be fe Rabe Bal Gangadhar Tilak 12s6-1920) I want to have the key of my house and not merely one stranger turned out of it. Self-government is our goal..." Tilak A Glimpse of Early Life Bal Gangadar Tilak-a man of an indomitable energy and dauntless courage was born in Maharashtra on July 23, 1856. He belonged to a Chitpavan Brahmin family which ruled over Shivajt's empire. The English rulers had always kept a vigilant eye on this family as it inherited a rebellious and recalcitrant tendency. Tilak got his early education from his father-a primary school teacher who earned Rs.10 p.m. as salary. He got college education from Deccan College Poona. He passed graduation in 1876. In the words of D.P. Karmarkar "Tilak’s way of life in college was of orthodox type. He used to sit for meals with a silk dhoti as was common among orthodox Hindus and his outlook in social matters also was more conservative than other. ...” After graduation, he joined Law so that he could serve his country in a better way, by equipping himnself with legalistic knowledge. He had alluring prospect of becoming a High Court judge and thus lead a comfortable life. He preferred to lead simple life, dedicating himself to the cause of poor countrymen and service to his motherland. He took to Joumalism in 1880. He was the spirit behind two weeklies-Kesari, and "Marathas’. In 1889, he joined Indian National Congress. After Surat split, he left Congress in 1907. In 1908, he was jailed for treason. In 1916, he started Home Rule Movement. He formed Congress Democratic Party to contest the elections of Provincial Legislatures. On August 1, 1920 the light that lightened the dormant souls was extinguished. The story of his life and work is also the history of the birth and growth of Indian nationalism. Gokhale-his life long political adversary paid him the richest tribute on his death. "Bom a hundred and twenty years before, Tilak would have carved out a Kingdom for himself." In fact he changed the phase of Indian political thinking and induced the Congress to opt for a radical programme of struggle for independence. He was a scholar, educator, journalist and an outstanding leader of the Extremist section of the Indian National Congress. He has been rightly portrayed as The Father of the Indian Unrest and the ‘prince of patriots’. He specialized in Mathematics and Senskeit. India's heritage. Even when he studied law, be mos words of Dr. Gupta, "from his childhood, he ihe: n of a new India arising firmly based on the spirit and tradition of her civilization and her glorious past." ‘Pandit Nehru opines, "we have in Tilak a symbol of India's struggle for freedom and a man who was not only a brave soldier but a great captain, not a captain of an organised government but a captain of unorganized masses of India.....there was inertia not in the minds of everyone but among most of our people bent to shake them up and to bring out a mass conscience, mass awakening in the sense of struggle was, I think, primarily Lokmanya's task." As a trevivalist Tilak was a revivalist whose mind was rooted in the rich cultural heritage of India, He was eager to revive all that was good and glovigus in India's culture and civilization. He was opposed to the idea of blindly toeing the line of the West. He felt that the system of education introduced by the Britishers aimed at consolidating their power in India, Western education attempted to teach people disbelief in their religion and inculcated in them disrespect of their social order. Besides, it perverted their minds, It is evident from his note in 'Kesari'-a Marathi language weekly of which he was the editor. He stated. ". . . .a number of our educated men began to accept uncritically the materialistic doctrines of Westemers. Thus we have the pathetic situation of the new generation making on their uch, his education brought him closer to crated on Indian classical law. In theminds a carbon copy of the gross materialism of the West."2 Tilak was not prepared to accept British philosophy of life. He realised that the social order in India necessitated a drastic change but the change must be from within. It must not be western import. Left Indian philosophy be the guide for remaking of India, He wrote in a letter: "A true nationalist desires to build on old foundations, Reforms based on utter disrespect for the old do not appeal to him as constructive work. . . .we do not want to anglicize our institutions and so denationalize them.” He therefore initiated a movement for national education and established a network of schools to enlighten the masses about the conditions of their country. He set up New English School at Poona in January, 1880 which became the centre of public life. He thought of setting up a college as well for similar purpose. Deccan Education Society was formed in 1884 for initiating opening of a college. Ferguson college was thus established in 1885 by the society. Tilak himself taught mathematics and Sanskrit in the college upto 1890. He rejected rationalism and scepticism of Western philosophy and sought the guidance of India's own philosophy. He condemned religious orthodoxy and dogged adherence to customs, He recognized that the ‘edifice of the Hindu religion is not based on fragile ground like custom. Had it been so, it would have been levelled to the ground very long ago. It has lasted so long because it is founded on ever-lasting Truth and eternal and pure doctrines relating to the Supreme being."4 ‘Tilak, thus started with a faith in the spiritual purposes of human life-a truth not recognized by the then western intellectuals but followed by the ancient Indian philosophers. In Kesari, he wrote, "The structure of faith collapses with the collapse of faith in existence of the soul. The doctrine of soullessness removed the need for faith.”5 However, he did not have narrow outlook. He did not advocate minimization of importance