Tilak-Agarkar
Debate: Ideologies of Social Reforms in 19th Century Maharashtra
Its
Relevance and Irrelevance
Ravi Khangai, Assistant Professor, Department of
History, RTM Nagpur University
ravikhangai@gmail.com
Laxman
D. Satya, Professor, Department of History, Lock Haven University of
Pennsylvania, USA
lsatya@lockhaven.edu
Abstract-
The social reforms that started in India in the 19th century, threw
up many interesting debates. The Indian intelligentsia reacted differently to
the rapidly changing time under colonial subjection. The debate between Tilak
(1856-1920) and Agarkar (1856-1895) gives us a fairly good understanding of the
social and intellectual churning that went on in western Maharashtra,
especially among the elites of society. This article explores the finer points
of the debate in the context of colonial political atmosphere that also produced
the anti-colonial nationalist movement in the late 19th century. But how
relevant was this debate for the vast majority of women in India?
Key
words: Kesari, Maratha, Tradition vs Modernity, Sudharak,
Rukhmabai, Age of Consent Bill, Swarajya,
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tilak and Agarkar were
close associates in their younger days. Born into the brahmanical class, they
both studied together in Pune. In those days, western education was a means to
acquire a job in the British colonial bureaucracy, albeit at a lower level. But Tilak and Agarkar vowed not to work for
the British government in India in any capacity. Instead, they decided to
dedicate their lives to nation building. One way to do this was through
education and raising public awareness through press. Hence, along with another
elite Brahman, Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, they started a ‘New English High
School’ and two newspapers Kesari in Marathi and Maratha in
English in 1881. Agarkar became the
editor of Kesari and Tilak that of Maratha. Though working together, Tilak and
Agarkar had different bent of mind. (Karandikar: 1957:123) Tilak’s father was a
teacher of Sanskrit, and he himself had considerable mastery over it. Along with formidable Sanskrit, he acquired
considerable mastery over the Hindu scriptures. This inculcated in him, some degree of pride
in Hindu Brahmanical tradition. He felt strongly about the political domination
of India by an alien power and was among the pioneer to publicly express strong
views against it. He objected to any British interference in reforming Hindu
society. He took a position that Indian society should be reformed by Indians
themselves, and not by an alien power. He maintained, that though politically
defeated, the Hindus have superior tradition, and this gave them an independent
identity under British imperial domination. Tilak personified this identity and
associated it with the bigger concept of Swarajiya. His painstaking efforts in
organizing people through popular Ganesh Puja and Shivaji Jayanti are well
known. (Ramgopal 1965: 82-93) This is an example of what Partha Chatterjee has called,
the ‘inner domain of sovereignty’ whereby, anti-colonial nationalism creates an
independent space within the colonial society to organize and launch its
struggle against imperial domination. (Chatterjee 2010: Ch. 1).
Agarkar on the other
hand, was influenced by western intellectual tradition. His sarcastic criticism
of Hinduism reflects Gibbon’s comments on Christianity in his, ‘The History of the Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire.’ (Ganachari 2016: 99). Agarkar was also impressed by the democratic
tradition of the west and had no hesitation in taking help from the British
administration in introducing reforms in India. Fired by the patriotism, they
both managed to work together in spite of the attitudinal differences and also faced imprisonment
together in British jails.
Appearance
of crack
The differences between them started
surfacing at the functioning of the New English High School, which they were
running with great enthusiasm. Agarkar requested a
salary raise in the meeting, but Tilak opposed it. (Keer 2015:49) Tilak was relatively
affluent, and Agarakar was mostly dependent on the salary. Tilak accused
Agarkar of deviating from the noble mission. Agarkar reacted by calling Tilak ‘obstinate’
in claiming a moral high ground.(Ganachari 2016: 53) Tilak did not like Agarkar’s sarcasm of Hinduism in Kesari. Agarkar on the other hand was uneasy with Tilak’s aggressive criticism of
British government and some prominent people like Ranade. (Bedekar 2002: 10) These
differences finally led to Agarkar resigning from the Kesari and starting his newspaper Sudharak in 1887. Now it
was an open war of words between the two with Sudharak on the one hand
and Kesari and Maratha on the other. (Vidwans 1966: 240-247)
Tradition
Vs Modernity
Tilak believed that the
masses in India have lost their self-confidence under the oppressive British colonial
rule. The need of the hour therefore is to unite and work towards taking
political power from the alien hands. At a time when the anti-colonial
political mobilization was underway, social reforms will shift the focus from
the main goal of national liberation. Accordingly, divided opinions about
social reforms would only suit British machination to further divide the Hindu
society. Tilak argued further, that the Indian
masses are attached to their age-old traditions. Its violent criticism will lead
to Tejobhanga, i.e. loss of spirit.
