by A K Bhagwat
About the question of a preference for any particular European nation Tilak’s stand was unequivocal: “If Indians are prepared to have connection with any particular country, that nation is England.”
In the new arrangement of the provinces the question of language also, according to Tilak, must enter. “Form one separate State each for Marathi, Telugu and Kanarese provinces. The question of vernaculars also comes in with this question of Swarajya. The principle that education should be given through the vernaculars is self-evident and clear. Do the English educate their people through the French language? Do Germans do it through English or the Turks through French?”
To Kaka Kalelkar he said at the time of the Bombay Provincial Conference at Belgaum,10 “Look how the provinces are separating thems Gujarat and now Karnatak are separating from what we call the Bombay Provincial Conference now. From one point of view this is good; for even ordinary people will be taking part in political discussions when they are carried on in the Indian languages.” V. B. Alur, translator of the Gita Rahasya into Kannada, says: “The Lokmanya deserves to be given the first place among those who advocated linguistic provinces in the idea of Swaraj. In the Bombay Provincial Conference of 1915, when, on the death of Gokhale, I stood to support his condolence resolution, he told me: ‘Speak in Kannada to establish the right of Kannada language.’ Joseph Baptista also advocated the need of linguistic provinces. I said afterwards to Tilak, by way of joke, This advice of yours will result in Karnatak being separated from Maharashtra.’ Tilak said with seriousness, ‘You must learn to carry on your struggle independently. How can you be fit for Swaraj unless you learn this ABC?’ ”
As for the educational system under Swaraj, his idea was “Let us have the system prevalent in England for imparting education. India is a big country. Divide it according to languages. Separate the Marathi-speaking part and the Gujarati.” About the Hindus and the Muslims he gave the example of Canada, where there was a mixed population of Frenchmen and Englishmen. If English statesmen could settle the question there, would they not be able to settle how Hindus and Mohammedans should conduct themselves?” “When we ask for Swaraj,” he continued, “we may have at first an Englishman coming from England as the Governor but in the end Presidents elected by the people should be appointed in these states and a separate Council formed for disposing of questions relating to the whole nation. We want the same arrangement as the one existing in Europe and the United States of America. Just as there are different small States and there is a Congress to unite them, so the Government of India should keep in their hands similar powers of the Imperial Council. There are at present seven or eight different provinces; make them twenty if you like and make such arrangements in respect of those provinces as will give facilities to the people, meet with their approval and place power in their hands. This itself is what is meant by the demand of Swarajya.”
The real work of pressing the demand had to be done in England. “We must go to England and convince the people of it. When the subject is discussed in Parliament, the demand will be placed before them in the proper form. That proper manner will be a bill to amend the existing India Act to be brought before Parliament. This should be done not merely for our good but for the good of the Empire....”
61st Birthday
On the 23rd July 1916 the 61st birthday of Tilak was celebrated throughout Maharashtra. The completion of the 60th year is considered to be a significant landmark in a person’s life according to the Hindu scriptures. Tilak’s followers and associates wanted to pay a fitting homage to the great savant by celebrating the occasion in an appropriate manner. The occasion was a unique one, in that Tilak was the only survivor among the public workers of Maharashtra of his generation. He had survived very recently the terrible ordeal of a prolonged incarceration and on coming out had once again devoted himself to the service of the people. The indefatigable energy that he had shown in the Home Rule League agitation was clear proof that sufferings had not abated his fervour. It could truly be said of him in the words of a modern dramatist:11
“Even in the teeth of the storm, and amid the rustling of many winds rides fortitude, and patience has no need of any moon to light her way.
“Out of the womb of the might shall come endurance, and fresh from the pools of hell arises faith.
“Much shall be lost amid the roar of battle, but the precious thing endureth to the gates.”
