Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography

his way home, he walked in the company of students, and had discussions with them on many subjects. He could easily identify himself with the audience while speaking on any subject. We never saw him lose his temper. There was never any light-heartedness in the class, and an atmosphere of scholarship prevailed.” L. R. Pangarkar, a noted Marathi author, has recorded the following observations which Tilak made to him. Tilak said: “He who cannot take interest in mathematics, remains rather defective in his way of thinking. Owing to mathematics, one can develop the habit of having a sequence of ideas in an uninterrupted way. It is not true that there is no poetry in mathematics. The mathematics you learn in schools and colleges is only the first step. Mathematics cast a spell on me as poetry does in the case of some persons. All sciences are essentially one in their fundamentals though we divide them in different branches. There is poetry in mathematics and mathematics in poetry.” One can get some idea of Tilak’s love for mathematics from the follwing anecdote. Though Tilak was serious in disposition, he taught Sanskrit poetry - Meghaduta of Kalidasa, and some students recall how he showed how one stanza grew logically out of another. Though he seldom discussed the delights of poetry in conversation, he was a very good judge of poetry. Shri Khuperkar, a Sanskrit scholar, has told the following story: Once when Tilak visited Kolhapur, he was given a reception at the Sanskrit Pathashala. At that time some stanzas written by Khuperkar and some by another student, who often composed poetry, were presented to Tilak without letting him know their authorship. On reading them, Tilak overviewed, “One of these poets has used different metres, employed different figures of speech and has adorned his verses. His scholarship and familiarity with the principles of literature are reflected in his poems. But these cannot equal the poems written by the other student. The latter show the inspiration of the poet and have a natural ease about them.” It may be recalled that Tilak in his student days wrote poetry, though of the conventional pattern. Among the colleagues of Tilak, there was Prof. Kelkar who had a fine command over English. He was in the habit of speaking very fast, which earned him the nickname ‘Mail Train’. Agarkar was always lucid in the exposition of his subject and owing to his informal manner and smiling face, students felt perfectly at home in his class. Some of the students of those days have recorded their impressions of their college life. The most striking feature according to these records was the missionary zeal of the professors. Many of these students have described how Tilak always inspired in them a desire to study all the works of a

writer, one of whose books was appointed, and thus grasp the subject comprehensively. This was for Tilak the happiest period of his life, as he had all the opportunities for his intellectual pursuits and lived in the constant company of the master minds of old. He maintained that a good teacher is always a student and he must have been delighted to plunge himself in the works of great scholars and enjoy the thrill of grappling with the most difficult and intricate of problems. All this was possible because the institutions of the Deccan Education Society were growing stable owing to the improvement in the financial condition. To quote the words of Tilak: “The first three years of the school may be said to have been spent in the struggle of asserting our existence. In the emphatic language of Vishnushastri, who unfortunately did not live to see even the end of this struggle, the papers and the school were now an accomplished fact, too, in the midst of a hundred difficulties-accomplished I say again in spite of desertion, death and incarceration, in spite of calumny, in spite of the little interested doings of little folk, in a word, in spite of all the mean devices of disappointed malice - our institutions triumphing over all these by the sheer force of innate energy and our indomitable resolution. Those that have joined the institution latterly may not fully realise the difficulties, but I have distinct remembrance of the struggle, and I sometimes wonder that we did not take a longer time to emerge out of it safe and sound. The next three years, 1883, 1884 and 1885, were spent in organising the institutions we had established....” The improvement in the financial position of the Deccan Education Society was only relative and Tilak and his colleagues, who were working as life-members, took only Rs. 75 per month as salary. Self-denial and self-reliance were the main springs of the actions of these dedicated young men, and it was for these moral reasons that their work came to be so much valued. How this private college won the confidence of the people and consequently recognition from the government could be seen from the fact that after only a year of its existence the Bombay Government made a proposal to the Society to take over the management of the Deccan College in Poona and to amalgamate its own college with it. This was in keeping with the recommendation of the Education Commission that the government should wherever possible transfer its secondary and collegiate education to private bodies. Certain sections in the public who still believed in the orthodox tradition of government colleges and who, therefore, did not want the “Indianisation” of the Deccan College viewed this proposal with disfavour. Some persons from this section even reproached the Deccan Education Society for intriguing to take the Deccan College into its

hands. The allegation had no basis in fact. The authorities of the Deccan Education Society were, as a matter of fact, reluctant to accept this new responsibility and they were about to accept it only because the government was determined to hand over the Deccan College to some private body or other. The Deccan Education Society deemed it its responsibility to safeguard the interests of higher education in Maharashtra and hence could not shirk any responsibility even if it was thrust on it. In the later stages of the negotiations, the government changed the terms of its offer and insisted that the previous class of the Fergusson College should be shifted to the Deccan College building, that two European professors with their former salaries should be taken up on the staff and that there would be three Government nominees in the special Board of Management of the Deccan College. The Council of the Deccan Education Society, therefore, rejected the offer of the Government in its meeting of the 23rd June 1887, while thanking the Government for the high honour done to the Society and the great confidence shown in its ability to undertake such a heavy responsibility. This breakdown in the negotiations was followed by a very unexpected event, viz the government’s refusal to pay the grant-in-aid of Rs. 3,000 to the Fergusson College on the ground that, “the Deccan Education Society refused to accept the very liberal terms offered by the government, and that money in Poona is being wasted which is urgently required for primary, secondary and technical schools throughout the country”. No better deal could be expected at the hands of an alien government, always thinking of its prestige, keen on asserting its authority even when such an assertion is least warranted and oscillating between liberal leniency and bureaucratic caprice. This injustice to the Deccan Education Society continued upto 1894. The young idealists who had taken a pledge to serve the cause of education could never be cowed down by such whims of the government. They had based their hopes on the support of the people and not on the favours of the government, which could any moment turn into frowns. 1The Maratha race, as their soil and their history have made them, are a rugged, strong and sturdy people, democratic in their every fibre, keenly intelligent and practical to the very marrow; following in ideas, even in poetry, philosophy and religion the drive towards life and action, capable of great fervour, feeling and enthusiasm, like all Indian people, but not emotional idealists; having in their thought and speech always a turn for strength, sense, accuracy, lucidity, and vigour, in learning and scholarship, patient, industrious, careful, thorough and penetrating, in life simple, hardy and frugal, in their temperament courageous, pugnacious, full of spirit, yet with a tact in dealing with hard facts and circumventing obstacles, shrewd yet

aggressive diplomatists, born politicians, born fighters. (Shri Aurobindo: Bankim - Tilak - Dayananda p. 25.) 2The suggestion to have this stanza as the lead was made by Vasudevshastri Khare, the Sanskrit teacher in the New English School. 3History of Education in India, by Nurullah and Naik 4The Times of India, after calling the New English School “one of the most remarkable results of our English education” made the following comment on its founders: “They are men who have taken good degree and might be enjoying handsome salaries if they had entered government service. They, however, preach the doctrine— and they practise what they preach—that graduates of the University, if they possess self-respect and patriotism, ought not to look to a foreign government for place and pay, but it is their duty to achieve a name and place of their own, in education, in literature, in commerce or at the bar. No doubt these enthusiastic men will preach love of country to these disciples, but it is better after all to have patriotism preached by educated men than by wandering mendicants.” This reference to the wandering mendicant is interesting and corroborates what Hume, the founder of the Indian National Congress, was to place later before the then Viceroy as the main reason for the establishment of the Congress. Hume had come into possession of voluminous correspondenc of seething revolt incubating in various districts based upon the communications of the disciples of various Gurus to their religious heads. Like their enlightened and liberal English rulers, the founders of the Deccan Education Society were also anxious to avoid a violent outburst against British power. 5(1) Lala Lajpatrai in his contribution to the reminiscences of Tilak says that when in 1896 they wanted to establish a memorial college in honour of the founder of the Arya Samaj they heard of the Poona patriots, among them of Ranade and Tilak. “In our search for finding workers, for whom national work would be a labour of love rather than a mere mercenary engagement, we were anxious to follow the example of the Mahratta patriots who had dedicated their lives to the education of their fellow-countrymen on a small subsistence allowance much below their market value. Such an example, we found in the life members of the Deccan Education Society, who were known to have established the Fergusson College of Poona.” (2) Srinivasa Sastri observes in his Life of Gopal Krishna Gokhale: “That College stands still as a monument of patriotic self-sacrifice in the cause of education. I hardly know of any institution similar to that in tin’s province (Madras).” (3) Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya refers to the fact that “a life member of the Society bound himself to serve the institution of the Society for a period of twenty years on the small salary of Rs. 75 per month, after which he could retire on a pension of Rs.30 a month. This simple scheme of putting one’s patriotism to practical test , of deliberately choosing a life of self-denial for the service of our fellow-men, which has given the country a most honourable band of patriotic workers who have built up and maintained the Fergusson College, and more recently the New Poona College, naturally commanded admiration”.

THE PARTING OF WAYS 3 Preoccupied as these young men were with the educational institutions, they, particularly Tilak and Agarkar, could never lose sight of the importance of the newspapers they were conducting.

Spirit of Patriotism The first five years of the Kesari and the Mahratta was a period of intellectual companionship during which Tilak and Agarkar acted as “the knight errants of journalism, out to meet and kill every dragon on the path of the country’s advance to greatness”. In school and college they imparted knowledge of the western sciences, of the English language and literature, of English history and social sciences, but in politics they were inclined to take a more radical line than the one taken by the first generation of English-educated Indians. In a way, they were fighting the English with their own weapons. They did not subscribe to the ideas of leaders like Ranade that the contact between the British and the Indians was of a providential nature, wholly beneficial to the Indians. They echoed certain sentiments of Vishnushastri Chiplunkar as expressed in his fiery articles in the Nibandh-Mala to which a reference has already been made. The Kesari, too, in a number of articles spoke of the degeneration and decay of India and Indians.1 The decay was both moral and material. In the moral sphere Indians showed a deficiency of all those qualities which go to make a nation strong. This was mostly attributed to the unnatural contact between the British and the Indians. The Kesari quotes Digby and Dadabhai2 to point out that the country was being impoverished by the British and also deplored the tendency of the Indian people to depend upon the rise and fall of British parliamentary parties. It is said that when the Peoples’ or the Liberal Party succeeded in England, India’s cause prospered, while if the King’s or Tory Party was victorious, there were clouds of sorrow on the Indian horizon. The remedy that is suggested, therefore, is “that Indian politics should be freed from British home politics and the administration carried on in consultation with us and as far as possible by us”.3 In some articles the British rule is looked upon as a necessary evil and is said to be preferable to rule by any other people. “We do not know of any other nation that rules a dependent country as liberally as England.” The Kesari never failed to appreciate the genuine efforts of some of the more enlightened British Viceroys like Lord Ripon. On the occasion of the investiture of the Nizam, the Kesari, after quoting in extenso the speech of Lord Ripon, waxed poetic while lauding its high sentiments.4“It is because such sons are born in England that the sun never sets

