Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

be respected but if he misused that authority, a constitutional step which is only apparently a defiance of the authority, is the only course left open to those who would not yield to the wrong dictates of the chairman. When this article was published in the Kesari, some people tried to answer him by writing articles in the Indu-Prakash and the Dnyan-Prakash. The breaking up of the Surat Congress cannot be described as an utter fiasco. When a meeting breaks up owing to some temporary cause and when confusion is followed by a sense of waste, it can be said to have ended in a fiasco. The Surat Congress broke up owing to a clash of ideologies, though the breaking up of this session was not contemplated by the contending parties. The delegates did not therefore go back in a despondent mood; instead they stayed on as they wanted a lead about the future line of action from their respective leaders. On such occasions the observations of a non-partisan person certainly throw much light on the situation as well as on leaders. Swami Shraddhanand, the great Sanyasi and the founder of Gurukula, had not participated in the strife. His impressions therefore have a great significance. He wrote, “I reached a day after the fight in the Congress pandal took place. Lokmanya was putting up in a Wadi with the whole of his contingent. Leaders and followers all slept on the ground and messed together. They appeared in a way knitted to each other. It was one solid body of stern Puritans. I went to the moderate camp and found them seated in a dozen places, enjoying every sort of luxury. I told my friends and associates there, ‘The future of the motherland rests in the palm of the party that has been dubbed as extremist.” On the very day, i.e., on 27th December, the nationalists called a meeting of the delegates of their own party. The meeting was held at a private place and was presided over by Aurobindo Ghosh. Tilak stated his position in his usual direct and simple style. This was a meeting after a clash and yet Tilak did not speak a single sentence that would arouse the sentiments of the people. His approach was realistic and his appeal intellectual. He did not want people to follow him without understanding the issues involved in the conflict. He did not bring in personal differences or irrational considerations to sway the minds of the people who had assembled to hear him speak. Tilak said, “I understand the significance of the prestige of the Congress in our national movement. There is no reason why I should break the Congress. But a new spark has lit up in Indian politics and if the Congress does not want to exalt itself with this new enlightenment, what matters if it is dead?” Tilak always maintained that politics was a dynamic movement and the old forces have got to yield place to

new. In the struggle against the Bengal Partition and in the movements of Swadeshi, boycott and national education, he had seen the signs of a new life in India. The irrepressible urge of the people to defy tyrannical orders was symbolic of a new era. Tilak opposed the moderate leaders because he felt that they adopted tactics which were likely to smother the new forces and to extinguish the new spark. He regarded it as his responsibility to build a new movement and was impatient with the leaders who wanted to maintain a status quo and oppose the new uprising. The Moderate Convention The moderate leaders must have also realised the magnitude of the difference between their point of view and that of the nationalists. They felt that the nationalists were trying to impose their point of view on the entire Congress though the majority was not with them. Believing that a change in policy was not desirable their next step was to think that the nationalists were an undesirable and unwanted element. When they met, therefore, after the breaking up of the open session and reviewed the whole situation they drew up the following notice, calling a National Convention on the next day, December 28th: “The 23rd Indian National Congress having been suspended sine die under painful circumstances, the undersigned have resolved with a view to the orderly conduct of future political work in the country to call a convention of those delegates to the Congress who are agreed: (1) That the attainment by India of self-government similar to that enjoyed by the self-governing members of the British Empire and the participation by her in the rights and responsibilities of the Empire on equal terms with those members is the goal of our political aspiration. (2) That the advance towards this goal is to be by strictly constitutional means, by bringing about a steady reform of the existing system of administration, and by promoting national unity, fostering public spirit and improving the condition of the mass of the people. (3) And that all meetings held for the promotion of the aims and objects above indicated have to be conducted in an orderly manner with due submission to the authority of those that are entrusted with the power to control their procedure and they are requested to attend at 1 p.m. on Saturday the 28th December 1907 in the pandal lent for the purpose by the Working Committee of the Reception Committee of the 23rd Indian National Congress,”

The signatories to this notice were Rash Bihari Ghosh, Pherozshah Mehta, G. K. Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjee and others. These leaders also announced that those only who would sign the pledge would be admitted to the convention. The pledge was indeed a shrewd device and it served the purpose of the moderate leaders, viz. to ward off the nationalists. The moderate leaders were now on their guard and had kept at the door of the pandal some persons from Maharashtra, Bombay, C.P. and Berar, so that none of the nationalists could secure entrance to the convention. When the moderate leaders called the convention and announced the condition of signing the pledge, the different leaders of the nationalists reacted in different ways. There were long discussions before the final decision was taken. Tilak was of the opinion that the nationalists should sign the pledge and join the convention. He regarded the Indian National Congress as a common platform for carrying on the movement. Shri Aurobindo, Tilak’s comrade-in-arms on the occasion, has aptly described the sentiments and views of Tilak. He wrote: “Many, after Surat, spoke of him as the breaker of the Congress, but to no one was the catastrophe so great a blow as to Mr. Tilak. He did not love the do-nothingness of that assembly, but he valued it both as a great national fact and for its unrealised possibilities and hoped to make of it a central organisation for practical work. To destroy an existing and useful institution was alien to his way of seeing and would not have entered into his ideas or his wishes. Though he could be obstinate and iron-willed when his mind was made up as to the necessity of a course of action or the indispensable recognition of a principle, he was always ready for a compromise which would allow of getting real work done and would willingly take half a loaf rather than no bread, though always with a full intention of getting the whole loaf in good time. But he could not accept chaff or plaster in place of good bread.” Tilak thought that the Congress must not be allowed to be dominated by one party. It would then cease to be a national front and become one among the various parties existing in the country. He felt therefore that the nationalists must not allow the moderates to keep them out of the Congress and he was confident that the new party which had the vitality of new blood would swamp the moderates and dominate the Congress. Aurobindo looked at the matter from an altogether different point of view. He was thinking in terms of revolutionary nationalism and to him the breaking up of the Moderate Congress was a necessary step. He thought: “The Mother wanted swift action. She would no longer tolerate the

weak and timid, the untimely slumberer and loiterer, begging and babbling protest and beguiling both sides. She wanted the country to sweep the rising tide of the new nationalism.” Aurobindo, therefore, gave an outright refusal to join the newfangled moderate convention. The difference in their attitude can easily be understood. Aurobindo was a revolutionary, who wanted to work for a single purpose and did not tolerate any diversions or interruptions. Here surprisingly enough one finds a resemblance between the attitude of diehard moderates and the extremists. The former wanted to keep the Congress away ‘from the contamination of nationalists’ and the latter did not want ‘to catch the contagion of the moderates.’ Both showed an extreme intolerance, which springs from a contempt for those who differed from them. Both were in a sense aristocratic, the diehard moderates formed the aristocracy of the constitutionalists, whereas the extremists had the superior airs of those who have taken the vow of renunciation. Tilak’s Position Tilak differed from Aurobindo in his approach to the national convention because he was a practical statesman, keen on maintaining the national front even by compromising his position for some time. Lala Lajpat Rai, who had made efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the moderates and the nationalists, decided to sign the pledge of the convention. His stand, however, was different from that of Tilak. He felt that when there was a split in the Congress, the government would ruthlessly carry on repression and crush the nationalists. If, on the other hand, a joint front was maintained, the government would not dare to take such a step. Tilak thought, and the events proved that he was right, that the country was not yet ready to successfully face such a repression and he proposed to circumvent both the moderate plan and the government plan by the nationalists joining the conference and signing the statement of adhesion to the new constitution demanded by the moderates. Shri Aurobindo and some other leaders were opposed to this submission; they did not believe that the moderates would admit any nationalist to their conference (and this proved to be the case) and they wanted the country to face repression. Tilak then had to decide whether he should dissociate himself from the young radical section of the Congress or whether he should acquiesce in their decision to keep out of the moderate convention even though he differed from them. The

consequences of his action had again to be taken into consideration. If he had taken the former course it was very probable that the younger section would have turned revolutionary, cut itself off from all constitutional activities and, thus isolated, would have been easily crushed by the British Government. Tilak wanted to build a mass movement in India and looked upon the young group as a nucleus for that movement. He regarded it his responsibility not to allow the young section to fall into the trap of the British. He felt that the impetuosity and impatience of young men must be restrained so that their tremendous energies and irrepressible urges might find expression through a civil revolt. An attempt to check them drastically would however result in a parting of ways. Such considerations weighed with him when he finally decided to join the young group and stay away from the moderate convention. Some time in future, he was confident, he would convert the young section to his point of view. Having a parental concern for those who were willing to sacrifice everything for the country’s cause, Tilak saw to it that they did not fritter away their energies in infructuous and abortive attempts at insurrection. He wanted these energies to be stored up and conserved so that they could be used effectively when the time was ripe. Herein lay the greatness of Tilak as a political leader. His, therefore, was a middle position; it was different, on the one hand, from that of Lajpat Rai who completely disassociated himself from the extremists, and also distinct from Aurobindo, who was not prepared to touch the moderates with the longest pair of tongs. Tilak succeeded in making Aurobindo accept his approach to the moderates by pointing out that he regarded the moderates as a wing of the national movement and therefore it was not desirable to sever all contacts with them. If, however, the moderates on their own desired to sever contact with the nationalists, Tilak knew that he would not be able to help the situation; but for himself he would not take a step which could be called disruptionist. In spite of all the differences with the moderates, he realised the need for keeping up a national front. He regarded the split in the Congress as a passing phase and hoped that the moderates would have to accept his point of view some time in the future when the nationalists would once again be admitted to the Congress. The country was to pass through a period of government suppression and consequent political sterility before the futility of an isolationist policy was realised by all sections, thus vindicating Tilak’s stand. Conference of the Nationalists

