Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

Afterwards Shinde brought out a memorandum for the removal of untouchability and collected signatures of members of all castes and communities. He narrates:6 “I went to get his (Tilak’s) signature. He was in the Sardar Griha. Around him sat his satellites. Ketkar, and even Dadasaheb Khaparde, put aside the hookah and signed. The Lokmanya, however, began to hesitate. Once he appeared to be ready but Dadasaheb Karandikar came in the way. Then the Lokmanya demurred and at last declined to sign!” This is a clear proof that though in theory he had come to see the necessity of going beyond the narrow, orthodox stand in social matters, his past and his environment still clung to him and he had to think twice before he took any stand which could be construed as reformist and progressive. Deputations to England In May 1918 a session of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Bombay. Tilak was present at the session. Here the personnel of the delegation to be sent to England was discussed and it was found that the moderates were still opposed to the inclusion of Tilak’s name in the deputation. It was ultimately decided that both the Home Rule Leagues should send their independent delegations. The Muslim League also sent its delegation and so ultimately there were four different delegations working at the same time in England. Tilak tried to insist on having a united deputation of the Congress but his efforts failed. Before this session, the Maharashtra Home Rule League deputation headed by Tilak had proceeded to Colombo en route to England but it was turned back by a telegram from the Viceroy. On the way to Colombo Tilak halted at Tanjore, Trichinopalli, Madura and Madras and the reception given to him was tremendous. At Colombo too an enthusiastic welcome was given to Tilak; but there was a delay of 20 days in the arrival of the Japanese steamer and the deputation had nothing to do but to wait and watch. It was decided to start by another steamer; but on the day they were to embark, dramatically enough, two telegrams were handed over refusing permission to the delegation to proceed to England, under instruction from the War Office. Meetings of protests were held everywhere. In England too the Labour Party joined in the protests and George Lansbury, M.P. asked questions in Parliament. Attempts were made to send Tilak alone but no passage was available nor was the government ready to relent.

At the A.I.C.C. session at Bombay on the 3rd May, resolutions to protest against the government repression were passed. A fraternal delegate from the Labour Party, Major Graham Pole, attended the session and Mrs. Besant announced that Joseph Baptista would attend the conference of the Labour Party as a fraternal delegate of the Home Rule League. The need of foreign propaganda was increasingly felt and Tilak made a dramatic and generous gesture which showed that, though preoccupied by politics he was keenly alive to the need of a wider cultural activity. This was an offer by him of Rs. 50,000 to the poet Rabindranath Tagore proposing a lecture tour of England and America. The Poet writes:7 “Lokmanya Tilak surprised me with a request through a messenger that I should proceed to Europe with the help of Rs. 50,000 which he was ready to offer me. My surprise was still greater when I was assured that Tilak did not want my help for any propaganda which was his own, that he would be sorry if I followed the path which he himself was pursuing at that moment for the benefit of his country. He wanted me to be true to myself and, through my effort to serve humanity, in my own way to serve India. I felt that this proposal from Tilak carried with it the highest honour that I had ever received from my countrymen. I do not know if I was worthy of it, but it revealed to me the greatness of Tilak’s personality which deeply impressed my mind. He had more faith in truth than in method. His ideal of the fulfilment of India’s destiny was vast, and therefore it had ample room even for a dreamer of dreams, even for a ‘music-maker.’ He knew that freedom had its diverse aspects, and therefore it could be truly reached, if individuals had their full scope to use their special gifts for opening out paths that were diverse in their directions.” The Montagu-Chelmsford report, long awaited, was published in July 1918. On the 7th July 1918 three copies suddenly arrived at the Kesari’s office. It was a 170- page volume in foolscap. On the Sunday morning Tilak took up the book and set it down only in the evening after he had read the last page. He did not get up even once either to bathe or to take his meals! In the night and the next morning, he immediately jotted down his notes and dictated on Monday afternoon the leading article of the next day’s Kesari, “It has dawned, but where is the sun?” “The Montagu-Chelmsford Report,” says Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya,8 “was a masterpiece of literature and like other political documents produced by British statesmen, it contained a dispassionate statement of India’s case for self- government. Only, the obstacles to reform are described with equal lucidity, and

in the end the latter triumph. In the case of the report in question, there was an additional circumstance. The Congress scheme prepared by the two great bodies representing India had provided for fixed Executives responsible to the Legislature. Here was a more fascinating scheme of responsible government with replaceable Cabinets, possessing corporate responsibility and subject to the vote of the Legislatures, the very reproduction of the British type of self-government. What else should the people of India want?” It was condemned by a majority of Indians. “Mr. Tilak characterised it as a ‘sunless dawn.’ Mrs. Besant held that the political reforms indicated in the report were unworthy of England to give and of India to take. The Hon’ble Mr. Patel showed how in certain details the report had made retrograde proposals. Mr. N. C. Kelkar pronounced the proposals as cruelly disappointing and ‘almost a wicked attempt to let Indian leaders be stewed in their own juice.’ The Hon’ble Mr. B. Chakrabarty said that throughout the report, the fetish of peace, order and good government was worshipped. Prof. Jitendralal Banerjea declared that the reforms were grudging, half-hearted, meagre, inadequate and hence disappointing and abortive; while the veteran Dr. Subrahmanyam Ayer advised his countrymen not to touch the narcotic that was offered to them.”9 In the first of his articles, Tilak congratulated the framers of the report for accepting India’s right to govern herself but it was unfortunate, he said, that the basic ideas underlying the Congress-League demand, namely authority over the budget, the right to form our administrative policy and the right to make the bureaucracy act according to our wishes were not to be found in the report. He also objected to the words “step by step” and wanted a definite time-limit to be imposed. In the second article, “Janab, Delhi to bahot door hai” (Sir, Delhi is still far off), he pointed out that the government in England constituted the head of our administration. It was at this centre of our power that we demand power and authority over the bureaucracy. The only principle accepted by the report, said Tilak, was that a part of the salary of the Secretary of State and his office should be paid by the Home Government but they have not agreed to make the Secretary of State an agent of the Government of India by giving to the latter all his rights. When this was not there the reforms were as meaningless as the Morley-Minto reforms. The reforms seemed to precipitate the crisis which was developing in the

Congress. Surendranath Banerjee sensed that once again Tilak and Das would adopt obstructionist tactics. The alarm spread among the moderates, and once again there was a chain of secret circulars urging Congress members to give their whole-hearted support to the scheme of reforms. Surendranath and Shastri and others seemed bent on seceding. A few months before the publication of the report, a National Liberal Federation was started at Calcutta, with Surendranath Banerjee as the President. Pt. Malaviya and Motilal Nehru, who had now realised the potentialities of the party headed by Tilak, decided to remain with the Congress. The unity forged at Lucknow appeared to be short-lived. Warning the moderates in an article in the Kesari,10 Tilak said that seceding from the Congress because the majority was not with them would do more harm than good to them. “It may be on account of the Home Rule or because of some other reason, but the majority is with the Nationalist party. Why grumble now? The conditions imposed on the extremists then (in 1908) have not to be observed by the moderates now!” Bombay Special Convention A special convention of the Congress was held at Bombay in August and September 1918 and Tilak, who was offered the presidentship, declined in order that doors might be kept open for the seceders. His greatness was an accepted fact and it needed no halo of the honour of presidentship. In the Subjects Committee, when there was a heated discussion on Swaraj, a moderate leader made a disparaging remark about Tilak. At this, Br. Hasan Imam, the president- elect, flared up and said, “Let me say, and it is with great pride, that Lokmanya Tilak is my father in point of politics.” The resolution on the reform scheme was moved by Pt. Malaviya, who made a reasoned and statesmanlike speech. Pt. Motilal Nehru remarked that the Congress was able to perform the impossible feat of uniting its appreciation, recognition and, in plain English, its condemnation of the report. Tilak said in his speech supporting the resolution: “What we have tried to do in the Subjects Committee is to distil our different opinions, and it was very difficult to distil ‘the gourds and the cucumbers’ together. It was no easy task; even our enemies had considered it to be difficult. They believed that we were engaged in an impossible business and that by the beginning of September the Congress would be nowhere. Unfortunately for them, their predictions have not proved true. So long as the spirit of forbearance and the spirit of give-and-take pervades in the councils of the Congress, such a

fatal contingency is never likely to arise.” “We were told that the Congress was going to reject the whole scheme. I could never understand and have never understood what it meant. We are in the midst of our negotiations. If you reject the scheme you have done with it. What are you then going to tell the British people? ‘That we reject the scheme?’ I think that we have learnt enough of politics to know that it is absurd to take such a position. Fortunately for all, we have been able to place before you a reasoned document, a resolution, which combines the wisdom of one party, I may say, the temperament of another party, and if you like to call it — I do not like to call it myself — the rashness of a third party.” “The Montagu Report is a beautiful, very skilful and statesmanlike document. We asked for eight annas of self-government; that report gives us one anna of responsible government and says that it is better than the eight annas of self- government. The whole literary skill of the report lies in making us believe that one morsel of responsible government is more than sufficient to satisfy our hunger for self-government. We now plainly say to the government, We thank you for the one anna of responsible government, but in the scheme we want to embody, not all that is embodied in the Congress-League scheme, the rails might be different but the carriages that carry passengers might be transferred from one rail to another.’ This is what we have tried to do and we have tried to satisfy all parties concerned and a very difficult task has been accomplished. The future way is clear and I hope that what we have done will be of material help in carrying on this fight to the end.” The role of the peace-maker played by Tilak was successful. Most of the seceders returned to the Congress fold and a joint resolution was passed declaring that the people of India were fit for responsible government and repudiating the assumption to the contrary contained in the report. Tilak Proceeds to England Tilak immediately busied himself in preparing to go to England, if not for political work then for the libel suit that he wished to institute against Sir Valentine Chirol for certain remarks of the latter in his book, Indian Unrest, written in 1910. When asked what dress he would wear in London, Tilak answered that he did not want to attract undue attention towards himself and

