by A K Bhagwat
A short time after sending this memorial to the Peace Conference, Tilak issued a four-page leaflet entitled: “Indian Constitutional Reforms.” It contained a comparative statement showing the present Indian constitution, and how the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme and the Congress-League scheme proposed to reform it. Any intelligent person could see at a glance what the large stand most influential organisation of Indians demanded, and how far the Montagu-Chelmsford proposals fell short of these demands.
Tilak made a deep impression on the platform on account of his direct speeches. He dealt with the all-important theme which occupied all his life and thought. Explaining his method of delivering speeches to Dr. Velkar, who was a member of the deputation, he said that he always kept his best shots in the end. In a meeting, he explained, the speaker and the audience act and react on each other. He never prepared his speeches beforehand but altered them to suit the kind of audience he had and their moods and temper. “I always take offensive, offensive is the best defensive in war. Attack your enemy at the weakest point and I do it. Defensive argument makes your argument weak.”
Tilak’s Speeches
St. Nihal Singh described a speech of Tilak in these words:
“Of all these addresses, the one that I like best was the one that Mr. Tilak delivered at the Caxton Hall while sitting in a chak, because he had sprained his ankle. Mr. Tilak outlined the conditions existing in India in olden times, referring to the accounts of the wealthy, prosperous enlightened India left by foreign travellers. He asked the audience particularly to note the vast extent of the Indian Empire ruled over by Asoka and Samudra Gupta. He went on to relate that our country in those days, not only possessed a wealth of religious and philosophical literature but was industrially great and self-sufficing in every respect, able to satisfy all her material and artistic wants.”
“Passing from the pleasant picture of ancient India, Mr. Tilak gave a graphic description of India today, with her millions of sons and daughters who, because of appalling poverty, never know what it is to have the pangs of hunger stilled. He told how the East India Comnany had deliberately killed our industries, throwing the whole weight of population upon agriculture.”
“Taking up the political question, Mr. Tilak assured the audience that Indians were not anti-British — they were only ‘anti-bureaucracy.’ They desired the British connection to continue.
“Then Mr. Tilak shattered, one by one the arguments advanced against granting self-government to India. The bureaucrats, he said, were themselves responsible for illiteracy in India. While deploring caste aid acknowledging that it required radical modification, he denied that it constituted a reason for refusing self-government. The British, he pointed out, quarrelled among themselves quite as much as Indians did. There was no Ulster in India, Hindus and Muslims were agreed concerning the constitutional reforms. He challenged the statement that Indians did not desire Home Rule. He demanded to know why India alone, of all the British overseas units, should be expected to achieve self-government ‘step by step.’ That phrase had no meaning in this age of progress. Indians should immediately be given control over their purely domestic civil affairs.”
Evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee
The most important part of Tilak’s work in England was the evidence that he gave before the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the two houses set up to consider the Government of India Bill. He was asked by Lord Selbourne, the Chairman, to make any statement that he cared to make to supplement the answers that he had given to the list of questions compiled by the committee. St. Nihal Singh says:
“Speaking without hesitation, in clear though rather low tones, Mr. Tilak declared that the League, on behalf of which he appeared, accepted the declaration of August 20th, 1917, in regard to His Majesty’s Government’s policy in India, though he and his colleagues put their own construction upon the latter part of the declaration, which left the pace, at which India should proceed towards responsible government, to the authorities in Whitehall to determine in consultation with the Government of India. They took the view that the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State and the Viceroy were not necessarily the corollary to the pronouncement. A much larger measure of self-government could be given to Indians without in any way going against the spirit of the British policy as laid down in that declaration. In fact, even the Congress-League scheme provided for advance by stages, though the stages would be fewer than they would be under the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme. He also insisted that it was necessary that a time-limit be fixed in the statute for the attainment by India of fully responsible administration. The term of 15 years fixed by the Congress might appear arbitrary but it was reasonable.
“Mr. Tilak also claimed that Indians were fully fit for administering provinces, and that they should be given provincial autonomy. He also declared that responsibility in the Central Government was absolutely necessary. He suggested that at least those departments in the Central Government which dealt with affairs which in the case of the provinces were considered fit to be transferred to popular control, should be placed under responsible Ministers. That could be done without resorting to diarchy. The Congress and the League had suggested a scheme for that purpose, and had provided sufficient safeguards.
“Mr. Tilak claimed that good materials for electorates existed in India. Indeed, he went so far as to state that one word from the officials could create electorates. Above all, he wished to see the officials deprived of the initiative for inaugurating large policies that they at present possessed, and reduced to the status of permanent servants in Britain and other countries. Such initiative should only be exercised by the people’s representatives. Lastly, he considered the inclusion of a Declaration of Rights in the Statute was absolutely necessary.”
It was expected that Tilak would be cross-examined after his evidence but this the members of the committee refused to do for reasons best known to them. Lord Sydenham was seen to leave the committee room as soon as Tilak started giving his evidence and later Lady Sydenham was very angry, when at a function Tilak was presented to his lordship.
