Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

absurd to suppose that experienced and tried public workers like the Hon. Mr. Mehta cared less for the welfare of the peasantry than a civilian who came from thousands of miles away. If the government wished to pilot the bill, by-passing the wishes of the elected members, Tilak warned that they were reducing the position of the members to a mere farce. The government, however, saw the bill through the legislature. The general stand of Tilak and the other members of the legislature seems to be based on the contention that unless attempts were made to organise rural credit in India such tinkering was undesirable. It is true that exorbitant interest is charged by the moneylender. “But after all the moneylender had been fulfilling a very important function in the carrying on of agricultural operations in India.”2 He was the only one to provide capital and credit to the agriculturist where the agriculturist is improvident and extravagant, the moneylender is a necessity and has been the very foundation of the simple system of village economy. Tilak pointed out that the Land Alienation bill would destroy the mutual relationship between the sowcar and the peasantry. In 1903, Tilak criticised the proposed bill of the Government of India for starting Farmers’ Cooperative Societies. His main contention again was that there would be too many powers given to government officials. Instead, he suggested that attempts should be made to revitalise the village as a self- contained and independent unit and to organise sowcars’ societies. There were no agriculturists with sufficient capital or enthusiasm, he pointed out, who would become shareholders of the Cooperative Societies. The purpose of providing cheap credit to the agriculturist would be better served if moneylenders’ societies charging a low rate of interest were established. A series of articles in 1899 deplore the tendency seen in the government legislation to encroach upon the Khoti rights in the Konkan. He explained that according to tradition the Khoti right meant that the Khot should pay the land revenue of the village to the government. Once he did that he was for all purposes the master of the village with all the cultivators as his tenants. Tilak takes a legal stand to speak against the proposed restrictions of the Khoti rights and says that it was not a humanitarian question of siding with the cultivators as against the Khots. It was a question of the government standing by its pledges and agreements given to the Khots in the past. His plea was that it was the right of the Khot to get a third or a half of the produce of the land from the tenant and

the government could deprive him of this right only if the Khot was paid sufficient compensation. “Just as the government has no right to rob the sowcar and distribute his wealth among the poor, in the same way the government have no right to deprive the Khot of his rightful income and distribute the money to the peasant. This is a question of rights and not of humanity.... If the Khot is unwanted in Ratnagiri then there is only one way to oust him: Government should purchase his rights by giving him a sum which would fetch air interest equal to his income and then these rights should be gradually transferred to the tenant even without taking anything in return if the government is moved by pity.” Tilak had always interested himself in the spread of indigenous goods and industry. One such idea of his was the starting of the Paisa Fund. Tilak first wrote an article on this subject in the Kesari in 1900. The idea of each person subscribing only a Paisa (the lowest coin in India) to make up a fund for starting indigenous industry attracted the imagination of people and an enthusiastic young man, Antaji Damodar Kale, was inspired by it. He voluntarily moved from village to village and collected donations to the Paisa Fund. Tilak who was always quick in giving recognition to the work done by enthusiastic workers called Kale the originator of the Paisa Fund. Kale, however, wrote an article in the Kesari of the 2nd August 1902, stating that the inspiration came to him from Tilak. Owing to the support from all sections of society the fund soon swelled to Rs. 53,000. Crystallisation of Views, 1900-1905 The period from 1900 to 1905 in Tilak’s thoughts on political, social and religious matters can be described as a period of crystallisation of views. This crystallisation was the result of a number of factors. Men, matters, travel and books are the main factors that mould a person’s mind. During this period, we have seen that Tilak travelled to Madras, Ceylon and Burma and what he noted about the social, religious and political state of these places confirmed some of his earlier beliefs. In men and matters he learnt a great deal from mature experience of life and of political work. The emergence of a new Asia through the Russo-Japanese conflict gave a wider basis to Indian nationalism. A cultural and religious basis was provided along with political and economic justification by the books that he read. At this time he again came to be acknowledged as the “most respected leader of the people” and was known henceforth by the title

‘Lokmanya’. The exact origin of the title is unknown. According to the famous historian Rajwade, the title was used for the first time in 1900 in an address presented to Tilak at Kolhapur. Datto Appaji Tuljapurkar, pleader and author, however gives the year 1905 as the time when the title was used for the first time in a Sanskrit address, drafted by Mahadeoshastri Oka, a renowned teacher of Sanskrit in the New English School. Whatever be its origin, the title is appropriate, for Tilak was the first leader who in public life set up a new standard of greatness. Before him a leader had to be Rajamanya—acknowledged or respected by the King. He turned the public gaze from the King to the people and earned a title by renouncing the honours which would easily have been his had he chosen the old and trodden path of Kingly favour. Rajamanya Rajashri (shortened to Ra. Ra.) also happen to be traditional honorific prefixes in Maradii as Mr. is in English. The title may, therefore, have a humorous origin—as Tilak was obviously not acknowledged by the King (Rajamanya) the prefix could no longer be used for him and hence in contrast he became an ‘acknowledged leader of the people’ (Lokmanya). But to turn to his influences, first the influence of books. The books which seem to have affected Tilak most profoundly seem to be the “Sacred Books of the East” Max Müller, had sent to him his newly edited copy of the Rigveda and it was in the course of his reading it in jail that Tilak was struck by the Vedic riks that suggested to him the idea about the original home of the Aryans. He appears to have progressed in the study of the Gita and come to realise that in it are to be found answers to many of the questions on life, religion and philosophy which had perplexed him. He came more and more to believe that religion can act as a cementing and integrating force, holding together the diverse elements in Indian society and resolving all conflicts into a higher synthesis and integration. These views of his he clarified in his lecture at Benares; but in his reading during this period he seems to be travelling in that direction. He says in his lecture delivered under the auspices of the Bharat Dharma Mandal in the holy city of Benares: “Hindu religion as a whole is made up of different parts connected with each other as many sons and daughters of one great religion. If this idea is kept in view, and if we try to unite the various sections, it will be consolidated in a mighty force. So long as you are divided amongst yourself, so long as one section does not recognise its affinity with another, you cannot hope to rise as Hindus. The word Dharma means a tie and comes from the root ‘dhri’ to bear or hold. What is there to hold together? To connect the soul with God and man with

man. Dharma means our duty towards God and duty towards man. Hindu religion as such provides for a moral as well as a social tie.” During this period again he contributes detailed reviews of new editions of the Mahabharat and Ramayana and gives his own theories about their dates, origin and several important textual and interpretative problems connected with them. Apart from these religious or philosophical works two books of a political nature have been reviewed in detail by him. These two, again, were to affect the extremist party profoundly by providing a concrete theoretical basis for their extreme views. These two books published in 1901 were: Dadabhai Naoroji’s Poverty and Un-British Rule in India and William Digby’s Prosperous British India. In the Kesari of the 10th December 1901, Tilak writes under the caption “Two Good Books” and says that these two books show the result of the agitation carried on for the last quarter of a century in India. Dadabhai had made it his life’s work to show why under such a prosperous and mighty Empire as that of the British, India should be reduced to poverty. Dadabhai with his ceaseless toil in the cause of the country was thus not merely a leader of the people but also deserved the title ‘Maharshi’ the great sage. It was he who dispelled the illusion that under the British, India would get the heaven of happiness and prosperity. Dadabhai was the first not to be dazzled by the tinsel and show of British rule and knew that with all its shine it was a step leading to beggary. He was, therefore, as important as the helmsman who, while the atmosphere is calm and the sky cloudless, prognosticates the coming of the storm and steers the ship of state clear of it. The agitation carried on by the Congress and the terrible famines of recent years had clearly shown the real state of things. Dadabhai and Digby had supported this by a wealth of facts and figures. To Dadabhai the poverty of India was unbecoming to the character of the British and hence it was ‘Un- British.’ To Digby, there was something ironical in speaking of the prosperity of British India. He displayed prominently in letters of gold, on the frontispiece of his book, that the non-official estimated income of India in 1850 was 2 pence per head per day. It was officially estimated in 1882 to be 1½ pence per head per day. Analytical examination of all sources of income in 1900 showed that it was less than 3/4 pence per head per day. Into brackes Digby also added: “An analysis shows that during his period of service at the India office the present Secretary of State has drawn as salary a sum which represents one year’s average income of ninety-thousand Indian people!” According to Tilak, the purpose of both these

books was to make the people of Britain realise the real state of affairs in India and thus press home the need of better government of India. The crystallisation of his views is nowhere more clear than in his analysis of the past. The occasion was the death anniversary of Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, which was utilised by Tilak for passing into review the condition of Maharashtra at the time of Vishnushastri. This review was not merely of academic interest, for Vishnushastri was a senior colleague and a fellow-pioneer of the Kesari and the New English School. In the two papers that he read on this occasion, Tilak is, therefore, painting a realistic picture of the forces at work when the Kesari was born. In the introductory paragraph Tilak takes a rapid survey of educational activity in Maharashtra after the downfall of the Maratha power in 1818. Upto 1874, he says, there had not been more than 50 or 60 graduates and yet the results of English education, started in 1836, had been far-reaching and important. The chief defect of English education, according to Tilak, was that it divorced academic education from religious and ethical teaching. During the time of the first generation of English-educated persons, ill-digested half-knowledge of English had a pernicious effect on the people. In private life they showed a sad lack of ordinary morality. They can be said “to have made vice fashionable in “Poona.” The leaders of the Prarthana Samaj did not pay attention to traditional religious ideas. They imitated the missionaries in the externals of worship. Others who attacked missionaries took a logical stand only, with the result that their attempts to put life into Hinduism were fruitless. Tilak is of the opinion that: “English education was thus responsible for destroying that essential bond of relationship between learning, ethics, religious faith, conduct and family life. In the absence of this binding principle, no nation can hope to prosper. The people of the first generation were dazzled by English education. In the first generation the leaders ran counter to the wishes of the people. They forgot that to lead a people, qualities like upright behaviour, faith in religion and sacrifice are more necessary than mere learning. It was natural that these people who talked of shattering a traditional, social and religious system within no time should deserve the ridicule of all.” By 1875, Tilak continues, people learnt to discuss and distinguish between the good and the bad effects of British rule. They began to consider such questions as

whether the British rule really did any good to the people of India, whether Indians were losing many of their means of subsistence, whether the sense of unity and cooperation was being lost and whether there was any scope for the talent, enterprise or intelligence of the people. Such things were not even considered, much less discussed, in the first generation and so they insisted on social and religious reform; but as they lacked all the qualities that influence a community they failed. With this background it is easy to understand, according to Tilak, the great work of Vishnushastri. He showed discrimination in taking only that part of the English education which was conducive to our welfare. He knew that pride in one’s own language and love for one’s own religion are essential qualities for the leader of a nation. He attacked the newfangled, half-baked reformers, but always upheld genuine efforts at social reform. Deeply read in Indian and European history, he knew more than anyone before him what qualities were necessary for the advancement of a nation. Even with this knowledge he would have deteriorated as the elder generation but he went much further than mere analysis or criticism. He stepped forward boldly in the arena of public work and on the basis of self-sacrifice started institutions to bring about social and political regeneration. He knew that every society requires certain bonds or ties, and these could be forged or kept intact by being proud of our ancient institutions. In the absence of this consciousness all efforts at reform would be futile.