A conference of the nationalists was held on 29th December at Surat in which a central committee was appointed to co-ordinate the work of the party in different provinces and to evolve a well-knit organisation. It was decided that besides conducting newspapers at different places to propagate the ideals of the party, groups should be organised, funds should be collected and public opinion in favour of the nationalist ideal should be created. Along with all this a committee was also appointed to carry on talks with the moderates for reconciliation. Tilak wrote four articles in the Kesari clarifying his views about the split in the Congress. In the first editorial on the subject written on 11th February 1905, Tilak wrote, “In the midst of the fray, people’s eyes were blinded with dust but now they are turned to the point of dispute and people have raised the question whether the unity of all parties for political purposes was possible or not. The criticism of the Surat conflict made by the Anglo-Indian papers has, to a great extent, given rise to the thoughts of unity.” Tilak wrote: “The Pioneer is of the opinion that from the point of view of the government, the moderates and the radicals were alike; and that it was proved that the moderates were potential radicals and radicals were outspoken moderates.” Tilak pointed out that the British were not prepared to part even with the smallest fraction of power and knew fully well that the Indian leaders, whether they made the demands in a servile or in a ferocious manner, had a strong desire for getting this power in their hands. Tilak remarked that the criticism of the Anglo-Indian press could be understood in the light of the fact that in statecraft, selfishness and not charity was the important motive and the British rulers were in no way an exception to this. Tilak further observed that the will to be free was a natural instinct and that Indians were not an exception to this. He then gave a classification of the different shades of public opinion in India and showed that in spite of certain differences, the will to be free was common to all. He then gave an analysis of the different sections among the British, viz. the diehard imperialists, enlightened despots, genuine liberals who wanted the component parts of the British empire to enjoy autonomy and lastly the political philosophers who believe that the happiness of humanity consists in freedom for all and that it was not desirable that one nation should rule the other; and if at all one nation rules the other it should do so with a view to emancipating it. In conclusion he said, “Thus it can

be seen that there are various shades of opinion among the British, as among the Indians. These differences have an impact on the different sections on each side. This in turn exercises effect on the opposite side.... Different points of view are advocated with vehemence but if there is the common intention of a chieving the good of the country, the differences would not come in the way of unity.” From this it can be seen how Tilak always thought it desirable to analyse the different forces before commenting on them. He believed in educating people and in promoting in them an ability to think for themselves. Owing to this educative approach, he was not flashy, rabid or sensational either in his speeches or in his writings. In the second editorial Tilak first emphasised the need for working unitedly for the progress of one’s country and compared the different parties to the fingers of the same palm. Tilak remarked that England had set a noble example in achieving unity in the midst of differences and said that the intolerant attitude displayed in the Congress by some people was highly objectionable. In the third article Tilak reiterated the difference in the approach of the mode rates and the nationalists and remarked: “The dispute, about the ultimate objectives —self- government or independence —can be set aside for some time as it would be decided in the future. But the crux of the problem is how to avoid the contradiction and the conflict arising out of the different means, viz. consistent appeals and persistent pressure.” Tilak thus pointed out that in a political movement means were a s important as the end and so long as the differences about the means could not be resolved it was difficult for the moderates and the radicals to work together. In the fourth editorial ‘Setting Aside Difficulties,’ Tilak first referred to the policy of the British Government. The bureaucracy is encouraging (giving patronage to) the old party not because they like it, but because they hate the new party. They want to use the moderates as an instrument to crush the growing strength of the radicals. Tilak then cited the example of Ireland where different parties merged their differences in order to fight the British. Tilak looked upon the Congress as a democratic institution and insisted on following democratic principles and convention. He wrote: “Everyone accepts the principle that all parties must have an equal right to put forth their views before the Congress. The New Party does not demand that its voice should prevail in the Congress right now. The New Party is trying to influence public opinion and hopes to get a majority in the Congress after some days. The New Party is satisfied if it is free to

put forth its opinion in the Congress and if it is not forbidden from working by the old party by deciding once and for all the ultimate objective or the creed of the Congress. The New Party must accept the verdict of the majority in the Congress and must not give the slogan of rebellion. In every institution, majority is the final appellate court and those who do not approve of its decision should leave the institution.4 But it is wrong to demand that none should propagate his dissident views against those of the majority.” From all these four articles, Tilak’s insistence on maintaining the Congress as a national front, his democratic faith, his advocacy of the compromise and his confidence that the point of view of the nationalists would have to be accepted by the Congress, have all been clearly brought out. In the course of these articles, though he criticised the moderates, he never allowed the level of the discussion to deteriorate. The clarity of his ideas, the sincerity of his purpose, the logic of his arguments and above all the fervour of idealism — all these have given an exalted tone to these editorials and lifted them from the plane of a momentary controversy to that of sermons on the abiding principles in political life. Apostles of Civil and Armed Revolt After the Surat Congress Tilak invited Shri Aurobindo to Poona. Aurobindo accepted the invitation and delivered a lecture at the Gaikwad Wada, and described the development of the political movement in Bengal. He explained the significance of the teachings of Ramkrishna Paramhans and of Swami Vivekanand and emphasised the need of creating in the people a confidence in their own selves, a consciousness of their strength and an awareness of the greatness of their country. He expressed the yearning of his soul for India’s liberation, a liberation which meant not only her political freedom but her recovery of all that was of eternal value in her culture on which alone could be built again her true greatness and glory. Though Aurobindo and Tilak were regarded as leaders of the new party, it could not be said that their ways were identical. Shri Aurobindo besides explaining the philosophic content of the new movement, was doing work for an armed insurrection. Early in 1907, he asked his brother Barindra to organise a centre for revolutionary activity and Barindra started his work in the Maniktola garden in Calcutta. The following description may give some idea of the activity: “That most of the young men who formed the Maniktola group were of an exceptional character was evident from their choice of a life of dare and do. Heroic souls of an unprecedented courage, blessed by the

Heaven-born guide, friend and philosopher, they had an inner life founded in quietude, faith and will.... They were experimenting with the making of bombs and trying their best to produce the most effective types. Their object was to paralyse the administration and render foreign rule impossible by counter- terrorism to the policy of terrorism that the government was practising upon the people to suppress the movement against the partition. Stray murders of the officials was certainly not their aim. Sporadic attempts, they knew, would avail nothing. The plan was to organise a country-wide challenge to authority, to destroy the enemy of the national movement. That was why they welcomed repression that the country might wake up and react and swell the forces of revolution.” Tilak did not rule out the possibility of revolution as a means of achieving independence. But he felt that time was not ripe for adopting it and he did not approve of the idea of wasting the cream of Indian youth in an effort which was not at all likely to bear fruit. Tilak, unlike Gandhiji, did not look upon nonviolence as a creed or a philosophy. But as a practical statesman he knew that it was not worthwhile taking to illegal methods, for it would be playing into the hands of the British. Tilak always advocated the need for manifold means for getting Swaraj. To him the constitutional efforts of the moderates, direct action, particularly boycott and Swadeshi by the nationalists and the insurrectionary methods of revolutionaries, appeared to be necessary in fighting the British. He always advised his friends to have two and if possible even more strings to their bow. But he did not think it wise to adopt all the means at one and the same time. He insisted that means must be appropriate to the circumstances and the times. Though he criticised the moderate she always acknowledged that at a particular stage in Indian politics, petitions and requests did serve an important purpose. He criticised the moderates for adopting means which were hopelessly inadequate for the task of winning freedom. Similarly he tried to restrain the young radicals because he thought that insurrectionary methods were inopportune. His advice to young revolutionaries was, “Keep your powder dry.” Tilak and Aurobindo were master minds and when they came together each had his impact on the other. Though Tilak did not approve of Aurobindo’s attitude of welcoming repression, he realised the greatness of ‘the prophet of nationalism’ and for the time at least came under the spell of his magnetic personality. Tilak knew that Aurobindo symbolised a new force in Indian politics and he was aware that Aurobindo could and did arouse in hundreds of young

men a desire to sacrifice everything for the sake of the motherland. Tilak wished that all these tremendous energies should be directed to the purpose of creating in the minds of the people a categorical imperative to act. He thought that the proper and the more effective ways of doing this were agitation and building up of a mass movement. It is interesting to know the working of Aurobindo’s mind during the past few years. “In his public activity he took up non-co-operation and passive resistance as a means in the struggle for independence but not the sole means and as long as he was in Bengal he maintained a secret revolutionary activity as a preparation for open revolt, in case passive resistance proved insufficient for the purpose. Shri Aurobindo’s attempt at a close organisation of the whole movement did not succeed, but the movement itself did not suffer by that, for the general idea was taken up and activity of many separate groups led to a greater and more widespread diffusion of the revolutionary drive and its action. Afterwards there came the partition of Bengal and a general outburst of revolt which favoured the rise of the extremist party and the great nationalist movement. Shri Aurobindo’s activities were then turned more and more in this direction and the secret action became a secondary and subordinate element. He took advantage, however, of the Swadeshi movement to popularise the idea of violent revolt in future.”5 At this stage, however, Aurobindo and his followers felt that the flame of patriotism could be kindled only when certain individuals embraced the gallows. The revolutionaries looked upon their movement as a sacrifice at the altar of which they had the privilege of offering their lives as sacrifice. Tilak, who for over twenty years had striven to remove public apathy, had followed the intellectual approach. Aurobindo’s method was one of captivating the hearts of the people. Tilak felt that the revolutionaries were not treading the correct path, but he admired their courage and looked upon their irrepressible urge for sacrifice as a sign of the approaching dawn of freedom. He would not take any action or utter any word which would discourage Aurobindo, who was preparing for a revolution. Tilak, however, never encouraged persons who wanted to take immediate action. In 1897, when he knew the existence of a revolutionary group in Poona and had some vague notions about their activities he kept quiet and allowed them to go their own way. After 1900, however, his role was different.

Reminiscences The reminiscences of some people in Maharashtra who were then engaged in revolutionary work and of some whose minds were working in that direction are very significant in this respect. Shri Gangadharrao Deshpande, the eminent leader of Belgaum and a disciple of Lokmanya, has also written the following reminiscences. “Lokmanya came to Belgaum for the Ganapati festival in 1906 for the first time. There was a tremendous rush at the station but Govindrao Yalgi with about 200 enthusiastic young gymnasts made perfect arrangements. After the procession, Lokmanya said to me privately, 1 have only recently returned from Nasik. There also I saw such young men and I met some of them. Their enthusiasm and ambition are tremendous and unique. But they are rather foolish. You look after your young men, for such folly ruins the work.” At this time there was at Nasik a group of revolutionaries who had formed an organisation called Abhinav Bharat under the leadership of the Savarkar brothers. This organisation was started in imitation of the Young Italy movement of Mazinni. One member of die association has written the following account of his talks with Tilak. He wrote, “There was terrible unrest in India, when he wanted to form an illegal organisation with a membership of a lakh of people. We met Lokmanya and asked him to join our organisation. We explained the noble ideals of our organisation and cited the instance of some other country that had gained independence by the same method. Lokmanya said: ‘It is true that our condition and the condition of that country are similar. But in our country there is no unrest among the masses (common people) as it existed there. Otherwise we would also have left the constitutional ways and followed their methods. Still many people believe that the English have come here to benefit us. The duty of the leaders at present is first to remove this notion and to explain to the people that the English have come to drain and impoverish India. Those who so prepare the minds of people would certainly follow that way and would succeed. If we try to risk a rebellion today, people would not be ready to join it. Moreover, owing to the government’s repression, people would back a terrible retreat. Mangoes are not gathered before they are ripe, and please remember, if you make haste, the mango is spoilt.’ Even after getting this advice, we were firm in our resolve. Lokmanya, therefore, called me to Poona and told me, ‘If you are going to do this, remember that you will not get what you are

aiming at. The unfavourable would happen and so you have to take the first step in the determination to face it. The leaders of such efforts must have a tremendous moral and physical strength.’ This advice of Lokmanya that the unfavourable would happen and we must face it, was very useful to me afterwards; because as he had predicted, our efforts failed and our object was not achieved.” Tilak thus regarded it his responsibility to prevent any hasty or sentimental action on the part of revolutionaries. The late Shri Charuchandra Datta, I.C.S., wrote an article in the Mahratta in 1925, in which he said that in the early years of this century and prior to the partition, it appears, there was a Central Council for advising and co-ordinating revolutionary activities in India. Tilak, it appears, was one of the principal members of this Council, which included the late Lala Lajpatrai and Shri Aurobindo. Was there then a contradiction in Tilak’s actions? Did he give one type of advice to one group of revolutionaries, and different advice to another group? How is it that he was a member of a council for co-ordinating the work of the revolutionaries and yet he discouraged the revolutionaries in Maharashtra? A closer study of Tilak’s attitude clears the apparent contradiction. He was in farvour of preparation for a revolution but he did not favour any immediate action. He supported Aurobindo because Aurobindo was preparing the ground for revolution and was imparting to the young men the necessary training for revolutionary action. The members of Abhinav Bharat group were thinking in terms of immediate action and Tilak was of the firm opinion that such a step would be suicidal. When the late Charuchandra Datta remarked that Tilak was one of those who directed revolutionary activities, it can justly be inferred, in the absence of any other evidence, that he was only helping the preparation for a revolution. Acharya Javadekar said in a personal interview: “Tilak believed in the inherent right of India to attain political freedom even by a violent revolution.” He realised the necessity of having some devoted revolutionaries engaged in the work of preparing for an eventual necessity when India might be required to resort to insurrectionary methods. But he was definitely of the opinion that this work of preparation should never take the course of a premature attempt at revolutionary activities either in the form of terrorism or of rebellion. He was convinced that the India of his times was not prepared for such an attempt. This judgment was formed by him not at any particular period but he arrived at this conclusion after reviewing the situation several times during his public life of

