Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  Satyagraha at Champaran

  It was at this time that Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated the efficacy of passive resistance at Champaran in Bihar. The European owners of the indigo plantations at this place had obtained lands from the land-owners on temporary or permanent leases and were forcing the tenants to plant indigo, even though the latter bitterly complained about the small returns that they got. Their grievances were numerous and were totally neglected by the government and the planters. Gandhi was approached by a few representatives of the tenants to personally look into the grievances of the tenants. He carried on his investigation for such a considerable period that his presence became an eyesore to the government. He was ordered to leave Champaran, which he disobeyed and showed a readiness to court imprisonment. In his remarkable statement before the magistrate, Gandhi stated what was virtually a manifesto of the first Indian Satyagraha: “It is my firm belief that in the complex constitution under which we are living, the only safe and honourable course for a self-respecting man is, in the circumstances such as face me, to do what I decided to do, that is, to submit without protest to the penalty of disobedience.”

  A number of Gandhi’s associates had also joined and local pleaders and tenants showed their readiness to follow Gandhi to prison, thus placing the authorities in a sore fix. The case against Gandhi was ultimately withdrawn by the order of the District Magistrate and Gandhi was appointed as one of the members of the commission appointed to investigate the grievances of the tenants. Thus a new weapon was forged for the achievement of the just and lawful demands of me people.

  In the joint meeting of the All-India Congress Committee and of the Council of the Muslim League on July 28th, 1917, a deputation consisting of Jinnah, Sastri, Sapru and Wazir Hussan was appointed to put the case of Indian constitutional reform before the British Government in England. Tilak too seized the opportunity to appeal to the British people for the liberty of Mrs. Besant and Home Rule for India. Baptista was deputed to prepare the way for the intended deputation, or the Indian Home Rule League. Just as he was embarking, it was learnt that Mr. Montagu had displaced Mr. Chamberlain. Baptista says:13 “Mr. Montagu’s extraordinary denunciation14 of the government of India had created great hopes of a new era. So I asked Tilak what answer I was to make in case I was questioned widiin what time Home Rule was to be fully in operation. ‘Say fifty years.’ ‘Not fifty,’ said I. Yes, fifty. Who is going to give us Home Rule even in fifty years?’ Strange to say, almost the first question put to me by Mr. Montagu was ‘What time-limit?’ ‘A generation,’ said I. ‘A generation? That is a practical proposition,’ said Mr. Montagu.” Mrs. Besant was released and Mr. Montagu embarked for India after the historic declaration in the House of Commons. This Declaration stated:

  “The policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of the highest importance, as a preliminary to considering what these steps should be, that there should be a free and informal exchange of opinion between those in authority at home and in India. His Majesty’s Government have accordingly decided, with His Majesty’s approval, that I should accept the Viceroy’s invitation to proceed to India to discuss these matters with the Viceroy and the Government of India , to consider with the Viceroy the views of local governments, and to receive with him the suggestions of representative biodies and others.

  “I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the cooperation received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will thus be conferred, and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.”

  “Ample opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of the proposals which will be submitted in due course to Parliament.”

  The declaration, though a disappointment, pacified most of the leaders and the talk of passive resistance was dropped. Tilak alone continued his propaganda for Home Rule with unabated zeal, trying to strengthen the hands of the Congress and the Home Rule League and also of the new Secretary of State, Mr. Montagu. Tilak’s fear was that however well-intentioned Montagu might have been he would be helpless before the bureaucracy, who would try to guide and goad him. At Satara, at Broach and in Bombay, Tilak spoke on the Home Rule demand, again and again insisting on intensive and ceaseless propaganda. Mrs. Besant was released on September 17th in keeping with the new policy. Even before her release Tilak had succeeded in persuading the All - India Congress Committee to propose the name of Mrs. Besant for the presidentship at the coming session of the Congress. “If we want to prove how keenly we feel for her,” Tilak said, “let us elect her president of the coming Congress.” Ten years earlier he had proposed the name of Lala Lajpat Rai after he had come back from deportation but the Congress of the time, being dominated by the moderates, dropped the proposal . Now the circumstances had so changed that Mrs. Besant’s name was accepted and Tilak had also succeeded in making them adopt civil disobedience for the release of Mrs. Besant.

  Tilak on Home Rule

  The All-India Congress Committee met therefore at Allahabad in historic circumstances. Expectations were raised to high pitch with the appointment of Mr. Montagu in the India office. Mrs. Besant, now set at liberty, was attending the session along with Tilak. The reception accorded to the two great leaders was unprecedented in the history of Allahabad. Tilak delivered two speeches on Home Rule, the first on 7th October 1917 under the presidentship of Mrs. Besant and the other on 8th October 1917 under that of Malaviya.

