by A K Bhagwat
A section of the non-Brahmins under the leadership of Vithal Ramji Shinde, formerly a missionary of the Brahmo Samaj and noted for his work of establishing the Depressed Class Mission for the uplift of the untouchables, organised a Nationalist Non-Brahmin Association in Poona. A public meeting was convened on the 8th November 1917 and was addressed by members of many backward communities. Tilak was called upon to speak on behalf of the Brahmin community and he readily agreed. In his speech he declared that they wanted Swaraj not of the old type but on the western pattern. It was because of the dissensions among the different castes that the British entrenched themselves here and if these were to continue we would remain equally backward even under Swaraj. Shinde says that he had occasion to test the Lokmanya’s alleged partiality to political reform and his indifference to social reform. When Shinde asked him whether he should give up his work among the depressed classes and devote himself exclusively to politics, Tilak said, “No” and in their free and frank talk afterwards, says Shinde, he was convinced that Tilak was wholly on the side of the Depressed Class Mission in his individual capacity as Mr. Tilak, though not as the editor of the Kesari.
Writing in the Kesari on the 18th September 1917, Tilak tried to analyse the causes of dissensions between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins. He pointed out that it was inconceivable that the leaders of the non-Brahmins, being themselves educated, should subscribe to the present despotic rule. “Love of freedom being the greatest virtue of English education, all educated people, whether Brahmins or non-Brahmins, will not countenance the present stunted growth of the national talent for ever. The non-Brahmins are showing their self-confidence in their struggle against what appears to them to be social injustice. This same feeling must be shown in the political field also. It is natural for the non-Brahmins to wish for higher posts in the government and more rights for themselves. It is not therefore possible that they would strike at the root of the demand for Swaraj.”
Having settled the first question that the non-Brahmins could not be opposed to the demand of Swaraj as such, the next question, says Tilak, is the question of their demand for certain safeguards. “This question, the Brahmins are willing to consider not only sympathetically but generously too....” Tilak himself said at Lucknow that he would not mind if in the councils none but a non-Brahmin is elected, because he wanted a majority of Indians there instead of foreigners. The general policy of the Brahmins towards the non-Brahmins would be the same as that of the Hindus towards the Muslims; there should therefore be no apprehension on that account. The Brahmins have never said that they want all the seats in the councils. The fact that they get more seats than what are due to them according to their population is because of their advance in education. It is a totally false allegation that the Brahmins had put the non-Brahmins and other castes down by purposely denying them the facility of education. It is doubtful if the four-class system was prevalent in its entirety any time in the past. Even if it were and even if the rights of education, sacrifice and acceptance of gifts were reserved for the Brahmins, their extent was very limited. Education necessary for everyday life and the literacy required for it were within the reach of all, including the Shudras. Excepting the learning of the Vedas, what we call education today was easily available to all. Even then the three classes remained aloof from education because they paid more attention to their professions and neglected their education. They profited therefore in point of monetary gains just as the Brahmins profited in point of learning. The Brahmins do not, however, complain that the other classes kept them poor just as the non-Brahmins complain today that the Brahmins kept them ignorant. Today the Brahmins do not stand in the way of the non-Brahmins getting their education but are, on the contrary, prepared to help them. Even then the non-Brahmins do not come forward to take bookish education. The government is sympathetic towards the non-Brahmins, and yet, looking to the convenience of the administration, they have appointed Brahmins to higher posts and also nominated them to the councils. This was because the Brahmins were educated while the non-Brahmins were not.”
Tilak, therefore, argued that the true distinction was not between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins but between the educated and the non-educated. It is the educated of any caste, who would get the higher privileges. About the question of communal representation, Tilak said that, though nationally he was not favourable to it, he was not opposed to anyone who wanted it. The true eligibility for voting and representation should be a minimum educational standard and income level, and not considerations of caste or community.
He appealed therefore to the non-Brahmins not to oppose the demand for Swaraj and suggested that the question of communal representation should be settled by all the communities coming together and deciding these questions with common consent. The Brahmins would gladly observe silence on this point and not oppose the non-Brahmin demands if they convey to the Secretary of State the result of their joint deliberations.
These remarks of Tilak are interesting in a number of ways. Though in them he has shown an attempt at evaluating the new forces in a realistic manner, his analysis is from the standpoint of political expediency and not from that of a sociologist. As a practical politician Tilak could see now that the resurgent and newly awakened backward classes could no longer be ignored and were a force to reckon with. He welcomed the new spirit of self-confidence that had dawned over them, and as a political leader he sought to awaken it also in the political sphere. He rightly emphasised therefore that it was primarily a question of education and was ready to give an assurance that the advanced classes would do their best to help their less fortunate brethren. Old prejudices, however, die hard. It is again impossible to cut oneself entirely from one’s immediate environment and one’s past.
