Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  Referring to Tilak, he said, “Gentlemen, who is Mr. Tilak who comes here, who has come all the way from India for the purpose of this case to ask a British jury to measure in money the damage done to his character. He is a very able man. Sir Valentine Chirol does full justice to his ability in many passages in this book. He is an able man, a lawyer, a professor, a newspaper proprietor and politician; nobody doubts his ability, nobody has ever questioned the position he holds in India amongst a large number of his race, the Hindu race and amongst his own caste, the Brahmins, a sacerdotal caste in India of great influence which, as one of the judges said in one of the judgments, he could very well have turned to the benefit of our Empire and of English rule in India. But instead of that, from 1893 down to 1918 when this country was in the most desperate throes of the great European war, he has taken advantage of every difficulty that has ever arisen in relation to British Government in India, as I will show you, for putting forward his own theories of government, his own wishes, if you like his conscientious wishes— we have nothing to do with that here — and he has spread far and wide conspiracy to try and destroy British influence in the government of that great part of our Empire.”

  He asked again and again “who is Mr. Tilak who comes here and adds a fresh insult everytime.” This is Sir E. Carson at his ironical best: “But in addition to that, Gentlemen, who is this gentleman who comes forward claiming damages for libel? Tilak! Why, Tilak has been the greatest libeller of British officers and British Government that has ever written in a newspaper. He coming to claim damages for libel! He, the man who has written day after day, and week after week, the foulest libel on our soldiers and our military officers, on our civil officers, on our police, on our governors, on the native princes, on our own King and our own Queen, in language this is almost vile — he comes here, and he says: ‘Give me damages for my character — after this long course of libel on character which one fails to find words to criticise before a jury.” He went on referring at considerable lengdi to the various sedition cases against Tilak bodi in his opening address and said that the libel had to be taken as a whole and not under six different charges.

  Sir John Simon, in summing up the case, referred to certain strange omissions in Sir Edward Carson’s summing up: “This distinguished official, Mr. Rand, was murdered, foully murdered, by a stroke delivered on Jubilee night, 1897, diat is to say, on the 22nd June of that year. Within a month Mr. Tilak, who, according to Sir Valentine Chirol, is the real murderer, that is the language in his book: “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 the Poona murder is the murder of Rand and Ayerst, I say within a month Mr. Tilak was in the clutches of the criminal law at Poona, prosecuted by the Advocate-General of the Province, tried by a judge sitting in that place; these very articles which Sir Edward Carson has been going through with you hour after hour had then been published only, some of them, a very short time, they were published in the very place where this dreadful tragedy had been committed. The authorities had the best of all means of knowing how far those articles might fairly be regarded as the cause of, or contribution to, this ghastly murder and they put Mr. Tilak on his trial almost before the grave of Mr. Rand was filled, not on any charge of incitement to murder, not on any charge connected with murder, but on the charge that he was a seditious person who had written articles that were calculated to cause disaffection to the government, disaffection being defined by the terms of the Statute. That is a very striking fact. I should have thought that anybody representing Sir Valentine Chirol would have felt that he had got to deal with that somehow. Here we are in the year 1919; surely the very first thing that faces you when you ask the question ‘Is Mr. Tilak really the person who is the real murderer, the person who really incited the murder of this man Rand, by his writing,’ the first thing that would be expected would be, ‘surely at least he was prosecuted for inciting to murder.’ Not a bit. Not only so, but as Sir Valentine Chirol frankly admitted to me in the witness box, the Advocate-General for the prosecution, the Judge trying the case, both of them pointedly and expressly disclaimed the suggestion that Mr. Tilak had that responsibility resting upon his conduct.”

  He refers to the bantering questions asked by Sir Edward about Tilak’s coming all the way to England to get justice: “Just bear in mind that it is made a matter of complaint by the defendants that Mr. Tilak should come here, to the greatest city in our Empire, the place, by the way, where he finds Messrs. Macmillan and Sir Valentine Chirol, he has the impudence to bring his action here in a British Court of Justice. I ask you not to take that into consideration; I ask you to say that any citizen of the Kingdom is welcome to come here whatever his record, whatever his race, whatever his colour, whatever his religion, and you will show him, even though he and some of his fellows may not have realised it before, there is one thing British institutions will secure for every subject of the King, and that is justice though the heavens fall.”

  The summing up of the judge showed where his inclinations lay. About the Rand murder His Lordship said that Mr. Tilak reminded him of the story in Aesop of the enemy trumpeter who begged the soldier to spare him on the ground that he was a non-combatant. The soldier refused on the ground that he was a non-combatant. About the reference to the fact that the plaintiff was an alien and could not therefore be expected to get justice, the judge said: “Sir John Simon has addressed you very carefully and very minutely as to those, and it cannot be pretended that they are of the same gravity as the others, and he has concluded his address to you as he began his opening of the case, by saying that you must be fair and valiant. He said: ‘Remember that the plaintiff is not of your blood, he is not of your caste, he is not of your religion, and remembering all that, be fair and valiant.’ Gentlemen, I never thought with the experience I have had in the administration of English justice by judges and juries, that the danger was that because a man was alien to them in some respect, they would do him less justice. I have sometimes thought that they were inclined to give him a little more and to be so scrupulous lest they should be prejudiced against the man for this, that and the other reason, that they would, if anything, err the other way and say: ‘At all events, no one shall complain that I was prejudiced against the man.’ And, in fact, the instinct of an Englishman is to be, to their faults a little more blind, if the people who are concerned are not of their faith, not of their religion and not of their blood, than where the person concerned is an Englishman like themselves.”

