by A K Bhagwat
Views on Religion
To return to his views on religion, in 1900, in a lecture on Hinduism, delivered at the Ganapati festival, Tilak declared, ‘Teople from all castes, varnas, sects and opinions among the Hindus should be included in the Hindu fold, but Buddhists, Jains, Christians or Muslims should be excluded. Unlike Christianity or Mahommedanism, Hinduism believes that those who came to the world to preach the divine message were not one but many, though Hinduism does believe in one God. In fact the special feature of Hinduism is that it does not impose any limitation on God’s grace or his kindness. What, therefore, distinguishes Hinduism from Islam or Christianity is oneness of God coupled with the presence of several prophets.... Other religions stick to one God and one way of worship; Hinduism believes in different manifestations of God, and also in diverse ways of worship.” The main tenets of Hinduism, Tilak summed up in a Sanskrit verse that he composed:
To accept the authority of the Vedas, diversity of means, unlimited deities these are the tenets of Hinduism.”
He defends idol-worship, idols being a representation (Prateek) of the divine, because the nature of God is so vast and immense that it cannot be comprehended. He explains: “The Upanishads call idol-worshp as ‘Prateek’ which means a representative or Pratinidhi. As we cannot keep the whole universe before us, we keep only a part, which is its representative. The Viceroy is not the emperor but his representative. Similarly an image is a representative of the all-pervading nature of God. Even those religions which do not believe in idol-worship have to accept it in some form or other. Failure to recognise this has led to the abortive efforts of reformers like the Prarthana Samajists.”
With this belief in the superiority of Hinduism and Hindu customs and manners, Tilak believed that reforms in Hinduism should not be on the basis of an all-out change but should be gradual, following the line of least resistance. These views of his, particularly about the caste system, involved him now in many contradictions. So long as the Brahmins were the only elite, conscious of their political rights, the subordination of social to political rights on the principle of concentration of energy might have been defendable. Now, however, with reformers like Phule from the backward classes, there was a clamour for equality in social and religious matters. Already in the Poona Congress of 1895, a follower of Phule had erected a huge image of a peasant, reminding the Congress delegates, mouthing roundly the Victorian idiom, that the peasantry was a force to be reckoned with in politics. In 1888, barely three years after the establishment of the Congress, journals of the backward classes like the Deenmitra of Poona had asked what the Congress was doing for the peasants and the artisans. Here is a passage entitled “The National Carriage” that vividly brings out the point of view of these classes:
“Our India is a huge cart, to which are yoked the bullocks – the original inhabitants such as the Marathas, Malis, Kunabis, Mahars, Mangs and the Bhils. This cart is kept in motion by the wheel of time. Inside sit foreigners like Europeans and such of the servants who include themselves among the higher classes. On the way there are large hills and slopes and yet those who sit inside do not either get down or give rest to the bullocks. Those of the Indians who sit inside are quarrelling with the Europeans that they might get room to sit and also the chance to drive the cart. As today the drivers are English, they have a constant friction with the natives. In the meanwhile nobody minds what the state of the bullock is. He gets nothing to eat, he has no water, not only that but no one tries to remove the blinkers of ignorance covering his eyes. Rise, oh, bullocks, and look after your own interests, for those who sit inside are quarrelling for their own rights and none knows how long these quarrels will last. By that time do you think that even your skeletons will remain and those inside the cart do you any favour?”
Vedokta Affair
Tilak was one of the earliest leaders in the Congress to realise the need of taking the message of the Congress to the masses, and through the work in the famine and the plague, through the educative effort in the Ganapati and the Shivaji festivals, he had succeeded in his object to a great extent. His vehement opposition to social reforms, however, had made him indistinguishable from the orthodox and his dubious position in regard to the caste system made the lower classes suspicious of him. The movement of the non-Brahmin classes received a tremendous fillip when it was supported by Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj, the Maharaja of Kolhapur. The dispute arose over the recognition of the Maharaja as a Kshatriya. Local Brahmins refused to do this, saying that being Shudras or lower class people, the Marathas had no right to perform their ceremonies according to Vedic rites. The Maharaja had certain rites performed by a Brahmin when other Brahmins including the Darbar priest, Rajopadhye, who had a hereditary ‘Vatan’ (right) refused to do them. The Maharaja confiscated the estate of Rajopadhye and started performing the Vedic rites by elevating the Marathas and other non-Brahmin people to priesthood, having the right to recite the Vedas. This has come to be known as the ‘Vedokta’ affair.
Tilak’s stand in the ‘Vedokta’ affair was vacillating and dubious. At first he, like most of the advanced classes, was inclined to ignore the claims of the non-Brahmin classes. By 19, with the growth of consciousness among these classes as a result of the spread of education and efforts for the uplift of the untouchables by persons like Vithal Ramji Shinde, their demands could no longer be ignored and it was realised that things would have to be conceded. In an article on the 22nd October 1902, Tilak tried to parry the whole question by saying that Shivaji was recognised as a Kshatriya by summoning a Branmin from Benares, and all classes of people were unanimous in this privilege being conferred on him. During this time no other decision was possible and the decision given was certainly favourable to the Marathas; but then there was no question of conferring the Vedokta rights on the Maratha or any other community as a whole. Tilak then asks the question, “What have the Marathas of today done to deserve more than what Shivaji got?” Their claim of superiority over the Bhonsle family was, therefore, not in accordance with the ways of the world, or of civility or of the practices of caste.