The year 1917 was for Tilak a period crowded with political activity. He now belonged to the generation that was passing away and he accepted the parting, caused by death, with his one- time friends as inevitable. In 1917 death snatched two individuals for whom Tilak had a special attachment. In February, Tilak’s intimate friend Dr. Annasahib Patwardhan died. He was called Maharshi owing to his saintly way of life and he was much respected and loved by the citizens of Poona. Dr. Patwardhan who began life as a revolutionary had to suffer great shocks of disappointment and afterwards turned to spiritualism. The revolutionaries, however, looked up to him as their Guru. He had great affection for Tilak. Tilak who held Maharshi Patwardhan in high esteem used to say: “Annasahib is born out of his times. The historic days of the past were more suitable for him. If Poona had been Paris of old, Annasahib would have become Cardinal Richelieu. If he were born in old Vijaynagar, he would have been Vidyaranya or Madhavacharya.”
On the 30th June, Dadabhai Naoroji, the patriarch of Indian politics, passed away peacefully in Bombay. He was 92 and had retired from active life. And yet the presence of this grand old man was reassuring to all the political leaders; for was he not the first to explain to them the nature of British rule and to inspire in them the desire to dedicate themselves to the cause of their country? Tilak who had time and again upheld the draintheory, had great reverence for Dadabhai, whom he described as the guiding spirit of Indian affairs. Dadabhai’s death was mourned by all, but above all by those who followed in his footsteps and strived to complete his work.
Calcutta Congress
It was now time for the annual session of the Congress, which was to be held at Calcutta. Unusual interest had centred in this session as Mrs. Besant, who had been throughout the year the stormy petrel of Indian politics, was elected the President. This was not, however, without a keen struggle in the Reception Committee in which there was a sharp split between the old guard represented by elders like Surendranath Banerjee, Ambikacharan Mazumdar, Bhupendranath Basu, Baikunthnath Sen and the younger crusaders like B. K. Lahiri, I. B. Sen and Jitendralal Banerjee. Though the younger section carried the day and succeeded in getting Mrs. Besant elected, there were signs th
at the unity forged at Lucknow would not last long and there would once more be a parting of ways.
Mrs. Besant’s presidential address was an epitome of the Home Rule League agitation carried on during the past year and a half. It contained one of the most forceful advocacies of self-government. In effect she demanded, “A bill during 1918 establishing self-government in India on lines resembling those of the Commonwealth on a date to be laid down therein, preferably 1923, the latest 1928, the intermediate five or ten years being occupied with the transference of the government from British to Indian hands maintaining the British tie as in the Dominions.” She also gave an elaborate scheme regarding village government. Mrs. Besant was again the first of the Congress presidents to insist that the Congress president continued to hold office, not merely during the sessions but throughout the year. This was a clear sign that the Congress was being looked upon now, not as a mere deliberative body, but as an agency for executive work.
The main resolution of the Congress was the one dealing with the question of self-government. It was moved by the national orator Surendranath Banerjee and ran as follows:
“This Congress expresses its grateful satisfaction over the pronouncement made by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India on behalf of the Imperial Government that its object is the establishment of responsible Government in India.
“This Congress strongly urges the necessity for the immediate enactment of a Parliamentary Statute providing for the establishment of responsible Government in India, the full measure to be attained within a time-limit to be fixed in the statute itself at an early date.
“This Congress is emphatically of opinion that the Congress-League Scheme of reforms ought to be immediately introduced by the Statute as the first step in the progress.”
Tilak made a speech in support of the resolution which clearly showed his unique mastery of distilling a controversial issue to extract its quintessence and suggesting a simple, unambiguous, direct and clear-cut line of action. He divided the Montagu declaration into three parts: (i) The object of the Imperial Government is the establishment of responsible government in India; (ii) this responsible government would be given by stages; and (iii) the nature of these stages and the period within which they were to be granted would be determined by the government. Tilak said that they agreed to the first two conditions but not to the third. “We want the stages to be determined by us and not at the sweet will of the Executive. Nor do we want any compromise about it but insist on definite stages and the time to be fixed in the Act itself; so that the whole scheme may work automatically.”
Other leaders like Mr. Bipin Chandra Pal, Tilak observed, did not want Home Rule to be granted by stages but wanted to go the whole hog at once. “I say it should be granted to you by stages, demand the first step now so that the introduction of the second step would be much more easy than it is at present.” He also made, ‘’A very simple definition of Home Rule which any of you, including a peasant, can understand is that I should be in my own country what an Englishman feels to be in England and in the colonies. The simplest definition is that, and that is the whole of it. All those bombastic phrases such as ‘partnership in the Empire,’ ‘terms of equality’, etc., mean that I want to be in my country not as outlander but as a master, in the same sense that an Englishman is a master in his own country and in the colonies. That is to complete Home Rule, and if anyone is going to grant it tomorrow, I shall be very glad for its introduction, for it will be Indian Home Rule granted all at once, but I see that it cannot be done. Some compromise has to be made with those who are not in our favour and with some of our friends. The British power in India was introduced by a compromise, by a charter. In fact, the first step in a province which you have not conquered is always with consent and compromise, and what the first step should be is explained in this resolution.” He further referred to the use of the words ‘responsible government’ in the Montagu Declaration unfortunately without defining it. But he explained, “We understand by the words ‘responsible government,’ a government where the Executive is entirely responsible to the Legislature, call it Parliament or by any other name, and that Legislature should be wholly elected. That is responsible government, full responsible government that we want. When I say that the Executive should be under the control of the Legislature, I go so far as to say that even Governors and Lieutenant-Governors must be elected bv legislative bodies. That, however, will be the final step. But in the present circumstances I shall be quite content, and so I think most of you will be content, if the first step that we demand is granted to you immediately, and Self-Government at an early date.”
