Lokmanya Tilak- the First National Leader

by Gayatri Pagdi

  Tilak had wondered if Burma, Siam, and Ceylon could regain their lost honour and glory. With the exception of Japan, which had successfully adopted modern technology in industry and armament, all other countries had fallen prey to Western imperialism. Tilak related the independence of Japan to her acceptance and use of modern science and technology. In 1917, the Asiatic Association of Japan published a book titled For India. In the introduction, the Tokyo publisher wrote about the champions of the Home Rule Movement in India: “The evidence contained herein, emanating as it does from a well-informed Englishman known for his unbiased disposition, is worthy of serious consideration by all interested in Indian problems, as it puts beyond a shadow of doubt the true state of India. Really it comes as an eye-opener to all of us. Achievement of Home Rule for India, as advocated by the learned author and all prominent leaders of Indian opinion, including friends of India like Mrs. Besant (who is now under internment with her co-workers for the advocacy of Home Rule in India), is in our judgment the only feasible peaceful solution of the political fate of the millions of the once glorious land of Hindustan, to which Japan is immensely indebted for her religion, culture and philosophy.”

  Not to be left behind was China, sympathetic to the cause of its eastern neighbour under the foreign rule. Writes Lin Chengjie on the friendship between the Chinese and Indian people that dated back to hundreds of years and survived years of suffering on both parts due to British oppression:

  The tyrannic rule of the Western imperialist powers cruelly exploited and looted India and China and the two peoples lived in abysmal suffering. The newly emergent nationalist forces during the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century marked a genuine theoretical realisation of the commonality of destiny between the two peoples, of the necessity to cooperate with each other in the anti-imperialist struggle, as well as putting into practice such cooperation. Such a realisation also got heightened in the process of anti-imperialist struggle by and by. Around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, a nationalist group led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak emerged in the Congress Party, while a bourgeois revolutionary group led by SunYat-sen also appeared in the Chinese scene. The nationalist movements of both the countries entered into the phase of nationalist revolution. From an identical revolutionary stand, the revolutionary groups of the two countries realised the need of mutual support and cooperation in their common struggle. They made great efforts along this direction. Thus the friendly relations between the two peoples entered into a new stage.33

  On his part, at the beginning of the 20th century, Tilak, along with Aurobindo Ghose, expressed his concerns about the Chinese national struggle. Tilak observed in an article that the boycott of American goods by the Chinese people in 1905 demonstrated that the people of a subjugated country could defeat an arrogant ruler by resorting to unity, with courage and determination. He used the example of Chinese struggle to stimulate the Indian people repeatedly. The boycott of British goods in 1905 by the Indian people against the British attempt to partition Bengal was, to an extent, the impact of the victory of the Chinese boycott of American goods.34

  Tilak’s experience in England had also convinced him that “foreign propaganda” would be of great value. He wished to place India’s case for self-rule before the world. He had hoped to network with India sympathisers in Tokyo, Paris, and Rome, and he expressed a desire to visit the United States to further the cause of Indian independence. He also wanted to attend the Paris peace settlement for the conclusion of World War I and to advocate there the application of the principle of national self-determination to India. The British government refused permission knowing how he could influence the world’s opinion with his powerful personality, oratory, and methodical approach to the issue. Dhananjay Keer, well-known biographer of eminent leaders, notes: “Tilak was not only the first mass leader of India to rise in revolt in Asia against the British Empire, but also the herald of Asian nationalism who inspired the Asian leaders and nations that were suppressed under the iron heel of western imperialism.” This fact was reiterated by Dr. Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, when he said, during the course of a speech in Mumbai that he “derived inspiration for their freedom struggle from Tilak, Gandhi and Dadabhai Naoroji”. The chief minister of East Nigeria had told Indian political leader Y. B. Chavan in 1961 that he held Tilak and Gokhale in very high esteem.35 Even in death, in the minds of people right across cultures, languages, and political beliefs, Tilak remains forever what his country knew him as: Lokmanya.

  Chapter Five

  ARMED REVOLUTIONARIES

  Tilak’s biographers have often pointed out that there is a distinction between Gandhi’s “life of detachment” and Tilak’s “desireless life of action”. Gandhi’s belief is based on truth and non-violence, which demands purity of conduct because both lack of truth and use of violence are motivated by some kind of reward in mind. The means have to be pure to be able to lead a life of detachment. Tilak’s desireless life of action says that both truth/untruth and violence/non-violence are to be decided contextually and adopted accordingly. If circumstances demand, then falsehood and injuriousness can be lawful and righteous. The Mahabharata clearly explains the difference between the theory and practice of duty and how violence can become meritorious if it is the need of the hour. In Tilak’s eyes the warrior had as much a place of honour as the philosopher.

