Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  Conference of the Nationalists

  A conference of the nationalists was held on 29th December at Surat in which a central committee was appointed to co-ordinate the work of the party in different provinces and to evolve a well-knit organisation. It was decided that besides conducting newspapers at different places to propagate the ideals of the party, groups should be organised, funds should be collected and public opinion in favour of the nationalist ideal should be created. Along with all this a committee was also appointed to carry on talks with the moderates for reconciliation.

  Tilak wrote four articles in the Kesari clarifying his views about the split in the Congress. In the first editorial on the subject written on 11th February 1905, Tilak wrote, “In the midst of the fray, people’s eyes were blinded with dust but now they are turned to the point of dispute and people have raised the question whether the unity of all parties for political purposes was possible or not. The criticism of the Surat conflict made by the Anglo-Indian papers has, to a great extent, given rise to the thoughts of unity.” Tilak wrote: “The Pioneer is of the opinion that from the point of view of the government, the moderates and the radicals were alike; and that it was proved that the moderates were potential radicals and radicals were outspoken moderates.” Tilak pointed out that the British were not prepared to part even with the smallest fraction of power and knew fully well that the Indian leaders, whether they made the demands in a servile or in a ferocious manner, had a strong desire for getting this power in their hands.

  Tilak remarked that the criticism of the Anglo-Indian press could be understood in the light of the fact that in statecraft, selfishness and not charity was the important motive and the British rulers were in no way an exception to this. Tilak further observed that the will to be free was a natural instinct and that Indians were not an exception to this. He then gave a classification of the different shades of public opinion in India and showed that in spite of certain differences, the will to be free was common to all. He then gave an analysis of the different sections among the British, viz. the diehard imperialists, enlightened despots, genuine liberals who wanted the component parts of the British empire to enjoy autonomy and lastly the political philosophers who believe that the happiness of humanity consists in freedom for all and that it was not desirable that one nation should rule the other; and if at all one nation rules the other it should do so with a view to emancipating it. In conclusion he said, “Thus it can be seen that there are various shades of opinion among the British, as among the Indians. These differences have an impact on the different sections on each side. This in turn exercises effect on the opposite side.... Different points of view are advocated with vehemence but if there is the common intention of a chieving the good of the country, the differences would not come in the way of unity.” From this it can be seen how Tilak always thought it desirable to analyse the different forces before commenting on them. He believed in educating people and in promoting in them an ability to think for themselves. Owing to this educative approach, he was not flashy, rabid or sensational either in his speeches or in his writings.

  In the second editorial Tilak first emphasised the need for working unitedly for the progress of one’s country and compared the different parties to the fingers of the same palm. Tilak remarked that England had set a noble example in achieving unity in the midst of differences and said that the intolerant attitude displayed in the Congress by some people was highly objectionable. In the third article Tilak reiterated the difference in the approach of the mode rates and the nationalists and remarked: “The dispute, about the ultimate objectives —self-government or independence —can be set aside for some time as it would be decided in the future. But the crux of the problem is how to avoid the contradiction and the conflict arising out of the different means, viz. consistent appeals and persistent pressure.” Tilak thus pointed out that in a political movement means were a s important as the end and so long as the differences about the means could not be resolved it was difficult for the moderates and the radicals to work together.

  In the fourth editorial ‘Setting Aside Difficulties,’ Tilak first referred to the policy of the British Government. The bureaucracy is encouraging (giving patronage to) the old party not because they like it, but because they hate the new party. They want to use the moderates as an instrument to crush the growing strength of the radicals. Tilak then cited the example of Ireland where different parties merged their differences in order to fight the British. Tilak looked upon the Congress as a democratic institution and insisted on following democratic principles and convention. He wrote: “Everyone accepts the principle that all parties must have an equal right to put forth their views before the Congress. The New Party does not demand that its voice should prevail in the Congress right now. The New Party is trying to influence public opinion and hopes to get a majority in the Congress after some days. The New Party is satisfied if it is free to put forth its opinion in the Congress and if it is not forbidden from working by the old party by deciding once and for all the ultimate objective or the creed of the Congress. The New Party must accept the verdict of the majority in the Congress and must not give the slogan of rebellion. In every institution, majority is the final appellate court and those who do not approve of its decision should leave the institution.4 But it is wrong to demand that none should propagate his dissident views against those of the majority.” From all these four articles, Tilak’s insistence on maintaining the Congress as a national front, his democratic faith, his advocacy of the compromise and his confidence that the point of view of the nationalists would have to be accepted by the Congress, have all been clearly brought out. In the course of these articles, though he criticised the moderates, he never allowed the level of the discussion to deteriorate. The clarity of his ideas, the sincerity of his purpose, the logic of his arguments and above all the fervour of idealism — all these have given an exalted tone to these editorials and lifted them from the plane of a momentary controversy to that of sermons on the abiding principles in political life.