‘Sudharak’ of Agarkar became
the mouthpiece of those, who were in favor of prioritizing social reforms. They
took a general stand that before asking for democratic form of government in
the public sphere, there should be democracy within the house. If we treat our
women as slaves and have oppressive caste hierarchy, we have no right to ask
for equality. (Ganachari 2016: 141). This aspect was exposed in great detail by
Tarabai Sindhe in her trenchant critique of Hindu patriarchy. (Guha 2010: 129-139).
Tilak on the other hand, rejected the assumption
of Indian women being treated as slaves. (Joshi 2009: 3) As stated earlier, he
accepted the need for social reforms, but maintained that it should come from
within and not superimposed by the alien government. Tilak also claimed that
the British are deliberately pointing out the shortcomings of Hindu society to
justify their imperial domination. He accused the Sudharak that, by
aggressively criticizing Hindu tradition, they were playing into the hands of
the British. Some of the supporters of Sudharak like Ranade, were in
fact in the British service. Pointing this out, Tilak claimed that such people
will not state anything that will antagonize their colonial masters. He was of
the opinion that if the British are allowed to interfere in social matters, very
soon they will also start interfering in other things, such as ritual observances
and practices. Hence, this encouragement of social reformers by the British is
a deliberate plan to divert the attention of Indian people from core political issues
raised by the national movement. Sudharak’s unwillingness to understand this,
caused Tilak a great deal of anguish.
Tilak and Agarkar both focused primarily on urban society. Vast majority
of the non-Hindu and rural women remained outside the purview of the
Tilak-Agarkar debate. This also applies to their views on social reforms in
general. Hence, their approach remained restricted and marginal, and could not
really go deeper into the Indian social system.
Tilak repeatedly stated that, he is not against social reforms per se.
But it should not be a top priority of the Indian struggle. When Sudharak took up a stand against the
tonsuring of Brahmin widows, Tilak reacted by stating that stopping the
practice is not going to have any substantial effect on Indian society. (Joshi
2009: 12) Agarkar on the other hand was deeply concerned about women’s issues.
As a child, he had seen the suffering of his two widowed aunts. Apart from that, his thoughts were also
influenced by J.S. Mill’s ‘Subjection of Women,’ which states that the standard
of a given society is indicated by the position of women. (Ganachari 2016: 185).
Tilak was more focused
on the use of political power to undertake social reforms. He maintained that,
so long as political power was in the hands of alien rulers, no serious reforms
can be undertaken. Therefore, priority should be given to acquiring political
power, and social reforms would come gradually.
He gave an example of Parshuram Bahu Patwardhan, the Brahmin ruler of small
principalities, who tried to arrange the marriage of his widowed daughter and sought
scriptural support for it. However, he was dissuaded by the orthodox Brahmins.
And Parshuram Bhau was unable to get his widowed daughter married. ((Joshi
2009: 7) Here, the weakness of Tilak’s approach was exposed.
Agarkar on the other
had tried to rationalize that social reforms can be best achieved under British
rule, as the white colonial masters were immune from public opinion. If the rulers
are indigenous, they will only initiate those reforms which will support their
power structure. (Ganachari 2016: 176)
A case of Rukhmabai in 1886 proved the
difference of opinion between them. Rukhmabai was married at a very young age.
