The Life of Lokamanya Tilak/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV
TILAK AND SOCIAL REFORM
I do not believe in reform; I believe in growth.
I have yet to see a nation, whose faith is determined, by the number of husbands its widows gety.
Instead of increasing the elements of friction—the besetting weakness of reformers and dissidents of all kinds—he took infinite trouble to reduce those elements to the lowest possible points. Hence he was careful not to take up too many subjects at once, because, the antagonism generated by each, would have been made worse, by the antagonism to each other; and he would have called up a host of enemies together, instead of leaving himself free to deal with one at a time.
THE stagnant condition of the Indian civilisation during several centuries has given rise to a number of social evils which by their very accumulation impressed the imagination of the first generation of English-educated Indians. But these evils are neither more pressing nor more hideous than those which during the last three centuries have accompanied the rapid growth of European power and culture. The first duty of every country is to strengthen its position and consolidate its influence amidst neighbouring groups of nations with a view to safe-guard its political liberty which is the mother of all social well-being. Where this hberty is wanting, the duty of the people lies in recovering it from those into whose hands it has fallen. But the Indian leaders in the first half of the 19th century failed to take note of this cardinal principle and the country, instead of pining for its lost independence was applauding the English as deliverers. Howsoever natural such an attitude might have been owing to the chaotic condition of things just before the British Conquest it cannot be too much deplored. For, relieved of the cares and responsibilities of political and international questions, the new leaders of the country attended to the next best thing, the condition of their society. In this attitude they were encouraged by their English and Anglo-Indian masters as well as by the zealous Missionaries, who, too had an axe of their own to grind. Add to this the tendency of a fallen nation to be-little its own worth and admire the customs, manners, thoughts and institutions of the rulers. Knowing that they were a mere handful in the midst of crores of Indians, the English believed that unless they maintained very high prestige among Indians the Political domination of India was an impossibility and hence they appeared to us at their best,—strong, masterful, gifted with all the qualities of greatness. They were demigods amidst a race of mortals, giants ruling over pigmies and the very limited intercourse Indians could have with them completely concealed from us their shortcomings. It is not surprising that in the psychological situation detailed above, Indian leaders, cut off from the moorings of National traditions mistook the unreal for the real, the accidental accompaniment for the substance. Conscious of their own impotence and anxious to lift up the country to a high level they could think of only one way, the complete Westernisation of India. English dress, English habits, even English diet and English life must, they thought, be imported into this country before we could think of replacing the English Bureaucrats. Ladies must learn, widows must remarry, castes must go,—all because we must be equal to our rulers in efficiency and strength. These early English-educated leaders advocated Social Reform with the same object with which Japan, nearly seventy years back threw away her crude military weapons in favour of the modern instruments of destruction. In short, love of imitation, loss of individuality, the glamour of the English civilisation and a fierce desire to get rid of India's inferiority, joined with the liberalising tendencies of the Western thought, ushered the era of Social Reform in India.
As years passed by, the wildness of these reformers somewhat abated. But the central idea that possessed them was faithfully transmitted to the next genration. Even Ranade was obessed with the idea of getting, so to speak a certificate from the rulers about the equal social status of the Indians. In all the social programme he has left us, we do not come accross a single item wherein he has departed from the English model. The idea that the English were Heaven-sent trustees of this country dominated Indian thought in his days also and it was believed that once the English had to concede that Indians had socially advanced up to their level political rights could not, with decency, be refused. It was Vishnushastri Chiploonkar, who gave a rude shock to this blind optimism and declared that if Indian Society was to grow, it could only develop on its own lines. His scathing criticism of the degenerate Social Reformers of the day created a new epoch of social and political thought and during all his eventful career, Mr. Tilak did not much depart from the lines laid down by his master. Mr. Tilak was essentially a Puritan of Puritans and so was in a sense more fitted to lead Social Reform than many of the so-called Reformers; but being more a man of action than of thought he preferred to concentrate on the political issue.
