The Life of Lokamanya Tilak/Chapter 7
CHAPTER VII
THE LOKAMANYA
My position among the people entirely depends upon my character; and if I am cowed down by the prosecution, * * * living in Maharashtra is as good as living in the Andamans * * * We are incapable of nourishing any sinster feeling against the British Rule and it is thus impossible for any of us to be convicted of such a heinous charge as sedition. Such risks however, we must take * * They are the risks of our profession * * Their (the Government's) object is to humiliate the Poona leaders, and I think in me they will not find a "kutchha reed". . . Then you must remember that beyond a certain stage we are all servants of the people. You will be betraying and disappointing them, if you show a lamentable want of courage at a critical time.
THE cruel murder of Mr. Rand and Lieut. Ayerst threw the Anglo-Indian community into a state of panic. The psychological day of the Jubilee selected by the murderer for his deed, raised suspicion in the Anglo-Indian mind that the murder was the result of a deep-laid plot by the Poona Brahmins. When the murderer made good his escape, the Anglo-Indians vented their feelings of revenge in an attack on the Indian press which, by its "seditious writings," was considered to have fanned the people into frenzy. They clamoured for a very wide use of Sec. 124A of the Penal Code. They declared their misgivings about the suitability of that section for trying subtle writers and speaker and called for a mere stringent definition of sedition. They fell foul of Lord Sandhurst for not having vetoed the very recent election of Mr. Tilak to the Legislative Council. They feared*[1] "lest in proclaiming that disloyalty is no disqualification for nomination by Government, to places of honour. Government themselves should make good citizenship at a discount." Extracts from the Poona press were published and though the Anglo-Indian papers modestly said that it was for them to * "establish a direct connection between this wild teaching and that deplorable event" still, *"the atmosphere which such teaching must have created is precisely the atomsphere in which violence to individuals, hatred of Government and widespread contempt for law and authority would necessarily grow as in a forcing house."
The position of Mr. Tilak in the months immediately preceding the murder of Messrs. Rand and Ayerst was unenviable. His co-operation with the Bureaucracy had been bringing him slings from the vernacular papers belonging to the party led by Ranade and Gokhale. At the same time, every word of his speeches and writings was sifted and translated by an ever-watchful Government and the malicious Anglo-Indian Press. Some of his simplest and most innocent remarks excited undeserving suspicion. When on the occassion of the Shivaji Festival, he had simply defended Afzulkhan's assassination by Shivaji, he was considered to have preached political murder. When he said "No copper plate was given to Mlenchhas (Mahomedans) to rule over Hindustan, one "Justice," who presumably was a 'Native' and whose ignorance of Marathi was therefore unpardonable, quoted this sentence in the Times of India mistranslating it to apply to the Mahomedans and Christians as well and asked whether it did not amount to an incitement to sedition against the Govenment. When Mr. Tilak drew the attenton of the leaders of Poona to the "futility of mere clamour against the high-handedness of the authorities" and suggested that the best course for the Poona leaders was to have remained in the city (Poona) and formed vigilance-committees for each street and afforded pecuniary help to the private plague hospital, the Times of India quoting the remark after the murder said "Though we do not offer any suggestions as to the view that a Jury might be persuaded to take of the Hon. Mr. Tilak's discourse on the 'futility of mere clamour' against Mr. Rand and his assistants, still some one with a pistol in his hand seems to have been in hearty agreement with the Honourable Member's distrust in the efficacy of 'mere clamour'."
