TILAK AND GANDHI Sil means for the achievement of Swaraj like Gandhiji, he would not have taken even the curious interest, lukewarm interest or deep interest that he is said to have taken in the activities of the terrorists, subvertionists, conspirators or armed revolution- ists, even while conceding all the time as Gandhiji did, that they were patriots to be sure, but misguided and therefore engaged in activities that were bound to prove suicidal to themselves and harmful to others. All the same, what was his normal and constant position as regards the means to be employed for achieving Swaraj? The reply to this question, doubtless, is that he believed in persis- tent. constitutional and as far as possible lawful action and whatever may have found place in his forty years’ public life to the contrary must be considered in the nature of an aberra- tion indulged in out of curiosity and not conviction. Overwhelm- ingly he was a militant constitutionalist, a radical, in whose scheme of things there was no room for violence and “ poli- tical” murders. His casual contacts with violent revolutionaries never meant active association with their work and he never intended or planned any organized effort with their help to attain Swaraj. CHAPTER XXXII TILAK AND GANDHI There is a considerable body of opinion all over India, parti- cularly in Maharashtra, which believes in some kind of anti- thesis, some kind of antagonism, some kind of alienation between Tilak and Gandhi. Without there being sufficient reason for this, sections of people and groups of opinion cling to this belief, chiefly because a systematic, well-documented, well-reasoned effort to refute the untruth contained in this belief has not been made. Individual writers of eminence like Prof. Javdekar and Prof. Phatak have done this service to the Marathi-speaking people in their stray discourses and writings. But immature journalists, columnists and writers of spicy stuff have submerged their sage utterances and the mass of people has gone away with the firm idea that Tilak and Gandhi were512 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK hostile forces, opposite influences, contradictory personalities and that their principles and preaching had little in common, Nothing, however, can be more untrue. To superficial readers of some of Gandhiji’s writings, Gandhiji would appear to have provided some ground for this belief to arise and spread. There are very few who can write about complex and delicate subjects in such clear terms and limpid prose as Gandhiji and all that he has.said with reference to Tilak and Tilak has written about him is sufficient to dispel anybody’s doubts. These writings cover the field of the common ideas and diverse ideas of Tilak and Gandhiji regarding political agitation, social reconstruction, India’s freedom, patriotism and humanity, attitude towards life and its problems, day-to-day transactions between man and man, man’s obligations to society —in a single phrase philo- sophy and behaviour, theory and practice of life, ethics and religion. This is obviously a very vast subject, and its treatment postulates a treatise by much worthier hands in order to be exhaustive and if possible conclusive. It will be proper, first of all to note a few facts. Mahatma Gandhi came to India in January 1915, from South Africa with the idea of settling down in India and making India the labo- ratory for carrying on his experiments in truth and non-vio- lence. He had already experimented a great deal in South Africa. Although the scene of his operations was South Africa, he had become quite well known in India as an extraordinary person, in dead earnest about doing something along lines, never followed before, never thought of by India’s dead and living leaders at that time. The first world war was then raging and every one was curious to know how Mahatma Gandhi was going to conduct himself. He had already declared in England that he would help and co-operate with the war effort of the British Empire. As soon as he landed on Indian shores, Lord Willingdon, the then Governor of Bombay sent for him at Gokhale’s instance. Gandhiji told Lord Willingdon that he was a follower and disciple of Gokhale, that Gokhale was his poli- tical master. Gandhiji repeated this statement more than once, on subsequent occasions. He completely unburdened his mind about this spiritual relationship between the two in his article, entitled “A Confession of Faith” in Young India dated 13-7-1921. He surrendered himself completely to Gokhale whoTILAK AND GANDHI 513 was afraid that Gandhiji might throw himself headlong in some movement against some injustice somewhere and the heir- apparent to the presidentship of the Servants of India Society might become disqualified to hold that position! Gokhale en- joined on him one year of silence and study of the situation in’ India and Gandhiji implicitly carried out his wishes even posthumously, for within less than two months of Gandhiji’s arrival in India, Gokhale was no more. Gokhale had fully realized Gandhiji’s worth. Speaking at the Lahore Congress of 1909 on the South Africa resolution, Gokhale had said : “It is one of the privileges of my life that I know Mr. Gandhi int! mately and I can tell you that a purer, a nobler, a braver and a more exalted spirit has never moved on this earth, Mr. Gandhi is one of those men who, living an austerely simple life themselves and devoted to all the highest principles of love to their fellow-beings and to truth and justice, touch the eyes of their weaker brethren as with magic and give a new vision. He is 4 man who may be well described as 2 man among men, a hero among heroes, a patriot among patriots and we may well say that in him, Indian humanity at the present time has really reached its high water-mark.” In a message sent to this session of the Congress, Gandhiji said : “T do not know that I am at all competent to send any message. At the present moment, T am unable to think of anything but the task immediately before me, viz., the struggle that is going on in Transvaal. I hope our countrymen throughout India realize that it is national in its aim in that it has been undertaken to save India's honour. I may be wrong but I have not hesitated publicly to remark that it is the greatest struggle of modern times, because it is the purest as well in its goal as in its methods. Violence in any shape or form is entirely eschewed. The Satyagrahis believe that self-suffering 1s the only true and effective means to procure lasting reforms. They hold that loyalty to an earthly sovereign or an earthly consti- tution {s subordinate to loyalty to