by A K Bhagwat
Karkeria’s Paper
The immediate occasion for the Shivaji festival seems to have been a reference made to the dilapidated condition of the tomb of Shivaji on the Pratapgad fort by Douglas, a civilian, in his book Bombay and Western India. A paltry sum of Rupees five per annum was sanctioned by the government for the repair of the tomb but this was inadequate. Already in 1885 the Kesari had referred to a grant made by Lord Reay, the then Governor of Bombay, for the repair of the tomb and had also referred to the endeavours made by the public to raise funds for the repair. On 20th April 1894, R. P. Karkeria, a noted Parsee scholar, read a paper on the Pratapgad fort before the Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay. In his paper Karkeria tried to disprove the commonly accepted theory that Afzalkhan, the Mogul emissary, was treacherously murdered by Shivaji. On the contrary, according to Karkeria, it was more plausible to think that it was Afzalkhan who had come with treacherous intentions only to find Shivaji quicker than he. This lecture gave rise to a controversy in the columns of the Times of India between a correspondent who signed himself as M.J. and Karkeria.
Tilak, writing in the Kesari on the 23rd April 1895, called the attention of the people of Maharashtra to their criminal neglect of the historical monument. He urged the rulers of the State and the common people to raise a fund for the repair of the tomb and also suggested that there should be an annual celebration at Raigad in honour of Shivaji. Again on 30th April, he expressed satisfaction that his appeal had “caused a movement at some places at least.” A student sent a donation of two anr as. Tilak’s comment was characteristic: “Though this amount is very small there is no doubt that the peonle of Maharashtra will be pleased to see the pride in ‘Swarajya’24 that has awakened in the mind of the said student.” Once an idea had taken shape in his mind Tilak was not a man to let things drift. With characteristic vigour he chalked out a plan of action. What would have remained an intellectual idea closed in the annals of an academic journal or a subject of discussion among scholars was made the foundation of a vigorous programme of national regeneration. Tilak enlisted the support of the rulers of Maratha States and the Sardars. A meeting was held on May 30, 1895, in the Town Hall in Poona. Invitations were issued under the joint signatures of Tilak and Senapati Dabhade, descendant of Shivaji’s general. The Kesari of 4th June 1895 gives a very enthusiastic account of this meeting. Describing “the unprecedented character of the meeting”, the Kesari wrote that the presence of the Sardars of Maharashtra was its most conspicuous feature. A meeting of such a character had never been held in Poona. The meeting passed several resolutions concerning the celebrations at Raigad and decided to start a fund for the repair of the Shivaji Monument. Telegrams lending their support to the idea were received from Hon. Justice Ranade and many others. Tilak was appointed one of the secretaries of a committee of fifty gentlemen including the leading Sardars, Jahgirdars, Inamdars, Rao Bahadurs and others. Accordingly, 15th April 1896 was fixed as the date of the first celebration at Raigad and the Kesari gives another glowing account of it on the 21st April 1896. Tilak had to approach the Governor to overcome some of the technical objections raised by the Collector of the area on the grounds that Raigad was a forest area and as such a fair could not be held there. The first celebration was, however, a great success and the villagers from all over Maharashtra had gathered at the place, some of them walking several miles.
Object of the Celebration
From the time he started the idea of repairing the Shivaji Monument, Tilak was very explicit about the objective of the celebration. To him Shivaji was a national hero and at a time when national qualities of solidarity, patriotism, hatred of tyranny were absent it was right that an appeal should be made to the glorious times of the great national hero. “On one day at least in a year,” he said in a speech at Amraoti, “every person should think about his town, his country, his community and the nation. He should ask himself the question whether the condition of the country is in a flourishing state or has decayed. If it is unfortunately the latter he must try to find out means for its betterment. It is with this end in view that the Shivaji festival is being celebrated.” He cites the example of the jubilees celebrated by the British and says that the jubilee celebration conjures up a picture of the growth of the empire in the minds of the British. In these days, in schools, there is the Kindergarten system by which a clear idea is given of an object to the child by showing it to him. In the same way, celebrations of heroes are object lessons by which ideas of national uplift are instilled in the minds of the people.... We have a number of religious festivals but we must have political celebrations. They will enable us to understand politics and we will also know the state which we are in.
