Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

given in instalments and that the Liberal Party meant to help India on her path of political progress. They attributed the reactionary policies to the Conservative Government and hoped that in the hands of Liberal statesmen, the Empire would become a benevolent Commonwealth of Nations. This controversy could not be decided and had almost a hypothetical note about it so long as the Liberals were not in power. Some Liberals criticised the policies of the Conservative Government with regard to India not because they wanted to champion India’s cause but because they wanted to exploit every opportunity for criticising their political opponents not because it gave pleasure to the Indians, but because it gave pain to the Conservatives. There were of course honourable exceptions but it is hard to say to what extent they influenced the Liberal Party. The test of the pudding lies in the eating and Indians at last got an opportunity to test the sincerity of the professions of the Liberal Party when in December 1905 the Conservatives were voted out of office and Liberals took the reins of government. There were great expectations when John Morley became the Secretary of State for India. Great were the hopes and greater must have been the disappointment at the first statement of Morley in Parliament. Morley remarked that the reasons for the partition of Bengal were administrative and not political and though it was done against the wishes of the people, it was an accomplished fact. Moreover, according to high officials, as time passed people did not feel so keenly about it and hence it need not be abolished. When Mr. Herbert Roberts made a suggestion in Parliament that Indians should be given a greater share in the administration of their country, Morley’s answer had the usual ‘official touch’ about it. He admitted that Indians deserved political rights but remarked that it was ‘foolish’ to expect that the Liberal Party would give them some rights immediately. He remarked that if the burden of taxes was reduced, Indians would become more loyal than before. The high priest of liberty had refused to pay even lip sympathy to the aspirations of a nation striving for political rights. Tilak had never expressed hopes for a fair deal at the hands of Morley. His opinion that Liberals in power would not be much different from Conservatives so far as Imperialist policies were concerned was vindicated. In the article on the 6th March 1906, his comment on Morley’s remarks in Parliament were: “We leave it to our readers to decide whether they should admire the wisdom of Morley’s remarks or whether they should praise the folly of some of our leaders who had entirely depended on

his favours. We are of opinion that Morley’s speech is quite in keeping with British diplomacy.... His arguments about the partition of Bengal are so silly and exasperating that we are led to observe that immediately after becoming the Secretary of State for India he seems to have mortgaged his philosophic wisdom.” With the pungency which was his own he remarked in the course of the article: “Politics only admits self-interest and turns to philosophy in so far as it serves that interest.” The burden of Tilak’s song was that Morley was first an Englishman, a ruler of the Empire and then a liberal thinker. Tilak prophesied that in Morley’s future policies philosophy would be subservient to diplomacy. In the article ‘A Philosopher and a Diplomat’ Tilak has argued his point of view in a convincing manner. There is no touch of bitterness or malice about Tilak’s remarks and yet he has clearly exposed the limitations of Morley’s liberalism after assuming office. He characterised the British rule as enlightened despotism. Tilak was severe in his attacks but was always prepared to appreciate a progressive measure. He never indulged in criticism for its own sake. When the Lian circular, owing to which shouting Vande Mataram in the street was declared a crime, was cancelled, he thanked Morley and Minto for it in his article ‘Government and the Barisal Episode’. Tilak expressed satisfaction over the fact that the Bengalis at last established their right to shout Vande Mataram but he also asked them not to be so elated over a trivial success as to allow their movement to grow slack. The Swadeshi movement gathered momentum in aharashtra mainly on account of Tilak’s articles in the Kesari. The moderates could not find fault with it, as they also agreed that it strengthened the national movement. But the idea of boycott made them restless. They therefore did not strongly support the movement and sometimes poked fun at it when it was carried to extremes by some faddists. Tilak was a realist and his advocacy of the movement was always rational and cogent. He did not, however, think it necessary to criticise the extreme proposals put forward by some people, because he knew that such things were inevitable in the exuberance of enthusiasm. Excess could be curbed; but where there was barrenness no amount of agitation would make a people rise. The attitude of the moderates was thus negative and escapist and their criticism missed the mark. They could not therefore arouse public enthusiasm, this was to them almost taboo, and it was no wonder therefore that in spite of their intellectual airs, they were thrust into the background owing to their negative attitude. What they termed as rationalism was in reality a cloak to conceal their

inaction. Tilak’s qualities of leadership far out shone the moderate s, and the people of Maharashtra looked up to him as a perpetual fountain of inspiration. Tilak was always aware of the fact that a mass movement required the services of people of different abilities and he assigned work to everyone according to their capacities. Some persons who discoursed on the Puranas also carried the message of Swadeshi to the people and Tilak duly acknowledged their services. But Tilak did not stop at the propagation of the noble idea of Swadeshi. He took positive steps to make it a reality. In 1906, Tilak went to Bombay, enlisted the support of some of the millowners and established the Bombay Swadeshi Cooperative Stores Ltd. in May 1906. The institution had a share capital of Rs. Two and a half lakhs and in order to enable the middle class to extend its support to this cooperative effort, the cost of each share was Rs. 100 only. Tilak was one of the Directors. Thanks to the efforts of a number of constructive workers, the institution, functions even today. Satyabhamabai, Tilak’s Wife When the atmosphere was surcharged with enthusiasm everyone strove for the success of the Swadeshi movement in his or her own humble way. The young men were of course in the vanguard of the movement. But in Maharashtra, women too who had so far been confined to the four walls of the house, came forward to play their part. It is interesting to note that in a women’s meeting in Tilak’s house, his wife Satyabhamabai also participated. Satyabhamabai was a typical Hindu housewife brought up in the orthodox tradition. She was simple, straightforward and religious. She was a woman of a few words. Though literate and conscious of the responsibilities which Tilak had undertaken, she of course never spoke about them and a quiet acceptance of the household responsibilities was her way of playing the part of a better-half to the individual whose manifold responsibilities and struggles afforded little time for private life. Tilak’s imprisonments caused great agony to Satyabhamabai’s mind and added to her responsibilities. But she played her part patiently and her sterling qualities of heart were a singular asset to Tilak. Her part in Tilak’s life appeared to be passive and yet it was owing to her that Tilak was free from the worries and cares of family life. The meeting of women about Swadeshi was probably the only occasion on which she took part in an affair which was beyond her domestic interests. Shivaji Celebrations in Maharashtra and Bengal

Shivaji Celebrations in Maharashtra and Bengal Public life is a medley of different activities and though a particular problem gets priority over every other problem at a particular moment, other activities have a place in the scheme of things. A leader has to see to it that the activities he has once started keep up their vitality. Tilak had started the Shivaji celebrations and he saw to it that the activity generated energies which he could harness to the national cause. In 1905, even when the political tension was growing, the celebrations took place with the usual enthusiasm. During this year there arose a controversy as to whether the concept of the love for one’s country was an old one or a new one. Tilak made an important speech on the controversy during the Shivaji celebrations. He said that, “the idea was an old one, though it was given a new name. Eminent historians like Ranade and Kirtane have acknowledged Shivaji’s patriotic ideals.... He was not just a religious leader and ‘Go-Brahman- Pratipalak” was just one of the epithets attributed to him. His establishment of Swaraj resulted in the protection of Hindu religion. It was not, however, the motive force behind his activities.” Tilak argued that the ways to accomplish an ideal changed according to times. This makes it quite clear that Tilak was using revivalism as merely a method. He looked upon Shivaji Maharaj as the founder of Swaraj and looked upto him as an inspiring force that made people conscious of their duty to the country. In 1906, Deuskar, the writer of Desher Katha, who had settled down in Calcutta, took the lead in celebrating Shivaji’s anniversary in Calcutta. Tilak who had lent all his energies to the struggle of the Bengalis against partition had earned the respect and love of Bengalis and it was in the fitness of things that he was invited to Calcutta for the Shivaji festival. He was accorded an enthusiastic reception by the people of Calcutta and the festival was celebrated on a grand scale. The Bengalis heard the message of the life and work of Shivaji from one who made the people see old things in a new light and read a new message in the past events. Shyama Sunder Chakravarti, Editor of Servant, Calcutta, has given a splendid account of the event. He wrote: “The speech of Mr. Tilak on the occasion gave a distinct impetus to the just started self-relying politics of Bengal. He brought with him a large number of pamphlets containing the history of the Sinn Fein movement and caused them to be distributed among that huge audience. At the end of the ceremony a procession was organised to take the image of Bhavani to the Ganges for immersion and Tilak was asked to lead the procession. It was a unique demonstration, all the different communities of

Calcutta joined it and when Tilak came to the riverside the rush for his sight was so enormous that his life was in danger. He had his dip in the Ganges with the rest of that huge assemblage and ensured his place in the heart of the Hindu community of Calcutta as the only true democratic leader of India.”

Benares Congress In the Congress Session of 1904, it was decided to send a deputation to England to put forth India’s point of view. G. K. Gokhale and M. A. Jinnah were the Congress nominees but as Jinnah could not go Gokhale alone had to shoulder the responsibility. Fortunately Lala Lajpat Rai was in England at this time and these two did splendid work. Gokhale represented the Indian point of view with great ability and boldly defended the boycott movement in Bengal. Tilak and Gokhale had serious differences, ideological as well as temperamental, and Tilak had many a time scathingly criticised the moderate views of Gokhale. The differences between these two eminent leaders had started in 1890, the gulf between them was ever widening and fierce controversies raged between them on a number of occasions. Gokhale was generally restrained and sober in these controversies while Tilak generally wrote in a strong and cutting manner. He appeared to be almost enjoying conflicts and when he wrote vehemently, he thought that ‘it was in the game’. When some of Tilak’s critics accused him of meanness, they took all his expressions literally, which were only written in the white heat of passion. Tilak was always conscious of the great abilities of Gokhale, his earnestness of purpose, his mastery of facts and figures, and his command of simple, clear and vigorous expression. Tilak crossed swords with Gokhale when there was a difference in approach, but was also more than willing to pay him a compliment when the occasion demanded. Gokhale’s able advocacy of India’s cause was such an occasion. Tilak therefore openly congratulated Gokhale on his success in exposing the British Rule in India and in expressing the aspirations of the Indian people to the English. A special interview of Gokhale was published by the Bombay correspondent of the Kesari and along with it a picture of Gokhale was also prominently displayed. In a public meeting held at the Raey Market in Poona, Tilak moved the resolution felicitating him for the success of his mission in England. Gokhale’s thorough disgust of Curzon’s rule and his righteous indignation expressed in his presidential address at the Benares Congress in December 1905 has already been referred to. In the same address he explained the significance of the Swadeshi movement, and described the efficacy of the boycott, though he stated that “a weapon like this must be reserved only for extreme occasions.” Tilak highly appreciated the outspokenness of Gokhale and the Times of India