nearly forty years. Although, therefore, he sympathised with those who we re engaged in underground revolutionary preparation he never encouraged them to take any action. It was owing to this that different revolutionaries have a different tale to tell about Tilak’s attitude to revolutionary work. Tilak’s conception of preparing for an eventful full-fledged revolution in India was far wider than that of the underground workers. His own political activities were directed to the creation of two thought currents and sentiments among the masses. In the first place, he wanted to promote the spirit of nationalism, which would enable people to transcend the limits of caste and religion and stand as one unit against foreign domination. Secondly, he was creating among the masses a consciousness of their political rights and was teaching them the new and modern methods of criticising and peacefully fighting against political injustice. This was the main lever of his revolutionary work and, according to him, this revolt of civil population against the established government by peaceful methods and the spread of nationalism from the masses into the ranks of the military would be the final shape of the Indian revolution. He knew that unless all these forces synchronised with each other, the efforts of revolutionaries would be futile and he applied this criterion for deciding whether the situation was ripe or not. If he was ever convinced that the situation was favourable even to the extent of 50 per cent of success, he would himself take the lead in such a movement and make the venture. But before such a time arrived he would not join the underground circle himself in order to make the preparation, because he was engaged in the other and more important of work of preparing for the final revolution in the form of a civil revolt and the creation of a national feeling. This required no participation in the underground work as such. Tilak was the first to realise the importance of mass action in India’s fight for freedom. This was scarcely realised by the underground workers and therefore their activity soon turned into terrorism. Though Tilak’s energies were directed mainly to the preparation for a civil revolt, he did not think it to be complete in itself and regarded the revolutionary activities as the second plank of the freedom struggle. Here his theoretical position was different from that of Gandhiji who believed that the nonviolent struggle of the people could be so powerful as to paralyse the government. Tilak’s attitude in this respect was thus pragmatic and not dogmatic. Tilak knew very well that strategically it was desirable to keep the two planks of civil revolt and revolutionary activity away from each other. He knew that if they got mixed up, the government would smother even the constitutional

opposition, and he therefore kept away from underground activities. As a leader, however, it was his responsibility to see that all efforts for achieving freedom were carried on in the correct manner and he therefore gave advice to the leaders of the revolutionary wing. He did not want the decision about the opportune moment to be entrusted to a less mature person who would be swayed by sentiments and affected by some passing phases in politics. He thought that only Aurobindo and he could take such a momentous decision. He knew that revolutionary action was too serious a matter to be decided by anyone except those who had a comprehensive grasp of the situation and who had attained a philosophic calm (sthitaprajna) of the mind. Tilak was conscious of his responsibilities as well as of his capacities as a leader and he believed that if an opportune moment were to present itself he would lead all the forces striving for India’s liberation. The time, however, was not ripe and instead of leading the forces, he had to control and direct them. 1 Tilak had expressed his expectations of the rulers of states in apublic speech at Kolhapur in 1905. He said: “The good of the king must be identical with the good of his subjects. He who tramples on the interests of the subjects is not a king, and those who allow their interest to be trampled do not exist as subjects. Nobody should come in the way of public interest. If there is any obstruction, it must be removed ruthlessly.” Tilak’s statesmanlike attitude and foresight about the problem of the States can be seen from the following reminiscence of Mr. Naik of Hyderabad-Deccan. In his conversation with Tilak in 1914, he remarked that there was no movement in the states and that the leaders in British India neglected the states. At this, Tilak replied, “What you say is correct. But we cannot at this stage raise the issue of States in the Congress. All our energies are spent in fighting the British. It is no use rousing other devils. Let them have their game for some time. After getting Swaraj, it is not difficult to bring the state princes round.” 2 At the last interview on the 1st August 1906, Mr. Morley told Gokhale: “For reasonable reforms in your direction, there is now an unexampled chance... Only one thing can spoil it. Perversity, and unreason in your friends.... I ask for no sort of engagement . .. . We are quite in earnest to make an effective move. If your speakers or your newspapers set to work to belittle what we do, to clamour for the impossible, then all would go wrong.” Mr. Gokhale acquiesced readily and wrote to his friends in India, striking “a most friendly and hopeful note.” —Morley Recollections. 3 Buchan : Lord Minto, p. 256 4 It is necessary to understand Tilak’s idea of securing a majority. At Surat, some of the young extremists thought of enrolling 1,000 delegates with a view to having a majority in the Congress. Dr. Deshmukh of Bombay was prepared to give a sum of Rs. 20,000 immediately for this purpose. When this was communicated to Tilak, he disapproved of the plan saying that the moderates could raise a still greater sum. He then remarked, “I want a majority in the Congress, but not a forced or cooked up majority. I want to have it in a natural manner. This would require four or five years. I am prepared to wait till then. When a number of more people are converted to our point of view, we are bound to have a majority in the Congress.”

5 Reproduced from Aurobindo on Himself.

FROM A LARGER TO A SMALLER PRISON 11 A political party needs an official organ and though the Kesari and the Mahratta had very effectively put forth the views of the extremists after the split at Surat, the need of a daily in Bombay was felt more keenly than before. In February 1908, an institution called the National Publishing Company was started in Bombay. A circular explaining the aims and the objects of the company was published in the last week of March. The proposed capital for the company was one lakh rupees. Tilak, C. V. Vaidya, Bodas, Sanghvi and three others were the directors and S. K. Damle was appointed the secretary. It was announced that the company would publish a Marathi daily, Rashtramat, to propagate the generally accepted principles of the nationalist party.

National Education and Swadeshi Another important undertaking was regarding national education. Tilak who had emphasised national education as one of the four pillars of the political movement in India, wanted to build up the effort on a huge scale. In 1906, the Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal was established and under its auspices the Samarth Vidyalaya was being conducted at Kolhapur. A plot of about 65 acres was purchased at Talegaon near Poona, and it was decided to shift the Samarth Vidyalaya to Talegaon. Prof. Vijapurkar, who was one of the trusted lieutenants of Tilak and whose vision and perspective about national education were almost unmatched, had been in charge of the institution. How Tilak was prepared to go to any length to see that the Samarth Vidyalaya was established on a sound basis, has been narrated by Prof. Vijapurkar in his reminiscences. He wrote: “In 1907, at the time of the Surat Congress, the Samarth Vidyalaya was held at Talegaon in two houses for which an exorbitant rent had to be paid. Within a month we moved to the mat-huts we had constructed. There were no people nearby. It was extremely cold and the water in the well was dirty. As a result many of our students suffered from fever. When Lokmanya returned from the Surat Congress, I went to him and said, ‘Our institution has no building. I am managing the expenses with the funds I collect through propaganda, only because the teachers are making every sacrifice.... Our boys are shivering with cold. What is the use of your popularity unless it is converted into rupees, annas and pies?’ At this he immediately got up from the easy-chair and said, ‘Let us start a tour. You would have ample funds. Arrange the campaign, and send me telegrams. I shall come and deliver a lecture. We shall beg from house to house. Fix up the programme....’ At the suggestion of Vasukaka Joshi, it was decided to organise a tour of all important members of the Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal... First we went to Sholapur side. The receptions and the respect which people showed for Lokmanya, his precise and powerful lectures delivered at a number of places and the sum of about Rs. 20,000 offered to him by the people — all this became an eyesore to the government.” In his speech at Sholapur Tilak said: “That is called national education which enables you to know your nation.... I was first proud of the present system of education... but afterwards I asked myself the question as to why in spite of equal abilities and intelligence, our country lags behind other nations?... People ask me,

‘Why do you make this row and all the efforts? Were you yourself not denied the opportunity for national education?’ My answer to them is: we are making all these efforts so that our boys should learn at the age of 15, what we did at the age of 35. Such education would perhaps create discontent in the next generation. But this is not sedition.... English is a difficult language.... We have to learn it simply because it is the language of the rulers. This is a sheer burden on us. If knowledge had been imparted to me in Marathi, I would have learnt at 25 what I know at the age of 52.... We want schools for national education.... Government cannot start them. The money which the government has is really our money.... If the government had been in our hands, I would not have to stand before you with this woeful tale.” At Barsee he said: “In America, the Declaration of Independence is taught to students in the fourth or fifth standard. We must tell our students about the condition of our nation, when they are quite young. Learned people like Prof. Vijapurkar are prepared to dedicate themselves to this cause. Rich people must supplement the effort with their money.” Tilak thus felt assured of the support of the people of Maharashtra and he and Prof. Vijapurkar proposed to establish a University for National Education in Maharashtra. It was decided that in this University, along with the humanities, subjects like commerce should be taught and technical education should also be imparted. It was hoped that if students taking a degree from this University, having imbibed the spirit of national service, went to foreign countries for an all- round education, there would be a new generation of educated men capable of independent thinking, and through their efforts the industrial enterprise in this country would grow. It was proposed first to stabilise the institution at Talegaon and start branches in other parts of Maharashtra as well. Tilak’s part in supporting the Paisa Fund has already been explained. Kale, the originator of the idea, was touring Maharashtra and a number of people at different places in Maharashtra had come forward to work for it. Tilak always gave a fillip to it and an intensive effort to collect funds was made during this period. When adequate finances were available a glass-works was started at Talegaon. Besides its significance as an industrial venture started entirely on the people’s support Tilak wanted it to be linked with the cause of national education. He hoped that the students of the Samarth Vidyalaya at Talegaon could also be given some technical education in the workshop of the glass factory.

