by A K Bhagwat
The main resolution before the Amritsar Congress was prepared by C. R. Das. The resolution ran as follows:
1. That this Congress reiterates its declaration of last year that India is fit for full Responsible Government and repudiates all assumptions and assertions to the contrary.
2. That this Congress adheres to the resolution passed at the Delhi Congress regarding constitutional reforms and is of opinion that the Reforms Act is inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing.
3. That this Congress further urges that Parliament should take early steps to establish full Responsible Government in India in accordance with the principle of Self-determination.
Gandhi moved an amendment omitting the word ‘disappointing’ and adding a fourth paragraph which ran as follows:
4. Pending such introduction, this Congress begs loyally to respond to the sentiments in the Roval Proclamation, namely, ‘Let the new era begin with a common determination among my people and my officers to work together for a common purpose,” and trusts that both the authorities and the people will co-operate so to work the Reforms as to secure the early establishment of full Responsible Government.
5. And this Congress offers its warmest thanks to the Rt. Hon. E. S. Montacu for his labours in connection with them.
Tilak’s position was a middle one. He was not wholly for rejection of the reforms as outlined in the original resolution nor was he in favour of Mahatma Gandhi’s formula of complete co-operation. The words ‘responsive co-operation’ explained his attitude. On the one side, he had to encounter the opposition of those in the younger section, who wanted a total rejection of the reforms. On the other, there was the moral stand taken by Gandhi, who said, whether they accented or worked the reforms, the cards must be laid clearly on the table. Explaining his amendment he said:
“My amendment means nothing more and nothing less than that we should stare the situation in the face as it exists before the country today and if Tilak Maharaj tells you that we are going to make use of the Reforms Act as he must, and as he already told Mr. Montagu, as he has told the country that we are going to take the fullest advantage of the reforms, then I say, be true to yourself, be true to the country and tell the country that you are going to do it. But if you want to say, after having gone there, you will put obstruction, say that also. But on the question of propriety and obstruction, I say, Indian culture demands that we shall trust one who extends a hand of fellowship. The Indian culture demands trust and full trust, and if you are sufficiently manly we shall not be afraid of the future, but face it in a manly manner and say, ‘All right, Mr. Montagu, all right, all officials of the bureaucracy, we are going to trust you. We shall put you in a corner and when you resist us and when you resist the advance of the country, then we say you do so at your peril!’ That is the manly attitude that I suggest.”
D. V. Athalye, a biographer of Tilak, has made the following comment: “The question that occurred to a thoughtful mind was ‘would there be the necessary amount of tact, shrewdness and foresight which the occasion demanded?’ Mr. Gandhi’s presence and arguments infused moral sublimity into the proceedings as was seen by the resolution which condemned the excesses (April 1919) of the infuriated mobs in the Punjab and other places. The question was whether the Congress would rise to the same height of statesmanship as it did to that of moral sublimity. What should be the wording of the resolution about the reforms? Mrs. Besant’s proposal, had it been passed, would have emphasised our expression of gratitude at the expense of our dignity. Mr. Gandhi’s resolution was graceful without being emphatically dignified. Mr. Tilak’s resolution was a unique combination of grace with dignity, mellowed by a reasonable expression of gratitude.”
Tilak in explaining the terms ‘responsive co-operation’ stated that no government imposing its will upon a subject race need ever expect co-operation in any greater proportion than what it was itself prepared to concede to the people. In the course of his speech he observed, “Now let me say a few words about self-determination. Not only do we want full responsible government, but we want it in accordance with the principle of self-determination, that means the determination of the people of India as voiced by the resolutions of the Congress passed by a majority in this Congress.”
About the question whether Indians were going to use the Act, Tilak said: “Every Act passed by Parliament is binding upon us and we are prepared to carry out its provisions loyally; but we must always be demanding more. That does not conflict with our loyalty but when you come and say ‘Oh yes, we are prepared to obey Parliament’ it means that sometimes you are prepared to disobey the Parliament. We go to Parliament, we ask for a legislation, we get it and we shall make it a basis of further agitation. That is our attitude. We get a bit of what we want; we shall make use of it and always go on agitating for more. This is our duty.”