But after attaining maturity, she refused to accept the marriage as it was done
without her consent. The case went to court. Tilak supported the right of
husband over her, and Agarkar and Ranade stood beside Rukhmabai. The high court
finally ruled in favor of the husband. (Keer 2015:45)
In order to prove their
point, sometimes both the parties lost decorum.
Pointing out the weakness of twenty-five crore Indians, who are ruled by one
lac Europeans, Agarkar called the natives as ‘Shudra Jantu,’ i.e. an
insignificant insects. (Pradhan 2013: 215) No wonder Tilak, being proud of the
Indian heritage, reacted sharply.
Age
of Consent Bill, 1891
Marriages of young girls
were common practice in those days. The young girls were very often at high
risk of early pregnancy and sometimes even death. There was demand from certain
sections of progressive Indians to enact a law to prevent this. In 1889 a ten-year
girl named Phulmoni Dasi died due to a brutal rape by her thirty-five years old
husband Hari Mohan Maitee in Bengal Province. (Pande 2013) As he was married to her, rape charges could
not be proved. But he was found guilty of causing death due to negligence. This
episode was a catalyst that led to the enactment of the law called ‘Age of
Consent Act of 1891’ by the Governor-General and his council. It made sexual
intercourse with a girl less than twelve years of age, a criminal offence.
Sudharakas
welcomed this initiative. But Tilak, characteristic of his dislike for the
British intervention in socio-religious matters, opposed the legislation. It is
surprising that he was not moved by the death of an eleven-year old girl. Was
he insensitive towards the unspeakable sufferings of the young girls who were
married to grown up men? Did he personify the orthodox Brahmanical patriarchal
attitude of treating women as less than human beings? Are women expected to suffer, and if necessary,
die without whimper to uphold the tradition that is determined by patriarchy? Tilak
was present in the Calcutta session of Indian National Congress in 1890. (Keer
2015:45) Had he not heard about
the Phulmoni’s case which happened just a year back in Bengal? Was the matter
discussed among the congress delegates? Was the congress leadership so
insensitive to women’s plight? All these questions remained unanswered.
Marriage for a Hindu,
is considered a sacred act. Hence, it was easier for Tilak to mobilize public
support against the legislation. It is
stated that many women were also opposed to the ‘Age of Consent Act’. Gayatri
Spivak in her essay, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ narrates that the women became
so psychologically imprisoned by the patriarchal narrative/indoctrination that,
they also adopt the language that suits patriarchy. (1988: 271-313) The hegemony
makes women the victim of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, where the prisoners of the
system start loving their own tormenters as they see no escape from the shackle.
This can also be described as a situation of ‘hegemony with consent,’ from
Gramci’s perspective. (Adamson 2014: Ch. 6)
Though Tilak opposed
the legislation, he educated his daughter and arranged her marriages at the age
of fifteen. (Kelkar 2001:201) Thus by action, he showed that he is not opposed
to social reforms as such. He only emphasized that it has to come gradually,
and also, from within the society.
Who
is the People’s Leader?
If we look at the
relative support that these two different groups received, we have evidence to
suggest that Tilak understood the pulse of the masses better than Sudharaks.
His support base suggests that the people in general were more receptive to
prioritizing national liberation/Swaraj over social reforms. His strong
criticism of Sudharaks made them so unpopular in Pune that people took
out funeral procession of the effigy of Sudharak, from in front Agarkar’s
residence and burnt it. (Ganachari 2016: 156)
Tilak deliberately stated what appealed
to the people. He confessed to his daughter that he approved of the reforms Sudharaks
wanted to initiate, but couldn’t say it in public, for the fear of losing
popular support. (Keer 2015:72) Was he a
clever politician? Should a true leader not state what he sincerely believed to
be good for the society, even if it meant erosion of popularity? Or should he
understand the pulse of the masses and state only those things that appeal to
people? Or try to maintain a balance between two extremities? Tilak believed
that if he plunged into reforming the society, he would not be able to arouse
the masses against colonial domination, which was his main mission. As he
boldly stated, “Swarjya is my birthright and I shall have it.”
