by A K Bhagwat
He went on to say that “the question whether Swaraj was legal was settled by the Calcutta High Court, and as for the second question as to the way we should carry on our propaganda, so as not to cast any slur on the bureaucracy, that point has now been decided judicially that you make any criticism in order to further your objects and justify your demands, and that it comes within the bounds of law. So the goal of Swaraj and the way of preaching have both been declared legal, and here you have a specific of Swaraj passed by the united committees of Hindus and Mohammedans.” It was, he said, a serious responsibility and he advised the people to work for it incessantly. He concluded by saying that the scheme would be carried out within the next two years to come.
Swami Shraddhanand refers to the profound effect that Tilak’s speech had on the audience.7 “Simple sentences came out of his mouth slowly in his natural tones and the audience drank every word that was uttered. He said in substance, “The British tell us: we, descendants of the Aryas, are not the original owners of the soil. We Aryas took the country from the Aborigines, the Muslims conquered it from the Aryas and the English conquered it from the Muslims. Hence the English are the guardians of the Aborigines. Well, I agree to this and ask the English to go away, delivering the possessions to Bhils, Gonds and Adi-Dravids.’ There was laughter and cheers but when after explaining further he said in his natural simple voice, ‘Home Rule is my birth-right and I shall have it,’ the whole pandal responded with one combined resonant voice and the whole house was brought down.”
Explaining his stand on the Lucknow Pact afterwards he said that he did not understand what all the fuss was about granting a few rights to the Muslim brethren. “After all,” he pointed out, “what harm is there if a few more seats are given to them? After Swaraj we can change this proportion if we want to. The history of representative institutions in other countries shows that the proportion of seats in the different constituencies is not constant. We must remember that we have to fight a foreign government.”
Commenting on the Lucknow Congress the Kesari wrote that Friday, 29th December 1916, was a day, fit to be written in letters of gold in the history of British India. “The government used to pity the Swarajists for their disunity and discord but now it is the government that deserves to be pitied, for the old policy of divide and rule can no longer be continued now.”
Tilak was responsible in the Lucknow Congress for getting Gandhi elected to the Subjects Committee. Tilak had made a proposal to the moderates in regard to the personnel of the elected members of the Subjects Committee; but the proposal was not accepted.8 “Tilak decided to get the delegates of Bombay who were all nationalists to elect only those of their party. The names were put to the House in pairs, one a nationalist and the other a moderate. In every case it was the former that was elected. Likewise when a nationalist name was pitted against Gandhi’s, the latter was voted down but Tilak declared that Gandhi was elected.”
Tilak also tried, but in vain, to make the Congress adopt an amendment to the self-government resolution to the effect that a definite time-limit be imposed for the demand of reforms, that a specific instalment be granted before a particular date. He, however, succeeded in making the Congress adopt a proposal to carry on the intensive propaganda for the resolutions passed. Tilak also allowed another proposal of his to be shelved. By this he sought to reduce the number of members of the Congress executive to make it a small and compact body, more fitted for executive action.
Home Rule League Conference
After the Lucknow Congress session was over a joint conference of the Home Rule League was held in the same pandal and was attended by more than one thousand delegates from both the Leagues. Tilak, once again, strongly supported the Congress-League pact and said that it was like promising the lawyer a huge fee in a complicated law suit in view of the success that was to come. After the session, Khaparde said about a most eloquent speech that Mrs. Besant made, “Mrs. Besant literally showered us with her eloquence.” Tilak, as if aware of his shortcomings, said, “Yes, she has that gift and she is like a thunder-shower in summer that dazzles and deafens all. We in Maharashtra are matter-of-fact, but we do our work noiselessly but surely and unmistakably like rain in the rainy season; we lack that training in external show.”
Though by no means an orator, the Lokmanya’s speech was not without its own special charm. A tribute to it paid by Swami Shraddhanand has already been referred to. P. K. Telang refers to his “power of incisive speech.”9 “He was not an orator by any means, but his speeches were always very impressive and inspiring. He knew how to touch the right note. Two of his speeches stand out in my memory. One was the great speech he delivered in Lucknow at a meeting of the Home Rule League. This was in English and the short, pithy sentences impressed an English friend of mine so much that I remember his expressing the greatest admiration for Mr. Tilak as a speaker.”
On his return from Lucknow, Tilak made a halt at Kanpur and was given a royal welcome. In his 60 minutes’ speech, delivered in English, he referred to the obliteration of the individual excellences of the Indian people under the British rule. The demand for Swaraj, he said, was a demand for the establishment of the four class system according to qualities and actions.
From Kanpur, Tilak, accompanied by Khaparde and Vasukaka Joshi, went to Calcutta to see his old friend Motilal Ghose, editor of the Amrit Bazar Patrika. He returned after visiting Nagpur, Akola, Yeotmal, Murtizapur, delivering lectures, holding discussions and spreading the cause of Home Rule to all corners of the country. On returning to Poona, stock was taken of the work of the Home Rule League in a meeting on 28th January. It showed that more than 3,000 members had been enlisted and a total subscription of more than Rs. 6,000 was collected. It was decided in this meeting to collect funds to send a deputation to England.