would therefore dress in European clothes but to keep up his national pride he would keep on wearing the Maharashtrian head-dress. Tilak embarked on the 23rd September 1918 from Bombay. He was already weak and ailing. After his fatiguing tour by motor-car for over a thousand miles he had declared, “People can’t possibly realise that I feel so weak. When the moment comes I lecture. But the body is all the while breaking under the strain. The lecture over, I retire from the crowds and sleep over my fatigue. Only my will supports me. The body is done up.” The voyage was rather prolonged as there was danger from enemy submarines. On board the steamer he hardly left his cabin, but sat immersed in deep thought. He hardly took any food from the ship’s mess but had his food prepared under his own arrangements. A Bengali student going abroad for his education provided a humorous respite. On the second day he started crying and on the third attempted suicide. Apparendy he was home-sick. At Aden Tilak received a telegram announcing his election to the presidential chair of the Indian National Congress at its thirty-third session to be held in December 1919. This was exacdy thirty years after he had attended the first Congress session in 1889. By a curious irony of fate he had now to decline even this belated recognition of his services to the country. No passenger was allowed to leave the ship either at Gibraltar, or at Port Said. On the way, Tilak tried on trousers and shoes for the first time. At Port Said there was a rehearsal of the life-belt drill and Tilak surprised everyone by his agility in climbing the ship’s ladder with the life-belt on. The steamer was now protected by a man-of-war, two submarines and a few aeroplanes. 1 Mahatma by D. G. Tendulkar, Vol. I, p. 280 2 3 4 Names of ports on the west coast of India 5 6 Names of ports on the west coast of India 7

8 The History of the Congress, p. 255. 9 D. V. Athalye : Life of Lokmatya Tilak 10 Kesari, 30th August 1918

IN ENGLAND 16 On the 10th October the steamer reached Tilbury Docks and from there Tilak and his party travelled by train to London and stayed at 10, Howley Place, Maida Vale, W.2, London. He had employed a whole family, the McNalties. During the last three months Tilak moved to Talbot Street and there a Telangana Brahmin cooked for him. Tilak and his party were strict vegetarians and lived on rice, bread, potatoes and other vegetables. Tilak’s daily routine remained unchanged in London. He was usually up at 6 or 7 a.m. He had a shave with his own hand to which he was not accustomed in India and for this he used a safety razor. He hardly ever went out except on business. His sight and hearing were weak and he trembled as he walked. There was difficulty in crossing the streets because of the traffic, but Karandikar who accompanied him writes that while crossing a street instead of waiting and allowing a bus or a tram-car to pass by, he would put up his hand, make it halt and cross the street first.

Chirol Case Sir Valentine Chirol was deputed in 1910 by the Times newspaper (London) to India in order to study the international situation there and the growth of what was called Indian unrest. He had visited most of the important centres, carried on his investigations and had published his results in the book, Indian Unrest. His main conclusions were that the Indian unrest was confined to urban areas of the Deccan, the Central Provinces, Bengal and the Punjab. Repression was nothing more severe than “the application of surgery to diseased growths.” The conclusions were based on the assumption that “it is impossible that we should ever concede to India the rights of self-government.” He suggested, therefore, a few minor reforms for the permanence of British rule and the well-being of India. Chirol had relied mostly on government reports and Blue Books and most of his conclusions show him to be a typical believer in the theory of the White Man’s Burden.’ The case opened before Mr. Justice Darling and a special jury on the 29th January 1919. Sir John Simon, K.C., and Mr. E. F. Spence, appeared for the plaintiff and Sir Edward Carson, assisted by Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Mr. Eustace Hills appeared for the defendants. Sir John Simon pointed out in his opening speech that Tilak was objecting to different passages in Chirol’s books, which constituted in all six libels. Of these the first one was that Tilak had started a Cow Protection Society to give provocation to the Mohammedans. In 1893 some riots in Bombay of a more severe character than usual gave Tilak an opportunity of broadening the new movement by enlisting in its support the old anti-Mohammedan feeling. The second was described as the gymnastic society libel in which Tilak was charged with organising gymnastic institutions in which physical training and the use of more or less primitive weapons were taught in order to develop the martial instincts of the rising generation. The third libel was described by Sir John Simon as the Black Man Libel at 53 of Chirol’s book, in.which it was alleged that “Tilak must have had a considerable command of funds for his propaganda and though he doubtless had not a few

willing and generous supporters, many subscribed from fear of the lash, which he knew how to apply through the press to the lepid and the recalcitrant, just as his gymnastic societies sometimes resolved themselves into juvenile bands of dacoits to swell the coffers of Swaraj.” The fourth libel was regarding the High Court judgment in the Tai Maharaj case in 1910 which was stated by Chirol as being “extremely damaging to Tilak’s private reputation as a man of honour or even of common honesty.” The fifth and the sixth libels were the Rand and Ayerst Murder libels which were termed by Simon as the most serious. Chirol had stated: “What Tilak could do by secret agitation and by a rabid campaign in the press to raise popular resentment to white-heat he did.... The inevitable consequences ensued. On June 27th 1897,... Mr. Rand... and Lieut. Ayerst... were shot down by a young Chitpavan Brahmin. No direct connection has been established between the crime and Tilak.” (Page 48, Indian Unrest) “In reply to the magistrate who asked him why he committed the murder, Kanhere said ‘I read of many instances of oppression in the Kesari, the Rashtramat, and the Kal and other newspapers. I think that by killing Sahibs we people can get justice. I never got injustice myself, nor did any one I know of. I now regret killing Mr. Jackson. I killed a good man carelessly.’ “Can anything be more eloquent and convincing than the terrible pathos of this confession? The three papers named by Kanhere were Tilak’s organs. It was no personal experience or knowledge of his that had driven Kanhere to his frenzied deed, but the slow, persistent poison dropped into his ear by the Tilak press. Though it was Kanhere’s hand that struck down ‘a good man carelessly’, was not Tilak rather than Kanhere the real author of the murder? It was merely the story of the Poona murders of 1897 over again.” (Page 62, Indian Unrest.) In his opening speech Sir John Simon described Tilak as a man “who is now 62 years of age and counts as a very old man from the Indian point of view” and though commonly called an agitator, “he is a person who has done a great deal of devoted and public-spirited work.” The judge remarked after this: “You have explained who Mr. Tilak is; it is entirely news to me and it may be to the jury. You have not told us who Sir Valentine Chirol is. I do not know whether they know. I know his name and that is all I do know.” About the Mahratta, Sir John Simon said that “anyone who reads the Mahratta will see it is written by

somebody who uses English with great accuracy.” Tilak was first examined by Mr. Spence. In the course of the examination he stated that the circulation of his paper was about 15,000 to 20,000. The judge showed a pleasant sense of humour and many of his sallies make pleasant reading. Tilak was asked about the ecclesiastic court, which tried him back in 1896 for breaking caste by taking tea with the missionaries. Mr Justice Darling: “Then if I understand you, although the court did not put you out of caste they made you pay a fine?” Tilak: “Yes.” Mr. Justice Darling: How much? Tilak: “About Is. and 6d.” Mr. Justice Darling: “That was the price of the tea.” Concerning his imprisonment in Mandalay jail Tilak was asked: “Did you know what was going on in the great world during that time? Where you in communication with the world during that time?” Tilak: “No, all communication was stopped.” In his cross-examination Sir Edward Carson asked: Sir Edward Carson: “Was not it more important for you to set up your character in India than to come all the way to set it up here?” Tilak: “I thought this place was better for the proceedings.” Sir Edward Carson: ‘Is that because we would not understand the natives?” Tilak: “No; another reason.” Sir Edward Carson: “Or know much about you?” Tilak: “No; that is not the reason.” Sir Edward Carson: “What is the reason?” Tilak: “The real reason is that this book is read all over the Empire, and a decision of an English Court would be more beneficial to me, and would stop the ckculation of this libel all over the Empire.”

Sir Edward Carson: “Is it then your case that you have a European refutation or, you have an Empire reputation? Is that what you mean?” Tilak: “No.” Sir Edward Carson: “And you want to clear it before the Empire?” Tilak: “The book is ckculated all over the English-reading people and if I take it in India and would have a judge there, and an Indian judge decides in my favour, that would not be regarded as a very good justification for me.” Carson made the most of Justice Davar’s judgment in the Sedition Case against Tilak. He asked: Sir Edward Carson: “Tell me, and point out to me, any single statement in Sir Valentine Chirol’s book, that is more severe upon you than is that statement of Mr. Justice Davar, one of your own fellow subjects in India?” Tilak: What is your question? Sir Edward Carson: “The question is, can you point to me anything in Sir Valentine Chkol’s book which is more severe upon you as a criticism than what the learned judge says in that passage that I have just read?” Tilak: “Yes, I can.” Sir Edward Carson: “What is it?” Tilak: “It is the actual connection with the fact. I do not complain of opinion; any man may have any opinion of my conduct. I complain of being connected with these murders by a particular series of facts as stated in Chkol’s book.” A passage was read from the Kesari by Sir Edward Carson, praising the Bengalis and he asked, “That is, you were praising them for breaking the law?” Tilak: “For withstanding the persecution, not breaking the law. We break a law and brave the consequences if we think the law is not good.” Sir Edward Carson: “I suppose every man judges for himself?” Tilak: “A man must judge reasonably.” Sir Edward Carson: “If he thinks the law is not good, he must break it?”