"Was Mr. Tilak a Social Reformer"? The question can be correctly answered only by knowing which reforms he approved of and which 'reforms' he condemned. He favoured foreign travel but insisted on teetotalism and vegetarian diet. He applauded remarriages of child-widows; but laid stress on the proper performance of the Vedic rites. He was for female education but wanted it to be both useful and ornamental. He tolerated inter-dining but only on occasions of necessity. He wanted sub-castes to intermarry before he could favour the larger question of intercaste marriages. He advocated adult marriages but disliked the predominantly materialistic nature of Western marriages. He wanted the badge of untouchability to be removed but would be no party to hasty and fanatical measures that would only retard the improvement of the social life of the 'depressed' classes. He was for a policy oi open door to all classes and creeds. Drink he abhored, also sexual vice. He wished our reformers to actively combat these evils by strenuous propaganda. Reform he wanted, but genuine reform and not apish imitation of Western life and manners.
His ideal of a Social Reformer was a Buddha, a Kabir or a Tukaram. The leader of the Social Reform movement must essentially be a man of peace. He must be a lover of Indian civilisation and culture and must proceed to reform society with due respect for the traditions of the society itself. He must not only be of our society but must live in it. He must be bold enough to break those bonds that have outlived their utility; but at the same time he must be calm enough not to harm his cause by abusive language. He must be a "stalwart Puritan man, battling for the right, trustful but not elated, serious but not dejected." He should make his way through misunderstandings, opposition and persecution by sheer force of truth, love and courage.
But the Social Reform movement of Mr. Tilak's youthful days did not conform to this ideal. It was essentially a child of the Western civilisation; it had its origin in callous disregard of the past. It ignored the study of the fundamental basis of Indian Society. It was not discriminating. It was largely imitative. It sought to copy Western life and institutions. The leaders were weak, halting and inconsistent; the followers had nothing in them but sound and fury. Sustained enthusiasm and sterling sacrifice were woefully at a discount. It was a movement which claimed, first priority to and later on equal status with the political movement and sought radically to reconstruct our society without taking note of the traditions of the past or the insufficient materials available in the present. Such an artificial and indiscriminating movement, launched by a handful of fanatics simultaneously with the National Congress excited Mr. Tilak's liveliest opposition; and for a few years he was engaged in relegating the movement to its normal plane and not allowing it to usurp the chief attention of the country.
Ever since 1S34, the 'irrepressible and audacious' Mr. Malbari had been trying to raise the age of marriage of Hindu girls. The field of his activity covered not only the length and breadth of India but the United Kingdom of Great Britain also, whence he brought considerable pressure to bear on the then Viceroy and his Council to consider his proposals some of which were as follows:—
- (1) Cohabitation by a husband with his wife, under twelve years of age, should be made penal.
- (2) In cases of infant-marriages, the wife should be entitled to cancel the marriage, if she liked, on attaining majority.
- (3) Suits by husbands for the restitution of conjugal rights should not be allowed.
- (4) A widow should continue to hold her first husband's property even after her remarriage.
