Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  Reform Schemes

  After the favourable decision of the High Court on the Security Case, Tilak predicted that Home Rule would spread like wild-fire and so it did. Tilak accepted the challenge of the government and he and his colleagues went on delivering lecture after lecture on Home Rule. Home Rule, he constantly said, had now received legal sanction from the government. In Madras and Bengal there was vigorous propaganda on behalf of Home Rule and the President of the Home Rule League in Maharashtra issued a Home Rule memorandum. In October 1916,19 elected members of the Indian Legislative Council published a memorandum as to post-war reforms, which was substantially supported by M. A. Jinnah in his presidential address of the Bombay Provincial Conference at Ahmedabad. Jinnah writes,1 After his return from Mandalay, I came in closer contact with him and Mr. Tilak who was known in his earlier days to be communalistic and stood for Maharashtra, developed and showed broader and greater national outlook as he gained experience. I believe it was at the Bombay Provincial Conference, over which I had the honour to preside, that the gulf, which was created owing to the Surat Congress split, was bridged over, and Mr. Tilak and his entire party once more came into the fold of the Indian National Congress in 1915.” Tilak attended this conference and was given a great reception in Gujarat. He supported the main resolution which backed the constitutional reforms suggested by the Congress and the League.

  In November the Congress and the Muslim League also published their own schemes of reform and thus, all around, the atmosphere was rife with proposals for reform.

  Government Repression

  The Home Rule agitation was indirectly helped by government repression. About the same time as Tilak was prosecuted in July 1916, a notice was served on Mrs. Besant, banning her entry into the Bombay Presidency. Tilak pointed out that this order showed the great gulf that existed between the government and the people.2 “Mrs. Besant has no army, arms or ammunition or bombs; she is moreover by birth English and so it is inconceivable that she would ever think of the British going away from India. She therefore strives for strengthening the British Empire. The principle that the administration is strengthened if people are happy has been incorporated in the Queen’s proclamation and it has also been accepted further that if the people are to be happy the administration must be carried on according to their wishes.”

  Explaining the motives of the government in gagging Mrs. Besant, Tilak said that the government seemed to wish to strike at the root of the Home Rule Movement, but, he pointed out, “If other members of the Empire are carrying on negotiations as to their future relationship with the Imperial power, what possible objection could there be for India to carry on these negotiations? How, again, will these come in the way of peace?” Continuing, Tilak sounded a warning that “even though the government order had to be obeyed, it was doubtful if it was wise; even if physically the order is obeyed, the senses would revolt against it and a new peaceful agitation would arise.”

  Mrs. Besant, Tilak pointed out, was not the originator of the idea of Swaraj : “ The originator was Dadabhai Naoroji . Mrs. Besant was striving for the realisation of this idea, only after the war. This effort of hers is therefore legal, constitutional, peaceful and would lead to the country’s progress .... If the government wish that the people of India should not get Swaraj it is better if they declared it once and for all. This, however, would not be in keeping with the former declarations that the British were here, not for their own betterment but for the good of India.” Tilak concluded, “India is loyal, the Indians like other people in the colonies are protecting the Empire by shedding their life-blood. At this time it is unwise that people in India should not have the freedom to think of their future like other people in the colonies and it is therefore undiplomatic that one of their leaders should be banned from entering a province.”

  In the article, written after his release,3 Tilak complimented the High Court for upholding the fair name of justice. It was right, he continued, that there should be division of power between the executive and the judiciary and the judiciary should be there to curb the excesses of the despotic bureaucracy. It was proved by the High Court decision, he said, that criticising the bureaucracy did not amount to sedition, that disaffection was not absence of affection. Tilak’s release, he warned, should not make people so jubilant as to give up all struggle.... “Tilak or Mrs. Besant will not last you till your life-time. You must put in the best you have and use all your powers for bringing this question of Home Rule before the Parliament.... This is not a question of individuals but it is a national question... mere telegrams or distribution of sweets would not be enough.... Everyone must now become a member of the Home Rule League.”

  In these articles as also in other actions and pronouncements Tilak showed how his attitude towards the law differed from that of the moderates. Whereas the moderates would never, either by word or deed, transgress the limits of the law, however unjust it might be, Tilak tried to evade the law in a thousand ways, by interpreting it in his own interest but breaking it only if it became absolutely necessary. This was seen during his visit to Gadag in Karnatak, where he was going to address a meeting.4 The Collector of Gadag wanted to ban the meeting and had given an order to that effect to the police. The police tried to do this by threatening the people; but when this proved futile an order was handed over to Tilak prohibiting him from ‘delivering a harangue.’ Tilak said that the order did not prohibit him from replying to a speech of thanksgiving. When he was asked by his followers to finish his speech before the police came back, his reply was characteristic. “We should not,” he said, “aim at merely making a speech by taking advantage of negligence on the part of the government. We should try to bring to the notice of the people the stage to which government injustice can go.” He agreed to what the police suggested and returned after an hour or so. Turner did not dare prohibit a speech of thanksgiving and the meeting was conducted in a perfectly orderly manner. Afterwards he said, “The moderates always accuse me by saying that I am too fond of going to jail, but we must always try to stretch the limits of the freedom of thought and action to the extreme within the limits of the law. In this instance, if I made a speech there was the danger of incurring the danger of the prohibition order; if I did not, it would mean sacrificing an essential right of the people.”