criticised him for having given up his moderate stand. As a matter of fact there was a marked difference between the attitude of moderates and that of the radicals. This was particularly brought out by the storm in the Subjects Committee on the resolution according a hearty welcome to the then Prince of Wales on his forthcoming visit to India. The moderates always thought it desirable to express their loyalist sentiments through such resolutions. While Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai were strongly opposed to it, Gokhale, however, prevailed on Lalaji to act as a mediator and when the assurance was given that the resolution would not be declared to have passed unanimously, Tilak withdrew his opposition. Tilak, who was becoming the acknowledged leader of the extremists throughout India, was always opposed to an expression of loyalist sentiment. He was building a movement based on self-reliance and, therefore, opposed every move which went against. He was not, however, intent on precipitating a crisis in the Congress and though he could have easily defeated the moderates on the issue of welcoming the Prince of Wales, he did not stretch his argument to breaking point. Speech on Famine, Poverty, etc. Tilak moved an important resolution on “Famine, Poverty, Economic Inquiry and Land Revenue”, which said: “That this Congress deplores fresh outbreak of famine in several parts of the country, and holding that the frequent occurrences of famines are due to the great poverty of the people, which forces large numbers of them to throw themselves on State help at the first touch of scarcity, it again urges the government of India and the Secretary of State to institute a detailed inquiry into the economic condition of a few typical villages in different parts of India.” Tilak made a forceful speech while moving the resolution. He said, “If government exists it is not merely for securing peace but for securing prosperity to the land. Financial questions, economic questions are not to be dealt with by individuals. If they are to be dealt with by individuals what does the government exist for?” He continued, “If the wealth that is produced in the country does not remain but is drained away, it is the duty of the Government of India to take steps by which that wealth may not be drained.” He insisted, therefore, on

industrialising the country to eradicate poverty and starvation. Tilak had realised the importance of the work to be done in England and he, therefore, seconded an important resolution moved by Sir William Wedderburn. It was resolved that as a general election was approaching in England a deputation should be sent from India to put the claims of India before the electors and the candidates. Tilak, while seconding the resolution, urged that an agitation must be made in England, for there the judges sit who would decide our case, and as the Government of India was impervious, they must reach the English people, and there should be a permanent political mission in England.

Dadabhai Becomes the President After the Benares Congress it appeared to some that moderates and radicals in the Congress were searching for greater areas of agreement and were treading the same path. During the next six months, however, the crisis in Bengal became acute and the difference in the approach of these two sections once again became evident. The radicals, who were growing more and more sceptical of constitutional methods and had started thinking in terms of direct action, wanted the Indian National Congress to pursue vigorous policies. The moderates were conscious of the growing pressure and though they did not openly oppose the movements of the radicals, they did not want the Indian National Congress to give up its former stand. They did not want the movement in Bengal to determine the all-India policy of the Congress. Tilak was determined to give a radical slant to the Congress and when Khaparde wrote a letter to the leaders of the Congress asking for a change in the former’s constitutional policy, Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari on the 10th July 1906, on ‘The Direction of the Work of the Congress.’ He quoted at the beginning of his article three stanzas from the Mahabharat in which, Bhima, the second Pandava, told Dharmaraj to give up his supplicant attitude, and to take bold steps becoming a Kshatriya. Tilak further remarked: “The time has now come to give the same advice to the (Indian National) Congress.” Tilak then stated how at first a handful of leaders represented the grievances of the Indian people to the British Government and how afterwards this was done through the agency of the Provincial Conferences. It was first believed that as soon as the government was acquainted with these grievances, they would be redressed. Tilak then pointed out how such hopes were belied and how in spite of walk-outs in the Council staged by Pherozshah Mehta and others at the time of the Tenancy Bill in Bombay province and even in spite of the movement in Bengal against partition, the British Government was not moved even slightly. Tilak then emphasised the fact that the British Empire thrived on the exploitation of India and the British were not ruling the Indians with a disinterested motive of promoting India’s benefit. Tilak made a pointed reference to the fact that even Morley, at whose hands certain people expected a fair deal, was not prepared to compromise the interests of the Empire and refused to repeal the partition. After pointing at the futility of the method of

petitions and requests, Tilak strongly advocated the need for a shift in the Congress policy, which he thought should be decided at the next session at Calcutta. He then made a suggestion that Lala Lajpat Rai should be made the President so that such fresh thinking would be done vigorously. Conscious of the fact that his suggestion was likely to be misinterpreted as disruptive, Tilak clarified his position in the following words: “Nobody desires to break the Congress. But the question is whether the Congress should be content by meeting once a year to raise its voice to say We want these things’, by sending a delegate to England for begging more.” While Tilak and Khaparde suggested the name of Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and other Bengalis suggested the name of Tilak for the Congress presidentship. The people of Bengal had, during the trying days of partition, received tremendous support from Tilak and were convinced of the fact that only under the leadership of Tilak, was the Congress likely to take swift strides on the path of direct action. There could not be any controversy about these two names, for both Tilak and Lalaji represented the radical point of view and were impatient of the moderate policies so far pursued. The liberal leaders became restless at this and wanted to keep their grip over the Congress quite firm. They knew too well that the suggestion of the name of a liberal leader was not likely to carry any weight and yet they wanted to prevent either Tilak or Lalaji from taking the reins of the Congress in their hands. In every institution the conflict of ideologies is inevitable and in such conflicts the side standing for status quo always finds itself in an embarrassing position. The liberal leaders were making a frantic effort to get out of this embarrassing position and after long deliberations they came forward with the suggestion that Dadabhai Naoroji, the revered veteran politician who was still in England, should be called to preside over the Congress. This was really a moral victory for the radicals as it implied an admission that the liberals could not suggest the name of anyone amongst them whose leadership would be accepted unanimously. To suggest Dadabhai’s name was only an attempt to evade the challenge flung at them by the radicals. It was a postponement of the crisis. It was of course a shrewd step in the game for power, for the liberals knew too well that none would oppose the idea of making Dadabhai the President at the Calcutta session. This ‘Grand Old Man’ of India by his long and arduous service to India had secured a place in the heart of all Indians. He inspired respect in all sections, and the moderates as well as the radicals had absolute trust in him. Even from the point of view of the extremists, no more felicitous selection could have been made. Not merely because in

Dadabhai the Congress had secured a President of ripe experience, possessing sweetness of temper and infinite patience and tact, but also because he occupied a position much nearer the advanced wing of the Congress than anyone of the moderate party. He was neither a moderate nor an extremist, he had never hesitated to speak freely in the language of his heart and he was not the man to lower the standard with a view to placating one side or the other. After the repressive regime of Lord Curzon, his words invariably breathed fire. He had already asserted, and could assert over again, what the extremists had been urging with double the force and effect with which anyone of them could have done. True, he was one of those who still believed in a constitutional struggle for progressive expansion of political freedom and whose ambition stopped short at placing India on a level with the self-governing colonies. But he was no longer the same submissive supplicant that he was in his earlier years, praying for justice before the bar of British public opinion. They knew that he would steer the ship of the Congress safely out of any storm. He was far above partisan interests and people felt that under his presidentship, the Congress session would have a homely touch, when the patriarch of the family would give his benign advice by the fireside. Of course, it must always be remembered that Dadabhai was not just a ‘Good Old Man’ who would pat youngsters and try to patch up their differences. He always faced issues boldly and spoke what he sincerely felt at any moment. He had a rare clarity of ideas and though he was away from India for a considerable time, he had an accurate judgment of the forces in Indian politics. Different people had, therefore, different conjectures about the probable lead that he would give to the Indian National Congress. When Dadabhai arrived in Bombay in December 1906, he was given a rousing reception by all sections of the people. Tilak immediately after this wrote an article in the Kesari of the 18th December 1906 with the title “What would Dadabhai tell us?” After paying tributes to the services rendered by Dadabhai through fifty years of patient and uninterrupted work, Tilak remarked that this was not the only reason why Dadabhai commanded the respect of all sections of the Indian people. Dadabhai was the first to comprehend fully the fact that the apparently pleasing aspect of British Rule was ultimately detrimental to India and would squeeze the. life out of her. This characterisation of the British Rule by Dadabhai, was, according to Tilak, his greatest contribution. Tilak then pointed out the development of Dadabhai’s political ideology, how at first he relied entirely on the generosity of the British,

how in the presidential address at the Lahore Congress in 1893, he advised people to represent their grievances in a right manner to the British and how there was of late a change in his attitude evinced by his message to the Congressmen in 1903 wherein he said, “India would not get self-government so long as the English are not convinced that Indians would not rest till they have achieved their political rights.” Tilak in the concluding part of his article remarked: “From ... all this, one finds that Dadabhai is a radical among radicals,” and expressed the fervent hope that Dadabhai would never damp people’s enthusiasm and his presidentship of the Congress would only strengthen the new radical trends in the political life of India.

The Calcutta Congress Tilak’s prognostications were more than realised. The keynote of Dadabhai’s address was Swaraj and the statement of his views was unequivocal. He said: “We do not ask for any favours. We want only justice. Instead of going into any further divisions or details of our rights as British citizens, the whole matter can be comprised in one word, self-government or Swaraj, like that of United Kingdom or the Colonies.” Speaking about the non-fulfilment of the solemn pledge by the British, he added, “Since my early efforts I must say that I have felt so many disappointments as would be sufficient to break any heart and lead one to despair and even, I am afraid, to rebel... But I have not despaired.” His final message was: “Be united, persevere and achieve self-government so that the millions now perishing by poverty, famine and plague, and the scores of millions that are starving on scanty subsistence, may be saved and India may once more occupy her proud position of yore among the greatest and civilized nations of the world.” In the meeting of the Subjects Committee there was a heated discussion and when the resolutions for extending the boycott all over India were disallowed, Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Bipin Chandra Pal and Khaparde left the meeting. For a while a split had almost become imminent and yet in the open session, in spite of a heated debate, the resolution on a boycott was passed unanimously. This resolution, proposed by Ambika Charan Muzumdar and seconded by Bipin Chandra Pal, stated that the boycott movement inaugurated in Bengal, by way of protest against the partition of that province, “was and is legitimate.” The radicals interpreted the resolution as applicable in its extent to the whole of the country while the moderates gave the interpretation that it was confined only to Bengal. R. P. Masani commenting on the events of the Congress writes: “A united front had, however, to be presented. Tilak had the patriotism and the statesmanship to realise it. Despite his disappointment he struck a refreshing note of unity.” Masani then makes an appropriate reference to Tilak’s speech on the Swadeshi resolution in the 22nd Session of the Indian National Congress. In the article, ‘What happened at the Congress Session’, written on the 8th January 1907, Tilak gave a full-length account of the important events and stated