of English education. He had studied western writers like Hegel, Kant, Spencer, Mill, Bentham, Voltaire and Rousseau in his college days. He, i West. He asserted that, "a proper knowledge of the old traditions and philosophies r d to the newly educated Classes and the Pandits arid Shastris must be given information abou: newly changed and changing circumstances."6 On the other hand, he did not hesitate in confessing that Greek History and the idea of Olympic games prompted him to organise Ganapati festivals to organise unity among the people of India, The attitude of hero-worship adopted by Emerson and Carlyle induced him to organise Shivaji festivals. He agreed with these British Thinkers who held that a nation to become great must honour national heroes. It was in this festival that he spoke: “If thieves enter our home and we have not sufficient strength to drive them out, should we not without hesitation shut them up and leave them alive and rise above the penal code into the rarified atmosphere of the sacred Bhagwat Geeta and consider it the action of great men." He justified killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji and expected the masses to follow the great leader for liberating their motherland from the clutches of foreigners. He felt that the religious festivals not only helped in keeping the religious instincts of the people alive but also educating them in the moral, social and political spheres, Some of his important works not only established his superiority as a profound scholar but also revealed the richness of our cultural heritage. His "Orion Studies in the Antiquity of the Vedas"7 which revealed that Rig Veda was composed as early as 4500 B.C. gained him a prominent place in the Westen world for his scholarship in Oriental studies. Another important work of his-’The Arctic Home of the Vedas'-one of the most original and unusual works in Sanskrit scholarship-emphasised that the Aryans originally lived in the far northern reaches of the Asiatic continent. The greatest and the holiest work of Tilak ‘was the Gita Rahasya-a philosophical insight into the teachings of Gita. These classical studies were instrumental in recapturing the spirit of Indian classical philosophy of life.As a reformist ‘Tilak has been described as a great social reformist though he followed a different line from the Contemporary reformists. Some of the Reform movements like Brahmo Samaj and Prathana Samaj which advocated social reforms and transformation were influenced by the ideology and values of Sharda Act, the Arya Marriage Act etc. In the words of Dr. VP. Verma, "new movement of social reforms in Hinduism not only were not averse to the government making social laws but at times they helped the government in this connection."8 Tilak’s attitude to social reforms was radically different. He was opposed to mixing up social and political issues, Political progress must precede the social transformation, which may be a gradual affair. He refused to be misled by the reformers who opined that social reform was the necessary antecedent to political progress. However, he wanted to Preserve the moral and spiritual values of the Hindu culture, though he strongly felt that ‘without political rights, cultural autonomy could not be Preserved: He advocated that there could be no social reform ‘without political reform, no national education without a national goverment. Hence "this advocate of the perennial values of Hindu philosophy became also a stalwart of Indian nationalism."9 Tilak's philosophy of social change has been very well portrayed in the various articles that he contributed to 'Kesrai.' An analysis of th \dicates that Tilak was antagonistic to a total and immediate programme of social rev: nt about by coercion, Reforms imposed from the top appeared to him mechanical and subversive to the pattem of existing life and society. He did not like to shatter cohesiveness of the community as an evolving organism, by creating factions on the questions of social reforms. He did not lie wp place before the people divergent social philosophy as he aimed at a nationalistic upsurge and wanted id instilling of confusion in the minds of masses. He was of the view that progressive social change should be gradually introduced under the inspiration of leaders holding Hindu ideals ¢ ir heart, Another important element in Tilak's attitude to social reform was that he ‘was hostile to bureaucratic interference in social and religious matter like alien rulers, professing the values of a different civilization, to be the legislators ‘ocial matters, Tilak considered it sheer humiliation that the Hindus should pander berore vx ‘auctacy and request them to make social laws, thus exhibiting their inability to do so. Such supplicating mood was likely to shake the moral and intellectual foundations of Swaraj. He was conscious of the political ability and organisational and administrative acumen of the Indians, Hence he did not like social reforms to be imposed from above. Dr. V.P. Verma has well summed up this idea in the following words: "Thus in Tilak's radical opposition to bureaucratic social legislations we may find sentiments of deep-seated patriotism and not the demagogic desire to strengthen his leadership by making appeals to fetishes, dogmas, religious passions and social prejudices of the people of the Hindu Society."10 Was he a reactionary? Since Tilak believed in Arya Dharma and opposed the extremist measures of the social reformers, he ‘was condemned by the then reformers and the extremists as defender of orthodoxy and a reactionary. ‘This is in fact far from truth, He was keenly interested in the eradication of social evils and effecting improvement in social conditions. As already said, he was a staunch advocate of social Progress though he did not like it to take place according to the grandiose schemes of the westernizing reformers, He