  In the first speech, Tilak began by giving the simplest definition of Home Rule. “Home Rule was nothing but to have the management of their home in their own hands.” Continuing he said that all they asked for was not a change in their rulers, but administrators — he distinguished rulers from administrators. The theory inflicted on them was that the rulers of this country were the administrators who had been appointed or selected under the Government of India Act. His view was entirely different. Those were not the rulers in the strict sense of the word. They represented the King, but they were not the King. The Indians also represent the King because they were his subjects just as much as those officers. So in the matter of representing the King, the Indians and those officials stood on an equal basis. What then was there more in the position of these officers which made them say that they were the real rulers? That was that certain powers had been given to them they had not usurped those powers under a statute of Parliament. If another statute of Parliament repealing that statute and giving the Indians those powers was passed, the Indians would be what those officers were at present. That was Home Rule and nothing more. There would be no change in the Emperor, absolutely no change in the relations of India with England or in the relations of India with the Empire as a whole. What was there to complain of in this except that some men would lose their trade? If the power was transferred from one man to another, the man to whom it was transferred would gain and the other would lose and if that other man were angry, it was natural. He did not think that any English politician would be deterred by such things for a moment from doing his duties.

  He went on to say that ten to fifteen years ago to talk of Home Rule was sedition and people were afraid, he himself was afraid of talking about Home Rule. But now it was conceded by both the judiciary and the executive that Home Rule was a proper ambition for a dependency to entertain. Ten years of fighting was t
hus required to remove this prejudice against Home Rule and now they could talk about it as a legitimate aspiration. Though everybody, the Viceroy, the Premier, the British nation and even the bureaucracy, now agreed with them, there was the question of time. They said that it would take centuries to attain it. According to him this was an entirely selfish argument. What was it that prevented them from attaining the goal within a few years after the war when the Empire would be reconstructed?

  If the Indians were not fit to be given Home Rule, it was the bureaucracy that was responsible. Now however the best English statesmen were coming forward to say that the system of administration of India must be revised after the war so that the Empire would gain material strength from the country.

  Now the question was whether the bureaucracy or the people should have a say about the nature of reforms and the time within which they had to be granted. There was a judge and he had given notice that he was coming here and would hear what the Indians would have to say. Therefore they must press their demand more strongly than their opponents. That was their duty at present. They had to convince him that all arguments used against them were due to prejudice. The great work before them at present was to educate the people to realise what Home Rule was. He would impress on them the supreme necessity of doing their best for getting Home Rule. They must wake up. If they made strenuous efforts, then within a year or two they would realise, if not all, at least a part of their wishes. They did not want Home Rule at once, but they wanted a real beginning, and not a shadowy beginning. When Mr. Montagu comes he would speak to their leaders about their demand, and he wanted that they should have the solid support of the country behind them. If that was done, Mr. Montagu would carry their message to the British people and effectively support it with the authority of his office.

  In the second of the speeches Tilak first corrected the misapprehension that after getting Home Rule they wanted to turn out the British. “Indians did want English people, English institutions, English liberty and the Empire.” But what they said was that the internal administration of India should be under Indian control.

  He refers once again to the argument of unfitness of Indians to rule themselves and points out that in Indian history Akbar, Asoka, the Guptas, the Rajputs had shown how to rule. There was therefore no disqualification, intellectual or physical, which disabled the Indians from taking part in the government of any Empire. They had shown their fitness in the past and were prepared to show it today if opportunities were granted to them. Even with the few opportunities that they get, Indians have showed themselves to be able and had always come up to the standard of efficiency required. Under Home Rule, Indians did not want anarchy and chaos but peace and good government. About the argument that certain British interests would suffer in the event of Home Rule, Tilak’s reply was that those British interests had been created, to speak in legal terminology, without Indian consent.... These British interests would be safeguarded so far as justice and law were concerned. About the method of agitating for Home Rule he thought that they should not quarrel over this difference and give an opportunity to their opponents to use these differences against them. Everyone might have his own method provided it was constitutional. Though he wanted each man to keep himself within the bounds of law and constitution, he made a distinction between law and constitution. So long as law-making was not in their hands, laws which were repugnant to justice and morality would be sometimes passed. They could not obey them. Passive resistance was the means to an end but was not the goal in itself. Passive resistance meant that they had to balance the advantages and disadvantages arising from obeying a particular order and not obeying it. If in their balanced judgment they found that the advantages of disobeying it under particular circumstances were greater, the sense of morality would justify them in acting upon that conviction. It was a complicated question and not a question which could be discussed in a large gathering. They must leave it to their leaders for their decision. Passive resistance was a determination to achieve their goal and if they were hindered by artificial and unjust legislation and by any unjust combination of circumstances, it was their duty to fight it out. Passive resistance was perfectly constitutional; it did not preach unruliness or illegality, but fixed determination to reach the goal at any sacrifice.

