by A K Bhagwat
An understanding of the development of Tilak’s views would not be possible without considering his relations with Agarkar. They were together in the impressionable period of their life, worked together in the educational and journalistic sphere, disagreed and parted company. They differed on fundamentals and quarrelled about a number of issues. But each had his impact on the other. Agarkar at first acted as a sort of an indirect check on Tilak and later on, even when they formed opposite camps, Agarkar’s bold assertion of progressive views stemmed the tide of reaction. With Agarkar’s death, however, the gulf between liberalism and nationalism widened tremendously and the prolific energies of Tilak were directed towards the sole aim of building up a national movement. The death of Agarkar was thus the end of an epoch. Henceforth in Maharashtra liberalism was always on the defensive and had ultimately to retire to the back-waters of politics.
1 This stand of Tilak was ably supported by such persons as Telang. In a letter to Malbari on the twin issues of widow-remarriage and infant-marriage Telang wrote: “I have not the smallest sympathy with the tyranny of caste, but I have as little with tyranny over caste.” According to Telang the caste system, with its power of excommunication was in a position to deal effectively with any offenders against its rule and government had no right to usurp this right enjoyed by the caste system: Selected Writings and Speeches of K. T. Tekng, p. 254
2 This was a part of the act of purification
3 Quoted by Acharya Javadekar at p. 229 in Adhunik Bharat.
4 The orthodox people of Poona had taken out in procession Agarkar’s effigy when he was alive
FROM LIBERALISM TO NATIONALISM
5
The Kesari had anticipated almost everything that the Congress was to do later. In stating the aims of India’s political aspirations it went much further than what the Congress was to do during this period. The establishment of the Congress, however, seemed to have curbed some of its lofty flights and the articles after 1888, contributed by Tilak, do not seem to go beyond the constitutional demand of a few rights for Indians or at best self-government within the British Empire. This restraint appears to be inevitable when we take into account the differences in the temperaments of Agarkar and Tilak. Agarkar was an idealist, never satisfied until he had a lofty ideal before him. He was little deterred by the exigencies of the situation. He was a lone crusader and therefore, though the cause for which he was fighting was yet a distant goal he constantly kept it in view. Tilak, cast in a more matter-of-fact mould, concerned himself with the practical and the immediate. The goal of constitutional reform was the legacy of the liberal school and Tilak, as yet, saw no reason to depart from it. This again proved to be strategically successful as it helped to concentrate all energy on the political issues. Tilak’s shrewd commonsense was justified if the objective situation of the country is taken into account. Politics was as yet confined to the intellectual elite, insurrectionary methods proved to be futile; the iron rule of law and order gave little freedom for any other type of action. Where the masses are intellectually quiescent their economic urges are expressed by the enlightened minority and very often this expression takes some simple form of the more abstract interests of the minority. A good deal of effort was needed and a long time was to elapse before the economic urge of the people could dovetail with these simplified ideal ends put forth by the enlightened leadership of the Congress. Intellect and instinct have to combine before great changes happen and an ancient social or political order passes away.1 The Kesari did great service in helping the process of dissemination and propagation of these ideas. A choice was to be made again about the precedence of political as against social reform. This choice gradually assumed growing importance for Tilak and with Dadabhai he came to realise: “One thing you may remember that no people who are politically debased will ever be and ever have been socially high. It is the political elevation which will give that backbone and stamina, that manliness which would give strength and courage to carry out social reforms.” The constitutional form that the expression of political views took was thus revolutionary in its content. The moral wrath of the people was to be aroused against the foreign power and along with it a sense of confidence in the leadership was to be created. Nothing helps this more than suffering for the cause. The occasional trials and the imprisonments Tilak had to suffer did this work to an admirable degree.
