the government an - enmity that might take root and spring up in the distant future.” The judge, having concluded his summing up, the jury retired for consultation and returned after three-quarters of an hour. They gave a unanimous verdict of not guilty in respect of Accused No. 2, Keshaorao Bal, Clerk and Manager, Aryabhushan Press. About Accused No. 1, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the jury were divided, six holding the accused guilty, while three pronounced a verdict of not guilty. The proportion of European jurors to Indians was also 6:3! The judge upholding the majority verdict sentenced Tilak to eighteen months’ rigorous imprisonment. In giving the sentence the judge observed: “Although I take a serious view of your offence, I do not take such a serious view as to award the maximum punishment.” The points in favour of Tilak, the judge said, were: “You are not an ordinary obscure editor and publisher, but you are one of the leading members of your community; and being a man of influence, a man of remarkable ability and energy, and who might under other circumstances have been a useful force in the State.” Referring to Tilak’s work during the plague the judge observed: “I shall also take into account and will attach still more weight to the fact that at all events for a considerable period, you did good work in connection with the plague and attempted to enforce a reasonable policy upon your countrymen.” An application was made to the Full Bench of the High Court asking permission to appeal to the Privy Council. About the application to be made to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, J. Chaudhari gives the following account, which is a glowing testimony to the judicial acumen of Tilak:16

“After the trial we decided that we should move the Bombay High Court for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was arranged with Mr. Pugh and Mr. Garth that I, in company with the solicitors of Mr. Tilak, would see them with a transcript of the judge’s charge at the Byculla Club at about 9 a.m. next day and then the petition for leave would be drawn up in consultation. It was also arranged that as Mr. Tilak might have some instructions to give, a messenger should see him in the morning and bring his suggestions to the club. On arrival at the club we sat down for reading the transcript of the judge’s charge to the jury and before we had finished it, the messenger from Mr. Tilak arrived with a bundle of papers with a lot of writing on the sheets in pencil. After we had finished reading the judge’s charge, Mr. Pugh opened the bundle of papers that had been sent by Mr. Tilak from jail. Mr. Garth and I who were seated on either side of Mr. Pugh, to our unspeakable surprise, found that it was a draft of the petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council that we had met to draw up. Mr. Pugh with great delight went through it from top to bottom, handed it over to Garth and said that we could not possibly have done it better. Both Mr. Pugh and Mr. Garth said that they could put it in form and settle it by tinkering with it here and there but could not possibly add to or improve upon it. Their appreciation of Tilak’s ability and intellect, which was already very high, now matured into great admiration and they said that during their professional experience, they had not come across any layman or even a lawyer who could draw up a petition of appeal so accurately and exhaustively after having only heard a charge or judgment delivered by the judge in court and without reference to any notes. Such a man was Tilak.” The permission was refused but a special appeal was made to the Privy Council, which was heard on the 19th November 1897 at White Hall by Lord Halsbury, Lord Chancellor, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Davy and Sir Richard Couch. Tilak was represented by Mr. Asquith, Mani and Umeshchandra Bannerji, instructed by Messrs. Pugh, Garth and the Hon. Mr. Khare. The Crown was represented by Arthur Cohen and J. H. Branson. This appeal too was rejected and thus all the avenues before Tilak were closed. In dismissing the application the Bench, however, admitted that Mr. Justice Strachey’s definition of “disaffection” as including mere absence of affection was erroneous. In other words, they admitted that there was misdirection of the jury and yet they held that it was not sufficient ground to admit the application. There were certain obvious conclusions to be drawn from the conduct and

conclusions of the case. As ‘An Englishman’ pointed out in the Champion, “The jury, at least the European element, was swayed by the rancorous and racial attacks to which Mr. Tilak was subjected by the whole of the Anglo-Indian press of the country in their attack on the Poona Brahmins, including Mr. G. K. Gokhale.” All along, the part played by the Times of India was little short of a quasi-prosecutor. A parallel was suggested between the Tilak case and the Phoenix Park murders, where the English members of Parliament and the British press had accused Parnell of having a complicity in the crime. The outburst of sympathy for Tilak that followed the trial was simply phenomenal. The Champion spoke the truth when it declared, “A few months ago the name of Tilak was scarcely known beyond the boundary of the Bombay Presidency; today there is not a hamlet in India in which the mention of his name does not excite admiration....” No public service that Tilak had rendered so far could make him a leader of all-India fame as this trial of his. The Hindu of Madras describes the feeling in Madras aroused by the case: “Few people outside the native community can have any idea of the feeling that has been aroused by the news of Mr. Tilak’s conviction even in Madras. A description of the scene in our office on Tuesday evening may perhaps tend to convey some impression, however vague, of the extent of anxiety that had been caused in the minds of the native community as to the result of the trial. From an early hour in the afternoon until late in the evening crowds of people stood outside the offices of the Hindu, anxiously awaiting the latest news about Tilak. And when the telegram was read, oh, what grief, what anguish was depicted on the faces around!” The Madras Times correctly describes the feeling among the Native public in saying “that the news of Mr. Tilak’s conviction was received as a national calamity. It would be impossible for a good length of time yet to obliterate the memory of that eventful evening, and it certainly cannot be said that the event has been conducive to the strengthening of the bonds existing between the native and the Anglo-Indian communities in the country.” The Hon. Mr. C. Sankaran Nair, in his presidential speech at the Amraoti Congress in 1897 made reference to the fact that the jury consisted of a majority of Europeans and declared that at least half should be Indians. “If there is any offence in India which ought to be tried by a native jury, the offence is that of sedition.” He made a reference to the fact that these men were treated as criminals and not as political prisoners. Though a resolution condemning the