Tilak’s followers decided to present him a purse in token of their gratitude for his services to the country. The response was tremendous. Within a fortnight more than Rs. 50,000 were raised and the fund swelled to the respectable figure of Rs. 1,00,000. The birthday celebration took place in the Gaikwad Wada and the meeting was very largely attended. Tilak was visibly moved when he rose to reply. He expressed his sense of gratitude for the purse presented to him and said that he looked upon it as a sacred trust and declared his intention to utilise it for some national activity by adding to it something of his own. In conclusion he said, “Do not be satisfied with the paltry service rendered by a person like me. The national work before us is so wide and so essential that all of us should strive for it with much greater determination and enthusiasm. You cannot postpone the work. Our motherland challenges us to go after this and I do not think that her sons will refuse the challenge. But I would urge upon you to sink all your differences and be ‘national gods.’ In this holy realm there is no competition, no rivalry and no scope for petty vanities, fear has no space here.... What we do will be fruitful, if not in our generation, at least in the next.... This is why we should be after this national work without wishing for anything in return....”
The Security Case
The government did not lag behind in paying their homage and came out with an appropriate gift. On the day of his birthday anniversary celebrations, a notice was served on Tilak asking him to show cause why he should not be bound over for good behaviour for a period of one year in a sum of Rs. 20,000 in his own recognisance and in two securities of Rs. 10,000 each. Three of his speeches on Home Rule were picked up, the one delivered at Belgaum (1st May 1916); and two at Ahmednagar (31st May and 1st June 1916). Joseph Baptista writes: “News reached me diat the Government of Bombay contemplated prosecuting Tilak for his speech. I took the liberty of representing to Lord Willingdon personally the unwisdom of the step. He was evidently reluctant to prosecute and consented to reconsider the matter in the Council, while I was to ascertain the attitude of Mr, Tilak towards possible peace with honour. Lord Willingdon’s government meanwhile resolved to take legal action, but it was a great relief to me that it was under the Criminal Procedure Code and not the Penal Code. Tilak was manifestly pleased. The Lord is with us,’ said he, ‘Home rule will now spread like wildfire.’
The case opened in the Court of Mr. G. W. Hatch, I.C.S., District Magistrate of Poona, on Saturday, 22nd July 1916. In the affidavit made by Mr. Gyder, the Superintendent of Police, it was stated “Tilak is a man of means, he owns the Kesari Press and the Gaikwad Wada. He is a man of considerable influence and has wealthy friends. At the present moment his friends are collecting Rs. 50,000 to be presented to him on his birthday. He should be ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000 with two securities each in a sum of Rs. 10,000.” Mr. B. D. Binning, Bar-at-Law, and Mr. N. M. Patwardhan, Bar-at-Law, instructed by Khan Bahadur S. C. Davar appeared for the Crown. Tilak was defended by the Hon’ble Mr. M. A. Jinnah, Bar-at-Law, assisted by D. S. Erulkar, R. P. Karandikar, S. R. Bakhale, M. L. Patil, S. K. Damle, N. C. Kelkar and S. G. Lele.
Mr. Binning in opening the case for the Crown referred to his imperfect knowledge of Marathi. About the speeches it seemed to him that they did not advocate any definite scheme for Swaraj or Home Rule. They contained some amusing and some dull stories, excellent from the literary point of view but there was no definition of Home Rule or Swaraj in them. Many of the observations, he contended, such as ‘Does the Empero
r lose anything whether the administration is carried on by a civil servant or not’ always caused annoyance to Europeans. Many other stray remarks such as the comparison between the East India Company and the present rule of India were quoted and Mr. Binning pointed out that “These speeches were pregnant with remarks which must cause disaffection against the government.” He pointedly referred to such remarks as “There was only one medicine and it was power — take it.” This, the counsel said, was a touch of the old Mr. Tilak! The counsel went on: “Did Mr. Tilak really say that there was more peace in the times of the Peshwas than under the British Government? That was not correct.” Mr. Jinnah intervening asked, “How do you know?” To which Mr. Binning’s reply was, “I have read both English and Indian histories.” To this, Jinnah’s retort was, “Elphinstone said that, and it was in his history.” The counsel, continuing, said that even if the charges against the government were true, mentioning them was calculated to bring the government into hatred and contempt. Mr. Jinnah agreed with obvious irony that “truth in such a case would be no justification!”
Mr. Jinnah in his speech for the defence observed that the shorthand reports had not merely made mistakes but murdered the speeches. The object of the lectures, he stated, was to carry on propaganda for the Home Rule League and Tilak wanted to demolish arguments against the Home Rule League. Mr. Binning had said that the advocacy of the Home Rule League was a mere cloak and Mr. Tilak wanted to libel the government established by law to his heart’s content. Mr. Jinnah pointed out that the speeches admitted no other interpretation than a frank advocacy of Home Rule.