General Trend of Tilak’s Articles
The articles upto 1888 were mostly contributed by Agarkar, who, as Tilak wrote on his death anniversary, was wholly on the side of Swaraj. Tilak himself wrote after 1888 and though he used strong language in condemning governmental oppression or injustice he does not seem to have gone beyond the moderate demand of a few constitutional rights. In general, his articles lend support to the Congress demands from 1885 to 1895. According to Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, “There is no doubt that the progress of the Congress from its inception in 1885 to 1905 was an even march based on a firm faith in constitutional agitation in the unfailing regard for justice attributed to the English.” The articles of Tilak during this period show “an irresistible statement of facts followed by irrebuttable arguments to prove the justice of the popular cause.... The burden of these utterances was that the English people are essentially just and fair; and that if properly informed they would never deviate from truth and the right, that the problem was the Anglo-Indian and not the Englishman, that what was wrong was the system and not the individual, that the Congress was essentially loyal to the British throne and fell foul only of Indian bureaucracy, that the English constitution was the bulwark of popular liberties everywhere and the English Parliament was the mother of Democracy all over, that the British constitution was the best of all constitutions, that the Congress was not a seditious body, that the Indian politicians were the natural interpreters of the government to people and of people to the government, that Indians must be admitted into public services in a larger measure, should be educated and made fit for high positions, that the Universities, the local bodies and the public services should form the training ground for India, that the legislatures should be thrown open to election, that the right of interpellation and discussion of budget should be conceded, that the Judiciary and the Executive must be separated, and Indians should be given a place in the Executive Councils of Provincial and Central Governments... that simultaneous competitive examinations should be held in India for services, that the annual drain to England should be stemmed and indigenous industries fostered, that land revenue should be reduced and permanent settlement should be adopted.”2
Characterisation of the British Rule
In many of the topical articles Tilak reviewed the process of British domination and gave a characterisation of the British rule. Thus while discussing the reasons that led the government to hold the Civil Service examination in England alone Tilak observes, “Sometimes when we have an open-minded Governor-General like Lord Lytton the truth is very plainly told. India is conquered not for the benefit of India, but for increasing the trade of the rulers so that their children and families might live happily....”
The English, according to him were more successful than any of the earlier rulers of India. The seed of a single nationality was being assiduously sown by them, a thing that the Moguls never thought of doing and the Peshwas could never do.
Quoting from an essay written by William Wedderburn, Tilak writes on the 24th January 1893 of “how the people were dazzled at first by the discipline and intelligence of the British. Railways, telegraph, roads, bridges and schools bewildered the people. Riots ceased and people could enjoy peace and quiet. ... A letter from Benares could reach Poona in less than a week; the Pendharis were destroyed, the Thugs were uprooted and where under the Peshwas even Nana Fadnawis could hardly get more than Rs. 300 per year now a Mamlatdar could get about Rs. 400 per month. Everyone naturally concluded that God had sent out of kindness these men of destiny.... People began t
o say that even a blind person could safely travel from Benares to Rameshwar with gold tied to a stick. But just as the influence of wine does not last long, this illusion arising out of the revolution did not last long. The blind man may travel with gold tied to his stick but day by day people realised that gold was getting scarce. . . . The scales, therefore, fell from their eyes and they realised how they are being oppressed.” These references to the popular beliefs of the people are peculiar of the style of Tilak. Where the leaders of the Congress spoke in the high-flown 19th century English, imitating Burke and Macaulay, Tilak translated these thoughts in the homely idiom of the people.
In the same essay, he goes on to speak about the break-up of the village structure. “Under the Moguls or the Peshwas the ryots did not suffer from all-round oppression as they are doing today. It was the people who looked after their own fields, pastures, ponds, rivers and roads. After paying their allotted rents to the King they were free to do whatever they liked. In every village they were free to follow their own trades. Government officers were only in the provincial or district headquarters. Under the English this is all changed and with the destruction of the village community the freedom and happiness enjoyed by the people are every day diminishing.” This loss of initiative and opportunity has resulted in the demoralisation of Indians, who, he says, are reduced to the position of automatons.
Speaking about the Honourable K. T. Telang, it is said, “The tree of Indian intellect is being nurtured by the British gardener. It is, therefore, extremely attractive but in a pleasure grove it is not a lofty, sky-kissing tree that is allowed to grow but a tiny plant of which flowers can be plucked easily by the hand....”3 “We have not yet learnt to push forward boldly the peoples cause and have not as yet realised that the best fruit of our learning is an urge to fight selflessly for the peoples rights.”4
However, at times, Tilak seems to be aware of a certain superiority over the English. Speaking about the jury system,5 he says that the English are centuries behind the Indians in humanitarianism.... “The Indian climate may not preserve the viour and grit that a newly advanced state may possess but in non-violence, self-control, abstinence, we have given up acting like beasts”. While quoting with approval Ranade’s essay on “Industrialism”,6 Tilak does not seem to regard the superiority of the British in the industrial and scientific field as an indication of superior intellect: “Before the powers of nature were discovered and the mind directed towards it, people in all countries worked with their hands. Afterwards as the powers of nature were discovered, sciences like statics, dynamics, physics and chemistry came into being with the result that human toil was minimised; but this advantage was not enjoyed by us as it was by Europe and America. There are various reasons for this. Among them, the first is that our country is very wide and very fertile and secondly we are inclined towards the philosophy of renunciation; thirdly for the last seven or eight centuries we have had to fight in order to preserve our freedom. It will not be out of place to mention the climate of our country, too, as a cause of our mental contentment. In short, the power of nature which we could have acquired with a little mental exertion was not acquired by us and the European nations pushed themselves forward...”. Again he says, “It is a wrong conception to say that the British rulers were more anxious about the welfare of our country than the wise and learned among us.”7
Superiority of British Rule
Like the elder leaders of the Congress, Tilak too admits the superiority of the British rule, but he does it only in a grudging manner and almost as a necessary evil: “The system of administration today is more conducive to welfare and is more convenient as compared with the eastern system.” At times he has expressed the hope that if the unity shown by the different castes and creeds in India continues, “the country will prosper even under the British yoke and India which is sunk to the very depth of misery will rise to the pinnacle of glory and England and India would be connected by a bond of affection and lead the world till eternity”.8
He refers again and again to the right conferred by the English rulers upon the Indians, namely that of criticising the English rule.9 “This is a principle voluntarily conceded by the British administrators and they have themselves provided means to the people of India whereby they might know the grievances of the people.... The object of a free press and providing facilities for higher education is precisely this.... We write this so that any doubt that some people may have that the government might frown upon our criticism of their policies and our demands for political rights may be removed.” In all these articles Tilak shows a desire to go from the practical and the topical of the realm of ideas and principles. Politics is an empirical science where ideals and principles have to be based on practical examples and everyday instances. In its practical application politics touches the lives of all people. Like the air that we breathe, it is all-pervading but again just as we do not feel the presence of the air that is about us, the average man does not feel the pressure of politics. It is here that the political leader tries, by propaganda and constant education, to make the impact of politics felt by the average man. For the practical politician discussions of political principles is, therefore, potential action. Each discussion of principles leads to action and every action leads to crystallisation of ideas.
