by A K Bhagwat
Pherozeshah was one of those who placed the service of India as a whole, including all its communities, in the forefront. That was why everything that he did or said had an unmistakable stamp of patriotism. It is unfortunate, Tilak concluded, that at the present juncture when the country was once again, as in 1906, debating the question of the Congress creed, it should be deprived of the sage counsel of a leader like Pherozeshah.
Towards Consolidation
On the eve of the Congress in 1915, permission was asked by a number of Tilak’s followers to be allowed to be present at the Congress session, if not as delegates, at least as spectators. Suggestions were made to Tilak also that he should attend the Congress, but to all this Tilak’s reply was that he could attend only if the creed was amended. It was, however, the stern opposition of the Bombay people that prevented the rapprochement. Tilak now thought of consolidating his party still further by the immediate inauguration of the Home Rule League while the Congress session was still going on. He called an urgent meeting of his followers from Maharashtra, Karnatak, Berar, Nagpur, Bengal and Madras. A committee was appointed under Khaparde’s chairmanship to plan the Home Rule League and in April 1916 it was decided to have the Provincial Conference at Belgaum.
On the eve of the Congress session Tilak wrote a series of articles on the Home Rule League in the Kesari, in which he expounded at considerable length the idea of the League. The relationship between India and England, Tilak said, was so far one between a loyal servant and his master; it should now be between one loyal friend and another. To the objection that it was not proper to discuss such issues when the government was engaged in a war, Tilak’s answer was that they did not demand all at once. They were prepared to go all the way to help the government. But just as they were loyal they were equally eager for Swaraj. Their demand was not in the nature of a present or gift. It was a natural right of a people that they should have a hand in the administration of the country.
Going on to clarify the demand for Swaraj, Tilak said, that it was not Swaraj bereft of the British, it was as a part and parcel of the British Empire that they put forth the demand. “India is a land of many religions and many different provinces — to keep these together some common bond is necessary and this is better provided by impartial rulers like the British. That is why Indian leaders do not wish to break away from the British Empire. It was, therefore, the same demand as that put forward as early as 1906 by Dadabhai Naoroji and which is supported today by Mrs. Besant, Wedderburn and others.” The second article advocated complete autonomy in certain specified items in the internal administration of the country. Under local self-government there are as many nominated or government members as there are elected ones. This vitiates the real principle of autonomy. The powers of government officials should be limited and the whole administration of a province should be carried on by the advice of the elected representatives of the people. About the Secretary of State and his Council it may be said that the Council could be dispensed with as autonomy could be granted to India on the advice of the people of India and foreign affairs could be managed by the Secretary of State alone.
The third of the articles criticised the idea of resuscitating the villages as self-sufficient units of administration as in the days of old; for the Swaraj that was being demanded was more the concern of the provinces than that of the government of India. The village units of old disappeared on account of enforcement of a new constitution. It is necessary to demand first that the right now with the provinces should be with the people. The village may be the basis of Swaraj but the demand for Swaraj need not be confined merely to the basis but should include the province as well. The question of the revival of the village comes in only when provincial autonomy is gained. For this the Governor’s executive council should have an elected majority, but in order that it should work in harmony there should be a principle similar to the one that empowers the prime minister in England to choose members of his own party to form the cabinet.
The fourth article speaks of the Central Assembly of the Government of India as a seed of the future Parliament of India. When all the provinces become to a large extent autonomous the control of the Central Assembly of the Government of India would be the same as that exercised by the American Congress over its States. The members to this assembly would be elected and be representatives of all the castes, creeds or callings. Among the main powers that it might have the major one would be a control on the budget. It would also have the right as in the British Parliament of asking questions, bringing in legislative bills, etc.
On the 29th March a meeting was held in Poona to congratulate Lord Hardinge on the successful termination of his tenure of Vice-royalty. Tilak took a prominent part in the meeting and thus paved the way for a better understanding between the moderate and the extremist parties as also between the government and Tilak.
Belgaum Conference
The 18th Provincial Conference was held at Belgaum on the 29th April. It was attended by 1,700 delegates from the Bombay Province alone. This number, Tilak pointed out, was considerably larger than the number of delegates from Bombay attending the 1915 Congress at Bombay. Khaparde, in his Presidential Address, clarified the differences between the moderates and the extremists by pointing out that the ideal of Swaraj, proclaimed by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906, was wholly approved of by the extremists; while the moderates, for obvious reasons, were only lukewarm in their support to it. Tilak had once again to encounter the opposition of his followers, prominent among whom was Dr. Munje. Tilak tried in vain to persuade him, but he was adamant in not accepting the compromise. He even went to the length of suggesting that just as when the power of an avatar was on the wane such a person as Krishna or Parashuram was defeated, the time of Tilak’s defeat had come.9 Tilak assured him that the way proposed by him would prove to be right in the end. Munje remained unconvinced till the conference but, he reports, when after the conference the Times of India wrote complimenting Tilak’s diplomatic move in piloting the compromise scheme, Munje was convinced of the far-sighted nature of Tilak’s stand and went and apologised to him.
