The "Mirror" and Mr. Tilak

                THE Indian Mirror, which is now the chief ally of Government among the Congress organs in Bengal, has chosen, naturally enough, to fall foul of Mr. Tilak. Our contemporary, it appears, has heard that some people propose to put forward Mr. Tilak's name as President of the next Congress, and it hastens to point out how extremely distasteful the idea is to all thoughtful and enlightened men, that is to say, to all whose views agree with the Mirror's. Mr. Tilak, we learn, has seriously offended our contemporary by giving honour to Mr. Bhopatkar on his release from jail; his speeches on the occasion of the Shivaji festival were displeasing to the thoughtful and enlightened men who congregate in the office of the Indian Mirror; and to sum up the whole matter, he is a man of extreme views and without "tact". Ergo, he is no fit man for the presidential chair of the Congress.

            It is interesting to learn on this unimpeachable authority what are the qualifications which the moderate and loyalist mind demands in a President of the "National" Congress. It is not, apparently, the acknowledged leader of one of the greatest Indian races who can aspire to that post; it is a man of "tact" — one, in other words, who does not like to offend the authorities. It is not the great protagonist and champion of Swadeshi in Western India; it is a man of moderate views, one, let us say, who dare not look Truth in the face and speak out boldly what he thinks. It is not the one man whom the whole Hindu community in Western India delights to honour, from Peshawar to Kolhapur and from Bombay to our own borders; it is one who will not talk about Shivaji and Bhavani — only about Mahatmas. It is not the man who has suffered and denied himself for his country's sake and never abased his courage nor bowed his head under the most crushing persecution; it is one who by refusing to honour a similar courage in others, dishonours the country for which they have suffered.

Page-140

If this is the creed of our contemporary and those whose opinions it "mirrors", it is not the creed of the country at large. With the exception of a fast-dwindling minority of Anglophiles, the whole of India has learned to honour the name of the great Maratha leader and patriot. His social and religious views may not agree with those of the "enlightened", but we have yet to learn that the Congress platform is sacred to advanced social reformers, that the profession of the Hindu religion is a bar to leadership in its ranks. Mr. Tilak's only other offence is the courage and boldness of his views and his sturdiness in holding by them. He has dared to go to jail and honour those who follow his example, — the bold bad man! And yet we seem to have somehow or other a dim recollection of a venerable Congress leader named Babu Narendra Nath Sen figuring prominently at a meeting in which men and boys who had gone to jail for resisting the Government were honoured and saluted as national heroes. Evidently we have been under an error. Evidently our contemporary is at heart a favourer of the doctrine of self-help and action. It is talking and writing against the Government that he condemns, but to act against the Government, rebellion against constituted authorities has Babu Narendra Nath's full approval. Wearing the outward guise of a loyalist, he is at heart revolutionary. Otherwise would he have presided at the 7th of August celebration and countenanced the raising of the National flag? Now, at last, we understand the policy of the Mirror.

Whether loyalism likes it or not, Mr. Tilak is now the leader of the Deccan, a man whom twenty millions look up to as their chief and head. If Mr. Mehta is the "uncrowned King" of Bombay City, Mr. Tilak is the uncrowned King of all Maharashtra. The attempt to exclude such a man from his rightful place and influence in the counsels of the nation can only recoil on its authors.

 Leaders in Council

                                     The conference held in the Land-holders Association on Sunday

Page-141

seems to have been very select in its composition, the organisers confining themselves mostly to staunch congress-men or those who might be supposed to hold fast by Congress views. It must have been a disagreeable surprise to them to find that even in this small circle a strong opposition was offered to the renewal of a petitioning policy. Babu Motilal Ghose could not be excluded and the views of this veteran leader on the question of action versus resolution are well known. But Babu Motilal was backed up by strong voices from the Mofussil and we understand that it was only by the old plea of its being the very last time that the conference was persuaded to agree to something in the shape of a memorial. We know that "last time" well. It was the very last time on the occasion of the Town Hall; it was the very last time at Barisal; and now again this long-lived old friend of ours crops up like the clown of the pantomime with his eternal smirk and his eternal "Here I am". Our leaders resemble English theatrical managers, when their audiences grow small. They declare that today is the last night of the piece; next day it becomes the very last night; then it is absolutely the last night, and so on till it is absolutely quite the very very last, last night of all. Meanwhile audiences increase and the shillings pour in.

Bande Mataram, August 28, 1906

BY THE WAY

Diogenes in the Statesman indulges himself in a paragraph of grave advice to the 'self-constituted' leaders of the Indian labour movement. For a philosopher, our friend takes singularly little trouble to understand the opponents' case. Neither Mr. A. K. Ghose nor Mr. Aswini Banerji nor any of their assistants proposes, so far as we know, to benefit labour by getting rid of English capital. What they do propose is to get rid of the exceedingly unjust conditions under which Indian labour has to sweat in order to enrich alien capitalists. And by the way, as it were, they also propose to get rid of the habit of coarse insult and brutal

Page-142

speech which Englishmen have accustomed themselves to indulge in when dealing with 'low-class' Indians.

            Are the leaders of Indian labour self-constituted? One would imagine that men whom Indian workers naturally turn to in difficulty and who can organise in a few weeks so large an affair as the Railway Union have vindicated their claims to be the national leaders of Labour. At any rate, their constituents have very enthusiastically ratified their 'self-constituted' authority. But perhaps Diogenes has been converted from cynicism to Vedanta, and sees no difference between the self of the railway employees and the self of Mr. A. K. Ghose. Still, the tub from which he holds forth is a small one, and he should not cumber one-sixth of his space with such cumber.

            The rift between the Labourites and the Liberals grows daily wider. The alliance was never natural and cannot in its nature be permanent. But official Liberaldom will be foolish indeed if it declares war on Labour at the present juncture. The Socialistic element in England is quite strong enough to turn the Liberal triumph of 1905 into a serious disaster at the next elections. Nor are the Labourites likely to be frightened by Ministerial menaces. Mr. Winston Churchill and the Master of Elibank may thunder from their high official Olympus, but Mr. Keir Hardie will go on his way unscathed and unmoved. He knows that the future is with Socialism and he can afford to despise the temporary and imperfect fruits which a Liberal alliance promises.

            For us English politics have small personal interest. From the Conservatives we can expect nothing but open oppression, from the Liberals, nothing but insincere professions and fraudulent concessions, — shadows calling themselves substance. Can we hope better things from Labour? Many whose judgment we respect think that there is a real ally — that the friendship of Labour for India is sincere and disinterested. For the present, yes. But when Labour becomes a power and sits on front benches we fear that it will be as intolerant and oppressive as Conservatism itself. Australia is a Labour Commonwealth, and we know the attitude of the Australian working-man to Indians and Asiatics generally. India 's hope lies not in English Liberalism or

Page-143

Labour, but in her own strong heart and giant limbs. Titaness, who by thy mere attempt to rise can burst these Lilliputian bonds, why shouldst thou clamour feebly for help to these pigmies over the seas?

Bande Mataram, August 30, 1906

Page-144