The sequence of dates also was considered to be significant. On May iith 1897, Mr. Tilak published the doctrine of the "futility of mere clamour." On June 12th he supplemented it by justifying Shivaji's murder of Afzulkhan. At the same time he declared that "no copperplate has been given to the Mlenchhas (applicable equally to Mahomedans and Christians) by God to rule over India." If all these statements be put together, "do they not" said the average Anglo-Indian, "amount clearly to a plea of political murder?" Lord Sandhurst was however saner. He did not think so. That is why after the murders of Rand and Ayerst he sanctioned the election of Mr. Tilak to the Legislative Council. But "the unreasoning panic into which the Anglo-Indian community was driven by such malicious attacks and its unfortunate success in inflaming the English people, forced the hands of the Secretary of State and Lord Sandhurst had to take measures which, it is beheved, he would never have sanctioned, if he had remained a free agent.*[2]"
So excited were the feelings of the Anglo-Indian community that even "on the brink of a gaping grave giving a peep into the eternity" "the pride of the Europeans left no room in their hearts for better emotions" and persons like Dr. Cawasji Jehangir, once Sheriff of Bombay, were on the occassion of Mr. Rand's burial insulted and refused admission by the police at the cemetery. A Parsi lady who had attended the cemetery for the purpose of putting a wreath on the coffin of Mr. Rand was also not admitted. The threatening speech of Mr. Lamb, the then Collector of Poona, foretelling that people would "find themselves undergoing an experience to which they had not been accustomed" was another straw indicative of the direction of the wind. A punitive police was imposed on the Poona Municipality. Prof. Gokhale, immediately on his return from England and while yet ashore, had to concede "the best part of his attention" to the head of the Bombay Police—the result being a humiliating apology tendered by him to Lord Sandhurst, the Plague Committee and the British Soldiers. Mr. Tilak as the editor of Kesari was arrested on 27th July 1897 at Bombay where he had gone to seek legal redress against the reckless statements made against him by the Times of India. The printer of the Kesari was also arrested. The Editors of the Poona Vaibhav, the Modavritta, the Pratod were also arrested. The Editors of the Dnyanprakash and Sudharak bent their knees and saved themselves from prosecution. The Natu Brothers were deported under the notorious regulations of 1818. Altogether it appeared that a 'reign of terror' had been fully established at Poona and that the Collector's threat had been literally carried out.
After a series of preliminary proceedings Mr. Tilak was set free on bail by Mr. Justice Tyabji on August 4th. The conclusion his Lordship arrived at was that "the articles in question, * * about which he desired to say clearly * * that he gave no positive opinion one way or the other, were not necessarily of such a character as to lead one to the irresistible conclusion that the man responsible for such articles must be convicted upon them." One of the incriminating articles was a poem—the production of a poetaster— supposed to be addressed by Shivaji to the Mahrattas exhorting them to be up and doing and the other was the report of Mr. Tilak's speech at the close of the Shivaji Festival defending Shivaji's murder of Afzulkhan. On this slender foundation was the edifice of the prosecution constructed—a rhetorical piece in poetry from some obscure poet and a report of a speech defending Shivaji's greatness and insisting upon his claim to be recognised as a national hero. At the Bombay High Court, the trial commenced on August 8th, 1897 before Mr. Justice Strachey and a Special Jury of nine of whom six were Europeans, unacquainted with the Marathi language, "What with the tendencies of the times, the present temper of the European community in India, the prejudice excited against the Mahrattas of Poona since the murders of Mr. Rand and Lieut. Ayerst"* the verdict was practically a foregone conclusion. "The case was one of the greatest importance and involved the settlement of grave issues. It was too much to expect so young and inexperienced a judge as Mr. Arthur Strachey to rise equal to the importance of the issues before him"*[3]. Had the trial been held at Poona both the Judge and the Jury could have acquitted themselves better on account of their intimate knowledge of the Vernacular.
In vain did Mr. Tilak protest that the translations of the incriminating articles were incorrect; in vain did Mr. Pugh, his Counsel point to Mr. Tilak 's fair criticism of the Government during the Plague administration, his complimentary language with respect to Lord Sandhurst which showed that he (Mr. Tilak) could have had no animus against the Government. Though Mr. Lang, the Advocate-General, was scrupulously fair, the Judge delivered a strongly prejudiced charge to the Jury. "It seemed that the Judge and the Advocate-General had interchanged places." "Mr. Justice Strachey freely referred to the famine and the plague * * told about the employment of British troops not being liked by the people * * passed on to the Poona murders" and "without the least hesitation" declared that "the inevitable result was friction and such a state of tension and excited feeling that, no wonder it ultimately culminated in the murders of Mr. Rand and Lieut. Ayerst." Of course he did not mean to suggest in any way that there was relation of cause and effect between "either of these articles and those abominable murders." Still the charge of the Judge tended to create strong prejudice against the accused, who was pronounced by 6 jurors to have committed sedition; and the Judge after complimenting the accused on his remarkable ability and influence, sentenced him (14th September 1897), to rigorous imprisonment for i8th months. A special appeal was made to the Privy Council, but it was fruitless; and in the meantime Mr. Tilak was serving his sentence in the Yeravda gaol.