his impressions about them. The special feature of the 22nd Session of the Congress was that Dadabhai Naoroji in his presidential speech first defined the objectives of the Congress and stated unequivocally that without self- government India’s problem could not be solved. Tilak observed that if this had been stated by a person of lesser authority, the moderates would not have accepted it. But coming as it did from Dadabhai, it was accepted by all, and this was an important step taken by the Congress. Tilak emphasised the fact that it was the 22nd Session of the Congress and thus it could be said that Congress had come of age. Tilak drew the attention of his readers to the fact that Dadabhai in stating the ideal of the Congress did not merely use the words “self-government” or “Home Rule” but also used the word most familiar to Indians, viz. “Swaraj”. “Dadabhai”s speech and his concluding remarks have once and for all proved that the achievement of Swaraj was the goal that the Congress wanted to reach.” Tilak was particularly gratified that besides the end, the means also were clearly stated. Tilak wrote: “It is true that the Congress had not given up the method of petitions and requests. But it must be borne in mind that the 22nd Session of the Congress had once for all wholly adopted the triple methods of self-reliance, viz. Swadeshi, boycott and national education.” Referring to the seal of sanction set on boycott by the resolution in which boycott was called ‘legitimate’, Tilak objected to the interpretation which Gokhale and Malaviya tried to put on it, viz. that it applied only to Bengal. Tilak remarked, “If the boycott resolution had not a general significance, would it not have been differently worded so as to remove its ‘general’ nature? There was scope for limiting it by putting the words ‘for Bengal’ after the word ‘legitimate.’ But as this was not done and as the resolution was adopted unanimously, none, not even the President or the Secretary of the Congress, had now a right to interpret it according to the opinion of one section or the other. . . . The next resolution was about Swadeshi. There was much discussion in the Congress session on the point whether or not Swadeshi was to be encouraged ‘at some sacrifice.’ The Hon. Mr. Mehta’s views in this respect are well known. He said that encouraging Swadeshi ‘at some sacrifice’ amounted to boycott. He thought that was not the meaning of Swadeshi and that such a meaning would not be acceptable to the Mohamedans. In short, in this respect the views of Lord Minto and those of Mr. Mehta coincide. But the Congress did not approve of this opinion and after a good deal of controversy, it was unanimously resolved that

“Swadeshi goods should be encouraged at some sacrifice.” Tilak was happy that there was no difference of opinion on national education, and that the Congress had fully realised the necessity, the importance and the utility of national education. Tilak summed up the article, saying that “as the end and the means were fully clarified there was no ground for dispute among the contending parties” and that “the young generation should now use the means properly and achieve the ideal as stated by Dadabhai.” In spite of the unanimity about the resolutions, the differences between the two sections of the Congress had become evident. The differences were ideological and not personal, though in the heat of the controversies, personal bickerings, too, came to the surface. In a dynamic political organisation differences of opinion are but inevitable. The Indian National Congress was passing through a period of growth. There was therefore nothing wrong in the efforts of the two major parties in the Congress to shape the Congress according to their respective ideals. Gokhale was the accredited leader of the moderates and Tilak, Aurobindo, Pal and Lajpat Rai represented the radical point of view. That the two points of view were almost irreconcilable could be seen from the discussions in the Subjects Committee and from the speeches in the open session of the Calcutta Congress.

Tenets of the New Party After the Calcutta Congress under the presidentship of Bipin Chandra Pal, Tilak delivered a speech on “The Tenets of the New Party.” The speech is a clear statement of the ideological position of the extremist section. He said: “Two new words have recently come into existence with regard to our politics, and they are moderates and extremists. These words have a specific relation to time, and they, therefore, will change with time. The extremists of today will be moderates tomorrow, just as the moderates of today were extremists yesterday.” Tilak then referred to the fact of how Indians were at one time dazed by British rule and how Dadabhai was the first to be disillusioned with the apparently benevolent intentions of the British. Tilak then declared: “Self-government is our goal. What the New Party wants you to do is to realise the fact that your future rests entirely in your own hands. If you mean to be free, you can be free; if you do not mean to be free, you will fall and be forever fallen. So many of you need not like arms; but if you have not the power of active resistance, have you not the power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist this foreign government to rule over you? This is boycott, and this is what is meant when we say, boycott is a political weapon. We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice. We shall have our own courts, and when time comes we shall not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united efforts? If you can, you are free from tomorrow.” The speech had a tremendous effect. The Indian People commenting on the speech wrote: “As a speaker, Mr. Tilak has nothing of the demagogue or the impassioned platform orator about him. There are no high-sounding phrases, no flights of rhetoric. His manner is subdued and free from gesticulation. The sentences are terse; the language is simple and direct.... He appealed to the intelligence of his audience and not to their sentiment. The real power lay in the matter of his speech and not in the manner. There were no generalisations, no enunciation of abstract principles in flowery language. Every statement was clear and every point was driven home with a readiness of illustration and power of antithesis

that showed the power of the speaker and the subtlety of his intellect. Every issue was put plainly and uncompromisingly. But there was no violence of language or denunciation, not a trace of passion either in word or gesture. After hearing him it was not difficult to understand that he is the most powerful and the most influential leader of the New Party, a party by no means confined to Bengal.” The Calcutta Congress ended on a note of unity and yet the unity was only apparent. In political parties verbal unanimity on the ideal plane is not enough. That is because the ideal to which all give their consent is many a time an abstract idea and different people have different ways of interpreting it. A particular aspect of the idea appeals to a particular section and that section throws all its weight for emphasising that aspect. Unity in political parties is not therefore merely a matter of adjustment. It has an ideological basis and also a reference to the programme which can translate it into reality. It must be said that there was a fundamental difference in the points of view of the moderates and of the radicals and these differences became more and more marked when the spokesmen of these two parties started clarifying the position of the Congress as they understood it. It was, as a matter of fact, a clarification of their own stand, though both the sections claimed that they were preaching views which were representative of the Congress as a whole. Tilak was never satisfied with resolutions being merely passed. In the Benares Congress while seconding the resolution of Sir William Wedderburn, he had emphasised the need for a permanent political mission in England. How he was thinking on those lines in the context of the developments in Bengal can be seen from the reminiscences of a well-known writer and pleader from Dhulia.2 He wrote: “After the Calcutta Congress of 1906, Tilak was possessed with the idea of making the Swadeshi and Boycott movements more forceful than before. He thought of establishing on behalf of India embassies in important countries such as America, Germany, Japan, China, etc. so that our representatives in those countries would suggest the ways of making the boycott against the British effective. He thought that as far as possible the Congress should control these embassies and enlist through them the sympathies of other nations. He had some plans in his mind and he had started moving in the matter.”

1 Times of India, dated 1 Sept. 1955, p. 3 :

Curzon underrated power of congress

Facts Revealed in Letters New Delhi: August 30 Confidential correspondence of Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India at the turn of the century, recently made available in the India Office Library, reveals his lack of appreciation of the potential strength of the Indian National Congress. Some of the letters have been copied by research students and brought to India. Towards the end of 1900, Lord Curzon wrote to the Secretary of State that his own belief was “that the Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my greatest ambitions, while in India is to assist it to a peaceful demise.” 2

GOKHALE-TILAK-AUROBINDO 10

PART I The controversy in the Congress was the conflict between the old and the new. Generally, the old order is represented by elderly persons whose watchword is caution, and who always oppose a bold experiment. The new order is, on the other hand, represented by the young, who want to revolutionise the old methods and to make quick advance in spite of the advice of ‘Go slow’ given by the elders. Age generally decides the group to which a person belongs and the change in the attitude of a person affected by age is finely brought out in the remark of an English humorist, viz. “He who is not a socialist at the age of twenty has no heart and he who continues to be a socialist at the age of thirty has no head.” Common people grow cautious with age but the same standards cannot be applied to an idealist who dedicates his life to a cause. Moreover, in politics in particular, the group to which a person belongs is decided more by his temperament than by his age. The influences in the impressionable period, the strata of society to which an individual belongs... these are also important factors which decide the nature of one’s political ideology. Some political workers, right from the beginning of their political careers, are conservative and continue to be so to the end. There are others, whose radical disposition never changes and who exult in conflicts of every kind. Some are also found to be changing their attitude in the light of their experiences. In the Congress, the old leadership stood for moderate views and constitutional methods, but their main spokesman was a young leader like G. K. Gokhale. Tilak was senior to Gokhale and yet he led the young radicals with a militated attitude and advocated direct action. The Old and the New The differences that came to the fore between the moderates and the extremists were not just matters of temperament, though temperament was important in analysing the situation more or less objectively. The potential energy of public opinion unleashed by the Bengal Partition and the display of mass enthusiasm and action were matters of genuine rejoicing to the Extremists. This manifestation of power developed a mentality that brooked no compromise with the British Government. Both for themselves as also from their feel of the popular pulse they knew that nothing short of complete abdication of power on

the part of the British would satisfy them. The British were however the last to yield; even as late as in the last World War when all the forces were arrayed against their power the typically dogged British Prime Minister was not prepared to liquidate the Empire. The moderates were not prepared to go so far and raised the bogey of government suppression. Thus there was a long-drawn triangular contest, the issue of which was going to be decided by the popular support which each of these contestants was going to enlist. The government tried to hold out the bait of a few belated reforms: the moderates, though unsatisfied and the unconvinced, acquiesced; the Extremists tried to retaliate and government came down upon them with all its might. This whole cycle with all its stages government intransigence, popular agitation, halfhearted concessions in the form of tardy reforms followed by popular protests with government attempts to muzzle the dissident voices has been repeated more than once during the British regime. After the Calcutta Congress, Gokhale went on a lecture tour in the United Provinces and spoke on ‘The Present Condition’, ‘Swadeshi’, ‘Advice to Students’, etc. Tilak wrote a series of articles on these lectures strongly criticising the opinions of Gokhale. In the article, ‘The Confusion of the Hon. Mr. Gokhale’, written on 12th February 1907, Tilak first pointed out that Gokhale did not share all the views of the old leadership of the Congress and that in some respects he held extreme views. But he also did not approve of the programme of the new radical section in the Congress, and the old section realising this had supported him and made him its spokesman. Tilak wrote an article criticising the time advocated by Gokhale in his speeches. Tilak attributed the confusion in Gokhale’s opinions to the weakness of his stand and showed how there was also a confusion in the views of Gokhale on government service. “Gokhale admits that at present the best talents and abilities of our people must not be yoked to the service of the government but must serve the cause of the nation.... He wants young men to devote themselves to social service by joining the Servants of India Society or by some other method... and in spite of all this he once again sings the praises of government servants.... If you want intelligent and efficient young men for the service of our country, it is no use just praising political ideals and patriots to our young men. It is necessary to point out how owing to the temptation of government service young men turn their backs on the national cause, and thus to expose the hideous and antinational nature of that service. If the leaders of the nation want young men to devote themselves to the service of the country, they must advise young men in such a way as to inspire in them a