on her Empire and she does not know what foreign rule is. Imagine, reader, what type of person the respected Gladstone must be in whose school we have disciples like Lord Ripon and know the secret of national advancement.” Still the disadvantages of the English rule are well known; but it has to be tolerated. “To be disloyal to them is in no way beneficial to us.” This obviously is a different attitude from the fervent faith of the elder statesman in the essential goodness of the British. In the series of articles entitled “Relationship between the Europeans and the Natives” the whole question of the Indo-British relationship is examined at length. In an ironic vein reference is made to Ireland,5 which, like India, was ruled by the British for the good of Ireland and yet “the ungrateful potato-loving Irish Catholics” refused to be conciliated. The article refers6 to Utilitarianism spreading in England and hopes that if it continues to spread in this manner and if England outlines its policies according to that noble principle, the freedom of India would be attained without difficulty. “As Gladstone and Ripon are acting according to the Utilitarian principles of the greatest good of the greatest number their rule is a little beneficial to the Indians. But still no one should cherish the idea that as soon as the Hindus become rich and learned the British would walk out with their bag and baggage. According to the laws of politics as the intellect and might of Indians will go on increasing day by day, the differences between them and the British will widen and at last the people at home will drive away the intruders.” Agarkar refers to the fact that in his day though the madness of religion showed itself to be on the wane, still it would take more than a thousand years till it vanished completely. Religion is referred to as a superstition and it is said to have its origin in human psychology which is not satisfied unless man investigates the primary cause of everything. “It is the transcendent quality of the mind to think about that which is unknowable. Though today it is religion alone that seems to think about the unknowable who knows, yet some time in future people might even lose faith in God and will consider selfless service for the good of humanity as the essential principle of religion.” In another article in 18817 entitled “English education and our social condition” the repercussions of the British contact over India and Indians is discussed. The most significant repercussion seems to be the relaxation of the old social ties. These ties were those of property, caste or religion. All these old ties

are now snapped and the result is a growth of selfishness. The old differences of caste and religion were being replaced by new distinctions based on income and property. “As the income increases men are getting more and more indifferent to ordinary people.” The remedy that is suggested, therefore, is that we should have associations or institutions which would put forth the demands of the people before the government. A strong case is made for political associations on the analogy of trading companies.8 If grievances are to be redressed, it is necessary to make a joint representation. It is evident from these and many similar articles in the Kesari that the nation was feeling the need of a new organisation, which would unite the disintegrating Indian society. The Kesari seems to be fully aware of the moral and material degradation brought about by British rule. It subscribed to the theory so ably put forth by Dadabhai Naoroji that the British government was draining the wealth of India. It propagated Swadeshi or the use of Indian-made goods and made a strong plea for a fillip to Indian industry by protective tariff. It admitted that for the first time India was under a central rule and was becoming one nation. While it noted the snapping of the caste or religious ties it deplored the vacuum which had been created and urged for new authorities and new sanctions to which people should owe allegiance and bring about a regeneration of the Indian people. It had no illusions about the British rule, and thought that itwas only to be tolerated as a necessary evil. The task of awakening people to their national duty, the Kesari was aware, would make the leaders incur the wrath of the government, which might result in untold suffering for them. In paying tribute to the personal qualities of Vishnushastri Chiplunkar in the obituary article, Agarkar writes: “Once Vishnushastri was asked how he could write so strongly and he answered that he had taken his pen in hand for his nation with one foot in prison.”9 The Kesari also subscribed to the ideal of Vishnushastri, who, according to Agarkar, “whenever the bird of his imagination began to soar high up, with its wings completely spread, saw that India was a free country and was happy under a republican form of government.” An article on the freedom of the press is occasioned by the proposed legislation of gagging the press in 1882. The newspapers are said to be the guardians of the people and as such it is considered to be their duty to raise their voice against the tyranny of unjust laws. The closing sentence of the article refers to direct action by paraphrasing the motto of the Kesari: “Where we were merely roaring in our mountain cave or were clawing a rock with our strong nails mistaking it for an

elephant the time has now come to change our tactics. An elephant, with its eyes blinded by rut, is charging on us and we must prepare to attack....”10 There were a number of articles in support of the Ilbert bill in the Kesari in April 1883. The bill had sought to remove the invidious distinction that existed between Indian and European members of the Covenanted Civil Service. The proposed change was to the effect that Europeans were to be tried by Indians in the Covenanted Services. The bill was vehemently opposed by the Anglo-Indian and European communities. In their racial frenzy they held protest meetings, organised a defence fund, boycotted official functions and even mooted a plot for kidnapping Lord Ripon. The Ilbert bill controversy was an object lesson to Indians and the Kesari commenting on the mass hysteria exhibited by the Anglo- Indians and Europeans pointed out what a bitter struggle had to be waged to translate the terms of the Queen’s Proclamation into reality. The most important difference between the first generation of the Indian leaders and the younger generation is to be seen in their attitude towards law and the extent to which laws are to be obeyed. At times the rising leadership has expressed the need of a total severance of all connections with the British and the establishment of a republican form of government. This, they are aware, will have to be done by direct action and defiance of law. “To obey the laws framed by the rulers unflinchingly is the principal cause of human progress. But obedience to laws results from two different causes, which differ in point of motive. As the motives are different the results also are dissimilar. If a law is oppressive or in any other way irksome it is necessary to strive for its cancellation or for effecting the desired change in it. One must also be ready to suffer all the hardships that might result from such a striving. This attitude is totally different from the attitude of passive acceptance of the tyranny of the law, resulting from a fear of punishment, improvement or hardships. There is no doubt that to obey the law is more praiseworthy an attitude than that of taking it into one’s own hands and thus leading the society to chaos; but at the same time to live under the tyranny of oppressive laws for centuries out of sheer cowardice is all the more shameful to a people.” An article published in 1885, just before the establishment of the Congress, is a clear indication of the views of the Kesari and defines the political creed of the Indian intelligentsia of the period. The important contribution of the British is said to be the spirit of patriotism. This patriotism was as yet said to be foreign

and not embedded in the Indian soil. Its general diffusion to all classes of Indians is said to depend first upon a spread of English education and secondly upon a clear realisation of the nature of British rule. The article concludes with the hope, “English education will have done us a great good even if its only benefit is to sow the seeds of patriotism”.

Child Marriage Controversy In spite of the fact that in politics Tilak and Agarkar agreed entirely, each had his independent opinion on many other issues. During their college days there was a realisation of this difference in approach, but this was only a phase of intellectual conviction and it was possible to find a golden mean by taking up the cause of education. During their stay in the Dongri prison, the discussions on these topics had a note of practical urgency about them because the theoretical issues were becoming clearer than before in the light of the experiences in public life. Both Tilak and Agarkar had started on a quest and each was realising the nature of his own peculiar intellectual make-up, each forming his own judgment about the environment and each was finding a path for reaching his ideal. When the paths became divergent, the differences became more acute. Strong words took the place of persuasive expressions and pleasant discussions gave way to acrimonious controversies. Some of the friends of Tilak and Agarkar felt that this growing bitterness was rather unfortunate but there was an inevitability about it, for, it has always been found that persons with a conviction tend to give a militant expression to their views, and in spite of their honest intention to be tolerant, they come in conflict with those who differ from them. Men with a consciousness of their mission, therefore, appear somewhat obstinate and adamant and the theoretician with his infinite capacity for analysis and detached thinking may find fault with this intolerance. It is, however, found that positive action demands an uncompromising attitude about views and the theoretician can afford to indulge in the luxury of detached thinking because he is away from action of every kind. The quarrels between two idealists is the result of the difference in the approach to some urgent problem and despite the haughtiness and even the narrowness, they have a touch of reality about them. The analysis of theoreticians appears many a time as only a postmortem examination and though much wisdom might be reflected in it, it is wisdom after the event. The period of the intellectual companionship of Tilak and Agarkar was coming to a close and the differences became more marked than before. The first outburst of this dissension came during the discussion of the Child Marriage Prohibition bill. Behramji Malbari of Bombay had started a movement urging the government to pass legislation banning child marriage. Malbari had urged that “in order to stop the custom of child marriage, a married boy should not be allowed to appear for a university examination, should not be taken up on

government service and an Act should be passed prohibiting this custom”. Progressive opinion in Maharashtra was opposed to child marriage, but there was a split in the enlightened section of the community as to whether legislative interference should be sought in this respect or not. Ranade, Kunte and Modak were in favour of such legislation while Telang and others were opposed to it. Agarkar sided with Ranade while Tilak was vehemently opposed to such legislative interference in social matters. In the Kesari of the 18th November 1884, both the sides were put forward, but the conclusion was non-committal: “We cannot say anything definitely about the desirability or the undesirability of stopping child marriage by legislation.” There followed a number of articles, presenting both the points of view in a comprehensive manner. This embarrassing situation came to an end, when in the issue of the 16th December 1884, Agarkar expressed his views in an unequivocal way in a signed article. It might at first appear a matter of surprise that Agarkar, who was the editor of the Kesari, had to state his position on a controversial issue in a signed article. The reason was that the Kesari and the Mahratta. belonged to the Life Members of the Deccan Education Society as a body and were, therefore, looked upon as the official organs of the Society. On the issue of social reforms, Agarkar found himself in a minority and he could not therefore present his views as the official views of the Society. He could do so only when his views were also representative of the opinions of his colleagues. In the signed article, he had clarified the position: “In our joint undertaking, there is an agreement on 99.75 per cent of the subjects. The disagreement on the small particular, however, is to us of great importance and has, therefore, to be stated in an outspoken manner.” In the Mahratta there were also three articles on the 7th, 14th and 21st December and in the summing up it is remarked that in the “Early Marriage Controversy” in Poona, it was the effort of the Mahratta to create “healthy public opinion which is, was and will always remain to be the only force to bring about slow and permanent social reform”. This controversy, however, remained unsettled and Agarkar’s article in the Kesari was not completed either in the issue of the 23rd December or of the 30th December. The reason obviously was that the Fergusson College was to be opened on the 2nd January 1885 and the dissension on a social issue was lost in the jubilation over the opening of the college. The dispute did not end here. It appears that the majority among the board of