Tilak: “If t he la w i s broken you have to with stand the punishment. That is what we call passive resistance.” Sir Edward Carson: “This establishes one fact, namely, that when the time comes by the grace of God even the weak people are inclined to set themselves against the headstrong or tyrannical rulers. Was that the British?” Tilak: “The officials.” Sir Edward Carson: “Was it the British Government?” Tilak: “No, I make a distinction between a government and the officers.” Sir Edward Carson: “But a government must consist of officials; it is not an abstract entity?” Tilak: “A house consists of rooms, but a room does not mean a house.” Again Tilak was asked: Sir Edward Carson: “In writing that article, “Well done! Bengali brothers, well done,” were you not attempting, to the best of your ability?” Tilak: “Not in my opinion.” Sir Edward Carson: “I have not asksd you the question yet. Were you not attempting to set these people against the official classes?” Tilak: “Certainly not.” Sir Edward Carson: “The official classes in India?” Tilak: “Certainly not.” Sir Edward Carson: “The jury can be judge of that?” Tilak: “I say certainly not.” Sir Edward Carson: “Was it calculated to do so, in your opinion?” Tilak: “It is not calculated to do that, in my opinion,.” Sir Edward Carson: “You would go further and say that it was calculated to improve the relations between the people and the official classes?” Tilak: “No. It is commenting upon the cases from a moral and legal point of view rather, and I was perfectly justified in doing so.” A fine passage at arms between counsel and witness ended in a victory for the

latter. Sir Edward Carson: “Was the partition of Bengal the cause of all this?” Tilak: “Yes, I think so.” Sir Edward Carson: “Setting up the partition of Bengal was the cause of the bombing?” Tilak: “Exactly as in the case of Ireland and Ulster.” Sir Edward Carson: “Never mind Ulster. Ulster will take care of itself. You will not gain anything by trying to introduce personal matters into the case?” Tilak: “I am not introducing personal matters into the case, You will find Ireland quoted in the articles.” Sir Edward harped on the diversity of castes and races in India and asked: Sir Edward Carson: “In British India how many different races are there and how many different religions?” Tilak: “There are a number of them.” Sir Edward Carson: “How many of them?” Tilak: “Different races in what sense? I do not understand. Do you mean castes or races? If you mean castes there are more than 200 castes.” Sir Edward Carson: “You say that if I mean castes, there are more than 200?” Tilak: “Yes, there are sub-divisions.” Sir Edward Carson: “How many different religions are there?” Tilak: “About five.” Sir Edward Carson: “How many absolutely different races are there coming from a different stock?” Tilak: “I think about 200 castes — not races.” Sir Edward Carson: “If you have this Swarajya, which of them is to govern the others? Which of them is to be the governing caste or race or religion?”

Tilak: “You do not want one caste, you want democracy of all castes.” “Sir Edward Carson: They would all agree, would they, and there would be no bombs?” Tilak: “No — bombs can never be stopped in this world so long as there is autocratic rule.” About his criticism of the Governors, Tilak was asked: Sir Edward Carson: “Have you abused every Governor that has been there?” Tilak: “I do not know that.” Sir Edward Carson: “Lord Harris?” Tilak: “ If there are any oppressive or unpopularacts I have criticised them no matter whose administration they may be.” Sir Edward Carson: “Were not they all quoted as tyrannical acts?” Tilak: “Tyrannical in one case, going against the wishes of the people. People wish one thing, and government wish another I am an advocate of the people.” Sir Edward Carson: “The policeman who stops a gang of thieves goes against the wishes of the people?” Tilak: “That is not against the wishes of the people.” Sir Edward Carson, in opening the case for the defendant, described Sir Valentine Chirol as an acknowledged authority upon Indian affairs and also referred to the huge expense to which he was put. He said, “I need not tell you, gentlemen, what it is to have to defend a case of this kind. It does not cost nothing. It has been going on since 1915. We have had commissions out in India and volumes of exhibits taken out in India. The expense is gigantic — an enormous expense for private individuals, and he could have avoided it all by an apology and by payment of a small sum. He would do nothing of the kind, and I hope you will say he was right when you have heard this trial out, as you will, to the very end.” Referring to Tilak, he said, “Gentlemen, who is Mr. Tilak who comes here, who has come all the way from India for the purpose of this case to ask a British jury to measure in money the damage done to his character. He is a very able man. Sir Valentine Chirol does full justice to his ability in many passages in this book. He

is an able man, a lawyer, a professor, a newspaper proprietor and politician; nobody doubts his ability, nobody has ever questioned the position he holds in India amongst a large number of his race, the Hindu race and amongst his own caste, the Brahmins, a sacerdotal caste in India of great influence which, as one of the judges said in one of the judgments, he could very well have turned to the benefit of our Empire and of English rule in India. But instead of that, from 1893 down to 1918 when this country was in the most desperate throes of the great European war, he has taken advantage of every difficulty that has ever arisen in relation to British Government in India, as I will show you, for putting forward his own theories of government, his own wishes, if you like his conscientious wishes— we have nothing to do with that here — and he has spread far and wide conspiracy to try and destroy British influence in the government of that great part of our Empire.” He asked again and again “who is Mr. Tilak who comes here and adds a fresh insult everytime.” This is Sir E. Carson at his ironical best: “But in addition to that, Gentlemen, who is this gentleman who comes forward claiming damages for libel? Tilak! Why, Tilak has been the greatest libeller of British officers and British Government that has ever written in a newspaper. He coming to claim damages for libel! He, the man who has written day after day, and week after week, the foulest libel on our soldiers and our military officers, on our civil officers, on our police, on our governors, on the native princes, on our own King and our own Queen, in language this is almost vile — he comes here, and he says: ‘Give me damages for my character — after this long course of libel on character which one fails to find words to criticise before a jury.” He went on referring at considerable lengdi to the various sedition cases against Tilak bodi in his opening address and said that the libel had to be taken as a whole and not under six different charges. Sir John Simon, in summing up the case, referred to certain strange omissions in Sir Edward Carson’s summing up: “This distinguished official, Mr. Rand, was murdered, foully murdered, by a stroke delivered on Jubilee night, 1897, diat is to say, on the 22nd June of that year. Within a month Mr. Tilak, who, according to Sir Valentine Chirol, is the real murderer, that is the language in his book: “Was not Tilak rather than Kanhere the real author of the murder? It was merely the story of the Poona murders of 1897 over again the Poona murder is the murder of Rand and Ayerst, I say within a month Mr. Tilak was in the clutches of the criminal law at Poona, prosecuted by the Advocate-General of the

Province, tried by a judge sitting in that place; these very articles which Sir Edward Carson has been going through with you hour after hour had then been published only, some of them, a very short time, they were published in the very place where this dreadful tragedy had been committed. The authorities had the best of all means of knowing how far those articles might fairly be regarded as the cause of, or contribution to, this ghastly murder and they put Mr. Tilak on his trial almost before the grave of Mr. Rand was filled, not on any charge of incitement to murder, not on any charge connected with murder, but on the charge that he was a seditious person who had written articles that were calculated to cause disaffection to the government, disaffection being defined by the terms of the Statute. That is a very striking fact. I should have thought that anybody representing Sir Valentine Chirol would have felt that he had got to deal with that somehow. Here we are in the year 1919; surely the very first thing that faces you when you ask the question ‘Is Mr. Tilak really the person who is the real murderer, the person who really incited the murder of this man Rand, by his writing,’ the first thing that would be expected would be, ‘surely at least he was prosecuted for inciting to murder.’ Not a bit. Not only so, but as Sir Valentine Chirol frankly admitted to me in the witness box, the Advocate-General for the prosecution, the Judge trying the case, both of them pointedly and expressly disclaimed the suggestion that Mr. Tilak had that responsibility resting upon his conduct.” He refers to the bantering questions asked by Sir Edward about Tilak’s coming all the way to England to get justice: “Just bear in mind that it is made a matter of complaint by the defendants that Mr. Tilak should come here, to the greatest city in our Empire, the place, by the way, where he finds Messrs. Macmillan and Sir Valentine Chirol, he has the impudence to bring his action here in a British Court of Justice. I ask you not to take that into consideration; I ask you to say that any citizen of the Kingdom is welcome to come here whatever his record, whatever his race, whatever his colour, whatever his religion, and you will show him, even though he and some of his fellows may not have realised it before, there is one thing British institutions will secure for every subject of the King, and that is justice though the heavens fall.” The summing up of the judge showed where his inclinations lay. About the Rand murder His Lordship said that Mr. Tilak reminded him of the story in Aesop of the enemy trumpeter who begged the soldier to spare him on the ground that he was a non-combatant. The soldier refused on the ground that he

was a non-combatant. About the reference to the fact that the plaintiff was an alien and could not therefore be expected to get justice, the judge said: “Sir John Simon has addressed you very carefully and very minutely as to those, and it cannot be pretended that they are of the same gravity as the others, and he has concluded his address to you as he began his opening of the case, by saying that you must be fair and valiant. He said: ‘Remember that the plaintiff is not of your blood, he is not of your caste, he is not of your religion, and remembering all that, be fair and valiant.’ Gentlemen, I never thought with the experience I have had in the administration of English justice by judges and juries, that the danger was that because a man was alien to them in some respect, they would do him less justice. I have sometimes thought that they were inclined to give him a little more and to be so scrupulous lest they should be prejudiced against the man for this, that and the other reason, that they would, if anything, err the other way and say: ‘At all events, no one shall complain that I was prejudiced against the man.’ And, in fact, the instinct of an Englishman is to be, to their faults a little more blind, if the people who are concerned are not of their faith, not of their religion and not of their blood, than where the person concerned is an Englishman like themselves.” He concluded by referring to the ban on Tilak after his release from Mandalay: “He was prohibited from making speeches. Why? Because he set to work so — little good had that judge done him and so little good had the transportation done him — in spite of the complimentary letter about the British Raj, that he had to be prohibited and he was prohibited from making any speech because he was going about dissuading the people of India from entering the British army, when we were, as you know, ever since 1914 down to November last, fighting for our lives against the greatest military power that ever existed — the same point with regard to which he had said: ‘Buy German goods; buy any goods, but do not buy English goods.’ The articles of commerce of that same power he would rather have had in India than the goods made in this country, and that at a time when we were fighting that power and fighting for our lives and wanted the help of every man in the army and every woman to make cartridges with which to supply them. What was his love for the English Raj? He had to be prohibited from making speeches at all because he was making, in the circumstances, speeches that were designed to weaken the power of this country by getting the people not to join the army to fight that enemy.” “Gentlemen, that is the man who comes to you for damages, a man of whom

