by A K Bhagwat
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 of the articles in the Sudharak, which in his opinion bordered on creating disaffection against the government. As a result of the controversy, it was ultimately decided that the Sudharak should be made a non-political organ and Prof. Patwardhan had to go on leave for one year. The life-members of the Deccan Education Society had to take a pledge that they would not associate themselves with active politics. Tilak’s judgment that with the growth of the political movement there would be a polarisation of social and political issues, proved to be correct and his stand was vindicated. In this context one can certainly appreciate the wisdom of his advice to young men that single-minded devotion to political ideals would reap better results than half hearted efforts in both social and political spheres.
Granting the strategic success of Tilak’s stand, one must not lose sight of the fact that it had essentially a local background. This can be particularly realised if one compared Tilak’s views with those of two other great political leaders of his time, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai. Their work of course falls in a later period but conditions had remained unaltered and hence the comparison can be made.
Both these leaders advocated social reforms along with radical political views. The difference mainly lay in the local conditions and the differing traditions. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the first great social reformer of India, had set up a new tradition in Bengal and liberal ideals had become a part of the intellectual makeup of the educated Bengalis. Bipin Chandra Pal, who during his impressionable age had come under the influence of Keshav Chandra Sen, became a Brahmo and even though he was disinherited by his father, he pursued his difficult path. Pal Babu’s radical views in politics therefore did not prevent him from expressing his progressive views in social matters. Lala Lajpat Rai also in his early life identified himself with the Arya Samaj movement of which Swami Dayanand was the leader. Swami Dayanand preached the message of the Vedas and condemned the corruption and decay which had crept into popular Hinduism. Lajpat Rai’s patriotism and philanthropy found expression in the field of social and religious reform. It can thus be seen that in the context of all-India forces, nationalism was not coexistent with orthodoxy. In Maharashtra, however, things were different. The advent of British rule came as a particularly mortifying blow to Maharashtra, as it meant the end of the rule of the Peshwas. In spite of the adjustment which the people of Maharashtra were compelled to make, there was always a smouldering discontent in Maharashtra and owing to the deep-seated political antagonism to the British rule, Maharashtra did not react to the liberal values of life in the same way in which Bengal did. The Prarthana Samaj movement could never take root in Maharashtra’s soil as the Arya Samaj had in Punjab or Brahmo Samaj in Bengal. It was confined to a handful of people. The traditionalist pride in Maharashtra had led to a sceptical attitude about the new values of life. Chiplunkar’s virulent attack on social reformers was an outcome of this attitude. Tilak thus was only conceding the claims of this reactionary tendency when he decided not to hurt the sentiments of people. In doing so he was almost putting his feet on a gliding precipice and the inevitable culmination of his action was his association with the socially reactionary forces. Some people justify Tilak’s action on the ground that a hero shares the limitations of his time and of his followers. This is only a partial truth. For a hero may not fight on all fronts, but in fighting one kind of evil, he can at least make people conscious of other evils lurking in other spheres. Tilak could not have started a crusade against reactionary tendencies, but he could have certainly expressed his disapproval. Instead of this he actually defended them. While admitting the strategic necessity of concentrating all energies on political work, one finds it difficult to understand his vehement opposition to social reform. Another individual, Mr. Malbari, who held views diametrically opposite to those of Tilak, attacked political workers almost in the same way as Tilak opposed social reformers. Dadabhai Naoroji, the veteran leader, expressed his strong disapproval of Malbari’s attacks on politicians and wrote on 15th December 1887: “In the present number of the Indian Spectator you have three times hit the political reformers, who are always for equality between themselves and the English.... Now, my dear fellow, what an amount of unnecessary mischief you are doing. By all means fight for the merits of your cause (social reform) but why unnecessarily discredit and discourage other important movements?” Such disapproval of the sectarian attitude whether of a politician or of a social reformer by an elderly person is absolutely necessary. Morley has said, “Both the social reformer and the politician are equally necessary for an all-out regeneration of society. Of course there are excellent reasons why a statesman immersed in the actual conduct of affairs should confine his attention to the work which his hands find to do. But that the leading statesmen are of necessity so absorbed in the task of the hour furnishes all the better reason, why as many other people as possible should busy themselves in helping to prepare opinion for the practical application of unfamiliar but weighty and promising suggestions by constant and ready discussion of them upon their merits.”3
The main danger of Tilak’s stand was that what was a matter of strategy with him was apt to be the main plank with those who came after him. The method in such cases is apt to assume the proportion of the objective and means become the end. Those who lacked Tilak’s courage to pit the last ounce of their energy in political agitation kept safely away from radical politics of later day and only cited him in support of their reactionary social views.