Need for Political Festivals
In an English speech in Calcutta, where the Bengalis had picked up this idea of Shivaji celebrations, he was still more definite about the aims and objects of the Shivaji celebrations: “Human nature is so constituted that we cannot do without festivals. Unfortunately we had no political festival, except the National Congress, to keep up the memory of our heroes. This is the reason why the Shivaji festival was started in Maharashtra with the hope that it will spread all over India, without distinction of caste and creed.” The central idea of the festival, Tilak thought, was that you must take the spirit from the life of Shivaji. “It is to give a corporal shape to our political ideas that we Hindus should have festivals like these. History tells us that in the worst days of Mahomedan rulers Mahomedans worshipped Shivaji with the same enthusiasm as the Hindus.”
In another article in the Mahratta, dated the 24th June 1906, he answers some of these objections: “Hero-worship is a feeling deeply implanted in human nature and our political aspirations need all the strength which the worship of a Swadeshi hero is likely to inspire into our minds. For this purpose Shivaji is the only hero to be found in Indian history. He was born at a time when the whole nation required relief from misrule; and by his self-sacrifice and courage, he proved to the world that India was not a country forsaken by providence. It is true that the Mahomedans and the Hindus were then divided; and Shivaji, who respected the religious scruples of the Mahomedans, had to fight against the Mogul rule that had become unbearable to the people.”
It is important to remember here that the first case for sedition against Tilak also arose out of a speech that he delivered in one of the Shivaji festivals, the report of which was published in the Kesari of the 15th June 1897. This speech was the presidential address delivered by Tilak after Prof. Jinsiwalle’s speech on the murder of Afzalkhan by Shivaji but some of the words were alleged to have a direct bearing on the contemporary political situation and Tilak was charged with giving incitement to violence. Two great convulsions of the period had aroused popular indignation against the government and Tilak, who had taken up the people’s cause with his usual fiery ardour, was looked upon as a trouble-maker by the government. These two convulsions were a result of the twin calamities of the great famine of 1896 and the plague.
Final Break with the Moderates
Before we sketch these momentous events in Tilak’s public career a mention has to be made of his final break with the Moderate party and his capture of the Sarvajanik Sabha.
The early history of the Sarvajanik Sabha clearly shows how under the able guidance of Ranade and the zeal of Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi it had become the premier political organisation in the country. There was no question of public importance on which the Sabha did not give its audioritative opinion. It was consulted by other provincial associations; invitations were given to the Sabha to all important official and non-official functions and the Sabha sent its representatives and lost no opportunity to voice the grievances and demand the legitimate rights of the people. Tilak was a member of the Sabha for several years but with the widening rift between him and the Moderate group he now thought of capturing the Sarvajanik Sabha, which was dominated by persons belonging to Ranade’s party, with G. K. Gokhal
e as its Joint Secretary along with Shivram Hari Sathe.
Tilak found his opportunity on the 14th July 1895 at the annual meeting of the general body of the Sarvajanik Sabha. Tilak enlisted a large number of members and secured a majority for himself. Almost all the important offices were filled in by members of the Tilak group excepting the post of the secretary, which was still filled by Gokhale. By this move Tilak ensured Gokhale’s isolation by surrounding him with men belonging to his own party. Gokhale, however, resigned and the controversy regarding the elections went on bitterly in the press. The editorship of the quarterly journal of the Sabha was taken up, at the instance of Tilak, by Mahadeo Ramchandra Bodas, who, besides being an M.A., LL.B., was a very good writer, both in English and in Marathi. In the very fkst number Tilak wrote a well-supported and informative article on, “Decentralisation of Finance”, and showed that he was capable of carrying on the traditions set by Ranade and Gokhale.