feeling of renunciation in regard to government service. If Mr. Gokhale is not prepared to give this bold lead, he should better refrain from giving advice. Nobody would now relish this cocktail of the old and the new. It is better that he should give up this ridiculous effort and follow either of the two paths in a bold manner.” Tilak wrote another article in the next issue of the Kesari, “It is good that he spoke at least!” Tilak remarked that there was a difference in representing our cause to the English and in addressing our people with a view to advising them to follow a particular line of action. Tilak implied that Gokhale had done the former job in a successful manner but the contradictions in his views stood exposed when he attempted the latter. Tilak remarked: “Gokhale says that he does not belong to the new party. Moreover, it is well known that in the last Congress session his party accepted the resolutions on Swadeshi and boycott, with great reluctance, as a sort of a compromise. The natural bent of his party is to maintain good relations with the English, to get certain things from the bureaucracy through the method of persuasive requests. After the last Congress session, however, they cannot keep up this soft attitude.... Vagueness about the ideal of the Congress... and about Swadeshi... has got to be given up and an unequivocal stand taken.... If this is done and the consequent propositions are accepted, it would not be possible for the old party to keep up its tradition of pleasant relationship with government and the bureaucracy; and if this is not done the party must accept the charge of contradiction in views. This is indeed a precarious position and we were eager to see how Mr. Gokhale would accomplish the feat of getting out of it. These curiosities of ours were satisfied when we read the speeches of Mr. Gokhale and we have been thoroughly disillusioned.” Tilak while pointing out the difference between the two parties remarks: “The old party accepts the main proposition but is not prepared to accept the corollaries. ... To put it bluntly the old party still fears the wrath of the government and is afraid of getting crushed if it would take a bold stand in the conflict. Not that the new party is not conscious of the danger. The leaders of the party are aware that if the boycott movement became intensive, the British would try to suppress it. But the new party is of opinion that it is no use fearing this repression so long as the government continues its autocratic attitude whether we take a conciliatory attitude or make strong protests....” Tilak then criticised the views expressed by Gokhale about national education: “Gokhale admits that there are defects in the present system of education. He wants them to be removed. But he is still enamoured with his two maxims, viz. ‘We shall not be

able to work without government’s aid’; and that ‘It is not desirable to oppose the government’. As a result, though he accepts the principles of the new party, he has arrived at the conclusion that it is not desirable for private schools to come in conflict with the government. We think that this is a wrong conclusion.... If the government is not prepared to improve the educational system and if it is necessary to improve it, we think that the private schools must make that effort. Private schools must not be tagged to the government policy... It is the duty of private institutions to set an example of national education and to make the government follow it sometime.... Thus though there is a general agreement on principles, the old party is faltering and the new party wants to take a bold step.” In the concluding part of the article, Tilak has once again emphasised the contradiction in Gokhale’s views and remarks that, “Gokhale is not to be blamed for it. The contradiction is inherent in the ideology it professes. The more he tries to defend the side he has, the more conscious would he be of its weakness and in trying to get over it his ideology though not his actions would coincide with that of the new party.” In the Kesari of the 5th March 1907, Tilak wrote another article ‘Constitutional and Legal’ in which he elaborated the points he has already stated in the first article on Gokhale’s speeches and added a few more. Tilak was a keen student of law and always insisted on using correct words and expressions. Very careful even about the minutest shade of meaning he criticised Gokhale for using the word constitutional rather loosely thus creating much confusion. The word ‘constitution’, Tilak maintained, could not be used in this sense with reference to India as the present constitution was not at all a charter of the rights of the people. He wrote: “We call the declaration of the Queen Empress in 1858 a charter. But this is only a misnomer. The declaration is not a charter, as it does not, in any way, restrict the powers of the government.” Tilak has summed up the article in an admirable way. He has discussed the fundamentals of law and has emphatically asserted the ethical basis of our political struggle. “When we leave the word ‘constitutional’, the question only remains whether our efforts are legal or illegal. At present it is not within our power to make laws. Therefore even though our efforts are in keeping with history, formal tradition and with the natural rights of the people, it is entirely in the hands of our rulers to decide whether they are legal or illegal. Our legitimate efforts may perhaps become illegal according to their laws. In such a case instead of calling our efforts illegal, it would be necessary to say that the law is unjust (and tyrannical). Under

these circumstances we need not bother whether the word ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ is applied to our movement and efforts. We must only take care to see that they are in conformity with justice, morality, historical tradition and progress. And when our efforts are based on these we must not care whether our efforts fit in the legal framework or transgress it. It is true that if anyone breaks the law, he would be punished. But if the law is unjust we must resist it even at the risk of suffering this punishment. Such things are inevitable when law is divorced from morality.” From the Immediate to the Ultimate This is one of the instances of the fact that Tilak, while discussing the immediate, soared into the realm of ultimate reality. Here in this article we first of all meet a thinker who displayed a rare analytical power and who discussed a theoretical proposition in a perfectly detached way. The logic of his argument is flawless and the exposition of ideas is lucid. In the last paragraph, however, the discussion is lifted to an altogether different plane, and here we meet the philosopher. Tilak always maintained that India’s political struggle had a moral basis and he was very proud of the Indian tradition wherein ethics was the cornerstone of individual as well as social life. Tilak would not, therefore, accept the superiority of the temporal laws over the moral values. He advised people not to lose sight of the ethical principles on which they had based their political struggle, and insisted that these principles should not be compromised so as to suit the laws of the British. Tilak was of the opinion that whenever there was a conflict between law and moral principles, people should strive to stand by these principles and be prepared for all the consequences of their action. In this respect Tilak regarded the breaking of the law as a moral act, that the morality consisted in the breach rather than in the observance of law. A person, who is morally convinced about the justice of his own actions is prepared to face whatever material consequences the conviction might bring in its train. And since any punishment given to a person who has the courage of his convictions is given out of a wilful display of might based on injustice, it is no moral stigma and should not be considered to be in any way degrading, Here then is a revolutionary idea, the truth of which had already dawned upon Agarkar and Tilak in the Dongri prison as early as in 1882. Agarkar arrived at this idea as he regarded the sanction of the individual conscience as the supreme criterion for deciding the justness of an individual’s action. This idea was later fully developed by Mahatma Gandhi in expounding his technique of Satyagraha. Political life is generally believed to be

starkly materialistic where self-interests, however glorified, are the pivotal points. A person with a philosophic preoccupation can, however, lift politics from the plane of material interests to the plane of ideas and values. During the Bengal partition it was that, in addition to the sanction of popular support demonstrated on’a mass scale, which made Tilak take the same position. India and the world had to wait till the advent of Gandhi on the political horizon before this idea, proved and perfected, was to assume the proportions of a philosophy of life and an incentive to action. Tilak’s greatness lies in the fact that out of the welter of political discussions, he arrived at ideas, which have an abiding value in our political life. Time has drawn its veil over his life and yet the moral values he preached have a perennial significance for us. It is in such a discussion that there is a welding of the past, the present and the future, giving forth a beam of light which illumines the path of struggling humanity. Tilak and Aurobindo This article of Tilak was not an accidental outburst of individual conviction. It is a note which was struck on a number of occasions by more than one individual. During this period the philosophic significance of the national struggle was explained by another great individual, Shri Aurobindo. To him India’s fight for freedom was really an effort for the realisation of her soul. Under Aurobindo’s leadership the New Movement transcended the limitations of politics and embraced life. Aurobindo objected to the methods of the moderates because he thought that a servile attitude was an insult to India’s honour. He believed that those whose minds were emancipated could alone participate in India’s fight for freedom and Swadeshi was to him a way of life rather than a political movement. The association of Tilak with Aurobindo was a happy accident. Both of them had a burning passion for the liberation of India and yet there was a great difference in their temperaments and methods. Aurobindo was a revolutionary whose method of preparing the country for liberation was that of armed revolt. He thought in terms of insurrectionary methods and guided a number of secret societies. Tilak did not rule out the possibility of an armed rebellion but mature experience of political life in India had convinced him that consolidating people for an open struggle was a surer method. He therefore tried to develop the technique of civil revolt and regarded the organised strength of the people as the most powerful of

all weapons. Aurobindo was a visionary and had a mystic touch about him. Tilak was a realist and relied on intellect rather than on intuition. Tilak was among the first to be struck by Aurobindo’s articles in Indu-Prakash, a Bombay weekly edited by K. G. Deshpande. Aurobindo wrote the articles in August 1893 at the request of Deshpande, who was his friend at Cambridge. In these articles Aurobindo criticised the leaders of the Congress for mishandling the country’s cause. He ruthlessly attacked ‘the policy of protest, petition and prayer’ to which the Congress was committed. The first two articles created a sensation and Ranade warned the editor against them. Aurobindo was asked to write in a modified tone, and though he reluctantly consented he could not find much interest and dropped the plan. When Aurobindo was in Baroda State service he came in contact with some revolutionaries from Maharashtra and he always looked up to Maharashtra as a favourable ground for his future activities. One of his ideas was to capture the Congress and ‘make it an instrument for revolutionary action, instead of a centre of a timid constitutional agitation.’ He attended the Congress Session at Ahmedabad in 1902 but not officially. There Tilak took Aurobindo out of the pandal to the open grounds and talked to him for an hour expressing his contempt for the tinker-work show and explaining his own line of action in Maharashtra. This was not just a meeting between two political leaders but a meeting of two forces, one representing the robust realism and the indomitable will of Maharashtra, the other representative of the revolutionary fervour and the tempestuous energies of Bengal. Tilak could justly be compared to an ocean with waves crashing on a rock with a tremendous uproar. Aurobindo resembled a smouldering volcano which would erupt at any moment. The two idealists must have expressed to each other the agonies of their minds about the then conditions must have discussed plans for changing them and must have intensified each other’s faith in India’s destiny. The meeting was like a sacred confluence of two rivers, out of which emerged new stream, flowing with tremendous rapidity and creating a new life on its banks. Tilak recognised in Aurobindo a new force in Indian politics and, in spite of the difference in approach, realised the need for a close association with him. Both these great leaders took their ideals to the people mainly through their writings. Tilak’s articles in Kesari had kindled a new flame in Maharashtra and Aurobindo’s articles in Bande Mataram heralded the dawn of the New Movement in Bengal. Both of them wanted to teach the people the lesson of self- reliance, but the ways in which their thoughts found expression were quite different. Tilak’s writings were direct, matter-of-fact and un-embellished. In