Evaluation of the Great Contemporaries From 1900 to 1905, there were also a number of deaths of prominent persons, in Maharashtra and outside of it. Some of these were close associates of Tilak, others were eminent persons who had inspired him in many ways. In the Kesari Tilak has contributed obituary articles on their deaths. These articles are not mere eulogies or formal newspaper sketches of the life histories of the departed. Through them Tilak analyses the causes of the greatness of these people, evaluates their contribution to their own sphere of work, and thus in general tells us what he thinks to be important indication of what he himself picked up from these great contemporaries. In 1895, at the time of Agarkar’s death, Tilak had written an article on him when he was deeply stirred by personal emotions. In evaluating the secret of Agarkar’s greatness, he had said that it was the spirit of self-sacrifice and a complete dedication to the good of others that had made Agarkar great. It was a new idea of public work, in fact, and a new standard of greatness, not based on considerations of birth, wealth or social status. In the following year Madhav Ballal Namjoshi died and Tilak paid tribute to his capacity for inventing ideas, his sense of organisation and his assiduous industry. Here again he makes a pointed reference to the fact that Namjoshi showed how even a person without any financial support of his own can carve out for himself a name in the public life of a city like Poona. Both these deaths, being premature, had also given Tilak a feeling that his days too were numbered. An indication of this fear is found in his letter accepting the services of N. C. Kelkar to which a reference has been made earlier. Max Müller In November 1900, Prof, Max Müller, the world-famous Indologist and Sanskrit scholar, died. Max Müller had come to admire Tilak for the latter’s scholarship and had praised him for his Vedic researches. When Tilak was in jail, undergoing a sentence for sedition, Prof. Max Müller had taken a leading part in signing a memorial to Parliament and had also sent Tilak copies of the Rigveda, edited by him. Tilak recognised Max Müller as mainly instrumental in revealing to the Western world the glories of Hindu religion and philosophy. Throughout

the articles he insists that true learning and genuine scholarship transcend the limits of caste, creed or country. Tilak particularly refers to the single-minded devotion with which Max Müller acquired knowledge and deplores the fact that such people were rare in India. “Therefore, the lesson to be learnt from Max Müller’s life is that though politically we may not get all the opportunities to show our talents, at least in the field of scholarship, we can use our talents and thereby contribute to the welfare of the nation.” Tilak also pays a glowing tribute to the liberalism of Max Müller which made him see the good points in other religions besides Christianity in which he was born and in which he died. He was one of those persons who regard the whole world as their family. He showed that even if the greatness of other religions was acknowledged and the beauty of other languages realised, that in no way lessens one’s faith in and love of one’s own religion or language.

Queen Victoria On the 22nd January 1901, Queen Victoria died and Tilak wrote an article on her death in the Kesari of the 29th January 1901, under the title “Regime of Her Majesty the Queen”. Of all the obituary articles written by Tilak this one appears to be the most formal but he also pays a tribute to the personal character of the Queen and expresses the opinion that had she lived longer she certainly would have given effect to the proclamation of 1858. He refers to the fact which he had already mentioned in his article on the occasion of the Jubilee, that the clause regarding non-interference in religious and social customs of the Indian people was inserted mainly at the instance of the Queen. He pays a handsome tribute to her personal qualities.

Mahadeo Govind Remade A week before the death of Queen Victoria there occurred a death in India which was deeply mourned. Mr. Justice Mahadeo Govind Ranade died at the age of 59 on the 16th January 1901. D. K. Wacha in his Presidential Address at the Seventeenth Congress at Calcutta in 1901 declared: “Mr. Ranade,-the erudite judge, the profound scholar, the keen student of Indian economics, the philosopher cast in the Hellenic mould, reminding us of Socratic intellect and Socratic simplicity, the pure patriot of glowing zeal and, above all, the spotless citizen of boundless faith and hope, is no more.” Like all persons of his generation, Tilak had come under the spell of Ranade’s genius. Ranade with his foresight had started a network of institutions for an all-sided regeneration of Maharashtra. Anyone who wished to devote himself to public work had to look either to Ranade himself or to an institution started or guided by him. Tilak no doubt differed from Ranade, particularly on the question of religious reform; yet he had great respect for Ranade’s sterling qualities of patriotism, the breadth of his outlook and his ceaseless toil for the regeneration of his people. Tilak’s tribute to Ranade’s greatness, is, therefore, an intensely personal and moving one. It is with feeling that he says that in the death of Ranade every family in Maharashtra would feel that a leading member from its own household had departed. His real greatness did not lie in the fact that he was a man of learning, or that he was a High Court Judge, or that he was a social or religious reformer, or a prominent leader of the Prarthana Samaj. According to Tilak, the real measure of Ranade’s greatness would be found, when the condition of Maharashtra was taken into account. When Ranade came to Poona, the city seemed to have lost all its life, the old aristocracy had become ineffective, the first products of the University did not know what to do. “Maharashtra, therefore, had turned into a cold lifeless mass. How to bring warmth into this lifeless clod so that it might show signs of life, was Ranade’s thought night and day. He not only undertook this difficult task but also performed it by toiling ceaselessly. This then is the real measure of his greatness.” Tilak goes on to say: “It was particularly when Ranade came to Poona that he had greater scope to show his uncommon talents, for Poona was more compact than Bombay. Ranade was not, like other reformers, a person with a single-track mind. He did not confine his attention to only one field of activity, he could

think and act for a regeneration in all directions. He was fortunate in being endowed with an all-comprehensive intellect. Ranade’s activity, according to Tilak, was not without its risks. The government had come to know that the people of Poona were being trained in public work and agitation by Ranade and they saw to it that he was removed from Poona.” “The greatest quality of Ranade,” according to Tilak, “was his fervent faith that the condition of his country would surely improve and he believed, therefore, in making a ceaseless and unsparing effort. He was thus a true guru of the people. It was by his efforts that the Bombay Presidency in general and the city of Poona in particular achieved a position of central importance in the whole of India.”

Vivekananda On the 4th July 1902, Vivekananda’s great soul sought eternal rest. Tilak did not know Vivekananda intimately; but his dynamic personality and his teaching of the Vedantic Hindu doctrine, acclaimed even by the western world, could not fail to impress Tilak. Along with Prof. Max Müller, Vivekanand was another powerful influence in turning the thoughts of Tilak from western to eastern philosophy. “No Hindu,” he says, “who has the interests of Hinduism at his heart, could help feeling grieved over Vivekananda’s samadhi.” The nineteenth century, says Tilak, is spoken of as a century of the material sciences, and yet, in the last decade of this century, to bring home to the learned people of the western world the greatness of the spiritual sciences which have originated in the East thousands of years ago, was no mean task. The title of western material sciences was advancing so rapidly with English education that it required a person of uncommon ability to stem it. Theosophy no doubt had been doing this before Vivekananda, but a real Hindu slant was given to their work by Vivekananda. The education that is given in our schools today is merely logical and analytical, so that far from fostering into the student’s mind a love of religion it breeds hate and engenders a tendency to mock at religion and at those who practise it. Referring to Vivekananda’s work in America in the All Faiths Conference, Tilak says that, “To make the people in America, which is at the peak of scientific progress, realise the greatness of the Vedantic Advaita doctrine, even in the presence of their religious preachers, was no mean task.” “According to the Swami, Hinduism is the only binding principle to all the people of India and the principles of this religion were so glorious that it was possible even in the 19th century to spread it in countries inhabited by people of different religions.” According to Tilak, Vivekananda told the Christians: “By all means worship Christ; but as Christianity had no philosophy it was necessary to supplement it by the Advaita philosophy of the Hinduism.” His views on religion were thus extremely liberal and he did not oppose any religion. His heart bled to see the indifference of the people of India to their religion, and he was convinced that unless there was a regeneration of religion, India would not rise as a nation. Vivekananda, in short, had taken the work of keeping the banner of Advaita philosophy forever flying among all the nations of the world and mate them

realise the true greatness of Hindu religion and of the Hindu people. He had hoped that he would crown his achievement with a fulfilment of this task by virtue of his learning, eloquence, enthusiasm and sincerity, just as he had laid a secure foundation for it; but with the Swami’s samadhi these hopes have gone. Thousands of years ago another saint, Shankaracharya, showed to the world the glory and greatness of Hinduism. At the fag end of the 19th century the second Shankaracharya is Vivekanand. His work has yet to be completed. We have lost our glory, our independence, everything. Religion is the only treasure that we have; if we forsake it, we shall be like the foolish cock in Aesop’s fables that threw away a jewel. In the world of today anything that we have has to be displayed and shown to the best advantage.

Herbert Spencer On the 15th December 1903, Herbert Spencer died. Among the western intellectuals that had influenced the English-educated people of the 19th century, Spencer’s was among the most significant of influences. Tilak had accepted agnosticism, and during the first year of the Kesari he wholly subscribed to the description given of the Kesari’s religious position, namely that the Kesari was a dweller in the midland between scepticism and faith. With Spencer, Tilak too believed that thought has the power to go beyond experience and grasp certain things. Knowledge is not complete unless it is conceived that there is something beyond. What that is, we do not know; but though intellectually the ‘something beyond’ is beyond the pale of experience, its existence can be known by the intellect but its form is unknowable. “On watching our thoughts we see how impossible it is to get rid of the consciousness of an Actuality lying behind Appearances and how from the impossibility results our indestructible belief in that Actuality.” But what that Actuality is we do not know. In his obituary article Tilak observes: “Of all philosophers who influenced our educated university people, Spencer was the foremost. In fact he influenced us more than he influenced the people of England, America or other western countries.” Referring to the method by which Spencer evolved his system, Tilak says: “Spencer was not a scientist but a philosopher. He did not, like Darwin, Huxley or Tyndal, make new contributions to scientific research. His work was wider and more comprehensive. He attempted to discover the mysterious forces at the root of this Universe and to formulate certain general laws with the help of the new scientific ideas or their synthesis. Spencer did this with the help of the new world of scientific discovery, unknown to the philosophers of ancient India. That is why the English-educated generation in India was attracted to Spencer’s philosophy. Many of the theories of Spencer again agreed to a great extent with those of our ancient philosophers, and hence people were attracted to him all the more. This helped to revive an interest in, and create respect for our ancient philosophy. What exactly would be the result of this revival one cannot say just yet; but one thing is certain: it is not possible for us to continue to hold Spencer’s philosophy with the same reverence. This, however, in no way lessens the value