  Apostles of Civil and Armed Revolt

  After the Surat Congress Tilak invited Shri Aurobindo to Poona. Aurobindo accepted the invitation and delivered a lecture at the Gaikwad Wada, and described the development of the political movement in Bengal. He explained the significance of the teachings of Ramkrishna Paramhans and of Swami Vivekanand and emphasised the need of creating in the people a confidence in their own selves, a consciousness of their strength and an awareness of the greatness of their country. He expressed the yearning of his soul for India’s liberation, a liberation which meant not only her political freedom but her recovery of all that was of eternal value in her culture on which alone could be built again her true greatness and glory. Though Aurobindo and Tilak were regarded as leaders of the new party, it could not be said that their ways were identical. Shri Aurobindo besides explaining the philosophic content of the new movement, was doing work for an armed insurrection. Early in 1907, he asked his brother Barindra to organise a centre for revolutionary activity and Barindra started his work in the Maniktola garden in Calcutta. The following description may give some idea of the activity: “That most of the young men who formed the Maniktola group were of an exceptional character was evident from their choice of a life of dare and do. Heroic souls of an unprecedented courage, blessed by the Heaven-born guide, friend and philosopher, they had an inner life founded in quietude, faith and will.... They were experimenting with the making of bombs and trying their best to produce the most effective types. Their object was to paralyse the administration and render foreign rule impossible by counter-terrorism to the policy of terrorism that the government was practising upon the people to suppress the movement against the partition. Stray murders of the officials was certainly not their aim. Sporadic attempts, they knew, would avail nothing. The plan was to organise a country-wide challenge to authority, to destroy the enemy of the national movement. That was why th
ey welcomed repression that the country might wake up and react and swell the forces of revolution.” Tilak did not rule out the possibility of revolution as a means of achieving independence. But he felt that time was not ripe for adopting it and he did not approve of the idea of wasting the cream of Indian youth in an effort which was not at all likely to bear fruit. Tilak, unlike Gandhiji, did not look upon nonviolence as a creed or a philosophy. But as a practical statesman he knew that it was not worthwhile taking to illegal methods, for it would be playing into the hands of the British. Tilak always advocated the need for manifold means for getting Swaraj. To him the constitutional efforts of the moderates, direct action, particularly boycott and Swadeshi by the nationalists and the insurrectionary methods of revolutionaries, appeared to be necessary in fighting the British. He always advised his friends to have two and if possible even more strings to their bow. But he did not think it wise to adopt all the means at one and the same time. He insisted that means must be appropriate to the circumstances and the times. Though he criticised the moderate she always acknowledged that at a particular stage in Indian politics, petitions and requests did serve an important purpose. He criticised the moderates for adopting means which were hopelessly inadequate for the task of winning freedom. Similarly he tried to restrain the young radicals because he thought that insurrectionary methods were inopportune. His advice to young revolutionaries was, “Keep your powder dry.”

  Tilak and Aurobindo were master minds and when they came together each had his impact on the other. Though Tilak did not approve of Aurobindo’s attitude of welcoming repression, he realised the greatness of ‘the prophet of nationalism’ and for the time at least came under the spell of his magnetic personality. Tilak knew that Aurobindo symbolised a new force in Indian politics and he was aware that Aurobindo could and did arouse in hundreds of young men a desire to sacrifice everything for the sake of the motherland. Tilak wished that all these tremendous energies should be directed to the purpose of creating in the minds of the people a categorical imperative to act. He thought that the proper and the more effective ways of doing this were agitation and building up of a mass movement. It is interesting to know the working of Aurobindo’s mind during the past few years.

  “In his public activity he took up non-co-operation and passive resistance as a means in the struggle for independence but not the sole means and as long as he was in Bengal he maintained a secret revolutionary activity as a preparation for open revolt, in case passive resistance proved insufficient for the purpose.

  Shri Aurobindo’s attempt at a close organisation of the whole movement did not succeed, but the movement itself did not suffer by that, for the general idea was taken up and activity of many separate groups led to a greater and more widespread diffusion of the revolutionary drive and its action. Afterwards there came the partition of Bengal and a general outburst of revolt which favoured the rise of the extremist party and the great nationalist movement. Shri Aurobindo’s activities were then turned more and more in this direction and the secret action became a secondary and subordinate element. He took advantage, however, of the Swadeshi movement to popularise the idea of violent revolt in future.”5

  At this stage, however, Aurobindo and his followers felt that the flame of patriotism could be kindled only when certain individuals embraced the gallows. The revolutionaries looked upon their movement as a sacrifice at the altar of which they had the privilege of offering their lives as sacrifice. Tilak, who for over twenty years had striven to remove public apathy, had followed the intellectual approach. Aurobindo’s method was one of captivating the hearts of the people. Tilak felt that the revolutionaries were not treading the correct path, but he admired their courage and looked upon their irrepressible urge for sacrifice as a sign of the approaching dawn of freedom. He would not take any action or utter any word which would discourage Aurobindo, who was preparing for a revolution. Tilak, however, never encouraged persons who wanted to take immediate action.

  In 1897, when he knew the existence of a revolutionary group in Poona and had some vague notions about their activities he kept quiet and allowed them to go their own way. After 1900, however, his role was different.