Tilak always believed that the political movement could gather momentum only when there was a network of workers to carry the message of the leaders to the people. He was always on the look-out for promising young men and imparted to them the necessary training for public life by entrusting to them different responsible jobs. He wanted his colleagues and followers to work in all spheres and never lost an opportunity for giving proper scope to men with ability and promise. In March 1908, in the Poona municipal elections, for all the four seats in the general constituency, candidates of the Tilak group were put up. The moderates had decided to consolidate their strength by contesting only one seat and there was a tough fight between the two rival candidates, Prof. S. M. Paranjpe of the nationalist party and Hari Narayan Apte, the noted Marathi writer and novelist, of the moderate party. All the four candidates supported by Tilak were elected and the defeat of Apte was just another proof of how the moderates had lost their hold upon the people. Tilak did not lose a single opportunity to express his views to those who were in authority. In the evidence he gave before the Decentralisation Commission presided over by Mr. Hobhouse, M.P., he very ably represented the people’s case. Both Gokhale and Tilak expressed the same view in their evidence that if decentralisation of powers only meant more rights to the Collector, it was meaningless, They argued that if the defects in administration were to be removed, powers must be divided between the people and the government. Tilak, in the Kesari of 17th March 1908, wrote: “It is not proper to create a new dictator in every district by distributing the powers of the Centre. Decentralisation really means the distribution of power by giving more and more rights to the people.” Another important event was the Poona District Conference, held under the presidentship of G. V. Joshi on the 20th March 1908. Joshi, in his usual scholarly manner, exposed the faults in the different departments of the government and advised people to follow the four-fold programme accepted by the Calcutta Congress. The moderates also participated in the conference and emphasis was mainly laid on national education and condemnation of the evil of drink. Tilak in his speech on national education said: “This question arises owing to conflict between the interests of the people and those of the government.... The national sentiment was boycotted in government schools just as the demon Hiranyakashipu had prohibited God’s name in the education of Prahlad.... If the

government gave grants for the good work done by an educational institution without the government’s control and supervision, it should be accepted.... National education does not intend t o lower educational standards.” Tilak’s speech on the evil of drink was very fiery. He said: “The foreign government should maintain law and order but should not try to teach us morals. The opposition to the drinking habit was a special moral principle of Hinduism and we must set aside the government’s obstruction in the way of its assertion. The spread of the drink menace should cause more pangs to our young men than those caused by imprisonment. An Indian youth should feel that he would attain Moksha (salvation) if he would succeed in closing down one liquor shop, and if need be he should be willing to the for the sake of this movement. If we cannot do even so simple a thing as to stop drinking, I think, we don’t deserve Swarajya.” These words which expressed the righteous indignation of Tilak over the fall of his own people, made many young men feel the categorical imperative to act against a deep-seated evil. The Anti-Drink Movement The anti-drink movement has been one of the moral planks of the national struggle. It directly affects the backward classes and is therefore one of the major means to approach them. Drinking has been denounced by the Hindu religion as well as by Islam. This habit had grown during the early days of British rule when an imitation of the ways of the British was regarded as fashionable. All the social reformers and political leaders had however soon realised the evil effects of it and thought it necessary to educate public opinion on this issue. Sardar G. H. Deshmukh alks Lokahitawadi was the first to attack the drinking habit and wrote an article against it in 1849. There was, however, no organised movement against this evil custom and Tilak’s speech at the Poona District Conference in March. 1908, mentioned above, was the beginning of such a movement. His speech was so inspiring that many young men immediately decided to help in the anti-drink campaign. Tilak, ready to welcome the participation of young men in social work, picked up the more enthusiastic among them and assigned to them the work of propaganda. The movement gathered some momentum in Maharashtra in 1905 and as leaders of all communities extended their support it immediately became a powerful movement. The excise department was determined to oppose it, but the idea took root and particularly in the Belgaum, Thana and Nagar

districts, it gathered strength. In 1907, in Poona, an anti-drink sabha was started and Shankarrao Lawate, the enthusiastic secretary of the sabha, went to villages, delivered lectures and described the evil effects of drinking with the help of a magic lantern. Fortunately, in this association, the leaders of different parties along with highly placed officials, both English and Indian, came together. There were people like Tilak, Gokhale, Kelkar, Rev. Macmillan, Dr. Mann, the Principal of the College of Agriculture and many others. The propaganda made by the association was very effective and greatly influenced the people. The liquor shop at Khed in the Poona district had to be closed down as there was not a single customer. There was, however, a sort of a stalemate in the movement when it was only confined to public meetings. Then came spontaneous efforts which instilled new life into the movement. Some enthusiastic young men in Shanwar Peth in Poona formed a volunteer squad and started appealing to the people who came to the liquor shops. Shri S. V. Bapat in his reminiscences of Tilak has written that in the District Conference held at Poona, Shri G. K. Devdhar made some strange remarks. Tilak who was very excited put a question to the audience, “If you have a sincere desire to banish wine from this land, are you prepared to the in the effort?” This inspired Bapat and Ketkar who picketed a liquor shop at Shanwar Peth and suffered beating at the hands of the Parsee contractor who owned the liquor shops. These young men formed a group of ten, and whenever a person entered the shop they tried to dissuade him from doing so, appealed to his conscience and sometimes bowed down before him. Many drunkards pushed them aside, insulted them and went in. When they came out obviously under the influence of wine they showered the most filthy abuse on the volunteers. The young volunteers had strength enough to thrash these human animals. There was enough provocation for such an action but their weapons were prayers and requests. They remained at their posts even when they were mocked and insulted, thus showing exemplary patience and a spirit of endurance. The Rev. Mr. Macmillan, Dr. Mann and Shri Bhajekar, the secretary of the Temperance Association at Bombay, personally witnessed the endurance of volunteers and praised them for it. The movement grew and there was picketing at all the liquor shops in Poona. Tilak personally moved around the city and saw the work done by the volunteers. An interesting anecdote has been written by G. V. Gokhale, the editor of Swadharma in Poona. “While Lokmanya Tilak was supervising the work of the volunteers, he came to the liquor shop in Mangalwar Peth where I was picketing. The owner of the liquor shop accosted Tilak, bowed to him and

said, “For four days not a drop of wine has been sold. If this continues, we the contractors will the of starvation.” Tilak replied, ‘My friend, what you say is true; but if you are prepared to leave your immoral profession I shall do my best to set you up in some other profession to make up for the losses you have suffered.’ Lokmanya walked away and the contractor who was visibly moved returned to his vacant shop.... When Lokmanya was talking to the volunteers, in the Gaikwad Wada, some poor women had come to have his darshan and to express their sense of gratitude to him. An old woman among them said, ‘Maharaj, you have saved us from starvation. May God bless you.’ Lokmanya immediately said, ‘I am not the person who has done it. The credit goes to these youngsters who have assembled here. They stand in the sun throughout the day. Bless them. And pray to God so that your husbands should see reason and give up drinking.” The anti-drink committee gave a more organised form to the movement and lectures were delivered in temples and mosques. Notices were served by landlords on the owners of liquor shops to quit. The auctions of the shops for the following year were to be held soon and the movement was bound to affect it. The officers of the excise department were panicky and the government decided to crush the movement. Batches of police were kept at every liquor shop and they took down the names of the volunteers. A person standing in the audience — for there always gathered a number of people to see the efforts of the volunteers to bring about a change of heart — was prosecuted for obstructing the traffic and was fined ten rupees. The owners of liquor shops in Ganesh Peth approached the Assistant Collector Mr. Anderson, who came to the liquor shops and manhandled the volunteers. Two volunteers, V. K. Bhave and V. G. Deshpande, were arrested and later fined Rs. 130. Anderson displayed a typical bureaucratic arrogance and took a perverse delight in hurting the sentiments of the people. One of the volunteers asked him, “Is it a crime to preach against drinking?” Anderson replied, “Would you tolerate the missionaries preaching at the door of your temples?” The impropriety of the remark needs no comment. Conscious of their moral purpose, the volunteers too were emboldened and filed cases against Mr. Anderson. Tilak wrote an editorial in the Kesari in 1908, ‘Government, Wine and the People.’ After first pointing out the efficacy of the method of picketing, he remarked that whereas drinking was habitual to the people of western countries, it had spread in India only recently. There might therefore be in the western countries a great opposition to a law introducing prohibition, but in India, the

condition was quite different as at least 90 per cent of the people did not drink. He therefore held the government responsible for tempting people into the vice. “Just as God Indra sent Rambha (a divine nymph) to tempt Shukacharya, who was austerity incarnate, so also the English officers, themselves addicts of drinking, had opened the liquor shops for Indian people.” Tilak then pointed out the contradiction in words and actions of the British Government, for Mr. Morley called drinking ‘the second plague’ and the policies of the Central and Provincial Governments, on paper, also expressed a disapproval of drinking, though in practice more liquor shops were opened every year.... “We think that if an overwhelming majority is against drinking, we must be able to close down the liquor shops on our own, and let the government, which is in favour of the freedom of drinking, take its own course.” Tilak in the concluding part of his article reiterated the moral character of the movement and appealed to the government to extend support to it. The movement was supported also by the non-Brahmins of Poona and the mischievous objection that it was an activity of the Poona Brahmins was refuted. It also spread to other parts of Maharashtra and Karnatak, and the government, which always found in every popular movement the potentialities of a political struggle, decided to suppress it by prosecuting and punishing the volunteers. When fines were imposed on volunteers it became difficult for them to continue their work. The movement was backed by popular support but it was not possible to go on paying fines in an unlimited manner. The picketing had, therefore, to be stopped in the last week of April. Dr. Harold H. Mann, the then Principal of the Agricultural College, in his reminiscences of Tilak has given a fine account of the anti-drink campaign and of the part Tilak played in this movement. He wrote: “I went to Poona in the year 1907. Before I went there, the name of Mr. B. G. Tilak was very familiar as one of the most advanced of the national leaders; but I first came in contact with him during the intensive temperance agitation in the early part of 1908. Then we sat together on the committee of the Poona Temperance Association, and from the first it was the magnetic quality of Mr. Tilak’s personality that specially impressed me. If he came into a room, even though I had not seen him, his presence was evident at once, and it is by the strength of his personality that I shall always remember him, even more than by his wisdom in discussion or the wide knowledge of public affairs that he showed. Next to this it was the unbending courage which he exhibited which impressed me very much indeed,

for during the whole of the agitation, when some others stood aside, Mr. Tilak never budged from the position which we had taken at the beginning of the picketing movement.” On the 23rd April, an all-party meeting was held on the Reay market grounds. It was a mammoth gathering presided over by Dr. Bhandarkar. Tilak was the main speaker. Gokhale who was busy with his preparations for going to England in connection with the Congress deputation, sent a letter to the President expressing his support to the anti - drink movement . Dr. Bhandarkar who was known for his moderate views, made a very strong speech advocating prohibition, substantiated his arguments by referring to the Rigveda in which Yaska had included drinking among the seven limitations which came in the way of achieving salvation. The resolution condemning the government order for suppressing the picketing movement and other measures and requesting the government to withdraw the order, was moved by Tilak. A number of other speakers supported the movement, the volunteers were congratulated on their efforts and it was decided to send a deputation to the Governor. The government, however, paid no heed either to the requests of the deputation or to the articles in the Kesari. The excise department had sent reports that “It could almost be said that Tilak and not the government ruled Poona, and if the movement did not stop after the closing down of liquor shops it might lead to the closing down of offices.” Carmichael, the Collector of Poona, called Tilak for a meeting wherein they had a serious clash with each other. This was reported to Sir George Clerk who appeared to have decided that the only course was to remove Tilak from the scene of action. The movement slowly petered out owing to the government’s repressive measures and a moral purpose was defeated owing to the false notion of official prestige. This was of course not the first occasion when bureaucratic vanity smothered a just demand.