While in England, Tilak interested himself in foreign propaganda on behalf of India in Europe and America. Elizabeth Freeman, an American sympathiser, saw him in London with messages from Lajpat Rai and Dr. Hardikar who were both in America. When he was acquainted with the splendid work done by Laipat Rai and Hardikar in this respect he enthusiastically said: “Oh! how I wish that such work as has been carried on by these men could be done all over the world! We Hindus must learn the art of foreien propaganda, and do it as thoroughly as the bureaucracy are doing it. When you write to Lala and Hardikar, tell them I want the work carried as far as possible.”
During his 13 months’ stay in England, Tilak did hardly any sight-seeing, but his Vedic researches occupied his attention and he spent a number of hours in the India office library. A lady was employed by him to transcribe the ancient brick inscriptions throwing light on Chaldean and Assyrian civilizations. Once he went to see Dr. Thomas, an Assyrian scholar. This scholar had the traditional povery of learned people all over the world. In the course of their long conversation both the scholars talked on many a knotty problem. So absorbed were they in their discourse that the mother-in-law of the professor reminded them in vain that tea was ready, and failing to catch their attention, she at last placed it on the books and papers on their table!
As a peace-maker, Tilak tried his best to bring about peace in the different deputations and, thanks to his efforts, though Mrs. Besant proved to be obdurate, all the deputations worked in harmony.
Tilak left England on October 30th, 1919, and reached Bombay on the 27th November 1919 “On board the steamer,” says S. Satyamurthi2 who travelled with him, “he was requested by many European passengers to deliver a lecture on the Arctic Home in the Vedas. And for nearly an hour he held a largely European audience spell-bound by his wealth of l
earning, his keenness of critical acumen, and above all his power of simple, humorous and effective expression. Many a member of the audience felt and told me ‘what Indian politics has gained in Tilak, scholarship and research have lost.’
1 Modern Review, October 1919
2
ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE
17
Apart from the libel suit against Chirol there were other important reasons why Tilak was eager to visit England during the war-time. It was always his faith that any substantial measure of reform could be obtained only from the Mother of Parliaments and so an appeal to the British public supplemented by true information about India’s case for self-government were the twin shafts in his armoury. He was eager, again, to make a first-hand study of the revolutionary forces at work in England during the war and wanted to see how far they would be helpful to India. It was for this reason that he had undertaken a similar study tour of Ceylon and Burma and had noted the revolutionary forces in a resurgent Asia back in 1899. He had tried to place India’s case for self-determination not merely before the bar of British public opinion but also before the world in general. He studied the nature and working of the British parties and saw that the Labour Party was a party with a future and would be sympathetic towards India’s aspirations and had therefore helped it with money. He was also impressed by what he had heard about the tactics of the Irish Sinn Feiners in sending out as many members of their party to the British Parliament and afterwards either not to attend any of the meetings or, when they attended, to take much time of the House by lengthy speeches. These obstructionist tactics were, he must have thought, an object lesson to India.
Even though he had established contact with the Labour Party he did not approve of class organisation or class conflict. Speaking to Dr. Velkar, he said once in London, that1 “it was undesirable to organise the labour movement on English models. It must be suitably modified to suit the condition of India. I do not want to set up labour against capital in my country. When our clerks are getting Rs. 15 or 20 a month, to spur on labourers to ask for higher wages, Rs. 2 or 3 a day and so on, would be sheer folly. I would certainly organise labour but I would do so on the basis of social welfare. I don’t want the class-conflict as in England. I would try to attract the working classes by social welfare schemes such as employment insurance, hospitals, entertainment rooms, saving and co-operative societies. In 1906 and 1907 I had tried to organise an anti-drink movement in Maharashtra, mainly to rid the workers of this vice and it was opposed by the government. I had said once in one of my lectures that Bombay belonged to the workers, for the wealth of Bombay depends on the hardships of the workers, who come over to Bombay, leaving their lands and families.... Our industries have just begun and they have to compete with foreign industries with government backing. We cannot, therefore, in these circumstances afford to increase the wages of the workers arbitrarily. To lesson the evil of a conflict between capital and labour and that resulting from economic inequality, I often believe that our ancient caste-system would be successful.” He once said about the new reforms: “We must always be dissatisfied with our environment if we want Swaraj. The Brahmin today must leave off his contentment and remain a dissatisfied Kshatriya. If, under the new reforms, we get the portfolio of education, I would try to revive our old institutions of kirtan, preaching or narrating stories from mythology. I would induce, our educated, cultured young men to go to the villages as missionaries and through them I would try to awaken the people.”