God and His constitution. I venture to sug- gest that a struggle such as this is worthy of occupying the best, if not the exclusive, attention of the Congress. If {t be not impertinent, I would like to distinguish between this and other items on the programme of the Congress, The opposition to the laws or the policy with which the other items deal does not involve any material suffering. The Congress activity consists in a menthl attitude without corresponding action. May I also sug- gest that in pondering over and concentrating our attention upon passive resistance, we would perchance find out that for the many ills we suffer from in India, passive resistance !s an infallible panacea. It is worthy of careful study and I am sure it will be found that it is the only weapon that 1s sulted to the genius of our people and our land which fs the nursery of the most ancient religions and has very Uttle-to learn from modern T-33514 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK civilization —a civilization based on violence of the blackest type, largely a negation of the Divine In Man and which is rushing headlong to its ruin.” Pandit Malaviya was President of this session, but neither he nor any other Congress leader appears to have taken Gandhiji’s message very seriously. They appear to have contented, them- selves with expression of admiration for his achievement and by way of its recognition they raised a big fund to help his work. The leaders of the New Party or Nationalist Party were neither in the Congress nor on the Indian scene. Tilak was behind the bars in Mandalay Jail, but he was the one man who had placed the idea and a programme of passive resistance before the open Conference of Nationalists at Banaras in 1905 as Lala Lajpatrai has placed on record in his Young India (Page 172) : ‘‘ No formal resolutions were passed, but the better mind of the people present had decided to inaugurate an era of self-help and self-reliance based on an active boycott of Govern- ment service and of the semi-government institutions.” Bepin Chandra Pal, who has explained this programme completely in his Spirit of Indian Nationalism was an exile in London. Lala Lajpatrai was an exile in U.S.A. and Aravinda Ghose had shut himself up in Pondicherry for the practice of yoga. India had, therefore, to wait until Gandhiji set foot again on her soil on January 9, 1915 for the proper development and use of the weapon of passive resistance which later came to be designated as Satyagraha. During the silence imposed upon him by Gokhale for a minute study of the Indian situation, Gandhiji met Tilak and spent a few days with him at Sinhagarh. They had several conferences together and many heart-to-heart talks. Whether they had agreed with each other or not may be open to question but they surely understood each other fully well and their res- pective philosophies of life and their application to current poli- tics must have figured prominently in their conversations. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that mutual attraction was steadily on the increase since then and no flagging in it was noticeable till Tilak died on the first day of August 1920. After one year’s silence, Gandhiji was free to act according to his light. Gokhale’s disciples had very great admiration and respect for Gandhiji but he was not considered suitable as suc- cessor to Gokhale as President of the Servants of India SocietyTILAK AND GANDHI 515 by them. It was very probably a case of disqualification, there being overwhelmingly more qualifications than required for that particular position according to Gokhale and his colleagues. But there was sufficient liaison always maintained between the Servants of India Society and Gandhiji as well as individual members of the Society and Gandhiji who always lnoked upon the Society as his “ mother’s house ” even when he was “ dis- inherited ”. Yet he was entertained with due courtesies and cere- monies as a scion of the ancestral house! How intimate Gandhiji on the one hand and Sastri or Thakkar or Deodhar on the other were with each other is common knowledge. Their differences never spoilt their non-political relations. Gandhiji once called Sastri “an amiable and worthy usurper ”. Tilak continued to watch with sympathy and respect and admiration Gandhiji’s movements after Gokhale’s death. He carefully followed what he had done in Champaran and Kheda. He had noted how Gandhiji had induced Lord Chelmsford to suspend the system of indentured Indian Labour in Fiji during the war period. He had followed how successfully, Gandhiji had led the textile workers against the Ahmedabad Millowners and got them to accept arbitration. He was mindful of the fact that in deference to his wishes, Gandhiji had changed his original plan of speaking in favour of unconditional recruitment and contributions to the War Fund at the Conference convened by Lord Willingdon and had once neatly rebuked Khaparde for remarking “Gandhi is not our man” by observing, “If he is not one, he must be nursed and made our man. He cannot be neglected.” At the Lucknow Congress, none of the Moderate candidates was elected to the Subjects Committee from Bombay. Gandhiji belonged to the Moderate Camp, but Tilak made an exception in his case and got him elected to the Sub- jects Committee as his candidate, dropping one of his men. He had also noted his behaviour at the opening of the Banaras Hindu University in the presence of princes, potentates and high Government officials. Tilak saw that Gandhiji’s heart was overflowing with sympathy and anguish for the ignorance and helpless masses of India and he only gave vent to his uppermost feelings in his speech at Banaras, frankly and fearlessly, yet in all humility.516 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK Tilak discovered that here was emerging into prominence a kindred spirit which was irrepressible and deserved all possible support. He found the policy and the strategy followed by Gandhiji to be extraordinarily simple and straight and that here ‘was a man of resolve who had the humility, fearlessness and self-confidence that had something of the Divine touch. ‘Tilak had understood the efficacy of the method of passive resistance, but he had not come to the conclusion that that was the only method, the only effective method, the only just, legitimate and powerful method to convert and win over the human mind and therefore he had not practised it and tested its efficacy. His appreciation of it was more or less intellectual. During the anti- drink campaign or the non-payment of taxes campaign when famine prevailed, he had advocated passive