Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

is carried on by a civil servant or not’ always caused annoyance to Europeans. Many other stray remarks such as the comparison between the East India Company and the present rule of India were quoted and Mr. Binning pointed out that “These speeches were pregnant with remarks which must cause disaffection against the government.” He pointedly referred to such remarks as “There was only one medicine and it was power — take it.” This, the counsel said, was a touch of the old Mr. Tilak! The counsel went on: “Did Mr. Tilak really say that there was more peace in the times of the Peshwas than under the British Government? That was not correct.” Mr. Jinnah intervening asked, “How do you know?” To which Mr. Binning’s reply was, “I have read both English and Indian histories.” To this, Jinnah’s retort was, “Elphinstone said that, and it was in his history.” The counsel, continuing, said that even if the charges against the government were true, mentioning them was calculated to bring the government into hatred and contempt. Mr. Jinnah agreed with obvious irony that “truth in such a case would be no justification!” Mr. Jinnah in his speech for the defence observed that the shorthand reports had not merely made mistakes but murdered the speeches. The object of the lectures, he stated, was to carry on propaganda for the Home Rule League and Tilak wanted to demolish arguments against the Home Rule League. Mr. Binning had said that the advocacy of the Home Rule League was a mere cloak and Mr. Tilak wanted to libel the government established by law to his heart’s content. Mr. Jinnah pointed out that the speeches admitted no other interpretation than a frank advocacy of Home Rule. The magistrate in his judgment placed reliance on Mr. Strachey’s definition of disaffection, that disaffection was want of affection and observed, “Looking at these speeches, as a whole, fairly, freely and without giving undue weight to isolated passages, the only impression produced on my mind is that Mr . Tilak wanted to dis affect his audience to wards the government, and knowing diat he could not interest his audience in his arguments unless he illustrated them forcibly, told them that they were slaves, that their grievances remained unredressed and that the government only considers its interests, which are alien to those of the Indians, and intends to keep the people in slavery under the excuse that Indians are not fit to rule themselves.” The magistrate, therefore, under Section 108 of C.P. Code ordered Tilak to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000 with two securities each in a sum of Rs. 10,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.

The appeal was heard in the High Court on the 9th November 1916 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bachelor and Justice Sir Lallubhai Shah. Mr. Jinnah pointed out that the speeches were nothing but a criticism of a certain system of administration and not of the whole administration. The story of the rogues who duped a Brahmin carrying a goat, referred not to the British but to persons who were opposed to Home Rule. Such remarks as “You are not slaves” or “I am not your slave” are not to be taken literally but are exclamations of impatience. Mr. Jinnah admitted that undoubtedly there was a condemnation of the whole system which prevailed in the administration of the country. The question to be decided was whether it might bring about a feeling of enmity or a feeling of dislike towards the government. Mr. Justice Bachelor in his judgment pointed out in the beginning that it. was plain that the magistrate was influenced by Mr. Strachey’s interpretation of disaffection, namely that it is the equivalent merely of ‘absence of affection.’ “This construction of the word disaffection,” the Judge pointed out, “is opposed to all ordinary English usage in words compounded with the particle ‘dis’ and this was recognized by the Full Bench also.” Continuing, the Judge observed that the speeches had to be read as a whole and “a fair construction must be put upon them, straining nothing, either for the Crown or for the applicant, and paying more attention to the whole general effect than to any isolated words or passages.” By Swarajya, the judge said, Mr. Tilak meant a share of political authority and to subject the administration of the country to the control of the people or the people of India; and such an object, in his opinion, is not per se an infringement of the law.” About the actual language used, the judge held, “A candid reading of the whole speeches does not convince me that the repudiation of disloyalty is feigned or artificial. Probably the fairest way to ascertain the effect is to read the three speeches from beginning to end, quietly and attentively, remembering the arguments and remembering the politically ignorant audience whom Mr. Tilak was addressing. I have so read these speeches, not once, but several times, and the impression left on the mind is that, on the whole, despite certain passages which are rightly objected to by the prosecution, the general effect would not probably and naturally be to cause disaffection, that is hostility or enmity or contempt....” Mr. Justice Shah wrote a different but concurring judgment. The judgment was hailed with great jubilation all over the country. The wrong

done by a British judge eighteen years ago in misinterpreting the word “disaffection” was righted by another British Judge. The Times of India took back what it had written in criticism of Tilak after the District Magistrate’s decision. Tilak’s speeches were appropriately styled as a lucid, incisive and masterly presentation of the case for Swaraj and the decision to institute the case was described as bad statesmanship. Gandhi’s Young India paid the following glowing tribute, which was echoed by all: “Thus a great victory has been won for the cause of free speech; a great victory for the cause of Home Rule which has thus been free from the chains that were sought to be put upon it. Firstly, we must render our tribute to the man, who by his fearless and consistent devotion to the cause of Home Rule for India won this great victory for us and who has at last by the judgment of the High Court than which there is none higher in the land, cleared himself of the slur of disloyalty that it has been sought to cast upon him. Mr. Tilak has undergone many sufferings in his country’s cause. Those who have known him have known how unjust was the view taken of him by many. He has now been vindicated and is free to continue to work for his country with the wholehearted zeal that we feel sure he will not allow to be diminished, but will rather increase. He has not been and is not to be silenced. But he has won this victory not for himself alone but for his countrymen at large. It rests with them to carry on the good work and reap the fruits that will ripen from the seeds he had sown.” 1 Tilk’s son Shridhar writes in the Reminiscences : “As there was considerable delay on the part of the government in returning the pencilled manuscript of the Gita-Rahasya, everyone became apprehensive. Some of us expressed our doubts about the possibility of getting the note-books back. Dada, however, was unperturbed and said ‘Don’t worry. Even if the note-books are in governent custody, I have the book in my head and I can rewrite it in full within a couple of months at Sinhgad.” 2 Valentine Chirol, a British journalist, published in 1910 a book called The Indian Unrest, which severely criticised Tilak and called him the ‘Father of Indian Unrest.’ 3 “The first signs of revival were shown by the Muslim community. The younger generation of educated Muslims began to realise that their interests were essentially not different from those of their other countrymen. Moreover, the nationalist movements in Islamic countries, especially in Turkey and Persia, influenced their minds and infused in them a more national spirit. At the same time there were other causes at work, such as the unfriendly policy pursued by Great Britain towards Turkey during the Tripoli and the Balkan wars on the one hand, and the attitude of sympathy shown by the Indian nationalist forces towards the Muslims in their grief over the treatment meted out to Turkey by European nations on the other, which had the effect of weaning away the Indian Muslims from the side of the British bureaucracy and by bringing them nearer their own countrymen of the other communities.” Land Marks in Indian Constitutional and National Development by Gurmukh Nihal Singh, p. 279.

4 5 S. K. Altekar : Bapat, Vol. III, P. 256 6 Tilak uses the Marathi idiom which when literally translated would read as: “Whether it is Gokhale or Tilak - their fuel (cowdung cakes, used for cremation) is already on the cremation ground.” 7 Speeches of Baí Gangadhar Tilak (R. Thiromalal & Co., Madras 1918), p. 135 8 Its general aim will be to educate the people and to give to the demand of the Congress for self- government... the strength of a nation which has realised itself, and which, through its national organisation, has voiced its claim for years only to see it rejected.” - Mrs. Besant, quoted at p. 530 : Life of Dadabhai Naoroji by R. P. Masani 9 10 11 F. Skden Smith : St. Simeon Stylites

THE GOSPEL OF SWARAJ 14 While Tilak was busy with his political activity, he utilised whatever leisure he could snatch in correcting his magnum opus, the Gita Rahasya. It was a rough copy, written in pencil that he had brought with him from Mandalay and after his release, as also during 1915, he made out a press copy and the book was issued to the world in June 1915. In the reminiscences written by a close friend of Tilak, ‘a typical day in the Lokmanya’s life’ is described: “It was in 1915, when we two went to the Gaikwad Wada at about 7-30 in the morning Lokmanya was found talking with an old friend on the dramas of Bhasa. They talked about the dates of Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti and other Sanskrit dramatists. While they talked, a man came with proofs of the Poona Provincial Conference, which Tilak corrected. His corrections showed his diplomacy, for he omitted the names of two Rao Bahadurs from the report. This, he explained, would obviate the possibility of material proof to the government that they had attended the conference. No sooner had he finished giving these instructions to the workmen than a gentleman came with some papers. It appeared that this gentleman’s brother was arrested by the government and he was, therefore, making a petition to the government praying for his release. Tilak glanced once at it and said, ‘The government will not yield to your petition merely by the beauty of your style; there are certain legal points that you seem to have omitted.’ He thereupon suggested to the other a few legal points. The gentleman having taken his leave, Tilak once again turned to his subject but again he was interrupted by an astronomer. With him Tilak discoursed on Vedic astronomy and said that there were certain verses in the Vedas which had to be interpreted from the viewpoint of astronomical evidence, not taken into account by commentators like Sayanacharya. He showed the gentleman his own notes on the subject. It appeared from this that the Lokmanya contemplated the writing of another book on the subject. Before he had finished with the astronomer a boy came with an extract from a Pali book on Buddhism, brought from a Pali scholar. It appeared that this was necessary for the Gita Rahasya and which, Tilak said, he would use if the second edition of the book would be issued. That is how he spent about three hours of his time. In the meanwhile he looked to a thousand and one things.”

Reform Schemes After the favourable decision of the High Court on the Security Case, Tilak predicted that Home Rule would spread like wild-fire and so it did. Tilak accepted the challenge of the government and he and his colleagues went on delivering lecture after lecture on Home Rule. Home Rule, he constantly said, had now received legal sanction from the government. In Madras and Bengal there was vigorous propaganda on behalf of Home Rule and the President of the Home Rule League in Maharashtra issued a Home Rule memorandum. In October 1916,19 elected members of the Indian Legislative Council published a memorandum as to post-war reforms, which was substantially supported by M. A. Jinnah in his presidential address of the Bombay Provincial Conference at Ahmedabad. Jinnah writes,1 After his return from Mandalay, I came in closer contact with him and Mr. Tilak who was known in his earlier days to be communalistic and stood for Maharashtra, developed and showed broader and greater national outlook as he gained experience. I believe it was at the Bombay Provincial Conference, over which I had the honour to preside, that the gulf, which was created owing to the Surat Congress split, was bridged over, and Mr. Tilak and his entire party once more came into the fold of the Indian National Congress in 1915.” Tilak attended this conference and was given a great reception in Gujarat. He supported the main resolution which backed the constitutional reforms suggested by the Congress and the League. In November the Congress and the Muslim League also published their own schemes of reform and thus, all around, the atmosphere was rife with proposals for reform.

