by A K Bhagwat
Referring to Vivekananda’s work in America in the All Faiths Conference, Tilak says that, “To make the people in America, which is at the peak of scientific progress, realise the greatness of the Vedantic Advaita doctrine, even in the presence of their religious preachers, was no mean task.” “According to the Swami, Hinduism is the only binding principle to all the people of India and the principles of this religion were so glorious that it was possible even in the 19th century to spread it in countries inhabited by people of different religions.” According to Tilak, Vivekananda told the Christians: “By all means worship Christ; but as Christianity had no philosophy it was necessary to supplement it by the Advaita philosophy of the Hinduism.” His views on religion were thus extremely liberal and he did not oppose any religion. His heart bled to see the indifference of the people of India to their religion, and he was convinced that unless there was a regeneration of religion, India would not rise as a nation. Vivekananda, in short, had taken the work of keeping the banner of Advaita philosophy forever flying among all the nations of the world and mate them realise the true greatness of Hindu religion and of the Hindu people. He had hoped that he would crown his achievement with a fulfilment of this task by virtue of his learning, eloquence, enthusiasm and sincerity, just as he had laid a secure foundation for it; but with the Swami’s samadhi these hopes have gone. Thousands of years ago another saint, Shankaracharya, showed to the world the glory and greatness of Hinduism. At the fag end of the 19th century the second Shankaracharya is Vivekanand. His work has yet to be completed. We have lost our glory, our independence, everything. Religion is the only treasure that we have; if we forsake it, we shall be like the foolish cock in Aesop’s fables that threw away a jewel. In the world of today anything that we have has to be displayed and shown to the best advantage.
Herbert Spencer
On the 15th December 1903, Herbert Spencer died. Among the western intellectuals that had influenced the English-educated people of the 19th century, Spencer’s was among the most significant of influences. Tilak had accepted agnosticism, and during the first year of the Kesari he wholly subscribed to the description given of the Kesari’s religious position, namely that the Kesari was a dweller in the midland between scepticism and faith. With Spencer, Tilak too believed that thought has the power to go beyond experience and grasp certain things. Knowledge is not complete unless it is conceived that there is something beyond. What that is, we do not know; but though intellectually the ‘something beyond’ is beyond the pale of experience, its existence can be known by the intellect but its form is unknowable. “On watching our thoughts we see how impossible it is to get rid of the consciousness of an Actuality lying behind Appearances and how from the impossibility results our indestructible belief in that Actuality.” But what that Actuality is we do not know.
In his obituary article Tilak observes: “Of all philosophers who influenced our educated university people, Spencer was the foremost. In fact he influenced us more than he influenced the people of England, America or other western countries.”
Referring to the method by which Spencer evolved his system, Tilak says: “Spencer was not a scientist but a philosopher. He did not, like Darwin, Huxley or Tyndal, make new contributions to scientific research. His work was wider and more comprehensive. He attempted to discover the mysterious forces at the root of this Universe and to formulate certain general laws with the help of the new scientific ideas or their synthesis. Spencer did this with the help of the new world of scientific discovery, unknown to the philosophers of ancient India. That is why the English-educated generation in India was attracted to Spencer’s philosophy. Many of the theories of Spencer again agreed to a great extent with those of our ancient philosophers, and hence people were attracted to him all the more. This helped to revive an interest in, and create respect for our ancient philosophy. What exactly would be the result of this revival one cannot say just yet; but one thing is certain: it is not possible for us to continue to hold Spencer’s philosophy with the same reverence. This, however, in no way lessens the value of Spencer’s philosophy.
According to Tilak, there was a similarity between Spencer’s unknowable cause at the root of the Universe and the idea of Para Brahma in the Vedantic doctrine. He says: ‘The Para Brahma in the Vedantas is an Unknowable entity composed of Truth, Vitality and Joy (Sat, Chit and Ananda). This corresponds with Spencer’s Unknowable, at which he has arrived as a result of his study of the sciences. There is, however, an important difference between the Vedantic doctrine and the Spencerian one. According to Spencer, consciousness perishes with the destruction of the body. His views about the body and the soul are therefore similar to those of Charvaka, while regarding the Unknowable principle at the root of the world he agrees with the Vedantists. . . . Even though he believes with Charvaka, that the soul perishes with the body, he nowhere upholds the philosophy of pleasure advocated by Charvaka. Not only that, according to him, the highest good of human life consists in applying the principle of evolution to society and ethics and thus in achieving the welfare of humanity by striving to serve others. He does not regard the world as an illusion like the Vedantists; nor does he say that there is nothing beyond Prakriti and Purusha, as the Sankhyas do.”
