Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  Tilak’s Declaration of Loyalty

  The outbreak of the war, Tilak greeted as a bell of time, warning India that great opportunities were in store for her; she was only to avail of them. One of the modifications that he spoke of was now in evidence. He declared his loyalty to the British regime. He wrote a letter to the Mahratta on the 30th August 1914, “in order to remove any possible misunderstanding as to my attitude towards government at this juncture.” He refers to the speech in which he compared his position to that of Rip Van Winkle returning to his home after a long sleep in the wilderness. “Since then,” he continues, “I have had opportunities to fill up the gaps in my information as to what has occurred during my absence and to take stock of the march of events in India during the past six years.” In spite of measures like the Press Act, he was of the opinion that the country had made definite, yet steady progress towards the cherished goal. There was also “a marked increase of confidence between the rulers and the ruled and a sustained endeavour to remove popular grievances.” He expressed the hope that in the end the good wrought by the constitutional reforms would abide and prevail, and that which was objectionable would disappear.

  He next referred to the attempt made in the English press here and in England, as for example in Chirol’s book,2 to interpret his actions and writings as a direct and indirect incitement to deeds of violence or his speeches as delivered with the object of subverting British rule in India and said that such insinuations were absurd. Though he had his difficulties with the government regarding the system of internal administration his attitude was not hostile to the government. “I may state once for all that we are trying in India, as the Irish Home Rulers have been doing in Ireland, for a reform of the system of administration and not for the overthrow of government; and I have no hesitation in saying that the acts of violence which have been committed in the different parts of India are not only repugnant to me, but have, in my opinion, only unfortunately retarded to a great extent the pace of our political progress. Whether looked at from an individual or from a public point of view, they deserve, as I have said before on several occasions, to be equally condemned.” He goes on to speak about the British rule as “conferring inestimable be ne fit on India not only by its civilised methods of administration but also thereby bringing together the different nationalities and races of India, so that a united nation may grow out of it in course of time.” At the end he declared, “At such a crisis it is, I firmly hold, the duty of every Indian, be he great or small, rich or poor, to support and assist His Majesty’s Government, to the best of his ability; and no time, in my opinion, should be lost in convening a public meeting of all parties, classes and sections in Poona, as they have been elsewhere, to give an emphatic public expression to the same.”

  Had Tilak turned a loyalist and a moderate or was this mere hypocrisy? One has to remember that his political activity, though revolutionary in intent, had always taken a constitutional and legal form. It was the idea of civil revolt that he wanted to bring into practical reality. As a practical politician, he was aware that, unless he could take the masses with him, mere talk of revolution would be of no use. He saw now that the country was sinking into rest with a sullen ‘all is for the best,’ and all attempts at any kind of political activity were dubbed as premature or hasty. It was an uphill task that he had to carry out. He had to rally his scattered followers, infuse new life into them, and bring them together under the wing of a central institution. At such a stage the best strategy was not to alienate any section, either the government or the political opponents — the moderates. The Congress was therefore to be the common platform, where the moderates and the extremists could meet, in spite of their differences of approach and method for the common goal of self-government.

  Tilak on Compromise

  A happy augury of the times was, to quote Aurobindo, “The sudden eruption of Mrs. Besant into the field — with her untiring energy, her flaming enthusiasm, her magnificent and magnetic personality, her spiritual force — for bringing an ideal into the stage of activity with one ra pid whirl a nd rush.” It was Mrs. Besant, who within a month of Tilak’s release, opened up negotiations for a rapprochement between the two parties.

  A second happy sign was the emergence of the Muslims as a political entity, siding with the Congress and agreeing to make common cause with other communities.3 Tilak was already thinking in terms of a broad-based united front. Damodar Vishwanath Gokhale, who had just joined the staff of the Kesari as a sub-editor records Tilak’s views about his new policy: “The old party differences,” Tilak declared, “must be done away with. We must reshuffle the cards and have a new deal. We must make only one pile of the Muslim party, Mrs. Besant’s followers and our nationalist party and fight the Government alone on the issue of Swaraj. If we do it, then alone we shall be successful.” This, therefore, was the keynote of all his actions. Following this by word and deed, Tilak succeeded in achieving his aim and became the undisputed leader of India by 1916.

  Moderate leaders like Pt. Malaviya and Gokhale too wanted a return of the extremists, but Pherozeshah Mehta was one of those who were opposed tooth and nail to such an entry. Gokhale believed for a tune that Tilak had modified his views and was willing to cooperate with the government. Sadashiv Gopal Gogte, a sub-editor of the Dnyan Prakash broached the topic of a compromise a few days after Tilak’s release. Tilak’s reply was characteristic: “I agree with you that the Congress is almost a spent force. If not this year, at least next year when the Congress would be held at Calcutta, we shall certainly enter it. Your idea of having village and town associations is a good one; but Mehtaji thinks that for the next twenty-five years the Congress should be carried on with the same policy. He is afraid that if we take any strong action, the government would come down upon us vehemently. Mehtaji and his party want to carry on the movement without opposing the government even in the slightest way. Take for instance the anti-drink movement. Is there any politics involved in this? And yet, merely because it may not be appreciated by the government, Mehtaji’s party is not willing to support it. The politics of the Mehta party is founded on the line of least resistance.” Finding that this would lead to a mere sidetracking of the compromise issue, Gogte pointed out that “this was a matter of temperamental difference. So nothing would be gained by complaining against it. If the party in power in the Congress did not do its work with zeal, it was all the more reason why the nationalist party should enter the Congress. If you agree to do it, I shall call this meeting of ours successful.” The required promise was given by Tilak and the negotiations proceeded. To S. S. Setlur, he said, while the negotiations were going on: “My days are numbered. I may live for a year or two at the outside. Why should people say after me that I was the cause of a split in the nation and that but for me this and that could have been achieved? Let there be union and I shall watch and see what they will achieve.”