Tilak objected to the idea of thanking Mr. Montagu because, according to him, “We want now clearly to declare not only here, but to the whole world, that we are not satisfied with the Act. We want to continue our agitation; we want to utilise it to the best possible advantage and continue to demand more. We want to ask the rest of the world to know that this is the exact state of our feeling. Any exaggeration in the matter is likely to mislead the civilised nations of the world. Take care of that. Don’t be too generous, too kind, too humane, to accept with a fulsome dose of thanks what little has been thrown to you now. That is the object.” There was a loud applause at the end of Tilak’s speech.
T. Prakasam records the following memorable incident in the Subjects Committee at Amritsar.2 “The prominent incident I could recall to memory is what Lokmanya told Mahatma Gandhi in the Subjects Committee of the Congress at Amritsar. When Mahatma Gandhi suggested that Indian politics must be based upon truth! Lokmanya turned to him at once and observed: ‘My friend! Truth has no place in politics.’ To some of us who were not initiated either into Gandhi’s true non-violent doctrines or into Tilak’s so-called extremism, the suggestion of introduction of truth into politics of the day and spontaneous repudiation of the doctrine by Tilak appeared rather strange on the part of one, and too blunt and abrupt on the part of the other. But both were right. Both were prophets. Lokmanya Tilak did not live to see how both could be true.” It has also to be noted that though the amendment was defeated the moral stand was taken up by the Congress later. It became, in fact, the bulwark of Indian politics. Tilak’s stand of responsive co-operation was also taken up and his insistence on sending only such members as were prepared to accept the resolutions of the Amritsar Congress was sound from the point of view of party discipline and it was also accepted at all future times.
It was at this time that the idea of starting a Congress Democratic Party entered Tilak’s mind. “The propaganda carried on on behalf of the party,” he said, “would be fruitful in saturating the masses with the love of Swaraj. The work would be entirely under the constitution and therefore the government would not dare touch any worker.” He looked upon the reforms, therefore, as possessing the much needed quality of legalising the political agitation. The political agitator under the reforms ran very little risk and the work of educating the people, he thought, could be carried on safely.
A full exposition of his stand of responsive co-operation was given in his article in the Kesari on the 13th January 1920. “Cooperation,” he pointed out, “was relative. Things which were conducive to the welfare of the people deserve their co-operation. This co-operation was, however, opposed by the bureaucracy. If, therefore, according to the will of the King expressed in the proclamation, the bureaucracy would be ready to co-operate, the people too on their part would co-operate. If not, they would have no alternative but to oppose.”
On his return from Amritsar, Tilak was busy in reorganizing the Home Rule League and was also involved in a local controversy about compulsory education to be given by the Municipality. In this he tried to point out
that to start with, this facility could be made available to boys only, as the resources were limited, and later to girls. He also took part in the Astronomical Conference held at Sangli in February 1920.
Reception to Home Rule League Deputation
On the 16th January 1920, Khaparde, Dr. Sathaye and Vithalbhai Patel returned from England, after completing their work with the Home Rule League deputation. Tilak presided over the reception held in their honour. In his speech he said, “There are changes going on in the world around. At this critical time it is necessary that we carry on the movement for Home Rule with vigour. The Amritsar Congress had decided that the Reforms Act was inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. The act gives no real power to the people. The government still has the purse-strings, and wishes to pacify Indian opinion by throwing to them a bit. The principle of self-determination is now accepted and to make people acquainted with the real conditions here, we should send our representatives to foreign countries. Co-operation is always relative. Unless the bureaucracy co-operates the people will not. Diarchy is meaningless and we must show to the government that they can no longer rule by the policy of divide and rule. Those who say that we should be satisfied with whatever we have got, are deceiving people. When Egypt and Ireland are demanding freedom it would be a disgrace if we lagged behind.”