government could not be moved in the Congress, Surendranath Banerjee made a touching reference to Tilak: “A whole nation is in tears,” he said. “It is impossible for a native of India of the attainments, the distinction and the unquestioned position of Mr. Tilak to harbour sentiments of disloyalty towards the British Government.” The Congress report adds that there were prolonged and loud cheers and at the mention of Tilak’s name the whole audience stood up and cheered enthusiastically. The British press was divided in its opinion. Even papers like The Standard of London, which believed that the criminality of the accused was established beyond doubt, had to admit that Mr. Strachey had given great elasticity to the wording of the Code. Some other papers were more outspoken. The New Castle Leader, for instance, unhesitatingly said that “The hostile articles were not judged with that impartiality which British justice demanded”. It could not but view with alarm the course of repression to which the Indian Government seemed to have committed itself. Very grave doubts were raised regarding Mr. Strachey’s definition of disaffection or sedition, as given by him in his summing up. This was what his Lordship had said, “Well, now I ask you to look at the section and the way it is worded. It says, Whosoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the government established by law in British India shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years to which fine may be added or with fine’. To the above is appended the following explanation, ‘Such a disapprobation of the measures of the government as is compatible with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority of the government and to support the lawful authority of the government against unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority is not disaffection. Therefore, the making of comments on the measures of the government with the intention of exciting only this species of disapprobation is not an offence in this clause.’ The offence as defined by the first clause is exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection to the government. What are ‘feelings of disaffection?’ I agree with the late Chief Justice of Bengal, Sir Comer Petheram, that disaffection means simply the absence of affection. It means hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt and every form of ill-will to the government. ‘Disloyalty’ is perhaps the best general term comprehending every possible form

of bad feeling to the government. That is what the law means by the disaffection which a man must not excite or attempt to excite; he must not make or try to make others feel enmity of any kind towards the government. If a man excited or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection, great or small, he is guilty under the section. In the next place, it is absolutely immaterial whether any feelings of disaffection have been excited or not by the publication in question.” As pointed out by the Advocate of India, “The doctrine, for that is what it comes to, that there cannot co-exist in the same heart an absence of affection and an absence of disaffection to the government established by law in British India is grammatically erroneous, and as we believe, politically dangerous. If it is to be upheld we shall have to lengthen the cords and strengthen the stakes of our prisons here.” Mr. Strachey’s definition meant that disparagement of howsoever mild a type and howsoever true would be legally permissible against the government and its representatives. As a matter of fact no charge under Section 124-A ought to stand until the object of making the charges against government and vilifying their deeds be subversion of the government or the suggestion of the use of force against it. “This is the widest extension of the principle that the King can do no wrong. The criteria may be the most honest man, his object may be to expose the defects of the government with a view to bringing about improvements, yet the criteria becomes a criminal in the eyes of Mr. Justice Strachey. This appears to us a monstrous interpretation of the section.” 17 When Tilak was in prison, Sections 124-A and 153-A were added so as to amplify the scope of the offence. Thus by way of explanation, the expression “disaffection” was meant to include disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. And Section 153-A said, “Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.” Three other journalists who were arrested almost at the same time as Tilak were also prosecuted. Kelkar, the editor of Poone Vaibhav was committed to the sessions, but was released when he tendered an apology. Kashinath Vaman Lele, editor of the Modvritta was to be tried at Satara before Mr. Aston, the Sessions Judge, who had become famous for his vindictive attitude and deterrent punishments, made an application that his case might be tried in the High Court.

Accordingly his case was opened on 25th November, and though he tendered an apology, he was given simple imprisonment for nine months, in consideration of his old age. The third journalist, Ramchandra Narayan Kashalkar, was editor of Pratod, which was being published at Islampur, District Satara. Mr. Aston, the Sessions Judge, sentenced him to transportation for life and the keeper of the press, Harmalkar, was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. On an appeal to the High Court, Justices Farren, Parsons and Ranade reduced Kashalkar’s sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and Harmalkar’s to three month’s simple imprisonment. The arrest of the Natu brothers and their continued detention without trial was a case of official bungling and ineptitude. As on the occasion of the Tilak trial, the arrest of the Natus was also thought to have a direct reference to the Poona murders, the government did not, however, prosecute them nor were they chargesheeted until after a long time. In the meanwhile, the assassin of Rand and Ayerst, Damodar Chaphekar, was arrested in Bombay. He was a priest by profession and was a member of a revolutionary organisation called ‘Hindu Dharma Sangha.’ His confession was staggering in its sweep. He confessed to have tarred the Queen’s statue, desecrated it with a garland of old shoes and burnt the University pandal. He was also implicated in the assaults on Mr. Gadgil, Barrister-at-Law, and Prof. Patwardhan, the editor of the Sudharak who, being reformers, had attacked religion. Damodar’s brother Balkrishna, who was his accomplice, had now made himself scarce. The trial of Chaphekar opened before the Hon’ble Mr. W H. Crowe in the Sessions Court at Poona and on the 6th February 1898, the Judge agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, sentenced Chaphekar to death. An appeal to the High Court was heard and dismissed by Justices Parsons and Ranade. Damodar was executed on the 18th April 1898, in the Yeravda prison. Special permission was given to Tilak to interview Chaphekar and he helped Chaphekar in prison to draft his petition to the High Court. At the time of his execution Chaphekar asked for a copy of the Bhagawad-Gita and Tilak, who had three copies, gave him one of them. After the execution Tilak also arranged for the funeral of Chaphekar. The Chaphekar case had a terrible sequel. Two persons, the Dravid brothers, who were accomplices of the Chaphekars, had turned against them and were

responsible for betraying them. On the 8th February 1899, at about 10 in the night the two Dravid brothers were called out by two strangers under the pretext that there was a message for them from Bruin. Totally unsuspecting, they came out, walked a distance, when suddenly shots rang out and there were cries of ‘Murder! Murder!!’. Somebody had shot both the brothers, who died in hospital the next day. Chaphekar’s third brother, Vasudeo, and two of his accomplices were arrested and, subsequently, two of them were hanged after a trial. The Mahratta, commenting on the affair, described Balkrishna and his associates as patriots and commented that however much one differed from the methods of these men, there was no doubt that they were moved by patriotic motives.