resistance, but his conception of it was more akin to retaliation and reprisal, not presumably free from a spirit of vindictiveness. Probably he realized that he himself was not a proper person, a suitable vehicle to preach the message of such a movement when Gandhiji had risen as a new luminary in the skies of Indian public life, threatening to outshine everyone else. That Tilak had thought of passive resistance as a legitimate method is evident from the replies he had given to Sir Edward Carson during his cross-examination in the Chirol case. Tilak had justi- fied adoption of passive resistance as legitimate though it involved breach of laws and had to be followed by suffering on the part of the breaker. If such suffering was borne in a reli- gious and selfless spirit it produced the necessary effect on the wrongdoer, said Tilak in his replies. But much more convincing and direct support to Gandhiji’s method has luckily been recor- ded in his own words in the preface he wrote on March 16, 1918 to the biography of Gandhiji written by Mrs. Avantika Gokhale who had joined Gandhiji as a volunteer in Champaran. The book was published in the middle of 1918. Gandhiji’s work in India had just begun and Mrs. Gokhale was able to deal with Gandhiji’s career as from his childhood to the Kheda and Champaran episodes only. Far more important events and epi- sodes were still in the womb of the future. Non-co-operation was not even in the air. Gandhiji had declared himself a co- operator and was twitted, not long ago, by some on being a recruiting sergeant of the British Government. Yet, Tilak hadTILAK AND GANDHI 517 the insight to see all through this and make an estimate of Gandhiji’s personality as a new, irresistible and irrevocable force in India’s public life. In this preface Tilak said : “In my opinion, not much trouble is necessary to find out the reasons why Mahatma Gandhi's life should become instructive and worthy of being followed. There are numerous barristersatlaw like Gandhiji. His father was a minister of an Indian State. Many others may have such parentage. ‘There may also be many people who are simple and forthright like him. Quite many people have become proficient in Western arts and sciences, since the universities were started. Numerous people from among our in- tellectuals, during the last 100 or 150 years have known from A to Z the histories and geographies of the world’s nations or achieved proficiency in scientific subjects. Similarly, our English-educated people have attained a high degree in intellectual or dialectic discussions of western thought, western social systems, western conventions and manners. But few have been able to show that they are men of high character, which enables one to master the field of one’s activity or subjugate and control one’s environments by reason of one’s high moral stature. This is an outstanding characteristic of Mahatma Gandhi. “Some people appear to believe that if the condition of the country is to improve, there must be reform of soclety and when that is done, political reform will come. Gandhiji’s life teaches us how erroneous this belief is, For all kinds of reforms and improvements, the leaders of the nation must have at least some power to enforce reforms. All wisdom and Intelligence are futile in the absence of power. Therefore efforts must chiefly be directed towards establishing this fundamental basis. Had Mahatma Gandhi not felt like this, he would never have bothered about political reform. Whatever he did for the well-being of the Indians in South Africa was not mere social work; it chiefly pertained to reform of the adminis- tration in South Africa, in fact it was because of the oppressive character of the Government of South Africa that Gandhiji was required to offer passive resistance and he taught Indians in South Africa to do the same. Gandhiji was convinced that unless there was reform of Government in South Africa, there was no hope of improving the conditions of the Indian people there. It is quite obvious that if we are partners in the Empire, we must have the same rights as the white people have. But the whites believe that all colonies are there to serve their own selfish interests and therefore they are not ready to extend the rights of equality to other people in the Empire. But this does not mean that they do not altogether want the other people. They want others because there is abundant land and mineral¢ and they do not have sufficient man power to exploit fully these sources of wealth. Even if the few thousand settlers began to work with four instead of two hands and even if they employ machines which do the work of hundreds of men, they require human hands to exploit properly and fully the wealth deposited in the bowels of the earth in South Africa. Therefore, just as formerly they treated the Negroes, they wanted to treat Indians by taking them there as labourers, treating them518 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK as mere beasts of burden and enriching themselves by exploiting them. The Indian bureaucracy consisted of their own kinsmen and therefore, did not care very much about the deplorable condition of Indians in South Africa for years and until Gandhiji emerged, there was not the slightest improvement. The people realized their condition but did not know ,what to do. Gandhiji led them out of this impasse by personal example. How he did this would be found explained in detail in this book. “What precisely Gandhiji did to help the people out of their adversity must be studied a little more closely. It is no sedition to try to improve administration if it is unjust. To call this sedition is to say that the administrators do not care for justice, morals, resistance to injustice and equal treatment to the subjects committed to their care. We hold firmly that the people's well-being is the real support, the real power and the real idea of government, whichever it is and whatever its form. Once this principle is accepted the corollary follows that there must be resistance to injustice wherever it prevails and to try to remove It is to help the Government to do its duty. But prejudice accumulated for years, or selfish- ness sometimes so influences some individuals from the subjects themselves that they are unable to perceive these principles of justice and they become instruments of oppression and injustice. Government finds it difficult to hurt this class of people of selfish and conceited people because they are required to preserve traditional practices and Government does not usually do anything unless those who are oppressed and suffer offer persistent