The Provincial Conference After the Poona District Conference, the Provincial Conference of the Bombay Presidency was to be held at Dhulia. At first Tilak requested Dajisahib Khare, the liberal leader of Bombay, to preside over the conference. Dhulia was a stronghold of nationalists, and Tilak felt that if the resolutions of the United Congress were passed under the presidentship of a liberal leader, it would be a triumph of his line. But Khare declined saying that if the resolutions of the United Congress were to be passed he would not accept the presidentship. Shri G. V. Joshi was therefore made the president of the conference. In the meanwhile the Committee of the Convention (called by the liberals at Surat) met at Allahabad on 19th April. Some members among whom were Lala Lajpat Rai, the Bengali members and a few others, were of the opinion that the adjourned Congress at Surat should meet once again at Surat. If this proposal had been accepted, the former thread might have been picked up and the Congress might have been reunited, as Tilak wanted it to reunite. There was, however, the other section in the committee which was of the opinion that an independent congress and not the adjourned session should be held. This section was in the majority and the creed proposed at Surat was thus finally accepted. This destroyed completely the possibilities of a United Congress. The liberals did not attend the Bombay Provincial Conference at Dhulia. Tilak moved the resolutions of the United Congress and discussed comprehensively all the issues involved in the differences. A committee to make efforts for conciliation for the Bombay Presidency was appointed and N. C. Kelkar and C. V. Vaidya were appointed as its secretaries. It can thus be seen that Tilak did not want the national front to break as, in his opinion, no demand had any weight unless it was backed up by all sections of public opinion in India. After the Dhulia conference, Tilak visited the important places in Berar. This was a triumphal tour in which thousands of people flocked to hear Tilak preach the gospel of Swaraj.

The Bomb Bursts And then came the explosion at Muzafferpore on the 30th April 1908. It was the first bomb explosion in India and it gave a rude shock to the bureaucracy. Khudiram Bose, a young revolutionary of Bengal, wanted to throw a bomb at Kingsford, the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bengal, who had earned notoriety since the days of partition. Khudiram, however, missed his target, mistaking another car for the one in which his intended victim sat, and the bomb killed two European lady-occupants. Prafulchandra Chaki, the associate of Khudkam, shot himself dead when the police were about to arrest him and Khudiram, the young revolutionary, who was only in his teens, took the entire responsibility of the event on himself, and with the Bhagwadgita in his hand, showed how an Indian youth embraced the gallows in an effort to liberate his motherland. This explosion at Muzafferpore symbolised the arrival of the bomb-cult on the Indian political scene, which continued right up to the achievement of independence. It is interesting to read the reactions of different persons to this event. The Anglo-Indian press emphasised the need of uprooting this new cult, the bureaucracy was mad with rage and decided not only to throttle the revolutionaries but also to gag the Indian newspapers, which were dubbed as seditionist. There were in England itself friends of India like Sir William Wedderburn and Keir Hardy, who could analyse objectively the forces which led to the starting of the bomb-cult. Wedderburn remarked that it was high time that the British realised that owing to repression, as in Russia, in India too, there were conspiracies which led to political murders. Sir Henry Cotton said that people who were in despair were bound to resort to such desperate methods. Keir Hardy observed, “Political murder is the natural consequence of the present policy of the government.” The British rulers of India could do nothing to these gentlemen for these outspoken remarks, but they could not tolerate an expression of similar sentiments in the Indian press. Tilak regarded the work of a newspaper as a sacred trust and never failed in his duty of educating public opinion on every significant issue and of conveying to the government the reactions of the people to every important event. He therefore wrote five leading articles in the Kesari on the bomb incident. In the meanwhile the editors of Hind Swarajya, Vihari and Arunodaya were prosecuted for sedition. The Kesari, however, could not be cowed down by such measures,

and Tilak carried on his duties as the educator and spokesman of the people. The first article on the subject ‘The Country’s Misfortune’ was written on 12th May 1908. At the beginning it was remarked: “No one will fail to feel uneasiness and sorrow on seeing that India, a country which by its very nature is mild and peace-loving, has been finding itself in the condition of European Russia.” It was further observed: “It does not appear from the statements of the persons arrested in connection with the bomb explosion case at Muzafferpore that the bomb was thrown through the hatred for some individual or simply owing to the action of some badmash madcap.” A reference was then made to the fact that some of the Anglo-Indian journalists had cast ridicule on these young men by insolently asking the question, Will the English rule disappear by the manufacture of a hundred muskets or half-a-dozen bombs?’ Tilak pointed out that it was not a matter for ridicule and that the secret society was formed by the Bengalis ‘not for self-interest but owing to the exasperation produced by the autocratic exercise of power by the unrestrained and powerful white official class.... In the concluding part, Tilak wrote, “The time unfortunately has arrived when the party of Nihilists... will now rise here. To avoid this contingency, to prevent the growth of this poisonous tree, is altogether in the hands of government. Reform of the administration is the only medicine to be administered internally for this disease; and if the official class does not make use of that medicine at this time then it must be considered a great misfortune to all of us...” In the editorial notes of the same issue it has been written, “The Statesman of Calcutta has given out its opinion that since terrible occurrences of bomb outrages spring from the Swadeshi and the boycott agitation, this agitation should be suspended.” In answer to this it was observed: “The Swadeshi agitation gives rise to bomb outrages and the Bengal partition gives rise to the Swadeshi agitation; then why not first cancel the Bengal partition itself?” A reference was then made to the suggestion of the Pioneer of Allahabad, that for every bomb outrage, twenty-five suspected leaders should be hanged. It was then remarked, “It cannot be denied that this is one way of striking terror into the public mind; but it is truth established by history that outrages like these increase instead of diminishing by the adoption of such methods.” Tilak wrote another leader in the Kesari of the 19th May 1908 with the tide ‘A Double Hint.’ He first gave a hint to the Anglo-Indian journals about their malicious and heinous propaganda and gave another hint to “some cowardly and

self-conceited men amongst us.” These persons “in order to show their burning sentiments of loyalty, are now most vigorously forwarding to government suggestions or resolutions of the following sort: We protest most strongly against such a thing; bomb-throwers are in no way connected with us;... Government should at once stop such writings and speeches which are the cause of these shocking deeds....’ This in our opinion is the height not only of cowardice but also of folly... We too consider it reprehensible that anyone, for any reason, should take the life of another by bombs or by any other means. Not only has it no sanction of the code of morality but also, no one including ourselves, considers that if some white officers were murdered in this manner, we would thereby at once obtain Swarajya.... But the admission that these horrible deeds are caused by the writings or lectures of some political agitators, which some people from amongst us, while expressing their disapproval, have now begun to make, is wrong and suicidal in the extreme; and it is our duty to tell this not only to these persons but to the rulers also.” In conclusion Tilak wrote: “Law and order must of course be maintained and by all means maintain it; but do not use it as a pretext for spreading thorns in the way of those who are teaching people to acquire their natural rights, at suggestions made by flatterers who are adverse to the weal of government.” In the article written in the Kesari of the 2nd June ‘The Secret of the Bomb’ Tilak remarked: ‘It is the westerners’ science that has created the bomb.... The military strength of government is destroyed by the bomb;... but owing to the bomb the attention of government is riveted to the disorder which prevails owing to the pride of military strength.” Tilak explained the symbolic significance of the bomb in the following words: “When the official class begins to overawe the people without any reason and when an endeavour is made to produce despondency among the people by unduly frightening them, then the sound of the bomb is spontaneously produced to impart to the authorities the true knowledge that the people have reached a higher stage than the vapid one in which they pay implicit regard to such an illiberal policy of repression.” In the Kesari of the 9th June 1908, Tilak wrote a leading article ‘These Remedies Are Not Lasting.’ At the beginning of the article he mentioned the repressive measures taken by the government in order to suppress people’s movements. He also strongly criticised the Arms Act and remarked, “The manhood of the nation was slain by the Arms Act in order that the authority exercised even by petty officials should be unopposed.” He further wrote, “Muskets and guns may be

taken away from the subjects by means of the Arms Act;... but is it possible to stop or to do away with the bomb by means of laws or the supervision of officials or the busy swarming of the detective police? The bomb has more the form of knowledge, it is a kind of witchcraft, it is charm, an amulet.” In the concluding part of the article Tilak wrote: “The object desired by government cannot be accomplished by the Explosives Act; but on the other hand it will serve as an instrument in the hands of the police and petty officials to persecute good men.... If bombs are to be stopped this is not the proper means to do it. Government should act in such a way that no fanatic should feel any necessity at all for throwing bombs.” In all these articles, Tilak has condemned the use of violence but has attributed the blame to the government for pursuing the policy of suppressing the natural urges of the people which made violence inevitable. Tilak expressed his views in his usual direct style and in this respect it is interesting to compare his articles with those of Prof. Shivram Mahadev Paranjpe, the editor of Kal. In the Kal of 15th May 1908, Paranjpe wrote an article commenting on the prizes which were awarded to the Indian police officers for capturing the accused in the Muzafferpore incident. He mentioned the news that an English officer who sold some confidential papers about Malta was arrested and consequently a bill sanctioning maximum punishment for such an offence was brought before Parliament. He referred to a quotation from an English journal that ‘A traitor to his country deserves to be hanged’ and remarked that though there was a striking resemblance between the acts of the Indian police officers mentioned above and that of the British officer, the former were rewarded, while the latter would be punished. The implication of the remark is too obvious to need any comment. He also observed, “Setting aside the desirability or otherwise of the throwing of bombs, one thing is certain that the Indians were doing these things not to create anarchy but to achieve independence.” Paranjpe was a great stylist in Marathi prose. Burlesque and mock-seriousness were among the important weapons of his repertory. His usual vein resembling that of Swift was sustained irony, interspersed with scathing sarcasm. Though couched in mild and gentle words his real intention was but too apparent and the sophisticated artistry of his speeches and writings cast a spell on the educated young men of Maharashtra. In fact from 1901 onwards many of the revolutionaries in Maharashtra looked up to him, and not to Tilak as, the prophet the of the revolution. Paranjpe could arouse the sentiments of the people by appealing to their sense of pride and self-respect

and among Marathi writers he has been acknowledged as the poet of patriotism even though he wrote in prose. In spite of the temperamental differences, however, Tilak had great affection for Paranjpe and though he did not accept many of his ideas, he certainly recognised the significance of Paranjpe’s contribution to the political movement in Maharashtra. It must of course be remembered that in spite of the fact that Tilak’s articles, as compared to those of Paranjpe, were less strongly worded, they influenced public opinion much more than did the writings of Paranjpe. The government was naturally suspicious of both, and Paranjpe was served with a notice and was warned four times during this period. After the Muzafferpore incident, thanks to the insinuation of the Anglo-Indian press, the government decided to take strong steps and Paranjpe was arrested on, llth June 1908 and was prosecuted for seditious writings. He was sentenced to nineteen months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Arrest Paranjpe’s arrest, as predicted by many people, was merely a prelude to a bigger haul that the government intended. Tilak also could foresee the event. He went to Bombay in the third week of June, to advise and assist Paranjpe. When Tilak was about to leave for Bombay, a police officer accosted Bapusahib Gandhi, pleader, who was accompanying Tilak and whispered to him that Tilak was likely to be arrested soon. Bapusahib Gandhi conveyed this to Tilak and remarked, “You had better go tomorrow, so that you can now go home and make all arrangements.” Tilak only laughed at this and said, “What are the arrangements after all? Have I to mobilise an army or to dig trenches so that the fort should not be attacked? The government has converted the entire nation into a prison and we are all prisoners. Going to prison only means that from a big cell one is confined to a smaller one.” Tilak went to Bombay and had his lodgings at Sardargriha. The warrant to arrest Tilak was signed on 23rd June and was served on him on the 24th. Yeshwantrao Kulkarni, who was with Tilak, got the news earlier and informed Tilak about it. Tilak immediately said, “What is the use of conveying such a news earlier to the leader of a nation that is not strong enough to offer any resistance?” Tilak then slept with his usual equanimity and after getting up lightheartedly asked Kulkarni why the warrant was delayed. The bureaucracy has its perverse ways and the warrant was served at 6 p.m. so that Tilak should not get time for a bail application and should be immediately sent to the police lock-up. On the next day, the Gaikwad Wada and Tilak’s bungalow at Sinhgad were searched. The search of Gaikwad Wada went on for more than four hours and was carried out by Mr. Sullivan, a police inspector from Bombay, and by the District Superintendent of Police, Poona. Besides the files of the Kesari and the Mahratta and other relevant papers in the office, the police officers examined every scrap of paper at Tilak’s house and in the Kesari and the Mahratta offices. After about two and a half hours, the police inspector Mr. Sullivan almost became frantic with joy. At long last he had secured a covetable secret document! In the open locker of Tilak’s table, he had found a card on which were written the names of two books which gave information about explosives. Here was a key that unlocked the whole mystery. Conclusive proof was now in the government’s hands which was strong enough to prove Tilak’s complicity in the crime of terrorist activity. The imaginative sweep of the official