Tilak and the Terrorists It would be wrong to dispose of the Rand murder merely as a heinous crime committed by a fanatic. How people looked at the incident has been marvellously described by Lala Lajpat Rai. He wrote:18 “The trial of the Chaphekar brothers, the murderers of the two European Plague Officers, who had made themselves obnoxious in Poona, was looked upon as a romance in crime. The Chaphekars met their fate heroically, and, for the first time, showed to the country how religious enthusiasm of the most orthodox kind, could be combined with the political aspirations of the most revolutionary nature. Nothing of the kind had been heard before during British rule in India, and the incident thrilled the people with various kinds of emotional feelings. The educated community was convulsed with discussion as to the ethical nature of the crime. They had so far looked upon law and order as most sacred things and they never imagined that such religious men as Chaphekar brothers were could find justification in their hearts and in their ethical code for political murders of this kind. The Chaphekar brothers were then in fact the founders of the revolutionary movement in India. They were the first to invoke the Gita in support of political action of that kind, and somehow or other people all over India believed that Tilak was their inspirer. Some thought that he had ordered the murders, others that while not approving of the murders and not being in any way responsible for them, his was the inspiration behind the mentality which moved the hands and minds of the Chaphekar brothers. People in these days were not in a frame of mind to discriminate between a purely constitutional agitation and revolutionary assassination for any purpose whatsoever. They were the votaries of Ahimsa under any circumstances and for all purposes. But feelings were running so high as to compel people to look upon the conduct of the Chaphekar brothers not only with less severity but rather with admiration. It was the admiration of the motive behind the deed, not of the deed itself. Tilak’s name was freely mentioned in connection with the incident, though very few believed that he had any hand in the incident.” It has been proved beyond doubt that Tilak had no hand in Rand’s murder. Mr. Bruin who conducted the investigations in the case was an extremely competent officer and if he had found any direct or indirect evidence, he would never have hesitated to exploit it to the full. The government in fact wanted an opportunity

to muzzle Tilak and the Kesari for ever. In spite of the frantic efforts of the government, however, they could not get even a scrap of evidence against Tilak. It is also necessary to analyse the sentiments of the people and to find out why some of them believed that Tilak inspired Chaphekar to murder Rand. The first reason was that people had an impotent rage against Rand, and were glad that there was at least one man who retaliated against the atrocities of the plague days. Tilak, who had openly criticised the tyrannical measures, had became a symbol of defiant self-respect. People who admired the motive behind the murder and interpreted it as a just reaction against tyranny, naturally wanted to associate Tilak with it. Even today there are some who feel that Tilak’s praise is incomplete unless it is added that he was hand in glove with the revolutionaries. This admiration for political crime is an inevitable reaction to the smothering of the normal political rights of a people. Such an admiration, coupled with deep respect for the leader, makes people think in a wishful manner, and therefore even though there was no objective proof, people believed that Tilak at least knew the pkn of the Chaphekar brothers. In the absence of any concrete evidence nothing definite can be said about this. Tilak knew about the existence of a band of revolutionaries in Poona. During this period secret societies for revolutionary work were being organised in various parts of India. In the Bombay Presidency, Thakur Saheb, a noble of Udaipur State, was the leader of this movement and he was in close contact with Shri Aurobindo, who was then a professor at Baroda. Damodar Chaphekar, along with his brother, had started an organisation called Hindu Dharma Sangha. After a time this Sangha, the secret society of Thakur Sahib, and Tarun Sangha, a society of youths organised under Shri Aurobindo’s direction, were amalgamated and Shri Aurobindo took over their leadership. There is no evidence whatever in support of the assumption that Tilak directed the activities of these secret societies. Some of Tilak’s friends, Vasukaka Joshi and Annasahib Patwardhan, were in touch with these revolutionaries and through them Tilak might have had some idea about their activities. Shri K. D. Same, who was one of the accomplices in the murder of Rand, stated in his interview, “On the second day of Rand’s murder and at the instance of the late Shri Damodar Chaphekar I conveyed the news of the successful event to Tilak.” This does not, however, prove that Tilak directed the action. Sathe has not said that Tilak showed any curiosity about the details. If he had given directions, he would have asked Sathe whether the plan was carried out according to instructions. Tilak by his manifold public activities had emerged as a fearless leader and die young men engaged in revolutionary work kept him informed about their actions as

