Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  “With folded arms Mr. Tilak faced the audience. On either side of him young moderates sprang to their feet, wildly gesticulating vengeance. Shaking their fists and yelling to the air, they clamoured to hurl him down the steps of the platform. Behind him, Dr. Ghosh mounted the table, and ringing an unheard bell, harangued the storm in shrill, agitated, unintelligible denunciations. Restraining the rage of moderates, ingeminating peace if ever man ingeminated, Mr. Gokhale, sweet-natured even in extremes, stood beside his old opponent, flinging out both arms to protect him from the threatened onset. But Mr. Tilak asked for no protection. He stood there with folded arms, defiant, calling on violence to do its worst, calling on violence to move him, for he would move for nothing else in hell or heaven. In front, the white-clad audience roared like a tumultuous sea.

  “Suddenly something flew through the air a shoe — a Mahratta shoe — reddish leather, pointed toe, sole studded with lead. It struck Surendranath Banerjee on the cheek; it cannoned off upon Sir Pherozshah Mehta. It flew, it fell, and, as at a given signal, white waves of turbaned men surged up the escarpment of the platform.”

  The moderate leaders on the dais left by the back-door. Some people threw chairs at each other, but before anything serious could happen, the police intervened and dispersed the people. Nevinson described the place as resembling a banquet hall deserted.

  In one respect there is a great resemblance between bridge and politics. In bridge, the players are as keen on discussing a deal as on playing it. In fact bridge players acquire a reputation for their skill in the game according to their capacity for post- mortem discussion, in which everyone puts the blame on others. In politics, too, the controversies after the conflict are as interesting as the conflicts themselves. There are statements and counterstatements, charges and explanations, allegations and clarifications. Every step of the opposite party is analysed and these hair-splitting discussions always end in passing the blame on to others. Everyone claims to be dispassionate and detached and believes that his judgment is infallible. Half-truths are presented as complete truths and gossip is offered as substantial proof. The prosecutor also wants to be a judge and stories are built out of wrong assumptions. Ideological differences get lost in personal squabbles and logical arguments are swept off by irrational considerations. Bonds of friendship are broken and bad motives are attributed to noble individuals for the most trivial happenings.

  The breaking up of the Surat Congress led to all this. There was the official statement of the reception committee in which the Tilak party was held responsible for all the happenings. There was also a counterstatement from the other party in which it was alleged that the moderates had started the quarrel. The statement of Gokhale was much more restrained and though he blamed Tilak and alleged that Tilak had from the beginning adopted the obstructionist attitude, the statement had no touch of bitterness or malice. Tilak’s articles in the Kesari are equally free from personal bickerings and even when he discussed the unfortunate events of the past, his anxiety about the future of the national movement is evident in all the arguments he has advanced. Apart from the past happenings the moderates argued that Tilak’s defiance of the Chair was an unconstitutional act and could not be defended under any circumstances. Tilak refuted these charges by writing two editorials in the Kesari. Tilak’s keen legal acumen and his deep study of parliamentary procedure are evinced in the course of these articles. At the outset he gave the following quotation from Dr. Smith: “But in all these cases, the meeting if they suffer such a dereliction of duty on the part of the chairman to pass unchecked, become participators in his offence, whether it be one of insolence or mere stupidity.” Tilak then emphasised the limitations of rights of the Chairman and drew the attention of the readers to the statement of Mr. Frith that the Chairman would be doing a gross injustice if he imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech or stopped the discussion in order to get a particular resolution passed in the interest of his own party. He further remarked that Malvi, the Chairman of the reception committee, misused his powers and under such circumstances he (Tilak) did what Dr. Smith had recommended in his Handbook of Law and Practice of Public Meetings.

  Tilak wanted to move an adjournment motion and he maintained that he was not in any way transgressing the limits of parliamentary procedure. He once again gave a quotation from Dr. Smith: “An adjournment, whether a sine die or not, being a motion that can be made at any time, the chairman will feel bound to put it to the vote. At all events, if he does not, he has thereby refused to act as a chairman; for a chairman is intended for putting up of all orderly motions and not only such as he may approve; any member may therefore put to the vote the motion for the adjournment and if it is carried the meeting is thereupon at an end.” Tilak at the end of the article said that the authority of the chairman must be respected but if he misused that authority, a constitutional step which is only apparently a defiance of the authority, is the only course left open to those who would not yield to the wrong dictates of the chairman.

  When this article was published in the Kesari, some people tried to answer him by writing articles in the Indu-Prakash and the Dnyan-Prakash.