Government Repression The Home Rule agitation was indirectly helped by government repression. About the same time as Tilak was prosecuted in July 1916, a notice was served on Mrs. Besant, banning her entry into the Bombay Presidency. Tilak pointed out that this order showed the great gulf that existed between the government and the people.2 “Mrs. Besant has no army, arms or ammunition or bombs; she is moreover by birth English and so it is inconceivable that she would ever think of the British going away from India. She therefore strives for strengthening the British Empire. The principle that the administration is strengthened if people are happy has been incorporated in the Queen’s proclamation and it has also been accepted further that if the people are to be happy the administration must be carried on according to their wishes.” Explaining the motives of the government in gagging Mrs. Besant, Tilak said that the government seemed to wish to strike at the root of the Home Rule Movement, but, he pointed out, “If other members of the Empire are carrying on negotiations as to their future relationship with the Imperial power, what possible objection could there be for India to carry on these negotiations? How, again, will these come in the way of peace?” Continuing, Tilak sounded a warning that “even though the government order had to be obeyed, it was doubtful if it was wise; even if physically the order is obeyed, the senses would revolt against it and a new peaceful agitation would arise.” Mrs. Besant, Tilak pointed out, was not the originator of the idea of Swaraj : “ The originator was Dadabhai Naoroji . Mrs. Besant was striving for the realisation of this idea, only after the war. This effort of hers is therefore legal, constitutional, peaceful and would lead to the country’s progress .... If the government wish that the people of India should not get Swaraj it is better if they declared it once and for all. This, however, would not be in keeping with the former declarations that the British were here, not for their own betterment but for the good of India.” Tilak concluded, “India is loyal, the Indians like other people in the colonies are protecting the Empire by shedding their life-blood. At this time it is unwise that people in India should not have the freedom to think of their future like other people in the colonies and it is therefore undiplomatic that one of their leaders should be banned from entering a province.”

In the article, written after his release,3 Tilak complimented the High Court for upholding the fair name of justice. It was right, he continued, that there should be division of power between the executive and the judiciary and the judiciary should be there to curb the excesses of the despotic bureaucracy. It was proved by the High Court decision, he said, that criticising the bureaucracy did not amount to sedition, that disaffection was not absence of affection. Tilak’s release, he warned, should not make people so jubilant as to give up all struggle.... “Tilak or Mrs. Besant will not last you till your life-time. You must put in the best you have and use all your powers for bringing this question of Home Rule before the Parliament.... This is not a question of individuals but it is a national question... mere telegrams or distribution of sweets would not be enough.... Everyone must now become a member of the Home Rule League.” In these articles as also in other actions and pronouncements Tilak showed how his attitude towards the law differed from that of the moderates. Whereas the moderates would never, either by word or deed, transgress the limits of the law, however unjust it might be, Tilak tried to evade the law in a thousand ways, by interpreting it in his own interest but breaking it only if it became absolutely necessary. This was seen during his visit to Gadag in Karnatak, where he was going to address a meeting.4 The Collector of Gadag wanted to ban the meeting and had given an order to that effect to the police. The police tried to do this by threatening the people; but when this proved futile an order was handed over to Tilak prohibiting him from ‘delivering a harangue.’ Tilak said that the order did not prohibit him from replying to a speech of thanksgiving. When he was asked by his followers to finish his speech before the police came back, his reply was characteristic. “We should not,” he said, “aim at merely making a speech by taking advantage of negligence on the part of the government. We should try to bring to the notice of the people the stage to which government injustice can go.” He agreed to what the police suggested and returned after an hour or so. Turner did not dare prohibit a speech of thanksgiving and the meeting was conducted in a perfectly orderly manner. Afterwards he said, “The moderates always accuse me by saying that I am too fond of going to jail, but we must always try to stretch the limits of the freedom of thought and action to the extreme within the limits of the law. In this instance, if I made a speech there was the danger of incurring the danger of the prohibition order; if I did not, it would mean sacrificing an essential right of the people.”

Not every civil servant was, however, as intolerant as Mr. Turner. Mr. Montford, the Collector of Poona, invited him for an interview, with the intention of telling him not to use the word ‘Home Rule’ in his speeches. This was before the establishment of the Home Rule League. Tilak told the Collector that not only did he use the word Home Rule but he also intended starting a Home Rule League. Mr. Montford reported to the Governor, “Mr. Tilak is a very bold and reasonable man. He is a gentleman of no hide-and-seek policy. He does what he speaks and he always speaks frankly and openly. From the various reports at my disposal, I can say he seems to be a trusted and popular leader.” When asked why he did not object to the government translations of his speeches in the High Court, Tilak said, “Substantially they were as I had delivered them at Nagar and Belgaum. Another opportunity for their wide propaganda would no longer be available even through the Kesari. That is why I did not object to the translations.” There were others who accused him of having turned a moderate. To this, his reply was, “I was never ‘immoderate’ or unruly. Certain timid people who lack self-confidence might look upon my political demands as unconstitutional and dub me as extremist; but I am a moderate in my goal from the beginning. I do not, therefore, resent being called a moderate.” To others who dubbed him an extremist, who by the unnecessary fury of his speeches incurred the displeasure of the government, his reply was that he had brought the reforms much earlier which in the ordinary course that government would have taken at least fifty years to grant. If he did not bring pressure on the government, their demands would be simply ignored. At this time, Tilak was feeling the need of help of his doughty comrades-in-arm in the cause of freedom. He felt the absence of Lajpat Rai and the void created by Aurobindo’s retirement to Pondicherry. “If I could have one Lalaji and one Aurobindo in each province,” he said, “I would see that the government does not get any war loan and there would be no recruiting; unfortunately there is a dearth of men of this calibre.” “The great Tilak was the first to remember his co- worker when he felt that the Congress was in need of fresh and dynamic leadership. He sent a messenger to Shri Aurobindo conveying this feeling of his, which he requested the founder-leader of the Nationalist Party to fulfil by agreeing to come out of his seclusion for which he had made necessary arrangements.”5 Shri Aurobindo, however, being too far advanced on the path of spiritual salvation, did not respond and Tilak carried on his self-imposed task almost single-handed.

Lucknow Congress The Congress Session was now approaching and there were signs that the rift between the moderates and the nationalists was being bridged. Tilak was elected a delegate to the Lucknow Congress from the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha. From other parts also his followers were elected in vast numbers, and eight years after they had left the Congress, Tilak and his followers left for Lucknow in a special train, appropriately named the Home Rule Special. On the way, at every station, there were enthusiastic scenes of welcome. Tilak was showered with flowers, sweets were distributed at several places and the air was rent with cries of ‘Victory to Tilak Maharaj.’ Throughout the night, in intense cold, people flocked to the stations, wishing to catch a sight of or hear a word spoken by the great leader. Tilak too submitted to all this, little minding the inconvenience to which he was put. At Lucknow the reception was tremendous. The tyres of the Lokmanya’s car were cut by an enthusiast and he was taken in a huge procession through the streets of the town in a carriage, pulled by his admirers. Babu Jagat Narain, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, accorded a hearty welcome to Tilak and his assocktes from the Nationalist Party. The President, Ambika Charan Muzumdar, said in his Presidential Address: “After nearly ten years of painful separation and wanderings through the wilderness of misunderstandings and mazes of unpleasant controversies — both the wings of the Indian Nationalist Party have come to realise that united they stand, but divided they fall, and brothers have at last met brothers....” Referring to Tilak he said, “I most cordially welcome Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mr. Motilal Ghose and other brave comrades, who separated from us at Surat and have been happily restored to us at Lucknow. I rejoice to find that they are after all ‘of us’ and ‘with us,’ and let us hope never to part again.” The most important work done by the Lucknow Congress was the Congress- League Pact. “Mr. Tilak,” says Jinnah, “rendered yeoman services to the country and played a very important part in bringing about the Hindu-Muslim unity, which ultimately resulted in the Lucknow Pact of 1916.” The preamble to the pact stated that “in the reconstruction of the Empire, India shall be lifted from the position of a dependency to that of an equal partner in the Empire with the

self-governing Dominions.” The pact gave increased weightage with separate electorates to Muslims where they were in a minority. Tilak is described in the Subjects Committee in these words:6 “Lokmanya Tilak in the Subjects Committee of the Congress was an interesting study. When the angry speakers were foaming on all sides he was calm as a rock. I remember the remarkable composure of Tilak in the Lucknow Congress when the moderates and the extremists, the Hindus and the Muslims were unusually agitated, the moderates over the forward step that the advanced politicians’ were taking, the Hindus and Muslims over the communal representation and the pact. Pandit Madan Mohan was very much upset. He would not reconcile himself to the pact and the Hindu enthusiasts who invaded his spare hours, were assured by him that if there was a need and if it was proper, he would hold a huge demonstration against the Congress if it surrendered to the Muslims. The leader of Maharashtra who was the most religious, the most learned in the Vedas and among the most orthodox of the Hindus, would not listen to any arguments against the pact. Not that he was enamoured of it himself but if it would satisfy the Muslims, if it could bring them to the Congress, if it could replace their extra-territorial patriotism by Indian nationalism, the agreement was worth reaching. Lokmanya Tilak’s attitude was the deciding factor in the Hindu-Muslim settlement, the last word on the subject so far as the Hindus were concerned.” In his speech supporting the resolution on self-government Tilak made a remark which clearly showed his attitude towards Hindu-Muslim unity: “It has been said, Gentlemen, by some that we Hindus have yielded too much to our Mohammedan brethren. I am sure I represent the sense of the community all over India when I say that we would not care if the rights of self-government are granted to the Mohammedan community only. I would not care if they are granted to Rajputs. I would not care if they are granted to the lowest classes of the Hindu population provided the British Government consider them more fit than the educated classes of India for exercising those rights; I would not care if these rights are granted to any section of the Indian community. Then the fight will be between them and other sections of the community and not as at present a triangular fight.” Tilak also spoke on another important resolution of the Congress the one on self-government, which said, “That this Congress is of opinion that the time has arrived to introduce further and substantial measures of reform towards the

attainment of self-government.” Tilak was given a great welcome and was greeted with loud and prolonged applause. Thanking them all sincerely for the reception, he said, “I am not foolish enough to think that this reception is given to me personally. It is given, if I rightly understand, for those principles for which we have been fighting.” This was the resolution, said Tilak, for which the Congress had been fighting for the last thirty years. “The first note of it was heard ten years ago on the banks of the Hoogly and it was sounded by the ‘Grand Old Man’ of India, that parsee patriot of Bombay, Dadabhai Naoroji. Since that note was sounded differences of opinion arose. Some said that the note was carried on and ought to be followed by a detailed scheme at once, that it should be taken up and made to resound all over India as soon as possible. There was another party amongst us that said that it could not be done so soon, and the tone of that note required to be a little lowered, and that was the cause of the dissension ten years ago, and I am glad to say that I have lived these ten years to see that we are reunited in this Congress, and we are going to put our voices and shoulders together to push on this scheme of self-government, and not only have we lived to see these differences closed but to see the differences of Hindus and Mohammedans closed as well. So we have now united in every way in the United Provinces and we have found luck in Lucknow (Laughter).” He referred next to the charge that the Hindus had yielded too much to the Muslims and his answer has already been quoted above. “We have to fight a powerful bureaucracy, an unwilling bureaucracy, naturally unwilling because the bureaucracy now feels that these rights, these privileges, this authority will pass out of their hands.... When you have to fight against a third party, it is a very important thing that we stand on this platform united, united in race, united in religion and united as regards all shades of different political opinion.” He refers next to the fact that though their demand was essentially the same, some called it Swaraj, others self-government and constitutional reform and the nationalists styled it Home Rule. The demand for Home Rule, he said, “was a synthesis of all the Congress resolutions passed so far. We cannot now afford to spend our energies on all the resolutions on the public services, the Arms Act and secondly others. All is comprehended and included in this one resolution. I would ask everyone of you to try to carry out this one resolution with all your effort, might and enthusiasm, everything that you can command, your intelligence, money, enthusiasm, all must now be devoted to carrying out this scheme of reforms.”