It was thus the integration of the scientific idea with the principle of the Unknowable that attracted Tilak to Spencer’s philosophy though, according to him, there were limitations in his theory of the body and the soul. Tilak hoped that it would be possible to prove the existence of the soul apart from and even without the body by the researches of the ‘Society for Psychical Research’. He concludes by saying: “The new trend of thought that we have to take from Spencer’s books is that the work of the philosopher does not end merely by solving the riddle of the Unknowable at the root of the Universe and thus being satisfied with salvation. An equally important part of his work is to show how these principles could be applied to the affairs of everyday life and thus teach humanity how to work for the perfection of human life.” To Tilak, therefore, Spencer’s philosophy, like Vivekanand’s Vedanta, was important because it taught a way of action.
Professor Jinsiwalle
In August 1903, a personal friend and associate, Professor Shridhar Ganesh Jinsiwalle, passed away. Jinsiwalle, was a Fellow of the Deccan College when Tilak entered the College. Tilak had admired Jinsiwalle for his passion for learning and his acquisition of books. Jinsiwalle was also an eccentric. What particularly struck Tilak in Jinsiwalle’s character was the fact that in the conflict between western sciences and eastern learning, he did not lose his mental balance and far from subscribing to the spirit of latitudinarianism, he remained faithful to the influences of his childhood. It was because of these deep-rooted influences that he could keep himself absolutely free from the pernicious effects of English education. He believed, in short, “I am a Hindu and my religion is the Vedic religion. I see no reason to depart from the way to worship God taught by its religious tradition. I must abide by it; for in it lies the way to my personal and my country’s salvation. In short, I am a Hindu, shall remain a Hindu and die only as a Hindu. It is by Hinduism alone that I shall achieve my progress.” This was the firm faith to which he stuck throughout his life. The lesson that the young generation should learn from Professor Jinsiwalle’s life is precisely this: “We should not change our views as the wind blows. We must keep the balance of our social and religious life even and not allow it to swerve with ideas from the West.”
Interpretative Biographer
In these obituary articles, Tilak shows himself to be an analytical and interpretative biographer. He gives a clear indication of how his mind was moulded by these great personalities. It was Ranade who initiated him in public life and taught the way of agitational activity through a network of institutions. Namjoshi’s practical sense taught him how to bring together diverse interests within a community. Max Müller’s books and Vivekanand’s activities opened up a new vista of
the glories of Hinduism and the sacred books of the east. Spencer had taught him service of humanity and a synthesis of the eastern and western philosophy. It was through the example of Jinsiwalle that the futility of mere analytical western learning was realised and a faith in Hinduism and traditional Hindu culture was reaffirmed. To him, a wayfarer on the unknown and strange path of life, these individuals had acted as guides correcting, informing, reassuring him or even making him change his path. To them his debt was indeed great.
To come to matters of a political import and review Tilak’s activities with the Congress: The turn of the century saw in India a new Viceroy, Lord Curzon. New brooms sweep clean or at least are expected to do so. In welcoming Lord Curzon, therefore, on his arrival in India in 1898, A. M. Bose, the president of the Fifteenth Congress at Madras declared: “To Lord Curzon will fall the honour of carrying for the first time the British Administration of a United India to a New Century...” He further expressed the hope that “His Lordship will direct his great capacity and his great energy to initiating an era of domestic reform, of educational progress and industrial development.” Curzon aroused great expectations and also showed great promise in the beginning and yet, for reasons which we shall see later, the hopes were to be belied.
1900 was a year of famine and plague. An important resolution before the Congress recommended the appointment of an Inquiry Commission to go into the problem of famines. With his vast and first-hand knowledge and experience of famine work it is natural that Tilak should second this resolution.3 In his speech, Tilak corrected the mistaken notion that the ignorance of the cultivator was responsible for the famine. The mistake lay, according to him, in the policy of the government. “If you took away the produce of the land and did not give back to the land in some form more material than prestige and advice, the cultivator must grow poorer and poorer.” Characteristically, he observed: “My own belief is that calamities and misfortunes are not sent simply to crush us. There is an ulterior purpose and if we can’t recognise that purpose in the beginning, we come to know it in the end by experience and by continued thinking over it. Something of that kind is the last dire famine and I do not think that it is without its use. It has done one thing. The question of the poverty if India we have been pressing upon the attention of the Government of India for 15 years and it appears that a famine was necessary to press it home, and I think we must be grateful to the Almighty for that purpose.”
This Congress amended its Constitution Committee to the effect that besides the ex-officio members, 45 members should be elected to the A.I.C.C. Tilak was one of the seven elected from Bombay Presidency and his name is also to be found in the Educational Committee along with that of the Hon. Professor G. K. Gokhale.
