by A K Bhagwat
In 1901 the first of a series of actions, later on misconstrued by interested parties, for which Tilak and Khaparde were responsible, took place. In good faith Tilak proposed a drastic cut in the budget of Tai Maharaj and also opened negotiations about the adoption. The Pandit family originally came from Babre in the Nizam’s dominions and one of the brothers of Baba Maharaj was at Kolhapur. It was Tilak’s wish that a boy from the Babre branch of the family should be chosen, as the Kolhapur branch of the family had a bad reputation. Accordingly along with Khaparde and Tilak, Tai Maharaj went to Aurangabad, chose a boy named Jagannath and formally went through the legal ceremony of adoption. Tilak had, before this, obtained the consent of the Kolhapur Maharaja for the adoption, as a part of estate was in the Kolhapur State. On the party’s return to Poona, Tilak immediately wrote to Mr. Aston, who was the Political Agent to the Deccan Sirdars, informing him about the adoption. In the meanwhile, Nagpurkar, with a few other flatterers and sycophants, who infest such old aristocratic houses, conspired against the trustees. Tai Maharaj was prevailed upon by Nagpurkar who insinuated that the trustees were only using her as a tool and that they had an axe to grind. Tai Maharaj fell an easy prey to this and in conspiracy with the Kolhapur branch of the family, decided to adopt a second child, Bala Maharaj of the Kolhapur family. A meeting was arranged between her and Mr. Aston, in which she poured forth to the sympathetic ears of the Englishman all the alleged sins of commission and omission for which the trustees were responsible. Little effort was needed to convince Mr. Aston. His sense of chivalry combined with his prejudice against the seditious Brahmin Tilak. He had already made himself notorious by his heavy punishments of the seditious journalists of Satara. With this formidable adversary arranged against Tilak the stage for the second act of the drama was well set. An application was made by Tai Maharaj to Mr. Aston, the District Judge, to get probate of the will in favour of Tilak and Khaparde and the trustees cancelled. She also obtained permission from the Kolhapur Durbar to have the second adoption of Bala Maharaj.
Events now moved quickly. Tilak, roused to action, was found to be more than a match for the machinations of Nagpurkar & Co. He might have been very unwilling to be a trustee in the beginning but then he had no choice. And now that he had accepted the responsibility he could not possibly go back on his own word and be a party to an illegal act of cancelling the just and perfectly legal adoption. Fearing Tilak’s opposition, attempts were made by Tai Maharaj and Pandit Maharaj of Kolhapur to carry out a secret adoption ceremony in the house of Tai Maharaj at Poona. Tilak and Khaparde ordered the Kolhapur party to clear out of the house, as being trustees they were in charge of it. Tilak’s position was legally sound and the Kolhapur party had to quit disappointed. Pandit Maharaj, however, complained to Mr. Aston that Tilak was holding Tai Maharaj prisoner in her own house; but the personal investigation of Mr. Aston proved this charge to be baseless and Mr. Aston had to concede that under the terms of the probate Tilak and Khaparde had a right to keep a watch on the house if they feared any danger to the estate. Tilak filed a suit for injunction against Tai Maharaj and Bala Maharaj against his proposed adoption by her and also sent telegrams and letters to the Kolhapur Durbar officially warning against permission being given for Bala Maharaj’s adoption. He also wrote to Mr. Aston about the adoption. A second attempt at adoption of Bala Maharaj was also frustrated by Tilak and Khaparde. Acting obviously under the advice of Mr. Aston, to whom Tai Maharaj paid a second visit, Tai Maharaj drove out the trustees’ clerks and shut herself up in the house. A police enquiry was made into the complaints of alleged rioting by the trustees’ servants in the house. Tilak, in the meanwhile, visited Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur who maintained a discreet silence about the whole affair; but almost immediately afterwards personally attended the adoption of Bala Maharaj. The only course open before Tilak now was to file a suit against Tai Maharaj and Bala Maharaj and for confirmation of the first adoption. Tai Maharaj’s application to revoke the probate was in the meanwhile heard by Mr. Aston and Tilak was cross-examined by Mr. Aston and Tai Maharaj’s pleader. Mr. Aston who appeared prejudiced from the very first, held the Aurangabad adoption disproved, revoked the probate and ordered the costs, as in a suit, to be borne by Tilak and Khaparde. In his notes Mr. Aston found Tilak “a fencing, prevaricating, quibbling witness; demeanour distinctly untruthful.” Mr. Aston, however, did not stop at this. He found Tilak guilty of a number of criminal offences ranging from false complaint and breach of trust to perjury and illegal confinement of Tai Maharaj in the house at Poona. He accordingly committed Tilak to the City Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. While things appeared thus to be dead set against Tilak, he won an important victory that vindicated his stand when the High Court in September 1902 reversed Mr. Aston’s order of revocation but strangely enough allowed the criminal prosecution against Tilak to run its own course. The part of a prosecutor was thus carried on successfully by Mr. Aston and he left Mr. Clement, the Special Magistrate, to do the rest.