resistance. Government prefers the sleeping dogs to lie as long as its peace of mind is not disturbed. As long as there is no obstruction in its routine, why should it bother? Human nature is such that it loves to conform to the existing order unless compelled to bring about change. No statesman also tries any reform unless he finds it inevitable or actuaily sees the evil effects of the existing order. Then it becomes the duty of patriots and social workers to draw the attention of the powers that be to the condition of people by every possible means and in a demonstrative and effective manner and help bring about necessary reform. Gandhiji has done this most capably and most creditably and therefore he has become an object of popular praise and reverence. “Tt is necessary to say a few words about the secret power behind Gandhiji’s way of passive resistance. It is naturally considered unlawful to rebel against the laws or disobey the orders under the laws issued by the Government officers, because the laws are made to preserve peace and order. Immense difficulties are required to be faced by a patriot who is anxious to bring about necessary reform. He is constantly ill at ease and ardently desires reform. He realizes that to disobey laws is not proper and he finds himself in a peculiar predicament. Gandhiji devised the way of passive resistance when placed in such a situation. This passive resis- tance, obstruction or Satyagraha as he terms it is discovered by him and he has sanctified it by his penance. It is difficult to say whether it could be followed on all occasions, even if justifiable or whether it will be effective everywhere. But every one will have to admit that it has very great possibilities, There are always penalties prescribed for the breachTILAK AND GANDHI 519 of every law in order to compel the subjects to conform to it. But when a law {tself is immoral and is sought to be enforced by Governmental autho- it becomes necessary to test our faith in truth, justice and dharma and defy the immoral law. People wedded to truth and justice say that it is perfectly legitimate to disobey such Jaws as a duty, a religious duty. But falth and devotion to truth and justice have got to be of such a high degree of fervour that no other consideration but performance of duty must enter the mind of the devotee and the faithful. Doing duty in spite of everything {s the only sentiment that must take his complete possession. This is what is called moral courage, truthfulness, character. This virtue 1s not attainable by learning and scholarship. Birth or social station is no condition of its attainment nor can high intellectual powers achieve it. ‘This is spiritual power. This is the teaching of the Upanishads. “ Although this spiritual power is not attainable by learning or intellect, a determined man can attain it by practice of penance and utter selfiess- ness according to the Geeta. That the lives of great men and noble men ure useful to build our character is due to this. One who is naturally virtuous finds his tendencies strengthened by the study of the lives of such men. They are a powerful aid to those who are weak and feeble- minded. Gandhiji’s life is such a life and I heartily recommend that it should be studied from this point of view to build one's moral strength and spiritual power.” This preface is uncontestable evidence of Tilak’s appreciation of Gandhiji as a beneficent influence in public life which had immense possibilities. When Gandhiji started the agitation against the Rowlatt Acts by resort to passive resistance, Tilak extended his support to it from England by asking the editors of the Kesari and the Mahratta to participate in it. He also wrote from London to Dr. D. D. Sathaye to support Gandhiji. Dr. Sathaye was then Secretary of the National Union and the Home Rule League in Bombay and a devoted follower of Tilak. Tilak says in this letter, “I have already written before that we should fully support Mr. Gandhi. It is impossible to give you any more detailed advice from here for by the time it reaches India it may be stale and useless.” Dr. Sathaye accordingly signed the Satyagraha pledge and became Secretary of the Satyagraha Committee in Bombay in 1919. After returning to India from England Tilak publicly expressed regret that he was not in India when Gandhiji had embarked upon the Satyagraha campaign against the Rowlatt Acts. At the Amritsar Congress, they came in closer contact and a little conflict also. There was some difference as regards the wording of the resolution on the Montford Reforms, but eventually there was an agreed520 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK resolution which was unanimously passed. But within a few months of this Congress session, the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs so greatly influenced Gandhiji’s attitude that from an ardent co-operator he_ became an equally ardent non-co- operator. What Tilak’s attitude was in this situation has been fully and authoritatively explained in Khadilkar’s article pre- viously reproduced fully in the chapter XIV entitled “ Staunch Adherent of Congress”. It is quite clear from that article that Tilak wanted to get on and co-operate with Gandhiji and not cut himself adrift from him. He had recognized in him a power- ful ally and any breach between them, had he survived his last illness is unthinkable. Indeed, the conclusion forced on one’s mind is that Tilak would have preferred even to play a secon- dary role to Gandhiji and would have liked to work as his helpmate and adviser in his advanced age and undependable state of his health. Corroboration of what Khadilkar wrote is also available from an unexpected quarter. Mrs. Besant in her preface to a volume of Tilak’s Reminiscences compiled hy Mr. S. V. Bapat in 1920 says : “ We differed on the N.C.O. move- ment. As he (Tilak) said he wished for responsive co-operation but he thought that Gandhiji wielded power that might serve India and he would not therefore break with him.” Gandhiji paid two visits to Poona in the first quarter of 1920 and had heart-to-heart discussions with Tilak at the latter’s Sinhagarh residence. He had just then been elected President of the Bombay Home Rule League. This is as far as day-to-day work and mutual co-operation in the political field are concerned, even when there were some differences of approach and attitude towards the problems of the day. The differences were always adjustable and capable of being bridged in the best interests of the country. But diffe- rences as to principles and philosophy of life were there and they would have always remained. Even these