by A K Bhagwat
Tilak on Morley
The political movement in India had an inherent strength, but it must be admitted that one of its constituent factors was a reaction to the British policies. When the British rulers were rather lenient, the moderates tried to convince the people that they had rightly put their faith in British justice. When, on the other hand, repressive measures were taken by the bureaucracy or hopes were belied in some measure of reforms, people became anti-British, moderates were dubbed as fools or knaves and the radicals strengthened their hold on the people. The radical movement got a tremendous impetus owing to the Bengal partition but if Morley and Minto had immediately introduced some reforms, the moderates might have been able to hold their position in the Congress for a few more years. Of course, people could not be as easily placated as before and there was a growing realisation that patchy reforms would not take India far. When in 1906 Gokhale went to England, Morley appeared to have succeeded in securing his support to a measure of moderate reforms.2 After consultations between Morley and Lord Minto, it was decided that the reforms should be initiated by the Government of India. A committee under the chairmanship of Sir A. T. Arundale was appointed in the same month and the committee submitted its report in October 1906. But the Viceroy’s Executive Council took a very long time to form its judgment on the report and the dispatch was sent to Mr. Morley in March 1907. After this it took over a year to gather the views of local governments and of the public and the first step in the matter of reforms was taken only in October 1908. In the meanwhile Sir Bamptylde, the Lt.-Governor of East Bengal, continued his repressive measures. In Punjab also the Lt.-Governor tried to suppress the agrarian movement. It is admitted by the biographer of Lord Minto that the disturbances in Punjab were mainly due ‘to the unwise handling by the local government of the situation in the Canal Colonies.’3 Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh criticised the government’s repressive measures. In Rawalpindi, there were riots on 2nd May 1907, and on 9th May 1907 Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were deported. The deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai gave rise to tremendous anti-British feeling. When in August 1907 the dispatch of the Government of India, approved by the Secretary of State for India, was published, people were greatly disappointed. Tilak had foretold that it was foolish to expect much of the proposed reforms, and when the dispatch was published, he wrote an article condemning downright the new proposals. He described the proposals as sterile and emphasised the fact that Mr. Morley, whose soft words gave rise to certain hopes in the minds of some people, proved that he was not prepared to give any rights to Indians. He pointed out that according to the proposed reforms, the powers of the bureaucracy were not reduced even by the slightest degree, and therefore the whole thing was only a farce. Tilak attacked the proposed formation of a council which he described as “The council of the great nincompoops.” He wrote: “In this council, out of sixty members twenty will be the rulers of states and forty will be nominated from among the big landlords, the jahgirdars, etc. In short for the whole of India there will be a council of these big people.... Government is using these people as tools in order to destroy the movements of the educated class in this country.... Moreover, the government of India will take their advice whenever it wants to do so and that advice would have to be given in writing and secretly.” Tilak exposed the intention of the government to set up a rival body against the Congress and to secure a sanction for their repressive measures by saying that they acted according to the advice of this council. Tilak refuted the argument of the government that the Princes and the big landlords were the traditional leaders of the people and pointed out that they were incapable of putting forth the people’s point of view. Tilak pointed out that the majority of the representatives of people in the British Parliament did not come from die propertied classes, and there was no reason why Morley should complain against the presence of the educated class in the councils in India. “In the conduct of the State, learning and not the property was the important factor.” Tilak further discussed certain details of the proposed reform. “So far, in the Imperial Council, out of 24 members, 5 were elected by the people. Henceforth, out of 54, 7 will be elected representatives. Can we call it a progressive step or a retrograde step?” Tilak also mentioned the preferential treatment given to the Muslims and concluded that the British Government wanted to rule by the method of ‘divide and rule’, creating a rift among the Indian people by patronising the propertied section and the Muslims.