In all these controversies, Tilak showed himself a past master in stealing a march over his opponents. When he could not draw on the strength of his own arguments, he exploited the weaknesses of his opponents. Never did he lose a single opportunity of pointing out that people who advocated social reforms did not practise what they preached. He would sarcastically describe the event of a child marriage in the family of a social reformer. But instead of criticising the individual in question for falling short of his views, Tilak emphasised the impracticability of all reforms. In the controversies with Agarkar, however, Tilak could not adopt this method because he was aware of the fact that Agarkar faced all trials and braved all attacks in order to assert his point of view.4
But though Tilak could not point out an inconsistency in Agarkar’s words and actions, he used very harsh language in the course of controversies. Agarkar was also equally crushing in his blows and one is pained and surprised to read the articles in the Kesari and the Sudharak written as answers and rejoinders to each other. Prof. V. M. Joshi, who was an admirer of both Agarkar and Tilak, commenting on this controversy wrote: “Hegel has somewhere remarked that real tragedy consists not in the calamity to a great hero but in the calamitous fight between two parties both of which consider themselves to be in the right and are in the right from different points of view. Such a tragedy was the battling between Tilak and Agarkar.” After 1890, the embittered tone in the writings of Tilak and Agarkar became particularly obvious.
Human Aspect of the Tilak-Agarka r Relati on ship
There was, however, the human aspect of their relationship which prevailed in the midst of all ideological conflicts. In spite of the violent wordy battles the spring of affection between Tilak and Agarkar was not completely dried up. Agarkar was suffering from asthma and his health was failing. He was conscious of the approaching end and was fully prepared for it; but his heart yearned for a meeting with his one-time friend and felt relieved when Tilak went to him. It is not easy to imagine what these two friends, aware of the final parting, talked to each other about. On such occasions silence is far more eloquent than words. Tilak and Agarkar must have looked at each other; Tilak seeing the shadow of death creeping over his friend, must have been overwhelmed. The two friends must have clasped each other’s hand and re-lived in a moment their former period of companionship. All disputes were now settled because disputes were meaningless at the approach of death.
Agarkar died on 17th June 1895. The obituary article which Tilak wrote in the Kesari of 18th June, is an expression of his feeling. It is recalled by friends of Tilak, how he was overwhelmed by grief and how he found it difficult to compose himself and write the article on Agarkar. Tilak generally took half an hour to dictate the editorial of the Kesari. He had a philosophic calm and never appeared perturbed. While writing the obituary on Agarkar, however, he took over two hours and frequently stopped to restrain his emotions.
Tilak wrote two articles on Agarkar one on 18th June 1895, immediately after his death and the other on 4th July 1916, when the death anniversary of Agarkar was observed in Bombay. The first article is almost an emotional outburst of a bereaved friend while the other is an appraisal of Agarkar’s work done in a coolly logical manner. In the article written on 18th June 1895, Tilak wrote: “Agarkar and the writer of this article were close and intimate friends for a long time and we are not sure how we shall be able to write this obituary note. During the last five or six years, people knew of the differences of opinion between us, but death is so cruel and overwhelming that we forget these insignificant ‘matters and are bewildered when we vividly remember how we both made
some plans for social work in our youth, how we worked in a team and how we developed our plans at home, in public and even in prison. The education we had received in college together had moulded and shaped our minds in a particular way, and we had decided to dedicate our lives to a cause. We spent over ten years of our youth in serving the cause, unmindful of the difficulties and of the effects; and now death has snatched from our midst our comrade. It has fallen to our unfortunate lot to express our grief to the people of Maharashtra, whom Prin. Agarkar and the present writer had decided to serve. We are experiencing the truth of Kalidasa’s saying:
We restrain our grief and write this article as a painful duty.”
Tilak has then sketched the career of Agarkar and remarked that Agarkar by his life of sacrifice set a noble example before the educated people of this country. The article is interspersed with sentences such as: “We remember how we had placed the same ideal before us, how we devised methods for realising it and how we together experienced moments of happiness and of sorrow. All such memories make the mind restless and distracted and we realise the momentary significance of human endeavour.” Tilak has summed up the article after pointing out how Agarkar’s death was a loss to Maharashtra, to Marathi language and above all to the Deccan Education Society.
Agarkar’s Death: The End of an Epoch
Agarkar’s death was the end of an epoch, because he was the last among the radical liberals. Others who came after him and called themselves his followers, advocated social reforms but in the political sphere they were only moderates; and the opposition of the moderate liberals to Tilak had never the strength and the force of Agarkar’s opposition. In spite of their progressive views on social questions, Tilak could ignore them because the political problems had assumed greater importance than the social questions and Tilak with his radical political ideals and with his superb capacity for arousing people easily outshone all his opponents. Henceforth instead of keeping away from reactionary elements, Tilak found a common front with them on the ground that there was a state of emergency. In the political life of almost all countries, during such periods, a cry for a common front becomes urgent and the conservative elements dominate the scene.