by A K Bhagwat
The constitution of the Congress was again suitably altered “to throw the doors of entry practically open to the ingress of nationalist delegates who were allowed to be elected by public meetings convened under the auspices of any association which is of not less than two years’ standing on 31st December 1915, and which has for one of its objects the attainment of self-government within the British Empire by constitutional means.”
Tilak on the Break-up of the Parleys
On the 22nd December 1914, Tilak wrote in the Kesari clarifying the whole position. In this article he first made it clear that the nationalists were in full agreement with the creed of the Congress, which is defined by Dadabhai as ‘Swaraj,’ i.e., self-government within the Empire. The main objection of the nationalists, it was stated, was the condition which made it compulsory for them to enter the Congress through one of the moderate conventions. Tilak reiterated his faith in national unity: “As Mrs. Besant says, we must adopt for the present, and in future too, the principle of ‘Union is Strength’ and carry on the work of the Congress with zest and sincerity. Nationally speaking, this would be in the fitness of things. This is not merely applicable to the Hindus, but we hope that at this critical juncture the Mahomedans too will join us and attempts will be made to bring them in.” Tilak strongly repudiated the charge that the nationalists intended to wreck the Congress constitution and pointed out that the constitution was being observed in its breach under the present elections of the provincial and district Congress Committees. He concludes: “People ask the question, ‘Will the nationalists go to the Congress this year to Madras?’ Our answer is the nationalists are not going because the moderates do not want it. If the constitution is amended at Madras, we shall see; but at present the difficulties are the self-imposed conditions of the moderates and their unrestrained action.”
Another article on January 5th, 1915, entitled ‘Congress or Club-Festival of the Moderates?,’ sought to lay the whole blame for the failure to arrive at a compromise at the doors of the moderates. It was the moderates, particularly from Bombay, like Mehta and Waccha, who did not want a compromise. If the nationalists desired to join the Congress, they had to seek the support of Congressmen from other provinces. What the nationalist party should do in the meanwhile would be decided later.”
A stronger article was written on the 9th February 1915 when more facts regarding the break-up of the compromise began to appear in the newspapers. Tilak accuses Gokhale of wrecking the compromise by his confidential letter to Basu. He particularly objected to the words ‘Irish obstruction’ and ‘boycott’ alleged to have been used in the letter and demanded the publication of the letter in full. The confidential letter of Gokhale to Bhupendranath Basu was not published at the time. Only a few extracts were published in various papers. Longer extracts have subsequently been published in H. P. Mody’s Life of Pherozeshah Mehta. Referring to the argument put forward by some people that Gokhale agreed to the compromise because he thought that Tilak had changed his views as a result of his imprisonment, Tilak wrote, “But these big fools (referring to persons who put forth this argument) have not understood that prison can never be a reason for a person to change his views, formed scientifically after full thought.” He clarified his stand by saying that boycott did not mean non-co-operation. “Just as a son petulantly insists on getting something from his father, similarly it is one thing occasionally to go off into a huff with the government and quite another to boycott it on each and every occasion. Tilak has advocated the first method but never the second. In fact it can be said that the second method is madness.” He next reproduced a translation of the statement issued by Subba Rao on 9th December and also the text of the telegram from Mrs. Besant and his reply to it. In conclusion he wrote that it was futile to carry on this controversy any further and urged that the moderates should use open and fair means, and not resort to underhand dealings or secret writings in order to misrepresent to the government what the nationalists say openly. He continued, “In case of Tilak or Gokhale one can say that their days are numbered.”6 It is no use saying that when Tilak enters the Congress he will capture it. The Congress is national; it does not belong to Tilak or even to Gokhale. It is not any one person who will decide the policy of the Congress but the Congress will decide it as a whole. Therefore every person in the Congress has the right to place his views before the Congress and to get them accepted by the majority. So long as these views are lawful and constitutional, no matter who places them before the Congress and gets them accepted, after discussion, he should not be branded as a terrible person out to capture the Congress.” He advised the moderates not to pull other people’s legs if they could not run themselves.
