Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  In 1906, Deuskar, the writer of Desher Katha, who had settled down in Calcutta, took the lead in celebrating Shivaji’s anniversary in Calcutta. Tilak who had lent all his energies to the struggle of the Bengalis against partition had earned the respect and love of Bengalis and it was in the fitness of things that he was invited to Calcutta for the Shivaji festival. He was accorded an enthusiastic reception by the people of Calcutta and the festival was celebrated on a grand scale. The Bengalis heard the message of the life and work of Shivaji from one who made the people see old things in a new light and read a new message in the past events. Shyama Sunder Chakravarti, Editor of Servant, Calcutta, has given a splendid account of the event. He wrote: “The speech of Mr. Tilak on the occasion gave a distinct impetus to the just started self-relying politics of Bengal. He brought with him a large number of pamphlets containing the history of the Sinn Fein movement and caused them to be distributed among that huge audience. At the end of the ceremony a procession was organised to take the image of Bhavani to the Ganges for immersion and Tilak was asked to lead the procession. It was a unique demonstration, all the different communities of Calcutta joined it and when Tilak came to the riverside the rush for his sight was so enormous that his life was in danger. He had his dip in the Ganges with the rest of that huge assemblage and ensured his place in the heart of the Hindu community of Calcutta as the only true democratic leader of India.”

  Benares Congress

  In the Congress Session of 1904, it was decided to send a deputation to England to put forth India’s point of view. G. K. Gokhale and M. A. Jinnah were the Congress nominees but as Jinnah could not go Gokhale alone had to shoulder the responsibility. Fortunately Lala Lajpat Rai was in England at this time and these two did splendid work. Gokhale represented the Indian point of view with great ability and boldly defended the boycott movement in Bengal. Tilak and Gokhale had serious differences, ideological as well as temperamental, and Tilak had many a time scathingly criticised the moderate views of Gokhale. The differences between these two eminent leaders had started in 1890, the gulf between them was ever widening and fierce controversies raged between them on a number of occasions. Gokhale was generally restrained and sober in these controversies while Tilak generally wrote in a strong and cutting manner. He appeared to be almost enjoying conflicts and when he wrote vehemently, he thought that ‘it was in the game’. When some of Tilak’s critics accused him of meanness, they took all his expressions literally, which were only written in the white heat of passion. Tilak was always conscious of the great abilities of Gokhale, his earnestness of purpose, his mastery of facts and figures, and his command of simple, clear and vigorous expression. Tilak crossed swords with Gokhale when there was a difference in approach, but was also more than willing to pay him a compliment when the occasion demanded. Gokhale’s able advocacy of India’s cause was such an occasion. Tilak therefore openly congratulated Gokhale on his success in exposing the British Rule in India and in expressing the aspirations of the Indian people to the English. A special interview of Gokhale was published by the Bombay correspondent of the Kesari and along with it a picture of Gokhale was also prominently displayed. In a public meeting held at the Raey Market in Poona, Tilak moved the resolution felicitating him for the success of his mission in England.

  Gokhale’s thorough disgust of Curzon’s rule and his righteous indignation expressed in his presidential address at the Benares Congress in December 1905 has already been referred to. In the same address he explained the significance of the Swadeshi movement, and described the efficacy of the boycott, though he stated that “a weapon like this must be reserved only for extreme occasions.” Tilak highly appreciated the outspokenness of Gokhale and the Times of India criticised him for having given up his moderate stand.

  As a matter of fact there was a marked difference between the attitude of moderates and that of the radicals. This was particularly brought out by the storm in the Subjects Committee on the resolution according a hearty welcome to the then Prince of Wales on his forthcoming visit to India. The moderates always thought it desirable to express their loyalist sentiments through such resolutions. While Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai were strongly opposed to it, Gokhale, however, prevailed on Lalaji to act as a mediator and when the assurance was given that the resolution would not be declared to have passed unanimously, Tilak withdrew his opposition.

  Tilak, who was becoming the acknowledged leader of the extremists throughout India, was always opposed to an expression of loyalist sentiment. He was building a movement based on self-reliance and, therefore, opposed every move which went against. He was not, however, intent on precipitating a crisis in the Congress and though he could have easily defeated the moderates on the issue of welcoming the Prince of Wales, he did not stretch his argument to breaking point.

  Speech on Famine, Poverty, etc.

  Tilak moved an important resolution on “Famine, Poverty, Economic Inquiry and Land Revenue”, which said: “That this Congress deplores fresh outbreak of famine in several parts of the country, and holding that the frequent occurrences of famines are due to the great poverty of the people, which forces large numbers of them to throw themselves on State help at the first touch of scarcity, it again urges the government of India and the Secretary of State to institute a detailed inquiry into the economic condition of a few typical villages in different parts of India.”

  Tilak made a forceful speech while moving the resolution. He said, “If government exists it is not merely for securing peace but for securing prosperity to the land. Financial questions, economic questions are not to be dealt with by individuals. If they are to be dealt with by individuals what does the government exist for?” He continued, “If the wealth that is produced in the country does not remain but is drained away, it is the duty of the Government of India to take steps by which that wealth may not be drained.” He insisted, therefore, on industrialising the country to eradicate poverty and starvation.