of Spencer’s philosophy. According to Tilak, there was a similarity between Spencer’s unknowable cause at the root of the Universe and the idea of Para Brahma in the Vedantic doctrine. He says: ‘The Para Brahma in the Vedantas is an Unknowable entity composed of Truth, Vitality and Joy (Sat, Chit and Ananda). This corresponds with Spencer’s Unknowable, at which he has arrived as a result of his study of the sciences. There is, however, an important difference between the Vedantic doctrine and the Spencerian one. According to Spencer, consciousness perishes with the destruction of the body. His views about the body and the soul are therefore similar to those of Charvaka, while regarding the Unknowable principle at the root of the world he agrees with the Vedantists. . . . Even though he believes with Charvaka, that the soul perishes with the body, he nowhere upholds the philosophy of pleasure advocated by Charvaka. Not only that, according to him, the highest good of human life consists in applying the principle of evolution to society and ethics and thus in achieving the welfare of humanity by striving to serve others. He does not regard the world as an illusion like the Vedantists; nor does he say that there is nothing beyond Prakriti and Purusha, as the Sankhyas do.” It was thus the integration of the scientific idea with the principle of the Unknowable that attracted Tilak to Spencer’s philosophy though, according to him, there were limitations in his theory of the body and the soul. Tilak hoped that it would be possible to prove the existence of the soul apart from and even without the body by the researches of the ‘Society for Psychical Research’. He concludes by saying: “The new trend of thought that we have to take from Spencer’s books is that the work of the philosopher does not end merely by solving the riddle of the Unknowable at the root of the Universe and thus being satisfied with salvation. An equally important part of his work is to show how these principles could be applied to the affairs of everyday life and thus teach humanity how to work for the perfection of human life.” To Tilak, therefore, Spencer’s philosophy, like Vivekanand’s Vedanta, was important because it taught a way of action.

Professor Jinsiwalle In August 1903, a personal friend and associate, Professor Shridhar Ganesh Jinsiwalle, passed away. Jinsiwalle, was a Fellow of the Deccan College when Tilak entered the College. Tilak had admired Jinsiwalle for his passion for learning and his acquisition of books. Jinsiwalle was also an eccentric. What particularly struck Tilak in Jinsiwalle’s character was the fact that in the conflict between western sciences and eastern learning, he did not lose his mental balance and far from subscribing to the spirit of latitudinarianism, he remained faithful to the influences of his childhood. It was because of these deep-rooted influences that he could keep himself absolutely free from the pernicious effects of English education. He believed, in short, “I am a Hindu and my religion is the Vedic religion. I see no reason to depart from the way to worship God taught by its religious tradition. I must abide by it; for in it lies the way to my personal and my country’s salvation. In short, I am a Hindu, shall remain a Hindu and die only as a Hindu. It is by Hinduism alone that I shall achieve my progress.” This was the firm faith to which he stuck throughout his life. The lesson that the young generation should learn from Professor Jinsiwalle’s life is precisely this: “We should not change our views as the wind blows. We must keep the balance of our social and religious life even and not allow it to swerve with ideas from the West.”

Interpretative Biographer In these obituary articles, Tilak shows himself to be an analytical and interpretative biographer. He gives a clear indication of how his mind was moulded by these great personalities. It was Ranade who initiated him in public life and taught the way of agitational activity through a network of institutions. Namjoshi’s practical sense taught him how to bring together diverse interests within a community. Max Müller’s books and Vivekanand’s activities opened up a new vista of the glories of Hinduism and the sacred books of the east. Spencer had taught him service of humanity and a synthesis of the eastern and western philosophy. It was through the example of Jinsiwalle that the futility of mere analytical western learning was realised and a faith in Hinduism and traditional Hindu culture was reaffirmed. To him, a wayfarer on the unknown and strange path of life, these individuals had acted as guides correcting, informing, reassuring him or even making him change his path. To them his debt was indeed great. To come to matters of a political import and review Tilak’s activities with the Congress: The turn of the century saw in India a new Viceroy, Lord Curzon. New brooms sweep clean or at least are expected to do so. In welcoming Lord Curzon, therefore, on his arrival in India in 1898, A. M. Bose, the president of the Fifteenth Congress at Madras declared: “To Lord Curzon will fall the honour of carrying for the first time the British Administration of a United India to a New Century...” He further expressed the hope that “His Lordship will direct his great capacity and his great energy to initiating an era of domestic reform, of educational progress and industrial development.” Curzon aroused great expectations and also showed great promise in the beginning and yet, for reasons which we shall see later, the hopes were to be belied. 1900 was a year of famine and plague. An important resolution before the Congress recommended the appointment of an Inquiry Commission to go into the problem of famines. With his vast and first-hand knowledge and experience of famine work it is natural that Tilak should second this resolution.3 In his speech, Tilak corrected the mistaken notion that the ignorance of the cultivator was responsible for the famine. The mistake lay, according to him, in the policy of the government. “If you took away the produce of the land and did not give back to the land in some form more material than prestige and advice, the

cultivator must grow poorer and poorer.” Characteristically, he observed: “My own belief is that calamities and misfortunes are not sent simply to crush us. There is an ulterior purpose and if we can’t recognise that purpose in the beginning, we come to know it in the end by experience and by continued thinking over it. Something of that kind is the last dire famine and I do not think that it is without its use. It has done one thing. The question of the poverty if India we have been pressing upon the attention of the Government of India for 15 years and it appears that a famine was necessary to press it home, and I think we must be grateful to the Almighty for that purpose.” This Congress amended its Constitution Committee to the effect that besides the ex-officio members, 45 members should be elected to the A.I.C.C. Tilak was one of the seven elected from Bombay Presidency and his name is also to be found in the Educational Committee along with that of the Hon. Professor G. K. Gokhale.

Differences between Gokhale and Tilak Gokhale was now a rising star on the horizon of Indian politics. He was initiated in public life by the noble example of service and sacrifice set by the members of the Deccan Education Society. He had accepted Ranade as his guru and he shared his faith in the essential goodness of the British. He had made his name by his able advocacy of India’s cause before the Welby Commission. His apology in connection with the plague incidents, for a time eclipsed his reputation; but made of a real solid stuff, he would not remain in the background for long. He had wonderful command over the English language and a fine and pleasing personality. He had assisted Agarkar in his social reform work by cooperating with him in editing the Sudharak. It was from conviction and temperament that Gokhale had aligned himself with the Moderate Party and had trained himself to be a legislator; in 1899 he had become a member of the Provincial Legislature, and in 1902, he was sent to the Imperial Council as an elected member. With his sympathies for social reform and moderation in politics, Gokhale was naturally in the opposite camp to Tilak. Tilak had called him a ‘kachcha reed’ at the time of his apology. It is true that Gokhale was rather mild. Tilak said that he lacked the firmness necessary for a political leader, and also declared that in a free India, Gokhale would not be a foreign member; but would make an admirable Home member.4 Tilak, however, admired the legislative abilities of Gokhale and by 1900 Gokhale and Tilak came to be leaders of the two wings of India’s fight for freedom. Gokhale led the constitutional wing and went as far as he could within the strict limits of the law. Tilak did not rule out constitutional agitation and saw the practical necessity of remaining within the limits of the law; but he also knew that these limits would have to be transcended on occasion and that nothing furthered the cause of freedom more than suffering for one’s convictions. The remarks in an article in the Mahratta on the necessity of an armed revolt in the final fight for India’s liberation were shared by Tilak. The Mahratta commenting on the ‘Arms Act’ for Baroda State had stated: “The British rulers believe that subjects, if entrusted with arms, may one day use them against the Government. The belief is partially well founded, for the British Government is an alien government, and the subjects, in trying to get emancipation, will, if constitutional methods fail, have some day to resort to

arms.” In Gokhale’s view the new party had preached many things such as “that love of country should be the ruling principle of our lives, that we rejoice in making sacrifices for her sake, that we should rely wherever we could on our own exertions”. In his view, however, the new party also taught a dangerous doctrine of tracing all our principal troubles to the existence of a foreign government. Gokhale observed, “Our old public life was based on a frank and loyal acceptance of British rule due to the recognition of the fact that that rule alone could secure to the country the peace and order which were necessary for slowly evolving a nation out of the heterogeneous elements of which it is composed....” His advice to young men was that they “must make up their minds about it that there is no alternative to British rule, not only now but for a long time to come and that any attempts made to disturb it, directly or indirectly, are bound to recoil on our head.” The differences between Gokhale and Tilak were thus fundamental and the Anglo-Indian papers that compared Tilak to Parnell and Gokhale to Gladstone, never made a more apt comparison. In a way, according to Acharya Javadekar,5 the work of Gokhale and Tilak may be considered to be even superior to that of Parnell and Gladstone; for both had to remain in a dependency and work on principles of self-sacrifice. Tilak’s task of national regeneration was much more complex and of a greater magnitude, as India was much vaster than Ireland. In summing up the differences between Gokhale and Tilak, Acharya Javadekar observes: “In Gokhale’s politics the Anglo-Indian community in India, the bureaucracy, British capitalism and its representative, the Viceroy, formed the Conservative party. The educated leaders representing India were the Progressive or Liberal party. In the Lokmanya’s politics the British Government was a foreign conqueror and the leaders of India were the trusted leaders, destined to take her from slavery to independence. According to the former party, India’s political work consisted of converting an unlimited autocracy into a democracy; while the latter party spoke in terms of extricating the nation from the clutches of the other. The former party could never forget that they were a conquered nation; the latter always remembered that the future form of our Swaraj will be a democratic republic. The former party depended more upon liberal democratic principles while the latter tried to draw strength from the burning flame of national sentiment.... Certain individuals from Gokhale’s party, at times, looked upon the rulers as people belonging to a different party within the same free nation, forgetting the real relationship between the rulers and the ruled. In the

same way people from Tilak’s party often forgot that India’s freedom could be won only on the strength of the people and would be of a ‘republican form;’ and looked to the Indian rulers as relics of an age of freedom.” These differences came more and more to the fore during the regime of Lord Curzon.

