Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  The anti-drink committee gave a more organised form to the movement and lectures were delivered in temples and mosques. Notices were served by landlords on the owners of liquor shops to quit. The auctions of the shops for the following year were to be held soon and the movement was bound to affect it. The officers of the excise department were panicky and the government decided to crush the movement. Batches of police were kept at every liquor shop and they took down the names of the volunteers. A person standing in the audience — for there always gathered a number of people to see the efforts of the volunteers to bring about a change of heart — was prosecuted for obstructing the traffic and was fined ten rupees. The owners of liquor shops in Ganesh Peth approached the Assistant Collector Mr. Anderson, who came to the liquor shops and manhandled the volunteers. Two volunteers, V. K. Bhave and V. G. Deshpande, were arrested and later fined Rs. 130. Anderson displayed a typical bureaucratic arrogance and took a perverse delight in hurting the sentiments of the people. One of the volunteers asked him, “Is it a crime to preach against drinking?” Anderson replied, “Would you tolerate the missionaries preaching at the door of your temples?” The impropriety of the remark needs no comment. Conscious of their moral purpose, the volunteers too were emboldened and filed cases against Mr. Anderson.

  Tilak wrote an editorial in the Kesari in 1908, ‘Government, Wine and the People.’ After first pointing out the efficacy of the method of picketing, he remarked that whereas drinking was habitual to the people of western countries, it had spread in India only recently. There might therefore be in the western countries a great opposition to a law introducing prohibition, but in India, the condition was quite different as at least 90 per cent of the people did not drink. He therefore held the government responsible for tempting people into the vice. “Just as God Indra sent Rambha (a divine nymph) to tempt Shukacharya, who was austerity incarnate, so also the English officers, themselves addicts of drinking, had opened the liquor shops for Indian people.” Tilak then pointed out the contradiction in words and actions of the British Government, for Mr. Morley called drinking ‘the second plague’ and the policies of the Central and Provincial Governments, on paper, also expressed a disapproval of drinking, though in practice more liquor shops were opened every year.... “We think that if an overwhelming majority is against drinking, we must be able to close down the liquor shops on our own, and let the government, which is in favour of the freedom of drinking, take its own course.” Tilak in the concluding part of his article reiterated the moral character of the movement and appealed to the government to extend support to it.

  The movement was supported also by the non-Brahmins of Poona and the mischievous objection that it was an activity of the Poona Brahmins was refuted. It also spread to other parts of Maharashtra and Karnatak, and the government, which always found in every popular movement the potentialities of a political struggle, decided to suppress it by prosecuting and punishing the volunteers. When fines were imposed on volunteers it became difficult for them to continue their work. The movement was backed by popular support but it was not possible to go on paying fines in an unlimited manner. The picketing had, therefore, to be stopped in the last week of April.

  Dr. Harold H. Mann, the then Principal of the Agricultural College, in his reminiscences of Tilak has given a fine account of the anti-drink campaign and of the part Tilak played in this movement. He wrote: “I went to Poona in the year 1907. Before I went there, the name of Mr. B. G. Tilak was very familiar as one of the most advanced of the national leaders; but I first came in contact with him during the intensive temperance agitation in the early part of 1908. Then we sat together on the committee of the Poona Temperance Association, and from the first it was the magnetic quality of Mr. Tilak’s personality that specially impressed me. If he came into a room, even though I had not seen him, his presence was evident at once, and it is by the strength of his personality that I shall always remember him, even more than by his wisdom in discussion or the wide knowledge of public affairs that he showed. Next to this it was the unbending courage which he exhibited which impressed me very much indeed, for during the whole of the agitation, when some others stood aside, Mr. Tilak never budged from the position which we had taken at the beginning of the picketing movement.”