  He concluded by referring to the ban on Tilak after his release from Mandalay: “He was prohibited from making speeches. Why? Because he set to work so — little good had that judge done him and so little good had the transportation done him — in spite of the complimentary letter about the British Raj, that he had to be prohibited and he was prohibited from making any speech because he was going about dissuading the people of India from entering the British army, when we were, as you know, ever since 1914 down to November last, fighting for our lives against the greatest military power that ever existed — the same point with regard to which he had said: ‘Buy German goods; buy any goods, but do not buy English goods.’ The articles of commerce of that same power he would rather have had in India than the goods made in this country, and that at a time when we were fighting that power and fighting for our lives and wanted the help of every man in the army and every woman to make cartridges with which to supply them. What was his love for the English Raj? He had to be prohibited from making speeches at all because he was making, in the circumstances, speeches that were designed to weaken the power of this country by getting the people not to join the army to fight that enemy.”

  “Gentlemen, that is the man who comes to you for damages, a man of whom one of his own countrymen, occupying the position of a judge, said what I have just read to you; of whom we know that that which he said was published all over India. His character must be thorough
ly well known by men of his own race. That is the man who comes to you today. His latest act was such that he had to be prohibited from opening his mouth in India. That is the man who comes before you today and says: ‘The defendant has written a libel about me. It has damaged my character, and because it has damaged my character I want the jury to give me a verdict with damages.’ ”

  The jury retired at 5-50 and returned at 6-17. They were all agreed for the defendant and the judgment was given in the defendant’s favour with costs.

  Thus ended what was a nerve-wrecking experience for Tilak. Financially he was ruined. He wrote to Dhondopant Vidwans, his nephew:

  10 Howley Place, Maida Vale, W.2,

  London.

  26th February, 1919. “

  My dear Baba,

  We have lost our case against Chirol. There was as you know no evidence to prove the charges. But the judge made a monstrous charge to the jury, ignoring the difference between political and private character as suggested in Carson’s argument, and the jury returned one general verdict for the defendants without caring to go into the truth of each libel. We shall have now to pay Chirol’s cost, unless we appeal and succeed therein, which is very doubtful.

  You know that £7,500 were deposited by us in Court. This sum will be lost and I am afraid we shall have to pay something more, how much I cannot say, but certainly not less than £1,500 more. In addition to this I had to pay here £7,100 to our Solicitors for the expense of conducting the case here. Of this sum I had my own cheque for £1,500, and the rest £5,600 I have taken from ***. Therefore the whole liability now is over £14,000. As for the appeal we shall do what Sir John Simon would advise. It is a very heavy loss to us. But we cannot help. We tried a game and failed and we shall have to pay! How I propose to get the money, I shall write in my next letter. Where are all your astrologers who said I would win?

  Don’t be disheartened at the news of our failure in the Chirol case and the consequent money responsibility. We shall meet the situation as we have been doing hitherto, bravely and calmly.

  The jury and the judge looked upon it as a government case and Mr. Montgomery was watching the case in court openly on behalf of government; in other words he was assisting Chirol. I am sorry that even in England you could not get a jury to dispassionately judge of the evidence in the case. All who were in court felt that, but for the biased and impassioned charge of the judge, we should have won. Sir John did his work very well. He went so far as to urge that Chirol has produced no evidence and so there was no case to go to the jury at all. But all his efforts were of no avail. All went on the theory that if Tilak succeeded, it would be a disaster for government. The London Times actually says so. When such prejudice was created and intentionally created, there was of course no hope of success.

  We are doing well. I am afraid that my Home Rule work may suffer to a certain extent by this failure; but let us try and see.

  With compliments and Ashirvads to all.

  I am,

  Yours affectionately,

  Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

  It is necessary to add that Sir John Simon did not think it worthwhile to appeal. The British papers made capital of the verdict against Tilak and Sir Valentine Chirol had said that he could have avoided the whole litigation by an apology and by a subscription to the Indian War Relief Fund; but in the interest of the Empire he felt that, to make an apology under the ckcumstances of this case or to withdraw or retract what he had deliberately stated and published would have been a disaster of the very gravest kind as regards the Government of India.