Such was the result of the conflict—the first of its kind in India— between the mighty Government of Bombay with its immense resources and a solitary citizen with nothing but truth, courage and a nation's sympathy to support him. Apparently it was a blow to Mr. Tilak. Since this time his relations with Government were uniformly unfriendly and as a consequence even those who should have stood by him, generally kept him at an arm's length; from this time the influential clique that guided the course of the Congress tried their best to put Mr. Tilak down. Of course, there were leaders like the Hon. Mr. (now Sir) Surendranath, whose relations with Mr. Tilak stood the shock of this prosecution and conviction. But the generality of the Moderate element shrank from any further co-operation with him. But while in one direction Mr. Tilak lost much of "that influence which went with moderatism, there was an immense accession of purity, strength and purpose to the National cause. Patriotism was, by his example and suffering lifted up from weak-kneed opportunism and humble mendicity to the high level of religion. Mr. Tilak's attitude was an object lesson to the people in manly fight and courage and suffering came to be recognised as the necessary qualities of a leader. The political leadership was, up to this time, the property of wealth, social position. Government patronage and oratorical powers. Now came the demand for leadership which would reveal tremendous powers of suffering for the cause. Evidently Mr. Tilak gave a deathblow to all conceptions of easy-going arm-chair leadership. He no longer basked in official sunshine. He was now no longer "Honourable"—Rajamanya. He, however, became, what was infinitely greater, the "Lokamanya"—the Honoured of the people.
The gravest feature of this prosecution was Mr. Strachey's wholly untenable definition of 'sedition.' According to him 'disaffection' did not mean any positive feeling of hatred etc. towards the Government. It simply meant 'want of affection.' Regarding this and another aspect of the case, the Daily Chronicle said:—
"Wildness, discontent, mischievous rubbish there may be in plenty. But we have got on with it and we shall get on with it again. Prove real sedition—above all, conclusively connect it with crime—and we should all favour sharp, stern punishment. But when it comes to overhauling poems and constructing elaborated innuendoes from eulogies of picturesque and popular bandits (?)... one feels that the Government are on perilous path.
"There is one aspect of the "sedition" trials in India which must not be lost sight of. And that is, the new definition of 'disaffection' enunciated by Mr. Justice Strachey * * * According to him 'disaffection' may be seditious even though it be simply strong disapproval of some omission on the part of Government. We feel confident that such an interpretation of the law would not be tolerated in England and if not speedily over-ruled, may produce grave mischief in India."
This was the considered opinion of an English news-paper and it amounts to a declaration that Mr. Tilak was unjustly convicted by an incorrect, arbitrary and novel interpretation of Sec. 124-A of the Penal Code. Far from over-ruling this interpretation, the Imperial Legislative Council gave legal status to it by amending on i8th February 1898 the notorious section in the teeth of Indian opposition.
In the chorus of sympathy that rang the air, the scene at the National Congress is most significant. When the favourite orator of India said in thundering accents:—
"I declare on my behalf and on behalf of the entire Native Press that in our heart of hearts we believe Mr. Tilak to be innocent of the charge brought against him. The ends of technical justice may have been satisfied but substantial justice has grievously failed. My sympathy goes forth towards Mr. Tilak in his prison home for whom the Nation is in tears—". The whole assembly rose to their feet and expressed. its feelings by cheering Mr. Tilak vociferously for several minutes, " It was a unique and unprecedented demonstration which ushered the advent of a new force in Indian Politics.
