Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  The permission was refused but a special appeal was made to the Privy Council, which was heard on the 19th November 1897 at White Hall by Lord Halsbury, Lord Chancellor, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Davy and Sir Richard Couch. Tilak was represented by Mr. Asquith, Mani and Umeshchandra Bannerji, instructed by Messrs. Pugh, Garth and the Hon. Mr. Khare. The Crown was represented by Arthur Cohen and J. H. Branson. This appeal too was rejected and thus all the avenues before Tilak were closed. In dismissing the application the Bench, however, admitted that Mr. Justice Strachey’s definition of “disaffection” as including mere absence of affection was erroneous. In other words, they admitted that there was misdirection of the jury and yet they held that it was not sufficient ground to admit the application.

  There were certain obvious conclusions to be drawn from the conduct and conclusions of the case. As ‘An Englishman’ pointed out in the Champion, “The jury, at least the European element, was swayed by the rancorous and racial attacks to which Mr. Tilak was subjected by the whole of the Anglo-Indian press of the country in their attack on the Poona Brahmins, including Mr. G. K. Gokhale.” All along, the part played by the Times of India was little short of a quasi-prosecutor. A parallel was suggested between the Tilak case and the Phoenix Park murders, where the English members of Parliament and the British press had accused Parnell of having a complicity in the crime. The outburst of sympathy for Tilak that followed the trial was simply phenomenal. The Champion spoke the truth when it declared, “A few months ago the name of Tilak was scarcely known beyond the boundary of the Bombay Presidency; today there is not a hamlet in India in which the mention of his name does not excite admiration....” No public service that Tilak had rendered so far could make him a leader of all-India fame as this trial of his.

  The Hindu of Madras describes the feeling in Madras aroused by the case: “Few people outside the native community can have any idea of the feeling that has been aroused by the news of Mr. Tilak’s conviction even in Madras. A description of the scene in our office on Tuesday evening may perhaps tend to convey some impression, however vague, of the extent of anxiety that had been caused in the minds of the native community as to the result of the trial. From an early hour in the afternoon until late in the evening crowds of people stood outside the offices of the Hindu, anxiously awaiting the latest news about Tilak. And when the telegram was read, oh, what grief, what anguish was depicted on the faces around!”

  The Madras Times correctly describes the feeling among the Native public in saying “that the news of Mr. Tilak’s conviction was received as a national calamity. It would be impossible for a good length of time yet to obliterate the memory of that eventful evening, and it certainly cannot be said that the event has been conducive to the strengthening of the bonds existing between the native and the Anglo-Indian communities in the country.”

  The Hon. Mr. C. Sankaran Nair, in his presidential speech at the Amraoti Congress in 1897 made reference to the fact that the jury consisted of a majority of Europeans and declared that at least half should be Indians. “If there is any offence in India which ought to be tried by a native jury, the offence is that of sedition.” He made a reference to the fact that these men were treated as criminals and not as political prisoners. Though a resolution condemning the government could not be moved in the Congress, Surendranath Banerjee made a touching reference to Tilak: “A whole nation is in tears,” he said. “It is impossible for a native of India of the attainments, the distinction and the unquestioned position of Mr. Tilak to harbour sentiments of disloyalty towards the British Government.” The Congress report adds that there were prolonged and loud cheers and at the mention of Tilak’s name the whole audience stood up and cheered enthusiastically.

  The British press was divided in its opinion. Even papers like The Standard of London, which believed that the criminality of the accused was established beyond doubt, had to admit that Mr. Strachey had given great elasticity to the wording of the Code. Some other papers were more outspoken. The New Castle Leader, for instance, unhesitatingly said that “The hostile articles were not judged with that impartiality which British justice demanded”. It could not but view with alarm the course of repression to which the Indian Government seemed to have committed itself.