These and other proposals struck at the very root of Hindu Society and nullified at one stroke the sanctity and indissoiubility of the marriage-tie. They, therefore caused intense alarm; and when it was known that a Bill to raise the "Age of Consent" from 10 (Vide Sec. 375 of the Indian Penal Code) to 12 was in contemplation not only the orthodox people but some of those who were pronounced Social Reformers resented this legislative interference. It was generally believed, though without reason and in spite of the Government's assurance to the contrary, that the introduction of this Bill was only the thin end of the wedge and that the whole of Mr. Malabari's programme was likely to receive legislative sanction. Mr. Tilak's opposition to this Bill has been severely criticised. We should remember, however, that amongst those who disapproved of this Bill, can be seen the names of the late Sir Romesh Chander Mitter, the late Mr. W. C. Banerjea, the late Sir T. Madhavarao, Babu (now Hon. Sir) Surendranath Banerjea, Mr. (Hon. Dr. Sir) Chimanlal H. Setalwad and Mr. (now Hon. Mr.) G. S. Khaparde. Mr. Tilak's attitude was guided by strong common sense. He challenged the right of a foreign Bureaucracy to sit in legislative judgment on the Indian society. He denied the necessity of the measure and the extent of the evil which he was sure would be eradicated by increasing education. He led a vigorous agitation, which there is reason to believe convinced the Government of the day of the unwisdom of its step; the fetish of prestige, however steeled the Governments' determination to get the Bill passed (19th March 1891). The Government even preferred*[1] "to be wrong with Prof. Bhandarkar, Mr. Justice Telang and Dewan Bahdur Raghunath Rao, than to be right with Pandit Sasadhar and Prof. Tilak." The impression which Mr. Tilak made, in those eventful months marked him out as the "coming man". The merciless logic and the vast knowledge with which he exposed the fallacies and sophistries of the Reformers in his "long and scholarly" letters to the Times of India were universally admired and the extent to which he succeeded in organising public opinion enabled him to pass a resolution in the Bombay Provincial Conference (May 1891) regretting that the Government did not properly respect the public opinion on the "Age of Consent Bill." It is worth noting that the leaders of the Reform Party who were present at the Conference dared not oppose the resolution moved by Mr. Tilak.
Mr. Tilak was not merely a destructive critic. He showed the way in which the Bill could be made acceptable to the Orthodox party. He suggested that the attainment of puberty should be made the legal age for the consummation of marriage. Had this compromise been accepted there would have been no trouble. But neither the Governm.ent nor the leading Reformers were in a conciliatory mood. Mr. Tilak about this time (26th October 1890) put forth one suggestion which shows the sincerity of his faith in genuine social reform. He disapproved of general legislation as the masses were not prepared for the same. But he welcomed resort to legislation as a binding force to those who believed in reforms. His proposals were as follows:—
(1) & (2) Girls and boys should not be married until they have reached the age of 16 and 2a respectively.
(3) & (4) Unless they are prepared to marry widows, men should not marry after they are 40 years old.
(5) There should be absolute prohibition of liquor.
(6) Acceptance of dowry in marriages should be prohibited.
(7) Disfigurement of widows should be forthwith stopped. (8) One-tenth of the monthly income of every reformer should be devoted to public purposes.
Neither Ranade nor Agarkar were willing to bind themselves with this pledge. However, on Nov. 1st 1890, a meeting was held under the presidency of the late Hon. Rao Bahadur Nulkar to consider Mr. Tilak's proposals. At this meeting where both Mr. Ranade and Prof. (Dr. Sir) Bhandarkar were present, Mr. Tilak delivered a speech which deserves to be recorded. He said —" There has been much tall talk but little action regarding social reform, with the result that even those reforms, the vital need of which has been generally admitted have not been carried out into practice. We must not only see what reforms are required, but also whether and how far they are practicable and how they can be made popular; for in reforming society, care ought to be taken to avoid the creation of any gulf between the people on the one hand and the reformers on the other. We must always carry public opinion with us; and this can be done, inter alia, by securing for our reforms the sanction of religion. I am in favour of Social Reform." He then discussed his 8 points and wound up by saying that modifications might here and there be made in his scheme and then the whole be made binding on its supporters by calling in legislative sanction. Legislation, he urged should bind the reformers only and not the masses. Mr. Ranade welcomed Mr. Tilak's speech but expressed his doubt as to how many people would come forward to bind themselves legally to carry out the reforms proposed in the 8 points. He said that there were 4 classes of social reformers (i) Those who look to religious leaders for support, (2) Those who wanted to avail themselves of caste-unions, (3) Those who were willing to accept legislation for themselves and (4) Those who wanted legislation applicable to all. He concluded by saying that as Mr. Tilak had fairly advanced up to the third stage, there was very little-difference between himself and Mr. Tilak.