did not believe in ‘mere paper plans and empty schemes. He was eager for the alleviation of pressing needs of thepeople, His whole-hearted devotion to the famine relief programme and the plague prevention work stands witness to this fact. In fact, he was imbued with the ideas of reforms. However, he did not like to remake India in the image of the West or use the force of an alien rule to impose any kind of reform. He stood for genuine reforms which could emanate from the Indians themselves and not bestowed upon the slaves by a benign master. Hence he aimed at reawakening, of India to her past and basing her future greatness on her past glories. Further he made it clear to his countrymen that Swaraj or self-rule was # political, economic, cultural and spiritual progress. Asa reformist he taught the people the ‘dharma’ of action-a philosophy he drew {rom the Gita. In his words "no one can expect the Providence to protect one who sits with folded arms and throws his burden on others. God does not help the indolent. Yout must be doing all that you can to fit yourself up and then only you may rely on the Almightly to help you." 11 Besides he taught the people ‘Dharma of unity’. Bharat Dharma implied the unity of India, the unity of the Indian civilization. The spirit of orthodoxy had compartmented society and placed men in segregated and exclusive caste communities which were antagonistic to the feeling of common heritage and common cause. requisite of real social, According to him, a dharma taught harmony and cooperation and unity and this spirit of unity could be reawakened through religious education. In his words, "It is possible to unite the followers of Hinduism by the revival and growth of the Hindu religion for the Hindu religion does not lie in caste, eating and drinking.” He opposed untouchability. He addressed in Bombay in March, 1918 the first Depressed Classes Conference. He considered all Indians as the children of the same parents. He proclaimed: "If God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognize Him as God at all.” He, therefore, exhorted the depressed classes to attend Ganapti festivals. He advocated widow remarriage and instructed the so-called advocates of this social reform to practise it in their families first if such an eventuality crops up. ‘The Ganapati and Shiviaji festivals organised by Tilak served the purpose of uniting the people. He held the view that the people who worshipped a common deity and recognized a common historical tradition would be able to stand together and work together for the common good, Far from being a reactionary, Tilak as a visionary visualized a unity of ail the people of India, united among themselves and united with their traditions to face the future by the common ideals. He felt that through common united effort, social evils could be wiped out by the people themselves. Further, he emphasised that restoration of national unity and mutual respect alone could result in the restoration of national self-respect so very essential for the achievement of seif- government, Evidently, a reactionary could never think in these terms, His political philosophy ‘ According to Dr. Verma, "If political philosophy means the speculative construction of an idealistic Utopia, then Tilak has not given us any picture of the politically perfect society in this sense of the term political philosophy......His main problem in life was the political emancipation of India."12 We discover an element of realism in the political ideas and outlook of tilak his political thought reflects a rare blend of ancient indian thought and the nationalistic and democratic ideas of the moder west. He was a vedantist. He considered spirit as the supreme reality. Since all men are portions or aspects of that absolute essence, all have the same autonomous spiritual potentiality. This led him to believe in the supremacy of the concept of freedom. In his words, "Freedom was the soul of the Home Rule Movement-the divine instinct of freedom never aged-freedom is the very life of the individual soul which Vedanta declares to be not separate from God ®148 but identical with him, This freedom was a principle that could never perish."13 ‘The Western theories of national independence and self-determination exercised a great influence upon Tilak's mind, In his trial speech of 1908. he quoted John Stuart Mill's concept of nationality. Likewise, he accepted Wilsonian concept of self determination and wanted it to be applied to India as well. In the opinion of Dr. Verma "Tilak’s philosophy of nationalism was a synthesis of the Vedantic ideal of the spirit as supreme freedom and the Western conceptions of Mazzini, Burke, Mill and later on of Wilson. This synthesis is expressed in terms of Swarajya-a Vedic term."14 Tilak’s concept of Swarajya Tilak has been described as the Hercules of Indian Nationalism on account of his devotion and dedication to his motherland. His political philosophy thus centres round 'Swarajya’. The word ‘Swarajya is an old term-a Vedic term, Tilak borrowed it from Hindu Shastras and from the life time of Shivaji. Tilak regarded Swarajya not merely a right but also a Dharma. He gave a political, moral and spiritual meaning of Swarajya. Politically, Swarajya meant home rule. Morally, it signified the achievement of the perfection of self- control which is necessary for discharging one's duty. Its spiritual importance lay in the realization of spiritual inner freedom and contemplative delight. In the words of Tilak, Swarajya is a life centred in self and dependent upon self. There is Swarajya in this world as well as in the world hereafter, The Rishis who laid down the law of duty who took themselves to forests, because the people were already enjoying Swarajya or people's dominion which was administered and defended in the first instance by the Kshatriya King..... Swaraiya in the life to come