youngsters would an elderly person. None of the persons belonging to the secret society of Chaphekar had come in close contact with Tilak. Tilak in his multifarious activities had cultivated innumerable acquaintances but had developed friendship with only a few. Moreover the Chaphekar brothers were much younger than Tilak and besides, there was a difference in social status and education and they could not have thought of discussing their plans with him. Tilak’s words or his actions were never impulsive. He spoke or acted in a particular manner only when he was prepared for the direst consequences. He was building the political faith of the people and he knew too well that if he took back any of his words or recanted any of his actions, people would not only lose faith in him but also in the political movement and in the idea of political work. He was conscious of the fact that his was in many ways a pioneering effort and he had therefore to be very careful in words and in deeds. He had to choose his expressions after considering all their implications and he had to weigh and measure all his actions. Tilak knew that the British Empire was a mighty institution which could not be shaken by acts of individual terrorism. He, however, felt that a morbid system was bound to beget its violent grave-diggers. If a terrorist had, therefore, approached Tilak and asked his advice, he would have explained to him why he did not favour individual acts of terrorism. He thought, however, during this period, that if anyone was prepared to die and do something which could not fit in with the normal way of things, it was not his responsibility to dissuade that individual. Tilak’s political life shows remarkable growth and his views about terrorism were different at different stages of his political career. At this stage, Tilak believed that an individual should obey only the dictates of his own conscience in deciding his way of serving the motherland; and if any individual decided on the course of violent action, others had no right to sit in judgment over him. He believed that different persons might resort to different means while reaching the same goal. He thought, so long as the motive was moral, it was wrong to say that one course was moral while the other was not. As a realist Tilak chose his means for their efficacy, but he felt that no one had a right to question the efficacy of another person’s action so long as it was prompted by an earnest desire to serve the country. He felt that once there was a common patriotic motive, all actions had a place in the scheme of things, each might have its different purpose and immediate results could not be adopted as a test in judging their desirability. Moreover, though Tilak did not defend political murder, he openly stated that it was not his responsibility to help the government in finding the culprit. During the period of investigation, Mr. Bruin

used to come to Tilak frequently for a chat. Tilak was always very polite in conversation, though he shrewdly judged the intentions of Mr. Bruin. When Bruin realised that it was no use trying to elicit information in this roundabout way, he one day directly asked Tilak why he did not help the government in finding Rand’s assassin. Tilak immediately replied, “In the first place I cannot give you any help, because who is going to give me the information? Please also remember that even if I may accidentally get a bit of information, I shall not be able to convey it to you. For though I think that it would be just to punish the culprit, I shall not act as anybody’s spy, and I shall not betray anyone. You are doing your work and I shall not come in your way. I do not agree with Mr. Lamb when he said that this murder had brought Poona into disrepute. But I do not also say that you should not find out the assassin with all your efforts and punish him.” Those who associate Tilak’s name with the Chaphekar brothers point to the fact that Damodar Chaphekar asked for the Bhagawad-Gita from Tilak, Tilak sent it to him and after Damodar was executed, he arranged for his funeral. In the first place there is nothing wrong in giving a sacred book to anyone who asks for it; in fact, if his end is near, it is all the more necessary to give it to him as a solace. Secondly, human considerations demand that funeral rites of a person should be performed according to his last wishes. Tilak, with his religious bent of mind, would regard this as his sacred duty. Moreover, whatever Tilak’s views were about the act of assassination, he was convinced of Chaphekar’s patriotism and had great admiration for the supreme sacrifice he had made. Tilak regarded all political workers as members of one family and his sentiments for Damodar were those of an elder brother. Just as he refused to give any information even if he might accidentally get it, he also thought that he should not pronounce any judgment on the act of a person who had acted with patriotic motives. Unlike Gandhiji, he would never condemn a political murder on ethical grounds alone. He thought that an alien government was an immoral situation and it was therefore quite wrong to dub as immoral any action of a patriot. Tilak believed that the most moral motive, as the love for one’s country is, might, owing to the immoral situation, lead to a violent action. Tilak, therefore, blamed the environment rather than the individual. It is alleged that though Tilak was not responsible for promoting the attitude of terrorism, he had definitely inspired Chaphekar and had created in him a desire to do something for the country. Such vague allegations are made loosely and therefore do not deserve serious consideration. Tilak, through his writings, was building up a national movement

and was certainly a fountain of inspiration to younger persons. He provided the stimulus. The response differed from individual to individual. With the trial and sentence of Chaphekar, questions were naturally asked about the detention of the Natus, to which vague replies were given both in the Provincial and Imperial Councils as also in Parliament. To the question asking the government to state the law or authority under which the movable property of the Natus was attached, the reply was that the property was inadvertently included in the attachment of the immovable property and subsequently orders were given to release it from attachment as soon as the mistake was discovered. Questions in Parliament about the charges on which the Natus were arrested elicited vague and elusive replies. It was said first that there was a vague suspicion of a conspiracy but as there was no evidence to justify their being criminaly charged, recourse was taken to a forgotten regulation. Later the charges were said to be interference with the sanitary work of the Plague Committee and trying to corrupt a policeman or a village headman. Both these charges were clear afterthoughts and even if true, were not so serious as to warrant the stern measures taken by the government. There were continued protests in the Indian press, memorials and petitions were sent to Parliament and ultimately the Natu brothers were released, first on parole and later unconditionally, in May 1898.

The Memorial With the execution of Damodar Hari Chaphekar and the release of the Natu brothers, questions were raised about the release of Tilak also. After a few days’ imprisonment in the House of Correction at Bombay, Tilak was removed to the Yeravda Central Prison. The category of political prisoners had not yet been thought of and Tilak was treated as an ordinary criminal. The jail food, which was of a very coarse type, did not agree with him and as a result within less than two months he lost about 30 pounds in weight. Grave anxiety was felt in India and in England about the health of Tilak and whether Tilak would survive his sentence was believed to be doubtful. Tilak’s scholarly researches in the prehistory of India had gathered for him a host of admirers among the scholars of Europe and America. In March 1898 Professor Max Müller, the noted Indologist and scholar, sent a copy of the Rigveda, edited by himself, to Tilak in prison. At Yeravda, Tilak seems to have been treated a little more leniendy. He was given milk and buttermilk and the work that he had to do (in the colours and pigments department) being of a lighter and technical nature, was relished more by him. It was again mainly through the efforts of Prof. Max Müller that a memorial was addressed to die Secretary of State for India, which was signed, besides Professor Max Müller, by Sir William Hunter, Sk Richard Garth, Mr. W. C. Caine, Mr. Ramesh Chunder Dutt, C.I.E., and many others. The memorial did not question the justice of the sentence passed on Tilak but asked for mercy, and a mitigation of the severe punishments dealt out to him and the other Deccan editors. One of the paragraphs of the memorial said, “That Mr. Tilak has served his country well as a scholar and Sanskritist and his services have been recognised by the best scholars of Europe. It is clear from his paper on Orion and similar topics diat his real interests lie in the ancient literature of his country, and that he cares more for events that happened 3,000 or 4,000 years ago than for questions of the day. He is unused to manual labour and has suffered much in health from prison discipline.” The comparatively improved diet and better treatment that Tikk received at Yeravda prison was due to the intercession of the Howard Association of London. William Tallack, the Secretary, was good enough at once to interview

