| |
SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY Pages from the history of the Indian sub-continent: British Rule in India and the Indian Independence Movement Pressures of Loyalism during British Rule Part One: Loyalist Agents in the Indian Aristocracy and the Early Congress Part Two: "Moderates" versus "Extremists" in the battle for "Swaraj" and "Swadeshi" Even as loyalist pressures cast a
long shadow on political currents that were to influence the Indian elite
of the late nineteenth century, rapidly deteriorating economic conditions
also led to a heightened degree of radicalization amongst the most advanced
sections of the new Indian intelligentsia. Ajit Singh in Punjab, Bal Gangadhar
Tilak in Maharashtra, Chidambaram Pillay in Tamil Nadu and Bipin Chandra
Pal in Bengal formed the nucleus of a new nationalist movement that tried
valiantly, but mostly unsuccessfully to move the conservative leadership
of the Indian National Congress in a more radical direction. Most charismatic
amongst the new national leaders was Bal Gangadhar Tilak (b. 1856, d. 1920). After the defeat of 1858, one of the most significant challenges to British imperial authority in India had appeared in the form of Vasudeo Balvant Phadke's revolt of 1879, and amongst his many youthful followers and trainees in Pune was the young Tilak. Along with Chiplunkar, Agarkar and Namjoshi, Tilak initially concentrated on launching a nationalist weekly - the Kesari (1881), the publishing house - Kitabkhana, and developing Indian educational institutions such as the Deccan Education Society (1884). Tilak and his friends saw the right kind of education as being a crucial element in the task of national regeneration, and in this respect appeared to be continuing in the tradition of Jyotirao Phule (1827-1890) and Gopalrao Deshmukh (1823-1892) who was more known by his pen-name 'Lokahitwadi' . Foremost amongst the social revolutionaries of nineteenth century Maharashtra, Phule and his wife Savitribai, had advocated a radical restructuring of Hindu society on the basis of equality of caste, gender and creed. Phule, (who belonged to the Mali caste) was unsparing in his criticism of Brahminical society that looked down upon the shudra jatis, prevented the atishudra (untouchable) jatis from attending school, and treated young widows (particularly Brahmin widows) as outcastes. One of the first to start a school for girls (1848), Phule went on to found the first school for the atishudras (1851), a home for young widows (1863), and also the first to open the family well to atishudra women (1868). Social reformers in Maharashtra also emerged from the upper castes, such as Gopalrao Deshmukh, who although a Chitpawan Brahmin was a sharp critic of Brahminical society, and worked primarily through reformist middle-class organizations such as the Prasthana Samaj and the Arya Samaj to fight against caste inequities. But amongst Tilak's colleagues, not all were well-disposed towards Phule and Deshmukh (Lokahitwadi). Chiplunkar was particularly vitriolic in his criticism of Phule. Tilak, on the other hand, was not unsympathetic to the need for social reforms, and was opposed to evils like child-marriage, casteism and untouchability. Many years later, (at a conference in Bombay in 1918), he was to declare: "If God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognize him as God at all". However, he was reluctant to give precedence to social reforms over political struggle, believing that social change ought to come gradually, through the growth of enlightened public opinion, rather than through the legislative authority of an alien government. He was convinced that no significant social progress was possible in a country that wasn't politically free. He was particularly critical of loyalist or moderate "reformers" who were unwilling to practice what they preached, yet frequently baited him as being against social reforms. Neither a sectarian religious revivalist in the mold of Chiplunkar, nor willing to confine himself exclusively to the cause of radical social reforms like Agarkar, Tilak eventually parted ways with his colleagues in 1888. Working through the Kesari, (and later also the Maratha) he gradually developed a more advanced nationalist perspective based on the pillars of nationalist education, Swaraj (self-rule) and Swadeshi (self-reliance). One of the first to take the nationalist message to the Indian masses, he played a particularly important role in organizing western Maharashtra's peasant and artisan communities during the 1897 famine under the auspices of the Sarvajanik Sabha. By 1905, popular resistance movements had developed in both Bengal and Maharashtra, calling for the boycott of British goods and non-payment of land revenues and other taxes. Between 1905 and 1908 the national movement intensified, workers participated in strikes and work-stoppages, women and students joined the boycott movements - picketing at shops that sold imported goods, and an ever-growing mass of people began joining mass meetings and street processions. Only too aware of the economic devastation that British rule had brought on the country, India's broad masses were responding eagerly to the nationalist message. But the nationalist movement was also becoming exceedingly divided between two poles representing radically different currents and tendencies. Whereas one side (even as it recognized the many negative aspects of alien rule) clung to the British umbilical chord, and attempted to restrict the national movement to a struggle for political reforms, the other side correctly saw