by A K Bhagwat
The drama had however a curious sequel. The civil case for establishing the legality of the adoption at Aurangabad still dragged on. In June 1905, Tilak was once again cross-examined and in July 1906 the First-Class Sessions Judge at Poona gave a decision in favour of Tilak. The appeal dragged on in the High Court for two years and more, and when Tilak was in Mandalay, undergoing his term of transportation for sedition, Mr. Justice Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Heaton decided the case against Tilak. The High Court did not find Tilak guilty of misappropriation but found him guilty of abusing his authority. An appeal was lodged with the Privy Council and in 1915 the decision was given in Tilak’s favour, clearing his character once and for all of any blemish attached to it. “For fourteen long years,” wrote Tilak after the Privy Council Judgment, ‘Tilak had to spend an anxious time and spend more than Rs. 50,000. Who will repay him, in this or the next world, one does not know. But in the end the facts that his word was established at long last as a true one and his fame was saved from being tarnished are enough compensation for him.” How completely free Tilak was from any self-interest in the case is to be seen from the fact, narrated by Jagannath Maharaj, the adopted son of Baba Maharaj, that he refused to accept any money that Jagannath Maharaj offered him for the expenses he had incurred. When pressed, he accepted a plot of land worth about Rs. 30,000 which, he said, he wanted to give as a gift to the New Poona College. The rest, he would present to Jagannath Maharaj whom he regarded as a son of his.2 The government’s attitude towards Jagannath Maharaj and his estate continued to be prejudiced. It was a considerable time after Jagannath Maharaj attained majority that the Court of Wards agreed to transfer the estate to him and it took years before he was recognised as a first class Sirdar.
One has to remember that Tilak carried on all his normal duties, both private and public, uninterrupted by the case. He was writing regularly for the Kesari and what was still more wonderful could command enough of scholarly isolation to concentrate on his Arctic Home in the Vedas which he published in 1901. Away from the storm and stress of political agitation and social controversy in the midst of domestic misfortune Tilak’s tormented soul could find peace and consolation in the calmer regions of scholarly research. In fact it was his research that must have made his public life bearable. Where at times the scene of political and public life appeared to be fleeting and evanescent with the goal of political emancipation always eluding the grasp, here was something sure, tangible and permanent. “To be called a professor or pandit,” said Tilak, “is to me a greater honour than to be called a leader or a Lokmanya.”
1
2
THE FOUR PILLARS
9
“In omperialism nothing fails like success.” So wrote Dean Inge. Lord Curzon in a sense was one of the most successful Viceroys in India. He succeeded in asserting the sovereign powers of the British rulers in India. He crushed all opposition. He made efforts to remove the last vestige of liberalism in the British rule. In short, he succeeded as an imperialist... and as a consequence his was the most colossal of failures.
Tilak on Curzon Rule
George Nathaniel Curzon, the ambitious politician, who had failed to impress the House of Commons and who therefore aspired to assert his gifts in some other sphere, had become the Viceroy of India and ‘had a grandiose vision of him as Caesar’. His regime was, therefore, marked, on the one hand, with an increase in the efficiency of government machinery and on the other, by growing resentment of Indian political leaders.1 An iron rule naturally produces its reactions. The nation feels the need of unity to build up a strong and effective opposition. Reforms divorced from a sympathetic understanding produce a violent reaction. Curzon’s regime was responsible for a widespread struggle in which the new technique of constitutional agitation, taught by the Indian National Congress, was effectively used. Tilak was the first to expose the Curzon-Rule and in 1901 had written an article in the Kesari ‘Twelve Deeds of Lord Curzon’. Tilak had judged Curzon correctly and wrote: “The people of India are on the brink of starvation while the British Empire is ever prospering. This is not something which a brilliant Governor-General like Lord Curzon cannot or does not know. But the unfortunate fact is that this does not find a place among his twelve deeds and he is more and more inclined to show that conditions in India are improving. If this tendency were to continue, we do not hope for any improvement in the regime of Lord Curzon which would be in the interest of the people.”
