| |
SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY Pages from the history of the Indian sub-continent: British Rule in India, Independence Leaders of Note Assessing Tilak's Record (Addendum to 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" Tilak and his Detractors - Charges of Communalism and Hindu Revivalism An assessment of Tilak's role in the Freedom Movement has often been hampered by charges of "communalism" and "Hindu Revivalism". But a closer and more balanced inspection of Tilak's record in public life reveals a rather different picture.
As early as 1888, Tilak had made a decisive break with his former cohort - Chiplunkar, unwilling to align with any narrow and sectarian agenda of chauvinist Hindu revivalism. This is not to say that Tilak was indifferent to Hindu traditions. Few leaders were. Many of the Muslim leaders were Maulanas, and Hindu leaders often had connections with the Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj. Tilak's interest in the Gita was neither exceptional, nor should it have brought any unduly unfavorable commentaries.
In fact, Tilak's interest in Hindu philosophy stemmed neither from conservatism nor from any tendency towards reactionary revivalism. Taken in the context of his vigorous contributions to the freedom movement, and the political clarity and directness of his message, it would be more appropriate to argue that his interest in his Hindu and Maratha heritage stemmed from the cultural vacuum that had been created by the alien and impersonal character of the British educational system. To find inspiration from ancient Indian texts, to find in the traditional Indian discourse, insights of contemporary value was for Tilak (and other leaders like him) not only something that contributed to developing self-awareness and self-esteem, it was as much an act of defiance towards the prevailing colonial-induced norms that ridiculed all things Indian, and valorized Western science and civilization to the exclusion of all else.
At a time when loyalist and "moderate" Indian politicians were enraptured by Western values and Western literature, discovering and connecting with Indian cultural traditions was not entirely without merit. In Tilak's case, it is especially important to note that he never counter-posed Indian tradition with Western scientific knowledge and technology. He was no xenophobe, and was all for India benefiting from the scientific and civilizational progress made in Europe. But unlike those that were utterly beholden to the colonial agenda, he saw no reason for educated Indians to eschew all interest in the Indian heritage either.
Tilak on the Gita It is also important to note that his commentary on the Gita was critical of those who emphasized renunciation and retreat from the real world. His interpretation of the Gita was very much in the spirit of the times - focused towards enhancing participation in the freedom movement, and in many ways, his comments were far more insightful than those of Gandhi. Whereas Gandhi often veered towards excessive idealism and even mystical obscurantism, Tilak's approach was sharply practical, and always geared towards taking concrete action. His interest in Hindu spiritualism arose from a feeling that British rule was creating a society that was losing it's ethical moorings, that colonial exploitation was destroying people's sense of social-connectedness and duty towards community and nation. Unlike Gandhi who was inconsistent (and sometimes even seemed quite arbitrary) in his political practices, Tilak strived hard to practice what he preached, and to preach only what he himself could practice. Whereas Gandhi feared the militant rising of the masses, and therefore advanced ideas that caused a blurring or obfuscation of seething social and ethical contradictions, Tilak faced no such compulsion for being obtuse. His uncompromising opposition to colonial exploitation permitted him to espouse a view of "dharma" or duty in a way that was more ethical and more suitable to fighting against the injustice of colonial rule.
In his early years, when he encouraged participation in Hindu festivals in Maharashtra, he was motivated by the desire to instill confidence amongst the people, so that the numbing effect of colonization could be counter-acted. That such activities might provoke hostility, resentment or sectarian feelings amongst Muslims never occurred to him, for he had no desire to cause any rift between the two communities, and wanted both communities to participate jointly in the festivals.
Importance of Hindu-Muslim Unity As he matured as a national leader, he became all too aware of the importance of Hindu-Muslim unity in the freedom movement. As early as 1893, Tilak had become conscious of how conflicts between Hindus and Muslims came about at the instigation of Anglo-Indian officers in the colonial administration. He was not oblivious to the 'Divide and Rule' policy of the colonial administrators, and knew how detrimental that was to the cause of freedom.
Following his release from prison, seeing how the national movement had fallen apart during his years in jail, and how Hindu-Muslim divisions were a serious impediment to the advance of the national movement, Tilak (like many other secular leaders of the Congress) bent over backwards to disarm Muslim leaders in the freedom movement, and redoubled his efforts in trying to win over the Muslim League to the cause of Swaraj . Viewing the unity of India's Hindus and Muslims as paramount, Tilak helped seal the 1916 Congress-Muslim League pact that conceded virtually all the demands made by the League.