Aurobindo’s writings there is a religious tone and the throbbing of an intense emotion. The following passage from Aurobindo reveals the peculiar qualities of his writings: “Courage is your principal asset. If you are to work out the salvation of your country, you will have to do it with heroism.... You have your only guide in the loftiness and spirituality that make their heaven in the thought of the wider light and purer happiness that you may bring to your country by long force of vision and endeavour. The rapturous contemplation of a new and better state for your country is your only hope. What great element is wanting in a life in such a hope?” Tilak would have expressed the same thoughts probably in the following words: “It is now high time that the people of our country give up their fear and develop a bold and courageous attitude. The progress of our country is possible only when people become heroic. Our task is glorious but it can only be accomplished through a sustained effort. We must never forget our ideal and there must not be any faltering in our endeavour. The present is dark and gloomy but it is in our hands to change the future. Tht determination to change it will give a new hope to us. Blessed are those who get this hope through the devotion to the cause of our country.” After the Calcutta Congress, the moderates became more and more conscious of the fact that they were losing ground to the extremists. In a political organisation, the ruling party does not surrender its power easily, but always makes a frantic effort to consolidate its position and to postpone the crisis. Those who aspire to “ring out the old and ring in the new,” are on the offensive and want to precipitate a crisis. The moderates in the Congress felt that the resolutions passed at the Calcutta Congress had created an embarrassing situation for them. They could not openly say that they did not accept the resolutions, but they tried to find a way out by putting their own interpretation on them. The moderate leaders thought it necessary to clarify their position and distinguish it from that of the extremists. One of such efforts was the Bombay Provincial Congress held at Surat on 29th March 1907. Tilak could not attend the conference and it was completely dominated by liberal leaders like Pherozshah Mehta. Sir Bhalchandra Bhatawadekar who presided over the conference indirectly criticised the new party and advocated the moderate line. On the resolution on Swadeshi and boycott, the president gave the ruling that the subject of Swadeshi did not fall in the jurisdiction of the Congress. Gokhale had gone out on a lecture tour in U.P. and Punjab and some more articles were written by

moderates to state their cause.... Tilak wrote a smashing article in the Kesari of 20th August 1907, under the heading “And still I am a Liberal.” In this article Tilak compared the liberals to the innocent peasant girl in Wordsworth’s poem ‘We are seven!.’ The girl could not understand the meaning of death and said that “Two of us at Conway dwell and two are gone to sea.... And yet we are seven.” Similarly the moderates conceded almost all the points to the extremists and yet remarked that they were moderates . Tilak made a reference to the statement of Mr. Ramaswami Iyer which had appeared in the Hindu in which he had remarked that “After Dadabhai held aloft the banner of Swaraj... neither the moderates nor the extremists can say that they are not Swarajists.” Tilak further wrote, “Among the members of the same party there are bound to be some minor differences; but it is quite unreasonable to say on that account that we are not one. To set the ultimate ideal before the people and thus to elevate the minds of the people is not only desirable but also absolutely necessary for the uplift of a nation. When a leader is thus ennobling the nation it is cowardly to repulse him by telling him that ‘he is not one of us.’ And if the moderates are going to do this, let them have their own way.... The Nation has decided its objective. He who does not accept it will have to fall back. The nation - the National Congress will not now retreat.” Tilak then mentioned the letter which Rao Bahadur Ananda Charlu, who was once the President of the Congress, had written to the Madras Standard. Ananda Charlu openly stated that the Indians must resort to obstructionist tactics as the Americans had done when the Stamp Act was not repealed. The article then continued: “Similar thoughts have been expressed by Bipin Chandra Pal, Surendranath Banerjee and by Bande Mataram, the organ of the new party; and people in Bengal and to some extent people in other provinces had started living up to these teachings. The Raja of Bombay, the Pandit of Allahabad, the Vedanti of Madras or other minor spokesmen of the moderates might shrug their shoulders at this. But the current of the national movement is flowing with great rapidity and the old foggies and the new colts are bound to be overwhelmed by it.” Tilak did not however merely criticise the moderates. He positively and boldly stated his own concept of the political movement in India. “Political rights cannot be secured by soft and easy ways. At present in the regime of a great scholar, the Russian type of rule has come to stay in our country, and in order to secure political rights leaders will have to suffer imprisonment, deportation and be prepared for other tortures. What then is the use of retracing our steps? People

must be trained for struggle which will have to be waged to win freedom, and the only way to do it, is to make them participate in the struggle.” Self-government and Good-government In this article Tilak has stated the responsibilities of leaders who take this extreme stand in politics. By his personal example he showed how he could shoulder them. In his task of shaping public opinion he did not merely resort to the device of rousing sentiments. As an educator of public opinion, he enunciated and clarified new ideas and concepts. His appeal was to reason and his method logical. The importance of this approach cannot be over-estimated. In the infancy of the political movement the educative role is all important for there is danger of agitation dwindling into mere slogan-shouting. He was engaged in the task of shaping public opinion. In doing so, however, he did not resort to the method of rousing sentiments. He was an educator of public opinion who explained clearly the new ideas and the new concepts through his articles in the Kesari. Tilak knew how to make the slogan a reality by revitalising it with ideological and material content. He wrote an article, in the Kesari of 9th April 1907 ‘Self-government and Good-government.’ The occasion for this article was a difference of opinion among Bengali leaders at the Barkapur Conference about the meaning of Swaraj. Tilak at the beginning of his article emphasised the need for understanding clearly the implications of a political term and said it was necessary to give a full clarification of the terms self- government and good-government which were used by Dadabhai in his presidential address at the Calcutta Congress. He commented on the British rule in India and showed that it certainly was not good government.... “The present government in India is thus neither self-government nor good-government. It is necessary to have a movement for achieving Swaraj not in British India, but also in the native States.” The last statement is particularly important as it throws light on the development in Tilak’s political views. There was a time when he looked upon the native States as relics of bygone glory and hoped that the Indian Princes would help the movement against foreign rule. In the Kesari there were articles protesting against the autocratic powers of the Residents of States, and whenever some ruler of the State was dethroned, Tilak condemned the tyranny of the British rule. With greater experience of the political movement, Tilak’s. views underwent a change. He found that the Indian Princes, with only one or two exceptions, were reconciled to their fate and had accepted the sovereignty of

British rule. Moreover instead of using their authority for the good of their subjects they became tyrants and suppressed all the rights of the people. The States had therefore ceased to be relics of a bygone age and had become the most reactionary pockets.1 Tilak rounded up the article in his usual way and reiterated the views he had already stated. Democratic Control of the Congress As the moderates were trying to keep their hold on the Congress, Tilak insisted on a democratic control of the Congress. He wrote an article “Whose Congress?” on the 27th August 1907. Tilak in the beginning remarked that Indians were not yet habituated to the political ideas and institutions in the West. He wanted to state that the democratic institutions functioned smoothly in England but the Indian people did not always follow the correct procedure necessary for these institutions. His statement implied a charge of undemocratic behaviour against the Liberals. This was an answer to a Liberal leader who had made the suggestion that the extremists should start a Congress of their own. Tilak then compared the Congress to the British Parliament. In making this comparison, he wanted to emphasise the fact that the Congress was a national institution which, like the British Parliament, was a democratic institution, representing the will of the nation.... He further wrote, “It was necessary that some learned persons should take a lead in starting the Congress and they certainly did it, and it is necessary to be grateful to them for it. But if anyone argues that he had taken a lead in starting the Congress and, therefore, he and his followers had acquired monopolistic rights in the Congress, he is causing by his attitude the ruin of the institution he has started.... This is contrary to the principles with which the Congress was established.” Tilak assertively stated that the Congress was not a secret organisation but a national institution in which everyone who wanted to work had a place. In conclusion, it was said that the important principle of democracy was that once a resolution is passed by a majority, even those who are opposed to it have to accept the verdict and act up to it. Tilak on Morley The political movement in India had an inherent strength, but it must be admitted that one of its constituent factors was a reaction to the British policies.

When the British rulers were rather lenient, the moderates tried to convince the people that they had rightly put their faith in British justice. When, on the other hand, repressive measures were taken by the bureaucracy or hopes were belied in some measure of reforms, people became anti-British, moderates were dubbed as fools or knaves and the radicals strengthened their hold on the people. The radical movement got a tremendous impetus owing to the Bengal partition but if Morley and Minto had immediately introduced some reforms, the moderates might have been able to hold their position in the Congress for a few more years. Of course, people could not be as easily placated as before and there was a growing realisation that patchy reforms would not take India far. When in 1906 Gokhale went to England, Morley appeared to have succeeded in securing his support to a measure of moderate reforms.2 After consultations between Morley and Lord Minto, it was decided that the reforms should be initiated by the Government of India. A committee under the chairmanship of Sir A. T. Arundale was appointed in the same month and the committee submitted its report in October 1906. But the Viceroy’s Executive Council took a very long time to form its judgment on the report and the dispatch was sent to Mr. Morley in March 1907. After this it took over a year to gather the views of local governments and of the public and the first step in the matter of reforms was taken only in October 1908. In the meanwhile Sir Bamptylde, the Lt.-Governor of East Bengal, continued his repressive measures. In Punjab also the Lt.- Governor tried to suppress the agrarian movement. It is admitted by the biographer of Lord Minto that the disturbances in Punjab were mainly due ‘to the unwise handling by the local government of the situation in the Canal Colonies.’3 Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh criticised the government’s repressive measures. In Rawalpindi, there were riots on 2nd May 1907, and on 9th May 1907 Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were deported. The deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai gave rise to tremendous anti-British feeling. When in August 1907 the dispatch of the Government of India, approved by the Secretary of State for India, was published, people were greatly disappointed. Tilak had foretold that it was foolish to expect much of the proposed reforms, and when the dispatch was published, he wrote an article condemning downright the new proposals. He described the proposals as sterile and emphasised the fact that Mr. Morley, whose soft words gave rise to certain hopes in the minds of some people, proved that he was not prepared to give any rights to Indians. He pointed out that according to the proposed reforms, the powers of the bureaucracy were not

reduced even by the slightest degree, and therefore the whole thing was only a farce. Tilak attacked the proposed formation of a council which he described as “The council of the great nincompoops.” He wrote: “In this council, out of sixty members twenty will be the rulers of states and forty will be nominated from among the big landlords, the jahgirdars, etc. In short for the whole of India there will be a council of these big people.... Government is using these people as tools in order to destroy the movements of the educated class in this country.... Moreover, the government of India will take their advice whenever it wants to do so and that advice would have to be given in writing and secretly.” Tilak exposed the intention of the government to set up a rival body against the Congress and to secure a sanction for their repressive measures by saying that they acted according to the advice of this council. Tilak refuted the argument of the government that the Princes and the big landlords were the traditional leaders of the people and pointed out that they were incapable of putting forth the people’s point of view. Tilak pointed out that the majority of the representatives of people in the British Parliament did not come from die propertied classes, and there was no reason why Morley should complain against the presence of the educated class in the councils in India. “In the conduct of the State, learning and not the property was the important factor.” Tilak further discussed certain details of the proposed reform. “So far, in the Imperial Council, out of 24 members, 5 were elected by the people. Henceforth, out of 54, 7 will be elected representatives. Can we call it a progressive step or a retrograde step?” Tilak also mentioned the preferential treatment given to the Muslims and concluded that the British Government wanted to rule by the method of ‘divide and rule’, creating a rift among the Indian people by patronising the propertied section and the Muslims. Mill and Morley After writing this article, Tilak wrote another article, ‘Mill and Morley’ and criticised Morley for the disparity between the ideas he professed and the policies he pursued. He first mentioned the famous statement of Motley, “Mill was a great and benignant lamp of wisdom and humanity, and I and others kindled our modest rush-lights at that lamp,” and then pointed out, “Mill has never justified the principle that the strong should rule the weak in a tyrannical manner in order to serve their own interest.... Mill, unlike Morley, would never have said that ‘As far as I can see there is no possibility of giving Swaraj to India.’ Morley might have kindled his rush-light at Mill’s lamp but he emitted smoke rather