In the second article on the 29th October, he says, “The usurpation of the Vedokta right by the Marathas would not elevate them either socially or nationally; for today lots of Europeans too study the Vedas; but they are not honoured on account of that. Honour or greatness does not, therefore, depend upon Vedokta rights but on personal qualities such as bravery, patriotism, adventure. Brahmins who perform the Vedokta rites can do nothing better than the lowest menial service, while Marathas who have not this right can enjoy a kingdom. Is it not wrong, therefore, that the Marathas should clamour for the Vedokta rights?” Tilak also points out, “To say that caste distinctions would vanish by conferring the Vedokta rights on the Marathas is also a mistake; for Brahmin women have not the right to read the Vedas and yet they are considered to be Brahmins. The question again is not merely of studying or reciting the Vedas. Nobody can forbid the Maratha community from doing it. It is more a question of performing religious rites according to the Vedas. The Europeans study the Vedas but do not insist on Vedic rites.”
It is clear from these arguments of Tilak that he, like all the advanced class people of his time, failed to see the real significance of the non-Brahmins’ demand. The denial of Vedic rights was symbolical of the cultural domination of the upper classes, which was resented by the newly conscious non-Brahmin classes. The limitations of orthodox nationalism were therefore beginning to be felt. To fight for equality in the political sphere could no longer be done effectively unless there was recognition of the need of equality in the social sphere as well. The demand for political rights by the advanced classes was not actuated by race hatred or personal bitterness but was moral demand born out of a love of liberty. In the same way the demand of equal social and religious rights on the part of the non-Brahmin classes was also a moral demand though in practice it often took a rabidly anti-Brahmin and communal t
urn.
Defence of Theosophy
Though in this matter Tilak’s position was not different from that of the orthodox, he had no sympathy with those who attacked Mrs. Besant and her cult of Theosophy. Writing in 1904, he corrects certain misconceptions and prejudices against the Central Hindu College established by Mrs. Besant. According to him, Mrs. Besant had suffered the criticism of her co-religionists and was preaching Hinduism out of conviction. It was not proper therefore to take objection to her activity merely on the ground that she was a European. According to Tilak, the great contribution of Theosophy to Hinduism is, “There is our old method of expounding the principles of our ancient religion, but in these changed times there is a necessity of putting them in a more modern guise. With the growth of the sciences the criticism also made these changes. In the same way it was less essential to make such changes in the exposition (and not in the religion itself) of Hinduism. The educated are attracted to Theosophy because it did this work admirably.”
In May 1904, Tilak bitterly attacked Principal Paranjpye for an article that he wrote in the East and West. In this article Paranjpye said that teaching of religion was harmful to nationality and also to the country. Religion is not the basis of ethics, but ethics was the basis of religion. The growth of religious superstition would be impossible to check. Religion is a tissue of superstition and will not be able to withstand the onslaught of reform. Tilak falls back on the Vedas and says that they have the power of uniting the different sects. His next contention is that no other religion has shown so well the relationship of the soul with God, or what the duties of an individual are to keep up this relationship, and how an individual can elevate himself. “As Paranjpye has never cared to study these he thinks religion to be a tissue of lies and nonsense.” He reminds the wrangler that “like mathematics, religion is an independent science and it requires a particular type of mental outlook. To develop its study, consultations of books and meditation are as necessary as in the study of mathematics.”
The ‘Times’ Apology
The Times of India continued its hostile attitude to Tilak even after his release from jail. The Times copied a remark from the Globe, a newspaper of London, in October 1899 at the time of writing about the appointment of Sir S. Northcote as the Governor of Bombay: “Happily Sir Stafford Northcote goes to his important office with much fuller knowledge of the state of affairs than his predecessor possessed until his mind was informed by the campaign of murder which Tilak directed, if he was not its organiser....” Tilak served the Times with a notice. As the case opened up the Times of India counsel declared that his clients were prepared to offer an unqualified apology. “It is a course my clients have determined to take independently of any legal advice whatever and prompted only by their own sense of what is right and just and fair to the plaintiff.” The apology was published in the Times of India: “Mr. Bennett entirely disassociates himself from any of the insinuations so brutally conveyed by the paragraph in the Globe and retracts with regret the sentiments embodied in the paragraph complained of.” Tilak next proceeded against the Globe and got a handsome apology from them also. This incident clearly indicates the hostility of the Anglo-Indian press and the Conservative press to Tilak, and the culmination of this attitude was to be found in Chirol‘s Indian Unrest. Tilak was extremely vigilant about his political reputation and took prompt legal action against those who sought to destroy it.
