Lokmanya Tilak- the First National Leader

by Gayatri Pagdi

  On 1 February 1881, the Kesari wrote an editorial on drama as an art form. The article emphasised that although there were wonderful books on dramatic arts it did not automatically ensure great theatre performances. There needed to be good troupes before one talked of how theatre as an art form could be improved. On 19 December 1881, in an article that seemed emphatic about the fact that plays were good for society, the paper also welcomed the fact that the intelligentsia was moving towards theatre in a big way. And that it was not at the cost of cerebral, creative activities.

  On 6 December of the same month, the paper had congratulated Natyacharya Kirloskar for writing a play like Sangeet Shakuntala despite holding a full-time job that took up most of his time. “The Kesari will not hold back from lauding the efforts of a brave man like him,” the paper said. “We roar our approval and support.” On 20 and 28 December, the paper asked if theatre was indeed bringing about a downfall of morality in society and answered the question itself by saying that a play was a reflection of human life and reading and watching plays was in no way dangerous. The paper also published a letter from a reader, which proposed that it was more important to build theatres than lecture halls. It mentioned how the theatre group, Kirloskar Natak Mandali, was building a theatre of its own. Kesari wished them well and hoped that the “sangeet natak” or the musical plays would add to the prosperity of music and culture.

  Kesari’s affection and encouragement for a theatre group had a background. Those were the days when industrialisation in Europe had brought in new ideas and values. Western education had conveyed to India the ideas of democracy and new theories relating to religion. They began to sweep across the country, encouraging new thought and fresh new approaches towards existing norms. In the process, they altered a lot of traditional perceptions. Tilak, along with Agarkar and Tatyasaheb Kelkar, was quick to recognise theatre’s political potential. The Bengali theatre had already started work along those lines. Soon Tilak decided to adopt theatre as one of the forms of reaching the message of freedom to the masses. Theatre was popular, had an immediate effect, and ignited the imagination of hundreds of people at the same time. Plays could be used to disseminate ideas to steer society on to the path of freedom, social progress, and modernity.

  The British government was quick to sense the danger that the situation presented. The infamous Dramatic Performances Act was passed in 1876. The government’s representative, Mr. Hobbhouse, who introduced the bill, supported his argument in its favour by quoting from Plato’s Republic. He said, “It has been found in all times and in all countries that no greater stimulus could be supplied to excite the passions of mankind than that supplied by means of the drama.” The bill was passed into law and gave strong censorship powers to local authorities throughout the country.42 The Dramatic Performances Act, or the DPA, was brought into force under the administration of Viceroy Northbrook. DPA outlined the restrictions that public performances of a play, pantomime or any other drama would have to adhere to. According to this Act, if the state government judged any play to be of a scandalous nature, thought it disrupted social values, felt that it might excite feelings of disaffection against the government established by law or that it would corrupt persons, then the said performance would stand prohibited.

  The Act further stated that if any person or groups on whom an order of prohibition had been served refused to comply with the same, such persons or groups would be liable to be punished. The penalty for disobedience of the terms of the Act was either imprisonment for a term extending to about three months, or a fine, or in some cases, both. The Act conferred upon the government the right to information, by which right the persons as empowered by the Act could demand the procurement of all such plays for verification whose content might violate one or many terms of the Act. The police was granted the license to enter, arrest and seize any persons, scenery, costumes, and or articles whose use or intended use in the performance as prohibited under the terms of the Dramatic Performances Act, had been reasonably established. By this Act, no public performance was to take place in any local area without the sanction of a license.

  Professional theatre lovers, who till then were content with entertainment, were now driven by a sense of identity and nationalism. While it was initially the cultural angle that seemed to attract the middle class and the entertainment angle that mostly drew the illiterate masses, the inspiration that both the sections derived from the plays was alike. Tilak gave a nationalist direction to the plays. While the plays continued to be mythologicals for a while, he inspired the leading playwrights of the day to take recourse to metaphorical expression to emphasise nationalistic ideas. Playwrights now became experts at introducing such themes wrapped in religious, historical, or mythological stories to serve a growing sentiment against the British government.