There were a number of points in the criminal case against Tilak in the Court of Mr. Clements which clearly proved that the magistrate was prejudiced against Tilak. It was thus clearly proved at one stage that Tai Maharaj had produced forged letters accusing Tilak of harassing her at the time of the first adoption. Nagpurkar, her accomplice, was time and again proved to be giving false evidence and yet the magistrate admired “the strength of character” showed by the one and lightly dismissed the other as “weak and vacillating.”
In his judgment, though Mr. Clements was inclined to give Tilak the benefit of doubt in regard to the charge of misappropriation of the trust money, he held him “demented by obstinacy.” On the 24th August 1903, Tilak was pronounced guilty on the charge of perjury and was sentenced to 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees Two Thousand was imposed on him. From the demeanour of the Magistrate everyone knew what the decision was going to be and Tilak was fully prepared for it. He was removed to jail immediately, the police for once showing unusual alacrity and promptness! Bail order was given immediately by the Magistrate and Tilak was brought back on the same day, but the last act of Mr. Clements was to order the recovery of the fine. The third act of the drama was not however over before the Sessions Judge, Mr. Lucas reduced the sentence to six months and revoked the fine. In contrast to the unsympathetic attitude of Mr. Aston and Mr. Clements, the Sessions Judge was much more courteous and polite. This gave false hope that Tilak would be acquitted. The necessary element of suspense with the chance that dame fortune might smile on the victim was also provided only to be followed by dire disappointment. True, that much of the moral turpitude in the sentence imposed in the lower court was removed by the Sessions Judge but the stigma in the form of a lighter punishment still remained.
The news of Tilak’s conviction was received with considerable sorrow and surprise by all. Comments in the press showed the feeling of shock experienced by everyone. The Lahore Tribune voiced the opinion of all nationalists when it said, “The majority of our countrymen are not waiting for the higher court’s verdict in order to rebuild their estimate of Mr. Tilak, his work and character. His hold on the minds of his host of friends and admirers is not of a nature to be affected by verdicts of law courts. He has lived and worked in full view of the public as it were, all his days. There is no mistaking such a character; it is unfolded to its inmost depths before the eyes of all who know him. A court of law, on the other hand, is liable to errors and misconceptions.” The Amrit Bazar Patrika referred to the “profound sensation in the country” produced by the news of Tilak’s imprisonment. It, however, did not see any consolation in the belief of the people that Tilak was innocent. On the other hand there was a sullen disappointment and almost a wish that death would be the only deliverance to Tilak: “But he has never been able to please the authorities and therefore he suffers. His only consolation lies in the fact that there are millions of hearts who will weep for him.... We fear, however, this time
he will not return alive; for he has not been able to fully recover from the effects of his last incarcerations. We wish he were not born at all or he had died long ago; for then his countrymen would not have been subjected to all this excruciating pain on his account.”