He went on reminding the audience that mere passing of resolutions or the simple union of two races, Hindus and Mohammedans, and the two parties, moderates and nationalists, could achieve anything. “The union is intended to create a certain power and energy among us and unless power and energy, among us, are created and exercised to the utmost you cannot hope to succeed, so great are the obstacles in your way. You must now prepare to fight out the scheme. In short, I do not care if the sessions of the Congress are held no longer. I believe it has done its work as a deliberative body. The next part is the executive and that will be placed before you afterwards.” He went on to say that “the question whether Swaraj was legal was settled by the Calcutta High Court, and as for the second question as to the way we should carry on our propaganda, so as not to cast any slur on the bureaucracy, that point has now been decided judicially that you make any criticism in order to further your objects and justify your demands, and that it comes within the bounds of law. So the goal of Swaraj and the way of preaching have both been declared legal, and here you have a specific of Swaraj passed by the united committees of Hindus and Mohammedans.” It was, he said, a serious responsibility and he advised the people to work for it incessantly. He concluded by saying that the scheme would be carried out within the next two years to come. Swami Shraddhanand refers to the profound effect that Tilak’s speech had on the audience.7 “Simple sentences came out of his mouth slowly in his natural tones and the audience drank every word that was uttered. He said in substance, “The British tell us: we, descendants of the Aryas, are not the original owners of the soil. We Aryas took the country from the Aborigines, the Muslims conquered it from the Aryas and the English conquered it from the Muslims. Hence the English are the guardians of the Aborigines. Well, I agree to this and ask the English to go away, delivering the possessions to Bhils, Gonds and Adi-Dravids.’ There was laughter and cheers but when after explaining further he said in his natural simple voice, ‘Home Rule is my birth-right and I shall have it,’ the whole pandal responded with one combined resonant voice and the whole house was brought down.” Explaining his stand on the Lucknow Pact afterwards he said that he did not understand what all the fuss was about granting a few rights to the Muslim brethren. “After all,” he pointed out, “what harm is there if a few more seats are given to them? After Swaraj we can change this proportion if we want to. The

history of representative institutions in other countries shows that the proportion of seats in the different constituencies is not constant. We must remember that we have to fight a foreign government.” Commenting on the Lucknow Congress the Kesari wrote that Friday, 29th December 1916, was a day, fit to be written in letters of gold in the history of British India. “The government used to pity the Swarajists for their disunity and discord but now it is the government that deserves to be pitied, for the old policy of divide and rule can no longer be continued now.” Tilak was responsible in the Lucknow Congress for getting Gandhi elected to the Subjects Committee. Tilak had made a proposal to the moderates in regard to the personnel of the elected members of the Subjects Committee; but the proposal was not accepted.8 “Tilak decided to get the delegates of Bombay who were all nationalists to elect only those of their party. The names were put to the House in pairs, one a nationalist and the other a moderate. In every case it was the former that was elected. Likewise when a nationalist name was pitted against Gandhi’s, the latter was voted down but Tilak declared that Gandhi was elected.” Tilak also tried, but in vain, to make the Congress adopt an amendment to the self-government resolution to the effect that a definite time-limit be imposed for the demand of reforms, that a specific instalment be granted before a particular date. He, however, succeeded in making the Congress adopt a proposal to carry on the intensive propaganda for the resolutions passed. Tilak also allowed another proposal of his to be shelved. By this he sought to reduce the number of members of the Congress executive to make it a small and compact body, more fitted for executive action.

Home Rule League Conference After the Lucknow Congress session was over a joint conference of the Home Rule League was held in the same pandal and was attended by more than one thousand delegates from both the Leagues. Tilak, once again, strongly supported the Congress-League pact and said that it was like promising the lawyer a huge fee in a complicated law suit in view of the success that was to come. After the session, Khaparde said about a most eloquent speech that Mrs. Besant made, “Mrs. Besant literally showered us with her eloquence.” Tilak, as if aware of his shortcomings, said, “Yes, she has that gift and she is like a thunder-shower in summer that dazzles and deafens all. We in Maharashtra are matter-of-fact, but we do our work noiselessly but surely and unmistakably like rain in the rainy season; we lack that training in external show.” Though by no means an orator, the Lokmanya’s speech was not without its own special charm. A tribute to it paid by Swami Shraddhanand has already been referred to. P. K. Telang refers to his “power of incisive speech.”9 “He was not an orator by any means, but his speeches were always very impressive and inspiring. He knew how to touch the right note. Two of his speeches stand out in my memory. One was the great speech he delivered in Lucknow at a meeting of the Home Rule League. This was in English and the short, pithy sentences impressed an English friend of mine so much that I remember his expressing the greatest admiration for Mr. Tilak as a speaker.” On his return from Lucknow, Tilak made a halt at Kanpur and was given a royal welcome. In his 60 minutes’ speech, delivered in English, he referred to the obliteration of the individual excellences of the Indian people under the British rule. The demand for Swaraj, he said, was a demand for the establishment of the four class system according to qualities and actions. From Kanpur, Tilak, accompanied by Khaparde and Vasukaka Joshi, went to Calcutta to see his old friend Motilal Ghose, editor of the Amrit Bazar Patrika. He returned after visiting Nagpur, Akola, Yeotmal, Murtizapur, delivering lectures, holding discussions and spreading the cause of Home Rule to all corners of the country. On returning to Poona, stock was taken of the work of the Home Rule League in a meeting on 28th January. It showed that more than 3,000 members had been enlisted and a total subscription of more than Rs. 6,000 was

collected. It was decided in this meeting to collect funds to send a deputation to England.

War Propaganda The government repression also continued. The Press Act was being enforced with greater rigour, and Mrs. Besant was served with a gag order along with Wadia, her associate. While the Viceroy was asked by the Home Government to make special efforts to recruit as many Indians as possible for war service, the government efforts showed lack of confidence in the popular leaders. The notorious Defence of India Act was passed while Tilak and others were carrying on vigorous propaganda in favour of war work and support to the government. In February 1917, in a joint meeting of the citizens of Poona under the presidentship of Principal Paranjpye, Tilak moved the main resolution and said in his speech, “We have been pressing this demand right from the beginning of the war that the doors of the armed forces should be opened wider for the Indians. The government, however, is ready to accept the help of Japan but refuses to train Indians and accept their help in war efforts.... If these rights are conferred now, it is likely that they would be permanent.” He concluded by saying, “If age and grey hair are no disqualification, I am prepared to stand in the fighting line.” Government, however, responded by serving him with an order from the Punjab Government prohibiting him from entering the Punjab and later a similar order was passed by the Commissioner of Delhi. On the 27th February 1917, Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari saying “This is the time, enter the army now.” He quoted a verse from the Bhagawad-Gita which said, “Happy are the Kshatriyas, O Arjuna, for whom such a war comes of its own accord as an open door to heaven.”10 He refers in the beginning to the fact that revolutionary changes were going on in the European countries on account of the war. Even England, he said, was having a new type of war cabinet and expressed the firm confidence that England and France would emerge victorious in the end. Coming to India, he said, that though India was not a free country, it could not but be affected” by this gigantic awakening. Speaking about India’s duty in this changed situation, he said that it was no time to raise objections regarding the discrimination made between Indians and Europeans about commissioned posts in the armed forces. There was an assurance by the Viceroy that deserving Indians would be considered for commissions, and even if the promise was not

carried out in actual practice, educated Indians should not make a grievance of it. The reason why government did not make these opportunities available was that they did not trust the Indians; but now that this situation has altered, Indians should remember that confidence begets confidence. They must, therefore, join the army. It was clearly stated further that this defence force would be utilised for internal defence alone. “If we are not ready to do it why talk glibly about Swaraj? One who wants Swaraj must be prepared to defend his country. Besides, the tide of time which has made the British favourable to Indians may also, if they persevere in their attempts, find that it would make the British concede rights of Swaraj. The young generation should, therefore, come forward to help the government, without minding, even if they have to waste two years of their lives. In it consists loyalty, patriotism, loyalty to the Empire and also diplomacy.” Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari on the Press Act on 13th March 1917 and pointed out that it was the desire to rule despotically that was at the root of the Press Act. Like the Defence of India Act it was also used by the government to suppress the natural urges of the people. If the newspapers in India wrote strongly, that was because they felt strongly against the government policy of not granting them their rights in time. “We want the Empire, by all means, but we also want Swaraj and it is the duty of England to grant it to us. If they discharge this duty, there would be no discontent at all. When, however, without discharging it the government keeps the hanging sword of sedition over the heads of newspapers and speakers, the discontent goes on increasing. The Press Act is detrimental to freedom; it is short-sighted; it exists for placing despotic power in the hands of the rulers ... to defend an evil does not make it good....” In April 1917, Tilak once more visited Calcutta to attend a meeting of the All- India Congress Committee and on his return he carried out a triumphal tour of the Karnatak. Within three weeks of his sojourn the membership of the Home Rule League increased from 400 to 3,100. In May he attended the Nasik District Conference, under the presidentship of Srinivas Sastri, and delivered a lecture on the ‘Master-key to Swaraj.’ In this he emphatically refuted the charge that he was getting old: What I am going to say is for every young. The body gets old but the soul does not. Freedom is the soul and it can never get old.” He went on to refer to Mill’s dictum ‘No nation has a moral right to keep another in slavery’, and declared that in this political ethics are included all philosophies. “It was a blot on British diplomacy to keep the Indians away from freedom.... Those who used to call us slaves are now hailing us as brothers; before their words die out, we