  Very grave doubts were raised regarding Mr. Strachey’s definition of disaffection or sedition, as given by him in his summing up. This was what his Lordship had said, “Well, now I ask you to look at the section and the way it is worded. It says, Whosoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the government established by law in British India shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years to which fine may be added or with fine’. To the above is appended the following explanation, ‘Such a disapprobation of the measures of the government as is compatible with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority of the government and to support the lawful authority of the government against unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority is not disaffection. Therefore, the making of comments on the measures of the government with the intention of exciting only this species of disapprobation is not an offence in this clause.’ The offence as defined by the first clause is exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection to the government. What are ‘feelings of disaffection?’ I agree with the late Chief Justice of Bengal, Sir Comer Petheram, that disaffection means simply the absence of affection. It means hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt and every form of ill-will to the government. ‘Disloyalty’ is perhaps the best general term comprehending every possible form of bad feeling to the government. That is what the law means by the disaffection which a man must not excite or attempt to excite; he must not make or try to make others feel enmity of any kind towards the government. If a man excited or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection, great or small, he is guilty under the section. In the next place, it is absolutely immaterial whether any feelings of disaffection have been excited or not by the publication in question.”

  As pointed out by the Advocate of India, “The doctrine, for that is what it comes to, that there cannot co-exist in the same heart an absence of affection and an absence of disaffection to the government established by law in British India is grammatically erroneous, and as we believe, politically dangerous. If it is to be upheld we shall have to lengthen the cords and strengthen the stakes of our prisons here.” Mr. Strachey’s definition meant that disparagement of howsoever mild a type and howsoever true would be legally permissible against the government and its representatives. As a matter of fact no charge under Section 124-A ought to stand until the object of making the charges against government and vilifying their deeds be subversion of the government or the suggestion of the use of force against it. “This is the widest extension of the principle that the King can do no wrong. The criteria may be the most honest man, his object may be to expose the defects of the government with a view to bringing about improvements, yet the criteria becomes a criminal in the eyes of Mr. Justice Strachey. This appears to us a monstrous interpretation of the section.” 17

  When Tilak was in prison, Sections 124-A and 153-A were added so as to amplify the scope of the offence. Thus by way of explanation, the expression “disaffection” was meant to include disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. And Section 153-A said, “Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.”

  Three other journalists who were arrested almost at the same time as Tilak were also prosecuted. Kelkar, the editor of Poone Vaibhav was committed to the sessions, but was released when he tendered an apolo
gy. Kashinath Vaman Lele, editor of the Modvritta was to be tried at Satara before Mr. Aston, the Sessions Judge, who had become famous for his vindictive attitude and deterrent punishments, made an application that his case might be tried in the High Court. Accordingly his case was opened on 25th November, and though he tendered an apology, he was given simple imprisonment for nine months, in consideration of his old age. The third journalist, Ramchandra Narayan Kashalkar, was editor of Pratod, which was being published at Islampur, District Satara. Mr. Aston, the Sessions Judge, sentenced him to transportation for life and the keeper of the press, Harmalkar, was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. On an appeal to the High Court, Justices Farren, Parsons and Ranade reduced Kashalkar’s sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and Harmalkar’s to three month’s simple imprisonment.

  The arrest of the Natu brothers and their continued detention without trial was a case of official bungling and ineptitude. As on the occasion of the Tilak trial, the arrest of the Natus was also thought to have a direct reference to the Poona murders, the government did not, however, prosecute them nor were they chargesheeted until after a long time. In the meanwhile, the assassin of Rand and Ayerst, Damodar Chaphekar, was arrested in Bombay. He was a priest by profession and was a member of a revolutionary organisation called ‘Hindu Dharma Sangha.’ His confession was staggering in its sweep. He confessed to have tarred the Queen’s statue, desecrated it with a garland of old shoes and burnt the University pandal. He was also implicated in the assaults on Mr. Gadgil, Barrister-at-Law, and Prof. Patwardhan, the editor of the Sudharak who, being reformers, had attacked religion. Damodar’s brother Balkrishna, who was his accomplice, had now made himself scarce. The trial of Chaphekar opened before the Hon’ble Mr. W H. Crowe in the Sessions Court at Poona and on the 6th February 1898, the Judge agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, sentenced Chaphekar to death. An appeal to the High Court was heard and dismissed by Justices Parsons and Ranade. Damodar was executed on the 18th April 1898, in the Yeravda prison.