With his lack of sympathetic understanding, Lord Curzon often rubbed people the wrong way. He, therefore, made himself and the British rule extremely unpopular. He had already affronted the people of India by his costly Durbar in 1903, which was described by Lal Mohan Ghose as a pompous pageant to a perishing people. And the last straw was ‘his stupid and mischievous persistence in carrying out the partition of Bengal amidst universal protests.’
The Partition of Bengal
The partition of Bengal was effected on the 16th October 1905, on grounds of administrative convenience and efficiency. It is true that the province of Bengal with its 80 million inhabitants was unwieldy as a unit of administration. But as pointed out by Lord Ronald Shay, ‘the intelligentsia of the province interpreted it as a subtle attack on the growing solidarity of Bengal nationalism.’ The sinister motives of Lord Curzon had become clear from his speeches in East Bengal wherein he made an effort to create enmity between the Hindus and the Muslims in pursuance of the imperialist policy of divide and rule. The whole of Bengal rose as one man, spoke with one voice and acted with one mind. Curzon intended to divide, and Bengal united. All sections in Bengal, rich and poor, young and old, landlords and tenants, moderates and extremists, saw in the partition an insult to their honour and a threat to their solidarity. The Bengalis gave the first expression to their righteous indignation on the 7th August 1905. Calcutta was astir right from early morning. There was a complete strike. People poured in streams to the town hall where the protest meeting was to be held. It was such a mammoth crowd that instead of one meeting, four meetings had to be held. Resolutions were passed condemning the act of partition as an outrage and declaring a boycott on British goods as a protest measure. An action committee of about two hundred people was formed.
Maharashtra’s Support
Maharashtra was far away from Bengal and the partition might have been only a local issue. There was, however, a close kinship between these two provinces fostered by its political leaders. These two provinces represent two different temperaments. Bengal is known for its emotional fervour and Maharashtra for its critical spirit. They have, therefore, complemented each other in the fight for freedom. It is interesting to note that Aurobindo Ghose, who was during these days the rising star on the political horizon, had among his associates a number of Maharashtrians. Aurobindo has mentioned how Sakharam Hari Deuskar, a Maharashtrian author who had settled down in Bengal, wrote the book Desher Katha Stories of this Country at his instance and how it profoundly influenced the minds of young men in Bengal. The young revolutionaries of Bengal and Maharashtra professed the same ideals and followed similar methods of organisation. It must, however, be admitted that so far only certain individuals in these two provinces were held together by the bonds of idealism and there was no occasion to test the kinship between the masses. In a political struggle it is the responsibility of leaders to make the people conscious of this kinship and thus to secure a strong basis for their movement. The test of a political leader lies in his ability to work on public sentiments at opportune moments. Tilak stood the test admirably. With his unerring insight, he saw in the agitation in Bengal the opening of a new chapter in our national struggle. He knew that the partition was a challenge not only to Bengal but also to the rest of India and a meek submission to it would mean the death-knell of the political struggle in this country. India with its vast population could not be easily moved and Tilak, therefore, saw in the unrest in Bengal the signs of a new l
ife of political conflict. There was in his mind a growing consciousness of the ineffectiveness of the constitutional activities and though he did not prefer the alternative line pursued by revolutionaries he was aware of the fact that it was an outcome of the realisation of the futility of the constitutional effort. He had given long thought to the strategy of civil revolt and he was waiting for an opportunity to generate new energies and to find fresh channels for the energies of the revolutionaries. Tilak had time and again criticised the high-handed policies of Curzon and yet he knew too well that the repressive measures taken by Curzon were almost a blessing in disguise in so far as they would create a new consciousness among the people. The partition of Bengal was the most ruthless stroke of the Curzon rule and consequently created a favourable atmosphere for political agitation.