What, then, was the difference between the school of thought represented by Mr. Ranade and that represented by Mr. Tilak? For difference—vital difference—there was, in spite of Mr. Ranade's attempt to emphasise the points of agreement. The difference was this that while Ranade was prepared, if convenient, to coquette with religious sanction to social reform, Mr. Tilak insisted that there should be no divorce between the two. The former wanted to utilise, for the propagation of his ideas, the disintegrating forces that had come in the wake of the English conquest; the latter while emphatically not unfriendly to social reform, believed in the imperative necessity of checking, from the larger national standpoint, the disintegrating forces by fostering a due sense of pride in and respect for the social and religious institutions of the people. The former depended solely on Western influence and thought; Mr. Tilak was for the blending of the old culture and the new. The former welcomed State-interference in matters social, the latter strongly resented it for the simple reason that reform to be durable must be a growth from within. Differing thus in their outlook, it is not surprising that while Ranade was prepared to associate and work with wild and reckless people, people who were the very negation of qualities required for the Social Reformer—gentleness, patience, tact, forbearance, and sweetness, Mr. Tilak was gradually convinced of the futility of sccial reform as it was then propagated and was for the above reason compelled to adopt first an attitude of constructive opposition and then of neutrality. No 'petti-fogging motives of policy' no consideration of winning cheap popularity by 'pandering to public prejudices' determined his attitude.
Looking back at the controversy from a distance of 30 years, what, after all has been the net result of this much-debated measure? Under the combined influence of increasing education and economic conditions and not certainly as a result of the passing of the Bill, the age of marriage has gone up, making the law practically a dead letter. Only bitter feelings have been created, feelings which have widened the gulf between the Orthodox and the Reformers and frustrated Mr. Tilak's attempts to bring about a social Reform that would not run counter to the religious and patriotic susceptibilities of the people. It is with pain that one recalls the rowdy scenes that unfortunately marred a meeting convened by the Reformers at the Kreeda Bhuwan (25th Feb. 1891). These scenes, it is still more regrettable to observe, so enraged a venerable and learned Reformer that he telegraphed to the Times of India insinuating that Messrs. Tilak and Namjoshi were at the bottom of the mischief. Subsequently a notice was served upon the Times of India (2nd Mar. 1891) and the Reformers ceased to persist in the insinuation. They, however prosecuted five persons for rioting, all of whom were acquitted by the Magistrate. (23rd Mar. 1891).
While the ashes of the 'Age of Consent' controversy were still hot, another episode, still less important widened the breach between Mr. Tilak and the Reformers. Mrs. Ramabai—that enterprising Indian Christian lady—had, by her untiring efforts in America, collected funds for the establishment of a Resident School for Indian girls, especially widows. Mr. Tilak, did not at all approve of the idea of a school for Indian girls managed by a Christian lady; but knowing full well that the Reformers could not command the necessary sacrifice and organising capacity, he reluctantly enrolled his name among the sympathisers of the institution, after satisfying himself that only secular education would be imparted in the school. When, however, he read in the Illustrated Christian Weekly of New York (21st Dec. 1889) that there were about four students in the school studying Christianity or attending Christian prayers in a Church, he indignantly asked what became of Mrs. Ramabai's pledge that the school would strictly remain secular in its character. Mrs. Ramabai protested and explained the circumstances under which her four students were receiving Christian training. The Advisory Committee consisting of men like Mr. Ranade and Dr. Bhandarkar took Mrs. Ramabai to task and asked her to confine herself to secular education. Mrs. Ramabai had to yield for a time. But she soon threw overboard the Advisory Committee by managing to secure for herself plenary powers from the Head Office in America. This was the moment when the advisory Committee ought to have spoken out its mind in unmistakable terms and withdrawn, by means of resignation its moral support from the institution. But the members wanted to outwit Mrs. Ramabai and get a reversal of their decision from the American Head Office; this was an impossibility, as the Head Office had implicit trust in Mrs. Ramabai and it was supplying funds to her mainly for the propagation of Christianity. Mr. Ranade and his followers had therefore to play a game of dissimulation; for they knew that once the public faith in Mrs. Ramabai was shattered, nothing could rehabilitate it. It was here that they had a tussle with Mr. Tilak. From the middle of 1891 to the close of 1893, this was one of the burning topics of the day. The taunting and violent way in which papers like the Subodh Patrika and Agarkar's Sudharak fell foul of Mr. Tilak is the more remarkable when we remember how they must have realised their double game. Why should they all have clung up to Mrs. Ramabai, so unreasonably, so fanatically? Could they not have started an institution of their own, under some trust-worthy management? Did they think that female education, even attended with grave risks of conversion to Christianity was so necessary? Apparently they did not, for on Aug. 13th, 1893, they publicly disowned all connection with the institution because it was "conducted as an avowedly proselytizing institution"*[2]. They admitted that "during the past year or so, Pandita Ramabai departed from the lines of strict neutrality"; In trying, therefore to screen Pandita Ramabai from the righteous indignation of the public, they succeeded in making (he cause of reform more unpopular and the breach between the Orthodox and the Reform parties still wider.