  Special permission was given to Tilak to interview Chaphekar and he helped Chaphekar in prison to draft his petition to the High Court. At the time of his execution Chaphekar asked for a copy of the Bhagawad-Gita and Tilak, who had three copies, gave him one of them. After the execution Tilak also arranged for the funeral of Chaphekar.

  The Chaphekar case had a terrible sequel. Two persons, the Dravid brothers, who were accomplices of the Chaphekars, had turned against them and were responsible for betraying them. On the 8th February 1899, at about 10 in the night the two Dravid brothers were called out by two strangers under the pretext that there was a message for them from Bruin. Totally unsuspecting, they came out, walked a distance, when suddenly shots rang out and there were cries of ‘Murder! Murder!!’. Somebody had shot both the brothers, who died in hospital the next day. Chaphekar’s third brother, Vasudeo, and two of his accomplices were arrested and, subsequently, two of them were hanged after a trial. The Mahratta, commenting on the affair, described Balkrishna and his associates as patriots and commented that however much one differed from the methods of these men, there was no doubt that they were moved by patriotic motives.

  Tilak and the Terrorists

  It would be wrong to dispose of the Rand murder merely as a heinous crime committed by a fanatic. How people looked at the incident has been marvellously described by Lala Lajpat Rai. He wrote:18 “The trial of the Chaphekar brothers, the murderers of the two European Plague Officers, who had made themselves obnoxious in Poona, was looked upon as a romance in crime. The Chaphekars met their fate heroically, and, for the first time, showed to the country how religious enthusiasm of the most orthodox kind, could be combined with the political aspirations of the most revolutionary nature. Nothing of the kind had been heard before during British rule in India, and the incident thrilled the people with various kinds of emotional feelings. The educated community was convulsed with discussion as to the ethical nature of the crime. They had so far looked upon law and order as most sacred things and they never imagined that such religious men as Chaphekar brothers were could find justification in their hearts and in their ethical code for political murders of this kind. The Chaphekar brothers were then in fact the founders of the revolutionary movement in India. They were the first to invoke the Gita in support of political action of that kind, and somehow or other people all over India believed that Tilak was their inspirer. Some thought that he had ordered the murders, others that while not approving of the murders and not being in any way responsible for them, his was the inspiration behind the mentality which moved the hands and minds of the Chaphekar brothers. People in these days were not in a frame of mind to discriminate between a purely constitutional agitation and revolutionary assassination for any purpose whatsoever. They were the votaries of Ahimsa under any circumstances and for all purposes. But feelings were running so high as to compel people to look upon the conduct of the Chaphekar brothers not only with less severity but rather with admiration. It was the admiration of the motive behind the deed, not of the deed itself. Tilak’s name was freely mentioned in connection with the incident, though very few believed that he had any hand in the incident.”