Tilak was never happy unless the ideas preached on the Congress platform reached the people; for in the people he saw the real sanction for the Congress movement. Execution of an idea was always his forte and here was an idea that touched the sentiments of the people; but even sentimental appeals do not go very far and sentimental opposition peters out in impotent and sterile rage. Tilak foresaw, therefore, that out of the sentimental opposition to the partition could be forged powerful instruments of popular struggle. To be really effective they must take an economic form. Boycott and Swadeshi were, therefore, the two weapons that he placed in the hands of the people. This direct action was to be supplemented by the more peaceful methods of constitutional agitation - protest meetings, petitions and prayers.
Tilak sensed his opportunity and wrote a powerful article in the Kesari of the 15th August. The article was given a significant heading: “The Crisis.” He wrote: “It is evident that the government is not prepared to pay the least heed to public opinion expressed in mammoth meetings attended by lakhs of people; and it we do not find ways to oppose the present move and the tendencies of the government, people will lose faith in such movements. The government would not yield so long as we do not resort to stringent methods. We are at present passing through a crisis and the whole of India is looking up to the actions of the leaders of Bengal. The big landlords of Bengal and leaders like Surendranath Banerjee and Basu must now set an ideal before the people. They must tour the whole of Bengal and make the boycott of British goods successful... We now need action and not words, and action also of a determined nature.”
Boycott — A Yoga
Tilak is more explicit about the method of carrying on this movement: “When rulers refuse to listen to people, people are upset and punish the ruler. An instance of this is found in the history of England. With our different traditions and with our present humble state owing to being disarmed by government, the method followed by the English is not possible for us. But it would be foolish to suggest that if you cannot have a strong and correct remedy for a disease, you should not take even a mild medicine... We have neither the strength not the desire to use a weapon against our rulers. But can we not stop paying crores of rupees which we pay every year when we buy British goods,... The U.S.A. boycotted British goods in a similar manner, when they achieved their independence.... Boycott is not an unlawful method as rebellion is. We do not suggest that we should give up the constitutional methods of representing our grievances to the rulers. But when we realise from our experience that requests are not effective we should supplement them with boycott and with this double-edged weapon achieve our objective. People of Bengal have realised this and are striving accordingly. People in other parts of India must sympathise with the cause of Bengal and join the Bengalis in their struggle.... The young generation must come forward to accomplish this task with a determined effort. Boycott is the correct weapon. But its strength lies in action and not in declaration.... If we stand united we have no hesitation that the political and the economic condition of our nation would surely improve.”
Tilak’s articles during this period have a rare force about them. They can, however, be contrasted with the speeches and writings of many Bengali leaders and one finds peculiar qualities of Tilak’s leadership. The speeches of Surendranath Banerjee had great emotional appeal and were full of stylistic graces. Tilak’s writings had a directness and simplicity about them and their ringing sincerity touched the hearts of all those who read them. The famous speech of Anand Mohan Bose at the opening of the Federation Hall in Calcutta on the 16th August 1905, has a quiet persuasiveness about it. Tilak’s writings have a greater vehemence and he appeared to be flinging a challenge to the awakening manhood of the Indian people. There was nothing flashy or dazzling about the articles in the Kesari, and yet the sustained glow of Tilak’s intellect and his insistence on action gave them a unique dignity and power. His articles show a consciousness of the power of a mass movement and he also saw the potentialities of the new weapons, Swadeshi and Boycott, to make it effective. He used his powerful pen to take them to all sections of people. Tilak’s concept of boycott has been clarified in the very title of his article ‘Bahishkarayoga.’ He looked upon the boycott as yoga — an act which requires the concentration of all powers attained after long practice. Tilak was particularly impatient with the moderates who found fault with, and raised various objections to boycott. The moderates were opposed to every activity which was likely to transgress the limits of the constitutional method. They had therefore a sort of dread of mass movement and did not favour actions which might take the initiative away from the elite. The liberals were thus suspicious, not about the efficacy of boycott but rather about the desirability of resorting to it. The Liberal Party in India has always taken this pathetic attitude in times of crisis and could never therefore captivate the imagination of the people. Tilak exposed the weakness of the liberal stand in a crushing manner. In an article in the Kesari on the 5th September 1905, he wrote, “It is a matter of regret that in respect of boycott the tremendous enthusiasm shown by the young generation of students and by the ignorant masses was not shown by the leaders belonging to the rich and the middle classes. These people have raised a doubt as to how they would get sufficient Swadeshi goods even if they are determined to use Swadeshi. Their argument is that first we must have mills, then we would start producing Swadeshi goods and not until then would they consider whether to use them. The folly of such argument is indeed so apparent as to be pitiable. Just as it is foolish to expect a person to learn swimming before getting into the water, equally foolish it is to say that people should use Swadeshi after there is a sufficient production of Swadeshi goods. This production is possible only when there is a sufficient encouragement either from the people or from the Government. Under the present circumstances, encouragement from rulers is not possible and if people also raise doubts, the local trade and industries, which have just managed to survive, would become extinct.... Those who advocate the postponement of Swadeshi till enough Swadeshi goods are produced, are ‘deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the present movement.... If people are resolved to practise this Yoga, the more they practise it, the greater fruit would it bear and lead ultimately to the desired ideal.” In all his writings Tilak emphasised the positive aspect of the boycott movement and wanted people to learn the lesson of self-reliance.
Politics is a game in which there is little room for softness. Once an individual enters a political controversy he must be prepared to take hard blows. This leads some people to think that politicians thrive on intolerance. This, however, is a misnomer. When political leaders – and when we use the term we confine it only to those in the first rank – take a particular stand, they do it with all the courage of their conviction and strong attacks on the opposite point of view therefore become imperative. Moreover to them an opinion is not merely a matter of academic interest but a means of influencing public opinion so that the opinion is translated into the desired action. Anything therefore which comes as an obstacle in this way has to be brushed aside. These thoughts are occasioned by three articles written by Tilak about Professor Selby of the De
ccan College. Prof. Selby was relentlessly attacked by Tilak when he expressed his opinion on the Swadeshi movement in a letter published in Indu-Prakash. When Prof. Selby had expressed an unfavourable opinion about the Swadeshi movement, Tilak wrote three articles in the Kesari with the ride They are not our Gurus.’ In the course of these articles Tilak explained the noble concept of ‘Guru’ in ancient times when those who undertook the task of educating others, were men with profound knowledge, spotless character and without any material interests. They placed truth above everything and fearlessly expressed their opinions on any problem. In contrast to them, the European professors in India placed the interests of the British Empire above truth and therefore though some of them were well-versed in their own subject, they had no claim to the exalted title of ‘Guru’. From these professors, Indian students might get book learning; but they should never look up to them for a lead in matters regarding the welfare of this country.
In the second article, Tilak also gave a scathing criticism of teachers in private colleges and pointed out how they had degraded themselves by exhibiting their slavish mentality. Tilak pointed out the irony of fate that while Prof. G. K. Gokhale was defending boycott in Manchester, a student from the Fergusson College was fined ten rupees by the Principal for participating in the Swadeshi movement. In this article, Tilak has expressed his views on the student-teacher relationship, a subject which has been a matter of controversy for a number of years in this country. Some critics of Tilak alleged that he encouraged indiscipline among students. The views expressed by Tilak in this article clarify his position in the matter and give a decisive answer to all critics. He wrote, “The relationship between the student and the teacher is very delicate and we do not wish to spoil it.” Tilak then raised the problem of discipline and made it clear that teachers or elderly persons in the house should not assert their authority in a wrong manner and punish the right conduct of young people as indiscipline. When a teacher, who is motivated by selfish interests, or is under the thumb of others or has lost the poise of his intellect, when such a teacher without knowing the desirability or undesirability of action, orders his pupil or punishes his pupil for not obeying his order, the pupil is perforce to defy the teacher.