Tilak vs Agarkar

Bal Gangadhar Tilak's conservatism and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar's reformist vision. A unique perspective.

Both Lokmanya Balwantrao Tilak and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar remain the leading figures in the political discourse of Maharashtra (my home state). However, both of them are also known for their ideological differences and rivalry, a feud that gave birth to both men's political careers.

In 1880, the New English School in Pune was established by a few young graduates under the influence of Vishnushastri Chiplunkar, soon under Chiplunkar’s leadership Tilak and Agarkar joined him and this trio was responsible for the creation of the Deccan Education Society (1884) soon to become the infamous Fergusson College of Pune, alongside with newspapers such as the “Kesari” and the “Mahratta”. However, Tilak and Agarkar were ideologically at loggerheads with each other, The Kesari under Agarkar took a reformist stance on issues such as reforms within the Hindu society, women’s rights, etc. While the Mahratta under Tilak became the conservative and nationalist voice. Agarkar, frustrated by this soon started his newspaper, the “Sudharak” which became a staunch opposition/critique of Tilak, Agarkar accused Tilak of “self-glorification” and disregarding morals, friendship, etc., to achieve it. Tilak resigned from the Deccan Education Society and took the Kesari and the Mahratta with him. Tilak continued to write about the glorify of Maharashtra’s past under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and the glories of the ancient Hindu past, however, both of them came face-to-face once again when the British introduced the Scobble Bill 1891 also known as the Age of Consent Act, penalizing the consummation of marriage if the girl is under the age of 12, many prominent Maharashtrian politicians such as Ranade, Gokhale, and Agarkar applauded and this, however, Tilak vehemently opposed this Bill which made him controversial, his vociferous criticism stemmed from his belief that the British have no right to interfere in traditional Maharashtrian households. Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar’s feud can be summarised with the question of which is more important— Social reform or political reform?… Tilak was a nationalist first and then a reformer, a political reformer (it is unfair to reduce him to nothing but an Orthodox conservative), Agarkar, on the other hand, was a reformer, a social reformer, and believed reforms were more important, similar to the position taken by other Maharashtrian reformers such as Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule who were ready to compromise on independence citing the freedom of the lower-castes and women as the reason.

However, to say that Lokmanya Tilak was the true traditionalist, orthodox conservative, decolonial figure completely opposed to any change within the Hindu Society, as posited by some “traditionalists” is wrong and far from the truth. In the Marathi “Samgra Tilak Khand”, it is evident that Tilak faced huge opposition from Orthodox sections of Maharashtra, mostly Brahmins when he started organizing/encouraging Ganesh Chaturthi (Ganesh festival) on a large scale to increase social cohesion in Hindu samaj, as they believed it to be against their “Shastras” to allow people from different castes to bring the Ganapati murti to their houses or even touch them as they believed it would “pollute” the murti, Tilak retorted by saying that if the Varnas were created from the divine Purusha; Brahmin from the mouth, Kshatriya from the shoulders, Vaishya from the thighs and the Shudra from the leg, will not touching of the leg pollute our own body. In another incident mentioned, Tilak once disagreed with his pith’s Shankaracharya where he urged the latter to not discriminate based on birth-based caste as this alienation of a huge section of the Hindu population would result in them converting to other religions and the Hindus decreasing/leaving in irreplaceable numbers and that would be a fatal blow to Hindus and Hindu samaj. Much like Savarkar, Tilak when posed with the question of Who is a Hindu?— wrote that anyone who resides in Hindusthana and pays homage to this land’s culture can be called a Hindu, thus similar to Veer Savarkar, Tilak also tried to make his definition of a Hindu cultural and civilizational as he believed a mere religious one was not adequate, to add to this, Lokmanya Tilak’s son; Shridhar Tilak committed suicide due to constant harassment from the Orthodox Brahmins who abhorred a Chitpawan Brahmin like him working side-by-side people like Ambedkar to end caste discrimination and for having liberal/rational views. Tilak is not what many think him to be.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale and his Sudharak kept working for women’s rights, supported widow remarriage, and opposed child marriage. He went on to criticize the “traditionalist/conservative” by saying “It is an established belief that men must acquire knowledge, and women have to nurture the offspring; that men are owners and women their servants; that freedom is for men and slavery for women; that women have no other way of life but marriage, and no world except their home; that widowhood is their greatest vrata (vow) and acquisition of knowledge their greatest vice. If such religious and social values prevail in the thinking of men who are considered great, what use is their greatness?” and opposed child marriage and fully supported the Age of Consent Act, in his own words; “How can a girl go to high school or college if she is burdened with such things as pregnancy, childbirth and rearing of children right from the age of 13 or 14? Girls should be spared such unnecessary trouble and they should be allowed to remain unmarried till they finish their education. If they are married, their husbands and parents-in-law must leave them alone as if they were unmarried.”

In conclusion, it is clear that both Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar are not exactly two extreme ends of two different poles but rather belong to the same pole (still being on the extreme ends). And reducing their historical contributions to mere binary feuds and rivalries does not do justice to them. My Naman to the Mahatmas!