Tilak on Education In the Seventeenth Congress at Calcutta, Tilak seconded a resolution on the appointment of an Education Commission. In his speech he drew a parallel between the Japanese and the Indian systems of education and said that it was because of the independent system of education, with facilities for technical training,that Japan had forged ahead. On the contrary, education in India dwarfed the intellect of young men. You might point out to a Bose6 here or a Paranjpye7 there but let me remind you that they are exceptions that prove the rule. Our ancient system of education had that merit; at least it cultivated a love for learning, and produced men whose intellectual attainments are still the wonder of the world. He concludes by saying that education in India had been reduced to the position of a subordinate handmaid of administration and unless it is raised to its real position of a goddess of learning, India could not be raised to the status of the civilized nations of the West. Tilak could not attend the next two sessions of the Congress in 1902 and 1903 as the Tai Maharaj case absorbed all his attention, and in 1902 he was convicted on a charge of perjury by a Criminal Court. The case with all its complications is treated separately in a different chapter. He wrote in the Kesari about the internal administration of India, criticizing the extravagant expenditure on the army and all attempts made by the government to keep internal peace by depriving the people of the right to bear arms, its gagging the press by the Press Security Act and reducing the Indian States to the position of minions and slaves. He also wrote on the “Unlimited extension of the Empire” on the 25th February 1902 and narrated the story of the British attempts to extend their influence beyond the frontiers of India. He refers to the fact that India’s armies were sent to the frontiers and even outside to help England’s enemies at India’s expense. In Afghanistan, Iran, Africa, China and Baluchistan the British were extending their sphere of influence, and there was a likelihood of their annexing an independent kingdom like Nepal. In 1902 the nuber of pages of the Kesari were doubled and the new and enlarged Kesari was issued on the 4th February 1902. Tilak takes a review of the growth of the Kesari during its twenty-two years of existence. From a humble beginning of having a number of subscribers ranging from 700 to 1,000, it

reached a circulation of 13,000 in 1902 and the number of its readers rose to 75,000. Stating the political policy of the Kesari, Tilak declared: “We do not wish to take anybody’s kingdom. So long as our desire is to teach people to be fearless in order that they might get strength to fight for their rights under the present rule, we have nothing to fear. The Kesari was born at a time when Lord Lytton had passed his Act of the Freedom of the press. That was a time when it was thought that writing in the newspaper should be such as would not hurt the feelings of the rulers. That time has now gone. We consider it our duty to work for awakening the people, to teach them sincerity and the sense of unity. We write not for the rulers but in order that the readers might imbibe our spirit and understand our thoughts, our agonies and our indignation.”

Tilak on Resurgent Asia A number of articles in 1903, dealt with Asian politics, particularly the Russo- Japanese war. He begins his articles on ‘Asian Affairs’ by describing the effects of Pax Britannia. “With the foreign government monopolising the defence of India from foreign aggression the people of India had no national or patriotic duty as such. The opportunity to unite against a common enemy and sink our petty differences, jealousies and self-interests was denied to us, and we began frittering away our energies on fruitless schemes of social reform. To watch the goings on in foreign countries as impartial onlookers is, therefore, all that we can do.” With this introduction, Tilak briefly refers to the causes of the great upheavals in Asian countries. According to him, the root of these dissensions is whether the overlordship of the Asian nations is to remain with the Asians or whether, as in Africa, India and America, it is to pass to the European Christian powers. “Though India is dependent today, no Indian would wish to see China and Japan reduced to that state.... If in the struggle against the Russian bear a small but brave nation like Japan loses, every Indian will feel sorry. ... In this conflict the power that emerges victorious will rule over the destinies of China, and everyone in India wishes that it be Japan, not Russia, that should get this chance. If that happens the unity among the three Asiatic nations, viz. Japan, China and India, will be easily achieved and, at least in the eastern part of Asia, freedom will reign.” With the Muslim power on one side and the united Buddhist powers on the other, the balance of power would be maintained and India would be safe. On the 28th April 1903, Tilak wrote an article on ‘Unity of Thought Among the People of the East’ and refers to a book by a Japanese professor, Okakura. This article and the article written in 1904 on Japan’s victory over Russia are an indication of how nationalists in India had begun to think in terms of Asian unity to counteract the European influence. This gave new strength and infused a fresh spirit in the Indian struggle for freedom. He refers to the tradition of unity among the Asiatic countries that had come down from antiquity. On the frontiers of China in ancient days three travellers, a Hindu, a Chinese and a Japanese met, and to show that all of them were one, they described themselves by the metaphor of a Japanese fan of which the three were parts. “India formed the skeleton with sticks, the paper covering the sticks was China, and Japan was the nail that kept the sticks together....” Though Buddhism was at times opposed

to Hinduism, it is, as Vivekanand puts it, a rebel son of Hinduism. Tilak next refers to the two points of view advocated by Japanese patriots for the regeneration of Japan. One was for a wholesale imitation and grafting of western ways, while the other was for taking up judiciously only that in western reform which was fit to be imitated, at the same time, retaining their self-respect and pride in things Japanese. The writer of the book, says Tilak, belonged to the second category with which Tilak too agreed. The success achieved by Japan upto 1904 over Russia filled the nationalists with great jubilation and this is clearly echoed by Tilak in his article on the 6th December 1904, entitled ‘Japan and India’. This victory, he says, would be a death-blow to the complacent belief of the European powers that Asia, Africa and America were pastures created by God in which the Europeans could graze at will. Historically, therefore, the Russo-Japanese conflict was a unique event with tremendous significance. “The fact that in 40 years Japan should come forward and sit in line with western nations while we become more and more despondent, sapless and fit to carry the burdens of foreigners has an explanation. That explanation can be given in one word ‘Independence.’ This does not mean that the present rule in India should be replaced by another; but like other colonies India should be free and fit to look after her own interests.” The confidence given to the nationalists by the victory of Japan was incalculable. “Her successful resistance to the aggressive design of Russia was attributed, and rightly so, to her unique patriotism, spirit of self-sacrifice and national unity. These virtues, it was thought, could work miracles, and enable even a subject and disarmed country like India, to free herself from the crushing bondage of England. To a person like Tilak, therefore, it afforded a wider background to India’s struggle for independence and reaffirmed his faith in India’s ancient civilization and the liberating influence of Hinduism in bringing about a wider unity of all Asiatic nations.”8 Advocacy of a Radical Line in the Congress These thoughts were strengthened by the autocratic regime at home and with the moderate line followed by those in power in the Congress. It dawned very early on Tilak’s mind that to be really effective, the Congress would have to come down from its pedestal and work actively among the people. Trying to answer

certain objections against the Congress raised by Malbari,9 Tilak observes: “If people in India were actuated by motives of a single nationality, as the people of the western nations are, then the English would not have come to India nor would it have been necessary to have a body like the Congress. It is not that each of our provinces or communities have not produced able, learned persons with understanding; but for certain reasons the idea of a single nationality is not so very prominently in our minds, nor are the Congress leaders free from this defect. Once it has been realised that certain things have got to be done for the sake of our country, and when it is further realised that to do them something more than mere speech-making would be necessary, our leaders must kick off everything and devote themselves wholly and solely to the service of the country as Hume and Dadabhai have been doing. The defects in the Congress of the present day are entirely due to the fact that the truth of the above has not yet been realised by the leaders.” Tilak, therefore, advised Congressmen to “muse by day and dream by night” of their country’s future and do their utmost by taking the people with them. He reminds the leaders that Rama carried out his task with the help of the monkeys, and Shivaji could accomplish his historic task with the help of the ordinary Mawalas. In another article,10 Tilak comments on the farewell message of Hume to Congressmen. Quoting a Vedic hymn he compares the leaders of the Congress assembling at exactly the same time every year and making the same types of speeches to frogs of variegated colours, appearing every rainy season and croaking, some like bulls, others like goats. He considers the question as to why the Congress should be ineffective in influencing the government even though it has been carrying on its work for eighteen years.... “If ‘constitutional agitation’ is the only real way of ameliorating our condition, then we must get the benefits of our agitation; if, on the other hand, it is not, then we must give it up and follow some other method.” According to Tilak, it was necessary to go beyond mere talk of constitutional agitation. “If you want justice from the British, and that too quickly, then mere shouting once a year will not achieve this. You must carry on both in India and in England an agitation so persistently as to allow no rest or respite to the British. You must bring them to such a state that they should feel that the only way to rid themselves of this situation would be to give everything that is just to the people of India. The true wedding does not consist in celebration, similarly the true Congress work is not in the annual show (tamasha) that is held every year.... Perseverance and agitation are the two

qualities that Congress leaders must develop, and if they fight this legal battle for political rights, they are sure to get followers in the younger generation as well.” Tilak, therefore, like Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal was trying to insist that mere loyalty of the Mehtas, Gokhales and Wachas would carry the cause of the Congress no further. With the President of the 1904 session, Sir Henry Cotton, he held: “Autonomy is the keynote of England’s true relations with her great colonies. It is the keynote also of India’s destiny. It is more than this: it is the destiny of the world.... The ideal of an Indian patriot is the establishment of a federation of free and separate states. The United States of India, placed on a fraternal footing with the self-governing colonies, each with its local autonomy, cemented together under the aegis of Great Britain.” Though in this ideal he did not differ from the moderate leaders, still, unlike them, he had no faith in their loyalty to the Empire. He insisted that the agitation should keep within the limits of the law and to that extent the extremist party in its idea of political agitation was also loyal to the British rule; but it was legal loyalty, born out of the peculiar circumstances of India, and not the whole-hearted loyalty of the moderate leaders. The differences between the stand taken by the two sections of leaders in the Congress became more marked in the Benares Congress of 1905. An article, written by Tilak on the 27th September 1904, is devoted to the campaign of calumny and vilification carried on by the Times of India against the Marathi paper Kal edited by Professor Shivram Mahadeo Paranjpe. The article is appropriately entitled, The English Times and the Marathi Times.’ Tilak gives a warning that the Times of India was once again at its old game of raising the bogey of sedition by quoting translations of articles in the Kal. This the Times had done successfully in 1897 against the Kesari. He points out that though his views differ from the socialistic views of the editor of Kal, still for this difference in views he does not wish the editor of to be Kal gagged; while the Times is all the time insisting upon this. The following words of Tilak are a clear indication of his views and the views of the extremist party: “We admit that as editors we must, by all means, take care to see that we do not unnecessarily antagonise the government. At the same time it must be remembered that we have not started our papers for the pleasure of the government, nor do we care if, while severely criticising the government, we incur their wrath. If we are not to criticise the tyrranical rule of the government and point out that in the end it will create trouble for the rulers and the ruled,

why have newspapers at all? In short, our language of opinions may be very strong - it is the tendency of our mind; but one whose heart burns will only write in this strain. One thing is certain that there cannot be the same trust and confidence between the rulers and the ruled in India as that which exists in England because there both belong to the same nation. Everyone should keep this in mind and try to see that government does not mistrust his motives and actions even if it gets angry. If the editor of Kal is guilty only of this and has not like Caesar’s wife been above suspicion, then we do not think that it is a very serious matter. It may be a mistake, but for that we are not prepared to go so far as to say that the editor is actuated by evil motives, or that he wishes Lord Curzon to be assassinated.” 1 kesari 4th July 1899. 2 Prof. D. Gadgil: Industrial Evolution of India, p. 113 3 Every time Tilak rose to speak the Congress report adds the words “Mr. Tilak was received with prolonged cheers” or “was given a tremendous ovation.” This is an indication of how Tilak had captured popular imagination with his sore suffering for the cause of the country. 1901 was the first Congress attended by Gandhi. He moved in it a resolution on the South African Indian question. He was disconcerted over the perfunctory way in which he was given leave to move his resolution. He described the agonies he suffered when he was given only five minutes to move the resolution. His platform-fear had not yet left him. Though a poor orator and an humble admirer of all the great people who had gathered, Gandhi was critical of what he saw. He found too much of waste, also too much of chaos, too much bossing over the volunteers, the proceedings entirely confined to English. About Tilak, he records: “And as was natural, Lokmanya would never be without his Durbar. Were I a painter, I could paint him as I saw him seated on his bedso vivid in the whole scene in my memory. Of the numberless people that called on him, I can recollect today only one, namely the late Babu Motilal Ghose, editor of the Amrit Bazar Patrìka. Their loud laughter and their talks about the wrong-doings of the ruling race cannot be forgotten.” 4 5 6 Sir Jagadishchandra Bose, the eminent botanist famous for his studies in Plant Life. 7 First Indian Senior Wrangler of the Cambridge University and Principal of the Fergusson College. 8 R. G. Pradhan: Indian Struggle for Swaraj, p. 75. 9 Kesari, 24th November, 1903

