Agarkar believed that intellectual debate was essential for social health and as a result of his views had to face harsh social opposition from the orthodox groups that at one time took out a symbolic funeral procession for him. Despite everything, Agarkar continued with his battle for social reforms with determination. Tilak and Agarkar were contemporaries but with contrasting personalities. By nature Tilak tended towards radical political and conservative social views while Agarkar tended toward moderate political but radical social views. It was basically the issue of ideological conflicts that eventually led to a parting of these two great minds. But whatever their differences, both wanted India to be freed from British rule and both were prepared to make sacrifices to achieve this freedom. Agarkar, always of frail health, passed away at the age of thirty-nine. Both Tilak and Agarkar, close friends at one time and the heroes of Deccan, were separated forever. At Agarkar’s death Tilak paid a moving tribute to his one-time friend through the Kesari.
Then there was Mahadev Govind Ranade. A social reformer and a distinguished scholar, he was one of the founding members of the Prarthana Samaj along with his friends Dr. Atmaram Pandurang, Bal Mangesh Wagle and Yaman Aabaji Modak. Born in Niphad in Nasik, he started his career as a professor in the Elphinstone College and was later appointed member of the Bombay Legislative Council in 1885. In 1893, he was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court. Ranade was a prominent social reformer and strongly supported the concept of widow remarriage and the welfare of widows. He established the Widow Remarriage Association in 1861 and was also instrumental in organising a number of social conferences to discuss remedies of the social evils of the time.
Ranade was convinced that Western education would help transform the country. A mentor and political guru to both Tilak and Agarkar, he, along with likeminded men, sponsored the Deccan Education Society. Ranade founded the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha in 1870 and prepared a report on the economic situation of the time on its behalf to be submitted to the Parliamentary Committee appointed by the government. Ranade faced a lot of criticism for his liberal and modern views from the orthodox sections of society. He did not give up. His writings in the Dnyanprakash and Induprakash helped awaken the social conscience of the educated. A great historian, his book The Rise of the Maratha Power remains a classic and the foremost reference tool for researchers of the Maratha history. Ranade also had a considerable influence on Gopal Krishna Gokhale who carried on with his work after Ranade’s death in 1901. Gokhale was to play a significant role in Tilak’s political life.
Gokhale’s association with his idols, Tilak and Agarkar, started early. On 26 October 1882, when Tilak and Agarkar were released from the Dongri jail, among the crowd that stood there to cheer them was the young Gokhale. A freshman at Rajaram College in Kolhapur, Gokhale is said to have acted in a college performance of Comedy of Errors to help Nana Bhide, an associate of Tilak, to raise funds for the release of Tilak and Agarkar. Gokhale shifted his base to the Deccan College to follow their lead and was known amongst his friends to be “monstrously ambitious (academically)”. He was a man who wanted to excel and pushed himself relentlessly.
In his final year of BA, Gokhale changed over to the Elphinstone College. Shy of people, he turned to books for comradeship. He was especially fond of English poetry and composed some of his own. He was also greatly influenced by Principal William Wordsworth, the grandson of the well-known poet, and Prof. Hawthornwaite who taught him mathematics. Gokhale had once confided in his friend Hari Narayan Apte who wanted to be a novelist and later did become one of the biggest names in Marathi literature that he wanted to be a cabinet minister to serve his country. Gokhale, instead, became an assistant master in the New English School, in keeping with the new spirit that had then animated Maharshtra. Tilak and Agarkar were already popular. Gokhale tried his best to emulate them.
The earliest record of the work of Tilak and Gokhale shows that Tilak attracted a large number of students and was known to be noisy at times but benevolent to the students, always making the subjects interesting. Gokhale was sincere, conscientious and nervous, temperamentally very different from Tilak.
Tilak was a leader, not a follower. He appeared awesome, suspicious, and hostile to those who were unfamiliar with the Marathi language. He also enjoyed company. Gokhale, on the other hand, was uncomfortable in crowds. His western style made him even more remote to many. Gokhale began his career as a teacher, sharing his subject with his idol, but in the next ten years he gradually got closer to Agarkar and then later became his close friend. Both were of frail health, came from a background of small means, and were acutely aware of the vices that had crept into Hindu society. Gokhale had once asked his mentor, Gurudev Ranade, “Why is it that though I tried to pattern myself after you, everyone likes you but no one likes me?” Tilak would never ever have asked this to another. The historian, B. Pattabhisitaramiah, says, “Gokhale’s methods sought to win the foreigner. Tilak’s, to replace him. Gokhale looked to the masses and intelligentsia, Tilak to the masses and millions. Gokhale’s arena was the Council chamber, Tilak’s forum was the village mandap.”24 After Agarkar had set up the Sudharak, Gokhale shouldered the responsibility of the English version of the paper for a brief period of time.