Sherlock Holmes easily brushed aside the elementary consideration that a person engaged in secret activities would not keep a piece of evidence in an open lockers1. With such a strong piece of evidence in their hands, actual names of books on explosives, a fresh warrant under the Arms and Explosives Act was also found to be necessary, which was issued on 24th June for the article The Country’s Misfortune’ printed in the Kesari of 12th May 1908. On 25th June he was placed before Mr. Aston, the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Tilak’s application for bail was rejected. On the 26th June, another prosecution was instituted against him in respect of the article, ‘These Remedies are not Lasting’ in the Kesari of 9th June 1908. A fresh warrant was executed on Tilak in jail. On 29th June, some formal evidence was recorded and Aston committed Tilak to the third Criminal Sessions of the Bombay High Court on two sets of charges under Sections 124A and 153A, by two separate orders of commitment. As an under- trial prisoner Tilak was kept in Dongri jail at Bombay. This almost rendered him helpless in the preparation of defence.

The Trial On the 2nd of July an application for bail was made on Tilak’s behalf by M. A. Jinnah, Bar-at-Law, to Justice Davar. It was indeed an irony of fate that Davar who, during the trial of 1897, had submitted the bail application for Tilak should now sit in judgment on Tilak. The attitude of Justice Davar proved the general notion that a person’s behaviour is determined by the office he holds. Jinnah argued for Tilak’s release on bail, and said that any amount would be furnished as security. When the Advocate-General Mr. Branson was about to appear, Mr. Justice Davar said, “I will not trouble you.” In disposing of the application he said, “it would be wise under the present circumstances, not to give any reasons or enter into discussion of the considerations weighing with him in refusing the application.” This showed, as N. C. Kelkar remarked, “which way the judicial wind was blowing.” The Crown had applied to the Court for a special jury to be empanelled to try Mr. Tilak. On the 3rd July, the application came for hearing. Mr. Baptista, Bar-at-Law, appeared for Tilak and very ably opposed the application for a special jury. He argued, “Ordinarily Tilak should have been tried in Poona.... He would then have had the advantage of being tried by a judge who knows the language well and who would have been assisted by Assessors who would unquestionably be Marathas.... He would thereby obtain that very kind of jury which a trial by jury really contemplates, viz men taken from the place and from the people who know the language and the accused and would, therefore, be the fittest judges.... On the contrary, a special jury would be prejudicial to a fair trial and would be opposed to all the fundamental principles of justice and jrurisprudence.” ; Mr. Justice Davar, however, disposed of the application and said, “There is no doubt what ever that the cases against Mr. Tilak are important cases from his own standpoint and I feel in his own interest he should have the benefit of being tried by a Jury selected from the citizens of Bombay, but from the higher class of citizens.” Justice Davar would do nothing against Tilak’s interest and gave him all the benefits —refusal of the bail application and a special jury! The Sessions proceedings commenced on Monday, 13th July 1908. Mr. Branson, Advocate-General, appeared for the Crown and he was assisted by Mr. Inverarity and Mr. Binning. Tilak appeared in person to conduct his own case.

Not that there was no eminent lawyer who would have appeared on Tilak’s behalf, but Tilak wanted to present his case in a particular manner which he thought he could do best. M. A. Jinnah in his reminiscences of Tilak has written: “I am not disclosing any secrets, I hope, with reference to his trial before Mr. Justice Davar when I say that, he was determined not so much to secure his acquittal, but to establish that the Anglo-Indian press was guilty of defaming India and Indian people, which was as much a libel and the government did not take any steps against them. There arose a serious difference of opinion between him and myself as a counsel, because I refused to adopt any line, as a counsel, except what I considered best for his defence.” Mr. Inverarity, Bar-at-Law, gave the opening address for the prosecution. The recording of the evidence for the prosecution, which was more or less of formal character, occupied the Court for about two and a half days. The only witness that was cross-examined, with any degree of keenness on the part of Mr. Tilak, was Mr. Joshi who was put into the box to identify certain official signatures, to put in the incriminating and other articles, and to certify to the correctness of the translations which not he himself but someone else had made. The record of this cross-examination, which was searching and creditable to the Marathi scholarship of a man like Mr. Tilak, will show that Mr. Tilak completely succeeded in establishing the merits of the objection which he subsequently dwelt upon in his speech, namely, that though not purposely distorted the mistranslations were numerous enough and calculated to create a wrong notion in the reader’s mind about the spirit of the Marathi articles. Out of the fifteen exhibits put in for the prosecution seven were articles from the Kesari, two were government sanctions for the prosecution, two more were Mr. Tilak’s formal declarations as press owner, printer and publisher, and two others were the search warrants; one was the copy of the Panchnama of the search in which were noted sixty-three documents which were seized by the police. And the remaining exhibit was the post-card. Of these Mr. Tilak objected to the admissibility of the articles other than the charge articles and to the post- card. But his objections were overruled. As regards the Panchnama, with the exception of the post-card, one portion of the papers included therein was not put in at all by the prosecution, but was returned to Mr. Tilak. The remaining portion was bodily put in as a whole bundle by Mr. Tilak along with his written statement. This bundle Mr. Tilak had to put in only for the purpose of showing the character of the papers and the conditions in which the post-card was found.

But the putting in of these papers even for that limited purpose was regarded technically as amounting to giving evidence for the defence, and that cost Mr. Tilak the right of reply which is extremely precious to an accused person, especially in a trial by jury. Having lost the right of reply, Mr. Tilak decided also to put in a number of newspapers which were calculated to prove his contention that his articles were written in a controversy, and as replies to the points, as they arose in the controversy, between the Anglo-Indian papers on the one hand and the Indian papers on the other. Mr. Tilak’s statement was a simple and a brief one in which he asserted that he was not guilty and described the real character of the incriminating articles. With reference to the card, which sent Inspector Sullivan into raptures, Tilak made the following statement: “With reference to Exhibit K, I have to explain that after the Explosives Act was passed I wished to criticise it and especially the definition of explosives in the same. For this purpose it was necessary to collect material and the names of the two books on the card were taken down from a catalogue in my library with a view to send for them in case they could not be found in any of the Poona or Bombay libraries.” In conclusion he said: “The article of 9th June is intended to point out the futility of repressive measures alone in preventing the recurrence of bombs. In support of what is stated above in para 4,1 produce along with this statement papers as per list annexed. The charge articles embody my honest convictions and opinions. I state that I am not guilty of any of the charges brought against me and pray that I may be acquitted.” Tilak had hardly twelve days to prepare his defence. The facilities given to him were limited. Only a very limited number of friends could go and see him for a limited time. Tilak’s legal acumen had already been testified to by Peugh and Garth, his counsels during the first trial in 1897. They could, however, only get a glimpse of it. On this occasion Tilak had a far more difficult task to accomplish. He had to defend himself against very serious charges without adequate aid either of books or from any legal adviser. Moreover as is evident from the reminiscences of Jinnah he had planned his own line of defence. This was again one of those memorable trials in India’s struggle for freedom in which the accused is not to be looked upon as merely an individual seeking his acquittal. As one who had voiced India’s political aspirations he stood as a symbol of national honour. His speech for defence therefore was to be in reality a virtual manifesto of the nationalist movement. Through it a leader of public opinion was going to

vindicate the way in which he discharged his duties to a subject people. Tilak was not therefore interested in legalistic quibbling or hairsplitting. He wanted to justify his writings in the light of the fundamental principles of justice and morality which stood above the notions of justice and morality within the purview of the Penal Code. It was only another extension of the moral sanction to which he had made a reference in the agitation against the Bengal partition. While outwardly he addressed Justice Davar, he was, as a matter of fact, addressing the people of India to whom he was ultimately responsible. He would be satisfied only when he could convince the people that he had spared no efforts in serving their cause and his ultimate reward would be to inspire in them a desire to carry on his unfulfilled tasks. To be in or out of jail was therefore the least of the considerations that weighed with him. Though an accused, he stood also as an accuser trying to indict the Anglo-Indian press for bringing India and Indians into disrepute and the British Government for suppressing India’s natural right to freedom. Through the trial he was going to take an opportunity to declare to the world India’s aspirations, for reiterating the right of the Indian press to educate people and to inform the government of the mighty forces which had arisen in India’s political life and which could no longer be put down. Tilak was no orator and he did not follow the dramatic method of Sheridan or Fox. There was no sentimental touch about his speech nor had he a rare command over English; and yet all those who listened to him were profoundly impressed. The dignified manner, the exalted tone and the ringing sincerity of his utterance had an elevating effect on all those who were present in the Court. Here was a champion of liberty making a spirited plea for justice. He did not ask for mercy. That would go against his grain. He was conscious that he spoke the truth and he knew that the truth had among its rewards a cup of poison, a crucifixion, the consuming flames of fire or least of all a dungeon. He had written earlier that when law was divorced from morality, the only course left open to an honourable person was to break the law and suffer the consequences of his action. Prison therefore was a holy place. He did not, however, just state his claim as a champion of truth; he also pointed out how even within the present framework of law, his writings could be interpreted differently from what the government had done. The speech lasted for twenty-one hours and ten minutes. According to the saying ‘Speak that I may see thee,’ Tilak spoke and those who listened to him saw a master mind having a prolific memory, a wonderful capacity for marshalling arguments, a deep insight in law, a tremendous intellectual sweep and above all an irrepressible moral urge.