In a speech to the 31st Indian National Congress in Lucknow, Tilak could not have made his secular outlook any more explicit when he stated: "It has been said by some that we Hindus have yielded too much to our Mohammedan brethren. I am sure I represent the sense of the Hindu community all over India when I say that we could not have yielded too much." He went on to assert how he would rather see the British hand over the governance of India to Indian Muslims (or Indians of any caste) than see the British remain as India's paramount colonial authority.
Although such attempts to wean away the League from it's hostile posture towards the national movement eventually came to nought, there is little denying that during this period, Tilak and the Congress went a considerable distance to accommodate even unreasonable and undemocratic demands from the League .
Thus, Muslims who were Tilak's contemporaries regarded Tilak as a true "nationalist". Maulana Shaukat Ali and Maulana Hasrat Mohani, who were both staunch members of the Khilafat movement, and early supporters of the national movement (until they later joined the Muslim League) had been admirers of Tilak. Mazarul Haque, a Swarajist and a trusted follower of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das spoke well of Tilak, as did Dr Ansari, (one of the former Presidents of the Congress) who avowed that Tilak's vision was not of Hindu dominance.
But once the League was committed on a path towards partition, pro-Pakistani agitators of the Muslim League such as Jinnah (who had earlier regarded Tilak with cordiality) began to malign Tilak, painting him as a Hindu revivalist and communalist.
Once the League had made a decisive turn towards partition, it was not surprising that the champions of Pakistan would turn sharply against Tilak (and any leader of significance in the national movement), and begin to contradict all that they had said of Tilak earlier. The compulsions of the two-nation theory required such heightened polemics, and Tilak, who had played such an invigorating role in the early years of the Indian Freedom Struggle came to be presented more and more through biased and distorted caricatures of his public record.
Although Jinnah was equally unsparing in his attacks on the Congress, ( who he dismissed as a "Hindu" organization), his attacks on Tilak appeared to find a certain measure of resonance even amongst some Indian liberals. But as noted earlier, Tilak was hardly alone among national leaders in his interest in Hindu culture and philosophy. What is especially ironic is how his most strident critics were themselves seeped in religious sectarianism , and held quite reactionary and conservative views on how society ought to develop and mature in a free India. Indian critics of Tilak who now brand him as a "communal" untouchable are either seriously misguided or misinformed, but more likely have succumbed to a tendency where secularism has been turned into Hindu-phobia.
Tilak on Non-Violence In 1908, there were few leaders (Hindu, Muslim or Sikh) of comparable stature in the Indian freedom movement, and in several ways, Tilak's ideas remain far ahead of Gandhi's. Any lover of Indian freedom and progress would have to be cognizant of that. Tilak's writings on non-violence are especially revealing of an advanced intellect. Tilak was neither a gun-fetishist nor an idealist rejecter of violence. In 1908, he saw non-violent resistance through mass civil disobedience as the preferred method of struggle only because he did not see the possibilities of winning an armed struggle against the British at that particular time. But neither did he reject the possibility that a time may come when the Indian masses would be able, ready and prepared for an armed struggle, if no other option of defeating the British seemed likely to succeed. For that reason, he was never prepared to condemn the armed revolutionaries, and defended each one as a legitimate fighter and martyr in the cause of Indian independence.
Combining strong elements of pragmatic realism with unflinching devotion to principle is what allowed the young Tilak to mature into a leader of great national significance. His public record not only indicates that he was far more frank and forthright with the Indian masses than his duplicitous and hypocritical critics, but that he had also grappled with issues of tactics and strategy to a much greater degree than any of his contemporaries. Not only did Tilak display a level of perseverance and dedication towards the national cause that exceeded that of his detractors, he did not hesitate to take his message to the Indian masses. Although internment seriously weakened Tilak's spirit, in the early years, it was leaders such as Tilak that truly helped enervate the mass movement, and prepared the ground for the freedom movement to broaden and deepen with time. 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" References:
Other Related Articles Also see sections on the Indian Freedom Struggle in: Also see topics in Indian History 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
|