Others like Gangadharrao Deshpande of Belgaum, tired of the hairsplitting and endless discussions, went to Tilak and told him that he was one of those who regarded personalities as principles and therefore would willingly set aside his personal views in deference to Tilak. Tilak replied that all were not of this view and so it was better to have a discussion. He stated clearly that as nothing was done by remaining out of the Congress, he was for entering it even by signing the creed. As Tilak was severely criticised by his followers for what appeared to many as his moderate stand, he purposely delivered his speech on the compromise resolution in English so that there would be no misrepresentation or misunderstanding.
This conference was attended by Mahatma Gandhi. It was through Kaka Kalelkar that Gangadharrao Deshpande invited Gandhi to the conference. At this time Gandhi was thinking of joining the Servants of India Society; but the question was deferred on account of sharp differences among the members. Deshpande reports that when the moderates from Bombay tried to prevent Gandhi from attending the Belgaum Conference, as Gandhi’s presence, in their opinion, would unduly make it important, Gandhi’s reply to Deshpande was ‘Nothing but death will prevent me from going to Belgaum.’ Accordingly he attended and spoke in Hindi. “Gandhi stood, for a genuine compromise and pointed out: ‘If they passed the resolution in the hope that after joining the Congress they would drive away the opponents in it, neither the Congress nor the extremists, nor the country, would gain anything.’ Gandhi affirmed that he was neither a moderate nor an extremist.” Gandhi had prolonged discussions with Tilak and his followers, and when Deshpande asked Tilak what his impressions on these discussions were, the answer given by Khaparde instead of Tilak, was “He is not of us!” Deshpande writes that it was his impression that Tilak did not approve of this though he said nothing.
Th
e great achievement of the Belgaum Conference was the inauguration of the Home Rule League, six months before Mrs. Besant started hers. Tilak made it quite clear, and Mrs. Besant also agreed with him, that though there were two Leagues, there was no conflict or rivalry between them. Mrs. Besant herself has written: “During 1915, I again met Mr. Tilak, and we decided to start two Home Rule Leagues, since some of his followers disliked me and some of mine disliked him. We, however, had no quarrel with each other.... Mr. Tilak presided over one League and I over the other, the two working harmoniously side by side...”
Tilak on Home Rule
In spite of this harmony between the two Leagues their methods of work were different. Mrs. Besant also carried on agitation for national education, Swadeshi, etc., through her League. When some of Tilak’s followers wanted this wider programme to be included in his League Tilak’s answer was: “Our Home Rule League is started for no other purpose except that of getting Home Rule. We shall not carry on any other activity through it; nor would it be proper to do so. These movements should be carried on separately if necessary, but they should have no connection whatsoever with the Home Rule League. This League is established for the purpose of getting Swaraj and all its efforts will be directed towards it. Nothing else will be included in it.”
A truly whirlwind propaganda was carried on by Tilak. He went from place to place delivering lectures and holding discussions, thus consolidating the Home Rule League. In the 18th Provincial Conference at Belgaum in May 1916, Tilak spoke on Home Rule, and clarified the basic idea behind the movement: “It is an undisputed fact that we should secure our own good under the rule of the English people themselves, under the supervision of the English nation, with the help of the English nation, through their sympathy, through their anxious care and through those high sentiments which they possess. The British Government ruling from England is an invisible government it is like the idea of Brahma in the Vedantic philosophy. The great Brahma is without attributes or form. The visible form which it assumes when it begins to come under the temptation of Maya or illusion is sure to change. Similarly the invisible government does not change and the visible government changes every moment. The question of Home Rule is a question of changing the visible government as it is. It is the desire of the Home Rulers to bring about a change in the visible government so that it passes into the hands of some agency that is more beneficent to India Those who carry on the administration of India, right from the Secretary of State and the Viceroy to the Collector and the Sepoy, must be changed if their rule is not found to be useful or good to the people of India. To say this is no sedition.”
Tilak goes on to speak next about the helpless condition to which the people of India were reduced which made them dependent on a government official like the Collector at every moment. The Home Rulers, he said, wanted to change this arrangement. What they wanted was the power to appoint their own men, their own Collectors, their own Mamlatdars. About the nature of the present conflict Tilak said: “When I ask for the authority to manage my household affairs, I do not say give me the income which you obtain and do not spend it. What we want is the double responsibility of collecting as also of spending it. It is only by acquiring the right of management that one can learn the responsibility.” “India,” Tilak said, “was like a son who had grown up and attained majority. It was right now that the trustee or the father should give him what was his due. The people of India must get this effected. They have a right to do so.” Herein lay the root of the Home Rule demand.