The magistrate in his judgment placed reliance on Mr. Strachey’s definition of disaffection, that disaffection was want of affection and observed, “Looking at these speeches, as a whole, fairly, freely and without giving undue weight to isolated passages, the only impression produced on my mind is that Mr . Tilak wanted to dis affect his audience to wards the government, and knowing diat he could not interest his audience in his arguments unless he illustrated them forcibly, told them that they were slaves, that their grievances remained unredressed and that the government only considers its interests, which are alien to those of the Indians, and intends to keep the people in slavery under the excuse that Indians are not fit to rule themselves.” The magistrate, therefore, under Section 108 of C.P. Code ordered Tilak to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000 with two securities each in a sum of Rs. 10,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year.
The appeal was heard in the High Court on the 9th November 1916 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bachelor and Justice Sir Lallubhai Shah. Mr. Jinnah pointed out that the speeches were nothing but a criticism of a certain system of administration and not of the whole administration. The story of the rogues who duped a Brahmin carrying a goat, referred not to the British but to persons who were opposed to Home Rule. Such remarks as “You are not slaves” or “I am not your slave” are not to be taken literally but are exclamations of impatience. Mr. Jinnah admitted that undoubtedly there was a condemnation of the whole system which prevailed in the administration of the country. The question to be decided was whether it might bring about a feeling of enmity or a feeling of dislike towards the government.
Mr. Justice Bachelor in his judgment pointed out in the beginning that it. was plain that the magistrate was influenced by Mr. Strachey’s interpretation of disaffection, namely that it is the equivalent merely of ‘absence of affection.’ “This construction of the word disaffection,” the Judge pointed out, “is opposed to all ordinary English usage in words compounded with the particle ‘dis’ and this was recognized by the Full Bench also.” Continuing, the Judge observed that the speeches had to be read as a whole and “a fair construction must be put upon them, straining nothing, either for the Crown or for the applicant, and paying more attention to the whole general effect than to any isolated words or passages.” By Swarajya, the judge said, Mr. Tilak meant a share of political authority and to subject the administration of the country to the control of the people or the people of India; and such an object, in his opinion, is not per se an infringement of the law.”
About the actual language used, the judge held, “A candid reading of the whole speeches does not convince me that the repudiation of disloyalty is feigned or artificial. Probably the fairest way to ascertain the effect is to read the three speeches from beginning to end, quietly and attentively, remembering the arguments and remembering the politically ignorant audience whom Mr. Tilak was addressing. I have so read these speeches, not once, but several times, and the impression left on the mind is that, on the whole, despite certain passages which are rightly objected to by the prosecution, the general effect would not probably and naturally be to cause disaffection, that is hostility or enmity or contempt....” Mr. Justice Shah wrote a different but concurring judgment.
The judgment was hailed with great jubilation all over the country. The wrong done by a British judge eighteen years ago in misinterpreting the word “disaffection” was righted by another British Judge. The Times of India took back what it had written in criticism of Tilak after the District Magistrate’s decision. Tilak’s speeches were appropriately styled as a lucid, incisive and masterly presentation of the case for Swaraj and the decision to institute the case was described as bad statesmanship. Gandhi’s Young India paid the following glowing tribute, which was echoed by all: “Thus a great victory has been won for the cause of free speech; a great victory for the cause of Home Rule which has thus been free from the chains that were sought to be put upon it. Firstly, we must render our tribute to the man, who by his fearless and consistent devotion to the cause of Home Rule for India won this great victory for us and who has at last by the judgment of the High Court than which there is none higher in the land, cleared himself of the slur of disloyalty that it has been sought to cast upon him. Mr. Tilak has undergone many sufferings in his country’s cause. Those who have known him have known how unjust was the view taken of him by many. He has now been vindicated and is free to continue to work for his country with the whole-hearted zeal that we feel sure he will not allow to be diminished, but will rather increase. He has not been and is not to be silenced. But he has won this victory not for himself alone but for his countrymen at large. It rests with them to carry on the good work and reap the fruits that will ripen from the seeds he had sown.”
