Was Tilak Really So Great?

 

Was Tilak Really So Great?

— S. M. Mushrif
I.P.S. (Retired)
Former Inspector General of Police

Recently, on 1 August 2026, a grand event was organised in Pune on the occasion of Tilak Jayanti. The 'Lokmanya Tilak National Award,' given every year, was this year presented to the Prime Minister's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval by the hands of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and as always it received widespread publicity.

Since 1983, this award has been given every year to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to the country's progress, development, and national service. Among those who have received this award to date are S. M. Joshi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Shripad Amrit Dange, Sam Pitroda, Manmohan Singh, T. N. Seshan, Pranab Mukherjee, Sudha Murthy, Narendra Modi, and others. The award is presented by some other prominent personality. Every year, without fail, this event is held on Tilak Jayanti and is given wide publicity across Maharashtra and the entire country. Behind this, the main objective appears to be to underscore Tilak's greatness and to permanently etch it in the minds of the public. Then the question arises: holding such a grand event every year, giving an award in his name every year to the country's leading figures, installing his statues, naming numerous institutions, roads, and squares after him — was Tilak really so great? We shall try to find the answer to this.

Among all the biographies of Tilak, the one written in English by Parimala Rao, titled Foundation of Tilak's Nationalism – Discrimination, Education and Religion, is the most factual (hereafter, we shall refer to it in short as FoTN). Other biographers have deliberately concealed Tilak's faults. But Parimala Rao (despite herself being a Brahmin) has clearly mentioned all of Tilak's virtues and faults. Before writing Tilak's biography, she had collected important issues of his newspapers 'Kesari' (Marathi) and 'The Mahratta' (English). But since she was from Andhra Pradesh, she did not know Marathi. So she engaged some Marathi translators to translate the issues of 'Kesari' into English. Not only did they not do the translation, they instead tried to prevent Parimala Rao from writing an objective biography of Tilak. They kept the issues with themselves for several months and did not even return them (we can easily guess who these people might have been). Therefore, the author was compelled to write this book mainly based on information from Tilak's English newspaper 'The Mahratta' and some other evidence. The author has given this information in the very preface of the book. On the basis of the material in this book and other evidence, we shall proceed to expose, one by one, various aspects of Tilak's thoughts and actions.

1) Opposition to the Education of Untouchables

At that time, untouchables did not have the right to education; they were not admitted to any school. After the efforts of Mahatma Phule, the British government began admitting untouchables into schools. Tilak strongly opposed this. In the 26 March 1882 issue of his English newspaper 'The Mahratta,' he wrote an editorial titled "Mahar Boys in Govt School." In it he wrote that "the Queen of England, in the proclamation she issued in 1858, had assured that we would not interfere in the religious affairs of Indians, and now the British government is admitting untouchables into schools. This is interference in our religious affairs." This means that, according to Tilak, giving education to untouchables was against religion.

2) Opposition to English Education for Other Bahujans

Regarding other Bahujans, Tilak's view was that they should be given only as much basic literacy as was minimally necessary; they should not be given English or higher education. When the British government opened the doors of higher education to everyone, Tilak, in the 15 May 1881 issue of 'The Mahratta,' wrote an editorial titled "Our Education System" criticising the British education policy. In that article he says, "If everyone is given English education, then who will drive the farmer's plough? Who will work the blacksmith's bellows? Who will work the cobbler's awl? Giving higher education to the children of these traditional occupational groups will make the children, who would otherwise be capable of helping in the family trade, drift away from their elders, and eventually these children will come after you (the government) itself for jobs." In short, Tilak's view was that Bahujans should stick to their respective traditional occupations and should not obtain higher education to advance into other fields.

He expressed similar views at a meeting in Athani near Kolhapur. When the British government decided to send representatives of Bahujans into the legislative council, Tilak said at the Athani meeting, "Will the Kunbi farmer go to the legislative council and drive a plough? Will the oil-presser run the oil mill? Will the tailor sew clothes? Will the blacksmith work the bellows?" This clearly shows how opposed Tilak was to the upliftment of Bahujans.

3) Opposition to Women's Education

Tilak was strongly opposed to the education of women. It is well known that he opposed the Pune Municipality's proposal regarding women's education. In the 7 September 1887 and 18 September 1887 issues of 'The Mahratta,' he wrote two articles titled "Higher Female Education" and "Curriculum of the Female High School; Is it in the right direction?" In these, he says, "Educated women will become independent-minded and independent-thinking, like Rakhmabai (a social reformer woman of that time) and Ramabai (Ranade), and they will not observe Vedic religion and will begin to oppose the customs of Sanatan Dharma."