Mill and Morley
After writing this article, Tilak wrote another article, ‘Mill and Morley’ and criticised Morley for the disparity between the ideas he professed and the policies he pursued. He first mentioned the famous statement of Motley, “Mill was a great and benignant lamp of wisdom and humanity, and I and others kindled our modest rush-lights at that lamp,” and then pointed out, “Mill has never justified the principle that the strong should rule the weak in a tyrannical manner in order to serve their own interest.... Mill, unlike Morley, would never have said that ‘As far as I can see there is no possibility of giving Swaraj to India.’ Morley might have kindled his rush-light at Mill’s lamp but he emitted smoke rather than light....” Tilak, in the concluding remarks, reiterated the thesis of Mill that no nation had a natural right to rule any other nation.... “We are making the same demand and so long as we do not get Swaraj, a quotation from Mill quoted without context would never satisfy us.”
Keir Hardie
In October 1907, James Keir Hardie, the Labour leader of England who was touring India, was invited to Poona by the moderate and radical leaders. He visited a number of institutions including the Kesari office and at a reception given by the Sarvajanik Sabha, he promised to convey India’s aspiration to the people of England, and more particularly to the members of the Labour Party. Accompanied by Tilak, he went to some of the villages near Poona. Tilak saw in Keir Hardie, a symbol of a new force in British politics. He had always emphasised the need of propaganda in England and with his shrewd political judgment regarded the rise of the Labour Party as a sign of progress. Tilak’s meeting with Keir Hardie was the beginning of his association with that Party.
Radicalism was thus gaining ground and becoming more and more a dominant force in the political life of India. There was an inherent strength in the radical ideology and the obstinate policies of the British bureaucracy evoked reactions which further strengthened it. This was evinced by the District Conference at Midnapur held on 7th December 1907. In this conference, there were disputes on almost every point and particularly on the constitution of the Subjects Committee. When the moderates turned down the proposals of the nationalists, the nationalists left the conference as a body regarding it as, “not a national conference but a sort of fortress against the nationalists, erected by the local moderate leaders under the protection of executive officials and police;...” On the third day the nationalists held an open-air conference with one hundred delegates, in which they explained their reasons for secession and in which the original nationalist resolutions including the one on Swaraj were passed unanimously. Coming events thus cast their shadows before!
Disunity in the Congress
As a matter of fact the seeds of disunity were sown at the Calcutta Congress. When the resolution on boycott was passed, Pherozshah Mehta with his characteristic haughtiness exclaimed to Tilak, “You have scored a point in Calcutta. But you could not have put such a victory to your credit in Bombay.” This drew from Mr. Gokhale the retort, “No Mr. Mehta, there is no forecasting the capacity of this admirable man.” Pherozshah Mehta appeared to have taken up the challenge and decided to assert his authority in every matter.
The first matter of dispute was the election of the president for the Congress. Tilak had formerly argued that according to the correct democratic procedure, the president of the Congress should be elected by the votes of the provincial Committee. But at Calcutta a resolution was passed to the effect that the president should be elected by the m
embers of the Reception Committee, and should secure at least three-fourths of the votes of the total number of members of the Reception Committee. This resolution came in the way of both the parties. It was first decided to have the Congress in Lahore. But in Lahore, owing to the deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai the balance would have been tilted in favour of the radicals. The moderates, therefore, somehow managed to shift the venue to Nagpur. At Nagpur both the parties started their work in right earnest. On 1st September 1907, the list of members of the Reception Committee was complete. The membership fee was Rs. 25. The moderates enrolled 800 members, while the radicals enrolled 1,800 members. The radicals thus secured a majority but the president of their choice could not be elected as they did not command the three-fourths majority. The moderates thought of another diplomatic move of changing the constitution of the Executive Committee and a meeting was called at the Town Hall in Nagpur on 22nd September. Due notice was not, however, given and the convener, the Hon. Mr. Chitnavis, had to admit that it was convened ‘in an unconstitutional manner. There was a sort of a deadlock and both the parties started manoeuvring for the president of their choice. Tilak did not desire to become the president, but the nationalists of Nagpur, led by Dr. Munje, were determined to have him. When things could not be settled in Nagpur, a meeting was convened at Pherozshah Mehta’s place in Bombay to which Munje was also invited. Munje told Pherozshah that the people of Nagpur wanted Tilak to preside over the Congress, but they did not want to elect him in an unconstitutional way. They were prepared for a ballot. Pherozshah raised a number of difficulties and asked Munje as to what the people of Nagpur would do if the Reception Committee refused to hand over the collected funds to them. Munje boldly answered: “We would go and beg for the sake of Tilak and make the Congress Session a success.” When Pherozshah insisted on the name of Rash Bihari Ghosh, the veteran moderate leader of Calcutta, Munje was equally firm about Tilak and bluntly told Mehta that it was entirely a matter of their choice. Pherozshah Mehta followed the delaying tactics and for the time being ruled out the whole episode. Tilak wrote in the Kesari of the 29th October that “if the moderates were not ready for a compromise, the New Party should withdraw from the Reception Committee and should inform the All-India Congress Committee accordingly.”