than light....” Tilak, in the concluding remarks, reiterated the thesis of Mill that no nation had a natural right to rule any other nation.... “We are making the same demand and so long as we do not get Swaraj, a quotation from Mill quoted without context would never satisfy us.” Keir Hardie In October 1907, James Keir Hardie, the Labour leader of England who was touring India, was invited to Poona by the moderate and radical leaders. He visited a number of institutions including the Kesari office and at a reception given by the Sarvajanik Sabha, he promised to convey India’s aspiration to the people of England, and more particularly to the members of the Labour Party. Accompanied by Tilak, he went to some of the villages near Poona. Tilak saw in Keir Hardie, a symbol of a new force in British politics. He had always emphasised the need of propaganda in England and with his shrewd political judgment regarded the rise of the Labour Party as a sign of progress. Tilak’s meeting with Keir Hardie was the beginning of his association with that Party. Radicalism was thus gaining ground and becoming more and more a dominant force in the political life of India. There was an inherent strength in the radical ideology and the obstinate policies of the British bureaucracy evoked reactions which further strengthened it. This was evinced by the District Conference at Midnapur held on 7th December 1907. In this conference, there were disputes on almost every point and particularly on the constitution of the Subjects Committee. When the moderates turned down the proposals of the nationalists, the nationalists left the conference as a body regarding it as, “not a national conference but a sort of fortress against the nationalists, erected by the local moderate leaders under the protection of executive officials and police;...” On the third day the nationalists held an open-air conference with one hundred delegates, in which they explained their reasons for secession and in which the original nationalist resolutions including the one on Swaraj were passed unanimously. Coming events thus cast their shadows before! Disunity in the Congress As a matter of fact the seeds of disunity were sown at the Calcutta Congress. When the resolution on boycott was passed, Pherozshah Mehta with his

characteristic haughtiness exclaimed to Tilak, “You have scored a point in Calcutta. But you could not have put such a victory to your credit in Bombay.” This drew from Mr. Gokhale the retort, “No Mr. Mehta, there is no forecasting the capacity of this admirable man.” Pherozshah Mehta appeared to have taken up the challenge and decided to assert his authority in every matter. The first matter of dispute was the election of the president for the Congress. Tilak had formerly argued that according to the correct democratic procedure, the president of the Congress should be elected by the votes of the provincial Committee. But at Calcutta a resolution was passed to the effect that the president should be elected by the members of the Reception Committee, and should secure at least three-fourths of the votes of the total number of members of the Reception Committee. This resolution came in the way of both the parties. It was first decided to have the Congress in Lahore. But in Lahore, owing to the deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai the balance would have been tilted in favour of the radicals. The moderates, therefore, somehow managed to shift the venue to Nagpur. At Nagpur both the parties started their work in right earnest. On 1st September 1907, the list of members of the Reception Committee was complete. The membership fee was Rs. 25. The moderates enrolled 800 members, while the radicals enrolled 1,800 members. The radicals thus secured a majority but the president of their choice could not be elected as they did not command the three- fourths majority. The moderates thought of another diplomatic move of changing the constitution of the Executive Committee and a meeting was called at the Town Hall in Nagpur on 22nd September. Due notice was not, however, given and the convener, the Hon. Mr. Chitnavis, had to admit that it was convened ‘in an unconstitutional manner. There was a sort of a deadlock and both the parties started manoeuvring for the president of their choice. Tilak did not desire to become the president, but the nationalists of Nagpur, led by Dr. Munje, were determined to have him. When things could not be settled in Nagpur, a meeting was convened at Pherozshah Mehta’s place in Bombay to which Munje was also invited. Munje told Pherozshah that the people of Nagpur wanted Tilak to preside over the Congress, but they did not want to elect him in an unconstitutional way. They were prepared for a ballot. Pherozshah raised a number of difficulties and asked Munje as to what the people of Nagpur would do if the Reception Committee refused to hand over the collected funds to them. Munje boldly answered: “We would go and beg for the sake of Tilak and make the Congress Session a success.” When Pherozshah insisted on the name of Rash Bihari Ghosh, the veteran moderate leader of Calcutta, Munje was equally firm

about Tilak and bluntly told Mehta that it was entirely a matter of their choice. Pherozshah Mehta followed the delaying tactics and for the time being ruled out the whole episode. Tilak wrote in the Kesari of the 29th October that “if the moderates were not ready for a compromise, the New Party should withdraw from the Reception Committee and should inform the All-India Congress Committee accordingly.” At last when the moderates of Nagpur confessed their inability to hold the Congress Session, the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Pherozshah Mehta’s place in Bombay on 10th November. Pherozshah Mehta was very autocratic in disposition and took a peculiar delight in expressing scorn for his opponents. Dr. Munje and Alekar were seated in the veranda, so that they could be called easily to clarify the local issue. But they were shown out of the bungalow by a chaprasi. Representatives of various provinces were not present at the meeting but they had conveyed their opinion in writing that the Congress Session be held at Nagpur. Only thirteen members of the A.I.C.C. were present. No agreed formula could be evolved and when Khaparde, a leader from Berar and a close associate of Tilak, suggested a committee of five members of the A.I.C.C., a row was made against him by the moderate members. No suggestion was acceptable because Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale, who was then the Secretary of the Congress, had altogether a different proposal up their sleeve. When no agreed solution was possible, a surprise was sprung on the nationalists as a deputation from Surat came forward with an invitation for the ensuing session. Votes were taken and as the issue was already decided, the invitation was accepted. Khaparde and Tilak refused to vote. Pherozshah thus succeeded in outwitting the nationalists. But this was only the first round of the fight and a formal victory was not enough for settling the issue. Munje and Alekar were very disappointed at this result and wrote a letter to the Secretaries of the Congress Mr. Wachha and Gokhale, requesting them not to set aside the claims of Nagpur for getting the honour of having the Congress Session. They sent promissory notes worth Rupees ten thousand along with the letter of request. But the official group headed by Mehta did not feel it necessary to pay any heed to these entreaties. The letter along with the promissory notes was returned forthwith. Such manipulations are an inevitable feature of party politics during a scramble for power and it is not necessary to question the motives of people involved in such manoeuvrings. It is in the game. Politics is not meant for hypersensitive people, who would brood over every reverse and grumble over every conflict. It requires a thick skin and an irrepressible urge for outmanoeuvring the opponent

when it is necessary. After a time people can look back and laugh good- humouredly at incidents which at one time gave rise to fierce passions and bitter indictments. Tilak took the defeat at the Bombay meeting quietly and wrote confidently in the Kesari, “The nationalist party must go wherever Pherozshah Mehta decides to hold the Congress, for it was never the intention of the nationalists to break the Congress or to prevent it from being held. But let Sir Pherozshah remember that this dispute would not be over so soon (after what has happened so far). The quarrel between the old and the new parties would continue till the new party succeeds. Nobody should feel that a secure place like Surat would be found every year. In fact none knows whether Surat is a secure place or not.” Behind the Scenes The next question was whether the members of the Reception Committee were to be from the whole of the Bombay Presidency or whether they were to be only from Surat. But Pherozshah had already taken the decision about the president of the Congress and brushed aside everything which came in his way. Tilak strongly criticised this high-handed attitude and remarked, “Nobody had given the moderates a charter for holding the Congress.” The resolution to take the Congress to Surat was taken on 10th November 1907. The moderates were confident of success. Often, however, it is the unexpected that happens, turning things topsy-turvy. On 11th November, Lala Lajpat Rai was set free and there naturally was great jubilation all over the country. Many telegrams were sent to the Reception Committee at Surat to make Lalaji the president of the Congress. The moderates were naturally upset and Gokhale immediately left for Surat. Gokhale tried to appeal to the section of the New Party in Surat saying that if the Congress wanted to pass a resolution condemning the government’s action of deporting Lala Lajpat Rai, it would be awkward if it were done under the presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai himself. The members of the New Party could not be so easily taken in and bluntly told Gokhale that electing Lajpat Rai as the president of the Congress was a more appropriate answer to the British Government than any number of resolutions condemning their actions. Gokhale then expressed his anxiety over this strategy of teasing the government and told the radical section that if they adopted the strategy, the government would immediately crush the movement. The

fundamental difference in the points of view the radicals and of the moderates can easily be seen from this conflict. The radicals relied on the awakening among the people and wanted to consolidate the strength of the national movement through struggle, while the moderates believed that it would be suicidal to incur the wrath of the British Government. When all arguments were over and a settlement could not be arrived at, Ambalal Saharlal, a local moderate leader, bluntly told the radicals that the moderates controlled the A.I.C.C. and would have their way. Permission was refused to the suggestion that Lajpat Rai should be made president, and when the radical section walked out, the name of Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh was proposed for the Presidentship and was accepted. Tilak exposed some of the tactics adopted by the moderates pointing out how the Maharashtrian members of the Reception Committee got intimation of the meeting of 24th November only on 23rd November and could not therefore attend the meeting. He wrote that “The Surat Session could not be called the 23rd Session of the Indian National Congress but a show put up by Mehta and Co.... It is unfortunate that the autocratic ways of the British bureaucracy were adopted in the Indian National Congress. Pherozshah Mehta has suffered the consequences of such behaviour in the Bombay Municipal Corporation and he would meet the same fate in the Congress.” The controversy was taking an unfortunate turn, and a way out of it could have been found if Dr. Ghosh had withdrawn his name in favour of Lajpat Rai. Tilak wrote a letter to Motilal Ghosh, the editor of Amrit Bazar Patrika, expressing his views in the matter. He requested Motilal Babu to dissuade Dr. Ghosh from accepting the Presidentship and further wrote, “If I were there personally I should have knelt down before him and prayed for not accepting the Chair.” In the Kesari of 10th December, Tilak wrote an editorial: ‘Lalaji must be the President’ Tilak admitted that Gokhale had no personal grudge against Lala Lajpat Rai but the tactics he adopted were a result of his wrong and harmful notions. “The Congress was established to fight on behalf of India with the government and to demand rights for Indians. If the Congress is to be so conducted as not to displease the bureaucracy, where is the need for its existence? If you want to honour Lalaji, you must make him the president. There is no need for you to invite him as a delegate. He can come in that capacity as a matter of right.” Tilak sounded a note of warning at the end of the editorial: “A way out of the dispute lies only with Dr. Rash Bihari. But if no agreement is arrived at, intuition tells us that this would give rise to a confusion, when people would move amendments at the time of the

president’s election at Surat.” Advising the radicals Tilak wrote: “Whoever drafts the resolutions, be he Mehta or Gokhale, the New Party should attend the Surat Session and should strive for improving the Congress. It is true that the Congress is not working according to the expectations of the New Party, but we cannot say that the Congress should therefore be wrecked only this year. All should go to Surat. In spite of the obstinacy of the moderates or of Pherozshah, the New Party must not follow wrong methods.”