life-members of the Deccan Education Society asserted itself and articles criticising the point of view of Agarkar on the long-disputed question of the legislative interference on the issue of child marriage appeared frequently in the Kesari. Agarkar did not write any more signed articles. It is necessary to remember that Tilak, though opposed to government interference in the problem of child marriage, did not at any time defend the system of early marriage but, on the contrary, admitted the evil effects of it. It must, however, be pointed out that the majority of people and even enlightened persons like the life-members of the Deccan Education Society, supported Tilak’s stand not because they agreed with him entirely but because they approved of his opposition to legislation prohibiting child marriage. They were, as a matter of fact, diehard conservatives, who wanted the social status quo to continue. If Tilak had been more emphatic in condemning child marriage and had stated his position in an unequivocal manner, he would not have got the same support from the orthodox people that he did. It must be said that Tilak in his anxiety to score a victory over his opponents, in this case Malbari, enlisted the support of all the elements and took a rather dubious position. In the eyes of the people, therefore, he appeared to have wholly sided with orthodoxy. In spite of all this, it must be remembered that at this stage, Tilak’s views about the philosophic tenets of religion were not different from those of Agarkar. In this respect Shri V. M. Potdar has given an authentic account. He says: “In 1883 to 1884, Tilak, Agarkar and Apte lived in Tambe’s Wada in Shanwar Peth. Whenever I went to the place I had an opportunity of listening to heated discussions between Tilak and Agarkar. In the course of these vehement debates Agarkar referred to western philosophers, particularly to Mill. He condemned the Hindu Puranas as trash and said that there would not be any progress unless these were discarded. Tilak answered his objections and he also referred to western thinkers and scientists. He frequently referred to Huxley, Tindall and Spencer. In these discussions, Agarkar appeared to be an atheist while Tilak’s position was that of an agnostic.” It is indeed very interesting to observe the different phases of the dissensions between Agarkar and Tilak. Right up to June of 1885, the differences appear to be local and temporary because there was not much difference between their theoretical positions. Tilak’s speech on one occasion is ample proof of this. On the 10th May 1885, there was a social gathering of the past and present students of Deccan College. In the course of the speeches, which mainly referred to

religious and social matters, Tilak put forth the agnostic point of view which naturally upset Ranade who was a theist. In the Kesari of the 12th May 1885, there was a vivid account of this incident with the following concluding remarks: “If India had been independent and if Madhavraoji (Ranade) had been the Pope we think he would have started the crusades.” At this stage, however, it is evident that Tilak’s opinions were definitely turning in a definite direction. He seems to have made his choice by deciding to lead those who thought that political progress should have priority over social reform. He grew more and more critical of those who maintained that without social reforms political progress would have no meaning. Tilak so far was a radical liberal advocating views which were politically radical and socially progressive. He was thus different from Ranade, who was a moderate liberal advocating social reforms and believing in “divine dispensation”. Tilak, however, was drifting from radical liberalism towards militant nationalism. This transition in his thought is clearly reflected in his articles. Formerly, in his view, education, and the consciousness of social evils it was bound to produce, were the most potent instruments of social reform. He opposed state legislation for social reforms, because he contended that it was too much in advance of public opinion. It is important to remember here that Tilak’s views were also supported by Telang, who in a letter to Malbari pointed out the fallacies in his arguments against child marriage and particularly the interference of a foreign government. In the Kesari of the 15th September 1885, however, Tilak wrote an article on “Efforts detrimental to nation’s progress” in which he expressed the opinion that efforts to bring about immediate social reforms were likely to create a rift in society and would consequently weaken the political struggle. There is a categorical statement that “there had been such a degeneration owing to our slavery that the social condition of the people could not improve until their political condition was bettered and, therefore, an exhortation to concentrate on social reform to the exclusion of political reform was suicidal”. This charge, however, was in no way applicable to Agarkar, for he was a radical liberal, who believed that political radicalism would be inadequate unless accompanied by social reform.

A House Divided These ideological differences between Tilak and Agarkar were not quarrels between two individuals, but a phenomenon in the intellectual life of Maharashtra. They also have a personal significance because they led to the parting of ways between Agarkar and Tilak in the Deccan Education Society. This parting further aggravated the quarrels and, therefore, in order to comprehend fully the significance of this ideological strife it is first of all necessary to know the details of the unfortunate developments in the Deccan Education Society. An institution derives its strength from the sense of solidarity amongst its members. The Deccan Education Society had as its motto “Union is strength.” The main burden of the work of the Deccan Education Society was borne by its life-members, and they could accomplish certain tasks only because they were united. Unity, however, is not a formal concept. Two persons agreeing on superficial matters and working together for some temporary end cannot be said to be united. Unity is a psychological and not a physical fact. It springs from a deep sense of understanding of the necessity of reconciliation in spite of certain irreconcilable features. Such an understanding can be promoted through the pursuit of the same ideal and through the acceptance of the same methods for reaching that ideal. The life-members of the Deccan Education Society were not chance companions, but had purposefully come together to discharge a great social obligation. They knew each other’s limitations and were psychologically adjusted to one another in spite of personal idiosyncrasies. This happy state of affairs continued upto 1885 and then the forces of disunity seemed to be growing. They arose partly from differing views about the management of the institutions and almost irreconcilable points of view on social and political problems, and partly from an incompatibility of temperament. It is a painful prospect to find two selfless persons quarrelling with each other, but it is also almost inevitable, because even though there is no clash for conflicting material interests, the identification of such individuals with their respective ideals compels them to clash with those who differ from them. When two strong personalities in a group disagree on some fundamental issues, others are bound to line up with one of the other of them and the individual differences take the form of antagonistic points of view advocated by warring

camps. In the Deccan Education Society, Tilak and Agarkar were the leaders of the two hostile groups and their hostilities almost created a deadlock in the affairs of the Society and “the records for the years from 1886-1889 are full of skirmishes, running fights and pitched battles between these two comrades in arms”. The first discordant note was heard during the controversy over the government legislation about child marriage. On this issue Agarkar found himself in a minority, in fact his was the lone voice till Gopal Krishna Gokhale joined the body of life-members in the middle of 1886.11 In the matter of the management of the New English School and the Fergusson College, however, Apte and Gokhale sided with Agarkar while Namjoshi and Dharap generally supported Tilak. There were also occasions when there were different groupings but “Tilak and Agarkar were more often than not to be found on opposite sides” on all important issues and the gulf between them grew so wide that it could not be bridged. At this distance, it is a little difficult to understand all the fire and rage that were poured into the various issues involved in the controversy Some of these differences were on matters of principle, in certain others personal prejudices were involved. So far as the main issues of principle were concerned they were: “Adherence to Jesuit principles of voluntary poverty and academic seclusion”. In general, Tilak seems to be anxious to preserve the strict letter of the original agreement. At times he appears to have all the anxiety that an idealist founder of a new institution has over any possible deviations from his own pure ideals, with the attendant distrust of all new-comers and even of his old colleagues who differed from him. The first eruption is seen in the life-members’ meeting held on 22nd February 1887, to discuss certain new bye-laws for the Managing Board proposed by Agarkar, Gokhale and Patankar. The proposal was to the effect that the life-member’s salary should be increased by Rs. 5 per month. It was only Rs. 880 per annum at the time. The matter did not mean just a little financial adjustment in the affairs of the Deccan Education Society but seemed to involve fundamental questions. Tilak in his letter written to the secretary on the next day of the meeting wrote: “When the very principles for which we sacrificed and which have been our guide hitherto are called in question, I for myself at least, am unable to devote myself to the work assigned to me until the whole question is settled and the body of life-members define their future policy.” Agarkar in his reply to the above letter charged Tilak and his friends with the determination to defy authority, to set the rules at naught and force their hobbies upon the rest trying to cow down all opposition by threatening to leave the body.

Further light is shed on the sharpness of the differences by the following extract from Tilak’s resignation, which is a complete statement of his position during the disputes of the Deccan Education Society. He said, “Once in easy circumstances we seem to be taken in by them so much so that, in Mr. Agarkar’s words, that ‘patriotic and independent position of 1881-82-83’ came to be talked of with scorn. The estimate of a decent maintenance never rose higher than Rs. 75 per mensem when we launched into this undertaking. We have got so much now and a life-policy of Rs. 3,000 in addition, yet as a Sanskrit maxim says, we longed for more, excusing ourselves on the ground of distrust in life policy or growing wants of the family. The cry was catching as it must necessarily be and more so in the case of life-members who were admitted during this period. These new members had but a dim perception of why and how the sacrifice principle was adopted by us, I only wonder how in the face of these facts we still liked to be called Jesuits. I have actually tried to gauge the strength of the body on the Jesuitical principle and I am sorry to say I have found it in the minority.” There was also a sharp cleavage on the issue of the outside earnings of the life- members. Apte had agreed to work in the New English School only if he would be allowed to carry on his work of text-book writing. Certain other life - members, particularly Namjoshi, also felt that life-members should be allowed to supplement their income provided their outside work did not interfere with the work of the Deccan Education Society. Tilak, on the other hand, opposed the idea of spending one’s energies on outside remunerative work and reminded his colleagues of the vow of Jesuit poverty. He wrote as follows: “It is on the devotion of those persons, whose energy is slowly and absolutely required for college work, that the prestige of our institution mainly depends. I am sorry that these persons should not see their way to settle the question of outside work in conformity with our original aims and objects, even when they see that inconvenient questions are imported into the Body from these outside interests. The only way to get out of these difficulties is to stop outside work altogether or make a rule that profits thereof shall go to the common fund as is the case in missionary societies. It is all very well to talk of carrying on outside work so as not to interfere with school duties and spare energy to do them. I have no faith in these theories and it will be enough if in addition to my own experience I cite the rules of the missionary bodies in support of my views.” Agarkar held altogether different views on the subject. When negotiations were going on and efforts were made to bring the two parties together, Prof. Kelkar

made certain proposals. Agarkar while discussing these proposals said, “In proposing this restriction Mr. Kelkar is solely influenced by the desire that every life-member should expend the whole of his energy on the work of the institutions and that nothing should distract his mind from it. This is extremely desirable; but restriction proposed will launch us into almost insuperable difficulties. Further the strict rules about pay and gratuities may induce some to secretly set aside this restriction to make up their pressing wants and some may do it for the sake of helping their friends with interested motives or without them. Thus the Board will soon have to convert itself into a most frightful Court of Inquisition producing disgust about it in the mind of every life-member and thus this restriction will ultimately defeat its own ends.” Agarkar further observed: “Let it be remembered that it is more than doubtful whether the Jesuitical organisation has done more good than harm to the civilization and the world, and, therefore, nobody can imitate its discipline without making important modifications in it. For no Jesuit is a married man; no Jesuit has a private property nor is he allowed to make any; the Jesuits have a common aim and they lodge in the common house. Above all they are a religious body in which free thought is strictly forbidden.” Besides these ideological differences, there was a very painful episode which led to bitter personal recriminations between Tilak and Agarkar. This is known as the Holkar Grant affair. His Highness Shivaji Maharaj Holkar of Indore, during his stay in Poona in December 1888, invited Tilak and Agarkar to see him and offered them a sum of Rs. 350 each, for purchasing dresses in appreciation of their services. The entire sum of Rs. 700 was handed over by Tilak to the Deccan Education Society because, he said, that they had obtained the Maharaja’s consent that instead of distributing the sum to the two of them, all the members of the Society should get an equal share. Agarkar did not agree with this and produced another letter from the Maharaja’s A.D.C. which said that out of the sum, Rs. 400 should be given to Agarkar personally as a gift for his book Vakya Mimansa (The Analysis of Sentences in Marathi). The ambiguity in the two versions led to a bitter personal quarrel and a reconciliation became impossible. Another point of dispute in the Deccan Education Society was not so much about a principle but about the rigid observance of it. In this respect, Tilak’s stand at first appears to be just. He has stated his position in the following words: “In a society like ours, rigidity of character and administration is essentially necessary. The moral side and results of our institution must be attended to as