Mr. Tilak was a guest of Her Majesty's gaol at Yeravda till 6th September 1898, when he was released, nearly six months prior to the termination of the prescribed period of eighteen months. This belated grace was accelerated by the influentially signed petition presented by the late Prof. Max Muller to H. M. the Queen Victoria. Prof. Max Muller knew Mr. Tilak as the author of the 'Orion' and it was largely due to his efforts that the sense of justice of Lord Sandhurst was at last awakend. There was still a display of petty-mindedness in insisting upon an application for clemency from Mr. Tilak himself. But Mr. Tilak, who had manfully rejected such a humiliating offer before he was convicted, was not the man to yield now.
Prof. Max Muller's interest in Mr. Tilak enabled the latter to spend much of his enforced leisure profitably. Mr. Tilak was allowed the use of candles for a couple of hours at night and he utilized this opportunity to push on his researches into Vedic antiquities. The goal-diet reduced his weight from 135 lbs. to 104. A slight improvement in his food again increased it to 113 lbs. This diet was also responsible for diabetes which he soon contracted and which more or less tormented him to the end of his life. He was required to do hard work indoors. It is really sad to contemplate the author of the "Arctic Home in the Vedas" caning chairs and painting walls. To Mr. Tilak, all work was equally interesting and he is said to have surprised the gaoler by his improvements in the mixing up of several colours. The dull monotony of prison-life would have broken a less ardent spirit. But like a Yogi, Mr. Tilak had withdrawn all thoughts from the living present and had concentrated them on the vicissitudes of the ancient Aryans. His happiest moments were those when obscure Vedic passages yielded their meaning to his searching intellect, and when he could correctly interpret the verse commencing with *[4]Taneedahani bahulanyasan in the Rig Veda (VII, 76, 3) he could not sleep for joy. Mr. Tilak's prison-life shows that he was possessed not only of the qualities of the soldier and the scholar but also those of the sage, who has transcended pleasure and plain, happiness and misery and looks at the petty struggles of the world from the sublime heights of his controlled mind.
The sudden and unexpected release of Mr. Tilak sent a thrill of joy throughout the country. He came out of the gaol a broken man—broken physically, never mentally or morally. Old age put its ineffaceable marks upon his face. His first duty, therefore, was to recoup his health. He spent a few months at his favourite sanitorium, the Sinhgad, hallowed by the exploits of Shivaji. Then he attended the Congress (Dec. 1898) at Madras; thence he went to Ceylon and) returned Poona in February 1899. During his tours in Ceylon, he pushed on his study of the Buddhistic culture and philisophy, commenced as early as 1890.
Though the excitement of the Anglo-Indian mind had much to do with the troubles of Mr, Tilak, still when the case was going on, the Advocate-General had distinctly admitted that the charge against Mr. Tilak had nothing to do with the Poona murders. In spite of this clear admission, the notorious Globe had the effrontery to remark that "Tilak"—mark the omission of Mr.—had directed, if not organised, the campaign of murder and that the Western Presidency had been permeated by seditious conspiracies of a most dangerous character with the arch-plotter Tilak as the head. The Times of India published these remarks; but when hauled up before the Magistrate for defamation, made suitable amends by tendering a graceful apology which was as gracefully accepted. A suit was filed against the Globe in England, and the paper which had reviled this Poona Brahmin to eat its own words and tender an unreserved apology.
It was reserved for Sir Valentine Chirol to hold Mr. Tilak morally responsible for the Poona murders; and though Mr. Tilak failed in his attempts to legally disprove the subtle accusation, still all India holds him morally innocent of the charge. Directly or indirectly morally or actually, Mr. Tilak had nothing to do with murders; and the only murder he ever talked about was that of Afzulkhan, in connection with the Shivaji Festival. Mr. Tilak's life was an open book, on which the word 'patriotism' was writ large; and if the courts of justice made the mistake of confounding patriotism with sedition—well, he was prepared to pay the price. As for murder—political or otherwise—it was absolutely foreign to his nature.