  On the 26th November 1914, he wrote to a friend of his, “You may have read in the Mahratta that certain proposals for holding a united Congress are in the air at present. Mrs. Besant and Mr. Subba Rao, the joint secretaries of the Congress, are coming here this Sunday to meet Mr. Gokhale and myself on the point, and altogether it seems that a serious attempt will be made this year to close the breach between the two Congress parties. The matter has been under discussion for the last six years and many of the preliminary points have been cleared up. What difference exists is as regards the constitution. The right of electing delegates is at present restricted to moderate committees and until it is thrown open to the public in general, the Congress is sure to remain a sectional body only. What we ask for is the amendment of this, and it is not unlikely nay, very probable, that this desired amendment may take place this year, especially as the President-elect the Hon. Bhupendranath Basu, is in our favour. I should, therefore, like to know what you and other non-conventionalist friends there think of the matter. I have written to friends at oth
er places also, and I hope to receive their replies shortly. This would reduce my responsibility to a minimum.” Apart from clarifying the constitutional issue involved, the letter shows the way in which Tilak maintained close contact with his followers. He consulted them on every important issue and kept them informed of every important move of his. The old practice of electing delegates was that it could be done at any public meeting; but this practice was set aside and now nobody could be elected unless he came through the moderate associations. According to Tilak, “It was unreasonable to expect that one party should seek admission to the Congress through the associations entirely controlled and managed by the other.” It was this rule that Tilak wanted to get changed.

  The Compromise Parleys

  The negotiations opened when Mrs. Besant accompanied by Mr. Subba Rao, the General Secretary of the Madras Congress (1914), went to Poona in the first week of December 1914 and had talks with Tilak, Gokhale and others. What Tilak thought about the compromise question has already been stated by him in his conversation with S. S. Setlur and in the letter to one of his followers. Tilak went to see Mrs. Besant in the Servants of India Society buildings and also saw Gokhale. A description given by S. V. Bapat gives a clear idea of the way in which Tilak looked at the whole question. Gokhale was ill and therefore he could not climb the stairs of Tilak’s house. The meeting was therefore arranged downstairs. As Tilak came up after the meeting, Khadilkar asked him: “What does Gokhale say?” Tilak replied, “He says that I should not enter the Congress, as I will not agree with the present Congress constitution and with those in the Congress at present.” On being asked what his reply, was to this, Tilak replied: “I told him clearly that the Congress belongs to all. It is not given as a gift to any party. I shall first prepare the country, enter the Congress and capture it.” The others were surprised and thought that Tilak was a little too tactless in thus divulging what was yet a distant prospect. To this Tilak replied, “My opinions are formed after full deliberation and I declare them to my opponents at the earliest opportunity.” This supreme self-confidence Tilak had acquired as a result of his long and selfless service for the cause of the people and the democratic methods that he followed in his dealings within his own party.

  The reactions of Gokhale were however different. He had agreed to the negotiations under the impression that Tilak had given up, what Gokhale believed to be, his obstructionist tactics a nd wa s now for whole -hearted co-operat i on with the government. When Tilak spoke in his old way of capturing the Congress, Gokhale regretted that he had taken the initiative in the negotiations and he therefore wrote a confidential letter to the President-elect of the Congress, Bhupendranath Basu. This crucial letter settled the fate of the compromise and the year 1914 and the best part of 1915 went by without the two parties coming together. This is what Gokhale wrote:

  “My hope was that if we enabled the seceders by such relaxations to come in, they would, having seen the impossibility of political action on any other lines, be co-operative with us in furthering the programme of the Congress by present methods. That hope, however, has been shattered. Mr. Tilak has told Mr. Subba Rao frankly and in unequivocal terms that though he accepts the position laid down in what is known as the Congress creed, viz. that the aim of the Congress is the attainment by India of self-government within the Empire by constitutional means, he does not believe in the present methods of the Congress, which rest on association with government where possible, and opposition to it where necessary. In place of these he wants to substitute the method of opposition to government, pure and simple, within constitutional limits — in other words a policy of Irish obstruction. We, on our side, are agitating for a larger and larger share in the government of the countryin the legislative councils, on municipal and local boards, in public Services and so forth. Mr. Tilak wants to address only one demand to the government here and to the British public in England, viz. for the concession of self-government to India, and till that is conceded, he would urge his countrymen to have nothing to do either with the public services or legislative councils and local and municipal bodies. And by organising obstruction to the government in every possible direction within the limits of laws of the land, he hopes to be able to bring the administration to a standstill and compel the authorities to capitulate. This briefly is his programme, and he says that he wants to work for its realisation through the Congress if he and his followers are enabled to rejoin it, or failing this, by starting a new organisation to be called a National League.”

