# The Life of Lokamanya Tilak/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V
TILAK AND THE CONGRESS—I
At the Poona Congress of 1895, when Gokhale was a secretary of the Reception Committee, the ridiculous controversy started by Mr. Tilak, about letting the Social Conference have the use of the Congrss Mandap assumed disproportionate dimensions and Mr. Tilak triumphed momentarily. I do not know what he now (1915) thinks in his heart of hearts of the part, that he played in the matter, though he can, like the skilful advocate that he is, still put a fair complexion on it is necessary.
R. P. Paranjpye
THESE words, coming from the pen of a responsible Moderate leader show to what length party misunderstandings and party misrepresentations can go. To a certain type of people, Mr. Tilak has always appeared as the evil genius of the Congress, creating trouble, fomenting dissensions, recklessly courting Government wrath and leading the nation to the verge of disaster. They sum up Mr. Tilak's contribution to the Congress cause by mentioning the controversies at the Poona Congress and the fiasco at Surat. Only history will show how Mr. Tilak popularised the Congress movement during its infancy, how for that purpose his co-operation was sought, though his person was disliked, how he tried to infuse fresh blood into that body when the original 'firebrands' were degenerating into apathy, how he ​failed, how matters culminated in the unfortunate spUt at Surat, how the Congress dwindled into nothingness, and how Mr. Tilak's return (1916) to the Congress camp enhanced its prestige, power and popularity, until at last in the present moment it has been recognised as the non-official Parliament of the country.
Mr. Tilak joined the Congress in 1889,—only after his separation from the Deccan Education Society had become inevitable and imminent. "One thing at a time" was always his motto. If he sacrificed Social Reform to Politics, let us not forget that in the first ten years of his career he sacrificed Politics to Education. The principle of division of labour, introduced mainly by Mr. Tilak into our public life has at last been accepted and no man is now blamed for confining his attention to a particular branch of national activities.
The question is often asked "Why was not Mr. Tilak's name even proposed for the Presidentship of the Congress earlier?" His genius, learning, courage and sacrifices were generally admitted. What then came in his way? If Mr. Tilak was a junior, was not Mr. (Now Dr. Sir) Chandavarkar equally so in 1900? The answer is that the group of the politicians who held the Congress in leading strings was rather exclusive and would not agree to admit into the inner sanctuary an element of an alien type. The qualities that then were considered to belong to a statesman were eloquence of speech, suppleness of conduct, European habits and association (misnamed influence) with the Bureaucracy. Mr. Tilak had none of these 'rare' gifts. He possessed in a boundless ​measure the "too coommon" qualities,—fixity of purpose, inflexibility of will, boundless courage and enthusiasm, lofty idealism and tremendous earnestness. In the midst of holiday politicians claiming monopoly of wisdom and statesmanship, he was an impracticable enthusiast, to be tolerated as an unavoidable evil. His superabundant energies were fully utilized and six successive Provincial Conferences (all of them, except two held at Poona) were organised by him and by Mr. Namjoshi. But in the agenda of resolutions only a back seat was given to him and he was very rarely given the opportunity of moving important resolutions in the Congress. Mr. Tilak who cared more for work than for honour and display cheerfully did the part of the work entrusted to him. If the credit of popularising the Congress work in Maharashtra can be claimed by any one, it can be by Mr. Tilak. The Congress itself was an institution after western models; its leaders, so far at least as the land of the Marathas was concerned, were chiefly Government servants and pensioners, titled nonentities and self-seeking youngsters. Add to this; the controversies in connection with the Age of Consent Bill, Sharada Sadan and the Hindu-Mahomedan riots, controversies in which Mr. Tilak had to take a definitely hostile attitude towards the Reformers of the day. Still, at the call of the Congress, he threw aside his opposition to those people, and year in and year out, appealed to the general public to follow its lead aud strengthen it by moral, intellectual and financial support. Had Mr. Tilak been the narrow-minded bigot he was represented to be he would never have supported the Congress Pro​paganda, headed that it was by most of the reformers and risked his popularity with the masses by championing a body which utilised his energy and abiUty but which showed very little recognition of his worth. All these circumstances must carefully be remembered if we would correctly understand the tangle of the Poona Congress (1895).