much as, if not more than, the intellectual and the physical. It may be that in certain cases adherence to principle may be pecuniarily unprofitable. But these I think are the very occasions when we ought to take a strong position and not care for the loss. You know how we fought for grants-in-aid at first. But the spirit soon left us and when it was apprehended that our grants-in-aid would be reduced according to the rules by a few thousands, we were at once prepared to show cooked up accounts to suit the rules.... This is not the only instance where such laxity is shown.” The Deccan Education Society was a pioneering effort and the conductors of the Society had the responsibility of setting a very high standard of personal and public conduct. Tilak’s allegations were certainly very serious and for some time one is led to believe him. On closer study of the issue, however, one is convinced that Tilak was highly unjust to his colleagues. The most important point in the matter was whether the organisers of the Deccan Education Society were presenting their accounts covertly or overtly. If they were doing so covertly, Tilak’s charges were justified. But from the documents it is absolutely clear that there was no underhand dealing in the matter. The Department of Education had adopted a fixed grant system and the Fergusson College received Rs. 3,000 for 1886, 1887 and 1888. The report of the Deccan Education Society further states: “A difficulty in the way of giving a grant of Rs. 3,000 to the Fergusson College would have arisen, if the life-member’s salaries had not been allowed to be assessed at a figure higher than the amount actually paid. One of the conditions attaching to the grants was that the head of the institution must certify that educational assets worth double the grant paid were actually spent. As the expenditure was roughly Rs. 6,000 this requirement could not have been satisfied. The term, educational assets was, however, given a somewhat wider interpretation and taken to cover not merely money but money’s worth. Judged by the test of ‘money’s worth’, expenditure could be put at even a higher figure than Rs. 9,000 the expenditure required to support a claim to the grant of Rs. 3,000 and the technical difficulty overcome.” It can thus be seen that Tilak’s allegations were unfounded. One feels that this incident throws much light on Tilak’s method of conducting controversies throughout his public life. Once he was convinced of the justness of his own stand, he wanted to give crushing blows to his opponents. In doing so, his legalistic mind exploited every weakness of the opponents and many a time twisted facts so as to make them suit his purpose for the moment. Once he had taken sides, he was keen to win and sometimes set aside the fair ways of stating his point of view. This naturally led to bitterness and gave ground to Tilak’s opponents for dubbing his methods as

unethical. Apart from such minor issues, there was above all a great controversy among the life-members of the Deccan Education Society about outside public work and Tilak emphatically put forth the doctrine of academic seclusion. Agarkar and Gokhale vehemently opposed the idea. In this respect it is necessary to follow the development. The New English School was started as a part of the greater effort for educating the people and the Kesari and the Mahratta were looked upon as only the other facets of the scheme of national awakening. The promoters of the New English School had to divide the responsibility and while some of them devoted themselves exclusively to the work in school, others had to work in school as well as for the journals. At the time of the Kolhapur case they were blamed by some for attempting too many things at the same time. Prin. Apte, however, gave a spirited defence of the extra-school undertakings, in the report of 1882. He observed: “The public may, therefore, rest assured that we have not undertaken any business that we do not think ourselves able to perform, and which at the same time does not converge to the principal object of our uniting and forming a body that of imparting education to our countrymen according to the ways and means that may be at our command”. With the formation of the Deccan Education Society and the starting of Fergusson College, there was a change in the situation. If the ideal of a professor, as stated by Prin. Apte in his evidence before the Education Commission, was to be realised, much time had to be devoted to academic pursuits. Besides, there was the other work of the Society such as collecting funds, and there were also the administrative duties in the college. The responsibility of conducting the papers must have appeared too exacting to some life-members. There were also other financial difficulties and difficulties owing to the different opinions on certain issues. The whole of the year 1886 was spent in discussions about the press and it was at last decided to sever the connections of all members with the press and the journals. The accounts were made up by the middle of 1886 and in October 1886, the press and papers with all their liabilities were formally given over to Prof. Kelkar. The offer was first made to Agarkar but he did not accept it on account of the liabilities and also because “it was not the aim of his life to turn out an editor”. He said that he would rather close them down. Tilak was against closing a concern once started, especially because the Kesari was proving so effective as an instrument of public education. He offered himself to conduct the journals in case none else was prepared. Kelkar, however, undertook to conduct the concerns and Tilak was declared as the next “hypothecated man” for the purpose of general advice

and assistance. Even though Kelkar was in charge of the journals, Tilak and Agarkar contributed articles to the Kesari; but the contradictions in the views expressed by them became so glaring that at last on 25th October 1887, it was announced in the Kesari, that “As Tilak had become the publisher of the Kesari, he, and not Agarkar, would be responsible for the Kesari”. Agarkar thus severed his connection with the Kesari from October 1887, but his urge for social reform did not allow him to rest and he along with Prof. G. K. Gokhale started the journal Sudharak. Thus it would be seen that neither Tilak nor Agarkar had followed the ideal of academic seclusion. Prof. Kelkar has given a clear idea of the situation in the following statement: “At present there are no less than six of us engaged in private work of a kind which cannot but tell on our work in the institutions. It has in some cases led to the setting up of rival interests among the members.” Bickerings thus went on and charges and counter-charges were frequently levelled against each other. Things, however, reached a crisis when Gokhale intended to accept the secretaryship of the Sarvajanik Sabha of Poona. It was an honorary post with two or three hours’ work every day. Tilak objected “to such diversion of one’s energies” and pointed out “that even the government did not allow its servants to do anything else and that for a body like ours it would be carrying the principle of private work too far to allow members to contract such definite engagements outside the body.” The secretaryship of the Sarvajanik Sabha had been offered to Tilak before, but he refused to accept it so long as he was a life-member. Tilak also stated that “there was still ample scope for Mr. Gokhale’s energies in his duties as professor of English Literature in Fergusson College and that if we wished to compete with other colleges, we must at least show that we were not behind in reading and work, as we admittedly were.” The Board of life-members was divided on the issue and Gokhale became the secretary of the Sarvajanik Sabha in July 1890. Tilak once again raised the question in October and when the question came up for discussion, Prof. Kelkar moved the following resolution: “That the kind of responsible duties and work in connection with the Sarvajanik Sabha undertaken by Mr. Gokhale are not compatible with the faithful and complete discharge of his duties (to the extent contemplated by the Managing Board when it entrusted him with the duties of professor of English) as a member of the Deccan Education Society.” Kelkar moved the resolution and Tilak seconded it; it was put to vote and was carried by 6 votes to 3. Agarkar declined to vote . Upon this Agarkar proposed

the following “That Mr. Kelkar’s proposition applies much better to Namjoshi and equally to others.” Gokhale seconded the proposition, which was split up and voted upon separately for each individual. The result was that Tilak, Agarkar, Namjoshi and Apte were also found guilty of accepting outside work at the cost of work as life-members. While voting on Apte’s case was proceeding, Tilak declared that he had ceased to be a member of the Body and handed over his resignation, after writing it on the spot. This letter was followed by a similar one from Gokhale, who also offered to resign if “by his withdrawal he could induce Mr. Tilak to remain”. Both the letters were read and it was resolved that Mr. Gokhale be informed that Mr. Tilak had not based his resignation on Gokhale’s connection with or severance from the society. When this resolution was communicated to Gokhale he withdrew his resignation. From Tilak’s attitude in the matter, one feels that his insistence on academic seclusion was the result of his convictions and not a tactical move against Gokhale. It was true that he wrote in the Kesari, but mathematics was certainly his first love and circumstances almost forced him to associate himself with the journals. It should be recalled that at the time of starting the Kesari and the Mahratta, the initiative came from Chiplunkar, Namjoshi and Agarkar and not from Tilak. In times when workers are few and tasks are numerous, there is no choice left to individuals to pursue their own favourite activities. Tilak was therefore forced to take interest in the journals and his keen sense of prestige did not allow him to consent to the closing down of the concerns in 1886. He felt that such a step would be a betrayal of the trust people had reposed in them as the editors. He had thus no choice but to come forward to accept the responsibility. A charitable interpretation can be put on Tilak’s motive in moving the resolution if we take it to mean that life-members, either as a body or individually, should not accept any new outside commitments that were likely to interfere with their primary duties in the Deccan Education Society. The point however is that, whether he accepted the responsibility of the Kesari as a matter of choice or under compulsion, it must have interfered with his duties as a professor and considering his exalted notion of a professor, he should have admitted it. If he had taken this stand and intended the resolution as much as a reproach against himself as against Gokhale, things might have taken a different turn. It could then have been said that Tilak believed in the principle of academic seclusion, wanted to assert it and wanted to discipline all, including himself, in

the light of it. But from the words in the resignation “that from the vote that has been passed against me now, I do not think that I could be true to myself, and the body at the same time” it can be seen that he honestly believed that his own work outside the College did not interfere with his duties as a life-member, while Gokhale’s work as the Secretary of the Sarvajanik Sabha did. Tilak’s stand is not convincing. An argument might have been made in Tilak’s favour that he was writing only one article per week, while Gokhale had to work for three hours a day. The argument has no weight because though a person may write one article per week, he has to follow the subject of his article throughout and though the physical act of writing an editorial might take only two hours, thoughts about it hover in the mind of the editor for a much longer time. Thus one feels that Tilak would have been consistent with his theoretical position if he had censured himself along with Gokhale and severed his connection with the Kesari and the Mahratta. He appeared to be looking at the matter in a subjective manner. The passions rising in the Society prevented him from being detached and objective in the advocacy of a noble doctrine. It must of course be admitted that Tilak did believe in the doctrine of academic seclusion though at this stage there was a contradiction between his practice and his precept. He could not live up to his own ideals, but his academic pursuits in the midst of tremendous public work in later life throw light on the bent of his mind. His words that in a free India he would leave politics and become a professor of mathematics were an expression of a deep- seated conviction. In the article which he wrote, when Paranjpye, the first Indian Senior Wrangler, returned from Cambridge after winning great academic laurels, Tilak reiterated his faith in academic seclusion. In this respect Agarkar held an altogether different view and felt that though work outside must not interfere with academic duties, the idea of severing all contact with political and social life would only mean a repudiation of the original idea of regarding education as a part of the comprehensive plan of reawakening the nation. This difference between the points of view of Tilak and Agarkar could partly be explained in the light of the fact that Tilak was a professor of mathematics, a subject which could be divorced from die hurly-burly of worldly life while Agarkar’s subject was philosophy, a subject in which insight could only be developed when ideas were tested in the light of observation and experience. Tilak’s Resignation