After his release from prison, certain topical issues engaged Tilak’s attention. One of these was the compulsion made by the government to inoculate people with the newly invented plague vaccine. Tilak was opposed to making it compulsory and wrote a number of articles pointing out how the vaccine was yet in an experimental stage and how it could not be made compulsory unless a statistical study was made of its effects on those who were vaccinated. His articles involved him in a controversy with Dr. Sir Bhalchandra Bhatavdekar. In the initial stages when the doctors too were apprehensive of the effects of the vaccine, the note of caution was valuable and he himself later congratulated the authorities of the Haffkine Institute of Bombay for the care with which they prepared the vaccine.
Problems of the Pea santry
An important provincial issue concerning the problems of the peasantry engaged the attention of Tilak, and he wrote several articles in the Kesari. The government had framed a bill to be introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council to amend the Land Revenue Code. This bill sought to restrict the power of the owner to mortgage or sell his land to the sowcar (money -lender). It was the government contention that due to the unrestricted powers in the hands of the peasants, land was passing out of their hands and the cultivators were being reduced to the position of a mere yearly tenant. The government also wanted to introduce a new system of inalienable land tenure and allow the cultivator to borrow only on security of the year’s crop. A very heated controversy arose, the non-official members objecting to the bill on the grounds that the government had no right to introduce this kind of tenure and that the whole problem of indebtedness of the agriculturist should be considered more comprehensively.
On the 2nd July 1901, Tilak wrote under the caption “The sowcar is dead and the kunbi (peasant) also is dead!” He pointed out the government sought to reduce the peasant to the position of a mere tenant. It would also ruin the sowcar and introduce government interference to an undue extent. In another article he questioned the validity of the government contention that land confiscated on account of non-payment of land revenue or non-repayment of a loan from the government was the property of the government. He referred to the Select Committee which suggested a number of amendments to the bill. Outside, an agitation was started protesting against the bill and meetings were addressed by Pherozeshah Mehta, Bhatavdekar and other members of the legislature. Tilak congratulated the members for their vigilance in the interest of the peasantry. Pherozeshah Mehta moved an amendment that a consideration of the bill be adjourned until various persons and associations had been consulted. This amendment was ably supported by Gokhale, but the government refused to accept the amendment. To show their resentment of this intransigence on the part of the government, all the elected members of the Council, led by Mehta, staged a walk-out. This dramatic gesture, the first of its kind in the history of the Bombay legislature, aroused widespread interest. There was bitter condemnation of the members, in the Anglo-Indian papers, for their irresponsibility. Tilak warmly congratulated the members for their bold stand and said that it was absurd to suppose that experienced and tried public workers like the Hon. Mr. Mehta cared less for the welfare of the peasantry than a civilian who came from thousands of miles away. If the government wished to pilot the bill, by-passing the wishes of the elected members, Tilak warned that they were reducing the position of the members to a mere farce. The government, however, saw the bill through the legislature.
The general stand of Tilak and the other members of the legislature seems to be based on the contention that unless attempts were made to organise rural credit in India such tinkering was undesirable. It is true that exorbitant interest is charged by the moneylender. “But after all the money-lender had been fulfilling a very important function in the carrying on of agricultural operations in India.”2 He was the only one to provide capital and credit to the agriculturist where the agriculturist is improvident and extravagant, the money-lender is a necessity and has been the very foundation of the simple system of village economy. Tilak pointed out that the Land Alienation bill would destroy the mutual relationship between the sowcar and the peasantry.
In 1903, Tilak criticised the proposed bill of the Government of India for starting Farmers’ Co-operative Societies. His main contention again was that there would be too many powers given to government officials. Instead, he suggested that attempts should be made to revitalise the village as a self-contained and independent unit and to organise sowcars’ societies. There were no agriculturists with sufficient capital or ent
husiasm, he pointed out, who would become shareholders of the Co-operative Societies. The purpose of providing cheap credit to the agriculturist would be better served if money-lenders’ societies charging a low rate of interest were established.
A series of articles in 1899 deplore the tendency seen in the government legislation to encroach upon the Khoti rights in the Konkan. He explained that according to tradition the Khoti right meant that the Khot should pay the land revenue of the village to the government. Once he did that he was for all purposes the master of the village with all the cultivators as his tenants. Tilak takes a legal stand to speak against the proposed restrictions of the Khoti rights and says that it was not a humanitarian question of siding with the cultivators as against the Khots. It was a question of the government standing by its pledges and agreements given to the Khots in the past. His plea was that it was the right of the Khot to get a third or a half of the produce of the land from the tenant and the government could deprive him of this right only if the Khot was paid sufficient compensation. “Just as the government has no right to rob the sowcar and distribute his wealth among the poor, in the same way the government have no right to deprive the Khot of his rightful income and distribute the money to the peasant. This is a question of rights and not of humanity.... If the Khot is unwanted in Ratnagiri then there is only one way to oust him: Government should purchase his rights by giving him a sum which would fetch air interest equal to his income and then these rights should be gradually transferred to the tenant even without taking anything in return if the government is moved by pity.”