Turning things around, Agarkar
accused Tilak of addiction to popularity even though agreeing with social
reforms in his private thoughts. (Bedekar 2002: 58) Agarkar-Tilak debate
sometimes degenerated into personal attacks. For example, when Tilak had tea
and biscuits in a Christian mission, it was highlighted by Agarkar in the
newspaper with the intention to project Tilak as a hypocrite who claims to be a
leader of the traditional Hindus and have no hesitation in accepting the food
from the missionaries. Later he also accused Tilak of eating rice from the
hands of a Muslim. Enraged Tilak was preparing to file a case against this
defamation, but with the intervention of Ranade, the matter was settled.
(Kelkar 2001: 214-215) Nevertheless, when Pandita Ramabai launched a lifelong
struggle against Hindu caste system and brahmanical patriarchy and eventually
converted to Christianity to emancipate herself, every one of the nationalist
and social reformers turned against her. She was completely marginalized and
even erased from the collective consciousness. (Aisha Khan 2018, Chakravarti 1989)
Obstinacy of Tilak is
obviously well known. Once he decided on a position, he did not budge from it. He
displayed remarkable capacity for work. Nevertheless, he lacked the modesty to consider
anyone else as his equal. (Kheer 2015: 49) Often time, his stubbornness proved
to be resolute. On the issue of having tea and biscuits with the missionaries, he
faced social ostracism bravely and refused to submit to extreme orthodoxy. Ranade
a well-known Sudharak, also had tea in the Christian mission, but
submitted to the dictates of religious orthodoxy by undertaking Pryascitta
(penance) ordered by Shankaracharya. (Kelkar 2001: 74)
So, the difference in
social attitude and political outlook was stark. A popular Marathi proverb, “moden pan vaknar nahi” (I will break but will not bend),
probably suits Tilak, because in his zeal for ‘Swaraj’, he could not
overcome the prejudices and practices of the caste system.
However, it seems that these obstinate, uncompromising traces of his
personality added some masculine, rustic charm and appealed to people, who were
looking for a ‘strong’ leader who has the courage to stand against the might of
the British empire.
While criticizing
Tilak, the ‘Sudharaks’ also did not follow in their personal life what
they preached in public. Ranade’s submitting to Shankarcharaya is already
mentioned above. He was one of the leading luminaries of the movement for
widow’s remarriage. But on the death of his first wife, he married a child
bride instead of a widow. Telang, though opposed the child marriage, got his own
daughter married at the age of eight. (Bedekar 2002: 11) Agarkar did not object
to these discrepancies in thought and practice. Tilak did not miss any
opportunity to point out this double standard of Sudharaks and called
them ‘Sign boards’ who show way to others, but they themselves do not traverse
on it. Ideological differences blended with ego and turned the situation
between these two stalwarts into long drawn conflicts.
Visible contradictions in the practice
and preaching of both Tilak and Agarkar made them both relevant and irrelevant
during their times and beyond.
It seems that Agarkar
came around to the opinion of Tilak in the later stages of his life. In an article written three years before his
death, Agarkar also accepted that political reforms should be given priority
over the social. (Bedekar 2002: 13) But his dislike for Tilak did not subside. In
his last days, Agarkar was bed ridden. Tilak visited him. According to C.G.
Devdhar, a close associate of Agarakar, the latter was not very comfortable
with Tilak’s visit and wished him to go away. But according to a version
provided by Agarkar’s wife Yashodabai, Agarkar was relieved that the bitterness
between him and Tilak is resolved before he finally shut his eyes. (Bedekar
2002: 14)
Agarkar appears to be a
rather lonely figure, who lived a life of poverty. As he departed from Tilak, the
latter’s popularity graph soared. Ranade became a judge and went to Bombay.
Gokhale also became well known. It was only Agarkar, who appears to be lonely
and led a life of deprivation. It is said that after his death, a small amount
of money was found in his home tied in a paper, on which it was mentioned that
this money is kept for his funeral. (Bedekar 2002: 12) Agarkar’s life appears
to be like a lonely mountain, who had burned his own trees and deprived himself
of shed. Agarkar’s wife who says that her husband had never thought about
himself, but about others. But sadly, his work was not valued in his lifetime.
(Bedekar 2002: 16)
Vishram Bedekar’s drama
‘Tilak ani Agarkar’ is a very well researched piece of creative writing.
The concluding scene of this drama portrays Agarakar’s death, where Tilak is
present. We hear a cry of a newly born girl in the background and Tilak says, “The
girls born in the Maharashtra do not have to cry so much now, because Agarkar
was born here.” (Bedekar 2002: 98)
Conclusion
Looked at from one
angle, the Tilak-Agarkar debate depicts the coming of age of Indian nationalism
and also the confidence to tackle social issues independently, and mobilize the
masses against British colonial rule. But from a critical angle, this debate
was not really relevant for the vast majority of rural and working women of the
Hindu community. It also did not do anything for the Tribals. It completely ignored and
alienated non-Hindus, i.e., Muslims, Christians, tribal communities and
others. They formed a substantial proportion
of the population in the country. So, the debate scratched only the very thin
surface of Indian society and did not go deep enough to usher in any radical
change or social reform. Most importantly, the issue of violence against women
was not even addressed. The debate took place within the elite upper caste Hindu
social framework. It never challenged the oppressive social system that was
presided over by an equally oppressive British colonial rule. The British
colonialist, nationalists, and social reformers would try to address women’s
issues without actually involving the women themselves in their own
emancipation. (Chakravarti 1989) While Tilak and Agarkar debated endlessly on what
should come first, national liberation or social reform, Gandhi tried to show
later that both can be undertaken simultaneously.
References
1. Adamson
W. (2014), Hegemony and Revolution: Antonio Gamci’s Political and Cultural
Theory, Echo Point Books & Media, Brattelboro.
2. Bedekar
V. (2002), ‘Tilak ani Agarkar’,
Popular, Mumbai.
3. Chakravarti
U. (1998), Rewriting History: The life and times of Pandita Ramabai, Kali for Women, New Delhi.
4. Chakravarti
U. (1989), ‘Whatever happened to the Vedic Dasi? Orientalism, Nationalism and a Script for the
Past,’ in Kum Kum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, eds., Recasting Women: Essays in
Colonial History, Kali for Women, New Delhi.
5. Chatterjee
P. (2010), Empire and Nation: Selected Essays, Columbia University Press, New
York.
6.
Ganachari A. (2016) Gopal Ganesh
Agarkar, Popular, Mumbai.
7. Guha,
R. (2010), Makers of Modern India, Penguin, New Delhi.
8. Joshi
T.L. (2009) Lokmanya Tilak Lekhsangraha,’ Sahitya Academi. (First Published 1969)
9. Karandikar
S.L. (1957) Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak: The Hercules and Prometheus of
Modern India, S.L. Karandikar published (Poona), M.G. Shirali printed, Bombay.
10. Keer
D. (2015) Lokmanya Tilak, Popular, Mumbai.
11. Kelkar
N.C. (2001), Life and Times of Lokamanya Tilak, Radha Publication, New Delhi.
12. Khan,
A. (2018), Overlooked No More: Pandita Ramabai, Indian Scholar, Feminist and
Educator, The New York Times, November
14.
13. (2013) Phulmoni's body: the autopsy, the inquest and the humanitarian
narrative on child rape in India, South
Asian History and Culture, 4:1, 9-30, DOI: 10.1080/19472498.2012.750453
14. Pradhan
G. P. (2013) , ‘Agarkar Lekhsangrah’, Sahitya Akadami. (First published 1960)
15.
Ram Gopal (1965) Lokamanya Tilak: A Biography, Asia Publishing
House, Bombay.
16. Spivak Gayatri Chakravorty (1988 ) "Can the Subaltern
Speak?" In Marxism and The Interpretation of Culture, eds., Cary Nelson
and Lawrence Grossberg, London: Macmillan.
17. Vidwans
M. D. (1966), Letters of Lokamanya Tilak, Kesari Prakashan, Poona.
No comments:
Post a Comment