  Tilak had realised the importance of the work to be done in England and he, therefore, seconded an important resolution moved by Sir William Wedderburn. It was resolved that as a general election was approaching in England a deputation should be sent from India to put the claims of India before the electors and the candidates. Tilak, while seconding the resolution, urged that an agitation must be made in England, for there the judges sit who would decide our case, and as the Government of India was impervious, they must reach the English people, and there should be a permanent political mission in England.

  Dadabhai Becomes the President

  After the Benares Congress it appeared to some that moderates and radicals in the Congress were searching for greater areas of agreement and were treading the same path. During the next six months, however, the crisis in Bengal became acute and the difference in the approach of these two sections once again became evident. The radicals, who were growing more and more sceptical of constitutional methods and had started thinking in terms of direct action, wanted the Indian National Congress to pursue vigorous policies. The moderates were conscious of the growing pressure and though they did not openly oppose the movements of the radicals, they did not want the Indian National Congress to give up its former stand. They did not want the movement in Bengal to determine the all-India policy of the Congress. Tilak was determined to give a radical slant to the Congress and when Khaparde wrote a letter to the leaders of the Congress asking for a change in the former’s constitutional policy, Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari on the 10th July 1906, on ‘The Direction of the Work of the Congress.’

  He quoted at the beginning of his article three stanzas from the Mahabharat in which, Bhima, the second Pandava, told Dharmaraj to give up his supplicant attitude, and to take bold steps becoming a Kshatriya. Tilak further remarked: “The time has now come to give the same advice to the (Indian National) Congress.” Tilak then stated how at first a handful of leaders represented the grievances of the
Indian people to the British Government and how afterwards this was done through the agency of the Provincial Conferences. It was first believed that as soon as the government was acquainted with these grievances, they would be redressed. Tilak then pointed out how such hopes were belied and how in spite of walk-outs in the Council staged by Pherozshah Mehta and others at the time of the Tenancy Bill in Bombay province and even in spite of the movement in Bengal against partition, the British Government was not moved even slightly. Tilak then emphasised the fact that the British Empire thrived on the exploitation of India and the British were not ruling the Indians with a disinterested motive of promoting India’s benefit. Tilak made a pointed reference to the fact that even Morley, at whose hands certain people expected a fair deal, was not prepared to compromise the interests of the Empire and refused to repeal the partition. After pointing at the futility of the method of petitions and requests, Tilak strongly advocated the need for a shift in the Congress policy, which he thought should be decided at the next session at Calcutta. He then made a suggestion that Lala Lajpat Rai should be made the President so that such fresh thinking would be done vigorously. Conscious of the fact that his suggestion was likely to be misinterpreted as disruptive, Tilak clarified his position in the following words: “Nobody desires to break the Congress. But the question is whether the Congress should be content by meeting once a year to raise its voice to say We want these things’, by sending a delegate to England for begging more.”

  While Tilak and Khaparde suggested the name of Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and other Bengalis suggested the name of Tilak for the Congress presidentship. The people of Bengal had, during the trying days of partition, received tremendous support from Tilak and were convinced of the fact that only under the leadership of Tilak, was the Congress likely to take swift strides on the path of direct action. There could not be any controversy about these two names, for both Tilak and Lalaji represented the radical point of view and were impatient of the moderate policies so far pursued. The liberal leaders became restless at this and wanted to keep their grip over the Congress quite firm. They knew too well that the suggestion of the name of a liberal leader was not likely to carry any weight and yet they wanted to prevent either Tilak or Lalaji from taking the reins of the Congress in their hands. In every institution the conflict of ideologies is inevitable and in such conflicts the side standing for status quo always finds itself in an embarrassing position. The liberal leaders were making a frantic effort to get out of this embarrassing position and after long deliberations they came forward with the suggestion that Dadabhai Naoroji, the revered veteran politician who was still in England, should be called to preside over the Congress. This was really a moral victory for the radicals as it implied an admission that the liberals could not suggest the name of anyone amongst them whose leadership would be accepted unanimously. To suggest Dadabhai’s name was only an attempt to evade the challenge flung at them by the radicals. It was a postponement of the crisis. It was of course a shrewd step in the game for power, for the liberals knew too well that none would oppose the idea of making Dadabhai the President at the Calcutta session. This ‘Grand Old Man’ of India by his long and arduous service to India had secured a place in the heart of all Indians. He inspired respect in all sections, and the moderates as well as the radicals had absolute trust in him. Even from the point of view of the extremists, no more felicitous selection could have been made. Not merely because in Dadabhai the Congress had secured a President of ripe experience, possessing sweetness of temper and infinite patience and tact, but also because he occupied a position much nearer the advanced wing of the Congress than anyone of the moderate party. He was neither a moderate nor an extremist, he had never hesitated to speak freely in the language of his heart and he was not the man to lower the standard with a view to placating one side or the other. After the repressive regime of Lord Curzon, his words invariably breathed fire. He had already asserted, and could assert over again, what the extremists had been urging with double the force and effect with which anyone of them could have done. True, he was one of those who still believed in a constitutional struggle for progressive expansion of political freedom and whose ambition stopped short at placing India on a level with the self-governing colonies. But he was no longer the same submissive supplicant that he was in his earlier years, praying for justice before the bar of British public opinion. They knew that he would steer the ship of the Congress safely out of any storm. He was far above partisan interests and people felt that under his presidentship, the Congress session would have a homely touch, when the patriarch of the family would give his benign advice by the fireside. Of course, it must always be remembered that Dadabhai was not just a ‘Good Old Man’ who would pat youngsters and try to patch up their differences. He always faced issues boldly and spoke what he sincerely felt at any moment. He had a rare clarity of ideas and though he was away from India for a considerable time, he had an accurate judgment of the forces in Indian politics. Different people had, therefore, different conjectures about the probable lead that he would give to the Indian National Congress. When Dadabhai arrived in Bombay in December 1906, he was given a rousing reception by all sections of the people.

