by A K Bhagwat
The role of the peace-maker played by Tilak was successful. Most of the seceders returned to the Congress fold and a joint resolution was passed declaring that the people of India were fit for responsible government and repudiating the assumption to the contrary contained in the report.
Tilak Proceeds to England
Tilak immediately busied himself in preparing to go to England, if not for political work then for the libel suit that he wished to institute against Sir Valentine Chirol for certain remarks of the latter in his book, Indian Unrest, written in 1910. When asked what dress he would wear in London, Tilak answered that he did not want to attract undue attention towards himself and would therefore dress in European clothes but to keep up his national pride he would keep on wearing the Maharashtrian head- dress. Tilak embarked on the 23rd September 1918 from Bombay. He was already weak and ailing. After his fatiguing tour by motor- car for over a thousand miles he had declared, “People can’t possibly realise that I feel so weak. When the moment comes I lecture. But the body is all the while breaking under the strain. The lecture over, I retire from the crowds and sleep over my fatigue. Only my will supports me. The body is done up.”
The voyage was rather prolonged as there was danger from enemy submarines. On board the steamer he hardly left his cabin, but sat immersed in deep thought. He hardly took any food from the ship’s mess but had his food prepared under his own arrangements. A Bengali student going abroad for his education provided a humorous respite. On the second day he started crying and on the third attempted suicide. Apparendy he was home- sick. At Aden Tilak received a telegram announcing his election to the presidential chair of the Indian National Congress at its thirty-third session to be held in December 1919. This was exacdy thirty years after he had attended the first Congress session in 1889. By a curious irony of fate he had now to decline even this belated recognition of his services to the country.
No passenger was allowed to leave the ship either at Gibraltar, or at Port Said. On the way, Tilak tried on trousers and shoes for the first time. At Port Said there was a rehearsal of the life- belt drill and Tilak surprised everyone by his agility in climbing the ship’s ladder with the life-belt on. The steamer was now protected by a man-of-war, two submarines and a few aeroplanes.
1 Mahatma by D. G. Tendulkar, Vol. I, p. 280
2
3
4 Names of ports on the west coast of India
5
6 Names of ports on the west coast of India
7
8 The History of the Congress, p. 255.
9 D. V. Athalye : Life of Lokmatya Tilak
10 Kesari, 30th August 1918
IN ENGLAND
16
On the 10th October the steamer reached Tilbury Docks and from there Tilak and his party travelled by train to London and stayed at 10, Howley Place, Maida Vale, W.2, London. He had employed a whole family, the McNalties. During the last three months Tilak moved to Talbot Street and there a Telangana Brahmin cooked for him. Tilak and his party were strict vegetarians and lived on rice, bread, potatoes and other vegetables. Tilak’s daily routine remained unchanged in London. He was usually up at 6 or 7 a.m. He had a shave with his own hand to which he was not accustomed in India and for this he used a safety razor. He hardly ever went out except on business. His sight and hearing were weak and he trembled as he walked. There was difficulty in crossing the streets because of the traffic, but Karandikar who accompanied him writes that while crossing a street instead of waiting and allowing a bus or a tram-car to pass by, he would put up his hand, make it halt and cross the street first.
Chirol Case
Sir Valentine Chirol was deputed in 1910 by the Times newspaper (London) to India in order to study the international situation there and the growth of what was called Indian unrest. He had visited most of the important centres, carried on his investigations and had published his results in the book, Indian Unrest. His main conclusions were that the Indian unrest was confined to urban areas of the Deccan, the Central Provinces, Bengal and the Punjab. Repression was nothing more severe than “the application of surgery to diseased growths.” The conclusions were based on the assumption that “it is impossible that we should ever concede to India the rights of self-government.” He suggested, therefore, a few minor reforms for the permanence of British rule and the well-being of India. Chirol had relied mostly on government reports and Blue Books and most of his conclusions show him to be a typical believer in the theory of the White Man’s Burden.’
The case opened before Mr. Justice Darling and a special jury on the 29th January 1919. Sir John Simon, K.C., and Mr. E. F. Spence, appeared for the plaintiff and Sir Edward Carson, assisted by Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Mr. Eustace Hills appeared for the defendants.
Sir John Simon pointed out in his opening speech that Tilak was objecting to different passages in Chirol’s books, which constituted in all six libels. Of these the first one was that Tilak had started a Cow Protection Society to give provocation to the Mohammedans.
In 1893 some riots in Bombay of a more severe character than usual gave Tilak an opportunity of broadening the new movement by enlisting in its support the old anti-Mohammedan feeling.
The second was described as the gymnastic society libel in which Tilak was charged with organising gymnastic institutions in which physical training and the use of more or less primitive weapons were taught in order to develop the martial instincts of the rising generation.