  The end of the 19th century and the early 20th century saw a heightened sense of racial and religious pride. Several non-European countries had started exhibiting signs of assertiveness. Abyssinia had defeated Italy in 1896. Japan defeated powerful Russia in 1905. In India, Rajendralal Mitra, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, and Vivekananda asserted the superiority of the Indians and the glorious past of India. This new confidence was represented in leaders like Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh, and Ashwini Kumar Dutt in Bengal; Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab; Tilak in Maharashtra; and G. Subramaniam Iyer, N. K. Ramaswamy Iyer, C. Vijayaraghavachariar, T. Prakasham, and M. Krishna Rao in Madras. A high sense of patriotism and sacrifice saw young men like Khudiram Bose, Barindra Ghose, Rash Behari Bose, Sachindra Sanyal, Ajit Singh, Madanlal Dhingra, and Damodar Savarkar capture the imagination of the country’s youth.

  This sense of intense racial pride in India had a background. At the turn of the century, members of Congress had no desire for independence for India, but only for active participation in the government of the country. They were not anti-British. The man who emerged during this time as leader of Congress, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, typified these middle-class Indians. He had many British friends and had visited England many times. He believed that the inequalities and inadequacies of Hindu society were the only reason for India’s political subordination to their foreign rulers. A cautious man, he wanted India to progress gradually in partnership with “the genius of the British people”.

  Tilak did not share this naïve hope. He saw that Western education had brought about unease in the minds of the youth. Unemployment was rampant. In British India, these westernised young men found themselves at a loose end. There was a sense of discontent about the British rule but there were also limited employment opportunities after acquiring education. Soon they began to resent the Indians in British employment as much as the British themselves. The unease and the growing resentment found refuge in religious nationalism. It gave them a chance to establish their identity. There was a newfound sense of pride, and then anger at everything that represented oppression.

  The first stirrings of militant religious nationalism occurred in Bengal. The writings of the likes of Bankim Chandra nudged the conscience and created a sense of love for the country in the youth. The Hindu past could offer a hope for their future. However, it was in the Bombay province that this crystallised into political action. Tilak was convinced that the British would never give India their freedom, and if they granted some political power it would only be to those who were most in sympathy with their r
ule. He turned to the organisation of mass action in Bombay province. People revisited with admiration the 17th Century Maratha Empire, proud of what their heroes had once achieved in the face of heavy odds. It made a statement with reference to the present.

  In no time Tilak assumed the leadership of the Hindu masses in western India. In doing so he was, paradoxically, taking a more orthodox view of the tools of political change than the liberal moderates of the Indian National Congress. The history of European democracy in the 19th Century, he said, was the history of revolution, not reform. Naturally, this stance worried the British. A popular uprising, a revolution, was certainly not going to be gentle. The Sedition Committee Report of 1918, while tracing the history of armed agitators and other “dangerous” men, stated:

  Indications of a revolutionary movement were first observed in western India in connection with the development of two classes of annual festivals, namely, those in honour of the Hindu god Ganpati and those in honour of the Maratha leader Shivaji, who united the people of Deccan against their Muhammadan rulers.

  Steps have been taken in Poona to revive the memory of Shivaji by holding festivals in celebrations of his birth and coronation. The first coronation festival was held in June 1895. The festival became an annual observance at which stirring speeches were delivered recalling the prowess of the leader who revolted against the foreign domination of the Muhammadans. The application of the moral derived from Shivaji’s successful struggle against the Muhammadans to the present condition of India under British rule was a natural and easy step.

  Tilak advocated a brand of militant nationalism. His relationship with the armed agitators, chiefly in Maharashtra but in no way limited to it, saw its expression beginning with the Chaphekar brothers’ act of violence against Rand, the plague commissioner in Poona who was responsible for large scale human rights violations. Young men believed that the moderates had failed them with their flattery of alien ideas and their feeble requests for a slice of the cake. Tilak’s aggressive persuasion was just what they needed. Poona became the hotbed of activity.

  The city, in those days, had ample gymnasiums and more and more young men joined them. There was also a rejuvenation of the indigenous martial arts and the men found themselves learning and practising everything from horse riding to the use of various weapons. The memories of Vasudev Balwant Phadke, the revolutionary who had led the revolution against the British with the help of the daredevil Ramoshi community in 1879, were still fresh in the minds of the people. There were also some survivors of the time and both Phadke’s uprising as well as the first Indian revolution of 1857 served to inspire the youth in Poona.

  These men were deeply religious. They looked at the task of freeing the nation as their dharma. They believed in rebirth and strongly felt that if they died for their country, they would come back to a better next life. The Geeta had told them that the soul was immortal, what one sheds is just the body in readiness for another birth. The men had absolutely no fear of death. Some of the sadhus moving amongst them had been participants in the revolution of 1857. They encouraged the youngsters to fight the British. Sant Bairagi Baba of Darvha, Swami Bramhanand of Digras, Vitthalgiri Bua of Amravati and Swami Vidyanand Saraswati of Rahuri were among them. Though some of them were watched by the secret police, many of them did not attract much attention and effortlessly mixed with the young men. Those who were watched almost never went to prison because the government could not risk hurting the religious sentiments of the people. Damodar and Balkrishna Chaphekar, along with their younger brother Vasudev and some likeminded friends like Mahadev Ranade formed the Chaphekar Club or the Chaphekar Association. The men walked on the path of Tilak’s brand of militant nationalism. According to the autobiography of Damodar Balwant Bhide, a close associate of the Chaphekars, Tilak was in the know of their plan of killing Rand. Writes Bhide: “Damu took the blessings of Tilak (before the deed).” On 23 June, the morning after the attack on the British officers in Ganeshkhind, he also sent a message to Tilak through an associate called Khanderao Sathe saying, “The Ganpati of Ganeshkhind has blessed us.” Tilak asked them to be careful.