10 Ktsari, 29th December, 1903

A PERSONAL INTERLUDE 8 While Tilak was busy with his ever-increasing public activities and was fast becoming an all-India leader he found himself entangled in a very complicated and protracted law suit of a purely private nature. This was the famous Tai Maharaj case, which took no less than seven long years of Tilak’s life and literally sapped his life blood. The country’s cause, as Tilak had learnt after his imprisonment in the sedition case of 1897, prospers with each jail-going. With each of these cases freedom’s fame finds wings and the martyrdom of the patriot carves a niche for him in the people, hearts. Tilak, after his release in 1898, had thus become the most popular man in India but this new case seemed to threaten his very existence. At one stage he was branded as a common felon and was actually sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 months for perjury. For a man of his position and standing this was civil death. Had the conviction been upheld in the High Court too an altogether different turn would have been given to Tilak’s life. The moral turpitude arising from the sentence would have stuck to him ever after. It is one of those awful might-have-beens of history at the thought of which one shudders. However, after years of trials and tribulation Tilak emerged unscathed from his ordeal to pursue with unabated zeal his work in the cause of his country’s freedom. The best way to look at the whole complicated episode is to look upon it as a sombre tragi-comedy in four acts with a prologue and an epilogue. At one stage it threatened to be a bleak tragedy, with the slow-moving and blindfold justice turning the scales against Tilak. The prologue of the drama opens at the death-bed of Baba Maharaj Pandit, a first-class Sirdar and a close friend of Tilak. Tilak hurried to the bedside of his friend, on the 7th July 1897, two days after his release on bail in the sedition case. At the insistence of his friend he agreed to be the executor and trustee of his estate under his last will and testament. Apart from the promise to a dying friend Tilak also hoped to regenerate the estate of one of the oldest of the aristocratic families of the Deccan. Like many nationalist leaders of those days, Tilak looked upon these relics of the feudal aristocracy with the hope that one day they might be useful in his work of the country’s regeneration. Whatever might have been

his reasons he had given his promise; and to a strong willed person with integrity the promise had to be kept, come what might. Baba Maharaj died on the same day and Tilak and Khaparde, who was the father-in-law of one of Baba Maharaj’s daughters, became the trustees, along with Rao Saheb Kirtikar of Kolhapur, Mr. Kumbhojkar, a friend, and Mr. Nagpurkar, a clerk of the estate. Of the trustees Rao Saheb Kirtikar refused to take up the responsibility and the other two, being persons with average ability, more or less dependent on the estate itself, were not very effective at least in the beginning. The whole responsibility devolved, therefore, on Tilak and Khaparde, who with their usual zeal applied themselves to the task of repairing the fallen fortune of the family by effecting a drastic cut in the budget of the late Baba Maharaj’s widow, Tai Maharaj. Tai Maharaj, it is important to remember, was the second wife of Baba Maharaj. She was only fifteen at the time of the death of her husband and it was his natural anxiety, therefore, that some trustworthy person should look after her and the estate, particularly because at the time of his death, Tai Maharaj was enceinte. Baba Maharaj expected that his wife would give birth to a son or failing this the trustees would help her in getting a son adopted, after she attained majority. It was to such a simple document that Tilak set his signature of approval. A son was born to Tai Maharaj, but unfortunately he died within two months. Tilak was sentenced in the sedition case and was removed to Yeravda Jail. It was here, in February 1898, that he was twice consulted about the estate affairs and a probate was taken for him and the other executors. After his release on the 6th September 1898, Tilak attended two meetings of the trustees in Poona and everything was plain sailing till the year 1901. In 1901 the first of a series of actions, later on misconstrued by interested parties, for which Tilak and Khaparde were responsible, took place. In good faith Tilak proposed a drastic cut in the budget of Tai Maharaj and also opened negotiations about the adoption. The Pandit family originally came from Babre in the Nizam’s dominions and one of the brothers of Baba Maharaj was at Kolhapur. It was Tilak’s wish that a boy from the Babre branch of the family should be chosen, as the Kolhapur branch of the family had a bad reputation. Accordingly along with Khaparde and Tilak, Tai Maharaj went to Aurangabad, chose a boy named Jagannath and formally went through the legal ceremony of adoption. Tilak had, before this, obtained the consent of the Kolhapur Maharaja for the adoption, as a part of estate was in the Kolhapur State. On the party’s return to Poona, Tilak immediately wrote to Mr. Aston, who was the Political

Agent to the Deccan Sirdars, informing him about the adoption. In the meanwhile, Nagpurkar, with a few other flatterers and sycophants, who infest such old aristocratic houses, conspired against the trustees. Tai Maharaj was prevailed upon by Nagpurkar who insinuated that the trustees were only using her as a tool and that they had an axe to grind. Tai Maharaj fell an easy prey to this and in conspiracy with the Kolhapur branch of the family, decided to adopt a second child, Bala Maharaj of the Kolhapur family. A meeting was arranged between her and Mr. Aston, in which she poured forth to the sympathetic ears of the Englishman all the alleged sins of commission and omission for which the trustees were responsible. Little effort was needed to convince Mr. Aston. His sense of chivalry combined with his prejudice against the seditious Brahmin Tilak. He had already made himself notorious by his heavy punishments of the seditious journalists of Satara. With this formidable adversary arranged against Tilak the stage for the second act of the drama was well set. An application was made by Tai Maharaj to Mr. Aston, the District Judge, to get probate of the will in favour of Tilak and Khaparde and the trustees cancelled. She also obtained permission from the Kolhapur Durbar to have the second adoption of Bala Maharaj. Events now moved quickly. Tilak, roused to action, was found to be more than a match for the machinations of Nagpurkar & Co. He might have been very unwilling to be a trustee in the beginning but then he had no choice. And now that he had accepted the responsibility he could not possibly go back on his own word and be a party to an illegal act of cancelling the just and perfectly legal adoption. Fearing Tilak’s opposition, attempts were made by Tai Maharaj and Pandit Maharaj of Kolhapur to carry out a secret adoption ceremony in the house of Tai Maharaj at Poona. Tilak and Khaparde ordered the Kolhapur party to clear out of the house, as being trustees they were in charge of it. Tilak’s position was legally sound and the Kolhapur party had to quit disappointed. Pandit Maharaj, however, complained to Mr. Aston that Tilak was holding Tai Maharaj prisoner in her own house; but the personal investigation of Mr. Aston proved this charge to be baseless and Mr. Aston had to concede that under the terms of the probate Tilak and Khaparde had a right to keep a watch on the house if they feared any danger to the estate. Tilak filed a suit for injunction against Tai Maharaj and Bala Maharaj against his proposed adoption by her and also sent telegrams and letters to the Kolhapur Durbar officially warning against permission being given for Bala Maharaj’s adoption. He also wrote to Mr. Aston about the adoption. A second attempt at adoption of Bala Maharaj was also

frustrated by Tilak and Khaparde. Acting obviously under the advice of Mr. Aston, to whom Tai Maharaj paid a second visit, Tai Maharaj drove out the trustees’ clerks and shut herself up in the house. A police enquiry was made into the complaints of alleged rioting by the trustees’ servants in the house. Tilak, in the meanwhile, visited Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur who maintained a discreet silence about the whole affair; but almost immediately afterwards personally attended the adoption of Bala Maharaj. The only course open before Tilak now was to file a suit against Tai Maharaj and Bala Maharaj and for confirmation of the first adoption. Tai Maharaj’s application to revoke the probate was in the meanwhile heard by Mr. Aston and Tilak was cross-examined by Mr. Aston and Tai Maharaj’s pleader. Mr. Aston who appeared prejudiced from the very first, held the Aurangabad adoption disproved, revoked the probate and ordered the costs, as in a suit, to be borne by Tilak and Khaparde. In his notes Mr. Aston found Tilak “a fencing, prevaricating, quibbling witness; demeanour distinctly untruthful.” Mr. Aston, however, did not stop at this. He found Tilak guilty of a number of criminal offences ranging from false complaint and breach of trust to perjury and illegal confinement of Tai Maharaj in the house at Poona. He accordingly committed Tilak to the City Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. While things appeared thus to be dead set against Tilak, he won an important victory that vindicated his stand when the High Court in September 1902 reversed Mr. Aston’s order of revocation but strangely enough allowed the criminal prosecution against Tilak to run its own course. The part of a prosecutor was thus carried on successfully by Mr. Aston and he left Mr. Clement, the Special Magistrate, to do the rest. There were a number of points in the criminal case against Tilak in the Court of Mr. Clements which clearly proved that the magistrate was prejudiced against Tilak. It was thus clearly proved at one stage that Tai Maharaj had produced forged letters accusing Tilak of harassing her at the time of the first adoption. Nagpurkar, her accomplice, was time and again proved to be giving false evidence and yet the magistrate admired “the strength of character” showed by the one and lightly dismissed the other as “weak and vacillating.” In his judgment, though Mr. Clements was inclined to give Tilak the benefit of doubt in regard to the charge of misappropriation of the trust money, he held him “demented by obstinacy.” On the 24th August 1903, Tilak was pronounced guilty on the charge of perjury and was sentenced to 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees Two Thousand was imposed on him. From