Sir George Hamilton, then Secretary of State for India. Immediately by cable he arranged for Mr. Tilak’s examination by a committee consisting of the Surgeon General, the Inspector General of Prisons and one more person. They found that he required a change of diet and nursing. The efforts of the memorialists headed by Professor Max Müller did not immediately bear fruit; but the policy of the government after the execution of Chaphekar showed a welcome return to normality. The Natu brothers were released unconditionally. The punitive police force in Poona was withdrawn. At last on Tuesday die 6th September 1898, after 11 months of incarceration, Tilak was released after he had agreed to certain conditions imposed on him by the government. One of these conditions, proposed by Tilak himself in lieu of the government’s condition that he should not take part in politics henceforth, was that the six months’ term of imprisonment, which he was to escape by his early release, would be gone through by him once again if he happened to be sentenced again for sedition. The news of Tilak’s release was met with joyous enthusiasm by leaders of all sections and he received messages of congratulation from friends and admirers from India and abroad. 1 R. G. Pradhan : India’s Struggle for Sivaraj, P. 69 2 3 Kesari, 15th December 1896. 4 Kesari, 23rd March 1897. 5 5 6 “These two famines of 1896 amd 1899-1900.”says Professor D.R.Gadgil,“weretruly very great calamities. Their effects were manifold, weakening the health of the people and undermining their morale. They made the masses easy victims of epidemicsof cholera and plague...” Industrial Evolution of India, P. 104. 7 By the end of 1898 the recorded number of deaths reached a total of 1,73,000which was probably below the real mortality. 8 Kesari, 9th March 1897. 9 Translation by the Bombay High Court’s Translator. 10

11 Kesari, 8thJune 1897. 12 Kesari, 15th June 1897. 13 Kesarí, 22nd June 1897. 14 15 16 Ibid., p. 9. 17 Champion, 20th September 1897. 18

WIDENING ORIZONS 7 After his release from jail in September 1898, Tilak was interviewed by a correspondent of the Sudharak. In this interview he gave a detailed account of his life in jail. He explained that originally his idea was to prosecute the editor of the Times of India but that he abandoned it at a later stage. Asked about the identity of the writer who signed himself ‘Justice’ and whose letters were largely responsible for involving Tilak in the sedition case, Tilak denied that the writer could be either Dr. Bhandarkar or Kirtane. In prison, he said, he was given the work of spinning coir, and later in Yeravda to colour wool and yarn for making carpets. He used to get the Kesari and the Mahratta in prison; but many times certain news items and articles were cut out from these and other papers that he received. His weight, which was formerly 135 Ibs, was reduced to 105 Ibs. He was medically examined after the Howard Association of London had applied to Parliament and half a pound of milk and two and a half tolas of ghee were thereafter included in his daily diet. In prison he was kept in the European ward. His room was a small one. There was a raised portion covered with wooden boards to sleep upon. The bed consisted of two blankets only. He wore the prison uniform. He was permitted to use a lamp at night for three hours and he was also allowed to get books from home. He spent most of his time in studying the Rigveda with the help of commentaries. From these he arrived at the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Aryans lived at a place where the night used to be of two months’ duration. This was the North Polar region. Gradually they migrated towards the South. This discovery of his was supported by geology. It was true that out of the three copies of the Gita that he had he gave one to Chaphekar and also helped him to write an application. Life in jail was naturally very difficult. Though the cell, walls and everything inside were kept extremely clean, no attention was given to the personal hygiene of the prisoners. They were not given sufficient water for a bath. Their clothes were not washed for up to four months and there were often lice in them. According to the rule clothes were to be washed not more than once a week but this too was often not done. Asked about his defence fund, Tilak said that it had swelled to Rs. 53,000 out of which there was as yet a balance of Rs. 9,000 and he

had not decided how to spend it. Thanks to the improved diet after his release from Yeravda his weight had increased to 112 Ibs., but he was still extremely weak. He had become thin and emaciated with eyes sunken and cheekbones standing out prominently. His legs tottered as he walked and he felt tired after talking for some time. It was decided therefore that he should spend a few days at Sinhgad to recoup his health. Here he took rest for two months and this did him a lot of good. He attended the Congress Session at Madras in December 1898, but did not make a speech. He was given a tremendous ovation at Madras and was given receptions at several places. From Madras he travelled to Rameshwar and Ceylon. He was naturally impressed by the Hindu temples in the Madras Presidency and remarked that it was a clear proof of the unity and glory of Hinduism. At Tanjore he was particularly impressed by the Mahratta families that had migrated there three centuries ago with Shivaji’s half-brother Vyankoji. In spite of such a long stay in a different province, these families had still kept up the Marathi language and Maharashtrian customs. In Ceylon, he noticed that in spite of the fact that it had almost all the reforms such as an absence of caste differences, prevalence of widow remarriage, etc., for which reformers in India were clamouring, the Ceylonese were still a backward people. They were under too much western influence and Tilak felt that a revival of the old traditions and customs in dress and manners was necessary for their national regeneration. In 1899 Tilak attended the Lucknow Congress and tried to bring in a resolution condemning Lord Sandhurst, the Governor of Bombay, for his reactionary regime. All the elders of the Congress were opposed to it and consequently the resolution could not be moved. This was a clear indication that Tilak was as yet in a minority in the Congress, though outside in the popular mind his supremacy was almost unquestioned. From Lucknow, Tilak went to Burma, travelling with a circus company, the proprietor of which was a friend of his. He was impressed by the fact that the Hindu merchants there followed rigorously all the Hindu religious customs and practices. This, he saw, was clear proof that under Hinduism there were no restrictions to travel abroad if only we still kept to the old traditions.