The real question before the Poona public of 1895 was not whether the Social Conference of that year should, according to the usual practice have been allowed to be held in the Congress Mandap; for had this been the real question at issue "the ridiculous controversy" said to have been "started by Mr. Tilak" would at once have been settled by Mr. Ranade's graceful and timely declaration that the Social Conference, which in truth was attended only by a small fraction of the Congress delegates and visitors would be held in some other place. When there is a childish dispute over a trifle, all the parties concerned are responsible, if it assumes "disproportionate dimensions." The question of holding or not holding the Social Conference in the Congress Pavilion was only a move in the bigger game, the deep-laid plot, of discrediting Mr. Tilak and humiliating him in the eyes of the Poona public and of the Congress at large. Nobody will say that the petty motives of jealousy which moved lesser men inspired leaders like Ranade. It will, however have to be admitted that had Ranade risen to the full height which the occasion demanded much heart-burning would have been avoided. But he was powerless to assert his will against the clique that surrounded him. It was humourously called "The Tilak Persecution Society." ​ Looked at, from an impersonal standpoint, the differences between Tilak and Ranade have been summarized by the former as follows:—
"Every one*, whether orthodox or heterodox, reformer or reactionary should join in and support the Congress movement. A Congress in Poona cannot be regarded a success unless the majority of the people in Poona join it enthusiastically. We must approach the trader, the artizan and the working man as well as the educated classes and make all of them subscribe to the Congress fund and in order to do this we must appeal to each of them in a manner, so as not to offend their susceptibilities unnecessarily. The Congress eventually aims at being a Congress of the people and the object cannot be achieved, unless, every year, an effort is made to approach more and more the classes that have not taken hitherto much interest in the movement. * * * If the masses are drawn to the Congress, it is possible that they may not lend their support directly or indirectly to the cause of the Social Conference. It is this apprehension that makes the friends of Social Reform restrict the scope of their work for the Congress within a safe narrow circle. * * One (party) wishes to draw to the Congress as large a portion of the public as it possibly can, irrespective of the question of Social Reform : the other does not wish to go much beyond the circle of the friends of reform. * * * The real point of issue is whether * * the Congress in Poona is to be a Congress of the people or of a particular section of it. ​
When the work of the Congress was to be commenced, the Reformers were in a great glee, as, happening to command a majority in the Standing Congress Committee, they expected to carry things in their own way. But Mr. Tilak soon made it clear to them that he would be no party to such a manifestly unjust arrangement. They, therefore had to set up a working Committee consisting of an equal number of members belonging to both the parties. How to neutralise this "concession" was a question which seriously occupied some mischievous spirits of the Reform Party and they hit upon a very ingenious trick by means of which they hoped either to place Mr. Tilak in an awkward situation or to create a split in his party, which would give numerical superiority to the Reformers in the Working Committee. They stirred up the fury of the ultra-orthodox section of the people by constantly boasting that the Social Conference, so disliked by the majority—would be held in the Congress pavilion in the teeth of their opposition. The result was that Sardar Balasaheb Natu, with others belonging to the extreme wing of the Orthodox Party issued a circular, demanding that the Social Conference should not be held in the Congress Mandap. Thus a split was created in the Orthodox Camp.
Regarding the relations of the Social Conference with the National Congress, a contemporary paper wrote as ​follows:—"At the Calcutta Congress (1886) that shrewd and experienced old Parsee, Mr. Dadabhoy Naoroji, the President dwelt upon the subject both in his opening speech and during the discussion; and decided against the Congress having anything to do with Social Reform, directly or indirectly.
"But the hot-headed reformers, threw the words of the old Parsi patriot, and the sense of the Calcutta Congress to the winds. At Madras they tried their game next year and with the assistance of a few addle-pated Madrasee reformers succeeded in obtaining their wish; and after the Congress, was held within its pandals the first Social Conference. * *
Since 1887 to 1894, the Social Conference has held its sittings as the tail of the Congress."*
So much for wisdom; now let us see how fanaticism bred fanaticism. When the controversies over the Age of Consent Bill were at their height, the late Mr. Hume, "father" of the Indian National Congress declared that he would sever his connection from the Congress if he found the majority of the leading Congressmen opposed to the Bill. This unreasonable and overbearing conduct naturally excited many Congressmen and it was said that if acquiescence in hasty and mischievous measures of Social Reform was to be the price of the support of Mr. Hume to India's political demands—well, Indians could afford to do without him. Such reckless language naturally made people suspicious and as early as 1891 many people expressed a desire that the Social Conference should not be held in ​the Congress pavilion. If responsible leaders like Hume could give vent to such thoughtless remarks, can we blame Sardar Balasaheb Natu for having given such an undue importance to the site of the Social Conference?
