# The Life of Lokamanya Tilak/Chapter 8

CHAPTER VIII
THE SCHOOL OF MODERATION
Let us swear an oath and keep it with an equal mind
In the hollow lotus-land to live and lie reclined.
Surely surely slumber is more sweet than toil, the shore
Than labour in the deep mid ocean, wind and wave and oar;
Oh, rest ye, brother mariners, we will not wonder more.
Tennyson.
WHILE the Social Reformers were remarrying widows and breaking castes with the ultimate object of making the people fit for political rights, Mr. Tilak was labouriouly striving to infuse vigour into the public mind by his passionate appeals to the great traditions of our History, Religion and Society. He inaugurated the Ganapati and the Shivaji festivals, which in spite of the bitter attacks of Moderates and the hostile attitude of the Government have now come to form a permanent feature of the social life of Maharashtra. These festivals deserve to be recorded as Mr. Tilak 's memorable contributions to our public life.
The Ganapati festival, started in 1893 appealed to the religious instincts of the masses and to the religious and patriotic instincts of the educated people in Maharashtra. It has now taken a permanent place in the social life of the people and affords annually a common platform to the masses and the classes. It supplies healthy intellectual food to the ignorant masses. It ​trains up the youth of the country in organisation, public work and pubUc spirit. Lectures, processions, singing parties are the invariable accompaniments of the festival and they not only afford an outlet to the religious zeal of the people but help in fostering the national sentiment also and in creating an interest in the outstanding questions of the day. The Reformers and Moderates have stood aloof from the festival and have misunderstood its aims and objects and its place in the work of the national uplift. But their opposition has no more arrested the popularity of the festival than the howlings of the Anglo-Indian press; nor have they succeeded in establishing its connection with Anti-Mahomedan spirit. Mr. Tilak has come and gone. But the bent he has given to a religious festival, converting it into a social and national force, abides and will forever testify to his organizing genius. Our District and Provincial Conferences have not yet won a place in the life of the people and have been held only at odd places and have been attended only by the so called "educated" people. But the Ganapati festival is celebrated in every city, town and village and has more powerfully moulded the life of the people than any Congress organisation.
From out the heroes who moulded Maratha History stands out one personality in bold relief. Brahmins adore him; non-Brahmins claim him as their own. Mr. Ranade the great apostle of Moderation has sung his praises in a work that still abides. The Indian states which are scattered over Maharashtra owe their existence to his efforts. Mr. Tilak therefore thought that round the personality of Shivaji, he could gather all the ​patriotic and national forces. The inspiration which western democratic teachings gave to us Was rather weak and essentially outlandish. But the worship of Shivaji was such as even the ignorant villager could understand. The name of Shivaji was a symbol of unity, courage, sacrifice. It connoted the highest patriotic fervour. It stood for complete political emancipation. Shivaji and Swaraj were synonymous words. By starting the Shivaji festival in 1895, Mr. Tilak stimulated the National instincts of the people. He gave to a message to the people freed from the puzzling verbiage of western democracy and which being simple and direct went straight to their hearts.
The first public meeting that was held in connection with the Shivaji memorial was organised by Mr. Tilak and was attended by the leading Chiefs of Maratha States as also by the leading Jahagirdars and the Inamdars of the Deccan. It was attended or blessed by the leading Reformers of the day. The Spiritual Descendant of Saint Ramdas honoured with it with his presence. Some Mahomedans also attended in true fraternal spirit. High and low, rich and poor, persons of every caste and creed flocked to do homage to the memory of the hero.
But this unity of sentiment was short-lived. Such a rallying point evidently scared the Bureaucrats. In 1897 Mr. Tilak was convicted for having published a few verses (descriptive of an imaginery message of Shivaji) and a report of his speech at the Shivaji festival. Since that time a large portion of those people whose happiness and position in life depended upon Bureaucratic goodwill ​have thought it prudent to remain aloof from the festival. The Moderates too, were afraid to co-operate with Mr. Tilak. In spite of these circumstances, the Shivaji festival has become a permanent feature of the pubHc life of Maharashtra; at times it has been celebrated even beyond the bounds of the Bombay Presidency,—in Bengal and in Japan. It will ever remain a permanent source of inspiration to the people.