The same fateful year (1890) which witnessed the origin of the Age of Consent controversy and the Sharada-Sadana episode was marked by the commencement of a dispute still more ridiculous—a veritable storm in a tea cup. The responsibihty of this dispute rests not with the Reformers but with the Orthodox party at Poona, the fanatical and foolish self-styled leaders of which charged 42 persons including Ranade, Tilak and Gokhale with having taken tea (Oct. 4th 1890), at the residence of a Missionary with the deliberate object of breaking caste and in the following two years (1891-92) this suit of the Orthodox party against these 42 gentlemen in the Court of Shree Shankaracharya was the principle subject of heated public controversy. The Reformers congratulated themselves on having an ally in Mr. Tilak whose resourceful Sanskrit scholarship stood them in good stead and helped them in getting very light punishment from the religious tribunal. It is noteworthy that Ranade thought it in no way humiliating to submit to the decision of the Court and for this conduct he was severely criticised by both the Orthodox and the Reform parties (the latter included some of his own ardent followers). Mr. Tilak justified the taking of Prayashchitta, and said that in such matters it is the duty of us all to be actuated by a spirit of compromise. He said "There is considerable resemblance between our difficulties in the Political field and those in the Social one; neither the political administration nor the structure of our society completely satisfies us. We want to reform both. The English administration as well as the Indian society have solid foundations; we are, therefore, bound to proceed with caution. Now, if people are willing to accept Political Reforms in a spirit of conciliation and compromise we fail to understand why we should like to proceed with Social Reform in an arrogant and defiant manner. If we are prepared to make compromise when the Parliament passes the Council's Act, 1892, why should we not do so with respect to questions likes widow-remarriage? Fanatical opposition might occassionally be successful, but as a rule, in political as well as social matters, fanaticism is suicidal" (Kesari 7th June 1892).
It will be news to this generation, accustomed to take for granted Mr. Tilak's hostility or indifference to Social Reform, that not only did he attend Social Conferences but also took active part in the proceedings. In the 4th Social Conference, held at Calcutta, (Dec. 1890), Mr. Tilak moved an amendment to a Resolution proposed by the late Mr. R. N, Mudholkar. The resolution condemned child-marriages and advocated adult-marriages. Mr. Tilak, who whole-heartedly supported the proposition wanted to delete an incorrect reference to the Shastras. In the Social Conference of 1891, held at Nagpur, Mr. Tilak suggested a bold amendment to the Resolution which advocated widow remarriages and called upon people to help the movement by doing their utmost. "How are the people to help"? asked Mr. Tilak. He said that mere lip-sympathy for widow remarriages would not do. These who sympathised with the cause ought to show their sympathy by attending not only the marriage-ceremony but the marriage feasts also. But the diplomatic leaders of the Conference, the professions of some of whom considerably differed from practice, wriggled themselves out of the difficulty, by adding the words "so far as possible" to "help the movement." To the resolution advocating sea-voyage, Mr. Tilak moved an amendment which laid stress upon vegetarian diet and Prayaschitta. He was supported by Pandit Mad an Mohan Malaviya.
