Lokmanya Tilak

by A K Bhagwat

  The outbreak of the World War in 1914 had created an unexpected situation. Tilak made it clear that like the Irish nationalists he too felt that “England’s difficulties were India’s opportunities.” But as a practical statesman, he judged the nature of the opportunity. Unlike certain revolutionaries, he thought that it would not be possible to overthrow the British Government by revolutionary methods and he therefore declared his policy of co-operation with the war-effort in India. Tilak was a realist and felt that the opportunity created by war could be exploited only through pressure politics. His support to the war-effort was, in fact, a plank in pressure politics. All along, Tilak was preaching the gospel of Swaraj and brought home to the people its exact content. While welcoming the Montagu declaration for its acceptance of the idea of responsible government in India and while agreeing to the declaration that such a government would be established through stages, Tilak demanded that the stages ‘should be determined by us’ and that the time for the final stage should be fixed immediately.

  While explaining the content of Home Rule, Tilak upheld the democratic form and insisted on the following four constituents of it: (1) power at the Centre, (2) complete autonomy to the federal units, (3) linguistic provinces, and (4) the election of the head of the province by the people. In all these ‘great Home Rule speeches,’ Tilak foresaw the political events and drew for the people a picture of a free India. In doing this, he was not putting an optimistic construction on different forces, but he judged the political forces in India in relation to the world situation and with rare political foresight saw the shape of things to come. He, however, always exhorted the people to play their destined role in the movement for Home Rule and wanted the Congress to give a correct lead for utilising every opportunity that presented itself. Tilak after 1914 had reached the height of his popularity and his position in public life can justly be described as that of the ‘uncrowned king of India.’ People, from cities as well as from villages, came in thousands to see him and to listen to his inspiring words, honoured him by presenting addresses and purses and he taught them ‘Karma-Yoga,’ and appealed to them to accept the challenge of their times.

  While infusing a new zeal in India’s political life, Tilak knew the importance of political propaganda in England and led one of the Home Rule deputations to England. He also went to England in connection with the Chirol case. It was Tilak’s intense desire to make the truth about India’s political movement known to the world (and Gandhiji called it ‘a kind of a Satyagraha’) that prompted him to file the libel suit. He lost the suit — materially it was a great loss — but his moral stand was vindicated when Chirol, in the second edition of his book, omitted almost all the grave charges against Tilak and thus gave a lie to his earlier accusation that Tilak was a seditionist.

  While in England, Tilak spared no pains in popularising India’s cause and in educating British public opinion about India’s political demands. With characteristic foresight he developed closer contacts with the Labour Party and made a gesture expressing India’s solidarity with the representatives of ‘have-nots’ in England. He published the famous pamphlet of ‘Self-determination’ a marvellous statement of India’s case, and distributed thousands of the copies among the British. His awareness of the importance of world forces could be seen from the fact that he sent a copy of it to the Peace Conference at Paris. He also delivered a number of speeches, met a number of important people, and as a member of the Congress deputation, gave evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee.

  Tilak, on his return to India, sensed the rise of the new forces as revealed through the Khilafat movement and the Rowlatt Satyagraha. As a progressive leader he welcomed them and he recognised that Gandhi was the rising star on the political horizon. Tilak had expressed his disappointment when the draft of the Montford reforms was published. The Congress had now to decide its attitude to the proposed reforms. C. R. Das said that it should berejected and Gandhiji said that they should be worked in such a way as to attain Swaraj and Tilak as a practical statesman suggested the golden mean which was ultimately accepted through the compromise formula moved by C. R. Das. When Tilak was in England, he was impressed with the Sinn Feiners’ way of winning elections, their refusal to take their seats in Parliament and their efforts to organise their own government. He wanted to imitate some of their ways in such a way as to suit Indian conditions and he advocated his doctrine of responsive co-operation. He wanted to work the reforms and send such representatives to the legislature as would accept the creed and discipline of the Congress. In case the government refused to co-operate, Tilak had in mind direct action — boycott, passive resistance, etc. Events have proved that this line was followed by the Congress in later days — the Swarajya Party worked in the council and when a clash with the government became inevitable, the Congress resorted to civil disobedience.

  Lokmanya Tilak looked upon Satyagraha as a means, and it was only later on that it developed as a philosophy of life in the hands of Mahatma Gandhi. Though Lokmanya differed from the Mahatma, he had conceded to the latter’s point of view at Amritsar by accepting his resolution condemning the excesses of the people during the riots in Punjab. It is idle speculation to discuss how Tilak would have reacted to the policy and programme advocated by Gandhiji. It is also unfair to apply post-Gandhian and post-Marxian tests to Tilak’s political ideas and programmes. He started the arduous journey of his political life when the political movement in India was in its infancy, he strengthened it, gave a tremendous impetus to it and created conditions under which the British Government had to accept at least theoretically India’s claims for a responsible government. Throughout his life, he held the torch of his country’s honour aloft and when death laid its icy hands on him, he must have said with satisfaction, “The long day’s task is done and I must sleep.”