must push forth our demand with determination and vigour.” Mrs. Besant’s Arrest The government policy of repression continued. Internment orders were passed on Mrs. Besant and two of her colleagues, and this act raised a storm of protest in which persons belonging to all sections of opinion joined. Tilak11 termed it “as an attack on Mrs. Besant and Swaraj.” This act of Lord Pentland, Governor of Madras, as Baptista appropriately says, “unwittingly gave an enormous impetus to the cause of the Home Rule and Tilak seized the opportunity to appeal to the British people for the liberation of Mrs. Besant and Home Rule for India.” Tilak pointed out that this act of repression was a direct result of the unanimous passing of the resolution on self-determination by the Congress and the Muslim League and their determination to send a deputation to England. It was the despotism of 1908 that was once again raising its ugly head with the only difference that whereas in 1908 it was Bengal and Bombay that were given this honour, now it was Madras! It was obvious, Tilak continued, that the provincial government had done this with the approval of the Centre, and from this point of view the first encounter between the Home Rule movement and the government was to ban students from attending public meetings. “The government is fully aware that the wave of patriotism strikes the students most, and if at all a nation is to prosper, it is through an energetic new generation. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the education of this new generation should be in the hands of a government which is averse to our progress.” The second attack, said Tilak, was even more terrible. It was the internment order on Mrs. Besant, Arundale and Wadia. The main reason for this was the fact that Mrs. Besant carried on the Home Rule movement with intensity. “But we ask this to the Government, however intense may be the struggle for Swaraj— self-government within the Empire — how is it going to harm the Empire?... India has helped the Empire — with men, money and material and if it is to keep on doing it, she must be kept contented by granting equal rights as in other colonies.” The Madras government, he explained, had missed the main point of the Home Rule demand. By Home Rule, India did not want complete independence. The government, he further declared, was persisting in its old game of divide and rule by needlessly making a difference between the Home Rule League and

the Congress. Both stood for the same thing and wanted to implement the Lucknow resolution which was passed unanimously by the Hindus, the Muslims, the extremists and the moderates. “Today in this Empire, on the one hand they are talking of granting Home Rule to Ireland and setting all Irish rebels free; the President of the United States declares publicly that the war is started for granting the rights of self-determination to all nations; while on the other the bureaucracy in India tries to gag a learned lady and her associates, who work with sincerity and assiduity to further the cause of self-determination in India. These attempts made by the British Government are a blot on the ethics, generosity, sense of equality and fair-mindedness of the British. The fact that the aspirations of Swaraj can no longer be put down by tyranny is made clear by the recent example of Russia. Hence our request to all Congressmen is this: ‘This opportunity of getting Swaraj that India has got will never recur within the next hundred years. If you waste it, you waste it for ever.” Success of the Home Rule Cause Mrs, Besant’s arrest had the effect desired by Tilak. Within a week Madan Mohan Malaviya, Surendranath Banerjee, M. A. Jinnah and many others joined the Home Rule League. Tilak hailed this in his second article on Mrs. Besant’s arrest in the Kesari of the 26th June 1917 and said that Lord Pentland had been the greatest friend of the Home Rulers. “During the last eight days,” says Tilak, “Pentland’s action has been condemned by thousands and those who were indifferent to the activity of the Home Rule League were joining it in thousands. The differences between the moderates and the extremists have vanished; in Allahabad a new Home Rule League has been started by prominent persons; Calcutta had decided to agitate for Home Rule throughout Bengal; the Muslim Conference at Lucknow had categorically condemned Lord Pentland and expressed their sympathy for Mrs. Besant; members of the legislative council, barristers, pleaders and many others, who would not normally have joined the League so soon have now come forward to join; thousands had determined to stop not even if there was repression.” In the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee on July 28th and 29th, Tilak called for joint action, just as there was joint and universal condemnation of the government. He advocated the use of the weapon of passive resistance or civil disobedience if the government refused to release the Home Rule internees.

The Ali brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were also behind the bars and all over the country there were demonstrations demanding their release.12 “The proposal for adopting passive resistance was seriously considered by various Provincial Congress committees in the months of August and September 1917, and while Berar considered it advisable and Bombay, Burma and the Punjab advised postponement, in view of Mr. Montagu’s expected visit to India, U.P. considered it inadvisable in the existing situation.” Bihar thought that “a date must be fixed within which the release of the Home Rule Internees as well as of the Ali brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad should be demanded. Bihar would herself intensify the demand by repeating it from different platforms and, redress failing, the public men of the province shall betake themselves to actively preaching passive resistance to the people and be prepared to suffer all sacrifices and privations that it may involve.” Madras, the adopted home of Mrs. Besant, was naturally much more advanced and the Madras Provincial Congress Committee was of the opinion that “it was advisable to adopt the policy of passive resistance in so far as it involves opposition to all unjust and unconstitutional orders against the carrying on of constitutional agitation.” Sir S. Subramania Aiyar renounced his knighthood as a protest against the internment of Mrs. Besant and her co-workers and drafted a pledge, signed by many. How tense the situation was has aptly been summed up by Mr Montagu in his diary: “I particularly liked the story that Shiva cut his wife into 52 pieces only to discover that he had 52 wives. This is really what happened to the government of India when it interned Mrs. Besant.” The country was now electrified by the new weapon of civil disobedience or passive resistance. Tilak advocated it with all his fire and ardour and said that it was in the nature of a reaction against certain orders of the government and might therefore appear as merely negative to some people. When, however, the government trampled under foot principles of truth and justice, there was no alternative but to adopt a negative attitude. The history of boycott and Swadeshi had already shown this. Formerly it was difficult even to utter the word Swaraj, but now everybody mouthed the word — the same thing might be said about the means used for the achievement of Swaraj. Passive resistance therefore could no longer be shelved by the Congress committees.

Satyagraha at Champaran It was at this time that Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated the efficacy of passive resistance at Champaran in Bihar. The European owners of the indigo plantations at this place had obtained lands from the land-owners on temporary or permanent leases and were forcing the tenants to plant indigo, even though the latter bitterly complained about the small returns that they got. Their grievances were numerous and were totally neglected by the government and the planters. Gandhi was approached by a few representatives of the tenants to personally look into the grievances of the tenants. He carried on his investigation for such a considerable period that his presence became an eyesore to the government. He was ordered to leave Champaran, which he disobeyed and showed a readiness to court imprisonment. In his remarkable statement before the magistrate, Gandhi stated what was virtually a manifesto of the first Indian Satyagraha: “It is my firm belief that in the complex constitution under which we are living, the only safe and honourable course for a self-respecting man is, in the circumstances such as face me, to do what I decided to do, that is, to submit without protest to the penalty of disobedience.” A number of Gandhi’s associates had also joined and local pleaders and tenants showed their readiness to follow Gandhi to prison, thus placing the authorities in a sore fix. The case against Gandhi was ultimately withdrawn by the order of the District Magistrate and Gandhi was appointed as one of the members of the commission appointed to investigate the grievances of the tenants. Thus a new weapon was forged for the achievement of the just and lawful demands of me people. In the joint meeting of the All-India Congress Committee and of the Council of the Muslim League on July 28th, 1917, a deputation consisting of Jinnah, Sastri, Sapru and Wazir Hussan was appointed to put the case of Indian constitutional reform before the British Government in England. Tilak too seized the opportunity to appeal to the British people for the liberty of Mrs. Besant and Home Rule for India. Baptista was deputed to prepare the way for the intended deputation, or the Indian Home Rule League. Just as he was embarking, it was learnt that Mr. Montagu had displaced Mr. Chamberlain. Baptista says:13 “Mr. Montagu’s extraordinary denunciation14 of the government of India had created

great hopes of a new era. So I asked Tilak what answer I was to make in case I was questioned widiin what time Home Rule was to be fully in operation. ‘Say fifty years.’ ‘Not fifty,’ said I. Yes, fifty. Who is going to give us Home Rule even in fifty years?’ Strange to say, almost the first question put to me by Mr. Montagu was ‘What time-limit?’ ‘A generation,’ said I. ‘A generation? That is a practical proposition,’ said Mr. Montagu.” Mrs. Besant was released and Mr. Montagu embarked for India after the historic declaration in the House of Commons. This Declaration stated: “The policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of the highest importance, as a preliminary to considering what these steps should be, that there should be a free and informal exchange of opinion between those in authority at home and in India. His Majesty’s Government have accordingly decided, with His Majesty’s approval, that I should accept the Viceroy’s invitation to proceed to India to discuss these matters with the Viceroy and the Government of India , to consider with the Viceroy the views of local governments, and to receive with him the suggestions of representative biodies and others. “I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the cooperation received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will thus be conferred, and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.” “Ample opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of the proposals which will be submitted in due course to Parliament.” The declaration, though a disappointment, pacified most of the leaders and the talk of passive resistance was dropped. Tilak alone continued his propaganda for Home Rule with unabated zeal, trying to strengthen the hands of the Congress and the Home Rule League and also of the new Secretary of State, Mr. Montagu.

Tilak’s fear was that however well-intentioned Montagu might have been he would be helpless before the bureaucracy, who would try to guide and goad him. At Satara, at Broach and in Bombay, Tilak spoke on the Home Rule demand, again and again insisting on intensive and ceaseless propaganda. Mrs. Besant was released on September 17th in keeping with the new policy. Even before her release Tilak had succeeded in persuading the All - India Congress Committee to propose the name of Mrs. Besant for the presidentship at the coming session of the Congress. “If we want to prove how keenly we feel for her,” Tilak said, “let us elect her president of the coming Congress.” Ten years earlier he had proposed the name of Lala Lajpat Rai after he had come back from deportation but the Congress of the time, being dominated by the moderates, dropped the proposal . Now the circumstances had so changed that Mrs. Besant’s name was accepted and Tilak had also succeeded in making them adopt civil disobedience for the release of Mrs. Besant.

Tilak on Home Rule The All-India Congress Committee met therefore at Allahabad in historic circumstances. Expectations were raised to high pitch with the appointment of Mr. Montagu in the India office. Mrs. Besant, now set at liberty, was attending the session along with Tilak. The reception accorded to the two great leaders was unprecedented in the history of Allahabad. Tilak delivered two speeches on Home Rule, the first on 7th October 1917 under the presidentship of Mrs. Besant and the other on 8th October 1917 under that of Malaviya. In the first speech, Tilak began by giving the simplest definition of Home Rule. “Home Rule was nothing but to have the management of their home in their own hands.” Continuing he said that all they asked for was not a change in their rulers, but administrators — he distinguished rulers from administrators. The theory inflicted on them was that the rulers of this country were the administrators who had been appointed or selected under the Government of India Act. His view was entirely different. Those were not the rulers in the strict sense of the word. They represented the King, but they were not the King. The Indians also represent the King because they were his subjects just as much as those officers. So in the matter of representing the King, the Indians and those officials stood on an equal basis. What then was there more in the position of these officers which made them say that they were the real rulers? That was that certain powers had been given to them they had not usurped those powers under a statute of Parliament. If another statute of Parliament repealing that statute and giving the Indians those powers was passed, the Indians would be what those officers were at present. That was Home Rule and nothing more. There would be no change in the Emperor, absolutely no change in the relations of India with England or in the relations of India with the Empire as a whole. What was there to complain of in this except that some men would lose their trade? If the power was transferred from one man to another, the man to whom it was transferred would gain and the other would lose and if that other man were angry, it was natural. He did not think that any English politician would be deterred by such things for a moment from doing his duties. He went on to say that ten to fifteen years ago to talk of Home Rule was sedition and people were afraid, he himself was afraid of talking about Home