  Reminiscences

  The reminiscences of some people in Maharashtra who were then engaged in revolutionary work and of some whose minds were working in that direction are very significant in this respect.

  Shri Gangadharrao Deshpande, the eminent leader of Belgaum and a disciple of Lokmanya, has also written the following reminiscences. “Lokmanya came to Belgaum for the Ganapati festival in 1906 for the first time. There was a tremendous rush at the station but Govindrao Yalgi with about 200 enthusiastic young gymnasts made perfect arrangements. After the procession, Lokmanya said to me privately, 1 have only recently returned from Nasik. There also I saw such young men and I met some of them. Their enthusiasm and ambition are tremendous and unique. But they are rather foolish. You look after your young men, for such folly ruins the work.”

  At this time there was at Nasik a group of revolutionaries who had formed an organisation called Abhinav Bharat under the leadership of the Savarkar brothers. This organisation was started in imitation of the Young Italy movement of Mazinni. One member of die association has written the following account of his talks with Tilak. He wrote, “There was terrible unrest in India, when he wanted to form an illegal organisation with a membership of a lakh of people. We met Lokmanya and asked him to join our organisation. We explained the noble ideals of our organisation and cited the instance of some other country that had gained independence by the same method. Lokmanya said: ‘It is true that our condition and the condition of that country are similar. But in our country there is no unrest among the masses (common people) as it existed there. Otherwise we would also have left the constitutional ways and followed their methods. Still many people believe that the English have come here to benefit us. The duty of the leaders at present is first to remove this notion and to explain to the people that the English have come to drain and impoverish India. Those who so prepare the minds of people would certainly follow that way and would succeed. If we try to risk a rebellion today, people would not be ready to join it. Moreover, owing to the government’s repression, people would back a terrible retreat. Mangoes are not gathered before they are ripe, and please remember, if you make haste, the mango is spoilt.’ Even after getting this advice, we were firm in our resolve. Lokmanya, therefore, called me to Poona and told me, ‘If you are going to do this, remember that you will not get what you are aiming at. The unfavourable would happen and so you have to take the first step in the determination to face it. The leaders of such efforts must have a tremendous moral and physical strength.’ This advice of Lokmanya that the unfavourable would happen and we must face it, was very useful to me afterwards; because as he had predicted, our efforts failed and our object was not achieved.”

  Tilak thus regarded it his responsibility to prevent any hasty or sentimental action on the part of revolutionaries. The late Shri Charuchandra Datta, I.C.S., wrote an article in the Mahratta in 1925, in which he said that in the early years of this century and prior to the partition, it appears, there was a Central Council for advising and co-ordinating revolutionary activities in India. Tilak, it appears, was one of the principal members of this Council, which included the late Lala Lajpatrai and Shri Aurobindo.

  Was there then a contradiction in Tilak’s actions? Did he give one type of advice to one group of revolutionaries, and different advice to another group? How is it that he was a member of a council for co-ordinating the work of the revolutionaries and yet he discouraged the revolutionaries in Maharashtra?

  A closer study of Tilak’s attitude clears the apparent contradiction. He was in farvour of preparation for a revolution but he did not favour any immediate action. He supported Aurobindo because Aurobindo was preparing the ground for revolution and was imparting to the young men the necessary training fo
r revolutionary action. The members of Abhinav Bharat group were thinking in terms of immediate action and Tilak was of the firm opinion that such a step would be suicidal. When the late Charuchandra Datta remarked that Tilak was one of those who directed revolutionary activities, it can justly be inferred, in the absence of any other evidence, that he was only helping the preparation for a revolution. Acharya Javadekar said in a personal interview: “Tilak believed in the inherent right of India to attain political freedom even by a violent revolution.” He realised the necessity of having some devoted revolutionaries engaged in the work of preparing for an eventual necessity when India might be required to resort to insurrectionary methods. But he was definitely of the opinion that this work of preparation should never take the course of a premature attempt at revolutionary activities either in the form of terrorism or of rebellion. He was convinced that the India of his times was not prepared for such an attempt. This judgment was formed by him not at any particular period but he arrived at this conclusion after reviewing the situation several times during his public life of nearly forty years. Although, therefore, he sympathised with those who we re engaged in underground revolutionary preparation he never encouraged them to take any action. It was owing to this that different revolutionaries have a different tale to tell about Tilak’s attitude to revolutionary work. Tilak’s conception of preparing for an eventful full-fledged revolution in India was far wider than that of the underground workers. His own political activities were directed to the creation of two thought currents and sentiments among the masses. In the first place, he wanted to promote the spirit of nationalism, which would enable people to transcend the limits of caste and religion and stand as one unit against foreign domination. Secondly, he was creating among the masses a consciousness of their political rights and was teaching them the new and modern methods of criticising and peacefully fighting against political injustice. This was the main lever of his revolutionary work and, according to him, this revolt of civil population against the established government by peaceful methods and the spread of nationalism from the masses into the ranks of the military would be the final shape of the Indian revolution. He knew that unless all these forces synchronised with each other, the efforts of revolutionaries would be futile and he applied this criterion for deciding whether the situation was ripe or not.