were not so great as is sought to be made out by some. But before dealing with them it will be better to follow Gandhiji’s reactions to Tilak. Gandhiji first came to India from South Africa in 1895 to educate public opinion in India on the condition of Indians in South Africa. He met Ranade and Badruddin Tyabji. They sent him to Pherozeshah Mehta who made his way easy. Then he went to Poona and met Tilak and explained the purpose of his callingTILAK AND GANDHI 521 on him. Tilak said, “ You are quite right in asking the help of all parties. There can be no difference of opinion on the South African question. But you must have a non-party man for your President. Meet Dr. Bhandarkar. He has been taking no part, of late, in any public movement. But this question might possibly draw him out. See him and let me know what he says. I want to help you to the fullest extent. Of course, you will meet me whenever you like.” After quoting these words, Gandhiji adds in his Experiments with Truth, ‘This was my first meeting with the Lokamanya. It revealed to me the secret of his unique popularity.” Referring to this meeting again, after Tilak’s death in the Young India dated 13th July, 1921 Gandhiji says, “1 have no clear impression of Tilak, except to recall that he shook off my nervousness by his affectionate familiarity.” The occasion for making this reference and saying some* other things arose out of someone calling Gandhiji an impostor because he had always described himself as a disciple of Gokhale “ while really carrying on the work and tradition of Tilak ”. Gandhiji says : “A strange anonymous letter has been received by me admiring me for having taken up a cause that was dearest to the Lokamunya’s heart and telling me that his spirit was residing in me and that I must prove a worthy follower of his. The letter, moreover, admonishes me not to lose heart in the prosecution of the Swaraj programme and finishes off by accusing me of imposture in claiming to be politically a disciple of Gokhale. I wish, correspondents will throw off the slavish habit of writing anony- mously. We, who are developing the Swaraj spirit, must cultivate the courage of fearlessly speaking out our minds. The subject-matter of the letter, however, being of public importance, demands a reply. I cannot claim the honour of being a follower of the late Lokamanya. I admire him like millions of his countrymen for his indomitable will, his vast learning, his love of country, and above all, the purity of his private life and great sacrifice. Of all the men of modern times, he capti- vated most the imagination of his people. He breathed into us the spirit of Swaraj. No one perhaps realized the evil of the existing system of Government as Tilak did. And in all humility, I claim to deliver his message to the country as truly as the best of his disciples. But I am conscious that my method is not his method and that is why I have still dificulty with some of the Maharashtra leaders. But, I sincerely think, that Tilak did not disbelieve in my method. I enjoyed the privilege of his confidence. And his last word to me in the presence of several friends was, just a fortnight before his death, that mine was an excellent method if the people could be persuaded to take to it. But he said he had his doubts. I know no other method. I can only hope that522 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK when the final test comes the country will be proved to have assimilated the method of non-violent non-co-operation. Nor am I unaware of my other limitations. I can lay no claim to scholarship. I have not his powers of organization, I have no compact disciplined party to lead and having been an exile for 23 years, I cannot claim the experience that the Loka- manya had of India, Two things we had in common to the fullest measure —love of country and the steady pursuit of Swaraj. I can therefore assure the anonymous writer that yielding to none in my reverence for the memory of the deceased, I will march side by side with the foremost of Lokamanya’s disciples in the pursuit of Swaraj. I know that the only offering acceptable to him is the quickest attainment of Swaraj by India. ‘That and nothing else can give his spirit peace.” Under Gandhiji’s leadership, India has attained Swaraj and true to his word Gandhiji has not only marched side by side with the foremost of Tilak’s fotlower or followers, but excelled .all of them and every other Indian in that march and Tilak’s spirit must be resting in peace. What Gandhiji wrote about Tilak after his death has already been quoted in the concluding portion of chapter I. In his Autobiography, he recalled those days and writing about Tilak, Gandhiji said : “I felt the loss of the late Lokamanya very deeply at the special session. It has been my firm faith to this day that had the Lokamanya been then alive, he would have given his benedictions to me on that occasion. But even if it had heen otherwise and he had opposed the movement, I should stil have esteemed his opposition as a privilege and an education for myself. We had our differences of opinion always, but they never led to bitterness. He always allowed me to believe that the tles between us were the closest. Even as I write these lines, the circumstances of his death stand forth vividly before my mind's eye. It was the hour of midnight when Patwardhan (Appasaheb) who was then working with me conveyed over the telephone the news of his death. I was at that time surrounded by my companions. Spontaneously the exclamation escaped my lips: ‘my strongest bulwark 1s gone.’ The non-co-operation movement was then in full swing and I was eagerly looking forward to encouragement and inspiration from him. What his attitude would have been with regard to the final phase of non-co-operation will always be a matter of speculation and an {dle one at that. But this much is certain; that the deep void left by his death welghed heavily upon everybody at Calcutta. Every one felt the absence of his counsels in that hour of crisis in the nation’s history.” All of this should help to convince an unbiased reader to con- clude that there existed no hostility between Tilak and Gandhi as Congressmen and as workers in the cause of India’s Swaraj byTILAK AND GANDHI 523 the method of passive resistance, non-violent non-co-operation or Satyagraha. Tilak would, have gladly joined Gandhi in his ex- periments with truth through the method of Ahimsa. As Gandhiji says, “he did not disbelieve in it” and since it was not tried in the Gandhian way and with Gandhiji’s prescription in every detail, Tilak would certainly have decided to give it a fair trial. As