the demeanour of the Magistrate everyone knew what the decision was going to be and Tilak was fully prepared for it. He was removed to jail immediately, the police for once showing unusual alacrity and promptness! Bail order was given immediately by the Magistrate and Tilak was brought back on the same day, but the last act of Mr. Clements was to order the recovery of the fine. The third act of the drama was not however over before the Sessions Judge, Mr. Lucas reduced the sentence to six months and revoked the fine. In contrast to the unsympathetic attitude of Mr. Aston and Mr. Clements, the Sessions Judge was much more courteous and polite. This gave false hope that Tilak would be acquitted. The necessary element of suspense with the chance that dame fortune might smile on the victim was also provided only to be followed by dire disappointment. True, that much of the moral turpitude in the sentence imposed in the lower court was removed by the Sessions Judge but the stigma in the form of a lighter punishment still remained. The news of Tilak’s conviction was received with considerable sorrow and surprise by all. Comments in the press showed the feeling of shock experienced by everyone. The Lahore Tribune voiced the opinion of all nationalists when it said, “The majority of our countrymen are not waiting for the higher court’s verdict in order to rebuild their estimate of Mr. Tilak, his work and character. His hold on the minds of his host of friends and admirers is not of a nature to be affected by verdicts of law courts. He has lived and worked in full view of the public as it were, all his days. There is no mistaking such a character; it is unfolded to its inmost depths before the eyes of all who know him. A court of law, on the other hand, is liable to errors and misconceptions.” The Amrit Bazar Patrika referred to the “profound sensation in the country” produced by the news of Tilak’s imprisonment. It, however, did not see any consolation in the belief of the people that Tilak was innocent. On the other hand there was a sullen disappointment and almost a wish that death would be the only deliverance to Tilak: “But he has never been able to please the authorities and therefore he suffers. His only consolation lies in the fact that there are millions of hearts who will weep for him.... We fear, however, this time he will not return alive; for he has not been able to fully recover from the effects of his last incarcerations. We wish he were not born at all or he had died long ago; for then his countrymen would not have been subjected to all this excruciating pain on his account.” Indignation was expressed by many for the undue haste with which Tilak was removed to jail and was handicapped in the court. Tilak himself maintained a

calm and dignified demeanour throughout and did everything to help his counsels in conducting the defence. S. B. Tambe, later Home Member of the C.P. government, who was practising at Amraoti in 1903 when Tilak had come to record evidence before a commission that was appointed by the government in connection with the Tai Maharaj case, says: “Lokmanya’s demeanour was surprising. Even though it was clear that in case of conviction there was likely to be a permanent blot on his character with the consequent infamy, his peace of mind was never disturbed. Not once did he appear to be nervous. He was, on the other hand, instructing his pleaders as a pleader would do in a case of law in which he appears on behalf of a client. It was difficult to believe from his conduct and bearing that he himself was the accused. In the recess he came to the bar- room and talked freely with everybody. He appeared to be totally oblivious of the case against him.” While the case was still going on domestic tragedy also stalked the Tilak family. Tilak’s eldest son Vishwanath, aged 21, died of plague in January 1903. Tilak and his family had then shifted out of the town and were living in huts near Fergusson College, on account of the plague. Vishwanath was a college student and was unmarried when he died. To those who came to pay a visit of condolence Tilak said, “When there is a general bonfire of the whole town everyone has to contribute his quota of fuel. This is just like that.” Appaji Vishnu Kulkarni, Tilak’s writer at this period, gives the following anecdote which clearly illustrates the stoical calm of mind that Tilak possessed: “The day after Vishwanath’s death was a Monday. To avoid contagion they were sunning Vishwanath’ sclothes. A few paces from the hut where Vishwanath died sat Tilak in his hut. Everywhere an atmosphere of gloom pervaded. Nobody had the heart to work. But Tilak had the report of the treaty between the government and the Native States brought to him and dictated to me the leading article of the next day’s Kesari: The Maharaja Holkar’s resignation has been accepted.’ I remembered Vishwanath time and again as I wrote. But Tilak dictated the matter with his usual calm. But what is more, while I was writing, somebody said that Bapu (youngest son) had fever. Rambhau (second son) said, ‘I shall tell Dada’ to which Tilak’s wife rejoined, ‘No, don’t tell now.’ I could hear all this and Tilak too may have heard it. But he was fully absorbed in his dictation. The dictation was almost over and so I too did not say anything. After I had finished Rambhau came and gave the message. Tilak knew how terrible was the contagion and the death of the eldest son was yet fresh. And still he showed no inclination to go and see Bapu; but read carefully what I had written, did all the corrections and sent it to the press. This must have taken about ten minutes and then alone he went to

see his son.” Kulkarni also gives the following touching anecdote which shows how deeply Tilak felt the death of his son and yet how marvellously he could keep his feelings under control: lt was about ten days after Vishwanath’s death. Tilak sat alone in Vinchurkar’s house, on the first floor, reading a book. The door was closed and bolted from inside. He wanted to dictate to me something and so had called me in the afternoon. I went up the stairs and knocked on the door. When he asked, Who is it?’, I told my name and then according to his usual habit he called out loudly ‘Vishwanath’ intending to ask him to open the door and then hastily got up and opened the door himself. I could clearly see on his face how he was all but successful in keeping his feelings in check.” On the 7th January 1904, Tilak’s appeal to the High Court against Mr. Lucas’ judgment was admitted and Tilak was released from jail. The fourth and final act of the drama had now begun and it ran a swift and short course when the clouds were lifted and once again Tilak’s character shone forth with splendour and radiance. The appeal came up for hearing on 24th February 1904 before Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Chief Justice, and the Hon. Mr. Justice Batty. The Crown was represented by the Hon. Mr. Scott, Advocate-General, with Rao Bahadur V. J. Kirtikar, Government Pleader in Bombay, and Mr. S. L. Davar, Government Pleader in Poona. Mr. Branson with the Hon. Mr. D. A. Khare appeared for the accused. The proceedings lasted for three days and judgment was delivered on 3rd March 1904, setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering the fine, if paid, to be refunded. In their judgment their lordships found no occasion to set aside the original adoption at Aurangabad. About the perjury charge the Chief Justice found “no attempt at sifting the large body of Aurangabad evidence.... The absence of any discussion of this evidence called for the defence constituted such a grave omission, that on that ground alone we would be bound to interfere.” The High Court’s view about the forged documents was that even on the Sessions Judge’s adverse reading of them, they could not in reason do more than create suspicion and fell wholly short of legal proof or even corroboration. “The onus has been wrongly placed; explanations have been demanded from the accused where no occasion for them existed, and the rule that there must be something in the case to make oath of the previous witness preferable to the oath of the accused had not been satisfied.” Tilak’s stand was therefore fully vindicated and all moral stigma attached to his name was set aside by the High

Court. The jubilant tone of the press was too obvious when the High Court judgment was delivered. The Oriental Review called the Tilak case in its unrevised stages as “one of the most extraordinary miscarriages of justice that have been known in India” and recalled the parallel of the lurid days of Nincomar and Hastings.... Fortunately for Tilak “The Supreme Courts are no longer dominated by judges of the stamp of Impey and, we may add, Jeffreys.” The prolonged criminal proceedings against Tilak were described by the Indu-Prakash as an instance of official incompetence and official imprudence. “The punishment which Mr. Clements inflicted on Mr. Tilak was certainly Draconian.” The Advocate of India certainly represented popular opinion when it said, “A case of this character has a very prejudiced effect on the mind of those who are always endeavouring to impress with soundness and impartiality of British justice” and the Amrit Bazar Patrika was more candid when it declared ‘Mr. Tilaks character has shone forth more brilliant like gold after being tested by fire.’ But the blot on the character of the government will not so easily be effaced.” News of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Tilak’s appeal was received in Poona at 12.30 noon, and spread like wild fire over the city. Mr. Tilak commenced to receive visitors shortly after, each party garlanding him, daubing his forehead with red-powder and making him a present of sweetmeats. The road in front of his house was blocked by carriages and pedestrians. Special thanksgiving services were held in principal temples. Mr. Tilak visited the chief Hindu temple to offer his devotions and was cheered by enthusiastic crowds. He received more than two hundred telegrams of congratulations. Tilak’s attitude to the case is clear from some of his remarks when the case was going on. One of his visitors advised, “What does it matter who is adopted? It is much better if you have nothing to do with this. Time which otherwise would have been useful for the country’s service is unnecessarily wasted.” Tilak replied, “That is not the case. I was a great friend of Baba Maharaj. He had great trust in me. It was my duty therefore to bring about things according to his wish. I had to bear whatever difficulties that came in the way of my duty. I consider it a service to the country in placing before it such a model of friendship.” Personally again he had no animus against Tai Maharaj and even she was convinced of the unimpeachable purity of Tilak. One of the nephews of Nagpurkar records,1 “Once in my childlike curiosity and boldness I asked Tai Maharaj, ‘Maharaj, why

is it that you quarrel with our Tilak? What wrong has he done to you?’ Tears came to her eyes as she said, ‘No, child, Tilak has done no harm to me nor has he touched even the slightest thing in my house. But there is one thing that comes in the way. Tilak is very obstinate and I am after all a proud woman. If he comes to me and says, Why, what are you doing?’ I shall fall at his feet and do whatever he tells me; but I shall never retreat on my own, come what might. It is not your uncle who is at the back of this. This is all my doing and I shall see that Tilak is outwitted.” Tilak in his leading article in the Kesari after the judgment refers to the animus that the government had against him. To the government the very name, he said, was like a red rag to a bull and in such circumstances it was no wonder that he found it difficult to get justice. In his reply to speeches made in a public meeting in Poona to congratulate him he clearly shows how he was always conscious of the people’s support to him in the cause for which he stood. He declared, “I did not show any special courage. A person who would not show even this much courage on such an occasion does not deserve to be called a man. If injustice is done to anyone in society people should not depend either on the government or the court of justice but express their true opinion without being prompted by anyone. I could bear all my misfortunes in this calamity because I was fully convinced that the people’s opinion was on my side.” As in the sedition case therefore Tilak’s stand was a moral stand. He made no difference between private and public conduct but looked on both as of a piece. The promise to a dead friend once given was therefore in the nature of a public duty to him and involved not merely his private and personal prestige but also his moral and social prestige as well. The drama had however a curious sequel. The civil case for establishing the legality of the adoption at Aurangabad still dragged on. In June 1905, Tilak was once again cross-examined and in July 1906 the First-Class Sessions Judge at Poona gave a decision in favour of Tilak. The appeal dragged on in the High Court for two years and more, and when Tilak was in Mandalay, undergoing his term of transportation for sedition, Mr. Justice Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Heaton decided the case against Tilak. The High Court did not find Tilak guilty of misappropriation but found him guilty of abusing his authority. An appeal was lodged with the Privy Council and in 1915 the decision was given in Tilak’s favour, clearing his character once and for all of any blemish attached to it. “For fourteen long years,” wrote Tilak after the Privy Council Judgment, ‘Tilak had to

spend an anxious time and spend more than Rs. 50,000. Who will repay him, in this or the next world, one does not know. But in the end the facts that his word was established at long last as a true one and his fame was saved from being tarnished are enough compensation for him.” How completely free Tilak was from any self-interest in the case is to be seen from the fact, narrated by Jagannath Maharaj, the adopted son of Baba Maharaj, that he refused to accept any money that Jagannath Maharaj offered him for the expenses he had incurred. When pressed, he accepted a plot of land worth about Rs. 30,000 which, he said, he wanted to give as a gift to the New Poona College. The rest, he would present to Jagannath Maharaj whom he regarded as a son of his.2 The government’s attitude towards Jagannath Maharaj and his estate continued to be prejudiced. It was a considerable time after Jagannath Maharaj attained majority that the Court of Wards agreed to transfer the estate to him and it took years before he was recognised as a first class Sirdar. One has to remember that Tilak carried on all his normal duties, both private and public, uninterrupted by the case. He was writing regularly for the Kesari and what was still more wonderful could command enough of scholarly isolation to concentrate on his Arctic Home in the Vedas which he published in 1901. Away from the storm and stress of political agitation and social controversy in the midst of domestic misfortune Tilak’s tormented soul could find peace and consolation in the calmer regions of scholarly research. In fact it was his research that must have made his public life bearable. Where at times the scene of political and public life appeared to be fleeting and evanescent with the goal of political emancipation always eluding the grasp, here was something sure, tangible and permanent. “To be called a professor or pandit,” said Tilak, “is to me a greater honour than to be called a leader or a Lokmanya.” 1 2