Up to 1893, inspite of acute Social Reform controversies, there was no split among the Congressmen. But the outbtrcak of the Hindu-Mahomedan riots created an unfortunate breach. Mr. Tilak was the first to assert that the riots were the direct outcome of the divide-and-rule policy, which a section of the officials had inaugurated. Anxious to fasten the responsibility on others, the Anglo-Indians and some of the officials threw the blame on the movement of cow-protection, with which they had persuaded themselves that Mr. Tilak was associated. With the possible exception of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta and the Hon. Mr. Rahimtulla Sayani, most of the Bombay politicians, later known by the unenviable title of Moderates, meekly gulped down this pill. They chafed at Mr. Tilak for having blurted out the truth. They had not the courage even of refuting the connection which was sedulously sought to be established between the riots and the cow-protection Societies, though, a few months later, even the Government of Bombay 'hesitated to accept' the view. The unpleasantness engendered in the course of these controversies, was aggravated by the Congress controversies at Poona (1895). To top this all came the dissensions in the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, where ​Ranade had established his supremacy in 1889. As so often happens in India, affairs in the Sabha had degenerated into cliquism. In 1895, however, Mr. Tilak secured a majority among the members. This incensed the rulers of the Sabha. They were long accustomed to have things in their own way and had no desire to be ruled by Mr. Tilak. They, therefore, set up the "bewitching cry" of "compromise, as if there was anything to compromise at all." Prof. Gokhale undertook the mission of the Peacemaker. But he made the initial mistake of dictating terms to the victorious party. Knowing that his partisans were in utter minority, Mr. Gokhale should have proposed terms at least as favourable to Mr. Tilak's party as to his own. But he went a step further. He proposed three terms: (i) The Managing Committee of the Sabha should be composed of equal members from both the parties (2) The Chairman should continue to be same (that is a Moderate) and (3) There should be three Secretaries instead of the usual number of two and of these three only one should represent the majority. This attempt to hoodwink Mr. Tilak failed; and the chafing Moderates wrecked their venegeance by practically ousting Mr. Tilak from the Secretaryship of the Poona Congress. But even this did not satisfy them. Unaccustomed to play the second part, they resolved rather to secede from the Sarvajanik Sabha than cooperate with Mr. Tilak. They pressed Ranade to allow them to start a new Political Association; and after prolonged hesitation and against his better judgment Ranade at last sanctioned the formation of ​the Deccan Sabha (Nov. 1895) and thus perpetuated the split.
We are prepared to concede that a frank and friendly secession is far better than surface-unity and so wide is the room for work in this country that even a hundred associations are welcome. To start a new association, however, is one thing; and to do so after making disingenuous insinuations against an established one is quite another; and this is what the importunities of his whining followers led the great Ranade to do. Mr. Tilak severely criticised this conduct. He said:—
"We have been accustomed to the terms, Moderates and Extremists in Social Reform controversies. But we refuse to accept these artificial differences in Politics. Is Mr. Tilak going to destroy the British Government? Are Mr. Ranade and Prof. Gokhale going to be its saviours ? To plume oneself as a Moderate and to say that others are running after the impossible and insinuate that they are actuated by seditious motives shows the height of imprudence. If ever the Sabha has "run after the impossible" and has shown "extremist leanings" it was in Prof. Gokhale's regime. It had to make amends by tendering an apology. Mr. Ranade ought to know that the Sabha incurred suspicion of disloyalty when he himself was guiding its policy. All of us know how he had to move heaven and earth to remove the blot. Should he, knowing all this, now come forward and because he cannot command a majority in the body, throw aspersions at the Sabha?"
This then was the formal birth of the Moderate party. It was this disunity between the "Moderates" and the "Extremists" that emboldened the Bureau​cracy to take advantage of the psychological moment offered by the Poona murderers (1897) and launch on a policy of widespread repression in the Presidency. Immediately after resuming (4th July 1899) the editorship of the Kesari, after his one year's incarceration, Mr. Tilak made a powerful appeal to the 'Moderates':—
"When, two years back, the political school of Moderation sprang into existence, we had presaged as much. Some of our critics had blamed us for our pessimism, but our prophesy was fully borne out .... However, let bygones be bygones. Let us turn over a new leaf now. We find that owing to the disorders due to the plague and to the angry attitude of the Government, all our movements have come to a standstill. If we mean to revive them, our first duty is to close up our ranks. Like the crows of the fable, we, each of us, call ourselves peacocks. Only our opponents are crows! But there is the eagle of the Bureaucracy in the sky, bent on confounding us, crows, peacocks and all. Should not the experience of the last two years make us wiser? There are some papers who pride themselves on their moderation, because they have not been prosecuted in 1897. But is it necessary for us to say why and how they escaped scot-free? They should at least look to the Gile's circular before satisfying themselves of their innocence. Both the political parties are agreed as to the rights we want to get from the rulers. Both are agreed as to the need of demanding these rights from the Government and of educating the people to make such demands. If this is so, where is the room for "Moderation" and "Extremism"? None of us ever dreams of breaking or transgressing the laws of the ​land while demanding our rights. What then is the difference? ... Already the Government has restricted our liberty of speech. It is suicidal, therefore, to emphasise our political differences. . . . Let us not keep aloof from each other by creating false doubts and differences .... (Kesari July 4th 1899).