Explaining what time-limit was meant to be put by the words ‘early stages,’ he said that by early date he means ten or fifteen years.
“In the third part of the resolution,” Tilak declared, “we stick to what was passed last year at Lucknow both by the Congress and the Muslim League.... I hold that the Congress-League scheme is the minimum which might be granted to us and satisfy pur aspirations at present and to make a decent beginning in the introduction of Home Rule in India.”
Tilak next answered objections against the Congress-League scheme and pointed out the fallacies of granting self-government by stages. He expressed confidence in India’s ability to govern herself and emphatically demanded a share in the government at the centre. Lastly he said that the Congress and the League did not think of a change in the machinery of government. Their concern was with power and not with the machinery of government. All that they wanted was that the power of the Executive should be transferred to the Legislature.
Tilak moved a resolution condemning the government on the internment of the Ali brothers. Their aged mother was present at the session and was given a place of honour on the dais. Tilak was at his courteous best in his reference to the venerable old lady and showed that along with sharp, penetrative and incisive shafts he could also use the flowery speech of sentiment. Dr. M. A. Ansari-writes,17 “I met Tilak again in 1917, during the session of the Calcutta Congress when Bi-amma, the revered mother of Shoukat Ali and Mahamad Ali, had accompanied me in order to take up the work of her two brave sons who were interned at Chhindwara under that arbitrary and much-abused law — the Defence of India Act. The extreme courtesy and reverence shown by Tilak to bi-amma and the great interest and sympathy which he evinced towards the sufferings and hardships of the Ali brothers were very touching. His speech in the Congress when proposing the resolution for the release of Mahamad Ali and Shoukat Ali, was typical of him. Two brief quotations from it would reveal his mind. He said: ‘As their friend and sympathiser, not personal friend but as friend and sympathiser of everyone who is unjustly treated, without distinction of caste, creed or colour, as friend and sympathiser of truth and justice, which is the foundation of every empire in this world, I demand that Messrs. Mahamad Ali and Shoukat Ali should be immediately released.’ Further addressing their mother, he said: ‘But let me assure the mother here, on your behalf, that the tide to become a mother of brave sons far exceeds in importance the tide of being a mother only, and let me suggest to her with the consent of all of you here today to forget what government had done and take consolation in the fact that all of us have great sympathy with her in her present position, and I pray to God that we may have many more mothers in the country of her type. That is the only consolation I can offer her.’ ”
Tilak was a prominent figure in the Subjects Committee and piloted the Congress skilfully. His was the commanding and decisive voice throughout the deliberations. It was at his suggestion that Mrs. Besant sent out a Presidential message, transleted into all the chief vernaculars of the country and 20,000 copies of it were sent to England. All these were distributed through the Home Rule League. Josephine Ransome has given an idea of Tilak’s demeanour at the committee meetings. She says: “At committee meetings Mr. Tilak would sit very still and quiet taking apparently but little notice of what was going o
n, except that occasionally his sleepy-looking eyes would suddenly open and flash. When called upon for his own opinion it was clear that his quick mind had registered every argument and had instantly analysed its value. His mind seemed quite ruthless in its power to detect fallacy in any statement. He could alwavs show with force and directness where the truth actually lay.” Dr. Pattabhi gives an instance of this. He writes.18 “The Andhra movement took birth some twelve years ago. In 1916 the Andhras asked for a separate Congress circle on the principle of linguistic redistribution of provinces. The subiect finally came up for settlement at the meetings of the All-India Congress Committee and of the Subjects Committee held in connection with the Congress of 1917. The session was held in Calcutta and presided over by Dr. Besant. I was alone in both the gatherings in my struggle. The opposition was formidable both in numbers and in influence. The president was frankly against the change and I had to fight her and a Madras gentleman for two hours in the Subjects Committee. But the question would have been shunted, if an hour earlier the A.I.C.C. had rejected it. Here too the fight was not less keen. Even Gandhi said that the question might wait till we had attained Home Rule. Home Rule was the slogan of those days. Then Lokmanya Tilak rose and spoke a few words endorsing my claim. His speech was ever characteristic of him. The few words that he uttered — sharp, lancinating, crisp and convincing — had the desired effect. The A.I.C.C. accepted the idea and that helped it to make its way into the Subjects Committee, when I took it myself. This instance would indicate the breadth of Lokmanya’s vision and his regard for a junior.”