  In 1907 came a play by playwright and journalist Krishnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar. Named as Keechakvadh (The Slaying of Keechak), the play had very strong political overtones and set a powerful precedent. The political movement was on in full swing in Maharashtra. The government was on its toes watching out for sedition everywhere. Public feeling against Lord Curzon was very strong. The play told the story of the Pandavas residing in Viratnagari in disguise during the last year of their exile. Keechak, the commander-in-chief of King Virat’s army was virtually the ruler and eyed Draupadi who was in the disguise of Queen Sudeshna’s maid, Sairandhri. Tired of his overtures, Draupadi complained to Bhim, the radical one who could be trusted to save her, rather than the mild and ineffective Yudhishthir. Bhim thought out a plan according to which Draupadi lured the villain to a lonely place where Bhim, waiting in hiding, slayed him. An extract from the Times of India commenting on the play, said,

  Although his name is nowhere uttered on the stage or mentioned in the printed play, everyone in the theatre knows that Keechak is really intended to be Lord Curzon, that Draupadi is Mother India and that Yudhishthir is the Moderate, and Bhim the Extremist party. Every now and again unmistakable clues are provided. The question indeed admits no doubt, for since the play first appeared the whole of Deccan has been blazoning for the identity of the characters. Once they have been recognised, the inner meaning of the play becomes clear. A weak Government at Home represented by King Virat has given the Viceroy a free hand. He has made use of it to insult and humiliate India. Of the two champions, the moderates advocate gentle that is constitutional measures. The extremists out of the deference to the older party agree, although satisfied of the ineffectiveness, waiting until this has been demonstrated, they then adopt violent methods and . . . the oppressor is disposed off without difficulty.

  The play charged many a youth in Maharashtra against British rule. One of them, it is said, was Anant Kanhere who assassinated the collector of Nasik, A. M. T. Jackson of the Indian Civil Service in December 1909 at a theatre where he had gone to watch another famous Marathi play, Sharda.

  Jackson’s murder alarmed the government. To these were added an unsuccessful attempt to hurl a bomb at Viceroy Lord Minto and Tilak’s deportation to Mandalay. Against the entire backdrop of armed agitations and government’s measures to suppress Tilak, Keechakvadh gained tremendous popularity. Jackson’s friend, Charles Kincaid, district session’s judge, who watched a performance of the play, wrote articles in the Times published from London. He said that the play was veritably an allegory on Lord Curzon’s regime as viceroy of India. And that “no Englishman would forget in his lifetime the anger and turbulent expressions on the face of the Marathi audience, while watching the deeds of Keechak on the stage. The pathetic entreaties of Draupadi would draw profuse tears from the ladies in the theatre. These effects were indeed unmistakable and unforgettable.” Kincaid suggested that the only way in which the lives of the British officers could be saved was to throttle the freedom of expression of the Indians through legislation. While grudgingly admitting that Khadilkar was a “talented playwright”, he empathically stated that the play stimulated high treason and sedition.
The police felt that Khadilkar did not invite prosecution for writing the play but the play itself could be banned. Keechakvadh was officially banned on 27 January 1890.

  Kincaid was not the only one complaining. William Lee Warner and Valentine Chirol were demanding stern measures to suppress Indian nationalist expression through the stage. The Press Act of 1910 throttled the media completely. The ban on Keechakvadh was removed after a long time when the hostility of the government against Tilak softened. The retrieval came at Amravati when a special committee found it advisable to lift the ban.

  Khadilkar’s Bhaubandaki was based on the deportation of Tilak, and portrayed a character with the powerful, upright and truth-pursuing qualities of the judge of the Peshwas, Ramshastri Prabhune. This play too invited the annoyance of the government. The district magistrate declared Bhaubandaki as objectionable by the end of 1910. It is said that the atmosphere was so charged in those years that at times the audience read more politics in the play than was intended by the playwrights.

  In the days when Kesari was synonymous with Tilak, the playwrights looked upon Tilak as a divine avatar. They immortalised him in their plays in many forms. Sangeet Swayamvar was a take off on the Surat split; in Bhasmasur, the words mouthed by the character of Shri Vishnu were in keeping with Tilak’s views; the Shri Krishna in the play Kalicha Narad was Tilak; Dhanurbhanga used as its catchphrase Tilak’s famous quotations from his speeches. All these were mythologicals.