THE FOUR PILLARS 9 “In omperialism nothing fails like success.” So wrote Dean Inge. Lord Curzon in a sense was one of the most successful Viceroys in India. He succeeded in asserting the sovereign powers of the British rulers in India. He crushed all opposition. He made efforts to remove the last vestige of liberalism in the British rule. In short, he succeeded as an imperialist... and as a consequence his was the most colossal of failures.

Tilak on Curzon Rule George Nathaniel Curzon, the ambitious politician, who had failed to impress the House of Commons and who therefore aspired to assert his gifts in some other sphere, had become the Viceroy of India and ‘had a grandiose vision of him as Caesar’. His regime was, therefore, marked, on the one hand, with an increase in the efficiency of government machinery and on the other, by growing resentment of Indian political leaders.1 An iron rule naturally produces its reactions. The nation feels the need of unity to build up a strong and effective opposition. Reforms divorced from a sympathetic understanding produce a violent reaction. Curzon’s regime was responsible for a widespread struggle in which the new technique of constitutional agitation, taught by the Indian National Congress, was effectively used. Tilak was the first to expose the Curzon- Rule and in 1901 had written an article in the Kesari ‘Twelve Deeds of Lord Curzon’. Tilak had judged Curzon correctly and wrote: “The people of India are on the brink of starvation while the British Empire is ever prospering. This is not something which a brilliant Governor-General like Lord Curzon cannot or does not know. But the unfortunate fact is that this does not find a place among his twelve deeds and he is more and more inclined to show that conditions in India are improving. If this tendency were to continue, we do not hope for any improvement in the regime of Lord Curzon which would be in the interest of the people.” With his lack of sympathetic understanding, Lord Curzon often rubbed people the wrong way. He, therefore, made himself and the British rule extremely unpopular. He had already affronted the people of India by his costly Durbar in 1903, which was described by Lal Mohan Ghose as a pompous pageant to a perishing people. And the last straw was ‘his stupid and mischievous persistence in carrying out the partition of Bengal amidst universal protests.’

The Partition of Bengal The partition of Bengal was effected on the 16th October 1905, on grounds of administrative convenience and efficiency. It is true that the province of Bengal with its 80 million inhabitants was unwieldy as a unit of administration. But as pointed out by Lord Ronald Shay, ‘the intelligentsia of the province interpreted it as a subtle attack on the growing solidarity of Bengal nationalism.’ The sinister motives of Lord Curzon had become clear from his speeches in East Bengal wherein he made an effort to create enmity between the Hindus and the Muslims in pursuance of the imperialist policy of divide and rule. The whole of Bengal rose as one man, spoke with one voice and acted with one mind. Curzon intended to divide, and Bengal united. All sections in Bengal, rich and poor, young and old, landlords and tenants, moderates and extremists, saw in the partition an insult to their honour and a threat to their solidarity. The Bengalis gave the first expression to their righteous indignation on the 7th August 1905. Calcutta was astir right from early morning. There was a complete strike. People poured in streams to the town hall where the protest meeting was to be held. It was such a mammoth crowd that instead of one meeting, four meetings had to be held. Resolutions were passed condemning the act of partition as an outrage and declaring a boycott on British goods as a protest measure. An action committee of about two hundred people was formed. Maharashtra’s Support Maharashtra was far away from Bengal and the partition might have been only a local issue. There was, however, a close kinship between these two provinces fostered by its political leaders. These two provinces represent two different temperaments. Bengal is known for its emotional fervour and Maharashtra for its critical spirit. They have, therefore, complemented each other in the fight for freedom. It is interesting to note that Aurobindo Ghose, who was during these days the rising star on the political horizon, had among his associates a number of Maharashtrians. Aurobindo has mentioned how Sakharam Hari Deuskar, a Maharashtrian author who had settled down in Bengal, wrote the book Desher Katha Stories of this Country at his instance and how it profoundly influenced the minds of young men in Bengal. The young revolutionaries of Bengal and Maharashtra professed the same ideals and followed similar methods of

organisation. It must, however, be admitted that so far only certain individuals in these two provinces were held together by the bonds of idealism and there was no occasion to test the kinship between the masses. In a political struggle it is the responsibility of leaders to make the people conscious of this kinship and thus to secure a strong basis for their movement. The test of a political leader lies in his ability to work on public sentiments at opportune moments. Tilak stood the test admirably. With his unerring insight, he saw in the agitation in Bengal the opening of a new chapter in our national struggle. He knew that the partition was a challenge not only to Bengal but also to the rest of India and a meek submission to it would mean the death-knell of the political struggle in this country. India with its vast population could not be easily moved and Tilak, therefore, saw in the unrest in Bengal the signs of a new life of political conflict. There was in his mind a growing consciousness of the ineffectiveness of the constitutional activities and though he did not prefer the alternative line pursued by revolutionaries he was aware of the fact that it was an outcome of the realisation of the futility of the constitutional effort. He had given long thought to the strategy of civil revolt and he was waiting for an opportunity to generate new energies and to find fresh channels for the energies of the revolutionaries. Tilak had time and again criticised the high-handed policies of Curzon and yet he knew too well that the repressive measures taken by Curzon were almost a blessing in disguise in so far as they would create a new consciousness among the people. The partition of Bengal was the most ruthless stroke of the Curzon rule and consequently created a favourable atmosphere for political agitation. Tilak was never happy unless the ideas preached on the Congress platform reached the people; for in the people he saw the real sanction for the Congress movement. Execution of an idea was always his forte and here was an idea that touched the sentiments of the people; but even sentimental appeals do not go very far and sentimental opposition peters out in impotent and sterile rage. Tilak foresaw, therefore, that out of the sentimental opposition to the partition could be forged powerful instruments of popular struggle. To be really effective they must take an economic form. Boycott and Swadeshi were, therefore, the two weapons that he placed in the hands of the people. This direct action was to be supplemented by the more peaceful methods of constitutional agitation - protest meetings, petitions and prayers. Tilak sensed his opportunity and wrote a powerful article in the Kesari of the 15th August. The article was given a significant heading: “The Crisis.” He wrote:

“It is evident that the government is not prepared to pay the least heed to public opinion expressed in mammoth meetings attended by lakhs of people; and it we do not find ways to oppose the present move and the tendencies of the government, people will lose faith in such movements. The government would not yield so long as we do not resort to stringent methods. We are at present passing through a crisis and the whole of India is looking up to the actions of the leaders of Bengal. The big landlords of Bengal and leaders like Surendranath Banerjee and Basu must now set an ideal before the people. They must tour the whole of Bengal and make the boycott of British goods successful... We now need action and not words, and action also of a determined nature.” Boycott — A Yoga Tilak is more explicit about the method of carrying on this movement: “When rulers refuse to listen to people, people are upset and punish the ruler. An instance of this is found in the history of England. With our different traditions and with our present humble state owing to being disarmed by government, the method followed by the English is not possible for us. But it would be foolish to suggest that if you cannot have a strong and correct remedy for a disease, you should not take even a mild medicine... We have neither the strength not the desire to use a weapon against our rulers. But can we not stop paying crores of rupees which we pay every year when we buy British goods,... The U.S.A. boycotted British goods in a similar manner, when they achieved their independence.... Boycott is not an unlawful method as rebellion is. We do not suggest that we should give up the constitutional methods of representing our grievances to the rulers. But when we realise from our experience that requests are not effective we should supplement them with boycott and with this double- edged weapon achieve our objective. People of Bengal have realised this and are striving accordingly. People in other parts of India must sympathise with the cause of Bengal and join the Bengalis in their struggle.... The young generation must come forward to accomplish this task with a determined effort. Boycott is the correct weapon. But its strength lies in action and not in declaration.... If we stand united we have no hesitation that the political and the economic condition of our nation would surely improve.” Tilak’s articles during this period have a rare force about them. They can, however, be contrasted with the speeches and writings of many Bengali leaders

and one finds peculiar qualities of Tilak’s leadership. The speeches of Surendranath Banerjee had great emotional appeal and were full of stylistic graces. Tilak’s writings had a directness and simplicity about them and their ringing sincerity touched the hearts of all those who read them. The famous speech of Anand Mohan Bose at the opening of the Federation Hall in Calcutta on the 16th August 1905, has a quiet persuasiveness about it. Tilak’s writings have a greater vehemence and he appeared to be flinging a challenge to the awakening manhood of the Indian people. There was nothing flashy or dazzling about the articles in the Kesari, and yet the sustained glow of Tilak’s intellect and his insistence on action gave them a unique dignity and power. His articles show a consciousness of the power of a mass movement and he also saw the potentialities of the new weapons, Swadeshi and Boycott, to make it effective. He used his powerful pen to take them to all sections of people. Tilak’s concept of boycott has been clarified in the very title of his article ‘Bahishkarayoga.’ He looked upon the boycott as yoga — an act which requires the concentration of all powers attained after long practice. Tilak was particularly impatient with the moderates who found fault with, and raised various objections to boycott. The moderates were opposed to every activity which was likely to transgress the limits of the constitutional method. They had therefore a sort of dread of mass movement and did not favour actions which might take the initiative away from the elite. The liberals were thus suspicious, not about the efficacy of boycott but rather about the desirability of resorting to it. The Liberal Party in India has always taken this pathetic attitude in times of crisis and could never therefore captivate the imagination of the people. Tilak exposed the weakness of the liberal stand in a crushing manner. In an article in the Kesari on the 5th September 1905, he wrote, “It is a matter of regret that in respect of boycott the tremendous enthusiasm shown by the young generation of students and by the ignorant masses was not shown by the leaders belonging to the rich and the middle classes. These people have raised a doubt as to how they would get sufficient Swadeshi goods even if they are determined to use Swadeshi. Their argument is that first we must have mills, then we would start producing Swadeshi goods and not until then would they consider whether to use them. The folly of such argument is indeed so apparent as to be pitiable. Just as it is foolish to expect a person to learn swimming before getting into the water, equally foolish it is to say that people should use Swadeshi after there is a sufficient production of Swadeshi goods. This production is possible only when there is a sufficient