  What Gokhale found out was that Tilak was still consistent to the stand he had taken in 1908 after the Surat split when he had refused to join the moderate convention of Pherozeshah Mehta. Whether one followed the obstructionist or the co-operationist methods, Tilak was firmly of the opinion that this must be done through the Congress alone and he was willing to modify some of his views for a compromise. During the negotiations, it is important to remember, he had to encounter the opposition of his followers as well. When Mrs. Besant was in Poona, he called a meeting of the Nationalist party at which all the important members of the party, Dr. Munje, Shivram Mahadev Paranjpe, Karandikar, Khadilkar, Khaparde, were present. Dr. Munje4 writes about the first meeting between Mrs. Besant and Subba Rao on the one hand and Tilak and his followers on the other. This description given by a prominent follower of Tilak is significant for many reasons. It shows the prejudice entertained by a majority of the Nationalist party members for Mrs. Besant in particular and for others of the Moderate party. It also shows how Tilak had the foresight of bringing together as many different people as possible within the Congress. When Tilak started discussing the terms of compromise with Mrs. Besant, Munje told him not to interfere as he was not with them for six years and so did not know what transpired in between. Tilak, therefore, kept quiet and addressing Mrs. Besant, Munje asked her bluntly if she had consulted Pherozeshah about the compromise. When she said that she had not, Munje told her that in that case her talk was a waste of time; for if Mehta did not agree compromise would be impossible. Tilak thought Munje’s behaviour with Besant unmannerly and rude but to Munje the butting in of a foreigner was the most objectionable thing in the whole proceedings.

  To another follower Tilak said,5 “I too wish that the nationalists should work with greater zest by entering the Congress as elected representatives and that compromise be effected so that the Congress is once again a united and strong body of the two parties as before. I know full well that in politics it is no fault to compromise at times without leaving one’s principles. I shall not stretch till the breaking point. The moment I think the breaking point is reached, I shall loosen my hold and effect a compromise. In politics I am all for compromise.”

  S. S. Setlur, who saw Gokhale soon after this meeting, reports that Gokhale told him about the terms he had proposed for the compromise, which were in the nature of a safeguard, but remarked, “I know even with these precautions in a few years, Tilak will surely capture the Congress.” Setlur continues, “Stopping tor a while in a contemplative mood, he said, ‘If he does, we should loyally accept because, then, it means that the majority of the country is on his side.”

  These remarks of Gokhale appear to be irreconcilable with the uncompromising stand that he took in his letter to Bhupendranath Basu. That shows that though at first Gokhale was on the side of a compromise, later on he corrected himself and wired to Mrs. Besant not to move the proposed amendment to the Congress constitution which would enable the Nationalist party to enter the Congress. Mr. Subba Rao had issued a statement after the talk with Tilak, incorporating in it certain corrections by Tilak. This statement formulated all the issues clearly: “The attitude of the nationalists is generally one of constitutional opposition to the government; while that of the moderates is that of co-operation with the government. Though the ideal of both is the same, the difference between them lies in the methods adopted by them for reaching the goal.” This ideal was stated to be
self-government within the Empire. It was further stated that the nationalists were keen on entering the Congress; but they objected to the condition of the constitution which made it compulsory on their part to join one of the moderate conventions. They demanded independent and separate electorates so that they could seek election to the Congress through their own elected bodies or through meetings called by them alone. They also desired to agitate among the people for their method of work and attitude towards the government and to try, as far as possible, to make a majority in the Congress itself. They knew, the statement affirmed, that they were bound by the decision of the majority in the Congress and therefore they were prepared to wait till the majority were in their favour, but it was not their wish to leave the Congress. The statement hinted at a possibility of the nationalists creating a National League based on their policy, which would carry on its work, independently of the Congress, should the Congress not agreeto the proposed change in the constitution.”

  Gokhale did not agree to the major points in the statement and withdrew his support. In the Madras Congress, Mrs. Besant tried to move the constitutional amendment in the Subjects Committee but it was defeated. She therefore wired to Tilak:

  “Moved amendment. Debate adjourned. It is said by opposition you favour boycott of government. I say you do not. Wire which is truth. (Reply prepaid.)”

  Tilak’s reply was:

  “I have never advocated boycott of government. Prominent nationalists have served and are serving in municipalities and legislative councils, and I have fully accepted their action both privately and publicly.”

  The Bombay Session of the Congress was a moderate Congress and the President Sir S. P. Sinha made a very mild speech. The Congress, however, passed an important resolution on self-government. By Resolution XIX, the Congress authorised the All-India Congress Committee to frame a scheme of reform and a programme of continuous work, educative and propagandist, having regard to the principles embodied in this resolution and further authorised the Committee to confer with the All-India Muslim League for the same purpose.