Nor can we consistently hold Tilak up to a charge of apostasy in matters of social reform, when we remember that he considered the infusing of a manly spirit in the people as the culture-ground of all social progress, and he viewed with alarm the swamping of political enthusiasm by a mere agitation for arti ficially stimulated reform. He has, rightly or wrongly, been always opposed to playing into the hands of officialdom, and he therefore stongly we presume still feels—that all healthy and vigorous reform must be spontaneous, and be the direct expression of political emancipation. Some of his best friends call him narrow, orthodox, and we are by no means convinced of his progressive tendencies in the past, in religious and social matters. But what we have said above, will very probably be the substance of Tilak's reply to those who enter a caveat against him on the above grounds. Besides his shrewd instincts must have prompted him to take the largest possible audiences with him in political matters, and it is the merest commonplace to remind our readers that popular—and shall we say ? —ambitious leaders must understand the psy chology of their adherents and exploit flamboyant catchwords that would ensure success and swell the numbers of followers. For is it not true that highly cultivated, heterodox leaders, controlled in their expression and sober in their judgments, have at best a limited scope in any country, leave alone highly conservative countries where politicians have an up hill task, because of the comparative absence, among the masses, of those political conceptions and ambitions of which leaders may make much patriotic capital ? Are leaders to suspend political action till the masses have been educated and politically trained ? But that consummation may only be hastened by strenuous political demands. And those demands will only prevail, when the authorities feel that the masses do, in some measure, back them up. Those who are prone to condemn Tilak because of his organising celebrations of Sivaji's birthday, may well bear in mind, that in countries where political training of the people is almost neglected, some such expedient may be necessary to arouse the illiterate masses to vigorous political action. Besides, an endeavour to keep the memories of a historic past green, is only natural. And we admire patriotism and national fervour in other countries. We naturally do not take much account of those countries where people despise their national heritage. We call them decadent, unprogressive and traitrous. Why should we, then, condemn the spirit of national self-consciousness in India, if its inevitable con comitants are a revival of pride in the past which can serve as a guide in future activities, simply because of her political antecedents ? We quite appreciate that the Government must also feel, in these matters, a serious sense of re sponsibility. And it is for them to direct this national enthusiasm, by providing legitimate outlets for it, instead of striving to suppress it.
But to continue. The appointment in 1890, of Mr. G. K. Gokhale as Secretary of the Sarvajanik Society severed Tilak's last link with old friends. The organisation was later recaptured by Tilak, but the Government considered his views as rather intemperate and inconvenient. And the result was that short and curt replies were sent by Government departments, and on Tilak's continuance of his bold, if sometimes irresponsible criticisms, the organisation was suppressed altogether. The only silver-lining to these sombre clouds, was K. C. Kelkar's unflinching loyalty to Tilak in all his journalistic enterprises.
During the famine of 1896, he rendered yeoman's service to the country, opening cheap grain shops for the famine-stricken. His papers demanded that the
provisions of the Famine Code be generously applied, and offered suggestions to the Government which if accepted, would certainly have diminished the volume of distress. When a virulent epidemic of plague broke out in the Bombay presidency, he offered to visit the homes of the people as a volunteer in the company of Government Inspectors and risked his life, more than once by offering to stay with the plague-stricken, and during times when his " Social reform " opponents fled away in sheer panic, Tilak offered his services unreservedly to the government and the people.
On the 22nd June, 1897, Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst were murdered by some unknown assassin in Poona. On the 26th July, the Government gave sanction to prosecute Mr. Tilak, as if his propaganda were indirectly responsible for this outburst of fanaticism. Tilak was sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment, and denied even the right of appeal, by Mr. Justice Strachey. But some time later, Mr. H. H. Asquith—now the Right Honourable Mr. Asquith, late Premier of Great Britain—pleaded misdirection of the Jury, while defending Tilak before the Lord Chancellor, in London. Nothing came of the appeal. Soon after, Professor Max Muller and others presented a powerful peti tion to Queen Victoria, imploring her to grant reprieve to the distinguished scholar. Tilak was, accordingly, released on the 6th of September, 1898.
In 1908, we again find him awaiting his trial before Mr. Justice Davar, his advocate in the previous case. He was charged with " sedition, " the implications of that rather comprehensive word not being made clear, and the various charges being as vague as vague could be. Certainly, no disturbances had taken place in Poona, as the sequel to his articles or speeches, nor were the passages specified to which exception was taken.
After a long trial, throughout which Mr. Tilak conducted his own case with ability and with a re markable legal acumen, the sentence of six years' imprisonment with hard labour was delivered by Mr. Justice Davar, the Parsee gentleman who, during his previous trial, was Tilak's advocate. But wiser counsels prevailed with the Government, who recognised the ultra-severity of hard labour in a political offence, and commuted it to six years' simple imprisonment. Tilak's final statement to the jury after they pronounced their verdict of " guilty " has already become part of Indian history.
Seven days' riots took place after the imprison ment of Tilak, and Lord Sydenham realised for the first time the amount of Tilak's influence in the presidency, after resort to severe measures adopted to suppress the riots.
When, however, on the expiry of this long term of imprisonment Tilak came out, there was great rejoicing throughout India. Instead of this crush ing sentence—during whose currency he lost his affectionate and devoted wife—bringing about the " downfall of Tilak "—as Chirol inaptly puts it it actually helped his uprise in Indian esteem ; and to-day Tilak is, beyond doubt, the " uncrowned king " of political India. He is the stormy petrel of the Indian revolutionary spirit ; not the spirit of rebellion that is based on hatred of the British con nection, but the wholesome spirit of revolt against the strait-jacket of bureaucracy, the spirit which demands neither more nor less than a really autonomous India within the Empire. And even those of us that deeply regret his occasional outbursts of injudicious utterance, find that in him India has a pillar of strength that can stand four-square to the winds of controversy and persecution.