PART II The Surat Congress was one of the memorable events in the life of the Indian National Congress. Owing to the events that preceded the Congress, the relations between the moderates and the nationalists were strained. Pherozshah Mehta had by-passed the nationalists in many respects and as a result there was a smouldering discontent among the nationalists. There were portents of the coming strife but none knew the shape of things to come. When passions run high, ideological differences get mixed up with personal hostilities. Pherozshah Mehta was a leader with strong preferences and his bantering wit and biting sarcasm deeply offended his opponents. He had rare abilities as a diplomat and was always animated by great earnestness even when he pursued a mistaken course of action. Some of the younger nationalists looked upon him as the villain and questioned his bona fides. When delegates started for the Surat Congress, the minds of some of them were full of misgivings, a few of them looked forward to heated debates and many were rather bewildered, not knowing what would be the dictates of their party- bosses. The delegates from C.P. and Berar had a deep sense of being mortified as the honour of holding the Congress Session was snatched from them. The followers of Aurobindo from Bengal had the memories of the Midnapore District Conference fresh in their minds and the radicals from Maharashtra and Punjab were enraged at the moderates for not making Lala Lajpat Rai the President. The moderates were a little elated owing to their success so far, trusted the diplomatic talents of Pherozshah Mehta and felt that their victory was almost a certainty owing to the overwhelming support at Surat. The moderates called the nationalists ‘turbulent and impatient upstarts,’ whereas the nationalists called the moderates ‘reactionary, loyalist, power-seekers.’ The dispute really arose from the difference in the attitude to the resolutions passed at the Calcutta Congress. Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale wanted to tone down the resolutions and put a stop to the growing agitational tendencies by emphasising the constitutional methods. Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the moderate leader, accepted the resolutions on Swadeshi and national education, but was opposed to the resolution on boycott. In fact the resolution on boycott was an eyesore to almost all the moderates because it struck at the very root of their constitutional methods and appeared to be the beginning of the programme of direct action

against the British Government. The nationalists felt that going back on the resolutions on Swadeshi, boycott, and national education would be the death- knell of the new movement and would convert the Congress into a loyalist organisation. The Bengal-nationalists were particularly militant, because these resolutions had grown out of the struggle against Bengal partition and owing to this even the moderates from Bengal differed from the moderates elsewhere. Swadeshi, boycott and national education had become indivisible aspects of the life of Bengal and in Maharashtra Tilak had made these three movements a matter of faith. There were shades of differences even among the moderates. Pherozshah Mehta was a diehard moderate, who did not want the Congress to go beyond passing resolutions and who had opposed ‘the support to Swadeshi at some sacrifice.’ Gokhale held different views on Swadeshi, and though he did not oppose boycott with the fervour of Pherozshah Mehta, he felt that it should be confined to Bengal. Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh was not opposed to Swadeshi, boycott and national education. In fact he had donated very generously to the cause of national education and was the vice-president of the All-India Board for National Education. He had not, however, withdrawn his name in favour of Lajpat Rai in spite of repeated requests from Tilak. Lala Lajpat Rai, on the other hand, yielded to the telegrams from Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale and withdrew from the contest. The Reception Committee had entrusted the work of drafting the resolutions to Gokhale but till the commencement of the Congress Session, no draft was published. On 16th December a list of the subjects which would be brought up for discussion before the open session, was published and curiously enough Swadeshi, boycott and national education were not included in that list. This intensified the suspicions that the moderates wanted to get the resolutions passed at the Calcutta session modified. Though it was a contest between the moderates and the nationalists, people of the Bombay Presidency from both sections had a leading part in it as the session was to be held at Surat. In some respects therefore it appeared to be a struggle between Pherozshah Mehta and Tilak. Pherozshah Mehta wielded great influence over the people of Surat and in order to ensure their full support he sent Ambalal Desai, a moderate leader of Gujarat, and Ali Mohmad Bhimjee from Bombay, a forceful speaker. Tilak was conscious of the onslaught of the

moderates and planned his own moves. The nationalists camped at Surat one week before the session and Dadasaheb Khaparde of Amraoti was entrusted with the work of propaganda. Khaparde’s mastery over the Gujarati language was a great asset to him. Tilak’s choice, therefore, naturally fell on him. Khaparde was a very eloquent speaker, with a rare sense of humour and a gift for quick retorts. It was a treat to listen to him and the public meetings which he addressed every evening were very largely attended. Tilak arrived at Surat on 23rd December. He was given a tremendous ovation. All the streets were decorated and a private troop of horsemen led the procession. Tilak addressed a meeting of over four thousand people the same evening. He said, “I do not want to pick up quarrels or to split the Congress. There is no cause for a split. Who would be benefited by leaving the Congress and by establishing a rival institution? But I am determined to prevent as far as possible the retrograde step of going back on the resolutions passed at Calcutta. The banner of the New Party is held aloft, to strengthen and intensify the fight against the government and not to weaken the Congress. Those who hold the rein of power in the Congress have declared their intention of repudkting the resolutions of the Calcutta Congress. I request the people of Surat to help me in preventing this undesirable move.” On the next day, an anonymous leaflet was printed and circulated in which it was alleged that Tilak had defamed Gujarati society in the Kesari, Tilak while addressing a mammoth public meeting challenged the mischievous circular and declared, “The charge should either be proved or the writer of the circular should apologise to me.” On the 24th morning, Lala Lajpat Rai reached Surat. He was also given a grand reception. The volunteers pulled Lalaji’s carriage and at a number of places he was garlanded. He stood in the carriage, returning people’s warm salutations and was almost buried in the heap of garlands. This honour done to Lajpat Rai, who was only recently released, was a crushing answer to the British bureaucracy and convincing proof of the great love which people had for all those who suffered for the country’s cause. Ironically enough, in spite of the preparations by moderates, Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh’s arrival at Surat was celebrated in a comparatively tame manner. On 24th December the Nationalist Party held its conference under the Presidentship of Babu Aurobindo Ghosh. Over 400 delegates were present. Tilak and Aurobindo explained the aims and objects of the New Party and Aurobindo remarked that it was not a conference of one party, because owing to the historic

task that the New Party had undertaken, all parties would ultimately merge with it. The conference appointed office-bearers for some specific jobs in the Congress Session. Next day a meeting of the delegates and the office-bearers was held, at which the spokesmen of the different provinces expressed their points of view. The main trend of the decisions was that all avenues might be explored so as to arrive at a compromise on the controversial issues. It was also decided that a compromise could be arrived at if the mode rates consented not to modify the Calcutta resolutions and if a compromise was not arrived at till the last moment, an amendment to the resolution proposing Rash Bihari’s name for presidentship, should be moved. A small committee was appointed to make efforts for this compromise. Political life, looked at from a distance, affords much entertainment, particularly when two parties are engaged in a battle for capturing an institution. Partisans go on fanatically advocating their views and try to pull the neutrals in their direction. At Surat similar sights were witnessed when at the delegates’ camps, the contending parties were defending their respective points of view with great fervour and attacking the opponents’ point of view with great vehemence. The tension of such movements is slighdy relieved by eccentric persons. Shri N. C. Kelkar in his account of the Surat Congress mentioned one Mr. Ramaswami, who was eccentricity incarnate. Dressed in a dhoti verging on the borders of a loin-cloth, and a coat half unbuttoned, Ramaswami was distributing leaflets in the delegates’ camp all day and night. He had no head- dress and his completely bald head attracted the attention of everyone. Ramaswami’s tongue wagged with tremendous speed and no stenotypist would have been able to take down his words which rushed forth like a river in spate. There was also much kite-flying, and rumours of different kinds were afloat. Every personal action of the leaders was interpreted in political terms and if two erstwhile friends, now in opposite camps, exchanged a few friendly remarks, word went round that the compromise was arrived at. The next moment when they parted, it would be immediately whispered that the compromise had broken down. Lala Lajpat Rai acted as a mediator between the moderates and the nationalists. An assurance was given by the nationalist leaders that if the moderates did not insist on going back on the Calcutta resolutions, Tilak would not move his amendment to the resolution for the President’s election. Surendranath Banerjee, the veteran moderate leader, felt that much of what the nationalists said during

the talks for compromise, deserved consideration and sent for Malvi, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, but for one reason or the other, Malvi was not available. The Storm Bursts The session was scheduled to begin at 12 noon, but owing to the unexpected death of a Sindhi delegate, it was postponed to 2.30 p.m. The atmosphere was tense and as different leaders came in the pandal, one by one, they got a mixed reception of cheers from their own party and jeering from the opposite camp. There was clapping, hissing, contemptuous laughter, shouts of Bande Mataram — different reactions to different leaders. Moderate delegates also participated in this immoderate display of sentiments. Malvi, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, spoke first, welcoming the delegates. His speech was excessively long, but all listened to him patiently. The storm began when Diwan Bahadur Ambalal Desai rose to propose the name of Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh. So frequent were the interruptions that it was with great difficulty that he could finish his speech. But when Surendranath Banerjee rose to speak, there was a great disturbance. Surendranath was a very fine speaker and a revered leader. On this occasion, however, he was looked upon as a partisan. Many writers who write on the incient hold the nationalist party solely responsible for it and also insinuate that all the leaders were in the know of things. As a matter of fact Tilak did not expect any such disturbance. The younger section among the nationalists had planned to disturb the speakers, without Tilak’s knowledge. In this respect Shri Aurobindo’s private letter clears up the whole issue. He wrote: “History very seldom records the things that were decisive but took place behind the veil; it records the shown front of the curtain. Very few people know that it was I (without consulting Tilak) who gave the order that led to the breaking of the Congress....” Dr. Munje in his reminiscences of Tilak has corroborated Aurobindo’s statement. He wrote: “On the first day of the Congress, Surendranath Banerjee was heckled and was not allowed to speak. We had no idea of heckling him. But the Bengali people first shouted ‘Midnapur Traitor’ and we joined loudly in making a row. When after the session was adjourned we went to our headquarters, Tilak was very angry with us for making the noise and sternly told us, “Tomorrow, you must be calm like stones.” The events at the District Conference at Midnapur had led to much bitterness among