one of his own countrymen, occupying the position of a judge, said what I have just read to you; of whom we know that that which he said was published all over India. His character must be thoroughly well known by men of his own race. That is the man who comes to you today. His latest act was such that he had to be prohibited from opening his mouth in India. That is the man who comes before you today and says: ‘The defendant has written a libel about me. It has damaged my character, and because it has damaged my character I want the jury to give me a verdict with damages.’ ” The jury retired at 5-50 and returned at 6-17. They were all agreed for the defendant and the judgment was given in the defendant’s favour with costs. Thus ended what was a nerve-wrecking experience for Tilak. Financially he was ruined. He wrote to Dhondopant Vidwans, his nephew: 10 Howley Place, Maida Vale, W.2, London. 26th February, 1919. “ My dear Baba, We have lost our case against Chirol. There was as you know no evidence to prove the charges. But the judge made a monstrous charge to the jury, ignoring the difference between political and private character as suggested in Carson’s argument, and the jury returned one general verdict for the defendants without caring to go into the truth of each libel. We shall have now to pay Chirol’s cost, unless we appeal and succeed therein, which is very doubtful. You know that £7,500 were deposited by us in Court. This sum will be lost and I am afraid we shall have to pay something more, how much I cannot say, but certainly not less than £1,500 more. In addition to this I had to pay here £7,100 to our Solicitors for the expense of conducting the case here. Of this sum I had my own cheque for £1,500, and the rest £5,600 I have taken from ***. Therefore the whole liability now is over £14,000. As for the appeal we shall do what Sir John Simon would advise. It is a very heavy loss to us. But we cannot help. We tried a game and failed and we shall have to pay! How I propose to get the money, I shall write in my next letter. Where are all your astrologers who said I

would win? Don’t be disheartened at the news of our failure in the Chirol case and the consequent money responsibility. We shall meet the situation as we have been doing hitherto, bravely and calmly. The jury and the judge looked upon it as a government case and Mr. Montgomery was watching the case in court openly on behalf of government; in other words he was assisting Chirol. I am sorry that even in England you could not get a jury to dispassionately judge of the evidence in the case. All who were in court felt that, but for the biased and impassioned charge of the judge, we should have won. Sir John did his work very well. He went so far as to urge that Chirol has produced no evidence and so there was no case to go to the jury at all. But all his efforts were of no avail. All went on the theory that if Tilak succeeded, it would be a disaster for government. The London Times actually says so. When such prejudice was created and intentionally created, there was of course no hope of success. We are doing well. I am afraid that my Home Rule work may suffer to a certain extent by this failure; but let us try and see. With compliments and Ashirvads to all. I am, Yours affectionately, Bal Gangadhar Tilak. It is necessary to add that Sir John Simon did not think it worthwhile to appeal. The British papers made capital of the verdict against Tilak and Sir Valentine Chirol had said that he could have avoided the whole litigation by an apology and by a subscription to the Indian War Relief Fund; but in the interest of the Empire he felt that, to make an apology under the ckcumstances of this case or to withdraw or retract what he had deliberately stated and published would have been a disaster of the very gravest kind as regards the Government of India. The odds were from the beginning against Tilak. The Rowlatt Act and the Sedition Committee Reports were published just when the case was going on and both these were extremely damaging to Tilak’s reputation. Explaining his own views about the matter, Tilak said later on that his object in instituting the case was to see that injustice was removed at any cost. The day he came out of the

Mandalay prison he got Chirol’s book and immediately made up his mind to institute the case. He had already won victories in the Times and Globe cases. It was clear that even though he had lost the case, his cause was the cause of justice and it was through considerations of prestige that the verdict had gone against him. It was his intention to retire to the seclusion of the Sinhgad, write out the books that he had planned and thus raise money. It was obvious that the faith of the Indian people in Tilak was unshaken by the verdict. On the other hand, they became more apprehensive of British justice. The immense popularity was clearly shown by the fact that shortly after his return a fund was raised to help him for the losses he had suffered in the Chirol case and it went up to the respectable figure of Rs. 3,75,000. Tilak’s stand was vindicated by popular sanction. In instituting the case he clearly showed that he had a clear conscience particularly in respect of the more heinous charges of inciting or directly helping murder. Chirol, too, it is interesting to add, wrote a book in 1923 in which he omitted most of his graver charges against Tilak, which again is proof that Tilak had a clear conscience. Sadashivshastri Kanhere, who lived at that time in London, remarked after the Chirol case that Tilak must have been greatly disappointed at his failure. Tilak replied, “Disappointment is not a word to be found in my dictionary. Success or failure does not come in the way of my work. On the contrary, failure incites me to more vigorous action. I will soon begin my lecture tour.” Asked about the gag order on him, Tilak said that he was advised that the gag order served on him in India would not be effective in India. He was, however, trying his best for its removal. In a question asked in Parliament it was stated that Tilak had to apply after he reached London. This he did and on llth November the gag order on him was lifted. On 13th November, Tilak wrote a letter to Lloyd George congratulating England and the allies on their victory in the World War. This, he said, he was doing in his individual capacity as also on behalf of the Indian National Congress, the Indian people and the Indian Home Rule League.

After the Case Immediately the day after the decision of the Chirol case, Tilak attended a private discussion about demands to be put before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, attended by all the prominent members of the Home Rule League deputation and other friends and sympathisers of Tilak. The general trend of the arguments was that reforms should be asked for step by step. Tilak pointed out that in the modern times, when one can reach the topmost heights in a very short time, it was ridiculous to speak of reaching the goal of Swaraj ‘step by step.’ The Europeans had done the impossible, such as the conquest of the air, and the English could not make India fit for Swaraj. “This is a slur not on India but on England.” This speech made a favourable impression all round and in all future discussions Tilak’s was the commanding voice.

The British Congress Committee The first task that Tilak had to do immediately on his arrival in England was one of the most difficult and delicate ones. It was the task of cleansing the augean stable in the British Congress Committee and its journal India. This journal had rendered valuable service to the cause of Indian freedom by keeping British public opinion informed and enlightened about Indian affairs. In a united Congress, before 1908, the British Committee carried on their work smoothly without any hitch. Afterwards, however, there were serious differences. Polak, the editor, strongly favoured the moderates and he and his colleagues took a sitting-on-the-fence attitude in regard to India and Indian affairs. Not only did they not publish the most important resolution of the Calcutta Congress on self- determination but the Congress-League Scheme was also relegated to a secondary place. With Tilak’s departure to England the moderates had shelved the compromise forged at the Bombay Special Convention in 1918 and had started the Liberal Federation. When Tilak started his work of educating British public opinion by issuing pamphlets on behalf of the Home Rule League, Polak objected and wrote to Miss Villiers, who was one of the secretaries of the Home Rule League, that Tilak had no representative capacity as he had come on private work. Polak’s objection was that the Congress had not empowered Tilak to establish contacts with the Labour Party or any other party in England. He threatened to report to the Congress what appeared to him to be an encroachment on the part of Tilak and said that such officious interference would come in the way of unity. Tilak did not approve of this attitude of the committee and spent a good deal of time in visiting every member and bringing them round. His plea was that the committee was in duty bound to carry on the work of supporting the Congress resolutions. In the proceedings of the meeting held on the 26th February 1919 he was present by special invitation and the following note in the proceedings gives an idea of his stand: “Mr. Tilak (who, with Mr. Karandikar, attended by special invitation) was invited to make a statement. He asked if the Committee approved and were prepared to press upon the attention of the country, the resolutions adopted by the Congress at Delhi; he complained that the Congress cause was not presented and supported by the committee and in the journal India.. He said that it might

be necessary for the Congress to make other arrangements for its work in England unless the committee were prepared to adopt the Congress programme.” When the Congress deputation reached England in May 1919, Tilak’s hands were strengthened in that Tilak was chosen to lead the deputation. But later, as there was considerable opposition to his leadership, he agreed to stand down and decided to give his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee as a member of the Home Rule League deputation. V. J. Patel was the General Secretary of the Congress and he agreed to work in close cooperation with and under the guidance of Tilak. The first thing that Tilak impressed upon the members of the deputation was that the deputation should make efforts to deal with them in a proper manner so as to enable the Congress deputation to carry on its work in a proper manner. The following resolution was adopted by the deputation: “Resolved that the paper India having been established as the representative organ in England of the Indian National Congress, and having been assisted at various times by the funds of the Congress on that understanding, the attention of the British committee and the proprietors be drawn to the fact that for some time past India has been conducted on lines of policy which are not in accordance with the resolutions of the Congress, and are inimical to the policy contained therein, and the British committee and the proprietors are hereby requested to give an assurance that the policy of India will in future definitely and unambiguously conform to that laid down in the resolutions of the Congress from time to time.” This resolution was duly communicated to all the directors and office-bearers of the India and members of the India committee. The three directors were Dr. Clark, Dr. Rutherford and Mr. Parekh with Mr. Polak as the editor. The deputation induced the British committee to adopt a new constitution by which the British Congress Committee was subordinated to the Indian National Congress. The paper India was made to accept the policy of the Congress. Polak resigned and N. C. Kelkar assisted Mrs. Normanton, who became the editor. Tilak thus succeeded but had to carry on ding-dong struggle under heavy odds and if he had stood on ceremonies when questioned about his bona fides, he would have achieved nothing. While he was absorbed in his work in England, Tilak was keenly aware of the