Gokhale’s Death
Gokhale’s illness took a turn for the worse. The criticism to which he was subjected in the Marathi press was a great shock to him. In January 1915, Lord Willingdon, who was the then Governor of Bombay, thought that the time was ripe to grant a new instalment of reforms, in view of the revolutionary changes that were going on all over the world. Accordingly he sent word to Gokhale asking him to “put down on paper what he considered was the minimum reform which would satisfy India, coming from the government of its own accord. This matter was to be kept very confidential.” Gokhale said that he wanted to consult Pherozeshah Mehta and the Aga Khan. A meeting was arranged but Lord Willingdon was in a hurry and so on Wednesday, 17th February 1915, Gokhale sent three copies of a document which subsequendy came to be known as “Gokhale’s Political Will and Testament.” Two days later, on Friday, 19th February 1915, Gokhale died at the age of 49. The passing of ‘this great saint and soldier of national righteousness,’ to borrow the words of Sarojini Naidu, was an occasion of universal grief. Tilak was at Sinhgad and came down to Poona on hearing the news. He paid a visit to Gokhale’s house immediately and made a most moving speech at the tame of the funeral. To the vast crowd that had gathered at the cremation ground and which cheered him, Tilak said that it was no time for cheers, but it was a time for shedding tears. He went on: “This diamond of India, this jewel of Maharashtra, this prince of workers is taking eternal rest on the funeral ground. Look at him and try to emulate him. Mr. Gokhale has passed away from our midst, after having satisfactorily performed his duty. Will anyone of you come forward to take his place? Like a triumphant hero, he is passing away, after having made his name immortal. Not only none of you here assembled, but no other citizen in all India will be able to give such a satisfactory account in the other world of having done his duty to his motherland. Upto this time very few have had the fortune of being able to render”an account before God of having done their true duty. I knew Mr. Gokhale from his youth. He was an ordinary and simple man in the beginning. He was not an inamdar, he was not a jahgirdar; he was not a chief. He was an ordinary man like all of us here. He rose to such eminence by sheer force of genius, ability and work. Mr. Gokhale is passing away from our midst, but he has left behind him much to emulate. Everyone of you ought to place his example before his eyes, and try to fill the gap; and if you will try your best to emulate him in this way, he will feel glad even in the next world.”
The same note was struck in the obituary article that Tilak wrote in the Kesari on the 23rd February 1915. “The news of the Hon. Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s death on Friday night at about 11 o’clock will fill the mind of everyone with distraction, mingled with surprise, sorrow, despair and thoughts about the transitoriness of our stay in this world.”
Tilak next strikes a characteristic note found in almost all his obituary articles and to which he had made a reference in his funeral speech. By his self-sacrifice and dedication to the cause of public service, Tilak and his colleagues in the Deccan Education Society had cut out a new path in public life. They were responsible for setting up what was to be a new standard of greatness, deserving public, acclamation based on qualities of genius, talent and public service instead of the old standards of noble birth, wealth o
r high-salaried government office. About Gokhale he writes, “That the son of a poor Brahmin after passing out from his school should depart with his name on the lips of everyone, young or old, is no mean achievement, particularly so when we consider that he acquired it without the aid of such external accessories as elephants, horses, wealth or power. The true secret of Gokhale’s life is that this can be done by anyone who makes use of his talents and industry, keeping a high ideal before his mind. People praise Gokhale for many diverse qualities that he had, such as his intellect, his assiduous industry or his gentleness. These, in our opinion, are merely external and there can be a difference of opinion about them. There can, however, be no difference whatsoever as to the inner spring that helped the growth of these qualities. The mainspring of Gokhale’s life was his selfless dedication to the cause of his country. A person, who, after his studies in his childhood, enjoys the pleasures of family life in youth to the full and afterwards, when the physical and mental powers have waned, takes up social service, does not after all command much respect. On the other hand, a person who shows the marvellous self-restraint of dedicating himself to the cause of the country, while the physical powers are still intact, while the body is still able to work for selfish ends, while old age is still far off and