  Even in the historical plays, one could see Tilak. The play Maharana Pratap had shades of Tilak; Ranaragini had a character based on Tilak; and a play called Mahatma was based on Tilak’s concept of the Shivaji celebrations. Among the social plays, there were plays like Lokmatvijay (The triumph of People’s Will) and Dharmarahasya (The Secret of Faith). There was a plays based on Tilak’s trial called Rajkopkahar (The King’s Wrath) and his freedom, Bandhavimochan (The Unshackling).

  There were also several plays written in Hindi on Tilak and his work. In north India, Tilak was referred to as Bhagwan Tilak. Some of the plays were called Punaragaman (The Return) and Deshsevak (The Helper of the Nation). The latter was written by Munshi Farog and contained the following lines:

  Hind ka sitara Lokmanya Tilak hai

  Swarajya mera janmasiddha jak hai

  Zindagi hai meri is kaam ke liye

  Angrezone Hind se janahi chahiye.

  (Lokmanya Tilak is the shining star of India,

  Swaraj is my birthright,

  My life is devoted to this cause,

  the British will have to leave India.)

  One of the actors who played the protagonist in a play written by playwright Giridharlal Bakshi resembled Tilak. Every time the actor appeared on stage, the crowd rushed to garland him and touch his feet.

  The handbills of Kirloskar Natak Mandali bore the signature of Tilak. His commitment to drama and stage made him a patron of the Aryoddharak Mandali of Govind Ballal Deval and Shakarrao Patkar. Tilak had honoured this company by accepting the manager-ship of Othello staged by it. A bankbook of Aryoddharak Natak Mandali had an entry of Rs. 30 against Tilak’s name.43

  Along with Tilak, people like Mahadev Moreshwar Kunte, Neelkanth Janardan Keertane and Mahadev Govind Ranade, who were the leading lights of the nationalist organisation, Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, also took a deep interest in Marathi drama and literature. The first conference of Marathi writers was convened in the hall of the sabha.

  Tilak had such faith in the power of the stage to challenge the government effectively that he advised his student Nanasaheb Joglekar, who was studying law in his classes, to join the Kirloskar Natak Mandali. Joglekar took the advice. Tilak was also responsible for giving Marathi theatre its brightest gem, Narayan Shripad Rajhans, who he described as “Bal Gandharva” (The Young Celestial Singer). The young man stepped on the stage on the Gurudwadashi day of 1904 as Shakuntala and left the audience spellbound. He went on to be known as Bal Gandharva all his life. It is said that Bal Gandharva’s mother had no problems about her son entering theatre but his father was skeptical. Tilak promised to pay the family Rs. 20,000 if the young man’s theatre career did not take off. For the next decade and more Bal Gandharva ruled Marathi theatre.

  It is interesting that Prof. Chintaman Gangandhar Bhanu, who shared Tilak’s social and political ideology, was the mentor of the Maharashtra Natak Mandali that staged Khadilkar’s plays like Kanchangadachi Mohana (Mohana of Kanchangad), (1904), Sawai Madhavravancha Mrityu (The Death of Sawai Madhavrao), (1906), Keechakvadh (1907), Bayakanche Band (Women’s Rebellion), (1907) and Bhaubandaki (Filial Feud), (1909).

  As many as thirty-one plays were banned during 1897-1913 under some provision of law. The popular amongst them were Swadeshi Natak and Bhatji Bovachi Sankrant of Ganesh Ballal Phansalkar of Satara, Prithviraj Sanyukta of Ganesh Dhunddev Kane, Vanga Vadh by Purushottam Sathe, Maharana Pratapsingh by Anant Barve, Samarth Ramadas and Bhimrao by Laxman Narayan Joshi, Swadeshi Chalwal by Ismail Yusuf alias Babaji Bhaladar, Sangeet Bhatuklicha Khel by Dhonde Ramchandra Kamarkar, Vijay Teran of Ramchandra Mahadev Mahiskar, and Rana Bhimdev jointly written by V. R. Shirwalkar and V. T. Modak.44

  The theatre groups increased in number and in 1913, when the Gandharva Natak Mandali started its own venture, Kesari advised them that even though they had broken away from the original Kirloskar Natak Mandali, they should not compete with them but co-exist in harmony for the good of the dramatic arts.