Mr. Tilak's attitude regarding the dispute about the Social Conference was perfectly reasonable. As early as July 23rd, 1895, he openly declared in the Kesari that those who made the holding or not holding of the Social Conference in the Congress Mandap the condition of their financial support to the Congress were not the friends of the Congress. He proposed that the dispute should be decided by the Congress itself or by the Reception Committee. A better solution of this question could not be imagined and yet the cry was kept up that Mr. Tilak was supporting the extreme wing of the orthodox party headed by Sardar Natu! A side-light on the sincerity of this cry is thrown by the fact that some of the Reformers (e.g. Kashinathpant Natu, Keshavrao Patvardhan) refused to contribute to the Congress fund unless positively assured that the Social Conference would be held in the Congress pavilion.
Another cry in the same game of anyhow discrediting Mr. Tilak was that his attention to the Congress work was perfunctory. People were "shocked" to find that the pavilion was not ready in September. Mr. Tilak reminded them it could be done only after the rainy season was over. "What about chairs" said they. Mr. Tilak told them that though the chairs bore the brand of "Australian chairs" still they could always be had in Bombay at a week's notice. "And the volunteers"? Well, the volunteers were not required before the middle of December; still, written complaints were ​made to the Working Committee. Mr. Tilak had secured the site, prepared plans and estimates, sent round men and letters for subscription, actually collected some money. For all this and other work, he was praised by Mr. C. Vijayaraghavachariar who expressed his surprise that Poona should have commenced work in right earnest so early. And yet the reformers of the Working Committee wanted to sit in judgment upon Mr. Tilak. Mr. Tilak showed how they themselves had shirked work and had thrown all the burden upon him. He produced the report of the Working Committee of the preceding year's (1894) Congress at Madras and challenged his opponents to compare that work with his. Discomfitted, the reformers had to submit to passing a resolution expressing their satisfaction at Mr. Tilak's work.
Discomfiture, however did not bring repentance. Taking advantage of Mr. Tilak's temporary absence from Poona, they made attempts to remove the Congress Office from his residence. The Sub-Committees were swamped with reformers and instead of adhering to the original resolution, fixing one vote for every gentleman who paid Rs. 50 and upwards, it was decided (Oct. 18) that those who paid upwards of Rs. 50 were entitled to vote not only on their own behalf but separately for heir wives and children! A more ridiculous resolution cannot be imagined and this the reformers could carry through only on account of the split in the Orthodox party. And yet Mr. Tilak was supposed to have been in league with Sardar Natu!
Mr. Tilak exposed all these tactics in a circular letter ​to all the leading Congressmen and Associations in the mofussil. He also exposed them at a public meeting held at Poona on October 22nd. As the Reformers' majority in the Committee had usurped all the functions, it was resolved at this meeting that a new Reception Committee on an equitable basis should be formed. The Reformers considered this meeting to be nothing more than a display of "brute force" and hence appealed to the Standing Committee to settle the dispute. The Standing Committee decided that both the parties should be represented by two Secretaries each, that Bombay should contribute three Secretaries and that this Committee of seven should carry on all the Congress work. Great pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Tilak to accept this arrangement; and when at last Mr. Tilak did consent to it he quickly found that it was all imaginary and that the status quo was maintained by the Reformers. Disgusted beyond measure by all these tactics, Mr. Tilak took the only course left to him and resigned his secretaryship on Nov. 4th.
The Reformers were delighted; and 3^et they felt unhappy. They felt as uncomfortable and suspicious as Macbeth when he had got rid of Banquo. What if Mr. Tilak made a row? Police aid was sought and got because "the attitude of a section of the Hindu Community in Poona is hostile to the Congress." The repeated advice which Mr. Tilak gave to the public, appealing to them to stand by the Congress, failed to diminish this feverish anxiety. "Suppose, the Mandap is set on fire by Mr. Tilak's emissaries. What would become of the Congress?" These foolish fears haunted them like a nightmare. Still, with dogged and malig​nant obstinacy they continued their activities against Mr. Tilak, chiefly through a newspaper subsidized by the Reception Committee. There is no knowing how the unpleasantness of the situation would have been aggravated had not the Hon'ble Mr. Surendranath Banerjea, President-elect of the Congress, himself a staunch Social Reformer, set matters right. He requested Mr. Ranade not to press the question of the Social Conference. He even threw out broad hints that if the disputes at Poona could not be amicably settled he would refuse to preside. This courageous and statesmanlike conduct compelled Mr. Ranade to be reasonable and to make a belated declaration that he would not try to hold the Social Conference in the Congress pavilion. Had he made the declaration earlier and on his own initiative, his reputation for statesmanship would have been redeemed; but his declaration made practically under compulsion, together with the continuance by his minions of their disingenuous tactics kept the situation almost unchanged. The offer of cooperation, repeatedly made by Mr. Tilak was spumed. The Reformers, conscious of their own unpopularity were afraid to bear the light of the day. And yet a public meeting to elect Poona delegates was to be held. Bowing to the inevitable, they convened a public meeting (20th December). The hall selected for the purpose was very small and the announcement of the meeting was made very late, presumably to outwit Mr. Tilak' s partisans. But long before the time of the meeting the opponents of the Reformers, alert as ever had packed the hall. With a clever manoeuvre they elected their own president. This perplexed the Reformers and as a mark ​of protest, some 15 gentlemen including Prof. Gokhale left the meeting.