Apparently the appeal fell on deaf ears: for nine years later, we find history repeating itself! An open rupture, a bomb outrage and a policy of terrible repression! Shall India never learn the evils of disunion?
At a metting organised at Poona to do honour to Mr. (now Hon. Mr.) R, P. Paranjpye on his return from Cambridge, poor Mr. Tilak was not even invited! The organisers of the meeting were more anxious to obtain the recognition and patronage of the Government!
This, however, was only a straw, though indicative of the direction, in which the wind was blowing. Various such instances can be quoted. When Lord Sandhurst was about to retire (1900 Feb.), the usual question of a public address and a pubhc memorial was discussed. Dr. Bhalchandra and Mr. (Dr. Sir) Chandavarkar led the movement. Mr. (Sir) Dinshaw Wacha and Mr. (Hon. Sir) Chimanlal Setalwad were strongly against it, but seeing the attitude of their master, the Lion of Bombay, they had to yield. Ranade was diplomatic. He took no part in the controversy. He pleased himself and Lord Sandhurst by a garden-party. This demoralisation in the public life of the Presidency intensely pained Mr. Tilak. Nothing surprised him more than the attitude of Sir (then Mr.) Pherozeshah who had strongly opposed such a movement when Sir Richard Temple and Lord Harris were ​about to retire. Evidently the Lion was fast becoming domesticated.
The effect of this demoralised Bombay public atmosphere on Indian politics was indeed unfortunate. The leaders of other Provinces had the greatest respect for Ranade and Mehta and implicitly followed them; and when Mehta himself was losing his old fire, need we wonder that a change for the worse came over the Congress Party?
This weakening of spirit came precisely when the Bureaucracy and the Nation had just begun their struggle. Ever since 1896 Mr. Tilak had been trying hard to induce the Congress to change its time-honoured methods and show a little more grit. While the nucleus of the New Party in the Congress was being formed the patriarches of the Congress showed unmistakable signs of a reactionary spirit; so much so that when at the Lucknow Congress (1899) Mr. Tilak wanted to move a resolution condemning the regime of Lord Sandhurst, a storm of opposition was raised. Mr. Tilak challenged a single delegate of the Congress to prove that His Lordship's tenure of office had not been ruinous to the people of the Bombay Presidency. None dared take up the challenge. He quoted the misdeeds of the Bureaucracy one by one and asked his opponents to say where he was exaggerating our grievances, and yet Mr. R. C. Dutt, the President and many other delegates were violently against Mr. Tilak's proposition. One clever person hinted that the subject was one of the Provincial interest only, and so the Congress could not be expected to take it up. Mr. Tilak quoted a number of cases where provincial matters had occupied ​the attention of the National body. Nonplussed, the Congress leaders resorted to their usual tactics. The President threatened to resign the presidential post if Mr. Tilak persisted in the matter. Not liking to bring matters to a head, Mr. Tilak withdrew his proposition. At the Satara Provincial Conference, (May 1900) Mr. Tilak again sought to move the following resolution:—
"That this Conference desires to place on record its deep sense of regret that during the last few years, the Government of Bombay should have been pleased to adopt a retrograde policy of repression and distrust, as evidenced by Press prosecutions, arrests and imprisonments of persons without trial, widening of the powers of the Police . . . and it earnestly prays for a speedy return to the Policy of Progress . . . which had characterised the best traditions of British Rule in India."
Here, too, the President, Mr. Gokuldas K. Parekh, perhaps remembering how most of the leaders of Bombay had been associated with the Sandhurst Memorial movement sought to suppress the Resolution by threatening to resign his post. The opposition at last was reconciled on one condition. The resolution, though not formally moved, was recorded in the proceedings of the Conference. This was surely creditable to Mr. Tilak whose party commanded an overwhelming majority. Out of 180 delegates, as many as 124 had sided with Mr. Tilak and had signed the requisition sent to the President of the Conference.
It will thus be seen that self-interest, timidity "policy" induced most of the Congress leaders to forget their duties and responsibilities to the people ​For such contemptible opportunism, they tried to temper the tone of the Congress which they had nurtured with true paternal tenderness and solicitude. The Congress thus lost its prestige and shattered its own popularity and became a "mutual admiration society." Its resolutions instead of being the echoes of the national sentiment, were the decrees of a coterie, none too active or progressive. Its Presidents came to be selected with a view to secure Government recognition. Mr. Chandavarkar, who had kept himself aloof from the Congress ever since 1890, was called upon (1900) to discharge the duties of the Congress President. Official emoluments came to be the standard of Congress recognition; and official wrath and persecutions, the mark of neglect by the Congress authorities. Mr. Chandavarkar, in spite of his ten years' desertion of the Congress, could become its President (1900) because he was high in Government favour and was likely to be appointed Acting High Court Judge, Mr. Tilak, in spite of his 20 years' record of courageous and self-sacrificing public services, had his claims for the honour set aside, because the Bureaucracy had chosen to dislike him.