Tilak's policy regarding women was thoroughly Sanatani in nature. In the 12 February 1882 issue of 'The Mahratta,' he says that the policy regarding women during the Peshwa era was the correct one. If one considers the Peshwa period, it becomes clear that a father or brother was bound to marry off a girl before she reached the age of nine. If a girl or sister was not married by the age of nine, harsh punishment was imposed. In this regard, Nana Phadnavis had issued 20 orders. Many men were punished for not marrying off girls early, or for showing sympathy toward widows, or for not having their heads shaved. This is the very kind of policy regarding women that Tilak intended.

4) Anti-Farmer Policy

During the Peshwa period, most moneylenders (sahukars) were Brahmins, and they exploited farmers. Even during famines, farmers were obligated to pay their loan instalments to the moneylenders. If they failed to pay the instalments, they were sentenced to jail. The British put an end to this practice. Tilak strongly opposed this. He believed that if the practice of jailing farmers who failed to pay loan instalments was stopped, the moneylenders would be ruined. According to him, moneylenders were the "gods" of the farmers ('The Mahratta,' 3 December 1882). He consistently sided with the moneylenders and opposed the farmers. Tilak strongly opposed the government's efforts to reform agriculture and establish agricultural banks to provide farmers loans at lower interest rates ('The Mahratta,' 6 March 1881, 26 March 1881, 8 May 1881, 15 May 1881, 29 May 1881, 5 June 1881, 26 June 1881, 31 July 1881).

The author of FoTN, Parimala Rao, has expressed surprise that even though Tilak took a stance against Bahujans and women's education for 40 years, and continuously against farmers for 25 years, this fact never appeared in any of his biographies. Does Parimala Rao not know that all these biographies were written by Brahminical writers themselves! (Brahminical elements pressured the publisher of Parimala Rao's book and had its printing stopped permanently.)

5) Did Not Participate in Any Freedom Struggle

Tilak did not participate in any freedom struggle, and for this reason he was never arrested or sentenced. He was arrested a total of four times, but these were for different reasons. Of these, he was sentenced in three cases and acquitted in one. The relevant information is as follows:

a) Inciting the murder of Plague Commissioner Rand by stirring up false religious sentiments of caste:

At the end of the nineteenth century, the plague epidemic had taken a terrible form in Pune, and thousands of people were dying from it. To curb it, a dutiful officer named Walter Charles Rand was specially appointed as Plague Commissioner. Since the plague spread through rats and mosquitoes, Rand had disinfectant sprayed in every house. Where there was resistance, he had this work carried out by force. Had he not done so, thousands more people in Pune would have died. But Tilak strongly opposed Rand's actions. He held that in carrying out this work, the prayer rooms of Brahmins and the privacy of women were being violated, and he had deep objections to the use of Mahar (untouchable) soldiers in this work. In this regard, Tilak wrote three editorials in 'Kesari' and one in 'The Mahratta,' inciting violence by stirring up the false religious sentiments of the Brahmin caste. As a result, two Brahmin brothers named Damodar Chapekar and Balkrishna Chapekar shot and killed Rand on 17 June 1897. A case was filed against Tilak on the charge of incitement to this murder, and he was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.

b) Publishing a person's forged letters in 'Kesari':

A series of articles was published in 'Kesari' alleging that Madhavrao Barve, the Diwan of the Kolhapur princely state, was conspiring to have the state's adopted prince declared insane. Barve rejected this allegation and, claiming that the letters published in the newspaper to defame him were forged, filed a case against the editor and publisher of 'Kesari.' The verdict in this case was delivered by the High Court on 17 July 1882, and Tilak was sentenced to four months of imprisonment.

c) Giving false testimony in court and presenting forged documents in the Tai Maharaj case:

In 1897, Pune's Sardar Baba Maharaj appointed Tilak, G. S. Khaparde, and others as trustees of his estate. After his death in 1901, the trustees took Baba Maharaj's widow, Tai Maharaj, to Aurangabad, where they compelled her to adopt a boy from within their own family and had the adoption ceremony completed. But after returning to Pune, a dispute arose between Tai Maharaj and the trustees. Tai Maharaj had the adoption ritual performed in Aurangabad declared illegal and annulled, and adopted a different boy in Pune. She also filed a lawsuit to have Tilak's right to probate of the will cancelled. During the hearing of that lawsuit, Tilak was accused of giving false testimony and submitting forged documents, and the case proceeded in court, resulting in his sentencing to 18 months of imprisonment. The sessions court reduced this to six months, but it was overturned in the High Court.