a matter of fact, all Tilak’s followers led by Kelkar, with the exception of Baptista and Khaparde fell in line with Gandhiji at Calcutta, but all of them did not do it whole-heartedly. They had their mental reservations and they were unable to go against the current. Vithalbhai Patel appear- ed to have fallen completely in line. But even he, after the Bardoli episode changed his mind and also carried Motilal Nehru and Hakim Ajmal Khan with him as the report of the Civil Disobedience Inquiry Committee of the Congress later made clear. Kelkar bore the brunt of adverse criticism for his leading the revolt against the non-co-operation programme after Rardoli, but Patel and Nehru and Das also were of his view, more or less. There was some difference between Kelkar and the others which manifested itself later and the Kelkar-Jayakar- ‘Aney-Moonje section of the Swaraj Party was formed. It is not necessary to go into all that. It is enough to say that when Kelkar, Khadilkar, Aney, Moonje, Patel, Bhopatkar, Jamnadas Mehta had all submitted to Gandhi, Tilak would have done the same or might have asked a concession from Gandhi only as regards the legislatures and Gandhi might have given it as he later did in the case of the Swaraj Party recognizing it as a wing of the Congress. Romain Rolland in his Mahatma Gandhi says on page 29-30 : “If Tilak had lived, Gandhi would no doubt have remained, a religious (spiritual leader of the movement. How magnificently the people of India would have marched on such a double leadership ! They would have been irresistible, for Tilak was a master of action just as Gandhi is a master of spiritual power. But fate decided otherwise.” There is reason to believe that with Tilak and Vithalbhai Patel to lead the par- liamentary wing of the Congress, the non-co-operation pro- gramme might have brought Swaraj nearer but the temptation to discuss “ might have beens” must be overcome. Let it be noted here that even while delirious in his last illness Tilak was making inquiries about the arrival of Gandhiji although524 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK he had seen him only two weeks before and discussed with him all questions of moment. Now what does Gandhiji mean when he says, ‘I am conscious that my method is not his method”? Enough light is thrown on this when the veil on the Amritsar Congress Subjects Com- mitttee discussions is lifted. Tilak thought that Gandhiji was leaning too much on the side of the bureaucracy and the Bri- tish statesmanship when he accepted their bona fides without question. In the opinion of Tilak, their antecedents did not justify that kind of trust, while Gandhiji rejected the idea of having mental reservations once he was out to co-operate. Tilak said he would find that out before long. And indeed Gandhiji did, because failing to perceive any real sign of change of heart on the part of the bureaucracy or the British statesmanship when the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs remained unredressed, he turned a complete non-co-operator. But still his method did not imply retaliation or vindictiveness. Even non-co-operation proceeded from the feeling of love and goodwill. Here comes in precisely the consideration of method. Writing on the Reforms Resolution passed by the Amritsar Congress, Gandhiji said, “Tilak represents a school of thought of which he makes no secret. He considers that everything is fair in politics. We have joined issue with him in that conception of political life. We consider that political life of the country will become thorough- ly corrupt, if we import western tactics and methods. We be- lieve that nothing but the strictest adherence to honesty, fair- play and charity can advance the true interests of the country.” Tilak promptly objected to such presentation of his view and wrote to Young India under date Poona city, January 28, 1920 saying : “T am sorry to see that in your article on the Reforms Resolution in that issue you represented me as holding that 1 considered everything fair in politics. I write this to you to say that my view 1s not correctly repre- sented therein. Politics is a game of worldly people and not of Sadhus and instead of the maxim Akkodhen Jine Kkodham as preached by Buddha, I prefer to rely on the maxim of Stiri Krishna: Ye Yetha Mam Prapadyante Tans Tathaiva Bhajamyaham. That explains the whole difference and also the meaning of my phrase of responsive co-operation. Both methods are equally honest and righteous. But the one is more suited to this world than the other. Any further explanation about the difference will be found in my Geeta-Rahasya.”TILAK AND GANDHI 525 This discussion is to be met with in the third chapter of the Geeta-Rahasya, entitled “Karmajidnasa” and the chapter “ Siddhavastha ani Vyavahara”. Mahatma Gandhi replied to this as follows: “T feel naturally the greatest diffidence about joining issue with the Lokamanya in matters involving questions of interpretation of religious works, But there are things in or about which instinct transcends even interpretation. The Buddhist text lays down an eternal principle. For me, there is no conflict between the two texts quoted by the Lokamanya. The text from the Geeta shows to me how the principle of conquering hate by love, untruth by truth, can and must be applied. If it be true that God metes out the same measure to us that we mete out to others, it follows that if we escape condign punishment, we may not return anger for anger, but gentleness even against anger. And this is the law not for the un- worldly but essentially for the worldly. With deference to the Lokamanya, I venture to say that {t betrays mental laziness to think that the world is not for Sadhus. The epitome of all religions is to promote Purushartha and Purushartha is nothing but a desperate attempt to become Sadhu, i.e. to become gentleman in every sense of the term. “Finally, when I wrote the sentence, about everything being fair in politics according to the Lokamanya’s creed I had in mind the oft-repeated quotation Shatham Prati Shathyam. To me it enunciates bad law. And 1 shall not despair of the Lokamanya with all his acumen agreeably sur. prising India one day with a philosophical dissertation proving the falsity of that doctrine. In any case I pit the experience of a third of a century against the doctrine underlying Shatham Prati Shathyam. The true law is Shatham Prati Api Satyam.” With what humility and with what great respect for Tilak, Gandhiji wrote and yet with what perfect self-confidence ! This was in the year 1920. In one place Gandhiji says : “ After many a chat with the Lokamanya, I