cannot be the reward of a people who have not enjoyed it in this world."15 It is evident that Tilak’s Swarajya stood both for political tiberiy and spiritual freedom. He proclaimed that “"Swarajya is my birth-right and I shall have it.” Thus during the year 1905 when the Congress was believing only in constitutional means and policy of mendlicancy, there appeared on the Indian political horizon a leader who proclaimed futility of constitutional methods and appeared as the champion of Swarajya. Method to achieve Swarajya As said above, Tilak had no faith in the constitutional methods. Hence he assertively said "Protests are of no avail. Mere protests not backed by self-reliance will not help the people. Days of protests and prayers are gone." Thus Tilak and the Nationalists toeing his line, placed before the nation four-fold programme for effective political action, for the attainment of Swarajya viz. Boycott, Swadeshi, national education and passive resistance. These methods were in fact meant for undoing Partition of Bengal in the initial stage. However soon after, it was made a national issue to pressurise the Britishers not only to undo partition of Bengal but also to get rid of their domination, Tilak is described as an extremist on account of the advocacy of these methods for the attainment of Swarajya. A brief explanation of these methods is essential to appraise Tilak as an extremist. (a) Swadeshi. It was not only an economic movement but a political weapon in the hands of Tilak to cripple the British economically and also shake them politically. He proclaimed, "If we do not wish to be Whiteman's slaves, we should vigorously carry on the Swadeshi movement. It is the only effective method for our deliverance, The object of the movement is to do away with the system under which we are treated like slaves by Europeans and to force government to give us all the rights of British citizenship."16 ‘Swadeshi meant self-help to depend upon Indian made goods rather than rely upon manufactured (5)produce of Birmingham and Manchester. Bengalis were the first to lit the night sky with bonfires of European clothing’s. The movement gradually spread throughout India. Local Indian production was encouraged. Local industrial developmient got impetus. Swadeshi came to be understood more than simple economic self sufficien. I singly realized that if there could be self-help in the economic sphere, there could! ip in the other sphere as wel. In the words of Dr. Gupta, "Swadeshi was a tangible way in which to demonstrate the new spirit Tilak and the Nationalists had been teaching the people."17 ‘The movement soon got converted into a movement o construed as a practical application of love of coun of the Aryas as mother earth is the Swadeshi move! Matram in action", jeneration. It began to be of Tilak, "To recognise the land thus proved to be "Bande (b) Boycott. Boycott was initially a measure to bring economic pressure on the British business interest both in India and abroad. It meant refusal of the people to purchase British manufactured goods. But soon the movement took a different turn. Tilak and his contemporaries emphasised that the whole super- structure of the British Indian administration and the British system of rule over India was based upon the willing though unthinking cooperation of the Indian people, Hence Boycott should be used to shake the foundation of the administrative structure of the British masters. In an eloquent speech at Poona, in 1902 Tilak said, "You must realize that you are a great factor in the power with which the administration in India is conducted. You are yourself the useful lubricants which enable the gigantic machinery to work so smoothly. Though downtrodden and neglected, you must be conscious of your power of making the administration impossible if you but chose to make it re He asserted that belief in Swadeshi could not have any practical utility tll boycott of *Vadaeshi'-foreign goods was resorted to, He said! "When you prefer to accept Swadeshi, you must boycott Vadaeshi, Without boycott, Swadeshi cannot flourish." Boycott was a fiery weapon. It was a substitute for war: It was in fact, a new political method, The moderate nationalists had been hesitant in approving it. Hence Tilak differed from dseir approach, He said, "The Congress agitation based on the so-called constitutional methods is sheer waste of time, and is totally inapplicable to Indian conditions."18 He exhorted the people to fight for the vindication of thelr right. He said"... .The days are gone when the left cheek was tumed to the aggressor if the right was smitten! If you are fit to be called human beings, if you are really perturbed at the injustice at the hands of Goverment or anybody, if your hearts do flutter at insults. . . if you really take pride in your brave ancestors and heroes, then boycott foreign goods! He vehemently opposed excise duty imposed by the British loth.” In another speech, in a meeting at Calcutta on January 2, 1907 he said, "have you not power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist this foreign government to rule over you? This is boycott. ... a political weapon. We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and ‘Keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice, We shall have our own courts and when lime comes, we shall not pay taxes." ‘The Swadeshi and boycott movements brought masses nearer to the political movement. The Congress had hitherto appealed only to the educated and lower middle class people. Tilak and his co-workers brought the masses into political action. Hence Dhananjay Keer famous biographer of ‘Tilak describes ‘Tilak as "India's first mass leader,""19 He succeeded in arousing a sense of self-respect and self-reliance among the middle class Indians and make them fight against the oppressive laws of the British Government. In the words of Dr. Verma, "The