the moderates and nationalists of Bengal and had considerably lowered Surendra Babu’s popularity among the younger section. The young Bengalis therefore had taken the lead in heckling him when he started supporting Rash Bihari’s name for presidentship. Surendranath stood on the table and raised his voice to the highest in order to drown all disturbance, but it was of no avail. Malvi, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, constantly rang the bell to bring order. N. C. Kelkar writes about this, in his inimitable style: “Malvi rang the bell so often that a visitor attending the meeting on the first occasion might have formed the impression that in India it was customary to ring the bell as an accompaniment to the speech.” Malvi rang more loudly than a hawker in the street. Pandemonium reigned at the meeting with people shouting at the top of their voice asking others not to shout. In the din that was created the moderates showed that in shouting at least they were no moderates. This confusion went on for ten minutes and at last Malvi in consultation with others on the stage, adjourned the meeting. Some people refused to leave the pandal. Others waited to see that the proceedings did not start before they left. After some time, people vacated the place, each one interpreting the events in his own way. The Aftermath: Tilak’s Analysis and Attitude Sometimes a minor clash is helpful in bringing people together and sometimes it aggravates feelings and widens the gulf between the contending parties. The result of the disturbance on the first day of the Congress was unfortunately the latter. Though instructions were issued by leaders of the moderates as well as of the nationalists to the rank and file asking them not to interrupt anybody’s speech, it was evident that neither the leader nor the followers of either party were hopeful about the result of the session. In fact a major section of the moderates wanted the differences to come to a spearhead so that there would be a split and the Congress would get rid of the nationalist menace once and for all. Tilak was of the opinion that a split was not desirable, though he would never compromise the principles he was fighting for. He made efforts for a conciliation till 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, and tried to see Malvi, the Chairman of the Reception Committee. He was informed, however, that Malvi was engaged in his daily ritual . Shri Ogale, the Editor of Maharashtra at Nagpur, has given a faithful picture of the events and has clearly brought out Tilak’s attitude during the crisis. He

wrote: “The young men of the nationalist camp did not like that Malvi had refused to see Tilak with die excuse that he was engaged in his daily worship. We could not tolerate this insult to our revered leaders and we, therefore, decided to acquaint them with our feelings. I said to Lokmanya, ‘Yesterday many of us met. Our opinion was that the radicals did not want a truce.... I have therefore been represented to convey to you the humble request that you should not make efforts for conciliation.’ No sooner had I said this than Lokmanya angrily burst out, ‘You say that I should not try for a settlement. What then do you people from Berar and Nagpur intend to do? Do you want to fight? Or to break heads? If so, there is no need for a settlement. Decide it like that and I should lead you with my staff. Have it your way.’ His voice was raised with anger and he looked at me with a fierce gaze. I never expected so angry a reply.... Half a minute passed in this manner. And then Lokmanya cooled down. He came near me and in a subdued persuasive tone said, ‘Settlement or no settlement, we must try for it. I don’t care even if I am insulted. Work is of supreme importance. If it succeeds through my insult, I shall not feel the insult. I am not begging for settlement for my private work. This is the work for our nation and it does not matter even if I am humiliated a thousand times in doing it. You also need not bother about it. I am strong enough to bear all the insults. In our dispute with the moderates we shall press our points as far as possible, but it is no use stretching it to the breaking point. Our real quarrel is with the government, not with the moderates. A settlement with them, therefore, is desirable.” Tilak knew that his efforts would not bear fruit. He, however, felt that it was necessary not to allow the rowdy element to take control of the situation. He therefore decided to take on himself the responsibility of opposing the resolution for the election of Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh as the president. And he also decided, instead of opposing the name of Dr. Ghosh, to move an adjournment motion and to incorporate in the body of the resolution a suggestion to appoint a committee to devise a scheme for compromise. It can thus be seen that Tilak was keen on avoiding a split and did not want people to be swayed by sentiments. In taking this line, he knew that he would incur the displeasure of the extremists led by Aurobindo but he was confident that he would be able to convince them of the justness of his action, believing full well that a leader has to shoulder a twofold responsibility of arousing people and at the same time of controlling them. Moreover Tilak made a difference between the tactics adopted to fight the government and those adopted to fight the moderates. In opposing the government one had perforce to be harsh and unyielding; while in opposing the

latter, one could not afford to be so. He, therefore, decided not to oppose the name of Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh direcdy, for he argued that such an action would be misconstrued by his opponents and would give an unfortunate turn to an already delicate situation. Two very unfortunate factors have vitiated the social and political life in India, viz. casteism and provincialism. When a person cannot be opposed on an ideological plane, some of his opponents always drag either of these factors in the controversy and public opinion is swayed, in the most irrational manner. Some of Tilak’s opponents who should have opposed his views thought it easier to resort to the method of appealing to irrational sentiments and therefore on Thursday night once again an anonymous circular was distributed in which it was alleged that Tilak had carried on a malicious campaign against Gujaratis and had called them impotent. A reference was made to the fact that Shivaji had looted Surat and Tilak wanted to repeat history and deprive the citizens of Surat of their honour. The reception committee anticipated trouble and took the decision that offence was the best defence. They had, therefore, placed some sailors and goondas in the pandal from Friday morning. The police too were informed. The atmosphere was tense, and the delegates felt that they were sitting at the mouth of a volcano. There was apparendy calm, but it was merely the calm before die storm. Till 1 p.m. the pandal was packed to capacity. The business of the meeting commenced with the speech of Surendranath Banerjee. He requested people to forget the unpleasant happenings on the previous day. There were no interruptions and for a time the clouds appeared to have disappeared. Surendranath Banerjee had seconded the resolution for the president’s election and it was about to be put to vote. Tilak had sent his amendment to the Chairman of the reception committee and Malvi should have called upon Tilak to move it. But when he appeared to have set it aside, Tilak without waiting to be called, started climbing the steps of the dais. When the volunteers tried to stop him he brushed them aside, went up to the dais and started addressing the meeting. At this stage, Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh, rose and said that he was duly proposed and elected as the President and was about to begin reading his speech. Tilak interrupted him and said, “You have not yet been elected. I have come here to move an amendment to the proposed resolution.” This was the igniting spark and in a moment the suppressed wrath of different people burst into flames. There were cries of “Yes,” “No,” “Sit down,” “Go on,” “Go to hell” and the like.

Someone on the dais said, “Tilak, get down from the dais.” Let Nevinson describe the scene further: “With folded arms Mr. Tilak faced the audience. On either side of him young moderates sprang to their feet, wildly gesticulating vengeance. Shaking their fists and yelling to the air, they clamoured to hurl him down the steps of the platform. Behind him, Dr. Ghosh mounted the table, and ringing an unheard bell, harangued the storm in shrill, agitated, unintelligible denunciations. Restraining the rage of moderates, ingeminating peace if ever man ingeminated, Mr. Gokhale, sweet-natured even in extremes, stood beside his old opponent, flinging out both arms to protect him from the threatened onset. But Mr. Tilak asked for no protection. He stood there with folded arms, defiant, calling on violence to do its worst, calling on violence to move him, for he would move for nothing else in hell or heaven. In front, the white-clad audience roared like a tumultuous sea. “Suddenly something flew through the air a shoe — a Mahratta shoe — reddish leather, pointed toe, sole studded with lead. It struck Surendranath Banerjee on the cheek; it cannoned off upon Sir Pherozshah Mehta. It flew, it fell, and, as at a given signal, white waves of turbaned men surged up the escarpment of the platform.” The moderate leaders on the dais left by the back-door. Some people threw chairs at each other, but before anything serious could happen, the police intervened and dispersed the people. Nevinson described the place as resembling a banquet hall deserted. In one respect there is a great resemblance between bridge and politics. In bridge, the players are as keen on discussing a deal as on playing it. In fact bridge players acquire a reputation for their skill in the game according to their capacity for post-mortem discussion, in which everyone puts the blame on others. In politics, too, the controversies after the conflict are as interesting as the conflicts themselves. There are statements and counterstatements, charges and explanations, allegations and clarifications. Every step of the opposite party is analysed and these hair-splitting discussions always end in passing the blame on to others. Everyone claims to be dispassionate and detached and believes that his judgment is infallible. Half-truths are presented as complete truths and gossip is offered as substantial proof. The prosecutor also wants to be a judge and stories are built out of wrong assumptions. Ideological differences get lost in personal squabbles and logical arguments are swept off by irrational considerations.

Bonds of friendship are broken and bad motives are attributed to noble individuals for the most trivial happenings. The breaking up of the Surat Congress led to all this. There was the official statement of the reception committee in which the Tilak party was held responsible for all the happenings. There was also a counterstatement from the other party in which it was alleged that the moderates had started the quarrel. The statement of Gokhale was much more restrained and though he blamed Tilak and alleged that Tilak had from the beginning adopted the obstructionist attitude, the statement had no touch of bitterness or malice. Tilak’s articles in the Kesari are equally free from personal bickerings and even when he discussed the unfortunate events of the past, his anxiety about the future of the national movement is evident in all the arguments he has advanced. Apart from the past happenings the moderates argued that Tilak’s defiance of the Chair was an unconstitutional act and could not be defended under any circumstances. Tilak refuted these charges by writing two editorials in the Kesari. Tilak’s keen legal acumen and his deep study of parliamentary procedure are evinced in the course of these articles. At the outset he gave the following quotation from Dr. Smith: “But in all these cases, the meeting if they suffer such a dereliction of duty on the part of the chairman to pass unchecked, become participators in his offence, whether it be one of insolence or mere stupidity.” Tilak then emphasised the limitations of rights of the Chairman and drew the attention of the readers to the statement of Mr. Frith that the Chairman would be doing a gross injustice if he imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech or stopped the discussion in order to get a particular resolution passed in the interest of his own party. He further remarked that Malvi, the Chairman of the reception committee, misused his powers and under such circumstances he (Tilak) did what Dr. Smith had recommended in his Handbook of Law and Practice of Public Meetings. Tilak wanted to move an adjournment motion and he maintained that he was not in any way transgressing the limits of parliamentary procedure. He once again gave a quotation from Dr. Smith: “An adjournment, whether a sine die or not, being a motion that can be made at any time, the chairman will feel bound to put it to the vote. At all events, if he does not, he has thereby refused to act as a chairman; for a chairman is intended for putting up of all orderly motions and not only such as he may approve; any member may therefore put to the vote the motion for the adjournment and if it is carried the meeting is thereupon at an end.” Tilak at the end of the article said that the authority of the chairman must