political situation in India. The passing of the Rowlatt bill in 1919 led to great indignation and resentment all over India, and Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy “that the government’s action left me no other recourse except to resort to Satyagraha.” Tilak had written to Gandhiji that he wished that he were in India to participate in the Satyagraha. Gandhi gave a call for a nation-wide hartal and in accordance with his technique of Satyagraha, 30th March 1919 was observed by the people of Delhi as a day of fast and hartal. There was firing and eight persons were killed. Gandhi’s arrest on the 10th April caused tremendous excitement and people were infuriated. The bureaucracy, bewildered by the expression of public wrath, decided to strike terror. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Lt- Governor of Punjab, issued a threat to public leaders, arrested Drs. Satyapal and Kitchlew and when a peaceful protest meeting was held at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Gen. O’Dwyer ruthlessly massacred over 1,000 people — men, women and children. This imperial atrocity was followed by a further naked display of power in the form of martial law. There was a national protest and Rabindranath Tagore, the greatest poet of India, wrote a dignified letter and renounced his knighthood. One can easily imagine the reactions of Tilak’s mind to the catastrophic happenings. An idea of Tilak’s numerous and incessant activities is given by the voluminous correspondence that he carried on while he was in London. Besides letters to friends in India, Tilak established contacts with outsiders. He also wrote newsletters to the Kesari and the Mahratta giving his views about the European situation, English politics and taking stock of the work he had done in England. Thus on the 23rd January 1919 he writes about Sir S. P. Sinha being made a Lord and says that though India had two seats in the Peace Conference, it was not of much use from the point of view of India’s cause. He was, however, trying his best to place the question of self-determination before the Peace Conference. One such attempt of his was to secure a passport for himself and other members of the deputation to attend the Peace Conference, but the India office refused him passports; he wrote to President Wilson, pressing India’s claim for self-determination and was assured by the president that the question would be considered by the proper authorities. After the general elections he wrote that whereas they had expected that at least a hundred members of the Labour Party would be returned, actually only 63 were elected but he expresses confidence that it was the Labour Party that would

help them. He makes suggestions regarding the name of the president for the next session of the Congress and says that Tagore would not accept, but Vijayraghavachariar or Nehru would be useful. He wanted the Congress to place its views before the Peace Conference and advised Kelkar to sound Mrs Besant on the point. About the proposed deputation to England he wanted Rabindranath Tagore and the Raja of Mahamudabad to be included so that they would be useful for the highest classes. Das and Baptista, he suggested, would be useful for giving evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. He wanted to form a Secretariat by having Kelkar in England. Mrs. Besant, he said, would be useful for propaganda among the labouring classes and women. Khaparde and Malaviya, being members of the Council, would be useful for talks with the officials. A report on the 8th May 1919 describes a huge rally of the Labour Party on 1st May in which a resolution was passed protesting against the Rowlatt Act. Tilak was suffering from a foot-injury, but the organisers of the meeting insisted that he must be present. He spoke dierefore sitting. The lecture was a huge success and an unknown Englishwoman specially complimented Tilak, in a letter, on his well-reasoned speech. A newsletter on 5th June 1919 narrates that a lecture was delivered by Tilak at the Cambridge Majlis in which Tilak asked how many of them were prepared to dedicate themselves to the service of the motherland, after getting higher education and imbibing the spirit of freedom. Excepting a smart-looking Brahmin boy, who said that he would not enter service, though he was preparing for the Civil Service, no one had anything to say. A lecture was also delivered at Oxford, in which Tilak brought home to his youthful audience the need of keeping an ideal which would be acceptable to the people at a particular time but which was a step higher than popular opinion. While busy with this political work he was also giving Sanskrit lessons to a lady, Elizabeth Arnold. When he heard that a Purse Fund was being collected in India to help him after the Chirol case, he repeatedly wrote to D. V. Gokhale to stop it as he considered the Chirol case a personal affair. Thus from the 31st July 1919 to the 28th August he wrote five letters, in each one of which he made a reference to the Purse Fund and desired that it should be stopped.

The most important part of Tilak’s activity in England was his idea of establishing foreign missions and foreign contacts. With this aim in view he had sent a British journalist, Edgar Wallace, to Paris at the time of the Peace Conference and was very enthusiastic when he was told of the activities of Lala Lajpat Rai and Dr. Hardikar in America. This propaganda he wanted to be carried on not merely on the political plane but also desired that it should have a wider cultural basis. His offer of Rs. 50,000 to Rabindranath Tagore to carry on a lecture tour in America is a clear instance of this. “After his return from England,” says Madanmohan Malaviya, “the thing that he pressed upon me most was to organise deputations to England, France, America, Germany, Japan and to raise sufficient funds to maintain them for at least five years.” To Vithalbhai Patel, he said, “We must have information and publicity bureaux not only in London, but also in Paris, New York and Tokyo.” He had also an idea of establishing an Indian News Service Agency between India and the important civilised countries of the world. When Patel asked him one day how far foreign propaganda would help India, he said: “Mr. Patel, I do not believe that our salvation will come from outside. I have no delusions on that score. But I do believe that a favourable opinion of the civilised world towards Indian aspirations is a valuable asset in our struggle for freedom. We cannot afford to neglect world opinion except at our peril. Every important country has its national organisations and its information bureaux in important world centres and if mighty governments do that, how much more necessary it is for a country like ours?” Tilak, in the meanwhile, devoted all his energies to the next task of enlisting support for India’s cause. He established contacts with prominent members of the Labour Party and here the spade-work done by Baptista, when he was in England, was of great value It was Baptìsta’s idea to enlist the support of the Labour Party and also donate to them a sum of money for their propaganda work. Accordingly, early in November 1918, Tilak presented a cheque of £2,000 to the Labour Party, and prominent Labour Party members like Henderson and Webb promised their whole-hearted support for India’s cause. The Labour Party Conference at Nottingham had pledged itself to assist India in every possible way on January 23rd, 1918, and they were considerably helped in getting themselves acquainted with India’s case first by Baptista and later by Tilak himself. In January 1919, Tilak issued an extremely well-written pamphlet on self- determination, of which thousands of copies were distributed and one of them was also sent to the Peace Conference at Paris. Carl Heath, the General Secretary

of the National Peace Council, agreed to co-operate with Tilak. The well-got-out pamphlet on self-determination was highly appreciated by all and contained one of the most cogent and lucid cases for Indian freedom. It was written by Baptista at Tilak’s instance and he incorporated in it all the suggestions of Tilak. The pamphlet displays the superb drafting of Baptista and is an unequivocal statement of Tilak’s views on self-determination. Self-Determination The pamphlet opened with arguments in favour of considering India as a nation. “It is argued that India is not a nation but a congeries of nations, not a country but a continent. These epigrams obscure the truth and delude the ignorant. What do we mean by a nation? Do the English, the French, the Poles severally constitute a nation? Then the Bengalis, the Punjabis, the Rajputs and the Mahrattas do also form a nation. The Bengalis inhabit the same region with a distinct name. Ethnologically they are descended from the same race. They have the same blood, the same language, the same civilisation, literature, customs and traditions. They are the essential elements that constitute nationality in the popular sense. Castes do not divide a nation any more than classes do in England. Creeds do not rend a nation in two. If it did religious toleration would be impossible.” The pamphlet advocated a Monroe Doctrine for India and went on to say that India was a nation even in the broad sense of the world. “The whole of India is one nation. India is said to be an epitome of the world, but there is unity in diversity.” About political trusteeship the pamphlet is of the opinion: “As a tree cannot grow in the shade, so a nation cannot really prosper under an over-shadowing trusteeship or overlordship. Englishmen do not realise the deep wound inflicted on Indian sensitiveness by insisting on such trusteeship. Trustees are appointed for minors. India is not an infant nation, not a primitive people, but the eldest brother in the family of man, noted for her philosophy and for being the home of religions that console half of mankind.” About the Reform Scheme which suggested the grant of responsibility step by step the pamphlet added that the Government of India was an exceedingly centralised autocracy. To think of granting autonomy step by step was an

implied slur on India’s ability to govern herself. And so the conclusion drawn was: “Upon the principles we have discussed we claim that the British Parliament should enact a complete Constitution for India conceding autonomy within the British Commonwealth, with transitory provisions for bringing the whole Constitution into full operation within the tune specified by the Congress and the Muslim League. The autonomy we advocate may be briefly sketched as follows: The Peninsula of India should be divided into a number of provinces on the principles of nationality. The province should administer the internal affairs of the province and be entrusted with all powers requisite for the administration. The form of government should be democratic. The provinces should be federated to form the United States of India, with democratic Central Executive and Legislative bodies having powers to deal with the internal affairs of the whole of India. The United States of India should form a unit of the British Commonwealth with equal status with any other constituent unit thereof. There should be a supreme Commonwealth Executive and Legislature dealing with concerns common to the whole Commonwealth, such as war, peace, army, navy and foreign affairs. In this pyramid every part of the British Empire will be united with full freedom for self-development of the constituent parts. Such a system has received the benediction of Lord Acton, who says: Where different races inhabit the territories of one Empire composed of several smaller States, it is, of all possible combinations, the most favourable to the establishment of a highly developed system of freedom.... These are conditions necessary for the very highest degree of organisation which government is capable of receiving. In such a country as this liberty would achieve its most glorious results, while centralisation and absolutism would be destruction.’ Such a system embodies a higher and nobler ideal, viz. the ideal of a worldwide ‘Empire of a unity and not an Empire of enmity’ (Herbert Spencer). The problem of Ulster has brought the federal principle to the forefront in British politics. The refashioning of the British Commonwealth cannot be achieved by patchwork. It demands drastic changes on federal lines. We believe the autonomy we advocate would place the British Commonwealth on firmer foundation of the affection of peoples, destroying jealousies and promoting the happiness and welfare not only of India, but of all mankind. In this hope we appeal to all for sympathy and adequate measures.” This and other pamphlets and leaflets were brought out because Tilak failed to

get into the British papers a small article that he had written with facts and figures culled from the blue books. He now flooded the polling booths with his leaflets as the general elections were approaching. St. Nihal Singh says:1 “During the last general election, Mr. Tilak issued four leaflets for distribution among electors. Each consisted of a page, printed on one side only. Each was tastefully printed, and put India’s case in a nutshell. I reproduce one of them to indicate the sort of appeal that he made

REMEMBER INDIA One-fifth of the human race are governed autocratically by the handful of Britons who cannot appreciate the mind of India, her Culture and Civilization, her Sense of Self-respect and National Aspirations. SELF - DETERMINATION FOR WHOM ? For Bohemians, Serbians, Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechoslavs Yes! Ay, even for the Germans and other Enemies. BUT WHAT ABOUT INDIA ? India has given over a million combatants, of whom nearly one-sixth are killed, missing or wounded. India has given several hundred thousand non-combatants, borne the cost of maintaining the Armies in efficiency, supplied munitions and foodstuffs, and made a gift of 100 million to the British Exchequer in spite of her great poverty. By her fidelity, service and sacrifice she has established her right to self- determination, but this is denied to her by Lloyd George-cum-Bonar Law Manifesto. WILL BRITONS DENY TO FAITHFUL FRIENDS WHAT THEY ACCORD TO IMPLACABLE ENEMIES? WILL BRITONS CONVERT LOYAL INDIA INTO LITERALLY A HUNDRED IRELANDS IN THE EAST? Will Britons keep India alone in bondage in a free world for the sake of Bureaucrats and Capitalists? CAN A WORLD BE FREED FOR DEMOCRACY WITHOUT FREEING INDIA I.E. ONE- FIFTH OF MANKIND? NO NEVER!

GIVE INDIA HOME RULE, HER SONS DEMAND AND DESERVE IT. QUESTION CANDIDATES AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT HOME RULE FOR INDIA. SEND FOR LITERATURE FROM Home Rule For India League, 1, Robert Street, London, WC. 8. These leaflets were not issued by the thousand but by the hundred thousand. For the first time an Indian had the political wisdom and the enterprise to do so. As a selected representative of British India, Mr. Tilak sent a memorial dated March 11th, 1919, to Mr. Georges Clemenceau, Senator, President of the Peace Conference, Paris, urging that conference to concede to India the right to be represented at its deliberations by representatives chosen by the people. He also asked the conference to declare that Indians are capable of governing themselves, that they were “entitled to the application of the principle of self-determination, and that in the exercise of the principle” they were also entitled to determine the form of government founded upon accepted democratic lines, which they deem most suitable for self-development according to the genius of the people.

Memorial to the Peace Conference The Memorial began: “From the point of view of the peace of Asia, and from the point of view of the peace of the world, it is absolutely necessary that India should be self-governed internally and be made the bulwark of liberty in the East....” “After this worldwide war for liberation of mankind from the menacing domination of Germany, and the dawn of a new order, it is superfluous for me to urge that no civilized nation should be governed by any other nation, without its consent, upon theories of trusteeship propounded ostensibly for the benefit of the ward. India, therefore, demands as her birth-right the application of the principle of self - determination for the purpose of empowering her people to tackle and solve the complex problem of India according to the genius of her people....” The memorial criticised diarchy as cumbersome and wasteful and demanded more power for the Legislature both in the provinces as also at the centre. The Indians did not want an immediate separation from the British, for the memorial said that: “In order to assure the British people that the Indians do not desire separation from or disruption of the Empire, they would consent that questions of war and peace, foreign affairs, the army or navy and military government be excluded from the Indian purview, provided commissions in the army and navy are open to all Indians on equal terms. These are limitations the people of India are willing to submit to, for a brief period, in order to assure the British Government of their bona fides in the hope that within fifteen years they would be placed on a status of political equality with the overseas dominions in all respects.” The memorial concluded: “I earnestly appeal to the Peace Conference, firstly to concede to India the same right of representation on the League of Nations, that is accorded to the British dominions, and secondly to declare that Indians are quite capable of governing themselves, that as a progressive nation they are entitled to the application of the principle of self-determination, and that in the exercise of the principle they are also entitled to determine the form of government, founded upon accepted democratic lines, which they deem most suitable for self-development according to the genius of the people...”

A short time after sending this memorial to the Peace Conference, Tilak issued a four-page leaflet entitled: “Indian Constitutional Reforms.” It contained a comparative statement showing the present Indian constitution, and how the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme and the Congress-League scheme proposed to reform it. Any intelligent person could see at a glance what the large stand most influential organisation of Indians demanded, and how far the Montagu- Chelmsford proposals fell short of these demands. Tilak made a deep impression on the platform on account of his direct speeches. He dealt with the all-important theme which occupied all his life and thought. Explaining his method of delivering speeches to Dr. Velkar, who was a member of the deputation, he said that he always kept his best shots in the end. In a meeting, he explained, the speaker and the audience act and react on each other. He never prepared his speeches beforehand but altered them to suit the kind of audience he had and their moods and temper. “I always take offensive, offensive is the best defensive in war. Attack your enemy at the weakest point and I do it. Defensive argument makes your argument weak.” Tilak’s Speeches St. Nihal Singh described a speech of Tilak in these words: “Of all these addresses, the one that I like best was the one that Mr. Tilak delivered at the Caxton Hall while sitting in a chak, because he had sprained his ankle. Mr. Tilak outlined the conditions existing in India in olden times, referring to the accounts of the wealthy, prosperous enlightened India left by foreign travellers. He asked the audience particularly to note the vast extent of the Indian Empire ruled over by Asoka and Samudra Gupta. He went on to relate that our country in those days, not only possessed a wealth of religious and philosophical literature but was industrially great and self-sufficing in every respect, able to satisfy all her material and artistic wants.” “Passing from the pleasant picture of ancient India, Mr. Tilak gave a graphic description of India today, with her millions of sons and daughters who, because of appalling poverty, never know what it is to have the pangs of hunger stilled. He told how the East India Comnany had deliberately killed our industries, throwing the whole weight of population upon agriculture.” “Taking up the political question, Mr. Tilak assured the audience that Indians

were not anti-British — they were only ‘anti-bureaucracy.’ They desired the British connection to continue. “Then Mr. Tilak shattered, one by one the arguments advanced against granting self-government to India. The bureaucrats, he said, were themselves responsible for illiteracy in India. While deploring caste aid acknowledging that it required radical modification, he denied that it constituted a reason for refusing self-government. The British, he pointed out, quarrelled among themselves quite as much as Indians did. There was no Ulster in India, Hindus and Muslims were agreed concerning the constitutional reforms. He challenged the statement that Indians did not desire Home Rule. He demanded to know why India alone, of all the British overseas units, should be expected to achieve self-government ‘step by step.’ That phrase had no meaning in this age of progress. Indians should immediately be given control over their purely domestic civil affairs.” Evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee The most important part of Tilak’s work in England was the evidence that he gave before the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the two houses set up to consider the Government of India Bill. He was asked by Lord Selbourne, the Chairman, to make any statement that he cared to make to supplement the answers that he had given to the list of questions compiled by the committee. St. Nihal Singh says: “Speaking without hesitation, in clear though rather low tones, Mr. Tilak declared that the League, on behalf of which he appeared, accepted the declaration of August 20th, 1917, in regard to His Majesty’s Government’s policy in India, though he and his colleagues put their own construction upon the latter part of the declaration, which left the pace, at which India should proceed towards responsible government, to the authorities in Whitehall to determine in consultation with the Government of India. They took the view that the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State and the Viceroy were not necessarily the corollary to the pronouncement. A much larger measure of self- government could be given to Indians without in any way going against the spirit of the British policy as laid down in that declaration. In fact, even the Congress- League scheme provided for advance by stages, though the stages would be fewer than they would be under the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme. He also insisted

that it was necessary that a time-limit be fixed in the statute for the attainment by India of fully responsible administration. The term of 15 years fixed by the Congress might appear arbitrary but it was reasonable. “Mr. Tilak also claimed that Indians were fully fit for administering provinces, and that they should be given provincial autonomy. He also declared that responsibility in the Central Government was absolutely necessary. He suggested that at least those departments in the Central Government which dealt with affairs which in the case of the provinces were considered fit to be transferred to popular control, should be placed under responsible Ministers. That could be done without resorting to diarchy. The Congress and the League had suggested a scheme for that purpose, and had provided sufficient safeguards. “Mr. Tilak claimed that good materials for electorates existed in India. Indeed, he went so far as to state that one word from the officials could create electorates. Above all, he wished to see the officials deprived of the initiative for inaugurating large policies that they at present possessed, and reduced to the status of permanent servants in Britain and other countries. Such initiative should only be exercised by the people’s representatives. Lastly, he considered the inclusion of a Declaration of Rights in the Statute was absolutely necessary.” It was expected that Tilak would be cross-examined after his evidence but this the members of the committee refused to do for reasons best known to them. Lord Sydenham was seen to leave the committee room as soon as Tilak started giving his evidence and later Lady Sydenham was very angry, when at a function Tilak was presented to his lordship. While in England, Tilak interested himself in foreign propaganda on behalf of India in Europe and America. Elizabeth Freeman, an American sympathiser, saw him in London with messages from Lajpat Rai and Dr. Hardikar who were both in America. When he was acquainted with the splendid work done by Laipat Rai and Hardikar in this respect he enthusiastically said: “Oh! how I wish that such work as has been carried on by these men could be done all over the world! We Hindus must learn the art of foreien propaganda, and do it as thoroughly as the bureaucracy are doing it. When you write to Lala and Hardikar, tell them I want the work carried as far as possible.” During his 13 months’ stay in England, Tilak did hardly any sight-seeing, but his Vedic researches occupied his attention and he spent a number of hours in the India office library. A lady was employed by him to transcribe the ancient

brick inscriptions throwing light on Chaldean and Assyrian civilizations. Once he went to see Dr. Thomas, an Assyrian scholar. This scholar had the traditional povery of learned people all over the world. In the course of their long conversation both the scholars talked on many a knotty problem. So absorbed were they in their discourse that the mother-in-law of the professor reminded them in vain that tea was ready, and failing to catch their attention, she at last placed it on the books and papers on their table! As a peace-maker, Tilak tried his best to bring about peace in the different deputations and, thanks to his efforts, though Mrs. Besant proved to be obdurate, all the deputations worked in harmony. Tilak left England on October 30th, 1919, and reached Bombay on the 27th November 1919 “On board the steamer,” says S. Satyamurthi2 who travelled with him, “he was requested by many European passengers to deliver a lecture on the Arctic Home in the Vedas. And for nearly an hour he held a largely European audience spell-bound by his wealth of learning, his keenness of critical acumen, and above all his power of simple, humorous and effective expression. Many a member of the audience felt and told me ‘what Indian politics has gained in Tilak, scholarship and research have lost.’ 1 Modern Review, October 1919 2

ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE 17 Apart from the libel suit against Chirol there were other important reasons why Tilak was eager to visit England during the war-time. It was always his faith that any substantial measure of reform could be obtained only from the Mother of Parliaments and so an appeal to the British public supplemented by true information about India’s case for self-government were the twin shafts in his armoury. He was eager, again, to make a first-hand study of the revolutionary forces at work in England during the war and wanted to see how far they would be helpful to India. It was for this reason that he had undertaken a similar study tour of Ceylon and Burma and had noted the revolutionary forces in a resurgent Asia back in 1899. He had tried to place India’s case for self-determination not merely before the bar of British public opinion but also before the world in general. He studied the nature and working of the British parties and saw that the Labour Party was a party with a future and would be sympathetic towards India’s aspirations and had therefore helped it with money. He was also impressed by what he had heard about the tactics of the Irish Sinn Feiners in sending out as many members of their party to the British Parliament and afterwards either not to attend any of the meetings or, when they attended, to take much time of the House by lengthy speeches. These obstructionist tactics were, he must have thought, an object lesson to India. Even though he had established contact with the Labour Party he did not approve of class organisation or class conflict. Speaking to Dr. Velkar, he said once in London, that1 “it was undesirable to organise the labour movement on English models. It must be suitably modified to suit the condition of India. I do not want to set up labour against capital in my country. When our clerks are getting Rs. 15 or 20 a month, to spur on labourers to ask for higher wages, Rs. 2 or 3 a day and so on, would be sheer folly. I would certainly organise labour but I would do so on the basis of social welfare. I don’t want the class-conflict as in England. I would try to attract the working classes by social welfare schemes such as employment insurance, hospitals, entertainment rooms, saving and co- operative societies. In 1906 and 1907 I had tried to organise an anti-drink movement in Maharashtra, mainly to rid the workers of this vice and it was opposed by the government. I had said once in one of my lectures that Bombay

belonged to the workers, for the wealth of Bombay depends on the hardships of the workers, who come over to Bombay, leaving their lands and families.... Our industries have just begun and they have to compete with foreign industries with government backing. We cannot, therefore, in these circumstances afford to increase the wages of the workers arbitrarily. To lesson the evil of a conflict between capital and labour and that resulting from economic inequality, I often believe that our ancient caste-system would be successful.” He once said about the new reforms: “We must always be dissatisfied with our environment if we want Swaraj. The Brahmin today must leave off his contentment and remain a dissatisfied Kshatriya. If, under the new reforms, we get the portfolio of education, I would try to revive our old institutions of kirtan, preaching or narrating stories from mythology. I would induce, our educated, cultured young men to go to the villages as missionaries and through them I would try to awaken the people.” In certain respects, therefore, Tilak had widened his views particularly about methods of agitation and carrying on propaganda, while there were other things which had merely reaffirmed his old faith. The English tour had undoubtedly been an invaluable experience. There was also one more change which people noticed in him and that was the marked alteration in his manner so far as the fair sex was concerned. Where formerly, he was extremely shy and hardly talked with them, after his return from England, he was much more free. This was because in England he had to discuss many important things with women and before going to Madras for a meeting of the A.I.C.C. in 1919, he was seen discussing a good many political problems very freely with a few women political workers.

Arrival On the 27th November 1919, Tilak landed on Indian soil and was given a tremendous welcome. In a meeting held in his honour, he said that though the reforms granted in the Reforms bills were inadequate they should be accepted. The Labour Party had consented to bring in a Home Rule bill in Parliament. Hence it was not wise to reject the bill even if it were inadequate. Concluding he said, “I have heard about the happenings in India. When Gandhi started his Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act I am sorry I was not here.” Among the receptions given, the most noteworthy was the one by Mavji Govindji on behalf of the workers of Bombay. Mavji Govindji says that “In this huge demonstration near the Elphinstone Mills fifty thousand were present.... Tilak’s message was clear. In one word it was this— Organise.” Tilak arrived in Poona on the 1st December and an address was presented on behalf of the Poona Municipality, to him and Kelkar. The address contained a reference to his activities in the field of education, industry, literature, research and ethics. Referring to his work in England the address noted: “For the last thirty years you have been carrying on the political movement, the object of which is to gain for India colonial self-government, under the British Empire.... You spent a year in England to win over the minds of the British people so that they are favourable to India’s aspirations and, for this, in your interviews you impressed the leaders of opinion there with your persuasive speech and far-sightedness. With the help of your associates you made the Labour Party favourable to you. As this party is going to be the party in power in future this policy of yours is the correct one. The Indian nation would be obliged to you for doing so much at such an advanced age.” Tilak vs. Paranjpye The presentation of another address by the people of Poona was disfigured by another of those bitter controversies with which Tilak’s life so far had been rich. The moderates and the non-Brahmins combined and declared their opposition to an address to be presented from the citizens of Poona as a whole. They wanted it to be from admirers of Tilak only as, according to Principal Paranjpye, their

spokesman, there were a number of people, who did not worship in the same shrine as Tilak and his followers. The opponents were given an intimation of the meeting, convened for the purpose of deciding the details but they declined to attend. A controversy was carried on between Paranjpye and Tilak in the columns of the Bombay Chronicle. Paranjpye made a long list of all the sins of commission and omission of which Tilak, according to him, was guilty. He was dubbed as anti-reformist, pseudo-scientific in his attitude towards inoculation, an agitator, a breaker of the Congress and something of a demagogue. Tilak defended his stand on social views, explained his position in politics and pointed out that addresses were to be presented not for omissions but for services rendered. The Nationalist Party, he said, had decided to strive for India’s betterment by sticking to her thread of tradition and awakening the national pride with a reference to her great cultural past. In the second week of December, Tilak went to Madras, where once more an enthusiastic welcome was given to him. Among the welcome addresses given, there was also one on behalf of the non-Brahmin Madras Presidency Association. In his speech Tilak urged upon the people of India to work the reforms.

Amritsar Congress From Madras, Tilak proceeded to Amritsar to attend the annual session of the Congress. The session was bound to be exciting as it was to be held under the shadow of the Gujranwalla and the Jallianwalla Bagh massacres. Indeed, so great were these atrocities that iron had entered the souls of Indians and even sincere co-operationists like Gandhi had termed the activities of the government as ‘Satanic.’

Birth of Responsive Cooperation Tilak’s Home Rule Special started from Bombay on the 24th December 1919 and reached Amritsar on Friday, 26th December. On the way, they could see in the newspapers that the King’s proclamation regarding the Reforms Act was published. Baptista writes, “We were on our way to the Congress at Amritsar in 1919. On the way we learnt of the proclamation of His Maiesty the King Emperor. In consultation with Mr. Kelkar and others Tilak drafted the response and then came to me. “I do not like this, Tilak,’ said I. ‘Then draft one yourself,’ said he and left me alone. I did so and sent for him. We discussed for an hour. He was charmed with the expression ‘responsive co-operation.’ He examined analytically all it contained. He concluded ‘responsive co-operation. It’s Divine Revelation.’ ” Tilak sent the following telegram drafted by Baptista to the King, through the Viceroy and the Secretary of State: “Please convey to His Maiesty grateful and loyal thanks of Indian Home Rule League and the people of India for proclamation and amnesty and assure him of responsive co-operation.” When reports of the telegram appeared, there was consternation in political circles. C. R. Das, who had arrived at Amritsar, just a day before, openly said that since Tilak had agreed to co-operate with the government he was bound to offer opposition to him. Swami Shraddhanand, who was the Chairman of the reception committee, had to tell people repeatedly that as Tilak was after all the Lokmanya of Maharashtra they should wait and hear him before making up their minds about his views. The main resolution before the Amritsar Congress was prepared by C. R. Das. The resolution ran as follows: 1. That this Congress reiterates its declaration of last year that India is fit for full Responsible Government and repudiates all assumptions and assertions to the contrary. 2. That this Congress adheres to the resolution passed at the Delhi Congress regarding constitutional reforms and is of opinion that the Reforms Act is inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. 3. That this Congress further urges that Parliament should take early steps to establish full Responsible Government in India in accordance with the principle

of Self-determination. Gandhi moved an amendment omitting the word ‘disappointing’ and adding a fourth paragraph which ran as follows: 4. Pending such introduction, this Congress begs loyally to respond to the sentiments in the Roval Proclamation, namely, ‘Let the new era begin with a common determination among my people and my officers to work together for a common purpose,” and trusts that both the authorities and the people will co- operate so to work the Reforms as to secure the early establishment of full Responsible Government. 5. And this Congress offers its warmest thanks to the Rt. Hon. E. S. Montacu for his labours in connection with them. Tilak’s position was a middle one. He was not wholly for rejection of the reforms as outlined in the original resolution nor was he in favour of Mahatma Gandhi’s formula of complete co-operation. The words ‘responsive co-operation’ explained his attitude. On the one side, he had to encounter the opposition of those in the younger section, who wanted a total rejection of the reforms. On the other, there was the moral stand taken by Gandhi, who said, whether they accented or worked the reforms, the cards must be laid clearly on the table. Explaining his amendment he said: “My amendment means nothing more and nothing less than that we should stare the situation in the face as it exists before the country today and if Tilak Maharaj tells you that we are going to make use of the Reforms Act as he must, and as he already told Mr. Montagu, as he has told the country that we are going to take the fullest advantage of the reforms, then I say, be true to yourself, be true to the country and tell the country that you are going to do it. But if you want to say, after having gone there, you will put obstruction, say that also. But on the question of propriety and obstruction, I say, Indian culture demands that we shall trust one who extends a hand of fellowship. The Indian culture demands trust and full trust, and if you are sufficiently manly we shall not be afraid of the future, but face it in a manly manner and say, ‘All right, Mr. Montagu, all right, all officials of the bureaucracy, we are going to trust you. We shall put you in a corner and when you resist us and when you resist the advance of the country, then we say you do so at your peril!’ That is the manly attitude that I suggest.” D. V. Athalye, a biographer of Tilak, has made the following comment: “The

question that occurred to a thoughtful mind was ‘would there be the necessary amount of tact, shrewdness and foresight which the occasion demanded?’ Mr. Gandhi’s presence and arguments infused moral sublimity into the proceedings as was seen by the resolution which condemned the excesses (April 1919) of the infuriated mobs in the Punjab and other places. The question was whether the Congress would rise to the same height of statesmanship as it did to that of moral sublimity. What should be the wording of the resolution about the reforms? Mrs. Besant’s proposal, had it been passed, would have emphasised our expression of gratitude at the expense of our dignity. Mr. Gandhi’s resolution was graceful without being emphatically dignified. Mr. Tilak’s resolution was a unique combination of grace with dignity, mellowed by a reasonable expression of gratitude.” Tilak in explaining the terms ‘responsive co-operation’ stated that no government imposing its will upon a subject race need ever expect co-operation in any greater proportion than what it was itself prepared to concede to the people. In the course of his speech he observed, “Now let me say a few words about self-determination. Not only do we want full responsible government, but we want it in accordance with the principle of self-determination, that means the determination of the people of India as voiced by the resolutions of the Congress passed by a majority in this Congress.” About the question whether Indians were going to use the Act, Tilak said: “Every Act passed by Parliament is binding upon us and we are prepared to carry out its provisions loyally; but we must always be demanding more. That does not conflict with our loyalty but when you come and say ‘Oh yes, we are prepared to obey Parliament’ it means that sometimes you are prepared to disobey the Parliament. We go to Parliament, we ask for a legislation, we get it and we shall make it a basis of further agitation. That is our attitude. We get a bit of what we want; we shall make use of it and always go on agitating for more. This is our duty.” Tilak objected to the idea of thanking Mr. Montagu because, according to him, “We want now clearly to declare not only here, but to the whole world, that we are not satisfied with the Act. We want to continue our agitation; we want to utilise it to the best possible advantage and continue to demand more. We want to ask the rest of the world to know that this is the exact state of our feeling. Any exaggeration in the matter is likely to mislead the civilised nations of the world. Take care of that. Don’t be too generous, too kind, too humane, to accept with a

fulsome dose of thanks what little has been thrown to you now. That is the object.” There was a loud applause at the end of Tilak’s speech. T. Prakasam records the following memorable incident in the Subjects Committee at Amritsar.2 “The prominent incident I could recall to memory is what Lokmanya told Mahatma Gandhi in the Subjects Committee of the Congress at Amritsar. When Mahatma Gandhi suggested that Indian politics must be based upon truth! Lokmanya turned to him at once and observed: ‘My friend! Truth has no place in politics.’ To some of us who were not initiated either into Gandhi’s true non-violent doctrines or into Tilak’s so-called extremism, the suggestion of introduction of truth into politics of the day and spontaneous repudiation of the doctrine by Tilak appeared rather strange on the part of one, and too blunt and abrupt on the part of the other. But both were right. Both were prophets. Lokmanya Tilak did not live to see how both could be true.” It has also to be noted that though the amendment was defeated the moral stand was taken up by the Congress later. It became, in fact, the bulwark of Indian politics. Tilak’s stand of responsive co-operation was also taken up and his insistence on sending only such members as were prepared to accept the resolutions of the Amritsar Congress was sound from the point of view of party discipline and it was also accepted at all future times. It was at this time that the idea of starting a Congress Democratic Party entered Tilak’s mind. “The propaganda carried on on behalf of the party,” he said, “would be fruitful in saturating the masses with the love of Swaraj. The work would be entirely under the constitution and therefore the government would not dare touch any worker.” He looked upon the reforms, therefore, as possessing the much needed quality of legalising the political agitation. The political agitator under the reforms ran very little risk and the work of educating the people, he thought, could be carried on safely. A full exposition of his stand of responsive co-operation was given in his article in the Kesari on the 13th January 1920. “Cooperation,” he pointed out, “was relative. Things which were conducive to the welfare of the people deserve their co-operation. This co-operation was, however, opposed by the bureaucracy. If, therefore, according to the will of the King expressed in the proclamation, the bureaucracy would be ready to co-operate, the people too on their part would co- operate. If not, they would have no alternative but to oppose.” On his return from Amritsar, Tilak was busy in reorganizing the Home Rule

League and was also involved in a local controversy about compulsory education to be given by the Municipality. In this he tried to point out that to start with, this facility could be made available to boys only, as the resources were limited, and later to girls. He also took part in the Astronomical Conference held at Sangli in February 1920. Reception to Home Rule League Deputation On the 16th January 1920, Khaparde, Dr. Sathaye and Vithalbhai Patel returned from England, after completing their work with the Home Rule League deputation. Tilak presided over the reception held in their honour. In his speech he said, “There are changes going on in the world around. At this critical time it is necessary that we carry on the movement for Home Rule with vigour. The Amritsar Congress had decided that the Reforms Act was inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. The act gives no real power to the people. The government still has the purse-strings, and wishes to pacify Indian opinion by throwing to them a bit. The principle of self-determination is now accepted and to make people acquainted with the real conditions here, we should send our representatives to foreign countries. Cooperation is always relative. Unless the bureaucracy co-operates the people will not. Diarchy is meaningless and we must show to the government that they can no longer rule by the policy of divide and rule. Those who say that we should be satisfied with whatever we have got, are deceiving people. When Egypt and Ireland are demanding freedom it would be a disgrace if we lagged behind.”

The Ali Brothers On the 30th January 1920, another meeting was held in Bombay under Tilak’s presidentship, in honour of the Ali brothers. Tilak was ailing and was forbidden to make a speech. While garlanding the Ali brothers, Tilak garlanded Mohamad Ali first through mistake. Tilak explained that it was no mistake as they were told that a good teacher wishes for defeat at the hands of his disciple and naturally Shoukat Ali would be delighted to see his younger brother honoured first. Referring to the Khilafat question he said, “The King of England is called Defender of the Faith. In India, since there is a variety of faiths the King must be a Defender of Faiths. The Queen’s proclamation had said that on the satisfaction of the people depended the stability of the Empire. It is imperative that the government should solve the Khilafat question satisfactorily in accordance with the wishes of the Muslims. If the government pursues the policy of keeping seven crores of Muslims and thirty crores of Hindus dissatisfied, there would be no permanency for the Empire. Today it is the Muslims, tomorrow it may be the turn of the Hindus. We are ready at this time to help our Muslim brethren. I am ready to do everything for them and am prepared even to go to England for this.” Regarding the Khilifat agitation and a consideration of the proposed programme of non-co-operation, Asaf Ali thus describes a meeting presided over by Swami Shraddhanand:3 “He (Tilak) spoke in English and it fell to my lot to give a report of his speech in Urdu. He had a wonderful power of appealing to the deepmost sentiments of his audience, although his voice and rhetorical art were obviously limited. The simile drawn from the Hindu Scriptures of the churning of the Universal ocean, the discovery of the Ratnas, the deterring gift of ‘Poison’ preceding the final gift of ‘Amrit’ was most aptly made use of by Lok. Tilak, in showing that the attainment of freedom, the birth-right of man, must necessarily involve the precedence of ‘Suffering.’ But about the most original thing he said that day was in the nature of a confession. He said that his advocacy of freedom was not prompted by any thoughts of serving humanity or the Indian nation; but it was a phase of his mentality, which no considerations would affect. It was, he said, a mysterious urge in him and he could not help it even if he wanted.” At the joint conference of Muslim League and Congress leaders, in the middle

of the discussion he had to leave to keep a previous appointment. Before going he said, “Whatever may be your decisions you may take it that I agree with it, for I am ready to go much further than your programme.”

Sind Tour On the 26th April, Tilak went to attend the Provincial Conference at Karachi and spoke before crowded meetings and held discussions at Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkar, Shikarpur and Jacobabad. In the reception, the fraternity of Hindus and Muslims was at its height. He advised the people to work the Amritsar Congress Resolution and spoke of his resolve to form the Congress Democratic Party to fight the next elections. For this purpose, he was anxious to attend the Sholapur Political Conference. In his lectures and discussions, we have on the authority of Swami Govindanand, it was clear that while he believed in the superiority of the Satyagraha movement over the responsive co-operation, he doubted if the people were sufficiently ready to practise the former. He was doubtful about the success of the Satyagraha movement. He told the people of Sind that if he were convinced that the people were ready for the many mighty sacrifices which the movement demanded of them and if it contained 50% chances of success he would take the risk and whole-heartedly go in for it. Though not convinced of the success of the movement, he was generous enough to say that he would never oppose the Mahatma. He would allow him full freedom to work his movement and put his ideas in practice and render him all the help he was capable of rendering, though he would not shoulder the responsibility or lead it himself.