  Tilak immediately after this wrote an article in the Kesari of the 18th December 1906 with the title “What would Dadabhai tell us?” After paying tributes to the services rendered by Dadabhai through fifty years of patient and uninterrupted work, Tilak remarked that this was not the only reason why Dadabhai commanded the respect of all sections of the Indian people. Dadabhai was the first to comprehend fully the fact that the apparently pleasing aspect of British Rule was ultimately detrimental to India and would squeeze the. life out of her. This characterisation of the British Rule by Dadabhai, was, according to Tilak, his greatest contribution. Tilak then pointed out the development of Dadabhai’s political ideology, how at first he relied entirely on the generosity of the British, how in the presidential address at the Lahore Congress in 1893, he advised people to represent their grievances in a right manner to the British and how there was of late a change in his attitude evinced by his message to the Congressmen in 1903 wherein he said, “India would not get self-government so long as the English are not convinced that Indians would not rest till they have achieved their political rights.” Tilak in the concluding part of his article remarked: “From ... all this, one finds that Dadabhai is a radical among radicals,” and expressed the fervent hope that Dadabhai would never damp people’s enthusiasm and his presidentship of the Congress would only strengthen the new radical trends in the political life of India.

  The Calcutta Congress

  Tilak’s prognostications were more than realised. The keynote of Dadabhai’s address was Swaraj and the statement of his views was unequivocal. He said: “We do not ask for any favours. We want only justice. Instead of going into any further divisions or details of our rights as British citizens, the whole matter can be comprised in one word, self-government or Swaraj, like that of United Kingdom or the Colonies.” Speaking about the non-fulfilment of the solemn pledge by the British, he added, “Since my early efforts I must say that I have felt so many disappointments as would be sufficient to break any heart and lead one to despair and even, I am afraid, to rebel... But I have not despaired.” His final message was: “Be united, persevere and achieve self-government so that the millions now perishing by poverty, famine and plague, and the scores of millions that are starving on scanty subsistence, may be saved and India may once more occupy her proud position of yore among the greatest and civilized nations of the world.”

  In the meeting of the Subjects Committee there was a heated discussion and when the resolutions for extending the boycott all over India were disallowed, Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Bipin Chandra Pal and Khaparde left the meeting. For a while a split had almost become imminent and yet in the open session, in spite of a heated debate, the resolution on a boycott was passed unanimously. This resolution, propos
ed by Ambika Charan Muzumdar and seconded by Bipin Chandra Pal, stated that the boycott movement inaugurated in Bengal, by way of protest against the partition of that province, “was and is legitimate.” The radicals interpreted the resolution as applicable in its extent to the whole of the country while the moderates gave the interpretation that it was confined only to Bengal.

  R. P. Masani commenting on the events of the Congress writes: “A united front had, however, to be presented. Tilak had the patriotism and the statesmanship to realise it. Despite his disappointment he struck a refreshing note of unity.” Masani then makes an appropriate reference to Tilak’s speech on the Swadeshi resolution in the 22nd Session of the Indian National Congress.

  In the article, ‘What happened at the Congress Session’, written on the 8th January 1907, Tilak gave a full-length account of the important events and stated his impressions about them. The special feature of the 22nd Session of the Congress was that Dadabhai Naoroji in his presidential speech first defined the objectives of the Congress and stated unequivocally that without self-government India’s problem could not be solved. Tilak observed that if this had been stated by a person of lesser authority, the moderates would not have accepted it. But coming as it did from Dadabhai, it was accepted by all, and this was an important step taken by the Congress. Tilak emphasised the fact that it was the 22nd Session of the Congress and thus it could be said that Congress had come of age. Tilak drew the attention of his readers to the fact that Dadabhai in stating the ideal of the Congress did not merely use the words “self-government” or “Home Rule” but also used the word most familiar to Indians, viz. “Swaraj”. “Dadabhai”s speech and his concluding remarks have once and for all proved that the achievement of Swaraj was the goal that the Congress wanted to reach.”