  The odds were from the beginning against Tilak. The Rowlatt Act and the Sedition Committee Reports were published just when the case was going on and both these were extremely damaging to Tilak’s reputation. Explaining his own views about the matter, Tilak said later on that his object in instituting the case was to see that injustice was removed at any cost. The day he came out of the Mandalay prison he got Chirol’s book and immediately made up his mind to institute the case. He had already won victories in the Times and Globe cases. It was clear that even though he had lost the case, his cause was the cause of justice and it was through considerations of prestige that the verdict had gone against him. It was his intention to retire to the seclusion of the Sinhgad, write out the books that he had planned and thus raise money. It was obvious that the faith of the Indian people in Tilak was unshaken by the verdict. On the other hand, they became more apprehensive of British justice. The immense popularity was clearly shown by the fact that shortly after his return a fund was raised to help him for the losses he had suffered in the Chirol case and it went up to the respectable figure of Rs. 3,75,000. Tilak’s stand was vindicated by popular sanction. In instituting the case he clearly showed that he had a clear conscience particularly in respect of the more heinous charges of inciting or directly helping murder. Chirol, too, it is interesting to add, wrote a book in 1923 in which he omitted most of his graver charges against Tilak, which again is proof that Tilak had a clear conscience.

  Sadashivshastri Kanhere, who lived at that time in London, remarked after the Chirol case that Tilak must have been greatly disappointed at his failure. Tilak replied, “Disappointment is not a word to be found in my dictionary. Success or failure does not come in the way of my work. On the contrary, failure incites me to more vigorous action. I will soon begin my lecture tour.” Asked about the gag order on him, Tilak said that he was advised that the gag order served on him in India would not be effective in India. He was, however, trying his best for its removal. In a question asked in Parliament it was stated that Tilak had to apply after he reached London. This he did and on llth November the gag order on him was lifted. On 13th November, Tilak wrote a letter to Lloyd George congratulating England and the allies on their victory in the World War. This, he said, he was doing in his individual capacity as also on behalf of the Indian National Congress, the Indian people and the Indian Home Rule League.

  After the Case

  Immediately the day after the decision of the Chirol case, Tilak attended a private discussion about demands to be put before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, attended by all the prominent members of the Home Rule League deputation and other friends and sympathisers of Tilak. The general trend of the arguments was that reforms should be asked for step by step. Tilak pointed out that in the modern times, when one can reach the topmost heights in a very short time, it was ridiculous to speak of reaching the goal of Swaraj ‘step by step.’ The Europeans had done the impossible, such as the conquest of the air, and the English could not make India fit for Swaraj. “This is a slur not on India but on England.” This speech made a favourable impression all round and in all future discussions Tilak’s was the commanding voice.

  The British Congress Committee

  The first task that Tilak had to do immediately on his arrival in England was one of the most difficult and delicate ones. It was the task of cleansing the augean stable in the British Congress Committee and its journal India. This journal had rendered valuable service to the cause of Indian freedom by keeping British public opinion informed and enlightened about Indian affairs. In a united Congress, before 1908, the British Committee carried on their work smoothly without any hitch. Afterwards, however, there were serious differences. Polak, the editor, strongly favoured the moderates and he and his colleagues took a sitting-on-the-fence attitude in regard to India and Indian affairs. Not only did they not publish the most important resolution of the Calcutta Congress on self-determination but the Congress-League Scheme was also relegated to a secondary place. With Tilak’s departure to England the moderates had shelved the compromise forged at the Bombay Special Convention in 1918 and had started the Liberal Federation. When Tilak started his work of educating British public opinion by issuing pamphlets on behalf of the Home Rule League, Polak objected and wrote to Miss Villiers, who was one of the secretaries of the Home Rule Leagu
e, that Tilak had no representative capacity as he had come on private work. Polak’s objection was that the Congress had not empowered Tilak to establish contacts with the Labour Party or any other party in England. He threatened to report to the Congress what appeared to him to be an encroachment on the part of Tilak and said that such officious interference would come in the way of unity.

  Tilak did not approve of this attitude of the committee and spent a good deal of time in visiting every member and bringing them round. His plea was that the committee was in duty bound to carry on the work of supporting the Congress resolutions. In the proceedings of the meeting held on the 26th February 1919 he was present by special invitation and the following note in the proceedings gives an idea of his stand:

  “Mr. Tilak (who, with Mr. Karandikar, attended by special invitation) was invited to make a statement. He asked if the Committee approved and were prepared to press upon the attention of the country, the resolutions adopted by the Congress at Delhi; he complained that the Congress cause was not presented and supported by the committee and in the journal India.. He said that it might be necessary for the Congress to make other arrangements for its work in England unless the committee were prepared to adopt the Congress programme.”

  When the Congress deputation reached England in May 1919, Tilak’s hands were strengthened in that Tilak was chosen to lead the deputation. But later, as there was considerable opposition to his leadership, he agreed to stand down and decided to give his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee as a member of the Home Rule League deputation. V. J. Patel was the General Secretary of the Congress and he agreed to work in close cooperation with and under the guidance of Tilak. The first thing that Tilak impressed upon the members of the deputation was that the deputation should make efforts to deal with them in a proper manner so as to enable the Congress deputation to carry on its work in a proper manner. The following resolution was adopted by the deputation: