From the Deccan his (Mr. Tilak’s) influence projected far and wide. His prestige as a Brahmin of Brahmins, and as pillar of Orthodoxy, his reputation for pro###found learning in the philosophies of the West and the East, his trenchant style, his indefatigable activity, the glamour of his philanthrophy, his accessibility to high and low, his many acts of genuine kindliness, (his) personal magnetism combined to equip him more fully than any other Indian Politician for the leadership of a revolutionary movement.
Indian Unrest by Sir. V. ChiroL Page 54.
The late Mr. Gokhale used to describe how he was once humourously taken to task by an Executive Councillor for having made a seditious speech. On Mr. Gokhale’s denying having done so, a C. I. D. report of his speech was produced and both Mr. Gokhale and the Official laughed over the perversions and distortions contained in that report. It is not given to every public leader to be a persona grata with the Government, nor can he expect to have that constant communication with the highest officers which alone, can, if possible remove such misunderstandings. If in some future generation after the attainment of Swaraj, the historian of this period has access to confidential reports of the Government, he will be able to mention how hundreds of persons had to suffer persecutions only because of the malice or ignorance of the C. I. D. reporters. Mr. Tilak’s record with the Government will, in particular, shed curious light on the workings of numerous minds bent on crushing him by hook or crook. The revela###tions made in the correspondence, recently publish###ed by the Mahratta, between H. H. the Maharaja of Kolhapur on the one hand and a number of officials on the other have startled many a publicist and have afforded much side-light on the events which form the subject-matter of the correspondence. In his dealings with the Government, Mr. Tilak felt that the under###current of the Bureaucratic mind was poisoned by mischievous and malicious reports of his activities. But he was powerless to contradict or convince. He pa###tiently bore all the pricks of his position, buoyed up by the faith, that, the day of reckoning must come, sooner or later, and the misunderstandings that pre###judiced the powers that be, must ultimately melt like a mist. The publication of the " Indian Unrest " by Sir Valentine Chirol, afforded Mr. Tilak the necessary opportunity of vindicating his loyalty and proving to the satisfaction of the world, the righteousness of his conduct and the truth and justice of his cause. In attacking Sir. Valentine Chirol’s book, Mr. Tilak’s chief object was surely to show how very prejudiced was the medium through which the Bureaucracy looked at him; for, in truth, " The Indian Unrest " — so far, at least, as it described the personality of Mr. Tilak — was a systematic exposition of the theories contained in the confidential papers of the Government concern###ing Mr. Tilak.
Sir Valentine Chirol had been deputed in 1910 by the " Times (London) " to study whether " The lull in the storm of Indian Unrest" indicated " a gradual and steady return to more normal and peaceful conditions " or whether “as in other cyclonic disturbances in tro###pical climes it merely presaged fiercer outbursts yet to come “; whether " the blended policy of repression and concession (had) really cowed down the forces of crimi###nal disorder and rallied the representatives of Moderate t)pinion to the cause of sober and constitutional pro###gress or whether it had come too late, either permanent###ly to arrest the former or to restore confidence and courage to the latter*.’* This was a problem which Sir. Valentine Chirol set himself to study; and after a long and careful investigation he came to the conclusion that it was almost a misnomer to speak of Indian unrest, that it was confined only to Hindus living in the Urban areas of Mahratta Deccan, the Cental Provinces, Bengal and the Punjab and that with respect to such " repression meant nothing more cruel than the application of surgery to diseased growths” " and as " it is impossible that we should ever concede to India the rights of Self-Government, Sir Valentine suggested some minor changes of policy for the permanence of the British Rule and the well-being of India.
Compare the wealth and abundance of Sir Valentine Chirol’s materials with the poverty and littleness of his conclusions. The truth is that he saw things through the medium of prejudice. His method of investigation was entirely faulty and unhistorical. He has collected
♦ Indian Unrest ; Page i. t Indian Unrest ; Page 325. ■
§ Indian Unrest ; Page 332. *
the strongest and the most “objectionable " passages from the ‘* Extremist " newspapers all over the country and has sought to give them an imaginary unity of time, place and purpose. If an Indian Chirol will follow a similar method, ransack the files of Anglo###Indian papers and select such passages as Sir Valentine had done, he will be able to give a picture of Anglo###Indian mentality at which, the author of the " Indian Unrest” would stand aghast. Fortunately, Sir Valentine Chirol has lived to find that " Self-Government " for India is the goal of British ambition.The very gro###und on which he bases his conclusions is thus swept away and what remains is nothing but the manifesta###tions of Tilak-phobia. The book sought to eternally discredit Mr. Tilak and his party in the eyes of England and prevent the Nationalists from raising their head again. Here, also, Sir Valentine failed and has lived to witness his failure. To-day he must be finding that the principles for which Mr. Tilak fought have been ac###cepted by almost all his countrymen and if Britain cherishes any prejudice towards the National Party, — well, Britain will regret the attitude, some day or other.
To counteract the insidious poison of Sir. Valentine Chirols’ writings, Mr. Tilak, after having taken the best legal advice in England and India, filed a suit against the offending party for damages against libel and for an injunction to restrain publication of the defamatory matter. After a long series of preliminary proceedings, the case came for hearing before Mr. Justice Darling and a Special Jury on 29th January 1919, Sir John Simon, K.C., and Mr. E. F. Spence,
TILAK — V — CHIROL. ^*J^
appeared for the plaintiff and Sir Edward Carson; assisted by two others, defended Sir V. Chirol, the writer, and Messrs. Macmillan and Comapany, the Publishers of the " Indian Unrest.”
Mr. Tilak complained that Sir V. Chirol had libelled him in six different ways. Though he had never start###ed, nor had ever been a subscriber to any cow-pro###tection society, he was charged with having started the organisation as a provocative to the Mahomedans. Though he had never organised gymnastic societies, he was accused of having done so with the object of developing the martial instincts of the people for the ultimate purpose of employing force. These gymnastic societies, have been also called " Juvenile bands of dacoits to swell the coffers of Swaraj*’ Fur###ther, the High Court judgment (1910) in the Tai Maharaj ^se was quoted by Sir. V. Chirol as being " extremely damaging to Tilak’s private reputation as a man of honour or even of common honesty."
Most important of all were the libels in connection •with the Rand-Ayerst and the Jackson murders : — , " What Tilak could do by secret agitation and by a rabid campaign in the Press to raise popular resentment
to white-heat he did The inevitable
consequences ensued. On June 27th, 1897 Mr.
Rand and Lieut. Ayerst were shot
down by a young Chitpawan Brahmin. No direct con###nection has been establishmed between the crime and Tilak." (Page 48 — Indian Unrest).
" In reply to the Magistrate who asked him why he committed the murder, Kanhere said ’ I read of many instances of oppression in the Kesari, the Rashtramat^
t^lS LOKAMANYA TILAK
and the KaL and other newspaers. I think that by killing Sahibs we people can get justice. I never got injustice myself, nor did any one, I know of. I now regret killing Mr. Jackson. I killed a good man care###lessly.’
** Can anything be more eloquent and convincing than the terrible pathos of this confession ? The three papers named by Kanhere were Tilak’s organs. It was no personal experience or knowledge of his that had driven Kanhere to his frenzied deed, but the slow, per* sistent poison dropped into his ear by the Tilak Press. Though it was Kanhere’s hand that struck down ’ a good man carelessly’ was not Tilak rather than Kanhere, the real author of the murder ? It was merely the story of the Poona murders of 1897 over again." (Page 62— Indian Unrest).
The opening speech of Sir John Simon occupied seven hours. The plaintiff was next called to the witness###box and examined by Mr. Spence. When the examina###tion-in-chief was over, up jumped Sir Edward Carson to cross-examine Mr. Tilak. The Court was crowded to the utmost. An idea of the tussle between Sir Edward Carson, " the leader of Ulsterite rebels " and Mr. Tilak, the " the leader of Indian rebels " can be had from the following fragments of the latter’s long and weari###some cross-examination which he stood extremely well.
“When did you last get out of prison”? — June, 1914.
" Have you taken any proceedings in India to vindi###cate your character “? — * No ‘.
** Why did you come all the way to England to vindi###cate your character “? — ‘Because, the book is read all###over the Empire and a decision of an English Court
TILAK — V — CHIROL 27^
would have greater weight and be more efEective in stopping the circulation of the book.’
" Do you remember being sentenced to six years^ transportation ?” — ’ Yes ‘.
" Do you remember what the Judge said in summing up ?"— ’ Yes '
Sir Edward Carson then read this passage in which the Judge referred to the articles in the Kesari : —
*’ They are seething with sedition ; they preach violence ; they speak of murder with approval ; and the cowardly and atrocious act of commit###ting murders with bombs, not only meet with your approval, but you haul the advent of the bomb into India as if something had come to India for its good.” Did the Judge say that ?"— ’ Yes \ Was that the reason why you took no proceedings in India to vindicate your character ?" * No *.
*’ Can you point to any passage in Sir Valentine Chirol’s book which is more severe than that ?" — * I complain of being associated with murder ‘.
The plaintiff was asked to read a passage in which one of the men who were concerned with the murder of Mr. Jackson in 1909 said his mind was influenced by a certain book. The plaintiff said that the book was re###viewed in the Kesari. He did not write the review him###self. The book was a life of Mazzini and a translation in Marathi was dedicated to him. Many people dedi###cated books to him without his knowledge.
" Do you see that the murderer says that it was by reading that book, that his mind was prepared for the murder ?’* * He may have said that *.
«80 LOKAMANYA TILAK
“Do you think that he committed a murder ?” — ’ I heard that he had committed a murder. I don’t know« I was in jail ‘*
" Do you call it murder ?" — ’ I should certainly call it murder/
" Did you not advocate resistance to the law ?"— Mf you don’t like a law, you must resist it in order to get it altered. The penalty for resistance is punish###ment. That is called Passive Resistancre ‘.
Sir Edward Carson read extracts from the plaintifE’s newspaper Kesari and asked whether it was true that resistance to the Government was advocated. — ’ No ; it was resistance to the Government Officials ; I draw a distinction between them ‘.
‘* Government consists of Officials, doesn’t it ?" — A house consists of rooms but a room does not mean a house ‘. (Laughter).
" Was not Mr. Kingsford the man whom it was in###tended to kill, when two ladies with their coachman were murdered ?" — ’ Yes, I believe so ‘.
Extracts were read to show that the plaintiff’s news###paper Kesari had used language which was likely to produce such a result. The witness denied it. He added that the newspaper was not even printed in the language spoken by the people where the murders were done and his newspaper did not circulate in that part of India.
L^;Sir Edward Carson read further extracts with a view to show that the witness’s newspaper encouraged the use of the bomb to bring about alterations in the system and administration of Government. The witness denied the inference. ;i
TILAK — V — CHIROL 281
t<
The Times of India has said that your newspaper ibrought about the murder of Mr. Rand." Hadn’t it ?’*— ’ Yes ‘.
‘* Why didn’t you bring action against the news###paper ?" — ’ I went to Bombay for the purpose but I was arrested on the same day, so I couldn’t do anything ‘.
" Why did you not take proceedings when you came out of prison ?" — * I did and received an apology from the paper ‘.
Sir Edward Carson read from a leading article in the Kesari dated June 21st, 1908, on which he relied partly to establish the plea of justification and asked the witness whether the article did not encourage the use of bombs. The witness denied this and said that the article merely pointed to the inevitable result of mis###government. On Sir Edward Carson reading further extracts, the witness denied that these passages con###tained any incitement. He said that he was explain###ing the conditions under which bomb outrages were likely to occur. He was simply setting forth the se###sequence of events and warning both the bomb-throw###ers and the officials of the danger of the situation. In course of his rephes the witess illustrated his point by mentioning the situation in Ulster.
" Ulster can take care of itself. You won’t gain anything by introducing personal matters." — ’ It is no more a personal matter than the case of Russia is ‘.
At a later stage replying to His Lordship the witness said there were some 200 races including castes in India professing five different religions. He did not want any one race or religion to be dominant. He wanted a democracy for all.
282 LOKAMANYA TILAK
His Lordship : — " Supposing there was an oppressed minority under Swaraj, would they be right in throwing bombs V* — * No man has a right to throw bombs \
‘* Was it your opinion that it was the oppression of the administration of Mr. Rand during the Plague in Poona that led to his murder?" — ‘I think that the measures adopted and their harshness led to the mur###der ‘.
" Did you say in your newspaper that in the search of the houses, great tyranny was practised by the sol###diers ?"— ’ I did \
" Did you say that they entered the temple,s brought out the women from their houses, broke idols and burnt holy books ?" — *I mentioned these facts. They are facts ‘.
" Was it your opinion that Mr. Rand was more than a tyrant ?" — ■’ I said that his measures were tyranni###cal ‘.
Did you say that he was guilty of callous cruelty T* Yes.
Yet you say that your writings had nothing to do with his murder ?" — ’ The facts, not my doctrines led to the murder ‘.
Later, Sir Edward Carson quoted a passage, which said that death cannot be avoided. He asked the meaning of that. The witness said that it was a quo###tation from a:reUgious book. It meant you are mortal.
Mr. Justice Darling : — " What was the best thing Shivaji ever did ?" — ’ He founded the Hindu Empire \
" Did he do it by kiUing Afzulkhan ?"— * That was one of the acts ‘.
** Could he have done it without ?" — ’ I can’t say
t€
((
TILAK — V — CHIROL 28$
that. Supposing we have a festival of Cromwell here, that does not mean we go on killing kings of England ‘.
Turning to the report of a speech delivered by Mr. Tilak at the Shivaji festival in 1897, Sir Edward Carson, asked the witness what he meant by saying that great men are above the common principles of morality. The witness said that every day morality could not be ap###plied to the superman.
*’ Do you apply that doctrine to the Kaiser ?" — ’ No. He was moved by an ambition to rule the whole world, which was wrong ‘.
Asked to explain why an article in the form of an ex###hortation by Shivaji, had the Bhavani sword-mark ap###pended to it, the witness said Shivaji could not write and was accustomed to make his mark in the form of a sword.
His Lordship : — " It appears to have been his trade###mark."
In reply to a question from Sir Edward Carson wit###ness said that he advocated in his paper that children should be taught Swadeshi ‘.
" Did you advocate that children should bum every###thing ?" — ’ There was a bonfire and I said " You had better commence your vow by sacrificing something "
" Was this to promote Anti-British feeling ?" — ’ No "
Mr. Justice Darling : — " Were the things burnt, things which you could have produced in India?" — ’ Yes, they were produced on a large scale ‘.
" Did you do this to promote home industries ?’* ’ Yes, a kind of protection for home industries ‘.
" Was there anything political in it ?" — ’ Not until 1905*.
384 LOKAMANYA TILAK
*’ Why was it made political ?" — ’ To bring pressure <}n the British Government ‘.
Sir Edward Carson then referred to education in Swadeshi and the witness said that the Governor-Gene###ral declared on June 14th, 19 10, that one of the Schools was an unlawful institution.
’ Was that kept by a friend of yours ?’ — * An ac###quaintance ‘.
" Was that man convicted afterwards ?" — * Yes, of sedition ‘.
“Is he still a friend of yours ?” — ’ He is still an ac###quaintance ‘.
" Most of your friends seem to have been convicted " ■ — * No ; there are still some, who have not been ‘.
Sir Edward Carson then referred to the murder of Mr. Jackson and asked whether some men (whose names quoted) were friends of the witness. Counsel inquired whether one man was still in his employment.
The witness : — ’ I think he is. I don’t know. I am here ‘.
" Don’t be ashamed of him." — * I am not ashamed of him. When members, who have been convicted sit in Parliament, why should I be ashamed ?’ — (Laughter).
In opening the case for the defendants, Sir Edward Carson delivered an address which was conceived in bad taste. *’ A man who had been twice convicted of sedition,~what character had he to vindicate ?" asked Sir Edward Carson. He said that the case must be considered as a whole. The main charges made by Sir V. Chirol against Mr. Tilak referred to the murders of Messrs. Rand and Jackson. If the defendant was right in saying that these were the results of the plaintiff’s
TILAK — V — CHIROL 285
teachings, what became of the rest of the case ? During the Plague at Poona, Mr. Rand had to risk his Ufe daily on behalf of the afiflicted natives. His reward was that he met his death at the hands of an assassin and it was a fair inference that the murder was attributable to Mr. Tilak’s utterances in the Kesari and the Mahratta, He (Mr. Tilak) denounced Mr. Rand as a " sullen, suspicious tyrant “, and even made the horrible accusation that Mr. Rand deUberately segregated people who were not suffering from Plague, in order to keep up the figures. British soldiers, who were risking their hves at is. a day, as volunteer sanitary workers, were held up as inhuman beings who would take advantage of the Plague to commit petty thefts and break idols. The whole tenor of Mr. Tilak’s article could be summarized thus : — " Murder is right in cer###tain circumstances. It can be apologised for. Shivaji was right in murdering Afzulkhan, because Afzulkhan was an oppressor. So long as we don’t murder from selfish motives, we are justified. Have we no Shivaji now ? Murder in such circumstances is no murder.” Is it a wonder that a murder ensued ?
Sir Edward Carson then rapidly touched the remain###ing four libels which, he said were trifles as compared to Tilak’s authorship of the murders of Rand and Jackson.
Sir John Simon in summing up the case said that the question was not whether the plaintiff was a person who, had, time and again, published seditious articles, or whether his strong, violent and unrestrained criticism of Government Officers was justified, nor was it the question whether Mr. Tilak had the friendship of Paranjpye and others. The question was whether Sir
286 LOKAMANYA TILAK
v. Chirol’s book contained matter defamatory to the plaintiff. In dealing with the Rand and Jackson murders, Sir Edward Carson had made some strange omissions. Within a month of Mr. Rand’s murder, Mr. Tilak, who according to Sir V. Chirol was the real author of the murder was prosecuted at Poona, not on any charge connected with the murder, but a charge of sedition, a striking fact, for the authorities had every means of knowing how far Mr. Tilak’s writings were to blame. At that trial the Advocate-General and the Judge, both expressly disclaimed the idea of any connection between the articles and the murder. Secondly in the very month, in which the murder was committed, Lord Sandhurst had confirmed Mr. Tilak’s election to the Legislative Council. Again when asked by Sir Edward Carson if he had ever taken proceedings against the Times of India, Mr. Tilak said he had— much to the discomfiture of the defendant. He took proceedings in Bombay and the Times of India came to the court and not only apologized but did what was very rare in Ubel actions — it went out of its way to give an assurance that the apology was genuine. Regarding the murder of Mr. Jackson, not a single denunciation of Mr. Jackson by Mr. Tilak was produced. The confes###sion of a wretched boy caught after the crime was not the best evidence of the truth of the matters concerned. Regarding the remaining four libels, not a scrap of evi###dence had been given in the case. In conclusion he said that no matters of colour or race or creed or reli###gion should come in the way and that the Jury should give Mr. Tilak unfailing justice even if the heavens should fall. Mr. Justice Darling then summed up the
TILAK — V — CHIROL 287
case. He said that it was urged that Mr. Tilak was guilty only of sedition, but what was worse than sedi###tion but its bedfellow, high treason? How long a step was it from articles " seething with sedition " to the overt act which was necessary to constitute high treason ? Dealing with the murder of Mr. Rand, His Lordship said Mr. Tilak reminded him of the story in ^sop of the enemy trumpeter who begged the soldier to spare him on the ground that he was a non-combatant. The soldier refused on the ground that without the trum###peter’s summons the enemy soldiers would not have advanced. Turning to the case of Mr. Jackson His Lordship said that it was true that he (Mr. Tilak) had not singled out Mr. Jackson as he had singled out Mr. Rand for denunciation, but it was enough that he had created the atmosphere for the crime by stirring up hatred of officials generally. Was it unjust to say that he was the real author of the crime just as Fagin was the real author of the crimes committed by his pupils ? Concluding His Lordship said that he did not think that he had ever tried a more serious case having re###gard to its possible public consequences. He would not submit the alleged libel to the Jury in snippets but as a whole, as it has been pleaded. If they found that in any part of it, the defendants had failed to make good their plea of justification, they could find for the plaintiff and award damages accordingly.