when the pleasures of a family life are still alluring and naturally attract the mind, such a person is indeed blessed and such a man was Gokhale.” Referring to Gokhale’s moderate position in politics, Tilak says, “Because his nature was moderate, he was inclined to use moderate means in the fulfilment of the work in hand and many like us thought that such mild remedies were unsuitable. Though there might be a difference between two physicians regarding the diet prescribed and the remedy advocated, still we are fully prepared to admit the greatness of Gokhale as a physician. Gokhale had diagnosed that the country was in a decadent state and to lift it up it was necessary that we should have a good many qualities. This diagnosis was literally correct. In fact, if at all there is any duty that the Brahmins of today have to perform, it is precisely this. Not tempted by external pomp and glory, with a full knowledge that one is born without riches of any kind and also dies as such, a true Brahmin should follow the duty of service to the motherland as his religion. One who follows this, whether his ways are strong or mild, he includes himself in the class of nation-builders....” Lastly Tilak pays a glowing tribute to Gokhale when he, quoting from the ancient law-giver Manu, says: “The path travelled by the preceptor and the one followed by the preceptor’s preceptor is the true path of public welfare, and one who follows it will never repent and so the path blazed by such preceptors as Gokhale should be followed by all with zest, courage and determination.”
Tilak also made a touching reference in moving a resolution of condolence at the 17th Bombay Provincial Conference. He expressed the feeling that his sadness and sorrow were all the greater because he was in part responsible in introducing Mr. Gokhale into the field in which that zealous and sincere worker lost his life by over work. It is reported here that “Mr. Tilak seemed at this stage much moved by the sad thoughts in his mind and his faltering voice, a trait rarely seen in Mr. Tilak, betrayed the sorrow concealed in his bosom.”7 Tilak reminded his audience that people should not judge his relations with Gokhale by what appeared on the outside. He had worked with Gokhale for eight years in Fergus son College and had known him in his various capacities in his political career. How deeply Tilak felt the void created by Gokhale’s death was also seen by what he said to a few young graduates, whom he called one day through N. C. Kelkar, soon after Gokhale’s death. His main concern was that all those who had devoted themselves to the service of the country in his generation as also in the generation of Gokhale had passed away. With himself and Gokhale at the forefront of the nationalist and the moderate parties, Poona was so far in the vanguard of politics. He, therefore, said after a free and frank discussion that went on for more than two hours, “I have not called you so that you should continue my quarrels or that you should carry on the policy that I advocated. I want you to be workers in the cause of the nation. Do not let go the lead that was I with Poona so far. Whatever you do will have my support.”
The Home Rule League
In the confidential letter, Gokhale had referred to Tilak’s intention to start a National League if the compromise talks failed. Tilak now concentrated his energies on starting a Home Rule League. The idea was an old one, broached to him as early as in 1899 by Joseph Baptista, Barrister-at-Law. Tilak had thanked Baptista for a proposition that the latter had moved at the Cambridge Union, stigmatising the policy of the government in prosecuting editors for sedition as unwarranted and unwise. Baptista suggested the formation of a Home Rule League for India after the model of the Irish League but Tilak thought it to be too premature an idea then. Baptista opened the subject once again at the Calcutta Congress in 1906, “when Lord Curzon’s partition of Bengal had transformed Macaulay’s Bengalis into militant Mazzinis.” “Too early yet but not too late,” Tilak observed. “My third venture,” continues Baptista, “was in 1915 after his return from exile in Mandalay when he singled me out for the Presidentship of the Bombay Provincial Conference to be held at Poona. The time is ripe now,’ said I. ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘but would it be right to raise the issue of Home Rule now while the war is raging?’ ‘So long as we perform our duty and render all help we can to win the war, we can proclaim our rights with a clean conscience,’ said I. ‘In fact we are only hastening the advent of the proudest day in the history of England - according to Macaulay.’ ‘I am afraid we shall be hastening the advent of the day of my return journey to Mandalay,’ said he. ‘However, the prospect is worth the risk. You should suggest it in your presidential address.’ I did so. It bore good fruit as Mrs. Besant took it up with characteristic enthusiasm and energy.”