Swadeshi boycott @movement was an attempt at vindicating the right of the people to self-government... The Swadeshi boycott movement was an organized attempt for the assertion of the democratic principle that the predominant political opinion of the inhabitants of country must not be transgressed by the rulers."20 (c) National Education, National education was the third important element for effective political action. Tilak was of the view that Western education was ruinous to the future and well-being of the nation. The Western education made the Indian Youth, Indians in name only. They broke with their glorious past and forgot their rich heritage. Hence Tilak and his contemporary nationlists stressed the need for national schools and colleges which should impart inexpensive and wholesome education and inculcate the spirit of self-help and self-reliance which was deplorably lacking in government sponsored schools and colleges. National education thus became an integral part of the nationalists’ programme for India of the 20th century. (@) Passive Resistance. According to Tilak, swadeshi and boycott were the techniques of passive resistance. He substituted the use of passive resistance for constitutional means hitherto adopted by the moderate leadership in India. His public declaration in 1902 makes this fact clear, "Though down-trodden and neglected, you must be conscious of your power of making the administration impossible if you but choose to make it so.” However, his passive resistance did not mean resort to. violence as is generally construed. Tilak, being a shrewd politician, was aware of limitation of a slave nation. He knew that "we are not armed and there is no necessity for arms either."21 He ruled out the use of violence though unlike Gandhi;, he was not an advocate of non-violence. Gandhi at a Jater stage regarded Tilak’s passive resistance as a creed of timidity and satyagraha of the weak. In the opinion of Tilak, it was a recommendation for the use of strong constitutional means based on the criticism of weak constitutional means. His speech at ‘Shivaji festival’ celebration, justifying murder of Afzal Khan by Shivaji, also enables us to have a peep in Tilak’s version of passive resistance. He said ". . . .with benevolent intentions, he murdered Afzal Khan for the good of others. If thieves enter our house and we have not sufficient streng: st to drive them out we should without hesitation shut them up and burn them ali In another speech he said, "If they wantec ‘ their goal and if they were hindered by artificial and unjust legislation and by any unjust combination of circumstances it was their duty to fight it out. If they did not want to use the words of passive resistance, they might use the phrases in the sense in ‘which he explains them."23 Thus through four-fold programme, Tilak, endeavoured to attain swarajya. Though this programme ‘was originally launched to reunify Bengal, yet soon it became a programme for national regeneration and country's liberation. In simple words, a locally centred agitation became a national issue. Tilak-an Extremist ‘To begin with, Tilak was a moderate, In 1889, when he joined the Congress, he seemed to have no bitterness towards the British Government in India. It is clear from one of his speeches, "... .we do not desire to weaken the government. On the contrary, we wished to strengthen it, to render it impregnable to all assaults, whether from Russian or any other foe: and we ask the government therefore to associate our country."24 However, by 1895, his faith in Britishers' sense of fairness and justice was shaken. He realized that the interest of the Indians and the British were antagonistic to each other. Hence, he got converted to a new way of thinking, To begin with, he urged that an agitation should be launched in England as there sat the judges who had to decide the fate of India. He emphasised "Indian Empire is a dead body and a foreign body; if that foreign body is not assimilated with the British Empire, we shall have to perform a surgical operation and take out that foreign body from the living Empire. I hope, such a time will not come. We want the body to be assimilated into a political body of the British Empire. We should have the same rights and the same @)ould not be allowed to remain a rivileges as the other members of the British Empire have. India shou! 0 bead weight and a foreign body, it would trouble the body politic if itis not assimilated eta he system,” As said later, he condemned the Congress's method of prayer and petition as that 0 h mendicancy. It had landed the people in sterile wildemess. He described Congress nothing more than a lifeless body, a resort for retired lawyers and title holders who sought relaxation in it In an article he stated, "for the last twelve years, we have been shouting (ourselves) hoarse desiring that the government should hear us. But our shouting has no more affected the government than the sound of a gnat. Our rulers disbelieve our statements or prefer to do so. Let us now try to force our grievances into their ears by strong constitutional means...."2 Bengal's partition gave Tilak an opportunity to advocate his new methods vigorously. His four-fold programme for the attainment of Swarajya, proved the watch-word for the Extremist School of ‘Thought in India. Swarajya was henceforth to be the political goal of the Indian Nationalist movement, He exhorted Indians, "The time has come to demand Swarajya or self-government. No piece-meal reform will do. The system of the present administration is ruinous to the country. It must mend or end,"27 This buoyant leader of these turbulent times exhorted the people not to press for social reforms till Swarajya was attained. He wrote, "give the people the homes and then ask them to put them in order."28 To him, India was not only motherland, but a Goddess and the people of India, his kith and kins, loyal and steadfast work for their political end social emancipation his religion. He asserted that through Swadeshi, Boycott and passive resistance, Swarajya could be achieved and not through prayers to the alien masters. Swarajya alone was the panacea of India's ills. He, therefore, emphasised, "There is no other remedy than that the power should pass into the peoples’ hands and rest in the hands of the people." 