  In keeping with Tilak’s ideas, the playwrights and the groups also continued to explore new genres with Tilak’s encouragement and expressed social concerns solidly. There were explicit satires on regressive customs and an attack on social evils. The plays became more and more purposeful and goal-oriented. The aim of the theatre lovers then was to better society through a social message wrapped in entertainment. There were also plays which were based on Shakespeare’s writings. In 1919, in Tilak’s honour, the Kirloskar Natak Mandali performed the play Tratika (based on The Taming of the Shrew) at the new Aryabhushan Theater in Pune. Tilak was present on the occasion.

  Tilak also continued to use the stage shows to share his views on the political scenario as much as he could. At one time Lord Chelmsford said in a speech regarding India’s role in the World War, “Results from the stimulated mobilisation of India’s resources could not have been achieved without stress and strain. In that stress and strain all have shared in varying degree—officials, businessmen and general community alike. For the most part the burden has been borne cheerfully. Where murmurings and grumblings have been heard, they can almost always be traced to a failure to recognise that the restrictions or hardships or whatever the objects of complaint may be, arise from the imperious necessities of war.” Tilak offered him a rejoinder in his speech at the Kirloskar Theatre in Pune. He said,

  A calamity is hanging over India. What is that to us? Why should we come forward to protect that India in which we have no rights, in which we are treated like slaves? At this juncture they want a salaried army, they want mercenaries who will work under them and thereby their authority—the authority of the bureaucracy—will remain inviolate. The bureaucracy has overrun the whole nation and we are not prepared to become soldiers in order to increase the power of these men. Declare publicly that they would all get appointments in the military department and would have the same rights as Europeans and one or two or ten lakhs of people will this day be ready to die. The sarkar says that we come in the way of the work of recruitment. We do not do so at all. He who wishes to go as a recruit for Rs 100 is sure to go in spite of anything we may tell him. But there are thousands of people who will not be available as recruits for Rs 100. They will not go though we may tell them to do so. What are we to tell them? “Join the army to strengthen the zulm (oppression) of these English people?” If we have to defend against the Turks and Germans a country in which we have no swarajya in which our welfare is not encompassed. Which is possibly to be invaded by Germany or by the Turks, what does it matter if the country be in the pos
session of the Turks or the possession of the English? If the English continue to act in future in the same manner, it is to be distinctly told to them that they will not get assistance from this nation in this matter.

  Of course, soon Tilak received a statement from the government saying, “The general purport of the speech are calculated to discourage recruiting for the Indian army and whereas in the opinion of the Governor of Bombay in council there are reasonable grounds for believing that you have thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the defence of India, therefore the governor in council is pleased to direct you pending further orders to abstain from making any public speech without previous permission in writing of the district magistrate.”

  The government made a feeble attempt to silence Tilak but with Tilak’s blessings, Marathi theatre had found its voice, stronger than ever before.

  Chapter Seven

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS

  A decade after Tilak’s death one of the biggest economic strikes, that of the Bombay textile workers, took place. The Indian working class had begun to manifest itself as an independent political force. Its numerical strength was considerable and it joined the united nationalist movement.

  During Tilak’s time, even though it wasn’t much in the mainstream of the nationalist movement, the working class, in various forms, had started registering its protest against the government. For Tilak, getting the mill hands and farmers into the mainstream political struggle was part of his mass mobilisation movement. He had recognised the possible power of their contribution and knew that if they were approached and encouraged, the workers and farmers would make a difference in India’s political struggle. Tilak and his contemporary swadeshi leaders encouraged labour agitation and gave it a strong anti-colonial direction. The agitations, then, did not result in solid trade unions to continue with the nationalist agitation but they certainly did so in the decade after Tilak’s demise. For quite some time, though, nothing could match the mill workers’ strike against Tilak’s imprisonment in 1908.