Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  “For us, he will go down to the generations yet unborn as a maker of modern India. They will revere his memory as of a man who lived for them and died for them. It is blasphemy to talk of such a man as dead. The permanent essence of him abides with us for ever. Let us erect for the only Lokmanya of India an imperishable monument by weaving into our own lives his bravery, his simplicity, his wonderful industry and his love of his country.

  “May God grant his soul peace.”

  1

  2

  3

  4 Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya says about the meeting at the Albert Hall in London held under Lansbury’s Chairmanship “Mrs. Besant, nevertheless, in her speech supported Mr. Montagu’s bill in unmistakable terms and Vithalbhai J. Patel had to contradict her. Finally, in connection with these recriminations, Mr. G. S. Khaparde with his pungent humour described Mrs. Besant as ‘Putana’ to which she-seriously objected, but which description was in detail justified by Vithalbhai. At this distance of time, and knowing as we do Mrs. Besant’s great services to the nation, we cannot help saying that the description was unfortunate and undeserved, in spite of Mrs. Besant’s unconcealed antipathy to the Congress and its activities in London in 1919. It is to be feared that there was something worse which should account for this irrepressible anxiety on Mrs. Besant’s part to support Mr. Montagu in spirit and in letter. Gandhi always treated her with reverence and was always in the habit of rising from his seat to receive her, such was the regard shown towards her by Gandhi and the Congress, but she treated them contemptuously (refer to the events of 1930). Even at that, one should say that Mr. Khaparde’s description of her was not only in bad form, but in bad taste and worse spirit. Let us take this opportunity to state this much.”

  5 These words he uttered in English

  THE SCHOLAR AND THE ‘SADHAKA’

  18

  The word ‘scholarship’ is vague and is often used loosely to connote many different things. The patient and careful collection of data and their presentation in a systematised and logical form is an important aspect of scholarship. But there is another aspect which, though rare, is more fundamental and valuable. It may be termed interpretativescholarship in which an attempt is made to interpret ideas, establish values and enunciate principles from known and available material. Very often these ideas originate as sudden flashes in the mind of the research worker, illuminating, lightning-like, certain parts which were obscure, unknown or neglected. Such a scholar, in the words of the biologist Nicolle, “at once jumps into the unexplorated domain and by this sole act he conquers it. By a streak of lightning, the hitherto obscure problem, which no ordinary feeble lamp would have revealed, is at once flooded with light. It is like a creation.” Tilak’s scholarship was of this type. His domain was Vedic research and Hindu philosophy. In it he formed a few brilliant theories and gave certain illuminating interpretations of the Vedic texts and Vedic chronology. It was no mere textual interpretation of the traditional eastern commentator but the utilisation of original textual interpretation for the formulation of theories in accordance with the established methods of western scholarship. This aspect of scholarship requires much more than patient industry. It is a work of the imagination as much as the work of the poet, the painter, the composer or the scientist. It may or may not have a connection with the world of practice. In the words of Bertrand Russell: “I should not wish the poet, the painter, the composer, or the mathematician to be preoccupied with some remote effect of his activities in the world of practice. He should be occupied rather, in the pursuit of a vision, in capturing and giving permanence to something which he has first seen dimly for a moment, which he has loved with such ardour that the joys of this world have grown pale by comparison. All great art and all great science springs from the passionate desire to embody what was at first an unsubstantial phantom, a beckoning beauty luring men away from safety and ease to a glorious torment.” Many of Tilak’s theories also came to him in a flash.

  The Orion

  Tilak was a very keen student of Vedic literature and certain references gave a stimulus to his imaginative, mind. In the preface to The Orion he wrote: “About four years ago as I was reading the Bhagavad-Gita, it occurred to me that we might derive important conclusions from the statement that ‘he was the Margashirsha of the months.’ This led me to inquire into the primitive Vedic calendar and the result of four years’ labour is now placed before the conference.” The essay, as Tilak modestly calls these important researches into the antiquity of the Vedas, was originally written for the Ninth Oriental Congress held in London in 1892. But owing to its length it could not be inserted into the proceedings and therefore its summary was included therein. Tilak published the essay in October 1893.