  It has been proved beyond doubt that Tilak had no hand in Rand’s murder. Mr. Bruin who conducted the investigations in the case was an extremely competent officer and if he had found any direct or indirect evidence, he would never have hesitated to exploit it to the full. The government in fact wanted an opportunity to muzzle Tilak and the Kesari for ever. In spite of the frantic efforts of the government, however, they could not get even a scrap of evidence against Tilak. It is also necessary to analyse the sentiments of the people and to find out why some of them believed that Tilak inspired Chaphekar to murder Rand. The first reason was that people had an impotent rage against Rand, and were glad that there was at least one man who retaliated against the atrocities of the plague days. Tilak, who had openly criticised the tyrannical measures, had became a symbol of defiant self-respect. People who admired the motive behind the murder and interpreted it as a just reaction against tyranny, naturally wanted to associate Tilak with it. Even today there are some who feel that Tilak’s praise is incomplete unless it is added that he was hand in glove with the revolutionaries. This admiration for political crime is an inevitable reaction to the smothering of the normal political rights of a people. Such an admiration, coupled with deep respect for the leader, makes people think in a wishful manner, and therefore even though there was no objective proof, people believed that Tilak at least knew the pkn of the Chaphekar brothers. In the absence of any concrete evidence nothing definite can be said about this. Tilak knew about the existence of a band of revolutionaries in Poona. During this period secret societies for revolutionary work were being organised in various parts of India. In the Bombay Presidency, Thakur Saheb, a noble of Udaipur State, was the leader of this movement and he was in close contact with Shri Aurobindo, who was then a professor at Baroda. Damodar Chaphekar, along with his brother, had started an organisation called Hindu Dharma Sangha. After a time this Sangha, the secret society of Thakur Sahib, and Tarun Sangha, a society of youths organised under Shri Aurobindo’s direction, were amalgamated and Shri Aurobindo took over their leadership. There is no evidence whatever in support of the assumption that Tilak directed the activities of these secret societies. Some of Tilak’s friends, Vasukaka Joshi and Annasahib Patwardhan, were in touch with these revolutionaries and through them Tilak might have had some idea about their activities. Shri K. D. Same, who was one of the accomplices in the murder of Rand, stated in his interview, “On the second day of Rand’s murder and at the instance of the late Shri Damodar Chaphekar I conveyed the news of the successful event to Tilak.” This does not, however, prove that Tilak directed the action. Sathe has not said that Tilak showed any curiosity about the details. If he had given directions, he would have asked Sathe whether the plan was carried out according to instructions. Tila
k by his manifold public activities had emerged as a fearless leader and die young men engaged in revolutionary work kept him informed about their actions as youngsters would an elderly person. None of the persons belonging to the secret society of Chaphekar had come in close contact with Tilak. Tilak in his multifarious activities had cultivated innumerable acquaintances but had developed friendship with only a few. Moreover the Chaphekar brothers were much younger than Tilak and besides, there was a difference in social status and education and they could not have thought of discussing their plans with him.

  Tilak’s words or his actions were never impulsive. He spoke or acted in a particular manner only when he was prepared for the direst consequences. He was building the political faith of the people and he knew too well that if he took back any of his words or recanted any of his actions, people would not only lose faith in him but also in the political movement and in the idea of political work. He was conscious of the fact that his was in many ways a pioneering effort and he had therefore to be very careful in words and in deeds. He had to choose his expressions after considering all their implications and he had to weigh and measure all his actions. Tilak knew that the British Empire was a mighty institution which could not be shaken by acts of individual terrorism. He, however, felt that a morbid system was bound to beget its violent grave-diggers. If a terrorist had, therefore, approached Tilak and asked his advice, he would have explained to him why he did not favour individual acts of terrorism. He thought, however, during this period, that if anyone was prepared to die and do something which could not fit in with the normal way of things, it was not his responsibility to dissuade that individual. Tilak’s political life shows remarkable growth and his views about terrorism were different at different stages of his political career. At this stage, Tilak believed that an individual should obey only the dictates of his own conscience in deciding his way of serving the motherland; and if any individual decided on the course of violent action, others had no right to sit in judgment over him. He believed that different persons might resort to different means while reaching the same goal. He thought, so long as the motive was moral, it was wrong to say that one course was moral while the other was not. As a realist Tilak chose his means for their efficacy, but he felt that no one had a right to question the efficacy of another person’s action so long as it was prompted by an earnest desire to serve the country. He felt that once there was a common patriotic motive, all actions had a place in the scheme of things, each might have its different purpose and immediate results could not be adopted as a test in judging their desirability. Moreover, though Tilak did not defend political murder, he openly stated that it was not his responsibility to help the government in finding the culprit. During the period of investigation, Mr. Bruin used to come to Tilak frequently for a chat. Tilak was always very polite in conversation, though he shrewdly judged the intentions of Mr. Bruin. When Bruin realised that it was no use trying to elicit information in this roundabout way, he one day directly asked Tilak why he did not help the government in finding Rand’s assassin. Tilak immediately replied, “In the first place I cannot give you any help, because who is going to give me the information? Please also remember that even if I may accidentally get a bit of information, I shall not be able to convey it to you. For though I think that it would be just to punish the culprit, I shall not act as anybody’s spy, and I shall not betray anyone. You are doing your work and I shall not come in your way. I do not agree with Mr. Lamb when he said that this murder had brought Poona into disrepute. But I do not also say that you should not find out the assassin with all your efforts and punish him.”