Tilak believed in India’s inherent right to attain political freedom, be it through a violent revolution. He realised the need for preparing for a revolution. But he was definitely opposed to a premature attempt at revolutionary activities. Tilak directed all his energies to twin tasks. The first was to promote a spirit of nationalism to enable the people to transcend the limits of caste and religion and stand united while fighting against the British Empire. The second task, which Tilak placed before himself, was that of teaching the method of fighting injustice by involving the people in the struggle for swarajya. Work among the masses was the main lever of his political activity and he directed all his energies to the task of launching a popular revolutionary movement against the established government through peaceful means. The activities of the revolutionaries could serve as a complement to the peaceful and open struggle of the Indian masses. Tilak was thus an apostle of civil revolt. He explained his strategy to Ghosh, who, however, was determined to follow the path of armed revolution.27
Ghosh himself says,
If . . . Mr. Tilak has throughout his life been an exponent of the idea of radical change in politics and during the swadeshi agitation the head of a party which could be called extremist, it is due to that clear practical sense, essential in a leader of political action, which seizes at once on the main necessity and goes straight without hesitation or deviation to the indispensable means. There are always two classes of political mind: one is preoccupied with details for their own sake, revels in the petty points of the moment and puts away into the background the great principles and the great necessities, the other sees rather these first and always and details only in relation to them. The one type moves in a routine circle which may or may not have an issue; it cannot see the forest for the trees and it is only by an accident that it stumbles, if at all, on the way out. The other type takes a mountain-top view of the goal and all the directions and keeps that in its mental compass through all the deflections, retardations and tortuosities which the character of the intervening country may compel it to accept; but these it abridges as much as possible. The former class arrogates the name of statesman in their own day; it is to the latter that posterity concedes it and sees in them the true leaders of great movements. Mr Tilak, like all men of pre-eminent political genius, belongs to this second and greater order of mind . . . Two facts of his life and character have to be insisted on as of special importance to the country because they give a great example of two things in which its political life was long deficient and is even now not sufficient. First, the inflexible will of the patriot and man of sincere heart and thorough action, which has been the very grain of his character. Secondly, the readiness to sacrifice and face suffering, not needlessly or with a useless bravado, but with a firm courage when it comes, to bear it and to outlive, returning to work with one’s scars as if nothing had happened. No prominent man in India has suffered more for his country; none has taken his sacrifices and sufferings more quietly and as a matter of course . . .
Mr Tilak’s principles of work have been accepted; the ideas which he had so much trouble to enforce have become the commonplaces and truisms of our political thought. The only question that remains is the rapidity of a now inevitable evolution. That is the hope for which Mr. Tilak still stands, a leader of all India. Only when it is accomplished, will his lifework be done; not till then can he rest while he lives, even though age grows on him and infirmities gather, for his spirit will always remain fresh and vigorous, any more than a river can rest before the power of its waters has found their goal and discharged them into the sea . . . Mr. Tilak’s name stands already for history as a nation-builder, one of the half-dozen greatest political personalities, memorable figures, representative men of the nation in this most critical period of India’s destinies, a name to be remembered gratefully so long as the country has pride in its past and hope for its future.
Aurobindo Ghosh emerged onto the political arena like a flash of lightening. He helped in the organisation of the National Council of Education in Bengal, which provided indigenous schools, and also encouraged able and enterprising youth to go to Japan, America, and Europe for scientific and technical studies. He wished to reorganise the district and provincial conferences to play a wider role in stimulating interest in public matters. He brought a breath of fresh air into the journalism of Bengal.
Ghosh derived inspiration from Tilak. They would meet at various conferences and discuss an array of subjects. In a series of articles on karmayog Ghosh discussed self-sacrifice in a way that electrified the imagination of the young generation. Like Tilak, he was a Swarajist and Vedantist. At the Congress in Surat, Ghosh’s now historic manifesto on Indian nationalism made it clear that hatred of the English was quite alien to true nationalist propaganda, but that “the present bureaucratic regime leaves no scope for full development to the heirs of an ancient civilisation”. He said, “Truth is with us; nature is with us; justice is with us, and the law of God which is higher than human law justifies our action.”
In a speech in Nasik in 1917, Tilak said,
There is a saying in our Vedanta, meaning that if a man tries he can become God himself. If that is so, do you mean to say that you cannot become bureaucrats if you want to? It is very obvious. Have firm faith in the brighter prospects of humanity or, as they are called, in laws of evolution. Then, I believe, by that faith you will be able to realise your object within a year or two . . . Our Vedanta says that there is little happiness and much of evil and misery in the world. The world is such, it cannot be helped. I foresee dangers in the way and signs of these dangers are not wanting.