Rule. But now it was conceded by both the judiciary and the executive that Home Rule was a proper ambition for a dependency to entertain. Ten years of fighting was thus required to remove this prejudice against Home Rule and now they could talk about it as a legitimate aspiration. Though everybody, the Viceroy, the Premier, the British nation and even the bureaucracy, now agreed with them, there was the question of time. They said that it would take centuries to attain it. According to him this was an entirely selfish argument. What was it that prevented them from attaining the goal within a few years after the war when the Empire would be reconstructed? If the Indians were not fit to be given Home Rule, it was the bureaucracy that was responsible. Now however the best English statesmen were coming forward to say that the system of administration of India must be revised after the war so that the Empire would gain material strength from the country. Now the question was whether the bureaucracy or the people should have a say about the nature of reforms and the time within which they had to be granted. There was a judge and he had given notice that he was coming here and would hear what the Indians would have to say. Therefore they must press their demand more strongly than their opponents. That was their duty at present. They had to convince him that all arguments used against them were due to prejudice. The great work before them at present was to educate the people to realise what Home Rule was. He would impress on them the supreme necessity of doing their best for getting Home Rule. They must wake up. If they made strenuous efforts, then within a year or two they would realise, if not all, at least a part of their wishes. They did not want Home Rule at once, but they wanted a real beginning, and not a shadowy beginning. When Mr. Montagu comes he would speak to their leaders about their demand, and he wanted that they should have the solid support of the country behind them. If that was done, Mr. Montagu would carry their message to the British people and effectively support it with the authority of his office. In the second of the speeches Tilak first corrected the misapprehension that after getting Home Rule they wanted to turn out the British. “Indians did want English people, English institutions, English liberty and the Empire.” But what they said was that the internal administration of India should be under Indian control. He refers once again to the argument of unfitness of Indians to rule themselves

and points out that in Indian history Akbar, Asoka, the Guptas, the Rajputs had shown how to rule. There was therefore no disqualification, intellectual or physical, which disabled the Indians from taking part in the government of any Empire. They had shown their fitness in the past and were prepared to show it today if opportunities were granted to them. Even with the few opportunities that they get, Indians have showed themselves to be able and had always come up to the standard of efficiency required. Under Home Rule, Indians did not want anarchy and chaos but peace and good government. About the argument that certain British interests would suffer in the event of Home Rule, Tilak’s reply was that those British interests had been created, to speak in legal terminology, without Indian consent.... These British interests would be safeguarded so far as justice and law were concerned. About the method of agitating for Home Rule he thought that they should not quarrel over this difference and give an opportunity to their opponents to use these differences against them. Everyone might have his own method provided it was constitutional. Though he wanted each man to keep himself within the bounds of law and constitution, he made a distinction between law and constitution. So long as law-making was not in their hands, laws which were repugnant to justice and morality would be sometimes passed. They could not obey them. Passive resistance was the means to an end but was not the goal in itself. Passive resistance meant that they had to balance the advantages and disadvantages arising from obeying a particular order and not obeying it. If in their balanced judgment they found that the advantages of disobeying it under particular circumstances were greater, the sense of morality would justify them in acting upon that conviction. It was a complicated question and not a question which could be discussed in a large gathering. They must leave it to their leaders for their decision. Passive resistance was a determination to achieve their goal and if they were hindered by artificial and unjust legislation and by any unjust combination of circumstances, it was their duty to fight it out. Passive resistance was perfectly constitutional; it did not preach unruliness or illegality, but fixed determination to reach the goal at any sacrifice.

Gujarat Political Conference The following week Tilak attended the Gujarat Political Conference at Godhra under Gandhi’s presidentship. Tilak’s speech, delivered in Marathi and translated by Khaparde into excellent Gujarati was on the never-stale topic of Home Rule. “The great claim of the bureaucracy is that it has made India prosperous. I would fain concede it, but the facts are against it. During their hundred years’ work in India, I want to know what the bureaucracy has done to train the people industrially and otherwise and make them self-reliant.” Referring to the reverses of the allies, Tilak said, “What was wanted was that India’s heart should be touched; until that was done, it was not possible to expect great help from India. The people wanted self-government not only for their benefit but for the sake of the Empire. In any struggle or crisis, a contented self- governing India was the greatest and the surest asset of the Empire. A strong wave of democracy is passing all the world over and even the British Government have hailed the Russian Revolution as the first great triumph of the present war. Lord Sydenham’s contention that we in India take advantage of Britain’s troubles to agitate for self-government is false. We had already been agitating for self-government for over thirty years. All over, the world self- government is on the anvil and India alone cannot be expected to sit still.” 15

Montagu Interview On the 26th November Tilak, heading a Home Rule League deputation, called on Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State, and on the next day a special interview was granted to Tilak alone. Writing about the elaborate and (for the first time, probably) careful way in which Tilak prepared to go for the interview, Anant Hari Gadre narrates the following amusing incident:16 “Tilak dressed himself in clothes which were perfectly well-ironed. After he had dressed himself he took out of his bag a brand new pair of Mahratta shoes and put them on. I was surprised, for this was the first time I had seen him so careful, about his dress. I said, ‘I hear that Mahatma Gandhi is going to the Montagu Durbar in his usual dress of loin cloth and blanket; while you have put on a brand new dress specially for the occasion.’ Tilak replied, ‘After all we are Mahrattas. We must respect the Durbar. Don’t forget that I am going to see today an emissary of the Emperor. Besides, though I am dressed in a court dress I shall speak nothing but strong language!’ ” When asked by Montagu what he would do if he did not think the reforms satisfactory, Tilak’s reply was that he would accept whatever that would be given and strive for more. Narrating the interview Tilak said afterwards, “The Viceroy sat on his throne silent and hardly so much as glanced at anyone coming for interview. Mr. Montagu, however, talked respectfully. As I am a little hard of hearing, I tried to move my chak a little nearer but that heavy chak from the Delhi government-house could not be moved easily. Mr. Montagu thereupon instantly got up and moved my chak closer. The Viceroy, however, looked on unconcerned.” Montagu wrote in his diary about Tilak, “He is at the moment probably the most powerful in India, and he has in his power, if he chooses, to help materially in war effort.” Tilak on his return journey was made to halt at Agra, by enthusiastic admkers, who took his luggage out of the railway compartment almost forcibly. He told the people that nothing much could be expected to come out of the interview and that the people had to depend on themselves and their own efforts. On the eve of the Calcutta Congress Tilak had collected thousands of signatures from people all over Maharashtra in favour of the Congress-League scheme. A similar campaign was organised by Gandhi in Gujarat, and Tilak heartily agreed

with Gandhi when the latter insisted that signatures were only to be taken after careful explanation of the scope and meaning of the scheme. These were presented in the form of a petition to Montagu; Brahmins and Non - Brahmins Even though there was an atmosphere of unity, certain internal conflicts of the Hindu society were now coming to the fore. A society is composed of divergent groups with varied interests, which often conflict among themselves. True freedom can only come when these group conflicts are resolved in harmony and push forward the overall and general ideal, which is the common goal of the society as a whole. This cannot, however, happen unless the smaller groups comprising the community are assured that their individual interests, their rights and their special privileges are properly respected by the other and more privileged communities. The Congress-League pact had succeeded in bringing together the Hindus and the Muslims on the common platform of political rights; but now the non-Brahmin classes were clamouring for their rights. They constituted a separate group and when the Home Rule memorandum was sent to Mr. Montagu they declared themselves aloof and distinct from the demands of the more advanced classes. At the Belgaum District Conference in 1917 the dissensions between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins had taken an acrimonious turn and Tilak, when questioned about it, said, “It is natural that the non-Brahmins should be angry with us. How could the enemies of the Congress sit still and quietly look on the unity forged at Lucknow between the Muslims and the Hindus? We have achieved this by granting special representation to the Muslims. Now the enemies of the Congress have raised up another bogey of disruption. But in one sense I am also happy that the simple-minded non- Brahmins have started demanding certain things for themselves, although out of spite for us at present. This shows a growth of self-confidence. Today the government might concede to their demands to sow seeds of disruption among us; but gradually as the demands go on increasing, government will have to disappoint them and this disappointment will make them join us. If we can prove to the non-Brahmins by example that we are -wholly on their side in their demands from the government, I am sure that in times to come their agitation, now based on social inequality, will merge into our struggle. Unless this happens, their movement will peter out in a short time.”

A section of the non-Brahmins under the leadership of Vithal Ramji Shinde, formerly a missionary of the Brahmo Samaj and noted for his work of establishing the Depressed Class Mission for the uplift of the untouchables, organised a Nationalist Non-Brahmin Association in Poona. A public meeting was convened on the 8th November 1917 and was addressed by members of many backward communities. Tilak was called upon to speak on behalf of the Brahmin community and he readily agreed. In his speech he declared that they wanted Swaraj not of the old type but on the western pattern. It was because of the dissensions among the different castes that the British entrenched themselves here and if these were to continue we would remain equally backward even under Swaraj. Shinde says that he had occasion to test the Lokmanya’s alleged partiality to political reform and his indifference to social reform. When Shinde asked him whether he should give up his work among the depressed classes and devote himself exclusively to politics, Tilak said, “No” and in their free and frank talk afterwards, says Shinde, he was convinced that Tilak was wholly on the side of the Depressed Class Mission in his individual capacity as Mr. Tilak, though not as the editor of the Kesari. Writing in the Kesari on the 18th September 1917, Tilak tried to analyse the causes of dissensions between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins. He pointed out that it was inconceivable that the leaders of the non-Brahmins, being themselves educated, should subscribe to the present despotic rule. “Love of freedom being the greatest virtue of English education, all educated people, whether Brahmins or non-Brahmins, will not countenance the present stunted growth of the national talent for ever. The non-Brahmins are showing their self- confidence in their struggle against what appears to them to be social injustice. This same feeling must be shown in the political field also. It is natural for the non-Brahmins to wish for higher posts in the government and more rights for themselves. It is not therefore possible that they would strike at the root of the demand for Swaraj.” Having settled the first question that the non-Brahmins could not be opposed to the demand of Swaraj as such, the next question, says Tilak, is the question of their demand for certain safeguards. “This question, the Brahmins are willing to consider not only sympathetically but generously too....” Tilak himself said at Lucknow that he would not mind if in the councils none but a non-Brahmin is elected, because he wanted a majority of Indians there instead of foreigners. The