Tilak later on submitted his final resignation in which he made an elaborate statement, running over forty pages, discussing the phases of the struggle inside the Society which ultimately led to the parting, and reiterating his adherence to certain principles which, according to him, were the cornerstones of the Deccan Education Society. The statement shows a rare clarity in ideas and Tilak’s wonderful capacity for brilliant exposition. It is however much more than a convincing argument of an acute legal mind. It is a moving expression of an idealist’s faith. The glimpses of its deep human significance can be had from the following passages: “Our object has not been to go where circumstances might drift us. Such an object needs no sacrifice and is not worth sacrificing for. Individuals as well as institutions are of two kinds, those that take the circumstances as they are and compromise with them; and those that obtain recognition of their views by creating favourable circumstances by means of robustly and steadily fighting their way up. The moral force of sacrifice is required in the latter and not in the former case, and there the compromise, if any, must be small. They are like deviations in the orbits of the planets, deviations, which however numerous they may be, never prevail over the central force. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. Such deviations or compromises I have never opposed. But the question before us now is not of small deviations but of changing the course or of keeping it unsettled altogether. In such case it is but too plain that I cannot accept the compromise. It must not, however, be supposed that I claim for myself a monopoly of all that is good and faultless. I am deeply conscious of my faults, which, I know, have given at times reason to some of my colleagues to be offended by me. The chief fault that I am aware of in me is my manner of expressing myself in strong and cutting language. I am, I think, never violent in the beginning; but, being a man of very strong feelings, I often fall into the error of giving sharp and stinging replies when aroused and of being unsparing in my criticism. And sharp words do cause an amount of mischief. But I can assure you that I spoke strongly because I felt strongly for the interest of the institution. “I assure you that it was only after a great struggle with my own feelings that I have come to this resolve. In fact I am giving up now my life’s ideal, but the only thought that by separating myself from it I shall serve it best is my consolation. While I have been with you, I have not spared myself in serving the interest of the institution; and I shall not imperil its existence by continuing with you. As I have hitherto served it by being ,with you, I shall now serve it best by tearing

away from you.” It is evident from the resignation that while working in the Deccan Education Society Tilak had put before himself a definite pattern, which he hoped, would be realised in future. Owing to a number of developments he felt that his hopes would be belied. He fought for his stand and when he was defeated, he must have experienced a sense of frustration. He therefore did the right thing in leaving the Deccan Education Society. The resignation, written coolly, is a defence of his point of view, and a rationalisation of his actions. The resignation is overburdened with details but it also clearly reflects the agonies through which Tilak had to pass before he took the final decision to part. Tilak’s utterances were always decisive and people therefore felt that he was not sensitive. As a matter of fact his words proclaiming his decision were preceded by a conflict of warring sentiments in his mind, but he had not the sentimental attitude found in some persons, who think aloud when their minds are torn in doubt. While leaving the Deccan Education Society he suffered great pangs but once parting became inevitable, he accepted the situation in a stoic spirit and was reconciled to his lot, however painful it might have been. His last words while leaving the Deccan Education Society must have been: 1 2 Ibid., p. 21 3 Ibid., p. 34. 4 5 6 Ibid, p. 160. 7 Ibid., p. 197 8 9

10 Ibid., p. 301. 11 Principal V. K. Raj wade in his reminiscences has given the remarks made to him by Gokhale: “I became a life-member of the Deccan Education Society, owing to Tilak. There was a charm in his behaviour. He never treated anyone harshly. Students were afraid of Namjoshi. Nobody paid much respect to Dharap. But nobody ever feared Tilak. Every student respected him. He taught rather fast but nobody paid heed to such defects. He was the most popular of all teachers,”

THE END OF AN EPOCH 4 The last two decades of the 19th century are marked controversies, carried out with great fire and fulmination. Such controversies are not mere idle quarrels: they are clues to the awareness of a people. “The way of a nation,” says F. S. Oliver, “at every stage of its existence, is determined by parallel forces. At the one pair of opposite angles the pull is between dread of change and the hope that change will make things better. At the other pair, the pull is between the rivalries and ambitions of individual men. Sometimes the struggle is graced by a temperate decency; but more often it is rough and ruthless. Internal antagonisms are the heartbeats of a nation’s life and when the antagonisms cease its history is ended.” In a period of transition more over, everything is in a flux and petty things appear to be of enormous importance. In the dust raised by the contending parries issues are blurred. Considerable time has to elapse before principles and personalities can emerge in their true perspective. Controversies in Hindu society have usually raged around four principal issues: the position of women, property rights, caste system, and marriage laws. Poona had already made itself notorious by its fierce controversies when Swami Dayananda had visited the city. Tilak and Agarkar had discussed a good many of these social issues in their college days. In their life as public workers these discussions now assumed the form of controversies. The first of these controversies was the one raging around the following famous case.

Rakhamabai Dadaji Case This case in 1886 caused a sensation in society. Rakhamabai, the daughter of Dr. Sakharam Arjun of Bombay, was married to Dadaji, a near relation of her father. Dr. Sakharam had a quarrel with Dadaji, and refused to send Rakhamabai to him. After the death of Dr. Sakharam, Dadaji filed a suit to get legal possession of Rakhamabai. Rakhamabai had refused to go to him and, when the proceedings were going on, wrote letters in the Anglo-Indian journals of Bombay in order to arouse public sympathy. The main argument advanced in favour of Rakhamabai in the court was that Rakhamabai was married to Dadaji without her consent and therefore should not be forced to live with him. This claim of hers was not backed by Hindu law and yet Justice Pinhey gave a verdict in her favour. Dadaji then appealed to the High Court and Justice Sargent and Justice Bayley turned down the former verdict and accepted Dadaji’s claims on his wife Rakhamabai. A serious controversy raged over this. People in favour of social reforms, dubbed the Hindu law as outdated and reactionary. Meanwhile, Rakhamabai declared her resolve to defy the decision of the High Court and suffer imprisonment if necessary. Some over-enthusiastic people gave her the importance of a martyr and a fund was raised for her. Mr. Malbari contributed Rs. 200 to this fund. There was much mud-slinging and people also began to feel that it would be unfair to force Rakhamabai to stay with Dadaji. Even those, who at one time upheld the claims of Dadaji, said that the High Court’s acceptance of Dadaji’s claims was sufficient vindication of justice and that there was no point in pursuing the matter. Dadaji at last realised the futility of compulsion in marital relations and gave the matter up. Some persons who were in favour of Rakhamabai compared her to Dr. Anandibai Joshi, the first Hindu woman to go to America and pass the M.D. Examination; but the Kesari of the 29th March 1887 strongly resented such a comparison. The Kesari was proud of the achievements of Dr. Anandibai and in the editorial Tilak pointed out how Anandibai passed through great ordeals and set a noble example to Hindu society, while Rakhamabai had through her behaviour only tried to sow the seeds of discontent in the life of Hindu families. Shri Wamanrao Modak, who held extremist views about social reform, in a public lecture condemned the attitude of the Kesari as unlliberal and remarked that the nationalists were only encouraging evil customs in Hindu society. Tilak,

in answer to this, clarified his position in the Kesari of 31st May 1887. “The Kesari has always blamed and criticised the evil tendencies and bad customs in our society. The Kesari was always of opinion that these would have to be removed gradually but there is a difference in this point of view and that of Mr. Modak. To him the only remedy is legislation, to us it is the education of public opinion.” Ranade, who also had championed Rakhamabai’s cause, in May 1887, gave a lecture in the Spring Lecture Series in Poona on “Marriage law and its enforcement”. He opined that the present law about marriage was applicable equally to men and women, but in practice it gave a preferential treatment to men. He referred to the Shastras and pointed out that the view of the Hindu scriptures was liberal towards women. He advocated the view that there should be no punishment or fine for enforcing husband and wife to live together and if this provision was not there in the present law, it would have to be amended accordingly. Tilak gave a crushing rejoinder to Ranade in the Kesari of the7th June 1887. A diligent student of Hindu law, Tilak could marshal an imposing array of arguments by quoting chapter and verse from the Hindu scriptures to refute the views of Ranade. According to him Ranade’s attack was cowardly, as under the cloak of defending Rakhamabai, he attempted to destroy the ancient Hindu religion. Tilak pointed out that when the Smritis expected men to protect women, they never meant that even a licentious woman could claim alimony from her husband. Protection did not imply just a protection from danger but also the right of possession. Tilak at the end of the second article wrote: “Judges in ancient days were far more strict than those at present. At present the marriage litigation comes under civil code. Formerly it was treated as a criminal case. As a matter of fact Rao Bahadur (Ranade) had no business to interfere in the Dharmashastra. If any reform is to be made, we should only consider how far it was desirable, necessary and possible. But when eminent scholars and experienced persons like the Rao Bahadur, attempted to delude people with their learning and tact in order to advocate their own point of view, we also feel it necessary to make our readers conscious of the fact that they are being duped.” Tilak’s scholarship is clearly revealed in these two articles wherein he exposed

the fallacies in Ranade’s interpretation of Hindu Shastras. One feels, however, that in the heat of the controversy Tilak upheld only the orthodox point of view and in spite of his claim that he would not oppose a reasonable proposal for reform, the impression that one gathers from the articles is that he wanted to give a crushing reply to all those who were in favour of any reforms regarding the marriage laws. Moreover Tilak does not, even once, mention the fact that Rakhamabai was an educated lady while Dadaji was illiterate. The humanitarian issue involved in the incident was not referred to by Tilak. His stand was legalistic and he lost sight of the human aspect of the problem in his anxiety to interpret the Hindu Shastras correctly.

The Age of Consent Bill The Age of Consent bill was the next important controversy, in which Tilak led the opposition against all reformers, wielded a great influence over public opinion and took a very stubborn attitude against any interference by the government in Hindu religion. The efforts made by Shri Malbari in 1887 to enforce social reforms by law through legislation had met with failure, but his suggestion had given rise to three different points of view. Some were of the opinion that even though social reformers were in a minority, they were ahead of society and there was nothing wrong in imposing the views of an enlightened minority over the majority that was static and reactionary. Another section was of the opinion that those who wanted reforms should take a vow to practise them and in order to strengthen this resolve ask for a law which would only be applicable to themselves. A third section held that when the majority was favourably disposed towards reform, there was nothing wrong in imposing a law on the minority. The leaders of these different sections argued endlessly through articles in journals and on public platforms. There was of course a very large section that was conservative, and though normally not vocal, this section made itself felt under the serious provocation of Malbari’s activities. Malbari was then in England and was busy making vigorous efforts to impose with the help of the Parliament an act of social reforms on India. He published a nine-point programme for reforms which contained the following clause: An intercourse with a girl of twelve should be regarded as criminal and the husband committing this offence should be punished by law. There is a reference to these secret activities of Mr. Malbari in the Kesari of the 12th August 1890, and these activities became so much known within a short time that Tilak, in the Kesari of the 30th September 1890, wrote an editorial on “The Petition for Law” warning people against signing any such petition. In a public meeting held at Tulsibag in Poona, Tilak condemned the efforts of Malbari as very harmful to Hindu society and declared that the meeting was held to send a petition to the government requesting it not to impose a law on people against their will. There was another public meeting on 1st November 1890. The speech delivered by Tilak in this meeting throws clear light on his stand. He said, “There has been much talk about social reforms. But we have to bear in mind that we have to reform the masses and if we dissociate ourselves from them, reforms would become

impossible. The outstanding example of this is the fact that though widow- remarriage is a desirable reform, most of the reformers cannot practise it in their families. I therefore think that each one should start reforms from himself and convert others through practice rather than by mere theory... My main contention is that the advocates of reform should live up to their own preachings. It would be necessary to set up an institution like that of the missionaries in order to propagate these principles.... Such efforts to mould people’s minds have been made by the Brahmins for thousands of years. Those of us who have the advantage of English education should do the same work more effectively. Without this effort I shall not regard ourselves as enlightened persons.” Ranade, in the concluding remarks, observed that such efforts were made, but did not bear any fruit. He expressed satisfaction over the fact that Tilak was not opposed to reforms. At long last, on the 9th January 1891, the Age of Consent Bill was moved in the Upper Council by Sir Andrew Scoble at Calcutta. Sir Rameshchandra Mitra opposed it. The Viceroy in his speech remarked that the bill did not violate the promise given in the Queen’s Proclamation, viz. that the government would not interfere in religious matters. It was resolved to publish the bill in the Gazette in order to acquaint people with it. In the editorial of the Kesari on the 20th January, it was observed that the bill did interfere with the social and religious customs of the Hindus and an appeal was made to the orthodox Hindus to be prompt in communicating to the government the tradition which they followed and which they could never give up. Among those who supported the bill there were persons like Telang and Rao Bahadur Nulkar who said that it was not necessary to pay respect to the Hindu religion or to care for tradition. Telang expressed his defiant mood in the following words: “A person, obeying the king’s command and disobeying the command of religion, can atone for his sin by throwing a silver coin at a priest.” The Kesari naturally criticised Telang’s remarks as indecent and unwise. Tilak versus Dr. Bhandarkar More important support to the bill came from Dr. Bhandarkar, the eminent scholar and orientalist. He supported the Age of Consent bill in the light of

certain references from Hindu scriptures. Tilak had great respect for Bhandarkar and though ordinarily virulent and unsparing in his attacks he showed great restraint out of deference to Bhandarkar. He began his article with a quotation from Manu: Tilak’s arguments during the controversy displayed his accurate knowledge of Hindu scriptures and his legal acumen. He wrote with great fervour and appeared to have given up the stand taken in his speech on the 1st November 1890. He took up cudgels on behalf of tradition and attacked all those who wanted to defy it. His retorts were crushing, his language was biting and his tone was offensive throughout the controversy. He threw all the weight of his personality on the side of orthodoxy and used all his organisational capacities to overwhelm those who supported the bill. Many admirers of Tilak did not like his aggressive attitude in controversies. Prof. W. M. Joshi once asked Tilak about this. Tilak grew serious and remarked, “Wamanrao, this problem is not merely intellectual but one of experience. He, who has to accomplish some task, is compelled to hurt his opponents. An arm-chair thinker has not to face such a situation and he can indulge in the talk of theoretical tolerance and hollow dignity. It is difficult to keep cool while fighting an opponent who is throttling your cause. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to keep friendly relations with one who threatens to destroy the ideal, which is sacred and dear to us.” It is generally observed that reformers lack fervour and are never militant in the advocacy of their cause. As a result, reforms even though desirable, are retarded. The orthodox people in Maharashtra held meetings after meetings to express their opposition to the bill, while those in favour of the bill contented themselves merely by writing articles or letters in the newspapers. At last in Poona, the pro- reform people decided to hold a private meeting in the Krida Bhavan. Dr. Bhandarkar was present at the meeting. At first only those who were in favour of the bill were admitted. However, many others, including a number of students, also managed to gain entrance. Tilak and Namjoshi had come with a view to suggesting an amendment to the proposed resolution. Those who were not given admission threatened to break open the doors, and there was a great row. The meeting was dispersed, the rowdy elements took charge of the place, broke

benches, threw dust at people and created confusion. Dr. Bhandarkar had to be removed under police escort. Five young men were arrested in this connection. For some time, in Poona, the main issue of the Age of Consent Bill was overshadowed by the incident at Krida Bhuvan. There were not, however, any unfortunate developments; the five accused were set free in the absence of convincing evidence and the curtain was drawn over the episode. While the controversy was raging fiercely, the Age of Consent bill was passed on the 19th May 1891. After some time the opposition grew lukewarm and only sarcastic references were made to social reformers in public lectures or in the course of certain articles in newspapers. A farce was staged in Poona wherein the supporters of the bill were ridiculed, but it became evident that the opposition had lost its sting. In the Provincial Conference held in Poona in May 1891, Tilak moved the following resolution: “This conference regrets that the government of India did not give due consideration to public opinion, which was expressed regarding the Age of Consent bill.” In his speech Tilak emphasised the fact the that government’s decision to overrule public opinion was a retrograde step in political life. It was evident that in opposing the bill, Tilak really intended to oppose the tendency on the part of reformers to seek the government’s intervention in social or religious matters.1 However, the method he adopted in the controversy made him shift his original emphasis and in consolidating the forces of opposition he allied himself with the forces of reaction. There is no doubt that Tilak maintained a dignified attitude in his writings and speeches. This cannot, however, be said of many of his supporters like Poona Vaibhav, the organ of the orthodox section. Its tone was always rabid and on occasions Tilak also came under the fire of its attacks. In fact many orthodox people blamed Tilak for his progressive views and though they accepted Tilak’s leadership in opposing the Age of Consent bill, they all the while waited for an opportunity to attack him too. This opportunity came during the “Gramanya incident”.

The Excommunication Episode This was an amusing episode, vying in the farcical variety of its situation and character with a Moliere farce. It was literally and figuratively a storm in a tea- cup engineered by a noted eccentric of the day. Gopalrao Joshi, the prime mover of this incident, was known for his bluntness and quaint sense of humour and delighted in mockery. This usually took the form of making important people appear ridiculous in society. In October 1891, Joshi had a rare brain-wave and planned a ruse to expose some of the leaders of society. He was intimate with the missionaries and with their help arranged a lecture at the Panch Houd Mission School in Poona. Invitations were sent to a number of celebrities in Poona under the signature of a sister and Rev. Revington, the Head Master of the school. Joshi knew the weakness of the Poona people for lectures. True to his expectations, almost everybody of importance including Ranade and Tilak was there. There was nothing worth mentioning in the lecture and when it was over, tea and biscuits were served to the audience. This was indeed an embarrassing situation for many, who could neither take tea as it was given by the Christian missionaries but also did not want to show themselves completely orthodox by refusing it. Some people therefore took tea, a few took only a sip while others politely refused it. The impish Gopalrao Joshi watched things chuckling to himself. After the meeting was over, Joshi went straight to the editor of Poona Vaibhav and published a list of the people who had taken tea at the Panch Houd Mission. Along with the names of those who attended, Joshi’s inventive brain also included the names of those who were absent. This involved the editor in a libel case in which he was fined Rs. 200. Joshi had a double-edged weapon, because if the orthodox people did not take objection, he would have an opportunity of ridiculing them and if the so-called progressive people apologised, he would pin-prick their reputation and expose their hypocrisy. The orthodox people referred the matter to Shankaracharya who appointed a commission of two learned Brahmins to investigate the matter. One can imagine how the event was followed with tremendous excitement in society, particularly in Poona. There were attacks and counter-attacks. Some orthodox people called for deterrent punishment, some of the accused refused to acknowledge the right of Shankaracharya to sit in judgment on them. Certain individuals wanted to defy Shankaracharya’s authority, but had to yield to the pressure at home, while

others gave a complete surrender owing to the threat of public boycott. Tilak’s attitude was quite independent in the matter, though he obeyed the dictates of the Shastras, and maintained that when he had done so, he could not be tried by the Commission. Tilak gave evidence before the Commission that he had of his own accord followed the scriptures and after the Panch Houd Mission incident had taken the prayashchitta, an act of purification, at Benares and had also done certain rituals in Poona. The Commission accepted his claim and gave the judgment that no further act of purification was necessary. To the orthodox, Tilak’s defiant attitude appeared offensive and they wanted to humiliate him. They took the matter to Shankaracharya, but Tilak was absolutely firm. He reiterated his position by referring to the Dharmashastras and it was once again proved that he was a greater authority on religion than all the orthodox scholars put together. He had an answer to every charge and showed himself a master in making hairsplitting arguments. Taking a keen delight in fighting, though he did not want to defy society, he would never yield to any authority. His attitude was that of a lawyer who was ambitious to outwit all his opponents. Much vilifying criticism was made against Tilak, and Agarkar also in his Sudharak had some digs at him, but Tilak was unmoved. Moreover he had to stand by Ranade who was one of the bigger catches of Joshi’s net. Ranade, along with seven others, had submitted a petition to the Commission that they should be asked to perform any act of purification. Their petition was granted. There was naturally a huge protest against Ranade’s action for he was looked upon as a great reformer. He tried to defend himself by saying that an act of purification did not signify repentance but was only a concession to people’s wishes. This was a lame defence, and the glaring contradiction in the professed progressive principles and the surrender to orthodoxy, could not be concealed. Tilak in an article in the Kesari of the 7th June 1892, wrote: “Our brothers (reformers) want to bring about social reforms with a magic wand. We think that reforms can be brought about in conformity with the spirit of times and the environment,... We all have families and want to live with society. Under these circumstances a compromise between the individual’s wishes and society’s expectations would have to be arrived at. Reforms accomplished through such compromises would come to stay. Those who only want to live according to their own individual whims should do so on a desert island. Others who want to live in society will have to adopt a compromise.” In spite of the fact that Tilak had performed acts of purification, the orthodox

Brahmins in Poona boycotted him and for a time Tilak had to perform the religious rites at home without the help of a priest. At the wedding ceremony of his daughter, he could not get a cook in Poona and a friend of his, who was a native Prince, had to send his own cooks for the occasion. The Panch Houd Mission incident thus led to a great commotion and many eminent people were tossed like leaves in a storm. Tilak braved the storm and showed that he was capable of facing any opposition. Some orthodox persons openly declared their wish of humiliating Tilak by compelling him to take the prayashchitta as ordered by Shankaracharya. One of them wrote, “We are determined to see to it that Tilak’s moustaches are removed.”2 Tilak, who had accepted the challenge, at the end of the controversy wrote that his opponents were sorely disappointed to see that his moustaches were intact. During the last phase of the controversy, there was a difference of opinion between the members of the Commission and Shankaracharya. Like all civil litigations it went on endlessly and the chapter closed without a decisive end. Like Puck, Joshi alone revelled in his joke.