  The breaking up of the Surat Congress cannot be described as an utter fiasco. When a meeting breaks up owing to some temporary cause and when confusion is followed by a sense of waste, it can be said to have ended in a fiasco. The Surat Congress broke up owing to a clash of ideologies, though the breaking up of this session was not contemplated by the contending parties. The delegates did not therefore go back in a despondent mood; instead they stayed on as they wanted a lead about the future line of action from their respective leaders. On such occasions the observations of a non-partisan person certainly throw much light on the situation as well as on leaders. Swami Shraddhanand, the great Sanyasi and the founder of Gurukula, had not participated in the strife. His impressions therefore have a great significance. He wrote, “I reached a day after the fight in the Congress pandal took place. Lokmanya was putting up in a Wadi with the whole of his contingent. Leaders and followers all slept on the ground and messed together. They appeared in a way knitted to each other. It was one solid body of stern Puritans. I went to the moderate camp and found them seated in a dozen places, enjoying every sort of luxury. I told my friends and associates there, ‘The future of the motherland rests in the palm of the party that has been dubbed as extremist.” On the very day, i.e., on 27th December, the nationalists called a meeting of the delegates of their own party. The meeting was held at a private place and was presided over by Aurobindo Ghosh. Tilak stated his position in his usual direct and simple style. This was a meeting after a clash and yet Tilak did not speak a single sentence that would arouse the sentiments of the people. His approach was realistic and his appeal intellectual. He did not want people to follow him without understanding the issues involved in the conflict. He did not bring in personal differences or irrational considerations to sway the minds of the people who had assembled to hear him speak. Tilak said, “I understand the significance of the prestige of the Congress in our national movement. There is no reason why I should break the Congress. But a new spark has lit up in Indian politics and if the Congress does not want to exalt itself with this new enlightenment, what matters if it is dead?” Tilak always maintained that politics was a dynamic movement and the old forces have got to yield place to new. In the struggle against the Bengal Partition and in the movements of Swadeshi, boycott and national education, he had seen the signs of a new life in India. The irrepressible urge of the people to defy tyrannical orders was symbolic of a new era. Tilak opposed the moderate leaders because he felt that they adopted tactics which were likely to smother the new forces and to extinguish the new spark. He regarded it as his responsibility to build a new movement and was impatient with the leaders who wanted to maintain a status quo and oppose the new uprising.

  The Moderate Convention

  The moderate leaders must have also realised t
he magnitude of the difference between their point of view and that of the nationalists. They felt that the nationalists were trying to impose their point of view on the entire Congress though the majority was not with them. Believing that a change in policy was not desirable their next step was to think that the nationalists were an undesirable and unwanted element. When they met, therefore, after the breaking up of the open session and reviewed the whole situation they drew up the following notice, calling a National Convention on the next day, December 28th: “The 23rd Indian National Congress having been suspended sine die under painful circumstances, the undersigned have resolved with a view to the orderly conduct of future political work in the country to call a convention of those delegates to the Congress who are agreed: (1) That the attainment by India of self-government similar to that enjoyed by the self-governing members of the British Empire and the participation by her in the rights and responsibilities of the Empire on equal terms with those members is the goal of our political aspiration. (2) That the advance towards this goal is to be by strictly constitutional means, by bringing about a steady reform of the existing system of administration, and by promoting national unity, fostering public spirit and improving the condition of the mass of the people. (3) And that all meetings held for the promotion of the aims and objects above indicated have to be conducted in an orderly manner with due submission to the authority of those that are entrusted with the power to control their procedure and they are requested to attend at 1 p.m. on Saturday the 28th December 1907 in the pandal lent for the purpose by the Working Committee of the Reception Committee of the 23rd Indian National Congress,”

  The signatories to this notice were Rash Bihari Ghosh, Pherozshah Mehta, G. K. Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjee and others. These leaders also announced that those only who would sign the pledge would be admitted to the convention. The pledge was indeed a shrewd device and it served the purpose of the moderate leaders, viz. to ward off the nationalists. The moderate leaders were now on their guard and had kept at the door of the pandal some persons from Maharashtra, Bombay, C.P. and Berar, so that none of the nationalists could secure entrance to the convention.

  When the moderate leaders called the convention and announced the condition of signing the pledge, the different leaders of the nationalists reacted in different ways. There were long discussions before the final decision was taken. Tilak was of the opinion that the nationalists should sign the pledge and join the convention. He regarded the Indian National Congress as a common platform for carrying on the movement.