  On the 23rd April, an all-party meeting was held on the Reay market grounds. It was a mammoth gathering presided over by Dr. Bhandarkar. Tilak was the main speaker. Gokhale who was busy with his preparations for going to England in connection with the Congress deputation, sent a letter to the President expressing his support to the anti - drink movement . Dr. Bhandarkar who was known for his moderate views, made a very strong speech advocating prohibition, substantiated his arguments by referring to the Rigveda in which Yaska had included drinking among the seven limitations which came in the way of achieving salvation. The resolution condemning the government order for suppressing the picketing movement and other measures and requesting the government to withdraw the order, was moved by Tilak. A number of other speakers supported the movement, the volunteers were congratulated on their efforts and it was decided to send a deputation to the Governor. The government, however, paid no heed either to the requests of the deputation or to the articles in the Kesari. The excise department had sent reports that “It could almost be said that Tilak and not the government ruled Poona, and if the movement did not stop after the closing down of liquor shops it might lead to the closing down of offices.” Carmichael, the Collector of Poona, called Tilak for a meeting wherein they had a serious clash with each other. This was reported to Sir George Clerk who appeared to have decided that the only course was to remove Tilak from the scene of action. The movement slowly petered out owing to the government’s repressive measures and a moral purpose was defeated owing to the false notion of official prestige. This was of course not the first occasion when bureaucratic vanity smothered a just demand.

  The Provincial Conference

  After the Poona District Conference, the Provincial Conference of the Bombay Presidency was to be held at Dhulia. At first Tilak requested Dajisahib Khare, the liberal leader of Bombay, to preside over the conference. Dhulia was a stronghold of nationalists, and Tilak felt that if the resolutions of the United Congress were passed under the presidentship of a liberal leader, it would be a triumph of his line. But Khare declined saying that if the resolutions of the United Congress were to be passed he would not accept the presidentship. Shri G. V. Joshi was therefore made the president of the conference. In the meanwhile the Committee of the Convention (called by the liberals at Surat) met at Allahabad on 19th April. Some members among whom were Lala Lajpat Rai, the Bengali members and a few others, were of the opinion that the adjourned Congress at Surat should meet once again at Surat. If this proposal had been accepted, the former thread might have been picked up and the Congress might have been reunited, as Tilak wanted it to reunite. There was, however, the other section in the committee which was of the opinion that an independent congress and not the adjourned session should be held. This section was in the majority and the creed proposed at Surat was thus finally accepted. This destroyed completely the possibilities of a United Congress.

  The liberals did not attend the Bombay Provincial Conference at Dhulia. Tilak moved the resolutions of the United Congress and discussed comprehensively all the issues involved in the differences. A committee to make efforts for conciliation for the Bombay Presidency was appointed and N. C. Kelkar and C. V. Vaidya were appointed as its secretaries. It can thus be seen that Tilak did not want the national front to break as, in his opinion, no demand had any weight unless it was backed up by all sections of public opinion in India. After the Dhulia conference, Tilak visited the important places in Berar. This was a triumphal tour in which thousands of people flocked to hear Tilak preach the gospel of Swaraj.

  The Bomb Bursts

  And then came the explosion at Muzafferpore on the 30th April 1908. It was the first bomb explosi
on in India and it gave a rude shock to the bureaucracy. Khudiram Bose, a young revolutionary of Bengal, wanted to throw a bomb at Kingsford, the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bengal, who had earned notoriety since the days of partition. Khudiram, however, missed his target, mistaking another car for the one in which his intended victim sat, and the bomb killed two European lady-occupants. Prafulchandra Chaki, the associate of Khudkam, shot himself dead when the police were about to arrest him and Khudiram, the young revolutionary, who was only in his teens, took the entire responsibility of the event on himself, and with the Bhagwadgita in his hand, showed how an Indian youth embraced the gallows in an effort to liberate his motherland.

  This explosion at Muzafferpore symbolised the arrival of the bomb-cult on the Indian political scene, which continued right up to the achievement of independence. It is interesting to read the reactions of different persons to this event. The Anglo-Indian press emphasised the need of uprooting this new cult, the bureaucracy was mad with rage and decided not only to throttle the revolutionaries but also to gag the Indian newspapers, which were dubbed as seditionist. There were in England itself friends of India like Sir William Wedderburn and Keir Hardy, who could analyse objectively the forces which led to the starting of the bomb-cult. Wedderburn remarked that it was high time that the British realised that owing to repression, as in Russia, in India too, there were conspiracies which led to political murders. Sir Henry Cotton said that people who were in despair were bound to resort to such desperate methods. Keir Hardy observed, “Political murder is the natural consequence of the present policy of the government.” The British rulers of India could do nothing to these gentlemen for these outspoken remarks, but they could not tolerate an expression of similar sentiments in the Indian press.