1 Tilk’s son Shridhar writes in the Reminiscences : “As there was considerable delay on the part of the government in returning the pencilled manuscript of the Gita-Rahasya, everyone became apprehensive. Some of us expressed our doubts about the possibility of getting the note-books back. Dada, however, was unperturbed and said ‘Don’t worry. Even if the note-books are in governent custody, I have the book in my head and I can rewrite it in full within a couple of months at Sinhgad.”
2 Valentine Chirol, a British journalist, published in 1910 a book called The Indian Unrest, which severely criticised Tilak and called him the ‘Father of Indian Unrest.’
3 “The first signs of revival were shown by the Muslim community. The younger generation of educated Muslims began to realise that their interests were essentially not different from those of their other countrymen. Moreover, the nationalist movements in Islamic countries, especially in Turkey and Persia, influenced their minds and infused in them a more national spirit. At the same time there were other causes at work, such as the unfriendly policy pursued by Great Britain towards Turkey during the Tripoli and the Balkan wars on the one hand, and the attitude of sympathy shown by the Indian nationalist forces towards the Muslims in their grief over the treatment meted out to Turkey by European nations on the other, which had the effect of weaning away the Indian Muslims from the side of the British bureaucracy and by bringing them nearer their own countrymen of the other communities.” Land Marks in Indian Constitutional and National Development by Gurmukh Nihal Singh, p. 279.
4
5 S. K. Altekar : Bapat, Vo
l. III, P. 256
6 Tilak uses the Marathi idiom which when literally translated would read as: “Whether it is Gokhale or Tilak - their fuel (cowdung cakes, used for cremation) is already on the cremation ground.”
7 Speeches of Baí Gangadhar Tilak (R. Thiromalal & Co., Madras 1918), p. 135
8 Its general aim will be to educate the people and to give to the demand of the Congress for self-government... the strength of a nation which has realised itself, and which, through its national organisation, has voiced its claim for years only to see it rejected.” - Mrs. Besant, quoted at p. 530 : Life of Dadabhai Naoroji by R. P. Masani
9
10
11 F. Skden Smith : St. Simeon Stylites
THE GOSPEL OF SWARAJ
14
While Tilak was busy with his political activity, he utilised whatever leisure he could snatch in correcting his magnum opus, the Gita Rahasya. It was a rough copy, written in pencil that he had brought with him from Mandalay and after his release, as also during 1915, he made out a press copy and the book was issued to the world in June 1915. In the reminiscences written by a close friend of Tilak, ‘a typical day in the Lokmanya’s life’ is described: “It was in 1915, when we two went to the Gaikwad Wada at about 7-30 in the morning Lokmanya was found talking with an old friend on the dramas of Bhasa. They talked about the dates of Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti and other Sanskrit dramatists. While they talked, a man came with proofs of the Poona Provincial Conference, which Tilak corrected. His corrections showed his diplomacy, for he omitted the names of two Rao Bahadurs from the report. This, he explained, would obviate the possibility of material proof to the government that they had attended the conference. No sooner had he finished giving these instructions to the workmen than a gentleman came with some papers. It appeared that this gentleman’s brother was arrested by the government and he was, therefore, making a petition to the government praying for his release. Tilak glanced once at it and said, ‘The government will not yield to your petition merely by the beauty of your style; there are certain legal points that you seem to have omitted.’ He thereupon suggested to the other a few legal points. The gentleman having taken his leave, Tilak once again turned to his subject but again he was interrupted by an astronomer. With him Tilak discoursed on Vedic astronomy and said that there were certain verses in the Vedas which had to be interpreted from the viewpoint of astronomical evidence, not taken into account by commentators like Sayanacharya. He showed the gentleman his own notes on the subject. It appeared from this that the Lokmanya contemplated the writing of another book on the subject. Before he had finished with the astronomer a boy came with an extract from a Pali book on Buddhism, brought from a Pali scholar. It appeared that this was necessary for the Gita Rahasya and which, Tilak said, he would use if the second edition of the book would be issued. That is how he spent about three hours of his time. In the meanwhile he looked to a thousand and one things.”