by A K Bhagwat
Tilak was particularly gratified that besides the end, the means also were clearly stated. Tilak wrote: “It is true that the Congress had not given up the method of petitions and requests. But it must be borne in mind that the 22nd Session of the Congress had once for all wholly adopted the triple methods of self-reliance, viz. Swadeshi, boycott and national education.” Referring to the seal of sanction set on boycott by the resolution in which boycott was called ‘legitimate’, Tilak objected to the interpretation which Gokhale and Malaviya tried to put on it, viz. that it applied only to Bengal. Tilak remarked, “If the boycott resolution had not a general significance, would it not have been differently worded so as to remove its ‘general’ nature? There was scope for limiting it by putting the words ‘for Bengal’ after the word ‘legitimate.’ But as this was not done and as the resolution was adopted unanimously, none, not even the President or the Secretary of the Congress, had now a right to interpret it according to the opinion of one section or the other. . . .
The next resolution was about Swadeshi. There was much discussion in the Congress session on the point whether or not Swadeshi was to be encouraged ‘at some sacrifice.’ The Hon. Mr. Mehta’s views in this respect are well known. He said that encouraging Swadeshi ‘at some sacrifice’ amounted to boycott. He thought that was not the meaning of Swadeshi and that such a meaning would not be acceptable to the Mohamedans. In short, in this respect the views of Lord Minto and those of Mr. Mehta coincide. But the Congress did not approve of this opinion and after a good deal of controversy, it was unanimously resolved that “Swadeshi goods should be encouraged at some sacrifice.” Tilak was happy that there was no difference of opinion on national education, and that the Congress had fully realised the necessity, the importance and the utility of national education. Tilak summed up the article, saying that “as the end and the means were fully clarified there was no ground for dispute among the contending parties” and that “the young generation should now use the means properly and achieve the ideal as stated by Dadabhai.”
In spite of the unanimity about the resolutions, the differences between the two sections of the Congress had become evident. The differences were ideological and not personal, though in the heat of the controversies, personal bickerings, too, came to the surface. In a dynamic political organisation differences of opinion are but inevitable. The Indian National Congress was passing through a period of growth. There was therefore nothing wrong in the efforts of the two major parties in the Congress to shape the Congress according to their respective ideals. Gokhale was the accredited leader of the moderates and Tilak, Aurobindo, Pal and Lajpat Rai represented the radical point of view. That the two points of view were almost irreconcilable could be seen from the discussions in the Subjects Committee and from the speeches in the open session of the Calcutta Congress.
Tenets of the New Party
After the Calcutta Congress under the presidentship of Bipin Chandra Pal, Tilak delivered a speech on “The Tenets of the New Party.” The speech is a clear statement of the ideological position of the extremist section. He said: “Two new words have recently come into existence with regard to our politics, and they are moderates and extremists. These words have a specific relation to time, and they, therefore, will change with time. The extremists of today will be moderates tomorrow, just as the moderates of today were extremists yesterday.”
Tilak then referred to the fact of how Indians were at one time dazed by British rule and how Dadabhai was the first to be disillusioned with the apparently benevolent intentions of the British. Tilak then declared: “Self-government is our goal. What the New Party wants you to do is to realise the fact that your future rests entirely in your own hands. If you mean to be free, you can be free; if you do not mean to be free, you will fall and be forever fallen. So many of you need not like arms; but if you have not the power of active resistance, have you not the power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist this foreign government to rule over you? This is boycott, and this is what is meant when we say, boycott is a political weapon. We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice. We shall have our own courts, and when time comes we shall not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united efforts? If you can, you are free from tomorrow.”
The speech had a tremendous effect. The Indian People commenting on the speech wrote:
“As a speaker, Mr. Tilak has nothing of the demagogue or the impassioned platform orator about him. There are no high-sounding phrases, no flights of rhetoric. His manner is subdued and free from gesticulation. The sentences are terse; the language is simple and direct.... He appealed to the intelligence of his audience and not to their sentiment. The real power lay in the matter of his speech and not in the manner. There were no generalisations, no enunciation of abstract principles in flowery language. Every statement was clear and every point was driven home with a readiness of illustration and power of antithesis that showed the power of the speaker and the subtlety of his intellect. Every issue was put plainly and uncompromisingly. But there was no violence of language or denunciation, not a trace of passion either in word or gesture. After hearing him it was not difficult to understand that he is the most powerful and the most influential leader of the New Party, a party by no means confined to Bengal.”