  Not every civil servant was, however, as intolerant as Mr. Turner. Mr. Montford, the Collector of Poona, invited him for an interview, with the intention of telling him not to use the word ‘Home Rule’ in his speeches. This was before the establishment of the Home Rule League. Tilak told the Collector that not only did he use the word Home Rule but he also intended starting a Home Rule League. Mr. Montford reported to the Governor, “Mr. Tilak is a very bold and reasonable man. He is a gentleman of no hide-and-seek policy. He does what he speaks and he always speaks frankly and openly. From the various reports at my disposal, I can say he seems to be a trusted and popular leader.” When asked why he did not object to the government translations of his speeches in the High Court, Tilak said, “Substantially they were as I had delivered them at Nagar and Belgaum. Another opportunity for their wide propaganda would no longer be available even through the Kesari. That is why I did not object to the translations.” There were others who accused him of having turned a moderate. To this, his reply was, “I was never ‘immoderate’ or unruly. Certain timid people who lack self-confidence might look upon my political demands as unconstitutional and dub me as extremist; but I am a moderate in my goal from the beginning. I do not, therefore, resent being called a moderate.” To others who dubbed him an extremist, who by the unnecessary fury of his speeches incurred the displeasure of the government, his reply was that he had brought the reforms much earlier which in the ordinary course that government would have taken at least fifty years to grant. If he did not bring pressure on the government, their demands would be simply ignored.

  At this time, Tilak was feeling the
need of help of his doughty comrades-in-arm in the cause of freedom. He felt the absence of Lajpat Rai and the void created by Aurobindo’s retirement to Pondicherry. “If I could have one Lalaji and one Aurobindo in each province,” he said, “I would see that the government does not get any war loan and there would be no recruiting; unfortunately there is a dearth of men of this calibre.” “The great Tilak was the first to remember his co-worker when he felt that the Congress was in need of fresh and dynamic leadership. He sent a messenger to Shri Aurobindo conveying this feeling of his, which he requested the founder-leader of the Nationalist Party to fulfil by agreeing to come out of his seclusion for which he had made necessary arrangements.”5 Shri Aurobindo, however, being too far advanced on the path of spiritual salvation, did not respond and Tilak carried on his self-imposed task almost single-handed.

  Lucknow Congress

  The Congress Session was now approaching and there were signs that the rift between the moderates and the nationalists was being bridged. Tilak was elected a delegate to the Lucknow Congress from the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha. From other parts also his followers were elected in vast numbers, and eight years after they had left the Congress, Tilak and his followers left for Lucknow in a special train, appropriately named the Home Rule Special. On the way, at every station, there were enthusiastic scenes of welcome. Tilak was showered with flowers, sweets were distributed at several places and the air was rent with cries of ‘Victory to Tilak Maharaj.’ Throughout the night, in intense cold, people flocked to the stations, wishing to catch a sight of or hear a word spoken by the great leader. Tilak too submitted to all this, little minding the inconvenience to which he was put.

  At Lucknow the reception was tremendous. The tyres of the Lokmanya’s car were cut by an enthusiast and he was taken in a huge procession through the streets of the town in a carriage, pulled by his admirers.

  Babu Jagat Narain, the Chairman of the Reception Committee, accorded a hearty welcome to Tilak and his assocktes from the Nationalist Party. The President, Ambika Charan Muzumdar, said in his Presidential Address:

  “After nearly ten years of painful separation and wanderings through the wilderness of misunderstandings and mazes of unpleasant controversies — both the wings of the Indian Nationalist Party have come to realise that united they stand, but divided they fall, and brothers have at last met brothers....” Referring to Tilak he said, “I most cordially welcome Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mr. Motilal Ghose and other brave comrades, who separated from us at Surat and have been happily restored to us at Lucknow. I rejoice to find that they are after all ‘of us’ and ‘with us,’ and let us hope never to part again.”