At the beginning of his speech, Tilak remarked that the charges brought against him were vague. Whole articles were included in the charges and he had therefore to refer to every portion of the articles, which was likely to be pressed against him. Tilak further remarked: “A case of sedition divides itself into three parts. First, there is the publication of the article; secondly, there are certain insinuations and inuendoes; and lastly, the question of intention. The publication I have already admitted. I have taken full responsibility of the publication of those articles. I may mention that one of the points, namely, insinuation and inuendoes, should not be based on the translations of the articles. They are not the original. The original has got perverted in the translations and any insinuations based upon these translations would be likely to be unsafe. The only evidence of intention produced by the prosecution is the card, besides the articles. They ask you to rely upon the translations of the two incriminating articles and the other three which have been produced before you to prove intention. They say you have to judge from the writings themselves whether they are seditious or not. I think the matter is not so simple as that. The question of intention is the main question in this case; and I hope to show that by reading the articles by themselves you cannot form any judgment as to my guilt or innocence. It is unsafe, nay, dangerous, to adjudge me guilty merely because the words, as conceived by you from the wrong translations, are in your opinion calculated to produce feelings of hatred and contempt in a community of which probably you know nothing.” N. C. Kelkar has given a fine summary of the arguments which Tilak advanced in his speech. He writes: “Mr. Tilak practically gave a discourse upon the law of sedition in England and the law of sedition in India and made some interesting new points about the construction of Sections 124A, and 153A. With regard to Section 124A Mr. Tilak pointed out that the first portion of the section did not apply to him at all, because that contemplated the fact of an actual excitement of disaffection, and there was in this case no evidence given whatever to show that Mr. Tilak’s writings resulted in such actual excitement of disaffection. What was proved in the case was only the words of the published articles and the identity of their publisher. The real character of the words of the articles was a matter for the jury; but no evidence was given to show to the jury, who did not know Marathi, that the words were really capable of the meaning which the prosecution sought to attribute to them. What remained of Section 124A, therefore, was only an attempt to excite disaffection. Mr. Tilak elaborately discussed the meaning of the word ‘attempt.’ He contended that the word could

not be taken in its ordinary meaning but that it had a special meaning of its own. An act under the section must be an intentional and premeditated act with the definite object of exciting disaffection, which must be proved to have failed in accomplishment by causes not dependent upon the will of the man making the attempt but operating quite independently of his control. There was here no evidence of the success of the attempt, or of the failure being due to something operating independently of Mr. Tilak’s will. As regards the object of the attempt, even supposing that the words of the articles were likely to create disaffection, the creation of that disaffection was not the object with which the articles were written. Even when a writing may be violent or reckless and even when there may be a likelihood of disaffection being caused thereby, the writer could not be punished for an attempt under Section 124A, if he has no criminal intention. The question of intention was therefore the principal one to be considered; and in deciding this question it was improper and unsafe to follow the maxim of civil law, namely, that every man must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. This intention could not be a matter of presumption, nor could it be proved only by the character of the words or inuendoes in writing. Criminal intention must be positively proved by the evidence of surrounding circumstances. The motive or object with which an act is done is of course not identical and ought not to be confounded with intention; but this motive or object is necessarily one of the most reliable indications in an inquiry as to intention.” In the course of his speech Tilak uttered most memorable words. He said “The mere character of the writing may be Prima facie evidence of the intention but intention must always be inferred from overt acts. Tilak or no Tilak is not the question. The question is, do you really intend as guardians of the liberty of the press to allow as much liberty here in India as is enjoyed by the people of England? That is the point that you will have to very carefully consider. I wish to show you that mine is an article written in controversy as a reply to an opponent. It was penned to defend the interests of my community. You may not agree with me in my views. Different communities have different views. And every community must have opportunity to express its own views. I have not come here to ask you any grace. I am prepared to stand by the consequences of my act. There is no question about it. I am not going to tell you that I wrote the article in a fit of madness. I am not a lunatic. I have written it believing it my duty to write in the interest of the public in this way, believing that that, was the view of the community. I wanted to express it, believing that the interests of the community

would not be otherwise safeguarded. Believe me when I say that it was both in the interest of the people and government that this view should be placed before them. If you honestly go to the question like that it will be your duty to give a verdict of not guilty, whatever may be your opinion about me, even if you dislike me as much as you can. I know I am not a persona grata with the government; but that is no reason why I should not have justice. My personality is not the question.” Kelkar, in his summary, further writes: “His real object or motive in writing the articles, Mr. Tilak contended, was to give a reply to the theories and suggestions, which were controversial enough, of Anglo-Indian and other critics who took the opportunity of the bomb-outrages merely for recommending to government an aggravated policy of repression. The surrounding circumstances showed that and to prove this one circumstance Mr. Tilak had to put in seventy-one newspapers, Indian or Anglo-Indian, a perusal of the articles in which would show how big was the controversy that was raging. Mr. Tilak’s intention could not be to excite disaffection because the articles showed that they were written with the express purpose, mentioned in so many words in the articles themselves, of giving advice and a warning to government. The construction put upon the words of the articles by the prosecution was unjustifiable. In the first place the words relied on were mistranslations, some of them very gross ones, calculated to mislead the mind of the jury. The translator himself was not put into the witness box, but an official expert who generally certified to the correctness of translations which he himself had not made. Even when the necessary corrections were made, there remained the inuendoes ascribed to the writer. No specific inuendoes were charged and therefore no inuendoes could be found or supplied by the jury. But the prosecution affected to find an inuendo in every word, as it were, on the gratuitous assumption that the writer was actuated by a criminal intention. This intention they had not proved. As for the language of the articles, it had to be remembered that in writing on high political thesis, the writer had to labour under the disadvantage of the Marathi language not yet being able to cope with the progress in the political life of the country. Even the official expert had to use antiquated dictionaries in the witness box to translate certain sentences put to him in the cross-examination; and even when he had the help of those dictionaries he could not help making himself ridiculous by making queer translations of simple words and sentences. That should give an idea as to the hard task a leading newspaper writer has to perform, as he has to write on all manner of subjects without long notice and sometimes on the spur of the

moment. Moreover the words and ideas for which Mr. Tilak was now being sought to be held responsible were not invented by him. They formed a part of the political controversy which had been raging in India for over thirty years past between the official and the pro-official party on the one hand and the popular party on the other. If the language of the articles was properly understood in the light of these considerations, then the jury would have no difficulty in acquitting him. Something more than the mere objectionable character of certain words had to be proved to bring home the charge to him; and the prosecution not having done so, the jury had no option but to acquit him.” Tilak concluded his speech with the words: “I appeal to you not for myself but in the interest of the cause I have the honour to represent. It is a cause that is sacred and I doubt not, gcintiemen, that He before whom all of us will have to stand one day and render an account of our actions will inspire you with the courage of your convictions and help you in arriving at a right decision on the issue involved in this case.” Mr. Branson, the Advocate-General, then rose to speak. While commenting on the charge of sedition he mainly referred to the judgment of Justice Strachey. “Every point which can arise and has arisen in this case, has been discussed by Mr. Justice Strachey in complete opposition to what has been the defence of Tilak. That is why I have pointed out to you the decision of the Privy Council, as supporting my contention that the truth of the language charged with sedition cannot be pleaded or proved.” He further observed: “You have been told that you are guardians of the press. Fiddlesticks! You are guardians of the press no more than I am. Before God, you are the guardians of the Penal Code and the Penal Code protects the press.” Referring to Tilak’s objections about translations he said: “Can Mr. Tilak benefit if I will allow him the whole of his objections to the translations,... eighteen words in all are disputed! And he has the effrontery to call them ‘the distortions of the Translator’s office’.” The Advocate-General knew very well that ‘the card,’ which was regarded by the ingenious police officer as a trump card, proved nothing and therefore said in a face-saving manner: “I am unwilling to unduly press the matter, if you think or if his Lordship thinks that it is a matter that should not be pressed...” After carrying on his argument for some more time the Advocate-General addressing Justice Davar asked: “May I ask whether your Lordship proposes to go on and finish this case tonight?” Justice Davar replied that he proposed to do so and the Court adjourned for twenty minutes. After this brief interval the Advocate-General hurried through

his speech within a few minutes.

Summing Up Then commenced the judge’s summing up. It went on till 8 p.m. after which the jury retired to the Chamber. It was indeed extraordinary that instead of following the usual routine, Justice Davar decided to finish the case in the dark hours of the night. Everything appeared to be preordained and the movements of the police officers had started right from the afternoon. It was indeed amusing to watch the restlessness of the bureaucracy whenever there was a trial of a political leader in India under British rule. A conviction was almost a certainty in these cases. The individual who was being tried never intended to run away and yet the anxiety of the police officers knew no bounds. In the present case, the anxiety was all the greater, for Tilak’s trial had caused great commotion in the people. The decision of Justice Davar to finish the case was altogether unexpected and many people had left the High Court at 5 p.m. thinking that the case would continue the next day. After 7 p.m. the news, however, went out that the judgment would be given at night and crowds immediately flocked to the High Court, eager to know the future of their beloved leader. Only a few, however, got admission to the premises of the High Court and others were held up by a strong police cordon. It was a dark night and there were occasional showers which added to the chill in the minds of the people. Time crept snail-like with ominous slovenliness. None knew what was happening inside the grey walls of the High Court. The presentiment that Tilak was going to be removed from among them had a stunning effect on those near him. An atmosphere of grimness prevailed. The hall of the High Court which was already dark, appeared gloomy as the dim lamps made one conscious more of the presence of darkness than of light. When the jury retired at 8 p.m., there was a terrible suspense. Khaparde, Kelkar and a few other friends of Tilak, gathered around him and all of them took tea together. The summing up of Justice Davar was self-evident and an unpredictably long term of imprisonment for Tilak appeared to be the only result of the case. Tilak’s friends were overwhelmed and words were inadequate for feelings. The situation was almost unbearable. And yet it was relieved in a moment by Tilak who laughed in his usual hearty manner and said to Khaparde: “Dadasahib, today the complexion of the game appears different than usual. Most probably it is going to be a transportation for life. This might be our last tea together.” Tilak laughed so that others must not weep. His lighthearted words were a triumph of the mind over matter, of self-contained will over the

domineering power, of the spark of goodness over the might of tyranny. The prospect of the punishment which would have struck terror in the hearts of most people, appeared to Tilak as the pranks of a power intoxicated by its own might, as childish efforts to put the clock backwards and to stem the tide of a freedom movement. The jury returned at 9-20 p.m. On all the three charges they by a majority of seven to two found Tilak guilty. Justice Davar asked him, “Do you wish to say anything more before I pass the sentence?” And thus spake Tilak: “All I wish to say is that in spite of the verdict of the jury, I maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule the destiny of things and it may be the will of Providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free.” To comment on these words is impertinence. They are meant for the delight and wonder of generations to come. For these words raised the whole issue from the bleak atmosphere of the Court to the rarified atmosphere of eternal values. Justice Davar had said that Tilak’s was ‘a diseased and a perverted mind’ and ‘that such journalism as was represented by his articles was a curse to the country.’ Fourteen years later another and a better judge, an Englishman, tried another Indian patriot for the same offence and under the same section. Though the punishment too was exactly the same the difference in their attitudes towards the men whom they were sentencing was very striking. Mr. Broomfield in giving his verdict against Mahatma Gandhi said: “I propose in passing sentence to follow the precedent of a case in many respects similar to this case, that was decided some twelve years ago, I mean the case against Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak under the same section. The sentence that was passed upon him, as it finally stood, was a sentence of simple imprisonment for six years. You will not consider it unreasonable, I think, that you should be classed with Mr. Tilak, that is a sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment on each count of the charge that is six years in all, which I feel it my duty to pass upon you. And I should like to say in doing so, that if the course of events in India should make it possible for the government to reduce the period and release you, no one will be better pleased than I.” Gandhiji said: “I would say one word. Since you have done me the honour of recalling the trial of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, I just want to say that I consider it to be the proudest privilege and honour to be associated with his name. So far as the sentence itself is concerned, I certainly consider that it is as light as any judge, would inflict on me; and so far as the whole proceedings are

concerned I must say that I could not have expected greater courtesy.” Tilak was sentenced to six years’ transportation and was asked to pay a fine of one thousand rupees. Everything was over at 10 p.m. and Tilak was removed from the Indian scene. He was taken away by a private door to the western gate of the High Court where a police-van was kept ready. And this was only the beginning of a journey and none knew how it would end.