In spite of the worst fears of the reformers, the Congress was a brilliant success. The reception accorded to the Thunderer of Bengal was simply grand. Enthusiasm was catching. After the Congress was over Sardar Baba Maharaj, a friend of Mr. Tilak was 'at Home' to the Congress President and the Congress delegates. Then the party was led to attend a huge meeting in connection with the Shivaji Memorial. Mr. Banerjea made a thrilling speech and exhorted the people to join the Shivaji festival inaugurated by Mr. Tilak.
It is so very unpleasant to rake up from the forgotten past an episode of discord. But when we find attempts made to discredit Mr. Tilak for imaginary sins it is necessary to apportion the blame and decide where truth and fairness lay. Had Mr. Tialk's critics contented themselves with asserting that he disapproved of the holding of the Social Conference on the lines on which it was held, nobody would have cared to criticise such remarks for the simple reason that even leading Reformers of those days like the late Hon. Rao Bahadur Nulkar thought pretty much in the same way. Mr. Tilak's supposed opposition to the Reform movement or to the Social Conference had absolutely nothing to do with the insignificant question of the holding of the Social Conference in the Congress pavilion. If this petty question assumed "disproportionate dimensions," the responsibility lies rather on those who, not caring for the fair name of their city were willing to vent their spite upon the devoted head of Mr. Tilak and discredit ​him in the eyes of his educated countrymen. The attempt partially succeeded. For though outside the Bombay Presidency, these disputes failed create any impression still in Maharashtra the estrangement between the Reformers and the Orthodox party became complete; and what is more important, the Bombay leaders who had taken very little part in the Social questions of the day were considerably influenced by the controversies owing to their association with the Reformers at Poona. Here then was sown the seed of that misunderstanding between the Lion of Bombay and the Lion of Poona, which unfortunately was destined to bear fruit at Surat in 1907. And all this could have been avoided by a single tactful and timely move on the part of Ranade.
In conclusion, we may note one or two incidents in the life of the Congress which have a direct bearing on the present narrative. We have already seen that in the 2nd Congress at Calcutta, the Grand Old Man of India, keenly aware of the danger of mixing up Social Reform with Politics, declared the former as lying outside the scope of the Congress. Not that he did not favour Social Reform, but he was particular about the unity of Congressmen. The third Congress under the Presidency of the late Mr. Badruddin Tyabji did not pass a resolution in favour of Cow protection, simply to conciliate Mahomedan opinion, in spite of the fact that the President himself and all the delegates were in favour of protecting cows. If then the third Congress could leave out one important resolution—a question of principle — for the sake of unity, could not Ranade have tried ​to secure unity by not pressing the Pandal question? Evidently, therefore party feeling got the better of patriotism. The smooth working of the Reception Committee at the Calcutta Congress of 1806 was endangered by bitter quarrels between the Brahmoes and the Orthodox party and a breach over religious questions seemed imminent. Here too, the principle ot keeping the Congress aloof from Social and religious controversies was forgotten. At the Madras Congress of 1894, some Purists of the Social Reform party v/anted to boycott certain delegates whose morals had become the subject of much public discussion and their extravagance was checked by the judicious and tactful conduct of the President who pointed out that though Gladstone was unwilling to negotiate with Pamell as the leader of the Irish Nationalists, still he had no objection to allow Parnell to work in the interests of Ireland. It will thus be seen that the Poona disputes in 1895, did not form an isolated episode in the history of the Congress. A political organisation that allows its cohesion to be endangered on side-issues betrays its own interests and plays into the hands of the common opponent. Viewed from this stand-point, the ridiculous controversies over the pandal question at Poona appear not merely imprudent but positively suicidal, irrespective of the responsibility of this party or that; and a careful perusal of the preceding pages will convince the reader that Mr. Tilak's contribution to these controversies was entirely involuntary.
* ↑ * From a letter to the Times of India (Quoted in the Mahratta, November 3, 1895).
* ↑ * The Hope (Calcutta).