At last when the moderates of Nagpur confessed their inability to hold the Congress Session, the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held at Pherozshah Mehta’s place in Bombay on 10th November. Pherozshah Mehta was very autocratic in disposition and took a peculiar delight in expressing scorn for his opponents. Dr. Munje and Alekar were seated in the veranda, so that they could be called easily to clarify the local issue. But they were shown out of the bungalow by a chaprasi. Representatives of various provinces were not present at the meeting but they had conveyed their opinion in writing that the Congress Session be held at Nagpur. Only thirteen members of the A.I.C.C. were present. No agreed formula could be evolved and when Khaparde, a leader from Berar and a close associate of Tilak, suggested a committee of five members of the A.I.C.C., a row was made against him by the moderate members. No suggestion was acceptable because Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale, who was then the Secretary of the Congress, had altogether a different proposal up their sleeve. When no agreed solution was possible, a surprise was sprung on the nationalists as a deputation from Surat came forward with an invitation for the ensuing session. Votes were taken and as the issue was already decided, the invitation was accepted. Khaparde and Tilak refused to vote. Pherozshah thus succeeded in outwitting the nationalists. But this was only the first round of the fight and a formal victory was not enough for settling the issue. Munje and Alekar were very disappointed at this result and wrote a letter to the Secretaries of the Congress Mr. Wachha and Gokhale, requesting them not to set aside the claims of Nagpur for getting the honour of having the Congress Session. They sent promissory notes worth Rupees ten thousand along with the letter of request. But the official group headed by Mehta did not feel it necessary to pay any heed to these entreaties. The letter along with the promissory notes was returned forthwith. Such manipulations are an inevitable feature of party politics during a scramble for power and it is not necessary to question the motives of people involved in such manoeuvrings. It is in the game. Politics is not meant for hypersensitive people, who would brood over every reverse and grumble over every conflict. It requires a thick skin and an irrepressible urge for outmanoeuvring the opponent when it is necessary. After a time people can look back and laugh good-humouredly at incidents which at one time gave rise to fierce passions and bitter indictments. Tilak took the defeat at the Bombay meeting quietly and wrote confidently in the Kesari, “The nationalist party must go wherever Pherozshah Mehta decides to hold the Congress, for it was never the intention of the nationalists to break the Congress or to prevent it from being held. But let Sir Pherozshah remember that this dispute would not be over so soon (after what has happened so far). The quarrel between the old and the new parties would continue till the new party succeeds. Nobody should feel that a secure place like Surat would be found every year. In fact none knows whether Surat is a secure place or not.”
Behind the Scenes
The next question was whether the members of the Reception Committee were to be from the whole of the Bombay Presidency or whether they were to be only from Surat. But Pherozshah had already taken the decision about the president of the Congress and brushed aside everything which came in his way. Tilak strongly criticised this high-handed attitude and remarked, “Nobody had given the moderates a charter for holding the Congress.”