23 Was Tilak Revolutionary ? Tilak was an ardent nationalist. Under his leadership, vigorous type of nationalism emerged out in India. He found government's policy extremely repressive and almost negative in its desire to fulfil the aspirations of a resurgent India. ‘The imperialistic bureaucracy was uncompromising and coercive. Bengal anti-partition agitation was callously suppressed. Minto-Morley reforms fell far short of self- government. Political unrest under these circumstances was gradually mounting, Tilak through Kesari and Mahratta did make an endeavour to channelize the growing unrest of the people into healthy activities for nation building, But bureaucracy drunk with power did not pay any attention to the sound advice of Tilak. A series of repressive acts were passed in 1908. Freedom of speech was crushed. Press was gagged. Associations and assemblies were declared unlawful. Racial inequality ‘was perpetuated. Thus the unrest was gradually accentuating on account of bureaucratic arrogance and inhuman attitude of the British Government towards a subject nation. Tilak never preached violence though he was certainly not an advocate of non-violence like Tolstoy or in the later period Mahatma Gandhi. He did justify Shivaji's action in killing Afzal Khan. He showered praises on Bengal revolutionaries and justified their actions on the plea that they committed violent deeds compelled by altruistic motives. However, he never preached political murder nor he incited people to commit murder. He advocated legal methods of political agitation and organisation. In 1906, he even admonished residents of Nasik as they engaged in violent revolutionary activities. He advised the people to desist from violent activities on grounds of expediency. Being a shrewd and a realist leader, he knew that military might of the Imperialists could not be matched by armless Indians and that a political murder would give an opportunity to the bureaucrats to crush the national movement which was still in infancy. Nevertheless, he would ordinarily not condemn a person who committed murder or indulged in an act of violence for the sake of motherland. He once said to ®Gandhi "I consider an armed revolt also constitutional. The only difficulty at present is, it is not possible. If anyone were to assure me that armed revolt would be successful to the extent of even eight annas in the rupee, I would start the revolt trusting God to give success to the extent, of remaining eight annas....."30 This reflects that only expediency prevented Tilak to take to cult of violence. Besides, he was no doubt in touch with some leading revolutionaries of the times like Shyamji Krishan Verma, Damodar Panth, Savarkar-father of V.D. Savarkar, and Vir Savarkar. However there is no ample proof to hold that Tilak incited Savarkar to terroristic activities. He was no doubt interested in Savarkar's welfare and was in close touch with him, He is deemed revolutionary also on the ground that he was the soul behind the opening of arms factory in Nepal in 1903. The plan was unmasked before it could be implemented. The proposal to Start ‘arms factory’ reveals that Tilak was keen for the opening of such a factory, but it does not indicate Tilak's intentions to initiate armed insurrection. Tilak is said to have incited some young men to acquire military training, through some inciting letters. But there is no specific proof to show that Tilak was himself a revolutionary. The young men of the country did look to him for guidance, as he was an ardent nationalist and undaunted, courageous patriot. ‘The foreign critics of Tilak do regard him a revolutionary. According to Chirol, "Tilak had been the first to create the atmosphere which breeds murders," Branson-the Advocate General who conducted the prosecution case against Tilak in 1908 said that Tilak’s articles constituted ‘a covert threat of mutiny’ and that he was preaching "Swarajya or Bombs."32 John S. Hoyland, Tilak's Biographer opined that Tilak had been “coquetting with doctrines of physical force."’33 However, these are all exaggerations and in fact distortions of bare facts, He did Jay the foundations of Indian nationalism and intensified the spirit of unrest and disaffection. He was thus not a revolutionary in the sense Vir Savarkar or in the later period, Subhash Chander Bose were. If by revolution we mean a fundamental change, then Tilak did contemplate a drastic change in the then superstructure of the government. In his famous work 'Gita Rahasya’ he envisaged the eventual realization of a society inhabited by perfected people (Siddhas). In the words of Dr, Verma this broad and comprehensive sense, ‘Tilak could be called a revolutionary because he believed in vital and fundamental changes in the social structure. But he was not a revolutionary in the narrow sense. . .He was not a revolutionary like Bakunin, Kropotkin or Leni "34 Tt can therefore be concluded that Tilak was neither a leader of the party preaching murders or violent revolt nor a preacher of gospel of mass violence. However, he was not allergic to violence . He being a staunch realist, could realize that in a disarmed and disorganized country like India, armed revolution was not only inadvisable but also an impossibility. He had therefore accepted legal methods of agitation and did not advocate revolutionary methods of coercion or armed insurrection. Tilak's abhorrence of violence out of sheer expediency is evident from these words, "the