Recently, Lord Sydenham, the Governor of Bombay, has asked the Government in to proclaim once for all that they do not intend to give any more reforms to the Indians . . . He expects by this move to shut permanently the mouths of the Indians . . . How can a proclamation of this nature shut our mouths? It is a pity that Lord Sydenham should betray so much ignorance of human nature . . . One thing is certain, that the work before us is not easy. Tremendous sacrifices will be necessary . . . there are two ways of dying, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional. As our fight is going to be constitutional and legal, our death also must, as of necessity, be constitutional and legal. We have not to use any violence. Nay, we condemn the unconstitutional way of doing. As our fight must be constitutional it must be courageous also. We ought to tell Government courageously and without the least fear what we want. Let Government know that the whole Nation wants Home Rule, as defined by the Congress. Let there be no shirking, or wavering or shaking. I said that it was our “right” to have Home Rule but that is a historical and a European way of putting it; I go further and say that it is our Dharma; you cannot separate Home Rule from us, as you cannot separate the quality of heat from fire; both are inseparably bound up; let your ideas be clear; let your motives be honest; let your efforts be strictly constitutional and I am sure your efforts are bound to be crowned with success; never despair, be bold and fearless and be sure that God is with you. Remember ‘God helps those who help themselves.
The rise and popularity of the radicals was the result of certain factors: The moderates could not persuade most Britons, either in India or England, to accept Indians, including the moderates themselves, as political or social equals. Even British liberals expressed scepticism about Indian moderates’ appeals for rapid constitutional progress toward self-government on the same basis as South Africa, Canada, or Australia. Like the Indian radicals, British officials did not believe that the Indian moderates represented the Indian masses. They tended to take the threats of the radicals more seriously than the appeals of the liberals.
J. C. Johari, in his book Indian Political System: A Critical Study of the Constitutional Structure, lists out some more. He writes:
The British misrule gave a rude setback to the faith of the Indian leaders in the sense of justice of the British. The English government did not abandon its reactionary policies towards h
igher education and recruitment of the Indians in the highest public service of the country, running of the local self-governing institutions and liberalizing the law and order machinery that was a potential check on the rise and growth of the national movement. Secondly, the religious revivalism imparted greater impetus to the feeling of extremism. Bankim’s Bande Mataram became the source of inspiration for fiery patriotism. The message of great leaders like Swami Vivekananda inspired hope and enthusiasm in India’s genius. The Indian people thought in terms of giving a befitting reply to the claims of racial superiority as made by the English. The economic discontent played its own part. Famine, depression, unemployment, and epidemic hit hard the Indian people. Foreign events like defeat of the Italians at the hands of the Abyssinians and then of the Russians at the hands of the Japanese imparted great stimulus. They shattered the myth of the superiority of the white races of Europe over Asia and Africa and imparted a militant and aggressive outlook to the nationalism of these people. Lastly, the factor that had its electrical effect was the partition of Bengal. The nationalists were provoked by the arrogance of the viceroy who went to the extent of saying that “administration and exploitation go together” and that he was waiting for the “peaceful demise of the Congress”. No doubt the extremist trend changed the course of Indian nationalist movement. It signified the emergence of the middle class and broadened the base of anti-colonial nationalism. It created a different set of political consciousness that as Lala Lajpat Rai said, “could not have been created in half a century”. In assessing the overall contribution of the moderates and the extremists towards the attainment of India’s independence, the militant agitation of the extremists rather than the constitutional agitation of the moderates was chiefly responsible for the transfer of power in 1947. 28
Among Tilak’s admirers were also Barrister Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Maulana Hasrat Mohani. Jinnah wrote to Tilak in 1916 when he was in Chindwara prison: “Your courage, resolution and fortitude are an example to us, younger men, whatever be our politics, and these have convinced me, that after going through all this, you could never contemplate with equanimity, much less desire, that even a particle of the same suffering should be inflicted on a fellow countryman, no matter of what caste or creed, equally in the defence of freedom and self-respect.” 29
Jinnah was influenced by both Tilak and Gokhale. Pakistani writer Yasser Latif Hamdani, while describing Jinnah’s association with Tilak and Gokhale, says, “Jinnah was most influenced by these two men, imbibing idealism and nationalism from them. His fondest hope had been of becoming a ‘Muslim Gokhale’.” Hamdani describes how though a conservative Hindu seeking Hindu revival, Tilak was free of communal bias and preferred to keep religious agenda out of politics. In 1908, when Tilak was arrested under the charges of seditious writings in the Kesari, he asked as counsel India’s best young barrister, Jinnah, whose valiant defence earned him Tilak’s long lasting affection. And after Tilak’s death, says Hamdani, “the Lucknow pact (also known as the famous Tilak-Jinnah pact) which had woven together a thin fabric of unity between the two extremely divided communities of India, Hindus and Muslims, lost importance. The thin fabric of unity for which Tilak, Gokhale and their worthy disciple Jinnah had worked so hard was lost forever.”
Another man who saw in Tilak his friend and guru was Maulana Hasrat Mohani. Jawed Naqvi, on 11 August 2010 in his article in Dawn writes: “Mohani, with his unflinching advocacy of armed revolt to throw out British imperialism, was as gritty as his confrontation with stalwarts like Gandhi and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. When the uncompromising Congress hard-liner Tilak, who advocated complete independence from British rule as his birthright, walked out of the party in 1907, the maulana left with him.”