had come to see that on some vital matters, we would never agree. Drawing illustrations from his inexhaustible store of Sanskrit learning, he used to challenge my interpretation of life, frankly and bluntly. He would say truth and untruth were only relative terms, but at bottom there was no such thing as truth and untruth, just as there was no such thing as life and death. I could not resist the abstract presentation.” Having all this in mind and also the Sinhagarh conversations in his memory, it is but natural that Gandhiji should speak of difference between his method and that of Tilak and all the other Nationalist advocates of passive resistance during the post-partition period. There was prepared- ness to suffer for breach of law and faith in the justness and526 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK righteousness of what they were doing but they were not non- violent in thought and sometimes in word. They were non- violent only deed. Gandhiji’s insistence is on absolute non- violence and that is probably why he dropped the phrase passive resistance and adopted later the phrase non-violent non-co-operation and still later Satyagraha. But at present even this term is being abused limitlessly. The same thing precisely happened to Tilak’s phrase “responsive co-operation” when handled by Jayakar and Kelkar and the Liberal Party leaders. Even while dealing with practical politics, it becomes neces- sary to discuss their fundamental approaches to life. Tilak’s approach is that of a patriot and a statesman. Gandhi’s approach is that of a saint. The former’s constitution is that of a Kshatriya, Rajasa ; the latter’s that of a Brahmana, Sattvika. Gandhi is essentially and basically a universalist, a humani- tarian; Tilak is overwhelmingly a patriot and Nationalist, only secondarily a humanitarian. Gandhiji once said, “ Patrio- tism is, for me. the same as humanity. I am yuatriotic, because I am human and humane. It is not exclusive. J will not hurt England or Germany to serve India. A patriot is so much the less of a patriot if he is a lukewarm humanitarian.” How many of India’s patriots could have honestly said it or can say it now ? For that matter, patriots from any country will not be in a posi- tion to say this. But so long as Gandhiji was the leader of the Swaraj movement he insisted on his connotation of patriotism to be loyally accepted. If that was not acceptable, he was ready to give up leadership. He could be a leader only on his terms. For he said, ‘“‘I have recognized that the nation has the right if it so wills to vindicate her freedom even by actual violence. Only then India ceases to be the land of my love, though she be the land of my birth, even as I should take no pride in my mother, if she went astray.” Such has never been the belief of the average patriot or nationalist. Any one of them would be ready to hurt any other country to serve India and no qualms of conscience would be experienced by them. . The whole of Gandhiji’s social philosophy as explained ori- ginally in his Hind Swaraj and propagated later from time to time and developed further by Vinoba is meant not for the consumption of India alone, but of the whole world. Such aTILAK AND GANDHI 527 thing was never there in Tilak’s consciousness, or in any other, contemporary patriot’s. Tilak must be classed with De Valera, Zaghlul Pasha, Sun-yat-Sen, Subhas Chandra Bose and Mazzini, but Gandhi has to be classed with Buddha and Christ. Among the makers of modern India. Ranade had the necessary mental equipment and saintly psychological make-up to play the role that Candhiji played. Persons of such constitution can, in any age, be benefactors of humanity but the times and circum- stances in which they are born, necessarily create limitations for them which they cannot get over..Buddha and Christ did not have the present day equipment and facilities to spread their message of human brotherhood. Gandhiji with all his old world externals fully exploited the means made available by modern civilization and has achieved even much greater results. than Buddha or Christ could. If a World State, human brother- hood and abolition of all strife on earth are ever to be achieved, it will only be achieved by following Gandhi, the universalist, Gandhi, the humanitarian, and not a patriot from any country or clime nor any pseudo-universalist believing in the employ- ment of force for establishing God’s fatherhood and man’s brotherhood on this earth. A votary of Truth and Ahimsa like Gandhiji, working for the moral, material and spiritual well- being of humanity, devoid of the slightest selfishness or con- sciousness of ego and in harness for twenty-four hours of the day can, if ever, modify or reform what has been described as eternal human nature. It is the difference in attitude towards life’s problems and formulation of social philosophy that makes Tilak and Gandhi deduce different conclusions from the same Geeta. To Tilak the Geeta ultimately teaches war, to Gandhi, peace. According to formal logic, Tilak’s conclusion is correct, but according to Gandhi that is not the connotation, if Geeta is read as a whole ; no matter what the beginning, middle and conclusion of the work point to. For Gandhi, Geeta’s lesson is truth and non-vio- lence. To him, “ instinct transcends interpretation.” He throws off the slavery of the texts and his intellect refuses to be guided by commentators and grammarians. In a sense, he despises scholarship and learning which he seems to consider as only verbosity and pedantry, because to him they cause confusion and prevent right understanding. If all your learning and all528 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK your powers of interpretation lead you only to conclude that the disorder and the chaos that has prevailed on this earth because strife in human life is perpetual and eternal and you rationalize to establish that the world was like this and so will it eternally remain, composed of Sattva, Raja and Tama and it will never be homogeneously Sattvika, why are we human beings gifted with brains and how are we different from animals ? That is the challenge Gandhiji wanted to take up and all genuine humani- tarians must take up, if his line is to be continued and is to tread on this earth to fulfil his great aspiration. It is the job of a rival Creator, as it were, demanding the capacity and penance of a Vishwamitra who was the rival of God Brahmadeva, according to the Puranas. This may not be quite a far, far cry, because we have been lucky in having a Vinoba after Gandhi and the whole trend of world affairs points to the direction of human brotherhood