  The problem of fixing the period of Vedic civilis atìon had aroused the interest of a number of oriental scholars. It was acknowledged that the Veda ‘took us to the beginning of the Aryan civilisation’ and as Max Müller put it, “that for a study of man, or if you like, for a study of Aryan humanity, there is nothing in the world equal in importance with it.” Prof. Max Müller followed the literary or linguistic method for ascertaining the age of the Vedas, divided the Vedic literature into four periods the Chhandas, Mantra, Brahmana and Sutra, each presupposing the preceding period. He maintained that the last, i.e., Sutra, was prior “if not to the origin, at least to the spreading and political ascendancy of Buddhism,” i.e., 4th century B.C. and by assigning two hundred years for each period, he arrived at the conclusion that the Vedic hymns were composed at the latest at about 1200 B.C. Dr. Hang followed the method of Prof. Max Müller, but as he assigned five hundred years to each period, on the analogy of similar periods in Chinese literature, he fixed the commencement of Vedic literature between 2400-2000 B.C. While considering the validity of these conclusions it must first be remembered that there were differences among scholars about the division of Vedic literature and moreover it was extremely difficult to assign even the minimum chronological limits to the different periods. Tilak therefore argued that this linguistic method of calculation could at the most be accepted as corroborative evidence but in itself it was vague and uncertain. He decided to pursue a different method of research. Instead of basing his conclusions on mythological and philological coincidences, he studied carefully the numerous allusions and astronomical references in the Vedas, ‘the Brahmanas and the Sutras, in order to ascertain the age of the Veda, the oldest literary relic of the Aryan race.’ The astronomical method was so far looked upon with suspicion by many oriental scholars. The reason was that except for the Vedanga Jyotisha there were no astronomical works in Sanskrit belonging to the period of the Vedas. Moreover, in the absence of any definite statement as to the character of the year and the cycle mentioned in the Vedic work, the task of deducing a consistent theory out of the references in the Vedic literature to astronomical facts, was regarded as almost next to impossible. Granting the difficulties of the method, Tilak maintained that the scholars were only overcautious in condemning the method as inaccurate and conjectural. He pointed out that the flow in the work of earlier scholars who pursued this method was that the main point got mixed up with irrelevant matter and led to confusion. Tilak, however, acknowledged the significance of ‘Bentley’s specu- lations which were... ingenious and suggestive,’ of ‘Prof. Webber’s Essay, which as a collection of astronomical allusions and references, was extremely valuable,’ and also of Prof. Whitney’s contributions on the subject. He also made a pointed reference to the remark made by Prof. Max Müller, in the Preface to Rigveda, Vol. IV, that “if the astronomical data on which conclusions as to the age of the Veda have been built implied all that they were represented to imply, the earliest periods of Vedic poetry will have to be rearranged.” Tilak based his theory on the astronomical references in the early Vedic works, the Samhitas, and the Brahmanas, and especially in the earliest of these, the Rigveda. He urged that his theory should be judged in the lig
ht of the evidence offered as a whole and remarked that he had mentioned ‘certain facts.not as convincing as the others... which in themselves were interesting but which might be admitted... as there was ample evidence to prove the main point.’ Tilak has claimed that his method of investigation was the same as that adopted by Bentley and Colebrooke and that he was carrying ‘it a step ahead of his predecessors. He was, however, conscious of the fact that the evidence he had advanced in support of his theory would have validity only if the Sanskrit scholars accepted his interpretation of the texts as correct. In the preface he remarked: “Though I have used the astronomical method, yet a comparison with Bentley’s work will show that the present essay is more literary than astronomical in character. In other words, it is the Sanskrit scholars who have first of all to decide if my interpretations of certain texts are correct, and when this judgment is once given it is not at all difficult to astronomically calculate the exact period of the tradition in the Rigveda. I do not mean to say that no knowledge of astronomy is necessary to discuss the subject, but on the whole it would be readily seen that the question is one more for Sanskrit scholars than for astronomers to decide.”