military strength of the Government is enormous and a single machine-gun showering hundred of bullets per minute will quite suffice for our largest public meeting.” He further said, "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."36 Another speech of Tilak also establishes that he did not believe in bloody revolution. At a Shivaji festival held at Poona, in June 1907 he said, "what the nationalist party ‘wanted, might appear like revolution in the sense that it means a complete change in the theory of the government of India, as now put forward by the bureaucracy. It is true that revolution must be a bloodless revolution but it would be a folly to suppose that if there is to be no shedding of blood, there are also to be no sufferings to be undergone by the people.....the revolution must be bloodless." @The above statements make it crystal clear that Tilak's method was cence and ee However, he was neither egregious pacifist nor an impotent moralist. He di notregard revolutionaries as political untouchables. He was himself a revolutionary in a broat aa oan certainly not a violent revolutionary, believing in the cult of bomb, possibly because iad afford it, in view of strong might of the British Govemment. He did however regard the revolutionary movement as the plank of the freedom struggle and he himself galvanized the Congress {nto a militant constitutional movement." This speaks of his revolutionary character. As a leader of the New party. Getting disillusioned with the philosophy of moderate nationalists, Tilak set up a new party-Democratic Swaraj Party in the year 1905-06. On January 2, 1907 he proclaimed the ‘tenets of the New Party.’ On account of his erudition, and ardent patriotism, he was rightly chosen as the leader of the New Party. The New Party did not follow the policy of educating and convincing the British electorates in favour of India. The old party believed in the policy of appealing to the British government, the New Party did not like the idea of asking for self-government with folded hands, Tilak wanted the party to follow a realistic policy rather than believe in Utopian sentimentalism or idealistic norm preaching. Self-government was to be the goal of New Party. He eloquently said, ". . . . want to have the key of my house and not merely one stranger turned out of it. Self-government is our goal; we want a control over our administrative machinery. We do not want to become clerks. . ." Specific techniques of political struggle were also laid down, in the event of non-acceptance of the political demands of the Indians. He wanted his party to follow the policy of passive resistance to attain Swarajya. While referring to the methods to be adopted by his New Party, he said, "What the new party wants you to do is to realize the fact that your future rests entirely in your own hands. If you mean to be free, you can be free; if you do not mean to be free, you will fall and be for ever fallen. . . .if you have not the power of active resistance, have you not the power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist this foreign Government to rule over you? This is boycott. . . .we shall have our own courts and when time comes, we shall not pay taxes. "Tilak ‘wanted his party to get what they were given and try for the remainder. The dominant ideology of the New Party was the concept of self help as understood in terms of boycott and Swadeshi. This party ‘was committed to the philosophy of national emancipation through Boycott, Swadeshi and national education. He, however, wanted his co-workers to work within the existing legal framework. He wanted to interpret the existing law in such a way that the extremist political agitation and propaganda could be continued within the bounds of law. He never wanted to violate the law. In other words, he wanted his fellow colleagues to work within the framework of the existing legal structure. Tilak and Home Rule League ‘When Great War was on its climax and the British were proclaiming that they were fighting to make the world safe for democracy, Tilak demanded self-government for India from the benign masters. Hence in collaboration with Mrs. Besant, he started Home Rule Leagues in 1916. Both the leaders asserted through these Leagues that Indians must fight constitutionally for the procurement of their rights. The League established by Tilak asked for Home Rule within the British Empire. It wanted a legislation to be passed by the British Parliament, embodying Indians’ political demands. Hence it thought it essential to conduct agitation and propaganda in England. He resented that while the colonialists enjoyed the right of self-government, Indians were deprived of it and treated as novice. He exhorted his countrymen to make the most of the opportunity offered by war. On May 31, 1916 he delivered the first speech on Home Rule at Ahmednager where-in he said that because the bureaucratic rule of the English imperialists was alien in its nature hence it would be @)offence in calling alien those things that were alien by nature. In his second speech on June rwe the exhorted the aectience to demand the rights which inherently belonged to them. He also ‘wanted that the right of British citizenship should be conferred upon Indians. England must grant autonomy to the units in the empire. He envisaged a federal political structure in India after attaining Swarajya. In another speech delivered on October 8, 1917 he analysed the concept of passive resistance. He emphasised that people could not obey laws which were based on injustice and immorality. Passive resistance was means to an end and not an end in itself. He described passive resistance as perfectly constitutional. He did not preach unruliness or illegality. He exhorted people to adopt constitutional means but did not consider every law constitutional. Tilak and Religion Tilak-a devotee of Hindu religion, and a