general policy of the Brahmins towards the non-Brahmins would be the same as that of the Hindus towards the Muslims; there should therefore be no apprehension on that account. The Brahmins have never said that they want all the seats in the councils. The fact that they get more seats than what are due to them according to their population is because of their advance in education. It is a totally false allegation that the Brahmins had put the non-Brahmins and other castes down by purposely denying them the facility of education. It is doubtful if the four-class system was prevalent in its entirety any time in the past. Even if it were and even if the rights of education, sacrifice and acceptance of gifts were reserved for the Brahmins, their extent was very limited. Education necessary for everyday life and the literacy required for it were within the reach of all, including the Shudras. Excepting the learning of the Vedas, what we call education today was easily available to all. Even then the three classes remained aloof from education because they paid more attention to their professions and neglected their education. They profited therefore in point of monetary gains just as the Brahmins profited in point of learning. The Brahmins do not, however, complain that the other classes kept them poor just as the non-Brahmins complain today that the Brahmins kept them ignorant. Today the Brahmins do not stand in the way of the non-Brahmins getting their education but are, on the contrary, prepared to help them. Even then the non-Brahmins do not come forward to take bookish education. The government is sympathetic towards the non-Brahmins, and yet, looking to the convenience of the administration, they have appointed Brahmins to higher posts and also nominated them to the councils. This was because the Brahmins were educated while the non-Brahmins were not.” Tilak, therefore, argued that the true distinction was not between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins but between the educated and the non-educated. It is the educated of any caste, who would get the higher privileges. About the question of communal representation, Tilak said that, though nationally he was not favourable to it, he was not opposed to anyone who wanted it. The true eligibility for voting and representation should be a minimum educational standard and income level, and not considerations of caste or community. He appealed therefore to the non-Brahmins not to oppose the demand for Swaraj and suggested that the question of communal representation should be settled by all the communities coming together and deciding these questions with common consent. The Brahmins would gladly observe silence on this point

and not oppose the non-Brahmin demands if they convey to the Secretary of State the result of their joint deliberations. These remarks of Tilak are interesting in a number of ways. Though in them he has shown an attempt at evaluating the new forces in a realistic manner, his analysis is from the standpoint of political expediency and not from that of a sociologist. As a practical politician Tilak could see now that the resurgent and newly awakened backward classes could no longer be ignored and were a force to reckon with. He welcomed the new spirit of self-confidence that had dawned over them, and as a political leader he sought to awaken it also in the political sphere. He rightly emphasised therefore that it was primarily a question of education and was ready to give an assurance that the advanced classes would do their best to help their less fortunate brethren. Old prejudices, however, die hard. It is again impossible to cut oneself entirely from one’s immediate environment and one’s past. The year 1917 was for Tilak a period crowded with political activity. He now belonged to the generation that was passing away and he accepted the parting, caused by death, with his one-time friends as inevitable. In 1917 death snatched two individuals for whom Tilak had a special attachment. In February, Tilak’s intimate friend Dr. Annasahib Patwardhan died. He was called Maharshi owing to his saintly way of life and he was much respected and loved by the citizens of Poona. Dr. Patwardhan who began life as a revolutionary had to suffer great shocks of disappointment and afterwards turned to spiritualism. The revolutionaries, however, looked up to him as their Guru. He had great affection for Tilak. Tilak who held Maharshi Patwardhan in high esteem used to say: “Annasahib is born out of his times. The historic days of the past were more suitable for him. If Poona had been Paris of old, Annasahib would have become Cardinal Richelieu. If he were born in old Vijaynagar, he would have been Vidyaranya or Madhavacharya.” On the 30th June, Dadabhai Naoroji, the patriarch of Indian politics, passed away peacefully in Bombay. He was 92 and had retired from active life. And yet the presence of this grand old man was reassuring to all the political leaders; for was he not the first to explain to them the nature of British rule and to inspire in them the desire to dedicate themselves to the cause of their country? Tilak who had time and again upheld the draintheory, had great reverence for Dadabhai, whom he described as the guiding spirit of Indian affairs. Dadabhai’s death was

mourned by all, but above all by those who followed in his footsteps and strived to complete his work.

Calcutta Congress It was now time for the annual session of the Congress, which was to be held at Calcutta. Unusual interest had centred in this session as Mrs. Besant, who had been throughout the year the stormy petrel of Indian politics, was elected the President. This was not, however, without a keen struggle in the Reception Committee in which there was a sharp split between the old guard represented by elders like Surendranath Banerjee, Ambikacharan Mazumdar, Bhupendranath Basu, Baikunthnath Sen and the younger crusaders like B. K. Lahiri, I. B. Sen and Jitendralal Banerjee. Though the younger section carried the day and succeeded in getting Mrs. Besant elected, there were signs that the unity forged at Lucknow would not last long and there would once more be a parting of ways. Mrs. Besant’s presidential address was an epitome of the Home Rule League agitation carried on during the past year and a half. It contained one of the most forceful advocacies of self-government. In effect she demanded, “A bill during 1918 establishing self-government in India on lines resembling those of the Commonwealth on a date to be laid down therein, preferably 1923, the latest 1928, the intermediate five or ten years being occupied with the transference of the government from British to Indian hands maintaining the British tie as in the Dominions.” She also gave an elaborate scheme regarding village government. Mrs. Besant was again the first of the Congress presidents to insist that the Congress president continued to hold office, not merely during the sessions but throughout the year. This was a clear sign that the Congress was being looked upon now, not as a mere deliberative body, but as an agency for executive work. The main resolution of the Congress was the one dealing with the question of self-government. It was moved by the national orator Surendranath Banerjee and ran as follows: “This Congress expresses its grateful satisfaction over the pronouncement made by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India on behalf of the Imperial Government that its object is the establishment of responsible Government in India. “This Congress strongly urges the necessity for the immediate enactment of a Parliamentary Statute providing for the establishment of responsible Government in India, the full measure to be attained within a time-limit to be

fixed in the statute itself at an early date. “This Congress is emphatically of opinion that the Congress-League Scheme of reforms ought to be immediately introduced by the Statute as the first step in the progress.” Tilak made a speech in support of the resolution which clearly showed his unique mastery of distilling a controversial issue to extract its quintessence and suggesting a simple, unambiguous, direct and clear-cut line of action. He divided the Montagu declaration into three parts: (i) The object of the Imperial Government is the establishment of responsible government in India; (ii) this responsible government would be given by stages; and (iii) the nature of these stages and the period within which they were to be granted would be determined by the government. Tilak said that they agreed to the first two conditions but not to the third. “We want the stages to be determined by us and not at the sweet will of the Executive. Nor do we want any compromise about it but insist on definite stages and the time to be fixed in the Act itself; so that the whole scheme may work automatically.” Other leaders like Mr. Bipin Chandra Pal, Tilak observed, did not want Home Rule to be granted by stages but wanted to go the whole hog at once. “I say it should be granted to you by stages, demand the first step now so that the introduction of the second step would be much more easy than it is at present.” He also made, ‘’A very simple definition of Home Rule which any of you, including a peasant, can understand is that I should be in my own country what an Englishman feels to be in England and in the colonies. The simplest definition is that, and that is the whole of it. All those bombastic phrases such as ‘partnership in the Empire,’ ‘terms of equality’, etc., mean that I want to be in my country not as outlander but as a master, in the same sense that an Englishman is a master in his own country and in the colonies. That is to complete Home Rule, and if anyone is going to grant it tomorrow, I shall be very glad for its introduction, for it will be Indian Home Rule granted all at once, but I see that it cannot be done. Some compromise has to be made with those who are not in our favour and with some of our friends. The British power in India was introduced by a compromise, by a charter. In fact, the first step in a province which you have not conquered is always with consent and compromise, and what the first step should be is explained in this resolution.” He further referred to the use of the words ‘responsible government’ in the Montagu Declaration unfortunately without defining it. But he explained, “We understand by the words ‘responsible

government,’ a government where the Executive is entirely responsible to the Legislature, call it Parliament or by any other name, and that Legislature should be wholly elected. That is responsible government, full responsible government that we want. When I say that the Executive should be under the control of the Legislature, I go so far as to say that even Governors and Lieutenant-Governors must be elected bv legislative bodies. That, however, will be the final step. But in the present circumstances I shall be quite content, and so I think most of you will be content, if the first step that we demand is granted to you immediately, and Self-Government at an early date.” Explaining what time-limit was meant to be put by the words ‘early stages,’ he said that by early date he means ten or fifteen years. “In the third part of the resolution,” Tilak declared, “we stick to what was passed last year at Lucknow both by the Congress and the Muslim League.... I hold that the Congress-League scheme is the minimum which might be granted to us and satisfy pur aspirations at present and to make a decent beginning in the introduction of Home Rule in India.” Tilak next answered objections against the Congress-League scheme and pointed out the fallacies of granting self-government by stages. He expressed confidence in India’s ability to govern herself and emphatically demanded a share in the government at the centre. Lastly he said that the Congress and the League did not think of a change in the machinery of government. Their concern was with power and not with the machinery of government. All that they wanted was that the power of the Executive should be transferred to the Legislature. Tilak moved a resolution condemning the government on the internment of the Ali brothers. Their aged mother was present at the session and was given a place of honour on the dais. Tilak was at his courteous best in his reference to the venerable old lady and showed that along with sharp, penetrative and incisive shafts he could also use the flowery speech of sentiment. Dr. M. A. Ansari- writes,17 “I met Tilak again in 1917, during the session of the Calcutta Congress when Bi-amma, the revered mother of Shoukat Ali and Mahamad Ali, had accompanied me in order to take up the work of her two brave sons who were interned at Chhindwara under that arbitrary and much-abused law — the Defence of India Act. The extreme courtesy and reverence shown by Tilak to bi- amma and the great interest and sympathy which he evinced towards the sufferings and hardships of the Ali brothers were very touching. His speech in

the Congress when proposing the resolution for the release of Mahamad Ali and Shoukat Ali, was typical of him. Two brief quotations from it would reveal his mind. He said: ‘As their friend and sympathiser, not personal friend but as friend and sympathiser of everyone who is unjustly treated, without distinction of caste, creed or colour, as friend and sympathiser of truth and justice, which is the foundation of every empire in this world, I demand that Messrs. Mahamad Ali and Shoukat Ali should be immediately released.’ Further addressing their mother, he said: ‘But let me assure the mother here, on your behalf, that the tide to become a mother of brave sons far exceeds in importance the tide of being a mother only, and let me suggest to her with the consent of all of you here today to forget what government had done and take consolation in the fact that all of us have great sympathy with her in her present position, and I pray to God that we may have many more mothers in the country of her type. That is the only consolation I can offer her.’ ” Tilak was a prominent figure in the Subjects Committee and piloted the Congress skilfully. His was the commanding and decisive voice throughout the deliberations. It was at his suggestion that Mrs. Besant sent out a Presidential message, transleted into all the chief vernaculars of the country and 20,000 copies of it were sent to England. All these were distributed through the Home Rule League. Josephine Ransome has given an idea of Tilak’s demeanour at the committee meetings. She says: “At committee meetings Mr. Tilak would sit very still and quiet taking apparently but little notice of what was going on, except that occasionally his sleepy-looking eyes would suddenly open and flash. When called upon for his own opinion it was clear that his quick mind had registered every argument and had instantly analysed its value. His mind seemed quite ruthless in its power to detect fallacy in any statement. He could alwavs show with force and directness where the truth actually lay.” Dr. Pattabhi gives an instance of this. He writes.18 “The Andhra movement took birth some twelve years ago. In 1916 the Andhras asked for a separate Congress circle on the principle of linguistic redistribution of provinces. The subiect finally came up for settlement at the meetings of the All-India Congress Committee and of the Subjects Committee held in connection with the Congress of 1917. The session was held in Calcutta and presided over by Dr. Besant. I was alone in both the gatherings in my struggle. The opposition was formidable both in numbers and in influence. The president was frankly against the change and I had to fight her and a Madras gentleman for two hours in the Subjects Committee. But the