British rule as an unmitigated disaster for the Indian people and called for the complete liberation from colonial rule. Tilak eloquently and succinctly summarized the sentiments of the new and increasingly militant national movement. He spoke of British rule as having ruined trade, caused the collapse of industry, and destroyed the people's courage and abilities. Under the colonial regimen, Tilak asserted that the country was offered neither education, nor rights, nor respect for public opinion. Without prosperity and contentment, the Indian people suffered constantly from the three 'd's' - i.e. daridra (poverty), dushkal (famine) and dravyashosha (drain). And he saw only one remedy: for the Indian people to take political power without which Indian industry could not develop, without which the nation's youth couldn't be educated, and without which the country could win neither social reforms nor material welfare for it's people. Tilak saw colonial rule as being inimical to India's progress, and the contradictions between the British oppressors and the Indian people as being irreconcilable. But "moderates" such as Gokhale (President of the Congress in 1905) while cognizant of how "deplorable" Britain's industrial domination of India was, and how the economic drain from India to Britain was "bleeding India", were nevertheless all praise for the British educational system in India, ascribing to the British the virtues of introducing liberal "social reforms", governmental "peace and order" and such modern conveniences as the railways, post and telegraphs, and new industrial appliances. (That all these things benefited a miniscule Indian elite did not appear to bother such admirers of the empire, nor did it occur to them that this and much more could have just as easily been achieved under self-rule.) Tilak and Gokhale were clearly seeing Indian reality from very different vantage points. From the point of view of the ordinary masses, British rule had already bankrupted the nation, left intolerable misery in it's wake, and offered no hope for the future. Tilak's assessment of the situation reflected bleak reality - as experienced not only by the oppressed and downtrodden Indian masses, but by an overwhelming majority of all Indians. But Gokhale's ambivalence and his more cautiously expressed (though clearly articulated) concerns reflected the position of those who had at least partially shared in the spoils of the empire, but saw with some trepidation how the growing poverty of the nation might unravel the British empire. Reluctant to make common cause with the masses, "moderates" such as Gokhale did everything in their power to restrain the growing national movement - even branding Tilak and his allies as "extremists". The British took full advantage of this schism, and proceeded to bring the full weight of their administrative and military might in crushing the new national movement. Communal forces such as the Muslim League were also employed in the battle to extinguish radical tendencies. (See note below) The years 1905-1908 were thus extremely critical in shaping the direction of the Indian national movement. Increasingly, the Indian masses were looking to Tilak and his compatriots for direction. But, in direct opposition to the energizing of the Indian peasantry, and mass of workers and students across the country, the elite was reasserting it's loyalty to British rule. In Punjab, the polarization was especially sharp. The boycott movement had struck deep roots within the peasantry, and made it difficult for British troops to find porters and other logistical help from the poor peasants. Roused by calls to protest the British land revenue policy, Sikh and Jat agricultural workers were becoming strongly politicized. In a rousing speech, Tilak's close associate in Punjab, Ajit Singh made a secular appeal to the masses of Punjab to rise against the British: "Hindu brothers, Mohammedan brothers, Sepahi brothers - we are all one. The government is not even dust before us....What have you got to fear? ....Our numbers are much greater. True they have guns, but we have fists...You are dying from the plague and other diseases, so better sacrifice yourselves to your motherland. Our strength lies in unity..." (Excerpts from an April 21, 1907 speech in Rawalpindi) On May 1, 1907, a spontaneous outburst of popular discontent shook the British administration in Rawalpindi when seething crowds, reinforced by striking workers marched through the streets - throwing mud and stones at passing Britishers, attacking government offices, cottages of Christian missionaries, British enterprises and commercial establishments. Although the uprising was effectively quelled by a large contingent of British troops who were close at hand, it shook the colonial administration enough to hastily evacuate families of colonial officials and military officers from Punjab, and extend term of the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Lord Kitchener. The colonial police and troops were also ruthless in crushing such uprisings in Lahore and Amritsar. Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai were summarily deported to Burma, without trial or right of appeal. Arrests and persecution of other patriots followed, and a state of emergency was declared in a number of Punjab districts. In 1908, uprisings on a similiar scale broke out in the South, in Trivandrum, Tirunelveli, and Tuticorin. In Trivandrum, police stations were attacked, prisoners liberated, and offices of the repressive colonial state were set on fire. When Chidambaram Pillay, another important Tilak ally was put on trial, he refused to disown his national goals, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Russian consular official Chirkin had been quite prophetic in his May 28, 1907 report when he wrote:"The outburst in Punjab is by it's character more dangerous than the Bengal unrest.....This outburst has roused all India." But equally powerful forces were working to stem and reverse the radical tide that had the potential of upturning colonial rule. Bengal zamindars who had agitated against the partition of Bengal declared their loyalty to the Raj. The Maharajas not only offered armed personnel to help the British but some (such as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir) themselves initiated repressive measures against those deemed "extremist". The Congress who under the leadership of Dadabhai Naoroji had accepted the demands put forth by the Tilak group for Swaraj, Swadeshi and National Education in 1906, reneged on it's previous position, and at it's Surat session in 1907 decided to limit the struggle to a "constitutional manner". "Swaraj" was reinterpreted to mean "self-rule" as a colony, and rather than fighting the colonial power, the Congress decided to cooperate with it in effecting "reforms". A motion to elect Tilak (who was unquestionably the most popular leader of the national-liberation movement) was turned down, as was a compromise motion to elect Lala Lajpat Rai. The triumph of the "moderate" wing was total and complete. Gokhale's "moderate nationalism" which was simply another face of loyalism succeeded to the utter exclusion of all the popular forces aligned with Tilak, and returned the Congress to a broadly loyalist track. Tilak and his supporters were thus compelled to regroup outside the stifling confines of the Congress and continued a vigorous struggle against the British. But in July 1908, after having removed most of Tilak's serious compatriots from the national scene, Tilak himself was brought to trial. The English majority outvoted the Indian jurors to issue a guilty verdict, and Tilak was sentenced to six years of transportation. This evoked a mass protest wave which swept a number of Indian cities culminating in a massive strike of 100,000 workers and a city-wide 'hartal' (shutdown) in Bombay. Tilak's sentence had to be commuted to simple imprisonment, but it was sufficient to deal a severe blow to the Indian freedom movement. By 1914, the Congress had so deteriorated that a majority of it's members failed to admonish the young Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi when he embarked on a campaign to seek volunteers for the British war efforts in World War I. The man who was to repeatedly chastise the Indian masses for being insufficiently "non-violent", had in 1914, no compunctions in seeking sacrificial lambs for a war in which India's only interest should have been for the defeat of it's colonial master. But Gandhi, who had been born the son of the Prime Minister of the princely state of Rajkot in Kathiawar, was simply following the lead of the Indian Maharajas, such as that of Bikaner - who needed little prodding in offering his troops for a war that essentially pitted Europe's older and stronger imperial powers against their emerging rivals. Unsurprisingly, it was to Gokhale that the young Gandhi looked for inspiration, not Tilak. But others recognized his pre-eminent role in giving new direction and leadership to the Indian freedom movement. Nehru pointed out that the "real symbol of the new age was Bal Gangadhar Tilak", and recognized that "the vast majority of politically-minded people in India favored Tilak and his group". This was acknowledge as much by Sir Valentine Chirol, foreign editor of the The Times, who noted how Tilak's imprisonment deprived India of it's most able and determined leader, perhaps the only one capable of providing the Indian national movement (with it's different and often contradictory trends), the organization and unity that had been lacking thus far. N.C. Kelkar, a biographer and follower of Tilak echoed such sentiments. Pressures of Loyalism during British Rule Part One: Loyalist Agents in the Indian Aristocracy and the Early Congress Addendum: Assessing Tilaks's Record Notes: A characteristic illustration of the hostility of
communal organizations such as the Muslim League, and the sections of
the English-language press to the national movement is the following resolution
of the Deccan provincial Organization of the All-India Muslim League published
in the Times of India :
As early as 1893, Tilak had attributed tensions between Hindus and Muslims to the instigation of Anglo-Indian officers in the colonial administration. According to him, the 'Divide and Rule' policy of Lord Dufferin was at the bottom of all the mischief.
In 1906, Lord Curzon arbitrarily partitioned Bengal, and relied upon the Muslim League to provoke bloody clashes between Hindus and Muslims. To combat the Swadeshi movement in East Bengal, special 'Swajati' organizations were set up under the auspices of the Muslim League. Their members (with police protection) would beat up Swadeshi activists. Even Congress moderates, such as Surendranath Bannerjee noted the role of the East Bengal colonial administration in instigating fratricidal strife amongst Hindus and Muslims. References:
Related Articles Also see sections on the Indian Freedom Struggle in: Back to main index for South Asian History (If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian History project and help us expand our reach, please click here) Last updated: Apr 17, 2002
|