  The most important work done by the Lucknow Congress was the Congress-League Pact. “Mr. Tilak,” says Jinnah, “rendered yeoman services to the country and played a very important part in bringing about the Hindu-Muslim unity, which ultimately resulted in the Lucknow Pact of 1916.” The preamble to the pact stated that “in the reconstruction of the Empire, India shall be lifted from the position of a dependency to that of an equal partner in the Empire with the self-governing Dominions.” The pact gave increased weightage with separate electorates to Muslims where they were in a minority. Tilak is described in the Subjects Committee in these words:6 “Lokmanya Tilak in the Subjects Committee of the Congress was an interesting study. When the angry speakers were foaming on all sides he was calm as a rock. I remember the remarkable composure of Tilak in the Lucknow Congress when the moderates and the extremists, the Hindus and the Muslims were unusually agitated, the moderates over the forward step that the advanced politicians’ were taking, the Hindus and Muslims over the communal representation and the pact. Pandit Madan Mohan was very much upset. He would not reconcile himself to the pact and the Hindu enthusiasts who invaded his spare hours, were assured by him that if there was a need and if it was proper, he would hold a huge demonstration against the Congress if it surrendered to the Muslims. The leader of Maharashtra who was the most religious, the most learned in the Vedas and among the most orthodox of the Hindus, would not listen to any arguments against the pact. Not that he was enamoured of it himself but if it would satisfy the Muslims, if it could bring them to the Congress, if it could replace their extra-territorial patriotism by Indian nationalism, the agreement was worth reaching. Lokmanya Tilak’s attitude was the deciding factor in the Hindu-Muslim settlement, the last word on the subject so far as the Hindus were concerned.”

  In his speech supporting the resolution on self-government Tilak made a remark which clearly showed his attitude towards Hindu-Muslim unity:

  “It has been said, Gentlemen, by some that we Hindus have yielded too much to our Mohammedan brethren. I am sure I represent the sense of the community all over India when I say that we would not care if the rights of self-government are granted to the Mohammedan community only. I would not care if they are granted to Rajputs. I would not care if they are granted to the lowest classes of the Hindu population provided the British Government consider them more fit than the educated classes of India for exercising those rights; I would not care if these rights are granted to any section of the Indian community. Then the fight will be between them and other sections of the community and not as at present a triangular fight.”

  Tilak also spoke on another important resolution of the Congress the one on self-government, which said, “That this Congress is of opinion that the time has arrived to introduce further and substantial measures of reform towards the attainment of self-government.” Tilak was given a great welcome and was greeted with loud and prolonged applause. Thanking them all sincerely for the reception, he said, “I am not foolish enough to think that this reception is given to me personally. It is given, if I rightly understand, for those principles for which we have been fighting.” This was the resolution, said Tilak, for which the Congress had been fighting for the last thirty years. “The first note of it was heard ten years ago on the banks of the Hoogly and it was sounded by the ‘Grand Old Man’ of India, that parsee patriot of Bombay, Dadabhai Naoroji. Since that note was sounded differences of opinion arose. Some said that the note was carried on and ought to be followed by a detailed scheme at once, that it should be taken up and made to resound all over India as soon as possible. There was another party amongst us that said that it could not be done so soon, and the tone of that note required to be a little lowered, and that was the cause of the dissension ten years ago, and I am glad to say that I have lived these ten years to see that we are reunited in this Congress, and we are going to put our voices and shoulders together to push on this scheme of self-government, and not only have we lived to see these differences closed but to see the differences of Hindus and Mohammedans closed as well. So we have now united in every way in the United Provinces and we have found luck in Lucknow (Laughter).”

  He referred next to the charge that the Hindus had yielded too much to the Muslims and his answer has already been quoted above. “We have to fight a powerful bureaucracy, an unwilling bureaucracy, naturally unwilling because the bureaucracy now feels that these rights, these privileges, this authority will pass out of their hands.... When you have to fight against a third party, it is a very important thing that we stand on this platform united, united in race, united in religion and united as regards all shades of different political opinion.”

  He refers next to the fact that though their demand was essentially the same, some called it Swaraj, others self-government and constitutional reform and the nationalists styled it Home Rule. The demand for Home Rule, he said, “was a synthesis of all the Congress resolutions passed so far. We cannot now afford to spend our energies on all the resolutions on the public services, the Arms Act and secondly others. All is comprehended and included in this one resolution. I would ask everyone of you to try to carry out this one resolution with all your effort, might and enthusiasm, everything that you can command, your intelligence, money, enthusiasm, all must now be devoted to c
arrying out this scheme of reforms.”

  He went on reminding the audience that mere passing of resolutions or the simple union of two races, Hindus and Mohammedans, and the two parties, moderates and nationalists, could achieve anything. “The union is intended to create a certain power and energy among us and unless power and energy, among us, are created and exercised to the utmost you cannot hope to succeed, so great are the obstacles in your way. You must now prepare to fight out the scheme. In short, I do not care if the sessions of the Congress are held no longer. I believe it has done its work as a deliberative body. The next part is the executive and that will be placed before you afterwards.”