  Shri Aurobindo, Tilak’s comrade-in-arms on the occasion, has aptly described the sentiments and views of Tilak. He wrote: “Many, after Surat, spoke of him as the breaker of the Congress, but to no one was the catastrophe so great a blow as to Mr. Tilak. He did not love the do-nothingness of that assembly, but he valued it both as a great national fact and for its unrealised possibilities and hoped to make of it a central organisation for practical work. To destroy an existing and useful institution was alien to his way of seeing and would not have entered into his ideas or his wishes. Though he could be obstinate and iron-willed when his mind was made up as to the necessity of a course of action or the indispensable recognition of a principle, he was always ready for a compromise which would allow of getting real work done and would willingly take half a loaf rather than no bread, though always with a full intention of getting the whole loaf in good time. But he could not accept chaff or plaster in place of good bread.” Tilak thought that the Congress must not be allowed to be dominated by one party. It would then cease to be a national front and become one among the various parties existing in the country. He felt therefore that the nationalists must not allow the moderates to keep them out of the Congress and he was confident that the new party which had the vitality of new blood would swamp the moderates and dominate the Congress. Aurobindo looked at the matter from an altogether different point of view. He was thinking in terms of revolutionary nationalism and to him the breaking up of the Moderate Congress was a necessary step. He thought: “The Mother wanted swift action. She would no longer tolerate the weak and timid, the untimely slumberer and loiterer, begging and babbling protest and beguiling both sides. She wanted the country to sweep the rising tide of the new nationalism.” Aurobindo, therefore, gave an outright refusal to join the newfangled moderate convention. The difference in their attitude can easily be understood. Aurobindo was a revolutionary, who wanted to work for a single purpose and did not tolerate any diversions or interruptions. Here surprisingly enough one finds a resemblance between the attitude of diehard moderates and the extremists. The former wanted to keep the Congress away ‘from the contamination of nationalists’ and the latter did not want ‘to catch the contagion of the moderates.’ Both showed an extreme intolerance, which springs from a contempt for those who differed from them. Both were in a sense aristocratic, the diehard moderates formed the aristocracy of the constitutionalists, whereas the extremists had the superior airs of those who have taken the vow of renunciation.

  Tilak’s Position

  Tilak differed from Aurobindo in his approach to the national convention because he was a practical statesman, keen on maintaining the national front even by compromising his position for some time. Lala Lajpat Rai, who had made efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the moderates and the nationalists, decided to sign the pledge of the convention. His stand, however, was different from that of Tilak. He felt that when there was a split in the Congress, the government would ruthlessly carry on repression and crush the nationalists. If, on the other hand, a joint front was maintained, the government would not dare to take such a step.

  Tilak thought, and the events proved that he was right, that the country was not yet ready to successfully face such a repression and he proposed to circumvent both the moderate plan and the government plan by the nationalists joining the conference and signing the statement of adhesion to the new constitution demanded by the moderates. Shri Aurobindo and some other leaders were opposed to this submission; they did not believe that the moderates would admit any nationalist to their conference (and this proved to be the case) and they wanted the country to face repression.

  Tilak then had to decide whether he should dissociate himself from the young radical section of the Congress or whether he should acquiesce in their decision to keep out of the moderate convention even though he differed from them. The consequences of his action had again to be taken into consideration. If he had taken the former course it was very probable that the younger section would have turned revolutionary, cut itself off from all constitutional activities and, thus isolated, would have been easily crushed by the British Government. Tilak wanted to build a mass movement in India and looked upon the young group as a nucleus for that movement. He regarded it his responsibility not to allow the young section to fall into the trap of the British. He felt that the impetuosity and impatience of young men must be restrained so that their tremendous energies and irrepressible urges might find expression through a civil revolt. An attempt to check them drastically would however result in a parting of ways. Such considerations weighed with him when he finally decided to join the young group and stay away from the moderate convention.

  Some time in future, he was confident, he would convert the young section to his point of view. Having a parental concern for those who were willing to sacrifice everything for the country’s cause, Tilak saw to it that they did not fritter away their energies in infructuous and abortive attempts at insurrection. He wanted these energies to be stored up and conserved so that they could be used effectively when the time was ripe. Herein lay the greatness of Tilak as a political leader. His, therefore, was a middle position; it was different, on the one hand, from that of Lajpat Rai who completely disassociated himself from the extremists, and also distinct from Aurobindo, who was not prepared to touch the moderates with the longest pair of tongs. Tilak succeeded in making Aurobindo accept his approach t
o the moderates by pointing out that he regarded the moderates as a wing of the national movement and therefore it was not desirable to sever all contacts with them. If, however, the moderates on their own desired to sever contact with the nationalists, Tilak knew that he would not be able to help the situation; but for himself he would not take a step which could be called disruptionist. In spite of all the differences with the moderates, he realised the need for keeping up a national front. He regarded the split in the Congress as a passing phase and hoped that the moderates would have to accept his point of view some time in the future when the nationalists would once again be admitted to the Congress. The country was to pass through a period of government suppression and consequent political sterility before the futility of an isolationist policy was realised by all sections, thus vindicating Tilak’s stand.