by A K Bhagwat
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 acc
ept 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.