question would have been shunted, if an hour earlier the A.I.C.C. had rejected it. Here too the fight was not less keen. Even Gandhi said that the question might wait till we had attained Home Rule. Home Rule was the slogan of those days. Then Lokmanya Tilak rose and spoke a few words endorsing my claim. His speech was ever characteristic of him. The few words that he uttered — sharp, lancinating, crisp and convincing — had the desired effect. The A.I.C.C. accepted the idea and that helped it to make its way into the Subjects Committee, when I took it myself. This instance would indicate the breadth of Lokmanya’s vision and his regard for a junior.” At Calcutta, Tilak was suffering from a painful wound in the leg. He found great difficulty in walking but even then he carried on his innumerable activities without break or respite. The day on which he delivered a lecture at the Beadon Square was particularly strenuous and, while dressing the wound, the next day, it was clear that his agonies had increased. Vagbhat Narayan Deshpande, a young liberal of Satara, asked,19 “How can you bear all this strain in spite of this great agony?” Tilak looked at him, laughed and said in English, “My young man, it is the mind and not the body which works!” 1 2 Kesari, 19th June 1917” 3 Kesari, 14th November 1916 4 5 The Uberator by Sisir Kumar Mitra, p. 155 6 7 8 The History of the Congress by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, p. 214 9 10 Dr. Radhakrishnan’s translation 11 Kesari, 18th July 1916. 12 The History of the Congess by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, p. 225.

13 14 In his speech on the Mesopotamian muddle Montagu strongly criticised Chamberlain, the Secretary of State, and characterised the Indian Government as “far too wooden, far too iron, far too inelastic and far too antediluvian to subserve its purpose in moderntimes.” 15 Reproduced from Mahatma, Vol. I, by Tendulkar, pp. 265-266 16 17 18 19

THE ACCREDITED LEADERS 15 “Mr. Tilak’s principles of work have been accepted; the ideas which he had so much trouble to enforce have become the commonplaces and truisms of our political thoughts. The only question that remains is the rapidity of a now inevitable evolution. That is the hope for which Mr. Tilak still stands, a leader of all India.” ShriAurobindo(1918). On the 26th January 1918, on his return from Calcutta, Tilak attended the Poona District Conference at Lonavla. M. R. Jayakar, Barrister-at-Law, of Bombay, was the president. When Tilak arrived much earlier than expected, in the cold early morning, he announced that he had cancelled the procession which local enthusiasts had planned because he thought it would disturb Jayakar’s sleep, “And I know you hate all such shows.” Jayakar remonstrated that it was not a case of following his personal wishes.... But Tilak insisted, “I have not ceased to respect the tender delicacies of Hindu domestic life and like to avoid offending my host’s prejudices. It is an old Hindu sentiment that you have, when you are enjoying the hospitality of another, so to conduct yourself that you will not jar on your host’s nerves or offend his sentiments.” Berar Tour From February 5th, began a long tour of Berar and the Central Provinces, in the course of which Tilak addressed meetings at Khamgaon, Nandura, Akola, Murtizapur, Chanda, Wardha, Nagpur and Bhandara. B. G. Khaparde, who accompanied Tilak during this tour, has given a vivid description of this tour. It was not merely at the bigger towns that Tilak halted but also at small, wayside villages. As soon as his car halted, villagers flocked around, touching whatever part of the motor-car, as if it were a part of the Lokmanya’s body, and bowed reverently to it. The Lokmanya’s foot was still troubling him and yet he would go on totally unconcerned. The topics that he touched were the usual topics but they were elucidated so cogently that even an ignorant peasant could easily understand them. The object of the tour was explained as the collection of funds

for the Home Rule deputation to be sent to England. During the course of his lectures he complimented the railway servants on their solidarity. They were, he said, among the most ardent supporters of his movement. Referring to the strike of the telegraph clerks, he said that unless there was complete unity it was no use going on a strike. If the railway servants are once united great national service could be expected of them. Referring to the war and its effects on India, Tilak said that it was inconceivable to think that India would keep on being lethargic while the great wave of democracy was sweeping over the world. In less than fifteen years there would be a time when the English would be compelled to arm the Indians and depend on their help. And then an armed and well-trained India will have to be satisfied by granting Swaraj to it. But when such a time comes all must stand united. Nothing will be achieved if we are not united. Politics is not an easy thing. One has to be diplomatic and try to score over one’s opponent, while keeping on smiling. Politics is like a non-ending game, in which every stage is reached, apparently by compromise, but this compromise has to be thrust on the opposite side. Constant agitation, therefore, had to be kept up so that the bureaucracy did not get overbearing. During the car-journey also, Khaparde records, Tilak conversed on various topics. Thus he said once that the critical faculty could and did exist side by side with intuitive inspiration. As an instance, he cited the example of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who he said showed a combination of critical reason with an equal amount of faith and emotion. His Brahmo Samaj was based more on reason and the Bengalis being more emotional, Brahmoism did not take firm root there. Addresses and purses were presented everywhere and on the whole the tour was a huge success. On 23rd February, Tilak wanted to attend the A.I.C.C. meeting at Delhi but the Commissioner of Delhi, by an order, prevented him from entering Delhi. On 19th March, Tilak went to Sholapur and was given a purse of nine thousand rupees. A similar amount was given by the people of Poona also. Addresses were presented to Tilak at Bombay and Poona for he was soon to embark for London heading a deputation of the Home Rule League. The European war, however, dragged on and a stage was reached where it was felt that greater help from India was desirable. War Conferences

War Conferences A war conference was called by the Viceroy at Delhi on the 27th April. Care was taken to see that Tilak, Besant or the Ali brothers were not invited. Gandhi, who was invited and requested by the Viceroy to use his moral pressure on behalf of the British Government, wrote a letter to the Viceroy. In it, he expressed his regret for the exclusion from the conference of leaders like Lokmanya Tilak and the Ali brothers and also stated the people’s minimum demand. He wired to the Lokmanya to go to Delhi, which the latter could not do unless the orders against him were expressly cancelled. The government did not do this and Tilak could not go to the conference. Tilak was, however, invited for the Bombay Provincial War Conference convened by Lord Willingdon, Governor of Bombay. There was a difference of opinion between Tilak and Gandhi on the subject of helping the government in the war effort. Gandhi thought that with a true Home Ruler it must be an article of faith that the Empire must be saved. He was therefore for an absolutely unconditional and whole-hearted co-operation with the government. Tilak argued that help should be given only if the government was prepared to concede the demand of Home Rule. In the course of their talk Gandhi is reported to have said to Tilak, “Your ways are devilish!” Tilak patted Gandhi on the back and said, “My good friend, you have not burnt your fingers as yet while playing with this government. During the last forty years my fingers have been burnt more than once. When you will get your fingers burnt, I am sure you will go ahead of me.” Gandhi smiled and decided not to speak on the main resolution, supporting the government. Later, Tilak sent Gandhi a cheque for Rs. 50,000 as a guarantee of his good faith. The amount was to be forfeited if certain conditions were not fulfilled by Tilak. The conditions were that Tilak undertook to recruit 5,000 persons from Maharashtra, if Gandhi could secure a promise from the government beforehand that Indians would get commissioned ranks in the army. Gandhi’s position was that the help should not be in the nature of a bargain and he, therefore, returned the cheque to Tilak.1 Writing in the Kesari on the Delhi Conference, Tilak termed it as “showy, prejudicial and disappointing.” It was expected that the conference would achieve something concrete, so that Indians might be able to serve their motherland with greater zeal; but instead it had fizzled out in an idle show. This, says Tilak, was disappointing particularly when it is remembered that the

waves of war in the west might any day come to the east and there is danger to India from Germany. It was the boast of the English that England’s might alone would be able to stem the tide of Germany but that boast is now no more. It has been realised that India’s help was needed and the war Conference was convened for this by the King-Emperor and the Secretary of State. The prejudiced bureaucracy has, however, thwarted the object of the conference and the conference achieved nothing more substantial than simply show. Tilak lastly sounded a note of warning that a cast -iron bureaucracy would not go on for ever. It was unfortunate that when Europeans and Indians are fighting shoulder to shoulder on the French battle-field, the bureaucracy in India should not be prepared to leave its despotic power. “The tide of the world has changed. The question of India’s freedom has become a question of world-freedom. For the sake of world-freedom India must be made free and given Swaraj.” India, said Tilak, would not come forward to help Britain unless a substantial share of self- government was given to her people. An article on the 18th June 1918 condemns Lord Willingdon for what happened in the Bombay War Conference, held a week before. In this conference, all the Home Rule leaders, like Tilak, Kelkar, Jamnadas Mehta, Horniman were invited. They tried to speak on Home Rule but were interrupted by the governor and therefore they staged a walk-out. M. A. Jinnah, who stayed behind, vehemently criticised the high-handed attitude of the Governor. Tilak pointed out that in every nation the people’s demands were answered only when the rulers were in difficulty. English history also shows that ‘Grievances before supply’ has been their motto. It was therefore the duty of the government to concede to the people their birthrights and make them truly loyal to them. In another article Tilak reiterated the demand for Home Rule by pointing out that true loyalty would arise only if the people come forward with a free will to help the government. “The true people’s army was raised in the days of old, voluntarily out of the people’s love of their land and its rulers. It is this feeling that should be aroused now. The present rulers are inviting the people to join but they are not prepared to grant their demand of freedom nor are they prepared to give them higher commissioned posts. Unless the bureaucracy was prepared to come down from its impossible position, no Home-Ruler would come forward to help them.” Tilak and the Revolutionaries