Revolutionary Associates Tilak was travelling not for relaxation but to acquaint himself with the forces which he sensed but about which he had no personal knowledge. He was the first to realise the process of resurgence in Asia and thought of the possibility of preparing for a revolution in these politically unexplored regions. When Tilak accompanied by Vasukaka Joshi went to Calcutta to attend the Congress in 1901 he met ‘Mataji’, a lady, who hailed originally from Tanjore. She could speak Marathi and Kannada fluently and was conducting a Marathi girls’ school in Calcutta. She invited Tilak to pay a visit to the school. She was an extraordinary woman in many respects. After early widowhood, she went on a pilgrimage to northern India. She then stayed with the Maharaja of Nepal as his paramour for some years and after he was assassinated, returned to India with her valuables. Even when she was staying in Calcutta, she had not severed connections with Nepal and had friendly relations with oil engineer, Kumar Narsinha. She wanted to utilise these contacts to help India. She particularly wanted to help Tilak and when he paid a visit to her school she explained to him how the conditions in Nepal were favourable for securing some kind of aid. She offered to introduce Tilak and Vasukaka Joshi to the then Maharaja of Nepal. Tilak and Joshi went upto the Nepal border but could not proceed further because they were not allowed to enter Nepal owing to the epidemic of plague. After Tilak’s return to Poona, Khadilkar who was working in the Kesari, in consultation with Vasukaka Joshi, planned to work in Nepal. He went to Nepal, stayed there under the pretext of starting a factory for manufacturing tiles and established contacts with the agent of a German company in Calcutta for securing a machine for the manufacture of rifles. Owing to Mataji’s influence, Kumar Narsinha, helped Khadilkar, who gave his name as Krishnarao Hanmantrao Kulkarni. The founder of the Shivaji Club at Kolhapur worked as Khadilkar’s assistant in conducting the tiles factory. Damu Joshi of Kolhapur also went to Nepal. Vasukaka, in the meanwhile, went to Japan and Khadilkar also persuaded the Maharaja of Nepal to send some students to Japan. Khadilkar hoped that these students would get the necessary military training in Japan. The whole pkn of Khadilkar fizzled out after the arrest of Damu Joshi, who had returned to Kolhapur, and he could not pursue the effort for preparing for the revolution. A similar attempt was made by Vasukaka Joshi on the northwestern front.

There were many monasteries of the Mahanubhav sect in Afghanistan and Joshi wanted to establish contacts with the Amir of Afghanistan through some Mahanubhavs. The plan, however, did not materialise. Tilak was in the know of these revolutionary activities of his close associates and as Acharya Javadekar puts it: “He approved of the revolutionary activities of a preparatory nature, for he visualised that although the peaceful struggle may lead the country to the very precincts of Swarajya, at the last moment this method may not be sufficient and the violent revolutionaries would be required to play some part.” In Burma as in Ceylon, Tilak noted that in spite all reforms such as women’s emancipation, freedom to follow any faith, widow remarriage and divorce, the Burmese were still a divided and dependent people, with little or no self-respect. “If we compare this society with ours, the question that arises in our mind is how far these social reforms are important from the national point of view.” The conclusion to which he came was that social reform and national regeneration did not go hand in hand. From his articles and speeches of this period, it is clear that Tilak’s views on Hinduism were now crystallised, the comparative study of which he had spoken earlier had now progressed and it had reinforced his faith in Hinduism. At this time he again appears to have accepted Theism as a faith. He is said to have remarked to Mahadeo Dhondo Vidwans that by 1900 his views were completely crystallised and after this he constantly speaks of a belief in God and the necessity of divine guidance. The first article he wrote in the Kesari after his release11 began with the customary salutation of a Vedic priest He thanks all his supporters and co-workers who had seen him through all his difficulties. He takes a review of the situation in the city of Poona and notes that there was some improvement and devotes the greater part of his article to the venomous and treacherous propaganda carried on by certain people in the Times, which led to his prosecution. “No educated person,” he says, “can be capable of taking part in, much less in inciting, an overthrow of the English power, or have direct connection with bloodshed. Anyone who suspects the contrary must regard his belief as an outcome of his own ignorance or prejudice.”

Views on Religion To return to his views on religion, in 1900, in a lecture on Hinduism, delivered at the Ganapati festival, Tilak declared, ‘Teople from all castes, varnas, sects and opinions among the Hindus should be included in the Hindu fold, but Buddhists, Jains, Christians or Muslims should be excluded. Unlike Christianity or Mahommedanism, Hinduism believes that those who came to the world to preach the divine message were not one but many, though Hinduism does believe in one God. In fact the special feature of Hinduism is that it does not impose any limitation on God’s grace or his kindness. What, therefore, distinguishes Hinduism from Islam or Christianity is oneness of God coupled with the presence of several prophets.... Other religions stick to one God and one way of worship; Hinduism believes in different manifestations of God, and also in diverse ways of worship.” The main tenets of Hinduism, Tilak summed up in a Sanskrit verse that he composed: To accept the authority of the Vedas, diversity of means, unlimited deities these are the tenets of Hinduism.” He defends idol-worship, idols being a representation (Prateek) of the divine, because the nature of God is so vast and immense that it cannot be comprehended. He explains: “The Upanishads call idol-worshp as ‘Prateek’ which means a representative or Pratinidhi. As we cannot keep the whole universe before us, we keep only a part, which is its representative. The Viceroy is not the emperor but his representative. Similarly an image is a representative of the all-pervading nature of God. Even those religions which do not believe in idol-worship have to accept it in some form or other. Failure to recognise this has led to the abortive efforts of reformers like the Prarthana Samajists.” With this belief in the superiority of Hinduism and Hindu customs and manners, Tilak believed that reforms in Hinduism should not be on the basis of an all-out change but should be gradual, following the line of least resistance. These views of his, particularly about the caste system, involved him now in many contradictions. So long as the Brahmins were the only elite, conscious of