Thus it was the Bombay Provincial Conference that gave the war-cry to the nationalist party - the cry of Home Rule. In fact it was Tilak’s idea, after the failure of the compromise talks to resuscitate the old Provincial Conference where he hoped to command a majority. He tried to get Vithalbhai Patel as the president; but on his declining, Joseph Baptista was chosen. All the prominent followers of Tilak - Dr. Munje, Aney, Paranjpe, Khadilkar, Belvi, Gangadharrao Deshpande - were there and the secretary was N. C. Kelkar. A committee, with Tilak, Baptista and Belvi as members, was appointed in this conference to state the views of the Nationalist party regarding the compromise. The report said that in view of the future good of the country and the present situation it was necessary to have a compromise. It was decided at this conference that the next conference should be held at Belgaum, where again, Tilak was sure that he would command a large backing. The moderates held their Provincial Convention at Belgaum simultaneously with the National Provincial Conference at Poona, but it was very poorly attended. Though the idea of starting the Home Rule League was an old one, the first Home Rule League was given a concrete form in Mrs. Besant’s Common Weal on 25th September 1915. This League, she declared, was to be a complement to the Indian National Congress with the object of giving political education.8 It was decided to open a branch of the League in London. Mrs. Besant also made the sensational disclosure that the League had secured the blessings of Dadabhai Naoroji, who had agreed to be its president. This raised a controversy, the Bombay moderates like Waccha objecting to the starting of the League, thinking that the extremists would use it for wrecking the Congress. There was another section that took a favourable view by pointing out that “while the Congress remained a deliberative body, there should be an organisation to do the day-to-day, active, propagandist work for securing Home Rule.” Dadabhai was unflinching in his support, though Sir William Wedderburn who had first agreed to support it thought afterwards that as he was the president of the British Committee of the Congress, it was undesirable that he should be the head of another political organisation. It was not on grounds of principles that he declined, but on those of tactics. Tilak, as could be expected, ga
ve wholehearted support to Mrs. Besant’s idea, pointing out that just as the government had not promised to grant self-government within a particular period say, a century the extremists also had fixed no limit that they would not demand it before a particular time. The only difference between the extremists and the moderates would be how soon the demand was to be pressed. It was with this view that the idea of the Home Rule League deserved support. Mrs. Besant’s idea was widely supported by Moderate papers like the Leader of Allahabad, the Advocate of Lucknow and the Hitavada of Nagpur. Bhupendranath Basu presided over a meeting addressed by Mrs. Besant; but in deference to public opinion, Mrs. Besant decided to postpone the starting of the League for sometime till the session of the Congress was held. It was decided that the question should be discussed at the time of the Congress session. A happy augury was the decision of the Muslim League to hold its session at the same time with the Congress. National minded and liberal Muslims like Jinnah were now successful in bringing the League nearer to the Congress.
Death of the Lion of Bombay
Before anything concrete could be achieved, the indomitable Bombay stalwart of the moderate party, Pherozeshah Mehta, passed away in November 1915. “Our India, after all is already a weak nation. Under the iron rule of the bureaucracy formed by British officials there is little scope for the growth of such qualities as independence, courage, determination; but fortunately Sir Pherozeshah Mehta had all these qualities and that is why there is unaccountable loss felt by the country at his death,” Tilak wrote in an obituary article in the Kesari of 16th November 1915. He called Pherozeshah a lion among men and referred to his courageous stand during a period of 45 years, his determined and eloquent words, his innate pride, his tigerlike fierce countenance, his resonant thundering voice, his ability to silence his opponent with irrefutable argument.