In certain respects, therefore, Tilak had widened his views particularly about methods of agitation and carrying on propaganda, while there were other things which had merely reaffirmed his old faith. The English tour had undoubtedly been an invaluable experience. There was also one more change which people noticed in him and that was the marked alteration in his manner so far as the fair sex was concerned. Where formerly, he was extremely shy and hardly talked with them, after his return from England, he was much more free. This was because in England he had to discuss many important things with women and before going to Madras for a meeting of the A.I.C.C. in 1919, he was seen discussing a good many political problems very freely with a few women political workers.
Arrival
On the 27th November 1919, Tilak landed on Indian soil and was given a tremendous welcome. In a meeting held in his honour, he said that though the reforms granted in the Reforms bills were inadequate they should be accepted. The Labour Party had consented to bring in a Home Rule bill in Parliament. Hence it was not wise to reject the bill even if it were inadequate. Concluding he said, “I have heard about the happenings in India. When Gandhi started his Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act I am sorry I was not here.” Among the receptions given, the most noteworthy was the one by Mavji Govindji on behalf of the workers of Bombay. Mavji Govindji says that “In this huge demonstration near the Elphinstone Mills fifty thousand were present.... Tilak’s message was clear. In one word it was this— Organise.”
Tilak arrived in Poona on the 1st December and an address was presented on behalf of the Poona Municipality, to him and Kelkar. The address contained a reference to his activities in the field of education, industry, literature, research and ethics. Referring to his work in England the address noted:
“For the last thirty years you have been carrying on the political movement, the object of which is to gain for India colonial self-government, under the British Empire.... You spent a year in England to win over the minds of the British people so that they are favourable to India’s aspirations and, for this, in your interviews you impressed the leaders of opinion there with your persuasive speech and far-sightedness. With the help of your associates you made the Labour Party favourable to you. As this party is going to be the party in power in future this policy of yours is the correct one. The Indian nation would be obliged to you for doing so much at such an advanced age.”
Tilak vs. Paranjpye
The presentation of another address by the people of Poona was disfigured by another of those bitter controversies with which Tilak’s life so far had been rich. The moderates and the non-Brahmins combined and declared their opposition to an address to be presented from the citizens of Poona as a whole. They wanted it to be from admirers of Tilak only as, according to Principal Paranjpye, their spokesman, there were a number of people, who did not worship in the same shrine as Tilak and his followers. The opponents were given an intimation of the meeting, convened for the purpose of deciding the details but they declined to attend. A controversy was carried on between Paranjpye and Tilak in the columns of the Bombay Chronicle. Paranjpye made a long list of all the sins of commission and omission of which Tilak, according to him, was guilty. He was dubbed as anti-reformist, pseudo-scientific in his attitude towards inoculation, an agitator, a breaker of the Congress and something of a demagogue. Tilak defended his stand on social views, explained his position in politics and pointed out that addresses were to be presented not for omissions but for services rendered. The Nationalist Party, he said, had decided to strive for India’s betterment by sticking to her thread of tradition and awakening the national pride with a reference to her great cultural past.
In the second week of December, Tilak went to Madras, where once more an enthusiastic welcome was given to him. Among the welcome addresses given, there was also one on behalf of the non-Brahmin Madras Presidency Association. In his speech Tilak urged upon the people of India to work the reforms.
Amritsar Congress
From Madras, Tilak proceeded to Amritsar to attend the annual session of the Congress. The session was bound to be exciting as it was to be held under the shadow of the Gujranwalla and the Jallianwalla Bagh massacres. Indeed, so great were these atrocities that iron had entered the souls of Indians and even sincere co-operationists like Gandhi had termed the activities of the government as ‘Satanic.’
Birth of Responsive Co-operation
Tilak’
s Home Rule Special started from Bombay on the 24th December 1919 and reached Amritsar on Friday, 26th December. On the way, they could see in the newspapers that the King’s proclamation regarding the Reforms Act was published. Baptista writes, “We were on our way to the Congress at Amritsar in 1919. On the way we learnt of the proclamation of His Maiesty the King Emperor. In consultation with Mr. Kelkar and others Tilak drafted the response and then came to me. “I do not like this, Tilak,’ said I. ‘Then draft one yourself,’ said he and left me alone. I did so and sent for him. We discussed for an hour. He was charmed with the expression ‘responsive co-operation.’ He examined analytically all it contained. He concluded ‘responsive co-operation. It’s Divine Revelation.’ ” Tilak sent the following telegram drafted by Baptista to the King, through the Viceroy and the Secretary of State: “Please convey to His Maiesty grateful and loyal thanks of Indian Home Rule League and the people of India for proclamation and amnesty and assure him of responsive co-operation.”
When reports of the telegram appeared, there was consternation in political circles. C. R. Das, who had arrived at Amritsar, just a day before, openly said that since Tilak had agreed to co-operate with the government he was bound to offer opposition to him. Swami Shraddhanand, who was the Chairman of the reception committee, had to tell people repeatedly that as Tilak was after all the Lokmanya of Maharashtra they should wait and hear him before making up their minds about his views.