Pandita Ramabai Tilak was very shrewd in his judgment and though sometimes his views appeared biased, they were vindicated by after-events. This was particularly seen in the controversy over Pandita Ramabai’s Sharada Sadan. Ramabai was a remarkable woman in many ways. The daughter of a Chitpavan Brahmin, Anantshastri Dongre, Ramabai’s early life was a saga of suffering and privation. Ramabai’s father settled in Mangalore and later migrated to Mysore where he made his mark as a learned man; but he did not enjoy prosperity long. Excommunicated by his village for the offence of teaching Sanskrit to his wife, Anantshastri and his wife took to a life of wandering and at last established a hermitage in the forest of the Madras Presidency. Here Ramabai was born. Evil days once again visited Anantshastri and with his wife, son and two daughters he tramped practically throughout India. The terrible famine of 1876-77 claimed him as a victim. His wife and one of the daughters died and Ramabai after harrowing trials reached Calcutta with her brother. In Calcutta, Ramabai made her mark for her learning and soon married a young Brahmo advocate, Bipin Bihari Medhavi, in 1880. Two years later Medhavi died and Ramabai with her infant daughter came to Poona at the invitation of reformist leaders and started giving lectures and began preaching Hinduism. She also interested herself in women’s education and in the movement for women’s emancipation. Naturally she had to suffer the attacks of the orthodox sections. She came into contact with the missionaries and with their help went to England where she embraced Christianity. From England she went to America and on returning to India, with the help of the missionaries she established a home for destitute and orphaned women and widows in 1889 and called it Sharada Sadan. In the circular about the aims and objectives of the institution it was announced that the school would provide educational facilities for widows of the upper classes and also for those women of the upper classes who had no support. Along with the regular studies, the school imparted moral instruction, certain crafts were also taught. The Sharada Sadan needed some advisory body and eminent persons like Ranade, Bhandarkar, Telang and others agreed to work on the Advisory Board. Already a suspect in the eyes of the orthodox, Ramabai

became doubly so, now that she was a Christian. It was believed that her educational activity was only a cloak to conceal the propagation of Christianity. The Kesari first voiced this suspicion and asked for clarification of the news which had appeared in the Christian Weekly of New York on 21st December 1889, viz. that out of the seven widows who attended Sharada Sadan, two were inclined to Christianity and regularly attended prayers along with Pandita Ramabai. In reply to this article Miss Hamlin, on behalf of the management, sent for publication the circular of the Advisory Board, which declared that “the teachers and the managers of the institution would act in such a way as not to interfere with the caste, religion or customs”. Pandita Ramabai dubbed the criticism as destructive and observed that should the Hindus come forward to take charge of the institution the Christians would continue to help them. Tilak was not opposed to the education of women as such but objected to the proselytizing activities of Pandita Ramabai. He warned the Advisory Board against efforts to dupe the society and observed: “Such advisors would be guilty of deceiving society. The Christian ladies, trying to infiltrate in our society under the cloak of women’s education and their supporters however learned, would be regarded by us as enemies of the people, of Hinduism and also of the cause of women’s education.” Tilak substantiated his objections with facts and proved that the Sharada Sadan was a proselytizing institution. The truth of Tilak’s arguments was corroborated by later events and on 13th August 1893, Dr. Bhandarkar, Ranade and Bhat severed their connection with Sharada Sadan because there was a departure from the original understanding that was given to them by the management of the institution. In 1895, it was found that some 10 students of the Sharada Sadan were converted to Christianity. Pandita Ramabai afterwards openly preached Christianity and Sharada Sadan was changed to Mukti Sadan. Throughout the controversy Tilak’s practical wisdom and sagacity were clearly to be seen and he earned the confidence of the people owing to his exposure of Pandita Ramabai’s activities. At the same time it has to be remembered that he had not much to say in answer to the challenge thrown by Pandita Ramabai to the Hindu community for accepting the responsibility of managing such an institution.

Law Class and Other Activities After resigning from Fergusson College, Tilak threw himself headlong into public life. An account of his political activities during this period appears in the next chapter. Apart from the episodes mentioned so far, Tilak participated in various other activities of social service. During this period he had to find out such ways of earning a livelihood as would not interfere with his public work. He therefore started a law class in Poona. His mastery over law and his aptitude as a teacher made the class a tremendous success. Students appearing for the High Court Pleader’s examination found Tilak’s lectures highly instructive and illuminating. His students in the law class recall how Tilak’s treatment of the subject enabled the students to grasp the fundamentals of it and how he always gave a penetrating analysis of the most difficult sections of law. The only defect with his teaching was his impersonal method. Tilak was so absorbed in the subject that he seldom looked at the class when he lectured. V. G. Javadekar, one of his students, recalled how even when a student had a difficulty, Tilak solved it without looking at him. If a student persisted in the difficulty, Tilak would look up at him just for a moment, and start giving the explanation with his eyes cast downward as usual. Javadekar has also stated that on one occasion Ranade himself attended the class and complemented Tilak on his exposition of Hindu law. The class continued uninterruptedly for seven years. As another source of income, Tilak started a ginning factory at Latur in Nizam State in partnership with a friend. Tilak had little leisure to pay attention to the business aspect of the enterprise and therefore, though the factory continued, it never brought rich dividends. Among other public activities of Tilak, particularly worthy of mention was the representation made to the Duke of Connaught, during his visit to India, about starting a school for military training. Tilak was the secretary of the deputation that waited on the Duke of Connaught. The Duke approved of the proposal and agreed that the proposed military school be named after him. However, the bureaucratic wheels turned in their usual inscrutable manner, the princes who had taken initiative in the matter backed out at the tacit suggestion of the authorities, and the move was dropped. Tilak also took keen interest in civic matters and was elected to the Poona

Municipality in 1895. Vedic Research: Orion Despite these multifarious activities Tilak found enough time to devote to learning. Prof. Max Müller remarked that “Tilak lived more in the past than in the present.” This remark came as a surprise to those who knew all the political and social activities of Tilak. But though the remark lays stress on only one facet of Tilak’s personality, that facet was as real as the rest of the personality. In fact if Tilak had been born in free India, that facet would have been the pivotal point of his personality. Tilak, in his letter to Prof. Max Muller wrote, “I spend my leisure in doing research about Vedic literature and culture.” Some of his friends recall how even when some political strife was going on wherein Tilak was the central figure, he was found completely absorbed in reading some book about antiquity. He did not read these books merely to get more information. His mind worked in an independent way and his critical spirit would not allow him to accept a proposition simply because it was advocated by some eminent scholar. The problem of the antiquity of the Vedas exercised a peculiar fascination over his mind. He pursued an original line of inquiry by considering the astronomical details referred to in the Vedas and formulated his theory. He delivered one lecture on the subject at Hirabag in Poona in 1891, and another on the same subject in May of the same year on the occasion of the social gathering of the Deccan College. In 1892, he wrote Orion in which he endeavoured to show that the traditions recorded in the Rigveda unmistakably point to a period not later than 4000 B.C., when the vernal equinox was in Orion. He sent a summary of it to the Oriental Congress held in London during the same year and it has been printed in the proceedings of the Congress. Tilak had a scholar’s conscience and could not be satisfied by writing just one book. He studied the problem in all its aspects and as a result of this research work he wrote in 1903 The Arctic Home in the Vedas. These two books have to be considered together, which is done in a later chapter. Though Tilak had come under the influence of western philosophy in his college days, his mind found greater repose in the cultural tradition of the East. He was mostly preoccupied with the plans for changing the present. He, however, found in research about the past a solace and a satisfaction, particularly when he could establish the antiquity of Aryan civilization. Ideological Differences: A Retrospect

Ideological Differences: A Retrospect Every controversy has two aspects, the temporary and the perennial. Most people take sides according to their views about the temporary aspect. To them the local issue, the momentary interests, the immediate gains or losses - these are the things which matter. They, therefore, pay little attention to the principles involved in the dispute and their opinions are influenced by personalities and parties. There are, however, a few persons who transcend the limitation of the local issue and soar to the plane of principles. On this plane alone the perennial aspect of a controversy is brought out and the merits or demerits of a stand taken by the leaders of public opinion can be judged only in the light of this aspect. We have already mentioned some controversies in Maharashtra during the period 1885-95. If one follows the different articles written on these controversial issues and leaves out the chaff of personal criticism, one finds that there was always a theoretical difference between Tilak and Agarkar and both of them made a clear statement of their respective ideological positions. These controversies, now looked at in retrospect, appear in a very different light than when they were started and it is possible to make an analysis of the conflicting points of view expressed by persons like Tilak and Agarkar. Such conflicts are but inevitable in a period of intellectual ferment and in spite of the momentary bitterness arising from them, they ultimately enrich the intellectual life of society. Moreover the controversy between Tilak and Agarkar was not an isolated phenomenon. In other provinces too, there were similar conflicts when the reformist zeal of certain individuals clashed with the traditionalist ways of the orthodox. Owing to contact with the “Western civilization there was a growing consciousness of the need for social reform and in some parts of India, some individuals gave it an organised shape and form. In Bengal, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the first great social reformer of modern India, ‘The symbol of Renascent India’, started the Brahmo Samaj movement which criticised the caste system, idol worship and certain other reactionary features of Hindu society. When Keshav Chandra Sen became the leader of the Brahmo Samaj, Christianity had become the dominant influence and this led to a split and consequently to the formation of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj. In Punjab the Arya Samaj movement was started by Dayanand, ‘a very soldier of light and a sculptor of men and institutions!’ He gave a new interpretation of the Vedas, asserted the greatness of their teachings and attacked those who had exalted ritual above the real teachings of the Vedas. The Arya Samaj ruthlessly criticised the stagnation of Hindu society and condemned the reactionary customs which had sapped the vitality of the people. The workers of

Arya Samaj had a missionary zeal for the uplift of society and were militant in opposing the preachings of Islam and Christianity. Theosophy, which started in Madras, was a purely cultural movement and contributed a good deal to the regeneration of Hinduism. In Maharashtra there was the Satyashodhak Samaj of which Jyotirao Phule, the first great social reformer of Maharashtra, was the leader. He insisted on social equality and was the first to champion the cause of the Harijans. This movement, spread among the masses in Maharashtra, is important because it was a manifestation of the discontent felt by the backward classes over the social and religious domination of the upper classes. The upper classes had shown their love of reform in the Prarthana Samaj which was started in Bombay in 1867. Ranade, Bhandarkar, Modak and others had taken the lead in this movement. They attacked the caste system, idol worship and other superstitions in Hindu religion but they wanted to bring about reforms without breaking away from tradition. Unlike the Brahmo Samaj, the Prarthana Samaj always claimed to be a sect of the Hindu religion. Whenever the leaders of these different movements advocated their ideals and strove to usher in some reforms, they had to face great opposition from the people who stood for the status quo in religious and social matters. Apart from these major movements, there were also certain groups of individuals who could not openly face the wrath of the orthodox section but who formed secret societies in order to live up to some progressive ideals. There was, for instance in Bombay in 1845, a secret group known as Paramhans Mandali whose members were opposed to the caste system and idol worship and who were in favour of widow remarriage. The society was liquidated in 1860. There were also certain individuals who did not start a sect or organise a movement, but who created quite a stir in society by their attacks on established customs and by their advocacy of new ways. Thus Balshastri Jambhekar, a great intellectual, started a weekly - Darpanin 1832, in Bombay and advocated progressive views on social and religious matters. He pleaded for women’s education, widow remarriage and insisted on taking back people in Hindu religion, if they were forcibly converted to other religions. For the latter he had to suffer great vilification and maltreatment at the hands of orthodox society. Another great writer, Sardar Gopal Hari Deshmukh, popularly known as Lokahitwadi (Pro Bono Publico), wrote articles in the weekly Prabhakar in Bombay from 1848, in which he exposed the degeneration in Hindu society and advocated all-sided reforms. These individuals belonged to the first generation of English-educated people

in Maharashtra. The leaders of the Prarthana Samaj belonged to the second generation and Tilak and Agarkar to the third generation. In the first two generations ideas had an importance for their own sake. Afterwards, however, ideas could not be divorced from action. Moreover, so far, there was little political activity worth the name, but Tilak and Agarkar had, right from their college days, realised the importance of a political change. Public life was therefore becoming more and more complex, as the social and political forces mingled with each other. The controversies had therefore ceased to exist on a purely theoretical plane and had a relation to the action of the participants. They had a direct reference to reality and consequently there was a greater vehemence in the mutual attacks of the contending parties. Moreover Tilak and Agarkar had a greater fervour than their predecessors which was partly an outcome of the courage of their convictions and partly because they belonged to a disillusioned generation which had begun to realise in their personal lives the detrimental effects of British rule and had grown weary of stranglehold of superstitious customs and orthodoxy. The intensity of feelings displayed in Agarkar’s writings and the fundamental change which he advocated distinguish him from the reformers who came before him and he can justly be called a social revolutionary rather than a social reformer.