Gokhale was a staunch Moderate and he and his fellow moderates were friends-turned-ideological foes of Tilak. Gokhale, like Surendranath Banerjee, Phirozeshah Mehta, Badruddin Tyabji, Rash Behari Ghosh and others believed in orderly progress and constitutional agitation. They believed in patience and reconciliation. Surendarnath Banerjee had said at one time, “The triumphs of liberty are not to be won in a day. Liberty is a jealous goddess, exacting in her worship and claiming from her votaries prolonged and assiduous devotion.” Badruddin Tyabji had urged the people, “Be moderate in your demands, just in your criticism, correct in your facts and logical in your conclusions.”
Moderates like Gokhale believed in constitutional agitation within the four corners of law. They believed that the main task before the political leaders of the time was to educate the people, to arouse national political consciousness, and to create a united public opinion on political questions. They made appeals, and drafted and submitted memorials and petitions to the government and also to the British Parliament. They also tried to influence the British Parliament and British public opinion. The objective of the moderates was “wide employment of Indians in higher offices in the public service and the establishment of representative institutions”.
In 1905, Gokhale presided over the Benares session of the Indian National Congress. Tilak had earlier praised him for the work that he had done in England to raise public opinion about the struggle for freedom. He had favoured Gokhale’s nomination for presidentship of the Congress and Gokhale, on his part, made a presidential speech in which he severely criticised the autocratic rule of Curzon while making a plea for swadeshi.
In the Benares session Tilak put forth a resolution regarding famine, poverty, land revenue, and the economic survey of India. He spoke of the horrific poverty that the British governance had brought upon the country and argued that it was the responsibility of the government to improve the situation. It would have to make a detailed survey of its causes before suggesting ways to alleviate it. Tilak believed that emphasis on economic issues and the demand for removal of poverty would give a fillip to the struggle for swarajya. Tilak saw the British rule as an unmitigated disaster for the Indian people. He eloquently and succinctly summarised the sentiments of the new and increasingly militant national movement. Workers had started participating in strikes and work-stoppages, women and students had started joining the boycott movements and picketing at shops that sold imported goods, and an ever-growing mass of people had begun joining the mass meetings and street processions. Tilak spoke of the British rule as having ruined trade, caused the collapse of industry, and destroyed the people’s courage and abilities. He spoke of how under the oppressive and exploitative regime the country was offered neither education
, nor rights, nor respect for public opinion. Without prosperity and contentment, the Indian people suffered constantly from the three “d”s—daridrya (poverty), dushkal (famine) and dravyashosha (drain). Tilak saw only one remedy for it: the Indian people had to take political power in their own hands without which industry could not develop, the nation’s youth could not be educated right, and without which the country had neither the social reforms that it needed nor material prosperity for its people. Tilak asserted that the chasm between the British oppressors and the Indian people was irreconcilable.
Gokhale, along with his moderate associates, while fully aware of how deplorable Britain’s domination of India was and how the economic drain from India to Britain was bleeding India, was nevertheless all praise for the British educational system in India, ascribing to the British the virtues of introducing “liberal social reforms”, governmental “peace and order” and such modern conveniences as the railways, post and telegraphs, and new industrial appliances. The moderates displayed a cautious attitude that made Tilak wary. He feared that the weak policies of the moderates would destroy the tempo of the freedom movement. He advocated that the reins of the Congress should be given into the hands of radical leaders. He and his colleagues started working towards bringing about a change in leadership. Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta and other moderate leaders considered it undesirable to give a radical orientation to the swarajya movement. Gokhale and his colleagues frowned on Tilak and his radical associates. They feared that the common man’s participation in the fight for swarajya might give the movement a wrong and undesirable turn. The moderates wanted India’s case to be pleaded only by a handful of intellectuals who could put forth their views in a persuasive manner to which the British rulers might respond favourably and grant political rights to the Indians.
Both Tilak and Gokhale had the same goal of swarajya but there was a huge difference in the way they approached it. A conflict between them was inevitable. The political movement in India had to be led by someone from either one of the groups. Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta and others did not want to be led by Tilak, and decided to keep the reins of the Congress in their own hands.
After the Benares session, it was decided to hold the next session of the Congress at Calcutta. The radicals, led by Bipin Chandra Pal and Tilak, wanted to select a new president for the Congress to impart momentum to the struggle. On the other hand, Gokhale and the moderates desired that someone who toed a moderate line of action should be made the leader. Tilak proposed the name of Lala Lajpat Rai for the presidentship, while Bipin Chandra Pal and other Bengali leaders proposed the name of Tilak. Gokhale and his colleagues were opposed to both Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai.