The Ali Brothers
On the 30th January 1920, another meeting was held in Bombay under Tilak’s presidentship, in honour of the Ali brothers. Tilak was ailing and was forbidden to make a speech. While garlanding the Ali brothers, Tilak garlanded Mohamad Ali first through mistake. Tilak explained that it was no mistake as they were told that a good teacher wishes for defeat at the hands of his disciple and naturally Shoukat Ali would be delighted to see his younger brother honoured first. Referring to the Khilafat question he said, “The King of England is called Defender of the Faith. In India, since there is a variety of faiths the King must be a Defender of Faiths. The Queen’s proclamation had said that on the satisfaction of the people depended the stability of the Empire. It is imperative that the government should solve the Khilafat question satisfactorily in accordance with the wishes of the Muslims. If the government pursues the policy of keeping seven crores of Muslims and thirty crores of Hindus dissatisfied, there would be no permanency for the Empire. Today it is the Muslims, tomorrow it may be the turn of the Hindus. We are ready at this time to help our Muslim brethren. I am ready to do everything for them and am prepared even to go to England for this.”
Regarding the Khilifat agitation and a consideration of the proposed programme of non-co-operation, Asaf Ali thus describes a meeting presided over by Swami Shraddhanand:3
“He (Tilak) spoke in English and it fell to my lot to give a report of his speech in Urdu. He had a wonderful power of appealing to the deepmost sentiments of his audience, although his voice and rhetorical art were obviously limited. The simile drawn from the Hindu Scriptures of the churning of the Universal ocean, the discovery of the Ratnas, the deterring gift of ‘Poison’ preceding the final gift of ‘Amrit’ was most aptly made use of by Lok. Tilak, in showing that the attainment of freedom, the birth-right of man, must necessarily involve the precedence of ‘Suffering.’ But about the most original thing he said that day was in the nature of a confession. He said that his advocacy of freedom was not prompted by any thoughts of serving humanity or the Indian nation; but it was a phase of his mentality, which no considerations would affect. It was, he said, a mysterious urge in him and he could not help it even if he wanted.”
At the joint conference of Muslim League and Congress leaders, in the middle of the discussion he had to leave to keep a previous appointment. Before going he said, “Whatever may be your decisions you may take it that I agree with it, for I am ready to go much further than your programme.”
Sind Tour
On the 26th April, Tilak went to attend the Provincial Conference at Karachi and spoke before crowded meetings and held discussions at Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkar, Shikarpur and Jacobabad. In the reception, the fraternity of Hindus and Muslims was at its height. He advised the people to work the Amritsar Congress Resolution and spoke of his resolve to form the Congress Democratic Party to fight the next elections. For this purpose, he was anxious to attend the Sholapur Political Conference. In his lectures and discussions, we have on the authority of Swami Govindanand, it was clear that while he believed in the superiority of the Satyagraha movement over the responsive co-operation, he doubted if the people were sufficiently ready to practise the former. He was doubtful about the success of the Satyagraha movement. He told the people of Sind that if he were convinced that the people were ready for the many mighty sacrifices which the movement demanded of them and if it contained 50% chances of success he would take the risk and whole-heartedly go in for it. Though not convinced of the success of the movement, he was generous enough to say that he would never oppose the Mahatma. He would allow him full freedom to work his movement and put his ideas in practice and render him all the help he was capable of rendering, though he would not shoulder the responsibility or lead it himself.
Sholapur Conference
On the 2nd April, Tilak attended the Provincial Conference at Sholapur. Coming events had already cast their shadows. Early in March when Tilak attended the Poona District Conference at Junnar the moderates combined with the non-Brahmins and tried to create a disturbance by insisting on having peasant representatives at the conference. At the Belgaum District Conference again the presentation of an address to Tilak was opposed by two non-Brahmins. In his speech, Tilak congratulated these gentlemen on their courage to come forward and voice their views. They should, he hoped, show the same independence and boldness in opposing the government. A joint opposition was very strongly organised by the moderates under Principal Paranjpye, and the non-Brahmins under Walchand Kothari. They were assured of the co-operation of Mrs. Besant, who was also present at the conference. The main resolution was proposed by Tiiak, which said in effect that as this conference was a part of the Indian National conference, the resolution on the reforms passed at Amritsar was accepted by the conference also; only those, therefore, who were in favour of the Amritsar resolution, would be elected to the Councils on behalf of the Congress.
