by A K Bhagwat
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 proh
ibiting 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.”