The third libel was described by Sir John Simon as the Black Man Libel at 53 of Chirol’s book, in.which it was alleged that “Tilak must have had a considerable command of funds for his propaganda and though he doubtless had not a few willing and generous supporters, many subscribed from fear of the lash, which he knew how to apply through the press to the lepid and the recalcitrant, just as his gymnastic societies sometimes resolved themselves into juvenile bands of dacoits to swell the coffers of Swaraj.”
The fourth libel was regarding the High Court judgment in the Tai Maharaj case in 1910 which was stated by Chirol as being “extremely damaging to Tilak’s private reputation as a man of honour or even of common honesty.”
The fifth and the sixth libels were the Rand and Ayerst Murder libels which were termed by Simon as the most serious. Chirol had stated: “What Tilak could do by secret agitation and by a rabid campaign in the press to raise popular resentment to white-heat he did.... The inevitable consequences ensued. On June 27th 1897,... Mr. Rand... and Lieut. Ayerst... were shot down by a young Chitpavan Brahmin. No direct connection has been established between the crime and Tilak.” (Page 48, Indian Unrest)
“In reply to the magistrate who asked him why he committed the murder, Kanhere said ‘I read of many instances of oppression in the Kesari, the Rashtramat, and the Kal and other newspapers. I think that by killing Sahibs we people can get justice. I never got injustice myself, nor did any one I know of. I now regret killing Mr. Jackson. I killed a good man carelessly.’
“Can anything be more eloquent and convincing than the terrible pathos of this confession? The three papers named by Kanhere were Tilak’s organs. It was no personal experience or knowledge of his that had driven Kanhere to his frenzied deed, but the slow, persistent poison dropped into his ear by the Tilak press. Though it was Kanhere’s hand that struck down ‘a good man carelessly’, was not Tilak rather than Kanhere the real author of the murder? It was merely the story of the Poona murders of 1897 over again.” (Page 62, Indian Unrest.)
In his opening speech Sir John Simon described Tilak as a man “who is now 62 years of age and counts as a very old man from the Indian point of view” and though commonly called an agitator, “he is a person who has done a great deal of devoted and public-spirited work.” The judge remarked after this: “You have explained who Mr. Tilak is; it is entirely news to me and it may be to the jury. You have not
told us who Sir Valentine Chirol is. I do not know whether they know. I know his name and that is all I do know.” About the Mahratta, Sir John Simon said that “anyone who reads the Mahratta will see it is written by somebody who uses English with great accuracy.” Tilak was first examined by Mr. Spence. In the course of the examination he stated that the circulation of his paper was about 15,000 to 20,000. The judge showed a pleasant sense of humour and many of his sallies make pleasant reading. Tilak was asked about the ecclesiastic court, which tried him back in 1896 for breaking caste by taking tea with the missionaries.
Mr Justice Darling: “Then if I understand you, although the court did not put you out of caste they made you pay a fine?”
Tilak:“Yes.”
Mr. Justice Darling:How much?
Tilak:“About Is. and 6d.”
Mr. Justice Darling:“That was the price of the tea.”
Concerning his imprisonment in Mandalay jail Tilak was asked:
“Did you know what was going on in the great world during that time? Where you in communication with the world during that time?”
Tilak:“No, all communication was stopped.”
In his cross-examination Sir Edward Carson asked:
Sir Edward Carson: “Was not it more important for you to set up your character in India than to come all the way to set it up here?”
Tilak:“I thought this place was better for the proceedings.”
Sir Edward Carson: ‘Is that because we would not understand the natives?”
Tilak:“No; another reason.”
Sir Edward Carson:“Or know much about you?”
Tilak:“No; that is not the reason.”
Sir Edward Carson: “What is the reason?”
Tilak: “The real reason is that this book is read all over the Empire, and a decision of an English Court would be more beneficial to me, and would stop the ckculation of this libel all over the Empire.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Is it then your case that you have a European refutation or, you have an Empire reputation? Is that what you mean?”
Tilak: “No.”
Sir Edward Carson: “And you want to clear it before the
Empire?”
Tilak: “The book is ckculated all over the English-reading people and if I take it in India and would have a judge there, and an Indian judge decides in my favour, that would not be regarded as a very good justification for me.”
Carson made the most of Justice Davar’s judgment in the Sedition Case against Tilak. He asked:
Sir Edward Carson: “Tell me, and point out to me, any single statement in Sir Valentine Chirol’s book, that is more severe upon you than is that statement of Mr. Justice Davar, one of your own fellow subjects in India?”
Tilak: What is your question?
Sir Edward Carson: “The question is, can you point to me anything in Sir Valentine Chkol’s book which is more severe upon you as a criticism than what the learned judge says in that passage that I have just read?”
Tilak: “Yes, I can.”