d) The 1908 Muzaffarpur (Bengal) Bomb Explosion Case:

On 30 April 1908, two young men named Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki carried out a bomb explosion in Muzaffarpur, Bengal, killing two British women. This shook the British government. Tilak wrote an editorial on this subject titled "The Country's Misfortune" in 'Kesari' on 16 May. In it he wrote that "the bomb explosion achieved its intended purpose," that "the same thing happened when bombs were thrown in Russia," but that "if viewed from the standpoint of the courage and skill involved in carrying out the plan, the Chapekar brothers rank higher than the Bengal bombers." Such writing amounts to encouraging bomb explosions and also constitutes sedition — he was tried on this charge and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment. At most, it can be said that the only trace of patriotism in Tilak lies in this particular sentence.

6) Why Do Brahmins Glorify Tilak?

Tilak's work in no field is truly so great. Yet the question arises as to why all Brahmins continue their persistent effort to hide his faults and elevate him. We may find the answer to this question in the movement of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule's 'Satyashodhak Samaj.'

Mahatma Jyotirao Phule was the first social reformer who made Bahujans and Dalits understand that the discriminatory Brahminical system alone was responsible for their thousands of years of educational, economic, and social backwardness. He explained that Brahmins had themselves written the religious scriptures and created the misconception among the innocent Bahujan society that these scriptures were written by God. According to these scriptures, Shudras had no right to education or to the accumulation of wealth — by saying this, Brahmins kept them deprived of education and wealth, and by entangling them in rituals, made them complete slaves. In his book 'Gulamgiri' (Slavery), Mahatma Phule wrote this clearly and tried to awaken the Bahujans. He founded the Satyashodhak Samaj and, through numerous books, songs, plays, and fairs, brought awareness to Bahujan society. For the first time, Bahujan society became aware and began to rebel against Brahmins.

This storm of the Satyashodhak Samaj spread an atmosphere of fear among Brahmin society. They began to fear that if this movement spread across the country and ordinary Hindus came to believe that Brahmins alone were responsible for their thousands of years of degradation, then they would not spare them — and sooner or later, especially after the British left India, they would certainly take revenge. To find a way out of this crisis, secret meetings began among Brahminical leaders and thinkers. They began searching for a measure by which the common people would forget the atrocities and oppression committed against them, and Brahmin dominance over society would be preserved. At that time, a unique idea occurred to Tilak. It was this: the only way to divert the attention of the Bahujan masses from the reformist movement was to create Hindu-Muslim discord and set the Bahujans against Muslims. While he was considering this, Mahatma Phule passed away in 1890. This made Tilak's path easier, and he immediately set to work. He achieved his objective in the following manner:

False and inflammatory reporting of communal riots:

The communal tension in Kalyan in 1890 arising from the insistence on taking out the Balaji procession through an area where Muharram tazias had been set up; the Hindu-Muslim riot in Belgaum in 1890 over the issue of the procession route during Holi-Rangpanchami; the riots of 1893 in Ballia and Azamgarh in the North-Western Provinces; the riot at Prabhas Patan in Junagadh (Saurashtra) caused by the overzealous campaign of cow-protectors, resulting in a major riot in Mumbai in August 1893 incited by the Cow Protection Committee; and the riot in Yeola (Nashik district) in 1893-94 over the procession route — Tilak published inflammatory and exaggerated reports of these in his newspapers 'The Mahratta' and 'Kesari' ('The Mahratta,' 12 January 1890, 7 September 1890, 5 October 1890, 20 August 1893, 27 August 1893, 22 October 1893, 18 March 1894, 11 November 1894, 18 November 1894; 'Kesari,' 15 August 1893; Home/Public, October 1893, June 1894, September 1894).

Inciting the playing of music in front of mosques:

After studying the 1890 riot in Belgaum, Tilak came to understand the finer details of how a riot begins and how it escalates, and thereafter he thought through in detail, and prepared his further strategy on, the issue of Hindu processions and the playing of music in front of Muslim places of worship (FoTN, page 191). After this, he began repeatedly writing in 'The Mahratta' that Hindus had the right to play music in front of mosques, and kept inciting Hindu youths to play music in front of mosques ['The Mahratta,' 22 October 1893, 25 March 1894, 29 April 1894, 20 May 1894, 26 August 1894, 16 September 1894, 23 September 1894, 16 December 1894, 27 October 1894, etc.; London Times: "Indian Affairs, Hindu Mahomedan" (mentioned in the 16 December 1894 issue of 'The Mahratta'); Embree: 'India's Search for National Identity,' pages 34, 35]. Gokhale and Ranade had warned Tilak that his incitement would lead to Hindu-Muslim riots (FoTN, page 203; Wolpert: 'Tilak and Gokhale,' page 66). But Tilak did not heed them and continued his work. The result was exactly what was bound to happen, and communal riots began occurring every year throughout Maharashtra during Ganeshotsav (FoTN, page 191). Because of these continuous, deliberately engineered riots, the Bahujans forgot their thousands of years of servitude and began to regard Muslims as their enemy. In this way, even amid the storm of Mahatma Phule's Satyashodhak movement, Brahminism among Brahmins survived. Brahmins believe that this was made possible only because of Tilak, and this is why they regard Tilak as a god.

A few years after Tilak's death, his devoted disciple Dr. Hedgewar founded the R.S.S. in 1925 and continued Tilak's work of fomenting Hindu-Muslim discord. The numerous Hindu-Muslim riots that have occurred in the country, the Ram Janmabhoomi Rath Yatra, the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and so on, are the result of this. Using this very technique, the R.S.S. and the B.J.P. have gained power at the Centre and in several states.

7) A Staunch Supporter of the Caste System

Tilak's views regarding the caste system of Hindu religion were as follows:

1. He criticised the British government for failing to enforce the caste system in order to preserve the superiority of the upper castes and impose restrictions on the lower castes ('The Mahratta,' 21 August 1881).
2. In the 1858 proclamation, the Queen of England had pledged not to interfere in religious matters. But, Tilak held, by giving English education to non-Brahmins and by giving girls education in English, mathematics, and science, they had violated this pledge ('The Mahratta,' 21 August 1881, 26 March 1882; 'Kesari,' 10 May 1887).
3. According to him, reformist leaders had destroyed the caste system, and therefore they were no longer Hindus ('The Mahratta,' 22 March 1891).
4. Tilak felt that the Arya Samaj's insistence on giving Vedic education to children of all castes was tantamount to destroying Hindu religion (FoTN, page 197).

Thus, Tilak was a staunch supporter of the caste system — that is, he was a staunch Brahminist.

8) Tilak's Definition of Swaraj

"Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it" — this saying of Tilak's is famous. But Tilak's definition of Swaraj was not what we understand it to be; it was different. According to Tilak, the caste system was the foundation of Hindu nationality, and the freedom to internally control Hindu society according to this system was Swaraj itself ('The Mahratta,' 10 July 1881, 10 May 1891, 26 April 1891, and 6 March 1892). To further clarify Tilak's definition of Swaraj, I present, as it stands, the English sentence that the author of FoTN wrote on pages 282 and 283 of her book, referencing the above-mentioned issues of 'The Mahratta': "Tilak considered 'caste as the basis of Hindu nationality and the right to control Hindu society from within was Swaraj.'" In short, according to Tilak, the freedom to preserve the caste system was itself Swaraj. But to accept the caste system means to accept the dominance of Brahmins. This implies that, according to Tilak, Swaraj meant the rule of the Brahminical order.

9) The Brahmins' Persistence and Zeal in Preserving Tilak's Greatness

Tilak was openly anti-Dalit, anti-Bahujan, anti-farmer, and anti-woman; he deliberately incited Hindu-Muslim riots; he did not participate in any freedom struggle. Yet Brahmins made him "Lokmanya" and continue to glorify him always, because they firmly believe that it was Tilak alone who protected their Brahminism from the storm of Mahatma Phule's Satyashodhak movement. Moreover, they credit Tilak for the dominance that Brahminical elements have established today in all fields — political, social, cultural, and so on. Therefore, no matter what field Brahmins may be working in, and whatever their views on other subjects may be, they all hold a single, unified opinion when it comes to the matter of Tilak.

I have been associated with the reformist movement for the past 20 years. Through this movement, I have come into contact with many progressive Brahmins. When discussing this with them, one senses that they may be progressive on every other issue, but on the subject of Tilak, they will not compromise at all. Either they support Tilak's views by saying something along the lines of what Ajit Doval said at the recent event — "to understand Tilak's views, one must understand the background of his time" — or they avoid the subject entirely. Whatever the case, the persistence and zeal with which Brahmins conceal all of Tilak's faults and keep his greatness intact is astonishing.

Pune (S. M. Mushrif)
Dated 12 August 2026 I.P.S. (Retired)
Former Inspector General of Police