BAL GANGADHAR TILAK Gokhale's credit that he successfully applied western methods of study and discussion while facing particular difficulties and suggested a solution of individual problems. It is also to be admitted that he performed skilful and brilliant debating manoeuvres when threshing out Indian questions in the Council Chamber or on the public platform, as emergency arose. It is just as really to Tilak's credit that he has created, through his untold suffer ings and remarkable powers of organisation, a new environment of self-reliance, wherein free and frank discussion is possible, be the problems what they may, and has infused into all political dis cussion that spirit of virility and robust self-respect without which mere academic discussions degenerate into an invertebrate verbosity. Gokhale has, owing mainly to his spirit of sensible compromise, hammered out Indian issues and given them a visible tangible expression. Tilak has called into being the attitude of audacity and adventure, without which the facing of live political issues becomes a hollow mockery. Gokhale may aptly be characterised as the chief guiding spirit of political movements in India, whereas Tilak has fully vindicated his claim to be the soul of Indian politics, in Western India, at the very least. Tilak's fame and influence have travelled far, far beyond his domiciliary limits, and dominate the minds of the rising generation of educated Indians as well as those of the illiterate and inarticulate masses. His adherents are not, by any means, confined to Western India or the Hindu masses. Without Gokhale, who was not a popular hero, political forces could not be wisely controlled ; but without Tilak these will not be generated at all. Gokhale had the dignity and the aloofness of a Cabinet Minister, Tilak has the geniality, the easy accessibility, if also the imperious disposition of the leader of popular movements. Gokhale would exert diplomatic pressure for being given a few concessions if these were obtainable, regarding these temporary expedients as the roadway leading to self-government. Tilak boldly proclaimed that freedom is the coping stone of nationality and that a people " knuckling under " to a repressive bureaucracy has its spiritual unity mutilated and its growth stunted. But to the best of the writer's knowledge Tilak believes in the Imperial economy, and only demands that India should, in the near future, be given autonomy like the sister-nations of the British Commonwealth Thus Tilak begirF, where Gokhale would end ; he thus asks to-day, as India's inherent birthright, what Gokhale believed to be possible after a series of concessions or favours, say twenty-five to fifty years hence, if not longer. It falls beyond the scope of this book to discuss the relative merits of these two different attitudes. reflecting a somewhat different mentality. Suffice it to say that during the present
war, the national idea is being thrust into the fore ground of international recognition, and people are realising that Imperialism is an unpardonable sin, since it involves the submergence, if not the entire suppression of distinct nationalities, to which civilisation and freedom must concede the right to work out their own destinies unfettered by the vested interests of foreign bureaucracies and reactionary military cliques. That being so, we find it rather difficult to see the consistency or even the intelligence of those who would fain accuse Bal Gangadhar Tilak of political anarchism. Granted, that the Indian bureaucracy find in him a most inconvenient customer, with a large and grow ing following, gifted with an unflagging zeal for service, dowered with an amazing capacity for suffer ing, and yet anxious to pursue his intellectual pur suits in his leisure. But vague accusations and sweeping generalisations are no proof. Every one, will, of course, admit that the manner in which he used to express his views, has not always been discreet or conciliatory ; but this is clue not to his anarchist tendencies, but to the strength of his convictions and the corresponding incapacity for tempering the severity of his expressions. Compared to the moderate views of Mr. Gokhale—which, by the way, were just as inconvenient to officialism in India— he may rightly be called an extremist, but since he is not out to subvert British authority in India, the writer quite fails to appreciate the fairness or honesty of those who brand him as an anarchist. If his approval of the boycott resolution and of those passed in favour of National education and Swardj or Home Rule for India at the Surat Congress of 1907, were interpreted as " seditious," then even Mr. Gokhale would fall under the category of seditionists, since he wholeheartedly supported the resolution on boycott of Lancashire goods. The truth of the matter, however, is that the years 1904. to 1912 marked an era of political unsettlement, when India was passing through an acute crisis. Unfortunately, certain things were done, probably in good faith, but in a provocative and irresponsible manner, for example the partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon, which added fuellto the fire of overwrought passions. But when the visit of the king and the announcement of reform's in 1912, provided a safety-valve for the pent-up feelings and the torturing suspense of the people, the excitement slowly subsided, and to-day we find that the keen enthusiasm for independence that arose with the growing sense of confidence is slowly seeking out channels of expression through co-operation with the government, and in working out a scheme of reforms that will lay the foundations of self-government within the Empire.