Indignation was expressed by many for the undue haste with which Tilak was removed to jail and was handicapped in the court. Tilak himself maintained a calm and dignified demeanour throughout and did everything to help his counsels in conducting the defence. S. B. Tambe, later Home Member of the C.P. government, who was practising at Amraoti in 1903 when Tilak had come to record evidence before a commission that was appointed by the government in connection with the Tai Maharaj case, says: “Lokmanya’s demeanour was surprising. Even though it was clear that in case of conviction there was likely to be a permanent blot on his character with the consequent infamy, his peace of mind was never disturbed. Not once did he appear to be nervous. He was, on the other hand, instructing his pleaders as a pleader would do in a case of law in which he appears on behalf of a client. It was difficult to believe from his conduct and bearing that he himself was the accused. In the recess he came to the bar-room and talked freely with everybody. He appeared to be totally oblivious of the case against him.” While the case was still going on domestic tragedy also stalked the Tilak family. Tilak’s eldest son Vishwanath, aged 21, died of plague in January 1903. Tilak and his family had then shifted out of the town and were living in huts near Fergusson College, on account of the plague. Vishwanath was a college student and was unmarried when he died. To those who came to pay a visit of condolence Tilak said, “When there is a general bonfire of the whole town everyone has to contribute his quota of fuel. This is just like that.”
Appaji Vishnu Kulkarni, Tilak’s writer at this period, gives the following anecdote which clearly illustrates the stoical calm of mind that Tilak possessed: “The day after Vishwanath’s death was a Monday. To avoid contagion they were sunning Vishwanath’ sclothes. A few paces from the hut where Vishwanath died sat Tilak in his hut. Everywhere an atmosphere of gloom pervaded. Nobody had the heart to work. But Tilak had the report of the treaty between the government and the Native States brought to him and dictated to me the leading article of the next day’s Kesari: The Maharaja Holkar’s resignation has been accepted.’ I remembered Vishwanath time and again as I wrote. But Tilak dictated the matter with his usual calm. But what is more, while I was writing, somebody said that Bapu (youngest son) had fever. Rambhau (second son) said, ‘I shall tell Dada’ to which Tilak’s wife rejoined, ‘No, don’t tell now.’ I could hear all this and Tilak too may have heard it. But he was fully absorbed in his dictation. The dictation was almost over and so I too did not say anything. After I had finished Rambhau came and gave the message. Tilak knew how terrible was the contagion and the death of the eldest son was yet fresh. And still he showed no inclination to go and see Bapu; but read carefully what I had written, did all the corrections and sent it to the press. This must have taken about ten minutes and then alone he went to see his son.”
Kulkarni also gives the following touching anecdote which shows how deeply Tilak felt the death of his son and yet how marvellously he could keep his feelings under control: lt was about ten days after Vishwanath’s death. Tilak sat alone in Vinchurkar’s house, on the first floor, reading a book. The door was closed and bolted from inside. He wanted to dictate to me something and so had called me in the afternoon. I went up the stairs and knocked on the door. When he asked, Who is it?’, I told my name and then according to his usual habit he called out loudly ‘Vishwanath’ intending to ask him to open the door and then hastily got up and opened the door himself. I could clearly see on his face how he was all but successful in keeping his feelings in check.”
On the 7th January 1904, Tilak’s appeal to the High Court against Mr. Lucas’ judgment was admitted and Tilak was released from jail. The fourth and final act of the drama had now begun and it ran a swift and short course when the clouds were lifted and once again Tilak’s character shone forth with splendour and radiance. The appeal came up for hearing on 24th February 1904 before Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Chief Justice, and the Hon. Mr. Justice Batty. The Crown was represented by the Hon. Mr. Scott, Advocate-General, with Rao Bahadur V. J. Kirtikar, Government Pleader in Bombay, and Mr. S. L. Davar, Government Pleader in Poona. Mr. Branson with the Hon. Mr. D. A. Khare appeared for the accused. The proceedings lasted for three days and judgment was delivered on 3rd March 1904, setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering the fine, if paid, to be refunded. In their judgment their lordships found no occasion to set aside the original adoption at Aurangabad. About the perjury charge the Chief Justice found “no attempt at sifting the large body of Aurangabad evidence.... The absence of any discussion of this evidence called for the defence constituted such a grave omission, that on that ground alone we would be bound to interfere.” The High Court’s view about the forged documents was that even on the Sessions Judge’s adverse reading of them, they could not in reason do more than create suspicion and fell wholly short of legal proof or even corroboration. “The onus has been wrongly placed; explanations have been demanded from the accused where no occasion for them existed, and the rule that there must be something in the case to make oath of the previous witness preferable to the oath of the accused had not been satisfied.” Tilak’s stand was therefore fully vindicated and all moral stigma attached to his name was set aside by the High Court.