Tilak’s stand therefore was that of wresting power by pressure politics. It is necessary to differentiate his position here from that of leaders like Gandhi, who were prepared to help, without any strings attached to their co-operation, and the revolutionary groups who not only would have nothing to do with the war- effort but would look upon war as a moment favourable for revolutionary activities. The Indian revolutionary groups abroad became particularly active at the outbreak of the war. Some of them tried to establish contacts with the Indian leaders. V. C. Chidambaran Pillai, a revolutionary of Madras, writes:2 “Next morning my Guru (Tilak) took me to his private chambers. He had a talk with me about the European war that was then going on and about a message that he received from some of the Indian patriots, who were then in Germany. The message was to the effect that certain occasions would arise during the course of the war and that Indians should do such and such things on those occasions. We discussed for two or three days about the advisability, possibility and the probable result of our carrying out the terms of the message. Here my Guru predicted that the occasions referred to in the message might not arise as there were several complications in Europe in connection with the war.” Among the revolutionary activities of the period, the most ambitious was the establishment of the “Indian National Party” in Berlin. In Bengal the revolutionaries decided to co-operate with the Germans to bring about a rising in Bengal. Narendra Bhattacharji went to Batavia to get into direct touch with the German agent there. The Ghadr party, under the powerful leadership of Hardayal, wanted to bring about a revolution in India from two ends — Bengal in the east and Punjab in the north-west. Pingley, a revolutionary from Maharashtra who had stayed in America for a number of years and who returned to India by the famous ship ‘Kanagata Maru,’ tried to infiltrate the Indian Army. A serious attempt to stir up a revolution in Punjab was made by the Pan-Islamist party, which was directed from Kabul by two Indian revolutionaries, Mahindra Pratap and Barkatulla. Tilak was always of opinion that a premature attempt at revolution would end in a disaster and he did not think that the situation would so develop as to create a suitable climate for revolution. His judgment was that England’s difficulties owing to war had only created opportunities for pressure politics and not for a revolution. If he had been convinced that the Empire was about to collapse, he would have striven to start a nationwide struggle and would have urged the Indian revolutionaries abroad to make their attempts for India’s liberation immediately. Under such circumstances if he had felt that there was a

possibility of the two efforts at home and abroad — being synchronised, he would have given the call for a revolution; for did he not say to the impatient revolutionaries, “If there are 50 per cent chances of success, I would put my trust in God for the rest and start an armed revolution?” In his personal interview with Lord Willingdon at the time of the War Conference, it is reported that the Governor said to him, “Well, Mr. Tilak, from this I could clearly see that you mean to uproot the British Government by resorting to any unconstitutional and revolutionary means.” Tilak replied, “Yes, Sir, if I could I would. But it is impossible, impracticable and even suicidal for us to follow such Irish methods in the present state of the country, and therefore I must try my best in constitutionally but vehemently and desperately fighting with the government to reach the goal.” He was thus convinced that the time was not ripe for a revolution and as a practical statesman he so planned his strategy as to get the maximum advantage out of the situation that had arisen. An interesting incident has been recorded by Gangadharrao Deshpande, the veteran leader of Karnatak. He stated that certain Indian revolutionaries had brought some jewellery from Germany. Tilak did not think that any such aid would be very useful, but as he always wanted to explore new avenues, Gangadharrao was asked to utilise the money received from the exchange of jewellery “for establishing some kind of contacts with the army in Belgaum, with a view to having an opportunity to work in the army to find out what kind of response to a national call was likely to be received from that quarter.” Gangadharrao further stated, “However, we found that the army network was so tight that it was impossible to make any breach in it. No contact worth the name with any army men was possible.” This Gangadharrao reported to Tilak, and according to his (Tilak’s) instructions the jewellery was returned to those who had taken the risk to bring it to India. The suggestion made in some quarters that Tilak was pro-German in his attitude was a gross misrepresentation and the following observation of his fully clarifies his stand: “The bell of time is awakening us with the hope that there would be better days for India. We must try to heed this, or else the challenge of time would be wasted. Between the cruel Germans and the English, the latter are nearer to us by habit and inclination. We must help them if they ask for our aid, and if we help, they would be compelled to grant us more political rights in return.” Tilak on Gandhi

The differences between Tilak and Gandhi came very clearly to the fore during the war. These two were nurtured in different circumstances and their experience of public life had moulded their minds differently. By nature and by inclination they evolved and subscribed to different philosophies. Gandhi’s technique of Satyagraha was a novel one and as yet it was looked upon more as a means than as an integrated philosophy of life. With its religious and ethical basis it was natural that Tilak would appreciate its potentialities but as a practical politician, working with approved and accepted methods of political agitation, he had his own doubts about the efficacy of this novel method in the practical field. A very clear and complete statement of his position in regard to Satyagraha was fortunately made available in March 1918, when Tilak wrote a Preface to a Life of Gandhi, written by the noted social worker Avantikabai Gokhale. She was an associate of Gandhi, during the Champaran campaign and had approached Tilak with a request for a Preface at the time of the Calcutta Congress; but Tilak was extremely busy then and it was after the Congress that he complied in an exhaustive exposition of Gandhi’s life and philosophy. As in his tributes to the departed worthies, with whom he had come into contact in his public career, Tilak tried to find out first the summum bonum of Gandhi’s genius. This, he said, was not the fact that Gandhi had been a barrister or that he was straightforward and simple. The educated classes have had numerous opportunities to demonstrate the powers of their intellect after the advent of British rule. There are few lives, however, that show outstanding qualities of character both inherent and acquired. In this world of action, karmabhumi, it is character that enables a person to master his circumstances and environment. Men who possess it are, however, rare. Gandhi’s life can hold up an ideal before the world because he possesses the qualities of character to a high degree. One might differ from his religious, social or other views but about this central part of his character there can be no two opinions. He goes on next to refer to the decadent state of penury to which India was reduced and stated that it was through no fault of the present generation. It was necessary, however, to analyse the causes of this decadence, for even though a person may not be individually responsible for his circumstances and environment, it is his sacred duty, both as an individual and as a member of society, to work for their betterment. This also is the main principle of all scriptures and all religions. Dharma or Religion means the principle which holds together and protects the

world. When today we speak of holding together and protecting the world, we also include efforts for the gradual betterment of our present condition, through higher and higher stages, till it reaches perfection. These efforts may be made by ourselves or we may cause them to be made by others. That our life on earth is for the achievement of some higher ideal is a principle accepted both by religion and the writers of scriptures. The extent to which one can attain is so great that a person, pursuing this path, can ultimately reach oneness with God, the Protector and Preserver of this world. In short, he becomes a God himself. Even though, however, Religion and the Scriptures are very clear on this point regarding the duty of man, very few pay heed to these ideals. There is no particular time-limit for the efforts to be put in for one’s country. Nor again can they be left undone because they were so left by those who came first. There is no reason why future generations should not start doing tomorrow what the past generations had not done today. Ceaseless effort and sacrifice, without minding the difficulties to which a person or his family might be subjected, trust in God and putting in one’s best without any desire attached to the effort — this in essence is the moral of it all and this precisely is the thing to be learnt from Mahatma Gandhi’s life. Turning next to Gandhi’s political activity, Tilak felt that it was a vindication of the stand that without political power individual talents, wisdom or ability would be meaningless. To improve the condition of a country one must bring about an improvement in the political condition which is at the root of all other qualities. Had Gandhi not subscribed to this view, he would not have carried on his political activity. Turning, therefore, to Gandhi’s work in the political field, Tilak goes on to say that to strive for bettering a system of administration which appears unjust is no sedition, speaking from the point of view of justice. To call it sedition amounts to saying that the rulers do not want their subjects to be inculcated with principles of justice, morality and the ability to fight against injustice and they are not prepared, further, to confer on them the right of equality. We hold that welfare of the people is the real ideal and strength of the State. Once this is accepted, it follows that wherever we oppose injustice and work for its removal we are strengthening the hands of the State. There are, however, certain individuals, castes or classes that cannot appreciate these principles of justice and they begin to tyrannise others. At this time, if the government suddenly intervenes and tries to put a stop to this tyranny of the traditionally privileged classes, they have to incur the wrath of these classes and

thus the traditionally peaceful pattern of society is disturbed. Government, therefore, generally keeps aloof from any such attempts of curbing and restraining these people. In this state of things, unless those who are tyrannised rise up and put in their best for the eradication of injustice, the rulers do not pay any heed to the injustices, and so long as there are no obstacles in their way of carrying on the government there is no reason why they should. It is the duty of every patriot to bring the state of the people’s grievances to this stage and thus compel the rulers to bring about speedy reform. This duty Gandhi has discharged in the best possible way. In any code of law, there are certain punishments to be imposed on those who break these laws. The object is that the people should be law-abiding. This punishment is imposed with a view to making the people act according to the principles of morality, for the path of morality and peace. If there is a tendency to deviate from this natural path, punishment inflicted by law helps to strengthen the naturally law-abiding tendencies. At times, however, the laws are based not on principles of religion or morality and have no further sanction except the force behind those who make them. The question then that the enlightened and the wise have to decide is whether they should test their faith in the principles of religion, morality and justice even by submitting to the punishment imposed by law or whether they should, out of fear of such punishment imposed by men, break the God-given laws of truth, morality and justice. Those who believe in truth and justice say that in such moments it is not proper to abide by the artificial and unnatural limits of the law. But to say this requires that a person’s faith in the principles of justice and morality should be so firm and unshaking that he must be prepared to do his duty, unmindful of the difficulties, the pain and pleasure, the abilities or disabilities of himself or his wife or children. What is described as mental fortitude, true love of truth or character is nothing but this. This quality is not acquired by the acquisition of knowledge nor is it an intellectual quality. It is a truly spiritual quality possessed by a happy few. Gandhi possesses this to an eminent degree. There are laws made in a nation to ensure peace. To break them or rebel against them albeit with the noblest of motives is naturally considered unconstitutional. At this time devotees of the nation who wish to bring about a proposed reform by constitutional methods, find their path beset with numerous difficulties. Their minds are inflamed; the wish to bring about reform is intense; they are aware that to go beyond the limits of the law is improper; but there is no way out. The

way found out by Mahatma Gandhi is thus a way out of this difficulty — it is a way of passive resistance, of obstruction or, to put it in his own words, a way of Satyagraha. He has used it and has undergone sufferings for it. It has thus acquired sacerdotal sanctity. On one occasion, speaking to Kaka Kalelkar3 about the high ideal that Gandhi had placed before him, Tilak described it thus: “A ship voyaging over the high seas has to steer its course with an eye on the Polar Star; but then, it does not, for that, go to the Polar Star. It has to reach a material haven like Dabhol, Vengurla or Ratnagiri.4 That is why a religious ideal may be as high as you please, the worldly ideal should be within the reach of all. You cannot get on in this world merely with a religious ideal. By all means look to the Pole Star, but also remember you cannot reach it.” That therefore is the difference between a realist and a prophet, between a Tilak and an Agarkar or between a Lokmanya and a Mahatma. Awakening of the Untouchables The pace of social reform was now on the advance. First the Marathas and other “intermediate” classes and now the most backward untouchables began to sit up and the advanced classes had to take notice. Vithal Ramji Shinde organised at Bombay a conference for the removal of untouchability under the Presidentship of Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwar of Baroda. On the persistent requests of Shinde, Tilak agreed to attend the conference but he did not forget to remind Shinde that he was doing this in his individual capacity as Tilak and not as the editor of the Kesari. In the conference Tilak moved a resolution that the Congress should enlist the support of the untouchables by taking the representatives of the community. In a forceful speech Tilak made a strong plea for the removal of untouchability.5 He admitted that it was the tyranny of the Brahmins in the ancient times that started the evil system, but it was high time now for its eradication. He said that in the past there were no dissensions between the Brahmins and other castes, even the Peshwas accepted water out of leather water-carriers carried by untouchables. Finally amid deafening cheers he declared, “If a God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognise him as God at all.”