The Calcutta Congress ended on a note of unity and yet the unity was only apparent. In political parties verbal unanimity on the ideal plane is not enough. That is because the ideal to which all give their consent is many a time an abstract idea and different people have different ways of interpreting it. A particular aspect of the idea appeals to a particular section and that section throws all its weight for emphasising that aspect. Unity in political parties is not therefore merely a matter of adjustment. It has an ideological basis and also a reference to the programme which can translate it into reality. It must be said that there was a fundamental difference in the points of view of the moderates and of the radicals and these differences became more and more marked when the spokesmen of these two parties started clarifying the position of the Congress as they understood it. It was, as a matter of fact, a clarification of their own stand, though both the sections claimed that they were preaching views which were representative of the Congress as a whole.
Tilak was never satisfied with resolutions being merely passed. In the Benares Congress while seconding the resolution of Sir William Wedderburn, he had emphasised the need for a permanent political mission in England. How he was thinking on those lines in the context of the developments in Bengal can be seen from the reminiscences of a well-known writer and pleader from Dhulia.2 He wrote:
“After the Calcutta Congress of 1906, Tilak was possessed with the idea of making the Swadeshi and Boycott movements more forceful than before. He thought of establishing on behalf of India embassies in important countries such as America, Germany, Japan, China, etc. so that our representatives in those countries would suggest the ways of making the boycott against the British effective. He thought that as far as possible the Congress should control these embassies and enlist through them the sympathies of other nations. He had some plans in his mind and he had started moving in the matter.”
1 Times of India, dated 1 Sept. 1955, p. 3 :
Curzon underrated power of congress
Facts Revealed in Letters
New Delhi: August 30
Confidential correspondence of Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India at the turn of the century, recently made available in the India Office Library, reveals his lack of appreciation of the potential strength of the Indian National Congress.
Some of the letters have been copied by research students and brought to India. Towards the end of 1900, Lord Curzon wrote to the Secretary of State that his own bel
ief was “that the Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my greatest ambitions, while in India is to assist it to a peaceful demise.”
2
GOKHALE-TILAK-AUROBINDO
10
PART I
The controversy in the Congress was the conflict between the old and the new. Generally, the old order is represented by elderly persons whose watchword is caution, and who always oppose a bold experiment. The new order is, on the other hand, represented by the young, who want to revolutionise the old methods and to make quick advance in spite of the advice of ‘Go slow’ given by the elders. Age generally decides the group to which a person belongs and the change in the attitude of a person affected by age is finely brought out in the remark of an English humorist, viz. “He who is not a socialist at the age of twenty has no heart and he who continues to be a socialist at the age of thirty has no head.” Common people grow cautious with age but the same standards cannot be applied to an idealist who dedicates his life to a cause. Moreover, in politics in particular, the group to which a person belongs is decided more by his temperament than by his age. The influences in the impressionable period, the strata of society to which an individual belongs... these are also important factors which decide the nature of one’s political ideology. Some political workers, right from the beginning of their political careers, are conservative and continue to be so to the end. There are others, whose radical disposition never changes and who exult in conflicts of every kind. Some are also found to be changing their attitude in the light of their experiences. In the Congress, the old leadership stood for moderate views and constitutional methods, but their main spokesman was a young leader like G. K. Gokhale. Tilak was senior to Gokhale and yet he led the young radicals with a militated attitude and advocated direct action.
The Old and the New
The differences that came to the fore between the moderates and the extremists were not just matters of temperament, though temperament was important in analysing the situation more or less objectively. The potential energy of public opinion unleashed by the Bengal Partition and the display of mass enthusiasm and action were matters of genuine rejoicing to the Extremists. This manifestation of power developed a mentality that brooked no compromise with the British Government. Both for themselves as also from their feel of the popular pulse they knew that nothing short of complete abdication of power on the part of the British would satisfy them. The British were however the last to yield; even as late as in the last World War when all the forces were arrayed against their power the typically dogged British Prime Minister was not prepared to liquidate the Empire. The moderates were not prepared to go so far and raised the bogey of government suppression. Thus there was a long-drawn triangular contest, the issue of which was going to be decided by the popular support which each of these contestants was going to enlist. The government tried to hold out the bait of a few belated reforms: the moderates, though unsatisfied and the unconvinced, acquiesced; the Extremists tried to retaliate and government came down upon them with all its might. This whole cycle with all its stages government intransigence, popular agitation, halfhearted concessions in the form of tardy reforms followed by popular protests with government attempts to muzzle the dissident voices has been repeated more than once during the British regime.