War Propaganda
The government repression also continued. The Press Act was being enforced with greater rigour, and Mrs. Besant was served with a gag order along with Wadia, her associate. While the Viceroy was asked by the Home Government to make special efforts to recruit as many Indians as possible for war service, the government efforts showed lack of confidence in the popular leaders. The notorious Defence of India Act was passed while Tilak and others were carrying on vigorous propaganda in favour of war work and support to the government. In February 1917, in a joint meeting of the citizens of Poona under the presidentship of Principal Paranjpye, Tilak moved the main resolution and said in his speech, “We have been pressing this demand right from the beginning of the war that the doors of the armed forces should be opened wider for the Indians. The government, however, is ready to accept the help of Japan but refuses to train Indians and accept their help in war efforts.... If these rights are conferred now, it is likely that they would be permanent.” He concluded by saying, “If age and grey hair are no disqualification, I am prepared to stand in the fighting line.” Government, however, responded by serving him with an order from the Punjab Government prohibiting him from entering the Punjab and later a similar order was passed by the Commissioner of Delhi.
On the 27th February 1917, Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari saying “This is the time, enter the army now.” He quoted a verse from the Bhagawad-Gita which said, “Happy are the Kshatriyas, O Arjuna, for whom such a war comes of its own accord as an open door to heaven.”10 He refers in the beginning to the fact that revolutionary changes were going on in the European countries on account of the war. Even England, he said, was having a new type of war cabinet and expressed the firm confidence that England and France would emerge victorious in the end.
Coming to India, he said, that though India was not a free country, it could not but be affected” by this gigantic awakening. Speaking about India’s duty in this changed situation, he said that it was no time to raise objections regarding the discrimination made between Indians and Europeans about commissioned posts in the armed forces. There
was an assurance by the Viceroy that deserving Indians would be considered for commissions, and even if the promise was not carried out in actual practice, educated Indians should not make a grievance of it. The reason why government did not make these opportunities available was that they did not trust the Indians; but now that this situation has altered, Indians should remember that confidence begets confidence. They must, therefore, join the army. It was clearly stated further that this defence force would be utilised for internal defence alone. “If we are not ready to do it why talk glibly about Swaraj? One who wants Swaraj must be prepared to defend his country. Besides, the tide of time which has made the British favourable to Indians may also, if they persevere in their attempts, find that it would make the British concede rights of Swaraj. The young generation should, therefore, come forward to help the government, without minding, even if they have to waste two years of their lives. In it consists loyalty, patriotism, loyalty to the Empire and also diplomacy.”
Tilak wrote an article in the Kesari on the Press Act on 13th March 1917 and pointed out that it was the desire to rule despotically that was at the root of the Press Act. Like the Defence of India Act it was also used by the government to suppress the natural urges of the people. If the newspapers in India wrote strongly, that was because they felt strongly against the government policy of not granting them their rights in time. “We want the Empire, by all means, but we also want Swaraj and it is the duty of England to grant it to us. If they discharge this duty, there would be no discontent at all. When, however, without discharging it the government keeps the hanging sword of sedition over the heads of newspapers and speakers, the discontent goes on increasing. The Press Act is detrimental to freedom; it is short-sighted; it exists for placing despotic power in the hands of the rulers ... to defend an evil does not make it good....”
In April 1917, Tilak once more visited Calcutta to attend a meeting of the All-India Congress Committee and on his return he carried out a triumphal tour of the Karnatak. Within three weeks of his sojourn the membership of the Home Rule League increased from 400 to 3,100. In May he attended the Nasik District Conference, under the presidentship of Srinivas Sastri, and delivered a lecture on the ‘Master-key to Swaraj.’ In this he emphatically refuted the charge that he was getting old: What I am going to say is for every young. The body gets old but the soul does not. Freedom is the soul and it can never get old.” He went on to refer to Mill’s dictum ‘No nation has a moral right to keep another in slavery’, and declared that in this political ethics are included all philosophies. “It was a blot on British diplomacy to keep the Indians away from freedom.... Those who used to call us slaves are now hailing us as brothers; before their words die out, we must push forth our demand with determination and vigour.”
Mrs. Besant’s Arrest
The government policy of repression continued. Internment orders were passed on Mrs. Besant and two of her colleagues, and this act raised a storm of protest in which persons belonging to all sections of opinion joined. Tilak11 termed it “as an attack on Mrs. Besant and Swaraj.” This act of Lord Pentland, Governor of Madras, as Baptista appropriately says, “unwittingly gave an enormous impetus to the cause of the Home Rule and Tilak seized the opportunity to appeal to the British people for the liberation of Mrs. Besant and Home Rule for India.” Tilak pointed out that this act of repression was a direct result of the unanimous passing of the resolution on self-determination by the Congress and the Muslim League and their determination to send a deputation to England. It was the despotism of 1908 that was once again raising its ugly head with the only difference that whereas in 1908 it was Bengal and Bombay that were given this honour, now it was Madras! It was obvious, Tilak continued, that the provincial government had done this with the approval of the Centre, and from this point of view the first encounter between the Home Rule movement and the government was to ban students from attending public meetings. “The government is fully aware that the wave of patriotism strikes the students most, and if at all a nation is to prosper, it is through an energetic new generation. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the education of this new generation should be in the hands of a government which is averse to our progress.”
