by A K Bhagwat
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 go
vernment’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.