After the Calcutta Congress, Gokhale went on a lecture tour in the United Provinces and spoke on ‘The Present Condition’, ‘Swadeshi’, ‘Advice to Students’, etc. Tilak wrote a series of articles on these lectures strongly criticising the opinions of Gokhale. In the article, ‘The Confusion of the Hon. Mr. Gokhale’, written on 12th February 1907, Tilak first pointed out that Gokhale did not share all the views of the old leadership of the Congress and that in some respects he held extreme views. But he also did not approve of the programme of the new radical section in the Congress, and the old section realising this had supported him and made him its spokesman. Tilak wrote an article criticising the time advocated by Gokhale in his speeches. Tilak attributed the confusion in Gokhale’s opinions to the weakness of his stand and showed how there was also a confusion in the views of Gokhale on government service. “Gokhale admits that at present the best talents and abilities of our people must not be yoked to the service of the government but must serve the cause of the nation.... He wants young men to devote themselves to social service by joining the Servants of India Society or by some other method... and in spite of all this he once again sings the praises of government servants.... If you want intelligent and efficient young men for the service of our country, it is no use just praising political ideals and patriots to our young men. It is necessary to point out how owing to the temptation of government service young men turn their backs on the national cause, and thus to expose the hideous and anti-national nature of that service. If the leaders of the nation want young men to devote themselves to the service of the country, they must advise young men in such a way as to inspire in them a feeling of renunciation in regard to government service. If Mr. Gokhale is not prepared to give this bold lead, he should better refrain from giving advice. Nobody would now relish this cocktail of the old and the new. It is better that he should give up this ridiculous effort and follow either of the two paths in a bold manner.”
Tilak wrote another article in the next issue of the Kesari, “It is good that he spoke at least!” Tilak remarked that there was a difference in representing our cause to the English and in addressing our people with a view to advising them to follow a particular line of action. Tilak implied that Gokhale had done the former job in a successful manner but the contradictions in his views stood exposed when he attempted the latter. Tilak remarked: “Gokhale says that he does not belong to the new party. Moreover, it is well known that in the last Congress session his party accepted the resolutions on Swadeshi and boycott, with great reluctance, as a sort of a compromise. The natural bent of his party is to maintain good relations with the English, to get certain things from the bureaucracy through the method of persuasive requests. After the last Congress session, however, they cannot keep up this soft attitude.... Vagueness about the ideal of the Congress... and about Swadeshi... has got to be given up and an unequivocal stand taken.... If this is done and the consequent propositions are accepted, it would not be possible for the old party to keep up its tradition of pleasant relationship with government and the bureaucracy; and if this is not done the party must accept the charge of contradiction in views. This is indeed a precarious position and we were eager to see how Mr. Gokhale would accomplish the feat of getting out of it. These curiosities of ours were satisfied when we read the speeches of Mr. Gokhale and we have been thoroughly disillusioned.” Tilak while pointing out the difference between the two parties remarks: “The old party accepts the main proposition but is not prepared to accept the corollaries. ... To put it bluntly the old party still fears the wrath of the government and is afraid of getting crushed if it would take a bold stand in the conflict. Not that the new party is not conscious of the danger. The leaders of the party are aware that if the boycott movement became intensive, the British would try to suppress it. But the new party is of opinion that it is no use fearing this repression so long as the government continues its autocratic attitude whether we take a conciliatory attitude or make strong protests....” Tilak then criticised the views expressed by Gokhale about national education: “Gokhale admits that there are defects in the present system of education. He wants them to be removed. But he is still enamoured with his two maxims, viz. ‘We shall not be able to work without government’s aid’; and that ‘It is not desirable to oppose the government’. As a result, though he accepts the principles of the new party, he has arrived at the conclusion that it is not desirable for private schools to come in conflict with the government. We think that this is a wrong conclusion.... If the government is not prepared to improve the educational system and if it is necessary to improve it, we think that the private schools must make that effort. Pr
ivate schools must not be tagged to the government policy... It is the duty of private institutions to set an example of national education and to make the government follow it sometime.... Thus though there is a general agreement on principles, the old party is faltering and the new party wants to take a bold step.” In the concluding part of the article, Tilak has once again emphasised the contradiction in Gokhale’s views and remarks that, “Gokhale is not to be blamed for it. The contradiction is inherent in the ideology it professes. The more he tries to defend the side he has, the more conscious would he be of its weakness and in trying to get over it his ideology though not his actions would coincide with that of the new party.”
In the Kesari of the 5th March 1907, Tilak wrote another article ‘Constitutional and Legal’ in which he elaborated the points he has already stated in the first article on Gokhale’s speeches and added a few more. Tilak was a keen student of law and always insisted on using correct words and expressions. Very careful even about the minutest shade of meaning he criticised Gokhale for using the word constitutional rather loosely thus creating much confusion. The word ‘constitution’, Tilak maintained, could not be used in this sense with reference to India as the present constitution was not at all a charter of the rights of the people. He wrote: “We call the declaration of the Queen Empress in 1858 a charter. But this is only a misnomer. The declaration is not a charter, as it does not, in any way, restrict the powers of the government.” Tilak has summed up the article in an admirable way. He has discussed the fundamentals of law and has emphatically asserted the ethical basis of our political struggle.