follower of Arya dharma, was not an orthodox religionist or a reactionary though he was condemned as such by some of the reformers of the times. He asserted that Indian religion did not coincide with the 19th century European notions of materialism and utilitarianism. He was convinced that the downfall of Indians was not due to Hindu religion. Rather it could be attributed to the fact that they had forsaken religion. Tilak had great reverence for the Hindu scriptures. The 'Gita Rahasya' reflects that Tilak held Lord Krishna in great esteem and had great faith in the teachings of Gita. He, being a staunch sanatanist, believed that Lord Krishna was God incamate. He took pride in his religion. Religion, according to him, "includes the knowledge of the nature of God and soul and of the ways and means by which the human soul can attain salvation." ‘Tilak was not antagonistic to all religious ceremonies or rituals. He did like some of these ceremonies to under-go a change with the changing circumstances. However, he wanted them to be observed till they were not changed. Further, his faith in Hindu religion was not mere traditional acceptance or acceptance based on mere intellectual argumentation. He believed in the reality of mystic experience gained by seers and ‘yogis. Hindu religion, according to Tilak, provided a moral as well as a social tie, It united Indians in vedic times, Hence they constituted a great nation. The disappearance of that unity brought degradation. Hence the leaders were exhorted to revive that union. In a speech, he said. . . .""A Hindu of this place is as much a Hindu as the one from Madras or Bombay. . . .The study of the Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharata produce the same idea through out the country. .. . If we lay stress on it, forgetting all the minor differences that exist between different sects, then by the grace of Providence, we shall ere long be able to consolidate all the different sects into a mighty Hindu nation.” Tilak, in fact, wanted the different sections of Hindus to unite into a mighty nation. He said, "let the stream of Hindu religion flow through one channel with mighty consolidated and concentrated force." He wanted Hindu Dharma to be dinned into the ears of the whole materialistic world. To him, science created a false illusion which could hardly be a substitute for the eternal truth of the sacred Hindu religion. According to some cittics, Tilak used ‘religion as a political tool as a weapon in organising our struggle for Swarajya. No doubt, he taught people 'Dharma of action’ philosophy of action drawn from the Gita and 'Dharma of unity’- the unity of Indian civilization, Through Ganapati and Shivaji festivals, he attempted to bring unity amongst the people. He felt chat by uniting people together, Swarajya could be attained. However, he did not make use of politics for religious ends. He did not like to blend religious and political questions. Hence he opposed Gandhiji's move for launching non-co-operation movement for Khilafat wrong, He described Khilafat wrong as a religious question pertaining to Indian Muslims. Hence he did not like it to be mixed up with political and national issues of India. He wanted (i)Muslims to oppose this wrong though he wanted Hindus also to suppor it unhesitatingly. He offered full support to Khilafat agitation and attended first Khilafat Conference held at Delhi in 1920. ‘Though a staunch Hindu, Tilak stood strongly for Hindu-Muslim unity. His love for Hindu religion did not make him a bigotted, orthodox Hindu, He strongly felt that a blend of hindu intellect and the muslim valour was apt to be irresistible and would prove instrumental in the ultimate fall of the British bureaucracy. He wanted Hindus and Muslims to work to gether for upholding common national interests. He was mainly responsible for the Congress-League Pact at the Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress. Thus Tilak's love for Hinduism did not make him a Hindu Communalist, Rather he was responsible for laying down the foundations of a broader and more integrating nationalism in India. He may therefore be described the prophet of Indian Nationalism rather than orthodox devotee of Hinduism. Conclusion An analytical study of Tialk’s works, a critical appraisal of his speeches and a dispassionate probe into his political deeds reflect that he was a profound scholar, a refined Hindu, an ardent nationalist and an arch patriot, He awakened the slumberous masses of his country, and instilled in them Patriotism. He freed the nation from lethargy and stagnation, He left a monumental legacy for posterity. Gandhi's tributes to Tilak at the time of his death very well portray the laters patriotism, "His patriotism was a passion with him. He knew no religion but love’ of his county.....No man Preached the gospel of Swaraj with the consistency and the insistence of Lokamanya,.for us he will 80 down to the generation yet unknown as a maker of modem India. They will rever his memory as of a man who lived for them and died for them." The Manchester Guardian described him "an exponent of Indian nationalism”. The Times London represented him as "The arch inspirer of Indian unrest. Tilak-the father of Indian Unrest, and the prophet of ‘Swarajya, was indeed a staunch realist and not a Utopian thinker. His approach to politics was neither idealistic nor speculative. His appearance in public life was like a dynamic personality emerging in the hitherto stagnant waters of Our national stream. His correct perception induced him to hold that politcal reform must precede | social reform and national education will follow the establishment of national government. His | concept of nationalism was a synthesis of the teachings of Eastern and Westem thinkers, His school of political thought has been rightly described by Dr. Verma as ‘nationalism founded upon | Democratic Realism’, (2)