  Tilak regarded the work of a newspaper as a sacred trust and never failed in his duty of educating public opinion on every significant issue and of conveying to the government the reactions of the people to every important event. He therefore wrote five leading articles in the Kesari on the bomb incident. In the meanwhile the editors of Hind Swarajya, Vihari and Arunodaya were prosecuted for sedition. The Kesari, however, could not be cowed down by such measures, and Tilak carried on his duties as the educator and spokesman of the people.

  The first article on the subject ‘The Country’s Misfortune’ was written on 12th May 1908. At the beginning it was remarked: “No one will fail to feel uneasiness and sorrow on seeing that India, a country which by its very nature is mild and peace-loving, has been finding itself in the condition of European Russia.” It was further observed: “It does not appear from the statements of the persons arrested in connection with the bomb explosion case at Muzafferpore that the bomb was thrown through the hatred for some individual or simply owing to the action of some badmash madcap.” A reference was then made to the fact that some of the Anglo-Indian journalists had cast ridicule on these young men by insolently asking the question, Will the English rule disappear by the manufacture of a hundred muskets or half-a-dozen bombs?’ Tilak pointed out that it was not a matter for ridicule and that the secret society was formed by the Bengalis ‘not for self-interest but owing to the exasperation produced by the autocratic exercise of power by the unrestrained and powerful white official class.... In the concluding part, Tilak wrote, “The time unfortunately has arrived when the party of Nihilists... will now rise here. To avoid this contingency, to prevent the growth of this poisonous tree, is altogether in the hands of government. Reform of the administration is the only medicine to be administered internally for this disease; and if the official class does not make use of that medicine at this time then it must be considered a great misfortune to all of us...”

  In the editorial notes of the same issue it has been written, “The Statesman of Calcutta has given out its opinion that since terrible occurrences of bomb outrages spring from the Swadeshi and the boycott agitation, this agitation should be suspended.” In answer to this it was observed: “The Swadeshi agitation gives rise to bomb outrages and the Bengal partition gives rise to the Swadeshi agitation; then why not first cancel the Bengal partition itself?” A reference was then made to the suggestion of the Pioneer of Allahabad, that for every bomb outrage, twenty-five suspected leaders should be hanged. It was then remarked, “It cannot be denied that this is one way of striking terror into the public mind; but it is truth established by history that outrages like these increase instead of diminishing by the adoption of such methods.”

  Tilak wrote another leader in the Kesari of the 19th May 1908 with the tide ‘A Double Hint.’ He first gave a hint to the Anglo-Indian journals about their malicious and heinous propaganda and gave another hint to “some cowardly and self-conceited men amongst us.” These persons “in order to show their burning sentiments of loyalty, are now most vigorously forwarding to government suggestions or resolutions of the following sort: We protest most strongly against such a thing; bomb-throwers are in no way connected with us;... Government should at once stop such writings and speeches which are the cause of these shocking deeds....’ This in our opinion is the height not only of cowardice but also of folly... We too consider it reprehensible that anyone, for any reason, should take the life of another by bombs or by any other means. Not only has it no sanction of the code of morality but also, no one including ourselves, considers that if some white officers were murdered in this manner, we would thereby at once obtain Swarajya.... But the admission that these horrible deeds are caused by the writings or lectures of some political agitators, which some people from amongst us, while expressing their disapproval, have now begun to make, is wrong and suicidal in the extreme; and it is our duty to tell this not only to these persons but to the rulers also.” In conclusion Tilak wrote: “Law and order must of course be maintained and by all means maintain it; but do not use it as a pretext for spreading thorns in the way of those who are teaching people to acquire their natural rights, at suggestions made by flatterers who are adverse to the weal of government.”