Naqvi also quotes the moving poem that a grieving Hasrat Mohani wrote on Tilak’s death:
Maatam ho na kyun Bhaarat mein bapa, duniya se sidhaare aaj Tilak
Balwant Tilak, Maharaaj Tilak aazaadon ke sartaaj Tilak
Jab tak wo rahe duniya mein raha hum sab ke dilon par zor unka
Ab reh ke behisht mein nizde Khuda rooho’n par karenge raaj Tilak.
(Why wouldn’t Bharat grieve, Tilak has left this world today
Balwant Tilak, Maharaj Tilak, the pride of the free-spirited
Till he lived he ruled our hearts
Now that he’s with the maker, he will rule our souls.)
Mohani, after his departure from the Congress, became a leading member of the Muslim League and also the founder leader of the Communist Party of India. Naqvi describes how “his contrary nature stretched to his religion. A regular visitor to Haj, he laid equal stress on going to Mathura and Benaras. Some of his Urdu poems represent an open adulation of Krishna.”
Among Tilak’s contemporaries were also some journalists. In fact, newspaper editor-publishers were held in high esteem throughout the freedom struggle. They made a striking contribution to creating and nurturing the Indian freedom struggle. The first ever Congress session held in Bombay in December 1885 included some of the editors of Indian newspapers. The first ever resolution at this session was proposed by the editor of the Hindu, G. Subramanya Iyer. This resolution demanded that the government should appoint a committee to enquire into the functioning of Indian administration. The second resolution was moved by Vishnushastri Chiplunkar in which the Congress was urged to demand the abolition of India Council which ruled the country from Britain. The third resolution was supported by Dadabhai Naoroji who was a noted journalist of his time. The fourth resolution was proposed by Dadabhai Naoroji.
There were many Congress presidents who had either been editors or had started the publication of a newspaper. Pherozeshah Mehta started the Bombay Chronicle and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya edited the daily, Hindustan. He also helped the publication of Leader from Allahabad. Subash Chandra Bose and C. R. Das were not journalists but they acquired the papers like Forward and Advance which later attained national status.
Among Tilak’s friends were the Ghosh brothers, Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh of the Amrita Bazar Patrika. The brothers, as the proprietors, played a major role in the evolution and growth of Indian journalism. In 1920, Lenin described Amrita Bazar Patrika as the best nationalist paper in India.
Born as a Bengali weekly in February 1868 in the village of Amrita Bazar in Jessore district, Amrita Bazar Patrika was started by the Ghosh brothers to fight the cause of peasants who were being exploited by indigo planters. Sisir Kumar Ghosh was the first editor. In 1871, the newspaper moved to Calcutta. Here it functioned as a bilingual weekly, publishing news and views in English and Bengali. Its anti-government views and vast influence among the people was a thorn in the flesh of the government. Lord Lytton, the viceroy of India, promulgated the Vernacular Press Act on 1878 mainly against Amrita Bazar Patrika. But the Patrika became an English weekly overnight and escaped the clutches of the law.
Sisir Kumar Ghosh also launched vigorous campaigns against restrictions on civil liberties and economic exploitation. Both he and his brother Motilal were deeply attached to Bal Gangadhar Tilak. When Tilak was prosecuted for sedition in 1897, they raised funds in Calcutta for his defence. They also published a scathing editorial against the judge who sentenced Tilak to six years of imprisonment, for “presuming to teach true patriotism to a proved and unparalleled patriot”. Tilak’s activities were covered extensively in the newspaper and the publication extended full sympathy to the nationalist movement. On the treatment meted out to Tilak at Justic Davar’s hands, Amrita Bazar Patrika, like many other nationalist newspapers reacted sharply. Wrote the editorial:
The composition of the jury was a guarantee against Tilak’s escape. The seven European jurors who found him guilty and whose verdict was accepted by the judge had no help in the matter. The wonder is that Mr. Justice Davar, who did not understand high-flown Marathi was absolutely sure of the seditious character of the articles. How could the judge then conscientiously convict the accused and pass practically a death sentence upon him whe
n he had no evidence before him to show the effect, which the original articles in the Kesari had or could have produced upon the Marathi-knowing people?
The greater wonder is that the judge could reject with a light heart, the verdict of the other two jurors who being sons of the soil, presumably knew the Marathi language and were thus better competent than their European colleagues to understand the real drift of the articles.
If Tilak were tried in England and two jurors were in his favour, the presiding judge would not have accepted the verdict of the majority but would have ordered a retrial. And the accused would not have been convicted till the jury was unanimous. What they could have led Mr. Justice Davar to follow a procedure which no judge in England would venture following?
The Patrika had many brushes with Lord Curzon, the viceroy of India at the time of the partition of Bengal 1905. It referred to him as “Young and a little foppish, and without previous training but invested with unlimited powers”. Because of such editorials, the Press Act of 1910 was passed and a security of five thousand rupees was demanded from the proprietors. Motilal Ghosh was also charged with sedition but his eloquence won the case.
Lokmanya Tilak- the First National Leader Page 11