However, Gokhale, realising that the political atmosphere in Bengal was favourable to the radicals, decided to come to a compromise and suggested the name of Dadabhai Naoroji, the grand old man of Indian politics, for the presidentship. In a way this was a moral victory for the radicals. Dadabhai Naoroji was not just the grand old man of Indian politics; he was very clear in his thinking and forthright in his opinions. His deep study of the political and economic problems, his integrity and upright behaviour and, above all, dedication to the service of the country inspired great respect among Indians. Thus Dadabhai Naoroji was unanimously chosen president of the Indian National Congress. Tilak paid glowing tributes to Dadabhai’s contribution as member of the British Parliament and quoted the following statement of Dadabhai: “It is not enough to put a check on the economic exploitation of India by the British. It is absolutely necessary that Indians should be given the rights of swarajya.” Tilak reiterated in the end that Dadabhai Naoroji, who had given expression to such radical thoughts, was bound to support the political movement started by the radicals. Tilak’s prognostications came true. Dadabhai Naoroji in his presidential address stated: “We do not ask for any concessions or favours. We want justice. To state this in brief, we want self-government, i.e. swarajya.” Dadabhai Naoroji was the first leader to utter the word swarajya from the platform of the Congress party and give sanctity to it. Thus came to be sown the first seeds of swarajya in the minds of the Indians. On 8 January 1907, through the Kesari Tilak commented on what had taken place in the Calcutta session of the Congress. He gave extracts from Dadabhai Naoroji’s address and wrote: “The ideal of the Indian National Congress is to get swarajya. The duty of the Congress is to work for achieving this goal. This has been proved and established in an unequivocal manner in the Calcutta session of the Congress.”
Despite the encouragement given by Dadabhai Naoroji to Tilak and his radical colleagues, the Congress continued to be dominated by the moderates. Tilak, therefore, felt that it was absolutely essential to form a more radical wing within the Congress. The new party would function under the aegis of the Congress but it was to work as more of a pressure group.
Meanwhile differences between Gokhale and Tilak continued. Gokhale may have had to take a back seat at the Calcutta session of the Congress but he did not accept defeat. He now decided to put forth his point of view before the people and for that purpose toured all the important cities trying to connect with the people. Tilak wrote articles in the Kesari refuting Gokhale’s views. In the editorial titled, “The Confusion of Hon’ble Gokhale”, Tilak pointed to the contradictions in Gokhale’s stand. Gokhale had initially favoured the tool of boycott but had later been critical of it. Tilak praised Gokhale for starting the Servants of India Society for training young men who would dedicate their lives to the service of India but also pointed to Gokhale’s misplaced support to government service because it was in strong contradiction to the ideals of the Servants of India Society. In an editorial published on 19 February 1907, Tilak pointed out the discrepancies in the ideological stand taken by Gokhale. The title of the editorial was, “It is good that he has spoken”. Tilak remarked that Gokhale’s views centred around two assumptions, viz. “We should not oppose this government because we cannot do without it” and that private schools should help the government in the education programme and that there was “no point in opposing the government”. Tilak wanted universal education but did not approve of education merely to serve the British administration. He feared that Gokhale’s moderate approach would render his efforts futile and take the edge off the political movement in India.25
Tilak strongly opposed Gokhale’s statement that “the political movement in India should be constitutional”. In an editorial titled, “Sanadshir ka Kayadeshir” (Constitutional or Legal), he refuted Gokhale’s views saying, “Britain has not set any charter of rights to Hindustan, therefore, it would be ridiculous to say that the movement should be conducted as per the Charter. Hindustan is governed as per the laws made by the British. The question, that therefore, remains is whether the movement is legal or not. When there is alienation of law and morals, if need be, one should break the laws to follow the morals and quietly accept whatever punishment is given for the same.”
Acharya Jawdekar, an eminent political thinker of Maharashtra, has summed up the difference between the ideological positions of Gokhale and Tilak in a very perceptive manner. He has written:
In Gokhale’s politics, the Anglo-Indian community in India, the British capitalism and its representative, the Viceroy, and the bureaucracy formed the conservative party. The educated leaders representing India constituted the progressive or the liberal party. In Tilak’s politics, the British government was a foreign conqueror and the Indian leaders were destined to take India from slavery to independence. According to Gokhale, India’s political work entailed converting an unlimited autocracy into a democracy, while Tilak always spoke of extricating the nation from the clutches of the British. Gokhale could never forget that India was a conquered nation while Tilak invariably maintained that the future form of our swarajya would be as a democratic republic. Gokhale always relied on the liberal democratic principles, while Tilak tried to draw strength from the burning flame of national sentiment.26
Tilak’s criticism
of Gokhale was far from personal. The two leaders differed sharply in their views and yet were completely aware of each other’s sincerity. Although it is not totally correct to identify the personalities of Tilak and Gokhale with the positions of the radicals and the moderates, the characteristics of the individuals and their leadership styles definitely did play a big role in their political positions. The split in Surat brought out the divergence in the style of thinking, speaking and the manner in which Tilak and Gokhale practised their politics.
Tilak was present at Gokhale’s funeral on 19 February 1915 and made a stirring speech. Speaking of the time of Narayanrao Peshwa’s funeral when the two contending parties who had brought about the Peshwa’s assassination took an oath on the riverbank to sink their differences, he asked whether his audience should not be animated with the same spirit.
While the gulf between the moderates and radicals was widening, the British government decided to pass a law unfair to the agriculturists in Punjab. Lala Lajpat Rai, along with other leaders of Punjab, opposed it and decided to launch an agitation against it. The government was furious and arrested Lala Lajpat Rai on 9 May 1907. He was deported to Burma and detained at Mandalay, provoking widespread protests. Tilak, through his angry editorials and his public speeches, warned the people that as long as the Indians did not develop the strength to resist injustice, the government would continue with its repressive measures.
Lokmanya Tilak- the First National Leader Page 9