Differences between Tilak and Agarkar It is very interesting to observe the evolution of the ideas of Tilak and Agarkar. Tilak upto 1885 shared Agarkar’s views about the dormant orthodoxy in Hindu society, though he did not always approve of the defiant tone and iconoclastic attitude of Agarkar. Experience of public work strengthened Agarkar’s conviction about the urgent need of social reform, though he advocated, at the same time, progressive political ideals. Tilak, on the other hand, had a growing feeling that political problems should have priority over social questions. This drift in Tilak’s attitude became more and more distinct and he not only emphasised the political issues but also belittled the efforts of those who strove for social reform. The difference of opinion between Tilak and Agarkar in the Deccan Education Society led to a further divergence in ideas and the Kesari and the Sudharak did not lose a single opportunity of attacking each other. There were wordy duels in which severe blows were dealt and the people of Maharashtra witnessed the sparks emitted from the clash of these two strong personalities. Agarkar’s Faith in Individual Freedom The fundamental point of difference between Tilak and Agarkar was the social structure of Hindu society. To Agarkar individual freedom was the basis of all social reforms. Agarkar maintained that an individual would not be happy unless he enjoyed liberty with respect to thought, marriage and occupation; and he further emphatically stated that a society which did not allow this liberty would never be progressive. He argued that the Varna system symbolised the law of stability, and progress would not be possible unless it yielded place to the law of change. Agarkar, therefore, strongly advocated the necessity of discarding the Varna system and of following western ways which granted an individual freedom in essential matters.

Tilak on the Varna System Tilak’s position in this matter was entirely different. He wrote: “According to our Varna system, the choice of occupation for an individual is determined by factors which do not include his will or desire. In the free countries of Europe, there are no such restrictions. As a result of this free competition the able and efficient people prosper and others have to starve. In short, people have now realised that no social system is without fault or blemish.... Rao Bahadur Ranade and others want to change the basis of our society viz., Varna system, and want to give it the basis of the western societies, viz. free choice to individuals. They think that unless this change is made, we would not survive in the struggle of the nineteenth century. We do not think this to be correct. The social system of the west is not without ill effects.... In a society based on competition, wealth is not equally distributed, some become very rich and others grow very poor. Under this system, marriage becomes a contract and instead of widows there are a number of unmarried women who are denied the happiness of married life. From this, it can be found that it is thoughtless to say that society can be happy only if it is based on certain principles. We do not think that there should be no change in the structure of Hindu society or that there would be no change. Everyone would admit that with the contact of the east and the west, of the spiritualist and the materialist, of the systems based on determinism and free will there must be some change in the principles governing the old social order and change there will be. The dispute is whether we should entirely replace the old system by the new or whether we should revive the old system by making certain desirable changes. It is only owing to our Varna system that we have kept up our special features and though we could not be free at all times, we have survived for thousands of years. If we give up these special features, we shall lose whatever we have preserved and we shall be neither here nor there.... Nobody is opposed to reforms, but from the foregoing discussion it would be evident that its ways are quite different.” In all this argument of Tilak, one finds a justification of and a plea for the Varna system and a criticism of the faults of the western individualist civilization. It is clear therefore that Tilak was not prepared to discard the traditional structure of Hindu society and his statement that he was not opposed to desirable reforms can only be understood as an admission of the inevitability

of change. Tilak on the Necessity of Reform Thus writing on ‘The Necessity of Adoption’ in 1881, he had compared a nation that allowed no reform to a stagnant pool whose water stinks as it does not flow. In a meeting held in Poona to protest against the Age of Consent bill he had suggested an alternative to resolution of the orthodox sections which sought to condemn wholesale government interference in social reforms. The reformers had suggested that the meeting should not merely stop at condemning the government but should pass a resolution on behalf of the Hindu community showing their readiness to bring about reforms like widow-remarriage and prohibition of child marriage. Tilak suggested that a joint application, signed by members of different communities, should be made, to the government showing their readiness to work certain reforms which he specified. In addition he wanted all the signatories to pledge themselves to these reforms in their own personal life and also convey to the government their readiness to undergo any punishment if they broke this pledge. The reforms that he advocated were: (1) A girl should not be married before she was 16. (2) A boy should not be married before he was 20. (3) No man should marry after 40. (4) If he has to marry after 40 he should marry a widow. (5) Drinking should be stopped. (6) Dowry should be abolished. (7) Everyone should devote a tenth of his income for public work (established for this purpose). (8) Shaving of widows should be discontinued. Tilak’s plea was that the law should be confined only to the signatories of this petition. Apart from a sincere wish to have reform, Tilak’s main intention seems to be to point out the contradictions between the precept and practice of the advocates of reform. About the Varna system, Tilak upheld it as a principle of stability and held it as less harmful than the class structure of western society. In a paper, read in English before the Industrial Conference in Poona in 1892, he wrote: “The institution of caste owed its origin, like so many other institutions, to the circumstances of Hindu society in ancient times, and as an organisation it has served its purpose by preventing the knowledge of industrial arts, by checking the abuse of despotic power and generally by keeping up feelings of morality, self-respect and superiority amongst people. Excepting the lowest, all Hindu castes are based on difference in occupation, trade, profession or calling. Caste

must therefore be regarded as a secular and social organisation amongst the members of the Aryan race, for the preservation of hereditary occupations, and for the purposes of mutual help and co-operation like the institution of Social and Trade Guilds in Europe during the middle ages....” He quotes the authority of Dr. Brintano, who, in his History and Development of Guilds and Trade Unions in Europe has said, that these institutions always sprang up when the government failed to give protection to the industrial classes. Tilak continues: “We have seen that the organisation of caste served the same purpose in ancient times.... The institution of Mahajans and panchayats used to regulate the affairs of trade and dispense justice in petty matters more speedily and satisfactorily while the standard of morality, especially as regards the connection between the sexes and the use of alcohol, in both of which particulary the Indian workman is admitted by Mr. Eliott to be superior to his English brother, was rigidly maintained and carried out by the enforcement of caste rules and regulations. Can we not utilise the already existing institution of caste in a similar way to improve the material and moral condition of the working classes in India? In their present state, I think there can be no two opinions on the point.”

Caste and Class It may be pointed out that Tilak has unnecessarily mixed up social and economic issues. The problem, whether an individual’s occupation should be decided according to his birth or not, has not much to do with the economic inequalities of western society. Faults in the western civilization cannot be brought forward as a justification for retaining those in our own. Whenever Tilak justified the Varna system, he always made a reference to the positivist thinker August Comte who had accepted the basis of the Varna system as necessary for society. Comte, however, included the Varna system in the new religion of humanity that he advocated and this essentialy had nothing to do with the Varnashrarn system of orthodox Hinduism. Agarkar, on the other hand, admitted the historic purpose served by the Varna system at one phase of civilisation and granted that it was based on the principle of stability. But he was convinced that the system had outlived its utility and as it retarded the progress of society, and was contrary to the principle of social equality, he thought it necessary to attack it ruthlessly. There was thus a fundamental difference between the points of view of Tilak and of Agarkar and these differences were brought to a head when concrete issues were discussed. Whenever Tilak was criticised for his apathy in matters of social reform, he pleaded that it was not possible for one individual to accomplish all tasks. In 1886, he refers with approval to a lecture delivered by Justice Telang on the subject: ‘Must Social Reform Precede Political Reform in India’. Telang advocated in this lecture, “That reform ought to go along the line of least resistance.” His advice therefore was: “Secure first the reforms which you can secure with the least difficulty, and then turn your energies in the direction of those reforms where more difficulty has to be encountered. You will thus obtain all that vigour which the spirit of reform must derive from success....” He vigorously advocated political reform first and Tilak found himself in complete agreement with Telang s views when the latter declared, “But this I do say that political reform is entitled to a greater share of our energies than social, under the circumstances we have to deal with. Everyone of us cannot devote himself to everyone of the numerous reforms which one wanted. Extraordinary natural gifts may enable one person, like, for instance, my friend Mr. Ranade, to devote himself successfully to many modes of activity at one and the same time. But this

is not possible to us all. Therefore in dividing our energies, if we have to divide them between political and social reform, I hold that the greater portion of our energy legitimately can and therefore ought to be devoted to the former.” But if Tilak had been consistent with this position, he would have expressed his approval of the work of reformers without taking any active part in it. Instead, one finds that he took sides and adopted a hostile attitude to those who were advocating social reform. This drift became more and more evident after 1885, and after 1890, one finds that Tilak appears to have given up his former liberal position and is determined to concentrate all his energies on political action. In the words of Acharya Javadekar, “Tilak ceased to be a radical liberal and became a nationalist.” He not only said that political movement should come first, but also opposed the social reforms on the ground that they were likely to hurt the feelings of people and create a rift in society. He did not favour any activity which would divert the attention of the people from political ideals. Tilak admitted the fact that Agarkar was different from other reformers of his times and also of the previous generation because, unlike them, he held radical views in politics. Agarkar’s concept of progress was comprehensive political, economic and social - and he emphasised the need of a rational approach to all problems. There was naturally a consistency and strength about his arguments which could not be refuted intellectually. Tilak, however, felt that owing to this purely logical approach Agarkar advocated ideas which were inexpedient and which came in the way of the political movement. Agarkar, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Tilak’s constant stress on expediency led to hypocrisy. Tilak’s stand was that of a political leader who wanted to build up a political party and who therefore looked at every move from the point of view of strategy, while Agarkar’s was that of a thinker, who strove for all-sided reform and who would never compromise. Strategic Success of Tilak’s Stand In one respect there could be a justification for Tilak’s stand. His position proved to be correct strategically because when the political movement gathered momentum those who called themselves social reformers had to keep away from political activity. Prof. V. B. Patwardhan who edited the Sudharak after Agarkar, wrote articles in 1896, criticising the plague measures of the government. As a reaction to this Prof. Selby resigned from the Chairmanship of the Council of the Deccan Education Society early in June 1897. He disapproved of the violent tone