  The Conclusions

  The conclusions which we may draw from a consideration of all these facts is that the oldest periods of the Aryan civilization must be rearranged as under:

  (i)Pre -Orion Period, 6000-4000 B.C. The primitive calendar was first framed at this time, and a sacrificial system based upon it. The vernal equinox was in Punarvasu.

  (ii)The Orion Period 4000-2500 B.C.That is from the time when the vernal equinox was near the right shoulder of the Orion (Ardra) to the time when the equinox was in the Krittikas.

  (iii)The Krittika Period 2500-1400 B.C. When the Taittiriya Samhita and several Brahmanas were compiled.

  (iv)The Pre-Buddhistic Period 1400-500 B.C.This is the period of Sutras.

  “Such are the conclusions which can be fairly and reasonably deduced from the astronomical facts, references and allusions contained in the Vedic works, and the linguistic evidence does not conflict with them. For we must place a considerable period between the Rigveda hymns and the time of the Brahmanas, when those hymns had become intelligible. The linguistic method does not, however, give us any specific point of time, while the astronomical references and observations supply us with definite facts indicating definite time. Taking these points as the starting points of the different periods, we have to see if the durations assigned to them are or are not probable on the linguistic grounds. Thus used the two methods will be found to harmonise.”

  Comments

  Prof. Jacobi

  Prof. Herman Georg Jacobi, an eminent scholar of Sanskrit, wrote in the 23rd Volume of the Indian Antiquary, published in June 1894, an article, ‘On the Date of the Rig-Veda’1 In the course of this article, Prof. Jacobi discussed the astronomical evidence in the Vedic texts and arrived at the following conclusion: “This period of civilisation extended accordingly from about 4500 to 2500 B.C. and we shall not perhaps be far wrong, if we put the collection of hymns which has come down to us in the second half of this period.” He has worked out a table of the longitudes of the principal stars of the Nakshatras at various times. In the concluding note, Prof. Jacobi wrote: “The previous investigation had been finished... when I got information of the work of Prof. Bal Gangadhar Tilak.... Nevertheless I have determined to publish my arguments, as in spite of our agreement in the main result, our methods are different.”

  Dr. Bloomfield

  Dr. Bloomfield of John Hopkins’ Institute speaking of The Orion in an anniversary address paid the following glowing attribute: “But a literary event of even greater importance has happened within the last two or three months — an event which is certain to stir the world of science and culture far more than beatific reminiscences. Some ten weeks ago I received from India a small duodecimo volume in the clumsy get-up and faulty typography of the native Anglo-Indian press. It came with the regards of the author, a person totally unknown to fame.... The title is The Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas! It will be understood that the entry of the little volume upon my horizon was not such as to prejudice me in its favour and secondly I placed it where it might reach without too much effort in the drowsy after-dinner hours, to be disposed of along with much second class matter, such as reaches a scholar, through the channels of a Postal Union. Nor was the preface at all encouraging. The author blandly informs us that the age of the Rigveda cannot be less than 4,000 year before Christ. Having in mind the boundless fancy of the Hindu through the ages and his fatal facility for taking his mouthfuls when it comes to a question of numbers, I proposed to myself to continue to turn the leaves of the book with the amused smile of orthodoxy befitting the occasion. But soon the amused smile gave way to an uneasy sense that something unusual had happened. I was first impressed with something Iconic in the way in which the author controlled the Vedic literature and the occidental works on the same; my superficial reading was soon replaced by observed study and finally having been prepared to scoff wildly, I confess that the author had convinced me in all essential points. The book is unquestionably the literary sensation of the year just before us. History the Re-adjuster shall have her hands uncommonly full to assimilate the results of Mr. Tilak’s discovery and arrange her paraphernalia in the new perspective.”