The resolution to take the Congress to Surat was taken on 10th November 1907. The moderates were confident of success. Often, however, it is the unexpected that happens, turning things topsy-turvy. On 11th November, Lala Lajpat Rai was set free and there naturally was great jubilation all over the country. Many telegrams were sent to the Reception Committee at Surat to make Lalaji the president of the Congress. The moderates were naturally upset and Gokhale immediately left for Surat. Gokhale tried to appeal to the section of the New Party in Surat saying that if the Congress wanted to pass a resolution condemning the government’s action of deporting Lala Lajpat Rai, it would be awkward if it were done under the presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai himself. The members of the New Party could not be so easily taken in and bluntly told Gokhale that electing Lajpat Rai as the president of the Congress was a more appropriate answer to the British Government than any number of resolutions condemning their actions. Gokhale then expressed his anxiety over this strategy of teasing the government and told the radical section that if they adopted the strategy, the government would immediately crush the movement. The fundamental difference in the points of view the radicals and of the moderates can easily be seen from this conflict. The radicals relied on the awakening among the people and wanted to consolidate the strength of the national movement through struggle, while the moderates believed that it would be suicidal to incur the wrath of the British Government. When all arguments were over and a settlement could not be arrived at, Ambalal Saharlal, a local moderate leader, bluntly told the radicals that the moderates controlled the A.I.C.C. and would have their way. Permission was refused to the suggestion that Lajpat Rai should be made president, and when the radical section walked out, the name of Dr. Rash Bihari Ghosh was proposed for the Presidentship and was accepted.
Tilak exposed some of the tactics adopted by the moderates pointing out how the Maharashtrian members of the Reception Committee got intimation of the meeting of 24th November only on 23rd November and could not therefore attend the meeting. He wrote that “The Surat Session could not be called the 23rd Session of the Indian National Congress but a show put up by Mehta and Co.... It is unfortunate that the autocratic ways of the British bureaucracy were adopted in the Indian National Congress. Pherozshah Mehta has suffered the consequences of such behaviour in the Bombay Municipal Corporation and he would meet the same fate in the Congress.” The con
troversy was taking an unfortunate turn, and a way out of it could have been found if Dr. Ghosh had withdrawn his name in favour of Lajpat Rai. Tilak wrote a letter to Motilal Ghosh, the editor of Amrit Bazar Patrika, expressing his views in the matter. He requested Motilal Babu to dissuade Dr. Ghosh from accepting the Presidentship and further wrote, “If I were there personally I should have knelt down before him and prayed for not accepting the Chair.” In the Kesari of 10th December, Tilak wrote an editorial: ‘Lalaji must be the President’ Tilak admitted that Gokhale had no personal grudge against Lala Lajpat Rai but the tactics he adopted were a result of his wrong and harmful notions. “The Congress was established to fight on behalf of India with the government and to demand rights for Indians. If the Congress is to be so conducted as not to displease the bureaucracy, where is the need for its existence? If you want to honour Lalaji, you must make him the president. There is no need for you to invite him as a delegate. He can come in that capacity as a matter of right.” Tilak sounded a note of warning at the end of the editorial: “A way out of the dispute lies only with Dr. Rash Bihari. But if no agreement is arrived at, intuition tells us that this would give rise to a confusion, when people would move amendments at the time of the president’s election at Surat.” Advising the radicals Tilak wrote: “Whoever drafts the resolutions, be he Mehta or Gokhale, the New Party should attend the Surat Session and should strive for improving the Congress. It is true that the Congress is not working according to the expectations of the New Party, but we cannot say that the Congress should therefore be wrecked only this year. All should go to Surat. In spite of the obstinacy of the moderates or of Pherozshah, the New Party must not follow wrong methods.”
PART II
The Surat Congress was one of the memorable events in the life of the Indian National Congress. Owing to the events that preceded the Congress, the relations between the moderates and the nationalists were strained. Pherozshah Mehta had by-passed the nationalists in many respects and as a result there was a smouldering discontent among the nationalists. There were portents of the coming strife but none knew the shape of things to come. When passions run high, ideological differences get mixed up with personal hostilities. Pherozshah Mehta was a leader with strong preferences and his bantering wit and biting sarcasm deeply offended his opponents. He had rare abilities as a diplomat and was always animated by great earnestness even when he pursued a mistaken course of action. Some of the younger nationalists looked upon him as the villain and questioned his bona fides.