The Sequel The news of Tilak’s conviction and transportation came as a terrible shock to the people of India. The working-class population in Bombay, spontaneously observed a strike and held demonstrations, which were at first peaceful, but which owing to the police-offensive became violent. The military was brought on the scene and as a result of firing, 15 people were killed and many others were injured. The Bande Mataram, of Calcutta voiced the feelings of people all over India in the following words: “We are after all human and cannot press back our tears when high-souled patriotism is reported to be rewarded with sy convict’s fate in a penal settlement. Solemn thoughts may afterwards prevail, strength may afterwards come to pull up the sinking heart; but the keen anguish of the hour when the stunning news of a great patriot’s fate is flashed by the wire for time, is too real to be glossed over with the admonitions of proud philosophy. This morning, we have actually seen three or four old men flinging away the newspaper that brought them the terrible news and taking to mournful musings. Such chastening sorrow has its noble use. It is that one touch of nature which will make us all kin and add to the credit side of the account.” The Manchester Guardian wrote: “The nature of the sentence passed upon Mr. Tilak will be interpreted throughout India as a proof that the government had resolved by hook or by crook to remove him from their path. He has been condemned on his ‘general record’ which being interpreted means that he has been punished because he can and does stir up to higher things the emotion of a multitude that understands him. “Mr. Tilak is fifty-two. He will never return from the penal settlement to which he has been consigned. But the memory of his trial and his conviction will serve for many a long day to prevent that amelioration of race-bitterness and that restoration of confidence and mutual understanding without which the good government of India by Englishmen is entirely impossible, and without which all ‘reforms’ will be completely futile.” 1 This, however, was not an isolated instance of the ingenuity of fficials in India and how they used their imagination particularly in unearthing political crime. Story goes that a parcel of a college student in Poona was intercepted by the police. It contained a tin, which was believed to be full of some explosive substance After it was carefully opened, the police officer danced with joy for in it was a yellow powder. Could it be

anything else but sulphur? What if it was, unlike sulphur, completely odourless? Imagine the disappointment and chagrin of the custodian of law when it was finally found to be nothing more deadly than the powder of gram-pulse and spices, which, in Maharashtra, is eaten along with rice and is called metkoot!

AWAY FROM THEPUBLIC GAZE 12 The Lokmanya, in Mandalay, was away from the public gaze, shut out from the busy, noisy world of everyday happenings. The life of solitary confinement creates a new world for the prisoner, a world in which time proceeds with the speed of a snail, a world of suffocating monotony and crushing isolation. This objective description reveals only a minor part of the life of a prisoner. The whole truth can be understood only when one knows the moods and the reactions of the prisoner. Nowhere is Milton’s stipulation that ‘the mind is its own place and can make a hell of heaven and a heaven of hell’ truer than in prison. We look to Tilak’s letters from prison to catch a glimpse of his personal life; but there too his usual reticence does not leave him. He had that stoical attitude of mind which made him impervious to personal sentiments or emotions. Like all normal persons he might of course have felt them and in prison, away from the busy activities of a political life, one expects a person to be more than usually subjective, personal and even sentimental. Tilak had, however, the philosophic temperament which enabled him to sublimate the personal by creating a world of ideas – ideas which would resolve the torments of his soul and point out to him and others a way of action. Out of prison he seldom, if ever, spoke about himself. Little, therefore, could have been known of his life in prison. Fortunately for posterity, there is a humble biographer of Tilak in prison, a biographer who has done much more than what was expected of him. Vasudeo Ramchandra Kulkarni, a convict from Satara district, stayed with Tilak as his cook for nearly two years. At the instance of Shri Bapat, the editor and compiler of Tilak’s reminiscences, Kulkarni gave a wonderful account of Tilak’s life at Mandalay. For an uneducated person to whom the art of writing was something of a mystery to be regarded with awe, Kulkarni has done marvellously well. His devotion to Tilak and his sincere effort to do his very best to serve the great man give a rare elevation to his simple, unadorned account. Kulkarni writes: “I was one night picked up suddenly from Yeravda prison. I did not know where I was being taken. I could not understand anything about my destination even after I was taken to Madras and in a boat across the sea.... From Rangoon, I was taken directly to Mandalay prison. Mandalay jail is situated in the south-west corner of the Mandalay fort. I was first kept in a separate cell. I

was asked to cook food in one corner of the common kitchen and to take it in a plate to Tilak Maharaj. I had not seen Tilak Maharaj before I was convicted and I was therefore very glad to see him. This arrangement continued for some days. In the meanwhile Tilak Maharaj had made a persistent demand that his cook should be kept with him. His efforts at last succeeded and I went to stay with him. Tilak Maharaj was kept in a cell on the first floor. It was 20’ × 12’ and was separated from the rest of the barrack by a wooden partition. Tall brick-walls were also built around it and it was cut off from the barrack-compound. This cell in which Maharaj was kept was originally meant for white prisoners. The yard around the room was about 150 feet long and 60 feet wide and there were mango and neem trees. He was allowed to move only in this yard. Nobody, who was not accompanied by a jailor, was allowed to enter the yard. The yard was locked day and night and the jailor personally locked the cell at night. On the ground floor we had some space about the same size as the cell upstairs, where arrangements for bath, cooking, etc. were made. Our cell, like the rest of the barracks, had wooden bars like those in a cage. In the cell of Tilak Maharaj, there was a table, two chairs, an easy chair, an iron cot, and two cupboards for keeping books which Maharaj always wanted in huge numbers. Maharaj was allowed to have his usual clothes-dhoti, cap, shirt, Poona shoe. These and a few other things such as the lantern, the bed, etc. were in his cell. In the kitchen, there were the necessary utensils, a wooden seat and one or two baskets to keep things. All these, Maharaj had to purchase at his own expense. We could not, however, get anything unless it was sanctioned by the jail superintendent.” “Following was the daily routine of Maharaj: He got up rather early in the morning, cleaned his teeth and lisped some Sanskrit verses. He then sat on his bed meditating for about an hour and a half. God alone knows what he contemplated so long! He then did his morning duties. The arrangements for the purpose were quite clean. In the meanwhile I kept tooth powder, water (hot water during winter), towel, etc. ready for him. He was my master and I was kept there to serve him. But he appeared embarrassed when I did all this. Once he spoke to me, ‘You are a prisoner. And so am I. You must not make such a fuss over me. I don’t like this. Moreover this might be objected to.’ I did not, however, pay heed to him and till my release did everything with usual perfection. He then took tea and was then absorbed in reading and writing. He came down for his bath at 9 a.m. I kept his dhoti ready, properly folded, which also he did not like, One corner in the kitchen was kept for bathing where he took his bath. For his bath he required plenty of water, and that too very clean.

Even when he was ill he never allowed anyone to touch his body. He hated it. He had a shave every week but never for once applied any oil to his body. At first, some prisoner used to shave him. The instruments used were very bad and the prisoner also knew little about his job. Tilak, therefore, complained against this arrangement and demanded that a barber should do the job. This demand was granted. For each shave he had to pay one rupee from his own pocket. He once remarked, ‘Even our State-princes do not spend so much for shaving. But what can I do? I suffer from diabetes and if I economise, I might have some serious trouble.’ Except in winter he took cold water for his bath and during the hot season he bathed twice. A Burmese prisoner washed his clothes. He did it with great earnestness.... After his bath, as he was in the habit of anointing his forehead with something, he sometimes asked for a pinch of ash. Afterwards we bought some sandalwood. At first he performed the daily religious rites only nominally. But he once said to me, ‘Here I have got ample time. There is no hurry as in Poona. In Poona I could not get enough leisure even for my meals! Moreover, we are Brahmins. I have therefore decided that so long as we are here we shall not take food without offerings and chanting of the Gayatri mantra.’ We continued this practice without a break.” “At first, Maharaj was given rice once a day, flour once a day and pulses. After some days, at the order of the Inspector-General of Prisons, some fruit was also given every week. Afterwards all restrictions were relaxed and whatever Maharaj asked was given to him. Permission was granted to bring for Maharaj from Poona pickles, ‘papad,’ spices, etc., and Alfonso mangoes during summer. Everything, however, was very carefully examined before it reached us. I used to cook for Maharaj every day, rice, wheat bread, sauce, vegetable and chutney. He ate all that was served to him but in a small quantity. While taking his meals, he hardly paid any attention to food. When he started writing his book, he was so completely absorbed in it that once he did not notice that I had forgotten to put salt in the sauce. When I sat down to eat, I found out my mistake. After finishing my work I went up and stood with hands folded, hanging down my head with shame. He did not know why I was so embarrassed. I said to him, ‘Please forgive me. I forgot to put salt in the sauce.’ At this he laughed and said, ‘I never noticed that there was no salt nor do I mind even if there was none. There is therefore nothing to be forgiven. And after all what does it matter when it happens once in a while?’ After the morning meals, he walked in the room to and fro for some time and once again started his reading and writing. I never saw him idling even for a moment. He was so much absorbed in his reading and writing that he

hardly even heard anything if I spoke to him. He worked up to about 1-30 p.m. Mandalay was very hot and he therefore took lemon syrup at 1-30 p.m. every day. If he was hungry, he sometimes took some milk with sugar or ate some fruits. At diis hour, he talked to me at length. Really, few people know so many things as he did. There was not a day when he did not tell me something new. It is now over sixteen years and I hardly remember anything owing to age....’ This time — usually three-quarters of an hour — was very pleasant indeed. He then once again turned to his business and I turned to mine, for we had to finish our supper at 5 p.m. At exactly 6 p.m. our cells were locked according to the prison regulations and we had to spend twelve hours in that small cell.... When we went up he used to tell me stories of Tukaram Maharaj, Dynanoba, Eknath, Ramdas Swami, Shrikrishna, Ram, Shivaji Maharaj and Kauravas and Pandawas. He explained to me Dasbodha1 and Gatha.2 Sometimes he told funny stories of the Peshwas or of the English. He had with him a global map of the world. He often explained it to me; but I was an ignorant illiterate Kulkarni. My dull brain could hardly follow what he said. We thus passed two hours. He then sat at the table with a lamp, and wrote something, and read for some time. Then he washed his hands and feet and as in the dawn sat in the meditative posture for about an hour. During his meditation I sat absolutely still. After this samadhi, he slept soundly.” “This was his daily routine. After two years in prison, his diabetes became acute.... He took medicines every day, but there was no improvement and his weakness increased. He then decided to start the diet restrictions he had once observed in Poona and informed the jail superintendent accordingly. According to this instead of all other foodgrains only barley was to be included in the diet. The jail superintendent granted the permission and instead of rice, wheat and pulses, barley and enough quantity of milk and ghee were given to him. With this diet restriction, the percentage of sugar considerably came down within a fortnight. This was the only diet he took henceforth. It is very difficult even for resolute persons to control the desire for food; but I was convinced that Maharaj had conquered his sense of taste. After this he used to eat puris made of barley- flour, copra and ghee. He ate curd with it. He liked thick and sour curd and said, ‘I am a Konkanya (a native of Konkan). I like sour things.’ When at first I prepared plantain-bhajis for him, he liked them very much and said, ‘Dhondu and my children would relish them exceedingly. But one has to spend six years at Mandalay to eat them’.”