  From all this emerges the picture of an individual with intensely human qualities, whose passion in life was the emancipation of his country and whose life was a dedication to this cause. A Vedantic by instinct and training, he was a true democrat. He looked upon democracy not as just a form of government but a faith which decided one’s attitude to others. He did not accept it as an imitation of the west. He sought its basis in Hindu philosophy, for had not the great Upanishads taught that each soul is equal before God? His popularity, therefore, sat easily on him and he remained simple, friendly and intensely human, in spite of the halo of greatness that surrounded him. His flashes of humour, genial and spontaneous, broke through the hard crust of his rugged exterior. A strong-willed and spirited individual, once a thought had crystallised itself, he brooked no opposition and was ruthless in his criticism. For all that, he did not wish anything for himself but his anxiety was all for the cause for which he fought. In spite of his political preoccupation, he drank deep at the spring of Indian culture. How he wanted to transcend the limitations set on the national movement owing to the political conditions, was evinced on a number of occasions and, above all, when he suggested that Tagore — the full-bloomed flower of Indian genius — should be requested to become the president of the Congress. He must have foreseen the day when culture and not political ideal would become the main-spring of Indian life.

  PART II

  The urges which found expression in India’s struggle for freedom were not just material urges; they were an outcome of the cultural traditions and were a part of the Indian Renaissance movement.

  Indian Renaissance began with Raja Ram Mohan Roy. He saw the need of modernising Indian culture and of bringing it to the level of western culture. He believed that the basis for Indian Renaissance could be found in the ancient Vedantic doctrine. This Vedanta, according to him, was the universal element of religion to be found in Indian culture. Ram Mohan Roy believed that humanity will have to evolve a universal religion and for that purpose all religions in the world will have to discard idolatry and superstitious growths in order to purify themselves. He also realis
ed that Hindu culture will have to undergo a social and religious transformation and establish social equality between man and woman and between the various castes and communities of India. He, therefore, made efforts to remove the superstitious religious practices like idolatry and inhuman religious practices like ‘Sati.’ Thus, there were two trends in his thought with regard to the immediate work of an Indian reformer. The first was to revive the Vedanta doctrine in its pure form and the other was to westernise the Indian culture to some extent, by absorbing the progressive principles which the western nations were adopting for the transformation of their social structure. He was particularly influenced by the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. These two trends in his thoughts may be called the national and the universal elements. The subsequent development of this phase of the Renaissance movement was not able to successfully synthesise the two elements and within forty years, in Bengal, it was split up into two or three sects and lost its hold.

  A movement cannot grow in an uninterrupted manner and society is swayed by diverse forces giving rise to different movements. In England ‘the Renaissance’ was followed by ‘the Reformation.’ In India of modern times the movement of cultural renaissance was followed by the revivalist movement, which was fundamentally different from the former owing to the different urges which prompted it. This phase in India’s cultural life may be said to have begun since the times of Ramkrishna Paramhansa and it reached its zenith with the triumphal tours of Vivekananda in America and England. During this phase the Indian Vedanta doctrine was revived and given a new orientation. It was linked with Indian nationalism and the superiority of Indian culture over the western European culture began to be stressed. Tilak and his contemporary nationalist political leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal also took up this Vedantic outlook as the basis of their nationalism. Simultaneously with this change of attitude in India, a similar change was taking place in western European ideas in philosophy, western European philosophy had begun to move in the direction of idealism and nationalism as against the rationalism and humanism of the liberals. The pragmatic philosophy of William James had a religious slant and he accepted the potentiality of Vedanta to evolve a science of religious experience. In England, Hegelian idealistic thought began to dominate at the end of the 19th century. In France, Bergson began to preach the doctrine of intuition and questioned the self-sufficiency of reason and the material determinism. All this confirmed the Indian nationalists in their faith that the spiritual outlook of Indian culture was once again going to prevail in the world and that a new turn would be given to human culture by the resurgent Asiatic nations. This self-confidence of the Indian nationalists with regard to the ancient culture continued to grow during the first twenty years of the 20th century and they looked upon the First World War as the destined end of European supremacy and an opportunity for Asiatic nations to come to the forefront and to inaugurate a new epoch of human culture. Tilak made a very great contribution to this phase of India’s cultural life, through his work, both in academic and political spheres.

  It would be unjust to say merely that Tilak contributed to this phase. It is necessary to state his position in metaphysics, ethics and sociology.

  Comte stated that the human mind in its evolution has passed through three stages: (i) Theological, ( ii) metaphysical, and (iii) positive; and of these stages, according to Comte, the positive stage was the final and the most evolved. Tilak disagreed with Comte and maintained that the metaphysical stage was the final stage, as in it there is a realisation that thought has the power to go beyond experience and to form certain conceptions; but while insisting on the necessity of metaphysics, he admitted that it was imperfect. Herein, he followed Spencer. But whereas Spencer took an agnostic position, Tilak acknowledged the validity of mystic experience.