encouragement either from the people or from the Government. Under the present circumstances, encouragement from rulers is not possible and if people also raise doubts, the local trade and industries, which have just managed to survive, would become extinct.... Those who advocate the postponement of Swadeshi till enough Swadeshi goods are produced, are ‘deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the present movement.... If people are resolved to practise this Yoga, the more they practise it, the greater fruit would it bear and lead ultimately to the desired ideal.” In all his writings Tilak emphasised the positive aspect of the boycott movement and wanted people to learn the lesson of self- reliance. Politics is a game in which there is little room for softness. Once an individual enters a political controversy he must be prepared to take hard blows. This leads some people to think that politicians thrive on intolerance. This, however, is a misnomer. When political leaders – and when we use the term we confine it only to those in the first rank – take a particular stand, they do it with all the courage of their conviction and strong attacks on the opposite point of view therefore become imperative. Moreover to them an opinion is not merely a matter of academic interest but a means of influencing public opinion so that the opinion is translated into the desired action. Anything therefore which comes as an obstacle in this way has to be brushed aside. These thoughts are occasioned by three articles written by Tilak about Professor Selby of the Deccan College. Prof. Selby was relentlessly attacked by Tilak when he expressed his opinion on the Swadeshi movement in a letter published in Indu-Prakash. When Prof. Selby had expressed an unfavourable opinion about the Swadeshi movement, Tilak wrote three articles in the Kesari with the ride They are not our Gurus.’ In the course of these articles Tilak explained the noble concept of ‘Guru’ in ancient times when those who undertook the task of educating others, were men with profound knowledge, spotless character and without any material interests. They placed truth above everything and fearlessly expressed their opinions on any problem. In contrast to them, the European professors in India placed the interests of the British Empire above truth and therefore though some of them were well-versed in their own subject, they had no claim to the exalted title of ‘Guru’. From these professors, Indian students might get book learning; but they should never look up to them for a lead in matters regarding the welfare of this country. In the second article, Tilak also gave a scathing criticism of teachers in private colleges and pointed out how they had degraded themselves by exhibiting their

slavish mentality. Tilak pointed out the irony of fate that while Prof. G. K. Gokhale was defending boycott in Manchester, a student from the Fergusson College was fined ten rupees by the Principal for participating in the Swadeshi movement. In this article, Tilak has expressed his views on the student-teacher relationship, a subject which has been a matter of controversy for a number of years in this country. Some critics of Tilak alleged that he encouraged indiscipline among students. The views expressed by Tilak in this article clarify his position in the matter and give a decisive answer to all critics. He wrote, “The relationship between the student and the teacher is very delicate and we do not wish to spoil it.” Tilak then raised the problem of discipline and made it clear that teachers or elderly persons in the house should not assert their authority in a wrong manner and punish the right conduct of young people as indiscipline. When a teacher, who is motivated by selfish interests, or is under the thumb of others or has lost the poise of his intellect, when such a teacher without knowing the desirability or undesirability of action, orders his pupil or punishes his pupil for not obeying his order, the pupil is perforce to defy the teacher. In the third article, Tilak further commented on the role of educational institutions in a dependent country and expressed the opinion that these institutions and the teachers serving in them would be failing in their duty if they did not create among the students a sense of their obligation to their motherland. According to Tilak, it was the duty of the teacher to make the student conscious of his welfare and in this respect he mentioned Herbert Spencer as a person who would be acknowledged as a Guru by all. It was evident that Tilak had a great admiration for scholarship and if Prof. Selby had resisted the temptation of expressing partisan views in a political issue he would have earned praise at Tilak’s hand. There were some professors who were politically neutral but who were authorities in their subject. Even though they might not fulfil the duty of creating a consciousness of national responsibility among students, which Tilak expected them to do Tilak always spoke respectfully about their scholarship and expected the students to have deep reverence for such teachers. This was evident from the deep reverence he had for Prof. Kerunana Chhatre. Tilak, however, never to lerated a teacher misusing his authority in a partisan way and hence wrote the three articles in the Kesari which were interpreted by some of his opponents as insinuations. The success of Tilak’s leadership has been analysed by different people in different ways. His great biographer, Kelkar, has rightly remarked that his

complete absorption in a cause and his persistent endeavour for its success gave strength to all the movements he led. The Swadeshi movement found in him an indefatigable champion who lent all his energies in order to take it to the people. Along with the articles already mentioned Tilak also wrote two articles on the spinning and weaving industry in the Kesari on the 14th and 21st November 1905. The articles present carefully collected data and the technical details mentioned in them show the scholar’s method of dealing with a subject. Tilak in these articles shows a good grasp of the problem, a realistic approach and the knowledge of all the efforts made by some Indians to improve the industry. The emphasis on the small-machine for reorientation of our economic life and on the urgent need of rehabilitating the uprooted weavers are the important features of these articles. They are significant in so far as they bring out the constructive approach of Tilak which he regarded to be as important as the agitational aspect. Tilak’s sense of realism and moral fervour is seen in another article ‘Objections to the Swadeshi Movement’ in which he has answered the various objections in a convincing manner. He admitted that the Swadeshi goods, in the initial phase, would cost more than the foreign goods; but he stated that the Swadeshi movement was not the line of least resistance. He stated “Swadeshi implies some sacrifice” and urged that the people must make it in order to usher in the new era of self-reliance. Lord Curzon had a dispute with the Commander-in-Chief Lord Kitchner over the civil control of the army. In this dispute the Secretary of State, Mr. Brodrick, pronounced against Curzon and as a result Curzon resigned in indignation. However the tyranny in Bengal did not end with his resignation. In fact the Lt.- Governor of the newly constituted East Bengal, Fuller, was one of the greatest of tyrants and took perverted delight in the naked exhibition of his autocratic power. He gave threats to Bengali leaders, imposed a ban on Vande Mataram and tried to establish military rule in Bengal. Tilak knew that the greater the oppression, the more intense would be the reaction of the people and wrote an article ‘Now the Strife is in Full Swing’. In the article Tilak first mentioned the how the London Times had congratulated the Russians on their success in compelling the Czar to surrender to public sentiment expressed through the general strike. He then remarked that the London Times, so quick in noting the progressive movement in Russia, failed to notice the beginnings of a similar movement in India. Next he condemned the opponents of the movement in Bengal in the following words: “It is an unfortunate fact that some of us are

crying ‘halt’ hardly before the battle has begun. How foolish! We doubt whether these people understand the significance and meaning of a national movement. They appear to be under the impression that the Swadeshi movement was just started to encourage Swadeshi goods and that it would not go beyond creating opportunities for a soap factory or an umbrella factory in our country. Our arrogant and cunning rulers also want this idea to prevail. But anyone can easily see that the weapon of the Swadeshi movement is wielded by Bengali leaders with obviously politically intentions. The Swadeshi movement is necessary for industrial development; but its political significance is of far greater importance and this aspect is particularly evident in Bengal. This is exactly the reason why Lt.-Governor Fuller is behaving like a mad dog. He is convinced that the new weapon which the people of Bengal were using would one day score a victory over the bureaucracy. He has therefore grown frantic and wants to nip the movement in the bud.” Tilak concluded the article with the observation that it was Bengal’s destiny to bear the brunt of the attack in the political struggle of India and hoped that the leaders of Bengal would prove themselves equal to the task. The articles written at the time of the Barisal Conference, when Surendranath Banerjee was insulted and convicted, were also full of fire and Tilak particularly congratulated Surendranath Banerjee on his personal courage and remarked, “There is some divine dispensation in the present incident and Babu Surendranath’s insult is only instrumental to it. This is not the end of the chapter and this should not be the end.... This alone is the path of our progress.” Marathi is a forceful language capable of expressing the minutest shade of meaning and in the hands of Tilak it became a rare sharp weapon. The articles written during the period have earned a permanent place in the annals of Marathi journalism. They were written with reference to an immediate issue and yet they have permanent significance as an expression of the irrepressible will of the people and as master strokes of a leader who was creating a new political climate by fomenting an agitation in which national honour was at stake. Motley’s Enlightened Despotism In a country ruled by foreigners, people are reduced to a state of helplessness. An improvement in material conditions depends entirely on the whim of the rulers. When tyranny comes to stay, the only thing that people can do is to hope

for a change in the ruler. When the Conservative Party was in power, the colonial policy was very strict and autocratic and Indians were deprived of the bare political rights which they enjoyed. When Joseph Chamberlain was the Prime Minister and Curzon was the Viceroy, India was subject to continual humiliation and there was a retardation on almost all fronts. With a change of the party in power in England, therefore, some people hoped for better days. This certainly was not a healthy tendency but it was inevitable in the initial stages of the struggle for independence. Moreover the liberals in India had immense faith in the professions of the Liberal Party in England. Some of the Liberal leaders in England had helped Dadabhai Naoroji and other Indian leaders in acquainting the British public with facts about India and some of the Liberals had even openly expressed disapproval of some of the actions of Conservative Viceroys. This gave grounds for hope in the minds of some people, particularly the moderates who entertained the dream of realisation of political rights under the aegis of the Liberal rulers of England. Tilak was very critical of this attitude and believed that liberalism in England did not imply a liberal colonial policy and so far as the interests of the Empire were concerned the Liberals would pursue almost the same policies as the Conservatives. He always insisted on self-reliance and though he admitted the need for propaganda in England with a view to influencing British public opinion, he believed that the pivotal point of our political struggle was the organised strength of the people expressing itself in a fight against every injustice suffered at the hands of the bureaucracy in India. Tilak had been pursuing this line of thought since 1895 and his faith in the strength of the people’s movement was intensified, particularly after he witnessed the majestic wrath of public opinion against the Bengal Partition. He time and again criticised the moderate leaders for turning their eyes to England in a mood of suppliant hopefulness. The moderates as a retort criticised Tilak for his wrong judgment and objected to his unwarranted distrust of Liberals in England, who, according to them, were helpful to the cause of India. They substantiated their arguments by referring to the reforms introduced in India by Lord Ripon. The difference in the attitude of Tilak and the moderates was due to the different ways in which they interpreted the character of the British Empire. Tilak looked upon the Empire as a reactionary frame which had throttled India’s progress and which would not relax its grip at the hands of one party or the other. He believed that power would have to be wrested from the British; whereas the moderates believed that India would realise her political ideal with the introduction of political reforms