in the midst of the interaction of forces to the contrary. Gandhiji was fully aware that he was living in an imperfect world, that he himself was far from perfect in spite of his “having reached the high-water mark of Indian humanity ” and therefore, although he placed truth and non-violence, above everything else, as fundamental and paramount principles of reconstruction of the world, they had to be conditioned and limited in this work-a-day world by certain factors which, again, were due to our imperfections, foibles and weaknesses or a less developed stage of our civilization and cul- ture than the one we may look forward to. He expressed him- self repeatedly on these lines in Young India and Harijan. While considering this aspect of his thought-process, we come across parallel, if not identical, positions taken up by Tilak and Gandhi from the ethical point of view. Both of them have regarded truth and non-violence as the supreme laws for the attainment of universal material and spiritual happiness and contentment. There is a belief abroad that Tilak was a supporter of violence and untruth if they served the interests of society but it is not supported by what he writes in the Geeta-Rahasya. He justifies occasional and rare untruth and violence as excep- tions in the imperfect society in which we find ourselves. Lesser evils have sometimes to be chosen and it is only in that context that he does it. The same is the case with Gandhiji. HeTILAK AND GANDHI 529 is regarded as a hundred per cent upholder of truth and non- violence. But he also recognized exceptions in the same way as Tilak did. Some of the chapters in the Geeta-Rahasya and Gandhiji’s series of articles entitled “Is It Humanity?” in Young India are worth comparing in this connection. Gandhiji wrote this series to justify the killing of stray and rabid dogs in Ahmedabad. Discussing the letters received by him for and against, he sums up as follows : “Thus we arrive at the following result from the foregoing: (1) It is impossible to sustain one's body without the destruction of other bodies to some extent; (2) All have to destroy some life, (a) for sustaining their own hadies, (b) for protecting those under their care, (c) sometimes for the sake of those whose life is taken; (3) (a) and (b) in (2) mean Himsa to a greater or less extent. (c) means no Himsa and is therefore Ahimsa. Himsa in (a) and (b) is unavoidable. (4) A progressive Ahimsaist will, therefore, commit the Himsa contained in (a) and (b) as little as possible, only when it is unavoidable and after full and mature deliberation and having exhausted all remedies to avoid it. And, therefore, although there be no absolute duty to kill dogs etc., it becomes a necessary duty for certain people, at certain times and under certain circumstances.” Gandhiji does not apply this reasoning in regard to animals only but human beings also. In this very series of articles he says: “Suppose a man runy amuck and goes furiously about sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the com- munity and be regarded a benevolent man. From the point of view of Ahimsa, it is the plain duty of every one to kill such a man. There s indeed one exception if it can be s0 called. The yogi who can subdue the fury of this dangerous man may not kill him. But we are not here dealing with beings who have almost reached perfection; we are considering the duty of the soclety, of the ordinary erring human beings.” Gandhiji was by no means the first to declare the ideal of non-violent or unarmed revolution in India, nor is that his claim. Tilak and Aravinda Ghose had also declared it. In one of his speeches Aravinda says, “On their fidelity to Swadeshi, to boycott, to passive resistance, rested the hope of a peaceful and spiritual revolution. On that it depended whether India would give the example unprecedented in history of a revolu- tion worked only by moral force and peaceful pressure.” Both Tilak and Aravinda had experienced the consciousness of having started such a revolution. But their temperaments and T.-34530 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK habits of life did not fit them for the task. They had already practised the doctrine of Shatham Prati Shathyam for long and had disqualified themselves for a non-violent struggle based on the doctrine Shatham Prati Api Satyam. They were feeling con- sciously or sub-consciously the need of such a guide. Gandhiji answered that need in course of time. Before leaving for Pondicherry, Aravinda wrote : “‘The party is there, not less pervading and powerful as before but in want of a policy and a leader. The first it may find, the second, only God can give. The men who have led hitherto, have been strong men of high gifts and commanding genius, great enough to be protagonists of any other movement; but even they were not sufficient to satisfy one which is the chief current of a world-wide revolution. Therefore, the Nationalist Party, custodians of the future must await for the man who is to come, calm in the midst of calamity, hopeful under defeat, sure of eventual emergence of triumph and always mindful of the responsibility which they owe not only to India, but to the world.” The yearning of Aravinda’s heart was reflected in Tilak’s anxiety in his talks with Gandhiji in whom he had recognized the required general to lead an army of non-violent soldiers to conquer the fortress of Swaraj. His intellectual perception had a vision of a non-violent, bloodless political revolution in India. He had realized that Shatham Prati Satyam was the way to take humanity to a higher cultural level and he did not consider any lesser person to be able to practise that doctrine. He knew that it was preached not only by Buddha and Christ but by the Upanishads also and when he saw that there was a man who could wield that weapon, he would have entertained hopes about him and stood by his side. He differed from Gandhi not as regards ultimate principles but as regards the reading of given situations. More than that, he realized that he was not fit to be a commander of such a campaign. There are admissions to that effect in his discussion with Khadilkar, two or three weeks before his death. In any case, one thing is certain. Their moral standpoints were not only not different, but similar, almost the same. It is a thousand pities that there was not a dictaphone to record the Gandhi-Tilak dialogues on the Sinha- garh Hill or that none thought it worth while to keep authentic notes of them, duly approved by either. That would have put a stop to all intelligent or unintelligent guess-work that inter- preters have to indulge in.