  While discussing the ethical problems, Tilak, like Comte, mentioned the three different attitudes, viz., (i) materialist, (ii) theological, and (iii) spiritual. Tilak discarded the materialist approach, because he believed that mechanical determinism was the final phase of materialism and he argued that mechanical determinism was thoroughly inconsistent with any ethics. Tilak pointed out that Mill, who was a Utilitarian, had to admit that there was a qualitative distinction between different kinds of happiness. Tilak accepted the social aspect of ethics as pointed out by Mill and he fervently advocated the idea of Lokasangraha in Gita-Rahasya. He, at the same time, emphasised the need of discarding egotism and laid stress on ‘disinterested action.’ He pointed out that in Hindu philosophy the emphasis was laid on salvation and in western philosophy, on promoting social good, and further declared that the Bhagavadgita was a higher synthesis as it advocated the ideal of Lokasangraha by Sthitaprajnas (action for social good by those who have attained philosophic calm owing to their unattached attitude). Tilak admitted that disinterested service of humanity was the future form of religion. His attitude may therefore be summed up as ‘spiritual humanism’ and if he had divorced metaphysics from ethics, his attitude would have been termed as ‘rational humanism.’

  In respect of sociology, he accepted the basis of ethical and metaphysical ideas which he advocated. He, therefore, held that society should be based on social duty and that all have equal dignity and equal reward, viz. salvation. He therefore time and again made a reference to He accepted the material inequality in society on the ground that people with their attachment to life needed incentives. Tilak pointed out that Vedanta advocated the concept of equality, but the metaphysical ideal could not be a reality in society, because the selfishness of the average individual could not be eradicated. Tilak argued that a sociologist had to be a realist and justified the concept of four Varnas in the Smritis. In support of his view, he made a reference to the opinion of Comte that society’s structure in future will require a four-estate system of which the first position would be occupied by the scientists and by those who guide the industry; this class would be future substitutes for the priestly order of the middle ages. The Smritikars, thus, could not practise the ideals preached in the Upanishads. Tilak also defended the Mahayana Sect in Buddhism which according to him was more realistic than Buddhism or Jainism, which emphasised equality. He similarly approved of the realistic approach of St. Paul. It can thus be seen that in his sociological ideals he was a pragmatíst and argued that ideals would have to be modified in the light of experience. This attitude was in sharp contrast with that of Agarkar, who therefore always said to Tilak: “You are a Mimansaka.” The obvious implication was that Tilak had not the makings of a prophet.

  Lokmanya’s Letter and Gandhiji’s Comment

  With regard to social change, Tilak maintained that it should be brought about through the agency of the Rishis or Sthitaprajnas. He argued that ordinary people had interested motives and a change brought by them would not necessarily be beneficial to society. Persons who were acting in a disinterested way, would, on the other hand, work always for social good and therefore should be entrusted with the task of shaping the destinies of society. It may therefore be said that though Tilak was a democrat, his ideal in fact was a democracy controlled by the intellectual aristocrat. Gandhiji who always acknowledged the greatness of the heritage given to India by Lokmanya had an attitude quite different from him. It was the attitude of a saint and in this respect it would be interesting to refer to a letter written by Tilak and Gandhiji’s comments on it.

  Lok. Tilak’s Letter:

  To

  The Editor, Young India,

  Ahmedabad.

  Dear Sir,

  I am sorry to see that in your article on ‘Reform Resolution’ in the last issue, you have represented me as holding that I considered ‘everything fair in polities.’ I write this to you to say that my view is not correctly represented herein. Politics is a game of worldly people and not of ‘Sadhus’ and instead of the maxim as preached by Buddha, I prefer to rely on the maxim of Shri Krishna That explains the whole differenc
e and also the meaning of my phrase ‘responsive co-operation.’ Both methods are equally honest and righteous but the one is more suited to this world than the other. Any further explanation about the difference will be found in my Gita-Rahasya.

  Poona City Yours etc.

  18-1-1920 B. G. TILAK

  Gandhiji’s Comment:

  I naturally feel the greatest diffidence about joining issue with the Lokmanya in matters involving questions of interpretations of religious works. But there are things in or about which instinct transcends even interpretation For me there is no conflict between the two texts quoted by the Lokmanya. The Buddhist text lays down an eternal principle. The text from the Bhagavadgita shows to me how the principle of conquering hate by love, untruth by truth, can and must be applied. If it be true that God metes out the same measures to us that we mete out to others, it follows that if we would escape condign punishment, we may not return anger for anger but gentleness even against anger. And this is the law not for the unworldly but essentially for the worldly. With deference to the Lokmanya, I venture to say that it betrays mental laziness to think that the world is not for Sadhus. The epitome of all religions is to promote Purushartha, and Purushartha is nothing but a desperate attempt to become Sadhu, i.e. to become a gentleman in every sense of the term.

  Finally when I wrote the sentence about ‘everything being fair in polities’, according to the Lokmanya’s creed, I had in mind his oft-repeated quotation To me it enunciates bad law. And I shall not despair of the Lokmanya with all his acumen agreeably surprising India one day with a philosophical dissertation proving the falsity of the doctrine. In any case I pit the experience of a third of a century against the doctrine underlying The true law is