The Deccan Sabha
The moderates, headed by Ranade, now knew that they could not carry on with the extremist group headed by Tilak and therefore established a new association called the Deccan Association. On 31st October 1896, the moderates gathered at Mundhawa, near Poona, and deliberated on the starting of the new association. In the announcement of the new association Ranade first used the words, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Liberal’, which were going to play a dominant part in the political and social life of the country for the next quarter of a century:
“The spirit of liberalism implies a freedom from race and creed prejudices and a steady devotion to all that seek to do justice between man and man, giving to the rulers the loyalty that is due to the law they are bound to administer, but securing at the same time to the ruled the equality which is their right under the law. Moderation implies the condition of never vainly aspiring after the impossible or after too remote ideals but striving each day to take the next step in order of natural growth by doing the work that lies nearest to the hand in a spirit of compromise and fairness. After all, political activities are chiefly of value not for the particular results achieved, but for the process of political education which is secured by exciting interest in public matters and promoting the self-respect and self-reliance of citizenship. This is no doubt a slow process but all growth of new habits must be slow to be real.”
This clear enunciation of the liberal creed shows in the first place how Indian liberalism was derived from its Western counterpart and, like it, wanted to keep the freedom and equality of the individual as its goal. By the term moderation the liberals wanted to distinguish themselves from the extreme views advocated by Tilak; and thus like him there could also he differences in stretching the meaning of the term loyalty to the rulers’ and to what extent ‘the ruled’ were prepared to resist Government encroachment on their rights.
Tilak’s Views on the Moderate Schism
When the announcement of the new party was made Tilak was indignant and very severely criticised Ranade and his party. His contention was that there was no need to start a new party even though the differences between the two groups were admitted. Leaving aside the acrimoniousness of Tilak’s remark it has to be remembered that Tilak was here trying to enunciate an important principle in politics, to which he was to subscribe all his life. According to him, in spite of differences it was a retrograde step to start a new party or a rival organisation. A rival group based on fundamental and honest differences of opinion could have a place in any democratic organisation or institution and the best way to carry the organisation with you is to capture it by the democratic method of making a majority and thus carrying public opinion with you. It was the same view that he was to put forth in the Congress party as well and though ousted by the liberal majority he did not subscribe to the fissiparous tendency of founding a new party. He maintained that it was always necessary to remain united to fight for the rights of the people and to oppose the British government.
Tilak’s policy in this instance as also throughout the part he played in the Congress struggle had a constitutional basis though his goal was revolutionary. He was convinced that the goal of political emancipation could be achieved only through the combined agitation carried on under the aegis of a representative and democratic organisation like the Congress. The capture of the Sarvajanik Sabha was, therefore, a step consistent with his views and it is against this background that his criticism of Ranade for starting a rival body had to be judged. The controversy had also a sequel that showed the large-mindedness of Ranade and his awareness that Tilak stood for a new force in political life. Vagbhat Narayan Deshpande, a liberal of Satara, writes: “Certain people tried to persuade Ranade that he should file a libel suit against Tilak for his articles in the Kesari. They made an influential friend of Ranade write a letter to him insisting on a prosecution and thus teach Tilak a lesson. Ranade wrote: ‘Referring to the case against Tilak my first thought is that I must be sure that our party does not really suffer from the faults that he has pointed out. Though I decided my line of action after giving it complete thought and though in our opinion it may be perfectly right, I cannot guarantee its infallibility. Tilak’s patriotism and sacrifice are unquestioned. In intellect and learning he is no whit less than I am. I shall not, therefore, be so bold as to deny the faults that he sees in me and my party. The proper use of Tilak’s articles should be to make us introspective and try to remove whatever faults we have. If we do this we have to thank Tilak rather than blame him. Then, secondly, Tilak is also one of us and he is serving the country in his own way. Will it be proper to prosecute him even if it is granted that he has gone wrong? Besides, if two persons, considered to be leaders of the society, who are working for the same cause begin to quarrel on such matters and rush to the court, our words will have no value in government circles nor shall we be respected by the people. If we cannot preserve unity amongst ourselves, how can we bring about unity in the nation?”