In 1889, the Social Reform leaders issued a circular together with printed copies of pledges which persons who believed in Social Reform had to sign. The circular expressly declared that the idea of resort to legislation, in matters social, was definitely given up. So Mr. Tilak gladly associated himself with this movement led by Ranade and other leading Reformers of the Bombay Presidency. But when the Government, showed their willingness to introduce the "Age of Consent Bill", the leaders of Social Reform did not hesitate to go back on their pledged word. The Social Conference of 1889 decided—altogether without consulting the signatories to the pledge—that the pledge bound not themselves alone but their children and executors as well!!! Mr. Tilak was utterly disgusted with such ridiculous resolutions. He admitted that the disfigurement of widow was unjustifiable but he had nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who seriously brought forward a resolution in the Conference requesting Government to make penal the disfigurement of widows. Such childish, perverse and unreasonable conduct was in his opinion extremely prejudical fo the cause itself. The greatest defect in the movement was, Mr. Tilak declared, want of courage and wand of sincerity. There was much empty noise. Nothing could be gained, he thought, by holding National Social Conferences. There was no country in the world, which resorted to such general condemnation of its customs and manners. Moreover, there are so many different castes and creeds in India that, excepting a very few common points, each section of the community must proceed in its own way along the path of reform. All reform is a growth from within and unless the people are sufficiently prepared by due assimilation of liberal ideas if is useless to march ahead. It was no use running the Social Conference on the lines of the National Congress. The latter was a deliberative assembly and could not be otherwise in the present circumstances. But it devolved upon the Reformers to appeal more to the people than to the Government. Action and not mere speech was the need of the day. A vigorous educative propaganda must be carried on. We must proceed step by step along the lines of least resistance; and above all the Reformers must in no way hurt the general pride of the people in their Social life and institutions. In the atmosphere of political serfdom, there are countless things that make us conscious of our weakness. What we want is self-confidence; and all reform that tends to make the nation more conscious of its shortcomings than of its strength, is not only undesirable but is positively mischievous.
It will thus be seen there was something more than mere Opportunism behind Mr. Tilak's attitude towards Social Reform nearly 30 years ago. It has been said that since his return from Mandalay he showed a broader outlook and he did not hesitate to assimilate "the more Catholic tendencies" of the time. But a careful perusal of the preceding pages will show that, even in his younger days, Mr. Tiiak was a Social Reformer. His declaration of sympathy with the depressed classes, made on the eve of his departure to England was much appreciated. Here again Mr. Tilak's ideas about the best way of effecting reform prevented him from signing the manifesto which pledged the signatories to take every opportunity of breaking the bonds of untouchability. Mr. Tilak was no believer in violent Social Reform. Regarding the Patel-marriage-Bill, though he was in favour of some such legislation, he believed the Bill to be untimely and against the basic principles of the Hindu religion and society. Had he lived for a decade more, the country would have seen him playing the role of an active Social Legislator in the new Councils. In his youth, parasitical Social Reform was blended with lukewarm political spirit. Mr. Tilak gave a rub to both and became, in spite of an unpleasant episode the leader of the Orthodox Party in social as well as political matters. He lived, however to claim amongst his followers, persons of all castes and creeds, the Orthodox and the Reformers. The silent force of modern conditions has wrought a mighty revolution in the Social ideas of the people in spite of the fact that there has been no propaganda worth the name. All have moved with it; Tilak and Chandavarkar, the bigots of the Orthodox Party and the fireeaters amongst Social Reformers. To-day's Social Reformer speaks quite a different language from that of Ranade and others. And the venerable Shastris and Pandits of the present time sanction things that would have shocked their own susceptibilities a generation ago. The evolution of Mr. Tilak's religious views, so bold and original—lies recorded in the pages of the Gita-Rahasya; but the cruel hand of death has for ever prevented us from having an actual knowledge of the evolution of his ideas about the Hindu Society and the ways and means he had devised for its improvement. 'Ditcher' in the Capital (7th August 1920) remarks most thoughtfully;—
"There were epochs of thought in his personal biography; and I think that in the zenith of his power, the fervour of his Hindu particularism began to cool and blend with the more CathoUc tendencies of his time and conutry."