In an article in the Kesari on the 9th May 1916 on “The Belgaum Conference and Compromise,” Tilak clarified all the issues coming in the way of a compromise between the moderates and the extremists. The extremists, he said, agreed to the idea of Swaraj, enunciated by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906. Later on, though attempts were made by the moderates to restrict the scope of Swaraj, the extremists believed in the original connotation of the idea as given in the present constitution and creed. That the idea of Swaraj is not to be realised in the near future and will take a long time — perhaps an age — is a conception to which neither Dadabhai nor the nationalists have subscribed. It is an idea of the British bureaucracy, which has now been discountenanced even by the moderates in recent years. So far as matters of principles were involved, there was no difference between the moderates and the extremists. The only difference was the technical one of allowing the extremists to send their delegates through their own bodies or meetings organised by them. It was natural that there would be differences in the Congress; but the only way of solving these differences was by majority decision. To compromise does not mean unity on each and every issue; it requires a frankness of mind and openness of approach to each other. Both parties should be prepared to meet each other half way, as it is not a question of prestige but diplomacy.
Ahmednagar Speeches
The agitation for Home Rule, under the Home Rule League, was now gathering momentum. Tilak and his lieutenants, Baptista, N. C. Kelkar and others, delivered lectures at various places and the membership of the League went on increasing. In the course of his propaganda tour Tilak delivered two lectures on Home Rule at the Ahmednagar District Conference, presided over by N. C. Kelkar. In these, once again he made it quite clear that what they wanted was not the right to do away with the Emperor but authority to rule over themselves. The British Government, he declared, could be maintained at the head; but an arrangement similar to that obtaining in other colonies should be introduced here. “There in the colonies, they have got in their own hands all the power, the right of ownership and the power to make laws. This does not affect the Emperor. There is no attempt to overthrow the British Government, but this is an attempt to make the British rule more pleasing to the people. Some people will lose their means of maintenance, that is not denied; but we do not think that the Emperor has reserved India for these people.... The Emperor ought to give power into the hands of the people without making any distinction between Indian and British subjects.”
Again, in the second lecture, he said, “My friend Mr. Kelkar has already told you that Swarajya does not mean that our authority is to be established here by driving away the British. Some people will have to be driven away. Swarajya is not driving away the King and taking his authority into one’s hands. It means taking into the hand the subjects’ rights.” The question that he asked, therefore, was: “If while his kingly position is maintained in England and the English people obtain rights of freedom, what difficulty is there in obtaining the rights of British citizenship, the same king continuing to be Emperor in India?”
What they wanted with the help of Swaraj, he said, were simple things. “Our trade should expand, the population should increase, there should be plenty and that plenty should fall into our hands....”
A very important part of the first lecture, was his definition of the term ‘aliens’ which he applied to the British. By “alien,’ he said, he did not mean people alien in religion. “He who does what is beneficial to the people of this country, be he a Muhammadan or an Englishman, is not alien. Alienness is not connected with religion, trade or profession; it is a question of interests.... If a man is exerting himself for the good of India, and takes measures in that direction, I do not consider him an alien, but the government does not do this and therefore it is alien.”
He was always ready to give credit to the government for whatever good that they had done such as the construction of roads, building up of railways, establishment of telegraphs and post offices.... “These things have been done, done well and have been done better by the British Government than they would have been done by the former governments — this is an honour to them. But should we not tell it to do those things which it does not do?”
He referred next to the splendid war service rendered by the Indian people, which had made it imperative that we should get the same rights that the people in other places in the British empire were getting.
Advocating a need of change in the administration, he said, “We must be prepared to maintain the things which we consider to be true and tell them to the people, to the officers and even to the Emperor. On the day you will be ready to do this, particularly after the war is over, the administration will have to be changed. The English Government, today, is the most powerful; but to keep it so, change must necessarily be made in the present administration. If you wish to remain slaves, do so. ... What is the use of giving advice to one who likes slavery? But this is not what all men want. That is not what the traders or the Mussalmans or the Hindus want. They want one medicine and that is power. When it comes to us, if there are any quarrels we would be able to settle them.”
In the second lecture, Tilak made a reference to Rabindranath Tagore’s poem on the caged and the free birds and said that India was reduced to a position of utter dependence. “People ask: If Swarajya be got how are we to manage it? But ability can only come with the opportunity to exercise it.” Defining the idea of Swaraj he said, “Give us those rights which native states have.... With the difference that we do not want a hereditary chief. We shall have to elect our own president.” The change that he wanted, he clarified, had nothing to do with the British Government: “The only difference lay in the disappearance of the authority of the bureaucracy — the foreign bureaucracy; the management of the army and navy should be kept in the hands of the English so that the English rule may not be in danger. The higher questions of Imperial politics such as the power of making treaties with other nations or foreign questions can be with the English. What we want is authority to manage internal affairs as in the Native States.”