  In the article written in the Kesari of the 2nd June ‘The Secret of the Bomb’ Tilak remarked: ‘It is the westerners’ science that has created the bomb.... The military strength of government is destroyed by the bomb;... but owing to the bomb the attention of government is riveted to the disorder which prevails owing to the pride of military strength.” Tilak explained the symbolic significance of the bomb in the following words: “When the official class begins to overawe the people without any reason and when an endeavour is made to produce despondency among the people by unduly frightening them, then the sound of the bomb is spontaneously produced to impart to the authorities the true knowledge that the people have reached a higher stage than the vapid one in which they pay implicit regard to such an illiberal policy of repression.” In the Kesari of the 9th June 1908, Tilak wrote a leading article ‘These Remedies Are Not Lasting.’ At the beginning of the article he mentioned the repressive measures taken by the government in order to suppress people’s movements. He also strongly criticised the Arms Act and remarked, “The manhood of the nation was slain by the Arms Act in order that the authority exercised even by petty officials should be unopposed.” He further wrote, “Muskets and guns may be taken away from the subjects by means of the Arms Act;... but is it possible to stop or to do away with the bomb by means of laws or the supervision of officials or the busy swarming of the detective police? The bomb has more the form of knowledge, it is a kind of witchcraft, it is charm, an amulet.” In the concluding part of the article Tilak wrote: “The object desired by government cannot be accomplished by the Explosives Act; but on the other hand it will serve as an instrument in the hands of the police and petty officials to persecute good men.... If bombs are to be stopped this is not the proper means to do it. Government should act in such a way that no fanatic should feel any necessity at all for throwing bombs.”

  In all these articles, Tilak has condemned the use of violence but has attributed the blame to the governm
ent for pursuing the policy of suppressing the natural urges of the people which made violence inevitable. Tilak expressed his views in his usual direct style and in this respect it is interesting to compare his articles with those of Prof. Shivram Mahadev Paranjpe, the editor of Kal. In the Kal of 15th May 1908, Paranjpe wrote an article commenting on the prizes which were awarded to the Indian police officers for capturing the accused in the Muzafferpore incident. He mentioned the news that an English officer who sold some confidential papers about Malta was arrested and consequently a bill sanctioning maximum punishment for such an offence was brought before Parliament. He referred to a quotation from an English journal that ‘A traitor to his country deserves to be hanged’ and remarked that though there was a striking resemblance between the acts of the Indian police officers mentioned above and that of the British officer, the former were rewarded, while the latter would be punished. The implication of the remark is too obvious to need any comment. He also observed, “Setting aside the desirability or otherwise of the throwing of bombs, one thing is certain that the Indians were doing these things not to create anarchy but to achieve independence.” Paranjpe was a great stylist in Marathi prose. Burlesque and mock-seriousness were among the important weapons of his repertory. His usual vein resembling that of Swift was sustained irony, interspersed with scathing sarcasm. Though couched in mild and gentle words his real intention was but too apparent and the sophisticated artistry of his speeches and writings cast a spell on the educated young men of Maharashtra. In fact from 1901 onwards many of the revolutionaries in Maharashtra looked up to him, and not to Tilak as, the prophet the of the revolution. Paranjpe could arouse the sentiments of the people by appealing to their sense of pride and self-respect and among Marathi writers he has been acknowledged as the poet of patriotism even though he wrote in prose. In spite of the temperamental differences, however, Tilak had great affection for Paranjpe and though he did not accept many of his ideas, he certainly recognised the significance of Paranjpe’s contribution to the political movement in Maharashtra. It must of course be remembered that in spite of the fact that Tilak’s articles, as compared to those of Paranjpe, were less strongly worded, they influenced public opinion much more than did the writings of Paranjpe. The government was naturally suspicious of both, and Paranjpe was served with a notice and was warned four times during this period. After the Muzafferpore incident, thanks to the insinuation of the Anglo-Indian press, the government decided to take strong steps and Paranjpe was arrested on, llth June 1908 and was prosecuted for seditious writings. He was sentenced to nineteen months’ rigorous imprisonment.