The differences between Tilak and Ranade were not, therefore, personal differences but were matters of principle. Tilak symbolised a different trend in politics of which Ranade was fully aware. Ranade must also have realised the basic weakness of the moderate position and knew that co-existence with the extremists would have eliminated them from public life. The Sarvajanik Sabha and the Deccan Sabha henceforth were rival organisations. Tilak, however, was prepared to set aside differences in supporting the worthy cause. In 1896 an Indian barrister by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi visited Poona and called on Tilak. Gandhi had made a name for himself in South Africa for his championship of the cause of Indians in that part of the world. The novel method of passive resistance that he had used in the struggle against the Europeans had attracted the attention of the whole world. In Indian nationalist circles Gandhi’s name was being mentioned with respect as an ardent fighter for the rights of Indians. This is the account given by Gandhi himself:25
“In 1896 I met almost all the known leaders of India in connection with my South African Mission. I went to Poona. I was an utter stranger there. However I knew that the Sarvajanik Sabha was controlled by the Lokmanya, while Mr. Gokhale was connected with the Deccan Sabha. My host first took me to Tilak Maharaj. I met him surrounded by his companions. When I spoke to him about my intention to hold a meeting in Poona, he asked me if I had seen Gopal Rao. I did not understand whom he meant. He therefore asked me again if I had seen Mr. Gokhale and if I knew him.
‘‘ ‘I have not yet seen him. I know him by name and mean to see him,’ I replied.
“ ‘You do not seem to be familiar with Indian politics,’ said the Lokmanya.
“ ‘I stayed in India only for a short time after my return from England, and had not then applied myself to political questions, as I thought it beyond my capacity’ I said.
“ ‘Lokmanya then said: ‘In that case I must give you some information. There are two parties in Poona, one represented by the Sarvajanik Sabha and the other by the Deccan Sabha.”
>
“I replied, ‘I know something about this matter.’
“Lokmanya: ‘It is easy to hold a meeting here. But it seems to me that you wish to lay your case before all the parties here and seek to enlist the support of all. I like your idea. But if a member of the Sarvajanik Sabha is selected to preside over your meeting, no member of the Deccan Sabha will attend it. Similarly, if a member of the Deccan Sabha were to preside, members of the Sarvajanik Sabha would absent themselves. You should therefore find out a non-partisan as chairman. I can only offer suggestions in the matter, and shall not be able to render any other assistance. Do you know Prof. Bhandarkar? Even if you do not know him, you should see him. He is considered a neutral. He does not take part in politics, but perhaps you can induce him to preside over your meeting. Speak to Mr. Gokhale about this, and seek his advice too. In all probability he will give you the same advice. If a man of the position of Prof. Bhandarkar consents to preside, I am certain that both the parties will see to it that a good meeting is held. At any rate you can count upon our fullest help in the matter.”
After this Gandhi observes, “I have no firm impression of Lokmanya Tilak except to recall that he shook off my nervousness by his affectionate familiarity.”
To resume the account of Tilak’s activities, one of the reasons why Tilak turned his back on the educated elite in the Congress and approached the masses directly was a controversy, insignificant in itself but fought with all the zest, to which Poona had now become accustomed. Tilak was one of the secretaries of the Congress and was busy making preparations for the Congress session in Poona of 1895. An objection was raised by some of his friends from the nationalist party that the pandal of the Congress should not be used by the Social Conference as was the practice. As secretary of the Congress, Tilak knew full well the great responsibility that Poona had undertaken in holding the Congress in Poona but his more orthodox friends like the Sardars Natu were opposed to holding the Social Conference in the pandal of the Congress. Tilak was candid enough to condemn those who were carrying on a propaganda to the effect that no one should subscribe to the Congress unless a decision was reached on the point of allowing its pandal to the Social Conference. Tilak tried to find a middle way and said that it would be equally disastrous for persons like Balasaheb Natu as also some of the younger people among the reformists to be entrusted with the work of the Congress. He appealed to them to patch up their differences.