  Gujarat Political Conference

  The following week Tilak attended the Gujarat Political Conference at Godhra under Gandhi’s presidentship. Tilak’s speech, delivered in Marathi and translated by Khaparde into excellent Gujarati was on the never-stale topic of Home Rule. “The great claim of the bureaucracy is that it has made India prosperous. I would fain concede it, but the facts are against it. During their hundred years’ work in India, I want to know what the bureaucracy has done to train the people industrially and otherwise and make them self-reliant.” Referring to the reverses of the allies, Tilak said, “What was wanted was that India’s heart should be touched; until that was done, it was not possible to expect great help from India. The people wanted self-government not only for their benefit but for the sake of the Empire. In any struggle or crisis, a contented self-governing India was the greatest and the surest asset of the Empire. A strong wave of democracy is passing all the world over and even the British Government have hailed the Russian Revolution as the first great triumph of the present war. Lord Sydenham’s contention that we in India take advantage of Britain’s troubles to agitate for self-government is false. We had already been agitating for self-government for over thirty years. All over, the world self-government is on the anvil and India alone cannot be expected to sit still.” 15

  Montagu Interview

  On the 26th November Tilak, heading a Home Rule League deputation, called on Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State, and on the next day a special interview was granted to Tilak alone. Writing about the elaborate and (for the first time, probably) careful way in which Tilak prepared to go for the interview, Anant Hari Gadre narrates the following amusing incident:16 “Tilak dressed himself in clothes which were perfectly well-ironed. After he had dressed himself he took out of his bag a brand new pair of Mahratta shoes and put them on. I was surprised, for this was the first time I had seen him so careful, about his dress. I said, ‘I hear that Mahatma Gandhi is going to the Montagu Durbar in his usual dress of loin cloth and blanket; while you have put on a brand new dress specially for the occasion.’ Tilak replied, ‘After all we are Mahrattas. We must respect the Durbar. Don’t forget that I am going to see today an emissary of the Emperor. Besides, though I am dressed in a court dress I shall speak nothing but strong language!’ ”

  When asked by Montagu what he would do if he did not think the reforms satisfactory, Tilak’s reply was that he would accept whatever that would be given and strive for more. Narrating the interview Tilak said afterwards, “The Viceroy sat on his throne silent and hardly so much as glanced at anyone coming for interview. Mr. Montagu, however, talked respectfully. As I am a little hard of hearing, I tried to move my chak a little nearer but that heavy chak from the Delhi government-house could not be moved easily. Mr. Montagu thereupon instantly got up and moved my chak closer. The Viceroy, however, looked on unconcerned.” Montagu wrote in his diary about Tilak, “He is at the moment probably the most powerful in India, and he has in his power, if he chooses, to help materially in war effort.”

  Tilak on his return journey was made to halt at Agra, by enthusiastic admkers, who took his luggage out of the railway compartment almost forcibly. He told the people that nothing much could be expected to come out of the interview and that the people had to depend on themselves and their own efforts.

  On the eve of the Calcutta Congress Tilak had collected thousands of signatures from people all over Maharashtra in favour of the Congress-League scheme. A similar campaign was organised by Gandhi in Gujarat, and Tilak heartily agreed with Gandhi when the latter insisted that signatures were only to be taken after careful explanation of the sco
pe and meaning of the scheme. These were presented in the form of a petition to Montagu;

  Brahmins and Non - Brahmins

  Even though there was an atmosphere of unity, certain internal conflicts of the Hindu society were now coming to the fore. A society is composed of divergent groups with varied interests, which often conflict among themselves. True freedom can only come when these group conflicts are resolved in harmony and push forward the overall and general ideal, which is the common goal of the society as a whole. This cannot, however, happen unless the smaller groups comprising the community are assured that their individual interests, their rights and their special privileges are properly respected by the other and more privileged communities. The Congress-League pact had succeeded in bringing together the Hindus and the Muslims on the common platform of political rights; but now the non-Brahmin classes were clamouring for their rights. They constituted a separate group and when the Home Rule memorandum was sent to Mr. Montagu they declared themselves aloof and distinct from the demands of the more advanced classes. At the Belgaum District Conference in 1917 the dissensions between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins had taken an acrimonious turn and Tilak, when questioned about it, said, “It is natural that the non-Brahmins should be angry with us. How could the enemies of the Congress sit still and quietly look on the unity forged at Lucknow between the Muslims and the Hindus? We have achieved this by granting special representation to the Muslims. Now the enemies of the Congress have raised up another bogey of disruption. But in one sense I am also happy that the simple-minded non-Brahmins have started demanding certain things for themselves, although out of spite for us at present. This shows a growth of self-confidence. Today the government might concede to their demands to sow seeds of disruption among us; but gradually as the demands go on increasing, government will have to disappoint them and this disappointment will make them join us. If we can prove to the non-Brahmins by example that we are -wholly on their side in their demands from the government, I am sure that in times to come their agitation, now based on social inequality, will merge into our struggle. Unless this happens, their movement will peter out in a short time.”