This v/as a period of violent political reaction. Hardly had the discontent due to famine, plague and press- prosecutions begun to grow less acute when the regime of Lord Curzon which, in its beginnings, had raised great expectations, commenced to create a sense of resentment, to which there is no parallel in the earlier history of our public life. People, who were dazzled by Lord Curzon's personality, energy, and eloquence, found it to their cost, that these noble qua​lities were accompanied by an utter lack of sympathy and imagination and by a mistaken consciousness that his Lordship was specially sent on earth to consolidate the British Empire. To Lord Curzon's imagination, India appeared a mere pawn in the bigger game of extending England's sphere of influence over Asia and in the blindness of his imperialistic ego, he failed to realise the growing awakening in the country. His attempts to win popularity with the ryots by huge expenditures on agriculture and irrigation and by reduction of salt-tax and the Income-Tax and by his ostentatious solicitude for equitable justice between the black man and his white master, were completely unsuccessful. His callous neglect of the industrial regeneration of the country, his anxiety to control University education, his cynical reference to the Political Movement of the day, his curt refusal to encourage Indians in higher service, his audacious interpretation of the Queen's Proclamation, his uncalled-for interference in Local self-Government, his reckless expenditure in the unnecessary Durbar at Delhi, his rude refusal to receive the Congress-Deputation headed by Sir Henry Cotton, and to top all, the memorable Partition of Bengal—these and many other events of Lord Curzon's Viceroyalty created a delicate situation which, the Moderates were unable to cope with. Public disappointment was at its height. Even the late Mr. Hume, Father of the Congress felt it his duty to awaken the ' leaders ' from their inglorious apathy. Said he:—
"It is by consistent and persistent importunity both in India and England that sooner or later, wearied out ​by your incessant appeals, the Government will be driven to concede what are clearly your rights.
"You meet in Congress; you glow with a momentary enthusiasm; you speak much and eloquently. But the Congress closes and every man of you goes off straightway on his private business! Years ago, I called on you to be up and doing; years ago, I warned you that 'Nations by themselves are made' and have you heeded these counsels? You have, indeed, ever eagerly clamoured for and vainly clutched at the Crown but how many of you will touch the cross even with your finger-tips?"
And what was the response Sir Pherozeshah gave to the above passionate appeal? Speaking as the Chairman of the Reception Committee of the 20th National Congress at Bombay, he said:—
"To those who decry the money spent upon the Congress as moneys wasted on a show and a tamasha, I would say, they are not men of real insight and true imagination If you realise it clearly and fully, there is no purpose more important, no mission more sacred than the one that the Congress fulfils in the three short days to which it confines its session We, delegates, representatives of this country, meet together, at the end of the year, to give voice to the public opinion.
But we are told that we have done this for long and we have done this in vain. I absolutely dispute both these propositions.... To estimate the position rightly, let me lay before you (my) confession of Faith. I am an inveterate, and a robust optimist. . . I accept British rule, as Ranade did, as a dispensation so won​derful. . . . that it would be folly not to accept it as a declaration of God's will. . . . We cordially confess that, in the main, England has chosen wisely and well."
This attitude of self-satisfaction was strongly resented by Mr. Tilak. "What hope is there" said he "when the rulers of the National Body frankly confess that the object of the Congress is nothing more than to focus the public opinion of the year?" We can, however, understand the difficulties of the Moderate leaders. It was a time of transition. The time-honoured methods of political life required to be replaced by a more militant form of agitation. That called for a type of courage, an amount of energy and activity, a degree of self-sacrifice, clearly wanting in the Moderate leaders. Altogether a new type of leadership was in requisition. But in the language of Napoleon: "the pear" was "not yet ripe." The psychological moment for Mr. Tilak to lead a frontal attack both against the Moderates as well as the Bureaucracy had not yet arrived. As Lord Curzon marched from one autocratic act to another, it slowly came nearer and nearer.
Between 1899, when Mr. Tilak resumed his editorship of the Kesari and 1905, when the Partition of Bengal, carried out in haste and repented at leisure, put the final seal to the bitterness and helplessness that prevailed, Mr. Tilak's contribution to the public life was not what it could have been; for from the middle of 1901 to the close of 1904 he was involved in the earlier stages of the well-known Tai Maharaj case. He had to prepare the cases in the several suits, civil and criminal, brought by or against him and had to examine witnesses on commission for months together at ​Aurangabad, Amraoti and Kolhapur. The criminal case alone engaged his attention for about tea months.
Up to 1904, Mt. Tilak was only a Provincial leader. The Partition of Bengal ushered into existence an agitation which gave birth to an All-India Party and by universal consent of friend and foe, Mr. Tilak came to be the unquestioned leader of this party.