by A K Bhagwat
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 self-less 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.”