Differences between Gokhale and Tilak
Gokhale was now a rising star on the horizon of Indian politics. He was initiated in public life by the noble example of service and sacrifice set by the members of the Deccan Education Society. He had accepted Ranade as his guru and he shared his faith in the essential goodness of the British. He had made his name by his able advocacy of India’s cause before the Welby Commission. His apology in connection with the plague incidents, for a time eclipsed his reputation; but made of a real solid stuff, he would not remain in the background for long. He had wonderful command over the English language and a fine and pleasing personality. He had assisted Agarkar in his social reform work by co-operating with him in editing the Sudharak. It was from conviction and temperament that Gokhale had aligned himself with the Moderate Party and had trained himself to be a legislator; in 1899 he had become a member of the Provincial Legislature, and in 1902, he was sent to the Imperial Council as an elected member.
With his sympathies for social reform and moderation in politics, Gokhale was naturally in the opposite camp to Tilak. Tilak had called him a ‘kachcha reed’ at the time of his apology. It is true that Gokhale was rather mild. Tilak said that he lacked the firmness necessary for a political leader, and also declared that in a free India, Gokhale would not be a foreign member; but would make an admirable Home member.4 Tilak, however, admired the legislative abilities of Gokhale and by 1900 Gokhale and Tilak came to be leaders of the two wings of India’s fight for freedom. Gokhale led the constitutional wing and went as far as he could within the strict limits of the law. Tilak did not rule out constitutional agitation and saw the practical necessity of remaining within the limits of the law; but he also knew that these limits would have to be transcended on occasion and that nothing furthered the cause of freedom more than suffering for one’s convictions. The remarks in an article in the Mahratta on the necessity of an armed revolt in the final fight for India’s liberation were shared by Tilak. The Mahratta commenting on the ‘Arms Act’ for Baroda State had stated: “The British rulers believe that subjects, if entrusted with arms, may one day use them against the Government. The belief is partially well founded, for the British Government is an alien government, and the subjects, in trying to get emancipation, will, if constitutional methods fail, have some day to resort to arms.” In Gokhale’s view the new party had preached many things such as “that love of country should be the ruling principle of our lives, that we rejoice in making sacrifices for her sake, that we should rely wherever we could on our own exertions”. In his view, however, the new party also taught a dangerous doctrine of tracing all our principal troubles to the existence of a foreign government. Gokhale observed, “Our old public life was based on a frank and loyal acceptance of British rule due to the recognition of the fact that that rule alone could secure to the country the peace and order which were necessary for slowly evolving a nation out of the heterogeneous elements of which it is composed....” His advice to young men was that they “must make up their minds about it that there is no alternative to British rule, not only now but for a long time to come and that any attempts made to disturb it, directly or indirectly, are bound to recoil on our head.”
The differences between Gokhale and Tilak were thus fundamental and the Anglo-Indian papers that compared Tilak to Parnell and Gokhale to Gladstone, never made a more apt comparison. In a way, according to Acharya Javadekar,5 the work of Gokhale and Tilak may be considered to be even superior to that of Parnell and Gladstone; for both had to remain in a dependency and work on principles of self-sacrifice. Tilak’s task of national regeneration was much more complex and of a greater magnitude, as India was much vaster than Ireland.
In summing up the differences between Gokhale and Tilak, Acharya Javadekar observes: “In Gokhale’s politics the Anglo-Indian community in India, the bureaucracy, British capitalism and its representative, the Viceroy, formed the Conservative party. The educated leaders representing India were the Progressive or Liberal party. In the Lokmanya’s politics the British Government was a foreign conqueror and the leaders of India were the trusted leaders, destined to take her from slavery to independence. According to the former party, India’s political work consisted of converting an unlimited autocracy into a democracy; while the latter party spoke in terms of extricating the nation from the clutches of the other. The former party could never forget that they were a conquered nation; the latter always remembered that the future form of our Swaraj will be a democratic republic. The former party depended more upon liberal democratic principles while the latter tried to draw strength from the burning flame of national sentiment.... Certain individuals from Gokhale’s party, at times, looked upon the rulers as people belonging to a different party within the same free nation, forgetting the real relationship between the rulers and the ruled. In the same way people from Tilak’s party often forgot that India’s freedom could be won only on the strength of the people and would be of a ‘republican form;’ and looked to the Indian rulers as relics of an age of freedom.” These differences came more and more to the fore during the regime of Lord Curzon.
Tilak on Education
In the Seventeenth Congress at Calcutta, Tilak sec
onded a resolution on the appointment of an Education Commission. In his speech he drew a parallel between the Japanese and the Indian systems of education and said that it was because of the independent system of education, with facilities for technical training,that Japan had forged ahead. On the contrary, education in India dwarfed the intellect of young men. You might point out to a Bose6 here or a Paranjpye7 there but let me remind you that they are exceptions that prove the rule. Our ancient system of education had that merit; at least it cultivated a love for learning, and produced men whose intellectual attainments are still the wonder of the world. He concludes by saying that education in India had been reduced to the position of a subordinate handmaid of administration and unless it is raised to its real position of a goddess of learning, India could not be raised to the status of the civilized nations of the West.