The Jury retired at 5-50P.M. (February 21st 1919, the eleventh day of the proceedings) and after a deUbera###tion of 25 minutes returned a verdict for the defendants. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs.
As one distinguished writer said ** No Indian in Bri-
288 LOKAMANYA TILAK
tain was more surprised at the verdict of the jury thatt Mr. Tilak himself !" With his inborn faith in British Justice and in the truth and righteousness of his cause, he had hoped — a hope supported by the best legal advice available — to prove to the British Democracy how the lofty, lawabiding patriotism of the Nationalist Party had been grossly perverted to mean an illicit and unholy alUance with the terrorist and the anarchist. Standing on the crest of this victory he had hoped to###explain to the British Democracy the tenets of the ad###vanced political party in India. All these hopes were dashed to the ground. It was not for nothing that Sir Valentine had declared through his Counsel that he ** could have avoided the whole of this litigation by an apology and by a subscription to the Indian Wax ReUef Fund, but, in the interests of the Empire he felt that, to make an apology under the circumstances of this case or to withdraw or retract what he had deli###berately stated and published would have been a dis###aster of the very gravest kind as regards the Govern###ment of India/’ The Morning Post, might ridicule Mr. Tilak for his " singular lack of humour " in setting out to prove " the t3Tanny of a nation by pursuing one of its own members through its own courts." Mr. Tilak *s opponents have stigmatised this as " incon###ceivable folly " and even some of his friends have called it a * blunder *. It is easy to be wise after the event. Mr. Tilak never required his character to be " whitewashed " so far as Indians were concerned. It was to cure the British Democracy of the " slow and persistent poison " which had been at work against his political party, that he dared mortgage all
fILAK— V — CHIROL 289
his estate and in the evening of his life, with tremen###dous odds manifestly against him, fight with an op###ponent basking in the sunshine of the Imperial Govern###ment. Even this * blunder ’ was creditable to him, in that it showed his unflinching faith in the British Jus###tice ; and it is doubtful whether the victory of Sir Valentine Chirol has really helped the Government when this victory has been followed by the loss of faith in British Justice, in the minds of thousands and thou###sands of Indians, whose confidence in the truth and justice of Mr. Tilak’s cause was instinctive. When the greatest Indian of the century was described before the highest Judicial Tribunal of the Empire as one whose reputation was not worth the smallest coin in existence, when every kind of abusive epithet was hurled at his devoted head with a levity truly disgusting, need we wonder if people commenced to believe that even Bri###tish Justice is capricious and uncertain ? Mr. Tilak’s financial embarrassments — amounting to nearly three lakhs of rupees — were, within a few weeks removed by the love and loyalty of his friends and followers, but the rude shock which India’s faith in the “British Justice*’ has received, does not angur well for the future.
19