  The government had a strong suspicion that Tilak was in some way involved in the act. The India Office Papers carry a letter from the governor of Bombay, Lord Sandhurst, to the secretary of state, George Hamilton, in which he says, “We have arrested two men, Balwantrao Ramchandra Natu and Hari Ramchandra Natu. Along with Bal Gangadhar Tilak, they are the pillars of the Party that preaches and encourages sedition. If all these abovementioned men are made to leave Poona, one might get more information about the murder of Mr Rand.” The information goes on to show that even though Tilak may not have been directly involved in the murder, he was certainly in the know of the plan.36 Of course, on his part, Tilak dragged the newspaper Globe as also the Times of India to court for defamation when they suggested this!

  The Sedition Committee Report describes the event in detail:

  Damodar and Balkrishna Chaphekar, Chitpavan Brahmins of Poona, formed a society for physical and military training which they called the “Society for the removal of obstacles to the Hindu religion”. The spirit by which they were actuated will appear from the following shloks or verses recited by the Chaphekars at the Shivaji and Ganpati festivals:

  Shivaji shloks: Merely reciting Shivaji’s story like a lord does not secure independence; it is necessary to be prompt in engaging in desperate enterprises like Shivaji and Baji; knowing, you good people should take up swords and shields at all events now; we shall cut off countless heads of enemies. Listen. We shall risk our lives on the battlefield in a national war; we shall shed upon the earth the life-blood of the enemies who destroy our religion; we shall die after killing only, while you will hear the story like women.

  Ganpati shloks: Alas, you are not ashamed to remain in servitude; try therefore to commit suicide; alas, like butchers, the wicked in their monstrous atrocity kill calves and kine; free her (the cow) from her trouble; die, but kill the English; do not remain idle or thereby burden the earth. This is called Hindustan, how is it that the English rule here?

  On the 4th of May, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a Chitpavan Brahmin, published an article in his paper Kesari (the most influential Marathi paper in western India), imputing not merely to subordinate officials but to the government itself a deliberate direction to oppress the people. He described Mr. Rand as tyrannical and stated that the government was practising oppression. It was useless to petition to the supreme government as from it the orders for oppression had emanated.

  On the 15th June, 1897 the Kesari gave an account of the proceedings at the Shivaji coronation festival held on the 12th of June. One of the speakers at the festival was reported to have said, “We are all striving to gain our lost independence, and this terrible load is to be uplifted by us all in combination. It will never be proper to place obstacles in the way of any person who, with a true mind, follows the path of uplifting this burden in the manner he deems fit. Our mutual dissensions impede our progress greatly. If anyone be crushing down the country from above, cut him off, but do not put impediments in the way of others.” Another speaker observed, “The people who took part in the French revolution denied that they had committed murder and asserted that they were only removing thorns from their paths. Why should the same argument not be applied to Maharashtra?” The president at the festival meeting, Tilak himself, said, “Did Shivaji commit a sin in killing Afzal Khan or not? The answer to that question can be found in Mahabharat itself. No blame attaches to any person if he is doing deeds without being actuated by a desire to reap fruits of his deeds. Shivaji did nothing with the view to fill the void in his own stomach. With benevolent intentions he murdered Afzal Khan for the good of others. If thieves enter our house and we have not sufficient strength to drive them out, we should without hesitation shut them up and burn them alive. God has not conferred upon the foreigners the grant inscribed on a copperplate of the kingdom of Hindustan. Maharaj (Shivaji) str
ove to drive them away from the land of his birth. He did not thereby commit a sin of coveting what belonged to others. Do not circumscribe your vision like a frog in the well; get out of the penal code and enter the extremely high atmosphere of the Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta and consider the actions of great men.” The metrical paragraphs entitled “Utterances of Shivaji” were a lament upon the oppression which he found prevailing in his native land on awakening from the sleep of death.

  The 22nd June was the occasion of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the coronation of queen Victoria and it was marked on that night by the murder, by the brothers Chaphekar, of two government officers, Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst, while returning from a gathering in celebration of the coronation at Government House Ganeshkhind, Poona . . . Damodar Chaphekar was tried and convicted of the double murder on the 22nd June. In a long, autobiographical essay written by him while in jail he stated that he and his brother were the persons who had disfigured the marble statue of Queen Victoria in Bombay by covering it with tar, “in order to rejoice their Aryan brethren, fill the English with sorrow, and out upon themselves the brand on treason”.