Sir Edward Carson: “What is it?”
Tilak: “It is the actual connection with the fact. I do not complain of opinion; any man may have any opinion of my conduct. I complain of being connected with these murders by a particular series of facts as stated in Chkol’s book.”
A passage was read from the Kesari by Sir Edward Carson, praising the Bengalis and he asked, “That is, you were praising them for breaking the law?”
Tilak: “For withstanding the persecution, not breaking the law. We break a law and brave the consequences if we think the law is not good.”
Sir Edward Carson: “I suppose every man judges for himself?”
Tilak: “A man must judge reasonably.”
Sir Edward Carson: “If he thinks the law is not good, he must break it?”
Tilak: “If t he la w i s broken you have to with stand the punishment. That is what we call passive resistance.”
Sir Edward Carson: “This establishes one fact, namely, that when the time comes by the grace of God even the weak people are inclined to set themselves against the headstrong or tyrannical rulers. Was that the British?”
Tilak: “The officials.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Was it the British Government?” Tilak: “No, I make a distinction between a government and the officers.”
Sir Edward Carson: “But a government must consist of officials; it is not an abstract entity?”
Tilak: “A house consists of rooms, but a room does not mean a house.”
Again Tilak was asked:
Sir Edward Carson: “In writing that article, “Well done! Bengali brothers, well done,” were you not attempting, to the best of your ability?”
Tilak: “Not in my opinion.”
Sir Edward Carson: “I have not asksd you the question yet. Were you not attempting to set these people against the official classes?”
Tilak: “Certainly not.”
Sir Edward Carson: “The official classes in India?”
Tilak: “Certainly not.”
Sir Edward Carson: “The jury can be judge of that?” Tilak: “I say certainly not.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Was it calculated to do so, in your opinion?”
Tilak: “It is not calculated to do that, in my opinion,.”
Sir Edward Carson: “You would go further and say that it was calculated to improve the relations between the people and the official classes?”
Tilak: “No. It is commenting upon the cases from a moral and legal point of view rather, and I was perfectly justified in doing so.”
A fine passage at arms between counsel and witness ended in a victory for the latter.
Sir Edward Carson: “Was the partition of Bengal the cause of all this?”
Tilak: “Yes, I think so.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Setting up the partition of Bengal was the cause of the bombing?”
Tilak: “Exactly as in the case of Ireland and Ulster.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Never mind Ulster. Ulster will take care of itself. You will not gain anything by trying to introduce personal matters into the case?”
Tilak: “I am not introducing personal matters into the case, You will find Ireland quoted in the articles.”
Sir Edward harped on the diversity of castes and races in India and asked:
Sir Edward Carson: “In British India how many different races are there and how many different religions?”
Tilak: “There are a number of them.”
Sir Edward Carson: “How many of them?”
Tilak: “Different races in what sense? I do not understand.
Do you mean castes or races? If you mean castes there are more than 200 castes.”
Sir Edward Carson: “You say that if I mean castes, there are more than 200?”
Tilak: “Yes, there are sub-divisions.”
Sir Edward Carson: “How many different religions are there?”
Tilak: “About five.”
Sir Edward Carson: “How many absolutely different races are there coming from a different stock?”
Tilak: “I think about 200 castes — not races.”
Sir Edward Carson: “If you have this Swarajya, which of them is to govern the others? Which of them is to be the governing caste or race or religion?”
Tilak: “You do not want one caste, you want democracy of all castes.”
“Sir Edward Carson: They would all agree, would they, and there would be no bombs?”
Tilak: “No — bombs can never be stopped in this world so long as there is autocratic rule.”
About his criticism of the Governors, Tilak was asked:
Sir Edward Carson: “Have you abused every Governor that
has been there?”
Tilak: “I do not know that.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Lord Harris?”
Tilak: “ If there are any oppressive or unpopularacts I have criticised them no matter whose administration they may be.”
Sir Edward Carson: “Were not they all quoted as tyrannical acts?”
Tilak: “Tyrannical in one case, going against the wishes of the people. People wish one thing, and government wish another I am an advocate of the people.”
Sir Edward Carson: “The policeman who stops a gang of thieves goes against the wishes of the people?”
Tilak: “That is not against the wishes of the people.”
Sir Edward Carson, in opening the case for the defendant, described Sir Valentine Chirol as an acknowledged authority upon Indian affairs and also referred to the huge expense to which he was put. He said, “I need not tell you, gentlemen, what it is to have to defend a case of this kind. It does not cost nothing. It has been going on since 1915. We have had commissions out in India and volumes of exhibits taken out in India. The expense is gigantic — an enormous expense for private individuals, and he could have avoided it all by an apology and by payment of a small sum. He would do nothing of the kind, and I hope you will say he was right when you have heard this trial out, as you will, to the very end.”