The second attack, said Tilak, was even more terrible. It was the internment order on Mrs. Besant, Arundale and Wadia. The main reason for this was the fact that Mrs. Besant carried on the Home Rule movement with intensity. “But we ask this to the Government, however intense may be the struggle for Swaraj— self-government within the Empire — how is it going to harm the Empire?... India has helped the Empire — with men, money and material and if it is to keep on doing it, she must be kept contented by granting equal rights as in other colonies.” The Madras government, he explained, had missed the main point of the Home Rule demand. By Home Rule, India did not want complete independence.
The government, he further declared, was persisting in its old game of divide and rule by needlessly making a difference between the Home Rule League and the Congress. Both stood for the same thing and wanted to implement the Lucknow resolution which was passed unanimously by the Hindus, the Muslims, the extremists and the moderates. “Today in this Empire, on the one hand they are talking of granting Home Rule to Ireland and setting all Irish rebels free; the President of the United States declares publicly that the war is started for granting the rights of self-determination to all nations; while on the other the bureaucracy in India tries to gag a learned lady and her associates, who work with sincerity and assiduity to further the cause of self-determination in India. These attempts made by the British Government are a blot on the ethics, generosity, sense of equality and fair-mindedness of the British. The fact that the aspirations of Swaraj can no longer be put down by tyranny is made clear by the recent example of Russia. Hence our request to all Congressmen is this: ‘This opportunity of getting Swaraj that India has got will never recur within the next hundred years. If you waste it, you waste it for ever.”
Success of the Home Rule Cause
Mrs, Besant’s arrest had the effect desired by Tilak. Within a week Madan Mohan Malaviya, Surendranath Banerjee, M. A. Jinnah and many others joined the Home Rule League. Tilak hailed this in his second article on Mrs. Besant’s arrest in the Kesari of the 26th June 1917 and said that Lord Pentland had been the greatest friend of the Home Rulers. “During the last eight days,” says Tilak, “Pentland’s action has been condemned by thousands and those who were indifferent to the activity of the Home Rule League were joining it in thousands. The differences between the moderates and the extremists have vanished; in Allahabad a new Home Rule League has been started by prominent persons; Calcutta had decided to agitate for Home Rule throughout Bengal; the Muslim Conference at Lucknow had categorically condemned Lord Pentland and expressed their sympathy for Mrs. Besant; members of the legislative council, barristers, pleaders and many others, who would not normally have joined the League so soon have now come forward to join; thousands had determined to stop not even if there was repression.”
In the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee on July 28th and 29th, Tilak called for joint action, just as there was joint and universal condemnation of the government. He advocated the use of the weapon of passive resistance or civil disobedience if the government refused to release the Home Rule internees. The Ali brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were also behind the bars and all over the country there were demonstrations demanding their release.12 “The proposal for adopting passive resistance was seriously considered by various Provincial Congress committees in the months of August and September 1917, and while Berar considered it advisable and Bombay, Burma and the Punjab advised postponement, in view of Mr. Montagu’s expected visit to India, U.P. considered it inadvisable in the existing situation.” Bihar thought that “a date must be fixed within which the release of the Home Rule Internees as well as of the Ali brothers and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad should be demanded. Bihar would herself intensify
the demand by repeating it from different platforms and, redress failing, the public men of the province shall betake themselves to actively preaching passive resistance to the people and be prepared to suffer all sacrifices and privations that it may involve.” Madras, the adopted home of Mrs. Besant, was naturally much more advanced and the Madras Provincial Congress Committee was of the opinion that “it was advisable to adopt the policy of passive resistance in so far as it involves opposition to all unjust and unconstitutional orders against the carrying on of constitutional agitation.” Sir S. Subramania Aiyar renounced his knighthood as a protest against the internment of Mrs. Besant and her co-workers and drafted a pledge, signed by many. How tense the situation was has aptly been summed up by Mr Montagu in his diary: “I particularly liked the story that Shiva cut his wife into 52 pieces only to discover that he had 52 wives. This is really what happened to the government of India when it interned Mrs. Besant.” The country was now electrified by the new weapon of civil disobedience or passive resistance. Tilak advocated it with all his fire and ardour and said that it was in the nature of a reaction against certain orders of the government and might therefore appear as merely negative to some people. When, however, the government trampled under foot principles of truth and justice, there was no alternative but to adopt a negative attitude. The history of boycott and Swadeshi had already shown this. Formerly it was difficult even to utter the word Swaraj, but now everybody mouthed the word — the same thing might be said about the means used for the achievement of Swaraj. Passive resistance therefore could no longer be shelved by the Congress committees.