  G. Thibaut

  G. Thibaut in a paper published in Volume IV of The Indian Antiquary (published in March 1895) has tried to refute the thesis in The Orion. He has also contradicted the arguments of Prof. Jacobi who support ed Tilak’s point of view. Thibaut has considered a passage, from the Kaushitaki Brahmana, not discussed by Tilak, and has arrived at the conclusion that ‘Kaushitaki Brahmana belongs to the period when the winter-solstice was supposed to be in Sravishthas.’ G. Thibaut has also quoted Taittiriya and Tandya passages to substantiate his argument. At the end of his article he has remarked: “But I must adhere to my contention, that with the possible exception of Krittikas heading the old list of the nakshatras, no astronomical datum has, so far, been pointed out in Vedic literature which leads back further than the period when the winter-solstice was in the Sravishthas.”

  Dr. Dandekar

  Dr. R. N. Dandekar, the eminent orientalist, has been working on the problem of the fixation of the Vedic period. His research in the field has received the recognition of the most eminent of Indologists and it is therefore necessary to consider his views in the matter, which are an indirect commentary on Tilak’s researches in the field. Dr. Dandekar, in his presidential remarks at the first section — Ancient Period — of the tenth session of the All-India History Congress observed: “I am... inclined to think that, generally speaking the Vedic period has been studied, up till now, more or less as an isolated period. Efforts must now be made to fix up that period into the whole scheme of the history of India, which, in turn, must be properly linked up with the history of the world.... The astronomical evidence, produced to prove the hoary antiquity of the Veda, has always appeared to me to be of doubtful validity. We observe that there are as many dates fixed on the basis of that evidence as there are astronomical scholars! Moreover such a high antiquity for the Veda is not likely to fit in well with the scheme of the later course of Indian history. The Indus civilization, may have, in that case, to be regarded as just an aspect of Vedic civilization, against overwhelming archaeological evidence to the contrary.”

  It can thus be seen that many of Tilak’s conclusions about the Antiquity of the Vedas are no more accepted by orientalists today. This, however, in no way lessens the importance of the research done by Tilak. What Dr. Dandekar said in justification of his own conclusions may be said about Tilak’s hypothesis also: “Such hypothesis put forth in the field of ancient Indian history are but ‘pins set up to be bowl’d down again.’ It is, however, my belief that, in the interest of historical progress, it is necessary and desirable that such ‘pins�
�� are set up if only to be bowl’d down and replaced by stronger and firmer pins.”

  Arctic Home in the Vedas

  At the end of the preface to The Orion, Tilak wrote: “It is not likely that my other engagements will permit me to devote much time to this subject in future.”

  His imprisonment in 1898, however, came as a blessing in disguise as it enabled him to dive deep in to the subject of his choice. Prof. Max Müller, sent him a copy of the Rigveda he had edited. While Tilak was deeply absorbed in the study of it, the idea about the original home of the Aryans, dawned on his mind as in a flash. The event can best be described in the words of Poincare: “Most striking at first is this appearance of sudden illumination a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work.” The hymn (Many days passed before the Sun-rise) strengthened his belief in his theory. V. G. Ketkar in the Reminiscences of Tilak wrote: “After his release from prison, as he was once talking to a learned friend, he remarked: ‘I was very happy on the night when I could explain correctly the hymn, The friend naturally said, ‘How can there be any happiness in prison?’ At this Tilak said, ‘You won’t understand it unless you go to prison.”

  This was, however, only the beginning of a brilliant idea. Tilak had the scientific attitude necessary for carrying on research and would have discarded his theory if he had not come across the corroborative evidence. After his release he devoted his spare time to the pursuit of this inquiry and in particular studied geology. He wrote The Arctic Home in the Vedas in the summer of 1902. During this period he was staying at his bungalow on. Singhad Gopal Raoji Gogte, who was Tilak’s writer during the period, in the Reminiscences stated: “Tilak dictated to me hectically for fourteen to fifteen hours a day. Sometimes he was so much absorbed in some new idea that I had to wait for hours before he resumed the work of dictation.... He hardly spoke to anyone in the house.... The work continued almost to the last moment of our leaving Sinhgad.... He was happy when the book was completed.”