The jubilant tone of the press was too obvious when the High Court judgment was delivered. The Oriental Review called the Tilak case in its unrevised stages as “one of the most extraordinary miscarriages of justice that have been known in India” and recalled the parallel of the lurid days of Nincomar and Hastings.... Fortunately for Tilak “The Supreme Courts are no longer dominated by judges of the stamp of Impey and, we may add, Jeffreys.” The prolonged criminal proceedings against Tilak were described by the Indu-Prakash as an instance of official incompetence and official imprudence. “The punishment which Mr. Clements inflicted on Mr. Tilak was certainly Draconian.” The Advocate of India certainly represented popular opinion when it said, “A case of this character has a very prejudiced effect on the mind of those who are always endeavouring to impress with soundness and impartiality of British justice” and the Amrit Bazar Patrika was more candid when it declared ‘Mr. Tilaks character has shone forth more brilliant like gold after being tested by fire.’ But the blot on the character of the government will not so easily be effaced.”
News of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Tilak’s appeal was received in Poona at 12.30 noon, and spread like wild fire over the city. Mr. Tilak commenced to receive visitors shortly after, each party garlanding him, daubing his forehead with red-powder and making him a present of sweetmeats. The road in front of his house was blocked by carriages and pedestrians. Special thanksgiving services were held in principal temples. Mr. Tilak visited the chief Hindu temple to offer his devotions and was cheered by enthusiastic crowds. He received more than two hundred telegrams of congratulations.
Tilak’s attitude to the case is clear from some of his remarks when the case was going on. One of his visitors advised, “What does it matter who is adopted? It is much better if you have nothing to do with this. Time which otherwise would have been useful for the country’s service is unnecessarily wasted.” Tilak replied, “That is not the case. I was a great friend of Baba Maharaj. He had great trust in me. It was my duty therefore to bring about things according to his wish. I had to bear whatever difficulties that came in the way of my duty. I consider it a service to the country in placing before it such a model of friendship.” Personally again he had no animus against Tai Maharaj and even she was convinced of the unimpeachable purity of Tilak. One of the nephews of Nagpurkar records,1 “Once in my childlike curiosity and boldness I asked Tai Maharaj, ‘Maharaj, why is it that you quarrel with our Tilak? What wrong has he done to you?’ Tears came to her e
yes as she said, ‘No, child, Tilak has done no harm to me nor has he touched even the slightest thing in my house. But there is one thing that comes in the way. Tilak is very obstinate and I am after all a proud woman. If he comes to me and says, Why, what are you doing?’ I shall fall at his feet and do whatever he tells me; but I shall never retreat on my own, come what might. It is not your uncle who is at the back of this. This is all my doing and I shall see that Tilak is outwitted.”
Tilak in his leading article in the Kesari after the judgment refers to the animus that the government had against him. To the government the very name, he said, was like a red rag to a bull and in such circumstances it was no wonder that he found it difficult to get justice. In his reply to speeches made in a public meeting in Poona to congratulate him he clearly shows how he was always conscious of the people’s support to him in the cause for which he stood. He declared, “I did not show any special courage. A person who would not show even this much courage on such an occasion does not deserve to be called a man. If injustice is done to anyone in society people should not depend either on the government or the court of justice but express their true opinion without being prompted by anyone. I could bear all my misfortunes in this calamity because I was fully convinced that the people’s opinion was on my side.” As in the sedition case therefore Tilak’s stand was a moral stand. He made no difference between private and public conduct but looked on both as of a piece. The promise to a dead friend once given was therefore in the nature of a public duty to him and involved not merely his private and personal prestige but also his moral and social prestige as well.