If the average man does not understand or does not care for the general principles of politics, he understands the stand taken by politicians in certain concrete cases where specific grievances are redressed. Tilak had said about the criticism allowed by the British Government: “The English are, however, terribly stingy and selfish and so if we want to take anything from them we must make a ceaseless and all-round effort.”
The Crawford Case
One such effort of his was the prominent part he took in the Crawford case. He became the accredited leader of the people through his championship of lost causes. The part he played in the Crawford episode is ample proof of his grit and perseverance in getting a grievance redressed. It is necessary to give a history of this case which had its echoes in the British Parliament as well.
The Indian Civil Service has contributed its quota of eccentrics and there is no queerer specimen than Mr. Crawford, a rare combination of contradictory characteristics. Very intelligent but indolent, he liked to roll in luxury. A model of hospitality to his European friends, he was chivalrous in the extreme. It was said that a number of English ladies received generous presents from him. His resources, therefore, always fell short of his expenses and to meet them he compelled people to give him very generous gifts and to advance him huge loans which, he could never return. Repeated warnings were given to him and though for a time all his activities were carried on secretly, the corruption could not be concealed for long. Mr. Crawford was suspended and one Mr. Hanmantrao who had acted as Crawford’s agent was prosecuted. Hanmantrao was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and was fined Rs. 2,000. Hanmantrao’s conviction naturally intimidated certain people and some mamlatdars gave a confession that they had helped Crawford in taking bribes. A commission was appointed to investigate the matter. The commission acquitted Mr. Crawford of the charge of corruption but found him guilty of accepting loans and he was dismissed from service. As a result, the mamlatdars who had given a confession of acting as Mr. Crawford’s agents got into trouble though the main accused went scot free. The mamlatdars who had turned approvers in the case, became the accused and the assurance of pardon given to them before the confession was not adhered to by the government. Eight mamlatdars were thus dismissed and many others were committed to trial. It was evident that as the Commissioner, Mr. Crawford, was corrupt, the mamlatdars, who were his subordinates, dared not displease him and had to become accomplices in the crime of corruption. This could only be explained by remembering that Crawford was after all an Englishman, a member of the ruling race, and, therefore, could escape punishment; whereas the mamlatdars were natives and, therefore, their victimisat
ion was unavoidable. Tilak, who always put character above everything, would not either shelter or defend a corrupt person. In the Crawford case, however, he was convinced that the Indians were made scapegoats in order to whitewash the crime of a British official. He, therefore, decided to plead the case of the mamlatdars. He organised a public meeting on the 1st September 1889, in which a resolution was passed urging the government to abide by the promise given to the mamlatdars, viz. that they would not be punished if they helped the course of law by giving evidence against Mr. Crawford.
Tilak’s First Public Speech
At this meeting, Tilak made his first public speech and showed all the qualities of an astute lawyer, when he showed the parallel between the case of dismissed mamlatdars and that of the Master of the Rolls in the macclesfield case in 1725 in the reign of George I. He spoke of the confidence inspired by the British rule which made the mamlatdars give evidence believing in the government’s promise of indemnity: “Such an act of confidence,” he said in his speech, “would have been impossible a generation ago.... It is the growth of years, and it has taken seventy years of good British rule to beget it. Break the faith now, and the prestige of the British rule for veracity will be gone, and hundred more years of good rule would not suffice to restore it.”10