Mrs. Besant moved an amendment, supported by Principal Paranjpye. It was to the effect that only those, who were generally in favour of the Congress policy and who were ready to support the reforms and work them out, should be elected.
Both, in his speech at the conference as also in his article in the Kesari, Tilak pointed out that the question was not a question of personalities or individuals. Mrs. Besant and the moderates had their own parties; there was no reason therefore as to why there should be no Congress party. “Mr. Baptista has pointed out that the easiest way of getting complete independence was to elect disciplined followers of the Amritsar Congress. Only, then, the people of England would be convinced that the policy of the Congress was accepted by the people of India and they were determined to get complete independence.”
If, on the other hand they were not elected, Parliament and the government of India would never grant any rights to ‘Indians’.
Mrs. Besant’s amendment was rejected and Tilak’s amendment resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority.
The Sholapur Conference was, however, marred by ugly incidents in which the followers of Walchand Kothari tried to break the meeting by violent demonstrations and it was watched on by moderates like Principal Paranjpye. In an indignant article written in the Kesari on the 13th April 1920, Tilak condemned the hooliganism organised by Kothari and countenanced by Paranjpye. Along with them he also blamed Mrs. Besant and applied to her the epithet ‘Putana’ (a demoness, sent to kill Krishna) used by Khaparde in England.
Tilak and Mrs. Besant
The differences between Mrs. Besant and Tilak became marked during the Home Rule League deputations in Englan
d. The followers of Tilak distrusted Mrs Besant from the beginning, as was seen at the time of the starting of the Home Rule League. Tilak had the foresight to notice that with Mrs. Besant, there would be a new force in Indian politics and accorded her every co-operation. He had brought his followers round to accept his point of view and during the best part of 1916 and 1917 both, through their Leagues, had inflamed the country with the idea of Home Rule. With the announcement of the reforms, however, the differences between them became more and more marked. Mrs. Besant, with the moderates, believed in working them. The differences, as Tilak pointed out, started at the time of the Delhi Congress when Mrs. Besant objected to the resolution on provincial autonomy. Mrs. Besant took therefore a separate deputation to England and it was through the repeated requests of Tilak that she agreed to work jointly and yet she showed a strong inclination to side with Mr. Montagu. Mrs. Besant started accusing Tilak of turning a moderate when he was in England; but, Tilak pointed out that in England, whereas he stood by the Congress resolutions, Mrs. Besant was lukewarm in her support and insisted on thanking Mr. Montagu.4 Tilak concluded by appealing to Mrs. Besant to drop her opposition to the Congress and to himself. “Even if the reforms appeared to her satisfactory,” he reminded, “that would not be enough. They must take whatever is given and agitate for more. The moderate party could not be the permanent dwelling place of Mrs. Besant; she must join the Congress. In it lay the happiness of herself, the Congress and India also.”
Brahmins and Non - Brahmins
He also wrote an article on Brahmins and non-Brahmins and pointed out that there was no truth in saying that the Brahmins had exploited and ruined the non-Brahmins. The Vaishyas and the Kshatriyas had also done it. Once again, as on the earlier occasions, he mixed up ideas of class with caste and argued that since class was bad, caste could be defended! He had also to fall back on the Buddhist text in support of his argument that the castes were determined not by birth but by action. His position in this respect remained dubious throughout. He now saw, however, what Agarkar had seen much earlier, that caste as a principle of stability had to be replaced by a higher principle though for political expediency. “Today a stage has arisen when every caste was independent in its own profession and socially it was not ready to merge with any other. It might happen in future but that is not the present question. Hence even if caste distinctions do not go, caste-hatred must.” His plea was: all, irrespective of caste, must come together and strive for the scheme of national welfare as embodied by the Indian National Congress.