their political rights, the subordination of social to political rights on the principle of concentration of energy might have been defendable. Now, however, with reformers like Phule from the backward classes, there was a clamour for equality in social and religious matters. Already in the Poona Congress of 1895, a follower of Phule had erected a huge image of a peasant, reminding the Congress delegates, mouthing roundly the Victorian idiom, that the peasantry was a force to be reckoned with in politics. In 1888, barely three years after the establishment of the Congress, journals of the backward classes like the Deenmitra of Poona had asked what the Congress was doing for the peasants and the artisans. Here is a passage entitled “The National Carriage” that vividly brings out the point of view of these classes: “Our India is a huge cart, to which are yoked the bullocks – the original inhabitants such as the Marathas, Malis, Kunabis, Mahars, Mangs and the Bhils. This cart is kept in motion by the wheel of time. Inside sit foreigners like Europeans and such of the servants who include themselves among the higher classes. On the way there are large hills and slopes and yet those who sit inside do not either get down or give rest to the bullocks. Those of the Indians who sit inside are quarrelling with the Europeans that they might get room to sit and also the chance to drive the cart. As today the drivers are English, they have a constant friction with the natives. In the meanwhile nobody minds what the state of the bullock is. He gets nothing to eat, he has no water, not only that but no one tries to remove the blinkers of ignorance covering his eyes. Rise, oh, bullocks, and look after your own interests, for those who sit inside are quarrelling for their own rights and none knows how long these quarrels will last. By that time do you think that even your skeletons will remain and those inside the cart do you any favour?”

Vedokta Affair Tilak was one of the earliest leaders in the Congress to realise the need of taking the message of the Congress to the masses, and through the work in the famine and the plague, through the educative effort in the Ganapati and the Shivaji festivals, he had succeeded in his object to a great extent. His vehement opposition to social reforms, however, had made him indistinguishable from the orthodox and his dubious position in regard to the caste system made the lower classes suspicious of him. The movement of the non-Brahmin classes received a tremendous fillip when it was supported by Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj, the Maharaja of Kolhapur. The dispute arose over the recognition of the Maharaja as a Kshatriya. Local Brahmins refused to do this, saying that being Shudras or lower class people, the Marathas had no right to perform their ceremonies according to Vedic rites. The Maharaja had certain rites performed by a Brahmin when other Brahmins including the Darbar priest, Rajopadhye, who had a hereditary ‘Vatan’ (right) refused to do them. The Maharaja confiscated the estate of Rajopadhye and started performing the Vedic rites by elevating the Marathas and other non-Brahmin people to priesthood, having the right to recite the Vedas. This has come to be known as the ‘Vedokta’ affair. Tilak’s stand in the ‘Vedokta’ affair was vacillating and dubious. At first he, like most of the advanced classes, was inclined to ignore the claims of the non- Brahmin classes. By 19, with the growth of consciousness among these classes as a result of the spread of education and efforts for the uplift of the untouchables by persons like Vithal Ramji Shinde, their demands could no longer be ignored and it was realised that things would have to be conceded. In an article on the 22nd October 1902, Tilak tried to parry the whole question by saying that Shivaji was recognised as a Kshatriya by summoning a Branmin from Benares, and all classes of people were unanimous in this privilege being conferred on him. During this time no other decision was possible and the decision given was certainly favourable to the Marathas; but then there was no question of conferring the Vedokta rights on the Maratha or any other community as a whole. Tilak then asks the question, “What have the Marathas of today done to deserve more than what Shivaji got?” Their claim of superiority over the Bhonsle family was, therefore, not in accordance with the ways of the world, or of civility or of the practices of caste.

In the second article on the 29th October, he says, “The usurpation of the Vedokta right by the Marathas would not elevate them either socially or nationally; for today lots of Europeans too study the Vedas; but they are not honoured on account of that. Honour or greatness does not, therefore, depend upon Vedokta rights but on personal qualities such as bravery, patriotism, adventure. Brahmins who perform the Vedokta rites can do nothing better than the lowest menial service, while Marathas who have not this right can enjoy a kingdom. Is it not wrong, therefore, that the Marathas should clamour for the Vedokta rights?” Tilak also points out, “To say that caste distinctions would vanish by conferring the Vedokta rights on the Marathas is also a mistake; for Brahmin women have not the right to read the Vedas and yet they are considered to be Brahmins. The question again is not merely of studying or reciting the Vedas. Nobody can forbid the Maratha community from doing it. It is more a question of performing religious rites according to the Vedas. The Europeans study the Vedas but do not insist on Vedic rites.” It is clear from these arguments of Tilak that he, like all the advanced class people of his time, failed to see the real significance of the non-Brahmins’ demand. The denial of Vedic rights was symbolical of the cultural domination of the upper classes, which was resented by the newly conscious non-Brahmin classes. The limitations of orthodox nationalism were therefore beginning to be felt. To fight for equality in the political sphere could no longer be done effectively unless there was recognition of the need of equality in the social sphere as well. The demand for political rights by the advanced classes was not actuated by race hatred or personal bitterness but was moral demand born out of a love of liberty. In the same way the demand of equal social and religious rights on the part of the non-Brahmin classes was also a moral demand though in practice it often took a rabidly anti-Brahmin and communal turn.

Defence of Theosophy Though in this matter Tilak’s position was not different from that of the orthodox, he had no sympathy with those who attacked Mrs. Besant and her cult of Theosophy. Writing in 1904, he corrects certain misconceptions and prejudices against the Central Hindu College established by Mrs. Besant. According to him, Mrs. Besant had suffered the criticism of her co-religionists and was preaching Hinduism out of conviction. It was not proper therefore to take objection to her activity merely on the ground that she was a European. According to Tilak, the great contribution of Theosophy to Hinduism is, “There is our old method of expounding the principles of our ancient religion, but in these changed times there is a necessity of putting them in a more modern guise. With the growth of the sciences the criticism also made these changes. In the same way it was less essential to make such changes in the exposition (and not in the religion itself) of Hinduism. The educated are attracted to Theosophy because it did this work admirably.” In May 1904, Tilak bitterly attacked Principal Paranjpye for an article that he wrote in the East and West. In this article Paranjpye said that teaching of religion was harmful to nationality and also to the country. Religion is not the basis of ethics, but ethics was the basis of religion. The growth of religious superstition would be impossible to check. Religion is a tissue of superstition and will not be able to withstand the onslaught of reform. Tilak falls back on the Vedas and says that they have the power of uniting the different sects. His next contention is that no other religion has shown so well the relationship of the soul with God, or what the duties of an individual are to keep up this relationship, and how an individual can elevate himself. “As Paranjpye has never cared to study these he thinks religion to be a tissue of lies and nonsense.” He reminds the wrangler that “like mathematics, religion is an independent science and it requires a particular type of mental outlook. To develop its study, consultations of books and meditation are as necessary as in the study of mathematics.” The ‘Times’ Apology The Times of India continued its hostile attitude to Tilak even after his release from jail. The Times copied a remark from the Globe, a newspaper of London, in

October 1899 at the time of writing about the appointment of Sir S. Northcote as the Governor of Bombay: “Happily Sir Stafford Northcote goes to his important office with much fuller knowledge of the state of affairs than his predecessor possessed until his mind was informed by the campaign of murder which Tilak directed, if he was not its organiser....” Tilak served the Times with a notice. As the case opened up the Times of India counsel declared that his clients were prepared to offer an unqualified apology. “It is a course my clients have determined to take independently of any legal advice whatever and prompted only by their own sense of what is right and just and fair to the plaintiff.” The apology was published in the Times of India: “Mr. Bennett entirely disassociates himself from any of the insinuations so brutally conveyed by the paragraph in the Globe and retracts with regret the sentiments embodied in the paragraph complained of.” Tilak next proceeded against the Globe and got a handsome apology from them also. This incident clearly indicates the hostility of the Anglo- Indian press and the Conservative press to Tilak, and the culmination of this attitude was to be found in Chirol‘s Indian Unrest. Tilak was extremely vigilant about his political reputation and took prompt legal action against those who sought to destroy it. After his release from prison, certain topical issues engaged Tilak’s attention. One of these was the compulsion made by the government to inoculate people with the newly invented plague vaccine. Tilak was opposed to making it compulsory and wrote a number of articles pointing out how the vaccine was yet in an experimental stage and how it could not be made compulsory unless a statistical study was made of its effects on those who were vaccinated. His articles involved him in a controversy with Dr. Sir Bhalchandra Bhatavdekar. In the initial stages when the doctors too were apprehensive of the effects of the vaccine, the note of caution was valuable and he himself later congratulated the authorities of the Haffkine Institute of Bombay for the care with which they prepared the vaccine.

Problems of the Pea santry An important provincial issue concerning the problems of the peasantry engaged the attention of Tilak, and he wrote several articles in the Kesari. The government had framed a bill to be introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council to amend the Land Revenue Code. This bill sought to restrict the power of the owner to mortgage or sell his land to the sowcar (money -lender). It was the government contention that due to the unrestricted powers in the hands of the peasants, land was passing out of their hands and the cultivators were being reduced to the position of a mere yearly tenant. The government also wanted to introduce a new system of inalienable land tenure and allow the cultivator to borrow only on security of the year’s crop. A very heated controversy arose, the non-official members objecting to the bill on the grounds that the government had no right to introduce this kind of tenure and that the whole problem of indebtedness of the agriculturist should be considered more comprehensively. On the 2nd July 1901, Tilak wrote under the caption “The sowcar is dead and the kunbi (peasant) also is dead!” He pointed out the government sought to reduce the peasant to the position of a mere tenant. It would also ruin the sowcar and introduce government interference to an undue extent. In another article he questioned the validity of the government contention that land confiscated on account of non-payment of land revenue or non-repayment of a loan from the government was the property of the government. He referred to the Select Committee which suggested a number of amendments to the bill. Outside, an agitation was started protesting against the bill and meetings were addressed by Pherozeshah Mehta, Bhatavdekar and other members of the legislature. Tilak congratulated the members for their vigilance in the interest of the peasantry. Pherozeshah Mehta moved an amendment that a consideration of the bill be adjourned until various persons and associations had been consulted. This amendment was ably supported by Gokhale, but the government refused to accept the amendment. To show their resentment of this intransigence on the part of the government, all the elected members of the Council, led by Mehta, staged a walk-out. This dramatic gesture, the first of its kind in the history of the Bombay legislature, aroused widespread interest. There was bitter condemnation of the members, in the Anglo-Indian papers, for their irresponsibility. Tilak warmly congratulated the members for their bold stand and said that it was